Bishop Warns Of Rogue (Catholic) Church To Membership

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

[Stubborn]

Yes, that is Trent's decree. It applies to Catholics and is binding for Catholics.

As I posted earlier, I mis-understood the subject. I was relating to the priest's mis-statement that the marriage was invalid because it took place outside the RCC.

As regards the canon, any Catholic who knowingly does not marry according to the rules set forth by Holy Mother the Church, or if they do so but without the proper dispensation, the Church has the duty and the right to declare the marriage null. However, for that priest to make that statement to the couple after nine years of marriage, well, he is sadly mistaken.

[dsc]

"Depending upon how it was done, the proper term would either be "convalidated" if the couple exchanged a new act of consent in front of the priest and two witnesses, or "sanated" if the Church simply fixed things quietly behind the scenes."

Thanks for the info.

"I'm surprised the diocese went to all this trouble since when it comes to traditionalists, most dioceses usually just quietly sanate the marriage behind the scenes and allow the couple to go in peace."

Yeah, why would they make such a big deal of it?

[GratianGasparri]

Yeah, why would they make such a big deal of it?

I can only guess the following: 1) This is the chapel that provided the two test cases to the Roman Rota vis-a-vis independent traditionalist chapels. (The Rota agreed that the marriages were invalid due to lack-of-form), and/or 2) The diocese could be warning the faithful. I realized this afterward when I thought of, and these are always very sad, a number of cases where one traditionalist spouse (usually the husband) just walked away from the marriage and, after the civil divorce, was able to wash his hands of the marriage.

[GratianGasparri]

Stubborn, you have the gist of it. Basically a valid marriage between two baptized is sacramental, while a valid marriage between two non-baptized or a baptized and a non-baptized is called a natural marriage. This is because it follows the natural law like marriage in the Old Testament.

While the Church generally leaves natural marriage and sacramental marriages between two baptized non-Catholics up to the civil law, this presumes the natural law is otherwise followed and the parties are free to marry. (For example, in a Muslim country the Church would recognize the natural marriage between a man and his first wife, but not a man and his second wife while his first wife still lives.)

Correct on marriage between a baptized and a non-baptized. Where the baptized party is Catholic, the non-baptism of the potential spouse (unless he or she happens to be a catechumen) is an impediment due to disparity of worship (aka disparity of cult). This can be dispensed by the competent ecclesiastical authority.

If one converts and the other does not (in this context, conversion means receiving baptism), the marriage remains valid, but natural. If the second person converts (receives baptism) then the marriage by that very fact becomes a sacrament. In either case, no dipensation is needed for disparity of cult since, at the time of the wedding, neither party had been baptized.

[Campion]

but in the RCC, every marriage is always presumed valid, schismatic or not.

I have no idea what that means. A marriage is presumed valid until the facts which prove the invalidity of the bond are examined and brought forward, yes. Catholics who contract marriage before clergy without jurisdiction, without the appropriate dispensation, ipso facto contract an invalid marriage.

That's simply the law, and was the law long before Vatican II. Denying it doesn't change the matter.

[Stubborn]

GratianGasparri, re:post 64, we agree:-)!

Campion, as I posted in post 61, I agree with your definition.

but in the RCC, every marriage is always presumed valid, schismatic or not.

Here, I am speaking specifically about the couple in the article. The priest had no grounds to tell the couple that after nine years of marriage, they were never really married because they are in schism.

The article does not really elaborate the circumstances, but the parishoners "had no idea" they were in schism and after some 27 years, the Bishop, for whatever reason decides to declare the Servants of the Holy Family schismatic - but the priest automatically declares their marriage of nine years invalid? Now this priest has these folks believing they might as well have gotten married in front of a justice of the peace, thats a scandal.

I guess in short, the Church used to be more anxious, if *at all* possible, to grant dispensations than it was to declare marriages that have taken place nine years ago null.

While it is true that Catholics who knowingly do not follow the norms set by the Church for marriage, per Church law, are not really married, one clause says: But because this same Sacred Council had commanded that a decree of this kind be published in every parish, the decree would not be in force except in those places where it was in fact so promulgated... http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/NETEMERE.HTM So, was it promulgated in the parish or diocese? Did those folks know that they were marrying outside the Church? Did they know they were in schism? - who knows?

[GratianGasparri]

Stubborn...okay, I see where the confusion lay.

The priest had no grounds to tell the couple that after nine years of marriage, they were never really married because they are in schism.

Okay, it isn't because the couple were in schism that their marriage was invalid, but because they had no idea they were in schism. (Hence they could not have defected from the Church by means of a formal act, meaning they remain Catholic and bound to canonical form).

As for the invalidity due to lack of canonical form of marriages attempted in that chapel, that is the location that provided two test cases for the Rota about nine or ten years' ago. (I don't have my notes on me, but the definitive sentences were subsequently translated for Studia Canonica by the noted canonist Fr. Augustine Mendonca and published sometime between 1995 and 1997 if I recall correctly.)

Once established by the Rota that these are indeed lack of form cases, they become the easiest cases to process in the Church because a documentary rather than a formal process may be used. To give you a brief comparison, a formal annulment case -- whether the decision is affirmative or negative -- usually takes about a year-and-a-half. A lack of form, if all the supporting documents are in order, is always affirmative and only takes about ten minutes to process.

The article does not really elaborate the circumstances, but the parishoners "had no idea" they were in schism and after some 27 years, the Bishop, for whatever reason decides to declare the Servants of the Holy Family schismatic - but the priest automatically declares their marriage of nine years invalid? Now this priest has these folks believing they might as well have gotten married in front of a justice of the peace, thats a scandal.

It is a scandal, but it is also true. They might as well have been from the Church's perspective. Please see the two test cases (from the same chapel!) that went before the Rota.

I guess in short, the Church used to be more anxious, if *at all* possible, to grant dispensations than it was to declare marriages that have taken place nine years ago null.

Okay, here's where you're confused. The Church cannot dispense one from an invalid marriage. What you probably mean is that the Church use to be more anxious to convalidate or sanate the marriage (what some people mistakenly refer to as "bless the marriage"), rather than simply declare it invalid. You will be happy to know this has not changed.

You need to distinguish between a pastoral declaration, which this priest has done but which carries no judicial weight, and a judicial declaration, which would declare the parties free to attempt another marriage. What the priest did was the former -- likely because he wants the couple to either convalidate or sanate the marriage (in other words, make it valid). Nevertheless, in order to sanate or convalidate the marriage, and thus make it valid, the pastor must first make the parties realize that the marriage is invalid.

While it is true that Catholics who knowingly do not follow the norms set by the Church for marriage, per Church law, are not really married, one clause says: But because this same Sacred Council had commanded that a decree of this kind be published in every parish, the decree would not be in force except in those places where it was in fact so promulgated... http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/NETEMERE.HTM So, was it promulgated in the parish or diocese?

That clause became moot after the promulgation of the 1917 Code if I recall correctly. (Even if it did not, it would have become moot after the 1983 Code came into effect.) The law obliging Catholics to follow canonical form is now in force throughout the entire Church.

[BlackElk]

Bishop Sheridan was the single most Catholic voice among all of the bishops on the denial of communion to baby-killer pseudoCatholic politicos like Kerry. Now he is asserting the traditional authority of the ordinary of a diocese. The Catholic Church is not a do-it-yourself club for malcontents and schismatics.

Find another bishop like Sheridan to continue his work in Colorado Sprongs and send Sheridan to cleanse the Mahoneyan stables of AmChurch filth in Los Angeles and to set an example for other bishops.

Toleration of schismatic defiance of legitimate authority does the Church no favors. Excommunications should be freely distributed to those who insist on defiance of legitimate Church authority. They have no standing to negotiate.

There is nothing whatsoever "traditional" in defying bishop and pope as a reflexive way of life. We are a Church and not an anarchy. No One died and left the schisms in charge.

Ubi Petrus, Ibi Ecclesia.

[TotusTuus]

Again, no 'dialog', 'ecumenism', or 'listening' with Traditional Catholics.

Is the Bishop the cause of this, or SHF?

Exactly who is the Ordinary for SHF?

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

There's the problem in a nutshell. Bishop Sheridan is doing what a good Bishop should do.

[Grey Ghost II]

Find another bishop like Sheridan to continue his work in Colorado Sprongs and send Sheridan to cleanse the Mahoneyan stables of AmChurch filth in Los Angeles and to set an example for other bishops

There's a reason guys like Sheridan are in Colorado Springs and guys like Mahoney, George, McCarrick, and Eagan all have an archdiocese.

The Pope knows far better than you or I what's good for the people of LA. I think out of charity you should quit questioning his judgement in where he positions bishops.

[ninenot]

I am SURE that you noticed--Bp. Sheridan joined with Bp. Burke, Bruskewitz, Chaput, and some others in PUBLICLY STATING that pols like Kerry were NOT welcome for Communion.

Yes, the Church has enemies to the Right, as well as the Left.

[ninenot]

It's likely that the couple in question were sought out by the newspaper for comment; perhaps the "chapel" "priests" pointed the reporter to them.

Reading the text, it doesn't appear to me that the Diocese opened its mouth about these two.

[ninenot]

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.

And I maintain that the Green Bay Packers are actually a group of Archangels--and that Vince Lombardi was St. Peter.

Now we are on common ground.

[Stubborn]

Sheridan Schmeridan, he is no different than the rest. Another wind bag is all he is.

Wanna rid the Church of all the bad clergy? Then outlaw the NO liturgy and reinstate the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Hate and contempt of the Eternal Sacrifice is about the only thing the crooks all have in common and is inherently at odds with their agendas. Bring back the Holy Sacrifice and watch the crooks scatter. Beyond that, there is no other way to be rid of them.

[BlackElk]

I am a member of the Roman Catholic Church, in communion with my bishop (Thomas Doran) and the pope (John Paul II). I sometimes attend Tridentine Masses and sometimes attend Novus Ordo Masses. Each is a perfectly valid Mass. The Novus Ordo is a low rent rubric and a cultural abomination but it is, nonetheless, the Mass.

I am not a schismatic of the Marcel variety or any other and, like most sensible people who are actually Catholic, I will spend the rest of my life ignoring the errors of those schismatics and excommunicati who have come to adhere to the tragic delusion that anti-papal temper tantrums are somehow includable within the Roman Catholic Church. If it is not possible to ignore this pestilence, then I will fight it.

You ought to feel a well-deserved sense of embarassment over your post. You won't. My life, temporal and eternal, and that of those who remain Roman Catholics will be affected not at all by your decision to reject the Roman Catholic Church. The promises of Christ still obtain and do not have to go slumming in the Marcellian schism in order to do so. They obtain as they always have in the Roman Catholic Church itself.

Without the papacy, there is nothing that ought dare to call itself tradition. Ubi Petrus, Ibi Ecclesia. May the next pope promptly bring the full authority of the keys to bear against the religious pretenders of the Marcellian schism.

[BlackElk]

Age has something to do with it. Sheridan was a parish priest not too long ago but he has made a very good start of being a bishop. He has publicly whacked Kerry as well as the unauthorized local chapel of dissatisfaction and dissidents. Good for him and may the numbers of bishops like him increase.

We find in our area of Northern Illinois, Southern Wisconsin and Central Illinois that the pope is doing a remarkably good job lately of appointing actual Catholics as bishops of adjacent dioceses. While the superb Archbishop Raymond Burke went from LaCrosse, Wisconsin to St. Louis as a reward for a job well done in LaCrosse, so Bishop Sheridan will move onward and upward. I do not share your apparent disdain for Cardinal George.

I feel about the same way about International ANSWER or the Sierra Club or Planned Parenthood as you apparently feel about the actual Roman Catholic Church. I don't join International ANSWER or the Sierra Club or Planned Parenthood. I will criticize any of them whenever the circumstances seem to justify the effort. The schism, on the other hand, is obsessed with trying to recruit to its ranks by attacking the Mystical Body of Christ and JP II. Understandable but never justifiable.

Why pretend to be Roman Catholic against all the evidence when your group must, of necessity, begin by rejecting the pope in order to provide rather shopworn cover to your dead and excommunicated founder and your quite excommunicated bishops?

De gustibus, non disputandum est.

[saradippity]

You seem to fail to recognize that when the Latin Mass was celebrated throughout this country the "imposters" had already wrested control from the Vatican. The Church was infiltrated while the Latin Mass was in full glory. All the oaths against modernism as decreed by the Pope at the turn of the century did not prevent the "evil one" from working within to destroy Christ's Church.

Bringing these "imposters" out in the open,painful as it is,is the only way we can restore the fullness of Truth to the Church.While I understand your dismay and disgust,I hope you will see that the only way to excorsize these demons in charge is to fight from inside the system. That's the way they took over and that's the way we must get it back. I can understand if you don't care to join us but for heaven's sake stop fighting us. We are trying to save what God had His Son establish in order to bring us Home to Him.

[Grey Ghost II]

Get your facts straight. I attend an indult.

[BlackElk]

Your patient determination is the better part of wisdom. My patience with the usual gangs of suspects is long gone.

May God bless you and yours and sustain Bishop Olmstead in his challenging work to restore Catholicism in Phoenix and its diocese.

[BlackElk]

If you made a more determined effort to sound less like the slaves of Marcel, you might not sow such confusion.