Marriage by SSPX priests - valid or invalid?

[Sean_O_L]

continued:

The reason why the effects of the Passion of Christ are applied to us in Baptism is that we are a part of Christ, we form one with him. “That is why the very pains of Christ were satisfactory for the sins of the baptised, even as the pains of one member may be satisfactory for the sins of another member.” [10] Indeed, the effects of the Passion of Christ are as truly ours as if we had ourselves undergone the Passion: “Baptism incorporates us into the Passion and death of Christ: ‘If we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live together with Christ’;[11] whence it follows that the Passion of Christ in which each baptised person shares is for each a remedy as effective as if each one had himself suffered and died. Now it has been seen that Christ’s Passion is sufficient to make satisfaction for all the sins of all men. He therefore who is baptised is set free from all liability to punishment which he had deserved, as if h& himself had made satisfaction for them.”[12] Again, “the baptised person shares in the penal value of Christ’s Passion as he is a member of Christ, as though he had himself endured the penalty.”[13] “According to St Augustine,” he writes in article 4 of the same question, “‘Baptism has this effect, that those who receive it are incorporated in Christ as his members.’ Now from the Head which is Christ there flows down upon all his members the fulness of grace and of truth: ‘Of his fulness we have all received.’[14] Whence it is evident that Baptism gives a man grace and the virtues.”

From this explicit teaching it is clear that there is only one Body of Christ, and it is by Baptism that we are incorporated in it. Consequently we must be very careful in using the well-known distinction of the “body” and “soul” of the Church.

**Every man validly baptised is a member of Christ’s Mystical Body, is a member of the Church.</b] Now it may well happen that adverse external circumstances may prevent a man’s character as an incorporated member of the Church being recognised, and the absence of such recognition may involve the juridical denial of all that it involves. In the eyes of men he may appear to have broken the bond uniting him to the Church, and yet, because of the supernatural faith, and the persistent loving life of grace, whereby he seeks in all things to do the will of God, his union with the Church really continues: spiritually he remains a member of the Church, he belongs to the body of the Church. He may, all the time, through error, be giving his external adhesion to a religious society which cannot be part of the Church. But at heart, by internal and implicit allegiance, he may be a faithful member of the Church.

Evidently, if the Church is the Mystical Body of Christ, then to be outside the Mystical Body is to be outside the Church, and since there is no salvation outside the Mystical Body, there is no salvation outside the Church. But, as we have seen, a man’s juridical situation is not necessarily his situation before God.

The use of the term “the Soul” of the Church as distinct from “the Body,” in the sense that Catholics belong to the Body and the Soul, and non-Catholics to the Soul only, and therefore may be saved because of their good faith, does indeed convey an element of truth, but not the whole of it. The continual stressing of the “good faith” of those who are unfortunately out of visible communion with us, does seem to undermine the traditional horror of heresy and of heretics, replacing it by a horror of “heresiarchs”; it seems to put a premium on muddle-headedness, and to reserve the stigma of heresy for the clear-headed ones. After all, the malice of heresy lies in the rending of the Body of Christ: what our Lord meant to be one, heretics, even material heretics, divide. They may be in good faith — and that good faith will at some moment lead them to see what they had not seen before — but the fact remains that their error or ignorance, however inculpable, retards the edification of the Body of Christ. Even the claims of Charity should not blind us to the importance of growth in the knowledge of objective truth, as contrasted with the limitations of error, however well-meaning it may be.

In this matter the advice of St Paul to the Ephesians is relevant: “With all humility and mildness, with patience supporting one another in charity, careful to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. One body and one Spirit, as you are called in one hope of your calling. One Lord, one Faith, one Baptism.”[15]**

 

[Sean_O_L]

continued:

The notions of Redemption, Baptism, and the Mystical Body are combined by the Apostle in the following magnificent passage:

“Christ also loved the Church and delivered himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, purifying her in the bath of water by means of the word, and that he might present her to himself a glorious Church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but holy and without blemish. . . . Surely no man ever hated his own flesh, nay, he doth nourish and cherish it, even as Christ the Church, because we are members of his body.”[16]

Footnotes

1. Supplement, Q. xiii, art. 2.
2. Q. xlviii, art. 2, ad I.
3. Q. vii, art. I, ad 9; Q. viii, art. I, ad 5.
4. Q. xlviii, art. I.
5. III, Q. xlix, art. I, ad 4.
6. Acts iv 12.
7. Rom. iv II. III, Q. lxviii, art. I, ad I.
8. Rom. iv ii. Ill, Q.lxviii, art. a.
9. 2 Cor. vi 14.
10. III, Q. lxviii, art. 5, ad I.
11. Rom. vi 8.
12. Q. lxix, art. 2.
13. Ibid., ad I.
14. John i 16.
15. Eph. iv 2 ff.
16. Eph. v 25-27. 29.

“The TEACHING of the CATHOLIC CHURCH
a summary of Catholic Doctrine
arranged and edited by
Canon George D. Smith, D.D., Ph.D.
Volume II, London, Burns Oates & Washbourne
Publishers to the Holy See”
Nihil Obstat: Edvardvs Can. Mahoney, S.T.D., Censor Deputatus
Imprimatur: E. Morrogh Bernard, Vicarivs Generalis
Westmonasterii: Die X IVNII MCMXLVII
First Published 1948

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Sean O L:

Byzcath wrote:

Hey, I am NOT denying any part of CCC #818. However, it appears that you are claiming that Baptism is NOT a Catholic Sacrament! I claim that ALL of the Sacraments are Catholic Sacraments and belong to the Catholic Church. That reception of the Catholic Sacrament of Baptism (which cannot be repeated) incorporated the receiver into the Catholic Church.

CCC # 818 does not prove the contrary.

I think it does because you are implying that everyone who is baptized is Catholic. I do not believe that is so. Everyone who is baptized is baptized into the Church but they are not formally Catholics.

Your view makes CCC #881 unnecessary as it makes it that people are born into schism.

 

[tuopaolo]

ByzCath:

I think it does because you are implying that everyone who is baptized is Catholic. I do not believe that is so. Everyone who is baptized is baptized into the Church but they are not formally Catholics.

Your view makes CCC #881 unnecessary as it makes it that people are born into schism.

Tecnhically those baptized by non-Catholics as infants would be Catholics until they reach the age of reason. Until they reach the age of reason they would not have committed schism. Upon reaching the age of reason as soon as they fail to recognize the authority of the Church they will have committed schism. If they culpably fail to so recognize then they would be culpable for a sin. If they do so inculpably then it would still objectively be an offense, but not a sin arising from a defect in their soul.

All the sacraments are intrinsically Catholic in nature whether administered by a Catholic or non-Catholic because all the sacraments were entrusted by Our Lord to the Catholic Church and derive their efficacy from this entrustment by Our Lord of the sacraments to the Catholic Church. IOW, if Our Lord hadn’t so entrusted the sacraments to the Catholic Church, then no attempted administration of a sacrament – whether by a Catholic or non-Catholic – would be valid (valid meaning real or efficacious)

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

tuopaolo:

Tecnhically those baptized by non-Catholics as infants would be Catholics until they reach the age of reason. Until they reach the age of reason they would not have committed schism. Upon reaching the age of reason as soon as they fail to recognize the authority of the Church they will have committed schism. If they culpably fail to so recognize then they would be culpable for a sin. If they do so inculpably then it would still objectively be an offense, but not a sin arising from a defect in their soul.

This is not what the Church teaches. Again if this was so then CCC #818 would be wrong. Why is there no comment about think in the CCC?

Can you point to a Magisteral Document that teaches this?

Also can you, or anyone, point to where the Church talks about “material schism”?

 

[maklavan]

It may well be that any sacramental activity, Confession, Confirmation, Marriage etc would be valid but illicit.

 

[Benedictus]

KBarn:

That being said, it would seem that anyone who is worthy to be married may be married validly in the SSPX, though there may remain some question as to whether or not it was a sacramental marriage, i.e. the conferral of grace. The marriage, while valid, may not be truly sacramental.

No. If the persons are baptized, a marriage is either a sacramental marriage, or it is no marriage at all. It is impossible for two baptized people to be in a non-sacramental but valid marriage. Even if the two people were unbapitized when they were married and then later converted and were baptized, the marriage automatically becomes sacramental once the second one was baptized.

This matter is actually quite simple. The bishops of the S.S.P.X have been excommunicated and the priests have been suspended a divinis. They have no ability to absolve sins or witness marriages, except in the danger of death. This is what canon law says. The fact that the S.S.P.X goes through some mental gymnastics to “prove” that their status is a-okay means nothing.

In the case of the Apostolic Administration of St. John Vianney, I believe that radical sanation (sanatio in radice for you Latinists) was applied to their marriages.

 

[Scotty_PGH]

dezembrum:

Interestingly enough, I just recently contacted the tribunal in the Diocese of Boise, Idaho (the SSPX have a large following in northern Idaho). The canonist I spoke with indicated that marriages between adherents of the SSPX celebrated by SSPX priests ARE considered valid. This is so because the diocese does not recognize the SSPX as being Catholic, therefore their adherents are not bound by canonical form. If, however, two Catholics were to marry in a SSPX chapel, that marriage would be invalid due to defect in canonical form. The same would be true if a Catholic married a SSPX adherent in a SSPX chapel without a dispensation from form - he/she (the Catholic) would need a convalidation.

I’m not sure what I was expecting to hear, but it certainly wasn’t that.

I guess I had always considered SSPXers to be disobedient Catholics, but Catholics nonetheless. This seems to indicate that, at the very least, those baptized by Society priests aren’t Catholics, but rather material schismatics.

This raises a question though - if they are not bound by canonical form, are their confessions therefore valid?

There is a definitive answer to this question. Here is what the Pontifical Commission “Ecclesia Dei” said on this matter in response to a letter sent to then-Cardinal Ratzinger:

unavoce.org/Protocol539-99.htm

PONTIFICIA COMMISSIO “ECCLESIA DEI”
N. 539/99 Rome, 28 September 1999

Mr. Joseph E. Rebbert
10024 Piebald Lane
Dewey
Arizona 86327
U.S.A.

Dear Mr. Rebbert,
We wish to acknowledge receipt of your letter to His Eminence Cardinal Ratzinger. It has been transmitted to this Pontifical Commission as dealing with matters that come within our particular competence.

With regard to the schismatic Society of St. Pius X we can say the following:

1. The priests of the Society of St. Pius X are validly ordained,
   but suspended, that is prohibited from exercising their priestly functions because they are not properly incardinated in a diocese or religious institute in full communion with the Holy See (cf. canon 265) and also because those ordained after the schismatic episcopal ordinations were ordained by an excommunicated bishop. They are also excommunicated if they adhere to the schism (cf. Ecclesia Del, #5, c). While up to now the Holy See has not defined what this .adherence consists in, one could point
   to a wholesale condemnation of the Church since the Second Vatican Council and a refusal to be in communion with it (cf. canon 751 on the definition of schism). Further, it is likely that these priests, after eleven years in a society whose head is now an excommunicated bishop, effectively adhere to the schism. . .
2. Concretely this means that the Masses offered by the priests of
   the Society of St. Pius X are valid, but illicit i.e., contrary to Canon
   Law. The Sacraments of Penance and Matrimony, however, require that the priest enjoys the faculties of the diocese or has proper delegation. Since that is not the case with these priests, these sacraments are invalid. It remains true, however, that, if the faithful are genuinely ignorant that the priests of the Society of St. Pius X do not have the proper faculty to absolve, the Church supplied these faculties so that the sacrament was valid
   (cf. Code of Canon Law c. 144).
3. The situation of the faithful attending chapels of the Society of
   St. Pius X is more complicated. They may attend Mass there primarily because of an attraction to the earlier form of the Roman Rite in which case they incur no penalty. The difficulty is that the longer they frequent these chapels, the more likely it is that they will slowly imbibe the schismatic mentality which stands in judgement of the Church and refuses submission to the Roman Pontiff and communion with the members of the Church subject to him. If that becomes the case, then it would seem that they adhere to the schism and are consequently excommunicated.

For these reasons this Pontifical Commission cannot encourage you to frequent the chapel of the Society of St. Pius X. On the other hand it would seem that you are among those who attend Mass in chapels of the Society of St. Pius X because of the
reverence and devotion which they find there, because of their
attraction to the traditional Latin Mass and not because they refuse submission to the Roman Pontiff or reject communion with the members of the Church subject to him. At the same time it must be admitted that - this is an irregular situation, even if the circumstances which have caused it have come about through no fault of your own, and it should be remedied as soon as circumstances permit.

With prayerful best wishes I remain
Sincerely yours in Christ,
Msgr. Camille Perl
Secretary

 

[dezembrum]

ByzCath:

I keep hearing this term on this forum. There is no such think as a “material schismatic”. People who are part of the SSPX, who were baptized by them, who entered them and were never Catholics, are not in schism. One can not be born into schism, its right in the Catechism.

Again, I think you are misunderstanding what the Catechism means here. It says that one cannot be charged with the sin of separation. They are, however, schismatics nonetheless. If the Orthodox of today are not schismatics, then what are they? Catholics? If there is no schism, what is there? Simply a confusion of terms? Here’s a good article from EWTN:

ewtn.com/expert/answers/heresy_schism_apostasy.htm

The distinction that I use (material vs. formal) is not something you will find in Magisterial documents, simply because it is not proper to them. It is a term that belongs to moral theology.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

dezembrum:

Again, I think you are misunderstanding what the Catechism means here. It says that one cannot be charged with the sin of separation. They are, however, schismatics nonetheless. If the Orthodox of today are not schismatics, then what are they? Catholics? If there is no schism, what is there? Simply a confusion of terms? Here’s a good article from EWTN:

ewtn.com/expert/answers/heresy_schism_apostasy.htm

The distinction that I use (material vs. formal) is not something you will find in Magisterial documents, simply because it is not proper to them. It is a term that belongs to moral theology.

Schism is “the sin of separation”. One can not be born into it.

If the Magisterum does not use the term material vs fomal schism then there is no such thing as material schism.

 

[Tabitha773]

This hasn’t been discussed yet, but a tribunal lawyer would have to consider many facts in assessing the case. One obstacle would involve an adult who has been received into the CC, whether baptism upon reception occurs or not. Catechumens or candidates need to either be received by baptism or provide proof of Trinitarian baptism. Should said marriage try to be contracted in an SSPX chapel, and one of the couple is “conditionally” baptized, this is going to be problematic if approaching the tribunal later in time.

I often considered that the above situation was happening, and during the past year was told it actually was. I would not want to be in a marriage like that, nor for any of my grown children. Sooner or later the canon lawyers are going to come down hard on that. It’s hard enough for the laity to keep up with what the regulations are in the Church without having two Sacraments involved.

 

[m134e5]

If the Church is going to assume that protestant marriages, jewish marriages, even marriages by the justice of the peace are valid (which they do- people married in such situations and divorced still need an annulment before they can marry in the Church), then it would be VERY hypocritical to say that marriages when the ceremony was performed by priests who are schismatics (BUT ARE VALIDLY ORDAINED) are invalid. The man and woman marry each other- the priest is just a witness.

 

[tuopaolo]

Actually the concepts as well as the terms of “material” versus “formal” are used in magisterial documents, including incidentally in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (cf #2272, keeping in mind that material is simply the counterpart or mathematically the complement to formal) Whether or not they are used with specific regard to schism is immaterial as the concepts are of a nature that they apply universally.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

tuopaolo:

Actually the concepts as well as the terms of “material” versus “formal” are used in magisterial documents, including incidentally in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (cf #2272, keeping in mind that material is simply the counterpart or mathematically the complement to formal) Whether or not they are used with specific regard to schism is immaterial as the concepts are of a nature that they apply universally.

I am sorry but I do not see what you seem to see in CCC #2272.

Here it is.

2272 Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. “A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae,” “by the very commission of the offense,” and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law. The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society.

This is talking about formal cooperation in an act. The act of assisting in a sin. This does not in any way say that there is formal sin and material sin. Sin is sin, you are either guilty of sin or you are not. Schism is a sin, one can not be in schism yet be in material schism.

As the catechism says, one can not be born into schism.

 

[tuopaolo]

ByzCath:

This is talking about formal cooperation in an act.

In Catholic moral theology which the Catechism reflects in that paragraph, there is distinction between formal cooperation and material cooperation. When the Catechism thus speaks of formal cooperation it implicitly acknowleges the existence of material cooperation. In any case in other magisterial documents the concept of material cooperation is explicitly referred to. For instance here:

"For grave and proportionate motives they may therefore act in accord with the traditional principles of material cooperation. "

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/speeches/2002/january/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_20020128_roman-rota_en.html

 

[m134e5]

KBarn:

As I understand it, the ministers of the Sacrament of Marriage are the bride and the groom.

That being said, it would seem that anyone who is worthy to be married may be married validly in the SSPX, though there may remain some question as to whether or not it was a sacramental marriage, i.e. the conferral of grace. The marriage, while valid, may not be truly sacramental.

This is why marriages in protestant churches, in non-Christian religions, and by justices of the peace are considered valid. There may not be any Sacramental grace here, but it is a valid Sacrament.

I ask again…why do the same people who question the validity of SSPX marriages assume the validity of protestant marriages? The priest is not the minister of the Sacrament. The people getting married did not commit an act of schismatic themselves. Only clergy can do that- laity can adhere to schism, but does that mean that everyone who attends an SSPX chapel does? Some are very frustrated with how Novus Ordo parishes are run in their dioceses (the Masses may even be regularly invalidated), and cannot get to an indult Mass (if it’s even available) or Byzantine Divine Liturgy.

Michael

 

[tuopaolo]

m134e5:

This is why marriages in protestant churches, in non-Christian religions, and by justices of the peace are considered valid. There may not be any Sacramental grace here, but it is a valid Sacrament.

A marriage between two non-Christians would be valid, but it won’t be a sacrament. For a marriage to be a sacrament it needs to be between baptized persons. If two baptized persons committed apostasy and got married by pagan priests then it would be a sacrament.

 

[m134e5]

that’s true.

 

[Sean_O_L]

ByzCath, you wrote:

1. There is no such think as a “material schismatic”.
2. People who are part of the SSPX, who were baptized by them, who entered them and were never Catholics, are not in schism.
3. One can not be born into schism, its right in the Catechism.

You went on to state:

818 “However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church.”

Question: 1. Is there also no such thing as a “material schismatic”? What leads you to that belief?

The TEACHING of the CATHOLIC CHURCH says:

After all, the malice of heresy lies in the rending of the Body of Christ: what our Lord meant to be one, heretics, even material heretics, divide.

Question 2. I can’t believe my eyes when you state: “People who are part of the SSPX, who were baptized by them, who entered them and were never Catholics, are not in schism.” Despite the warning of the Supreme Pontiff in “Ecclesia Dei” and the many statements of, for example, Msgr Camille Perl that adhesion to the schism of the SSPX would incur the state of schism and the penalty of excommunication! What is your evidence for this statement?

Question 3. How can you claim that “it is right in the Catechism, when CCC #818 merely treats with the FACT that people born from schismatic parents cannot be charged with the sin of separation.” And this is the very fact that you challenged me with when I said that

Whether they know it or not, like it not, the child of a schismatic who is Baptized with the proper Form, Matter and Intention IS at that point of time a Catholic, and will remain in “full communion with the Catholic Church” until he/she willingly partakes in the schismatic “action” (adheres to the schism of the parents.)

Tuopaolo April 27, 2005 11:58 PM is absolutely correct when he posted:

Tecnhically those baptized by non-Catholics as infants would be Catholics until they reach the age of reason. Until they reach the age of reason they would not have committed schism. Upon reaching the age of reason as soon as they fail to recognize the authority of the Church they will have committed schism. If they culpably fail to so recognize then they would be culpable for a sin. If they do so inculpably then it would still objectively be an offense, but not a sin arising from a defect in their soul.

All the sacraments are intrinsically Catholic in nature whether administered by a Catholic or non-Catholic because all the sacraments were entrusted by Our Lord to the Catholic Church and derive their efficacy from this entrustment by Our Lord of the sacraments to the Catholic Church. IOW, if Our Lord hadn’t so entrusted the sacraments to the Catholic Church, then no attempted administration of a sacrament – whether by a Catholic or non-Catholic – would be valid (valid meaning real or efficacious)

“The TEACHING of the CATHOLIC CHURCH a summary of Catholic Doctrine arranged and edited by Canon George D. Smith, D.D., Ph.D. says “Yes”:

“After all, the malice of heresy lies in the rending of the Body of Christ: what our Lord meant to be one, heretics, even material heretics, divide.”

The following is also culled from the quotation from The TEACHING of the CATHOLIC CHURCH: above:

“The fruits of the Redemption, therefore, are applied to individuals on Baptism inasmuch as they are incorporated into the Mystical Body of Christ.”

Elsewhere, the Catholic Church is claimed to BE The Mystical Body of Christ on Earth.

“St Thomas allows that where actual Baptism is absent owing to accidental circumstances, the desire proceeding from “faith working through charity” will in God’s providence inwardly sanctify him.”

Those persons who are in Heaven – although not Baptized by water, but through Desire – ARE members of the Mystical Body of Christ in Heaven, and ALL in Heaven are Catholics.

 

[Sean_O_L]

"Baptism incorporates us into the Passion and death of Christ: ‘If we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live together with Christ’;[11] whence it follows that the Passion of Christ in which each baptised person shares is for each a remedy as effective as if each one had himself suffered and died.”

“…it is clear that **there is only one Body of Christ, and it is by Baptism that we are incorporated in it.”

“Every man validly baptised is a member of Christ’s Mystical Body, is a member of the Church. **”

ByzCath, you appear to say that the Catholic Church and the Mystical Body of Christ on Earth are not one and the same thing; that the Catholic Church is a lesser body than the another body – THE CHURCH.

Perhaps the following will help:

From the pre-Vatican II highly respected text book on

“Canon Law A Text and Commentary” by T. Lincoln Bouscaren, S.J., LL.B., S.T.D., Procurator of the Society of Jueus; Consultor to the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith and to the Sacred Congregation of the Council. and

Adam C. Ellis, S.J., M.A., J.C.D., Professor Emeritus of Canon Law; Consultor to the Sacred Congregation of Religious.

Third Revised Edition, First Edition (Revised) 1957. The Bruce Publishing Company, Milwaukee,

I add that, for many years Fr. Bouscaren (and others over time) was Editor of The Canon Law Digest.

From Chapter XXVIII: Some Study Outlines on the Principal Censures Latae Sententiae: p.938:

Specially Reserved to the Holy See (5)

1. Apostasy, Heresy, Schism, in Foro Conscientiae (c. 2314)
   a. Definitions of apostate, heretic, schismatic are given in canon 1325, §2.
   b. In all cases a requisite for the crime is an internal attitude externally manifested.

Canon 751 of the current (1983) Code of Canon Law gives the following definition:

Heresy is the obstinate denial or doubt, after baptism, of a truth which must be believed by divine and catholic faith. Apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith. Schism is the withdrawal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or from communion with the members of the Church subject to him.

Finally, on the Matter “Persons as Members of the Church” in the same “Canon Law” p. 76 is the following on the subject of baptism:

The Church is a society established by Jesus Christ with divine authority for all mankind. Hence human beings can become members of the Church, and as such they acquire a new juridical personality. Baptism of water has been established by Christ as the external sign and effective cause of membership in His Church. It is therefore the title by which a human person, already endowed by creation with natural rights, acquires a new personality juridically; that is, becomes the subject of new rights, and correspondingly also of new duties, as a member of the Church.

General Principle. Baptism of water constitutes a human being a person in the Church of Christ, with all the rights and duties of Christians (c. 87).

Exception. As regards the rights, two things impair their free exercise; namely, “an obstacle which impairs the bond of ecclesiastical communion, or a censure imposed by the Church” (c. 87).

1. Obstacle. A Christian can voluntarily withdraw from the visible communion which unites him with the other members of Christ’s Church. By so doing he places an obstacle which impairs the bond of ecclesiastical communion; namely, heresy, or schism.

1. Censure. On the other hand, the Church, for certain grave crimes including heresy or schism, can cut off the guilty person from her external communion by pronouncing a censure against him. Censures, especially the most important of them, excommunications (c. 2257), will be explained in their place.

1. It is noteworthy that the canon declares these exceptions only as regards the rights. It would seem to follow that neither membership in a non-Catholic sect nor any censure directly excuses a Catholic from the duties which he has as a member of the Church. This is in fact the common general interpretation of this canon.