Find Us Online

Friday, September 24, 2010

Communicatio in sacris - II - "Tollerari posse"



St. Pius X
The Pope of Anti-modernism.

We have the following from
the Servant of God, Andrew Szeptycki:

This document permits the saintly Archbishop
and his priests to dispense the laity
from the Church law forbidding
Communicatio in sacris
with the Orthodox.

It was given by Pope St. Pius X
in his own hand.


Translation

Copy
Rome 17.02.1908

Most Blessed Father!
Andrew Szeptycki, Metropolitan of Halycz, Metropolitan
of Kiev and Administrator of all Russia at the foot of
His Holiness most humbly asks that faculties may be conceded
to himself and also to confessors in communion (capable of being communicated)
for dispensing secular faithful
from the law which forbids communicatio in sacris with the Orthodox
as many times as they will judge it in conscience to be opportune.

Our Most Holy Father Pope Pius X
deigned to sign with his own
hand
this document written by me
with the words "May be tolerated".




The Servant of God
Andrew Szeptycki

15 comments:

Anonymous said...

Thank you for seeking the Truth in your research regarding Communicatio in sacris. Do continue.

Please pray for me, as I will for you all.

John

wheat4paradise said...

Surely, then, the Pope can dispense himself from the law when his conscience deems it to be opportune. If Traddies want to continue to argue, let them take it up with Pope St. Pius X, the Pope of Anti-Modernism.

K Gurries said...

wheat4paradise, perhaps this will be considered as one of the "liberal" tendencies of Pius X -- as he was criticised by some for being too "liberal" with respect to some of the rules for age and frequency of recieving Holy Communion. Incidentally, I have heard that in some (traditional) seminaries the so-called "liberalism" of Pope Leo XIII is studied. According to this theory the Pope indroduced liberal ideas into the concept of Church and State relations and reversed the position (discontinuity) of Pope Pius IX. It seems that no Pope is able to please everybody all of the time.

Transalpine Redemptorists said...

Dear Anonymous
Thank you for your responses - it is not necessary to send the same response four times, but if you were trying to underline the importance of what you wrote, thank you; I got it.

I am aware of the many different instances of the Church forbidding Communicatio in sacris. That is a principle that stands. However Pope Benedict XIV in 1752 said that we are dealing with a principle that can also be detirmined by certain circumstances, for example a pastoral necessity. (THIS is our point. The Pope has ruled that the prohibition is one that remains a prohibition in principle... BUT it is not an absolute principle. It can be detirmined by the legislator.)

Your view refuses this aspect of the Church's praxis going back from our time to the Middle Ages at least.

Thus the communicatio in sacris of mixed marriage is not permitted as a principle; but then again a marriage to a non-Catholic presumed to be in good faith may be permitted or not depending on the prudence and will of the legislator.

The reference for Benedict XIV's position at the session of the Holy Office 24 February, 1752 is:

R. De Martinis, Iuris Pontificii de Propaganda Fide, Pars II, Rome, 1909, p. 324.

It is not possible to deny the document of St. Pius X to the Servant of God without calling one of them a liar. Rather, it is necessary to admit the fact that the prohibition concerning Communicatio in sacris stands indeed, but it can be detirmined, depending on the prudence and the will of the legislator.

If you write again, keep charity and stop signing each comment with: "Good on you - Follow the Pope". If we are discussing such lofty matters we should be beyond passing snide comments.

With best wishes,
Fr. Michael Mary

Anonymous said...

I have read about the faculties conceded by St. Pius X to Metropolitan Andrew Sheptytski in Fr. Cyris Korolevsky's biography of him, but I have never been able to find the exact text. Can you cite a source?

Michael

Anonymous said...

Dear Father,

You suggest that the prohibition stands but:

" but it can be detirmined, depending on the prudence and the will of the legislator."

Since communicatio in sacris is against the natural law then the legislator is Almighty God Himself - and He doesnt change His mind on the Natural Law - or there wouldnt be a Natural Law but only time dependent rules.

Perhaps a Pope giving an infallible definition could do such a thing so then we would know it was from God Himself?

What do you think - Best

Jack said...

Met. Andrew said that Orthodox and Greek Catholics say the same prayers, frequently from the very same books from the same printers.

If these prayers are holy when said by a Greek Catholic, they are just as holy when said by an Orthodox.

If the Cross and Gospel Book are holy in one church, they are just as holy in another.

And he was saying this specifically about Ukrainian Greek Catholics attending Orthodox services.

Antonius Guichitensis said...

Have you considered the possibility that St. Pius X could have been mistaken on the issue, and made a bad judgment in good faith?

Jack said...

\\Have you considered the possibility that St. Pius X could have been mistaken on the issue, and made a bad judgment in good faith?\\

While papal infallibility does have strict limitations, it does not follow that they should be curiously scrutinized or rashly censured by others, either.

I'm sure St. Pius X didn't come to this decision all by himself.

It also might be well to remember that this same pope divided the Ukrainian and Ruthenian Catholic Churches into two jurisdictions both in the homelands and abroad. Up to that point they were considered to be the same canonically, bound by the same particular law.

Anonymous said...

Dear Anonymous (september 26), communicatio in Sacris is not against the natural law. You have it wrong there. The natural law derives from Divine Law and if communicatio in sacris is not against Divine law (and we have now been given Benedict XIV's exact reference)then it is certainly not against Natural Law. As for all you bitter tradies out there, have the humility to at least acknowledge that there is more to communicatio in sacris than what you may know. Surely Pius X, Blessed Urban and the rest cannot be brushed aside as liberals or heretics?? Maybe there might have been scandal or the popes may have made a mistake, but the fact that the Church has made these exceptions shows that it is not against Divine Law and certainly not sinful in these cases.
-James

Anonymous said...

"Since communicatio in sacris is against the natural law then the legislator is Almighty God Himself - and He doesnt change His mind on the Natural Law - or there wouldnt be a Natural Law but only time dependent rules."

Really? I don't mean to be contrarian, but you must be reading different philosophy books than I am. Would you care to explain how it is against nature for 2 people to pray together, regardless of what they are worshiping? In claiming this you are saying that one doesn't even need revealed religion of any kind to arrive at this truth.

I am not trying to justify the practice -- far from it. I am no fan of modern man's fascination with "dialogue", and think it would likely be most prudent if the Holy Father would discontinue this practice and focus on re-establishing a Catholic identity. But to state that such things are against nature is incomprehensible.

Hieronymus

The Raven (C. Corax) said...

"Have you considered the possibility that St. Pius X could have been mistaken on the issue, and made a bad judgment in good faith?"

Who would be qualified to make such a determination?

Antonius Guichitensis said...

Jack, I strongly feel that all views, judgments, and opinions should be questioned, save only the infallible dogmas of the Church.

It is just as possible that St. Pius X was mistaken as it is possible than anyone else was. One ought not to agree with St. Pius X's judgment simply because it was rubber-stamped with his name.

I would like to see rational arguments for why these cases of communio in sacris were acceptable, not simply what seem to be argumenta ad verecundiam.

John L. said...

Antonius,

Since when do we accept something only after our reason has entirely grasped it? Should we not first accept St. Pius X's declaration simply because he, the Holy Father, Vicar of Christ and Successor of St. Peter made the declaration, and then, in order to better understand the issue, seek out the "rational arguments," while asking God to give us the humility to accept the truth?

Anonymous said...

...the faculty to himself and also communicable to confessors...

  © Blogger templates The Professional Template by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP  

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...