Search results for "The Church Cannot Exist Without the Pope "

No pope no Church; no bishop no priest

by T. Stanfill Benns | Feb 6, 2023

Traditionalists today forget that the Catholic Church cannot exist without a true pope. This also is the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas, the Catechism of the Council of Trent, the Popes themselves and the theologians.

Pope Pius IX teaches this fact from his own mouth: “May God give you the grace necessary to defend the rights of the Sovereign Pontiff and the Holy See; for without the Pope there is no Church, and there is no Catholic Society without the Holy See,” (Allocution to religious superiors, June 24, 1872; Papal Teachings: The Church, by the Monks of Solesmes, translated by Mother E. O’Gorman, St. Paul Editions, 1962; no. 391, p. 226 ).

St. Thomas Aquinas writes: “In order that the Church exist, there must be one person at the head of the whole Christian people,” (Summa Contra Gentilis, Vol. IV, 76).

The Catechism of the Council of Trent teaches: “It is the unanimous teaching of the Fathers that this visible head is necessary to establish and preserve unity in the Church,” and this from Christ’s guarantees to St. Peter found in Holy Scripture, (Revs. McHugh and Callan edition, p. 104.).

Revs. Devivier and Sasia, whose work was personally endorsed by Pope St. Pius X, wrote: “As it is to the character of the foundation that a building owes its solidarity, the close union of its parts, and even its very existence, it is likewise from the authority of Peter that the Church derives Her unity, her stability, and even Her existence Herself. The Church, therefore, cannot exist without Peter,” (Christian Apologetics, Vol. II, p. 111).

Traditionalists today may call themselves priests and bishops, but they are doubtfully valid at best, are usurping the powers of the papacy and pretending to perpetuate the Church without a pope contrary to all Church teaching. It is the popes — NOT the bishops and priests, so-called — to whom we must listen. Men not certainly lawful pastors have no power over us whatsoever. The rights of priests are dependent on the bishop, the bishops’ rights and duties are dependent on the pope, and we have no true pope OR bishops. This is evident from what is stated below.

What are the rights and duties of a priest?

“Consequently, it is not easy to say in a way applicable to all cases what are the duties and rights of a priest; both vary considerably in individual cases. By his ordination a priest is invested with powers rather than with rights, the exercise of these powers (to celebrate Mass, remit sins, preach, administer the sacraments, direct and minister to the Christian people) being regulated by the common laws of the church, the jurisdiction of the bishop, and the office or charge of each priest,” (http://www.catholicity.com/encyclopedia/p/priest.html). Canon 108: “Those who have been assigned to the ministry, at least by the first tonsure, are called clerics.” Canon 118: “Only clerics can obtain the power of either orders or ecclesiastical jurisdiction…”

Apostolicity means possessing both orders AND jurisdiction.

“Apostolicity of mission consists in the power of holy orders and the power of jurisdiction derived by legitimate transmission from the Apostles. Any religious organization whose ministers do not possess these two powers is not accredited to preach the Gospel of Christ. For ‘How can they preach,’ asks the Apostle, ‘unless they be sent?’ (Rom. 10:15). It is Apostolicity of mission which is reckoned as a note of the Church.” (http://www.catholicity.com/encyclopedia/c/church.html see “apostolicity” header).

From the Catechism

What does Father Thomas Kinkead tell American Catholics on lawful pastors in the catechism used in Catholic schools in the 1940s and 1950s, before the decline of the Church? In his An Explanation of the Baltimore Catechism, #4, Fr. Kinkead writes in Q. 115: “What is the Church? A. The Church is the congregation of all those who profess the faith of Christ, partake of the same sacraments, and are governed by their lawful pastors under one visible head.” The Baltimore Council’s approved catechism (#3) for adults also written by Rev. Kinkead tells us in the answer to question # 494 that lawful pastors are “those in the Church who have been appointed by lawful authority and who have therefore a right to rule us.” Note that this says nothing of the supposedly “validly” consecrated bishops who have created these priests; it mentions only lawful authority. Valid consecration is not sufficient; if a bishop has not been approved by the pope and consecrated with the papal mandate he cannot function validly, (see Etsi multa and Charitas below).

“Even if valid orders exist, where jurisdiction is lacking there is no real apostolicity. Schism, as well as heresy, destroys apostolic succession,” (Rev. Thomas Cox, Pillar and Ground of Truth, 1900). In his Manual of Christian Doctrine, written for religious congregations and Catholic institutions of higher learning, seminary professor Rev. John Joseph McVey wrote in 1926:

Q. 60: Who after the pope are lawful pastors of the Church?

A. The bishops who have been canonically instituted, i.e., who have received from the Sovereign Pontiff a diocese to govern.

Q. 73: Why is it not sufficient to be a bishop or priest in order to be a lawful pastor?

A. Because a bishop must also be sent into a diocese by the Pope, and a priest must be sent into a parish by the bishop. In other words, a pastor must have not only the power of order, but also THE POWER OF JURISDICTION, (emph. McVey’s).

Q. 77: How is the power of jurisdiction communicated?

A. Priests receive their jurisdiction from the bishop of the diocese; bishops receive theirs from the pope; and the Pope holds jurisdiction from Jesus Christ. A bishop who did not have his spiritual powers from the Pope, a pastor who did not have his from the lawful bishop, would be AN INTRUDER OR SCHISMATIC,” (emph. McVey’s). So not only are Traditionalist “priests” and “bishops” illicitly ordained and consecrated, without a true pope they possess NO jurisdiction whatsoever.

Canonical mission is the conveying of the actual office by the Pope (to bishops) or the bishop (to priests), or the superior (to religious). (Delegated) jurisdiction, the power to execute the duties of that office, is granted to priests only by a validly ordained and consecrated bishop whose consecration was approved by a canonically elected pope (meaning his election was held without any doubts whatsoever about its legitimacy as prescribe by Canon Law and Pope Pius XII’s papal election constitution governing papal elections.) This means only bishops consecrated prior to Pope Pius XII’s death on Oct. 9, 1958 are considered validly consecrated.

Heretics and schismatics lose all jurisdiction

St. Robert Bellarmine says. “There is no basis for that which some respond to this: that these Fathers based themselves on ancient law, while nowadays, by decree of the Council of Constance, they alone lose their jurisdiction who are excommunicated by name or who assault clerics. This argument, I say, has no value at all, for those Fathers, in affirming that heretics lose jurisdiction, did not cite any human law, which furthermore perhaps did not exist in relation to the matter, but argued on the basis of the very nature of heresy. The Council of Constance only deals with the excommunicated, that is, those who have lost jurisdiction by sentence of the Church, while heretics already before being excommunicated are outside the Church and deprived of all jurisdiction.

“For they have already been condemned by their own sentence, as the Apostle teaches (Tit. 3:10-11), that is, they have been cut off from the body of the Church without excommunication, as St. Jerome affirms… All the ancient Fathers…teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction, and outstandingly that of St. Cyprian (lib. 4, epist. 2) who speaks as follows of Novatian, who was Pope [i.e. antipope] in the schism which occurred during the pontificate of St. Cornelius: “He would not be able to retain the episcopate [i.e. of Rome], and, if he was made bishop before, he separated himself from the body of those who were, like him, bishops, and from the unity of the Church.’” (An Extract from St. Robert Bellarmine’s De Romano Pontifice, lib. II, cap. 30, (http://www.cmri.org/02-bellarmine-roman-pontiff.html. This link is placed merely for purposes of attribution; no endorsement of this site is hereby intended.)

St. Robert Bellarmine, (de Romano Pontifice, Bk. 2, Chapter 40) also teaches: “The Holy Fathers teach unanimously not only that heretics are outside of the Church, but also that they are ipso facto deprived of all ecclesiastical jurisdiction and dignity …Saint Nicholas I (epist. Ad Michael) repeats and confirms the same. Finally, Saint Thomas also teaches (II-II, Q39, A3) that schismatics immediately lose all jurisdiction, and that anything they try to do on the basis of any jurisdiction will be null…” Further, St. Robert Bellarmine cites the unanimous teaching of the Fathers in his work “de Romano Pontifice,” where he states: “Heretics who return to the Church must be received as laymen, even though they have been formerly priests or bishops in the Church. St. Optatus (lib. 1 cont. Parmen.).”

Without such jurisdiction priests cannot act validly (confession, marriage, etc.), unless the Church supplies it, (in “emergency” situations). Priests must be assigned an office by a valid bishop in communion with the pope. A valid bishop can only convey an office if he possesses jurisdiction (Pope Paul IV’s Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, 1559, still retained in the 1917 code) and no one who has committed heresy possesses jurisdiction. Without this office and valid assignment to it by a valid bishop, priests cannot say Mass publicly.

Revs. Woywod-Smith, A Practical Commentary on Canon Law, (under Can. 804) write:

“699. A priest who desires to say Holy Mass in a church other than that to which he is attached must show authentic and still valid letters of recommendation (commonly called ‘Celebret’) to the priest in charge of the church. A secular priest must obtain these letters from his Ordinary, a religious priest from his superior, and a priest of an Oriental Rite from the Sacred Congregation of the Oriental Church. A priest who has a proper ‘‘Celebret’’ shall be admitted to say Mass, unless it is known that in the meantime he has done something for reason of which he must be kept from saying Holy Mass…

“If the priest has no ‘Celebret,’ but the rector of the church knows well that he is a priest in good standing, he may be allowed to say Mass. If, however, he is unknown to the rector, he may nevertheless be permitted to say Mass once or twice,” provided he fulfill certain conditions.

“700. The Council of Chalcedon (451) ruled that no strange cleric or lector should be permitted to minister outside his own town without letters of recommendation from his own bishop. Pope Innocent III issued the same prohibition but said that the priest who did not have his letters of recommendation might be admitted to say Mass if he desired to do so out of devotion: he might not, however, say Mass before the people, but privately. The Council of Trent again made the rule absolute—as the Council of Chalcedon had it—that no priest should be permitted to celebrate Mass and administer the Sacraments without letters of recommendation from his own bishop.”

As St. Pius X taught in Acerbo nimis (1905): “Pastors…are obliged by the precept of Christ to know and to nourish the sheep confided to them; now to nourish is first of all to teach… (a) And so the Apostle said, ‘Christ sent me not to baptize but to preach the Gospel, (b) indicating thus that the first office of those who are set up in any way for the government of the Church is to instruct the faithful in sacred doctrine.” So how is it that Traditionalists violate this teaching by rushing to provide Mass and Sacraments and failing entirely to instruct the faithful in sacred doctrine? How is it that despite Pope Boniface VIII’s teaching that unless all the faithful are subject to the Roman Pontiff, they cannot save their souls, Traditionalists fail to require strict obedience to papal law and teaching?

Canon 147 teaches: “An ecclesiastical 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,” and this canon has been officially interpreted by Pope Pius XII to mean exactly what Pope Pius IX taught in the paragraph from Graves diurturnae quoted below, and the Council of Trent taught in the 1500s.

“This Holy Synod teaches that, in the ordination of bishops, priests and other orders…those who are called and instituted only by the people, or by the civil power…and proceed to exercise these offices, and…those who take these offices upon themselves, are not ministers of the Church, but are to be regarded as ‘thieves, robbers and those who have not entered by the door,’” (DZ 960; Canons 108-109; Can. 147.) “”If anyone says that … those who have neither been rightly ordained nor sent by ecclesiastical authority, but come from a different source, are the lawful ministers of the Word and of the Sacraments, let him be anathema.” (The Council of Trent, Sess. 23, July 15, 1563; DZ 967, 424). Having taught this infallibly, would “the Church” really be willing to supply jurisdiction for them?

When Can. 209 says the “Church” supplies, that term is interpreted to mean the Roman Pontiff, who is the only one throughout history who has EVER supplied jurisdiction. The Pope is the ONLY one who holds primacy of jurisdiction in the Church. All this is according to the Vatican Council decrees and is further explained in Rev. Francis Miaskiewicz’s Canon Law dissertation Supplied Jurisdiction According to Canon 209, (1948, Catholic University of America). And when Canon 2261 §2 says priests may act in emergency situations to administer the Sacraments, it is assumed that the Church (the Pope) will supply jurisdiction. But we have no true pope to supply it, so priests cannot now receive this jurisdiction. Without it they cannot act, as NO ONE may usurp papal jurisdiction during an interregnum. This Pope Pius XII infallibly teaches in his papal election constitution, (Vacantis Apostolica Sedis, 1945):

“We declare invalid and void any power or jurisdiction pertaining to the Roman Pontiff in his lifetime, which the assembly of Cardinals might decide to exercise (while the Church is without a Pope)… If anything contrary to this prescript occurs or is by chance attempted, we declare it by Our Supreme authority to be null and void.” And if even the cardinals (some of whom are also bishops) cannot exercise it, and they are superior in rank to bishops, certainly bishops could not presume to do so. Only the pope can supply the papal mandate; this is an act of papal jurisdiction.

Validly consecrated bishops such as Lefebvre and Thuc long ago incurred heresy and communicatio in sacris by celebrating the Novus Ordo Missae. They publicly admitted they celebrated this false liturgy in communion with a false church and Lefebvre never left that church. (Thuc vacillated back and forth between Traditionalism and the Novus Ordo throughout his life.) Therefore they incurred the penalty for notorious heresy, (Can. 2314 §1). Canon 2314 §3 further provides that if they commit communicatio in sacris (Can. 1258) they also incur a vindicative penalty, which only the pope is able to lift, (Can. 2295). Canon 2294 (Revs. Woywod-Smith commentary) classifies any act performed under the imposition of a vindicative penalty invalid. Furthermore, in his papal election law, Pius XII declares any act usurping papal jurisdiction during an interregnum null and void. One cannot presume to act validly and licitly without a papal dispensation from this penalty while the Church is without Her head.

So first of all, Lefebvre and Thuc are notorious heretics and schismatics (notorious by fact, meaning Catholics know what they did was an act of treason against the Church, they know that they did it because they have confessed it or otherwise confirmed it publicly and they know what they did was wrong; Can. 2197 no. 3). These two men automatically lost their offices and all jurisdiction. They cannot plead ignorance; for as Pope Celestine I taught: “No priest may be ignorant of the canons,” far less a bishop! These men were forbidden to function by papal decree, interregnum or no, (see Etsi multa and Charitas below). So even when not operating during an interregnum, past papal laws have declared the operations of such schismatics/heretics null and void in similar cases. During an interregnum, the acts of those who violate papal laws or usurp papal jurisdiction are infallibly declared null and void by Pius XII above.

Schismatic bishops can validly consecrate when a canonically elected pope is reigning, because then the reigning pope can judge and rectify such consecrations. But during an interregnum, such consecrations are null ab initio, (from the outset) because the pope infallibly forbids it. All affairs are to be referred to the future pope in advance of their accomplishment. Any attempted these consecrations are considered as though they never happened. Traditionalists cannot presume to consecrate bishops without a papal mandate, as Pope Pius IX unequivocally demonstrates in Etsi Multa. If a priest is not consecrated a bishop, he cannot validly ordain priests because technically he is still a priest himself. And since Traditionalist consecrations of bishops never happen, ordinations cannot happen either.

All comes back to Can. 147, explained above. In order to function as a valid and lawful pastor, one must be assigned an office. All must be done in accordance with the canons. All offices are lost on the commission of heresy, (Can. 188 no. 4 and Can. 2314 §2; also St. Bellarmine above).

Pope Pius IX, Etsi Multa (November 1873)

“24. But these men [the Old Catholics], having progressed more boldly in the ways of wickedness and destruction, as happens to heretical sects from God’s just judgment, have wished to create a hierarchy also for themselves, as we have intimated. They have chosen and set up a pseudo-bishop, a certain notorious apostate from the Catholic faith…

“25. But as even the rudiments of Catholic faith declare, no one can be considered a bishop who is not linked in communion of faith and love with Peter, upon whom is built the Church of Christ; who does not adhere to the supreme Pastor to whom the sheep of Christ are committed to be pastured; and who is not bound to the confirmer of fraternity which is in the world.

26. We additionally excommunicate whoever has adhered to them and belonging to their party has furnished help, favor, aid, or consent. We declare, proclaim, and command that they are separated from the communion of the Church. They are to be considered among those with whom all faithful Christians are forbidden by the Apostle to associate and have social exchange to such an extent that, as he plainly states, they may not even be greeted,” [Vitandus!] (http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9etsimu.htm).

Pope Pius IX, Graves Diurturnae (March 1875):

“We have already reproved and condemned this deplorable sect [the Old Catholics] which has produced from the old store of the heretics so many errors opposed to the principal tenets of the Catholic faith. This sect overthrows the foundations of the Catholic religion, shamelessly rejects the dogmatic definitions of the Ecumenical Vatican Council, and devotes itself to the ruin of souls in so many ways… [The faithful] should totally shun their religious celebrations, their buildings, and their chairs of pestilence, which they have with impunity established to transmit the sacred teachings. They should shun their writings and all contact with them. They should not have any dealings or meetings with usurping priests and apostates from the faith who dare to exercise the duties of an ecclesiastical minister without possessing a legitimate mission or any jurisdiction. They should avoid them as strangers and thieves who come only to steal, slay, and destroy.” ‪

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9graves.htm

Pope Pius IX, Quartus Supra (January 1873)

“As Our predecessor Pius VI warned in his Apostolic letter condemning the civil constitution of the clergy in France, discipline is often so closely related to doctrine and has such a great influence on its preservation and its purity, that the sacred councils have not hesitated to cut off from the Church by their anathema those who have infringed its discipline.” www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9quartu.htm

Pope Pius VI, Charitas (April, 1791)

“They must not grant dimissorial letters for ordinations. Nor must they appoint, depute, or confirm pastors, vicars, missionaries, helpers, functionaries, ministers, or others, whatever their title, for the care of souls and the administration of the Sacraments under any pretext of necessity whatsoever… For We declare and proclaim publicly that all their dimissorial letters and deputations or confirmations, past and future, as well as all their rash proceedings and their consequences, are utterly void and without force…” www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius06/p6charit.htm

It is a sin of presumption to think Christ would supply jurisdiction in the pope’s absence as some teach today. There is no law in the Church anywhere that says in the present “emergency” situation Our Lord would supply jurisdiction; Charitas above says no “pretext of necessity” would justify such a belief. Pope Pius XII’s infallible papal election constitution says it does not/cannot occur. Even Our Lord cannot supersede a pope’s infallible decree, for He promises to bind in Heaven whatever His Vicar binds on earth, and He is ever true to His promises. The Church’s teachings must be taken as a whole, as a flawless composite of integral truth. One truth cannot contradict the other. If the Traditionalist scenario is true then the popes quoted above are liars. We are to obey God not men, and God speaks to us only through his VICARS and those in communion with them. The choice is and has always been our own. The Church infallibly commands us to be subject to the Roman Pontiff if we wish to be saved (Boniface VIII). And we cannot be subject to them by following men who refuse to observe the teachings of the continual magisterium and insist on functioning outside communion with a canonically elected pope.

Vatican Council: Pope is sole interpreter of Divine Truth

by T. Stanfill Benns | Feb 2, 2023 | New Blog

+Feast of the Purification+

Month of February, Dedicated to the Holy Family

Prayer Society Intention

Oh Jesus, Mary and Joseph, we humbly beseech Thee to protect our families in these tempestuous times fraught with so many evils. Please keep us ever faithful and always pure in body, mind and soul. Amen.

To our readers

Owing to formatting problems resulting from a WordPress glitch, readers attempting to access site articles may have been unable to decipher some of the site content and for this we apologize. Please know that these errors, with a few exceptions, have now been corrected. Next, we will be working to update links in site articles, but this will be a slow process; please be patient. Non-working links or other issues may be reported at answers@betrayedcatholics.com

The article featured on the homepage addressing epikeia has been updated to include a part two on “necessity knows no law,” since Traditionalists continue to use this legal principle to justify their operations. It comes at the end of the epikeia article and is only five pages long. See https://www.betrayedcatholics.com/epikeia-negates-the-churchs-divine-constitution/ . This is further proof that Traditionalists, from the outset, have tried to make their followers believe that legal principles are superior to revealed truth and can rightfully replace what has been infallibly taught by the Roman Pontiffs.

The Vatican Council on interpretation of papal decrees

The headline above may seem self-evident. But if it truly was understood, there would be no need for many of the articles posted to this website. Nor any need to repeatedly refute the allegations lobbied against these articles/this author. Unfortunately, the misrepresentation and misunderstanding of this most essential dogma is so deeply rooted that it seems a special effort should be made to better explain and demystify it. The entire thrust of the Vatican Council held in 1869 was to define the primacy and the divine nature of jurisdiction entrusted by Christ to Saint Peter and his successors, to rule the Church in His name: “He who hears you, hears me.” For those so enamored of the episcopal power, close to 700 bishops and heads of religious orders, at one time or another, attended the Vatican Council, the largest gathering in Church history. A total of 533 affirmed these dogmas, with only a scant few dissenters. Sixty of those who left to avoid the final vote later accepted the definition. The infallible decrees of this council declared the following, which will be followed by my comments.

Probably the most important of these infallible Vatican Council decisions for us today is the following: “God cannot deny Himself… but a vain appearance of such a contradiction arises chiefly from this: that either the dogmas of faith have not been understood and interpreted according to the mind of the Church or deceitful opinions are considered as the determinations of reason, therefore ‘Every assertion contrary to the truth illuminated by faith we define to be altogether false’” [Lateran Council V, no. 738.]; (DZ 1797).

Comment: Since God cannot deny Himself, this means that the Vatican Council decisions regarding the dogmas of faith must issue directly from God through His Son and to His Vicars on earth, but that is not how they are received today by Traditionalists. As noted earlier on this blogspot, some wishing to oust Francis even have suggested there should be changes to the Vatican Council decisions. Yes, changes, to what God has issued through the mouths of the Apostolic College His Son established to rule in His name! Why has this happened? Because “the dogmas of faith have not been understood and INTERPRETED according to the mind of the Church.” How would this occur?Only by ignoring the laws and teachings of the Roman Pontiff, both past and prior to Pope Pius XII’s death, regarding the doctrines in question. The lawgiver himself, that is the Roman Pontiff and his predecessors, are the only ones Canon Law designates as able to determine the nature of his own laws and pronouncements. Approved theologians pre-1959 may explain them but they cannot interpret them.

Numerous “deceitful opinions… considered as the determinations of reason” have been advanced by those who are not valid clerics, and therefore unable to even explain various points, far less speculate on the intent of the lawgiver. They may appear to be reasonable, but their reasoning has been time and time again shown as consisting in logical fallacies and theological errors. Their actual deceit has been demonstrated in recent blogs on this site, a deceit that under Canons 103 and 104, nullifies and invalidates their actions. “For the doctrine of faith which God revealed has not been handed down as a philosophic invention to the human mind to be perfected.”

Comment: And that is exactly what Traditionalists have done by resorting to mere legal principles such as necessity and epikeia, which they pretend can override the Holy Ghost inspiring the pope and Christ speaking through him.

And then there is also this: “For the doctrine of faith …has been entrusted as a divine deposit to the spouse of Christ TO BE FAITHFULLY GUARDED AND INFALLIBLY INTERPRETED. Hence also that understanding of the sacred dogmas must be perpetually retained which Holy Mother Church has once declared and there must never be recession from that meaning under the specious name of a deep deeper understanding.”

Comment: God’s revelations are not to be interpreted by men. They are entrusted only to the Roman Pontiff who alone is guided by the Holy Ghost in his determinations. Anyone who dares to attempt to interpret papal documents, when the popes are quite clear in what they mean and what they teach, are usurping the papacy. This is especially true during an interregnum, when all such attempts are declared null, void, and invalid in Pope Pius XII’s 1945 election constitution, Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis (VAS). And how does one faithfully guard what God has revealed as presented in an infallible document? Certainly not by ignoring it, minimizing it, dismissing it, and disputing it!! As recently emphasized in various blogposts, those who do such things are not just disposing of the necessity of the papacy — they are denying that Christ founded His Church on Peter the Rock and that the Holy Ghost speaks through the Roman Pontiffs to us.

“But that the episcopacy itself might be one and undivided, and that the entire multitude of the faithful, through priests closely connected with one another might be preserved in the unity of faith and communion, placing the blessed Peter over the other apostles He established in him the perpetual principle and visible foundation of both unities, upon whose strength the eternal temple might be erected and the sublimity of the Church to be raised to heaven might rise in the firmness of this faith. And since the gates of hell to overthrow the Church, if this were possible, arise from all sides with ever greater hatred against this divinely established foundation,We judge it to be necessary for the protection, safety and increase of the Catholic flock, with the approbation of the council, to set forth the doctrine on the institution, perpetuity and nature of the sacred Apostolic primacy in which the strength and solidarity of the whole Church consist…” (DZ 1821).

Comment: So the pretend episcopacy of Traditionalists is one and undivided without a pope? And the unity of faith is preserved? This would be a laugh-out-loud moment if it wasn’t such a sad and serious matter. Exactly how many Traditionalist sects are there today — hundreds, maybe even thousands? Certainly neither both unities, the episcopacy nor the entire multitude of the faithful, could ever be said to be one. The Vatican Council states that the definition of infallibility was declared specifically to prevent the overthrow of the Church and for the protection and safety of the faithful. And yet that is the one thing Traditionalists failed to secure for the faithful — a true pope; and having failed at that, they do not even uphold infallibility or obey papal decrees. So can we doubt that there has indeed been an overthrow of the Church, one they helped orchestrate and perpetuate? The Vatican Council decrees that the primacy is the strength and solidarity of the whole Church, but we must fend off attacks for Pius IX’s statement that “without the pope there is no Church”? Clearly Pope Pius IX as well as the bishops was of one mind in this matter.

“So this gift of truth and never-failing faith was divinely conferred upon Peter and his successors in this chair… that with the occasion of schism removed the whole Church might be saved as one and relying on her foundation, might stay firm against the gates of hell” (DZ 1837).

Comment: So we see that without the foundation of the primacy, the Church cannot stay firm against the gates of hell. Once again, Traditionalists failed to lobby for a papal election but they have the best interests of the Church at heart? They are indeed working for “the salvation of souls” as they have claimed for decades when Pope Boniface VIII proclaimed that in order to be saved, all must obey the Roman Pontiff? Schism everywhere we look is all the proof we need that we have no true pope. What the Vatican Council tried to protect us against is exactly what happened. And now the only protection we can claim is strict adherence to everything issuing from the continual magisterium and the censuring of any and all who presume to interpret papal teachings or speak in his name. If we cannot have Christ’s Vicar at our side, we can at least gather around his throne and pray, promising to honor all the popes have ever taught and obey their commands.

Papal documents bind infallibly even when a censure is not heretical

In his Tuas libentur, addressed to German theologians, Pope Pius IX stated; “Perfect adhesion to revealed truth [cannot] be obtained if faith and obedience were given only to the dogmas expressly defined by the Church. Or even if it were a matter concerning that subjection which is to be manifested by an act of divine faith, nevertheless it would not have to be limited to those matters which have been defined by express decrees of the ecumenical councils or of the Roman Pontiffs and of the See, but would have to be extended also to those matters which are handed down as divinely revealed by the ordinary teaching power of the whole Church spread throughout the world and therefore by universal and common consent are held by Catholic theologians to belong to faith” (DZ 1683)… “[For] it is not sufficient to shun heretical iniquity unless these errors also are shunned which come more or less close to it…” (DZ 1820; Can. 1324).

Comment: So where is the obedience to those things not condemned as heretical? Certainly this belief that we owe no obedience to such things is not limited to Traditionalists. And yet it is stated by the popes in many other places as well. Why would any sincere Catholic prefer the opinion of a theologian, or even several theologians, over the teachings of a pope, especially in these uncertain times? As Revs. Pohle-Preuss write in The Sacraments, Vol. IV (1931): “It matters not what the private opinions of…theologians [are]. It is not the private opinions of theologians but the official decisions of the Church by which we must be guided.” And as Msgr. Joseph C. Fenton wrote in one of his articles for the American Ecclesiastical Review: “It is, I believe, to be presumed that the Vicar of Christ speaks to the faithful in a way they are able to understand.” Henry Cardinal Manning wrote in his work The Vatican Council and its Definitions (1887):

“To deny the infallibility of the Church in the censures less than for heresy, is held to be heretical” (and here he lists 11 approved theologians including Ferraris, De Lugo and others). “All, therefore, affirm the Church in passing such censures to be infallible. The infallibility of the Church in all censures less than heresy may be proved from the Acts of the Council of Constance. In the eleventh article of the Interrogatory proposed to the followers of Huss are included condemnations of all kinds. “In like manner, again, in the Bull Auctorem Fidei, the propositions condemned as heretical are very few, but the propositions condemned as erroneous, scandalous, offensive, schismatical, injurious, are very numerous.

“During the last three hundred years, the Pontiffs have condemned a multitude of propositions of which perhaps not twenty were censured with the note of heresy. Now in every censure the Church proposes to us some truth relating to faith or morals; and whether the matter of such truths be revealed or not revealed, it nevertheless so pertains to faith and morals that the deposit could not be guarded if the Church in such judgments were liable to error… In like manner all censures, whether for heresy or with a note less than heresy, are doctrinal definitions in faith and morals, and are included in the words in doctrina de fide vel moribus definienda…

“…The infallibility of the Church extends, as we have seen, directly to the whole matter of revealed truth, and indirectly to all truths which though not revealed are in such contact with revelation that the deposit of faith and morals cannot be guarded, expounded, and defended without an infallible discernment of such unrevealed truths, that this extension of the infallibility of the Church is, by the unanimous teaching of all theologians, at least theologically certain; and, in the judgment of the majority of theologians, certain by the certainty of faith.” He then quotes Pope Pius IX:

“Wherefore the Church, by the power committed to it by its Divine Author, has not only the right but above all the duty, of not tolerating but of proscribing and of condemning all errors, if the integrity of the faith and the salvation of souls should so require. On all philosophers who desire to remain sons of the Church, and on all philosophy, this duty lies, to assert nothing contrary to the teachings of the Church, and to retract all such things when the Church shall so admonish. The opinion which teaches contrary to this we pronounce and declare altogether erroneous, and in the highest degree injurious to the faith of the Church, and to its authority.” (Papal Letter Gravissimas Inter, Dec. 1862)

Objections by John Lewis addressed

So it is infallibility itself that is denied by those who hold that propositions not labeled as heretical may be held without incurring the penalty for heresy because there has been no “final determination,” refusing to render obedience to papal teaching. And if anyone is to be believed among the theologians, surely Henry Cardinal Manning, who took a vow before Pope Pius IX to bring the Vatican Council and its definition to fruition, is to be trusted far and away before any other theologian, especially when he quotes so many other approved theologians. Furthermore, there is an abundance of proof that what Cardinal Manning states is straight from the mouth of Pope Pius IX as seen below. To address more recent claims by John Lewis I state the following:

As to the assertion that no one ignores VAS, this is ridiculous. Traditionalists are ignoring VAS by the simple fact that they continue to function and hold themselves validly ordained and consecrated. This is why generally no individual names are mentioned when writing these articles: all are ignoring it.

An apostolic constitution is a papal document that deals with serious doctrinal matters regarding the definition of dogma, changes in canon law or other ecclesiastical matters (https://www.betrayedcatholics.com/vacantis-apostolicae-sedis-vindicated/). Apostolic constitutions are issued as papal bulls because of their solemn, public form. That the manner of electing a true pope would need to be modified in the present situation, were this possible (and it is not possible without unquestionably valid bishops to elect) I affirm. That the first four paragraphs of this constitution dealing with both dogmatic and canon law matters is not a matter of the primary, but the secondary object of infallibility, I deny. Even were such a thing only the secondary object of infallibility involving a disciplinary matter, Pope Pius IX teaches:

“…Discipline is often so closely related to doctrine and has such a great influence on its preservation and its purity, that the sacred councils have not hesitated to cut off from the Church by their anathema those who have infringed its discipline… Nor can the Eastern Churches preserve communion and unity of faith with Us without being subject to the Apostolic power in matters of discipline… Teaching of this kind is HERETICAL, and not just since the definition of the power and nature of the papal primacy was determined by the ecumenical Vatican Council (DZ 1827)

“… But the neo-schismatics say that it was not a case of doctrine but of discipline, so the name and prerogatives of Catholics cannot be denied to those who object. Our Constitution Reversurus, published on July 12, 1867, answers this objection. We do not doubt that you know well how vain and worthless this evasion is. For the Catholic Church has always regarded as schismatic those who obstinately oppose the lawful prelates of the Church and in particular, the chief shepherd of all. Schismatics avoid carrying out their orders and even deny their very rank. [These] are schismatics even if they had not yet been condemned as such by Apostolic authority” (Pope Pius IX, Quartus Supra, 1873).

Three years after writing Quartus Supra, we also hear the following from Pope Pius IX, in Quae in patriarchatu: “In fact, Venerable Brothers and beloved Sons, it is a question of recognizing the power (of this See), even over your churches, not merely in what pertains to faith, but also in what concerns discipline. He who would deny this is a HERETIC; he who recognizes this and obstinately refuses to obey IS WORTHY OF ANATHEMA,” (Pope Pius IX, September 1, 1876, to the clergy and faithful of the Chaldean Rite.) See also Manning above.

I have never said bishops do not have ordinary jurisdiction and could not function during an interregnum IF they had kept the faith. In a previous response to your objections, I pointed out that I am speaking here only of this PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCE AND SITUATION, not the normal course of things, since it no longer exists. I have said and continue to say no valid bishops exist and that all the valid bishops attending the false Vatican 2 council became heretics, as well as most of those those not attending the false council, since they failed to rally and elect a true pope: this was the command and intention of Pope Pius XII and all those preceding him. They are now all deceased, as noted previously.

I am well aware that there are cardinal-priests and cardinal-bishops; I wrote a book stating this in 1990, remember? But the majority of those cardinals electing John 23 were consecrated bishops, and whether cardinals or not, they hardly lost their episcopal powers just by being appointed cardinals. This is what the Apostolic College is all about. The point I was attempting to make is that they lost their office as cardinals in bowing to secular governments and determining, prior to Roncalli’s election, that he would indeed be the one elected. This invalidated the election, as VAS decrees, and these cardinals were reduced to (infamous, excommunicated) bishops; this is verified in Pope Paul IV’s Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, the (old) law which serves as the fontes for Can. 188 no. 4, cited in VAS. You are the one who does not seem to be logically following here.

You are arguing beside the point, (hence your argument is invalid), when you state that I falsely claim Mystici Corporis teaches “without the Pope the bishops have no power.” Bishops referred to above who defected from the Church have no power ; had any bishops remained faithful, they would have retained their power. Bishops excommunicated for heresy lose all jurisdiction and incur infamy of law. Traditional pseudo-bishops and those upholding their purported power by their actions deny that the pope alone has the power to direct and supervise all they do, and that this power can come from no other source; hence they deny infallibility as explained above. (See https://www.betrayedcatholics.com/?s=Ott). The canon law defining heresy declares that it is committed by “manner of acting” (Can. 1325), among other things.

It is obviously the will of God that we no longer have valid bishops to elect a pope, or valid priests for that matter. The failure of Traditionalists to demand that such an election be held and try to rally remaining valid bishops and senior clergy to do this is proof they never intended to obey the pope in the first place. Some will say that this effort was made; I have yet to see any proof that this was ever the case and have pointed out in several articles that such an attempt to elect someone was actually circumvented.

You state: “Neither of these groups (Cardinals or bishops) can cease to exist in the Church.” And yet they have physically ceased to exist, because we live in the one time exempted from their existence in Holy Scripture, when “he who withholdeth will be taken out of the way” and the flock will be scattered — the time of Antichrist. If Traditionalists don’t accept this, it is not my problem. Even Protestants look around at this world and seem to think that the Second Coming is imminent. And if it is indeed imminent, it could not happen unless Antichrist proper, the Man of Sin, had already come, although his system remains.

As to your advice on how to argue with others, I quote from the link you provided to Vermeersch: “If we were to summarise what is needed in our interactions with other Catholics in one word, it would not be “charity”. Rather, it would be the very title of the book from which this extract is taken: “Tolerance… It often is not right for us to conclude that someone is a heretic or schismatic unless we are really compelled to do so.” I wish that I could say that I consider those I am dealing with as Catholic. Sadly, I cannot. Most of the pseudo-clergy I even consider as pertinacious heretics. I prefer Rev. Felix Sarda-Salvany’s approach in Liberalism is a Sin on this subject, whose work was approved by the Holy Office. And I am obligated in these evil times to warn people against men whose practices lead them into mortal sin and eternal damnation, not to mention the obligation I owe Our Lord to defend His Church.

Fr. Sarda states: “Sovereign Catholic inflexibility is sovereign Catholic charity. This charity is practiced in relation to our neighbor when in his own interests he is crossed, humiliated, and chastised. It is practiced in relation to a third party, when he is defended from the unjust aggression of another, as when he is protected from the contagion of error by unmasking its authors and abettors and showing them in their true light as iniquitous and pervert, by holding them up to the contempt, horror and execration of all… 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. The degree of our offense toward men can only be measured by the degree of our obligation to Him. Charity is primarily the love of God, secondarily the love of our neighbor for God’s sake. 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.”

And on that note I will end this, with one more observation. Several years ago I wrote an article explaining the true motive and intent of this minimization of the infallibility of the Roman Pontiffs. This in a time when the only right thing we can do is defend and uphold the Deposit of Faith and condemn the actions of those who impugn it. I suggest that those who would seek a better understanding of why this is happening should read or reread this article at https://www.betrayedcatholics.com/material-formal-hypothesis-condemned-as-heresy/ . If people objecting to what is written here would pay closer attention to what has already been said for nearly 20 years — both in the books and articles on this site — there would be none of these superfluous questions.

As the Vatican Council teaches, truths of faith presented from reason are not sufficient to facilitate conversion. What is needed is grace. This we fervently beseech God to grant all those today who wander in this vast wilderness of unbelief.

Church teaching on marriage woes: Can. 2319 and more

by T. Stanfill Benns | Oct 31, 2022 | New Blog

+Feast of All Saints+

Prayer Intention for November

That each day of this month all prayer associates recite a prayer of their choice for the Poor Souls

Marriage is a very complex subject requiring careful study and the clarification of many fine distinctions. Those critiquing this difficult canonical work would do well to let the author complete the explanation of the current situation before arriving prematurely at any conclusions. Those involved in serious research, especially, should know that one proceeds from the general to the particular. What is presented below will not answer all questions but should serve to help readers better understand points mentioned in the previous two blog posts. Because of the confusion created by our critics, we must make certain the following is understood.

We speak here only of marriage between two certainly baptized Catholics.
In cases of marriage, doubtful baptisms are presumed to be valid until proven otherwise.
The Church teaches that the marriages of those not Catholic are valid, but not fruitful regarding grace and not recognized by the Church as valid Catholic marriages. This would include Traditionalist and Novus Ordo marriages since these sects are schismatic.
The marriage of two Catholics acting in a time period when no Catholic priest is available appear to be invalid if held as a religious ceremony before a non-Catholic minister in a non-Catholic church.
It cannot be admitted that an after-the-fact invocation of Can. 1098 as a kind of “supplied jurisdiction” or application of epikeia can be said to validate Novus Ordo or Traditionalist marriages given the implications of Can. 2319.
The only situation anticipated in these discussions is that of a Traditionalist or Novus Ordo person who decides to become a pray-at-home Catholic, renounces his/her previous errors, makes a Profession of Faith, arrives at moral certainty that the marriage was not valid and now wishes to rectify matters.

Excommunication for marriage by a non-Catholic minister

In an article on Can. 1098 for “The Jurist,” pgs. 168-69, 1954, we read: “Nothing prevents an action that complies with the requirements of the law from being valid. They may also marry before a non-Catholic minister, not as a minister of religion but as an official empowered by civil law to witness marriages; he must not be allowed to use any religious ceremony, as is seen in Canon 1063” (The History and Application of Canon 1098, John De Reeper, MHF). Can. 1063 was officially interpreted by Pope Pius XII as will be seen below.

Traditionalists do not comply with the requirements of the law; they marry in a religious ceremony before their “priests” as ministers of religion. They marry before them believing they are priests when they are not, which alone invalidates the act, (Can. 104): “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 [in this case that the minister was a valid Catholic priest authorized to witness marriages]; otherwise the action is valid, unless the law states otherwise…” (Can. 104). “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” (Revs. Bouscaren-Ellis, Canon Law, a Text and Commentary, 1946).

If it had been possible for Traditionalists to understand that the men officiating at their marriage could not be official witnesses as the Church requires for validity; or (validly) or licitly celebrate a nuptial mass; or validly hear their confession before the wedding; if this had been explained to them and understood, would they really have gone through with it? The condition sine qua non here is a valid priest actually delegated for the ceremony by a valid bishop. Can. 1094 makes this a condition of validity for the marriage. Traditionalists believed themselves married before a certainly valid priest, but this was not the case; it was an error, amounting to fraud. Furthermore, the canonists Woywod-Smith, under the heading: Mixed Marriages Before Non-Catholic Minister…,” (Can. 2319 ° 2167) state that: “Many commentators restrict the penalty to Catholics who marry a non-Catholic, but some commentators (Cappello, others) assert that the penalty is incurred also by two Catholics who give or renew the marriage consent before a non-Catholic minister as minister of religion. Two Catholics who marry before a non-Catholic minister are guilty of the offence of Can. 2316…” [IF, in fulfilling Can. 1098, they avail themselves of a non-Catholic religious ceremony when they could merely have gone to a justice of the peace].

“The Third Plenary Council of Baltimore punished with ipso facto excommunication reserved to the local ordinary Catholics who contracted or attempted to contract marriage before the minister of any non-Catholic sect. The law of the Code has superseded the particular law of the Council of Baltimore insofar as the marriage of a Catholic with a non-Catholic before a non-Catholic minister is concerned. But the law of that Council remains, we believe, WITH REFERENCE TO THE MARRIAGE, OR RATHER ATTEMPTED MARRIAGE, of two Catholics before a non-Catholic minister, for the Code does not punish the offense of two Catholics with a latae sententiae censure [Can. 2316 is considered to be a ferendae sententiae censure]. Canon 2221 empowers the legislators to enforce both the divine and ecclesiastical laws with penalties or to increase the penalty decreed by law (Canon 2244,°2085).” Rev. Ignatius Szal writes in his Communication of Catholics with Schismatics (1948) that the Council of Baltimore excommunication additionally applies because it is a particular law considered as still in effect under Can. 6 no. 5 of the Code. Since this excommunication is mentioned under Can. 1063, it is considered to be retained in the Code.

Under Can. 1098, Woywod comments regarding the use of a non-Catholic minister: “The parties are justified in going to a justice of the peace or any other official of the government who is entitled to witness marriages so that their marriage may have the recognition of the civil law. They can also marry before a non-Catholic minister, not as a minister of religion but as an official entitled by civil law to witness marriages. They must not allow him to use any religious ceremony… If they can without great difficulty approach a civil official entitled to witness marriages, there is no reason to go to the non-Catholic minister.”

Woywod-Smith seem to be explaining above that because no latae sententiae sentence is prescribed for two Catholics marrying in a religious ceremony before a non-Catholic minister, this is only an attempted marriage; otherwise the two parties would only be subject to the one excommunication under Can. 1063. Under Can. 2316, both parties also are guilty of an act of communicatio in sacris and incur ipso facto the censure for suspicion of heresy. After six months, if the parties have become aware of their delict and its consequences but have not amended, they are considered formal heretics (Can. 2315). The two citations below mention both marriages actually contracted (mixed marriage, which according to a 1925 private decision of the Sacred Congregation of the Sacraments is valid but illicit) and attempted marriage (between two Catholics).

“To approach a non-Catholic minister as such for marriage is to communicate formally with him in sacred things. Such action is a manifest participation in the sacred things of non-Catholics, and a recognition of their cult. All those who formally co-operate in the non-Catholic marriage ceremony of a Catholic are likewise guilty of the sin of religious communication. Some co-operators can incur the excommunication which is incurred by Catholics contracting or attempting such a marriage. Those who command, and all others who so induce the consummation of a delict, or so concur in it in any way, that the delict would not have been perpetrated without the command or concurrence are bound by the censure.'” (Rev. John R. Bancroft, C.SS.R., J.C.B., S.T.L., Communication. in Religious Worship with Non-Catholics, 1946).

Pope Pius XII clarifies the application of Can. 2319 §1 as follows:

Qualifying Clause of Canon 2319 §1 no. 1 Expunged

Pope Pius XII, Motu proprio, 25 December 1953 AAS 46-88

“The good of the Church demands that we take all possible care that the stability of Canon Law be not endangered by the uncertain opinions and conjectures of private parties regarding the true sense of the canons and that interpretations which rest on subtleties and cavils against the clear will of the of the legislator do not result in undue indulgence toward violators of the law, a thing which disrupts the nerve of ecclesiastical discipline. But certain interpreters of the sacred canons, paying too little attention to these considerations, have extenuated the force of canon 2319 §1, no. 1 and, relying too much on the prescription of Canon 1063 §1 to which it makes reference, have taught that not every marriage contracted or attempted by Catholics before a non-Catholic minister is punished by excommunication reserved to the Ordinary.

Accordingly, lest the faithful, no longer fearing the penalty, might dare to commit such crime We, after consulting the most eminent and most reverend fathers of the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, of Our own motion and in the plenitude of Our Apostolic authority, decreed and ordained that the words “Contra praescriptum canonis 1063 §1” be expunged from Canon 2319 §1 no. 1. We order also that this Apostolic letter, given of Our own motion, be published in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis.”

This seems to indicate that both those contracting mixed marriage AND those attempting marriage do incur the excommunication. The separate treatment of those who have contracted marriage and attempted marriage indicates that here Pope Pius XII is considering two distinct situations. The question asked in the 1925 decision on mixed marriage was: “Is mixed marriage before a Protestant minister valid if conditions of Canon 1098 for marriage before witnesses only are verified?” Reply: if all the conditions which are required by Canon 1098 for the validity of marriages before witnesses only are verified, the circumstances that such marriages were blessed in a non-Catholic church is an argument not against validity but against licitness.” (Canon Law Digest, Vol. IV, Can. 1098). This does not indicate that these marriages, however, were celebrated in a Protestant or schismatic ceremony; only that they were celebrated before a Protestant minister without the proper dispensation required before marrying a non-Catholic at that time. Yet according to what Woywod-Smith state above, this same application of Can. 1098 would not apply to the marriage of two Catholics.

But Can. 1014 states marriage is always presumed to be valid

Yes it does, but presumption must yield to truth. The truth here seems to be that two baptized Catholics presenting before a non-Catholic minister and engaging in a religious ceremony only attempt marriage; there IS no presumption that it ever existed. Novus Ordo adherents and Traditionalists almost always solemnize marriage in a flashy religious ceremony. Yet they are not commissioned to be, nor could they ever be so commissioned, as official witnesses for the true Church under Can. 1094. They are non-Catholic sects claiming to be Catholic, just as the Anglicans long claimed to be. It would be ridiculous to think that two baptized Catholics could expect to be joined in a valid Catholic union outside their own Church that results in an excommunication excluding them from Church membership and reception of the sacraments.

Renewal of consent

This is covered under Canons 1136 and 1137. Canon 1136 states: “A marriage which is invalid through lack of consent is validated if the party who did not consent now gives his consent provided the consent of the other party continues. If the lack of consent was merely internal it suffices that the party who did not consent now gives consent by an internal act. If the lack of consent was manifested also outwardly, it is necessary to renew the consent outwardly, either in the form prescribed by law, when the absence of consent was public, or in some private and secret but external manner if the lack of consent was occult.” Woywod-Smith comment:” In the chapter dealing with matrimonial consent, (Canons 1081-93), the Code treats of the various forms of defective consent: consent vitiated by ignorance, by error, by fear and force and by a condition attached.” This is where Can. 104 enters in, regarding error but also indirectly a condition.

One who marries believing the minister consulted is a witness acting in the official capacity of the Church when this is not the case has made an error that nullifies the act performed; that of giving consent according to the laws of the Church. Were it not for the fact that these attempted marriages involved a participation in a non-Catholic ceremony, they might be said to be valid; but almost always an actual ceremony is involved. The condition sine qua non for the validity of a Catholic marriage is a true priest possessing the proper delegation by the Church to officiate at the marriage. Technically these marriages are invalid for lack of form: they are only attempted marriages. But one is not aware of this unless it is first realized that the Novus Ordo and Traditionalist sects are not able to validly witness marriages followed by a religious ceremony. And this is not to mention that in the external forum one incurs an excommunication and suspicion of heresy. As Woywod-Smith note under Can. 1098 °1120: “The Church does not dispense in cases of necessity from invalidating laws,” and resorting to a religious ceremony in a non-Catholic Church invalidates the attempted marriage.

Canon 1137 reads: “To validate a marriage which was nullified by a defect in the form it must be contracted again in the legitimate form.” Woywod-Smith comment: “If the parties were married outside the Church, if the priest who witnessed the marriage was not properly qualified, or if two qualified witnesses were not present, the marriage is null and void, and such a marriage can be validated in no other way then by the observance of the prescribed form of marriage. The rule here stated is now general application for all marriages in which at least one of the parties is subject to the law of the Code on the form of marriage. If one of the parties cannot be persuaded to validate the marriage before the authorized priest and witnesses, as happens quite frequently in mixed marriages contracted outside the Church, nothing remains but to get the sanatio in radice to validate the marriage.” And this is available first from the bishop, then the pope, which sadly are not available to us. This covers marriages before Novus Ordo and Traditionalist ministers who were not qualified witnesses and whose ceremonies are not Catholic.

Some canonists have opined that Can.1098 and the China exemptions automatically legitimate all these marriages or prove them able to be legitimated. This may have been true when we still had a true pope and bishops, in a sort of supplied jurisdiction manner, but it is not true today. Can. 1098 is an exception to the law and is to be interpreted strictly. Canon 19 states: “Laws which… establish an exception to the law must be interpreted in a strict sense.” Woywod-Smith comment: “These classes of laws are considered odious. It may seem strange that a law which contains an exception from the general law is called odious whereas in fact it may be very acceptable. However, it is a recognized principle of legislation to favor the universal or common law and to discourage exceptions. Archbishop Cicognani writes in his Canon Law that: “Things deviating from the common law are in no respect to be drawn into precedent. That which is granted gratuitously to one person ought not to be drawn into precedent by others; for whatever is granted to a person contrary to the common law is odious even though the exception be established by law.”

Of course today, Can. 1098 is the only law Catholics can observe, where, as a general rule, while the Church still existed, it was resorted to only occasionally. But it could never be used to “cover” those marriages which the Church holds to be only attempted, not actual. And as we will show below in the appendix, the China exemptions only apply to us today to a certain extent. For they too are exceptions to the law permitted under certain circumstances and cannot be stretched beyond the intended will of the legislator. Next, we will see where all the above leaves us in regard to marriage today.

Conclusions

We are not worried here about those who will remain in the Novus Ordo or Traditionalist sects and believe themselves to be married in the Catholic Church. They marry validly in their own sects but are not Catholic; they are not members of the Church, nor are they married in the Catholic Church. If both parties, baptized in the Catholic Church and married in a solemn ceremony by a Novus Ordo or a Traditionalist minister should leave one of these sects or another non-Catholic sect to pray at home, they would need to observe the following order, adapted from Pastoral Companion, Fr. Honoratus Bonzelet, O.F.M., 1939:

If there are serious doubts concerning Baptism in a particular case, conditional baptism may be given. Otherwise, a renewal of baptismal vows.
A profession of faith must be made.
This must be followed by an examination of conscience and a Perfect Act of Contrition, then Spiritual Communion.
The couple must publicly renew their consent under Can. 1098, before two (preferably Catholic) witnesses and keep a record of the ceremony. In a Can. 1098 ceremony, any civil official or judge, even a ship’s captain, could witness the marriage. But ideally a Catholic male friend can officiate and witness the recital of the vows. The marriage can then be registered with the state. It can be a marriage (or renewal of vows) just as lovely as any other marriage ceremony.
A three-year period of penance and amendment should begin, to satisfiy canonical requirements regarding return from heresy and schism.

Should one party wish not to renew consent but promises not to molest the faith of the one staying at home and agree that the children are to be raised outside these sects, the consent of the Catholic party wishing to pray at home is sufficient. If this is not possible, then the one converting may proceed as though there was never a marriage to begin with, because this is what Canon Law teaches. All cases would need to be submitted to the Holy See for examination and rectification should a true pope ever be elected, but that is highly unlikely. Catholics must abide by the marriage laws of the Church, not cater to the feelings or perceived needs of those involved in non-Catholic sects, offering them assurances that all is well when this is far from the case. Pope Pius XII says we must obey the laws of the Church if we wish to be counted as members of the Mystical Body (Mystici Corporis).

There are concerns about the motives of certain individuals calling themselves pray-at-home Catholics, and they are justified. Fr. Bonzelet writes: “Converts should be received with great care, especially if they are strangers to the pastor. The pastor should above all try to ascertain their motives. If material considerations (intended marriage) are compelling motives, he should apprise them that such motives are not sufficient. He should not, however, for that reason refuse to instruct them, since grace often builds up on extrinsic and natural motives.” There is no longer anyone to “vet” those who seemingly wish to leave these non-Catholic sects. There are deep concerns about those claiming to be newly converted given the fact that some might simply pretend to convert, then leave and publicly denounce those praying at home to shame them; or simulate conversion solely to justify leaving a spouse. All of this must rest solely on the consciences of those reading what is written here – no one is demanding that anyone do anything. Each person must decide for themselves what is true for their own situation. This was made clear from the beginning. Free will is just that — we answer to God for all our choices. This is why it is suggested that anyone wishing to become a pray-at-home Catholic spend three years on probation so to speak, but all of this must be on the honor system. The Internet is no guarantee of anything. We can only tell readers what the Church teaches and after that, we are at the mercy of the good will and honesty of others.

Appendix

Marriage decision of the Holy Office issued for China During Communist Rule

We do not (yet) live in a Communist country and are still free to follow many of the Church’s laws that did not and could not apply to the Chinese. The Church was especially concerned that the cautiones or promise that the children be baptized and educated as Catholics be at least given sincerely at the time of the marriage, even if they could not later be fulfilled.

Can the China law be applied to marriages taking place today, now that its existence is known? Only very cautiously and to the extent that is necessary. This is because the reply to the original decree explains that the positive law must be observed whenever it is able to be observed. The need for canonical form and even the witnesses is lifted in rare cases where Communist oppression was at its worst, according to one Spanish canonist, but we can easily use the correct form under Can. 1098 and find witnesses, even if they are non-Catholics. The lifting of the impediments is what mainly applies here, because there is no one to determine when or if they may be lifted and no appeal to Rome is now possible. Can the decree “retroactively” apply to past cases? Only if there is a question of impediments and whether or not they applied at the time of the marriage. This seems to be in harmony with the decree.

Here the distinction must be made between a declaratory decision or decree by the Holy See and an authentic interpretation. On Dec. 21, 1949, the Holy Office explained that the decree on China given in January of that year: “…has the nature of a declarative interpretation and hence can be applied retroactively and in other territories only to the extent that it deals with prescriptions of positive law which in view of extraordinary circumstances in the territory cannot be observed as to other matters it has the character of a positive provision which is not retroactive nor applicable in territories not mentioned in the decree” (Canon Law Digest, Vol. IV, p. 330).

Abp. Amleto Cicognani in his Canon Law explains that: “Interpretation is authoritative if it is given by a superior who possesses public authority. Laws are authoritatively interpreted by the lawmaker and his successor and by those to whom the lawmaker has committed the power to interpret the laws (Can. 17 §1). Cicognani goes on to explain that interpretation is merely declarative when it explains “terms of the law which are in themselves certain; declaratory properly so-called when it explains really doubtful and obscure terms of law,” which it does in this case. An authentic interpretation of the Code can be given only by the commission set up by Pope Benedict XV for the authentic interpretation of canon law. Can. 17 §2 reads further: “The authoritative interpretation of the law, given in the form of law, has the same force as the law itself; if it merely declares the meaning of the words of the law that were certain in themselves the interpretation need not be promulgated, and it has retroactive effect; if the interpretation restricts or extends the original law or explains a doubtful law, such interpretation does not have retroactive effect and must be promulgated.” The China decree is the latter.

This Dec. 21, 1949 reply was private and appears never to have been officially promulgated, as it is not appended to the Code, nor is it listed as being entered into the Acta Apostolica Sedis. Therefore it does not actually have the force of law accorded to the canons. The canons must apply first, whenever they can be obeyed and only in emergency circumstances beyond the lifting of impediments would the China decree be able to be extended to cover marital situations. And while these impediments can be said to have been retroactively lifted in all cases, this does not change the fact that two Catholics marrying before a non-Catholic minister in a religious ceremony only attempt marriage and additionally incur suspicion of heresy under Can. 2316, in addition to excommunication under 2319 §1.

More about Church teaching on marriage: See new addendum

by T. Stanfill Benns | Oct 26, 2022 | New Blog

+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 19^th 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.

To fulfill God’s law with regard to the conception and birth of children.
To enjoy the pleasures and to carry the burdens of married life in a holy way.
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.
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

by T. Stanfill Benns | Oct 23, 2022 | New Blog

+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.

« Older Entries

Next Entries »

No pope no Church; no bishop no priest

What are the rights and duties of a priest?

From the Catechism

Heretics and schismatics lose all jurisdiction

Vatican Council: Pope is sole interpreter of Divine Truth

+Feast of the Purification+

To our readers

The Vatican Council on interpretation of papal decrees

Papal documents bind infallibly even when a censure is not heretical

Objections by John Lewis addressed

Church teaching on marriage woes: Can. 2319 and more

+Feast of All Saints+

Prayer Intention for November

Excommunication for marriage by a non-Catholic minister

Qualifying Clause of Canon 2319 §1 no. 1 Expunged

Renewal of consent

Conclusions

Appendix

Marriage decision of the Holy Office issued for China During Communist Rule

More about Church teaching on marriage: See new addendum

Catholic couples have a RIGHT to receive matrimonial graces

Conclusion

Addendum

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

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

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

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

What does the Church really teach about: Marriage woes today

Marriage cases usually decided by the diocese

Pope Pius XII differentiates between moral certainty and probability

The Pauline Privilege

Applying the above remedies

Pope Pius XII speaks on marital purity

Recent Posts

Menu

Blog Archives by Year

No pope no Church; no bishop no priest

What are the rights and duties of a priest?

From the Catechism

Heretics and schismatics lose all jurisdiction

Vatican Council: Pope is sole interpreter of Divine Truth

+Feast of the Purification+

To our readers

The Vatican Council on interpretation of papal decrees

Papal documents bind infallibly even when a censure is not heretical

Objections by John Lewis addressed

Church teaching on marriage woes: Can. 2319 and more

+Feast of All Saints+

Prayer Intention for November

Excommunication for marriage by a non-Catholic minister

Qualifying Clause of Canon 2319 §1 no. 1 Expunged

Renewal of consent

Conclusions

Appendix

Marriage decision of the Holy Office issued for China During Communist Rule

More about Church teaching on marriage: See new addendum

Catholic couples have a RIGHT to receive matrimonial graces

Conclusion

Addendum

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

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

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

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

What does the Church really teach about: Marriage woes today

Marriage cases usually decided by the diocese

Pope Pius XII differentiates between moral certainty and probability

The Pauline Privilege

Applying the above remedies

Pope Pius XII speaks on marital purity

Recent Posts

Menu

Blog Archives by Year

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