Author Topic: Is receiving Sacraments from Heretics/Schismatics/Apostates intrinsically evil?  (Read 1276 times)

GPRW

In an article defending the legitimacy of attending Una Cum Masses, Griff Ruby mentioned the case of Unction as an example to support his defense.

Quote
Father well knows (and knows that we know) that the Church has always carved out an interesting exception for receiving the Last Rites in immediate danger of death. In particular, at such a point if no more qualified cleric is available, any cleric who meets only the most basic criteria can perform the Last Rites for a dying soul. The only things required are three: 1) The priest must be validly ordained, 2) The priest must be willing and able to perform the Last Rites in accordance with the Catholic Rite for such, and 3) The priest must be willing to do this with the intention of assisting the soul in question in his passage into the next life. That is all. It is all right if he happens to be laicized, a child molester, a convicted felon, a heretic, a schismatic, an apostate, an Old Catholic (so long as the validity of his Holy Orders can be verified), an excommunicate, or even an excommunicate vitandus.

In other words, in a soul's dying moment, the most crucial moment of anyone's lifetime, the time that has made or broken the salvation of many, when saints and devils compete by far most strenuously over a soul, the Church has nevertheless always permitted the soul in that moment to turn to a heretical and schismatic (or worse) priest for the Last Rites. If reception of a schismatic or heretical priest's sacraments were intrinsically evil this could never be permitted even ad extremis, if anything in fact especially ad extremis, since what worse thing could a soul do but even risk turning away from the Faith and Church at the last hour.

With this, he concluded that receiving Sacraments from non-Catholics is not intrinsically evil. Is this correct? I feel something wrong; I feel he has over-extended/over-interpreted this principle. However, I am not sure. Anyone can give me some sources regarding this issue (as explicit/direct as possible)?

Update:

I have two concerns (and I would not use the word "objections", since my theological knowledge does not qualify my to use it):

(1) There is a difference between publicly attending non-Catholic ceremonies/rites (not necessarily Mass) and privately asking for Sacraments under the danger of death;

(2) There is a difference between receiving Eucharist (the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ Our Lord) and receiving Sacraments other than Eucharist, such as Baptism, Confession, and Unction.

Are these two differences accidental differences or substantial differences?
« Last Edit: November 22, 2017, 07:34:40 PM by GPRW »
 
The following users thanked this post: Nick, SedeForChrist

SedeForChrist

Hi, I will respond later, got to go do some things. I will also do a little thinking to give you the proper answer. I know it, but want to formulate it correctly. Stay Tuned!!! :nodyes:
 
The following users thanked this post: Nick

2Vermont

Griff is a member here (ubipetrus) although he hasn't been active in a couple of weeks.  Perhaps PM him, so he can explain for himself?
"Anything, but sedevacantism"

(If you are open to sedevacantism and not a rabid anti-sede, then this is not about you)
 
The following users thanked this post: SedeForChrist, ubipetrus

GPRW

Griff is a member here (ubipetrus) although he hasn't been active in a couple of weeks.  Perhaps PM him, so he can explain for himself?
I am doing now. But I definitely want to see some other sources provided by others which GR may not provide/know. Cross-asking and cross-referencing to different sources is always good, especially most of we laities have heard very few of primary sources and can easily get into error by reading single sources without knowing the bigger context/picture.
 
The following users thanked this post: SedeForChrist

2Vermont

Griff is a member here (ubipetrus) although he hasn't been active in a couple of weeks.  Perhaps PM him, so he can explain for himself?
I am doing now. But I definitely want to see some other sources provided by others which GR may not provide/know. Cross-asking and cross-referencing to different sources is always good, especially most of we laities have heard very few of primary sources and can easily get into error by reading single sources without knowing the bigger context/picture.

Totally fine!  I just thought since he's here he could explain himself better than anyone else. 
"Anything, but sedevacantism"

(If you are open to sedevacantism and not a rabid anti-sede, then this is not about you)
 
The following users thanked this post: SedeForChrist

Nick

  • In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas.
  • TTF Novice
  • Posts: 121
  • Thanked: 83 times
  • Gender: Male
  • Memento Mori
This from C.I. touches somewhat on the subject.

http://the-pope.com/fspeterm.html

"Now when [a pope] is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church, and the Church must either deprive him, or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See, and must say as St. Peter did: Let another take his bishopric.".      St. Francis de Sales.
 
The following users thanked this post: GPRW

Rubecorks

The danger with talking about whether or not some act is intrinsically evil or not is the fact that often one must put aside extrinsic circumstances to do so. Then after one finds it is not intrinsically evil, FORGET that reality often cannot separate the extrinsic circumstances, thus making it morally evil. finally.
 
The following users thanked this post: Nick, SedeForChrist

GPRW

The danger with talking about whether or not some act is intrinsically evil or not is the fact that often one must put aside extrinsic circumstances to do so. Then after one finds it is not intrinsically evil, FORGET that reality often cannot separate the extrinsic circumstances, thus making it morally evil. finally.
This is exactly first concern-receiving the Sacraments from non-Catholics willingly and publicly versus receiving Sacraments from non-Catholics under extraordinary and emergency situation, which is the danger of death in this case. (I updated my two major concerns later after posting this, so you may did not see them.) In this case, Canonist Charles Augustine Bachofen mentioned that the reason to prohibit Communcatio in Sacris activa cum Acatholicis, beside the Catholic Church being the only One True Church, also include the quasi-approbation of non-Catholic worship and (danger of) scandal and perversion. Then he also demonstrates that Catholics can receive Confession and Unction under the danger of death, given there is no danger of scandal and perversion, no Catholic Priest is available, and the minister is validly ordained and will use a Catholic Rite.

Also, the reason why a distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic is precisely because they can be separated under some cases.

So, is it intrinsically evil? This is my question.
 

2Vermont

I wonder whether this principle (allowance for reception of sacraments from non-Catholic priests in danger of death) is limited to private receptions.  For example, Last Rites/Penance and Unction are private sacraments.  OTOH, assisting at mass or some other liturgy is public.  It reminds me of the fact that priests are allowed to offer mass for a non-Catholic in private, but must not do so in public/announce it.
"Anything, but sedevacantism"

(If you are open to sedevacantism and not a rabid anti-sede, then this is not about you)
 
The following users thanked this post: Nick, SedeForChrist

SedeForChrist

The danger with talking about whether or not some act is intrinsically evil or not is the fact that often one must put aside extrinsic circumstances to do so. Then after one finds it is not intrinsically evil, FORGET that reality often cannot separate the extrinsic circumstances, thus making it morally evil. finally.
This is exactly first concern-receiving the Sacraments from non-Catholics willingly and publicly versus receiving Sacraments from non-Catholics under extraordinary and emergency situation, which is the danger of death in this case. (I updated my two major concerns later after posting this, so you may did not see them.) In this case, Canonist Charles Augustine Bachofen mentioned that the reason to prohibit Communcatio in Sacris activa cum Acatholicis, beside the Catholic Church being the only One True Church, also include the quasi-approbation of non-Catholic worship and (danger of) scandal and perversion. Then he also demonstrates that Catholics can receive Confession and Unction under the danger of death, given there is no danger of scandal and perversion, no Catholic Priest is available, and the minister is validly ordained and will use a Catholic Rite.

Also, the reason why a distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic is precisely because they can be separated under some cases.

So, is it intrinsically evil? This is my question.


First off, whether a Catholic can receive sacraments from a non-catholic is a totally different question from whether a Catholic can go to an una-cum mass. The Mass is not a sacrament, it is divine worship, so communicatio in sacris is the proper issue.

Catholics are not allowed to receive sacraments from non-catholics (we would be mostly talking about Confession and last-rites), unless certain conditions are met. Mostly danger of death and you have to make sure you do not cause scandal or give the impression that you are condoning the false religion. So an analogy between the sacraments and una-cum masses is a fallacy. It's apples and oranges. So Griffy is right when he makes the point about sacraments. But the conclusion does not follow that Catholics may go to una-cum masses.

Most sedes who are in favor of going to una-cum masses cite canon law and make canonical arguments. The argument is not a canonical one, but a theological. It is intrinsically evil to go to an una-cum mass because the mass is offered in union with not just a false pope, but an apostate one. It is a mortal sin. This is because those who are profess Francis or anyone else at this time to be pope are objectively non-Catholics, because a requirement for Church membership is to be in union with the Roman Pontiff, and put another way, to be in dis-union with an antipope. Those who adhere to the SSPX/R&R or the NOite conservative indult/motu positions are objectively non-Catholics, because they profess union with a false pope and hierarchy. Besides the often overlooked fact that these groups profess open heresy concerning the nature of the Church, the Papacy and the Magisterium, plus an implicit acceptance of V2 in many cases. This has nothing to do with sincerity or intentions, because if both are good but you are wrong, that's not good. This is all about objectivity

A similar error is made by those sedes who profess an opinionist position with regard to the sede question. Either Francis is the pope or he isn't and this is an objectively verifiable fact. They make a similar mistake to the SSPX/R&R position holders, in that the identity of the hierarchy of the Catholic Church is simply not important. Oh but it is! Your eternal salvation depends upon it because all most be in union with the Roman Pontiff for salvation, and that's dogma.

So to answer the question: it is intrinsically and objectively a mortal sin to go the una-cum mass. Under no circumstances may it done, even to save one's life or another's soul.

I would suggest you read Fr. Cekada's articles on this topic, which are thoroughly researched, documented and answer all objections.
http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=97&catname=10
http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=94&catname=10
http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=87&catname=10

Please ask if you have other questions.
 
« Last Edit: November 22, 2017, 05:53:38 PM by SedeForChrist »
 
The following users thanked this post: Nick, annamack