No. Some traditionalists don't like this.
No, I said it right. Yes, some traditionalists don't believe this; I've discussed the matter with them. It's sometimes a matter of accepting the 1983 Code and also of matters contained in the old code.
You've surveyed all traditional Catholics? Funny I never got a call.
Indeed, you may have discussed this with a few people, they might reject the 1983 Code, but you cannot make a few cases of those who are arguably schismatic (in rejecting the legitimate law of the Church) into a general indictment of all or a large number of traditionalists.
The problem, however, is if I can receive valid absolution when there is a "genuine spiritual advantage" from an Orthodox priest due to Canon 844 since jurisdiction is supplied, why can I not also do the same for an SSPX or other traditional priest when there is also such an advantage?
There is no problem comparing the two whatsoever. No contradiction was ever claimed. The question is one of what it is that constitutes genuine reasons and genuine situations. Again, it is as simple as this: you want to say that people are able to receive valid sacraments from any priest at all who has no jurisdiction whatsoever for whatever reasons they might have, and that they should be confident that they are the recipients of supplied jurisdicion.
Again, you continually misrepresent my position. This is not what I have written.
I'm beginning to think that you have no viable response to my true argument and the citation of the experts and the Law itself, so you're intentionally misrepresenting my position in order to make yourself feel like you're actually winning the argument.
You have not dealt with a single authority or provided even one citation which disproves what the experts I have cited clearly state.
You made the original claim. I provided evidence to the contrary. The burden is now on you to show how the experts I have cited are incorrect or mistaken. Each response you post without doing that makes your case look more and more weak and you more and more stubborn and unwilling to accept what is the clear Law of the Church.
This is your interpretation of the exceptions to canon law: exceptions so widely applied that it makes the need for ordinary jurisdiction really quite superfluous.
Again. NO. Which of those two letter do you not understand? N? O? The combination?
My position is not my own, but quoted from the law itself as interpreted by the Popes, then explained by expert Canonists.
You have not dealt with a single citation or provided a contrary citation from an authority.
I short, you want to have valid sacraments from an independent chapel, and you want to feel good about it, and anyone who might contradict you once you have made up your mind in this regard either hasn't read as much as you have, or hasn't understood it, needs to be taught, or is obstinate, and you're going to learn 'em about it. However, such confidence in practice runs counter to the Church's teaching of the clear necessity of jurisdiction for the validity of two sacraments.
You clearly have not understood anything I have written.
You clearly have no clue as to what the Church's law is.
Provide one Canonical authority which directly contradicts what the Canonists I have cited above. One.
Until that time, any Catholic
can be morally certain that jurisdiction is supplied in the case of an SSPX confession because the Canonical authorities have clearly stated that such a situation is a case where jurisdiction is supplied.
If you want to claim the contrary, you'll need to provide direct, clear and authoritative proof that the four Canonical authorities I cited are wrong.
