R
Rawb
Guest
Ok.
- Status
D
Dranu
Guest
So you agree the examples show the definition is not vacuous? If not, why not?
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
B
Brendan_McCabe
Guest
I would just like to add that most ignorance is not invincible ignorance but rather what is called culpable ignorance.
Culpable ignorance is when you are ignorant of something through your own fault.
"Nothing but sin deserves punishment. But ignorance deserves punishment, according to 1 Corinthians 14:38: “If any man know not, he shall not be known.” Therefore ignorance is a sin…
Now it is evident that whoever neglects to have or do what he ought to have or do, commits a sin of omission. Wherefore through negligence, ignorance of what one is bound to know, is a sin; whereas it is not imputed as a sin to man, if he fails to know what he is unable to know. Consequently ignorance of such like things is called “invincible,” because it cannot be overcome by study. For this reason such like ignorance, not being voluntary, since it is not in our power to be rid of it, is not a sin: wherefore it is evident that no invincible ignorance is a sin. On the other hand, vincible ignorance is a sin, if it be about matters one is bound to know; but not, if it be about things one is not bound to know…"
newadvent.org/summa/2076.htm
Culpable ignorance is when you are ignorant of something through your own fault.
"Nothing but sin deserves punishment. But ignorance deserves punishment, according to 1 Corinthians 14:38: “If any man know not, he shall not be known.” Therefore ignorance is a sin…
Now it is evident that whoever neglects to have or do what he ought to have or do, commits a sin of omission. Wherefore through negligence, ignorance of what one is bound to know, is a sin; whereas it is not imputed as a sin to man, if he fails to know what he is unable to know. Consequently ignorance of such like things is called “invincible,” because it cannot be overcome by study. For this reason such like ignorance, not being voluntary, since it is not in our power to be rid of it, is not a sin: wherefore it is evident that no invincible ignorance is a sin. On the other hand, vincible ignorance is a sin, if it be about matters one is bound to know; but not, if it be about things one is not bound to know…"
newadvent.org/summa/2076.htm
R
Rawb
Guest
No, I just don’t see any further value to the discussion. Neither of us agrees and aren’t going to, and honestly, even if we got the other to agree with us it wouldn’t change anything
I still don’t see a difference. You do. Ok.
H
Hesychios
Guest
Finally, a position that makes sense.
S
steve_b
Guest
If you are still around, It’s a good question. Many ask it or at least they’re thinking about it.
there is alot of ecumenical-speak that IMO gums up the works. In an attempt to reach out, without clear explanations, many people are left confused and scratching their heads.
As I understand it, EO can receive the Eucharist in a Catholic Church if they don’t have that capability with their own Church for a good reason. Maybe it’s distance, or mabe the death of their priest, etc etc. It doesn’t equal open communion.
H
Hesychios
Guest
Hello Steve,
Because Catholics believe that the celebration of the Eucharist is a sign of the reality of the oneness of faith, life, and worship, members of those churches with whom we are not yet fully united are ordinarily not admitted to Holy Communion. Eucharistic sharing in exceptional circumstances by other Christians requires permission according to the directives of the diocesan bishop and the provisions of canon law (canon 844 § 4). **Members of the Orthodox Churches, the Assyrian Church of the East, and the Polish National Catholic Church are urged to respect the discipline of their own Churches. According to Roman Catholic discipline, the Code of Canon Law does not object to the reception of communion by Christians of these Churches (canon 844 § 3). **
Canon 844 says the following …
§3 Catholic ministers may lawfully administer the sacraments of penance, the Eucharist and anointing of the sick to members of the eastern Churches not in full communion with the catholic Church, if they spontaneously ask for them and are properly disposed. The same applies to members of other Churches which the Apostolic See judges to be in the same position as the aforesaid eastern Churches so far as the sacraments are concerned.
This does not really explain the justification for allowing Orthodox to partake, but it clearly states that they may do so. There are no conditions mentioned here, however the USCCB further states (above) that the individuals interested " … are urged to respect the discipline of their own Churches." It does not state that they are required to respect the discipline of their own churches, the invitation appears to be an open one.
I find it interesting that the PNCC and the Orthodox churches both specifically reject the Papal dogmas of 1870AD, yet this exception is offered to them. Roman Catholics in otherwise good standing who deny the Papal dogmas are excommunicated latae sententiae and they are anathematized.
This following is (or should be) published in your church Missalette…
Because Catholics believe that the celebration of the Eucharist is a sign of the reality of the oneness of faith, life, and worship, members of those churches with whom we are not yet fully united are ordinarily not admitted to Holy Communion. Eucharistic sharing in exceptional circumstances by other Christians requires permission according to the directives of the diocesan bishop and the provisions of canon law (canon 844 § 4). **Members of the Orthodox Churches, the Assyrian Church of the East, and the Polish National Catholic Church are urged to respect the discipline of their own Churches. According to Roman Catholic discipline, the Code of Canon Law does not object to the reception of communion by Christians of these Churches (canon 844 § 3). **
Canon 844 says the following …
§3 Catholic ministers may lawfully administer the sacraments of penance, the Eucharist and anointing of the sick to members of the eastern Churches not in full communion with the catholic Church, if they spontaneously ask for them and are properly disposed. The same applies to members of other Churches which the Apostolic See judges to be in the same position as the aforesaid eastern Churches so far as the sacraments are concerned.
This does not really explain the justification for allowing Orthodox to partake, but it clearly states that they may do so. There are no conditions mentioned here, however the USCCB further states (above) that the individuals interested " … are urged to respect the discipline of their own Churches." It does not state that they are required to respect the discipline of their own churches, the invitation appears to be an open one.
I find it interesting that the PNCC and the Orthodox churches both specifically reject the Papal dogmas of 1870AD, yet this exception is offered to them. Roman Catholics in otherwise good standing who deny the Papal dogmas are excommunicated latae sententiae and they are anathematized.
V
Vico
Guest
The conditions are “if they spontaneously ask for them and are properly disposed”.
The reasoning is given by the Pontifical Council (1993):
vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/general-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_19930325_directory_en.html
Sharing in Sacramental Life, especially the Eucharist
a) Sharing in Sacramental Life with members of the various Eastern Churches
- Between the Catholic Church and the Eastern Churches not in full communion with it, there is still a very close communion in matters of faith.125 Moreover, “through the celebration of the Eucharist of the Lord in each of these Churches, the Church of God is built up and grows in stature” and “although separated from us, these Churches still possess true sacraments, above all—by apostolic succession—the priesthood and the Eucharist…”.126 This offers ecclesiological and sacramental grounds, according to the understanding of the Catholic Church, for allowing and even encouraging some sharing in liturgical worship, even of the Eucharist, with these Churches, “given suitable circumstances and the approval of church authorities”.127 It is recognized, however, that Eastern Churches, on the basis of their own ecclesiological understanding, may have more restrictive disciplines in this matter, which others should respect. Pastors should carefully instruct the faithful so that they will be clearly aware of the proper reasons for this kind of sharing in liturgical worship and of the variety of discipline which may exist in this connection.
125 Cf. UR, n. 14.
126 Ibidem, n. 15.
127 Ibidem.
21 November 1964 the Decree on Ecumenism Unitatis redintegratio (UR) is here:
vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19641121_unitatis-redintegratio_en.html
H
Hesychios
Guest
Interesting. I suppose the “being properly disposed” is a given. The ‘spontaneous’ is interesting condition. Do you suppose that means one cannot plan ahead to receive (or confess or whatever), but must experience a ‘spur of the moment’ emotional desire?
This rest of this is understandable to some extent, however it seems inconsistant with the standard excommunication Roman Catholics who would share an Orthodox understanding of the papal dogmas. To me that contradicts the assertion that “there is still a very close communion in matters of faith” between our churches. It is like letting the outsiders in, while kicking the insiders out … kind of odd. That’s why it looks like a political decision to me.
M
mardukm
Guest
I get the impression “spontaneous” does not mean “spur of the moment,” but rather “not forced.” I.e., it has to be a free choice.
You have to remember that according to Catholic teaching, a state of invincible ignorance means one is not culpable for lack of belief. The CC does not say that ALL non-Catholic apostolic Christians are in a state of invincible ignorance, only that such a condition is possible to exist.
You also have to understand that the Catholic Church believes much or all of the reasons that currently separate us are capable of resolution, and this without each side having to let go of its own dogmas. On that understanding, it is perfectly consistent that non-Catholics who CHOOSE to do so, and have no canonical impediment from their own ecclesial authorities, may indeed approach the Catholic Eucharist.
On the other hand, if you absolutely believe there is no hope for reconciliation, then the position of the Catholic Church might seem inconsistent.
Blessings,
Marduk
V
Vico
Guest
Except who is it that says there is not a close accord on matters of faith? It could be taken as a definition from the Catholic Church that therre is closeness.
To answer the question aboout “spontaneously” in Canon 844, the Latin is:
“…, si sponte id petant et rite sint disposita; …”
Which translates to: “if they seek such on their own accord and are properly disposed”.
F
fred_conty
Guest
Hi,
The question came up that if those in schism are in grave sin then how may the Catholic church allow them to receive its’ sacraments?
The Catholic church no longer believes them to be in grave sin today.
Pope John II stated this because this event took place many centuries ago and therefore the people of today are not guilty of scism. And if my memory serves me right, other Christians distant from the chruch are included in this.
The question came up that if those in schism are in grave sin then how may the Catholic church allow them to receive its’ sacraments?
The Catholic church no longer believes them to be in grave sin today.
Pope John II stated this because this event took place many centuries ago and therefore the people of today are not guilty of scism. And if my memory serves me right, other Christians distant from the chruch are included in this.
S
steve_b
Guest
This needs qualification. Once someone knows it’s the Catholic Church that is the Church Jesus started and expects ALL to be in, and one in His Church, and they refuse to enter her or remain in her, then that person is guilty of schism. This means there is no longer ignorance in the matter for that person. They know. And as we also know, feigned ignorance doesn’t qualify as ignorance.
**846 **How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body: Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.
D
dvdjs
Guest
- Status