Posted on 01/30/2013 2:59:30 PM PST by NYer
From a reader:
While doing research I came across something that said that one of the faithful who knowingly receives a Sacrament from a priest without faculties commits a sin. I have always attended SSPX chapels and gone to confession there. But after what I read, I haven’t known what to do. I haven’t gone to Confession in months. I’m also afraid of having a disagreement with my parents. My Dad has very strong opinions about anything not connected with the SSPX.
The Church’s law says clearly that if a priest lacks the faculties from proper authority to receive sacramental confessions, and therefore absolve sins, then the absolution is invalid. The priest must have faculties from the Church to absolve validly.
The 1983 Code of Canon Law says that:
Can. 966 §1 For the valid absolution of sins, it is required that, in addition to the power of order, the minister has the faculty to exercise that power in respect of the faithful to whom he gives absolution.
§2 A priest can be given this faculty either by the law itself, or by a concession issued by the competent authority in accordance with can. 969.
From this we see that priests must have permission of the Church to absolve sins. The Church, by the way, gets to determine how the sacraments are administered. The SSPX does not get to decide how sacraments are administered.
Usually it is a diocesan bishop or major superior of a religious order that give these faculties to a priest in a stable way. In danger of death of a person the Church’s law says that, in that circumstance, even a “laicized” priest has faculties. This is because the salvation of the soul of the dying person is paramount.
We don’t know what God does for the soul of a person who, in good will and in ignorance, goes to confess to a priest who lacks faculties. We can’t judge that. God will do as it pleases Him to do.
Also, we have to consider culpable and inculpable ignorance. Catholics ought to inform themselves about their Faith. To what extent is a matter for debate. But once you walk through the door of exploring your Faith even to the point of learning about the law and faculties that priests have, I think you are on the hook. You don’t have to wonder ever about priests at the local parish or official chapel established by the local diocese. Even Father “Just call me ‘Bob’” has faculties, even though he is a heretic.
That said, if a person has been informed that SSPX priests do not have faculties to receive sacramental confessions, and goes to them anyway, a huge problem is introduced. Those priests don’t – in normal circumstances – have faculties. Period. Some people say they have “emergency powers”. The Church does not agree. They don’t have faculties.
It seems to me that if a person knows that the priest does NOT have faculties, and he goes to him anyway, then he knows that he is simulating a sacrament. That would be a sin.
Simulating a sacrament can bring ecclesiastical penalties, by the way (can. 1379).
If there are doubts, true doubts, that is another matter. But the prudent person would find an actual confessor, a priest who without doubt has faculties. Go to the local parish, a real parish of the diocese, and you don’t have to doubt, even if the priest is a complete jerk.
And please understand that in writing this I am not saying that the SSPX priests are bad men. Those whom I have met have seemed to be prayerful men who want to be good priests. But they don’t have faculties. I long for them to be reconciled with the Church so that we can all benefit from their service and example and zeal.
This is serious business, friends. You never want to doubt that your sins are absolved. Don’t fool around with this.
The value of a valid absolution that you don’t have to doubt by far outweighs the irritation that some dopey priest inflicts by saying that X isn’t a sin, etc.
“Which excommunication are you talking about? His first one, or the second?”
So you’re saying he was double excommunicated? Kind of like hanging a man a second time?
Tell me, please, when this second “excommunication” was incurred.
“Had they retained their orthodoxy they would be far stronger today. Insofar as they deviated from orthodoxy, they separated themselves from the faith.”
Unfortunately, by retaining their orthodoxy and attachment to the Faith, they were persecuted by modernist Popes.
Every so many years I have to re-read a summary of Dignitatis Humanae, and how it does or doesn't differ from earlier ideas about religious freedom from the time of Christendom (original meaning), but even then end up with a fairly hazy feeling about the whole thing.
At any rate, the expressed preference in Vatican II for Democratic Liberalism, knowing those two words are not used exactly as they typically would be on this forum, but kinda/sorta are, continues to make me uncomfortable.
Me, too.
There's some stuff in the Vatican II documents that I think is silly, including the opinion that "modern man" is somehow improved over the version we've always had. However, that is a statement of opinion, while the document of freedom of conscience is a statement of doctrine. If one believes the Council promulgated a doctrine - a statement on faith and morals, not pastoral practicalities - that is WRONG, that's a big problem.
I don't remember where I read that this was the sticking point for the SSPX, so I can't check it. I may be wrong.
On the doctrinal vs. pastoral thing, it has always seemed to me (my opinion, worth nothing), that papal quotes supporting "pastoral" run at about a 10:1 advantage over those leaning toward doctrinal, or worse, infallible (which the Magisterium generally is not).
But one particular quote from Pope Paul VI in 1977 -- promulgator of Vatican II, a year before his death -- stands out in my mind although not specifically addressing the D vs. P debate:
“The tail of the devil is functioning in the disintegration of the Catholic world. The darkness of Satan has entered and spread throughout the Catholic Church even to its summit. Apostasy, the loss of the faith, is spreading throughout the world and into the highest levels within the Church.”
If anyone reading can prove that this quote is not authentic I would be most appreciative to hear of it.
Meanwhile, glad my only pressing decision at the moment is regular vs. spicy.
LOL! I'm grateful to not be in charge of things, myself.
You don’t get to become a priest without the permission from the pope.
Fellay is in the exact same position he was as if Lefebvre didn’t exist. As well he should. He’s a layperson, no different than you or I.
He was warned for teaching EENS, which is contrary to Catholic doctrine. He was excommed along with Lefebvre when Lefebvre was excommed for raising Fellay to a bishop. Once that happened, and since that happened, Fellay has been a layperson.
Modernist philosophy teaches that you don’t have to follow Canon law unless it suits you - ergo Fellay is very much a product of his time.
“He was warned for teaching EENS, which is contrary to Catholic doctrine.”
EENS was Catholic doctrine for 1500 years until the Second Vatican Council.
Romans states otherwise. :)
Yes, the New Romans have spoken otherwise: New Mass, New Code of Canon Law, New Eucharistic prayers, New Bible, new forms of the Sacraments, etc.
“He was warned for teaching EENS, which is contrary to Catholic doctrine. He was excommed along with Lefebvre when Lefebvre was excommed for raising Fellay to a bishop.”
You stated Bishop Fellay was excommunicated twice. Again, when was the second excommunication?
“Their value increases in their fidelity to the Church and to Benedict XVI and diminishes in their infidelity to the oaths they once swore many years ago.”
Are you talking about the Oath Against Modernism that Popes John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI all swore to? The SSPX priest have never defied their oaths, unlike the above.
Lefebvre did not possess the canonical authority to ordain Fellay in the first place. Ergo, Fellay, (unlike one of his fellow bishops), must first obtain dispensation from the pope, (since he’s now engaged in schism), contrary to section 2 of the canon laws regarding ordination. An impediment which was not formerly present.
Again, it’s up to Fellay. He can choose to go on his own, but he won’t get to take SSPX with him, and he’s not going to get another opportunity like the one he has been provided by the Pope. End of the road. He either reconciles or leaves.
“Yes, the New Romans have spoken otherwise: New Mass, New Code of Canon Law, New Eucharistic prayers, New Bible, new forms of the Sacraments, etc.”
I meant Paul’s Epistle to the Romans. It’s quite clear that salvation can be found outside the Church by the invincibly ignorant. Ergo EENS is heresy.
“Ergo, Fellay, (unlike one of his fellow bishops), must first obtain dispensation from the pope, (since he’s now engaged in schism), contrary to section 2 of the canon laws regarding ordination.”
Why would Pope Benedict lift Bishop Fellay’s “excommunication” (first and only excommunication, by the way) if he considered Bishop Fellay to “engaged in schism”?
“Ergo EENS is heresy.”
And thus you condemn numerous holy Popes and saints as heretics. I’m amazed that you know better than those who have been raised to the holy altar.
Suit yourself. If your argument is from authority, St. Paul is greater than Fellay.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.