|
Post by Pacelli on Nov 15, 2022 12:26:08 GMT -5
Can you express the difference for me.( seriously..Im missing something) Yes of course. It's one thing to argue that jurisdiction is supplied because the non-authority, such as Francis, (or the bishops in the same situation), grants it, since most Catholics still at least nominally believe his papal claim, and think he may grant it, creating a common error. Its quite another thing to say that jurisdiction is supplied even when the recognized non-authority does not grant it. In this case, how is there a common error, when all agree that no one granted it, not even a non-authority who is regarded as the true authority? What Fr. Kramer is arguing in that statement is saying that since jurisdiction is being denied to some priests by the antipope, that the Church will supply for what Francis is denying them. The problem for this argument is that there is no common error here, as all commonly know that these priests did not receive jurisdiction from an authority, or even a perceived authority, so there is no common error. If you have some time, I would urge reading Miaskiewicz on this. I know it's long, but it's thorough and his dissertation makes a very complex matter easy to comprehend. It's the best treatment on supplied jurisdiction, that can be found in English: tradcath.proboards.com/thread/1268/supplied-jurisdiction-canon-miaskiewicz-1940
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Nov 15, 2022 15:29:42 GMT -5
Am I right to say then ...they do not have jurisdiction...but they still have sacramental faculties? Even if the antipope forbids?
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Nov 16, 2022 9:09:49 GMT -5
Am I right to say then ...they do not have jurisdiction...but they still have sacramental faculties? Even if the antipope forbids? This is a very complex matter, so I will answer what I think you are asking in addition to what you are asking. 1. If the antipope or his non-bishops, since the are the commonly accepted authority grants jurisdiction or an office or in an other way use their non office, the act would be supplied by the Church due to common error. This of course presumes that the act is not against the common good. 2. If the antipope or the non-bishops do not grant faculties to a priest, nothing happens. There is no act to attract the supply of jurisdiction. 3. Supplied jurisdiction supplies for an act that requires jurisdiction, but the person doing the act has no jurisdiction, office, faculties from the Church to fulfill the act. The Church is very specific as to the conditions which must be present for this to happen, and if they are not present, the Church does not supply. 4. Now, with all that said, there is a different canon that I believe most traditionalist priests (not speaking of SSPX here, they are a different category) rely on, whether they realize it or not, in order to hear confessions. This is canon 882, and it is not a canon that has anything to do with supplied jurisdiction, as is canon 209. This canon grants all validly ordained priests, and amazingly even schismatics, (that's how generous the Church is) the jurisdiction to hear confessions in a danger of death. Theologians and canonists have held different views on how far this danger could be extended as far as what constitutes it. In my opinion, most Catholics that go to traditional chapels, do not believe they will run into an authorized confessor for a long time, and probably many of them are correct, so if that's why you are asking about faculties, I hope that answers what I think you are getting at.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Nov 16, 2022 11:50:27 GMT -5
Well my thought was that maybe Father is conflating these issues himself...in the context of the FB discussion the question was about attending latin masses if a Pope forbids it
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Nov 16, 2022 18:24:43 GMT -5
Well my thought was that maybe Father is conflating these issues himself...in the context of the FB discussion the question was about attending latin masses if a Pope forbids it It could be, the mass is entirely different question than jurisdiction.
|
|