|
Post by Pacelli on Dec 6, 2022 13:35:17 GMT -5
Hello Eric,
There is one issue that could put this issue to bed if your thinking on this is correct. As I stated above, I would like to see an approved source, such as a decision of the Holy See, which would be in the Canon Law Digest, or the opinion of a canonist at a minimum, that states that persons censured of the crime of illegal ordination under canon 2274 is excluded from the persons under censure being permitted to answer the request for the sacraments under canons 2261 and 2284.
As I have stated above, the canon makes no such exclusion, and I have never read in any decision of the Holy See or any canonist which states that those under censure for this crime are to be excluded from using their orders by request of the laity under canons 2261 and 2284.
I asked this to a person who was holding the "home-alone" position years ago who is stating what you are stating and never received an answer and never heard from him again.
|
|
|
Post by EricH on Dec 8, 2022 13:42:56 GMT -5
The essential question is: Are there other requirements in addition to what is explicit in canons 2261 and 2284, so that a priest may lawfully administer the sacraments for any just cause (2261 §2)? Canonists explain that a just cause need not be urgent; Coronata gives as examples of just causes the promotion of devotion and piety, the overcoming of temptation, and the desire to communicate more frequently. Again, the question is: Is anything needed besides an excommunication or suspension, for a valid priest to lawfully administer sacraments on the basis of canon 2261 or 2284? The answer is clearly yes, which I will demonstrate with two examples and one quotation. (1) Confession is certainly among the sacraments that may be lawfully administered in virtue of canons 2261 and 2284. It is explicitly mentioned by Coronata, Sole, Hyland, and Ayrinhac in connection with canon 2261. But a priest must have jurisdiction in order to administer the sacrament of confession, and it is not granted by canons 2261 or 2284. So the permission granted in these canons only makes it licit for priests with jurisdiction (habitual or supplied) to administer the sacrament of confession. (2) Suppose a Catholic man in good legal standing is validly ordained but has no legitimate ministry in the Church. Perhaps a former schismatic who converted, or a Catholic who was reduced to the lay state but has since repented of his crimes. May Catholics request the sacraments from such men for any just cause? No. What if such a man incurs an excommunication, e.g. for procuring an abortion? Is it now licit to request that he administer the sacraments? No, that is absurd. So, in addition to valid orders and excommunication or suspension, something more must be required for a licit use of the permission granted in canon 2261 §2. (3) Coronata: “What is said in Canon 2261, § 2, that one who is requested may administer the Sacraments, refers to valid and licit administration, but only as regards the censure; this prescinds from other causes which could make the administration illicit or invalid.” ( Institutiones Iuris Canonici, n. 1774, pp. 211, 212) I can speculate about what's required for licit use of the permission granted in canon 2261 §2, but I may be wrong, or I may reach the right conclusion for the wrong reasons. I was hoping to hear from Fr. Dutertre before making this post, but he hasn't replied yet. When he said that canon 2261 doesn't grant a canonical mission, I think he was using “canonical mission” in a broad sense, to mean the authorization required for every legitimate administration of a sacrament. Not a mission to be a Catholic pastor with an office or with delegated faculties, but a mission in a broader sense, giving permission for one or more particular acts. Similar to what Billot has in mind here: Not being a scholar or a canonist, my best guess is that canon 2261 §2 applies only to people who already have the mission from the Catholic Church to act as legitimate ministers of the sacraments, plus confessional jurisdiction if it's a question of hearing confessions. I believe this is natural and obvious; it agrees with the well-known fact that the administration of sacraments is only lawful when authorized by ecclesiastical authority. The burden is on whoever understands canon 2261 differently to present evidence for his understanding. One can have that mission to act as a legitimate minister of the sacraments, whether by means of office, delegation ab homine, or delegation a jure, while under excommunication or suspension. All the commentaries on canon 2261 §2 obviously have in mind its chief application being to priests whose ordinary duties include a sacramental ministry, who have incurred excommunication but have not lost their office or delegation. I can't speak for canon 2284 because I haven't researched it in any real depth. Now, in reply to Pacelli: Thank you for taking the time to have this discussion. I learn a lot from talking with you and from the sources you bring to light. Supposing we agree that not all men who are validly ordained, Catholic, and excommunicated or suspended may administer the sacraments as permitted by canon 2261 §2, could you explain what else you think is required for this permission to be applicable? Ordination by someone who is Catholic? Being a Catholic at the time of ordination, even if it was unlawful? Something about the clerical state? What references would you cite in support of your view? 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 have used the term “clergy” to mean priests and bishops, mainly for the sake of brevity. I think that's a standard use of the term. If you want to stick with the strict meaning, and say that traditionalist priests and bishops are not clerics, it seems that would be a problem for your theory about canon 2374 because only clerics can incur suspension (can. 2255, §2). Leaving that aside, how do you think traditionalists violate canon 2374 by receiving holy orders? If you say there is no schism in their conducting an independent ministry, then I suppose their only offense is that they present false dimissorial letters issued by incompetent authorities (Fr. Augustine mentions that dimissorial letters may be called false for this reason), or none at all (I haven't asked them how they handle the requirement for dimissorial letters). But you could easily excuse them from any wrongdoing by intrinsic cessation of the law, on account of the impossibility of obtaining dimissorial letters in the absence of competent authority to grant them. So if you can't find anything they're doing wrong, there's no reason for them to incur suspension by violating canons 2374 or 2372. I think the Baltimore catechism wasn't stating a law, but a perennial truth based on the constitution of the Church, which requires permission from ecclesiastical authority for lawful administration of the sacraments. (Such permission is given by law for some, not all, urgent cases.) What the Baltimore Catechism says is still true, and canons 2261 and 2284 are not an exception to it. Even in your view it doesn't make sense to call those canons exceptions to it, because the canons themselves authorize the administration of sacraments in the situations they describe. Also, specifically in regard to suspension, Coronata said something about the new law in canon 2284 being the same as pre-Code law, but I may have misunderstood and I'd have to study more to figure that out. Canons 2261 and 2284 do not apply to confession. Confession is a separate matter. I addressed this above. Coronata, Sole, Hyland, and Ayrinhac all speak of confession in their discussion of how to apply canon 2261. Faculties are given to priests to hear confessions. What you are referring to here is a canonical mission, not faculties. My understanding is that “faculties” is commonly used in a broad sense, to mean any power or authorization necessary to perform an act lawfully, e.g. to preach, to say Mass, to assist at marriages, to absolve from censures, to dispense from marriage impediments, etc. And, as mentioned above, I think any authorization to administer a sacrament may be called a mission in a broad sense. The code did envision a mission-less priest, as this is exactly the type of priest being censured. If so, then I would say the authorization granted by the Code itself would have to serve as a mission. Perhaps it can do so in some cases; I'm not sure. It makes more sense in cases of suspension than of excommunication. I can think of situations where a suspended cleric already has a mission, e.g. as a deacon who then incurs the suspension by receiving the priesthood unlawfully. 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 2374, 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 2374. Anyway, as you can probably guess, the person provided no answer and I didn't ever hear from him again. Well at least you heard from me again. I don't believe that canons 2261 and 2284 apply to some censures and not others; rather, I believe that there are cases when those canons are overruled, so to speak, by other causes that make the administration of sacraments illicit or invalid.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Dec 8, 2022 15:45:23 GMT -5
Thank you Eric. I also like discussing these matters with you. I know you take your Faith very seriously and are thinking about things on a much deeper level. I will respond in a few days.
In the meanwhile, let me say this: In my opinion, the structural Roman Rite, with its bishops with jurisdiction and for the part, most of its priests have visibly collapsed. It is the Eastern rites that for the most part, IMO, despite all of the problems, (and Wenceslav has documented many) continue the visible and organizational Catholic Church, and that is what I generally advocate over traditionalism, as these men, so long as they haven't defected hold their offices in the Church.
I have posted the eastern rite directories for many, but not all eastern rites on the U.S. on here, for those wanting to find one. The owner of this forum is an eastern rite Catholic, and to be honest, I find it a pleasure to work with him for that reason, that he isn't infected and biased by all of the issues of traditionalism, and sees things clearly without all that baggage. For those concerned about the issues surrounding canons 2261 and 2284, this gives an easy alternative to find lawfully commissioned pastors and priests of the Catholic Church (so long as they haven't defected).
Anyway, your very thoughtful post deserves a thoughtful response, so give me a few days (or more) to think, reflect, research, and pray on it.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Dec 13, 2022 11:01:25 GMT -5
Eric wrote:
Canon 2261 and 2284 authorize the priest to use his orders when requested, but for confession, that is still not enough, as these canons do not grant him jurisdiction. For that he must rely on the other canons, 209, 882. That was my point, and perhaps I didn't make that clear.
Eric wrote: : You bring up a valid point, and in your example of a validly ordained schismatic under censure for participating in an abortion, it seems very obvious that the will of the lawgiver would not be to allow Catholics to request the sacraments from such a man. This is certainly an area that is begging for an authoritative explanation from the Holy See on what the exact pre-conditions are to make canons 2261 and 2284 operable.
In the case of traditional priests, they are getting ordained so that they can bring the sacraments to Catholics during this crisis, while remaining in a vagus state. I really don't know how to explain any justification for what they do using the Code, except these two canons. Thinking on your example is a good reason why we must approach this issue humbly, as there is clearly more that is not known or settled. What was the will of the lawgiver on the preconditions? I am not sure we will find the answer. I won't pretend to settle this as I don't know. What I would say is that absent a decision from the Holy See, I think it will remain unsettled.
They will argue that the salvation of souls overrides the canons preventing these ordinations and consecrations, but I am not convinced of that, as harm is also done when anarchy becomes the norm, and and any non-territorial bishop can ordain priests at will and even consecrate new bishops at will. This practice will very obviously harm the unity of the Church, set the foundation for schismatic sects, and will unleash on the world priests who do not have any authorized training or being governed by the lawful authority of the Catholic Church. The danger of harm, and time has shown that such harm is not just potential harm, it is very real in many cases, and adds another proof that the salvation of souls argument cuts both ways, as it's true that sacraments are provided, which of course helps souls, but the harms that come about very clearly harm souls. I do not believe the lawgiver would have intended for such an idea to be construed from the Code, and there is no support of it. Interestingly enough, Fr. Cekada captured this problem very brilliantly in his paper, "Two Bishops in every Garage."
I think it best to say, that this matter will remain unresolved, since neither of us can resolve it. Since we cannot know with certainty what these preconditions are according to law, or the decisions of the Holy See, or the approved commentators, this is a gray area as far as I see it.
One last point though, is that these canons do protect the laity from any bishop or priest that may be wayward as Canons 2261 and 2284 put the power of making the requests in the hand of the laity and does not oblige them to make such requests, so that insulates laypeople from having any obligation to these bishops or priests, so the risk of harm is significantly reduced (except for the very large amount of Catholics that have no idea about any of this). If the layperson for whatever reason does not wish to request the sacraments from any priest, or all priests in this situation, he is free to not do so.
I will come back to the rest of your post later.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Dec 14, 2022 12:19:20 GMT -5
Eric wrote:
It might seem natural and obvious to you, but I am not sure if that. If a priest is automatically suspended under canon 2284 for getting himself ordained by a retired bishop, then who gave him a mission in the Church? Was it the retired bishop? If so, how does that happen, when the retired bishop has no jurisdiction to do anything of the sort? Yet, the canon state the priest is suspended, and by that it means that Catholics could request the sacraments from him under canon 2284.
If what you are saying is correct, then this poses a serious problem for your understanding of it.
Eric wrote:
Your interpretation is possible, but I don't believe this is settled, which is why sources are needed to make this more clear. Considering the real world gravity of what you saying, you will need strong evidence in the form of sources that say what you are saying, Nothing here should be assumed.
Eric wrote:
That's fine. There is no rush here.
Eric wrote:
It's good to discuss this with you as well. It's always good and helpful to have one's thinking challenged to make sure there are no hidden assumptions, and everything is grounded on solid thinking and judgments.
Eric wrote:
The canon states that it becomes operable when a bishop/priest is excommunicated or suspended under canon 2261 §1, (also canon 2284) and the laity make a request to him for the sacraments. Those are the two conditions stated in the Code. The Code does not legislate any further on this, so it's open to possible interpretation, and as far as I know, the Holy See has not interpreted it as far as any other pre-conditions which would make such a request licit. So, to answer your question, I don't know, and I don't think anyone knows. It seems to me that the will of the lawgiver was to be generous with canon 2261 §2, so anyone arguing that it should be more restricted bears the burden to prove that.
It's also worth saying that the lawgiver put the power in the hands of the laity to decided whether or not to make these requests, so he was in effect making these censured priests, merely sacramental priests, who in effect answer only to the laity. Without the laity, the cannot use their orders, and even if they answer the call fo ethe sacraments every day for years, it doesn't ever mean they become normalized in the Church, they remain in the same status. The laity can have the power in this situation, not the priests operating under this canon, so this serves as check against abuses or problems.
Eric wrote:
This much is obvious, as ordination by a member of sect would be evidence that one is a member of that sect.
Eric wrote:
Yes, can a Catholic bishop ordain non-Catholics? Of course not. That much should be clear.
Eric wrote:
Not much, I have found a few things over the years which makes me question it. Besides the burden is not on me, it's on those claiming the clerical state to prove that, not the other way around.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Dec 14, 2022 12:59:58 GMT -5
Eric wrote: I probably shouldn't have made any issue of it. It's fine if you want to use it for brevity. Being a cleric, does have specific meaning to it, and it's not the same as being a priest. I haven't seen it proven to me that the term fits in this case, but maybe it does. Until it demonstrated to me, I personally don't use the term.
Eric wrote:
Yes, that's the problem. Dimissorial letters are no small problem. It is the authorization to be ordained by a bishop other than your own territorial bishop, meaning that the lawful bishop, the successor of the Apostles has judged your fitness to be ordained and grants his authorization, which is why he gives the letters to the candidate. If such letters are no longer needed, and one has recourse to the crisis alone, and like many do, claim that the salvation of souls overrides all law, then that opens a can of worms, that most people cannot really grasp, as the consequences to such an idea are huge. For example, most in the SSPX use this argument, but in their minds they are restricting it to the SSPX ordinations, but the problem is if this is a universal principle, then it must be applied universally far beyond the SSPX, who generally has been more responsible, to all of the hundreds of Thuc line bishops who keep ordaining questionable men, and so many others as well.
Most in the SSPX would be horrified to think of themselves as supporters of the work being done by all of the offshoot Thuc-line bishops, and even the Angelus put out a warning against them, but if this is just a matter of principle, that any vagus bishop can ordain anyone he believes is worthy and justify it strictly on the basis that the salvation of souls is the supreme law, then one would logically have to apply it to each and every consecration of a bishop and ordination of a priest during this crisis, of every group, whether you think they are wayward or not.
In my opinion, people seem to apply this idea with no problem when it being used for their group, or friendly groups, with no problem, but then start having serious reservations about this idea when it applies to many of the other groups. If that is the case, then what is the principle, and under what condition is it's universal application being restricted.
Anyway, I know you don't hold this, so I'm just thinking on it, as I like to try to work through all avenues of thought on things, and as this is a public forum, there may be many reading this that do not rely on canons 2261 or 2284 in their judgment of what legitimatizes traditional bishops and priests for the sacraments and do rely on the more popular opinion of the salvation of souls argument.
Eric wrote:
It's certainly arguable, and that brings us back to the salvation of souls argument above. What if a rogue Thuc bishop used the cessation of law argument and began ordaining men non-stop, say thousands of men, and say consecrating a few hundred bishops as well, because he believes that there is a cessation of law, and it is for the good of souls, what according to this understanding stops him from doing so? If such as action is illicit, then why is it so according the principles talked about?
If the law for a practical purposes is gone, then there is nothing stopping things from sliding into anarchy, and as Fr. Cekada once said, we have two bishops in every garage. If the law does apply, and there has been no cessation, and I believe it does, then I believe we must rely on canons 2261 and 2284.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Dec 15, 2022 11:46:39 GMT -5
Eric wrote:
You are correct and I agree with this. I retract my former statement on this point.
Eric wrote:
Interesting. If that is so, I too would like to learn the specifics of this. If only a CUA dissertation was written in this, all of that history would have been dug up and this would have been a lot easier. It's too bad that none of their doctoral candidates ever picked these canons to study.
Eric wrote:
I had in my mind confessional jurisdiction when I wrote that, not the use of the holy orders, so yes, I agree with that part of it, in regards to the the use of the holy orders. Canons 2261 and 2284 do not supply or delegate jurisdiction, which led to my incorrect way of responding.
Eric wrote:
The most common use that I have ever seen is in regards to confession, but I agree a priest must also have faculties for marriages and other specifics such as you mentioned.
I haven't seen the term faculties being used synonymously with a mission in a broad sense, but if it has been used that way, then that would be something new to me. Some Catholic theologians refer to the mission as being "sent" by the Church, which is one that I am more familiar with. Sometimes terms develop over time, over decades or centuries, so your understanding may be correct, I am just not sure.
Eric wrote:
This is something I don't agree with. If a priest has a mission, then he acts from the Church regardless of what the laity do. He can have his mass if no one shows up or if people show up. Under these canons we are discussing, the priest cannot do anything sacramentally unless he is requested to do so. His use of his sacramental orders is completely reliant on a request being made to use them. The use of his orders would be on a case by case basis, so even if every day for a year, he had received requests for mass, then one day no one showed up to make this request, he could not claim that the previous year gave him authorization to say mass on his own by giving him some kind of tacit mission, as he is still forbidden to use his holy orders by canon 2261, unless a request is made by a layperson to use them.
Eric wrote:
Well, your points show that there is much more to learn about these canons, but I am not sure that we will get those answers. In the meanwhile, I think that if a traditionalist priest follows what the canons actually say, absent any other evidence which would clearly show that he cannot use his orders by request of the laity, that he may safely follow this interpretation, as he would be following the letter of the law, and any preconditions are not clearly spelled out by any approved sources, at least that I am aware of.
|
|