Sad Day For Catholic Apologetics

[una_fide]

Yeah, I was talking to the local priest here about going to Confession and (I haven't gone though RCIA yet) he said the only way I could get it was if I was going to get killed, or sent of to war, or something like that. Then he would recieve me into the Church right away (I assume he would still need the bishop's permission to Confirm me, even in this situation... could someone please tell me whether or not this is true?).

[Cure of Ars]

The situation kind of reminds me of Tertullian in the early Church.

[Guest JeffCR07]

I agree with the above post, but I would also like to give some thoughts of my own regarding the subject, however, I personally am still going to seek out people more knowledgable on the issue to further enlighten me:

The Argument:

how does one reconcile the two canons he refers to in his second premise:

Canon 732 §2, 1917 Code of Canon Law:
It is forbidden that the Sacraments of the Church be ministered to heretics and schismatics, even if they ask for them and are in good faith, unless beforehand, rejecting their errors, they are reconciled with the Church.

--with--

Canon 844 §§3-4, 1983 Code of Canon Law:

§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.

§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 that they demonstrate the Catholic faith in respect of these sacraments and are properly disposed.

My Thoughts:

I would like to address this question by dealing with the idea of Heretics and Schismatics:

[b]Heretics and Schismatics[/b] : It is commonly known that, in order for a person to be either a heretic or a schismatic, the individual must be a.) Fully formed, b.) Fully aware of the Church's teachings and reasonings, and c.) Must actively and openly deny the dogmatic teachings of the Church

Considering these things, it should be noted, interestingly, that an apologetic argument would be on much shakier ground if the 1983 laws spoke of giving the sacraments to "heretics" or "schismatics." However, this is not the case. Instead what we have is the giving of the sacraments to those who are not of the Catholic Faith, and, moreover, it is clear that this issue has been considered in depth by the Holy Father, due to the fact that he draws a discrepency between the two situations.

It is important to note that the 1917 Canon Law and the 1986 Canon Law are, in fact, addressing two different sets of people. The first is addressing heretics and schismatics. If anyone is truly fully formed and is in full understanding of the church's teachings, and yet denies, then they cannot receive the sacraments until they are reconciled with the Church. The 1986 Law is addressing a different situation, however. Most people raised in the Orthodox Churches, are, in all truth, not fully formed (many could argue that most catholics are not fully formed) and neither do they possess full understanding of the Church's teachings. Thus, while they are most certainly and indesputably in error with regards to their beliefs, they err as a child would err, not as Heretics or Schismatics. Thus, because they believe the sacraments to be precisely what Rome teaches them to be, they may receive them in communion with Rome, though they remain (through ignorance) not in Full Communion with Rome.

In the second case, it should be noted with reverence that the Holy Father has taken special care with this situation. First, he notes the absolute necessity of the grave nature of the situation. Much like general absolution, this is NOT to be a common practice. Moreover, he notes that the person must [i]demonstrate the Catholic faith in respect of these sacraments and [be] properly disposed.[/i] Keeping this in mind, the same argument used for the Orthodox reception of the sacrament should be used for the other Christian.

Basically, the two Canons can be reconciled with (relative) ease by summarizing the 1986 Canons as saying "Assuming the person is neither a heretic or schismatic in the true sense of the word, and the following strict parameters are met absolutely, the sacraments of penance, the Eucharist, and anointing of the sick may be administered to fellow Christians"



Hope that helps everyone to understand, and please, look to someone much smarter than I am to give you a much better answer than the one I have provided.

- Your Brother in Christ, Jeff

[Guest JeffCR07]

lol, when I say "the above post" in the first line, I'm referencing the post by 1337 k4th0l1x0r and the post by peach cube... I guess it took me too long to type that post, lol

[PedroX]

Dave,

He cannot have joined SSPX, as they acknowledge John Paul II as a legitimate Pope, they just choose to disobey. A fine line of distinction, but an important one.

peace...

[yiannii]

So let me get this straight; a Catholic Apologist has become a sedevacantist. What is a sedevacantist anyway?

[Apotheoun]

[quote]So let me get this straight; a Catholic Apologist has become a sedevacantist. What is a sedevacantist anyway?[/quote]

A Sedevacantist is a person who thinks that the Holy See is vacant, i.e., that there is no Pope at the present time.

[crusader1234]

JP2 is the bees knees

[Bruce S]

[quote]So let me get this straight; a Catholic Apologist has become a sedevacantist. What is a sedevacantist anyway?


A Sedevacantist is a person who thinks that the Holy See is vacant, i.e., that there is no Pope at the present time. [/quote]

I guess that makes me a Sedevacantist too. Grin.

Wow.

Amazing, we should petition the Catholic Church to change Protestant, to Sedevacantists, that way we could all be united again!



Funny, if you think about it, how some change over time.

Edited June 13, 2004 by Bruce S

[yiannii]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Jun 13 2004, 06:54 PM']
A Sedevacantist is a person who thinks that the Holy See is vacant, i.e., that there is no Pope at the present time. [/quote]
How can anyone justify that to themselves? If there was an election and JP2 won it therefore it's valid in my books. After all if you believe in the Holy See etc, then shouldn't you would have faith in the sucession of popes and the whole process.

[Quietfire]

[quote]A Sedevacantist is a person who thinks that the Holy See is vacant, i.e., that there is no Pope at the present time.[/quote]

And that being said, because they believe that the seat is vacant, anything coming from the Holy See is not followed by those who are Sedevacanists. They also do not follow anything stated before.


quote by Myrna. Catholic Answer-Apologetics- "would I be welcome here if..."
[quote]Sedevacantists are those who claim that that the "Conciliar popes", that is to say Pope John XXIII and his successors, were heretics and therefore forfeited the papacy. Although they do hold to the definition of the papacy as taught by the Catholic Church but openly Proclaim that Pope John Paul II is not Pope as they belief him to be a heretic and thus to have lost his seat as Pope . Thus they claim that we have no pope and that therefore the Holy See is vacant, sedes (seat) - vacante (vacant), which is why such people are referred to as "sedevacantists".[/quote]


Peace.

P.S. I would provide you all with the link but I honestly have no idea how to do that . If anyone knows how, could you please pm me and give me a free lesson.

Edited June 13, 2004 by Quietfire

[yiannii]

So then how do they explain some of the bad popes in history?

[crusader1234]

Bruce S you are crazy

[Quietfire]

Because Yiannii, to put it simply....human beings smell of elderberries. Get over it. Sorry if that is too harsh for some, but I think many people have this image that anyone elected as Pope should be a perfect as the Lamb himself, and it 'aint gonna happen'. ok? So unless someone here thinks they can do a better job of leading the 2 billion Catholics into some amazingly enlightening understandings, then just deal with the fact that no human, absolutely NO HUMAN is perfect.

Christ himself is fully human, YET fully devine. HUGE DIFFERENCE.

I posted this in the "nun" thread, but it applies here.



[quote]When a person decides to enter the priesthood or become a nun they usually site Christ as their reasoning.
Christ must have figured vastly in their decision to become priest or nun and in serving the flock. Just as one belongs to the Church based on the conviction that Christ wants him/her there.

So it seems strange to leave without relating your actions to Christ. With not so much as Peter's "to whom else shall we go?"

Even criticisms while still with the Church show failure to see Christ as the whole point.
To them so much of what goes on in the Church they find depressing, and lead them to think that the Church is and 'institutional church'.

Well, the institutional Israel, the Chosen People, as the Prophets show it, was even worse than the harshest critics think the CC. Yet it never occured to the holiest of the Jews to leave it.

An administration is necessary if the Church is to function, but Christ is the whole point of the functioning.

We are [b]not[/b] baptized into the heirarchy, do [b]not[/b] receive the cardinals sacrimentally, will [b]not[/b] spend eternity in the beatific vision of the pope.
To quote St. John Fisher:


QUOTE 
If the Pope will not reform the Curia,  God will."



and a couple of years later he laid his head on Henry VIII's block for papal supremacy, followed by Thomas More.

You can critisize the Pope, even think the Church is a pain in the neck. But nothing should permit one to consider leaving the Church(even if you wished the Pope would)
[u]In the Church,[/u] [b]even under the worst administration[/b], [u]you still can learn Christ's truth, receive his life in the sacraments, be in union with him to the limit of your willingness.[/u]

In awareness of Christ, I can know the Church as his Mystical Body.
[b]And we shouldnt make our judgements by the neck's sensitivity to pain![/b]

Peace all.






can I get an "Amen"[/quote]


and just so you know where I'm coming from...
I have not been received into the Church.
But I will still put my head on the block for papal supremecy.

Edited June 13, 2004 by Quietfire

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

This guy hasn't been Catholic for a while. I thought his schism was implied. I never liked Catholic Insight anyway. It's sad when people think they're more Catholic than the Pope.

Edited June 13, 2004 by thedude