How many of us get comfort knowing there's always the SSPX?
rorate-caeli.blogspot.com
Fr. Hunwicke: "How can I get an invitation?"
[SSPX-led Christ the King Pilgrimage at Lourdes -- Oct. 2021] by Fr. John Hunwicke Not exactly for the first time in this pontificate, PF [Pope Francis], in …
When the Catholic church is restored to her formal glory (and it will be) Archbishop Lefebvre will be canonized a saint. God bless Archbishop Lefebvre.
Yeah that's how this all started...Lefebvre was past his prime and we know the rest of the story. I still believe that without Lefebvre, de Castro Meyer and the SSPX, we wouldn't have the "sanctioned" Traditional Masses today.
...thats' because you haven't been reading Fr. Martin, SJ. Ironically enough, that's one of his big talking points... saving the souls of homosexuals (i.e. by warping the laws of The Church -and Scripture0 so it's no longer a sin)
No I have not been reading Fr. Martin, because I've heard his public statements in support of homosexuality. Chastity doesn't apply to homosexuals, etc. If his primary aim is the salvation of souls he needs to make a public statement to that effect. The entire world would be surprised to hear him say that.
Archbishop Lefebvre broke Canon Law, knowing the penalty was excommunication. So that makes sense. The Church investigated the miracles caused by the intercession of JPII and John XXIII and pronounced them genuine. As per the canonization process, that makes sense too. As for things that don't make sense, that's most of V.R.S.' comments whenever he attempts sarcasm in English -which is constantly.More
Archbishop Lefebvre broke Canon Law, knowing the penalty was excommunication. So that makes sense. The Church investigated the miracles caused by the intercession of JPII and John XXIII and pronounced them genuine. As per the canonization process, that makes sense too.
As for things that don't make sense, that's most of V.R.S.' comments whenever he attempts sarcasm in English -which is constantly.
Don't listen to hate speech of crypto-Jews against the Church. They love JPII (perhaps the worst pope in history of the Church unless Bergoglio is a pope). Therefore together with Domus Sanctae Marthae they consider him a "saint".
Protip: everyone who makes you look stupid aren't "crypto-Jews" and the only "hate speech" comes from your anti-Semitic obsession. --and yeah, JPII is a saint and Pope Francis is Pope. If you were Catholic, you'd already know that. :D
@@가입을 원합니다 Compare what JPII were doing and what certain Honorius (solemnly condemned by the Ecumenical Council, Saint Pope Leo and multitude of his successors between 700-1300 professing Catholic Faith as popes-elects) did. Logical conclusions will come by themselves.
Didn't mean to start this...concerning breaking the law ,if you have a passenger in your car bleeding to death and you arrive at a red light there is no merit in stopping in order to obey the law,there is a higher law ,the life of the passenger,same with Lefevbre.
Ultraviolet yes the FSSP and ICKSP have been comforting as well. But the more I read the history of recent liturgical debates, and especially Michael Davie's Apologia, I realize that we wouldn't have the Traditional Mass (or the FSSP or ICKSP) at all if it weren't for Archbishop Lefebvre. That makes me wonder how wrong it could be? I suspected that the excommunications were not legitimate, but once …More
Ultraviolet yes the FSSP and ICKSP have been comforting as well. But the more I read the history of recent liturgical debates, and especially Michael Davie's Apologia, I realize that we wouldn't have the Traditional Mass (or the FSSP or ICKSP) at all if it weren't for Archbishop Lefebvre. That makes me wonder how wrong it could be? I suspected that the excommunications were not legitimate, but once lifted there is less reason than ever to worry about a "formal schism".
@SHJ-IHM You are absolutely right. My family and I lived it.....we know how it all happened; and we know that it was the undying, courageous witness of Archbishop Lefebvre which preserved Tradition for us, and which paved the way for the Traditional Orders which followed. And now that those very Orders are being threatened, SSPX will still stand if the present hierarchy succeeds in demolishing them. …More
@SHJ-IHM You are absolutely right. My family and I lived it.....we know how it all happened; and we know that it was the undying, courageous witness of Archbishop Lefebvre which preserved Tradition for us, and which paved the way for the Traditional Orders which followed.
And now that those very Orders are being threatened, SSPX will still stand if the present hierarchy succeeds in demolishing them.
In fact, we knew Michael Davies personally. He and his wife visited our home and that of good friends of ours; spoke at our Chapel and so on. He was the most humble of men -- his apologetics are outstanding.
"I realize that we wouldn't have the Traditional Mass (or the FSSP or ICKSP) at all if it weren't for Archbishop Lefebvre." Then your reading hasn't served you very fruitfully. ;-) The emergence of traditionalist groups of Catholic priests was inevitable... shades of Voltaire's famous quip if God did not exist, it would have been necessary to invent Him. "That makes me wonder how wrong it could be?" …More
"I realize that we wouldn't have the Traditional Mass (or the FSSP or ICKSP) at all if it weren't for Archbishop Lefebvre."
Then your reading hasn't served you very fruitfully. ;-) The emergence of traditionalist groups of Catholic priests was inevitable... shades of Voltaire's famous quip if God did not exist, it would have been necessary to invent Him.
"That makes me wonder how wrong it could be?"
...proving that a faulty premise often leads to a false conclusion. If people convert to Catholicsm from, say, Greek Orthodoxy that does not prove Greek Orthodoxy isn't in error or that they aren't schismatics.
"I suspected that the excommunications were not legitimate,"
Your suspicions are your own and they're contradicted by the facts. Canon Law 1382 was explicit so was the Apostolic Letter "Ecclesia Dei".
"but once lifted there is less reason than ever to worry about a "formal schism".
Wrong. The excommunications against Abp. Lefebvre and his flunkies were lifted as a spiritual clemency. It does not prove those excommunicated weren't schismatics.
This is why such clemency is misplaced. It's invariably misinterpreted, sometimes even deliberately.
More importantly, a "formal schism" did and does exist. JP II decreed that formal adherence to the schism carries the penalty of excommunication. This is still in effect.
Apologies for the delay in replying. In the future, please use the "@ as in @SHJ-IHM so I'll be notified just as you are now. :)
Since there's always FSSP and now ICKSP, I get comfort knowing the priest is in full communion with The Church and isn't under latae sententiae excommunication because "formal adherence to the schism is a grave offence against God and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the Church's law." -Pope John Paul II, Ecclesia Dei When a priest is ordained through the SSPX and identifies …More
Since there's always FSSP and now ICKSP, I get comfort knowing the priest is in full communion with The Church and isn't under latae sententiae excommunication because "formal adherence to the schism is a grave offence against God and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the Church's law." -Pope John Paul II, Ecclesia Dei When a priest is ordained through the SSPX and identifies himself as such, that's certainly "formal adherence": and The Church's ruling on this matter is explicit.
GTV's Self-Appointed Official Seer has a premonition... I sense the approach of Loads O' Bold and Ranty Red Italics. :D
No, @Ultraviolet -- I've presented my position elsewhere. I will just state the core proof and principle: It's clear Pope Francis would not have granted SSPX faculties to be exercised throughout the Universal Church -- at the same time making express mention in the same document of his granting these faculties precisely so the SSPX could serve the Catholic Faithful and those who attend their …More
No, @Ultraviolet -- I've presented my position elsewhere. I will just state the core proof and principle:
It's clear Pope Francis would not have granted SSPX faculties to be exercised throughout the Universal Church -- at the same time making express mention in the same document of his granting these faculties precisely so the SSPX could serve the Catholic Faithful and those who attend their Chapels without scruple of conscience -- if the Priests of SSPX were excommunicated.
Priests who are excommunicated are in mortal sin, and to perform the Sacraments while in mortal sin is a sacrilege against the Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ.
Pope Francis knows as much, and thus it is clear that by his granting SSPX faculties, he does not consider them excommunicated.
If Pope Francis considered them to be excommunicated, then he is damning all these souls by inviting them to the continuous and widespread practice of sacrilege against the Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ...which means the very Sacrament of Confession for which he has granted faculties would be absolutely to no avail, and the Consecration and reception of Holy Communion would be an outrage in the sight of God, injurious to all of their souls, and would simply add crime upon crime, upon crime......which is quite the opposite of removing the scruple of conscience which Pope Francis's decree was intended to definitively and decisively remove.
It's very plain and very simple....! That makes it abundantly clear. That's all I will say on this. The Gloria.TV readers are able to easily discern the truth from these facts.
Another interesting point in this debate, and piggybacking off of Ave Crux is 1. The SSPX has been granted by Pope Francis faculties to hear confessions in the universal Church- any Catholic may go to them for the sacrament. 2. A Catholic who has committed the sin of schism may go to the SSPX for confession and absolution and be restored to full communion. 3. How is it possible that a schismatic …More
Another interesting point in this debate, and piggybacking off of Ave Crux is
1. The SSPX has been granted by Pope Francis faculties to hear confessions in the universal Church- any Catholic may go to them for the sacrament.
2. A Catholic who has committed the sin of schism may go to the SSPX for confession and absolution and be restored to full communion.
3. How is it possible that a schismatic priest - granted papal faculties- can hear the confessions of one guilty of the sin of schism and give absolution restoring them to full communion but are themselves (the priests) not in full communion, and or schismatic?
"Which means they aren't in schism."@Steve D Catholic priests don't need the pope to grant specifically them faculties in the first place. That isn't rocket science either, dummy. :P Catholic priests also don't need "God’s help for the recovery of full communion in the Catholic Church" (Pope Francis' exact words). Schismatics do. "our resident crypto troll loves to muddy the waters." ...claimed …More
Catholic priests don't need the pope to grant specifically them faculties in the first place. That isn't rocket science either, dummy. :P
Catholic priests also don't need "God’s help for the recovery of full communion in the Catholic Church" (Pope Francis' exact words). Schismatics do.
"our resident crypto troll loves to muddy the waters." ...claimed the anti-Semite with little interest in the subject except to throw abuse at me. Because THAT isn't trolling, amirite? :D
Don't try fighting anyone else's battles, Steve-O. You can't even fight your own.
@philosopher Regarding your rhetorical question in 3.) ...for the same reason Russian Orthodox priests can hear confession from Catholics. It's also the same reason Orthodox services are valid and their form of the Eucharist contains The Real Presence. The philosophical reason for that is schism involves a lack of submission, not a difference in essential doctrine or the validity of the sacrament.…More
@philosopher Regarding your rhetorical question in 3.) ...for the same reason Russian Orthodox priests can hear confession from Catholics. It's also the same reason Orthodox services are valid and their form of the Eucharist contains The Real Presence.
The philosophical reason for that is schism involves a lack of submission, not a difference in essential doctrine or the validity of the sacrament. This stems from Canon 844 §3
Catholic ministers administer the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick licitly to members of Eastern Churches which do not have full communion with the Catholic Church if they seek such on their own accord and are properly disposed. This is also valid for members of other Churches which in the judgment of the Apostolic See are in the same condition in regard to the sacraments as these Eastern Churches.
@Ultraviolet From what I understand in the Catechism is that a Catholic may only go to an Orthodox priest for confession if their is a grave necessity, and there is no Catholic priest accessible. When faced with choosing between a Orthodox priest and a Catholic priest a Catholic should go to a Catholic priest for confession. For example, in a town near me there is a Orthodox church and Catholic …More
@Ultraviolet From what I understand in the Catechism is that a Catholic may only go to an Orthodox priest for confession if their is a grave necessity, and there is no Catholic priest accessible. When faced with choosing between a Orthodox priest and a Catholic priest a Catholic should go to a Catholic priest for confession. For example, in a town near me there is a Orthodox church and Catholic church accross the street from each other. I cannot just go to the Orthodox priest to ask for confession when the Catholic church is only 50 yards from its front door. This is not the case with the faculties for confession granted to the SSPX. When encountering a SSPX chapel directly accross from a N.O. church, the faculties privided them, allow me to go the chapel. Second, from pursuing Orthodox websites, the Orthodox priests state that they do not give sacraments to any non-Orthodox Christian. Again, that would not be the case with the situation of the SSPX. A Catholic priest from the SSPX order would not turn away any Catholic or require the penitent to be a traditional Catholic who only attends SSPX chapels.
There are differences also between the way that the SSPX view's the papacy, and the Orthodox. The Orthodox view, for example is, that"the Patriarchate of Rome is one of the five historic patriarchates of the Church, the others being Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem. Orthodox accorded the Pope of Rome the respect due the “first among equals” prior to the Great Schism. The Orthodox agree that, historically, there was a primacy accorded the Pope of Rome. However, Orthodoxy holds that primacy was always understood as a primacy of honor and coordination rather than a primacy of sovereign authority. For the Orthodox, all bishops are fundamentally equal." This is clearly not the view of the SSPX. The SSPX teaches the doctrine of the papacy found in the Catechism of Trent, which is the Roman Catholic understanding of the papacy. The difficulties with Rome have been with the issue of the misuse and abuse of papal authority, and not the authority itself.
"...a Catholic may only go to an Orthodox priest for confession if their is a grave necessity, and there is no Catholic priest accessible. " ...which has no bearing on the validity of the sacrament. ;-)@philosopher "I cannot just go to the Orthodox priest to ask for confession when the Catholic church is only 50 yards from its front door." I've been saying as much for ages now. Better a Novus …More
"...a Catholic may only go to an Orthodox priest for confession if their is a grave necessity, and there is no Catholic priest accessible. "
...which has no bearing on the validity of the sacrament. ;-)@philosopher
"I cannot just go to the Orthodox priest to ask for confession when the Catholic church is only 50 yards from its front door."
I've been saying as much for ages now. Better a Novus Ordo Catholic priest than a schismatic, regardless of his stripe.
"This is not the case with the faculties for confession granted to the SSPX."
Irrelevant to the question you originally asked, which I've already answered.
"A Catholic priest from the SSPX order..."
Contradiction in terms. A Catholic priest is, by definition, in full communion with The Church. The SSPX, by Francis' own description in the very document extending the faculty of confeession, is not.
"There are differences also between the way that the SSPX view's the papacy, and the Orthodox."
How different groups of schismatics view the head of the Catholic Church is irrelevant. They share a lack of submission, from which their schism stems.
"The difficulties with Rome have been with the issue of the misuse and abuse of papal authority, and not the authority itself."
See my last point. Because a schismatic claims there is a supposed "misuse and abuse of papal authority" does not make it so. Likewise, making the claim does not grant a right to disobey the Pope after one has done so.
"Pope Benedict XVI said the excommunications have no juridical standing."@Mathathias Maccabeus I'm not seeing a verbatim quote from BXVI here and I have a very good idea why... ;-) Benedict XVI allowed the lifting the excommunications for Lefebvre and his false bishops as an act of clemencynot exoneration. The SSPX, lying deceitful schismatics that they are, immediately argue the latter occurred …More
"Pope Benedict XVI said the excommunications have no juridical standing."@Mathathias Maccabeus
I'm not seeing a verbatim quote from BXVI here and I have a very good idea why... ;-)
The SSPX, lying deceitful schismatics that they are, immediately argue the latter occurred instead. It didn't. Pardoning a criminal doesn't make him innocent of the crime he committed.
As Cardinal Ratzinger, he was explicit about Abp. Lefebvre's actions: "If we manage to show and live the totality of Catholicism in these respects, we may well hope that the schism of Mgr. Lefebvre will not last long."
"it doesn’t apply when the person acted under fear of great necessity."
The SSPX has been pushing that revisionist cannard for decades. It's a fallacy of circular reasoning, it goes: he acted under fear of great necessity because he claimed there was a great neceesity, therefore canon law doesn't apply to him. Claiming "grave necessity" isn't a magic "do whatever you want" card for disobedient clergy, even if SSPX supporters try to misuse it as such.
@Ultraviolet On the Orthodox vs SSPX, the Orthodox do not nor cannot recieve factulites to hear confession from the Pope- nor hypothetically, would they even accept such an offer since they don't recognize the Pope's authority, which is why they do not accept Catholics for thier sacraments. The SSPX did accept the faculties granted to them, and even thanked the Pope at the time, since they do …More
@Ultraviolet On the Orthodox vs SSPX, the Orthodox do not nor cannot recieve factulites to hear confession from the Pope- nor hypothetically, would they even accept such an offer since they don't recognize the Pope's authority, which is why they do not accept Catholics for thier sacraments. The SSPX did accept the faculties granted to them, and even thanked the Pope at the time, since they do recognize his legitimite and proper use of authority in this case- for the salvation and good of souls.
"Because a schismatic claims there is a supposed "misuse and abuse of papal authority" does not make it so." And, claiming that a claim of misuse and abuse of papal authority does not make it so, also does not make it not so. You would have to show that the claim is baseless.
How is it the case that a "false bishop" can recieve exoneration? Only a Catholic bishop who was thought to be in error could receive such clemency.
Lastly, that "he acted under fear of great necessity because he claimed there was a great neceesity, therefore canon law doesn't apply to him." That is not the claim being made. The claim is that Archbishop Lefevbre acted out of necessity based on the evidence of a declining post-Vat II Church, priesthood, and neglect of the TLM, which is well documented.
"the Orthodox do not nor cannot recieve factulites to hear confession from the Pope" They don't need them since they can already absolve sins. "nor hypothetically, would they even accept such an offer since they don't recognize the Pope's authority" Neither do the SSPX. If they did, they wouldn't defy it and thereby remain in schism. At least the Orthodox are honest about it. "The SSPX did accept …More
"the Orthodox do not nor cannot recieve factulites to hear confession from the Pope"
They don't need them since they can already absolve sins.
"nor hypothetically, would they even accept such an offer since they don't recognize the Pope's authority"
Neither do the SSPX. If they did, they wouldn't defy it and thereby remain in schism. At least the Orthodox are honest about it.
"The SSPX did accept the faculties granted to them, and even thanked the Pope at the time, since they do recognize his legitimite and proper use of authority in this case- for the salvation and good of souls."
Of course they thanked the Pope. Unlike the Orthodox, the SSPX try very hard to misrepresent themselves as Catholics in full communino with The Church. They aren't. Likewise, it is not for them to decide what is "legitimate and proper use of authority".
Even that betrays a schismatic's mindset. A clerical subordinate does not have the right to place himself as an equal to the Pope in jurisdictional authority. Only those who refuse to submit to his authority can place themselves as his equals and decide what is or isn't "legitimate and proper".
...because when the SSPX decides something the Pope does isn't a " legitimite and proper use of authority" they'll go right on disobeying and defying him.
That's schismatics being schismatic, both ideologically and in practice.
"And, claiming that a claim of misuse and abuse of papal authority does not make it so, also does not make it not so."
The burden of proof is on the person making the origianl claim. ;-)
"You would have to show that the claim is baseless."
...and I've done that often enough with Ave Crux and you when either of you raise particular examples for Abp. Lefebvre's disobedience. ;-)
"How is it the case that a "false bishop" can recieve exoneration? Only a Catholic bishop who was thought to be in error could receive such clemency."
Not necessarily. Canon Law 1382 makes this distinction clear. --"A bishop who consecrates some one a bishop without a pontifical mandate and the person who receives the consecration from him incur a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See."ll
Notice Canon Law states "the person who receives the consecration" not "the bishop who receives the consecration"
"That is not the claim being made. The claim is that Archbishop Lefevbre acted out of necessity based on the evidence of a declining post-Vat II Church, priesthood, and neglect of the TLM, which is well documented."
Wrong. That's your claim, not what MMM wrote which was, "Furthermore, the Code of Canon Law under automatic excommunication says that it doesn’t apply when the person acted under fear of great necessity."
Don't put words in his mouth because you ain't him. ;-)
Likewise, it's very unlikely Abp. Lefebve was so distressed over "the evidence of a declining post-Vat II Church, priesthood"
Not when the number of religious priests actaully increased between 1970-1980. and the number of priests was remaining comparatively steady during those years. There was no precipitous decline so let's not re-write history, eh?
Archbishop Lefebvre acted out of a very different necessity summed up in one sentence: The Pope told him, "No."
That's the basic necessity compounded by the fact Abp. Lefebvre was dying and lacked faith in God to preserve the SSPX after his death without his own direct personal intervention.
Everything else was, is, and always shall be one bogus excuse after another to justify that disobedience.
Little surprises there. He'd always been arrogant, disdainful of Papal authority and wrongly assumed this time he could simply shoulder the Pope aside and do whatever he pleased.
"Just out of curiosity, in your mind, what makes the SSPX bishops false, but not the Orthodox bishops, which are also ordained without permission from the pope, and who also lack jurisdiction, and are in full schism?" ...what makes you assume I draw such a distinction between schismatic bishops? ;-) I'm fairly certain I haven't stated one. Please feel free to quote me, verbatim, where I did so. …More
"Just out of curiosity, in your mind, what makes the SSPX bishops false, but not the Orthodox bishops, which are also ordained without permission from the pope, and who also lack jurisdiction, and are in full schism?"
...what makes you assume I draw such a distinction between schismatic bishops? ;-) I'm fairly certain I haven't stated one. Please feel free to quote me, verbatim, where I did so. @Mathathias Maccabeus
"Furthermore, if the reason they can’t hear confessions and give absolution is because..."
I'm going to stop you right there because I haven't implied, suggested, much less stated anything of the sort. Referring to the Orthodox, while replying to Philosopher I did in fact say, "They (the Orthodox) don't need them (faculties granted by the Pope) since they can already absolve sins."
"then how can you say the Orthodox, who are in schism and therefore not part of the church, can?"
That's easy because The Church says so in Can. 844.2
"With that question asked I’ll let you go back to smelling your own farts and sending you effeminate :D again"
The irony of that coming from the same idiot who suggested iterally on the same day I should be more courteous to other users as I am with Fr. Schneider. l "Dude, this is how you need to respond in your other conversations on here."
Dude, take your own advice, and practice what you preach.
Then clowns like you get always oh-so-offended when you get what you give.
There's nothing "effeminate" about a text-based emoji. Serious suggestion: GTV is no place for you to discuss your warped scat-fetish, even as metaphor. It doesn't belong on a Catholic media portal.
It isn't a "smear" if it's true and it is true. Pointing your finger at the failings of Catholic priests is a poor excuse coming from those who supposedly hold their own as better examples. Truth is, I don't really care why you talk the way you do to me. I was reminding you that others read these comments, this a Catholic site and no place for your depraved scat-fetish metaphors. It also isn't the …More
It isn't a "smear" if it's true and it is true. Pointing your finger at the failings of Catholic priests is a poor excuse coming from those who supposedly hold their own as better examples.
Truth is, I don't really care why you talk the way you do to me. I was reminding you that others read these comments, this a Catholic site and no place for your depraved scat-fetish metaphors.
It also isn't the place for profanity-based adverbs like "cr--py" Maybe such language is acceptable on schismatic=focused sites, this isn't one of them.
"...despite being so wrong."
No, dear heart. I get butterflies when I'm proving people like you wrong and keeping you from misleading Catholics into leaving The Church.
"Perhaps, if you talk more like you did on the thread I complimented you on, I wouldn’t be so hostile to your snobbish pride."
Your hostility doesn't bother me. In all fairness to you, this is nothing compared to the hostiity I get from the anti-Semites on GTV. Now there's a hostile bunch.
"And yeah, my behavior may not be the best for Catholic portals, but people like you are trash, too."
Being intellectually prideful doesn't make me "trash". In contrast, your self-admitted lack of consideration for other readers here certainly brands you as such. ;-)
"The difference is I don’t go waving my intellect around."
Not having one makes for easy modesty. ;-)
"but when no one wants to listen because how you present it, it won’t do you any good."
You assume I'm writing predominantly for your benefit. Truth is, I'm not. Debates are rarely (if ever) intended to change your opponent's opinion.
This is no different I don't expect I'll convert you back to Catholicism; I'm just ensuring that your falsehoods don't go uncorrected where they might mislead other readers.
"Also, you should check out Canons 966-970, which state that in order to have a valid confession the priest must have faculties and jurisdiction." Ah, now we're getting somewhere! Good. Your generalities and what is actually written in Can. 966-970 are not the same. ;-) For starters, it's contradicted in Canon 967.2 --"Those who possess the faculty of hearing confessions habitually whether by …More
"Also, you should check out Canons 966-970, which state that in order to have a valid confession the priest must have faculties and jurisdiction."
Ah, now we're getting somewhere! Good. Your generalities and what is actually written in Can. 966-970 are not the same. ;-) For starters, it's contradicted in Canon 967.2
--"Those who possess the faculty of hearing confessions habitually whether by virtue of office or by virtue of the grant of an ordinary of the place of incardination or of the place in which they have a domicile can exercise that faculty everywhere unless the local ordinary has denied it in a particular case, without prejudice to the prescripts of can. 974, §§2 and 3."--
So "in order to have a valid confession the priest must have faculties and jurisdiction." is incorrect ...unless you wish to concede that priests' "juristidiction" is "everywhere". :D
"So orthodox confessions are not valid unless the jurisdiction has been granted by the Pope."
Contradicted by Can. 967.2 (for the reasons already discussed)
...and also by Can. 966.2 which states
--"A priest can be given this faculty either by the law itself or by a grant made by the competent authority according to the norm of can. 969."--
Notice that 966.2 presents a this is an either-or situation:
-- "either by the law itself or by a grant made by the competent authority..."--
If "the law itself" grants this faculty, then "a grant made by the competent authority" isn't needed.
If both were required, Canon Law 966.2 would have been written something like "A priest can be given this faculty by the law but needs a grant made by the competent authority..." which it was not.
"So no, they don’t just have the ability to absolve sins. They only have that ability *because* it was granted by the pope through the canon law in extreme circumstances."
Canon Law says differently, even for Catholic priests, and you're not backing your qualification of "extreme circumstances" with Canon Law here, either.
Worth noting, in the case of the SSPX, Pope Francis had to specifically grant this authority "through my own disposition".
This shows "by virtue of office" in Can. 967.2 or "the law itself" in 966.2 referred to wasn't sufficient which it has been for Orthodox-administered sacraments.
In the meantime...
"you act like a prideful child who is stuck up and gets butterflies every time you get to show off your intellectual prowess..."
...to think you were bleating to GTV's admin about how "trolling" and "harassing" other users (particularly you, poor you) just wasn't acceptable on a Catholic site. "LMAOOOO..." . Scratch a bigot and you'll find a hypocrite. Every time. Have a lovely Thanksgiving, Bigot-Boy. ;-)
That's a snappy rhetorical intro, @Mathathias Maccabeus but it's false. I contradicted you and so did Canon Law. You claimed: "a valid confession the priest must have faculties and jurisdiction." You cited Canons 966-970 in support of the claim. Canon 967.2 contradicts you. stating --"Those who possess the faculty of hearing confessions habitually whether by virtue of office or by virtue of the …More
That's a snappy rhetorical intro, @Mathathias Maccabeus but it's false. I contradicted you and so did Canon Law.
You claimed: "a valid confession the priest must have faculties and jurisdiction." You cited Canons 966-970 in support of the claim.
Canon 967.2 contradicts you. stating --"Those who possess the faculty of hearing confessions habitually whether by virtue of office or by virtue of the grant of an ordinary of the place of incardination or of the place in which they have a domicile can exercise that faculty everywhere..."--
That's directly contrary to your claim, unless you concede the priests referenced have jurisdiction everywhere. Which you have not. ;-)
"Why can the orthodox hear confession and absolve Catholics in cases of emergency? Because canon law grants them the faculties to do so."
Zero citation from Canon Law supporting your claim.
"Why does canon law grant them the faculty? Because the pope allows it. Canon law ultimately comes from the pope."
See my last point. Answering your own rhetorical questions is a lousy substitute for citing the Canon law you so blithely mention.
"So orthodox confessions are only valid under the grace circumstances given by the law... because the pope grants them, in those circumstances, the faculties."
Zero citations supporting any of your claims and since you're just repeating them, you earn one of these.
No apologies needed... Heck, we're talking about Thanksgiving. I wasn't "on" GTV all through the holidays and the weekend myself. :) Protip: Cite bombing me never works. :D My WPM is "over 9000" so I have no problem addressing every Canon you raise even when it's just Copy Pasta with Ave Crux's notorious "Loads O' Bold". ---Can. 966 §1. The valid absolution of sins requires that the minister …More
No apologies needed... Heck, we're talking about Thanksgiving. I wasn't "on" GTV all through the holidays and the weekend myself. :)
Protip: Cite bombing me never works. :D My WPM is "over 9000" so I have no problem addressing every Canon you raise even when it's just Copy Pasta with Ave Crux's notorious "Loads O' Bold".
---Can. 966 §1. The valid absolution of sins requires that the minister have, in addition to the power of orders, the faculty of exercising it for the faithful to whom he imparts absolution.
Notice the word "jurisdiction" appears nowhwere in Canon 966 §1 which is what you originally claimed : "a valid confession the priest must have faculties and jurisdiction."
---§2. A priest can be given this faculty either by the law itself or by a grant made by the competent authority according to the norm of can. 969.
I already used 966.2 to contradict you, ironically enough. I focused on the either/ or aspect of this Canon. Simply re-quoting the Canon with Bold Bits doesn't prove my application of it wrong.
Likewise, Can. 968 §1 addresses the faculties of those hearing confessions either by a pastor or his substitutes "within his jurisdiction". (emphasis mine) i.e. the pastor's. The cite is irrelevant to supporting your claim. Not all Catholic priests are pastors, though all Catholic priests may absolve sins.
Similarly, Can. 969 §1. states "The local ordinary alone is competent to confer upon any presbyters whatsoever the faculty to hear the confessions of any of the faithful."
However it does NOT say priests do not possess that faculty until he grants it. The remainder of that canon makes this clear: " Presbyters who are members of religious institutes, however, are not to use the faculty without at least the presumed permission of their superior. "
...whowing they DO have the faculty and may use it, even absent the ordinary's express permission. Presumption of permission is, after all, a wonderful thing. ;-)
Can. 134 §1. and its concomitant 368 address Catholic Churches. This is irrelevant to the Orthodox since they are not Catholics and do not claim to be.
The same is true for Can. 369 which focuses on the Catholic diocese. The Orthodox are not part of The Catholic Church, nor are they subordinate to f its diocesan structure. For that matter, neither are the SSPX. However, this in no way contradicts the ability of Orthodox priests to hear confessions.
I wouldn't bring up Caon 369 §2, btw. Abp. Lefebvre wasn't in "hierarchal communion" with anyone except his own high opinion of himself and a clique of yes-men subordinates.
The same problem applies to Can. 380. Taking an oath of fidelity to the Apostolic See and then flatly disobeying it is a contradiction.
"So what we see here is that only those who have faculties can hear confession. If granted the faculty to hear confession, they can hear it anywhere unless prevented by the local ordinary."
...which doesn't in any way contradict The Church's recognition that Orthodox can hear licitly hear confession and validly absolve sins or their faculties are explicitly granted to them by the Pope.
. What it does show is the schismatic SSPX did not have such faculties in the first place.
Benedict XVI had to grant such faculties to the SSPX and Pope Francis later extended that grant beyond the Jubilee Year of Mercy. A Pope does not need to grant a faculty if a priest already possesses it.
This is the major distinction between the SSPX and the Orthodox.
"In order to receive faculties and jurisdiction, one has to hold an office suitable for it (priest, bishop, pope). They then have to be granted that jurisdiction by the pope, and are required to swear loyalty to the Apostolic See."
The Canons you cited apply only to Catholic priests. Therein lies your mistake, deliberate or otherwise. Each othodox bishop and priest is not granted jurisdiction by the Pope or his subordinates and they do not swear loyalty to the Apostolic See. Yet, as you already conceded, they can hear confession and absolve sins. Thus, your interpretation of Canon Law is contradicted by the circumstances (and the Canon which acknowledges the validity of Orthodox sacraments)..
"Therefore, any ability to hear confession must be granted to them despite them not having jurisdiction. The law is necessary for this. Hence, canon law grants them permission to do so.
Canon law states they (the Orthodox) DO have these faculties, which is not the same as stating the faculties are, or must be granted to them by this pope or that bishop. Laws governing Catholic priests within the ecclesiastic hierarchy of The Church do not necessarily apply to Orthodox priests who, as schismatics, refuse to be in communion with it.
"Perhaps I should clarify, I'm not saying they cannot hear confession. I am merely saying that they have to be granted the faculty to do so. " I understand that perfectly. However, none of the Canon Laws you've cited: a.) either mention or refer to the Orthodox b.) states that the Orthodox need to have such faculties granted to them by specific edict. Indeed, many of the Canon Laws you've cited …More
"Perhaps I should clarify, I'm not saying they cannot hear confession. I am merely saying that they have to be granted the faculty to do so. "
I understand that perfectly. However, none of the Canon Laws you've cited: a.) either mention or refer to the Orthodox b.) states that the Orthodox need to have such faculties granted to them by specific edict. Indeed, many of the Canon Laws you've cited show even Catholic priests themselves do not always need explicit permission granted to them, regardless of their faculties to do so.
"The Law (promulgated by the Pope) does grant them the faculties to do so, which fits my argument that they still got permission from the Pope, because the Pope is the one that promulgates the law."
Not so. If memory serves, that is a fallacy of an undistributed middle. ;-)
-If The Law grants the Orthodox the faculty to hear confession/ absolve sins
-and the Pope makes the law known/ puts it into effect (i.e. "promulgates", your choice of word) The Law,
-then it is The Law, notThe Pope who has granted them these faculties.
The Law and The Pope are not the same entity. Your argument, then, fails.
"If that Canon were stricken from the Code of Canon Law, then their priests would not be able to hear confessions."
That's assuming you place Canon Law outside and above The Pope's authority, not to mention God's authority through their ordination. ;-) This would be an error even for purely temporal authority.
In extending the faculty for the SSPX to hear confessions Francis wrote, "I have personally decided to extend this faculty beyond the Jubilee Year, until further provisions are made...." He makes no reference to Canon Law for his personal decision, nor did Benedict XVI in originally granting it.
I do appreciate the (tacit and guarded) concession on the word "jurisdiction", so hopefully this won't be too much hair splitting.
I'm not so much concerned as why the Orthodox have the ability to hear confessions because The Church in Canon Law says they do. This is the comfort in a legalist mindset. My concerns are these:. First, Canon Law makes no explicit mention of how (or by whom, temporally) the Orthodox have these faculties. It does not follow then, that these faculties are granted or must be granted by the Pope.
Second, what applies to the Orthodox does not automatically also apply to other schismatics, notably the SSPX. More troublingly, the fact Benedict XVI needed to grant them these faculties, later extended twice by Francis. This shows they did not have them, even if the Orthodox did and do.
If Pope Francis, by virtue of his authority as the head of The Church, grants the SSPX that faculty (or more precisely extends Benedict XVI's grant) then I concede they have it by virtue of his authority. The Orthodox, however, already have that faculty -absent an explict grant/ extension, which is an important distinction between schismatics.
"I’ve got a massive headache so I won’t spend long here for now." Four comments, umpteen paragraphs and citations, later. :D I'll just reply as a one-shot to them all since I won't need to post images. " However, this claim: (shortened simply for brevity since I'm not contesting the accuracy of your quote) ..."Is absolutely false. They do consider themselves Catholic, and they consider us the …More
"I’ve got a massive headache so I won’t spend long here for now."
Four comments, umpteen paragraphs and citations, later. :D I'll just reply as a one-shot to them all since I won't need to post images.
" However, this claim: (shortened simply for brevity since I'm not contesting the accuracy of your quote) ..."Is absolutely false. They do consider themselves Catholic, and they consider us the schismatic heretics."
Nope.. It is not "absolutely false" for several reasons. I made two points in my claim: "they are not Catholics and do not claim to be."
1.) The Orthodox are not Catholics, no matter what they call themselves or considerthemselves or considerus Catholics, for the simple reason they're wrong. The same applies to the SSPX.
2.) Conceded as false.
Meaning, since the first half of my statement remains correct, and so the statement in toto is not "absolutely false". At best, it's only half-false. Thus, your statment "However, this claim:... Is absolutely false." is incorrect. The irony of making a falsehood while correcting mine, eh?
"Further, while straying from Canon Law, this is what the Catechism of Trent says on the matter:...
Let's not stray from Canon Law since Canon Law governs The Church. You've been quite content quibbling over it point by point. Please continue
The Catechism of Trent is an earlier edition of the current Catechism Of The Catholic Church. But even so...
"Besides the powers of orders and of jurisdiction, which are of absolute necessity, the minister of this Sacrament, holding as he does the place at once of judge and physician, should be gifted not only with knowledge and erudition, but also with prudence."
...and as I've already pointed out previously in Canon Law, in some instances Catholic priests have a "jurisdiction" which is literally everywhere. Current Canon Law trumps an out of date version of the Catechism :D
"Also, it says that even schismatics (such as the Orthodox), are bound to the laws of the Church and subject to Her jurisdiction,etc."
...the same could be said of the SSPX. Yet, as with the Orthodox, The Church claiming jurisdiction over schismatics and enforcing that claim are two different things. ;-)
---
"The Orthodox are Catholics in Schism."
That's a contradiction in terms. Catholics submit to the Supreme Pontiff and remain in communion with the members of the Church subject to him. Schismatics do not.
---
"One more thing, the reason I don’t hold that it is 'divine law made manifest from the pope' as you seem to,..."
One more thing, that careful qualification "seem to" is a slippery way to introduce a Strawman Argument by implication and let's have none of that. You have a sharper mind than Thomasvalle, so you don't need to resort to his kind of shenanigans
"is because this is new to the 1983 code of canon law. Ihe 1918 was a bit different."
The current set of laws which take precedence. :)
"I’m debating that the orthodox cannot hear confessions, except when a Catholic is in danger of death. (Which is also what the 1918 code says).
...and current Canon Law says differently. Boo hoo. :D
"The SSPX can hear confessions regardless, because the pope has explicitly given them the ability to."
Agreed. ...which I'm arguing shows a.) they did not have that ability until the Pope gave it to them. b.) point a.) demonstrates the SSPX schismatics and c.) the SSPX are not analagous to the Orthodox who arleady had that ability, despite being schismatics as well.
"If the Orthodox can hear confessions without the danger of death, it is only because the Pope has granted them (like the SSPX) the ability to do so."
Argumentum ad Nauseam since you still haven't cited Canon Law or an Apostolic Letter or any source whatsoever showing the Pope making such a grant to the Orthodox.
"Even if it’s in the Code of Canon Law and so you see it as 'The Law', that is a change to the Code of Canon Law, because in the 1917 that was explicitly not allowed unless there was a danger of death."
If we both agree it's in Canon Law now, then we both should agree it applies now, yes?
"and if a priest was traveling, he wouldn’t be allowed to hear confessions unless he had permission from the local ordinary wherever he travelled through."
Welcome to Law School 101: Laws change and the second half of your example shows why in this instance it's a good thing. ;-)
The Orthodox bishops and priest's refuse to recognize any eclessial law promulgated by a Pope. If one were to go to an Orthodox priest and say father, I'm a Roman Catholic and the Pope in Rome has set forth in Canon law and granted you permission to hear my confession in extreme circumstances, he would say, sorry but I can't hear your confession b/c you're not Orthodox, and the Pope has no power …More
The Orthodox bishops and priest's refuse to recognize any eclessial law promulgated by a Pope. If one were to go to an Orthodox priest and say father, I'm a Roman Catholic and the Pope in Rome has set forth in Canon law and granted you permission to hear my confession in extreme circumstances, he would say, sorry but I can't hear your confession b/c you're not Orthodox, and the Pope has no power over me. In Christian charity let me help you find a Catholic priest and let us pray that one day the Catholic Church will return to her true mother Eastern Orthodoxy.
Not only do I get comfort from knowing about the SSPX being there, during the "plandemic" I was able to assist at Mass and receive the Sacraments by traveling each week to one of their Priories when no other Priest would give us the Sacraments. After having been without Mass for over a month, words cannot convey what gratitude and solace flooded my soul as I entered their beautiful church after …More
Not only do I get comfort from knowing about the SSPX being there, during the "plandemic" I was able to assist at Mass and receive the Sacraments by traveling each week to one of their Priories when no other Priest would give us the Sacraments.
After having been without Mass for over a month, words cannot convey what gratitude and solace flooded my soul as I entered their beautiful church after traveling an hour across state lines to get there.....
It was like a dream just to be inside a Catholic church again near the Blessed Sacrament, with a magnificent altar and solemn Mass...and Confessionals actually in use!
They had permission from the Governor and observed proper precautions -- this being early on before we knew what we were dealing with.
But...they did everything possible to continue serving the needs of the Faithful. They even went to court to secure our rights in those States where the Governors did not consider worship of God "essential"