I was wondering if someone can help me or point me in the right direction as far as jurisdiction and what it applies to.
I have heard it before that a Priest only needs jurisdiction to hear confession and bless marriages though they do not need it to say Mass. Therefore if someone had a problem with the jurisdiction of the SSPX and they did not recognise their supplied jurisdiction, they could attend their Masses but not go to their Priests for confession or marriage. Is this the case?
Any references would be appreciated thanks.
All the Priests of the anti-modernist resistance, be they of the sedevacantist persuasion or not, cannot arrogate to themselves the possession of any jurisdiction as if it were habitual or delegated, but they
exercise the jurisdiction that the Church herself supplies them during those individual instances wherein the spiritual welfare of the faithful demand it.
The Sacred Canons are still in force, contrary to what some have posited, and it is by operation of ecclesiastical law itself that supplied jurisdiction is given to individual clerics in each individual instance wherein the spiritual welfare of the faithful demands it (at the Confessional, the benediction and imposition of Scapulars and other Sacramentals, etc.). This process is
ipso facto because the Church is always to be a perfect society, though at the moment it is truly acephalous because of the vacancy of the Apostolic See (or the noxious reign of a "bad Pope" according to the non-sedevacantists).
The problematic predicament of the traditionalist clergy contextualized by the Sacred Canons is a reality that cannot be ignored, and one whereupon the clergy ought to reflect so that they may attain to that selfless courage and humility that will enable them to progress in the cultivation of their interior life and thereby be guided by influence the theological virtues and of the gifts of the Holy Ghost more than by self or whatever conglomerate to which they adhere.
The reality is that the
clerici acephali, the
episcopi vagantes, of our day may have ostensibly imperiled their salvation in risking the possibility of incurring serious censures and scandal, as well as committing sacrilege and mortal sin in having attained to the sacred Episcopacy contrary to the norms of Canon Law (cf. Can. 953: “
Consecratio episcopalis reservatur Romano Pontifice ita ut nulli Episcopo liceat quemquam consecrare in Episcopum, nisi prius constet de pontificio mandato;” Can. 2370: “
Episcopus aliquem consecrans in Episcopum, Episcopi vel, loco Episcoporum, pres-byteri assistentes, et qui consecrationem recipit sine apostolico mandato contra praescriptum Can. 953, ipso iure suspensi sunt, donec Sedes Apostolica eos dispensaverit"), for they have been consecrated as Bishops, and have themselves consecrated other Bishops, without Apostolic mandate.
Although, because of a salutary and necessary application of the principles of
epikeia, there is no moral culpability to be imputed to them in this regard, the fact remains that these Bishops and the clerics they have elevated to Sacred Orders have, strictly speaking, no proper ecclesiastical office nor ordinary jurisdiction (habitual or delegated) since they lack the requisite Canonical mission (cf. Can. 147: § 1.
Officium ecclesiasticuм nequit sine provisione canonica valide obtineri. § 2.
Nomine canonicae provisionis venit concessio officii ecclesiastici a competente auctoritate ecclesiastica ad normam sacrorum canonum facta).
It must be emphasized that the sacred Episcopate is subordinated unto the Supreme Pontiff in the order of jurisdiction (cf. 108, § 3: “
Ex divina institutione sacra hierarchia ratione ordinis constat Episcopis, pres-byteris et ministris; ratione iurisdictionis, pontificatu supremo et episcopatu subordinato; ex Ecclesiae autem institutione alii quoque gradus accesere” [emphasis mine]; Can. 109: “
Qui in ecclesiasticam hierarchiam cooptantur, non ex populi vel potestatis saecularis consensu aut vocatione adleguntur; sed in gradibus potestatis ordinis constituuntur sacra ordinatione; in supremo pontificatu, ipsomet iure divino, adimpleta conditione legitimae electionis eiusdemque acceptationis; in reliquis gradibus iurisdictionis, canonica missione” [emphasis mine]).
Although the Bishops are truly doctors and teachers for those souls whose pastoral care they have undertaken or have been given, this is only so by reason of the authority of the Pope since the magisterial authority of the Bishops, whether collectively or singly, is dependent upon the jurisdictional and magisterial primacy of the Sovereign Pontiff (cf. Can. 1326: "
Episcopi quoque, licet singuli vel etiam in Conciliis particularibus congregati infabillitate docendi non polleant, fidelium tamen suis curis commissorum, sub auctoritate Romani Pontificis, veri doctores seu magistri sunt” [emphasis mine]).
Moreover, Holy Mother Church, since the Sacred Council of Trent (Session XXIII,
De reformatione, caps. 11, 13, 16), has ordained that all clergy are to be incardinated into a diocese or ingress unto Holy Religion (cf. Can. 111, § 1: “
Quemlibet clericuм oportet esse vel alicui dioecesi vel alicui religioni adscriptum, ita ut clerici vagi nullatenus admittantur” [emphasis mine]).
One must therefore conclude that all the present day traditionalist clerics are
clerici vagi.
Supplied jurisdiction given by the Church in the various individual instances wherein acts that are necessary for the spiritual welfare of the faithful need to be performed in both the internal and external fora are
all that the present-day clerics can claim solely relying on the prudent application of the principles of
epikeia. In going any further than this, they risk transgressing the limitations of their limited competence (in order of ecclesiastical authority) and exacerbate their problematic Canonical predicament all the more.
It is precisely because the present day clerics do not have a Canonical mission that they cannot publicly bind individual consciences to their private opinions or practical judgments, save insofar as they conform with the doctrines and customs sanctioned by Holy Mother Church. Nor can they ascribe to themselves the dignities and prerogatives of the Bishops and Priests that ruled over the faithful in ages past by authority of the Supreme Pontiff.
Normally, the Bishops and Priests would be given unquestionable credibility and authority, but, precisely because the Roman Pontiff is presently out of the equation in the practical order (according to the sedevacantists), such can no longer be the case. In doing otherwise, one would perhaps substantiate the anti-sedevacantists' claims that the sedevacantist faithful discard the reverence and veneration due to the Papacy alone, whilst adhering to the vagrant clerics in an irony that is absurdly bereft of the
sensus Catholicus.
To assert the contrary would be erroneous and obscene. Just because the Johannine-Pauline structures cannot be identified with the
Ecclesia Christi, does not necessitate resorting to historicist and revisionist interpretations of what the theologians have taught in order to assuage those doubts that continue to haunt us.
Here is what another layman has to say on the subject:
The traditional clergy act out of charity. A properly "sent" cleric acts out of justice. We are obliged to obey canonically regular clergy, we have no such obligation to "traditional" clergy. The fact that most people have no notion of this doesn't make it any less true.
I am sure that the "respectable" clergy are following their consciences and have true vocations. But the whole point is that in each case we have to make a judgement, don't we?
We do not have the assurance of the Church that each and every priest or bishop has a true vocation, and has received the requisite training (in fact, we know that many of them didn't receive the requisite training, since they told us so themselves!), and most importantly was received into the ranks of the clergy by the public authority of the Church herself and given a mission.
That is what is lacking. And that is why we have to form our own judgements about each of them and assure ourselves that they are good priests or bishops whom we trust with our souls and those of our children.
It's a state of emergency. Somewhat organised chaos!
Being "sent" is receiving not just the approval of the Church, but the authorisation to act in her name. So these men cannot act in the name of the Church in the way that a priest with a mission does. They cannot issue commands which we must obey; they cannot preach in the technical sense of that word - that is, they can act as informal witnesses to the faith, as any layman does when he professes the faith, but they cannot "promulgate" the faith as a law, which is what a pastor does.
Therefore, the expulsion of Bishop Williamson cannot be justified by the application of the Sacred Canons, nor can Bishop Fellay arrogate to himself the authority to have the District Superiors to order the faithful regarding such matters as what to do when they attend a Low Mass.
Topic: SSPX jurisdiction? (Read 1225 times)