Fr. Cutie to Become an Episcopal Priest

[Peter_J]

The Orthodox are both valid and licit, despite being in schism, since they are traditionally from areas that had no latin presence before the schism.

Hi Aramis. When you say that the Orthodox are licit (as well as valid, obviously) are you expressing your own opinion? Are do you claim that the Catholic Church has said so?

If the latter, please provide a source. (In an earlier thread, I criticized GKC for saying ‘The Catholic Church has said that Orthodox sacraments are illicit’ without providing a source. So it wouldn’t really be fair if I didn’t ask for a source from you as well.)

Validity for a priest flows from the bishop. But, in 1917, Rome withdrew the authority for bishops of the Roman Church Sui Iuris to disenroll clerics, to cut them off from their authority. There had been abuses in the US and other countries, where a bishop was doing so for unjust reasons; Rome stopped the practice by requiring the priest to request such release from Rome. Tradition, however, has held that only a Patriarch may release from perpetual vows, so release from clerical enrollment by a bishop was not sufficient to return to lay praxis anyway. Now, in 2009, the Pope has released the authority to dispense vows for clerics unto one of the commissions, and has granted the bishops permission to apply for laicization, not just the priest.

The only sacraments for which a laicized priest receives “supplied jurisdiction” are emergency confession and last rights… the sacraments of mercy… and only in cases where someone is dying and no non-laicized priest can be expected.

Thanks for the info. For what it’s worth, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defrocked#Roman_Catholicism says

In Roman Catholicism, a priest, deacon, or bishop may be dismissed from the clerical state as a penalty for certain grave offenses, or by a papal decree granted for grave reasons. A Catholic cleric may also voluntarily request to be laicized for personal reasons (e.g., to enter into marriage or disagreement regarding dogma). A dismissed priest is forbidden to exercise ministerial functions, but an indelible priestly character is held to remain on his soul (as is sung at a priest’s ordination, “You are a priest forever, like Melchizedek of old”).[1] Consequently, any exercise of his sacramental power to consecrate the Eucharist is considered valid even though illicit. If a penitent is in danger of death, a dismissed priest may and indeed must hear his confession and confer absolution.[2] To reinstate a priest dismissed from the clerical state, the consent of the Pope is required.

(I’m not claiming that’s right necessarily ; I just thought people might be interested in what wikipedia says on the matter.)

 

[Peter_J]

The Universal church IS the Catholic church. Why can’t you accept this?

Simple: when you told her, you didn’t use all-caps. So naturally she remains unconvinced.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Another observation I’d like to make.

It seems to me that the conspicuous absence of a tabernacle in Anglican and Presbyterian Church’s is itself a tacit institutional admission of non-real presence. If not then it would be a claim that Anglican/Presbyterian “priests” are also perfect seers to predict how many hosts to “consecrate” for those who just happen to believe in real-presence and how many to leave in symbolic presence for those others (to prevent sacrilidgeous reception of the sacraments unworthily of “symbolic-only believers” who might be in sin [even though Anglicans declare its not a sacrament under Anglican articles of faith] ); and not leave any in excess that was more than the priest could personally consume. How does an Anglican priest leave no leftovers to profinatating those residual hosts that were “real-presence”?

In other words how do Anglicans interim leftovers with no tabernacle so as not to create a sacrilege by leaving the consecrated hosts laying about somewhere so they are not in danger of being profinated?

James

It seems to me that when someone is in the business of condeming others, they might just know what they are talking about. We have a tabernacle. It sits upon the rear altar. Next to the perpetual light that shows that Jesus is home! It must be sad being such an angry person. Blessings to you.

 

[GKC]

Hi Aramis. When you say that the Orthodox are licit (as well as valid, obviously) are you expressing your own opinion? Are do you claim that the Catholic Church has said so?

If the latter, please provide a source. (In an earlier thread, I criticized GKC for saying ‘The Catholic Church has said that Orthodox sacraments are illicit’ without providing a source. So it wouldn’t really be fair if I didn’t ask for a source from you as well.)

Thanks for the info. For what it’s worth, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defrocked#Roman_Catholicism says

In Roman Catholicism, a priest, deacon, or bishop may be dismissed from the clerical state as a penalty for certain grave offenses, or by a papal decree granted for grave reasons. A Catholic cleric may also voluntarily request to be laicized for personal reasons (e.g., to enter into marriage or disagreement regarding dogma). A dismissed priest is forbidden to exercise ministerial functions, but an indelible priestly character is held to remain on his soul (as is sung at a priest’s ordination, “You are a priest forever, like Melchizedek of old”).[1] Consequently, any exercise of his sacramental power to consecrate the Eucharist is considered valid even though illicit. If a penitent is in danger of death, a dismissed priest may and indeed must hear his confession and confer absolution.[2] To reinstate a priest dismissed from the clerical state, the consent of the Pope is required.

(I’m not claiming that’s right necessarily ; I just thought people might be interested in what wikipedia says on the matter.)

I’m interested in the reply, as well. The Wiki quote is certainly my understanding on that point.

GKC

 

[SpiritMeadow]

The Universal church IS the Catholic church. Why can’t you accept this? Don’t you believe even what the Early Church Fathers said? What Jesus said? There is only ONE Universal church and that is the CC.

Ummm, cuz I don’t believe much that you say about anything? But your opinion is noted for all who care to listen to you.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Why can’t everyone simply wish this man well?

I can assure you that the vast numbers of RC’s heard this and shrugged and moved on. But some of the folks here are very upset with Fr. Cutie, and are determined it seems to muddy him up as much as possible so they can feel that he is now worthless to anyone else. Since we are all sinners of one sort or another, I think we would all do well to wish the good Father well, and worry about our own faults. But nobody much listems to me…

 

[Aramis]

I thank you for this. But it does seem to be reflective of a case working within the system, that is, of a priest requesting release from his vows, and laicization, while remaining with the Church, not as one excommunicated or schismatic. To be clear then (I am going to approach some other RC friends, in this discussion, and do not want to appear more dense than absolutely necessary), in Fr. Cutie’s case, he would have lost the authority to confect a valid though illicit, sacrament, by virtue of the loss of faculties attendant on his leaving the Church? What is then retained, of the indelible imprint of character?

Further, if validity flows from the bishop (a good phrase I’ll retain, for discussion) whence flows the validity of a schismatic, excommunicated, etc, bishop, per Ott?

And, slightly further, would one conclude from your 1st statement that there is no distinction drawn, by Rome, as to efficacy, between an Orthodox and a RC sacrament (validity and licitness being a given?) That is, schismatic sacraments are efficacious, and there are no other distinctions to be made?

All data willingly absorbed.

GKC

In the case of the Orthodox, they are considered to be valid, licit, and thus also efficatious.

Validity indicates efficatiousness.

Valid but illicit are also efficacious for those receiving them, but are grave sins for the celebrant. Such is the case with any priest in a state of mortal sin whilst saying the mass. Or a suspended priest saying the mass. Or a schismatic priest with valid orders and faculties not yet rescinded by Rome.

The Faculty of a Roman Priest to say mass is inherent in incardination, and at times, with excardinated clerics as well (when granted proper letters of introduction and leave). Due to quirks of Roman canon law, the faculty is both imposing a duty (to say the mass at least weekly) and a power (To confect the Eucharist during that mass) at the same time, and to obey one’s lawful bishop, especially in matters of how the mass is said. Fr. Cutié, until released from that obligation, is still a member of the clergy of the Roman diocese of his incardination; suspended, but still incardinated.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Quod licet Iovi non licet bovi? eh?
(What is permitted Jupiter is not permitted the Ox?)

Rude, bitter, disgust, hatred, paranoia? Strong words for a Christian to charge another. Is there an appeal system in your Inquisitional Court?

Tell you what SpiritMeadow, I am just going to ignore the personal contempt you have for me & your history of hurdling hypocritical ad-hominems & pithy judgements against any Catholic who can effectively point out indefensible contradictions in the secular institutions and dogmas which you support.

But for the record let me at least say, no matter how you would like to paint me, I have no hatred for any man; nor do I suffer truth to curtsy to social protocol after the first round bell is rung and especially when I start to see the telltale signs from glassy eyes and wobbly knees.

Salvation is a serious matter. Jesus was no doubt called worse than “rude” for sending the money changers on their way and for calling the two-faced “hippocrites” to their faces. While there is certainly a place for dandy-boy pandering and for painting on insincere smiles when one is looking for their vig in exchange for services rendered – it’s not exactly de rigueur or at home in an apologetics forum. But what is certainly rude in any forum is publicly sticking one’s tounge out and not expecting to be called to step outside ostensibly for “bad breath” or for a guest to complain to the host if a few house flies happen to take it as an invitation to follow him inside to compete with offsetting fly-spec as well. You think your “stuff” smells better than anyone else’s? I submit that a pragmatic solution is to simply bite one’s tounge to discourage co-joined participation or else try private messaging to appeal to civility.

That’s the difference between your style and mine SpiritMeadow. Except for rare cases such as this OP (which invites a personal assessment of a public figure caught red-handed in shame) I generally speak out only against heretical practices, institutions and their founders; whereas you speak out of both sides of your mouth; judging individuals who don’t agree with your parochial views rather than against the principals they esteem.

Up to the time you detoured here to toss ad-hominems the dialog of this OP had been “pretty-good” - with much nuanced insights and good sub-topical information coming out. I think there’s yet more yardage to be gained in the OP. So, I am going to decline your polite provocation and not play into your stratagem to incite emotions just to get the mods to close a thread that prevails against your personal views. Cowardly street-tactics if you ask me…

So at this point it would be selfishly overindulgent of me to further engage you in a Heckle and Jeckle match since it would not further the OP nor gain me anything I value so much that’s I’d want to take from you at your loss of face.

But let me at least give you back what is yours:
[sign]
Tongue[/sign]

Now we are even & I owe you nothing more.

James

P.S. I thought the term “liberal” to you was a compliment and I honestly thought I saw you on here a year ago calling yourself “Catholic”. My mistake on two occounts?

My my what a lot of self-serving blather. I find it amusing. If you don’t hate, then beg my pardon, I guess you just use funny language. Referring to the Episcopal Eucharist as “crackers and grape juice” and so on. I object not at all to you, you may be a fine person, but your rhetoric is intended to be hurtful and mean. If you deny that than I suggest you might try offering your musings to a priest or two for their perusal. I’ll ignore the rest of your finely aimed barbs at me. I have no need to continue.

You are right, I was Catholic. You conveniently forgot that you suggested that I left the Church to “teach it a lesson” a totally absurd proclamation. And nobody on this forum would believe that YOU would ever use the term “liberal” as a compliment. Please…

I admire your self-righteous assumptions that your interpretation of everything is correct.
Good day.

 

[GKC]

In the case of the Orthodox, they are considered to be valid, licit, and thus also efficatious.

Validity indicates efficatiousness.

Valid but illicit are also efficacious for those receiving them, but are grave sins for the celebrant. Such is the case with any priest in a state of mortal sin whilst saying the mass. Or a suspended priest saying the mass. Or a schismatic priest with valid orders and faculties not yet rescinded by Rome.

The Faculty of a Roman Priest to say mass is inherent in incardination, and at times, with excardinated clerics as well (when granted proper letters of introduction and leave). Due to quirks of Roman canon law, the faculty is both imposing a duty (to say the mass at least weekly) and a power (To confect the Eucharist during that mass) at the same time, and to obey one’s lawful bishop, especially in matters of how the mass is said. Fr. Cutié, until released from that obligation, is still a member of the clergy of the Roman diocese of his incardination; suspended, but still incardinated.

Again I thank you. I will take this, and see how it plays.

But, as you may know, Peter J is looking for references (fair enough). This differs from my understanding to date (and I may have been wrong). What is your authority for the statement re: the Orthodox sacraments? And, am I correct in concluding that what you are saying is that for the RCC, there is no difference, valid, licit or efficacious, between a RC sacrament and an Orthodox one; that is, the fact of not being in communion with the Holy See makes no difference, with respect to the sacraments?

I thank you again.

GKC

 

[SpiritMeadow]

You go, James! This post is dead-on! It’s laughable how a liberal, pie-in-the-sky Episcopalian who approves of gay and lesbian clerics, women priestesses, buddhist bishops (?? LOL), the theology of “Jesus is A way, not THE way,” and who possesses a very deep hatred of Roman Catholicism tries to paint herself this tolerant, open-minded, loving, poetic Christian? My experience is much the same as yours. The Episcopalian leftist like this believes the Catholic to be close-minded, living in the thirteenth century, backwards, and ignorant, polluting the earth with simpletons. We’re not educated in the truth so these folks come onto a Catholic forum supposedly to “dialogue.” But it’s a monologue to condescendingly preach to us how hurtful, spiteful, vindictive, nasty, and beligerent we are. My question is constantly, why do they come on here? Defending the Gospel for folks like this is “hate.” Listening to the admonitions of Christ is “intolerance.” Taking the scriptures literally is “folly.”

For such a poster there will never be anything good about Roman Catholicism; she can only live the moral relativist rant. You reply is superb but I wouldn’t dignify any more of them with a response…

Well, no doubt you would after that, claim that you do not hate me, but I guess we can fairly say you dislike me intensely.

Let’s set the record a bit straighter if you don’t mind.

I am a liberal, and if you enjoy the term “pie in the sky” I will accept that. I do dream of a world without hatred and war. Like Thomas More, I believe utopia is possible, and I believe that the Kingdom can be on earth as I believe Jesus taught.

I am an Episcopalian, and have grown in a short time to love my church and especially those who pastor her. I believe with my heart that the bible is no barrier to gay priests, male or female, and I whole heartedly support gay marriage. I find the bible has no objection as long as one clearly understands the problematical verses that are commonly used to prove otherwise.

I don’t think I’ve rendered an opinion on Buddhist priests. I have not looked into the matter.

While I find Jesus and the Way he taught to be right for me, I do not usurp God’s perfect right to teach others according to the customs of their world view and life experiences. I admit that I am not privy to God’s inner thoughts on this, so I only know for sure that Jesus is A way to God, but is perhaps not the only one.

I have no hatred for Roman Catholicism at all. I have counseled three people here to either continue to investigate and visit parishes and priests and other “real” Catholic institutions rather than rely on the rather strange manifestations Catholicism can take on CAF. I disagree with a number of teachings of the RCC and that is why I left. I continue to hope and believe that the Church will come through these difficulties over time. I have grave difficulties with some people who profess to KNOW the Church’s teaching and yet preach hatred, dissention, lack of forgiveness, intolerance, and lack of compassion.

I do not paint my self as tolerant, open-minded loving and poetic as a Christian. I am shocked you think you know my heart, but in any case, I am what I profess to be. I have been a liberal all my life, I was a liberal Catholic, I am and remain a liberal Episcopalian. I have had gay friends all my life, I have known many a religious woman who wished she could have been clergy. I know many women priests now. I have been in my extreme youth both a racist and an atheist/agnostic. I have learned, I have grown and I like to think I am a better person. I am a sinner still no doubt.

I may well believe that the Church is trying to return to a 19th century mentality, but it has been my fervent belief that Catholics were perhaps a cut above intellectually. That has lessened by talking to some here. Simpletons? I would say never. I yearned for years to be a RC, and that would hardly make any sense if I thought them simple.

Frankly I consider most Catholics well educated in their faith, something that most RC deny here, claiming most are ill catechized. I came to dialogue about interfaith issues, but that seems impossible. You again appear to think you know my heart, which obviously you do not.

There are many RC’s here who are kind, friendly, and polite. There are a few who are most assuredly not and go out of their way to speak unkindly to any other faith tradition as if it were some second class citizen. We are here because this forum made a place for us quite simply. It is a non-Catholic forum is it not?

When at a loss, throw moral relativism at someone. Of course that is not an ad hominem attack. Just stating the facts right? Your opinion is noted.

 

[CentralFLJames]

OK - sincerely, thanks to both GKC and SpiritMeadow for correcting me - I can admit when I am wrong and do take correction.

I do however recall that both of your responses seemed to use what appear as “escape clauses” or qualifiers that I am now starting to see is a standard pattern of expression with anyone from the Anglican/Presbyterian faith communities. The qualifiers seemed to take a general form: “In my church its XYZ” or “In my Church we have XYZ” or some other variant.

So, I admit I have not visited every Anglican/Presbyterian “my Church” that is “out-there” in the general cloud of Anglicanism or Episcopalianism and was going from prior statements made from others to me. Can anyone please tell me just what the relative numbers of churches from each denomination are that elect to have tabernacles or if it is an option and what “rule” or ecclesial law/order defines the particulars about Anglican/Presbyterian tabernacles? I would like more than just “hearsay” on this since I think it is a very important thing that gives real insight into just what these denominations truly believe at an institutional level about “real-presence”.

I also wanted to ask if the country flag (USA UK EU etc.) is seen as “sacred” and is displayed anywhere near the altar or the tabernacle in a suggestive of church-and-state being more in union with each other. I ask since its also a reasonable way to calibrate the semantics of how each faith-community sees “sacredness” of authority and providence of nation relative to The Son of God.

James

 

[GKC]

Fair enough.

One point I have been making over and over, and I will continue to do so (not being adverse to repeating myself) is that Anglicans differ. This has been true since the Elizabethan Compromise, and is far more true, and true in more crucial ways, today. Certainly I say that what I speak of is not necessarily universal in Anglicanism. I’m glad I’m getting through.

Generally speaking, the range of opinion in Anglicanism runs from more reformed/evangelical, to Anglo-Catholic (and Anglo-Papalist, but don’t try to wrap your mind around that right now). Only the most extreme reformed flavor of Anglicanism would not have a tabernacle; say in the schismatic Reformed Episcopal Church (and even that may have changed) as well as in the more reformed parishes in the Episcopal Church, officially. In my flavor, of Anglo-Catholicism, the tabernacle is an integral part of the doctrinal definition, the percent in such parishes will be 100. Overall, I’d guess (and it’s only a guess) tabernacles in 2/3s to 3/4s of the parishes. Remember that there is no official, mandated Eucharistic doctrine in Anglicanism (and could not have been since the CoE spun off the independent, self-governing Churches, beginning in the mid-late 1800s). Even so, the most common pious opinion (nothing de fide here) would be for some form of the Real Presence; hence the tabernacles. Transubstantiation is not at all uncommon, as to an explanation of the “how” of that.

How many, percentage wise? I don’t know. I’ve never, myself, been in an Anglican church that didn’t have a tabernacle. I suppose that would include maybe 12 churches in the local area, or that I have visited, in the last 10 years or so. But I do tend to associate on the Anglo-Catholic side of the family. I have no idea where you would get definitive numbers, unless you wrote a lot of letters. But don’t think you will find an institutional level belief. That, as I keep telling you, in a chimera. No such animal. Schism and splits over doctrine will tend to “unify” a jurisdiction, but the reason there are such splits is that there are no normative definitions.

I know of no Anglican Church or parish that considers any flag as sacred. There is (or sometimes is) an American flag near the pulpit in our parish, at the edge of the pews, against the wall, and flags of the countries of the British Union hanging over the windows, but these are not sacred, liturgical, or a part of any worship service. Nor are they on, or near the altar. I’'ve never seen anything like that in an Anglican church.

As to Presbyterian practice, you would have to speak to a Presbyterian. I have no experience or idea on anything in that Church.

Ask questions. It’s harmless.

And, of course,if you were in my church, no one would expect you to bow or genuflect, at the crossing before the altar and tabernacle. But, if you were there, you could expect to see us do that. Just a point.

GKC

OK - sincerely, thanks to both GKC and SpiritMeadow for correcting me - I can admit when I am wrong and do take correction.

I do however recall that both of your responses seemed to used what appear as “escape clauses” that I am now starting to see is standard pattern of expression with anyone from the Anglican/Presbyterian faith communities. The qualifiers seemed to take a general form: “In my church its XYZ” or “In my Church we have XYZ” or some other variant.

So, I admit I have not visited every Anglican/Presbyterian “my Church” that is “out-there” in the general cloud of Anglicanism or Episcopalianism and was going on prior statements made from others who gave me my information. Can anyone please tell me just what the relative numbers of churches from each denomination elect to have tabernacles or if it is an option and what “rule” or ecclesial law/order defines the particulars about Anglican/Presbyterian tabernacles? I would like more than just “here-say” on this since I think it is a very important thing that gives real insight into just what these denominations truly believe at an institutional level about “real-presence”.

I also wanted to ask if the country flag (USA UK EU etc.) is seen as “sacred” and is displayed on the altar anywhere near the tabernacle. I ask since its reasonable way to calibrate the semantics of how each faith-community sees “sacredness” of authority and providence of nation relative to The Son of God.

James

 

[CentralFLJames]

I find it amusing. If you don’t hate, then beg my pardon, I guess you just use funny language. Referring to the Episcopal Eucharist as “crackers and grape juice” and so on. I object not at all to you, you may be a fine person, but your rhetoric is intended to be hurtful and mean. If you deny that than I suggest you might try offering your musings to a priest or two for their perusal. I’ll ignore the rest of your finely aimed barbs at me. I have no need to continue.

You are right, I was Catholic. You conveniently forgot that you suggested that I left the Church to “teach it a lesson” a totally absurd proclamation. And nobody on this forum would believe that YOU would ever use the term “liberal” as a compliment. Please…

I admire your self-righteous assumptions that your interpretation of everything is correct.
Good day.

OK - I thank-you for all your helpful criticisms. I’m just adding the following verdicts coming out of your inquisitional court to my rap-sheet: self-serving, hurtful, mean.

But I am not adding the charges of rhetorical or dialectician since it is only in modern times that it had taken on negative connotations and I think St. Paul made use of the rhetorical arts to provoke the ignorant and the dull to reason to keep them interested in what he was saying.

So, are you now nearly done demonizing me? If not, please just let me know when you’re done and ready to “move on” to the next docket. I am rather anxious to start doing my community service and ‘time-outs in the corner’ (indulgences ?) to get it all behind me. I know the game too well. Once one is in jail and working off their time on the chain-gang the idea of course is to keep them there as endentured slaves. The prison disciplines by continuously adding more links of chain to replace the one’s worked off. It’s the same system that the sharecropper’s suffered. One can never produce enough crop to get out in front of his interest payments to get to the principal of the matter.

Now just admit that you feel better being compelled to “come out” to admit that you used to be Catholic and your liberal views were entirely heterodox to anyone outside of the big-tent of Anglicism or Protestantism. I am somewhat surprised you did not become Unitarian to tell the truth. Sentimental to the 2,000 years of traditions and rituals of Catholics and looking to become a female Anglican/Presbyterian priest?

James

 

[Aramis]

Again I thank you. I will take this, and see how it plays.

But, as you may know, Peter J is looking for references (fair enough). This differs from my understanding to date (and I may have been wrong). What is your authority for the statement re: the Orthodox sacraments? And, am I correct in concluding that what you are saying is that for the RCC, there is no difference, valid, licit or efficacious, between a RC sacrament and an Orthodox one; that is, the fact of not being in communion with the Holy See makes no difference, with respect to the sacraments?

I thank you again.

GKC

Canon 844 of the CIC (Roman Church 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.
vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P2T.HTM Emphasis mine.

It should be noted that Catholics are not permitted to knowingly receive invalid sacraments, either from non-catholics, nor from Catholic ministers without the valid faculties

 

[GKC]

Canon 844 of the CIC (Roman Church 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.
vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P2T.HTM Emphasis mine.

It should be noted that Catholics are not permitted to knowingly receive invalid sacraments, either from non-catholics, nor from Catholic ministers without the valid faculties

Thank you again. I actually knew of these paras, particularly §4. For some reason they did not seem to relate exactly to my question, as it formed in my mind.

I shall contemplate.

I appreciate your replies.

GKC

 

[SpiritMeadow]

OK - I thank-you for all your helpful criticisms. I’m just adding the following verdicts coming out of your inquisitional court to my rap-sheet: self-serving, hurtful, mean.

But I am not adding the charges of rhetorical or dialectician since it is only in modern times that it had taken on negative connotations and I think St. Paul made use of the rhetorical arts to provoke the ignorant and the dull to reason to keep them interested in what he was saying.

So, are you now nearly done demonizing me? If not, please just let me know when you’re done and ready to “move on” to the next docket. I am rather anxious to start doing my community service and ‘time-outs in the corner’ (indulgences ?) to get it all behind me. I know the game too well. Once one is in jail and working off their time on the chain-gang the idea of course is to keep them there as endentured slaves. The prison disciplines by continuously adding more links of chain to replace the one’s worked off. It’s the same system that the sharecropper’s suffered. One can never produce enough crop to get out in front of his interest payments to get to the principal of the matter.

Now just admit that you feel better being compelled to “come out” to admit that you used to be Catholic and your liberal views were entirely heterodox to anyone outside of the big-tent of Anglicism or Protestantism. I am somewhat surprised you did not become Unitarian to tell the truth. Sentimental to the 2,000 years of traditions and rituals of Catholics and looking to become a female Anglican/Presbyterian priest?

James

I have never meant to vilify you as you seem to think. I object to the manner in which you address those you disagree with. You continue to do that. Your contempt for faiths other than your own is quite obvious. I don’t think it serves either you or your church well, but that is your affair in the end.

I appreciate your showing me just what a terrific command of the language you have. It is most stunning, but you should know that gunney aside, (he has been waiting to feel safe to level a bomb or 15 at me), I have always thought Catholics to be among the better educated. I’ve had a few RC’s here suggest I was wrong about that. So I am properly awed by your skill with words. Sincerely I am.

I have not “come out” as you suggest. Any number of regular posters here are more than aware that I talk all the time about having been Catholic, and quite a number remember me from last year when I posted as such. It is you that have missed them I guess. I merely didn’t get your reference to “getting back at or teaching the RCC a lesson”. I have never said such a thing, and it is rather silly to contemplate that the Church would give a hoot or that I should think it would.

Contrary to your apparent limited view, you can find liberal Catholics throughout the blogosphere and around the internet. I was not, as I finally found, all that unusual. Since you don’t know me really at all, I’m surprised you would speculate about my choice of tradition. The thought of a priesthood has not crossed my mind frankly, and I’m a bit too old to contemplate that. Perhaps it would have been a choice to consider 20 or more years ago. One can endlessly wonder of such things, but of course when we do so we don’t know what other changes might have occured should we “have it all to do over again.” I’m a rather contented married woman, just deeply in love with liturgy and my God.
I wonder why we so seldom discuss God on this forum, other than to impatiently explain to each other why they can’t really worship God in the manner they are doing so?

I guess I wonder only one thing. If you and others like you are very sure you are where you should be, why do you begrudge others the right to feel the same without having to trash their choice? It cannot be because you fear for their salvation, since you admit your methods don’t attract adherents to your opinions. Just wondering.

 

[CentralFLJames]

CentralFLJames;5292268:

OK - I thank-you for all your helpful criticisms.
…
So, are you now nearly done demonizing me? If not, please just let me know when you’re done and ready to “move on” to the next docket.

I have never meant to vilify you as you seem to think.
…
Your contempt for faiths other than your own…
…
Contrary to your apparent limited view,
…
…why do you begrudge others the right to feel the same without having to trash their choice?

No, sigh, it’s clear you are still not done with judging me yet. Oh dear. I am now adding your more recent judgement to my rap sheet: contemptuous, narrow-minded, begrudging, trashing.

Sigh, I think that is 11 personal charges and verdicts you have now made against me in the last 2 days in this one OP. Yet you say
“[SpiritMeadow]: I have never meant to vilify you as you seem to think”.

Yet at the same time you complain:

“[SpiritMeadow]:Since you don’t know me really at all, I’m surprised you would speculate about my choice of tradition.”

Suffer me please to object to “Your Honor” that you certainly seemed familiar enough with me to make at least 11 verdicts and ad-homonyms. Are you signaling an admission of a mistrial and a desire to suit for peace in exchange for not reporting you to the BAR? If you’re not, can an accused in your court without prejudicing his own ongoing case or a future appeal submit the obvious In flagrante delicto that her honor has a double standard and move for mistrial, Your Honor?

Pardon my for sounding a tad bit sarcastic but viz *“I have never meant to vilify you as you seem to think” *I’d really hate to see what you could do with a gavel in a locked room of orthodox Catholics if you had to put your mind deliberately into your labor. Ugh, it would not be pretty…

Just for fun I’d like to invite you to go back and count the number of personal charges I have made against you. Please extend me the benefit of the doubt about me labeling you “liberal”. Afterall it’s ‘ambiguous to the beholding ear’ as is ‘beauty to the eye of the beholder’’ (e.g. derogatory or not) and see if that number is more than just that one?

After that I’d like to also invite you to apply your sola-scriptura private interpretation on the following verse below and just mediate on what it means to you (but not make an infallable judgement on it). We are already at risk of hijacking this OP with all the personal attention you are giving me. And on that point please remember too that you are a married woman and it might be more appropriate to give this much attention to your spouse and do the critical dance with him rather than me. I am really feeling like I am monopolizing “all the love” in here that should rightfully be his - to suffer.

*James 4:11
Do not speak evil of one another, brothers. Whoever speaks evil of a brother or judges his brother speaks evil of the law and judges the law. If you judge the law, you are not a doer of the law but a judge. *

USCCB for James 4:11: Slander of a fellow Christian does not break just one commandment but makes mockery of the authority of law in general and therefore of God

I guess I wonder only one thing. If you and others like you are very sure you are where you should be, why do you begrudge others the right to feel the same without having to trash their choice? It cannot be because you fear for their salvation, since you admit your methods don’t attract adherents to your opinions. Just wondering.

It’s not begrudgement SM - its our duty to save the lame from walking off the steeper bit of the same cliff that already busted them up and damaged their intellect. I made no such admission about ineffective method as you assert. I consider it effective to keep you people busy answering the mail so you are off the streets and not teaching your rubbish to the innocent. If anything is begrudged it is the falsity of the imported beliefs – not the ignorance of the person so mislead. I only begrudge at a personal level when the blind are so blind that they try to teach the blind how to perfect the darkness or when such invite those who can still see dimly to close their eyes all the way and follow them to the Land of Nod or else to the fantasy of Never-Never-Land.

There is nothing scripturally wrong with begrudging false teachers. Paul certainly begrudged those who would teach and follow a different gospel and went so far to anathematize them just as we Catholics do to all Protestant teachers.

*Galatians 1:9 As we have said before, and now I say again, if anyone preaches to you a gospel other than the one that you received, let that one be accursed! *

Can we get back to the OP now?

If you want to continue with the pithy-judgements and demonizations against me then go start a new flame thread or send me private PM.

James

 

[Peter_J]

I have not “come out” as you suggest.

Not that there’s anything wrong with that. (cf. Jerry Seinfeld)

 

[SpiritMeadow]

No, sigh, it’s clear you are still not done with judging me yet. Oh dear. I am now adding your more recent judgement to my rap sheet: contemptuous, narrow-minded, begrudging, trashing.

Sigh, I think that is 11 personal charges and verdicts you have now made against me in the last 2 days in this one OP. Yet you say
“[SpiritMeadow]: I have never meant to vilify you as you seem to think”.

Yet at the same time you complain:

“[SpiritMeadow]:Since you don’t know me really at all, I’m surprised you would speculate about my choice of tradition.”

Suffer me please to object to “Your Honor” that you certainly seemed familiar enough with me to make at least 11 verdicts and ad-homonyms. Are you signaling an admission of a mistrial and a desire to suit for peace in exchange for not reporting you to the BAR? If you’re not, can an accused in your court without prejudicing his own ongoing case or a future appeal submit the obvious In flagrante delicto that her honor has a double standard and move for mistrial, Your Honor?

Pardon my for sounding a tad bit sarcastic but viz *“I have never meant to vilify you as you seem to think” *I’d really hate to see what you could do with a gavel in a locked room of orthodox Catholics if you had to put your mind deliberately into your labor. Ugh, it would not be pretty…

Just for fun I’d like to invite you to go back and count the number of personal charges I have made against you. Please extend me the benefit of the doubt about me labeling you “liberal”. Afterall it’s ‘ambiguous to the beholding ear’ as is ‘beauty to the eye of the beholder’’ (e.g. derogatory or not) and see if that number is more than just that one?

After that I’d like to also invite you to apply your sola-scriptura private interpretation on the following verse below and just mediate on what it means to you (but not make an infallable judgement on it). We are already at risk of hijacking this OP with all the personal attention you are giving me. And on that point please remember too that you are a married woman and it might be more appropriate to give this much attention to your spouse and do the critical dance with him rather than me. I am really feeling like I am monopolizing “all the love” in here that should rightfully be his - to suffer.

*James 4:11
Do not speak evil of one another, brothers. Whoever speaks evil of a brother or judges his brother speaks evil of the law and judges the law. If you judge the law, you are not a doer of the law but a judge. *

USCCB for James 4:11: Slander of a fellow Christian does not break just one commandment but makes mockery of the authority of law in general and therefore of God

It’s not begrudgement SM - its our duty to save the lame from walking off the steeper bit of the same cliff that already busted them up and damaged their intellect. I made no such admission about ineffective method as you assert. I consider it effective to keep you people busy answering the mail so you are off the streets and not teaching your rubbish to the innocent. If anything is begrudged it is the falsity of the imported beliefs – not the ignorance of the person so mislead. I only begrudge at a personal level when the blind are so blind that they try to teach the blind how to perfect the darkness or when such invite those who can still see dimly to close their eyes all the way and follow them to the Land of Nod or else to the fantasy of Never-Never-Land.

There is nothing scripturally wrong with begrudging false teachers. Paul certainly begrudged those who would teach and follow a different gospel and went so far to anathematize them just as we Catholics do to all Protestant teachers.

*Galatians 1:9 As we have said before, and now I say again, if anyone preaches to you a gospel other than the one that you received, let that one be accursed! *

Can we get back to the OP now?

If you want to continue with the pithy-judgements and demonizations against me then go start a new flame thread or send me private PM.

James

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. I’m done wasting my time. I guess the plank is so large we both are incapable of even beginnning to see that we charge the other with exactly what we do.

 

[OneTrueCathApos]

Great posts here, finally, more than one has put someone in their place.