|
Post by EricH on Jun 26, 2016 13:34:08 GMT -5
I've been studying this topic lately, as you can see. Would anyone be interested in reading this and making comments?
drive.google.com/open?id=0BxchIU3wZYCIcVlPdktSYlEzVnM
Table of Contents:
Preface Author's Perspective References and Translations Updated Versions of this Study Introduction 1. The Question: Traditionalist Priests' Jurisdiction for Confessions 1.1. What is Jurisdiction? 1.2. Ordinary and Delegated Jurisdiction 1.3. Supplied Jurisdiction 1.4. Jurisdiction for Traditionalist Priests 2. Supplied Jurisdiction in the Code of Canon Law 2.1. Danger of death 2.2. Common error 2.3. Positive and probable doubt of law or fact 2.3.1. Description of positive and probable doubt 2.4. Right of Catholics to request the Sacraments from an excommunicate for any just cause 2.5. Urgent necessity 2.6. Conclusion on the Code of Canon Law 3. Alternative Modes of Ipso Iure Delegation 3.1. Tacit Jurisdiction 3.1.1. Definition of tacit jurisdiction 3.1.2. Tacit jurisdiction is not available in the present circumstances 3.2. Presumed Jurisdiction In Favor of Presumed Jurisdiction 3.2.1. Sacramental Confession is of great importance to the good of souls. 3.2.2. Very extraordinary measures are justified by the present crisis. 3.2.3. It's not reasonable for priests not to hear confessions. Against Presumed Jurisdiction 3.2.4. It seems that presumed jurisdiction is impossible. 3.2.5. It is not taught, but is implicitly denied, by approved authors. Course of action when no confessor is available Doubtful jurisdiction Jurisdiction cannot be presumed Explanations of historical situations 3.2.6. The resulting ministry will be limited and inadequate, or limitless and unsafe. Limitless Jurisdiction and the Common Good 3.2.7. There is no satisfactory rule for when and by whom jurisdiction could be presumed. 3.2.8. Sins can be forgiven outside of Confession 4. Conclusions 4.1. On the speculative question 4.2. On the practical question 4.2.1. Probability and the sacraments 4.2.2. Probability in matters of law 4.2.3. Probability of the opinions for and against supplied jurisdiction Probability and Canon 209 4.2.4. Practical Conclusions Implications for Traditionalist Chapel Attendees 5. Objections and Replies Obj. 1: Obligation of Sacramental Confession Obj. 2: Quasi-danger of death Obj. 3: Valid absolutions given by Eastern schismatics Obj. 4: Permission to receive sacraments from Eastern schismatics Obj. 5: St. Vincent Ferrer Obj. 6: St. Thomas recommends confession to a layman Obj. 7: St. Thomas on supplied jurisdiction in cases of necessity Obj. 8: Nullifying laws and epikeia Obj. 9: Right to organize a regular ministry where there is no local hierarchy Obj. 10: Right to receive the sacraments Obj. 11: Jurisdiction supplied only to good priests Obj. 12: Absurd consequences of strict interpretation of laws From Rev. Anthony Cekada, Traditional Priests, Legitimate Sacraments Obj. 13: Obligation to administer the sacraments Obj. 14: Christ Himself provides deputation, mission, and jurisdiction Obj. 15: Divine positive law takes precedence over human legislation Obj. 16: Confessional jurisdiction is a divine power, not an ecclesiastical power Obj. 17: Majority opinion of traditionalists Obj. 18: Lay decision-making Obj. 19: Erring on the safe side Obj. 20: Jurisdiction granted by the Vatican II hierarchy Obj. 21: Induced danger of death Obj. 22: Delaying confession until danger of death occurs Appendix A: Quotations 1. Hyland on excommunication 2. Canons that grant special faculties to confessors on account of urgent necessity 3. Cappello on the duty of priests to hear confessions 4. Miaskiewicz against the interpretive theory of common error 5. St. Alphonsus Liguori on obedience to one's confessor 6. Cappello on probable opinions and the sacraments 7. Schieler on following the safer opinion with regard to the sacraments 8. Cappello on the obligation of confessing 9. Merkelbach on the availability of a confessor 10. Augustine on interpretation of laws 11. Szal on religious communication with schismatics 12. Dispensations for religious communication with non-Catholics 13. Merkelbach on the obligation of a simple priest to administer sacraments 14. St. Alphonsus Liguori on the obligation to hear confessions 15. Impossibility of an extraordinary mission 16. Billot on jurisdiction and apostolicity 17. John Daly on traditionalist errors regarding law and obedience References Books Articles Blogs, Forums, etc. Version History
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Jun 26, 2016 14:28:57 GMT -5
Eric,
Thank you for joining the forum and posting this. I intend on commenting on the tract you you written, but I would like to finish reading and analyzing it before commenting. You clearly put a lot of work into this, so it deserves a thoughtful response.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Jun 28, 2016 17:44:26 GMT -5
I have not yet finished the paper, but I have read a good amount if it. Here are my thoughts as of now:
1. I think the only possible justification for "traditional" priests hearing confessions falls under Canon 882. I do not think the others are applicable in any way in our present circumstance in regards to "traditional" priests.
2. The question is this: how broad does the code envision the "danger of death?"
3. I agree with you that the canon is certainly dealing with the danger of physical death, not spiritual death.
4. The danger of death is also extended to those held captive, as they are in danger and will very likely not have access to a priest if they do indeed die in captivity. Although, I do not think our situation, in and of itself, without some additional factor, poses a danger of death.
5. Most of us are not in physical danger of death in the ordinary affairs of our life, so that cannot be a justifying factor, unless one were to argue that the length of time involved between having access to a priest, may be a danger through the ordinary course of events in life. I think such an argument is certainly a stretch and I am not sure it is legitimate or represents the will of the lawgiver. Even according to the less rigid view of St. Alphonsus, the expectation of death must at least be probable, as opposed to imminent.
6. I do believe that the validly ordained and commissioned pre-Vatican II Roman rite priests who received faculties are in a different category. If this priest is hearing confessions in the diocese in which he initially was granted faculties, it's a settled matter by that fact alone.
If the priest has transferred or has left his initial diocese, I think a strong argument can be made due to common error, and secondly due a reasonable doubt as to the law in his case. For example, if Conciliar bishop X, commonly perceived as the local ordinary gives validly ordained priest Y faculties in his diocese, it seems that the jurisdiction would be supplied to the conciliar bishop for that act, and faculties would be granted. The priest would have a habitual jurisdiction to hear confessions in such a case, it would the unlawful bishop who would be supplied the jurisdiction for giving those faculties.
7. I also believe that the eastern rite Catholic priests, in general, have jurisdiction to hear confessions. and a canonical mission. As their hierarchy is autonomous from the Roman rite, and they have kept the Faith, along with the fact of their unquestionably orthodox liturgy and valid sacraments, it is reasonable to conclude that the appointments of their bishops is supplied by the Church, as the common good necessitates it, and there is certainly a common error among the eastern Catholics as to who the Pope is. With that in mind, I believe the appointment of their diocesan clergy, along with faculties to preach and hear confessions is through the habitual jurisdiction of their ordinaries.
Anyway, these are my thoughts for now, some of which have gone beyond the scope of your paper, but I think it is important for Catholics to know where they can find access to legitimate confessors in our time.
|
|
|
Post by EricH on Jun 30, 2016 19:13:24 GMT -5
6. I do believe that the validly ordained and commissioned pre-Vatican II Roman rite priests who received faculties are in a different category. If this priest is hearing confessions in the diocese in which he initially was granted faculties, it's a settled matter by that fact alone. If the priest has transferred or has left his initial diocese, I think a strong argument can be made due to common error, and secondly due a reasonable doubt as to the law in his case. For example, if Conciliar bishop X, commonly perceived as the local ordinary gives validly ordained priest Y faculties in his diocese, it seems that the jurisdiction would be supplied to the conciliar bishop for that act, and faculties would be granted. The priest would have a habitual jurisdiction to hear confessions in such a case, it would the unlawful bishop who would be supplied the jurisdiction for giving those faculties. 7. I also believe that the eastern rite Catholic priests, in general, have jurisdiction to hear confessions. and a canonical mission. As their hierarchy is autonomous from the Roman rite, and they have kept the Faith, along with the fact of their unquestionably orthodox liturgy and valid sacraments, it is reasonable to conclude that the appointments of their bishops is supplied by the Church, as the common good necessitates it, and there is certainly a common error among the eastern Catholics as to who the Pope is. With that in mind, I believe the appointment of their diocesan clergy, along with faculties to preach and hear confessions is through the habitual jurisdiction of their ordinaries. I agree of course that priests may still retain the confessional jurisdiction they received before the Vatican II revolution, which would make them approved confessors. An interesting consequence, then, for supplied jurisdiction on account of a broad view of danger of death, is that it's not available on behalf of the faithful who have access to one of these approved priests. If you are correct that some eastern rite priests are being approved as confessors even now, then the faithful who have access to them would also be disqualified from jurisdiction on account of canon 882. It doesn't make much practical difference, though, if they have good reason to think that they have no approved confessor available. I attended a Ukrainian Catholic Church regularly from 2005-2007, and during the time I was there they removed the filioque from the Creed. In the weeks after the change, quite a few people accidentally said “and the Son” when they were supposed to be silent. The church also had ecumenical events with a nearby Eastern schismatic church; they were announced in the bulletin. I was told – I didn't witness it firsthand – that a visiting priest said in his sermon that Billy Graham was the best preacher in the USA. My impression from various indications was that the Vatican II ruination of faith and morals was at work among the members of that Ukrainian church not much differently than in the Latin churches that have the Novus Ordo Mass. The dangers of scandal and of perversion of faith are good reasons to avoid even a place that certainly has priests who are able to absolve. I for one feel much safer never setting foot in a church that I could never trust in matters of faith and morals.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Jul 1, 2016 8:30:51 GMT -5
The byzamtines are even worse. Changing Mother of God to Theotokos everywhere...suppressing kneeling.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Jul 1, 2016 13:36:10 GMT -5
EricH, I agree with you on that church you attended, it is scandalous, and the behavior on the part of the priest would certainly make me suspect him of heresy. I do not believe, however, that this is a widespread problem throughout the Ukrainian rite. I have had a connection to the Ukrainian rite since the mid 90's and the priests I have dealt with have been in every case orthodox (in the true meaning of the word), with one exception of a liberal priest, although I would not call him heretical. Regarding the Filioque in the Creed, it's a much more complex matter than what it appears. I argree wholeheartedly, that they are making a mistake in omitting it from the Creed, but what must be looked at here is the motivation: are they omitting it because they are denying it, or is it part of the easterners quest to "de-latinize" their liturgy. If their clear motivation is not to deny it by omitting it, then one cannot accuse them of heresy on the point. The eastern Catholics used for a very long time, until the 1700's the original Nicene Creed, without the addition of the Fioloque, but then added it, most likely to conform themselves with the Roman Rite. Did these faithful Catholics prior to the addition of the Fioloque, by that, deny this doctrine, since it wasn't in their approved Creed? Of course not, and their motive today, although I think misguided, is not rooted in heresy. The Byzantines for a long time have been in a tug of war between latinization on one end, and trying to keep their own traditions on the other end. Prior to Vatican II, the latinization pull was the stronger one, as many Ukrainian churches would have in many ways even looked identical with the Roman rite. I have seen pictures of a Ukrainian church from the 40's which was indistinguishable from a Roman rite church. Afte Vatican II, the pull certainly went the other way, and they had the full support of "Rome." The question is, "was this a bad thing," and just more junk from Vatican II? In favor of those who were preserving their rites from latinization, the official policy of the pre-Vatican II Holy See was certainly on their side. Pope Leo XIII, for example, expressly made his will clear on this matter. LINKNow, the next question is this: in their quest to preserve their identity, have they in some cases in a strange irony adopted novelties from the Novus Ordo sect? Some of them have certainly done this, the Maronites stand out as one that can easily be pointed to, although I do not believe the Ukrainians have. In their case, they seem to be driven towards going further and and further back in time from what I can tell, rather than innovating towards modern novelty. Anyway, there is a lot more I could say in on this, but I don't want to get to far afield of the purpose of this thread.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Jul 2, 2016 6:58:02 GMT -5
Reading the link I didnt notice a rule about Roman rites joining Eastern rites other than marriage. And does simply attending the Eastern Church mean "joining"
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Jul 2, 2016 12:38:21 GMT -5
Reading the link I didnt notice a rule about Roman rites joining Eastern rites other than marriage. And does simply attending the Eastern Church mean "joining" In order to transfer rites, one must go through a process and be approved. Catholics are allowed to go to any rite of Mass/Divine Liturgy that they want to go to, even to fulfill the Sunday obligation. I will post something from the Code in the resourse section that deals with this. Pope Leo was admonishing Roman rite missionaries to not bring eastern Catholics into the Roman rite, even going so far as to put his decree on the walls of their churches to make sure it stopped. He was also making sure the eastern rites were not being Romanized, and their unique traditions were being kept intact. This was the policy of other Popes as well, although he is much more explicit.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Jul 11, 2016 13:18:37 GMT -5
Eric,
I read more, and have reflected more on your paper. In my opinion, what this really comes down to is this: are we as Catholics today in the same situation as Catholics in a remote region or those held captive who are unlikely to meet another approved confessor?
St. Alphonsus clearly believed that the "danger of death" could be interpreted in a broad sense, meaning that even if the danger was not actually imminent, the danger of never getting to confession during one's life to an approved confessor was present. That danger alone seems sufficient, at least according to this view, which is safe, for jurisdiction to be supplied to the unapproved priest.
To answer our question, we must first see if we are in a situation in which we are unlikely to meet an approved confessor. A further consideration is how much of an extraordinary effort of time and money must be put in to reach an approved confessor before equating our situation with the remote Catholic described in the commentary?
For example, if a Catholic lives in some small town in northern Canada, and there is an approved confessor on some border town near the U.S., some 700 to 800 miles away, is he obliged to travel to that priest, at considerable time and expense to himself, or can he go to the SSPX or some other unauthorized priest nearby? It seems that in this case, I think it could be argued that he is in the remote situation as described in IER.
It seems to me that many (traditional) Catholics have not made a strong effort to find an approved confessor in their local areas. They just assume that the confessions at their local SSPX, CMRI, SSPV, independent, etc., are sufficient and that jurisdiction is supplied in these cases. They also, in my opinion, operate under the assumption that there is no approved confessor in their area.
I think that these are dangerous assumptions. Many approved priests who are under the umbrella of the Conciliar church still have the Faith, and are not willingly part of the sect. Therefore, they remain approved Catholic confessors in their respective dioceses. Catholics can and should approach these priests for confession if at all possible as their faculties remain and cannot be lawfully revoked by a usurper.
I also, as I stated before, am convinced that the eastern rite hierarchies, are, in general, still functioning as legitimately commissioned succesors of the Apostles. I am aware that in some cases, it may be demonstrated that a specific bishop may have publicly defected, and in such cases, it may be presumed, that he is not a legitimate bishop of a see, but in many cases, the eastern bishops have retained their Faith, and although they may be tainted with some liberal ideas, they have not publicly defected.
It is my view, and I believe it can be thoroughly defended, that when the eastern Synods elect some of their priests for presentation to Rome for approval, that the act if the antipope in approving one of their selection is supplied by the Church, as the common good of both the universal Church and their particular dioceses is benefited by this act. When the bishop elect is approved by the undeclared antipope, this act is also recognized by the reigning patriarch, all of the other bishops of the rite, and the clergy of the diocese that he will rule.
With that said, I believe that the eastern Catholic priests in their respective dioceses possess both the canonical mission and the jurisdiction to hear confessions, etc.
With all of this said, I would also put forward another consideration: is it necessary for laypeople to seek out faithful Catholic priests in their area who are approved confessors, since they are not readily identifiable? We don't know who the faithful priests are, and in some cases, even the eastern priests have apparently defected, as your example above demonstrates, so is there an obligation upon us to try to find the approved confessors in this situation, since many are mixed in with the sect? If an obligation exists, how far does it oblige? Is the murkiness of our current situation, that makes it difficult to identify locally approved confessors, equivalent to equate us with remote Catholics with no approved confessors?
These are all good questions, and I am not sure of the answers. I would say though, that if a Catholic is aware of a locally approved confessor, that he would be bound to go to him before a priest who has no jurisdiction to hear his confession. The only question that I remain unsure of is how far we are obliged to seek out an approved confessor in our local area, when such approved confessors are not easily identifiable.
|
|
|
Post by EricH on Jul 11, 2016 19:41:12 GMT -5
Pacelli, thank you for the reply. I just finished a response on danger of death that addresses the quotations from St. Alphonsus Liguori and Rev. Harty, so I'll go ahead and post it and get back to you on the other points later. Section 5, Objection 2 (revised)
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Jul 12, 2016 17:22:34 GMT -5
Pacelli, thank you for the reply. I just finished a response on danger of death that addresses the quotations from St. Alphonsus Liguori and Rev. Harty, so I'll go ahead and post it and get back to you on the other points later. Section 5, Objection 2 (revised)I will read your response, thanks for posting it. If you wish to discuss the portion of the eastern rites as the continuation of the visible Church on earth, and their hierarchies as those possessing apostolic succession, then I would like to open that in a new thread. The two are interconnected, but remain separate topics, just let me know if you wish to discuss that portion of this, and we can proceed with that part in a separate thread.
|
|
|
Post by EricH on Jul 13, 2016 11:18:40 GMT -5
I will read your response, thanks for posting it. If you wish to discuss the portion of the eastern rites as the continuation of the visible Church on earth, and their hierarchies as those possessing apostolic succession, then I would like to open that in a new thread. The two are interconnected, but remain separate topics, just let me know if you wish to discuss that portion of this, and we can proceed with that part in a separate thread. I would be interested in hearing more of your thoughts about finding approved confessors and true Successors of the Apostles in the Eastern rites. I've not studied or thought much about the topic myself, so I don't have much to contribute. What puzzles me is the practical side of how such clergy can be found and, so to speak, verified nowadays. It is one thing to entertain the idea that there may well be some confessors and some bishops with ordinary jurisdiction in the Eastern rites; it is another to identify them and approach them for Mass and the sacraments. Even a priest who is certainly Catholic and has jurisdiction can be practically off limits because of his clear lack of fitness for his duties, or because one might give scandal or expose oneself to serious danger by approaching him. I find it comforting that I'm not obligated to seek out priests who are not evidently sent by the Church and fit for their duties. I know that strikes some people as crazy, but each of us views the situation based on his own knowledge, experience, and abilities. People can be "smart" and yet be easy to take advantage of. When you have learned a lesson the hard way, you're not so eager to repeat the experience.
|
|
|
Post by EricH on Jul 13, 2016 12:14:33 GMT -5
St. Alphonsus clearly believed that the "danger of death" could be interpreted in a broad sense, meaning that even if the danger was not actually imminent, the danger of never getting to confession during one's life to an approved confessor was present. That danger alone seems sufficient, at least according to this view, which is safe, for jurisdiction to be supplied to the unapproved priest. For the benefit of those who may not read the file I recently posted, let me say that I disagree with this characterization of St. Alphonsus' opinion. He said that (1) captives (2) among the infidels (3) with small hope of liberty (4) if it is believed that they will have no other priests may be set equal to those in danger of death. This should be understood to mean that such a captive would probably never have any priest again, so that he would probably be making the last confession of his life. In the present situation, we have many priests. It's confessors that are either entirely absent or at least scarce and hard to identify (if Pacelli's view of the Eastern rite clergy is correct). But St. Alphonsus did not speak of the danger of never having an approved confessor, nor should he be understood in this way, as is argued at length in the file I posted. It seems to me that many (traditional) Catholics have not made a strong effort to find an approved confessor in their local areas. They just assume that the confessions at their local SSPX, CMRI, SSPV, independent, etc., are sufficient and that jurisdiction is supplied in these cases. They also, in my opinion, operate under the assumption that there is no approved confessor in their area. I think that these are dangerous assumptions. Yes, I agree. This criticism of common traditionalist practice is especially applicable to the early days of the traditionalist movement, when, for example, the SSPX made no claim that approved confessors were entirely absent, but just started up a full public ministry on the plea that it was meeting a spiritual necessity. It is my view, and I believe it can be thoroughly defended, that when the eastern Synods elect some of their priests for presentation to Rome for approval, that the act if the antipope in approving one of their selection is supplied by the Church, as the common good of both the universal Church and their particular dioceses is benefited by this act. When the bishop elect is approved by the undeclared antipope, this act is also recognized by the reigning patriarch, all of the other bishops of the rite, and the clergy of the diocese that he will rule. You may be right, but some objections would need to be addressed, such as: (1) Is jurisdiction only being supplied for acts that serve the common good? If so, who is to decide what does or doesn't serve the common good? Is there any legal basis for this opinion? If one invokes supplied jurisdiction in common error (canon 209), there is no provision in the law that says jurisdiction is only supplied for acts that promote the common good; rather, the idea is that jurisdiction is supplied for all acts because the common good would be injured if they were all invalid. (2) If the last handful of truly Catholic bishops with jurisdiction are mixed in with a corrupt organization (the "church" under Bergoglio), what good does that do? How does that preserve the teaching Church as a unique visible indefectible organization? With all of this said, I would also put forward another consideration: is it necessary for laypeople to seek out faithful Catholic priests in their area who are approved confessors, since they are not readily identifiable? We don't know who the faithful priests are, and in some cases, even the eastern priests have apparently defected, as your example above demonstrates, so is there an obligation upon us to try to find the approved confessors in this situation, since many are mixed in with the sect? If an obligation exists, how far does it oblige? Is the murkiness of our current situation, that makes it difficult to identify locally approved confessors, equivalent to equate us with remote Catholics with no approved confessors? These are all good questions, and I am not sure of the answers. I would say though, that if a Catholic is aware of a locally approved confessor, that he would be bound to go to him before a priest who has no jurisdiction to hear his confession. The only question that I remain unsure of is how far we are obliged to seek out an approved confessor in our local area, when such approved confessors are not easily identifiable. These are indeed good questions. The laity are not meant to examine and approve the clergy, as this reverses the hierarchical order and is beyond most people's ability anyway, so any answers we come up with should avoid placing such a responsibility on their shoulders. I think instead of framing the question as one of finding a confessor, we should think of finding our shepherds, i.e. the lawful pastors of the Church. If we look in the usual places (the once-Catholic buildings) and find, say, 90% that are not just bad Catholics but are heretical wolves, I don't think there's any duty to seek out the few shepherds who might remain among the wolves. (And how can any decent shepherd last long in that position without being corrupted in one way or another?) To then go looking for shepherds or would-be shepherds in other places is dangerous at least, and I think is plainly not obligatory. The real solution was to refuse all support and obedience to the heretics posing as pastors, to physically occupy the Catholic buildings that they had taken over, and to demand that the remaining faithful bishops do their duty to fill the empty places in the hierarchy. In a Catholic country, the secular arm should have been called in to take physical custody of the heretics until the Church could judge and punish them. If such a thing happened nowadays, which of course it won't, who would be the remaining faithful bishops? How could they be distinguished from the rotten mass? -- unless they are in hiding and would come out in such a situation. I think we are well past the point at which only an intervention from Heaven can set things right. So let's be cheerful and brave, as whatever is in God's hands cannot miscarry.
|
|
|
Post by Damaged Goods on Jul 16, 2016 18:43:21 GMT -5
For example, if a Catholic lives in some small town in northern Canada, and there is an approved confessor on some border town near the U.S., some 700 to 800 miles away, is he obliged to travel to that priest, at considerable time and expense to himself, or can he go to the SSPX or some other unauthorized priest nearby? It seems that in this case, I think it could be argued that he is in the remote situation as described in IER. You seem to be implying that SSPX attendance is off-limits in all but a few exceptional situations. Is this your view?
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Jul 17, 2016 0:15:06 GMT -5
I think hes pointing out that the most Catholic choice is the confessor with traditional jurisdiction. If one can be found he is superior to sspx Priests.
|
|