So here's a scenario to ponder (thought occurred to me on the thread about Confirmation ... though I've thought about this before).
Let's say that I believe that Jorge is the Pope. Now let's say that I have two chapels near me, one SSPX and the other Resistance (or Independent R&R of some kind ... not to mention SV alternatives).
Can I receive valid absolution from the Resistance priest when I could just as well go to the SSPX priest? SSPX priest has jurisdiction to validly absolve (from Pope Jorge). But the Resistance priest does not. Why is there a sufficient necessity there for me to go to a priest without jurisdiction when I could go to one that has it? If I go to the Resistance priest without such necessity, would I validly receive absolution?
(https://media.tenor.com/4OTDjhkTX7UAAAAM/jeopardy-theme.gif)
Is the "necessity" broadly in place due to the general state of extreme Crisis in the Church or is it situational?
That is the underlying question here.
So here's a scenario to ponder (thought occurred to me on the thread about Confirmation ... though I've thought about this before).Given the Resistance priest is much more likely to be a valid priest, I don't think one needs to worry about choosing SSPX.
Let's say that I believe that Jorge is the Pope. Now let's say that I have two chapels near me, one SSPX and the other Resistance (or Independent R&R of some kind ... not to mention SV alternatives).
Can I receive valid absolution from the Resistance priest when I could just as well go to the SSPX priest? SSPX priest has jurisdiction to validly absolve (from Pope Jorge). But the Resistance priest does not. Why is there a sufficient necessity there for me to go to a priest without jurisdiction when I could go to one that has it? If I go to the Resistance priest without such necessity, would I validly receive absolution?
(https://media.tenor.com/4OTDjhkTX7UAAAAM/jeopardy-theme.gif)
Given the Resistance priest is much more likely to be a valid priest, I don't think one needs to worry about choosing SSPX.What would make a resistance priest more valid than an sspx priest
What would make a resistance priest more valid than an sspx priestThe fact that there are more and more NO priests that are not conditionally ordained in the Old Rite. The fact that it's looking much more likely that the SSPX will now have New Rite bishops ordaining priests.
So here's a scenario to ponder (thought occurred to me on the thread about Confirmation ... though I've thought about this before).
Let's say that I believe that Jorge is the Pope. Now let's say that I have two chapels near me, one SSPX and the other Resistance (or Independent R&R of some kind ... not to mention SV alternatives).
Can I receive valid absolution from the Resistance priest when I could just as well go to the SSPX priest? SSPX priest has jurisdiction to validly absolve (from Pope Jorge). But the Resistance priest does not. Why is there a sufficient necessity there for me to go to a priest without jurisdiction when I could go to one that has it? If I go to the Resistance priest without such necessity, would I validly receive absolution?
(https://media.tenor.com/4OTDjhkTX7UAAAAM/jeopardy-theme.gif)
The fact that there are more and more NO priests that are not conditionally ordained in the Old Rite. The fact that it's looking much more likely that the SSPX will now have New Rite bishops ordaining priests.So, faculties from the local ordinary is never required? It has never been required that priests to receive their ministry from the local ordinary to preach or give valid absolution even when the circuмstances are reasonably be labeled as not an state of emergency?
Bottom line: The Resistance doesn't have any of this going on...that I know of or heard of. As a sedevacantist, if they were my only choices and I knew nothing about the priests other than their affiliations, I would choose the Resistance priest hands down.
Given the Resistance priest is much more likely to be a valid priest, I don't think one needs to worry about choosing SSPX.
Your question implicitly assumes a false premise: namely, that a true, traditionally-ordained sacerdotal priest cannot validly absolve without permission from a Bishop. This is false.
To hear confessions validly it is required that jurisdiction be expressly granted in writing or orally.
According to the SSPX itself, it doesn't matter:
"In brief, as long as the extreme necessity of the individual or the grave necessity of many demands it, one can lawfully, indeed, one must under pain of mortal sin do all that he is able to do validly in virtue of the power of order. The necessary jurisdiction is acquired at the request of souls. The 1917 Code of Canon Law (can. 2261, §§2,3) states that the faithful can "on account of any just cause" demand the sacraments from an excommunicated priest [whom the Church has deprived of jurisdiction] and at that time the one excommunicated, so requested, can administer them. Fr. Hugueny, O.P. remarks that "the demand [of the faithful] gives to the excommunicated priest the power of administering the sacraments."[30] This means that, in necessity, the exercise of the power of order to the full extent necessary is called into act not by the will of the hierarchical superior, but directly by the state of necessity. "The action otherwise prohibited... is rendered licit and permitted by the state of necessity...And Pope Innocent XI, cutting off every argument on the subject, establishes definitively that in necessity the Church supplies jurisdiction lacking even to heretical, infamous, and excommunicated vitandi priests."
http://archives.sspx.org/1988_consecrations_study/1988_consecrations_theological_study_part_3.htm
But from a banned excommunicate and from others excommunicated after a condemnatory
or declaratory sentence has come, only the faithful in danger of death can ask for sacramental
absolution according to the norm of Canons 882 and 2252 and even, if other ministers are lacking,
other Sacraments and Sacramentals.
In danger of death all priests and bishops, even those not approved for confessions, validly and
licitly absolve all penitents whatsoever of all sins and censures whatsoever, no matter how reserved
or notorious, even if there is present an approved priest, with due regard for the prescription of
Canons 884 and 2252.
To hear confessions validly it is required that jurisdiction be expressly granted in writing or orally.
Those constituted in danger of death can receive from a priest, without special faculties,
absolution from any censure of man or from a censure most specially reserved to the Apostolic See
:facepalm: I'm not assuming anything. I'm stating the well known fact that ordinarily a priest who lacks faculties cannot validly absolve without jurisdiction / faculties from his Bishop. Quesition is why it is permitted here in this scenario when there's no actual situational necessity due to there being a priest with faculties that one can easily go to for Confession.
Moral impossibility is one reason:
Many FSSP or diocesan priests will not hear your confession if they know you are an SSPXer (who they consider to be formal schismatics).
I was refused on this basis when I was transitioning between indult and SSPX.
Typical SSPX self-serving butchery of Canon Law. 2261-3 clearly states the following:
So let's have a look at 882 and 2252, shall we?
882:
Let's look at 3 Canons before 882, namely, 879:
2252:
It's rather pathetic that SSPX would attempt to cite 2 Canons indicating that IN DANGER OF DEATH the faithful might seek Sacramental absolution from a priest without jurisdiction.
So the "any just cause" Canon is specifically about the OTHER Sacraments, but then #3 says that for absolution they can only seek out a priest without jurisdiction IN DANGER OF DEATH. And 2261-3 indicates that the faithful may seek out such a priest only when OTHER MINISTERS ARE LACKING ... which is precisely the scenario presented here, where there is no OTHER MINISTER LACKING (and of course we're not talking about danger of death).
Common error is enough to supply a priest the necessary jurisdiction to hear confessions.
Even the "Danger of Death" provision in Canon Law states that one can only approach a priest w/o jurisdiction/faculties if no other minister (with jurisdiction) is available.Indeed. I believe Cajetan says that when you are on your deathbed, if you the visiting priest doesn't have faculties, and you know there to be one down the street who is equipped, you have to crawl to the other one.
Physical death is analogous to spiritual death.
That's not the question, and "Common Error" is another SSPX butchery of Canon Law. This term does not refer to "widespread Modernism" but, rather, a common reasonable belief that a priest has jurisdiction. So a priest from Cleveland takes a seat in a confessional in Chicago and starts hearing Confessions. Faithful start lining up to go to Confession. They have no reason to believe he doesn't have jurisdiction. So the reference in Canon Law about Common Error refers not to theological or doctrinal error but to error regarding the fact of whether a priest has the necessary jurisdiction to hear Confessions.I know that's not the question. That's because the question is asinine.
So, again, that's not the question. Question is whether IF YOU HAVE TWO VIABLE SOURCEs, i.e. an SSPX priest (with jurisdiction from Jorge) and a non-SSPX Priest (Resisitance or Other), you can go to the non-SSPX priest.
:facepalm: I'm not assuming anything. I'm stating the well known fact that ordinarily a priest who lacks faculties cannot validly absolve without jurisdiction / faculties from his Bishop. Quesition is why it is permitted here in this scenario when there's no actual situational necessity due to there being a priest with faculties that one can easily go to for Confession.
Canon 879 (retined in 1983 Code #973):
QuoteQuoteTo hear confessions validly it is required that jurisdiction be expressly granted in writing or orally.
“Now, even in its particular laws, the Church has had the wisdom to always include an open door for the salvation of souls. The Church has foreseen cases which could be extraordinary. This applies to the question of jurisdiction for confessions. Practically, it is the individual who seeks out the priest in order to receive the Sacrament of Penance who gives the priest the jurisdiction through the intermediary of the Code of Canon Law. Even if an individual were to seek out an excommunicated priest to hear his confession, this priest would receive the necessary jurisdiction (canon 2261)…
Here is Canon 892 (1917 CIC):
§ 1. Pastors and others to whom in virtue of their task is granted the care of souls are bound by the grave obligation in justice of hearing, themselves or through others, the confessions of the faithful committed to them, as long as they reasonably ask for them to be heard.
Lad, you have to understand how Canon Law works. Certain canons (like Canon 879 that you quoted) state things in apparently universal terms, but other canons limit the universality of the application of the Canon you quoted.
This whole thread is nonsense, in light of the confirmation thread having reached a consensus that a priest cannot validly confirm without delegation.
So here's a scenario to ponder (thought occurred to me on the thread about Confirmation ... though I've thought about this before).Are you suggesting that your personal belief that Bergoglio is the pope has any bearing whatsoever on the validity of confession?
Let's say that I believe that Jorge is the Pope. Now let's say that I have two chapels near me, one SSPX and the other Resistance (or Independent R&R of some kind ... not to mention SV alternatives).
Are you suggesting that your personal belief that Bergoglio is the pope has any bearing whatsoever on the validity of confession?
Typical SSPX self-serving butchery of Canon Law. 2261-3 clearly states the following:Ladislaus, I think you have read the Canon Law wrongly and misjudged the Archbishop and the SSPX. Please have another look:
So let's have a look at 882 and 2252, shall we?
882:
Let's look at 3 Canons before 882, namely, 879:
2252:
It's rather pathetic that SSPX would attempt to cite 2 Canons indicating that IN DANGER OF DEATH the faithful might seek Sacramental absolution from a priest without jurisdiction.
So the "any just cause" Canon is specifically about the OTHER Sacraments, but then #3 says that for absolution they can only seek out a priest without jurisdiction IN DANGER OF DEATH. And 2261-3 indicates that the faithful may seek out such a priest only when OTHER MINISTERS ARE LACKING ... which is precisely the scenario presented here, where there is no OTHER MINISTER LACKING (and of course we're not talking about danger of death).
So here's a scenario to ponder (thought occurred to me on the thread about Confirmation ... though I've thought about this before).I read the whole thread and some do not understand what you are saying.
Let's say that I believe that Jorge is the Pope. Now let's say that I have two chapels near me, one SSPX and the other Resistance (or Independent R&R of some kind ... not to mention SV alternatives).
Can I receive valid absolution from the Resistance priest when I could just as well go to the SSPX priest? SSPX priest has jurisdiction to validly absolve (from Pope Jorge). But the Resistance priest does not. Why is there a sufficient necessity there for me to go to a priest without jurisdiction when I could go to one that has it? If I go to the Resistance priest without such necessity, would I validly receive absolution?
Ladislaus, I think you have read the Canon Law wrongly and misjudged the Archbishop and the SSPX. Please have another look:
Canon 2261
(1983 CIC 1331, 1335)
§ 1. One excommunicated is prohibited from confecting and administering licitly the Sacraments and Sacramentals, except for the exceptions that follow.§ 2. The faithful, with due regard for the prescription of §3, can for any just cause seek the Sacraments and Sacramentals from one excommunicated, especially if other ministers are lacking, and then the one who is excommunicate and approached can administer these and is under no obligation of inquiring the reasons from the one requesting.§ 3. But from a banned excommunicate and from others excommunicated after a condemnatory or declaratory sentence has come, only the faithful in danger of death can ask for sacramental absolution according to the norm of Canons 882 and 2252 and even, if other ministers are lacking, other Sacraments and Sacramentals.
# 2 means exactly what it says, nothing whatsoever about "other sacraments" than absolution.
# 3 is referring specifically to particular types of "excommunicates": "banned" (vitandi), and those under a condemnatory or declaratory sentence.
Bouscaren and Ellis explain: "Except as provided in #3, the faithful can for any just cause ask for the sacraments and sacramentals, of one who is excommunicated, especially if there is no one else to give them; and in such cases the excommunicated person so asked may administer them, and is not obliged to ask the reason for the request (c.2261#2). But from an excommunicated vitandus, or one against whom there is a declaratory or condemnatory sentence, the faithful may only in danger of death ask for sacramental absolution according to canons 882, 2252, and also for other sacraments and sacramentals in case there is no one else to administer them (c. 2261, #3)".
Canon 2258:
#1. Some excommunicates are banned (Vitandi), others are tolerated (Tolerati).
#2. No one is banned unless so named as an excommunicate by the Apostolic See, the excommunication is publicly announced, and it is expressly stated in the decree or sentence that he must be avoided with due regard for the prescription of Canon 2343 #1, n1)
(FYI c2343 relates to laying violent hand on the Pope)
So, you can see the truth of Archbishop Lefebvre's explanation, which, note, was in 1986 and therefore was not intended as a justification of the situation in the SSPX after the Consecrations and "excommunications":
“Now, even in its particular laws, the Church has had the wisdom to always include an open door for the salvation of souls. The Church has foreseen cases which could be extraordinary. This applies to the question of jurisdiction for confessions. Practically, it is the individual who seeks out the priest in order to receive the Sacrament of Penance who gives the priest the jurisdiction through the intermediary of the Code of Canon Law. Even if an individual were to seek out an excommunicated priest to hear his confession, this priest would receive the necessary jurisdiction (canon 2261)…"
So, given the extraordinary crisis we are living through, I don't think too many Trads, of whatever variety, need to have any concerns regarding absolution from their sins (unless it is a question of validity of orders). "The faithful... can for any just cause seek the Sacraments and Sacramentals from one excommunicated", and let's face it, what bishop or priest in Tradition is validly excommunicated anyway? A just cause is certainly to keep the Faith. That is why the Resistance exists. That is why the Sedes are Sedes. That is why the SSPXers are SSPXers. That is why some float between the lot...
My advice to everyone, is to learn from the great prelate that God raised up to lead us in this crisis (ABL, of course!), and be less ready to be his judge!
So here's a scenario to ponder (thought occurred to me on the thread about Confirmation ... though I've thought about this before)..
Let's say that I believe that Jorge is the Pope. Now let's say that I have two chapels near me, one SSPX and the other Resistance (or Independent R&R of some kind ... not to mention SV alternatives).
Can I receive valid absolution from the Resistance priest when I could just as well go to the SSPX priest? SSPX priest has jurisdiction to validly absolve (from Pope Jorge). But the Resistance priest does not. Why is there a sufficient necessity there for me to go to a priest without jurisdiction when I could go to one that has it? If I go to the Resistance priest without such necessity, would I validly receive absolution?
(https://media.tenor.com/4OTDjhkTX7UAAAAM/jeopardy-theme.gif)
Your post seems to imply that the validity of confession can be dependent on the opinions of the penitentLikewise, the opinion of a priest on the pope does not make a mass sinful. But that's another matter.
We're assuming for the sake of argument that they're both valid. Despite some NO infiltration, 99% of SSPX priests are validly ordained.I re-read your OP. I think the main issue is whether the person going to confession considers the Conciliar Church (and those who it gives "jurisdiction" to) is actually the Catholic Church. I think if one does, then one would need to go to the SSPX priest.
You're quoting the 1983 code? :facepalm:I can only imagine you are addressing this to me, Pax?
I re-read your OP. I think the main issue is whether the person going to confession considers the Conciliar Church (and those who it gives "jurisdiction" to) is actually the Catholic Church. I think if one does, then one would need to go to the SSPX priest.
I re-read your OP. I think the main issue is whether the person going to confession considers the Conciliar Church (and those who it gives "jurisdiction" to) is actually the Catholic Church. I think if one does, then one would need to go to the SSPX priest.
I don’t know any resistance clergy or faithful who consider the conciliar church the Catholic Church.
That’s a +Fellay/neo-SSPX thing.
That aside, the notion that you must choose a priest with jurisdiction to hear confessions over one with supplied jurisdiction is unfounded.
Jurisdiction is jurisdiction, howsoever the priest obtained it.
I do not suppose that when St. Athanasius was excommunicated, he ceased hearing confessions on the grounds that there was an orthodox priest only 10 miles away, saying, “You must go to him. He still has jurisdiction, and therefore I can’t hear your confessions.”
Not so actually.
The classic R&R position holds that Francis and the ordinaries of the dioceses in communion with him to be obeyed when they act within their authority for the Faith, but not when their commands go against the Faith.
Then we have Fr. Chazal and the sedeprivationists that insists post-Conciliar popes have no authority whatsoever due to their heresies.
I don’t know any resistance clergy or faithful who consider the conciliar church the Catholic Church.St. Athanasius wasn't excommunicated by the Pope.
That’s a +Fellay/neo-SSPX thing.
That aside, the notion that you must choose a priest with jurisdiction to hear confessions over one with supplied jurisdiction is unfounded.
Jurisdiction is jurisdiction, howsoever the priest obtained it.
I do not suppose that when St. Athanasius was excommunicated, he ceased hearing confessions on the grounds that there was an orthodox priest only 10 miles away, saying, “You must go to him. He still has jurisdiction, and therefore I can’t hear your confessions.”
St. Athanasius wasn't excommunicated by the Pope.