Making matters worse is the flippant and heretical treatment of marriage by the Vatican II sect. They hand out "annulments" to almost everyone who asks, and they have become known as "Catholic (sic) divorces." Bergoglio compounds the problem further by allowing "communion" to open and notorious adulterers. I can imagine the blessed remains of St. Thomas More turning over. However, the beginnings of the denigration and tacit denial of the Indissolubility of Holy Matrimony actually started with the Vatican II sect's revised Rite of Holy Matrimony which reflected the change in doctrine regarding marriage.
The two-fold purpose of this post shall be (a) to further elaborate on the Church's teaching on marriage (as well as the evil of divorce), and (b) to demonstrate how the Rite of Matrimony in the Vatican II sect weakens and undermines Church teaching on marriage by introducing the sect's false teaching on the subject.
For those who wish to read my post on the vocation of marriage, see: https://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2021/03/they-are-no-longer-two-but-one-flesh.html.
The Church Teaches
I have decided to keep my commentary to a minimum and let the Church, through the teachings of Her true popes, explain why marriage is for the life of the spouses (Indissolubility). It rests first and foremost on the fact that society rises or falls with the family unit consisting of husband and wife raising children. Attempts to redefine marriage by civil unions, by recognizing abominations (sodomite "marriage"), or "committed relationships" (i.e., shacking up) will result in societal havoc.
The family is the basis of society. As the human body is composed of living cells, which are not placed only one beside the other but by their intimate and constant relationship constitute an organic whole, so society is formed not by a conglomeration of individuals, sporadic beings, who appear for an instant and disappear the next, but by the economic community and by the moral solidarity of families which, transmitting from generation to generation the precious inheritance of a common ideal, civilization and religious faith, guarantee the cohesion and continuity of social ties. St. Augustine noted it fifteen centuries ago, when he wrote that the family ought to be the initial element and like a cell (particula) of the city. Since each part is ordained to the purpose and integrity of the whole, he concluded that peace in the family between who commands and who obeys helps to maintain harmony between the citizens (St. Augustine: Invitate Dei; L. 70, c 16). Well they know it who, in order to expel God from society and throw it all into disorder, use every means to deprive the family of respect and take away even the remembrance of the divine laws, by exalting divorce and free union, by obstructing the providential duty given to parents towards their children, by instilling in married couples the fear of the material efforts and moral responsibilities which accompany the glorious burden of numerous children. (See Pope Pius XII, Allocution to the Newlyweds, June 26, 1940; Emphasis mine).
Marriage is Indissoluble by reason of its Divine Institution from Christ. This teaching was given by the Apostles, the Council of Trent, as well as by the constant teaching of the Fathers, Doctors, and approved theologians of the Church.
In like manner from the teaching of the Apostles we learn that the unity of marriage and its perpetual indissolubility, the indispensable conditions of its very origin, must, according to the command of Christ, be holy and inviolable without exception. Paul says again: 'To them that are married, not I, but the Lord commandeth that the wife depart not from her husband; and if she depart, that she remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband' (1 Cor. 7:10-11), and again 'a woman is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband die, she is at liberty' (1 Cor. 7:39). It is for these reasons that marriage is a 'great Sacrament' (Eph. 5:32), 'honourable in all' (Heb. 13:4); holy, pure and to be reverenced as a type and symbol of most high mysteries." (See Pope Leo XIII, Arcanum Divinae Sapientiae para. #9; Emphasis mine).
This is the doctrine of the Council of Trent (Council of Trent, Sess. 24; canon 1): "The first parent of the human race, moved by the Divine Spirit, declared that marriage is a perpetual and indissoluble bond when he stated 'This now is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh' (Gen. 2, 23). Christ confirmed the same stability of the bond which had been proclaimed by Adam so long ago when he declared: 'what God hath joined together, let no man put asunder'' (St. Matthew 19: 6)." Thus marriage in the very state of nature, and certainly long before it was raised to the dignity of a sacrament in the true sense of the word, was divinely instituted in such a manner that its bond was perpetual and indissoluble, so that it cannot be dissolved by any civil law. (See Pope Pius VI: Letter Litteris Tuis, July 11, 1789; Emphasis mine).
The perpetual and indissoluble strength of the marriage bond does not have its origin in ecclesiastical discipline. For the consummated marriage is solidly based on divine and natural law: such a marriage can never be dissolved for any reason - not even by the Pope himself - and not even in the case where one of the parties may have violated conjugal fidelity by committing adultery. (See Pope Pius IX, Letter Verbis Exprimere, August 15, 1859; Emphasis mine).
The indissolubility of the marriage contract is emphatically declared by Christ Himself when He says, 'What God hath joined together let no man put asunder' (St. Matthew 19:6) and 'Every man that putteth away his wife and marrieth another committeth adultery; and he that marrieth her that is put away committeth adultery' (St. Luke 16:18).
And this attribute of marriage is assigned by St. Augustine to the blessing called Sacrament in the following passage: 'Sacrament signifies that the bond of wedlock shall never be broken, and that neither party, if separated, shall form a union with another, even for the sake of offspring' (St. Augustine: De Gen. ad Litt., L IX; ch VII; n 12.). But this inviolable stability, though not always in equal measure nor always with the same degree of perfection, is the attribute of every true matrimonial bond; for the words of the Lord, 'What God hath joined together let no man put asunder', were spoken concerning the nuptial union of our first parents, the prototype of all future marriages, and are consequently applicable to every true marriage. It is true that before the coming of Christ, the perfection and strictness of the original law were modified to the extent that Moses, because of the hardness of their hearts, allowed even the members of God's people to give a bill of divorce for certain reasons. But Christ, in virtue of His power as supreme Lawgiver, revoked this concession and restored the law to its original perfection by those words which must never be forgotten: 'What God hath joined together let no man put asunder' (St. Matthew 19:6). (See Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii para. 32-34; Emphasis mine).
The great benefits of upholding the Indissolubility of Matrimony is likewise taught by the Church in clear and powerful language.
Equal advantages are afforded to the whole of society, for experience shows that the inviolable indissolubility of marriage is a most fruitful source of upright living and of moral integrity. If this is observed, the happiness and prosperity of the State are secured; for the State is what it is made to be by the individuals and families which compose it, as a body is composed of its members. Consequently those who strenuously defend the permanent stability of matrimony render a great service to the individual welfare of married persons and their children and to the public welfare of society. (See Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii, Ibid;Emphasis mine ).
After Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Redeemer and Restorer of human nature, elevated Matrimony to the dignity of a Sacrament, every marriage between Christians is by that very fact, a Sacrament, nor can the contract be in any way separated from the Sacrament. It follows that - having excepted the rights which the State has over what are called the civil effects - Matrimony falls under the authority of the Church. Besides, it is certain that Jesus, the Redeemer of all peoples, abolished the bill of divorce and gave back to Matrimony, which was strengthened by a new sanctity, its indissolubility which it had received in the beginning through the will of God Himself.
It follows that the marriage of Christians in the same moment that it is completed acquires its sanctity, unity and perfection. It cannot be dissolved for any reason whatsoever, save the death of one of the partners, in conformity to the words of Sacred Scripture: 'What God hath joined together, let no man put asunder' (St. Matthew 19: 6). Jesus Christ had in mind the numerous interests of mankind: in practice nothing better assures the preservation and restoration of good morality and nothing could be thought to be more useful and efficacious to nourish the reciprocal love between husband and wife, and to procure for the family the stability of divine power, to give back to the children the blessing of the protection and the education of former times, to safeguard woman's dignity and to assure the honor and prosperity of the family and the State. (See Pope Leo XIII, Letter Dum Multa, December 24, 1902; Emphasis mine).
If the Church, fulfilling the mission received from the Divine Founder, with powerful and fearless use of holy and invincible energy, has always affirmed and spread abroad in the world inseparable marriage, give praise and glory to her who so doing has greatly contributed in safeguarding the right of the spirit before the impulse of sense in matrimonial life, saving the dignity of the marriage no less of the woman than of the human person. (See Pope Pius XII, Allocution to Newlyweds, April 29, 1942).
The Church Condemns The Enemies Of Marriage
The two greatest enemies of the Indissolubility of Matrimony--hoping to tear apart the very foundation of a healthy and God-fearing society---are Freemasons and Communists.
As regards domestic society, here in brief is the Naturalists' doctrine. Matrimony is only a civil contract. It can be rescinded legitimately by the free will of the partners. To the State belongs the power over the matrimonial bond...
Now the Freemasons accept these principles without reserve. Not only do they accept them but for a long time now, they have studied a method which will make these principles part of custom and the way of life. In many countries, which do not hesitate to declare themselves Catholic, marriages which are not celebrated according to the civil law are declared null; in other places, divorce is allowed; again in other countries, everything is under way to obtain this permission as soon as possible. Everything is done in haste with the intention of altering the nature of matrimony, to reduce it to a mutable and fleeting union which can be formed and broken at will. (See Pope Leo XIII, Humanum Genus, para. #21; Emphasis mine).
In a system which denies to human life all that is of a sacred and spiritual nature, it follows as a matter of course that matrimony and the family are considered to be a purely civil and artificial institution, originating in a particular set of economic conditions; and as the theory refuses to recognize any matrimonial bond of the juridical and moral order not completely dependent on the will of the individual or the community, it likewise as a necessary consequence denies the indissolubility of matrimony. The complete emancipation of women from any ties with home or family is a special characteristic of the communist theory. Held to be totally free from the protective authority of her husband, the wife is withdrawn from the home and the care of her children and, equally with her husband, thrust into the turmoil of public life and communal industry, her home and her children being handed over to the custody of the State. Parents, finally, are denied the right to educate the children; this right is claimed exclusively for the community and is therefore allowed to be exercised only in its name and by its mandate. (See Pope Pius XI, Divini Redemptoris, para. #11; Emphasis mine).
The Evils of Divorce
In his encyclical Arcanum Divinae Sapientiae, Pope Leo XIII enumerates the manifold evils of divorce. I have set forth the Pontiff's teaching in bulleted form:
Truly, it is hardly possible to describe how great are the evils that flow from divorce.
- Matrimonial contracts are by it made variable; mutual kindness is weakened
- deplorable inducements to unfaithfulness are supplied
- harm is done to the education and training of children
- occasion is afforded for the breaking up of homes
- the seeds of dissension are sown among families
- the dignity of womanhood is lessened and brought low and women run the risk of being deserted after having ministered to the pleasures of men.
Since, then, nothing has such power to lay waste families and destroy the mainstay of kingdoms as the corruption of morals, it is easily seen that divorces are in the highest degree hostile to the prosperity of families and States, springing as they do from the depraved morals of the people and, as experience shows us, opening out a way to every kind of evil-doing alike in public and in private life.
The holy pope finishes his denunciation of divorce in these sobering words:
Further still, if the matter be duly pondered, we shall clearly see these evils to be the more especially dangerous because, divorce once being tolerated, there will be no restraint powerful enough to keep it within the bounds marked out or pre-established. Great indeed is the force of example and even greater still the might of passion. With such incitements, it must need follow that the eagerness for divorce, daily spreading by devious ways, will seize upon the minds of many like a virulent contagious disease or like a flood of water bursting through every barrier. (para. #29-30; Emphasis and bulleted listing mine).
Marriage Contract or Marriage Covenant?
The Vatican II sect has changed the idea of marriage both in its official teaching as expressed in its 1983 Code of Canon Law and in the revised Rite of Marriage. The Catholic definition of marriage, as propounded in the 1917 Code of Canon Law states, "Christ Our Lord elevated to the dignity of a sacrament the very matrimonial contract of baptized persons." (See Canon 1012, section 1; Emphasis mine). The purpose of marriage is expressed in Canon 1013, section 1, "The primary end of marriage is the procreation and education of children; the secondary purpose is mutual aid and the easing of concupiscence." (Simply stated, concupiscence is the tendency of humans to sin).
In the Vatican II sect, the 1983 Code of Canon Law, Canon 1055, section 1, states, "The marriage covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of their whole life, and which of its own very nature is ordered to the well-being of the spouses and to the procreation and upbringing of children, has, between the baptized, been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament.” (Emphasis mine). Notice the shift in the ends of marriage. The One True Church speaks of the procreation and education of children as the primary purpose of the contract, the mutual love and support of the spouses being secondary. The Vatican II sect does not distinguish between primary and secondary purposes, and lists the "well-being of the spouses" first.
If you think this is not without significant importance, here is what a Vatican II sect member, Jacqui Rapp who has a Licentiate of Canon Law (JCL) has to say, "Under the theology of marriage as a covenant, however, the entire Church now better understands the good of children (both their procreation and their upbringing) and the good of spouses as the two equal co-ends of marriage." (See https://catholicexchange.com/from-contract-to-covenant-evolution-of-the-churchs-understanding-of-marriage). Not only is this position clearly heretical, it opens the door to divorce. After all, if the spouses aren't happy it is not conducive to their well-being. Phony annulments are granted for "psychological immaturity"--which in many cases means they thought they could find happiness being married but were not psychologically mature enough to give consent and make it work. More to be said about this later.
First compare the words of Pope Pius XII:
As regards declarations of nullity of marriages, no one is unaware that the Church is hesitant and averse to granting them. Indeed, if the tranquility, stability and safety of human commerce in general demands that contracts should not be declared null for every fickle reason, then all the more so must it be demanded of a contract of such importance as matrimony, whose firmness and stability are required by the common welfare of human society and by the private welfare of the wedded couples and of the children; while the dignity of the Sacrament forbids that what is sacred and sacramental be easily exposed to the danger of profanation. Who is unaware then, that human hearts are frequently unfortunately inclined - for reasons of hardship of different kinds, or through disagreement and weariness with the other party, or to open the way to a union with another person sinfully loved - to study means to free themselves from the marriage union already contracted? For these reasons, the ecclesiastical judge must not too easily be inclined to declare a marriage null but rather to devote himself above all, to see that what has been invalidly contracted be convalidated, especially when the circumstances of the case particularly suggest this course. (See Allocution to the Tribunal of the Sacred Roman Rota, October 3, 1941).
In the True Rite of Marriage, the man and woman administer the Sacrament to each other in these words:
The man begins:
I, N. N., take thee, N. N., for my lawful wife, to have and to hold, from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, until death do us part.
The woman follows:
I, N. N., take thee, N. N., for my lawful husband, to have and to hold, from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, until death do us part.
The contract is perfectly expressed. They will (a) never depart from each other ["have and to hold"], (b) begin the contract immediately ["from this day forward'], (c) never be free of the sacramental contract regardless of hardships endured [ "for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health"], (d) and the ONLY condition that ends the contract is death of one of the spouses ["until death do us part"]. Every couple hears the same Proper of the Nuptial Mass which includes the Gospel of St. Matthew 19:3-6:
At that time: The Pharisees came to Jesus, tempting Him and saying; It is lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? Who answering said to them, Have ye not read, that He who made man from the beginning, made them male and female? and He said, For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they two shall be in one flesh. Therefore, now they are not two but one flesh. What, therefore, God hath joined together, let no man put asunder.
In the Vatican II sect, the exchange begins thus:
The priest invites them to declare their consent:
Since it is your intention to enter the covenant of Holy Matrimony, join your right hands, and declare your consent before God and his Church.
The marriage is no longer seen as a binding contract of vows to each other and declared before God, but a giving of permission ("consent") to be married after declaring their intention to marry. The contract cannot be broken except by death, however mutual consent can always be withdrawn, and "lack of consent" due to "psychological immaturity" is yet another bogus excuse to obtain an equally false "annulment." There are four options for vows, two of which avoid the dreaded "D" word:
Option A
The bridegroom says:
I, (Name), take you, (Name), to be my wife. I promise to be faithful to you, in good times and in bad, in sickness and in health, to love you and to honor you all the days of my life.
The bride says:
I, (Name), take you, (Name), to be my husband. I promise to be faithful to you, in good times and in bad, in sickness and in health, to love you and to honor you all the days of my life.
While it is true that the phrase "all the days of my life" is the equivalent of "until death do us part," it wouldn't surprise me if someone argued that the former phrase means "all the days of my life in which our marriage was ordered to my well-being." Finally, for the Gospel reading there are ten (10) options, most of which speak of love or charity but not the permanence of matrimony until death.
Conclusion
The backbone of any society rests on having good and holy families. This can only be obtained by Indissoluble Marriage. Sometimes marriage is painful and separation must occur, but the marriage endures. The person who resigns himself/herself to God's Will merits much in their suffering, and bears witness to the nature and importance of marriage. There are often heavy crosses to bear in all four vocations; marriage being no exception.
Today we live in a world getting more wicked by the day, and it is due--in no small part--by the break-up of the family unit. Any form of shacking up, including sodomite perversion, is considered "marriage." Divorce is "no-fault" and easy. Bergoglio rewards those who violate marriage vows with "communion." We are reaping the evil fruits of all this each day...and it all began with the Hell-spawned teachings of Vatican II.
I am not married and I don't know if I will ever get married but sometimes I think to myself that it is better to be single than to be with someone who is not suitable for us. I know there is a discernment to be made but seeing the many separations and divorces sometimes involving young children and which often end dramatically in domestic violence and crime, I wonder if the discernment still exists ...
ReplyDeleteThe V2 sect has changed the doctrine on marriage and we see more and more false V2 clergy blessing sodomite duets. I think that someday there will be "gay marriages" in V2 churches, just as there will certainly be "women priests", even though "saint" JP2 said the Church did not the power to ordain women to the priesthood. Who cares, after all? If we can contradict the true popes, why not the false ones? This false church is so evil that it wouldn't surprise me if all of this ever happened.
Simon,
DeleteI agree that there will be "priestesses" and sodomite "marriage" in the V2 sect. Just give them time. Pray that God may lead you to your vocation everyday. You may be called to the single life, or perhaps God will introduce a lady into your life. In any case, always be resigned to the Will of God.
God Bless,
---Introibo
Indissolubility of marriage is one of the worst mistakes the Catholic Church imposed and she tried to fix it without contradicting "infallibility" following Vatican 2. Nobody should be forced to live in an unhappy marriage with an abusive spouse and the Catholic Church recognizes that today, finally. You people of course do not recognize the Church's living authority but you are only a tiny minority. I am not saying divorce or annulment are good things but only that the church recognizes that she can't punish good people for the rest of their lives for their mistakes and or misfortunes. They too deserve a second chance to be in a happy loving relationship.
ReplyDeleteOkay
DeleteAnon. 6:44 AM
DeleteFrom the sounds of it, you don't follow the Catholic Church's living authority because you imply that it can error (mistake) and that it's not "infallible" in its decisions (regarding the indissolubility of marriage). Not only that but you reject Jesus Christ himself and his gospel which says, "Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder. They say to him: Why then did Moses command to give a bill of divorce, and to put away? He saith to them: Because Moses by reason of the hardness of your heart permitted you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery." Matthew 19: 6-9
We recognize the Catholic Church's living authority because we know how to distinguish it from the Vatican II Church which is not the same Church. You're just another one of those "majority" of liberals who disagrees with the Catholic Church and Christ its head because it doesn't cater to your way of thinking.
Lee
Anon@6:44 AM,
Delete"Indissolubility of marriage is one of the worst mistakes the Catholic Church imposed"
You'll have to take it up with the Son of God, then.
Sincerely,
A Simple Man
I'll have to take it up with Jesus Christ? LOL! Says the Sedevacantist who thinks he can dictate what the living magisterium can and can't do. And lee, who exactly is your living authority? I already know the answer but it is always funnier when a sedevacantist answers for himself.
DeleteAnon 10:54,
DeleteLOL says the Novus Ordoite who thinks he/she can disagree with the authority of scripture and the Catholic Faith and still call themself a Catholic who obeys "living authority." My living authority resides with those who uphold what the Catholic Faith as it has always been taught. Not with the Vatican II/Novus Ordo/R&R heretics who have created a large scale sect which has no authority from God precisely because they have started a new religion.
Do you agree or disagree with the following:
Pope Pius X Catechism
4 Q. Why do we say that the bond of marriage is indissoluble?
A. We say that the bond of marriage is indissoluble or that it cannot be dissolved except by the death of either husband or wife, because God so ordained from the beginning and so Jesus Christ our Lord solemnly proclaimed.
5 Q. Can the contract be separated from the sacrament in Christian marriage?
A. No, in marriage among Christians the contract cannot be separated from the sacrament, because, for Christians, marriage is nothing else than the natural contract itself, raised by Jesus Christ to the dignity of a sacrament.
Lee
Anon@10:54 AM,
Delete"I'll have to take it up with Jesus Christ? LOL! Says the Sedevacantist who thinks he can dictate what the living magisterium can and can't do."
I have done no such thing. However, we are called as Catholics, by our rule of faith, to recognize (by signs and by contradictions) if those purporting to be shepherds are, in fact, mere hirelings, or wolves in disguise: "I am astounded that you should be so quick to desert one who called you to the grace of Christ, and go over to another gospel; this can only mean, that certain people are causing disquiet among you, in their eagerness to pervert the gospel of Christ. Friends, though it were we ourselves, though it were an angel from heaven that should preach to you a gospel other than the gospel we preached to you, a curse upon him! I repeat now the warning we gave you before it happened, if anyone preaches to you what is contrary to the tradition you received, a curse upon him!" - Galatians 1:6-9 from the Knox Bible
The difference between the Catholic Church and the Conciliar Church on matters of marriage, annulments, and divorce (both in theory and in practice) are a clear enough sign that they are not one and the same entity, and that the living authority of the former does not correspond to the faith-killing authority of the latter.
And you don't even have to be a sedevacantist to make that observation.
Sincerely,
A Simple Man
@anon6:44
Delete1. You do not view the Catholic Church correctly. You deny Infallibility. I'm not surprised as the Vatican II basically teaches the same thing de facto. The problem is apparent; what good is a Magisterium that can't teach? If they were wrong about Marriage what else are they wrong about and who decides? What if Francis declares the Church was wrong about rape and it's not wrong or sinful? Would you agree? On what basis would you agree or disagree?
You use the term "living Magisterium" much like the liberal Constitutional scholars I studied in law school who declared the U.S. Constitution as a "living Constitution" which "changes on its own over time" and has been interpreted to permit abortion, sodomite "marriage" and other monstrosities the Founding Fathers never contemplated.
The Jehovah's Witnesses are also similar. They at first permitted organ transplants, then forbade them, then permitted them again. Those unlucky enough to belong to the sect when they needed an organ transplant and died were "unlucky" not to have lived long enough for their living authority to reverse themselves.
Pope Pius XII declared the Assumption of Mary a dogma in 1950. What if Francis and all his bishops "undeclare" it a dogma in 2021? Was everyone in error? What if the successor of Francis and all the bishops of that time period "redeclare" it a dogma? Was Mary taken body and soul to Heaven or not? How would you ever know what to believe with such a spurious "living Magisterium"?
2. You seem to think that truth is determined in numbers. Sedevacantism is based on solid Catholic theological premises. If you would ever like to debate me about it on a neutral forum, please let me know and I'll gladly oblige.
Suppose only a small minority of people believed that God exists, or rape is objectively immoral, or 2+2=4. Would any of those things cease to be objectively true based on the number of people that believe them true?
God Bless,
---Introibo
At anon 6:44
DeleteNobody has brought this up yet but your premise is false.
“Nobody should be forced to live in an unhappy marriage with an abusive spouse and the Catholic Church recognizes that today, finally.“
Nobody is forced to marry, at least not in this country. Also if things really are that bad I think you can always take vows and join the religious life, just saying.
Introibo,
ReplyDeleteIf we are married here are we still married when in heaven?
Thanks.
JoAnn
Joann,
DeleteAnon@1:49 below is correct. The only three Sacraments that last forever are Holy Orders, Baptism and Confirmation which leave an indelible character (or "mark" if you will) on the soul. There will be baptized and confirmed people in Heaven, as well as priests and bishops (also deacons), but no married people. Christ was asked that very question in St. Matthew 22:23-32:
That same day the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to him with a question. “Teacher,” they said, “Moses told us that if a man dies without having children, his brother must marry the widow and raise up offspring for him. Now there were seven brothers among us. The first one married and died, and since he had no children, he left his wife to his brother. The same thing happened to the second and third brother, right on down to the seventh. Finally, the woman died. Now then, at the resurrection, whose wife will she be of the seven, since all of them were married to her?”
Jesus replied, “You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God. At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven. But about the resurrection of the dead—have you not read what God said to you, 'I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not the God of the dead but of the living.”
God Bless,
---Introibo
No, as when you die the contract is ended.
ReplyDelete@anon1:49
DeleteCorrect.
---Introibo
Introibo,
ReplyDeleteIf you continue the same passage to Matthew 19:9 it states
9 And I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery.
Can you explain this verse? Does this not imply that there is an acceptable form of divorce? Because of fornication?
Anon@1:55 PM,
DeleteI will cite for you to the lengthy answer from the Great Commentary of Cornelius a Lapide on this verse:
xxxx
Verse 9. But I say, &c. Christ used those words upon two occasions. 1. Publicly in this place to the Jews and the Pharisees. When He here promulgated His new law, by which He revoked the power of giving a bill of divorce, and brought back marriage to its primeval institution and indissolubility. 2. Shortly afterwards He repeated the words in private to his disciples. (Mark 10:10, 11, 12.)
I say, i.e., I enact, and as the Lawgiver of the New Law, I ordain, and bring back marriage to its original rectitude and steadfastness. And I declare that whosoever shall put away his wife and shall marry another shall be accounted, and shall be in fact an adulterer.
Except for fornication. That is, except on account of adultery. For what in those who are free is fornication, in the married is adultery. And this dissolves marriage quoad thorum, though not quoad vinculum. For the adulterer does not keep the faith which he gave to his spouse. Whence he may be put away by his spouse, according to the saying, “With him who has broken troth, let troth be broken.”
From this exception, the Greeks, according to the testimony of Guido the Carmelite (Tract, de Hæresibus), and modern heretics gather and conclude that if whoso putteth away his wife except for fornication, and marry another, committeth adultery; then, on the contrary, whosoever shall put away his wife on account of fornication, and shall marry another, does not commit adultery. Whence they are of opinion that marriage is dissolved by adultery, not only quoad thorum, but quoad vinculum, that under such circumstances a man may contract another marriage. Thus Luther, Calvin, Erasmus, and speaking generally, the Lutherans, Calvinists, Anabaptists, and among Catholics, Catharinus, and Cajetan. And so in practice the Greeks and heretics act. But this is an error condemned by the perpetual tradition of the Church, and by S. Paul (Rom. 7:1, and 1 Cor. 7:10, 11), and expressly by the Council of Trent (Sess. 24, Con. 6, 7). To the argument deduced à contrario, Paul of Burgos, on this passage, (additione 2. ad Lyran.) replies by admitting the consequence, but adds that Christ was speaking only of the Old Law, in which on account of fornication a bill of divorce was allowed to be given. But there is this difficulty in such a reply, that Christ both here and in the fifth of Matthew expressly opposes His own words, that is the evangelical Law, to Moses and the Old Law; in fact He repeals that bill of divorce which Moses had allowed. Verses 8 and 9. “He saith unto them, Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.” Observe how plainly Christ opposes His own word to the sanction which Moses had given to the bill of divorce, and how He condemns whosoever makes use of it, as guilty of adultery.
(To be continued)
(continued from above)
DeleteI say therefore that it is better with S. Augustine (lib. 1. de adult onjug. c. 9.) to take the word except negatively, so that the expression, save for the cause of fornication, means the same thing as apart from the cause of fornication. This is supported by the Greek and Syriac which have, not an adulteress. As though Christ only intended to affirm that a chaste and faithful wife might not be put away, but intended to say nothing about an adulterous wife, in order to escape the hatred of the Pharisees and the people, who were at that time used to divorce.
2. The word except, can be taken in its proper, exceptive sense, but it should be referred not to the words which immediately follow, and marry another, but only to those which preceded, whosoever shall put away his wife, so as to make an exception in the case of fornication. Then the words would be taken as follows, Whosoever shall put away his wife, which is not lawful, except for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery. The Ethiopic favours this view, translating as follows, Whosoever, on account of any other cause than on account of fornication, shall put away his wife, and marry another, is in adulterer. Similarly the Persian, Every man who puts away his wife, and not on account of adultery, and marries another, is an adulterer.
3. Most clearly and aptly from Theophylact and Augustine (lib. cont. Adamant, c. 3), you may refer this exception to both what precedes and what follows. Thus, Whoso shall put away his wife, unless for fornication, and marries another, commits adultery. He commits adultery, I say, both by putting away his wife, as well as by marrying another. That is, he is twice an adulterer. Christ gives an answer to both the questions put to Him, for the Pharisees had asked two. And both answers are true. For even though a man should only divorce a chaste wife, without marrying another, he commits adultery, both because he breaks the law of marriage, by violating one of its conditions by putting away an innocent wife, as well as by causing her to commit adultery, as Christ explains in Matthew 5:32. For verbs of the Hebrew conjugation Kal, often in Hiphil, signify the double action as above. This is well known to Hebrew scholars. Whence from the contrary you can only infer as follows, Whoso shall put away his wife unless for fornication, and shall marry another, commits adultery. Therefore he who puts away his wife on account of fornication, and marries another, does not indeed commit adultery by divorcing the adulteress, but by marrying another. It is the same form of expression as if you should say, “He who breaks his fast without a dispensation, and gets drunk, commits sin. Therefore he who does not fast, having a dispensation, does not sin by eating, but sins by getting drunk.”
I say, 2. Christ here concedes divorce to a man on account of the fornication of his wife, quoad thorum, but not the dissolution of marriage, so that he may marry another. This appears, 1. because Mark and Luke lay down a general proposition, and omit this exception. This is what Luke says, 16:18: “Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.” For he does her a great wrong, breaking the troth which he had given her.
(To be continued)
(Continued from above)
DeleteYou will say, why then does Matthew add this exception? I answer, because the Pharisees had virtually proposed two questions to Christ. The first was, whether it was lawful for any cause to divorce a wife? The second, whether when a wife was put away by a bill of divorce, the marriage was dissolved, and another might be entered upon? For they put away their wives that they may marry again. Christ then replies to both questions; and as it seems by means of two propositions. 1. Whoso shall put away his wife except for fornication, commits adultery. 2. Whoso shall marry another, commits adultery. For together with the bill of divorce he abolishes polygamy, which had hitherto been allowed. The pronoun whosoever must be repeated. Matthew, here as elsewhere studying conciseness, throws two sentences of Christ, each with its whosoever, into one. Hence that saying is true, “I labour to be brief, I become obscure.” The same thing is proved, 2. by what precedes, when Christ by the original institution of marriage, which fornication does not annul, proves that matrimony is altogether indissoluble. 3. Because in what follows, this exception is not to be understood, as if it were said, And he who shall marry her that is put away, except for fornication, commits adultery. For so she that is put away on account of fornication would be in a better position, with respect to another contract of marriage, than an innocent woman who has been divorced. 4. Because S. Paul so teaches (1 Cor. 7:10, 11), and the Fathers passim. SS. Jerome, Chrysostom, Bede, in this passage, S. Augustine in his two Books on Adultery, Innocent I. (Epist. ad Exuper.) Concil. Milev. (Can. 17). Forojuliense (Canon 10), Nannetense (Can. 10), Florentin. (in instruct. Armeniens.) Trident. (Sess. 14, Can. 6). Origen, in this passage (Tract. 7), animadverts severely upon certain bishops of his time, for conceding with Tertullian (lib. 4, cont. Marc.) and Ambrosiaster (in Cor. 7.), second nuptials to wives on account of the adultery of their husbands, saying that it is lawful for the innocent spouse to put away an adulterous partner, and to marry another. The same license is given by the Council of Illiberis. (31 quæst. 1 cap. Si qua mulier.) Also in Concil. Aurelian 1, cap. 10. But the decrees of those Councils are either apocryphal, or else are cited imperfectly by Gratian.
xxxx
To summarize: Christ is answering two questions with His statement here. A man commits adultery by putting away his wife except in the case of fornication/adultery; *however*, anyone who marries the woman that was put away commits adultery regardless, because the marital bond remains. In like manner, the man who put away the adulteress does not thereby have the right to go on and marry another.
Msgr. Ronald Knox's footnote on this verse in his translation succinctly summarizes the point: "The apparent exception made here in connexion with unfaithfulness, not recognized in Mark or Luke, or by St Paul, has been variously explained. It is to be observed in any case that our Lord is speaking of the man who puts away his innocent wife in order to marry another (this is often the force of the Hebrew ‘and’). He considers the case of the guilty husband with the innocent wife, and that of the innocent husband with the guilty wife; not that of the man who has a guilty wife and himself wants a change of partners. Thus it would be unsafe to infer that the husband has a right to re-marry."
Sincerely,
A Simple Man
@anon1:55
DeleteSometimes referred to as "the exception clause" and pounced upon by Protestants, let us remember that "fornication" (or "unchasitity") is not mentioned as an exception in the parallel texts of St. Mark and St. Luke.
St>paul admits no exception either. He writes in 1 Corinthians 7:10–11, 39, “To the married I give charge, not I but the Lord, that the wife should not separate from her husband (but if she does, let her remain single or else be reconciled to her husband)—and that the husband should not divorce his wife. . . . A wife is bound to her husband as long as he lives. If the husband dies, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord.”
The Greek term used for “unchastity” or "fornication"— "porneia"—is being used in a special sense. Most theologians have taken it to refer to unchaste behavior before the marriage is consummated. At that point, it is possible to dissolve the marriage, for marriages become indissoluble only when they are consummated. In today's world that happens on the wedding night.
At the time of Christ, it was not unusual for the Jews (for whom St. Matthew was writing specifically) to wait up until one year to consummate the marriage. If, during that time, one was unfaithful, the unconsummated bond could be broken. This still holds true as the "Petrine Privilege"--a ratified but unconsummated marriage can be broken. Indissolubility occurs after the first conjugal act after the wedding. If the couple even spends a short time alone, it is assumed they consummated the marriage.
Hence, Christ was saying, "whosoever puts away his wife, except it be for a marriage not consummated and marry another committeth adultery."
God Bless,
---Introibo
A Simple Man,
DeleteYou have done an excellent job expounding on the teaching of an eminent theologian! While the Church has not definitively settled the exact explanation, the fact remains the "exception" is no exception to divorce and remarriage!
God Bless,
---Introibo
That is to say, "There is no exception to the Indissolubility of marriage for adultery. Divorce and remarriage are always wrong."
Delete---Introibo
So,if the Wife certifiably committed adultery,how does the Husband go about obtaining divorce?
ReplyDelete@anon9:26
DeleteThere is no divorce for a sacramental marriage. If the wife will not reconcile with the husband and break off the affair, he can obtain a no-fault divorce (available in most states) and live celibately by himself.
---Introibo
Wow so a younger man with absolutely no instruction guidance or formation from his parents,marries the wrong Lady in a dysfunctional state,in the V2 sect no less,she cheats on him,and his reward is to live alone and never experience love children etc
DeleteEveryone else preaches suffering but those same ppl are married to someone they love and have a career or home life which they enjoy and have no idea what living in utter misery for 2 decades.
Suffering with absolutely nothing good in your life for decades sucks.
@anon3:38
DeleteThe problem with your line of reasoning is that having marriage and children is somehow "owed" to people by God. My temporal happiness is what counts and if I don't get my way there's "something wrong with HIM."
It sounds harsh, but the old sayings are true nonetheless:
1. No one promised you a rose garden
2. Life isn't fair
That's why in the Hail Holy Queen, we send up to the Blessed Mother our "mourning and weeping in this valley of tears." Not exactly a rosy picture of this world. We are only promised happiness as a reward in the hereafter, when all will get their due and everything will be fair.
A friend of mine from Church was a conservative member of the V2 sect. He married at 26 and at 39 his wife ran off with the next door neighbor. He obtained a civil divorce and has lived celibately, converting to be a Traditionalist after a couple of years. He is now 70 and even though lonely and depressed at times, he is confident that God will reward Him in the next life for his perseverance in the truth. He is not the only courageous example. What of someone who recognizes his homosexual attraction to be wrong and also does the right thing by living celibately. He's not happy, so get a "gay marriage" and adopt a kid.
The exception to the rule will become the rule of exceptions. Henry VIII wasn't happy he couldn't have a male heir. Not realizing the man determines the sex of the child he wanted to marry someone else to have a son and be happy. What if the young man you describe marries again and the second lady also cheats? Another divorce or "annulment"? What if it happens a third time? The Eastern Schismatics have an interesting rule; you can get married up to three times. If the third time isn't the charm then you are stuck. Why three? Why not keep going? In the meantime we all suffer; the family, the kids, our society, etc.
God Bless,
---Introibo
Were you the anon back then that called your life "literal hell"?
DeleteIntrobio,
ReplyDeleteI have a question. If you do not get married through the Church ie go through the proper sacrament of marriage, is it a valid marriage? Let’s take an extreme example and say you were married at the courthouse by filing some papers with your wife, no ceremony, no vows etc, is that a real marriage?
Ryan,
DeleteYours is a most interesting question! Under the 1917 Code, any Catholic who attempts marriage outside the canonical forum (before a priest and two ministers) and goes before a civil magistrate or the clergy of a false sect, does so INVALIDLY. Does this apply to the Vatican II sect members? Must they get married before members of the sect they believe are Catholic priests? The SSPV answers in the affirmative, while I answer in the negative.
God Bless,
---Introibo
Introbio,
DeleteInteresting I wasn’t really expecting that, but it makes sense since you have to have matter and form for a sacrament. I wonder though if it kinda opens up Pandora’s box?
Introibo,
DeleteWhen was marriage instituted as a Sacrament?
Thanks.
JoAnn
Joann,
DeleteAccording to theologian Riley, "The Church, of course, has never maintained that our Blessed Lord founded marriage during His life on earth. Marriage is as old as the human race. It was instituted by God in the very beginning. Adam and Eve were husband and wife. But when Jesus Christ became man, sometime before His Ascension into Heaven He took the natural contract of marriage and made of it a Sacrament; and in thus raising it to sacramental dignity, He conferred on it the power to produce grace. He did not institute a new sign. Rather, he took the sign which is necessarily present in any marriage contract. And thus, this external expression of consent, when it is given and accepted by baptized persons, becomes the outward sign of the inward infusion of grace." (See "Sanctity and Success in Marriage" [1956], pgs. 63-75). We don't know the exact moment, but it was before the Ascension.
God Bless,
---Introibo
That's one thing about the SSPV I don't get. I love the SSPV and attend their chapel here in MN but yeah it's kind of confusing when they say that. I mean the NO is not the Catholic faith so why wouldn't it be treated like any other false religion in regards to canon law and attending a non-Catholic wedding?
DeleteRyan,
DeleteYes, it does open a can of worms. The 1917 Code of Canon Law sets up invalidating impediments and was never withdrawn. Are those who consider themselves "Catholics" in the Vatican II sect still bound, or not, like when someone apostatizes to Protestantism before Vatican II? In the early days of the Great Apostasy, the easy answer would be yes, but almost 60 years after 1964, can we still say the same? In my opinion, no, they are not bound.
God Bless,
---Introibo
JoAnn,
DeleteThis is what the Baltimore Catechism # 3 says regarding your question:
Q. 1007. When was marriage first instituted?
A. Marriage was first instituted in the Garden of Eden, when God created Adam and Eve and made them husband and wife, but it was not then a Sacrament, for their union did not confer any special grace.
Q. 1008. When was the contract of marriage raised to the dignity of a Sacrament?
A. The exact time at which the contract of marriages was raised to the dignity of a Sacrament is not known, but the fact that it was thus raised is certain from passages in the New Testament and from the constant teaching of the Church ever since the time of the apostles. Our Lord did not merely add grace to the contract, but He made the very contract a Sacrament, so that Christians cannot make this contract without receiving the Sacrament.
Lee
Lee,
DeleteThanks much!!
God Bless You!
JoAnn
Introibo,
DeleteThe Lord says that any sin can be forgiven except for blasphemy of the Holy Ghost. If a person makes a grave mistake and married the wrong person or the person does not cherish his wife but abuses her, I just can't see that the Lord expects that person to live forever married to that person. The Lord is merciful and forgives. Just my questioning things.
Thanks.
JoAnn
Introbio,
DeleteI was thinking if most everyone could say their marriage wasn’t valid then most everyone could get an annulment right?
Joann,
DeleteWhile it is true all sins CAN be forgiven, it is not automatic. You must be sorry and resolve to amend your life. How can someone who is continuous sin be sorry and amending his life? Such a sin cannot be forgiven because the person is not truly penitent.
God Bless,
---Introibo
Ryan,
DeleteNo annulment necessary. There is certainty that **IF** what the SSPV says is true, anyone who marries before a justice of the peace or a non-V2 sect clergyman would have an invalid marriage and would be free to marry. My view is that they are NOT bound by the canonical forum, so like Protestants, if they wed before a justice of the peace or a Protestant minister, the marriage is a valid, sacramental marriage.
---Introibo
David,
DeleteI don't get that about the SSPV either!
---Introibo
Thanks for the clarification Introbio, sorry about my reading comprehention lol.
DeleteI agree with you, whats left of marraige in this country would completely disintegrate if the SSPV has their way.
God bless,
Ryan
Introibo,
DeleteThe one who is in continuous sin is the spouse that is not cherishing his wife but continually abusing her. He has already broken his vows and the marriage contract by not loving, honoring or cherishing, but abusing. Jesus states that men are to love their wives as Christ loves the Church. Not many want to address that verse but ignore it. Have you done an article addressing that particular verse? We don't live in an ideal world but unfortunately in a flawed world where people do real and abusive things to one another. To say an abused person is stuck in such an abusive marriage because of a mistake by marrying the wrong person makes the Lord and the Church to be quite unmerciful.
JoAnn
Introibo,
DeleteWasn't Aramaic spoken in Jesus time? Why wasn't the bible then written in Aramaic? Just curious.
JoAnn
JoAnn,
DeletePrior to the invention of the printing press, the common spoken language and the common written language in a given area weren't necessarily the same thing, as the latter was far more resource-intensive to use and learn compared to the former.
At the time that Jesus walked the Earth, Aramaic was the common spoken language in Israel (even more common than Hebrew, which the Old Testament had been originally written in for the most part; only a scattered helping of verses written in Aramaic are known). However, the ancient Israelites had become illiterate in Hebrew some centuries prior, which had prompted the translation of the Old Testament into the lingua franca of the time: Greek (that Greek was the common language throughout the Mediterranean and Middle East can be credited to the conquests of Alexander the Great). Specifically not classical or high-class, but a commonly used variant now known as Koine Greek. This translation we know as the Septuagint, and was so widely used that it was even read in various synagogues at the time.
As such, since widespread readability was one of the reasons the Gospels were written down, using the lingua franca was only natural; it just happened to be Greek due to various historical circumstances.
Sincerely,
A Simple Man
Joann,
DeleteYou are correct that a man must cherish his wife and I will consider a post on it. No one is "stuck" in a bad marriage; they may separate, just not remarry. No one has a "right" to be married anymore than someone has a "right" to be born healthy. Why would God allow someone to live like that? In some way it will be conducive to their eternal salvation, in ways we may never see in this life.
“For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,” declares the Lord. (Isaiah 55:8-9)
God Bless,
---Introibo
Introibo.Excellent writing as aways.
ReplyDeleteHave you ever been to a SSPV Mass?What chapel?They don't seem to be growing as fast as the CMRI.Your comments please
@anon10:55
DeleteI have attended SSPV in New York, Montana, and Florida. There is definite growth. Is there growth as much as the CMRI? I honestly don't know. If true, I'd attribute it to their treating sedevacantism as an acceptable "opinion" while the CMRI is more forceful and states it as a matter of fact. I love the SSPV but when you attend Mass there it's like 1958 and all is OK with the world. The young people need to be reminded WHY the are Traditionalists. If not, don't be surprised if they opt for R&R then apostatize to the V2 sect. After all if Francis could be pope, it becomes mere preference, and it's human nature to take the easy way out.
God Bless,
---Introibo
I did hear that young people who attend SSPV have no problem going to the SSPX and Indult/Motu Masses.Why are the priests not preaching about this?
DeleteThe CMRI Mass centers have more then doubled in the last decade where the SSPV are still the same.Perhaps others can give info about this.
I did hear the SSPV priest in MT often preaches anti Thuc/CMRI sermons.
Anon 7:53
DeleteWhile no groups are perfect, the CMRI grow because they have personable priests, are careful about how they conduct themselves including their speech, and are reasonable on both a practical level and a theological one. I can't say for certain what the SSPV are like but I have heard both good and bad things and the bad things usually outweigh the good generally speaking.
Introibo mentioned opinionism which doesn't help them because it leaves the mind wondering how to deal with sedevacantism which ultimately leads to indifference on the matter altogether. The SSPV have also created a lot of rift with people over the Thuc issue over the years and have caused much grief over it for some because of weddings, funerals etc. Ironically, one could argue the same argument against them in so far as how their bishop Kelly was consecrated. It was by an old Novus Ordo bishop who just happened to agree to consecrate him (in private) by using the traditional rite and I know a couple of witnesses who told me that he forgot to say/do certain parts of the ritual and to redo it. After a 3rd or 4th attempt the people present weren't positive whether another certain part was said correctly, so they just let him continue. Personally, I believe he was validly consecrated (despite the mishaps) but talk about the possibility of being senile on account of the bishop he had who did it, yet that is the argument they pose against Archbishop Thuc. They claim he was senile and lacked the proper intention to do what the Church desires (which is a requirement for validity) when their bishop seemed to have the same kind of scenario, dare I say far worse. It could also be that the SSPV are much like (in spirit) the SSPX. When they split from the SSPX in 1983, the old habits didn't necessarily leave.
I'm not trying to bad mouth the group or dissuade people from going there but just giving an analysis on what you were wondering. These things don't attract people especially those who are new because it comes across as shady, contradictory, and even a little culty. Just pray and do penance for all of them. We all need it.
Lee
Introibo, a clarification.
Delete1. You are not an opinionist
2. But you also don't think the R and R are non-Catholics
Are the two correct?
Do you at least think they're public heretics for denying a necessary conclusion?
"On the Value of Theological Notes and the Criteria for Discerning Them" by Father Sixtus Cartechini S.J. (Rome, 1951), a work which was drafted for use by auditors of the Roman Congregations, states that denying a theological conclusion effects mortal sin against the faith. The definition of a theological conclusion is "A truth logically following from one proposition which is Divinely revealed and another which is historically certain" which the sedevacantist thesis is.
Lee, Bp. Kelly's consecration was private. No layman attended. You must be confusing it w/ the two SSPV priests Bp. Mendez ordained.
DeleteIntroibo, do you think the ordination of the 2 priests were valid, and why, despite the objections?
Anon. 7:37
DeleteI know it was private, which makes it even more suspicious. I didn't say that the witnesses that were there that I know were laymen. Bishop Kelly was consecrated by Alfredo Méndez-Gonzalez who was a Novus Ordo bishop. My point was the arguments used by the SSPV against Thuc can also be used against the SSPV, but I think they are bogus arguments and don't affect the sacraments on either.
Lee
@anon2:12
Delete#1--You are correct.
#2--My opinion is changing. As of this writing, I believe that the R&R is not a Catholic position, yet they are all not necessarily in sin or heretical.
Objectively speaking, the R&R position is no longer theologically a tenable view to hold. I believe it was viable at the beginning of the Great Apostasy, when almost all were shocked and confused. After all this time, it is manifestly false.
However, subjectively it may be held in good faith. Almost all my commenters, such as yourself, are well-versed in the faith. I've met many R&R who are not well-educated and not very gifted intellectually. THEY ARE GOOD PEOPLE WHO WANT TO BE CATHOLIC. They hold the Integral Catholic Faith yet have been led to believe there must be a pope and you can resist him when he teaches something non-Catholic.
They equate a living pope with being Catholic and will not dare reject someone who "makes them Catholic"--even when Bergoglio is not. These people do not comprehend theologians like Cartechinni.
So, the position is not Catholic, but many who hold it are Catholic. Likewise, if I have been lead to believe that Mary was not assumed into Heaven, and I believe it is part of the Catholic faith, I do not sin subjectively, nor am I a heretic.
God Bless,
---Introibo
@anon7:37,
DeletePlease see one of my early posts on the ordination of Frs. Baumberger and Greenwell:
http://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2014/04/in-defense-of-ordination.html
God Bless,
---Introibo
Lee,
DeleteI would also add the following observations regarding CMRI (for the sake of disclosure, I've never attended an SSPV chapel, so I cannot speak for or against them personally):
- CMRI already underwent its own crucible of sorts with the fallout related to Francis Shuckardt back in the 1980s; after everything that went down, they took reasoned and prudent steps to ensure that situation would never arise again, and also did what they could to ensure sacramental validity continued for their priests. As such, there is a degree of accountability that is objectively observable.
- They lack a tribalist mentality as far as sedevacantist apostolates go, and are willing to work with independents and other sede groups (most notably Dolan/Sanborn and the priests associated with them) so long as they are able to validate that such individuals/groups have valid Orders. This gives them a degree of flexibility that more isolationist groups do not possess. To put it another way: CMRI would have no issue with you attending an SSPV chapel for Mass, as they hold their priests to be validly ordained. The same courtesy (as a matter of official SSPV policy, as far as I'm aware) is not returned to CMRI, alas.
Sincerely,
A Simple Man
ASM,
DeleteThank you for adding on in speaking truthfully about the CMRI. They are like you said really prudent and are for the most part good about being understanding with newcomers. I have a few issues with them (not dogmatic/doctrine) but I won't say online out of respect. They are Catholic and are solid when it comes to the essentials of the Faith and are a great asset for our times.
The SSPV policy (depending on which church you attend) asks (at least it used to) newcomers to talk with the priests regarding receiving the sacraments after Mass in their bulletins and forbids (at least Fr. Jenkins and Bp. Kelly, not sure of the others) communion to those who attend Thuc line priests/bishops Masses because they don't believe Thuc's consecrations were valid. There was a debate between Fr. Cekada and Fr. Jenkins back in the 90's which can be watched on you tube. It was clear then that Fr. Jenkins didn't have good arguments backed by Church law as to why he thinks he can refuse sacraments to lay people who may come from such chapels.
I'm not saying I agree with Fr. Cekada on everything such as his stance on the Pian reforms as well as a few other things, but there is no doubt about it that in this debate with Fr. Jenkins, he clearly smoked him.
Personally, I would avoid them unless I didn't have anything else but for those who go there and I have some good friends who do, I'm not opposed.
Lee
Fr.Baumberger & Fr.Greenwell are validily ordained.
DeleteFr.Jenkins stated Bp.Mendez recited the essential form twice & it was proper with no defects.
I attend SSPV because of no other choice.
They are good priests & bishops but the comment above me stating they don't speak out against the N.O. Bergoglio V2 nor against curses such as feminism,career women,effeminate and/or lazy men,etc is correct!
They don't teach men under 50 how we're supposed live and conduct ourselves.
Many of us including myself didn't have parents and are lost clueless hopeless and demoralized.
The sermons are good but they're typically vague or commentary on the gospel & epistle.
This is good but that's it,week after week,and some Sunday's it's even more vague.
Thuc line issue is asinine because they're saying Fr.Jenkins and Bp.Kelly are more qualified to ascertain what makes an Episcopal Consecration over Bp.Thuc & Bp.Des Lauriers.
Both Bishop's were extremely well educated w/multiple degrees,intelligent,spoke many languages,and taught at Seminary's
pre-1970.
Bp.Des-Lauriers taught in Rome for decades and wrote the official document of the Assumption in 1950.
At this point in our decaying dying imploding civilization,and Catholic faithful hanging by a thread,it's confusing me how they are obstinate in their refusal of helping unite the Catholic remnant.
Many of us have families who reject, mock,ridicule us for being trad catholics and we're alone isolated etc
We need more Priest's and Bishop's who work together and drop the ridiculous polemics.
SSPV is a mixed bag and I'm grateful but they need to improve.
Remember the Thuc line is thee only one which consecrated pre-V2 ordained Priests.
SSPV by their actions are saying the Church pre-1965 was full of mumbling stupid clueless morons who aren't Catholic.
Pray for the Catholic remnant,including the Clergy.
Many of us are an inch away from apostasy or hopelessness some days.
I attend SSPV in New York. I find the people to be personable and welcoming. They are from the youngest to the oldest, in tune with the world around them and their desire to survive as Catholic in that scope. They are just Catholic and you would find the same imperfections you would find anywhere else but with one exception. They actually believe in God. I find priests and religious who have the true faith which they do preach well. I go there because Bishop Sanborn told me to. He said they have their differences but that does not effect me. I have stated here previously that I don’t need the constant updates and railing about the VII sect. I get enough of that from other sources. I go there because I want the Catholic Faith preached to me, not for updates on Bergoglio. That’s what Novus Ordo Watch is for. The priests tell you from the pulpit that all are most welcome but don’t approach the communion rail if you do not attend the Traditional Latin Mass exclusively. They ask that you to speak to one of the priests first. If you want you can listen to Bishop Santay’s conferences on modernism and VII on their website. Their masses are well attended and there is not a devotion that is missed. I am blessed to have this as I know very few worldwide have this access.
DeleteNot once,did I state we need constant railing against Bergoglio and V2.
DeleteThey don't say anything pro or con about essential current issues,ever.
They allow SSPV faithful to attend mainstream SSPX while "Bp" Huonder
"offers" Holy Mass at SSPX German seminary on Pentecost.
Huonder publicly stated he's living w the SSPX to help their transition easier.
So what's the point of supporting them if the N.O. is fine and SSPX has valid Holy Orders?
Plus the Thuc line issue is looking more and more like a theologian from 1983 hasn't opened a book since then and has refused to take the chance to learm more in fear of being wrong.
Pray for them as time is catching up to this traditional Catholic group.
I wish them the best no offense.
@anon11:18
DeleteI understand and respect your opinion. Having spent my first years as a Traditionalist with Fr. DePauw, he gave sermons explaining what was wrong with both V2 and warned of modern dangers in addition to devotional type sermons. I love the SSPV and respect them greatly; however, I think they would definitely be doing a service by devoting one sermon per month to the Great Apostasy---that's my opinion.
God Bless,
---Introibo
@anon9:32
DeleteI'll be praying for you to keep the Faith! I agree with your opinion on SSPV--awesome clergy, but could improve on some things [and whom among us does NOT need improvement]?
God Bless,
---Introibo
Thank you and I'll pray a decade of the Holy Rosary for you and SSPV clergy.
DeleteI was wrong stating they never talk about current issues.
Fr.Jenkins gives sermons about aforementioned issues and ideas.
I was wrong and apologize.
If the SSPV don't start becoming more spiritually militant and omit their ambiguous fuzzy outlook,we may witness another split alá SSPX vs. Resistance.
We all need improvement,myself more than others.
May our Blessed Lord guide & unite the traditional Catholic remnant.
Pray for all abused children adults animals,for members of our military,and White Males,who are suffering a silent epidemic of suicide depression and hopelessness.
God bless.
Introibo.When you went to those SSPV Masses,can you give us an idea about many faithful were at those locations?
ReplyDeleteWe thought the SSPV/CSPV clergy would be preaching on these important issues.If not,what has the fight for the True Faith been about the last 50+ years.Shocked.
@anon8:22
DeleteI attend in New York frequently, but in MT only once and FL twice. The MT and FL locations were full, but I really couldn't estimate numbers accurately or be able to know whether that is an average or anomaly, so I will not comment. As to New York, when they had three Masses all in Nassau County, Long Island, Masses were crowded and I'd guess about 300-400 or so people in total. They opened a new Chapel in Suffolk County, Long Island, and they have two Masses at each location. Attendance is more spread out so it appears less.
The SSPV preach beautiful Catholic sermons on eternal truths (e.g., the necessity of devotion to the Blessed Mother, to always be in the state of Grace, how to attend Mass devoutly and with spiritual profit, etc.) This is all well and good. However, in my opinion, never to denounce the V2 sect and explain why Bergoglio cannot be pope is a huge problem. As much as we would all like it to be so, it's not 1958 anymore.
God Bless,
---Introibo
I second that opinion. I love the sermons my priest gives as well as the guest priests that come from time to time. Occasionally he touches on doctrinal issues but mostly it's like everyone is just kind of expect to "know" what's going on. Beautiful sermons about keeping the faith, avoiding sin, devotions, ect. but in terms of explaining dogmas, tradition and laws I haven't heard much. Personally I think everything rest on the Bishop Kelly, Fr. Jenkins and Bishop Sanborn fued of the past. I mean if they could just get together and hash things out the Traditional Faithful would grow exponentially I think.
DeleteDavid,
DeleteYes, it is time for the clergy to move on together and leave non-doctrinal feuds in the past!
God Bless,
---Introibo
Agree!
DeleteTrad-Catholic unity would help everyone involved and give glory to our Blessed Lord.
For what its worth,I live in Ohio and sometimes go to Immaculate Conception Church in Norwood.There are about four to five hundred in the parish there.Correct,CMRI is growing faster then the SSPV.Father william Jenkins told me once that if Bishop Santay was to change their view on the Thuc/CMRI issue,he would leave and start another chapel.He just will not change.Let us pray for him as he is still a good priest and works very hard.God bless you all
ReplyDeleteWhat made Fr. Jenkins tell you that?
DeleteIntroibo, spouses can do private/public vows of chastity? They can marry with no intent on intercourse or procreation?
ReplyDelete@anon2:01
DeleteSince at least the 1917 Code, vows of chastity in connection with matrimony are irregular. You can agree not to consummate the marriage for a period of time. Exceptions could be made by ecclesiastical authority when we had a pope. St. Joseph and the Blessed Virgin Mary were married, but never exercised their marital rights or intended to procreate. This was due to the unique and special circumstances of their most exalted of all vocations.
Procreation may not be feasible, so the couple need only be OPEN to it. (For example, a marriage where the couple are both in their 60s; or where the woman needed a hysterectomy due to cancer earlier in life). You must be capable of intercourse (the impotent cannot marry) but it need not be exercised. To the best of my knowledge and belief, since at least the time of the Code, has not allowed vows of chastity concomitant with marriage vows so that the marriage is ratified but never consummated. In a state of sedevacante, it cannot happen.
God Bless,
---Introibo
Unrelated: Did or will you write an article, or explain, the exact teaching of the Church in regards to the salvation of those who do not consider themselves Catholic, both baptized and not baptized?
ReplyDeleteBaltimore Catechism 4 says that baptized protestants who commit no mortal sin or at least have perfect contrition for them will be saved. But the Church teaches that what is called 'fiduciary faith' is not true supernatural faith. John Daly says this means no protestant possess true supernatural faith which is necessary for salvation.
Mgr. Fenton says that the soul of the Church is not more extensive in a way than the body. But the Catechism of St. Pius X says: "If he is outside the Church through no fault of his, that is, if he is in good faith, and if he has received Baptism, or at least has the implicit desire of Baptism; and if, moreover, he sincerely seeks the truth and does God's will as best he can such a man is indeed separated from the body of the Church, but is united to the soul of the Church and consequently is on the way of salvation"
I'm reading John Daly's "Michael Davies — An Evaluation" Chapter XI and I'm confused.
anon9:21
DeleteI have done several articles on BOD/BOB. For the most comprehensive answer read "The Catholic Church and Salvation" by Fr. Fenton (1958) available from the SSPV.
What matters is WHAT HAPPENS AT THE MOMENT OF DEATH. "If he is outside the Church through no fault of his, that is, if he is in good faith, and if he has received Baptism, or at least has the implicit desire of Baptism; and if, moreover, he sincerely seeks the truth and does God's will as best he can..." God can enlighten him by infusing the Faith and Sanctifying Grace prior to death so they die within the Church.
"Baltimore Catechism 4 says that baptized protestants who commit no mortal sin or at least have perfect contrition for them will be saved" ...IF they are predisposed prior to death and God gives them the great grace to enter the Church prior to death. The faith with which then then die is salvific.
Hope this helped!
---Introibo
Here is a new one for you Introibo:
ReplyDeleteAccording to Jorge Bergoglio: "It is not licit to convince them (those without a creed) of your faith; proselytism is the strongest poison against the ecumenical path..." because people like you and me "present themselves not primarily to announce the Gospel of God who loves man in Jesus, Crucified and Risen, but to insist, as true “keepers of the truth” – so they call themselves – on the best way to be Christians. And they strongly affirm that the true Christianity is the one they adhere to, often identified with certain forms of the past, and that the solution to the crises of today is to go back so as not to lose the genuineness of the faith. Today too, as then, there is a temptation to close oneself up in some of the certainties acquired in past traditions..." and lets not forget "these people are rigid. Always the rigidity: you must do this, you must do that… Inflexibility is typical of these people." Bergoglio 6/23/21 to a general audience (for more info go to Novus Ordo Watch)
So Introibo, this article about the indissolubility of marriage is poisonous to proselytism, insists on the traditional teachings of the Catholic Church to be the arbiter of truth in that matter, and too rigid for St. Paul in the new way at looking at the gospel from the book of Galatians. How dare you.
Lee
Lee,
DeleteI'm proud, as you should be also, for being on Bergoglio's "rigidity list." If he's against us, you know we are doing something right!
God Bless,
---Introibo
It certainly is a badge of honor to be considered a "rigid" person in his book.
DeleteLee
Is it possible to get annulment these days anywhere? I have heard that the CMRI gives annulments but do they have a right to do so and are those annulments valid?
ReplyDeleteI.B