Talk:Episcopi vagantes/Archive 1

Jurisdiction is required for valid celebration of the sacraments of Penance and Matrimony
Are you serious? I'm pretty sure (and by the way I'm a Roman Catholic myself, so I should know) that a Presbyter (IE a non-Bishop Priest) can validly officiate a wedding (Matrimony) and hear confessions (Penance). One therefore need not be a Bishop period, let alone a Bishop with jurisdiction, to celebrate those Sacraments. I'm going to for now, and if anyone can clarify what we were trying to say, we can talk about a more accurate way to put it. —The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 06:17, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Read the Code of Canon Law's canon 966 on Penance and canon 1108 on Marriage. —Esoglou (talk) 08:42, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Can. 967 §1. In addition to the Roman Pontiff, cardinals have the faculty of hearing the confessions of the Christian faithful everywhere in the world by the law itself. Bishops likewise have this faculty and use it licitly everywhere unless the diocesan bishop has denied it in a particular case.
 * OK, so it sounds as though Priests can only hear confessions by permission of their Diocesan Bishops or the Bishops who ordained them. I can't be right about everything.
 * However, this very next canon makes it clear that a Bishop without jurisdiction (IE one ordained as a Bishop but not given a diocese, EG assistant and auxillary Bishops) do have a universal ability to hear confessions, unless their Diocesan Bishop tells them not to for some special reason. —The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 09:21, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The canon law you quote concerns Catholics only. If the vagans is a Catholic, he is excommunicated (Code of Canon Law, canon 1382) and thereby forbidden to celebrate any sacrament (Code of Canon Law, canon 1331 §1). If he is not a Catholic, the quoted canon does not apply to him and Catholics would be allowed to receive the sacrament of Penance from him at most in situations where they are physically or morally unable to approach a Catholic minister (Code of Canon Law, canon 844 §2). I say "at most" because of uncertainty about whether his ordination was really valid and also because Catholics are permitted to receive the sacrament from a non-Catholic minister only if the sacraments are valid in that minister's Church (the canon in question makes no exception for a perhaps validly ordained individual non-Catholic minister belonging to, say, a Protestant Church), while the vagans, by definition, can scarcely be said to belong to any Church. —Esoglou (talk) 10:39, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * While I agree with Esoglou, this is starting to sound like synthesis, and some secondary sources would be preferred to the primary source of CIC. --Elizium23 (talk) 18:34, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Better to omit all mention of jurisdiction, "Ecclesia supplet" etc. —Esoglou (talk) 19:51, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * So, as far as the Article is concerned, the sentence I removed when I started this Section ends up removed anyway. That's kind of an interesting "full circle" at any rate. —The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 23:20, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, agreed - and the context that justified the presence of what you removed is gone too. :) —Esoglou (talk) 09:12, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

20071106 Edits
I reverted most of the edits from 6 November, because they did not appear to be written from a WP:NPOV. —jonathon 18:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I also replaced "ibid" with a citation, and improved the citations using the citation template. I'm debating if the references should use the citation template. —jonathon 18:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)