|
Post by Pacelli on Jan 12, 2020 13:19:41 GMT -5
The following, “Cases in which the Suppletory Principle in Canon 209 is not Operative,” Rodriguez, Manuel was published, in the Jurist, Vol. XXIII, 1963, pp. 214-220. The usefulness of this article to our present crisis should be obvious, as I am not aware of any other article, at least in English, which specifically covers cases in which the suppletory principle is not operative. (A thank you to forum member, Wenceslav, who found and scanned this gem, and posted it on another forum.) PDF linked HERE
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Aug 6, 2023 15:13:25 GMT -5
Bump
I am bumping this thread as I believe it addresses some of the points that Sebastian's post brought up recently. When he was posting, I was having very busy days and didn't get much chance to respond, or read his posts as thoroughly as I wish I could have. Since that time, he has left the forum and deleted all his posts, so it's a moot point how, except for any that wanted answers to the points being brought up by him.
It is certain that the Church does not supply merely through ignorance. There must be a common error, meaning that the priest, bishop or even "pope" must be believed to be have the power to do what he is doing in the Church, even if he in fact cannot.
There is widespread ignorance at traditional chapels that the priest can absolve them, but is this ignorance the same as a common error that the priest has the faculties to absolve, even though he doesn't? In my opinion, with the exception of SSPX, which is in a different category, all other traditional priests are known to not have faculties, and even though almost all Catholics are ignorant on this matter, this is not a common error as whether the priest has faculties, it's a widespread ignorance on the entire concept of what faculties are in the first place and why they are necessary.
Sebastian also put forth a doubt about whether in the danger of death, canon 882 could be used in cases on regular basis if no authorized confessors were to be found. He postulated that it could not, and could only be used once. He provided no source to support that. The explanations from the canonists do not limit such confessions to a single time, and there is no reason to think otherwise. If a Catholic believes that no authorized confessors are near him, and will not be in the foreseeable future, he can confess and the jurisdiction will be supplied under canon 882, and he could keep doing this, so long as the facts remain the same, which are that he believes there are no authorized confessors that can be found in his land, and secondly that there will be none coming in the foreseeable future.
|
|