More about Church teaching on marriage: See new addendum

More about Church teaching on marriage: See new addendum

+St. Evaristus+

(Please see the response to attacks on this blog post in the Addendum of Oct. 27.)

Comments on the last blog on marriage woes have become numerous and so it seems more practical to publish a second article to address these observations. Excerpts from the comments submitted particularly by one reader below will be followed by my response.

Reader: “…The issue here is not whether spouses in unhappy marriages such as those you mention can leave their husbands or wives when tension reaches a high level. The issue is whether they can walk away and marry again. In sad cases of serious and irreparable division, the Church has always approved separation. One does not need to have studied specific canon laws to know of the Church’s mercy and realism on this point.”

Response: Here you are presuming that the marriage was validly contracted and that the spouses can possibly reconcile their differences in the future. Of course the Church has always allowed separation; this should go without saying. But we are not just talking about tensions here, but very real moral and spiritual calamities — including possible loss of faith — that afflict many of those believing themselves to be validly married. As another reader has also pointed out, the very fact that such calamities occur, that there are “irreparable divisions,” is only backhanded proof that the graces that should have been received in a Catholic sacramental union were never received; the marriage was not valid, hence not sacramental. The Church’s “mercy and realism” extends to the sacramental reality of things, don’t you think?

The entire conception of marriage as a sacrament has been lost. Also lost is the very serious obligation the Church has to regulate these marriages among her validly baptized children and determine their conformity to Divine law. She does this by issuing laws. In his Mystici Corporis, Pope Pius XII makes it a condition of Church membership to be subject to these laws. He writes in another address: “Clerics and laity may not exempt themselves from this discipline; rather all should be concerned to obey it…” (The Church and its Powers of Sanctifying and Ruling, Nov. 2, 1954).  Perhaps in the past there were lawful pastors to explain the laws regarding marriage, but we no longer enjoy that luxury. So do we educate ourselves or rush blindly into a vocation that binds us for life? Without the graces we need to fulfill our state in life, how can we possibly hope to be worthy spouses, parents, grandparents? The Church determines — and has the strict RIGHT to determine — when those graces are received, because Our Lord Jesus Christ is the dispenser of those precious graces!

The chain of Divine jurisdiction established by Christ, flowing from the pope to the bishops and finally to the priests by way of delegation, is the unquestionable guarantee that these graces are rightly received. As proven elsewhere on this site, unless this chain is maintained in all the sacraments, save that of emergency baptism (and in exceptional cases marriage, which is a natural right), the sacrament is not valid simply because the Church, commissioned by Christ to bind and loose, says it is not valid. It was presumed even in Can. 1098 marriages that whenever possible those marriages would later be blessed by the proper parish or missionary priest and entered into the parish register.

Reader: “But you seem to be suggesting that through inculpable ignorance regarding what appears to be a legalism, a person who has enough devotion to the Church to seek to marry within it can watch a spouse, or presumed spouse, not only leave, but act as if the marriage never took place and seek a new spouse. Is this truly just? It seems so pharisaical.”

Response: First let’s address inculpable ignorance. This is something that must be proven to exist, not assumed. The 19th century Scottish bishop, George. Hay, in his classic work The Sincere Christian sets down the requirements for the existence of invincible ignorance: “For one to be in invincible ignorance it is required that he be sincerely resolved to embrace the truth wherever he may find it and whatever it may cost him.  For if he be not fully resolved to follow the will of God, wherever it shall appear to him, in all things necessary to salvation; if on the contrary, he be so disposed that he would rather neglect his duty and hazard his soul than correct an ill custom, or disoblige his friends, or expose himself to some temporal loss or disadvantage…Such a disposition must be highly displeasing to God and an ignorance arising from it can never excuse him before his Creator… He must sincerely use his best endeavors to know his duty, and particularly that he recommend that matter earnestly to Almighty God, and pray for light and direction.

For whatever desire he may pretend of knowing the truth, if he does not use the proper means for finding it, it is manifest that his ignorance is not invincible but voluntary; for ignorance is only invincible when one has a sincere desire to know the truth with a full resolution to embrace it, but either has no possible means of knowing it or, after using his best endeavors to know it, yet cannot find it.” When these standards are applied, I think it is clear that many do not qualify as inculpable. The means to dispel this ignorance have existed since the 1980s. Few use their best endeavors to find it, in my experience anyway. They will research a million things on the Internet, but not this. The problem here is not whether they were ignorant but whether they were Catholic. Those marrying in Traditionalist sects are schismatics. Until they leave those sects and renounce them they cannot be considered to have married in the Church.

Secondly, we proceed to “what appears to be legalism,” but, when examined more closely, is really the veiled practice of liberal Catholicism. I object to the term legalism because it is a common accusation made by Traditionalists. Wikipedia defines it as: “…A usually pejorative term [pejorative meaning it is used to deprecate or demean] referring to an over-emphasis on discipline of conduct, or legal ideas, usually implying an allegation of misguided rigour, pride, superficiality, the neglect of mercy, and ignorance of the grace of God or emphasizing the letter of law at the expense of the spirit.” We will address the last sentence here because it explains everything we really need to know about legalism.

In an article printed in the May 1965 edition of the Homiletic and Pastoral Review by one Fr. Robert G. Wesselmann, J.C.L., (“Canon Law: Criticisms and Reactions”). Wesselmann begins by saying: “When Pope John XXIII announced plans for an Ecumenical Council in 1959, he immediately indicated that one goal would be revision of the Code of Canon Law. At first canonists thought of revision merely in terms of tidying up the present Code — eliminating inconsistencies in terminology, incorporating laws enacted since 1917 and changing a few specific laws…in accordance with Conciliar decrees. Now even canonists are having second thoughts about the place of law in the mission of the Church.”

Wesselmann effectively dilutes all authority of the hierarchy in the Church, pretending the laity are able and qualified to decide for themselves on moral matters without the strictures of “legalism.” He writes: “Canon Law must be partially blamed, at least by defect, for the legalism which the liturgists decry… To be able to do away with the present system, we would need greater emphasis on equity (justice tempered by fairness, moderation, mercy) in enacting and enforcing laws and more frequent exercise of the virtue of epikeia by the subjects of the law…For the subjects of law, it means willingness to apply the law in concrete circumstances, not according to its letter but according to its spirit…” He wishes to leave the determination of this “equity” to the average layperson and encourages “the rejection of constant readiness to place any and every perplexity before one’s superiors…The present penal section of the Code…is needlessly complicated and might be virtually abolished,” as it was in effect when the 1983 Code of Canon Law was issued.

So cries of legalism can be directly traced to the liturgical renewal crowd that led to the institution of the Novus Ordo and to Traditionalists and their adulation of epikeia! Isn’t this ample proof that both these two organizations are really just two sides of the same coin? They have been very clever in obscuring the many things they have in common with the Novus Ordo, in order to appear to be the perpetual foes of the anti-Church. So this may come as a surprise to those who are not aware of the extent of Traditionalists’ true affinity with the church in Rome.

Thirdly, many Traditionalists over the years have tried to label those insisting that Canon Law is binding on the faithful as Pharisees. They feel that upholding the law and advocating for its strict application in our present circumstances seems unjust. But the term pharisaical is often misapplied because it is misunderstood. Christ explains this while addressing the Pharisees as follows: “…You have made void the commandment of God for your tradition. Hypocrites, well did Isaias prophesy of you, saying, ‘This people honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.’ But in vain they do worship me, teaching doctrines and the commandments of men” (Matt. 15:7-9). That the Hebrews of Jesus’ time truly believed their elders’ teachings were at least equal to the Scriptures is confirmed by the later comments of Jewish rabbis on the Talmud: “The Scriptures are water; the Mishnah, wine; but the Gemara, spiced wine.”

Rev. Leo Haydock comments: “The Pharisees pretended the greatest exactitude even in the smallest commands of the law, when the observance of them could impress the people with a favorable idea of their sanctity; whereas they omitted the more essential precepts of the law, when it did not incur them the praise of men.” The Catholic Encyclopedia notes: “Together with the Pharisees they are represented in the Gospels as being very ambitious of honour (Matthew 23:2-7, Mark 12:38-40; Luke 11:43, 45, 46; 20:46), and as making void the weightier precepts of the Law by their perverse interpretations by means of which they had gradually laid a most heavy burden upon the people. They are also rebuked by Christ because of the undue importance ascribed by them to the ‘traditions of the elders.’” Therefore the Pharisees were following their OWN laws, not God’s laws, as Christ Himself notes above. Likewise, Traditionalists take it upon themselves to basically dismiss Canon Law, relying on their own interpretations rather than those of the lawgiver as the law demands. This negates all they do under Pope Pius XII’s Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, governing interregnums.

Reader: “All unloved spouses in some sense suffer for the glory of the institution of marriage, which though it may bring extraordinary suffering to some brings happiness, security and well-being to many more… To the Catholic, who does not equate happiness with an absence of pain, it can be very consoling.”

“Unfortunately, we live in a world where because of a high degree of social isolation and the easy availability of divorce, the unspoken traditions that once guided people, the strategies by which a lack of companionship or love in marriage could be overcome by building separate, independent lives and friendships while remaining together, have been largely lost. There is now simply one solution and that is ending the marriage and looking to establish a new one.”

Response: It IS a privilege indeed to suffer for the glory of the institution of marriage provided it is a valid marriage. Would any of these Catholics have consented to be married had they known that the person presumably performing the marriage could not officially witness the conveying of the necessary graces and was not acting validly? I hardly think so. IF someone sees that praying at home is their only option today and realize that they did not marry validly before a lawful pastor, it is easily remedied under Can. 1098. If they adopt the pray-at-home position, and truly wish to live a Catholic life but are needlessly suffering under intolerable obstacles to their faith and mental well-being, then they cannot be and must not be seen as “walking out on their marriage,” when the Church says it was never a marriage to begin with. Nor should this necessarily be done with the intent to find a new husband or wife, although this cannot be excluded. They are free to marry, but in this wicked world, finding a new partner and starting over is a very daunting task, a task that some today choose not to pursue. Still, the Church considers marriage preferable to the sins of impurity that could result, especially among those prone to such sins.

Catholic couples have a RIGHT to receive matrimonial graces

Provided that the Church’s laws governing marriage are followed, those contracting marriage confer the graces of the Sacrament on each other. The Church has the strict right to determine the binding nature of these laws. In a 1946 address entered under Can. 2314 on freedom of conscience and the objects of judicial jurisdiction (Canon Law Digest, Vol. III), Pope Pius XII wrote the following on the hardships facing married couples following WWII: “What a degree of courage, of self-denial, of patience; what a treasure of loving mutual trust, what a spirit of Christian faith were required in order to keep intact their plighted faith… The motherly heart of the Church bleeds at the sight of the unspeakable anguish of so many of her children. To come to their aid, She spares no effort and carries her condescension to its extreme limit. This extreme limit is solemnly formulated in Canon 1118 of the Code of Canon Law: ‘Marriage which is sacramental and consummated cannot be dissolved by any human power nor by any cause save death.’”

Note above the word sacramental. Who alone were able to (administer or) witness the Sacraments? Those who can be rightly identified, of course, as lawful pastors, rightly commissioned by the Church as such. Does the Church consider marriages between Catholics, (or where one party is Catholic at least), by one not delegated by the Church sacramental? Not according to Can. 1094. Therefore even if consummated, it is still not considered valid. And this same Canon offers the exception of Canon 1098. But how could Can. 1098 be invoked unless one first realized there are no lawful pastors left and they must invoke it? It cannot take effect automatically while the parties still remain outside the Church! Since Novus Ordo and Traditionalist pseudo- clergy and followers cannot validly convey sacraments, how could such a marriage be sacramental? One is either within the Church and obeys Her laws or they are not. Those wishing to be truly Catholic have a strict right to receive the graces issuing from a valid matrimonial contract, valid as defined by the Church. This we learn from Richard Cardinal Cushing:

“Matrimony is a sacrament which a priest cannot administer. At the marriage ceremony he is merely the authorizing witness. The bride and groom are the ministers of the Sacrament. Since the groom confers the Sacrament on the bride, the first gift he gives her as his wife is an increase of sanctifying grace which is the greatest gift even an omnipotent God Himself can give, and so the bride to the groom. Such a gift is infinitely more precious than the most expensive watch or ring. When God instituted marriage, He had a twofold purpose: the propagation and education of children and the mutual help and comfort of man and woman in their closely associated life. To achieve that purpose steadily through a lifetime together the husband and wife need direct and immediate help from God. The effect of the sacrament is not just for a day. It is for a lifetime. God stands ready to give that help. When the couple receives the sacrament, they receive a title or right to the following actual graces.

  1. To fulfill God’s law with regard to the conception and birth of children.
  2. To enjoy the pleasures and to carry the burdens of married life in a holy way.
  3. To cherish each other and to grow in the love of each other, putting up with the inevitable defects that exist in every human being.
  4. To bring up the children in a way worthy of their human nature and worthy, too, of their supernatural destiny.

“Throughout their lives husband and wife, who later become father and mother, are continually helped by God with actual graces which come to them as their due because of a sacrament with which they sealed the very beginning of their united lives. In a very real sense, the sacrament makes them each to each and they and the children, each to each, ‘keepsakes for heaven’”. The Sacraments: 7 Channels of Grace for Every State in Life; published by the Daughters of Saint Paul). Those, then, who never received these graces, have a right now to receive them, for married couples today need them more now than ever before.

Conclusion

We are children of Holy Mother Church. When Mother says no, you cannot marry before anyone but a lawful pastor if you wish to be married validly, we respect Her and we obey. When the Pope tells us, in an infallible decree, (Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis), how we must behave during times when we have no pope, (an interregnum), we obey. If he orders that during such a time none of the laws of the Church may be changed, and if changed, the changes are null and void, we give a firm and irrevocable assent to what he teaches. Any attempt then to change those laws or violate the rights of the Church by invoking epikeia (or accepting as valid men who were never approved by the pope for consecration as bishops, another stipulation in this decree) we must consider such things as never having occurred. The laws of the Church today stand just as they stood on the death of Pope Pius XII; his intent as the supreme lawgiver is perfectly clear. We have no right to consider these laws unjust or question them in any way. Not, that is, if we wish to remain Catholic.

Matrimony is a beautiful Sacrament in which two people give themselves to each other exclusively and wholly, until these bonds are dissolved by death. To employ a Traditional or independent priest of whatever degree of presumed holiness or spiritual friendship to “bless” such a marriage and act as witness could actually be a curse on future married life. In these unprecedented times we must obey God not men, as Christ tells us that if we love Him, we will keep His commandments. He commands us not to allow entry to the hireling, and to run from false shepherds. Ask Our Lord and His Blessed Mother, also those married saints to whom you are devoted, to bless your marriage. Refrain from breaking God’s laws, and such blessings will be given you in abundance.

Addendum

“Your article is a grave attack on Catholic marriages!”

So wails the anti-Canon Law crowd that just “liked” the article on the need to obey Canon Law (?) They cite nary one canon in their favor, no papal or conciliar documents, not even theological opinions. But they believe they have the right to disagree, to snipe, even to condemn. Canon Law and scholastic theology require proofs to establish a credible argument, but this is apparently not something they feel obligated to do. Let them prove Traditionalists and some Novus Ordoites were never baptized; that they are not at least material heretics and schismatics and that therefore Can. 1094 does not apply to them. Maybe then their objections would make more sense. Ah, but they have no answer to this either, no proofs. They apparently love to argue, so perhaps they would like to take on the pope, or the Roman Rota below.

Anyone who reads this site knows that we have long considered Traditional pseudo-clerics and their followers schismatic. Schismatics are those certainly baptized in the Catholic faith who publicly joined a non-Catholic sect; they are no longer members of the Church according to Canons 2200 and 2314. They are not only schismatics but are at least material heretics for their denial of the necessity of the papacy. Material heretics are considered as outside the Church until their cases can be decided by the proper authorities (Can. 2200; Rev. Adolphe Tanquerey, others). So according to Pope St. Pius X and Pope Pius XII’s reinstatement of his Ne Temere decree, the marriages of lapsed Catholics and schismatics must be conducted according to the canonical form, which in the past was by a lawful pastor delegated to act as an authoritative witness in such marriages, (but in his absence today, the canonical form can only be Can. 1098). Novus Ordo sectarians and Traditionalists are married under neither.

Canon 1098 must be interpreted strictly since it is an exception to the law. We read under Can. 1098 in the Canon Law Digest, Vol. II: “Canon 1098 contains an exception to the law and is therefore subject to strict interpretation according to Canon 19; that is, the existence of the condition required for its application must be strictly proved in the exterior forum” (Roman Rota, July 29, 1926). How do you strictly prove the intent to invoke Can. 1098 when a Traditionalist or Novus Ordo couple thinks the marriage ceremony itself is a valid act??? In another decision, the Roman Rota made an important distinction between the “belief” of the Catholic parties in one case that an authorized priest was not available and the actual fact that he indeed was available, declaring the marriage invalid (Jan. 30, 1926; Ibid). The belief of lay Traditionalists that they can only marry validly if married by a pseudo-cleric in the alleged continuation of what they believe to be the Catholic Church is similar. It does not correspond to the actual facts, that is, they could only use Can. 1098.

Revs. Woywod-Smith comment on Can. 1099 §2: “Beginning with January 1, 1949, …marriages [of Catholics baptized in the Catholic Church] even with non-Catholics will be invalid unless the canonical form of marriage is observed. Their marriages contracted on or after that date without observing the canonical form are clandestine in the same way as the marriages of those mentioned in Canon 1099 §1 when contracted with defective form. When therefore their validity is attacked, the case is to be resolved by the ordinary or even the pastor in consultation with the ordinary. Non-Catholics baptized and unbaptized are exempt from the Catholic form of marriage whenever they marry persons similarly not bound by it. Catholics who at an adult age have fallen away from the Church either by joining a non-Catholic sect or rejecting all religious creeds according to Canon 1099 §1, #1 ARE NOT EXEMPT FROM THE CATHOLIC FORM OF MARRIAGE when they marry other lapsed Catholics or Protestants or unbaptized persons… Pope Pius XII abrogated paragraph two of Canon 1099, formerly excluding the children of lapsed Catholics and apostates form the necessity of of observing the canonical form, to now include them:The children of lapsed or apostate Catholics… if, though baptized in the Catholic Church they were reared outside the faith from infancy …are now [also] bound to the Catholic canonical form of marriage” (A Practical Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, 1957). This applies to nearly all Traditionalists and those in the Novus Ordo.

So if as pray-at home Catholics we believe validly baptized Traditionalists are schismatic, (and Canon Law teaches that they are), they also are bound by the proper canonical form to marry. Therefore, we can only say that their marriages before one who was not a lawful pastor were invalid and Can.1098 was never invoked; this is precisely what the Church teaches. And Canons 1133 and 1134 further state: “To validate a marriage which is invalid …the renewal of consent is required by ecclesiastical law for the validation of the marriage even though in the beginning both parties gave their consent and have not revoked it since (Can. 1133). The renewal of consent must be a new act of the will for a marriage that is known to have been invalid from the beginning” (Can. 1134).

This is all that is required by those returning from heresy and schism who do not wish to contest the marriage. Certainly, it is by far the preferred route to go. But given the Church’s clear teaching on this subject, who can fault one who for very serious reasons holds the marriage invalid? Let the Church, if it is ever restored to us, be the judge of this, not those who contest Her laws. I am confident a future pope would never fault anyone for strictly upholding Canon Law, which by infallible decree cannot be changed or discounted during an interregnum.

************************************

Exemption of “ab Acatholicis Nati” Abrogated (Pius XII, 1948) Motu proprio,1 Aug.,

(Canon Law Digest, Vol. III, Pgs. 463-64)

This Motu proprio, entitled “Abrogatur Alterum Comma Paragraphi Secundae Canonis 1099,” is as follows: The Decree, Ne temere, issued by order of Our Predecessor of happy memory, Pius X, had provided (art. XI) that all persons baptized in the Catholic Church, even if they had afterward fallen away from it, were bound to observe the form of marriage prescribed in the Council of Trent. However, as regards persons born of non-Catholics and baptized in the Catholic Church, who from infancy had grown up in heresy or schism or infidelity or without any religion, lest their marriages should be null, it was provided in the Code of Canon Law that baptized persons of this class are not bound to observe the canonical form of marriage. But the experience of thirty years has sufficiently shown that the exemption from observing the canonical form of marriage, which was given to this class of persons baptized in the Catholic Church, has not conduced to the good of souls, and has moreover very frequently multiplied difficulties in the solution of cases; wherefore We have deemed it expedient that this exemption be revoked.

Accordingly, after hearing from the Eminent Fathers of the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, We of Our own motion and out of the fullness of Apostolic power, decree and provide that all persons baptized in the Catholic Church are bound to observe the canonical form of marriage; and We therefore abrogate the second clause of paragraph 2 of canon 1099, and order that the words, “item ab acatholicis nati, etsi in Ecclesia catholica baptizati, qui ab infantili aetate in haeresi uel schismate aut infidelitate aut sine ulla religione adoleverunt, quoties cum parte acatholica contraxerint,” be expunged from canon 1099. And We take this occasion to admonish missionaries and priests to observe most carefully the provisions of canons 750-751. We therefore order that this Apostolic Letter given of Our own motion be reported in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis, and We decree that its provisions shall go into effect from the first day of January, 1949. All things to the contrary, even such as are worthy of special mention, notwithstanding.

Given from Castel Gandolfo near Rome, the first day of August, Feast of Saint Peter in Chains, in the year nineteen hundred and forty-eight, the tenth of Our Pontificate.

AAS 40–305; Pius XII, Motu proprio, 1 Aug., 1948. Periodica, 37-334 (Creusen).

Motu proprio, 1 Aug., 1948. Periodica, 37-334 (Creusen).

****************************************************

NOTE: Confusion on this matter may be arising if those consulting Canon Law to check the above are referencing these topics in Canon Law texts written before Aug. 1, 1948. Regardless of whether Traditionalists are considered schismatic or simply non-Catholic, their baptisms are considered valid, according to the canonists Revs. Woywod-Smith and Bouscaren-Ellis; also in later decisions by the Holy Office and the Rota. A decision issued by the Holy Office in December 1949 reads: “Regarding the validity of baptism in certain sects… Whether, in adjudicating matrimonial cases baptism conferred in the sects of the Disciples of Christ, the Presbyterians, the Congregationalists, the Baptists and Methodists, where necessary matter and form were used, is to be presumed invalid, the Holy Office replies: “In the negative.” And to the question as to whether there is doubt “regarding the intention of the minister in certain cases, whether they are to be considered valid unless the contrary is proved in the particular case,” the Holy Office declared: “In the affirmative.” (Canon Law Digest, Vol. III, AAS 41-650).

So either way, even in doubt, these baptisms are to be considered valid. Bouscaren-Ellis comment on doubtful baptism under Can. 1070: “The case is obvious where a child is presented to a Catholic priest to be baptized or where an adult receives formal baptism in the Catholic Church… The fact that a person baptized in the Catholic Church afterward abandoned it would not exempt him from this law regarding the form of marriage… [In the case of]  two Catholics, even though doubt exists as to the validity of the baptism of one of them, the presumption in favor of baptism agrees with the favor of marriage.” Woywod-Smith extends this presumption of validity to lay baptisms as well.

What does the Church really teach about: Marriage woes today

What does the Church really teach about: Marriage woes today

+Twentieth Sunday after Pentecost+

Over the years, many have submitted questions about marriage issues asking what they should do in these times when there is no priest, bishop or pope to consult regarding one’s marital status and no real guidance on what one should do. Years ago, a decision was discovered in the Canon Law Digest (Vol. III, Can. 1067 and Vol. IV, Can. 1071) that simplified matters, stating that in emergency situations such as existed under Communist rule in China in the 1940s, all impediments to marriage are lifted save for those of affinity and marriage to one in Orders or a religious under perpetual vows (which is not applicable today). Even the usual form for marriage seems not to be necessary for validity (although it should always be used by Catholics whenever possible). The Holy Office determined that this decision also could be applied to any region suffering the same circumstances (absence of priests and difficulty of obtaining dispensations) and this certainly applies to us today. (See the article on these papal decisions at https://www.betrayedcatholics.com/spiritual-sacraments-mass-of-st-john/; subhead Matrimony).

Those already praying at home who now are seeking release from marital situations or suffering from anxiety about the validity of their marriages will be surprised to learn that they are not considered validly married under Canon Law if they were married by a Traditional or Novus Ordo minister whom they believed to be a true priest, but who in fact could not validly witness the marriage. This is stated in Can. 1094: “Those marriages only are valid which are contracted either before a pastor or the local ordinary or a priest delegated by either and at least two witnesses…” The law considered only priests subject to their bishop and delegated to celebrate marriage by a bishop in communion with the Roman Pontiff as true and lawful pastors, to whom the parties were subject. Since this was not the case, these marriages were invalid. HOWEVER, THOSE WISHING TO REMAIN IN THEIR MARRIAGES NEED ONLY REPEAT THEIR VOWS USING THE LINK ABOVE TO RENEW THEIR CONSENT. It is as simple as that.

The above assessment of validity is based on the fact that scarcely anyone, if anyone at all, knew of the concessions granted to China and its application to those of us today until about 2015. Therefore, they believed they must be validly married under the current 1917 Code of Canon Law. The fact that this law was not made known to them as the Holy See desired is proof itself, at least on the part of Traditionalists, that the marriages they officiated at were the product of deceit, since these “pastors” pretended to lift impediments that never needed lifting and presented as lawful minsters of the Church when they were not. This in itself would invalidate the marriage under Can. 104 as an act of fraud, outside anything governed by Can. 1094.

Those truly unable to remain in marriages apparently invalid under Can. 1094 may today consider themselves free to leave or divorce civilly, if married in the Novus Ordo or by a Traditionalist cleric. First, however, every effort should be made to resolve any problems in the marriage, especially where children are involved, and simply repeat vows according to the Can. 1098 exception. Where this is not possible, the Catholic is free to marry any partner, Catholic or not, as long as the promises are sincerely given to raise the children Catholic and that the non-Catholic will never interfere with the Catholic spouse’s practice of religion. This should be secured by a pre-nuptial agreement. The person conducting the marriage ceremony should invoke Can. 1098 in the presence of two witnesses (Catholic, whenever possible) and use the Catholic form of marriage prior to any civil registration of the marriage. The Church advises that the marriage also be registered with the civil authorities, although some disagree with this recommendation. But without civil record, it could happen that if problems arise with the marriage in the future, it would be difficult to prove it actually took place.

Marriage in the Catholic Church has the presumption of validity, provided that it is celebrated according to the laws of the Church. The question is: who would the Church of 1958 consider as Catholic and married within the Church?

Marriage cases usually decided by the diocese

The above is the simplest avenue to deciding many cases today. But other instances involving contested marital consent and the application of the Pauline and Petrine Privilege is an entirely different matter. Except in the case of the Pauline Privilege, doubtful baptisms are to be considered valid unless positively proven otherwise Decision. On Can. 1070, Canon Law Digest, Vol. III; T. Lincoln Bouscaren, 1954; AAS 41-650). Such matters were referred to the diocesan courts and the cases were treated much like they currently are treated in family courts today, with all the same legal formalities observed, only in an entirely Catholic fashion. Appeals of these decisions were forwarded to the Roman Rota or the Roman Pontiff. Had Traditionalists done for the faithful what should have been done and tried to supply for the many difficulties they would face without a true pope, instead of focusing entirely on the Mass and Sacraments (which could not be provided without grave sin), some legal substitute for determining cases today might have been possible, but of course this is not the case.

This leaves those wishing to convert, to resolve their marriage situations and to remarry in an intolerable situation. Marriage is a natural right, and grave sins can result if men and women are denied this right. On the other hand, grave sin results if one marries and is still judged by the Church to already be married. Because authoritative and educated decisions in these matters cannot now be obtained, (and no, Traditionalist “bishops” have no jurisdiction or expertise of any kind to decide such matters), what are Catholics wishing to keep the faith at home and remain faithful to do? It seems that in this matter, given that the Church in the China emergency lifted all her impediments save a few, that the natural right to marry would prevail over existing Church law. “Strict disciplinary laws are imposed by Holy Mother Church upon her children, and they are all for their own welfare. As soon, however, as they would militate unduly against their welfare, the Church is willing to adapt to embarrassing circumstances mitigating her apparently inflexible laws for the benefit of her children” (John De Reeper, MHF, The Jurist, April 1954, Vol. 2: The History and Application of Canon 1098). This is reflected in the Church’s emergency laws for China.

Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, Pius XII’s papal election law governing us during an interregnum, forbids any alteration or dispensation from the canons. We also know, from following the principles that a probable opinion cannot be used concerning the validity of the Sacraments, that such also would be the case regarding marriage. Yet probable opinions differ from moral certainty, which is what must be reached in marital cases. And Pope Pius XII has decided it is not necessary to arrive at a high degree of moral certainty in these marriage cases, (since moral certainty admits of degrees). He also states that the judge should reconcile his opinion with the common opinion of well-educated people (Canon Law Digest, Vol. III, T. Lincoln Bouscaren, S.J., S.T.D., LL.B., 1954; AAS 34-338). In another address, the pope further teaches that civil tribunals can decide cases of nullity regarding marriages and that the Church will accept these as valid (Ibid., p. 654, AAS 38-391). However, most states do not treat all of the same causes for nullity that the Church will allow, so those not treated would need to be considered separately. Nor does the state today accept the full moral implications of the causes of nullity; in fact much of the time these are not considered at all, or are considered only to a certain extent, or in a negative way. Pope Pius XII further explains moral certainty below.

Pope Pius XII differentiates between moral certainty and probability

“According to Can.1869 §1, in order that the judge may be able to pronounce his decision there is required moral certainty regarding the facts of the case which is to be decided. Now this certainty, based on the constancy of the laws and practices which govern human life, admits of various degrees. There is absolute certainty in which all possible doubt as to the truth of the fact and the unreality of the contrary is entirely excluded. Such absolute certainty, however, is not necessary in order to pronounce the judgment. In many cases it is humanly unattainable; to require it would be to demand of the judge and of the parties something which is unreasonable. It would put an intolerable burden on the administration of justice and would very seriously obstruct it.

“In contrast to this supreme degree of certitude, common speech often designates as certain a cognition which strictly speaking does not merit to be so-called but should rather be classed as a greater or lesser probability because it does not exclude all reasonable doubt but leaves a foundation for the fear of error. This probability or quasi-certainty does not afford a sufficient basis for a judicial sentence regarding the objective truth of the fact. In such a case, that is when the lack of certainty regarding the fact at issue forbids pronouncing a positive judgment on the merits of the case, the law and especially the rules of procedure supply the judge with obligatory norms of action in which presumptions of law and rules regarding the favor of the law have a decisive importance. The judge cannot afford to ignore these rules of law and procedure. Yet it would be an exaggerated and wrong application of these norms and as it were a false interpretation of the mind of the legislator were the judge to seek recourse to them when there is not only a quasi-certainty but certitude in the proper and true sense. There are no presumptions nor favor of law as against the truth and a sure knowledge thereof.

“Between the two extremes of absolute certainty and quasi-certainty or probability is that moral certainty which is usually involved in the cases submitted to your court and of which we principally wish to speak. It is characterized on the positive side by the exclusion of well-founded and reasonable doubt and in this respect it is essentially distinguished from the quasi-certainty which has been mentioned, On the negative side, it does admit the absolute possibility of the contrary and in this it differs from absolute certainty, the certainty of which We are now speaking. It is necessary and sufficient for the rendering of a judgment even though in the particular case it would be possible either directly or indirectly to reach absolute certainty. Only thus is it possible to have a regular and orderly administration of justice going forward without useless delays and without laying excessive burdens on the tribunal as well as on the parties.

“Sometimes moral certainty is derived only from an aggregate of indications and proofs which taken singly do not provide the foundation for true certitude but which when taken together no longer leave room for any reasonable doubt on the part of a man of sound judgment. This is in no sense a passage from probability to certainty through a simple cumulation of probabilities which would amount to an illegitimate transit from one species to another essentially different one. It is rather to recognize that the simultaneous presence of all these separate indications proofs can have a sufficient basis only in the existence of a common origin or foundation from which they spring — that is, an objective truth and reality. In this case, therefore, certainty arises from the wise application of a principle which is absolutely secure and universally valid; namely, the principle of a sufficient reason… This moral certainty with an objective foundation does not exist if there are, on the other side, — that is in favor of the reality of the contrary — motives which a sound, serious and competent judgment pronounces to be at least in some way worthy of attention and which consequently make it necessary to admit the contrary is not only absolutely possible, but also in a certain sense probable” (Ibid. C.L. Digest III, AAS 34-338).

Cumulative circumstantial and other evidence, then, can lead to certainty in such matters and does not involve the use of a probable opinion regarding the validity of marriage. Hypothetical examples of such cumulative evidence are as follows:

Case 1: Miriam, a Catholic, marries Mark a Lutheran who before the marriage declares that he will marry her only on the condition that she agrees to use birth control. Miriam’s aunt overhears Mark propose this requirement and objects, but Miriam does not believe that her future husband is serious. They marry under Can. 1098, and when he later deserts her because she refuses to use contraceptives, he tells friends in a public place that he is not a “baby machine” and won’t stay with a woman who saddles him with a passel of kids. Mark does not deny he asked Miriam to use birth control and will not return to the marriage. Miriam requests an annulment.

Case 2: John a Catholic and Thelma a non-Catholic discover that Thelma is pregnant, and Thelma demands that he marry her. John is reluctant to marry and gets drunk the day of the scheduled wedding. The two marry with a dispensation for mixed marriage, and later John learns that Thelma had been with another man and the child is not his. John leaves Thelma because he believes the wedding was a sham and now wishes to remarry.

Case 3: Douglas, a Catholic, becomes engaged to Louise, a Fundamentalist. Louise tells him she has suffered some problems with drugs in the past but is now clean and promises she will not return to her former habit. They marry before a Traditionalist “priest” and after a few years of marriage Louise returns to her drug habit. She becomes increasingly irrational and commits petty crimes. She neglects the children of the marriage. Douglas divorces her to protect the children but would like to provide them with a good Catholic stepmother.

In all the above cases, provided trustworthy witnesses are willing to sign and notarize affidavits for the complainant and there is no evidence to contradict these statements, there seems no reason to believe that these marriages were ever valid, owing to a sinful future condition, fraud, marriage before a schismatic and drug-induced insanity. All these types of cases have been heard before the chancery or the Roman Rota and were determined to be invalid. Other than the law for China, there is no law governing how such cases should be handled when there can be no recourse to the diocesan courts. This situation falls under Can. 20 which reads: “If there is no explicit provision concerning some affair either in the general or in the particular law, a norm of action is to be taken (unless there is question of applying a penalty) from laws given in similar cases, from the general principles of law applied with the equity proper to Canon law, from the manner and practice of the Roman Curia and from the common and constant teaching of approved authors.”

It would seem that the best way to document these cases in an objective manner is to have a paralegal work up the evidence and prepare it in legal form as though it would be submitted into evidence in court. Discovery would need to be requested from the opposing party. The mind of the legislator is exhibited in the emergency laws for China. Many decisions issued on nullity, especially, from pre-1959 cases, are available for comparison. Appeal cases decided by the Roman Rota also are available. All that is needed for proof of the Can.1094 invalidity is a certificate of marriage signed by a Traditionalist and a notarized statement that there has been no previous or subsequent marriage, accompanied by a marriage license search for all 50 states. But of course, all this is based on whether or not the individuals seeking such marital remediation have truly embraced the pray-at-home position. This would include signing a profession of faith, at least starting the three-year probation period and formally pledging to abstain from attendance at any type of Traditionalist or other non-Catholic ceremonies. Otherwise they would be classified as validly married in a non-Catholic church as non-Catholics.

Ideally, Catholics would first need to complete their three-year probationary period before proceeding any further with remedying their marital situation. But because this could involve sin where a marital situation is in dispute, it is not practical. There is no formal organization among pray-at-home Catholics: all is done according to the honor system. Some have only pretended to embrace the pray-at-home position in order either to gain some sort of advantage or for reasons unknown; this is on them. You can fool others, but God will always know your true intentions. One marriage situation yet to be covered is that which falls under the Pauline Privilege or the privilege of faith. These cases depend entirely on the good will of the ones who wish to invoke this privilege, and therefore will be more difficult to gauge.

The Pauline Privilege

In the Canon Law commentary by Revs. Woywod-Smith, the header over Can. 1127 reads: “In doubtful cases the Pauline Privilege has the favor of the law.” This means, under Can. 1120, that even if some of the facts are doubtful in cases where the Pauline Privilege is invoked, the privilege still applies. This privilege applies, however, only to those unbaptized at the time of the marriage, although one is later baptized a Catholic. These marriages may be considered dissolved in favor of the one who converts, provided the unbaptized partner 1) does not wish to convert and be baptized and 2) will not live peacefully with the other party if not baptized, meaning he or she will not interfere with the other’s practice of the Catholic faith. These two conditions are called interpellations and can be established by the convert with the testimony of two witnesses (Can. 1122).

The Catholic party is free to marry if the answer to the interpellations is in the negative, unless, after Baptism, he or she has given the unbaptized party just cause for separation (Can. 1123). Doubts may often arise about the validity of the marriage contracted in infidelity; the person of the first wife, (which may be one of several wives); the validity of the baptism of one party; the sincerity of the unbaptized party to live peacefully with the converted party; about sufficient reasons for dispensation form the interpellations (in certain cases); about the existence of the marriage contracted or about verification of all the conditions required to apply the Pauline Privilege. The Pauline privilege cannot be invoked if one of the parties was validly baptized at the time of the marriage. And civil divorce often complicates matters. Since any insoluble complications would need to be referred to the Rota or the Roman Pontiff, only the simplest of cases under these canons would be able to be resolved, and many of these cases today are anything but simple.

Applying the above remedies

We must all work out our salvation in fear and trembling, and in these times this Scripture verse is more applicable to us than ever before. This author can provide necessary past case information from various sources and offer technical assistance, but in no way can any opinion on these matters be ventured. This is strictly a matter of conscience on the part of the parties involved. Strict honesty and due diligence in conducting the investigations described above is the only guarantee that they will be acceptable to God, and that any unions which may follow will enjoy His favor and approval. Being willing to abandon any attempts to reconcile such marriages when the proof clearly shows that moral certainty cannot be achieved must be fully understood and accepted before ever embarking on the task of investigating them. For it means accepting as God’s will a situation which may seem difficult or impossible, such as living together as brother and sister or permanent separation. Yet with fervent prayer and God’s help there is always a way to survive such situations as a Catholic.

For those who are able to reconcile their marital situation, the task is not over. They then must study the Church’s true teachings concerning marriage and realize that the modern idea of marriage presented today, while practiced by many calling themselves Catholic, is so far removed from what Christ desires for His Church that it can end only in grave sin. Natural Family Planning, condemned by many of those professing to be Traditional Catholics, is only one of such modern ideas. And yet if a very serious reason exists to use this method, and this author considers family economics and the many dangers present to children in this time serious reasons, it can be used and in certain cases should be used. Abstinence from marital relations, when no danger of impurity concerning either partner exists, is key to strengthening both the will and serving as a safeguard to marital purity. This is true even when there is no hope of procreation. Below we will find Pope Pius XII’s teaching on marital purity and the discussion of marital relations among Catholics most helpful in determining what the Catholic attitude should be.

Pope Pius XII speaks on marital purity

Much discussion has appeared in the past several years on the Internet concerning certain sexual practices in marriage, particularly regarding the teachings of St. Alphonsus Liguori. From personal experience, some of these translations of St. Alphonsus have been unreliable and one, at least, even reversed what he actually taught. And yet Pope Pius XII warned authors in 1951 that: “Not a few authors treating of conjugal life frequently descend without reserve to describing openly and minutely all its details: moreover, some of them describe, praise and recommend a certain act” (which the Church forbids). “Lest it fail in its duty in regard to so grave a matter, which concerns the sanctity of marriage and the salvation of souls, the Supreme Congregation of the Holy Office, by express mandate of His Holiness by divine Providence Pope Pius XII, issues a serious warning to all the aforesaid writers that they desist from acting in this way. It also earnestly exhorts the sacred pastors to maintain a strict vigilance over these matters and apply solicitously the appropriate remedies” (AAS 44-546; Canon Law Digest, Vol. 3, Can. 1081).This should put an end to all such online discussion of these matters, although sadly it probably will not do so.

In another address listed in the same volume cited above, under Can. 1111, from an October 1951 address to Italian Catholic midwives, the Pope wrote:

“[Married couples] must contain themselves within the bounds of just moderation. Just as in the enjoyment of food and drink, so in their sexual pleasure they must not abandon themselves without restraint to the impulse of the senses. The right norm is therefore as follows: only in marriage and on condition [that procreation is not excluded] is the desire and enjoyment of that pleasure and satisfaction licit. For the pleasure is subject to the law which governs the action from which it springs and not vice versa; that is, the law is not subordinate to the pleasure. And this law so conformed to reason applies not only to the substance of the action, but also to its circumstances, so that even though the substance of the act be not perverted there can be sin in the manner in which it is performed.

“The transgression of this norm is as old as original sin but today there is danger of losing sight of the fundamental principle itself. For at the present time, it is a common thing — even on the part of some Catholics — to maintain, in speech and writing, the necessary autonomy, the proper end and proper value of sexuality and its use, independently of the purpose of generating a new life. Those who hold such views would subject the order established by God to a re-examination and a new norm. If nature had intended exclusively or at least primarily the mutual giving of the spouses one to another and their mutual possession of one another enjoying pleasure, and if it had destined that act only for the purpose of enriching their personal experience with the highest possible felicity and not in order to stimulate them to service of life, the Creator would have adopted a different design in the formation and constitution of the natural act.

“A flood of hedonism is pouring over the world threatening to engulf every aspect of married life in a rising tide of hedonistic thoughts, desires and acts, not without serious danger and grave harm to the primary duty of married persons. This anti-Christian hedonism is often unblushingly erected into a doctrine inculcating the eager desire to intensify without limits the pleasure experienced in the preparation and performance of the conjugal act as though in marital relations the whole moral law consisted in the regular performance of the ACT itself and all the rest, no matter how it were done, were justified by the outpouring of mutual affection sanctified by the Sacrament of marriage meriting praise and reward before God and in conscience.

“The dignity of man, the dignity of the Christian which imposed some restraint on the exercises of sensuality these count for nothing with them… [However], the gravity and sanctity of the Christian moral law do not permit an unbridled satisfaction of the sexual instinct and the exclusive quest of pleasure and enjoyment; nor that man endowed with reason should permit himself to be dominated by passion to that extent, either as regards the substance of the act or its circumstances… The happiness of marriage is in direct proportion to the mutual respect the parties show for each other, even in their most intimate relations. Not that they judge to be immoral and consequently refuse what nature offers and what the Creator has given them, but because THIS RESPECT AND MUTUAL ESTEEM WHICH IT FOSTERS IS ONE OF THE SOUNDEST ELEMENTS OF A LOVE THAT IS PURE AND FOR THAT VERY REASON ALL THE MORE TENDER.”

 THAT is true marital love! May all who endeavor to achieve it never forget this beloved pope’s most important words.

What does the Church really teach about: Almsgiving

What does the Church really teach about: Almsgiving

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

+St. Teresa of Avila+ 

The next few blogs will be dedicated to dispelling some misunderstandings that have arisen around certain Catholic moral topics as they apply to the world we live in today. The first subject to be addressed will be almsgiving.

In a day and age when the true sense of Catholic almsgiving has been almost obliterated, it is important to keep in mind the longstanding teaching of the Church in these matters, which along with so many other moral and dogmatic teachings has been lost in the neo-pagan shuffle. Great discretion in almsgiving is required today owing to the many scams and con artist operations run in this world, by both cunning individuals and fraudulent organizations. Many of the younger set especially believe it is perfectly acceptable to aid the anonymous “homeless” person, or beggar with a sign stopping traffic on the street, but those who read what is below will understand that this is neither wise nor does it constitute true charity.

Discretion in Almsgiving

Proverbs 6 — vs. 6-11

6 Go to the ant, O sluggard, and consider her ways, and learn wisdom:

7 Which, although she hath no guide, nor master, nor captain,

8 Provideth her meat for herself in the summer, and gathereth her food in the harvest.

9 How long wilt thou sleep, O sluggard? when wilt thou rise out of thy sleep?

10 Thou wilt sleep a little, thou wilt slumber a little, thou wilt fold thy hands a little to sleep:

11 And want shall come upon thee, as a traveler, and poverty as a man armed. But if thou be diligent, thy harvest shall come as a fountain, and want shall flee far from thee.

The Parable of the Ten Virgins, Matthew 25

  1. Then shall the kingdom of heaven be like to ten virgins, who taking their lamps went out to meet the bridegroom and the bride.
  2. And five of them were foolish, and five wise.
  3. But the five foolish, having taken their lamps, did not take oil with them:
  4. But the wise took oil in their vessels with the lamps.
  5. And the bridegroom tarrying, they all slumbered and slept.
  6. And at midnight there was a cry made: Behold the bridegroom cometh, go ye forth to meet him.
  7. Then all those virgins arose and trimmed their lamps.
  8. And the foolish said to the wise: Give us of your oil, for our lamps are gone out.
  9. The wise answered, saying: Lest perhaps there be not enough for us and for you, go ye rather to them that sell, and buy for yourselves.
  10. Now whilst they went to buy, the bridegroom came: and they that were ready, went in with him to the marriage, and the door was shut.
  11. But at last come also the other virgins, saying: Lord, Lord, open to us.
  12. But he, answering, said: Amen I say to you, I know you not.
  13. Watch ye therefore, because you know not the day nor the hour.

“Charity begins at home.” — St. Augustine

The above verses remind us that we are not obligated to support those who are willfully lazy and do not provide for themselves, even in times of great need. As one author writing about hospital care sponsored by the Church wrote: “Hospital care was so good that precautions had to be taken not to permit sturdy beggars to take advantage of it… by pretended ailments and thus secure for themselves a nice easy life or at least a refuge during the colder months until they could take to the road again” (The World’s Debt to the Catholic Church, James J. Walsh, 1924). With the many homeless now populating metro areas, this would seem to be a good bit of advice. Better that such funds be used to benefit some family one knows personally to be truly worthy and in need, and St. Cyprian says such people do not need to be Catholic. The risk of the homeless or random beggars using these funds for sinful purposes is simply too great, and this would amount to cooperation in sin. More on this is explained below.

Rules for almsgiving

(The following is from the article on Almsgiving, Catholic Encyclopedia.)

Discretion in almsgiving is counseled in the Apostolic Constitutions: “Alms must not be given to the malicious, the intemperate, or the lazy; lest a premium should be set on vice” (Const. Apost., ii, 1-63; iii, 4-6).

And this from the Didache, or non-canonical book, The Teaching of the 12 Apostles: “In addition to its innate characteristics, almsgiving should be vested with qualities tending to garner fruitfulness for giver and receiver. Hence, almsgiving should be discreet, so as to reach deserving individuals or families (2 Thessalonians 3:10; Sirach 12:4); prompt, so as to warrant opportuneness (Proverbs 3:28); secret and humble (Matthew 6:2); cheerful (2 Corinthians 9:7); abundant (Tobit 4:9; St. Thomas, Summa Theol., II-II, Q. xxxii, art. 10). The harvest of blessings to be reaped by almsgiving amply suffices to inspire noble-minded Christians “to make unto themselves friends of the Mammon of iniquity.”

First of all, almsgiving renders the donor like unto God Himself (Luke 6:30, 36); nay more, it renders God Himself debtor to those giving alms (Matthew 25:40 sqq.). Moreover, almsgiving adds special efficacy to prayer (Tobit 4:7), tends to appease divine wrath (Hebrews 13:16); liberates from sin and its punishment (Sirach 29), and thus paves the way to the gift of faith (Acts 10:31). Daily experience proves that those lending a helping hand to stay the miseries of the poor frequently prepare the way for the moral reformation of many whose temporal misery pales before their spiritual wretchedness. Finally, almsgiving tends to guard society against turbulent passions whose fury is often checked by almsgiving.

“Give to everyone that asks thee, and do not refuse, for the Father’s will is that we give to all from the gifts we have received. Blessed is he that gives according to the mandate; for he is innocent; but he who receives it without need shall be tried as to why he took and for what, and being in prison he shall be examined as to his deeds, and “he shall not come out thence until he pay the last farthing.”

“But concerning this it was also said, “Let thine alms sweat into thine hands until thou knowest to whom thou art giving.” (The Didache)

Moral Theology on almsgiving, McHugh and Callan

  1. (b) As to the need of the receiver, a person should give his share towards providing for the case before him. Thus, if there is no one else who can or will give, and a neighbor is in grave necessity, a charitable person will bear the whole expense, as was done by the good Samaritan. But if the necessity is ordinary (as in the case of street beggars), or there are others who will help, a smaller alms suffices. Steady employment is a better charity than temporary doles, inasmuch as it gives permanent assistance.
  2. (a) Those in apparent need are such as pretend poverty, sickness, or misfortune, in order to get sympathy and financial aid (e.g., professional beggars). Alms should not be given persons of this kind, since they take what would be given to the really poor and needy. Rather they should be exposed and punished.

(b) Those in real need through choice should not be helped, if they take to begging because they are too lazy to work, or find it profitable to live off others; for they have no right to beg, being able to help themselves, and it would be wrong to encourage them in idleness and an imposition on others (II Thess., iii. 10). But those who are voluntarily poor for Christ’s sake, whether they belong to a religious order or not, are worthy of respect and it is meritorious to assist them.

(c) Those who are in real need against their will, should be assisted; for, even though they became destitute through their own fault, they are in fact unable to help themselves now.

  1. The Manner of Giving Alms

(a) One gives alms directly when one ministers relief personally to the needy, giving food to the starving and medicine to the sick, helping to put out a fire, etc.

(b) One gives alms indirectly when one pays taxes for the support of alms-houses, public hospitals, orphan asylums, homes for the aged, the insane, etc.; …

  1. Public charity done by the State is useful and necessary under the conditions of modern life, but it does not and cannot take the place of charity done by the Church or by private individuals.

(a) State-administered charity does not reach all, or even the most deserving, cases of need. Hence, those who pay their taxes for the support of state charities are not thereby exempted from the obligation of contributing to cases they may meet, especially of extreme or grave necessity.

Charity can demand a condemnation

Canon 1935 tells Catholics they have an obligation to publicly denounce those posing a danger to the faith, as does Can. 1325. Catholics often fall into the trap today of urging charity for those disseminating errors since they are in invincible ignorance (although we cannot always be certain of this), but this is not Catholic practice. Rather it is the practice of liberal charity, as Rev. Felix Sarda Salvany explains in his book, What Is Liberalism,  a book personally commended by the Holy Office.

“It is often necessary to displease or offend one person, not for his own good but to deliver another from the evil he is inflicting. It is then an obligation of charity to repel the unjust violence of the aggressor; one may inflict as much injury on the aggressor as is necessary for the defense… The love due to a man inasmuch as he is our neighbor ought always to be subordinated to that which is due to our common Lord. For His love and in His service we must not hesitate to offend men… Therefore, to offend our neighbor for the love of God is a true act of charity. Not to offend our neighbor for the love of God is a sin. If the propagation of good and the necessity of combating evil require the employment of terms somewhat harsh against error and its supporters, this usage certainly is not against charity

“The authors of heretical doctrines are soldiers with poisoned weapons in their hands… Is it sufficient to dodge their blows? Not at all; the first thing necessary is to demolish the combatant himself… It is thus lawful, in certain cases, to expose the infamy of [an] opponent, to bring his habits into contempt and to drag his name in the mire…The only restriction is not to employ a lie in the service of justice. This never. Under no pretext may we sully the truth, even to the dotting of an ‘i.’ As a French writer says: ‘Truth is the only charity allowed in history,’ and, we may add, in the defense of religion and society…When it strikes, let the sword of the Catholic polemicist wound, and wound mortally…This is the only real and efficacious means of waging war.”

Spiritual almsgiving

The Catholic Encyclopedia tells us further that alms also can be given in a spiritual manner: “As, however, the spiritual works of mercy deal with a distress whose relief is even more imperative as well as more effective for the grand purpose of man’s creation, the injunction must be supposed to extend to them also. Besides there are the plain references of Christ to such works as fraternal correction (Matthew 18:15) as well as the forgiveness of injuries (Matthew 6:14). It has to be remembered however that the precept is an affirmative one, that is, it is of the sort which is always binding but not always operative, for lack of matter or occasion or fitting circumstances. …Thus in general it may be said that the determination of its actual obligatory force in a given case depends largely on the degree of distress to be aided, and the capacity or condition of the one whose duty in the matter is in question.

“The law imposing spiritual works of mercy is subject in individual instances to important reservations. For example, it may easily happen that an altogether special measure of tact and prudence, or, at any rate, some definite superiority is required for the discharge of the oftentimes difficult task of fraternal correction. Similarly to instruct the ignorant, counsel the doubtful, and console the sorrowing is not always within the competency of everyone. To bear wrongs patiently, to forgive offences willingly, and to pray for the living and the dead are things from which on due occasion no one may dispense himself on the pleas that he has not some special array of gifts required for their observance. They are evidently within the reach of all. It must not be forgotten that the works of mercy demand more than a humanitarian basis if they are to serve as instruments in bringing about our eternal salvation. The proper motive is indispensable, and this must be one drawn from the supernatural order.”

Duty to dispel ignorance

Ignorance in our times is legion. Much confusion has arisen as the result of deliberate mis-instruction in the faith owing to Modernism, ecumenism and the proliferation of non-Catholic sects. Many desire to know the truth but are lost in a welter of conflicting opinions and half-truths. To help readers better understand the true nature of ignorance and their obligations as Catholics, we return to the moral theologians McHugh and Callan for a reliable assay regarding ignorance.

“27. With reference to the responsibility of the person who is ignorant, there are two kinds of ignorance:

(a) Ignorance is invincible when it cannot be removed, even by the use of all the care that ordinarily prudent and conscientious persons would use in the circumstances. Thus, a person who has no suspicions of his ignorance, or who has tried in vain to acquire instruction about his duties, is invincibly ignorant.

(b) Ignorance is vincible when it can be removed by the exercise of ordinary care. There are various degrees of this species of ignorance: first, it is merely vincible, when some diligence has been exercised, but not enough; secondly, it is crass or supine, when hardly any diligence has been used; thirdly, it is affected, when a person deliberately aims to continue in ignorance.

“30. (b) Vincible ignorance does not make an act involuntary, since the ignorance itself is voluntary; hence, it does not excuse from sin. It does not even make an act less voluntary and less sinful, if the ignorance is affected in order that one may have an excuse; for such a state of mind shows that the person would act the same way, even though he had knowledge.

“31. Vincible ignorance makes an act less voluntary and less sinful:

(a) when the ignorance is not affected, for the voluntariness is measured by the knowledge, and knowledge here is lacking;

(b) when the ignorance, though affected, was fostered only through fear that knowledge might compel a stricter way of life; for such a state of mind seems to show that one would not act the same way if one had knowledge.

“The Commandment of Knowledge:

The first of the foregoing commandments includes three things:

(a) The doctrines of faith must be taught and must be listened to — “These words thou shalt tell to thy children” (Deut., vi. 6), “Teach ye all nations” (Matt, xxviii. 19), “He that heareth you heareth Me, and he that despiseth you despiseth Me” (Luke, x. 16).

(b) One must apply oneself to understand what one hears — “Thou shalt meditate on these words, sitting in thy house, and walking on thy journey, sleeping and rising” (Deut., vi. 7), “Meditate upon these things, be wholly in these things. Take heed to thyself and doctrine” (I Tim., iv, 15, 16).

(c) One must retain what one has learned — “Thou shalt bind the words of the law as a sign on thy hand, and they shall be and shall move between thy eyes. And thou shalt write them in the entry and on the doors of thy house” (Deut., vi. 8, 9); “Have in mind in what manner thou hast received and heard” (Apoc., iii. 3).

There has been some confusion about the true nature of affected ignorance and the authors above do not sufficiently address this matter. Innocent Robert Swoboda, O.F.M., J.C.L., in his Ignorance in Relation to the Imputability of Delicts (1941) writes: “Affected ignorance is real ignorance and not merely simulated or pretended ignorance. A man who pretends ignorance or pleads ignorance in court contrary to fact is not ignorant at all; he is merely trying to deceive others… Affected ignorance can therefore be defined as a directly voluntary lack of obligatory knowledge which is procured by positive effort …” The gravity of affected ignorance depends upon the gravity of the motive on account of which the ignorance is directly sought. We have seen many who know they should investigate the claims of their Traditionalist sects further, yet fail to do so. The same could be said of some claiming to be pray-at-home Catholics. Their motives, which cannot be certainly known, determine the seriousness of their sin. This is something that can be positively determined only by a confessor.

It requires courage to face the truth, and many simply lack the intestinal fortitude to move from their comfy Traditional couches. On the other hand, those who at least try to inform themselves should be careful that theirs is not a selective process when it comes to a better understanding of the true nature of faith or morals, since all of us are easily capable of deceiving ourselves. The best precaution to take against such deceit is to read Fr. Frederick Faber’s chapters on this subject in his Spiritual Conferences, available at https://archive.org/details/spiritualconfer00fabe.  If we wish to save our souls, if Heaven is truly our goal, we will leave no stone unturned in the quest for truth. May the Holy Ghost enlighten you all and guide you in that quest.

What was God’s will for His Church after Pope Pius XII’s death?

What was God’s will for His Church after Pope Pius XII’s death?

+Feast of the Holy Rosary+

I would like to announce a new page on the website for spiritual reflection entitled, The Healing Pool (see front page under the Prayer Society logo). In these stressful times it is important to take a moment to refresh ourselves with spiritual  nourishment, even if only briefly. It can change our entire outlook and give us the strength we need to carry on. These reflections will be posted as often as possible, so bookmark the link. A great translation of a very consoling spiritual work, courtesy of a reader in Spain, will be available soon. I also hope to begin to offer some spiritual perspective here regarding situations we might easily find ourselves experiencing some day, with so many already suffering in different parts of the world from various disasters and persecutions.

New information

In the past few months, several key articles (see the three recent articles on the site’s home page) have been posted explaining why Traditionalists cannot and do not constitute the continuation of Christ’s Church on earth. These articles are the culmination of decades of study regarding the Church’s teachings and laws prior to the death of Pope Pius XII. They represent the final demonstration of serious positive doubt that all must use as the basis for developing certitude necessary to adjudge our present situation. These articles prove that Traditionalist operations must be avoided under penalty of mortal sin because the Church — not this author — teaches they are not members of the Catholic Church and that their Orders are apparently invalid. This according to Canon Law and the teaching of approved theologians.

The conclusions of these articles are further strengthened by the following information, made available by a reader below, on the ability of the pope to make certain conditions necessary to sacramental validity:

Others say that if the pope forbids a bishop to chrism, then chrism does not confer character. For although the pope cannot take away the sacrament of confirmation, he can, nevertheless, determine, as to the form, persons, and days, by whom, in what form, and on what days, it is to be conferred, as is said below concerning baptism. C. 1. And if it can establish anything about the persons conferring the Sacrament, then it can also take away from a certain person, the power of chrismation, even though he be a bishop. And they say the same thing about baptism. However, if the pope were to do such things without the knowledge of others, and without grave cause, he should not be supported, for he would be acting against the general good of the Church.

“But… if the bishop were to forbid someone to baptize, baptism would be no less valid for that reason. For the bishop has no power to establish anything about this, as the pope has…. So, they say that the pope can do this because of the privilege given to him: All that you bind on earth, etc. Which makes him have this power by [divine] institution and command Wherefore he is to be obeyed in all spiritual things and in things concerning the soul, unless they are contrary to the faith or specially forbidden to him

 “And it certainly seems right to say what they say of the pope, that THE SUPREME PONTIFF CAN ESTABLISH IN THEORY AND IN FACT, THAT IF THE SACRAMENTS CONFERRED BY SUCH PERSONS ARE NOT VALID, THEY WILL INDEED BE INVALID. We also admit that he can prevent bishops from chrism and priests from baptizing. But in this case the prohibition does not apply without there being a constitution establishing when the collation of the sacrament is valid, even if it is done against the command of the bishop(Pope Innocent IV; https://archive.org/details…). Protecting the Church against wolves and hirelings during an interregnum in an infallible document entered into the Acta Apostolica Sedis, and therefore available to all the public, definitely constitutes grave cause. It also satisfies the requirement of being issued in the form of a constitution (Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis).

We obey even the opinions of the popes. But this is something Traditionalists refuse to do.

Obligation to inform

Before proceeding with what follows below, it is necessary to remind readers of betrayed-catholics’ longstanding position regarding Traditionalist works on doctrinal matters. First of all, any papal document, whether binding or not, that is signed by the Roman Pontiff is considered under Canon Law as incontrovertible evidence; also the decisions of the Rota and the Sacred Congregations. As Abp. Amleto Cicognani notes in his Canon Law, the Roman Pontiffs and the Holy See are “…the primary, ordinary and abiding source of law.” This would include the teachings of the ecumenical councils, and Trent, especially, is a source of Canon Law. In addition, any pre-October 1958 work by an approved theologian or canonist — and especially, where Canon Law is concerned, those dissertations which assay and summarize the various scholastic and canonical works — are to be taken as superior to anything taught by Traditionalists. But these works cannot and must not be the “go to” sources for what the Church legislates and teaches, only secondary sources.

Having essentially usurped the papacy and ignored the teaching of the continual magisterium all these years, Traditionalists have a true antipathy for Canon Law because it issues directly from the papacy. This is the real reason why the shills they employ go out of their way to defame and discredit anyone who works from a Canon Law perspective. And these attacks become increasingly more vituperative in proportion to the force of the truths which must be presented For Can. 999 states: “All the faithful are bound by obligation to make known to the ordinary or to the pastor before the ordination any impediment to sacred orders of which they have knowledge.” Well there definitely is knowledge to be had of impediments and disqualifications to both ordination and consecration and even worse. And in lieu of valid clergy not pointing them out, it would be a serious sin of omission not to make these deficiencies public.

The pray-at-home position would unquestionably stand on its own regardless of any proofs that Traditionalist Orders are most likely invalid, since serious doubt alone about such Orders suffices to withdraw oneself from all Traditionalist sects. If nothing else, even stronger evidence would help those wishing to attain certitude to better achieve it. But Catholics are not allowed to remain in a state of doubt if such doubt can possibly be resolved. “Anxieties arising from a doubtful law should be removed; peace of conscience should not be disturbed by a doubtful fact,” Abp. Amleto Cicognani states in his Canon Law, referring those with such doubts to ecclesiastical authorities. We have no authorities to consult except those who have written about these topics when we still had a true pontiff. And God’s honor and glory is at stake, as well as the good of souls. Again, not to act would be a grave sin, because our neighbor is in spiritual peril. But this is not something that Traditionalist pseudo-clergy, or their followers for that matter, seem to be very concerned about. Once the matter has been made public and and the danger exposed, nothing further is required from those offering the information. The Holy Ghost must act on souls with His graces, which no human can provide.

 Canon Law and interpretation

The studies of Msgr. Joseph C. Fenton and those authors he cites and recommends in his works, as well as other reliable sources, have been used to document what is written on this site. Approved canonists generally referred to by those bothering to apply Canon Law to this situation include Revs. Woywod-Smith, Revs. Bouscaren-Ellis, Rev. Ramstein, Abp. Amleto Cicognani, Rev. Charles Augustine and others. Under Can. 17, Abp. Cicognani states that no one is able to authentically interpret the law for himself; only the legislator, his successor and those to whom the lawmaker has committed the power to interpret the law may interpret the law authoritatively. When a skilled canonist acting under the proper authority interprets the law, it is called doctrinal, and this is what the dissertations quoted on this site are considered. No one after October 9, 1958 has the right or the authorization to evaluate these works and arrive at conclusions contrary to them. This is why no works of our own, per se, exist on these matters. We simply cite the works of approved authors and their commentary, although explanations are offered to help the reader relate them to the current situation.

All works here are based on the conclusions of others applied to the situation today. Accusations Canon Law has actually been interpreted on this site are simply false. Laypersons can certainly cite Canon Law and challenge Traditionalist interpretation of the laws, pointing out that the laws are not being followed. This, however, cannot be confused with actual interpretation. Interpretation means an explanation or opinion of what something means(Cambridge Dictionary) or the extent of its application. Or it can be defined as the act of reframing, or otherwise showing your own understanding of something. If some issue is explained based on my own understanding and opinion, that is my explanation. If instead  documents are presented that offer these explanations from approved sources, that is not MY interpretation, but the interpretation of those who are quoted.

In providing these sources, the rules of Canon Law under Can. 17 must be followed, (an act of obedience, not interpretation). Documents from the magisterium or the ecumenical councils or Sacred Congregations are used to demonstrate the origins of the law and the mind of the lawgiver. And if parallel passages of the Code are mentioned, this is referencing, not interpreting them. What they state and what the pre-1959 commentators say they state stands for itself. Merely citing canons and pointing out that they apparently have not been followed according to their previous understanding by approved theologians does not constitute private interpretation. Traditionalists make no attempt whatsoever to follow these rules, and this speaks volumes regarding their supposed superiority in being able to interpret the law. In their Canon Law Digest commentary on Can. 17, Vol. 5 (1963), the canonists Bouscaren and O’Connor wrote the following:

“His eminence, the president of the Pontifical Commission for the Authentic Interpretation of the Canons of the Code, Maximus Cardinal Massimi, declared shortly before his death… that it was his personal opinion he no longer preferred to give authentic replies since all the canons were already sufficiently clear in their obvious meaning.  It is interesting to observe that no officially promulgated replies have since been given for the Code of the Latin church since his death [in 1954].” So this very experienced cardinal, the last of his kind, believed that the Code should be taken exactly as it stood, supplemented by the authentic interpretations already given for over 35 years. And pointing to the canons themselves, exactly as they stand — also the authentic interpretations found in the Canon Law Digest — is all I have ever tried to do. Pope Pius XII, after all, had already said this. For he infallibly declared in his 1945 election law Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis (VAS) that during an interregnum, Canon Law cannot be corrected, changed or dispensed from, and he invalidated any future attempts to do so.

 The papacy, Canon Law and God’s will

Pope Pius IX, in dealing with schismatics in Armenia who were resisting papal discipline wrote:

“They call Our attention to the customs and canons of their churches as if We had abandoned the provisions of the sacred canons. We might respond to these men in the same way Our predecessor St. Gelasius did when the Acacian schismatics brought the same false accusation against him: ‘They cite the canons against Us without knowing what they are saying since they show that they are themselves in opposition to the canons by the very fact that they deny obedience to the first See although its advice is sound and correct.’ For these are the very canons which recognize the full, divine authority of blessed Peter over the whole Church. Indeed, they proclaim that he lives and exercises judgment in his successors to the present time and forever, as the Council of Ephesus affirmed.” (Quartus Supra).

If Catholics sincerely believe that Pope Pius XII was the last true pope, then all that he taught and decided during his reign, everything written and approved by institutions known to be loyal to the Holy See prior to his death must be carefully adhered to and followed, not interpreted or piecemealed to suit what others style as an “emergency.” No one now leading Traditionalists, even if they received an education in “conservative” institutions in the 1960s, 1970s were instructed by those approved by the Holy See; already Liberals and Modernists had infiltrated even conservative universities and colleges. And certainly those attending Traditional “seminaries” were mis-instructed, at best. Most of the detailed works on various canons and other topics are one-of-a-kind and cannot be duplicated. Because they provide these invaluable detailed histories of law and practice that today could not even be accomplished owing to a lack of access to materials, they must be considered the governing sources for any credible work.

According to Volume IX (iii) of the Catholic Encyclopedia concerning Canon Law’s constitution, Rev. Francis J. Schaeffer writes in this volume: “The ultimate source of Canon Law is God, whose will is manifested either by the very nature of things (natural Divine law) or by Revelation (positive Divine law) …To attain its sublime end, the Church, endowed by its Founder with legislative power, makes laws in conformity with natural and Divine law. They are, properly speaking, the active sources of Canon Law. Their activity is exercised in its most solemn form by the ecumenical councils…(these) councils, especially…Trent, hold an exceptional place in ecclesiastical law… The sovereign pontiff is the most fruitful source of Canon Law: …From the earliest ages the letters of the Roman Pontiffs constitute, with the canons of the Councils, the principal element of Canon Law; … they are everywhere relied upon and collected, and the ancient canonical compilations contain a large number of these precious decretals.” If we wish to know the will of God, and the mind of the Church as it has been consistently expressed throughout the ages, we need only look as far as Canon Law.

St. Francis writes: “Obedience to the Commandments, both divine and ecclesiastical, is of obligation for all, because THERE IS QUESTION HERE OF THE ABSOLUTE WILL OF GOD WHO HAS MADE SUBMISSION TO THESE ORDINANCES A CONDITION OF SALVATION.” (Holy Abandonment, Rt. Rev. Dom Vital Lehody O.C.R., page 9). Commenting on St. Francis’ observations, Rev. Lehody writes: “… Rules are ordinarily the chief means at our disposal for the purification of our souls. Obedience detaches and purifies us continually by the thousand renunciations it imposes, and still more by its demand for the mortification of our judgement and self-will… The signified will must be considered the fixed and regular path amidst the accidental and variable events of life, the tasks of our days and of every instant.” (Holy Abandonment, pages 18 and 22). And Holy Scripture tells us we must obey God, in His signified will, not men who are not even lawful pastors.

Likewise we read in the Vatican Council documents: ‘…the faithful…are bound by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, not only in those things which pertain to faith and morals, but also those which pertain to the discipline and government of the Church, so that the Church of Christ, protected not only by the Roman Pontiff, but by the unity of communion as well as the profession of the same faith, is one flock under one highest shepherd. This is the doctrine of Catholic truth from which no one can deviate and keep his faith and salvation,’” (DZ 1827). Here, then, is the final answer to all those who dare to assail Canon Law. They cannot understand that it is not inequitable LAWS that bind us, but the failure to obey these laws and make them known to those who are in ignorance concerning them. Obeying the law is nothing more than the will of God; and all canon laws are presumed still binding under the very laws governing the canons unless certainly proven to have ceased altogether. Since the laws governing discipline cannot work to the detriment of the faithful or the destruction of the Church, we know that “He who walks with the law walks safely.”

 Traditionalists and obedience

Below is a summary from an article that has been available on this site for many years (https://www.betrayedcatholics.com/free-content/reference-links/4-heresy/what-constiutes-material-heresy-and-schism/).This will provide readers with a better idea of the status Church membership wise of Catholics exiting Vatican 2. Please do read the entire article for a better understanding of this subject.

The theologian Rev. Adolphe Tanquerey writes: “All theologians teach that publicly known heretics, that those who belong to a heterodox sect through public profession, or those who refuse the infallible teaching of the AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH, are excluded from the body of the Church, even if their heresy is only material heresy,” (Manual of Dogmatic Theology, Vol. II). And as Msgr. J. C. Fenton notes in his “The Teaching of the Theological Manuals,” (The American Ecclesiastical Review, April 1963): “If the theses taught by Tanquerey were opposed to those of ‘the most authentic Catholic tradition of all ages,’ then thousands of priests, educated during the first part of the twentieth century were being led into error.”

Canon Mahoney states in his work: “The liberal view [is that] baptized non-Catholics in good faith are members of the body of the Church precisely because they are not excommunicated…The view diametrically opposed to this is [that] the excommunication of heretics applies to material as well as formal heretics…If a choice had to be made between these two views…, there is no question that the second fits in best with Catholic discipline …” (Questions and Answers,    All canonists and moralists agree that those who are heretics or schismatics and know they are wrong cannot be given the Sacraments of the Church unless they renounce their errors and are reconciled with the Church. Numerous decrees of the Holy Office put this point beyond controversy” (commentary on Can. 731, A Practical Commentary on Canon Law, Revs. Woywod-Smith).

Surely those leaving the Novus Ordo or various Traditionalist sects knew that they were wrong, or why else would they have left? Even if they had not yet reached adulthood, doesn’t Canon 2314 and 2294 require that they renounce their errors and be absolved and abjured by certainly valid bishops in communion with the Roman Pontiff, also be released from heresy and infamy of law by the Holy See? A pre-1958 article from The Jurist further notes that no young man aspiring to become a priest could even be considered for ordination unless he had been dispensed from any irregularity by the Sacred Congregation of the Sacraments and also dispensed from infamy of law by the Holy See. Furthermore, the person under consideration here had been raised in a Methodist sect whose baptisms are considered valid by the Church but was still considered under censure because he had not converted before the Church’s required age of discretion (14). So where does that leave those of us baptized into the Church and raised with at least some Catholic teaching? The young man here is adjudged to be in good faith only because he was raised in a Protestant sect.

The Jurist article notes further that “To insist that one 14 and older cannot be held guilty of censures is to deny the Church’s right to establish and enforce censures. This teaching of the Jansenist heretics is condemned by Pope Pius VI” (in Auctorem Fidei). And while Pope Pius VI did not condemn the proposition of the inability of the Church to pronounce ipso facto excommunication as heresy per se, after the conclusion of the Vatican Council in 1870, such denial of the Church’s right to establish and enforce censures amounts to a denial of the supreme jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff. This was the teaching of the Church on heresy prior to Pope Pius XII’s death, but Traditionalists have ignored it and disputed it. They cannot and will not accept it as God’s written will. And they continue to believe they are practicing Catholics while in reality they are not even members of the Church.

This means then that those of us accepting and participating in the Novus Ordo after the age of 14 were at least material heretics, like it or not. And we had no one to absolve us and no Holy Office to dispense us. We were unable to request the Sacraments from anyone because we were no longer members of the Church. Under Can. 682, yes, the laity has the right to receive from the clergy the spiritual goods and necessary means to salvation. HOWEVER, excommunicates cannot receive the Sacraments even if there were certainly valid priests not excommunicated for heresy and schism to administer them. And certainly valid priests would be obligated to refuse them the Sacraments when not “legitimately” requested (Can. 467). The entire Traditionalist movement was founded on an error, as explained in last week’s blog.  For pseudo-bishops, as Pope Pius IX characterized them, could never perpetuate Christ’s true Church on earth and the misinterpretation of Canon Law, dispensed from and ignored in order to accomplish their imposture, was null and void from the beginning.

Most importantly, what all this ultimately means for those following Traditionalist sect leaders is that under Canon Law they are obligated to observe the penalties for heresy and schism (Can. 2232) owing to the notoriety of their offenses. There is no substitute for the absolution from censures and infamy of law that must accompany the Profession of Faith, (Can. 2250, §1-3; 2294-2295). And all those who have not received such absolution cannot posit legal ecclesiastical acts according to Can. 2315, nor can laity receive the Sacraments, (Can. 2241), if there were valid Sacraments to receive. According to Revs. Woywod-Smith, “The Holy See insists that converts from heretical or schismatic sects be not received into the Church until they have first abjured the heresy or schism and been absolved from the censure,” (Instruction of the Sacred Congregation of the Propaganda, July 20, 1859). And under Canon Law, there is no one to validly absolve from these censures.

Also, whether it involves simulation of the Sacraments or the possibility of a valid Eucharistic consecration, inducing a man to say mass and communicate himself, as well as communicate others, is a mortal sin of sacrilege and cooperation in sin. Grave sin abounds in these sect affiliations. And there is no one to absolve from them.

 Conclusion

Those continuing after all these years to remain with Traditionalists despite information available to them explaining that they are living outside the Church in mortal sin will most likely never leave these groups. They simply cannot internalize the fact that they exist outside the Church’s divine structure, trapped in a web of hypotheses and theories — based almost entirely on the opinions of theologians — concerning Her constitution and continuation. And it is a web that has been intricately woven by Traditionalists leaders and their operatives wishing only to engage in constant turf wars to enhance their positions of power, retain their Internet presence and secure their financial future. This has all been pointed out before.

When he left this earth, Pope Pius XII bequeathed everything he had ever written to the faithful — his last will and testament. Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis was the first document before the eyes of the faithful, the cardinals and bishops included among them, following his death. Not only does it bind us as an infallible document but as a testimony to how this Pontiff and all his predecessors wished the Church to conduct itself during an interregnum. He was telling us how to preserve the Church, speaking with Christ’s voice. No one listened. The laws were not to be changed, corrected or dispensed from, especially his papal election law, and any changes or dispensations were made null and void. So the laws regarding the commission of heresy, (even material heresy) apostasy and schism (Canons 2200 and 2314), and the practices of the Church regarding those laws, were to remain in full force.

God has given man free will. It was the will of Traditionalists to have their mass and sacraments at any and all costs, regardless of God’s signified will expressed in His laws. Even when made aware that Traditionalist pseudo-clergy lacked jurisdiction in the 1980s, they failed to correct themselves because these Traditionalists convinced them they had jurisdiction through other channels. They did not check this out, in most cases; they did not read the encyclicals of Pope Pius XII and previous popes with a truly docile and submissive attitude, minus the interpolations of Traditionalists. Nor did they study the Catechism of the Council of Trent or the Vatican Council decrees or even their Baltimore Catechism, for that matter. And they failed the one test that any true Catholic should easily pass — there can be no claim to authority and no Catholic Church without a certainly legitimate pope.

Most Traditionalists would agree that we are suffering the passion of Christ’s Mystical Body on earth. Did they think this would be any less painful than Christ’s own Passion? Did they really believe that they would be required to suffer nothing? Do they not remember Christ’s agonized cry from the cross, “Eloi, Eloi, lamma sabacthani?” They should not be surprised then when even those who claim to love and serve God come in the guise of St. Peter ,who would soon betray Him, and urge them to escape their sufferings. When Peter cut off the ear of the high priest’s servant, did not Our Lord restore the ear and tell him to put his sword away, saying to him, “Shall I not drink the cup that the Father hast given Me?” And in Col. 1: 24: “Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you and fill up those things that are wanting of the sufferings of Christ, in my flesh, for His body, which is the Church.”

As Rev. Lehody wrote above: “… Rules are ordinarily the chief means at our disposal for the purification of our souls. Obedience detaches and purifies us continually by the thousand renunciations it imposes, and still more by its demand for the mortification of our judgment and self-will…” Our wills must be sublimated to the Divine, through His signified will and will of good pleasure. If it is not in perfect agreement with that will, if we are not refusing to cooperate in the sins of Traditionalists and the Novus Ordo by avoiding all their services; if we are not observing the censures imposed on us, renouncing our errors and doing penance for our sins, we are defying God’s will and will not save our souls. That almost no one would do penance for their sins in the end times, regardless of the many punishments God would send, is predicted in several places in the Apocalypse. Time is running out. “Go out from her, my people; that you be not partakers of her sins, and that you receive not of her plagues. For her sins have reached unto heaven, and the Lord hath remembered her iniquities” (Apoc. 18: 4-5).

Traditionalists were incapable of receiving valid consecration

Traditionalists were incapable of receiving valid consecration

+St. Michael the Archangel+

October Prayer Intention

O Queen of the Holy Rosary, deliver us from the violence of heresy spread abroad, this intolerable moral corruption, and the attacks of our enemies.” (Pope Leo XIII has granted a plenary indulgence to those who recite the Rosary on the Feast of the Holy Rosary Oct. 7, or within its octave, and who prays for the intentions of the Holy Father.)

Introduction

Not long ago I had occasion to address CMRI pseudo-clergy regarding their claims to possess a sort of charter granted by Canon Law — permission to operate under the pretense they possess a legal fiction in law as a corporation inside the Church. But according to Canons 99-100 to which they were referring, in order to be considered a physical or moral person capable of possessing such a title under a legal fiction of law they would first need to prove (a) they were still members of the Catholic Church not excommunicated for heresy, apostasy or schism; (b) competent ecclesiastical authority had created them as some sort of collegiate or other body, an impossibility and (c) they were validly appointed.

In his A Manual of Canon Law. p. 130, Rev. Matthew Ramstein, (S.T.D, Mag., J.U.D, OFM, 1947) writes under the heading, Legal or Moral Persons: “To be such, a moral person in the Church must have obtained a charter of incorporation either in virtue of the law or by decree of the competent ecclesiastical superior…” Paragraph three reads: “Where the law itself does not confer corporate personality, this must be obtained from the competent ecclesiastical superior.” This we find in Can. 147: “An ecclesiastic office cannot be validly obtained without canonical appointment. By canonical appointment is understood the conferring of an ecclesiastical office by the competent ecclesiastical authority in harmony with the sacred canons.” Canon 686 reads: “No society is recognized in the Church unless it has been erected by competent ecclesiastical authority or …approved by it.” There is no Traditionalist who can produce any such charter as referred to above since Traditionalism has never even been considered for approval by the Holy See as a corporate personality. Nor are there any laws that they can construe as granting them such status.

 This is just one more pathetic attempt by Traditionalists to gain some sort of legal recognition for themselves, since they possess no jurisdiction and only questionably valid orders. They cannot claim to issue from competent ecclesiastical authority without the papal mandate, assignment to a diocese and papal permission to establish seminaries. Schismatics such as Thuc and Lefebvre lost all status as such legal persons under Canons 188 no. 4 and 2314 by their adherence to the Novus Ordo church, so are scarcely considered competent ecclesiastical authorities. Power comes with canonical appointment to an office, not from one’s status as a moral/legal person. Traditionalists continue to invoke epikeia to “supply” jurisdiction and boast that nothing can invalidate Orders once conferred if the prescribed matter and form are used (and the intention is present). They never fail to remind their opponents that even orders conferred by heretics and schismatics are valid if illicit. But epikeia has been irrefutably proven as unable to supply for jurisdiction (see https://www.betrayedcatholics.com/epikeia-negates-the-churchs-divine-constitution/).

And now Traditionalist claims to possess valid Orders is about to be disproven by the very canons they use to try and justify their existence.

The great undoing

In the same section of the Code as Canons 99-100, under the general heading Bk. II: Laws Concerning Persons, we find Canons 103-104, under Ramstein’s subheading: “General Principles Applicable to both Legal and Moral Persons: § 1 Force, fear, fraud and error as determinants of legal acts.” Canon 104 reads: “Error annuls an action, when the error concerns the substance of the action or amounts to a conditio sine qua non — that is to say, if the action would not have been done except for the error; otherwise the action is valid, unless the law states otherwise…” (Can. 104). Merriam-Webster defines conditio sine qua non as “an indispensable condition.” West’s Law Dictionary repeats the same definition giving the example of a father who leaves his keys in the car, his young son who starts the car and backs over a playmate, with the father’s carelessness being the condition sine qua non for injury to the playmate. Revs. Woywod-Smith comment on this canon:

“The rules concerning actions done through physical compulsion or violence, moral force or fear, deceit or error are all taken from longstanding rules of Canon Law and moral theology, and the commentaries of approved theologians and canonists may be consulted for a further study of these interferences with the free will and deliberation of human actions” (A Practical Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, 1957). During an interregnum, lack of a papal mandate constitutes a condition sine qua non in order for the valid consecration of a bishop to take place. This is clear from the pontifical for episcopal ordination itself which says the consecration cannot take place without the mandate. The mandate is an indispensable condition for proceeding to the consecration. Pope Pius XII teaches in his 1945 election constitution Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis (VAS) that:

  • Even the Sacred College of Cardinals cannot exercise the jurisdiction enjoyed by the pope during his lifetime. Any attempts to usurp such jurisdiction (and issuance of the papal mandate for consecration of bishops is one of them) are declared invalid.
  • All acts of jurisdiction must be left to the future pope.
  • No corrections, changes or dispensations can be made regarding the rights, papal laws and canon laws of the Church. Any attempts to circumvent these rights and laws are null and void (invalid).
  • Only the cardinals are able to resolve any doubts regarding VAS (preamble and para. 4)

(See https://www.betrayedcatholics.com/vacantis-apostolicae-sedis-vindicated/).

In his constitution, Pope Pius XII anticipated actors who would attempt to change the laws of the Church: ”Likewise we command that the Sacred College of Cardinals shall not have the power to make a determination in any way it pleases concerning the laws of the Apostolic See and of the Roman Church, nor attempt in any way to subtract directly or indirectly from the rights of the same on the pretext of a relaxation of attention or by the concealment of actions perpetrated against these same rights, even after the death of the Pontiff or in the period of the vacancy. On the contrary, We desire that the College ought to watch over and defend these rights during the contention of all influential forces.” Another translation of VAS reads: “Nor may the sacred College of Cardinals detract wheresoever from the laws of the same either directly or indirectly, through a species of connivance or through the simulation of crimes perpetrated against the same laws. After the death of the pontiff or in time of vacancy it will and ought to guard and defend against the same contentions of all men.” So it is clear that the pope and his predecessor, whose constitution says the same, believed they needed to do all in their power to protect Church law from those conniving against it.  No one can argue that given what we have today.

Canonists comment on error and conditio sine qua non

Rev. Charles Augustine states under Can. 104: “Whether deceit is committed by hiding the truth or telling a lie or by some machinations employing both words and deeds is immaterial. But it is important to ascertain whether the deceit practiced is the cause of one’s acting in such a way… Deceit generally causes error and therefore the canon speaks of error. Error is a state of mind in which one approves falsehood for truth. It differs from ignorance which is a lack of due knowledge” (A Commentary on Canon Law, 1931). The deceit practiced — pretending the Church could be perpetuated with questionably valid bishops alone minus the Roman Pontiff — definitely caused them to act as they did. There would have been no consecrations performed if VAS had been acknowledged as an infallible decree and simply followed. There would have been no justification for these consecrations if Traditionalists had not invoked epikeia, which in no way possible could ever substitute for Divine jurisdiction (please see link to epikeia article above).

The actions of bishops beginning with Lefebvre and Thuc, and those they “consecrated” without the papal mandate constituted fraud (dolus, in Can. 104). It was perpetrated on those wishing to remain Catholic after Vatican 2, who believed that Traditionalists were telling them the truth —that episcopal consecrations and subsequent ordinations of “priests” were certainly valid, and they possessed confessional jurisdiction in virtue of epikeia and Can. 2261 §2; (or as Anthony Cekada taught, directly from Our Lord Himself). All of these claims have been examined at length on this site and proven to be false. For decades these men have withheld the true teaching on Divine jurisdiction from their followers, hiding the fact that they lack any apostolicity and are not lawful ministers according to Church teaching. What they have done is to deceive their followers by presenting to them what is known in scholastic philosophy (logic) as a fallacy extra dictionem, under the heading ignorantio elenchi. A subordinate form of this fallacy is “…argumentum ad ignorantiam, or appeal to the ignorance of the hearers, tricking them by statements they are unable to [properly] test” (Logic, Joseph B. Walsh, S.J., 1940).

The canonists T. Lincoln Bouscaren and Adam Ellis comment: “Substantial error invalidates an act according to Canon 104. Error means a false judgment of the mind. Ignorance and inadvertence, though not identical with error, have the same juridical effect. Error is substantial if it affects the substance of an act; otherwise it is accidental. But a circumstance which does not of its nature affect the substance of a transaction (for example the age of a horse in a contract of sale) may, by the express stipulation of the parties, be made a condition sine qua non. In that case it is substantial not by nature, but by express agreement. Error is said to be the cause of the contract if but for the error the contract would not have been entered into otherwise. Error is of law if it concerns existence or meaning of the law; of fact if it concerns any other fact. Error of law or a fact, if it is substantial, renders an act null and void. The same is true if the error, though not substantial by nature, is made so by a condition sine qua non. Any other error leaves the act valid unless the law provides otherwise” (Canon Law, a Text and Commentary, 1946).

Traditionalists guilty on both counts

Canon 104 applies to two separate actions by Traditionalists. First, Traditionalists committed a substantial dogmatic error by shrugging off VAS as a mere “ecclesiastical law” which had either ceased to exist because it could no longer be implemented or a law to which epikeia could be applied. In reality, VAS was an infallible decree binding on all Catholics. It is clearly infallible given the language used in the constitution itself. It is also entered into the Acta Apostolica Sedis. Moreover, this constitution, like its forerunner, Pope St. Pius X’s (Vacante sede apostolica), is a codification of papal election law which dates back to the earliest centuries. While rewriting Pope St. Pius X’s previous constitution, Pope Pius XII was careful to substantially retain the original codification in his own constitution. VAS infallibly declares that any acts during an interregnum which violate papal law or attempt to correct, amend or dispense from these laws or canon law itself are null and void. (To read the first four paragraphs of this constitution go to https://www.betrayedcatholics.com/vacantis-apostolicae-sedis/). Epikeia is defined not only by modern theologians but by the ancients as a correction or emendation of the law (The History, Nature, and Use of Epikeia in Moral Theology, Father Lawrence Joseph Riley, 1948, The Catholic University of America Press, Inc.).

Traditionalists gravely erred in denying the Divine constitution of the Church, employing epikeia to correct or dispense from canon law without even pretending to present credible research to justify such an unprecedented exception to Church teaching and practice. They refused then and refuse now to even acknowledge the existence and binding nature of VAS, while daring to acknowledge Pope Pius XII as the last true pope. They flagrantly defy their obligation to address the fact that because they disobeyed an infallible decree whose existence, import and effects were never even publicly presented or discussed, VAS invalidated the “sacramental” acts issuing from this presumed permission. This does not only indicate that they erred, it proves that they deliberately acted as they did in order to be recognized as valid hierarchy and the continuation of Christ’s Church on earth. This deception, coupled with Can. 104 and VAS, nullifies everything they have done.

Secondly, in VAS Pope Pius XII infallibly forbids any usurpation of papal jurisdiction. The pope alone has the right to approve the appointment of bishops, the establishment of dioceses in which seminaries may be erected: these are all jurisdictional acts. According to Can. 215, “The Supreme Authority of the Church has the exclusive right to erect dioceses…” (Decisions entered into the AAS also reflect the restriction of erecting religious foundations to the Roman Pontiff.) Canon 331 states: “…The Holy See has the exclusive right to pass judgment on the suitability of any candidate for the episcopate.” Canon 1518 also tells us: “The Roman Pontiff is the supreme administrator of all ecclesiastical goods.” Woywod-Smith comment: “The legal person who holds title to church property and goods is not free to use and dispose of these goods at will… The Roman Pontiff is by his very office the supreme administrator.” (So what about all those fancy churches and residences?)

Canons 953 and 2370 demand the presentation of the papal mandate proving the priestly candidate has been approved by him and appointed to a diocese by the pope prior to consecration. This necessity of the mandate is reiterated in the pontifical for episcopal consecration itself; without it, the consecration cannot proceed. This constitutes a conditio sine qua non — an indispensable condition specifically confirmed by Canon Law and VAS — which declares that acts usurping papal jurisdiction are null and void if even attempted. Since VAS is the higher law governing all activity during an interregnum, and especially given its infallible nature, it clearly prevails over any other law. It lays down conditions which must be obeyed until a true pope is canonically elected.

We return to the example above for the existence of a conditio sine qua non. “But a circumstance which does not of its nature affect the substance of a[n] [trans]action… may, by [the] express stipulation [of the parties], be made a condition sine qua non. In that case it is substantial not by nature” (but by command of the Supreme Pontiff, whom all are bound to obey if they wish to be saved.) Here Bouscaren and Ellis used the example of parties agreeing to a contract, so the example is not exact. What this basically boils down to, however, is that the Church requires that the specified matter, form and intention be observed to guarantee validity in each of the seven sacraments. The reception of the papal mandate is not part of these three requisites necessary for validity. It is, though, an added indispensable condition, not able to be omitted during an interregnum, for the Sacrament of episcopal Orders to be validly conveyed.

Bouscaren and Ellis state: “…If but for the error,” the instance or act would not have occurred. “Error is of law if it concerns existence or meaning of the law; of fact if it concerns any other fact. Error of law or a fact, if it is substantial, renders an act null and void. The same is true if the error, though not substantial by nature, is made so by a condition sine qua non.” The act of consecration was nullified in advance, not after the fact. It could not happen, therefore, the pope infallibly teaches, it did not happen without his permission. The person consecrating was forbidden to act and incapacitated from conveying orders without the mandate. He appeared to convey them, but his acts were empty gestures; the recipient received nothing. Even if there was a question of whether Canon 104 states that either error or what “amounts to a conditio sine qua non” must be present. In this case, in two different instances — both error and conditio sine qua non — were present. If there is any question about whether VAS amounts to such a condition, the law itself solves the problem: “…otherwise the action is valid, unless the law states the contrary…” (Canons 103-104).

Well VAS is the prevailing law in this case and it DOES state the contrary. And this is not the only problem Traditionalists have with their Orders, as the following article points out in great detail: https://www.betrayedcatholics.com/necessary-intention-in-traditionalist-orders-lacking-2/, There are also other conditions, which refer to some future event, (such as obedience to a true pope when elected or Sanborn’s alleged pledge to adhere to the material-formal position prior to his “consecration” by McKenna) which invalidate episcopal consecration, according to the opinion of several approved and respected theologians. All this, coupled with what is presented here, at the very least establishes serious positive doubt about these consecrations that no truly sincere Catholic could possibly ignore. And no one may receive Sacraments where there is a solid doubt regarding their validity without committing grave mortal sin.

“But not even a pope can invalidate Orders received!”

The theologian Suarez explains as follows: “In the first place, when a law establishes a substantial form for some act, then in no case can that act subsist without the form thus laid down. If that form be disregarded, then invalidity will result from the attempt to posit the action. For, as there can be no valid Sacrament without the form designated by Our Lord (nor in regard to it can there be any epikeia or dispensation by one other than by Christ Himself), the same must be said cum proportione of every act devoid of the SUBSTANTIAL FORM DESIGNATED FOR IT BY LAW. In the second place, every invalidating law either disqualifies entirely the person involved from positing the act in question or disqualifies him from making a contract except in accordance with the form designated by law. Now, this incapacity which has been effected by law cannot be removed by epikeia.(Ibid., Father Lawrence Joseph Riley, The History, Nature, and Use of Epikeia in Moral Theology).

In his Canon Law, Abp. Amleto Cicognani makes almost an identical statement under Can. 16 regarding both disqualification and the fact that incapacity cannot be removed by epikeia. He further comments that: “No ignorance of invalidating or disqualifying laws excuses from their observance; namely no ignorance of the aforementioned laws can make acts valid which they have rendered invalid nor can it make persons capable of acting whom they have declared incapacitated from acting. Nor can subjects be excused from the observance of these laws, for the matter is in no way dependent on the will of the agent but on the contrary depends entirely on the will of the legislator who issued such laws because the common good required it… Canon 2199 rules that the imputability of an offense depends on the evil will (dolus) of a delinquent, or on the extent to which his ignorance of the violated law or his omission of proper diligence was culpable…”

Fr. Riley adds to this quote in his conclusions: “Epikeia can never confer the capacity to act. Epikeia cannot bestow upon him the power which he does not now possess, nor can epikeia restore the power which the law has withdrawn.” VAS withdrew the power of bishops to consecrate without the papal mandate. Pope Pius XII did not nullify anyone’s Orders, as Traditionalists sneeringly allege against those questioning the validity of their pseudo-clergy: he withdrew the power of those attempting to confer them without the papal mandate during an interregnum, so that whatever they did had no effect. And this is assuming they ever validly received any Orders in the first place which only a true pope could determine! The ACT of episcopal consecration (or ordination) is not nullified — the ones attempting to convey Orders and those attempting to receive them are declared incapable of ACTING and receiving. This is a very important distinction. You can scarcely nullify something that could never take place to begin with. It is no different than declaring a marriage invalid before it ever occurs if either party is not of canonical age (Can. 1067); the persons attempting to marry are declared incapable of receiving the Sacrament of matrimony. This same principle is simply applied to episcopal orders in Pope Pius XII’s election law (VAS).

Conclusion

“A prohibitory law of its very nature admits the excuse of ignorance or moral incapacity and on this basis will frequently cease in its cogent force. Not so an invalidating law. Invalidation is not premised on an obligation but is derived from the will of the legislator who seeks to protect the common good of society and wishes to safeguard it more compellingly from fraud, injury and danger. The inviolable observance of invalidating laws is constantly urgent because their transgression presents a far graver danger to society itself” (Doubt in Canon Law, Rev. Roger Viau, S.T.L, J.C.L., 1954, pg. 69; Catholic University of America dissertation). And VAS is definitely an invalidating and prohibitory law, not to mention an infallible one. Above we see the reasons why such laws cannot be relaxed to accommodate the wishes of Traditionalists disingenuously claiming they act on behalf of the common good.  As proven in previous works, their violation of Canon Law and papal law work to the destruction, not the salvation, of the faithful.

Canon 21 reads, “Laws enacted for the purpose of guarding against a common danger bind, even though, in a particular case, there is no danger.” And as history amply proves, during the vacancy of the Holy See, there is definitely danger — danger of an attempted takeover of the Church, of lay interference in the election, of unworthy candidates elevated to the episcopate and the papacy, of the violation of papal law and Canon Law on which the Church’s foundation is laid — all these are deadly serious reasons for invalidating future acts that would lead to these things. And the teachings found in VAS are not just fears harbored by Pope St. Pius X and Pope Pius XII but are a reflection of precautions taken throughout the centuries by occupants of the Holy See. The hierarchy has been forbidden to exercise any sort of papal jurisdiction or attenuate Church law during an interregnum since the early Middle Ages. This is verified in a footnote to VAS.

SSPX “priests” eager to become bishops, who could never have been ordained because a true pontiff did not exist to appoint bishops to the dioceses in which these seminaries were erected, rushed in to “save the Church,” only to decimate it. Having usurped papal jurisdiction in establishing such seminaries without pontifical approval, Lefebvre and other “bishops” were automatically incapacitated from validly conferring orders on anyone. Canon 104 is set in stone because VAS says so, and VAS cannot be contradicted unless Traditionalists would like to deny the supreme jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff over the Church. But these men are the real deal and are going to eventually hold a papal election? Either we believe in the Church Pope Pius XII left to us or we believe in nothing. Traditionalists must choose or pay the ultimate price.