Author Topic: Is receiving Sacraments from Heretics/Schismatics/Apostates intrinsically evil?  (Read 1293 times)

Callixtus

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.

You say that very CONFIDENTLY but even among your other sedevacantists this seems like the minority view.  This is why the Archbishop kicked the nine out.  Not because they were sedevacantists necessarily but because they were so damn sectarian about it that they practically resolved that non-una cum into a schism.  And this has only become more evident as time has gone on.
 

Troubled Teen

  • TTF Novice
  • Posts: 88
  • Thanked: 46 times
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm the guy who sucks (plus I got depression)
The expulsion of the Nine had nothing to do with una cum this or that.
"Man knoweth not whether he be worthy of love, or hatred." - Ecclesiastes 9:1

"In the present time the directive is to stick to the essentials of Christianity: to flee the world, believe in Christ, do all the good that one can, strive for detachment from created things, avoid false prophets and remember death." - Fr. Leonardo Castellani
 
The following users thanked this post: 2Vermont, Mysterium Fidei

2Vermont

Time to trot out the Letter of the Nine to ABL:

http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=48

The Nine had issues with the direction of the SSPX ... and we can see that some, if not all, of these issues still plague them.

"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, Mysterium Fidei, SedeForChrist

SedeForChrist

Just think about this: If those who hold the SSPX/R&R or NOite indult/motu positions (laity or clergy) either in good faith or bad faith are objectively members of the Catholic Church, then where is the unity of the Faith and it's visibility? And also, why could not a protestant in good faith be a member of the Catholic Church, just because he is in good faith? And therefore, why would Catholics be allowed to go to Mass/sacraments anything to those who hold the aforementioned positions if they are non-catholics, danger of death excluded? Does this make any sense to anyone? Would someone like to seriously suggest this logic. Oh, btw, I do not have to prove something from sources which is logical or available to reason. Happy Thanksgiving! :tablecheers:
 
The following users thanked this post: TKGS, annamack

Callixtus

The expulsion of the Nine had nothing to do with una cum this or that.

It was because they were rabble rousers. 
 

Callixtus

Just think about this: If those who hold the SSPX/R&R or NOite indult/motu positions (laity or clergy) either in good faith or bad faith are objectively members of the Catholic Church, then where is the unity of the Faith and it's visibility? And also, why could not a protestant in good faith be a member of the Catholic Church, just because he is in good faith? And therefore, why would Catholics be allowed to go to Mass/sacraments anything to those who hold the aforementioned positions if they are non-catholics, danger of death excluded? Does this make any sense to anyone? Would someone like to seriously suggest this logic. Oh, btw, I do not have to prove something from sources which is logical or available to reason. Happy Thanksgiving! :tablecheers:

You are ridiculous and should read more of your own side's material.  There are loads of sedevacantists who do not argue this or that about una cum.  Probably the two most notable sedevacantist laymen (Johns Daly and Lane) don't hold that position.  The CMRI and the SSPV don't either.  If it's unity of faith you're looking for, look in the sedevacantist mirror.  You've got a sede on here right now who thinks that are no priests left AT ALL.  Some unity.
 

SedeForChrist

The expulsion of the Nine had nothing to do with una cum this or that.

It was because they were rabble rousers.

Remember, the SSPX was the original table rouser. And not like their positions are Catholic anyway. But...... :clap:
 

Callixtus

The expulsion of the Nine had nothing to do with una cum this or that.

It was because they were rabble rousers.

Remember, the SSPX was the original table rouser. And not like their positions are Catholic anyway. But...... :clap:

If you're right, then when did the nine make their abjuration of error?

Excluding the communion of Catholics to sedevacantists requires us to admit that the Church disappeared between the election of John XXIII and the first sedevacantist.  Who was that?  Francis Schuckhardt?  Some Church!   :lol:
 

SedeForChrist

Just think about this: If those who hold the SSPX/R&R or NOite indult/motu positions (laity or clergy) either in good faith or bad faith are objectively members of the Catholic Church, then where is the unity of the Faith and it's visibility? And also, why could not a protestant in good faith be a member of the Catholic Church, just because he is in good faith? And therefore, why would Catholics be allowed to go to Mass/sacraments anything to those who hold the aforementioned positions if they are non-catholics, danger of death excluded? Does this make any sense to anyone? Would someone like to seriously suggest this logic. Oh, btw, I do not have to prove something from sources which is logical or available to reason. Happy Thanksgiving! :tablecheers:



You are ridiculous and should read more of your own side's material.  There are loads of sedevacantists who do not argue this or that about una cum.  Probably the two most notable sedevacantist laymen (Johns Daly and Lane) don't hold that position.  The CMRI and the SSPV don't either.  If it's unity of faith you're looking for, look in the sedevacantist mirror.  You've got a sede on here right now who thinks that are no priests left AT ALL.  Some unity.

I didn't say all sedes were Catholic or correct in their various positions. But being a sede is necessary for Church membership. Sorry if that tiggers the holy molly out of people, but that's what I'm here for :cig:
 

SedeForChrist

The expulsion of the Nine had nothing to do with una cum this or that.

It was because they were rabble rousers.

Remember, the SSPX was the original table rouser. And not like their positions are Catholic anyway. But...... :clap:

If you're right, then when did the nine make their abjuration of error?

Excluding the communion of Catholics to sedevacantists requires us to admit that the Church disappeared between the election of John XXIII and the first sedevacantist.  Who was that?  Francis Schuckhardt?  Some Church!   :lol:

They were not "legally" separated from the Church, hence no need to abjure errors. And yes, that is a mystery, but mystery is compatible with Catholicism, but not contradiction. And if those who hold heretical beliefs on ecclesiology are Catholics, you have a Church divided in Faith.