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

[StevusMagnus]

Vincentius,

They are in every sense of the word Catholic and they are churches though not legal "parishes".

The SSPX runs no paralell magisterium. They recognize one Magisterium that must not be obeyed when it issues non-infalllible statements that contradict previous infallible ones and infallible Tradition.

The Pope's "open arms" to regularization include sticking to the errors emanating from VCII and placing the Society alongside other erroneous Modern movements and craziness in a sideshow of tradition while the Church also supports other crazy movements such as the Neo-Cat Way. The Society is not opposed to reconciliation, but first Rome must recognize Her own Tradition and at the least, correct her official non-infallible "new" theology to reflect Tradition.

[Vincentius]

The SSPX runs no paralell magisterium. They recognize one Magisterium that must not be obeyed when it issues non-infalllible statements that contradict previous infallible ones and infallible Tradition.

The Pope's "open arms" to regularization include sticking to the errors emanating from VCII and placing the Society alongside other erroneous Modern movements and craziness in a sideshow of tradition while the Church also supports other crazy movements such as the Neo-Cat Way. The Society is not opposed to reconciliation, but first Rome must recognize Her own Tradition and at the least, correct her official non-infallible "new" theology to reflect Tradition.

Stevus, I think you support the thought process of the majority of the SSPX that until Rome converts, they will stand askance -- aloof -- and wait for that moment to spring up and return to tradition.  After 50 years of the "spirit of the V-II" commanding the mentality of conciliarism, does the SSPX expect that to happen?   That's kind of naive to hold that conviction.  It will be nothing but an exercise of futility. 

Or is the SSPX expecting a deus ex machina type of denouement, the final resolution to arrive and save the day?  I don't think the SSPX is that credulous and jejune to accpt that, at least not among the most astute of its rank and file.

For so long now I have always held the fact that outside the citadel -- the fortress held hostage by the conciliarists -- the SSPX is impotent.  By itself, the SSPX cannot hope that the Holy Ghost will miraculously bring about the change to normalcy "just because" -- the Church is under divine chastisement.  We are all under divine chastisement, the SSPX included; can't we see that?

What are those fraternal order of priests who came in from the cold, reconciled and accepted regularization?   They are slowly altering the course of modernism that has gripped all those who have made the Church what she is today.  The SSPX does nothing but malign these order of priests for "submitting" and "giving in" to the enemy.  Really?   Who really is THE enemy here?   Operating under the auspices of a Canon Law that puts doubt at best on those who know what jurisdiction is and what is truly supplied and what is not, -- on these grounds the SSPX cannot expect to last forever.  I cannot in good conscience go to confession to the SSPX.

If Rome is to be converted and return to Tradition, it would be in the best interest of SSPX to do battle inside the Citadel, instead of the quixotic fighting of windmills from the outside.  The joined forces of all traditional orders would bring about the demise and destruction of modernism sooner than sitting outside the gate in hopeful aspiration that Rome will come back to her senses.  It is the great divide found in traditionalism that is hampering the good of the Church.  We loudly protest what Rome is doing that is not to the interest of her divine mission, but we do nothing about it.   And most of us deride, malign and condemn those who say we must be united with Peter in order to be saved.

[StevusMagnus]

Those Trad orders "reconciled" with Rome are, in a sense, neutered. The FSSP already had one of its superiors replaced for basically being too Traditional an speaking out too harshly against the NO. Rome promptly replaced him with one who agrees with the hermenetic of continuity and is silent on the true causes of the Modernist crisis around us.

If the Society came under Rome with no Bishop, they would have been finished, swallowed up by he Post-Conciliar establishment. The only reason Tradition exists today is because of ABL consistently fighting back. If there was no SSPX there would be no MP, no FSSP, etc. The only progress in this movement has come through courageously continuing upon the course of our fathers and not compromising with Modernism.

Conciliar Rome showed zero interest in reaching out to Trads until suddenly when ABL spoke of consecrations they somehow, jumped to action. They tried to bury the SSPX by throwing bones to Traditionalists and sucking away their faithful.

Then 2002 rolled around, the crisis had worsened and Rome again started making overtures to regularize the expanding and spiritually flourishing Society. The more the Church self-destructs along the route of VCII innovation and the more Tradition thrives, the more obvious the situation will become. The SSPX stands as a sign of contradiction, that Tradition is the only answer to the Church's problems. It was necesary that that Tradition be allowed to grow and shine unimpeded by Modernist Post-Conciliar control and influence. ABL did not wish to take that route, it was forced upon him as Conciliar Rome could not bear to see his seminaries overflowing and the revolution's Mass rejected.

Thus today the FSSP has made little to no progress in turning the tide of official conciliar modernism. Indeed how could they, when they are under the complete control of NO Rome and their local NO Bishop? Meanwhile all progress in forcing Rome to recognize what Tradition they have has come through the SSPX's rightful resistance.

[newschoolman]

Can. 144 §1. In factual or legal common error and in positive and probable doubt of law or of fact, the Church supplies executive power of governance for both the external and internal forum.

 

There is nothing here that suggests that everybody involved can know the truth and pretend it does not exist.  This canon is not some license to play a game a make believe.

 

This canon nowhere includes language stating that people who know the priest does not have faculties cannot be absolved. Please show me where Canon Law states this. In fact Canon Law commentators say the opposite. 

[/QUOTE]

Sure it does.  It specifically references common error -- either regarding the facts of the matter or regarding the law itself.  In either case we are still dealing with real common error. 

[newschoolman]

It is what the Code says and has always been interpreted to mean!

No, it is what some would like to pretend that the code says.  The intent of the code was spelled out at the beginning of this post by the example of the priest on vacation and hearing confessions for pilgrims who would be in common error.

[StevusMagnus]

Sure it does.  It specifically references common error -- either regarding the facts of the matter or regarding the law itself.  In either case we are still dealing with real common error. 

It does so with fact not law. Common error of fact = ignorance. Law does not require ignorance as Canon Law commentators you yourself quoted in another thread attest to.

[StevusMagnus]

It is what the Code says and has always been interpreted to mean!

No, it is what some would like to pretend that the code says.  The intent of the code was spelled out at the beginning of this post by the example of the priest on vacation and hearing confessions for pilgrims who would be in common error.

That was simply an example. The same principle applies in the SSPX case. Regardless, the faithful can approach even excommunicated priests for confession for any just reason whatsoever, so this is really moot.

[newschoolman]

Sure it does.  It specifically references common error -- either regarding the facts of the matter or regarding the law itself.  In either case we are still dealing with real common error. 

It does so with fact not law. Common error of fact = ignorance. Law does not require ignorance as Canon Law commentators you yourself quoted in another thread attest to.

Not correct.  Common error of fact involves error (ignorance) regarding factual matters.  Common error of law involves error (ignorance) regarding the law itself.  Now, the moral theologians I cited mentioned the possiblity of one -- who happens to know the truth among a community that is in error -- that can still benefit from the supplied jurisdiction by virtue of the common error existing in the community.  Common error is still error and involves ignorance (either of facts or of law).    

[newschoolman]

Regardless, the faithful can approach even excommunicated priests for confession for any just reason whatsoever, so this is really moot.

You may be referring to the following?  The situation with the SSPX, however, is that the censures have been publicly declared by the Holy See.

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

[newschoolman]

Ok. We have established that we can not come to a conclusion as to whether or not the Church would supply jurisdiction in the case of common error of law if people were not ignorant as to whether the priest has faculties to hear confessions. One person says one thing, another person says something else.

It is not so simple as that.  There must be common error (ignorance) among the community regarding the law itself.  Wilfull ignorance regarding the law and the proper interpretation of law (just as with sacred scripture, etc.) involves culpability and does not suffice.