by T. Stanfill Benns | Feb 20, 2012
Basic Church Teachings on Baptism of Desire
© Copyright 2009, T. Stanfill Benns (This text may be downloaded or printed out for private reading, but it may not be uploaded to another Internet site or published, electronically or otherwise, without express written permission from the author.)
Introduction
One might say, on sufficient reflection, that the spirit of Traditionalism first became apparent in the late 1940s with the unfolding of the Rev. Leonard Feeney, S.J. affair at St. Benedicts’ Center, Fall River, Massachusetts. Although Rev. Feeney, in his best selling book “Fish on Friday” declared in 1932 that Protestants could be saved, he later denied the constant teaching of the Church’s ordinary magisterium on the doctrine of baptism by blood and desire. At the time he first embraced and promulgated his erroneous teachings, Feeney was the director of the St. Benedict Center, originally established by three lay people to counsel students from Boston College. Today the Feenyites are considered yet another “branch” of Traditionalism, but in the 1940s they were the first American group since the advent of the Americanist heresy to be identified with a rigorist orthodoxy and contempt for Rome. While Traditionalists denying Feeney’s teachings would generally object to this most vehemently, a close examination of Feeney’s stance reveals many similarities among Traditionalists and the Feeneyites.
For refusing to obey the summons to Rome by Pope Pius XII to answer for his heresy concerning baptism of desire and blood, (not simply his “outside the Church there is no salvation” position), Feeney was excommunicated in 1953. The heads of two groups, then, pre-existing before Vatican II — one in America, one in France — were severed from communion with the one, true Church for disobedience and heresy. The other excommunicated priest was the self proclaimed (antipope) Clement XV, Michael Collin. Collin, ordained by Achille Lienart was the head of “Crusaders of the Rosary,” a group somehow affiliated with the condemned movement, Action Francais.
According to Feeney’s biographer Gary Potter, (“After the Boston Heresy Case”), Feeney identified this doctrine in 1947 as “Outside the Church there is no salvation,” with its attendant focus on baptism of blood and desire. Feeney insisted the Baltimore Catechism taught heresy in teaching the efficacy of baptism by blood and desire. He also accused Cardinal Gibbons of over-emphasizing this doctrine in his catechism and thus teaching heresy as well. He accused the Vatican and the Sacred Congregation of the Holy See of propagating heresy. Before his excommunication, he set up a school at the St. Benedict Center, (whose co-founder was none other then the present “Cardinal” Avery Dulles), without the permission or knowledge of either diocesan authorities or his Jesuit superiors. He then proceeded to found a lay order with married lay “brothers” and “sisters” which amounted to a commune. They published a periodical, From the Housetops, spreading their errors and rebellious spirit without benefit of an imprimatur. When ordered by his superiors to include other Jesuits in his ministry, Feeney refused. When transferred from St. Benedict’s to a different assignment, he at first left, only to return. He eventually was dismissed from the Society of Jesus. When twice ordered to give an accounting to Rome concerning his position on the teaching of baptism by blood and desire, he accused Rome of heresy and refused to defend his position. His excommunication was issued as much for his pertinacious defiance and disobedience as it was for his heresy, (please see the related article on Disciplinary Decrees).
This is confirmed in the decision “Suprema haec sacra,” addressed to the Archbishop of Boston from the Holy Office concerning Feeney. This determination of Feeney’s case was personally reviewed and approved by Pope Pius XII.
Proofs from Popes and Councils
Pope Innocent II wrote to the Bishop of Cremona: “To your inquiry we respond thus: We assert without hesitation (on authority of the holy Fathers Augustine and Ambrose) that the priest (a Jewish priest, not Catholic priest, I think) whom you indicated (in your letter) had died without the water of baptism, because he persevered in the faith of holy mother the Church and in the confession of the name of Christ, was freed from original sin and attained the joy of the heavenly fatherland. Read (brother) in the eighth book of Augustine’s ‘City of God’ where among other things it is written, ‘Baptism is administered invisibly to one whom not contempt of religion but death excludes.’ Read again the book also of the blessed Ambrose concerning the death of Valentinian (to which Saint Thomas Aquinas also refers in III, Q68 A2) where he says the same thing. Therefore, to questions concerning the dead, you should hold the opinions of the learned Fathers, and in your church you should join in prayers and you should have sacrifices offered to God for the priest mentioned,” (DZ 388).
Debitum pastoralis officii, Pope Innocent III, (August 28, 1206):
“You have, to be sure, intimated that a certain Jew, when at the point of death, since he lived only among Jews, immersed himself in water while saying: ‘I baptize myself in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, Amen.’ We respond that, since there should be a distinction between the one baptizing and the one baptized, as is clearly gathered from the words of the Lord, when He says to the Apostles: “Go baptize all nations in the name etc.” (Matthew 28:19), the Jew mentioned must be baptized again by another, that it may be shown that he who is baptized is one person, and he who baptizes is another. … If, however, such a one had died immediately, he would have rushed to his heavenly home without delay because of the faith of the sacrament, although not because of the sacrament of faith,” (DZ 413).
Pope St. Pius V — errors of Michael du Bay condemned DZ 1031: “Perfect and sincere charity, which is from ‘a pure heart and a good conscience and a faith not feigned’ [I Tim. 1:5], can be in catechumens as well as in penitents without the remission of sins.”
DZ 1033: “A catechumen lives justly and rightly and holily, and observes the commandments of God, and fulfills the law through charity, which is only received in the laver of Baptism before the remission of sins has been observed.”
Michael Du Bay’s propositions above are condemned because they assert that perfect charity can be in catechumens and penitents without the remission of sins. (Note: this says nothing one way or the other about whether or not perfect charity can be in catechumens with the remission of sins.) Du Bay’s propositions above are false because one cannot have perfect charity without the remission of sins.
The Council of Trent — Session 6, Chapter 4:
“By which words a description of the Justification of the impious is indicated, — as being a translation, from that state wherein man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace and of the adoption of the sons of God (Romans 8:15) through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Saviour. And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected except through the laver of regeneration (canon 5 Session 5), or the desire thereof, as it is written: Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God, (John 3:5).” 32
The Council of Trent — Session 7: “If anyone shall say that the Sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation, but are superfluous, and that although all are not necessary for every individual, without them, or without at least the desire for them, through faith alone men obtain from God the grace of justification; let him be anathema,” (DZ 847).
Singulari Quadem, Pope Pius IX, (1854): “For, it must be held that outside the Apostolic Roman Church, no one can be saved; that this is the only ark of salvation; that he who shall not have entered therein will perish in the flood; but, on the other hand, it is necessary to hold for certain that they who labor in ignorance of the true religion, if this ignorance be invincible, are not stained by any guilt in this matter in the eyes of God. Now, in truth, who would arrogate so much to himself as to make the limits of such ignorance, because of the nature and variety of peoples, regions, innate dispositions, and of so many other things? For, in truth, when released from these corporeal chains ‘we shall see God as He is’ (1 John 3:2), we shall understand perfectly by how close and beautiful a bond divine mercy and justice are united; but, as long as we are on earth, weighed down by this mortal mass which blunts the soul, let us hold most firmly that, in accordance with Catholic teaching, there is ‘one God, one faith, one baptism,’ (Ephesians 4:5); it is unlawful to proceed further in inquiry.” (DZ 1626, 1722).
Quanto conficiamur moerore, Pope Pius IX, (August 10, 1863):
“And here, beloved Sons and Venerable Brothers, we should mention again and censure a very grave error in which some Catholics are unhappily engaged, who believe that men living in error, and separated from the true faith, and from Catholic unity, can attain eternal life. 40 Indeed, this is certainly quite contrary to Catholic teaching. It is known to Us and to you that they who labor in invincible ignorance of our most holy religion and who, zealously keeping the natural law and its precept engraved in the hearts of all by God, and being ready to obey God, live an honest and upright life, can, by the operating power of divine light and grace, attain eternal life, since God Who clearly beholds, searches, and knows the minds, souls, thoughts, and habits of all men, because of His great goodness and mercy, will by no means suffer anyone to be punished with eternal torment who has not the guilt of deliberate sin. But, the Catholic dogma that no one can be saved outside the Catholic Church is well-known; and also that those who are obstinate toward the authority and definitions of the same Church, and who persistently separate themselves from the unity of the Church, and from the Roman Pontiff, the successor of PETER, to whom “the guardianship of the vine has been entrusted by the Savior, cannot obtain eternal salvation,” (DZ 1677).
Mystici Corporis Christi, Pope Pius XII (June 29, 1943):
Concerning non-Catholics: “We have committed to the protection and guidance of heaven those who do not belong to the visible Body of the Catholic Church…We ask, each and every one of them to correspond to the interior movement of grace and seek to withdraw from that state in which they cannot be sure of their salvation. For, even though by an unconscious desire and longing they have a certain relationship with the Mystical Body of the Redeemer, they still remain deprived of those many heavenly gifts and helps, which can only be enjoyed in the Catholic Church. Therefore may they enter into Catholic unity, and joined with us in the organic Body of Jesus Christ may they together with us run on to the one Head in the Society of glorious love…We wait for them with open and outstretched arms to come, not to a stranger’s house, but to their own, their Father’s home.”
Suprema haec sacra, Pope Pius XII, (published in English on Sept. 4, 1952):
“In his infinite mercy, God has willed that the effects, necessary to salvation, which are directed toward man’s final end, not by intrinsic necessity, but only by divine institution, can also be obtained in certain circumstances when those helps are used only in desire and longing. This we see clearly stated in the Council of Trent, both in reference to the sacrament of regeneration and in reference to the sacrament of Penance. “The same in its own degree must be asserted of the Church, in as far as She is the general help to salvation. Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to Her by desire and longing. “However, this desire need not always be explicit, as it is in catechumens; but when a person is involved in invincible ignorance God accepts also an implicit desire, so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God. “These things are clearly taught in that dogmatic letter which was issued by the Sovereign Pontiff, Pope Pius XII, on June 29, 1943, on The Mystical Body of Jesus Christ…For in this letter the Sovereign Pontiff clearly distinguishes between those who are actually incorporated into the Church as members and these who are united to the Church only by desire,” (“Canon Law Digest,” Vol. III).
Proofs from the Fathers
(Rev. J.C. Fenton, Prof., Catholic University of America, personally commended by Pope Pius XII for his dogmatic teaching in The American Ecclesiastical Review:) “When one Father, or a group of them, actually stated some doctrine had been revealed by God and taught by Jesus Christ, this testimony has naturally a tremendous weight and significance… [Yet] on almost any given question there will be a considerable number of the Fathers who have left no instructions in writing.”
St. Vincent of Lerins
“Three years later a famous document on tradition and its use emanated from the Lerinese school, the ‘Commonitorium’ of St. Vincent. He whole-heartedly accepted the letter of Pope Celestine, and he quoted it as an authoritative and irresistible witness to his own doctrine that where quod ubique, or universitas, is uncertain, we must turn to quod semper, or antiquitas. Nothing could be more to his purpose than the pope’s: “Desinat incessere novitas vetustatem” The oecumenical Council of Ephesus had been held in the same year that Celestine wrote. Its Acts were before St. Vincent, and it is clear that he looked upon both pope and council as decisive authorities. It was necessary to establish this, before turning to his famous canon, quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus otherwise universitas, antiquitas, consensio. It was not a new criterion, else it would have committed suicide by its very expression. But never had the doctrine been so admirably phrased, so limpidly explained, so adequately exemplified. Even the law of the evolution of dogma is defined by Vincent in language which can hardly be surpassed for exactness and vigour. St. Vincent’s triple test is wholly misunderstood if it is taken to be the ordinary rule of faith. Like all Catholics he took the ordinary rule to be the living magisterium of the Church, and he assumes that the formal decision in cases of doubt lies with the Apostolic See, or with a general council. But cases of doubt arise when no such decision is forthcoming. Then it is that the three tests are to be applied, not simultaneously, but, if necessary, in succession.
“ ‘When an error is found in one corner of the Church, then the first test, universitas, quod ubique, is an unanswerable refutation, nor is there any need to examine further (iii, 7, 8). But if an error attacks the whole Church, then antiquitas, quod semper is to be appealed to, that is, a consensus existing before the novelty arose. Still, in the previous period one or two teachers, even men of great fame, may have erred. Then we betake ourselves to quod ab omnibus, consensio, to the many against the few (if possible to a general council; if not, to an examination of writings). Those few are a trial of faith “ut tentet vos Dominus Deus vester” (Deut., xiii, 1 sqq.). So Tertullian was a magna tentatio; so was Origen — indeed the greatest temptation of all. We must know that whenever what is new or unheard before is introduced by one man beyond or against all the saints, it pertains not to religion but to temptation (xx, 49).’ Who are the ‘Saints’ to whom we appeal? The reply is a definition of ‘Fathers of the Church’ given with all St. Vincent’s inimitable accuracy: “Inter se majorem consulat interrogetque sententias, eorum dumtaxat qui, diversis licet temporibus et locis, in unius tamen ecclesiae Catholicae communione et fide permanentes, magistri probabiles exstiterunt; et quicquid non unus aut duo tantum, sed omnes pariter uno eodemque consensu aperte, frequenter, perseveranter tenuisse, scripsisse, docuisse cognoverit, id sibi quoque intelligat absque ulla dubitatione credendum” (iii, 8). This unambiguous sentence defines for us what is the right way of appealing to the Fathers, and the italicized words perfectly explain what is a ‘Father’: ‘Those alone who, though in diverse times and places, yet persevering in time communion and faith of the one Catholic Church, have been approved teachers.’ The same result is obtained by modern theologians, in their definitions; e.g. Fessler thus defines what constitutes a ‘Father’:
1. Orthodox doctrine and learning;
2. Holiness of life;
3. (At the present day) a certain antiquity.
The criteria by which we judge whether a writer is a “Father” or not are:
1. Citation by a general council, or
2. In public Acts of popes addressed to the Church or concerning Faith;
3. Encomium in the Roman Martyrology as “sanctitate et doctrina insignis”;
4. Public reading in Churches in early centuries;
5. Citations, with praise, as an authority as to the Faith by some of the more celebrated Fathers,” (Catholic Encyclopedia).
St. Ambrose: (See Innocent II quote above and Rev. Demaris, St. Thomas below)
St. Cyril of Jerusalem
“If a person refuses Baptism, he does not gain salvation excepting only the holy Martyrs who gain the kingdom without water.” (“The Catholic Catechism,” Peter Cardinal Gasparri).
St. Cyprian
“Let them know…that the catechumens are not deprived of Baptism, since they are baptized with the most glorious and supreme Baptism of blood,” and also “No doubt men can be baptized without water, in the Holy Ghost, as you observe that these were baptized, before they were baptized with water…since they received the grace of the New Covenant before the bath, which they reached later.” (“The Sacraments,” Pohle and Preuss, Bk. 1).
St. John Chrysostom
“As those baptized in water, so also those who suffer martyrdom are washed clean, [the latter] in their own blood.” (“The Sacraments,” Pohle and Preuss, Bk. 1).
St. Augustine
“To all those who die confessing Christ, even though they have not received the laver of regeneration, [martyrdom] will prove as effective for the remission of sins as if they were washed in the baptismal font,” also “Not only martyrdom for the sake of Christ may supply what is wanting in Baptism, but also faith and conversion of heart, if recourse cannot be had to the celebration of the mystery of Baptism for want of time.” (“The Sacraments,” Pohle and Preuss, Bk. 1).
St. Leo the Great
“Those whom the wicked king removed from this world were brought to heaven by Christ, and He conferred the dignity of martyrdom on those upon whom He had not yet bestowed the redemption of his blood,” (In Epiph, I, 3; “The Sacraments,” Pohle and Preuss, Bk. 1).
St. Fulgentius, (De fide):
“No one save those who have shed their blood, without Baptism but in the Catholic Church, can without Baptism enter the kingdom of heaven, or obtain eternal life…For…he will not have that salvation which is the virtue of the Sacrament if he receives the Sacrament itself outside the Catholic Church,” (“The Catholic Catechism,” Peter Cardinal Gasparri).
St. Prosper of Aquitane
“They who without even having received the laver of regeneration, die for the confession of Christ, it avails them as much for the doing away of sins as if they were washed in the font of Baptism,” (“The Faith of Catholics,” Msgr. Capel, 1885).
Tertullian
“We have indeed likewise a second font, itself one [with the former], of blood to wit, (“The Sacraments,” Pohle and Preuss, Bk. 1).”
Proofs from the Doctors
St. Thomas of Aquinas
Pope Pius XI says of St. Thomas: “And as he is, as We have said, the perfect theologian, so he gives infallible rules and precepts of life not only for individuals, but also for civil and domestic society which is the object also of moral science, both economic and politic,” (“Studiorum Ducem”).
Reply to Objection 1: “In a case of necessity anyone may baptize. And since nowise ought one to sin, if the priest be unwilling to baptize without being paid, one must act as though there were no priest available for the baptism. Hence the person who is in charge of the child can, in such a case, lawfully baptize it, or cause it to be baptized by anyone else. He could, however, lawfully buy the water from the priest, because it is merely a bodily element. But if it were an adult in danger of death that wished to be baptized, and the priest were unwilling to baptize him without being paid, he ought, if possible, to be baptized by someone else. And if he is unable to have recourse to another, he must by no means pay a price for Baptism, and should rather die without being baptized, because for him the baptism of desire would supply the lack of the sacrament.” And in III, Q68
A2: “I answer that, The sacrament of Baptism may be wanting to someone in two ways. First, both in reality and in desire; as is the case with those who neither are baptized, nor wished to be baptized: which clearly indicates contempt of the sacrament, in regard to those who have the use of the free will. Consequently those to whom Baptism is wanting thus,” (meaning those who have refused it) “cannot obtain salvation: since neither sacramentally nor mentally are they incorporated in Christ, through Whom alone can salvation be obtained.”
“Secondly, the sacrament of Baptism may be wanting to anyone in reality but not in desire: for instance, when a man wishes to be baptized, but by some ill chance he is forestalled by death before receiving Baptism. And such a man can obtain salvation without being actually baptized, on account of his desire for Baptism, which desire is the outcome of ‘faith that worketh by charity,’ whereby God, Whose power is not tied to visible sacraments, sanctifies man inwardly. Hence Ambrose says of Valentinian, who died while yet a catechumen: ‘I lost him whom I was to regenerate: but he did not lose the grace he prayed for,’” (“Summa Theologica,” Pt. 1, Obj. 1, art. 5, objection 2).
St. Thomas’ interpretation here can be considered a doctrinally correct definition of what St. Ambrose meant by these words. Hence St. Ambrose’s comments on the death of Valentinian, above, were considered sufficient by St. Thomas to confirm baptism of desire long before the Council of Trent ever sat. So a catechumen, who dies before Baptism, is not necessarily lost. Let us take the example of a man who has studied and prepared for Baptism and is walking to Church on the day he is to be Baptized. However, he is hit by a truck and killed. Shouldn’t we believe that he has done all he could to prepare for Baptism and thus has been saved. And finally, this great founder of scholastic theology teaches clearly that an implicit desire for Baptism can suffice, in certain cases, for salvation in the following answer to questions on Explicit Desire.
(“Summa Theologica,” Pt. 1, Obj. 1, art. 5, objection 3):
Objection 3: “Further, many gentiles obtained salvation through the ministry of the angels, as Dionysius states (Coel. Hier. ix). Now it would seem that the gentiles had neither explicit nor implicit faith in Christ, since they received no revelation. Therefore it seems that it was not necessary for the salvation of all to believe explicitly in the mystery of Christ.”
Reply to Objection 3: “Many of the gentiles received revelations of Christ, as is clear from their predictions. Thus we read (Job 19:25): ‘I know that my Redeemer liveth.’ The Sibyl too foretold certain things about Christ, as Augustine states (Contra Faust. xiii, 15). Moreover, we read in the history of the Romans, that at the time of Constantine Augustus and his mother Irene a tomb was discovered, wherein lay a man on whose breast was a golden plate with the inscription: ‘Christ shall be born of a virgin, and in Him, I believe. O sun, during the lifetime of Irene and Constantine, thou shalt see me again,’ [Cf. Baron, Annal., A.D. 780. If, however, some were saved without receiving any revelation, they were not saved without faith in a Mediator, for, though they did not believe in Him explicitly, they did, nevertheless, have implicit faith through believing in Divine Providence, since they believed that God would deliver mankind in whatever way was pleasing to Him, and according to the revelation of the Spirit to those who knew the truth, as stated Job 35: 11: ‘Who teacheth us more than the beasts of the earth.’”
Thus we see that St. Thomas Aquinas had already taught Pope Pius XII’s teaching on implicit desire, for how could this not be so? And here it must also be remembered that if St. Thomas did not draw this teaching out further in his Summa, it was because he could consider only the plight of the Gentiles and the Jews who lived in Christ’s day, and those who were pagans. He did not have to consider, as did Pope Pius XII, the five centuries of Christians separated from the Church by the Protestant Reformation.
St. Bonaventure
“The reason why [martyrdom] has greater efficacy [than Baptism] is that in the Baptism of blood there is an ampler and fuller imitation and profession of the Passion of Christ than in the Baptism of water…In the Baptism of water death is signified; in the Baptism of blood, it is incurred,” (“The Sacraments,” Pohle and Preuss, Bk. 1).
St. Alphonsus Liguori
“So then, he that in reality has not received Baptism cannot reach heaven? To this I reply, that he also can be saved if he has conceived an ardent desire to be baptized, and believes in Jesus Christ, as happened to many, who, unable to receive Baptism, supplied its place by their desires.
“Baptism by fire, however, is the perfect conversion to God through contrition, or the love of God above all things, with the explicit desire, or implicit desire, for the true river of baptism. As the Council of Trent says (Sess. 14, Chap. 4), it takes the place of the latter with regard to the remission of the guilt, but does not imprint a character nor take away all the debt of punishment. It is called fire because it is made under the impulse of the Holy Ghost, who is given this name… Thus it is of faith (de fide) that men are saved even by the baptism of fire, according to c. Apostolicam, de pres. non bapt. and the Council of Trent, Sess. 6, Chap. 4, where it is said that no one can be saved without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it.”
“Baptism of blood is the shedding of one’s blood, i.e. death, suffered for the faith or for some other Christian virtue. Now this Baptism is comparable to true baptism because, like true Baptism, it remits both guilt and punishment as it were ex opere operato…
Hence martyrdom avails also for infants seeing that the Church venerates the Holy Innocents as true martyrs. That is why Suarez rightly teaches that the opposing view is at least temerarious,” (“Instructions on the Sacraments and the Commandments,” Part II, Ch. II, #2).
Canon Law and the Theologians
Canon 17: “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…”
The Jesuits T. Lincoln Bouscaren and Adam Ellis: “The whole of Canon 17 refers to authoritative interpretation; that is, interpretation given with official authority… Authoritative interpretation is made by the legislator or his successor in office. The legislator means: a) for the whole Church, the Roman Pontiff…”
Canon 737 (1917 Code)
“Baptism — the door and foundation of all other Sacraments, the Sacrament which, if we are to attain salvation, must be either actually received or at least desired — is given validly by natural water,” (Revs. Woywod-Smith).
Rev. Demaris
14. “To show you, my children, your exact rule of conduct, I am going to apply to your situation, the principles of faith, and some examples of the history of religion which should develop all the senses and console you in the use you are able to make of them. It is of faith, the first and most necessary of all sacraments, Baptism! It is the doorway to salvation and eternal life. However, the desire, the wish for Baptism suffices in certain cases. Catechumens who were surprised by persecution, only received it in blood which they spilt for the faith. They found the grace of all the sacraments in the free possession of their faith, and they were received into the Church by the Holy Ghost, Who is the tie which unites all the members to the Head. It was thus that the martyrs saved themselves, their blood serving as Baptism (the Holy Innocents).
“It will be thus that you will be saved. Baptism of Desire is for all those who, instructed in our mysteries, shall desire, according to their faith, to receive them. Such is the law of the Church, founded on what St. Peter said that one cannot refuse the water of Baptism to those who have received the Holy Ghost. When one has the spirit of Jesus Christ, one cannot be separated from Jesus Christ. When we are persecuted for love of Him, deprived of all help, heaped with captives’ chains, when we are led to the scaffold, we then have all the sacraments in the Cross. This instrument of our redemption embraces all that is necessary for our salvation. The tradition and history of the better days of the Church, confirm this dogmatic truth. The faithful who desired the sacraments, the confessors and martyrs were saved without the sacraments since they could not receive them. From that it is simple for us to conclude that no sacrament is necessary when it is impossible to receive it, and this conclusion is the belief of the Church…St. Ambrose regarded the Pious Emperor Valentinian as a saint, although he died without the Baptism of water although he desired to do so, but which he had not been able to receive. “It is the desire and the will which saves us in this case.’ Said the doctor of the Church, “He who does not receive the sacraments from the hand of men, receives them from God who is not baptized by his piety and desire, is baptized by Jesus Christ,” (“They have Taken Away My Lord”).
Rev. Adolphe Tanquerey
Those achieving baptism of desire must evidence an implicit desire for Baptism of water, and this desire must include “a general resolution to fulfill all the precepts of God.” While Baptism of desire remits original and actual sin it “does not imprint the baptismal character…nor does it remit the entire temporal punishment due to sin,” (Ibid). So this concession of our Lord’s is not a “free ride” into Heaven by any means. Strictly speaking both baptism of blood and desire are not sacraments, and one does not obtain membership in the Church even though gaining this great favor of God’s mercy. If one receiving baptism of desire or blood survived, they would be required to receive Baptism of water before being able to receive any of the other Sacraments. In baptism of blood, however, the Church commonly admits that in the case of adults, there is remission of sin as well as remission of temporal punishment. “The Church does not pray for martyrs,” Tanquerey noted, “but if martyrdom operated only ex opere operantis, prayers would have to be offered for them,” (“Manual of Dogmatic Theology, Vol. II, Rev Adolphe Tanquerey, 1959.)
Rev. Tanquerey’s work was in general use in American seminaries pre-1958. As Rev. J. C. Fenton points out in his article “The Teaching of the Theological Manuals” in The American Ecclesiastical Review, April 1963: “Even more widely known than the works of Billot were those of the Sulpician Adolphe Tanquerey. Many thousands of priests were introduced to the study of sacred theology, and particularly of fundamental dogmatic theology, by courses based on Tanquerey’s [works]. If the theses taught by Tanquerey were opposed to those of ‘the most authentic Catholic tradition of all ages,’ then thousands of priests, educated during the first part of the twentieth century were being led into error by the men whom Our Lord had constituted as the guardians of His revealed message.”
Rev. Clarence McAuliffe, S.J.
“All men must be baptized in order to save their souls. However, in extraordinary circumstances baptism of love and baptism of martyrdom can substitute for baptism…Baptism of love [desire] regenerates a man, forgives original and mortal sins, and eternal punishment. It makes one a member of the Church in desire only. It does not necessarily remit venial sins and all temporal punishment due to sins. To accomplish this the act of love must be of most excellent quality.” For baptism of martyrdom to supply for the actual sacrament, those suffering this martyrdom “must have an intention, at least habitual, to suffer martyrdom…They must have at least an implicit intention to be baptized…[and] the martyr must be impelled by a motive based on faith, [i.e.] a perfect love for God, hope of eternal reward, preservation of chastity, guarding the seal of confession, love for the faith, etc…An act of supernatural faith must proceed or accompany martyrdom, one who has committed mortal sins must be sorry for them at least with imperfect contrition and the martyr cannot offer even lawful resistance to his persecutor.
“Necessity admits degrees…With regard to baptism, it is well to distinguish necessity of precept and of means…Necessity of precept means that something is necessary because a superior commands it…When the precept cannot be fulfilled, …[it] simply ceases,” (Ex: sickness excuses from attendance at Holy Mass). “Necessity of means signifies that some act or thing is obviously necessary as a means to obtain some purpose, which accordingly cannot be achieved without the act or thing. Thus air is necessary to human life with the necessity of means. Moreover, no substitute can be found for air and so it is necessary with absolute necessity of means. In the supernatural order, sanctifying grace is necessary for salvation nor is there any substitute for it. Repentance is necessary for the sinner in the same way. Although baptism is necessary with necessity of means, it is not necessary with this absolute necessity. An act or thing can be objectively necessary in order to obtain some purpose by hypothetical or relative necessity of means also. This signifies that in extraordinary circumstances, some substitute can be used in place of the ordinary act or thing,” (Ex.: eating dog food in case of famine or extreme hunger).
“Baptism is objectively required for salvation. However in unusual circumstances, baptism of love or martyrdom can substitute for it in the case of adults,” although infants can be saved only through baptism of blood,” and it is rare. Baptism, therefore is necessary with hypothetical or relative necessity of means…If the obligation to perform the act simply ceases, we have necessity of precept only. If some other act must be done in its place, we have necessity of means. In extraordinary circumstances…the unusual circumstances in which baptism of love or martyrdom can substitute for baptism are these: First, when a person, a pagan adult for instance, is ignorant of baptism or its necessity; second, when it is impossible for some other reason for a person to be baptized and third, when a person, at least implicitly desires baptism,” (“Sacramental Theology, Vol. I under Baptism, by Clarence McAuliffe, S.J., 1958. Rev. McAuliffe was a professor of theology at St. Mary’s College, St. Mary’s Kansas.)
Rt. Rev. Msgr. Joseph Pohle and Arthur Preuss
“The Baptism of desire …differs from the Baptism of water…in the same way in which spiritual differs from actual Communion…The primitive Church venerated in a special manner all those who suffered martyrdom for the faith, the unbaptized as well as the baptized…The Baptism of blood is more perfect than the Baptism of desire, and, in a certain sense, even excels Baptism by water…[yet] martyrdom is inferior to baptism because it is not a Sacrament,” (“The Sacraments,” Bk. 1).
Rev. J.C. Fenton (For an in-depth analysis of Rev. Fenton’s teaching on this dogma, please see Church Membership articles that follow).
Rev. Francis J. Connell
“Those who are not actual members of the Church can be sanctified and saved if they are invincibly ignorant of their obligation to join the Church and are in the state of sanctifying grace, since such persons have an implicit desire of membership in the Church. But they are they are not to be reckoned as members of the Church — not even invisible members,” (The American Ecclesiastical Review, “Questions and Answers,” January, 1958).
The Catechisms of the Church
“Catechisms and other approved books of Christian doctrine, insofar as they are adopted by the ordinaries of the various dioceses for teaching the content of the faith to the people of these dioceses, may be said to express the ordinary magisterium of the Catholic Church… The old standard Baltimore Catechism…[taught] faith to Catholics of an entire nation…Others, like the Roman Catechism or the Catechism of the Council of Trent have had worldwide popularity and use. The unanimous teaching of these catechisms can rightly be considered by the theologians as an indication of the ordinary and universal magisterium of the Catholic Church. The doctrine that is universally or unanimously proposed in these doctrinal books, in such a way that it is presented to practically all of the Catholics of the world as revealed truth, is certainly a verity taught and exposed infallibly in the ordinary and universal magisterium of the Catholic Church,” (“The Concept of Sacred Theology,” Rev. J.C. Fenton, 1941).
Here we must note that there is not one single catechism examined that fails to mention the supplying nature of baptism of blood and/or desire when water or one able to baptize is absent. Among those containing the dogma of baptism of blood and desire, we must mention:
• The Catechism of the Council of Trent, also known as the Roman Catechism, (Rev. Donavan, 1829)
• The Catholic Catechism, by Peter Cardinal Gasparri, based upon the Roman Catechism, (1932)
• The Catechism of the Summa Theologica, based on the Summa of St. Thomas Aquinas
• The Baltimore Catechisms, edited by Rev. Thomas Kinkead, 1885
• The Catechism of Rodez, compiled by the Abbe Luche and approved by Louis, Bishop of Rodez, 1898
• The Flanders Catechism, by Rev. Deharbe, (1877)
• The Catechism Explained, by Revs. Spirago and Clarke, (1927)
• The Catholic Christian Instructed, by the Most Rev. Dr. Challoner, (1901)
• Catholic Belief, by Rev. Joseph Faa di Bruno, D.D., (imprimatured by Henry Cardinal Manning, (1884) and widely circulated in England and America to the tune of over 200,000 copies)
• Catholic Catechism, by Rev. W. Faerber, 1958, (for use in America’s parochial schools)
• Manual of Christian Doctrine, by a Seminary Professor, (1926)
• Systematic Study of the Catholic Religion, Charles Coppens, S. J., (1903)
• A Catechism for Inquirers, Rev. Joseph Malloy, C.S.P., (1927)
• Catechism of Christian Doctrine # 4, by the Brothers of the Christian Schools, (1921)
• The Sacraments, Seven Channels of Grace, by Richard Cardinal Cushing
• The Catholic Christian Instructed, Rev. George Hay, 19th century
From the Catechism of the Council of Trent:
Baptism of adults, why deferred: “On this class of persons…the Church does not confer this Sacrament hastily: She will have it deferred for a certain time; nor is the delay attended with the same danger as in the case of infants, which we have already mentioned: and should any unforeseen accident deprive adults of Baptism, their intention of receiving it and their repentance for past sins will avail them to grace and righteousness.” 69
From the Baltimore Catechism:
“Q. 631: Is Baptism necessary to salvation?
A. Baptism is absolutely necessary to salvation, for our Lord has expressly said: “Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.”
Q. 644: How many kinds of Baptism are there?
A. There are three kinds of Baptism: Baptism of water, of desire and of blood.
Q. 653: Is Baptism of desire or blood sufficient to produce the effects of Baptism of water?
A. Baptism of desire or blood is sufficient to produce the effects of Baptism of water, if it is impossible to receive the Baptism of water.
Q. 654: How do we know that the Baptism of desire or blood will save us when it is impossible to receive the baptism of water?
A. We know that baptism of desire or blood will save us when it is impossible to receive the baptism of water, from Holy Scripture, which teaches that love of God and perfect contrition can secure the remission of sins; and also that Our Lord promises salvation to those who lay down their life for His sake, or for His teaching,” (Rev. Thomas Kinkead, 1921).
Consider for one moment the effects of believing that all the catechisms listed above, including the Catechism of the Council of Trent, have erred in their teaching on baptism of blood and desire. Follow this obvious implication of Feeneyite teaching through to its logical conclusion. And in doing so, consider this. Pope St. Pius X identified ignorance in divine things on the part of Catholics as the number one cause of all the troubles in the Church and in the world. Quoting his predecessor Pope Benedict XIV, Pope Pius X said:
“We declare that the greater part of those who are damned have brought the calamity on themselves by ignorance of the mysteries of the faith, which they should have known and believed, in order to be united with the elect.” To cure this ignorance, St. Pius X infallibly ordered that adults be instructed weekly in the catechism. “Since it is a fact that in these days adults need instruction no less than the young, all pastors and those having the care of souls shall explain the Catechism to the people in a plain and simple style adapted to the intelligence of their hearers. This shall be carried out on all holy days of obligation, at such time as is most convenient for the people, but not during the same hour when the children are instructed, and this instruction must be in addition to the usual homily on the Gospel which is delivered at the parochial Mass on Sundays and holy days. The catechetical instruction shall be based on the Catechism of the Council of Trent; and the matter is to be divided in such a way that in the space of four or five years, treatment will be given to the Apostles’ Creed, the Sacraments, the Ten Commandments, the Lord’s Prayer and the Precepts of the Church. We decree and command this by virtue of Our Apostolic Authority,” (“Acerbo Nimis,” 1905).
After reviewing all these teachings it becomes clear that without rejecting what the Church teaches going clear back to the reign of Pope Pius IX, and even further, one must accept the Church’s teaching on possession of implicit desire only as sufficient — in certain cases known only to God — for salvation. If one limits such salvation to those possessing explicit desire only, they deny an infallible definition of the Church. Let us further draw out the consequences of pretending that all these catechisms, the works of the Fathers and Doctors, and the teaching of the continual magisterium could be in error. To begin with, those who on the one hand champion “outside the Church there is no salvation” to the exclusion of baptism of blood and desire; and on the other side ignore the condemnation and excommunication of Rev. Feeney by Pope Pius XII cannot presume to quote anything from Pius XII supporting their position and cannot pretend to accept him as pope. Either all he teaches on this and all other doctrinal subjects is the teaching of a true Pope and echoes the continual teaching of the magisterium or it does not. Feenyites and their modern day supporters say that he erred concerning the teaching on baptism of desire and blood, to the injury of “outside the Church there is no salvation.”
This is a teaching pertaining to faith and morals. The Popes are infallible in such teachings, and clearly “outside the Church…” has been infallibly defined by Pope Boniface VIII, among others. Ergo, Pope Pius XII must be held as a heretic in the eyes of those who say that he has so taught. And who in their right mind would cite the works of a heretic?! Nor can they pretend to quote St. Thomas of Aquinas in their defense for any reason. They accuse this much-acclaimed Doctor of falsehood and erroneous teaching on baptism of desire, yet point to his teachings on “outside the Church there is no salvation” as truth worthy of exposition. All this without any pretense whatsoever of abiding by the Scholastic method as the only philosophical method prescribed by the Church for demonstrating the truths of faith. And this brings us to the overriding fatal error at fault for deluding so many concerning the Church’s true teaching on baptism of blood and desire. As Pope Pius XII, Rev. Fenton and others have determined, it is a rejection of scholastic theology that has allowed so many modern errors to take root and thrive in the soil of liberalism, modernism and false eirenicism.
Conclusion
“But if an error attacks the whole Church, then antiquitas, quod semper is to be appealed to, that is, a consensus existing before the novelty arose. Still, in the previous period one or two teachers, even men of great fame, may have erred. Then we betake ourselves to quod ab omnibus, consensio, to the many against the few (if possible to a general council; if not, to an examination of writings). Those few are a trial of faith “ut tentet vos Dominus Deus vester” (Deut., xiii, 1 sqq.). So Tertullian was a magna tentatio; so was Origen — indeed the greatest temptation of all. We must know that whenever what is new or unheard before is introduced by one man beyond or against all the saints, it pertains not to religion but to temptation (xx, 49).” Perhaps men of great fame may have erred, but these could never include the Roman Pontiffs. The Romans Pontiffs can and have overridden the opinions of even great doctors (such as Pope Pius XII did in the case of St. Robert Bellarmine). As St. Thomas proves, even Baptism by way of implicit desire was never a novelty in the Church.
We have shown here what the Church’s constant teaching has always been on this matter, from all the required sources. But it must be noted here that the nature of implicit desire was not defined until Pope Pius XII wrote “Mystici Coprporis.” Until that time it was a matter in dispute among the theologians. In the 450 years intervening between Pope Pius V’s reign and the Great Apostasy, which began with the Protestant Reformation, the ground underneath implicit desire became increasingly muddied by invincible ignorance; so much so that the Popes were forced to deal with this shift by defining implicit desire in relation to invincible ignorance. In the early days of the Church, this situation did not existence. Still we find that St. Thomas did not exclude those possessing implicit desire from possibly being saved, BEFORE the advent of the Apostasy. Catholics are not expected to puzzle out WHO is being saved, only that we are no to judge and that God alone can decide in such matters. Why then all the furor over implicit deisire? Because so many Catholics do not respect or accept all that is taught by the continual magisterium, even though they profess to believe that Pope Pius XII was the last true Pontiff. Either they must accept his definition irrevocably, or they must prove how and why he was not a valid pope. And yet they have nothing on which to base this claim. They can allege that Pius XII was weak, made bad decisions which were later used to justify the falsification of dogma by the V2 antipopes, and failed to effectively fight evil in the Church. But this does not constitute heresy.
Such heresy must be either opposed to a constant teaching of the Church or be an out and out novelty, as St. Vincent of Lerins points out. But implicit desire, as described above was not a novelty; it’s application simply had not been adequately defined. This was the case with many other things in the Church, including the exercise of ordinary jurisdiction by the bishops, the nature and extent of infallibility and the infallible nature of ecclesiastical discipline. Such definitions of terms, not previously defined, is a common and recurrent practice in the Church. But let the extremists among those who follow in Feeney’s footsteps and brazenly still promote his teachings be honest about their continued attempts to “depope” all those from Pope Pius IX through the present. If they can undo the Vatican Council teaching that the pope is infallible, derail ecclesiastical discipline and nullify Pope Pius XII’s infallible teaching on the jurisdiction of bishops as well as that concerning implicit desire, they tell themselves that they will have pulled off a great coup. They then will be able to vindicate their hero, the heretic Leonard Feeney. They also will be able to do and believe as they please without the inconvenient restraint of obedience. And once this is accomplished, they will not hesitate to attack the infallibility of all popes and the perpetuity and indefectibility of the Church Herself. Fortunately for us, we have Christ’s promise that the Church, precisely as He constituted it will last ”unto the consummation.”
by T. Stanfill Benns | Feb 14, 2012
Traditionalist AND Orthodox Sacraments Are Invalid
© Copyright 2011, T. Stanfill Benns (This text may be downloaded or printed out for private reading, but it may not be uploaded to another Internet site or published, electronically or otherwise, without express written permission from the author.)
Introduction
There are some fine points that needed to be sorted out concerning the reasons that Catholics cannot receive Sacraments from the Orthodox, nor participate in their services, and this applies even when Catholics are in danger of death. After laying a sufficient foundation, several theologians will explain why, even when true popes were alive, the Orthodox could not be approached for the Sacraments. While Traditionalists either believe they operate under the Canons covering common error or act with a title to supplied jurisdiction, this has been proven from Church law and teaching not to be the case, (see the sections covering Canon Law and clerics on this board). Not surprisingly, many believed in the 1940s that common law and supplied jurisdiction also granted Orthodox schismatics the necessary jurisdiction to absolve not only their own subjects, but Catholics requesting the sacraments outside the danger of death, (Can. 2261§3). Rev. E. J. Mahoney takes on this question in his work Questions and Answers: The Sacraments, (Burnes, Oates and Washbourne, 1946), proving that common law and the occasional grant of supplied jurisdiction are not the answers in this case.
Two important points
Before launching into this explanation, it is important to understand two things. First, the fullness of jurisdiction rests only with the Roman Pontiff. Without a reigning Roman Pontiff, any jurisdiction that once was provided by the pope can no longer be supplied. The “Church” in Can. 209 means the Pope, according to Rev. Francis Miaskiewicz’s Supplied Jurisdiction According to Canon 209, (1948; Catholic University of America, pgs. 28, 194). Bancroft and Szal concur on this in their respective dissertations. And the Vatican Council infallibly declares that the pope “possesses the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the universal Church” (DZ 1831). Some have argued that Christ, as the invisible Head of the Church, supplies jurisdiction to bishops directly and subsequently priests in the absence of the Roman Pontiff, but this proposition was authoritatively contradicted by Pope Pius XII in Mystici Corporis Christi and other encyclicals.
The pope taught that while bishops did indeed receive their jurisdiction from Christ, they cannot exercise it without the permission of the Roman Pontiff. This from Christ’s grant to Peter: “and thou being once confirmed, confirm thy brethren.” This was the conveyance of the primacy; Peter was the head bishop. All must be done through him or not at all. To say that such clerics may freely function and Catholics may receive Sacraments from them and attend their masses is actually a heresy. This can be seen from the following condemnation issued at the Council of Trent: “IF ANYONE SAYS…THAT THOSE WHO HAVE NOT BEEN RIGHTLY ORDAINED NOR SENT BY ECCLESIASTICAL AND CANONICAL AUTHORITY, BUT COME FROM A DIFFERENT SOURCE, ARE LAWFUL MINISTERS OF THE WORD AND OF THE SACRAMENTS, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA,” (DZ 967, 960).
The heresies at issue
Now it is important to break down this condemnation into understandable bytes. Who are those who have not been rightly ordained nor sent (and ordination also can refer to the creation of bishops)? DZ 960 (Sess. XIII, Ch. 4 of Trent) is added to this condemnation for reference purposes in Henry Denzingers “Sources of Catholic Dogma.” It tells us that DZ 967 is actually referring to the “ordination of bishops, priests and other orders.” Traditionalists and others are not rightly ordained and sent because a) we have no pope to grant the use of jurisdiction to the bishops or issue papal mandates and b) those never called by bishops in communion with a true pontiff. Therefore, bishops possessing the proper jurisdiction cannot be said to be chosen and sent by the Church. Validity here really has nothing to do with it; it is licitity or lawfulness that the anathema above zeros in on. Traditionalists claim this licitity by invoking Can. 209 or supplied jurisdiction, but supplied by whom? Or they claim to receive it directly from Christ, but where in Holy Scripture, reflected in Church law and teaching is this even alluded to?
In DZ 960 we learn that those “called by the people” as priests and bishops, or those who “by their own temerity take these offices upon themselves, are not ministers of the Church, but are to be regarded as ‘thieves and robbers…’” Traditionalists give their clerics tacit permission to function by simply presenting themselves at Mass and requesting the Sacraments. That, or these clerics assume it for themselves, and convince followers that they have the right to demand Mass and Sacraments and as priests and bishops they must provide these spiritual goods, (although Can. 2259 says these clerics must be rejected as unworthy by the faithful). Either way, if Traditionalists do not leave these unlawful pastors, once they know they are indeed unlawful, they incur the anathema of Trent. Many other proofs cited for these statements can be found on this site, but they do not specifically speak to what happens when we have no true pope. Pope Pius XII foresaw this possibility and infallibly determined what should be done in such a case. This serves as “the final word” for our own situation, and provides the rule by which all other laws and teachings in this regard are to be understood.
In the preamble to his 1945 constitution on papal elections, Vacantis Apostolica Sedis, Pope Pius XII teaches what must be done during interregnums.
“While the Apostolic Seat is vacant, let the Sacred College of Cardinals have no power or jurisdiction at all in those things which pertain to the Pope while he was alive…but let everything be held, reserved for the future Pope. AND THUS WE DECREE THAT WHATEVER POWER OR JURISDICTION PERTAINING TO THE ROMAN PONTIFF, WHILE HE IS ALIVE (UNLESS IN AS FAR AS IT IS EXPRESSLY PERMITTED IN THIS, OUR CONSTITUTION) THE MEETING OF CARDINALS ITSELF MAY HAVE TAKEN FOR EXERCISING, IS NULL AND VOID…“Laws given by the Roman Pontiffs are in no way able to be corrected or changed through the meeting of the cardinals of the Roman Church [the See] being vacant; NOR IS ANYTHING ABLE TO BE TAKEN AWAY OR ADDED, NOR IS THERE ABLE TO BE MADE ANY DISPENSATION IN ANY MANNER CONCERNING THE LAWS THEMSELVES OR SOME PART OF THEM. THIS IS VERY EVIDENT FROM PONTIFICAL CONSTITUTIONS [ON]…THE ELECTION OF THE ROMAN PONTIFF. BUT IF ANYTHING CONTRARY TO THIS PRESCRIPT OCCURS OR IS BY CHANCE ATTEMPTED, WE DECLARE IT BY OUR SUPREME AUTHORITY TO BE NULL AND VOID.” — (Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, paras.1- 3, Ch. 1; Pope Pius XII, 1945; translated from the Latin taken from Revs. Woywod and Smith’s A Practical Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, Joseph Wagner, 1957). It is a heresy to deny the infallible decrees of the Roman Pontiff and Ecumenical Councils (Trent) as non-binding, yet this is what Traditionalists have done.
If even the cardinals are forbidden to act, certainly bishops cannot act. And certainly they have not received from Christ a jurisdiction He could not possibly grant. For in order for Christ to grant such jurisdiction, He would be required to break his promise to Peter and his successors that whatever they would bind on earth He would bind also in Heaven. Clearly from the above, Pope Pius XII used his Apostolic Authority, the power of his ordinary magisterium, to bind the cardinals and anyone else to his law, even going so far as to declare that should they attempt to violate it, whatever they did would be null and void. Once Pope Pius XII died, there could be no exercise of jurisdiction until the election of a true pope. And here we are 53 years later, and still no pope, hence no jurisdiction. It is a known fact that Pope Pius IX, Pope Leo XIII and Pope Pius XI (some also add here Pope Pius XII) secretly or openly supplied jurisdiction to the Orthodox for the sake of those who followed them. This is probably what Rev. Mahoney has in mind in writing what he did on the situation with the Orthodox as it existed in his day. Yet now that the popes as the supplying principle for the Orthodox schismatics is gone, they have no more claim to jurisdiction than the Traditionalists.
Theologians on Orthodox jurisdiction
Canon Mahoney begins his commentary on this subject by explaining that it is a mistake to assume that the Orthodox are to be judged under Canons in the Western Code, since Can. 1 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law excludes those in the East from observance of our code. However, the Sacred Congregation of the Propaganda decided in 1907 that the Orientals, while not bound by Western canon laws, are yet bound by ”laws emanating from the Holy See if: a) they concern matters of faith or morals; b) If they contain matters connected with the divine or natural law…; c) if the laws themselves expressly state that they are meant to bind the Oriental Church,” (Rev. Charles Augustine, A Commentary on Canon Law, 1931). Revs. Woywod-Smith write: “It is evident that in matters of faith and morals all Catholics, without distinction of race, nationality or rite, are bound by the authoritative pronouncements of the Holy See. There can be but one rule in these matters for all who belong to the Catholic Church,” (and this means anything contained in the Acta Apostolica Sedis, as Humani Generis teaches). Cicognani says the same, adding the following:
“All Catholics are subject to the dogmatic canons of Ecumenical Councils and pronouncements of the Holy See. The decrees of the Roman Pontiffs condemning propositions contra fidem et mores, the various instructions of the Holy Office, the Sacred Congregation of the Propaganda, the Congregation for the Oriental Church, and of the Sacred Penitentiary, the prohibition of books and theories…The Congregation for the Oriental Church declared that the decrees mentioned above affect the faithful of every rite, and all are bound in the same way, since these decrees are more than disciplinary in character and refer directly to matters of doctrine. The Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office,” (1885 — when asked about the Constitution Apostolica Sedis of Pope Pius IX replied), “they are subject to censures inflicted by the Apostolic See in matters of dogma …” Cicognani continues: “This legislation remains today; hence the Orientals are subject to those former penal laws now contained in the Code.”
Still, Mahoney maintains it could be concluded that for very serious reasons, the Church grants jurisdiction for absolution in those cases affecting the common good, but only per each act of jurisdiction where the necessary (stringent) conditions apply. He then goes on to suggest something that at first will sound as though Catholics may have recourse to the Orthodox, (but please remember that supplied jurisdiction cannot exist in the absence of a true pope.) On this head Rev. Mahoney wrote: “May the proposition be defended that that the priests of the schismatic Oriental Churches possess true habitual jurisdiction and that there is, consequently, no need to invoke any fortuitous title of supplied jurisdiction whether in the hour of death or in ‘common error?’ Many theologians and canonists in the past have been adverse to any admission of this kind, but the view which predominates nowadays is in favor of upholding the proposition just as it is stated.”
He goes onto explain that thesis true because these schismatic clerics do not have sufficient knowledge of the Western code to have incurred the censures. Even if they are formally guilty, he maintains that the are not really formally excommunicated for this very reason, since they are not bound by our code. The better way to look at all this, he continues, is to understand that the Church, “for the gravest reason affecting the salvation of souls, has not withdrawn the necessary jurisdiction from them,” referring obliquely to the secret jurisdiction they enjoyed by free grant of the Roman Pontiffs. He proves that Oriental schismatics are not excommunicated by noting that in reconciling non-Catholics, the Church “requires a general confession from the newly reconciled person,” yet no such confession is required from the Orthodox. And he also notes that Confirmation, which Orthodox priests routinely administer in infancy, is rarely repeated should an Orthodox schismatic convert. Mahoney concludes: “If the Church has not withdrawn from schismatical priests their power to confirm, it follows that their power to grant absolution has not been withdraws either; for the latter is more necessary for souls than the former.”
Rev. Charles Journet states, in his The Church of the Word Incarnate that, “The validity of the Confirmation given by dissident priests, a validity that could only result from a concession of the Sovereign Pontiff, was explicitly recognized by the Holy Office (July 3, 1859) for all the Oriental Churches, save those of Bulgaria, Cyprus, South Italy and the islands adjacent from whom this concession has been withdrawn…” Journet quotes the Ami du clerge, 1927, Vol. 44, saying that the validity of absolution from dissident priests can be demonstrated from the principle, “admitted by all, of good faith and colorable title [still insisted on by Rev. Augustine, even after the Code] …As regards the faithful, good faith, since their priests are sent them by their bishops and patriarchs and are taken by all for legitimate pastors. As regards the pastors, colorable title, since the priests are deputed by a bishop and held to be legitimate pastors.” Journet comments: “But it is only a momentary, fugitive jurisdiction, valid for those particular cases that can be established in this way, not one that is durable and continuous.” Like Mahoney he cites the fact that the Church recognizes their Confirmations, and does not conditionally re-Confirm those reconciled to them; also the fact that those reconciled to the Church are not required to make a general Confession.
Journet then goes on to say that he believes that “in the eyes of the Roman Church, the transmission of power of order in the dissident Churches is licit conditionally…on the hypothesis of their good faith and invincible ignorance, an hypothesis which is indeed probable and generally admitted. But we add that this transmission remains illicit in itself and speaking absolutely, so that it would become, not of course invalid, but illegitimate, as soon as it ceased to be effected in good faith. However this may be, the dissident Oriental Churches can possess the spiritual jurisdiction needed for the valid administration of Confirmation and Penance. We will not say that they can possess it illicitly or illegitimately since they have it by a free delegation from the Sovereign Pontiff and so licitly and legitimately [but] in a partial, precarious, borrowed and accidental manner.” Rev. Mahoney concurs, writing, “These schismatical priests accordingly draw their jurisdiction from the Church, through their bishops and patriarchs, exactly as they did before the schism. The Church has not wished to deprive them of jurisdiction for the greater good of souls, and one can discover no act on the part of the Church which can be interpreted as a deprivation of those powers.”
Summarizing a passage from “De Ecclesia Christi” by P. Billot, Rome, 1921, Journet also states: “THEOLOGICAL FAITH IS MORE NECESSARY STILL THAN THE SACRAMENTS, SINCE NOTHING CAN REPLACE IT, WHEREAS THOSE WHO POSSESS IT IN CHARITY ALREADY POSSESS THE SACRAMENTS AS BY DESIRE, VOTO. If then the Sacraments can in some sense be had ‘outside’ the Church, to those who receive them in uprightness of heart, it is still more necessary that a sufficient proposal of the faith should be made outside the Church, and that true believers in the true faith should be found even amongst those whose ecclesiastical rulers hold doctrines that are contrary to orthodoxy or erroneous…The way of justification remains open ‘outside’ the Church to men of good will, who are ready at heart to believe all that God has revealed. It can even be opened to them by the message proposed by schismatics and heretics, provided, of course, that this message still contains that minimum of truth without which no adult in any event can be saved — namely the supernatural mystery of the existence and providence of God. So that the sects separated from the legitimate Bride of Christ see, in these circumstances, to become Her servants to aid her to engender new children to grace, not solely by the ministration of the Sacraments but also by proposing a doctrine, tainted with error though it may be.”
But Billot died during the reign of Pope Pius XI, so this was before the issuance of Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis and Ad apostolorum principis, also Humani generis. Based on his assertions, Journet even grants that the Orthodox possess a ‘partial or mutilated’ apostolicity, given their ‘borrowed’ jurisdiction. Nevertheless, Rev. Mahoney cautions, “There is no real objection to this doctrine in the fact that CATHOLICS ARE FORBIDDEN TO RECEIVE ABSOLUTION FROM SCHISMATICAL PRIESTS; it is forbidden because it is an act of communicatio in sacris with schismatics, NOT BECAUSE THE ABSOLUTION WOULD BE INVALID.”
Communicatio in sacris
As Rev. Ignatius Szal explains from the beginning of his work, The Communication of Catholics With Schismatics, such communication in religious rites is forbidden because of accompanying dangers such as perversion of faith and scandal to others. This prohibition of the Church, found in Can. 1258, extends not only to active participation with schismatics in rites that are of their nature non-Catholic, but also excludes communication with them in rites which, though peculiarly Catholic, are exercised under the auspices of a non-Catholic sect. Can. 2316 states that those violating Can. 1258 forbidding communication in sacred rites with heretics incur suspicion of heresy. If a person suspected of heresy for participating in non-Catholic rites does not remove all cause for suspicion or show any signs of amendment over a period of six months, they should be considered as heretics, (Can. 2315). These canons still apply. Pope Pius XII — in his Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, quoted above — states that during an interregnum not even the cardinals may dispense from, change or deviate from these laws in any way. This is why DZ 967 does not deal with validity. The very fact that those who administer Sacraments and celebrate Mass do so without the proper jurisdiction places them outside the Church under these canons, whether their orders are valid or not. This is proof that heretics are not permitted to minister to the faithful under these conditions.
Are Catholics permitted to resort to them in danger of death per Can. 2261§3? This canon states only that the excommunicated may absolve in these cases; it does not state that those excommunicated for heresy and schism are allowed to do so. Where the Church (or, as Rev. Francis Miaskiewicz defines, the Pope) supplies, it is permitted to resort to a schismatic or heretic in danger of death and in other rare cases. These priests should be a last resort, even when the Pope supplies. But when there is no pope, and because Pope Pius XII’s election law states that no one may supply jurisdiction in the absence of a true pope, the Sacraments of Penance cannot be valid. Can. 203 states: “The delegate who acts beyond his mandate…acts invalidly.” Since Pope Pius XII’s death, no papal mandate at all exists. But even if the secret jurisdiction granted the Orthodox by the popes still existed, Rev. Ignatius Szal tells us in his The Communication of Catholics With Schismatics (Catholic University of America, 1948) that we could not have approached them for the Sacraments:
“THE GENERAL PRINCIPLE IS THAT IT IS GRAVELY ILLICIT TO REQUEST OR RECEIVE THE SACRAMENTOF PENANCE FROM A SCHISMATIC OUTSIDE THE DANGER OF DEATH… A SCHISMATIC MINISTER CANNOT BE CONSIDERED MERELY AS ONE IN THE STATE OF MORTAL SIN OR AS ONE BOUND BY A CENSURE. HE IS MORE THAN THAT. HE IS THE MINISTER OF AN UNAUTHORIZED SECT…THE ACT OF ASKING OR RECEIVING THE SACRAMENTS FROM A SCHISMATIC MINISTER IS FORBIDDEN IN VIRTUE NOT ONLY OF THE DIVINE LAW, BUT ALSO OF THE LAW ENACTED IN CAN. 1258§1.” And now, even in danger of death, such a priest cannot be used because the pope can no longer supply jurisdiction for such an act. For this and other reasons, Orthodox Sacraments can no longer be considered certainly licit or even valid in the eyes of the Church, given this extended interregnum. Traditionalists try to rationalize their decision to frequent their priests or those of the Orthodox by defiantly asserting that what is said above is proof the Church would not wish them to be without the Sacraments. And yet the Church forbids their reception form these tow sources even while a pope is reigning because resutls in excommunication for heresy and schism (Can. 2314) not to mention infamy of law. So it appears there lis a very good reason indeed.
For those who object that the jurisdiction granted the Orthodox might have continued following Pius XII’s death, it seems that this indeed is possible. “[Jurisdiction] ceases with the delegator’s death, or with his defection from office. It does not cease during a vacancy of the diocesan see or the papal see unless the clause in the rescript [granting jurisdiction] indicates its cessation at the time of the vacancy of the Holy See or the diocese,” (Can. 61). This canon refers us to the canons on privileges, which say pretty much the same thing. The trouble is, it is not known how Pope Pius XII granted the Orthodox jurisdiction or whether he intended it to remain intact after his death. What is known is that the jurisdiction he granted them was not for our benefit or use, but was to be used only for those subject to schismatic priests. In the canons on privileges, we find that the privilege continues except when its use may become injurious or is illicit, (Can. 77). Rev. Ignatius Szal states in his work that “Because of recent developments among the Oriental dissidents and schismatics in general, much doubt has been cast upon the validity of the orders of certain schismatic priests,” requiring that each case be judged on its own merit. And no Catholic can receive doubtfully valid Sacraments, (DZ 1151).
Rev. John R. Bancroft, C.S.S.R., J.C.B., S.T.L., in his Communication in Religious Worship with Non-Catholics also relates, “The Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, in dealing with this matter of communication with heretics or schismatics of the Orient, mentions that there is scarcely any rite among them which is not tainted with some error in the matter of faith, for in their churches there is either dedication in memory of some schismatic who is venerated as a saint, or fasts are celebrated for those who died in schism, or there is commemoration of living schismatic and heretical Patriarchs and Bishops, who are commended as preachers of the Catholic faith,” (“Instructio pro Missionariis Orientis,” 1729)” (Catholic University of America dissertation for a degree in Sacred Theology, 1943).
In Rev. Szal’s day, the Oriental schismatics were presumed to have valid orders unless the contrary was proven. But already abuses were creeping in. It is a known fact that the KGB infiltrated the ranks of the Orthodox as surely as Catholic ranks were likewise infiltrated by secret societies; and the ecumenists long ago began successfully seducing Orthodox sects even before the introduction of the Novus Ordo. Those Orthodox sects that managed to escape ecumenism and, like Traditionalists, held more conservative views, are very notably anti-Catholic, owing to what they believe to be the actions of the “popes” in Rome; this hostility is reflected in their official on-line writings. Because there is no possible way either to confirm their validity or to avoid perversion of faith, then, it really doesn’t matter whether they retained their jurisdiction or not.
Where any doubt of validity concerning their orders exists at all, they cannot be approached. Where any possibility exists that there could be perversion of faith, they must not be approached. Pope Pius XII infallibly declared that no bishops may function during an interregnum without papal examination and approval, and this these bishops and their patriarchs have not received for a very long time. It is ridiculous — and contradicted by Pope Pius XII himself — to believe that those in the Western Church cannot exercise jurisdiction during an interregnum, while those who long ago seceded from the Roman Pontiffs’ jurisdiction could still retain it in his a absence. A Holy Office excommunication issued April 9, 1951, AAS 43-217, listed under Can. 2245 decrees:
“A Bishop OF WHATSOEVER RITE OR DIGNITY who consecrates to the episcopacy anyone who is neither appointed nor expressly confirmed by the Holy See and the person who receives the consecration, even though they were coerced by great fear, Can. 2229 §3, no. 3), incur ipso facto an excommunication most specially reserved to the Holy See” (“Canon Law Digest 3”, T. Lincoln Bouscaren, S.J.). This is proof that the Eastern rites were included in Pope Pius XII’s intent regarding the approval of bishops, since this decree came after the first news of bishops in China consecrating without the mandate. A second excommunication was issued following the promulgation of Ad apostolorum principis. And all of this is outside any existence of an interregnum, which necessarily withdraws jurisdiction from everyone until a new pope is elected.
Infamy of law
Traditionalists guilty of establishing their own sects were long ago excommunicated for failure to cease and desist from their activities and thereby incurred infamy of law. Infamy of law is a permanent impediment, able to be absolved only by the pope (see https://www.betrayedcatholics.com/articles/a-catholics-course-of-study/canon-law/infamy-of-law-bars-the-valid-exercise-of-orders-received/). We have no pope, ergo they cannot be absolved. As such, Traditionalists’ sacramental acts and those of the Orthodox are not valid, and Catholics sin mortally in requesting the Sacraments from them. For as was noted above, these schismatics are still bound by Can. 2314. Rev. Szal quotes Clement VIII and Pope Benedict XIV in his work to the effect that when schismatics or those they have ordained are received back into the Church, they cannot “be admitted for the conferring of orders or for the administration of any of the other Sacraments” until they have made the abjuration of their errors and been personally dispensed by the Holy See from their irregularity, (infamy of law). This would also explain why Western rite Catholics are not to approach Orthodox schismatics for the Sacraments. Traditionalists, unlike the Orthodox, never had any claim to supplied jurisdiction in the absence of a true pope. They were members of non-Catholic sects before they entered Traditionalist “seminaries” and therefore were never eligible for ordination in the first place because a) they already had incurred infamy of law by being members of non-Catholic sects and b) they could not be called to the priesthood by schismatic bishops or priests.
Because the acts of these priests, even if posited, are invalid because they are incapable of receiving jurisdiction without dispensation by the pope, they cannot even absolve penitents at the hour of death. The missionary priest Fr. Demaris wrote to his people on this subject during the period in France following the French Revolution when true priests were exiled from this country, and only the unlawful and excommunicated priests installed by the French government were available for the sacraments. Rather than disobey the laws of the Church by resorting to these hirelings in their final moments on this earth, Fr. Demaris told his flock, “BEING DEPRIVED OF EXTREME UNCTION, AND IN THE HANDS OF PERSONS, WHO NOT ONLY DO NOT HELP, BUT INSULT ME, I SHALL BE MUCH HAPPIER THAT MY DEATH SHALL HAVE MORE CONFORMITY WITH THAT OF JESUS WHO WAS A SPECTACLE OF OPPROBRIUM TO ALL THE WORLD…BE PIERCED WITH THIS TRUTH: THAT THE MOST GLORIOUS AND SALUTARY TIME TO DIE IS WHEN VIRTUE IS STRONGEST IN OUR HEART. ” (“They Have Taken Away My Lord,” Father Demaris, Professor of Theology, Missionary of St. Joseph, wrote the following at Lyon in 1801, translated from the French by A. Drover).
Conclusion
It is not by coincidence that Traditionalists used the argument referred to by Rev. Mahoney — that common error and supplied jurisdiction are to be invoked to justify the actions of Traditionalists today — to attract those exiting the Novus Ordo church in the 1970s. It relieved them of further researching the subject, as Mahoney, Billot, Journet and others did, and arriving at the true nature of the suppletory principle — which rests entirely with the Roman Pontiff. Sedevacantists, in declaring the See vacant, satisfied the objections of many that the rulers in Rome following Pope Pius XII were usurpers, but likewise failed to complete the necessary research and reasoning flowing from their conclusions. It is obvious to those who understand the Apostolic nature and constitution of Christ’s Church that nothing can be done in the absence of the Roman Pontiff, but Sedevacantist ministers have consistently dodged that bullet and refused to provide their followers with positive proofs that they function validly and licitly in his absence. These various Traditionalist organizations have good reasons to avoid this issue — it damages their personal credibility and hits them in the pocketbook, where it hurts the most.
No one is saying that there is anything contrary to civil law in forming these organizations and collecting funds to support their operation and (unfortunately) provide for the sustenance of its ministers. Americans are free from a civil standpoint to support any religion they choose to support, and they can do this as Americans, but not as true Catholics. Divine law and Canon Law take precedence over civil law, whenever it conflicts with the laws of God and His Church. As seen above, “THE PERSON WHO HAS INCURRED…AN INFAMY OF LAW…CANNOT VALIDLY OBTAIN ECCLESIASTICAL BENEFICES, PENSIONS, OFFICES AND DIGNITIES, NOR CAN HE VALIDLY EXERCISE THE RIGHTS CONNECTED WITH THE SAME.” Under Can. 1258, those who “tithe,” or contribute to or support in any way the efforts of these organizations to perpetuate their unCatholic activities, come under suspicion of heresy if they persist in this behavior for six months. The Council of Trent has condemned as heretical (see DZ 970 above) the doctrine they support and perpetuate concerning the right of Traditional clerics to minster to them. And under Can. 1325, they are judged to be heretics for supporting or defending these heretical ministers and groups.
The will of God for us in these times is obedience to His laws. We are being asked to renew the Passion in His Mystical Body, and many are angrily casting aside the cross of His law because they believe themselves entitled to the spiritual goods God initially gave His Church, then withdrew. Speaking of Antichrist, the prophet Daniel tells us why Mass and Sacraments are no longer available: “Strength was given him against the continual sacrifice because of sins,” (Dan. 8:12). But like all wayward children, Traditionalists rebel against the punishment and defy the law to have their way. That “way” is not the Way of the Cross, which God mercifully has extended to us in these unbelievably evil times as the only way to save our souls. We die to ourselves to live again, just as Christ rose from the dead then ascended to His Father in Heaven. So , then, we shall never give up hope of eternal salvation, but this can be achieved only if we are obedient enough and generous enough to “fill up what is wanting” to the Passion of Christ.
