Why I left the SSPX

[pascendi]

Choosing what, and what not, to respond to, I can assure you, is entirely intentional.

I know it is. You refuse to respond to any substantive argument that damages your case.

This is not the reasoning.  I believe I touched on the reasoning earlier, citing the general experience of debate with the sedevacantists as paradigmatic.  In debate, it is an oft used tactic to pile on reams of material, stand back and say, read this first.  Ah... you didn't address this.  You didn't address that.  If you allow a person to continue with this approach, the principles upon which the truth rests will be buried, and it will never end.  But if one has a truth in hand, none of this is necessary.  A case can be argued quite effectively, even without allies or support of any kind save a knowledge of what the Church teaches, with only a handful of good principles in a sack.  In fact, it is quite a bit more effective, and leaves one's day more free.

This is clear as you still have not responded to the two posts that begin with red letters. They thoroughly lay out the case for supplied jurisdiction of SSPX priests and the reasons for not confessing to NO priests.

We have been discussing the reasonings laid out this entire time already.  All of the principles are contained right here in this thread already.

Now as for my genuine reasonings for choosing what and what not to respond to, it is as I said above, and it makes sense:  this is a supremely simple matter to solve.  The only one who demands great study to be undertaken is the one who wishes to arrive at the most desireable conclusion.  Therefore, I keep it simple, truthful, and effective. 

This is what is simple and effective:  to say to you that ordinary jurisdiction is necessary for the administration of the sacraments, and to provide them validly in two of the sacraments.  It is simplicity to say to you that, yes, there are cases where jurisdiction is supplied.  That yes, that there people who have trouble with the fact that they are seeking sacraments from priests without jurisdiction.  That yes it is the case that they have to appeal to arguments based on people having been duped or arguments based on emergency courses of action.

Supplied jurisdiction based on people being duped... and using this as a means of choosing a course of action with full knowledge?  This cannot be.  And an emergency?  The course of actions people take are not necessary, but rather, their opinions about what is necessary.

[StevusMagnus]

This is not the reasoning.  I believe I touched on the reasoning earlier, citing the general experience of debate with the sedevacantists as paradigmatic.  In debate, it is an oft used tactic to pile on reams of material, stand back and say, read this first.  Ah... you didn't address this.  You didn't address that.  If you allow a person to continue with this approach, the principles upon which the truth rests will be buried, and it will never end.

The two posts I made, with the red type were selected for their brevity. They are short. They are hardly "reams" of material "piled on". You say you have read the FE thread I linked to early on, which is longer than the two posts you refuse to read and respond to. Therefore, it seems you are selective in what you respond to, not due to the length, but due to the lack of counter arguments.

But if one has a truth in hand, none of this is necessary.  A case can be argued quite effectively, even without allies or support of any kind save a knowledge of what the Church teaches, with only a handful of good principles in a sack.  In fact, it is quite a bit more effective, and leaves one's day more free.

While this tactic indeed saves you time, it is not effective at all and does not make your case. In following this course you fail repeatedly to address any counter argument substantively and instead only repeat mantras and opinions, substituting those for reasoned argument and analysis.

I must say that I have discussed the supplied jurisdiction issue with many Fisheaters who disagree with me and came away respecting their point of view because they were intellectually honest and truly engaged the issue.
I once believed exactly as you did and was quite convinced of your position. Masgister can attest to this. I honestly wanted to know the truth and sought it out. I'm not saying you are not being honest if you don't agree with me. But there is a difference in engaging in reasoned dialogue with someone and simply refusing to engage and rattling off your opinion and a general principle as if it settles the matter, then Pharisaicaly claiming your opinion is the Truth.

What it boils down to is your methods of discussion/ argumentation are off-putting, ineffective, and intellectually dishonest. I would respect your opinion more if you engaged in honest debate. Instead you choose to hide behind dodging arguments and hurling opinions framed as fact.

Now as for my genuine reasonings for choosing what and what not to respond to, it is as I said above, and it makes sense:  this is a supremely simple matter to solve.  The only one who demands great study to be undertaken is the one who wishes to arrive at the most desireable conclusion.  Therefore, I keep it simple, truthful, and effective. 

This premise is clearly false. It assumes all Truth is simply ascertained and if any amount of involved study is needed, then the position requiring it is therefore false.

In any case, the Society's position really needs no great study to those who are familiar with Canon Law principles.

This is what is simple and effective:  to say to you that ordinary jurisdiction is necessary for the administration of the sacraments, and to do provide them validly in two of the sacraments. 

You and I already know this. Restating this general principle repeatedly, as if it is some sort of revelation, is neither simple nor effective.

 

It is simplicity to say to you that, yes, there are cases where jurisdiction is supplied. 

We both agree here as well, again nothing new.

That yes, that there people who have trouble with the fact that they are seeking sacraments from priests without jurisdiction. 

This is where you are incorrectly speculating as to people's motivations and intentions. SSPX parishoners do not have any trouble because they believe they are seeking sacraments from priests with jurisdiction. Otherwise they wouldn't be going to SSPX priests for confession. The thought that anyone would confess to a priest, when they believe the confession to be invalid is preposterous.

That yes it is the case that they have to appeal to arguments based on people having been duped or arguments based on emergency courses of action.

Not clear on what you mean by the "duped" argument.

As for emergency courses of action, you yourself stated this would supply jurisdiction in the hypo I posed to you. Even though you failed to answer my question as to where Canon law uses the term "emergency" as a heading under supplied jurisdiction. You still have not responded to that question.

Supplied jurisdiction based on people being duped... and using this as a means of choosing a course of action with full knowledge?

Again you are not clear at all in your phraseology and seem to lack a clear comprehension of the English language, or else an inability to effectively articulate your positions. This makes dialogue with you continually frustrating. Nevertheless, I persevere in fraternal charity.

This cannot be.  And an emergency?  The course of actions people take are not necessary, but rather, their opinions about what is necessary.

In my hypo you responded to, you stated that under the facts I gave there would be an "emergency" and suspended priests would have supplied jurisdiction. In that hypo the Pope did not believe there was any emergency. Yet you did.

So you admit that emergency situations in general suply jurisdiction (though I'm still not sure where this is explicitly found in the Code). Then the issue comes down to: how do we know what is an emergency situation and what is not? It appears that in your mind there is no emergency until Pascendi declares one!

[MagisterMusicae]

If they are in schism, then they can still be supplied faculties.  As Magister said previously, the Church with supply faculties to an Orthodox priest if necessary (and that's directly in Canon Law no gray area).

Magister is wrong because he didn't factor in the fact that they don't fall under latin canon law.  It remains the case that the Church supplies only for its own.

My suggestion would be to look more closely at the Orthodox and the matter of jurisdiction.  The aspect you speak of in canon law regarding the Orthodox is not worded the way you say it is.  Look again.

Pascendi,

You agreed before that I was right in post #148. Now, I'm incorrect.

Which is it?

[pascendi]

I can fully agree with someone about the problems in the Church, but I do not have to agree with them about the course of action they take in response to it.  And sometimes, I cannot agree with them about their choices. 

The point of contention is that you go further than simply "not agreeing". You continually ascribe false motives to those who truly believe the SSPX has supplied jurisdiction and then Pharisaicaly dispense unsolicited advice to them.

Not at all, Steven.  I'm not at all making assumptions about their motives.  This should be obvious:  the people I'm talking to, and about, openly and boldly claim that they are the recipients of supplied jurisdiction because of the crisis in the Church.

So you are in fact wrong.  It is in no way an assignment of false motives on my part, there is no hypocrisy in it, and I am in fact quite right.  People openly tell me their motives, and I take them at their word.  They are indeed upset precisely because I do not agree with them.

[pascendi]

If they are in schism, then they can still be supplied faculties.  As Magister said previously, the Church with supply faculties to an Orthodox priest if necessary (and that's directly in Canon Law no gray area).

Magister is wrong because he didn't factor in the fact that they don't fall under latin canon law.  It remains the case that the Church supplies only for its own.

My suggestion would be to look more closely at the Orthodox and the matter of jurisdiction.  The aspect you speak of in canon law regarding the Orthodox is not worded the way you say it is.  Look again.

Pascendi,

You agreed before that I was right in post #148. Now, I'm incorrect.

Which is it?

I put forth the question as to whether one, if they were in Russia, could approach an orthodox priest for a valid confession if under the proper circumstances.  Here is the exchange:

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by MagisterMusicae
According to Canon 844, you can approach an Orthodox priest who has been validly ordained, provided that "the danger of indifferentism is avoided" and there is a necessity or "genuine spiritual advantage".

Since the Orthodox priest would not have jurisdiction, clearly the Church supplies it in this case.

Right.  Some traditionalists don't believe this.

 

Magister brought forth the appropriate canon.  He was correct.  Technically speaking, I believe the proper answer is that they don't need jurisdiction at all since they do not answer, if I'm not mistaken, to latin canon law.  You may research this matter for certainty.

 

In either case, it was my intention to agree with the fact that yes, people can do this validly, as indicated by the statement that some traditionalists do not believe this.  Yes, I can see your complaint and agree with it.

 

 

[MagisterMusicae]

I put forth the question as to whether one, if they were in Russia, could approach an orthodox priest for a valid confession if under the proper circumstances. Magister brought forth the appropriate canon.  He was correct.  Technically speaking, I believe the proper answer is that they don't need jurisdiction at all since they do not answer, if I'm not mistaken, to latin canon law.  You may research this matter for certainty.

But you, yourself, have said multiple times that jurisdiction is required for the validity of absolution. You have stated that this is the principle and teaching of the Church.

Is it now jurisdiction not required for a sacrament when a non-Catholic priest administers it, but required if a Catholic priest administers it?

Where do you find that teaching of the Church?

[pascendi]

But you, yourself, have said multiple times that jurisdiction is required for the validity of absolution.

Yes of course, because it is.

You have stated that this is the principle and teaching of the Church.

Canon law requires it, yes.  It is the law of the Church on the principle of the authority of the Church.

Is it now jurisdiction not required for a sacrament when a non-Catholic priest administers it, but required if a Catholic priest administers it?

Where do you find that teaching of the Church?

It is true that the Church provides jurisdiction only for her own priests.  The certainty is that the Church allows for occasions of receiving the sacraments validly from the Orthodox.  The question is whether it is proper to say that jurisdiction is in some sense supplied in these situations, or if this can be stated at all based on the fact that, if I'm not mistaken, the Orthodox do not respond to latin canon law at all.  I'm uncertain of the exact answer.

But if you are looking for some inconsistency in my words based on an uncertainty here, you won't find it because the following propositions remain the truth:

1.  It is necessary for the validity of two sacraments for a priest to have ordinary jurisdiction, and

2.  Latin canon law allows for people in some instances to validly receive the sacraments from the Orthodox.

Many times I have seen people complain bitterly that Rome seems to make concessions to the Orthodox which are not granted to the SSPX.  Herein may lie the answer to that apparent contradiction.  If it is the case that the issue of jurisdiction is mute with the Orthodox based on a non need to adhere to Latin canon law, this would reconcile the contradiction quite well.

If you are aware of the answer, please feel free to provide it.

[pascendi]

This is not the reasoning.  I believe I touched on the reasoning earlier, citing the general experience of debate with the sedevacantists as paradigmatic.  In debate, it is an oft used tactic to pile on reams of material, stand back and say, read this first.  Ah... you didn't address this.  You didn't address that.  If you allow a person to continue with this approach, the principles upon which the truth rests will be buried, and it will never end.

The two posts I made, with the red type were selected for their brevity. They are short.

All of what has been contained therein has been discussed here in this thread.

You say you have read the FE thread I linked to early on, which is longer than the two posts you refuse to read and respond to.

I have read it.  You know I have because I commented on your experiences with confession in various places, and quoted someone here who had responded to you in that thread.

 Therefore, it seems you are selective in what you respond to, not due to the length, but due to the lack of counter arguments.

Their content is simple.  It reads like this:  from the perspective of the seeker of the sacraments, they're safe because they are all deceived.  Therefore, they are the recipients of supplied jurisdiction.  From the priests' perspective, they know there's a true emergency, and so they act rightly.  That's the sum of the argument.

But if one has a truth in hand, none of this is necessary.  A case can be argued quite effectively, even without allies or support of any kind save a knowledge of what the Church teaches, with only a handful of good principles in a sack.  In fact, it is quite a bit more effective, and leaves one's day more free.

While this tactic indeed saves you time, it is not effective at all and does not make your case.

It is quite effective, and let me remind you yet again:  I am not the one with the case to make.  My position is simple... that ordinary jurisdiction is necessary to provide two of the sacraments validly, and that in some cases, the Church supplies jurisdiction.  It's a simple enough case to make, and it's the truth.  You, on the other hand, need to make the case that people can feel confident in approaching priests without jurisdiction because they can know that jurisdiction is truly supplied.  That truly is a case that MUST be made, and it is a tough one.  You will never reach any degree of certainly unless you simply decide you want it to be the truth.

In following this course you fail repeatedly to address any counter argument substantively and instead only repeat mantras and opinions, substituting those for reasoned argument and analysis.

This is what I mean by simplicity:  I have countered you by merely pointing out that the Church requires that priests have ordinary jurisdiction, and that, no matter how you wish to make it appear, you are in fact engaged in the interpretation of canons which allow exceptions for this in such a manner that you or others can feel free to seek the sacraments from a priest without jurisdiction.  The arguments for this freedom lie in the fact that some people are deceived and that there is an emergency situation in regards to the availability of the sacraments.  I counter by pointing out that one who chooses knowlingly to seek sacraments from a priest without jurisdiction cannot be deceived, and that there is no emergency situation whereby people can't obtain valid sacraments from a priest with ordinary jurisdiction.  I counter by pointing out that people want their sacraments from only a traditional priest, and that they wish to interpret canon law to their advantage.  This is not a judgment of motivation, it is what they openly state.  That's what I mean by simple, and it's the truth.  They think and act wrongly. 

I must say that I have discussed the supplied jurisdiction issue with many Fisheaters who disagree with me and came away respecting their point of view because they were intellectually honest and truly engaged the issue.
I once believed exactly as you did and was quite convinced of your position. Masgister can attest to this. I honestly wanted to know the truth and sought it out. I'm not saying you are not being honest if you don't agree with me. But there is a difference in engaging in reasoned dialogue with someone and simply refusing to engage and rattling off your opinion and a general principle as if it settles the matter, then Pharisaicaly claiming your opinion is the Truth.

No matter how I approach people, Steven, they're going to complain bitterly if I don't agree with them of something which is this important to them.  If people think my tone arrogant, let them.  If they wish to believe I'm with this group or that school of opinion, let them.  Let them think any manner of things or complain about whatever they wish, but it isn't going to change the point I'm making to you or the truth of it.

What it boils down to is your methods of discussion/ argumentation are off-putting, ineffective, and intellectually dishonest. I would respect your opinion more if you engaged in honest debate. Instead you choose to hide behind dodging arguments and hurling opinions framed as fact.

On the contrary, I believe the irritation may come from the fact that I'm being more upfront and tossing you more honesty than you are perhaps used to. 

Now as for my genuine reasonings for choosing what and what not to respond to, it is as I said above, and it makes sense:  this is a supremely simple matter to solve.  The only one who demands great study to be undertaken is the one who wishes to arrive at the most desireable conclusion.  Therefore, I keep it simple, truthful, and effective. 

This premise is clearly false. It assumes all Truth is simply ascertained and if any amount of involved study is needed, then the position requiring it is therefore false.

This was not at all what was meant.

This is what is simple and effective:  to say to you that ordinary jurisdiction is necessary for the administration of the sacraments, and to do provide them validly in two of the sacraments. 

You and I already know this. Restating this general principle repeatedly, as if it is some sort of revelation, is neither simple nor effective.

My point is that, since this is so, you must adhere to it.

It is simplicity to say to you that, yes, there are cases where jurisdiction is supplied. 

We both agree here as well, again nothing new.

My point being, if you are to qualify for these exceptions, you must actually have a genuine situation where supplied jurisdiction would kick in.

That yes, that there people who have trouble with the fact that they are seeking sacraments from priests without jurisdiction. 

This is where you are incorrectly speculating as to people's motivations and intentions.

Not in the least.  It is openly circulated that people need not fear anything in seeking the sacraments from priests without jurisdiction.  Pointing out what is openly promoted cannot possibly be a mere judgment of people's motives.

SSPX parishoners do not have any trouble because they believe they are seeking sacraments from priests with jurisdiction.

Then the case for supplied jurisdiction would be based upon the SSPX misrepresenting themselves.  We would have to conclude that the SSPX is actually engaged in deceiving people!  How well do you think this proposition would go over with the traditional crowd?  That the SSPX has jurisdiction because people are being deceived?  Yet this is the one situation I would speculate would be the only seemingly legitimate application of supplied jurisdiction.

Otherwise they wouldn't be going to SSPX priests for confession. The thought that anyone would confess to a priest, when they believe the confession to be invalid is preposterous.

They go, I'm sure, because they have been presented with apparent loopholes in canon law, and they've bought into the idea.

That yes it is the case that they have to appeal to arguments based on people having been duped or arguments based on emergency courses of action.

Not clear on what you mean by the "duped" argument.

It should be rather clear.  In the material you provided which you claim I didn't read, the case for supplied jurisdiction is based upon people being deceived.

Supplied jurisdiction based on people being duped... and using this as a means of choosing a course of action with full knowledge?

Again you are not clear at all in your phraseology and seem to lack a clear comprehension of the English language, or else an inability to effectively articulate your positions. This makes dialogue with you continually frustrating. Nevertheless, I persevere in fraternal charity.

In fraternal charity, I'm just going to let this one slide... nah, wait a minute:

So you admit that emergency situations in general suply jurisdiction (though I'm still not sure where this is explicitly found in the Code).

Well would you look at that!  I'm sorry, I couldn't resist that.  Now don't edit that without telling me you did.  lol!

It appears that in your mind there is no emergency until Pascendi declares one!

When the sacraments are no longer available from priests with ordinary jurisdiction, I promise I'll be the first to let you know.

[StevusMagnus]

 

You, on the other hand, need to make the case that people can feel confident in approaching priests without jurisdiction because they can know that jurisdiction is truly supplied.  That truly is a case that MUST be made, and it is a tough one.  You will never reach any degree of certainly unless you simply decide you want it to be the truth.

I can assure you that I don't think something is the truth simply because I want it to be. I wanted to but refused to go to SSPX confessions for a long time. I did not think they had supplied jurisdiction in my case since I knew that they did not have ordinary jurisdiction. As MM can attest I am beyond scrupulous as regards this issie since it effects my eternal soul.

 I then discussed the matter and studied the Canons. I am a lawyer by trade. Canon 144 states jurisdiction is supplied for Common Error of Law (CEL). CEL applies when a priest without ordinary jurisdiction makes himself available for confession in a manner which would lead a reasonable person to believe he does have ordinary jurisdiction. It is not necessary that anyone who goes to him for confession actually believe that he does have ordinary jurisdiction. Just the fact that he is in a confessional, wearing a cassock, a stole, in a chapel creates this CEL. This is the Traditional understanding of this provision.

Pugliese, in Palazzini's Dictionary of Moral Theology, 1962, article Jurisdiction, Supplied: the Church supplies jurisdiction in a case of common error. The error may be due to a false conviction concerning the possession of the required jurisdiction. It is necessary, however, that this conviction arise from a positive fact which would cause the faithful reasonably to assume that the priest had the required jurisdiction. A case in point might be . . . that of the priest who, acting as if he had jurisdiction, occupies the confessional or imparts absolution, when in fact he has no jurisdiction . . . (Common error) is called error of law when it stems or may stem from a fact which of itself is such as to lead many people into error even though in fact no one errs. Today it is generally held (and such an interpretation may be called certain) that the error of law is sufficient to require that jurisdiction be supplied.

 In fact the commentary to the current Code put out by Rome even uses this situation as an example of supplied  jurisdiction. I believe MMC posted it.

Thus the sacrament is valid for a penitent who knows the priest does not have ordinary jurisdiction if the priest created a situation where a reasonable person would assume he did! Now on it's face this is counter intuitive. But it is supposed to be that way because it is a legal fiction. There are legal fictions created in all areas of law, not just Canon Law.

This may seem to circumvent the need for ordinary jurisdiction to you. I know it seemed that way for me and that was my biggest objection originally. But, as you know, the first law is the salvation of souls. The Church is not going to risk the good-willed penitent's salvation on a technicality for a priest not having ordinary jurisdiction.

Instead the Code deals with the priest who does this in a separate Canon. So the Church does not punish by invalidating sacraments. It punishes the priests who are operating without ordinary jurisdiction without good reason. Then you must go to the Canons specifying when a suspended priest can hear confessions licitly. Canon 2366 I believe. That is a totally separate issue.

As for certainty of validity, the Code gives us certainty by its provisions for positive and probable doubt.

Canon 144

In common error or in positive probable doubt whether of fact or law, the Church supplies jurisdiction both for the external and the internal forum.

Woywood-Smith, A Practical Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, 1962, # 162: Generally speaking, a negative doubt means that one has no reason to serve as a basis for deciding a question, and it is about equal to ignorance on that question. A positive doubt means that one has a good reason for deciding a question one way, but that there is also a reason in favor of a contrary decision of the question. For example, the reasons for and against the existence of jurisdiction in a certain case create a positive doubt; and if the reasons on both sides are of such weight so as to create a bona fide doubt, the Church supplies the jurisdiction, even though actually the person did not possess it.

Whenever there is a probable or positive doubt as to jurisdiction, the Church supplies it. This is a specific Canon. As I said before, the Church does not wish Hell on sincere penitents for technicalities in Canon Law. It wants them to be assured of the validity of their sacraments. So in the case of a positive and probable doubt of fact or law the Church clearly supplies jurisdiction.

Whether you agree with me or not Pascendi, I hope you would give me the courtesy of recognizing that I have come to my conclusions in a sincere search for the truth. I took you at your word when you claimed you had attended SSPX Masses and counsel others to do so. I hope you would take me at mine.

Thanks & God bless.

[pascendi]

Whether you agree with me or not Pascendi, I hope you would give me the courtesy of recognizing that I have come to my conclusions in a sincere search for the truth.

I can.