This second installment is a defense of the post-Vatican 2 sedevacantist clergy having authority to administer the sacraments, which sedevacantist home-aloners deny. Also included will be two arguments why the home-alone position is problematic.
Before the great apostasy, the Church had customary channels of power and authority, which we now refer to as ordinary times. Formerly, the Church enjoyed normal papal succession, world-wide hierarchy, and ecclesiastical laws, so that everything worked within the framework of the Church’s existence in those times.
The predicament of the great apostasy, however, is an extraordinary phenomenon unprecedented in history. It has affected the Church to such an extent that many laws of the Church can’t apply, can’t be applied, nor can be enforced; an example being the law on papal elections requiring cardinals. See THE CASE THAT PROVES CHURCH LAWS CAN’T ALWAYS APPLY – Revised
Some theologians and canonists have argued this nightmare can’t happen, but obviously that opinion is proven wrong by the very fact it has.
The Catholic Church has gone into what I call survival mode. Some things that would be illicit now become licit as the 4th rule of Pope Gregory IX lays out:
Propter necessitatem, illicitum efficitur licitum (Necessity makes licit was illicit)
In ordinary times, bishops and priests had ordinary and delegated jurisdiction, which is the power to rule and the authority to administer. In these extraordinary times, the power and authority has taken on a new form due to the circumstances. Therefore, the Church must supply the jurisdiction to stay alive and carry on its mission of saving souls. Exactly how supplied jurisdiction is granted to sedevacantist clergy is the question.
Supplied jurisdiction is when ordinary or delegated jurisdiction is absent and the Church confers it extraordinarily, when it was not bestowed regularly for the purpose of a grave cause and common good of souls.
Since no pope exists, no bishops with ordinary or delegated jurisdiction exist (insofar as we can tell), the Church must carry on lest the gates of hell effectively prevails.
According to the First Vatican Council, just as Peter has by Divine right successors in the primacy, so too, as is natural, the Church has by Divine right to live and carry on its mission of saving souls through the sacraments. What Catholic could deny this fact?
Rev. Ludwig Ott taught in his Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, “The Sacraments are the means appointed by God for the attainment of eternal salvation. Three of them are in the ordinary way of salvation so necessary, that without their use salvation cannot be attained. Thus, for the individual person, Baptism is necessary in this way and after the commission of a grievous sin, Penance is equally necessary, while for the Church in general, the Sacrament of Holy Orders is necessary. The other Sacraments are necessary in so far as salvation cannot be so easily gained without them.” [1] Ott tells us on p. 332, “All the Sacraments of the New Covenant confer sanctifying grace on the receivers. (De fide.)”
No ecclesiastical law could be used to prevent the Church as a whole from carrying on its mission of saving souls through these life-giving sacraments.
Just as doctrine develops over time, so too, ecclesiastical law develops. It is in this development that we discover how our clergy have jurisdiction supplied to them by the Church.
For example, canon law tells us that Confession can only be granted by a priest lacks ordinary or delegated jurisdiction in the case of danger of death.
Can. 882 states: When there is danger of death, any priest, even though not otherwise approved for hearing confessions, may validly and licitly absolve any penitent from whatever sins and censures, including those which are reserved and notorious, even though an approved priest may be present. But the rules laid down in can. 884 and 2252 must be observed. [2]
Therefore, based on this canon, any priest (including valid non-Catholic priests) can absolve when there is danger of death. Over the years, the application of this canon has developed.
Several canonists such as Rev. Guiseppe d’Annibale and Rev. Matthaeus a Coronata taught that a long-term lack of a confessor may be regarded as equivalent to danger of death for purposes of supplied jurisdiction. It’s an opinion not agreed upon by others. However, I find that d’Annibale and Coronata are applying a fundamental rule of jurisprudence by applying as broad as possible an interpretation on the words of a favorable law. [3]
The novel interpretation by d’Annibale and Coronata demonstrates that the canon does not have to be interpreted absolutely in the strictest sense. If d’Annibale and Coronata are correct, then by this particular canon, the Church supplies jurisdiction to our sedevacantist clergy. Therefore, we have a law that’s lacking an expressed prescription that canonists think is possible and considered within that law.
Where did they get the opinion that a long-term lack of a confessor is equivalent to danger of death? d’Annibale cites two earlier authorities that taught the “in danger of death” law to mean possibly dying without a priest or confessor over a long period of time. A particular auspicious authority we’ll examine is the Doctor of the Church and Patron Saint of Confessors, St. Alphonsus Liquori who taught:
“Is any priest able to absolve from any sins and censures, not only at the point of death, but also in danger of death? This is denied by [various names] but more truly and more commonly affirmed by…The reason for this is that in this matter, the danger is taken for the point, as is clear from…For in such a case, anyone in mortal sin is bound to confess in the same way as if he were at the point of death. This is accepted by…provided that such a danger be so grave that it can scarcely be distinguished with certainty from the point: but, more immediately, it seems to be sufficient that there be prudent fear that death will arise in the danger. Now such a danger is considered to be present in a battle, in a long sea voyage, in a difficult delivery, in a dangerous disease, and similar cases…The same is true of one who is in probable danger of falling into insanity (amentia)…and the same of those who are captives among infidels with small hope of liberty. For it is believed that they will have no other priests in the future.” [4]
It would seem that in battles, long sea voyages, etc. the same priest without ordinary jurisdiction will be present throughout the situation. In such a case, that same priest can absolve a man repeatedly over the duration of war, long sea voyages, etc.
That said, St. Alphonsus then offers another situation that’s related, but not precisely the same as in danger of war, long sea voyage, pandemic, etc. He refers to those who are captives among infidels (not those who are in danger of falling captives). He’s not very clear what this means precisely. However, we can conclude that this particular situation is not exactly a danger of death. It’s a case outside of some immediate danger of death.
It may be that St. Alphonsus intended to mean those who expect to never have a priest again, which is manifestly not the situation where Catholics today have access to a priest regularly.
If we were able to ask St. Alphonsus, what if there was a priest without ordinary jurisdiction made captive himself with small hope of liberty, can he absolve the other captives as long as they are captives, since there’s small hope of liberty?
It’s reasonable to presume that St. Alphonsus would say yes, since it’s the obvious conclusion. That conclusion is precisely the situation Catholics find themselves today. The problem with our situation is that it’s not addressed anywhere, probably because it wasn’t considered possible.
When Rev. Guiseppe d’Annibale explains the law of absolving in danger of death, he lists the different situations in the same order as St. Alphonsus. He even cites St. Alphonsus, because he’s using him as the source. However, when d’Annibale comes to the section of “probable danger of falling into insanity and captives among infidels with small hope of liberty,” he lists it as “Besides, if one is in danger of falling into perpetual insanity, or is in such circumstances that henceforth he is likely not to have a confessor available any more, he is likewise to be regarded as if he were in danger of death.” [5] Interestingly, he doesn’t cite St. Alphonsus, perhaps because he’s already cited him twice, even though Liguori speaks about insanity, but d’Annibale does cite Rev. Leonardo Duardo.
Rev. Leonardo Duardo wrote in Commentaria in Bullam Coenae Domini (1638):
“But that is also to be noted, that if one bound by some censure of our Bull is found in that state, in which if he is not absolved now, it is to be feared as likely, that before death he will not have a Confessor available, as can happen in India, or in some captivity; then I say that he can be absolved by someone other than the Roman Pontiff; because although he is said to be outside the imminent danger of death, still in this matter, and morally speaking, this case is not different from danger of death: all the more, because in such a case, if he were to have access to a confessor he would be bound by divine law to make his confession: as Suarez says in the place cited: as taken from Suarez.” (probably Suarez de pentitentia, disp. 35, sec. 2 & 3) [6]
Duardo and Liguori make the “in danger of death” clause to include in danger of dying without another priest or confessor. It’s technically not “in danger of death” at all. Yet, they include it in the law. These authorities have developed the application of the law to mean something the law doesn’t specifically mention.
Rev. Matthaeus Conte a Coronata, O.F.M. Cap., Institutiones Iuris Canonici, IV. n. 1760 4th edition, published in 1955, writes:
“Danger of death is present for him who is in such circumstances that death is truly and gravely probable, but who also may survive. This situation can arise from various causes, e.g. from illness, injury, difficult childbirth, extreme old age, dangerous journey, imminent battle, surgical operation to be undergone, extreme torture etc.”
“He may be regarded as equal to those in danger of death who is in grave danger of falling into perpetual insanity or who is in such a condition that henceforth he will not have a confessor available anymore.”
Coronata cites d’Annibale as the source demonstrating that he agrees with d’Annibale’s analysis of Duardo and St. Alphonsus. They don’t spend much time on the topic, probably because it’s such a rare situation. Perhaps, they didn’t think an in-depth examination was needed. However, their explanations using confessor rather than priest have connotations that resembles our great apostasy age. As long as Catholics are in a situation where they could die without a confessor, any priest can absolve as many times as needed. It’s the logical extension of Duardo and Liguori’s application.
Duardo and St. Alphonsus are laying out a principle that cases exist outside of immediate danger of death that are equivalent to being in danger of death. They don’t list every possibility, but they came up with something that’s novel and not found elsewhere.
There’s no reason why our scenario can’t be figured into the law and put into practice by our theologians and canonists. d’Annibale and Coronata already point that way.
In his Moral Theology, book 6, n. 560, p. 443, St. Alphonsus Liguori lays out a practical teaching:
“The question is: whether heretics, schismatics, and vitandus excommunicates can absolve a dying man, if no other priest is present.”
“The first opinion says that they can, based on the Council of Trent’s statement that it is ecclesiastical tradition that there’s no reservation [of jurisdiction to absolve] when a man is dying.”
“The second opinion, (which St. Alphonsus agrees), says that such priests can’t validly absolve a dying man because the council wasn’t speaking of priests with no jurisdiction, but of those who lack jurisdiction over reserved cases (that is, reserved to the bishop or the Holy See on account of censure); also because the Council of Trent didn’t make a new law, but only approved the ancient law, which was that priests cut off from the unity of the Church cannot validly absolve under any circumstances.”
“Nevertheless, the Continuator of Tournely says rightly that in such a case, a priest who is a heretic or a vitandus excommunicate, when no other priest is present, may well give conditional absolution to a dying man, because in extreme or urgent necessity according to the common opinion of doctors, as we said n. 482 [citation omitted] … it is licit to follow an opinion that is only slightly probable.” [7]
The Holy Office settled the issue on July 39, 1891, which affirmed the first opinion. However, the relevant part of Liguori’s answer is the last sentence. To follow the opinion of d’Annibale and Coronata is licit.
To follow the opinion of d’Annibale and Coronata is licit. Also, the Church is in urgent necessity of bishops and priests. The fact that we have all of our theologians and canonists presenting the same argument (I would think) makes it at least slightly probable.
I can think of other possible scenarios not addressed by saints or any theologian (that I’ve found). What if a priest shipwrecks on an island where no civilized persons have ever witnessed? Therefore, the likelihood of being rescued is slim to none. The priest converts the natives and baptizes them. However, we are to understand that he can’t administer the other sacraments because of some particular Church law that’s not referring to this particular situation? Is this the will of Christ and His Church? The priest wasn’t technically sent by the ordinary laws of Church, therefore, the poor Catholics are just out of luck until there is imminent danger of death?
Again, the logical conclusion is that “in danger of death” could include dying without a confessor, but if a priest is present, he can absolve as long as necessary. It isn’t specifically mentioned, but it doesn’t need to be. It wasn’t in the books about possibly dying without a priest or confessor years in the future until a theologian and a canonist thought of it years later. St. Alphonsus and Duardo’s scenarios don’t become true for the law, because they thought of it. It was always true. The same thing applies to our situation. The “in danger of death” law provides the means for our sedevacantist clergy.
If home-aloners reject my explanation out of novelty or because it’s not a real danger of death scenario, then they would have to apply that same rule to St. Alphonsus Liguori for the same reasons. Then the argument turns against the Patron Saint of Confessors.
The Council of Trent declared, “For those who after baptism have fallen into sin, the Sacrament of Penance is as necessary unto salvation as is baptism itself for those who have not yet been regenerated” (Sess. XIV, c. 2).
We don’t wait until we’re in imminent danger of death for the Sacrament of Penance. We are not living in ordinary times with ordinary circumstances. We have no recourse to ordinary channels of priests with ordinary and delegated jurisdiction. Yet, we have priests and bishops all around us. There’s a law that lacks an express prescription, which is considered by our theologians and canonists to work for the current situation.
Getting back to the problem with home-aloners, I have a question to ponder:
Is it possible for the Church to unintentionally prohibit the administration of all the sacraments to the whole Church except Baptism and Marriage for a day, a year, 50 years, or indefinitely?
The home-alone position must submit that the Church is withholding and prohibiting the sacraments to the whole Church unintentionally, which is contrary to Christ’s mission of the Church. The Church’s mission can’t become counter-missionary to itself. Would Christ place a time-bomb in the establishment of His Church?
It doesn’t say much for a loving Mother that hinders ALL HER children from living and dying as holy a life as possible to be saved.
Home-aloners necessarily hold that the entire Church is incapacitated and paralyzed from administering the sacraments. It would mean that Christ does not and has not provided the means for the administration of the sacraments to His whole Church. The mission of the Church has come to a screeching halt and the devil has thwarted God’s positive Will for His Church of accomplishing what it was sent out to do.
I submit the gates of hell have prevailed if our clergy are wrong for administering the sacraments. What good is a Church that has been totally incapacitated? It would mean the Church’s mission is effectively over and the devil has won. In my estimation, the home alone position is not just impossible, it’s anti-Catholic.
This all leads to my two final arguments.
Before the great apostasy, there were opinions permitted to be held, which post-apostasy circumstances prove to be false opinions. One such false opinion held by the majority of theologians and canonists is the universal acceptance of the Church guarantees a true pope. At least 5 theologians and canonists disagreed with this opinion and were proven right by the circumstances of the great apostasy. This is one reason why listing a collection of theological opinions proves nothing.
So too, the circumstances of the great apostasy prove that the home-alone opinion of supplied jurisdiction to be false by the mere fact that the Church can’t be counter-missionary to itself and be completely incapacitated to administer the sacraments as a whole. The Church has by Divine right to exist and carry on its mission of saving souls through the sacraments. That Divine right must exist somehow even if it can’t be shown explicitly.
Lastly is the argument of reason: If we consider both the home-alone position and the sedevacantist clergy position as sincere opinions, what are the pros and cons of each position from the viewpoint of being right or wrong?
If the home-aloners are correct and avoided sedevacantist clergy, they have gained nothing, but the fact they followed their conscience, which both sides do anyway. However, if they are wrong:
1. They lose numerous graces from the sacraments they could have received.
2. Their chance of losing their souls becomes greater.
3. Their chance of gaining heaven becomes less.
4. The probability of having a tougher purgatory becomes greater.
5. They will not have lived and died in the greatest possible manner.
6. They will not be as close to Jesus and Mary in life and in death.
7. Their place in heaven may not reach the heights it could have been.
If our sedevacantist clergy are wrong, we have lost nothing. We died in good faith, but were mistaken. However, if we are right:
1. We gained numerous graces from the sacraments.
2. The chance of losing our souls decreases.
3. The chance of gaining heaven increases.
4. The probability of having a tough purgatory decreases.
5. We will have lived and died as holy as possible with the sacraments.
6. We will be closer to Jesus and Mary in life and in death.
7. Our place in heaven becomes the highest it could possibly be, because of the sacraments.
The argument from reason demonstrates that the home-alone position gains nothing and stands to lose so much. Our position stands to lose nothing and gains everything. While this argument doesn’t prove which side is right, it does prove which opinion is better.
Footnotes:
[1] Rev. Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, pp. 340-341:
The Sacraments of the New Covenant are necessary for the salvation of mankind. (De fide.)
As Christ instituted the Sacraments and bound them up with the communication of grace they are necessary to us for the achievement of salvation (necessitate medii), even if not all are necessary for each individual. The efficacious reception of a Sacrament can, in case of necessity, be replaced by the desire for the Sacrament (votum sacramenti) (hypothetical necessity).
The Council of Trent declared against the Reformers who, on the ground of their “sola fides” doctrine, contested the necessity of the Sacraments for salvation: Si quis dixerit sacramenta novae Legis non esse ad salutem necessaria, sed superflua, ct sine eis aut eorum voto per solam fidem homines a Deo gratiam iustificationis adipisci, licet omnia singulis necessaria non sint. A.S. D. 847. In the Middle Ages the necessity of the Sacraments was controverted by the Cathari.
The Sacraments are the means appointed by God for the attainment of eternal salvation. Three of them are in the ordinary way of salvation so necessary, that without their use salvation cannot be attained. Thus, for the individual person, Baptism is necessary in this way and after the commission of a grievous sin, Penance is equally necessary, while for the Church in general, the Sacrament of Holy Orders is necessary. The other Sacraments are necessary in so far as salvation cannot be so easily gained without them. Thus Confirmation is the completion of Baptism, and Extreme Unction is the completion of Penance, while Matrimony is the basis for the preservation of the Church Commonwealth, and the Eucharist is the end (finis) of all the Sacraments. C£ S. the III 6S, 3 and 4.
[2] Rev. Charles Augustine, A Commentary on the New Code of Canon Law, vol. IV, p. 286
[3] “A fundamental rule of jurisprudence is to put as broad as possible an interpretation on the words of a favorable law and to interpret unfavorable laws strictly (e.g., penal laws). (C. 19.)” Moral Theology, Fr. Heribert Jone, p. 23.
[4] Theologia Moralis, Liguori, Bk.6, no. 561, Q.2
[7] https://archive.org/details/theologiamoralis02ligu_0/page/442/mode/2up
Speray's Catholicism in a Nutshell 
Great thought and presentation. What you present makes more sense than what has previously been considered. It would seem that all consideration should have been given this long ago as anything is possible to develop.
Sincerely, I thought you could have done much better. Anyway, here is a refutation of your attempt. https://catholiceclipsed.com/2022/08/03/sedes-know-no-law-nor-apparently-their-catechism-a-refutation-of-steve-sperays-attempt-to-discredit-home-alone/
Speray: Your wife refuted nothing and is completely wrong about everything.
The tone used in the article is quite sharp, but I think that is justified when you say that it is anti-Catholic to pray at home instead of at Sede mass centers.
Speray: What I said was, “What good is a Church that has been totally incapacitated? It would mean the Church’s mission is effectively over and the devil has won.” THAT IS YOUR POSITION. Yes, that’s anti-Catholic.
The Gates of Hell not prevailing against the Church was spoken of in relation to St. Peter, upon whom the Church was built. The promise of Christ had and has nothing to do with the administration of sacraments.
Speray: Wrong! The gates of hell are heretics and their heresies according to 2 popes. It has everything to do with the sacraments if you’re going to saying no can can get them throughout the whole world.
It has to do with doctrine:
BC. 544. When we say the Church is infallible we mean that it can never teach error while it lasts; but when we say the Church is indefectible, we mean that it will last forever and be infallible forever; that it will always remain as Our Lord founded it and never change the doctrines He taught.
Speray: You’re saying the Church’s mission of providing the sacraments has completely stopped. It’s effectively over and the Church has defected.
Infallibility was granted to one church alone, the Church of Rome, to the Holy See, and to the man who occupies that See, the Bishop of Rome, the Pope, the successor of St. Peter, to whom the promise was made that the Gates of Hell would not prevail against.
Speray: And if that Church is completely incapacitated, it’s effectively over.
There is simply no way of knowing who is a Catholic priest or bishop without the Roman Pontiff to assure us of their Catholicity. The error of Sedevacantists is that they don’t take their own name very seriously.
Speray: We take it very seriously, but you don’t. You have become your own infallible authority just like the Feeneyites.
I know you are going to be inclined to write out a long rebuttal either here or in CatholicEclipsed. I am all ears, but I wish you would prayerfully read the BC citations in the context of the article written by Laura.
Speray: You didn’t even bother to prayerfully read my article. You already said you were going to refute it before you read it, which means you’ve already made up your mind.
Let the Church teaching have the last say in your mind. Do not be swayed by opinion.
Speray: I gave you the law and the interpretation of it by several canonists. You’re the one giving your opinion and that’s all you have. You have no church teaching against us.
Be certain of your decision to remain a Sede if that is what you choose. I hope, if you do decide that, that your decision may be squared, not with a theologian’s opinion, but with your the teachings of the Catholic Church in your catechism—the only authority in this debate that commands obedience and the assent of Catholic Faith.
Speray: I follow the law and the teaching of the Church. You have no Church but an imaginary one that exists nowhere. Part III will deal Pastors and teachers in the Church until the end of time and you can point to none. You must hope one exists somewhere and I will show why that argument fails.
I misspoke when I left that comment on Introibo’s, because I had already read your article. But you are correct, I have made up my mind already, or, rather, the Church and the Catechism (the official organ of the magisterium to teach me what my mind should be) have made up my mind. If you can justify the Sedes based upon what the Catechism teaches, then I would love to hear it. But right now all you are is a resounding gong, because of your uncharity, yes, but also because of your illogicality, and lack of Catholic sense.
Your wife’s reply was reactionary and emotional. It’s so silly and wrong. For instance, when I say lose graces, I obviously mean lose what you could have received, but she took it to mean lose grace as you would in sin. Totally wrong. I actually quote Trent and you two completely ignore it, because it refutes your entire thesis. She also misses the main point of supposing one side is right or wrong, but she writes as if we are wrong anyway and argues for it. My argument stands strong and she refuted absolutely nothing. I will write a full rebuttal demonstrating this point.
OrthoDoxy/CathOlIcity/Christianity has never taught and still does not and will never teach the “supplied JurisDiction”, “material/formal”, “valid but ilLicit” et c. heresies which the Roman cult invented shortly after the “schism” to which it owes its own origins so all appeals to the apostate AntiPope “Gregorius VIIII”, the BullCounCils of Trent and “VatiCan 1” and other post-“schism” BullCounCils, and the apostates Alfonsus D’Liguori and LudWig Ott and other apostate scholastics and other apostate pseudotheologians are worthless. The apostate “SJ”, “SIH”, “SBC”, “CMRI”, “SSPX”, “SSPV”, “FSSP”, “ICKSP”, and “SSGG” all (as you do) pretend to hold but really attack the Salvation Dogmas.
Speray: You are totally delusional.
700 years was “a short time” [Isaias 56:1], 500 years was also “a short time” [Sophonias 1:14–15], the world’s past, present, and future is also “a short time” [John 12:31–33; Apocalypse 12:12] in God’s Sight while the 1,000 years (from A.D.42 [Colossians 2:14–15] to A.D. 1042 [Apocalypse 202–3]) is literal in God’s Sight, the Church made steady progress: 2 steps forward: 1 step back: to depaganize and Christianize the world, Pope Christopher got struck and the Christians scattered [Zacharias 13:7; Matthew 26:31; Marcus 14:27; 2 Thessalonians 2:6–7], the end of the 1,000 years (A.D. 1042 [Apocalypse 20:2–3]) saw Satan’s release [Apocalypse 9:1–4], and the Roman cultists installed Greco-Roman pagan idols into their “churches” from 1100 to today and “implemented” Greco-Roman pagan pseudophilosophy and scholasticism from A.D. 1150 to today while they “banned” the Bible for “laypeople” from A.D. 1199 to A.D. 1893 and killed the Christians (e.g. Jeanne D’Arc) and even the nominal “christians” (e.g. Girolamo Savonarola) they found who resisted the apostasy and ask themselves what they think VatiCan hides in their archives. Post-“schism” Rome is MYSTERY BABYLON. Basilica Sancti Petri is the Temple of God. The AntiChrist will sit in Basilica Sancti Petri. Post-“schism” Byzantium, Moscow, Rhacotis, AntiOch, JeruSalem (which is Sodom and Egypt), and all protestant sects are the harlot daughters.
Jesus gave the Keys to only Peter and his (real) Successors [Isaias 22:22; Matthew 16:17–19; Lucas 10:16; 22:32; John 21:15–18] and the Power to bind and loose upon Earth to all 12 (real) Apostles and their (real) Successors [Matthew 18:15–18; Matthew 28:18–20; Marcus 16:15–20] so all (real) Episcops need the Keys in their Ministries but only (real) Popes have the Keys in his Ministry so Ordinations and ConSecrations are always impossible during InterRegnums and the Church has been in an InterRegnum eversince Pope Christopher and the criminal schismatic AntiPope “Leo V” were simultaneously murdered by the criminal schismatic AntiPope “Sergius III” which caused the TusCulan Dynasty “schism” of Rome from the Church as of “904”. Jesus HimSelf will be the last Pope when He comes back.
Speray: Thank you for showing how delusional you really are.
Once again, you destroyed the stupid strategy and reasoning of home alone followers. When will they ever wake up and understand anything? Are they capable of understanding Catholicism? They sure think so but only on their terms. What a crock! Sorry to be so blunt but they do not have the answer although they think they do. And that’s not an opinion.
Yes, it is an opinion, but people like you and Steve have a hard time making basic distinctions, either because you cannot or you will not.
Speray: That is your problem, not mine. It’s precisely because you can’t make proper distinctions is why you’re in the mess you’re in.
Just like Lee on Introibo’s blog, Steve thinks Trent concludes the matter that the sacraments are necessary for salvation, because he can’t (or won’t) make the distinction between ordinary means and extraordinary means.
Speray: Of course, in extraordinary means, God save apart from the sacraments. But we have valid and licit sacraments as I demonstrated by law.
Funny, Steve has no problem making that distinction when it comes to jurisdiction, though he confuses jurisdiction with mission. (There is no such thing as extraordinary mission, Steve).
Speray: Pope Benedict XIV said that there is such a thing as extraordinary mission but it must be proved by miracles. However, I just showed that our priests have authority by law to administer the sacraments. The point you seem not to understand.
Debate, argumentation, these are not to be confounded with who can make the best comeback, or make the other look bad. Calling a refutation—hard-worked and researched and backed up by the only authority in this debate (the catechism)—which happened to post soon after the original reactionary or emotional is silly and emotional.
Speray: You misapplied the catechism, which again shows that you can’t make proper distinctions. I showed how our clergy can administer the sacraments by law.
If there was something emotional or reactionary in Laura’s article, who cares anyway, if it was the truth.
Speray: NO, it was not true at all. She missed the basic point of presuming if one side is right or wrong. She didn’t make that distinction at all. If we are right…but she assumes we are wrong no matter what, but that’s not the point. It doesn’t matter anyway because I demonstrated that we have licit sacraments.
Your claim has nothing to do with the arguments made there. Laura’s article was written in calmness and thoughtfulness. And I am informed that she actual thought her own tone light-hearted.
Speray: You two weren’t thinking about it very carefully. You two made up your minds and were going to a refutation no matter what, but you missed the first point that we have licit sacraments by law. The last part of my article that she addresses was just for good measure, but she misunderstood the point precisely because she failed to make proper distinctions.
So, Steve, write up your refutation, but I really wish you would address the Catechism citations which put it so plainly that Sedevacantists are not to be gone to on pain of sin.
Speray: Catechism: Moral sin requires serious sin, knowledge of it, and full consent of will. We are not even close. Being wrong doesn’t make for mortal sin and FYI, I go to confession, I make a perfect act of contrition. I don’t presume that you’re malicious, but the point is IF YOU’RE WRONG, you’re losing out big time! We are not. We would just be wrong, but it’s not malicious. See the difference? Your wife’s article misses that basic point, and it is catechism 101. I know for a fact that we are not wrong because of the law and the Church can’t be completely incapacitated, for it would be effectively the same as defecting.
I’m a bit confused here are you saying that invalidly ordained priests can offer the sacrament of confession in extraordinary circumstances? So if this is so we can go to a N.O. priest because one cannot find a validly ordained priest.
No, invalid ordained priests can’t absolve from sins. Only valid priests can absolve.
Valid and licit (outside danger of death). But I am curious why you insist that you have proven that ALL your sacraments from Sedes are licit, when you only spoke of penance. Could you explain to me how your other sacraments are licit, please?
Yes, but may I ask why you haven’t bothered in trying to find out yourself? You have made up your mind already? Does it really matter to you?
Your stirred up a good meal for thought but the world is eat up with dumb-ass and they will never be able to devour it. Stupid is as stupid does and so it goes. These responders likely represent those who are too blind, ignorant and prideful to reason what you presented and will always be left out. Suggest you not waste much time on them. You have to wonder if they just like to hear themselves talk because that is all you ever get from any of them. pathetic!
“At least 5 theologians and canonists disagreed with this opinion [that the universal acceptance of the Church guarantees a true pope.]”
Theologians say that the universal and peaceful acceptance by the Church creates a dogmatic fact that the person in question is in fact the Roman Pontiff. Could you please quote those 5 theologians and canonists which disagree, or at least list their names and where they teach that?
If true, this is very important.
You’ll find your answer here: https://stevensperay.wordpress.com/2022/01/10/the-universal-acceptance-doctrine-not-universally-accepted-how-we-can-know-a-true-pope-rules/
“ The efficacious reception of a Sacrament can, in case of necessity, be replaced by the desire for the Sacrament (votum sacramenti) (hypothetical necessity).”
How does this not disturb your argument that in times of necessity it is lawful to be unlawful, when the Church supplies the means to our salvation? If we can desire the sacraments when there are none, and this desire can supply us with the efficacy of the sacraments themselves, how is it necessary to violate the laws of the Church to get the sacraments?
It does not disturb me because it’s talking about when sacraments are impossible, AND it’s talking about baptism and confession. It’s not talking about holy orders, because desire won’t do a thing for you without the sacrament. Priests are necessary for the existence of the Church according to Pope St. Pius X but you seem to think the Church doesn’t need any sacraments. You’re not guaranteed the grace of baptism or confession on mere desire. The desire the Church is talking about is more than mere desire. If all we need is mere desire, then the sacraments are superfluous and to say such a thing is heresy. We need the sacraments and you say that we don’t need them at all. You sound like a Protestant. Also, no laws are being violated because of cessation of the law. That’s why there’s such a thing as cessation of law. The Church has taught that the sacraments are necessary. You are arguing against the Church, not me.
Under what condition do you think sacraments would be “impossible” if not now, when there are no known canonically sent priests?
There’s this thing called death, which makes it impossible. That’s why we have Baptism of desire in case of dying without baptism. The same would apply to Confession. Death would make it impossible. There are, of course, other circumstances such as the Japanese living without priests at all for hundreds of years. The reason why they have the desire clause under the necessity of receiving baptism and confession is to stress the importance of the sacrament but also that it’s possible to be saved without them both. It answers the question, what if?