Fr. Fitzpatrick vs. Fr. Scott on Validity of SSPX Confessions

[Vincentius]

One's eternity depends on obeying Christ.

...and Christ has seen fit to provide supplied jurisdiction through his ministers, perhaps Providently, for a time such as this...

A footnote to the impasse:    supplied jurisdiction is not a universal and an all-encompassing right.  That is what you seem to imply.   So we don't come off from a common tangent, let's understand that the church supplies jurisdiction only in certain cases, instances, or states of necessity.   And, mainly, what are these?  When the salvation of souls is threatened.  And only for that reason and purpose.

For instance, where I live there is a thriving traditional parish.  There is no endangerment nor jeopardy to the corruption of souls.   In other words, there is no state of necessity.   Ergo, Fr. Trad who comes in to this bailiwick and sets up shop  cannot claim to have supplied jurisdiction.  His priestly faculties are illicit and criminal. 

Now supposing a Catholic from out of town comes upon Fr. Trad's "church," sees all the trimmings of a traditional parish and, not knowing that this priest does not have faculties, sees a line to the confessional and joins that line intending to go to confession:  common error is then applicable and this catholic receives absolution via supplied jurisdiction. 

Otherwise, if this Catholic is aware that the priest is a sacerdos vagus who has no faculties, he is enjoined by conscience to avoid seeking the sacraments unless it is a matter of emergency (imminent death).  There is no law applicable, error of fact or otherwise, to confer the sacraments on him.  

The SSPX has not set up a mission chapel in my area for this reason, knowing that jurisdiction is not and cannot be supplied to them.  

The priests of the Society of Saint Pius X have never claimed to have faculties to hear confessions.  In fact, we have repeatedly stated the contrary, namely that our bishops do not have jurisdiction to grant faculties...

How else can one come off tangent parsing these statements?   Canon law(s) cited is applied when there is a necessity, and this necessity is only about the salvation of souls, -- when a valid priest with faculties cannot be approached within a reasonable amount of time or is within a reasonable distance.  No amount of applying "shades of meanings" will change what the church has ordained in her laws.   The SSPX's claim to supplied jurisdiction is there but it is limited and constrained.  It is not universal.   It's availability gets narrower and slimmrer now that traditional priests are feeling the void.
 

[StevusMagnus]

Vincentius,

Point to the Canon that states supplied jurisdiction for confessions is predicated on "necessity".

[MagisterMusicae]

Vincentius,

You may want to review what a Decree actually is before treading down that path.

Canons 48-57 deal with what constitutes a Decree.

As an example here (PDF) is the Decree of Excommunication from Archbishop Emeritus Burke to the women who engaged in an "ordination" ceremony.

If you can produce a similar document which specifically decrees (in the legal sense -- that is makes a official declared judgment which follows the Canonical procedure) the suspension or excommunication of all SSPX priests, then please provide this.

[MagisterMusicae]

Do they have faculties?  Well, Fr. Scott can speak for the SSPX:

The priests of the Society of Saint Pius X have never claimed to have faculties to hear confessions. In fact, we have repeatedly stated the contrary, namely that our bishops do not have jurisdiction to grant faculties...

If we cannot see that the quoted declaration by a spokesman of the SSPX ... does not settle the matter about supplied jurisdiction -- when and where it is applicable --  then we can keep going by exculpating ourselves with convincing arguments that only agrees with our reasoning.  The question of jurisdiction cannot be falsified by any conceivable debate on what ecclesiastical law says or does not say according to our reasoning.

Well, if a group truly knows that a priest does not have faculties, then clearly there can be no Common Error of Fact, since there can be no factual error. We know he does not have faculties.

What about Common Error of Law?

Our lawyer friend Stevus tries to apply what he has been trained in -- civil law --  on church law.

You're right to imply that they are not the same ... except that many of the same principles and concepts are identical or at least convertible.

[StevusMagnus]

Thanks Andrew. NSM pay attention.

[Vincentius]

Vincentius,

Point to the Canon that states supplied jurisdiction for confessions is predicated on "necessity".

Why else would there be a need for the Church to supply jurisdiction extraordinarily when she has already made provisions that ordinary jurisdiction comes from the pope, outside of whom no one has that power?

[Marybonita]

So, for all those arguing points which task trained Canonists: How many angels can you fit on the head of a pin?

~In JMJ

[StevusMagnus]

Vincentius,

Point to the Canon that states supplied jurisdiction for confessions is predicated on "necessity".

Why else would there be a need for the Church to supply jurisdiction extraordinarily when she has already made provisions that ordinary jurisdiction comes from the pope, outside of whom no one has that power?

Canon Law spells it out. One case is Common Error of Law. No necessity required.

[Vincentius]

Vincentius,

Point to the Canon that states supplied jurisdiction for confessions is predicated on "necessity".

Why else would there be a need for the Church to supply jurisdiction extraordinarily when she has already made provisions that ordinary jurisdiction comes from the pope, outside of whom no one has that power?

Canon Law spells it out. One case is Common Error of Law. No necessity required.

What then is the purpose of having a hierarchy established under the Vicar of Christ and ordinary jurisdiction if the error in law permits and provides (and casts aside) what the lawgiver has passed?  Anybody and his brother can run his own little church free from constrains and ecclesiatical legalese, and God just says, "You all made the error, My Church will have to provide all the necessary jurisdiction and grant faculties to your priests."

That is plain anarchy.   Why the need for the pope, and order in the Church?

Mel Gibson has his own "church" -- he gets away with murder in the Cathedral?

[StevusMagnus]

The answer is that the priests who create common error commit mortal sin by doing so unless they have a grave reason.

Thus Canon Law punishes the priests who should know better and not the penitents.