Most Protestant sects have never objected to or denied that Baptism is a sacrament instituted by Christ. Hence it would seem that there was little reason for the post-Conciliar Church to engage in extensive revisions of this rite. Nevertheless highly significant changes were introduced which all but invalidate its usage even where form and matter are retained. I am indebted to Rev. Father Dominic Savio Radecki, C.M.R.I, for an in depth study of the changes, but to somewhat steal his thunder would start by pointing out that the documents relating to the new rite of Baptism, or as it is called “The Rite of Christian Initiation (RCIA) involves 50 pages of small print with only a single passing reference to original sin while stressing that “baptism is above all the sacrament of that faith by which men and women are incorporated into the Church, built up together in the Spirit into a house where God lives, into a holy nation and a royal priesthood. It is a sacred bond of unity linking all who have been signed by it.’ Under such circumstances the “intention” of the priest is obviously compromised.
By
way of introduction the following comments by Richard Jamison of
“It
is obvious that by changing the intent of baptism from “removal of original
sin” to “initiation into the Christian community” the purveyors of Vatican II
“null- theology” have invalidated the sacrament. If the intent of the minister
can always be questioned, the confection of the sacrament will always be
questionable. A consistently questionable sacrament is no sacrament. Ergo,
Conciliar Baptism is [almost certainly] consistently invalid....
A
premature baby, dying in the arms of its heart broken mother, will never know
the “Christian community” nor does it’s tiny soul care about the “Christian
community” Its soul hungers, as do all human souls, for the presence of God
Almighty. If the Baptism of Vatican II is false, it will deny that presence to the child for all
eternity. The horror of this effect is something which most of us cannot
stomach, and therefore we turn way.
A
sacrament confers grace, but it also instructs. What are the instructions of
Conciliar Baptism? “Initiation into the Christian community” is relevant and
important. “Removal of original sin” (if original sin even exists) is
irrelevant and unimportant. This is the sum total of post-Conciliar Baptismal
teaching. It appears that this teaching is not, strictly speaking an error,
because it does not directly deny original sin, it only derogates it to the
status of an irrelevancy. Nor can we say that promotion of “initiation” is an
error. Initiation is seemingly just a social irrelevancy, whimsically “thrown
in.”
“Initiation into the Christian Community” is
obviously irrelevant. It has no more spiritual significance than initiation
into a college fraternity. So what are we to think of this non-erroneous but
probably invalidating baptismal statement? Let’s identify it as “null
theology.” Null-Theology skirts error by invalidating truth. It does this by
presenting irrelevancies from the realms of pop-psychology, half-baked
sociology, quasi-anthropology and oppressive collectivist political theory as
Christian truths. Null-theology is the essence of post-Conciliar “magisterial
teaching,” and Conciliar Baptism is a nearly perfect example of it.
So
what is the purpose of conciliary “null-theology?” If
we can discover the true “intent’ of Conciliar Baptism we will have the answer.
What is the real intent of post-Conciliar Baptism? Is it to deny souls to God?
No. Is it to deny original sin? No. It is nothing less than to establish the
oldest of all heretical lies as truth. The true intent of post-Conciliar
Baptism is simply to deny the divinity of Jesus Christ. The logic is quite
simple once the false sacrament is seen as an instruction in null-theology. If
original sin does not exist or is irrelevant than redemption is unnecessary. If
redemption is unnecessary than the crucifixion is not a redemptive sacrifice.
If there is no redemption at the crucifixion than surely Jesus Christ is not
divine. He becomes simply the first leader of the “Christian community” - a
sort of first century crusader for equal rights for the oppressed Hebrew
minority within the
The reason for the denial of the
divinity of Jesus Christ by the Second Vatican Council was this: The
influential bishops of the Church, including John XXIII and Paul VI, believed
that the “side effect,” i.e. “social progress” was the true purpose of
Christianity. Further, they did not
believe that the promotion of “social progress” was compatible with divine law.
Therefore, they decided to stop teaching Divine Law and start teaching the
quasi-divinity of human beings and human social structures. This can well be
summed up by simply saying that the Bishops at the Council and subsequent to it
have lost their faith.
THE NEW RITE
OF BAPTISM
Father Dominic Radecki, CMRI
THE DIVINE POWER IN BAPTISM
Let us consider what is essential for
baptism in the light of reason and common sense. How can water flowing over a
few inches of a baby’s skin cleanse a stain which is on the infant’s soul? Do
you remember how Our Lord restored the sight to a blind man? While the man
stood before Him, Christ applied a dab of clay to his eyes and commanded him to
wash in the pool of Siloe. He went, he washed, and he
saw.
How was sight restored to the blind
man? Did light come into those sightless eyes because of the water or the clay?
No. Otherwise there would have been no more blind men in
All the sacraments of the Catholic
Church, including baptism, were instituted by Our Lord Jesus Christ. He is the
Author of the sacraments. The Son of God, who cured the sick and transformed
water into wine, continues to exercise His divine power through the sacraments.
MATTER, FORM,
MINISTER AND INTENTION
In order to have a glass of orange
juice, you must first have oranges.
The matter of a sacrament is some sensible action or thing, i.e., the
material element of a sacrament (baptismal water...) The form of a sacrament are the essential words, e.g., “I baptize you
in the name of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” The minister of the sacrament is the person
conferring the sacrament.
The person who confers the sacrament
must have the proper intention, i.e., the person administering the sacrament
must have the intention of doing what the Church does or what Christ instituted
and ordered to be done (which is, in fact, the same thing). St. Thomas Aquinas
taught, “There is required on the part of the minister that intention by which
he subjects himself to the principal agent, i.e., intends to do what Christ
does and the church.”[1]
The Council of Florence clearly
defined the essentials of the seven sacraments. “All these sacraments are
brought to completion by three components; by things as matter, by words as form,
and by the person of the minister
effecting the sacrament with the intention
of doing what the Church does. And if any one of these three is lacking, the
sacrament is not effected.”[2]
THE ESSENTIALS
OF BAPTISM
The valid administration of baptism
depends upon the use of the correct rite together with the proper intention of
the person administering it. A priest or bishop is not required for the valid
administration of baptism. “Those who may administer baptism, in case of
necessity,... are included all, even the laity, men and women, to whatever sect
they may belong. This power extends, in case of necessity, even to Jews,
infidels and heretics; provided, however, they intend to do what the Catholic
Church does in that act of her ministry.” [3]
Anyone can validly baptize, providing
that he use water and recite the essential words with the intention of doing
what the Church does or what Christ intended. “The theological reason for the
validity of baptism when conferred by a heretical minister is to be sought in
the maxim so constantly urged by
However, if the person who is
baptizing does not intend to do what Christ and the Church does, the baptism is
invalid. In 1690 Pope Alexander VIII condemned
the proposition that “Baptism is valid if conferred by a minister who
observes the whole external rite and form of the sacrament, but interiorly in
his heart says: I do not intend to do what the Church does.”[5]
After the Second Vatican Council
baptism was changed into the sacrament of Christian Initiation. Great stress is
laid on the entrance into the community of the people of God while its power to
remit original sin is all but ignored. Do those who administer this new rite
intend to do what the Catholic Church does? If not, the “baptism” is invalid.
Let us examine the evidence.
CHANGES
RESULTING FROM
The Second Vatican Council mandated
changes in the sacraments. The
THE TEACHING
OF
In its decree on Ecumenism, the
Council asserts that ALL the baptized are members of Christ’s body. Speaking of
the obstacles to unity, it says:
“But even in spite of
them it remains true that all who have been justified by faith in Baptism are
members of Christ’s body, and have a right to be called Christian, and so are
correctly accepted as brothers by the Children of the Catholic faith.” (#3)
They
“have a right to be called Christian”? Why not simply “Catholic”? To be a
member of Christ’s body means to be a member of His Mystical body, which is the
Catholic Church. What other body of Christ is there?
“And
are they correctly accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic
Church”? Why by the “children” and not simply by the “faithful” of the Catholic
Church, and therefore as brothers in the Catholic faith?
“Let
no one deceive you with vain words” (Eph. V, 6). Behind these
ambiguities of Vatican II, Protestants are made out to be in fact Catholics.
And that, be it noted, without their having either to profess the Catholic
faith or submit to the authority of the Church - the other two requirements for
membership in the Church, as the Catechism of the Council of Trent makes clear.
What
then become of the Church as a visible society instituted by Christ, a society
of the faithful united in the same faith and worship, and under the same
government? “A city set upon a mountain cannot be hid” (Matt. V, 14). For Vatican
II it is the “people of God” who will be saved. And who are the “people of
God”? They are variously defined as “Catholics,” “all baptized Christians,” and
finally as “all men of good will.” Small wonder that for Vatican II the more
nebulous, amorphous “People of God” supersedes the Catholic Church as the means
of salvation.
“So it is that this
messianic people, although it does not actually include all men, and may more
than once look like a small flock, is nonetheless a lasting and sure seed of
unity, hope, and salvation for the while human race. (Dogmatic Constitution on
the Church, #9)
Certainly, the Council does not, like
Pope Pius XII, identify the Mystical body of Christ with the Catholic Church.
While it is true that those validly
baptized outside the Catholic Church, whether they be infants or adults in good
faith, receive the grace of the sacrament and will be saved by it so long as it
is not otherwise lost by sin. This is not by reason of their being members of
the Church, or as otherwise belonging to its body - the body of the faithful -
but as belonging to the soul of the Church; by their being, as the saying goes,
Catholics “at heart.” In this way, even
those not sacramentally baptized at all can be saved,
namely by the Baptism of Desire, or by Baptism of Blood, as the case may be.
But only by external profession of the Catholic faith, whether this be public
in the case of converts already baptized or by Baptism in the Catholic Church
itself, does one actually become a member of the Church, and consequently a
member of the Mystical Body.
In the case of those baptized outside
the Church, whether Protestants or schismatics, their
admission into it – and so into the Mystical Body of Christ – depends on making
profession of the Faith before a Catholic prelate or priest, and submitting to
the Church’s authority. The Church is not, primarily, the society or body of
the baptized but of the faithful. As very clearly stated in Mytici Corporis, (Pius XII) “those who are
divided from one another in faith or in government cannot live in the unity of
such a body, and in its one divine spirit.”[8]
Changes (alterations, deletions, and
insertions) were made in the ritual to express the new theology of the Second
Vatican Council. The new rite for the baptism of infants was introduced on
The official documents relating to the
new rite of baptism (50 pages of small print) have only a single passing
reference to original sin.[9]
At the same time the document is replete with phrases such as “through the
sacraments of Christian initiation men and women are freed from the power of
darkness” and “made God’s sons and daughters with the entire people of God.”
Again, “baptism is above all the sacrament of that faith by which men and women
are incorporated into the Church, built up together in the Spirit into a house
where God lives, into a holy nation and a royal priesthood. It is a sacred bond
of unity linking all who have been signed by it.”
Is this new rite of baptism a valid
sacrament? Absent an official declaration as to the invalidity of the new
sacramental rite, we can still affirm the principle that any substantial change
in the sacramental rites invalidates
the sacrament.
Although numerous changes were
introduced into the new rite of baptism the essential words “I baptize you in
the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” have been
retained. However, this does not assure the validity of the new rite.
Since the Second Vatican Council,
numerous priests have “experimented” with the essential rites of the sacraments
including baptism. Instead of using the correct words, “I baptize you in the
name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,” some priests have
made up their own form and altered the essential words of baptism. Others
changed the essential ceremony. Instead of pouring the water while reciting the
essential words they “experimented” and made up their own order of things.
Sometimes the water is not poured properly. These and other defects have
rendered many baptisms doubtful, others certainly invalid.
Archbishop Francis Kenrick
wrote, “Where no water is applied, it is absurd to suppose baptism: where the
application of the water is scanty and careless, as when a few drops are
sprinkled towards the person, or the moist finger is slightly pressed on the
forehead, there is great reason to fear that there is no baptism. Where the
words are preceded by others, which modify or change their meaning, or where
they are not morally connected with the ablution (application of water), being
uttered before or after it at a considerable interval, the baptism is doubtful,
if not null.”[10]
However, the greatest threat to the validity of baptism in the
THE INFLUENCE
OF TEILHARD DE CHARDIN
It will be argued
by some that Teilhard de Chardin
is no longer a recognized influence. This may be true with regard to his name,
but certainly not with regard to his ideas which are very much with us. Who was
this strange individual?
Pierre Teilhard
de Chardin was a French Jesuit priest who taught a
combined form of Darwinian evolution and “Catholic” theology. According to
evolutionary theology the notion of an unchangeable Deposit of Faith is seen as
an illusion because nothing is exempt from substantial change. “His faith was
not that of the Catholic Church and he knew it. After all, he had studied
enough to know that the Faith of the Church is a faith in the words of Jesus
Christ and that consequently this faith cannot change substantially.”[11]
“In 1927
“Most of the essays never saw print
until after his death because many of his ideas were considered too unorthodox
by various authorities in the Church... His outspokenness on many traditionally
expressed doctrines of the Church, such as original sin, sincerely disturbed
his superiors and so, in 1925, he received instructions ‘sympathetically given,’
to concentrate on scientific work and return to China.”[13]
“In reality, Teilhard was being silenced by a virtual
exile from
,”He was not allowed to publish his
most significant works during his lifetime and, in fact, they have never been
published with a Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur (official declarations that
the books are free of doctrinal or moral error).”[15]
On
Why does the Catholic Church consider
the teachings of Teilhard de Chardin
to be so dangerous and revolutionary? The writings of Teilhard
de Chardin are one of the main sources of the
fundamental errors in theology and philosophy today. He laid the basis for a
new ecumenical religion which completely abandoned the Catholic faith. It is a
new faith which claims to be the
Catholic faith. “It is not, in any case, the faith of the Catholic Church...
through the Holy Office, the organ qualified to speak in her name, the Church
has thought it necessary to declare that she does not recognize herself in Teilhard’s writings.”[18]
Dr. von Hildebrand referred to Teilhard de Chardin and other
Modernist writers in his Trojan Horse in the City of
The writings of St. Thomas Aquinas and
Teilhard de Chardin are at
two opposite ends of the spectrum. Thomistic
philosophy is clear, ordered, and logical. The teachings of Chardin
are obscure, disordered and illogical. This will become readily apparent as his
writings are read. Teilhard coined a large number of
words (e.g. noosphere, totalization,
Christogenesis, Omega point, pleromization
and a hundred others) to describe different stages in his evolutionary theory.
TEACHINGS OF
TEILHARD DE CHARDIN
One of the greatest scholars on de Chardin, Cardinal Journet, gave
his verdict on the works of Teilhard as follows: “de Chardin’s works are disastrous... it must be accepted or
rejected as as a whole; but it contradicts
Christianity... If one accepts de Chardin’s
explanations one must reject the Christian notion of Creation, Spirit, God,
Evil, Original Sin, the Cross, the Resurrection, Divine Love, etc.”[20]
Teilhard
taught that Christian Tradition is to be classified among the “whims and
childishness of the earth.” In his book, Stuff
of the Universe, Teilhard de Chardin
made no secret of the amount of Christian doctrine he was prepared to throw
overboard; the very core of dogma had to be reshaped. “I have come to the
conclusion that, in order to pay for a drastic valorization and amortization of
the substance of things, a whole series of re-shaping of certain representations
or attitudes which seem to us definitely fixed by Catholic dogma has become
necessary if we sincerely wish to Christify
evolution. Seen thus, and because of ineluctable necessity, one could say that
a hitherto unknown form of religion is gradually germinating in the heart of
modern Man, in the furrow opened by the idea of evolution.”[21]
“Obviously, such a theory imposes either the abandonment or the
complete transformation of all the basic doctrines of Roman Catholicism.
Creation, Original Sin, the divinity of Jesus, redemption by Jesus’s death on the cross of Calgary, the Church, the
forgiveness of sins, the Sacrifice of the Mass, priesthood, papal
infallibility, Hell, Heaven, supernatural grace - even the existence and
freedom of God - all must be reformulated, and perhaps abandoned in large
part.”[22]
Teilhard de Chardin believed that evolution was superior to the Deposit
of the Faith. He wrote: “Is evolution a theory, a system, or a hypothesis? It
is much more: it is the general condition to which all theories, all
hypotheses, all systems must bow and which they must satisfy henceforward if
they are to be thinkable and true. Evolution is a light illuminating
all facts, a curve that all lines must follow.”[23]
Many people view Teilhard
de Chardin as a great scientist who has reconciled
Catholicism and science by introducing a new evolutionary theology. Deitrich von Hildebrand said, “Though I am not a competent
judge of Teilhard as a scientist, this opinion may be
questioned without expertise. For one thing, every careful thinker knows that a
reconciliation of science and the Christian faith has never been needed,
because true science (in contradistinction to false philosophies disguised in
scientific garments) can never be incompatible with Christian faith. Science
can neither prove nor disprove the truth of the faith.”[24]
“It had never been Teilhard’s intention to
defend and reinstate the traditional Christian teaching; instead, his objective
from the start has been to reshape
the doctrine. ‘What we have to do without delay is to modify the position
occupied by the core of Christianity...’ In a word, Teilhard’s
objective is to found a new Christianity.”[25]
Dietrich von Hildebrand gives us
further insight into Teilhard de Chardin.
In reference to a conversation he once had with Teilhard
on
In Teilhard’s
new Christianity there is no place for sanctifying grace and the supernatural.
The Church’s doctrines of original sin and Redemption have no real meaning in
his new religion. Even Teilhard de Chardin was aware of the incompatibility of Divine
Revelation with his new teachings when he wrote, “Sometimes I am a bit afraid,
when I think of the transposition to which I must submit my mind concerning the
vulgar notions of creation, inspiration, miracle, original sin, resurrection,
etc. in order to be able to accept them.”[27]
Teilhard has
been criticized because “he didn’t know what to do with original sin.” The
Catholic doctrine of original sin conflicted with his theories. “In dealing
with original sin... he occasionally offered explanations that were rightly
judged to be unsatisfactory.”[28]
These teachings regarding original sin
varied. The form he gave them was certainly untenable. For example, “the
“original evil’, Teilhard seems to have maintained,
was certainly a reality, but it extended back far beyond man, to the whole of
the created world. Every structure as soon as it begins to exist is menaced by
death: this ‘“original” deficiency weighs upon every creature. This mortality
itself is the deficiency which for Teilhard, as some
interpret him, takes on at the human level the name of sin.”[29]
He realized that there would be
difficulty in winning acceptance for his erroneous theory on original sin. Teilhard wrote, “I don’t think that in the history of the
Church anyone has ‘pulled off’ such an adjustment of dogma as that of which
we’re speaking - though similar attempts have been made and carried
half-way...”[30]
Chardin wrote, “Original sin continually obstructs the
natural expansion of our religion. It clips the wings of our hopes. “At every
moment we are reaching out to the wide-open field of the good things that
optimism can win, and every time it drags us back to the over-riding shadows of
reparation and expiation.” It is a “strait-jacket that checks any movement of
heart or head”; it “binds us hand and foot and drains the blood from us
because, as it is now expressed, it
represents a survival of static concepts that are an anachronism in our
evolutionist system of thought.”[31]
In a letter Pere
Marechal wrote to Teilhard referring
to his theory of original sin, he stated: “This new explanation modifies, it
seems to me, the essential basis, and not simply the formulation of the
‘defined’ dogma. More precisely still, it suppresses the dogma, by declaring
that it is superfluous. What in fact it does is to replace original sin by the
distant ontological root of physical and moral evil. Now, this root, this
metaphysical possibility of evil, inherent in the creature qua creatura, neither calls for
nor rules out the state of supernatural justification, and therefore cannot
take on, with the ‘privation of original justice’, the relationship of active
principle with effective consequence which the Council of Trent asserts so
clearly of the sin of Adam. The whole Christian economy of ‘justification’ is
upset. The hypothesis put forward would lead to saying that mankind as such has
never lost its initial right to grace and that the deprivation of grace is to
be seen, in each individual, simply as the effect of a fault of which he is now
guilty. All that would remain under the name of ‘original sin’ would be simply
the imperfections of the created being, ‘the radical condition that causes the
creature to be born from the multiple’ - in other words a philosophical truth’”[32]
It is certain that Teilhard had ended by no
longer believing in original sin, as is shown by his letter of April 8, 1955
(two days before his death) to Fr. Andre Ravier: “In
the Universe of Cosmogenesis, in which Evil is no
longer catastrophic (i.e., no longer the result of an accident) but evolutive (i.e., the statistically unavoidable by-product
of a universe in course of unification in God).”[33]
Teilhard’s theory of evolution
demanded polygenism (many First Parents). He did not
believe in our common descent from our First Parents, Adam and Eve (monogamy).
As a result he rejected the doctrine of original sin. Since Teilhard
did not believe in the creation of the Biblical first man, Adam and the first
woman, Eve, he taught that there were many “First Parents” who evolved from
primates at one time. In such a hypothesis original sin is impossible.
The writings of Teilhard
de Chardin express this belief in an evolving group
of first men and women. “He wrote in Mon
Universe, An ‘original multiple’ was born from the dissociation of an
already unified being (the first Adam);
then came a second phase of ‘involution’ of spirit in matter, an evidently
non-empirical phase. Fr. Bosio objects to a phrase in
Teilhard’s book, The Phenomenon of Man, ‘From the point of view of science then, which
from a distance only covers collectives, the first man is and can only be a crowd; and his youth
is made of thousands and thousands of years.’”[34]
Pope Pius XII condemned polygenism
in his encyclical Humani Generis: “The
faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after Adam
there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through
natural generation through him as from the first parent of all, nor that Adam
represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is no way apparent how
such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth
and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard
to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual
Adam and which through generation is passed on to all and is in everyone as his
own.”[35]
Joseph Kopp, the author of A New
Synthesis of Evolution, says that Church doctrine and Teilhard’s theories are irreconcilable. “We must be quite
clear about this: whoever postulates an “intervention’ on the part of God in
His own work does not just modify de Chardin’s
concepts, he destroys the very core of his philosophy. To speak of ‘the
introduction of the human soul through a special act of creation’ is to remove
all meaning from de Chardin’s theory of purposeful
evolution of the biosphere towards man. Also his theory of the evolution of the
noosphere[36]
which, as we shall see, becomes completely unintelligible if one accepts the
idea of intervention. We have to accept Teilhard’s
view of an upward-developing creation up to and including man or reject his
entire philosophy.”[37]
It is impossible to reconcile Teilhard’s teachings on original sin with the “through one
man sin entered into the world” (Romans
5:12) to which the Council of Trent specifically referred when formulating its
decree on original sin: “If anyone does not profess that the first man Adam
immediately lost the justice and holiness in which he was constituted when he
disobeyed the commandment of God... let him be anathema.”[38]
The Church presents no interpretation of the traditional expressions
“Our First Parents,” “The Garden of Eden,” “The Fall”, and “Original Sin” that
would allow Teilhard’s hypothesis to be even vaguely
theologically acceptable. His concept of original sin is contrary to Christian
revelation and Church teaching.
The teachings of Teilhard
de Chardin lead ultimately to a denial of the
divinity of Christ. What a radical difference between the doctrine of the
Catholic Church and the theological fiction of de Chardin!
“Teilhard’s Christ is no longer Jesus, the God-man,
the Redeemer; instead, He is the initiator of purely natural evolutionary
process and, simultaneously, its end - the Christ-Omega. In his basic
conception of the world which does not provide for original sin in the sense
the Church gives to this term, there is no place for Jesus Christ of the
Gospels; for if there is no original sin, then the redemption of man through
Christ loses its inner meaning.”[39]
TEILHARD DE
CHARDIN AND
Where is the connection between Teilhard de Chardin and the
Vatican II rite of baptism (initiation)? Although Teilhard
de Chardin died many
years before the new rite of baptism was introduced, the Second Vatican
Council, Paul VI, and the liturgical “reformers” were influenced by his
teachings. Paul VI, who changed the sacrament of baptism into the rite of
Christian Initiation, said that “Fr. Teilhard is an
indispensable man for our times; his expression of faith is necessary for us.”[40]
Fr. Teilhard was often quoted on the floor of
the Council and in the opinion of more than one writer had an influence on the
outcome of that historical council comparable to that of Pope John XXIII. For
example, Father D. Campion, who prepared the commentary
and explanatory notes for the English language edition of the Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the
Modern World, Vatican II’s most important
document, wrote, ‘Here as elsewhere, it is easy to recognize the compatibility
of insights developed by thinkers such as Teilhard de
Chardin in his Divine
Milieu with the fundamental outlook of the Council.’”[41]
“Teilhard
had a tremendous vision of the Church as a community of Christian love, where
people live together as individuals, yet united in love-total, unbounded,
without limit - within the world; a sign of the presence of God, finally and
fully as Love.”[42]
His concept of baptism was simply an initiation into this community. In Teilhard’s religion there is no place for the supernatural
life of grace which is infused into souls through baptism. For him, union with
God consists principally in assimilation
into the evolutionary process.
The heretical teachings of Teilhard de Chardin have been
widely circulated through the seminaries, schools, religious houses, and
libraries of the
THE INTENTION
OF THE MINISTER OF BAPTISM
The erroneous teachings of Teilhard de Chardin regarding original sin have been assimilated and
adopted by some priests. This has caused many to have false views and beliefs
on baptism. Can they validly administer baptism?
The Church teaches that even heretics
can baptize validly if they intend to
administer the baptism of Christ and use the right matter and form in
administering it. “The validity of baptism does not depend on the minister or
the kind of person he may be, but on the fact that, wishing to administer the
baptism of Christ, he uses the correct rite. ”[44]
Baptism administered by a non-Catholic
is valid if he uses the correct rite and intends to administer the baptism of
Christ. The baptism is valid because of the
principle of simple error. The Church makes a distinction between the
belief in a person’s mind and the intent in his will. In other words, a person
who administers baptism may have false beliefs in his mind about the nature,
effects, and efficacy of baptism. However, as long as his will intends to perform
the baptism of Christ, the sacrament is valid.
In the example above, simple error may
be in the mind of the person because he has a poor or even erroneous
understanding of baptism. Yet, as long as he does not have an actual intention
in his will contrary to the general intention of Christ and His Church, the
baptism is valid. If the person who administers baptism by a special act of his
will does not intend to do what Christ wanted and instituted and the Church
does, the sacrament would be invalid.
The principle of simple error must be clearly understood. “Error is a false judgment
of the mind. The error is simple if
it remains in the mind without passing over into the will, and so without
modifying the act which the will elicits.”[47]
Theologians make a distinction between the error in the mind and the intention
in the will.
The topic of the minister’s intention
in baptism was covered in an article in the American
Ecclesiastical Review. I will quote several passages from this article. The
principle of simple error will help one to understand the reasoning of
theologians on this subject.
Ulric Beste begins by listing the essential elements of a
sacrament. “It is then certain and admitted by all that, besides the matter and
form prescribed by Christ, also the proper intention on the part of the
minister is required for validity in the administration of baptism. However, as
is commonly taught by theologians, this intention need not necessarily be
explicit or express, nor determinate and distinct or well-defined.; it is quite
sufficient that it exist confusedly and implicitly in the mind of the
minister.”
“Indeed, no more is necessary than
that he intends to perform what the Church performs, or what Christ instituted
and ordered to be done, or what he ordinarily sees pastors or Christians do in
their churches. This remains true although interiorly in his heart and mind he
feels and is convinced that this is a vain and meaningless ceremony and that
the Church in performing it certainly errs and posits a purely inefficacious act. This conclusion is evident
from the practice of the Church, for she will not order or allow rebaptism for
the sole and simple reason that a Jew or Saracen, pagan or heretic, who
frequently know little or nothing about the purpose and powers of baptism,
administered the sacrament, provided of course the duly requisite matter and
form were employed.”[48]
The principle of simple error is now
used in reference to the minister of baptism. “Error and mistaken notions about
baptism, holding it to be but an external sign of aggregation without any
effect upon the soul, even when systematically taught as a tenet of a sect and
obstinately declared by a minister immediately before the act of baptizing
(whether as part of the ceremonial of baptism or not), do not yet destroy the
intention of doing what the Church does or what Christ instituted; his general
intention prevails over and, as it were, absorbs the private or qualified
mental attitude of the minister towards baptism due to false doctrines and
heretical ideas; error can coexist with a right intention.”[49]
“The reason is that the minister’s
general intention to do what Christ instituted predominates and absorbs false
ideas and opinions. Error is rooted in the intellect, while intention is an act
of the will. The Sacred Congregation does not tire to repeat and insist in its
pronouncements that error about the effect of a sacrament does not make it impossible for a minister to have the
necessary intention to perform what Christ has instituted.”[50]
The Code of Canon Law applies this
same principle to marriage cases. Canon 1084 describes simple error regarding
the unity or the indissolubility or the sacramental dignity of marriage in
these terms: “‘In order that such error may vitiate the consent, it must be
transferred to and made part of the intention by a positive act of the will, as
is stated explicitly in canon 1086, section 2,’ But if either party or both
parties by a positive act of the will should exclude marriage itself, or all
rights to the conjugal act, or any essential property of marriage, he contracts
invalidly.’”[51]
Let us apply this principle now to baptism. “Analogously in baptism
false notions and errors with regard to the nature, efficacy, and effects of
the sacrament are compatible with the minister’s true and sincere intention of
doing what the true Church does or what Christ has instituted.”[52]
Let us examine this principle in the
intention of the minister of baptism. The will embraces its object as represented by the mind. False
notions and errors with regard to the nature, efficacy and effects of the
sacrament may remain in the mind. This simple error of the mind is
compatible with the proper intention in the will. As long as the minister of
baptism does not have an actual prevailing intention in his will contrary to
the general intention of Christ and His Church, the sacrament is valid.
If the minister of the sacrament of
baptism by a special act of the will elicits a contrary intention to the
general intention to do what Christ wanted and instituted and the Church does,
the sacrament would be invalid. Therefore,
in the face of an actual prevailing
intention to the contrary to what Christ wanted and instituted and the
Church does, this general intention would be nullified and destroyed.
The decisions and pronouncements of
the church make this principle stand out clearly. “At one time in
“It is possible, of course, that a
minister carry his heretical ideas from the realm of his intellect into that of
his intention in such a way that, although pronouncing the words of the
essential form in baptism, he wills and intends to administer a mere external
rite or ceremony shorn of all spiritual meaning and efficacy. But to bring that
about the must elicit a positive act whereby he specifically and definitely
excludes and rules out all regeneration when performing the essential rite of
baptism.”
“False views and beliefs based upon
the heretical opinions and teachings, changes and alterations, even when
systematically introduced or manifested in the ceremonial parts of the ritual,
written or unwritten, do not constitute a sufficient indication and proof that
the minister, even when pronouncing the essential form accurately and
completely, has a heretical intention so tainted by error as to vitiate the
sacrament essentially.”
“For so long as that heretical error
as regards baptism manifests itself in the ceremonial portion of the ritual
only; so long as the sect holds that material rite of baptism to be an
institution of Christ; so long as in the administration of the sacrament, the
scriptural form, handed down by Christ and observed constantly in the Church,
is seriously and scrupulously adhered to; in short, so long as the sect and its
ministers think that they are performing and repeating that rite of Christ,
the Church justly and reasonably
presumes and must presume that they want to do what Christ wanted and
instituted and the true Church does, whatever the minister in a particular case
may think about the true nature, necessity and efficacy of the sacrament.”[54]
CONCLUSION
For a valid sacrament one must have valid matter, form, intention, and
minister. Prior to Vatican II one could assume that a priest had the proper
intention when he confected a sacrament. He was well instructed in the seminary
in regard to the proper intention for each sacrament. Also, the rite, (i.e.,
the particular prayers of the Church for each sacrament) sets the proper
intention for the priest.
The teachings of Teilhard
de Chardin on original sin have been condemned by the
Catholic Church. Many priests since Vatican II have followed these errors. A
simple error in the mind of the minister does not invalidate a sacrament as
long as he intends to administer the sacrament of Christ. In some cases, the
person who administers a sacrament not only has a simple error in his mind, but
his will positively intends to perform a rite contrary to the intention of
Christ and the Church. He invalidates the sacrament. Priests who follow the
teachings of Teilhard do validly baptize if they
intend to administer the baptism of Christ and use the proper matter and form.
However, baptism administered by these
priests is invalid if they have an intention in their will contrary to the
general intention of Christ and His Church. The sacrament is invalid if the
minister of baptism elicits a positive act whereby he specifically and
definitely excludes and rules out all regeneration when performing the
essential rite of baptism. He carries his heretical ideas from the realm of his
intellect into that of his intention in such a way that, although pronouncing
the words of the essential form in baptism, he wills and intends to administer
a mere external rite or ceremony shorn of all spiritual meaning and efficacy.
Archbishop Kenrick
says that a simple error of the mind may lead to a perversion of the will
resulting in a defective intention and
an invalid baptism. “The belief in its efficacy to remit sin is not indeed necessary
for its valid performance: yet may we
not fear that the prevailing errors concerning its being a mere form of
association to the visible Church, utterly void of all spiritual efficacy, may
so pervert the intention of the person who baptizes (my emphasis), that he
may propose to himself rather to comply with an established usage and form,
than seriously to administer an institution of Christ our Lord?”[55]
Could this quotation of Archbishop Kenrick be applied
to Chardinian-minded ministers?
In summary, since Vatican II many sacraments have been rendered invalid due to a defect in matter, form, minister and
intention. A minister of baptism who accepts the heresies of Teilhard de Chardin in regard to
original sin has at least a simple error of the mind. If his will has an
intention contrary to the intention of Christ and the Church when administering
baptism, the sacrament is invalid. Priests who follow the teachings of Vatican
II do validly baptize if they intend to administer the baptism of Christ and
use proper matter and form.
PRACTICAL
APPLICATION
Father Halligan
gives some practical guidelines for the investigation of baptism. “It is
absolutely necessary to determine if de
facto baptism has already taken place and, if so, whether it was a valid
administration. No preconceived notions or presumptions that all non-Catholic
baptisms are invalid or doubtfully valid suffice.[56]
Dogmatic errors do not of themselves make baptism by non-Catholic ministers
invalid.[57]
Each case must be carefully considered
to provide for the salvation of the soul and to guard against irreverence to
the sacrament through a useless administration. Only moral impossibility
excuses from such investigation. If nothing can be ascertained about the
baptism, at least conditional baptism is necessary.”[58]
Therefore, in receiving those who have
been baptized with the new rite of Christian Initiation the priest must
investigate each case. If the inquiry reveals that baptism was conferred
invalidly the sacrament is to be administered absolutely. The sacrament should
be administered conditionally if the point of validity or invalidity remains
doubtful.
“Conditional baptism is given when it
is uncertain whether a person has been baptized, or when there is fear of the
sacrament having been administered improperly.”[59]
Father Davis writes: “Whenever a prudent doubt based on probable reasons
persists regarding the validity of a sacrament bestowed, that sacrament may be
repeated.”[60]
Baptism is of its nature absolutely
necessary for salvation. “The repetition of the sacrament ought to be done
where its validity is doubted - or rather, so long as its validity is not
morally certain.”[61]
It
is virtually impossible to invalidate the Sacrament of Marriage providing the
partners involved have the correct intention. This is because, as the Council
of Florence declared, "the efficient cause of Matrimony (i.e., as a
Sacrament) invariably is the mutual consent expressed by words in the present
tense." "Pius IX taught that "among Christians there can be no
marriage [correct intention assumed] which is not at the same time a
Sacrament... and consequently the Sacrament can never be separated from the
marital contract" (Allocution, Sept. 27, 1852).
According to Pohle-Preuss,
Bellarmine, Suarez, Sanchez and other theologians of
equal stature, "both the matter and form of the Sacrament are contained in
the marital contract itself; being the words of consent spoken by the
contracting parties, or the signs used. The words or signs constitute the
matter of the Sacrament in so far as they signify the mutual surrender of the
bodies (tradition), and its form in
so far as they signify the acceptance (acceptio) of the same."[62]
To
simplify the issue, one can state that the mutual consent of the contracting
parties to give themselves to each other (the contract) is the matter of the
Sacrament, and the giving of consent in the present tense, the form. This is
consistent with the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas that "the words in
which the matrimonial consent is expressed constitute the form of this
Sacrament; not the sacerdotal blessing, which is a sort of sacramental."[63]
(The Contract as such is not distinguishable from the words of consent.)
What
then is the role of the priest? According to Phole Preuss, "the contracting parties to a marriage
administer the Sacrament to each other. The priest is merely the minister of
the (accidental) celebration and the representative and chief official witness
of the Church. This explains why his presence is required by ecclesiastical
law.
The
conditions for validity are four. The recipients must be baptized, they must be
of different sexes, there must be no diriment impediment in the way of their
marriage (such as previous valid marriage) and they must have the intention of
doing what the Church does - i.e. of contracting a Christian marriage.
(Normally, a marriage must be solemnized before a priest - however, if no
priest is available and is unlikely to be available for a long period of time
(as occurs for example in certain parts of Mexico), the marriage can occur
without him, though it must be solemnized by a priest when one becomes
available.)
Proper
intention is of course required on the part of the recipients of this
Sacrament. That intention may be implicit, but the contrary intention should
not be present. A valid marriage contract must be "till death do us
part," must consider the primary purpose of marriage to be the procreation
of children and their education in the faith.[64]
POST-CONCILIAR
MARRIAGE
Space
does not allow for a full consideration of the new catechesis on the nature of
marriage. Two fundamental principles however have been abrogated and each of
them of sufficient importance to possibly vitiate the marriage contract and
thus the exclude the sacramental nature of the union. Moreover, the post-Conciliar minister (president, priest?) must inform the
persons about to be married both before the ceremony and during the ceremony of
these changes.[65]
1) THE
HIERACHICAL NATURE OF MARRIAGE
It is
clear from Ephesians V that marriage is a hierarchical structure. Paul
explicitly taught that the partners in marriage should be subject to one
another, in the fear of Christ." He further taught "Let women be
subject to their husbands, as tp the Lord: because
the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ is head of the Church... as the
Church is subject to Christ, so also let wives be to their husbands in all
things."[66]
This principle is repeated in innumerable places in both the Old and New
Testaments; it is concurred with by Peter who says "in like manner also
let wives be subject to their husbands" (1 Pet. III:1). Likewise, this
principle has been repeatedly confirmed by the popes. Pope Pius XI considered
the submission of women to man as a fundamental law of the family, established
and fixed by God. Pope Pius XII specified that "to reestablish an
hierarchy within the family, something indispensable to its unity as well a to
its happiness, to grandeur, this was one of Christianity's greatest undertakings,
since that day when Christ proclaimed, before the Pharisees and the people,
'what therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder.'"
The
teaching of the new Rome is first seen in the pastoral constitution Gaudium et Spes
(declared by Paul VI to the supreme form of the ordinary magisterium):
"just as of old God encountered his people with a covenant of love and
fidelity, so our savior, the spouse of the Church, now encounters Christian
spouses through the sacrament of Marriage. He abides with them in order that by
their mutual self-giving, spouses will love each other with enduring fidelity,
as he loved the Church and delivered himself for it." Here the teaching of
Ephesians has been decisively abridged. Only what is agreeable has been taken
from it, namely "love." The subordination of women and,
correlatively, that of the Church to her Head, is simply disregarded. Drawing
on this statement the Synod of Wurzburg declared in
1975 that the husband and wife were to be seen as partners, and that "the
allotment of roles between husband and wife, which was strongly patriarchal in
character, has been corrected."\
This
is also the teaching of John Paul II who holds that love creates equality. In
his Apostolic Letter Familiaris consortio
issued in 1981 he teaches that "above all it is important to underline the
equal dignity and responsibility of women and men... in creating the human race
'male and female,' God gives man and woman an equal personal dignity, endowing
them with the inalienable rights and responsibilities proper to the human
person." The same "responsibilities" for man and woman exclude
man from being the head of the family. This was made even more explicit in the
Charter of Family Rights promulgated by
"Anyone who, as a matter of principle, denies
the responsibility of the husband and father as head of the woman and of the
family, puts himself in opposition to the Gospel and the doctrine of the
Church."[68]
2)
The
second significant change in the theology of marriage pertains to the two ends
of marriage. The traditional Church taught de
fide that:
"The primary end of Marriage is the procreation
and education of offspring, while its secondary purposes are mutual help and
the allaying (also translated "as a remedy for") concupiscence. The
latter are entirely subordinate to the former."
Now
in saying that this teaching is de fide,[69]
one is saying that Catholics must believe this to be true. Vatican II however
places the Catholic couple in an untenable position because it teaches, with
equal authority, that the two ends of marriage are equal, and further lists the
secondary end before the primary one.[70]
With the traditional teaching couples whose love for any reason had grown cold,
still stayed together for the sake of the children. Now, should the first
listed reason for marriage no longer persist, divorce or separation is
justified. No longer does the procreation and education of children come first.
And to further facilitate the possibility of divorce, one of the new and post-Conciliar indications allowed by the
What
are the consequences of entering marriage with the understanding (or
misunderstanding) about the hierarchical nature of this state of life - to say
nothing of the perversion of its purpose? Without presuming to speak in
absolute terms, let us consider the opinion of Father Klaus Moersdorf,
a theologian and expert in Canon law. It is his opinion that the hierarchical
relationship between man and woman is fraught with a crucial importance for
marriage. According to him, this idea corresponds to the previously mentioned
teachings of the popes... A marriage is realized through the uniformity of the
will of both people. Both parties of the marriage have to be in agreement in
order to affirm "the essential content of the marriage contract, which is
to say the one who wishes to comclude a marriage must
be ready to accept three characteristics of marriage. These are: the right to
the body, the indissolubility of marriage and the unity of marriage."
The
unity of marriage signifies, according to Father Moersdorf,
the union of one man with one woman, and therefore a single couple (monogomy), and that the man and the woman be united in a
hierarchical order by a holy unity. According to this author, for the
realization of a valid marriage, it is indispensable that the contracting
parties recognize and fulfill these three conditions. "If the necessary
understanding and will for the conclusion of a marriage are seriously lacking,
the marriage will not be valid."
Consequently, it is to be feared that if a
marriage is concluded in the spirit of a partnership, and if at least one of
the parties rejects the superiority of the man, that marriage is not validly
concluded. That means that such partners live together without being united by
the marriage bond and without receiving the graces which the sacrament of
marriage effects." Dr. Seibel, a professor of sociology and a theologian
of some repute states that "a marriage, deprived of its head, is
'decapitated' in the true sense of the word, which is to say that it is 'dead.'
At any rate, a marriage which is strictly a partnership can in no case be
considered as a Christian marriage."[71]
Following
upon the conclusion, an essay on the nature of Catholic Marriage is offered as
an Appendix.
CONCLUSION
The
Sacraments are of critical importance to the spiritual life of Catholics. They
were instituted by Christ as means of grace, and their integrity is independent
of man's innovative needs. "Lord, by Your divine sacraments you renew the
world. Let your Church draw benefit from Your sacred rites, and do not leave
her without temporal aids either. This we ask through Jesus Christ our
Lord." (Collect for Matins, Friday, Fourth Week in Lent).
There
is no doubt but that the post-Conciliar Church has
played fast and loose with the Sacraments. Whether or not the result has
rendered some of them invalid is for the reader to try to figure out.
Similarly, and what in the practical order amounts to the same thing, is the
question as to whether or not they have been rendered doubtful. If either is
the case, their usage is sacrilegious and to be avoided.
All
these changes have been carried out for two basic reasons - aggiornamento and ecumenism. Both
reasons are intrinsically absurd and damaging to the Faith. There has never
been a need for the revealed teachings of Christ to adapt themselves to the
modern or any other world. The very concept denies the intrinsic nature of
Catholic truth which is why it has always been necessary for the world to adapt
itself to the teachings of Christ. Proof of the invalidity of this principle is
provided by the fact that Christ made no attempt to adapt His teachings to the
Jews or the Romans of his era; and that it was necessary for the Prodigal Son
to return to the bosom of his father. As for the motivation of ecumenism, one
can make but three comments. First: the very exclusive nature of Catholicism
militates against ecumenism. Christ did not die on the Cross so that mankind could
choose its own religious views. Secondly, ecumenism inevitably requires the
watering down of Christian teaching, for it is only the lowest common
denominator that can bring all our "separated brethren" into that
false unity of "the people of God" which is desired. And Lastly, the
very idea of ecumenism implies tolerence to error. It
has never been necessary to be tolerent to the truth,
and charity to error (as opposed to individuals who are in error) has never
been a characteristic of the Catholic Faith.
By
their fruits ye shall know them. We have now had some 35 years of the post-Conciliar establishment with her new sacramental forms.
Clearly by every possible criteria imaginable, the results have been
disastrous. The changes introduced by the documents of Vatican II would have
all but been ignored if not implemented through the media of the sacraments -
for indeed the lex credendi is
reflected in the lex orandi - our
beliefs are reflected in the manner in which we pray. This if nothing else
should raise doubts in the minds of the faithful, not only about the
sacramental changes, but also about the principles that inspired them.
There
are those who will feel that these criticisms have been picky. What after all
does a word here or there mean? One can only answer that words indeed do have
meaning, or if not, then why have the sacraments at all. Despite the claims of
modernists, the sacraments are not "rites of passage." Consider the words of Pope Leo XIII with
regard to doctrine:
"Nothing is more dangerous than the
heretics who, while conserving almost all the remainder of the Church's
teaching intact, corrupt WITH A SINGLE WORD, like a drop of poison, the purity
and simplicity of the faith which we have received through tradition from God
and through the Apostles."
If
such could be said of doctrine, how much more can it be said of the Sacraments?
Many will argue that obedience requires our acceptance of these changes. But
consider the teaching of Suarez:
"[a Pope] also falls into Schism if he himself departs from the body of the Church by refusing to be in communion with her by participating in the sacraments... The Pope can become schismatic in this manner if he does not wish to be in proper communion with the body of the Church [i.e., the Church as she has always existed], a situation which would arise if he tried to excommunicate the entire Church, or, as both Cajetan and Torquenada observe, IF HE WISHED TO CHANGE ALL THE ECCLESIASTICAL CEREMONIES, FOUNDED AS THEY ARE ON APOSTOLIC TRADITION."
This clearly raises the question of authority.
Do the post-Conciliar "popes" have the
authority to introduce these changes which are by their own admission
"innovations," and reflective of a "new ecclesiology." Such
a question cannot be answered within the framework of the present study, but it
is one that every person who has doubts about the validity of the new
sacraments must ask and eventually resolve.
What
is clear however is that traditional Catholics who have doubts about the
validity of the new sacramental forms, have every right to avoid them in
practice, and to seek out and demand unquestionably valid sacraments. This
issue is at the heart of the Catholic resistance.
Ó Rama Coomaraswamy 2002
[1] Summa Theologica, 3a, q64, art. 8, ad.1
[2] Denziger-Bannwart, No. 695
[3] Catechism
of the Council of
[4] Right Rev. Joseph Pohle, PhD. DD. The Sacraments, p. 174
[5] DB, n. 1318
[6]
L’Osservatore Romano,
[7]
Walter Aabbott,
S.J., The Documents of
[8] Taken in large part from Bishop McKenna’s comments on Ecumenical Baptism, published in Catholics Forever, August 1996.
[9] “washes away every stain of sin, original and personal”
[10] Archbishop Francis Kenrick,
A Treatise on Baptism., Baltimore: Hedian
& O’Brien, 1852
[11]
Henri Rambaud,
The Strange Faith of Teilhard de Chardin,
p. 23,
[12] Father Charles Coughlin, Bishops versus Pope pp. 215-216
[13] R. Wayne Kraft, The Relevance of Teilhard, p. 20, Notre
Dame,
[14]
Hugh McElwain, O.S.M., Introduction to Teilhard de Chardin, p. 8.
[15] Ibid, p. 29
[16]
T.Lincoln Bouscaren, S.J., Canon Law Digest Text and Commentary, Vol
V, ppp. 621-622.
[17]
J. W. Johnson, Evolution?
, p. 120.
[18] Henri Rambaud, The Strange Faith of Teilhard de Chardin, p. 11., op. cit.
[19]
Deitrich von Hilderbrand, Teilhard de Chardin: A False Prophet. p. 5,
[20] Cardinal Journet, Nova et Vetera, October- December 1962
[21] Ouvres, vol. 5, p. 347.
[22]
Malachy Martin, The
Jesuits, p. 288.New
[23] Teilhard de Chardin, Human Energy, p. 96
[24] Deitrich von Hildebrand, Teilhard de Chardin: A False Prophet, p. 10-. op. cit.
[25]
Wolfgang Smith, Teilhardism
and the New Religion, p. 23,
[26] Deitrich von Hildebrand, Teilhard de Chardin: A False Prophet, p. 9. op.cit.
[27]
Letter of
[28]
Henri de Lubac, The
Religion of Teilhard de Chardin,
p[. 120,
[29] Jean Onimus, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin ou la foi du monde, p. 38ff.
[30]
Teilhard de Chardin, Letter
of
[31] Teilhard de Chardin, Christianity and Evolution.
[32] ibid, p.10.
[33] Quoted in Janus, No. 4, Dec. 1964, p. 32.
[34]
Nicholas Corte, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, His Life and Spirit, p. 89New
[35] Humani Generis, Paragraph No. 37
[36] a term used by Teilhard to describe a stage in his theory of evolution.
[37] Josepj Klopp, Teilhard de Chardin, A New Synthesis of Evolution. pp. 43-44. Glen Rock, N.J., Paulist Press, 1965
[38] DB No. 788-789
[39] Deitrich von Hildebrand, Teilhard de Chardin: A False Prophet, p. 23. op. cit.
[40] R. Wayne Kraft, The Relevance of teilhard,
p. 29. [ editor’s note: John Paul II is a staunch believer in evolution as well
as a follower of the theology of Paul VI (who also believed in evolution). With
regard to Vatican II and the teachings of Paul VI: the principal task of his
pontificate is “a coherent realization of the teaching and the directives of
the Second Vatican Council is and continues to be the principal task of this
pontificate.” (Address at a plenary meeting of the Sacred College of Cardinals,
Nov. 5, 1979) With regard to evolution he has stated: “the evolution of living
beings, of which science seeks to determine the stages and to discern the
mechanism, presents an internal finality which arouses admiration. This
finality which directs beings in a direction for which they are not responsible
or in charge, obliges one to suppose a Mind which is its inventor, its
Creator.” ((The Wanderer,
[41] Deitrich von Hildebrand, Teilhard de Chardin: A False Prophet, p. 29. The principle author of this particular document was John Paul II. (Cf. Note above).
[42]
McElwain, Hjugh, O.S.,M. Introduction to Teilhard
de Chardin, p. 71.,
[43] Deitrich von Hildebrand, Teiolhard de Chardin: A False Prophet, p. 5.
[44]
Rev. John Murphy, The Sacrament of Baptism., p. 55. ,
[45] St. Augustine, De bapt. cont. Donat., vii, 53, 102
[46] Rev. John Murphy, The Sacrament of Baptism, p. 55-56, op. cit.
[47]
T. Lincoln Bouscaren, S.J., Canon Law, A text and Commentary, p. 559.,
[48] Ulric Beste, O.S.B., American Ecclessiastical Review, April 1950, p. 257
[49] ibid, p. 270
[50] ibid, p. 272
[51]
John Abbo, S.T.L., J.C.D., and Hannan,
Jerome D. AM. LLB. STD. JCD. The Sacred
Canons, Vol. II, pp. 305-309.
[52] Ulric Beste, O.S.B., op. cit., p. 273.
[53] Ulric Beste, O.S.B. op cit. , p. 268-269
[54] Ulric Beste, O.S.B., op. cit. p. 273
[55] Archbishop Francis Kenrick, op. cit.
[56]
S.C. Conc.
[57]
S.C.
[58]
Nicholas Halligan, O.P., The Administration of the Sacraments, pp. 67-68.
[59] Bishop Louis LaRavoire, S.T.D., My Catholic Faith, p. 255.
[60]
Henry Davis, S.J;., Moral and Pastoral
Theology, vol. 3, p. 25.
[61] ibid.
[62] Pohle-Preuss, The Sacraments, op. cit.
[63] Summa., Suppl., Q 42, art. 1, ad 1:
[64] True consent should be absolute and express the intention of the will with regard to everything that is essential to marriage: the exclusive and perpetual right over each others bodies with regard to sexual union and procreation. (The intent to limit the number of children would be sinful, but not invalidating, unless this determination was the sine qua non for the marriage.) Protestant marriages are valid though of course there can be no requiement on their part to bring up their children in the Catholic Faith. The finer technicalities of canon law are beyond the purpose of this book.
[65]
Documents on the Liturgy 1963-1979,
The Liturgical Press, Collegeville
[66] Clearly this is associated with the need for the husband to love his wife as the Christ loved the Church, for him in fact to be an alter Christus in the family which is in turn patterned after the Church.
[67] L'Osservatore Romano, German edition of 27.8.82.
[68] Hirtenwort der deutschen Erzbishoefe und Bichoefe zur Neurodnung des Ehe-und Familienrechte, printed as a supplement to St. Korads Blatt, No. 10, 1953.
[69] So declared by the Holy Office with the approval of Pius XII (AAS 36, 1944, 103)
[70] I say, "untenable position," because they are forced to deny one or the other de fide teachings when they know that the Holy Ghost which guarantees the truth of de fide teachings cannot contradict himself.
[71]
Cf. Paragraph 50, "The Church in the Modern World," The Documents of