Unity
Of
Worship
Addendum
+++
How the 1917
Code of Canon Law Simply
Is Not, However Someone May
Want to Think Otherwise, Any Act
of
‘Infallibility’, the Truly Infallible
Definition of Papal Infallibility at
the
1800s Proving This
A
NOTE TO THE READER:
This very brief addition to the Unity
of Worship issue for real Catholics --- or those becoming real Roman
Catholics during the Great Apostasy --- is an email sent to a thus far very
kind gentleman in the United States as a follow-up, and concluding statement,
on the argument he’s made, insisting the 1917 Code of Canon Law (also known as the ‘Pio-Benedictine
Code’) permits real Catholics, in time of ‘need’ (such as imminent death…) to turn
to notoriously & pertinaciously non-Catholic
priests for the Sacraments (e.g., Extreme
Unction). Such notoriously &
pertinaciously heretical, schismatic or apostate priests are hence automatically excommunicated.
You may read the logic & proof for such an ‘audacious’ or
‘shocking’ claim
here. If unlearned or disbelieving,
please do. This is no game and your immortal soul is at stake.
The gentleman with whom I’ve corresponded, by the way, does not dispute automatic
excommunications. He merely insists that three canons in the 1917 Code permit
the Catholic in ‘need’ to turn in ‘dire desperation’ to
such non-Catholic priests. I’ve dared to say the three canons he cites
are bad canon laws. Whereas,
on his side, he has argued the pope was acting ‘infallibly’ in
officially publishing the 1917 Code and, additionally, that the Pio-Benedictine
Code is ‘infallible’. This I have shown, here and elsewhere on The
Epistemologic Works, is simply not
true. The Vatican Council in the
1800s, with Pope Pius IX’s approval, bequeathed infallibly four criteria by which real
Catholics may know when popes
proclaim infallibly and when
they do not. Ergo, real
Catholics may say, with all politeness, “Actually not. Neither
papal statement nor 1917 Code is an act of infallibility.” Ergo,
we respect their authority yet
identify bad laws.
What this amounts to is a very simple & true fact. A real
Catholic NEVER knowingly
mixes the identifiably holy with the identifiably unholy. End of
sentence. This is because Our Triune God
is All Holy. A notoriously & pertinaciously
heretical, schismatic or apostate priest serving a real Catholic (one of Our All Holy
God’s Own holy members!) the Sacraments thereby
‘forces’ the holy to mingle with the unholy, angering &
opposing the Will of the All Holy. This is what occurs saying it’s ‘okay’ now for Catholics in
‘need’ (say, near death),
but without a real Catholic priest to whom he or she may turn, to use NON-Catholic clergy for doing so. Case in point. I first uploaded Unity of Worship Addendum on the feast day of St. Hermenegild. I
then read the account of the day’s universal feast to my family, as always
we do. Hermenegild was going to be king of his father’s Visigothic kingdom
some day very soon. Sadly, like most invading hordes during the 1st
millennium, they wound up Arian heretics. That is, keeping the
Sacraments still valid ---
they still baptized properly, their priests were truly priests, etc. ---
notwithstanding, the young Hermenegild’s father was an Arian heretic.
And outraged when Hermenegild became truly Catholic, stripping him of
all right to inherit the kingdom or keeping any earthly possessions, throwing
him into a dark, cold dungeon, shackled in chains. Enduring this & not breaking in his resolution
to be truly Catholic, he never
had the Sacraments even once. His father would likely murder him. How do we
know these things? Because Pope St. Gregory the Great, eminent pope,
saint, doctor and early Church father wrote a full account of
Hermenegild, used in lessons for Matins till today by any Catholic Whole
& Entire. Gregory in turn knew St. Leander personally, the bishop of
You might think. Yet you would think wrong.
Per St. Gregory the Great, circa AD 600:
“It was the Feast of
Easter. At an early hour of the night… his wicked father sent an Arian
bishop to him, with this
message, that if he would receive
Communion [the Eucharist] from
his hands (the Communion of a sacrilegious consecration!) he
should be restored to favour. True
to his Creator, the man of God [St.
Hermenegild] gave a merited reproof [well-deserved disapproval & blame] to the Arian bishop, and, with holy indignation, rejected his sinful offer…” (The Liturgical Year by --- mostly ---
the Very Rev. Dom Prosper Guéranger, O.S.B., Abbot of Solesmes, originally
published in full, at least in Ireland in the late 1800s, in Dublin by James
Duffy & Sons at 15, Wellington Quay, in 1879, simultaneously printed in
London at 1A, Paternoster Row, approved & apparently, imprimatured, by
Henry Edward, Archbishop of Westminster in 1867. Later
reprinted by Loreto Publications in
Pope St. Gregory’s own words --- “a
sacrilegious consecration!”
Comprehending now? A non-Catholic
clergy’s Sacraments are done sacrilegiously.
Why? Because the non-Catholic clergy
is unholy due to his non-Catholicity, ergo, his
Sacraments --- whilst valid --- are sacrilegiously
confected. Period. There is no ‘practical
justification’ for a real Catholic in time of ‘need’ --- such as impending death or lack of true
Catholic clergy from which to receive the Sacraments --- to get unholy & sacrilegious
Sacraments from spiritually filthy
hands of the non-Catholic and
thus unholy priest, bishop,
etc., who is willing to give such Sacraments to you. They are DEFILED by his unholiness! It offends
Our Triune Catholic God. It is mortally
sinful when done knowingly
or in culpable ignorance. Again, period. This is why we dare to say that three
canons in the 1917 Code of Canon Law are bad. They have no
good theological or moral justification for doing so. It is, either, a foolish act on the part of the
canon law experts who so laboriously assembled 2414 canons altogether
for the 1917 Code, rewriting canon law for the first time ever in
Church’s history; or, else, a wicked
act on the part of at least one or two or three of these canon law
experts, purposefully inserting a few bad laws into the body of
the 1917 Code so as to undermine & destroy the Roman Catholicity
& Praxis of Catholics in the Latin Rite further. Hence potentially
damning more souls in the process, we might add.
This very brief email is a short addendum to
Unity of Worship Redux: How the 1917 Code of Canon Law Does Not, &
Cannot, Vitiate or Change the Church’s Ancient Teaching re Religious
Separation Applied to Ritual or Worship
. You may find it in Letters & Admonishments
(L&A), just as the newest entry is also in the L&A section.
Unity of Worship
Redux was, in turn, a relatively short return to the issue as put forth
in a brief article,
Unity of Worship: Why
Real Catholics Dare Not ‘Worship’ With Any Non-Catholic or False
‘catholics’, Pretending It ‘Pleases’ God; Nor May a
Pope ‘Change’ This Law, or the Ignorant Remain Ever
‘Guiltless’
. It is in Books & Articles (B&A). The two
latter writings being ‘letters’ (emails), it’s mainly why
they’re not in B&A.
Yet all three are imperative. Please read them each one if
you’re unlearned or disbelieving.
Again, this is no game and your immortal soul is at stake. You will
die some day --- everyone does, and neither you nor I are exceptions to this
universal requirement.
And we’ll answer for what we’ve thought, said or done.
This includes religion.
I’ve kept the gentleman anonymous out of courtesy for him.
Apart from bracketed annotations, all else is unchanged.
Please follow all links given to understand completely.
TEXT
OF EMAIL ON 10 APRIL 2019:
Greetings, X-
As always, you have been courteous and a gentleman in your
correspondence. I do sincerely appreciate that, as I have dealt with countless
persons, whether truly Catholic or not, who have been rude, impatient and just
plain uncivilized. Thank you so much! You do have my utmost respect for your
charitable behavior.
However, it looks to me as if here, in this matter, we’ll
simply have to agree to disagree, as the saying goes. Unless it seems terribly
important to you to continue the discussion, it seems to me we’ve both
made our points and, barring a small miracle, so it stands.
Simple logic reveals that either
you’re correct, or else I’m correct, or neither
is.
That said, I’ll merely sum up my
response as adroitly as possible.
In logic, from my point of view, your response is the fallacy of
‘begging the question’. In other words, presume the thing to be true without first asking if it is actually true --- and reasoning
it through accurately & honestly to determine the truth of the matter.
Meaning?
You’ve first presumed
Pope Benedict XV’s words in his sweeping papal bull, Providentissima, to be an act of papal infallibility without first
asking if it actually is an
act of papal infallibility. Then, having presumed this, you have taken his
statement in this official document as ‘evidence’ that the 1917
Code of Canon Law must be an
act of papal infallibility as well. When, in actuality, canon law,
throughout Church history, is subject to changes by future popes. That
is to say, no pope can ‘bind’ a future pope regarding
canon law; a future pope has the authority to adapt canon law as
he sees fit.
This is because canon law is primarily a matter of government & discipline.
Canon law, as enacted by a pope, additionally applies only to certain regions or areas.
In the case of the Pio-Benedictine Code (1917 Code of Canon Law), it was solely for the Latin Rite. Only later, adapted & tweaked
accordingly --- that is, changed
to fit unique circumstances elsewhere
in the Catholic Church --- was it applied to the eastern rites.
If this doesn’t make sense, please read the aforementioned
Chapters 171 to 186 in Part 7 of
Baptismal Confusion
in order to see that I am not making this up out of nowhere, on
my own. [My dear reader, please go
here
or follow the link just above to see
ironclad proof of this, if you’re unlearned or skeptical of this.] Whereas,
if you have read these chapters in Baptismal
Confusion on The Epistemologic Works, still thinking canon law in recent centuries
‘inarguably’ an exercise of papal infallibility, then either 1) you
haven’t understood the logic and evidence, or else 2) you do not wish to
agree despite understanding.
Again, I am not making the logic & evidence up out of nowhere,
on my own.
Chapters 171 to 186 in Baptismal
Confusion make this plain, based on the Vatican Council’s papally-approved
infallible definition of papal infallibility, clearly giving us, as Roman
Catholics, four criteria to know when a pope really has invoked
his God-given Charism of Infallibility. Those chapters also quote from eminent
ecclesial scholars --- every one of which is a highly trained priest,
except for one [this one exception who, in spite of not being a priest, was
still highly trained, greatly respected & eminent amongst his fellow
scholars!] --- again showing how I haven’t the
audacity to make this up out of nowhere, on my own.
The point?
Even if Pope
Benedict XV meant & intended what you believe him to have said in Providentissima, that alone does not ‘magically’ make
what he said an act of papal infallibility. Once something really has been
infallibly defined, it is irreformable.
Therefore, no pope has the authority to ‘change’ what is
irreformable, whether in meaning or words. And when any pope is not actually invoking his
Charism of Infallibility, then, surprisingly enough, his papal words are thus fallible.
Meaning, not for
sure wrong. But, too, not for
sure right either.
Which is not me saying we should disrespect a
pope’s words.
We must respect our rightful authorities, with good piety.
And I’d like to think most popes, most of the time, are being
good & wise.
Nevertheless, when a good-willed Catholic has excellent &
rational cause for very respectfully disagreeing with his or her rightful
authority, then such a Catholic is not
being ‘wicked’ or ‘rebellious’ in doing so. As I noted
before, Catholics with adequate intelligence (that is to say, not a child or cognitively disabled, etc.)
are required to give rational obedience to
rightful authority, not blind obedience. Yet why
stress this?
A pope is a man, not God. While being a true pope, he hence can be
good & wise, or good & foolish, or bad & foolish, or bad &
clever. So let’s say what you believe Pope Benedict XV to have meant in Providentissima is correct. Is this an
act of infallibility? No, it’s not. Why? Because canon law is primarily
to govern, concerning matters of the Church’s discipline, and not
primarily to teach, define or condemn. Canon law of the most recent
centuries fails to meet each of the four infallible criteria as given to
us through the Vatican Council of the 1800s. So is Benedict XV infallible here?
Even if
you’re right about his intent, no
he’s not.
If you’re right about his intent, he could be good &
foolish. Or bad & foolish. Or
bad & clever. Church history is full of
examples of true popes being good & foolish, or bad & foolish, or bad
& clever, or so forth and so on. God has permitted these situations. It is
not ‘unthinkable’. It is utterly possible, and sometimes God punishes
or tests us by permitting our rightful leaders to speak & act in ways that
are not good or wise.
(Incidentally, you can find historical evidence for bad or foolish
popes, as well as other Catholic Church leaders being bad or foolish, on The
Epistemologic Works in the book,
Inter Regnum
. It tends to shock people calling themselves
Catholic --- yet it’s true! [Again, beloved reader, go
here or follow the
link above to see proof.])
So, ‘begging the question’? I must say yes. I
shan’t grapple with whether or not I logically think Pope Benedict XV
meant what you believe he intended to mean in the major papal bull, Providentissima. That’s because
it’s more impressive to
realize how Benedict XV is not
exercising papal infallibility even if
you’re right about his intent. In reality, he may not have meant what you believe he intended to mean. He also
may not have read the 1917
Code of Canon Law thoroughly unto a full understanding. It was composed by
canon law experts, not the
pope himself. Do you see the difficulty?
The 1917 Code of Canon Law fails every one of the four criteria
for infallibility.
The Vatican Council, with Pope Pius IX’s approval, gave us
these four criteria.
Can one infallible statement contradict
another infallible statement…?
Obviously not. That’s why I dare to point
out that, even if you’re correct in your interpretation of Benedict
XV’s words in the section you highlight in his authoritative papal bull, Providentissima, then
we’ve an even bigger problem --- one pope speaking infallibly contradicting another pope
speaking infallibly. I don’t claim this is the case. However, if your interpretation is
correct of Pope Benedict XV’s words, then
we do indeed have the troubling situation of two popes contradicting each
other.
And, like us, logically speaking, either one pope is correct
or neither pope is correct.
And yet I do know, with moral certainty, that
Pius IX ruled infallibly.
He gave us the Vatican Council with its four criteria.
For me, that’s how it stands, X. It’s why I respectfully
disagree. But I am not a Catholic fundamentalist. [My precious & beloved
reader, please go
here
to discover what Catholic fundamentalists (CFs) are, and
why they are dangerous to one’s soul.] Ergo, I am not trying to
‘blast’ you by disagreeing. Time will tell which of us is correct.
The truth is what I want. If I’m wrong, then it doesn’t matter.
I’ll change my mind, admit I was wrong, and uphold what is true. Because truth is that important to me. If you’re
wrong, then I hope you’d do the same. And if we’re both
mistaken… well, then, I trust we’ll both be willing to admit our
mistakes.
In any case, thank you for being thoughtful & charitable in
responding.
Wishing you & yours well in the charity of Our Lord & Lady.
Dominus vobiscum!
-Webber
Paul Clement Doughton
Wednesday after Passion Sunday
during the Season of Lent, 2019
A BRIEF NOTE:
If harboring confusion or skepticism
regarding what this short letter has dared to say, particularly if still
unlearned or recalcitrant about the 1917 Code of Canon Law, then you are
morally obligated to see another, slightly longer, letter that dovetails
with this letter perfectly and is called
Unity of Worship Redux:
How the 1917 Code of Canon Law Does Not, & Cannot, Vitiate or Change
the Church’s Ancient Teaching re Religious Separation Applied to Ritual
or Worship
. As well as, if not yet knowing about or
examining it, while confused or skeptical of this matter, then you are morally
obligated to examine the relatively short article that started it all off,
leading to the two following letters, called
Unity of Worship: Why Real Catholics Dare Not ‘Worship’
With Any Non-Catholic or False ‘catholics’, Pretending It
‘Pleases’ God; Nor May a Pope ‘Change’ This Law, or the
Ignorant Remain Ever ‘Guiltless’
. The former resides in the
Letters & Admonishments section of The Epistemologic Works and the latter
in the Books & Articles section of this website. This is a matter of eternal life or death. Follow all links
provided when uninformed & disbelieving. Figure it out --- please do so!
+
+ +
Pilate’s
query met:
Note:
if you’ve come
to this webpage directly from a search
engine or other
website, then, when done viewing this webpage
--- and assuming
you wish to view more of this website’s pages ---
please type the
website’s address (as given above right before this
note) into the
address bar at the top of your browser and hit the
‘enter’ button on the keyboard of your computer.
Please go here about use of the writings
on this website.
© 2019 by
Paul Doughton.
All rights
reserved.