Archive for the ‘Catholic’ Category

New Rite of Unholy Orders

October 7th, 2018 by Vigilo

FROM NOVUS ORDO WATCH

Unholy Orders: Paul VI’s Modernist Ordination Rite

paul6-pontificalis.jpg
On June 18, 1968, Bp. Giovanni Battista Montini — then the head of the Vatican II Sect and known as “Pope” Paul VI — signed an “apostolic constitution” to change the Roman Catholic rite of ordination. These changes touched not only some of the more peripheral ceremonies but the very substance of the sacrament itself. The very words which Pope Pius XII, in 1947, had definitively decreed were necessary for the validity of the sacrament of holy orders, were changed by Paul VI in such a way as to render the ordination of priests doubtful and the consecration of bishops definitely invalid. (Even a doubtful rite, however, must be considered invalid in practice, per Catholic teaching.) Since all sacraments (other than baptism and holy matrimony) ultimately depend on valid bishops, invalidating the rite of episcopal consecration was all the Modernists needed to do to ensure Catholics would eventually be deprived of most of the sacraments, especially the Holy Mass and absolution in the confessional.

We provide links to prove the invalidity of Paul VI’s ordination rite below, but just to give you a sneak preview, see for yourself how badly Montini butchered the essential form of the consecration of bishops, thus totally destroying the sacrament:

Traditional Roman Catholic Form, per Pope Pius XII (1947):

  • Comple in Sacerdote tuo ministerii tui summam, et ornamentis totius glorificationis instructum coelestis unguenti rore santifica.
    [Translation:] “Perfect in Thy priest the fullness of thy ministry and, clothing him in all the ornaments of spiritual glorification, sanctify him with the Heavenly anointing.”

Modernist Novus Ordo Form, per Antipope Paul VI (1968):

  • Et nunc effunde super hunc Electum eam virtutem, quae a te est, Spiritum principalem, quem dedisti dilecto Filio Tuo Iesu Christo, quem Ipse donavit sanctis Apostolis, qui constituerunt Ecclesiam per singula loca, ut sanctuarium tuum, in gloriam et laudem indeficientem nominis tui.
    [Translation:] “So now pour out upon this chosen one that power which is from you, the governing Spirit whom you gave to your beloved Son, Jesus Christ, the Spirit given by him to the holy apostles, who founded the Church in every place to be your temple for the unceasing glory and praise of your name.”

Not only does the bogus Novus Ordo form totally replace the words decreed by Pius XII as essential to validity, they do not even in any way express that what is taking place is the consecration of a bishop! They do not even ask the Holy Ghost to make the ordinand into a bishop! Instead, even if one were to say that the totally abstruse phrase “Spiritum principalem” (“Governing Spirit”) is a clear reference to the Holy Ghost, the fact remains that it is not stated just what the Holy Ghost is supposed to be doing. God the Father is being asked to “pour out” the Holy Ghost (or at least that “Governing Spirit”) – but to do what? To what end? We’re not told. The Holy Ghost is poured out also in baptism, in confirmation, and in ordinations of deacons and priests. Paul VI’s claim that he was introducing these changes “in order to restore the texts of the rite to the form they had in antiquity, to clarify expressions, or to bring out more clearly the effects of the sacraments” (Pontificalis Romani) is beyond laughable; it is, in fact, insulting to the intelligence of the informed reader.

A sacramental form that does not express what it is supposed to accomplish is definitely invalid, as the articles about the invalidity of the Novus Ordo holy orders below demonstrate.

In addition to changing the sacramental form of priestly and episcopal ordination, in his document Pontificalis RomaniPaul VI abolished the major order of subdeacon and all of the minor orders (acolyte, exorcist, lector, and porter), none of which are sacraments, but whose denial was condemned by the Council of Trent and flies in the face of the Modernists’ favorite lie to seek to restore things to “antiquity”:

  • “…from the very beginning of the Church the names of the following orders and the duties proper to each one are known to have been in use, namely those of the subdeacon, acolyte, exorcist, rector, and porter, though not of equal rank; for the subdiaconate is classed among the major orders by the Fathers and the sacred Councils, in which we also read very frequently of other inferior orders” (Council of Trent, Session 23, Ch. 2; Denz. 958)
  • “If anyone says that besides the priesthood there are in the Catholic Church no other orders, both major and minor, by which as by certain grades, there is an advance to the priesthood: let him be anathema” (Council of Trent, Session 23, Canon 2; Denz. 962)

Rome has spoken; the case is closed.

But before anyone suggests that somehow Paul VI’s document “isn’t binding”, we must point out that in it he clearly invokes his supposed (but non-existent) “apostolic authority” and requires that this new rite be used in place of the prior, Catholic one:

  • By our apostolic authority we approve this rite so that it may be used in the future for the conferral of these orders in place of the rite now found in the Roman Pontifical. It is our will that these our decrees and prescriptions be firm and effective now and in the future, notwithstanding, to the extent necessary, the apostolic constitutions and ordinances issued by our predecessors and other prescriptions, even those deserving particular mention and amendment.” (Paul VI, Pontificalis Romani)

According to a decree of the Novus Ordo “Sacred Congregation of Rites” dated August 15, 1968, Montini’s new rite of ordination became obligatory for the entire Latin church as of Easter Sunday, April 6, 1969. So we know for sure that since this date, the Novus Ordo church has not validly consecrated a single bishop in the Latin rite, and probably not ordained a single valid priest, either.

The repercussions are unfathomable – but they explain a lot about the state of the New Church. The sacraments are largely gone, so there is simply no grace there, and it shows. But the true Catholic Church cannot give evil or harmful or invalid sacramental rites to her faithful. Such an idea would contradict the promises of infallibility and indefectibility by Our Blessed Lord. This is further evidence that the Vatican II Sect in Rome is not the Catholic Church of Pope Pius XII and his predecessors. Consider the following clear teachings:

  • “Certainly the loving Mother [the Church] is spotless in the Sacraments, by which she gives birth to and nourishes her children; in the faith which she has always preserved inviolate; in her sacred laws imposed on all; in the evangelical counsels which she recommends; in those heavenly gifts and extraordinary graces through which, with inexhaustible fecundity, she generates hosts of martyrs, virgins and confessors.” (Pope Pius XII, Encyclical Mediator Dei, par. 66)
  • “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.” (Jean Herrmann, Institutiones Theologiae Dogmaticae, Vol. 1, 1908, p. 258)
  • “If anyone says that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs which the Catholic Church uses in the celebration of masses, are incentives to impiety rather than stimulants to piety, let him be anathema.” (Council of Trent, Session 22, Canon 7)

Try to apply this to the Novus Ordo Church, and you realize very quickly that it’s impossible. The Vatican II Church has defected, has given evil, has destroyed the sacraments, has been a scandal to the faithful rather than the embassy of salvation. In the Catholic Church, however, the Pope is “the citadel and bulwark of the Catholic faith” (Pope Pius IX, Encyclical Qui Nuper, par. 3). No one could seriously say this about the Antipopes of the Vatican II Church. Paul VI – Giovanni Montini – was not a true Pope, but an impostor, as well as his predecessor John XXIII, who started the false church, and his successors John Paul I, John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and Francis I.

The many links we provide below will help you as you research these issues.

As the late Fr. Carl Pulvermacher, OFM Cap., is sometimes quoted as saying, “Once there are no more valid priests, they’ll permit the Latin Mass.” Think about that!

Invalid: The Unholy Orders of the Vatican II Church

  • Absolutely Null and Utterly Void: The 1968 Rite of Episcopal Consecration [PDF] by Fr. Anthony Cekada
    Examines the criteria for validity, Eastern Rite formulas, ancient Christian texts, early doubts about validity, “governing Spirit” vs. “fullness of the priesthood,” substantial change, arguments from context, papal approval. Answer to SSPX/Angelus and Sel de la Terre articles by Fr. Pierre-Marie favoring validity. Extensive bibliography.
  • Why the New Bishops are Not True Bishops [PDF] by Fr. Anthony Cekada
    A two-page summary of the above-linked study “Absolutely Null and Utterly Void”.
  • Still Null and Still Void: Replies to Objections [PDF] by Fr. Anthony Cekada
    Replies to objections from Br. Ansgar Santogrossi, OSB, Fr. Pierre-Marie de Kergorlay, OP, and Fr. Alvaro Calderon, SSPX, against the above-linked study “Absolutely Null and Utterly Void”.
  • New Bishops, Empty Tabernacle [PDF]
    Response to an editorial by Abbé Grégoire Celier which employs some novel and bizarre principles to defend the validity of the 1968 Rite of Episcopal Consecration.
  • Saved by Context? The ’68 Rite of Episcopal Consecration [March 2012]
    Rejoinder to the popular objection that the larger context provided by the 1968 rite of bishops’ ordination gives clear expression to the sacramental form and hence suffices for validity.
  • The New Ordination Rite: Purging the Priesthood in the Conciliar Church [PDF] by Fr. William Jenkins
    A response to certain arguments advanced by Michael Davies in his book The Order of Melchisedech, this article examines the Novus Ordo rite of priestly ordination in light of Catholic theology and concludes that it is doubtful at best and therefore must be considered invalid in practice. Contains shocking information about how the “reform” of the rite came about.

What many may not know: The Society of St. Pius X considers the Paul VI rite of episcopal consecration to be valid (for proof, see their Angelus article on the matter here [PDF], but be aware that it has been refuted in the articles we link above). This means that if a Novus Ordo priest converts to the SSPX and does not seek conditional ordination, he will not be re-ordained by the SSPX. So, beware if you attend SSPX Masses!

Relevant and Related Documents:

These are the stories of conversion to the Catholic Church from the Novus Ordo / Vatican 2 church. The intention is the hope that the Holy Ghost may work through these stories, in helping to win souls to the Holy Catholic Church.

If you are currently in the Novus Ordo, and consider yourself Catholic, but know that something is not right, then it is Divine Providence that you made it here. We were all once where you are… have hope. As you read these conversion stories, pay attention for similarities in your own life. It will help knowing that others have asked the same questions and had the same struggles ….and have found the answers. These stories are dedicated to Our Lady of the Most Holy Rosary, and is launched on October 7 in honor of the feast day. The Rosary is something that we believe aided us in being led to the true Catholic Church, and something that those in the Novus Ordo can pray as well. By the infinite merits of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, in union with the Immaculate Heart of Mary, may the Holy Ghost guide you.

 

The Conversion Stories will be added as they are completed.

Why Wear the Brown Scapular?

September 23rd, 2018 by Vigilo

What is the Brown Scapular?

Why Should We Wear the Brown Scapular?

To Wear the Brown Scapular, and obtain its special protection, one must be enrolled into the Confraternity of Our Lady of Mt. Carmel. Enrollment means that one receives a blessed scapular to wear, and is made a member of the confraternity. The confraternity is for lay people to share in the prayers and good works of the Carmelite religious order. They also obtain the special protection of our Blessed Mother by wearing the scapular as a sign of consecration to her.

Ordinarily, enrollment is done when a child receives First Communion, and if not done then, it is done anytime after. As it stands, many people are discovering the invalidity of the Second Vatican Council, and coming back to the Catholic Church, so they are getting reacquainted with Catholic prayers, customs, and teachings. So many of these Catholic norms have been discarded or ignored within the Novus Ordo Church. To Wear the Brown Scapular is one of these Catholic customs. Also, since the Novus Ordo priests were ordained with the invalid rite of ordination after 1968, they are not valid priests, and one would need to receive a proper enrollment from a valid priest.

In hopes of facilitating the reintroduction of this special Catholic protection, here is some information on the subject, and why we should Wear the Brown Scapular.

The MIQCenter has scapulars if you need to order. Here is a sturdy one they have available…

Why Wear the Brown Scapular?

by Fr. Gabriel Lavery, CMRI  (appearing in The Reign of Mary publication)

On July 16, 1251, Our Lady appeared to St. Simon Stock, the General of the Carmelite Order. Surrounded by angels, and holding the scapular of the Order she made the following promise: “This shall be a sign to you and to all Carmelites: whosever dies wearing this shall not suffer eternal fire.” Do we understand what the scapular means and why we wear it?

When we were enrolled in the scapular, the priest said:

O Lord Jesus Christ…sanctify this scapular which Thy servant will devotedly wear for the love of Thee and of Thy Mother…so that by her intercession, he may be protected from the wickedness of the enemy and persevere in Thy grace until death…” “Receive this blessed scapular and ask the most holy Virgin that, by her merits, it may be worn with no stain of sin and may protect you from all harm and bring you into everlasting life.” “I admit you to a share in all the spiritual works performed, with the merciful help of Jesus Christ, by the Religious of Mount Carmel…” “…[God] has been pleased to receive [you] into the Confraternity of the Blessed Virgin Mary of Mt. Carmel.” “We beg her [Mary] to crush the head of the ancient serpent in the hour of your death, and, in the end, to obtain for you the palm and the crown of your everlasting inheritance. Through Christ our Lord.”

Thus by being enrolled in the scapular and wearing it constantly we become members of the Confraternity of Our Lady of Mt. Carmel and sharers in all the prayers, sacrifices and good works of all the other members! It is a visible pledge of our devotion to Mary and of her protection. Bl. Colombière says: “They tell me, those great saints, that I have nothing to fear if Mary interests herself in my behalf, but this is not enough to relieve my anxiety. I wish to know if she will indeed interest herself in me. She has given me a tangible sign thereof. I have but to glance at my scapular and recall the promise, “He who dies wearing this shall not suffer eternal fire” (Sermon, p. 19)

Again, Bl. Colombière says: “I do not hesitate to declare that nothing is a more certain pledge of salvation than a faithful wearing of the little brown badge. There is none therefore to which we should attach ourselves with more zeal and constancy than this. Divine Mother! What countless miracles you have caused to be wrought to confirm this blessed belief! Then, Christians! To engage this incomparable Mother to watch and guard you, and to interest herself in defending you, array yourself in the garment she holds forth for your acceptance. Wear the scapular; wear it until the hour of your death.

Ven. Francis Yepès, the brother of St. John of the Cross, was so zealous in promoting the brown scapular that he provoked the fury of the devils. One night while he was praying for the conversion of sinners, devils came to assail him saying: “What have we done to you that you torment us so cruelly? Why do you persuade so many persons to wear and to venerate the scapular of Carmel? Wait until you fall into our power! You shall pay dearly for it!” Again they shouted in a fury: “Take it off! Take off that Habit which snatches so many souls from us! All those clothed in it die piously and escape us!” Three things, they said, especially torment them: the name of Jesus, the name of Mary, and the scapular of Carmel.

The learned theologian, Billuart, tells us that the scapular is a contract between us and Our Lady. We pledge to serve her; she promises to help us. He also compares it to a sacrament: “The scapular is a sign, a mark of the special love of Mary, much like the sacraments are infallible signs of grace…the Virgin Mary has applied to the scapular the fervent prayers, the high contemplations, the tears, the sweat, the blood—in a word, all the merits of the illustrious Order of Carmelites. She has determined, at the sight of the scapular, to share her mother’s love and special protection with those who are clothed in it….As long as you place no obstacle, Mary will assist you in all the circumstances of your life by obtaining for you in abundance the graces necessary to save your soul, by vivid lights, strong inspirations and powerful impulses. Above all, she will take special care to arrange the last moment of your life to make you die in the state of grace. In this way, the scapular, which you have worn during life as a precious ornament making you agreeable to God and as a shield to repulse the blows of the enemies of your salvation, shall be, at the hour of death, a victorious banner which will drive away the demons and call to your aid the angels and saints, Mary and Jesus, who will put you absolutely and without delay in the possession of glory, or, if you have yet some debts to pay to the divine justice, will give you refreshment against the ardor of the flames of purgatory” (Billuart, pp. 104-106).

Mary fulfills her promise in various ways. Sometimes she obtains the grace of dying young for one who would fall into sin if he lived longer. A young man in a boarding school had given his scapular to one of the brothers to mend. Bedtime came, but his scapular had not come back. He could not sleep without it. At last the superior brought it to him and he went to sleep saying the names of Jesus and Mary. The next morning he was found in his bed; he had died during the night wearing his scapular. Our Lady preserved this innocent young soul from future dangers in return for his devotion shown in wearing her scapular.

On the other hand, sometimes Mary fulfills her promise by obtaining for sinners more time to repent. Other times she obtains for us powerful graces to fight temptation and protect us from moral harm. Once a young lady came to St. John Vianney to make a general confession before entering the convent. As she was kneeling before him, he surprised her by asking:

“You remember, my child, a certain ball which you attended a short time ago?”

“Yes, Father.”

You met a young man there, a stranger, elegant in appearance and of distinguished bearing, who at once became the life of the party? And you wished he would invite you to dance? You were vexed and jealous when he preferred others to you?”

“You are certainly right, Father.”

“Do you recollect that when he left the assembly you thought you saw, as he walked, two small bluish flames beneath his feet, but you persuaded yourself that it was an optical illusion?”

“I remember it perfectly.”

“Well, my child, that youth was a devil. Those with whom he danced were in a state of serious sin! And do you know why he failed to ask you?

“It was owing to the scapular which you did well not to lay aside and which your devotion to Mary impelled you to wear as your safeguard.” (Annales du Carmel, 1881, pg. 199. Haffert, p. 126)

Some may say: “I understand that Our Lady has a great power of intercession; I know she will keep her promise, but why is it attached to the wearing of a little piece of cloth?” The answer is simple. Throughout the Old and New Testaments we see how God uses simple things as symbols of great mysteries. The devil used a created thing, a simple fruit, to tempt Eve and bring about our fall; God uses simple things to bring us back to life. The simple pouring of water and saying a few words in Baptism washes away sin and confers sanctifying grace. Naaman, a Syrian General mentioned in the Old Testament, was a noble and proud man. When he became afflicted with leprosy, he went to the prophet Eliseus to be cured. The prophet told him to wash seven times in the Jordan. Naaman thought this was a ridiculous idea. He wanted something spectacular, and besides, he argued, there were better rivers elsewhere. His servants pointed out to him that if Eliseus had asked him to do something very difficult, he would have done so, so why not do something so simple? He changed his mind, washed in the Jordan seven times and was cured. Another example is the blood of the lamb spread on the doorposts by the Israelites in Egypt. The angel of death spared only those who used this simple sign which was a reminder of the Blood of Christ by which we are spared from eternal death.

Why the cloth? In the Old and New Testament, the garment has always been a symbol of love and protection. God made garments for Adam and Eve. Jacob made a coat of many colors for his favored son, Joseph. Jonathan took his own coat and gave it to David as a sign of their special friendship. Rahab and her family were spared death because of a purple cord hung from a window as a sign. Eliseus used the mantle of Elias to part the waters of the river Jordan. When the prodigal son returned, his father ordered his servants to “bring the first robe and put it on him.” A woman sought to be cured if she could only touch the hem of Our Lord’s garment. The handkerchief of St. Paul was used to cure the sick. Our Lady wrapped the infant Jesus in swaddling cloths, and made for Him the seamless garment which He wore to Calvary. Likewise, the scapular is a garment which our heavenly Mother has given us as a pledge of protection in body and soul. When in danger or temptation it reminds us: I am not alone in this battle; Mary is protecting me now!

The scapular must be made of simple woven wool. Pius XII said: “May they all see in this keepsake of the Virgin herself a mirror of humility and purity; may they read in the very simplicity of the garment a concise lesson in modesty and simplicity” (Lynch, p. viii). How many souls, tempted to vanity or immodesty in dress, would blush if they remembered the contrast with their brown scapular!

There are those who take the scapular off, either out of vanity or convenience. Others keep it in their pocket or by the bedside. These do not obtain the special protection Mary has promised nor the indulgences for wearing the scapular. The Prior General of the Carmelite order said in 1640: “They ought to continue day and night to wear the scapular” not in a pouch, in a pocket, or on the waist, but “hanging over the neck, for a scapular, by its nature, demands that it be worn over the neck just as a hat must be worn on the head and cannot be worn on any other part of the body” (Stratius, p. 97). We have an inspiring example in a courageous soul in the missions in Tonkin in 1892. Michel Don, a new convert to the faith, was arrested and brought before the Mandarin:

“What is that cloth which you wear over your chest?” demanded the Mandarin.

“It is my scapular.”

“Throw it away and I will immediately give you your freedom.”

“You can cut off my head, but I will always press this scapular to my heart!”

During all this time, Don was stretched on the ground with his hands and feet tied tightly to two poles. The Mandarin, angered at this reply, turned to a soldier and shouted: “This man is insolent. Go! Strike him!”

The soldier took up a rod and began with all his strength to strike the faithful servant of Mary who would not renounce Jesus Christ by taking off his scapular. At first, Don writhed in pain, twisting and turning as the soldier beat him with no mercy. Suddenly, strengthened by grace, the Christian made the resolve to receive the blows without the least movement; the soldier continued to strike, but Don remained motionless. His blood flowed, his flesh was torn. Finally, he appeared to have no sign of life.

“Stop!” the Mandarin called out, “Is he already dead?” The soldier bent down to look, but Don raised his head and said: “I am yet living; you may continue.”

The soldier picked up the rod and continued his cruel work. Pieces of bloody flesh began to fly under the force of the blows. A soldier, half out of anger, half out of pity, urged him to give in, but the valiant confessor replied: “To fall from the heights of heaven in order to continue to live on earth? Never!”

The torture continued. After he had suffered one hundred thirty blows, he was left to suffer in prison for a month. (Les Promesses, pp. 28-30)

Let us wear our scapular always, even at the cost of some inconvenience. What a consolation to those who do so. What a comfort to parents whose children do so. May we appreciate its meaning and wear it faithfully until death.

Bibliography

Beringer, Franz, S.J., Consulteur de la S. Congr. des Indulg. Les Indulgences leur Nature et leur Usage. Tome II. Trad. par Mazoyer. 3e édition. Approuvée par la S. Cong. des Indulg. Paris: Lethielleux. 1903.

Billuart, Charles R., O.P. Sermons du R.P. C.-R. Billuart, Tome II, p. 99. Bruxelles: Vanderborght. 1846.

Colombière, Bl. Claude de la. Le Saint Scapulaire de Notre-Dame du Mont-Carmel: Sermon. Paris. 1853.

Haffert, John Mathias. Mary in Her Scapular Promise. 2nd ed. 1941. Reprint: Refuge of Sinners Publishing, Pekin, IN. 2010.

Lynch, Most Rev. E. K., O. Carm. Your Brown Scapular. Westminster: Newman Press. 1950.

Magennis, P.E., O. Carm. The Scapular Devotion. Dublin: Gill & Son. 1923.

Promesses de la Très Sainte Vierge à Saint Simon Stock et au Pape Jean XXII, Les. Paris: Vic et Amat. 1899.

Stratius, Theodorus, Prior Generalis O. Carm. Instructio pro Fratribus Carmelitis. Romae: Manelphii. 1640.

 

 

For distribution, this article may be purchased here: MIQCenter

 

For more information, here a couple more articles:

The Wonders of the Brown Scapular – by Fr. James McGilloway, CMRI

The Brown Scapular of Our Lady of Mount Carmel – by Sr. Mary Agatha, CMRI

What is the Catholic Teaching on Contemporary Prophecies? What is a Catholic to do when confronted with what seems to be End Time Apocalyptic events?

In every generation, there are events that lead one to question if the End Times are near. Catholics struggle with it often as they try to interpret the unimaginable goings on in the time in which they live. They may point to revealings by Our Lady at Fatima or Our Lady of La Salette, but how far should they go?

When exploring Church Teaching on Contemporary Prophesies, you will see that a Catholic ought NOT to let their curiosity get the better of them. We are to know, love, and serve God. We are to focus on our prayer and live a Catholic life pleasing to God. We are not to obsess on trying to fit in that prophesy with this event, and so on. Below is a pamphlet by Bishop Dupanloup from the 1800’s on the topic.

You see, even in the 1800’s, many wrongly believed they would see the end of days…. so this document is as good now in the 2000’s as it was then…

(reading time about 50 minutes)

 

 

Let’s keep this pamphlet from Bishop Dupanloup in mind as we try to process all the the outrages that are committed against our Lord in these times.

Travis

JMJ – UIOGD

A public heretic can lose his office in the Catholic Church, as a formal heretic cuts himself off from the Church. Here, we will look at what the Church teaches on the matter.

Below is no.9 from Satis Cognitum by PopeLeo XIII:

9. The Church, founded on these principles and mindful of her office, has done nothing with greater zeal and endeavour than she has displayed in guarding the integrity of the faith. Hence she regarded as rebels and expelled from the ranks of her children all who held beliefs on any point of doctrine different from her own. The Arians, the Montanists, the Novatians, the Quartodecimans, the Eutychians, did not certainly reject all Catholic doctrine: they abandoned only a certain portion of it. Still who does not know that they were declared heretics and banished from the bosom of the Church? In like manner were condemned all authors of heretical tenets who followed them in subsequent ages. “There can be nothing more dangerous than those heretics who admit nearly the whole cycle of doctrine, and yet by one word, as with a drop of poison, infect the real and simple faith taught by our Lord and handed down by Apostolic tradition” (Auctor Tract. de Fide Orthodoxa contra Arianos).

The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium. Epiphanius, Augustine, Theodore :, drew up a long list of the heresies of their times. St. Augustine notes that other heresies may spring up, to a single one of which, should any one give his assent, he is by the very fact cut off from Catholic unity. “No one who merely disbelieves in all (these heresies) can for that reason regard himself as a Catholic or call himself one. For there may be or may arise some other heresies, which are not set out in this work of ours, and, if any one holds to one single one of these he is not a Catholic” (S. Augustinus, De Haeresibus, n. 88).

 

How can a cardinal or bishop lose his office in the Catholic Church? In the 1917 Pio-Benedictine Code of Canon Law, we can see Canon 188. “Any office becomes vacant upon the fact…if a cleric: Publicly defects from the faith.”

 

There is much more Church teaching that affirms these results. But for now, the point is to understand that the Church teaches that any office CAN become vacant, as now you have the theology supporting such a claim.

Next, keeping with the understanding that any office can become vacant, let’s give a simple examination of the errors of the Second Vatican Council and beyond. Below, is a side-by-side comparison of Catholic teaching vs that of the Vatican 2/Novus Ordo church. Keep in mind that these documents are all public. As you will see, the Vatican II theology is contrary to Catholic theology. These must qualify as public defections & sins against the First Commandment of God, right?

Catholics are required to believe that the Church is indefectible. Catholics also have full faith that the Holy Ghost is guiding the Church. Being infallible, it is impossible for the Church to err through the Teaching Magisterium on matters of faith and morals.

Therefore, the teachings of the Vatican II church and that of the Catholic Church are irreconcilable. If one believes the popes from St. Peter through Pius XII were valid, then they must reject the false claimants who brought forth contradiction and error since 1958.

Association with Invalidly Married

June 1st, 2018 by Vigilo

In modern times, we are confronted with many difficult situations. We must live on this world and in this time, yet we must also live according to God’s law. One of the many confrontations, a symptom of modernism, are the amount of marriages that have ended in ‘divorce’, with the attempt of a ‘remarriage’. As Jesus Christ personally condemned this as sinful, how are we to deal with a situation that is all too prevalent?

Before continuing, maybe a refresher would be of use to explain just how sinful is a divorce and ‘remarriage.’ In Luke 16:18, Jesus Christ said: “Every one that putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and he that marrieth her that is put away from her husband, committeth adultery.” In Exodus 20:14 we plainly read “Thou shalt not commit adultery.” Sacred Scripture is very clear on this matter and you can see that by reading Jeremias 5:7 Ecclesiasticus 23:33 Matthew 19:9 to list a few. Again, this is NOT the opinion of this author on how we SHOULD have association with invalidly married persons. This is the TRUTH of Christ and the Church on how we MUST treat association with invalidly married persons.

So now that we know what adultery is, and that it is sinful….What is the appropriate Association with Invalidly Married?

For some guidance on the matter, below is Father Connell’s Answers to Questions (AER, 1948, Vol cxviii, p. 306)

Association with Invalidly Married

Question: What should be the practice of Catholics in the matter of association with persons who have been divorced and have attempted another marriage? Nowadays, it is not unusual for Catholics, especially those who are well-to-do and move in more “exclusive” circles, to associate as freely with such persons as with those who are properly married. Some Catholics do not hesitate to attend the remarriage of a divorced friend in the presence of a civil magistrate or a non-Catholic clergyman. Catholic parents are sometimes faced with the problem as to whether they may or should attend the marriage of their daughter to a divorced man outside the Church. What norms can be proposed to Catholics to guide them in situations of this kind?

 

Answer: The questioner has brought has brought up one of the most difficult problems in modern American life. Persons who have been divorced and “remarried ” are now numbered by the hundreds of thousands in our country. They are found in all classes of society; they represent all religious denominations, including even some who call themselves Catholics. Association with such persons cannot be entirely avoided. They live in the same apartment houses as Catholics, they are found among the tradespeople and professional men and public officials with whom the faithful transact business, they are their fellow workers in shop and office, they are their employers or their employees. To avoid all contact with such unfortunate persons nowadays we should have to bury ourselves in a desert.
The chief moral problem centered about association with those who have attempted remarriage after divorce (whom we shall call simply “divorced persons” hereafter) is the scandal which such association may cause. The scandal consists principally in the fact that by freely associating with such persons Catholics are likely to give the impression that they regard the conjugal life of the couples in question as perfectly lawful, or as only slightly culpable. Other persons who are contemplating divorce may in consequence be more inclined toward severing their marriage tie. The couple themselves may be encouraged in their efforts to persuade themselves that their union is a genuine marriage. Those who are not well instructed in Catholic doctrine may be led to believe that the Catholic Church is mitigating its teaching on divorce, and that it will be only a matter of time before the Church will fully conform to the standards of the modern world.
It would be impossible to lay down rules for the guidance of Catholics that would adequately cover every possible case. But the following general norms, we believe, will be helpful:

Business Relations and Pleasure

Purely business relations with divorced persons are ordinarily permissible. To trade in a store whose owner is a divorced man, to consult a lawyer or a doctor enmeshed in a similar marital entanglement, to attend a ball game when several of the players are divorced men – such activities would be allowed to Catholics, even though only their own personal utility or convenience or pleasure is thereby promoted. Under this heading would come those meetings which appear to be of a social nature, though actually business is involved, such as the visit of the junior member of a firm, aspiring to advancement, to the home of the senior member who happens to be divorced. Similarly, to attend a motion picture whose star actor has been divorced and remarried three times would not be forbidden, provided the picture is not itself objectionable. In saying that these things are permissible we do not intend to deny that it would be more commendable in some instances for Catholics to abstain even from such associations with those whose marital status is opposed to God’s law. For example, it might be a healthy move if Catholics banded together to boycott motion pictures which feature actors and actresses who flaunt even the fundamental canons of decency in their private lives.

Social Relations

Purely social relations with a couple, one (or each) of whom is known to have a previous spouse still living should be avoided by Catholics or at least reduced to the minimum. When Catholics are as friendly with such couples as they are with decent people, properly married, they manifest little regard for the attitude of their Church towards those who so gravely violate the divine law. For the Church declares such persons ipso facto infamous (Can. 2356). And it is difficult to excuse Catholics from the grave sin of scandal if they frequently attend parties and dinners at the homes of such persons, or perhaps even spend a few days with them from time to time, and reciprocate by an invitation to their own home. The strange fact is that these same Catholics would emphatically decline an invitation to a social function in a household of which the master is openly living in concubinage without having had any marriage ceremony. Yet, according to Catholic belief, the man who has divorced his lawful wife and attempted remarriage as actually in the same situation. The mere fact that he and his partner with through the marriage service before a minister or justice of the peace does not alter the fact that, as the Catholic Church views the matter, they are living openly in adulterous union. Why then, should not Catholics realize the incongruity of giving this couple the same respect and courtesy that are given to a man and a woman living in honorable wedlock? At most, a very rare exchange of visits might be permitted, when some special occasion calls for it. But when Catholics associate frequently and regularly with divorced persons for merely social reasons, I would consider them guilty objectively of grave sin; if they do so only occasionally without any justifying reason, it would seem to be a venial sin. The case is not changed substantially by the fact that the couple are non-Catholics and are apparently convinced that their marriage is valid; though of course, when they are Catholics the danger of giving scandal by association with them is greater.
More leniency could be exercised when the association involves only one of the parties— for example, when a group of men invite a divorced fellow-worker to accompany them on a fishing party. Again, Catholics would not be guilty of scandal if they attended a social function in the home of a friend to which a divorced person and his present partner were also invited. But this should not happen very frequently. In other words, Catholics should not become regular members of a social group in which divorced persons are fully acceptable.

Attendance and Reception

Apart from most unusual circumstances, a Catholic would not be permitted to be present at the attempted remarriage of a divorced person (nor, a fortiori, to act as bridesmaid, best man, etc.), knowing full well that such a union is invalid in the sight of God. Such attendance would ordinarily be gravely scandalous. Speaking of an analogous case, the attempted marriage of a Catholic before a non-Catholic minister, Davis says: “Assistance at a mixed marriage in a Protestant church would not be tolerated, since this would be co-operation in violating a serious church law that forbids mixed marriages without dispensation, and such a marriage would now be invalid” (Moral and Pastoral Theology [New York, 1938], I, 286).

Parents or near relatives of a Catholic involved in such an unfortunate union might argue that by attending the “marriage” they can retain the good will of the erring one and thus have a better chance of later inducing him to turn away from the sinful cohabitation. But, even if there is such a probability, it would not seem sufficient reason to outweigh the grave scandal that would almost certainly ensue. Moreover, there would usually be just as much probability that a severe attitude on the part of the parents or relatives will open the eyes of the misguided Catholic.
After a marriage of this kind has occurred the parents may – and even should – show the sinner that their love and sympathy are bestowed on him in full measure, but that they are unchanged in their condemnation of his evil conduct. It would be permissible to invite him to visit them; but visits from the couple together should be definitely disapproved, or at most allowed only rarely. On the occasion of a large gathering – for example, when the parents are celebrating their golden wedding anniversary or when a son of the family is offering his first Mass – a difficult problem is presented, but I believe that Catholic principles require in such an event that the couple should not be invited. At most, the one who is a member of the family could be asked to come.

Perhaps to some Catholics these norms may appear too strict. It must be admitted that they are not in accord with the customs of the day, which regard the marriage bond so lightly. But, in view of the scandal that is undoubtedly caused by the apparent recognition of a union that is a grave violation of God’s law, it seems that priests should guide the faithful according to the principles that have here been set down. There are times when pastoral prudence will suggest that individuals be left in good faith; but that does not justify priests in failing to give general instructions concerning a problem which occurs so frequently and which so vitally affects the sacredness of the sacrament of Matrimony.

 

Though it may not be easy, let us take the guidance from Father Connell, and the grace from God, and live according to our Faith.

-Travis

JMJ – UIOGD