Papal Disciplinary Decrees Are Infallible

by T. Stanfill Benns | Jul 14, 2022

© Copyright 2009, T. Stanfill Benns (All emphasis within quotes is the author’s.)

One of the most commonly misunderstood aspects of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff has been the infallible nature of those decrees issued for strictly disciplinary versus purely doctrinal reasons. Owing to the inroads made by Gallicanism and Modernism, many Traditionalists hold today that one can be condemned as a heretic, schismatic or apostate for violating a dogma of faith and morals, but cannot be certainly condemned for violating a disciplinary decree. We find the denial of this Church teaching common among those who attempt to escape the censures attached to teachings such as a) that issued by the Council of Trent for those acting in the place of clerics at the behest or by the appointment of the people, minus any canonical mission; b) for those who fail to obtain the papal mandate for episcopal consecration and c) in the case of those usurping papal jurisdiction and transgressing Canon Law during an interregnum, in violation of Pope Pius XII’s “Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis.”

Certain members of the faithful who question the condemnation of the teachings of Fr. Leonard Feeney as well as Pope Pius XII’s excommunication of Feeney also believe that they need not give irrevocable assent to these teachings and even the excommunication itself. This excommunication, they hold, was issued “only for disciplinary” and not doctrinal reasons. This although Feeney’s errors, as detailed in the Holy Office’s letter to Cardinal Cushing, are clearly portrayed as contrary to the Church’s own teachings on Baptism of blood and desire. And, as we shall see, even if Pope Pius XII’s excommunication of Feeney was for disciplinary reasons, it was an infallible act.

As Dr. Disandro noted, in his “Doctrinal Precisions” (see Articles to Download), those in the N.O. believed that bulls such as “Cum ex Apostolatus Officio” and other documents were disciplinary in nature and as such did not require an irrevocable assent. Now Traditionalists are trying to say the same. They forget that when Angelo Roncalli began his destruction of the Church, a revision of the Code of Canon Law, not realized until Wojtyla’s reign was promised from the time he called the Council. C. Leroux tells us, in her work “Son of Perdition,” that, “John 23rd ‘s only preoccupation, apart from the opening of the Council, had been ‘the adaptation of Canon Law to the needs of our times.’ [He] announced (it), right at the beginning…the reform of Canon Law, that ‘iron collar.’ That loose-tongued Cardinal Tardini artlessly admitted, ‘From now on, one can say that the principal goal of the Council will be more particularly ecclesiastical jurisdiction the renovation of the Code of Canon Law which might be altered, and then the whole gamut of the customs of Catholic life.’…If one does not wish to subject oneself to divine institutions, the simplest answer is to transform the law…In promising to modify [Canon Law] ‘very shortly,’ he reassured Canon Lawyers who might have raised objections in front of the upheavals which were going to affect not only the interior government of the Church and her doctrines, but Her relations with Her implacable enemies such as the Jews and Freemasons.”

A Modernist omits ‘discipline’ from an infallible pronouncement

Leroux also reports that in a 1961 communique concerning the coming Council, Cardinal Koenig listed as one of the topics to be addressed: “a reform of Canon Law, of the Index, and of penitential practices.” Roncalli let it be assumed that all these things would be “set right” by the alteration of Canon Law. And this is essentially what Traditionalists have attempted to do on their own authority. But all are laboring under a grave misconception concerning the Church’s true teaching on the subject of discipline. This topic has been shamefully confused even further by a misprint (?) in the 1955 edition of Henry Denzinger’s “The Sources of Catholic Dogma.” In the Introduction to this edition, the 30th, translator, Roy Deffarari, credits none other than Charles (Karl) Rahner, S.J. as responsible for “the 28th, 29th and 30th editions.” This may well account for any discrepancies in these editions of Denzinger’s work. The problem concerns an omission in DZ 326, a condemnation of various heresies under Pope Nicholas I by the Roman Council in (860 and) 863 A.D. There Denzinger’s printed:

“If anyone condemns dogmas, mandates, interdicts, sanctions or decrees, promulgated by the one presiding in the Apostolic See, for the Catholic Faith, for the correction of the faithful, for the emendation of criminals, either by an interdict of threatening or future ills, let him be anathema.”

Writing in 1875, Henry Cardinal Manning, in his “The Vatican Decrees in Their Bearing on Civil Allegiance” gives this rendition of the council’s condemnation of that same error: “Si quis dogmata, mandata, interdicta, sanctiones vel decreta, pro Catholica fide, pro ecclesiastica disciplina, pro correctione fidelium, pro emendatione scleratorum, vel interdictione imminentium vel futurorum malorum, a Sedis Apostolica Praeside salubriter promulgata contempserit,: Anathema sit.”

Notice that the words in bold, clearly translated as “for ecclesiastical discipline,” are omitted from Denzinger’s translation. Nor can it be argued that an ecumenical council erred, or that such teaching was later amended without denying the infallible teaching of the Church. We find the following proposition condemned by Pope Pius VI in “Auctorum Fidei,” (DZ 1578): “In every article, that which pertains to faith and to the essence of religion must be distinguished from that which is proper to discipline,” the Jansenists maintained. Pope Pius VI taught: “As if the Church, which is ruled by the Spirit of God, could have established discipline which is not only useless and burdensome for Christian liberty but which is dangerous and harmful,” condemned as at least erroneous, dangerous and injurious to the Church, among other things. Under Can. 2317, those clerics who teach condemned propositions are “barred from the ministry of preaching the Word of God and of hearing sacramental confessions, and from every other office of teaching, without prejudice to other penalties which the sentence of condemnation of the doctrine may perhaps have decreed.” One of the sources listed by Cardinal Gasparri for this Canon in his Fontes is none other than Pope Paul IV’s “Cum ex Apostolatus Officio.” And once the Vatican Council was held, “Auctorem Fidei” formally became an infallible decree.

Papal teaching on disciplinary matters

We learn from Pope Gregory XVI in Mirari Vos: “It would be beyond any doubt blameworthy and entirely contrary to the respect with which the laws of the Church should be received by a senseless aberration to find fault with the regulation of morals, and the laws of the Church and her ministers; or to speak of this discipline as opposed to certain principles of the natural law, or to present it as defective, imperfect, and subject to civil authority.” And from the same Pope in Quo Graviora: “Are they not trying, moreover, to make of the Church something human; are they not openly diminishing her infallible authority and the divine power which guides her, in holding that her present discipline is subject to decay, to weakness, and to other failures of the same nature, and in imagining that it contains many elements which are not only useless but even prejudicial to the well being of the Catholic religion?”

And we read from The Vatican Council: “The pastors and faithful…are bound by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, not only in things which pertain to faith and morals but also in those which pertain to the discipline and government of the Church…If anyone says that the Roman Pontiff has only the office of inspection or direction, but not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the universal Church, not only in things which pertain to faith and morals but also in those which pertain to the discipline and government of the Church…let him be anathema,” (DZ 1827, 1831).

And again after the Vatican Council we hear these absolutely definitive words from Pope Pius IX, in Quartus Supra (1873): “But the neo-schismatics say that it was not a case of doctrine but of discipline, so the name and prerogatives of Catholics cannot be denied to those who object. Our Constitution Reversurus, published on July 12, 1867, answers this objection. We do not doubt that you know well how vain and worthless this evasion is. For the Catholic Church has always regarded as schismatic those who obstinately oppose the lawful prelates of the Church and in particular, the chief shepherd of all. Schismatics avoid carrying out their orders and even deny their very rank. Since the Armenian faction of Constantinople is like this, they are schismatics even if they had not yet been condemned as such by Apostolic authority. For the Church consists of the people in union with the priest, and the flock following its shepherd. Consequently the bishop is in the Church and the Church in the bishop, and whoever is not with the bishop is not in the Church. Furthermore, as Our predecessor Pius VI warned in his Apostolic letter condemning the civil constitution of the clergy in France, discipline is often so closely related to doctrine and has such a great influence on its preservation and its purity, that the sacred councils have not hesitated to cut off from the Church by their anathema those who have infringed its discipline.

“But the neo-schismatics have gone further, since ‘every schism fabricates a heresy for itself to justify its withdrawal from the Church.’ Indeed, they have even accused this Apostolic See as well, as if We had exceeded the limits of Our power in commanding that certain points of discipline were to be observed…Nor can the Eastern Churches preserve communion and unity of faith with Us without being subject to the Apostolic power in matters of discipline. Now such teaching is not only heretical after the definitions and declarations of the Ecumenical Council of the Vatican on the nature and reasons for the primacy of the Sovereign Pontiff, but it has always been considered to be such and has been abhorred by the Catholic Church. It is for this reason that the bishops of the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon, openly declared the supreme authority of the Apostolic See in their proceedings; then they humbly requested Our predecessor, St. Leo, to sanction and confirm their decrees, even those which concerned discipline.”

Three years after writing Quartus Supra, we also hear the following from 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, to the clergy and faithful of the Chaldean Rite.) It is for this reason that Henry Cardinal Manning, in the book mentioned earlier, stated that “The Pope, speaking ex cathedra, is infallible; this definition, by retrospective action, makes all Pontifical acts infallible, …such as the Bull Unam Sanctam, the Bull Unigenitus, the Bull Auctorum Fidei, [which] were held to be infallible as fully before the Vatican Council as now…The doctrine of the Church does not determine the doctrine of the Primacy, but the doctrine of the Primacy does precisely determine the doctrine of the Church.” This only repeats Pope Pius IX’s teaching in Quartus Supra. And to the list of bulls provided by Cardinal Manning, we can add also Pope Pius IX’s own Syllabus of Errors, so many times dismissed as disciplinary and non-infallible.

As if this were not enough to demonstrate that no one can possibly question disciplinary decrees issued by the Roman Pontiff on the grounds that such decrees are not authoritative and do not bind, Pope St. Pius X was once again forced to address this error in “Pascendi Dominici Gregis,” against the Modernists. He states that the intent of these heretics was to reform all aspects of the Church, but especially “its disciplinary and dogmatic parts.” It was not a coincidence that the vigilance councils founded by Pope St. Pius X to combat Modernism, before their abolition by Pope Benedict XV, helped finger one Angelo Roncalli as a suspected Modernist.

Pope Pius XII in Ad apostolorum principis, 1958:

“We are aware that those who belittle obedience in order to justify themselves with regard to those functions which they have unrighteously assumed defend their position by recalling a usage which prevailed in ages past. Yet everyone sees that all ecclesiastical discipline is overthrown if it is in any way lawful for one to restore arrangements which are no longer valid because the supreme authority of the Church long ago decreed otherwise. In no sense do they excuse their way of acting by appealing to another custom, and they indisputably prove that they follow this line deliberately in order to escape from the discipline which now prevails and which they ought to be obeying…The faithful are bound by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience not only in matters which pertain to faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the Church.”

Prof. Carlos Disandro on Church discipline

Dr. Carlos A. Disandro’s work Doctrinal Precisions also sheds much light on where we find ourselves today and how little things really have changed. But most importantly, his writings point out that the misunderstanding of the relationship between doctrine and discipline, begun at “Vatican 2” has continued to plague Traditionalism to this day. It has deepened the rift between the various Traditional sects to such an extent that discipline has been reduced to a matter of inexpert opinion, with everyone able to access a Canon Law book qualified as a “canonist,” able to interpret the law or even declare it to have ceased to apply. Those laws such as Cum ex Apostolatus Officio issuing from the doctrinal authority of the Church, have been lost in the canonical shuffle, as Disandro ably points out in his Precisions. Disandro wrote that it is impossible that a bull for perpetuity such as “Cum ex…” “could “be abrogated (with which falls a canonical argument in favor of the Bull Quo Primum); and secondly, that a disciplinary code would be able to nullify as positive legislation of the Church a question which refers to the very heart of doctrine. Discipline thus would acquire primacy over doctrine, and there would be completed also, in a manner surreptitious but effective, one of the great longings of progessivism: to include all dispute, ancient and modern in the context of a disciplinary law. It is logical that the change in this would be able to bring about a change in doctrine, skillfully veiled by the operation of a subtle theological and semantic transference.

“Therefore, if even worship turns out to be a disciplinary matter (a certainty for Progressives), it does not seem that Paul 6 would be unable to dictate, reform, annul, or confirm his Novus Ordo contrary to Tradition, IN THE NAME OF DISCIPLINE. [ED NOTE: Rev. Kinkead tells us in his Baltimore Catechism # 3 that the liturgy is part of revealed Tradition.] Therefore, for the historicist, Judaeo-Christian mentality of progressivism, all the abolitions, immersions, and subtle changes took place in the proving ground of discipline, with the changes in Doctrine, as in an evolutionary process, transferring over and following consecutively. [ED. NOTE: In other words, change the discipline and the doctrine will change automatically.] in the Church, the CHAIN OF DOCTRINE WITH DISCIPLINE follows the course of INVIOLABLE FAITH — of the Paradosis (Greek word for tradition, or handing down) of the Apostles — through whose care, vigilance and utterance the Pontificate exists…IT IS THE MONTINIAN SYSTEM OF USING THE CANONICAL DISCIPLINE IN ORDER TO TEAR DOWN DOCTRINES AND TRADITION, a thing which is important because it uncovers the null character of such decisions and substitutions.”

In Dr. Disandro’s treatise, we see all the very subjects discussed by Pope St. Pius X in his Pascendi; the use of progressivism to move the two sides “closer” to an ecumenical compromise (dialogue), then the eventual evolution of the entire structure of the Church: “The conserving force in the Church is Tradition and Tradition is represented by religious authority…It is in the very nature of authority to protect Tradition…Authority, raised as it is above the contingencies of life, feels hardly, or not at all, the spurs of progress,” (Pascendi Dominici Gregis). Here we see described the very blueprint used by the V2 antipopes to destroy the Traditions of the Church, primarily the liturgy. But we also see that in order to arrive at the destruction of Tradition, authority, both doctrinal and disciplinary must be attacked first.

The weak link was discipline; none of the liberals and Modernist sympathizers wished to be the recipients of excommunications or warnings. So once their plants were in the Vatican, they simply failed to exercise this power to arrest liturgical renewal and ecumenism. The rest disintegrated of its own accord. This is the process Disandro observed and described. His critics were the SSPX, who openly and insistently have declared “Cum ex…” a disciplinary decree, hence not infallible, and also have ignored the requirement for papal mandate in creating their clerics and jurisdiction in operating their chapels.

V2 called ‘Quo Primum’ a disciplinary decree

In another “disciplinary” decree Quo Primum, infallible by virtue of the Vatican Council declaration, we read: “These men consulted the works of ancient and approved authors concerning the same sacred rites; and thus they have restored the Missal itself to the original form and rite of the holy Fathers.” (Read “restored,” not rewritten and reorganized, as done with the Novus Ordo Missae.) “When this work has been gone over numerous times and further emended, after serious study and reflection, We commanded that the finished product be printed and published as soon as possible, so that all might enjoy the fruits of this labor; and thus, priests would know which prayers to use and which rites and ceremonies they were required to observe from now on in the celebration of Masses. In virtue of Our Apostolic authority, We grant and concede in perpetuity that, for the chanting or reading of the Mass in any church whatsoever, this Missal is hereafter to be followed absolutely…Nor are superiors, administrators, canons, chaplains, and other secular priests, or religious, of whatever title designated, obliged to celebrate the Mass otherwise than as enjoined by Us. We likewise declare and ordain that no one whosoever is forced or coerced to alter this Missal, and that this present document cannot be revoked or modified, but remain always valid and retains its full force notwithstanding the previous constitutions and decrees of the Holy See.” If ever any doubt existed that “Quo Primum” was an infallible Bull, it should exist no longer.

And neither should it exist concerning any other disciplinary decrees issued by the Roman Pontiff or the General Councils the Pontiffs have approved. And in Quartus Supra, Pope Pius IX clearly states that even without a formal declaration, the Armenians resisting the authority of the papal see were considered schismatics. Likewise all who “avoid carrying out their orders” (those of the Roman Pontiffs) are reckoned as schismatics. This would include any who ignore the decrees of the Roman Pontiffs who excommunicated them for not observing their condemnations or obeying the teachings found in their decrees. This would include those who ignore papal mandates concerning consecration, ignore the teachings of the Council of Trent and other papal teachings concerning jurisdiction and all who ignore those excommunications for heresy and schism to minister to the faithful when no supplied jurisdiction can be granted; also those who ignore the further teachings found in Quartus Supra concerning the inability of the laity to participate in the election of bishops and other clerics.

“Concerning the exclusion of the laity from the election of bishops, a clear distinction must be made, lest a doctrine at variance with the Catholic faith result. This distinction is between the right to elect bishops and the ability to give testimony as to their life and morals. The former claim must be credited to the wrong notions of Luther and Calvin, who even asserted that it was a matter of divine law that the bishops should be elected by the people; as everybody realizes, such false teaching has been and is still rejected by the Catholic Church. For no power of electing bishops or other ministers of religion has ever been given to the people by either divine or ecclesiastical law,” (Pope Pius IX, Quartus Supra). Not only do certain Conclavists reserve the right for laymen to “elect” a pope as the bishop of Rome “in exile,” but Traditionalist bishops elected by fellow “clerics” — who have been ipso facto excommunicated for schism and/or heresy and hence reduced to the lay state — are, in effect “elected” only by laymen as well, (Can. 188 no. 4, also Cum ex Apostolatus Officio). As Pope Pius IX teaches, such actions are “at variance with the Catholic faith” and are “rejected by the Catholic Church.”

Conclusion

The infallibility of disciplinary decrees is just one more nail in the coffin of the Conclavists and Traditionalist clergy and their sects. If they truly wished to escape the errors of the V2 usurpers from the beginning, they needed to run to, not from, papal authority. Those who still cling to the false teaching that they are members of the true Church, hence not excommunicated for following clergy not in communion with the Roman Pontiff are in grave error. Those who defend the (condemned) opinion that Fr. Leonard Feeney should somehow be regarded sympathetically because he was only excommunicated for “disciplinary” reasons, not heresy, are denying a truth of faith. When Feeney’s excommunication is read it is clear that the reasons for his excommunication were entirely doctrinal — not only was he excommunicated for disputing the Holy See’s definition of “outside the Church there is no salvation,” but in refusing to obey Rome’s orders to cease and desist in his teaching, he was denying the definition by the Vatican Council that the Pope is infallible in deciding disciplinary matters as well as those touching on faith and morals.

Therefore Feeney WAS indeed a heretic, and those who defended him then and defend him now should consider the censure levied by Can. 2316 §1: “A person who of his own accord and knowingly helps in any manner to propagate heresy…incurs suspicion of heresy.” Revs. Woywod-Smith comment under Can. 2317: “If a doctrine has been pronounced formal heresy, one becomes a heretic by teaching or defending that doctrine, and incurs the penalties which Can. 2314 inflicts on heresy.” Those who have, for years, regarded disciplinary actions by the Holy See as not binding in conscience must thoroughly study the Church’s teaching on this matter. They must review any beliefs or decisions based on this malicious misrepresentation of Church doctrine. Heresy is a deadly serious business, and there are many who try to minimize the serious nature and consequences of this censure today. Some even smirk when it is mentioned and try to avoid the subject altogether, assuming that God in His mercy could never hold Catholics today guilty of this grave sin against faith. This is a minimizing of the very essence of faith itself, and it is difficult to understand how ANY Catholic could believe that God would give power to His vicars to teach His truths, and then not be deeply offended and demand justice when lies pass for these truths.

It is also interesting to note that many of those actively espousing the Feeneyite heresy teach that the Roman See has been vacant since the election of Pope Pius IX. They give various reasons for this baseless calumny, among that Pius IX was a Freemason in his youth (long ago proven utterly false) and that he erred in believing that one not a member of the Church could be saved “outside the Church.” The real reason they wish to impugn this saintly Pontiff is twofold: a) they wish to nullify the Vatican Council, as did the Old Catholics whom they greatly resemble and b) They wish to erase the other infallible teachings of Pius IX concerning the infallibility of the Church’s disciplinary decisions.

The attacks of the enemy and their modus operandi never change. Their primary reason for existence is to destroy even the idea of the papacy and infallibility in the minds of what few faithful remain. If we come away with nothing else from this miserable odyssey people refer to as the crisis in the Church, we should by now understand what Pope Pius IX once taught: “May God give you the grace necessary to defend the rights of the Sovereign Pontiff and the Holy See, for without the pope there is no Church, and there is no Catholic Society without the Holy See” (Allocution to religious superiors, June 24, 1872; Papal Teachings: The Church, by the Monks of Solesmes, translated by Mother E. O’Gorman, St. Paul Editions, 1962; no. 391, p. 226).

The Laws of the Church are the Will of God

by T. Stanfill Benns | May 10, 2014

© Copyright 1990; revised 2012, T. Stanfill Benns ( All emphasis within quotes is the author’s unless indicated otherwise.)

God’s Will and the Law

Rev. Nicolas Neuberger in his Commentary on Canon 6 has cited the Church’s laws concerning discipline as negatively infallible, meaning that they cannot work to the harm of souls or the destruction of the divine principle of perpetuity and infallibility on which the Church is built. Volume V (v), of the Catholic Encyclopedia, under “Discipline” states that it is the UNANIMOUS OPINION of the theologians that discipline enjoys “a negative, indirect infallibility, i.e., the Church can prescribe nothing that would be contrary to the natural or Divine law, nor prohibit anything that the natural or Divine law would exact.” Pope Pius IX declared the unanimous opinion of theologians to be infallible, and hence anything determined by them unanimously must be firmly believed. (DZ 1683)

Furthermore, we have the words of Pope Pius IX, in his Encyclical Quartus Supra, where he teaches: “… discipline is often so closely united to dogma, it has such an influence on its preservation and on its purity, that the sacred Councils have not hesitated in many cases to pronounce anathemas against those guilty of disciplinary violations and separated them from communion with the Church.” Leo XIII states in his encyclical Sapientiae Christianae: “In setting how far the limits of obedience extend, let no one imagine that the authority of the sacred pastors, and above all of the Roman Pontiff, need be obeyed only insofar as it is concerned with dogma, the obstinate denial of which entails the guilt of heresy …. Christian men must be willing to be ruled and governed by the authority and direction of … (in the first place) the Apostolic See .. When the Church speaks, even when She does not speak with all the weight of Her infallible utterance, She does so invariably to give us SAFE GUIDANCE… a Catholic is PRACTICALLY secure in listening to the voice of those whom God has set to rule the Church.” (see DZ 1673 and 1792)

The constitutions and Decrees of the Holy Pontiffs are most especially embodied in Canon Law, according to Volume IX (iii) of the Catholic Encyclopedia. Concerning Canon Law’s constitution, Rev. Francis J. Schaeffer writes in this volume: “THE ULTIMATE SOURCE OF CANON LAW IS GOD, whose will is manifested either by the very nature of things (natural Divine law) or by Revelation (positive Divine law) …To attain its sublime end, the Church, endowed by its Founder with legislative power, makes laws in conformity with natural and Divine law. The sources or authors of this positive ecclesiastical law are essentially the episcopate and its head, the pope, the successors of the Apostolic College and its divinely appointed head, St. Peter. They are, properly speaking, the active sources of canon law. Their activity is exercised in its most solemn form by the ecumenical councils…(these) councils, especially…Trent, hold an exceptional place in ecclesiastical law… The sovereign pontiff is the most fruitful source of canon law: …From the earliest ages the letters of the Roman Pontiffs constitute, with the canons of the Councils, the principal element of Canon Law; … they are everywhere relied upon and collected, and the ancient canonical compilations contain a large number of these precious decretals.” If we wish to know the will of God, and the mind of the Church as it has been consistently expressed throughout the ages, we need only look as far as Canon Law.

Each day Catholics pray the “Our Father,” and beseech “Thy will be done on earth…” They have little if any idea of how this might be accomplished. All they understand is that God’s will is something that simply “happens.” The Great Apostasy has “happened;” the shepherd has been struck as well as the flock dispersed, and they are all quite resigned to all this. Unfortunately they understand only half of the formula used to determine God’s will, and as we might expect it it the less important half, and that very aspect most likely to incline to Quietism, (failing to do what one can for oneself and leving God to do everything without the required works). St. Cyprian, Father of the Church, gave us a general indication of God’s will when he wrote: “The Will of God is what Christ has done and taught.”

Rev. Aldolphe Tanquerey, that great master of the spiritual life, wrote: “Now to conform our wills to that of God is assuredly to cease to do evil, and to learn to do good. Is not this the meaning of that oft repeated text: ‘FOR OBEDIENCE IS BETTER THAN SACRIFICES’ (1 Kings XV, 22; Osee VI, 6; Matt IX, 3 also XII, 7) In the New Law, Our Lord declares from the very moment of His entry into the world that it is with obedience that He will replace the sacrifices of the Ancient Law: ‘Holocausts for sin did not please Thee. Then I said: Behold I come … that I should do Thy will, O God.’ (Hebrews X, 6-7; Phil 11, 8; Phil, IV, 3). And in truth, it is by obedience unto the immolation of self that He has redeemed us: ‘He was made obedient unto death, even the death of the Cross.’ (John 4, 34) In the same way, it is through obedience and through the acceptance of God-ordained trials in union with Christ that we shall atone for our sins and cleanse our soul.” (The Spiritual Life, pages 240-241).

We must remember these words well. Christ forever gave us perfect example in these matters by fulfilling every point of His Father’s will. He enjoined our imitation of Him in this practice of perfection when he told us: “For whosoever shall do the will of My Father that is in heaven, he is my brother and sister and mother … not everyone that saith to me ‘Lord, Lord’ shall enter the Kingdom …but he that doth the will of my Father who is in heaven, he shall enter … heaven.” (Matt 12, 50; Matt 7, 21. The Heliotropium by Jeremias Drexelius is called by his editor, Rev. Ferdinand Bogmer, “… the most distinguished ascetical writer of Germany in the 17th century.:) St. Francis de Sales, Doctor of the Church, explains further that there are TWO parts to the will of God; the will of signification and the will of good-pleasure. St. Francis lists the following four parts belonging to God’s will of signification as:

1. the commandments of God and of His Church,
2. the evangelical counsels (poverty, chastity, obedience),
3. divine inspiration, and
4. those duties peculiar to our chosen vocation…,” (Holy Abandonment, Rt. Rev. Dom Vital Lehody O.C.R., page 9).

Commenting further, St. Francis writes: “Obedience to the Commandments, both divine and ecclesiastical, is of obligation for all, because there is question here of THE ABSOLUTE WILL OF GOD WHO HAS MADE SUBMISSION TO THESE ORDINANCES A CONDITION OF SALVATION,” (Ibid, emphasis ours) St. Francis observes that God rather desires than wills the counsels, or binding ourselves to some religious order or spiritual director, (which today is totally impossible). While we cannot submit our suspected divine inspirations to a spiritual director today, this does not mean that we should ignore them, either. Revs. Caussade and Grou, in their works on God’s holy will, assure us that if we have no spirutual directors today, God Himself will direct us. Therefore we should do what our director would normally do for us, submitting our “inspirations” to the scrutiny of Divine and canon law, holding the law superior to such “inspirations.” Commenting on St. Francis’ observations, Rev. Lehody writes: “… Rules are ordinarily the chief means at our disposal for the purification of our souls. Obedience detaches and purifies us continually by the thousand renunciations it imposes, and still more by its demand for the mortification of our judgement and self-will… The signified will must be considered the fixed and regular path amidst the accidental and variable events of life, the tasks of our days and of every instant.” (Holy Abandonment, pages 18 and 22).

St. Francis de Sales relates that God’s will of good-pleasure can be found, “… in everything that befalls us: in sickness, in death, in affliction, in consolation, in adversity and prosperity … in all unforseen circumstances.’ (Ibid. page 11) Rev. Lehody spurns the notion of the Quietists that the soul must remain passive and advance no effort, letting God do with it what He will and warns us against such a misinterpretation of God’s will of good-pleasure. If the Saints seemed to us to be effortlessly supported by God, we must remember how relentlessly they pursued Him and how tirelessly they worked on His behalf. If we hasten to fulfill all the laws of God because we wish to be obedient to Him, even though we have no superiors, how can He possibly be said to fault us? St. Bonaventure writes: “Al1 religious perfection equals martyrdom in merit.” (“Holy Abandonment,” page 18) And St. Bernard teaches that neither zeal for good works, nor the sweetness of divine contemplation, nor the tears of penitence would have been acceptable to Him apart from obedience, (Ibid. page 21). He also calls obedience WITHOUT DELAY “…the first degree of humility…” (The Book of Catholic Quotations, page 642).

And it is useless to say that having no superiors, we are excused, for the laws of numerous popes and councils throughout Church history continue to remain at our disposal in the form of Canon Law, which has not been greatly altered in all its 1,958 years or so of existence. We would do well to remember the words of Pius XII in his encyclical, Mortalium Animos: … “No one is in this Church, no one perseveres, unless he acknowledges and obediently accepts the power and authority of Peter and his legitimate successors,” which today means reading and obeying all that the popes have taught throughout the centuries. Likewise we read in the Vatican Council documents: “…the faithful… are bound by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, not only in those things which pertain to faith and morals, BUT ALSO THOSE WHICH PERTAIN TO THE DISCIPLINE AND GOVERNMENT OF THE CHURCH, so that the Church of Christ, protected not only by the Roman Pontiff, but by the unity of communion as well as the profession of the same faith, is one flock under one highest shepherd. THIS IS THE DOCTRINE OF CATHOLIC TRUTH FROM WHICH NO ONE CAN DEVIATE AND KEEP HIS FAITH AND SALVATION.” (DZ 1827).

Here, then, is the final answer to all those who dare to assail Canon Law. They cannot understand that it is not inequitable LAWS that bind us, but the failure to obey these laws and make them known to those who are in ignorance concerning them. Here the Novus Ordo church has had a legitimate complaint: We have not obeyed the laws of the Church existing before 1958. Instead there are those who have erected illegal “Traditional” centers in violation of ALL the laws governing the Church. But neither is the Novus Ordo crowd justified in obeying the “popes’ of the false Vatican 2 council. We all know that the Church can bind us only through Her LEGITIMATE pastors; this is the entire thrust of Paul IV’s infallible decree Cum ex Apostolatus Officio. We cannot pick and choose which laws we must follow either; Scripture tells us that the man who is faithful, even in little things, is the man who is pleasing to God.

Many Traditionalists have lost all hope of a reprieve and have, as a result, fallen prey to the ‘pray, retreat and await the end’ syndrome. They have not studied to learn God’s will of signification, so they are ignorant of the obedience owed to ALL the laws of the Church under pain of exclusion from Her pale. They make no effort and expect God to carry them through whatever trials and tribulations await us in the. Latter Days. Bossuet addressed this Quietistic error when he wrote: “Having endowed us with intelligence, foresight and liberty, (God) wills that we should make use of them … To abandon ourselves to God without on our side doing what we can, is cowardice and insolence. There was nothing of this bad tendency about the piety of David … in the conduct of David we have abandonment in the Christian sense of the word and according to Apostolic teaching Whilst he awaited submissively whatever God should ordain regarding his kingdom and person, during Absolom’s revolt, without losing a moment he issued the necessary orders to his troops, his counsellors and principle confidants, to secure his retreat and re-establish his authority … One can see that (such behaviour) rests on two fundamental principles: the conviction that God has care of us and the conviction that we must none the less exercise our energies and vigilance, otherwise WE SHOULD BE TEMPTING GOD.” (Holy Abandonment, pages 36 and 37).

Drexelius, in his Heliotropium tells us the same: “That war and death of all kinds are from God is clearly enough. But the conclusion drawn from this that we must not resist an enemy, and must not grapple with disease, is bad. The sick man does not know how long God wills that he should be afflicted.” Therefore he may “… strive against it and use any lawful remedy for recovering his health … God often willed that the Children of Israel should be attacked … but as long as it did not appear that He willed they should be overcome, so long did they resist an enemy … It would have been otherwise if God had warned them, as He did by the prophet Jeremias, that they should surrender themselves as servants to King Nebuchodnasor.” (pages 12-13). Those who insist on disregarding God’s will would do well to heed the words of St. Dorothy: ‘When you see a solitary who has abandoned his state and fallen into serious disorders, understand that this misfortune is the result of his insistence on following his own will. For nothing can be so perilous and pernicious as to take as our guide our own spirit, directing our steps by our own lights.’” (Holy Abandonment, page 19).

It must be remembered that only Lot escaped the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah; that only eight entered the ark of Noah; that only two of the Israelites who left Egypt entered the Promised Land; and finally, that only Our Lady and St. John (who later retreated to the upper room), Mary Magdalene, Mary the Mother of James the less, and Salome, along with Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea, were to be found at Calvary. The Apostles were far removed from the site, hiding in the upper room “for fear of the Jews.” Likewise, the valid hierarchy remain in hiding who justifiably fear for their lives. Webster’s Dictionary defines “remnant” as “a small fragment, a scant trace.” God promised never to leave us orphans; wherever two or three are gathered in His name, there shall He also abide. As Psalm 110 proclaims: “They that put their trust in the Lord shall be as Mount Sion; he shall not be moved forever.”

H. Papal Disciplinary Decrees Are Infallible

by T. Stanfill Benns | Feb 17, 2012

Papal Disciplinary Decrees Are Infallible

© Copyright 2009, T. Stanfill Benns (None of what appears below — in whole or in part — may be used without the express and written permission of the author. All emphasis within quotes is the author’s unless indicated otherwise.)

One of the most commonly misunderstood aspects of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff has been the infallible nature of those decrees issued for strictly disciplinary versus purely doctrinal reasons. Owing to the inroads made by Gallicanism and Modernism, many Traditionalists hold today that one can be condemned as a heretic, schismatic or apostate for violating a dogma of faith and morals, but cannot be certainly condemned for violating a disciplinary decree. We find the denial of this Church teaching common among those who attempt to escape the censures attached to teachings such as a) that issued by the Council of Trent for those acting in the place of clerics at the behest or by the appointment of the people, minus any canonical mission; b) for those who fail to obtain the papal mandate for episcopal consecration and c) in the case of those usurping papal jurisdiction and transgressing Canon Law during an interregnum, in violation of Pope Pius XII’s “Vacante Apostolic Sedis.” Certain members of the faithful who question the condemnation of the teachings of Fr. Leonard Feeney as well as Pope Pius XII’s excommunication of Feeney also believe that they need not give irrevocable assent to these teachings and even the excommunication itself. This excommunication, they hold, was issued “only for disciplinary” and not doctrinal reasons. This although Feeney’s errors, as detailed in the Holy Office’s letter to Cardinal Cushing, are clearly portrayed as contrary to the Church’s own teachings on Baptism of blood and desire. And, as we shall see, even if Pope Pius XII’s excommunication of Feeney was for disciplinary reasons, it was an infallible act.

As Dr. Disandro noted, in his “Doctrinal Precisions” (see Articles to Download), those in the N.O. believed that bulls such as “Cum ex Apostolatus Officio” and other documents were disciplinary in nature and as such did not require an irrevocable assent. Now Traditionalists are trying to say the same. They forget that when Angelo Roncalli began his destruction of the Church, a revision of the Code of Canon Law, not realized until Wojtyla’s reign was promised from the time he called the Council. C. Leroux tells us, in her work “Son of Perdition,” that, “John 23rd ‘s only preoccupation, apart from the opening of the Council, had been ‘the adaptation of Canon Law to the needs of our times.’ [He] announced (it), right at the beginning…the reform of Canon Law, that ‘iron collar.’ That loose-tongued Cardinal Tardini artlessly admitted, ‘From now on, one can say that the principal goal of the Council will be more particularly ecclesiastical jurisdiction the renovation of the Code of Canon Law which might be altered, and then the whole gamut of the customs of Catholic life.’…If one does not wish to subject oneself to divine institutions, the simplest answer is to transform the law…In promising to modify [Canon Law] ‘very shortly,’ he reassured Canon Lawyers who might have raised objections in front of the upheavals which were going to affect not only the interior government of the Church and her doctrines, but Her relations with Her implacable enemies such as the Jews and Freemasons.”

A Modernist omits ‘discipline’ from an infallible pronouncement

Leroux also reports that in a 1961 communique concerning the coming Council, Cardinal Koenig listed as one of the topics to be addressed: “a reform of Canon Law, of the Index, and of penitential practices.” Roncalli let it be assumed that all these things would be “set right” by the alteration of Canon Law. And this is essentially what Traditionalists have attempted to do on their own authority. But all are laboring under a grave misconception concerning the Church’s true teaching on the subject of discipline. This topic has been shamefully confused even further by a misprint (?) in the 1955 edition of Henry Denzinger’s “The Sources of Catholic Dogma.” In the Introduction to this edition, the 30th, translator, Roy Deffarari, credits none other than Charles (Karl) Rahner, S.J. as responsible for “the 28th, 29th and 30th editions.” This may well account for any discrepancies in these editions of Denzinger’s work. The problem concerns an omission in DZ 326, a condemnation of various heresies under Pope Nicholas I by the Roman Council in (860 and) 863 A.D. There Denzinger’s printed:

“If anyone condemns dogmas, mandates, interdicts, sanctions or decrees, promulgated by the one presiding in the Apostolic See, for the Catholic Faith, for the correction of the faithful, for the emendation of criminals, either by an interdict of threatening or future ills, let him be anathema.”

Writing in 1875, Henry Cardinal Manning, in his “The Vatican Decrees in Their Bearing on Civil Allegiance” gives this rendition of the council’s condemnation of that same error: “Si quis dogmata, mandata, interdicta, sanctiones vel decreta, pro Catholica fide, pro ecclesiastica disciplina, pro correctione fidelium, pro emendatione scleratorum, vel interdictione imminentium vel futurorum malorum, a Sedis Apostolica Praeside salubriter promulgata contempserit,: Anathema sit.”

Notice that the words in bold, clearly translated as “for ecclesiastical discipline,” are omitted from Denzinger’s translation. Nor can it be argued that an ecumenical council erred, or that such teaching was later amended without denying the infallible teaching of the Church. We find the following proposition condemned by Pope Pius VI in “Auctorum Fidei,” (DZ 1578): “In every article, that which pertains to faith and to the essence of religion must be distinguished from that which is proper to discipline,” the Jansenists maintained. Pope Pius VI taught: “As if the Church, which is ruled by the Spirit of God, could have established discipline which is not only useless and burdensome for Christian liberty but which is dangerous and harmful,” condemned as at least erroneous, dangerous and injurious to the Church, among other things. Under Can. 2317, those clerics who teach condemned propositions are “barred from the ministry of preaching the Word of God and of hearing sacramental confessions, and from every other office of teaching, without prejudice to other penalties which the sentence of condemnation of the doctrine may perhaps have decreed.” One of the sources listed by Cardinal Gasparri for this Canon in his Fontes is none other than Pope Paul IV’s “Cum ex Apostolatus Officio.” And once the Vatican Council was held, “Auctorem Fidei” formally became an infallible decree.

Papal teaching on disciplinary matters

We learn from Pope Gregory XVI in Mirari Vos: “It would be beyond any doubt blameworthy and entirely contrary to the respect with which the laws of the Church should be received by a senseless aberration to find fault with the regulation of morals, and the laws of the Church and her ministers; or to speak of this discipline as opposed to certain principles of the natural law, or to present it as defective, imperfect, and subject to civil authority.” And from the same Pope in Quo Graviora: “Are they not trying, moreover, to make of the Church something human; are they not openly diminishing her infallible authority and the divine power which guides her, in holding that her present discipline is subject to decay, to weakness, and to other failures of the same nature, and in imagining that it contains many elements which are not only useless but even prejudicial to the well being of the Catholic religion?”

And we read from The Vatican Council: “The pastors and faithful…are bound by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, not only in things which pertain to faith and morals but also in those which pertain to the discipline and government of the Church…If anyone says that the Roman Pontiff has only the office of inspection or direction, but not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the universal Church, not only in things which pertain to faith and morals but also in those which pertain to the discipline and government of the Church…let him be anathema,” (DZ 1827, 1831).

And again after the Vatican Council we hear these absolutely definitive words from Pope Pius IX, in Quartus Supra (1873): “But the neo-schismatics say that it was not a case of doctrine but of discipline, so the name and prerogatives of Catholics cannot be denied to those who object. Our Constitution Reversurus, published on July 12, 1867, answers this objection. We do not doubt that you know well how vain and worthless this evasion is. For the Catholic Church has always regarded as schismatic those who obstinately oppose the lawful prelates of the Church and in particular, the chief shepherd of all. Schismatics avoid carrying out their orders and even deny their very rank. Since the Armenian faction of Constantinople is like this, they are schismatics even if they had not yet been condemned as such by Apostolic authority. For the Church consists of the people in union with the priest, and the flock following its shepherd. Consequently the bishop is in the Church and the Church in the bishop, and whoever is not with the bishop is not in the Church. Furthermore, as Our predecessor Pius VI warned in his Apostolic letter condemning the civil constitution of the clergy in France, discipline is often so closely related to doctrine and has such a great influence on its preservation and its purity, that the sacred councils have not hesitated to cut off from the Church by their anathema those who have infringed its discipline.

“But the neo-schismatics have gone further, since ‘every schism fabricates a heresy for itself to justify its withdrawal from the Church.’ Indeed, they have even accused this Apostolic See as well, as if We had exceeded the limits of Our power in commanding that certain points of discipline were to be observed…Nor can the Eastern Churches preserve communion and unity of faith with Us without being subject to the Apostolic power in matters of discipline. Now such teaching is not only heretical after the definitions and declarations of the Ecumenical Council of the Vatican on the nature and reasons for the primacy of the Sovereign Pontiff, but it has always been considered to be such and has been abhorred by the Catholic Church. It is for this reason that the bishops of the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon, openly declared the supreme authority of the Apostolic See in their proceedings; then they humbly requested Our predecessor, St. Leo, to sanction and confirm their decrees, even those which concerned discipline.”

Three years after writing “Quartus Supra,” we also hear the following from 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, to the clergy and faithful of the Chaldean Rite.) It is for this reason that Henry Cardinal Manning, in the book mentioned earlier, stated that “The Pope, speaking ex cathedra, is infallible; this definition, by retrospective action, makes all Pontifical acts infallible, …such as the Bull Unam Sanctam, the Bull Unigenitus, the Bull Auctorum Fidei, [which] were held to be infallible as fully before the Vatican Council as now…The doctrine of the Church does not determine the doctrine of the Primacy, but the doctrine of the Primacy does precisely determine the doctrine of the Church.” This only repeats Pope Pius IX’s teaching in “Quartus Supra.” And to the list of bulls provided by Cardinal Manning, we can add also Pope Pius IX’s own “Syllabus of Errors,” so many times dismissed as disciplinary and non-infallible.

As if this were not enough to demonstrate that no one can possibly question disciplinary decrees issued by the Roman Pontiff on the grounds that such decrees are not authoritative and do not bind, Pope St. Pius X was once again forced to address this error in “Pascendi Dominici Gregis,” against the Modernists. He states that the intent of these heretics was to reform all aspects of the Church, but especially “its disciplinary and dogmatic parts.” It was not a coincidence that the vigilance councils founded by Pope St. Pius X to combat Modernism, before their abolition by Pope Benedict XV, helped finger one Angelo Roncalli as a suspected Modernist.

Pope Pius XII in “Ad apostolorum principis,” 1958:

“We are aware that those who belittle obedience in order to justify themselves with regard to those functions which they have unrighteously assumed defend their position by recalling a usage which prevailed in ages past. Yet everyone sees that all ecclesiastical discipline is overthrown if it is in any way lawful for one to restore arrangements which are no longer valid because the supreme authority of the Church long ago decreed otherwise. In no sense do they excuse their way of acting by appealing to another custom, and they indisputably prove that they follow this line deliberately in order to escape from the discipline which now prevails and which they ought to be obeying…The faithful are bound by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience not only in matters which pertain to faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the Church.”

Prof. Carlos Disandro on Church discipline

Dr. Carlos A. Disandro’s work “Doctrinal Precisions” also sheds much light on where we find ourselves today and how little things really have changed. But most importantly, his writings point out that the misunderstanding of the relationship between doctrine and discipline, begun at “Vatican 2” has continued to plague Traditionalism to this day. It has deepened the rift between the various Traditional sects to such an extent that discipline has been reduced to a matter of inexpert opinion, with everyone able to access a Canon Law book qualified as a “canonist,” able to interpret the law or even declare it to have ceased to apply. Those laws such as “Cum ex…,” issuing from the doctrinal authority of the Church, have been lost in the canonical shuffle, as Disandro ably points out in his “Precisions.” Disandro wrote that it is impossible that a bull for perpetuity such as “Cum ex…” “could “be abrogated (with which falls a canonical argument in favor of the Bull Quo Primum); and secondly, that a disciplinary code would be able to nullify as positive legislation of the Church a question which refers to the very heart of doctrine. Discipline thus would acquire primacy over doctrine, and there would be completed also, in a manner surreptitious but effective, one of the great longings of progessivism: to include all dispute, ancient and modern in the context of a disciplinary law. It is logical that the change in this would be able to bring about a change in doctrine, skillfully veiled by the operation of a subtle theological and semantic transference.

“Therefore, if even worship turns out to be a disciplinary matter (a certainty for Progressives), it does not seem that Paul 6 would be unable to dictate, reform, annul, or confirm his Novus Ordo contrary to Tradition, IN THE NAME OF DISCIPLINE. [ED NOTE: Rev. Kinkead tells us in his Baltimore Catechism # 3 that the liturgy is part of revealed Tradition.] Therefore, for the historicist, Judaeo-Christian mentality of progressivism, all the abolitions, immersions, and subtle changes took place in the proving ground of discipline, with the changes in Doctrine, as in an evolutionary process, transferring over and following consecutively. [ED. NOTE: In other words, change the discipline and the doctrine will change automatically.] in the Church, the CHAIN OF DOCTRINE WITH DISCIPLINE follows the course of INVIOLABLE FAITH — of the Paradosis (Greek word for tradition, or handing down) of the Apostles — through whose care, vigilance and utterance the Pontificate exists…IT IS THE MONTINIAN SYSTEM OF USING THE CANONICAL DISCIPLINE IN ORDER TO TEAR DOWN DOCTRINES AND TRADITION, a thing which is important because it uncovers the null character of such decisions and substitutions.”

In Dr. Disandro’s treatise, we see all the very subjects discussed by Pope St. Pius X in his “Pascendi.” The use of progressivism to move the two sides “closer” to an ecumenical compromise (dialogue), then the eventual evolution of the entire structure of the Church: “The conserving force in the Church is Tradition and Tradition is represented by religious authority…It is in the very nature of authority to protect Tradition…Authority, raised as it is above the contingencies of life, feels hardly, or not at all, the spurs of progress,” (“Pascendi Dominici Gregis”). Here we see described the very blueprint used by the V2 antipopes to destroy the Traditions of the Church, primarily the liturgy. But we also see that in order to arrive at the destruction of Tradition, authority, both doctrinal and disciplinary must be attacked first. The weak link was discipline; none of the liberals and Modernist sympathizers wished to be the recipients of excommunications or warnings. So once their plants were in the Vatican, they simply failed to exercise this power to arrest liturgical renewal and ecumenism. The rest disintegrated of its own accord. This is the process Disandro observed and described. His critics were the SSPX, who openly and insistently have declared “Cum ex…” a disciplinary decree, hence not infallible, and also have ignored the requirement for papal mandate in creating their clerics and jurisdiction in operating their chapels.

V2 called ‘Quo Primum’ a disciplinary decree

In another “disciplinary” decree “Quo Primum,” infallible by virtue of the Vatican Council declaration, we read: “These men consulted the works of ancient and approved authors concerning the same sacred rites; and thus they have restored the Missal itself to the original form and rite of the holy Fathers.” (Read “restored,” not rewritten and reorganized, as done with the Novus Ordo Missae.) “When this work has been gone over numerous times and further emended, after serious study and reflection, We commanded that the finished product be printed and published as soon as possible, so that all might enjoy the fruits of this labor; and thus, priests would know which prayers to use and which rites and ceremonies they were required to observe from now on in the celebration of Masses. In virtue of Our Apostolic authority, We grant and concede in perpetuity that, for the chanting or reading of the Mass in any church whatsoever, this Missal is hereafter to be followed absolutely…Nor are superiors, administrators, canons, chaplains, and other secular priests, or religious, of whatever title designated, obliged to celebrate the Mass otherwise than as enjoined by Us. We likewise declare and ordain that no one whosoever is forced or coerced to alter this Missal, and that this present document cannot be revoked or modified, but remain always valid and retains its full force notwithstanding the previous constitutions and decrees of the Holy See.” If ever any doubt existed that “Quo Primum” was an infallible Bull, it should exist no longer.

And neither should it exist concerning any other disciplinary decrees issued by the Roman Pontiff or the General Councils the Pontiffs have approved. And in “Quartus Supra,” Pope Pius IX clearly states that even without a formal declaration, the Armenians resisting the authority of the papal see were considered schismatics. Likewise all who “avoid carrying out their orders” (those of the Roman Pontiffs) are reckoned as schismatics. This would include any who ignore the decrees of the Roman Pontiffs who excommunicated them for not observing their condemnations or obeying the teachings found in their decrees. This would include those who ignore papal mandates concerning consecration, ignore the teachings of the Council of Trent and other papal teachings concerning jurisdiction and all who ignore those excommunications for heresy and schism to minister to the faithful when no supplied jurisdiction can be granted; also those who ignore the further teachings found in “Quartus Supra” concerning the inability of the laity to participate in the election of bishops and other clerics.

“Concerning the exclusion of the laity from the election of bishops, a clear distinction must be made, lest a doctrine at variance with the Catholic faith result. This distinction is between the right to elect bishops and the ability to give testimony as to their life and morals. The former claim must be credited to the wrong notions of Luther and Calvin, who even asserted that it was a matter of divine law that the bishops should be elected by the people; as everybody realizes, such false teaching has been and is still rejected by the Catholic Church. For no power of electing bishops or other ministers of religion has ever been given to the people by either divine or ecclesiastical law,” (Pope Pius IX, “Quartus Supra”). Not only do certain Conclavists reserve the right for laymen to “elect” a pope as the bishop of Rome “in exile,” but Traditionalist bishops elected by fellow “clerics” — who have been ipso facto excommunicated for schism and/or heresy and hence reduced to the lay state — are, in effect “elected” only by laymen as well, (Can. 188 no. 4, also “Cum ex Apostolatus Officio”). As Pope Pius IX teaches, such actions are “at variance with the Catholic faith” and are “rejected by the Catholic Church.”

Conclusion

The infallibility of disciplinary decrees is just one more nail in the coffin of the Conclavists and Traditionalist clergy and their sects. If they truly wished to escape the errors of the V2 usurpers from the beginning, they needed to run to, not from, papal authority. Those who still cling to the false teaching that they are members of the true Church, hence not excommunicated for following clergy not in communion with the Roman Pontiff are in grave error. Those who defend the (condemned) opinion that Fr. Leonard Feeney should somehow be regarded sympathetically because he was only excommunicated for “disciplinary” reasons, not heresy, are denying a truth of faith. When Feeney’s excommunication is read it is clear that the reasons for his excommunication were entirely doctrinal — not only was he excommunicated for disputing the Holy See’s definition of “outside the Church there is no salvation,” but in refusing to obey Rome’s orders to cease and desist in his teaching, he was denying the definition by the Vatican Council that the Pope is infallible in deciding disciplinary matters as well as those touching on faith and morals.

Therefore Feeney WAS indeed a heretic, and those who defended him then and defend him now should consider the censure levied by Can. 2316 §1: “A person who of his own accord and knowingly helps in any manner to propagate heresy…incurs suspicion of heresy.” Revs. Woywod-Smith comment under Can. 2317: “If a doctrine has been pronounced formal heresy, one becomes a heretic by teaching or defending that doctrine, and incurs the penalties which Can. 2314 inflicts on heresy.” Those who have, for years, regarded disciplinary actions by the Holy See as not binding in conscience must thoroughly study the Church’s teaching on this matter. They must review any beliefs or decisions based on this malicious misrepresentation of Church doctrine. Heresy is a deadly serious business, and there are many who try to minimize the serious nature and consequences of this censure today. Some even smirk when it is mentioned and try to avoid the subject altogether, assuming that God in His mercy could never hold Catholics today guilty of this grave sin against faith. This is a minimizing of the very essence of faith itself, and it is difficult to understand how ANY Catholic could believe that God would give power to His vicars to teach His truths, and then not be deeply offended and demand justice when lies pass for these truths.

It is also interesting to note that many of those actively espousing the Feeneyite heresy teach that the Roman See has been vacant since the election of Pope Pius IX. They give various reasons for this baseless calumny, among that Pius IX was a Freemason in his youth (long ago proven utterly false) and that he erred in believing that one not a member of the Church could be saved “outside the Church.” The real reason they wish to impugn this saintly Pontiff is twofold: a) they wish to nullify the Vatican Council, as did the Old Catholics whom they greatly resemble and b) They wish to erase the other infallible teachings of Pius IX concerning the infallibility of the Church’s disciplinary decisions. The attacks of the enemy and their modus operandi never change. Their primary reason for existence is to destroy even the idea of the papacy and infallibility in the minds of what few faithful remain. If we come away with nothing else from this miserable odyssey people refer to as the crisis in the Church, we should by now understand what Pope Pius XII once told a group of young people: “May God give you the grace necessary to defend the rights of the Sovereign Pontiff and the Holy See, for without the pope there is no Church, and there is no Catholic Society without the Holy See.”