turin
New Member
Posts: 45
|
Post by turin on Jul 28, 2017 18:04:43 GMT -5
I've been researching the validity of the new rite of priestly and episcopal consecration more in depth lately. The purpose of this thread is not to start a debate on that. For the purpose of this question I am assuming that the new rite is at least of dubious validity.
What happens when people, as a result of in common error, make confessions to invalidly, or doubtfully ordained, priests? Does the principle of "the church supplies" apply here as it does in cases of common error with regards to faculties? Should the absolution be assumed to be valid or invalid?
Of course if one knows better then one should not go to priests of doubtful validity, but if one has in the past, should those sins be re-confessed?
I ask this question because throughout my life I've confessed to a multitude of priests, from the SSPX, FSSP (ordained old rite by new rite bishops), old rite diocesan, new rite diocesan, and Ukrainian rite.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Jul 28, 2017 19:51:33 GMT -5
I've been researching the validity of the new rite of priestly and episcopal consecration more in depth lately. The purpose of this thread is not to start a debate on that. For the purpose of this question I am assuming that the new rite is at least of dubious validity. What happens when people, as a result of in common error, make confessions to invalidly, or doubtfully ordained, priests? Does the principle of "the church supplies" apply here as it does in cases of common error with regards to faculties? Should the absolution be assumed to be valid or invalid? Of course if one knows better then one should not go to priests of doubtful validity, but if one has in the past, should those sins be re-confessed? I ask this question because throughout my life I've confessed to a multitude of priests, from the SSPX, FSSP (ordained old rite by new rite bishops), old rite diocesan, new rite diocesan, and Ukrainian rite. This is an excellent question and a very complex one. There are many issues at play, not just the validity of the priest, which is one factor, but also there is the issue of whether he has the faculties (authorization) to hear confessions. The Church can supply the necessary jurisdiction under certain conditions as well. Fwiw, I can tell you what I do. I go to validly ordained priests who have authorization to hear confessions given to them by the Catholic Church. These faculties were given to them by legitimate bishops. I would also go to validly ordained and commissioned eastern rite priests who have the faculties to hear confessions. Some believe that traditional priests have the jurisdiction supplied to them to hear confessions, basing it on the danger of death argument. I am not sure about this argument, and I simply don't want to offer advice on this disputed question, other than to say that what I do is what I believe is the safest course. Regarding men ordained through the Paul VI lines, (men ordained as a priest through the 1968 rite, or ordained by a bishop who was consecrated through the 1968 rite, even in cases where the bishop uses the traditional ordination rite), I would never go to them for confession, as these rites are suspect as to their validity, and in my opinion, all in this category must be avoided for the sacraments until the Church settles the matter.
|
|
|
Post by micah1199 on Jul 28, 2017 19:55:29 GMT -5
would you ever confess to a traditional priest such as a SSPX priest or say Bishop Sanborn?
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Jul 28, 2017 19:56:08 GMT -5
would you ever confess to a traditional priest such as a SSPX priest or say Bishop Sanborn? Only if I were dying.
|
|
|
Post by micah1199 on Jul 28, 2017 19:57:19 GMT -5
Does John Lane believe as you do?
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Jul 28, 2017 20:01:03 GMT -5
Does John Lane believe as you do? No
|
|
|
Post by micah1199 on Jul 28, 2017 20:03:24 GMT -5
He must have written contra your opinion then. Why do you think his reasons are insufficient?
|
|
|
Post by micah1199 on Jul 28, 2017 20:04:16 GMT -5
Or the reasons that he cites by the theologians as he always uses them?
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Jul 28, 2017 20:10:34 GMT -5
He must have written contra your opinion then. Why do you think his reasons are insufficient? You can find Mr. Lanes reasons on this thread: www.strobertbellarmine.net/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1301As I said above, I remain unsure of the argument, meaning that I do not have moral certainty that it is a legitimate argument. If the Church envisioned the danger of death as a situation that could be stretched as far as it has been, then what would prevent one from going to a schismatic "orthodox" priest in our times, any time we like?
|
|
|
Post by micah1199 on Jul 28, 2017 20:15:03 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by micah1199 on Jul 28, 2017 20:15:20 GMT -5
What fault do you find with it?
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Jul 28, 2017 20:30:21 GMT -5
I never said I disagreed, only that I remain unconvinced. I am not telling you what to do.
|
|
|
Post by micah1199 on Jul 28, 2017 20:34:38 GMT -5
Thier can only be one correct answer. Either you are correct or they are correct.
|
|
|
Post by micah1199 on Jul 28, 2017 20:47:15 GMT -5
If you are correct, then the number of the damned would be even greater as all the traditionalists of good will going to traditional priests for absolution would be sinning or at least not really being absolved and might be going to hundreds or even thousands of communions in a state of sin.
|
|
recusant
Approved Cath Resource contributor
Posts: 86
|
Post by recusant on Jul 28, 2017 21:12:11 GMT -5
He must have written contra your opinion then. Why do you think his reasons are insufficient? You can find Mr. Lanes reasons on this thread: www.strobertbellarmine.net/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1301As I said above, I remain unsure of the argument, meaning that I do not have moral certainty that it is a legitimate argument. If the Church envisioned the danger of death as a situation that could be stretched as far as it has been, then what would prevent one from going to a schismatic "orthodox" priest in our times, any time we like? This is a good question Pacelli. I believe that the answer is that one may only approach an Orthodox priest when one is in *imminent* danger of death. The danger of death argument only allows one to go a priest who is a Catholic, never to an Orthodox one.
|
|