"communicatio in sacris"

  • Thread starter Thread starter Monica4316
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Melchior said:
“Sorry, but the Tradition is right, Vatican II is wrong”>

Whoever said this; Vatican II is a part of the Tradition. Please try again.
Click to expand...
Vatican II must be understood in light of Tradition. Tradition is not something man-made, it is Divinely-given and therefore Vatican II, or any other Council for that matter, is not part of it. A Council may or may not include infallible definitions which reflect some aspect of the Tradition, part of immutable Church doctrine. But you cannot say that the Tradition has been added to or changed by anyone, for to do so is to reject the very basis of the Catholic Faith.

Therefore, you cannot say that Vatican II changed infallible Church teaching on this issue. If a pope or Council does not speak infallibly on an issue then he or it is, by definition, speaking fallibly, which means that he or it can err. This sentence from “Unitatis Redintegratio” is not an infallible definition – which would be impossible, since the teaching is already infallibly defined – and therefore is prima facie in error when it attempts to contradict infallibly defined teaching. It is not an acceptable solution to say that what is unchangeable has indeed changed.

That communicatio in sacris is contrary to Natural and Divine Positive Law has already been infallibly defined by its consistent teaching throughout Church history, from all the Fathers and Doctors of the Church. Therefore, the Church cannot dispense from it because it is not Her law, it is God’s. Hence, this suggestion that it is sometimes “commendable” from Vatican II’s “Unitatis Redintegratio” is indeed in error, QED.
 
cephas161619 said:
This is an interesting discussion, but doesn’t seem to be discussing communicatio in sacra anymore. Maybe we could start a different thread to discuss what constitutes a legitimate Church Council and what are the different types of Church Councils.
Click to expand...
The topic is whether or not communicatio in sacris is an allowable practice. Church teaching is that it is not and that it is a sin against Natural and Divine Positive Law, someone objected to this saying that Vatican II’s “Unitatis Redintegratio” suggests that it may be allowable and even “commendable” under certain circumstances. I said that since this is an infallible and therefore unchangeable teaching of the Church, it cannot be changed by anyone and to suggest that a fallible statement from a single document overrules 1,960 years of consistent Church teaching is rather presumptuous and not in keeping with the actual status of this particular document.

That is why the subject of Vatican II was brought up, it was indeed on-topic.
 
Sirach2 said:
It has been keeping on topic, but it went astray with private interpretations of this lawful document from Vatican II, which deals with “communicatio in sacris” and also teaches that inter-faith prayer is “allowable” and “desirable.” Some have taken this off topic to project their disagreement with Church teaching, sorry to say.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Some here have suggested that infallible Church teaching on this subject is in error in order to affirm every sentence from a particular document. They are projecting their disagreement with Church teaching.
 
Melchior said:
Vatican II, a legit Council, is also infallible. No different than any other Council. You cannot reject a council. To reject Vatican II as invalid and filled with errors is no different than rejecting Trent.

You can reject what some may have made the Council out to be, but the documents in their purest form are the teachings of the Catholic Church. If you reject them, you reject the Church.
Click to expand...
It is not true to suggest that every sentence in every document of every Ecumenical Council is an infallibly defined doctrine and sacrosanct as though it proceeded from the mouth of God like Sacred Scripture. This is not Catholic teaching. An Ecumenical Council or a pope may define a doctrine which is part of Tradition infallibly – meaning that it is in complete conformity to Tradition. But that doesn’t mean that every sentence which comes out of an Ecumenical Council or is made by a pope is infallible. This is a gross exaggeration and actually a heresy condemned at the First Vatican Council (in regard to the pope).

Every Catholic should be aware of Catholic teaching on the role of Ecumenical Councils and the papacy.
 
Melchior said:
All Councils are created equal. One is not more important than the other
Click to expand...
So the Council of Trent is equal to the First Lateran Council in importance? o_O
How do I reconcile this? Perhaps I’m being simplistic in that I’m treating this like I would Canon Law. If presented by the Church with two options and there are some differences, I will take the one that is most recent.
Click to expand...
And this is the error. Sorry but truth does not change. Canon Law is not infallible, it regards Church discipline. The fact that communicatio in sacris is a grave sin is not Church discipline, it is Divine Law. Church discipline can change, God’s Law does not.
 
Sirach2 said:
Derek was delighted to post material from Vatican I, but neglects to observe this most important declaration that was solemly defined for perpetuity:

The bolded part includes ALL documents of Vatican II, despite one’s looking for loopholes for disobedience.
Click to expand...
A false teaching is not a discipline of the Church. Church discipline involves things like fasting regulations and Canon Law. Your quote does not pertain to the situation at hand, in which some here have suggested that infallible Church teaching on a subject may be changed – that God’s Laws may be changed by men.
 
Melchior said:
See, we’re following the most recent documents put out by Rome.
Click to expand...
Exactly, you’re looking to reject Church teaching in favor of whatever happens to be in vogue at the time. This is not Catholic. We have to consider the whole of Church teaching, not just whatever happens to be said most recently. Certainly, we cannot think that infallible Church teachings can be changed.
 
40.png
VivaCristoRey:
The topic is whether or not communicatio in sacris is an allowable practice. Church teaching is that it is not and that it is a sin against Natural and Divine Positive Law, someone objected to this saying that Vatican II’s “Unitatis Redintegratio” suggests that it may be allowable and even “commendable” under certain circumstances.
Click to expand...
You have misread the post from Unitatis Redintegratio, which stated clearly that communicatio in sacris is not allowable. What IS allowable is common prayer among baptized christians. Read the sentence again from Article 8: “Yet worship in common (communicatio in sacris) is NOT to be considered as a means to be used indiscriminately for the restoration of Christian unity.”

While we’re defining terms, we should note that when dealing with common worship among Catholics and other Christians, we must distinguish between communicatio in sacris (sharing in the sacraments and liturgical worship), and the more general communicatio in spiritualibus (sharing in common prayer).
Some here have suggested that infallible Church teaching on this subject is in error in order to affirm every sentence from a particular document.
Click to expand...
Again, you err with respect to the entirety of Church teaching. Simply quoting a well-defined article in U.R., is not an end all, be all. This teaching has been affirmed in numeroius documents, by more than one pope. Similarly, scripture teaches us about God’s “mercy” in many, many places (today’s responsorial psalm, by the way), even though a person may quote only one particular passage for brevity’s sake. Certainly, those who abide by the Magisterial teaching will know where to find other substantiating documents. Surely, you don’t need them all listed here for me to prove a point.

But I will anticipate the objections of some that I’ve seen in this forum, that the Church is watering down traditional teachings and advocating a type of indifference, that all religions are now equal. Not so, not so. John Paul II’s clarity of thought in Reconciliatio et Paenitentia, teaches us: (Note this is not the only document available)
The dialogue of reconciliation can never replace or attenuate the proclamation of the truth of the Gospel, the precise goal of which is conversion from sin and communion with Christ and the Church. It must be at the service of the transmission and realization of that truth through the means left by Christ to the Church for the pastoral activity of reconciliation, namely catechesis and penance.
Click to expand...
How beautiful his words, not exclusive to this document, but echoing his thought in Ut Unum Sint, which is the very heart of Christ Jesus, Our Lord, “That all may be one.”
  1. The church, as a reconciled and reconciling community, cannot forget that at the source of her gift and mission of reconciliation is the initiative, full of compassionate love and mercy, of that God who is love and who out of love created human beings and he created them so that they might live in friendship with him and in communion with one another.
 
Melchior said:
Another question; can you attend Protestant weddings or Protestant Funerals?

Could my wife attend her mother’s Protestant funeral?
Click to expand...
As long as she does not actively participate in the heretical rites of the religion in question and it would not cause scandal. If she has concerns, discuss them with a traditional priest. One can be materially present at a function, for example I could – as an anthropologist – attend a Hindu religious ceremony but I cannot go with the purposes of worshiping the Hindu gods or under the false idea that the Hindu gods and God are one and the same. I could be passively present, but not actively.

This does not regard marriages which are sacrilegious and invalid (such as a Catholic marrying in a non-Catholic ceremony, re-marriage after divorce, same-sex “marriage”, etc.), which a Catholic cannot attend because to do so would be to commend the sin.
 
VivaCristoRey27 said:
This does not regard marriages which are sacrilegious and invalid (such as a Catholic marrying in a non-Catholic ceremony
Click to expand...
I’m pretty sure one can marry in a Church with a valid Baptism provided they get permission from the proper people.
 
Melchior said:
I’m pretty sure one can marry in a Church with a valid Baptism provided they get permission from the proper people.
Click to expand...
Yes, but if a Catholic attempts to marry in a non-Catholic ceremony, either by a judge or Protestant minister or Rabbi or whatever, without a dispensation from the bishop, the marriage is invalid due to defect of form because the Catholic is bound to the Catholic form of the Sacrament.

Anyway, this is not about marriage laws, it’s about communicatio in sacris, you are being pedantic.
 
40.png
VivaCristoRey:
A false teaching is not a discipline of the Church. Church discipline involves things like fasting regulations and Canon Law. Your quote does not pertain to the situation at hand, in which some here have suggested that infallible Church teaching on a subject may be changed – that God’s Laws may be changed by men.
Click to expand...
I don’t understand how you are consistently misconstruing the words right in front of you. Read again what I posted from Vatican I, which clearly embodies the entire teaching Aiuthority of the Church, not just “disciplines.”
Vatican I:
Both clergy and faithful,
of whatever rite and dignity,
both singly and collectively,
are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience,
and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals,
but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the church throughout the world.
Click to expand...
The problem is that you take one specific teaching taught in antiquity and fail to realize that the Church has Divine Authority to grow in its understanding of that teaching. The Authority is subsequently believed to be in error, because after all, you have your quote etched in stone. Only the Church has the charism and God-given mandate to teach, and it is man who needs to adjust his faulty understanding accordingly. Kinda like sola-documenta spirituality.

“Peter said, I believe it and obey, even if I don’t yet understand it,” should be our response as faithful Catholics. Remember, too, that the Church does not teach in isolation, but confirms Her words in many documents.
 
VivaCristoRey27 said:
Yes, but if a Catholic attempts to marry in a non-Catholic ceremony, either by a judge or Protestant minister or Rabbi or whatever, without a dispensation from the bishop, the marriage is invalid due to defect of form because the Catholic is bound to the Catholic form of the Sacrament.

Anyway, this is not about marriage laws, it’s about communicatio in sacris, you are being pedantic.
Click to expand...
No, I’m pointing out that things aren’t as cut and dry as you try and make them out to be.
 
Sirach2 said:
I don’t understand how you are consistently misconstruing the words right in front of you. Read again what I posted from Vatican I, which clearly embodies the entire teaching Aiuthority of the Church, not just “disciplines.”

The problem is that you take one specific teaching taught in antiquity and fail to realize that the Church has Divine Authority to grow in its understanding of that teaching. The Authority is subsequently believed to be in error, because after all, you have your quote etched in stone. Only the Church has the charism and God-given mandate to teach, and it is man who needs to adjust his faulty understanding accordingly. Kinda like sola-documenta spirituality.

“Peter said, I believe it and obey, even if I don’t yet understand it,” should be our response as faithful Catholics. Remember, too, that the Church does not teach in isolation, but confirms Her words in many documents.
Click to expand...
My question is why do you think you are only bound to whatever documents and statements are most recent and not the whole of Church teaching?
 
Sirach2 said:
Whenever someone posts a strong statement that they “will take to their deathbed,” do you believe I should attempt to debate with any hope whatsoever of a change of mind and heart?

When the Jews could not accept Jesus’s teaching in John Chapter 6 on the Eucharist and walked away, He did not run after them. Nor does the Church run after any who do not accept Her solemn teachings. Jesus reminds us, “He who hears YOU, hears ME.” Enough said. You are free to walk away.

Incidentally, if you are open some day, today’s search pulled 883 posts on ecumenism. I would simply be repeating what others have already shared, with absolutely no avail, since you are presently closed. 🙂
Click to expand...
You are sidestepping. Address the post in which you stated that I stated an error. You can’t, can you ?
Unitatis Redintegratio
Click to expand...
  1. This change of heart and holiness of life, along with public and private prayer for the unity of Christians, should be regarded as the soul of the whole ecumenical movement, and merits the name, “spiritual ecumenism.”
Click to expand...
And that right there backs up what you quoted
 
Sirach2 said:
Only the Church has the charism and God-given mandate to teach, and it is man who needs to adjust his faulty understanding accordingly. Kinda like sola-documenta spirituality.

“Peter said, I believe it and obey, even if I don’t yet understand it,” should be our response as faithful Catholics. Remember, too, that the Church does not teach in isolation, but confirms Her words in many documents.
Click to expand...
Sad but sola documenta is the new sola scriptura. Both are Protestant, despite their Protests. Even Luther died considering himself a Catholic.
VivaCristoRey27 said:
My question is why do you think you are only bound to whatever documents and statements are most recent and not the whole of Church teaching?
Click to expand...
And who do you think you are to interpret whatever documents and statements you like despite direct contradiction with the Church Magisterium? Who has the final say, the Pope or random guy on the internet? As for me and my house,…
 
cephas161619 said:
Sad but sola documenta is the new sola scriptura. Both are Protestant, despite their Protests. **Even Luther died considering himself a Catholic.
**

And who do you think you are to interpret whatever documents and statements you like despite direct contradiction with the Church Magisterium? Who has the final say, the Pope or random guy on the internet? As for me and my house,…
Click to expand...
Do you have a link for the bolded portion? If yes, could you please post it or PM me with it…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top