Sacramental Life: Practical Guidelines for Sedevacantists

In our previous article, we addressed the lawful reception of the sacraments during the vacancy of the Apostolic See. Given the significance of the matter, we deemed it necessary to publish this follow-up article, offering the faithful practical guidance on the subject.

I. Errors that all Sedevacantists must avoid

1. Sacramentalist errors

a) Denying the necessity of a canonical mission for legitimate ministry.

The Council of Trent condemns with anathema those who deny this revealed truth:

'If anyone says that…those who have been neither rightly ordained nor sent by ecclesiastical and canonical authority, but come from a different source, are lawful ministers of the word and of the sacraments: let him be anathema.' (Council of Trent, Sess. 23, Can. 7; D. 960)

b) Using epikeia or supplied jurisdiction as a substitute for a canonical mission: 

Epikeia does not apply to Divine law, and dogmas admit no exceptions. While supplied jurisdiction may render the administration of the sacraments valid and licit, it does not confer the status of a lawful pastor of the Catholic Church.

2. Non-sacramentalist errors

a) Denying the possibility of supplied jurisdiction in all cases.

The Church can supply jurisdiction in cases of common error or doubt (Canon 209) and in danger of death (Canon 882).

3. Common errors of both groups

a) Claiming that all bishops defected in 1958.

Such a scenario is impossible and heretical, as it denies the indefectibility and apostolicity of the Church.

'I firmly hold, then, and shall hold to my dying breath the belief of the Fathers in the charism of truth, which certainly is, was, and always will be in the succession of the episcopacy from the apostles.' (Saint Pius X, Oath against Modernism)

b) Asserting that the Church could survive solely with supplied jurisdiction,  thus denying the necessity of a living hierarchy with ordinary jurisdiction.

In Mortalium Animos, Pope Pius XI taught that there will always be a teaching authority with ordinary jurisdiction governing the faithful: 

'…The Church of Christ must be visible and apparent, at least to such a degree that it appears as one body of faithful, agreeing in the same doctrine under one teaching authority and government.' (Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, n. 6)

II. Practical consequences

We may now draw some practical conclusions regarding the reception of the sacraments from traditionalist clergy:

1. Canon law allows the faithful to receive sacraments from excommunicated ministers (non vitandus or unsentenced) for any just cause under certain conditions (Canon 2261, §2):

• Exceptions allow the faithful to request Sacraments and sacramentals from an excommunicated minister (not a vitandus or under a condemnatory/declaratory sentence) for any just cause (e.g., promoting devotion, avoiding temptation, or convenience) in the following cases:
• If no other minister is available, the excommunicated minister may administer them licitly.

2. Acts of jurisdiction are valid and may be licit if requested by the faithful per Canon 2261, §2:

• Acts of jurisdiction (external or internal forum) by excommunicated persons are illicit. However:
• If a condemnatory or declaratory sentence has been issued, such acts are also invalid, except as provided in Canon 2261, §3.
• If no such sentence exists, acts of jurisdiction are valid and may be licit if requested by the faithful per Canon 2261, §2.

3. The faithful themselves should decide whether they have a good reason to go to such ministers: 

Any reason that helps them grow in devotion, avoid sin, or is simply a matter of real convenience can be considered acceptable.

4. However, as these ministers are not lawful pastors, the faithful are under no obligation to receive the sacraments from them.

Sedevacantism and the Sacraments: The Question of Lawful Reception

The lawfulness of traditionalist clergy is a question that divides sedevacantists and has serious consequences for the spiritual lives of the faithful. Some argue that receiving the sacraments from priests without ordinary jurisdiction is lawful and justified in times of crisis. Others, however, maintain that no state of necessity permits the violation of ecclesiastical law and that, in light of the Tridentine dogma, all priests without a canonical mission must be regarded as thieves and robbers who have not entered by the door.

This article classifies these groups according to their sacramental view, distinguishing between sacramentalists and non-sacramentalists (Home Aloners), followed by a commentary on each position.

I. 'Sacramentalists' and 'Non-Sacramentalists' (Home Aloners)

1. The Sacramentalist Position

Sacramentalists are those who believe it is lawful to receive the sacraments from traditionalist priests. Father Cekada maintains that Divine law not only permits, but obliges Catholic priests to administer sacraments as a duty tied to their priesthood. His arguments are summarised as follows:

• Our Lord’s commands to baptise (Mt. 28:19), forgive sins (Jn 20:22), offer Mass (Lk 22:19), etc., constitute a divine law that binds all Catholic bishops and priests until the end of time.
• Priests with cura animarum (pastors with ordinary or delegated jurisdiction) are obliged in justice to administer sacraments; others are bound either as in charity or in virtue of ordination.
• After Vatican II, most priests with cura animarum defected to the modernist religion, leaving faithful Catholics in grave spiritual need.
• Traditional priests, though often without formal jurisdiction (e.g., retired, outcast), are bound by divine law to provide sacraments.
• Bishops like Abps. Lefebvre and Thuc were obliged to ordain priests to continue providing sacraments, per their episcopal duty.
• Divine law grants traditional priests legitimate deputation and apostolic mission to administer the sacraments.
• Human ecclesiastical laws (e.g., Canon 879, requiring express jurisdiction for confession, or Canons 953, 2370 on episcopal consecration) cease when they become harmful to observe or in common need.  
• Such laws have ceased in the post-Vatican II crisis, as they would deprive Catholics of sacraments.

2. The Non-Sacramentalist Position (Home-aloners)

Those who refuse to receive the sacraments from the traditional priests are divided into two groups:

a) Recusants:

According to the website RecusantCatholic.org, this argument can be presented as follows:

• As Catholics, we refuse to participate in the services of illicit clergy who usurp authority without jurisdiction or mission.
• Jurisdiction comes from the pope, and with the See of Peter currently vacant, there can be no valid jurisdiction (supplied or otherwise) unless established by Pope Pius XII before his death.
• The Bible warns of false shepherds in Matthew 24, including not only anti-Catholic religions but also the Modernist Novus Ordo with its invalid, blasphemous "mass," and schismatic groups like SSPX, CMRI, SGG, RCI, MHT, SSPV, and CSPV. These groups, claiming to be Traditional Catholics, have dubious or invalid orders from modernists like Thuc, Lefebvre, and Mendez, and lack legitimate jurisdiction or divine mission, which requires papal authority or miraculous proof, as seen with Jesus, Moses, the Apostles, and St. Vincent Ferrer..
• Epikeia does not apply to unlawful pastors who lack both mission and jurisdiction.
• No illicit priest or bishop has the right to state that he is doing what God would want him to do when God Himself has removed the pope. They cannot rewrite Divine law to suit their needs
• Because of this lack of jurisdiction, none of these illicit or invalid priests or bishops has the ability to hear confessions. All confessions are invalid, even if performed by a validly ordained priest.

b) Sedefinists

Sedefinists hold that all bishops lost their office and jurisdiction in 1965 due to their adherence to the Montinian sect. This position may be summarised as follows:

• The consummatio saeculi is not the destruction of the physical world, nor the Last Day, but the end of one era and the beginning of another. It encompasses multiple events, including:

The proclamation of the Gospel to all nations [already fulfilled];

The removal of the Katechon (the visible Church and the Roman Pontiff, as unanimously interpreted by the Church);

The end of the so-called Millennium, marking the close of an era;

The release of Satan to deceive all nations;

The Great Apostasy;

The Operation of Error;

The placing of the Abomination of Desolation in the Holy Temple;

The crowning of the Antichrist in the same temple;

The abolition of the Perpetual Sacrifice;

The Harlot mistaken for the Bride;

The flock left as sheep without a shepherd;

The Bride fleeing to the wilderness, sustained by divine graces;

The rise of false shepherds and false christs (Mt 24:24).

• On 9 October 1958, with the death of Pope Pius XII, the last Vicar of Christ, the Katechon (the visible Church and the Roman Pontiff) was removed (II Thess 2:6), permitting the manifestation of the son of perdition.
• This marked the end of the Christian era, during which the Catholic Church, led by the popes, sanctified the world through the Gospel and the sacraments.
• The removal of the Katechon enabled the rise of the Antichrist, identified as G. B. Montini (“Paul VI”), heralded by his false prophet Angelo Roncalli (John XXIII).
• They preached a false gospel focused on earthly peace and security (1 Thess 5:3), neglecting the supernatural, leading to widespread apostasy.
• This ushered in the era of Satan, or Anomia (lawlessness), marked by the absence of spiritual and moral authority previously provided by the Holy See.
• The Catholic Church was eclipsed by the Great Harlot of Babylon or Montinian sect, a false church usurping the Church’s external structures, as foretold by Our Lady at La Salette (1846).
• The Great Apostasy occurred on 8 December 1965, when bishops and cardinals signed the heretical documents of Vatican II, betraying the flock and incurring automatic excommunication (Canon 188 §4, Cum ex Apostolatus Officio).
• This fulfilled Rev 13:5-7, where the Antichrist was given authority to blaspheme and wage war against the saints, overcoming them.
• The Operation of Error (2 Thess 2:8-12) began with Montini, marked by doctrinal contradictions, false sacramental prodigies, and heretical distortions disguised as orthodoxy.
• The Abomination of Desolation (Mt 24:15) refers to the Antichrist’s usurpation of the papacy, with the Montinian sect replacing the true Church.
• The sacraments were altered, the Perpetual Sacrifice abolished, and the liturgical calendar and sanctoral cycle destroyed, leaving the faithful as sheep without a shepherd.
• False christs and prophets (Mt 24:24) emerged, including the Montinian sect and traditionalist groups such as SSPX (Lefebvre) and the followers of Pierre Martin Ngô Thuc.
• These groups illicitly consecrate bishops and priests, defying Pius XII’s decrees and the 1917 Code of Canon Law, incurring excommunication and infamy (Canons 2229, 2370, 2372).
• These false shepherds, by rejecting the authority of the Holy See, commit grave sins akin to King Saul’s unlawful sacrifice (I Sam 13–14), acting against Divine law under the pretext of preserving the faith.

II. Critical Analysis and Commentary

1. Critique of the Sacramentalist Position

Sacramentalists correctly stress the priest’s grave obligation under Divine law and the possibility that human law may cease in some cases. However, this alone does not create a legitimate mission or jurisdiction, nor does epikeia supply what is strictly required by Divine law.

2. Critique of the Recusant Position

Recusants seek to defend Church law by rejecting clergy without mission, but err in claiming all jurisdiction ceased after 1958. The Church can supply jurisdiction in cases of common error or doubt (Canon 209) and in danger of death (Canon 882).

3. Critique of the Sedefinist Position

Sedefinism is speculative and heretical because it denies both the Church’s indefectibility and the perpetuity of the papacy as defined at Vatican I.

Conclusion

The vacancy of the Apostolic See has led Catholics to adopt different positions concerning the reception of the sacraments from traditionalist clergy.

Sacramentalists emphasise the priest’s obligation to administer the sacraments to the faithful in need, but they err in asserting that such an obligation is sufficient to constitute a legitimate deputation and mission.

Among non-sacramentalists, Recusants focus on safeguarding ecclesiastical law and discipline, rather than on the spiritual necessity of the sacraments. They also wrongly affirm that all jurisdiction died with the last valid pope in 1958. In contrast, Sedefinism goes so far as to claim that no Catholic hierarchy remains at all.

Why Sedevacantists Are Returning to the Novus Ordo?

via @engl1shtradcat (X)

Recently, some individuals have abandoned the sedevacantist position and returned to the Novus Ordo Church. This article seeks to explain this phenomenon by examining the general causes of error and then applying these principles to understand why former sedevacantists have defected.

I. Truth and Error

Before addressing the causes of error, we must first have a clear understanding of  truth and falsehood.

Truth is the conformity of the intellect to reality. For instance, when someone states that the sky is blue, this proposition is true because the intellect corresponds to the object.

Falsehood, on the other hand, is a false judgment of the intellect. If someone states that the sky is not blue or that it is red, the proposition is incorrect, for the intellect affirms or denies something contrary to objective reality.

II. The Causes of Error

Error has both logical and moral causes.

A. Logical Causes of Error

Logical errors originate from the natural weaknesses of our intellect, such as:

Hasty judgments: Forming conclusions without sufficient evidence or reflection.

Inattention: A lack of focus or concentration, preventing the intellect from apprehending reality.

Lack of memory: The inability to recall relevant facts or past experiences necessary for sound reasoning.

Ignorance: When the complexity of a concept, problem, or situation exceeds an individual’s cognitive capacity or knowledge.

The intellect is bound to assent only to what is evidently true, unless it is influenced by the will, which itself is moved by the passions. It follows, therefore, that in most cases error originates from moral causes.

B. Moral causes of Error

Moral errors, on the other hand, stem from the will, which desires the assent of the intellect on account of:

Pride: The unwillingness to admit error or accept truths that challenge their preconceived ideas and beliefs, and lead one to cling to false conclusions or reject evidence that contradicts their views.

Interest: The influence of personal gain, convenience, or ulterior motives leads individuals to rationalise falsehoods or avoid inconvenient realities.

Laziness: A lack of diligence or motivation to seek the truth.

III. The reasons for the defection of former sedevacantists.

In light of the principles outlined above, the defection of sedevacantists can generally be traced to the following intellectual or moral causes:

A. Rational or Logical Motives

Neo-novusordites often claim that their decision was made based on rational arguments, and not personal experiences. They argue that traditionalism would destroy the indefectibility, visibility, and apostolicity of the Catholic Church, so it cannot be true.

Thus, they are led to believe that the situation may not be so bad, and that we should accept the living magisterium of the Vatican II Church, seeking to understand heresy in the light of tradition and treating contradictions as a legitimate doctrinal development.

What are we to think of this approach?

These objections concerning indefectibility are valid. After all, we are bound to believe in a visible and hierarchical church, which cannot simply disappear from the face of the earth. There is only one institution claiming to be the True Church; therefore, it must be the Catholic Church, and the religion they preach is necessarily Catholicism, even if it may sound absurd, contradictory, and heretical, right?

This reasoning is flawed because it stems from:

Ignorance and Confirmation bias: Accepting evidence that appears to legitimise the Vatican II Church (e.g., claims of visibility or indefectibility) while disregarding contrary evidence demonstrating that it cannot be the true Catholic Church (such as heretical popes or evil disciplines).

Cognitive dissonance: Psychological discomfort arising from our inability to know certain facts (e.g., where the Hierarchy is),  often leading to rationalisation.

Appeal to authority: Trusting Novus Ordo clergy as legitimate pastors despite evidence to the contrary.

B. Moral reasons

Sedevacantism has nothing to offer but the cross, and it often entails social and personal sacrifices:

• Losing friends or family connections.
• Facing ostracism or ridicule.
• Limited access to the sacraments.
• Difficulty finding a spouse or community support.

Returning to the Novus Ordo, by contrast, appears far more attractive, as it offers:

• Easy access to sacraments.
• Social acceptance and integration.
• Even potential financial or professional advantages.

Humanly speaking, there is a lot to gain by becoming a novusordite. These incentives can influence the will to reject unpleasant truths and embrace convenient lies.

*****

As a consequence of original sin, our intellect and will remain vulnerable to error. For sedevacantists, the true danger lies not only in rational arguments but in the subtle seduction of comfort, fear, and pride. As Scripture warns: ‘Be sober and watch: because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, goeth about seeking whom he may devour’ (1 Peter 5:8). Let us therefore remain vigilant and beseech God for the grace to resist every temptation to oppose the known true so that we may never be deceived by the seduction of a convenient but false path.

The Balamand Declaration (1993): Overview and Theological Critique

In this article, we examine the Balamand Declaration concerning the ecumenical dialogue between the post-Conciliar hierarchy and the Eastern Orthodox Churches, and offer an analysis of certain erroneous propositions it contains.

Part I – Balamand Declaration (1993): An Overview

Formally titled Uniatism, Method of Union of the Past, and the Present Search for Full Communion, this report was issued in 1993 by the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches to address ecumenical relations between the two communities.

This document outlines:

Three principles:

1.    Individuals have the freedom to follow their conscience.

2.    Eastern Catholic Churches have the right to exist.

3.    Uniatism is not the current method for achieving full communion.

It also presents two main conclusions:

1.    The Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Churches are sister churches.

2.    Rebaptism should be avoided.

Document Structure

The report consists of a brief introduction (paragraphs 1–5), followed by two main sections:

I. Ecclesiological Principles (paragraphs 6–18)

• The division between the Churches of the East and West (6–9).
• The situation thus created resulted in tensions and oppositions (10–11).
• Uniatism can no longer be accepted either as a method to be followed or as a model of the unity our Churches are seeking (12).
• The Church as communion: The Catholic Churches and the Orthodox Churches recognise each other as Sister Churches. In the search for reestablishing unity, there is no question of converting people from one Church to another to ensure their salvation (13–15).
• Ecumenical dialogue: These churches should engage in a dialogue of love, mutual respect, reciprocal trust, and theological discussion with all practical implications. (16-18)

II. Practical Rules (paragraphs 19–36)

• Mutual respect between the Churches will increase to the extent that they observe the following practical rules (19–20).
• The first step is to put an end to everything that foments division, contempt, and hatred between the Churches. Pastoral activity in the Catholic Church no longer aims to have the faithful of one Church pass over to the other; that is to say, it no longer aims at proselytising among the Orthodox (21–22).
• Past persecutions and sufferings should not justify triumphalism. It is necessary that bishops and all those with pastoral responsibilities scrupulously respect the religious liberty of the faithful (23–25).
• It is necessary to seek and engage in open dialogue, primarily among those responsible for the Churches at the local level. All violence and every kind of pressure must be absolutely avoided so that freedom of conscience is respected (26–27).
• Faith in sacramental reality implies respect for the liturgical celebrations of the other Church. Bishops and priests have a duty before God to respect the authority given by the Holy Spirit to the bishops and priests of the other Church and therefore to avoid interfering in the spiritual life of the faithful of that Church (28–29).
• Special attention should be given to the preparation of future priests. Their education ought to be objectively positive with respect for the other Church (30).
• Christians must resolve their differences through fraternal dialogue (31).
• Joint re-evangelisation of the secular world (32–33).
• Commitment to theological dialogue (34–35).

Part II – A Critical Analysis of the Balamand Declaration

Proposition 1

Uniatism should be rejected as a method for seeking unity, as it contradicts the common tradition of our Churches. (Paragraph 2)

Pius XI explicitly taught that the return of dissidents is the only method of promoting Christian unity:

'The union of Christians can only be promoted by promoting the return to the one true Church of Christ of those who are separated from it, for in the past they have unhappily left it.' (Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, n, 10)

Likewise, Pope Leo XIII earnestly hopes and desires that schismatics will return to the fold they have abandoned:

'First of all, then, We cast an affectionate look upon the East, from whence in the beginning came forth the salvation of the world.  Yes, and the yearning desire of Our heart bids us conceive and hope that the day is not far distant when the Eastern Churches, so illustrious in their ancient faith and glorious past, will return to the fold they have abandoned.  We hope it all the more, that the distance separating them from Us is not so great: nay, with some few exceptions, we agree so entirely on other heads that, in defense of the Catholic Faith, we often have recourse to reasons and testimony borrowed from the teaching, the Rites, and Customs of the East.' (Leo XIII, Praeclara Gratulationis Publicae)

Censure: Erroneous in theology.

Proposition 2

The division between the Churches of the East and West has never quenched the desire for unity wished by Christ; rather, it has often been an occasion for becoming more deeply conscious of the need to achieve it. (Paragraph 6)

Our Lord did not merely express a desire for unity that remains unfulfilled; He founded His Church as a visible society, permanently united in faith and government. Unity, being an essential mark of the Church, is not something to be achieved in the future, but is a reality that the Church already and perpetually possesses.

'And here it seems opportune to expound and to refute a certain false opinion, on which this whole question, as well as that complex movement by which non-Catholics seek to bring about the union of the Christian churches depends. For authors who favour this view are accustomed, times almost without number, to bring forward these words of Christ: "That they all may be one.... And there shall be one fold and one shepherd," with this signification, however: that Christ Jesus merely expressed a desire and prayer, which still lacks its fulfilment. For they are of the opinion that the unity of faith and government, which is a note of the one true Church of Christ, has hardly up to the present time existed, and does not today exist. They consider that this unity may indeed be desired and that it may even be one day attained through the instrumentality of wills directed to a common end, but that meanwhile it can only be regarded as mere ideal. They add that the Church in itself, or of its nature, is divided into sections; that is to say, that it is made up of several churches or distinct communities, which still remain separate, and although having certain articles of doctrine in common, nevertheless disagree concerning the remainder; that these all enjoy the same rights; and that the Church was one and unique from, at the most, the apostolic age until the first Ecumenical Councils.' (Ibid. n. 7 )

Censure: Temerarious.

Proposition 3

The Catholic Churches and the Orthodox Churches recognise each other as Sister Churches, responsible together for maintaining the Church of God in fidelity to the divine purpose, most especially in what concerns unity. (Paragraph 14)

The Roman Catholic Church and the Church of Christ are one and the same thing (Cf. Pius XII, Humani Generis, n. 27)

'If we would define and describe this true Church of Jesus Christ - which is the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church - we shall find nothing more noble, more sublime, or more divine than the expression "the Mystical Body of Christ" - an expression which springs from and is, as it were, the fair flowering of the repeated teaching of the Sacred Scriptures and the Holy Fathers. That the Church is a body is frequently asserted in the Sacred Scriptures. "Christ," says the Apostle, "is the Head of the Body of the Church." If the Church is a body, it must be an unbroken unity, according to those words of Paul: "Though many we are one body in Christ." But it is not enough that the Body of the Church should be an unbroken unity; it must also be something definite and perceptible to the senses as Our predecessor of happy memory, Leo XIII, in his Encyclical Satis Cognitum asserts: "the Church is visible because she is a body. Hence they err in a matter of divine truth, who imagine the Church to be invisible, intangible, a something merely "pneumatological" as they say, by which many Christian communities, though they differ from each other in their profession of faith, are untied by an invisible bond.' (Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, n. 13-14)

These Eastern schismatic sects are incapable of maintaining the Church of God in fidelity because:

They are outside the Church and therefore have no authority, jurisdiction, or mission within the Mystical Body of Christ (cf. Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum, n. 15).

Their separation from the Apostolic See renders them objectively unable to fulfil the divine purpose entrusted to the Church.

Censure: Heretical.

Proposition 4

In the search for re-establishing unity, there is no question of converting people from one Church to the other in order to ensure their salvation. (paragraph 15)

This proposition contradicts the dogma Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus. Schismatics must return to the Catholic Church in order to attain eternal salvation (at least by implicit desire):

'It firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart "into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels" [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.' (Council of Florence, Cantate Domino, D. 714)

Censure: Heretical.

Proposition 5

Bishops and priests have the duty before God to respect the authority which the Holy Spirit has given to the bishops and priests of the other Church, and for that reason to avoid interfering in the spiritual life of the faithful of that Church. (Paragraph 29)

'No one, therefore, unless in communion with Peter can share in his authority, since it is absurd to imagine that he who is outside can command in the Church.' (Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum , n. 15)

Schismatic bishops and priests are outside the Catholic Church and therefore do not possess any ecclesiastical authority.

This proposition denies the necessity of canonical mission:

'If anyone says that…those who have been neither rightly ordained nor sent by ecclesiastical and canonical authority, but come from a different source, are lawful ministers of the word and of the sacraments: let him be anathema.' (Council of Trent, sess. 23, can. 7; D. 960).

Censure: Heretical.

The Origin of Life and The Creation of Man: A Philosophical and Theological Overview

Pius XII and Darwin - Grok

Article I.            The Origin of Life

Section 1.01 The Material Origin of Life

(a)    Spontaneous Generation Hypothesis

 This hypothesis holds that life arises through abiogenesis, that is, from the interaction of inorganic materials and forces, gradually diversifying and improving.

A distinction must be made:

From a Philosophical Perspective:

 This hypothesis is untenable, as vital activity surpasses that of inanimate entities and cannot be explained by them. According to the principle of causality, the lesser cannot give rise to the greater.

From a Scientific Perspective:

 It contradicts experimental evidence. The principle omne vivum ex vivo (“all life comes from life”) holds, as demonstrated by Pasteur’s refutation of spontaneous generation.

Aristotle and the Scholastics attributed spontaneous generation to the influence of incorruptible celestial bodies moved by spiritual beings.

(b)   Panspermia Hypothesis

 This hypothesis asserts that the genesis of life may be traced to extraterrestrial origins.

 Main proponents: Richter, Helmholtz, Cohn.

(c)     Eternal Life Hypothesis

 According to this theory, life has always existed on Earth (W. Preyer), even during its incandescent phase (pyrozoans), with inanimate matter regarded as the residue of living beings.

Section 1.02 The Divine Origin of Life

 Life can only be imparted by the One who has power over being, either indirectly, through a seminal force in matter (as in moderate transformism, which holds that God created the world as a seed with certain potentialities that developed over time), or directly, by producing in matter a greater or lesser number of living species.

Article II.          The Evolution of Life

Natural Species: Share a common essence, which suffices to explain their similar real properties.

Systematic Species: Described by naturalists; not all systematic species correspond to true natural species.

Specific Criteria:

Anatomical or physiological characteristics that allow the differentiation of natural species.

Genetic Criterion: Beings that belong to the same species produce fertile offspring.

Qualitative Criterion: Differences between two individuals of the same species are merely quantitative or ornamental.

Human Criterion: Derived from the unity of the human species, as affirmed by philosophy and revelation. Differences perceptible to human reason do not constitute distinct species.

Article III.       The Problem of the Origin of Species (Proposed Solutions)

Section 3.01    Theory of Specific Constancy, or Fixism (Cuvier, Jussieu, Agassiz, Quatrefages):

 God directly created all existing species, which may have undergone accidental variations over the centuries.

Section 3.02 Theory of Intraspecific Transformations (Improper Transformism):

 God created a limited number of natural species. While the specific organisation, determined by the substantial form, remains unchanged, accidental modifications arise from the activity of the vital principle, allowing for the emergence of subspecies.

Section 3.03 Theory of Specific Transformations (Proper Transformism):

 Living species are derived from slow, successive transformations, either from simple organisms (Haeckel’s monera) or from general types that gradually differentiated into classes, orders, genera, and species.

 Among transformists, some acknowledge divine intervention; some extend the theory to the mineral, vegetable, and animal kingdoms, while others restrict it to the vegetable and animal kingdoms.

Section 3.04 Lamarck vs. Darwin

Lamarck

• Does not extend transformism to humans.
• Active influence of the environment on variation in forms.
• Need creates the organ.
• The environment changes the form (modification occurs in the adult).

Darwin

• Extends transformism to humans.
• The environment has no direct influence on form modification; variations arise by chance.
• The environment acts only as a filter through natural selection.
• The environment selects the forms (natural selection; germinal modification).

Section 3.05 Critique of Proper Transformism

 If it seeks to explain the origin and perfection of life without God:

• It contradicts the principle of causality by deriving the more perfect from the less perfect.
• Even if divine intervention is admitted, it remains unintelligible to derive current individuals and species from primitive types.
• It is consistently contradicted by experience: specific transformations have never been verified, nor has the inheritance of individual characteristics been demonstrated.
• Neither necessity nor function can independently create new organs.

Section 3.06 Transformist Arguments

Embryological Argument:

The history of the germ is a summary of the species’ history (Haeckel). Ontogeny (the biological development of an individual from fertilisation to maturity) recapitulates phylogeny (the evolutionary history of a species).

Response: Similar organs are transient and soon develop into specific structures, determined by an internal principle of organisation.

Morphological Argument:

The gradual development of species and the presence of rudimentary organs are evidence of evolution.

Response: Structural similarity does not necessarily imply descent.

Palaeontological Argument:

The history of species can be traced through successive geological layers, which is evidence of descent.

Response: Succession in the fossil record does not necessarily imply descent (post hoc ergo propter hoc). No ancestral form of a class, order, or family has ever been conclusively found.

Article IV.       The Origin of Man

1. The First Man was created by God.

 'Firmly we believe and we confess simply that the true God is… [the] creator of all visible and invisible things, of the spiritual and of the corporal; who by His own omnipotent power at once from the beginning of time created each creature from nothing, spiritual, and corporal, namely, angelic and mundane, and finally the human, constituted as it were, alike of the spirit and the body. '(Fourth Lateran Council, D. 428)

2. Human souls are immediately created by God out of nothing.

'For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. However, this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favourable and those unfavourable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faith. Some however, rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as if the origin of the human body from pre-existing and living matter were already completely certain and proved by the facts which have been discovered up to now and by reasoning on those facts, and as if there were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in this question.' (Pius XII, Humani Generis, n. 36)

3. All humanity descends from Adam and Eve.

'When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.' (Ibid., 37.)