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

Author Topic: Validity of Confessions  (Read 2987 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline TKGS

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5855
  • Reputation: +4697/-490
  • Gender: Male
Re: Validity of Confessions
« Reply #30 on: April 20, 2023, 10:09:16 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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).

    Are you suggesting that your personal belief that Bergoglio is the pope has any bearing whatsoever on the validity of confession?

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 47302
    • Reputation: +28011/-5228
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Validity of Confessions
    « Reply #31 on: April 20, 2023, 11:02:51 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Are you suggesting that your personal belief that Bergoglio is the pope has any bearing whatsoever on the validity of confession?

    No, but it would inform whether or not in good conscience one might approach the priest in this scenario for Confession.  Someone who believes NO priests are not doubful might receive Holy Communion from a Mass by an un-conditionally-ordained NO priest, whereas someone who has positive doubt about it would not.


    Offline Plenus Venter

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1604
    • Reputation: +1299/-100
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Validity of Confessions
    « Reply #32 on: April 21, 2023, 02:03:02 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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).
    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!

    Offline Stubborn

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 14921
    • Reputation: +6189/-917
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Validity of Confessions
    « Reply #33 on: April 21, 2023, 05:31:13 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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?
    I read the whole thread and some do not understand what you are saying.

    Whether the pope is the pope or not does not change the fact that we live in a crisis of faith, granting all valid trad priests supplied jurisdiction. The pope granting SSPX jurisdiction is merely stating or confirming what (most?) trads already knew. 





    "But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men." - Acts 5:29

    The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man" - Fr. Hesse

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 15060
    • Reputation: +10006/-3163
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Validity of Confessions
    « Reply #34 on: April 21, 2023, 05:37:44 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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!

    He doesn’t want to understand anything that doesn’t affirm his narrative.

    Let him believe whatever he wants.
    Rom 5: 20 - "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."


    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 12767
    • Reputation: +8138/-2505
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Validity of Confessions
    « Reply #35 on: April 21, 2023, 08:57:22 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • You're quoting the 1983 code?  :facepalm:

    Offline Yeti

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 4164
    • Reputation: +2437/-528
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Validity of Confessions
    « Reply #36 on: April 21, 2023, 09:13:09 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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?


    .

    Your post seems to imply that the validity of confession can be dependent on the opinions of the penitent on things like ecclesiology and canon law. I kind of doubt that's the case. The only acts of the penitent required for confession are an examination of conscience, accurate confession of sin, and things like that. As far as I know. :cowboy:

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 12767
    • Reputation: +8138/-2505
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Validity of Confessions
    « Reply #37 on: April 21, 2023, 09:22:21 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote
    Your post seems to imply that the validity of confession can be dependent on the opinions of the penitent
    Likewise, the opinion of a priest on the pope does not make a mass sinful.  But that's another matter.

    Lads point is that the faithful can't just go to any priest for confession/mass.  Jurisdiction does apply to all catholics.  In saner times, everyone belonged to a parish and you had to obey your parish priest above all others.  You were not allowed to church-hop to find a priest you liked.  V2 destroyed all of this.


    Offline 2Vermont

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 11527
    • Reputation: +6478/-1195
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Validity of Confessions
    « Reply #38 on: April 21, 2023, 11:03:49 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.

    Offline Plenus Venter

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1604
    • Reputation: +1299/-100
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Validity of Confessions
    « Reply #39 on: April 21, 2023, 07:22:01 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • You're quoting the 1983 code?  :facepalm:
    I can only imagine you are addressing this to me, Pax? 
    Certainly not, they are the Canons from the Pio-Benedictine Code, and it is not I who introduced them.
    There are, however, equivalents in the New Code.

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 12767
    • Reputation: +8138/-2505
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Validity of Confessions
    « Reply #40 on: April 21, 2023, 07:42:04 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Ok, my mistake.


    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 47302
    • Reputation: +28011/-5228
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Validity of Confessions
    « Reply #41 on: April 22, 2023, 08:27:33 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.

    Yes, absolutely.  I see no way around this.  I personally believe that the Church (i.e. Our Lord) is supplying jurisdiction to all Traditional Catholics priests in this horrific Crisis, and that normal Canon Law is not in effect, except where it's a reflection of Divine Law of course, when the good of souls is at stake.  But from the perspective of an individual's conscience, if a person believes that the Conciliar Church is the Catholic Church and the Conciliar hierarchy is the hierarchy, if you have access to a priest who has jurisdiction (i.e. an SSPX priest), you couldn't in good conscience go to a priest who lacks Bergoglian jurisdiction.

    There's a distinction here between the objective and the subjective.  I personally believe that it's objectively true that the Church supplies to all these priests, but subjectively the person can't in good consciences go to the non-jurisdictional priest.

    So, for instance, let's say, for the aske of argument that the NOM is valid.  But I have doubts about its validity.  Even though I'm wrong, because of my doubts I cannot receive Holy Communion consecrated at a NOM (except in danger of death when there's no alternative).  I've written aobout this scenario before.  I see a $100 bill on a table.  It's actually mine, but I had forgotten that it's mine and think it belongs to someone else.  If I take it, I commit the sin of theft, even though objectively speaking it's not theft.

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 15060
    • Reputation: +10006/-3163
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Validity of Confessions
    « Reply #42 on: April 22, 2023, 10:58:19 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.”
    Rom 5: 20 - "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    Offline trento

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 819
    • Reputation: +247/-144
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Validity of Confessions
    « Reply #43 on: April 22, 2023, 12:44:55 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 15060
    • Reputation: +10006/-3163
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Validity of Confessions
    « Reply #44 on: April 22, 2023, 01:05:42 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.

    Please specify which part of my post you are addressing.
    Rom 5: 20 - "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."