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

[PastorAeternus]

I am going to suspend further comment on this for the moment.  My great hope is that the rumored lifting of the excommunications comes to pass and some provision will be made providing jurisdiction to the SSPX while a final juridical solution is being worked out.   

A noble sentiment - I concur.

[Marybonita]

January 21, 2009.

Soon we simple laity won't have to enter a confessional and begin with this:

Father, due to the prayers and interventions of the Angels and Saints spurred on by the constant petitions of my parents and perhaps good Catholics who have prayed for the salvation of sinners such as I have become, I now wish to unburden my soul with a general review of my sins in case I go too soon to my judgement.

But first we must clear up a dilemna introduced by several people on an internet site which I frequent.

I visited the local stone churches but have failed to see a priest at any time of the day or night. Certainly there were a few men bobbing around with some heavy-footed women but they certainly did not look nor did they act like priests. And the confessionals were emply. One man opened the door to a small room with two chairs and offered to give me an update on what is a sin but I quite bluntly don't trust anyone in flip-flops who proposes to instruct me in anything.
 
I really fear that our church has become a wasteland.
 
(draws breath)
 
I see, Father, that you are a priest and are available in the confessional and I know that I can assist at your Mass according to the same source. I am as relieved as a thirsty man crossing the Gobi desert. But now for the all-important question - the answer to which may send me back to the wasteland for another fruitless search or it may relieve me of my sinful burden before another vital moment has passed. 

So - do you have ordinary jurisdiction?

(Thank you Lord that I no longer have to read endless ruminations by enemies of our holy Church disguising themselves as armchair experts.)

Goodnight gentlemen! Your time is up.
 
~In JMJ
 
 

[StevusMagnus]

One man opened the door to a small room with two chairs and offered to give me an update on what is a sin but I quite bluntly don't trust anyone in flip-flops who proposes to instruct me in anything.

Good one! Priceless! Thanks.

[JMartyr]

<P>

There was more than one suspension incurred by ABL resulting from different events.  I refer you back to this though:

Doesn't really matter. We are talking about the priests, not ABL.

</P>
Right, and the priests were Declared automatically suspended by the press release from the Holy See.  As you can see, Cardinal Castrillon confirms the same standing in L'Osservatore Romano.

I know this was posted along time ago and I wish I was a part of the excitement. Anyway. What does a declaration in 1976 have to do with the priests being ordained today? The declaration was for the Archbishop and the priests the Archbishop ordained, not the priests ordained by the 4 bishops. For the priests to not have valid confessions today  [ or then for that matter ], , the sentence would have to be declared and the declaration would have to include a sentence in which it would say  the suspension includes invalidating effects to the sacraments they provide .No declaration either then or now , official or not, has said this. The commentary on canon law[2000] says this. Look it up and quit SSPX hating!! 

[JMartyr]

Canon 1335 allows non declared suspended priests to validly and licitly give confessions

[spasiisochrani]

Canon 1335 allows non declared suspended priests to validly and licitly give confessions

It does not, however, seem to confer jurisdiction where none exists.

Can. 1335 If a censure prohibits the celebration of sacraments or sacramentals or the placing of an act of governance, the prohibition is suspended whenever it is necessary to care for the faithful in danger of death. If a latae sententiae censure has not been declared, the prohibition is also suspended whenever a member of the faithful requests a sacrament or sacramental or an act of governance; a person is permitted to request this for any just cause.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P4X.HTM

[JMartyr]

Wouldn't a suspended priest lose jurisdiction anyway? Canon 966 says jurisdiction may be given by the authorities or the law itself. Even a declared excommunicated priest may absolve in danger of death which is licit or if the faithful for a just cause ask for confession which would be illicit unless the declared sentence included a invalidating effect on the  sacrament of confession which would render the sacrament invalid. All these cases jurisdiction is supplied by the law/ Church. Whether the suspension/excommunication is valid or not is another story.

[JMartyr]

Canon 1335 allows non declared suspended priests to validly and licitly give confessions

It does not, however, seem to confer jurisdiction where none exists.

Can. 1335 If a censure prohibits the celebration of sacraments or sacramentals or the placing of an act of governance, the prohibition is suspended whenever it is necessary to care for the faithful in danger of death. If a latae sententiae censure has not been declared, the prohibition is also suspended whenever a member of the faithful requests a sacrament or sacramental or an act of governance; a person is permitted to request this for any just cause.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P4X.HTM

An act of governance is an act of jurisdiction. The terms are interchangeable.

[spasiisochrani]

Canon 1335 allows non declared suspended priests to validly and licitly give confessions

It does not, however, seem to confer jurisdiction where none exists.

Can. 1335 If a censure prohibits the celebration of sacraments or sacramentals or the placing of an act of governance, the prohibition is suspended whenever it is necessary to care for the faithful in danger of death. If a latae sententiae censure has not been declared, the prohibition is also suspended whenever a member of the faithful requests a sacrament or sacramental or an act of governance; a person is permitted to request this for any just cause.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P4X.HTM

An act of governance is an act of jurisdiction. The terms are interchangeable.

True, and in the case of SSPX priests a latae sententiae suspension probably has not been "declared".    However, my understanding, purely from the point of view of canon law, is that it is not the alleged suspension that "prohibits the placing of an...act of governance", but the fact that the priest in question has never received faculties from the diocesan bishop in the first place.  Therefore, he would not have faculties even if he were not suspended.

[JMartyr]

Canon 1335 allows non declared suspended priests to validly and licitly give confessions

It does not, however, seem to confer jurisdiction where none exists.

Can. 1335 If a censure prohibits the celebration of sacraments or sacramentals or the placing of an act of governance, the prohibition is suspended whenever it is necessary to care for the faithful in danger of death. If a latae sententiae censure has not been declared, the prohibition is also suspended whenever a member of the faithful requests a sacrament or sacramental or an act of governance; a person is permitted to request this for any just cause.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P4X.HTM

An act of governance is an act of jurisdiction. The terms are interchangeable.

True, and in the case of SSPX priests a latae sententiae suspension probably has not been "declared".    However, my understanding, purely from the point of view of canon law, is that it is not the alleged suspension that "prohibits the placing of an...act of governance", but the fact that the priest in question has never received faculties from the diocesan bishop in the first place.  Therefore, he would not have faculties even if he were not suspended.

I understand what you are saying. The matter is very confusing.Canon law provides the answer in 966. It says that faculties may be given in two ways;  by the proper authorities, which would be a bishop,  or the law itself.