Another Pope?

[paramedicgirl]

Yes, it is. It is also in conflict with Mystici Corporis. And that is what is so very disturbing about it. (Sigh.)

Maria

In what way is it in conflict with Mystici Corporis?

 

[TNT]

In what way is it in conflict with Mystici Corporis?

Did u jis fall off the mushroom truck?

 

[MTD]

If I agreed with all that, I’d end up bein a sedevacantist! er even a Super Sede. Therefore, it cannot be correct even if it’s true… err is it cannot be true even if it’s correct.
Now that’s liberal logic in action.

So you don’t agree with its objective merits because you’ve predetermined that sedevacantism isn’t true and therefore, since it points to sedevacantism, it can’t be true? My, what logic indeed. Liberalism at its finest, eh? But you’re not a liberal I thought.

In what way is it in conflict with Mystici Corporis?

From Mystici Corporis:

The doctrine of the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Church, was first taught us by the Redeemer Himself.

Nor must one imagine that the Body of the Church, just because it bears the name of Christ, is made up during the days of its earthly pilgrimage only of members conspicuous for their holiness, or that it consists only of those whom God has predestined to eternal happiness. it is owing to the Savior’s infinite mercy that place is allowed in His Mystical Body here below for those whom, of old, He did not exclude from the banquet. For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy. Men may lose charity and divine grace through sin, thus becoming incapable of supernatural merit, and yet not be deprived of all life if they hold fast to faith and Christian hope, and if, illumined from above, they are spurred on by the interior promptings of the Holy Spirit to salutary fear and are moved to prayer and penance for their sins.

Maria

 

[BobP123]

Shouldn’t newly expressed doctrines be made known via an infallible statement?

Yes, but they have to be cleared by the French bishops first.

 

[TNT]

Long as I get to heaven, passenger is ok with me. Maserati, Vega, doesn’t matter.

**Maserati, [Chevy] Vega, doesn’t matter.

That’s downright sacryligious. When ya git CO poisenin, you’ll know there’s a difference…a really big one…fer all eternity.

**

 

[BobP123]

Maserati, [Chevy] Vega, doesn’t matter.

That’s downright sacryligious. When ya git CO poisenin, you’ll know there’s a difference…a really big one…fer all eternity.

Yes, but remember, you’re talking about resurrection of the body, a healthy body not a dead one.

 

[paramedicgirl]

Did u jis fall off the mushroom truck?

Just asking from the angle of an ecumenist, and besides, Maria gets the opportunity to practice apologetics. BTW, this is Canada. We only have magic mushrooms trucks here. They come from the Left Coast.

 

[paramedicgirl]

Maserati, [Chevy] Vega, doesn’t matter.

That’s downright sacryligious. When ya git CO poisenin, you’ll know there’s a difference…a really big one…fer all eternity.

TNT, we didn’t really mean for you to actually believe you go to heaven in a Maserati, ya know. We were just having a little fun with you. You didn’t just fall off the mushroom truck, did ya?

 

[cor]

Yes, that too. However, I believe I was mainly referring to the reliability of the CCC.

No salvation outside the Church is dogma. And it is a necessity of means. Invincible ignorance excuses the guilt of not entering, but it does not supply the means to salvation. One must enter the Church at least in desire, and this happens through the supernatural virtues of faith and charity. These virtues come from God and unite one to the Catholic Church, so how can any other Church or ecclesial community be a means to salvation? If another Church/ecclesial community can be a means to salvation, the obligation to enter the Church is non-existent because it is no longer a necessity of means; the Church is only one means among many; the only thing that distinguishes it from the other means is that it is supposedly more perfect. But that’s not what the dogma of EENS is all about, so whence comes this CCC 819?

Maria

When theologians say that entering the Church is a “necessity of means” they’re not talking about the Church as a means of salvation (although that’s I suppose a related concept). What they mean by those words is that entering the Church is not merely a “necessity of precept” but is also necessary to accomplish the end of salvation. A “necessity of precept” means that the thing is morally obligatory. A “necessity of means” means that the thing is necessary for some end.

So if someone joins something other than the Church, that would not be sufficient for salvation since being united with the Church is a “necessity of means” – but, in theory, God could use something other than the Church as an instrument in uniting that person to the Church. For example, God could use a book written by an anti-Catholic about Catholicism as an instrument of uniting a person to the Catholic Church if by God’s grace a person upon reading the book, instead of being drawn away from the Church, is drawn to the Church and makes acts of faith, hope, and charity, joining her to the Church by desire.

It may have been less confusing if the wording was “instruments of salvation” instead of “means of salvation”

 

[cor]

Not needed. Valid ordination means valid exercise of function. The same is true about the Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox, Catholic offshots like Old Catholics, groups like SSPX, and episcopi vagantes. Liceity is a different matter from validity and that’s the problem with SSPX. Validity is not.

Some question whether SSPX confessions and marriages are valid. The confessions may lack validity due to lack of faculties and the marriages due to lack of canonical form. I don’t understand why Eastern Orthodox confessions are then considered valid since Eastern Orthodox priests don’t have faculties from the competent ecclesiastical authority either. Anyone care to explain the difference?

 

[gorman64]

cor:

So if someone joins something other than the Church, that would not be sufficient for salvation since being united with the Church is a “necessity of means” – but, in theory, God could use something other than the Church as an instrument in uniting that person to the Church. For example, God could use a book written by an anti-Catholic about Catholicism as an instrument of uniting a person to the Catholic Church if by God’s grace a person upon reading the book, instead of being drawn away from the Church, is drawn to the Church and makes acts of faith, hope, and charity, joining her to the Church by desire.

Does it make that book a good book then? Or is it still an evil book? Would you buy copies of it and distribute it to your friends?

It may have been less confusing if the wording was “instruments of salvation” instead of “means of salvation”

That’s not what it says however…and what it says goes further than that…it says these false Churches are united somehow to the one true Church.

Pope Leo XIII, Encyclical Satis cognitum, June 29, 1896:
The Church, founded on these principles and mindful of her office, has done nothing with greater zeal and endeavor then she has displayed in guarding the integrity of the faith. Hence she regarded as rebels and expelled from the ranks of her children all who held beliefs on any point of doctrine different from her own. The Arians, the Montanists, the Novatians, the Quartodecimans, the Eutychians did not certainly reject all Catholic doctrine: they abandoned only a certain portion of it. Still who does not know that they were declared heretics and banished from the bosom of the Church? In like manner were condemned all authors of heretical tenets who followed them in subsequent ages. “There can be nothing more dangerous than those heretics who admit nearly the whole cycle of doctrine, and yet by one word, as with one drop of poison, infect the real and simple faith taught by Our Lord and handed down by apostolic tradition.”

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

Certainly without the French bishops’ permission. But maybe we can use the word “tolerated” for the time being until things get straightened out? Rome has conceded all ordinations, appointments, and celebrations to be VALID.

Valid but illicit – i.e. anyone partaking of the Sacraments in the illicit sect is committing a mortal sin. Marriage and confession are not valid in any schismatic sect because they are a charism of the local Ordinary and are jurisdictional.

 

[BobP123]

Valid but illicit – i.e. anyone partaking of the Sacraments in the illicit sect is committing a mortal sin. Marriage and confession are not valid in any schismatic sect because they are a charism of the local Ordinary and are jurisdictional.

But, as TNT mentioned above somewhere, what does the word “valid” mean anyway? Muslims are valid, so are marriages before a justice-of-peace, are so are the Orthodox sacraments. If you think otherwise, take the issue up with them, not me.

 

[paramedicgirl]

Valid but illicit – i.e. anyone partaking of the Sacraments in the illicit sect is committing a mortal sin. Marriage and confession are not valid in any schismatic sect because they are a charism of the local Ordinary and are jurisdictional.

So, (a repeat of a previous question) how is it that EO confessions are valid if they are in schism? We once had an EO priest come to hear confessions during Lent, for the community reconciliation service that is followed by individual confessions. Were those confessions not valid, then?

 

[BobP123]

So, (a repeat of a previous question) how is it that EO confessions are valid if they are in schism? We once had an EO priest come to hear confessions during Lent, for the community reconciliation service that is followed by individual confessions. Were those confessions not valid, then?

What’s a community reconciliation service? I’ve heard of them but don’t know what real purpose they serve. I guess I always suspect some charismatic movement behind such things.

 

[paramedicgirl]

What’s a community reconciliation service? I’ve heard of them but don’t know what real purpose they serve. I guess I always suspect some charismatic movement behind such things.

It’s an innovation that someone thought of where the parish community comes together and has a religious service without the Holy Sacrifice. It is a general absolution for venial sins, but it is followed by individual confessions. There are usually three priests who come to our church for this event. At least, that’s how we do it here. Maybe other places are different.

 

[BobP123]

It’s an innovation that someone thought of where the parish community comes together and has a religious service without the Holy Sacrifice. It is a general absolution for venial sins, but it is followed by individual confessions. There are usually three priests who come to our church for this event. At least, that’s how we do it here. Maybe other places are different.

Seems a little redundant. Individual confession gives absolution for all sins, though you need to confess only the mortal (and perhaps doubtful) ones. Also, as you indirectly pointed out, the priest does give general absolution (for venial sins) right before communion at the TLM. One must be MOST worthy to receive Holy Communion.

Actually I have heard of such general confessions. Problem is, though, that many think all their sins are forgiven. Perhaps they don’t know the difference between mortal and venial sins, I don’t know.

Three priests for a non-Sacrifice event, though? And here I thought we had a priest shortage.

 

[paramedicgirl]

Seems a little redundant. Individual confession gives absolution for all sins, though you need to confess only the mortal (and perhaps doubtful) ones. Also, as you indirectly pointed out, the priest does give general absolution (for venial sins) right before communion at the TLM. One must be MOST worthy to receive Holy Communion.

Actually I have heard of such general confessions. Problem is, though, that many think all their sins are forgiven. Perhaps they don’t know the difference between mortal and venial sins, I don’t know.

Three priests for a non-Sacrifice event, though? And here I thought we had a priest shortage.

Well in the spirit of Vatican II, we have been holding these “reconciliation services” for as long as I can remember. The priests travel to neighbouring towns to attend and help out at these services, which of course means that Mass is canceled while they are gone. And they never say Mass at these services. It’s rather odd. But my point was, can we validly receive the sacrament of Confession from an EO priest at one of these “services?”

I also wonder if the Conclavists hold valid sacraments, and if their Masses are invalid, or illicit but valid.

 

[Walking_Home]

Well in the spirit of Vatican II, we have been holding these “reconciliation services” for as long as I can remember. The priests travel to neighbouring towns to attend and help out at these services, which of course means that Mass is canceled while they are gone. And they never say Mass at these services. It’s rather odd. But my point was, can we validly receive the sacrament of Confession from an EO priest at one of these “services?”
I also wonder if the Conclavists hold valid sacraments, and if their Masses are invalid, or illicit but valid.

---

I am wondering what the Orthodox would say—about an EO priest going to a Catholic church to participate in confessions.

 

[BobP123]

Since the SSPX and Eastern Rites have “valid” Catholic Rites, #2 applies.

Can. 844 §1 Catholic ministers may lawfully administer the sacraments only to catholic members of Christ’s faithful, who equally may lawfully receive them only from catholic ministers, except as provided in §§2, 3 and 4 of this canon and in can. 861 §2.

§2 Whenever **necessity requires **or a genuine spiritual advantage commends it, and provided the danger of error or indifferentism is avoided, Christ’s faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a catholic minister, may lawfully receive the sacraments of penance, the Eucharist and anointing of the sick from non-catholic ministers in whose Churches these sacraments are valid.

§3 Catholic ministers may lawfully administer the sacraments of penance, the Eucharist and anointing of the sick to members of the eastern Churches not in full communion with the catholic Church, if they spontaneously ask for them and are properly disposed. The same applies to members of other Churches which the Apostolic See judges to be in the same position as the aforesaid eastern Churches so far as the sacraments are concerned.

§4 If there is a danger of death or if, in the judgement of the diocesan Bishop or of the Episcopal Conference, there is some other grave and pressing need, catholic ministers may lawfully administer these same sacraments to other christians not in full communion with the catholic Church, who cannot approach a minister of their own community and who spontaneously ask for them, provided that they demonstrate the catholic faith in respect of these sacraments and are properly disposed.

§5 In respect of the cases dealt with in §§2, 3 and 4, the diocesan Bishop or the Episcopal Conference is not to issue general norms except after consultation with the competent authority, at least at the local level, of the non?catholic Church or community concerned.