S.S.P.X.

JURISDICTION
FOR CONFESSION & MATRIMONY
(from the works of Rev. Fr. GLOVER J.C.D. and of the priests of CAMPOS -
Brazil - cf. "Cor Unum" #16)

I. State of the Question:

The power received by the ordination to the priesthood is

sufficient for validly celebrating Mass everywhere. This power, called power
of Order, is also necessary for hearing Confessions or blessing Marriages,
but it is not sufficient: for the validity of these 2 Sacraments is required the
power of JURISDICTION, usually given by the local Bishop.

Power of ORDER = power to sanctify the faithful, conferred

by the sacred rite of ordination, cannot be taken away.

Power of JURISDICTION = power to govern the faithful,

commissioned by the competent authority which can take
it away. All power is given to Me in heaven and in earth ...
Mt.28,18.

Now, the problem is that many diocesan Bishops refuse to grant to the
S.S.P.X. priests the jurisdiction for Confessions and Marriages, and, because of
this refusal, some people doubt the validity of our Sacraments. Let us already
realize that this situation in the Church is nothing new:
A) In England, during the XVI century, the bishops became schismatic
and heretics, while many priests remained true to the Church and
continued to give the Sacraments even separated from, or in spite of, the
bishop.
B) In France, during the Revolution, the priests were summoned by
the government to take a schismatic oath (condemned by Pius VI in April
1791) but the majority refused and continued to give the Sacraments
even without the authorization of the bishops "jureurs".
C) In countries enslaved by Communism many priests are exiled from
their own diocese and are unable to get in touch with the local Bishop
(when this one is not a Party agent!). Nevertheless they do not hesitate to
confess people in private homes or concentration camps.

Thus, it must be clear that all the laws of the Church have but one purpose:
the salvation of souls. SALUS ANIMARUM EST SUPREMA LEX:... “always
keeping in mind the salvation of souls, which in the Church must always be
the supreme law."(New Code of Canon Law, can.1752)

Our divine Lord has established that the graces of salvation be conferred
through the ministry of His priests to whom He has given special powers:
which means that priests have a grave obligation to come to the rescue of
the souls in need. Therefore, even the canonical laws, which rule the normal

1
exercise of the priestly ministry, are subordinated to this supreme law: God's
law comes before purely ecclesiastical laws. In other words, when the strict
observance of legal norms certainly hinders or gravely impedes the salvation
of souls, the divine law must prevail. As St. Thomas teaches: Legislators in
framing laws attend to what commonly happens: although if the law be
applied to certain cases it will frustrate the equality of justice and be injurious
to the common good, which the law has in view...To follow the letter of the
law when it ought not to be followed is sinful… it is written in the Codex of
Laws and Constitutions: without doubt he transgresses the law who by
adhering to the letter of the law strives to defeat the intention of the
lawgiver'." (Summa Theologica, IIa IIae, qu.120, art.1) In preparing the Code
of Canon Law St. Pius X hardly could have foreseen that modernist bishops
would use it against Catholics holding fast to the true Faith and the
unadulterated Sacraments! In this crisis of the Church, let us remember the
words of

St Paul: " the letter (of the law) killeth, but the spirit (of the law) giveth life”
(2 Corint.3:6).

2-The power of jurisdiction for Confessions

By his ordination every priest receives the radical power to
absolve, but to exercise this power validly 'he must receive also the power
of jurisdiction; for, in the Sacrament of Penance the priest acts like a judge,
and a judge must have authority over those whom he judges, otherwise his
sentence is not binding.
1.Have ORDINARY jurisdiction (as attached to their office):
• the Pope over the whole Church
• the Bishop over his diocese's flock
• the pastor over his parishioners

II. Have DELEGATED jurisdiction:

• the other priests; see Old Code can.873 New C. can-967

Such a jurisdiction is delegated, either by someone who has ordinary

jurisdiction, or by Church law itself. Now, jurisdiction for Confession is
delegated by Canon Law itself:
* to all priests if the penitent is in danger of death (see Old Code
can.882,New Code can.976)
* to the priests who absolve in common error, or in a positive &
probable doubt (O.C.can.209, NC.can.144)

In such cases the Church is said to "supply jurisdiction.”

Thus, even though S.S.P.X. priests do not enjoy a jurisdiction which is
ordinary or delegated by the local bishop, the Church gives them the
necessary jurisdiction in cases of danger of death, common error, and
positive doubt. The Code of Canon Law directly gives them the power they
need.

2
 A) In case of danger of death (O.C.can.882,2252 - N.C.can.976,1357)

I. Principle : In danger of death all priests, even though not approved

for Confessions, can validly and lawfully absolve any penitent from any
sins and censures, although reserved and notorious, EVEN IF AN
APPROVED PRIEST IS PRESENT.
The Code does not specify imminent death, but merely danger of death.
Moreover it does not matter from what source the danger of death arises:
sickness, wounds, impending serious operation, call of a soldier to war, etc.
(cf.-Sacred Penitentiary, May 29, 1915 and March 25,1944)

Moreover, Canonists of repute (Coronata, D'Annibale, Gomez,...) apply this

rule to those who are in great danger of not recovering the use of reason,
or to those who will be unable to easily find a priest in the future for
Confession & absolution. Indeed, the mind of the Church is that every
dying person be offered the help of the Sacraments, taking advantage of
His Mercy before meeting His Justice. Now, if there is doubt about the
danger of death, as long as this danger is probable the sacramental
absolution is valid because the Church supplies jurisdiction in a positive &
probable doubt of fact (O.C.#209,N.C.#144)

II. Application : In the actual crisis of the Church, traditional Catholics

are usually obliged to go to Confession only to "traditional" priests, for
"modern" priests either refuse to hear Confessions, or give wrong advice
and do not use the proper words for absolution, or even deny the
absolution to those guilty of the unforgivable crime of agreeing with
Archbishop Lefebvre ... Therefore, there is a true danger of dying without
absolution since "traditional" priests are so few and often difficult to find.
Consequently, we have the right and duty (ex Caritate: see O.C.#892
§2,N.C. # 986 @2) to hear the confession of these poor souls deprived of
good shepherds. And keep in mind that it is sufficient to have a positive &
probable doubt about such a danger to enjoy the jurisdiction supplied by
the Church(O.C 209)

B) In case of common error (O.C. can 209 - N.C. can-144)

I. Principle : Common error is the false judgement affecting the

main part of a community (parish, diocese, religious institute ... ) about
the existence of the jurisdiction of a particular priest: the priest is
erroneously believed to have jurisdiction whereas he has none. Aid this
false judgement is either actual or presumed:

a) Actual common error happens when a priest without

jurisdiction sits in a confessional in a church where most of the
parishioners are present and wrongly think that this priest has the
necessary faculties for Confession. But it is not often that the main part
of the parish is in church and thinks about Father's jurisdiction; and it is
why Canon Law supplies jurisdiction also when this error is only presumed
to exist (error "de jure'' as opposed to the error "de facto”).
b) Interpretative (or presumed) common error happens when

3
there is a public circumstance, or set of circumstances, from which all
reasonable persons would naturally conclude that Father enjoys
jurisdiction. Thus, a priest sitting publicly in a confessional in a public
church is presumed to have the power to hear Confessions, and this
public circumstance is a sufficient reasonable foundation for
interpretative common error- Perhaps most of the parishioners are not
actually present, but they can enter anytime and reasonably (though
falsely) assume that Father has jurisdiction, because he is in the
confessional in church. And this jurisdiction is supplied for each and every
Confession heard in these circumstances, regardless of the number of
people -who are in church and who go to Confession.

II. Application : Interpretative common error is easily caused in

public places, as in our chapels and missions, and as a result the power of
hearing Confessions is real: even the faithful who know that our priest
has no jurisdiction are validly absolved. “The fact that the person
knows that the priest has no jurisdiction, does not interfere with
the validity of the priest's acts if by common error he is believed
to have jurisdiction.” (Woywood, A practical commentary on the Code
of Canon Law, p.101 of 1962 edition)

In the October 1983 issue of the "Homiletic & Pastoral Review” ,Fr.Joseph
J. Farraher s.j. wrote: “As for Archbishop Lefebvre's priests, see my answer
in the Aug.-Sept.1982 issue of HPR where I stated that, although his
priests are illicitly ordained, they are validly ordained and have the
radical power to absolve sacramentally. And, although ordinarily priests
require “faculties" or jurisdiction to absolve validly and the Archbishop's
priests do not have valid faculties, nevertheless when they enter a
confessional in what appears to be a Catholic church, the supreme
authority of the Church in Canon Law supplies jurisdiction to them just so
that the faithful who approach them in good faith for Confession will not
suffer lack of valid absolution.”(p.67) And in the February 1985 issue of
H.P.R. he came back to the question of Archbishop Lefebvre's priests:
“The Masses said, the absolution given, and the marriages witnessed by
them are all most probably valid, the latter two categories at least by
"common error” (p61)

This has been confirmed by a confidential reply of Cardinal Mayer to a

letter written by a troubled Catholic from California asking about the
validity of our Sacraments: "The principle of "common error” , whether on
the part of only one faithful or on the part of the community, can be
applied in this case, and such acts are thereby valid ... (cf. canons
144,976,1331,1333,1335)"(Apostolic Nunciature in U.S.A., letter
#1885/89/4, dated May lst,1989)

C) In case of positive & probable doubt (O.C. can.209 - N.C.

can.144)

We can apply this rule to danger of death and to common error: if

there is a probable doubt about these facts, then the Church supplies

4
 jurisdiction.

Also, in the case of priests deprived without a just & serious motive from
the jurisdiction that they possessed as parish priests, since the bishops
abused their authority against the requirements of the Code of Canon
Law, there is at least a doubt about the validity of such sanctions against
good priests. For instance, Father Paul A. WICKENS had been in the same-
parish for 28 years when, one day in 1983, his bishop threw him out,
denying him use of the church for his Mass, cutting off his salary and
refusing him shelter in the rectory. Now he had not denied Catholic
doctrine, given public scandal or neglected his duties. And for months
there was no one to replace him...But his unforgivable crime was to
oppose his bishop's stand on sex education in public schools! So,
Archbishop P. Gerety of Newark, New Jersey, transferred him to a faraway
parish to punish him for exposing the harm that was being done; and,
without recognizing Father's appeal to Rome, he suspended him...(see
“Verbum" # 21,Spring 1986)

D) Confirmation by canons 2261,2264 (N.C. can.1335)

“The faithful may, for any just reason, ask the Sacraments and
sacramentals from a priest who is excommunicated (but not by sentence),
especially if there is no other priest available: thus asked by the faithful the
excommunicated priest may minister to them validly and lawfully.”

Now,if the Church in her spirit of mercy allows the exercise of jurisdiction
to a priest punished with the most grievous censure, only in order to
satisfy any just reason of conscience of a faithful, how would she not
supply jurisdiction to priests arbitrarily and unjustly deprived of it, in
order to come to the rescue of the "traditional" Catholics rejected or
repulsed by the modern clergy? Any just reason of conscience of a
particular faithful is enough to move the mercy of the Church for allowing
an excommunicated priest the use of jurisdiction. How the very grave
reasons of conscience of thousands of Catholics could not be enough to
move the Church to supply jurisdiction to priests whose only crime is to
hold fast to the true Faith??

E) Conclusion about Confessions by S.S.P.X. priests

Thus, it is clear that generally there is no difficulty for validly hearing

Confession in the actual state of the Church. Even though the jurisdiction
of our priests is neither ordinary nor delegated by the local bishops,
nevertheless they have a real jurisdiction supplied by Canon Law itself.

3. The power of jurisdiction for Marriages

A) General rule : For a valid Marriage between Catholics, it must be

contracted before the local parish priest or his delegate (O.C.
can.1094,N.C. can-1108). Now, the priest before whom Marriage is
contracted is only a qualified witness, and not the minister of the

5
 Sacrament of Matrimony, but his presence is a condition decreed by the
Church for validity.

B) Exceptions (O.C. can.1098, N.C. can.1116): If the pastor or his

delegate cannot assist at the Marriage, or the parties cannot go to him,
without serious inconvenience, Marriage may be validly and licitly
contracted before two witnesses alone:
a) in danger of death;
b) even apart from the danger of death, as long as it is prudently
foreseen that the serious difficulty of getting an authorized priest
will continue for a month.

a) in danger of death : If either party is in danger of death, since the

spouses themselves are the ministers, Canon Law provides for the
extraordinary form of Marriage. The use of this extraordinary form pre-
supposes that the parties are free to marry. But if a priest is present and the
Marriage is necessary for the peace of conscience, he has in virtue of canon
1044 (NC 1079 #2) far-reaching faculties, if the local bishop cannot be
reached (and he is not considered to be accessible if he can be contacted
only by means of telegraph or telephone: NC 1079 #4).
11 “The danger of death need not necessarily arise from illness only,
for the Code speaks of danger of death generally, from any source. A
bona fide, belief of the parties that there is danger of death before an
authorized priest can be had must suffice, because in many cases
there is no possibility of ascertaining the objective danger of death.
There need be no special reason why the parties want to get married
in danger of death, for the Code does not require any."(Woywo6,I “A
practical commentary",1962) "This does not mean imminent death,
but danger of death: a situation -wherein there is a reasonable
chance that death may occur due to illness, impending surgery, war,
or even execution. The key point is that an official witness cannot be
contacted or approached without grave inconvenience. It must be
difficult both for the parties to approach a sacred minister and --or the
minister to go to the parties. The grave inconvenience may be due to
distance, lack of means of communication, or lack of transportation.
In this case it amounts to physical impossibility. The inconvenience
may also be caused by the moral impossibility of the official witness
being present. This could be true during wartime or in areas where
Catholics are persecuted. Civil laws may forbid any religious
marriages or a given marriage itself. If such a sanction were
unjust(e.g. legislation forbidding interracial marriages), it could be
construed that the official witness cannot be present due to grave
inconvenience. There is no taxative list of circum-stances which
constitute grave inconvenience and justify use of the extraordinary
form. However, grave inconvenience does not include those situations
in which an official witness is prevented from being present due to an
ecclesiastical prohibition of the marriage in question (e.g. prior bond,
or undispensed impediment)." (T.Doyle,o.p.,"The Code of Canon Law,a
text and commentary’ ,the C.L.Society of America,1985)

6
 "If the pastor or Ordinary can be reached only by telegraph or
telephone, it may be considered that he cannot be reached (Code
Comm.,Nov-12,1922).The grave inconvenience may consist in the
disclosure of former hidden misconduct of the parties, which would be
revealed by asking the pastor to assist." (Bouscaren & Ellis, “C.L. a
text and commentary”,1963)

Thus, the followings conditions are required FOR VALIDITY :

1) danger of death of either party (from any cause)
according to prudent moral estimation;
2) physical or moral impossibility to reach the Ordinary or
pastor who should normally assist;
3) two witnesses capable of attesting to the fact that
consent was exchanged.
FOR LAWFULNESS : if any priest can be easily had, he must be
called and he must assist ;if he assists, he has the faculties
mentioned in canons 1044,1045 (N.C. # 1079,1080).

b) outside danger of death : The conditions are the same, except

that there is no danger of death and the impossibility of reaching the
pastor must not only exist at the time of the marriage but must be
prudently foreseen as likely to last for a month. This impossibility may
be the fact that the normal celebration of marriage would cause a
grave harm (moral or material) to the common good, or to the
spouses or one of them, or to the Ordinary or the pastor or the
delegated priest (cf.Code Comm.,May 3,1945). For instance: Great
expenses for poor people, harm to health or ministry ... During the
French Revolution, at one point, priests were threatened with life
sentence if they officially assisted at marriages; but the Holy See
declared that such marriages without a priest were valid with 2
witnesses only.

"The extraordinary form may be used outside of danger of death if it

is foreseen that an official witness cannot be contacted or approached
without grave inconvenience for a period of one month. If the parties
are morally certain that the situation which prevents the official
witness from being present will not change, they may exchange
consent before the other witnesses alone. Even if the parties err in
the assumption and an official witness may be conveniently had
within a month, the marriage is still valid. It is also valid if through
their own fault, the parties find themselves in a situation requiring the
extraordinary form." (T.Dovle,o.p. op. cit.)
C) Application to our case : If a material damage authorizes the
future spouses to contract marriage without the canonical form = no
official witness),a. fortiori a spiritual damage gives the same
authorization. This harm which constitutes the grave inconvenience
and. which lasts, not only for a month, but for an indefinite length of
time, is the New Mass and the updated marriage preparation (“pre-
Cana conferences").There is a moral impossibility for the faithful to ask
a parish priest to marry them, when they know that he will give them

7
 instructions and a Mass endangering their Faith (and in many places
the New Mass is sacrilegeous and invalid!).Therefore, Catholics who do
not want to give scandal or to be scandalized by the New Religion,
seem entitled to contract marriage before 2 witnesses and, if there is
one, a traditional priest who shall bless them.

D) Common error: I.Principle: 1917 Code, the Code Commission stated

that canon 209 applies also to the case of a priest who, lacking jurisdiction,
assists at a marriage( Code Com, March 26,1952). Thus, if a priest is
wrongly thought to have the powers of a pastor by common error, the
Church supplies jurisdiction and the marriage is valid (cf. Jone #729).
However, the mere fact that an unknown priest, not officially connected with
the parish church,is seen to perform the marriage of a specific couple in this
church, is not a sufficient foundation for thinking that he can marry other
couples. Common error concerns only the ACTUAL faculty and not a future
possibility. Unlike the faculty for Confessions which is general, the faculty for
Marriages is delegated for a particular case: the fact that Father was the
official witness at the marriage of Mr.X. and Miss Y. does not give him the
delegation for the marriage of Mr.Z. and Miss W, unless he is the pastor or
the assistant pastor.

The New Code (canon #144,2) explicitly applies the rule of common error to
the delegation to assist at marriages (N.C.# 1111).

II.Applic. In our chapels where we celebrate Mass regularly like parish priests
do, it seems easy to have common error in so far as the faithful consider us
as pastors. Moreover, in case of a positive & probable doubt about the
existence of this common error, the Church supplies jurisdiction (can-
209,N.C.# 144) See page 3,the quotation from the February 1985 issue of
“the Homiletic and Pastoral Review”, where Fr. Farraher says that our
marriages are "most probably valid ... at least by common error."

4. Conclusion

Even Canon Law comes to our rescue to prove that the S.S.P.X. priests validly
hear Confessions and assist at Marriages, like the priests who have received
the faculties from their local bishops. With regard to lawfulness, it is easy to
answer that there is a true and habitual necessity for using such a supplied
jurisdiction.

Finally, let us keep in mind that “Lex positiva non obligat cum gravi
incommodo": Moral theology teaches that a state of emergency of souls,
even more than that of other obstacles, excuses one from observing the law.
This means that by virtue of such a situation the prescriptions of any positive
law, whether human (civil or ecclesiastic) or even divine, may not be binding
- with the exception of the prohibitions of the natural law, because these
forbid acts which are intrinsicallv evil. There are extreme cases in which
disciplinary laws lose their force, giving way to divine law. What do I mean?
There are cases, even ordinary cases - Jesus Christ is my guarantee - in which

8
divine (positive) law is eclipsed by natural- (divine) law. “Which of you”, said
the divine Master, “shall have an ass or an ox fall into a pit, and will not
immediately draw him out, even on the Sabbath day?” (Lk.14,5 & 13,16)

“IF A LAW GIVES WAY FOR SUCH A REASON, WHAT SHALL WE SAY WHEN AT
STAKE IS NOT JUST THE SAVING OF THE LIFE OF A DAUGHTER OF ABRAHAM,
BUT THE COMING TO THE AID, IN AN EXTREME DANGER, OF THE COMMON
MOTHER OF ALL MEN, THE SPOUSE OF CHRIST, THE CHURCH OF GOD?”
(Cardinal Pie, Speech for the reception of the relics of St. Emilian, Nov.8.1859)