“There is no basis for that which some respond to this: that these Fathers based themselves on ancient law, while nowadays, by decree of the Council of Constance, they alone lose their jurisdiction who are excommunicated by name or who assault clerics. This argument, I say, has no value at all, for those Fathers, in affirming that heretics lose jurisdiction, did not cite any human law, which furthermore perhaps did not exist in relation to the matter, but argued on the basis of the very nature of heresy. The Council of Constance only deals with the excommunicated, that is, those who have lost jurisdiction by sentence of the Church, while heretics already before being excommunicated are outside the Church and deprived of all jurisdiction. For they have already been condemned by their own sentence, as the Apostle teaches (Tit. 3:10-11), that is, they have been cut off from the body of the Church without excommunication, as St. Jerome affirms… All the ancient Fathers…teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction, and outstandingly that of St. Cyprian (lib. 4, epist. 2) who speaks as follows of Novatian, who was Pope [i.e. antipope] in the schism which occurred during the pontificate of St. Cornelius: “He would not be able to retain the episcopate [i.e. of Rome], and, if he was made bishop before, he separated himself from the body of those who were, like him, bishops, and from the unity of the Church.’” — St. Robert Bellarmine, An Extract from St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, lib. II, cap. 30, (http://www.cmri.org/02-bellarmine-roman-pontiff.html .This link is placed merely for purposes of attribution; no endorsement of this site is hereby intended.)
Saturday, November 23, 2013
saint
dimond
Excommunicated persons are forbidden to receive the Sacraments. After a declaratory or condemnatory sentence they may not be buried from the church, if they should die before obtaining absolution (Canon 2260).
An excommunicated priest is forbidden to celebrate Holy Mass or to administer the sacraments and sacramentals. The faithful, however, may for any good reason ask the sacraments and sacramentals of an excommunicated priest, especially when there is no one else to minister to the applicant, and in cases where the excom municated priest is requested he is allowed to administer the sacraments and is not obliged to inquire why he is requested to do so. The faithful, however, are not allowed to ask the sacraments from a priest who is an excommunicatus vitandus or a priest excommunicated by a sentence in the ecclesiastical court, except in case of danger of death (Canon 2261).
Every excommunicated person is deprived of the indulgences and of his share in the public prayers of the Church. The faithful, however, may privately pray for the excommunicated and a priest may privately apply Holy Mass for their intentions, provided that no scandal is given (Canon 2262). As Protestants fall under the class of the excommunicati tolerati, the Code allows Holy Mass to be applied for their intentions; but privately only.
The exercise of jurisdiction both in the internal and the external forum on the part of an excommunicated person is unlawful; and if the excommunication was imposed by sentence in the ecclesiastical court all acts requiring jurisdiction become invalid, except in danger of death, when any priest can validly absolve a person in such extremity (Canon 2264).
http://books.google.com/books?id=SnUrAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA84&vq=in+danger+of+death&dq=canon+law+1917&hl=ko&output=html_text&source=gbs_search_r&cad=1
saint
(c) If they have become formally affiliated with a non-Catholic sect or publicly adhered to it, they incur ipso facto the note of infamy; clerics lose all ecclesiastical offices they might hold (can. 188, 4°), and after a fruitless warning they should be deposed.
dimond
Sacrae ordinationis minister ordinarius est Episcopus consecratus; extraordinarius, qui, licet charactere episcopali careat, a iure vel a Sede Apostolica per peculiare indultum potestatem acceperit aliquos ordines conferendi.
The ordinary minister of sacred ordination is every (validly) consecratedbishop, even though he be a schismatic or heretic.
This was defined in the Decree for the Armenians and again by the Council of Trent.1 However, it must be added that although every validly consecrated bishop may ordain validly, yet he must make use of the proper form in the act of ordination, and have the intention of conferring the power attached to the Sacrament; or rather, let us say, the ordinans must not positively exclude the intention of the Church. From this point of view the Anglican Orders were declared invalid by Leo XIII, in his "Apostolicae curae," of Sept. 13, 1896.2
dimond
III. VARIOUS KINDS OF DELINQUENCIES
6. 1°. Occult, Public, Notorious. (Can. 2197.) Delinquencies are always external acts, but they may be unknown or known in various degrees; hence the division into occult, public and notorious.
(a) They are occult, in the full and strictest sense, when they are known to no one but the agent. They are also considered as practically unknown and occult when they are known to only two or three prudent and discreet persons who are not likely to divulge them. They are occult materially, when the fact itself is unknown; formally, when the fact being known, its disorderly character is not.
(6) Delinquencies are public when they already are or, in all probability, will soon be divulged. To how many persons they should be known to be considered as divulged, is not defined by law nor can it easily be, as so much depends on circumstances and the character of the witnesses. St. Alphonsus holds that a crime may still remain occult although it be known to five or six persons, or even seven or eight in a large city. In another place he goes farther and demands for a crime to become truly public, that it be known to the greater part of the town, the neighborhood or the community. (Lib. vii, n. 76.) This is not, however, the ordinary sense of public as distinct from notorious. (D'Annibale, i, n. 242, note 49; Gasparri, Tractatus Canonicus de Matrimonio, n. 252, Paris, 1891; Tractatus Canonicus de Sacra Ordinatione, n. 222.)
(c) Delinquencies may be notorious by notoriety of law or by notoriety of fact. They are legally notorious after a valid judicial sentence which has become final, that is, from which there is no appeal; and after a confession made in court, in presence of the judge, with all the formalities required to give it a judicial character.
They are notorious in fact on two conditions: that they be publicly known, that is, known to the whole community, morally speaking, or to a large portion of it; and that they have been committed under such circumstances that they cannot be concealed by any subterfuge, nor excused by any interpretation of the law. They are generally known both materially and formally. (Wernz, n. 17, v; II Monitore Ecclesiastico, Ap., 1918, p. 123.) Homicide committed in presence of a crowd would be a notorious fact, but if it had some appearance of being in self-defence, it would not be anotorious crime; or it would be notorious materially, not formally.
http://books.google.com/books?id=aPUoAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA30&vq=notorious&dq=Those+who+contract+marriage+before+a+non-Catholic+minister+without+permission+(2319+§+1+n.+1)%3B&hl=ko&output=html_text&source=gbs_search_r&cad=1
saint
dimond
Notoriety dispenses from declaratory sentence in a case of penalty lataesententiae, but not from admonitions before inflicting a censure ferendaesententiae. (Ballerini, I.e. n. 109.)
dimond
will give warning to the party concerned to judge. The suspicion has no canonical effect until the warning has been given.
205. 2°. If a person who is suspected of heresy does not, after being duly warned, remove the cause of the suspicion, supposing that it is morally possible to do so, he should be debarred from the legitimate acts. A cleric should receive a second warning, and if this too remained fruitless he should be suspended a divinis. After inflicting these punishments, six months more may be allowed, and if at the end of this time the party suspected of heresy has shown no signs of amendment, he is to be considered as a heretic and punished accordingly.
III. COOPERATION IN HERESY
Can. 2316. Qui quoquo modo haeresis propagationem sponte et scienter iuvat, aut qui communicat in divinis cum haereticis contra praescriptum can. 1258, suspectus de haeresi est.
Two main forms of cooperation with heretics are specified in this canon as creating ipso facto the suspicion of heresy: assisting in the propagation of heresy and communicating in divinis with heretics under certain conditions.
206. 1°. Under the former legislation, those who helped the spread of heresy were among the fautores haereticorum, who incurred the same excommunication as the heretics themselves. The penalty now is suspicion of heresy and the law more explicitly defines the circumstances under which it is incurred.
(a) The assistance must be given, not simply to heretics personally, but to the heresy so as to contribute to its propagation.
(b) It must be given knowingly and spontaneously; ignorance would excuse from any fault, and fear or any want of complete freedom, although not necessarily taking away all responsibility, would excuse from the punishment.
(c) The assistance may take any form: it may be negative or positive, consists in neglecting to prevent the progress of heresy when one is bound by his office to do so; or in positive help, moral or physical, praising and commending heretics and their work, orally or in writing; becoming even merely a nominal member of their societies, etc.
207. 2°. The communication in divinis with heretics dealt with here is the one explicitly condemned in canon 1258. (a) The faithful are forbidden to take any active part in non-Catholic rites, for example to act as godfather at a baptism administered by a non-Catholic minister, to join in the singing or the prayers at a Protestant service. (Lehmkuhl, i, n. 050, (358.)
(6) A merely passive or material presence at the marriages of non-Catholics, at their funerals and other similar solemnities, may be tolerated when it is nothing more than an act of courtesy, a mark of civil respect, the fulfilling of a social duty, and a grave reason justifies it. In case of doubt the Bishop should be consulted.
IV. TEACHING CONDEMNED DOCTRINES
Can. 2317. Pertinaci- C. A. S.— Excommuni
ter docentes vel defen- cationem latae sententiae
dentes sive publice sive S. Pontifici simpliciter
privatim doctrinam, quae reservatam incurrunt:
ab Apostolica Sede vel a Docentes vel defen
Concilio Generali dam- dentes sive publice, sive
Data quidem fuit, sed non privatim, propositiones uti formaliter haeretica, arceantur a ministerio praedicandi verbum Dei audiendive sacramentales confessiones et a a quolibet docendi munere, salvis aliis poenis quas sententia damnationis forte statuerit, vel quas Ordinarius, post monitionem, necessarias ad reparandum scandalum duxerit.
ab Apostolica Sede damnatas sub excommunicatioms poena latae sententiae: item docentes vel defendentes tanquam licitam praxim inquirendi a poenitente nomen complicis, prouti damnata est a Benedicto XIV. in Const. Suprema, 7 Julii, 1745, Ubi primum, 2 Junii, 1746, Ad eradicandum, 28 Septembris, 1746.
208. 1°. By the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis the teaching or defending of condemned doctrines was punished with excommunication latae sententiaereserved to the Holy See; at present the punishment is ferendae sententiae. It will consist in excluding the offender from the ministry of preaching the word of God, hearing confessions, and teaching in any capacity. Other penalties may be added in the sentence of condemnation, and the Ordinary may, after giving due warning, demand whatever he deems necessary to repair the scandal.
2°. The excommunication was incurred by teaching or defending propositions which the Apostolic See had condemned under pain of excommunication latae sententiae or by maintaining the theory, proscribed by Benedict XIV, that it is lawful in confession to ask for the name of the accomplice.
The present canon (a) does not mention this last point.
(b) It supposes obstinacy in the teacher or defender of false doctrines, which implies disregard of warnings received.
I
(c) The false doctrine must, as formerly, be taught or defended. It is not necessary that it be held; the Church condemns the external act, whatever be the intimate convictions of the party. Nor is it sufficient that it be held or simply discussed or stated.
(d) It does not need being formulated into concise and scientific propositions as long as it has been condemned by the Holy See or a General Council; Holy See includes the Roman Congregations. (Can. 7.)
(e) It may have been condemned as false, dangerous, or rash, or without any qualification and sanction. If it had been condemned as formally heretical, teaching or defending it would imply heresy and be punished as such.
dimond
205. 2°. If a person who is suspected of heresy does not, after being duly warned, remove the cause of the suspicion, supposing that it is morally possible to do so, he should be debarred from the legitimate acts. A cleric should receive a second warning, and if this too remained fruitless he should be suspended a divinis. After inflicting these punishments, six months more may be allowed, and if at the end of this time the party suspected of heresy has shown no signs of amendment, he is to be considered as a heretic and punished accordingly.
saint distinguished between excommunicates and heretics
341. The general prohibition to have intercourse in spiritual things with persons under censure applies particularly to receiving from them the sacraments (can. 2261, 2275, 2284), and in a very special manner to receiving from them Holy Orders. This was forbidden under the former discipline and remains forbidden now under pain of suspension.
saint
(6) Heresy is the partial rejection of the revealed truth by a baptized person.
Heresy means choice. The heretic chooses among the teachings of revelation
those which commend themselves to his approval and to them alone he gives his
...
saint
They are incurred by the following persons: 1°. Catholics who marry before a non-Catholic minister. (Can. 2319.)
Friday, November 22, 2013
saint
saint
Eastern Orthodox churches
In the Eastern Orthodox churches, excommunication is the exclusion of a member from the Eucharist. It is not expulsion from the churches. This can happen for such reasons as not having confessed within that year; excommunication can also be imposed as part of a penitential period. It is generally done with the goal of restoring the member to full communion. The Orthodox churches do have a means of expulsion, by pronouncing anathema, but this is reserved only for acts of serious and unrepentant heresy. The Moscow Patriarchate declared Sergius Bulgakov a heretic in this fashion because of his pronouncements on Sancta Sofia being something like a fourth dimension to theTrinity.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excommunication
saint
heresy is a grave sin
saint
Wednesday, November 20, 2013
dimond
dimond
answers given by Father Carl Pulvermacher
A. Under normal circumstances a Catholic may not ask the Sacraments from a schismatic, heretical, or censured cleric (c. 822). In grave necessity (danger of death) one may ask such a one for Baptism or Absolution, if there is no other priest available.
The Sacrament of Confession is notable in that it needs both power of Orders and power of Jurisdiction. One who says the New Order Mass is at least a material heretic, and heretics or apostates have no jurisdiction over members of the Mystical Body of Christ. Therefore I say the Catholic penitent may not go to Confession to a New Order Mass priest because he is at least a material heretic and has lost his jurisdiction.
But who is to judge each case as to moral guilt? Who knows the internal dispositions of the new order priest or the poor penitent? I believe people and priests today are so often totally confused that the all wise God will be the judge. It also looks like time will solve this problem. In Holland where Vatican II practices are so far ahead of other places, the practice of Confession is almost non-existent. One can scarcely find a priest there who will hear confessions. Even in our beloved country confession is becoming Jess common. Perhaps a few more years of updating and continued Vatican II progress will have our confessionals relegated to dusty museums.
So what can one do? The Catholic penitent must go to a lawfully ordained priest who has jurisdiction to absolve. For valid absolution there must be Divine authorization and right intention. For Jurisdiction there must be permission to administer the Sacraments granted by lawful Church authority. In cases of Common Error and Doubt of Law or Fact, the Church supplies jurisdiction (c. 209). The only thing a Catholic can do is to abstain from mortal sin, or in case of a slip, find a priest who has not compromised his faith. A priest who thinks nothing of giving a fake new order mass on Sunday—what can you expect from him in the Confessional on Saturday night?
dimond
saint
St. Cyril of Alexander, 5th century: “It is therefore unlawful and a profanation, and an act the punishment of which is death, to associate with unhallowed heretics and to unite oneself to their communion.”
Pope St. Leo the Great, 5th century: “It is at the peril of his soul for any one of them [heretics] who has fallen away from [the papacy] into a sect of heretics and schismatics…to be received into Catholic communion after coming to his senses without making legitimate and express satisfaction.”
Pope St. Pelagius, 6th century: “For there is no crime more hated or despised than to communicate with schismatics…For anyone who does this is a reprobate and ceases to be part of the Church.”
Pope St. Gregory the Great, 6th century: “Rather ought everyone submit to death than to receive the sacrament of communion from the hand of a heretic.”
St. John Damascene, 8th century: “Let us never receive communion from or grant it to heretics…lest we become partakers in their dishonor and condemnation.”
St. Thomas Aquinas, Pt. II-II, Q. 39, Art. 3: “Jurisdiction…does not remain in heretics and schismatics; and consequently they neither absolve, nor excommunicate nor grant indulgences, nor do anything of the kind, and if they do it is invalid.”
Pope Paul IV, 16th century: “On no account [may] you go to the churches of heretics, or hear their sermons, or join in their rites lest ye incur the wrath of God.”
Pope Pius VI, 18th century; “Charitas”: “Keep away from all intruders, whether called Archbishops, bishops or parish priests; do not hold communion with them especially in divine worship.”
http://betrayedcatholics.com/wpcms/articles/a-catholics-course-of-study/traditionalist-heresies-and-errors/true-status-of-schismatic-priests-and-bishops-ignored/status-of-those-ordainedconsecrated-by-schismatics/
saint
“The reception of holy Orders from the hands of schismatic bishops has practically always been forbidden by the Church.Rarely has the Holy See ever considered it necessary to receive orders from a schismatic bishop. The prohibition to receive holy Orders at the hands of a schismatic bishop is contained in the general prohibition against active religious communication as expressed in Can. 1258§1.”
http://betrayedcatholics.com/wpcms/articles/a-catholics-course-of-study/traditionalist-heresies-and-errors/true-status-of-schismatic-priests-and-bishops-ignored/status-of-those-ordainedconsecrated-by-schismatics/
saint
saint
In 1631, Rev. Szal reports on the Holy Office’s various decisions concerning the use of faculties and the hearing of confessions. He writes: “The Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith stated that priests could seek permission for the use of their faculties from bishops who were regarded to be Catholic, provided that the priests had that degree of certitude regarding the orthodoxy of the bishops which excluded all suspicion of the schism or the error current in that region as attaching to them,” (Ibid). In answer to further doubts that same year, “the same Congregation replied that it was not permissible to seek the permission for the use of even one of the faculties from schismatic bishops. It insisted that the clause which had stated that permission was to be sought must be understood in regard to bishops who were in communion with the Church of Rome. There was asked the further question whether this permission could be obtained from schismatic pastors, but the reply of the Congregation was the same as that in regard to schismatic bishops.
“On May 15, 1709, the Holy Office forbade Catholics to hear the confession of schismatics or to confess to them…Under no circumstances, not even in the case of necessity, according to a response of the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith on Feb. 17, 1761, was it permissible for a Catholic to confess his sins to a schismatic priest in order to obtain absolution from him…” In a question presented to the same Congregation in 1839, the following reply was made: “Ethiopian converts were not to receive the sacrament of Penance from an heretical priest.” When the Congregation was asked about whether such a practice could be tolerated in a case of necessity, “the Congregation furnished the ironical if not indignant reply, ‘Nihil esse respondendum.’” Rev. Szal comments: “The answer to the question appeared so manifest that to raise the question at all branded the questioner’s action as foolhardy, and consequently as deserving no reply.” Szal notes that, “It is gravely illicit to request or receive the sacrament of Penance from a schismatic minister outside the danger of death. The ordinary necessity which a person senses when he is in the state of mortal sin is not sufficient to allow him to confess to a schismatic priest and receive absolution. Such a person would be obliged to make a Perfect Act of Contrition as best he could…”
http://betrayedcatholics.com/wpcms/articles/a-catholics-course-of-study/traditionalist-heresies-and-errors/true-status-of-schismatic-priests-and-bishops-ignored/status-of-those-ordainedconsecrated-by-schismatics/
saint
Monday, November 18, 2013
dimond
If a censure prohibits the celebration of sacraments or sacramentals or placing an act of governance, the prohibition is suspended whenever it is necessary to provide for the faithful who are in danger of death. If it is an automatic censure which has not been declared, the prohibition is moreover suspended whenever the faithful request a sacrament or sacramental or an act of governance. They may make this request for any just reason at all. (Can. 1335)
If the penalty forbids the reception of the sacraments or sacramentals, the prohibition is suspended as long as the person in question is in danger of death. The obligation of observing an automatic penalty, which has not been declared and is not notorious in the place where the offender is living, is suspended totally or partially insofar as the offender is unable to observe it without the danger of grave scandal or infamy.(Can. 1352)
dimond
- Those who contract marriage before a non-Catholic minister without permission (2319 § 1 n. 1);