Those four Bishops are in communion with the Holy See. It does not necessarly mean that the whole SSPX organization is.With Benedict XVI lifting the excummunication of the four bishops of the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X, does this mean that they are now in communion with the Holy See? Can you attend mass and receive the sacraments in these churches?
Not necessarily - the Orthodox didn’t come into full communion with Rome merely because we lifted the excommunications on them (as they did their excommunications on us, of course).Those four Bishops are in communion with the Holy See. It does not necessarly mean that the whole SSPX organization is.
Canon 844:I didn’t realize they were still suspended from office.
I thought we could receive sacraments in an Orthodox Church, but the Orthodox did not receive them from us. Basically, I thought that we lightened up more on them than they did on us.
Ah, but there’s more! In fairness I should explain to you the difference between valid and licit.Thank you very much for that. I never realized that. I guess a person can really learn a lot from this site!
Thanks again.
Spiritual advantage is a vague term, of course, but it certainly contradicts the “alone” portion of LilyM’s citation of the Canon.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.
I’m not sure what you mean about it being something to be believed. It’s an ecclesial censure, not a statement of belief. Lifting the excommunication means that these Bishops are no longer under that particular penalty, though other penalties may apply to them.What exactly does lifting an excommunication mean? I thought that excommunication was something to be believed. Evidently one can believe it or not?
Look at the surrounding context - ‘necessity’, ‘provided that danger of error or indifferentism (also vague terms) is avoided’, ‘physically or morally impossible’, ‘danger of death’.LilyM didn’t quote the full Canon. It actually says much more than she suggested, and it allows for reception from Orthodox (and other) ministers.
Spiritual advantage is a vague term, of course, but it certainly contradicts the “alone” portion of LilyM’s citation of the Canon.
Peace and God bless!
This I think is addressed by this canon law:Neither can we attend Orthodox liturgy or (I think) receive Sacraments from them when valid Catholic liturgies and sacraments are available.
I have to admit though this canon law takes on a “If A then B if C” type of ambiguity here.“Can. 844 §2 Whenever necessity requires or a **genuine spiritual advantage commends **it, and provided the danger of error or indifferentism is avoided, Christ’s faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a catholic minister, may **lawfully receive **the sacraments of penance, the Eucharist and anointing of the sick **from non catholic ministers **in whose Churches these sacraments are valid.”
It includes “or genuine spiritual advantage” clause as well, which leaves it very broad. It is not as strict a prohibition as you make it sound. It is not merely about necessity, or else it wouldn’t say “or spiritual advantage”.Look at the surrounding context - ‘necessity’, ‘provided that danger of error or indifferentism (also vague terms) is avoided’, ‘physically or morally impossible’, ‘danger of death’.
All this suggests that the threshold one must pass to fit into a situation that would make it OK to receive from other than Catholic ministers is very high, no?
There is also the very broad “physically or morally impossible” phrase which could mean if you have a very scrupulous conscience you “can’t” go to a particular church. Certainly we all know people who travel lots of miles to attend a more “reverent” or familiarly-vernaculared Mass.It includes “or genuine spiritual advantage” clause as well, which leaves it very broad. It is not as strict a prohibition as you make it sound. It is not merely about necessity, or else it wouldn’t say “or spiritual advantage”.
Peace and God bless!