Does the Pope have supreme universal jurisdiction over the Eastern Churches?

[steve-b]

steve-b:

According to Canon 751 of the Catholic Church’s Code of Canon Law and paragraph 2089 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, “schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.”

The SSPX refuses to submit to the Supreme Pontiff in the matter of celebrating the New Mass. If the SSPX is in schism, by refusing to celebrate the New Mass. and if it is a mortal sin to willfully embrace scism, why did the Holy Father, the Supreme Roman Pontiff, lift the excommunications of the bishops of the SSPX and grant faculties to allow Roman Catholics to go to confession to an SSPX priest validly?

For some clarification,

1. Excommunication is not meant to be permanent. People can change and excommunication can be ended for them by the pope.
2. For an 8 min explanation, if interested, Is an SSPX Mass Valid for Our Sunday Obligation? | Catholic Answers

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

Filioque was mentioned as reason of excommunication, yes. It was an error of Cardinal whose legatine powers faded, a human erred not the Church as entire structure. Many saint bishops were excommunicated because of human errors or false accusations or witnesses even in pre-schism Church.

Harmony and unity are not specified as unity with Rome in such sentence nor as perfect unity.

He lifted excommunications, not the schism- he lifted restrictions placed by their sins, not sins themselves. It’s like saving someone trying to suicide- they don’t lose the sin of trying to suicide but they will not lose their life.

 

[steve-b]

Isaac14:

steve-b:

"According to Canon 751 of the Catholic Church’s Code of Canon Law and paragraph 2089 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, “schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.”

Thereby showing when it (schism) presents itself, definition of schism, shows who is in schism from who.

Okay, I get it, we’re back at I’m a guilty Orthodox schismatic. Why then, according to the conditions in Canon 844 would I, a guilty schismatic, still be allowed to receive communion in a Catholic church?

Maybe because you’re going in the right direction

OK OK

Isaac, you deserve a better answer than I can give off the top of my head, but I will get you the answer… OK?

Issac,

To give you a better answer, Looking back on the links and quotes already given, I’d like to add for further clarity & explanation just in case ……

Proper Disposition is a key point mentioned in canon law… in answering the exceptions you ask about.

1. Must manifest Catholic faith in respect to these sacraments, meaning are properly disposed. As in http://dioscg.org/index.php/being-properly-disposed-to-receive-holy-communion/

also

1. Grave necessity / exceptional circumstances / Fear of death / etc Library : Receiving Holy Communion | Catholic Culture

 

[Isaac14]

Issac,

To give you a better answer, Looking back on the links and quotes already given, I’d like to add for further clarity & explanation just in case ……

Proper Disposition is a key point mentioned in canon law… in answering the exceptions you ask about.

1. Must manifest Catholic faith in respect to these sacraments, meaning are properly disposed . As in http://dioscg.org/index.php/being-properly-disposed-to-receive-holy-communion/

also

1. Grave necessity / exceptional circumstances / Fear of death / etc https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=406

This is genius! In other words, proper disposition means no mortal sin, schism is a mortal sin, therefore, Orthodox may never partake in accordance with Canon 844!

 

[AlNg]

For some clarification,

No. You did not clarify.

“schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.”

Is SSPX in schism or not according to your definition? They do refuse submission to the Supreme Pontiff, don’t they? They refused to sign an agreement of reconciliation.

 

[Dovekin]

Proper Disposition is a key point mentioned in canon law… in answering the exceptions you ask about.

1. Must manifest Catholic faith in respect to these sacraments, meaning are properly disposed .

I have a hard time believing Orthodox are not taught to be properly disposed. Differences in custom should be respected, but proper disposition is not about length of fasts but honoring the Lord.

also

1. Grave necessity / exceptional circumstances / Fear of death / etc

As I mentioned earlier, the standard for the Orthdox is not necessity, but “ Whenever necessity requires or a genuine spiritual advantage suggests…”

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Issac,

To give you a better answer, Looking back on the links and quotes already given, I’d like to add for further clarity & explanation just in case ……

Proper Disposition is a key point mentioned in canon law… in answering the exceptions you ask about.

1. Must manifest Catholic faith in respect to these sacraments, meaning are properly disposed . As in http://dioscg.org/index.php/being-properly-disposed-to-receive-holy-communion/

also

1. Grave necessity / exceptional circumstances / Fear of death / etc https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=406

This is genius! In other words, proper disposition means no mortal sin, schism is a mortal sin, therefore, Orthodox may never partake in accordance with Canon 844!

I can’t take credit for anything. That’s why I quote copiously. AND, from the beginning of my formation, I remember that proper disposition was always stressed.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

For some clarification,

No. You did not clarify.

“schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.”

Is SSPX in schism or not according to your definition? They do refuse submission to the Supreme Pontiff, don’t they? They refused to sign an agreement of reconciliation.

I see that, you didn’t open the link given.

 

[Isaac14]

This is genius! In other words, proper disposition means no mortal sin, schism is a mortal sin, therefore, Orthodox may never partake in accordance with Canon 844!

But seriously, what is the point of canon 844 making allowances for Orthodox the possibility of receiving communion if it isn’t actually possible for them to be properly disposed?

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

This is genius! In other words, proper disposition means no mortal sin, schism is a mortal sin, therefore, Orthodox may never partake in accordance with Canon 844!

But seriously, what is the point of canon 844 making allowances for Orthodox the possibility of receiving communion if it isn’t actually possible for them to be properly disposed?

The teaching about proper disposition is there.
844 §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.

I’ll just say,

Our parish has between 3-4,000 parishioners.

1. We have 5 masses, 1 Saturday eve, and 4 on Sunday.
2. we have daily mass where ~ 80-120 parishioners attend daily mass.

Is there individual checks to see who is inappropriately there in the communion line? No

Is proper disposition only applicable for Catholics and not non-Catholics? No

 

[AlNg]

I see that, you didn’t open the link given.

I see that you don’t want to give a yes or no answer. That was the opinion of Mr. Staples.
According to the definition you have given, the SSPX is in schism since they refuse to submit to the Roman Pontiff. However, it appears that you do not want to say that they are in schism, so the definition does not hold.
Further, the definition you gave of schism would not apply to a schism between the Greeks and the Russians.

 

[AlNg]

But seriously, what is the point of canon 844 making allowances for Orthodox the possibility of receiving communion if it isn’t actually possible for them to be properly disposed?

Right. It is going to depend on who is interpreting the phrase : “properly disposed”. For one thing, AFAIK, the Orthodox Church generally does not have a strict division of mortal and venial sins. And under certain limited circumstances, an Orthodox married couple may be given permission to use artificial birth control. Suppose for example, that they have seven children already and their finances are unable to support more children, and the wife is in poor health so that she would have a heart attack and die if she had more children.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

I see that, you didn’t open the link given.

I see that you don’t want to give a yes or no answer. That was the opinion of Mr. Staples.
According to the definition you have given, the SSPX is in schism since they refuse to submit to the Roman Pontiff. However, it appears that you do not want to say that they are in schism, so the definition does not hold.
Further, the definition you gave of schism would not apply to a schism between the Greeks and the Russians.

Mr Staple’s explanation was a synopsis of events and he is correct. For a further explanation, http://canonlawmadeeasy.com/2011/10/05/canon-law-and-the-sspx/

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Proper Disposition is a key point mentioned in canon law… in answering the exceptions you ask about.

1. Must manifest Catholic faith in respect to these sacraments, meaning are properly disposed .

I have a hard time believing Orthodox are not taught to be properly disposed. Differences in custom should be respected, but proper disposition is not about length of fasts but honoring the Lord.

also

1. Grave necessity / exceptional circumstances / Fear of death / etc

As I mentioned earlier, the standard for the Orthdox is not necessity, but “ Whenever necessity requires or a genuine spiritual advantage suggests…”

Since the point being addressed was about non-Catholics receiving the Eucharist in a Catholic Church, then understanding of “proper disposition” is on the terms of the Catholic Church

 

[Isaac14]

Since the point being addressed was about non-Catholics receiving the Eucharist in a Catholic Church, then understanding of “proper disposition” is on the terms of the Catholic Church

I still don’t get it. Let me ask a yes/no question:

Can I, as an Orthodox Christian not in communion with Rome, be properly disposed to receive communion in a Catholic Church within the conditions of canon 844?

If the answer to this question is “no,” why does canon 844 seem to make allowances for certain non-Catholics to receive?

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Since the point being addressed was about non-Catholics receiving the Eucharist in a Catholic Church, then understanding of “proper disposition” is on the terms of the Catholic Church

I still don’t get it. Let me ask a yes/no question:

Can I, as an Orthodox Christian not in communion with Rome, be properly disposed to receive communion in a Catholic Church within the conditions of canon 844?

If the answer to this question is “no,” why does canon 844 seem to make allowances for certain non-Catholics to receive?

as state before

Re: proper disposition

1. “Must manifest Catholic faith in respect to these sacraments, meaning they are properly disposed” . As in http://dioscg.org/index.php/being-properly-disposed-to-receive-holy-communion/

AND

1. Grave necessity / exceptional circumstances / Fear of death / etc https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=406

I noticed neither links were opened.

The Catholic Church doesn’t monitor every single communicant that presents themself in the communion line for being in proper disposition. If one is in an improper disposition receiving the Eucharist, who is that on? the individual.

As Paul said

27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. 1 Corinthians 11:27 RSVCE - Partaking of the Supper Unworthily - Bible Gateway

 

[AlNg]

Mr Staple’s explanation was a synopsis of events and he is correct. For a further explanation, http://canonlawmadeeasy.com/2011/10/05/canon-law-and-the-sspx/

It appears that they say that SSPX is not in schism. This then implies that your definition of schism is wrong, since the SSPX does not submit to the Roman Pontiff, even though they admit that he is the Pope. They say that they are disobedient in certain areas. Since you are wrong on the definition of schism, your credibility has been damaged.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Mr Staple’s explanation was a synopsis of events and he is correct. For a further explanation, http://canonlawmadeeasy.com/2011/10/05/canon-law-and-the-sspx/

It appears that they say that SSPX is not in schism. This then implies that your definition of schism is wrong, since the SSPX does not submit to the Roman Pontiff, even though they admit that he is the Pope. They say that they are disobedient in certain areas. Since you are wrong on the definition of schism, your credibility has been damaged.

You are selectively ignoring some points that are made by both Mr Staples and the canon law link

It gets back to one’s individual disposition ( links given previously) & excommunication was lifted for the SSPX individuals who changed their views.

 

[Isaac14]

I noticed neither links were opened.

The Catholic Church doesn’t monitor every single communicant that presents themself in the communion line for being in proper disposition. If one is in an improper disposition receiving the Eucharist, who is that on? the individual.

As Paul said

27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. 1 Corinthians 11:27 RSVCE - Partaking of the Supper Unworthily - Bible Gateway

Steve: I don’t believe your ability to provide a yes or no response is predicated on whether I have read the links you’ve given. These seem to be someone’s summary/opinion of the law rather than the law itself. Nor do they address my yes or no question as to whether it is possible for an Orthodox Christian to be properly disposed to receive under the conditions of canon 844.

I’ll also re-ask my second question. If it is impossible for an Orthodox Christian to be properly disposed, why does canon 844 seem to allow for us to receive communion under specific circumstances?

 

[AlNg]

You are selectively ignoring some points

Yes. It is best to ignore points that you have made, since they are wrong. The SSPX is disobedient by their own statements, and yet they are not in schism.