What, precisely, has been immorally commanded?

[GerardP]

Canon Law, Ad Apostolorum Principis, and official correspondence with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

Ah yes and all of those things are infallibly guaranteed. Right?

What was his claim to disobey? His own (mis) application of St. Thomas Aquinas. That’s much spongier ground than the claim to obey.

Okay. You’ve made an assertion. Now back it up. You vs. Marcel LeFebvre. Tell me exactly where and how he got St. Thomas wrong.

And thank you for finally explaining where this is really coming from - a rather hare-brained conspiracy theory that John Paul II was (secretly) out to destroy all traditions of the Church, BWA-HAHAHAAAAAAA.

Where did I say any of that? You are inventing things.

This is where you set yourself apart from most traditionalists. Most traditionalists don’t believe that John Paul II was secretly trying to destroy the Church.

I don’t believe he was secretly out to destroy the Church. He was very publicly out to remove tradition from the Church.

Do you actually read?

But then, why should I be surprised with all this coming from the guy who doesn’t believe in baptism of desire even though it’s been the teaching of the Church for hundreds of years and is affirmed by the SSPX, and even the sedevacantist SSPV.

BOD and BOB are not revealed truths. They are speculative. I don’t hold anyone culpable for believing in it, unless a clear statement from the Magisterium either approves it or condemns it.

So, somehow you concoct a “necessity” to deny what the Church has taught for centuries, I guess I really shouldn’t be surprised when you can find a “necessity” for some guy to consecrate some bishops.

Yes. I “concocted” the crisis in the Church. Cardinal Ratzinger didn’t want to say the various things he said before becoming Pope, but I’m very powerful and influential. I coerced him to join my conspiracy. Get real.

 

[Sure]

Ah yes and all of those things are infallibly guaranteed. Right?

No, but they are generally more authoritative than anonymous internet posters, so I usually put more stock in them.

Okay. You’ve made an assertion. Now back it up. You vs. Marcel LeFebvre. Tell me exactly where and how he got St. Thomas wrong.

It’s not me vs Marcel Lefebvre. It’s Marcel Lefebvre vs. Canon Law, A Pope and A Pontifical Council. He said he was justified by a necessity. The other side said the necessity didn’t exist. I don’t believe Lefebvre, I think he was wrong. The standing (and specific) order not to consecrate bishops without a papal mandate is a good one and not immoral. He got St. Thomas wrong because he was not being asked to do anything immoral.

I don’t believe he was secretly out to destroy the Church. He was very publicly out to remove tradition from the Church.

That is a paranoid statement. Of course, John Paul II was not trying to erase tradition. Why would he write Ecclesia Dei and found teh Ecclesia Dei Commission?

Do you actually read?

Try to keep the level of discourse at an adult level.

BOD and BOB are not revealed truths. They are speculative. I don’t hold anyone culpable for believing in it, unless a clear statement from the Magisterium either approves it or condemns it.

I’d say statements in the Catechism are pretty clear.

 

[SFD]

What has been immorally commanded (or allowed)?

The reception of the Eucharist by non-Catholics.

1983 CIC 844:

§4 If there is a danger of death or if, in the judgement of the diocesan Bishop or of the Episcopal Conference, there is some other grave and pressing need, catholic ministers may lawfully administer these same sacraments to other christians not in full communion with the catholic Church, who cannot approach a minister of their own community and who spontaneously ask for them, provided that they demonstrate the catholic faith in respect of these sacraments and are properly disposed.

§5 In respect of the cases dealt with in §§2, 3 and 4, the diocesan Bishop or the Episcopal Conference is not to issue general norms except after consultation with the competent authority, at least at the local level, of the non catholic Church or community concerned.

Communicatio in sacris, i.e. active participation in non-Catholic religious functions, is on the whole unlawful, but it is not so intrinsically evil that, under given circumstances, it may not be excused. Thus friends and relatives may for good reasons accompany a funeral, be present at a marriage or a baptism, without causing scandal or lending support, to the non-Catholic rites, provided no active part be taken in them: their motive is friendship, or maybe courtesy, but it nowise implies approval of the rites. Non-Catholics are admitted to all Catholic services but not to the sacraments.

SFD

 

[bobzills]

What has been immorally commanded (or allowed)?

The reception of the Eucharist by non-Catholics.

1983 CIC 844:

You have quoted the Catholic Encyclopedia. If you mean the online Catholic Encyclopedia, then I guess that it is not up to date on the latest regulations which allow Eastern Orthodox to receive Holy Communion in a Roman Catholic Church.
I think that even before Vatican II, it was allowed for Roman Catholics to receive holy Communion in an Eastern Orthodox Church in case of emergency, for example, if the individual were restrited to Russia for a long period of time and did not have access to a Roman Catholic Church. Of course, this would have to be with the permission of the Russian Orthodox priest, who might not give his permission for this.
Concerning schism, and reception of Sacraments in a schismatic Church, consider the fact that as far as I know, the SSPX will accept any Catholic from the post-Vatican II Church and no conversion ceremony is required for this, even though the Vatican seems to say that the SSPX is in an irregular or semi-schismatic, or even a schismatic situation, depending on who you believe.

 

[SFD]

You have quoted the Catholic Encyclopedia. If you mean the online Catholic Encyclopedia, then I guess that it is not up to date on the latest regulations which allow Eastern Orthodox to receive Holy Communion in a Roman Catholic Church.
I think that even before Vatican II, it was allowed for Roman Catholics to receive holy Communion in an Eastern Orthodox Church in case of emergency, for example, if the individual were restrited to Russia for a long period of time and did not have access to a Roman Catholic Church. Of course, this would have to be with the permission of the Russian Orthodox priest, who might not give his permission for this.
Concerning schism, and reception of Sacraments in a schismatic Church, consider the fact that as far as I know, the SSPX will accept any Catholic from the post-Vatican II Church and no conversion ceremony is required for this, even though the Vatican seems to say that the SSPX is in an irregular or semi-schismatic, or even a schismatic situation, depending on who you believe.

We are speaking here of a non-Catholic being admitted to the Catholic Sacraments. Not a Catholic in emergency recieving a valid sacrament from a heretic or schismatic…which has always been allowed.

SFD

 

[bobzills]

We are speaking here of a non-Catholic being admitted to the Catholic Sacraments.

The current rule, as far as I know, is that Eastern Orthodox are allowed, according to the Catholic side, to receive the Roman Catholic Holy Communion, provided that they are properly disposed. However, according to the Orthodox side, generally, as far as I know, the Orthodox do not approve of having their faithful to receive the Roman Catholic Sacraments.

 

[GerardP]

No, but they are generally more authoritative than anonymous internet posters, so I usually put more stock in them.

That seems to be your problem. You don’t want to reason through an issue, you want to adhere to the position that “appears” to be the least problematic.

It’s not me vs Marcel Lefebvre. It’s Marcel Lefebvre vs. Canon Law, A Pope and A Pontifical Council.

No. You said LeFebvre misinterpreted St. Thomas.

He said he was justified by a necessity. The other side said the necessity didn’t exist. I don’t believe Lefebvre, I think he was wrong.

Well since LeFebvre knew the situation in the world better than you, and better than JPII. LeFebvre travelled the world over many times when JPII was stuck in Poland. And LeFebvre as head of missions in his care, he was much closer to the people than the circuses that JPII caused by his arrival, with those facts known, I’d say that LeFebvre was right.

The standing (and specific) order not to consecrate bishops without a papal mandate is a good one and not immoral.

Of course. Under normal circumstances. But since JPII refused to take action against the destruction of the Church. Since he elevated heretical men to the positions of Cardinals. Since he took no effective action to defend Our Lord in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and a thousand other failures, his command against LeFebvre after years of good faith negotiating with LeFebvre demonstrated that JPII was not going to champion faithful traditionalists.

He got St. Thomas wrong because he was not being asked to do anything immoral.

Sure he was. JPII’s persecution of LeFebvre and his permissiveness towards liberals was immoral. Had JPII been on the ball and shown that he was in charge, and as hard or harder on liberals who resisted him, LeFebvre would have had no cause nor reason to disobey and the crisis would not have been so extreme.

That is a paranoid statement. Of course, John Paul II was not trying to erase tradition.

Sure he was. It’s not paranoid to state it. It’s a simple fact.
He loved novelty and innovation. He even refused to use Latin correctly. He wanted to reshape the papacy according to non-Catholics specifications so they would accept him (see Ut Unum Sint)

His lack of discipline concerning liberals and innovations. His abominable ecumenical overtures and events were proof that he was a liberal.

Why would he write Ecclesia Dei and found teh Ecclesia Dei Commission?

To siphon away people from the SSPX. That’s was the original purpose of the FSSP. When it started to flourish on its own however and it didn’t weaken the SSPX, Protocol 1411 and other measures were taken to slow the growth of the FSSP.

Try to keep the level of discourse at an adult level.

Let’s see what you wrote:

And thank you for finally explaining where this is really coming from - a rather hare-brained conspiracy theory that John Paul II was (secretly) out to destroy all traditions of the Church, BWA-HAHAHAAAAAAA.

You write things that aren’t true. You harass. You badger. You taunt. What you don’t do is write like a Catholic. You don’t write with thoughtfulness. You don’t act reasonably nor charitably.

So, if you want to keep the level of discourse at the adult level, I suggest you not post until you have something worthy of an adult to post.

I’d say statements in the Catechism are pretty clear.

Sez you. There are objectively plenty of places that are unclear.

 

[ac_claire]

However, according to the Orthodox side, generally, as far as I know, the Orthodox do not approve of having their faithful to receive the Roman Catholic Sacraments.

My understanding (mostly what I’ve read on on the EC and N-CR forums here) is that *in practice *this is allowed or forbidden on an Orthodox bishop-by-bishop basis.

 

[bear06]

I seriously doubt you read it.

As in I’m lying to you?!!! Methinks you have a little difficulty with someone who has read it and still has problems with it. Is it really out of your realm of belief that someone could have read it and yet still disagree with it? Sorry. There’s more than a few who have.

And Andreas should not pretend to be able to pass judgment on something when he purposely avoids reading all sides of the issue.

I’m sure he’s read all sides of the issue but not every piece that’s ever been written on all sides of the issue. Have you? No.

I usually click on them. I don’t remember seeing a critique of Davies’ Apologia.

Look again.

Still, goofy as he was, he didn’t do the damage to the Church that JPII and Paul VI did.

Prove that. The Church was in quite a bit of upheavel around that time. I’d say it was a tad bit crazier than now. One pope does something. Another overturns it. Still yet another one reverses the ruling. Yeah, times were good.

Only once and you want me to stop? Do you know how many times I have to read the slogan slingers that somehow think that the more titles they attach to the Pope, the more they think they can win the argument?

And I’ve read people who didn’t think we had a pope. So?

I am never and have never been an enemy of the papacy.

And I’m not either. You’re just getting dramatic.

That would be like someone claiming Pope Stephen was a repulsive character and it be interesting that someone didn’t look aghast at that.

It’s amazing that you still are comparing Pope Stephen to John Paul II or any of the past few popes.

 

[GerardP]

As in I’m lying to you?!!! Methinks you have a little difficulty with someone who has read it and still has problems with it. Is it really out of your realm of belief that someone could have read it and yet still disagree with it? Sorry. There’s more than a few who have.

Hey, you said you read all three volumes. You didn’t give a single detail, point out a problematic chapter or find anything that indicated that you have any working knowledge of the books.

I’m sure he’s read all sides of the issue but not every piece that’s ever been written on all sides of the issue. Have you? No.

Well, I’m not sure that he’s read all sides. Otherwise he wouldn’t be asking questions like the ones he’s asked. I haven’t read every opposing viewpoint, but I have read many and I give each one a fair shot. Sede or conservative. They usually make the same error.

Look again.

I did. I still don’t see any critique of the Apologia.

Prove that. The Church was in quite a bit of upheavel around that time. I’d say it was a tad bit crazier than now. One pope does something. Another overturns it. Still yet another one reverses the ruling. Yeah, times were good.

Stephen didn’t engage in scandals like Assisi where the Pope is publicly endorsing Indifferentism by his actions. And the Pope broke the First Commandment for the whole world to see. “I am the Lord thy God. Thou shalt not have strange gods before Me.”

That strange god was called “unity”.

And I’ve read people who didn’t think we had a pope. So?

I just think it’s funny how you guys demand that I change my behavior when I imitate your own behavior.

And I’m not either. You’re just getting dramatic.

No. I just get ticked off when you lie about me. I’ve never called you an enemy of the papacy when I could actually build a good case that you are.

It’s amazing that you still are comparing Pope Stephen to John Paul II or any of the past few popes.

Well, it usually shuts up the crowd that thinks the Pope is positively selected by the Holy Ghost/ Spirit and that when the Pope speaks on any subject he is speaking with the voice of God as if it is the same situation in which the prophet Isaiah spoke or even St. Peter himself.

 

[johnnydigit]

sorry to skip to page 11, but i assume the OP hasn’t been answered objectively?

i would love to be called traditional, but certainly not in the negative context of many of these extremists…

 

[SFD]

The current rule, as far as I know, is that Eastern Orthodox are allowed, according to the Catholic side, to receive the Roman Catholic Holy Communion, provided that they are properly disposed. However, according to the Orthodox side, generally, as far as I know, the Orthodox do not approve of having their faithful to receive the Roman Catholic Sacraments.

How can this be? How can they be “properly disposed” when they are, by adhering pubically to a schismatic and heretical church, outside the communion with Catholics?

Anyway, the 1983 code allows for the possibility of a non-Catholic of any variety to receive Catholic Sacraments … which is contrary to Divine Law.

SFD

 

[stmaria]

How can this be? How can they be “properly disposed” when they are, by adhering pubically to a schismatic and heretical church, outside the communion with Catholics?

Anyway, the 1983 code allows for the** possibility of a non-Catholic of any variety to receive Catholic Sacraments **… which is contrary to Divine Law.

SFD

A non-catholic of any variety would be President Bill Clinton who received communion in 1998 in a Catholic church in Africa with the approval of the local Bishop. What is Bill Clinton? Baptist? Methodist?

 

[bobzills]

How can this be? How can they be “properly disposed” when they are, by adhering pubically to a schismatic and heretical church, outside the communion with Catholics?

Anyway, the 1983 code allows for the possibility of a non-Catholic of any variety to receive Catholic Sacraments … which is contrary to Divine Law.

SFD

I thought it was allowed for those of the Eastern Orthodox Churches and a very few others, such as the Polish National Chuirch, which are thought of as mostly schismatic. It is true that there are serious differences between RC and EO, but from the Catholic side, I think that it is thought by many theologians that these differences can be ironed out to a mutually satisfactory decision, assuiming good will between both sides.
I didn’t know about any RC document which allows others such as Protestants to receive the Holy Communion? Would it be possible for you to provide a reference for that?

 

[cam100]

I didn’t know about any RC document which allows others such as Protestants to receive the Holy Communion? Would it be possible for you to provide a reference for that?

They are most likely basing this idea on a mis-interpretation of Canon 844 of the Code of Canon Law. Section #4 of this canon says :

§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.

A careful reading of this shows that it is NOT an open invitiation to protestants to recieve communion, and cases such as Bill Clinton are in violation of this canon. To be permitted by this canon, the non-Catholic recipient must, among other things:

• be in danger of death or a similar emergency
• be a Christian
• manifest Catholic faith in respect to these sacraments
• be properly disposed

Now, no protestant church teaches a “Catholic faith in respect to” the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist i.e., the True Presence in the sense that Cathlics acknowledge. So any “protestant” who has such faith is not really holding to the protestant belief.

Also, the recipient must be “properly disposed”. Check the catechism for the proper disposition for the reception of Holy Communion. Few protestants would qualify.

Thus the exception made by section #4 of this canon would apply only to a few unusual cases such as a deathbed conversion in which the recipient doesn’t have time to go through the normal process of initiation into the Catholic Church, but already holds a “Catholic faith” with respect to the Holy Eucharist, and is in a state of grace (properly disposed).

Any attempts to make this appear to be an open invitiation to protestants to receive communion are dishonest.

 

[I_Believe]

How’s the inqusition going ?

… has anyone recanted yet ?

 

[stmaria]

They are most likely basing this idea on a mis-interpretation of Canon 844 of the Code of Canon Law.

Canon 844 - §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.
Canon 844 - §4: If there is a danger of death or if, in the judgment of the diocesan Bishop or of the Episcopal Conference, there is some other grave and pressing need, Catholic ministers may lawfully administer these same sacraments to other Christians not in full communion with the Catholic Church, who cannot approach a minister of their own community and who spontaneously ask for them, provided they demonstrate the Catholic Faith in respect of these sacraments and are properly disposed."

A careful reading of this shows that it is NOT an open invitiation to protestants to recieve communion, and cases such as Bill Clinton are in violation of this canon. To be permitted by this canon, the non-Catholic recipient must, among other things:

• be in danger of death or a similar emergency
• be a Christian
• manifest Catholic faith in respect to these sacraments
• be properly disposed

Any attempts to make this appear to be an open invitiation to protestants to receive communion are dishonest.

Pope Paul VI allowed protestant Barabara Olsen to receive communion at her wedding. Cardinal Ratzinger gave communion to life long friend and Protestant Roger Schultz at the funeral of Pope John Paul II. Bill CLinton received communion in 1998. There have been ecumenical gatherings where non Catholics were allowed to receive communion.
In the front of the missal for the OF it says, " Because Catholics believe that the celebration of the Eucharist is a sign of 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."

I don’t think it is a mis-interpretation. There are circumstances where those"not fully united" and “other Christians” can receive communion. Bill Clinton was not in danger of death but the local bishop approved it. When White House press secretary Mike Mccuray was asked about the President receiving communon he said, " My understanding when we were there, as I indicated on Friday, I think – Thursday last week – was that our team on the ground indicated that the conference of bishops in South Africa had a more ecumenical view of the holy eucharist and had advised members of the traveling party it was appropriate for baptized Christians to share in communion. And the President acted on that guidance. "

Times have changed.
The 1917 Code of Canon Law :
“It is forbidden to administer the Sacraments of the Church to heretics or schismatics, even though they err in good faith and ask for them, unless they have first renounced their errors and been reconciled with the Church.”

 

[cam100]

Pope Paul VI allowed protestant Barabara Olsen to receive communion at her wedding. Cardinal Ratzinger gave communion to life long friend and Protestant Roger Schultz at the funeral of Pope John Paul II. Bill CLinton received communion in 1998.

Do you actually have the details on thse events, including the reasons why the people in question were given communion? I do know that Roger Schultz claimed to have converted to Catholicism. If you have more info on these, you probably should start a new thread with it, since we’re getting off topic with this.

 

[Jo_Benedict]

Note:

This thread is closed. Thanks to all who participated in the discussion.