Necessary intention in Traditionalist Orders lacking

by T. Stanfill Benns | Aug 18, 2022

© Copyright 2022; revised 2023, T. Stanfill Benns (All emphasis within quotes added by the author)

(EDITOR’S NOTE; The infallible papal constitution Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis is definitive proof that Traditionalists never possessed valid Orders nor could possess them; no other proof is required. There can be no question about this fact without denying the universal jurisdiction of the continual magisterium, which prevails even during an extended interregnum. What is presented below is simply additional canonical and theological evidence that this fact also can be proven from the Church’s teachings on the absence of the proper intention in administering and receiving the Sacraments.)

Introduction

It has always been the contention of those operating Traditionalist chapels, from their very beginning in the mid-1960s, that they continued all the teachings and Traditions of the Catholic Church just as they existed on the death of Pope Pius XII. If it was not actually stated by anyone, at least in the beginning, it was an implicit belief among the faithful at least, and that is why they followed them in the first place. But were these men truly following Church teaching as they allowed everyone to believe? What exactly did it mean to be a Catholic in good standing in the Church during the reign of Pope Pius XII?

St. Robert Bellarmine’s definition of the Church was adopted as the preferred definition by theologians: “The Church is a union of men who are united by the profession of the same Christian faith and by participation in the same sacraments, under the direction of their lawful pastors, especially of the one representative of Christ on earth, the Pope of Rome,” (De eccl. mil. 2.) And from Mystici Corporis there is this formal definition: “68. Now since its Founder willed this social body of Christ to be visible, the cooperation of all its members must also be externally manifest through their profession of the same faith and their sharing the same sacred rites, through participation in the same Sacrifice, and the practical observance of the same laws. Above all, it is absolutely necessary that the Supreme Head, that is, the Vicar of Jesus Christ on earth, BE VISIBLE TO THE EYES OF ALL… ”

According to Pope Pius XII, four factors alone are necessary in order that a man be counted as a member of the true Church. These are (1) the reception of Baptism, and thus the possession of the baptismal character, (2) the profession of the true faith, which is, of course, the faith of the Catholic Church, (3) the fact that a person has not cut himself away from the structure or the fabric of the ‘Body,’ which is, of course, the Church itself, and (4) the fact that a person has not been expelled from the membership of the Church by competent ecclesiastical authority.

Canon Law determines who is among those who have cut themselves away from the fabric of the body. The law indicates when this has occurred by attaching ipso facto (latae sententiae) penalties to those offenses which automatically result in excommunication. If one’s offense is publicly known or could easily become publicly known it is called notorious, and it takes effect immediately, without any official sentence by a superior (Canons 2197, 2232). Those penalties regarding heresy and schism, (rejection of the Roman Pontiff as head of the Church), are the main type of penalty treated below. Their commission is publicly known and has been for decades, and the penalties, therefore, are binding on the offender. Those presenting as clerics are public figures and are assumed to have incurred the penalty because their actions are more visible to the public eye.

These definitions of the Church and the penalties levied by Canon Law were supposedly commonly known to the pre-Vatican 2 clergy who studied them in seminary courses. They were expected to have been especially internalized by the bishops and other Church officials. The one thing emphasized in both these definitions is the union of the faithful with their common head the Supreme Pontiff. St. Bellarmine emphasizes direction by lawful pastors, Pope Pius XII mentions observance of the same laws. Mystici Corporis, an infallible encyclical binding the faithful to belief, also defines that bishops do not receive their jurisdiction directly from Christ. “Yet in exercising this office they are not altogether independent, but are subordinate to the lawful authority of the Roman Pontiff, although enjoying the ordinary power of jurisdiction which they receive directly from the same Supreme Pontiff.” So in one encyclical we are given a pretty clear idea of how the Church is set up and is supposed to operate.

False analogies misrepresented the situation

Those writing for decades on the crisis in the Church keep comparing it to the time of the Arian heresy, the Western Schism or to different periods in Church history when either antipopes reigned or there was a longish interregnum (the longest one previous to this lasted nearly three years). Yet during the Western Schism, a true pope did reign, but no one was sure who he was. And in in the case of antipopes, there was always a true pope for them to oppose. It hardly needs to be said that a three-year interregnum can scarcely compare to almost 64, so why is it even mentioned? The answer to that question can only be that every excuse and implausible explanation available has been advanced to keep those in Traditionalist groups from questioning their keepers and to make it appear they are justified in conducting their operations. That is the general overview; now we descend to specifics.

Challenges to the validity and liceity of Traditionalist orders have always been met with the response that even those ordained and consecrated by heretics and schismatics are considered valid and can confect valid sacraments. The key word here is “can.” And upon that one word rests a plethora of ifs and maybes, never addressed, often carefully concealed and generally ignored. For there is no real comparison, either, to past situations where there was an extended descent of illicit schismatic clerics issuing from men who were unquestionably validly ordained and consecrated and who unquestionably validly ordained and consecrated others. The Orthodox were allowed to proceed as they always had with the pope supplying jurisdiction for the sake of the faithful, according to Rev. Journet, Can. Mahoney, Rev. Herve and others. The Jansenist consecrations were recognized as valid by the Holy See until questions arose shortly before Pius XII’s death. Pope Leo XIII drew the line for the Anglicans regarding Parker and Barlow. As all know, Lefebvre’s own ordination and consecration are gravely doubtful and the consecrations by Thuc have been called into question for decades, owing to his mental state, affiliation with the Novus Ordo church and previously scandalous behavior.

But most importantly of all, these ordinations and consecrations did not take place during a time such as ours, a grave situation unparalleled in the history of the Church resulting in this extended interregnum. Here we have no assurance the Holy See would ever declare Traditionalist orders valid and every reason to believe that they would at least require their conditional if not absolute ordination before allowing them to function, depending on each specific case. So let us dispense now with all the illogical false analogies, which amount to no argument at all, and look at the facts as they really stand.

• Lefebvre was questionably ordained and consecrated himself; Thuc’s consecrations are doubtful owing to his mental state, intentions and what Pontifical was used. An entire book (The Sacred and the Profane, Clarence Kelly) was written proving this and there is evidence in this case that has not even been presented yet.
• Both men were notorious heretics and schismatics and incurred infamy of law, and moreover, their personal lives were scandalous.
• This is true of Lefebvre on account of his questionable ordination and consecration (and no, we cannot have moral certainty about his orders without an investigation by the Holy Office under a validly elected pope and a decision on these orders. Until then no one may use a probable opinion on the validity of the Sacraments of those ordained and consecrated by him.)
• Lefebvre’s personal involvement in Freemasonry is another black mark against him that would need to be investigated, because it could affect his intention in receiving orders, especially from a man reputedly a Freemason.
• Thuc is infamous for his bizarre behavior in the Clemente Dominguez affair and numerous ordinations of unworthy men for the priesthood and episcopacy.
• Once they consecrated their first bishop post-Vatican 2, men who also incurred censure for heresy, schism and infamy of law for communicating a divinis with them, their future acts as well as the acts of those they have “consecrated” are declared invalid. This will be proven below.
• Bishops consecrated by these two men are the first generation. But they could not be considered certainly valid bishops until a true pope decided if they were actually consecrated. And theologians are clear on the fact that mere observance of matter and form (the use of the rite used prior to the reign of John 23) is not sufficient to prove validity.
• We are now four to five generations removed from the initial consecrations by Lefebvre and Thuc. This is doubtful validity upon doubtful validity compounded.
• This does not even address the men who supposedly were ordained priests by Lefebvre, Thuc and the first set of bishops they are said to have consecrated.

St. Thomas Aquinas teaches below in his Summa Theol. II, Q. 82, Art. 7, 9, Pt. III: “The Minister of the Holy Eucharist”:

“I answer that, as was said above (aa 5, 7), heretical, schismatical, excommunicate, or even sinful priests, although they have the power to consecrate the Eucharist, yet they do not make proper use of it; on the contrary they sin by using it. But whoever communicates with another who is in sins, becomes a sharer in his sin. Hence we read in John’s Second Canonical Epistle (11) that ‘He that saith unto him, God speed you, communicateth with his wicked works.’ Consequently it is not lawful to receive Communion from them, or to assist at their mass.” (Article 9)… “And therefore whoever hears their mass or receives the sacraments from them, commits sin… By refusing to hear the masses of such priests, or to receive Communion from them, we are not shunning God’s sacraments; on the contrary, by so doing we are giving them honor: but what we shun is the sin of unworthy ministers” (reply to objection 1). Furthermore St. Thomas states in reference to heretical, schismatic and excommunicated priests, “Such persons as are separated from the Church by heresy, schism, or excommunication, can indeed consecrate the Eucharist..; but they act wrongly, and sin by doing so; and in consequence they do not receive the fruit of the sacrifice, which is a spiritual sacrifice” (Article 7). And further, “But because he is severed from the unity of the Church, HIS PRAYERS HAVE NO EFFICACY” (reply to objection 3 of article 7).

This, ultimately, is the charter for those who keep the faith at home, in order to honor the Sacraments and avoid cooperation in sin.

In summary, those who dare to assume a jurisdiction not granted to them by the pope, supplied or otherwise, are devoid of even the possibility of obtaining it. Are these idle words, not able to be demonstrated? Hardly. But needless to say no one will point to the papal decrees and canon laws that tell us what these men really are, and when anyone dares point to them they are told that the pope didn’t infallibly declare it, the laws have ceased to exist, that there is some divergence of opinion regarding what it meant, the person pointing it out is not qualified (and they are?!) ad nauseum. Of course these are observations made by self-appointed defenders of the indefensible never approved as theologians by the Holy See, and even approved theologians are not permitted to interpret the documents of the Roman Pontiff.  Once a papal document or one issuing from the Holy See is presented as evidence in ecclesiastical court, no other evidence is allowed to be entered against it (Can. 1812 §1; 1816).

Those who minimize papal teaching by claiming it is impossible to know what the popes really mean or how to classify what they teach are working for the Traditionalist cause regardless of how they actually present themselves in public. Msgr. Joseph C. Fenton tells us: “It is, I believe, to be presumed that the Vicar of Christ speaks to the faithful in a way they are able to understand… Our Lord did not teach in any way but authoritatively nor does His Vicar on earth when He teaches in the name and by the authority of his Master. Every doctrine proposed by the Holy Father to the entire Church militant is, by that very fact, imposed upon all the faithful for their firm and sincere acceptance.” And people want to disagree with this statement and still call themselves Catholic?

If you were pastor hunting and searching the Internet for information on an individual, would you still seek him out if he had a rap sheet as long as your arm and was pretending he possessed credentials he could not prove he ever received? Well what is presented below is the equivalent of a rap sheet and according to Canon. 2200, it is up to the accused to prove themselves innocent, not for us to assume they are innocent without such proofs. Has anyone ever seen even an attempt to explain these things? No, because they are dismissed as the work of incompetents and fools not worthy of a response. Sound familiar? Deplorables and Wal-Mart crawlers? Little people? Maybe some people out there are willing to be ruled by a religious elite, but I am not one of them. So take this in the spirit it is written — an attempt to unmask those who are continuing to destroy our Church just as they have done for the past 100 years. I am an investigative reporter by trade, and they didn’t call me the pit bull because I wrote happy news.

A parallel in time

Before presenting proofs, however, the groundwork needs to be laid for the conclusions that will later be drawn. This we take from the articles written for The Homiletic and Pastoral Review by Msgr. Joseph Przudzik, Ph.D., J.C.B., S.T.B., A.M., A.A.S.W. Rev. Przudzik wrote two articles for this clerical publication in 1947, one on “The History of Anglican Orders” and the other on the status of the Polish National Church, entitled “Schism in America.” In this last article Przudzik uses the same principles established in his article on Anglican orders to determine the validity of clergy serving the schismatic Polish National Catholic Church and its various offshoots. His conclusions are the same based on the same basic principles, but he provides us with a rare insight concerning similarities between Polish and present-day schismatics.

Like Traditional sects in America, the Polish National Church in the 1960s had “…divided and subdivided into a number of small organizations…Acting on Protestant principles of private interpretation, as soon as some member of the congregation disagreed on any matter with their priest, they split and formed a new congregation and usually a new sect.” Concerning the bishops and priests founding these sects Przudzik comments: “The breaks were caused essentially by pride rebelling against authority, by malice, by desire for financial gain or by other human weaknesses… worked upon and so presented they gave a semblance of reason to the rebellion… Rationalizations, sophistries, half-truths [were] used by these heresiarchs…to mislead the people.” It was Przudzik’s belief that these men “sought ordination only to persuade deluded followers that they were still Catholics… For no Pole would accept permanently a bishop who had undergone no sacramental consecration…” And these attitudes and behaviors are exactly what we see among Traditionalist sect leaders today.

Przudzik zeroes in on the primary head of the PNCC from whom all other orders flow; Francis Hodur, a validly ordained Catholic priest consecrated a bishop by the Jansenists. He traces Hodur’s line of episcopal orders back through a maze of Old Catholics and Jansenists dating back to the 1700s and whose lines eventually became contaminated by Modernism and other heresies, even apostasy. He emphasizes that while these aberrations do not necessarily invalidate the orders given, “It is not as safe, however, to concede the valid Orders of Stenhoven’s successors [Stenhoven being the initial breakaway Jansenist bishop in the 1770s] as one might grant the original validity of his own Orders… One can only conclude there is some doubt about validity.” Rev. Bernard Leeming S.J. seems to admit the same the same regarding the sacraments of the Arians (Principles of Sacramental Theology, 1957, p. 653).

And today Modernism is so rife it has permeated churches of all kinds. He also points out that the Jansenists (and even the Old Catholics, initially) “…no more thought of questioning the Pope’s primacy of honor than they doubted the validity of their own apostolic line. Not so the attitude of their American offspring, who claim not only equality but even superiority to the Roman position and claims. This is evidenced in their assumption of titles similar to those of the Catholic Church and their setting up of a hierarchical system similar to that of Rome.” It is interesting to note that the Gallicanists at the time of the Western Schism also accepted the pope’s primacy, but not his jurisdiction. Today even the pope’s primacy, the weight of his infallible decrees, is reduced to an expression of opinion. But all of this was foretold by Pope St. Pius X in his Pascendi dominici gregis: “They speak of modern philosophy and show such contempt for scholasticism… [They hold that] ecclesiastical government requires to be reformed in all its branches, but especially in its disciplinary and dogmatic parts.”

Minimism, as Msgr. Joseph C. Fenton ably points out in his articles on the topic, is the Modernist tool to relegate the papacy to only the symbol of a power exercised long ago, since Modernism is all about such symbols. But the Modernist variety of Gallicanism has gone a step further — it has eliminated the need for the papacy entirely, just as Pope St. Pius X warned in his Pascendi: “…They propose to remove the ecclesiastical magisterium itself,” and the necessity of a visible head for the Church. This they have done, proffering a million excuses for why they are allowed to do it. They condemn the Novus Ordo church for its Modernist infestation when they are just as infected by Modernism themselves, but in a more insidious way. The Novus Ordo wears its Modernism proudly on its sleeve; the Traditionalists cloak it in pious protestations to preserve the Latin Mass and rescue true Catholics from the Novus Ordo menace — their detestable claim to work for the salvation of souls. But that is not what the Catholic Church teaches they are doing, as will be seen below.

While the PNCC bears certain similarities to Traditionalists, there is one major difference which needs to be emphasized here. The PNCC nor any other sect separating itself from the Catholic Church never claimed to be the valid successor of that Church or that Church itself. It was always understood, as it could easily be when a legitimate Roman Pontiff ruled the Church, that such churches were breakaways and splinter groups not recognized by Rome and were to be avoided as such. But Traditionalists claim to be the genuine continuation of THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, not just another sect openly challenging the pope and/or deviating in some fashion from what She teaches and believes. And yet Traditionalism glaringly lacks, and is unable to ever provide, the one thing that would unquestionably make itself Catholic: the Roman Pontiff. The question to be answered below is: Can anyone on this earth officially function in the Church’s name in Her absence, without Her express pardon, permission, delegation and approval?

Thuc and Lefebvre didn’t continue the Church of Pope Pius XII

If it was truly the intention of Abp. Marcel Lefebvre and Bp. Peter Martin Ngo dinh Thuc to continue the Church Christ established on earth, good friends that they were, they would have refused to sign Vatican 2 documents, gathered like-minded, validly consecrated bishops together and elected a pope. The resources on how to do this existed, the urgent necessity of the obligation was evident even to a blind man and there were bishops who did not attend Vatican 2 who could have responded. Cardinal Zabarella urged it in such cases in the 15^th century and St. Robert Bellarmine sanctioned the calling of an imperfect council to accomplish it. Traditionalists were well aware of this.  Until the late 1970s, the Church, as such, was believed to be continued by some priests validly ordained during the reign of Pope Pius XII, men ordained between 1958 and 1968 — before the changes in the rites of the Sacraments — and by others whose status could not always be verified in the Catholic Directory. Lefebvre priests eventually emerged from their seminaries to supplement these men. And then the consecrations began, first by Lefebvre and later by Thuc. There was brief talk of electing a pope following the consecrations, then silence. And that silence has reigned ever since.

So for nearly two decades the Church consisted of Lefebvre, a few sympathetic bishops here and there and these rag-tag priests, several of them later accused of homosexual relations, even pedophilia, who presented themselves as able and willing to care for the faithful. Yet if the clergy and faithful exiting the Novus Ordo church in the 1960s and 1970s truly intended to BE that Church, how is it that they ever thought it could exist without the very element that was its most distinguishing and important part — the Roman Pontiff? Surely having left the Novus Ordo, they tacitly at least were admitting that Paul 6 was a doubtful pope, or they would never have been able to justify their departure. The controversy over his status has raged since the early 1970s. Never in Church history has there been a time when a false pope was not opposed by at least one antipope; a brief glance at Church history could have told them that.

Yet Lefebvre and Thuc were in and out of negotiations with the Novus Ordo even after their first consecration of bishops, and until Thuc released his totally inadequate and contradictory declaration in February 1982, during the reign of Wojtyla, there was no indication that they believed the popes of the Novus Ordo were heretics.  Mexican Sedevacantism founder Fr. Joaquin Saenz-Arriaga had declared the Vatican 2 popes heretics since the early 1970s and even heralded Paul 6 as the Antichrist, but no one paid much attention. Thuc did name Pope Paul IV’s Cum ex Apostolatus Officio in his declaration, a possible source for commencing an election, but along came Guerard des Lauriers with his material-formal hypothesis and all talk of ever restoring the papacy came to an end. Sedevacantists gradually separated themselves into little sects just as the rest of their Traditionalist brethren before them and the schism continued.

Lefebvre, Thuc and even Saenz were obligated to know that bishops alone could not rule the Church of Christ. For as Pope Pius VI wrote in condemning Febronianism:

“All the more must be deplored that blind and rash temerity of the man who was eager to renew in his unfortunate book errors which had been condemned by so many decrees; who has said and insinuated indiscriminately by many ambiguities that every Bishop no less than the Pope was called by God to govern the Church and was endowed with no less power; that Christ gave the same power Himself to all the apostles AND THAT WHATEVER SOME PEOPLE BELIEVE IS OBTAINED AND GRANTED ONLY BY THE POPE, THAT VERY THING, WHETHER IT DEPENDS ON CONSECRATION OR ECCLESIASTICAL JURISDICTION, CAN BE OBTAINED JUST AS WELL FROM ANY BISHOP …” (DZ 1500).

And there is also the more recent infallible teaching of the Vatican Council: “But that the episcopacy itself might be one and undivided, and that the entire multitude of the faithful through priests closely connected with one another might be preserved in the unity of faith and communion; placing the Blessed Peter over the other apostles, He established in him the perpetual principle and visible foundation of both unities upon whose strength the eternal temple might be erected” (DZ 1821). But these bishops were going to erect a new and better temple without the pope? Bishops trained in theology and holding positions of authority in the Church? Such men could not plead ignorance of these decrees or exempt themselves from blame. And the laity should have been asking questions instead of practicing blind obedience.

Presumably all Catholics know it is schismatic not to render obedience to the (a) pope. The Anglicans and Methodists are run by bishops only, but it is not schismatic for Catholics to behave as they do? They could plead that the Church was experiencing an interregnum but when did any interregnum in history last over three years? Did they educate themselves about this? And did they not even understand the meaning of the word interregnum, which is given as: 1. the time during which a throne is vacant between two successive reigns or regime; 2. a period during which the normal functions of government or control are suspended; 3. a lapse or pause in a continuous series, all of which apply to the papacy with one exception: in the Church an interregnum is always indicative of an ongoing election. Could a country function for even three years without a king, a president or prime minister? Was there any COMMON sense — far less CATHOLIC sense — left at all in these people exiting the Novus Ordo church?

There is one simple catechism quote that clarifies everything here and will help others understand what follows. In his Manual of Christian Doctrine, written for religious congregations and Catholic institutions of higher learning, seminary professor Rev. John Joseph McVey wrote in 1926:

Q. 60: Who after the pope are lawful pastors of the Church?
A. The bishops who have been canonically instituted, i.e., who have received from the Sovereign Pontiff a diocese to govern.
Q. 73: Why is it not sufficient to be a bishop or priest in order to be a lawful pastor?
A. Because a bishop must also be sent into a diocese by the Pope, and a priest must be sent into a parish by the bishop. In other words, a pastor must have not only the power of order, but also THE POWER OF JURISDICTION, (emph. McVey’s).
Q. 77: How is the power of jurisdiction communicated?
A. Priests receive their jurisdiction from the bishop of the diocese; bishops receive theirs from the pope; and the Pope holds jurisdiction from Jesus Christ. A bishop who did not have his spiritual powers from the Pope, a pastor who did not have his from the lawful bishop, would be AN INTRUDER OR SCHISMATIC,” (emph. McVey’s).

So not only are Traditionalist “priests” and “bishops” questionably ordained and consecrated, without a true pope they are incapable of possessing ANY jurisdiction whatsoever. And this is from the approved catechisms of the Church. (See also the Catholic Encyclopedia articles on Apostolicity and Apostolic Succession.) It is a well-known fact that the laity even in the 1950s were woefully ignorant of their faith and more intent on religious externals than any intellectualization of their faith, although that will not necessarily excuse them. We will leave the question of the culpability of the laity, then, to a future pope, if some miracle provides us with one. What we are concerned about here is the culpability of what passed in the 1970-80s for bishops, the ones who were supposed to be leading the faithful but instead used them to set up their own false church.

In 1944, Rev. Alan McCoy O.F.M., J.C.L. wrote a dissertation, Force and Fear in Relation to Delictual Imputability and Penal Responsibility, (Catholic University of America). Under the general heading of “Delictual Acts Interdicted by Divine Authority,” regarding censures, he writes: “When an act is intrinsically evil, or involves contempt of the faith or of ecclesiastical authority, or works to the detriment of souls… imputability is not taken away in such cases since in these instances the observance of the law still urges under the pain of sin, even though the most severe personal hardship or danger, or also the greatest private harm might come from such observance.” Censures are generally ignored by Traditionalists who tend to regard them as inapplicable in their self-declared state of emergency. Epikeia and necessity cover all. Yet the primary purpose of penalties in Canon Law is not simply to punish and prompt the offender to reform, but to protect the faithful.

In a 1945 article for the Homiletic and Pastoral Review, “The What and Why of Punishment – Part Two,” Msgr. Joseph Przudzik notes regarding the primary purpose for censures: “Ultimately it would seem, that no essential reason for punishment can be assigned other than the common good… ‘The custody of public safety is not only the highest law but is the whole reason why public authority exists’… Canon 2215 …says that the penalty is for the delinquent’s correction and for the penalizing of the crime. This punishment, this juridical correction is also treated elsewhere in the Code as ‘towards the public restoration of injured justice or of scandal.’ Again we note that the public welfare is proposed as intrinsically the ultimate end of punishment.” And it is left to the Church to determine what endangers souls the most and how stringent that punishment must be.

Below we will discover how very far from the vaunted “salvation of souls” and the common good the solution to the crisis in the Church proposed by Traditional bishops and foisted on the faithful really was. And remember when reading below that these many censures levied by the Church are intended to protect the faithful from scandal and mortal son.

Canons governing episcopal consecration

Can. 951: “The bishop is the ordinary minister of sacred ordination.” Woywod-Smith comment on this canon: “A validly consecrated Bishop could validly confer all orders from the minor orders to the episcopate inclusively though he be a heretic, schismatic or deposed or degraded from the episcopal dignity, for he nevertheless retains the episcopal character in virtue of which he can validly ordain provided he observes the essential form of ordination and has the intention to do what the Church does in performing the sacred ordination rites.”        

Canon 953: “The episcopal consecration is reserved to the Roman Pontiff in such a manner that no bishop is allowed to confer episcopal consecration on anyone unless he has first ascertained that there is a papal mandate to that effect.”

Canon 2370: “A Bishop who consecrates another and the assistant bishops or the priests taking their place as well as the one who receives episcopal consecration without having obtained an Apostolic mandate are suspended ipso iure until the Holy See has granted a dispensation.”

Under the above canon, the canonist Rev. Charles Augustine comments: “This suspension ipso iure lasts until the Apostolic See expressly dispenses therefrom.” He then lists the following in his footnotes: “For the right of ordaining bishops belongs only to the Apostolic See, as the Council of Trent declares; it cannot be assumed by any bishop or metropolitan without obliging Us to declare as both schismatic both those who ordain and those who are ordained thus INVALIDATING their future actions.” This quote is taken from Pope Pius VI’s Charitas, 1791, issued against three bishops who consecrated another bishop without the papal mandate. Augustine notes it is listed as the Fontes, or old law, for Can. 2370, commenting that this is “…an example of its effective application.”

Since Traditionalist pseudo-clergy deny that these consecrations without the mandate invalidated their future actions, we cite Can. 6 §4: “In case of doubt whether some provision of the canons differs from the old law, one must adhere to the old law.”)  Rev. Augustine notes that such consecrations without the mandate are of themselves valid, while confirming above that all further ACTS by the initial consecrator and the one consecrated are invalid (in referencing Charitas). In Rev. Ignatius Szal’s Canon Law dissertation, Communication of Catholics With Schismatics, Szal notes that in the late 12th century when the antipope Victor IV and Paschal III reigned:

“These schismatics had ordained many of their adherents to the episcopate…The Third Lateran Council took action by declaring that the ordinations performed by these schismatic popes were null and void, as also the ordinations conferred by those who had been consecrated by them… The Canon used the word “irritas” in reference to the ordinations conferred by the schismatics. However the term was to be understood in reference to the execution or the EXERCISE of these orders, rather than to their validity… Clement VIII in his Instruction Sanctissimus Aug. 31, 1595 stated that those who had received ordination at the hand of schismatic bishops who apart from their schismatic status were properly consecrated — the necessary form having been observed — did indeed receive orders but not the right to exercise them…”  In other words, these men validly but illicitly RECEIVED orders according to Church teaching and that of St. Thomas Aquinas, yes; but all the acts EMANATING from those orders were null and void. They could violate the censure and confer the Sacraments, but they only committed sacrilege, multiplied their censures and caused those seeking them out to commit sacrilege as well.

And the doubt regarding validity is settled by this ancient decree issued by Pope St. Leo I, the Great, below. It proves that from the earliest times, the Church refused to recognize those ordained by bishops who were ordained without the approval of a bishop in communion with the Roman Pontiff. The Catholic Encyclopedia says of Pope  St. Leo I: “[Pope St. Leo I, the Great] died 10 November, 461. Leo’s pontificate, next to that of St. Gregory I, is the most significant and important in Christian antiquity.” Pope St. Leo the Great and the author quoting him notes that other popes, not just Pope St. Leo I, taught as he did, and as Pope Pius V I would later teach in Charitas.

“To Anastasius of Thessalonica, apostolic vicar in Illyria, the pontiff Saint Leo the Great told him: «Let no bishop be ordained in those churches without your approval: in this way he will take care, to make the choice with maturity, knowing that they have to pass your examination. The metropolitan who, disregarding our mandates, will be ordained without your notice, let him know that WE WILL NOT CONSIDER HIS ORDINATION AS VALID;  and he will be responsible before us for the USURPATION HE PRESUMED TO MAKE OF THE HOLY MINISTRY. If each metropolitan is entrusted with the power to ordain the bishops of his province, only to you do we reserve the ordination of metropolitans, provided, however, that a mature and thoughtful examination precede this; for although no bishop should be consecrated who is not tested and pleasing to the Lord, we want the one who is to preside over the others to excel all (73)». Pope Saint Zosimus explained himself in almost the same terms when he created Protoclus of Arles his vicar in France: Similar were the phrases with which Gregory II delegated the power to institute archbishops and bishops to the evangelical workers he sent to Bavaria, France and Germany (74)”.

• 73 . S. Leo M. Ep. 1. ad Anast. Thessalon.
• 74 . En Tomasin part. 1 , lib . 1 , c . 42 , n . 3 y 5
• 76 S. Leo M. Ep. 1 ad metropol. Illyriæ ap . Labbé

https://books.google.es/books?id=tcOjv14YMKQC&pg=PA488&dq=equilibrio+2+potestades+tomo+tercero&hl=es&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwij5cWv9of9AhUITcAKHVd0D9gQ6wF6BAgEEAE#v=snippet&q=202&f=false

This is best explained in application by Rev. Bernard Leeming in his Principles of Sacramental Theology, 1957:

“619. Various expressions which seem at first sight to indicate invalidity of orders mean, in fact, a practical legal invalidity in the sense that the church to which the Bishop or priest was consecrated owed him no support or obedience and that his acts had no legal effect. This is true of the expression ordine irritos, ordines irritare, ordines exsufflare or sacramenta exsufflare. Not to be ordained may only mean not to have the right to the title in emoluments and jurisdiction of the office as may the expression ordinationes nullas vires obtinent. There is no force or power in such an ordination.” And even here Leeming seems uncertain about the extent to which these invalidating clauses actually apply, in saying it “may only mean.”

On the other hand, under hierarchy in their Dictionary of Dogmatic Theology, Pietro Parente, Piolanti and Garofalo wrote: “The valid use of orders, in most cases, cannot be prevented.” So obviously in some cases they CAN be prevented, but the authors do not specify what such cases might be. We are only left to speculate on the application.

Let us here pause to address the objection that null and void does not necessarily mean invalid despite its use in Canon Law and certain papal documents which seems to indicate that this is precisely what it means (see the full text of Charitas referenced above; also Pope Paul IV’s bull Cum ex Apostolatus Officio). Pope Leo XIII provides an authoritative definition of this term in his constitution Apostolica Curae, addressing the administration of Holy Orders: “To obtain orders nulliter means the same as by an act null and void — that is invalid — as the very meaning of the word and as common parlance requires.” And invalid is the word used interchangeably with null and void in the documents of Pope Paul IV and Pope Pius VI cited above. Leeming also lists invalid as “synonymous with null or void” (p. 266).

Canon 2370 is intended to apply to bishops who presumably held an office from which they might be suspended. Ironically, however, neither Lefebvre nor Thuc possessed any offices in the first place, having resigned the offices assigned them under Pope Pius XII to accept new offices from the usurpers. They were already considered heretics and schismatics, and also became infamous. They lost their offices and all possibility of obtaining jurisdiction under Can. 188 n. 4. Their acts of communicatio in sacris (Can. 2314 §1, no. 3) were external — public — so there can be no doubt of this. If those leaving and remaining separated from the Novus Ordo church believed that church to be a non-Catholic religion, they cannot excuse men who were bound to know better from continuing to maintain contact.

The obligation to avoid all non-Catholic worship bound them even under grave fear, as Rev. McCoy states above. So in ignoring their censures for heresy and schism by setting up for themselves what appeared to be some form of respectability, though it could never qualify as an office (and Traditionalists deny they possess any offices, at least in the strict sense under Can. 145) they violated Can. 147, which leads us to an entirely new condemnation and set of censures.

Canon 147 states: “An ecclesiastical office is not 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.” An authentic interpretation of this canon was rendered by the Sacred Congregation (AAS 42-601) and gives as its source the text of DZ 967 and yet another version of DZ 960, varying slightly from the Denzinger translation: “Those who undertake to exercise these offices merely at the behest of and upon appointment by the people or secular power and authority, AND THOSE WHO ASSUME THE SAME UPON THEIR OWN AUTHORITY, are all to be regarded not as ministers of the Church but as thieves and robbers who have entered not by the door… If anyone says that those who have not been duly [rightly] ordained nor sent by ecclesiastical nor canonical authority BUT COME FROM A DIFFERENT SOURCE are lawful ministers of the word and of the Sacraments, LET THEM BE ANATHEMA.

“His holiness Pope Pius XII…in order to preserve more inviolate these same sacred principles and at the same time forestall abuses in a matter of such great importance… deigned to provide as follows…” (Canon Law Digest, Vol. 3, T. Lincoln Bouscaren, 1953).  The excommunications that follow are ipso facto and specially reserved to the Holy See, for allowing oneself to be lawfully intruded into an office. It extends also to those who have any part in it, directly or indirectly. There then follows a brief statement that reads: “Excommunication as vitandus inflicted for accepting office from lay authority, (AAS 42-195). See Can. 2394.” In the same volume, this canon references a priest named as vitandus acting as a diocesan administrator without the proper appointment. Revs. Woywod-Smith state under this canon: “The Congregation of the Council, on June 29, 1950, ruled that those who without canonical provision (cfr.  Canons 147 §§ 1-2, 332 §1) SEIZE or allow themselves to be illegitimately thrust into or retain an ecclesiastical office, benefice or dignity, and all who take part in this, incur ipso facto excommunication reserved in a special manner to the Apostolic See.”

Canon 2258: This canon requires that when anyone is named a vitandus it must be publicly proclaimed that such is the case, he must be mentioned by name and ordered to be avoided. The authentic interpretation of Can. 147 satisfies two of these conditions, and it seems here that an entire class of men is intended, not just specific individuals. This happens also when an interdict is declared against an entire community. An authentic interpretation of the law is considered to have the same effect as the law itself, (Can. 17). Not only Can. 147 but the other papal decrees quoted here show such men are considered at least the equivalent of vitandus and the mind of the lawgiver is expressed vehemently in other laws on this same topic by Pope Pius XII. Publication of the FACT that they are so considered and would be considered by the Church as such cannot have the same effect, of course, as an actual papal declaration; but because the other two conditions are in place it can serve as at least a partial fulfillment. This is true because the laity have an obligation to demand that vitandus and anyone operating under a latae sententiae excommunication that is notorious — the one Traditionalists all incur for heresy, apostasy and schism — are obligated to deter them from exercising their orders and may ask that a declaratory sentence be issued against them (Canons 1325, 2259, 2294; 1935, 2223).

Traditionalists can argue that Thuc, Lefebvre and those they “ordained and consecrated” never assigned anyone to an office, but the wide description of an office under Canon 145 does match their functionality as non-clerics. Certainly the laity exercised their “right to demand the sacraments” from them, and so commissioned them under what they believed to be this right. And on their part Traditionalists responded to their demands. Therefore they accepted a sort of office from these laity, whether they call it that or not. And if they have not accepted such an office from the Church, where else could any pretended authority have come from?

Canon 147 also has Pope Pius VI’s Charitas for its footnote (Fontes). These Fontes likewise list Pope Pius IX’s Etsi Multa, which declares the Old Catholic bishop Joseph Humbert Reinkens a vitandus and an apostate.  Reinkens was already an excommunicated heretic for denying the definition of papal infallibility prior to ordaining and consecrating priests and bishops in Germany. On February 11, 1911, Pope St. Pius X also declared the Old Roman Catholic Arnold Harris Matthew and two other bishops excommunicated in the bull Cravi Iamdiu Scandalo, denouncing Mathew for “arrogating unto himself the title of Anglo-Catholic Archbishop of London [and] all others who lent aid, council, or consent to this nefarious crime, by the authority of Almighty God, we hereby excommunicate, anathematize and solemnly declare to be separated from the communion of the Church and to be held for schismatics.” This bull called Mathew a pseudo-bishop and condemned him as a vitandus.

Pope Pius IX’s condemnation of Reinkens reads:

“As even the rudiments of Catholic faith declare, no one can be considered a bishop who is not linked in communion of faith and love with Peter, upon whom is built the Church of Christ; who does not adhere to the supreme Pastor to whom the sheep of Christ are committed to be pastured; and who is not bound to the confirmer of fraternity which is in the world. And indeed ‘the Lord spoke to Peter; to one person therefore, so that He might found unity from one’ to Peter, ‘the divine dignity granted a great and wonderful consortium of his power, and if He wished anything to be common with him and the rest of the princes, He never gave, except through him, what He did not deny to the others.’” Calling him a “pseudo-bishop,” Pope Pius IX then states:

“We declare the election of the said Joseph Hubert Reinkens, performed against the sanctions of the holy canons to be illicit, null, and void. We furthermore declare his consecration sacrilegious. Therefore, by the authority of Almighty God, We excommunicate and hold as anathema Joseph Hubert himself and all those who attempted to choose him, and who aided in his sacrilegious consecration. We additionally excommunicate whoever has adhered to them and belonging to their party has furnished help, favor, aid, or consent. We declare, proclaim, and command that THEY are separated from the communion of the Church. They are to be considered among those with whom all faithful Christians are forbidden by the Apostle to associate and have social exchange to such.” Clearly he considers Reinkens a vitandus. And it appears as though those who followed him may have been excommunicated as vitandus as well.

Canon 2245, April, 1951, AAS 43-217,: “A decree of the Holy Office concerning the consecration of a Bishop without canonical provision is as follows: A Bishop OF WHATSOEVER RITE OR DIGNITY who consecrates to the episcopacy anyone who is neither appointed nor expressly confirmed by the Holy See and the person who receives the consecration, even though they were coerced by great fear, (Can 2229 §3, no. 3), incur ipso facto an excommunication most specially reserved to the Holy See.” Can. 2229 §3, no. 3 states: “Grave fear by no means excuses from penalties latae sententiae if the crime involves contempt of faith or of ecclesiastical authority or public damage to souls.” The canonist Augustine comments under this canon: “Hence no one is excused from the penalty laid down in Canon 2314 or from that established in Canon 2335 which forbids membership in Masonic societies.” And lest some try to wiggle under the canonical fence regarding the different rites, notice Pope Pius XII says here “of whatsoever rite or dignity.”

Can 2314 §1 states: “All apostates from the Christian faith and each and every heretic or schismatic incur the following penalties:

1. ipso facto
2. If they have been admonished and do not repent, they shall be deprived of any benefits dignity, pension, office or other position which they may hold in the Church; they shall be declared infamous and if they are clerics they shall, after renewed admonition, be deposed.
3. If they have joined a non-Catholic sect or publicly adhered to it, they incur infamy ipso facto and if they are clerics and the admonition to repent has been fruitless they shall be degraded. Canon 188 n. 4 provides moreover that the cleric who publicly abandons the Catholic faith loses every ecclesiastical office ipso facto and without any declaration.”

And it must be mentioned here again that when there is doubt about how and when any canon in the Code is to be applied, one must return to the old law as Can. 6, n. 4 instructs. In this case the old law under both Can. 2314 and Can.188 n. 4 is Pope Paul IV’s infallible 1559 bull Cum ex Apostolatus Officio.

“We likewise consider it fitting that those who do not refrain from evil through love of virtue should be deterred therefrom through fear of penalties. Bishops, Archbishops, Patriarchs, Primates, Cardinals [etc.]…, who must teach others and give them good example to keep them in the Catholic Faith — WHEN THESE PREVARICATE, THEY SIN MORE GRAVELY THAN OTHERS; for they not only lose themselves, but drag down with them to perdition and the pit of death countless other peoples entrusted to their care and government or otherwise subject to them… all and sundry Bishops, Archbishops, Patriarchs, Primates, Cardinals…WHO, IN THE FUTURE, SHALL STRAY OR FALL INTO HERESY OR SHALL INCUR, INCITE OR COMMIT SCHISM… being less excusable than others in such matters… (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” (para. 3. Notice that this applies to the future as well as to those living in the 1500s.)

“Further, if ever at any time it becomes clear that any Bishop, even one conducting himself as an Archbishop, Patriarch, or primate; or any Cardinal of the aforesaid Roman Church, even as mentioned, a Legate; or likewise any Roman Pontiff before his promotion or elevation as a Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has strayed from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy, or has incurred schism, then his promotion or elevation shall be NULL, INVALID AND VOID. It cannot be declared valid or become valid through his acceptance of the office, his consecration, subsequent possession or seeming possession of government and administration… 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…” (para. 6).  In paragraph five, Cum ex… declares those consorting with heretics as infamous. This bull’s censures are identical to those levied against vitandus.

Can. 2264: Cum ex… also is listed as a footnote to this canon which states that if a declaratory (latae sententiae) sentence has been issued, which appears to have been issued in way of the vitandus notification listed under Can. 147, all acts of jurisdiction are invalid unless jurisdiction is supplied under Can. 2261 §2. But under Can. 2261 §3, the law states vitandus can be resorted to only in danger of death. Today we lack the supplying power, the Roman Pontiff, so this is not even possible. Can. 219 states that: “The Roman Pontiff, legitimately elected, obtains, from the moment he accepts election, the full power of jurisdiction by divine right.”

The very act of heresy, deposition and infamy itself, then, committed by Lefebvre, Thuc, et al.— before they ever began ordaining Traditionalists — invalidated their acts. The subsequent ordinations and consecrations themselves may or may not have been valid, but the Church has the right and the duty, for the good of the faithful, to nullify the attempted administration of sacrilegious sacraments with the exception of Orders that would result from these acts. For they are divine, having been established by Our Lord Himself, and therefore they and the faithful who might think they are receiving them must be safeguarded from all abuse. Traditionalists may have been ordained and consecrated, they may have received the character, but all their sacramental acts are worthless because they are notorious heretics and schismatics and/or vitandus, and the majority of theologians agree vitandus are no longer members of the Church.

Until they a) abjure and are absolved from their heresies, b) their own orders are examined by a true pope, and c) they are either dispensed from any irregularity or ordered to be conditionally or absolutely ordained, they must be considered as possessing no validity whatsoever. For if a doubtful pope is no pope, then likewise a doubtful bishop or priest is no bishop or priest. The Catholic Encyclopedia recommends the following regarding the resolution of orders:

“Apart from exceptional circumstances, such as arose in 1896, the Holy See does not indulge in purely theoretical pronouncements on questions like that of Anglican Orders, but limits its intervention to cases of practical difficulty that are brought before it — as when persons or classes of persons who wish to minister at the Church’s altars have undergone ceremonies of ordination outside its fold. And even in thus intervening the Holy See is chary of doctrinal decisions, but applies a common-sense rule that can give practical security. Where it judges that the previous orders were certainly valid it permits their use, SUPPOSING THE CANDIDATE TO BE ACCEPTABLE; where it judges the previous orders to be certainly invalid it disregards them altogether, and enjoins a re-ordination according to its own rite; where it judges that the validity of the previous orders is doubtful, EVEN THOUGH THE DOUBT BE SLIGHT, it forbids their use until a conditional ceremony of re-ordination has first been undergone” (Anglican Orders).

All the above is expressed in Pope Pius VI’s Charitas: “We therefore severely forbid the said Expilly and the other wickedly elected and illicitly consecrated men, under this punishment of suspension, to assume episcopal jurisdiction or any other authority for the guidance of souls since they have never received it. They must not grant dimissorial letters for ordinations. Nor must they appoint, depute, or confirm pastors, vicars, missionaries, helpers, functionaries, ministers, or others, whatever their title, FOR THE CARE OF SOULS AND THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE SACRAMENTS UNDER ANY PRETEXT OF NECESSITY WHATSOEVER. Nor may they otherwise act, decree, or decide, whether separately or united as a council, on matters which relate to ecclesiastical jurisdiction. For We declare and proclaim publicly that all their dimissorial letters and deputations or confirmations, past and future, as well as all their rash proceedings and their consequences, are utterly void and without force…”  The effects of Charitas are those visited upon vitandus, just as those of Pope Paul IV, Pius IX and Pope St. Pius X above.

Some have said that despite Pius VI’s decision, Pope Pius VII later reinstated all the constitutional bishops. This he could do as he had not impugned their consecration as bishops but only qualified them as illicit, voiding only any of their future acts. Pius VII did however, at one point, complain in a letter to Louis XVIII written in 1816: “of the bad faith of the constitutional bishops, protesting that the old bishops had not only refused to resign, but had, by writing and conduct, assailed the Holy See. ‘We willingly forget the offenses shown to us personally,’ he wrote the French king.

‘But we cannot forget those offered to the authority and dignity of the Church and of its head.

“Now in case any of these bishops are nominated to sees, they cannot obtain canonical institution from us unless they first give the Church and the Holy See suitable satisfaction,’” (Artaud de Montor, The Lives and Times of the Popes, 1911). The king suggested these bishops resign, but the pope became ill and the negotiations were delayed. Because of his failing health, “The Pope was more anxious to bring the affairs of the Church of France to a definite form… On May 30, 1819, the bishops, to the number of 40, wrote warmly to the pope. Pius VII replied by a brief, which finally arranged all,” (Ibid.).

Canon 2372: “Those who dare to receive orders from an excommunicated, suspended or interdicted minister, provided he has been declared such or condemned to one of the three aforementioned penalties, or from a notorious apostate, a notorious heretic, or a notorious schismatic, ipso facto incur suspension a divinis reserved to the Apostolic See.” And Rev. Francis Hyland, in his 1928 Catholic University of America dissertation Excommunication, notes: “Tanquerey remarks that the Church is wont to declare as vitandi only notorious heretics and schismatics who have already ceased to be members of the Church…” (pg. 9).

Regarding Can. 2245 and the Holy Office decree, Rev. McCoy, cited above, further discusses on page 92 what the Code considers to be acts involving contempt of the faith. He identifies the titles in the Code containing these acts as XI and XII of the fifth book, concerning “Delicts Against the Faith and Unity of the Church and Delicts Against Religion.” These include HERESY, APOSTASY AND SCHISM; COMMUNICATION IN SACRED RITES WITH HERETICS; USURPATION OF PRIESTLY FUNCTIONS AND SACRILEGE, among other offenses.  On page 97, under the heading “Acts that Work to the Detriment of Souls,” McCoy writes: “These are all acts which draw people away from the faith or from the practice of Christian morals and thus expose them to the danger of eternal damnation…”

“Those acts which, by their nature, work to the detriment of souls are listed particularly in Titles XVI and XVII of the fifth book of the Code…bearing the headings: ‘Offenses Committed in the Administration or Reception of Orders or the Other Sacraments’ and ‘Offenses Against the Obligations Proper to the Clerical and Religious State.’” Among the offenses McCoy lists that work to the detriment of souls are: “…the administration of Sacraments to those who are forbidden to receive them…THE CONSECRATION OF A BISHOP WITHOUT A PAPAL MANDATE…THE RECEPTION OF ORDERS FROM UNWORTHY PRELATES… the negligence of a pastor in the care of souls.” It must be noted here however that this particular Holy Office decree was issued against men who at the time were bishops in good standing in the Church, who possessed actual offices; NOT HERETICS WHO POSSESSED NONE. That is a different kettle of fish and is handled differently by the Church. If we consider all that is said above by Rev. McCoy, and all that is forbidden by the canons listed, it begins to appear that far from rushing to save souls, Traditionalists instead have worked to foster contempt of the faith and promote schism. But of course they will always rationalize as follows.

But in this emergency…

Traditionalists argue that necessity knows no law and they can resort to epikeia to justify their ordinations and consecrations. This has been refuted here.  And as explained at length in a separate work, Pope Pius XII’s 1945 election constitution, Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, (VAS) — which infallibly decrees what can and cannot be done during an interregnum — forbids any correction or change in the law during an interregnum. “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.”

Here we are talking both papal laws and Canon Law, which is largely taken from papal and conciliar law. Some may object that Can. 20 advises the use of epikeia, and to invoke it would not be a violation of the law.  But Can. 20 specifically states there must be no other provision in the case considered, and such provision was already laid down in VAS. It also recommends consulting the laws given in similar cases and the common and constant teaching of approved authors. Laws given in similar cases point to the summoning of the bishops to elect a pope (Council of Constance) and a good number of authors agree on this, namely St. Robert Bellarmine and those supporting his teaching. St. Bellarmine also recommends the calling of an imperfect council in the absence of a pope if the cardinals cannot elect. Finally, Can. 20 cannot be used in anything involving penalties. And VAS is a document levying several penalties.

The reason why this infallible law nullifies epikeia is explained as follows: “Epikeia may be defined as: A correction or emendation of a law which in its expression is deficient by reason of its universality, a correction made by a subject who deviates from the clear words of the law, basing his action upon the presumption, at least probable, that the legislator intended not to include in his law the case at hand,” (The History, Nature and Use of EPIKEIA in Moral Theology by the Rev. Lawrence Joseph Riley, A.B., S.T.L., a dissertation submitted to the faculty of the School of Sacred Theology of the Catholic University of America, 1948). Abp. Amleto Cicognani also refers to it as a correction of the law. So applying epikeia has done nothing; all is null and void. Not only is a correction to the law forbidden, but the probable presumption that the law should be changed could not be reconciled with VAS itself or the penalties levied by Pope Pius XII above, nor could it be reconciled with other papal decisions rendered by this same pope.

Even aside from their equivalent status as vitandus, Traditionalists could never have been supplied jurisdiction because it is withdrawn from them by VAS and under the canons and their Fontes above. And because we have no Roman Pontiff to supply, no jurisdiction could be supplied to anyone anyway. This is clear from VAS, which insists all be referred to a future pontiff, and no jurisdiction enjoyed by the deceased Roman Pontiff in his lifetime can be exercised after his death, even by the cardinal. If such jurisdiction is exercised, it is null, void and invalid. We also see in Charitas above that Pope Pius VI ordered the same in this matter, decreeing that the bishops he pronounced as schismatics are forbidden to decide any “matters that relate to ecclesiastical jurisdiction.” And if they attempt this, it is null, void and invalid.

Consequences cascading from the Canons

The canons above tell the real story. They say more than it appears. Given the explanation provided by the old law under Canon 2370, we can have no doubt 1) that these men, for their contemptuous acts outside papal law, are considered schismatics, and suffer for this the consequences of Can. 2314 and Can. 188, no. 4; and 2) With the exception of ordination and consecration, anything Lefebvre, Thuc, et al., or those they consecrated have done, is invalid. The orders given are questionably valid until the circumstances of their administration can be investigated by the Holy Office. In the meantime, any acts proceeding from those orders is considered to be invalid. Some may argue that actual schism could exist only if a true pope reigned. But to honestly maintain their position sedevacantists, at least, were obligated to consecrate just enough bishops to call an imperfect council and elect a pope. That might have been possible then and would have eliminated all suspicion of setting up a false church, but it would not be possible today. There was initially talk of doing this prior to the Thuc consecrations, but it soon ceased.

For along came Guerard des Lauriers with his material-formal hypothesis and quite suspiciously, all talk of ever restoring the papacy came to an end. Sedevacantists gradually separated themselves into little sects just as the rest of their Traditionalist brethren before them and the schism continued. All attempts to explore the possibility of an imperfect council, suggested by this author long before participating in an (invalid) conclave as an absolute last resort, was shot down by those who had the money and the influence in Traditionalist circles to do such a thing. The question is why, unless the plan all along was to set up a model of the more “traditional” Catholic church either to keep people quiet long enough to complete the Church’s destruction or until the Church could be refashioned along totally Gallicanist lines. As things stand today, it seems to be the latter. Given the failure of sedevacantism to do what the Church commanded, they must rightly be judged as schismatic, especially since they base their existences on the vacant See.

The language of the Holy Office decree, entered into the AAS under Can. 2245; also the fact that this censure is reserved in a most special manner to the Holy See (a fairly rare occurrence), makes it clear that the Holy Office had no intention, for the good of the faithful, of allowing these men to function in any manner, whether they acted as priests or not. They were declared the equivalent to vitandus under Can. 147 by an authentic interpretation entered into the AAS, which is binding on the faithful for belief. Traditionalists assumed power “on their own authority,” coming from a “different source” (DZ 960); and the laity “called” them and “consented” to their ministrations, (Can. 109). So it cannot be said that they did not accept their office from lay authority exactly as the rescript reads. Those behaving historically in a like manner were condemned as vitandus as well. Therefore it is not unjust to consider them as such.

Canon 2372 applies to both Lefebvre and Thuc who were clearly schismatic regarding their dealings with the Novus Ordo but were not questioned as such until years later. Canon 2370 would apply then to all those men who sought ordination from Lefebvre and Thuc prior to their consecration of bishops. In the exterior forum, all these men were schismatics even before their ordinations, for either they were raised in the Novus Ordo sect or were practicing Traditionalists. Even if they recognized their errors and left the Novus Ordo, it would still have been necessary for them to be dispensed from their irregularities, for heresy and schism are permanent irregularities that bar a man from ever receiving orders. The canonists Revs. Woywod-Smith and Ramstein go into detail regarding the need of readmittance to the Church for such heresy, citing Can. 2200 as proof of this need, and in addition they would also be required to receive a papal dispensation to qualify for ordination. But one more question needs to be addressed: did these men ever even become clerics?

Tonsure is a jurisdictional act

Now the first thing that must occur for a man to be admitted to the clerical state is what is known as tonsure. “By divine ordinance, the clergy are distinct from the laity” (Can. 107), and tonsure is the ceremony which marks that distinction. A man cannot be ordained without first tonsure. Few chronicling the change in the rites of the Sacraments by the Novus Ordo in 1968 mention the fact that Paul 6 later abolished the ceremony of tonsure in 1972. He must have realized that this also was essential to finalizing the destruction of the priesthood. It is interesting that the canon following the first mention of tonsure in the Code references DZ 960 and 967 from the Council of Trent on the prohibited institution of ministers by the laity and leads us back to Can. 147. Rev. Charles Augustine comments on this canon:

“This canon is directed against certain innovations which cropped out throughout the history of the Church but were introduced especially by the so-called reformers in the 16th century. The “consent of the people” was the favorite cry of Arnold of Brescia and his followers in the 12th century. It was repeated by Wycliff and Hus, Calvin and Zwingli. Against these the Council of Trent declared IT IS AN ARTICLE OF FAITH that the people have no voice in the choice of ministers.”  And nothing could be clearer than this.

Tonsure is defined by St. Thomas Aquinas and is unanimously accepted by canonists as an ecclesiastical ceremony or administrative act — not a rite of Sacred Orders conferring an indelible mark — issuing from the office of a bishop.  And we know that both Lefebvre and Thuc possessed no offices in the Church. So tonsure could not be given validly by a vitandus or anyone laboring under a vindicative penalty for heresy. Not only could it not be validly given; it could not be validly received by those presenting as candidates for the priesthood without first obtaining a dispensation from the Holy See for the same censure of heresy, schism and infamy of law under Can. 2314. And this presents Traditionalists with a very big problem.

Because, as St. Thomas explains, “The ministers of the Church are severed from the people in order that they may give themselves entirely to the divine worship. Now in the divine worship are certain actions that have to be exercised by virtue of certain definite powers and for this purpose the spiritual power of order is given while other actions are performed by the whole body of ministers in common, for instance the recital of the divine praises. For such things it is not necessary to have the power of Order but only to be deputed to such an office, and this is done by the tonsure. Consequently, it is not an Order but a preamble to Orders… “Reply Obj. 2: Although a man does not receive a character in the tonsure, nevertheless he is appointed to the divine worship; hence the appointment should be made by the supreme minister, namely the bishop.” (Summa Theologica, Vol III, Q. 40, Art. 2, Suppl.).

Commentaries on the Code of Canon Law, with the Latin and Castilian legal text, by Lorenzo Miguelez Dominguez; Arturo Lobo; Sabino Alonso Morán (Biblioteca de Autores Cristianos 1963 Volume II, page 396) also read:

“The tonsure received produces the incardination in some diocese, not being able to exist in acephalous clerics. And once incardination is produced by means of the prima tonsura, the Bishop of the diocese is the only one who can promote the tonsured to higher orders; he is the only legitimate ordinary minister of his subsequent ordination. In the ordination of the tonsured, the domicile of the tonsured no longer counts, but only his actual incardination, however this may have taken place.

*Ordinarily the tonsure is received in order to dedicate the tonsured to the service of his own diocese. But it can also be received in order to enter into the service of another diocese.

Two cases: that the foreign diocese be determined or indeterminate.

1º If it is determinate:

(a) the tonsure is conferred by one’s own bishop by reason of domicile, according to canon 956;

(b) The tonsured is ipso facto incardinated in the diocese to which he is destined, according to canon 111.2;

(c) The bishop of this diocese is the one who must confer higher orders on him or give him dimissorial orders.

2° If the diocese of another is indeterminate:

(a) he is conferred tonsure by his own bishop by reason of domicile, as in the previous case;

(b) he is incardinated in the diocese of the ordaining bishop, who can confer higher orders on him;

(c) in due time, he is to be excardinated from that diocese, incardinated in another diocese, the Bishop of the latter being his proper Bishop, from the moment of incardination, for all

incardination, for all effects and purposes

(S. C. Conc., 10 March 1923: AAS 16 [1024] 51; CPI 17: February 1930: AAS 22 [1930] 195; CPI 24 July 1939, 1 and 1: AAS 31 [1939] 321).

So clearly here, as the Sacred Congregation demonstrates, the only way such a person can be validly tonsured is by a bishop in possession of a validly conferred diocese, which none of those floating bishops, be they Lefebvre, Thuc, Castro de Meyer or anyone else can claim to have possessed. And if the administrative powers of that bishop have been rendered invalid, guess what? It never happens. Why is this important? Because according to the canons, “Those who have been assigned to the divine ministry at least by the first tonsure are called clerics,” (Can. 108), and this is based on Divine law. And from Can. 118: “ONLY CLERICS CAN OBTAIN THE POWER OF EITHER ORDERS OR ECCLESIASTICAL JURISDICTION…”

So if the grantor’s act of conveying tonsure is invalid, and the grantees are unable to even seek ordination without a dispensation from the pope, which is no longer an option, does anyone really believe that these men could possibly have received ordination? Notice that Pope Pius VI in Charitas above classifies as invalid the deputations or confirmations of those consecrated as bishops without papal approval and the one(s) consecrating. So from what is presented below, from the Sacred Congregation of the Sacraments by Aloysius Cardinal Masella, Dec. 27, 1955, this appears to be one of those acts.

“The purpose [of this Instruction] is that the unworthy may in due time, even at the last moment, be absolutely held off from joining the sacred ranks lest dishonor and disgrace touch the Church of God…The Bishop must pass final judgment on the priestly vocation of their candidates, most earnestly examining it along with the canonical fitness of the candidates according to the norms given by approved authors of moral, ascetical and mystical theology. This fitness must be supported by positive proofs, especially concerning the virtue of chastity.” So tonsure cannot even be received unless these proofs are provided, and Lefebvre, Thuc, et al. could not provide them; their confirmations of these proofs were invalid.

These pseudo-bishops had no right or power to call anyone to the priesthood, and never possessed the ability to graft them into it. And this goes back as far as we find Lefebvre and later Thuc (and others) first ordaining priests, for their heresy was committed by accepting Vatican 2, the sacramental changes and the Novus Ordo mass as valid before these “ordinations” ever began. Dispensing themselves from the law in this “emergency” will not work, either; Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis declares null and void every dispensation from Canon Law during an interregnum, as explained above.

How intention is lacking in Traditionalist consecrations

As discussed in the first part of this document, the situation among Traditionalists cannot be compared to those sects which openly declare themselves separated from Rome. Traditionalists, rather, claim they ARE the Catholic Church, and as such they must be held to all the standards that Church has established in order to claim to validly confect Her Sacraments. This is an important distinction that has not been previously made but needs to be examined in depth in order to draw out the necessary conclusions. A schismatic bishop separating from Rome and starting his own Church, with branches here and there, does not claim to be the Catholic Church, although he may celebrate the Latin Mass and administer the Sacraments. He can validly ordain priests and consecrate bishops given he uses the proper form and has the right intention. He is judged differently because Rome no longer expects of him what She once did, given his rejection of the papacy.

But the Church would scarcely tolerate in her own ministers what she is forced to tolerate from this schismatic sect and its leader. Either members of Her hierarchy are Catholic and abide by all Her laws and teachings — particularly obedience to the Roman Pontiff in all things, since it is necessary for salvation, (DZ 469), — or they are not. They cannot at one and the same time claim to be the only surviving members of the hierarchy while failing to satisfy all the requirements necessary to belong to that body. These requirements are explained below:

Msgr. G. Van Noort, S.T.D., Christ’s Church, Vol. 2, 119-122, 1959

“Apostolicity of government or mission or authority means the Church is always ruled by pastors who form one, same juridical person with the apostles. In other words, it is always ruled by pastors who are the apostles’ legitimate successors… For on no one but the APOSTOLIC COLLEGE under the headship of Peter did Christ confer the power of teaching, sanctifying and ruling the faithful until the end of the world. This triple power therefore necessarily belongs and can only belong to those who form one moral person with the apostles; their legitimate successors.

“How could a man belong to the College of the successors of the apostles unless he be united to the head of the college and acknowledged by him as belonging to it? A man could hardly be a cabinet member if the president refused to accept him. Any man then who boasts Apostolic Succession but is not united to the Roman Pontiff may indeed actually possess the power of orders; he may even by purely physical succession occupy a chair formerly occupied by an apostle — at least he could do so — but he would not be a genuine successor of the apostles in their pastoral office; he would be a usurper.”

Rev. E. S. Berry, the Church of Christ, (p. 399).

“Christ evidently intended that His Church be governed by bishops — bishops by the power of Orders as well as by the power of jurisdiction… After the Ascension St. Peter and his successors [took] the place of Christ as visible head of the Apostolic body, with full authority to carry out His will: “Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, it shall be bound also in heaven.” Consequently the Roman Pontiff, as successor of St. Peter, has sole authority to accept new members into the Apostolic body, i. e., he alone has authority to constitute bishops, since authority to teach and govern the faithful was conferred upon the Apostles as a body and can be obtained only by incorporation into that body.

“Bishops are shepherds for portions of the flock that was committed in its entirety to the pastoral care of St. Peter and his successors; but no one becomes a shepherd of any portion of a flock unless he be made such by the chief pastor of the whole flock. It is also evident that the chief purpose of the primacy — the preservation of unity — could not be realized if the bishops of the Church were not subject in all things to her supreme pastor.”

The Catholic Encyclopedia under the Apostolic College:

“As the Church has to endure to the end of time, so has the unifying and preserving office of St. Peter. Without such a principle, without a head, the body of the Bride of Christ would be no better than a disjointed congeries of members, unworthy of the Divine Bridegroom. In fact the connection of the Church with Christ and the Apostles would be loosened and weakened to the breaking point.” Only bishops headed by the pope, a bishop himself, truly govern the Church.

Pope Pius IX:

“No one can be considered a bishop who is not linked in communion of faith and love with Peter, upon whom is built the Church of Christ; who does not adhere to the supreme Pastor to whom the sheep of Christ are committed to be pastured; and who is not bound to the confirmer of fraternity which is in the world.”

Now remember, to be the true successors to Christ’s Church they claim to be, all the ceremonies and rites necessary to Orders must have been received by Traditionalists according to the laws and teachings of the Church. The Catholic Encyclopedia and Rev. Clarence McAuliffe present the Church’s teaching on the priesthood as necessary for valid episcopal consecration. “One Order does not depend on the preceding Order as regards the validity of the sacrament.  But the episcopal power depends on the priestly power, since no one can receive the episcopal power unless he have previously the priestly power” (Saint Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Supplement Q. 40 A5). McAuliffe affirms this in his Sacramental Theology, page 370: “However, the more probable teaching is that a baptized male cannot be VALIDLY consecrated a bishop unless he has previously been ordained a priest.  This seems to be evident from the form of episcopal consecration: ‘Accomplish in Thy priest the fullness of Thy ministry.’”

So from all we have seen above, we have at best men who were:

• excommunicated as heretics for communicatio in sacris and branded infamous presenting as candidates for the priesthood;
• never properly examined for fitness and who apparently never received valid tonsure;
• “priests” who never even became clerics because they never received tonsure raised to the episcopacy by bishops without the papal mandate whose own orders are in question and who are
• under censure for heresy and schism, not to mention all the other censures enumerated above;
• “bishops” who were never priests and were not even eligible for the priesthood ordaining and consecrating others without the papal mandate who suffer all the same disabilities and censures mentioned above.

Now would someone please tell me what person in their right mind would ever think that such men, men who are not even Catholic and suffer under the most severe censures the Church can levy, could dare call themselves the true Church of Christ? These men did not just set up a schismatic sect for themselves, they set up an entire Church and called it Catholic! They are no better than their Novus Ordo counterparts who they have never ceased to castigate and constantly point to as the root of all evils.

In his article for The Homiletic and Pastoral Review, “Are Liberal Catholic Orders Valid?” Dr. Leslie Rumble, M.S.C. writes in a footnote: “In his 1956 work ‘Anglican Orders and Defect of Intention’ Rev. Francis Clark, S.J. observes: “To what an extent a visible separation from the true Church of Christ exerts an influence on the external rite itself, that is, whether such a rite does or does not continue the ritual profession of the faith of the Church must be determined by the Church, Herself. It belongs to the true Church to determine whether a rite performed in given circumstances is an “exteriorization” of Her own faith — that is, whether it is her own act — or whether it is, on the contrary, an act expressing the faith of another separated Church, qua separated,” (qua meaning in what manner or how being defined by the Church).

“In this latter case, the rite is not valid,” Dr. Rumble observes. “Thus Pope Leo XIII decreed in the concrete that Anglican ordinations do not remain acts of the true Church; in them ‘ritual contact’ with the faith of Christ’s Church is not maintained” (ibid., Dr. Rumble). And here readers must remember that Pope Leo XIII declared Anglican Orders invalid for lack of intention as well as invalid form. For he also proclaimed in this same document: “The Church does not judge about the mind and intention in so far as it is something by its nature internal; but in so far as it is manifested externally She is bound to judge concerning it.” Surely what has been documented here is enough to prove that all obedience to a Roman Pontiff and the absolutely necessary inclusion of him in the Apostolic College is absent in Traditionalists.

IT IS DE FIDE FROM THE COUNCIL OF TRENT AND HENCE THE UNANIMOUS OPINION OF THEOLOGIANS THAT BOTH ORDERS DULY RECEIVED AND JURISDICTION ARE NECESSARY FOR TRUE APOSTOLICITY TO EXIST, AND THAT PER POPE PIUS XII’S DECISION ON EPISCOPAL ORDERS IN MYSTICI CORPORIS, BISHOPS RECEIVE THEIR JURISDICTION ONLY FROM THE ROMAN PONTIFF. What we are looking at above is a vile imposture where the very Church Herself has been presented as something She is not and could never be. A Church without a pope, and no prospects of obtaining one; bishops possessing no power to forgive sins or confer graces, but offering only curses, in their ministrations; a series of questionable acts repeatedly condemned by the Roman Pontiffs made to appear as inconsequential and even non-existent. All this, they believe, the Church gladly tolerates and even approves in the interest of “saving souls.” But this is far from all.

The substantial nature of the Sacrament

Bernard Leeming, S.J., The Principles of Sacramental Theology, 1957

552. “It is possible for a minister to have the intention of not doing what the Church does, and if such is the case the Sacrament is invalid. This teaching is universally accepted by modern theologians, who agree that a Sacrament is invalidated even by a secret intention of the minister contrary to the substantial nature of the Sacrament.”

Comment: The substantial nature of the Sacrament includes the intent to induct a man into the Apostolic College to function there in union with his fellow bishops, in obedience to and under the direction of the Roman Pontiff. This is the entire purpose of the episcopacy.

508. Heretics may not intend to do what the Church really does and yet may have sufficient intention provided their intention is to do what the true Church does or to do what Christ wished. In this case, the object they will may be in fact what the Church does, for their intention of doing what Christ willed prevails over the intention not to do what the Roman Church does. If however there is a prevalent intention not to do what the true Church does, then the intention is not sufficient; because in fact the object they will is not what the true Church does and what Christ willed. These conclusions or explanations follow from the generally accepted principle that it is not enough to intend to do what the Church does.

Comment: The object Traditionalists will is to present themselves as the true Church of Christ on earth and convince their followers it can exist without a pope and bishops in communion with him. The Vatican Council teaches that Christ wished his Church to last until the consummation, and that with Peter at its head the episcopacy be “one and undivided” (DZ 1821). Traditionalists pretend they are preserving the episcopacy, the Apostolic College. But without Peter they destroy the unity of the Church, something not only contrary to Christ’s will but deserving of anathema.

569. In the case of bishops or priests who fall into heresy the presumption stands that they intend to do what Christ wills unless the nature of their heresy gives ground to suspect that they are so convinced that Christ does not will a particular effect of Sacraments that they absolutely exclude this from their intention” (end of Leeming quotes).

Comment: Now Leeming states that the effect of the Sacrament of the episcopacy is to include the one consecrated into the “In orders the bishop gives a man the recognized standing as a minister in the united body [of Christ; the Church]… (no. 554).” Included in that united body is the head bishop, the Roman Pontiff. If the consecration is performed with the intention NOT to include the Roman Pontiff as head bishop in this Body — which certainly has been and must be the case — and to induct the one “consecrated” instead into a body separated from the Church by heresy and schism, consisting of men who then are presented to others as full successors of the Apostles in the Catholic Church, then this constitutes a prevalent intention not to do what the true Church does.  Such acts can only be described as evil and treachery of the worst kind. And not only are these acts evil and treacherous; they cannot be valid. Msgr. Van Noort elaborates on Rev. Leeming’s effect of the Sacrament as follows:

“[For] bishops to actually function as pastors of their dioceses, they must be adopted by the authority of the Supreme Pontiff. Adoption (assumption) is a short form standing for adoption or assumption into the corporate body of the pastors of the Church. It designates the factor by which the formal admittance of a selected or elected candidate is brought to its final conclusion… In saying that papal adoption is necessary, we do not mean it is merely necessary because it be ecclesiastical law currently in force; WE MEAN IT IS NECESSARY BY THE DIVINE LAW ITSELF. Even though this necessity has never been explicitly defined, it follows absolutely from Catholic principles. It is a fact that a Bishop cannot act as a pastor of the Church unless he be a member of that body which is a continuation of the Apostolic college. Now the Roman pontiff as Christ’s vicar presides over that college with full and supreme authority.

“It would be ridiculous therefore to think that someone could be constituted a member of that body in such fashion as not to need to be acknowledged or adopted in any way by the very head of that body, i.e., the Roman Pontiff. Again, the Roman Pontiff is the supreme shepherd of the entire Church to which the bishops may be compared as subordinate shepherds for each individual part of the Church. Clearly it would be nonsensical to think someone could take charge of part of the sheepfold without the agreement of the one who rules the universal sheepfold with complete authority” (Christ’s Church, Vol. II, Msgr. G. Van Noort, S.T.D.,1959; nos. 200, 202, 203). Until a papal decision is rendered on the validity of these mens’ orders, there can be no certainty they are even validly ordained or consecrated, far less any certainty that these pseudo-bishops could be incorporated into any body of bishops of which the Roman Pontiff was not a member. This is a matter of Divine law which cannot be contested.

Oswald J. Reichel, M.A., B.C.L., F.S.A., A Complete Manual of Canon Law, 1896

Valid and Regular Ordination:

29. Besides the essentials of ordination three things are necessary to make it valid and regular: (1) It must be given by persons properly qualified to give it;

(2) it must be given in a regular manner;

(3) it must be given to those who are fit subjects to receive it. Ordination is called invalid when it conveys no spiritual gift or power of order; irregular when it is valid in itself but conveys no position in the Church. The irregular recipient is capable of performing every function of order, but the exercise of the spiritual gift is either impeded through some fault of his own, or forbidden by the Church.

34. To bestow orders in a regular manner they must be given:

(1) after examination and probation,

(2) after fasting and prayer, and

(3) unconditionally and gratuitously. A bishop is forbidden to lay hands suddenly on anyone, by which is understood that he may neither ordain without previous examination as to knowledge, nor without previous probation as to character.

Comment: Why is it that we hear only of “matter and form” from these Traditionalists when according to Rev. Reichel three additional requisites appear necessary to validity? We know for a fact many of these “orders” (in the case of priests) were not given after “examination and probation,” nor by those “qualified to give it” or “fit subjects to receive it.” And these are the “priests” who later became “bishops.”

Rev. Jean Marie Herve, Manual of Dogmatic Theology, Vol. 1, Sacraments

“474 c) It is required, and also sufficient, that there be an internal intention, at least implicit, of performing the rite as it is customarily performed in the true Church, with all that this includes, or is thought, even falsely, to include.”

Comment: There is obviously no internal intention on the part of Traditionalists to perform this rite as it is customarily performed by the Church. The absence of the papal mandate and the subterfuge that must be resorted to in order to gloss over the parts of the episcopal consecration ceremony violate this requirement. One observer has commented: “This …does not address the question of whether this is also the case for formal heretics. I believe that it is not, because a formal heretic who intends what he believes, formally holds an intention which is a contradictory of what the Church does.”

“481. b) Any condition concerning the future invalidates a sacrament. For a rite conferred under such a condition is not valid when the matter and form are performed, for at that time the intention of the minister is lacking; nor is it valid when the condition is met, for the matter and form are no longer present.” (P. Pouratt, V.G. in his Theology of the Sacraments, 1910, confirms as follows: “If the intention were dependent on a future, contingent fact, it would not really be existing when the sacrament is conferred, and hence by defect of intention the sacrament would be void” p. 401).

Comment: Any obedience pledged to a pope would necessarily be a future one, if such obedience is declared at all. If Traditionalists consecrate using the entire consecration formula, they must somehow amend the following:

“I …, elected to the Church of…, from this hour henceforward will be obedient to Blessed Peter the Apostle, and to the holy Roman Church, and to our Holy Father, Pope …. and to his successors canonically elected. I will assist them to retain and to defend the Roman Papacy without detriment to my order. I shall take care to preserve, to defend, increase and promote the rights, honors, privileges and authority of the holy Roman Church, of our Lord, the Pope, and of his aforesaid successors.

“Examination Q. 5: Will you exhibit in all things fidelity, submission, obedience, according to canonical authority, to Blessed Peter the Apostle, to whom was given by God the power of binding and of loosing, and to his Vicar our Holy Father, Pope N. and to his successors the Roman Pontiffs?”

The two Traditional consecrations available for viewing online differ from each other. Pivarunas’ consecration by Carmona in 1991 shows Carmona announcing, in place of the papal mandate: “Our Holy Mother the Catholic Church asks you to promote this priest to the high office of bishop.” Pivarunas then reads aloud in Latin the Oath of Obedience to the Holy See, seeming to read it in its entirety but omitting the name of the pope. The examination follows. The recent “consecration” of Charles McGuire omits the oath of obedience entirely, and the consecration begins with an explanation of the examination, which then follows in the ceremony.  It is difficult to tell if any fealty to the Roman Pontiff is pledged re Q. 5 above. 

In a 1993 article for Fr. Francis Fenton’s The Athanasian, John K. Weiskettel gives this evaluation of Daniel Dolan’s subsequent consecration by Mark Pivarunas: “Meanwhile, those questioning the consecration have also been divided as to details. Not only have some declared it invalid, decried it as scandalous, or even expressed doubts about Father Dolan’s qualifications for the office, but Father Clarence Kelly of the Society of Saint Pius V has gone so far as to denounce it as a ‘sacrilege.’” And this from Traditionalists familiar with the scandal and doubt involved in all the Thuc consecrations.

So Traditionalists must have in some way reworked the consecration rite to indicate they render obedience to a future pope, (implied in omitting his name), to some head bishop (or Holy Mother Church, whoever that now is) or omit it entirely. This then would basically exclude any inclusion of the one consecrated in the Apostolic College — a contrary intention as reflected in Msgr. Van Noort’s comments — or relegate it to a future event, as Rev. Herve states above. Since the See is vacant and the only pope one could pledge obedience to would need to be a future one, this would necessarily be the case. Either way, it apparently would be invalid. Also, Pope Pius XII teaches: “It shall be in no way right to understand from what we have declared and ordained above as to matter and form, that it would be lawful to neglect in any way or to omit the other established rites of the Roman Pontifical. Indeed, We ever command that all the prescribed details of that Roman Pontifical be religiously observed and carried out.” (Pope Pius XII, Sacramentum Ordinis); just one more papal command for Traditionalists to ignore.

482. N. B. a) There is no sacrament even with a condition concerning a necessary future event v.g. “I absolve you, if the sun rises tomorrow,” if the minister wishes that his intention depend on such a condition.

Comment: So if the minister asks the candidate Q. 5 above, regarding obedience to the Roman Pontiff, and it is intended in a future sense, (which if the question is asked at all is the only way it could be intended), then both the minister and the candidate must agree to a future event to both ask and answer the question.

Rev. Adolphe Tanquerey, Manual of Dogmatic Theology, 1959:

Tanquerey requires: “That if the intention be conditional it is necessary that it be equivalent to an absolute intention. If the condition is of the future, for example ‘If you will have made restitution within a month I absolve you,’ that is not equivalent to an absolute intention BECAUSE IT PREVENTS THE SACRAMENTAL FROM PRODUCING ITS EFFECT IN THE PRESENT. Once the condition has been verified the form avails nothing since it is now a part of the past.”

Tanquerey then refers to Can. 1092 and this could be used as a parallel case in law since there is doubt about these ordinations and consecrations. This canon, written for matrimonial cases, states:

1. If the condition is of the future and either necessary or impossible or sinful but is not contrary to the essence of the sacrament it is considered as not added …
2. If the condition is of the future and is contrary to the essence of the sacrament, it renders it null and void.
3. If the condition is of the future and licit, it suspends the validity of the sacrament.

Tanquerey notes that no. 3, however, applies only to contracts. He also cites Can. 732 which states when there is a prudent doubt about the validity of the sacraments of Baptism, Confirmation or Holy Orders, they may be repeated conditionally.

The question based on the above is whether a future pledge of obedience to the Roman Pontiff by a bishop is contrary to the essence of the sacrament of (episcopal) Orders. Since consecration makes a bishop a member of the Apostolic College — the united body of bishops which can function only under the direction and supervision of the Roman Pontiff, and this college as a governing body of the Church cannot exist without its head — the question seems to answer itself. Oddly enough, were the Pontiff’s need to exist simply flat out denied and the other conditions were fulfilled, the Orders could be valid. Given that these men are saying they ARE the Catholic Church, and at least recognize the need to pay lip service to papal obedience of some sort, by doing this they are bound to abide by all Her laws and teachings to the letter, which means no consecrations can be undertaken until a true pope is elected.

Ludovic Cardinal Billot, S.J. On the Sacraments of the Church: A Commentary on the Third Part of St. Thomas, Vol. 1.

Thesis XVIII (q. 64, a. 8): “I respond, that an internal intention is certainly in itself invisible, but is made visible through the external action with which it is connected, if not with metaphysical or physical necessity, then certainly with moral certitude…”

Comment: That external action is one repeated countless times by Traditionalists, despite objections, warnings and theological demonstrations, belittled and ignored for decades. It consists of repeated defiance of all that has been taught by the popes and councils on episcopal consecration and jurisdictional matters. It is reflected in the repeated violation of Canon Law and the utter disregard for the penalties inflicted. The manifest contrary intention is to continue what many believe to be the true Church of Christ against His will with only bishops minus a true pope at its head. Rev. Billot states later in his treatise that:

“Ordinary occult heresy or theological dissidence will pose little danger of hidden invalidity… What does pose such a danger — almost the only thing that poses it — is something vastly rarer and perhaps infinitely more malicious, namely, the conviction that this Sacrament, validly performed, could confer grace, coupled with the determined intention that it not do so. Such a combination would characterize the mind of a demon.” But here we are NOT speaking of occult heresy but heresy that is public and notorious! And in functioning as priests and bishops without any assurance of validity, in confecting the Sacraments when expressly forbidden to do so even though they know they do not transmit grace but involve themselves and the one receiving in mortal sin, THE EFFECTS BILLOT DESCRIBES AS ISSUING FROM THE DEMONIC MIND ARE EXACTLY THE SAME!

Therefore, it is:

• this BENIGN AND HIDDEN SORT OF MALICE, characterized as demonic by Cardinal Billot,
• described above by Rev. McCoy as “INTRINSICALLY EVIL, WORKING TO THE DETRIMENT OF SOULS [and involving] CONTEMPT OF THE FAITH,”
• coupled with a CONTRADICTORY INTENTION OR ONE “CONCERNING THE FUTURE,”
• THAT INVALIDATES THE SACRAMENTS CONFERRED BY TRADITIONALISTS.

Their absolute contempt for the papacy, veiled cleverly by only deferring to the Roman Pontiffs in certain instances that benefit themselves — accompanied by their complete refusal to observe the penalties inflicted and refrain from scandalizing the faithful — is further proof of their intransigence. And poor Billot, who fortunately passed away before the final curtain came down on the Church, would not live to see the heights to which these demons would ascend.

The crème de la crème

In his A Manual of Canon Law. p. 130, Rev. Matthew Ramstein, (S.T.D, Mag., J.U.D, OFM, 1947) writes under the heading, Legal or Moral Persons: “To be such, a moral person in the Church must have obtained a charter of incorporation either in virtue of the law or by decree of the competent ecclesiastical superior…” Paragraph three reads: “Where the law itself does not confer corporate personality, this must be obtained from thecompetent ecclesiastical superior.” This we find in Can. 147: “An ecclesiastic 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.” Despite claims recently made by  the CMRI sect, there is no Traditionalist who can produce any such charter as referred to above since Traditionalism has never even been considered for approval by a true Roman Pontiff as a corporate personality. Nor are there any laws that they can construe as granting them such status. In the same section of the Code as Canons 99-100, under the general heading Bk. II: Laws Concerning Persons, we find Canons 103-104, under Ramstein’s subheading:

General Principles Applicable to both Legal and Moral Persons:                                                            

1. Force, fear, fraud and error as determinants of legal 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…” (Can. 104). Merriam-Webster defines conditio sine qua non as “an indispensable condition.” West’s Law Dictionary repeats the same definition giving the example of a father who leaves his keys in the car, his young son who starts the car and backs over a playmate, with the father’s carelessness being the condition sine qua non for injury to the playmate. Revs. Woywod-Smith comment on this canon: “The rules concerning actions done through physical compulsion or violence, moral force or fear, deceit or error are all taken from longstanding rules of Canon Law and moral theology, and the commentaries of approved theologians and canonists may be consulted for a further study of these interferences with the free will and deliberation of human actions” (A Practical Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, 1957).

During an interregnum, lack of a papal mandate constitutes a condition sine qua non in order for the valid consecration of a bishop to take place. This is clear from the pontifical for episcopal ordination itself which says the consecration cannot take place without the mandate. The mandate is an indispensable condition for proceeding to the consecration. Pope Pius XII teaches in his 1945 election constitution Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis (VAS) that:

• Even the Sacred College of Cardinals cannot exercise the jurisdiction enjoyed by the pope during his lifetime. Any attempts to usurp such jurisdiction (and issuance of the papal mandate for consecration of bishops is one of them) are declared invalid.
• All acts of jurisdiction must be left to the future pope.
• No corrections, changes or dispensations can be made regarding the rights, papal laws and canon laws of the Church. Any attempts to circumvent these rights and laws are null and void (invalid).
• Only the cardinals are able to resolve any doubts regarding VAS (preamble and para. 4)

(See https://www.betrayedcatholics.com/vacantis-apostolicae-sedis-vindicated/).

In his constitution, Pope Pius XII anticipated actors who would attempt to change the laws of the Church: ”Likewise we command that the Sacred College of Cardinals shall not have the power to make a determination in any way it pleases concerning the laws of the Apostolic See and of the Roman Church, nor attempt in any way to subtract directly or indirectly from the rights of the same on the pretext of a relaxation of attention or by the concealment of actions perpetrated against these same rights, even after the death of the Pontiff or in the period of the vacancy. On the contrary, We desire that the College ought to watch over and defend these rights during the contention of all influential forces.” Another translation of VAS reads: “Nor may the sacred College of Cardinals detract wheresoever from the laws of the same either directly or indirectly, through a species of connivance or through the simulation of crimes perpetrated against the same laws. After the death of the pontiff or in time of vacancy it will and ought to guard and defend against the same contentions of all men.” So it is clear that the pope and his predecessor, whose constitution says the same, believed they needed to do all in their power to protect Church law from those conniving against it.  No one can argue that given what we have today.

Canonists comment on error and conditio sine qua non

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 — pretending the Church could be perpetuated with questionably valid bishops alone minus the Roman Pontiff — definitely caused them to act as they did. There would have been no consecrations performed if VAS had been acknowledged as an infallible decree and simply followed. There would have been no justification for these consecrations if Traditionalists had not invoked epikeia, which in no way possible could ever substitute for Divine jurisdiction (please see link to epikeia article above).

The actions of bishops beginning with Lefebvre and Thuc, and those they “consecrated” without the papal mandate constituted fraud (dolus, in Can. 104). It was perpetrated on those wishing to remain Catholic after Vatican 2, who believed that Traditionalists were telling them the truth —that episcopal consecrations and subsequent ordinations of “priests” were valid, and they possessed confessional jurisdiction in virtue of epikeia and Can. 2261 §2; or as Anthony Cekada taught, directly from Our Lord Himself. All of these claims have been examined at length on this site and proven to be false. For decades these men have withheld the true teaching on Divine jurisdiction from their followers, hiding the fact that they lack any apostolicity and are not lawful ministers according to Church teaching. What they have done is to deceive their followers by presenting to them what is known in scholastic philosophy (logic) as a fallacy extra dictionem, under the heading Ignorantio elenchi. A subordinate form of this fallacy is “…argumentum ad ignorantiam, or appeal to the ignorance of the hearers, tricking them by statements they are unable to [properly] test” (Logic, Joseph B. Walsh, S.J., 1940).

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 substantial if it affects the substance of an act; otherwise it is accidental. But a circumstance which does not of its nature affect the substance of a transaction (for example the age of a horse in a contract of sale) may, by the express stipulation of the parties, be made a condition sine qua non. In that case it is substantial not by nature, but by express agreement. Error is said to be the cause of the contract if but for the error the contract would not have been entered into otherwise. 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. The same is true if the error, though not substantial by nature, is made so by a condition sine qua non. Any other error leaves the act valid unless the law provides otherwise” (Canon Law, a Text and Commentary, 1946).

Traditionalists guilty on both counts

Canon 104 applies to two separate actions by Traditionalists. First, Traditionalists committed a substantial dogmatic error by shrugging off VAS as a mere “ecclesiastical law” which had either ceased to exist because it could no longer be implemented or a law to which epikeia could be applied. In reality, VAS was an infallible decree binding on all Catholics. It is clearly infallible given the language used in the constitution itself. It is also entered into the Acta Apostolica Sedis. Moreover, this constitution, like its forerunner, Pope St. Pius X’s (Vacante sede apostolica), is a codification of papal election law which dates back to the earliest centuries. While rewriting Pope St. Pius X’s previous constitution, Pope Pius XII was careful to substantially retain the original codification in his own constitution. VAS infallibly declares that any acts during an interregnum which violate papal law or attempt to correct, amend or dispense from these laws or canon law itself are null and void. (To read the first four paragraphs of this constitution go to https://www.betrayedcatholics.com/vacantis-apostolicae-sedis/). Epikeia is defined not only by modern theologians but by the ancients as a correction or emendation of the law (The History, Nature, and Use of Epikeia in Moral Theology, Father Lawrence Joseph Riley, 1948, The Catholic University of America Press, Inc).

Traditionalists gravely erred in employing epikeia to correct or dispense from canon law without even presenting credible research to justify such an unprecedented exception to Church teaching and practice. They refused then and refuse now to even acknowledge the existence and binding nature of VAS, while daring to acknowledge Pope Pius XII as the last true pope. They flagrantly defy their obligation to address the fact that because they disobeyed an infallible decree whose existence, import and effects were never even publicly presented or discussed, VAS invalidated the “sacramental” acts issuing from this presumed permission. This does not only indicate that they erred, it proves that they deliberately acted as they did in order to be recognized as valid hierarchy and the continuation of Christ’s Church on earth. This deception, coupled with Can. 104 and VAS, nullifies everything they have done.

Secondly, in VAS Pope Pius XII infallibly forbids any usurpation of papal jurisdiction. The pope alone has the right to approve the appointment of bishops, the establishment of dioceses in which seminaries may be erected: these are all jurisdictional acts. According to Can. 215, “The Supreme Authority of the Church has the exclusive right to erect dioceses…” (Decisions entered into the AAS also reflect the restriction of erecting religious foundations to the Roman Pontiff.) Canon 331 states: “…The Holy See has the exclusive right to pass judgment on the suitability of any candidate for the episcopate.” Canon 1518 tells us: “The Roman Pontiff is the supreme administrator of all ecclesiastical goods.” Woywod-Smith comment: “The legal person who holds title to church property and goods is not free to use and dispose of these goods at will… The Roman Pontiff is by his very office the supreme administrator.” (So what about all those fancy churches and residences?)

Canons 953 and 2370 demand the presentation of the papal mandate proving the priestly candidate has been appointed to a diocese by the pope prior to consecration. This necessity of the mandate is reiterated in the pontifical for episcopal consecration itself; without it, the consecration cannot proceed. This constitutes a conditio sine qua non — an indispensable condition specifically confirmed by Canon Law and VAS — which declares that acts usurping papal jurisdiction are null and void if even attempted. Since VAS is the higher law governing all activity during an interregnum, and especially given its infallible nature, it clearly prevails over any other law. It lays down conditions which must be obeyed until a true pope is canonically elected.

We return to the example above for the existence of a conditio sine qua non. “But a circumstance which does not of its nature affect the substance of a[n] [trans]action… may, by [the] express stipulation [of the parties], be made a condition sine qua non. In that case it is substantial not by nature” (but by command of the Supreme Pontiff, whom all are bound to obey if they wish to be saved.) Here Bouscaren and Ellis used the example of parties agreeing to a contract, so the example is not exact. What this basically boils down to, however, is that the Church requires that the specified matter, form and intention be observed to guarantee validity in each of the seven sacraments. The reception of the papal mandate is not part of these three requisites necessary for validity. It is, though, an added indispensable condition, not able to be omitted during an interregnum, for the Sacrament of episcopal Orders to be validly conveyed.

Bouscaren and Ellis state: “…If but for the error,” the instance or act would not have occurred. “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. The same is true if the error, though not substantial by nature, is made so by a condition sine qua non.” The act of consecration was nullified in advance, not after the fact. It could not happen, therefore, the pope infallibly teaches, it did not happen without his permission. The person consecrating was forbidden to act and incapacitated from conveying orders without the mandate. He appeared to convey them, but his acts were empty gestures; the recipient received nothing. Even if there was a question of whether Canon 104 states that either error or what “amounts to a conditio sine qua non” must be present. In this case, in two different instances — both error and conditio sine qua non — were present. If there is any question about whether VAS amounts to such a condition, the law itself solves the problem: “…otherwise the action is valid, unless the law states the contrary…” (Canons 103-104). Well VAS does state the contrary.

The theologian Suarez explains as follows: “In the first place, when a law establishes a substantial form for some act, then in no case can that act subsist without the form thus laid down. If that form be disregarded, then invalidity will result from the attempt to posit the action. For, as there can be no valid Sacrament without the form designated by Our Lord (nor in regard to it can there be any epikeia or dispensation by one other than by Christ Himself), the same must be said cum proportione of every act devoid of the substantial form designated for it by law. In the second place, every invalidating law either disqualifies entirely the person involved from positing the act in question or disqualifies him from making a contract except in accordance with the form designated by law. Now, this incapacity which has been effected by law cannot be removed by epikeia. (Ibid., Father Lawrence Joseph Riley, The History, Nature, and Use of Epikeia in Moral Theology).

Fr. Riley adds to this quote in his conclusions: “Epikeia can never confer the capacity to act. Epikeia cannot bestow upon him the power which he does not now possess, nor can epikeia restore the power which the law has withdrawn.” VAS withdrew the power of bishops to consecrate without the papal mandate. Pope Pius XII did not nullify anyone’s Orders, as Traditionalists sneeringly allege against those questioning the validity of their pseudo-clergy: he withdrew the power of those attempting to confer them without the papal mandate during an interregnum, so that whatever they did had no effect. You can scarcely nullify something that could never take place to begin with. It is no different than declaring a marriage invalid before it ever occurs if either party is not of canonical age (Can. 1067). This is something entirely within the realm of the powers of the papacy. After all, decisions were frequently made by the Holy Office declaring orders doubtfully valid or never received at all and ordering conditional or absolute ordination in certain cases.

Conclusion

“A prohibitory law of its very nature admits the excuse of ignorance or moral incapacity and on this basis will frequently cease in its cogent force. Not so an invalidating law. Invalidation is not premised on an obligation but is derived from the will of the legislator who seeks to protect the common good of society and wishes to safeguard it more compellingly from fraud, injury and danger. The inviolable observance of invalidating laws is constantly urgent because their transgression presents a far graver danger to society itself” (Doubt in Canon Law, Rev. Roger Viau, S.T.L, J.C.L., 1954, pg. 69; Catholic University of America dissertation). And VAS is definitely an invalidating and prohibitory law, not to mention an infallible one. Above we see the reasons why such laws cannot be relaxed to accommodate the wishes of Traditionalists disingenuously claiming they act on behalf of the common good.  As proven in previous works, the laws they have violated work to the destruction, not the salvation, of the faithful. This was noted also in the  quotes from the dissertation written by Rev. McCoy above.

Canon 21 reads, “Laws enacted for the purpose of guarding against a common danger bind, even though, in a particular case, there is no danger.” And as history amply proves, during the vacancy of the Holy See, there is definitely danger — danger of an attempted takeover of the Church, of lay interference in the election, of unworthy candidates elevated to the episcopate and the papacy, of the violation of papal law and Canon Law on which the Church’s foundation is laid — all these are deadly serious reasons for invalidating future acts that would lead to these things. And the teachings found in VAS are not just fears harbored by Pope St. Pius X and Pope Pius XII but are a reflection of precautions taken throughout the centuries by occupants of the Holy See. The hierarchy has been forbidden to exercise any sort of papal jurisdiction or attenuate Church law during an interregnum since the early Middle Ages. This is listed as a footnote to VAS.

An important note to readers

We began this article by referring to Msgr. Joseph Przudzik’s assessment of the orders conferred by the Polish Catholic National Church. We wish to repeat here his preface to the final assessment of those Orders, although it does not specifically apply to the case at hand above. In Part 2 of Schism in America he writes:

“In view of the paucity of material and the difficulties in getting at it, it is understandable that this article does not consider itself an authoritative interpretation of the validity of the orders of the various… Polish sects. The conclusions… enumerated are therefore private opinions of the present writer which are offered in all humility and with the consciousness that there is a possibility they may not represent the mind of the Church. For that reason, the author puts them forth only tentatively. He freely and willingly submits his opinions to any future decision that may eventually be rendered by the infallible authority of the Catholic Church. AT THE SAME TIME, THE PRESENT WRITER BELIEVES THE SUBJECT OF SUFFICIENT CURRENT INTEREST AND IMPORTANCE TO MERIT PRESENT CONSIDERATION… As far as can be gathered from the present available documents, according to the rules of logic and orthodox theology, ALL THE EVIDENCE POINTS TO THE HIGHLY PROBABLE INVALIDITY OF [THESE] ORDERS.”

And I state the same, with one exception. Unlike Msgr. Przudzik, we already have the full weight of an infallible decision supporting these conclusions in VAS, and this provides formal certitude. Today it is of the utmost importance to end this ungodly imposture foisted on those who think they are members of the Church Christ established on earth. It should also be noted here that I have compiled a great deal more information and theological proofs to back up my conclusions than Msgr. Przudzik was able to present. 

The evidence shows that Traditionalist pseudo-clergy cannot be CONSIDERED AS VALID, regardless of any future decision of the Holy See, which may never be forthcoming. Therefore, the faithful cannot without grave sin consult or attend their services or receive the “sacraments” or any such thing from any of these men. Not only do they themselves commit sin in doing so, they commit a second sin by cooperating with the person who administers the sacrament requested. I would like to close with the following from Msgr. Przudzik, commenting on the inroads made by the Polish schismatics:

“Such is the result of 40 years of tunneling under the Church of God. It cannot be said that from the schismatics’ point of view it is certainly unsuccessful. Indeed it urges upon all faithful members of the Catholic Church the necessity of realizing just how grave the situation is. Too frequently and too long has the importance of the break been minimized. Perhaps the realization of how many souls are being led astray frequently without even realizing they are being led out of the Catholic Church will start some large-scale, concentrated effort to bring them back.” And this is far truer in our situation than it could ever have been during a time when a true Roman Pontiff reigned. May God have mercy on us all.

EPILOGUE

The magic show

Simon Magus or Simon the Magician first appears in Acts 8: 9-29, and also is mentioned by St. Justin Martyr in his works. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, “By his magic arts, because of which he was called ‘Magus’, and by his teachings in which he announced himself as the ‘great power of God’, he had made a name for himself and had won adherents… [Following his conversion] Simon offered [the Apostles] money, desiring them to grant him what he regarded as magical power, so that he also by the laying on of hands could bestow the Holy Ghost, and thereby produce such miraculous results… He appeared as an opponent of Christian doctrine and of the Apostles, and as a heretic or rather as a false Messias of the Apostolic age.” The Church derives the word simony from this heretic, but the better takeaway from his story is his title as magician.

Simon envied the apostles. It wasn’t their inner spiritual life and conviction he wished to obtain but their power, and that to awe others with its miraculous results. He coveted the episcopacy. He was so enamored with the thought of this power and what it could do for his reputation and career that he offered to buy it from the Apostles. It is believed that after initially repenting he returned to his career as a magician. Had Traditionalists existed then, they would have been happy to provide him with orders. Today they have managed to create an empire Simon would have been proud to claim for his own. Appealing to the ignorance of their followers, they have managed to convince them that they are the actual Catholic Church, the continuation of the line of apostolic successors that existed following the death of Pope Pius XII. But as seen above they lie; they can never constitute that succession. To be an apostolic successor, one could possess jurisdiction without orders, but one cannot possess Orders without jurisdiction.

No one will question that Traditionalists present as the only true Church, and definitions found on the Internet confirm this.

1.“We traditional Catholics believe in the 2000 years of Catholic teachings, practices and tradition.”

2. “A Traditional Catholic does all in his power to preserve the Holy Faith in a manner consistent with how it has always been understood, and who strives to preserve all of the liturgical rites and customs of the Church as they were before the ‘spirit of Vatican II’ revolution. Traditionalists are not some ‘branch of the Church,’ or (necessarily) some ‘splinter group’; they are usually and quite simply Catholics.”
3. “Traditionalist Catholics believe that they are preserving Catholic orthodoxy by not accepting all changes introduced since the Second Vatican Council.”

So based on the above, can we say that Traditionalists are magicians? Do they do what magicians do? Magic is defined as “the art of influencing or predicting events and producing marvels…  the art of controlling the actions of spiritual or superhuman beings…” It can also mean “one of the members of the learned and priestly class,” taken from the cult of the Magi. Magicians perform magic tricks and illusions with the help of props, making the impossible appear to be possible to the audiences they entertain. Now an illusion is defined by Merriam-Webster as: (1) “A misleading image presented to the vision: optical illusion. (2) something that deceives or misleads intellectually.” And we find it mentioned by St. Paul in 2 Thess. 2:9, where he tells us the Mystery of Iniquity will appear “in all power, signs and lying wonders” to deceive, if possible, even the elect.

Traditionalists to all appearances present as valid priests and bishops able to operate as such, when in fact the Church forbids them to function.  They refuse to answer questions regarding their validity and ability to function. They insist they uphold the teachings of the Church, but they tacitly deny the necessity of the Roman Pontiff for the Church’s existence and fail to abide by the infallible teachings of the continual magisterium They use theological-sounding arguments to attempt to prop up their position, arguments that appear to be learned but can be, and have been, proven to be actual heresies, errors and logical fallacies. And according to the teachings of the Church, arguments based on logical fallacies are invalid.

They also act as entertainers, actors celebrating the Church’s Latin Mass and “sacraments” with all due pomp and splendor, to produce optical wonders and effect magical graces. Only we know from all the above that this cannot happen when they are forbidden to celebrate Mass, administer the “sacraments” and commit mortal sin by doing so, involving those who receive them in mortal sin as well. This is not grace; this is evil perpetrated as good. And it is evil they are well rewarded for; witness the fruits of their labors reflected in the grand church buildings and rectories many of them have built. Were they truly confecting the sacraments, it might be called simony, since they could not exist without their well-heeled followers.

Over time this impersonation of the Church has resulted in a lessening of the horror that it once had, or should have had, when the scarce few “woke” Catholics first realized what was actually happening and disowned them. Those now exiting this sect often do so almost reluctantly, on principle and faith alone, rather than with any sense of horror or urgency. There is no real appreciation of the enormity of the offenses committed against Our Lord, which are seen by those departing this group in a light filtered through an emotional attachment to what they thought was the Mass, the Eucharist and other religious externals. There is a general forgetfulness that these men act only in Christ’s stead and are His ambassadors, that they do not and cannot act in any other way, and that anything anyone once thought they received from them acted to their damnation, not their salvation.

The best way to describe this reaction is desensitization, a mental process that works to lessen genuine responsiveness to something negative or aversive after repeated exposure to it. One of the key reasons it is difficult to completely dismiss these men as offensive to Our Lord and useless, even possibly as agents of the devil, is their claim to possess validity, something they cannot be at all certain they possess and have no right to exercise without that certainty. It is this dilution of evil, based on the propaganda instilled by Traditionalist sects, that causes so many to return to them eventually.

All that Traditionalists do is designed to create illusion and deceive. They practice a sleight of hand with the faith, literally, in imposing hands to ordain “priests” and consecrate “bishops,” who because they are not validly consecrated wear only the mitres common to wizards. Epikeia is the magic wand they wave to make all their acts virtuous and valid. They somehow presume the magical lifting of all their censures in this “emergency,” penalties still on the books in the 1917 Code and binding. In this way they circumvent the scrutiny of the Holy Office, sidestepping the necessary reconciliation of any Orders they may be judged to have received, the lifting of any irregularities and vindicative penalties, the public adjuration of their errors and the performance of any penance assigned. Without this no one has any assurance they are even priests, far less bishops. All this is far more than a contradictory intention or one based on a future event. It is the sort of malice envisioned by Cardinal Billot, only on a much grander scale.

The science of illusion

Pope St. Pius X explains the dual personality of a Modernist in his encyclical Pascendi dominici gregis, where he describes such a heretic as “…proclaiming publicly his profound respect for authority, while continuing to follow his own bent.” This is how Traditionalists dismiss the papacy and is followed by a contempt for dogma and discipline, which the pope also notes.  St. Pius X further condemns Modernists for their rejection of logic in the scholastic method of philosophy and theology, and for using sentiment and emotion to hijack the intelligence. What he says about this is very revealing, for he explains that faith is to be reduced to a “religious sentiment” and dogmatic formulas “sanctioned by the heart.” Sacraments are only “symbols and signs, although not devoid of a certain efficacy… [They are] the result of a double need, for everything in their system is to be explained by INNER IMPULSES OR NECESSITIES,” and this describes Traditional pseudo-clergy’s quest for power and adulation as superheroes with magical powers, swooping in to save the Church.

Everything about the methods of the Modernists speaks of Traditionalism. But those who identify only the Novus Ordo church with the introduction and practice of Modernism would never believe it existed or could exist in their own “true” church. They fail to heed Pope St. Pius X’s warning that “They are to be sought not only among the Church’s open enemies; they lie hid, a thing to be deeply deplored and feared, in Her very bosom and heart and are the more mischievous the less conspicuously they appear… They put their desires for Her ruin into operation not from without but from within; hence the danger is present almost in the very veins and heart of the Church, whose injury is the more certain the more intimate is their knowledge of Her.” St. Pius X also observes that there were among the Modernists those who were not necessarily for reform in worship; he calls them “admirers of symbolism,” (the retention of the Latin Mass). Today this is all Traditionalists have left: SYMBOLS of what were once the REALITIES of the Catholic faith — the “magic” peddled by Traditionalist pseudo-clergy.

Final comments

Traditionalists claim to be the true Church on earth, yet by defying all Her laws, commanded by Pope Pius XII to be kept in place unchanged, they demonstrate their contempt for the faith and thus make manifest their true intentions. Although unable to claim any type of jurisdiction, they cite as their “mission” the salvation of souls, although they could never have received such a mission, which is conveyed only by the grant of jurisdiction. The attenuation of the episcopal rite of consecration to exclude obedience to the Roman Pontiff, or postpone it to the future, makes it very clear that a) they are not the continuation of Christ’s Church on earth and b) cannot possibly possess the intention to function as bishops who will continue that Church as Christ Himself established it. Rev. Leeming states above that: “In the case of bishops or priests who fall into heresy the presumption stands that they intend to do what Christ wills unless THE NATURE OF THEIR HERESY gives ground to suspect that they are so convinced that Christ does not will a particular effect of Sacraments that they absolutely exclude this from their intention.”

The presumption in this case cannot stand and must therefore yield to truth: claiming existence as THE true Church, they are bound to obey and be in communion with a visible Roman Pontiff. Pietro Parente et al state under the subject of Intention in their Dogmatic Dictionary: “The Church, moreover, is a well-organized Body in which every vital movement, linked to an external rite must depend in some way on the visible head. It is necessary therefore that every infusion of new, vital energies, caused by the Sacraments be in some way dependent on the visible head of the Church and on Her hierarchy…” It is this very necessary dependence they absolutely deny; they are convinced that bishops alone can rule the Church indefinitely without electing a Roman Pontiff. And this is diametrically opposed to Christ’s expressed will and intention for His Church.

The destruction of the Church was planned long ago, and the methods devised; Modernism was one of these specifically developed to infiltrate the Catholic clergy, seeding the evolution of dogmas and false philosophy. The Hegelian method used to move the process forward can be seen to apply to what we see unfolding today; the evolution of dogma and worship, accomplished by the philosopher Hegel’s pagan formula, thesis, antithesis, synthesis. Thesis is a statement or theory put forward as a premise to be defended or proved; Antithesis is the opposite or contradiction of the thesis and Synthesis is the compromise that results in resolving the conflict between thesis and antithesis. It can be seen at work easily in Communism.

The object is a final composite of two sides or philosophies, not admitting any one thing as absolute truth. The creation of the Novus Ordo church was only the first step in the Church’s destruction; the dragon cast down to earth. The second step was the creation of the antagonist church, the dragon pursuing the woman, to make it appear there was an alternative to the NO and better deceive the elect. The constant struggle between the two churches would then result in a new church, or the absorption of the antagonist church into the first church, which to some extent has already occurred. Agents of destruction were active on both sides, owing to the successful infiltration of Modernists beginning in the 19^th century. The new church in Rome was Modernism proper; Traditionalism was the Gallicanist version of the same error.

Both churches were devoid of any sort of authority or power to confer the sacraments, only in different ways. The Novus Ordo openly, with its false popes, revision of the rites of the Sacraments, and finally the desecration of the Mass. Traditionalists secretly, hidden in a maze of Church laws and teachings they consistently misrepresent, deny and dismiss; topics the average layperson, barely educated in the basic catechism, can scarcely grasp. What would the faithful do if they discovered their true plight? Then there could be an actual return to the faith, and this Satan wished to prevent at all costs. Traditionalism is the holding cell, until their plans for the new super church are accomplished. As demonstrated in previous articles, Traditionalists are really only the creatures of the Old Catholics and Gnostic-infiltrated sects existing prior to Pope Pius XII’s death. We can speculate about their origins and the source of the infiltration, but that is about all we can do. The rest is in God’s hands.

APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTION VACANTIS APOSTOLICAE SEDIS

by T. Stanfill Benns | Jun 23, 2023

APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTION
VACANTIS APOSTOLICAE SEDIS

© Copyright 2012 Irene Keast

(The translator of this document, who is not to be confused with the copyright holder, graduated from a major Catholic university with a B.A. in Classical Languages and later obtained an M.A. in the same from a secular university. S/he also taught high-school Latin for eight years, Greek for three years and was a free-lance translator of ecclesiastical Latin for 20 years.)

Note: Translator’s explanatory notes are bracketed and italicized.

Continually in the course of the centuries, Our Predecessors solemnly determined to order and define the procedures of governance of the vacant Apostolic See and the election of the Roman Pontiff, for which they were supposed to provide; and in the same manner they endeavored to apply themselves with watchful care and to devote their energies to useful rules in the weighty business divinely entrusted to the Church, to wit, electing the successor of Blessed Peter, Prince of the Apostles, who on this earth is the Vicar of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, and as supreme Pastor and Head feeds and rules all the Lord’s flock.

However, since there was already a desire to have collected into one place these laws about electing the Roman Pontiff, enlarged in number in preceding ages, and since some of them, less accommodated to special circumstances, had become outdated on account of changed conditions, the great man Pius X, our Predecessor, with judicious advice decided forty years ago to reduce them (appropriately selected) to a summary, having published the well-known Constitution Vacante Sede Apostolica on the twenty-fifth of December of the year 1904.

To be sure, in the meantime, Pius XI, of recent memory, judged that some chapters of a Constitution of this kind should now be changed just as the pattern of events and the times seemed to demand; likewise, We Ourselves mindfully took into consideration that other things also had to be reformed for the same reason.

Wherefore, having seasonably considered the matter, with sure the knowledge and the plenitude of Our Apostolic power, We have undertaken to publish and promulgate this Constitution, which is the same as that given by Pius X, of holy memory, but reformed throughout, “which,” to use the words of the same Predecessor of Ours, “the Sacred College of Cardinals shall solely use during the vacancy of the Apostolic See and in electing the Roman Pontiff,” the Constitution Vacante Sede Apostolica, having therefore been abrogated, according as it had been brought forth by Our Predecessor Pius X. But let the chapters of Our Constitution at hand be considered as these that follow.

TITLE I

ON THE VACANT APOSTOLIC SEE

CHAPTER I

Concerning the Power of the Sacred College of Cardinals while the Apostolic See is Vacant

1. During the vacancy of the Apostolic See, regarding those things that pertained to the Sovereign Roman Pontiff while he lived, the Sacred College of Cardinals shall have absolutely no power or jurisdiction of rendering neither a favor nor justice or of carrying out a favor or justice rendered by the deceased Pontiff; rather, let the College be obliged to reserve all these things to the future Pontiff.¹ Therefore, We declare invalid and void any power or jurisdiction pertaining to the Roman Pontiff in his lifetime, which the assembly of Cardinals might decide to exercise (while the Church is without a Pope), except to the extent to which it be expressly permitted in this Our Constitution.²

2. Likewise we command that the Sacred College of Cardinals shall not have the power to make a determination in any way it pleases concerning the rights of the Apostolic See and of the Roman Church, nor attempt in any way to subtract directly or indirectly from the rights of the same on the pretext of a relaxation of attention or by the concealment of actions perpetrated against these same rights even after the death of the Pontiff or in the period of the vacancy. On the contrary, We desire that the College ought to watch over and defend these rights during the contention of all influential forces.³

3. 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. This prohibition is especially applicable in the case of Pontifical Constitutions issued to regulate the business of the election of the Roman Pontiff.⁴ 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.

4. Nevertheless if any doubts should arise concerning the sense of the regulations that are contained in this Our Constitution, or even concerning the means according to which these things should be set forth in practice, or about any other chapter at all of this our Constitution, We ordain and declare that the power of imposing an authoritative decision about these things is only in the hands of the Sacred College of Cardinals, for which purpose We grant full faculty to the same Sacred College of Cardinals, whereby they have the full power to interpret this Our Constitution and clarify doubts. Indeed, in this matter, just as in the rest, should it happen that the College deliberate on those things with respect to the implications of this our Constitution, excepting the very act of election, it will be wholly sufficient if a majority of the assembled Cardinals agree in the same opinion.⁵

5. Equally, in the case of urgent business, which, in accordance with the will of a majority of the Cardinals assembled, cannot be postponed to another time, the Sacred College can and ought to act similarly for a suitable remedy according to the opinion of the majority.⁶

CHAPTER II

Concerning the Congregations [meetings] of the Cardinals

6. In the period when the See is vacant, the Congregation of Cardinals may be viewed as having two divisions, one the general, or the entire College, the other the particular, consisting of three senior Cardinals, one from each Cardinalitial Rank, along with the Camerlengo of the Holy Roman Church; the term of their office expires on the third day after entry into the Conclave, and three others following in Rank take their places on each and every third day together with the same Camerlengo.⁷

7. We desire that in the aforementioned Particular Congregations, which can be held either before or after the beginning of the Conclave, only business of lesser importance be handled, such as that occurring daily or here and there. If, in fact, there should be something of more serious importance or something demanding careful investigation, the whole matter should be reported to the General Congregation, or, if you will, to the Sacred College of Cardinals. Furthermore, those things that are determined, resolved, or denied in one Particular Congregation cannot be revoked, changed, or granted in another; instead, only the General Congregation itself has the right to do these things by a plurality of votes.⁸

8. Let the General Congregations of Cardinals be held in the Apostolic Vatican Palace, or, if the circumstances demand it in the judgment of the Cardinals, in some other suitable place, and let the Cardinal Dean of the Sacred College preside over the meetings or, if he is impeded, the Sub-dean.

9. Let the votes in the Congregations of Cardinals be given not by voice but by secret votes, when more serious matters are treated.

10. Among the General Congregations worthy of special mention are those which are held before entry into the Conclave, and those can be called Preparatory Congregations.

11. The General Preparatory Congregations must in general take place daily, from a day after the death of the Pontiff, to be fixed by the prudent judgment of the three senior Cardinals in each Rank and the Camerlengo of the Holy Roman Church, up to the day on which the Cardinals enter the Conclave, even on the days on which the funeral rites of the deceased Pontiff are being carried out; and let this be done on purpose so that the Cardinal Camerlengo be free [i] to make inquiry into the opinion of the Sacred College and to communicate with it what things he judges necessary or suitable and [ii] to make known to individual Cardinals his own opinion concerning current business, to inquire thoroughly into explanations in doubtful matters, and to propose useful things.

12. The following matters must be especially handled in the previously mentioned General Congregations⁹, the order of business having been shared with the Cardinals beforehand:
13. In the first Congregations, this present Constitution will be read in its entirely, and when it has been read, an oath will be sworn by all the Cardinals present according to a prescribed formula.¹⁰ All the other Cardinals who arrive later at the place of election must equally swear the oath, whether the Assembly has not yet or has already begun.
14. The Cardinals should as soon as possible decide and dispose of all those things that are rather urgent in order to begin the Conclave.
15. The day, the time, and the manner in which the body of the dead Pontiff shall be moved to the Basilica of St. Peter must be set, there to be exposed publicly for veneration of the faithful.
16. Likewise the Cardinals will take care that all things are fitly prepared so that the Pontifical funeral rites be performed for a period of nine consecutive days, and they will determine the days on which the first six [services] will be held.¹¹
17. Let two male ecclesiastics be appointed who should recite the prayers De Pontifice defuncto [e., concerning the deceased Pontiff] and De eligendo Pontifice [i.e., concerning electing a Pontiff].
18. Let the day be fixed on which, if it be requested, access may be given to the Ambassadors of civil governments and to the Knights of the Order of Jerusalem to meet with the Sacred College. The aforesaid Ambassadors may be admitted only if gathered together in a group, and let no faculty of approaching the Sacred College be granted to individuals.
19. Let them nominate two committees each of three Cardinals, popularly called Commissions, α) for the examination of the qualities of the Conclavists and for approval of them,¹² as well as for the designation of those who for any reason whatsoever should serve the Conclave by way of those services to be arranged for or managed; β) for the building and enclosing of the Conclave, and for the arrangement of the cells.¹³
20. Let the expenses of the Conclave be determined and approved.
21. Let the letters of Emperors, of Kings, and of other Heads of State, likewise the reports of the Nuncios, and all other things that can be of interest to the Sacred College, be shared with it.
22. Let there be read to the Sacred College of Cardinals the documents left by the deceased Pontiff, if there are any.
23. Let the Fisherman’s Ring and the lead Seal of the Apostolic Chancery be broken.
24. Let the cells [e. private apartments] of the Conclave be distributed by lot to the Cardinals,¹⁴ unless the advanced age or the bad health of a Cardinal should seem to counsel otherwise.
25. Let the day and hour of entry into the Conclave be fixed.

CHAPTER II

Concerning Some Special Offices While the Apostolic See is Vacant

13. The offices of the Camerlengo of the Holy Roman Church and the Grand Penitentiary do not cease at the death of the Pontiff.¹⁵

14. If, however, a vacancy of one or both offices will have occurred at the time when the Supreme Pontiff dies, or if it happens before the election of a new Pontiff, then in the first General Congregation, in the former case, or in another General Congregation that will be held three days after the ensuing vacancy of either of the two aforementioned offices, let the votes or approval of the assembled Cardinals be sought after and given by secret ballot for the appointment of a man who may fill the place of the Camerlengo of the Holy Roman Church or the Grand Penitentiary until the election of the new pope; the ballots are to be collected by the Masters of Ceremonies even from infirm Cardinals and opened in front of the three Cardinals senior in rank at that time, with the Secretary of the Sacred College and the same Masters of Ceremony being present. Let him be considered appointed on whom a majority of the aforesaid votes agreed, and thus We grant to the appointee all the faculties that the Cardinal Camerlengo himself or the Grand Penitentiary could exercise.¹⁶ But if by chance the votes are equal in number, let him be held appointed who is higher ranking in Cardinalitial Rank, or, if of the same Cardinalitial Rank, the older, namely by his selection for the Rank of Bishop among Cardinals of that Rank, but among Cardinals of the other Cardinalitial Ranks, by their elevation to the sacred purple.

15. During the vacancy of the Apostolic See, the care and administration of the goods and temporal rights of the Apostolic See itself fall to the Cardinal Camerlengo along with the Cardinals Senior in Cardinalitial Rank assisting him at the time in his duty, or to the Heads of the Cardinalitial Ranks, and after the approval of the Sacred College has been obtained beforehand, once for lesser matters and every time for more serious matters. Hence the Cardinal Camerlengo of the Holy Roman Church, from the moment he receives the announcement of the Pontiff’s death from the Master of Chamber will proceed to the Apostolic Vatican Palace to take possession of and govern it, in the same way that, whether by himself or through a delegate, he will also take possession of the two palaces at the Lateran and at Castel Gandolfo and govern them. It will be duty of the same Camerlengo: [i] to certify legally the death of the Pontiff in the presence of the Cleric Prelates of the Venerable Apostolic Camera [e., the office that administers the property of the Holy See], along with the Secretary-Chancellor, whose task it is to complete the original certificate of death;¹⁷ [ii] to establish, after having heard the Cardinal Heads of the Cardinalitial Ranks, the more appropriate and apt manner for the preservation of the body of the dead Pontiff according to the conditions of the times (unless perchance the Pontiff himself while alive clearly expressed his will on this matter); [iii] to place the seals on the private rooms of the same Pontiff; [iv] to pass word of the Pope’s death to the Cardinal Vicar in the City, who will inform the Roman People by means of a special announcement; and [v] in the name of and with the consent of the Sacred College, to attend to all the things that the circumstances of the times recommend to safeguard the rights of the Apostolic See and to administer it rightly.

16. However, it will be the duty of the Cardinal Dean of the Sacred College, as soon as he is informed of the death of the Pontiff by the same Master Chamber, to make known the vacancy of the Apostolic See to the other Cardinals, and to summon them to the Apostolic Palace, and likewise to communicate the death of the Pontiff to the Ambassadors of Foreign Nations, and also to the personages of the Nations who possess the highest power.

17. During the vacancy of the Apostolic See, the Grand Penitentiary and his officials can do and expedite those things that were established and defined by Pius XI, of happy remembrance.¹⁸

18. The office of the Chancellor of the Holy Roman Church does not expire with the death of the Roman Pontiff; nevertheless, during the vacancy of the Apostolic See, the dispatching by him of Apostolic Letters under a lead seal is suspended. To be sure, the office of the Datary wholly expires at the death of the same Pontiff.¹⁹

19. Likewise, the office of the Cardinal Secretary of State ceases at the death of the Pontiff, and while the See is vacant, the Prelate-Secretary of the Sacred College performs that duty. But if this office is already vacant, or if during the vacancy of the Apostolic See it happens to become vacant, it will be the responsibility of the Sacred College to appoint, by a plurality of votes, someone to the office, that is to say, for as long as the Apostolic See is vacant.

20. On the other hand, the office and jurisdiction of the Cardinal Vicar in the City do not expire at the death of the Pontiff. But if, while the See is vacant, the Vicar of the City should pass away, in order that the Faithful of the City and of his District thereby not suffer a loss in spiritual matters, the Vicegerent then in place, for as long as the See is vacant, will have each and every faculty, authority, and power, which in any way whatsoever corresponded to the same Vicar for the exercise of the office of the Vicariate, and those powers that the Pontiff himself, if the Vicariate were vacant while the See was occupied, customarily grants at some time or other for a certain period to the aforesaid Vicegerent, until, that is to say, he appoints a successor Vicar.²⁰

21. Likewise, the office and power of the Envoys, Nuncios, and Apostolic Delegates do not cease while the See is vacant.

22. Moreover, there are those who rightly know that in this critical time, when it is a question of electing the Pontiff, divine assistance must be more zealously sought by continual prayers and other works of Christian piety and charity, and that one must be diligent to be deserving; therefore, just as We very highly commend, so We also wish to be retained the laudable custom observed hitherto [i] that the Secret [e., private] Almoner of the deceased Pontiff continue to exercise his office, with due submission and deference on his part to the Sacred College of Cardinals, until the new Pontiff is elected, and [ii] that while the See is vacant the same amount of money be distributed and dispersed by the Almoner himself for the assistance of the same poor and needy, which is customarily distributed while the Pontiff is alive; to this end, let the usual mandates be expedited by the three Senior Cardinals in Rank at the time, or their deputies.²¹

23. While the Apostolic See is vacant, all the Roman Pontiff’s civil power with respect to the rule and governance of the Vatican City State pertains to the Sacred College of Cardinals, which, nevertheless, will not be able to make laws, except in the case of urgent necessity and for the time period of the vacancy of the See; any such laws will be valid for the future only if the new Pontiff decides to confirm them.²²

CHAPTER IV

Concerning the Sacred Roman Congregations and Tribunals and their Faculties during the Vacancy of the Apostolic See

24. Regarding the faculties of the Sacred Roman Congregations during the vacancy of the See, these rules that follow must be observed by everyone, notwithstanding any and all privileges.

25. While the See is vacant, the Sacred Congregations have no power in those things that while the See is occupied they cannot do or expedite unless facto verbo cum Ss.mo, [“after having spoken with His Holiness”] or ex audientia Ss.mi, [“as a result of an audience with His Holiness”] or vigore specialium et extraordinariarum facultatum [“owing to special and extraordinary faculties”], special conditions that are customarily granted by the Roman Pontiff to the Prefects or Secretaries of the same Congregations.

26. Indeed, the faculties which are granted to them by Apostolic Letters, and accordingly are considered as the ordinary and proper faculties of these Congregations, are not extinguished by the death of the Roman Pontiff.

27. Nevertheless, We wish that the Sacred Congregations use these ordinary faculties, freely, for a suitable advantage only in granting those favors that are of minor significance. But in those matters that must be expedited or determined, which seem to more serious or disputed, We ordain it that, if it be such a matter that can be put off to another time, let it be wholly reserved to the future Pontiff; but if it cannot be put off to another time, we grant to the Sacred College that it can entrust the matter to the Prefect or to several Cardinals of his Congregation, to which the Pontiff would have probably entrusted the matter for examination; the Cardinals, after the matter has been carefully discussed, can thereon decide provisionally, until the Pontiff is elected, the questions that, in accordance with the prudence given to them by God, are apt and suitable for safeguarding and protecting ecclesiastical rights and policies.²³

28. The Tribunal of the Sacred Rota and the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura, during the vacancy of the See, continue to render decisions on points of law according their proper body of rules, having observed, nonetheless, canons 244 § 1 and 1603 § 2, Code of Canon Law, which have been prescribed.

CHAPTER V

Concerning the Funeral Rites of the Roman Pontiff

29. After the death of the Roman Pontiff, the Cardinals will perform the funeral rites for his soul for nine consecutive days according to custom, unless by chance on those nine days some special or great feast should fall, in virtue of the observance of which the funeral rites may be viewed as discontinued for an interval, or also if a certain truly grave and urgent reason should present itself, which in the prudent judgment of the Cardinals compels them to suspend the order of the funeral rites: however, the funeral rites interrupted by chance will be resumed, if there is sufficient time. In fact, on the last three days, the funeral rites themselves will be celebrated by a more solemn ceremony; and on the last day of these same funeral rites, the prayer De Pontifice defuncto [e., concerning the deceased Pontiff] will be delivered by a male ecclesiastic appointed for this purpose.

30. If the interment is done in the Vatican Basilica, the Notary of the Chapter of the same Basilica will fill out the official instrument of entombment. In fact, afterward let a Cleric of the Venerable Apostolic Camera as well as some delegate from the Master of Chamber of the deceased Pontiff separately complete the documents that prove the interment was carried out, the first in the presence of the Venerable Apostolic Camera, the second in the presence of the Master Chamber.²⁴

31. If it should happen that the Roman Pontiff passes away outside the City of Rome, it will be the duty of the College of Cardinals to fittingly arrange for the worthy and proper transferal of the body to the Vatican Basilica of St. Peter.

TITLE II

CONCERNING THE ELECTION OF THE ROMAN PONTIFF

CHAPTER I

Concerning the Electors of the Roman Pontiff

32. 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.²⁵

33. If it should happen that the Roman Pontiff die during the celebration of any general Council, whether it be held in Roma or in any other place in the world, the election of the new Pontiff must be effected always and exclusively by the sole College of Cardinals, but by no means by the Council itself: We declare invalid ipso jure [e., by the law itself] acts of a Council, which in any way whatsoever may seem to weaken by a reckless venture the exclusive right of the Sacred College of Cardinals; again, besides the aforementioned Cardinals, any other persons of any kind whatsoever at all have been barred from carrying through the same election, even the ones to be appointed perhaps by the authority of the Council itself. And furthermore, in order that, in an election of the kind referenced, the Cardinals be able to proceed more freely and expeditiously, with every impediment absolutely removed and any occasion whatsoever of disturbance and discord taken away, the Council itself, at whatever state or juncture it may appear, must be considered ipso jure suspended immediately upon receipt of the indisputable notice of the Pontiff’s death, to such an extent that, with absolutely no intervening delay, it must immediately end any whatsoever meetings, congregations, and sessions and cease from drafting any whatsoever decrees or canons, under pain of nullity of the same; nor must it continue further owing to any whatsoever reason, even if it seems very grave and worthy of special mention, until the new canonically elected Pontiff orders the Council resumed and continued.²⁶

34. No Cardinal can in any way be excluded from the active and passive election of the Supreme Pontiff on the pretext or by reason of any excommunication, suspension, interdict, or other ecclesiastical impediment whatsoever; We, in fact, suspend these censures only for the effect of an election of this sort; they will remain in their own force in other circumstances.²⁷

35. After any Cardinal of the Holy Roman Church has been created and made public in Consistory, he immediately has a voice and a right to elect the Pontiff as a result, even if the cardinalitial galero [e., the heraldic, “pontifical” red hat, a token of a cardinal’s dignity] has not been delivered to him, and even if his mouth has not been closed, or if it shall have been closed but not yet opened [a reference to the old ceremony in the secret consistory following the public consistory, when the pope “opened” the previously “closed” mouths of each new cardinal to allow each to give advice in Church assemblies and then “closed” each one’s mouth so as to prevent him from divulging secrets]. As a matter of fact, this rite of closing the mouth does not pertain to the special faculty of Cardinals that concerns the election of the Supreme Pontiff, but is a kind of ceremony, the reason for its institution was for the Cardinals to be in some way reminded, before they vote in Consistories and Congregations, about discretion, which must be employed by them in these and other proceedings.²⁸

36. Canonically deposed Cardinals, or those who have renounced the cardinalitial dignity with the Roman Pontiff’s consent, have no legal right at an election. On the contrary, during the vacancy of the See, the Sacred College cannot restore or bring back to their former state Cardinals stripped of this right or deposed by the Pope.²⁹

37. We order also that, when it happens that the Pontiff leaves this life, the Cardinals who are present are required to wait for fifteen full days only; in spite of this requirement, the power is granted to the Sacred College of Cardinals to postpone entry into the Conclave even for another two or three days; nevertheless, the rule is that after eighteen days at the most have elapsed³⁰ on which the funeral rites of the deceased Pontiff are celebrated, the Cardinals, in whatever number are there present, must immediately enter the Conclave and proceed to the business of election.³¹

38. For all that, if absent Cardinals should appear unexpectedly, while the matter remains undecided, that is, before the Church has been provided with a Pastor, let them be admitted in the same business in the state in which they found it.³²

39. We order and command all Cardinals, in virtue of holy obedience, after they have been informed of the vacancy of the Apostolic See by the Cardinal Dean (or if he was unable, by another Cardinal) and after they have been summoned to the election of the new Pontiff, that they must comply with the notice of meeting and take themselves immediately to the place assigned to the same Cardinals for carrying out the election of the Pontiff, unless they be detained by a legitimate impediment to be recognized by the Sacred College of Cardinals.³³

40. By chance if anyone should not wish to enter the Conclave or, having entered, should leave without a clear proof of illness sworn to by physicians and approved by a majority of Cardinals, then let the others freely proceed to the election without soliciting his vote and without having to admit him further in the business of the same election. But if, upon becoming ill, it happens that one of them leaves the Conclave, the Conclave can, even while his illness continues, proceed to the election without soliciting his vote; but if he should wish to return to the Conclave, after or before health has been restored to him, let him be admitted again.³⁴

41. Each and every Cardinal not impeded by bodily health must meet for the scrutiny [e., the secret ballot to elect a pope] when the little bell of the Conclave is rung for the third time at the customary locations; if anyone should not comply with that rule, let him incur the censure of excommunication latae sententiae [i.e., “by imposed sentence,” excommunication incurred by the very fact of committing an act deserving censure].³⁵

42. Finally, so as to recall at this appropriate juncture the rules handed down³⁶ about church-dress etiquette, which the Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church must practice while the See is vacant, the things that follow must observed: The choir-cassock that they call cardinalitial, while the same See is vacant, will be purple and woolen, as will be the cappa [e., a kind of mantle]; a silk fascia [i.e., a sash] of the same color with golden tassels, collar, and buskins [i.e., liturgical stockings]; the plain rochet [i.e., a close-fitting, surplice-like garment] is used, decorated with featherlike work both on the yoke and on the ends of the sleeves, which nevertheless may not exceed a width of three centimeters; let them put on over the rochet the mozzetta [i.e., a short cape buttoning at the front] without mantelletta [i.e., a sleeveless garment open at the front]; the skull-cap [i.e., the zuchetto] and the biretta will be red but made of wool; the “usual” [i.e., ordinary] red hat; black shoes. Cardinals taken from the monastic and mendicant Orders wear the habit proper to them by custom. In General Congregations that are celebrated before the Conclave, Cardinals must use rochet and mozzetta; and likewise they must use rochet and mozzetta in the Conclave while the scrutinies continue; in sacred functions that are called Cappellae [i.e., chapels], they will put on the cappa.

CHAPTER II

Concerning the Conclavists and Others Having a Part in the Conclave

43. Let any Cardinal in the Conclave be free to use two clerical or lay servants, or one cleric and one layman; nevertheless, let it be permitted to the Cardinals to bring along with them only the one layman³⁷: however, for those seriously impaired, it is possible that a third servant can be granted by a majority of the Sacred College or by the Cardinal Camerlengo of the Holy Roman Church together with the Cardinal Heads of the Cardinalitial Ranks, with the agreement of a majority of the Sacred College.³⁸

44. The Conclavist-Prelates cannot be related to the Cardinals in the first and second degree by blood or by marriage, even if they might live at their expense, and they cannot belong to the same religious Order or Congregation: Indeed, be it forbidden to all these persons to serve other Cardinals in the Conclave, even though they possess no bond of consanguinity or relationship by marriage or membership in a religious community with those other Cardinals. Before entry into the Conclave, the Cardinal deputies must diligently conduct an examination into the qualities of the Conclavists who ought to be in the forefront in virtue of integrity of character, remarkable prudence, and distinguished reverence for the Holy See; then they should commend those Cardinals, and finally, after the entry into the Conclave, they should diligently seek them out.³⁹

45. In alight of the seriousness of the situation, let the Conclavists take an oath, which must be sworn earnestly and piously according to a set formula.⁴⁰ Wherefore, it will be the task of the Camerlengo of the Holy Roman Church to take care that the above-mentioned oath be sworn by them at least one or two days before entry into the Conclave, after each of them has correctly understood the importance of the oath and the purport of the formula.

46. Moreover, Conclavists and any others serving them who would go out of the Conclave by reason of manifest and evident illness—proved under oath and with the consent of the Cardinal Deputies, whose conscience we also burden [e., require them to act in good conscience], and not otherwise—can in no way return; but, if necessity should require it, in their place let others, who are legitimately approved and admitted and who are already bound by the obligation of the oath, enter at altogether the same time at which the sick will exit.⁴¹

47. Likewise if it should happen that a Cardinal dies in the Conclave, his Conclavists must immediately leave the Conclave and cannot be added to the service staff of another Cardinal in the same Conclave.⁴²

48. In addition, let the Secretary of the Sacred College enter the Conclave, and likewise the Sacristan of the Sacred Apostolic Palace with, at the judgment of the Sacred College, one or more cleric assistants in the office of the Sacristy, and also the Prefect of Apostolic Ceremonies and not more than six Masters of Ceremonies, who will be free from the duties that pertain to them.¹⁸

49. Furthermore, let there be present one Religious for hearing confessions, two Physicians, one Surgeon, and one Apothecary with one or two servants, who all will be selected by a majority of the Cardinals or by the Cardinal Camerlengo of the Holy Roman Church together with the Cardinal Heads of the Cardinalitial Ranks, with the consent of a majority of Cardinals; and let there be present other useful and suitable servants of the Conclave, who must, nevertheless, not be more than necessity demands,⁴³ and who will be selected by a Commission of Cardinals (cfr. n. 12g).

CHAPTER III

Concerning Entry into the Conclave⁴⁴

50. Once the funeral rites of the deceased Pontiff have been carried out, as above, and the Conclave has been in the meantime suitably prepared, the Cardinals gather on the appointed day at the Basilica of St. Peter, or elsewhere depending on the suitability of time and place, where the Mass of the Holy Ghost is celebrated by the Dean of the Sacred College or, if he is unable, by another of the more senior Cardinals; and at the end let a discourse be given by some Prelate or other learned churchman by which they may be advised to attend to providing the Holy Roman and Universal Church with an able and suitable Pastor, with all the speed and diligence they can, after having put aside all private emotions, having God alone before their eyes.

51. Immediately after the divine service has been completed, or in the evening if it is more agreeable to the Fathers, the entry into the Conclave is made. The Master of Ceremonies bearing the Papal Cross leads the way; the Cardinals follow him, first the Cardinal-Bishops, next the Cardinal-Priests, and lastly the Cardinal-Deacons, all dressed in their purple wool choir-cassocks and mozzetta with a silk sash of the same color and plain rochet. The Household Servants of the Cardinals go before the Cross, right after them the Singers singing the Hymn Veni, Creator Spiritus [e., Come, Creator Spirit]: the Prelates follow after the Cardinals, and so processing in order they enter the Conclave; and when they arrive at the Chapel[*], the Dean of the Cardinals at the Altar says the collect Deus qui corda [i.e., O God, Who hast instructed the hearts of the faithful]; when it is finished and after the announcement extra omnes a Saccello [i.e., everybody out of the Chapel] has been made, the present Constitution is read again (having omitted the sections that only treat of things already accomplished); and then the oath, according to the form prescribed above, is again taken by all the Cardinals. Afterward, by means of a short speech and fitting words, the Cardinal Dean encourages all the Cardinals to complete the business of election properly and correctly.

52. After all these things have been brought to an end, the Master of Chamber, who is the Governor of the Conclave, and the Perpetual Marshal of the Holy Roman Church, who is the Guardian of the Conclave, must take an oath according to the established formulas⁴⁵ in front of the Cardinal Dean, while all the Cardinals are present; and let the Prelates, to whom is entrusted the custody of the Rotas of the Conclave (namely, Archbishops and Bishops Assistant at the Pontifical Throne and the Protonataries Apostolic de numero Participantium [i.e., of the number of the participating], the Auditors of the Sacred Roman Rota, and the Cleric Prelates of the Venerable Apostolic Camera do the same thing.⁴⁶

53. When these things have been completed, the Cardinals go to lodge in the cells distributed among them by lot, with the exception of the Cardinals senior in each Cardinalitial Rank and the Cardinal Camerlengo of the Holy Roman Church, who remain in the Chapel in order to proceed to the closing of the Conclave. In the meantime, however, the Officials of the Conclave and others serving in the Conclave again swear the oath already taken (cfr. n. 45) according to the prescribed formulas in the presence of the Secretary of the Sacred College, with the Prefect of Apostolic Ceremonies standing by, appointed for this purpose by the Cardinal Camerlengo of the Holy Roman Church, before whom they had to swear the oath beforehand.⁴⁷

54. Finally, after the little bell has been rung three times by order of the Cardinal Dean, having removed everyone who ought not to remain in the Conclave, with lighted torches, let the three Cardinal Heads of the Cardinalitial Ranks and the Camerlengo of the Holy Roman Church, together with the Secretary of the Conclave, the Prefect and Masters of Apostolic Ceremonies, and also the Architect of the Conclave diligently search the Conclave’s hiding places and corners, lest any one of those who are prohibited from being in the Conclave remain within; after these things, however, let the Conclave be shut within and let the keys be entrusted to the Cardinal Camerlengo of the Holy Roman Church and to the Prefect of Apostolic Ceremonies. However, the Household Servants of the Cardinals and the other Officials and Ministers of the Conclave whom we enumerated above can be in the Conclave; but an inspection of all these Conclavists must be made lest anyone among them be by chance an outsider; in order to make the inspection more certain, all the Conclavist Chaplains are bidden to enter, and afterward are examined one by one.

55. At the same time as it is happening within, let the Conclave be closed from the outside by the Governor and by the Marshal of the Conclave, each one with his own retinue, and also by the Dean of the Cleric Prelates of the Venerable Apostolic Camera with the Secretary-Chancellor appointed by the Cardinal Camerlengo of the Holy Roman Church, along with Masters of Ceremonies and Architects, after due care and searches have been brought to bear beforehand; the keys, however, are entrusted to the Marshal-Custodian.

56. Let the documents for the two effected closures be drafted respectively, the one by the Prefect of Apostolic Ceremonies, to be signed by the Secretary of the Conclave and by the Prefect of Ceremonies himself performing the function of a Notary, with two Masters of Ceremonies as witnesses; the other by one of the Cleric Prelates of the Venerable Apostolic Camera appointed by the Cardinal Camerlengo of the Holy Roman Church, together with the Secretary-Chancellor, at the office of the Marshal of the Conclave, with the Marshall himself, the Prelate Governor of the Conclave, the Commissioner General of the same Conclave, who must be one from the College of Advocates of the Consistorial Court,⁴⁸ and the Governor of Vatican City being present and signing.⁴⁹

CHAPTER IV

Concerning the Closure of the Conclave and Especially Concerning the Secrecy That Must Be Observed in All Those Things That Are Done in the Conclave

57. The election of the Supreme Pontiff must be done in a Conclave, and one that has been closed,²⁶ notwithstanding the removal of nullity of election on account of the regulation on this matter ordained by Gregory XV (or by any other pontifical decree whatsoever).

58. The Cardinals appointed pro tempore [i.e. for the time being] must, either by themselves or through others, rather often visit and diligently examine the cells of the Cardinals and other places of the of the Conclave lest the closure of the Conclave be violated in any way. And if any such thing is found, let the originators be expelled from the Conclave and let them be punished with grave penalties in the judgment of the future Pontiff.

59. When the Conclave has been closed, let no persons be admitted to conversation with the Cardinals or others having a part in the Conclave, unless there are present the Prelates to whom the custody of the Conclave is entrusted, and unless they speak audibly and in an intelligible language. And if by chance anyone enter the Conclave in secret (God forbid!), let him be deprived ipso facto [e., by that very fact] of every honor, rank, office, and ecclesiastical benefice.

60. Likewise, We enjoin that letters or written things of any kind whatsoever, even printed, cannot at all be sent both to those who are in the Conclave (not excepting the Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church themselves) and especially from the Conclave to those who are outside, unless each and every one of these communications be subjected to the examination and inspection of the Secretary of the Sacred College in company with the Prelates who have been appointed to the custody of the Conclave. Excepted from this rule is the exchange of letters, which will be free and unimpeded, between the Office of the Sacred Penitentiary and the Cardinal Grand Penitentiary while he sojourns in the Conclave; and those letters, stamped with the seal of Office, will not be subject to examination and inspection. However, we absolutely prohibit everyone from having daily newspapers or periodicals sent out of or into the Conclave. Indeed, let those who act against the things set forth above be subject to the censure of excommunication latae sententiae.⁵⁴

61. Furthermore, as it has been articulated in the oath formulas already noted above, both for the Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church and for the Conclavists, We strictly command and ordain that secrecy be most scrupulously observed by everyone having a part in the Conclave in all those things that pertain to the election of the Roman Pontiff, and in those things that are done in the Conclave or in the place of election. Hence they are required⁵⁵ to avoid and beware of all things whatsoever that can in any way whatsoever violate directly or indirectly secrecy, whether words, or writings, or signs, or any other things at all, in such a way that those violating this law incur excommunication latae sententiae, from which—just as from any other law set in place and imposed against anyone in this Constitution—they can absolved by no one except by the Roman Pontiff, not even by the Grand Penitentiary in virtue of the force of any faculty whatsoever, except in the moment of death.⁵⁶

62. However, We especially prohibit the Cardinals, under pain of the same excommunication, from disclosing to Household Servants or Conclavists or to any others the things that directly or indirectly refer to the scrutiny, and likewise the things that have been done or decided in regard to the Pontiff’s election in the Congregations of the Cardinals held either before the Conclave or during it.

63. Moreover, we command the Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church, graviter onerata ipsorum conscientia [e., “their conscience having been gravely bound”], that secrecy of this kind be observed even after the election of the new Pontiff has been finished, nor in any way may it be allowed to be violated unless a special faculty for that purpose or an express dispensation is granted by the same Pontiff. It is Our will that this commandment be extended to all others who had a part in the Conclave, if by chance they learned, by good or bad faith, something about those things that have been transacted in the Conclave.

64. Finally, in order to be more strictly mindful of observing secrecy, We entirely forbid from being introduced into the Conclave, under any pretext whatsoever, the instruments that they call telegraph, telephone, microphone, radio, still-camera, motion-picture camera and other instruments of this sort.

CHAPTER V

Concerning the Election’s Mode of Procedure⁵⁷

65. On the following morning, after the closure of the Conclave on the preceding night, and after the customary ringing of the little bell, the Cardinals there present, who are not indisposed by illness, meet at the designated Chapel, and there, after the customary Mass has been celebrated and after the Cardinals, who have willingly refrained⁵⁸ from saying Mass for any reason whatsoever, have received Communion, and afterwards when the hymn Veni, Creator Spiritus has been sung by the Sacristan along with the collect of the Holy Ghost, and also after the instruments of the two closings of the Conclave have been read by the Prefect of Apostolic Ceremonies, they must immediately proceed to the business of the election, which must indeed be carried out in only one of three ways or modes, which are explained below; otherwise the election is subject to the defect of nullity.

66. The first way, which is called quasi per inspirationem [e., “as if by inspiration,” or acclamation], is, namely, when the Cardinals, as though inspired by the Holy Ghost, freely and spontaneously proclaim someone, unanimously and aloud, as the Supreme Pontiff: concerning this method, what has been written below must be noted: First, this mode of election can be employed only in the Conclave and after it has been closed. Second, the election ought to be done according to this form by each and every Cardinal present in the Conclave, even by those who on account of illness are confined to their cells. Third, jointly, and with no one of them dissenting. Fourth, with no foregoing special handling of the person, by the word eligo [i.e., I choose”] uttered in an intelligible voice, and expressed in writing, if he cannot utter it by voice. Now an example of this can be of this sort: If any of the fathers in the enclosed Conclave, with no foregoing special treatment (as noted earlier), should say: “Most Reverend Lords, in view of the singular virtue and probity of the Most Reverend Lord N.N. [i.e., first name, surname], I should judge him to be elected as Roman Pontiff, and now I choose him as Pope.” Then, and after this has been heard, if the other Fathers, no one excepted, following the opinion of the first with the same word “eligo” uttered in an intelligible voice or, if he cannot, expressed in writing, would jointly elect the same N., about whom no special treatment preceded, N. himself would be canonically elected and the true Pope according to this manner of election, which is said to be by acclamation.

67. The second way is per compromissum [e. “by reciprocal agreement” or delegation], namely when, in certain special circumstances, the Cardinals, wishing to proceed to election by this mode or way, entrust the power of electing to some of the Fathers, so that they, in place of all [i.e., on behalf of all the Fathers], may provide a Pastor to the Catholic Church; the exercise of this method must be of this sort: First, each and every Cardinal present in the closed Conclave, with no one dissenting, makes a compromise [i.e., Roman legal term of art meaning a “joint promise to abide by a decision of an arbiter”] with some of the Fathers (that is, with three or five or seven, not with a lesser or greater number), for example, in this form: “In the name of the Lord. Amen. In the year etc., month etc., day etc., We, the Cardinals‑Bishop, ‑Priests, and -Deacons of the Holy Roman Church, each and every one of us being resident in the Conclave, to wit, N. N. (and let all the Cardinals be named one by one), choose to proceed by way of delegation, and, unanimously and harmoniously with no one dissenting, we choose as arbitrators Cardinals N., N., and N. etc., to whom we give full faculty and power of providing the Holy Roman Church with a Pastor, under this method, namely…” (Here it will be necessary for the arbitrating Cardinals to express the mode and form according to which the Arbitrators must choose, and according to which the man elected must be considered the true and legitimate Pope, as for instance, if three Arbitrators were chosen, it must be declared for this purpose whether for the election to be valid they must in advance put forward to the Sacred College the person to be nominated by them to the Pontificate, or whether they should simply go through with the election; whether all three must agree on one person or, indeed, whether it is sufficient that two agree on one, and whether they should nominate someone from the College or even someone outside the College, and other things similar to these. Moreover to these or other similar things expressed in writing must be added the time period for the compromise, up to which the Cardinals wish the Arbitrators to have the power of electing, and afterward these words are subjoined: “And we promise that we will consider him as the Roman Pontiff, whom the Learned Arbitrators think to elect according to the aforementioned form,” or other words adapted to the above-mentioned form. Second, when the mandate of this sort has been finished, the Arbitrators take themselves to an area in another separate and enclosed place, and take care of carrying out the election; and a declaration must be stated first among them, that they do not consider they are giving their consent by any pronouncement of words unless they put it expressly in written words. And this pronouncement is necessary among the Arbitrators so that they can employ among themselves humane and reverent words without prejudice. Third, after the election has been carried out by the Arbitrators according to form prescribed to them, and after the election has been promulgated in the Conclave, the one elected by this method of delegation is the canonical and true Pope.

68. The third and ordinary mode or form of election of the Roman Pontiff is what is called per scrutinium [e., “scrutiny” or secret balloting]. In this respect, We must fully confirm the law laid down for quite a few centuries and very scrupulously observed since then by which it is indeed established that for the valid election of the Roman Pontiff at least two-thirds of the votes are required;⁵⁹ 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, plus one, will agree by secret paper ballots. However, We order that this decree must be brought into practice and observed so that one guard against any occasion of doubting lest the vote of the Elect himself be numbered in the two-thirds of the votes, since no one may ever be moved forward whether by way of scrutiny or compromise to elect himself or be able to give a vote to himself in any respect whatsoever: all the same, the person of the man elected, if he be in the Conclave, ought to counted among the number of Cardinals.⁶⁰

69. The process of scrutiny has three activities: one, which can be termed pre-scrutiny, the second, which can be termed scrutiny, and the third, which can be called post-scrutiny.

70. The steps of pre-scrutiny are four, to wit: [i] the preparation of the paper ballots; [ii] the drawing by lot of the Inspectors, the Deputies for the votes of the sick, and the Reviewers; [iii] the writing [e., filling out] of the paper ballots; [iv] the folding of the same.

71. The preparation and distribution of the paper ballots pertain to the Masters of Ceremonies, who will distribute at least two or three of them to each Cardinal.

72. The form of the paper ballot, as far as its dimensions are concerned, will be broader, i.e. more wide, on one side than long. However, in the middle of its foremost [e. upper] part it, it must contain these words, printed, if it can be done, otherwise written by hand:

Eligo in Summum Pontificem Reverendissimum Dominum meum D. Cardinalem ……..

[i.e. I choose for Supreme Pontiff the Most Reverend Lord, My Lord Cardinal____________]

Accordingly an example of the scrutiny’s paper ballot will be this:

Eligo in Summum Pontificem Rev.mum

1. meum D. Card. ……………………..
2. The second step of pre-scrutiny is the drawing of the names of the Inspectors, Deputies for the votes of the sick, and the Reviewers. The drawing must be conducted by lot in this way before the scrutiny goes forward. In public view, let there be placed in a little bag or receptacle as many slips of paper as there are Cardinals in the Conclave with their names, or if it is more pleasing, small, clearly numbered, wooden spherical tokens: then first let the three Inspectors be drawn by the least senior Cardinal-Deacon, afterward three Deputies for the votes of the sick (who for the sake of brevity will be termed Infirmarii), and finally three Reviewers, the duty of all of whom will be detailed in writing below in its proper place. But if in the drawing of the Inspectors, Infirmarii, and Reviewers, the [names of] Cardinals who cannot carry out the aforementioned responsibilities on account of illness or another impediment are drawn, [the names of] others not impeded will be drawn in their place. After the drawing is completed, let the slips of paper, or the spherical tokens for them, which had been drawn, be thrown again into the little bag or receptacle.

74. The third step of the pre-scrutiny is the writing of the paper ballots. At this juncture, namely before the Cardinals begin to write the name of the one to be chosen on the paper ballots, the Secretary of the Sacred College and the Masters of Ceremonies must leave the hall, so that during the time of the scrutiny the Cardinals remain alone in the Chapel.

Further, after their exit from the hall, it will be the duty of the least senior Cardinal of the rank of Deacons to close the door of the Chapel: and generally to open and close it, as often as it will be necessary, for example, when the Cardinal-Infirmarii go to collect the votes of the sick and afterwards when they return to the Chapel[†], or for any other necessity whatsoever.

75. The writing of the paper ballots will be done secretly by each Cardinal, by writing the name of the one he chooses in the middle portion of the paper ballot, having changed his characteristic writing style, as far as it can be done, so that the hand of the one writing cannot easily be recognized; and let each one beware not to write several names on the paper ballot, because the vote would be null. Let this be a model of the written paper ballot:

Eligo in Summum Pontificem Rev.mum

1. meum D. Card. Baronium [Baronius]
2. The fourth step of the pre-scrutiny is the folding of the paper ballots, which will be done in the middle of the paper ballots, such that the paper ballot itself is reduced to a thumb’s breath, just as can be seen from the figure which is placed here as an example:

Eligo in Summum Pontificem Rev.mum

                  (The place of the fold)

………………………………………………………………………

1. meum D. Card. Baronium

These things suffice for the pre-scrutiny; but that which concerns the sick Cardinals, or those otherwise impeded, will be spoken of in its proper place below.

77. The second activity follows, which has been called by the name of scrutiny. There are eight steps to this activity, namely, the carrying of the paper ballot, the swearing of the oath, the placement of the paper ballot into the chalice, the mixing of the paper ballots, the counting of them, the publication of the scrutiny, the placement of the paper ballots onto a thread, the putting them aside.

78. The carrying of the paper ballots and the two following steps, which are better described together on account of their connection, will be done in this manner. Any Cardinal, having observed the order of precedence, picks up by the first two fingers of his right hand his own paper ballot, after he has written and folded it, and with his hand raised in full view he carries it to the Altar, before which stand the Inspectors and on which there is furnished a large chalice, covered with a paten, for receiving the paper ballots; kneeling there, he will pray for a little while; then rising, in a loud and intelligible voice, he will swear an oath in this form, which is kept written down on a card placed on the Altar:

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.

After these things, he places the paper ballot on the paten, and by means of the paten puts it into the chalice; after that has been done, he bows to the Altar, and returns to his place.

79. These things must be observed if the Cardinal is able to go to the Altar: for if on account of ill health he cannot and is present in the Chapel, the least senior Inspector will go to him; and the sick Cardinal, after he has secretly completed the paper ballot at his place, as has been said above, upon swearing the oath previously mentioned, hands it folded to the same Inspector, who will carry it in public view to the Altar, and without the prayer and the oath will place it on the paten, and by means of it put the ballot into the chalice.

80. If, in fact, there are any sick Cardinals in their cells, the three Cardinal Infirmarii, as drawn by lot above, go to them with a small container with a height of the width of one palm, on the upper part of which is a slot or opening of a size such that through it the folded paper ballot can be transferred by its breadth to inside the container. Before the Inspectors hand over the container to the Infirmarii, they will open it in full view so that the rest of the Cardinals can see that it is without contents and empty; then they will close it and place the key upon the Altar; then the Infirmarii, with the container closed and with a small dish containing enough paper ballots, will go to each one of them; and the sick will secretly write the paper ballots taken from the dish and will fold them, and at this time after swearing the previously mentioned oath will place it into the box through the slot; but if the sick cannot write, either one of the three Cardinals-Infirmarii, or another person at least in clerical orders, to be selected by the decision of any sick Cardinal or of the Infirmarii, having sworn the oath about observing secrecy in the hands of the Infirmarii⁶¹ themselves, will do the things mentioned above: and these individuals must bear in mind that they are not only bound by the fetters of the oath to observe secrecy, but also that they will incur the censure of excommunication latae sententiae, if they should act counter to the law. After these things have been done, the Infirmarii return to the Chapel[‡] with the small container, which the Inspectors will open, and they will in full view count the paper ballots contained in it; and one by one they will put as many ballots found as there are sick Cardinals onto the paten, and by means of the paten put all of them together into the chalice.

Lest, however, the activity of the scrutiny be drawn out at length, the Infirmarii will be able to complete and place their own paper ballots into the Chalice after the Dean, then while the other Cardinals are engaged in the scrutiny, they can go to the sick to take their votes in the way in which it has been said just before.

81. The fourth step of the scrutiny is the mixing of the paper ballots, which will be done by the senior Inspector, having shaken several times the chalice in which these ballots had been placed while it is covered with the paten.

82. The fifth act is the counting of the paper ballots, which will be done in full view by the least senior Inspector, by taking one by one each paper ballot from the chalice and putting it into another empty chalice that has been prepared for this purpose. But if the number of paper ballots does not match the number of Cardinals, all must be burnt, and again, that is, for a second time, they must have recourse to votes [e. voting]. But if the number of paper ballots matches the number of Cardinals, the other steps of the scrutiny are to be continued.

83. The sixth step is the publication of the scrutiny, which will be done in this way by the Inspectors who sit at a table placed before the Altar. The senior Inspector will take one paper ballot and unfold it, and after having seen on the paper ballot the name of the one chosen, will hand it to the second Inspector, who in the same manner, after having viewed the name of the person chosen, will hand it to the third, who will read it in a loud and intelligible voice so that all the Cardinals present can make a note of the vote on a sheet of paper printed with the names of all the Cardinals, which they have in front of themselves: moreover, he will make a note of the name of the Cardinal read from the paper ballot. The same thing will be done with relation to the remaining paper ballots placed in the chalice up to the last one. But if in the publication of the scrutiny the Inspectors find two paper ballots so folded that it appears they were cast by one Cardinal only, if indeed one and the same man is chosen on both paper ballots, the aforementioned paper ballots will be considered and noted down as one vote; but if different men are named, neither vote will be valid; nevertheless, in neither case is the scrutiny spoiled. But after the publication of the scrutiny is finished, the aforementioned votes will be reduced to a summary by the Inspectors who obtained them according to the names of the Cardinals or they will make note of them on a separate sheet of paper, in this manner. The Most Reverend Lord Cardinal A has 20 votes, and the Most Reverend Lord Cardinal B has 15 votes, and so on with the others; this is done lest, when it is necessary, the Cardinals be always forced to count the votes that they made note of next to the names of the Cardinals.

84. The seventh step of the scrutiny is the placement of the paper ballots onto a thread, which has been devised so that the paper ballots themselves can be more securely preserved. However, this placement will be done by the least senior Inspector by threading each paper ballot, after he reads it, with a needle and thread prepared for this purpose, in the place where the word Eligo is

85. The eighth and last step of the scrutiny is the putting away of the paper ballots, which will similarly be done by the least senior Inspector, who, after the placement of all the paper ballots onto a thread has been done, will join the ends of the thread in a knot and put all the paper ballots so tied into another empty chalice or away from everything else on the table

86. The third and last activity follows, which has been called the post-scrutiny, of which there are three steps, namely, the counting of the votes, the review of the same, and the burning of the paper ballots. Thus the first step is the counting of the ballot, which will be done always by the Inspectors, whether or not an election resulted; and if, indeed, an election did not result, in order that it be known that in the scrutiny a Pope has not been elected; but if in fact the election resulted, in order that the canonical election of the Pontiff be established. Moreover, this counting of the votes will be done in this way. The Inspectors will reduce the votes that any nominee obtained to a summary, and if they find that none of the nominees arrived at two thirds of the votes with one vote added over and above, a Pope is not elected; but if they find that some one of the nominees has obtained at least two thirds of the votes with one vote added over and above, the election of the Pope has occurred and is indeed canonically valid. The second act of the post-scrutiny is the review, which will be done by the Inspectors, whether or not an election resulted, by inspecting both the paper ballots of the scrutiny and the notations of the votes made by the Inspectors, so that by a review of this kind it can be established whether the Inspectors fulfilled their duty straightforwardly and faithfully.

The third and last step of the post-scrutiny, which will always be done by the Inspectors in full view, is the burning of all the paper ballots immediately after the review, whether or not an election resulted, before the Cardinals leave the hall, with the help of the Secretary of the Conclave and the Prefect of the Masters of Ceremonies, who have in the meantime been summoned by the least senior Cardinal-Deacon. Nevertheless, if a second scrutiny has to be carried out according to the procedures that will be prescribed[§] below, then the burning of the paper ballots of the first scrutiny will be done at the end together with the paper ballots of the second scrutiny.

87. In order to observe secrecy most securely, We command each and every Cardinal, in virtue of holy obedience, to hand over, to be burnt together with the paper ballots, written notes of every description concerning the outcome of each scrutiny, which he may have with him.

88. In the Constitutions of Our Predecessors, especially in that of Gregory XV, in order to carry out a more unimpeded election, it had been ordered that, after the scrutiny was published, if an election is not accomplished therein by the agreement at that time of two-thirds, immediately before they come to the other steps, the Cardinals could, once in any scrutiny, approach one of the Cardinals who had obtained at least one valid vote in the same scrutiny, provided that he was not the one who had been nominated in the scrutiny by the very same Cardinal himself. Since nonetheless this kind of method of accessus [e., “approach”] was not a little difficult to carry out, especially with respect to those things that concern the inspection, the opening, and the comparison of the paper ballots; or rather since at present, after the careful method of the paper ballots has been introduced by Us, it would turn out to be almost impossible, We, confirming the regulation of our Predecessor Pius X who did not wish to come to this inconvenience and by no means to obstruct in any way the hastening of the desired election, do again ordain and prescribe that in place of this accessus, once both in the morning and in the evening, after the scrutiny has been completed in accordance with the procedures thus far explained, if indeed an election has not resulted therein, the Cardinals must immediately proceed to carry out a new scrutiny, in which they cast their votes again, having by no means taken into account the votes that were cast in the first scrutiny. It is Our will that in this second scrutiny the same procedures as in the first one be observed, such that the Cardinals at least not be bound to swear the oath or to elect new Inspectors, Infirmarii, and Reviewers; rather, let the things that were rendered with respect to these things in the first scrutiny also be valid without renewal for the second.

89. And all these things that have been set forth concerning the procedures of the scrutiny must be diligently observed by the Cardinals in all the scrutinies that must be conducted on each day in the morning[**] after the customary Mass and the hymn Veni, Creator Spiritus with the collect of the Holy Ghost, and afternoon, at a suitable time, equally after the hymn Veni, Creator Spiritus with the collect of the Holy Ghost.⁶²

90. But if the election is conducted in a way other than in scrutiny by paper-ballot, secret votes of two thirds of the Cardinals present, with one vote added over and above, or in a way other than by way of delegation by all the Cardinals similarly present in the Conclave, with nobody dissenting, and such that no one choses himself in that respect, or in way other than by acclamation of all the Cardinals similarly present, with no preceding special treatment, in like manner with no one dissenting, 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.⁶³

91. We declare that all these things that have been said up to now concerning the things preceding the election and concerning the election itself of the Roman Pontiff, must be observed even if it happens that the a vacancy of the Apostolic See occurs by the resignation of the Supreme Pontiff.

CHAPTER VI

Concerning those Things that Must Be Observed or Avoided in the Election of the Roman Pontiff

92. Just as it is well established that the crime of simony, hateful both in divine and human law, is to be wholly rejected, so We reject and condemn it,⁶⁴ and we bind those guilty of this crime with the censure of excommunication latae sententiae, nevertheless, the annulment of a simoniacal election (may God avoid it!), ordained by Julius II or by any other pontifical decree has been removed, in order that the pretext of impugning the validity of the election of the Roman Pontiff be curtailed.

93. Likewise, on the same pain of excommunication latae sententiae, we forbid anyone, even if he be resplendent with a Cardinal’s glory, from presuming, while the Roman Pontiff is alive and without consulting him, to treat of the election of his Successor, or to promise any vote, or to deliberate and decide anything concerning this case in private, arranged meetings.⁶⁵

94. Moreover, We desire that all these things that have been proclaimed and sanctioned about the election of the Supreme Pontiff by Our Predecessors and especially by Pius X⁶⁶ concerning the civil Veto or Exclusiva, as they call it, be confirmed (as We herein renew them wholly and in part), so that, with the removal of every external intervention, there is a care for full freedom in electing the Supreme Pastor. Wherefore again in virtue of holy obedience, under the threat of divine judgment and the censure of excommunication latae sententiae, we forbid each and every Cardinal of the Holy Roman Church, both current and future, and in like manner the Secretary of the Sacred College of Cardinals, and all others taking part in a Conclave to accept from any civil power, on any pretext whatsoever, the assignment of proposing the Veto or Exclusiva, even if under the form of a simple wish, or to disclose this Veto, known to himself by whatever means, either to the entire College of Cardinals assembled together or to individual Fathers distinguished by their purple vesture, whether by writing or by mouth, either directly and immediately, or indirectly and by others, whether before the Conclave or during it. We desire this prohibition to be extended to all interventions, intercessions and other means whatsoever, in which lay powers of whatsoever position or rank might wish to become involved with the election of the Pontiff.

95. In addition, let the Cardinals abstain from all pacts, agreements, promises and any other obligations by which they can be bound to give or not give a vote to somebody or to some men; if these things in fact occur, We declare each and every one null and void, even if an oath has been attached, and no one is bound to the observance of these things, and henceforth we bind those acting against this prohibition under pain of excommunication latae sententiae. Nevertheless, while the See is vacant, We are not of the mind to forbid holding discussions regarding the election.⁶⁷

96. In like manner, We forbid the Cardinals, before they come to the election, to make terms about or to decide certain things by common agreement for the observance of which they are put under an obligation if they are raised to the Pontificate. Likewise, if these things in fact do occur, We declare them null and void, even if an oath has been attached.⁶⁸

97. Finally, by the same words that our Predecessors used, we strongly encourage the Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church, led by no inclination of mind or by aversion, biased by no one’s favor or deference, moved not by the intercession of powers in the world, influenced not by violence or by fear or by the breath of favor, but only having before their eyes the glory of God and the good of the Church in electing the Pontiff, to cast their votes for him whom they judge in comparison to the others as suitable in the Lord to govern the universal Church fruitfully and usefully.⁴⁶

98. Since, in fact, the faithful ought not so much depend upon the aid of human industry, even if diligent, as they must hope in the perseverance of humble and devout prayer, We add this rule, that in all cities, and in other places, at least the more notable ones, when the news of the Death of the Pontiff first arrives, after solemn funeral rites have been celebrated on his behalf by the Clergy and the People, on each day (until the Roman Church is provided with her own Pastor) let humble and incessant prayers be poured out to the Lord, so that He, Who makes harmony in His own lofty affairs, may so form the hearts of the same Cardinals with harmony in the election so that a swift, like-minded, and useful filling of the vacancy follow from their unanimity (as the salvation of souls demands and the benefit of the whole world requires). And lest it happen on the pretext of ignorance that so salutary a proclamation of the present rule be disregarded, We order that, by means of their sermons, the Patriarchs, Archbishops, Bishops, and other Prelates of the Churches, and the rest, whose task it is to announce the word of God, resourcefully encourage the Clergy and the People, who are to be especially assembled together more often on account of this, to perform repeatedly intercessory petitions of suppliant prayers for the swift and happy outcome of so great a matter.⁷⁰

99. Truly, We ask Our Heir and Successor not to withdraw himself, deterred by the difficulty of the office, from undertaking it, but rather to subject himself humbly to the design of divine will: for the very God Who imposes the burden also sets under His hand [e., places His hand under the person as a support], lest he be unequal in bearing it; for He Himself Who is the author of the burden is the helper of the management of it; He who conferred the dignity will give strength lest he fall down ill under the under the vastness of the grace [i.e., office of the papacy].⁷¹

CHAPTER VI

Concerning the Acceptance and the Proclamation of Election and also Concerning the Consecration and Coronation of the New Pontiff

100. After the election has been canonically carried out and after the Secretary of the Sacred College, the Prefect of Apostolic Ceremonies, and two Masters of Ceremonies have been summoned into the hall of the Conclave by the least senior Cardinal Deacon, let the consent of the man elected be asked by the Cardinal Dean in the name of the entire Sacred College with these words: Do you accept the canonically carried-out election of yourself as Supreme Pontiff?⁷²

101. After this agreement has been furnished within a time limit to be determined by the prudent judgment of the Cardinals by a majority of votes (to the extent it is necessary), the man elected is instantly the true Pope, and he acquires and can exercise full and absolute jurisdiction over the whole world⁷³. Hence, if anyone dares to challenge the documents prepared in regard to any business whatsoever that comes from the Roman Pontiff before the coronation, We bind him with the censure of excommunication to be incurred ipso facto.⁷⁴

102. After the Cardinal Dean asks, “By what name do you wish to be called?” the evidentiary record concerning the acceptance of the new Pontiff and the name assumed by Him is filled out, with the Prefect of Apostolic Ceremonies performing the duty of a Notary, with the Secretary of the Sacred College and two Masters of Ceremonies employed as witnesses.

103. Then, after having done the things that by custom have to be done according to the Caeremoniale Romanum [e., The Roman Ceremonial, a liturgical book with instructions for papal ceremonies], the Cardinals furnish the first “adoration” [i.e., homage] to the Supreme Pontiff Elect; after that has been completed and the hymn Te Deum [“We praise Thee, O God”] has been sung, the new Roman Pontiff is made known to the awaiting people by the Senior Cardinal Deacon,⁷⁵ and, a little while after, the Pontiff himself bestows the Apostolic Blessing Urbi et Orbi [i.e., “to the City and to the World”]. Then follows the second “adoration,” which the Cardinals, dressed in purple cappas, carry out.

104. If the Elect is living outside the Conclave, the norms that are contained in the Roman Ceremonial, book I, title 1, Concerning the Conclave and the Election of the Pope 37, must be observed.

105. Finally after all these things have been duly fulfilled, at the command of the new Pontiff the Conclave is opened, both from within and without; the customary certificate of this opening is completed as sanctioned in number 56 above. Moreover, after the Conclave has been opened, the people are admitted who by custom are usually introduced to the elected Pontiff for the “adoration.”

106. When the Supreme Pontiff decides, the Cardinals are to be informed by the Prefect of Apostolic Ceremonies to perform the third “adoration.”

107. But if the man elected is not yet a Priest or a Bishop, he will be ordained and consecrated by the Dean of the Sacred College of Cardinals, who then uses the pallium [e., the circular woolen band worn by popes and archbishops signifying fullness of episcopal power]: ⁵³ if the Cardinal Dean is absent, the privilege falls to the Sub-Dean, and if he is also absent, to the senior suburbicarian [i.e., pertaining to the 7 episcopal sees near Rome] Cardinal-Bishop.54

108. Finally the Pontiff is crowned by the Cardinal-Protodeacon⁵⁵ and when He pleases, he takes possession of, by means of the prescribed ceremony, the Patriarchal Lateran Archbasilica.

Since the entire business has been seriously considered, and moved by the examples of Our Predecessors, We therefore ordain and prescribe these things, decreeing that this present document and whatever is contained in it can by no means be challenged, even from the fact that any persons having a right or interest in things said beforehand, or pretending to have an interest in any way whatsoever, do not agree to them, and are not called upon or heard relative to these things, or from whatever other reasons; but rather that these same documents are manifestly and will be always and perpetually true, valid, and effective, and acquire and obtain their own full and undiminished results; and we command those individuals to whom it pertains and will pertain for the time being to vote, that the ordinances must be respectively and inviolably observed by them, and if anyone should happen to try otherwise relative to these things, by whatever authority, knowingly or unknowingly, the attempt is null and void.

We desire also that this document of Ours be read in the presence of all in the first Congregations usually held after the death of the Pontiff, as above (no. 12 a); again after entry into the Conclave, as above (no. 51); likewise when anyone is raised to the dignity of the purple, after having pledged a solemn oath to scrupulously preserve the things that have been decreed in the present Constitution.

Notwithstanding any whatsoever Apostolic Constitutions and Orders to the contrary issued by Our Predecessor Roman Pontiffs, which, to the extent it is necessary, We declare each and every one to be abrogated, as above, and even other matters worthy of individual and special mention and derogation.

Therefore, let it be permitted to no man to weaken this page of Our constitution, ordinance, abrogation, commandment, binding order, warning, prohibition, precept, and will, or to go against it by a rash undertaking. Moreover, if any one presumes to attempt this, let him know that he will incur for it the anger of Almighty God and of the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.

Given in Rome, at St. Peter’s, a.d. 1945, on the eighth day of December, on the feast of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, in the seventh year of Our Pontificate.

Footnotes

[1] Pii IV Const. In eligendis, VII Idus Oct. [i.e., Oct. 9] 1562, § 6; Clem. XII Const. Apostolatus officium, IV Non. Oct. [i.e., Oct 4] 1732, § 6.

[2] Clem. V in Conc. Viennensi, cap. 2, Ne Romani in pr. de elect., I, 3 in Clem.

[3] Leonis XIII Const. Praedecessores Nostri, 24 Maii 1882.

[4] Clem. V cap. 2, Ne Romani in pr. de elect., I, 3 in Clem.; Greg. XV Const. Aeterni Patris, XVII kal. Dec. [i.e., Nov. 15] 1621, § 20.

[5] Leonis XIII Const. Praedecessores Nostri.

[6] Greg. X in gener Conc. Lugdun., cap. 3, Ubi periculum, § 1 de elect., I, 6 in Sext.; Pii IV Const, In eligendis, § 6.

[7] Clem. XII Const. Apostolatus officium, § 7 ; Pii IV Const. In eligendis §§ 7 et 8.

[8] Clem. XII Const. Apostolatus officium, § 7.

[9] Clem. XII, Chirografo [i.e., in the apostolic letter signed by the pope] Avendo Noi, 24 Dec. 1732, n. 17.

[10] The formula of the oath to be sworn by the Most Eminent and Most Reverend Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church: “We the Cardinals-Bishop, -Priests, and -Deacons of the Holy Roman Church promise, vow, and inviolably swear that each and every one of Us will precisely observe all things regarding the vacant Apostolic See contained in the Constitution of the Supreme Pontiff Pius XII, which begins with the words Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, given on the eighth of December in the year 1945. Likewise, We promise, vow, and swear that whichever of Us will be raised to Roman Pontiff, with God so disposing, will completely and readily defend and protect the spiritual as well as temporal rights, especially those of the sovereignty of the Roman Pontiff, and the liberty of the Holy See, and, if it is necessary, to champion it, never to desist. We especially promise and swear, under the penalties established in the aforementioned Constitution of Pius XII, Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, that We as well as all persons, even Our household servants or Conclavists, will most scrupulously observe secrecy in all the things that pertain in anyway whatsoever to the election of the Roman Pontiff , and in the things that may be done or decided about this matter in the Congregations of the Cardinals, held before the Conclave or during it, and likewise concerning those things that are done in the Conclave or in the place of election, directly or indirectly, regarding the scrutiny; and We will not violate in anyway the aforesaid secrecy, whether during the Conclave or even after the election of the new Pontiff, unless a special faculty or an express dispensation is granted to Us by the same Pontiff; and likewise, in no way whatsoever will we accept from any civil power, on whatsoever pretext, the assignment of proposing the Veto or Exclusiva, even if under the form of a simple wish; or [in no way will we] disclose this Veto, known by whatever means, either to the entire College of Cardinals assembled together or to individual Fathers distinguished by their purple vesture, whether by writing or mouth, either directly and immediately, or indirectly and by others, whether before the Conclave or during it; and we will give aid or favor to no intervention, intercession, or other means whatsoever, in which lay powers of whatsoever position or rank might wish to become involved with the election of the Pontiff.” Let the Cardinal Dean order this formula to be read in a loud voice by the Prefect of Apostolic Ceremonies in the presence of all the Cardinals. Then let each Cardinal say: “And I N. Cardinal N. solemnly promise, pledge, and swear.” And placing both hands on the Gospels, let him add: “So help me God and these holy Gospels of God.”

[11] Pii XI, Motu proprio Cum proxime, 1 Mart. 1922, n. 1.

[12] Pii IV Const. In eligendis, § 17.

[13] Pii IV Const. In eligendis, § 15; Clem. XII Const. Apostolatus officium, § 10.

[14] Pii IV Const. In eligendis, § 13.

[15] Clem. V, cap. 2, Ne Romani, § 1, de elect., I, 3 in Clem.; Pii IV Const. In eligendis, § 9; Clem. XII Const. A postulatus officium, § 15.

[16] Clem. V, cap. 2, Ne Romani, § 1, de elect., I, 3 in Clem.; Clem. XII Const. Apostolus officium, § 15; Bened. XIV Const. In Apostolicae, Idibus Apr. 1744, § 4.

[17] Pii XI Const. Ad incrementum, 15 Aug. 1934, ii. XCVIII.

[18] Const. Quae divinitus, 25 Mart. 1935, n. 12; cfr. Benedicti XIV Const. Pastor bonus, Idibus Apr. 1744, §§ 51-55.

[19] Pii IV Const. In eligendis, § 11.

[20] Clem. XII Const Apostolatus officium, § 17.

[21] Clem. XII Const. Apostolatus officium, § 25.

[22] Legge fondamentale dello Stato della Città del Vaticano, 7 giugno [i.e., June] 1929, n. 1.

[23] Clem. XII Const. Apostolatus officium, § 18.

[24] Cfr. Pii XI Const. Ad incrementum, n. C.

[25] Pii IX Const. In hac sublimi, X Kal. Septembr. [i.e. Aug. 23] 1871 and Consulturi, 10 Oct. 1877 ; Leonis XIII Const. Praedecessores Nostri.

[26] Pii IX Const Cum Romanis Pontificibus, pridie Nonas Dec. [i.e., Dec. 4] 1869; Cod. I. C. can. 229.

[27] Clem. V, cap. 2, Ne Romani, § 4, de elect., I, 3 in Clem.; Pii IV Const. In eligendis, § 29; Greg. XV Const. Aeterni Patris, § 22.

[28] Pii V decr. on the day of 26 Ian. 1571; Caeremoniale Greg. XV, § Porro; Cod. I. Ç. can 233, § 1.

[29] Bonif. VIII, cap. un., de schismatic., V, 3 in Sext. ; Pii IX Litt. Quamquam, 29 Septembris 1867.

[30] Pii XI Motu proprio Cum proxima, n. 1.

[31] Greg. X, cap. 3, Ubi periculum, § 1, de elect., I, 6 in Sext.; Pii IV Const. In eligendis, §§ 2, 3, 5.

[32] Greg. X, cap. 3, Ubi periculum, § 1, de elect., I, 6 in Sext.

[33]Leonis XIII Const. Praedecessores Nostri.

[34]Greg. X, cap. 3, Ubi periculum, § 1, de elect., I, 6 in Sext.; Pii IV Const. In eligendis, § 4.

[35]Greg. XV Const. Aeterni Patris, § 17.

[36]S. Congr. Caeremonialis, Norme ceremoniali per gli E.mi Signori Cardinali, 6 Gennaio [Jan. 6] 1943, n. 33.

[37]Pii XI Motu proprio Cum proxime, n. II.

[38]Pii IV Const. In eligendis, § 16.

[39]Pii IV Const. In eligendis, § 17.

[40] The formula of the oath to be sworn by the Masters of Ceremonies and by all other ecclesiastical Conclavists appointed for matter, one or two days before entry into the Conclave, in the presence of the Secretary of the Sacred College, with the Prefect of Apostolic Ceremonies present: “ I……..set before you, with the most holy Gospels of God placed before me having been touched by me, promise and swear that I will inviolably observe secrecy in each and every thing that may be done or decided about the election in the Congregations of the Cardinals and in the Conclave or the place of election respecting the scrutiny directly or indirectly, and which I have learned about in any way whatsoever so that I may not be at liberty to violate it, neither directly not indirectly, neither by nodding or by word, neither in writing or in any other way whatsoever; and likewise I promise and swear that in no way will I use in the Conclave any instruments whatsoever prepared for transmitting or receiving voice, or for representing images by light in any manner whatsoever; and this not only on pain of excommunication latae sententiae reserved in a special way to the future Pontiff, also negatively with respect to the Sacred Penitentiary [i.e., to the exclusion of the Sacred Penitentiary], but also under pain of loss of any benefice, pension, office or duty, to be incurred ipso facto in case of transgression. I shall observe secrecy most exactly and most scrupulously even after the election of the new Pontiff is completed, unless a special faculty or an express dispensation is granted to me by the same Pontiff. Equally I promise and swear that in no way will I accept from any civil power, on whatsoever pretext, the assignment of proposing the Veto or Exclusiva, even if under the form of a simple wish, and [in no way will I] disclose this Veto, known by whatever means, either to the entire College of Cardinals assembled together or to individual Cardinals, whether in writing or by mouth, either directly and immediately, or indirectly and by others, whether before the Conclave or during it; and we will give aid or favor to no intervention, intercession, or other means whatsoever, in which lay powers of whatsoever position or rank might wish to become involved with the election of the Pontiff. So help me God and these holy Gospels of God, which I touch with my own hands.”

Formula of the oath by the Conclavists and other lay assistants. [In the published Constitution, there follows a somewhat free but very faithful Italian translation of the above oath.]

[41]Pii IV Const. In eligendis, §24.

[42]Clem. XII Chirogr. [i.e., in the apostolic letter signed by the pope] Avendo Noi, n. 16.

[43]Pii IV Const. In eligendis, § 18; Clem. XII Const. Apostolatus officium, § 13.

[44]Cfr. Caeremoniale Greg. XV.

[45] Formula of the oath to be taken by the Prelate Governor of the Conclave and by the Prelates to who the custody of the Rotas of the Conclave is entrusted.

“I………..solemnly promise, pledge, and swear that I will perform my office diligently and scrupulously according to apostolic rules and the norms given by the Sacred College of Cardinals. So help me God and these holy Gospels of God.”

The formula of oath for the Marshal-Custodian [the same formula as above, but in Italian with the words Maresciallo-Custode substituted for the named prelates].

[46] Pii XI Const. Ad incrementum, nn. XXXVII, LXX, CIII.

[47] The formula of the oath to be given by the Secretary of the Sacred College and by the Prefect of Apostolic Ceremonies is the same thing as the formula to be sworn by other ecclesiastical Conclavists (number 45, note 4 [i.e., 40 in this translation, where notes are numbered according to the endnotes of the text on the Vatican website; the text of the Acta Apostolicae Sedis uses footnotes]) except the beginning which is as follows: “I…….with the most holy Gospels of God placed before me having been touched by me, promise and swear that I will be faithful in each and every thing to the Sacred College of Cardinals and I will diligently and scrupulously perform my office. Likewise I promise and swear that I will inviolably, etc.”

[48] Bened. XIV Const. Inter conspicuos, iv kal. [i.e., Aug. 29] Septembr. 1744, § 31.

[49] Cfr. Pii XI Const. Ad incrementum, n. CII

[50] Greg. X cap. 3, Ubi periculum, § 1, de elect., I, 6 in Sext.; Greg. XV Const. Aeterni Patris, § 1.

[51] Pii IV Const. In eligendis, § 15.

[52] Greg. X cap. 3, Ubi periculum, § 1. de elect., I, 6 in Sext.; Pii IV Const. In eligendis, § 19;

[53] Pii XII Const. Quae divinitus, n. 12.

[54] Greg. X cap. 3, Ubi periculum, § 1. de elect., I, 6 in Sext.; Pii IV Const. In eligendis, § 20; Clem. XII Const. Apostolatus officium, § 11.

[55] Greg. XV Const. Aeterni Patris, § 20.

[56] Greg. XV Const. Aeterni Patris, § 19.

[57] Cfr. Caeremoniale Greg XV.

[58] Pii XI Motu proprio Cum proxime, n III.

[59] Alex. III in Concil. Later. cap. 6, Licet de vitanda, de elect., I, 6; Greg. XV Const. Aeterni Patris, § 1.

[60] Greg. XV Const. Aeterni Patris, § 2.

[61] Formula huiusmodi iurisiurandi haec erit:
«Ego N. spondeo, voveo ac iuro me fideliter impleturum munus ab Emo Cardinali N. mihi commissum schedulam eius nomine et vice conscribendi, et inviolabile secretum semper servaturum de iis quae in ea continentur, sub poenis in Constitutione Pii XII Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, diei octavi Decembris anni millesimi nongentesimi quadragesimi quinti statutis.
Sic me Deus adiuvet et haec Sancta Dei Evangelia».

[62] Greg. XV Const. Aeterni Patris, §17.

[63] Greg. XV Const. Aeterni Patris, § 19.

[64] Iulii II Const. Cum tam divino, XIX kal. Febr. 1505.

[65] Symmachus Papa in Synod. Rom., c. 2, D. 79; Pauli IV Const. Cum secundum Apostolum, XVII kal. Ian. 1558.

[66] Const. Commissum Nobis, 20 Ian. 1904.

[67] Greg XV, cap. Ubi periculum, § 4, de elect., I, 6 in Sext.; Pii IV Const. In eligendis, § 26; Greg. XV Const. Aeterni Patris, § 18.

[68] Pii IV Const. In eligendis, § 3 ; Greg. XV Const. Aeterni Patris, § 18.

[69] Greg. X, cap. 3, Ubi periculum, § 4, de elect., I, 6 in Sext. ; Pii IV Const. In eligendis, § 26; Greg. XV Const. Aeterni Patris, § 23; Clem. XII Const. Apostolatus officium, § 5; Pii IX Const. Licet per Apostolicas, VI Idus Sept. 1874; Leonis XIII Const. Praedecessores Nostri; Pii X Const. Commissum Nobis.

[70] Greg. X, cap. 3, Ubi periculum, § 5, de elect., I, 6 in Sext.

[71] Leonis XIII Const. Praedecessores Nostri.

[72] Caeremoniale Rom., lib. I, tit. I, de Conclavi et Electione Papae, § 84.

[73] Cod. I. C, can. 219.

[74] Clem. V, cap. 4, De sent. excomm., V, 10 in Extravag. comm.

[75] Caerem. Rom., lib. I, tit. I, de Conclavi et Electione Papae, § 35; Cod: I. C„ can. 239, § 3.

[76] Caerem. Rom., lib. I, tit. II,  § 13.

[77] Cod. I. C, can. 239, § 2.

[78] Caerem. Rom., lib. I, tit. II, De ordin. et consecrat. novi Pontificis, § 18.