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

« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4

Author Topic: Validity of Confessions  (Read 2980 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline SeanJohnson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15060
  • Reputation: +10006/-3163
  • Gender: Male
Re: Validity of Confessions
« Reply #15 on: April 20, 2023, 07:18:20 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Ladislaus on April 20, 2023, 07:09:25 PM
    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).

    Physical death is analogous to spiritual death.
    Logged
    Rom 5: 20 - "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 47293
    • Reputation: +28010/-5228
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Validity of Confessions
    « Reply #16 on: April 20, 2023, 07:20:44 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: 6 Million Oreos on April 20, 2023, 07:16:36 PM
    Common error is enough to supply a priest the necessary jurisdiction to hear confessions.

    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.

    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.
    Logged

    Offline 6 Million Oreos

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 36
    • Reputation: +15/-11
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Validity of Confessions
    « Reply #17 on: April 20, 2023, 07:23:21 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Ladislaus on April 20, 2023, 07:17:07 PM
      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.

    L0L
    Logged

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 47293
    • Reputation: +28010/-5228
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Validity of Confessions
    « Reply #18 on: April 20, 2023, 07:23:39 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: SeanJohnson on April 20, 2023, 07:18:20 PM
    Physical death is analogous to spiritual death.

    That's not what Canon Law declares.  Everyone who's not in a state of grace is already in "spiritual death".  But this does not mean that at any time prior to Vatican II you could just grab any excommunicated priest and request Confession.  SSPX butchered "any just cause" when it referred to other Sacraments outside of Confession, which it explicitly states can only be done in danger of real (physical) death.

    Does going to the SSPX priest for Confession cause a danger of spiritual death?
    Logged

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 47293
    • Reputation: +28010/-5228
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Validity of Confessions
    « Reply #19 on: April 20, 2023, 07:28:48 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Most Canon Law exceptions are SITUATIONAL only.

    If it's in fact the case that Jorge is the true pope and he has granted SSPX jurisdiction for Confessions, I submit that if you have ready access to an SSPX priest, one cannot validly receive absolution from a non-SSPX Traditional priest without jurisdiction.  No matter how I turn this over, I can't find a compelling reason why this would be valid.

    Now, if Jorge at al. are really Antipopes and couldn't provide any more jurisdiction than Father Cekada's Aunt Helen could, that's a different story altogether.

    If you're a sedeprivationist, the answer is somewhere in between probably.
    Logged

    Offline 6 Million Oreos

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 36
    • Reputation: +15/-11
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Validity of Confessions
    « Reply #20 on: April 20, 2023, 07:32:41 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Ladislaus on April 20, 2023, 07:20:44 PM
    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.

    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.
    I know that's not the question. That's because the question is asinine.

    Common Error allows priests to hear confessions when they don't have faculties either way. So who cares about the original question anyway when we all know that it is going to devolve into the same unsolvable ecclesiological debate?

    Logged

    Offline Emile

    • Supporter
    • ****
    • Posts: 2480
    • Reputation: +1925/-136
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Validity of Confessions
    « Reply #21 on: April 20, 2023, 07:33:40 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Great topic!
    Interesting points, citing Benedict XIV, in Fr. Woywod's article:

    "...,it is certain that Confirmation given by a priest in virtue of delegation by a bishop is null and void."

    "it is the consent of the Supreme Authority, tacit or explicit, that gives priests power to confirm."


    https://archive.org/details/sim_homiletic-pastoral-review_1938-05_38_8/page/846/mode/1up


    Edit:
    :facepalm: Sorry, meant to post in other thread!
    Logged
    “It's easy to be a naive idealist. It's easy to be a cynical realist. It's quite another thing to have no illusions and still hold the inner flame.”
     M.-L. von Franz

    Offline mcollier

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 163
    • Reputation: +88/-9
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Validity of Confessions
    « Reply #22 on: April 20, 2023, 07:35:27 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • The SSPX is joining/has joined the schismatic Conciliar sect of modernists. The Resistance is all about resisting this heresy and holding fast to the Catholic faith. There is more at issue here than the validity of the priest or if they SSPX were given jurisdiction to hear confessions from the heretic Bergolio.

    The issue is do you choose to remain Catholic and let God answer the question about what happens to these heretical churchmen? 
    Logged

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 15060
    • Reputation: +10006/-3163
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Validity of Confessions
    « Reply #23 on: April 20, 2023, 07:40:09 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • This whole thread is nonsense, in light of the confirmation thread having reached a consensus that a priest cannot validly confirm without delegation.
    Logged
    Rom 5: 20 - "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    Offline Angelus

    • Supporter
    • ***
    • Posts: 1309
    • Reputation: +595/-112
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Validity of Confessions
    « Reply #24 on: April 20, 2023, 09:00:23 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Ladislaus on April 20, 2023, 06:57:42 PM
    :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):

    Quote
    Quote
    To hear confessions validly it is required that jurisdiction be expressly granted in writing or orally.

    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.

    1917 Canon Law always has escape clauses that allows those things that are for necessary for the salvation of souls. Canon Law is not a spiritual ѕυιcιdє pact.

    As I said, except for sins specifically reserved to the Bishop or the Apostolic See, all traditionally-ordained Priests can validly absolve when the faithful "reasonably ask for them to be heard." And in the danger of death, reserved cases do not matter.
    Logged

    Offline Plenus Venter

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1604
    • Reputation: +1299/-100
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Validity of Confessions
    « Reply #25 on: April 20, 2023, 09:19:12 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • “In order to save the fundamental laws of the Church, we are forced not to observe certain particular laws. In all of this who is right, who is wrong? Clearly right are those who pursue the mission of the Church. The particular laws are made to support the fundamental laws, which is the salvation of souls, for the glory of God, for the continuation of the Church. It is perfectly clear…

    “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)…

    “This is why we must absolutely maintain our traditional line, in spite of the appearance of disobedience and the persecutions of those who use their authority in an unjust and often illegal manner…

    “…the progressive priests challenge us whenever they can, saying: "You do not have the jurisdiction, you do not have the right to hear confessions." Soon everything that we do would be invalid according to them. It is almost as if to say that our Mass would be accused of being invalid. This is the state of mind among those fanatical progressives who oppose and insult us. We must not hesitate in responding that it is necessary to take advantage of the laws of the Church which the Church permits in exceptional circuмstances of extreme gravity.

    “God knows that we are confronted with those circuмstances!”

    -  Archbishop Lefebvre, Priests Retreat, Econe, September 1986


    Logged

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 47293
    • Reputation: +28010/-5228
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Validity of Confessions
    « Reply #26 on: April 20, 2023, 09:40:01 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Plenus Venter on April 20, 2023, 09:19:12 PM
    “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)…

    Unfortunately, this is false.  We've already looked at Canon 2261.
    Logged

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 47293
    • Reputation: +28010/-5228
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Validity of Confessions
    « Reply #27 on: April 20, 2023, 09:43:01 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • But my opinion is that the Church in General is in such crisis that the Church (i.e., Christ) is supplying jurisdiction for the necessary Sacraments very broadly to those priests who remain Catholic, since the Conciliar Church is not the Catholic Church and are withholding "jurisdiction" from orthodox Catholics priests as persecution for them resisting their false religion.

    But let's not butcher Canon Law here to pretend that there's some kind of "NORMAL" canonical justification for this.  We are not in a normal time and the Church is supplying jurisdiction ad salutem animarum.  Canon Law was designed to govern the NORMAL functioning of the Church under normal and ordinary circuмstances, and the Church has had a history of dispensing whenever the good of the faithful commends it, from those citations from the Catechism of Trent encouring priests to administer Confirmations in mission territories, etc.  That has always been the mind of the Church.  To act as if Canon Law were the same as Divine Law in abnormal situations is to have a bit of a Pharisaical attitude.  It's always been the mind of the Church that the superme law is the salvation of souls.  Under normal circuмstances, the order imposed by Canon Law is conducive to the right order of the Church, but in these times God will not use it as an obstacle to carry out the mission of the Church, which is the salvation of souls.
    Logged

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 47293
    • Reputation: +28010/-5228
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Validity of Confessions
    « Reply #28 on: April 20, 2023, 09:50:03 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Angelus on April 20, 2023, 09:00:23 PM
    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.

    You need to stop attempting to mansplain stuff constantly when you're shown serious ignorance on other topics.  Can you even read?  This is a reference to PASTORS and others who have received the TASK (by appiontment) of taking care of souls.  Your "analysis" isn't even close to being over the target.

    But, to my point, this isn't a question of Canon Law, which is mean to govern the right order of the Church in ordinary normal circuмstances and assumes a normally-functioning hierarchy and Church.
    Logged

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 47293
    • Reputation: +28010/-5228
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Validity of Confessions
    « Reply #29 on: April 20, 2023, 09:53:26 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: SeanJohnson on April 20, 2023, 07:40:09 PM
    This whole thread is nonsense, in light of the confirmation thread having reached a consensus that a priest cannot validly confirm without delegation.

    Confirmation thread is wrong an idiotic, and if there's no valid Confirmation, then the Confessions are invalid also.  There's zero difference, your idiotic distinction between jurisdiction and delegation notwithstanding.

    And, no this thread isn't nonsense because you don't want to face reality.  Based on Canon Law alone, there's zero justification for going to Confession to a Resistance priest when you have access to an SSPX priest who does have jurisdiction.  Zero.

    Really, the only justification is the abnormal times in which we live and the nature of Canon Law (as per my posts above).  In that case, however, the same goes for Confirmation.

    This is absolutely typical of you.  You have some emotional attachment to a prior opinion and not rational argument is capable of wresting it from your brain, like a toddler who refuses to let go of a pacifier.
    Logged
    Pages: 1 [2] 3 4
    « previous next »