by T. Stanfill Benns | Sep 28, 2022
From the Baltimore Catechism
What does Father Thomas Kinkead tell American Catholics on lawful pastors in the catechism used in Catholic schools in the 1940s and 1950s, before the decline of the Church? In his “An Explanation of the Baltimore Catechism,” #4, Fr. Kinkead writes in Q. 115: “What is the Church? A. The Church is the congregation of all those who profess the faith of Christ, partake of the same sacraments, and are governed by their lawful pastors under one visible head.” The Baltimore Council’s approved Catechism #3 for adults, also written by Rev. Kinkead, tells us in the answer to question # 494 that lawful pastors are “those in the Church who have been appointed by lawful authority and who have therefore a right to rule us.” Note that this says nothing of the supposedly “validly” consecrated bishops who have created these priests; it mentions only lawful authority. Lawful bishops, as will be seen below, are only those consecrated with papal mandate following their appointment by the pope.
“Even if valid orders exist, where jurisdiction is lacking there is no real apostolicity. Schism, as well as heresy, destroys apostolic succession,” (Rev. Thomas Cox, “Pillar and Ground of Truth,” 1900). 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:
- 60: Who after the pope are lawful pastors of the Church?
- The bishops who have been canonically instituted, i.e., who have received from the Sovereign Pontiff a diocese to govern.
- 73: Why is it not sufficient to be a bishop or priest in order to be a lawful pastor?
- 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, (emphasis by the author, Joseph McVey).
- 77: How is the power of jurisdiction communicated?
- 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 receive his spiritual powers from the Pope and a pastor who did not receive his from a lawful bishop, would be AN INTRUDER OR SCHISMATIC” (emphasis, McVey).
So not only are Traditionalist “priests” and “bishops” illicitly ordained and consecrated, without a true pope they possess no jurisdiction whatsoever.
Canon Law expresses the same concept
This is based on Canon 147, which Pope Pius XII strengthened with special excommunications. It reads: “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.” Above we have seen that a bishop can be canonically appointed and sent into his diocese only by a legitimately elected pope. Only a canonically appointed bishop who has received jurisdiction from a pope can delegate that jurisdiction to the priests in the diocese to which he has been duly appointed. Only lawful pastors who validly possess an office in the Church have a right to rule the faithful as pastors.
Canon 147, which according to the Sacred Congregation and Pope Pius XII, based on “Sacred principles” is no ordinary canon. And because it is an invalidating and inhabilitating law, any attempt to intrude oneself into an office or appoint anyone to that office without canonical provision is null and void; it simply never takes place.
The decision of the Sacred Congregation issued June 29, 1950 (AAS 42-601) gives the text of DZ 967 (DZ indicates a teaching from Denzinger’s Sources of Catholic Dogma, 1957, available online) and yet another version of DZ 960, varying slightly from the Denzinger translation: “If anyone says that…those who have been neither rightly ordained nor sent by ecclesiastical and canonical authority, but come from a different source, are lawful ministers of the word and of the sacraments: let him be anathema,” (DZ 967). If this is compared to what Rev. McVey and Canon 147 says above, one can see it is in perfect agreement. The document from the Holy Office, beginning with DZ 960, continues as follows: “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…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…”
And here censures specially reserved to the Holy See are mentioned. The ipso facto excommunications are incurred by the ones occupying or holding an ecclesiastical office contrary to the canons and without any provision and those who allow anyone to be placed in these offices. Also excommunicated are those who have any direct or indirect part in such crimes. Ipso facto excommunication means that by the very act of performing such, the performer and receiver of the action are both excommunicated. No formal declaration or edict from Rome is required. If we examine the sources of this law in the footnotes to Canon 147, we see that it is based on Pope Pius VI’s Charitas, the condemnation of those bishops and priests who swore allegiance to the civil constitution in France following the French Revolution.
“Love, which is patient and kindly, as the Apostle Paul says, supports and endures all things as long as a hope remains that mildness will prevent the growth of incipient errors. But if errors increase daily and reach the point of creating schism, the laws of love itself, together with Our duty, demand that We reveal to the erring their horrible sin and the heavy canonical penalties which they have incurred. For this sternness will lead those who are wandering from the way of truth to recover their senses, reject their errors, and come back to the Church, which opens its arms like a kind mother and embraces them on their return. The rest of the faithful in this way will be quickly delivered from the deceits of false pastors who enter the fold by ways other than the door, and whose only aim is theft, slaughter, and destruction…”
- “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…”
- “At length We beseech you all, beloved Catholic children, in the kingdom of France; as you recall the religion and faith of your fathers, We urge you lovingly not to abandon it. For it is the one true religion which both confers eternal life and makes safe and thriving civil societies. Carefully beware of lending your ears to the treacherous speech of the philosophy of this age which leads to death. Keep away from all intruders, whether called archbishops, bishops, or parish priests; do not hold communion with them especially in divine worship. Listen carefully to the message of your lawful pastors who are still living, and who will be put in charge of you later, according to the canons. Finally, in one word, stay close to Us. For no one can be in the Church of Christ without being in unity with its visible head and founded on the See of Peter.”
Again in Charitas, we see the same dogmas stressed, the same terms used as are used above. The Church is the same forever; Her teachings never change. Unless jurisdiction comes directly from the pope through the bishops in communion with him to the priests, the chain of apostolic succession is broken and the faithful must not avail themselves of these intruders. This time period in France was similar to our own. Pope Pius VI makes the position of the Holy See concerning ecclesiastical jurisdiction as regards illicit consecrations and ordinations very clear. Both Charitas and Pope Pius XII’s decision on Canon 147 are documents of the ordinary magisterium; they are binding on all Catholics as infallible decrees, and deserve a firm and irrevocable assent, as the Vatican Council teaches.
Excommunication involving communicatio in sacris
Those championing the “old priests” seem to hold the opinion that the present laws on heresy and schism call for a judgment concerning whether or not the heresy or schism was committed. The Church herself does not require us to jump through endless hoops to determine this. It is not true that lay people cannot and should not judge heresy and schism, for how else are they to protect themselves from such contagion in their day-to-day lives? The fact that they can so determine what is heresy or schism is proven as follows: “Although it is evidently established by you that Peter is a heretic, you are not bound to denounce him if you cannot prove it,” (DZ 1105; Pope Alexander VII). If I consistently see a priest enter a non-Catholic church to celebrate services and I know that in order to celebrate these services he must utter words attributed to Christ which are not His own, and violate a decree of an ecumenical council to do this (see DZ —), I must certainly denounce and avoid such a man. Nor can he gain re-entrance to the Church unless he publicly renounces his errors, does penance and is absolved and then abjured by the Holy See or a bishop delegated to abjure him.”
In the (temporary) absence of a true pope and hierarchy, we must look for our answers to the questions of the day in the most secure places, and one of those places is the research of true priests studying for their degrees as doctors of Canon Law. These dissertations, most published by the Catholic University of America, cover the history of the various canons, their development over time, the opinions of well-respected theologians concerning the various aspects they cover and arrive at conclusions concerning their proper application, as documented in case histories. These works were duly approved by the proper bishop and published following the reception of the author’s actual doctorate. Being the only real case studies on these topics outside the Canon Law Digest and commentary by various canonists, they are the most reliable sources of information on the Sacred Canons that Catholics could follow today. In fact we are bound to prefer them exclusively to any so-called teachings of “Traditionalists” because they are issued by certainly lawful authority with the power to instruct, and possess the ecclesiastical approval necessary as a guarantee of orthodoxy. This current “Traditionalist” writings and oral teaching cannot and do not possess. If these “Tradionalist” priests were so well versed in Canon Law, where is their research, their justification for what they are doing? Are people aware that the Church had quite a few lay canonists with licentiates prior to Vatican II and that Canon Law even made special allowances for their studies?
Heresy and schism are not difficult to judge
In his dissertation The Delict of Heresy (1932), Rev. Eric MacKenzie, A.M., S.T.L., J.C. L. gives these examples of judging heresy from different theologians: “Pighi rightly states that if a person disbelieves in the Real Presence, and in token of this belief, deliberately omits to remove his hat in a Catholic Church, he has completely expressed his heretical tenet and has incurred censure…Noldin cites the case of those who seek to divine the secrets of the present past or future …by appeal to spiritistic activities” even if the individual only is “implicitly aware” such practices are condemned by the Church. He says that such a consultation is a delict and the one seeking it incurs censure. “The very commitment of any act which signifies heresy, for example, the statement of some doctrine contrary or contradictory to a revealed and defined dogma, gives sufficient ground for presumption of heretical depravity.”
Despite abundant proofs, however, many current “Traditionalists” still maintain that those ordained by schismatics, who have never received the canonical mission precisely as outlined above are nevertheless justified in exercising powers they do not possess. As we can see from what was just stated by Rev. MacKenzie, and if we read once again DZ 967 above, it becomes clear that to maintain current “Traditionalist” clergy may function is heretical. Rev. MacKenzie carefully lays out and examines all the arguments for the exercise of Canon 2261 §2 by those who have belonged to a non-Catholic sect, and makes the necessary distinction between simple heresy and communicatio in sacris. He begins by discussing material heresy, something current “Traditionalists” seem to assume is not subject to censure. This Rev. MacKenzie disputes, following the practice of the canonists.
Material heretics still incur censure
He begins by explaining that some of those who are validly baptized, but brought up outside the Church may be of good faith, and if so “their sin of heresy is purely material and does not involve personal guilt.” But, in the external order, “they are held responsible for their non-memberships in the Church by presumption of law, (Canon 2200),” and Church teaching (DZ 864) still binds them to the observance of Canon Law. So if even Protestants are bound and incur censure, it is very difficult indeed to see how one of the Church’s own clerics would not be bound to a much greater degree. Seminary professor Rev. Adolphe Tanquerey, whose theological texts were used worldwide to train theologians, then points out that, “All theologians teach that publicly known heretics, those who belong to a heterodox sect through public profession, or those who refuse the infallible teaching of the authority of the Church, are excluded from the body of the Church, even if their heresy is only material heresy,” (Manual of Dogmatic Theology, Vol. II).
As Msgr. J. C. Fenton notes in his “The Teaching of the Theological Manuals,” (The American Ecclesiastical Review, April 1963): “If the theses taught by Tanquerey were opposed to those of ‘the most authentic Catholic tradition of all ages,’ then thousands of priests, educated during the first part of the twentieth century were being led into error.” Based on decisions issued by the Holy Office, Revs. Woywod-Smith observe concerning the status of material heretics: “Nevertheless, in the external forum they are not free [from the penalties of Canon 2314] for, according to Canon 2200, when there is an external violation of Church law, malice is presumed in the external forum until its absence is proved. Respected canonists who wrote following the publication of MacKenzie’s thesis agree with this statement. As St. Alphonsus teaches, quoted by Revs. McHugh and Callan, “In doubt, decide for that which has the presumption. In this case the presumption is for the continuance of the law, since it was certainly made, and there is no probability for its non-continuance.” And Canon 2200 contains a presumption of law.
Ignorance is no real excuse for clerics
While many are anxious to see these current “Traditionalist”so-called “care providers” as guiltless material heretics, there is no support found for this false assumption in Canon Law or Church teaching. Concerning a plea of ignorance of the heretical nature of the offense or the actual penalty attached to it by a cleric guilty of occult heresy, Rev. MacKenzie states that, “If the delinquent making this claim is a cleric, his plea for mitigation must be dismissed, either as untrue or else as indicating ignorance which is affected, or at least crass or supine. His ecclesiastical training in the seminary, with its moral and dogmatic theology, its ecclesiastical history, not to mention its canon law, all insure that the Church’s attitude toward heresy was imparted to him…He had ample opportunity to know about heresy. Hence his present ignorance is unreal; or if real, it can be explained only as deliberately fostered — affected ignorance — or else as the result of a complete failure to do even a minimum of work in regard to fundamental ecclesiastical theory and practice — crass and supine ignorance.” While this ignorance may excuse in certain cases, it must be proven to the satisfaction of ecclesiastical authorities, and this is not possible today. And when heresy becomes public, a different set of rules apply.
Communicatio in sacris differs from simple heresy
First of all, Rev. MacKenzie explains that only those who have committed a simple delict of heresy may be considered toleratus. Different by far is the individual who has publicly affiliated with a non-Catholic sect. Rev. Charles Augustine defines such a sect as “Any religious society established in opposition to the Catholic Church, whether it consists of infidels, pagans, Jews, Moslems, non-Catholics, or schismatics.” In this case, it is schismatics. Formal membership is required for the delict to occur, according to the law, and no more formal membership exists than to be a minister in such a sect. The heretical act is expressed by either joining the sect or expounding its beliefs. “In either case, the delinquent incurs first the basic excommunication inflicted on simple heresy. In addition, as a penalty for his aggravated delict, he incurs juridical infamy ipso facto, whether or not there is further official action by the Church.” This includes “repulsion from any ministry in sacred functions and disqualification for legitimate ecclesiastical acts.” (Under Canon 2294, Revs. Woywod and Smith qualify these acts as invalid.) Also, under Canon 188 §4, anyone who has engaged in non-Catholic worship “no longer has any rights or powers deriving from [an ecclesiastical] position.”
Concerning the exception made by Canon 2261 §2, Rev. MacKenzie relates: “If a priest has incurred more than a simple excommunication — [if he has] resigned his office by joining a non-Catholic sect,” he cannot even assist at marriages. And of course with the penalty for infamy of law comes loss of jurisdiction, if it was ever granted, so neither can he hear confessions or preach, even at the request of the faithful, because such acts would be null and void. And regardless of any existing censures, Rev. MacKenzie explains that to make use of Canon 2261 §2, requires that “the power of jurisdiction [be] already possessed.”
Doubts concerning application of censures and Canon 2261 §2
In doubts of how we are to proceed today in these matters, Canon Law says in Canon 6 §4, “In case of doubt whether some provision of the canons differs for the old law, one must adhere to the old law.” In the case of Canon 2261 §2, we have a doubt whether Canon 2261 §4 should be extended to men who are heretics, many of whom, in any other day, would have been declared vitandus or degraded and deposed. In the case of current “Traditionalists”, as noted elsewhere, many have been warned by the faithful for decades that they do not have the jurisdiction necessary to function, and yet they continue to function, despite the fact there is no pope to supply them jurisdiction. However, on the basis of the doubts about the long-term use of Canon 2261 §2, when this was not the original intention of the lawgiver, we can refer to the parent law for guidance, which is Pope Paul IV’s Cum ex Apostolatus Officio. It is clear from the highlighted sections of the Bull, below, that once such offenders were outside the church, they could not be admitted back in for any reason, even to minister to the faithful. So to return to the old law would be to consider them unable to be rehabilitated in any way, at any time.
“We approve and renew, by Our Apostolic authority, each and every sentence, censure or penalty of excommunication, suspension and interdict, and removal, and any others whatever in any way given and promulgated against heretics and schismatics by any Roman Pontiffs Our Predecessors, or considered as such, even in their uncollected letters, or by the sacred Councils recognized by God’s Church or in the decrees or statutes of the Holy Fathers or in the sacred Canons and Apostolic Constitutions and ordinances. We sanction, establish, decree and define, through the fullness of Our Apostolic power, that …all and sundry Bishops, Archbishops, Patriarchs, Primates, Cardinals, Legates… who, in the past, as mentioned above, have strayed or fallen into heresy or have been apprehended, have confessed or been convicted of incurring, inciting or committing schism or who, in the future, shall stray or fall into heresy or shall incur, incite or commit schism or shall be apprehended, confess or be convicted of straying or falling into heresy or of incurring, inciting or committing schism, being less excusable than others in such matters, in addition to the sentences, censures and penalties mentioned above, (all these persons) are also automatically and without any recourse to law or action, completely and entirely, forever deprived of, and furthermore disqualified from and incapacitated for their rank [now retained in Canon 188 §4]…
“They shall be treated, as relapsed and subverted in all matters and for all purposes, just as though, they had earlier publicly abjured such heresy in court. They can never at any time be re-established, re-appointed, restored or recapacitated for their former state or for Cathedral, Metropolitan, Patriarchal or Primatial Churches, for the Cardinalate or other honor or for any other greater or lesser dignity or for active or passive voice, or authority; If ever at any time it becomes clear that any Bishop, [Cardinal or Pope]… before his promotion or elevation [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, [without any exception as regards those who might have been promoted or elevated before they deviated from the faith, became heretics, incurred schism, or committed or encouraged any or all of these.]”
And some of the old laws Pope Paul IV recalled into service above are mentioned here by St. Robert Bellarmine, (de Romano Pontifice, Bk. 2, Chapter 40), “The Holy Fathers teach unanimously not only that heretics are outside of the Church, but also that they are ipso facto deprived of all ecclesiastical jurisdiction and dignity …Saint Nicholas I (epist. Ad Michael) repeats and confirms the same. Finally, Saint Thomas also teaches (II-II, Q39, A3) that schismatics immediately lose all jurisdiction, and that anything they try to do on the basis of any jurisdiction will be null.”
Conclusion
There are several different things preventing those priests ordained illicitly by Novus Ordo bishops or “Traditionalist” “bishops” not possessing the papal mandate from a canonically elected pope from validly and licitly conveying the sacraments and offering Holy Mass.
- As stated in Charitas, by papal decree “illicitly consecrated men, under this punishment of suspension, [cannot] 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, …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…” Nothing could be clearer than this decree.
- Such priests never received jurisdiction, since as Charitas states, they could never validly obtain it from schismatic bishops. Nor can it be supplied to them by Canon 209. Francis Misakiewicz, in his dissertation on this canon, is insistent that where Canon 209 states that the “Church” supplies, this means only the Roman Pontiff, AND WITHOUT A POPE THE SUPPLETORY PRINCIPLE IS Entirely LACKING. This is further confirmed by Pope Pius XII in his papal election constitution, Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis.
- The fact that they have never received such jurisdiction prevents these men from invoking the application of Canon 2261 §2, which presumes valid and licit ordination/consecration and canonical mission jurisdiction. Any doubts in this matter also can be resolved by consulting the old law governing heresy, which, after all, is in accordance with Canon 6 §4 and Canon 147 above, making it “in harmony with the sacred canons,” (Canon 147). This law (see above) forbids any rehabilitation of heretics and schismatics for any purposes.
Any clerics who have publicly celebrated the Novus Ordo Missae or have joined “Traditionalist” mass groups to offer their services have adhered to a non-Catholic sect and can be at least externally considered schismatic. Donald Attwater, in his Catholic Dictionary, also states “anyone guilty of an external act of schism is ipso facto excommunicated; the conditions for absolution are the same for heresy.” (emphasis his). Public adherence to a non-Catholic sect is all that is required under Canon 2314 to ipso facto incur infamy of law, and until a true pope exists, there is no way to reverse it. Once Pope Pius XII died, the chain of Apostolic Succession was broken because none of the Catholic cardinals or bishops separated themselves to elect a true pope to continue his line. Cardinal Siri was incapable of doing this, being excommunicated for communicatio in sacris himself. If those currently functioning as “clerics” within the “Traditionalist” organizations would lay down their claims perhaps this terrible crisis would end.
And the only way this will happen is if their followers, who also have now been excommunicated for attending their non-Catholic services, refuse to cooperate with them in sin. To follow Canon Law as Pope Pius XII commands, “Traditionalists” now are bound to obey Canon 2294 §1, which states that those who have incurred infamy of law “must be restrained from the exercise of sacred functions of the ministry.” Under Canon 1935, so also should those be denounced and ordered to cease and desist from these services. In saying their mass prayers at home, stay-at-home Catholics are observing the censure they believe they have incurred for attending these services, in penance for their sins and in obedience to Canon Law. For as long as God is being mocked and His people continue to dishonor Him by committing sacrilege, nothing will change. The truth has the power to make all of us free, if we just recognize it for what it is.
by T. Stanfill Benns | Dec 18, 2012
From our family to your family:
The Blessed Season of Advent, a Time of Preparation
We have been asked to provide proofs and documentation of our adherence to Church Law with regards to attending “Traditionalist” group religious services. We are providing that here, but first, a little background.
One thing we all know is that we all desire to attend the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and to receive the Sacraments which we knew as faithful Catholics; Catholics who attended daily Mass, Stations of the Cross, Forty Hours Devotion, said the Family Rosary and read daily from our Douay Rheims Catholic Bible. Our family has a heritage of German and Irish ethnicity and Catholicity. For many years we have fought to defend our Faith, first against Protestant prejudice and then against the inroads of Modernism and many other heresies. We have enjoyed the benefits of formal Catholic education, through college level, during the nineteen twenties, thirties, forties and fifties. We developed a keen Catholic Instinct. We resisted what became obvious as modernistic liberalism in the sixties forward. Our resistance involved organized groups, publications, and billboards to preserve Catholic education in our Catholic schools. It even involved visits to the chancery office, including personal confrontations with the diocesan bishop. Finally, it meant a departure from our parish church and from teaching in our Catholic schools.
At first, our saintly pastor in our country parish church refused to turn around the altar and to say the new mass. The diocese punished him, stripped him of his pastor position and sent him into retirement. With that situation, in the early days of the late sixties, and early seventies, we visited the Byzantine Rite, the Ukrainian Uniate Rite and the Armenian Rite, wherever they had not changed to the new mass service. They also became influenced by Rome’s Modernism. We were fortunate to find a blessed priest who had jurisdiction in the diocese. We attended his Mass in a private home until he died. We then observed certain groups without any participation, such as SSPX. There we found nothing but trouble. We were even contacted by a few renegade priests, but there was always the problem of jurisdiction. We investigated many of their claims and the claims of certain “Traditionalist” groups as they became known. They all shared the same problem. They had gone out on their own without ecclesiastical authority, because they thought they should do so.
In the meantime, we collected hundreds of books that were being discarded from seminaries, rectories, convents and schools. We accumulated some three thousand books in our libraries. With our cumulative experiences, it became obvious to us that Almighty God had taken away the Holy Sacrifice, at least from us here in our country. We developed contacts around the world, and discovered the same to be true with them. We knew the Holy Sacrifice had to be offered somewhere legitimately, but it must be behind the Iron Curtain or in the China underground. With this in mind, we stayed home to pray. We pray the Mass Prayers using our Saint Andrew’s Missal, the same one used in the forties and in the seminary in the fifties. We continued our other normal Catholic Devotions at home.
We have written many personal letters in order to provide Catholic advice to others in need. We do so again. May you receive this letter and information in the spirit in which it is given. Following are the “rules” that we follow. It is not our opinion. These are the laws of the Church.
The Morris Family
********************************************
Instructions for reading these proofs
By Teresa L. Benns
Out of charity for your soul and with the hope that you will choose to heed the teachings of Christ through His Vicars, we are posting the proofs below. Several people participated in the research and compilation of these proofs. While they cite the works of canon lawyers and theologians, what they teach is in perfect agreement in every respect with the teachings of the Roman Pontiffs and the ecumenical councils on these subjects. The latter documents are primary, as the Church insists they must be, and are only faithfully echoed by Her approved authors.
Generally speaking Traditionalists, while they claim obedience to these papal decrees and teachings, allow their “clerics” and lay leaders to recycle them in accordance with their claims to be lawful ministers endowed with the necessary power to act as pastors of souls. Attempts have even been made by some to erase the Church’s ability to infallibly pronounce on strictly disciplinary measures, when this error was condemned as follows by Pope Pius IX in “Quae in patriarchatu”: “In fact, Venerable Brothers and beloved Sons, it is a question of recognizing the power (of this See), even over your churches, not merely in what pertains to faith, but also in what concerns discipline. He who would deny this is a heretic; he who recognizes this and obstinately refuses to obey is worthy of anathema,” (emph. mine — Pope Pius IX, September 1, 1876). Some also have suggested that the popes are not infallible in their Ordinary Magisterium. One well-respected Traditional “priest” even taught this heresy publicly. And yet this was defined at the Vatican Council as follows: “Further, by Divine and Catholic faith., all these things must be believed which are contained in the written word of God and in tradition, and those which are proposed by the Church, either in a solemn pronouncement or in her ordinary and universal teaching power, to be believed as divinely revealed,” (DZ 1792).
And furthermore, Catholics are bound also to obey not only infallible decrees but those condemnations of errors which are not strictly heretical: “But since it is not sufficient to shun heretical iniquity, unless these error also are shunned which come more or less close to it, we remind all of the duty of observing also the constitutions and decrees by which base opinions of this sort, which are not enumerated explicitly here, have been proscribed and prohibited by this See,” (Vatican Council, DZ 1820). This also is addressed in Can. 2317, which bars those teaching doctrines condemned by the Roman Pontiff or the Ecumenical council but not as formally heretical, “from the ministry of teaching the Word of God, and hearing sacramental confessions, and from every office of teaching, without prejudice to other penalties which the sentence of condemnation of the doctrine may have perhaps decreed…” And again from Can. 1324: “For it is not sufficient to avoid heretical error, but one must also diligently shun any errors which more or less approach heresy.”
The Vatican Council anathematized anyone who would question that the Roman Pontiff possesses “the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the universal Church, not only in things which pertain to the discipline and government of the Church spread over the whole world, but…over the churches altogether and individually, and over the pastors and the faithful altogether and individually,” (DZ 1831). Canon 1812 tells us that acts issuing from the Roman Pontiff and the Roman Curia during the exercise of their office and entered as proof in ecclesiastical courts “prove the facts asserted,” (Can. 1816), and force the judge to pronounce in favor of the party producing the document, (commentary by Revs. Woywod-Smith). “Proof to the contrary is not admitted against Letters of the Roman Pontiff bearing his signature,” (Rev. Amleto Cicognani’s, “Canon Law, 1935; ibid. p. 626, ft. note). Documents entered into the Acta Apostolic Sedis do not need to be submitted in the original or be an authenticated copy, (Can. 1819). So the citation of the documents of the Roman Pontiffs themselves, without any qualification by anyone, but taken exactly as they appear, cannot be questioned. Why then have those claiming to be lawful pastors, but who instead have no right to rule us, ignored and misconstrued these documents?
By allowing those who have no authority to usurp papal authority and dictate terms we deny that it is the Roman Pontiff alone who possesses the fullness of jurisdiction; he alone is to be obeyed and followed above any so-called clerics, especially during an interregnum. For it is precisely during these dangerous times that the sheep and lambs are most likely to be attacked by the wolf pack. For this reason, when faced with the defection of clergy in France during the time of the introduction there of the Civil Constitution requiring clergy to swear allegiance to the civil authorities over the pope, Pope Pius VI told the faithful: “Keep away from all intruders, whether called archbishops, bishops, or parish priests; do not hold communion with them especially in divine worship. Listen carefully to the message of your lawful pastors who are still living, and who will be put in charge of you later, according to the canons. Finally, in one word, stay close to Us. For no one can be in the Church of Christ without being in unity with its visible head and founded on the See of Peter,” (“Charitas”).
This is true whether we presently have a pope or not. Their teachings bind in perpetuity because they are the voice of Christ teaching His Church on earth. No one may gainsay what they teach, whether such teaching is infallible or not. You say you are sure that your illicit priests can convince us that we are wrong. I tell you that no one shall ever separate us from the love of Christ and obedience to His Vicars. The teachings of the continual Magisterium as presented here — of the Canon Laws whose primary authors are the popes — cannot be refuted, according to the Church Herself. And Christ in Heaven binds what is bound by His Vicars on earth.
It is in the spirit of the Prophet Elias then (3 Kgs. 18:37), that we present these proofs. For he entreated the Lord from the summit of Mt. Carmel as follows: “Hear oh Lord, hear me, that Thy people may learn that Thou art the Lord, God.” Amen.
**************************************************
Jurisdiction, Lawful Pastors and Communicatio in Sacris
© Copyright 2012, T. Stanfill Benns (This text may be downloaded or printed out for private reading, but it may not be uploaded to another Internet site or published, electronically or otherwise, without express written permission from the author. All emphasis added unless otherwise noted.)
Introduction
Some of you have asked for proofs that Traditionalist priests, ordained by Pius XII bishops after his death are unable to celebrate Mass and administer the sacraments. The answers to these questions have already been presented, but perhaps they should be gathered together in one place to speak to this specific point. Because once the answers are understood, it will become clear why — if even those validly ordained by bishops who accepted John 23 as a true pope are forbidden to function — Traditional priests and bishops proper have no hope of validly functioning at all. And once these proofs have been demonstrated, it should be better understood why Traditional “Catholicism” is really just another non-Catholic sect.
From the Catechism
What does Father Thomas Kinkead tell American Catholics on lawful pastors in the catechism used in Catholic schools in the 1940s and 1950s, before the decline of the Church? In his “An Explanation of the Baltimore Catechism,” #4, Fr. Kinkead writes in Q. 115: “What is the Church? A. The Church is the congregation of all those who profess the faith of Christ, partake of the same sacraments, and are governed by their lawful pastors under one visible head.” The Baltimore Council’s approved catechism (#3) for adults also written by Rev. Kinkead tells us in the answer to question # 494 that lawful pastors are “those in the Church who have been appointed by lawful authority and who have therefore a right to rule us.” Note that this says nothing of the supposedly “validly” consecrated bishops who have created these priests; it mentions only lawful authority. Lawful bishops, as will be seen below, are only those consecrated with papal mandate following their appointment by the pope.
“Even if valid orders exist, where jurisdiction is lacking there is no real apostolicity. Schism, as well as heresy, destroys apostolic succession,” (Rev. Thomas Cox, “Pillar and Ground of Truth,” 1900). 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” illicitly ordained and consecrated, without a true pope they possess NO jurisdiction whatsoever.
For those who may have questions about this answer, please see the Catholic Encyclopedia article on the Church, which states in part: “Apostolicity of mission consists in the power of holy orders and the power of jurisdiction derived by legitimate transmission from the Apostles. Any religious organization whose ministers do not possess these two powers is not accredited to preach the Gospel of Christ. For ‘How can they preach,’ asks the Apostle, ‘unless they be sent?’ (Rom. 10:15).” “A Christian society whose bishops go back to the apostles only through the power of order, and not also through the power of jurisdiction, cannot claim to be apostolic, and consequently cannot be the Church of Christ,” Revs. Devivier and Sasia, “Christian Apologetics, Vol. II), wrote in 1924. Canon Law states: “Besides the power of orders, the ministers, to absolve sins validly, must have either ordinary or delegated power of jurisdiction over the penitent,” (Can. 872). 7. Fathers Callan and McHugh in their “A Parochial Course in Doctrinal Instruction,” Vol. 2, p. 305, et seq., make the following statements:
“II. The minister of the Sacrament of Penance must not only be a priest validly ordained, but he must also be duly authorized. 1. The priest in ordination receives the power of forgiving sins, but he cannot exercise that power, unless duly authorized by proper ecclesiastical authority. Just as a judge cannot pronounce sentence of cases outside his own district, so the priest cannot forgive sins, except within the limits of his jurisdiction. That this authorization is necessary for a priest to forgive sins is evident from the practice of the Church from the very beginning.”
Rev. Ignatius Szal states in his “Communication of Catholics with Schismatics,” (Catholic Univ. Of America dissertation, 1948): “The reception of holy Orders from the hands of schismatic bishops has practically always been forbidden by the Church. Rarely has the Holy See ever considered it necessary to receive orders from a schismatic bishop. The prohibition to receive holy Orders at the hands of a schismatic bishop is contained in the general prohibition against active religious communication as expressed in Can. 1258§1[canon on communicatio in sacris].” Also from Rev. Szal: “On August 7, 1704, The Holy Office also stated that, “The decree which prohibited Catholics from being present at the Masses and prayers of schismatics applied also in those places where there were no Catholic priests and with reference to such prayers as contained nothing contrary to faith and the Catholic rite…On May 15, 1709, the Holy Office forbade Catholics to hear the confession of schismatics or to confess to them…Under no circumstances, not even in the case of necessity, according to a response of the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith on Feb. 17, 1761, was it permissible for a Catholic to confess his sins to a schismatic priest in order to obtain absolution from him…” On two other occasions, May 10, 1753, and April 17, 1758, the Holy See again forbade Catholics to participate in the masses of schismatics. In 1769, certain priests “were called to task for joining in the celebration of Mass with schismatics. The ignorance was inexcusable, and the act was a sacrilege which violated the true faith.”
St. Robert Bellarmine cites the unanimous teaching of the Fathers in his work “de Romano Pontifice,” where he states: “Heretics [and below we will see that these “clerics’ are both heretics and schismatics] who return to the Church must be received as laymen, even though they have been formerly priests or bishops in the Church. St. Optatus (lib. 1 cont. Parmen.).” This also is the teaching of Pope Paul the IV in his Cum ex Apostolatus Officio,” (see below).
Canon Law expresses the same concept
This is based on Can. 147, which Pope Pius XII strengthened with special excommunications. It reads: “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.” Above we have seen that a bishop can be canonically appointed and sent into his diocese only by a legitimately elected pope. And only a canonically appointed bishop who has received jurisdiction from such a pope can delegate that jurisdiction to the priests in the diocese to which he has been duly appointed. Only lawful pastors, who validly possess an office in the Church, have a right to rule us. And those who may have obtained an office from Pope Pius XII or a bishop in communion with him retains that office only if he denounces the Novus Ordo church, also any Traditionalist sects; otherwise he is guilty of schism under Can. 2314, as explained below. Bishops validly consecrated and appointed by Pope Pius XII, but who later signed V2 documents and remained in communion with the Novus Ordo, have been verified as providing Trad “priests” with jurisdiction, even though such men are/were officially aligned with and loyal members of the Novus Ordo church until their retirement or death! And these men have then been advertised as the last true priests on earth. Yet the minute such men accepted the V2 popes and signed V2 documents, they tacitly resigned for lapsing from the Catholic faith, (Can. 188 §4). Under Pope Paul IV’s bull Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, still in effect whenever there is a doubt about a bishop retaining office, they lose all said offices and cannot regain them.
Can. 147, which according to the Sacred Congregation and Pope Pius XII is based on “sacred principles” is no ordinary canon. And because it is an invalidating and inhabilitating law, any attempt to intrude oneself into an office or appoint someone to that office without canonical provision is null and void; it simply never takes place.
The decision of the Sacred Congregation issued June 29, 1950 (AAS 42-601) gives the text of DZ 967 (DZ indicates a teaching from Henry Denzinger’s “Sources of Catholic Dogma,” 1957, available online) and yet another version of DZ 960, varying slightly from the Denzinger translation: “If anyone says that…those who have been neither rightly ordained nor sent by ecclesiastical and canonical authority, but come from a different source, are lawful ministers of the word and of the sacraments: let him be anathema,” (DZ 967). If this is compared to what Rev. McVey and Can. 147 says above, one can see it is in perfect agreement. The document from the Holy Office, beginning with DZ 960, continues as follows: “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…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…” And here censures especially reserved to the Holy See are mentioned. The ipso facto excommunications are incurred by the ones occupying or holding an ecclesiastical office contrary to the canons and without any provision and those who allow anyone to be placed in these offices. Also excommunicated are those who have any direct or indirect part in such crimes.
If we examine the sources of this law in the footnotes to Can. 147 (Latin Code), we see that it is based on Pope Pius VI’s “Charitas” below, the condemnation of those bishops and priests who swore allegiance to the civil constitution in France following the French Revolution. Also listed as a source for this canon is Pope Pius IX’s encyclical “Etsi Multa.”
“Love, which is patient and kindly, as the Apostle Paul says, supports and endures all things as long as a hope remains that mildness will prevent the growth of incipient errors. But if errors increase daily and reach the point of creating schism, the laws of love itself, together with Our duty, demand that We reveal to the erring their horrible sin and the heavy canonical penalties which they have incurred. For this sternness will lead those who are wandering from the way of truth to recover their senses, reject their errors, and come back to the Church, which opens its arms like a kind mother and embraces them on their return. The rest of the faithful in this way will be quickly delivered from the deceits of false pastors who enter the fold by ways other than the door, and whose only aim is theft, slaughter, and destruction…
“24. 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…” (And here we see the second time the popes refuse to allow these men to act on the pretext of “necessity.”)
“32. At length We beseech you all, beloved Catholic children, in the kingdom of France; as you recall the religion and faith of your fathers, We urge you lovingly not to abandon it. For it is the one true religion which both confers eternal life and makes safe and thriving civil societies. Carefully beware of lending your ears to the treacherous speech of the philosophy of this age which leads to death. Keep away from all intruders, whether called archbishops, bishops, or parish priests; do not hold communion with them especially in divine worship. Listen carefully to the message of your lawful pastors who are still living, and who will be put in charge of you later, according to the canons. Finally, in one word, stay close to Us. For no one can be in the Church of Christ without being in unity with its visible head and founded on the See of Peter.”
And from Etsi Multa: ““Therefore following the custom and example of Our Predecessors and of holy legislation, by the power granted to Us from heaven, We declare the election of the said Joseph Humbert Reinkens [an Old Catholic], 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 Humbert 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 an extent that, as he plainly states, they may not even be greeted,” (Etsi Multa, On The Church In Italy, Germany, and Switzerland, Nov. 21, 1873).
Again in Charitas, we see the same dogmas stressed, the same terms used as are used above. The Church is the same forever; Her teachings never change. Unless jurisdiction comes directly from the pope through the bishops in communion with him to the priests, the chain of apostolic succession is broken and the faithful must not avail themselves of these intruders. This time period in France was similar to our own. Pope Pius VI makes the position of the Holy See concerning ecclesiastical jurisdiction as regards illicit consecrations and ordinations very clear.
Attention is to be paid especially to the following part of the quote from Etsi Multa above: But 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…Therefore following the custom and example of Our Predecessors and of holy legislation, by the power granted to Us from heaven, We declare the election of the said Joseph Humbert Reinkens, performed against the sanctions of the holy canons to be illicit, null, and void. We furthermore declare his consecration sacrilegious.
Consider these words carefully. While Reinkins was validly consecrated, his ELECTION (or in other cases it could be illegal appointment, acceptance or intrusion into office) is nullified, not his ORDERS. He is not, and cannot hold the office of bishop, because he is not in union with the pope and was elected and placed in office by heretics and/or schismatics. (The Utrecht Jansenists were considered valid for a time, although this validity later was questioned by some theologians in the 20th century.) Even though validly consecrated, Reinkins is not considered a bishop because he never received the office and accompanying jurisdiction from Rome. The Holy See never approved his consecration and so he remained an apostate Old Catholic priest. And no priest could ever validly ordain another man priest.
Charitas, Etsi Multa and Pope Pius XII’s decision on Can. 147 all are documents of the ordinary magisterium; they are binding on all Catholics as infallible decrees, and deserve a firm and irrevocable assent, as the Vatican Council teaches.
Excommunication and communicatio in sacris
Those championing the “old priests” seem to hold the opinion that the present laws on heresy and schism call for a judgment concerning whether or not the heresy or schism was committed. The Church herself does not require us to jump through endless hoops to determine this. And it is not true that lay people cannot and should not judge heresy and schism, for how else are they to protect themselves from such contagion in their day-to-day lives? That they can so determine what is heresy or schism is proven by this proposition condemned by the Church: “Although it is evidently established by you that Peter is a heretic, you are not bound to denounce him if you cannot prove it,” (DZ 1105; Pope Alexander VII). If I consistently see a priest enter a non-Catholic church at the specified times to celebrate services or he admits he has done so; and I know that in order to celebrate these services he must utter words attributed to Christ which are not His own and violate a decree of an ecumenical council to do this (see DZ 942, 953), I must certainly denounce and avoid such a man. Nor can he even hope to gain re-entrance to the Church unless he publicly renounces his errors, does penance and is then absolved and abjured (also dispensed) by the Holy See.
In the (temporary) absence of a true pope and hierarchy, we must look for our answers to the questions of the day in the most secure places, and one of those places is the research of true priests studying for their degrees as doctors of Canon Law. These dissertations, most published by the Catholic University of America, cover the history of the various canons, their development over time, the opinions of well-respected theologians concerning the various aspects they cover and arrive at conclusions concerning their proper application, as documented in case histories. These works were duly approved by the proper bishop and published following the reception of the author’s actual doctorate. Being the only real case studies on these topics outside the Canon Law Digest and commentary by various canonists, they are the most reliable sources of information on the Sacred Canons that Catholics could follow today. In fact we are bound to prefer them exclusively to any so-called teachings of Traditionalists because they are issued by certainly lawful authority with the power to instruct, and possess the ecclesiastical approval necessary as a guarantee of orthodoxy. This Traditional writings and oral teaching cannot and do not possess. If these Trad priests were so well versed in Canon Law, where is their research, their justification for what they are doing? Are people aware that the Church had quite a few lay canonists with licentiates prior to Vatican “2” and that Canon Law even made special allowances for their studies?
Heresy, schism not difficult to judge
In his dissertation “The Delict of Heresy” (1932), Rev. Eric MacKenzie, A.M., S.T.L., J.C. L. gives these examples of judging heresy from different theologians: “Pighi rightly states that if a person disbelieves in the Real Presence, and in token of this belief, deliberately omits to remove his hat in a Catholic Church, he has completely expressed his heretical tenet and has incurred censure…Noldin cites the case of those who seek to divine the secrets of the present, past or future …by appeal to spiritistic activities,” even if the individual only is “implicitly aware” such practices are condemned by the Church. He says that such a consultation is a delict and the one seeking it incurs censure. “The very commitment of any act which signifies heresy, e.g., the statement of some doctrine contrary or contradictory to a revealed and defined dogma, gives sufficient ground for presumption of heretical depravity.”
Despite abundant proofs, however, many Traditionalists still maintain that those ordained by schismatics, who have never received the canonical mission precisely as outlined above are nevertheless justified in exercising powers they do not possess. As we can see from what was just stated by Rev. MacKenzie, and if we read once again DZ 967 above, it becomes clear that to maintain Traditionalist clergy may function is heretical. MacKenzie carefully lays out and examines all the arguments for the exercise of Can. 2261 §2 by those who have belonged to a non-Catholic sect, and makes the necessary distinction between simple heresy and communicatio in sacris. He begins by discussing material heresy, something Traditionalists seem to assume is not subject to censure. This MacKenzie disputes, following the practice of the canonists.
Material heretics still incur the censure
He begins by explaining that some of those who are validly baptized, but brought up outside the Church may be of good faith, and if so “their sin of heresy is purely material and does not involve personal guilt.” But, in the external order, “they are held responsible for their non-memberships in the Church by presumption of law, (Can. 2200),” and Church teaching (DZ 864) still binds them to the observance of Canon Law. So if even Protestants are bound and incur censure, it is very difficult indeed to see how one of the Church’s own clerics would not be bound to a much greater degree. Seminary professor Rev. Adolphe Tanquerey, whose theological texts were used worldwide to train theologians, then points out that, “All theologians teach that publicly known heretics, those who belong to a heterodox sect through public profession, or those who refuse the infallible teaching of the authority of the Church, are excluded from the body of the Church, even if their heresy is only material heresy,” (“Manual of Dogmatic Theology,” Vol. II). It is difficult to see how such heresy could be material in the case of those priests validly yet illicitly ordained by schismatic bishops, when they went from the Novus Ordo church to yet other schismatic Traditional sects, once again committing communcatio in sacris.
As Rev. J. C. Fenton notes in his “The Teaching of the Theological Manuals,” (The American Ecclesiastical Review, April 1963): “If the theses taught by Tanquerey were opposed to those of ‘the most authentic Catholic tradition of all ages,’ then thousands of priests, educated during the first part of the twentieth century were being led into error.” Based on decisions issued by the Holy Office, Revs. Woywod-Smith observe concerning the status of material heretics: “Nevertheless, in the external forum they are not free [from the penalties of Can. 2314] for, according to Can. 2200, when there is an external violation of Church law, malice is presumed in the external forum until its absence is proved.” Respected canonists who wrote following the publication of MacKenzie’s thesis agree with this statement. As St. Alphonsus, quoted by Revs. McHugh and Callan, teaches: “’In doubt, decide for that which has the presumption.’ In this case the presumption is for the continuance of the law, since it was certainly made, and there is no probability for its non-continuance.” And Can. 2200 contains a presumption of law.
Ignorance no real excuse for clerics
While many are anxious to see these Traditionalist “care providers” as guiltless material heretics, there is no support found for this false assumption in Canon Law or Church teaching. Concerning a plea of ignorance of the heretical nature of the offense or the actual penalty attached to it by a cleric guilty of occult heresy, Rev. MacKenzie states that: “If the delinquent making this claim is a cleric, his plea for mitigation must be dismissed, either as untrue or else as indicating ignorance which is affected, or at least crass or supine. His ecclesiastical training in the seminary, with its moral and dogmatic theology, its ecclesiastical history, not to mention its canon law, all insure that the Church’s attitude toward heresy was imparted to him…He had ample opportunity to know about heresy. Hence his present ignorance is unreal; or if real, it can be explained only as deliberately fostered — affected ignorance — or else as the result of a complete failure to do even a minimum of work in regard to fundamental ecclesiastical theory and practice — crass and supine ignorance.” In his dissertation, “Ignorance in Relation to the Imputability of Delicts,” (Cath. Univ. of America, 1948), Rev. Innocent Swoboda, O.F.M., J.C.L. defines crass and supine ignorance as: “A complete lack of diligence when it is known that the truth could be easily discovered…A complete and total failure to use any effort to fulfill the obligation of knowing the law or the pertinent facts surounding the law. The failure itself may arise from mere sloth or from a sinful heart or from a sinful habit of acting without due consideration of the results of one’s conduct…only the ignorance of those things which can be easily learned can be considered crass or supine.”And if the faithful could recognize that the Vatican 2 church was false and abandon it, then what possible excuse could those far better educated in the faith offer?
And finally, in their commentary on Canon Law, under Can. 2242, Revs. Woywod-Smith observe: “Contumacy of the offender is implied in the deliberate violation of a law to which a censure latae sententiae is attached, and therefore the censure is incurred immediately with the breaking of the law. The violation is considered to be deliberate where disqualifying and invalidating laws are concerned, such as a lack of jurisdiction which invalidates the Sacrament of Penance.”
Communicatio in sacris differs from simple heresy
First of all, MacKenzie explains, only those who have committed a simple delict of heresy may be considered toleratus. Different by far is the individual who has publicly affiliated with a non-Catholic sect. Rev. Charles Augustine defines such a sect as “Any religious society established in opposition to the Catholic Church, whether it consists of infidels, pagans, Jews, Moslems, non-Catholics, or schismatics.” In this case, it is schismatics. Formal membership is required for the delict to occur, according to the law, and no more formal membership exists than to be a minister in such a sect. The heretical act is expressed by either joining the sect or expounding its beliefs. “In either case,” MacKenzie continues, “the delinquent incurs first the basic excommunication inflicted on simple heresy. In addition, as a penalty for his aggravated delict, he incurs juridical infamy ipso facto, whether or no there is further official action by the Church.” Attwater’s Catholic Dictionary” defines infamy as “A stigma attached in canon law to the character of a person…” Juridical infamy or infamy of law is a special punitive penance or vindicative penalty attached to certain grave offenses. It includes “repulsion from any ministry in sacred functions and disqualification for legitimate ecclesiastical acts.” (Under Can. 2294, Revs. Woywod-Smith qualify these acts as invalid.) Also, under Can. 188 §4, one who has engaged in non-Catholic worship “no longer has any rights or powers deriving from [an ecclesiastical] position,” (Ibid).
Concerning the exception made by Can. 2261 §2 MacKenzie relates: “If a priest has incurred more than a simple excommunication — [if he has] resigned his office by joining a non-Catholic sect,” he cannot even assist at marriages. And of course with the penalty for infamy of law comes loss of jurisdiction, if it was ever granted, so neither can he hear confessions or preach, even at the request of the faithful, because such acts would be null and void. And regardless of any existing censures, MacKenzie explains that to make use of Can. 2261 §2 requires that “the power of jurisdiction [be] already possessed.”
Doubts concerning application of censures and Can. 2261 §2
Rev. MacKenzie explains in his work that occult heretics and those not yet sentenced by a judge for publicly manifested heretical or schismatic acts may minister to the faithful when requested, but only briefly addresses the case of an individual who has publicly joined a non-Catholic sect. He seems to be concerned mainly with those who have incurred only delicts of simple heresy, for he states in one place that those committing simple heresy are allowed to invoke Can. 2261, calling them toleratus, but excluding those joining a non-Catholic sect from the status of toleratus. This can only be laid at the door of the vindicative penalty they incur in addition to the simple delict of heresy, which is infamy of law. While some invoke Pope Martin V’s “Ad Evitranda Scandala” to prove that heretics and schismatics may be resorted to in these times, there are several difficulties involved with this. One, no pope envisioned a long-term and widespread reliance on such men for the Mass and Sacraments, but rather a limited use of them, only when necessary. It is frightening to think that many of these men have belonged to several non-Catholic sects and in any other time, would long ago have been sentenced as vitandus and degraded. Those who are “repeat” offenders are especially dangerous to the faith of others. Also, no one would ever have foreseen the long vacancy of the Holy See that we have seen nor imagined that anyone would actually rely on the pretended status of schismatic bishops to justify such a usage. Below we examine “Ad Evitanda Scandala” and hear from St. Robert Bellarmine, who has something interesting to say about schismatic bishops.
“To avoid scandals and many dangers and relieve timorous consciences by the tenor of these presents we mercifully grant to all Christ’s faithful that henceforth no one henceforth shall be bound to abstain from communion with anyone in the administration or reception of the sacraments or in any other religious or non-religious acts whatsoever, nor to avoid anyone nor to observe any ecclesiastical interdict, on pretext of any ecclesiastical sentence or censure globally promulgated whether by the law or by an individual; unless the sentence or censure in question has been specifically and expressly published or denounced by the judge on or against a definite person, college, university, church, community or place. Notwithstanding any apostolic or other constitutions to the contrary, save the case of someone of whom it shall be known so notoriously that he has incurred the sentence passed by the canon for laying sacrilegious hands upon a cleric that the fact cannot be concealed by any tergiversation nor excused by any legal defence. For we will abstinence from communion with such a one, in accordance with the canonical sanctions, even though he be not denounced. (Fontes I, 45.)” — Pope Martin V. But not long afterwards, St. Robert Bellarmine clarified, per Pope Paul IV’s Cum ex Apostolatus Officio (1559), who precisely was included in Pope Martin V’s decree as follows:
“There is no basis for that which some respond to this: that these Fathers based themselves on ancient law, while nowadays, by decree of the Council of Constance, they alone lose their jurisdiction who are excommunicated by name or who assault clerics. This argument, I say, has no value at all, for those Fathers, in affirming that heretics lose jurisdiction, did not cite any human law, which furthermore perhaps did not exist in relation to the matter, but argued on the basis of the very nature of heresy. The Council of Constance only deals with the excommunicated, that is, those who have lost jurisdiction by sentence of the Church, while heretics already before being excommunicated are outside the Church and deprived of all jurisdiction. For they have already been condemned by their own sentence, as the Apostle teaches (Tit. 3:10-11), that is, they have been cut off from the body of the Church without excommunication, as St. Jerome affirms… All the ancient Fathers…teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction, and outstandingly that of St. Cyprian (lib. 4, epist. 2) who speaks as follows of Novatian, who was Pope [i.e. antipope] in the schism which occurred during the pontificate of St. Cornelius: “He would not be able to retain the episcopate [i.e. of Rome], and, if he was made bishop before, he separated himself from the body of those who were, like him, bishops, and from the unity of the Church.’” — St. Robert Bellarmine, An Extract from St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, lib. II, cap. 30, (http://www.cmri.org/02-bellarmine-roman-pontiff.html .This link is placed merely for purposes of attribution; no endorsement of this site is hereby intended.)
In doubts of how we are to proceed today in these matters, Canon Law says in Can. 6 §4: “In case of doubt whether some provision of the canons differs for the old law, one must adhere to the old law.” In the case of Can. 2261 §2, we have a doubt whether Can. 2261 §2 should be extended to men who are heretics, many of whom, in any other day, would have been declared vitandus or degraded and deposed. In the case of Traditionalists, as noted elsewhere, many have been warned by the faithful for decades that they do not have the jurisdiction necessary to function, and yet they continue to function, despite the fact there is no pope to supply them jurisdiction. But on the basis of the doubts about the long-term use of Can. 2261 §2 when this was not the original intention of the lawgiver, we can refer to the parent law for guidance, which is Pope Paul IV’s “Cum ex Apostolatus Officio.” It is clear from the highlighted sections of the bull, below, that once such offenders were outside the church, they could not be admitted back in for any reason, even to minister to the faithful. So to return to the old law would be to consider them unable to be rehabilitated in any way, at any time.
“We approve and renew, by Our Apostolic authority, each and every sentence, censure or penalty of excommunication, suspension and interdict, and removal, and any others whatever in any way given and promulgated against heretics and schismatics by any Roman Pontiffs Our Predecessors, or considered as such, even in their uncollected letters, or by the sacred Councils recognized by God’s Church or in the decrees or statutes of the Holy Fathers or in the sacred Canons and Apostolic Constitutions and ordinances. We sanction, establish, decree and define, through the fullness of Our Apostolic power, that …all and sundry Bishops, Archbishops, Patriarchs, Primates, Cardinals, Legates… who, in the past, as mentioned above, have strayed or fallen into heresy or have been apprehended, have confessed or been convicted of incurring, inciting or committing schism or who, in the future, shall stray or fall into heresy or shall incur, incite or commit schism or shall be apprehended, confess or be convicted of straying or falling into heresy or of incurring, inciting or committing schism, being less excusable than others in such matters, in addition to the sentences, censures and penalties mentioned above, (all these persons) are also automatically and without any recourse to law or action, completely and entirely, forever deprived of, and furthermore disqualified from and incapacitated for their rank [now retained in Can. 188 §4]…
“They shall be treated, as relapsed and subverted in all matters and for all purposes, just as though, they had earlier publicly abjured such heresy in court. They can never at any time be re-established, re-appointed, restored or recapacitated for their former state or for Cathedral, Metropolitan, Patriarchal or Primatial Churches, for the Cardinalate or other honor or for any other greater or lesser dignity or for active or passive voice, or authority…If ever at any time it becomes clear that any Bishop, [Cardinal or Pope]… before his promotion or elevation [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, [without any exception as regards those who might have been promoted or elevated before they deviated from the faith, became heretics, incurred schism, or committed or encouraged any or all of these.]”
And some of the old laws Pope Paul IV recalled into service above are mentioned here by St. Robert Bellarmine, (de Romano Pontifice, Bk. 2, Chapter 40): “The Holy Fathers teach unanimously not only that heretics are outside of the Church, but also that they are ipso facto deprived of all ecclesiastical jurisdiction and dignity …Saint Nicholas I (epist. Ad Michael) repeats and confirms the same. Finally, Saint Thomas also teaches (II-II, Q39, A3) that schismatics immediately lose all jurisdiction, and that anything they try to do on the basis of any jurisdiction will be null.” It must al;so be remembered that Cum ex Apostolatus Officio was confirmed by Pope St. Pius V in his motu proprio, Intermultiplices.
Conclusion
There are several different things preventing those priests ordained validly but illicitly by Novus Ordo bishops from validly and licitly conveying the sacraments and offering the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
As stated in Charitas, by papal decree “illicitly consecrated men, under this punishment of suspension, [cannot] 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, …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… “ Nothing could be clearer than this decree. It completely wipes out any Traditionalist bishops and the priests they pretend to create, so that not only were they never bishops, but could never validly ordain or consecrate other priests/bishops. In summary:
- Such priests never received jurisdiction, since as Charitas states they could never validly obtain it from schismatic bishops, far less from schsimatics consecrated by schismatic bishops; these “bishops” remain priests and priests cannot ordain other priests! Rev. Francis Miiaskiewicz, in his dissertation on this canon, is insistent that where Can. 209 states the “Church” supplies, this means only the Roman Pontiff, AND WITHOUT A POPE THE SUPPLETORY PRINCIPLE IS ENTIRELY LACKING. This is further confirmed by Pope Pius XII in his papal election constitution, “Vacantis Apostolica Sedis,” where he teaches that during an interregnum the intended effects of all usurpation of papal jurisdiction is null and void.
- The fact that they have never received and could never receive such jurisdiction prevents these men from invoking the application of Can. 2261 §2, which presumes valid and licit ordination/consecration and canonical mission jurisdiction. Any doubts in this matter also can be resolved by consulting the old law governing heresy, which, after all, is in accordance with Can. 6 §4 and Can. 147 above, making it “in harmony with the sacred canons,” (Can. 147). This law (see above) forbids any rehabilitation of heretics and schismatics for any purposes.
- Those clerics appointed or procured by lay people or who come from “some other source” are judged both by Pope Pius IX and Pope Pius XII to be vitandus. Vitandus cannot provide the sacraments on request for lay people even though no other minister is available (Can. 2261 §3) because they still must rely on supplied jurisdiction which can be provided only by a reigning pontiff. In his Vacantis Apostolica Sedis, Pope Pius XII infallibly nullifies any attempts to usurp papal jurisdiction during an interregnum.
Let us apply all this to certain bishops appointed to their episcopal sees by Pope Pius XII. Trad lay leaders claim these bishops, even though officially affiliated with the Novus Ordo, can absolve their priests and grant them valid jurisdiction. Canon 430 discusses the “privation” of an episcopal see owing to excommunication. This the canonist, Rev. Charles Augustine defines as the “canonical” death of a bishop. This would be considered a “tacit resignation,” incurred by the fact itself, or ipso facto, for heresy or schism, as Canon 188 §4 (footnoted by Pope Paul IV’s “Cum ex…”) states. Such resignation would be effective immediately and would require no acceptance, only evidence of the facts in the case. And it would occur the instant that a validly ordained and consecrated bishop joined the Novus Ordo anti-church, and/or signed V2 documents; this was the above mentioned “simple act of heresy” to which must be automatically added infamy of law, according to MacKenzie. Pope Paul IV states that bishops who are schismatic lose all power and authority, become infamous, and infamy of law strips them of jurisdiction. Infamy of law is both a vindicative penalty and an impediment to Orders barring the excommunicate from the exercise of valid, legal acts issuing from the clerical state, (or rights or privileges enjoyed by the laity). Heresy and infamy are two separate things. Infamy requires a dispensation and Can. 2295 states: “Infamy of law ceases only on dispensation granted by the Apostolic See.”
Revs. Woywod-Smith comment: “The person who has incurred…an infamy of law…cannot validly obtain ecclesiastical benefices, pensions, offices and dignities, nor can he validly exercise the rights connected with the same, nor perform a valid, legal ecclesiastical act.” Canon 2236 states that the dispensation of a vindicative penalty (infamy of law) “may be granted only by him who has inflicted the penalty or by his competent superior or successor. In this case the original penalty was inflicted by Pope Paul IV in “Cum ex…” and currently there is no canonically elected papal successor able to lift it. Can. 2237 no. 2 forbids the Ordinary to remit censures (for simple heresy) reserved in a special manner to the Apostolic See (heresy, schism) and Can. 2237 no. 3 forbids the Ordinary to dispense from the vindicative penalty for infamy of law, which invalidates the offender’s acts. Again, these are two separate things. If the case is public, and it is, a special indult from the Holy See is required for the Ordinary to be able to lift the censure. But he cannot dispense from infamy of law. Any indult granted to bishops by Pope Pius XII was lost when they committed heresy and schism, and in any case, it would only lift the censure; infamy of law would remain. The entire case is moot in any event since these priests did not possess jurisdiction, having never received it under bishops who lost it, and could not convey it, and by accepting John 23 and participating in the false Vatican “2” council, (see the papal decree, “Execrabilis”). In fact, according to Pope Pius VI, such men never even became priests. The Pope is the one in charge here, not lay Traditionalists and their pretend priests. To make such a decision on one’s own is to interfere with the rights of the Apostolic See.
Any clerics who have publicly celebrated the N. O. “mass” or who have joined Traditional mass groups to offer their services have adhered to a non-Catholic sect and can be at least externally considered schismatic. Donald Attwater, in his Catholic Dictionary, also states “anyone guilty of an external act of schism is ipso facto excommunicated; the conditions for absolution are the same for heresy,” (emph. his). Public adherence to a non-Catholic sect is all that is required under Can. 2314 to ipso facto incur infamy of law, and until a true pope exists, there is no way to reverse it. Once Pope Pius XII died, the chain of Apostolic Succession was temporarily interrupted because none of the Catholic cardinals or bishops separated themselves to elect a true pope to continue his line. Siri was incapable of doing this, being excommunicated for communicatio in sacris himself, incurring all the same penalties listed above. If those currently functioning as “clerics” within the Traditionalist organization would lay down their claims perhaps this terrible crisis would end.
And the only way this will happen is if their followers, who also have now been excommunicated for attending their non-Catholic services, refuse to cooperate with them in sin. To follow Canon Law as Pope Pius XII commands, Traditionalists now are bound to obey Can. 2294§1, which states that those who have incurred infamy of law “must be restrained from the exercise of sacred functions of the ministry.” Under Can. 1935, so also should those be denounced and ordered to cease and desist from these services wherever they may exist. In saying their mass prayers at home, stay-at-home Catholics are observing the censure they believe they have incurred for attending Novus Ordo and Traditionalist services, in penance for their sins and in obedience to Canon Law. For as long as God is being mocked and His people continue to dishonor Him by committing sacrilege, nothing will change. The truth has the power to set ALL of us free, if we just recognize it for what it is.
+ + +
Ven. Bartholomew Holzhauser, 17th Century
“During this period, many men will abuse the freedom of conscience conceded to them. It is of such men that Jude the Apostle spoke when he said, ‘These men blaspheme whatever they do not understand; and they corrupt whatever they know naturally as irrational animals do… They feast together without restraint, feeding themselves, grumbling murmurers, walking according to their lusts; their mouth speaketh proud things, they admire people for the sake of gain; they bring about division, sensual men, having not the spirit.’”
“During this unhappy period, there will be laxity in divine and human precepts. Discipline will suffer. The Holy Canons will be completely disregarded, and the Clergy will not respect the laws of the Church.Everyone will be carried away and led to believe and to do what he fancies, according to the manner of the flesh…”
“They will ridicule Christian simplicity; they will call it folly and. nonsense, but they will have the highest regard for advanced knowledge, and for the skill by which the axioms of the law, the precepts of morality, the Holy Canons and religious dogmas are clouded by senseless questions and elaborate arguments. As a result, no principle at. all, however holy, authentic, ancient, and certain it may be, will remain free of censure, criticism, false interpretation, modification, and delimitation by man…”
“When everything has been ruined by war; when Catholics are hard pressed by traitorous co-religionists and heretics, then the Hand of Almighty God will work a marvellous change, something apparently impossible according to human understanding…”
by T. Stanfill Benns | Sep 21, 2023 | Blog, New Blog
+ St. Matthew, Apostle +
The post below will address comments on the sedevacantist Passion of the Church article which was reviewed here last week because this article also makes reference to the possibility that John 23 was validly elected, quoting Pope Pius IX to the effect that even an “unworthy heir” can still reign validly. Other blogsters and Internet commentators are now hyperventilating about a new video by a Fr. Altman detailing the heresies of Francis. One of these is Patrick Henry, whose comments, unfortunately, have been picked up by other blogs. I don’t normally name names here but I am now forced to warn readers that Patrick Henry’s writings are not in compliance with the teachings of the Roman Pontiffs.
I have corrected Henry on this on several occasions, even published blog articles that demonstrate where he is in error, but to no avail. He insists that I believe that the laity comprises the magisterium, when all I have ever done is point to what the magisterium teaches. He denies the binding statement entered into the Acta Apostolica Sedis by Pius XII that in the absence of the hierarchy, the laity must take up all of their responsibilities. He refuses to believe that once the papacy is taken away, as St. Paul prophesied, the sheep would scatter as Christ warned. Here we need only cite three of his statements to prove that despite his copious quotes from the popes, he teaches falsely on Christ’s constitution of the Church and the fullness of papal power.
— “Truly Catholic Bishops MUST exist – otherwise there is no Catholic Church today and Jesus Christ would be a liar.”
— “It is heretical to state that the Catholic Church can be in existence without the episcopal order of the hierarchy consisting of Catholic bishops with the power of Orders and the power of jurisdiction.”
— “[Benns states]: The Apostolic hierarchy cannot exist without its head bishop, the pope.” [Should] Catholics believe this last sentence is the truth for even the length of one New York second?”
Notice there is no mention of the pope here as head bishop, implying that he denies the papacy is necessary for the episcopate to exist. This is consistent with the belief of sedevacantists who deny the necessity of the papacy and endorse Gallicanism. We read from the Vatican Council: “So in His Church, [Christ] wished the pastors and the doctors to be even to the consummation of the world. 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 blessed Peter over the other apostles, He established in him the perpetual principle and visible foundation of both unities upon whose strength the internal temple it might be erected and the sublimity of the Church to be raised to heaven might rise in the firmness of this faith” (DZ 1821; emph. mine).
So the way this is worded, the existence of the pastors and doctors even to the end of the world was dependent on whether they are founded on Peter, which explains the beginning of the following sentence with ”But.” The house of the faith cannot stand without its foundation. As quoted in last week’s blog from Pope Pius IX’s encyclical Nostis et Nobiscum: “Religion itself can never totter and fall WHILE THIS CHAIR REMAINS INTACT.” The Church cannot be one and undivided without Peter, for if divided from him, it is not one. If the Novus Ordo church and Traditionalists of all varieties are hopelessly at war with one another, how is anyone ever to arrive at anything close to the truth without adhering to the integral teachings of the Church, the fullness of papal teaching prior to Pope Pius XII’s death? The cacophony out there is so deafening because even people like Henry who pray at home seem to be playing for the same team and have been for some time. More on this later.
One of Henry’s main objections is the fact that Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis renders any bishops consecrated without the papal mandate INVALID, when Henry insists that the Church teaches “no LAWFUL consecration may take place in the entire Catholic Church without the order of the Apostolic See, as the Council of Trent declares.” That is true when a canonically elected pope is reigning, as some have claimed in citing Ad apostolorum principis to support the ”lawful” scenario. But it is NOT true during an extended interregnum, and Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, which will be examined at length below proves this. Anyone who dares to state that Pope Pius XII meant otherwise and fails to accept the conclusions which must logically be drawn from this constitution denies the teachings of the Vatican Council.
The binding force of papal constitutions
The sedevacantist article referred to last week states: “It is reasonable to hold that Roncalli was the first false pope of the 20th century. Since the evidence against John XXIII, however, is not as copious or as clear-cut as it is against Paul VI (r. 1963-78), some believe the first false pope was Paul VI… There are no cardinals appointed by a true Pope alive today, that much is certain, unless we want to posit that there is some true Pope in hiding who has appointed cardinals. While that may or may not be possible, either way it would remain a mere hypothesis.” But if the cardinals are all dead, how could there ever be another pope?, an opponent queries. And the sede blog replies: “Pius XII’s constitution on how to elect a Roman Pontiff is merely ecclesiastical law and therefore human law. It is not divine law, and it is therefore limited of its very nature. A human legislator — in this case, the Pope — can never foresee all possible circumstances that may arise, and human laws, even in the Church, are not meant to address all possible scenarios but are typically made only for ordinary circumstances.”
How any Catholic could possibly believe that this infallible constitution, a teaching of Christ’s Vicar, written with the active assistance of the Holy Ghost is merely a human document is truly astonishing. This grave error has been addressed at length in the article on epikeia. As will be seen below, the first three paragraphs of Title 1, Ch. 1 of Pope Pius XII’s election Constitution, Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis (abbreviated below as VAS), treats of papal jurisdiction and the nature of the primacy as it exists during an interregnum, not disciplinary matters. Title I has nothing to do with the election itself per se, but with the exercise of that jurisdiction St. Peter and his successors receive directly from Christ. (This, however, does not mean that certain teachings in the election law itself are not infallible.) A constitution is not just a law. It is: “A papal document that deals with serious doctrinal matters regarding the DEFINITION OF DOGMA, changes in canon law or other ecclesiastical matters.” This definition reveals that such constitutions can be either dogmatic or disciplinary, but as seen below they are always binding.
The Catholic Encyclopedia states: “The binding force of pontifical constitutions, even without the acceptance of the Church, is beyond question. The primacy of jurisdiction possessed by the successor of Peter comes immediately and directly from Christ. That this includes the power of making obligatory laws is evident. Moreover, that the popes have the intention of binding the faithful directly and immediately is plain from the mandatory form of their constitutions.” The Encyclopedia article, taken from S.B. Smith’s Elements of Ecclesiastical Law, calls these constitutions “synonymous” with laws, but not identical to them, since “…even in ecclesiastical usage the word constitution is restricted to papal ordinances.” In this case Pope Pius XII was defining dogma in the first three paragraphs of VAS, as did his predecessor Pope St. Pius X in the very same words. But he made certain there was no doubt that this was exactly what he was doing, adding to Pope St. Pius X’s document that what was stated in those three paragraphs issued from his Supreme Authority (see article HERE).
Whether it concerns matters of faith, morals or discipline, then, when we see that any document has been entered into the Acta Apostolica Sedis, we know that this document is binding on the faithful and that the Pope intends us to consider it something that he absolutely commands us to believe and to obey. Pope Pius XII taught in Humani generis that whenever you find any papal act registered in the Acta Apostolica Sedis, it is binding. This is explained here by Msgr. Joseph C. Fenton. Now if you read a papal document and it says “with the fullness of our Apostolic authority, with our Supreme Authority, We define, decree, declare” or anything like that you know the Pope is telling you that this is something that you are definitely bound to believe and to hold, an order issuing directly from him as the pastor of souls and the voice of Jesus Christ. But it doesn’t necessarily have to say this, in so many words, to be binding on the faithful. When the pope does say this, though, that should tell the faithful something. It should tell them that whatever it is he is saying is coming not from his lips alone, but from the mouth of Christ.
So Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis is a binding document for the simple reason that it treats matters of dogma and is entered into the 1946 Acta Apostolica Sedis (5 – ACTA, vol. XIII, n. 3. — 4-2-946). Traditionalists can try to pretend they have the power to dispense from it and override it, but that is exactly what the constitution was written to prevent and why such attempts are infallibly declared to be invalid. For the pope explains that during an interregnum (a) no one can usurp the jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff following his death or do anything that was reserved to the Roman Pontiff during his lifetime; (b) no one can violate the rights or prerogatives of the Church and everyone must defend them and finally (c) no one can change papal law or papal teaching or dispense from it in any way during an interregnum because those laws emanate primarily from the Roman Pontiffs and the ecumenical councils. This is clearly a clarification of Divine jurisdiction, which is why Pius XII concludes with the following:
“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.”
This invalidation of acts would include but is not limited to: (a) the election of Angelo Roncalli contrary to the laws and teachings of the Church and in violation of VAS and its provisions; (b) any attempt to consecrate bishops without the mandatory papal approval; (c) presumption of the VALIDITY of ordinations and consecrations performed by bishops approved by Pius XII without a decision by the Holy See, when the disposition of such irregular activities are reserved to his judgment alone; (d) the validity of first tonsure and obligatory examination of priestly candidates by those who lost jurisdiction through heresy and schism (since tonsure is a jurisdictional act) or who never became bishops per VAS, but were mere laymen; (e) any attempt, by anyone, to interpret VAS is automatically null and void since it is reserved strictly to the cardinals, who have all expired.
Essentially what Pope Pius XII has issued here is an (infallible) invalidating and incapacitating law. It applies only to interregnums which for the past several centuries have been limited by papal law and are relatively brief. Therefore, the temporary suspension of the papal approval of bishops and supplying of jurisdiction, also decisions on papal cases pending, was not burdensome. But the current interregnum is unprecedented and any so-called remaining bishops living at the time of Pope Pius XII’s death are entirely culpable for the length of its existence. “No ignorance of invalidating or disqualifying laws excuses from their observance; namely no ignorance of the aforementioned laws can make acts valid which they have rendered invalid nor can it make persons capable of acting whom they have declared incapacitated from acting. Nor can subjects be excused from the observance of these laws, for the matter is in no way dependent on the will of the agent but on the contrary depends entirely on the will of the legislator who issued such laws BECAUSE THE COMMON GOOD REQUIRED IT” (Abp. Amleto Cicognani, Canon Law, 1935, Can. 16).
Both Pope St. Pius X and Pope Pius XII invalidated all acts contrary to papal law and teaching and every usurpation of papal jurisdiction to defend the sacred institution of the primacy. Pope Pius XII did so by his Supreme Authority, making it clear there was no possibility this law could be dismissed as a mere human or disciplinary law. And given the nature of invalidating laws and what’s happened to the Church, we know why Pius XII wrote this constitution: It was for the good of the Church, because he knew that there is no better time to upend everything than when the See is vacant; and the mutineers were already at work. Denial that the Pope must be canonically elected is a heresy condemned long ago by the Church that is also reflected in Canon Law.
What is meant by canonical election?
Canon 147: “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.”
A decision of the Sacred Congregation regarding this Canon was issued June 29, 1950 (AAS 42-601). It levied excommunications “specially reserved to the Holy See” against those who violate Can. 147 and who contrive against legitimate ecclesiastical authority or attempt to subvert their authority, also anyone who takes part in such a crime. This only further confirms the first three paragraphs of Pius XII’s election law.
Canon 160: “The election of the Roman Pontiff is governed exclusively by the constitution of Pope Pius X, Vacante Sede Apostolica… amended and completely revised by [Pope Pius XII’s] constitution Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis of December 8, 1945.” Thus the Code itself confirms the papal constitutions regarding elections in its laws. It is not per se a law itself, however, since it issues directly from the Pontiff himself.
Canon 219: “The Roman Pontiff legitimately elected obtains from the moment he accepts the election the full power of supreme jurisdiction by divine right” (see also Can 109).
“Immediately on the canonical election of a candidate and his acceptance, he is true pope and can exercise full and absolute jurisdiction over the whole Church.”(Catholic Encyclopedia)
Canon 436: “During the vacancy [of an episcopal see] no innovations shall be made,” and as Rev. Anscar Parsons notes below: “The election of the Holy Father has been the prototype for the election of inferior prelates.”
In the 1958 election, Roncalli and an undetermined number of other cardinals incurred censures which could only be lifted by a FUTURE pope, barring them from election. That they elected him anyway was itself a heresy, for it not only violated VAS, and nullified the actions of those cardinals voting for Roncalli, but also denied the teachings that the pope must be canonically elected, that is, according to the existing law. Errors against this teaching are condemned as found in Denzinger’s Sources of Catholic Dogma, DZ 570 d, (decree for the Armenians); and the condemnation of Wycliffe and Hus for heresy, (DZ 650, 652, 674). Then, in accepting him as a true pope, these cardinals also incurred schism, creating a new church with a false, monstrous head. And later, in joining in “worship” of him and with him, they committed communicatio in sacris (Can. 2314 §3). Pope Paul IV also refers to canonical election in his 1559 Bull Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, after stating that the faithful may depart from a heretic appearing to be pope without any fear of incurring censure: “Subjects… remain, nevertheless, bound in fealty and obedience to future Bishops, Archbishops, Primates, Cardinals and the canonically established Roman Pontiff.”
Unworthy candidates for the papacy
Above we mentioned that the sedevacantist article quoted Pope Pius IX on the matter of an unworthy heir and this quote reads: “Let the faithful recall the fact that Peter, Prince of Apostles is alive here and rules in his successors, and that his office does not fail even in an unworthy heir. Let them recall that Christ the Lord placed the impregnable foundation of his Church on this See of Peter [Mt 16:18] and gave to Peter himself the keys of the kingdom of Heaven… ” (Nostis et Nobiscum). In his dissertation Canonical Elections, (Catholic University of America Press, 1939), Rev. Anscar Parsons addresses the instance of the election of an unworthy candidate. He begins by stating: “The election of the Holy Father has been the prototype for the election of inferior prelates.” This is important, because it then relates that these canons he refers to regarding ecclesiastical elections are applicable to papal elections as well, under the canons governing what is to be done when there is some doubt about a certain affair, (Canons 18 and 20). As both Rev. Parsons and Rev. Timothy Mock (Disqualification of Electors in Ecclesiastical Elections, Catholic University of America Press, 1958) explain:
“The election of an unworthy candidate is null and void from the beginning, because QUALIFIED ELECTORS are bound to know that the one they elect is duly qualified. By unworthy is meant a person branded by infamy of law or fact or a notorious apostate, heretic, schismatic or public sinner. Canon 2391 §1 provides the parallel passage of the Code mentioned in Can. 18: “A college which knowingly elects an unworthy person is automatically deprived, for that particular election, of the right to hold a new election.” The fact that this election was based on the wishes and desires of the U.S. government alone, as demonstrated in The Phantom Church in Rome, in violation of VAS — not to mention all the other violations noted above — indicates the intent to deliberately act contrary to the commands of Pope Pius XII, i.e., knowingly.
This takes us back to the election of Roncalli himself, still listed in 1958 as a suspected Modernist by the Holy Office, which not only disqualifies him as a candidate but voids the election of Montini and all who followed him. Rev. Parsons comments that those considered unfit or unworthy of election are “…those who are legally infamous or laboring under censure [also] notorious apostates, schismatics… public sinners and persons whose conduct is sinful or scandalous… In normal cases it is PRESUMED that the chapter made its choice with full deliberation and knowledge, because it is their duty to investigate the qualities of the person whom they elect … If the majority elect someone who is unworthy, all the voters, even those who are innocent are deprived of the right to vote in this instance” (p. 197). Wouldn’t the Cardinals have been obligated to vote for anyone BUT a suspected heretic, especially given Pope Pius XII’s public disapproval of Roncalli’s behavior? And doesn’t this prove in a backhanded fashion that he was elected for other reasons, i.e., in collusion with Montini and his CIA friends?
Rev. Mock agrees with Parsons, writing: “…The burden of proof …will be upon the electors to show that they did not know of the defect in the candidate. The electors are PRESUMED to know the qualifications required by law” (p. 137). Parsons poses the question: “Is the election of an unworthy person void from the beginning? It seems that it is. For the law says that the chapter is deprived of the right to proceed ‘…to a new election.’ In making this disposition, the legislator seems to suppose that the original choice was null and void” (p. 197.)” The electors showed their true intent by the subsequent election of Montini, the CIA’s star operative in the Vatican, and the eventual devastation he wreaked upon the Church. What further damning evidence could anyone possibly hope for to prove this case?! (This discussion can be reviewed in its entirety as presented in a previous blog HERE.) In codifying the papal election laws, Pope St. Pius X removed almost every obstacle to canonical election save that of heresy, apostasy and schism. So while Pope Pius IX could be referring to someone elected under infamy of law or fact, or to a public sinner, as unworthy, he COULD NOT have included in his intended meaning anyone guilty of heresy, apostasy or schism; this is a preposterous assumption and would contradict Cum ex Apostolatus Officio.
Pope Leo XIII wrote, in Satis Cognitum, June 20, 1896: “It is absurd to imagine that he who is outside can command in the Church.” And as St. Robert Bellarmine taught, a man not even a member of the Church can scarcely become its head. We read in the Catholic Encyclopedia on papal elections: “Of course the election of a heretic, schismatic, or female would be null and void. Immediately on the canonical election of a candidate and his acceptance, [the one designated] is true pope and can exercise full and absolute jurisdiction over the whole Church.” And once such an individual reveals that he intends to corrupt the liturgy and create a new idea of the Church, he is a heretic and schismatic, and therefore was never canonically elected. Cum ex Apostolatus Officio is the final word on this topic, although Traditionalists have vilified and ignored it from the beginning. All this argumentation, disputation, and demonization of actual proofs, in order to favor only opinions and theories, could have been avoided long ago by simply following Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, VAS, and the teachings of St. Robert Bellarmine.
To claim Roncalli a qualified candidate for election the following canons would need to be dispensed from, which is infallibly forbidden by Pope Pius XII in VAS.
— Roncalli’s checkered history and close friendship and collaboration with Montini, which is a matter of public knowledge; and especially his listing by Pope Pius XI as a suspected Modernist, proves he indeed was just as guilty of heresy as Montini. For Can. 2209 reads: “Persons who conspire to commit an offense and also physically concur in the execution of the same are all guilty in the same degree…” And if VAS is obeyed, we must accept this Canon as negatively infallible truth.
— Until Roncalli could be cleared of all suspicion of heresy (which is not a possibility), he would have been ineligible for election under Can. 2200, which assumes his guilt as at least a material heretic and therefore places him outside the Church (Rev. Tanquerey, several others) until his innocence is proven (see article HERE). It became publicly known in the 1960s, shortly after his election, that Roncalli was a suspected heretic, making the violation a known external act.
— Canon 2200 contains a presumption of law and cannot be struck down until such innocence is firmly established by competent ecclesiastical authority (Can. 147; see above). The cardinals electing him, who failed to investigate him and later went on to implement the new liturgy and Vatican 2 could scarcely be described as competent. In fact, nearly all were not valid electors and therefore could not have comprised the 2/3 plus one majority necessary to validly elect. Because as Pope Pius XII teaches in para. 68 of VAS, unless this majority exists, the election is invalid.
— Canons 1812, 1814 and 1816: Canon 1812 lists acts of the Roman Pontiffs as “public documents.” Can 1814 states that: “Public documents, both ecclesiastical and civil are presumed genuine until the contrary is proven by evident arguments.” Canon 1816 states: “Public documents prove the facts” of the case … “No further proof is required and the judge must pronounce in favor of the party whose contention is proved by a public document.”
— Canons 1827 and 1828 state that: “He who has a presumption of law in his favor (Canons 1814, 2200) is freed from the burden of proof which is thus shifted to his opponent. If the latter cannot prove that the presumption failed in this case, the judge must render sentence in favor of the one on whose side the presumption stands” (Can 1827). “Presumptions which are not stated in law shall not be conjectured by the judge except from a certain and specific fact which is directly connected with the fact in controversy. The presumption must thus be a kind of reasonable conclusion or inference from another specific fact established by evidence in the case. Since all inferential evidence is dangerous and easily misleads, the Code warns against conjectures” (and Pope Pius XII condemns the use of conjectures in Humani generis).
Conclusion
As we have stated repeatedly, obedience to VAS, to papal teaching in its fullness and to Canon Law would see the way clear to resolving this situation regarding the vacancy insofar as it could be resolved, but no one wishes to obey. Novus Ordo and Traditionalist pseudo-clergy alike, and that includes Henry who received orders himself from Francis Schuckhardt, cannot, will not, swallow their pride and for the good of the Church, bow their heads to VAS and admit that these bishops and priests are invalid and Antichrist has overcome the saints (Apoc. 13:7). For there is actual infiltration of Traditionalist AND pray-at-home ranks as noted in our articles on the Feeneyites. And some of the sources working behind the scenes to seduce the remnant have proven ties not only to Freemasonry but to Gnosticism, even Satanism. This we also have already covered in previous articles. We beg readers to do the only thing that can be done in this situation, the remedy that was suggested in a previous blog: daily pray the long St. Michael’s Prayer, that the evil spirits who have entered into our midst be expunged.
