Denzinger Timeline of the Controversy over Communion for
the Divorced and Civilly “Remarried” in Adultery
in Church History and the Pontificate of Pope Francis
in Church History and the Pontificate of Pope Francis
Last Updated: December 28, 2016
The Creation of Man in the Book of Genesis
So God created mankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them. God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it…
Lord God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper as his partner.”... So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then he took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. And the rib that the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man. Then the man said, “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; this one shall be called Woman, for out of Man this one was taken.” Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and clings to his wife, and they become one flesh. (Genesis 1:27-28; 2:18; 21-24)
c. 1440 BC – God gives Moses the 10 Commandments, including the sixth commandment:
The Lord spoke to Moses, saying: Say further to the people of Israel: …. If a man commits adultery with the wife of his neighbor, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall be put to death.” (Leviticus 20:1; 10)
c. 1250 BC - Moses tolerates divorce in some cases:
Suppose a man enters into marriage with a woman, but she does not please him because he finds something objectionable about her, and so he writes her a certificate of divorce, puts it in her hand, and sends her out of his house; she then leaves his house and goes off to become another man’s wife. Then suppose the second man dislikes her, writes her a bill of divorce, puts it in her hand, and sends her out of his house (or the second man who married her dies); her first husband, who sent her away, is not permitted to take her again to be his wife after she has been defiled; for that would be abhorrent to the Lord, and you shall not bring guilt on the land that the Lord your God is giving you as a possession. (Deuteronomy 24:1-4)
c. 939 BC - King David’s Psalm 140:
c. 430 BC - Prophet Malachi writes against divorce:
And this you do as well: You cover the Lord’s altar with tears, with weeping and groaning because he no longer regards the offering or accepts it with favor at your hand. You ask, “Why does he not?” Because the Lord was a witness between you and the wife of your youth, to whom you have been faithless, though she is your companion and your wife by covenant. Did not one God make her? Both flesh and spirit are his. And what does the one God desire? Godly offspring. So look to yourselves, and do not let anyone be faithless to the wife of his youth. For I hate divorce, says the Lord, the God of Israel, and covering one’s garment with violence, says the Lord of hosts. So take heed to yourselves and do not be faithless. (Malachi 2:13-16)
c. 31 AD - Jesus Christ speaks with the woman at the well:
Jesus said to her, “Go, call your husband, and come back.” The woman answered him, “I have no husband.” Jesus said to her, “You are right in saying, ‘I have no husband’; for you have had five husbands, and the one you have now is not your husband. What you have said is true!” The woman said to him, “Sir, I see that you are a prophet. (John 4:16-19)
Jesus said to her, “Go, call your husband, and come back.” The woman answered him, “I have no husband.” Jesus said to her, “You are right in saying, ‘I have no husband’; for you have had five husbands, and the one you have now is not your husband. What you have said is true!” The woman said to him, “Sir, I see that you are a prophet. (John 4:16-19)
c. 32 AD - St. John the Baptist beheaded:
For Herod had arrested John, bound him, and put him in prison on account of Herodias, his brother Philip’s wife, because John had been telling him, “It is not lawful for you to have her.” Though Herod wanted to put him to death, he feared the crowd, because they regarded him as a prophet. But when Herod’s birthday came, the daughter of Herodias danced before the company, and she pleased Herod so much that he promised on oath to grant her whatever she might ask. Prompted by her mother, she said, “Give me the head of John the Baptist here on a platter.” The king was grieved, yet out of regard for his oaths and for the guests, he commanded it to be given; he sent and had John beheaded in the prison. The head was brought on a platter and given to the girl, who brought it to her mother. His disciples came and took the body and buried it; then they went and told Jesus. (Matthew 14:3-12)
c. 33 AD - Adulteress brought before Jesus:
The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery; and making her stand before all of them, they said to him, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the very act of committing adultery. Now in the law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” They said this to test him, so that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let anyone among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” And once again he bent down and wrote on the ground. When they heard it, they went away, one by one, beginning with the elders; and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him. Jesus straightened up and said to her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” She said, “No one, sir.” And Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you. Go your way, and from now on do not sin again.” (John 8:3-11)
c. 32 AD - Jesus Christ answers the Pharisees regarding divorce:
Some Pharisees came, and to test him they asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?” He answered them, “What did Moses command you?” They said, “Moses allowed a man to write a certificate of dismissal and to divorce her.” But Jesus said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart he wrote this commandment for you. But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’ ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.” Then in the house the disciples asked him again about this matter. He said to them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.” (Mk 10:2-12)
And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause?” He answered, “Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one’? So they are no longer two but one. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder.” They said to him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?” He said to them, “For your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity,[c] and marries another, commits adultery; and he who marries a divorced woman, commits adultery.” (Matthew 19:3-9)
Every one who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery. (Luke 16:18)
c. 56 AD - St. Paul’s Letter to the Romans:
Thus a married woman is bound by the law to her husband as long as he lives; but if her husband dies, she is discharged from the law concerning the husband. Accordingly, she will be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive. But if her husband dies, she is free from that law, and if she marries another man, she is not an adulteress. (Romans 7:2-3)
Thus a married woman is bound by the law to her husband as long as he lives; but if her husband dies, she is discharged from the law concerning the husband. Accordingly, she will be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive. But if her husband dies, she is free from that law, and if she marries another man, she is not an adulteress. (Romans 7:2-3)
c. 57 AD – St. Paul’s First Letter to the Corinthians:
I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral persons— not at all meaning the immoral of this world, or the greedy and robbers, or idolaters, since you would then need to go out of the world. But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother or sister who is sexually immoral or greedy, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or robber. Do not even eat with such a one. For what have I to do with judging those outside? Is it not those who are inside that you are to judge? God will judge those outside. “Drive out the wicked person from among you.” (1 Corinthians 5:9-13)
Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers—none of these will inherit the kingdom of God. (1 Corinthians 6:9-10)
To the married I give this command—not I but the Lord—that the wife should not separate from her husband (but if she does separate, let her remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband), and that the husband should not divorce his wife. (1 Corinthians 7:10-11)
A wife is bound as long as her husband lives. But if the husband dies, she is free to marry anyone she wishes, only in the Lord. (1 Corinthians 7:39)
No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your strength, but with the temptation will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it. (1 Corinthians 10:13)
Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be answerable for the body and blood of the Lord. Examine yourselves, and only then eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For all who eat and drink without discerning the body, eat and drink judgment against themselves. (1 Corinthians 11:27-29)
c. 63 AD - St. Paul’s Letter to the Hebrews
For if we willfully persist in sin after having received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27 but a fearful prospect of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries. (Hebrews 10:26-27)
c. 150 AD - The First Apology of St. Justin Martyr:
Chapter 15. What Christ himself taught
Concerning chastity, He [Jesus] uttered such sentiments as these: “Whosoever looks upon a woman to lust after her, has committed adultery with her already in his heart before God.” And, “If your right eye offend you, cut it out; for it is better for you to enter into the kingdom of heaven with one eye, than, having two eyes, to be cast into everlasting fire.” And, “Whosoever shall marry her that is divorced from another husband, commits adultery.” And, “There are some who have been made eunuchs of men, and some who were born eunuchs, and some who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake; but all cannot receive this saying.” (Matthew 19:12) So that all who, by human law, are twice married, are in the eye of our Master sinners, and those who look upon a woman to lust after her. For not only he who in act commits adultery is rejected by Him, but also he who desires to commit adultery: since not only our works, but also our thoughts, are open before God.
Chapter 15. What Christ himself taught
Concerning chastity, He [Jesus] uttered such sentiments as these: “Whosoever looks upon a woman to lust after her, has committed adultery with her already in his heart before God.” And, “If your right eye offend you, cut it out; for it is better for you to enter into the kingdom of heaven with one eye, than, having two eyes, to be cast into everlasting fire.” And, “Whosoever shall marry her that is divorced from another husband, commits adultery.” And, “There are some who have been made eunuchs of men, and some who were born eunuchs, and some who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake; but all cannot receive this saying.” (Matthew 19:12) So that all who, by human law, are twice married, are in the eye of our Master sinners, and those who look upon a woman to lust after her. For not only he who in act commits adultery is rejected by Him, but also he who desires to commit adultery: since not only our works, but also our thoughts, are open before God.
c. 160 - The Pastor of Hermas:
...And I said to him, "Sir, if any one has a wife who trusts in the Lord, and if he detect her in adultery, does the man sin if he continue to live with her? "
And he said to me, "As long as he remains ignorant of her sin, the husband commits no transgression in living with her. But if the husband know that his wife has gone astray, and if the woman does not repent, but persists in her fornication, and yet the husband continues to live with her, he also is guilty of her crime, and a sharer in her adultery."
And I said to him, "What then, sir, is the husband to do, if his wife continue in her vicious practices?
And he said, "The husband should put her away, and remain by himself. But if he put his wife away and marry another, he also commits adultery."
And I said to him, "What if the woman put away should repent, and wish to return to her husband: shall she not be taken back by her husband? "
And he said to me, "Assuredly. If the husband do not take her back, he sins, and brings a great sin upon himself; for he ought to take back the sinner who has repented. But not frequently. For there is but one repentance to the servants of God. In case, therefore, that the divorced wife may repent, the husband ought not to marry another, when his wife has been put away. In this matter man and woman are to be treated exactly in the same way.”
http://www.tertullian.org/fathers2/ANF-02/anf02-14.htm
http://www.tertullian.org/fathers2/ANF-02/anf02-14.htm
c. 202 AD - St. Clement of Alexandria's Stromata:
Now that the Scripture counsels marriage, and allows no release from the union, is expressly contained in the law, “You shall not put away your wife, except for the cause of fornication”; and it regards as fornication, the marriage of those separated while the other is alive. … He that takes a woman that has been put away, it is said, commits adultery; and if one puts away his wife, he makes her an adulteress, that is, compels her to commit adultery. And not only is he who puts her away guilty of this, but he who takes her, by giving to the woman the opportunity of sinning; for did he not take her, she would return to her husband… She who has committed fornication lives in sin, and is dead to the commandments; but she who has repented, being as it were born again by the change in her life, has a regeneration of life; the old harlot being dead, and she who has been regenerated by repentance having come back again to life. (Book II, chapter 23)
c. 212 AD - Tertullian’s De Monagamia:
They [the pagan Romans] enter into adulterous unions even when they do not put away their wives, we [Christians] are not allowed to marry even when we put our wives away…
A divorced woman cannot even marry legitimately; and if she commit any such act without the name of marriage, does it not fall under the category of adultery, in that adultery is crime in the way of marriage? Such is God’s verdict, within straighter limits than men’s, that universally, whether through marriage or promiscuously, the admission of a second man (to intercourse) is pronounced adultery by Him.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0406.htm
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0406.htm
It is unreasonable, therefore, for you to argue that whereas God does not wish a divorced woman to marry a second time if her husband is living, He consents to it if her husband is dead, since if she is not bound to a husband who is dead, no more is she bound to one who is living. You ask: When either divorce or death severs the marriage bond, a wife is free from all obligations, since the bond, the reason for the obligation, is no longer present; to whom, then would she be under obligation? In the eyes of God there is no difference between a marriage contracted by her after divorce and one contracted after the death of her husband. In neither case does she sin against him, but against herself. Every sin that a man doth is without the body, but he that committeth adultery sinneth against his own body
c. 248 - St. Cyprian’s Testimonia Adversus Judaeos:
... a wife must not depart from her husband; or if she depart, she must remain unmarried….
c. 305 - Council of Elvira:
Canon 8: Also women who, without cause, leave their husbands and marry again, are not to be received into communion even at the last.
Canon 9: Also a baptized woman who leaves a baptized husband on the ground of his adultery and marries again, is to be prohibited from marrying; if she marry, she is not to be received into communion until the husband whom she has left be departed out of this life, unless perchance extremity of sickness demand it be given her.
c. 314 AD - Council of Arles:
We decree that, in so far as it is possible, a man who has dismissed his wife be forbidden as something unlawful to marry another woman while his first wife is still alive. But whoever should do this shall be cut off from Catholic communion.
c. 380 AD - Ambrose’s Commentary on the Gospel according to St. Luke:
...You put away your wife as though you had a right to do so, and were open to no guilt. You think that you are free to do this because human law does not forbid it, but the divine law forbids it. You obey human rulers, but stand in fear of God. Heed the law of God to whom those who make the laws themselves owe obedience: "What God has joined together, let no man put asunder." But here not only is the divine command broken, but God's handiwork is wrecked.... Suppose the wife whom you have put away does not marry. This would irk you as a man, since she would be remaining faithful to you an adulterer. Suppose she marries. It is you who would be guilty of the crime of her necessity; and what you consider to be a marriage, is really adultery. It makes no difference whether you commit that crime openly confessing it, or you do it as an adulterer disguised under the appearance of a husband…. he who puts away his wife, cuts his own flesh in two, he divides his own body.
c. 395 - St. Jerome’s Letter to Amandus:
As long as her husband lives, though he be an adulterer, though he be guilty of sodomy, though he have committed all kinds of vices and because of these crimes he be abandoned by his wife, he is still considered her husband and she is forbidden to take another husband. Nor does the Apostle say this of his own authority, but he follows the words of Christ who said in the Gospel: He who dismisses his wife except for adultery, makes her commit adultery. And he who takes a woman dismissed, is an adulterer; whether she has put away her husband or been put away by him, he is an adulterer who takes her.
c. 395 - St. John Chrysostom’s Homily 63 on the Gospel according to St. John:
Indeed, just as when a woman who is married to one man has intercourse with another she commits adultery in consequence, so if a man who is married to one woman takes another wife, he has committed adultery. Therefore, such a man will not be an heir to the kingdom, but will fall into hell. . . . If it is not permitted for a man who has divorced his own wife and separated from her to have relations with another woman—for this is adultery—how great a wrong does the man commit who brings in another woman while his wife is still living with him? . . . For Scripture says: . . . "If anyone puts away his wife, save on account of immorality, he causes her to commit adultery." .. . Do you not know that those who, after the death of their wife, marry another, are censured by many for this, even though the procedure does not merit punishment? Yet you take another wife while yours is still living. What lust does this not betoken? Learn what is said of such men as these. "Their worm dieth not," Scripture says, "and the fire is not quenched."
c. 397 - St. John Chrysostom’s Homily on the Book of the Prophet Isaiah:
I too raise my voice, I beseech, beg and implore that no one draw near to this sacred table with a sullied and corrupt conscience. Such an act, in fact, can never be called "communion," not even were we to touch the Lord's body a thousand times over, but "condemnation," "torment" and "increase of punishment".
c. 400 AD - Constitutions of the Holy Apostles:
Canon 48. If any layman put away his wife and marry another, or one who has been divorced by another man, let him be excommunicated.
404 AD - Pope Innocent I’s Letter to St. Vitricius, Bishop of Rouen:
For if this rule is universally observed, that whosoever during the lifetime of her husband shall have married another is accounted an adulteress, and permission to do penance is not accorded to her, unless one or other of them (the husbands) be dead : how much more ought it to be observed of her, who had in former time united herself to an Immortal Spouse, and has since passed over to human nuptials."
405 AD - Pope Innocent I’s Letter to Exsuperius, Bishop of Toulouse:
You wish to know why men who are communicants do not remain with their adulterous wives, while wives, on the other hand, seem to retain cohabitation with their adulterous husbands. On this matter the Christian religion condemns adultery equally in both sexes. It is difficult for wives to accuse their husbands of adultery and they have no recourse against hidden sins. Men, however, are accustomed to bring charges against their wives with greater frequency and because of this, communion is denied to the wives once their crime is exposed. But since the commission of the crime by the husbands is hidden, it would not be expedient to keep them away from communion on mere suspicion. I grant that if their crime were detected, they would certainly be punished. Though the causes be the same, while proof is lacking, the penalty for the crime cannot be carried out….
You have inquired also about those who, after obtaining a divorce, have married again. It is clearly evident that both parties are adulterers. Those men who, while the wife is still living, hasten to another union, though their marriage seem to have been dissolved, evidently cannot be other than adulterers. This is so true that those women to whom the men in question have united themselves have also committed adultery according to that which we read in the gospels: "Whosoever shall put away his wife and shall marry another, commits adultery and likewise he that marries her when she is put away, commits adultery." All such persons, therefore, are to be kept out of the communion of the faithful.
407 AD - 11th Council of Carthage:
Ses. 9, Canon 8. (listed as canon 102 of Code of Canons of the African Church)
We decree that, according to evangelical and apostolical discipline, neither the husband dismissed by his wife nor the wife dismissed by her husband may marry another, but each must either remain single or be reconciled to the other. If they disobey this law, then they must do penance. Application must be made for the promulgation of an imperial law on this matter.
453 AD - Council of Angers:
Canon 6. They also who under the name of marriage abuse other men's wives while the husbands are still living are to be considered excluded from communion.
456 AD - First Synod of St. Patrick:
Canon 19. A Christian woman, having accepted a man in honorable marriage and afterwards departed from her first husband and joined herself in adultery, for having done so must be excommunicated.
458 AD - Pope St. Leo the Great’s Letter to Nicetas, Bishop of Aquileia:
Since we know that it is written that "a woman is joined to her husband by God," and since we also acknowledge the command that "What God has joined together let no man put asunder," it is necessary to hold that the bonds of legitimate marriage be re-integrated, and that, having removed the evils caused by the hostilities, to each be restored what he legitimately had and for each it be effectively carried out that he receive what is his own . . .
Therefore, if the men who have returned after a long captivity still retain the love for their wives and desire their wives to return to them in cohabitation, then that union which necessity caused must be terminated and judged inculpable, and restored must be the one which fidelity demands. But if some of the wives have been so captivated by the love of their second husbands that they prefer to remain with the latter rather than to go back to the legitimate union, then they are justly to be condemned, even to the point that they be excommunicated. They have chosen to contaminate with a crime a matter held excusable, thereby manifesting their predilection.
465 AD - Council of Vannes:
Canon 2. Those also who have abandoned their wives, except for the cause of fornication, as the Gospel says, without proof of adultery, and have married others, we decree are to be excommunicated, lest the sins overlooked through our indulgence entice others to the license of error.
533 AD - Second Council of Orleans:
Contracted marriages are not to be dissolved because of a subsequent infirmity, notwithstanding any will to the contrary. If anyone shall do this, let them know that they are deprived of communion.
602 AD - Pope St. Gregory the Great’s Letter to Theoktist:
For if they say that marriage can be dissolved on the grounds of religion, let it be known that while the human law has conceded this, the divine law forbids it. For Truth says: "What God has joined together, let man not separate." It also said: "It is not lawful to dismiss a wife except for fornication." Who then is to contradict this heavenly legislator? We know that is written: "They will be two in one flesh." If, therefore, the husband and wife are one flesh, and on the grounds of religion a man dismisses his wife, or a wife dismisses her husband while he remains in the world or even goes over to matters immoral, of what value is that conversion in which part of one and the same flesh passes on to a life of chastity while the other part remains in a life of pollution.
658 - Council of Nantes:
Canon 12. If a man's wife shall have committed adultery and this has been discovered and made public by the man, let him dismiss his wife, if he wants to, because of the fornication. The wife, however, is to do public penance for seven years. But the husband cannot in any way marry another while his wife is alive. But he has permission to be reconciled with his adulterous wife if he so chooses. In this case, however, he must do penance with her and after penance has been completed, after seven years both may go to communion. The same procedure is to be followed by the wife if her husband committed adultery against her.
681 AD - 12th Council of Toledo:
It is the command of the Lord that a wife must not be dismissed by her husband except for the cause of fornication. Therefore whoever goes beyond the guilt of the crime mentioned above and leaves his wife for any reason whatsoever . . . is to be deprived of ecclesiastical communion and excluded from the community of Christians until such time that he returns to the society of his abandoned wife.
747 AD - Pope Zachary’s Letter to Pepin, the Mayor of the Palace, the Bishops, Abbots,
and other notables of the Franks:
and other notables of the Franks:
Canon 7. Concerning a layman ejecting his wife, taken from the canon of the holy apostles, chapter 48: If any layman ejecting his own wife, marry another woman or one dismissed by another husband, he is to be deprived of communion.
Canon 12. Concerning those who dismiss their wives or husbands that they remain single, taken from the above-mentioned African Council, in chapter 69: We decree that, according to the evangelical and apostolic discipline, neither the husband dismissed by his wife, nor the wife dismissed by her husband, may marry another; but they are to remain single or be reconciled to each other. If they disobey this law, they are to do penance.
791 - Council of Friuli:
Canon 10. Likewise it is decreed that, even though the bond of marriage be dissolved because of fornication, it is not permitted to the husband to take another wife as long as his adulterous wife still lives, despite the fact that she is an adulteress. But the adulteress, who must undergo the severest penalties and the pain of penance, cannot take another husband, whether her husband, whom she was not ashamed of betraying, be living or dead.. . . Hence it is clearly understood that as long as the adulterous wife lives, the husband cannot lawfully or without impunity contract a second marriage.
863 - Pope St. Nicholas I’s Letter to the Bishops of the Synod At Metz, refusing to grant annulment or divorce to the King Lothaire II of Lorraine from his legitimate wife, Teutberga:
Blessed Gregory, writing to Theoktist the Patrician, among other things said: 'For if they say that for the cause of religion marriages ought to be dissolved, let it be known that, although this is granted by human law the divine law forbids it.'
864 - Pope St. Nicholas I’ Response to Lothaire’s petition for annulment as he lives in an invalid union:
Similarly Lotharius precludes himself altogether from communion, thus likewise to this extent, if Lotharius, likewise neglecting our warnings, should choose to remain in a union with Waldrada, or if he should presume, against our decree, to receive communion or to have favor towards anyone of resisting, of those damnable ones who spoke before me [on the matter of the annulment].
February 864 - Holy Roman Emperor Louis II invades Rome to force the pope to grant his brother Lothaire’s annulment. Yet despite this threat on his life, Nicholas refused to recant his position and give in to the demands of Louis and Lothair. Pope St. Nicholas I holds firm, and the invasion is called off.
867 - Pope St. Nicholas I’s Letter ordering Lothaire to return to his lawful wife:
Since we may ascertain better what is just, and likewise we may better understand what is equitable, that even were Teutberga dead, you may by no power be able to or be permitted to take Waldrada as your wife. Whether, therefore, Waldrada was your legitimate spouse at some point, the Church of God needs no proof. Moreover, we prohibit you [and Teutberga] to become mutually separated : since we read in the scripture: “The two will be one flesh.” Therefore, O most glorious king, be content with your proper wife, and besides, lest you ever seek the company of that one, or another.
869 - Pope Adrian II and Lothaire meet at Monte Casino. Hadrian is reported to have given Lothaire communion with an admonition of compliance with the orders of Nicholas:
Receive this communion if thou art innocent of the adultery condemned by Nicholas. If, on the contrary, thy conscience accuse thee of guilt, or if thou art minded to fall back into sin, refrain; otherwise by this Sacrament thou shalt be judged and condemned.
877 - Pope John VIII’s Letter to Ethelred, Archbishop of Canterbury:
To those men who, as you say, abandon their wives contrary to the precept of the Lord, we command that a husband shall not leave his wife or a wife leave her husband except for fornication. If either one has left for this reason, each shall remain single or be reconciled to each other, for the Lord says: "What God has joined together, let not man put asunder."
Therefore, as a husband cannot abandon his first wife with whom he was united in legitimate marriage, so also he is not permitted for any reason whatsoever to take another wife while his first wife is still living. If he should do this and does not amend his ways, then he is to be excluded from the community of the Church.
1061 - Council of Tours:
Canon 9. That any man who dismisses his wife without the judgment of the bishop and has married another or will marry another, let him realize that, until he has given himself over to penance effectively, he is to be excluded and withdrawn from the body and blood of Our Lord Jesus and from the precincts of the Church and to be regarded by all as a putrid member cut off from the sound body by the sword of the spirit.
1139 – Second Lateran Council:
22. …there is one thing that conspicuously causes great disturbance to holy church, namely, false penance, we warn our brothers in the episcopate and priests not to allow the souls of the laity to be deceived or dragged off to hell by false penances. It is agreed that a penance is false when many sins are disregarded and a penance is performed for one only, or when it is done for one sin in such a way that the penitent does not renounce another. Thus it is written: Whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point, has become guilty of all of it; this evidently pertains to eternal life.
June 28, 1529 - Bishop of Rochester, St. John Fisher’s speech as summarized by Campeggio's secretary, promulgates book against Henry VIII contracting a second marriage:
Therefore, both in order not to procure the damnation of [my] soul, and in order not to be unfaithful to the king, or to fail in doing the duty that [I] owe to the truth, in a matter of such great importance, [I] present [myself] before [your] reverend lordships to declare, to affirm, and with forcible reasons to demonstrate to [you] that this marriage of the king and queen can be dissolved by no power, human or Divine, and for this opinion [I] would even lay down [my] life. The Baptist in olden times regarded it as impossible for [one] to die more gloriously than in the cause of marriage; and as it was not so holy at that time as it has now become by the shedding of Christ's Blood, [I] could encourage [myself] more ardently, more effectually, and with greater confidence to dare any great or extreme peril whatever.
https://books.google.com/books?id=0Uyu0qi1vs8C&pg=PA2539&lpg=PA2539&dq=#v=onepage&q&f=false
Therefore, both in order not to procure the damnation of [my] soul, and in order not to be unfaithful to the king, or to fail in doing the duty that [I] owe to the truth, in a matter of such great importance, [I] present [myself] before [your] reverend lordships to declare, to affirm, and with forcible reasons to demonstrate to [you] that this marriage of the king and queen can be dissolved by no power, human or Divine, and for this opinion [I] would even lay down [my] life. The Baptist in olden times regarded it as impossible for [one] to die more gloriously than in the cause of marriage; and as it was not so holy at that time as it has now become by the shedding of Christ's Blood, [I] could encourage [myself] more ardently, more effectually, and with greater confidence to dare any great or extreme peril whatever.
https://books.google.com/books?id=0Uyu0qi1vs8C&pg=PA2539&lpg=PA2539&dq=#v=onepage&q&f=false
January 5, 1531 - Pope Clement VII’s Bull refusing to grant annulment to King Henry VIII from Catherine of Aragon, forbidding him to remarry:
...Pope Clement VII... doth pronounce, define, and declare—in the cause and cause, between his dear daughter Katherine queen of England, appealing to the Apostolic See, and his beloved son Henry the Eighth, king of England,’ concerning the validity and invalidity of the matrimony heretofore contracted between them, and yet depending in the consistory court of the said Pope Clement—that the said matrimony always hath stood, and still doth stand, firm and canonical;’ and that the issue proceeding, or which shall proceed, of the same, standeth, and shall stand, lawful and legitimate; and that the aforesaid Henry king of England is and shall be bound and obstrict to the matrimonial society and cohabitation with the said lady Katherine his lawful wife and queen, to bold end maintain her with such love and princely honour, as becometh a loving husband, and his kingly honour, to do.
May 7, 1535 - St Thomas More’s trial prior to his execution for refusing to recognize King Henry VIII’s second ‘marriage’ and ecclesiastical supremacy:
St: Thomas More: “As to the first Crime objected against me, that I have been an Enemy out of stubbornness of Mind to the King's second Marriage; I confess, I always told his Majesty my Opinion of it, according to the Dictates of my Conscience, which I neither ever would, nor ought to have concealed: for which I am so far from thinking myself guilty of High-Treason, that on the contrary, being required to give my Opinion by so great a Prince in an Affair of so much importance, upon which the Peace of the Kingdom depended; I should have basely flatter'd him, and my own Conscience, had not I spoke the Truth as I thought: Then indeed I might justly have been esteemed a most wicked Subject, and a perfidious Traitor to God. If I have offended the King herein; if it can be an Offence to tell one's Mind freely, when his Sovereign puts the Question to him; I suppose I have been sufficiently punish'd already for the Fault, by the great Afflictions I have endured, by the loss of my Estate, and my tedious Imprisonment, which has continued already near fifteen Months…
...For as much as, my Lords, this Indictment is grounded upon an Act of Parliament, directly repugnant to the Laws of God and his Holy Church, the Supreme Government of which, or of any part thereof, no Temporal Person may by any Law presume to take upon him, being what right belongs to the See of Rome, which by special Prerogative was granted by the Mouth of our Savior Christ himself to St. Peter, and the Bishops of Rome his Successors only, whilst he lived, and was personally present here on Earth: it is therefore, amongst Catholic Christians, insufficient in Law, to charge any Christian to obey it…”
This was the Judgment against St. Thomas More: “That he should be carried back to the Tower of London, by the Help of William Kingston, Sheriff, and from thence drawn on a Hurdle through the City of London to Tyburn, there to be hanged till he should be half dead; that then he should be cut down alive, his Privy Parts cut off, his Belly ripped, his Bowels burnt, his four Quarters sit up over four Gates of the City: and his Head upon London-Bridge.” King Henry VIII later commuted the sentence to beheading.
Upon receiving his sentence Thomas More said: “I have by the grace of God been always a Catholic, never out of the communion of the Roman Pontiff, but I had heard it said at times that the authority of the Roman Pontiff was certainly lawful and to be respected, but still an authority derived from human law, and not standing on a Divine prescription. When when I observed that public affairs were so ordered that the sources of the power of the Roman Pontiff would necessarily be examined, I gave myself up to a most diligent examination of that question for the space of seven years, and found that the authority of the Roman Pontiff, which you rashly - I will not use stronger language - have set aside, is not only lawful, to be respected, and necessary, but also grounded on the Divine law and prescription. That is my opinion; that is the belief in which by the grace of God I shall die.”
June 17, 1535 - St. John Fisher’s speech at his trial for refusing to recognize King Henry VIII’s second ‘marriage’ and ecclesiastical supremacy:
My lords, I am here condemned before you of high treason for denial of the King's supremacy over the Church of England, but by what order of justice I leave to God, Who is the searcher both of the king his Majesty's conscience and yours; nevertheless, being found guilty, as it is termed, I am and must be contented with all that God shall send, to whose will I wholly refer and submit myself. And now to tell you plainly my mind, touching this matter of the king's supremacy, I think indeed, and always have thought, and do now lastly affirm, that His Grace cannot justly claim any such supremacy over the Church of God as he now taketh upon him; neither hath (it) been seen or heard of that any temporal prince before his days hath presumed to that dignity; wherefore, if the king will now adventure himself in proceeding in this strange and unwonted case, so no doubt but he shall deeply incur the grievous displeasure of the Almighty, to the great damage of his own soul, and of many others, and to the utter ruin of this realm committed to his charge, wherefore, I pray God his Grace may remember himself in good time, and harken to good counsel for the preservation of himself and his realm and the quietness of all Christendom.
June 22, 1535 - St. John Fisher beheaded:
As soon as he came in sight of the place where he was to be martyred, St. John Fisher threw his staff away, saying, "Now my feet must do their duty, for I have but a little way to go."
Christian people, I am come hither to die for the faith of Christ’s Holy Catholic Church, and I thank God hitherto my stomach hath served me very well thereunto, so that yet I have not feared death.
Wherefore I do desire you all to help and assist me with your prayers, that at the very point and instant of death’s stroke, I may in that very moment stand steadfast without fainting in any one point of the Catholic faith free from any fear; and I beseech Almighty God of His infinite goodness to save the king and this Realm, and that it may please Him to hold His holy hand over it, and send the king good Counsel.
He then knelt, said the Te Deum, In te domine speravi [You God, in you O Lord have I hoped], and submitted to the axe.
Wherefore I do desire you all to help and assist me with your prayers, that at the very point and instant of death’s stroke, I may in that very moment stand steadfast without fainting in any one point of the Catholic faith free from any fear; and I beseech Almighty God of His infinite goodness to save the king and this Realm, and that it may please Him to hold His holy hand over it, and send the king good Counsel.
He then knelt, said the Te Deum, In te domine speravi [You God, in you O Lord have I hoped], and submitted to the axe.
July 6, 1535 - St. Thomas More beheaded:
Upon learning of the beheading of St. John Fisher, St. Thomas More began to pray, saying, “I confess to Thee, O Lord, that I am not worthy of so great a crown, for I am not just and holy as is Thy servant the bishop of Rochester, whom Thou hast chosen for Thyself out of the whole kingdom, a man after Thine own heart; nevertheless, O Lord, if it be Thy will, give me a share in Thy chalice."
http://www.catholictradition.org/Saints/thomas-more.htm
http://www.catholictradition.org/Saints/thomas-more.htm
Prior to his beheading, Thomas told the crowd, "I die the King's good servant, and God's first."
December 17, 1538 - Pope Paul III finalizes the excommunication of King Henry VIII
November 11, 1563 – Council of Trent:
Sesion 6, Chapter 11: But no one, however much justified, should consider himself exempt from the observance of the commandments; no one should use that rash statement, once forbidden by the Fathers under anathema, that the observance of the commandments of God is impossible for one that is justified. For God does not command impossibilities, but by commanding admonishes thee to do what thou canst and to pray for what thou canst not, and aids thee that thou mayest be able. His commandments are not heavy, and his yoke is sweet and burden light. For they who are the sons of God love Christ, but they who love Him, keep His commandments, as He Himself testifies; which, indeed, with the divine help they can do.
Session 6, Canon 18. If anyone says that the commandments of God are, even for one that is justified and constituted in grace, impossible to observe, let him be anathema.
Session 13, Canon 11 If anyone says that faith alone is a sufficient preparation for receiving the sacrament of the most Holy Eucharist, let him be anathema. And lest so great a sacrament be received unworthily and hence unto death and condemnation, this holy council ordains and declares that sacramental confession, when a confessor can be had, must necessarily be made beforehand by those whose conscience is burdened with mortal sin, however contrite they may consider themselves. Moreover, if anyone shall presume to teach, preach or obstinately assert, or in public disputation defend the contrary, he shall be eo ipso excommunicated.
Session 24, Canon 2. If any one says, that it is lawful for Christians to have several wives at the same time, and that this is not prohibited by any divine law; let him be anathema.
Session 24, Canon 5. If anyone says that the bond of matrimony can be dissolved on account of heresy,[11] or irksome cohabitation, or by reason of the voluntary absence of one of the parties, let him be anathema.
Session 24, Canon 7. If anyone says that the Church errs in that she taught and teaches that in accordance with evangelical and apostolic doctrine the bond of matrimony cannot be dissolved by reason of adultery on the part of one of the parties, and that both, or even the innocent party who gave no occasion for adultery, cannot contract another marriage during the lifetime of the other, and that he is guilty of adultery who, having put away the adulteress, shall marry another, and she also who, having put away the adulterer, shall marry another,[13] let him be anathema. …
Session 24, Canon 12. If anyone says that matrimonial causes do not belong to ecclesiastical judges, let him be anathema.”
Affirming the validity, but not their licity of clandestine marriages, the Council of Trent condemns in Session 24, Chapter 1 “the sins of those who continue in the state of damnation, when having left the first wife with whom they contracted secretly, they publicly marry another and live with her in continual adultery.”
June 17, 1614 - Pope Paul V promulgates the Rituale Romanum:
All the faithful are to be admitted to Holy Communion, except those who are prohibited for a just reason. [namely] The publicly unworthy, which are the excommunicated, those under interdict, and the manifestly infamous, such as prostitutes, those cohabiting, usurers, sorcerers, fortune-tellers, blasphemers and other sinners of the public kind, are, however, to be prevented, unless their penitence and amendment has been established and they will have repaired the public scandal.
In the section, "On the Communion of the Sick," the Rituale instructs that “care is to be taken above all lest it be brought to the unworthy--whereby others could be scandalized--unless they first have confessed and have made the necessary reparation for scandal publicly given.” The following groups are listed as unworthy for receiving communion: “public usurers; the cohabiting; the notoriously criminal, namely, the excommunicated or the denounced, unless beforehand they will have purified themselves by holy Confession, and will have repaired, as according to the law, the public offense.”
March 4, 1679 – Pope Innocent XI’s Holy Office Condemns erroneous propositions of the ‘Laxists’ on Moral Subjects:
50. Intercourse with a married woman, with the consent of her husband, is not adultery, and so it is enough to say in confession that one had committed fornication.
62. The proximate occasion for sinning is not to be shunned when some useful and honorable cause for not shunning it occurs.
63. It is permitted to seek directly the proximate occasion for sinning for a spiritual or temporal good of our own or of a neighbor.
August 24, 1690 – Pope Alexander VIII’s Holy Office Condemns Erroneous Propositions Concerning the Goodness of an Act and Philosophic Sin:
2. Philosophic or moral sin is a human act not in conformity with rational nature and right reason; but theological and mortal sin is a free transgression of the divine law. A philosophic sin, however grave, in a man who either is ignorant of God or does not think about God during the act, is a grave sin, but is not an offense against God, neither a mortal sin dissolving the friendship of God, nor one worthy of eternal punishment.
* Declared and condemned as scandalous, rash, an offense to pious ears, and erroneous.
September 8, 1713 - Pope Clement XI’s Constitution Unigenitus, condemning the errors of Pasquier Quesnel, including:
71. For the preservation of himself man can dispense himself from that law which God established for his use.
95. Truths have descended to this, that they are, as it were, a foreign tongue to most Christians, and the manner of preaching them is, as it were, an unknown idiom, so remote is the manner of preaching from the simplicity of the apostles, and so much above the common grasp of the faithful; nor is there sufficient advertence to the fact that this defect is one of the greatest visible signs of the weakening of the Church and of the wrath of God on His sons.
October 16, 1756 – Pope Benedict XIV Encyclical Ex omnibus:
536. ..inasmuch as they are publicly and notoriously obstinate before the just mentioned Constitution, it is to be denied to them; assuredly from the general rule which forbids that a public and notorious sinner be admitted to participation of Eucharistic Communion, whether he publicly or privately requests it.
April 29, 1784 - thee Sacred Congregation of the Propagation of the Faith issues an instruction to the Apostolic Vicariate of Soochow:
....[Holy Communion may not be given to] “drunks, usurers, the impure, the sacrilegious, the disturbers of the peace, the inconstant in faith, hypocrites, those who hand over their daughters for marriage to the unbaptized, the scandalous, and others who are contaminated by the more serious shameful acts”... But, if pitiable and completely defiled men of this type have truly and soundly repented of their sins; if they will have carried out those remedies, given to them by confessors, for the conversion of life, the restitution of stolen goods and the repair of scandal, according to the above-given rules, and moreover will have shown the worthy fruits of penitence, by which they also hope for forgiveness from God, and nothing prohibits the request of the absolution of their crimes by the priest penitentiary, why would they not be admitted to Eucharistic Communion?
August 28, 1794 - Pope Pius VII’s Bull Auctorem Fidei, condemning the synod of Pistoia introducing ambiguous and dangerous pastoral novelties that contradict Church teaching:
For in fact, when a leader of God’s holy Church, under the name of Priest, turns the very people of Christ away from the path of truth toward the peril of an erroneous belief… then clearly the distress is multiplied, and a greater anxiety is in order... [Scipione de’ Ricci, bishop of Pistoia and Prato] embarked on confusing, destroying, and utterly overturning it by introducing troublesome novelties under the guise of a sham reform...
Truly, after the Synod of Pistoia emerged... the seeds of the vicious teachings they had scattered beforehand through numerous pamphlets; to revive errors not long since condemned; and to detract from the faith and authority of those apostolic decrees by which they stood condemned…
...[Prior popes, bishops, and general councils] knew the capacity of innovators in the art of deception. In order not to shock the ears of Catholics, the innovators sought to hide the subtleties of their tortuous maneuvers by the use of seemingly innocuous words such as would allow them to insinuate error into souls in the most gentle manner. Once the truth had been compromised, they could, by means of slight changes or additions in phraseology, distort the confession of the faith that is necessary for our salvation, and lead the faithful by subtle errors to their eternal damnation. This manner of dissimulating and lying is vicious, regardless of the circumstances under which it is used. For very good reasons it can never be tolerated in a synod of which the principal glory consists above all in teaching the truth with clarity and excluding all danger of error.
Moreover, if all this is sinful, it cannot be excused in the way that one sees it being done, under the erroneous pretext that the seemingly shocking affirmations in one place are further developed along orthodox lines in other places, and even in yet other places corrected; as if allowing for the possibility of either affirming or denying the statement, or of leaving it up the personal inclinations of the individual — such has always been the fraudulent and daring method used by innovators to establish error. It allows for both the possibility of promoting error and of excusing it.
It is as if the innovators pretended that they always intended to present the alternative passages, especially to those of simple faith who eventually come to know only some part of the conclusions of such discussions, which are published in the common language for everyone’s use. Or again, as if the same faithful had the ability on examining such documents to judge such matters for themselves without getting confused and avoiding all risk of error. It is a most reprehensible technique for the insinuation of doctrinal errors and one condemned long ago by our predecessor St. Celestine who found it used in the writings of Nestorius, bishop of Constantinople, and which he exposed in order to condemn it with the greatest possible severity. Once these texts were examined carefully, the impostor was exposed and confounded, for he expressed himself in a plethora of words, mixing true things with others that were obscure; mixing at times one with the other in such a way that he was also able to confess those things which were denied while at the same time possessing a basis for denying those very sentences which he confessed.
In order to expose such snares, something which becomes necessary with a certain frequency in every century, no other method is required than the following: Whenever it becomes necessary to expose statements that disguise some suspected error or danger under the veil of ambiguity, one must denounce the perverse meaning under which the error opposed to Catholic truth is camouflaged….
...It is not a matter of the danger of only one or another diocese: Any novelty at all assails the Universal Church. Now for a long time, from every side, the judgment of the supreme Apostolic See has not only been awaited but earnestly demanded by unremitting, repeated petitions. God forbid that the voice of Peter ever be silent in that See, where, living and presiding perpetually, he presents the truth of the faith to those in search of it. A lengthier forbearance in such matters is not safe, because it is almost just as much of a crime to close one’s eyes in such cases, as it is to preach such offenses to religion. Therefore, such a wound must be cut away, a wound by which not one member is hurt, but the entire body of the church is damaged. And with the aid of divine piety, We must take care that, with the dissensions removed, the Catholic faith be preserved inviolate, and that those whose faith has been proved may be fortified by our authority once those who defend perverse teachings have been recalled from error.
…. We have resolved to condemn and reprove several propositions, doctrines, and opinions of the acts and decrees of the aforementioned Synod, either those expressly taught or those conveyed through ambiguity, with their own appropriate notes and censures for each of them (as was said above), just as we condemn and reprove them in this our constitution, which will be valid in perpetuity. They are as follows:
1. The proposition, which asserts "that in these later times there has been spread a general obscuring of the more important truths pertaining to religion, which are the basis of faith and of the moral teachings of Jesus Christ,"—heretical.
4. The proposition affirming, "that it would be a misuse of the authority of the Church, when she transfers that authority beyond the limits of doctrine and of morals, and extends it to exterior matters, and demands by force that which depends on persuasion and love"; and then also, "that it pertains to it much less, to demand by force exterior obedience to its decrees"; in so far as by those undefined words, "extends to exterior matters," the proposition censures as an abuse of the authority of the Church the use of its power received from God, which the apostles themselves used in establishing and sanctioning exterior discipline—heretical.
5. In that part in which the proposition insinuates that the Church "does not have authority to demand obedience to its decrees otherwise than by means which depend on persuasion; in so far as it intends that the Church has not conferred on it by God the power, not only of directing by counsel and persuasion, but also of ordering by laws, and of constraining and forcing the inconstant and stubborn by exterior judgment and salutary punishments" leading toward a system condemned elsewhere as heretical.
6. The doctrine of the synod by which it professes that "it is convinced that a bishop has received from Christ all necessary rights for the good government of his diocese," just as if for the good government of each diocese higher ordinances dealing either with faith and morals, or with general discipline, are not necessary, the right of which belongs to the supreme Pontiffs and the General Councils for the universal Church,—schismatic, at least erroneous.
10. Likewise, the doctrine by which parish priests and other priests gathered in a synod are declared judges of faith together with the bishop, and at the same time it is intimated that they are qualified for judgment in matters of faith by their own right and have indeed received it by ordination,—false, rash, subversive of hierarchic order, detracting from the strength of dogmatic definitions or judgments of the Church, at least erroneous.
11. The opinion enunciating that by the long-standing practice of our ancestors, handed down even from apostolic times, preserved through the better ages of the Church, it has been accepted that "decrees, or definitions, or opinions even of the greater sees should not be accepted, unless they had been recognized and approved by the diocesan synod,"—false, rash, derogatory, in proportion to its generality, to the obedience due to the apostolic constitutions, and also to the opinions emanating from the legitimate, superior, hierarchic power, fostering schism and heresy.
19. Likewise, the doctrine which adds that under the Law man “became a prevaricator, since he was powerless to observe it, not indeed by the fault of the Law, which was most sacred, but by the guilt of man, who, under the Law, without grace, became more and more a prevaricator”; and it further adds, “that the Law, if it did not heal the heart of man, brought it about that he would recognize his evil, and, being convinced of his weakness, would desire the grace of a mediator”; in this part it generally intimates that man became a prevaricator through the nonobservance of the Law which he was powerless to observe, as if “He who is just could command something impossible, or He who is pious would be likely to condemn man for that which he could not avoid” (from St. Caesarius Serm. 73,in append., St. Augustine, Serm. 273,edit. Maurin; from St. August.,De nat, et “rat., e. 43; De “rat. et lib. arb., e.16,Enarr. in psalm. 56,n. I),--false scandalous, impious, condemned in Baius (see n. 1504).
36. The doctrine of the synod, in which, after it stated that "when there are unmistakable signs of the love of God dominating in the heart of a man, he can deservedly be considered worthy of being admitted to participation in the blood of Jesus Christ, which takes place in the sacraments," it further adds, "that false conversions, which take place through attrition (incomplete sorrow for sins), are not usually efficacious nor durable," consequently, "the shepherd of souls must insist on unmistakable signs of the dominating charity before he admits his penitents to the sacraments"; which signs, as it (the decree) then teaches (sec. 17), "a pastor can deduce from a firm cessation of sin and from fervor in good works"; and this "fervor of charity," moreover, it prescribes as the disposition which "should precede absolution"; so understood that not only imperfect contrition, which is sometimes called by the name of attrition, even that which is joined with the love with which a man begins to love God as the fountain of all justice [cf. n. 798], and not only contrition formed by charity, but also the fervor of a dominating charity, and that, indeed, proved by a long continued practice through fervor in good works, is generally and absolutely required in order that a man may be admitted to the sacraments, and penitents especially be admitted to the benefit of the absolution,—false, rash, disturbing to the peace of souls, contrary to the safe and approved practice of the Church, detracting from the efficacy of the sacrament and injurious to it.
38. Likewise, that teaching in which, after the synod professed that "it could not but admire that very venerable discipline of antiquity, which (as it says) did not admit to penance so easily, and perhaps never, that one who, after a first sin and a first reconciliation, had relapsed into guilt," it adds, that "through fear of perpetual exclusion from communion and from peace, even in the hour of death, a great restraint will be put on those who consider too little the evil of sin and fear it less," contrary to canon 13 of the first Council of Nicea, to the decretal of Innocent I to Exuperius Tolos, and then also to the decretal of Celestine I to the Bishops of Vienne, and of the Province of Narbon, redolent of the viciousness at which the Holy Pontiff is horrified in that decretal.
October 8, 1803 - Pius VII, Brief, “Etsi fraternitatis”, forbidding the German bishops and priests from in any way celebrating second marriages, even if required of them by civil law:
As long as the impediment [of a prior bond of marriage] endures, if a man is conjoined to a woman, it is adultery.
August 15, 1832 - Gregory XVI’s Encyclical Mirari Vos:
12. Now the honorable marriage of Christians, which Paul calls "a great sacrament in Christ and the Church," demands our shared concern lest anything contrary to its sanctity and indissolubility is proposed. Our predecessor Pius VIII would recommend to you his own letters on the subject. However, troublesome efforts against this sacrament still continue to be made. The people therefore must be zealously taught that a marriage rightly entered upon cannot be dissolved; for those joined in matrimony God has ordained a perpetual companionship for life and a knot of necessity which cannot be loosed except by death. Recalling that matrimony is a sacrament and therefore subject to the Church, let them consider and observe the laws of the Church concerning it. Let them take care lest for any reason they permit that which is an obstruction to the teachings of the canons and the decrees of the councils. They should be aware that those marriages will have an unhappy end which are entered upon contrary to the discipline of the Church or without God's favor or because of concupiscence alone, with no thought of the sacrament and of the mysteries signified by it.
November 9, 1846 - Pope Bl. Pius IX’s Encyclical Qui Pluribus:
7. ...other enemies of divine revelation, with reckless and sacrilegious effrontery, want to import the doctrine of human progress into the Catholic religion. They extol it [progress] with the highest praise, as if religion itself were not of God but the work of men, or a philosophical discovery which can be perfected by human means. … Our holy religion was not invented by human reason, but was most mercifully revealed by God…. For who can possibly not know that all faith should be given to the words of God and that it is in the fullest agreement with reason itself to accept and strongly support doctrines which it has determined to have been revealed by God, who can neither deceive nor be deceived?
December 10, 1860 - The Sacred Apostolic Penitentiary’s answers to pastoral questions
20. Q. Whether the Most Blessed Eucharist may be given to those who are notoriously bound by censure, unless, as is fitting, they first will have been reconciled with the Church?
A. Negative
December 8, 1864 - Pope Bl. Pius IX’s Syllabus of Errors censured certain propositions including:
5. Divine revelation is imperfect, and therefore subject to a continual and indefinite progress, corresponding with the advancement of human reason.
13. The method and principles by which the old scholastic doctors cultivated theology are no longer suitable to the demands of our times and to the progress of the sciences.
23. Roman pontiffs and ecumenical councils have wandered outside the limits of their powers, have usurped the rights of princes, and have even erred in defining matters of faith and morals.
67. By the law of nature, the marriage tie is not indissoluble, and in many cases divorce properly so called may be decreed by the civil authority.
74. Matrimonial causes and espousals belong by their nature to civil tribunals.
80. The Roman Pontiff can, and ought to, reconcile himself, and come to terms with progress, liberalism and modern civilization.
April 24, 1870 - First Vatican Council’s Session 3, including the Dogmatic Constitution Dei Filius:
13. For the doctrine of the faith which God has revealed is put forward not as some philosophical discovery capable of being perfected by human intelligence, but as a divine deposit committed to the spouse of Christ to be faithfully protected and infallibly promulgated.
14. Hence, too, that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by Holy mother Church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding.
“May understanding, knowledge and wisdom increase as ages and centuries roll along, and greatly and vigorously flourish, in each and all, in the individual and the whole Church: but this only in its own proper kind, that is to say, in the same doctrine, the same sense, and the same understanding” [Vincent of Lerins, Commonitorium, 23, 3].
Canon 4.3 If anyone says that it is possible that at some time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the Church which is different from that which the Church has understood and understands: let him be anathema.
July 18, 1870 - First Vatican Council’s Session 4, including the Dogmatic Constitution Pastor Aeternus:
6. For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles.
Indeed, their apostolic teaching was embraced by all the venerable fathers and reverenced and followed by all the holy orthodox doctors, for they knew very well that this See of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Savior to the prince of his disciples: I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren
9. Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, to the glory of God our savior, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion and for the salvation of the Christian people, with the approval of the Sacred Council, we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.
So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema.
Comments
Post a Comment