Skip to main content

Father MacDonald on Apples and Oranges

Image
By
+
JMJ

Father MacDonald wrote the following on his blog "Southern orders: Mixing Apples and Oranges"

Many Catholics who attend these chapels think they are receiving absolution in "confession" and are validly being "married" but they are not and thus when they go to Holy Communion they are doing so in a state of mortal sin compounded by their illicit civil union which is an invalid sacrament.
My comment - which has yet to appear on his blog  - was approximately the following:

If the Catholic thought they were receiving absolution, then they were absolved and married because of their error - following Canon Law.
As an aside, the SSPX does not claim to have 'ordinary jurisdiction' - although I understand that some dioceses have provided them with faculties (don't know which - just heard on a forum ...).  If they did make that claim, then they would truly be schismatic.  

My comment has appeared:
Hi Father,
If this is true:
"... Many Catholics who attend these chapels think they are receiving absolution in "confession" and are validly being "married" but they are not and thus when they go to Holy Communion they are doing so in a state of mortal sin compounded by their illicit civil union which is an invalid sacrament. ..."
Then the Church supplies due to error and the noted sacraments are valid.
That the SSPX does not have hierarchical jurisdiction is not in question. If they made that claim, then they would be schismatic. They generally rely upon supplied jurisdiction due to the state of necessity in which the faithful find themselves. However, the suppliance of jurisdiction in the case of error would also suffice.
P^3


The SSPX rely upon the state of necessity caused by this crisis of the Catholic Church (please don't ask: What crisis?).  In this case, because the salvation of souls is the highest law that supercedes all other canons the Church supplies jurisdiction.

I found this part very interesting:
In fact it would be better to go to an Eastern Orthodox priest, since they are in true schism and do not require canonical approbation for the validity of their Sacrament of Penance and Holy Matrimony.
Which is cute, Fr. Zed indicated that this was due to the Orthodox bishops having ordinary jurisdiction before the schism.  This however falls down when they entered areas that are outside of their territorial jurisdiction.

Doing a quick search I found the following on EWTN:
"Canon 844 - §2. Whenever necessity requires it or true spiritual advantage suggests it, and provided that danger of error or of indifferentism is avoided, the Christian faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister are permitted to receive the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick from non-Catholic ministers in whose Churches these sacraments are valid."In all cases validly ordained priests have the power, from ordination, to administer the sacrament of penance. In the Latin Church this exercise is controlled by the requirement that the priest receive the faculty to administer the sacrament. This faculty is conceded to Orthodox priests in certain circumstances as noted in the cited canon and in the guidelines provided in the "Directory for the Application of Principles and Norms on Ecumenism (Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, March 25, 1993). (Source: EWTN)
So, if a Catholic finds themselves in a morally impossibility to approach a Catholic minister (with ordinary jurisdiction) - for example perhaps he's spreading heretical doctrines, malforming the words of consecration and absolution ... - would the Church not also provide jurisdiction for an SSPX priest as she does for the Orthodox (note well - this is stating something different that Fr. MacDonald). How is the moral impossibility judged?

All this is compounded with the way Rome treats the SSPX's confessions - granted that we only have Bishop Fellay's words - in serious reserved cases they have never stated that they don't have jurisdiction to absolve.

In the end Father makes this statement:
They have more in common with the fullness of the Church surrounded by Saint Peter than the Orthodox and Anglicans. 
Vatican II 'speak' is lots of fun. Frankly, the SSPX is Catholic and just lacks a canonical regularity that it 'lost' earlier in its history.

It will be restored when the Church stops shunning the perspective that the SSPX represents and carries within its bosom.

P^3

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Rome,the SSPX and this time of Crisis - Updated

By
+ JMJ Obviously there's lots of events right now. First we have the April 1st - I almost thought it was April Fools - meeting between Pope Francis and Bishop Fellay.  Nothing really news worthy as this is a natural progression as Rome appears to be considering fulfilling Archbishop Lefebvre's wish to 'accept us as we are'. Second we have the April 8th publication of what will be a verbose exhortation of the Synod of the Family. I'm willing to bet that the Pope will give with one hand (unilateral regularization of SSPX) and take with the other (ambiguous document that opens the flood gates of sin further). Much to pray for. P^3
30 comments
Read more

A Reply to Martin Blackshaw’s FLAWED Remnant article titled: FLAWED: SSPX Advice on Abortion-tainted Vaccines

By
 + JMJ    An article has appeared in the Remnant (link to article) and I am afraid that there are a number of flaws in it that need to be addressed. The author, Martin Blackshaw, believes that both the Church and the SSPX are misapplying the principle of Moral Theology called 'Cooperation In Evil'.  Unfortunately, Mr. Blackshaw rests most of his arguments on citing authors that support his position, without considering the possibility that they are wrong. This highlights a key factor in this crisis: ignorance of the faith and its application . I don't am not singling out Mr. Blackshaw for this criticism, I have observed that it applies to laity and religious, superior and subject a like.  No one seems immune in this enduring crisis, myself included.  I further believe that this ignorance is why so many Catholics, both traditional and non, rely on their gut feeling or "Catholic conscience" for charting their way through this crisis of the faith.  While...
25 comments
Read more

Rorate-Caeli URGENT: Pope tells Italian Bishops he plans to abolish the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum

By
 + JMJ  Now THIS is probably the most important news item in the last two years - yes I place this above the pandemic. I'm only surprised by how long it took for this to surface during this pontificate. I hope and pray that it is false or that if it comes to pass that somehow some good will arise out of the ashes of Summorum Pontificum. P^3  Courtesy of Rorate-Caeli URGENT: Pope tells Italian Bishops he plans to abolish the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum (Updated) Update (May 26): Rorate's additional sources in Rome have confirmed this Wednesday that Francis has indeed a text on Summorum Pontificum lined up, which has been developed for months, but what is not known at this point is if the text is just about a more limited take on the Summorum application questionnaire (first revealed by us in the spring of 2020) or about an overhaul of Summorum Pontificum in general: drafts could be dealing with both matters. It is also not impossible for a text to come ou...
9 comments
Read more

If Pope Francis is bad - what about Pope St. John Paul II et al?

By
+ JMJ So here we are on the apparent cusp of yet another post conciliar Papal canonization. This time we have Pope's John-Paul I and Paul VI canonizations to 'look forward' to. This follows, obviously, on the heels of Pope St. John Paul II's canonization? So the first question that I usually encounter is: How is it possible, keeping in mind the doctrine on infallibility of canonizations (note doctrine not dogma), that Pope St. John Paul II is a Saint? First, what does it mean???  According to the doctrine of dogmatic facts - it is the universal opinion of Theologians that canonizations are infallible.  It means that they enjoy the beatific vision.  ... that's it.  That is the doctrine and it is at the level of universal opinion of theologians.  It is called a 'dogmatic fact'. That they made mistakes is obvious.  That the miracles seem to not be very miraculous is also a bit of an issue. Here's something to consider: The rush that surrou...
16 comments
Read more

The Vatican and SSPX – An Organizational Culture Perspective

By
Introduction The recent and continuing interactions between the Vatican and the SSPX have been a great opportunity for prayer and reflection.  The basis for the disagreement is theological and not liturgical. As noted by Dr. Lamont (2012), the SSPX theological position on the four key controversial aspects of the Second Vatican Council are base on prior theological work that resulted from relevant magisterial pronouncements.  So it is difficult to understand the apparent rejection of the theological position of the SSPX.
17 comments
Read more