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

[StevusMagnus]

"Fiction" does not equal "reality".

That is my point exactly.

Then your point, as I have repeatedly said, is irrelevant, because comon error of law works off this fiction, not reality.

[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.

 

The canon is absolutely clear.  It deals with (1) "common error" and (2) "positive and probable doubt" regarding matters either (a) "of facts" or (b) "of law".

 

 

 

[StevusMagnus]

This proves in itself that the SSPX are not outside the Church. Those outside the Church are not bound under Church Law and a suspension is just that. You can't be both outside the church and suspended.

This (letter?, document?, Infallible dogma?, Christmas Card?) was purportedly written in the 70's, before the consecrations. Nevertheless, Cardinal Hoyos has stated something like 17 times publicly that the Society is not in formal schism, in imperfect communion, and inside the Church. Anyone who tries to argue the Society is in schism or not in the Church is being dishonest or is very ignorant.

[StevusMagnus]

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.

 

The canon is absolutely clear.  It deals with (1) "common error" and (2) "positive and probable doubt" regarding matters either (a) "of facts" or (b) "of law".

 

Correct. Please post something we don't already know...

[newschoolman]

You'll have to produce the document itself including who issued it and the manner in which it was issued and the full language.

I have to do no such thing.  I gave you a reference where you can find the Declaration of Suspension.  Look it up if you care.  If you don't care then ignore it. 

I don't have that book. You are the one making the positive assertion and you have the burden of proving it.

Here is a link to an online version with the text of the Declaration of Suspension given at a public press conference at the vatican:

http://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Apologia/Vol_one/Chapter_12.htm

[StevusMagnus]

J. Salza: Again, we are not limited to Mr. Akin’s question of whether “the local ordinary has supplied faculties to an SSPX priest.” There are no reasonable arguments supporting that conclusion. The question, rather, is whether there is “positive and probable doubt of law,” namely, the application of the law recognizing factual common error, for ecclesia supplet to be triggered. As applied here, there are arguments supporting the idea that a community of reasonable persons (average Catholics) would believe an SSPX priest had faculties, leading to factual common error. There may also be arguments supporting the idea that a community of reasonable persons (well-informed Catholics?) would not believe an SSPX priest had faculties so that there is no factual common error (however, it seems that these arguments would not be as strong since it is not what the community actually believes, but only what a community of reasonable persons would be induced to believe).

Thus, there is “positive doubt” concerning whether the law of factual common error applies to SSPX priests (“doubt of law” can deal with the law’s meaning, application, existence, extension, force or cessation). The doubt also appears to be probable because there are strong arguments in favor of the conclusion that a community of reasonable persons (average Catholics) could be induced to believe a priest celebrating Mass in an SSPX chapel has faculties. Thus, it seems to me that there is “positive and probable doubt of law” which leads the Church to supply jurisdiction to SSPX priests to hear confessions. This is consistent with the Church’s supreme law: The salvation of souls.

In summary, if a fact could induce Catholics to believe that a priest has faculties, the Church supplies jurisdiction under Canon 144 on the grounds of factual common error (first prong). If a positive and probable doubt exists as to the application of this law (of factual common error), the Church still supplies jurisdiction under Canon 144 (second prong). In my opinion, SSPX priests meet both the first and second prong, or, at least the second prong of Canon 144. This is sufficient
for ecclesia supplet to apply.

[StevusMagnus]

Here is a link to an online version with the text of the Declaration of Suspension given at a public press conference at the vatican:

http://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Apologia/Vol_one/Chapter_12.htm

A press conference from the head of the Vatican press bureau, last I checked, does not equal a formal binding canonical declaration of an automatic censure. Neither does the printing of the text of the words of the conference in a diocesan bulletin.

[newschoolman]

There was provision in the 1988 protocol of accord to resolve the matter of the suspension and the "irregularities incured" resulting from illicit ordinations:

 

 

 

6. Particular Problems (to be resolved by decree or declaration)

-- Lifting of the *suspensio a divinis* on Archbishop Lefebvre and dispensation from the irregularities incurred by the fact of the ordinations.

-- *Sanatio in radice*, at lead *ad cautelam*, of the marriages already celebrated by the priests of the Society without the required delegation.

-- Prevision for an "amnesty" and an accord for the houses and places of worship erected -- or used -- by the Society until now without the authorization of the bishops.

Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger

Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre

[StevusMagnus]

There was provision in the 1988 protocol of accord to resolve the matter of the suspension and the "irregularities incured" resulting from illicit ordinations:

 

 

 

A provision in an agreement does not prove the automatic censure was ever officially legally "declared". This provision could apply to either an undeclared or declared censure.

[newschoolman]

There was provision in the 1988 protocol of accord to resolve the matter of the suspension and the "irregularities incured" resulting from illicit ordinations:

 

 

 

A provision in an agreement does not prove the automatic censure was ever officially legally "declared". This provision could apply to either an undeclared or declared censure.

Keep reading the other related correspondences reprinted by Davies (in the link I provided).  You will see that the formal communications followed canonical form.  The Declaration of the Suspension was simmply made public by the vatican press office.