Father MacDonald on Apples and Oranges

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

The Catholic Church and the Rule of Law – Part I: Dr. John Lamont

+ JMJ Is a Traditional Catholic who abandons the doctrine of the Catholic Church - are they truly worthy of the name of Catholic? This is why it is important to understand Catholic Doctrine so we don't knowingly abandon it! This is a lecture provided by Dr. Lamont that touches on the topic of obedience. Obedience is one key to emerging from this crisis. P^3 Source Part A: Society of St. Hugh of Cluny Source Part B: Society of St. Hugh of Cluny 8 May 2014 The Catholic Church and the Rule of Law – Part I By John Lamont (Lecture given in New York on Friday, April 4, 2014)

Schism

There is some question as to whether the Pope can be in actual schism as per the Cardinal Torquemada: Citing the doctrine of Pope Innocent III, Torquemada further teaches: "Thus it is that Pope Innocent III states [De Consuetudine] that, it is necessary to obey the Pope in all things as long as he, himself, does not go against the universal customs of the Church, but should he go against the universal customs of the Church, 'he need not be followed' . . . " [Cited from A Theological Vindication of Roman Catholic Traditionalism, Father Paul Kramer, B.Ph., S.T.D., M. Div. (2nd edition, St. Francis Press, India) p. 29. The full quotation from Cardinal Torquemada reads, "By disobedience, the Pope can separate himself from Christ despite the fact that he is head of the Church, for above all, the unity of the Church is dependent on its relationship with Christ. The Pope can separate himself from Christ either by disobeying the law of Christ, or by commanding som...

SSPX and the Resistance - A Comparison Of Ecclesiology

Shining the light of Church Teaching on the doctrinal positions of the SSPX and the Resistance. Principles are guides used to aid in decision making. It stands to reason that bad principles will lead to bad decisions. The recent interactions between Rome and the SSPX has challenged a number of closely held cultural assumptions of people in both sides of the disagreement. This has resulted in cultural skirmishes in both Rome and the SSPX. Since it is the smaller of the two, the skirmishes have been more evident within the SSPX. The cultural fault-line that Bishop Fellay crossed appears to be linked to two points of Catholic Doctrine: Ecclesiology and Obedience. The cultural difference of view points is strong enough that it has resulted in the expulsion of a number of members. It should also be noted that some other priests expelled since the beginning of the latest interactions (starting in 2000) held the same view points and have joined with the l...

Morning and Evening and other sundry Prayers

+ JMJ Along the theme of P^3 (Prayer, Penance, Patience), and for my own reference ... here is a collection of Morning and Evening prayers from the Ideal Daily Missal along with some additional prayers. In this crisis of the Church, I do not think it is possible to do too much prayer, penance and have patience. P^3

The Catholic Church and the Rule of Law- Part II: Dr. John Lamont

+ JMJ This is the second article from Dr. Lamont from his lecture given in May 2014. P^3 Source Part A: Society of St. Hugh of Cluny Source Part B: Society of St. Hugh of Cluny 8 May2014 The Catholic Church and the Rule of Law- Part II By John Lamont To understand how the Jesuit conception of obedience departed from earlier conceptions, it is helpful to compare it with the teaching of St. Thomas on obedience. The fundamental difference between the two is that St. Thomas considers the proper object of obedience to be the precept of the superior (2a2ae q. 104 a. 2 co., ad 3). Obedience that seeks to forestall the expressed will of the superior does not bear on what the superior wants or thinks in general, but only on what the superior intends to command. St. Ignatius’s lowest degree of obedience, which he does not consider to be virtuous, is thus what St. Thomas considers to be the only form of obedience. St. Thomas holds that St. Ignatius’s alleged higher forms of o...

Tradicat

Search This Blog