Post by Pacelli on Nov 29, 2016 15:19:07 GMT -5
A brief history of this discussion: it began on the Bellarmine Forums about 10 1/2 years ago, but the discussion was derailed, and so many other matters kept coming up, that it fell into obscurity, until now. I have written to John Daly to ask him if he could bring his attention back to this matter, and he has kindly translated his notes on the post below from the French and sent them to me, with permission to publish them. The post below was the beginning of the discussion, I will post the notes shortly.
John Daly, May 20, 2006 wrote:
John Daly, May 20, 2006 wrote:
I have decided to launch a new thread here concerning “communicatio in sacris” if anyone is interested in pursuing it. One of my motives is that it may shed some indirect light on the “una cum” thread which is now very long and cumbersome to read. Another motive is that it is an interesting and important subject in its own right. And a third is that, as some readers will be aware, a fanatical ultra-sedevacantist of Jewish-Hungarian descent runs a website in which he accuses various traditional Catholics of various heresies and one of the supposed heresies he accuses some of us (myself included) is “communicatio in sacris” (which he abbreviates to CIS) and it is not impossible that some ill-informed people might take him seriously.
So let’s take an opening glance at the topic.
« Communicatio in sacris » means participation in public worship with someone. When the other person is a Catholic and the public worship is Catholic in character, this is generally considered rather a good idea and not a heresy. What tends to get bad marks is more exactly called “communicatio in sacris cum acatholicis”, i.e. participation in public worship with non-Catholics.
The 1917 Code of Canon Law has two canons potentially relevant to this topic. Canon 1258§1 deals with it directly: “It is not lawful for the faithful in any way to assist actively at or to take part in the worship of non-Catholics.”
On the other hand Canon 2261§2 says, “The faithful may…for any just cause seek the sacraments and sacramentals from an excommunicate, especially if other ministers are wanting…” It goes on to make an exception for those who have been declared by name to be excommunicated and for “vitandi”.
Since heretics incur excommunication but are not usually “vitandi” as this term is defined in Canon 2258§2, it may well be wondered which canon takes precedence. And there has been much disagreement among traditional Catholics on this topic. Some hold that Canon 1258 is the single specific law dealing with “communicatio in sacris” and is therefore to be obeyed to the letter in every case. This school dismisses Canon 2261§2 as applicable only to other excommunicates but not to heretics. Another school holds that Canon 2261 constitutes an exception to Canon 1258 whenever the heretic is not personally condemned and hence that any just reason suffices for receiving valid sacraments from non-Catholics. A third group holds that Canon 1258 applies whenever the heretic or his sect have been condemned but not to individuals who fall into heresies of their own. And a fourth group think that Canon 1258 cannot be disobeyed “for any just cause” but could yield to the principle of Canon 2261 for a very exceptional and grave reason.
I am hoping, if this thread gathers momentum, to examine carefully which of these opinions is most solidly founded.
I am also hoping to consider how much of the prohibition of “communicatio in sacris” belongs to divine law and how much to ecclesiastical law.
I also intend to put forward some little known and perhaps surprising texts from approved theologians and above all some very important documents from the Holy See on the subject.
Naturally we are all interested in particular in seeing how this relates to the present situation in the Church and the vexed question of where it is OK to go to Mass.
The intention of the thread is of course to respect the rules and spirit of this forum. The Council of Trent summed up the rules on tone, saying: ““In stating their views…no one must use strident and excessive language or stir up trouble or contend in false, vain or obstinate disputes; on the contrary, whatever is said should be so tempered by mild expression as neither to give offence to those who listen nor to disturb the peace of mind needed for sound judgment to be exercised.” (Session 2 (7th Jan. 1546), Decree on conduct and rules to be observed in the Council)
The other main principle is simply for any debate to be orderly, with citation of authorities and no attempt to avoid dealing with refutations by multiplying new arguments instead of answering old ones.
I’ll stop there for now and wait to see if there is any interest expressed.
John Daly
P.S. The relevance to the “una cum” subject is: 1. Heretical priests saying valid Masses often name other heretics in place of the legitimate pope in the canon, hence such Masses are usually “una cum” masses; 2. If it is ever OK to assist actively at the Mass said by a heretic, it is difficult to see why it wouldn’t be OK to assist actively at a Mass in which the heretic is not actually saying the Mass but only named in the Canon. SOURCE
So let’s take an opening glance at the topic.
« Communicatio in sacris » means participation in public worship with someone. When the other person is a Catholic and the public worship is Catholic in character, this is generally considered rather a good idea and not a heresy. What tends to get bad marks is more exactly called “communicatio in sacris cum acatholicis”, i.e. participation in public worship with non-Catholics.
The 1917 Code of Canon Law has two canons potentially relevant to this topic. Canon 1258§1 deals with it directly: “It is not lawful for the faithful in any way to assist actively at or to take part in the worship of non-Catholics.”
On the other hand Canon 2261§2 says, “The faithful may…for any just cause seek the sacraments and sacramentals from an excommunicate, especially if other ministers are wanting…” It goes on to make an exception for those who have been declared by name to be excommunicated and for “vitandi”.
Since heretics incur excommunication but are not usually “vitandi” as this term is defined in Canon 2258§2, it may well be wondered which canon takes precedence. And there has been much disagreement among traditional Catholics on this topic. Some hold that Canon 1258 is the single specific law dealing with “communicatio in sacris” and is therefore to be obeyed to the letter in every case. This school dismisses Canon 2261§2 as applicable only to other excommunicates but not to heretics. Another school holds that Canon 2261 constitutes an exception to Canon 1258 whenever the heretic is not personally condemned and hence that any just reason suffices for receiving valid sacraments from non-Catholics. A third group holds that Canon 1258 applies whenever the heretic or his sect have been condemned but not to individuals who fall into heresies of their own. And a fourth group think that Canon 1258 cannot be disobeyed “for any just cause” but could yield to the principle of Canon 2261 for a very exceptional and grave reason.
I am hoping, if this thread gathers momentum, to examine carefully which of these opinions is most solidly founded.
I am also hoping to consider how much of the prohibition of “communicatio in sacris” belongs to divine law and how much to ecclesiastical law.
I also intend to put forward some little known and perhaps surprising texts from approved theologians and above all some very important documents from the Holy See on the subject.
Naturally we are all interested in particular in seeing how this relates to the present situation in the Church and the vexed question of where it is OK to go to Mass.
The intention of the thread is of course to respect the rules and spirit of this forum. The Council of Trent summed up the rules on tone, saying: ““In stating their views…no one must use strident and excessive language or stir up trouble or contend in false, vain or obstinate disputes; on the contrary, whatever is said should be so tempered by mild expression as neither to give offence to those who listen nor to disturb the peace of mind needed for sound judgment to be exercised.” (Session 2 (7th Jan. 1546), Decree on conduct and rules to be observed in the Council)
The other main principle is simply for any debate to be orderly, with citation of authorities and no attempt to avoid dealing with refutations by multiplying new arguments instead of answering old ones.
I’ll stop there for now and wait to see if there is any interest expressed.
John Daly
P.S. The relevance to the “una cum” subject is: 1. Heretical priests saying valid Masses often name other heretics in place of the legitimate pope in the canon, hence such Masses are usually “una cum” masses; 2. If it is ever OK to assist actively at the Mass said by a heretic, it is difficult to see why it wouldn’t be OK to assist actively at a Mass in which the heretic is not actually saying the Mass but only named in the Canon. SOURCE