Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: romantheology on October 27, 2011, 02:21:11 PM
-
Canon 2261 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law # 2 ; Canon 844 of 1983 Code of Canon Law.
Both upheld that the Sacraments can be received from non-Catholics. With that said, how is Assisi (1986) and (2011) worst?
That is, partaking in Sacraments is (more) serious than just praying together.
In addition, I found it odd that Bishop(?) Mark Pivarunas can state that CMRI and SSPX are (one Church) and both groups (Roman Catholic):
http://gloria.tv/?media=208698
-
You apparently have not studied Church history and Papal decrees before Vatican II. Pope Pius IX condemned the very things that the Assisi meetings support. Look:
Blessed Pius IX, in line with the popes that preceded and succeeded him, taught in his 1864 Syllabus of Errors that it is an error to believe “every man is free to embrace and profess that religions which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true.”
-
In charity can you answer the above ? Is it more serious to communicate in sacraments or just prayers with non-catholics?
-
Hold on a few minutes Roman, someone will be along who can adequately answer you I'm sure.
-
The Sacraments can be received from priests or bishops of SCHISMATIC groups WHICH HAVE VALID APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION, but only in cases of extreme emergency and upon imminent death. There is NO other valid reason for receiving anything at all from schismatics and no other circuмstance which would warrant even considering the possibility of same.
The debacles at Assisi were rife with damnable heresy because the pagan religions of the world were given time, opportunity and space to 'worship' their false gods.
Wojtyla permitted an idol of 'Buddha' to be set up within a Roman Catholic basilica, whether it was a particularly consecrated room or not.
There were NO attempts made to address the vast differences between the Faith of Christ's Church and the disgusting and savage rites of the pagans. They were intentionally invited to 'pray' for peace along with Wojtyla the criminal, who aided and abetted rapists and embezzlers while he violated Canon Law.
Seriously... you must be a young person and obviously not aware of even the basics of Catholic Tradition, because otherwise you would be appalled at what Wojtyla and Ratzinger have done to try and undermine the Faith.
Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon.
Sacred Heart of Jesus, have mercy on us.
-
The Sacraments can be received from priests or bishops of SCHISMATIC groups WHICH HAVE VALID APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION, but only in cases of extreme emergency and upon imminent death. There is NO other valid reason for receiving anything at all from schismatics and no other circuмstance which would warrant even considering the possibility of same.
Does anyone know if it only applies to confession? and since jurisdiction is necessary for the validity of that sacrament I'm assuming Church supplies it to the confessor in such instances.
-
The Sacraments can be received from priests or bishops of SCHISMATIC groups WHICH HAVE VALID APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION, but only in cases of extreme emergency and upon imminent death. There is NO other valid reason for receiving anything at all from schismatics and no other circuмstance which would warrant even considering the possibility of same.
Oddly, if you Believe Pope Benedict XVI (ordained priest June 29th 1951) is a Schismatic, well, you could even receive communion from him in such a case then?
He has valid orders.
So much for Fr. Cekada's Una cuм theory....well?
-
The Sacraments can be received from priests or bishops of SCHISMATIC groups WHICH HAVE VALID APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION, but only in cases of extreme emergency and upon imminent death. There is NO other valid reason for receiving anything at all from schismatics and no other circuмstance which would warrant even considering the possibility of same.
Oddly, if you Believe Pope Benedict XVI (ordained priest June 29th 1951) is a Schismatic, well, you could even receive communion from him in such a case then?
He has valid orders.
So much for Fr. Cekada's Una cuм theory....well?
Clearly, Benedict 16 was validly ordained a priest. I've never heard any sedevacantist dispute this. Therefore, in danger of death, he could validly give absolution provided he has the intention to absolve sins.
In regards to Holy Communion, however, he has already denied the Real Presence in one of his books (I don't remember which one, but it has been quoted on this forum within the last few weeks), so I don't see how he could have the intention of doing as the Church does regardless of what rite he used.
-
I'm pretty much a hardliner and I don't doubt his actual priestly ordination, but his so called episcopal consecration as a bishop as I understand was done with the novus ordo "rites". In other wards invalid. Hence the consecrations he's done are invalid, and he could not be the Bishop of Rome. Just my position.
-
Oddly, if you Believe Pope Benedict XVI (ordained priest June 29th 1951) is a Schismatic, well, you could even receive communion from him in such a case then?
He has valid orders.
Roman, Benedict is a valid priest, but NOT a Valid Bishop. He was consecrated with the invalid rite of consecration of 1968, as are the majority of the Vatican 11 bishops.
-
@Emerentiana:
Not anymore, he's not any valid priest. Ratzinger is a heretic. One of his books, written while he was still just a priest, was banned in Poland on suspicion of heresy, and that was all the way back in 1968. His attitude and actions have only gotten worse. Anyone claiming to be a Pope who can make a speech (at a Cathedral Basilica of all places!) and not mention the Holy Name of Jesus even once needs to have his head examined.
Ratzinger is in league with the infidel Jєωs and the Protestant heretics, so he is altogether unCatholic.
St. John Vianney, pray for us.
Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon.
Sacred Heart of Jesus, have mercy on us.