Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

« previous next »
Pages: [1]

Author Topic: Papal decree that forbids receiving doubtful sacraments?  (Read 1917 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline poenitens

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 254
  • Reputation: +138/-14
  • Gender: Male
Papal decree that forbids receiving doubtful sacraments?
« on: October 22, 2023, 07:19:58 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • I remember that a few months ago somebody here cited some Papal decree that forbids Catholics to approach or receive doubtful sacraments.

    I think it was from a 17-18th century Pope. Can you help me find it?

    Ave María!
    Logged
    ¡Viva Jesús!

    Please, disregard any opinions and references that I have posted that may seem favorable to any traditionalist group, especially those that pertinaciously deny EENS (CMRI, Sanborn, Dolan and associates, for example).

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 12399
    • Reputation: +7892/-2448
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Papal decree that forbids receiving doubtful sacraments?
    « Reply #1 on: October 22, 2023, 02:04:11 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Such rules have been in canon law for a long time.  Papal decree or not, canon law still applies. 
    Logged

    Offline Marulus Fidelis

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 750
    • Reputation: +403/-122
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Papal decree that forbids receiving doubtful sacraments?
    « Reply #2 on: October 22, 2023, 04:22:32 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
    • Pope Innocent XI's decree of the 2nd of March 1679.

    1. IT is not unlawfull in the Administration of the Sa∣craments to follow a Probable Opinion concerning the Validity of the Sacraments, rather than one that is more safe; unless that the forbidden by a Law, Agreement, or the hazard of some great Damage. Hence it follows, that an Opinion only probable is not to be followed in the conferring of Baptism, or of Priestly or Episcopal Orders. - CONDEMNED
    Logged

    Offline poenitens

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 254
    • Reputation: +138/-14
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Papal decree that forbids receiving doubtful sacraments?
    « Reply #3 on: October 22, 2023, 06:41:32 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Marulus Fidelis on October 22, 2023, 04:22:32 PM
    Pope Innocent XI's decree of the 2nd of March 1679.

    1. IT is not unlawfull in the Administration of the Sa∣craments to follow a Probable Opinion concerning the Validity of the Sacraments, rather than one that is more safe; unless that the forbidden by a Law, Agreement, or the hazard of some great Damage. Hence it follows, that an Opinion only probable is not to be followed in the conferring of Baptism, or of Priestly or Episcopal Orders. - CONDEMNED
    This is what I was looking for. Thank you
    Logged
    ¡Viva Jesús!

    Please, disregard any opinions and references that I have posted that may seem favorable to any traditionalist group, especially those that pertinaciously deny EENS (CMRI, Sanborn, Dolan and associates, for example).

    Offline AnthonyPadua

    • Supporter
    • ****
    • Posts: 2411
    • Reputation: +1249/-253
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Papal decree that forbids receiving doubtful sacraments?
    « Reply #4 on: October 23, 2023, 07:36:00 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Marulus Fidelis on October 22, 2023, 04:22:32 PM
    Pope Innocent XI's decree of the 2nd of March 1679.

    1. IT is not unlawfull in the Administration of the Sa∣craments to follow a Probable Opinion concerning the Validity of the Sacraments, rather than one that is more safe; unless that the forbidden by a Law, Agreement, or the hazard of some great Damage. Hence it follows, that an Opinion only probable is not to be followed in the conferring of Baptism, or of Priestly or Episcopal Orders. - CONDEMNED
    That last bit is tripping me up.
    An opinion only probable is NOT to be followed up - condemned. So it is to be followed?
    Logged

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46902
    • Reputation: +27765/-5163
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Papal decree that forbids receiving doubtful sacraments?
    « Reply #5 on: October 23, 2023, 07:38:15 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: AnthonyPadua on October 23, 2023, 07:36:00 AM
    That last bit is tripping me up.
    An opinion only probable is NOT to be followed up - condemned. So it is to be followed?

    Yeah, I think the citation has "CONDEMNED" in the wrong place.  First sentence is condemned, leading to the conclusion, "Hence ...." but as it stands it is confusing.  Otherwise, the two sentences are saying the exact opposite and can't both be condemned.

    If you see a more complete text here ... https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo2/A45897.0001.001/1:3.2?rgn=div2;view=fulltext

    you'll noticed that the CONDEMNED is injected by this translator (inferred from the introduction above), but I believe that the "Hence ..." part is a comment based on the condemnation of the first part only.
    Logged

    Offline Marulus Fidelis

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 750
    • Reputation: +403/-122
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Papal decree that forbids receiving doubtful sacraments?
    « Reply #6 on: October 23, 2023, 03:18:40 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • I added condemned in the wrong place. Did not expect unmarked commentary in a list of condemned propositions...
    Logged

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46902
    • Reputation: +27765/-5163
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Papal decree that forbids receiving doubtful sacraments?
    « Reply #7 on: October 23, 2023, 07:13:22 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Marulus Fidelis on October 23, 2023, 03:18:40 PM
    I added condemned in the wrong place. Did not expect unmarked commentary in a list of condemned propositions...

    Yeah, one doesn't typically see that.  Even the link above is confusing.  That comment should be separated out somehow.
    Logged
    Pages: [1]
    « previous next »