Author Topic: Is receiving Sacraments from Heretics/Schismatics/Apostates intrinsically evil?  (Read 1294 times)

SedeForChrist

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.

Btw, it is not permitted for Catholics to go to priests for the sacraments if they say the una-cum mass. If you can't go to a priest's mass, you cannot go to him for sacraments except in danger of death. Because jurisdiction is required for the validity of confession and the SSPX/R&R do not have jurisdiction because they claim epikeya AGAINST those they recognize as the hierarchy. Which you cannot do. And they are not Catholics anyway.
 
The following users thanked this post: Nick

Nick

  • In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas.
  • TTF Novice
  • Posts: 121
  • Thanked: 83 times
  • Gender: Male
  • Memento Mori
Off topic but linked. I also hold that position S4C, but I have a problem with withholding the sacraments from those that do not also hold it. For example, an R & R or a sede plenist doubtist wishes to attend a public mass offered by a priest under bishop sanborn for example, and then finds out that they couldn't receive Holy Communion. I with those people aren't convinced that they truly sin if they don't truly 'understand' the una cum issue. Some of those people won't even read fr. Cekada and would rather rely upon the disjointed illological rants of fr. Chazel. I have a problem with denying these poor people holy communion when they  might wish to attend the masses we attend.
« Last Edit: November 22, 2017, 06:34:34 PM by Nick »
"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.
 

Nick

  • In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas.
  • TTF Novice
  • Posts: 121
  • Thanked: 83 times
  • Gender: Male
  • Memento Mori
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.

Btw, it is not permitted for Catholics to go to priests for the sacraments if they say the una-cum mass. If you can't go to a priest's mass, you cannot go to him for sacraments except in danger of death. Because jurisdiction is required for the validity of confession and the SSPX/R&R do not have jurisdiction because they claim epikeya AGAINST those they recognize as the hierarchy. Which you cannot do. And they are not Catholics anyway.

I agree but, I think it depends on one's 'opinion' here.
Someone's perspective may be danger of death only occurs just before going into battle.
For others of a more anxious / pessimistic type, they may truly believe that danger of death means stepping outside the front door of the house.  :nodyes:
"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.
 

SedeForChrist

Off topic but linked. I also hold that position S4C, but I have a problem with withholding the sacraments from those that do not also hold it. For example, an R & R or a sede plenist doubtist wishes to attend a public mass offered by a priest under bishop sanborn for example, and then finds out that they couldn't receive Holy Communion. I with those people aren't convinced that they truly sin if they don't truly 'understand' the una cum issue. Some of those people won't even read fr. Cekada and would rather rely upon the disjointed illological rants of fr. Chazel. I have a problem with denying these poor people holy communion when they  might wish to attend the masses we attend.

Bp. Sanborn or any sede will give sacraments to an opinionist. At least I have never heard of the opposite being true. But because someone is mistaken or in good faith does not mean we can give them sacraments. That is the Amoris Laetitia argument only applied to 6th commandment items: those who don't understand the rule are guiltless or less so, so we can give them the sacraments. But the logic doesn't follow. Sincerity and good intentions can be sincerely wrong. I mean, why not give sacraments to non-catholics, like protestants or orthodox. They might be in good faith and not understand their errors. Well, that's obviously absurd, but that is the logic. It's actually quite dangerous and scary to be honest.
 

SedeForChrist

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.

Btw, it is not permitted for Catholics to go to priests for the sacraments if they say the una-cum mass. If you can't go to a priest's mass, you cannot go to him for sacraments except in danger of death. Because jurisdiction is required for the validity of confession and the SSPX/R&R do not have jurisdiction because they claim epikeya AGAINST those they recognize as the hierarchy. Which you cannot do. And they are not Catholics anyway.

I agree but, I think it depends on one's 'opinion' here.
Someone's perspective may be danger of death only occurs just before going into battle.
For others of a more anxious / pessimistic type, they may truly believe that danger of death means stepping outside the front door of the house.  :nodyes:

We have to define terms the way the Church defines them, not according to some fantastic new-speak. Although I do not know all the in and outs of what specifically constitutes danger of death, fearing for your life when walking out of your house isn't one of them.
 

Nick

  • In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas.
  • TTF Novice
  • Posts: 121
  • Thanked: 83 times
  • Gender: Male
  • Memento Mori
Fair enough and thanks for the feedback. Agree that it can be dangerous to pursue that logic to extremis. OTOH, what scares me the most is the danger of what I perceive, rightly or wrongly, to be a general trend of cult-like and schismatic spirits amongst traditional catholics. Where individuals and groups all start anathmatising each other.

Usually at this point, I jokingly pull out the "kumbaya meme", but only because I like to laugh at myself first 😁
"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: 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.


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.
My question is: is it intrinsically evil to receive Sacraments from Heretics/Schismatics/Apostates? You said yes, Griff is right about the Sacraments, but I still feel saying "it is not intrinsically evil to receive Sacraments from non-Catholics" sounds quite bold. Do you have more direct/explicit sources on this matter?

My question is not about going to Una Cum Mass; the article which arises my question only happens to talk about Una Cum Mass.

Then you went on and on and on to rant about Una Cum Mass, which are essentially the stuff I have read over and over and over, and I am just learning Latin to verify the claims by Father Cekada; I am not convinced him to be right or wrong, because I have not read the majority of works he cited.

(a) Eucharist Rite is both a Sacrament and a Sacrifice (worship), but if, I mean if, you can receive Eucharist from a Priest, then there is no reason to forbid you from coming to that Priest's Mass. The Sacrament and Sacrifice are intimately tied to each other, inseparable. So this is not comparing apple to orange.

(b) SSPX name Bergoglio in Canon precisely because they regard him as Pope, or at least in the fear of falsely identifying a Pope as an Antipope, and their position flows from their erroneous understanding of Magisterium-they believe the Church is not exercising Her Universal Magisterium, neither Ordinary nor Extraordinary, in the cases like Amoris (and others, of course), therefore they think no heresy is involved with Bergoglio, although many things are heretical/contrary to Catholic Faith. This is wrong, both logically and ecclesiologically, but mis-identifying a Pontiff under good faith and out of fear of being Schismatic certainly does not put someone outside the Church.

(c) To be heretical, one will become either Material Heretic or Formal Heretic. Since only non-Catholics can be Material Heretics, then Catholics can only become Formal Heretics. To be a Formal Heretic, pertinacity is needed, as defined in 1917 Codex Iuris Canonici, 1325. Cardinal Louis Billot mentions that for those who are resolved to believe what the Church teaches yet holds some doctrines different, it is only a mistake and Heresy is not involved, not even materially. (De Ecclesia Christi, 1:289-290) Cardinal John de Lugo also explains that that the habit of infused faith is not driven out by a sin against Faith committed out of ignorance. (Disputationes, Disp XX, Sect VI)

(d) Just a reminder, every area of Catholic Theology involving human acts, such as Sacraments, Sins, Virtues, Grace, etc, involve intentions; this is especially true for Moral Theology. It is not just simply objectivity this, truth that, logic these, reason those, and all the yada yada, blah blah, and gaga. Objectivity, truth, logic, reason, etc are not trump cards which give you immunity from having to give sources to support. Also remember that while there is one and only one absolute truth, there can be many faulty interpretations of truth; the same is true for faulty logic, faulty reason, etc. Especially in our time, which is full of false logic and faulty fact, simply some blah blah logic, truth, and reason stands nothing for me. So in your 2000-book library, there is not a single book deal with Casus Conscientiae (Case of Conscience)? If you have not read any one of them, buy it/them. Lumbreras, Lehmkuhl, Palazzini, etc all wrote on this matter, and these are certainly also on my reading list.

(e) I have read all three of these articles, and I asked this question precisely because I am convinced by neither of the two sides on the issue of Una Cum. The first one is simply the summary of the second one, so I will pass it. The second is extremely informative, and like I said, I am learning Latin so that I can check those sources. This will be a big amount of time.

(f) Regarding the third article, you are kidding me. Sanborn just made up a term, to separate his group from other Catholics, without even showing any support from ecclesiastical sources. Not a single one. It is all about his ipse dixit, purely unverifiable claims. (It is unverifiable in the sense that I cannot trace where his claims come from; it is verifiable in the sense that I can still read first-class Catholic authors to see whether he is right or wrong.) I am a student of Mathematical Finance, and at this stage of rapidly expanding knowledge, it is crucial to be able to recognize first-class resources; unsupported claims cannot be taken for granted. At this point, I am confident that I am quite an efficient "source digger"; look at my contributions in theological resources section, that is only a tip of ice berg of my reading list. Actually, once I talked to Father Cekada on phone, asking him the question about Una Cum. He was busy, so the conversation was short, but he asked me this during the conversation: "William, when you are writing an essay or dissertation, do you know that you have to cite authoritative sources to back up your claims?" I said yes, and I told him I do this very well. Father Cekada had also responded his opponents' articles by saying "if he cannot cite a decree or some other documents to support his claim, I will dismiss this as a nonsense". I totally agree with Father Cekada's standard, and I will apply this standard to this "Opinionism" article.

(g) If you do not want me to dismiss that "Opinionism" article as nonsense, would you please use the vast resource in your 2000-book library to add some annotations or citations to it? I promise if you can provide theological citations to back up these claims, I will read it again and verify the claims.

But anyway, this post is not about Una Cum. It is about receiving Sacraments from Heretics/Schismatics/Apostates. For me, derailing the topic is not intrinsically unacceptable, as long as you can back up your claims. But if you are not interested in providing me the first-class sources and throw generic words like logic, objectivity, etc, let us end this conversation. So can we return to the original question now?

« Last Edit: November 22, 2017, 11:44:09 PM by GPRW »
 
The following users thanked this post: Nick, ubipetrus

Nick

  • In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas.
  • TTF Novice
  • Posts: 121
  • Thanked: 83 times
  • Gender: Male
  • Memento Mori
I still find this to be a very good question. I apply the teachings of + Sanborn and Fr. Cekada to myself, but I have enough uncertainty on the issue Not to apply it to others. Hence I "feel' that the CMRI policy of not refusing the sacraments to the R & R opinionists , whilst openly advocating for the SV position to be ' more catholic'
And before any one asks, No I'm Not able to back up this approach by appealing to Canon Law etc. I'm just an average Joe sixpack who's going to wait for a true pope to settle it for me.
"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: TKGS, MyrnaM

TKGS

I still find this to be a very good question. I apply the teachings of + Sanborn and Fr. Cekada to myself, but I have enough uncertainty on the issue Not to apply it to others. Hence I "feel' that the CMRI policy of not refusing the sacraments to the R & R opinionists , whilst openly advocating for the SV position to be ' more catholic'
And before any one asks, No I'm Not able to back up this approach by appealing to Canon Law etc. I'm just an average Joe sixpack who's going to wait for a true pope to settle it for me.

Nick expresses my feelings exactly, except that I wouldn't say that I think the CMRI policy is "more catholic", only that I can sympathize with the policy but don't really embrace it. 

Like a great many sedevacantists, I was part of the Novus Ordo sect.  I even fell away from the practice of that religion until Protestant friends tried to "save my soul from the whore of Babylon".  I had never been happy with the "Changes" which occurred when I was around 10 years old but I didn't know any better.  Both of my parents were converts and simply accepted things because the authority issue was emphasized so much by the priests who taught them the doctrines of the faith.  I happened to find a copy of the Roman Catechism (the Catechism of the Council of Trent) in a bookstore and discovered how simple and reasonable the Catholic faith really is since almost none of it was ever taught to me in 12 years of CCD classes.

So, as I began my journey to tradition, I was part of that group that we now call R&R.  I still remembering reading the word, "sedevacantist", for the first time when I was learning to use that new-fangled thing called the internet.  Even then, it took me years to embrace the concept.  But reason finally won out.

I do sympathize with those who hear the truth but don't accept it right away because it seems so radical.  I even sympathize with those who hear the truth and reject it, especially when they are supposed to be priests and bishops of great learning and I wonder if that tremendous education doesn't sometimes get in the way of understanding.

Ultimately, though, I would not knowingly attend an "una cum", but I am hesitant to condemn anyone who does.  Rather, I can see that they objectively worship in communion with heretics and, therefore, think that it only God's place to judge.  (Cr. I Cor. 5:12-13)

 
The following users thanked this post: Nick

MyrnaM

Getting to the heart of the OP here, it is my opinion that if the priest has fulfilled those 3 requirements EVEN IF JUST FOR THAT MOMENT, through God’s grace, he is united to the True Church.  In God’s eyes, the dying soul was assisted.  I believe there is something mysterious about the word “time”; I also believe that God is only concerned with the “Now” and at that moment as I said, the priest was a True Catholic priest doing what the Church does.  It’s mission which is to save souls. 
After that! The priest may revert to his erroneous habits and to the onlookers with our human misgivings we continue to wonder. 
Myforever.blog/blog
 
The following users thanked this post: Nick, ubipetrus