Proof of Angelo Roncalli’s (John 23^rd’s) pre-election heresy

© Copyright 2013, T. Stanfill Benns (This text may be downloaded or printed out for private reading, but it may not be uploaded to another Internet site or published, electronically or otherwise, without express written permission from the author. All emphasis within quotes is the author’s unless indicated otherwise.)

Introduction

It is notable that in dealing with the difficulties concerning the reign of the first antipopes, nothing canonically was ever proposed by Traditionalists that would resolve the controversy swirling around the sede vacante. And yet it was entirely a canonically oriented problem and one that was capable of solution. In a previous article the method proposed for solution of canonical cases was outlined and explained. This method for solving cases where there is a doubt concerning the law is given in the first canons of the Code itself — Canons 6 §4, and Canons 18-21 — and can be used even by private persons to resolve the doubt. The first doubt is whether Roncalli was even capable of election given his pre-election heresy. This can be determined by using Can. 6§4, which instructs the inquirer to adhere to the old law governing heresy to determine if such heresy suffices for the more serious brand of excommunication. The current law requires admonition and a declaratory sentence, which was not possible at the time because the heresy was not generally known. Because Pope Paul IV’s “Cum ex Apostolatus Officio” (referred to as Cum ex… from here on) is listed as the old law under Can. 2314 nos. 1-3 on heresy, we must then apply it as the prevailing law to determine if the heresy can be presumed without admonition or declaration, and on what basis.

In examining the Bull Cum ex…, it is clear that Pope Paul IV did not require either admonition or declaration in his law, only the proof that manifest heresy existed prior to election. And here it should be noted that since this heresy could scarcely have been delivered “from the chair” as so many demand, it suffices only that it be simply manifest. Now the word manifest is defined by Rev. A. C. Cotter, S. J., as something not just obvious, but which truly stands out and is not able to be ignored, especially when contrasted to its opposite. In addition one’s understanding must be clearly able to distinguish the nature of the contrast. Roncalli can be adjudged a heretic hence an unworthy candidate on the sole basis of his heresies favoring Communism and Socialism, also his consistent representation as a liberal. This is true even though he also favored Freemasonry; however Freemasonry is directly related to Communism and Socialism since it uses these systems to achieve its goals. And in this case, it is not as manifest as is the heresy of Communism. Of course his heresy became manifest by allowing “for all” to be used in the People’s Mass books, without formally correcting it; also by adding St. Joseph to the Canon of the Mass which implied that this “error” or omission in the ancient canon needed correction, (a heresy anathematized by the Council of Trent). But the proofs that Roncalli did indeed favor Communism, both before and after his “election,” are the most compelling, especially considering his collaboration with Montini. And these proofs best demonstrate his lingering pre-election predilection, as shown below.

Examples of Roncallis’s defense of heresy

Evidence of Roncalli’s infidelity can be found in his activities as papal Nuncio to Paris. It will be helpful here to make note of Roncalli’s internal dispositions by mentioning entries made in his private journal in December of 1947 (taken from Journal of a Soul, by Geoffrey Chapman, 1965). Writes Roncalli: “The Nuncio is unworthy to be considered the ear and eye of holy Church if he simply praises and extols all he sees… . This means a continual watch over what I say. A gentle silence without severity, kind words full of mercy and forbearance, will do more than statements, even if made in confidence and for a good purpose. For the rest, there is one who discerns and judges.” Later in April of 1952, he wrote in his journal concerning this same subject: “Oh, this never doing or saying to others what we would not wish to have done or said to us! We are all rather remiss about this…In every case, a caress is always better than a scratch.”

Thus, did Roncalli describe his attitude and approach to matters of faith and morals in France. Pius XII himself criti­cized Roncalli for his extensive travels throughout France, objecting that it was unbecoming to a Nuncio. It was well­ known that Roncalli did not get along with the Roman Curia, who thought him an inept diplomat. He called them ‘the other school,’” as Meriol Trevor relates in his book Pope John. (p. 205.) This tag for curial officials indicates more than just disagreement, and indeed, Trevor relates on the same page: “…he thought of himself as representing a different tradition…With the least possible fuss, he went his own way.” (p. 206.) And so he did, even on the subject of the priest-worker movement in France condemned in 1954 by Pius XII. The priest-worker movement was initiated by Cardinal Suhard in response to the publication of a book that offered proof that France, once staunchly Catholic, had become a missionary country.

Suhard’s answer was an association of priests who would evangelize the working classes by working alongside them in factories and living, technically, as laymen themselves. Eventually, they became involved in strikes, demonstrations, and politics, fomented by the communist-run union they joined, which was the largest and most effective, but which they joined in preference to Catholic unions! As a result, many of these priests became socialistic or communistic in their politics and outlook; they devoted more time to factory work and political rallies and neglected their priestly duties. And, instead of converting the working class to Catholicism, they themselves were converted to Marxism. When the movement was finally condemned, a large minority of these priests married and left the factories. Suhard’s experiment had only succeeded in further alienating the French from the Church. And what was Nuncio Roncalli doing all those years (1947-54), while the movement ran amok?

Trevor admits on pp. 212-13 of Pope John that the Nuncio’s reports to Pius XII have not yet been made available, but notes that Roncalli performed just as he had indicated he would in his journal: “…Roncalli advised delay. Wait and see, give them time…he was not the man to advise suppression, especially when the mission had the back­ing of the French hierarchy.” It is somewhat strange then, that in light of Roncalli’s notable lack of response, he was not even any longer Nuncio of Paris when the condemnation of the movement came from Rome at the beginning of 1954. By that time, he had been transferred as a cardinal to Venice. Whe­ther Pius XII simply did not recognize Roncalli’s true char­acter, or felt Roncalli could be kept under surveillance better in Rome than abroad, we will never know. But it seems worth noting that at about the same time (1953), Monsignor Tardini “declined” the red hat, and Montini was made Archbishop of Milan, not a cardinals of the Roman Church.

All the years of Roncalli’s sojourn in Istanbul, all his years as a Nuncio in Paris, were years in which Montini was Vatican secretary of ecclesiastical affairs. Had Montini omit­ted telling details of Roncalli’s behavior in his reports to Pius XII? Did he act as another Rampolla? Pius XII fell ill early in 1954, shortly after Roncalli’s appointment as cardinal. Montini’s “refusal” of the red hat of a cardinal in 1946 is said to have been a polite way of expressing Pius XII’s wishes that Montini not become a cardinal. Until 1953, it had been rumored that Pius XII was grooming Montini to be his suc­cessor. Yet, his failure to make Montini a cardinal before sending him to Milan as archbishop (Milan being a cardinalitial see), has been viewed by many as a pointed rebuke and a tem­porary guarantee that Montini would not become Pope, at least not as a successor of Pius XII. It is known that Pius XII came very near to death in December of 1954, and that after his recovery he ran the Vatican literally by himself, and notably, without a secretary. Montini’s treason in betraying those sent secretly into Russia to the Soviets, resulting in the death of these bishops and clergy; his conciliatory overtures through certain channels to Soviet officials, also his association with a Roman brothel have been cited as sufficient reasons for Pius XII’s decision. All this seems ominous, indeed, in view of the fact that Montini was the first cardinal created by John XXIII.

The attitudes and behavior of Nuncio Roncalli have been well expressed by Trevor: “…Roncalli’s… public silence on the dangers of Communism at the time of the Cold War; his refusal to comment on the much publicized experiment of the worker priests, or on other burning issues, is in itself evidence of an attitude different from what was expected of a representative of Pius XII… . Had he not become Pope and pursued a policy of ‘openings to the left…,’ what he said or did not say in France would by now be forgotten.” (p. 207.) But it cannot be forgotten, and, indeed, it was only an indication of what to expect from the Patriarch of Venice. We need only remember that one of the ways to express heresy, as defined in Can. 1325, is by “silence, subterfuge, or manner of acting.” Truth be known, Roncalli exhibited all three, as will be further demonstrated below.

As a liberal, Roncalli outdid himself as cardinal. While outwardly he was careful to appear as a lamb, as was also Montini, author Elliott tells us: “Both were loyally following directives of Rome. Their separate papacies are perhaps better evidence of their true beliefs…” (p. 228.) In other words, they were occult heretics, and had Catholics not been so slothful they would have realized that their heresies were expressly manifest long before their respective elections. Roncalli was not in the least shy about making his true beliefs known, even though these contradictory beliefs were a cause of scandal to Venetians. In August of 1956, both Montini and Roncalli termed any coalition with the Left “a very grave doctrinal error.” But upon his arrival in Venice in 1953, Roncalli had addressed the Mayor and Council of Venice, many of them Socialists and Communists, and uttered these telling lines: “…I am happy to be among busy people, for only the man who works to good purpose is a true Christian …the only way to be a Christian is by doing good …there may be some here who do not call themselves Christians, but who can be acknowledged as such on account of their good deeds… . I give my paternal blessing to all without distinction.” Alden Hatch also reports in his work, A Man Named John, that in 1954 Roncalli shocked Venetians with his “Christian” ideas concerning unity in a series of conferences delivered on the subject. He emphasized in his speeches “…that which unites rather than that which divides…The road to unity of the various Christian con­fessions is charity, so little observed on either side…My heart is big enough to enfold all the people of the world in my desire for unity.” Hatch writes: “It is said that those gath­ered in the great ornate hall were astonished.”

So also were Venetians shocked by Roncalli’s welcome of the Socialists’ Congress in August of 1956. The archbishop had had posters erected all over the city welcoming these socialists, and in his personal greetings, urged them to “…improve living conditions and social well-being,” (I Will Be Called John, Lawrence Elliott, p. 228.) Roncalli told one reporter seeking an explanation for his strange behavior the following: “Along-side purity of doctrine, there open up fields for the exercise of charity, which begins with respect and courtesy.” (p. 229.) Elliott notes that “…the controversy in Venice was nothing compared with the silent disapproval that surged from the Vatican.” Our good Roncalli had done it again. And that was not all. “Perhaps Roncalli’s greatest friend was the grand old socialist and anti-clercalist Edouard Herriot,” (Alden Hatch, “A Man Named John,” p. 114).

For years the Holy Office had maintained a dossier on Roncalli which read “suspected of Modernism.” The file dated back to 1925, when Roncalli, who was known for his unorthodox teachings, was abruptly removed from his Professorship at the Lateran Seminary in mid-semester (he was accused of Modernism) and shipped off to Bulgaria. This transfer to Bulgaria began his diplomatic career. Of particular concern to Rome was Roncalli’s continuing, close association with the defrocked priest, Ernesto Buonaiuti, who was excommunicated for heresy in 1926, (Lawrence Elliot, “I Will be Called John,” 1973; pgs. 90-92). When Angelo Roncalli was the nuncio to France, he appointed a thirty-third degree Freemason and close friend, the Baron Yves Marsaudon, as head of the French branch of the Knights of Malta, a Catholic lay order, (“La Popessa,” 1983, Paul I. Murphy and R. Rene Arlington, pgs. 332-33). As noted elsewhere, Roncalli’s whitewash of Freemasonry alone, once he sat as usurper in the Vatican, was enough to prove his clandestine affiliation.

Pope Clement XII wrote on Freemasonry: “We command the faithful to abstain from intercourse with those societies in order to avoid excommunication… which will be the penalty imposed upon all those contravening this, Our order. None, except at the point of death, could be absolved of this sin except by…the then existing Roman Pontiff,” (“In Eminenti,” 1738; renewed by Pope Leo XIII in “Humanum Genus,” 1884). Commenting on Pope Clement’s statement, the Freemasonry expert Msgr. Jouin wrote: “Not only is the condemnation by Pope Clement XII extended to Masonic sects, but it applies also to all…who, although they are not members of societies called Freemasonic, favor them in any manner,” (Speech given Dec. 8, 1930). It is rumored that Roncalli was a high-degree Rosicrucian himself, and this of course would automatically place him outside the Church as an apostate. Barring that however, his fostering of Freemasonry while “pope” and his close association with French Masons while Nuncio there is sufficient. And because Freemasonry is the parent error, so to speak of Communism, it only strengthens the case against Roncalli where Communism is concerned.

Roncalli’s exploits were scarcely the erstwhile blunders of an affable country oaf, however they may have been viewed by Pius XII and the Curia. As was mentioned earlier, Pius XII might have been well aware of Roncalli’s deficiencies, but because of his ill health in 1954 may simply have been unin­formed of his activities; or if informed, was prevented from acting on the information by the “enemies behind the walls.” Speaking of the period that followed Roncalli’s elevation to the cardinalate in 1953, Piers Compton writes in his work The Broken Cross: “It was during the pontificate of Pius XII that a number of priests, then working at the Vatican, became aware that all was not well beneath the surface. For a strange kind of influence, not to their liking, was making itself felt, and this they traced to a group who had come into prominence as experts, advisors, and specialists, and who surrounded the Pope so closely that he was spoken of, half humorously, as being their prisoner…those priests…set up a series of investigations …their spokesman was Fr. Eustace Eilers…This led to establishing the fact that the Illuminati were making themselves felt in Rome…That the hand of the Illuminati was certainly involved became clearer when Father Eilers, who announced that he was publishing those facts, was suddenly found dead, presumably of one of those heart attacks, that when dealing with secret societies, so often precede promised revelations,” (p. 37.)

We have an advantage that Pius XII did not have: we have Roncalli at work. We have seen his heretical statements put into action, his true disposition made known by his evil fruits. We can assume that this disposition existed simply on the strength of the fact that he put his stated beliefs and recommendations into actual practice, heresies he had espoused years before — “By their fruits shall you know them.” Certainly it is obvious to all by now who and what Roncalli was. His behavior is consistent with that of a deliberate plant, a “double-agent,” if you will. His heresy lies in the sum total of all these errors, for Liberalism is a heresy dependent on subterfuge for success. At the death of Pius XII, Roncalli finally lifted the mask from his well-fed face when he penned these telling sentences to the rector of the Venetian seminary from Rome: “We must pray that his successor, whoever he may be, will not represent the end of the hierarchy, but will progress in the spirit of the Church’s eternal youth ” (Pope John, by Meriol Trevor, p. 240.) This prayer was answered not by God, but by Roncalli himself; and not by a successor of St. Peter, but by a successor of those issuing from that “different tradition.”

In order to appreciate Roncalli’s defection, we must first point out that even without going into particulars, Roncalli not only sinned and was condemned by Canon 1325, but also was excommunicated for his cooperation in heresy, (Can. 2316). In France, Roncalli’s silence indicated to the French bishops that he was sympathetic to the priest-worker’s movement and reluctant to condemn Communism. In Venice, his “manner of acting” scandalized the people, (Can. 1325). As for subterfuge, Roncalli, was above all guilty of this, for he allowed the Pope, his associates, and his flock to believe that he followed Pius XII in all things, while secretly conspiring with Montini and his liturgical renewal friends on the side. Canon 1324 also teaches from the Vatican Council: “It is not sufficient to avoid heretical error, but one must also diligently shun any errors which, more or less, approach heresy. Wherefore, all constitutions and decrees which the Holy See has condemned and prohibited, such opinions must be observed.” Even had he only held himself aloof in lesser matters, he would still be under suspicion of heresy. But this was not the case. Communism is a heresy, false religious unity is a heresy, and Liberalism is a heresy. As papal Nuncio and Cardinal, Roncalli was expected to renounce these heresies. Instead, he partook of them.

In Pope Pius XII’s condemnation of Communism issued in 1949, Reverend William Conway identifies those individuals Pius XII included in his condemnation: “Those, who by words or conduct externally manifest that they personally accept the doctrine of Communism are apostates …and incur excommunication ipso facto,” (Problems in Canon Law, p. 322.) It is unthinkable that Roncalli could have effectively ignored this decree replete with censures. But certainly his words and most especially his conduct can be said to have expressed his true internal disposition. In order that no doubt remain in the minds of the readers, concerning the nature of Pius XII’s decree on Communism, we present the following, from Homiletic and Pastoral Review, (Vol. 50, No. 1, Oct. 1949):

Roman Documents — Holy Office decree on Communists

This Supreme Sacred Congregation has been asked:

1. Is it lawful to join or to show favor to Communist groups?

2. Is it lawful to publish, disseminate or read books, periodicals, newspapers or leaflets which uphold Communist doctrine and practice, or to write in them?

3. May the faithful who knowingly and willingly per­form the actions referred to in nn. 1 and 2 be admitted to the Sacraments?

4. Do the faithful who profess, and above all those who defend and spread, the materialistic and anti-Christian doc­trine of the Communists ipso facto, as apostates from the Catholic faith, fall into an excommunication reserved speciali modo to the Holy See?

The Most Eminent and Reverend Fathers, charged with the safeguarding of matters of faith and morals, after having previously received the opinion of the Very Reverend Consultors, in a plenary session held on Tuesday, the 28th of June, 1949, decided the response should be:

1. In the negative: because Communism is materialistic and anti-Christian. Though Communist leaders verbally profess not to oppose religion; nevertheless, in fact, both by teaching and action, they show themselves to be the enemies of God and the true religion and the Church of Christ.

2. In the negative: for they are forbidden by law itself (cf. Canon 1399, C.I.C.)

3. In the negative, according to the ordinary principles as regards the denial of the Sacraments to those who are not disposed.

4. In the affirmative.

On the following Thursday, the 30th of the same month and year, his Holiness Pius XII, Pope by divine Providence, in the customary audience granted to his Execellency, the Most Reverend Assessor of the Holy Office, approved the afore­mentioned resolution of the Most Eminent Fathers and ordered it to be promulgated in the official journal, the Acta Aposto­licae Sedis. Given in Rome, July 1, 1949, (Peter Vigorita, Notary).

Homiletic and Pastoral Review editors’ comments

“No decree of the Holy See has received such lengthy notices in the daily press as that of the Holy Office regarding Communist affiliation and support. We have even witnessed earnest efforts to provide a canonical commentary. The sensational and seemingly political overtones of the Decree should not lead us to overlook its careful wording and the clear-cut distinctions it makes. Communism is materialistic and anti-Christian. That has been known long since to any one who has followed its suc­cessive condemnations, notably, that of Pope Pius XI in Divini Redemptoris. It is confirmed by the frankness of Communist writers and, above all, by the activities of Communist leaders the world over. As a consequence, any Catholic who subscribes to true Communist doctrine, whether or not he carries a card of the Communist party, is an apostate from the Church, and; therefore, automatically excommunicated. His case is reserved to the Holy See, though once he abjures his perverse doctrines, the apostate can be absolved from the excommunication in the external forum by the local Ordinary, if his crime has been or is made public. (Canon 2314.) Occasionally, Catholics have lapsed into Communism and thus, apostasized from the church.

“Without accepting Communism, there are some who have become identified with its activities or else have lent support to them. The Holy Office now further clarifies the dictum of Pope Pius XI, in his encyclical Divini Redemptoris: “Communism is intrinsically evil, and no one desirous of saving civili­zation can collaborate with it.” It is strictly forbidden to join the Communist Party or any truly Communist group. It is like­wise, strictly forbidden to show it favor, for example, by de­fending its activity, giving it financial support, failing as a public official to check it when such is one’s duty. It is seri­ously wrong to publish or disseminate, or even to contribute to Communist publications, which support either Communist doc­trines or policy. The Decree does not indicate how far a pub­lication must support Communism in order to come under this ban. That is a question of fact to be decided in the individual case on the basis of the regular content of the publication. Furthermore, the faithful are forbidden to cooperate with Communism by reading any of its publications. Those who have need of doing so by reason of their profession, or in order to expose its pernicious errors, must seek the required permission from the local Ordinary, who is empowered by law to make ex­ceptions in individual cases. (Canon 1402, 1.)

“All who openly disregard the foregoing restrictions are publicly disobedient to the law of the Church, and; therefore, publicly unworthy of receiving Her Sacraments. But to be so penalized, a person must act scienter and libere — (knowingly and freely). Obviously, one who is duped into acting wrongfully should not suffer for his action because of his good faith. The meaning of the term libere, however, is more difficult to determine and undoubtedly will require further clarification. Perhaps we can say tenta­tively, that the action in question must not only be “free” in the ordinary sense of the term, but also free of grave fear, necessity and grave inconvenience. (cfr Canon 2205, 2.) In other words, to be barred from the Sacraments, a person must not have been coerced into cooperating with Communism by circumstances, or by the wrongful action of others.

“…The Catholic Press carried the text of a subsequent Decree of the Holy Office, dated August 11, 1949, explaining further how far Communists and coop­erators with Communism are to be denied the Sacraments. The Degree states that those who adhere to the tenets of Communism, being apostates, are to be denied all sacred rites on the occasion of their marriage, which as a mixed marriage, is not to be celebrated in church. The parties in question are to sign the customary guarantees. However, those who belong to a Communist group or cooperate with Communism in the ways already mentioned are, on the occasion of their marriage, to be treated as members of a forbidden society or public sinners, respectively. (Canons 1065-1066.) (End of excerpt.)

In Pope Pius XII’s directive on religious unity in March 1949, the good Pope lays down guidelines to be observed mainly by bishops in conducting conferences and meetings with non­-Catholics. Commenting on this document, Reverend Conway writes: “The second general directive … is that in all efforts toward reunion, there is no question of restoring a unity …lost, but simply of a return by non-Catholics to a unity which has always existed and which can never cease to exist.” (p. 331.) Roncalli’s comment in Venice in 1954 on this subject can hardly be said to conform to this norm laid down by Pius XII, for he speaks of “that which unites rather than that which divides.” No wonder his audience in Venice was shocked, for Conway relates on page 331: “The Instruction explicitly condemns that method of approach which concentrates on stressing points of doctrine on which Catholics and non-­Catholics are agreed, rather than those on which they dis­agree.” Again, this demonstrates Roncalli’s contempt for the authority of the Holy See. We shall see shortly what such contempt merits in way of punishment. This charity he so obviously wished to be identified with is especially allied with Liberalism. For an analysis of this heresy, we turn to the Catholic Encyclopedia, and Reverend Sarda and his excellent work.

Roncalli the unabashed Liberal

Volume IX of the Catholic Encyclopedia (1911 Ed.), tells us under Liberalism: “…the most solemn condemnation of nat­uralism and rationalism was contained in the Constitution De Fide of the Vatican Council …the definition of the papal infallibility by the Vatican Council was virtually a condem­nation of Liberalism.” This volume of the encyclopedia also notes that Liberalism is condemned once again by Pope St. Pius X in his Syllabus against the Modernists. Under “excommuni­cation” Vol. V of this same encyclopedia, Pius X’s Syllabus is listed as one of the documents containing propositions con­demned under pain of latae sententiae excommunication. (VII,12b, IL.) The propositions violated by Roncalli can be found in 2007 and 2008 of Denzinger’s. These propositions deal with withholding the necessary assent required of the faithful to the judgments pronounced by the Roman Pontiff, and the sacred Roman congregations.

DZ 2007 (No. 7 on Pius X’s list), reads: “When the Church proscribes errors, She cannot exact any internal assent of the faithful, by which judgments published by Her are embraced.”

DZ 2008 (No. 8 on Pius X’s list), reads: “They are to be considered free of all blame who consider of no account the reprobations published by the Sacred Congregation of the Index, or by other sacred Roman congregations.” It must be noted here that, as Don Sharkey relates in his book White Smoke Over the Vatican: “The Roman Curia is

…the departments and ministries that form the government of the Church. It consists of the Roman congregations, the Roman tribunals, and the five offices of the Curia.” (p. 48.) We can now put Roncalli’s reference to the Curia as “that other school” in its true perspective. It is a direct denial, an admitted opposition to DZ 2008. This can also be seen to be true of Roncalli’s comments on religious unity in Venice, mentioned earlier. Truly he can be said to correspond with the words Meriol Trevor has so aptly written concerning him: “…he thought of himself as representing a different tradition…”

Finally, in his motu proprio on The Authority of the Decisions of the Biblical Commission, Pope Pius X leaves no room for doubt on this matter, for he vehemently reiterates his previous condemnations as follows: “We repeat and confirm not
only…, (Lamentibili)…but also…(Pascendi)… adding the penalty of excommunication against all who contradict them…if anyone…defends any of the propositions, opinions, and doc­trines disproved in either document, he is ipso facto afflicted by the censure …first among those excommunications latae sententiae…reserved simply to the Roman Pontifff,” (DZ 2114.)

Father Sarda devotes an entire chapter to Pius IX’s condemnation of Liberalism. He notes that immediately, the liberals denied the ex cathedra nature of the condemnation, saying that it applied only to certain individ­uals. This is the very error many of today’s Traditionalists have fallen into. They erroneously believe that an ex cathedra act must be something extraordinary, thereby denying infalli­bility in the Pope’s ordinary magisterium. The very way in which Pius IX condemned Liberalism reveals what manner of document it truly was and is yet today. The letter from the Holy Office, written by Cardinal Antonelli at Pius IX’s behest and addressed to the bishops worldwide, reads: “…Pius IX, being especially solicitous concerning the salvation of souls …(and) because of his supreme anxiety about…the safety and welfare of the Catholic Church and of the whole flock of the Lord divinely entrusted to him…wished that a Syllabus of…errors be made to be sent to all the bishops of the whole Catholic world,” (Footnote, DZ 1700.)

This condemnation, issued by Pius IX is; (a) issued on faith and morals, (b) to the universal Church, (c) invoking his apostolic authority, (d) defines the nature of (an error con­demned or) doctrine to be believed, (e) to be accepted as such by the universal Church. All these marks can be found in Ouanta Cura, issued along with the Syllabus. (See DZ 1699.) Surely there can be no doubt that articles 1718a of the Sylla­bus on Communism AND Socialism (see DZ 1694), along with DZ 1683 and DZ 1722, absolutely condemn Roncalli as a heretic, for these last two are identical to the aforementioned articles of Pope St. Pius X’s Syllabus. (DZ 2007-2008, 2114.) This is not to mention articles 1715 and 1716 of Pius IX’s Syllabus, (also 1646 and 1677 of Singulare Quadem) on religious liberty. Moreover, in explaining the retroactive effect of the Vatican Council’s definition of infallibility, Henry Cardinal Manning specifically mentions Pope Pius IX’s Syllabus as retroactively infallible, (“The Vatican Decrees in Their Bearing on Civil Allegiance,” 1875).

Roncalli, as a liberal, wore many hats. Sarda, in his excellent volume What is Liberalism, classes Roncalli as a “moderate” liberal. He de­scribes a moderate as one who “…takes good care not to appear so. Social conventionalities and good manners are everything to him …The moderate liberal does not detest the Pope; he may even express admiration for his sagacity; he only blames certain pretensions of the Roman Curia and certain exaggerations of ultra-montanism (unflagging loyalty and obe­dience to all the directives of the Holy See – ed.), which do not fall in with the trend of modern thought,” (p. 87-89.) This description fits Roncalli as though it had been said of him personally! Remember his overtures to the Socialists in Venice? “Alongside purity of doctrine, there open up fields for the exercise of charity, which begins with respect and cour­tesy.” Can we forget the reference Roncalli made concerning the Curia, calling it “that other school?” Or fail to see here the nuncio who took great care not to appear as a liberal, but only as a man of tact and charity? No wonder Father Sarda describes this variety of liberal as most dangerous, because: “…he is the real Satanic type; his is the masked evil, which in our times is the chief cause of Liberalism,” (p. 92.)

Roncalli’s main pre-election heresy was the favoritism shown Communism and Socialism but his prevailing heresy was Liberalism, the steppingstone to these two heresies. He committed this heresy publicly in words uttered during his various speeches in Venice as a cardinal. But even as a bishop, Roncalli can be said to have been guilty of heresy by virtue of his silence. As we have already demonstrated, Canon 1325 states that any time “…silence, subterfuge or…manner of acting…” implies a denial of faith, or causes scandal, heresy has been committed, and the censure is incurred. Reverend Eric MacKenzie in his The Delict of Heresy (a canon law dissertation), writes: “Complete externalization of thought may exist in signs, acts, or omis­sion.” Now, heresy must be so externalized in order to be considered formal and incur the censure. MacKenzie gives the example of a man who does not believe in the Real Presence, and in the token of this belief, refuses to remove his hat in a Catholic church. (p. 35.) That is simple enough, and surely Roncalli, as a public figure, was guilty of far more than that. Pius XII’s encyclical condemning Communism and laying out the manner in which censures can be incurred for adhering to it was published in 1949.

Roncalli’s heresy expressed “from the Chair”

In 1953, we find Roncalli advising a wait and see attitude on the worker­-priest movement, even though priests were joining Communist unions and joining the members of these unions in strikes and protests. Even though he later came out and (reluctantly, charitably) condemned the movement when he knew Pius XII was preparing to condemn it himself, this does not remove his guilt or his censure. In order to incur the censure for heresy, the heresy must be public. In order to be absolved from heresy, “…the delinquent must have receded from contumacy…sincerely repented of his crime…” and “at least promised to repair any injury…to others and repair the scandal he has caused.” (Problems in Canon Law, Reverend William Conway, p. 302.) That he never repented is patently obvious. As the Pope’s representative, he was bound to intervene. His failure to do so in a timely manner was entirely culpable. Pius XII’s decree specifically states that the censure can be contracted “…by words or conduct…” As St. Robert Bellarmine stated: “Whoever does not resist manifest error when he is able and ought, is thought to approve it.” (De Conciliis, Ch.14.) Roncalli gave numerous indications pre-election that he definitely favored and even fostered heresy. And following his election, he officially removed all doubt on the subject.

Pope Paul IV addressed this very situation in his bull Cum Ex Apostolatus, when he decreed: “…if ever at any time it shall appear that any (bishop, archbishop, cardinal, legate), or even the Roman Pontiff, prior to his promotion or elevation…has deviated from the Catholic Faith, or fallen into some heresy; (a) The promotion is null and void; worthless, even if it shall have been uncontested and by the unanimous consent of all the cardinals; (b) It shall not be possible for it to acquire validity …through the lapse of any period of time in the foregoing situation; (c) It shall not be held as partially legitimate; (d) To any so promoted … no authority shall have been granted; (e) Those thus promoted …shall be deprived automatically and without need for any further declaration of all dignity position, …office and power without any exception.” Cardinal Manning’s nephew, commenting on this bull observed: “Whatever may have been the secret irregularity of a pope’s election or his previous unorthodoxy, it must either be made manifest to the Church, so that She perceives that he is not Her legitimate pastor and looks for another, or if he defines he defines truly… A pope shall cease to be pope…only by an act that shall make all doubt of his heresy impossible,” (Rev. Henry Rider, “Catholic Controversy,” 1882). In Roncalli’s case, it was his Liberalism and suspected Modernism followed by his strange French bedfellows, both Masonic and Socialis, and finally his open sympathy for the Communists. “One of John 23’s good friends was the Communist and Lenin Peace Prize winner Giacomo Manzu,” (Curtis Bill Pepper, An Artist and the Pope, London, England: Grosset & Dunlap, Inc. Front cover and inside slip cover of book; also p. 5).  John 23 said: “I see no reason why a Christian could not vote for a Marxist if he finds the latter to be more fit to follow such a political line and historical destiny,” (Reverend Joaquin Saenz-Arriaga, The New Montinian Church, Brea, Calif., p. 570).

Following his invalid election, it was Roncalli’s open and close association with Montini, who sold out the hierarchy sent behind the Iron Curtain in Russia, and his creation of him as cardinal that clarified the situation. That Montini was the power behind Roncalli’s throne is clear. It was actually Roncalli who abrogated the Latin Mass by introducing St. Joseph into the canon and omitting the prayers at the foot of the altar, one of its Confiteors and removing the St. Michael’s Prayer, also the prayers for the conversion of Russia. And he permitted the use of parish mass books beginning in 1959 that clearly read “for all men” in the Canon of the Mass. There is no lack of evidence concerning his departure from the faith; in fact much more could be presented. And certainly once he abrogated the true mass and called the false Vatican Council, his intent cannot be questioned.

The Italian Franco Belligrande, author of the work, “Nikita Roncalli,” writes: “It will suffice to consider that, following the promulgation of the encyclical Pacem in Terris, in which Pope Roncalli proclaimed that ‘There can, and should be cooperation between the Catholics and the Communist regimes on the social and political level,’ [that] in the April 28, 1963 Italian elections the Communists gained one million more votes than in the previous elections, five years earlier. This first clamorous success of the Italian Communist party (PCI) was unanimously attributed to the policy of John XXIII; they called it “Ecclesiastical Leftism”, when he was still alive, or “Giovannismo” which they did after his death.” The actual quote from Pacem in Terris urges: “extensive co-operation between Catholics and those Christians who are separated from this Apostolic See. It even involves the cooperation of Catholics with men who may not be Christians but who nevertheless are reasonable men, and men of natural moral integrity.” He could say this even after the disastrous failure of the worker–priest movement. It sounds much like Roncalli’s 1953 address to the Mayor and Council of Venice, many of them Socialists and Communists, where he uttered these telling lines: “…I am happy to be among busy people, for only the man who works to good purpose is a true Christian …the only way to be a Christian is by doing good …there may be some here who do not call themselves Christians, but who can be acknowledged as such on account of their good deeds…I give my paternal blessing to all without distinction.”

And Alden Hatch reports in his work, A Man Named John, that in 1954, Roncalli shocked Venetians with his “Christian” ideas concerning unity in a series of conferences delivered on the subject. He emphasized in his speeches “…that which unites rather than that which divides…The road to unity of the various Christian con­fessions is charity, so little observed on either side… . My heart is big enough to enfold all the people of the world in my desire for unity.” Hatch writes: “It is said that those gath­ered in the great ornate hall were astonished.” Reverend Conway writes concerning Pope Pius XII’s 1949 directive: “The second general directive … is that in all efforts toward reunion, there is no question of restoring a unity…lost, but simply of a return by non-Catholics to a unity which has always existed and which can never cease to exist,” (p. 331.)

It can scarcely be disputed that here Roncalli openly and publicly advocates that Catholics associate and cooperate with those who may be Communists, heresy pure and simple. He does so obliquely “from the Chair” in the course of an encyclical, and he did so prior to his election. This was not a pope speaking heresy but one invalidly elected offering proof of his invalidity after the fact. Rev. Cicognani concerning presumptions of law states: “Whoever is once bad is presumed to be so always (in the same delict.” And as already demonstrated, Roncalli’s entire manner of acting as a Roman Cardinal gave every indication he was a Communist sympathizer; and this is especially true concerning his relations with Montini. Both conduct AND words were Roncalli’s downfall.

In following the old law, used in place of the current law in this doubtful case, we read from Cum ex:: “…Each and, every one of their statements, deeds, enactments, and administrative acts, of any kind, and any result thereof whatsoever, shall be without force and shall confer no legality or right on anyone. The persons themselves so promoted and elevated shall, ipso facto and without need for any further declaration, be deprived of any dignity, position, honor, title, authority, office and power, without any exception as regards those who might have been promoted or elevated before they deviated from the faith, became heretics, incurred schism, or committed or encouraged any or all of these.” It is in perfect agreement with what is stated above, for it mentions encouraging the deed done as equally reprehensible. And it tells us that Roncalli never possessed the dignity and title he assumed, voiding any and all his acts, including the convening of the false Vatican II council.

In the introduction to the constitution Postquam verus, issued December 3, 1586, Sixtus V (1585-1590) stated that the cardinals represent the apostles because of their proximity and special assistance to the Vicar of Christ and that “for the exaltation of the Catholic religion, the peace and tranquility of the Christian people, the advancement and honor of the Holy Apostolic See, they should, if necessary, shed their blood and die.” Given the high dignity of the cardinalitial office, the pope, the body of the text begins, should select the cardinals from among the best and most learned men (No. 1). In selecting new cardinals, the pope, although he asks advice from the old cardinals, is entirely free to create whomever he sees fit (No. 2). The total number of cardinals was to be seventy, like the ancients of the Old Testament who assisted Moses (No. 4).” The current canons that govern the selection of cardinals reiterate basically what is said here. Note that long ago it was determined that cardinals should be willing to die in the service of the pope, for the advancement and honor of the Holy Apostolic See. It seems that those not willing to do so were scarcely worthy of the honor.

A Cardinal disqualified as papabili for suspected heresy

In order to explain what will be presented below, it is necessary to delve into the history behind the bull, Cum ex Apostolatus Officio. Pope Paul IV suspected Cardinal Giovanni Morone of heresy, something to do with the misinterpretation of Scripture. Morone also reportedly had been holding meetings behind the pope’s back to promote himself as Paul IV’s successor even prior to the pope’s death. This prompted Paul IV to write Cum ex. Morone was tried for his heresy and imprisoned. But when Paul IV died, he was back in the running for the papacy. He ran full force, however, into Cardinal Ghislieri, the future Pope St. Pius V. The historian Hergenrother, in his “The History of the Popes” reports that Morone’s campaign as papabili was “quashed by the intervention of Cardinal Ghislieri, who pointedly remarked that Morone’s election would be invalid owing to the question mark hanging over his orthodoxy,” (emph mine). And this is the opinion not only of a great Pope, but of a great saint.

We also have the following quote from Paul IV himself, provided by author Glenn Kittler: “If I discovered that my own father was a heretic, I would gather the wood to burn him,” Paul IV said. During the trial of Cardinal Morone, Kittler says that Paul IV “decreed that any cardinal accused of heresy could not be elected pope,” (The Papal Princes, pg. 254). And there is to be no exception concerning those who deviated from the faith “secretly” before their election; that is, some heresy that was committed pre-election but became public only after the election. They too are automatically deposed. Here we have a perfect reflection of the mind of the lawgiver concerning an election, worth its weight in gold. In response to Morone’s attempt to promote himself as pope, Paul IV also penned the apostolic constitution Cum secundum Apostolum, on December 15 or 16, 1559. The constitution decreed extreme penalties against those who discuss the election of the future pope, behind the back and without permission of his predecessor while he is still alive, a crime now visited by Pius XII with the highest possible excommunication on the books: a latae sententiae penalty reserved in a most special manner to the Holy See. This means that only the pope can dispense from such a censure.

None of this would be pertinent to the present case were it not for the fact that Roncalli is reported to have done exactly as Morone did, and by two separate sources. According to C. Leroux, he had plenty of time to plot his course as “pope.” Leroux writes, quoting a French work called Echoes of the Supernatural: “As to the Council, I wrote to Cardinal Roncalli, (former Nuncio to Paris, to whom I was an advisor) on Aug. 14, 1954, to announce his future election (to the papacy)…I asked for a meeting with him…to study his first work, the Council.” In the work “Nikita Roncalli,” written in the 1970’s but not published until the 1990s, Italian author Franco Belligrande states: “The election of the patriarch of Venice at the Conclave of 1958 was known in advance… Cardinal Eugenio Tisserant [wrote] to an abbot professor of Canon Law, in which the French cardinal declares illegal the election of John XXIII, because [it was] ‘wanted’ and ‘arranged’ by forces ‘extraneous’ of the Holy Spirit,” (Cfr. “Vita” of September 18, 1977 pg. 4 “Le profezie sui papi nell’elenco di San Malachia”, by “Il Minutante”). It is impossible to escape the conclusion that having actually succeeded in attaining election, unlike Morone, Roncalli (also Montini) became what Paul IV identifies as “the abomination of desolation standing in the holy place” — a usurper gaining control of the Holy See after professing pre-election heresy and unlawfully campaigning for election.

Canon 2330 reads: “With regard to the penalties enacted against offenses which may be committed in the election of a Roman Pontiff, the only law to be considered is the Constitution of Pope Pius X…(Commentary by Revs. Woywod-Smith:  “The Constitution ‘Vacantis Apostolica Sedis,’ of Pope Pius XII, December 8, 1945 revised and supplanted the constitution of Pope Pius X…The name of Pope Pius XII should now be substituted in the Canon in the place of Pope Pius X…) All of these excommunications are reserved to the Supreme Pontiff so that nobody, (not even the Major Penitentiary), can absolve them except in danger of death. These excommunications are as follows: …(6) The discussion of a successor to the Roman Pontiff while he is sill living and without consulting him; the promise to vote for such future candidate; and all deliberations and discussion on this subject at private gatherings, (V.A.S. no. 93)…” And no. (8): “Agreements, compacts, promises or any other obligations made or assumed by Cardinals which may restrict their freedom of voting or not voting for some one or several candidates, (V.A.S. no. 95).”

A footnote to this canon states that the sentences are most likely latae sententiae, and cannot be absolved from in urgent cases (Can. 2254) in the absence of a true pope. This is because Can. 2330 itself states that only the constitution governs the censures exclusively, not the Code, papal election law being considered special law. Because there is no Pope, during an interregnum the one in question would need to wait until the election is concluded for the absolution and in the meantime could not be elected. Rev. Anscar Parsons, O.F.M, in his work: “Canonical Elections,” (Catholic Univ. of America, 1939) notes that those considered unfit or unworthy of election are “those who are legally infamous or laboring under censure [also] notorious apostates, schismatics…public sinners and persons whose conduct is sinful or scandalous.” Roncalli qualifies on all counts. It should be noted here that Can. 2314§3 declares those who have participated in non-Catholic services as infamous, resulting from the excommunication incurred for heresy, apostasy or schism. Communism and Freemasonry both are considered as non-Catholic (apostate) sects, and Roncalli at least favored them. This encouraging and favoring is further condemned in sec. 5 of Cum ex… as follows:

“All and sundry Bishops, Archbishops, Patriarchs, Primates, Cardinals…who in the past have, as mentioned above, strayed or fallen into heresy or have been apprehended, have confessed or been convicted of incurring, inciting or committing schism or who, in the future, shall stray or fall into heresy or shall incur, incite or commit schism or shall be apprehended, confess or be convicted of straying or falling into heresy or of incurring, inciting or committing schism, being less excusable than others in such matters, in addition to the sentences, censures and penalties mentioned above, (all these persons) are also automatically and without any recourse to law or action, completely and entirely, forever deprived of, and furthermore disqualified from and incapacitated for their rank…Further, whoever knowingly presumes in any way to receive anew the persons so apprehended, confessed or convicted, or to favor them, believe them, or teach their doctrines shall ipso facto incur excommunication, and, become infamous.”

Moreover, Morone’s state as at least suspect of heresy/schism is included in sec. 6 of Pope Paul IV’s bull as well. For at the end of this section he states:

“The persons themselves so promoted and elevated shall, ipso facto and without need for any further declaration, be deprived of any dignity, position, honor, title, authority, office and power, [without any exception as regards those who might have been promoted or elevated before they deviated from the faith, became heretics, incurred schism, or committed or encouraged any or all of these.]” Notice that “deviated from the faith” is separated from actual heresy or schism, indicating that it is a separate offense suggestive of these yet not actually heresy or schism per se. This would include suspicion of heresy, those things proximate to heresy or those things “smacking” of heresy. And here also we see that this extends to those who encourage these acts, even though they may not be guilty of such acts themselves. Because the laws on heresy are in question today, Cum ex… is the prevailing law, and must be followed to the letter.

Other disqualifiers for papal election

Because Roncalli apparently participated in planning for his future election, he was never eligible for election as pope. His election was invalid because he was an unworthy candidate. In ecclesiastical elections, only the most worthy candidate is to be elected. An unworthy candidate is one who lacks any quality required by law, and the lack of such a quality would be the ipso facto excommunication (for heresy) and canonical deposition attached to it incurred by Roncalli for promoting Communism. Although censures do not apply to cardinals under the 1917 Code, remember we have a doubt, and that doubt requires us to use Can. 6§4 as the prevailing law in this case. Cardinals are definitely mentioned as capable of incurring such heresies in Cum ex… And in ecclesiastical elections, even when the candidate is not a heretic, “The election is automatically invalid, only if the lacking quality is required for the validity of the election… of an unworthy candidate.” (Disqualification of Electors in Ecclesiastical Elections,” Reverend Timothy Mock, p. 135.) Pope Pius XII’s constitution on papal elections states that deposed cardinals may not participate in the election; they have forfeited their office as cardinal. The censure of Can. 2314 also states that they incur the deposition mentioned in Can. 188§4, already governed by Cum ex… as the old law. And only cardinals can vote in a papal election. In his Canonical Elections, Reverend Anscar Parsons tells us above that Roncalli is already classified in this category as unfit for election, and while a legitimate election devoid of any doubts concerning the faith of the candidate would nullify certain instances of unworthiness, this does not apply to heresy.

Even if Roncalli had only created scandal prior to his election, he would have thus qualified as an unworthy candidate. Prior to the elections in chapters of religious, “…each and every member must take an oath to vote for those only for whom he believes before God he should vote.” (Canon 506, No. 1.) Similarly, cardinals also take an oath before depositing their ballots. This oath, con­tained in Pius XII’s Vacanti’s Apostolica Sedis,” reads: “I call to witness Christ the Lord, Who will judge me, that I choose the man that, according to God, I conclude ought to be elected.” What is not understood at all here is that once Roncalli was “elected,” given his heretical unworthiness, all cardinals taking part in the election lost their right to posit another election under Canon 2391, no. 1. This Canon reads: “A college which knowingly elects an unworthy person is automatically deprived, for that particular election of the right to hold a new election.” Reverend Parsons comments: “…in normal cases it is presumed that the chapter made its choice with full deliberation and knowledge, because it is their duty to investigate the qualities of the person whom they elect … if the majority elect someone who is unworthy, all the voters even those who are innocent are deprived of the right to vote in this instance.” (p. 197.) Reverend Mock agrees with Par­sons, writing: “…the burden of proof …will be upon the elec­tors to show that they did not know of the defect in the candidate. The electors are presumed to know the qualifi­cations required by law.” (p. 137.) As public as Roncalli’s behavior was, it is difficult to imagine that the cardinals would not have been able to demonstrate this fact.

 

Most of the same cardinals who elected Roncalli elected Paul 6, yet they were barred from positing another election. Parsons comments on this canon: “Is the election of an unworthy person void from the beginning? It seem that it is, for the law says that the chapter deprived of the right to proceed to ‘a new election.’ In making this disposition, the legislator seems to suppose that the original choice was null and void.” And Rev. Parsons assures readers in his work that there is no doubt the laws governing ecclesiastical elections apply here, for he writes: “The election of the Holy Father has been the prototype for the election of inferior prelates.” In the end Roncalli was unworthy because he was a heretic, and this we have on the authority of Pope Paul IV’s infallible Bull. But what results is the most important part. For both Paul IV’s “Cum ex…” and Can. 2391 no. 1 relieve us of he responsibility of determining whether or not those elected after Pope Pius XII were possibly valid. Cum ex… tells us concerning those appointed by heretics who appear to possess an office:

“Every one of their statements, deeds, enactments, and administrative acts, of any kind, and any result thereof whatsoever, shall be without force and shall confer no legality or right on anyone. The persons themselves so promoted and elevated shall, ipso facto and without need for any further declaration, be deprived of any dignity, position, honor, title, authority, office and power, [without any exception as regards those who might have been promoted or elevated before they deviated from the faith, became heretics, incurred schism, or committed or encouraged any or all of these.]”

And Can. 2391 rejects all those electing an unworthy person even should a new election be held. Add to this the fact that Vacantis Apostolica Sedis declares null and void any acts performed even by Cardinals requiring papal jurisdiction during the interregnum, (and this would include lifting the censures reserved to the Roman Pontiff) and the election is null and void for usurping papal jurisdiction. So the question on whether the censures for discussing the election prior to the death of the pope has answered itself.

The use of these canons on ecclesiastical elections is in compliance with Can. 18, which tells us that if there is still some question concerning the meaning of the words in the current law (Vacantis Apostolic Sedis, which does not mention the unworthy per se in the constitution,) one then is to have recourse first to the old law, and we see above from Parsons that old papal election law was used to create the laws on ecclesiastical elections. So the laws on canonical elections already reflect the practice in the history of the Church concerning papal elections. But if any doubts remain, Can. 18 states that one is to consult parallel passages of the Code, the purpose of the law and its circumstances and the intention of the lawgiver. This we did above concerning Pope Paul IV’s intent in writing Cum ex. The laws on ecclesiastical elections are the only parallel passages in the Code which treat of elections at all. The Catholic Encyclopedia, in the article on elections, also designated the election of an unworthy candidate as invalid. The one elected must be a Catholic, as St. Robert Bellarmine teaches, for it is not possible that one not a Catholic could rule the Church.

“This principle is most certain. The non-Christian cannot in any way be Pope, as Cajetan himself admits (ib. c. 26). The reason for this is that he cannot be head of what he is not a member; now he who is not a Christian is not a member of the Church, and a manifest heretic is not a Christian, as is clearly taught by St. Cyprian (lib. 4, epist. 2), St. Athanasius (Scr. 2 cont. Arian.), St. Augustine (lib. de great. Christ. cap. 20), St. Jerome (contra Lucifer.) and others; therefore the manifest heretic cannot be Pope,” (De Romano Pontifice, lib. II, cap. 30). St. Robert then goes onto explain what happens when it appears a man has become a heretic: “Then two years later came the lapse of Liberius, of which we have spoken above. Then indeed the Roman clergy, stripping Liberius of his pontifical dignity, went over to Felix, whom they knew [then] to be a Catholic. From that time, Felix began to be the true Pontiff. For although Liberius was not a heretic, nevertheless he was considered one, on account of the peace he made with the Arians, and by that presumption the pontificate could rightly [merito] be taken from him: for men are not bound, or able to read hearts; but when they see that someone is a heretic by his external works, they judge him to be a heretic pure and simple [simpliciter], and condemn him as a heretic.”

The presumption that St. Robert speaks of above is that stated in Can. 2200: “The evil will spoken of in Can. 2199 means a deliberate will to violate the law and presupposes on the part of the mind a knowledge of the law and on the part of the will freedom of action. Given the external violation of the law, the evil will is presumed in the external forum until the contrary is proven.” Revs. Woywod-Smith comment on this canon: “The rule here stated is evidently necessary for the public welfare.” Who has ever presented proof that Roncalli was a loyal supporter of Pope Pius XII and was NOT a heretic? He condemns himself out of his own mouth both pre-election and in “Pacem in Terris,” leaving no doubt whatsoever concerning his intentions prior to election. Therefore, Pope Paul IV states, he was never validly elected.  And while some will object that only the Roman clergy could oust an antipope, we must remember that we are bound now to the old law of Pope Paul IV. In that law, of which St. Robert Bellarmine was fully aware, Paul IV states: “For the greater confusion of persons thus promoted and elevated, if they attempt to continue their government and administration, all may implore the aid of the secular arm against those so advanced and elevated.” So the laity may both implore and facilitate the removal of antipopes. When they did not demand, after becoming aware that Cum ex… existed, that the remaining clergy posit an election when they still could have done so (even if this meant the clergy elected a true pope outside of Rome) the laity and clergy both sealed the fate of the Church, although there is no doubt that God wished this to be the time spoken of in Holy Scripture for the coming of the abomination of desolation.

After Roncalli, no papal election was possible

Now we have no doubt whatsoever, given this presumption and the failure of those who hold Roncalli as valid to produce solid evidence to this effect, that he indeed never became pope. The preponderance of evidence alone should convince a reasonable man that very grave doubt exists, even if the above evidence proving the actual heresy was not recognized or addressed at the time. This brings us once again to the conclusion that the College of Cardinals was forbidden to elect Paul 6, as a one-time penalty, and what Roncalli did during his own “pontificate” guaranteed that never again could another valid papal election be held by the men calling themselves cardinals in the Conciliar church, according to Vacantis Apostolica Sedis (which still governs papal elections). For Roncalli appointed 33 cardinals to the college, bringing the total to 85. This means that the succeeding “papal elections” were attended by mere bishops and priests, not cardinals. It also means that out of the 85 total members, over one-third were disqualified as voters. Therefore, a true two-thirds plus one majority could not be obtained. Pius XII was adamant that only cardinals could elect the Pope, to the exclusion of all others. Concerning the two-thirds plus one majority, Pius XII wrote in his constitution, “Vacantis Apostolica Sedis” that for, “the valid election of the Roman Pontiff at least two-thirds of the votes are required; nevertheless We amend the same law only insofar as We determine that one vote over and above be added to the two-thirds of the votes, otherwise the election is ipso jure null and void, such that he will only be considered the Roman Pontiff on whom at least two thirds of the Cardinals present in the Conclave,” have conferred their votes.

So the 33 cardinals Roncalli attempted to appoint, when he was unable under Cum ex… to do any such thing, were never appointed at all. If one does the math, it is clear that 33 is far more than one-third of 85. Once again, from Pope Pius XII: “The right of electing the Roman Pontiff pertains solely and exclusively to the Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church, having excluded and in every respect removed any intervention at all of any other Ecclesiastical dignity or lay power of any rank or order without distinction. But if the election is conducted in a way other than in scrutiny by paper-ballot [or in one of the other two manners mentioned in the constitution], secret votes of two thirds of the Cardinals present, with one vote added over and above…[and] by the word “eligo” uttered in an intelligible voice or expressed in writing, if he cannot utter it by voice; let it be null and invalid by that fact apart from any declaration, and let it give no right to one so elected.” In the above paragraphs we find the only two clear declarations of invalidity mentioned in this constitution. The only other cause of nullity is the writing of several names on the papal ballot (the ballot or that round of voting, not the election, would be null). So the election of Paul VI and all his actions are null and void; he never became pope, never reconvened the false Vatican II council, never altered the rites of the Sacraments and never officially instituted the Novus Ordo Missae.

Nor does the old law differ on these points. Canon 165 states: “No one who does not belong to the electoral college may be admitted, except in virtue of privileges legitimately acquired; otherwise, the election is ipso facto null and void.” Canon 167 tells us: “…the election is valid, unless it is certain that the elected would not have had the required number of votes without the illegal vote(s)…”  These two canons govern canonical elections, but they apply to the case at hand. Canon 18 instructs us as follows: “If the meaning of terms remains doubtful or obscure, one must have recourse to parallel passages of the Code,” and while Pope Pius XII indicates that anyone voting besides the cardinals COULD nullify the election, he doesn’t say specifically that it does.

Reverend Anscar Par­sons (Canonical Elections), defines extraneous as “…all non­members of the community — lay persons, members of other religious institutes …and others who have not even a seeming right to assist at the election.” (p. 116-117.) He notes that “…some authors before the Code did not believe the admission of an outsider would nullify the entire election …The question … is now solved by the Code in favor of the stricter view.” (p. 119.) This can be seen by referring back to the clear words of Can. 165. Since Can. 18 declares that ecclesiastical laws “…are to be interpreted according to the proper meaning of the terms of the law considered in their context,” Can. 165, on examination, could not possibly be interpreted in any other way.

Conclusion

Traditionalists and others have tried to justify the pre-election heresy of the usurpers by pointing to St. Peter’s denial of Christ before he was officially confirmed as pope (following the Ascension — the Vatican Council, DZ 1822). But we no longer have Christ with us to judge whether such an act is capable of forgiveness and reaffirmation. Christ knew Peter’s mind and heart; no man, not even a true Vicar of Christ, can claim such knowledge for himself, since he is not Divine. We can only proceed to judge other men on precisely the same basis St. Robert Bellarmine describes — externally, since “men are not bound, or able, to read hearts.”  Canon Law is negatively infallible; it cannot teach anything contrary to dogma or discipline because it emanates itself from the dogmatic and disciplinary decrees of the Church. It provides its own rules for interpretation according to the sacred canons themselves. Mention of the necessity of canonical provison is found under Can. 2394 and refers the reader to Can. 147, which requires all those appointed to an office to follow the canons in this regard under pain of invalidity. In a decree issued by the Sacred Congregation of the Council, June 29, 1950 under Can. 147, the Congregation delivered excommunications especially reserved to the Holy See directly from Pope Pius XII, stating in part that: “anyone, who without a canonical investiture or provision made according to the sacred canons occupies an ecclesiastical office, benefice or dignity,” or allows anyone “to be unlawfully intruded into the same,” is excommunicated, with the censure reserved  specialli modo, (in a special manner) to the Holy See, (Canon Law Digest, Vol. III). This canon alone, which the canonists T. Lincoln Bouscaren and Adam Ellis state under Can. 145§1 that this canon incudes the papacy, so it would invalidate the elections of Roncalli, Montini and all the others.

Private interpretation, however, does not ESTABLISH a provision, but only demonstrates what the law says such a provison should be from the canons themselves. Canon 20 allows the creation of a law from other laws when no specific law can be found that addresses the situation.  But still this must be constructed from the canons themselves for it refers interpreters to similar laws, general principles of the law and to decisions of the Roman Rota, (Sacred Congregations, et al). One of these general principles of law is that he who has a presumption of law in his favor (Can. 2200) is freed from the burden of proof, (Can. 1827). So those holding Roncall’s as pope had better get busy, because they need to prove that:

• his own biogrpahers misquoted and misrepresented  him

• there was no plan to elect him during Pius XII’s lifetime

• that he never tolerated the words “for all” in the English translation of the Canon in the People’s Mass books distributed in January 1959

• that he did not favor Freemasonry

• that he did not alter the Canon of the Mass in 1962

• That he was never in collusion with Montini

• that he did not promote heresy in Pacem in Terris by advising the faithful to coopearte with non-Catholics, even pagans, incuding those in Communist countries

• That he did not demonstrate sympathy for and friendship with Communists and Socialists

• that he did not model such cooperation with non-Catholics himself as “pope”

This they cannot do. Roncalli was not an heretical pope, for this is a contradiciton in terms.  He was an heretical cardinal who appeared to become pope. And once he was elected it precluded any future valid papal elections. Peter’s faith has not and could not fail; but the faith of mere men is another story.