Holy Cross Seminary

Frequently Asked Questions About Catholicism
Answered by Fr. Peter Scott

Question: Does a Saturday evening “vigil” Mass satisfy the Sunday obligation?

Answer: It is of the divine law, prescribed by the third commandment of God, that a day of rest be set aside in honor of God. The theologians teach that the precision that this be observed on the Sunday and no longer on the Saturday is of ecclesiastical law, since at the beginning of the Church that the apostles continued to go to the temple on the Saturday (Act 3:1 & 5:12). However, the apostles universally introduced the custom of sanctifying the Sunday as the Lord’s Day, so much so that it had become obligatory by the beginning of the second century. (Cf. Prummer, II, §465, p. 386).

It is certainly true that the liturgical days for Sunday and feast days have always started with First Vespers that are celebrated on the eve of the feast or on Saturday afternoon to prepare for Sunday. But it was never permitted to celebrate a Mass for the feast or for the Sunday on the eve of the day itself, at the time of First Vespers. In fact the Church’s law was explicit on this point, prescribing that Mass could not begin more than one hour before dawn or more than one hour after Noon (Canon 821, §1). It was consequently just as inconceivable to celebrate Mass on the eve of a feast to satisfy the obligation of the feast, as it was to claim that the law of abstinence from servile work obliged as of the afternoon before the feast. If it is true that in 1953 Pope Pius XII permitted the celebration of afternoon and evening Masses, this was on account of the shortage of priests, to allow for Masses on the afternoon or night of the feast or Sunday itself, rather than for the celebration of a “vigil” Mass to avoid the sanctification of the Sunday or Holy Day.

The novelty came with the 1983 Code of Canon Law, which permitted the faithful to satisfy their obligation of assisting at Mass on a Sunday or Holy Day either on the day itself or the afternoon or evening beforehand (Canon 1248, §1). What are we to think of this? It is certainly true that the highest legislative authority in the Church, the Pope, technically has the right to modify the First Precept of the Church, since it is of ecclesiastical law, and not of divine law. It is this ecclesiastical law that obliges under pain of mortal sin, as defined by Pope Innocent XI, and so consequently a person could not be accused of mortal sin for simply availing himself of the privilege of assisting at Mass on the afternoon before a Sunday or feast day.

However, this is not the real issue at stake. The real question is whether this relaxation of the law is in conformity with Tradition, whether it helps protect the Faith, and whether it assures the keeping of the Third Commandment of God, as it was designed to do. Alas, the response must be negative on each count. Whereas those who were legitimately impeded from assisting at Mass (e.g. by work obligations) were freed from their obligation, there is no tradition in the pre-Vatican II Church of substituting Mass for the offices that are designed to prepare for the feast (with the sole exception being in the 1950s when Pius XII authorized miners who had to work every Sunday to assist at Mass on Saturday evening). It certainly does not protect the Faith or help in the sanctification of the Sunday, as experience has shown. What do those Catholics do to sanctify the Sunday, to study and pray their Faith, when they will not even go to Mass on Sunday, but prefer Saturday afternoon so that their Sunday can be free for secular activities? Clearly, little or nothing. Gone are the Sunday catechism classes made obligatory by St. Pius X, the study of scripture, the reading of spiritual books, meditation and prayer, and even the respect for Sunday as a special day, consecrated to the honor of Almighty God. To introduce such a measure into the Church’s law is a major step in the secularization of the Church, and in making Catholics’ lives entirely indiscernible from those of anybody else in this pagan world.

Consequently, we have a duty to encourage our Novus Ordo Catholic friends to stand up against this lukewarm practice, so opposed to the sense of the Church and to the restoration of all things in Christ, and to truly honor the mysteries of the resurrection and of eternal life that are symbolized by the Sunday rest. Let traditional Catholics not even dream of the hypocrisy of attempting to use this prevision of the lax post-conciliar law, unless it be in the case where there is no alternative. For it is a manifest contradiction to pretend to be attached to the traditional Mass, and to the Church’s traditional teachings, and to refuse to even make the effort to attend Mass on Sunday to sanctify the Lord’s day.

Question: Is a Sedevacantist to be considered a non-Catholic?

Answer: It is certainly of Faith that Our Lord gave the powers of the keys to the successor of Peter, and that the Pope is the Church’s visible head. However, it is not of Faith that Our Lord would not leave His Church for a time without a visible head. There have been times in past history of up to three years without a Pope, and times during which nobody really knew who the true Pope was. Consequently the belief that this particular person is not the Pope is not necessarily a denial of the Catholic Faith.

The traditional code of Canon Law (Canon 1325, §2) defines a schismatic as one who refuses to submit to the authority of the Sovereign Pontiff. However, given the present confusion of the Church and the fact that we are obliged by our Faith to refuse so many of the liberal, ecumenical statements of Pope John Paul II, it is not necessarily obvious that a sedevacantist actually refuses to submit to the authority of the Sovereign Pontiff, and that he is consequently a schismatic.

Nevertheless, it is preposterous to say, as the sedevacantists do, that there has not been any Pope for more than 40 years, for this would destroy the visibility of the Church, and the very possibility of a canonical election of a future Pope.

Just submission to the Pope is a principle of unity in the Church, along with the Faith, the sacraments, and the holy sacrifice of the Mass. This is all contained in the definition of the Church contained in the catechism: “The Church is the congregation of all baptized persons united in the same true faith, the same sacrifice, and the same sacraments, under the authority of the Sovereign Pontiff and the bishops in communion with him”. However, he is not the only factor of unity. This is the misconception shared by both modernists and sedevacantists alike. They sat that nothing matters but the Pope and become modernist like him, or they say that nothing matters but the Pope, and he is destroying the Church, so therefore there is no Pope. The real problem of the present crisis in the Church is that the Pope is no longer acting as principle of unity, as he ought, for he is no longer adequately promoting the unity of Faith, sacraments and the Mass that has always characterized the Catholic Church.

It is consequently true that there can be some theological discussion as to whether sedevacantists are formally schismatic or not. The answer to this depends on the degree of sedevacantism. There are radical sedevacantists that call us heretics since we are in communion with a heretic (Wotyla), so they say. These are certainly schismatic, for they clearly reject communion with true Catholics, who are in no way modernist. By making their sedevacantism a quasi article of faith they certainly fall into the second category of persons that Canon 1325, §2 declares to be schismatic: “He is a schismatic who rejects communion with members of the Church subject to him (i.e. the Sovereign Pontiff)”. It is consequently by their refusal to be a part of the Church, and effectively making the “church” as they see it consist only in sedevacantists that they are certainly schismatic.

There are other sedevacantists, who do not hold their opinion as a question of Faith, but just as a private opinion, and who do not condemn other traditional Catholics who do not share their opinion. On account of the confusion of the present crisis and the fact that they do not refuse communion with Catholics who have the true Faith, it is not unreasonable to hold that such persons are not formally schismatic.

However, the real danger with the sedevacantists, over and above the question of their being formally schismatic, is that they fail to have a Catholic attitude. Their rash and excessive condemnatory attitude, not only towards the Pope and the modernists, but also towards Catholics simply trying to live their Catholic life, and other traditional Catholics, leads them to fall into rigorism, formalism and legalism, and to condemning everybody else. They easily fall into pharisaical pride. They are a real plague to the traditional movement here in the U.S. Such people have no sense of obedience or submission, and often commit rash judgement. They do not feel at home in the Society’s chapels where the Church’s Faith, sacraments, doctrines and Mass are preached together with the interior life of charity and self-sacrifice as the means for restoring all things in Christ.

Question: Some physicians use the text of Pope John Paul II’s Address to International Congress on Transplants, dated August 29, 2000 to justify "cadaveric" organ transplantation. Can we accept this?

Answer:  "Cadaveric" transplantation is a misnomer, and is used to describe the removal organs from a person who has been declared brain dead, but who is being kept alive by artificial means.

Note that the Pope’s address is not a statement of the Church’s Magisterium , and that it makes no definitions or clear statements on Faith or morality. I will pass over the humanistic and naturalistic tone of this discourse, which speaks of the dignity of the human person, but not of the salvation of souls. I would, however, like to bring up the crucial statement in this document, which the Pope uses to justify his personal opinion that it is licit to harvest organs from brain dead people, who are being alive by artificial means, in order to treat medical conditions by transplantation. This statement is this: "the criterion adopted in more recent times for ascertaining the fact of death, namely the complete and irreversible cessation of all brain activity, if rigorously applied, does not seem to conflict with the essential elements of a sounds anthropology." (§5)

The Pope’s very hesitant statement is quite simply wrong. The Church teaches that reason can prove with certitude the spirituality and the immortality of the human soul (Ds 2766 and 2812). This means that the soul is not bound to any organ of the body, including the brain. The soul is not dead or absent just because the brain is incapable of functioning, short of a miracle. Death is in fact the separation of the soul from the body. As the Pope himself correctly points out, the precise moment of death "is an event which no scientific technique or empirical method can identify directly" (§4). It is for this reason that a priest can conditionally administer the sacrament of Extreme Unction for up to an hour after a person has been medically declared dead.

The Pope’s argument is that we can accept the neurological criteria of death have replaced the cardio-respiratory criteria, namely the cessation of heart and lung activity for a period of time beyond which it is no longer possible to revive them. It is true that the neurological criteria give the moral certitude that the person will die when the cardio-respiratory life support systems are removed. However, they give absolutely no certitude that the person is already dead, in the true sense of separation of soul and body. Moral certitude of this is only possible when corruption takes place, as sure proof that human life is no longer present in the corpse. However, as long as respiration and cardiac function are maintained, albeit artificially, the tissues and cells of the body will certainly stay alive and nourished, and the body remains one organism, with one being, that is to say one soul. Corruption is the only sure sign that the unity of the being is lost, and that consequently the immortal soul is separated from the body. Once corruption sets in and death is certain, it is certainly permissible to use organs for experimental and other uses, provided that there is a proportionally grave reason. However, since corruption involves a disintegration of the tissues and organs, they cannot then be used for transplantation purposes.

How can it be said that with certitude, that the human soul is no longer present in an apparently live body whose brain is dead? And if the human soul is in all probability present, how can the removal of organs necessary for life be justified? The moral certitude that the brain dead person will die in any case is irrelevant. He is presently, to all appearances and in all likelihood still alive, and the removal of organs necessary for life could be the direct cause of his death? Surely to be responsible for this is a sin against the fifth commandment. Surely man cannot claim this right to kill another person simply because of the benefit that could accrue to a third person. This is utilitarianism, considering man as a means to an end.

Consequently, the medical diagnosis of brain death can not be considered as giving the medical profession the right to declare a person as dead quite simply. Furthermore, it is not permissible to accept organs necessary for life, such as the heart, lung, or liver, removed from a person in such a state. It is consequently my opinion that the present day practice of "cadaveric" transplantation is immoral and illicit, and it is not permitted for a Catholic to authorize his or another’s donation or even to accept organs harvested in this way.

Question: Some people have stated that Cardinal Ratzinger’s decree overturning the "excommunication" of the Hawaii 6 is not a precedent, and does not apply equally to other Catholics who attend the Society’s Masses. Is this true?

Answer: It is true that when Our Lady of Fatima chapel in Honolulu was founded in 1987 it was not a part of the Society of Saint Pius X, and that it did invite in some other traditional priests, who were not members of the Society. However, as of 1990 it has been regularly and almost entirely serviced by the priests of the Society of Saint Pius X. Consequently, the faithful whom Bishop Ferrario attempted to declare "excommunicated" on January 18, 1991 were so treated directly on account of their attachment to the Society of Saint Pius X.

This is in fact confirmed by the Formal Canonical Warning itself. Of the three grounds listed in it by Bishop Ferrario, two directly concern the Society. The first does not, being the incorporation of a traditional chapel. The second concerns the radio program "aligning yourselves with the Pius X schismatic movement". The third directly concerned the visit of Bishop Williamson, one of the Society bishops invited to Hawaii to administer the sacrament of Confirmation. This visit was supposed to have communicated, as if it were an infectious disease, the censure of excommunication: "Whereas on May 1987 (actually 1989) you performed a schismatic act not only by procuring the services of an excommunicated Lefebvre bishop, Richard Williamson, who performed contra iure illicit confirmation in your chapel, but also by the very association with the aforementioned bishop incurred ipso facto the grave censure of excommunication".

When Cardinal Ratzinger as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith overturned this "excommunication" by a decree dated June 4, 1993, he indicated that he understood that the essential reason was the charge of schism, which was entirely related to procuring the services and association with Bishop Williamson, for this was the only part of the accusation that involved the charge of schism. These were his words: "on the grounds that she had committed the crime of schism and thus had incurred the latae sententiae penalty". The Cardinal went on to say that the charge was false, and since Mrs. Morley did not commit this crime of schism the so-called excommunication was null and void.

It is entirely ingenuous to pretend that because she was not a "member" of the Society of Saint Pius X, this decree does not apply to the Society’s faithful. It is only the priests who are members of the Society. The faithful parishioners are all in the exact same situation now as Mrs. Morley was then. They are not members and they do not belong to the Society, any more than she did then. They simply assist at the Masses of priests whose doctrine, integrity, Catholicity and Masses they can trust and depend upon. Cardinal Ratzinger’s decision that Mrs. Morley did not commit a crime of schism by inviting Bishop Williamson for Confirmations and by associating with him, consequently applies just as much to them now as it did to her then.

Question: What was the reasoning behind the suppressing of many Vigils and Octaves under Pope Pius XII?

Answer: It is indeed true that Pius XII abolished several of the Church’s Vigils and Octaves that had been observed for many centuries before. The reason given by the Sacred Congregation of Rites in its decree of March 23, 1955, to be effective as of January 1, 1956, was the simplification of the rubrics of the Roman Breviary and Missal.

It is certainly true that the rubrics prior to that time were quite complicated, especially when it became a question of overlapping octaves, and that it was a legitimate aspiration of the liturgical movement to simplify these rubrics in such a way that the ordinary faithful could follow, understand and participate. Furthermore, periodic elimination of added feasts, octaves and other liturgical days are not unusual in the history of the Church. Consequently, it is certainly successive to call this elimination of Octaves and Vigils a "modernist innovation"

In fact the three most important Octaves are the ones that were retained in 1955, namely those of Christmas, Easter and Pentecost. Thus the Octaves regain their original meaning as a celebration of a major mystery of our Faith, that one day alone does not suffice to contemplate, namely the mysteries of the Incarnation (Christmas), Redemption (Easter) and Pentecost (Descent of the Holy Ghost). This corresponds to the observation of Octaves in the Old Law by the Jews for the feasts of the Paschal Lamb and the feast of Tabernacles. This it is understandable that such Octaves as those of the feasts of St. John the Baptist, Saints Peter and Paul, St. Stephen and St. John the Evangelist would have been abolished. However, we can personally regret that some of the other Octaves were not retained, especially the Octaves of the Ascension and Corpus Christi, and perhaps also those of the Epiphany and the Sacred Heart.

The celebration of Vigils dates back to the early Church, at which time the early Christians prayed all night, until the celebration of Mass at the dawn of the feast day. The remaining example of this is the Easter Vigil of Holy Week, restored in 1951 to its ancient time and form of celebration. These Vigils were very important then and should be important for us now. They were times of watching, as indicated by the Latin word Vigiliae, and also of praying and fasting, in expectation of the solemnity of the morrow. It is certainly true that the sacrifice of fast and abstinence, in the expectation of a great feast, and the preparation involved, greatly helps us to profit from the special graces of the feast.

It is true that some less important Vigils were abolished in 1955. Nevertheless, all the important Vigils were retained, such as those of Easter and Pentecost, the Ascension, the Assumption, St. John the Baptist, Saints Peter and Paul and St. Lawrence. However, we can still personally regret also that certain other vigils were not retained, which Vigils highlight the special importance of the corresponding feast days, in particular those of the Immaculate Conception, of All Saints and of the Epiphany. The Church has compassion on the weakness of this non-penitential age in which we live. This does not prevent us from making the effort to observe the spirit of the Church by preparing the major feast days by recollection, sacrifice, spiritual reading and fasting.

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