Can a catholic recieve an anointing prayer from a non-catholic pastor?

[JaMc]

Tracing apostolic succession means what? Paul’s churches wouldnt have necessarily been able to, so what does that mean? Other Catholic churches other than the RCC can, so what does that mean?

St. Paul was an apostle, so to say his churches cannot trace apostolic succession is nonsense. Furthermore, throughout the Gospels, Jesus specifically gives the apostles the power to forgive sins, cast out demons, administer sacraments, etc. Therefore, in order to have the authority to administer a sacrament, the priest must be able to trace his authority back to one of the apostles. Evangelicals, etc., can only trace their authority back to John Calvin. Therefore, their sacraments are neither valid nor licit.

Regarding the “Other Catholic churches other than the RCC,” who can trace apostolic succession, presuming you aren’t referring to the Eastern Rite Churches who are in full communion with Rome, they do in fact have valid sacraments. However, due to the schismatic acts of their past leaders, their sacraments are not licit. For some good discussion along these lines vis-a-vis the Orthodox churches, I recommend a visit to the Eastern Catholicism thread.

I realize I am spitting in the wind here, but I thought others might find the explanation helpful.

 

[JaMc]

Actually, no as a Catholic you are not supposed to do that; I think that you would be better off consulting with a Priest about it.

“If anyone prays with heretics, he is a heretic.”
St. Agatho I, SCN:XXI:635

"No one can pray with heretics and be a Catholic. "
St. Agatho, SCN:XI:635

SCN: Sacrorum Conciliorium, Archbishop John Mansi, Thomas Florentiae: 1759

Well the above is from Saint Agatho, and was taught by pretty much all the saints.

There is a site that I used to visit a lot and I got a lot of info from there, I was able to create PDF compilations of the information thank God because there site seems to be down and has been for some time now.

Try this PDF

under SALVATION, GRACE, ORIGINAL SIN.

Here Is another PDF file that has over 6000 questions answered.
RADIO REPLIES, COMPLETE IN THREE VOLUMES (PDF)

I hope that you find that helpful.

Well, this can be taken a little far. Unquestionably, going to a protestant service, taking “communion” going up and “testifying” at an altar call, etc. are certainly wrong for a Catholic. However, there is nothing wrong with, for example, joining in the prayer offered by a Baptist minister at a Kiwanis Club meeting, or saying Grace at a meal offered by a Protestant family.

Now, what it sounds like the OP is referring to, is a sort of “anointing of the sick” offered by a Protestant minister, i.e., a sacrament. Receiving this is akin to receiving communion or being baptized at a Protestant Church. As such, yes, receiving the anointing was something she should not have done. While her ignorance probably excuses her from Mortal Sin, now that she knows better, she should not receive such anointings in the future.

 

[elts1956]

[Edited]

If someone knowingly rejects the tenents of the Catholic faith, the opportune word being knowingly, they are indeed heretics. That would include millions upon millions of the separated brethren

There seems to be this delusional belief that ONLY Baptized Catholics who fall away from the faith can be heretics and that simply is not true. In Christianity, heresy is a "theological or religious opinion or doctrine maintained in opposition, or held to be contrary, to the Roman Catholic Church and to some degree the Orthodox Churches.

The protestants are not in any way considered to be Orthodox and are not even part of any established Church by definition. It is of great interest to note that 2 Peter Chapter 2 gives a vivid description of heresy and heretics, and it comes very very close to the situation that we have today. Very close indeed.

Something I think people should give credence to.

I don’t think I am delusional at all, in many aspects, especially this one. I believe it was in Pope John Paul II’s Ecumenical doctrine, Et Unim Sint, that he posited the fact that heretics were the ones who first broke away from the Church and started their own church dominions. But then perhaps, as some do, you think of Pope Paul II as heretical?

With all the information we have available today, it would be very difficult to point a finger and call anyone a heretic. But then, you know, even those “terrible” Protestants have a sense of loyalty to their Faith. Only God has the complete answers and the right to judge anyone, anytime.

 

[palmas85]

I don’t think I am delusional at all, in many aspects, especially this one. I believe it was in Pope John Paul II’s Ecumenical doctrine, Et Unim Sint, that he posited the fact that the original heretics were the ones who first broke away from the Church and started their own church dominions. But then perhaps, as some do, you think of Pope Paul II as heretical?

With all the information we have available today, it would be very difficult to point a finger and call anyone a heretic. But then, you know, even those “terrible” Protestants have a sense of loyalty to their Faith. Only God has the complete answers and the right to judge anyone, anytime.

I fail to see how one can adhere to the tenets of a community founded by heretics and not hold heretical views himself. The two seem to be irreversibly linked. Particularly these days when information is freely available to almost all who are even the slightest bit interested.

Tell you what. Read 2 Peter Chapter 2 and get back to me. And no, I don’t think that John Paul II was a heretic at all. I don’t practically worship him as do many on this forum, but he wasn’t a heretic.

He had a dream, a vision as it were, of uniting at any cost apparently, all religions into one great umbrella with Catholicism at the center providing guidance. Maybe he was a visionary, maybe he was foolish, who can say at this point.

As fas as the protestants having loyalty to their particular faiths, maybe they do, maybe they don’t. They don’t seem to think too much of splitting off from a group when it no longer suits them. The sheer number of denominations seems to bear that one out.

And even if they do have fealty and loyalty,to their faith, so did the Montanists. the Albigenses- . the Arians, , the Docetists, the Gnostics, the Nestorians, the Jansenists, the Pelagianists, the Modalists, the Cathars, the followers of Jim Jones and David Koresh, heck the Spartans, the followers of Bushido etc,** ALL**** had loyalty to their particular faith.** We could even go so far as to say the followers of radical Islam have loyalty to their faith as well.

It doesn’t make them right or true or proper.

Sorry, read 2 Peter Chapter 2. Most people never have, and they should. Then they might not be so willing to accept any faith that comes bopping down the road as being valid and pleasing to God.

Just in case you don’t know, 2 Peter Chapter 2 speaks about one thing. The inevitable onslaught of error, false teachers and false prophets arising among the people and corrupting the Church and poisoning minds… If Peter is not enough read Corinthians as well and see what Paul says about them, and their open minded ways.

In the end, you will believe what you want. As for me, I will accept the words of Peter and Paul on the subject. They seem pretty clear.

And pray tell, why it would be difficult to call someone a heretic?