Determine Your Baptismal Status

by T. Stanfill Benns | Jul 5, 2022

On the Question of Valid and Licit Baptism

© Copyright 2022, T. Stanfill Benns (All emphasis within quotes is the author’s unless indicated otherwise.)

As William Strojie observed in the 1980s, the baptism of the Novus Ordo church, particularly following the change in the sacramental rites in 1968, cannot be trusted as true sacramental baptism, for many reasons. Some would argue that because even heretics and can validly administer Baptism, per the teaching of the Council of Trent, then this means that we cannot question baptism as invalidly administered because the Church recognizes the baptism of these individuals. The caveat here is that the Church actually teaches that in baptizing others, even heretics and apostates must intend to “do what the Church does;” in other words even though they are not Catholics they must intend to do what true Catholics do in baptizing. This probably was true of validly ordained Novus Ordo priests who baptized up to the close of the Vatican Council in 1965, or even up to 1968. However, they baptized validly but not licitly, if they had received jurisdiction from the NO church. More on this below.

Not so those Novus Ordo ministers, however, baptizing after 1968, for here there is serious doubt about the intention of these ministers. As Mr. Strojie notes, there is no mention of the bestowal of sanctifying grace or the removal of original sin in the new rite of Baptism, the sole purpose in every baptismal ceremony performed in the Church prior to the false Vatican 2 council. Instead the child is “initiated into the community” and is “empowered to sanctify creation.” Strojie points out that the importance of the community is emphasized over and over again just as it was when eliminating the Latin Mass and promoting the NOM. We can relate this to a modernized form of communism — communitarianism — that has permeated society for decades, and as a form of heresy could scarcely be mentioned in the same breath as valid baptism. Also suspect here is the intent of using “Holy Spirit” vs. Holy Ghost. The Mormons use this form, but the “spirit” intended by them is Jesus’ “brother,” Lucifer! Strojie mentions the Theosophist Leadbetter’s baptism, identical to the Catholic form but intended to initiate the baptized into the mysteries of the Solar Deity.

The Church always has taught that one can never take chances where the Sacraments are concerned. If there is any positive (serious) doubt the Sacrament was invalid or would be invalid, it must either be performed again with the right intention or not performed at all until it can be performed validly. Those today who baptize, believing the NO is the true Church and intending to do what its ministers do, cannot convey this Sacrament to others.

Valid Baptism

Unfortunately the Novus Ordo church has returned to those teachings about the Trinity condemned in the early centuries and now holds concepts concerning Three Persons in One God that calls even the validity of Baptism into question. In his The Emergence of Catholic Tradition, Jar Slav Pelican, commenting in 1971 on the teachings of the early Fathers in regard to the Trinity noted that the word spirit could be used for the Divine in Christ, effectively separating His Divinity from His humanity. This is a denial of the Incarnation, one of the heresies for which Antichrist will be specifically known. This heresy was condemned in 680 by Pope St. Agatho at the Roman Council, (DZ 288). As Pelican explains, Christ’s “spirit” and the Holy Ghost have nothing to do with each other. He cited such a distinction as suggestive of a “binitarian mode of thinking,” and ascribed it to “those early Christian writings, which still showed marks of the Jewish origins of Christianity.” Early Hebrew heretics rejecting Christianity taught that the Holy Ghost was the “life-giving” or creative principle of the Trinity, a notion condemned in 451 by the Council of Chalcedon.

The Hindu teaching of Kundalini is responsible for this identification, teaching the “sacredness” of sex for its own sake and equating the creative power with the Divine creative principle in God the Father. Some heretics even described the Third Person as a female. This can be traced to the Egyptian “trinity” of Osiris, Isis and Horus, where Isis is revered as “God the Mother,” spouse of Osiris, (Fire of Creation, by J.J. Vander Leeuw). Vander Leeuw provided the missing factor in the androgyny equation: “It is by giving the worship of Our Lady the proper place in the Christian religion…that we can actively insist in bringing nearer that religion of the near future, which in its ideals will show us the unity that binds what we call the masculine and feminine aspect in all things…This precious heritage…the worship of God the Mother…(will), in the Christianity of the future, be a great and splendid religious ideal.”

So here we have the reason why Theosophy reveres Our Lady, and New Age priestess Annie Besant is even featured in one photo holding a rosary. The Church had grave reasons indeed for mandating the use of Holy Ghost in the English language, particularly in prayer and the Sacraments when administered in English: to eliminate the possibility of error in reference to this blasphemous and heretical idea of spirit. The use of Holy Spirit versus Holy Ghost began to creep into Catholic missals and prayer books in English in the 1940s, 1950s. In his work New Age Bible Versions, G.A. Riplinger contrasted newly translated biblical texts to the King James and (in some instances) the Douay-Rheims versions. He concluded that all these modern translations have replaced “Holy Ghost” with “Holy Spirit” in key passages, a change arising, he said, “from ecumenical practices.” He cited the rebuke from Job 26:4 to those who were moved, not of the holy Spirit of God, but by their “human spirit;” and also referred these changes to Gal. 3:5 and Cor. 2:11 which mention “unclean spirits.” This affords us further insight into what may be intended by the Novus Ordo usage.

In “returning” to the primitive usage of Holy Spirit on the ruse that this return reflected a greater faithfulness to Tradition, the Novus Ordo church failed to explain to its members why the usage was suppressed in the first place. The Kabbalistic Jews believed in an ever-generating (and incestuous) quatrinity. They even represented Christ as synonymous with the pagan god Metraton and Samauel, the evil principle in Kabbalism, (The Kabbala Unveiled). And the Gnostics who infiltrated first Jewish then Christian ranks taught man’s divinity. Protestant author Texe Marrs provided a more sinister explanation of the term Holy Spirit along these same lines in his Dark Majesty. Quoting Rex Hutchins’ A Bridge to Light, Marrs wrote: “There is a Life-Principle of this world, a universal agent, wherein are two natures and a double current of love and wrath…It is a ray detached from the glory of the Sun…It is the Holy Spirit, the universal Agent, the serpent…”

Since spirit can refer to the soul of Christ excluding the Holy Ghost from the Trinity, or even to Satan as a “necessary” component of that same Trinity, can this ambiguous usage, so suggestive of Manichaean dualism, be accepted as innocuous, particularly in the administration of the sacraments? In condemning the errors of Michael Molinos, Pope Innocent XI taught that a probable opinion could never be used in administering the Sacraments, the safer opinion being abandoned, (DZ 1151). So if it is a matter of mere opinion (which it cannot be, since the Church has suppressed the usage to avoid the danger of a wrong conception of the Trinity) the safer opinion and that adhered to traditionally by the Church must be preferred. Other errors of Molinos condemned by Pope Innocent XI include the use of ambiguous words, (DZ 1177). The Sacraments convey the graces necessary for salvation and the Church tolerates no possibility of error or a false intention in their administration.

Spirit is an ambiguous word that could be interpreted as man sharing literally in Christ’s divinity, Satan’s long-coveted ambition, and many today believe such a thing is possible. Such a conception of the Mystical Body is in direct contradiction of all Church teaching on the matter; for while Catholics are granted a share in the Church’s earthly, spiritual upbuilding, they are invited to heed only the call to be “other Christs,” not THE Christ. To avoid any confusion on this matter, Pope Pius XII specifically proscribed any idea of membership in the Mystical Body that passed “beyond the sphere of creatures and wrongly enter(s) the Divine, were it only to the extent of appropriating to themselves but one single attribute of the eternal Godhead,” (Mystici Corporis). As stated above, these heretics wish to limit the identification of the Holy Ghost with a ”Christ-spirit” emanating from His soul — a spirit they say we share with Him.

So in Mystici Corporis Pope Pius XII went to great lengths to identify the Holy Ghost as a separate person in one God, not an indistinct extension of Christ Himself. To pervert the Holy Ghost’s action in the Sacrament of Baptism or any of the Sacraments, or to omit His existence at all disfigures the intention requisite for sacramental validity. Depending on the minister and his understanding of theology, it could refer to the “holy spirit” of Christ indwelling (a heresy), which is entirely separate from the indwelling of the Holy Ghost. The indwelling of the Holy Ghost is lost through commission of mortal sin, but this spirit referred to in Novus Ordo usage is bestowed on recipients as a constantly abiding principle. This would explain why the form in Novus Ordo baptism no longer refers to taking away original sin. For if all are divine by nature, who can sin?

The apostate priest Abbe Roca puts this usage into context by predicting, in his work Glorious Century, that “The convert of the Vatican…will rest content with confirming and glorifying the spirit of Christ, or Christ-spirit [divine humanity], seed of the Word, in the public mind.” The Catholic Encyclopedia under Holy Ghost explained that in the works of St. Paul the word spirit, particularly the use of the term “spirit of God, [can] signify at times the soul or man himself.” In denying the existence of the Holy Ghost as a Divine entity, some ranked Him among the highest choir of angels. Others identified Him as the female principle, or “feminine side” of God. And evidence that these heresies still exist is readily available.

Rev. Bernard Leeming in his Principles of Sacramental Theology (1957) verified the Church’s condemnation of the above interpretation for spirit. “St. Iranaeus tells us that certain of the Gnostic sects taught that the ‘Father’ whom Christ revealed was different from the Creator of the Universe, and that the spirit who came upon Jesus was really Christ. They carried out their false beliefs in the ceremonies of Baptism, for Iranaeus says they baptized ‘in the name of the unknown father of all, truth, mother of all and in him who descended into Jesus,’” (#597). Others, St. Epiphanius says, baptized “’in the name of the uncreated God, the created Son and in the name of the spirit of sanctification, created by the Son.’” The Fathers were suspicious of the use of the names, Father, Son and Holy Spirit by these sects because they could be understood in a sense different than that of the true Trinity. The Paulinists used the above formula and were condemned by the Council of Nicaea, (DZ 56). The Sacraments of Baptism and Orders administered by the Paulinists were to be entirely repeated for this reason, since the Trinitarian formula is used for both Sacraments.

Illicit Baptism

This topic, to the best of the author’s knowledge, has never been addressed. But it is important to address it because like all the other Sacraments, Baptism can be validly but illicitly given and/or received, and if this is the case then the graces it is meant to convey are absent. This is true anytime one who is not a priest (for whatever reasons, including invalid and/or illicit ordination) attempts to perform Solemn Baptism, not the simple baptism performed by the laity; or when one who may be validly and licitly (or illicitly) ordained and does not possess jurisdiction performs Solemn Baptism.

Rev. Stanislaus Grabowski, in his examination of St. Augustine’s idea of the Church, (The Church, 1957), notes: “Without the Holy Ghost are such as have been baptized in heretical and schismatic factions… Baptism so administered produces in the soul of the recipient an effect which Augustine calls a form or ‘forma,’ [the indelible mark?]. However, since it is produced outside the Church, it is irregular and illicit and consequently it does not convey a life of grace, it does not bring a rebirth of the soul, it does not effect a participation in the Holy Ghost,” and unfortunately this includes Traditional sects because they are not Catholic and not in communion with the pope. Grabowski says such a Sacrament from heretics and schismatics “is not worthless. Because it is valid it impinges a ‘form’ on the recipient… On account of the sacramental ‘form’ impressed on the baptized one, when such a person returns from heresy and schism… to the fold of the Church,” he becomes a member of the Mystical Body, returns to grace and receives the Holy Ghost.

“The sinner administering it in the Church does not hinder the Sacrament from producing that life which he himself does not have, for it is Christ who is the principal minister. The sacrament is not affected by the sinfulness of the dispenser,” and this is the entire thrust of the Donatist heresy fought by St. Augustine and mistakenly applied by Traditionalists to the situation today. Sinfulness is one thing; lack of membership in the Church quite another. “…The sacrament, however, does not produce the supernatural life it is intended to convey…[when] administered or received outside the pale of the Church of Christ. This Church is the sole legitimate possessor of the sacraments. Just as they are said to be the sacraments of Christ they are the sacraments of the Church.” There is a dissenting opinion on this, however, as seen below.

Lay Baptism preferred to schismatic priest baptizing

In his 1943 Catholic University of America dissertation Communication in Religious Worship With Non-Catholics, Rev. John Bancroft notes on page 92 that baptism of desire will not suffice whenever it is possible to receive water Baptism. And most importantly, Traditionalists should notice here that NO heretical or schismatic minister should ever be preferred as the minister of Baptism to the ordinary, duly instructed lay Catholic! Bancroft quotes Sylvius on a previous page, who teaches: “Heretics and schismatics can licitly baptize in necessity even if they remain such and impenitent, but… no other Sacrament can be conferred by them licitly unless they repent at least internally.” (St. Augustine disagrees, characterizing such baptisms as valid but illicit. To the best of this author’s knowledge, this is a matter yet undecided by the Church.) Lemkuhl believes that heretic, apostate and schismatic priests are the equivalent of vitandi. And Bancroft quotes a decision of the Holy See (a bull issued by Pope Pius VI) which indicates that even when there is a question of Baptism by lay non-Catholics versus a non-Catholic priest, the lay non-Catholics are to be preferred!

He concludes: “What has been said has referred to the administration of Baptism by a [validly ordained] non-Catholic priest. The doctrine applies a fortiori to a non-Catholic [non-ordained] minister. He has no consecration to act as a minister of the Sacraments [so is] really only a layman.” This is the very doctrine those who keep the faith at home have been holding all along, and in retrospect it makes perfect sense. Even pray-at-home Catholics who believe they are guilty of communicatio in sacris in the past but who have made reparation and publicly retracted their errors would be considered as less culpable in such matters and more worthy. For they have satisfied the laws of the Church concerning the preliminary steps necessary to being accepted once again into the Church. The various opinions below from the work cited give a fairly comprehensive survey of what the Church teaches.

Theological opinions on illicit Baptism

“After irregular baptism, received at the hands of heretics or schismatics, the recipients should be reconciled to the Church and receive the baptism of the Spirit… Theodori Poenit. li. il. 13, a.d. 673, in Haddan & Stubbs, in. 192 : “If an ordained priest discovers he has not been baptized let him be baptized and reordained, and all whom he previously baptized be re-baptized. The same is repeated i. ix. 12, Ihid. in. 185, with this addition: It is stated that another decision has been given on this point by the Roman Pontiff, according to which the grace of baptism is not conferred by the man who baptizes, although he be a pagan, but by the Spirit of God. See note 110 above. Nicolaus l. a.d.865,ap. Gratian in. Dist. iv. c. 24: You say that many in your country were baptized by a Jew who may have been a Christian or may have been a pagan, and ask what ought to be done. If such have been baptized in the name of the Trinity . . . they ought not to be re-baptized… Theodori Poenit. li. ix. 3. 1. c. p. 197: Whoever has a doubt about his baptism let him be baptized. Alexander in. a.d. 1180, in Decret. Lib. in. Tit. xlii. c. 2 : Concil. Westminster, a.d. 1200, Can. 3: We charge according to the holy canons that the sacraments of which there is a doubt be conferred. Const. 1, Langton, a.d. 1223 ; Const. 11, Edmund, a.d. 1236: If he find by full evidence that baptism was given in the form of the Church let him approve the fact, whether he did it in Latin, French, or English. But if not let him baptize the child.” (From: The Complete Manual of Canon Law, By Oswald J. Reichel, M.A., B.CAL., F.S.A.; author of “The See of Rome in the Middle Ages,” 1923).

We have “Solemn Baptism,” (irregular) received at the hands of heretics and schismatics (Traditionalists, Novus Ordo ministers) and we are not sure if they had the intention of baptizing “in the name of the Trinity.” One cannot proceed on doubt concerning a matter involving the Sacraments. When possible, one must always be certain to have received Baptism by water. What to do?

Conclusion

Because Baptism is a Sacrament necessary for salvation, there cannot be any doubt concerning its validity for it to take effect. It is the common opinion of theologians that anytime there is any question in our minds about the validity of any of the Sacraments, we are not to partake in them or presume they are valid if we have done, without realizing the dangers. Since the Novus Ordo and Traditionalists are non-Catholic sects just like any other sect, and because we have no bishops or pope to put this question to, in my opinion it is wise to conditionally baptize anyone who has been baptized in the Novus Ordo after 1968 or in Traditionalist sects, since the minister’s right intention cannot be assumed or proved. And this can and should be done, if no true Catholics are available, even by an honest, well-intentioned non-Catholic. For as stated above, such a baptism is always to be preferred to relying on Baptism of desire. I am not saying that baptism by NO heretics pre-1968 who intended to do what the Church does in baptizing is invalid, only illicit. This because it is most likely that such Baptism was performed solemnly and as such those performing it possessed no jurisdiction from the false NO sect. See Rev. Bancroft on this below.

Until the matter is settled by the Church, it would appear that that such baptisms would remain doubtfully licit, and therefore, to insure inclusion in the Mystical Body and be assured of the reception of graces, it would seem prudent to conditionally baptize if the recipient of baptism harbored doubts of any kind. This, however, would be left to the individual.

Rev. Adolphe Tanquerey writes in his Dogmatic Theology (1959): “In case of necessity, anyone who has the use of reason can baptize, even licitly. This is certain: first, from the declaration of the Lateran Council IV (‘The sacrament of baptism, rightly performed by anyone in the form of the Church, is useful unto salvation for little ones and for adults’ — DZ 430); from the Council of Florence (“In the case of necessity, however, even…a layman or a woman, yes even a pagan or a heretic can baptize, so long as he preserves the form of the Church and has the intention of doing as the Church does.’ — DZ 696); also Canon 742; secondly, from the practice of the Church…thirdly, it is most fitting that Baptism, so necessary for salvation, be able to be easily conferred — hence that it be able to be conferred by all.”

“Of the Time and Place of Baptism”

The following on Baptism is taken from A Practical Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, by Rev. Stanislaus Woywod and revised by Rev. Callistus Smith. Vol. 1, (Imprimatur and Copyright 1943, pages 353 and 354):

“668. Infants shall be baptized as soon as possible. Pastors and preachers shall often remind the faithful of this grave obligation.” (Canon 770)…“The meaning of quamprimum (as soon as possible) cannot be determined with absolute exactness. In fact, the law did not want to specify the exact number of days, as it could easily have done, for circumstances are so varied that a narrow law in this matter is not desirable, at least as a general law. The individual bishops who know the conditions of their dioceses, the facility or the difficulty of reaching the parish church, climate, roads, etc., can make particular regulations. It is considered to be within the power of the Bishop to demand that the Baptism be conferred within eight days after birth, making due allowance for circumstances where that regulation would impose undue hardship. In an Instruction of the Sacred Congregation of the Propaganda, July 31, 1902, to the missionaries among the Nestorians, it states that Baptism shall be conferred on the infants at least within eight days after birth, and if necessary, Private Baptism should be given rather than wait longer for Solemn Baptism.

“669. If there is no particular law limiting the time and no special danger of death from the condition of the child or other circumstances, one may hold with Noldin and Vermeersch Creusen that one cannot delay Baptism over a month without sinning gravely against the law. If circumstances are such – and they certainly exist in the scattered districts of the United States — that the priest cannot be had within a month — some layperson should be asked by the parents to baptize the child, rather than delay the Baptism. The Sacred Congregation of the Propaganda approved an Instruction given to the catechists and other well-instructed Catholics to baptize any of the infants of the Christians, though they are in good health, if the priest is absent or it is difficult to go to him. We saw that the Instructions to the missionaries among the Nestorians insisted that Baptism should be conferred within eight days, and that, when necessary, the infants should be baptized privately rather than delay Baptism and expose the infants to the danger of dying without it.

“670. Private Baptism may, in case of necessity, be given at any time and in any place (Canon 771). Solemn Baptism may be given on any day. However, in accordance to the most ancient rite of the Church, it is a becoming practice to baptize adults on the vigils of Easter and Pentecost, especially in metropolitan and cathedral churches, if it can be done conveniently (Canon 772). The proper place for the administration of Solemn Baptism is the baptistery in a church or public oratory (Canon 773).

“Up to about the ninth century, Solemn Baptism in churches of the Latin Rite was given only on the vigils of Easter and Pentecost. In the Oriental Rite and in the diocese of Northern Africa, the Epiphany was added to the baptismal days. In Spain, they began to baptize also on the feasts of the Apostles and martyrs, but the Roman Pontiffs objected to that practice. As the number of baptisms of adults got fewer, the practice of baptizing on the two vigils only ceased of itself. Pope Simplicius (d. 483) is said to have appointed several priests at Rome who had to be ready any day and at any hour of the day to baptize infants. Very likely baptism of infants in danger of death is meant. When there was even a slight danger, the infants were baptized immediately at the time when Solemn Baptism was still limited to the two days. A certain Bishop Fidus in Africa had, in 253, contended that it was not lawful to baptize infants before the eighth day because in the Old Testament circumcision was to be given only on the eighth day after birth. Saint Cyprian writes to him: ‘Nobody in our council agreed with what you thought should be done; on the contrary, we all have held that to no human being born into this life should mercy and grace be denied.’”

Pope Pius XII’s Decision on Episcopal Orders

by T. Stanfill Benns | Jun 28, 2022

© Copyright 2009; revised 2022, T. Stanfill Benns (All emphasis within quotes added by the author)

In his The Validity of the Thuc Consecrations, which has been posted on the Internet for over 15 years, the late Anthony Cekada, “ordained” by Marcel Lefebvre, attempts to explain how bishops consecrated without the papal mandate operate without jurisdiction. Cekada wrote: “Where does this leave the fact of the Thuc consecrations? In the same place it leaves my ordination, the Lefebvre consecrations and all sacraments traditional Catholic clergy confer: in a sort of legal limbo. Since no one in the traditional movement possesses ordinary jurisdiction, no one has the power to rule on the legal evidence that a particular sacrament was performed and then establish it as a fact before church law. That’s a function of church officials who have received their authority from a pope” (so this statement by Cekada is a notorious fact). A 1997 article in the Angelus Press, page 54, entitled: “Most Asked Questions about the Society of Saint Pius X,” reads: “Only the Pope, who has universal jurisdiction over the whole Church, can appoint a pastor to a flock and empower him to govern it.’ But Archbishop Lefebvre never presumed to confer anything but the full priestly powers of Orders, and in no way did he grant any jurisdiction (which he himself did not have personally to give).”

So we understand from these statements that Traditionalists do not believe they possess ordinary or even delegated jurisdiction from the men who either consecrated or ordained them. Then how do they claim to validly and licitly administer the Sacraments? Cekada explains this in his 2003 article, Traditional Priests, Legitimate Sacraments — Divine Law obliges rather than forbids us to confer Sacraments. http://www.cmri.org/02-tradpriests.html. Cekada starts out by explaining that only those specifically trained in theology have the knowledge and ability to pronounce on such things. He neglects to advise his readers that only those called to the priesthood by valid and licit bishops and trained under the supervision of such bishops in communion with the Roman Pontiff are considered by the Catholic Church as valid and licit clerics; only those ordained and/or consecrated by valid and licit bishops in communion with the Roman Pontiff are to be viewed as possessing any authority or office (officium) in the Church established by Christ. Catholics are never bound to follow those who are not certainly lawful pastors, as the Church considers only those rightly ordained by certainly valid and licit bishops lawful pastors, (DZ 967). Highly respected theologians duly sanctioned by the Holy See, but most importantly the infallible and continual magisterium itself, tell us that that Our Lord spoke to all of the Apostles yes, but to Peter first and primarily, and that only through Peter would they be able to exercise their Episcopal power.

The Vatican Council: “Bishops…as true shepherds…individually feed and rule in the name of Christ the flocks entrusted to them…But that the episcopacy itself might be one and undivided, and that the entire multitude of the faithful through priests closely connected to 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 principal 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,” (DZ 1828).

Mortalium Animos, Pope Pius XI: “Not only must the Church still exist today and continue always to exist, but it must ever be exactly the same as it was in the days of the Apostles,” (encyclical issued Jan. 6, 1928).

Mystici Corporis Christi, Pope Pius XII: “Yet while they do this, they are not entirely independent, but are placed under the due authority of the Roman Pontiff, although they enjoy the ordinary power of jurisdiction obtained directly from the same Highest Pontiff.” [Given that this is indeed the case,] “they should be revered by the people as divinely appointed successors of the apostles,” (June 29, 1943; DZ 2287).

Ad Sinarum gentum, Pope Pius XII: “The power of jurisdiction which is conferred directly by Divine right on the Supreme Pontiff comes to bishops by that same right, but only through the successor of St. Peter, to whom not only the faithful but also all bishops are bound to be constantly subject and to adhere both by the reverence of obedience and by the bond of unity,” (Oct. 7, 1954).

By page two of his work Traditional Priests and Legitimate Sacraments, Cekada is stating that Our Lord spoke directly to the apostles, their successors and the priests they ordain in commanding them to teach and administer the Sacraments. Despite the teaching of Can. 200: “…He who claims to possess delegated jurisdiction has the burden of proving the delegation,” (Revs. Woywod-Smith), Cekada insists that “homealoners” and others have no right to demand that Traditionalists produce proof that they possess jurisdiction. He also insists that the common good of the faithful, and the Church’s stated mission of the salvation of souls forces Trad priests and bishops to provide the Sacraments. Unfortunately he neglects to present the regulations of the Code on this matter, as presented below from Revs. Woywod-Smith, A Practical Commentary on Canon Law, (Can. 804).

“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.”

Since we now have no access to valid and licit bishops and priests, would it not be the obligation of laity requesting the Sacraments of a strange priest or bishop to demand proof of their ability to function validly and licitly? Some say it is not fair to expect the laity to do this in the absence of the clergy, but Rev. Winifred Herbst disagrees. “With justice might one of the faithful who wishes to assist at the Sacrifice ask [the priest]: ‘Tell me, in whose name do you stand there and who has sent you? … Who has given you this commission and this plenitude of power? A serious startling question this, and one of momentous importance; for it depends upon the answer whether the Mass is the most exalted and the most holy of all actions, or whether it must be called the most miserable and sacrilegious of all deceptions,” (Holy Mass, 1932). But Cekada and others have stated they do not have either ordinary or delegated jurisdiction, and could not prove either; they tell their flocks instead that believe that they possess a form of jurisdiction they cannot even proves exists: Divine jurisdiction. But do they posses it?

“Christ grants jurisdiction”

Cekada writes, under the heading Divine Law provides jurisdiction: “The divine law by which Christ grants jurisdiction to those He commands to forgive sins (as distinct from sacramental power to do so) is found in John 20:21: “As the Father sent me, so I send you” (Merkelbach 3:574). Quoting Cardinal Billot, he writes: “the Church’s instrumental jurisdiction is directed at loosing — indeed, at loosing the bonds which depend not upon ecclesiastical law, but upon divine law.” Yes, and since the Church is the Pope, the Pope may supply such jurisdiction. And yet as we have seen, Pope Pius XII has clearly stated that such jurisdiction is not supplied during an interregnum. Define for us the Church, which Pope Pius XII, St. Thomas Aquinas and the Council of Trent tells us must always have a visible head to exercise papal jurisdiction, granted first to Peter and then to the others, that we may understand the statement. And explain to us also why those claiming a superior knowledge of theology gained outside the one, true Church resort primarily to the teaching of theologians to prove their case, when these opinions can scarcely rival the teachings of Popes and Councils, not to mention Divine revelation, i.e., Holy Scripture and Tradition. We have Cano’s primary sources of sacred theology (See link); if these men are truly trained in sacred theology, why are they using such inferior sources? And why do they think we would accept these sources in preference to the teachings of the Roman Pontiffs?

Cekada then quotes Merkelbach to the effect that delegated jurisdiction “operates through the pope however as a minister and instrument of divinity, and therefore not by authority proper to the Church, but rather by God exercising His own authority.” He concludes: “Divine law directly delegates jurisdiction in the internal forum to traditional Catholic priests for the absolution they impart.” Both Cekada and Pivarunas presume, in their writings then, that valid jurisdiction is granted Traditionalists by “Divine law or right,” even though Merkelbach has just stated that such jurisdiction operates through the pope. Merkelbach’s manner of stating this obviously convinces Cekada this applies even in the absence of the Pope. This despite the fact that Merkelbach never says that somehow Christ would grant such power outside the framework He Himself established. But Canons 109 and 219 explain to us the true and only source of jurisdiction granted by Divine law: “…In the Supreme Pontificate, the person legitimately elected and feely accepting the election receives jurisdiction by the Divine law itself; in all other degrees, by canonical appointment.” And Can. 219 differs from this only by stating that upon legitimate election and acceptance, the Roman Pontiff “obtains…the full power of supreme jurisdiction by divine right.”

Already in previously discussing the roles played by Canons 11, 15 and 21, it is clear that no dispensation can be granted from those inhabilitating and invalidating laws which proceed from Divine law. Nor can anyone usurp the jurisdictional powers of the pope during an interregnum. Pope Pius XII made it perfectly clear in Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis that not even the highest members of the hierarchy (Cardinals) are able to do this. We have heard from Pope Pius XII in Mystici Corporis Christi that a living, breathing and visible head is absolutely necessary to the Church. St. Thomas Aquinas tells us that “In order that the Church exist, there must be one person at the head of the whole Christian people,” (Summa Contra Gentiles, Vol. IV, 76). And the Council of Trent teaches that: “It is the unanimous teaching of the Fathers that this visible head is necessary to establish and preserve unity in the Church.” This truth of course is based on Holy Scripture, “That all may be one, as the Father in Me and I in thee,” and the Vatican Council tells us that the no one may teach anything contrary to the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, (DZ 1788).

And then let us not forget DZ 1800: “The doctrine of faith God revealed…has been entrusted as a divine deposit to the spouse of Christ to be faithfully guarded and infallibly interpreted. Hence, also, that understanding of Her 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 deeper understanding…Let it be solely in its own genus, namely on the same dogma, with the same sense and the same understanding,” (the Vatican Council). No one can therefore claim that the Church can exist without a Pope in anything but an imperfect state. As Rev. Charles Journet writes, “When the Pope dies the Church is widowed, and in respect of the visible universal jurisdiction, She is truly acephelous. But…Christ directs Her from Heaven… There is no one left then on earth who can visibly exercise the supreme spiritual jurisdiction in His name, and in consequence, any new manifestation of the general life of the Church are prevented.”

For those who object to what has just been stated by Rev. Journet, we can only point to Pope Pius XII’s Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis as proof that this is exactly what happens. If we want to know how the Church dealt with this matter of extraordinary mission or extraordinary vocation by Divine law, we need only read St. Francis de Sales, that great Doctor of the Church, who wrote during the last part of the 16th and early part of the 17th century. This was the saint’s view, taken from his The Catholic Controversy, of the Calvinist heretics he addressed in those times:

St. Francis de Sales

“Your party have taken ground elsewhere than in the ordinary mission and have said that they were sent extraordinarily by God because the ordinary mission has been ruined and abolished, with the true Church itself, under the tyranny of Antichrist. This is their most safe refuge, which since it is common to all sorts of heretics…First I say that no one should allege an extraordinary mission unless he prove it by miracles…Where should we be if this extraordinary mission was to be accepted without proof? Would it not be a cloak for all sorts of reveries? Arius, Marcion, Montanus, Messalius — could they not be received into this dignity of reformers, by swearing the same oath? Never was anyone extraordinarily sent unless he brought this letter of credit from the divine Majesty. Moses was sent immediately by God to govern the people of Israel…He asked for signs and patents of his commission; God found this request good [and] gave him three sorts of prodigies and marvels…If they then allege extraordinary mission, let them show us some extraordinary works, otherwise we are not obliged to believe them…The mission of St. John the Baptist…was it not authenticated by his conception, his nativity and by that miraculous life of his, to which Our Lord gave such excellent testimony? But as to the Apostles — who does not know the miracles they did and the great number of them?

“Never must an extraordinary mission be received when disowned by the ordinary authority which is in the Church of Our Lord. For (1) we are obliged to obey our ordinary pastors under pain of being heathens and publicans, (Matt. 18:17); how then can we place ourselves under other discipline than theirs? Extraordinaries would come in vain, since we should be obliged to refuse to listen to them, in the case that they were, as I have said, disowned by the ordinaries. (2) God is not the author of dissension, but of union and peace, (1Cor. 14:33), principally among His disciples and Church ministers, as Our Lord clearly shows in the holy prayer He made to His Father in the last days of His mortal life, (John 17). How then should he authorize two sorts of pastors, the one extraordinary the other ordinary? …There would then be two different churches, which is contrary to the most pure word of Our Lord, who has but one spouse, one sole dove …Therefore to try and make in the Church this division of ordinary and extraordinary is to ruin and destroy it…An extraordinary vocation is never legitimate where it is disproved of by the ordinary…Where will you every show me a legitimate extraordinary vocation which has not been received by the ordinary authority? …The vocation of pastors and Church rulers must be made visibly.”

Msgr. G. Van Noort 

To put this in more modern terms, we turn to Rev. G. Van Noort, whose works Rev. J. C. Fenton lauded as “of prime importance.” In his De ecclesia Christi, Van Noort writes: Since the original Protestants obviously lacked apostolicity of government, they took refuge in an appeal to the theory of an “extraordinary mission.” To put it briefly, they maintained that God could at some time raise up a group of men by an extraordinary vocation and confer on them apostolic functions if current apostolic pastors should become viciously corrupt. This was the case, they asserted, with Luther and the other reformers. It is clear, however, if any such extraordinary mission were ever to be granted by God, it would have to be proven by miracles, or other clearly divine trademarks. The plain truth is, however, that Christ’s own promises completely rule out the possibility of any such extraordinary mission. Understand now, we are talking about a mission by which a man absolutely apart from and utterly independent of apostolic succession would receive from God the power to rule (or reform) * the Church. Christ conferred sacred powers on His apostles and their successors until the end of the world. Further, He promised them His perpetual and unfailing assistance. Consequently Christ would be contradicting Himself were He ever to deprive the legitimate successors of the apostles of their authority.

“Granted that fact, it would be a further contradiction for God to confer the same power or a similar power on other men who were not in union with the ordinary successors. In that hypothesis there would be two separate and independent sources of authority, both demanding, by divine right, obedience from the same subjects. The only thing that could result in such an hypothesis would be confusion and schism in Christ’s Church. And in that event, one would imply that God Himself, who willed His Church to be unified, was Himself sowing the seeds of necessary division. From another point of view, God has no need of extraordinary legates, in the sense claimed above, to preserve His Church from corruption. Apostolicity of membership means that the Church in any given age is and remains numerically the same society as that planted by the apostles. It was stated above that the Church’s government is necessarily apostolic: in brief, the college of bishops who rule it always forms one and the same juridical person with the apostolic college (see no. 119, 2). Here it is asserted that the entire membership of the Church is likewise apostolic.

“…What is required for genuine apostolic succession is that a man enjoy the complete powers (i.e., ordinary powers, not extraordinary) of an apostle. He must, then, in addition to the power of orders, possess also the power of jurisdiction. Jurisdiction means the power to teach and govern. This power is conferred only by a legitimate authorization and, even though once received, can be lost again by being revoked. Now two methods suggest themselves for proving that this or that bishop is a legitimate successor of the apostles.

a.) The first method is to demonstrate by historical documents that the man in question is connected with one of the original apostles by a never-interrupted line of predecessors in the same office. One must also prove that in this total line no one of his predecessors either acquired his position illicitly, or even though he may have acquired it legitimately, ever lost it. For a purely physical succession proves nothing at all. To move into the White House by physical force would not make a man president of the United States. It is easy to see how lengthy and extremely complicated such a method of procedure would be. Christianity is nearly 2,000 years old. Indeed, in many cases it would be quite impossible to proceed along these lines because of a lack of documentary evidence.
b.) The second method is quite brief. First one locates the legitimate successor of the man whom Christ Himself established as the head and leader of the entire apostolic college. Once that has been done we can find out whether the particular bishop under scrutiny is united to Peter’s successor and is acknowledged by him as a genuine successor in the apostolic office. It is easy enough to investigate these two points; it is also a perfectly satisfactory method of procedure.”

And in this case the procedure cannot identify anyone, be they Traditionalists or conclavists proper, as (certainly) valid and licit successors of the Apostles in communion with the Holy See. Since all that the Church teaches contradicts the possibility that they could have received such jurisdiction extraordinarily — and we know by Traditionalists own admission that they do not possess ordinary or delegated jurisdiction — these men are unlawful pastors, cannot say Mass or administer Sacraments and are not able to function as clerics. This may be a sad and upsetting conclusion for many but it is absolutely de fide Church teaching and as such cannot be contradicted without placing oneself outside the Church, (see DZ 967). Unless they are “rightly ordained” and sent by the proper ecclesiastical authority, they are not lawful, and to say they are lawful and may preach and administer Sacraments contradicts de fide teaching. This is true also of conclavists who claim “popes” elected by laymen or illicit clergy are successors of the Apostles. Only bishops validly and licitly ordained who receive their jurisdiction from the pope may exercise their Divine jurisdiction and delegate it to validly and licitly ordained priests. Only popes legitimately and canonically elected by the proper ecclesiastical authority and accepted by the faithful, the Church teaches, are considered true popes.

Conclusion

In the final analysis, it was never delegated jurisdiction that was the real issue with either traditionalists or conclavists. The issue was the definition of Divine jurisdiction and the manner of its transference. It hinged on Christ’s two-fold promise to the Church: that both the papacy and the hierarchy would last until the consummation, as He constituted them. Trads believe the Church could survive indefinitely without the papacy; Concalvists believe the papacy was sufficient unto itself and that the pope could rule the Church indefinitely without hierarchy. Both the “solution” of Traditionalists — to invoke extraordinary mission demanded by the faithful’s request for the Sacraments minus the papacy, and the Conclavists — who in insisting that the papacy could be restored without the hierarchy — violated Divine law: that the Church, exactly as She was constituted by Christ would last until the consummation.

Rev. Adolphe Tanquerey, in his Dogmatic Brevior writes: “For [the Church] was founded by the Blessed Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, and governed by the Pontiffs, who hold in lawful and unbroken succession the authority bestowed on the Blessed Peter and promised to his successors by Christ…The successors of the Apostles as regards the power of teaching, ruling and sanctifying the faithful are the bishops collectively taken, who have their authority by Divine right. The thesis is historically certain and theologically de fide, being proposed as an object of faith by the ordinary magisterium.” As Pope Pius XII teaches, however both in Mystici Corporis Christi and Ad apostolorum principis, bishops may not exercise their rights unless authorized by the Roman Pontiff, since Peter was made head of the Apostles by Christ. As Rev. J. C. Fenton reminds us, if theologians like Rev. Tanquerery could be wrong, then the Church has failed in Her mission, since Tanquerey’s works were used for decades to train priests worldwide. Revs. Devivier and Sasia join him in reiterating Christ’s own teaching: “Jesus Christ wished and disposed that the powers which He confided to His Apostles should be transmitted by them to their successors until the end of time,” (de fide from the Vatican Council). That an Apostolic succession is essential for the discernment of the true Church the Fathers unanimously teach…Jurisdiction itself dwells at all times in the heads of the Church, and is always transmitted according to the canonical rules in force at the time. Whosoever, therefore, has not received jurisdiction according to those rules…remains without it…”

This succession is sadly lacking among Traditionalists and conclavists alike; none can lay claim to any but doubtfully valid orders and all lack any semblance of canonical or Divine jurisdiction. This according to the constant teaching of the Church in Her ordinary magisterium. Somewhere true bishops and priests exist; We have Christ’s word for it. If remaining priests and bishops following the false V2 council had not been so eager to establish their own little popedoms; if they had followed the guidelines left by Pope Pius XII and other theologians, the crisis in the Church would have been over long ago.

Spiritual Sacraments, Mass of St. John

by T. Stanfill Benns | Jun 27, 2022

What is the Mass of St. John?

The Mass of St. John was first promoted by Rev. Mateo Crawley-Boevey, a native of Peru, who joined the Congregation of the Sacred Heart straight out of high school. He was a tireless Apostle for the Sacred Heart of Jesus. Pope Benedict XV approved his mission and Pope Pius XI sent him to the Far East to sanctify priests there. He spent four years in the United States, offering retreats for the clergy and promoting one of his fondest devotions: enthronement of the Sacred Heart in Catholic homes. Rev. Crawley-Boevey often prayed the Mass of St. John during his travels and offers a brief history and explanation of this important devotion in his work, Jesus, King of Love: “I call this practice ‘the Mass of St. John’ only to give it a title. It is really Jesus’ Mass. What was the Mass offered by Jesus? The Mass offered by Jesus at the Last Supper was the most simple of Masses, the shortest of Masses, lasting but a few minutes. St. John’s Mass, as he offered it for Our Lady, was the same — short, simple… and consisting of the same three elements, the same three prayers: Offertory, Consecration, Communion. That is enough. That is Mass. All the rest is a frame… This is the great prayer, the most wonderful of prayers… You may have your private devotions, certainly. But that all of them may become divine, priceless — the Rosary and the rest — put them as a drop of water in the chalice of your Mass…Place all your miseries and failings as a drop of water into the chalice every morning. ”

Pope Pius XII teaches in his encyclical Mediator Dei, that for the Sacrifice to have its full effect, the faithful must unite their sacrifices to those of the priest in Holy Mass. The people must “offer themselves as victims…This offering is not in fact confined merely to the liturgical Sacrifice. For the Prince of the Apostles wishes us, as living stones built upon Christ the cornerstone, to be able, ‘as a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ,’” (I Peter 2:5). St. Paul also tells Christians, Pius says, “’Present your bodies [as] a living sacrifice, holy, pleasing unto God, your reasonable service.’” In this way, Pope Pius XII explains, Catholics unite themselves to Jesus, High Priest, and through Him they offer themselves as a spiritual sacrifice. This, then, is the rationale for the Mass of St. John.

Examination of Conscience

(Prior to Mass, as one would were the Mass available, all examine their consciences and together say the Act of Contrition. Below is a good examination of conscience for adults.)

In the Name of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.  R/ Amen.

I will draw near to Thy altar, O my God, there to gain new strength and vigor to my soul.  Separate me from those unbelievers who have no trust in Thee; grant me that grace which conforms me when the remembrance of my sins afflicts and casts me down — that grace which lets me know there is an everlasting refuge in Thy goodness, and that Thou art ready to forgive even our greatest sins upon sincere repentance. O Lord, help me to remember my sins, so that I can be sorry for them, root out their cause and resolve to sin no more.  Amen.

Prayer before Confession:

O Lord, grant me light to see myself as Thou dost see me, and the grace to be truly and efficaciously contrite for my sins. O Mary, help me to make a good confession. Amen.

Act of Contrition

(St. Thomas Aquinas tells us to prepare for Spiritual Communion by first making acts of Faith, Hope and Charity, then the Act of Contrition. Those who wish may also say the Fatima prayers given to the children by the Angel of Peace, below).

Perfect Act of Contrition

O my God I am heartily sorry for having offended Thee and I detest all my sins because I dread the loss of Heaven and the pains of Hell. But most of all because they offend Thee, my God, who art all good and deserving of all my love. I firmly resolve, with the help of Thy grace, to confess my sins, to do penance and to amend my life. Amen. (Remain kneeling following the recitation of the Act of Contrition by all in common.)

Fatima prayers

“Most Holy Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Ghost, I adore thee profoundly and offer the most precious Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ, [once] present in all the tabernacles of the earth, in reparation for the outrages, sacrileges and indifference with which He Himself is offended. And through the infinite merits of His Most Sacred Heart and of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, I beg of thee the conversion of poor sinners.” The Angel also told the children to make reparation to Our Lord before receiving Him by reciting this prayer three times: “O my God, I believe, I adore, I hope in and I love Thee, and I beg pardon for all those who do not believe, do not adore, do not hope in and do not love Thee.”

Mass of St. John

 (Most pray-at-home Catholics use Goffine’s Devout Instructions for Sundays and Holydays. This work is available on the Catacomb Catholics site or download at: https://openlibrary.org/books/OL7216121M/Goffine’s_Devout_instructions_on_the_Epistles_and_Gospels_for_the_Sundays_and_holydays. All the prayers below are taken from approved books and prayer books)

Preparatory prayer

As I cannot this day enjoy the happiness of assisting at the Holy Mysteries, O my God, I transport myself to the foot of Thine altar; I unite with the Church, which, by the hand of Thy faithful ministers, offers Thee Thine adorable Son. I offer myself with Him, by Him and in His name. I adore, I praise and I thank Thee, imploring Thy mercy, invoking Thine assistance, and presenting Thee the homage I owe Thee as my Creator, the love due to Thee as my Savior. Apply to my soul I beseech Thee, O merciful Jesus, Thine infinite merits; apply them also to those for whom I particularly wish to pray. I desire to communicate spiritually that Thy Blood may purify, Thy Flesh strengthen and Thy spirit sanctify me. May I never forget that Thou, my Divine Redeemer, hast died for me; may I die to all that is not Thee that hereafter I may live eternally with Thee. Amen.

Before the Gospel and Epistle (From The Baltimore Book of Prayers)

Incomprehensible Creator, the true fountain of light and the only author of all knowledge, vouchsafe we beseech Thee to enlighten our understandings, and to remove from us all darkness of sin and ignorance. Give us a diligent and obedient spirit, quickness of apprehension, capacity of retaining and the powerful assistance of Thy holy grace; that what we hear or learn we may apply to Thy honor and the eternal salvation of our own souls. (Be seated for the Epistle) At the Epistle’s end, the congregations says: Deo gratias. (After the Gradual is read, please stand for the Gospel) Reader: The beginning of the holy Gospel according to St. ….. Congregation: Gloria tibi Domine At the Gospel’s end, the congregation says: Laus tibi Christi. (Be seated for the sermon. To find an old book of sermons on the Gospel and Epistle search under Goffines on the web.) At the end of the sermon, please stand for the Apostles Creed: ”I believe in God, the Father Almighty…” (At the end of this prayer, please kneel.)

From the Canon of the Mass

Accept, O Holy Father, Almighty and Eternal God, this spotless host, which I, Thy unworthy servant, offer unto Thee, my living and true God, to atone for my numberless sins and offenses, and negligences; on behalf of all here present and likewise for all faithful Christians living and dead, that it may profit both me and them as a means of salvation unto life everlasting.  Amen.

We offer Thee, O Lord, the chalice of salvation, humbly begging of Thy mercy that it may arise before Thy divine Majesty, with a pleasing fragrance, for our salvation and for that of the whole world.  Amen.

Consecration of the Bread — Who, the day before He suffered, took bread into His holy and venerable hands and having raised His eyes to heaven, unto Thee, O God, His Almighty Father, giving thanks to Thee, He blessed it, broke it, and gave it to His disciples, saying: Take ye all and eat of this: For this is My Body (My Lord and My God – ring the bell three times)

Consecration of the Wine — In like manner, when the supper was done, taking also this goodly chalice into His holy and venerable hands, again giving thanks to Thee, He blessed it, and gave it to His disciples, saying: Take ye all, and drink of this: For this is the Chalice of My Blood of the new and eternal covenant; the mystery of faith, which shall be shed for you and for many unto the forgiveness of sins.

As often as you shall do these things, in memory of Me shall you do them. (Most precious blood of Jesus, have mercy on us – ring the bell three times).

Ecce Agnus Dei, ecce qui tollis pecatta mundi (Lamb of God, Who takest away the sins of the world…) Domine non sum dignus, ut intres sub tectem meam, sit tantum dic verbo et sanabitur anima mea. (Lord, I am not worthy that Thou shouldst come under my roof; but only say the word, and my soul shall be healed, three times)

Spiritual Communion

(Now pause so that all can make a private spiritual communion and thanksgiving. The following may be used): My Jesus, I believe that Thou art in the Blessed Sacrament.  I love Thee above all things and I long for Thee in my soul.  Since I cannot now receive Thee sacramentally, come at least spiritually into my heart.  As though Thou art already come, I embrace Thee and unite myself entirely to Thee; never permit me to be separated from Thee. Oh Jesus, truly present in the most Holy Sacrament of the altar, I love Thee above all things and I long for Thee in my soul. Since I cannot now receive Thee sacramentally, I beseech Thee to come at least spiritually into my soul and dwell with me forever. I in Thee and Thou in me, in time and in eternity, in Mary, Amen. (St. Alphonsus Liguori)

Prayers of Thanksgiving

(Privately)

• Anima Christi
• Acts of Reparation
• Prayer Before a Crucifix

(A Eucharistic hymn may be sung)

Closing

Oh God, who justifiest the ungodly and willest not the death of a sinner: we humbly entreat Thy Majesty to protect Thy servants who trust in Thy mercy, with Thy heavenly assistance, and preserve them by Thy continual protection; that they may constantly serve Thee, and by no temptation be separated from Thee. (Baltimore Book of Prayers)

Prayers for the Conversion of Russia / the Church Suffering

Say three Hail Marys, then: Hail, Holy Queen, Mother of Mercy, our life, our sweetness, and our hope!  To thee do we cry, poor banished children of Eve; to thee do we send up our sighs, mourning and weeping in this valley of tears.  Turn then, most gracious advocate, thine eyes of mercy towards us; and after this our exile, show unto us the blessed fruit of thy womb, Jesus.  O clement, O loving, O sweet Virgin Mary.

V/ Pray for us, O holy Mother of God.

R/ That we may be made worthy of the promises of Christ.

V/ Let us pray. 

O God, our refuge and our strength, look down in mercy on Thy people who cry to Thee; and by the intercession of the glorious and Immaculate Virgin Mary, Mother of God, of St. Joseph her spouse, of Thy blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and of all the Saints, in mercy and goodness hear our prayers for the conversion of sinners, and for the liberty and exaltation of our holy mother the Church.  Through the same Christ our Lord.   R/ Amen. V/ Holy Michael, the Archangel, defend us in battle; be our safeguard against the wickedness and snares of the devil.  May God rebuke him we humbly pray; and do Thou, Prince of the heavenly host, by the power of God cast into hell Satan and all the evil spirits, who wander through the world seeking the ruin of souls.  R/  Amen.

V/ Most Sacred Heart of Jesus.  R/ Have mercy on us.  Three times

Spiritual Mass 1

THE METHOD OF HEARING MASS SPIRITUALLY FOR THE ABSENT

(Adapted from The Key of Heaven) If because of lack of a sacred minister or for other grave cause participation in the celebration of the Holy Eucharist is impossible, it is specially recommended that the faithful engage in prayer for an appropriate amount of time personally or in a family or, as occasion offers, in groups of families. It often happens that Catholics who are at a distance from a church, or because of illness or some other unavoidable impediment, may be unable to hear Mass on Sundays and holy days of obligation. Grave causes may excuse bodily presence, but do not dispense us from uniting ourselves in spirit to those who actually enjoy the happiness of being in God’s holy temple. The Sundays and Feasts were instituted by the Church that we may render unto God that worship that we owe Him every moment of our lives. This worship includes first the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, and it is offered for us even when we are not actually present. But to enjoy the benefits that it procures, we must by a spiritual Communion become partakers of the altar from which we are temporarily banished. Excite a desire of visiting the house of God, and let the whole family kneel before a crucifix, a statue of the Blessed Virgin, or a pious picture. Then, transporting themselves in spirit before the altar where Mass is being celebrated, let them endeavour to follow the service there performed.

Form of Making a Good Intention Before Holy Mass

(To be used when, by reasonable cause, one is hindered from going to church.) I believe, Lord Jesus, that in the Last Supper Thou didst offer up a true sacrifice; I believe it because Thou hast made it known to us through the Catholic Church, which from apostolic times has constantly taught the same to us. Since Thou didst command the Apostles and the priests ordained by them to do the same until the end of time, I, therefore, offer to Thee with the priest this Holy Sacrifice of the Mass (which I believe to be one with that offered on Mount Calvary) to Thy honour and glory, in acknowledgement of my most bounden service, in thanksgiving for the innumerable benefits which Thou hast conferred upon me and upon the whole world, in satisfaction for my sins and the sins of all mankind, and for obtaining the grace of perfect contrition for my sins. I also offer to Thee this Holy Mass for my friends and benefactors, and for those to whom I am bound, and for whom Thou wilt me to pray. I also offer it for my enemies, that they may be converted, for all the faithful departed, particularly for my parents and relatives and for the welfare of all Christendom.

Prayers During the Time of Divine Service

Heartfelt Desire to Participate in the Holy Sacrifice

Most Holy Trinity, God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, almighty Source of all things, my best Father, my merciful Redeemer, the Fountain of my sanctification and happiness, I, Thy most unworthy creature, venture to appear before Thee, to show Thee, my true God and Creator, all honour, adoration, and trustful submission; to thank Thee for the innumerable benefits which I have received from Thee, to praise Thee for Thy glory (for I am created for Thy praise); to implore Thy mercies; and to appease Thy justice, because I have so often and so grievously sinned against Thee. All this I cannot do in a worthier and more perfect manner than by hearing, with faith and devotion, Holy Mass. For in that Holy Sacrifice is offered to Thee the most sublime Sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, the most efficacious sacrifice of supplication and propitiation, the most worthy Sacrifice of salvation for the living and dead.

But because I cannot this day be present bodily at Holy Mass, I will, at least in spirit, place myself before the altar where Jesus Christ, in an unbloody manner, offers Himself, O Heavenly Father, to Thee. With this glorious Sacrifice I unite my present prayer; I fervently desire, united with the Son of God, in the strongest manner to praise, love, supplicate Thee, O Heavenly Father, to repair all the wrong and shame that I have wrought, and completely to accomplish all that can be accomplished by the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. To this end give me Thy divine grace, and grant that I may perform all this with sincere devotion. Amen. Contrition for Sins, with

Faith and Confidence in Jesus Christ and an Offering up of His Precious Merits

Holy Father, I confess with sorrow that I have seldom served Thee with an undivided heart, but rather have often offended Thee, and by my slothfulness and neglect have brought upon myself infinitely great guilt before Thee. I, therefore, take refuge in the merits of Thy Beloved Son, now present upon the altar, Who so freely commends and imparts to us His grace and favour. In the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, Jesus Christ offers to Thee for me the highest veneration and love, the most perfect praise, the most hearty thanksgiving, and the most kind expiation. For the perfect forgiveness of my sins, O Heavenly Father, I offer up to Thee the whole suffering and death of Jesus Christ, which are now, in an unbloody manner, renewed upon the altar. O most benign Father, Thy Son has suffered and died even for me, a poor sinner. With thankful love I bring before Thee, as a precious and pleasing offering, the infinite merits of His suffering and death.

I firmly trust that, on account of this inestimable sacrifice of Thy Son, Thou wilt increase in me Thy graces. Amen. O Father of mercies, and God of all consolation, to Thee I turn for help and grace. Graciously look upon my misery and wretchedness, and let my supplications come before Thee. That I may the more surely be heard by Thee, I appear before the throne of Thy grace, which, for our salvation, is set up in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, where the innocent Lamb of God is mysteriously offered up to Thee, Holy Father, Almighty God, for the remission of our sins. Regard, I beseech Thee, the innocence of this holy Sacrifice, and for the sake thereof extend to me Thy mercy.

O my Saviour, how great is that love of Thine for me, which, to make satisfaction for my sins and to gain me the grace of Thy Father, impelled Thee to endure for me such bitter pains, and even death itself! How great is yet that love of Thine for me which causes Thee, in every Holy Mass to renew, in an unbloody manner, Thy death of propitiation, in order to apply and communicate to me Thy merits! With my whole heart I thank Thee for this, Thy great love, and from the depths of my soul, I beseech Thee to make me a partaker of the fruit of it and to strengthen and confirm me by the grace of the Holy Ghost, that I may detest sin and all unholy living, that I may crucify my flesh, with all its passions, deny myself, and follow in Thy footsteps, that all my thoughts and words, all that I do or leave undone, may be a living service of God and a sacrifice well pleasing to Him. As Thou hast offered up to Thy Heavenly Father Thyself, so take me also in the arms of Thy love and mercy, and present me, a poor erring sinner, as an offering to Thy Father, and let me no more be separated from His love. Amen.

Adoration of the Most Holy Body and Blood of Jesus Christ Under the Appearance of Bread and Wine

O most holy Jesus, before Thee the heavenly choirs kneel and adore; with them I lift up my voice and cry: Holy, holy, holy, art Thou, O Lord of hosts. Heaven and earth are full of Thy grace and glory. Thou art present, O Jesus, under the appearance of bread and wine. Hear, O hear my prayer! I strike my breast and confess my unworthiness, but with firm confidence I implore Thee, O Jesus, be merciful to me! O most benign Jesus, forgive me my sins! O holy Blood, wash me from my sins!

O precious Blood of Jesus, O Blood of Jesus, rich in grace, cry out to heaven for mercy upon me! Most holy God, receive this precious Blood, together with the love through which it was shed; receive it as an offering of my love and thankfulness, for the forgiveness of my sins; in satisfaction of the punishments that I have deserved; for the washing away of the stains of my guilt, as reparation for all my neglects, and as amendment for all the sins which I have committed through ignorance or frailty; receive it also as a sacrifice for the consolation of the afflicted; for the conversion of sinners; for the recovery of the sick and suffering; for the strengthening of those who draw near to death; for the refreshment, purification, and deliverance of the souls of the departed in Purgatory. Amen.

Unshaken Confidence in Jesus Christ

To Thee, O most benign Jesus, I lift up my eyes and my heart. Oh, turn upon me Thy gracious countenance and Thy true love. Behold, O Lord, my manifest need, and the great danger of my soul. Receive me, O Thou Who art my only true mediator and helper! Be Thou, through the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, my salvation, and obtain for me the entire remission of my sins. Oh, represent to Thy Father how cruelly Thou wast scourged, crowned, crucified, and put to death for us, and thereby reconcile with the strict justice of God me, a miserable sinner. Amen. Pater Noster. Ave Maria.

He Who Asks in the Name of Jesus Shall Receive

O Lamb of God, Who didst suffer for us, miserable sinners, have mercy upon me, and offer up to the Father Thy Passion for the forgiveness of my sins! O Lamb of God, Who didst die for us, miserable sinners, have mercy upon me, and offer up to God Thy death in satisfaction for my sins! O Lamb of God, Who didst sacrifice Thyself for us, miserable sinners, have mercy upon me, and offer up Thy holy Blood to the Father for the cleansing of my soul! Heavenly Father, I offer up to Thee this precious and most worthy oblation. My sins are more in number than the hairs of my head, but, O just and merciful God, lay this precious offering in the one scale and my sins in the other, and that will far outweigh my guilt. O merciful, O holy God, give me Thy blessing before I end my prayer, and through this blessing let me obtain grace at once to begin to amend my life, and renounce whatever is sinful and displeasing to Thee. Support me in my weakness, strengthen me when temptations assail me, and let me never forget that Thou art near me. O precious day! but perhaps the last of my life! O happy day! if it shall make me better! Holy Mother of God, Mary, holy Angels and friends of God, pray for me and lead me in the way of truth. O God, grant Thy love to the living and Thy peace to the dead. Amen. (Say here the Canon of the Mass and Consecration prayers as provided in Method 1.)

Act of Spiritual Communion in Union With the Sacrifice of the Mass When We Cannot Assist at It

(To the faithful who make an act of spiritual Communion, using any formula they may choose, there is granted an indulgence of three years. A plenary indulgence once a month on the usual conditions when the Act is performed every day of the month. Granted by the Sacred Apostolic Penitentiary, March 7, 1927, and February 25, 1933.)

As I cannot this day enjoy the happiness of assisting at the holy Mysteries, O my God! I transport myself in spirit to the foot of Thine altar; I unite with the Church, which, by the hands of the priest, offers Thee Thine adorable Son; I offer myself with Him, by Him, and in His Name. I adore, I praise, and I thank Thee, imploring Thy mercy, invoking Thine assistance, and presenting Thee the homage I owe Thee as my Creator, the love due to Thee as my Saviour. Apply to my soul, I beseech Thee, O merciful Jesus, Thine infinite merits; apply them also to those for whom I particularly wish to pray. I desire to communicate spiritually, that Thy Blood may purify, Thy Flesh strengthen, and Thy spirit sanctify me. May I never forget that Thou, my divine Redeemer, hast died for me; may I die to all that is not Thee, that hereafter I may live eternally with Thee. Amen. Another

Act of Spiritual Communion By St. Alphonsus Maria de Liguori

My Jesus, I believe that Thou art present in the Blessed Sacrament. I love Thee above all things, and I desire Thee in my soul. Since I cannot now receive Thee sacramentally, come at least spiritually into my heart. As though Thou wert already there, I embrace Thee and unite myself wholly to Thee; permit not that I should ever be separated from Thee. Another Act of Spiritual Communion By Raphael Cardinal Merry del Val At Thy feet, O my Jesus, I prostrate myself, and I offer Thee the repentance of my contrite heart, which is humbled in its nothingness and in Thy holy presence. I adore Thee in the Sacrament of Thy love, the ineffable Eucharist. I desire to receive Thee into the poor dwelling that my heart offers Thee. While waiting for the happiness of sacramental Communion, I wish to possess Thee in spirit. Come to me, O my Jesus, since I, for my part, am coming to Thee! May Thy love embrace my whole being in life and in death. I believe in Thee, I hope in Thee, I love Thee. Amen.

Baptism

(see Baptism under the heading: If you are New to this Site)

Confirmation

This Sacrament is a completion of the Sacrament of Baptism. As we read in the Catechism of the Council of Trent, (by Revs. McHugh and Callan), Pope Melchiades describes the difference between the two as follows: “’In Baptism man is enlisted into the service, in Confirmation he is equipped for battle; at the baptismal font the Holy Ghost imparts fullness to accomplish innocence, but in Confirmation He ministers perfection to grace; in Baptism we are generated unto life, after Baptism we are fortified for the combat; in Baptism we are cleansed, after Baptism we are strengthened; regeneration of itself saves those who receive Baptism in time of peace, Confirmation arms and makes ready for conflicts.’ Confirmation has not been instituted as necessary to salvation, but that by virtue thereof we may be found very well armed and prepared when called upon to fight for the faith of Christ; and for this conflict no one assuredly will consider children who as yet lack use of reason to be qualified.”

Those receiving this Sacrament before the opening of the first session of the false Vatican 2 council probably received it validly although perhaps illicitly. If the bishop conferring the Sacrament was consecrated during Pius XII’s reign, they received it validly and licitly. If John 23^rd reappointed the bishop to the diocese where the Sacrament was received after Pope Pius XII’s death, they would have possibly received it illicitly. Today there are no bishops to confer this Sacrament. But if even Penance and Holy Eucharist can be received spiritually, it does not seem that Confirmation would be any exception. The usual age for young Catholics to receive Confirmation is anytime after receiving Holy Communion, but normally those around age 11 received this Sacrament. If in a home atmosphere the child was instructed about the meaning and importance of Confirmation then directed to ask our Lord to appoint some heavenly bishop to convey it — using the words of the rite, asking for those graces and adopting a special saint’s name — then the Sacrament may be received by desire in this way. For did not our Lord tell us: “Ask and you shall receive?” It is no coincidence that those calling themselves Catholics today are so weak, for so many of them, regardless of the belief they have received this Sacrament from Traditionalist bishops, remain without it. They are neither prepared nor willing to fight, nor do they possess the weapons necessary to engage in battle.

The Holy Eucharist — Spiritual Communion

The Saints on Spiritual Communion

St. Leonard of Port Maurice — “In order to make a good spiritual Communion, be recollected, make an act of true contrition, and then awaken within you those sentiments of love and confidence which you are accustomed to have at your sacramental Communion. Join to all that a heartfelt longing to receive Jesus Christ, Who is hidden under the sacramental forms and appearances. To heighten still further your devotion, imagine that the Blessed Virgin or your guardian angel is presenting to you the sacred Host. Repeat the words: “Come, my Jesus. Thou love and life of my soul, come into my poor heart; come and quiet my longings, come and sanctify me; yes, come, O sweet Jesus, come and abide with me forever.” Then be silent, and see within yourself your merciful God, the same as if you had actually received Him in the Blessed Sacrament; adore Him, thank Him, awaken within you all those sacred aspirations which you are in the habit of awaking at your regular Communion.

St. Juliana Falconieri  — This saint had reached the age of seventy years; virtuous as she had ever been, she was tried by deep afflictions. She was prostrated with an incurable weakness of the stomach. At last she could not retain a particle of food — was totally deprived of the consolation of receiving the ever-blessed body of her Lord, which she could not receive even as Holy viaticum. This privation caused her inexpressible grief, and so great was her mourning and weeping that it seemed as if she must die of sorrow. At last she begged her father-confessor in the most humble terms to bring the Blessed Sacrament near her. He promised to comply with her request. When he appeared carrying the Blessed Sacrament, she prostrated herself in the form of a cross before her Lord, and adored Him. Her countenance became bright like an angel’s. Then she begged for permission to touch the Blessed Sacrament with her lips, but this could not be permitted. Then she begged the priest to lay a veil on her longing, burning breast, and to place the Blessed Sacrament on it, that she might at least receive her Jesus in a spiritual Communion. This wish was complied with, when, lo! hardly had the sacred Host touched her fervent breast than it disappeared suddenly, and could be found no more. A moment afterwards St. Juliana departed this life, with a smile on her features.

St. Alphonsus Liguori — “I advise every one who desires to grow in love for Jesus to communicate in this spiritual manner at least once a day… This devotion is far more salutary than many suppose, while at the same time it is very easy of practice.”(The section above was excerpted from http://catholicharboroffaithandmorals.com/Communion.html )

From “The Spiritual Combat” by Fr. Dom Lorenzo Scupoli

“Although a real communion is at the oftenest restrained to once a day, yet you are at liberty, as was said above, to communicate in spirit every hour; and nothing but your own negligence can prevent your receiving this great benefit. And it is worth observing, that a spiritual communion is sometimes of greater advantage to the soul, and more acceptable to God, than many sacramental communions performed with little preparation and affection. When, therefore, you are disposed to receive the Son of God spiritually, be sure he is ready to give Himself thus to you for your food and nourishment. By way of preparation, turn your thoughts toward Jesus, and after a little reflection on the multitude of your sins, declare to him your sincere sorrow for them. Then beg of him with the most profound respect and lively faith, that he will condescend to enter your heart, and replenish it with a new grace, as a remedy against its weakness and the violence of its enemies.

“Every time you mortify any of your passions, or perform some act of virtue, take that opportunity of preparing your heart for the Son of God, who continually demands it of you; then for addressing yourself to him, beg, with great fervour, the blessing of his presence, as the physician of your soul, as a powerful protector to take and keep possession of your heart against all opponents. Call likewise to mind your last sacramental communion; and inflamed with the love of your Saviour, say to him: when shall I receive thee again, O my God? When will the happy day return? But if you desire to communicate, spiritually, with greater devotion, begin to prepare for it every night; and let every mortification and each act of virtue you practice, tend to prepare you for receiving, in spirit, your amiable Redeemer.

“In the morning when you awake, meditate on the great advantages accruing from a holy communion, in which the soul retrieves lost virtues, recovers her former purity, is rendered worthy to partake of the merits of the cross, and performs an action highly pleasing to the eternal Father, who desires that everyone should enjoy this divine sacrament. From hence endeavour to excite in your soul an ardent desire of receiving Him in compliance with His will; and with this disposition say: Lord, since I am not allowed to receive Thee this day sacramentally, let Thy goodness and almighty power so order it, that cleansed from the stain of sin, and healed of all my wounds, I may deserve to receive Thee in spirit, now, each day and hour; to the end that being strengthened with new grace, I may courageously resist my enemies, especially that failing, against which, for the love of thee, I now wage war.”

From The Blessed Eucharist, by Rev. Michael Mueller

Rev. Mueller relates in his work that St. Catherine of Siena at one point in her life was forbidden to communicate. But her desire to receive Communion was so intense that the smallest particle from the Host, being broken at the altar into three pieces by her confessor, St. Raymund Pennafort, flew from the altar to rest on St. Catherine’s tongue. Our Lord assured St. Raymund that this miracle was a reward for her intense desire to receive Him. Rev. Mueller tells us: “[Our Lord] displays a similar love toward anyone who has a true desire to be united to Him. As soon as a soul ardently desires to receive Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament, He comes to satisfy her desire, not as he did to St. Catherine, under the Sacramental species, but by the way of Spiritual Communion. This devotion is so full of grace and consolation that everyone should know how to practice it… “Spiritual Communion, according to St. Thomas, consists in an ardent desire to receive Our Lord Jesus Christ in the Most Holy Sacrament. It is performed by making an act of faith…and then an act of love, and an act of contrition for having offended Him. The soul then invites Him to come and unite Himself to her and make her entirely His own; and lastly she thanks Him as if she had really received Him sacramentally,” [and here Mueller gives the common form of Spiritual Communion].

“Our Lord Himself told St. Jane [Joanna] of the Cross that as often as she communicated spiritually, she received a grace similar to that received from her Sacramental Communions. He also appeared to St. Paula Maresca, foundress of the convent of St. Catherine of Siena at Naples, with two vessels, one of silver and one of gold, and told her that in the golden vessel He preserved her Sacramental Communions and in the silver vessel her spiritual Communions. The Fathers of the Church go so far as to say that one who has a very great desire for Communion, accompanied with great reverence and humility, may sometimes receive even more graces than another who, without these dispositions, should actually receive Our Lord in the Sacramental species; for as the Psalmist says: ‘The Lord hears the desire of the poor and fills their heart with good things.’

“The advantages of this mode of Communion are very great. To practice it, you will not need to go to church or make a long preparation or remain fasting; you will not need to ask the permission of your confessor, or to seek a priest to give it to you as in Holy Communion. Hence the venerable Jane of the Cross used to say: ‘O my Lord, what an excellent mode of receiving without being seen or remarked, without giving trouble to my spiritual father, or depending on anyone but Thee, who in solitude dost nourish my soul and speak to my heart.’ “Spiritual Communion you may receive as often as you please. St. Alphonsus advises one who wishes to lead a devout life to make Spiritual Communions at his meditations, at his visits to the Blessed Sacrament and whenever he hears Mass. But especially he should multiply them on the eve of his Communions because, as Fr. Faber of the Society of Jesus remarks, they are the most powerful means necessary to obtain the dispositions necessary for a good Communion. The Saints were much addicted to this devotion.

The Blue Army

The Blue Army has advocated the “Eucharistic Rosary” for many years, a rosary offering a Spiritual Communion with each recitation of the Hail Mary. “A simple desire, no matter how brief, suffices to constitute a Spiritual Communion. Obviously the deeper and more fervent the desire, the more fruitful the Communion. No particular formula is required. Our Lord once said to St. Mechtilde: “Every time you desire Me, you draw me to you.” In every rosary we say, we can make 53 Spiritual Communions. How? By simply making the Holy Name “Jesus” in each Hail Mary a formula for a Spiritual Communion. “Call Me and I will come to thee,” said Our Lord to the Cistercian St. Ida. All this we can do mentally, but if we so desire we can externalize our interior desire by bowing our head, or pressing the beads to our heart each time we pronounce the name Jesus with the intention of drawing Him spiritually into our soul…The Rosary is the great mystical chain binding all hearts to the Hearts of Jesus and Mary. The Rosary is the great SPIRITUAL COMMUNION.”

Penance —The Perfect Act of Contrition

Perfect contrition without the sacrament

Regarding that contrition which has for its motive the love of God, the Council of Trent declares: “The Council further teaches that, though contrition may sometimes be made perfect by charity and may reconcile men to God before the actual reception of this sacrament, still the reconciliation is not to be ascribed to the contrition apart from the desire for the sacrament which it includes.” The following proposition (no. 32) taken from Baius was condemned by Gregory XIII: “That charity which is the fullness of the law is not always conjoined with forgiveness of sins.” Perfect contrition, with the desire of receiving the Sacrament of Penance, restores the sinner to grace at once. This is certainly the teaching of the Scholastic doctors (Peter Lombard in P.L., CXCII, 885; St. Thomas, In Lib. Sent. IV, ibid.; St. Bonaventure, In Lib. Sent. IV, ibid.). This doctrine they derived from Holy Writ. Scripture certainly ascribes to charity and the love of God the power to take away sin: “He that loveth me shall be loved by My Father”; “Many sins are forgiven her because she hath loved much”. Since the act of perfect contrition implies necessarily this same love of God, theologians have ascribed to perfect contrition what Scripture teaches belongs to charity. Nor is this strange, for in the Old Covenant there was some way of recovering God’s grace once man had sinned. God wills not the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live (Ezekiel 33:11). This total turning to God corresponds to our idea of perfect contrition; and if under the Old Law love sufficed for the pardon of the sinner, surely the coming of Christ and the institution of the Sacrament of Penance cannot be supposed to have increased the difficulty of obtaining forgiveness. That the earlier Fathers taught the efficacy of sorrow for the remission of sins is very clear (Clement in P.G., I, 341 sqq.; and Hermas in P.G., II, 894 sqq.; Chrysostom in P.G., XLIX, 285 sqq.) and this is particularly noticeable in all the commentaries on Luke 7:47. The Venerable Bede writes (P.L., XCII, 425): “What is love but fire; what is sin but rust? Hence it is said, many sins are forgiven her because she hath loved much, as though to say, she hath burned away entirely the rust of sin, because she is inflamed with the fire of love.”

Theologians have inquired with much learning as to the kind of love that justifies with the Sacrament of Penance. All are agreed that pure, or disinterested, love (amor benevolentiæ, amor amicitiæ) suffices; when there is question of interested, or selfish, love (amor concupiscentia) theologians hold that purely selfish love is not sufficient. When one furthermore asks what must be the formal motive in perfect love, there seems to be no real unanimity among the doctors. Some say that where there is perfect love God is loved for His great goodness alone; other, basing their contention on Scripture, think that the love of gratitude (amor gratitudinis) is quite sufficient, because God’s benevolence and love towards men are intimately united, nay, inseparable from His Divine perfections (Hurter, Theol. Dog., Thesis ccxlv, Scholion iii, no 3; Schieler-Heuser, op. cit., pp. 77 sq.).

Obligation of eliciting the Act of Contrition

In the very nature of things the sinner must repent before he can be reconciled with God (Sess. XIV, ch. iv, de Contritione, Fuit quovis tempore, etc.). Therefore he who has fallen into grievous sin must either make an act of perfect contrition or supplement the imperfect contrition by receiving the Sacrament of Penance; otherwise reconciliation with God is impossible. This obligation urges under pain of sin when there is danger of death. In danger of death, therefore, if a priest be not at hand to administer the sacrament, the sinner must make an effort to elicit an act of perfect contrition. The obligation of perfect contrition is also urgent whensoever one has to exercise some act for which a state of grace is necessary and the Sacrament of Penance is not accessible. Theologians have questions how long a man may remain in the state of sin, without making an effort to elicit an act of perfect contrition. They seem agreed that such neglect must have extended over considerable time, but what constitutes a considerable time they find it hard to determine (Schieler-Hauser, op. cit., pp. 83 sqq.).

Probably the rule of St. Alphonsus Liguori will aid the solution: “The duty of making an act of contrition is urgent when one is obliged to make an act of love” (Sabetti, Theologia Moralis: de necess. contritionis, no. 731; Ballerine, Opus Morale: de contritione). In his “Heaven Open to Souls,” Rev. Henry Semple, S. J. shows that a perfect Act of Contrition is a common act. Semple quotes St. Alphonsus Liguori, who attributes the opposite belief, that such an act is not common, to the Jansenists. St. Alphonsus teaches that “the opposite teaching…that Contrition with remiss charity does not justify outside the Sacrament [of Penance] is altogether unsupported by any reason, and is false…It is at variance with all theologians and the common sentiments of the Fathers…It most openly contradicts many testimonies of Scripture and Councils and Holy Fathers,” (“Moral Theology,” Book 6, Treatise 4, n. 442 of St. Alphonsus). Rev. Raymond Kearney writes: “The Sacraments are the usual, not the exclusive channels of grace…Penitents frequently make acts of Perfect Contrition…These facts go to show that while the Church does not always supply jurisdiction as lavishly as some writers would desire, she is ever the Pia Mater Ecclesia,” (“Principles of Delegation,” 1929).

In the book Semple references below, Rev. von Den Driesch writes: “… There is no one who, if he sincerely wishes it, cannot, with the grace of God, make an act of Perfect Contrition. Sorrow is in the will, not in the senses or feelings. All that is needed is that we repent because we love God above everything else; that is all. True it is that perfect contrition has its degrees, but it is nonetheless perfect because it does not reach the intensity and the sublimity of the sorrow of St. Peter, of St. Mary Magdalene, or of St. Aloysius Gonzaga. Such a degree is desirable, but it is by no means necessary. A lesser degree, but, provided it proceeds from the love of God, and not through fear of His punishments is quite sufficient…Often, very often, without even thinking of it, you have Perfect Contrition for your sins. For example, when you hear Mass devoutly or make the Stations of the Cross properly; when you reflect before your crucifix or an image of the Sacred Heart. What is more, every time you say the ‘Our Father’, in the first three petitions you make three acts of perfect charity, each of which is sufficient to cancel every sin from your soul.”

In the preface to this tiny, invaluable work, Rev. A. Lemkuhl writes: “And hence I desire that this little booklet may be in the hands of all — convinced that by the attentive reading of it, and practicing its maxims, the gates of Heaven will be opened to many, very many for whom otherwise they might have been closed forever; and that many more remaining in God’s grace, will preserve their right to Heaven, and their eternal happiness will grow and be increased immeasurably. All Christians should be solidly instructed concerning the extent of the efficacy of an act of perfect Charity and of perfect Contrition.  

It is a matter of incalculable importance for the time of their own death, and that of others at which they may be present.  No one should forget this truth while in health; in time of sickness or in danger of death it is all the more important that he nature of perfect contrition should be clearly and deeply impressed on those who may have forgotten it or who only imperfectly understood it.  For this reason I wish this little booklet the widest circulation possible, and I doubt not that it will bear fruit of innumerable graces.” This excellent little book is available at: http://www.catholicresearchinstitute.com/crifiles/Catholic_Research_Institute_Books.pdf More of

Rev. Semple’s work is presented above. It easily demonstrates that those Traditionalists who would intimidate their followers with the threat of their sins remaining unforgiven if they are not confessed in confession, those considering the stay-at-home position that is, are contradicting the teachings of the Church, and preaching against the effectiveness of God’s mercy The above selections tell of the excellence of Rev. von Den Driesch’s work and the source of the errors on which the belief that a Perfect Act of Contrition cannot be made are based. These errors are very much still alive today, discouraging those with doubts about the operations of Traditionalists from leaving these sects. Above on page 90, we read something from Rev. Semple that has been the basis for all that we have written on this site over the past several years.

For as Fr. Semple says, the readers should not trust his works to tell them about perfect contrition, for he could be mistaken. Rather they should trust the many excellent works of the approved theologians quoted in his book, and indeed what they present is enough that they can arrive at certitude — a firm assent — and rest easy concerning these teachings. If one points to Church teaching as the basis for their own convictions — and all Catholics are bound to believe even the opinions of the popes in matters not directly pertaining to faith and morals, or ecclesiastical discipline — how can they be discredited for simply being the bearer of these teachings?

Then on page 155 of Rev. Semple’s work above, he explains how those who teach that acts of perfect Contrition are rare are tainted with Calvinism, Lutheranism, Jansenism, semi-Jansenism, Quietism, semi-Quietism, Modernism, agnosticism or pantheism. His lengthy and much-recommended work gives numerous examples of the heresies that oppose this teaching. In his Table of Contents the subheads themselves are indicators of the richness of his work. We read: The Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignatius Loyola manifest the truths of our proposition that acts of perfect love and perfect contrition are easy and common; that “Acts of love and perfect Contrition are rare” is an error; no special intensity or duration in the Act of Love is required for justification; the Breviary and Missal contain many acts of love. Below we see that before Our Lord came to earth, the only way to save one’s soul was by this very same contrition.

No forgiveness with Perfect Contrition is a Jansenist heresy

Pages 416 and 417 below also explain that we can scarcely deny the fact that before Christ came to earth, the only way the faithful had to save their souls was to go directly to God and beg His forgiveness. When necessity dictates, this method once again comes into play. Rev. Jean-Pierre de Caussade also notes this same fact regarding spiritual direction in his “Abandonment to Divine Providence.” If we consider this further, it would be an indirect denial of the doctrine concerning Baptism of desire to assert that unless one receives absolution in Confession, their sins cannot be forgiven, for how else could those who sincerely love God and do al in their power to serve him to the best of their lights save their souls otherwise? We must always remember, however, to desire confession when we make a Perfect Act of Contrition.

Here we see that those who warn their devotees that stay-at-home Catholics are endangering their souls by relying on the Perfect Act of Contrition actually engage in yet another variation of the Feeneyite heresy, for they deny forgiveness and the hope of salvation to those who throw themselves upon God’s mercy and truly repent of their sins, those who truly love Him and whom He loves. What a terrible thing it is for those who hold the Jansenist view of perfect contrition to deprive of all hope those who today abstain from availing themselves of confession because of a lack of jurisdiction by the confessor. They care nothing for the misery and destitution endured by those who know they cannot receive the Sacraments without offending our Lord. Let these neo-Jansenists hear the words of that great doctor, St. Francis de Sales who tells us:

“Misery is the throne of God’s mercy. God…looks with love on the worst sinners of the world despite their lack of will to convert themselves…The most miserable beggars and those whose wounds are the most terrible are considered the best and the most suitable to receive charity…The greater our misery the greater the glory it will bring God’s mercy… God has such great regard for true repentance that the least conversion in the world makes him forget all sorts of sins…The greatest saints were great sinners — St. Peter, St. Matthew, Mary Magdalene, [St. Paul] David, etc,. The greatest wrong we can do God…is not to hope to obtain pardon for our sins…,” (How to Profit From One’s Faults, By Rev. Joseph Tissot). This exhaustive work by Rev. Semple is proof positive that regardless of the emphasis placed by some theologians on the unreliability of perfect contrition for sin at the time of the Reformation, this was a semi-Jansenist reaction and is not the true teaching of the Church.

Only recently, certain “faithful Catholics” using these same arguments have attempted to induce those who stay at home to abandon their position because they cannot be certain their sins are forgiven. It is no coincidence that the Jansenists’ primary error was pride and false humility; they were proud to show the world how holy they were and how sinful the rest of mankind by their fierce elitism.  But we must remember that nothing can come between a Traditionalist leader and his collection plate, nor can one ever criticize these leaders for their errors. Not only do these men protect the font of their livelihood, they somehow manage to garner the trust of their followers, who are terrified that without them they will be left to their own devices. So wherever such ulterior motives are apparent, we have no reason to believe that these individuals could ever possess a right intention in refusing to examine such a fine theological work.

The Catholic Church teaches that any priest who presents himself for the hearing of confessions must be able to prove that he actually possesses the necessary delegated jurisdiction: “…He who claims to possess delegated jurisdiction has the burden of proving the delegation,” (Can. 200). How must this jurisdiction be granted? In Can. 872 we read: “For the valid absolution of sins, the minister requires, besides the power of Orders, either ordinary or delegated jurisdiction over the penitent.” Additionally, Canon 879 states: “For the valid hearing of confessions it is necessary that jurisdiction shall have been explicitly granted either in writing or orally…” The canonists Revs. Woywod-Smith comment: “Tacit, presumed, interpretative or any other kind of delegation which cannot be called explicit is not considered valid.”

Canon Law clearly forbids the installation of unlawful priests by any but valid and licit ecclesiastical authority. Furthermore, the supplying principle, according to Rev. Miaskiewicz, cannot even be said to exist. “When the Church, or more specifically the Roman Pontiff, is said to supply jurisdiction in any case whatsoever…it is readily understood that the pope acts in virtue of the jurisdictional power Christ entrusted to his person…Naturally it rests within the scope of such broad power to grant, to extend or to restrict the share of others in the exercise of this power in any way whatsoever…”

And as we have seen, Pope Pius XII saw fit to restrict the exercise of any papal jurisdiction during an interregnum, meaning that whatever he had supplied during his lifetime was not to be assumed as extended on his death, but must be left to the discretion of the future Pontiff, canonically elected. This is why Pope Pius XII teaches in “Mystici Corporis Christi” that a living, breathing visible head is absolutely necessary to the Church, for without such a head She cannot accomplish Her mission.

Extreme Unction — Perfect Surrender to God’s Holy Will

Canon 2261 §3

When one informs a Traditionalist that we cannot use their “priests” for Extreme Unction, the first thing out of their mouths is: But what about Can. 2261 §3? Isn’t jurisdiction supplied for these acts as well, whenever it is lacking? No less an authority than St. Robert Bellarmine tells us that apostates, heretics and schismatics (Rev. Ayrinhac and Rev. Tanquerey tell us schism now is always equivalent to heresy) are deprived of all jurisdiction, and this is the unanimous teaching of the fathers and St. Bellarmine: “Finally, 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.

• St. Cyprian (lib. 2, epist. 6) says: “We affirm that absolutely no heretic or schismatic has any power or right”; and he also teaches (lib. 2, epist. 1) that the 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.) teaches that heretics and schismatics cannot have the keys of the kingdom of heaven, nor bind nor loose.

• St. Ambrose (lib. 1 de poenit., ca. 2), St. Augustine (in Enchir., cap 65), St. Jerome (lib. cont. Lucifer.) teach the same. (St. Robert Bellarmine, An extract from St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, lib. II, cap. 30, http://www.cmri.org/02-bellarmine-roman-pontiff.html ; no endorsement of this site is here intended.)

The Church’s practice and teaching, then, does not reflect the fact that She actually is willing to do this. For the sake of souls dying without the Sacraments, could She do this? It seems that She has always made exceptions in this regard, but without a true Pope in office it is not clear who could supply, per Rev. Miaskiewicz’s statement above. The priests and bishops invoking this Canon insist that somehow the Church must supply for the good of souls, but they forget that the Church demands a visible Pope always exist (for the good of souls) and that Pope Pius XII teaches that even the CARDINALS cannot exercise papal jurisdiction, nor attenuate it during an interregnum. If humans do not follow the Church’s laws allowing her to guarantee the salvation of souls, how do they expect Her to fulfill Her mission on earth? So are Catholics better off relying on a Perfect Act of Contrition rather than calling on men who could endanger their faith in the course of absolving?

According to some commentators, quoted by Rev. Szal, the answer is “yes” even when a visible head unquestionably rules the Church. “Although it may be licit in a given case to confess one’s sins to a schismatic and to receive absolution from him, there are authors who recommend that a dying person should rather elicit a Perfect Act of Contrition and thus commit himself to the divine mercy.” While Szal then states that if one is not satisfied in conscience that he can seek a schismatic priest and confess (only) in danger of death, we must remember he does so always believing there will ordinarily be a Roman Pontiff to supply jurisdiction for this act under Can. 209/2261§3. Nor should Catholics fear that they would risk their souls if they do this. Rev. John Bancroft in his Communication in Religious Worship With Non-Catholics (1943) concurs with these authors.

At the Hour of Death

In the absence of Extreme Unction, the Pardon Cross is an indispensable recourse at the hour of death for those in the latter days, and a powerful aid for the souls in Purgatory. The following indulgences were bestowed upon the Pardon Crucifix by Pope St. Pius X in 1905, and approved in the pardon of the living and the souls in Purgatory in 1907. The lengths of the indulgences were repealed in the new Enchiridion, and the indulgences were granted to remit the guilt of the sin committed: Whoever carries on his person the Pardon Crucifix, may thereby gain an indulgence:

1. For devoutly kissing the Crucifix, an indulgence is gained.
2. Whoever says one of the following invocations before this crucifix may gain each time an indulgence: “Our Father who art in heaven, forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us.” “I beg the Blessed Virgin Mary to pray to the Lord our God for me.”
3. Whoever, habitually devout to this Crucifix, will fulfill the necessary conditions of Confession and Holy Communion, may gain a Plenary Indulgence on the following feasts: On the feasts of the Five Wounds of our Lord, the Invention of the Holy Cross, the Exaltation of the Holy Cross, the Immaculate Conception, and the Seven Sorrows (Dolors) of the Blessed Virgin Mary.
4. Whoever, at the moment of death, fortified with the Sacraments of the Church (something that does not apply when they are unavailable), or contrite of heart, in the supposition of being unable to receive them, will kiss this Crucifix and ask pardon of God for his sins, and pardon his neighbor, will gain a Plenary Indulgence.

Another prayer that offers a plenary indulgence at the hour of death for its recitation is the following: “My Lord God, even now, resignedly and willingly, I accept at Thy hands with all its anxieties, pains and sufferings whatever kind of death it shall please the to be mine” (Indulgence of 7 years; Plenary at the hour of death, Raccolta #591). It is one of the most important duties of a Catholic to pray for those on their deathbed and for the recently deceased.  Prayers for the dying can be found at http://www.fisheaters.com/dying.html A longer treasury of prayers for the dying can be found in The Baltimore Book of Prayers at http://www.amazon.com/Baltimore-Prayers-Third-Plenary-Council/dp/0912141352

Matrimony

Marriage Law and Faithful Catholics Today

© Copyright 2021, T. Stanfill Benns ( All emphasis within quotes is the author’s unless indicated otherwise.)

Of all the issues that dog the remnant Church today, marriage has proven to be the most difficult of subjects and the one most Catholics are the least informed about. Had Traditionalists who rushed to “rescue” the faithful following Vatican 2 spent time researching the true length, depth and breadth of the problem, there would be no confusion today about what those trying their best to marry and raise families should do. Had papal and Holy Office decrees and Canon Law been firmly held and consistently obeyed, no doubt would remain about what can and cannot be done. But this was not the intent of those who set about to make themselves indispensable to Catholics exiting the NO church. No; they needed the appearance of utmost indispensability concerning their function among Traditionalists and the focus needed to be all about their right and their ability to act on their own authority, not on the ultimate authority of the Roman Pontiffs down through the centuries. The very fact that none of these men seemed to know where to go or how to conduct themselves once the Great Apostasy broke should tell us either that they were not learned, humble in spirit or in the least inclined to holy things or that they were sheer opportunists, who perhaps, as certain proofs indicate, were already not in good standing with their superiors long before the false Vatican 2 council ever convened. Below please find the last documents on emergency situations similar to ours, compiled by the Holy Office for Catholics in Communist China.

Matrimonial Impediments and Form of Marriage in China Under Communist Rule…

(Holy Office, 27 Jan., 1949, and 21 Feb., 1949) Private

“A Letter of the Papal Internuncio to China, addressed to all ordinaries of China…proposed the following questions:

1. Whether the faithful in the territories of China, which are occupied by the Communists, are bound by the impediments established by the Church, especially nonage and disparity of cult, if they can either not at all or only with the greatest difficulty ask for a dispensation and cannot abstain from contracting marriage nor postpone it.
2. Whether they are bound by the impediment of disparity of cult [when the promises cannot be easily obtained, are not given at all or are refused by the non-Catholic party].

Reply

1. In the circumstances mentioned (meaning while such circumstances last or this state of affairs continues) marriages contracted without the canonical form or with an impediment of ecclesiastical law from which the Church usually dispenses are to be considered as valid. [NOTE: Here canonical form means that either a valid and licit priest possessing true jurisdiction must perform the marriage which is the ordinary form, or if a priest is not available for an extended period of time vows can be exchanged in the presence of two Catholic witnesses — or even non-Catholics if no Catholics are available — which is the extraordinary form. Impediment means something the Church says the party or both parties must receive a dispensation from to be married either validly or licitly.]
2. [In] marriages which are subject to the impediment of disparity of cult [where one party is not a baptized Catholic] …the faithful are freed not only from the impediments of nonage and disparity of cult, but from all impediments of ecclesiastical law and from all canonical form, (both ordinary and extraordinary. (Below find notes 1-3 to further explain this decision.)

1. The words, “In the circumstances mentioned,” mean “while these circumstances continue,” or while this state of affairs continues.”
2. (A footnote concerning the cautiones or promises to raise the children Catholic states that in the case of marriage with a pagan [meaning that the impediment for such marriage is lifted] or a baptized non-Catholic, the marriage can be conducted only if it is morally certain, in each individual case, that the Catholic party’s sincere guarantee they will be baptized and raised Catholic will also have effect.)
3. The impediment of sacred order of the priesthood and the impediment of affinity in the direct line when the marriage was consummated are not suspended but remain in full force even under the circumstances mentioned.

All these matters should be brought to the attention of the faithful so that they may provide for the validity of marriages and be freed from anxiety of consciences,” (Canon Law Digest, Vol. III; Can. 1067). This decision was private, meaning that although it definitely applies to the specific case mentioned and was listed as a guide and general norm in the Canon Law Digest, it was not officially promulgated as law. The Holy See was later asked to further explain their instructions and indicate whether the above also applied to other territories and cases. We find the answer to this question in Canon Law Digest Vol. 4, under Can. 1071 as follows: “In regard to both these documents [those of Jan. 27, 1949 and Feb. 21, 1949] diverse and conflicting interpretations were published in various periodicals; whence it is said that some uncertainty has arisen as to their legitimate application to the past and in territories outside of China and especially as to requiring the cautiones [promises to raise the children Catholic] and as to the moral certainty of their future fulfillment. Accordingly, the Supreme Congregation has been asked to remove this uncertainty and ambiguity by an authentic interpretation…”

[The Sacred Congregation provided the following answers to (a) whether the decree can be applied to other territories and cases in the past and in future, also (b) whether the sincere intent of at least one party to baptize all children of the union and raise them Catholic suffices when both parties do not officially sign the actual promises]:

1. “The Decree of the Holy Office of 27 Jan., 1949, 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 [the laws of the popes and the laws of God as applied to certain cases], which, in view of extraordinary circumstances in the territory cannot be observed, [this basically means that when such laws can be observed, they must be observed.] As to other matters, it has the character of a positive provision, which is not retroactive nor applicable to territories not mentioned in the Decree.
2. As regards the giving of the cautiones, which are mentioned in both the Decree [Jan. 1949] and the Supplement [Feb. 21, 1949], henceforth, as long as the same conditions exist, they are required only for the licitness and not for the validity of a marriage to be contracted with a non-Catholic party; but the grave obligation of the natural and Divine positive law to baptize and educate all the children of both sexes as Catholics always remains firm and unimpaired.”

In an audience granted to “the Most Reverend Assessor of the Holy Office, His Holiness by Divine Providence Pope Pius XII deigned to approve the above Decree,” (Holy Office, 22 Dec., 1949).

Mixed Marriage Before Protestant Minister Liict

(If Conditions of Canon 1098 for Marriage Before Witnesses Only Are Verified)

“The following rescript was received by the Bishop of Pinsk in reply to a question concerning mixed marriages. Reply: If all the conditions which are required by Canon 1098 for the validity of marriages before witnesses only are verified, the circumstance that such marriages were blessed in a non- Catholic church is an argument not against validity, but against licitness.” (Private); Sacred Congregation of the Sacraments, 4 March 1925, (Canon Law Digest, Vol. 3, under Can. 1098). Copies of these documents from the Canon Law Digest can be found in Appendix 2 at the end of this book.

Comments on the above matrimonial decrees of the Holy Office

The Church states that any civil marriage by a judge or registrar (not a non-Catholic minister) following the fulfillment of the conditions of Can. 1098, if done only to legalize the marriage in the eyes of the State, does not compromise the validity of the marriage (Can. 1063). Nor does it result in the censure found under Can. 2319 for marrying before a non-Catholic minister. This also is reflected in the decisions of the Sacred Congregation concerning China when even the canonical forms (both ordinary and extraordinary) are dispensed with, meaning that SOME form of marriage is sanctioned here, or a marriage would not exist at all. That form could only be the civil variety demanded at that time by Communist China. (In some states the justice of the peace is not even required. The two parties are allowed to “marry themselves,” and have the witnesses sign the marriage certificate, which is then returned to the County Clerk in which the marriage took place.)

Yet if the intent of even one of the parties was to marry as a Catholic and to do all in their power to raise the children Catholic, then the Church not only says that the marriage is allowed, but that it is considered valid. But the above decision DOES NOT allow those first married according to Can 1098 to then go before a non-Catholic minister for anything but a civil ceremony, (Traditionalists considered “Catholic”). This would be a grave sin on the part of the Catholic; the Church only allows the marriage to be legalized in the eyes of the state by a judge or registrar of the State, for care must be taken that the marriage of Catholics, even in extraordinary circumstances, is licit as well as valid. It can also be witnessed by a non-Catholic minister, but not in the course of a ceremony conducted in the rite of that minister.

The only exceptions to the lifting of the impediments to marriage are for marriage to one who has received ordination or taken religious vows or where the ones being married are related to each other as first or second cousins. These impediments remain and are not included in the general dispensations from impediments in this particular case. Impediments also would remain for Catholics to marry baptized non-Catholics who have certainly been validly married then divorced. (This restriction would fall under “other matters…of a positive provision” above.) But today it cannot be known without investigation by the bishop if such persons have even been validly baptized. Whenever and wherever laws can be observed, they must be observed. It seems wise to consider pre-nuptial agreements concerning the promises to raise the children Catholic, providing that should a separation or divorce occur, the Catholic party is allowed to raise the children Catholic and will have primary custody.

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 in the proper sense only 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 we’re 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.”

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.

In the decree made for China, three impediments to marriage are specifically mentioned which the Church declares She is lifting in China’s case: nonage, canonical form, and disparity of cult. Nonage was probably lifted owing to China’s traditional discriminatory attitude toward females. Canonical form was lifted because of the difficulty or impossibility of contacting a priest, or even of becoming aware of the extraordinary form to use when a priest cannot be contacted. Disparity of cult was lifted because most of the Chinese population were Buddhists and some were Protestants. So conditions in China were far more restrictive than they are in the U.S. and elsewhere at present. In following this law today, we can only presume to exempt ourselves from whatever impediments exist today under the ecclesiastical law from which we cannot be dispensed. That would be the dispensation required for mixed marriage and marriage to infidels, also marriage before the parish priest. In most cases the extraordinary form of marriage could be satisfied.

The common denominator among both the Chinese and our own situation is the total lack of clergy. This is the serious reason which prompted the Church to generally do away with the need for dispensations in China, allowing this permission to be applied to other territories in similar situations. These cases can also be viewed from another angle. Technically speaking, members of the Novus Ordo, also Traditionalists and former Traditionalists raised in these sects who did not renounce them prior to the age of 14 are members of non-Catholic sects or have at least incurred the censure for membership in these sects. As such they can marry Protestants and each other only as (baptized, in some cases) non-Catholics. Under Can. 1062 in Rev. Woywod-Smith’s commentary, the authors state that, “The impediment of mixed marriage means that one party actually is a member of the Catholic Church, and that he or she wants to marry a baptized non- Catholic. The Code supposes that the Catholic party is still a practical Catholic…There is no question here of baptized Catholics who have fallen away from the Church.”

So would this apply even to a material heretic or schismatic who desires to be counted as a true Catholic but is not a juridical member of the Church? According to Can. 1099, even when both parties are members of non-Catholic sects and at least one party is baptized in the Catholic Church, that party is bound to observe the canonical form of marriage whenever possible. This more or less will indicate the sincerity and true faithfulness of the party which professes to be Catholic. In 1949, Pope Pius XII reversed a clause of Pope St. Pius X’s decree “Ne Temere” on this matter, which formerly did not require baptized non-Catholics to marry before an authorized priest or use the extraordinary form. This decree was made before the 1917 Code was issued, and in most cases the Code replaced all previous laws in these matters. So today, whenever possible, Catholics must observe the extraordinary form in Can. 1098 if they are able, and if not the concessions granted to the Chinese apply, given the lack of true priests today. The form to be used for fulfilling Can. 1098 is provided in various ecclesiastical books for the benefit of the faithful.

Why Traditionalists kept this decision from the faithful

The primary purpose in making all the above known is the comment of the Sacred Congregation should be brought to the attention of the faithful so that they may provide for the validity of marriages and be freed from anxiety of consciences.” How many have been told that they cannot marry without a dispensation from a Traditional priest or bishop, or conclavist “pope,” and have agonized over their situation and perhaps even fallen into sin because of it? How many of these smooth operators have come into power and/or remained in power by claiming that only through their ministrations and dispensations could their followers be considered validly married and their children certainly legitimate? All the while the Church’s decree on China remained unknown and uncirculated. Could it have been discovered? Yes, and easily; and those claiming to be able to assist at marriages and grant dispensations were obliged to discover it and make it known. Instead those researching the marriage issue on their own were actually steered away from this decree, whether by pointing to the fact that for validity a priest had to assist, or in the case of the Conclavists, even invalidating Can. 1098 marriages by claiming that the necessary “dispensations” were never obtained.

In reality, those lacking jurisdiction and even those whose ordinations were certainly or doubtfully valid (all modern-day Traditionalists and the Orthodox) have insisted in the past and still insist that they must officiate at marriages and baptisms when their actual assistance excommunicates the parties to those marriages, (per Can. 2319, #1), and at the very least made/make them illicit and sacrilegious. Those (knowingly) offering their children for baptism and education to these ministers incur this same excommunication under 2319 #3 and 4, and in addition commit sacrilege, rendering the sacrament of Baptism illicit. Moreover, Can. 1094 declares that, “Those marriages only are valid which are contracted before a pastor or the local Ordinary or a priest delegated by either and at least two witnesses…save the exceptions mentioned…in Can. 1098 and 1099.”

Those who perversely continue to employ these ministers despite their known defects and the prohibitions of the Church can be compared to those individuals who return again and again to abusive partners, and eventually wind up seriously injured or even dead. As Christ warns in the Gospel, do not fear those who threaten physical death, but those capable of condemning both body and soul to hell. Considering the crisis in the Church today, and especially in light of recent unrest in this country as well as overseas, Catholics should become aware of the Church’s decree for China and avoid all false marriage ceremonies before non-Catholic ministers — and also should consider as worthless and repudiate any so-called subsequent “annulments” — with a clear and serene conscience. In addition, they are obligated to pass the information presented here along to other Catholics, as the Church obliges them to do above.

But what about circumstances that nullify marriage?

There are several things mentioned in marriage manuals that can be considered to nullify a marriage, and many of the problems today where marriage is concerned arise from whether the parties contracting marriage were ever actually married to other partners in the first place. In Traditionalist circles, there have been many cases where in order to marry the intended partner the non-Catholic spouse is encouraged to become a Catholic, i.e., be instructed at the hands of Traditionalists and be baptized. Sometimes it has even become a condition of the marital contract indicating the Catholic wishes only to marry a Catholic spouse. Some of these marriages have ended when the spouse who converted claims the conversion was forced and was not genuine, nor was the intention to be baptized present.

What constitutes invalidity

When is an apparently contracted marriage invalid under the above exemptions granted in emergency conditions by the Church? Normally, there would be questions of validity, the manuals relate, when one or both parties are burdened with a diriment impediment or the marriage ceremony is not performed according to the requirements of the Church. The requirements for a priest to officiate or even for the presence of the two witnesses at the marriage are dispensed above. And all but diriment impediments for Orders and solemn profession, (not really applicable today because in nearly all cases now, not certainly validly received); previous bond, public crime involving murder, age below the use of reason, antecedent and perpetual impotence and consanguinity in the first degree also were removed in emergency conditions in the above decree. These are either forbidden under the Divine or natural law. Also null is a marriage contracted without free and true consent, either for reasons of force/and or fear, defective intention, simulated consent, lack of mental capacity or legal age (Canon Law requires males be 16 and females 14 for the validity of marriage).

Force and fear is often alleged but is difficult to prove. Lack of legal age cases are rare. But cases of defective intention, simulated consent (or the absence of a true knowledge of what consent entails), also lack of mental capacity or mental impairment at the time the ceremony seem to be almost common anymore. Use of drugs and alcohol shortly before or at the time of the marriage do not diminish all capacity, but long-term drug and alcohol use is a different consideration. Many today intend to marry only for as long as the marriage lasts, not until death, which goes to defective intention. Gold diggers marry primarily for money; others marry only to parade around a “trophy” husband or wife, a form of fraud. And many are the cases of simulated consent, where only later does the deceived spouse realize there was never any real intent to convert or raise the children Catholic. Sometimes these cases are attenuated with mental illness, including addiction issues. Very often a man or woman will marry only to later discover the spouse has such an illness not previously detected. Modern day drug and psychiatric treatments for the problem often only exacerbate the situation.

Canon Law provides a remedy

So what does a party who has experienced any of the above do in the present situation? Can they remarry without fear of sinning mortally and incurring excommunication? This question is not easily answered although it seems that the Church’s own reasoning can be used to suggest a method of action. Even though a marriage may be clearly invalid on the face of things given the situation, no one is able to consider it invalid officially until the chancery has had an opportunity to evaluate it and render a decision. Evidence must be presented according to the norms of Canon Law that prove the invalidity, and this is similar to the same sort of legal process used in civil cases today. If force and fear clearly are used and the evidence shows this, then even these cases can be considered. The general rule stands that whenever there is a doubt about the validity of the Sacrament it cannot be received, meaning as long as the doubt has not been removed then one could not proceed to marry again.

Marriage is the one Sacrament presumed to be valid until the contrary is proven, yet even presumption must be overcome by truth, (rule of Canon Law). The reason the Church relaxed Her laws for the Chinese in the first place was that man has a natural right to marry under Divine law. When this right is frustrated, then all obstacles to it capable of being removed were removed to protect this right. As St. Paul tells us, “Better to marry than to burn.” In the declaratory decree above, the Church appears to grant the laity permission to exempt themselves from observing the ecclesiastical law concerning marriage in emergency situations. It does not seem to be stretching the law too far to assume that it applies not only to the originally considered question, validity of marriages to non-Catholics and infidels, dispensations the Church regularly granted in serious cases (and unavailability of ministers is a serious case).

For She clearly states that the decision “can be applied retroactively and in other territories only to the extent that it deals with prescriptions of positive law [the laws of the popes and the laws of God as applied to certain cases], which, in view of extraordinary circumstances in the territory cannot be observed.” Would the Church, having said this and having lifted Her prohibitions, wish that those suffering from the misdeeds of others be unable to marry and very likely be susceptible to sins of the flesh so rampant today? Francis Joseph Sheed, in his work, “Nullity of Marriage” writes: “All this is a reminder that the Church does not take nullity lightly. Where there is certainty, a decree is given. But where there is no certainty, it is not: ‘marriage’ says Canon Law, ‘enjoys the favour of the law; when in doubt, a marriage is to be considered valid until the contrary is proved,’ (Canon 1014). Clearly a social order in which marriages could be lightly broken would be a chaos.

But in his Allocution of October 1941, Pius XII explained that this is to be understood only as requiring that the invalidity be proved with moral certainty — not, in other words, the sort of proof which excludes all imaginable or conceivable doubt. The Pope explained the reason why moral certainty is sufficient: ‘If the parties are not in reality bound by any existing bond of marriage, they are entitled by natural law to contract marriage.’ We have just noted the statement of Pope Pius XII that an ecclesiastical tribunal has no right or power to demand more than moral certainty of the invalidity of a marriage; and we have noted the reason he gives — namely that those whose union is not in fact a marriage are entitled by natural law to marry. But the Church treats one class of people as having laid themselves open to being denied this natural right.

“The party who was the guilty cause of the alleged nullity of a marriage cannot petition for a declaration of its nullity… But this restriction applies only to one who was the guilty cause of the impediment or other ground of nullity; one who did not know he was acting wrongly would not be affected.” Sheed also notes that: “The priest is only a witness and not one of the principals [to the actual marriage]. If it is not possible to have a priest, and the impossibility is likely to continue for a month, or if there is danger of death, then the marriage may be performed without a priest. Otherwise this form is obligatory on Catholics: any Catholic who tries to marry not observing this rule simply is not married.” And below this is precisely what we contend. No one can observe the requirement of a declaratory judgment from the chancery; no one can submit his/her case. But the Church has provided a process for proceeding in a doubt of law as presented elsewhere on this site and it would seem that this process could be followed in these cases.

The canonist Rev. Matthew Ramstein, S.T. Mag, J.U.D., OFM (“A Manual of Canon Law,” 1947) says that even private individuals may use the rules for proper interpretation provided in Canon Law itself in trying to resolve certain cases not covered in the Code. This is allowed whenever no authentic interpretation of the law is available. Now the Church has officially interpreted how her law governing marriage in emergency situations it so be applied, as seen above. But what She has not done is specify how one must now view the requirement for a chancery declaration. Speaking of Pope Benedict XV’s Motu Proprio promulgating Canon Law, Monsignor Amleto Cicognani writes: “There is no prohibition in the Motu-proprio of private interpretation, which may be doctrinal or usual…It is said to be doctrinal when it is given by those skilled in canon law; customary (also called usual) when it is derived from unwritten practice, that is custom…General rules for the right interpretation of the Code are given in Canons 17 ff, besides those of Canons 5 and 6, (“Canon Law,” 1935, pgs. 434, 598-9).

As Rev. Nicholas Neuberger explains in his dissertation, “Canon 6,” (Catholic University of America, 1927), “Of old the jurists distinguished between a mere declaration of and the interpretation of the law. The declaration today is called comprehensive interpretation. Its scope is not to change the law but determines the sense of the law comprehended therein from the beginning. Therefore, it adds or subtracts nothing from the original meaning…The comprehensive interpretation adds nothing anew but explains more and more the significance attached to the words… Ordinarily, every private individual may interpret laws according to the rules of jurisprudence, unless a special prohibition has been made…The code, in Canon 6 §2 bids us have recourse to the doctrine of the approved authors. The authentic, however, always remains the guide for the doctrinal.” In his work, Neuberger provides the actual list of these authors “quoted freely by the Roman Congregations and Tribunals.”

They are all those same authors faithfully quoted by the doctors of Canon Law writing their dissertations, which have been used extensively to document this work and the many others found on this site. The idea behind consulting these canons is to help the faithful and clergy obtain certainty in doubtful matters, for one cannot act in a state of positive practical doubt. This is especially true where the Sacraments are concerned and this is the unanimous opinion of modern theologians, following the teaching of Pope Innocent XI, (DZ 1151). Rev. Gury writes in his “Compendium of Moral Theology” (1950s translation): “One is bound to use diligence in keeping with the truth to be investigated according to the importance of the matter and the condition of person and place.” He explains that unless Catholics seek answers from able and conscientious men and investigate their practice, desiring only to learn the truth, then they expose themselves to “the danger of violating the law by neglect of inquiry and thereby sin.”

As Monsignor Cicognani notes, “the common good demands certitude concerning the validity of acts.” But it appears Traditionalists are oblivious to this serious duty to study and develop such certitude, as will be discussed at length below. Ordinarily we would return to the old law (Can. 6§4) on marriage, but in this case the law is likely no different than the present one; the Chancery must be consulted. Also many of those laws cited under the old law are not available to us today. So if the old law cannot be consulted successfully, the next step is to follow the process given in Can. 18. The requirements of Can. 18 include grammatical interpretation — that is, discerning the true and original meaning of the words of the law in their proper context. If the meaning of the terms remains doubtful, then one must consult parallel passages of the Code, the purpose of the law and its circumstances and the intention of the legislator. This latter seems to be clear from what has been said above. The law requiring the decision of the Church to determine invalidity is found in Can. 1069 §2. It states that: “A person bound by a previous marriage bond, though it be not a consummated marriage, cannot validly contract another marriage…Though the first marriage be for any reason invalid or dissolved, it is not lawful to contract another marriage before there is legal and sure proof of the invalidity or the dissolution of the first marriage.”

The penalty exacted by the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore for those attempting marriage after a civil divorce specifies that the penalty only applies to those validly married in the first place. Three things stand out here that have bearing on the case at hand. Let it be perfectly clear, however, that any attempt to work out a marriage situation using the laws above is not to be construed in any way as the author’s ADVICE to do so. This is suggested only as a possible alternative in the event that without following such a plan, mortal sins of impurity would be the result, or in the event some other grave spiritual danger threatens. The individual pursuing such a course would have to realize that if nullity was proven by seemingly sufficient evidence and another marriage was entered into, then should we ever see a true Roman Pontiff in our lifetime it would be up to him or the diocesan bishop to review the case and determine if the marriage is valid. In the event the Church decides the marriage is not valid, the parties would be expected to separate and remain celibate, if the party to the valid marriage is still living. So this alternative does not come without some very potentially sobering consequences. See specifics on this topic in the Appendix on marriage.

Documenting invalidity

First of all, the law does not say that in the case of a marriage thought to be invalid a second marriage would be invalid; it says such a marriage would be unlawful, (under the usual circumstances, and circumstances today are anything but usual). Secondly, the proofs of the invalidity are stressed as resulting in the dissolution. And thirdly, no one is excommunicated unless the marriage was certainly valid in the first place. Under the laws of the Church and in the absence of the Chancery, it would seem that individual Catholics could invoke Can. 18, gather evidence, cite similar cases, find parallel passages in the Code, and note the intention of the lawgiver and the circumstances to document cases of invalidity. The evidence would need to be of superior weight, either by preponderance or in way of quality and quantity of sources. A case would be better grounded if more than one reason for nullity exists, such as defective intention and mental illness, or simulated consent and undue pressure from a parent to marry, (force and fear); this is especially true if the simulated consent included simulation of baptism or defective intent to convert and the Catholic party made it clear s/he wished only to marry a Catholic, for this invalidates the contract. But here we are talking only of certainly valid Catholic marriages, and nearly all marriages contracted by Traditionalists were invalid.

This compounds the issue and makes nullity more likely. For if at least some of the above was present; and in addition to this, if the ceremony was performed by a Traditionalist cleric, then there is every reason to believe that no marriage ever took place. We say this because when Traditionalist ministers who, (owing to the lack of jurisdiction and questionable validity under which all these men labor), perform a marriage ceremony or pretend to grant the dispensations from any impediments, the ceremony is not valid and the impediments remain. This is true because Traditionalists possess no office of the priesthood; nor do they possess the power to receive converts into the Church, which is given by way of delegated jurisdiction. The later decree by the Holy Office above for emergencies (issued for the Chinese) would not apply because no one even knew of its existence; or if certain Traditional clerics knew, they failed to make it known to their followers. There is no mention of this law or the declaratory interpretation being entered into the Acta Apostolica Sedis, which Can. 17 requires for normative, binding documents.

Another question arises concerning valid baptism. It has been explained elsewhere that the ambiguous use of spirit in Novus Ordo baptisms and the failure of their rite to always emphasize the removal of original sin from the soul is enough by itself to call the Sacrament into question. Can we really be certain the intent of Novus Ordo ministers was to baptize children into the Catholic Church of all time or was it into the New World Order church that they baptized them? How can we honestly believe the Novus Ordo church is what it is today and have any doubt that their intention was lacking? When Traditionalists baptize, are they baptizing children into the Old Catholic church or the true Church? Do they perform Solemn Baptism even though this is a ceremony which only a priest with a true office could validly perform? Because solemn Baptism is only a simulation of the Sacrament and cannot convey the indelible mark or the graces attached to this sacrament.

So Catholics who believe they were validly married were not married as Catholics at all; they were at best baptized non-Catholics marrying before non-Catholic ministers. Unless they retract their heresy or schism and are baptized in the true Catholic Church by a Catholic layperson who unquestionably has the right intention, they cannot validly contract marriage. Those who marry before non-Catholic ministers are not considered to have received the Sacrament and the marriage can be declared null under Pope Pius XII’s reversal of the Ne Temere decree. This also applies to Catholics who have married a non-baptized person even if the proper form was observed and a dispensation obtained (Canon D. D. Mahoney, Priest Problems). The Canon Law Digest is filled with cases that were declared null for lack of due form in this regard.

While the laws given to the Chinese for emergencies govern when they are known and intentionally invoked, these laws were never made known to Catholics, who presumed they were bound by the existing law — which they were. The laws made for China applied to China and could also be applied to other territories whose conditions became the same as China’s. It was not a universal law at the time it was made, although today the same conditions exist universally. Also, the authoritative interpretation of a law does have the same force as a law itself under Can. 17. Canon 23 states that more recent laws are to be reconciled as far as possible with former laws, and this the authentic interpretation itself above suggests. By publishing this law to the Internet it does become public and can be invoked, because the Church says it can be invoked. But this does not mean it is thereby officially promulgated.

What about separation and divorce?

The Church always has allowed separation and divorce for sufficiently serious reasons. The State cannot dissolve a valid Catholic marriage. But as we find in Rev. Edwin Healy’s “Marriage Guidance,” (used as a source for the above): “At times [licit divorce] is advisable and at times it is even necessary…One of the parties [may] need a civil divorce in order to protect his interests or the interests of the children.” Either party “may find it prudent to obtain custody of the children that they might be reared fittingly or in order for [the wife] to win a financial settlement for her own purposes. EXAMPLE: Tom Beldon has treated his wife Martha very cruelly. Because of Tom’s brutality, the bishop has accorded Martha permission to separate permanently from him.” None of those today being physically or even mentally abused, or whose spouses are cheaters have any worries that the Church would not permit them to leave these cads. Again, permission to sue for civil divorce in cases of permanent separation (before dissolution, or when the marriage is unquestionably valid) must be sought from the Chancery.

Healy adds however: “This permission, though advisable, is not strictly necessary when one merely defends himself against the divorce suit already begun by the other spouse…A civil divorce should be obtained if church officials have declared the couple’s marriage null and void.” Today it practically impossible to avoid a civil divorce and maintain a separation in the present court system, especially when children are involved. Canon De Smet S.T.L, in his Betrothment and Marriage, (1912, Vol. I, pgs. 258-261) writes on this subject: “The Church teaches that separation or divorce…between married persons is lawful for various causes…in Matthew 19:29 we read: ‘And everyone who hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children…for my name’s sake shall receive an hundredfold, and shall possess life everlasting.’ …Causes justifying separation include adultery,” [unless the innocent party accepts the offending party once again into the marriage bed]; … “Heresy and provocation to sin…since the embracing of heresy is looked upon as an act of spiritual fornication; …Danger to the soul, when one of the parties compels the other to sin,” [or is a continuous near occasion of sin, such as the sin of anger, or frequent and vicious quarrels, or constant dissension and disruption of family life, or anything that would amount to a cooperation in sin.]

From reading Rev. De Smet, it is clear that if the Church even allows those who are joined together by a Sacrament to separate from each other and remain so until death, if necessary, to avoid committing sin or being contaminated by heresy, then surely this applies to others who we may be joined to by ties of blood. We have the words of Christ Himself to confirm this from Matt. Ch. 19 above. Far from being any kind of sin whatsoever, doing this is very commendable when it is done to avoid sin, for Christ above says anyone who does such a thing for His sake shall be rewarded “an hundredfold.” And it does not matter either that the one you separate from accuses you of doing it for trumped up reasons or reasons based on a false premise. If YOU believe that what you are doing is right, no one can dictate to you what you should do: this is a matter of conscience. Rev. Martin Harrison O.P. tells us in his Credo: A Practical Guide to the Catholic Faith:

“Too many allow themselves to be influenced by others who have not sufficient knowledge themselves to teach what is right or wrong or to give advice on matters of conscience. They can only guide us on their own conscience and we have no evidence that their own conscience is a true one… Each must follow his own conscience, not another’s; he will be judged by his own conscience. One may have a lax conscience, another a false, or scrupulous conscience; we cannot accept their advice… How can we place any reliance on others who probably know little more than we ourselves know and who are not able to direct themselves properly in many cases? If we cannot settle our own doubts, how can we be sure that another is giving correct advice without any personal prejudices, unless we are satisfied as to his qualifications? We must not play the fool in so delicate a matter on which so much depends in our spiritual life. St. Paul writes: ‘To me it is a small thing to be judged by you or by man’s day; but neither do I judge myself. For I am not conscious to myself of anything, yet I am not hereby justified, but he that judgeth is the Lord,’ (I Cor. 4)…If we act in good faith, then we shall be at peace with God in our own mind. It matters not what others may do or judge. We act by our own conscience, not by another’s.”

Where hardships are not so severe in a marriage and an arrangement agreeable to both parties can be worked out, the Church believes it is always better to remain in a marriage than to abandon the married state. The often invoked ‘For the sake of the children’ is one reason, but it should not be the only reason. If at least a modicum of harmony and workability cannot be expected, the atmosphere will be unbearable for children. On the other hand the dangers that face single mothers, especially today — whether they remain single or remarry — are formidable and can cause almost as many problems as remaining in an abusive marriage. Single fathers also have their own share of problems and obstacles to overcome.

All Catholics can do is follow their consciences as noted above and pray for guidance. But at least there can be some hope of remarriage if evidence can be presented to prove that consent was lacking or could not be given or that the form or minister of the marriage was not in conformity with the laws governing validity. As Rev. Ramstein points out in his Canon Law manual, even though there may be no particular law governing a certain situation, superiors still require that the faithful be able to point to some working norm as the basis for educating their conscience on such serious matters. This is a reference to Can. 20, which provided provides norms to be used to determine a course of action when there is no law that applies to a situation.

Pope Pius XII already had decreed in 1950 that “no one can presume to intrude himself or others into ecclesiastical offices and benefices without a legitimate canonical investiture or provision…made according to the sacred canons,” (Can. 147, Canon Law Digest Vol. III; entered into the Acta Apostolica Sedis.). He also refers obliquely to this in his constitution Ad Apostolorum Principis, where he writes concerning the bishops in China: “In no sense do they excuse their way of acting by appealing to another custom, and they indisputably prove that they follow this line deliberately in order to escape from the discipline which now prevails and which they ought to be obeying.” If those who believe they have been the victims of an invalid marriage can collect evidence sufficient to prove the case, in the same manner that they would collect it to defend themselves in a criminal case; if they do so following the rules provided in Canon Law, then they have established a canonical provision. Then should they decide to remarry without a decision of the Chancery, at least they have the evidence to present in their defense when we once again have a true pope.

While no one can advise them to take such action, it appears from what is presented above that it would not be a sin to proceed in this manner. The fact alone that all these marriages were performed according to the previous laws of the Church, which forbade schismatics from marrying Catholics, nullifying such acts for lack of form, seems quite sufficient in itself for nullity. Evidence to this effect would be supplied by obtaining a marriage certificate, statements from witnesses to the marriage and using the evidence on this site to prove that these men were never clerics and could never have validly officiated at such a ceremony. Could the contract itself have sufficed for validity? Not according to what is stated above. For the priest acts as witness to the marriage, and these men never became priests. Heretics and schismatics cannot act as witnesses. The marriage is null “for lack of valid form.”