- Status
P
Peter_J
Guest
No, but seriously …
Steido, I have two questions: How do you know Usher? And why is he giving you advice about communion?
G
GKC
Guest
G
GKC
Guest
Is this still operative?
“§4. If the danger of death is present or if, in the judgment of the diocesan bishop or conference of bishops, some other grave necessity urges it, Catholic ministers administer these same sacraments licitly also to other Christians not having full communion with the Catholic Church, who cannot approach a minister of their own community and who seek such on their own accord, provided that they manifest Catholic faith in respect to these sacraments and are properly disposed.”
The Eastern Churches (and others in that situation) seem to be covered by the preceding para:
“§3. Catholic ministers administer the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick licitly to members of Eastern Churches which do not have full communion with the Catholic Church if they seek such on their own accord and are properly disposed. This is also valid for members of other Churches which in the judgment of the Apostolic See are in the same condition in regard to the sacraments as these Eastern Churches.”
“Also” and “other Christians” appear in para .4.
If this is not the current canon, I need more info.
GKC
P
Peter_J
Guest
I agree, although I think the example here went in the opposite direction of what (I assume) you’re thinking: the strange innovation here is the Lutherans (or Anglicans for that matter) who don’t call themselves “catholic”. (Not meaning any offence to anyone who falls into that category.)A catholic protestant.Language is getting screwier and screwier as time goes on.
S
steve_b
Guest
*]danger of death
*]some other grave necessity (I’ve heard it said as example, for a dangerous surgery where the expected outcome is grim)
Either way, this excludes probably the other ~99.9% of protestants
G:
In this case, “churches” refer to Eastern Orthodox or Oriental Orthodox churches.
The CC doesn’t refer to Protestants as churches but ecclesial communities.
In all of canon law, here’s how ecclesial is used. vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/XN.HTM look to the left side of the page. It shows variations of the word, how often the words appear in canon law, and which canon the word is used in
G
GKC
Guest
As to the use of “Churches” as opposed to “ecclesial communities”, yes, I’m familiar with the distinction.
But I’m reading this differently. The Eastern (and other Churches possessing apostolic succession/valid orders) case is given in para 3. No mention of the need for referring to a bishop, no mention of near death. It states that “Catholic ministers administer the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick licitly to members of Eastern Churches which do not have full communion with the Catholic Church if they seek such on their own accord and are properly disposed”. And that’s all I read as required in such cases.Two stipulations, and the Catholic ministers communicate those Eastern Orthodox (and others so situated).
Para 4 seems to addressing a further situation. It does not mention Churches, but says that “Catholic ministers administer these same sacraments licitly also to other Christians not having full communion with the Catholic Church, who cannot approach a minister of their own community and who seek such on their own accord, provided that they manifest Catholic faith in respect to these sacraments and are properly disposed.”
The wording suggests that is not referring to the Eastern Churches, covered in para 3, but specifically to the same sacraments, to other Christians (not specified, but other than the Churches just mentioned), in case of near death or other grave circumstances, requires reference to a higher (episcopal) authority, for approval, refers to a community, not a Church, with the two further stipulations. I conclude that the two paras refer to two situations. Para 3 says merely that an Eastern Catholic (or similar situated) may receive. Para 4 addresses other communities, and sets the bar higher. But it does not limit such to near death circumstances, or address Churches (in the sense the distinction is made), but other Christians and communities.
So I read it.
GKC
P
pablope
Guest
Well…if the bishop gave his ok…who are we to disagree…
S
steve_b
Guest
Eastern Catholics are completely in union with the pope. No issue there
Does it make sense to have less restrictions on Protestants for example, than there is for the Orthodox, given that Protestants are even farther away from the CC than any other Christian?
" §4. If the danger of death is present or if, in the judgment of the diocesan bishop or conference of bishops, some other grave necessity urges it, Catholic ministers administer these same sacraments licitly also to other Christians not having full communion with the Catholic Church, who cannot approach a minister of their own community and who seek such on their own accord, provided that they manifest Catholic faith in respect to these sacraments and are properly disposed."
So
*]danger of death or some other grave matter
*]bishop or conference of bishops make the judgement to approve giving the sacrament
*]providing the recipiant manifests the Catholic faith with respect to the sacrament
*]is properly disposed
That’s highly restrictive. Just being transparent, what Protestant manifests that?
G
GKC
Guest
I go and type a lovely statement of my position, and cloud it up for you by saying Eastern. I know. What I meant was them other Orthodox. And the canon itself says (para 3) Eastern, not in full communion. Who are acknowledged to possess valid orders, and Apostolic succession. That’s who I meant.
And I’m saying that those two paragraphs place fewer restrictions on the Orthodox (not in communion) than on the other Christian communities referenced in para 4. All a member of an Eastern Church need do is ask, and be in a state of grace. No further restrictions stated. Read what I said again. Notice all those words that appear only in para 4, that I pointed out. That para is not talking about the same folk that para 3 is. That’s why it uses all those terms I pointed out: same sacraments, other Christians, community. And approval from a higher authority. That’s not the way para 3 speaks of “members of Eastern Churches which do not have full communion with the Catholic Church”.
And Catholic faith as to that particular sacrament would be something along the lines of the canons found in Session XIII of the Council of Trent. And you can certainly find Anglicans who affirm that. As to properly disposed, that’s why the “same sacraments” include penance.
Neither you or I are canonists. I read those paras and to me they say nothing like what you seem to see there. You seem unable to see the points I’m making. Absent some overwhelming, authoritative reference to the contrary, I hold to my reading. Fortunately, neither of us is in a position to enforce our readings, of course.
GKC
D
Darryl_B
Guest
I will read the Roman Catholic Confutation, but in the mean time I am trying to figure out specifically why is it so necessary to qualify ones religion with the added acronyms. One could define ones religion as Lutheran easily enough, and that would be well and good enough to qualify sufficiently to anyone (as some Lutherans on this forum have done), especially if you have no problem with non-LCMS Lutherans as eg the ones in my country.
But I am finding LCMS after ones religion to be almost more expectantly higher valued and expectantly more worthy of respect than the Lutheran part. It is like the LCMS is of greater importance in definition than the Lutheran part. It is almost like putting PhD after your name.
Am I understanding this correctly?
D
Darryl_B
Guest
As an aside, no, German Lutherans did not immigrate to New Zealand to any degree. Australia yes, New Zealand no. The Lutherans in New Zealand are largely immigrants from a Pacific Island, I think Tonga. Lutheran missionaries traveled to and made converts in I think Tonga, and it is they who immigrated to New Zealand, which makes up most of the 5000 Lutherans in my country, the 0.1% population that statistically has historically been lumped in with Presbyterian.
S
steido01
Guest
“YEAH” I know him.
And that’s pretty much the extent of my knowledge about Usher…
S
steido01
Guest
It may be difficult to understand without first having read the Confessio Augustana. The Confutation, by definition, is only an answer to the Confession; it cannot really stand alone. It is also important to note that many scholars - both Lutheran and Roman - did not think highly of the Confutation. Rome didn’t really have a solid response to Augustana until Trent, and Trent was really more of a reaction to protestantism, in general, than to Lutheranism in particular. There is plenty in Trent that even Lutherans could find worthwhile. Just some food for thought.
I supply the LCMS after my name so that I am easily identifiable to those on this forum. Outside of that, I find ‘Evangelical Catholic’ to more accurately describe my belief, as did the Reformers.
It’s not like that. As I said, I include the “LCMS” simply for easy identification on the forums. There are two kinds of Lutherans - those with a “quia” adherence to the Lutheran Confessions, and those with a “quatenus” subscription. By including “LCMS,” I leave no question where I stand. Our Melkite friends on the forums could simply call themselves “Catholic,” but it wouldn’t tell us much about them. I include “LCMS” so that other posters know where I’m coming from. Perhaps I should take up GKC’s method…
S
steido01
Guest
I know Lutheran missionaries spread to the Pacific in the early 1800’s, but are you sure Germans did not settle in New Zealand? I’ve read about it before…
lutheran.org.nz/information.php?info_id=14
I
Isaiah45_9
Guest
http://iruntheinternet.com/lulzdump/images/gifs/r-kelly-usher-shocked-music-video-reaction-gif-1363306207k.gif(image larger than 4096KB)“YEAH” I know him.
G
GKC
Guest
The one where I call Anglicans motley, or the one where I don’t mention I’m Anglican?It may be difficult to understand without first having read the Confessio Augustana. The Confutation, by definition, is only an answer to the Confession; it cannot really stand alone. It is also important to note that many scholars - both Lutheran and Roman - did not think highly of the Confutation. Rome didn’t really have a solid response to Augustana until Trent, and Trent was really more of a reaction to protestantism, in general, than to Lutheranism in particular. There is plenty in Trent that even Lutherans could find worthwhile. Just some food for thought.
I supply the LCMS after my name so that I am easily identifiable to those on this forum. Outside of that, I find ‘Evangelical Catholic’ to more accurately describe my belief, as did the Reformers.
It’s not like that. As I said, I include the “LCMS” simply for easy identification on the forums. There are two kinds of Lutherans - those with a “quia” adherence to the Lutheran Confessions, and those with a “quatenus” subscription. By including “LCMS,” I leave no question where I stand. Our Melkite friends on the forums could simply call themselves “Catholic,” but it wouldn’t tell us much about them. I include “LCMS” so that other posters know where I’m coming from. Perhaps I should take up GKC’s method…
GKC
- Status