1917 Code of Canon Law: “Traditional” clergy are invalid

© Copyright 2024, T. Stanfill Benns (All emphasis within quotes added by the author)

Introduction

The “Catholic restoration” crowd, now working under the umbrella of an organization known as the ISOC, have attempted for decades to authenticate the existence of a pathway to elect a valid pope and restore the Church. While appearing to operate independently, appealing to those professing to be Traditionalist or conservative Catholics, (whether still attending the Novus Ordo “Latin Mass” or belonging to any variety of Traditionalist sects), they are devoted to this same common goal. Some are past or present members of the John Birch Society, an organization recently exposed on this site as peppered with Freemasons (see HERE). Many following various members of their group, of course, are unaware of ISOC’s expansive definition of “Catholic,” and that is by design. After all, one of their leading members has described those he reaches out to as “lunkheads,” so what can they expect? 

The site’s mission statement reveals that it promotes “the traditional Latin Mass,” and that its goal is to “revive and restore traditional Catholicism.” It strives to educate “Catholics and non-Catholics alike to the centuries-old traditional Church with special emphasis on Catholic social teachings,” incorporating “all the political, economic, social, and cultural aspects of life.” In other words, this education is not specifically about pre-1959 Church dogma, or what the laws of the Church teach about what we are to obey and believe. It cannot be about the vacancy of the papal see, which so few even properly understand. Therefore it is basically an exercise in modern-day diversity, the creation of yet another alternative set of “Catholics,” where none need feel excluded. As one Traditionalist author noted long ago, quoting from the Catholic Encyclopedia article on Heresy, Vol. VII, p. 259c (1913): 

“The life of a religious society, the tissue that binds its members into one body and animates them with one soul, is the symbol of faith, the creed or confession adhered to as a condition sine qua non of membership. To undo the creed is to undo the Church. The integrity of the rule of faith is more essential to the cohesion of a religious society than the strict practice of its moral precepts. For faith supplies the means of mending delinquencies as one of its ordinary functions, whereas the loss of faith, cutting at the root of spiritual fife, is usually fatal to the soul…. The jealousy with which the Church guards and defends Her deposit of faith is therefore identical with the instinctive duty of self-preservation and the desire to live…. This instinct… being natural… is universal…. In the Catholic Church this natural law has received the sanction of Divine promulgation…. Freedom of thought extending to the essential beliefs of a Church is in itself a contradiction; for, by accepting membership, the members accept the essential beliefs and renounce their freedom of thought so far as these are concerned.” 

It is therefore CATHOLIC BELIEF, not the much-touted preservation of Tradition (read here the heresy of Traditionalism) that binds Catholics and constitutes membership in the Church. They spout preservation of Tradition, yet Rev. Patrick Madgett wrote: “The complete and ultimate rule of faith is the living voice of the living Church, …sometimes referred to as active Tradition, i.e., the teaching and handing on to successive generations, by authoritative teachers, of all Christ’s doctrine” (Christian Origins, Vol. II). And from The Catholic Encyclopedia: “The organ of tradition…must be an official organ, a magisterium, or teaching authority.” So without this necessary unity only the continual magisterium and its teaching voice can provide, unity is obtainable today only by strict adherence to the past teachings of the Roman Pontiffs. 

Pietro Parente, Antonio Piolanti, and Salvatore Garofalo also wrote on this topic in their Dictionary of Dogmatic Theology (May 1, 1951, p. 170-171):“According to Catholic doctrine therefore, Holy Scripture and Tradition are only the remote rule of faith, while the proximate rule is the living magisterium of the Church, which resides in the Roman Pontiff and in the bishops, INASMUCH AS THEY ARE SUBJECT TO AND UNITED WITH HIM. The Vatican Council (sess. 4, c. 4, DB, 1832) has sealed this truth by defining that the primacy of Peter and his successors is included in the supreme power of teaching, which is veritatis et fidei numquam deficientis charisma (“the charism of never-failing truth and faith”).” This alone proves that those concerned with social, cultural, economic and political matters, in these times when truths of faith are hidden, misrepresented and falsified daily, have no real idea what being Catholic even means! 

In Acerbo nimis, Pope St. Pius X wrote: “’I will give you,’ God promises by the mouth of the Prophet Jeremias, ‘pastors according to my own heart, and they shall feed you with knowledge and doctrine’ (a). And so the Apostle said: ‘Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the Gospel’ (b), indicating thus that THE FIRST OFFICE of those who are set up in any way for the government of the Church is to instruct the faithful in sacred doctrine,” NOT political. social, economic and cultural norms. This necessary, intensive  doctrinal instruction is eschewed by ISOC and like organizations, which tolerate diverse, even contradictory views on dogmas of faith among its members. This despite the fact they run as a disclaimer that the views of the DVD and video interviewees for sale on their site are not necessarily their own views. But how can “views” contrary to Catholic teaching ever be tolerated, even with a disclaimer?!  

The DVD and video set offerings on the ISOC site are up for sale; “truth” sold for 30 pieces of silver just as Christ Himself was sold. No written form of what is really being taught is readily available. As stated before, this resort to video/oral “education” is a positive spiritual injury to those wishing to know the true state of affairs in the Church. These productions require literally hours of listening and viewing, time that should be devoted to studying papal encyclicals, reading approved spiritual works and prayer. And of course this “education,” centered as it is around “mass and sacraments” that no longer exist and pseudo-clergy unable to provide them, contradicts the teachings of the Church. Among the members of this group we even find those who claim to pray at home, and yet seem unconcerned that they are actively working with others not professing the Catholic faith (communicatio in sacris). They are practicing Liberal “Catholics,” as Rev. Felix Sarda y Salvany describes them, and yet they sell this 19^th century priest’s book on their website! They shudder if the words schism or heresy are mentioned and accuse those insisting on its existence in their ranks as sinning against charity. 

The type of pray-at-home Catholicism these folks affiliated with this group embrace, however, is the “illicit but valid” variety, which allows them the leeway they need to move in these circles and grant a certain recognition of authenticity to LibTrad pseudo-clergy; this to avoid being ostracized and excluded from recognition. They believe that to admit the clergy no longer exists is to deny the indefectibility of the Church, even if popes at various stages of history have infallibly decreed that one cannot minimize the teachings of the Church to drag every Tom, Dick and Harry into their circus tent. Papal teaching, the teachings of the councils, and early Fathers, the teaching of approved moral theologians and canonists is not the standard they use to educate.  Only their economic, political and social lives, the preservation of their “culture,”  (whatever that may be) is all that matters. (See more on the ISOC by reading the Gerry Matatics article under Recent Articles, at the bottom of the Current articles/Study the faith page.) 

ISOC’s stated desire is to restore the papacy by the sheer force of numbers, whether this means accepting a heretic who ”recants” or recognizing one shown to be a heretic prior to election as pope. But such an election is now an impossibility. And it smacks of hypocrisy, after many in this group have ridiculed this author and others for the same aspiration for decades. But those who know the futility of yearning for such things in these times, those accepting the reality of our situation who are truly seeking the truth, realize these are shallow, unobtainable goals. Christ is the Head of His Mystical Body, our only Supreme Pontiff in these times. All the teachings of His vicars, from St. Peter to Pope Pius XII, yet bind us, for He has promised to bind in Heaven everything they bound on earth. Without a true pope and the means to canonically elect him, meaning at least certainly valid and licit bishops and domestic prelates, we can have no recourse, for it is a dogma of the Church that popes must be canonically elected (see HERE). The “illicit but valid” believers, if they wish to save their souls, must bow to the Church’s teaching on this subject and accept the hard truths. Those truths are expressed in the articles on this website regarding Pope Pius XII’s Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, the forbidden use of epikeia in the case of the Sacraments and Lefebvre and Thuc’s lack of intention in creating priests and bishops. 

And now we add the following from a recent blog, which alone is enough to remove any remaining vestige of doubt regarding the possibility of validity where Traditionalists are concerned. Ordinations by Lefebvre, Thuc and any other bishops created under Pope Pius XII, who dared to ordain, or to consecrate without the papal mandate, are condemned as invalid in the 1917 Code of Canon Law. We wish to remind readers that that the Church is infallible in Her disciplinary decrees, as the Vatican Council states (DZ 1831), and approved, pre-1959 theologians teach, particularly in matters dealing with Divine jurisdiction and heresy, apostasy and schism. Whoever rejects these Sacred Canons, issuing as they do from the popes and councils, have no claim whatsoever to membership in the Church.

Canons proving Traditionalist “orders” invalid

1. 1. Canon 1325: “The faithful are bound to profess their faith publicly whenever silence, subterfuge or their manner of acting would otherwise entail an implicit denial of their faith, a contempt of religion, an insult to God or scandal to their neighbor. Any baptized person who while retaining the name of Christian obstinately denies or doubts any of the truths proposed for belief by the divine and Catholic faith is a heretic; if he abandons the Christian faith entirely he is called an apostate; if, finally, he refuses to be subject to the Supreme Pontiff or to have communication with the members of the Church subject to the Pope, he is a schismatic. Catholics shall not enter into any disputes or conferences with non-Catholics especially public ones without the permission of the Holy See or in urgent cases of the local ordinary.

1. 2. Canon 2314 §1 reads: “…Each and every heretic and schismatic incur the following penalties: (1) ipso facto excommunication; (3) If they have joined a non-Catholic sect or have publicly adhered to it, they incur infamy ipso factoand, if they are clerics and the admonition to repent has been fruitless, they shall be degraded. Can. 188 n. 4 provides, moreover, that the cleric who publicly abandons the Catholic faith loses every ecclesiastical office ipso facto, and without any declaration,” (canonists Revs. Woywod-Smith commentary). Can. 188 §4 also cites Pope Paul IV’s Cum ex Apostolatus Officio as the old law, listed in the canonical footnotes. Under Can. 1947 §1 and 2, judicial rebuke is not admitted in cases of vindicative penalties, infamy, deposition or in cases reserved to the Holy See in a most special manner or in a special manner.  Canon 2314 §1 is reserved in a special manner to the Holy See.

1. 3. Infamy is an additional penalty separate from excommunication. Revs. Woywod-Smith explain the effects of infamy of law under Can. 2294 §1: “A person who has incurred infamy of law is not only irregular, as declared by Can. 984 n. 5 (on infamy of law), but in addition, he is incapacitated from obtaining ecclesiastical benefices, pensions, offices and dignities, from performing legal ecclesiastical acts, from discharging any ecclesiastical right or duty, and must be restrained from the exercise of sacred functions of the ministry.”

1. 4. Canon 985§1 declares all apostates, heretics and schismatics irregular. Commenting on irregularity in Can. 986, Revs. Woywod-Smith write: “Irregularities are canonical impediments which permanently bar a man from entering the clerical state or forbid the exercise of the orders already received…” Contrary to the former law in which it seems that heretics did not incur irregularity unless they had been declared such by an ecclesiastical court or had joined an heretical sect, the irregularity is now incurred though one does not join an heretical sect. Canon 2200 states when there is an external violation of the law the evil will (dolus) is presumed in the external forum until the contrary is proved. It seems therefore that one must conclude from this canon that men who profess openly a non-Catholic creed are formal heretics in the external forum and are subject to the excommunication and also to the irregularity unless they can prove to the Bishop their good faith.”

1. 5. Again from Woywod-Smith under Can. 2294: “The person who has incurred… an infamy of law… cannot validlyobtain ecclesiastical benefices, pensions, offices and dignities, nor can he validly exercise the rights connected with the same, nor perform a valid, legal ecclesiastical act,” As explained in Rev. Eric MacKenzie’s Canon Law dissertation The Delict of Heresy on pg. 69 and 72: ‘The joining of the non-Catholic sect may follow after the externalization of heretical error as a consequence, or may itself be the first internal act which manifests the internal sin of heresy… As a penalty for his aggravated delict, he incurs juridical infamy ipso facto…a juridical status which consists of a series of incapacities…,” (/articles/a-catholics-course-of-study/canon-law/infamy-of-law-bars-the-valid-exercise-of-orders-received/). And as Rev. Bernard Wuellner states in his Summary of Scholastic Principles (1957): “Laws justly declaring an incapacity to act or to receive benefits invalidate the attempted act or reception even if they are inculpably unknown or facts pertaining to their application in a concrete instance are unknown” (p. 73).

1. 6. The canonist Rev. Charles Augustine writes under Can. 2294 § 1: “Legal infamy involves irregularity according to Can. 984 n. 5 and therefore no layman affected by it can receive the tonsure or any other order without an Apostolic dispensation… Legal infamy entails disability or disqualification for any ecclesiastical benefits, pension, office, dignity and if conferred the act is invalid (Can. 2391)… An infamous person must be prevented from cooperating in sacred functions…”

1. 7. Amleto Cicognani, in his work Canon Law (1935), teaches: “An inhabilitating law renders a person incapable of performing a VALID act. Properly speaking, it is a species of invalidating law for the effect is the same, with this difference only, that an inhabilitating law is not issued directly against a certain act but rather against a certain person, e.g., canons 2294 [on infamy], 2390 §2, 2394 §1and 2395, etcetera.”

Invalid and incapacitated according to notoriety of law

How can one possibly deny that what Marcel Lefebvre and Peter Martin Ngo Dinh Thuc did publicly was a reckless and deliberate violation of Canon Law? Lefebvre and Thuc were bound to KNOW the law. They both publicly celebrated the Novus Ordo Missae and signed Vatican 2 documents. They later were both publicly known and recognized universally as renegade bishops. Proofs of Lefebvre’s ordination and consecration by a Freemason as well as his involvement in Freemasonry himself, also Thuc’s mental incompetency, have been available for decades. even Paul 6 and John Paul 2 excommunicated them for their consecrations. A notorious act must be known as criminal or morally imputable, impossible to conceal and “not to be excused by any excuse admitted in law” (Can. 2197). The constant flux from traditionalist sects and the controversy surrounding them shows that their pseudo-clergy were recognized as doubtful. Lefebvre, Thuc et al never credibly denounced the usurpers or called for a papal election. They were undeniably notorious. 

Traditionalists maintain that Lefebvre and Thuc were never put on notice regarding their status as heretics and schismatics and therefore did not incur the censure. But Can. 2200 demands they be considered guilty of their delict until proven otherwise, and no such proof is available. Furthermore, Pope Pius VI teaches in Auctorem fidei: “The proposition which teaches that it is necessary according to the natural and divine law, for either excommunication or for suspension, that a personal examination should proceed and that therefore sentences called ipso facto have no other force than that of a serious threat without any actual effect” (DZ 1547). And Abp. Cicognani, quoting the theologian Chelodi, tells us that according to Can. 2232 §1: “The notoriety of an offence is held equivalent to a declaratory sentence” (page 703-704). Commenting on Can. 2232, Rev. Charles Augustine also writes: “It is left to the discretion of the superior to declare a penance has been incurred, that is to issue a declaratory sentence. However this sentence must be issued if the interested party insists or if the public welfare demands it, in the case of a corrupter or briber or a dangerous heretic.” 

Lefebvre and Thuc publicly adhered to the non-Catholic Novus Ordo sect then founded their own non-Catholic sects. Nearly all Traditionalist pseudo-clergy spring from these two men. Lefebvre and Thuc were notorious heretics and schismatics incapable of validly ordaining and consecrating anyone. The men they ordained and consecrated also participated in the Novus Ordo and/or Traditionalist sects, so they too incurred the censure for heresy and schism. For this reason, not only were the ordinations and consecrations of Lefebvre and Thuc themselves invalid, the men they “ordained” and “consecrated” were irregular. Hence, they were incapable of receiving orders from anyone, even had they been able to validly confer them. And in addition to all this, a special law went into effect on the death of Pope Pius XII that invalidated the acts of any men even attempting episcopal consecration without the papal mandate and invalidated any acts performed in violation of Canon Law. And as has been seen above, numerous canons have been violated. 

The special law we are speaking of is Pope Pius XII’s infallible 1945 papal election constitution Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, and this law states that during an interregnum, nothing can be undertaken that would require the permission or approval of the Roman Pontiff. And if it is even attempted, then it is null, void and invalid. This constitution is a classic example of invalidating and incapacitating law, as was Pope St. Pius X’s previous papal election law and Pope Paul IV’s Cum ex Apostolatus Officio. These laws are directly reflected in Can. 147, officially interpreted by Pope Pius XII in 1950. That canon states: “An ecclesiastical office cannot be validly obtained without canonical appointment. By canonical appointment is understood the conferring of an ecclesiastical office by the competent ecclesiastical authority in harmony with the sacred canons.” And Pope Pius XII below does consider these canons sacred. 

In the third paragraph of his papal election constitution, Pius XII commands: “The laws issued by Roman Pontiffs in no way can be corrected or changed by the assembly of Cardinals of the Roman Church while it is without a Pope, nor can anything be subtracted from them or added or dispensed in any way whatsoever with respect to said laws or any part of them… IN TRUTH, IF ANYTHING ADVERSE TO THIS COMMAND SHOULD BY CHANCE HAPPEN TO COME ABOUT OR BE ATTEMPTED, WE DECLARE IT, BY OUR SUPREME AUTHORITY, TO BE NULL AND VOID.”

Other canonical considerations

Traditionalists incapable of valid acts as vitandus

And then there is the matter of the consideration of these men as vitandus, by Pope Pius VI (Charitas), Pope Pius IX (Etsi multa), Pope St. Pius X (condemnation of Arnold Harris Mathew, Acta Apostolicae Sedis, year III, vol. III, no. 2, February 15, 1911) and, by implication, Pope Pius XII in the official interpretation of Can. 147 (see T. Lincoln Bouscaren’s Canon Law Digest, Vol. 3, under Can. 147). A reference is noted beneath this official interpretation of Can. 147 directing readers to the condemnation of a Czechoslovakian priest named John Dechet as a vitandus for reception of the office of Administrator from lay authority. Given by the Sacred Consistorial Congregation this condemnation reads: “The Sacred Congregation therefore reminds clerics and the faithful that they must treat the aforesaid priest according to the norm of Can. 2261 §3 of the Code of Canon Law (AAS 42-195).” Beneath this declaration is a reference to the “New Penalty for Occupying or Retaining Office; see C. 147.” 

Can. 2261 §3 reads: “From a minister who is an excommunicatus vitandus, or who has been excommunicated by a condemnatory or declaratory sentence, the faithful may ask for sacramental absolution only in danger of death.” Although a declaration from the Holy See is required to determine someone a vitandus, this is now impossible. Therefore, there is a doubt of law about whether Lefebvre and Thuc, also any other clerics posing as Traditionalists who received orders before Pius XII’s death are to be considered vitandus. To resolve such a doubt, the Code refers us to Can. 18 which states: “The ecclesiastical laws are to be interpreted according to the proper meaning of the terms of the law considered in their context. If the meaning of the terms remains doubtful or obscure one must have recourse to parallel passages of the Code (if there are any) or to the purpose of the law and its circumstances and the intention of the legislator.” 

Clearly the intention of the legislator, illustrated above in the papal condemnations of these men, is to bar all those daring to establish their own sects, or who intrude themselves into offices unlawfully, as vitandus. The Holy Office’s official decision on Can. 147 confirms this and all the above canons on irregularity, infamy of law and heresy further clarify the status of these Traditionalists. Many believe that in danger of death, at least, a priest ordained before Pope Pius XII died could absolve them, even administer the other Sacraments. But they are unable to do this for two reasons: (1) Those acts require jurisdiction supplied by the Roman Pontiff, and we have no reigning pontiff; and (2) Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis infallibly nullifies any act which usurps (or presumes) papal jurisdiction or violates Canon Law. And already the acts of these men are invalidated under Can. 2314 §1 (3). We also must consider the following.

Canon 104: Error invalidates acts

Canon 104 reads: “Error annuls an action, when the error concerns the substance of the action or amounts to a conditio sine qua non — that is to say, if the action would not have been done except for the error; otherwise the action is valid, unless the law states otherwise…” The canonists T. Lincoln Bouscaren and Adam Ellis comment: “Substantial error invalidates an act according to Canon 104. Error means a false judgment of the mind. Ignorance and inadvertence, though not identical with error, have the same juridical effect… Error is of law if it concerns existence or meaning of the law; of fact if it concerns any other fact. Error of law or a fact, if it is substantial, renders an act null and void.” And certainly the error of invalidity and illiciety is substantial; the acts of Trad pseudo-clergy are null and void. 

Rev. Charles Augustine states under Can. 104: “Whether deceit is committed by hiding the truth or telling a lie or by some machinations employing both words and deeds is immaterial. But it is important to ascertain whether the deceit practiced is the cause of one’s acting in such a way… Deceit generally causes error and therefore the canon speaks of error. Error is a state of mind in which one approves falsehood for truth. It differs from ignorance which is a lack of due knowledge” (A Commentary on Canon Law, 1931). The deceit practiced — hiding the true teachings of the popes and Canon Law to make it appear that they possessed orders and epikeia could replace jurisdiction; that they could represent the Church without the pope — this subterfuge definitely caused those involved in traditionalist sects to act as they did.

Conclusion

Lefebvre and Thuc were NOT invested with “competent ecclesiastical authority.” They did not proceed “according to the Sacred Canons.” They were incapacitated to act under those canons according to the prevailing law during an interregnum — Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis. Therefore, they were not valid and their acts were not valid. They could not and did not create valid priests and bishops. Under Can. 2322 §1, those who pretended to receive orders from Lefebvre and Thuc are excommunicated for simulating Mass and Sacraments in a special manner reserved to the Holy See. The Church has said it and we are bound as Catholics to believe it. Can. 1935, under the heading “Criminal Trials,” states: 

“The faithful may, at all times, denounce the offense of another for the purpose of demanding satisfaction or out of zeal for justice to repair some scandal or evil… Even an obligation to denounce an offender exists whenever one is obliged to do so either by LAW or by special legitimate precept or by the natural law in view of the danger to faith or religion or other imminent public evil.” Canon 2223 states it is as a rule left to the discretion of the superior to declare a penalty latae sententiae but he must issue the declaratory sentence if an interested party demands it or if the public welfare requires it.” 

In 1957, Pope Pius XII granted the faithful the following commission, in a document entered into the AAS: “Especially in countries where contacts with the hierarchy are difficult or practically impossible Christians… MUST, with God’s grace, assume all their responsibilities. Even so nothing can be undertaken against the explicit and implicit will of the Church or contrary in any way to the rules of faith or morals or ecclesiastical discipline.” It would be AGAINST the rules of faith and morals, of ecclesiastical discipline were the faithful NOT to invoke their right to publicly declare these imposters INVALID, NULL and VOID under Can. 1935. 

THEREFORE, TRADITIONALIST PSEUDO-CLERGY, WE DECLARE YOU ANATHEMA!