Sad Day For Catholic Apologetics

[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

[crusader1234]

I just thought that you (PSPX) might want to edit that post, Jen wasnt trying to be slanderous and it almost seems like she is incapable of it based on her other posts. Good point though, we all should check our information.

[Kilroy the Ninja]

[quote name='ironmonk' date='Jun 13 2004, 08:14 PM'] 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.

[/quote]
Hey now...there we go using Tradionalism as a dirty word again.

I, for one, am sick of this.


I'm traditional. I like the traditional mass. I'm fine with the Novus Ordo too, and I love JPII. I think some things in VII have been over interrupreted, but that doesn't make me schismatic.


I would appreciate it if we could remove the negative connotations from the words traditional and tradionalism. And please don't go flinging the word "Trad" around either in a non-positive way.

Seems only fair if the word heretic is off limits.

Call it political correctness gone amuck, but fair is fair.

[crusader1234]

I don't throw around Traditionalists like a dirty word... When we think of Traditionalists we think of those outspoken sedevacantists that like to bash JP2. I am all for traditionalists, so long as they dont go ignoring change. I think that anybody who goes against V2 is a heretic (I'm not using this is a slanderous term becuase this does comply with the definition). However, if you aknowledge V2, have no problem with it, but like to do things the old fashioned way, then good for you.

[Guest JeffCR07]

I think the issue really is semantical. We "Traditionalist" isnt being used to mean "orthodox" though I do agree, I think its terrible that traditional seems to have a negative connotation these days. Just remember, as long as we follow the Pope and the Magisterium, and do what they say we're allowed to do, and abstain from that which we are not, we're all good!

Also, Hananiah, Apotheoun, thanks a ton!


- Your Brother In Christ, Jeff

[popestpiusx]

[quote name='crusader1234' date='Jun 14 2004, 02:28 AM'] I just thought that you (PSPX) might want to edit that post, Jen wasnt trying to be slanderous and it almost seems like she is incapable of it based on her other posts. Good point though, we all should check our information. [/quote]
I did not mean to imply that she was guilty of such things. Rather, my ire was directed toeard those who have made up these slanderous lies and that she (innocently, no doubt) is passing on. Just want people to be accurate.

So Jen, I apologize if my statement was taken the wrong way.

[ironmonk]

[quote name='Kilroy the Ninja' date='Jun 14 2004, 03:29 AM'] Hey now...there we go using Tradionalism as a dirty word again.

I, for one, am sick of this.


I'm traditional. I like the traditional mass. I'm fine with the Novus Ordo too, and I love JPII. I think some things in VII have been over interrupreted, but that doesn't make me schismatic.


I would appreciate it if we could remove the negative connotations from the words traditional and tradionalism. And please don't go flinging the word "Trad" around either in a non-positive way.

Seems only fair if the word heretic is off limits.

Call it political correctness gone amuck, but fair is fair. [/quote]
If you notice the quote you quoted that it is written "those who attack VII".

If you don't attack VII, then you don't fit the definition.

If you like the Latin Mass, that does not make you a 'traditionalist'. I find that the majority of people who wish to be known as traditionalist, hate the New Mass, hate the Pope, etc...

God Bless,
ironmonk

[Justified Saint]

Was this move of Mario's really a surprise to anyone?

[Donna]

[b]FYI:[/b] A resource refuting sedevactantism:


[b]Sedevacantism:
A False Solution to a Real Problem
Society of Saint Pius X[/b]

This short study presents the position of the Society of Saint Pius X regarding the pope, and the objections others have made to this position. [b]Sedevacantism [/b]presents the origin and history of the sedevacantist movement and its various schools as well as a demonstration of the ultimately absurd consequences of its principles. It follows the prudential attitude of Archbishop Lefebvre by avoiding vain and futile polemics yet simultaneously refusing to shift the problem so far into the theoretical realm that no practical conclusions can be drawn.
____________________________________________________

Other sources: Attila Sinke Guimares, The Remnant, CFN, etc;
____________________________________________________

The charge against Gerry is old. Brought about in [i]The Wanderer [/i]about 6 (?) years ago, by a prominent apologetist. Part one of a promised series. They abruptly pulled it.

Mr. Matatics himself followed up w/ ads :"Gerry [b][i]Schis[/i][/b]-Matatics?" (the man has a sense of humor). But he was blacklisted, and so was Sungenis! And not by the Trads. Them's was the only place left they could go, so to speak, and as far as my fallible knowledge knows.

Aye, it's one big happy family out there.

The best apologia I ever heard was two sentences from Gerry Matatics. He said (I hope I paraphrase correctlyl): [i]Only a future decision NOT by us could definitively settle whether any pope was not a pope. So, in a real sense, we do not have to take this burden on.[/i]

Edited June 15, 2004 by Donna

[Donna]

[i]Everybody was Trad-fu fighting...[/i]
[b]HOOAH!![/b]
[i]Them cats was fast as lightning[/i]
[b]HAH![/b]

[i]Oh whoa whoa whoaaaaa[/i]
_________________________________

I love what the St Benedict Center says re: the SSPX:
[i]It's a love-hate relationship: We love them and they hate us![/i]

So, it must be alotta fun at these Trad gatherings, as well as the conservative ones.

[b]HAH![/b]

Did I ever mention when the distinguished Dr. White was speaking on Shaekespear's [i]Cymbaline[/i], that in the banquet room next door they began blasting [i]Play That Funky Music, White Boy?[/i]

[BeenaBobba]

Hi popestpiusx,

No offense taken.

Anyhow, my point was that those three aren't 100% obedient to the Pope and the current Magisterium. If one isn't 100% Catholic, then it follows that they are in a state of schism to some degree or another, whether they are Sedevacanists, SSPX adherents, or are a bit off regarding Catholic orthodoxy.

God bless,

Jennifer

[Donna]

Jen, please explain what you mean by 100% obedient to the Pope.

Or, do you mean The Papacy, rather?

Thanks.

[BeenaBobba]

[quote name='Donna' date='Jun 15 2004, 02:33 AM'] Jen, please explain what you mean by 100% obedient to the Pope.

Or, do you mean The Papacy, rather?

Thanks. [/quote]
Hi Donna,

Both. If one is disobedient and critical of the Pope in a way that surpasses being critical of hypocritical behavior or whatnot, then one is in a sense critical (or rather, disrespectful) of the papacy, being that the present Pope is the successor of St. Peter.

God bless,

Jennifer

[BeenaBobba]

Also, being not 100% obedient to the Pope would be criticizing his efforts at evangelization and ecumenism (as examples), as is the case with Sungenis.

God bless,

Jen

[Donna]

Thanks, Jen.

When Mr. Sungenis wrote that the Jews must be saved, that the Old Covenent was superceded by the New, is this disobedient or schismatic?

As I recall, this is what blacklisted him.

[BeenaBobba]

[quote name='Donna' date='Jun 15 2004, 03:46 AM'] Thanks, Jen. [/quote]
You're welcome.

[quote]When Mr. Sungenis wrote that the Jews must be saved, that the Old Covenent was superceded by the New, is this disobedient or schismatic?
[/quote]

To the best of my knowledge -- no.

[quote]As I recall, this is what blacklisted him.[/quote]

I was more or less referring to him publically criticizing the Holy Father over the Gathering at Assisi in 2002. Sungenis has been criticized by orthodox Catholics for his public and vocal criticism of the Holy Father.

God bless,

Jennifer