question regarding illegitimate children, priesthood and annulment

[Davidnic]

but, if you noticed above i suspected the sspx viewpoint was that the Church could simply not ordain an illegitimate son anymore than it could ordain a woman- because it is impossible

and it was the last pope and the view of the current pope that a woman cannot be ordained because it is impossible to do so

the pope could not waive the irregularity of being female so perhaps he could ot waive the irregularity of being illegitimate ?

that is the question ?

That is simply an incorrect view of what illegitimacy is in the eyes of the Church. But it is not the only thing SSPX is off base about.

Canon 1040 states there are no impediments unless listed. It does not state being a woman because that is not necessary due to the nature of the Sacrament. That has never been held in the same respect as illegitimacy. The SSPX would have to prove it was considered not just an impediment but an impossibility. That burden of proof is on them. Otherwise Orders is a sacrament available to all Baptized Catholic men.

 

[Davidnic]

Can. 1024 A baptized male alone receives sacred ordination validly.

So that canon rules out women. And illegitimacy is not an impediment and canon 1040 states all impediments are listed and there are none other than those listed.

So when you take Canon (s) 1024, 1040, 1041, 1042...illegitimacy is not an impediment. And since Canon 1024 does not specify legitimate by birth baptized male. That burden would be on SSPX to prove such a claim...not on someone to find the specifics in canon law. Since gender is not listed as an impediment...because it is something else far more. It would be not meeting canon 1024. Canon 1024 describes, in total, the nature of the person needed and legitimacy is not part of that.

 

[BAFRIEND]

That is simply an incorrect view of what illegitimacy is in the eyes of the Church. But it is not the only thing SSPX is off base about.

Canon 1040 states there are no impediments unless listed. It does not state being a woman because that is not necessary due to the nature of the Sacrament. That has never been held in the same respect as illegitimacy. The SSPX would have to prove it was considered not just an impediment but an impossibility. That burden of proof is on them. Otherwise Orders is a sacrament available to all Baptized Catholic men.

let me get my hands on a 1917- i would not be surprised if the word illegitimate was in the same sentance with female

my guess is if i asked 3 rcc priests the question i would get 3 different answers

i cannot tell by your logic if it is an impediment or an impossibility- i wonder what augustine or aquinas wrote on the issue ? now if aquinas wrote that it is impossible then it is not a simple impediment

 

[Davidnic]

let me get my hands on a 1917- i would not be surprised if the word illegitimate was in the same sentance with female

my guess is if i asked 3 rcc priests the question i would get 3 different answers

i cannot tell by your logic if it is an impediment or an impossibility- i wonder what augustine or aquinas wrote on the issue ? now if aquinas wrote that it is impossible then it is not a simple impediment

The addition of illegitimacy (expanded from illegitimate children of cleric to all illegitimate children) was done by Pope Paschal II and was specifically listed as an impediment. It was included in all subsequent versions of canon law as an impediment, not on the same level as gender but as an impediment. It could and has been dispensed by previous canon law at times. So it is not an impossibility. It was viewed as dispensable because it was cautionary due to living in a depraved environment. So the candidate could exhibit that despite the situation in which he was raised he had not adhered to the questionable values expressed by the situation.

And when the 1983 says all impediments are listed in 1041-1042 and illegitimacy is not there it abrogates 1917.

It is actually very straightforward and I have never met a priest who thought otherwise except those like SSPX.

 

[JoabAnias]

I was on the website for an sspx seminary

Theres a clue.

 

[Davidnic]

And the Catholic Encyclopedia (in reference to canon law of the time) says Illegitimacy (called Defect of birth) could be remedied in 4 ways:

The defect of illegitimate birth may be cured in four ways: (1) By the subsequent marriage of the parents ; (2) By a rescript of the pope ; (3) By religious profession ; (4) By a dispensation.
​

So obviously it was not on the same level as impossibility since it could be removed. So again the SSPX is wrong.

 

[BAFRIEND]

Theres a clue.

that is just the tip of the iceberg- the sspx holds the view for some reason and the reason is the tradition of the Catholic Church

so the question i asked was is this doctrine of the Church

and that has evolved into the question of impediment or impossibility

 

[Basil the Great]

Do we have any poster here who attends an SSPX chapel who can enlighten us on this issue?

 

[BAFRIEND]

And the Catholic Encyclopedia (in reference to canon law of the time) says Illegitimacy (called Defect of birth) could be remedied in 4 ways:

The defect of illegitimate birth may be cured in four ways: (1) By the subsequent marriage of the parents ; (2) By a rescript of the pope ; (3) By religious profession ; (4) By a dispensation.
​

So obviously it was not on the same level as impossibility since it could be removed. So again the SSPX is wrong.

but but but...

as someone pointed out above, being illegitimate does not exculde one from the sacrament of baptism... i am not satisfied that a remedy points to a removal or proves the difference between impossibility or impediment

but your arguments are getting stonger and i feel we are getting closer to an answer

about the sspx, i said i suspected that was their viewpoint logically, i dont know if they hold the view due to impossibility or impediment

 

[JoabAnias]

that is just the tip of the iceberg- the sspx holds the view for some reason and the reason is the tradition of the Catholic Church

so the question i asked was is this doctrine of the Church

and that has evolved into the question of impediment or impossibility

Seems David answered that.

 

[BAFRIEND]

Do we have any poster here who attends an SSPX chapel who can enlighten us on this issue?

i hope not (LOL)

actually, i would be happy if one joined and contributed to the conversation

 

[AMDG]

But Davidnic answered the question already.

 

[BAFRIEND]

But Davidnic answered the question already.

i am not certain that he has- what he answered is that the topic was not discussed in the 1983 code, if the church held being illegitimate as an impediment to the sacrament and not excludes then that is one thing

if the Church holds or held it as being an impossible barrier then the old canon is the authority and bars illegitimate sons from the priesthood

why would the sspx seminary facepalm illegitimate sons so upfront if it was simply an impediment ? one thing about sspx is they know their theology

so no, i dont feel davidnic answered the full question- just pointed to a likely answer- and i do appreciate the learning experience, btw

 

[kepha31]

i am not certain that he has- what he answered is that the topic was not discussed in the 1983 code, if the church held being illegitimate as an impediment to the sacrament and not excludes then that is one thing.

There is no such thing as an illegitimate child. Period. It's an archaic term. What is illegitimate is SSPX ordinations and annulments, so the whole noise they make about illegitimates in their fake seminaries becomes moot.

if the Church holds or held it as being an impossible barrier then the old canon is the authority and bars illegitimate sons from the priesthood

It is not a barrier. You keep repeating yourself. The canon does not have to spell every single thing in detail to exclude outdated canons. So called "illegitimacy" is an opinion from an excommunicated group of schismatics who violate canon law!

why would the sspx seminary facepalm illegitimate sons so upfront if it was simply an impediment ? one thing about sspx is they know their theology

No, they know legalism, not theology, and they are very good at piling up reams of obscure documents when it suits their agenda. If they knew there theology they would repent of their schism and get to a legitimate priest for a real confession.

so no, i dont feel davidnic answered the full question- just pointed to a likely answer- and i do appreciate the learning experience, btw

Don't fall into their legalistic trap. "Illegitimacy" is a derogatory label that, although it may describe millions of people born out of wed lock, is contrary to the dignity of the human person.

Anything after Pope Pius X as far as the SSPX is concerned is illegitimate. That means popes, councils, canon law revisions, encyclicals, apostolic letters, everything to them is illegitimate. SSPX is a cult that attracts people who need counseling.

 

[BAFRIEND]

kepha- illegitimacy is not a slur, it is a state and whether you like it or not a fact of life for those who commit adultery against God and the result is children born out of wed-lock, it is called scandal

second, the Church states that sspx priests have valid ordinations because they were ordained and continue to be so by valid bishops, so your comment only leads one to believe you have no real insight of the priestly order

third, you state 'outdated' canon- the current canon specifically states that any topic not addressed in the new canon still falls under the authority of the old canon

hence, the old canon, by Church Law is never invalid, you should know that

the Church still holds that children when an annulment is granted will be deemed illigitimate under specific circumstances, that is fact whether you like it or not

and no, i have received no definitive answer to the question that allows me to hop off the fence one way or the other

 

[Davidnic]

Well SSPX don't always know their theology and here they are violating canon law. Of course since they sill are not in full union, only the excommunications are lifted, it is one of a few issues they need to conform to. B16 talks about all that (not this issue but sspx) in the recent book where he was interviewed.

 

[benedictaoo]

BAFRIEND, you need to stop going to schematic sources to get your information.

Why is this even important to you?

Is there an illegitimate male person in your life who wants to be a priest or something?

I do not understand why you do not just call your local dioceses and ask them to explain this to you. Or ask you own priest.

If the Church allows males whose parents were never married to become priests, and you are correct, they are breaking some kind of tradition- the guess what- that means the Catholic Church erred and is not really the true Church and the SSPX were right all along.

You have to be careful here of what you are doing. You are rejecting the explanation you seek, out of hand... and this is how it all begins... you can not accept something from the Church that she allegedly "changed" and so the thread begins to unravel.

I have no idea why this would be the pill you find hard to swallow, but the Church revised the church law on this one, and thats that.

The Church can revise and change and ditch church law if she wants... she just can not change eternal truths and this is not one of them.

What makes SSPX special is, they feel you can't change anything and we need to live in the stone ages, much like the EO.

This is what leads to schism, unwilling to go where the Spirit leads the Church, so be careful.

 

[AMDG]

illegitimacy is not a slur

But neither is it applicable nowadays. They don't stamp "illigitimate" on birth certificates. So how in the world one can even tell is a mystery.

And I have heard just the opposite of your "if it's not specifically in the updated 1983 canon law and it is specifically in the 1917 canon law, the 1917 canon law is still applicable" when it comes to women covering their heads (the 1917 canon law says they must, but the updated 1983 says nothing--so most women don't and they aren't thought to be "in the wrong") and I believe some of the fasting laws too.

Oh, and there is a difference between annullment (civil authority) and Decree of Nullity (church authority). Children whose parents have received a Decree of Nullity are not considered illegitimate since they are the product of a natural marriage. (I know because I am such a child and my mother's Decree of Nullity was granted in 1959--back when the 1917 canon law was applicable. In her case both the marriage license and the civil divorce decree were presented to the Tribunal in the application for the Decree of Nullity.) Somehow I think the confusion between the Decree of Nullity (often called annullment) and a civil anullment could be avoided (sometimes leading to heartbreak) by calling them the proper names.

 

[BAFRIEND]

Well SSPX don't always know their theology and here they are violating canon law. Of course since they sill are not in full union, only the excommunications are lifted, it is one of a few issues they need to conform to. B16 talks about all that (not this issue but sspx) in the recent book where he was interviewed.

assuming they are violating canon law, i still have no definitive answer other than an assumption based on an omission and an opinion that supposes an assumption

we can state that being illegitimate is an objective fact in the same we can state the same is true for gender

 

[BAFRIEND]

benedictoo

in response to your last post i am not going outside the Church to sspx for anything

i asked if this was Church theology and guess what ?

no one has definitively answered my question other than the fact indeed sspx's requirement does in fact come from Catholic Church theology

davidnic made an argument based on an ommission from canon but it is pointed out that gender is not listed either, so there is no concise answer a