Sad Day For Catholic Apologetics

[peach_cube]

I agree, He has not been catholic for a while.

Father John Loughan's site (wich was last updated June 4, 2003), has him and many others listed as schismatic. So it has been somewhat known for at least a year, maybe more.

[Dave]

[quote name='PedroX' date='Jun 13 2004, 02:07 AM'] 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.

[/quote]
I'm told there are individual SSPXers who don't consider our Holy Father to be legit.

[Hananiah]

[quote name='phatcatholic' date='Jun 12 2004, 09:58 PM'] hananiah,

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

[b]Canon 732 §2, 1917 Code of Canon Law:[/b]
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--

[b]Canon 844 §§3-4, 1983 Code of Canon Law:[/b]

§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.


this somewhat troubles me. your thoughts?

pax christi,
phatcatholic [/quote]
I wouldn't try to reconcile these two canons. They are clearly contradictory. However, I would argue that neither law is evil, and that it is simply a matter of prudential judgment on the part of the Church which course of action to take. For example, the Acts of the Apostles records that St. James forbade all Christians from eating meat with the blood still in itand also animals which had been strangled. The Church has long since abrogated this law. That doesn't make either decision evil.

[Apotheoun]

I agree with what Cardinal Newman said about accepting the authority of the Pope, for as he eloquently put it:

"[W]e must never murmur at that absolute rule which the Sovereign Pontiff has over us, because it is given to him by Christ, and, in obeying him, we are obeying his Lord. We must never suffer ourselves to doubt, that, in his government of the Church, he is guided by an intelligence more than human. His yoke is the yoke of Christ, he has the responsibility of his own acts, not we; and to his Lord must he render account, not to us. Even in secular matters it is ever safe to be on his side, dangerous to be on the side of his enemies. Our duty is,—not indeed to mix up Christ's Vicar with this or that party of men, because he in his high station is above all parties,—but to look at his formal deeds, and to follow him whither he goeth, and never to desert him, however we may be tried, but to defend him at all hazards, and against all comers, as a son would a father, and as a wife a husband, knowing that his cause is the cause of God. And so, as regards his successors, if we live to see them; it is our duty to give them in like manner our dutiful allegiance and our unfeigned service, and to follow them also whithersoever they go, having that same confidence that each in his turn and in his own day will do God's work and will, which we have felt in their predecessors, now taken away to their eternal reward." [John Cardinal Newman, [u]The Pope and the Revolution[/u], Sermon 15, section I, no. 1; preached on 7 October 1866, in the Church of the Oratory, Birmingham, England]

[Hananiah]

[quote name='BeenaBobba' date='Jun 12 2004, 10:45 PM'] What's with people like Robert Sungenis, Gerry Matatics, and now this guy becoming all Traditionalist and schismatic?

God bless,

Jen [/quote]
I wouldn't put Sungenis in the same catergory as Matatics, and still less would I put him in the same catergory as Mario Derksen. He believes that John Paul II is a legitimate Pope, that the SSPX is in schism, and that the documents of Vatican II are without error. I model my position on such issues after his.

[Apotheoun]

In my own case, I simply accept the teachings of the Papal and Episcopal Magisterium as a matter of faith, because I know that the Holy Spirit guides the Magisterium in its teachings, and this is true even in those things that are not infallibly defined. In addition, as far as it concerns the disciplinary directives and norms issued by the Apostolic See, I accept these decisions because as the First Vatican Council dogmatically defined: "Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power [i.e., of the Pope] by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world. In this way, by unity with the Roman Pontiff in communion and in profession of the same faith, the Church of Christ becomes one flock under one supreme shepherd. This is the teaching of the Catholic truth, and no one can depart from it without endangering his faith and salvation." [Vatican 1, Dogmatic Constitution [u]Pastor Aeternus[/u], chap. 3, nos. 2-4] Therefore, in all things pertaining to the doctrine of the faith, the establishment of good morals, and the government of the Church, I submit willingly to the authority of the Supreme Magisterium.

Edited June 14, 2004 by Apotheoun

[ironmonk]

Traditionalism hurts the Church... it leads to schism, then heresy. Those who attack VII are wrong to do so. They show little faith in the promises of Christ when they do. They, much like the pharisees are missing the point.

Sometimes a way seems right to a man, but in the end leads to death.

My focus on his argument was premise 2.

He fails to realize that there is no other chance of any other Church being the Church established by Christ. Therefore, if something seems off in the Canons, it is not the Canon's that are off, but our understanding of them. The Catholic Church is the wisest organization on earth and is guided by God. This premise 2 of his falls under discipline. He quotes nothing but Catholics and then claims that the Pope is not legit.

I know because of Christ's promise that the Church will not misguide us. Therefore, if I ever think it is, I will be wrong. The Church cannot be wrong, has this guy even talked to a priest or two about it?

Sad. Very Sad.


God Bless,
ironmonk

[peach_cube]

Apotheoun and Ironmonk,

Very well said, we are all very fortunate to see your examples of faith and love for Mother Church.

[ironmonk]

I sent him the following email.....


Dear Mario,

Proverbs 16:25 Sometimes a way seems right to a man, but in the end leads to death!

Do you realize that there is no other chance of any other Church being the Church established by Christ. Therefore, if something seems off in the Canons, it is not the Canon's that are off, but our understanding of them. The Catholic Church is the wisest organization on earth and is guided by God. Premise 2 falls under discipline. To receive or not receive is an act... this act, the Church has the power to bind and loose (St. Matt 16:19 I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."). Brother, this is one of those things that the Church has the power to change. The Church will always have Christ with her. The Church will always be guided by the Holy Spirit. Because Jesus said so. The Church made the rule, the Church can change the rule. What makes you think that it would harm souls? Remember; those who think that they are serving God the way God intended are Catholic by desire (Romans 2:15 They show that the demands of the law are written in their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even defend them). It is done for Love; Love is the greatest thing. Love is from God. Please, remember, we are not wiser than the Church that Christ left us.

I know because of Christ's promise that the Church will not misguide us. I know because of Christ's promise that Christ will always be with the Church. Therefore, if I ever think it is misguiding, I will be wrong. The Church cannot be wrong, have you talked to a priest or two about this?

Sometimes we all fall a little. The Church is the Church. The Pope is the Pope. Seek to understand, come to Christ as a Child... Remember sometimes a way seems right to a man, but in the end leads to death.

Stick to the Pillar and Foundation of Truth... the Church of the Living God.


God Bless, Love in Christ & Mary,
Max Brackett
www.MoralTruth.com
www.MaxBrackett.com

[Guest JeffCR07]

Hananiah and Apotheoun, you are two of the best apologists that I know, and you seem to be really grounded, not only in your fatih, but also in logical reason and the structure that your arguments take. Though I don't know much yet, I'm aspiring to become an apologist and professor of Theology later in life, and so I'm wondering if either or both of you could critique the argument I made on page 1 of this post. I take the stance that, unlike Hananiah argued, the two statements CAN be reconciled, based on his mistakenly labeling all Protestants and Orthodox as "heretics and schismatics". Anyways, I really respect your two opinions, and I'd love to know what you guys genuinely think. Thanks a ton!

- Your Brother in Christ, Jeff

[Hananiah]

Well, the distinction which you describe in your argument sounds to me like the distinction between formal and material heretics/schismatics. However, I believe that material heretics and schismatics are still heretics and schismatics. They just aren't culpable for that particular sin.

[cmotherofpirl]

Not an apologist, but I think your agrument makes perfect sense.

[dairygirl4u2c]

You could say it's a matter of discipline. I doubt anyone here knows what is and is not really infallible anyway. I suppose it depends on who you ask.

If I were you guys, I'd just say if it's not the not being infallible thing then it has to be development of doctrine.

There's always a way out if you want there to be.

[popestpiusx]

[quote name='BeenaBobba' date='Jun 12 2004, 11:45 PM'] What's with people like Robert Sungenis, Gerry Matatics, and now this guy becoming all Traditionalist and schismatic?

God bless,

Jen [/quote]
Neither Sungenis nor Matatics are Schismatic. I know Matatics. He is a member of a parish in Scranton run by the FSSP. Sungenis, as someone pointed out, belives the SSPX is in schism and accepts Vat. II. Before tossing slanderous lies around you may want to check your information.

[Apotheoun]

[quote]Though I don't know much yet, I'm aspiring to become an apologist and professor of Theology later in life, and so I'm wondering if either or both of you could critique the argument I made on page 1 of this post. I take the stance that, unlike Hananiah argued, the two statements CAN be reconciled, based on his mistakenly labeling all Protestants and Orthodox as "heretics and schismatics". Anyways, I really respect your two opinions, and I'd love to know what you guys genuinely think. Thanks a ton![/quote]

Jeff,
It should first be noted that by his supreme apostolic authority Pope John Paul II has abrogated the 1917 [u]Code of Canon Law[/u], and thus to judge matters of Church discipline from it is not legitimate. The power to abrogate the former code resides solely with the Apostolic See, because the Pope alone is the supreme legislator in all ecclesiastical matters. In saying this I am not criticizing you or your argument; instead, I'm merely pointing out a necessary fact that we should all bear in mind. This being said, in my estimation your argument is sound, because as you have shown in your post that the conditions for applying these two canons from the separate codes of canon law are not identical. Thus, your argument, in which you assert that there is a distinction being made between the two canons, in that the canon from the older code was applied to heretics and schismatics, while the canon from the newer code is not, is in my view an accurate appraisal of the situation.

Therefore, the distinction you make is valid, and no one who is either a heretic or schismatic can receive communion licitly from a Catholic priest. Two recent documents of the Magisterium, the Papal Encyclical [u]Ecclesia de Eucharistia[/u] and CDW Instruction [u]Redemptionis Sacramentorum[/u], clarify certain elements of canon 844 §§ 3-4, but in this brief essay I will focus only on § 4. The Instruction [u]Redemptionis Sacramentorum[/u] states that: "Catholic ministers licitly administer the Sacraments only to the Catholic faithful, who likewise receive them licitly only from Catholic ministers, except for those situations for which provision is made in canon 844 §§ 2, 3, and 4, and canon 861 § 2. [i]In addition, the conditions comprising canon 844 § 4, from which no dispensation can be given, cannot be separated; thus, it is necessary that all of these conditions be present together[/i]." [CDW Instruction [u]Redemptionis Sacramentorum[/u], no. 85] In other words, for a non-Catholic Christian to receive the Eucharist from a Catholic priest, all the conditions indicated in canon 844 § 4 must be met. Thus, to receive the sacrament licitly: (1) he must either be in danger of death, or some other grave condition must be present; (2) he must be incapable of approaching a minister of his own community; (3) he must ask for the sacrament of his own accord; (4) he must manifest the Catholic faith in respect to the sacrament, which I would add includes more than a mere confession of belief in [i]transubstantiation[/i], but which must also recognize that communion signifies a unity of faith and practice in the one Church governed by the Successor of St. Peter; and (5) he must have the proper disposition. If any one of these conditions is not present, it follows that he cannot be given holy communion by a Catholic priest. The likelihood that a non-Catholic Christian could or would even desire to fulfill all of these conditions is not high, but it is not impossible that by God's grace a man could assent fully to the Catholic faith in a grave situation, and thus meet all of the requisite conditions for reception. I know from my own experience, that when I was a Methodist, I could never have met all these conditions. But anything is possible with God. In addition, the Holy Father makes it quite clear that: "While it is never legitimate to concelebrate in the absence of full communion, the same is not true with respect to the administration of the Eucharist [i]under special circumstances[/i], [i]to individual persons[/i] belonging to Churches or Ecclesial Communities not in full communion with the Catholic Church. In this case, in fact, the intention is to meet a [i]grave[/i] spiritual need for the eternal salvation of an individual believer, [i]not to bring about an intercommunion which remains impossible until the visible bonds of ecclesial communion are fully re-established[/i]. . . . These conditions, [i]from which no dispensation can be given[/i], must be carefully respected, even though they deal with specific individual cases, [i]because the denial of one or more truths of the faith regarding these sacraments[/i] and, among these, the truth regarding the need of the ministerial priesthood for their validity, [i]renders the person asking improperly disposed to legitimately receiving them[/i]. And the opposite is also true: Catholics may not receive communion in those communities which lack a valid sacrament of Orders." [John Paul II, Encyclical Letter [u]Ecclesia de Eucharistia[/u], nos. 45-46] Finally, I agree that the distinction that "Hananiah" brings up between formal and material heresy is important, but as it concerns this canon, I would hold that neither a formal nor a material heretic could receive communion from a Catholic minister, because to receive they must "demonstrate the Catholic faith in respect of these sacraments and [be] properly disposed." [[u]Code of Canon Law[/u] (1983), canon 844 § 4]

And by the way Jeff, you're doing a fine job as an apologist.

Edited June 14, 2004 by Apotheoun