Communicatio in Sacris

[TantumErgo90]

According to the Code of Canon Law, Orthodox are allowed to receive communion in a Catholic Church. Isn’t this a violation of the principle of “Communicatio in Sacris”?

 

[cam100]

The short answer is no, because the Church doesn’t violate her own principles.

For a more lengthy discussion, however, it might be helpful to reference your source for an explanation of “Communicatio in Sacris” to help ensure that everyone involved has the same understanding of this concept.

 

[SFD]

The short answer is no, because the Church doesn’t violate her own principles.

This is not the question, however. The question is NOT; “Does the Church ever violate Her own Principles?”

For a more lengthy discussion, however, it might be helpful to reference your source for an explanation of “Communicatio in Sacris” to help ensure that everyone involved has the same understanding of this concept.

Here’s the Catholic Encyclopedia:
CE on Heresy:

Communicatio in sacris, i.e. active participation in non-Catholic religious functions, is on the whole unlawful, but it is not so intrinsically evil that, under given circumstances, it may not be excused. Thus friends and relatives may for good reasons accompany a funeral, be present at a marriage or a baptism, without causing scandal or lending support, to the non-Catholic rites, provided no active part be taken in them: their motive is friendship, or maybe courtesy, but it nowise implies approval of the rites. Non-Catholics are admitted to all Catholic services but not to the sacraments.

This is all very simple. There are plenty of other sources to verify this…consider the principles here…the Church is a Body and only those who are in visible communion with that body (members) can be admitted to the Sacraments.

SFD

 

[cam100]

This is not the question, however. The question is NOT; “Does the Church ever violate Her own Principles?”

That’s why I could I present the fact that the Church doesn’t contradict her own teachings as the reason WHY Cannon Law can not contradict the Church’s teachings. Both come from the same authority. When we perceive a contradiction in the Church’s teachings, we must question our own understanding of those teachings, not the authority of the Church, which is protected by God.

 

[SFD]

That’s why I could I present the fact that the Church doesn’t contradict her own teachings as the reason WHY Cannon Law can not contradict the Church’s teachings. Both come from the same authority. When we perceive a contradiction in the Church’s teachings, we must question our own understanding of those teachings, not the authority of the Church, which is protected by God.

This still does not address the question; can a non-Catholic receive Catholic Sacraments. The Church has always said no because of the reasons I stated. It defies the constitution of the Church…which cannot change. There are things contained in Church Law that cannot change…any good commentary on canon law will usually state this explicitly in it’s introduction. I am looking at a 1958 commentary by Bouscaren as I write this…I’ll post it later when I have more time.

SFD

 

[Aramis]

This still does not address the question; can a non-Catholic receive Catholic Sacraments. The Church has always said no because of the reasons I stated. It defies the constitution of the Church…which cannot change. There are things contained in Church Law that cannot change…any good commentary on canon law will usually state this explicitly in it’s introduction. I am looking at a 1958 commentary by Bouscaren as I write this…I’ll post it later when I have more time.

SFD

Canon law is explicit that some of the Eastern Churches not in union may be admitted to communion, reconciliation, and anointing of the sick.

Therefore they must be in some form of communion with the Catholic Church. It is obvious that this is not a perfect communion; Perfect communion exists between Eastern Catholics and Rome, and the EO, OO, and Assyrians do not come up to that standard.

 

[TantumErgo90]

To what extent is Communicatio in Sacris prohibited by Divine Law, and to what extent is it prohibited by the Law of the Church? Would joining with non-Catholics with praise and worship be a violation of "communicatio in sacris?

 

[SFD]

Canon law is explicit that some of the Eastern Churches not in union may be admitted to communion, reconciliation, and anointing of the sick.

Why? It is for the innovators to explain how and why such a change could be made.

Therefore they must be in some form of communion with the Catholic Church.

This is pure novelty. How can this be reconciled with the definition of the Church as a Body?

It is obvious that this is not a perfect communion; Perfect communion exists between Eastern Catholics and Rome, and the EO, OO, and Assyrians do not come up to that standard.

Communion either exists or it does not. Members cut off from the body (heretics and schismatics) are not in communion. That is the traditional teaching and come directly from the definition of the Church as a visible body.

SFD

 

[SFD]

To what extent is Communicatio in Sacris prohibited by Divine Law, and to what extent is it prohibited by the Law of the Church? Would joining with non-Catholics with praise and worship be a violation of "communicatio in sacris?

This is answered in the CE section I quoted.

SFD