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

A NOTE TO THE READER:

This is a very recent email (March of 2019) sent to a gentleman in response to his defense, from the 1917 Code of Canon Law, of real Catholics seeking the spiritual services from men who we may think are valid priests (read: they really do have the genuine Sacrament of Holy Orders), but who, one knows --- or a true Catholic very much should know, having no good excuse in the external forum not to --- are not licit or legal priests (read: despite their Holy Orders, they are surely not actually Roman Catholic Whole, Entire & Undefiled). Per this person, citing Canons 2261, 2264 & 2254, respectively (I realize the sequence is numerically broken, yet it follows the way he introduced them), the Roman Catholic Church authorizes us, in time of desperate need, to seek the services of a priest who has been automatically excommunicated by the same body of canon law. In other words, that it is indeed ‘okay’ seeking the spiritual services of a notoriously & pertinaciously non-Catholic clergy, thus automatically excommunicated and no longer part of Christ’s Singularly Roman Catholic Church Body, in times of grave or dire ‘need’… as if such cast out and separated clergymen are able, in some mysterious and inexplicable way, to ‘function within’ Jesus’ Church despite not actually being a part of His Sacred & Holy Body, as if Our Lord does not provide His true & only spiritual children --- Roman Catholics Whole, Entire & Undefiled --- as it were, another means to face a grave situation or dire urgency, overcoming a lack of legal clergy with success.

Proof of this ‘daring’ assertion is easy to see. St. Mary of Egypt, during the latter part of the first half of the first millennium lived in the empty desert east of the Jordan River for some forty years void of access to a priest or regular sacraments, she merely, by her request, a miraculous recipient of the Holy Eucharist when a priest ‘happened’ to run into her about a year before she died… and yet, even then, it was her destiny to die a year later, before this priest could meet her again per their arrangement, out in the middle of nowhere, void of the Sacrament of Extreme Unction. Terrible tragedy? Impossible? Not on your life. Because Christ allowed her to live out in this middle of nowhere without the Sacraments for some forty years and, in spite of He permitting her, at her request, to receive the Blessed Sacrament a single time before she died, He did, nevertheless, permit her to die without the Sacrament of Extreme Unction, and even though the priest came a year later, after the first ‘accidental’ meeting, per agreement, she having died right before he arrived.

Meanwhile, she is a glorious saint of the Roman Catholic Church, in spite of a very wicked earlier life (she had been a vile prostitute in the gigantic city of Alexandria, Egypt, for about 17 years, prior to a wholly unexpected re-conversion to being a Catholic in the state of grace), and stunning proof that, if God wills it, you can, after all, die a good death without the Sacrament of Extreme Unction available. Nor would Our Creator command or allow her to seek the service of Arian clergy, who still existed in somewhat large numbers then, neither did or would she dare to do such a bad thing… and all for receiving, we say today, what is so ‘necessary’ that both God & His Church permit --- nay, encourage! --- us to seek, at the filthy hands of clergy who are most certainly not part of His Catholic Body & Mind. Can it really be so ‘urgent’ or ‘charitable’ toward God so as to mingle wantonly, in religious matters, with those we know are not Roman Catholic? Would an All-Holy God ever condone this strategy, would His Singularly Catholic Church ever RIGHTLY permit or encourage this?

If so, then why on earth didn’t St. Mary of Egypt do so back then?

Did we as real Roman Catholics suddenly become ‘enlightened’ by the AD 1700s, 1800s, 1900s or 2000s, the 1917 Code of Canon Law suddenly and rather inexplicably ‘charitably’ permitting us to do what was NEVER permitted, sanctioned or encouraged to do in most ancient times?

As far as I have been able to tell in my research thus far --- and as I note near the end of Chapter 34 in Part 3 of the moderate-sized book, Inter Regnum , dealing with the terrifying prophecy of little Melanie, one of two young seers chosen by Heaven’s Queen to receive the messages of Our Lady of La Salette in 1846 --- part of the heavy significance of the year, 1864 (please see the writing referenced right above, in order to understand the date referenced by La Salette)… is that, after attempts in the preceding decades, starting in the 1830s, the side of ‘mingling religiously with non-Catholics’ finally won a seemingly ‘small’ yet horrible victory. The Vatican Curia, with it’s delegated authority from the pope (who was mostly Gregory XVI for the 1830s on into the mid-1840s until the election of Pius IX, the latter at first thought of as ‘liberal’ before Freemasonic-inspired revolution almost murdered him, or dethroned him as head of the Papal Estates, he a chastened man after this experience), received at least two inquiries from various Catholic entities in the world from the 1830s onward, asking if a Catholic person may be allowed, if in ‘necessity’, to turn to a non-Catholic priest when encountering imminent death or etc. The Vatican’s answer, at first, was an unvarying “no”, absolutely not, in accord with Catholicism’s unwavering insistence for millennia, as God’s One True Religion, that there is to be no pretended ‘religious union’ with non-Catholics, even when, supposedly, a Catholic person is about to die and ‘needs’ the Sacrament of Extreme Unction from the hands of a plainly non-Catholic priest. Isn’t there an exception then? Isn’t it a ‘practical’ matter of ‘charity’ in this case? Wouldn’t such a poor Catholic be likelier to wind up in hell without such ‘necessary’ spiritual aid? Such situations can, rarely, occur. Yet God is not unmerciful. It would be unmerciful to condone such pretended ‘religious union’ between a dying Catholic and the non-Catholic priest, permitting him to ‘assist’ sacramentally this poor Catholic. In other words, even if, theologically speaking, such non-Catholic clergy could remit sins, or etc., in this process, notwithstanding, mingling with them religiously, in said ritual or worship, thereby incurs, whilst doing so, a new mortal sin as this Catholic soul breaks the 1^st Commandment to do so! Getting it?

Such ‘practical’ action to help a Catholic in ‘need’ is a RUSE.

You are not actually helping this poor Catholic; you are, to the contrary, sending them to hell forever as they die in mortal sin! This is why the Vatican answered in the negative at first, in response to the inquiries. What happened in 1864, then? For the first time ever, throughout Church history, the Vatican finally said ‘okay’ to such an inquiry. To my knowledge, this is where the 1917 Code of Canon Law got its precedence in ‘authorizing’ such an atrocity in several canons, as well as a few other bad canons. Along with the façade pretending Martin V’s Ad evitanda scandala also ‘justified’ such an innovation, this is how a seemingly ‘small’ yet initial breach in Catholicism’s protective wall was made, sacrificing ‘no Salvation outside the Church’ --- an explicitly infallible dogma! --- to do so. A first truly annihilative attempt to seriously succeed in Lucifer’s efforts to give us the Great Apostasy of our times. But is Pope Pius IX in 1864 or Pope Benedict XV in 1917 to blame? Not quite. This is delegated authority we’re talking about here. It’s entirely possible that neither man was aware of what his Curia dared to do in accomplishing these things. Perhaps. It’s not wise to presume without hard evidence. Hence charitable to assume them guiltless unless hard proof shows us otherwise. In the meantime, we ask dear souls the following:

Have you a spiritual nose, precious & beloved reader?

And can you detect a most foul & diabolical stench?

Still not seeing the truth, though?

Then consider the Japanese Catholics, converted by the highly redoubtable St. Francis Xavier in the mid-1500s. Francis Xavier was himself impressed with their ‘ardent zeal’ for the One True Faith. In 1587, however, and after St. Francis Xavier’s holy death, the Japanese leaders wielded AN OVER 2 CENTURIES LONG PERSECUTION against Japanese Catholics, a persecution unrivalled since the times during a pagan Roman Empire. With this distinction --- that Japan’s Catholics, for generations, endured their persecution WITHOUT PRIESTS OR CLERGY, they having been hellishly wiped out at zealously pagan hands. It was not until 1854, when a naval man, Commodore Perry of the United States, forced entry into Japan a second time (the US was determined to force Japan to conduct trade, an approach quite typical of our nation, even in more recent decades, if you’re both knowledgeable of history and honest about the US…), that evidence of Catholics still alive in Japan came to the attention of the world, especially Rome & Roman Catholics. Modernists do not consider Commodore Perry’s discovery very important--- but for any real Catholic? Crucial! Proof both that God can, and has, allowed His spiritual children to live & die without priestly aid, a mere two Sacraments available to them during a religious famine. To wit, Japanese Catholics had only the Sacrament of Baptism and the Sacrament of Matrimony to lean upon for some 200 years.

The import?

Just like real Roman Catholics today, during the Great Apostasy, devoid of a functioning Hierarchy as God’s Mighty Wrath punishes the entire world, including bad Catholics or false ‘catholics’ all over the earth, so we, too, like those dauntless Japanese Catholics, can, as needed, survive religiously. If God wills it --- and He has! --- then we can survive it with our souls intact. It’s not pretty, it’s not the way it should be, it’s not the best of situations by far in any sense of living our Catholicity normally, but, if Our Just & Wrathful Lord chooses this option, with Our Merciful Lady at our sides, then it is possible.

In an actual emergency, the Sacrament of Baptism can rightly be administered by anyone… even someone who is not Catholic! Why do you think God & His Church would allow this, indeed, obligate us to do so in an emergency situation? Correct, my very astute reader, it is because water baptism is that urgent, and because God sometimes does permit us, as human beings or Roman Catholics, to be deprived of Roman Catholic clergy. Ergo why there is a thing such as so-called ‘emergency baptism’, sanctioned & required by God’s Church since the beginning of New Testament times on the Day of Pentecost.

(By the way, don’t think the Church permitting a non-Catholic to administer ‘emergency baptism’ is then ‘proof’ that Catholics may turn to non-Catholic priests in an ‘emergency need’. The unbaptized person is non-Catholic until he or she is baptized in water, professing Catholicity Whole, Entire & Undefiled. Therefore, no mingling of the non-Catholic person with a Catholic person occurs here, religiously, since the person being baptized is not Catholic until after baptism!)

And the Sacrament of Matrimony? It is theologically inarguable that this Sacrament occurs when both spouses are baptized in water and, it is indubitable, are both truly Roman Catholic. It is also inarguable, although many real Catholics are not aware, that a priest is not totally necessary for this Sacrament to occur. A legal priest simply provides the ceremony. Which, while not unimportant, is not crucial, either. Rather, the baptized spouses themselves administer the graces of Matrimony to one another, their family, and those around them.

Getting it? IF necessary, IF God requires it, then we CAN survive.

We shouldn’t normally have to survive like this, but it’s possible. Normally functioning clergy is a far better situation, with all of the Sacraments available to us in their usual form, notwithstanding, God both has and does sometimes exact spiritual famine upon His Own. I.e., it is sometimes His Holy Will that many bad Catholics or false ‘catholics’ suffer His Wrath of deprivation of the True Faith and copious graces, and that the few real or good Catholics left then penitentially offer up their spiritual famine to appease Him.

Easy? No. Impossible? Not at all. We merely have to obey.

The rest of the text --- the text of my email to the gentleman --- is obviously self-explanatory. Please follow hyperlinks where provided if you’re confused or skeptical. Remember, this is your everlasting fate at stake here. Don’t be foolish or reckless. The text is precisely as I sent it to the acquaintance of mine here in the United States. To be polite, anonymity & privacy are preserved. His name is not given. I’ve removed a few more private remarks, too, near the end. Plus, bracketed annotations where it is helpful.

Everything else is as sent originally.

Incidentally, despite being placed in the Letters & Admonishments (L&A) section of The Epistemologic Works --- for obvious reasons, as well as to update L&A after long neglecting it --- I consider Unity of Worship Redux to be a concluding addendum to the slightly earlier 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 the Books & Articles (B&A) section of The Epistemologic Works. The word ‘redux’ means ‘brought back’ or ‘revived’. This email or ‘letter’ is a ‘bringing back’ or ‘revival’ of the slightly earlier article’s topic, found in B&A. Understand? Hopefully, this lays it to rest for now.

TEXT OF EMAIL ON 17 MARCH 2019:

Hello X,

How are you? Listen, my son, Y, shared your response to him (concerning his earnest questions) with me, including the link you provided to an article addressing relevant points. Being at work on a 10-day straight shift --- normally it’s only week on, week off, with myself at the worksite continually for 7 days straight, night and day --- I nevertheless was able to find time to look over the material carefully. (I’m back home now with my family and intend to look it over even more meticulously, but, it is fortunate, my work does provide me with some quiet time where I may pursue other things while at work.) I found your response to be thoughtful & intelligent.

One thing, however, did jump out at me which was troubling. Please be assured that I never condone what is best termed Catholic fundamentalism (CF) and strive hard not to be like Catholic fundamentalist (CFs). An explanation of CFs can be found on the website, The Epistemologic Works --- www.theepistemologicworks.com --- in the relatively short book, Catholic Fundamentalism , if you’re unfamiliar with the idea. Succinctly, though, CFs are unlearned and proud at the same time. They’ve other additional flaws, yet this is the pith. Hence, you can try to explain to them, with politeness, precisely where they’ve erred. No matter. They’re too proud to hear, impatiently dismissing you and usually attacking you with venom & spleen.

A wonderful Lenten penance, eh? Indeed. To be the one attacked, I mean.

The point is, I am not expressing this one thing that concerns me in order to bitterly ‘assault’ you. I care about you, despite not knowing you hardly at all, and simply wish to express this concern in a courteous & intelligent fashion. I trust you can believe me.

That said, the thing that troubled me was Canons 2261, 2264 & 2254, respectively.

This is because, dear sir, I do believe them to be bad canon laws.

My reason for daring to say such a thing?

It is threefold.

One, I have studied ancient Church history and the early Church fathers for over two decades. Never yet have I found Catholically orthodox writing or teaching, from this era of the first millennium, condoning such a thing. The exact opposite! Whether it be clergy or laity, if notoriously & pertinaciously heretical or schismatic in the external forum, it inarguably --- and automatically, even without declaration from any authority with a proper jurisdiction --- excommunicates them, as I realize you already well know. [Dear reader, please go here for proof of this if you’re confused or skeptical.] Furthermore, that, since they are no longer a part of the Singularly Roman Catholic Church Body of Jesus Christ, then they can no longer pretend to ‘function’ within this Singular Mystical Body. Ergo, it was never, to my knowledge, ‘legal’ or ‘licit’ for any Catholic to join religiously, in ritual or worship, with those that they know, with moral certainty (or ought to know, having had enough time to learn or figure it out, thereby being culpably ignorant in this matter!) are not actually Catholic and thus not really belonging to God’s Singular Roman Catholic Church, having no place at Her Altar. Wherefore it was, to my ken, never permitted or sanctioned to do so, period. It was, conversely, forbidden --- e.g., no crisis, threat or emergency allowed or tolerated a Roman Catholic person to turn in ‘need’ to openly & clearly non-Catholic clergy.

Two, no body of canon law, at least in the past millennium, carries the aura of the divinely-bestowed Charism of Infallibility. I don’t know, X, if this is something you know & acknowledge, or not. But if you don’t know this… or do not acknowledge it in spite of knowing… then, please do, I beseech you, examine hard evidence and ironclad reasoning for this (perhaps for some) ‘shocking’ statement. Not everything a pope may say, write, preach, promulgate or etc., etc., carries the aura of infallibility. Proof? Please go to the aforementioned The Epistemologic Works website and peruse the Baptismal Confusion book. Not the whole thing; it’s very long & comprehensive. Rather, and specifically, Part 7, with Chapters 172 to 175 and Chapters 178 to 179 being most relevant. (You may assiduously examine Chapters 171 to 186 for a fuller context, therefore a fuller understanding, if you wish.) With reference to the Vatican Council of 1869-70 and it’s infallible definition of Papal Infallibility, along with quotes galore from eminent ecclesiastical theologians & scholars and proper references & official approvals provided, the assertion is unassailable --- the 1917 Code of Canon Law was not a papal act of infallibility but a papal act of supreme authority. Nor is a pope required to be an expert in canon law so as to be able to be a pope in the first place. And, were that not enough, there are 2414 canons in the 1917 Code of Canon Law. It’s possible that Benedict XV, the pope who promulgated it, had not even read the entire gigantic composition from start to finish, every word, relying instead upon the experts who assembled the work. And, finally, the 1917 Code of Canon Law was the first time ever, within Church history, that canon law was not only re-organized (in order to be more accessible & study-able for the expert responsible to know it) but was, indeed, utterly systematized and thus re-worded completely. Mind you, I am not saying that, mostly, Pope Benedict XV’s Code of Canon Law in 1917 wasn’t good. As far as I can tell, it surely was mostly good. I am saying, howsoever, that it contained at least a few bad regulations in it. And I do believe Canons 2261, 2264 & 2254, respectively, to be examples of this conviction that I hold. The final third point will explain why.

Because, three, the Vatican II Pseudo-Council and the outbreak of the Great Apostasy into the open did not happen overnight, all of a sudden. It had been countless centuries in the making. Enemies of the One True Church had been endeavoring to infiltrate, corrupt & otherwise undermine Catholicity for a long, long, long time. Popes even warned us of this horrendous reality several times; for instance, with certain popes’ condemnation of Freemasonry, which, as any honest Catholic scholar knows, purposely sent emissaries into seminaries, who then worked their way up the ecclesial ladder into higher & higher positions of authority & influence. The upshot? My dear gentleman, it is not difficult to surmise that, under guise of doing a ‘good’ thing --- totally & systematically reworking & re-wording canon law for the Latin Rite in 1917 --- such enemies, inside the Vatican, as a result, plant at least a few bad canon laws in this official work so as to spread delusion & evil the more thoroughly, consequently further undermining Catholics in their Faith & Praxis. Resultantly, it is not ‘unthinkable’ that there be some bad canon laws in this copious work from 1917. It is very thinkable, and very real. Now, are Catholics to mindlessly adhere to authority & law? No, we are not. As good clergy & theologians have taught us, real & good Roman Catholics are to practice a rational obedience, not blind obedience. As St. Thomas Aquinas himself taught, great saint & doctor of the Church that he is, there are times when a good & wise Catholic must respectfully, rationally & rightly refuse to obey a wicked superior, or a superior who, while not meaning to be wicked, nevertheless, issues a wicked order. Such is the case with pernicious canon laws. And, I tell you, the 1917 Code truly contains a few.

Canons 2261, 2264 & 2254, respectively, are an example of this.

Dear sir, please forgive my length of words. But this is crucial.

Believe me, I am not ‘attacking’ your Catholicity. Contrarily:

If I am correct, I am trying to help you be a better Catholic.

In any case, you have been charitable & courteous to me.

Thank you. I want this charity between us to continue.

Wishing you & yours the best in the love of the Sacred Hearts of King Jesus & Queen Mary, Whose Hearts beat as one and seek the unity of heart & mind of all real Catholics on earth, even during the worst of all times, here at the end of the world as we know it, during the most hideous & execrable Great Apostasy, so long foretold to us,

-Webber Paul Clement Doughton,

Feast of St. Patrick the Irish Apostle

and the Second Sunday in 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, even shorter, letter that dovetails with this letter perfectly and is called 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 Vatican Council of the 1800s Proving This . 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:

www.TheEpistemologicWorks.com

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.