Good defense of SSPX and their confession jurisdiction?

[B of Navarre]

The most convincing I've seen is the canonical defense used by John Salza in a debate with James Akin of Catholic Answers. I have the transcript of the debate in a pdf file, which I can send you if you like

Is this it?

http://www.catholicintl.com/catholicissues/sspxconfessions.pdf

[JMartyr]

ii). Application: Interpretative common error is easily caused in public places, as in our chapels and missions, and as a result the power of hearing Confessions is real: even the faithful who know that our priest has no jurisdiction are validly absolved. "The fact that the person knows that the priest has no jurisdiction, does not interfere with the validity of the priest's acts if by common error he is believed to have jurisdiction." (Woywood, A practical commentary on the Code of Canon Law, p.101 of 1962 edition)


In the October 1983 issue of the "Homiletic & Pastoral Review" ,Fr. Joseph J. Farraher, SJ, wrote: As for Archbishop Lefebvre's priests, see my answer in the Aug.- Sept.1982 issue of HPR where I stated that, although his priests are illicitly ordained, they are validly ordained and have the radical power to absolve sacramentally. And, although ordinarily priests require "faculties" or jurisdiction to absolve validly and the Archbishop's priests do not have valid faculties, nevertheless when they enter a confessional in what appears to be a Catholic church, the supreme authority of the Church in Canon Law supplies jurisdiction to them just so that the faithful who approach them in good faith for Confession will not suffer lack of valid absolution. (p.67) And in the February 1985 issue of H.P.R. he came back to the question of Archbishop Lefebvre's priests: The Masses said, the absolution given, and the marriages witnessed by them are all most probably valid, the latter two categories at least by "common error". (p61)


This has been confirmed by a reply of Cardinal Mayer to a letter written by a troubled Catholic from California asking about the validity of our Sacraments: The principle of "common error" , whether on the part of only one faithful or on the part of the community, can be applied in this case, and such acts are thereby valid (cf. canons 144, 976, 1331, 1333, 1335) (Apostolic Nunciature in U.S.A., letter 1885/89/4, dated May lst,1989).

[JMartyr]

Confirmation by canon 1335


The faithful may, for any just reason, ask the Sacraments and sacramentals from a priest who is excommunicated (but not by sentence), especially if there is no other priest available: thus asked by the faithful the excommunicated priest may minister to them validly and lawfully.


Now, if the Church in her spirit of mercy allows the exercise of jurisdiction to a priest punished with the most grievous censure, only in order to satisfy any just reason of conscience of a faithful, how would she not supply jurisdiction to priests arbitrarily and unjustly deprived of it, in order to come to the rescue of the "traditional" Catholics rejected or repulsed by the modern clergy? Any just reason of conscience of a particular faithful is enough to move the mercy of the Church for allowing an excommunicated priest the use of jurisdiction. How the very grave reasons of conscience of thousands of Catholics could not be enough to move the Church to supply jurisdiction to priests whose only crime is to hold fast to the true Faith?

[JMartyr]

http://www.olfatima.com/canonlaw.html

[Iubilate Deo]

Is this it?

http://www.catholicintl.com/catholicissues/sspxconfessions.pdf

Thats the one!

[Pheo]

The most convincing I've seen is the canonical defense used by John Salza in a debate with James Akin of Catholic Answers. I have the transcript of the debate in a pdf file, which I can send you if you like

Is this it?

http://www.catholicintl.com/catholicissues/sspxconfessions.pdf

I wish it had been a debate - it was just his response to one of Jimmy's articles, but it was still a decent one.  Mind you I'd like to see how Jimmy would follow up on that too.

[JMartyr]

The most convincing I've seen is the canonical defense used by John Salza in a debate with James Akin of Catholic Answers. I have the transcript of the debate in a pdf file, which I can send you if you like

Is this it?

http://www.catholicintl.com/catholicissues/sspxconfessions.pdf

I wish it had been a debate - it was just his response to one of Jimmy's articles, but it was still a decent one.  Mind you I'd like to see how Jimmy would follow up on that too.

I have actually e-mailed him about it. I gave him the link to the file and I never heard from him again.

[JMartyr]

For the sake of arguing, if Rome allows one to go to a mass that is valid but illicit as is the case with the SSPX, why couldn't somebody go to confession that is valid, but illicit?

[wsxyz]

For the sake of arguing, if Rome allows one to go to a mass that is valid but illicit as is the case with the SSPX, why couldn't somebody go to confession that is valid, but illicit?

I don't see why not. I figure most people who have concerns question the validity of the absolution, not the licity of the confession.
I haven't had to time to go through your recent postings yet, but what jumped out at me was the concept of "common error". I need to know how "common error" is defined. The intuitive meaning (i.e. - what the average Catholic would assume) doesn't work for me in the case of SSPX confessions, because I think the average Catholic in 2011 would think that SSPX confessions are invalid.

While I can see that in the 1980s that might have been different, these days the average Catholic is either aware of the SSPX and its problematic situation or unaware, but under the assumption that anything "traditional" is bad/forbidden.

So I really need to understand what is meant by "common error" in the citations you provided.

[St. Drogo]

Rome says Catholics may satisfy their Sunday obligation at an SSPX chapel. As this is the case, it's natural to assume that many of those who are frequenting the SSPX will receive the blessed sacrament. The Vatican didn't explicitly say that a Catholic assisting at SSPX masses must receive absolution from a priest with ordinary faculties. If Rome really thought that the SSPX's confessions were invalid and therefore SSPX chapels' attendees were regularly committing a grave sacrilege by receiving communion unworthily, it would have a real duty to warn the faithful of this proximate spiritual danger. I think this constitutes a probable doubt.