Author Topic: Claim - "SSPX are in schism, confessions invalid" (Read 4234 times)

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #25 on:** February 03, 2023, 05:26:22 PM »

I read his posts, not sure what the miscommunication is. Absolution offered without jurisdiction is invalid-- this is about as controversial as saying baptism done with kool-aid is invalid.
.
If a priest doesn't have jurisdiction or doesn't attract a supply of it for some reason, then his absolutions are invalid.
.

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #26 on:** February 03, 2023, 05:53:23 PM »

I mean, jurisdiction is literally FOR binding and loosing. Confession is the sacrament by which we are bound and loosed.

2Vermont · « **Reply #27 on:** February 03, 2023, 08:33:04 PM »

Quote from: Mithrandylan on February 03, 2023, 05:26:22 PM

I read his posts, not sure what the miscommunication is. Absolution offered without jurisdiction is invalid-- this is about as controversial as saying baptism done with kool-aid is invalid.
.
If a priest doesn't have jurisdiction or doesn't attract a supply of it for some reason, then his absolutions are invalid.
.

Really? Is jurisdiction considered matter in the Sacrament of Confession? I don't think the two are analogous at all.

I thought sacramental validity is based on form, matter and intention. What part does jurisdiction fall under?

If Orthodox priests provide valid absolutions because they are true priests and they aren't even in the Church, then why does the validity of a Roman Catholic priest's absolution change if he absolves in a different state? Again, to me this sounds more like an issue of liciety not validity.

Does someone have church teaching on what makes the Sacrament of Confession valid?

Soubirous · « **Reply #28 on:** February 03, 2023, 09:30:22 PM »

Here is a link to a 1947 English translation of the Catechism of Trent. There is much more explanatory detail in general than in later Catechisms written in a Q&A format for the use of laity. The section on the Minister of the Sacrament of Penance is on pages 290-291 of the text itself (355-356 of the scanned pages).

It does speak of the requirement of jurisdiction. Yet there is that phrase "except in case of great necessity" (center of p. 291). This seems to be the escape clause, as it were, for all sorts of discussions about the post-V2 situation that has been getting markedly worse as time goes by. I don't claim to be able to participate since it's rather bewildering to me. But right now, it looks like a pre-emptive circular firing squad going on among the SSPX and various other players, since nobody knows exactly what anti-trad flack is coming out of the Vatican in the near future.

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #29 on:** February 03, 2023, 10:16:21 PM »

Session 14, 7 of Trent:

Quote

Because the nature and character of a judgment requires that sentence be pronounced only on those who are subjects (of the judge) the Church of God has always held, and this Council affirms it to be most true, that the absolution which a priest pronounces upon one over whom he has not either ordinary or delegated jurisdiction, is of no effect.

.
This is but one example of the Church's teaching on the matter, although probably the most definitive. As Trent itself points out, this has always been the mind of the Church; it is neither an obscure nor contentious doctrine. I'm not sure why it's eluded you, 2Vermont, but be assured it is the truth.
.

CathInfo.com

Author Topic: Claim - "SSPX are in schism, confessions invalid" (Read 4234 times)

Mithrandylan

Re: Claim - "SSPX are in schism, confessions invalid"

Mithrandylan

Re: Claim - "SSPX are in schism, confessions invalid"

2Vermont

Re: Claim - "SSPX are in schism, confessions invalid"

Soubirous

Re: Claim - "SSPX are in schism, confessions invalid"

Mithrandylan

Re: Claim - "SSPX are in schism, confessions invalid"