The new, novus ordo, synodal "church" continues to provide ample examples of its non-Catholic nature by those "prelates" who flaunt the true Catholic faith!
Please read the following very revealing article from lifesitenews.com and written by Michael Haynes, Snr. Vatican Correspondent
Female Anglican vicar 'concelebrates' Mass with new Brazilian archbishop - LifeSite
Mon Feb 17, 2025 - 7:56 am EST
"CHAPECÓ, Brazil (LifeSiteNews) — An Anglican female cleric “concelebrated” Catholic Mass in Brazil recently for the installation of the new Archbishop of Chapecó.
On February 9, Archbishop Odelir José Magri was installed as new ordinary of the recently created Archbishopric of Chapecó in Brazil. Magri, appointed to the see by Pope Francis in November, was joined at the ceremony by a number of Catholic bishops and priests, but also by Vivian Schwanke De Oliveira – a female cleric of the Anglican Episcopal Church of Brazil (IEAB)’s Diocese Sul Ocidental.
De Oliveira can be seen prominently throughout the ceremony, and was mentioned by name by Magri during the ceremony as the new archbishop praised the ecumenical nature of the event. She was not the only non-Catholic presence in the sanctuary, appearing to “concelebrate,” but was joined also by another female minister, identified by ACI Prensa as from the Evangelical denomination named the Reborn in Christ Church.
Magri’s welcoming of the ecumenical style of his installation was met with applause from the congregation, as were many introductions made during his homily.
Later during the Mass, De Oliveira queued up with the Catholic clergy to take Holy Communion from the ciboria around the altar, while the congregation were receiving Holy Communion from a number of the concelebrating priests.
The live-stream of the video cuts away just as De Oliveira and the other female minister appear to be about to consume the consecrated host.
The participation of non-Catholic ministers in the Mass in such manner appears to be a clear violation of Catholic Canon Law. Canons 907 and 908 expressly forbid a lay person from offering the prayers of the Eucharist, as well as prohibiting Catholic priests from concelebrating with non-Catholic ministers:
In the eucharistic celebration deacons and lay persons are not permitted to offer prayers, especially the eucharistic prayer, or to perform actions which are proper to the celebrating priest.
Catholic priests are forbidden to concelebrate the Eucharist with priests or ministers of Churches or ecclesial communities which do not have full communion with the Catholic Church.
De Oliveira’s apparent reception of Holy Communion, an act which would likely have emboldened by the archbishop’s warm welcome of her during the homily, would additionally violate the Church’s Canon Law. Canon 844 states that “Catholic ministers administer the sacraments licitly to Catholic members of the Christian faithful alone, who likewise receive them licitly from Catholic ministers alone.”
That canon admits of certain rare occasions when Catholics can receive certain sacraments from non-Catholic ministers whose sacraments – and thus orders – are valid. However, none of these are met by De Oliveira’s circumstances.
When questioned about De Oliveira’s participation, the Archdiocese of Chapecó issued a response, stating that they had already informed the papal nuncio to Brazil about the event, and described it as an “isolated incident of inadvertent violation of liturgical norms.” The letter read:
In reference to what happened during the Solemn Mass of Installation of the Archdiocese of Chapecó and my inauguration as Metropolitan Archbishop, we inform you that we have already communicated to the Apostolic Nunciature in Brazil about the circumstances of this isolated incident of inadvertent violation of liturgical norms.
We renew our commitment to doctrinal orthodoxy and liturgical orthopraxia, and will make efforts to avoid future errors.
We implore divine blessings upon our Particular Church as we continue united in the evangelizing mission.
In recent decades, a heavy focus has been placed upon ecumenism by the Catholic Church and notably so by Pope Francis, who has made it a prominent feature of his nearly 12-year pontificate.
On a number of occasions he has joined ecumenical leaders at religious ceremonies, sometimes giving joint blessings with them at the end of such events, including this past January.
In contrast to the current prevailing style of ecumenism, Vatican’s 1949 decree from the Holy Office instructed bishops charged with promoting true ecumenism to draw souls to the Church, and that they must always teach the fullness of the Church’s priority.
It stated: “By no means is it permitted to pass over in silence or to veil in ambiguous terms the Catholic truth regarding the nature and way of justification, the constitution of the Church, the primacy of jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff, and the only true union by the return of the dissidents to the one true Church of Christ.”
The Catholic Church notes that it is possible for those remaining outside the Church “through no grave fault of their own” and who are somehow unaware that the Church is the true Church to still be saved “by making use of the graces which God gives them.” However, salvation in these cases of “invincible ignorance” is not found through other churches but is through the Catholic Church as the channel of grace, as taught by St. Thomas Aquinas."
The recently created Archdiocese of Chapecó in Brazil admitted to an ‘inadvertent violation of liturgical norms’ by having a female Anglican cleric attempt to concelebrate Holy Mass during the installation of its new archbishop.
Vivian Schwanke De Oliveira, seen wearing the blue stole, on February 9, 2025End of article...
But! Note the last paragraph: The Catholic Church notes that it is possible for those remaining outside the Church “through no grave fault of their own” and who are somehow unaware that the Church is the true Church to still be saved “by making use of the graces which God gives them.” However, salvation in these cases of “invincible ignorance” is not found through other churches but is through the Catholic Church as the channel of grace, as taught by St. Thomas Aquinas."
This needs more explanation, and because it needs more explanation, I will now post an article from Bro. Andre of the St. Benedict Center entitled:
"Father Chad Ripperger was recently interviewed by Terry Barber and Jesse Romero on their podcast, “Full Sheen Ahead.” A small excerpt of the interview was turned into a short stand-alone video on YouTube and entitled, “Exorcist Explains How Catholics/Non-Catholics Are Saved.”
That clip begins with Terry Barber mentioning the concept of “limited papal infallibility” (meaning that the Holy Father can possibly be wrong when not invoking his unique charism of infallibility) and asking Father Ripperger about a recent statement of Pope Francis to the effect that all religions are paths that lead to God. Father ultimately and truthfully answered the question by denying the assertion that God positively wills non-Catholic religions and that they are all paths to God. He called them “false religions.”
Before giving that response, though, Father Ripperger prefaced his remarks by bringing up the dogma, extra ecclesiam nulla salus. He stated that this dogma is undeniably Catholic teaching, taught by the Fourth Lateran Council and the Council of Florence (just for the record: he did not mention Pope Bonifice VIII’s Unam Sanctam). He affirmed strongly that this doctrine has been formally defined and has been otherwise taught by numerous popes and doctors of the Church.
He then went on to speak of two “errors” concerning this doctrine. The first is those who “reject it.” According to these folks, different religions are different paths of salvation. Protestants are saved by their Protestantism, etc. He added here, “This doesn’t mean Protestants can’t be saved; it just means they’re not saved by virtue of their religion.”
“The Feeneyite Position”
The second “opposite extreme” he called “the Feeneyite position,” which he described thus:
Unless you are a formally baptized Catholic you cannot be saved. The Vatican never condemned that proposition, but they did tell him, “Hey, you gotta come over and answer this, because that was not what the Church had ever held.”
He then went on to cite the Council of Trent speaking of the necessity of Baptism in re aut voto (“in reality or by intention [desire]”) in order to be justified. The reference is to the Tridentine Decree of Justification (Session VI, c. IV), which describes justification,
…as being a translation, from that state wherein man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace, and of the adoption of the sons of God, through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Saviour. And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.
This says that justification — the transfer into the state of grace — cannot happen without Baptism, either in reality, that is, by actually receiving the sacrament, or in voto (by having the intention or desire to receive the sacrament).
Father Ripperger then affirmed that there are people “outside the visible structure of the Church, but who were put to death because of their belief in Jesus Christ.” Presumably, here, he is speaking of martyred catechumens, but he did not further elaborate on this point.
Our position on the analogous baptisms of desire and blood amounts to a theological opinion: “We hold, as a theological opinion only, that, since Pentecost, God Almighty can and does incorporate all the elect into His Mystical Body by actual sacramental Baptism.” (See Doctrinal Beliefs, No. 19, with its footnote.) Concerning the theological possibility of those “baptisms” being efficacious for salvation, see the statement of our position in that same “Doctrinal Beliefs” document, and “My Preface to Father Leonard Feeney’s ‘Bread of Life’.”
Unfortunately, for a long time, we have had Catholics, including Catholic priests, twisting that theological possibility into actual heresy by telling people, “You don’t need to be baptized in order to be saved.” That is actual heresy according to the Council of Trent. (Session 7, Can. 5: “If anyone says that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation, let him be anathema.”)
The Apocalypse?
After making the point about baptism, very curiously, Father Ripperger then made reference to the book of the Apocalypse, which speaks of people of “every nation and race” being saved. He did not specify the passage he had in mind — and it would not reasonably be expected for him to do so in such a format — but I assume he had in mind either Apocalypse 14:6 or, more likely, 5:9-10. But this does not seem to have anything to do with the subject at hand because the Church, being supranational and universal, is made up of members who are indeed called “out of every tribe, and tongue, and people, and nation” (Apoc. 5:9).
The Mediation of the Church, the Mystical Body
Father Ripperger then went on,
Because the Catholic Church is the Mystical Body of Christ — and Christ is the only one who saves; that’s absolutely clear in Scripture — it’s part of divine tradition and revelation. There’s no way of getting around that. Only Christ saves: Muhammad doesn’t save; Buddha doesn’t save; none of these others save. Only Jesus Christ saves. Now, that means therefore that if anyone outside the Church is saved, they’re still saved by means of Jesus Christ, which basically means that they are saved by means of the Mystical Body of Christ.
What Father is saying here is that people are actually saved outside the Church because “Christ is the only one who saves,” and, as long as we hold that Jesus Christ is the unique Savior of all who are saved, we can positively state that there are people saved by Jesus but outside the Church. But that would seem to contradict the Fourth Lateran Council which Father Ripperger cited: “There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved” — as well as the Florentine Council’s definition he also cited:
The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.
Father Ripperger continued,
And that’s why I made the observation in some of my other podcasts … that all grace comes into the world by means of the Catholic Church because the Catholic Church is the Mystical Body, and all grace comes through Jesus Christ so it all comes in by that. So that means that if a Protestant is saved [he’s] saved by mediation of the Catholic Church: that the grace has flowed from the Catholic Church to them.
But how does this mediation work? We know that, for Catholics, grace is mediated to us through the Mystical Body by way of the threefold episcopal office of teaching, governing, and sanctifying. In the life of the faithful, this practically translates into the life of faith, the sacramental life, and the moral life, which are all of a piece. But how does the Catholic Church, which is exactly identical with the Mystical Body, mediate salvation to non-Catholics? Does this happen negatively, because these non-Catholics simply do not formally reject the faith, morals, and sacraments of the Church? That could hardly be called mediation.
Is this mediation a matter of the Church praying for them? If that is the case, then — looking at the traditional Roman lex orandi — we see that what the Church prays for in the case of non-Catholics is their conversion to the Catholic faith. Here I have in mind the ancient “Great Intercessions” of Good Friday (the very prayers which gave rise to the traditional axiom lex orandi lex credendi):
Let us pray also for heretics and schismatics: that our Lord God would be pleased to rescue them from all their errors; and recall them to our holy mother the Catholic and Apostolic Church. …
Almighty and everlasting God, who savest all, and wouldst that no one should perish: look on the souls that are led astray by the deceit of the devil: that having set aside all heretical evil, the hearts of those that err may repent, and return to the unity of Thy truth. Through our Lord, etc.
Valid Baptisms of Non-Catholics
After speaking of the mediation of the Mystical Body, Father Ripperger then brings up the valid Baptisms of many non-Catholic Christians:
There's also an issue that the Church has also been dealing with: if a Protestant is validly baptized, which the Church does recognize in some cases, … what's infused [in] them at the time of Baptism is sanctifying grace. Well, if they're in the state of sanctifying grace that means they're part of the Communion of Saints, which is part of the Catholic Church … even though visibly they might be outside of it. It's also infusing [in] them at the time of their baptism Catholic faith, so if they never commit a moral sin and if they never formally reject the Catholic faith — that doesn't mean that they don't necessarily believe it — but [if] they never formally reject it, it's possible for them, because of invincible ignorance, to have not committed moral sin [and thereby] lost [the] state of grace and not actually lost their faith — and as a result they can actually be saved.
To help us parse this, I would like to quote from Benedict XIV’s Brief, Singulari Nobis, to Cardinal Henry, Duke of York, February 9, 1749. This is found in Denzinger-Hünermann, Nos. 2566-2570. The heading in Denzinger’s is “Incorporation into the Church by Means of Baptism.”
When a heretic baptizes someone, provided he uses the legitimate form and matter, … the latter is marked with the baptismal character…. [S]omeone who has received valid baptism from a heretic is made a member of the Catholic Church by virtue of that ⟨baptism⟩; for the personal error of the one baptizing cannot deprive him of this happiness, provided the baptizer confers the sacrament in the faith of the true Church and observes her provisions in what relates to the validity of baptism. … [I]f the heretic, as often happens, christens an infant unable to make an act of faith, this is no obstacle to his receiving the habit of faith at baptism. … [I]f they reach the age at which they can distinguish right from wrong for themselves and then adhere to the errors of the one who baptized them, persons who were baptized by heretics are rejected from the unity of the Church and are deprived of all those benefits that those remaining in the Church enjoy…
We readily acknowledge that there is such a thing as merely material heresy and merely material schism, neither of which would separate a person from the unity of the Church. But the idea that a Protestant can retain such a state well into adulthood, along with freedom from mortal sin — when Protestantism generally militates against the need to avoid mortal sin — would require an astonishing miracle of grace. It makes more sense to accept that God’s grace would lead such a good-willed person to the full internal assent and external practice of the Catholic faith, than that God would merely keep him in an invincibly ignorant state.
Sufficient Grace
Father Ripperger then stated the common theological opinion — one which we accept — that “all adults have sufficient grace” to save their souls. How this grace operates is, of course, a sheer mystery that we cannot fathom. However, we believe that the analogy of faith demands that we come up with no theory that would imperil any clearly defined Catholic doctrine, such as the necessity of the Church for salvation. Saint Thomas’ explanation in The Disputed Questions on Truth is apposite: “[I]f someone so brought up [i.e., “in the forest or among wolves”] followed the direction of natural reason in seeking good and avoiding evil, we must most certainly hold that God would either reveal to him through internal inspiration what had to be believed, or would send some preacher of the faith to him as He sent Peter to Cornelius (Acts 10:20).” Suarez, in De Praedestinatione et Reprobatione, is equally good and respectful of the analogy of faith: “Whoever has not set up obstacles against it will receive the light or the call…, either externally by means of men…or by interior illumination by means of angels.”
Father Ripperger went on to say that such Protestants are “saved in spite of their religion, not because of it.” Let me note that earlier Father had said that these people have never formally rejected the Catholic faith, but here he is identifying their “religion” as something clearly other than the Catholic religion. This may be pushing us to the limits of the principle of non-contradiction. Can one formally adhere to heretical tenets of a false religion in such wise that it is rightly called “his religion” — and, at the same time, be only materially in heresy and schism?
Yes, They Can Be Saved, But ‘Not Where They Are’
When Father Ripperger said that Protestants can be saved, but “not… by virtue of their religion,” I think an additional layer of distinction is necessary. (And again, we’re talking here about people who have never formally defected from the faith or unity of the Church, and have remained in the state of grace.) Such persons, if they indeed exist, are not saved as Protestants, but as Catholics. In other words, there is a proper name for the proverbial validly baptized “Protestant” who remains not guilty of formal heresy or schism: Catholic — even if he is in some “canonically irregular” situation within the Church. If he is also not guilty of any mortal sin, then he is a Catholic in the state of grace. But two psychological problems immediately present themselves here:
- Such persons, when presented with Catholic truth, should recognize it as such and not contradict it. These are the ones who eventually become converts. For good will is manifest by the actual doing of the good, not by clinging to a merely material evil.
- Such black swan “Protestants” also heroically contradict many of the fundamental tenets of Protestantism, e.g., sola fides, which denies the necessity of moral purity and good works for salvation. They also live the life of grace without the manifold benefits of the sacramental life, which good priests like Father Ripperger tend to remind Catholics over and over again are morally necessary for them.
Orestes Brownson, a convert and arguably the greatest apologist for the Catholic Church America ever produced, said it very well in The Great Question (other wonderful nuggets from Brownson may be found here: “Gianna Jessen and Brownson’s ‘Smallest Peg’”):
That those in societies alien to the Church, invincibly ignorant of the Church, if they correspond to the graces they receive, and persevere, will be saved, we do not doubt, but not where they are, or without being brought to the Church. [Emphasis mine.]'
End of accompanying article... Read and judge for yourself! But I will say this, that it is a DOGMA of the Catholic Church that one has to become a Catholic before they leave this earth. If a person (a Catholic) doesn't believe this, then they are guilty of at least material heresy and are OUTSIDE the Church and cannot be saved if they remain so!!
Pray for strength and honor!
Viva Cristo Rey! Bl. Fr. Miguel Pro, Fr. Emil Kapaun and Fr. Vincent Capodanno, pray for us...
St. Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle...
St. Joseph pray for us!!
Gene DeLalla
