Post by Pacelli on Oct 13, 2016 13:27:47 GMT -5
The following quotes were posted by the poster, Caillin, on the Te Deum forum. I am posting it here as this subject keeps coming up with Catholics and the principles as explained by these theologians need to be spread wide and far to as many Catholics as possible in these times. I do not want this excellent research to get buried into obscurity. Original post found HERE
Francisco Suarez, S.J.; De Fide: Disputatio XXI, Sectio 3.1621:
This Irish Ecclesiastical Record (1886) -; Thomas Livius, C.SS.R.:
The Delict of Heresy - MacKenzie, Rev. Eric F., A.M., S.T.L., J.C.L. (1932):
- Selected quotes are from chapter six, "Heresy and Official Status and Actions"
Cardinal John de Lugo S.J.; Tractatus de Virtute Fidei Divinae: Disputatio XXII, Sectio.1. 1646:
“The second chief doubt is whether we may communicate with an undeclared heretic only in civil and human affairs or even in sacred and spiritual things. It is certain that we cannot communicate with heretics in the rites proper to a heretical sect, because this would be contrary to the precept of confessing the faith and would contain an implicit profession of error. But the question relates to sacred matters containing no error, e.g. whether it is lawful to hear Mass with a heretic, or to celebrate in his presence, or to be present while he celebrates in the Catholic rite, etc.
...But the opposite view [i.e. that attendance at such a Mass is lawful] is general [communis] and true, unless it should be illicit for some other reason on account of scandal or implicit denial of the faith, or because charity obliges one to impede the sin of the heretical minister administering unworthily where necessity does not urge. This is the teaching of Navarro and Sanchez, Suarez, Hurtado and is what I have said in speaking of the sacrament of penance and of matrimony and the other sacraments. It is also certain by virtue of the said litterae extravagantes [i.e. Ad evitanda scandala] in which communication with excommunicati tolerati is conceded to the faithful in the reception and administration of the sacraments. So as these heretics are not declared excommunicates or notoriously guilty of striking a cleric, there is no reason why we should be prevented from receiving the sacraments from them because of their excommunication, although on other grounds this may often be illicit unless necessity excuse as I have explained in the said places.”
(translation by John Daly)
Original Latin:
"Secundo principaliter dubitatur, an non solum in civilibus, ; humanis possimus cum haeret-ico non denunciato communicare, sed etiam in sacris, ; spiritualibus. Certum autem est, non posse nos cum haereticis communicare in ritibus propriis sectae haereticae, quia hoc esset contra praeceptum confessionis fidei, ; contineret implicitam professionis erroris: sed quaestio est de rebus sacris nullum errorem continentibus, v.g. an liceat cum haeretico Missam audire, vel eo praesente celebrare, vel ipsi ritu Catholico celebranti adesse, etc.
…Contraria sentential communis,; vera est, nisi aliunde ratione scandali, vel ob negationem fidei implicitam illicitum sit, vel quia charitas obligat ad impediendum peccatum ministry haeretici indigne ministrantis, si necessitas non urgeat, ita cum Navarro Sanchez ubi supra num.10. Suarez num.5. Hurtado ubi supra, §.13. ; loquens de sacramento poenitentiae idem dixi disp.18 de poenitentia, sect.2num.18; 19. ; loquens de matrimonio ac aliis sacramentis, idem dixi disp.8.de sacramentis in genere, sect.14. ; constat ex dicta extravaganti, in qua conceditur fidelibus communicatio non excommunicatis tolerates in susceptione, ; administratione sacra-mentorum: cum ergo ii haeretici non sint excommunicati denunciati, nec notorii Clerici percussores, non est cur ratione excommunicationis prohibeamur ab iis sacramenta suscipere: quanvis id aliunde possit saepe illicitum esse, nisi necessitas excuset, ut explicui in praedictis locis." (pp.562-563)
---De Lugo, Cardinal S.J. (1583-1660), Tractatus de virtuto fidei divinae. 1646. 3rd ed. 1696.
...But the opposite view [i.e. that attendance at such a Mass is lawful] is general [communis] and true, unless it should be illicit for some other reason on account of scandal or implicit denial of the faith, or because charity obliges one to impede the sin of the heretical minister administering unworthily where necessity does not urge. This is the teaching of Navarro and Sanchez, Suarez, Hurtado and is what I have said in speaking of the sacrament of penance and of matrimony and the other sacraments. It is also certain by virtue of the said litterae extravagantes [i.e. Ad evitanda scandala] in which communication with excommunicati tolerati is conceded to the faithful in the reception and administration of the sacraments. So as these heretics are not declared excommunicates or notoriously guilty of striking a cleric, there is no reason why we should be prevented from receiving the sacraments from them because of their excommunication, although on other grounds this may often be illicit unless necessity excuse as I have explained in the said places.”
(translation by John Daly)
Original Latin:
"Secundo principaliter dubitatur, an non solum in civilibus, ; humanis possimus cum haeret-ico non denunciato communicare, sed etiam in sacris, ; spiritualibus. Certum autem est, non posse nos cum haereticis communicare in ritibus propriis sectae haereticae, quia hoc esset contra praeceptum confessionis fidei, ; contineret implicitam professionis erroris: sed quaestio est de rebus sacris nullum errorem continentibus, v.g. an liceat cum haeretico Missam audire, vel eo praesente celebrare, vel ipsi ritu Catholico celebranti adesse, etc.
…Contraria sentential communis,; vera est, nisi aliunde ratione scandali, vel ob negationem fidei implicitam illicitum sit, vel quia charitas obligat ad impediendum peccatum ministry haeretici indigne ministrantis, si necessitas non urgeat, ita cum Navarro Sanchez ubi supra num.10. Suarez num.5. Hurtado ubi supra, §.13. ; loquens de sacramento poenitentiae idem dixi disp.18 de poenitentia, sect.2num.18; 19. ; loquens de matrimonio ac aliis sacramentis, idem dixi disp.8.de sacramentis in genere, sect.14. ; constat ex dicta extravaganti, in qua conceditur fidelibus communicatio non excommunicatis tolerates in susceptione, ; administratione sacra-mentorum: cum ergo ii haeretici non sint excommunicati denunciati, nec notorii Clerici percussores, non est cur ratione excommunicationis prohibeamur ab iis sacramenta suscipere: quanvis id aliunde possit saepe illicitum esse, nisi necessitas excuset, ut explicui in praedictis locis." (pp.562-563)
---De Lugo, Cardinal S.J. (1583-1660), Tractatus de virtuto fidei divinae. 1646. 3rd ed. 1696.
"The first opinion teaches, as often as it is evident that someone is a heretic, the very fact makes communication with him forbidden.; Thus, Soto 4. Dist.25. Quast.1 art.1 ; 3. ; dist. 20. Quast.1. art.5. conclus. 2.; The common opinion, however, denies this, in as much as they are not legally declared a heretic, ; denounced; because the Council of Constance granted all the faithful in general, as to permit communication with all the excommunicated, except those denounced by name, & those notorious for striking a cleric, with no given exception of heretics: therefore, there is no reason by which that permission does not extend to communicate with them [heretics].; Thus teach Toetus, Ugolinus, Suarez, Azor, ; others, whom I have reported, ; followed by Thomas Sanchez lib.2. in Decal.cap.9.n.3 Hurtado in prasenti, disp.76;4. others in common, which I’ve always embraced in other places."
(translated by me with the help of Latin dictionaries and Google Translate)
Original Latin:
"Prima sententia docet, quoties constat aliquem esse haereticum, eo ipso prohibitam esse cum illo communicationem. Ita Sotus in 4. Dist. 25. Quast.1 art.1 ; 3. ; dist. 20. Quast.1. art.5. con-clus. 2. Communis tamen sententia id negat, quandiu haereticus non est juridice declaratus, ; denuciatus; quia Concilium Constantiense indulsit generaliter omnibus fidelibus, ut possent licite communicare cum omnibus excommunicatis, exceptis nominatim denunciatis, ; notoriis Cleri-corum percussoribus, ubi nulla prorsus sit exceptio de haereticis: non est ergo cur indultum illud ad communicationem etiam cum illis non extendatur. Ita Toetus, Ugolinus, Suarez, Azor, ; alii, quos refert, ; sequitur Thomas Sanchez lib.2. in Decal.cap.9.n.3 Hurtado in prasenti, disp.76&;4. ; alii comuniter, quod ego etiam in aliis locis semper amplexus sum." (pp.560-561)
---De Lugo, Cardinal S.J. (1583-1660), Tractatus de virtuto fidei divinae. 1646. 3rd ed. 1696.
(translated by me with the help of Latin dictionaries and Google Translate)
Original Latin:
"Prima sententia docet, quoties constat aliquem esse haereticum, eo ipso prohibitam esse cum illo communicationem. Ita Sotus in 4. Dist. 25. Quast.1 art.1 ; 3. ; dist. 20. Quast.1. art.5. con-clus. 2. Communis tamen sententia id negat, quandiu haereticus non est juridice declaratus, ; denuciatus; quia Concilium Constantiense indulsit generaliter omnibus fidelibus, ut possent licite communicare cum omnibus excommunicatis, exceptis nominatim denunciatis, ; notoriis Cleri-corum percussoribus, ubi nulla prorsus sit exceptio de haereticis: non est ergo cur indultum illud ad communicationem etiam cum illis non extendatur. Ita Toetus, Ugolinus, Suarez, Azor, ; alii, quos refert, ; sequitur Thomas Sanchez lib.2. in Decal.cap.9.n.3 Hurtado in prasenti, disp.76&;4. ; alii comuniter, quod ego etiam in aliis locis semper amplexus sum." (pp.560-561)
---De Lugo, Cardinal S.J. (1583-1660), Tractatus de virtuto fidei divinae. 1646. 3rd ed. 1696.
Francisco Suarez, S.J.; De Fide: Disputatio XXI, Sectio 3.1621:
…in Extrav. Ad evitanda… the obligation was limited, in such a way that the faithful were only bound to avoid those particularly excommunicated and denounced by name… This new law established by the Council of Constance also extends to heretics and the words of Extrav.[Ad evitanda] prove this, which are both general and add an exception to confirm the rule towards everybody else.; The teaching is completely true and certain in practice, undoubtedly however much a heretic is notorious and public, the faithful are not bound to avoid him because of his censure, until a sentence declares and denounces him by name, is the common teaching….; Martin V approved the first form (namely in the Council of Constance), and it’s usage was commonly received by the Church, as I broadly exhibited in Tom. V., Disp. Ix. Sect, ii.
(translated by me with the help of Latin dictionaries and Google Translate)
Original Latin:
... Jure antiquo haec obligatio universalis erat, nec postulabatur alia conditio ex parte ex-communicati nisi quod in re ipsa excommunicationem incurrisset. Ex parte vero aliorum solum erat necessaria sufficiens notitia censurae, hac tantum observatione adhibita, ut si excommunica-tus esset occultiis respectu aliorum, occulte vitaretur: si vero publicus, publice. Postea vero in extrav. Ad evitanda… limitata fuit ilia obligatio, ut fideles tantum tenerentur vitare excommuni-catum in particulari et nominatim denuntiatum, ac declaratum, cum quadam limitation; quam infra attingam. ... Statuendum est hoc novum jus Concilii Const. etiam ad haereticos extendi,... et verba Extrav. convin(censured), quae et generalia sunt, et addunt exceptionem, quae firmat regulam quoad omnes alios. . . . Sententia omnino vera et practice certa, nimirum quantumcumque haeret-icus sit notorius et publicus, non teneri fideles ad vitandum ilium ex vi hujus censurae, donec sit per sententiam nominatim declaratus ac denuntiatus, est communis sententia. . . . Martinus V. priorem formam (scil. ex Concil. Constant.) approbavit, et communi usu Ecclesiae recepta est, ut latius ostendi in Tom. v., Disp. ix. Sect, ii." (p.316)
---Suarez, Francisco, S.J. Tractatus De Fide. 1621. From De Triplici Virtu TeTheologica, by Francisco Suarez, S.J. Compiled by Joaannem Emmanuelem, D.D. 1622.
(translated by me with the help of Latin dictionaries and Google Translate)
Original Latin:
... Jure antiquo haec obligatio universalis erat, nec postulabatur alia conditio ex parte ex-communicati nisi quod in re ipsa excommunicationem incurrisset. Ex parte vero aliorum solum erat necessaria sufficiens notitia censurae, hac tantum observatione adhibita, ut si excommunica-tus esset occultiis respectu aliorum, occulte vitaretur: si vero publicus, publice. Postea vero in extrav. Ad evitanda… limitata fuit ilia obligatio, ut fideles tantum tenerentur vitare excommuni-catum in particulari et nominatim denuntiatum, ac declaratum, cum quadam limitation; quam infra attingam. ... Statuendum est hoc novum jus Concilii Const. etiam ad haereticos extendi,... et verba Extrav. convin(censured), quae et generalia sunt, et addunt exceptionem, quae firmat regulam quoad omnes alios. . . . Sententia omnino vera et practice certa, nimirum quantumcumque haeret-icus sit notorius et publicus, non teneri fideles ad vitandum ilium ex vi hujus censurae, donec sit per sententiam nominatim declaratus ac denuntiatus, est communis sententia. . . . Martinus V. priorem formam (scil. ex Concil. Constant.) approbavit, et communi usu Ecclesiae recepta est, ut latius ostendi in Tom. v., Disp. ix. Sect, ii." (p.316)
---Suarez, Francisco, S.J. Tractatus De Fide. 1621. From De Triplici Virtu TeTheologica, by Francisco Suarez, S.J. Compiled by Joaannem Emmanuelem, D.D. 1622.
This Irish Ecclesiastical Record (1886) -; Thomas Livius, C.SS.R.:
"...according to the unanimous teaching of theologians the Constitution Ad evitanda includes heretics (excipiendis exceptis) equally with all other excommunicate in its provisions of toleration, so that, ex vi illius Constitutionis, as full communication with all heretics in quibuscumque divinis as with the rest of the excommunicate is granted to the faithful.; Theologians make practically no distinction whatever on this point."
---Livius, Thomas, C.SS.R. “Can a Priest say Mass privately for a deceased Protestant?” The Irish Ecclesiastical Record. Vol.VII. Dublin: Browne ; Nolan. 1886.
---Livius, Thomas, C.SS.R. “Can a Priest say Mass privately for a deceased Protestant?” The Irish Ecclesiastical Record. Vol.VII. Dublin: Browne ; Nolan. 1886.
The Delict of Heresy - MacKenzie, Rev. Eric F., A.M., S.T.L., J.C.L. (1932):
- Selected quotes are from chapter six, "Heresy and Official Status and Actions"
[referring to heretics] "...the second and third sections of canon 2261 provide for the delinquents administration of Sacraments in certain special cases. This provision is not intended as a favor to the delinquent himself, but rather as a means of making the Sacraments more available to the faithful, especially urgent cases… The provisions distinguish between those priests who have not and those who have received judicial sentences, and between the faithful whose case is urgent and those who are in ordinary need of the Sacraments."
"...Canon 2261 is the logical complement of this legislation, in giving the faithful the right to seek the ministrations of priests so empowered… When the priest or other cleric is excommunicated, but has not received either a declaratory or condemnatory sentence, the faithful are permitted to ask and receive from him any Sacrament or Sacramental, especially if other ministers are absent. In these circumstances the said minister is free to administer to the faithful, and does not thereby violate the censure of which he is conscious. The faithful are required to have a just cause for their request, but canonists do not require that it be a serious (gravis) cause; the earlier conferring of Baptism, the dispelling of doubt concerning the gravity of a sin and the state of conscious, the desire for greater purity of soul when approaching the Holy Table, or the wish to communicate more frequently, have been recognized as just causes for requesting Sacraments even from priests known to be under simple censure. Meanwhile the minister is not required to investigate the reasons impelling the faithful to approach him, nor to verify the justice of their reasons. On being asked to administer a Sacrament, he is immediately free (ratione censurae) to do so. Even more, canonists do not require him to wait for an explicit request. Any implicit or reasonably presumed petition will be sufficient. Hence, when no other minister is available, a priest who is consiously guilty of a delict of heresy may go to Church, and show himself as ready to hear Confessions at the regular hours to distribute Communion and celebrate Mass when the faithful gather for these purposes."; (pp.78-79)
--- MacKenzie, Rev. Eric F., A.M., S.T.L., J.C.L. (1932). The Delict of Heresy: In Its Commission, Penalization, Absolution. The Catholic University of America, Washington, D. C. Nihil Obstat: Patrick J. Waters, Ph.D. Imprimatur: William Cardinal O'Connell, Archbishop of Boston.
"...Canon 2261 is the logical complement of this legislation, in giving the faithful the right to seek the ministrations of priests so empowered… When the priest or other cleric is excommunicated, but has not received either a declaratory or condemnatory sentence, the faithful are permitted to ask and receive from him any Sacrament or Sacramental, especially if other ministers are absent. In these circumstances the said minister is free to administer to the faithful, and does not thereby violate the censure of which he is conscious. The faithful are required to have a just cause for their request, but canonists do not require that it be a serious (gravis) cause; the earlier conferring of Baptism, the dispelling of doubt concerning the gravity of a sin and the state of conscious, the desire for greater purity of soul when approaching the Holy Table, or the wish to communicate more frequently, have been recognized as just causes for requesting Sacraments even from priests known to be under simple censure. Meanwhile the minister is not required to investigate the reasons impelling the faithful to approach him, nor to verify the justice of their reasons. On being asked to administer a Sacrament, he is immediately free (ratione censurae) to do so. Even more, canonists do not require him to wait for an explicit request. Any implicit or reasonably presumed petition will be sufficient. Hence, when no other minister is available, a priest who is consiously guilty of a delict of heresy may go to Church, and show himself as ready to hear Confessions at the regular hours to distribute Communion and celebrate Mass when the faithful gather for these purposes."; (pp.78-79)
--- MacKenzie, Rev. Eric F., A.M., S.T.L., J.C.L. (1932). The Delict of Heresy: In Its Commission, Penalization, Absolution. The Catholic University of America, Washington, D. C. Nihil Obstat: Patrick J. Waters, Ph.D. Imprimatur: William Cardinal O'Connell, Archbishop of Boston.