Holy Cross Seminary

Frequently Asked Questions About Catholicism
Answered by Fr. Peter Scott

Crisis in the Church

Question: How is it possible to refuse a law coming from the Church, such as the change of “for many” into “for all” in the consecration of the Precious Blood at Mass?

Answer: This particular change in the words of consecration, the most serious in the New Mass, was not a part of the New Mass as “promulgated” (Note that properly speaking it was not really promulgated, both from the point of view of the formalities involved and from that of content) by Paul VI on April 3, 1969 in his letter Missale Romanum. In the Latin text the words “for many” are retained. This change is consequently one of translation However, it was manifestly not be accident that in all the modern European languages except Portuguese and Polish this same “error” of translation was committed. It is a manifest effort to undermine the clear teaching found in all three synoptic gospels that the efficacity of Christ’s shedding His blood is limited to a many souls, and not to all souls. The reason behind this change is consequently the modernist teaching on universal salvation, according to which Christ saved all human nature by his death on the Cross, whether people know it or not.

Since this is a change that manifestly undermines Catholic doctrine, it is equally clear that the traditional Catholic cannot accept it. The objection is then made as to how a Catholic can refuse such a disciplinary law, that purports to come from the Church? As Pope Gregory XVI pointed out, since “the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth” how could it “order, yield to, or permit those things which tend toward the destruction of souls and the disgrace and detriment of the sacraments instituted by Christ” (Quo graviora)? It is manifestly impious to think that the Church herself, the immaculate spouse of Christ, can order or command something contrary to the Faith or to the salvation of souls. It is in effect a condemned proposition of the heretical Council of Pistoia that the Church “could impose a disciplinary law that would be not only useless and more burdensome for the faithful than Christian liberty allows, but also dangerous and harmful” (Pius VI, Auctorem fidei).

The true Catholic cannot, of course, deny the essential role of the Holy Ghost in governing the Church and its disciplinary laws, that is its ecclesiastical tradition. However, it is manifestly obvious that this change of “for many” to “for all” is not a disciplinary law of the Church. Although tolerated practically everywhere, it was never “promulgated” by the Pope, and was simply allowed to happen. Manifestly also, it could not be a law of the Church for it is opposed to the constant doctrinal teaching and liturgical practice, that is to constant unanimous ecclesiastical and apostolic Tradition. It is consequently not of the Church at all, but of certainly churchmen, who have infiltrated it into the vernacular versions of the New Missal. It is an abuse, and it is modernist, and consequently could not possible at a disciplinary law of the Church.

The same can be said of the other, but less obvious aspects of the New Mass that express modernism. They cannot be a true law, as St. Thomas Aquinas says (Ia IIae 96, 4), quoting St. Augustine, because unjust laws are not laws at all. Laws are manifestly unjust that are opposed to the divine Good, that is to the Truth, holiness and sanctity of God, His Church and the sacraments. Yet this is precisely what the Novus Ordo Mass is. It undermines the Catholic teaching on the Mass as a true, propitiatory sacrifice, not to mention the sacredness of and devotion to the Blessed Sacrament (Communion in the hand is only one small part of this attack on the Real Presence), and the whole mystery of the Church, the Communion of the saints, and reparation for our sins. Consequently, even if it were correctly promulgated by a Pope, in such a way as to make it appear obligatory (which is not, in fact, the case), it would still be an unjust and invalid law. There is absolutely no contradiction between accepting that the Pope truly is Pope, and rejecting these laws that are manifestly not a work of the Church, nor does it demean the Church’s disciplinary and liturgical laws. In fact, it is because of our understanding of these laws, and of the reasons behind them, and of how perfectly they express Catholic doctrine, life and piety, that we are bound to refuse these pretend laws that are not really Catholic laws at all.

The sedevacantists make much ado about the infallibility of disciplinary laws. It is true that they can participate in the infallibility of the Ordinary Magisterium, inasmuch as they imply a teaching that has always and everywhere been taught by the Church. Such is the case of the Bull Quo Primum, which most solemnly gives priests the right to celebrate the traditional Mass in perpetuity, precisely because St. Pius V guaranteed the fact that it perfectly expresses the Catholic Faith and spirituality concerning the Mass. However, a defective law, or a law that is unjust and unholy because it does not adequately express the teaching of the Church manifestly does not participate in the infallibility of the Ordinary Magisterium, which has to be universal in time and place to be infallible. Consequently, the sedevacantists’ affirmation that we cannot accept that the Pope is the Pope without accepting that all his laws are infallible, is manifestly preposterous. To the contrary, it is our duty to pray that the Pope use his authority in line with unchanging Tradition, in which case his laws will be infallible. This has happened extremely rarely under John Paul II, but is certainly the case of his refusal to accept the ordination of women to the priesthood.

Question: Could a U.S. attack on Iraq be considered a just war?

Answer: This question is sometimes simplified to the question of whether we condone or condemn the actions of Saddam Hassein. However, this is not the essential question here, even if the legitimacy of his authority were to be questioned.

The morality and conditions for a just war were very well explained by Father Iscara in his erudite article in the July 2002 issue of the Angelus (pp. 2- 16), inspiring himself from Saint Thomas Aquinas (IIa IIae, 40, 1). He there points out that the application of these principles to determine the morality of a particular conflict can be very difficult, given the complexity of actual situations (p.11).

The first condition for a war to be just is that it is declared by a lawful or legitimate authority. It is certainly true that the US Congress has the authority to declare a war for the self-defense of US territory or citizens. It is also certain that its concern for the common good of the US also means that it must have some concern for the common good of the globe as a whole, given the mutual interdependence of nations. However, it does not at all have the authority to act as an international police man, for the international common good is not its responsibility. For it to do so would be to attack the sovereignty of other nations. No nation has the right to declare war on another nation that is not a threat to it. Furthermore, a body of nations cannot make have the authority to make such a declaration of war, since it has no sovereignty. It is true, however, that the people can rebel against an unjust ruler who has lost his right to rule, and appeal for foreign aid. This does not appear to be the case in Iraq, with the exception of exiled liberal dissidents. The US would have the moral right to declare war on Iraq only if Iraq posed a real threat to US security (or to that orf US allies). This has not at all been demonstrated. The existence of weapons of Mass destruction or Iraq’s ability to use them has not been demonstrated, nor has the use of Iraq as a base for terrorism.

The second condition for a just war is that there must be a just cause, such as defense against an unjust attack or recuperation of what has been unjustly taken. A presumed, imaginary or even possible problem of terrorist bases or the existence of weapons of Mass destruction could not constitute a just cause. Another aspect of the just cause is that it must be proportionate to the evil, death, destruction and human suffering that could be caused by the war. Since modern wars are indiscriminate and attack civilians just as much as military personnel, it cannot be conceived that a war of this kind could be successful without a great deal of suffering for the citizens of Iraq. There is a manifest lack of proportionality here that makes any reasonable person wonder what the real underlying reason for such a proposed war or invasion could be. If it were, for example, U.S. self-interest by guaranteeing the supply of oil, then it would be manifestly unjust. Here it is also to be mentioned that a war is only just if there is a good chance of a rapid successful victory with a minimum of casualties. The specter of Vietnam makes one wonder if this really is the case.

The third condition described by St. Thomas for a just war is a right intention, and this in the objective domain, namely that it be truly the reestablishment of justice which is aimed at. However, this is not at all the case. Iraq has done no injustice to the U.S. The absence of a right intention is also manifest by the fact the U.S. is not insisting that Israel live up to UN demands as it is with Iraq. To the contrary, the embargo against Iraq has caused the death of many children, estimated by some as many as one million. In this regard, a war can only be just if all other avenues of resolution have been exhausted. This does not at all appear to be the case, which is why other nations, that do not stand to gain as much, are not interested in participating.

Consequently, the proposed war on Iraq is not morally licit. This does not mean, however, that American serviceman could not fight in such a conflict, even if they were aware that it is not based on moral principles. It is their duty to defend their country, and once a war were declared it would be necessary for them to do so. It is rather strange that it is the Arab country that has been most tolerant towards its relatively large Chaldean Christian minority which is being threatened in this way. One hopes that it will not be a repeat of Kosovo, in which the NATO invasion brought as a consequence the destruction of over 100 monasteries and churches, most of which had survived 500 years of Moslem rule.

Question: How should a traditional Catholic plan for retirement?

Answer: Two excesses are to be avoided on this question. There are those who cannot bring themselves to retire. They live to work, have become attached to their own endeavors, and do not appreciate the value of well-earned leisure in old age. More frequent is the attitude that equates retirement with sloth, as if retired persons no longer have any duties or responsibilities.

The truth is that retirement is a special time of life, when a person can escape some from the incessant demands of the rat race and concentrate on higher goals that would be impossible without the extra leisure of retirement. It gives a person the opportunity to think of his soul, to pray and meditate more regularly, to attend extra Masses and devotions and to prepare his souls for its last end. However, it is also a time when a person can devote more time and energy to the practice of the spiritual and corporal works of mercy, whether they be directed towards one’s family members (children or grandchildren) or whether they be directed towards others. Thus retirement has a real purpose, in total opposition to the modern concept of retirement as a well-earned right to unlimited sloth, pleasure and self-indulgence for as long as one’s health holds out, as practiced by snowbirds, winter Floridans and Texans.

Decisions concerning planning for retirement will depend upon the understanding of this purpose. It is certainly true that it is prudent to provide a nest egg for medical and other expenses, and to arrange a good pension fund. It would be imprudent not to provide for old age in such a way. However, it would be just as wrong for this to become a fetish, a preoccupation.

On the one hand, retired persons should desire to locate themselves close to a traditional chapel so that they can have ready access to the Mass and sacraments, even during the week, and so that the priest can easily get to them if they are sick. On the other hand, they need to play an essential role in society, by the help that they give to their children and grandchildren, to the community at large and to other traditional Catholics in particular. In the present crisis, these two aspects of retirement can sometimes be in conflict, and it can be difficult to resolve this conflict, and to decide whether to relocate or not. In such cases no general rule can be given, since the decision of prudence will differ in each particular case, according to the circumstances. However, if a retired couple does plan to relocate, they should have a plan as to how they will help those in need, whether family, parishioners or others. To opt out of such duties of charity would be to opt out of the responsibility and care for the common good that ought to be particularly developed in older, retired persons.

Question: Why are there different translations of Genesis 3:15, some indicating that the woman’s seed will crush the serpent’s head, and others that His Mother herself who will do it?

Answer: After the story of the Fall and of the punishment to be inflicted on sinful mankind, Almighty God curses the serpent and promises the Redeemer, seed of the woman, that is of the Blessed Virgin Mary, saying that He will place enmities between the serpent and the woman, and between his seed and the woman’s seed: “She will crush your head and you will lie in wait for her heel”.

Such is the translation of the Vulgate (ipsa), namely that she will crush the serpent’s head, as confirmed by the translator, St. Jerome, in his writings. Scripture scholars point out that the Greek text of the Septuaginta, and all the original Hebrew manuscripts except two, state that it is he, that is the seed of the woman, who will crush the serpent’s head. How can this be, you might think, since the Council of Trent guaranteed that the translation of the Vulgate is without error? How could St. Jerome have made such an obvious error?

Of course, there is no error at all, and St. Jerome deliberately translated it indicating that the Blessed Mother would crush the serpent’s head. Here his translation is guided by the Catholic Faith, and makes a little more explicit the role of the Blessed Virgin in destroying the serpent, which role is already manifestly contained in this very text. Clearly, if there is enmity between the serpent and the Blessed Virgin, and not just between the seed of one and the seed of the other, this means that the Blessed Virgin is perfectly united to Our Lord’s work of destroying the devil’s power. Together with her seed, she crushes the head of the devil. St. Jerome’s translation is consequently equally correct, and has the advantage of bringing out a little more clearly, the role of Our Lady. It was made in the light of the teaching of the Fathers, without whose interpretation we cannot understand Holy Scripture. Pope Pius IX uses the patristic application of this text to Our Lady to establish the Immaculate Conception (Ineffabilis Deus).

Question: Before Vatican II, did the Church accept Protestant baptisms?

Answer: Already in the 3rd century, the Church defined that the fact that it is a heretic who administers the sacrament of baptism does not make it invalid (Dz 110). The baptisms of Protestants are consequently to be considered valid, unless a reasonable and prudent doubt occurs as to a defect of the required matter, form or intention. (Cf. Roman Ritual, Titulus II, Caput 3, §11 & 12). If there is certitude about the validity of the Protestant baptism, then there is no need to repeat the administration of the sacrament. The ceremonies are to be supplied, the convert makes a general confession, a profession of Faith and abjuration of heresy, and the excommunication incurred is lifted.

However, the usual situation is that it is practically impossible to prove the validity of the Protestant baptism. Since the investigation is very difficult to do and the validity of the Protestant baptism practically impossible to establish, the custom before Vatican II was to baptize conditionally practically every convert being received into the Church. This is still the practice of traditional priests, who are aware of their obligation to guarantee with certainty the validity of the sacrament. This does not mean that the validity of Protestant baptisms is denied, but simply that they do not have the certitude necessary for a sacrament so necessary for the salvation of souls.

Question: Why does the Society of Saint Pius X administer conditionally the sacraments of baptism and confirmation to those who have received them in the Novus Ordo?

Answer: It is forbidden for a priest to administer a sacrament conditionally unless there is some doubt about the validity of the sacrament already received. A mere suspicion does not suffice, but any real doubt does (i.e. when there is a positive reason to think that the sacrament might have been invalidly administered), since the sacraments are so necessary for the salvation and sanctification of our souls.

In general there is no doubt as to the validity of the sacrament of baptism administered in the post-conciliar church, since the matter and the form are very simple and have been retained, despite the whole new theology replacing the washing of original sin (and actual sin in adults) from the soul with the nebulous social concept of belonging to a community. In general, there is no reason to doubt that the priest has the intention of doing what the Church does, even though he may have a false notion of what this is. However, it will happen from time to time, that the sacrament is administered in such a sacrilegious way as to place in doubt even the matter or form or even the intention of doing what the Church does. In such rare cases, in which even the rules of the Novus Ordo are not followed, it may be necessary to administer the sacrament of baptism conditionally in order to guarantee validity.
The bishops of the Society administer the sacrament of Confirmation conditionally when the faithful request it, that is when they have a reasonable doubt as to the validity of the sacrament that they received, and this doubt cannot be resolved, as is usually the case. This is the case if oil other than the sacred chrism is used, or an oil other than olive oil (highly doubtful, since at variance with the divine institution of using olive oil) as is now permitted in the new rites, or if the signing with the sacred chrism and the imposition of the hand were not done at the same time, or if there is a doubt about the words used. Since there is a great variety in the words used, and since the traditional words “I sign thee with the sign of the cross and I confirm thee with the chrism of salvation, in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Christ” are never used, there is very frequently a doubt about the validity of the administration of this sacrament. This is the reason why the Society’s bishops do not hesitate to administer it conditionally when asked to do so.

home | top of page | next page | list of questions