Bishop Warns Of Rogue (Catholic) Church To Membership

The Denver Channel ^ | 11/15/2004 | The Denver Channel

[nonsumdignus]

COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. -- The Roman Catholic bishop of Colorado Springs has warned members of a church here that it is not authentic.

Bishop Michael Sheridan sent a letter to about 60 households that said Servants of the Holy Family is not part of the Roman Catholic Church, despite what church priests tell them.

‘‘I entreat you to separate yourself from the Servants of the Holy Family and return to full communion with the Roman Catholic Church,’’ Sheridan wrote in his letter. ‘‘No one can claim to be authentically Catholic if he or she is not in communion with the diocesan bishop and the Pope.’’

One of the five priests at the church, Father Allan Kucera, said in an e-mail that the church will not answer questions about the church or Sheridan’s letter. ‘‘Servants of the Holy Family will neither participate in a public debate or controversy, nor will it in any way contribute to the strife and division already present today in the Catholic Church,’’ Kucera said. He added, ‘‘If anyone is interested, he or she may come and see for themselves what we are about.’’

The Gazette of Colorado Springs reported that some former members said the church is as much a personality cult as a place of worship. The former members said priests berate church members from the pulpit and demand unquestioned loyalty.

The group’s Web site, www.servi.org, says Servants of the Holy Family was founded in 1977. The church offers traditional Latin Mass six days a week, which has made it attractive to Catholics looking for a more traditional service. The church Web site also sells gourmet specialty foods and religious articles.

Some former members said they had no idea the church was not affiliated with the Roman Catholic church.

Patrick and Patty Biolchini were married in Servants of the Holy Family in 1994. When they left in 2003, a Catholic priest told them that, in the eyes of the Church, they never were married because the church isn’t sanctioned by Rome.

"We might as well have gotten married in front of a justice of the peace," Patrick told the Gazette.

[GratianGasparri]

Confusing the lack of the Sacrament with the validity of the marriage is quite common with the novus ordo folks. The Sacrament may be lacking but the contracted marriage is valid - assuming there were no diriment impediments involved.

Oh good grief... if you are really a traditionalist and not a troll, please...please...please approach your priest to discuss this issue. It has nothing to do with Novus Ordo vs. Tridentine. Between two baptized, it is theologically IMPOSSIBLE for a marriage to be valid without by that very fact being a sacrament.

[Stubborn]

I don't understand what you are saying here. Are you saying that marriage outside the Church automatically nullifies tha marriage?

Per the article: Patrick and Patty Biolchini were married in Servants of the Holy Family in 1994. When they left in 2003, a Catholic priest told them that, in the eyes of the Church, they never were married because the church isn’t sanctioned by Rome. I maintain that the NO priest has no right to make the statement that just because they were married outside the RCC that the marriage is ipso fact null.

[Stubborn]

It obviously has you quite confused. Would you suggest I approach the priest who told them their marriage was invalid?

[GratianGasparri]

I maintain that the NO priest has no right to make the statement that just because they were married outside the RCC that the marriage is ipso fact null.

That's fine, both canonical tradition going back to the Council of Trent and the Roman Rota (which adjudicated two other cases from the same chapel) disagree with you. Unless you happen to be the Roman Pontiff, your opinion concerning this matter is moot.

[GratianGasparri]

It obviously has you quite confused.

Um...whatever...you seriously need to study Catholic history, theology and Tradition before commenting on these threads.Would you suggest I approach the priest who told them their marriage was invalid?

I suggest you approach any priest, whether it be conservative NOM, FSSP, or even a well-informed schismatic SSPX priest or sedevacantist like Fr. Anthony Cekada. They will all tell you the same thing, namely, for a marriage between two baptized to be valid in the eyes of God, it must be a sacrament.

The only valid non-sacramental marriages are what are known as natural marriages. A natural marriage is a marriage between two non-baptized, or between one non-baptized and one baptized. To answer a question someone is bound to ask, if at any point during the marriage both parties become baptized, then the natural marriage automatically becomes a sacramental one.

[Stubborn]

Well, go ahead and post a link - or even a quote from anyone of authority pre-V2.

There are so many variables involved with marriage, especially since the Protestant Reformation, that the Church considers all marriages to be valid - provided both are baptised (for the Church has no say over infidels) - that is to say, if theres a question as to the validity of the marriage, the Church used to always side with, not against, the marriage as being valid.

One of the main reasons for this, was to preserve the sanctity of marriage. Afterall, it was God that raised marriage from a mere contract to a Sacrament, no other sect even believes it is a Sacrament, much less are they equipped to preserve it.

From New Advent: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09707a.htm

The opinion of Canus finds but little support in the expressions of the Fathers or in papal letters, which state that marriage without the priest is declared unholy, wicked, or sacrilegious, that it does not bring the grace of God but provokes His wrath. This is nothing more than what the Council of Trent says in the chapter "Tametsi" (XXIV, i, de ref. Matr.), namely, that "the Holy Church of God has always detested and forbidden clandestine marriages". Such statements do not deny the sacramental character of marriage so contracted; but they do condemn as sacrilegious that reception of the sacrament which indeed lays open the source of grace, yet places an obstacle in the way of the sacrament's efficacy.

Subservient Catholics and court theologians especially found it useful as warranting the secular power in making laws concerning validity and invalidity, diriment impediments, and the like. For, if the sacrament consisted in the priestly blessing and the contract, as was never doubted, in the mutual consent of the parties, evidently then contract and sacrament must be separated; the former had to precede as a foundation; upon it, as matter, was founded the sacrament, which took place through the blessing of the priest. But contracts, which affect social and civil life, are subject to state authority, so that this can make such regulations and restrictions even as to their validity, as it deems necessary for the public weal.

As it is certain, therefore, from the point of view of the Church that marriage as a sacrament is fulfilled only through the mutual consent of the contracting parties, it is a matter of secondary consideration, how and in what sense the matter and form of this sacrament are to be taken.

[Stubborn]

"Natural marriages" sounds like novus ordo lango - pre-V2, the marriage of two unbaptized AFAIK was known as the "marriage of infidels" and while not sacramental is still valid unless or until one or both are baptized - because until that time, the Church has no authority of the unbaptized yet still recognises the marriage as valid.

They will all tell you the same thing, namely, for a marriage between two baptized to be valid in the eyes of God, it must be a sacrament.

In today's Church, you are right, thats how it goes - but pre-V2, Nope, read the link I supplied.

[Stubborn]

I suggest you approach any priest, whether it be conservative NOM, FSSP, or even a well-informed schismatic SSPX priest or sedevacantist like Fr. Anthony Cekada. They will all tell you the same thing, namely, for a marriage between two baptized to be valid in the eyes of God, it must be a sacrament.

I want to re-emphasize for your understanding of what the Church taught pre-V2 as quoted from New Advent:

As it is certain, therefore, from the point of view of the Church that marriage as a sacrament is fulfilled only through the mutual consent of the contracting parties, it is a matter of secondary consideration, how and in what sense the matter and form of this sacrament are to be taken.

[GratianGasparri]

Well, go ahead and post a link - or even a quote from anyone of authority pre-V2.

Very well, I assume the following should be sufficient:

"Those who shall attempt to contract marriage otherwise than in the presence of the pastor (parochus), or of some other priest by permission of said parish priest or of the ordinary, and in the presence of two or three witnesses, the Holy Synod renders wholly incapable of thus contracting and declares null and void, as it also invalidates and annulls such contracts by the present decree." - From the Decree Tametsi in the 24th Session of the Council of Trent

Canon 1094 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law: "Ea tantum matrimonia valida sunt quae contrahuntur coram parocho, vel loci Ordinario, vel sacerdote ab alterutro delegato et duobus saltem testibus, secondum tamen regulas expressas in canonibus qui sequuntur, et salvis excptionibus de quibus in can. 1098, 1099."

Here's a working translation of this canon offered by the noted pre-conciliar canonist, Fr. Charles Augustine: "Only such marriages are valid as are contracted before the pastor, or the Ordinary of the diocese, or before a priest delegated by either the pastor or the Ordinary, and at least two witnesses, in conformit, however, with the rules laid down in the two following canons, and with the exceptions mentioned in canons 1098 and 1099."

[Stubborn]

So where, pray tell, does it say: for a marriage between two baptized to be valid in the eyes of God, it must be a sacrament. as you remarked?

Where does it say that those in schism, who marry outside the RCC are really not married at all as the NO priest stated?

The rule you posted is not binding on those outside the Church, if it were, 5/6 of the marriages would be invalid, thank God the RCC recognises them as being valid.

[GratianGasparri]

Dear Stubborn, I think at this point I will simply assume your ignorance is insurmountable. You may have the last word.

[Stubborn]

Too bad you feel that way. Insulting a person out of arrogance is one thing, but mis-understanding that marriages are valid even when they might be sinful is another.

Good day and God bless you.

[GratianGasparri]

It is not an insult. Rather, your ignorance of the Church's historical teaching when it comes to matrimonial theology is astounding in that you speak as if you understand the subject matter.

After various attempts to correct you have only yielded more of these types of statements, I cannot but conclude that the errors are too ingrained on your part, and the subject matter too nuanced, to be corrected over the internet.

If you are truly concerned about truth, and at this point I have no reason to believe otherwise, then you need to approach your priest for some one-on-one catechetical instruction. There's no shame in so doing. Even the greatest saints and popes, like Pope St. Pius X, had to learn somewhere. If you are not willing to do so, however, then it becomes obvious that your ignorance is willful.

[Stubborn]

I asked: So where, pray tell, does it say: for a marriage between two baptized to be valid in the eyes of God, it must be a sacrament as you remarked?

I confess that I mis-read your statement and consequently mis-understood it to mean something it did not.

Yes, a valid sacrament is inseparable from the valid marriage between two who are baptized, conversely, an invalid marriage cannot not be sacramental.

Canon law however is not binding on those outside the Church and as long as they vowed before God to remain husband and wife till death, the RCC does recognise that marriage as valid.

I do apologise for my mis-understanding.

[GratianGasparri]

Actually Stubborn, have you read the complete text of the entry from the Catholic Encyclopedia that you cite? If you continue for a couple paragraphs, it totally contradicts your claims while explaining the Church's essential theology on this matter. Please continue reading from where you left off at http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09707a.htm

Here are two sections you appear to have misssed.

---

The opinion of Canus finds but little support in the expressions of the Fathers or in papal letters, which state that marriage without the priest is declared unholy, wicked, or sacrilegious, that it does not bring the grace of God but provokes His wrath. This is nothing more than what the Council of Trent says in the chapter "Tametsi" (XXIV, i, de ref. Matr.), namely, that "the Holy Church of God has always detested and forbidden clandestine marriages". Such statements do not deny the sacramental character of marriage so contracted; but they do condemn as sacrilegious that reception of the sacrament which indeed lays open the source of grace, yet places an obstacle in the way of the sacrament's efficacy.

For a long time, nevertheless, the opinion of Canus had its defenders among the post-Tridentine theologians. Even Prosper Lambertini, as Benedict XIV, did not set aside his pronouncement, given in his work "De synodo dioecesana", VIII, xiii, that Canus's view was "valde probabilis", although in his capacity as pope he taught the opposite clearly and distinctly in his letter to the Archbishop of Goa. To-day it must be rejected by all Catholic theologians and branded at least as false. The inferences not contemplated by the originators of this opinion, but deduced later and used in practice against the rights of the Church, constrained succeeding popes repeatedly to condemn it formally. Subservient Catholics and court theologians especially found it useful as warranting the secular power in making laws concerning validity and invalidity, diriment impediments, and the like. For, if the sacrament consisted in the priestly blessing and the contract, as was never doubted, in the mutual consent of the parties, evidently then contract and sacrament must be separated; the former had to precede as a foundation; upon it, as matter, was founded the sacrament, which took place through the blessing of the priest. But contracts, which affect social and civil life, are subject to state authority, so that this can make such regulations and restrictions even as to their validity, as it deems necessary for the public weal. This practical conclusion was drawn especially by Marcus Antonius de Dominis, Bishop of Spoleto, afterwards an apostate, in his work "De republica ecclesiastica" (V, xi, 22), and by Launoy in his work "Regia in matrimonio potestas" (I, ix sqq.). In the middle of the last century Nepomuk Nuytz, professor at the University of Turin, defended this opinion with renewed vigour in order to supply a juridicial basis for civil legislation regarding marriage. Nuytz's work was thereupon expressly condemned by Pius IX in the Apostolical Letter of 22 Aug., 1851, in which the pope declared as false especially the following propositions: The sacraments of marriage is only something which is added to the contract of marriage and which can be separated from it; the sacrament consists only in the blessing of the marriage. These propositions are included in the "Syllabus" of 8 December 1864, and must be rejected by all Catholics. In like manner Leo XIII expresses himself in the Encyclical "Arcanum" quoted above. He says: "It is certain that in Christian marriage the contract is inseparable from the sacrament; and that, for this reason, the contract cannot be true and legitimate without being a sacrament as well. For Christ our Lord added to marriage the dignity of a sacrament; but marriage is the contract itself, whenever that contract is lawfully made. . . . Hence it is clear that among Christians every true marriage is, in itself and by itself, a sacrament; and that nothing can be farther from the truth than to say that the sacrament is a certain added ornament, or external adjunct, which can be separated and torn away from the contract at the caprice of man."

As it is certain, therefore, from the point of view of the Church that marriage as a sacrament is fulfilled only through the mutual consent of the contracting parties, it is a matter of secondary consideration, how and in what sense the matter and form of this sacrament are to be taken. The view that most correctly explains this is perhaps the one that is generally prevalent to-day; in every contract two elements are to be distinguished, the offering of a right and the acceptance of it; the former is the foundation, the latter is the juridicial completion. The same holds true of the sacramental contract of marriage; in so far, therefore as an offering of the marriage right is contained in the mutual declaration of consent, we have the matter of the sacraments, and, in so far as a mutual acceptance is contained therein, we have the form.

To complete our inquiry concerning the essence of the Sacrament of Marriage, its matter and form, and its minister, we have still to mention a theory that was defended by a few jurists of the Middle Ages and has been revived by Dr. Jos. Freisen ("Geschichte des canonischen Eherechts", Tübingen, 1888). According to this marriage in the strict sense, and therefore marriage as a sacrament, is not accomplished until consummation of the marriage is added to the consent. It is the consummation, therefore, that constitutes the matter or the form. But as Freisen retracted this opinion which could not be harmonized with the Church's definitions, it is no longer of actual interest. This view was derived from the fact that marriage, according to Christ's command, is absolutely indissoluble. On the other hand, it is undeniably the teaching and practice of the Church that, in spite of mutual consent, marriage can be dissolved by religious profession or by the declaration of the pope; hence the conclusion seemed to be that there was no real marriage previous to the consummation, since admittedly neither religious profession nor papal declaration can afterwards effect a dissolution. The error lies in taking indissolubility in a sense that the Church has never held. In one case, it is true, according to earlier ecclesiastical law, the previous relation of mere espousal between man and woman became a lawful marriage (and therefore the Sacrament of Marriage), namely when a valid betrothal was followed by consummation. It was a legal presumption that in this case the betrothed parties wished to lessen the sinfulness of their action as much as possible, and therefore performed it with the intention of marriage and not of fornication. The efficient cause of the marriage contract, as well as of the sacrament, was even in this case the mutual intention of marriage, although expression was not given to it in the regular way. This legal presumption ceased on 5 Feb., 1892, by Decree of Leo XIII, as it had grown obsolete among the faithful and was no longer adapted to actual conditions.

---

As we have several times emphasized, not even marriage is a true sacrament, but only marriages between Christians. One becomes and remains a Christian in the sense recognized here through valid baptism. Hence only one who has been validly baptized can contract a marriage which is a sacrament; but every one can contract it who has been validly baptized, whether he has remained true to the Christian faith, or become a heretic, or even an infidel. Such has always been the teaching and practice of the Church. Through baptism one "becomes a member of Christ and is incorporated in the body of the Church", as declared in the Florentine Decree for the Armenians; so far as law is concerned, he remains irrevocably subject to the Church, and is therefore, in legal questions, always to be considered a Christian. Hence it is a general principle that all baptized persons are subject to universal ecclesiastical laws, especially marriage laws, unless the Church makes an exception for individual cases or classes. Hence not only the marriage between Catholics, but also that contracted by members of the different sects which have retained baptism and validly baptize, is undoubtedly a sacrament. It matters not whether the non-Catholic considers marriage a sacrament or not, or whether he intends to effect a sacrament or not. Provided only he intends to contract a true marriage, and expresses the requisite consent, this intention and this expression are sufficient to constitute a sacrament. But if he is absolutely determined not to effect a sacrament, then, of course, the production of a sacrament would be excluded, but the marriage contract also would be null and void. By Divine ordinance it is essential to Christian marriage that it should be a sacrament; it is not in the power of the contracting parties to eliminate anything from its nature, and a person who has the intention of doing this invalidates the whole ceremony. It is certain, therefore, that marriage contracted between baptized persons is a sacrament, even the so-called mixed marriage between a Catholic and a non-Catholic, provided the non-Catholic has been validly baptized. It is equally certain that marriage between unbaptized persons is not a sacrament in the strict sense of the word.

---

[GratianGasparri]

Hi Stubborn, I think we are on the verge of resolving this. With regards to your following statement, "Canon law however is not binding on those outside the Church and as long as they vowed before God to remain husband and wife till death, the RCC does recognise that marriage as valid." This is correct, which is why the Church recognizes the marriage of two non-Catholics before a Lutheran minister, Justice of the Peace, whatever. The one exception is with regards to the Eastern Orthodox -- we recognize their marriages before a Catholic or an Orthodox priest, but not before a JP or protestant minister. Nevertheless, this presumption is itself built upon the presumption that the individual outside the Church was never baptized or received into the Catholic Church.

[Stubborn]

I don't understand your point.

I will digress to the priest telling the couple that they were not really married simply because they were not married in the Catholic Church.

I maintain he has no grounds to make such a statement.

From your snip from New Advent: Hence only one who has been validly baptized can contract a marriage which is a sacrament; but every one can contract it who has been validly baptized, whether he has remained true to the Christian faith, or become a heretic, or even an infidel. Such has always been the teaching and practice of the Church.

This is what I was taught, which the priest's "off the cuff" remark contradicts.

So again, what point are you trying to make?

[Stubborn]

This is correct, which is why the Church recognizes the marriage of two non-Catholics before a Lutheran minister, Justice of the Peace, whatever. The one exception is with regards to the Eastern Orthodox -- we recognize their marriages before a Catholic or an Orthodox priest, but not before a JP or protestant minister. Nevertheless, this presumption is itself built upon the presumption that the individual outside the Church was never baptized or received into the Catholic Church.

See, I was never taught that way. As I posted, the RCC always assumes marriages to be valid, unless proven otherwise. In case clear evidence of invalidy cannot be proven, the RCC used to presume the marriage to be valid.

[Stubborn]

I think we are on the verge of resolving this as well. the Church recognizes the marriage of two non-Catholics before a Lutheran minister, Justice of the Peace, whatever.

Yes, "whatever" pretty much blankets it.

The one exception is with regards to the Eastern Orthodox -- we recognize their marriages before a Catholic or an Orthodox priest, but not before a JP or protestant minister.

Being ignorant in regards to the Eastern Orthodox overall, for the moment at least, I'll agree.:-)

Nevertheless, this presumption is itself built upon the presumption that the individual outside the Church was never baptized or received into the Catholic Church.

Here is where I don't have a clear understanding of what you are saying so perhaps I'll put in my .02 and you can reply.

While the marriage of two unbaptised cannot possibly be sacramental, in the eyes of the Church, the marriage itself is presumed valid though not sacramental. Here is a case that the Church respects and allows civil authority to regulate laws regarding the marriage of those not baptised. While the Church has no authority or jurisdiction over the unbaptised, if for no other reason than for the greater good of Her children, She does recognise the marriage as being valid.

There are some variables involving the marriage of those not baptised, i.e. 1)only one is baptised, 2)one converts and gets baptised after marriage while the other does not, 3)both convert and get baptised after marriage.

#1, is called "Disparity of worship" and is a diriment impediment. The Church used to strictly forbid such marriages and I think this situation is mis-applied very often today. Many folks think that this involves only Catholics with non-Catholics when in reality, it only involves one who is not baptised marrying one who is. Even so, I believe the Church, with certain restrictions can grant a dispensation for this impediment.

In case #2, the marriage is not automatically null by the fact that one converts while the other chooses not to. In this case, "The Pauline Privledge" might be invoked, but depending on the circumstances (they had children for example) the Church can and might grant a dispensation rather than an annulment.

[gbcdoj]

pre-V2, this law would have been called heretical

Nope. Here, for instance, is Trent's decree on the matter:

Those who shall attempt to contract marriage otherwise than in the presence of the parish priest, or of some other priest by permission of the said parish priest, or of the Ordinary, and in the presence of two or three witnesses; the holy Synod renders such wholly incapable of thus contracting and declares such contracts invalid and null, as by the present decree It invalidates and annuls them. (Council of Trent, Session XXIV, Decree on the Reformation of Marriage, Chapter I)