The Argument for the SSPX from Supplied Jurisdiction

If the Society and priests who minister to me are about to be declared schismatic and excommunicated, I want to know the rationale and justification for their consecrating bishops without a papal mandate. Canon law 1387 from the 1983 revised code of 1917 says this about those consecrations:

Can. 1387 Both the Bishop who, without a pontifical mandate, consecrates a person a Bishop, and the one who receives the consecration from him, incur a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See. [For anyone who wants to read the law, the entire 1983 code is online here.]

So let's examine some issues here. I'm going to quote from an article by Fr. Thomas Glover, an English oratorian and Doctor of Canon Law.  I'm also reading a dissertation by Francis Sigismund  Miaskiewicz J.C.L., a priest of the Archdiocese of Boston, published in 1940 by Catholic University of America Press on the question of supplied Jurisdiction according to Canon 209. It's over 300 pages with much of it technical canonical language. Needless to say, I'm not barreling through it. [Source]

I like to begin any research by defining terms. This comes from Fr. Miaskiewicz:

Jurisdiction may be canonically defined as a public power, granted either directly by Christ Himself, or indirectly through the Church by lawful commission, of governing and leading the faithful towards the goal of eternal life.

Note the goal! The law is not for the sake of the law, but for leading souls to heaven. And this definition comes from Fr. John Hardon, S.J's pocket dictionary:

In ecclesiastical law, the right to exercise official and public authority in some capacity. Thus a bishop has jurisdiction in his diocese, a pastor in his parish, priests in the administration of the sacraments, priests and deacons in preaching, and religious superiors in directing the members of their respective communities. (Etym. Latin ius, right + dicere, to say: iurisdictio, official authority.)

The scheduled consecrations will be done without official jurisdiction from the pope. However, there are occasions in church history during times of crisis when priests acted without official jurisdiction. The priests who remained faithful in England when most of the bishops took the heretical oath recognizing the king's supremacy over the church did not have their bishop's jurisdiction to engage in their ordinary ministry. A similar thing happened during the French Revolution on a smaller scale since only a handful of bishops took the oath to the revolutionary government which usurped the pope's authority. However, the priests under those bishops often went underground in a way we're seeing again today between the Communist government and the underground church in China. There's certainly nothing new under the sun! 

The SSPX claims the authority to hear confessions and witness marriages under the principal of supplied jurisdiction. Fr. Glover, not an SSPX priest, defends their right to do so. He also makes the point that:

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, c. 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 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 (II Cor.iii;6).

While these issues are separate from the consecration of bishops, they are certainly related since you can't have priests without bishops to ordain them. The photo above says it all. No bishops willing to ordain priests for the SSPX = no priests to serve the faithful.

It's pretty clear that the Vatican wants to crush the Traditional faith, not just the Mass, but all the sacraments. They have a stranglehold on the faithful and demand we all bend the knee to Vatican II as if it's the only council of the Church. At present some traditional orders are allowed to continue, but for how long? 

Last year the FSSP, an order established from priests who abandoned Archbishop Lefebvre after the 1988 consecrations, were thrown out of the Diocese of Valence in France. Will they be the only ones singled out for the wrecking ball? Rumors say that the Vatican is preparing to welcome the priests who defect in July after the consecrations. Frankly, I think Pope Leo and Cardinal Fernandez are dreaming. Has the situation in Rome improved since 1988? Is the crisis in the Church improving or getting worse? How many Catholics in the pew woke up during COVID? How many saw how little zeal the bishops and the pope have for the flocks? How many laity will come to the conclusion that the SSPX has supplied jurisdiction and is operating under a situation of grave necessity and therefore are legitimate in the eyes of the head of the Church, Jesus Christ?

There are a number of Canon Laws that relate to the situation we face in this crisis. Things are complicated. Those who like simplicity will jump on the argument that the SSPX are disobedient. The pope is the boss. They're in schism. But canon law 1387 isn't the only law involved. Canon law 209, the subject of Fr. Miaskiewicz's dissertation, clearly affects and even defends the reality of supplied jurisdiction for SSPX priests. And there are others as well

But those canon laws are the subject for another day after I've read more of Fr. Miaskiewicz's dissertation and other sources. But from everything I've read and studied so far, I'm not going anywhere no matter what the Vatican does. Sad to say, the pope is acting more like Henry VIII than Pope Clement. Let us pray for him and the entire curia who are wreaking so much havoc on Holy Mother Church. An abusive father is still a father. 

For those who want to delve into the murky water of jurisdiction, here are a few links.

https://tradicat.blogspot.com/2015/10/from-one-canon-lawyer-to-another-fr.html

http://www.advancedchristianity.com/pages/MPC/Docs/SSPX_Supplied_Jurisdiction.htm

https://sspx.org/en/schism-and-archbishop-lefebvre-30930