S
Sean_O_L
Guest
I hope this helps.
- Status
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
Sean O L:
This flies in the face of most apologetics I have heard.
If a person is baptized, you say they are bound by Church Law, then every protestant is guilty of mortal sin by not attending Mass on Sundays and Holy Days.
So no baptized person who has not formally entered the Catholic Church and follows its Laws may enter Heaven.
So please explain CCC #818 and its reference to Unitatis Redintergratio, speciffically UR 3 § 1.
So you are saying that every baptized person is bound by the Laws of the Catholic Church.
This flies in the face of most apologetics I have heard.
If a person is baptized, you say they are bound by Church Law, then every protestant is guilty of mortal sin by not attending Mass on Sundays and Holy Days.
So no baptized person who has not formally entered the Catholic Church and follows its Laws may enter Heaven.
So please explain CCC #818 and its reference to Unitatis Redintergratio, speciffically UR 3 § 1.
T
tuopaolo
Guest
Being baptized places you under the direct jurisdiction of the Church. So the Church has the authority to legislate not only for Catholics but also for any baptized person. Today, the Church has chosen to apply her legislation to only Catholics, but she retains the authority to apply it to any of the baptized, an authority which she has exercised in the past.
C
credo_in_christ
Guest
if a marriage ceremony is preformed by a Baptist preacher is valid why wouldn’t an sspx priest be valid. Note that most or all sspx priesthood is a valid priesthood.
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
A marriage performed by a Baptist preacher for a Catholic couple (or where one of the couple is Catholic) that have not recieved a dispensation from form from their bishop is not valid. It would suffer from a defect of form.
B
benedictusoblat
Guest
The validity or invalidity of a sacrament is the purvue of legitimate authority. It is not a matter for opinion polls.
But another question arises. When two Catholics wish to marry and no priest is available (e.g., the situation of Japanese Catholics in the 300 year period from the death of the last priest among them until the reopening of Japan to the West in the 1800’s) is God pleased to bless their marriage Himself? Certainly so! Thus it was that miraculously a Japanese Catholic community survived three centuries of persecution without the ministrations of a priest. All they had was Baptism and Holy Matrimony and the Faith taught to them by the early missionaries. Quite a story.
But another question arises. When two Catholics wish to marry and no priest is available (e.g., the situation of Japanese Catholics in the 300 year period from the death of the last priest among them until the reopening of Japan to the West in the 1800’s) is God pleased to bless their marriage Himself? Certainly so! Thus it was that miraculously a Japanese Catholic community survived three centuries of persecution without the ministrations of a priest. All they had was Baptism and Holy Matrimony and the Faith taught to them by the early missionaries. Quite a story.
T
tuopaolo
Guest
Prescinding from the general principles of interpreting postive law, the Code of Canon Law explicitly provides for a couple to be able to marry without a priest should a priest be not available for a certain period of time … I forget the length of the period. So if you find yourself on a deserted island with a beautiful woman and you are both free to marry, you could marry without a priest.
B
benedictusoblat
Guest
Exactly.
S
Sean_O_L
Guest
tuopaolo wrote:
I hope that your prior post has satisfied ByzCath.
I do not have a real argument with him: there are just the matters of his claims that 1) there can not be a material schismatic, and 2) that CCC #818 proves that a child of a schismatic (and I emphasize that I have only applied what I have written to a child below the age of reason!) when baptized is “not [a member] of the Catholic Church and is not bound by its laws.”
ByzCatholic’s reliance on CCC #818 does NOT prove that point (and I again emphasize: THAT point.)
As to the matter of whether there CAN be a material schismatic, Dr. Ludwig Ott has this to say:
The above is offered purely to demonstrate that the Church has considered the matter of material schismatics.
That situation applied also in the Colonization of Australia where most of the convicts were Irish and there was but one priest (himself also a convict). Life had to go on, and it did, under the Merciful Eye of the Creator. By the way - there was not a priest present at the marriage of Adam and Eve either.
I hope that your prior post has satisfied ByzCath.
I do not have a real argument with him: there are just the matters of his claims that 1) there can not be a material schismatic, and 2) that CCC #818 proves that a child of a schismatic (and I emphasize that I have only applied what I have written to a child below the age of reason!) when baptized is “not [a member] of the Catholic Church and is not bound by its laws.”
ByzCatholic’s reliance on CCC #818 does NOT prove that point (and I again emphasize: THAT point.)
As to the matter of whether there CAN be a material schismatic, Dr. Ludwig Ott has this to say:
“Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma” by Dr. Ludwig Ott, Tan Books and Publishers, Fourth Edition, May 1960. p.311.
The above is offered purely to demonstrate that the Church has considered the matter of material schismatics.
S
Sean_O_L
Guest
ByzCath wrote:
Now, it stands to reason, I think, that NO infant is bound to bound to laws to which adults are bound - like making Holy the Sabbath Day in the manner that the Church prescribes, or fasting, receiving Communion at a specified time, etc.
While you are correct that an [infant child] does not comnmit a mortal sin by missing Mass on Sundays as they are not bound by THAT law" - this does NOT mean that the Church has no jurisdiction over Her Catholic Child from the time it reaches the age of reason.
Whether the then juvenile reaches that state - will it be evangelized to KNOW what the Church teaches and commands? It is reasonable to suppose it won’t. Grave Sin requires a knowledge of the nocivity and well as a positive intention to sin. It may well be THEN that the (now) juvenile incurs an Ecclesiastical penalty. But, these are other considerations.
From the moment of their Baptism? Yes!
No-body knows everything - that’s life.
But, you have jumped to an unfounded conclusion. What I have written applys specifically to the matter raised: [infant] children of schismatics! Thus, not if, but when the child of schismatics is Baptized, then…yes, certainly it is a) a Catholic, in virtue of the reception of a Catholic Sacrament, and b) under the jurisdiction of the Church Law.
Now, it stands to reason, I think, that NO infant is bound to bound to laws to which adults are bound - like making Holy the Sabbath Day in the manner that the Church prescribes, or fasting, receiving Communion at a specified time, etc.
Huh? You have jumped again from infants to a generalization. Furthermore, you certainly did not get that idea from me!
Actually, it is for YOU to explain the relevance of CCC #818 and UR 3 §1 to YOUR claim that a baptized child [infant] who is “baptized into the Catholic Church with baptism, [is] not [a] member of the Catholic Church and are not bound by its laws” - for there is absolutely nothing in these relevant to your claim.
While you are correct that an [infant child] does not comnmit a mortal sin by missing Mass on Sundays as they are not bound by THAT law" - this does NOT mean that the Church has no jurisdiction over Her Catholic Child from the time it reaches the age of reason.
Whether the then juvenile reaches that state - will it be evangelized to KNOW what the Church teaches and commands? It is reasonable to suppose it won’t. Grave Sin requires a knowledge of the nocivity and well as a positive intention to sin. It may well be THEN that the (now) juvenile incurs an Ecclesiastical penalty. But, these are other considerations.
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
Sean O L:
CCC #818 and UR 3 §1 say, “However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church.”
That is good enough for me. They are not guilty of schism.
I do not buy into the idea of “material” schism as opposed to “formal” schism.
I have supplied cites to Church Documents that seem to support what I am saying, I have yet to see anything to refutes my argument. When and if I see otherwise I will reexamine my view on this, until then, you are barking up the wrong tree.
I need to explain nothing.
CCC #818 and UR 3 §1 say, “However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church.”
That is good enough for me. They are not guilty of schism.
I do not buy into the idea of “material” schism as opposed to “formal” schism.
I have supplied cites to Church Documents that seem to support what I am saying, I have yet to see anything to refutes my argument. When and if I see otherwise I will reexamine my view on this, until then, you are barking up the wrong tree.
S
Sean_O_L
Guest
ByzCath wrote:
What you have supplied is evidence that “one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities” - which is perfectly true - and I have not in any way disputed this.
But, having been “born” and THEN reached the age of reason AND formally accepted the schismatic faith of their parents - THEN they DO become schismatic - but the GUILT od the schism is not as burdensome as was that of the originators of the schism.
However, as I have pointed out, what you originally said was:
Yet, I have provided you with evidence from the pre-Vatican II “Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma” that the term material schismatic IS a Catholic term. If one DOES accept such a term, then the opposing term must be “formal schismatic”.
That they “seem” to support what you are saying is not proof.
What you have supplied is evidence that “one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities” - which is perfectly true - and I have not in any way disputed this.
But, having been “born” and THEN reached the age of reason AND formally accepted the schismatic faith of their parents - THEN they DO become schismatic - but the GUILT od the schism is not as burdensome as was that of the originators of the schism.
However, as I have pointed out, what you originally said was:
Do you still hold to that claim? If not, then the debate is finished, I think.
K
kk1727
Guest
ByzCath:
You seem to be missing the point that Sean O L has been making. All the quote says that you have presented is that the Church does not charge those born into schism with the sin of separation. It does not go on to prove that these communities are not themselves schismatic. This is the distinction that has been brought up already between material and formal. To be seperated from the communion of the members of the Church is objectively to be a schismatic. The distinction between material and formal simply means to give terminology that affirms the objective reality but distinguishes between those who are morally culpable and those who are inculpable. Material schism = those who are separated from the Church but are not morally culpable. Formal schism = those who are morally culpable for being separated from the Church.
Why this seems to be a difficulty for you truly puzzles me. The teachings of Martin Luther are heretical. Those who follow his teachings thus corrupt the true faith with heresy, hence they are heretics. Theologians use the distinction of material and formal to provide for the case of those who are inculpable without ignoring that objectively these hold to views already condemned as heresy. The same use is provided in the distinction of material and formal schism.
Pax,
Keith
You seem to be missing the point that Sean O L has been making. All the quote says that you have presented is that the Church does not charge those born into schism with the sin of separation. It does not go on to prove that these communities are not themselves schismatic. This is the distinction that has been brought up already between material and formal. To be seperated from the communion of the members of the Church is objectively to be a schismatic. The distinction between material and formal simply means to give terminology that affirms the objective reality but distinguishes between those who are morally culpable and those who are inculpable. Material schism = those who are separated from the Church but are not morally culpable. Formal schism = those who are morally culpable for being separated from the Church.
Why this seems to be a difficulty for you truly puzzles me. The teachings of Martin Luther are heretical. Those who follow his teachings thus corrupt the true faith with heresy, hence they are heretics. Theologians use the distinction of material and formal to provide for the case of those who are inculpable without ignoring that objectively these hold to views already condemned as heresy. The same use is provided in the distinction of material and formal schism.
Pax,
Keith
M
m134e5
Guest
why do the same people who question the validity of SSPX marriages assume the validity of protestant marriages? The priest is not the minister of the Sacrament. The people getting married did not commit an act of schism themselves. Only clergy can do that- laity can adhere to schism, but does that mean that everyone who attends an SSPX chapel does? Some are very frustrated with how Novus Ordo parishes are run in their dioceses (the Masses may even be regularly invalidated), and cannot get to an indult Mass (if it’s even available) or Byzantine Divine Liturgy.
I’m still waiting for an answer to this question…I haven’t seen one yet- does that mean that people here really think that SSPX marriages are valid, but no one wants to admit it? It’s easy to assume the best for protestants- we know a lot of them, and they are easier to relate to, in a way.
Not everyone can just offer up the problems with the novus ordo parishes in their area. If they don’t want the local evangelical church to drag their kids away from the Faith, they have to go to a parish that has an active ministry and a good catechesis program- and most SSPX chapels do- if that’s the only place where the people actually have a backbone, and can talk about the tough stuff- by all means, go there!
I’m still waiting for an answer to this question…I haven’t seen one yet- does that mean that people here really think that SSPX marriages are valid, but no one wants to admit it? It’s easy to assume the best for protestants- we know a lot of them, and they are easier to relate to, in a way.
Not everyone can just offer up the problems with the novus ordo parishes in their area. If they don’t want the local evangelical church to drag their kids away from the Faith, they have to go to a parish that has an active ministry and a good catechesis program- and most SSPX chapels do- if that’s the only place where the people actually have a backbone, and can talk about the tough stuff- by all means, go there!
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
m134e5 said:
The answer to this question is that only Catholics, that is people who are formally part of the Catholic Church, are bound by the form of the marriage occuring within a Catholic Church and being presided over by a Catholic priest or, in the case of Latin Catholics, a deacon.
If protestants were married by the SSPX their marriage could be valid. This is the same when Catholics get married in a protestant church by a protestant minister, their married would suffer from a defect of form.
That is unless their bishop granted them a dispensation but a priest (deacon also in the case of Latin Catholics) would still be required.
This is the same as a catholic commits a mortal sin by missing Sunday and Holy Day Masses where a protestant is not guilty of such a sin.
T
tuopaolo
Guest
I’d like to make a correction to what I may have stated. There are actually still some ecclesiastical laws which are binding on non-Catholics. I don’t have examples ready that I know with certainty but I am reasonably sure that the ecclesiastical law requiring that men be 16 and women be 14 for the valid celebration of marriage is binding even on Catholics who have formally defected from the Church – which is not the case for the requirement of canonical form.
- Status