© Copyright 2008, T. Stanfill Benns
 (None of what appears below — in whole or in part — may be used without the express and written permission of the author.)

All emphasis in bold within quotes is the author’s unless noted otherwise

The work “Necessity of Canonical Fitness in the Ordination of a Lay Pope,” previously available on this site, has not been removed because this author in any way admits that the article was heretical or incorrect. The article has been removed because it was written at a stage in this author’s research (Nov. 30, 2006) when it was not yet realized that a lay election ITSELF was both heretical and punished by excommunication. There is no longer any need to debate the necessity of examination and verification of fitness in a lay pope-elect since this is now immaterial. The arguments on which this article was based, however, had a firm foundation in Apostolic Tradition and canonical teaching, and hopefully in the future the proper hierarchical and clerical authorities can decide on the merits of these arguments.

In the article, this author explained that the term lay pope-elect is used to designate one who has merely been elected as pope but has not yet accepted election. It is important to remember that the opinion professed in this previous article applied in no way to validly elected pontiffs of the past, nor to any pontiffs that are canonically elected by clergy in the future. I merely pointed out that a pope-elect cannot accept papal election unless he is deemed fit for the priesthood according to the teaching of Pope Pius XII. One who has been elected but has not accepted the papacy is not yet a pope and has not yet received Divine jurisdiction. As such he can be examined and investigated, as indeed Holy Scripture and divine Apostolic Tradition attest. Canon Law clearly states that no one becomes pope unless and until they accept election, (Canons 109, 219). Therefore there is no "judging of the Pope," as some infer, or slighting ecclesiastical discipline; for such a one is not yet pope. Ecclesiastical discipline and Divine law is indeed broached by a lay papal election, but not by questioning the integrity of the candidate.

What was falsely condemned as supporting the Gallicanist heresy was stated in the article as follows: “The Roman Pontiff is never above the rules, although he can introduce new legislation, abolish merely ecclesiastical laws and issue binding decrees of his own. To disregard Canon Law would be to inspire contempt for the law itself as well as Church teaching.”  The charge has been made that in stating this, it places the pope in an inferior position that makes him subject to the penalties of the law. But this was never the author’s intent, because it is not the case where the pope is concerned. The only penalty of the Code that could apply or be applied to a “Pope” is Can. 188 §4, and as Pope Paul IV’s Bull “Cum ex Apostolatus Officio” explains, even this Canon is not applied to a pope, per se but to one who was guilty of a heresy pre-election that was discovered only after the fact. The Gallicanists believed that the Pope was answerable to a Council and to his Cardinals for crimes other than those involving faith and morals. They believed that a Council or the Cardinals could depose a pope for these crimes. This is quite a far cry from stating, as this author has repeatedly stated in the past, that a true Pope must be a pattern for his flock. For a truly Holy Father would sedulously avoid the sins of those hypocrites condemned by Christ for sitting on the seat of Moses and instructing the Jewish people to do as they said, but not as they themselves actually did.

Custodians of the law still subject to Divine and natural law

Canon Law is the Church’s code of ecclesiastical discipline. We find this teaching of the Vatican Council in Henry Denzinger’s “Sources of Catholic Dogma”: “We teach and declare that the Roman Church…the Roman Pontiff…holds the sovereignty of power over all others…not only in things which pertain to faith and morals, but also in those which pertain to the discipline and government of the Church…This is the doctrine of Catholic truth from which no one can deviate and keep his faith and salvation,” (DZ 1827, 326). Here the Vatican Council ranks discipline alongside faith and morals. If it can be said that the Roman Pontiff is above the rules in the sense that he can violate those canons as a body, or any laws based in part on Divine and natural law, such a statement itself is heretical. Nor can the pope ignore those laws based on the infallible decrees of his predecessors, or the condemnation of heretical propositions, such as Can. 147, which as Pope Pius XII clearly teaches is taken from the Council of Trent. The pope is not a despot or one unable of committing sin simply because he possesses the charism of infallibility. He is human, not a god, and is subject to God’s laws and the human laws that are either explicitly or implicitly based on God’s laws. To even suggest that a true pope could exempt himself from Divine or natural law is at least an implicit denial of all the Vatican Council defined and is thus heresy itself. Therefore if such a thing happens, the faithful know, from Pope Paul IV’s  “Cum ex Apostolatus Officio,” that the heresy existed before any alleged “election.”

Another consideration must also factor into the illogical assumption that a Pope can arbitrarily ignore, modify or abrogate Canon Law. Everyone knows in what high contempt the public holds civil authorities who rigorously enforce the law, yet violate it themselves at will. To even imply, therefore, that a true pope would not obey ecclesiastical laws, in order to give good example to his flock, and in obedience to God’s will is scandalous at the very best. Scandal, Revs. McHugh and Callan explain, is “conduct which is evil at least in appearance [emph. theirs], that is sinful or at least seemingly sinful…The word scandal is also used to signify moral injuries distinct from inducement to sin. Thus the shock and offense given to virtuous persons…is sometimes said to scandalize,” (as in using blasphemous language or even omitting grace before meals, etc…,). McHugh and Callan go further to distinguish active from passive scandal, active scandal being the intention to lead others into sin and passive scandal “when one makes the good action rightly performed by another an occasion of sin.” To infer that the Roman Pontiffs could arbitrarily disregard observing ecclesiastical laws such as fasting and abstinence, correct observance of the rubrics in saying Holy Mass or administering the Sacraments, or following the correct order of certain other liturgical acts is to impugn the virtue and dignity of these Pontiffs, which leads to a disdain for all authority.

In his The Holy Will of God, Rev. Leo Pyzalski teaches: "A reliable sign of perfect superiorship consists in unrestricted and willing subordination of a superior to Canon Law and to all regulations of the higher authorities. Failing this, the unfaithful superior should not be surprised by the recalcitrant attitude of his subjects...Though the excuse of subjects is unwarranted and vain in such circumstances [assuming the superior is legitimate], still the unfaithful superiors are partly responsible for the disorders creeping into their community…The superior should be the first to practice what he teaches…." It is true that the Pope is not bound by Canon Law in the sense that he can, “for serious reasons and after mature deliberation,” (Revs. Woywod-Smith, Can. 22) interpret and adjust these laws as the need arises. But it is definitely NOT true that the Pope can arbitrarily and completely disregard the very laws he enforces.

Catholics left the Novus Ordo decades ago because the usurpers of the Holy See first ignored and disobeyed the laws and teachings of the Church, then abolished and rewrote them. St. Paul calls the Antichrist “the lawless one,” indicating that one of the primary distinguishing marks of Antichrist will be a blatant disregard for the law. The Catholic Encyclopedia article on Canon Law reminds us that all these laws have their ultimate basis, at least, in Divine law. Contempt of the laws of the Church, then, is ultimately contempt for God and the Church He founded on earth. But this is not all that the Gallicanist heresy was about; and its true source will tell us more about those who harp upon it and misinterpret it than they would wish us to know.

Gallicanism began with an abuse of privileges

As A. Degert explains in the Catholic Encyclopedia, the defenders of the Gallicans’ stance championed their cause on the basis of certain privileges accorded French bishops in the early ages by the Roman Pontiffs. They insisted that these privileges still applied to them, despite the fact they were long ago revoked. “Gallican ideas and liberties were simply privileges, concessions made by the popes, who had been quite willing to divest themselves of a part of their authority in favor of the bishops or kings or France” Degert writes. “The [Gallicans] by no means admitted that the Liberties were privileges since a privilege can be revoked by him who has granted it; and, as they regarded the matter, these Liberties could not be touched by any pope.” The Gallicans claimed their “liberties” were “a revival of the most ancient traditions of Christianity; a persistence of the common law. The rules, customs and constitutions received within the kingdom and the Gallican Church must have their force and their effect, and the usages of our fathers remain inviolable since the dignity of the Apostolic See itself demands that the laws and customs established by consent of that august see and of the Churches be constantly maintained…It was in the assembly which voted on this measure [to withdraw from obedience to anti-pope Benedict XIII in 1398] that for the first time there was any question of bringing back the Church of France to its ancient liberties and customs — of giving its prelates once more the right of conferring and disposing of benefices. When the Vatican Council opened, in 1869 [and] declared that the pope has in the Church the plenitude of jurisdiction in matters of faith, morals discipline, and administration — that his decisions ex cathedra are, of themselves and without the assent of the Church, infallible and irreformable — it dealt Gallicanism a mortal blow.” (For a more detailed discussion of Gallicanism, go to www.newadvent.org).

Gallicanists championed the rights of civil governments and the king. They believed that the faithful and especially nobility had rights equal or superior to those of the Pope. They advocated a democratic form of government for the Church of France and the Church in general, following the teachings of John of Paris, whose writings were later condemned. It also arose from the earlier teachings of Marsilius of Padua and Jean of Jandun in “Defensor Pacis,” according to the Catholic Encyclopedia. Marsilius, also Jean of Jandun taught that while God is the source of all power, nevertheless "It [said power] sprang immediately from the people who had in addition the power to legislate. Law was the expression of…the will of the people, who, by the voice of the majority, could enact, interpret, modify, suspend and abrogate it at will. In the Church, according to [the heretical work] ‘Defensor Pacis,’ the faithful have these two great powers, the elective and the legislative.” The Gallicans were supporters of lay investiture, believing they could fill vacant sees without papal intervention. The not-yet-condemned heresy died down for a time during the Protestant Reformation, because then the result of the actual application of the principals they were advocating became all too apparent. But people forget, and in the birth of the age of democracy and rights of the people, Gallicanism became popular once again. It seemed to die for a time following the Vatican Council, only to rebound with a vengeance in the 1950s and 1960s. Without realizing it, even Traditionalist imbibed this poison, carrying it over into their ideas on extraordinary mission, lay operated chapels and the ability of the Church to exist independently of any direction from the Roman Pontiff. When Sedevacantism emerged, and some insisted that the Church needed a Pope, once again the remnants of Gallicanism reared its ugly head. Surprisingly, its method of operation has changed very little over time.

Those promoting papal elections chose to employ laity and deposed clergy (who in effect are reduced to the lay state) as electors, based on “privileges” granted by previous popes. They insisted that no one could gainsay these privileges, just as the Gallicanists insisted, because it was “a revival of the most ancient traditions of Christianity; a persistence of the common law,” (Cath. Encyclopedia quoted above). They ignored the disciplinary decrees and election law of Pope Pius XII in stating this, pretending that laity could so manipulate Canon Law that it was actually possible they could find a way to override Pius XII’s election decree. “Law was the expression of…the will of the people, who, by the voice of the majority, could enact, interpret, modify, suspend and abrogate it at will,” (Cath. Encyclopedia quoted above). This may not have been the intent of those promoting these elections, but it most certainly was the end result. It clearly is a revival of Gallicanist teaching and belief and as such can be qualified only as heretical. This has been demonstrated from other proofs elsewhere on this site. But attempting to demand accountability from one claiming to be pope, to whom my original article on a lay pope-elect was addressed, could scarcely be considered as heresy unless it is considered outside its true context.  Invoking privileges long ago revoked is clearly within the context of what happened in at least one “papal election.” That the people have the right to interpret, modify, and suspend law at will is what Traditional-minded laymen and Traditional clerics have claimed for themselves all along. This they have done in exercising jurisdiction outside the law, by setting up Mass Centers and establishing non-Catholic sects against the law and by receiving sacraments illicitly and sacrilegiously. They also invoke a custom abrogated centuries ago to support the creation of their “bishops” and priests.

According to Revs. Woywod-Smith: "In the 12th century the right of electing the bishop had passed into the hands of the Cathedral Chapters in many countries in Europe. In the 13th century we frequently find that the Supreme Pontiff reserved to himself the right to choose the bishops for vacant dioceses. At about the same time the Roman Pontiffs reserved to themselves the right of confirmation of the election by the Cathedral Chapters and the consecration of the new bishop," (commentary on Can. 953). It would seem, then, that the bishops Traditionalists point to as consecrated at this time most likely were validly nominated and consecrated without the need for papal approval, as this was the custom in those days. They may or may not have been required to receive confirmation from the Pope once elected, depending on the laws existing for this procedure in the different countries. What then passed as a custom in those days has since been abrogated by the Code of Canon Law, and cannot be revived except by a future Roman Pontiff, (see sidebar: Only clergy can elect a Pope.) And here it is important to note that there are several obvious differences between the situation in the 13th century and our own:

1.) Heresy, apostasy and/or schism were not issues in that time period.

2.) There was no question whatsoever of the allegiance of the bishops ordaining and

consecrating during this time to the Roman Pontiff or the Church.

3.) The ordinations/consecrations were all performed during a protracted conclave, with full expectation that a Roman Pontiff soon would be elected.

4.) These consecrations took place over a three-year period; not a 50-year period with

20 years intervening before any Traditional "bishops" were even consecrated!

5.) At that time the laws governing the papal election obviously did not prohibit acts of jurisdiction from being posited during the interregnum. These laws now are abrogated and cannot be revived, according to the election law of Pope Pius XII currently in force.

6.) The infallible teaching of the Vatican Council and Pope Pius XII's definitive teaching on the nature of the jurisdiction enjoyed by bishops, contained both in “Mystici Corporis” and “Ad apostolorum principis” had not yet appeared.

We read from Rev. W. Wilmers, S. J., an advisor at the Vatican Council: “The Apostles, not the faithful, were directly invested with that power which He conferred on His Church…Luther, Calvin, Febronius and the Gallicans maintained that Christ conferred His power on the body of the faithful…The Catholic doctrine, contained in Holy Scripture, is that Christ conferred His authority immediately on the Apostles, to be exercised by them independently of the faithful; consequently the Church is an unequal society consisting of superiors and subjects…It was to Peter alone and not to the people at large that Christ promised the supreme power, (Matt. 16: 18, 19)…The power promised was likewise conferred on the Apostles alone, since Christ…addressed it…to them only…It was the Apostles alone who transferred this power to others; and thus they proved that they, not the faithful, possessed it…The Church, it is true, chose the seven deacons, and presented them to the Apostles, but it was the Apostles who imposed their hands upon them and invested them with authority…In later times the Church granted the people, or the secular power, a voice in the designation of those who were to be promoted to ecclesiastical offices; but it was neither the people nor the secular power but the Church that invested them with authority. As often as this privilege was abused by the rulers or people, the Church did not fail to restrict its use, or at least to protest such abuse as a usurpation…Christian antiquity unanimously testifies that the bishops are the successors of the Apostles. The faithful have no share in the government of the Church nor have they any right to prescribe how the Church is to be governed…A right must be proven, not supposed. But in the constitution of the Church, there is no vestige of such a right.”

Trads, conclavists hold the Galllicanist interpretation of epikeia

In his “The Origins of the Great Schism,” historian Walter Ullmann reveals that the principle of epikeia was used to arrive at the conclusion that in the crisis faced by the Church in the 14^th and 15^th centuries, an ecumenical council should be called to depose the papal claimants and resolve the Western Schism. Speaking of epikeia and the Conciliarists, Ullmann said: "As a glance at Canon Law confirms, all these proposals (based on epikeia) however ingenious they may have been were, from the point of view of Canon Law, illegal." Ullmann mentioned that there is a proper way to harmonize equity with the law that is used by theologians, but condemned what he called "this extra-legal, meta-juristic method of explaining canonistic enactments" known as epikeia. And this is the same abuse we are witnessing today. According to Ullmann, epikeia is an entirely Aristotelean concept, first expounded upon to any extent by the layman Marsilius of Padua in his “Defensor Pacis” in 1326, whose teachings on the rights of the laity to interpret and manipulate Church law are quoted above. In discussing "the qualities or dispositions of the perfect ruler" Marsilius invoked the Aristotelian concept of "equity" (epikeia) as a means of serving justice when the existing positive laws prove unworkable, owing to their fallibility and deficiency. Conrad of Gelnhausen, one of the layman who promoted a move to end the Western Schism, used Marsilius' reasoning, also that of John of Paris, to formulate his own theories for arriving at a solution to the schism.

In due time, the Church condemned Marsilius of Padua and John of Paris for their heretical teachings. But this has not prevented both Traditionalists and conclavists alike from appealing to the distinctly Gallican concept of epikeia as it suits them. Traditionalists appeal to it to justify their manipulation of Canon Law, which allows their “clergy” to function. Conclavists, even those who fiercely condemn Trads for using this principle to avail themselves of the Sacraments, are no better: they hypocritically invoke this principle to excuse themselves from the confines of the law concerning lay participation in papal elections, allowing the circumvention of Pope Pius XII’s 1945 election law. Some conclavists even dare to cite Canon Law and other dissertations of those urging caution in using epikeia to justify their stance against Traditionalists. Yet they conveniently fail to mention one such dissertation that collectively blows Trads and conclavists alike out of the fetid swamplands of disbelief.

The following is excerpted from “The History, Nature, and Use of Epikeia in Moral Theology,” by Rev. Lawrence Joseph Riley, Copyright 1948, The Catholic University of America Press, Inc.  Imprimatur: + Richardus Jacobus Cushing.  D.D., 7 May, 1948:

1.       Epikeia may be used only with the greatest discretion; in the internal forum it may be applied to affirmative precepts and to negative precepts (ecclesiastical and civil), but very infrequently with regard to affirmative precepts, because the latter, binding semper but not pro semper, are more susceptible of interpretation than of epikeia.

2.       Epikeia is not to be identified with interpretation, dispensation, presumed permission, excusing cause, or popular acceptance of human law.

3.       Epikeia may not be applied to precepts of the natural law, nor to precepts of the divine positive law of the New Testament.

4.       It seems probable that the use of epikeia was not permissible in reference to precepts of the divine positive law of the Old Testament.

5.       Human invalidating laws sometimes cease to bind; but epikeia may not be applied to human invalidating laws.

   Rev. Riley observes on page 344, 347:

“In short, it may be concluded that in regard to matters which touch the essence of the Sacraments, the use of epikeia is always excluded…In regard to the essence of these Sacraments, what has been explained above of all the Sacraments is applicable to them – viz., that epikeia is never licit.”

Rev. Riley writes on page 387:

“At most, epikeia can excuse the individual from the precept, but it can never confer the capacity to act. Epikeia cannot bestow upon him the power which he does not now possess, nor can epikeia restore the power which the law has withdrawn. For such bestowal or restoration of power a positive act is required.”

Rev. Riley tells us on pages 232 and 233:

“Intimately connected with this problem is the question of whether or not epikeia has any standing in the external forum.  It would appear to be the rather general consensus of authorities today that it has not.

“Writing in Apollinaris, D' Angelo points out that St. Thomas considers epikeia to be a merely moral element, and that modern writers believe it to have reference only to moral, and not to juridic matters…Van Hove contends that, since epikeia is not an act of jurisdiction, it has value only in the internal forum. …Hilling seems almost unwilling to give any standing to epikeia at all.  Believing that it practically amounts to self-dispensation, which is in contradiction to law as a binding norm, he concludes at the most that it may be recognized in the internal forum.” Revs. Cicoganni, Bouscaren-Ellis, Woywod-Smith, Rev. Francis Miaskiewicz, Rev. Raymond Kearney — all these canonists also warn of the great caution that must be used in applying epikeia, and the many dangers of abuse in attempting this application.

So all this makes everything quite clear. Traditionalists may not use epikeia to justify their use of illicit clergy to administer the Sacraments. Conclavists and Traditionalists both may not use it to interpret the law, dispense from the law, presume permission or otherwise excuse themselves from obeying the law. This is especially true of papal elections; in fact this statement of Rev. Riley’s is almost a mirror image of Pope Pius XII’s statements concerning the observance of his law in “Vacantis Apostolica Sedis.”  Furthermore, as stated in the Canon Laws concerning jurisdiction and the constitution of the Church Herself, both the necessity of jurisdiction and the distinction between the hierarchy as the governing body and the laity as the ones governed proceeds directly from Divine law. Rev. Riley points out that epikeia cannot be applied to the Divine or natural laws, once again precluding its use in the reception of the Sacraments and participation of the laity in a papal election. So conclavists insisting that the natural law can be contravened by invoking epikeia where the qualifications of papal candidates are concerned, or the Divine law which forbids lay participation, are in error. Nor, as they likewise insist, can epikeia be used to dismiss invalidating laws. Pope Pius XII’s election law contains invalidating laws; invalidating laws such as Canons 147, 153-154, 167 and 453. These all protect the necessity of canonical election and apostolic succession. They cannot be summarily dismissed, dispensed from or ignored.

Finally, the common opinion of theologians, which cannot be cast aside to follow the less probable opinion, teaches that epikeia is to be used only in moral, not juridical matters. Jurisdiction, the constitution of the Church and the matter of papal elections all are juridic matters. Moreover, epikeia is to be used in matters only of the internal, not the external forum. Administration of the Sacraments belongs to the external forum, as does the matter of choosing candidates for the priesthood and papal elections. So on all counts, Trads and conclavists behave exactly as their Gallicanist forbearers; they champion interpretation, dispensation and presumed permission, violate the Divine and natural law and ignore invalidating laws.

Conclusion

Whether Conclavists or Mass Center Traditionalists, the only difference in the espousal of Gallicanist ideas by these two groups lies in their point of view. For Mass Center Trads, the direct grant of the episcopacy by Divine right, independent of any direction or confirmation from the Roman Pontiff where consecrations and jurisdiction are concerned is essential, because it supports the authority of illicit (and in some cases, even invalid) Traditionalist bishops. This obviously was either a privilege or custom in the Church in early times that later was discarded. Appealing to epikeia also allows illicit (and invalid) priests lacking jurisdiction to sacrilegiously administer the Sacraments.  For the Conclavist “popes,” the Gallicanist proposition that the one elected need only be minimally qualified, if qualified at all, violating the natural law; and that the people can validly elect or assist in electing and can even “convey” minor orders is the subject matter for epikeia. These departures from Church law and teaching were essential in establishing the “papacies” of these false popes. In one “papal” election, the (expired) “privilege” granted the clergy and laity by Pope Nicholas II was invoked. A benefice also was claimed that both did not exist and could not exist. All these things are recurring themes in the history of the Gallicanist heresy throughout the ages and the resulting heresies that mushroomed during the Protestant Reformation. As Holy Scripture tells us, there is nothing new under the sun.

Many Traditionalists and conclavists are undeniably "all-Americanist." It bears repeating here that many among these groups were, in the early years, John Birchers; some were even organizers and administrative heads for this organization. The ultra-nationalistic beliefs of most Traditionalists are an open secret. The Gallicanist fomenters of the French Revolution likewise were nationalists. The Germans meriting censure for anti-Catholic activities in the late 1800s were nationalists. Aggressive nationalism on the part of Germany was the cause of both World Wars. The Bolshevik Revolution was originally advertised as the people's uprising against Czarist oppression, a ruse soon drowned in the blood of countless Catholic martyrs and other Russian citizens. The Nazis were National Socialists, and the Chinese clerics Pope Pius XII condemned in “Ad apostolorum principis” were nationalists. All these governments attempted to usurp the Church’s right to appoint and install bishops. Traditionalists usurp this right whenever they illicitly install their own bishops contrary to “Ad apostolorum principis” or allow their priests to celebrate the Mass and administer the Sacraments. Conclavists violate this right by dispensing with Pope Pius XII’s “Vacantis apostolica sedis” and other laws in admitting the laity to participate in those things reserved only to senior clergy and by qualifying the unworthy and unfit for election. The indicators of heresy here — in both cases — are too clear to ignore, yet that is what nearly all those involved in these errors have done or attempted to do.

In the end, conclavists fell into only a different species of the very same heresies they accused Traditionalists of committing. The grave scandal these two sects present as “Catholic” to the word has turned away many souls and caused others to forfeit their membership in the Church. And still the travesty continues, with no end in sight.