Every once and awhile, it is good to remember why we hold the sedevacantist position. A friend of mine bought to my attention the following website, with an article entitled Against Sedevacantism,
which can be read in full here:
It advances eleven (11) reasons why sedevacantism is allegedly wrong and the "recognize and resist"("R&R") position of those like the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) is the correct view of what has happened to the Church since Vatican II. In this post, you will not be reading anything new in the clash between the two standpoints; rather the main part of each argument will be reproduced below in red font (the article is so long I needed to condense it to the principle contentions), with my response in black below it. You will see the more or less same worn out R&R arguments. Let this post serve as a reminder why every True Catholic should be a sedevacantist.
First Argument: The Catholic Church Will Always Have A Pope
Vatican I infallibly teaches us: If anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the Lord Himself (that is to say, by Divine Law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole Church; or that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of Blessed Peter in this primacy, let him be anathema. Vatican I, Session 4, Ch. 2 (bold emphasis and parenthetical words are in the original, italic emphasis added).
It is theological ignorance to suggest that you need a living pope on the throne of St. Peter as a necessary requirement to have perpetual successors. Protestants would often use an interregnum as "proof" that the papacy wasn't "perpetual" because there was no pope for some time. According to theologian Dorsch, "The Church therefore is a society that is essentially monarchical. But this does not prevent the Church, for a short time after the death of a pope, OR EVEN FOR MANY YEARS, from remaining deprived of her head. [vel etiam per plures annos capite suo destituta manet]. Her monarchical form also remains intact in this state.…Thus the Church is then indeed a headless body.… Her monarchical form of government remains, though then in a different way — that is, it remains incomplete and to be completed. The ordering of the whole to submission to her Primate is present, even though actual submission is not…For this reason, the See of Rome is rightly said to remain after the person sitting in it has died — for the See of Rome consists essentially in the rights of the Primate. These rights are an essential and necessary element of the Church. With them, moreover, the Primacy then continues, at least morally. The perennial physical presence of the person of the head, however, [perennitas autem physica personis principis] is not so strictly necessary." (de Ecclesia 2:196–7; Emphasis mine).
Second, according to theologian Salaverri, instead of being a "primary foundation… without which the Church could not exist," the pope is a "secondary foundation," "ministerial," who exercises his power as someone else’s (Christ’s) representative. (See De Ecclesia 1:448)
The great Doctor of the Church, Saint Francis de Sales, teaches us: St. Peter has had successors, has them in these days, and will have them even to the end of the ages. Catholic Controversy, part 2, art. 6, ch. 9.
Pope Pius XII teaches us: If ever one day . . . material Rome were to crumble, . . . even then the Church would not crumble or crack, Christ’s promise to Peter would always remain true, the Papacy, the one and indestructible Church founded on the Pope alive at the moment, would always endure. January 30, 1949, Address to the Students of Rome, Quoted from The Pope Speaks, Pantheon Books, New York, 1957) ---I was not able to verify this speech, but I will grant that the speech may have taken place.
It has been established at the Vatican Council of 1870 that the papacy must last until the end but not that there must always be a living pontiff on the Throne of St. Peter. Furthermore, having a long interregnum is not inconsistent with having perpetual successors. There is a possibility of an end of the papal interregnum before the end of the world. According to theologian O'Reilly, one of the most orthodox and erudite theologians of the 19th century, in his 1882 book (written a scant twelve years after the Vatican Council), entitled The Relations of the Church to Society — Theological Essays, he brings home this important point. On page 287, he writes in reference to the Great Western Schism:
"There had been anti-popes before from time to time, but never for such a continuance... nor ever with such a following...
The great schism of the West suggests to me a reflection which I take the liberty of expressing here. If this schism had not occurred, the hypothesis of such a thing happening would appear to many chimerical. They would say it could not be; God would not permit the Church to come into so unhappy a situation. Heresies might spring up and spread and last painfully long, through the fault and to the perdition of their authors and abettors, to the great distress too of the faithful, increased by actual persecution in many places where the heretics were dominant. But that the true Church should remain between thirty and forty years without a thoroughly ascertained Head, and representative of Christ on earth, this would not be.
Yet it has been; and we have no guarantee that it will not be again, though we may fervently hope otherwise. What I would infer is, that we must not be too ready to pronounce on what God may permit. We know with absolute certainty that He will fulfill His promises; not allow anything to occur at variance with them; that He will sustain His Church and enable her to triumph over all enemies and difficulties; that He will give to each of the faithful those graces which are needed for each one’s service of Him and attainment of salvation, as He did during the great schism we have been considering, and in all the sufferings and trials which the Church has passed through from the beginning.
We may also trust He will do a great deal more than what He has bound Himself to by His promises. We may look forward with a cheering probability to exemption for the future from some of the troubles and misfortunes that have befallen in the past. But we, or our successors in future generations of Christians, shall perhaps see stranger evils than have yet been experienced, even before the immediate approach of that great winding up of all things on earth that will precede the day of judgment. I am not setting up for a prophet, nor pretending to see unhappy wonders, of which I have no knowledge whatever. All I mean to convey is that contingencies regarding the Church, not excluded by the Divine promises, cannot be regarded as practically impossible, just because they would be terrible and distressing in a very high degree." (Emphasis mine).
Second Argument: There is no Interregnum But A "Restoration"
Here, the argument is that an interregnum of so long a period of time would constitute a "restoration"--there are no citations to any theological sources for this distinction, because there aren't any. There are several reasons listed as to why this can't be an interregnum (while ignoring the Great Western Schism), all but two of which are already refuted by theologian O'Reilly. The two worthy of mention:
1. In the case of any anti-pope in history, it has never happened that virtually every Catholic throughout the world, has been deceived into believing that an anti-pope was the true pope.
2. ...the Church’s Unified Government continues operating without interruption. But that is not true under the sedevacantist interregnum theory, which results in a concrete denial of Catholic teaching that Unity of Government is an element of the Church’s Mark of Unity.
As to #1 above: According to theologian Berry, "The prophesies of the Apocalypse show that Satan will imitate the Church of Christ to deceive mankind; he will set up a church of Satan in opposition of the Church of Christ. Antichrist will assume the role of Messias; his prophet will act the part of pope, and there will be imitations of the Sacraments of the Church. There will also be lying wonders in imitation of the miracles wrought in the Church." (See Berry, The Church of Christ: An Apologetic and Dogmatic Treatise , , pg.119; Emphasis in original). It should also be noted that the Vatican II "popes" are not "antipopes." An antipope is one whom is elected in opposition to a true pope as a rival claimant (See A Concise Catholic Dictionary, , pg. 36). Roncalli to Bergoglio are "false popes."
As to #2 above: Theologian Salaverri already cited above, wrote, "Her [the Church's] monarchical form of government remains, though then in a different way — that is, it remains incomplete and to be completed." They erroneously think because things are not operating as in normal times, Unity ceases to exist in Church government.
Third Argument: The Church is, and Always Will Be, Visible
But we know from our catechism that the Catholic Church will always be visible. This is why Pope Pius XI declared that the one true Church of Christ is visible to all. Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928. #10.
There is nothing to prevent the Church from being reduced to a small number (“the Son of Man, when He cometh, shall He find, think you, faith on earth,” St. Luke 18:8). Moreover, the very purpose of visibility — the Church as the “column of truth to the nations” — is defeated by the heresies of the post-Vatican II body which the R&R admit. Moreover, The teaching of the theologians clearly shows a vacancy of the Holy See lasting for an extended period of time. Such a vacancy cannot be pronounced to be incompatible with the promises of Christ as to the Indefectibility of the Church. Therefore, all Four Marks, including Apostolicity and everything else the Church requires, continue of necessity, even if we may not know the exact answers in any given situation. The Magisterium would not allow theologians to teach a hypothetical situation as a real possibility, if that would somehow be incompatible with the dogma of Indefectibility and the promises of Christ.
Fourth Argument: Universal Acceptance Guarantees A Pope
St. Alphonsus de Liguori, Doctor of the Church, explained this truth as follows:
It is of no importance that in past centuries some Pontiff was illegitimately elected or took possession of the Pontificate by fraud. It is enough that he was accepted afterwards by the whole Church as Pope, since by such an acceptance he would become the True Pontiff.
Theologian Doyle explains: "The Church is a visible society with a visible Ruler. If there can be any doubt about who that visible Ruler is, he is not visible, and hence, where there is any doubt about whether a person has been legitimately elected Pope, that doubt must be removed before he can become the visible head of Christ’s Church. Blessed Bellarmine, S.J., says: ‘A doubtful Pope must be considered as not Pope’; and Suarez, S.J., says: ‘At the time of the Council of Constance there were three men claiming to be Pope…. Hence, it could have been that not one of them was the true Pope, and in that case, there was no Pope at all…." (See The Defense of the Catholic Church, , pg. 124) It is therefore possible that the entire membership of the Church could have accepted one of those men who was not pope, as the Vicar of Christ.
I can hear the objection already: "But a few reactionaries (sedevacantists) can't give rise to a doubt when there is morally unanimous acceptance of Francis as pope."
Do members of the R&R celebrate Chanukah with Jews? Do they participate in false worship with Protestants and kneel before a so-called "bishop" to receive a "blessing"? Bergoglio did as "cardinal" in Argentina. To do so would be the mortal sin of communicatio in sacris and a denial of the One True Church. Consider also, "As archbishop of Buenos Aires, he authorized the "curas villeros," the priests sent to the peripheries, to give communion to all, although four-fifths of the couples were not even married. And as pope, by telephone or letter he is not afraid of encouraging some of the faithful who have remarried to receive communion without worrying about it, right away, even without those 'penitential paths under the guidance of the diocesan bishop' projected by some at the synod, and without issuing any denials when the news of his actions comes out."
Participating in these ecumenical services with Protestants and Jews is, in the words of Pope Pius XI, "altogether abandoning the divinely revealed religion." (See Mortalium Animos para. #2) Yet, somehow if such a "cardinal" is pronounced "pope" without public abjuration of heresy, how does he attain the papacy? Does the "universal acceptance" somehow "undo" his heresy? Or does it mean his actions, contrary to all Church teaching pre-Vatican II, were not heretical? No attempt at an explanation of this is made.
Another big problem for them: Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio. This is the decree of Pope Paul IV of 1559. The pontiff decreed that if ever it should ever appear that someone who was elected Roman Pontiff had beforehand "deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into any heresy," his election, even with the agreement and unanimous consent of all the cardinals would be "null, legally invalid and void."
Fifth Argument: Rash Judgment: Concluding the Pope is a Formal Heretic
We could conclude Pope Francis was a formal heretic if he told us that he did not believe what the Church (God) teaches, that a Catholic must believe now. We would not be judging him rashly because we would merely believe what he tells us about himself. However, it is rash to judge the interior culpability of Pope Francis (or anyone else) and conclude he is a formal heretic simply because he is a material heretic, i.e., has heretical opinions and refuses to be corrected by traditional Catholics.
So the pope can be "corrected" by the R&R? What about his protection from teaching error guaranteed by the Holy Ghost?
The import of Begoglio actively participating in false worship as "cardinal" cannot be understated. Participating in false religious worship, according to the approved canonists and theologians, is a manifestation of heresy and/or apostasy. According to theologian Merkelbach, external heresy consists not only in what someone says, but also dictis vel factis, that is "signs, deeds, and the omission of deeds." (Merkelbach, Summa Theologiae Moralis, 1:746; Emphasis mine).
According to theologian MacKenzie, “If the delinquent making this claim [i.e., he didn't know something was contrary to Catholic dogma---Introibo] be a cleric, his plea for mitigation must be dismissed, either as untrue, or else as indicating ignorance which is affected, or at least crass and supine… His ecclesiastical training in the seminary, with its moral and dogmatic theology, its ecclesiastical history, not to mention its canon law, all insure that the Church’s attitude towards heresy was imparted to him.” Additionally, does any Catholic with even the knowledge of the basics of the faith need any more study/training to know, "There is no Catholic God" is heretical? The argument that "bad philosophy in the seminary" excuses Bergoglio is ridiculous for this very reason.
Schismatics are those who refuse to submit to the Sovereign Pontiff, and to hold communion with those members of the Church who acknowledge his supremacy. Summa, IIa IIae, Q.39, a.1, respondeo. That is what sedevacantists do, viz., they refuse to submit to the current pope, asserting that he has no authority over them because he is not “really” the pope.
If one has a reasonable suspicion regarding the election of a pope, he may be considered as a doubtful pope, and therefore no pope in the practical order.
According to theologian Szal, "Nor is there any schism if one merely transgresses a papal law for the reason that one considers it too difficult, or if one refuses obedience inasmuch as one suspects the person of the pope or the validity of his election, or if one resists him as the civil head of a state." (See The Communication of Catholics with Schismatics, , pg 2; Emphasis mine). We have many good reasons to outright deny, not just suspect, the validity of Bergoglio's election.
Sixth Argument: Sedevacantism is Revolutionary
Unlike the Cristeros, sedevacantists are revolutionaries. Sedevacantists correctly recognize that the pope has committed many wrongs. Instead of resisting only the wrongs committed by the pope, they follow the pattern of other revolutionaries by using these wrongs as a basis for rejecting the pope’s authority as such. Like other revolutionaries, they blame the pope for their own revolt, saying that his words and actions have caused him to lose his authority over them.
Rejection of a Command or Decision of a Pope Can Happen In One of Three Ways:
- Rejection of the thing commanded. This occurs when one disobeys something ( e.g., a fast or restitution enjoined by the Pontiff) because he considers it too difficult. This results in sin, but not separation through schism because he rejects a commandment of the Church, not the Head of the Church.
- Rejection of the command when you regard the pope in his capacity as an individual. As the pope is not above human weakness, he might make a command moved by hatred, envy, or some other sinful motive involving an individual decision (not one affecting the whole Church). The pope might also command something sinful (e.g., kill someone he dislikes). In such a case neither sin nor schism is committed by this refusal to obey.
- The rejection is based on his official capacity as pope. The person is guilty of schism and is no longer a member of the Church because he does not wish to submit to the authority of the pope who gave the command. (See theologians McHugh and Callan, Moral Theology , 1: 542-543)
According to theologian Van Noort, "The Church's infallibility extends to the general discipline of the Church...By the term "general discipline of the Church" are meant those ecclesiastical laws passed for the direction of Christian worship and Christian living." (See Dogmatic Theology, 2: 114-115; Emphasis mine). Hence, the SSPX, Salza, and the rest of the R&R crowd have no basis for rejecting the Novus Bogus "mass" (among many other things; I choose to focus on the Mass as but one example). If Roncalli to Bergoglio are recognized by them as "popes," their ecclesiastical laws passed for the direction of Christian worship must be regarded as pure and holy. They have no basis to reject the Novus Bogus without being guilty of schism--the very charge the level at sedevacantists.
The Novus Bogus "mass" is evil because it is sacrilegious and/or invalid, so it could not possibly have come to us from the Church, precisely because it is a dogma that the Church cannot defect. The man who promulgated it must have previously taught heresy as a private theologian and lost his office as pope, or was never validly elected pope from the beginning, as the Church's theologians have always taught could happen. (Sedevacantism) Therefore, what purports to be the Roman Catholic Church is a man-made sect, an evil institution which must be rejected. This is not "revolutionary," it is remaining Catholic.
Seventh Argument: Our Catholic Duty: Resist the Harm Done by a Bad Pope But (Of Course) Recognize His Authority
Pope Leo XIII faithfully echoed the Apostles in teaching this truth:
[W]here a law is enacted contrary to reason, or to the eternal law, or to some ordinance of God, obedience is unlawful, lest, while obeying man, we become disobedient to God. Libertas Praestantissimum
Thus, a pope might command us to believe his errors on matters of Faith. The pope can make such errors whenever he is not speaking ex cathedra.
The citation here is discussing the laws of men, not the Church because universal laws of the Church, emanating from the pope, cannot be "contrary to reason, or to the eternal law, or to some ordinance of God." Nor can the pope teach errors to the universal Church. According to theologian Herrmann:
"The Church is infallible in her general discipline. By the term general discipline is understood the laws and practices which belong to the external ordering of the whole Church. Such things would be those which concern either external worship, such as liturgy and rubrics, or the administration of the sacraments…. If she [the Church] were able to prescribe or command or tolerate in her discipline something against faith and morals, or something which tended to the detriment of the Church or to the harm of the faithful, she would turn away from her divine mission, which would be impossible."
(Institutiones Theologiae Dogmaticae, 1:258)
Here's what Pope Leo had to say about the papacy:
"Wherefore, as appears from what has been said, Christ instituted in the Church a living, authoritative and permanent Magisterium, which by His own power He strengthened, by the Spirit of truth He taught, and by miracles confirmed. He willed and ordered, under the gravest penalties, that its teachings should be received as if they were His own." (See Satis Cognitum, para. # 9; Emphasis mine).
"For He who is the Spirit of Truth, inasmuch as He proceedeth both from the Father, who is the eternally True, and from the Son, who is the substantial Truth, receiveth from each both His essence and the fullness of all truth. This truth He communicates to His Church, guarding her by His all powerful help from ever falling into error, and aiding her to foster daily more and more the germs of divine doctrine and to make them fruitful for the welfare of the peoples. And since the welfare of the peoples, for which the Church was established, absolutely requires that this office should be continued for all time, the Holy Ghost perpetually supplies life and strength to preserve and increase the Church. “I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Paraclete, that He may abide with you for ever, the Spirit of Truth” (John xiv., 16, 17)." (See Divinum Illud, para. # 5; Emphasis mine).
Eighth Argument: Judging the Pope’s Words and Deeds According to Catholic Tradition
Popes can err in any other teachings, unless those teachings are themselves a faithful repetition of truth contained in infallible Catholic Tradition. No pope (or anyone else) can err when faithfully repeating the teachings of Catholic Tradition.
This is Feeneyite error of "you only need to obey infallible teachings." The Church has condemned this very idea.
- Condemned proposition #22 of the Syllabus of Errors, addressed to the whole Church teaches, "22. The obligation by which Catholic teachers and writers are absolutely bound is restricted to those matters only which are proposed by the infallible judgement of the Church, to be believed by all as dogmas of the faith."
- Pope Pius XII condemns the idea popes need not be given assent in their teachings that are not ex cathedra: "It is not to be thought that what is set down in Encyclical Letters does not demand assent in itself, because in these the popes do not exercise the supreme powers of their Magisterium. For these matters are taught by the ordinary Magisterium, regarding which the following is pertinent ‘He who heareth you, heareth me.’; and usually what is set forth and inculcated in Encyclical Letters, already pertains to Catholic doctrine." (See Humani Generis ).
Ninth Argument: The Pope John Canard
It is a dogma of the Catholic Faith that the saints see the Beatific Vision immediately after they die (and after they have been purged in Purgatory, if necessary). Council of Florence, Pope Eugene IV, Bull Laetentur coeli, 1439; Pope Benedict XII Benedictus Deus, 1336, Denz. #530-531.
Pope John XXII lived before this dogma was defined by the Church’s Extraordinary Magisterium. He publicly denied that the saints immediately see the Beatific Vision after they die, i.e., before the General Judgment. Catholic Encyclopedia, entry: “Pope John XXII”.
Before Pope John XXII became pope, he wrote a book publicly denying this doctrine of the Catholic Faith (viz., that the saints see the Beatific Vision immediately after they die and after they have been purged in Purgatory, if necessary). Id. Instead, he taught the opposite heresy. Id. Yet both before and after this doctrine was defined, the Church has always recognized the validity of Pope John XXII’s election as pope. Id.; see also, the Annuario Pontificio editions 1939, 1942 & 1959. In other words, his public teaching of this heresy did not prevent his election as pope.
Fr. Cekada (RIP) trashed this fairy tale:
The accusation of heresy arose from a series of sermons John XXII preached in Avignon, France in which he maintained that the souls of the blessed departed do not see God until after the Last Judgement. Sounds promising as an anti-sede argument at first, since John XXII was always recognized as a true pope. However:
(a) The doctrine on the Beatific Vision had not yet been defined — John XXII’s successor, Benedict XII would do that.
(b) Then there is the mode that John XXII, who had been a theologian before his election, employed to present his arguments and conclusions.
Here, the theologian Le Bachlet says that John XXII proposed his teaching only as a “private doctor who expressed an opinion, hanc opinionem, and who, while seeking to prove it, recognized that it was open to debate.“ (“Benoit XII,” in Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique, 2:662.)
Ergo, since seeing the Beatific Vison by the saved upon death was not yet a dogma but up for theological discussion, and Pope John XXII, as a theologian, taught it as an opinion subject to correction by the Church, he never taught or proposed heresy.
Tenth Argument:A Man Need not be Consecrated a Bishop or Ordained a Priest to be a Valid Pope
These sedevacantists then declare that, because conciliar ordinations and consecrations are definitely invalid (so they assert), the more recent conciliar popes cannot be real popes because they are not valid bishops.
I'm unaware of any sedevacantists of repute who make this claim. It is correct that a man need not be a priest or bishop to be validly elected pope, but I don't even need to go any further, since Bergoglio fails to achieve the papacy based on heresy.
Eleventh Argument: The Revelations to Sister Lucy of Fatima Show That the Catholic Church has a Pope
This dogma [of allegedly needing a living pope, "perpetual successors" at all times] fits perfectly with the revelations given to Sister Lucy (one of the Fatima seers) in connection with Our Lady of Fatima’s request for the consecration of Russia to Her Immaculate Heart.
Private revelations, even those approved by the Church, need not be believed at all. No theologian--- no one even versed in basic Catholic theology--- would ever make an argument based on what an apparition allegedly said.
Consider this post a "refresher course" on why the R&R position makes no sense and contradicts Church teaching on the papacy. Resistance is futile. Join the Vatican II sect and follow Bergoglio as a Catholic should, if you recognize his "papacy." Otherwise, embrace sedevacantism--true Catholicism--to have the hope of saving your soul.
R&R people are ready to accept a "Pope" who says and does things that a true Pope would never do rather than accept the idea that the Church can be without a Pope for many years. This shows that their position is untenable. I defended the same ideas of resistance for a while, but I understood that the sedevacantist position best explains the current situation. But the R&R people are victims of the vast deception launched by the devil at Vatican 2 which resulted in the apostasy of a large part of the Catholics.ReplyDelete
As time goes by, the R&R position becomes less and less possible to hold in good faith!
About the universal acceptance undoing Francis' non-Catholicism argument, a Novus Ordo said to me that the universal acceptance simply meant that Francis was somehow not a heretic, regardless of what he did. It sounds illogical, but how do I respond?ReplyDelete
You respond with logic! Ask your friend, "If Francis said 'Christ is not True God and True Man' and outright denied the existence of God, "universal acceptance" would make that "not heretical"? That means there is no objective truth, and we can never discern it. Analogously, imagine saying "If Francis has universal acceptance and said 2+2=5, somehow universal acceptance makes him correct." Absurd. Ask your friend for citations whereby the Church's theologians pre-Vatican II explain it that way. And don't hold your breath!
This means that John XXIII and his successors did not receive universal acceptance, did they?Delete
For a full explanation as to why Roncalli could not have attained to the papacy, please see
Yes, I understand, but the fact that they're not popes means that they did not receive universal acceptance. Is that correct?Delete
Not necessarily. Suppose there were universal acceptance of a woman as "pope." Universal acceptance cannot overcome a manifest defect which by DIVINE LAW prohibits the person from obtaining papal office.
The Novus Ordite I debated with months ago said that it is impossible for a woman anyway to receive universal acceptance, God wouldn't allow it, that universal acceptance by the Church is itself an assurance that the person accepted is a man and Catholic. Isn't that what theologians teach? Otherwise the Church would defect?Delete
No, that is not what the Church teaches. Please see my post:
I do not recognize the SSPX as Catholic but I do resist them for that very reason. How does that sound?ReplyDelete
sounds like the correct R&R position!
Sorry for not referring to the article, but as it's really hard to find a forum where I could get an answer to my question, I decided to give it a try here:
If one is a sedevancatist and would like to get married and there are no sedevacantist women in the area do you think that it would be a good idea to look for a wife among women who profess no religion? I think it would be at least a lot easier to explain the sedevacantist position to them and not to rejected because of this. Another possibility I thought about is marrying an Eastern Orthodox woman as - correct me if I'm wrong – although they are schismatic, they are not heretical, they have real liturgy, their priests are validly ordained and they didn't have the modernist invasion.
What is your opinion?
If you want to have a happy marriage, it's well worth the wait to find a good Sedevacantist Catholic. If you can convert a woman with no religion or an Eastern Orthodox to Catholicism (sedevacantist) before you marry, then that would be fine.
I wouldn't settle for a spouse who is not sincere in those matters, especially if they aren't going to change their religion. It causes problems for children because down the road when they grow up there is a 50/50 chance which parent's influence will rub off on them.
Eastern Orthodox aren't just merely schismatic. They are heretics as well. They deny the filioque, deny the Immaculate Conception, deny Vatican I, etc. It's not good enough to have valid priests if they are teachings you all the wrong things and are not members of the true church.
While the Church grants dispensations to marry non-Catholics consider what the Baltimore Catechism teaches as your basis:
Q. 1036. Does the Church forbid the marriage of Catholics with persons who have a different religion or no religion at all?
A. The Church does forbid the marriage of Catholics with persons who have a different religion or no religion at all.
Q. 1037. Why does the Church forbid the marriage of Catholics with persons who have a different religion or no religion at all?
A. The Church forbids the marriage of Catholics with persons who have a different religion, or no religion at all, because such marriages generally lead to indifference, loss of faith, and to the neglect of the religious education of the children.
Q. 1041. How does the Church show its displeasure at mixed marriages?
A. The Church shows its displeasure at mixed marriages by the coldness with which it sanctions them, prohibiting all religious ceremony at them by forbidding the priest to use any sacred vestments, holy water or blessing of the ring at such marriages; by prohibiting them also from taking place in the Church or even in the sacristy. On the other hand, the Church shows its joy and approval at a true Catholic marriage by the Nuptial Mass and solemn ceremonies.
Q. 1042. Why should Catholics avoid mixed marriages?
A. Catholics should avoid mixed marriages:
1. Because they are displeasing to the Church and cannot bring with them the full measure of God's grace and blessing;
2. Because the children should have the good example of both parents in the practice of their religion;
3. Because such marriages give rise to frequent disputes on religious questions between husband and wife and between their relatives;
4. Because the one not a Catholic, disregarding the sacred character of the Sacrament, may claim a divorce and marry again, leaving the Catholic married and abandoned.
I hope you find a good spouse and will be praying for you,
Forgot to add the link to the Canon Law Commentary:Delete
McHugh and Callan's Moral Theology from 1958 should offer some clarity:
2788. Distinctions.—(a) In reference to validity, marriage may be true (i.e., validly contracted), or presumed (i.e., taken by the law to be validly contracted on account of some fact, as when the validity of a marriage was not attacked during the lifetime of the parties), putative (i.e., really invalid, but contracted in good faith by at least one of the spouses and not yet known by both to be certainly null), attempted (i.e., contracted invalidly in bad faith, at least one of the parties being aware of an invalidating impediment).
(b) In reference to perfection, marriage is legitimate (when it is validly contracted between non-baptized persons), ratified or sacramental (when it is celebrated between baptized persons), consummated (when the consent given in the contract is subsequently completed by the conjugal act). It seems that marriage lawfully contracted between a baptized and a non-baptized person is not ratified or sacramental, for, as the consent must be mutual, so should the Sacrament be mutual. But a marriage free from substantial defects is always a Sacrament, even though the contractants do not wish this, when it is contracted between Christians, whether they be Catholics or non-Catholics; and a marriage contracted between non-Christians becomes a Sacrament on the Baptism of the parties.
(c) In reference to its manner, marriage may be clandestine (i.e., not celebrated before the pastor and two witnesses), or secret (i.e., celebrated before the pastor and two witnesses pledged to secrecy, and without the publicity the Church ordinarily requires), public (i.e., celebrated before pastor and witnesses and with publicity such as announcement to the people and registration in the usual marriage book). The secret marriage is also known as a marriage of conscience (Canons 1104-1107).
(d) In reference to the law under which it is performed, marriage is either canonical or civil. A purely civil marriage between Catholics is invalid, as far as the bond is concerned, since their contract, as being a Sacrament, is subject to the Church. But the civil marriage, as far as the purely civil consequences are concerned, is a lawful ceremony, and is obligatory if required by law. A morganatic marriage is made between two persons of unequal condition (e.g., between a king and a plebeian woman) on condition that the inferior spouse and progeny shall not share entirely in the titles and property of the superior spouse.
2806. (c) Mixed Religion.—Marriage between two baptized persons, one a Catholic and the other a member of an heretical or schismatical sect, is severely forbidden by the Church. Mixed marriages in themselves are opposed to divine and natural law, inasmuch as they offer an occasion for communication in false worship and a danger of perversion; and hence they have been disapproved from the very beginning of the Church (II John, X. 11; I Cor., v. 10; Tit., iii. 10). But the divine prohibition ceases if appropriate measures are used to safeguard the faith of the Catholic and the children, and the Church will grant a dispensation, though reluctantly and only for just and grave causes.
(to be continued)
2807. Duties in Reference to Mixed Marriages.—(a) The Pastor.—A dispensation should not be sought unless there is first a sufficient reason, all things considered, and generally the reason should be the public good (such as the relative fewness of Catholics in a district, hope of conversion of the non-Catholic, avoidance of scandal). Secondly, there must be guarantees given by the non-Catholic that the faith of the Catholic will not be interfered with, and both parties must promise that all the children will receive Catholic and no other baptism and education. Finally, these promises must be such as to produce moral certainty of fulfillment, and as a rule it should be required that they be given in writing. After the marriage has been celebrated the pastor is held both in charity and in justice to do what he can to have the promises faithfully lived up to.
(b) The Parties.—Neither before nor after the marriage in the Catholic Church is it lawful to have any non-Catholic religious ceremony (see 956 sqq.); and if the pastor knows that this has been done or will be done, he may not assist at the marriage without permission from the Ordinary, which is granted for a most grave reason (scandal being avoided). After the marriage the parties are bound in justice to keep the promises made, and the Catholic is held in charity to seek prudently, by good example and advice, to convert the non-Catholic.
2817. The Impediment of Disparity of Cult.—(a) A marriage of a Catholic (i.e., of a person baptized in or converted to the Catholic Church) with an unbaptized person is null and void. This impediment bars the marriage of a professed ex-Catholic with an infidel, but not the marriage of a non-Catholic with an infidel; and by infidel is understood here not only a non-Christian (such as a Jew), but also a Christian unbaptized or invalidly baptized. A person accidentally baptized by a Catholic is not considered a Catholic if born of heretical or schismatical parents and reared by them in their sect.
(b) This impediment as prohibitive is of divine ordinance, for the same reasons as in the case of mixed marriages (see 2806 c): "Bear not the yoke with unbelievers" (II Cor., vi. 14). But neither natural nor divine law nullifies such a marriage with unbelievers; for the substantial ends of marriage (i.e., procreation and education of children) can be had even in such unions, and very holy personages have contracted marriage even with pagans (e.g., Jacob with the daughters of Laban, Joseph with the daughter of Putiphar, Moses with the daughter of Jethro, Esther with Assuerus, St. Cecilia with Valerian, St. Monica with Patricius, St. Clotilda with Clovis, etc.). The Church, however, has made disparity of cult a diriment impediment on account of the special danger, and it grants no dispensation unless the precautions decreed for mixed marriages be observed (see 824, 2807).
A Simple Man
I agree with Lee and A Simple Man, as well as Joanna below.
Thank you very much for your answers, I really appreciate your effort.
Thank you for your prayer offering.
Indeed, it looks like I just need to pray and have confidence that nothing is impossible for God.
I would like to ask you another question: could you please share your experience from the chapels you attend – what sort of people do you find there? Have you noticed any sectarian tendencies among them, like people separating themselves from society because they think they are better than the rest as they “possess” the truth? Any weird people, conspiracy theorists etc.? I’m asking because during my almost 10 years spent in the SSPX/Indult environment, unfortunately, I met quite a lot of such people, probably being one of them myself as well. I wonder if it is caused by the theological position of those groups who are a part of the novus ordo “church”, but at the same time they consider themselves better than the “straight” novus ordo adherents, which potentially leads to a sort of pride. I think sedevacantism theoretically should free us from such an attitude, because we know that novus ordo is an external, heretical sect, a different body, so there is no point in comparing ourselves to it, and we are not forced to constantly review anything what comes from the occupied Vatican, because we know that this is not the Church. On the other hand, I remember reading an article by Fr. Cekada rebuking similar behavior of his faithful, so it would turn out that in practice reality is not very different in sedevacantist chapels… What is your experience?
My experience has been good for the most part. There have been some chapels I've had to ditch not because I didn't like the people but because I didn't like their theology and questioned whether they were even Catholic. As a general rule of thumb I stay away from Bp. Slupski's endless line of bishops and priests even though I've attended many of them for a time in the past.
As for all the other ones, I have my issues with them as well but if I lived closer, I would attend their chapels. It's hard to say which group has the most normal of people. I think you will find good people in each group but you just have to look for them because you will also find people that may not be your cup of tea.
Just keep in mind, if you don't find a woman or family that suits you it may not be God's will. There is certainly nothing wrong with looking, but be patient. It's better to find a woman in 20-30 years who is the perfect fit than rushing and marrying somebody you had wished you hadn't within a short amount of time. Just be wise and watchful and all the best to you.
on the subject of mixed marriages, here's a commentary on the 1917 Code of Canon Law by Dom Charles Augustine Bachofen O.S.B., see specifically Canon 1060-1065 (pp. 2050-2066).
The pages in brackets refer to the
slide bar on archive.org, the pages in the original document are different.
You may find this short pamphlet (endorsed by the SSPV clergy) helpful: https://archive.org/details/TellHerYoureACatholic/mode/2up.
Written by Walter Jewell in the late 1940s, in a very approachable, story-like style, it advises against mixed marriages.
Wonderful resource! Thank you for sharing.
I thought mixed marriages were allowed before V2 long as the Catholic spouse promised to raise the children Catholic and keep practicing the Catholic religion?Delete
God bless -Andrew
mixed marriages were strongly discouraged prior to Vatican II. However, one culd get a dispensation, provided that the non-Catholic spouse signed a written promise to raise the children in the True Faith and not to interfere with the profession of the True Faith by the Catholic husband/wife and the children.
Such a mixed marriage would have no solemn ceremony, no benefit of a nuptial Mass, only the necessary exchange of marital vows witnessed by the priest. All of this was to show that the Catholic Church generally does not want their children to enter into such marriages.
I've recently read a pamphlet "Don't marry a Catholic!" by Fr. Daniel A. Lord SJ (Imprimatur 1952), in which he elaborates on all the difficulties faced by the non-Catholic spouse married to a Catholic, and family problems that are bound to arise in such circumstances. The title seems provocative, but the content is superb.
Here's the link: https://stpiusvchapel.org/pdf-site/articles/Marry-Catholic.pdf
Joanna is correct. Also remember that until the reign of Pope Pius XII, the ceremony had to be conducted in the rectory! Pius XII allowed it to be held in Church, hoping that the beauty of the Church and Her service would be conducive to converting the non-Catholic.
I got pretty alarmed about the statement that mixed marriages are forbidden, until it was better clarified for me by Joanna's comment. Thank you.Delete
One of my children married a Protestant in a Novus Ordo ceremony with the traditional vows, etc...
Over time, and through discussions with me and her Dad, she has become more drawn to Tradition, and my son-in-law wants to convert. You could say that is a mixed-marriage success story. The trouble is, his plan was to go to a local, more "reverent", NO pastor to get instruction. Luckily, (IMO) that has been postponed due mainly to current circumstances. The nearest Sedevacantist priest is hundreds of miles away from them, making it pretty impossible to receive instruction there, so the situation is in limbo.
Do you have any advice? Prayers would be appreciated as well.
I will pray for you and my family, and I ask my readers to do the same. Talk to you son in law more. What he wants is to convert from one form of Protestantism to another (V2 sect). See if he will be willing to speak o the phone to a Traditionalist (sedevacantist) priest to make him understand the the V2 sect is not the Church.
Ok because I knew for a fact Johnny Cash married his first Catholic Wife in 1955.Delete
Thank you for answering.
Nice, brother! Keep up the great work!ReplyDelete
Thank you my friend!
Point #10, that a man "need not be consecrated bishop or ordained a priest to be a valid Pope" is new to me. Are you sure ?ReplyDelete
Yes, it is true. As theologian Sullivan teaches (and correctly cited in the R&R article):
"It would be possible, though far from probable, that a person might be elected Pope who is not already a Bishop. He would become Pope as soon as he was lawfully chosen, and could then perform all the duties of the Papacy which pertain to jurisdiction [i.e., governing]; but he could not ordain or consecrate until he himself had been raised to the episcopate by other Bishops." (See "The Externals of the Catholic Church" , pgs.7-8).
Historically, Pope Fabian was a farmer and a layman in the year 236. The pope had died, and the method of "acclimation" was used to determine the pope. Fabian went to watch, and while noble clergy names were being recited as papal possibilities, a dove descended on the head of Fabian. Taking this as a sign of approbation from the Holy Ghost, he was proclaimed pope on the spot. He accepted, and was IMMEDIATELY recognized as pope. He was subsequently ordained as deacon, the priest, then consecrated bishop--but he was recognized as pope from the time he accepted his election while still a layman. He reigned over the Church 236-250 AD.
Pope Gregory XVI wasn't bishop when he was elected. It's the last case of a Pope who wasn't bishop at the moment of his election.Delete
You are correct! (And he became pope immediately upon election, prior to his episcopal consecration).
'It is therefore possible that the entire membership of the Church could have accepted one of those men who was not pope, as the Vicar of Christ.'ReplyDelete
Whatever the truth of this proposition, it is definitely not Suarez's doctrine. Suarez (Defensio, l. 3 c. 18, 1613 edn., p. 311) expressly argues that all three claimants were doubtful because none of them was yet universally recognized by the Church ('quia nondum erat aliquis eorum sufficienti consensu Ecclesiae receptus').
Yes, you are correct, however, Suarez died in the 17th century. The doctrine of the papacy wasn't fully developed until after the Vatican Council of 1870. That's why you see Salza and company appealing to theologians prior to that time.
Are ugly crucifixes always blasphemous?ReplyDelete
Anything in speech or gesture that contains contempt for, or insult to God is blasphemous. (See theologian Jone, "Moral Theology" , pg.119). To make the death of Our lord upon the cross purposefully grotesque, so that people would not want to gaze upon it IS BLASPHEMOUS. Blasphemy is always a mortal sin.
I understand. Now, what happens if there is a grotesque image of a crucifixion, but the individual being Crucified is not Jesus Christ?Delete
It depends on the intent (as does all sin, which requires consent of the will). If the ugly image were made at the time of Christ just to show a crucifixion, or if it were made in contemporary times to depict Roman executions of old, there would be no contempt for, or insult to God. Hence, no blasphemy.
When do the the R&R resist? Just curiousReplyDelete
Whenever their "pope" says or does something they don't like. Is the SSPX going to follow Traditionis custodes, or will they "resist it"? The answer is obvious!
A very happy feast day of St. Louis IX, King of France to Introibo!ReplyDelete
May God bless you and yours abundantly through the intercession of your glorious patron saint.
All the best,
Yes, Happy and grace filled feast of St. Louis, King of France!Delete
Joanna and anon10:22,Delete
Thank you so much! The world needs leaders like the saintly King more than ever.
I was told by an SSPXer that Francis’ near abolition of the 1962 missal is no big deal to them. There is a little known 1965 missal that they can use instead.ReplyDelete
What is the deal with that???
There was a transitionary Missal in 1965 that comprised most of the changes but kept the Canon in Latin, as per usual. It was issued in 1965, was supplanted by another transitory Missal in 1967, and the full-blown Novus Bogus came out in 1969.
If the SSPX is willing to accept the blatant Modernism of the 1965 Missal, that speaks VOLUMES against them. Bergoglio wants the full blown Novus Bogus--I doubt the 1965 would last long--hated by the "Indult" "conservatives" of the V2 sect, and equally hated by the Modernists for not being Modernist enough!
Thanks for the info. It makes you wonder...Delete
Wow the Society is going to offer the 1965 missal?Delete
It's just an SSPXer. I don't see why the SSPX will follow Francis if he abolishes 1962. They're called "recognize and resisters"! But maybe they will.Delete
It also boggles me how some traditionalists approve/like the 1965. I even saw in this blog a sede who said he thinks it's ok.Delete