recusant
Approved Cath Resource contributor
Posts: 86
|
Post by recusant on Jul 28, 2017 21:18:23 GMT -5
Thier can only be one correct answer. Either you are correct or they are correct. Actually I don't see that they necessarily contradict each other. Both could be right. I'm inclined to believe that the supplied jurisdiction argument is the safer course.
|
|
|
Post by Clotilde on Jul 28, 2017 22:18:10 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. I was in that situation once. I am certain that because I confessed in good faith that I was forgiven and had made a good confession, that the act was supplied in such cases has been my understanding. I made a general confession later in life to give myself a clean slate after all of the confusion of the Novus Ordo.
|
|
|
Post by Clotilde on Jul 28, 2017 22:34:02 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. Not really. You are presuming culpability on the part of both priest and penitent in a specific scenario where it is clear to everyone that hearing confessions by traditionalist priests is not supplied. Secondly, you are assuming that God does not supply the graces for those who find themselves in these abnormal scenarios. Essentially, what you are saying is that God would allow Catholics, who love Him and have tried to confess their sins, to go to Hell over a mistake about identity or ability to discern what to do under abnormal circumstances. God is Merciful and Just. Even if we cannot know or agree upon the specifics until we again have a pope, we can know these things about God and trust in Him.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Jul 28, 2017 22:52:47 GMT -5
Thier can only be one correct answer. Either you are correct or they are correct. They are basing their view on an argument, I am not convinced of that argument. Yes, only one is correct, and the Church someday will hopefully resolve it.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Jul 28, 2017 22:55:41 GMT -5
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. All of the commentaries I have read state explicitly that canon 882 deals with the danger of death, not an imminent danger of death. What are you basing this on?
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Jul 29, 2017 6:51:06 GMT -5
Thier can only be one correct answer. Either you are correct or they are correct. There is a third and Pacelli answered it that way...he doesnt know for sure. Do you belive in the protestant concept of blessed assurance? Can a Soul be utterly confident they will go to heaven? Before judgment?
|
|
recusant
Approved Cath Resource contributor
Posts: 86
|
Post by recusant on Jul 29, 2017 7:56:36 GMT -5
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. All of the commentaries I have read state explicitly that canon 882 deals with the danger of death, not an imminent danger of death. What are you basing this on? Hi Pacelli, bear with me, I'm re reading John Daly's treatment of this subject. Off the top of my head, Canon 882 does say "all priests"..... "vaildly and licitly absolve any penitents from any sins.....", however the canonist Father Stephen Gomez has this to say on the subject with regard to danger of death: I need to revisit this subject as I may need to revise my opinion on the matter. Notice that he uses the term "point of death", so I may have misused the term "imminent danger of death".
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Jul 29, 2017 8:06:08 GMT -5
All of the commentaries I have read state explicitly that canon 882 deals with the danger of death, not an imminent danger of death. What are you basing this on? Hi Pacelli, bear with me, I'm re reading John Daly's treatment of this subject. Off the top of my head, Canon 882 does say "all priests"..... "vaildly and licitly absolve any penitents from any sins.....", however the canonist Father Stephen Gomez has this to say on the subject with regard to danger of death: I need to revisit this subject as I may need to revise my opinion on the matter. Notice that he uses the term "point of death", so I may have misused the term "imminent danger of death". Hi Recusant, Thanks for this. This subject came up a while back on here and I scanned Augustine's commentary on Canon 882. I think it's worth posting again in light of this discussion: tradcath.proboards.com/thread/672/canon-confession-danger-death-augustine
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Jul 29, 2017 8:11:52 GMT -5
Thier can only be one correct answer. Either you are correct or they are correct. There is a third and Pacelli answered it that way...he doesnt know for sure. Do you belive in the protestant concept of blessed assurance? Can a Soul be utterly confident they will go to heaven? Before judgment? Exactly. Thank you Vox. I don't know the answer, so I am only stating what I believe is the safer course. If anyone doesn't agree, and you are persuaded by the traditionalist arguments on supplied jurisdiction for confessions in our present circumstance, I am not going to tell you with any certainty that you are wrong.
|
|
|
Post by micah1199 on Jul 29, 2017 9:11:31 GMT -5
Thier can only be one correct answer. Either you are correct or they are correct. There is a third and Pacelli answered it that way...he doesnt know for sure. Do you belive in the protestant concept of blessed assurance? Can a Soul be utterly confident they will go to heaven? Before judgment? No, the council of Trent says that without a special revelation, we can't know if we have attained grace.
|
|
|
Post by micah1199 on Jul 29, 2017 9:13:07 GMT -5
Their are signs of being in the state of grace, but they are not iron clad you are going to heaven assurances.
|
|
|
Post by micah1199 on Jul 29, 2017 9:15:35 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. Not really. You are presuming culpability on the part of both priest and penitent in a specific scenario where it is clear to everyone that hearing confessions by traditionalist priests is not supplied. Secondly, you are assuming that God does not supply the graces for those who find themselves in these abnormal scenarios. Essentially, what you are saying is that God would allow Catholics, who love Him and have tried to confess their sins, to go to Hell over a mistake about identity or ability to discern what to do under abnormal circumstances. God is Merciful and Just. Even if we cannot know or agree upon the specifics until we again have a pope, we can know these things about God and trust in Him. I happen to agree with you and the supplied jurisdiction argument. I was just trying to suss out the practical effects if Pacelli was correct.
|
|
|
Post by kim on Jul 29, 2017 10:18:09 GMT -5
Very easy answer to this. You make a 'conditional' confession of your whole life doing as best you can to a priest ordained in the old rite---D/S, CMRI. This is what I did 2 years ago...
Making a conditional confession to an Eastern Catholic priest or an SSPX priest may be difficult as they accept the rites of Paul VI as valid and may see no need for this. For a long time the SSPX conditionally re-ordained Novus Ordo priests that came into their order but they now consider it optional. LeFebvre would be mortified.
|
|
|
Post by Clotilde on Jul 29, 2017 11:56:24 GMT -5
Not really. You are presuming culpability on the part of both priest and penitent in a specific scenario where it is clear to everyone that hearing confessions by traditionalist priests is not supplied. Secondly, you are assuming that God does not supply the graces for those who find themselves in these abnormal scenarios. Essentially, what you are saying is that God would allow Catholics, who love Him and have tried to confess their sins, to go to Hell over a mistake about identity or ability to discern what to do under abnormal circumstances. God is Merciful and Just. Even if we cannot know or agree upon the specifics until we again have a pope, we can know these things about God and trust in Him. I happen to agree with you and the supplied jurisdiction argument. I was just trying to suss out the practical effects if Pacelli was correct. I did that for you because you misunderstood what was being said. You are welcome.
|
|
turin
New Member
Posts: 45
|
Post by turin on Jul 29, 2017 12:19:57 GMT -5
Very easy answer to this. You make a 'conditional' confession of your whole life doing as best you can to a priest ordained in the old rite---D/S, CMRI. This is what I did 2 years ago... Making a conditional confession to an Eastern Catholic priest or an SSPX priest may be difficult as they accept the rites of Paul VI as valid and may see no need for this. For a long time the SSPX conditionally re-ordained Novus Ordo priests that came into their order but they now consider it optional. LeFebvre would be mortified. I would like to do a general confession just to make sure it's all cleared up but I only have access to a Ukrainian and sometimes to an SSPX priest. I don't think the Eastern Catholics do general confessions like we do but I could ask. I will probably just wait until I can get to a CMRI or other traditional priest and in the meantime continue confessing to the Ukrainian priest as normal. Thank you for your responses everyone.
|
|