Canon 844.3
#1
§3. Catholic ministers administer the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick licitly to members of Eastern Churches which do not have full communion with the Catholic Church if they seek such on their own accord and are properly disposed. This is also valid for members of other Churches which in the judgment of the Apostolic See are in the same condition in regard to the sacraments as these Eastern Churches.

How can this be reconciled with what the church has always taught?
Reply
#2
(02-05-2019, 01:39 AM)For Petes Sake Wrote: How can this be reconciled with what the church has always taught?

Define "properly disposed".
Reply
#3
(02-05-2019, 01:50 AM)Paul Wrote:
(02-05-2019, 01:39 AM)For Petes Sake Wrote: How can this be reconciled with what the church has always taught?

Define "properly disposed".

How can you be out of communion and be properly disposed? 
Isn't this infallible?
Reply
#4
AFAIK Canon Law isn't infallible, if that's what you're asking. Also, don't be too worried. No Orthodox will approach the Catholic sacraments since it would lead directly to their excommunication. Paragraph 2 is the flip side, granting Catholics the right to seek the same sacraments from EO Priests, not that they would ever give Holy Communion to a Catholic!
Jovan-Marya of the Immaculate Conception Weismiller, T.O.Carm.

Vive le Christ-roi! Vive le roi, Louis XX!
Deum timete, regem honorificate.
Kansan by birth! Albertan by choice! Jayhawk by the Grace of God!
  “Qui me amat, amet et canem meum. (Who loves me will love my dog also.)” 
St Bernard of Clairvaux

My Blog 'Musings of an Old Curmudgeon'


Reply
#5
Canon Law is disciplinary, not infallible.

Law is an ordinance of reason promulgated by the proper authority for the purpose of promoting the common good. Church Law has as its common (and ultimate) good the salvation of souls. If a law does not foster or promote this, it does not seek the common good, and therefore isn't a good law.

The only way to reconcile this with the Catholic Faith is to follow Canon 21


Quote:In a case of doubt, the revocation of a pre-existing law is not presumed, but later laws must be related to the earlier ones and, insofar as possible, must be harmonized with them.

The corresponding canon from 1917 Code is canon 731 §2 (emphasis mine):


Quote:It is forbidden to administer the sacraments of the Church to heretics or schismatics, even though they err in good faith and ask for them, unless they have first renounced their errors and been reconciled with the Church.


The only way of interpreting this law in light of the Faith and previous law is to say that "properly disposed" means they have "first renounced their errors and been reconciled with the Church." That is, at the very least, in danger of death, a schismatic or heretic says he wants to become Catholic and there is no time to properly instruct him and go through the usual channels. Outside of danger of death or extreme circumstances, then, "properly disposed" would mean they have properly renouced their schism or heresy and have become Catholics, in which cases the Canon does not apply.

That's the only way to reconcile it with the Faith.
[-] The following 2 users Like MagisterMusicae's post:
  • Ginnyfree, jovan66102
Reply
#6
(02-08-2019, 08:07 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: Canon Law is disciplinary, not infallible.

Law is an ordinance of reason promulgated by the proper authority for the purpose of promoting the common good. Church Law has as its common (and ultimate) good the salvation of souls. If a law does not foster or promote this, it does not seek the common good, and therefore isn't a good law.

The only way to reconcile this with the Catholic Faith is to follow Canon 21


Quote:In a case of doubt, the revocation of a pre-existing law is not presumed, but later laws must be related to the earlier ones and, insofar as possible, must be harmonized with them.

The corresponding canon from 1917 Code is canon 731 §2 (emphasis mine):


Quote:It is forbidden to administer the sacraments of the Church to heretics or schismatics, even though they err in good faith and ask for them, unless they have first renounced their errors and been reconciled with the Church.


The only way of interpreting this law in light of the Faith and previous law is to say that "properly disposed" means they have "first renounced their errors and been reconciled with the Church." That is, at the very least, in danger of death, a schismatic or heretic says he wants to become Catholic and there is no time to properly instruct him and go through the usual channels. Outside of danger of death or extreme circumstances, then, "properly disposed" would mean they have properly renouced their schism or heresy and have become Catholics, in which cases the Canon does not apply.

That's the only way to reconcile it with the Faith.

Bingo!  Give that man the teddy bear!  I also think it gives some legs to the individual priest's own discernment at the time each instance occurs.  If a woman who's lived say as an Orthodox believer all her married life to please her husband but was never really practicing and is now a widow, desire reconciliation just after finding out she's got terminal cancer and goes to the Rectory, Father has the ability to reconcile her on his own time.  No need to send her down to the RCIA group to wait for an Easter Vigil night.  She can meet with him privately and no one can say one little word.  God bless.  Ginnyfree.
Reply
#7
(02-08-2019, 08:07 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: The only way to reconcile this with the Catholic Faith is to follow Canon 21

Quote:In a case of doubt, the revocation of a pre-existing law is not presumed, but later laws must be related to the earlier ones and, insofar as possible, must be harmonized with them.

The corresponding canon from 1917 Code is canon 731 §2 (emphasis mine):

Quote:It is forbidden to administer the sacraments of the Church to heretics or schismatics, even though they err in good faith and ask for them, unless they have first renounced their errors and been reconciled with the Church.

The only way of interpreting this law in light of the Faith and previous law is to say that "properly disposed" means they have "first renounced their errors and been reconciled with the Church." That is, at the very least, in danger of death, a schismatic or heretic says he wants to become Catholic and there is no time to properly instruct him and go through the usual channels. Outside of danger of death or extreme circumstances, then, "properly disposed" would mean they have properly renouced their schism or heresy and have become Catholics, in which cases the Canon does not apply.

I absolutely agree with everything you wrote here; however, my thought would be that canon 6 §2 (on canonical tradition) ought to be cited instead, since there is no "case of doubt" regarding the unequivocal revocation of the entire 1917 Code (an action which is in itself contrary to the entirety of Catholic jurisprudence by completely ignoring organic development). I'm aware that this thread has been inactive for a while, but I'm interested in hearing your thoughts on this.
Reply
#8
(03-09-2019, 02:18 PM)credidimus-caritati Wrote: I absolutely agree with everything you wrote here; however, my thought would be that canon 6 §2 (on canonical tradition) ought to be cited instead, since there is no "case of doubt" regarding the unequivocal revocation of the entire 1917 Code (an action which is in itself contrary to the entirety of Catholic jurisprudence by completely ignoring organic development). I'm aware that this thread has been inactive for a while, but I'm interested in hearing your thoughts on this.

First problem is that the 1917 code was itself a novelty in Catholic jurisprudence and ignored organic development. Never before was there a singular code of laws, and never had a Pope codified one code and in doing so abrogated all contrary legislation. It was a good thing, yes, but novel. Not all novelties are bad.

The case of doubt is not on the revocation of the 1917 Code, but instead on what precisely "properly disposed" means. Lacking any legal clarification on this from the competent authorities, the Canonist will look back at previous laws to help interpret. Canon 6 §2 says the same thing, effectively, so either could be cited.

As you note it is probably better to cite Can 6 §2, since Canon 21 would seem to deal with the abrogation of laws, but given that clause is separable and embodies what already exists in other places, it comes to the same principle.
Reply
#9
It is my understanding that baptized persons in good faith are per se capable of receiving the other sacraments fruitfully.  However, even if in good faith, the Church traditionally has forbidden it due to the danger of witnessing against the unity of the Church.  But that is not necessarily always a concomitant problem (and historically, at times in the East, things were sometimes not as strict, especially when ministering to simple laymen).

Interestingly enough, the preparatory document on the Church from Vatican II (which Archbishop Lefebvre said, along with the other original preparatory drafts, was totally orthodox) is much more explicit about this than what we got.  On the positive possibility of non-Catholics receiving the Eucharist fruitfully, for example, that document cites to Pietro Gasparri's tract on the Eucharist--Cardinal Gasparri was of course the architect of the 1917 Code.
[Image: catherinesiena-1.jpg]
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)