It’s been official church law since 1983…
Vatican II Church Permits Protestants and Orthodox to Receive Catholic Communion in Particular Cases
The well-known Protestant prior of the ecumenical Taizé community, Brother Roger Schutz (1915-2005), can be seen here receiving [Novus Ordo] Communion in St. Peter’s Basilica on Oct. 1, 1999. (image: © KNA-Bild) John Paul II knew him well and even wrote a ‘papal’ message to him on Nov. 30, 1999. At John Paul II’s funeral on Apr. 8, 2005, Br. Roger also received Communion, from the hands of then-‘Cardinal’ Joseph Ratzinger (SEE HERE). Contrary to certain rumors, Schutz never converted to Catholicism.
The recent ‘beatification’ ceremony for Archbishop Fulton Sheen (1895-1979), a man whose popularity extended also to many non-Catholics on account of his nationwide radio and television prominence, has drawn renewed attention to a little-known law that has been on the books in the Vatican II Church since the 1980s.
Over 43 years ago, ‘Pope’ John Paul II (r. 1978-2005) enshrined in official church law a permission for Protestants and Eastern Orthodox to receive Holy Communion and two other sacraments under certain circumstances — but without renouncing their respective religions.
A quick review the facts is in order.
On January 25, 1983, John Paul II solemnly published the official [Novus Ordo] Code of Canon Law, which superseded (replaced) the original Code compiled under Pope St. Pius X and promulgated by Pope Benedict XV in 1917.
The reason for the institution of a new Code of Canon Law was the Second Vatican Council (1962-65). Church law needed to be adapted to the new teachings and orientation of the council, so a revision of canon law had become necessary. Thus, the 1983 Code is a direct and authoritative implementation of the ecumenism and false ecclesiology introduced by Vatican II; and it comes with the full putative ‘authority’ of ‘Pope’ John Paul II, which will be demonstrated in this post.
In its decree on ecumenism, the fateful council said:
…[W]orship in common (communicatio in sacris) is not to be considered as a means to be used indiscriminately for the restoration of Christian unity. There are two main principles governing the practice of such common worship: first, the bearing witness to the unity of the Church, and second, the sharing in the means of grace. Witness to the unity of the Church very generally forbids common worship to Christians, but the grace to be had from it sometimes commends this practice. The course to be adopted, with due regard to all the circumstances of time, place, and persons, is to be decided by local episcopal authority, unless otherwise provided for by the Bishops’ Conference according to its statutes, or by the Holy See.
(Vatican II, Decree on Ecumenism Unitatis Redintegratio, n. 8; underlining added.)
Of course the council here is not very specific, but then that is by design. The wording was kept deliberately vague so as to provide an opening for shared sacraments; yet only a cautious one, lest too many council fathers vote against it. When he had the opportunity to implement this particular directive, John Paul II was happy to oblige.
The idea that non-Catholics can participate in the reception of putative Catholic sacraments, even if only as an exception, is a direct result of the false ecclesiology of the council, its novel teaching that heretics (i.e. baptized non-Catholics who retain the name of Christian) are in ‘imperfect communion’ with the Catholic Church merely in virtue of a valid baptism, the profession of heresy notwithstanding. We have exposed and refuted it here:
- Video: Vatican II’s New Doctrine on the Church (Intro to Sedevacantism, Part 1)
This constitutes a clear example of where Vatican II did indeed teach something new, something novel. This is important to remember because sometimes people will claim that the council didn’t really introduce any novel teachings.
Here, then, is how the 1983 Code of Canon Law of John Paul II applies the Vatican II directive regarding the ecumenical sharing of sacraments:
Canon 844
§3. Catholic ministers administer the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick licitly to members of Eastern Churches which do not have full communion with the Catholic Church if they seek such on their own accord and are properly disposed. This is also valid for members of other Churches which in the judgment of the Apostolic See are in the same condition in regard to the sacraments as these Eastern Churches.
§4. If the danger of death is present or if, in the judgment of the diocesan bishop or conference of bishops, some other grave necessity urges it, Catholic ministers administer these same sacraments licitly also to other Christians not having full communion with the Catholic Church, who cannot approach a minister of their own community and who seek such on their own accord, provided that they manifest Catholic faith in respect to these sacraments and are properly disposed.
(Antipope John Paul II, Novus Ordo Code of Canon Law, Canon 844 §§3-4; bold print added.)
In 1995 and 2003, the same John Paul II reaffirmed this impious and sacrilegious law in two encyclical letters, respectively:
…it is a source of joy to note that Catholic ministers are able, in certain particular cases, to administer the Sacraments of the Eucharist, Penance and Anointing of the Sick to Christians who are not in full communion with the Catholic Church but who greatly desire to receive these sacraments, freely request them and manifest the faith which the Catholic Church professes with regard to these sacraments. Conversely, in specific cases and in particular circumstances, Catholics too can request these same sacraments from ministers of Churches in which these sacraments are valid. The conditions for such reciprocal reception have been laid down in specific norms; for the sake of furthering ecumenism these norms must be respected.
(Antipope John Paul II, Encyclical Ut Unum Sint, n. 46)
While it is never legitimate to concelebrate [Holy Mass] in the absence of full communion, the same is not true with respect to the administration of the Eucharist under special circumstances, to individual persons belonging to Churches or Ecclesial Communities not in full communion with the Catholic Church.
(Antipope John Paul II, Encyclical Ecclesia De Eucharistia, n. 45)
This goes for the Latin church as much as it does for the Eastern churches in communion with the Vatican II Church. The Code of Canons for the Eastern Churches, published in 1990 by the same John Paul II, legislates the exact same thing (see Canon 671 §§ 3-4).
But wait, there is more!
In 1993, the post-Catholic Unholy See published a lengthy document entitled Directory for the Application of Principles and Norms on Ecumenism, which is a veritable manual for implementing the ecumenism and ecclesiology of Vatican II. It was approved, confirmed, and ordered to be published by the false pope John Paul II on March 25, 1993. This scandalous document states:
129. …[I]n certain circumstances, by way of exception, and under certain conditions, access to these sacraments [Eucharist, Penance, Anointing of the Sick] may be permitted, or even commended, for Christians of other Churches and ecclesial Communities.
130. In case of danger of death, Catholic ministers may administer these sacraments when the conditions given below (n. 131) are present. In other cases, it is strongly recommended that the diocesan Bishop, taking into account any norms which may have been established for this matter by the Episcopal Conference or by the Synods of Eastern Catholic Churches, establish general norms for judging situations of grave and pressing need and for verifying the conditions mentioned below (n. 131). In accord with Canon Law, these general norms are to be established only after consultation with at least the local competent authority of the other interested Church or ecclesial Community. Catholic ministers will judge individual cases and administer these sacraments only in accord with these established norms, where they exist. Otherwise they will judge according to the norms of this Directory.
131. The conditions under which a Catholic minister may administer the sacraments of the Eucharist, of penance and of the anointing of the sick to a baptized person who may be found in the circumstances given above (n. 130) are that the person be unable to have recourse for the sacrament desired to a minister of his or her own Church or ecclesial Community, ask for the sacrament of his or her own initiative, manifest Catholic faith in this sacrament and be properly disposed.
(Antipope John Paul II via Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, Directory for the Application of Principles and Norms on Ecumenism, nn. 129-131; underlining added.)
So, let’s get this straight: As long as they’re baptized, non-Catholic Christians can legitimately, according to ‘Catholic’ canon law, ask to be given Holy Communion, absolution in confession, and Anointing of the Sick — and then just as legitimately receive the same — without converting to Catholicism, as long as they have a “grave and pressing need”, even outside the danger of death (as in, “I have no intention of becoming a Catholic, but I just need Catholic sacraments”). The presence of these conditions are verified/judged, in part, by the “competent authority” of the non-Catholic’s false religion, as long as the non-Catholic in question is “unable to have recourse” to a false minister of his own heretical sect!
This is unbelievable! Can anyone, especially someone who considers himself a traditional Catholic, possibly believe such sacrilegious and blasphemous law could come from the Holy Catholic Church of Our Blessed Lord and Savior Jesus Christ? That such flagrant mockery of the sacraments could come from a true Catholic Pope? It is absurd!
Let us consider a scenario that illustrates how the application of this impious Novus Ordo law could look in practice.
Imagine that Mildred is an Anglican, and she’s currently in the hospital. She’s not dying, but she needs serious medical attention. She calls on her heretical minister to come to her and assist her spiritually, but he’s out of town. Instead, ‘Fr. Fred’ from the local Novus Ordo passes by her room and visits her. So, she ‘spontaneously’ asks Fr. Fred to give her the ‘Anointing of the Sick’ (the Novus Ordo version of the sacrament of Extreme Unction), and she does so ‘of her own initiative.’ In fact, she tells Fred that she is a conservative Anglican, and so she really does believe in the Catholic understanding of the anointing. Besides, in order to be ‘properly disposed’ for it, she’s willing to make a confession, and she’d really like to receive Holy Communion, too, since she hasn’t received Christ sacramentally in a while and she’s afraid she might die soon.
At no point is she entertaining, even in the the slightest, a possible rejection of her Anglican religion. In fact, it is precisely as an Anglican that she wishes to receive these sacraments,. She is only approaching Fr. Fred with her requests since her Anglican presbyter is not in town for the time being.
According to the 1983 Code of Canon Law and the 1993 Directory on Ecumenism, Mildred’s course of action is not only legitimate but commendable, and Fr. Fred is supposed to give her absolution, anoint her, and administer Communion. And all of this is to take place without her renouncing any of her deeply-held errors. We must never forget that, as an Anglican, she is officially the member of a false religion, a non-Catholic sect, regardless of her personal intentions. With that religion, which persecuted and killed St. John Fisher and St. Thomas More, Mildred professes a host of heresies. Yet, the Modernist Vatican II Sect says she can be absolved and anointed, even given Holy Communion, if only she believes about these sacraments what the Catholic Church does. The rest doesn’t matter.
No, we’re not making this up. We’re not exaggerating, nor are we misunderstanding anything. In the video below (or see direct link here), published by the hardcore Novus Ordo bastion Catholic Answers, apologist Jimmy Akin confirms this precise understanding:
.
For another source confirming our understanding of Canon 844 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law, we can turn to the diocese of Rockville Centre, New York. On their web site they explain under what “special circumstances” they will administer “Holy Communion” to “other Christians”:
And then, of course, there are the official guidelines established by the so-called United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB):
Are you shocked? This part of Novus Ordo canon law is little known, but it has been around since the early days of John Paul II. His predecessor, ‘Pope’ Paul VI, wasn’t any better, of course:
- Historical Tidbit: ‘Pope’ Paul VI permitted active Catholic Participation in Eastern Orthodox Masses
Paul VI and John Paul II were some serious ‘saints’, weren’t they? (Let’s keep in mind that both of them were declared ‘saints’ by ‘Pope’ Francis, in 2018 and 2014, respectively.)
But it gets better still… that is, worse. Specifically with regard to giving the Novus Ordo sacraments to the so-called Eastern Orthodox, John Paul’s Directory of ecumenical principles enjoins upon Novus Ordo clergy the duty to avoid any suggestion of seeking the recipient’s conversion to Catholicism:
125. Catholic ministers may lawfully administer the sacraments of penance, Eucharist and the anointing of the sick to members of the Eastern Churches, who ask for these sacraments of their own free will and are properly disposed.
In these particular cases also, due consideration should be given to the discipline of the Eastern Churches for their own faithful and any suggestion of proselytism should be avoided.
(Antipope John Paul II, Directory on Ecumenism, n. 125; underlining added.)
Yes, ‘proselytism’ rears its ugly head again! One can see that Francis’ condemnation of “sins against ecumenism” is firmly rooted tradition, after all — in the tradition of Vatican II, that is, and of his equally-fake ‘papal’ predecessors!
In a footnote that is supposed to provide cover for the sake of plausible deniability, the Directory indicates that it understands “proselytism” to mean that which was described by Vatican II’s abominable declaration Dignitatis Humanae as follows: “In spreading religious belief and in introducing religious practices everybody must at all times avoid any action which seems to suggest coercion or dishonest or unworthy persuasion especially when dealing with the uneducated or the poor” (n. 4; cf. Directory on Ecumenism, fn. 41).
We have blogged about the Vatican’s dishonest definition and use of the term “proselytism” elsewhere. For our purposes here, what matters is that the caveat that “any suggestion of proselytism should be avoided” is another definitive proof that any attempt to interpret the Novus Ordo permission for non-Catholics to receive the sacraments in such a way that it would require their conversion to Catholicism beforehand, is illegitimate. Because if that were the case, then proselytism wouldn’t be an issue, not even in theory, for we would then be talking about giving the sacraments to new converts, not to non-Catholics who must not be ‘proselytized’.
In short, John Paul’s Directory on ecumenical norms tells Novus Ordo clergy: Do not even think about making the administration of Novus Ordo sacraments to the Eastern Orthodox dependent on their prior conversion to Catholicism! That would be ‘coercive’, ‘dishonest’, or ‘unworthy’!
Of course, the real Code of Canon Law of the Catholic Church, the one promulgated by Pope Benedict XV in 1917, legislates that Catholic sacraments can only be given to, well, Catholics:
Canon 731
§2. It is forbidden that the Sacraments of the Church be ministered to heretics and schismatics, even if they ask for them and are in good faith, unless beforehand, rejecting their errors, they are reconciled with the Church.
(Pope Benedict XV, Code of Canon Law [1917], Canon 731 §2; underlining added.)
This is the Roman Catholic law. How sensible, and how different from the counterfeit canon law!
Frère Roger Schutz with ‘Pope’ John Paul II in St. Peter’s Basilica on Dec. 30, 1980 (image: © KNA-Bild)
Clearly, the Novus Ordo law of John Paul II is immoral, sacrilegious, harmful. It is antichrist. It is an abomination. And yet, it is the official ecclesiastical law of the Vatican II Church, anticipated by the council that was approved by Paul VI, and instituted and applied by John Paul II. And it is still on the books today.
What Francis did in 2016 with the opening the sacraments to unrepentant public adulterers, who are, however, ‘Catholics’ officially, is actually less evil than what John Paul II did in 1983. This was pointed out at the time by Bp. Donald Sanborn in Francis Watch. The reason is that, although giving the sacraments to Catholics who are notoriously persisting in mortal sin, is a grave evil and a sacrilege, it is even worse to give the sacraments to those who publicly deny the Faith altogether and are therefore not even members of the Catholic Church.
Our Blessed Lord warned: “Give not that which is holy to dogs: neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest perhaps they trample them under their feet, and turning upon you, tear you” (Mt 7:6). No, we are not saying that non-Catholics are animals — we are only pointing out what Our Lord meant to convey using this metaphor, which is explained in a popular traditional Catholic Scripture commentary as follows:
Give not that which is holy, or holy things, (as in the Greek) to dogs; i.e. to scandalous libertines, or infidels, who are not worthy to partake of divine mysteries and sacraments, who sacrilegiously abuse them, and trample them under their feet, as hogs do pearls. (Witham) — The sacred mysteries should not be given to those that are not properly instructed in the sublime nature of them; nor should we hold any communication of religion with those that are enemies to the truths of Christ, which they tread under their feet and treat contemptuously, and will be so far from having any more friendship for you on account of such a criminal complaisance, that it is more probable they will betray you and turn against you.
(Haydock Bible Commentary on Matthew 7:6; underlining added.)
While it can be permissible to give absolution and Extreme Unction conditionally to some dying non-Catholics under certain circumstances (but never Holy Communion, which by its nature can only be administered absolutely or not at all), this is never permissible in any other scenario:
In the case of those [non-Catholics] who are in good health, the prohibition [to receive the sacraments] is absolute; no dispute on this point is possible in view of the repeated explicit declarations of the Holy Office [e.g. decree of Aug. 28, 1669].
(Rev. Stanislaus Woywod, A Practical Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, rev. by Rev. Callistus Smith, Vol. I [New York, NY: Joseph F. Wagner, 1952], n. 625)
In his dissertation Communication of Non-Catholics in Catholic Religious Rites, Fr. John Prah confirms this as well: “…there is no doubt this prohibition is absolute in the case of those non-Catholics who are not in the danger of death” (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press [1956], p. 64).
When it comes to danger of death, things are a bit different. The danger of death need not concern us much here, since the Novus Ordo law does not apply merely in danger of death but explicitly also in other situations. Nevertheless, we wish to mention this for the sake of giving you a more comprehensive understanding of the matter:
Moral theology is more fundamental than Canon Law. In the last moments of a dying person, particular circumstances and the state of the individual conscience are of such a nature that a general absolutely binding disciplinary law cannot be laid down. The Church can lay down general laws and statutes as guiding principles, but as Pope Leo XIII pointed out: “The Church does not judge about the mind and intention in so far as it is something by its nature internal; but in so far as it is manifested externally she is bound to judge concerning it.”
The Code [of Canon Law] itself fully recognizes this fact, and consequently has left the determination of the probability under which in the last resort conditional baptism, and entirely in the case of conditional absolution when there is a question of dying Protestants, to the priest as directed by Moral Theology. God alone can see and fully interpret such a conscience, and the priest must strive to carry out His will in the matter, guided rather by canon law as interpreted by moral theology, and not moral theology chained down by a rigorous and narrowed, strict canonical interpretation. In acting thus, he may feel perfectly safe in conscience, as the canon [731] left full room for moral theology, which goes deeper into the recesses of the individual conscience.
(Rev. James King, “What Can a Priest Do for a Dying Protestant?”, The Ecclesiastical Review LXVII [Nov. 1922], pp. 452-453)
In all cases, however, any such administration of the sacraments (i.e. Baptism, Penance [absolution] and Extreme Unction only) may only be administered conditionally, meaning that the priest puts as a condition of the valid administration of the sacrament that the penitent in question be sufficiently disposed to receive it validly and licitly in the eyes of God. Thus it is the all-knowing God Himself who ultimately judges whether the dying penitent does in fact receive a valid sacrament or not.
This beautifully demonstrates the maternal solicitude the Catholic Church has for the salvation of souls, how she goes out of her way to bend over backwards to bring souls into the true fold as they are about to appear before their Judge — without, however, sacrificing the least bit of the divine law or doctrine entrusted to her care.
In contrast to this, the Vatican II Church sells out the divine law for the sake of ecumenism, thus proving once more that it is not the Church established by Jesus Christ, for the Catholic Church’s universal ecclesiastical law is infallibly guaranteed to be free from all blemish.
…as if the Church which is ruled by the Spirit of God could have established discipline which is not only useless and burdensome for Christian liberty to endure, but which is even dangerous and harmful and leading to superstition and materialism, — [this is] false, rash, scandalous, dangerous, offensive to pious ears, injurious to the Church and to the Spirit of God by whom it is guided, at least erroneous.
(Pope Pius VI, Apostolic Constitution Auctorem Fidei, n. 78; Denz. 1578)
Furthermore, the discipline sanctioned by the Church must never be rejected or branded as contrary to certain principles of the natural law. It must never be called crippled, or imperfect or subject to civil authority. In this discipline the administration of sacred rites, standards of morality, and the reckoning of the Church and her ministers are embraced.
(Pope Gregory XVI, Encyclical Mirari Vos, n. 9)
Certainly the loving Mother is spotless in the Sacraments, by which she gives birth to and nourishes her children; in the faith which she has always preserved inviolate; in her sacred laws imposed on all; in the evangelical counsels which she recommends; in those heavenly gifts and extraordinary graces through which, with inexhaustible fecundity she generates hosts of martyrs, virgins and confessors.
(Pope Pius XII, Encyclical Mystici Corporis, n. 66)
The French theologian Fr. Jean Herrmann (1849-1927), whose work was reportedly praised by Pope St. Pius X, explained very beautifully:
The Church is infallible in [her] general discipline. — By the term general discipline, we understand the laws and institutions that pertain to the external governance of the entire Church; such as those that refer either to external worship, like liturgy and rubrics; or to the administration of the Sacraments, like communion under one kind….
The Church is said to be infallible in discipline not in the sense that disciplinary laws are immutable: for when circumstances change, it is often appropriate for disciplinary laws to be abrogated or changed; nor in the sense that disciplinary laws are always the best and most useful for everyone: for this pertains to the prudence of the Church, which we are not discussing here. But the Church is said to be infallible in general discipline in this sense, that nothing can be found in disciplinary laws that is contrary to faith or good morals, or that could tend to the detriment of the Church or harm the faithful.
The infallibility of the Church in discipline follows from its mission: The mission of the Church is to preserve the entire faith and to lead people to salvation by teaching them to observe whatever Christ commanded. But if it could prescribe, command, or tolerate anything in discipline that is contrary to faith or morals, or that would tend to the detriment of the Church or the harm of the people, the Church could deviate from its divine mission; which is repugnant [inadmissible].
The same is suggested by the Council of Trent, session XXII, canon 7: “If anyone says that the ceremonies, vestments, and external signs which the Catholic Church uses in the celebration of Masses are incentives to impiety rather than offices of piety, let him be anathema.” And Pius VI, in the Constitution Auctorem fidei, condemned proposition 78 of Pistoia: “as if the Church, which is governed by the Spirit of God, could establish discipline that is not only useless and more burdensome than Christian liberty can endure, but also dangerous, harmful, leading to superstition and materialism,” as false, rash, scandalous, pernicious, offensive to pious ears, etc.
Note: Since the Church is infallible in general discipline, the universal practice and liturgical prayer of the Church serve greatly to show its faith, hence the common adage: The law of prayer establishes the law of belief [lex orandi, lex credendi]; thus, for example, the adoration given to the Most Holy Eucharist manifests the real presence of Christ; prayers for the deceased prove the existence of purgatory.
(R.P. Jean Herrmann, Institutiones Theologiae Dogmaticae, Vol. 1 [Rome: Philip Cuggiani, 1897], n. 258, pp. 290-291; bold and italics given. Translated by ChatGPT.)
What does this mean for the Novus Ordo Church? It means that its claim to being the Catholic Church of Our Lord Jesus Christ is definitively disproven.
Br. Roger Schutz with ‘Pope’ John Paul I in 1978 (image: © KNA-Bild)
So, let’s recap:
- With his approval of the 1983 Code of Canon Law, the supposed pope John Paul II allowed public heretics and schismatics to receive some of the sacraments under certain conditions as a matter of official church law
- This law is the practical application of Vatican II’s new and false ecclesiology, in which the mere baptismal character creates a bond of ecclesiastical communion with all the baptized, regardless of what religion they profess
- This evil law goes for both the Latin and Eastern churches of the Vatican II Sect, since the Code of Canons for the Eastern Churches also includes this very same legislation
- This law was subsequently confirmed by John Paul II: (a) in the 1993 Directory for the Application of Principles and Norms on Ecumenism; (b) in the 1995 encyclical letter Ut Unum Sint; and (c) in the 2003 encyclical Ecclesia De Eucharistia
- John Paul II specifically forbade any ‘proselytism’ in connection with this law, at least in regard to the Eastern Orthodox
- To this day it remains the official law of the Counterfeit Church
Of course there will still be objections raised by those who agree that Canon 844 contains an evil law but who nevertheless maintain that John Paul II was a true Pope.
The most common protest we hear is, “This isn’t binding!” But that is simply not true. If John Paul II was Pope, then this law is binding, that is, it has validity before the Church, and God Himself has ratified it, since “whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven” (Mt 16:19). Therefore, if this law came from a true Pope, then it binds every Catholic conscience. Then one must, at the very least, affirm that what Canon 844 §3 and §4 says is good and holy and conducive to the salvation of souls, or at least not detrimental to it.
When John Paul II promulgated the new Code of Canon Law on Jan. 25, 1983, he used the following solemn language:
Trusting therefore in the help of divine grace, sustained by the authority of the holy Apostles Peter and Paul, with certain knowledge, and in response to the wishes of the bishops of the whole world who have collaborated with me in a collegial spirit; with the supreme authority with which I am vested, by means of this Constitution, to be valid forever in the future, I promulgate the present Code as it has been set in order and revised. I command that for the future it is to have the force of law for the whole Latin Church, and I entrust it to the watchful care of all those concerned, in order that it may be observed.
(Antipope John Paul II, Apostolic Constitution Sacrae Disciplinae Leges; underlining added.)
In 1990, he did the same for the Eastern Novus Ordo churches:
Therefore, having invoked the help of divine grace, supported by the authority of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, with certain knowledge and in agreement with the desires of the Patriarchs, Archbishops, and Bishops of the Eastern Churches who have collaborated with us in collegial affection, we, using the fullness of the Apostolic power with which we are endowed, promulgate this present Code, as it has been arranged and revised, through this Our Constitution, which shall be valid in the future. We decree and command that it shall have the force of law henceforth for all Eastern Catholic Churches and we hand it over to the Hierarchs of these same Churches to be preserved with care and vigilance
(Antipope John Paul II, Apostolic Constitution Sacri Canones; underlining added. Translated by ChatGPT.)
Words have meaning.
All of the foregoing proves conclusively that John Paul II was not the Pope of the Catholic Church and that the entity from which this sacrilegious law emanates is not the Roman Catholic Church — because it cannot be.
Of course this itself now raises all sorts of perplexing questions. The most pressing one of them is probably, “Now what?”
We have put together a page with some important answers and pointers here.
;
No Comments
Be the first to start a conversation