Contradiction in Doctrine - "Please Explain"


#1

Hey all.

All aussies out there, gotta love the title. Very Pauline Hanson (laughs to self)…

Sorry Mary, i really want this answered.

Look at this site.
cathinsight.com/statusjpii.htm
I have a sneaking suspicion that it is sedevacantist, but, be aware, THIS WILL NOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, BE A THREAD FOR DISCUSSION OF SEDEVACANTISM, SINCE IT IS BANNED.

Read only the section dealing with the apparent contradiction, do not worry about the question and reply section - too dangerous to be written here.

Before the code was changed by JPII, it said sacraments could not be given to any non-catholic.
Now, it says that they can be given to Eastern Orthodox, and even protestants in some instances.
In my understanding, this is a rule of faith, not a discipline.

Why did JPII change this?
Can anyone explain?


#2

I would speculate that it has to do with the level of communion with the various groups.

In other words, if at one point in time the Eastern Orthodox were completely out of communion with the Church, then they can not receive the Sacraments. However, if they happen to come in to greater communion with the Church such that they are now “close enough” they can receive them. It’s late so I’m not coming across clearly… This example might help:

Right now, Anglicans do not have valid Holy Orders. Anglican clergy entering the Church must be ordained if they wish to be clergy. This is a matter of doctrine: only the validly ordained can consecrate the Eucharist and administer reconcilliation and such. So, per doctrine, not discipline, Anglicans can not do this.

Now, say that over the next 50 years, the Anglicans obtain valid Holy Orders. Say a validly ordained Bishop becomes an Anglican and starts ordaining people. Now, within 50 years, the majority of (or all) of the Anglican clergy might be validly ordained.

Now, by doctrine, not discipline, the Anglicans are able to administer the Sacraments. This is different from what was true before, and both are matters of doctrine, but they are not in contradiction.


#3

The Church is not obliged to offer the Sacraments to any non-Catholic (except, of course, Baptim). There can be many theological, pastoral, and spiritual problems with doing so. It would be easy and safe to simply not do it.

However, the Church may examine very specific situations and decide that there are benefits which probably outweigh the risks. In these very specific situations, the Church may “cross pollenate” Sacramental Grace.

The Church has NEVER said that non-Catholics lack the capacity to receive these Graces. She has simply said she does not know for sure. But, in some cases, She is more sure than others, and decides to err on the side of pastoral generosity, and trusts Our Lord to sort out the details.

BTW, the Code of Canon Law is BY NO MEANS a statement of any sort of doctrine. Canon Law can (and does, and should) change. The Church could radically change Canon Law each and every day if she pleased (it would be stupid to do so, but She could do it if She wanted without affecting Her doctrinal teaching).


#4

I came back and re-visited this thread, and I was reminded of a passage in Scripture (Mt 15:25-) where Jesus shows us the way in this regard:

Then Jesus went from that place and withdrew to the region of Tyre and Sidon. And behold, a Canaanite woman of that district came and called out, “Have pity on me, Lord, Son of David! My daughter is tormented by a demon.” But he did not say a word in answer to her. His disciples came and asked him, “Send her away, for she keeps calling out after us.” He said in reply, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” But the woman came and did him homage, saying, “Lord, help me.” He said in reply, “It is not right to take the food of the children and throw it to the dogs.” She said, “Please, Lord, for even the dogs eat the scraps that fall from the table of their masters.” Then Jesus said to her in reply, “O woman, great is your faith! Let it be done for you as you wish.” And her daughter was healed from that hour.

Those who ask in the spirit of true faith may receive. Even Jesus says so.


#5

Eastern Churches and Oriental (Orthodox ) Churches are true and
valid Apostolic Churches even though some of them
are not in full communion with Rome
They were founded by Apostles and their priesthood
has been handed down the generations by 'Laying of Hands’
Therefore all their sacraments are as valid as Catholic sacraments
Also be aware that the Antiochian Church is also see of Peter.
Since their sacraments are valid, a person wishing to enter into
Roman CatholicChurch from any of these churches need not be
baptized again because their baptism is valid
The same goes with Priesthood.
I can think of Syro-Malankara Catholic Chruch which entered into
full communion with Rome (some 75 yrs ago).
They were originally under Antiochian Patriarch (Jacobite Church)
Their priests at the time of entry into Catholic Church are valid priests in Catholic Church with out need for ordination.
So also their Bishops, Confession, Communion and Marriage
They celebrated these in slightly different ways
Some of these churches do not have private confessions
Their priests can get married before ordination etc
Their mass even today is ditto Jacobite liturgy.
Roman Catholic Church accepted Orthodox churches as valid
from the very beginning
So then why does it not make sense to administer sacraments to
the followers of orthodox Church

To my knowledge it is ok to receive sacraments from them as well

Here I am referring only to orthodox and oriental apostolic churches

This is not some thing that JPII initiated


#6

[quote=Nekić]Before the code was changed by JPII, it said sacraments could not be given to any non-catholic.
Now, it says that they can be given to Eastern Orthodox, and even protestants in some instances.

[/quote]

I think that there was always some sort of exception made for Eastern Orthodox under certain circumstances, since it was always acknowledged that they possess apostolic succession and valide Sacraments.
however, as far as Protestants are concerned, I thought that generally their Holy Communion is not regarded as valid, and that Catholics were not to receive it. Also, before Vatican II, the rule was not to allow Protestants to receive Holy Communion, as far as I understand it. I don;t know why according to the news reports, the present Pope has been show giving Holy Communion to at least one individual who he personally knew was a Protestant and not Catholic. Unless the rules have been changed to allow that. It doews seem like a big change though, allowing (some) Protestants to receive Catholic Holy Communion at the funeral of the Pope.


#7

[quote=Lazerlike42]Right now, Anglicans do not have valid Holy Orders.
[/quote]

Anglican clergy entering the Church must be ordained if they wish to be clergy.

Actually, they’re ordained sub conditione. That is if their ordination is not valid they are now validly ordained; if their ordination was valid, they’ve had a pretty ceremony.

Now, say that over the next 50 years, the Anglicans obtain valid Holy Orders.

Quite a few have. Over the last 80 or so years the Anglican Church has had Old Catholic or Orthodox co-consecrators for most of their episcopal ordinations. At least the last three Archbishops of Canterbury have valid apostolic succession.

John


#8

Oh, BTW, as far as the quote, the writer couldn’t develop a proof if his (eternal) life depended on it.

John


#9

[quote=John Higgins]. Over the last 80 or so years the Anglican Church has had Old Catholic or Orthodox co-consecrators for most of their episcopal ordinations. At least the last three Archbishops of Canterbury have valid apostolic succession.

[/quote]

The co-consecrations of the Anglicans with the Eastern Orthodox would be interesting, because my understanding is that the Eastern Orthodox do not generally recognise the Anglican Sacraments? Or has that been changed and now the Eastern Orthodox do recognise them as “valid”. I would be interested to know how many of these co-consecrations with the Eastern ORthodox have taken place and when did they occur ?


#10

Oh, BTW, as far as the quote, the writer couldn’t develop a proof if his (eternal) life depended on it.

John
Hi John, which writer are you referring to?
Best, Jaypeeto2


#11

[quote=Jaypeeto2]Hi John, which writer are you referring to?
[/quote]

Goodness, nobody here. I was referring to the writer of the article cited, Mario Derksen.

John


#12

Hi John, thanks for clarifying.
As a curious person, I visit many websites and contact their webmasters. Over the past few years, I have come to know Mario Derksen personally and consider him a friend. While he and I obviously do not see “eye to eye”, let me assure you that Mr. Derksen is a well-educated, very bright, very devout, and very sincere young man. Your attack on him personally in the above post was gratuitous and unnecessary.
Love, Jaypeeto3
(aka Jaypeeto2 in former days) :stuck_out_tongue:


#13

Jay,

My “attack” on him was neither an attack, gratuitous, or unnecessary. I said he couldn’t develop a proof. If this article is an example of his travels through logic, his arguments have several elemental flaws in logic. Also, he shows that while he can quote Canon Law, he cannot interpret it.

He assumes that John Paul II of beloved memory could not abrogate portions of his predecessor’s Code of Canon Law, and that therefore he is not a valid pope. The Holy Father is the Ultimate Church Legislator on earth. He can put Canon Law into force and he can repeal it.

If these arguments were taken seriously (which, of course, they’re not) they would be dangerous. Instead, they’re merely fatally flawed.

John


#14

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.