Valid sacrament

[dans0622]

I’m not sure what you’re getting at here. …

Hello,

Your posts in this thread have frequently used the term “juridic act” and so I’m wondering how you would define that concept. If your definition includes the notion of the act intending juridic effect(s), then I would ask if you think that absolution always brings with it juridic effect(s). Then, I suppose I would also have to ask what the effect(s) is/are.

I ask because even though I basically agree with your conclusions in this thread, I would not argue the issue in the way you have, using the idea of juridic acts. But, maybe my own definition of juridic acts and the results of absolution are deficient.

Dan

 

[FrDavid96]

Ok help me out here again.

The SSPX have priests. The priests were ordained invalidly by the Bishops in the SSPX. Only Bishops can ordain. The ordinations are valid.

But only bishops can forgive or give the permission to forgive sins. The confessions are not valid.

How is it that we have two things that a Bishop can do yet, only one is a sacrament?

It’s different uses of the word “bishop.”

Bishops (who have ministry in the Church, which excludes SSPX bishops) have the faculties to absolve by the law itself.

However, in order to grant faculties to a priest, the bishop must have an office that grants him the ability to extend faculties to a priest. Not all bishops have this.

One way to express this is by example.

There are many bishops who work at the Vatican, who are perfectly legitimate bishops (no doubt whatsoever). They have faculties to absolve by the law itself (canon 967).
However, because those bishops do not actually have any diocese (meaning that they are not Ordinaries of any diocese) they do not have the authority to extend faculties to any priests. Only a bishop who is also an Ordinary can grant faculties (although many can do so as vicars of the Ordinary aka the diocesan bishop).

Ordinations by SSPX bishops are valid, but illicit. The reason is that in order for an ordination to be valid it does not need to be licit. It’s wrong, it’s illegal, illicit, but it’s not invalid.

With regard to confession, jurisdiction (either direct or by faculties) is required for a valid absolution. See canon 966. Without jurisdiction, an attempt at absolution is not merely illicit, it’s also invalid.

Do you see the distinction?

 

[FrDavid96]

Hello,

Your posts in this thread have frequently used the term “juridic act” and so I’m wondering how you would define that concept. If your definition includes the notion of the act intending juridic effect(s), then I would ask if you think that absolution always brings with it juridic effect(s). Then, I suppose I would also have to ask what the effect(s) is/are.

I would say that the “effect” of absolution is that the penitent is reconciled to God and the Church (in short, because more can be said). Catechism 1469 and canon 959.

Do I believe that when a validly ordained priest with proper faculties says “I absolve you” that person is indeed absolved and thereby reconciled to the Church? I would say absolutely yes. That’s why I am not quite understanding the question—or, more precisely I don’t understand why you’re asking the question, because I know that you know this. That’s what confuses me.

I ask because even though I basically agree with your conclusions in this thread, I would not argue the issue in the way you have, using the idea of juridic acts. But, maybe my own definition of juridic acts and the results of absolution are deficient.
Dan

Again, I’m confused. Are you saying that absolution is “not a juridic act”? or that we should not see it that way?

I suppose that one could frame an argument against the validity of SSPX absolutions without referencing the concept of “juridic act.” I could do that rather simply and directly by referencing Pope Benedict’s letter “they have no ministry in the Church” and just saying “therefore, they cannot absolve. End of subject.” I do think that should be sufficient, but the length that these discussions take tells me that such an argument (though perfectly sound) just isn’t enough.

 

[FrDavid96]

Hello,

Your posts in this thread have frequently used the term “juridic act” and so I’m wondering how you would define that concept. If your definition includes the notion of the act intending juridic effect(s), then I would ask if you think that absolution always brings with it juridic effect(s). Then, I suppose I would also have to ask what the effect(s) is/are.

I ask because even though I basically agree with your conclusions in this thread, I would not argue the issue in the way you have, using the idea of juridic acts. But, maybe my own definition of juridic acts and the results of absolution are deficient.

Dan

I’m still thinking about this one…

Perhaps you are thinking that when I say “a juridic act” I mean "the priest exercising his jurisdiction----meaning, his ability to literally “speak the law” (juris + diction) or to make the law.

No, I do not mean it that way. I do not mean “a juridic act” in the sense of making or composing the law—ie, an act of legislation. Maybe that’s how you’re taking it???

By juridic act, I mean “an act of the law” or “a legal act” or “an exercise of the law” which legally reconciles the penitent to the Church.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

It’s different uses of the word “bishop.”

Bishops (who have ministry in the Church, which excludes SSPX bishops) have the faculties to absolve by the law itself.

However, in order to grant faculties to a priest, the bishop must have an office that grants him the ability to extend faculties to a priest. Not all bishops have this.

One way to express this is by example.

There are many bishops who work at the Vatican, who are perfectly legitimate bishops (no doubt whatsoever). They have faculties to absolve by the law itself (canon 967).
However, because those bishops do not actually have any diocese (meaning that they are not Ordinaries of any diocese) they do not have the authority to extend faculties to any priests. Only a bishop who is also an Ordinary can grant faculties (although many can do so as vicars of the Ordinary aka the diocesan bishop).

Ordinations by SSPX bishops are valid, but illicit. The reason is that in order for an ordination to be valid it does not need to be licit. It’s wrong, it’s illegal, illicit, but it’s not invalid.

With regard to confession, jurisdiction (either direct or by faculties) is required for a valid absolution. See canon 966. Without jurisdiction, an attempt at absolution is not merely illicit, it’s also invalid.

Do you see the distinction?

Thanks for the explanation.

I still don’t get it.

An SSPX Bishop can make (ordain) a priest but cannot give the priest permission to perform a sacrament?

Weird. And a logical problem for both sides.

 

[porthos11]

Thanks for the explanation.

I still don’t get it.

An SSPX Bishop can make (ordain) a priest but cannot give the priest permission to perform a sacrament?

Weird. And a logical problem for both sides.

There is no problem. You are confusing Holy Orders and the Ordinary power of governance granted by the law.

To ordain, all one needs is the power of Holy Orders. That’s why SSPX bishops can validly ordain. But without a papal mandate, the law automatically excommunicates both the ordinand and the consecrator.

To absolve, one needs the powers of Holy Orders AND jurisdiction. SSPX priests have only one (Holy Orders) but not the other (jurisdiction, as they have no faculties, by virtue of their suspension).

Faculties are granted either by the law itself (bishops in good standing, Cardinals, and danger of death), or by the local Ordinary (all other cases). The local Ordinary is usually the Bishop of the diocese. It’s the powers of the Ordinary that grants faculties, not Holy Orders.

SSPX bishops have the sacramental Holy Order of bishop, but they have no ordinary powers (they have no dioceses). This is why that cannot grant faculties. The law states that priests must receive their faculties from the Ordinary of the place in which they are incardinated.

On the other hand, there are Ordinaries who are not bishops. For example, Msgr. Jeffrey Steenson, the Ordinary of the Chair of St. Peter, is not a bishop, but holds ordinary power of governance over the Ordinariate. He has the power to grant or revoke faculties from Ordinariate priests, despite his being a mere priest himself. This is not by virtue of his ordination, but by virtue of the powers granted him by the law.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

To ordain, all one needs is the power of Holy Orders. That’s why SSPX bishops can validly ordain. But without a papal mandate, the law automatically excommunicates both the ordinand and the consecrator.

What? So the Bishops and priests have been excommunicated again? After HH Benedict lifted them? Because I believe the SSPX ordained priests after the excommunications were lifted and I believe the Vatican asked them not to.

 

[porthos11]

What? So the Bishops and priests have been excommunicated again? After HH Benedict lifted them? Because I believe the SSPX ordained priests after the excommunications were lifted and I believe the Vatican asked them not to.

Sorry I should have been clear. No they have not been excommunicated again. Excommunications apply if a bishop is ordained without mandate. They haven’t done so since.

However, all SSPX clergy are still suspended and that is automatic for all their priests. Suspension means they have no ministry in the Church and no ministry means they cannot validly exercise any acts of governance (because Pope Benedict explicitly declared this to be so). Therefore, no powers of governance, no faculties, or the power to grant faculties.

This is why absolutions by SSPX priests are invalid except where provided for by law (which is solely danger of death).

 

[FrDavid96]

Thanks for the explanation.

I still don’t get it.

An SSPX Bishop can make (ordain) a priest but cannot give the priest permission to perform a sacrament?

That’s right.

It’s as I explained earlier. Here it is again because it was a long post.

To have a valid ordination, it is not strictly required that the bishop have any office in the Church, beyond the fact that he was himself validly ordained to the episcopate. If the bishop acts against the law, the ordination is still valid.

On the other hand, because absolution is a juridic act of the Church, in order for an attempted absolution to be valid, the one absolving must have a mandate from the Church to do that. Absolution reconciles the sinner to the Church—therefore the one granting absolution must be an official representative of the Church. If he doesn’t represent the Church, there is no valid absolution. The way that he is permitted to represent the Church is by a process that we call “faculties.”

Weird. And a logical problem for both sides.

It’s not a logical problem for the Church. Not at all.

 

[FrDavid96]

Sorry I should have been clear. No they have not been excommunicated again. Excommunications apply if a bishop is ordained without mandate. They haven’t done so since.

However, all SSPX clergy are still suspended and that is automatic for all their priests. Suspension means they have no ministry in the Church and no ministry means they cannot validly exercise any acts of governance (because Pope Benedict explicitly declared this to be so). Therefore, no powers of governance, no faculties, or the power to grant faculties.

This is why absolutions by SSPX priests are invalid except where provided for by law (which is solely danger of death).

Most of them are not suspended. Only those who started as legitimate Catholic priests can be (and are) suspended. Therefore, only the original members (from the early 70s) and those few priests who started as legitimate diocesan (or religious) priests but then later left to join the SSPX technically fall under the definition of “suspended.”

Those who were ordained outside of the visible structure of the Church are not technically “suspended” because they never had any ministry in the Church in the first place. They were never Catholic clergy, not even for a minute.

It’s an important distinction.

Think of it this way. If I fail to pay a speeding ticket, my drivers license can be “suspended” --meaning that it exists, but I cannot use it. But if I never had a drivers license, there’s nothing to suspend. Same with the SSPX priests. There is no ministry to suspend.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Most of them are not suspended. Only those who started as legitimate Catholic priests can be (and are) suspended. Therefore, only the original members (from the early 70s) and those few priests who started as legitimate diocesan (or religious) priests but then later left to join the SSPX technically fall under the definition of “suspended.”

Those who were ordained outside of the visible structure of the Church are not technically “suspended” because they never had any ministry in the Church in the first place. They were never Catholic clergy, not even for a minute.

It’s an important distinction.

Think of it this way. If I fail to pay a speeding ticket, my drivers license can be “suspended” --meaning that it exists, but I cannot use it. But if I never had a drivers license, there’s nothing to suspend. Same with the SSPX priests. There is no ministry to suspend.

I must be missing something. So the SSPX priests are not priests. (no licence) Catholic Bishops ordain them but the ordinations are not valid?

 

[porthos11]

I must be missing something. So the SSPX priests are not priests. (no licence) Catholic Bishops ordain them but the ordinations are not valid?

Yes you’re missing something.

SSPX priests are priests. Their ordinations are valid. They truly confect the Holy Eucharist at their Masses.

SSPX priests, however are also suspended priests. That means they are forbidden under the law to exercise their priestly powers. Therefore their Masses, even through they are valid, are illicit (i.e. illegal). They sin by celebrating Mass.

To validly confect the Holy Eucharist, all they need are valid Holy Orders, which they do have.

However, to absolve, they need valid Holy Orders AND faculties. The former they have (because they are validly ordained). They latter they don’t (because they are suspended). Therefore, their absolutions are invalid.

 

[FrDavid96]

I must be missing something. So the SSPX priests are not priests. (no licence) Catholic Bishops ordain them but the ordinations are not valid?

No.

The SSPX priests are validly ordained priests. That means that they are real priests.

The ordinations are valid. HOWEVER they are illegal ordinations (illicit). They are done in violation of canon law.

They are priests who have no ministry in the Church. They are priests but they have no authority to act as priests.

Perhaps some vocabulary is needed here:

Valid: means that a sacrament actually happens. With regard to ordination, it means that the ordination actually occurs. The man being ordained does truly become a priest. On the other hand, for example, if a bishop attempts to ordain a dog, that would not be valid. The dog would never be a priest.

Licit: means “according to law.” The opposite, illicit, means that it goes against the law.

An act can be “valid but illicit” meaning that it actually happens, but it is done in violation of the law.

 

[porthos11]

Most of them are not suspended. Only those who started as legitimate Catholic priests can be (and are) suspended. Therefore, only the original members (from the early 70s) and those few priests who started as legitimate diocesan (or religious) priests but then later left to join the SSPX technically fall under the definition of “suspended.”

Those who were ordained outside of the visible structure of the Church are not technically “suspended” because they never had any ministry in the Church in the first place. They were never Catholic clergy, not even for a minute.

It’s an important distinction.

Think of it this way. If I fail to pay a speeding ticket, my drivers license can be “suspended” --meaning that it exists, but I cannot use it. But if I never had a drivers license, there’s nothing to suspend. Same with the SSPX priests. There is no ministry to suspend.

We can argue suspended vs. “not in the clerical state” or “laicized” but the net effect is the same. They are forbidden from exercising their priestly powers, which is in effect the result of suspension. We can continue using the term just for the purposes of discussion.

 

[FrDavid96]

Yes you’re missing something.

SSPX priests are priests. Their ordinations are valid. They truly confect the Holy Eucharist at their Masses.

SSPX priests, however are also suspended priests. That means they are forbidden under the law to exercise their priestly powers. Therefore their Masses, even through they are valid, are illicit (i.e. illegal). They sin by celebrating Mass.

To validly confect the Holy Eucharist, all they need are valid Holy Orders, which they do have.

However, to absolve, they need valid Holy Orders AND faculties. The former they have (because they are validly ordained). They latter they don’t (because they are suspended). Therefore, their absolutions are invalid.

Most of them are not suspended.

This is an important distinction, because the SSPX manipulate the concept of “suspension” to justify themselves.

Please don’t call them “suspended” because that’s not an accurate description for the majority of them.

They are not suspended because they never, ever, had the clerical state. There was no ministry to suspend.

 

[FrDavid96]

We can argue suspended vs. “not in the clerical state” or “laicized” but the net effect is the same. They are forbidden from exercising their priestly powers, which is in effect the result of suspension. We can continue using the term just for the purposes of discussion.

No. The effect is not the same. Not by a long shot. It is significantly different.

Please understand that the SSPX manipulate canon law and spin their lies very craftily.

They know what “suspended” means. They use that very concept to justify what they do. When you call them suspended you are inadvertently supporting their lies; which is something I doubt you want to do.

This really is an important distinction to make.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Most of them are not suspended.

This is an important distinction, because the SSPX manipulate the concept of “suspension” to justify themselves.

Please don’t call them “suspended” because that’s not an accurate description for the majority of them.

They are not suspended because they never, ever, had the clerical state. There was no ministry to suspend.

How can a priest be a priest but never had a clerical state?

Ok, I understand the valid vs illicit part. I understand that one needs permission to hear confessions.

What I don’t understand is why their own Bishops do not have the power to tell them to hear confessions.
He had the power to ordain them, he had the power to form them, appove them for the priesthood and make them priests. How can the Church say that ordination is valid even though it was done without permission but confession is not? Why do their Bishops have the power to ordain but not absolve?

 

[porthos11]

How can a priest be a priest but never had a clerical state?

Ok, I understand the valid vs illicit part. I understand that one needs permission to hear confessions.

What I don’t understand is why their own Bishops do not have the power to tell them to hear confessions.
He had the power to ordain them, he had the power to form them, appove them for the priesthood and make them priests. How can the Church say that ordination is valid even though it was done without permission but confession is not? Why do their Bishops have the power to ordain but not absolve?

Because their Bishops, as already mentioned, do not have Ordinary power, which is granted by the competent authority (the law or the Holy See), not through ordination.

Ordination requires ONLY Holy Orders for validity.
The Eucharist requires ONLY Holy Orders for validity.
Confession requires Holy Orders AND faculties for validity.
Marriage requires ONLY faculties for validity.

Holy Orders is granted by ordination.
Faculties are granted through the competent authority. That competent authority can be the law itself, the Holy See, or the local Ordinary.

The law does not grant faculties to the SSPX with one exception: danger of death.

The Holy See has explicitly stated that they have no legitimate ministry in the Church. So check that one off as well.

Finally, one would be hard pressed to find a local Ordinary who would grant rebellious priests faculties in their dioceses.

SSPX bishops are not Ordinaries. They have no ministry in the Church just like their priests.

Therefore they have no power to grant faculties.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Because their Bishops, as already mentioned, do not have Ordinary power, which is granted by the competent authority (the law or the Holy See), not through ordination.

Ok, is this statement correct then

A Bishop does not need Ordinary power to ordain a priest. But does need it to grant that priest the powers of absolution.

 

[porthos11]

Ok, is this statement correct then

A Bishop does not need Ordinary power to ordain a priest. But does need it to grant that priest the powers of absolution.

For valid ordination, ordinary power is not required. Only a validly ordained bishop. Of course for it to be licit, other things may have to be done, but from a standpoint of pure validity, it is sufficient for a validly ordained bishop to ordain a priest.

The power to grant faculties to absolve does require the powers of an Ordinary, which is NOT the same as the powers of a bishop’s Holy Orders. I already cited the example of Msgr. Steenson, who, while only a priest, DOES have the power to grant faculties to the priests of the Personal Ordinariate of the Chair of St. Peter.