Must We Believe All VCII Documents?

[muledog]

albert cipriani:

question, question, question, question, etc…

I’ve been reading your posts with interest. Are you able to actually make a positive statement for your argument, or can you only post rhetorical questions to everyone else’s responses? Do you like posting questions repeatedly? Do you know that this becomes very irritating in a short period of time? Did you know that you can actually post an ARGUMENT without turning it into a question? Is there anyone else who agrees with me?

In Manibus Dei,

• muledog

 

[albert_cipriani]

muledog:

I’ve been reading your posts with interest. Are you able to actually make a positive statement for your argument, or can you only post rhetorical questions to everyone else’s responses?

I can only post substantive questions.

“Do you like posting questions repeatedly?”

I have never posted the same question twice. What I like is substantive responses.

“Do you know that this becomes very irritating in a short period of time?”

Do you know that getting banned in just six days from the following Catholic message board was irritating?: christianforums.com/t847051&page=9

“Did you know that you can actually post an ARGUMENT without turning it into a question?

Did you know that Catholic message boards ban Catholics who make Traditionalist arguments? It’s happened 4 times with me. Hence my Socratic method.

And as this post demonstrates, I do not avoid answering direct questions. I wish I could say the same for you guys. – Sincerely, Albert Cipriani the Traditional Catholic
http://www.geocities.com/albert_cipriani/index.html
groups.yahoo.com/group/ReligiousPhilosophy/

 

[muledog]

albert cipriani:

I can only post substantive questions.
Substantive in *your *mind, maybe. Questions are rarely as substantive as direct answers. Since your posts are void of any substantive answers, then maybe that’s why you keep getting banned from other forums.

I have never posted the same question twice. What I like is substantive responses.

Why should anyone even attempt to respond to your “shotgun approach” questions? Whenever someone tries it, you move on to another dozen or so questions. Besides, I’m not sure if I’d call your questions “substantive.”

Do you know that getting banned in just six days from the following Catholic message board was irritating?

Well, maybe if you would approach the situation in a more courteous and professional manner, you wouldn’t keep getting banned. I’m all for an all-out discussion of what you call “traditional catholicism”. Yet, your methods can be annoying and tiresome. As I said before, try posting more *answers *

and less questions, and try to piece them together a bit more cogently.
%between%

Did you know that Catholic message boards ban Catholics who make Traditionalist arguments? It’s happened 4 times with me. Hence my Socratic method.

Funny. I consider myself more of a “traditionalist” than not (I regularly hear Mass celebrated by the local FSSP priest; I love to pray the traditional prayers, especially the Rosary). You’ll never see me running around a labarynth in a see-through nightie singing praises to the creator, redeemer and spirit, or to “mother-god”!

But what I don’t appreciate is someone who claims to be a traditionalist and then sets about to prove this by becoming some kind of internet martyr for the cause.

Being arrogant and condescending to other christians is no way to share your faith.

In Manibus Dei,

• muledog

 

[deogratias]

But what I don’t appreciate is someone who claims to be a traditionalist and then sets about to prove this by becoming some kind of internet martyr for the cause

:clapping:

I must agree and then you and I and other loyal to the church traditionalists must end up cleaning up the messes these posters leave behind…

Regardless of which TLM some of those posters attend, there remains in them what I call the “SSPX Mentality”.

 

[albert_cipriani]

muledog:

Substantive in *your *mind, maybe. Questions are rarely as substantive as direct answers.

Probably the most substantive words in English literature were posed as a question: “To be or not to be, that is the question.” Socrates said enough to get himself killed via questions. A host of assertions aren’t nearly as weighty as a single intelligent question.

Since your posts are void of any substantive answers, then maybe that’s why you keep getting banned from other forums.

My posts may be void of any substantive answers only “in your mind.” As Owen Francis Dudley wrote: “A gratuitous assumption is sufficiently met by a gratuitous denial.” In this case, I’ve met your gratutious assumption with another gratuitous assumption. Fair enough.

Why should anyone even attempt to respond to your “shotgun approach” questions? Whenever someone tries it, you move on to another dozen or so questions.

Either I’ve not moved on from this thread but have been dutifully responding to all responses for one month now, or your words are false. I challenge you to re-read this thread and draw your own conclusion.

“Well, maybe if you would approach the situation in a more courteous and professional manner, you wouldn’t keep getting banned. … your methods can be annoying and tiresome… what I don’t appreciate is someone who claims to be a traditionalist and then sets about to prove this by becoming some kind of internet martyr for the cause. Being arrogant and condescending to other christians is no way to share your faith.”

Thank you for rendering credulousness to my incredulity. The name-calling has begun after me doing nothing here but ask questions. You’ve proven what I suspected all along, it’s not my method of argumentation (for here all I’ve done is ask questions) it’s the answers that my arguments or questions lead to that’s the problem. It’s Traditionalism itself that’s to blame, not my arguments, not my questions, not me. But that won’t stop you from trying to pretend that it is me.

Ergo, once again, as elsewhere, your complaints are ALL ABOUT ME. I’m “being arrogant and condescending.” I know that thinking bad thoughts about me helps distract you from thinking real thoughts about Traditionalism, but you really ought to try to resist such cheap substitutes for critical thinking. Thinking poorly of me can’t help you enrich your faith. But honestly answering the questions I ask could. – Sincerely, Albert Cipriani the Traditional Catholic

 

[Fr.JLT]

This is my first attempt at trying a quote. Hope it works!

I am with Muledog. And in addition to that, I don’t appreciate people who claim to be traditionalist and then cling to or defect to sects and schism that claim to be traditional. When one has broken with Saint Peter, how the heck can anyone claim to be traditional except in a purely human way???

Frosts my pumpkins. GRRRR!

– Fr. L.

muledog:

But what I don’t appreciate is someone who claims to be a traditionalist and then sets about to prove this by becoming some kind of internet martyr for the cause.

 

[albert_cipriani]

deogratias:

:clapping: Regardless of which TLM some of those posters attend, there remains in them what I call the “SSPX Mentality”.

Is this yet another ad hominem? The SSPX mentality certainly doesn’t sound like a compliment, yet is undefined by you to what end? to sound good at my expense? to make it appear that you are in possession of some higher mental powers than I and the SSPX? Curious minds, or merely those of us afflicted with the SSPX mentality would like to know. – Sincerely Albert Cipriani the Traditional Catholic

 

[itsjustdave1988]

albert cipriani:

Dave quotes Pope Pius VI’s as saying that it’s

Dave concludes from this that: “The current liturgy therefore, cannot be dangerous or harmful to the faithful.”

To the contrary, isn’t it the current liturgy’s absence of discipline that is dangerous or harmful to the faithful? Isn’t it the fact that Novus Ordo masses violate disciplines (altar girls for decades prior to their being approved, extraordinary ministers used as ordinary ministers, the abolition of kneeling) that is the heart of the harmful problem from which Traditionalists flee?

Doesn’t Pope Pius the VI’s qualification of “harmful” disqualify it for application to the “disciplines” Traditionalists’ eschew? To quote him again, the kind of harm he envisioned in us avoiding the disciplines of the Church was that “leading to superstition and materialism.”

Are you suggesting that celebrating the Tridentine Latin Mass can lead to superstition and materialism? Rather, doesn’t the lack of dogmatic clarity and Eucharistic reverence endemic to the Novus Ordo rite breed a materialistic view of the Mass as merely a communal meal and hint at the dogma of the Real Presence being a pre-Vatican II superstition? – Sincerely, Albert Cipriani the Traditional Catholic

Albert,

I think you are shadow boxing with an argument I don’t make.

I believe the current Roman Missal to be that discipline which cannot be harmful or dangerous to the faithful. That some, even many, deliberately disregard the rubrics is just as sinful as the SSPX disregard for canon law.

I also believe the Roman Missal of 1962 cannot be harmful or dangerous to the faithful, when conducted by an incardinated priest with episcopal indult in accord with canon law.

Bottomline: ecclesiastical disciplines established and approved by the Church cannot contradict the will of God. They are neither dangerous nor harmful, nor burdensome nor useless. Neglect of that which is approved by the Church is certainly dangerous. Willful disobedience of canon law (e.g. SSPX), for example, is a sin, just as surely as wilfull disobedience to liturgical norms (e.g. liturgical abuse). The SSPX are nothing more than the opposite side of the same “coin of disobedience” as those who would attempt to ordain women priests against the ecclesiasical norms of the Catholic Church.

I think of liturgy prescribed by the current Roman Missal as “milk” in comparison to the “solid food” of the 1962 Roman Missal. However, there are many Catholics and potential converts to Catholicism that seem to need milk.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Albert,

Please explain the difference between being bound to obey and being bound to “owe our relgious assent”?

We are bound to obey our superiors.

Hebrew 13:17 - “Obey your leaders and defer to them, for they keep watch over you and will have to give an account, that they may fulfill their task with joy and not with sorrow, for that would be of no advantage to you.”

This obedience includes obedience to canon law, which demands our religious assent to any doctrine proposed by the ordinary magisterium (Lumen Gentium 25), even if not infallibly defined.

Formal dogmas demand our “assent of faith” while magisterial doctines demand our “religious submission of intellect and will.” There’s plenty of discussion about the difference between the “assent of faith” and “religious assent” on other threads. You can see here for more: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=7975&highlight=encyclical

As for the SSPX, they believe Vatican II “adulterated Catholic teaching” and consequently, the SSPX are ready to disobey canon law whenever they feel like it. They attempt to convince us that canon law of the Supreme Pontiff is dangerous and harmful to the faithful. Such a proposition was condemned by Pius VI a long time ago. Consequently, their assertions are quite non-traditional.

Now, in accord with Heb 13:17, the SSPX, having no incardinated Bishop or priest for that matter, are not my superiors. I am not bound to obey them. I am bound to obey my incardinatd parish pastor, Fr. Brad, and my diocesene bishop, Bishop Michael Sheridan, and my pope, Pope John Paul II. Each of these, unlike the priests and excommunicated bishops of the SSPX actually have lawful jurisdiction within the Catholic Church. I’ll stick with obedience to lawful authority rather than pretend non-incardinated priests have any jurisdiction as leaders in my Holy Religion.

 

[deogratias]

The SSPX mentality certainly doesn’t sound like a compliment, yet is undefined by you to what end? to sound good at my expense? to make it appear that you are in possession of some higher mental powers than I and the SSPX? Curious minds, or merely those of us afflicted with the SSPX mentality would like to know. – Sincerely Albert Cipriani the Traditional Catholic

The SSPX mentality as defined by me are those who attend SSPX Masses and give lip service to loyalty to the Pope but who are disobedient to him at the same time refusing to do anything he asks them to do.

They are those who reject the N.O. Mass as being invalid. They are those who dismiss every Vatican II Document and in some cases dismiss the whole Council.

They are those who come to Catholic Sites and try to convince everyone there that they are not in schism.

Often they are those that believe everything began with Trent and Ended with Pius X

They claim to be “traditionalists” This is not about traditionalism. (There is, God knows, a lot of room for traditionalists within the Church and happily I am one.) It is about the authority of the Church of Jesus Christ to which the SSPX will not comply.

Sincerely,

A traditional Catholic (who attends licit Indult Masses, does not reject Vatican II, is obedient to the Pope and accepts the validity of correctly celebrated Novus Ordo Masses)

 

[Fr.JLT]

AMEN to Deogratias and, well, Deo Gratias!

 

[albert_cipriani]

itsjustdave1988:

I believe the current Roman Missal to be that discipline which cannot be harmful or dangerous to the faithful.

Why do you have such low standards? Catholics beleive that the Mass is the greatest prayer man is capable of. Knowing this, you are capable of only timorously believing that it isn’t “harmful or dangerous”? That’s damning it by faint praise.

Of course the Mass is not harmful or dangerous! How could the greatest prayer this side of heaven be either?! The question you duck with your faint praise is whether or not the new Mass is less pious than the old Mass and if so, why do you allow the virtue of obedience to rob you of the virtue of piety?

Bottomline: ecclesiastical disciplines established and approved by the Church cannot contradict the will of God.

If your statement were true, you must also believe that the ecclesiastical discipline of excommunication and its punishments exercised by the Church are God’s will. Ergo, you must believe God willed Saint Joan of Arc to be excommunicated and burned at the stake. In short, you must either believe that God sometimes wills evil or that He and His Church are sometimes a house divided when it comes to pastoral non-doctrinal issues. Traditionalists believe the latter.

I think of liturgy prescribed by the current Roman Missal as “milk” in comparison to the “solid food” of the 1962 Roman Missal.

Then why don’t you stop suckling and act your age? Why remain encumbered by the flimsy apron strings of servile obedience to disobedient bishops? – Sincerely, Albert Cipriani the Traditional Catholic

 

[itsjustdave1988]

The question you duck with your faint praise is whether or not the new Mass is less pious than the old Mass

I don’t care to get into a debate about whose prayer is holier. I believe all the approved liturgies of the Catholic Church are holy (I think there are over 20). However, my duty as a Catholic is to obey canon law and to submit to Catholic doctrines with both intellect and will. That’s what I’m doing. The SSPX … no so much.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

If your statement were true, you must also believe that the ecclesiastical discipline of excommunication and its punishments exercised by the Church are God’s will.

No. Let’s presume I know better what I believe, and I’ll likewise presume you know better what you believe.

I believe in accord with this 1909 Catholic Encyclopedia article called “Ecclesiastical Discipline” newadvent.org/cathen/05030a.htm

Here’s an excerpt…

Disciplinary Infallibility] has, however, found a place in all recent treatises on the Church (De Ecclesiâ}. The authors of these treatises decide unanimously in favour of a negative and indirect rather than a positive and direct infallibility, inasmuch as in her general discipline, i. e. the common laws imposed on all the faithful, the Church can prescribe nothing that would be contrary to the natural or the Divine law, nor prohibit anything that the natural or the Divine law would exact. If well understood this thesis is undeniable; it amounts to saying that the Church does not and cannot impose practical directions contradictory of her own teaching.

Likewise, I believe in accord with this other 1908 Catholic source:

P. Hermann, Institutiones Theologiae Dogmaticae (4th ed., Rome: Della Pace, 1908), vol. 1, p. 258:

“The Church is infallible in her general discipline. By the term general discipline is understood the laws and practices which belong to the external ordering of the whole Church. Such things would be those which concern either external worship, such as liturgy and rubrics, or the administration of the sacraments. . . .

---

“If she [the Church] were able to prescribe or command or tolerate in her discipline something against faith and morals, or something which tended to the detriment of the Church or to the harm of the faithful, she would turn away from her divine mission, which would be impossible.”

Excommunications are not part of the general discipline in the context of Pius VI’s condemnation, Auctorem Fidei, par. 78 (1794), nor according to the above sources.

Then why don’t you stop suckling and act your age?

I attend the indult Mass of the FSSP in my town on occassion. However, I’m a catechist. I believe I am best serving God by helping other more so-called “progressive” parishes become less “progressive.”

Why remain encumbered by the flimsy apron strings of servile obedience to disobedient bishops?

Bishop Michael Sheridan is far from disobedient. Yet, even if he was, I would stay and manifest my opinion in his diocese in accord with Lumen Gentium.

I would not do as the excommunicated Marcel Lefebvre did, and the current excommunicated SSPX Superior General Bernard Fellay continues to do, namely, commit evil such that good may come of it. That’s not very traditional.

 

[albert_cipriani]

itsjustdave1988:

I don’t care to get into a debate about whose prayer is holier.

There’s no such thing as a prayer that is holy. Only people can be holy. And some prayers are more conducive than other prayers in helping to make people holy.

I believe all the approved liturgies of the Catholic Church are holy (I think there are over 20).

Correction, all prayers are more or less conducive to our holiness. The various rites of the Church are no more than so many words on a page. But when prayed with some level of pious intent, they can render us holy but are not holy in and of themselves.

The question you keep skirting is why celebrate the New Mass liturgy if you feel that it is less conducive to your own holiness than the Tridentine liturgy? Or if you have no preference, why do you condemn Traditionalists who do have a preference?

However, my duty as a Catholic is to obey canon law.

Canon Law makes allowance for my preference for the unapproved Tridentine liturgy as the fulfillment of my Sunday obligation. Refer to the 1983 Code, 1248, par 1 which states: “He who assists at Mass wherever it is celebrated in a Catholic rite (ubicumque celebratur ritu catholico) satisfies the precept of assisting at Mass…”

Canon Law states that I am imune from penalties in disobeying any bishop who would deny me access to the Tridentine Mass. Refer to Canon 1323 of the 1983 Code which states: “No one is liable to a penalty who, when violating a law or precept acted only under compulsion of grave fear, even if only relative, or by reason of necessity or grave inconvenience…”

Trust me, my disobedience as a Traditionalist is motivated by more than inconvenience. I seek out the Mass of my fathers out of grave fear to my immortal soul should I abandon it for the New Mass that, in practice,is so very impious by contrast. – Sincerely, Albert Cipriani the Traditional Catholic

 

[itsjustdave1988]

albert cipriani:

The question you keep skirting is why celebrate the New Mass liturgy if you feel that it is less conducive to your own holiness than the Tridentine liturgy?

That’s not my assertion. That may be your assertion, but I believe it is one based upon ignorance.

My reference to “milk” and “solid food” has to do with catechesis, not sanctification. And even then, the Tridentine Mass is “solid food” in reference to many who do not understand Latin or sufficiently learned in the liturgy so as to understand what is going on and why. Most of the Catholics that I know could not digest it (catechetically), let alone catecumens or converts. And evangelization and catechesis to poorly catechized Catholics, catechumens, and non-Catholics is an important part of the mission of the Church. The Pauline Mass is valid, and so it is sanctifying, but no more or less than any other valid Catholic liturgy.

Or if you have no preference, why do you condemn Traditionalists who do have a preference?

I don’t. This is simply a false accusation. I haven’t condemned anybody. For one, I don’t have that authority.

All I have done is point out that the SSPX have no bishop that is not excommunicated. I’ve also pointed out that SSPX priests have no incardinated priests. The SSPX are not in full communion with the Roman Pontiff, and as such are schismatic. Consequently, they have no more priestly authority in my Holy Religion than do other schismatics. Theire actions are in violation of canon law. Their contention that “Vatican II adulterated Catholic teaching” is contrary to the teaching of the Roman Pontiff in the exercise of the ordinary magisterium, and canon law charges me and all Christian faithful “to take care to avoid those things which do not agree with” the teachings of the authentic magisterium (cf. canon 752). All of canon law is binding, not just some canons.

Canon Law makes allowance for my preference for the unapproved Tridentine liturgy as the fulfillment of my Sunday obligation. Refer to the 1983 Code, 1248, par 1 which states:“He who assists at Mass wherever it is celebrated in a Catholic rite (ubicumque celebratur ritu catholico) satisfies the precept of assisting at Mass…”

I agree that one can satisfy their precept of assisting at Mass celebrated by an SSPX priest. I’ve not asserted otherwise. Yet, there’s more to being faithful and obedient than satisfying this precept.

Canon Law states that I am imune from penalties in disobeying any bishop who would deny me access to the Tridentine Mass. Refer to Canon 1323 of the 1983 Code which states: “No one is liable to a penalty who, when violating a law or precept acted only under compulsion of grave fear, even if only relative, or by reason of necessity or grave inconvenience…”

You certainly may be immune from judicial penalties if indeed you have true “grave fear.” But God knows the difference between feigned “grave fear” and a hardened heart. I pray you truly have “grave fear” and do not act out of sinful ignorance.

I cannot join with you in assisting at an SSPX Mass, however, simply because I understand fully that the Sacraments do not produce sanctifying grace ex opere operante, but do so ex opere operato. Consequently, the Pauline Mass is no more or less sanctifying than the Tridentine Mass, nor any other approved Catholic liturgy. Thus, no true grave fear exists for me.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Albert,

So really, it’s a matter of deciding whether it is better to participate in a non-schismatic community or a schismatic one. I choose the former, as I believe to choose the latter is a sin of disobedience to the Roman Pontiff, or at least the near occasion of sin.

On the contrary, if I assist at a Pauline Mass which is presided by a “progressive” or liberal priest who violates the rubrics but still celebrates a valid Mass, I still participate in a non-schismatic community, and have the opportunity to correct those that need correction. On the other hand, in the SSPX, if I speak out against their disobedience, they simply bar me from their chapel. I have no recourse to due process in accord with canon law in the SSPX, but I do in even the most liberal non-schismatic Catholic parish.

 

[albert_cipriani]

itsjustdave1988:

I cannot join with you in assisting at an SSPX Mass, however, simply because I understand fully that the Sacraments do not produce sanctifying grace ex opere operante, but do so ex opere operato.

I don’t understand what you mean. What follows is my understanding.

The Church teaches that in the reception of the Sacraments, grace enters the soul in two ways. The first is ex opere operato, or by virtue of the work performed. The second is called ex opere operantis, which is to say, by virtue of the disposition of the recipient. Thus, one who participates in good faith in false sacraments can indeed receive grace - but only that grace that comes from his own good disposition, and never that much more ineffable grace which derives from the Sacrament itself.

Since the Church teaches that the grace we recieve from the Mass is contingent both upon the validity of the Mass itself AND upon our disposition to it, we are obliged to attend the Mass that is most conducive to our fostering the best disposition possible. If the New Mass does that for you, have at it. But the Traditional Mass does that for me. Ergo, in recognition of the Church’s 1000 year old teaching summed up as “ex opere operantis,” I celebrate the Mass of my fathers. – Sincerely, Albert Cipriani the Traditional Catholic

 

[itsjustdave1988]

albert cipriani:

The Church teaches that in the reception of the Sacraments, grace enters the soul in two ways. The first is ex opere operato, or by virtue of the work performed. The second is called ex opere operantis, which is to say, by virtue of the disposition of the recipient.

Can you please cite a source.

If you mean by “false sacrament” an invalid sacrament, then it is not a sacrament at all.

We do not receive any sanctifying grace ex opere operantis from Sacraments. However, I understand that God may bless us through sacramentals *ex opere operantis *if that be His will. Such sacramentals would include praying the Rosary or prayerfully reading Scripture at home with your family. I can piously receive such grace ex opere operatntis without going to such extreme disobedience as to participate in a schismatic community such as the SSPX.

However, the fulness of grace from a valid Sacrament is conferred SOLELY *ex opere operato. *

Observe,

Catholic Encyclopedia (1909) - Sacraments
newadvent.org/cathen/13295a.htm

**“Ex opere operato”, i.e. by virtue of the action, means that the efficacy of the action of the sacraments does not depend on anything human, but solely on the will of God as expressed by Christ’s institution and promise. **“Ex opere operantis”, i.e. by reason of the agent, would mean that the action of the sacraments depended on the worthiness either of the minister or of the recipient (see Pourrat, “Theology of the Sacraments”, tr. St. Louis, 1910, 162 sqq … It is well known that Catholics teach that the sacraments are only the instrumental, not the principal, causes of grace. Neither can it be claimed that the phrase adopted by the council [of Trent, that is *ex opere operato

] does away with all dispositions necessary on the part of the recipient, the sacraments acting like infallible charms causing grace in those who are ill-disposed or in grievous sin. The fathers of the council were careful to note that there must be no obstacle to grace on the part of the recipients, who must receive them rite, i.e. rightly and worthily; and they declare it a calumny to assert that they require no previous dispositions (Sess. XIV, de poenit., cap.4). Dispositions are required to prepare the subject, but they are a condition (conditio sine qua non), not the causes, of the grace conferred. In this case the sacraments differ from the sacramentals, which may cause grace ex opere operantis, i.e. by reason of the prayers of the Church or the good, pious sentiments of those who use them.

… Few questions have been so hotly controverted as this one relative to the manner in which the sacraments cause grace (ST IV, Sent., d.1, Q.4, a.1.).

(a) All admit that the sacraments of the New Law cause grace ex opere operato, NOT** ex opere operantis** (above, II, 2, 3).

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Albert,

Since the Church teaches that the grace we recieve from the Mass is contingent both upon the validity of the Mass itself AND upon our disposition to it, we are obliged to attend the Mass that is most conducive to our fostering the best disposition possible.

I don’t believe you and I share the same understanding of “disposition.” There is not a “best disposition possible.” One is either properly disposed or one is not. It is a yes or no question, not one that can admit to being really really disposed as compared to being just a little bit disposed.

Disposition refers to the conditions for valid and licit reception of the Sacrament. The article cited above states:

VII. RECIPIENT OF THE SACRAMENTS

**When all conditions required by Divine and ecclesiastical law are complied with, the sacrament is received validly and licitly. If all conditions required for the essential rite are observed, on the part of the minister, the recipient, the matter and form, but some non-essential condition is not complied with by the recipient, the sacrament is received validly but not licitly; and if the condition wilfully neglected be grave, grace is not then conferred by the ceremony. **Thus baptized persons contracting Matrimony whilst they are in the state of mortal sin would be validly (i.e. really) married, but would not then receive sanctifying grace.

Thus, state of grace is not a condition of validity, but a condition of licit reception of the Sacraments.

to be continued…