It isn't a "smear" if it's true and it is true. Pointing your finger at the failings of Catholic priests is a poor excuse coming from those who supposedly hold their own as better examples.

Truth is, I don't really care why you talk the way you do to me. I was reminding you that others read these comments, this a Catholic site and no place for your depraved scat-fetish metaphors.

It also isn't the place for profanity-based adverbs like "cr--py" Maybe such language is acceptable on schismatic=focused sites, this isn't one of them.

"...despite being so wrong."

No, dear heart. I get butterflies when I'm proving people like you wrong and keeping you from misleading Catholics into leaving The Church.

"Perhaps, if you talk more like you did on the thread I complimented you on, I wouldn’t be so hostile to your snobbish pride."

Your hostility doesn't bother me. In all fairness to you, this is nothing compared to the hostiity I get from the anti-Semites on GTV. Now there's a hostile bunch.

"And yeah, my behavior may not be the best for Catholic portals, but people like you are trash, too."

Being intellectually prideful doesn't make me "trash". In contrast, your self-admitted lack of consideration for other readers here certainly brands you as such. ;-)

"The difference is I don’t go waving my intellect around."

Not having one makes for easy modesty. ;-)

"but when no one wants to listen because how you present it, it won’t do you any good."

You assume I'm writing predominantly for your benefit. Truth is, I'm not. Debates are rarely (if ever) intended to change your opponent's opinion.

This is no different I don't expect I'll convert you back to Catholicism; I'm just ensuring that your falsehoods don't go uncorrected where they might mislead other readers.

"Also, you should check out Canons 966-970, which state that in order to have a valid confession the priest must have faculties and jurisdiction."

Ah, now we're getting somewhere! Good. Your generalities and what is actually written in Can. 966-970 are not the same. ;-) For starters, it's contradicted in Canon 967.2

--"Those who possess the faculty of hearing confessions habitually whether by virtue of office or by virtue of the grant of an ordinary of the place of incardination or of the place in which they have a domicile can exercise that faculty everywhere unless the local ordinary has denied it in a particular case, without prejudice to the prescripts of can. 974, §§2 and 3."--

So "in order to have a valid confession the priest must have faculties and jurisdiction." is incorrect ...unless you wish to concede that priests' "juristidiction" is "everywhere". :D

"So orthodox confessions are not valid unless the jurisdiction has been granted by the Pope."

Contradicted by Can. 967.2 (for the reasons already discussed)

...and also by Can. 966.2 which states

--"A priest can be given this faculty either by the law itself or by a grant made by the competent authority according to the norm of can. 969."--

Notice that 966.2 presents a this is an either-or situation:

-- "either by the law itself or by a grant made by the competent authority..."--

If "the law itself" grants this faculty, then "a grant made by the competent authority" isn't needed.

If both were required, Canon Law 966.2 would have been written something like "A priest can be given this faculty by the law but needs a grant made by the competent authority..." which it was not.

"So no, they don’t just have the ability to absolve sins. They only have that ability *because* it was granted by the pope through the canon law in extreme circumstances."

Canon Law says differently, even for Catholic priests, and you're not backing your qualification of "extreme circumstances" with Canon Law here, either.

Worth noting, in the case of the SSPX, Pope Francis had to specifically grant this authority "through my own disposition".

This shows "by virtue of office" in Can. 967.2 or "the law itself" in 966.2 referred to wasn't sufficient which it has been for Orthodox-administered sacraments.

In the meantime...

"you act like a prideful child who is stuck up and gets butterflies every time you get to show off your intellectual prowess..."

MFW people argue Canon Law against me... :D

That's a snappy rhetorical intro, @Mathathias Maccabeus but it's false. I contradicted you and so did Canon Law.

You claimed: "a valid confession the priest must have faculties and jurisdiction." You cited Canons 966-970 in support of the claim.

Canon 967.2 contradicts you. stating --"Those who possess the faculty of hearing confessions habitually whether by virtue of office or by virtue of the grant of an ordinary of the place of incardination or of the place in which they have a domicile can exercise that faculty everywhere..."--

That's directly contrary to your claim, unless you concede the priests referenced have jurisdiction everywhere. Which you have not. ;-)

"Why can the orthodox hear confession and absolve Catholics in cases of emergency? Because canon law grants them the faculties to do so."

Zero citation from Canon Law supporting your claim.

"Why does canon law grant them the faculty? Because the pope allows it. Canon law ultimately comes from the pope."

See my last point. Answering your own rhetorical questions is a lousy substitute for citing the Canon law you so blithely mention.

"So orthodox confessions are only valid under the grace circumstances given by the law... because the pope grants them, in those circumstances, the faculties."

Zero citations supporting any of your claims and since you're just repeating them, you earn one of these.

No apologies needed... Heck, we're talking about Thanksgiving. I wasn't "on" GTV all through the holidays and the weekend myself. :)

Protip: Cite bombing me never works. :D My WPM is "over 9000" so I have no problem addressing every Canon you raise even when it's just Copy Pasta with Ave Crux's notorious "Loads O' Bold".

---Can. 966 §1. The valid absolution of sins requires that the minister have, in addition to the power of orders, the faculty of exercising it for the faithful to whom he imparts absolution.

Notice the word "jurisdiction" appears nowhwere in Canon 966 §1 which is what you originally claimed : "a valid confession the priest must have faculties and jurisdiction."

---§2. A priest can be given this faculty either by the law itself or by a grant made by the competent authority according to the norm of can. 969.

I already used 966.2 to contradict you, ironically enough. I focused on the either/ or aspect of this Canon. Simply re-quoting the Canon with Bold Bits doesn't prove my application of it wrong.

Likewise, Can. 968 §1 addresses the faculties of those hearing confessions either by a pastor or his substitutes "within his jurisdiction". (emphasis mine) i.e. the pastor's. The cite is irrelevant to supporting your claim. Not all Catholic priests are pastors, though all Catholic priests may absolve sins.

Similarly, Can. 969 §1. states "The local ordinary alone is competent to confer upon any presbyters whatsoever the faculty to hear the confessions of any of the faithful."

However it does NOT say priests do not possess that faculty until he grants it. The remainder of that canon makes this clear: " Presbyters who are members of religious institutes, however, are not to use the faculty without at least the presumed permission of their superior. "

...whowing they DO have the faculty and may use it, even absent the ordinary's express permission. Presumption of permission is, after all, a wonderful thing. ;-)

Can. 134 §1. and its concomitant 368 address Catholic Churches. This is irrelevant to the Orthodox since they are not Catholics and do not claim to be.

The same is true for Can. 369 which focuses on the Catholic diocese. The Orthodox are not part of The Catholic Church, nor are they subordinate to f its diocesan structure. For that matter, neither are the SSPX. However, this in no way contradicts the ability of Orthodox priests to hear confessions.

I wouldn't bring up Caon 369 §2, btw. Abp. Lefebvre wasn't in "hierarchal communion" with anyone except his own high opinion of himself and a clique of yes-men subordinates.

The same problem applies to Can. 380. Taking an oath of fidelity to the Apostolic See and then flatly disobeying it is a contradiction.

"So what we see here is that only those who have faculties can hear confession. If granted the faculty to hear confession, they can hear it anywhere unless prevented by the local ordinary."

...which doesn't in any way contradict The Church's recognition that Orthodox can hear licitly hear confession and validly absolve sins or their faculties are explicitly granted to them by the Pope.

. What it does show is the schismatic SSPX did not have such faculties in the first place.

Benedict XVI had to grant such faculties to the SSPX and Pope Francis later extended that grant beyond the Jubilee Year of Mercy. A Pope does not need to grant a faculty if a priest already possesses it.

This is the major distinction between the SSPX and the Orthodox.

"In order to receive faculties and jurisdiction, one has to hold an office suitable for it (priest, bishop, pope). They then have to be granted that jurisdiction by the pope, and are required to swear loyalty to the Apostolic See."

The Canons you cited apply only to Catholic priests. Therein lies your mistake, deliberate or otherwise. Each othodox bishop and priest is not granted jurisdiction by the Pope or his subordinates and they do not swear loyalty to the Apostolic See. Yet, as you already conceded, they can hear confession and absolve sins. Thus, your interpretation of Canon Law is contradicted by the circumstances (and the Canon which acknowledges the validity of Orthodox sacraments)..

"Therefore, any ability to hear confession must be granted to them despite them not having jurisdiction. The law is necessary for this. Hence, canon law grants them permission to do so.

Canon law states they (the Orthodox) DO have these faculties, which is not the same as stating the faculties are, or must be granted to them by this pope or that bishop. Laws governing Catholic priests within the ecclesiastic hierarchy of The Church do not necessarily apply to Orthodox priests who, as schismatics, refuse to be in communion with it.

"Perhaps I should clarify, I'm not saying they cannot hear confession. I am merely saying that they have to be granted the faculty to do so. "

I understand that perfectly. However, none of the Canon Laws you've cited: a.) either mention or refer to the Orthodox b.) states that the Orthodox need to have such faculties granted to them by specific edict. Indeed, many of the Canon Laws you've cited show even Catholic priests themselves do not always need explicit permission granted to them, regardless of their faculties to do so.

"The Law (promulgated by the Pope) does grant them the faculties to do so, which fits my argument that they still got permission from the Pope, because the Pope is the one that promulgates the law."

Not so. If memory serves, that is a fallacy of an undistributed middle. ;-)

-If The Law grants the Orthodox the faculty to hear confession/ absolve sins

-and the Pope makes the law known/ puts it into effect (i.e. "promulgates", your choice of word) The Law,

-then it is The Law, not The Pope who has granted them these faculties.

The Law and The Pope are not the same entity. Your argument, then, fails.

"If that Canon were stricken from the Code of Canon Law, then their priests would not be able to hear confessions."

That's assuming you place Canon Law outside and above The Pope's authority, not to mention God's authority through their ordination. ;-) This would be an error even for purely temporal authority.

In extending the faculty for the SSPX to hear confessions Francis wrote, "I have personally decided to extend this faculty beyond the Jubilee Year, until further provisions are made...." He makes no reference to Canon Law for his personal decision, nor did Benedict XVI in originally granting it.

I do appreciate the (tacit and guarded) concession on the word "jurisdiction", so hopefully this won't be too much hair splitting.

I'm not so much concerned as why the Orthodox have the ability to hear confessions because The Church in Canon Law says they do. This is the comfort in a legalist mindset. My concerns are these:. First, Canon Law makes no explicit mention of how (or by whom, temporally) the Orthodox have these faculties. It does not follow then, that these faculties are granted or must be granted by the Pope.

Second, what applies to the Orthodox does not automatically also apply to other schismatics, notably the SSPX. More troublingly, the fact Benedict XVI needed to grant them these faculties, later extended twice by Francis. This shows they did not have them, even if the Orthodox did and do.

If Pope Francis, by virtue of his authority as the head of The Church, grants the SSPX that faculty (or more precisely extends Benedict XVI's grant) then I concede they have it by virtue of his authority. The Orthodox, however, already have that faculty -absent an explict grant/ extension, which is an important distinction between schismatics.

"I’ve got a massive headache so I won’t spend long here for now."

Four comments, umpteen paragraphs and citations, later. :D I'll just reply as a one-shot to them all since I won't need to post images.

" However, this claim: (shortened simply for brevity since I'm not contesting the accuracy of your quote) ..."Is absolutely false. They do consider themselves Catholic, and they consider us the schismatic heretics."

Nope.. It is not "absolutely false" for several reasons. I made two points in my claim: "they are not Catholics and do not claim to be."

1.) The Orthodox are not Catholics, no matter what they call themselves or consider themselves or consider us Catholics, for the simple reason they're wrong. The same applies to the SSPX.

2.) Conceded as false.

Meaning, since the first half of my statement remains correct, and so the statement in toto is not "absolutely false". At best, it's only half-false. Thus, your statment "However, this claim:... Is absolutely false." is incorrect. The irony of making a falsehood while correcting mine, eh?

"Further, while straying from Canon Law, this is what the Catechism of Trent says on the matter:...

Let's not stray from Canon Law since Canon Law governs The Church. You've been quite content quibbling over it point by point. Please continue

The Catechism of Trent is an earlier edition of the current Catechism Of The Catholic Church. But even so...

"Besides the powers of orders and of jurisdiction, which are of absolute necessity, the minister of this Sacrament, holding as he does the place at once of judge and physician, should be gifted not only with knowledge and erudition, but also with prudence."

...and as I've already pointed out previously in Canon Law, in some instances Catholic priests have a "jurisdiction" which is literally everywhere. Current Canon Law trumps an out of date version of the Catechism :D

"Also, it says that even schismatics (such as the Orthodox), are bound to the laws of the Church and subject to Her jurisdiction,etc."

...the same could be said of the SSPX. Yet, as with the Orthodox, The Church claiming jurisdiction over schismatics and enforcing that claim are two different things. ;-)

---

"The Orthodox are Catholics in Schism."

That's a contradiction in terms. Catholics submit to the Supreme Pontiff and remain in communion with the members of the Church subject to him. Schismatics do not.

---

"One more thing, the reason I don’t hold that it is 'divine law made manifest from the pope' as you seem to,..."

One more thing, that careful qualification "seem to" is a slippery way to introduce a Strawman Argument by implication and let's have none of that. You have a sharper mind than Thomasvalle, so you don't need to resort to his kind of shenanigans

"is because this is new to the 1983 code of canon law. Ihe 1918 was a bit different."

The current set of laws which take precedence. :)

"I’m debating that the orthodox cannot hear confessions, except when a Catholic is in danger of death. (Which is also what the 1918 code says).

...and current Canon Law says differently. Boo hoo. :D

"The SSPX can hear confessions regardless, because the pope has explicitly given them the ability to."

Agreed. ...which I'm arguing shows
a.) they did not have that ability until the Pope gave it to them.
b.) point a.) demonstrates the SSPX schismatics and
c.) the SSPX are not analagous to the Orthodox who arleady had that ability, despite being schismatics as well.

"If the Orthodox can hear confessions without the danger of death, it is only because the Pope has granted them (like the SSPX) the ability to do so."

Argumentum ad Nauseam since you still haven't cited Canon Law or an Apostolic Letter or any source whatsoever showing the Pope making such a grant to the Orthodox.

"Even if it’s in the Code of Canon Law and so you see it as 'The Law', that is a change to the Code of Canon Law, because in the 1917 that was explicitly not allowed unless there was a danger of death."

If we both agree it's in Canon Law now, then we both should agree it applies now, yes?

"and if a priest was traveling, he wouldn’t be allowed to hear confessions unless he had permission from the local ordinary wherever he travelled through."

Welcome to Law School 101: Laws change and the second half of your example shows why in this instance it's a good thing. ;-)