Why I left the SSPX

[StevusMagnus]

That doesn't come as a surprise at all.  Might you have thought that it would have?  With as little effort as the wave of a hand, Rome can sanitize any of these situations. 

There is no record of any radical sanation from Rome in the case of Africa or Campos. If you are claiming there is, please produce it. Rome in one case simply ordered the SSPX marriages be recorded, in the other case they never required penitents to give general confession after confessing to a priest without ordinary jurisdiction for years.

That effort, little as it may seem, counts for much.  In this particular case, any situation which might have been a true case of supplied by ordinary jurisdiction needs to be recorded.

That's not what happened. Rome said to record them all.

But clearly you want to call use these actions of Rome as a means of claiming that there was never a need for ordinary jurisdiction, Steven.

Not at all.

Isn't this indeed the case, that you're saying that the SSPX at this time has no need of ordinary jurisdiction?

No. Canon law states that ordinary jurisdiction is required, but that in certain circumstances supplied jurisdiction is given. The SSPX priests fit the exceptions for supplied jurisdiction in Canon Law.

[StevusMagnus]

As usual, people slur the meaning of the term "crisis" and "emergency", passing from one meaning to another.  This is rather easy to explain:  there is one sense of emergency or crisis which pertains to difficulties in general in the Church at this time.  There is another sense pertaining to the inability to obtain sacraments from a priest with jurisdiction; proximity to death, some kind of great distance or inability to travel, and so on.  Clearly we cannot be passing forth between one and another sense of "emergency" and pretend its all the same.

Pascendi,

Where in Canon law is the word "emergency" used as the basis for supplied jurisdiction?

Please cite a Canon. I suppose this Canon will describe "emergency" and the situations you described as part of this "emergency" including those you are referring to with "and so on".

Also still waiting for you to provide evidence of all your claims I challenged in a previous post.

Also waiting for a response to the SSPX Canon Law arguments I cited that have gone unanswered.

Thanks.

[pascendi]

You claim I deny the clear law of the Church.

Yes, I do. Specifically Canon 144.

I claim that you are interpreting this canon more widely than it can be.  That's not a denial of the canon.  That's a denial of your applications of it.

But the clear law of the Church is that jurisdiction is necessary for the administration of the sacraments, and, for two of those sacraments, it is necessary for validity.

And it is also the clear law of the Church that there are exceptions to this law, which you are unwilling to admit.

Manifestly false statement, as I have time and again given clear examples of legitimate exceptions to it which are in fact covered by canon law.  But you have been accusing me of misrepresenting your position.  What have you just done here?  You've misrepresented my position.

You're applying one law, but ignoring the other.

You are applying a law exceptions so broadly as to negate the law.  The exception to the rule has become the rule of exceptions.

It is a gratuity that I do so at all for you.

Wow.

I'm honored.

You are most welcome.  Can you please not state that I hold positions that I do not hold?  This would greatly enhance the conversation.

[StevusMagnus]

You claim I deny the clear law of the Church.

Yes, I do. Specifically Canon 144.

I claim that you are interpreting this canon more widely than it can be.  That's not a denial of the canon.  That's a denial of your applications of it.

It's not his interpretation. It is clear from the Canon and the commentary in the Code. If you had an argument, you'd be able to cite authority for it, but you can't. You only have your own opinion. You have nothing but the general rule that ordinary jurisdiction is normally necessary. We already dealt with that. You have no authoritative answer. Just your own opinion.

But the clear law of the Church is that jurisdiction is necessary for the administration of the sacraments, and, for two of those sacraments, it is necessary for validity.

And it is also the clear law of the Church that there are exceptions to this law, which you are unwilling to admit.

Manifestly false statement, as I have time and again given clear examples of legitimate exceptions to it which are in fact covered by canon law.  But you accuse me of misrepresenting your position.  What have you just done here?

You admit exceptions of your own making and cite no authority for them.

You're applying one law, but ignoring the other.

You are applying a law exceptions so broadly as to negate the law!  The exception to the rule has become the rule of exceptions.

He is doing no such thing. The Church provides for wide application as evidence by the Code's many exceptions and the Commentary on the relevant Canons.

You are most welcome.  Can you please state that I hold positions that I do not hold?  This would greatly enhance the conversation.

It's irrelevant what positions you hold. What's relevant is where Canon Law backs up those positions. You can cite no examples where it does.

[MeaMaximaCulpa]

I claim that you are interpreting this canon more widely than it can be.  That's not a denial of the canon.  That's a denial of your applications of it.

Read the commentary I posted.  This is a commentary on Canon Law from the North American Canon Lawers (hardly in SSPX's pocket).

Although the canon presupposes the existence of common error, occasions might arise when common error could be induced, e.g., when a priest has no faculty to hear confession, but enters the confessional because many people want to confess and he is sure that in the given situation people will think he has jurisdiction. In such a situation the Church will supply the faculty.

Supplied jurisdiction is given in situations of common error.  The commentary says explicitly that any priest walking into a confessional is enough to induce common error (since if average Joe walked into the chapel he'd assume that the priest was able to hear confessions).  Thus, all an SSPX priest has to do is walk into a confession, and common error will exist.  Thus, the Church will supply jurisdiction.

Same goes with marriages.  If someone would walk into an SSPX church, he might be able to assume "Hey, this is a Catholic church.  I could get married here."  

Ex.  Individual A is an SSPX attendee.  Individual B knows nothing of SSPX, but ends up attending their chapel since he's on business (boy, is he surpriesed when he walks in!!!)  Individual B hasn't been to confession in a while, and goes since he sees half the parishoners in church going.  Even if Individual A knows full well that the SSPX does not have ordinary jurisdiction, the fact that Individual B would be induced to believe that SSPX does have jurisdiction would be enough for the Church to supply jurisdiction for the priest to hear each penitent's confession (both A and B).  Even if there are no "individual B's" in the chapel on any given Sunday, the fact that common error could be induced is enough for the Church to supply jurisdiction.

[StevusMagnus]

MeaMaxima,

Good job reposting that commentary. I've noticed pascendi ignored it as he does all evidence that contradicts his unfounded private opinion. He simply ignores damaging evidence to his case and repeats mantras.

He has also ignored the portions of the Fr. Angeles study I posted. He has no answer.

That is all the NO establishment has in response to valid Canon Law arguments. All they can do is babble in circles about irrelevant things.

It truly shows their dishonesty.

[pascendi]

It's not his interpretation. It is clear from the Canon and the commentary in the Code.

There's something particular amusing in this.  I figure you probably won't see it, but some readers certainly will, so it is well worth mentioning.  You have here a canon which is quite loosely worded, as loosely worded as many things you might find in the documents of Vatican II.  There is no doubt about this.  And it's probably not necessarily a bad thing.  But whereas all traditionalists would decry the loose and ambiguous wording of some parts of the documents of Vatican II, when loosely written canon appears in your favor, some of you hold it so close and so tightly such that no one would wrest it from you. 

Where is the consistency in this?  However, I suggest rather than taking the course of action which seems more conducive to your purposes, it is more rational, more honest to seek the proper interpretation, the one which would be in line with what the Church has always believed and taught.  The Church has always taught that ordinary jurisdiction was necessary for licity or validity or both, with exceptions allowed in particular instances.  Using a loosely worded canon to draw the interpretation that you can bypass the law of the church for whatever reasons suit your purpose will not pass as a viable interpretation.  You may hold it, but you may well not truly have your supplied jurisdiction, and there's no way to be certain you have it.

 If you had an argument, you'd be able to cite authority for it, but you can't.

My authority has been the Church's teaching on the need for ordinary jurisdiction for licity and in some case validity.  What more authority would you demand from me?

 
 You only have your own opinion.

Again, it is you who hold an opinion.  You want to believe you are truly the recipient of supplied jurisdiction.  I'm sorry, but I cannot tell you that you are.  Canon law does not make it clear that you are, though you wish to propose that it does. 

You have nothing but the general rule that ordinary jurisdiction is normally necessary. We already dealt with that. You have no authoritative answer. Just your own opinion.

That's all I need.  Logically speaking, as I have said to you and others so many times here, the burden rests upon you.  Obtaining certainty on this matter, and trying to convince others of your certainty is all your affair.  I have no worries over this matter.  I have no issues to work out with myself.  I have denied nothing of the Catholic Faith or have rejected none of its canons because I have disagreed with you.

The Church provides for wide application as evidence by the Code's many exceptions and the Commentary on the relevant Canons.

You demand from me all sorts of responses to the various things you put out for me to read and consider, but you or others will not provide me with specific instances which you believe squarely fall within the parameters of a very loosely phrased canon.

Can you please state that I hold positions that I do not hold?  This would greatly enhance the conversation.

It's irrelevant what positions you hold. What's relevant is where Canon Law backs up those positions. You can cite no examples where it does.

It should have read, please do not state that I hold positions I do not hold.  And please don't.  It's happened multiple times now, instances where you have claimed I said something I didn't say.  It's hard to work with that.

[MagisterMusicae]

Same goes with marriages.  If someone would walk into an SSPX church, he might be able to assume "Hey, this is a Catholic church.  I could get married here." 

Actually, marriages are much more easily reconciled due to Canon 1108 and 1060.

If it is impossible to approach one's legitimate pastor to be married, and it is forseen that this impossibility will last for 30 days, a couple may be married before any priest, validly and licitly.

In all cases marriage enjoys the favor of law, so it is always presumed valid unless it is proven to be invalid.

The various commentaries also agree on this point and suggest that common error would also provide in the case where a priest commonly witnesses marriages in a church for the same reason that a priest who enters the confessional would validly absolve even if he lacked faculties.

[pascendi]

I claim that you are interpreting this canon more widely than it can be.  That's not a denial of the canon.  That's a denial of your applications of it.

Read the commentary I posted.  This is a commentary on Canon Law from the North American Canon Lawers (hardly in SSPX's pocket).

I did read it, and give the same answer.  In your post, all these cases below may well be true cases of supplied jurisdiction:

Although the canon presupposes the existence of common error, occasions might arise when common error could be induced, e.g., when a priest has no faculty to hear confession, but enters the confessional because many people want to confess and he is sure that in the given situation people will think he has jurisdiction. In such a situation the Church will supply the faculty.

Yes of course.

Supplied jurisdiction is given in situations of common error.  The commentary says explicitly that any priest walking into a confessional is enough to induce common error (since if average Joe walked into the chapel he'd assume that the priest was able to hear confessions).  Thus, all an SSPX priest has to do is walk into a confession, and common error will exist.  Thus, the Church will supply jurisdiction.

If they assume the priest is able to hear them, then yes.

Same goes with marriages.  If someone would walk into an SSPX church, he might be able to assume "Hey, this is a Catholic church.  I could get married here."  

Yes, here as well.

Ex.  Individual A is an SSPX attendee.  Individual B knows nothing of SSPX, but ends up attending their chapel since he's on business (boy, is he surpriesed when he walks in!!!)  Individual B hasn't been to confession in a while, and goes since he sees half the parishoners in church going.  Even if Individual A knows full well that the SSPX does not have ordinary jurisdiction, the fact that Individual B would be induced to believe that SSPX does have jurisdiction would be enough for the Church to supply jurisdiction for the priest to hear each penitent's confession (both A and B).  Even if there are no "individual B's" in the chapel on any given Sunday, the fact that common error could be induced is enough for the Church to supply jurisdiction.

No.  This amounts to the priest having faculties.  However, this is certianly what they wish to argue, that the independent priests can provide the sacraments by way of supplied jurisdiction at all times, with everyone, for any reason, being able to recieve valid sacraments from them. 

[Caminus]

There's something particular amusing in this.  I figure you probably won't see it, but some readers certainly will, so it is well worth mentioning.  You have here a canon which is quite loosely worded, as loosely worded as many things you might find in the documents of Vatican II.  There is no doubt about this.  And it's probably not necessarily a bad thing.  But whereas all traditionalists would decry the loose and ambiguous wording of some parts of the documents of Vatican II, when loosely written canon appears in your favor, some of you hold it so close and so tightly such that no one would wrest it from you. 

Where is the consistency in this?

Laws are framed in general terms because it would be impossible to take into account every conceivable circumstance.  The "loosely phrase" assertions in the texts of the Council, on the other hand, deal with doctrine which should be very precise, as such, they are the material cause of error amongst bishops, priests and laypeople.  Do you even understand what you are talking about, or do you simply have an agenda? 

However, I suggest rather than taking the course of action which seems more conducive to your purposes, it is more rational, more honest to seek the proper interpretation, the one which would be in line with what the Church has always believed and taught.  The Church has always taught that ordinary jurisdiction was necessary for licity or validity or both, with exceptions allowed in particular instances.  Using a loosely worded canon to draw the interpretation that you can bypass the law of the church for whatever reasons suit your purpose will not pass as a viable interpretation.  You may hold it, but you may well not truly have your supplied jurisdiction, and there's no way to be certain you have it.

Do you object because you simply disagree with its application or because the level of certainty is too low for you to tolerate?  You cite the "church's teaching" as if a particular circumstance, totally unforeseen by the legislator is an object of teaching.  Really, if you want to pass yourself off as intelligent, you ought to begin by making the proper distinctions.

 If you had an argument, you'd be able to cite authority for it, but you can't.

My authority has been the Church's teaching on the need for ordinary jurisdiction for licity and in some case validity.  What more authority would you demand from me?

The is the standard neo-conservative stance, I've got the Church on my side, what do you have?  This is nothing more than rhetoric.  Again, you are referring to objectively necessary things with which no one disagrees, rather it is the application of the principle which is at issue here. 

 
 You only have your own opinion.

Again, it is you who hold an opinion.  You want to believe you are truly the recipient of supplied jurisdiction.  I'm sorry, but I cannot tell you that you are.  Canon law does not make it clear that you are, though you wish to propose that it does.

What good is the principle that 'necessity knows no law' if we could theoretically never know when necessity has dispensed with the law?  Do you adhere to some gnostic sect? 

You have nothing but the general rule that ordinary jurisdiction is normally necessary. We already dealt with that. You have no authoritative answer. Just your own opinion.

That's all I need.  Logically speaking, as I have said to you and others so many times here, the burden rests upon you.  Obtaining certainty on this matter, and trying to convince others of your certainty is all your affair.  I have no worries over this matter.  I have no issues to work out with myself.  I have denied nothing of the Catholic Faith or have rejected none of its canons because I have disagreed with you.

Oh, you have no worries now, because you've consigned yourself to intellectual laziness and security at the extraordinary expense of the common good of the Church, objective reality and truth.  Sure, you may not be all too worried now, but when Judgment comes, we will see how worried you really become. 

The burden has been shouldered, the evidence is striking and weighty, we cannot help you if you refuse to see it for what it is.  Pomposity and willful ignorance make for a very bad combination.