Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 20, 2022 21:02:14 GMT -5
Recently it has been of great interest to me that the SSPX were "given jurisdiction" by the Vatican to hear confessions back in 2017 and that this has been indefinitely extended. My understanding is that jurisdiction is required for the hearing of confessions for all priests outside of their home diocese and that no sede priests have permission to do so. Does this mean that Catholics in whose country the Roman Rite was dominant are safest going to the SSPX for confession outside of cases of captivity or high risk of death? PS: Clotilde, I hope there aren't any global ladies here to moderate
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Sept 21, 2022 8:56:08 GMT -5
Recently it has been of great interest to me that the SSPX were "given jurisdiction" by the Vatican to hear confessions back in 2017 and that this has been indefinitely extended. My understanding is that jurisdiction is required for the hearing of confessions for all priests outside of their home diocese and that no sede priests have permission to do so. Does this mean that Catholics in whose country the Roman Rite was dominant are safest going to the SSPX for confession outside of cases of captivity or high risk of death? PS: Clotilde , I hope there aren't any global ladies here to moderate This thread is not dealing with the jurisdiction of the confessor, although that is a very important topic. The jurisdiction being dealt with here which Clotilde has very aptly titled, "The Expanding Authority Position," is the exercise of jurisdiction to bind Catholics to judgments not settled by the Church or to in other ways use powers that only the local ordinary would possess as though a traditional bishop could exercise such authority. With that said, I will give you my opinion on the matter of current state of the matter of the jurisdiction of the confessor. I am not an authority, so I cannot tell you what to do. I can only give my opinion and tell you what I do. 1. Eastern rite priests have jurisdiction as given to them by their local ordinary. If the local ordinary is a notorious heretic, and due to that either lost his office or never had taken possession of the office, the priest would then hear confessions under supplied jurisdiction, as the people of the eastern diocese believe him to be the lawful bishop who granted jurisdiction to the priest. 2 Old validly ordained Roman rite priests could continue to hear confessions, and even if they no longer had jurisdiction from the last lawful local ordinary, since the remaining Catholics in the diocese believe the pretender (Novus Ordo Bishop) is the legitimate bishop, then jurisdiction would be supplied to the old priests due to common error, canon 209. 3. SSPX, since the 2017 approval by Francis to have jurisdiction to hear confessions, would be supplied jurisdiction under canon 209, as there is a common error among most, almost all to be more precise, Catholics about he being the Pope. This is a classic case of common error, and in my opinion the argument is air tight. 4. The other traditionalist priests, sedevacantists, resistance, independent, etc. could attract jurisdiction under canon 882, the danger of death, if no authorized confessor were to be found in one's area where he resides for the foreseeable long term future, leading to a conclusion that one may never again encounter an approved confessor and may die without having the ability to confess to an approved confessor. (Fwiw, I do not believe this group would attract supplied jurisdiction, canon 209, as there is no common error about their having faculties to hear confessions.) I would urge you to read THIS which may help in understanding the concept. 5. There are a lot of nuances that I think can be applied to #4 as it is the most complex case of the four mentioned above. For myself, fwiw, my practice has been to confess to old Roman rite priests (#2 above) and also eastern rite priests (#1 above).
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 25, 2022 0:18:50 GMT -5
Thanks for clarifying this Pacelli. The Eastern Rites in my nation were all provided with Jurisdiction from JPII so I don't know that is any different from Bergoglio giving jurisdiction to the SSPX to hear confessions. Indeed, if I believe sede vacante can I go to confession to any of these priests?
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Sept 25, 2022 16:47:55 GMT -5
Thanks for clarifying this Pacelli. The Eastern Rites in my nation were all provided with Jurisdiction from JPII so I don't know that is any different from Bergoglio giving jurisdiction to the SSPX to hear confessions. Indeed, if I believe sede vacante can I go to confession to any of these priests? The principles are the same. The eastern rite Catholics, maybe with a few outliers all believe in the papal claims of the men you mentioned.
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 25, 2022 18:29:59 GMT -5
Thanks for clarifying this Pacelli. The Eastern Rites in my nation were all provided with Jurisdiction from JPII so I don't know that is any different from Bergoglio giving jurisdiction to the SSPX to hear confessions. Indeed, if I believe sede vacante can I go to confession to any of these priests? The principles are the same. The eastern rite Catholics, maybe with a few outliers all belive in the papal claims of the men you mentioned. So just to clarify, even if I don't hold the common error, the same principles apply?
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Sept 25, 2022 21:32:06 GMT -5
The principles are the same. The eastern rite Catholics, maybe with a few outliers all belive in the papal claims of the men you mentioned. So just to clarify, even if I don't hold the common error, the same principles apply? The principles of common error are non-negotiable. It's part of canon law. It not some novelty but has been part of the understanding of canon law for a very long time.
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 26, 2022 0:30:41 GMT -5
So just to clarify, even if I don't hold the common error, the same principles apply? The principles of common error are non-negotiable. It's part of canon law. It not some novelty but has been part of the understanding of canon law for a very long time. Sorry, what I'm thinking is the common error doesn't have to be one that I specifically hold for the principle to apply, which makes sense.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Sept 26, 2022 16:13:59 GMT -5
Eastern Rite Jurisdiction is based on the fact of their unchanged (substantially anyway) rites of ordination...or am I missing something
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 26, 2022 22:45:42 GMT -5
If I don't believe that Francis is the Pope and the common error is not one shared by myself, would confessions to an SSPX Priest under normal (non-captive/near death) circumstances be valid? Or do I need to go to an Eastern Rite priest who only has jurisdiction because JPII gave it to him? Or does the common error apply irrespective because it is common to most men?
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Sept 27, 2022 8:39:38 GMT -5
Eastern Rite Jurisdiction is based on the fact of their unchanged (substantially anyway) rites of ordination...or am I missing something Jurisdiction and orders are two different matters. For confession, unlike other sacraments, for validity, there must be two ingredients, so to speak, one being a validly ordained priest, the other the requisite jurisdiction to absolve. The eastern rites, since they did not change their rites, as happened in the Latin rite, are unquestionably valid (with some outliers). That's half way there. This is why Roman rite "priests" ordained after the new rites were instituted in 1968 cannot be trusted, they lack this element, so there is no need to look into the second issue, whether they have jurisdiction or not. Now, to the second issue, whether they have jurisdiction. I contend that many, maybe even most, of the eastern rite bishops are in their offices as ruling bishops in their respective dioceses. No one to date who has ever disagreed with me on this has yet to present a case against any (not a single one) of these bishops to substantiate a charge of heresy. Bishops, who are the ordinaries of a diocese, as successors of the Apostles, grant jurisdiction to their priests to hear confessions. But, for the sake of argument, let's say a case of public heresy can be made against one of the them, and one is morally certain that he is not in his office, then what happens when he grants faculties to his priests to hear confessions? As the eastern Catholics, priests and laity, of his diocese believe he is the lawful ordinary of the diocese, this state of common error, would supply for the lack of jurisdiction of the bishop.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Sept 27, 2022 9:56:29 GMT -5
If I don't believe that Francis is the Pope and the common error is not one shared by myself, would confessions to an SSPX Priest under normal (non-captive/near death) circumstances be valid? Or do I need to go to an Eastern Rite priest who only has jurisdiction because JPII gave it to him? Or does the common error apply irrespective because it is common to most men? The power of Francis to grant faculties to the SSPX is common among Catholics who attend the SSPX, both priests and laity. Common error means that the error is common. It's a debatable point as to how common the error must be, but it is a fact that many Catholics who attend SSPX believe this error, therefore the priest absolving will attract jurisdiction supplied to him by the Church. Canon 209 is dealing with normal times, not a danger of death. Canon 882 deals with the danger of death. The Church supplies jurisdiction when the error is common. It doesn't matter if you believe that Francis lacked jurisdiction to grant faculties to the SSPX, as that view is yours and maybe some others at your chapel, but is not the common view, which is also a common error, which holds the opposite. You can approach a priest who you know lacks the jurisdiction to absolve so long as the common error among the other Catholics is that he has jurisdiction. I will post below a source to support what I just said. I recommend you read the whole book if you have time. It's linked in the Resource section. To your other point, John Paul II did not give eastern rite priests faculties to hear confessions. Such faculties would have been given to them by their bishops. The Church would have supplied jurisdiction to John Paul II to approve the appointments of eastern rite bishops who once appointed would be the ruling ordinary who would then grant faculties to their diocesan priests. The same principle applies to Francis, and all the antipopes from Paul VI forward.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Sept 27, 2022 10:06:05 GMT -5
Note: I severed these posts from Clotilde's thread on the "Expanding Authority Position," linked HERE , as it has gone to far afield from what was intended in that thread which was to examine and discuss the view of some traditionalists/sedevacantists that the traditionalist/sedevacantist bishops have some sort of jurisdiction over Catholics and that their authority keeps expanding over time. The jurisdiction of the confessor is also a very important topic, and as it differs from the above significantly I am giving it its own thread.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Sept 27, 2022 16:31:26 GMT -5
You do us proud at TradCath...Mr P
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 27, 2022 21:40:06 GMT -5
If I don't believe that Francis is the Pope and the common error is not one shared by myself, would confessions to an SSPX Priest under normal (non-captive/near death) circumstances be valid? Or do I need to go to an Eastern Rite priest who only has jurisdiction because JPII gave it to him? Or does the common error apply irrespective because it is common to most men? The power of Francis to grant faculties to the SSPX is the common among Catholics who attend the SSPX, both priests and laity. Common error means that the error is common. It's a debatable point as to how common the error must be, but it is a fact that many Catholics who attend SSPX believe this error, therefore the priest absolving will attract jurisdiction supplied to him by the Church. Canon 209 is dealing with normal times, not a danger of death. Canon 882 deals with the danger of death. The Church supplies jurisdiction when the error is common. It doesn't matter if you believe that Francis lacked jurisdiction to grant faculties to the SSPX, as that view is yours and maybe some others at your chapel, but is not the common view, which is also a common error, which holds the opposite. You can approach a priest who you know lacks the jurisdiction to absolve so long as the common error among the other Catholics is that he has jurisdiction. I will post below a source to support what I just said. I recommend you read the whole book if you have time. It's linked in the Resource section. To your other point, John Paul II did not give eastern rite priests faculties to hear confessions. Such faculties would have been given to them by their bishops. The Church would have supplied jurisdiction to John Paul II to approve the appointments of eastern rite bishops who once appointed would be the ruling ordinary who would then grant faculties to their diocesan priests. The same principle applies to Francis, and all the antipopes from Paul VI forward. Thanks Pacelli. So just to clarify, if JPII gave the Eastern Rites jurisdiction over an new geographical area that they previously held no jurisdiction over in order to serve the local people who formerly attended the Eastern Rites but had moved to that geographical area, this jurisdiction would be supplied by the Church under the principle of common error.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Sept 27, 2022 22:40:22 GMT -5
The power of Francis to grant faculties to the SSPX is the common among Catholics who attend the SSPX, both priests and laity. Common error means that the error is common. It's a debatable point as to how common the error must be, but it is a fact that many Catholics who attend SSPX believe this error, therefore the priest absolving will attract jurisdiction supplied to him by the Church. Canon 209 is dealing with normal times, not a danger of death. Canon 882 deals with the danger of death. The Church supplies jurisdiction when the error is common. It doesn't matter if you believe that Francis lacked jurisdiction to grant faculties to the SSPX, as that view is yours and maybe some others at your chapel, but is not the common view, which is also a common error, which holds the opposite. You can approach a priest who you know lacks the jurisdiction to absolve so long as the common error among the other Catholics is that he has jurisdiction. I will post below a source to support what I just said. I recommend you read the whole book if you have time. It's linked in the Resource section. To your other point, John Paul II did not give eastern rite priests faculties to hear confessions. Such faculties would have been given to them by their bishops. The Church would have supplied jurisdiction to John Paul II to approve the appointments of eastern rite bishops who once appointed would be the ruling ordinary who would then grant faculties to their diocesan priests. The same principle applies to Francis, and all the antipopes from Paul VI forward. Thanks Pacelli. So just to clarify, if JPII gave the Eastern Rites jurisdiction over an new geographical area that they previously held no jurisdiction over in order to serve the local people who formerly attended the Eastern Rites but had moved to that geographical area, this jurisdiction would be supplied by the Church under the principle of common error. Yes, the principle would apply.
|
|