|
Post by EricH on Dec 3, 2022 13:51:11 GMT -5
Well, there are really two separate issues to consider here: 1. Whether we can request the sacraments from Catholic men who are ordained but do not have a canonical mission in the Church and may be under a censure due to the manner of the way they got ordained (no dimssiorial letters): I believe that we can make such a request, and I have never read any arguments that go against that, as you know, I base my argument on the 1917 Code, canons 2261 and 2284, which specifically state that we can request the sacraments from such persons. Practically speaking, for most of us, that's the only question that matters. Is it lawful to make this request to these men, and may the men answer this request? The answer to both is certainly a yes. Any sources pre-code that forbade this are no longer relevant. Fr. Damien Dutertre said recently that canon 2261 clearly does not grant any faculties or mission: Given the context of that thread, I think his understanding is that canon 2261 doesn't provide any basis for trad priestly ministry. Hopefully he will explain in more detail; he said he intends to publish an article on the matter soon. Here's a dialogue that explains my own position: Sempronius: Even if we suppose that independent traditionalist priests and bishops do not belong to the Catholic hierarchy and thus have no ecclesiastical office or authority, and thus are not legitimate ministers of the word and the sacraments, canon law still allows the faithful to approach such clergy for the sacraments when no legitimate Catholic pastor is available. See canons 2261 and 2284. Eric: Canon 2261 (the use of which is further applied by canon 2284) allows the faithful to request the sacraments from an excommunicated priest for any just cause (mere convenience is enough), unless he is under a declaratory or condemnatory sentence, in which case only in danger of death may the faithful request the sacraments from him. See Fr. Augustine's commentary, archive.org/details/commentarycanon08charuoft/page/n191/mode/2up I suppose your argument is that even if traditionalist priests have incurred excommunication for being illegally ordained, there has been no sentence pronounced against them; thus the faithful may request the sacraments from them for any reasonable cause. I believe this argument overlooks what is presumed by canon 2261 §2: that the priests in question have faculties to carry on a legitimate ministry as Catholic clergy. The well-known rule is that Catholics may only approach the Catholic clergy for the sacraments; other ministers, even if validly ordained, are in a separate category, and may only be approached for the sacraments in extreme necessity, that is, danger of death, and even then only if a few other criteria are met. There are many validly-ordained men who are not Catholic, who are under no sentence of excommunication, because no such sentence is customarily pronounced against each individual Eastern Orthodox or Old Catholic schismatic priest. If canon 2261 §2 were understood as allowing Catholics to request the sacraments from any excommunicate who is validly ordained, it would follow that Catholics could request the sacraments from validly-ordained schismatics whenever it is convenient! The obvious falsehood of this conclusion proves that canon 2261 §2 has in mind only the Catholic clergy. Sempronius: But the traditionalist clergy are Catholic. They profess the faith, they receive the sacraments, they submit to lawful authority insofar as it exists nowadays. Eric: It is one thing to be validly ordained and Catholic; it's another to be a member of the Catholic clergy, the Church's legitimate ministers. For example, suppose a man is validly ordained in a schismatic church, leaves the ministry, gets married, becomes the father of five children, and then becomes a Catholic. It has been 20 years since he functioned as a priest. It's a long-gone chapter in his life. May Catholics request the sacraments from him whenever it's convenient? No; that's contrary to ecclesiastical discipline; in fact it's crazy. Suppose he commits a crime and incurs an automatic excommunication. Now does canon 2261 allow Catholics to request the sacraments from him whenever it's convenient? No; that's even more absurd, because he effectively obtains a mission by committing a crime! So it's clear that canon 2261 does not serve as an independent, de novo, source of authorization for a priest to administer the sacraments. If it did, that would create a massive loophole in the law, effectively allowing anyone to carry on a priestly ministry as he pleases. The sensible interpretation is that canon 2261 §2 only applies to lawful priests of the Catholic Church: those who had already been authorized to administer the sacraments before incurring an automatic excommunication. Keep in mind that Canon 2261 first prohibits an excommunicated person from confecting or administering the sacraments; that is its main purpose. Then it grants some exceptions to that rule for the benefit of the faithful. To suppose that the exception in §2 can grant the right to lawfully administer the sacraments where it did not previously exist is simply nonsensical; it would mean that one can obtain a de facto ministry in the Church by incurring an excommunication. To further emphasize the point that to be validly ordained and Catholic is not enough to be a legitimate minister of the sacraments, consider this quote: This supports what I said above, that to be validly ordained and Catholic is not the same as to be a Catholic priest with a legitimate status and ministry as part of the Catholic clergy. When Catholic books speak of a “priest” without further qualification, it is properly understood to imply a priest with legitimate status and ministry.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Dec 4, 2022 17:15:38 GMT -5
I have moved this from the other thread as it needs its own proper thread to discuss it.
|
|
|
Post by samuelsede on Dec 4, 2022 18:05:26 GMT -5
Some good points made here
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 5, 2022 0:58:47 GMT -5
So how would this apply to the SSPX when we're in a situation where Francis I has "granted them" jurisdiction to hear confessions?
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Dec 5, 2022 11:19:39 GMT -5
So how would this apply to the SSPX when we're in a situation where Francis I has "granted them" jurisdiction to hear confessions? Canons 2261 and 2284 do not apply to confession. Confession is a separate matter.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Dec 5, 2022 11:27:48 GMT -5
In regards to Fr. Duterte's assertion, canon 2261 is not about a canonical mission at all. It is a forbidding a priest to use his order and also essentially gives a loophole to around the rule that allows a priest under censure to answer requests for sacraments when requested. This would have nothing to do with a mission, as priests in this situation are strictly forbidden to use their holy orders in every circumstance except for the exceptions.
This means that to licitly use their orders, they cannot do so on their own, it is the laity who, by making such a request to them, for Mass for example, that allows the priest to licitly say his mass. Once the mass is over and the request to the layperson is complete, the effects of the censure will be present and he cannot use his priestly orders unless another request is made.
Canons 2261 and 2284 does not change the status of a priest, or give him any permanent powers to use his priesthood. He is completely reliant on the laity who may or may not make requests to him for the sacraments. If no request is made, he cannot use his orders, and conversely if the request is made, he may licitly use his holy orders to provide the sacraments.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Dec 5, 2022 14:10:25 GMT -5
Eric wrote:
Hello Eric,
My thoughts and comments below:
Eric wrote:
Generally, I agree with this statement, but with one small caveat. If a legitimate Catholic priest is available, I still believe one could still make a request for the sacraments from a censured priest in accordance with canon 2261 and 2284 so long as one has a just reason. One would have to weigh out why they are not going to their legitimate cleric and whether the reason for bypassing him and going to a censured clergy is just. If someone who is poor lives in a town with a censured cleric and a legitimate cleric (not under censure), but the censured priest is a 5 minute drive, while the legitimate priest is 20 minutes drive, this could be a hardship for the poor person, so it could easily be argued that this would be a just reason to request the sacraments from the one closer and far less of an expense.
Eric wrote:
Agreed
Eric wrote:
Agreed with some small caveats. I would add the the words " or suspension" after "excommunication." I would change the word "reasonable" to "just," but I get what you are intending, so no big issue here.
Eric wrote:
Faculties are given to priests to hear confessions. What you are referring to here is a canonical mission, not faculties. If a man presents himself for ordination without dimissorial letters and is ordained by a retired bishop or a bishop of another diocese, he is automatically censured under the law. It's important to remember that this illegal ordination does not give the new priest a canonical mission, as that mission must be given him by the lawful diocesan bishop who is the successor of the apostles, who thereby has the power to "send" him to the laity with a mission to feed the sheep sacramentally, and by preaching if the bishop further authorizes him to preach.
The priest in question is in a vagus state, he is not attached to diocese or religious order. His action of getting himself illegally ordained also, by operation of the law, incurs a censure upon him, forbidding him from using his priestly orders. The code did envision a mission-less priest, as this is exactly the type of priest being censured. Further, the canons 2261 and 2284 did not restrict the priest under censure from using his orders to provide the sacraments if canon 2274 was the cause of his censure. Canons 2261 and 2284 only deal with censured bishops and priests without specifying anything as to the reason for the censure, clearly meaning all censures, even those censured for violating 2274, which is what is in question here.
I was in a discussion many years ago with a person holding the "home-alone" position who said exactly what you are saying, that canon 2261 would not apply to those censured under canon 2274, so I asked him to prove it. Where in the Code does it say, or which canonist ever wrote, that canon 2261 and 2284 only applies to those under some censures but not another? The canon specifically states, and the approved commentators explain that those under censure, without any qualifier, may use their orders licitly if the laity request him to do so, and does not limit the exception to the rule to those under all censures, except for canon 2274. Anyway, as you can probably, guess, the person provided no answer and I didn't ever hear from him again.
Eric wrote:
The sentence needs many distinctions. Catholics may request the sacraments from a bishop or priest under censure for any just cause, not just in extreme necessity or danger of death. The danger of death would only be relevant if one is seeking confession under canon 882 to a priest without faculties or requesting the other sacraments from priest who are vitandi or under a declaratory sentence. Since this discussion of danger of death in relation to canon 2261 and 2284 doesn't apply to "traditional priests, it's not relevant here, but would certainly fit in a discussion on canon 882.
Eric wrote:
Those under the censure of suspension or excommunication who are tolerati are still in the Church, as the censure does not put them outside the Church! The Church does not censure those who are already outside the Church and members of a sect. They are to be regarded non-Catholics under the law.
A Catholic may never request the sacraments from a priest of a non-Catholic sect, even when validly ordained, with the exception of confession in a danger of death. So, canon 2261 has nothing to do with non-Catholic sects, it has has to do with those under censure but who are still in the Church, or vitandi only if there is a danger of death, but this also obviously presumes that the vitandi in question has not joined a condemned sect, as those in a sect are treated differently under the law.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Dec 5, 2022 17:05:25 GMT -5
The Baltimore Catechism was pre-Code, so what you see above is true, for that time period. The 1917 Code changed the law, allowing for an exception, as discussed in previous posts.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Dec 5, 2022 17:27:42 GMT -5
Eric wrote:
I do not concede that traditional priests are clergy. That must be proven, not assumed. They are ordained, I agree, and in most cases, I agree validly, but it's a separate argument to state that they are "clergy."
I think all desire to submit to the lawful authority, but I am also aware of some that have made themselves an authority, thereby usurping the powers of the legitimate hierarchy.
Eric wrote:
If a man is censured under canon 2274, and has received illicitly from tonsure to ordination his orders, is he a cleric? I have never seen proof that he becomes a cleric. Who made him a cleric, if that is true? How does that fit with your assertion?
Eric wrote:
If a man leaves a schismatic sect, he is not leaving the ministry, as he had none. He never functioned as a Catholic priest.
The man in question is under no censure, as he was part of sect, and has converted, and does not fall under the censure of canon 2274, as he received his orders while he was a sectarian, and after converted to the Church.
While he was a sectarian, he had no mission, and when he returned to the Church he had no mission. He always lacked a mission, and never obtained one. If anyone thinks otherwise, answer the question as to who sent him.
Canon 2261 is not relevant to this case. The man is a convert under no censure, so his situation does not fall under this canon. He may not use his Holy Orders, even if requested, unless there is a need for confession in a danger of death.
|
|
|
Post by samuelsede on Dec 5, 2022 18:45:11 GMT -5
Eric wrote: I do not concede that traditional priests are clergy. That must be proven, not assumed. They are ordained, I agree, and in most cases, I agree validly, but it's a separate argument to state that they are "clergy." I think all desire to submit to the lawful authority, but I am also aware of some that have made themselves an authority, thereby usurping the powers of the legitimate hierarchy. Eric wrote: If a man is censured under canon 2274, and has received illicitly from tonsure to ordination his orders, is he a cleric? I have never seen proof that he becomes a cleric. Who made him a cleric, if that is true? How does that fit with your assertion? Eric wrote: If a man leaves a schismatic sect, he is not leaving the ministry, as he had none. He never functioned as a Catholic priest. The man in question is under no censure, as he was part of sect, and has converted, and does not fall under the censure of canon 2274, as he received his orders while he was a sectarian, and after converted to the Church. While he was a sectarian, he had no mission, and when he returned to the Church he had no mission. He always lacked a mission, and never obtained one. If anyone thinks otherwise, answer the question as to who sent him. Canon 2261 is not relevant to this case. The man is a convert under no censure, so his situation does not fall under this canon. He may not use his Holy Orders, even if requested, unless there is a need for confession in a danger of death. What do you mean the schismatic turn convert is under no censure? Canon 2314 would apply, no?
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Dec 5, 2022 20:18:25 GMT -5
Eric wrote: I do not concede that traditional priests are clergy. That must be proven, not assumed. They are ordained, I agree, and in most cases, I agree validly, but it's a separate argument to state that they are "clergy." I think all desire to submit to the lawful authority, but I am also aware of some that have made themselves an authority, thereby usurping the powers of the legitimate hierarchy. Eric wrote: If a man is censured under canon 2274, and has received illicitly from tonsure to ordination his orders, is he a cleric? I have never seen proof that he becomes a cleric. Who made him a cleric, if that is true? How does that fit with your assertion? Eric wrote: If a man leaves a schismatic sect, he is not leaving the ministry, as he had none. He never functioned as a Catholic priest. The man in question is under no censure, as he was part of sect, and has converted, and does not fall under the censure of canon 2274, as he received his orders while he was a sectarian, and after converted to the Church. While he was a sectarian, he had no mission, and when he returned to the Church he had no mission. He always lacked a mission, and never obtained one. If anyone thinks otherwise, answer the question as to who sent him. Canon 2261 is not relevant to this case. The man is a convert under no censure, so his situation does not fall under this canon. He may not use his Holy Orders, even if requested, unless there is a need for confession in a danger of death. What do you mean the schismatic turn convert is under no censure? Canon 2314 would apply, no? No, when he comes into the Church there would be no censures, even if any were incurred.
|
|
|
Post by samuelsede on Dec 5, 2022 21:53:51 GMT -5
Hello Pacelli, What about the rest of Erik's scenario: "Suppose he commits a crime and incurs an automatic excommunication. Now does canon 2261 allow Catholics to request the sacraments from him whenever it's convenient? No; that's even more absurd, because he effectively obtains a mission by committing a crime!" It would seem very odd that a schismatic priest convert, under no censures, could not administer sacraments to the faithful except in danger of death, but that he could do so according to Canon 2261 should he incur an excommunication for whatever reason?
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Dec 5, 2022 23:40:58 GMT -5
Hello Pacelli , What about the rest of Erik's scenario: "Suppose he commits a crime and incurs an automatic excommunication. Now does canon 2261 allow Catholics to request the sacraments from him whenever it's convenient? No; that's even more absurd, because he effectively obtains a mission by committing a crime!" It would seem very odd that a schismatic priest convert, under no censures, could not administer sacraments to the faithful except in danger of death, but that he could do so according to Canon 2261 should he incur an excommunication for whatever reason? I think all the relevant points are covered. Its not about convenience, the Church is being very generous and giving laypeople every opportunity to partake of the sacraments. As I said above, canons 2261 and 2284 have nothing to do with a mission. The canons authorize laypeople to make a request for the sacraments and receive the sacraments requested on a case by case basis. At no point is a mission given by this canon. The fact that the Church did not extend this exception to validly ordained converts, and we could add laicized Catholic priests with that is obviously the decision of the lawgiver. He could have extended this to them, but did not. We can only go from the law that he gave and can only wonder and debate on why the Pope chose not to extend things even further as far as his generosity in relaxing the law. It really doesn't matter to me, though, we have the law and the law is clear and is already very generous, so why worry about why it's not more generous than it already is?
|
|
|
Post by EricH on Dec 6, 2022 13:09:27 GMT -5
I will make a real reply later, but for now I just want to highlight a couple sentences from Hyland's dissertation that Pacelli just posted ( tradcath.proboards.com/thread/2400/canon-2261-hyland-1928): p. 90 The Church does not desire that the spiritual welfare of her children should suffer by the malice of those to whom she has entrusted the dispensation of her spiritual goods.p. 91 The same solicitude of the Church that the spiritual welfare of the faithful be not impeded by the malice of those to whom she has committed the dispensation of her spiritual benefits is manifested in §2 and §3 of Canon 2261. (bold emphasis added)
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Dec 6, 2022 13:18:30 GMT -5
I will make a real reply later, but for now I just want to highlight a couple sentences from Hyland's dissertation that Pacelli just posted ( tradcath.proboards.com/thread/2400/canon-2261-hyland-1928): p. 90 The Church does not desire that the spiritual welfare of her children should suffer by the malice of those to whom she has entrusted the dispensation of her spiritual goods.p. 91 The same solicitude of the Church that the spiritual welfare of the faithful be not impeded by the malice of those to whom she has committed the dispensation of her spiritual benefits is manifested in §2 and §3 of Canon 2261. (bold emphasis added) I'll await your post, but something to think about is this: it's not surprising to read that malice is being mentioned here, as malice is presumed in the 1917 Code. This concept might seem strange to Americans whose standard is innocence until proven guilty, but the standard in the Church is that the presumption in a violation of the law is one of malice, therefore guilt. The violator must prove his innocence if summoned by the Church to answer for a crime.
|
|