Explainable, mistake or heresy?

[Shlomey]

So, I was discussing some things with a sedecavantist (I know, I know). His arguments were quite weak. However, I did research on one thing that - fortunately he did not ask! - I am still unable to find a good answer to:

It is about the fact that frére Roger - a reformed protestant - has received Holy Communion from both Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI.

According to Canon Law:

Can. 844 §1. Catholic ministers administer the sacraments licitly to Catholic members of the Christian faithful alone, who likewise receive them licitly from Catholic ministers alone, without prejudice to the prescripts of §§2, 3, and 4 of this canon, and ⇒ can. 861, §2.
§2. Whenever necessity requires it or true spiritual advantage suggests it, and provided that danger of error or of indifferentism is avoided, the Christian faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister are permitted to receive the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick from non-Catholic ministers in whose Churches these sacraments are valid.
§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.
§4. If the danger of death is present or if, in the judgment of the diocesan bishop or conference of bishops, some other grave necessity urges it, Catholic ministers administer these same sacraments licitly also to other Christians not having full communion with the Catholic Church, who cannot approach a minister of their own community and who seek such on their own accord, provided that they manifest Catholic faith in respect to these sacraments and are properly disposed.
§5. For the cases mentioned in §§2, 3, and 4, the diocesan bishop or conference of bishops is not to issue general norms except after consultation at least with the local competent authority of the interested non-Catholic Church or community.

I checked on EWTN and the answer was pretty much that for protestants to be admitted to Communion §4 ought to be the case. Frére Roger however supposedly partook in the Holy Communion regularly. I believe Tony Blair also was given the Body & Blood of Christ - eventhough a protestant.

So is there something I am missing here? It is quite difficult to understand now why some priests are (imho RIGHTLY) criticized for allowing protestants to Communion while the same things are happening amongst the supreme prelates.

Nevertheless, the Communion-issue is just one part of it.

The more pressing issue which I have no answer for is the fact that Pope Benedict XVI said of frére Roger upon his death:

“Frère Schultz is in the hands of eternal goodness, of eternal love; he has attained eternal joy,” the Holy Father added. “He invites and exhorts us to be faithful laborers in the Lord’s vineyard, also in sad situations, certain that the Lord accompanies us and gives us his joy.”

[AUG. 17, 2005 (Zenit.)]

Is he implying that frére Roger is in heaven?

As far as I am concerned, frére Roger seems quite intelligent and knows of the Catholic faith. If I recall correctly, Cardinal Walter Kasper even defended the fact that he was allowed to partake in the Communion because he was somewhat very connected to Catholicism.

But then I have to reconcile that with:

Pope Pius XII:

“In the aftermath of the controversy, the Archbishop of Boston, Richard Cushing, received a letter of clarification from the Holy Office. This letter, dated August 8, 1949, is important for its explanation of the necessity of the Church: she is necessary for salvation by divine command, not by intrinsic necessity. The Church, as Christ’s mystical body, is the sole ark of salvation, but direct, formal membership in her through the sacraments is only the ordinary means of salvation. In other words,** knowledge of the Church and of her Founder is required of anyone for whom is to be considered necessary for salvation**.” (Catholic Encyclopedia, p.862, Reverend Peter Stravinskas, Our Sunday Visitor, Inc., Huntington, Indiana, 1991)

Frére Roger had all the knowledge he needed. A man so close to Catholicism is exempted from this? If so, then perhaps we should not even preach anymore as that would leave non-Catholics an assurance to salvation.

. There was talk of a possible conversion to Roman Catholicism, but in early July, a note from the spokesman of the Holy See, Joaquin Navarro-Valls, noted that this **“is an exceptional case, which can in no way be considered as a change in Rome’s position in the subject of intercommunion”. **

As for frère Roger, before the ceremony, it is said that "it was not possible to give communion to Schutz, of whom his deep catholic faith is well known”.

xaviermissionaries.org/M_Life/NewsArchive/EuropeNews/Fra_MemoryRoger1.htm

“Whosoever, therefore,** knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary **by God through Jesus Christ, would refuse to enter her or to remain in her could not be saved” (Lumen Gentium, 14).

I may be mistaken here and I realy need someone to clarify this for me. Thus far all I gather is:

a) the exception to “extra Ecclesiam nulla salus” is in the case of invincible ignorance
b) frére Roger was anything but invincibly ignorant
c) the Pope basically says he is in heaven

Can someone please explain this?

 

[mrearly2]

The sedevacantists have strong arguments. You must have talked to someone unfamiliar with Catholicism and the difference between believers and non-believers.

It is quite heretical (and downright evil) of anyone, who gushes over the state of someone such as “frére” Roger, if he is not in the process of conversion to Catholicism, and to not even urge him to convert, for his salvation.

To give a heretic the body and blood of Christ is certainly sacrilegious, as he is not in conformity with true doctrine and Scripture:

1Corinthians Chapter 10:21 You cannot drink the chalice of the Lord, and the chalice of devils: you cannot be partakers of the table of the Lord, and of the table of devils.
1Corinthians Chapter 11:27 Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. 28 But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice.

The catechumens of old were not allowed in the church during Mass, from the Offertory on, as they were not considered worthy to witness the consecration and receive blessing intended for the Faithful. How much less worthy, are those who oppose Christ’s Church?

There are plenty of heretics, Satanists and others unworthy, in the Vatican and out. If their statements don’t conform with true doctrine, they are liars and deceivers and we are not to listen to them. We are bound to maintain sound consciences, and adhere to sound doctrine, else why belong to the One, True Church?

a) Invincible ignorance is the term given to those who, through no fault of their own, have had no opportunity to receive the teachings of the One True Church and cannot partake of Her sacraments and thus cannot be saved. This would imply that they took advantage of the grace God gave them, to do what they could to seek and find Truth, but they were unable to do so. One must be careful with this concept—a more modern interpretation implies that those who, being ignorant of sin or remedies against sin can go to heaven, even as they are outside the fold. Please see this snippet from Father Michael Muller, at cfnews.org/invig.htm

b) Frére Roger was anything but invincibly ignorant. And if those around him confirmed him in his detachment from Holy Mother Church, they are complicit in his sin of failure to convert, for salvation.

c) The Pope says a lot of things, and to say that anyone (except those who are known to have died in sanctity, such as the saints) is in heaven is mere opinion. But to announce that a professed heretic is enjoying the beatific vision is heretical, at least.

 

[Shlomey]

c) The Pope says a lot of things, and to say that anyone (except those who are known to have died in sanctity, such as the saints) is in heaven is mere opinion. But to announce that a professed heretic is enjoying the beatific vision is heretical, at least.

So as long as there is no solemn profession or declaration the Pope can say whatever he wants - even if it seems to contradict what we officially have to believe?

And thus him saying that frére Roger is in heaven - despite his refusal to convert - is a mere opinion, but in no ways a heresy?

Thank you very much for answering.

 

[diggerdomer]

So, I was discussing some things with a sedecavantist (I know, I know). His arguments were quite weak. However, I did research on one thing that - fortunately he did not ask! - I am still unable to find a good answer to:

It is about the fact that frére Roger - a reformed protestant - has received Holy Communion from both Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI.

According to Canon Law:

I checked on EWTN and the answer was pretty much that for protestants to be admitted to Communion §4 ought to be the case. Frére Roger however supposedly partook in the Holy Communion regularly. I believe Tony Blair also was given the Body & Blood of Christ - eventhough a protestant.

So is there something I am missing here? It is quite difficult to understand now why some priests are (imho RIGHTLY) criticized for allowing protestants to Communion while the same things are happening amongst the supreme prelates.

Nevertheless, the Communion-issue is just one part of it.

The more pressing issue which I have no answer for is the fact that Pope Benedict XVI said of frére Roger upon his death:

[AUG. 17, 2005 (Zenit.)]

Is he implying that frére Roger is in heaven?

As far as I am concerned, frére Roger seems quite intelligent and knows of the Catholic faith. If I recall correctly, Cardinal Walter Kasper even defended the fact that he was allowed to partake in the Communion because he was somewhat very connected to Catholicism.

But then I have to reconcile that with:

Pope Pius XII:

Frére Roger had all the knowledge he needed. A man so close to Catholicism is exempted from this? If so, then perhaps we should not even preach anymore as that would leave non-Catholics an assurance to salvation.

xaviermissionaries.org/M_Life/NewsArchive/EuropeNews/Fra_MemoryRoger1.htm

I may be mistaken here and I realy need someone to clarify this for me. Thus far all I gather is:

a) the exception to “extra Ecclesiam nulla salus” is in the case of invincible ignorance
b) frére Roger was anything but invincibly ignorant
c) the Pope basically says he is in heaven

Can someone please explain this?

I’m sorry I’m confused about your question. If the Popes are deciding to make an exception to Church Law to extend graces to this one well known individual…what’s the concern?

 

[Shlomey]

I’m sorry I’m confused about your question. If the Popes are deciding to make an exception to Church Law to extend graces to this one well known individual…what’s the concern?

Well I’m no expert, is it possible to make exception outside the parameters outlined in Canon Law?

 

[diggerdomer]

Well I’m no expert, is it possible to make exception outside the parameters outlined in Canon Law?

As you noted, some exceptions are allowed for in Canon Law. Whether or not the cases you refer to fall under those exceptions; I don’t know.

Also, in general, Canon Law is to be applied always in favor of “care of the souls.” The Pope would usually, I think, as the supreme legislator, have that prerogative.

 

[LilyM]

As you noted, some exceptions are allowed for in Canon Law. Whether or not the cases you refer to fall under those exceptions; I don’t know.

Also, in general, Canon Law is to be applied always in favor of “care of the souls.” The Pope would usually, I think, as the supreme legislator, have that prerogative.

Exactly my thoughts. The Pope (and Bishops for that matter) grant dispensations from Canon Law for numerous requirements. Even our priests can dispense us from the requirement to attend Sunday Mass if there is reason to do so. And they are permitted at least some latitude in giving communion to non-Catholics.

Blair may well have been an honest mistake - his wife was always Catholic, and he was known to be sympathetic to Catholicism for a long time before he actually took the plunge. It may have been wrongly thought that he had already converted (and remember at the Pope’s age it’s not unheard of to make the occasional mistake!)

To my mind there’s a big difference between giving communion to someone like Blair, or even Brother Roger, and someone like Nancy Pelosi who is very much openly ANTI Catholic teachings on a number of issues.

 

[Shlomey]

CHAPTER V.

DISPENSATIONS

Can. 85 A dispensation, or the relaxation of a merely ecclesiastical law in a particular case, can be granted by those who possess executive power within the limits of their competence, as well as by those who have the power to dispense explicitly or implicitly either by the law itself or by legitimate delegation.

Can. 86 Laws are not subject to dispensation to the extent that they define those things which are essentially constitutive of juridic institutes or acts.

Can. 87 §1. A diocesan bishop, whenever he judges that it contributes to their spiritual good, is able to dispense the faithful from universal and particular disciplinary laws issued for his territory or his subjects by the supreme authority of the Church. He is not able to dispense, however, from procedural or penal laws nor from those whose dispensation is specially reserved to the Apostolic See or some other authority.

§2. If recourse to the Holy See is difficult and, at the same time, there is danger of grave harm in delay, any ordinary is able to dispense from these same laws even if dispensation is reserved to the Holy See, provided that it concerns a dispensation which the Holy See is accustomed to grant under the same circumstances, without prejudice to the prescript of ⇒ can. 291.

Can. 88 A local ordinary is able to dispense from diocesan laws and, whenever he judges that it contributes to the good of the faithful, from laws issued by a plenary or provincial council or by the conference of bishops.

Can. 89 A pastor and other presbyters or deacons are not able to dispense from universal and particular law unless this power has been expressly granted to them.

Can. 90 §1. One is not to be dispensed from an ecclesiastical law without a just and reasonable cause, after taking into account the circumstances of the case and the gravity of the law from which dispensation is given; otherwise the dispensation is illicit and, unless it is given by the legislator himself or his superior, also invalid.

§2. In a case of doubt concerning the sufficiency of the cause, a dispensation is granted validly and licitly.

Can. 91 Even when outside his territory, one who possesses the power to dispense is able to exercise it with respect to his subjects even though they are absent from the territory, and, unless the contrary is expressly established, also with respect to travelers actually present in the territory, as well as with respect to himself.

Can. 92 A dispensation is subject to a strict interpretation according to the norm of ⇒ can. 36, §1, as is the very power to dispense granted for a particular case.

Can. 93 A dispensation which has successive application ceases in the same ways as a privilege as well as by the certain and total cessation of the motivating cause.

makes sense, thanks!