Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: Claim - "SSPX are in schism, confessions invalid"  (Read 4215 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Claim - "SSPX are in schism, confessions invalid"
« Reply #35 on: February 04, 2023, 06:45:28 AM »
.
The analogy was to say that the requirement for jurisdiction is as obvious, plain, settled, and elementary a doctrine as is the requirement for water in the sacrament of baptism.
.
The above material from Trent should satisfy any doubts.
So were your posts to me meant to be condescending?  Because they sure sound it.

Re: Claim - "SSPX are in schism, confessions invalid"
« Reply #36 on: February 04, 2023, 06:50:33 AM »
I was giving a example where the Church would supply due to common error.  Also, various other states of necessity would have the Church supply.  But there has to be some extraordinary scenario, like necessity or common error.  If a boat was wrecked on a deserted island, and one of the passengers were a priest outside his normaly jursidiction, the Church would supply for the hearing of Confessions there.  What's intended by the jurisdiction requirement is the necessity of right order during normal situation.  If I were a priest in the 1940s and travelled to a foreign country, I couldn't just start hearing confessions.  But any kind of unusual or abnormal circuмstance, provided there's no schismatic intent, and the Church always supplies the necessary jurisdiction for the good of souls.
Thank you for clarifying your post.  This makes sense.  In normal times there would be a true Catholic priest available, so an out-of-town/jurisdiction priest is not necessary.


Re: Claim - "SSPX are in schism, confessions invalid"
« Reply #37 on: February 04, 2023, 07:10:58 AM »
Session 14, 7 of Trent:


.
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.
.
Perhaps because I was "brought up" in the Vatican II sect?  I have heard about ordinary jurisdiction and supplied jurisdiction, but I never knew that it literally affected the VALIDITY of the Sacrament.  I just thought it was an issue of legalities.

Re: Claim - "SSPX are in schism, confessions invalid"
« Reply #38 on: February 04, 2023, 08:38:22 AM »
So were your posts to me meant to be condescending?  Because they sure sound it.
.
I have long struggled to find diplomatic ways to tell someone that they should know something (that they don't) without irritating them. Still working on it.

Offline Stubborn

  • Supporter
Re: Claim - "SSPX are in schism, confessions invalid"
« Reply #39 on: February 04, 2023, 10:33:38 AM »
Perhaps because I was "brought up" in the Vatican II sect?  I have heard about ordinary jurisdiction and supplied jurisdiction, but I never knew that it literally affected the VALIDITY of the Sacrament.  I just thought it was an issue of legalities.
You are correct, it is an issue of legalities.

As Mith posted, the law taught at Trent does not mean the sacrament was invalid, rather without jurisdiction absolution simply does not happen. The Church does not want imposters dressed up as priests, or priests who are under censure or whatever to hear confessions. The Church only permits priests that the bishop personally consents to and knows about and grants him the jurisdiction to hear confessions.  
 
My copy of that says: "Wherefore, since the nature and order of a judgment require this, that sentence be passed only on those subject (to that judicature), it has ever been firmly held in the Church of God, and this Synod ratifies it as a thing most true, that the absolution, which a priest pronounces upon one over whom he has not either an ordinary or a deligated jurisdiction, ought to be of no weight whatever."