by T. Stanfill Benns | Feb 14, 2012
The Pastoral Office, Chapter One
By Henry Cardinal Manning
(All emphasis within these quotes is the editor’s.)
THE EPISCOPATE: ITS JURISDICTION AND PERFECTION
In the following pages we will examine what is the teaching of the Church on the Episcopate, and what has been written by authors who are held in veneration in Rome. The subject matter will, therefore, include (1) what is of Divine faith respecting the Episcopate, and (2) what theological opinions may be safely held concerning it.
To do this more surely, I shall, first, do little else than transcribe the text of authors whose works, after due examination by censors, are printed in Rome, and are placed in the hands of students at the Roman Seminary. In following such authorities there can be no danger of error. Novelties, and opinions merely probable, or permissible, or tenable, citra censuram, are unsafe, (emph. the editor’s throughout). In theology the mid-stream is the surest waterway and has the best anchorage. Such accredited authors exhibit not only what theological opinions may be held, but they show what is actually taught and learned by the clergy under the eye of the Holy See.
I shall therefore refrain from quoting from the early Christian Fathers until the doctrine of faith and the present mind of the Church shall have been ascertained. We shall then have the mature result and enunciation of the Divine tradition. This will fix the true sense of the Fathers, and ought to preclude all conflict of interpreters and of interpretations.
1. The first authority I will take shall be the work of Peter Ballerini, De Potestate Ecclesiastica Summorum Pontificum, written to refute the errors of Febronius, and reprinted in Rome at the Propaganda Press in 1850.
(1) His first proposition is as follows: “The ecclesiastical jurisdiction was given by Christ immediately to Peter and the Apostles, and cannot be said to be given immediately to the Church, as if Peter and the Apostles received it from the Church merely as ministers of the same.” He then adds that this power was given when our Lord gave to them, with the keys of the kingdom of heaven, the power of binding and loosing — “quae potestas idem est ac jurisdictio” — which power is one and the same with jurisdiction; and therefore, in its origin, it is juris divini — of Divine right.”
The power of binding and loosing and the power of jurisdiction are one and the same. It is the judicial power over souls. And this is in itself a Divine power, for “Who can forgive sins but God only?” Therefore both in its nature and in its origin it is Divine.
(2) His second proposition is: “The ecclesiastical jurisdiction, given immediately to Peter and the Apostles for the welfare of the Church, was not intended to die with Peter and the Apostles, but to pass onward to the successors of Peter and of the Apostles, and to reside immediately in them, and to continue until the consummation of the world; as also the Church is intended to continue until the consummation of the world, for government of which this jurisdiction was instituted by Christ.”
In this proposition it is asserted that the jurisdiction of Peter and of the Apostles resides forever in their successors — that is, in the Roman Pontiff and in the Episcopate; and that this jurisdiction was instituted in the Roman Pontiff and the Episcopate for the government (regimen) of the Church. The Roman Pontiff alone is, in strict sense, the successor of an Apostle, that is, as a person to a person. The Episcopate is collectively the successor of the Apostolate, as a whole succeeding to a whole. “Thus, the same power, or ecclesiastical jurisdiction, by the institution of Christ, continued in the successors of Peter and the Apostles, has come down to the Roman Pontiffs who succeed S. Peter, and to others whom the Apostles constituted as Bishops, and who are the successors of the Apostles; and therefore it belongs to them by the same Divine right, and it resides immediately in the same who constitute the body of chief pastors, as it resided in S. Peter and the Apostles.”
(3) The third proposition distinguishes the primacy of Peter from the jurisdiction common to Peter and the Apostles. “The jurisdiction proper to S. Peter, by reason of his primacy, was in him singular and personal, so that he presided over the other Apostles, who were otherwise equal in power, not by a prerogative of mere order or honour, but of a peculiar right of power over them for the sake of unity; and this right over them he had not only over them one by one (severally), but also as a body, for the preserving of unity. The very same right belongs in like manner to the Roman Pontiffs, the successors of S. Peter, on whom the same primacy, for the same custody of unity, by right of succession devolves.”
The primacy of Peter consists in a twofold plenitude given to him first, and alone — namely, a plenitude of jurisdiction over the whole flock, pastors and people; and a plenitude of Divine assistance, preserving him from error in his office as Universal Teacher of the Church.
Peter and his successors possess this twofold plenitude independently of the Apostles and their successors, and can exercise this supreme office alone; but the Apostles could not, and their successors cannot, exercise their office without Peter and his successors.
The third proposition, then, affirms that all the Apostles were equal in power (omnes potestate pares), excepting only the proper and personal right of the primacy. This primacy was exclusively in S. Peter alone, and in no way common to the other Apostles; and it was instituted by Christ as the means of forming and perpetually preserving the unity of the whole Church. “By this right S. Peter had pre-eminence even over all the Apostles by reason of the primacy, so that, although they were equal with Peter in the other powers of the Apostolate, in the right of enforcing unity they were subject to Peter.”
(4) The fourth proposition defines the powers of the Episcopate:
The powers of the Apostles did not altogether pass to the Bishops, the successors of the Apostles. For the jurisdiction over the whole Church, which, in the beginning, belonged to the Apostles, was extraordinary, and did not pass to the Bishops, their successors. In Peter alone that power was ordinary, by reason of the primacy; and therefore the inheritance of the primacy belongs to the Roman Pontiffs alone by ordinary right. To no Bishop, save to the successors of S. Peter, does the jurisdiction over other Bishops belong by Divine institution; but by a right which is ecclesiastical only. This jurisdiction has been entrusted to the Bishops of the chief sees, so that all, with the successors of Peter, conspire together for the good of unity; and this ecclesiastical institution cannot in anything prejudice the jurisdiction of S. Peter and his successors, which is of Divine institution.’ Having thus far explained the radical and essential jurisdiction of the primacy of the Roman Pontiffs, the successors of S. Peter, Ballerini goes on further to define the jurisdiction of the Bishops who succeed to the Apostles.
The Apostles had jurisdiction over the whole world, for as much as they were all alike sent by Christ into the whole world to preach the Gospel to every creature. “But when the Apostles constituted Bishops in certain places, that they might give to those places their care and labour, it was expedient that they should be bound to those same places: their jurisdiction did not reach to the whole world, as that of the Apostles, but was circumscribed within certain boundaries for the good of the Church.”
“Hence the jurisdiction of the Apostles over the whole Church was, in a manner, extraordinary, and does not descend to the Bishops, their successors. . . But this (jurisdiction over the whole Church) in Peter was ordinary, and passes with the primacy to the Roman Pontiffs, the heirs of the same primacy and jurisdiction.” Therefore as no Apostle, except Peter, had jurisdiction over another Apostle, so no Bishop, except the successor of Peter, has jurisdiction over another Bishop. All Primates and Metropolitans, therefore, receive their jurisdiction from merely apostolical or ecclesiastical institution.
“From what has been said,” he continues, “it is evident that the jurisdiction of Bishops and of the Supreme Pontiff is of Divine right, but so that the jurisdiction over the Bishops themselves belongs by Divine institution to the Roman Pontiff alone,” all other jurisdiction over Bishops being of ecclesiastical origin. S. Optatus says that “for the good of unity Blessed Peter was preferred before all the Apostles, and alone received the keys of the kingdom of heaven, to communicate them to the others.”
“But the power of binding and loosing, which, depending on the power of the keys, signifies ecclesiastical jurisdiction, though it was given by Christ Himself to the other Apostles, was not, however, given to any of them singly, as to S. Peter—sed in communi et collective cum Petro — but in common and collectively with Peter, who was also with the others when Christ said, ‘Whatsoever you shall bind on earth,’ &c., that all may understand that Bishops, the successors of the Apostles, can do nothing except in unity with Peter and with the successors of Peter.”
(5) The fifth proposition defines the subjection of the Episcopate to the primacy. “The jurisdiction of Bishops, though it be of Divine institution, is nevertheless subject to the jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiffs; so that their faculties as Bishops may, for the good of the Church, be limited or restrained by them, as to the use and exercise of the same.”
This proposition follows directly from the power of Divine right in the Roman Pontiffs over the jurisdiction of Bishop, which tametsi institutions divinae — although of Divine institution — is subject to the plenitude of Divine jurisdiction in the primacy. After quoting the words of the Council of Trent on Reservations, Ballerini adds: “In which matter there is specially to be noticed, that if there be any power given jure divino to Bishops which might seem of a kind to be left intact, it is, without doubt, the power of absolving from sin, which, it is manifest, was given without any restriction by Christ Himself to the Apostles and to Bishops the successors of Apostles. If therefore this so great and so unlimited a power, and that of Divine right, is subject to the authority of the Pontiffs, . . . what power cannot be likewise limited?”
(6) The sixth proposition distinguishes between the Divine jurisdiction of Bishops, and the use and exercise of the same. “This limitation and restriction, though it affect the faculties of Bishops, which in their origin are of Divine right, is to be referred to the matter of discipline and of ecclesiastical right.”
“It is well perhaps to explain and to confirm more clearly by another observation the plenitude of the supreme pontifical power, to which the measure and the exercise of the episcopal faculties are subject. Jurisdiction as distinct from the power of Order, if it have no subject on whom to unfold itself, is barren, and lacks all use and exercise. Hence the designation and assigning of subjects, or of a region or diocese in which the episcopal right (episcopale jus, or jurisdiction) may be exercised, is necessary for actual jurisdiction: and he who assigns to Bishops their subjects and dioceses gives also to them the use and exercise of their jurisdiction, which in its origin is of Divine institution.”
“Further, as the designation of subjects of this or of that diocese or province, which was given to Patriarchs, Exarchs, or Metropolitans, does not depend on Divine right, because Christ did not institute any partition or designation of the kind, but belongs to ecclesiastical institution; . . . so the episcopal jurisdiction, in its origin, though it is of Divine right, yet in respect to the designation of subjects and dioceses, and to the actual use of the jurisdiction itself and of episcopal faculties, is to be referred to ecclesiastical institution. And therefore nothing is thereby derogated from the Divine origin and institution of the Episcopate, because this limiting and restricting of their jurisdiction does not touch that which is of Divine origin (i.e. the jurisdiction itself), but that only which was left by Christ to the discretion and disposition of the Apostles and of their successors.”
From all these propositions the following doctrines or principles result:
1. That to Peter alone the plenitude of universal jurisdiction independent of all others was given.
2. That dependently on Peter the other Apostles received jurisdiction over all the world.
3. That to the jurisdiction of Peter the Apostles likewise were subject.
4. That Peter and the Apostles were equal as Apostles, but that Peter in virtue of the primacy was their head.
5. That to Peter and the Apostles succeed the successor of Peter and the Bishops.
6. That Peter alone has a personal succession in the Roman Pontiffs.
7. That Bishops are successors not of an Apostle one by one, but of the Apostles as a body; that is, the Episcopate succeeds the Apostolate as a whole to a whole.
8. That the jurisdiction of Peter and the Apostles is continued in the Roman Pontiff and the Bishops.
9. That this episcopal jurisdiction is Divine in its origin and essence, and inherent in the Episcopate; but its actual use is dependent on the Divine and supreme jurisdiction of the successor of Peter, who alone has power to assign subjects, to designate dioceses, and to restrict the extent and exercise of episcopal jurisdiction.
10. That there is therefore one jurisdiction of Divine origin, namely, the jurisdiction of the primacy, over all the world, i.e. universal, independent, ordinary, immediate, and episcopal, to which all, both pastors and people, are subject; and also the jurisdiction of Bishops, which is Divine in its origin and essence, but in its exercise and use dependent on the supreme jurisdiction of the successor of Peter, but nevertheless in the diocese assigned to him it is in itself ordinary, immediate and Divine.
Ballerini then excludes from his treatment of this subject certain opinions which he describes as follows:
“I have been unwilling in this place to contend about the sense in which are to be understood the testimonies of Fathers and ancient Pontiffs, by which they seem to imply that the keys were to be given to the Apostles themselves through Peter, and that the Episcopate had its origin from Peter and through Peter, and that the episcopal jurisdiction flows to others from Peter and the successors of Peter. For I am unwilling to make the opinion concerning the supreme and plenary power of the Pontiffs over Bishops to hang upon a less certain and controverted opinion. So long as the jurisdiction and authority of Bishops, which is undeniably of Divine right, is confessedly subordinate and subject to the jurisdiction of the Pontiffs in respect to the assigning of subjects, and to the exercise and limitation of episcopal faculties, as the adversaries must concede from the points established, this is enough for me, in whatsoever way its origin and propagation be explained.”
The next authority I will quote is Devoti, who was Professor of Canon Law at the Roman Seminary in 1770, an intimate friend of Gregorio Chiaramonti, afterwards Pius VII, to whom his works are dedicated, and under whose eyes they were written. In the Prolegomena to his Institutiones Canonicae, he sums up the whole subject of the Episcopate in these words: “The Universal College of Bishops, who, united with their head, represent the Universal Church, has jurisdiction over the whole world; but the jurisdiction of each Bishop singly is not extended to those nations over which no government has been committed to him. Therefore the legislation of each Bishop affects the particular diocese over which he is set, and binds the subjects who are contained in it; but beyond his own diocese, inasmuch as he has no subjects, he can have no jurisdiction. By which fact may be solved, as it seems to me, the controversy with which even the Fathers at Trent were occupied, but left still undecided, namely, whether the jurisdiction of Bishops is mediately or immediately from Christ, I am of opinion, indeed, that the jurisdiction which is attached to the Episcopate at large is immediately from Christ Himself, and the special jurisdiction which resides in each alone is mediately conferred. This, which is too briefly stated, must be somewhat more carefully explained. It is certain that Christ instituted the Episcopate, and placed in the whole College of Bishops, united with their head, the whole administrative authority of the Christian commonwealth. I here pass by whatsoever was said to Peter alone, apart from the other Apostles, and I insist only on those places in the Gospels in which authority and jurisdiction over the whole Church were given to the Apostles. But how was the power given in these places? It is always given to all the Apostles together with Peter, to no one of them separately, except to Peter alone, who first, apart from the other Apostles, afterwards together with them, received the power to govern the Church. Therefore the jurisdiction which the whole College of Bishops possesses, who succeed to the Apostles, comes immediately from Christ Himself.”
Further, he says: “But if we consider the Bishops singly, as the rulers of particular Churches, they have received no jurisdiction immediately from Christ. All such jurisdiction arises immediately from the Church, which distributes dioceses, in which each Bishop singly is to exercise jurisdiction, and assigns to him certain subjects whom he is to govern.’ But it may even be granted and conceded that the jurisdiction, not only of the whole College of Bishops, but even of each singly, proceeds immediately from God Himself. For to the fountain we must return. A distinction is to be drawn between the jurisdiction itself and the act and use of it in exercise. The jurisdiction, indeed, may be derived immediately from God; but all act and use of it is from the Church, which gives the use of it (i.e. the right of using it) to each Bishop, when it assigns to him his subjects, on whom he may exercise this jurisdiction, which is itself of Divine right; but so long as it has no subjects it remains an otiose jurisdiction. So in ordination a priest receives the power of forgiving sins; but unless he have subjects assigned to him by the Church he cannot use it.” This power of the Bishops detracts nothing from the monarchy (of the Pontiff); for though it be not precarious, but proper and native, yet, as it depends on the Supreme Pontiff, his monarchical power is certainly not diminished by their power.
It will be enough if to these two be added the words of Ferrante, whose work is used as the textbook in the Roman Seminary at this time. He says: “Whether the Bishop has the power of jurisdiction (jure divino) by Divine right, that is immediately from God, or by human right, that is from the Supreme Pontiff, was a question agitated in the Council of Trent, but not defined; for which cause the Council, defining that Bishops are superior to priests, and inflicting anathema on those who deny it, purposely abstained from using the words jure divino, which many of the Bishops asked as an addition.
“But though any one may embrace either opinion in this question, [Pope Pius XII infallibly defined this matter in Mystici Corporis and Ad sinarum gentum — Ed.]) yet he who defends the opinion that the power of jurisdiction is of Divine right must be convinced that it is so, subject to the Roman Pontiff; who by his own right can, for a just cause, either wholly take away from the Bishops or suspend that power, or restrain it within certain limits of places or persons or faculties. For that is necessarily required by the primacy of jurisdiction over the Universal Church which by Divine right belongs to the Roman Pontiff. And he who affirms that the episcopal power of jurisdiction is derived immediately from the Roman Pontiff (which opinion indeed is not only more conformable to the reasons which prove the primacy of the Pope over the Church, but also to the testimonies of the Scriptures and of tradition) must not think that it is lawful for the Roman Pontiff to abolish the order of’ Bishops in the Church; for, as we have before seen, the order of Bishops is of Divine institution, and must exist in the ecclesiastical hierarchy.”
He had before defined the Episcopate as “Ordo praditus spirituali potestate cum regendi tum propagandi et perpetuandi sacris ordinationibus Ecclesiam Dei.” It may be well to place in immediate context with this the words of the Vatican Council, which, after defining the monarchy of the Roman Pontiff as a jurisdiction supreme, ordinary, episcopal, and immediate over the whole Church, says, “So far is this power of the Supreme Pontiff from impeding the ordinary and immediate power of episcopal jurisdiction, by which the Bishops, who, being placed by the Holy Ghost, succeed in the stead of the Apostles as true pastors, feed and rule the several flocks assigned to each, that their power is asserted, strengthened, and vindicated by the Supreme and Universal Pastor, according to the words of S. Gregory the Great: ‘My honour is the honour of the Universal Church. My honour is the solid strength of my brethren. I am then truly honoured when the honour due severally to each is not denied to him.’”
No author has drawn out with greater fullness and precision the nature of the Episcopate than Bolgeni in his refutation of the Febronianism and Regalism, which infested Italy in the last century; and the opinions of Bolgeni may be safely held as sound and Roman. He opens his work with these words: “Bishops are set by the Holy Ghost to rule the Church of God; and the Episcopate is nothing else than the power of ruling and governing the Church — by power is meant the power of order and the power of jurisdiction.” He then treats of the origin of the Episcopate, the superiority of Peter to the Apostles, the primacy of Peter’s successors, the propagation of the Episcopate, its restriction and dependence on the Roman Pontiff, and then the unity of the Episcopate. It is on this that we may dwell for a while.
He draws out from Pope Symmachus and from S. Cyprian the analogy between the unity of the Holy Trinity and the unity of the Episcopate; that is, unity in number, unity in its fountain, unity in plurality, equality in the persons; for the Episcopate of the Bishop of Eugubium is as such equal to the Episcopate of the Bishop of Rome. He then quotes the well-known passage of S. Cyprian, in which he draws out the analogy of the sun and its rays, of the fountain and its streams. He insists on the unity of the origin, of the source, and of the identity of the rays with the sun, and of the streams with the waters of the fountain. He calls the See of Peter the head, the root of the Church. He affirms that God communicates the episcopate through Peter to every Bishop, and that in this he and his brethren are all equal; for the Episcopate in him and in them is one and the same. His superiority is in the primacy, which is distinct from the Episcopate. Next he shows that there is an influx of the primacy of Peter in the whole Episcopate; for without him no Bishop can be elected, confirmed, or consecrated; and when consecrated, he receives from the successor of Peter the diocese and flock within which to rule the Church. In this sense it is strictly true that all comes through Peter; even the power of Order, which is given immediately by God in the Sacrament of Consecration, comes through Peter as the channel through which the consecration is given. This influx of the head in the members of the Episcopate he abundantly proves by the words of S. Optatus, S. Augustine, S. Leo, and many more. He quotes a letter of Stephen of Larissa to Boniface II, read in a Roman Council in A.D. 531, in which he says that “Our Lord, in the words ‘Feed my sheep,’ gave the pastoral care, through the successors of Peter, to the Churches throughout the world.” John of Ravenna, writing to S. Gregory the Great, says that Rome is “That see which has transmitted its rights to the Universal Church.” Pope Gregory IV, speaking of the Roman Church, says: ”That it has so imparted its office (vices suns) to other Churches that they are called to a share of its solicitude, not to the plenitude of its power.” In the Council of Pitres in Gaul, in A.D. 869, it is said that Bishops receive their authority in the person of Peter, “according to the authority which we received in Blessed Peter, when the Lord said, ‘Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth,’” &c. In the Council of Rheims, in A.D. 900, it is said, “By the authority divinely conferred upon Bishops through Blessed Peter, Prince of the Apostles.” This is what S. Augustine says: “Christ gave this power to the Church in Blessed Peter and his successors”; and S. Leo, “Christ never gave, except through Peter, that which He did not refuse to the others,” and “He transmitted nothing to any one without Peter’s participation.” And S. Gregory of Nyssa, who says that Jesus Christ “gave the keys of heavenly blessings to Bishops through Peter.” After giving many more references he concludes as follows: “Bishops, each one in the government of his Church, act in the place of S. Peter (fanno is veci), are Vicars of S. Peter, and, by consequence, of the successors of S. Peter.”
He then quotes the capitularies of Charlemagne, who says, “That all may know the name, power, authority, and dignity of the priesthood, which may be easily understood by the words of the Lord, by which He said to Peter, whose office Bishops bear (cujus vicem episcopi gerunt, or whose Vicars Bishops are), ‘Whatsoever ye shall bind,’” &c.; and Jona of Orleans, who says, “Of what kind is the sacerdotal power and authority is easily seen from the words of the Lord to Peter (cujus vicem indigne gerimur), whose Vicar we unworthily are.” So also Hincmar of Rheims, “Blessed Peter, in whose (cujus vice) stead Bishops act in the Church.” S. Jerome also says that Bishops “stand in the place of Peter.” All these expressions affirm that every Bishop receives through Peter, but immediately from God, the whole character, grace, and power to govern, not this or that diocese, but the Church. Each particular Church which they govern is assigned to them by the successors of Peter, whom they thereby represent in every place.
The following passage from Natalie Alexander is too much to our point to be omitted: “Bishops arc called frequently by the Fathers successors of Peter, by a right, so to speak, of indirect and collateral succession, because Peter only is the fountain and origin, in a certain way, of the ecclesiastical order, and of the power which is communicated to all Bishops. But by right of direct succession, the Roman Pontiff alone is successor or heir of Peter. As the Apostles almost all had no fixed sees, Bishops cannot be called successors of the Apostles except in general, as our polemical theologians say; that is, they cannot be called specially the successors of Andrew or of Philip, whose authority, as it was extra-ordinary, died with them. But Bishops may by right, and strictly, be called successors of Peter, because Peter alone had the ordinary power to which they succeeded, and to which the authority of all prelates has relation, as to the principal and fontal authority. Therefore all Bishops may be called successors of Peter in authority, but not in the degree of authority; that is, they are successors of S. Peter in the Episcopate, not in the primacy.
The Episcopate in all the world is the representative of Peter; for Peter, as S. Augustine says, represents the Church; and this representation is reciprocal by reason of the identity and unity of the Episcopate, and of the jurisdiction which they receive partly through him and partly from him, because they possess not only the jurisdiction which is potentially inherent in the power of Order, but the actual jurisdiction in which that inherent power of government comes forth into act and exercise.” They have, moreover, a jurisdiction which is in no way contained in their other powers, whereby as delegates of the Holy See they can do what lies beyond their ordinary jurisdiction. In this manifold sense the Episcopate in all the world, and every several Bishop in his diocese, is the proper and only true representative of Peter and of the Holy See. So also Peter of Blois, in his Institutio Episcopi, addressed to a friend lately consecrated, says, “Haeres es et Vicarius Petri, pasce oves meas and again, “Christi Villicus es et Vicarius Petri.
The doctrine of the Episcopate thus stated and defended by Bolgeni is fully developed in the following passage: “Returning to the superiority of S. Peter, we have said and proved that in him the episcopal power was lodged by Jesus Christ in all its fullness and sovereignty in distinction from the other Apostles, in whom it was indeed lodged in all its fullness, but with subordination and dependence on S, Peter. This is true if each Apostle be considered alone and by himself; but if the Apostles are considered as a college or body having S. Peter as head, then this body, united with its head, possesses the Episcopate not only in its fullness, but also in its sovereignty. Let it be noted that Jesus Christ in the act of conferring the universal Episcopate, and of giving mission to His Apostles, said to them, all united together, ” Go and teach all nations; preach the Gospel to every creature.” Pope Celestine I notes this circumstance excellently when he says that all Bishops ought to execute this commandment of preaching the Word of God, which was given in common to all the Apostles: Christ “wills that we all should do what He thus commanded in common to all (the Apostles). It was not possible that each several Apostle should go throughout the world to preach the Gospel to all the nations of the earth.”
That was fulfilled by the Apostles taken all together; and it was immediately fulfilled by means of the disciples who did so. The Episcopate therefore, considered in its division into many persons, carries in itself its restriction (i.e. of offices), as Bossuet has told us; but, considered as a college or body of persons, it resumes, I say, its sovereignty. In fact, we see in the constant practice of the Church this point of doctrine clearly expressed. No Bishop by himself, nor many Bishops united together, possess the privilege of infallibility in matters of dogma, nor can make laws in matters of discipline, which oblige out of their own dioceses. And yet when the Bishops meet legitimately in a body representing the whole Episcopal College, that is, in a General Council, the dogmatic decisions which emanate from this body are infallible, and the laws of discipline bind the whole Church. In this body there is to be clearly seen the full, sovereign, sole, and indivisible Episcopate, “of which a part is possessed fully by each.” But every reader already well understands that the Bishops, in howsoever great a number they may be assembled, can never form the body, or represent the Episcopal College, if they have not at their head S. Peter in his successor.
The episcopal body is not headless (acefalo); but, by the institution of Jesus Christ Himself, has a head in the person of the Roman Pontiff. A body without a head is not that (body) to which Jesus Christ, gave the Episcopate full and sovereign. He conferred it on the College of the Apostles, including Saint Peter, who was made superior to all the Apostles. The Episcopate, which is one and indivisible, is such precisely by reason of the connection of the bishops among themselves, and of their submission to one sole Bishop, who is universal and sovereign. Therefore the full, universal, and sovereign power of governing the Church is the Episcopate, full and sovereign, which exists in the person of S. Peter and of each of his successors, and in the whole Apostolic College united to S. Peter, and in the whole body of the Bishops united to the Pope.
by T. Stanfill Benns | Sep 3, 2026 | New Blog
+Pope St. Pius X+
September, month of the Sorrows of the Blessed Virgin Mary
Prayer Society Intention: “Those five wounds on Jesus smitten Mother! in my heart be written deep as in thine own they be.” — Raccolta
Introduction
We hear that a certain website called “fromRome” has recirculated an old error regarding Can. 2314 §1 that was long ago proven to be false. A reader has asked us to refute said claim for the sake of those who are not familiar with this particular error and we are happy to do so from articles written many years ago. We also have been asked to weigh in on the advisability of Natural Family Planning, a hotly contested topic among some LibTrads, and the Church’s official teaching on this should lay that matter to rest.
Can. 2314 misrendered
The website error reads: “The position of those who hold that formal[ly] manifest, public or notorious heresy, of itself, causes the loss of office, are manifestly contradicting the 1917 Code of Canon Law, for the English of this Canon reads:
Canon 2314: “All apostates from the Christian Faith and all and each heretic or schismatic:
Ҥ1 Incurs ipso facto excommunication.
“§2 Unless they come to their senses after having been warned, let them be deprived of benefice, dignity, pension office or other munus, if they have any in the Church; let them be declared infamous, and let the clerics, after having been warned again, be deposed.” For clearly, “let them be deprived” is not “they are deprived” ipso facto, but rather commands a juridical act of a competent superior, to remove them from office. This guts entirely what I call the classical Sedevacantist position proposed by many online bloggers.”
Canon 2314 point by point
First off, the quote above is a clumsy read at best which does not appear in any of my Canon Law commentaries. Notice the title of the text quoted is not provided by “fromRome.” My Woywod -Smith commentary under no. 2 reads a bit differently, as you might expect:
“All apostates from the Christian faith, and each and every heretic or schismatic, incur the following penalties:
- 1. Ipso facto excommunication.
- 2. If they have been admonished and do not repent, they shall be deprived of any benefice, dignity, pension, office, or other position which they may hold in the Church; they shall be declared infamous, and if they are clerics, they shall, after renewed admonition, be deposed.” The first paragraph, §1, focuses on those who, having been guilty of heresy, apostasy or schism, are warned by their superiors (or even by the faithful) yet fail to desist from their errors. It is presumed said errors are not notorious. In all law, “they shall be deprived” means it is to happen regardless. But this is not the main problem. The main problem here is that this disingenuous LibTrad fails to cite no. 3 of this same canon, which reads:
- 3 “If they have joined a non-Catholic sect or have publicly adhered to it, they incur infamy ipso facto, and if they are clerics and the admonition to repent has been fruitless, they shall be degraded. Canon 188, n. 4 provides moreover that the cleric who publicly abandons the Catholic faith loses every ecclesiastical office ipso facto and without any declaration.” Where Can. 2314 §1 prescribes repentance to AVOID excommunication and infamy, by joining a non-Catholic sect, these censures and penalties are incurred automatically, without any declaration.
Now there are several issues that must be addressed here to better explain this last paragraph of Can. 2314.
- It is clear that all those claiming descent from LibTrad bishops of any stripe and color, be it Lefebvre, Thuc, or any other, presume their “orders” issue from Catholics, but they do not. Lefebvre and Thuc both celebrated the Novus Ordo, signed Vatican 2 documents, resigned their episcopal sees received from Pope Pius XII to accept titular sees from a false pope and died within the pale of the Novus Ordo, a non-Catholic church. This is a matter of public record. Not only did they belong to a non-Catholic church, they went on to create yet another non-Catholic church — traditional “catholicism,” the resurrection of an old heresy known as traditionalism. Therefore, they formally joined the Novus Ordo sect and founded their own Traditionalist sects, publicly abandoning the Catholic faith.
- “They incur infamy ipso facto…” Infamy of law invalidates acts. The first article documenting this invalidity appeared on my website in 2009. Canon 2314 §3 declares that by the commission of heresy, apostasy or schism the offender also incurs infamy of law ipso facto. The canonists Revs. Woywod-Smith explain the effects of infamy of law under Can. 2294 §1: “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 “(all emphasis within quotes in this article is the author’s). When imposed in the form of a penalty attached to law, this sentence takes place And only the pope can dispense from this vindicative penalty (Can. 2294 §3). This penalty is attached to Can. 2314 §3, and therefore took place with the first act of allegiance to the Novus Ordo. The canonist Rev. Charles Augustine writes under Can. 2294 § 1: “Legal infamy involves irregularity according to Can. 984 n. 5 and therefore no layman affected by it can receive the tonsure or any other order without an Apostolic dispensation… Legal infamy entails disability or disqualification for any ecclesiastical benefits, pension, office, dignity and if conferred the act is invalid (Can. 2391) … An infamous person must be prevented from cooperating in sacred functions…” (Not surprisingly, Peter Cardinal Gasparri notes in his Fontes that Pope Paul IV’s 1559 Cum ex apostolatus officio is the parent law of Can. 2294 §1). By Apostolic dispensation is meant dispensation by the pope, which he may or may not give and which is now impossible to receive. Abp. Amleto Cicognani, in his work Canon Law (1935), teaches: “An inhabilitating law renders a person incapable of performing a valid act. Properly speaking, it is a species of invalidating law for the effect is the same, with this difference only, that an inhabilitating law is not issued directly against a certain act but rather against a certain person, e.g., canons 2294 [on infamy], 2390 §2, 2394 §1and 2395, etcetera.” Ergo, LibTrad bishops were not capable of conferring valid ordination or episcopal consecration. Both they themselves and all those they attempted to ordain and consecrate were invalid. THIS is Canon Law.
- Pope Pius VI in Auctorem fidei: “The proposition which teaches that it is necessary according to the natural and divine law, for either excommunication or for suspension, that a personal examination should proceed and that therefore sentences called ipso facto have no other force than that of a serious threat without any actual effect” (DZ 1547). Under Can. 2197, we find: (1) “An offense is public if it has already been divulged, or if it was committed under or attended by some circumstances that its divulgation may and must be prudently considered easily possible. (2) An offense is notorious by notoriety of fact, if it is publicly known and committed under such circumstances that it cannot be concealed by any subterfuge or excused by any excuse admitted in law; (that is, both the fact of the offense and the imputability or criminal liability must be publicly known). It cannot be objected on the one hand that the fact of the offense may have been publicly known, but not its imputability, when the faithful ran from the Novus Ordo church to avoid following the very bishops and priests who celebrated the NOM and followed the false Vatican 2 council. They recognized the fact and left because of its imputability, to avoid sin. But even aside from that, the very fact of their notoriety removes any need for a declaratory sentence. We read from Abp. Cicognani, quoting the theologian Chelodi, that according to Can. 2232 §1: ”The notoriety of an offence is held equivalent to a declaratory sentence” (page 703-704). Canon 2232 states: “No one can command that [a party] observe the penalty in the external forum unless the offense is notorious.”
- Regarding the admonition to repent, Canon Law itself permits the faithful to issue such an admonition themselves regarding notorious heretics. Rev. Charles Augustine writes: “It is left to the discretion of the superior to declare a penance has been incurred, that is to issue a declaratory sentence. However, this sentence must be issued if the interested party insists or if the public welfare demands it, in the case of a corrupter or briber or a dangerous heretic.” We are then directed to Can. 1935, under the heading “Criminal Trials,” which states: “The faithful may, at all times denounce the offense of another for the purpose of demanding satisfaction or out of zeal for justice to repair some scandal or evil… Even an obligation to denounce an offender exists whenever one is obliged to do so either by LAW or by special legitimate precept or by the natural law in view of the danger to faith or religion or other imminent public evil.” Canon 2223 states it is as a rule left to the discretion of the superior to declare a penalty latae sententiae but he must issue the declaratory sentence if an interested party demands it or if the public welfare requires it.” As cited here many times, in 1957 Pope Pius XII ordered the faithful to carry on the duties of the hierarchy in their absence , and this is an order we cannot ignore. LibTrads “bishops” were first called out for their violations of Canon Law in the 1990 book Will the Catholic Church Survive…?
- “The cleric who publicly abandons the Catholic faith loses every ecclesiastical office ipso facto and without any declaration…” That the Novus Ordo church departed from the Catholic faith and the headless Traditionalist church fails to perpetuate that same faith as Christ constituted His Church cannot be disputed. Why else did so many Catholics abandon the Novus Ordo in the 1960s and 1970s? As Rev. Nicholas Neuberger has explained in his Canon Law dissertation Canon 6, or the Relation of the Codex Iuris Canonici to Preceding Legislation (Catholic University of America, 1927): “Legislation may be converted into canons not in the identical but in equivalent terms. Most of the previous enactments are thus contained in the canons…There are canons which reproduce the old law in its entirety…Canons may restate the old law verbatim.” Or the old law can be expressed “in different terminology. This is the most common form of integral conversion of the old law. The codifiers had for their objective a succinct and pithy systemization of the law. It was necessary, therefore, to cast aside the narrative and also the dilated and dispositive part of the former discipline. Such reconstruction necessitated a change in terminology…
“These old laws have juridical force only inasmuch as they are embodied in the Canons. They are the interpretive norms of the new law whenever the new and the old coincide…Thanks to the eminent canonist Gasparri, not a little chaotic interpretation has been averted through the alignment of the sources under each canon” (pgs. 62, 70, 71). And it is precisely Rev. Gasparri whose Latin Fontes for the Code lists Pope Paul IV’s 1559 bull, Cum ex Apostolatus Officio as the old law on which Can. 188 n. 4 is based. In the case of Cum ex…,we learn that Can. 6 n. 4 tells us to actually adopt the old law, for it reads: “In case of doubt whether some provision of the canons differs from the old law, one must adhere to the old law.” The objector questioning Canon 2314 §1 is calling this law into doubt even though the law in its totality is clear and he has no reason to do so. Pope Paul IV’s Bull — the old law — infallibly refutes him as well:
“Further, if ever at any time it becomes clear that any Bishop, even one conducting himself as an Archbishop, Patriarch, or primate; or any Cardinal of the aforesaid Roman Church, even as mentioned, a Legate; or likewise any Roman Pontiff before his promotion or elevation as a Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has strayed from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy, 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, or by the enthronement of or homage paid to the same Roman Pontiff, or by universal obedience accorded him, or by the passage of any time in said circum-stances. It shall not be considered to have given or to give any power of administration in matters spiritual or temporal, to such persons promoted as Archbishops, Patriarchs or primates or elevated as Cardinals or as Roman Pontiff. Rather, each and, every one of their statements, deeds, enactments, and administrative acts, of any kind, and any result thereof whatsoever, shall be without force and shall confer no legality or right on anyone. The persons themselves so promoted and elevated shall, ipso facto and WITHOUT NEED FOR ANY FURTHER DECLARATION, be deprived of any dignity, position, honor, title, authority, office and power” (para. 6). Rome has spoken and the case is closed.
Summary
The first three paragraphs of Pope Pius XII’s 1945 dogmatic papal election constitution, Vacantis Apostolicae Sedisincorporate the Canons quoted above and “seal the deal,” as the saying goes. They are written precisely for us today, living as we do in an extended interregnum. But during an interregnum, it does not require one commit heresy and infamy to invalidate ecclesiastical acts, although all the canons of the 1917 Code must remain firmly in place and any act violating them is automatically null and void. Rather, any usurpation of the power of the Roman Pontiff, such as approving bishops for consecration and assigning them a diocese as was mandated by the Council of Trent and Pope Pius XII’s Ad apostolorum principis; any erection of seminaries and presumption of office (for the episcopacy is first an OFFICE under Can. 147) is null and void during a vacancy of the Holy See. This to protect the Church from precisely what happened on the death of Pope Pius XII. Pius XII refers all such decisions to the future pontiff, canonically elected.
Concerning the Power of the Sacred College of Cardinals while the Apostolic See is Vacant
- During the vacancy of the Apostolic See, regarding those things that pertained to the Sovereign Roman Pontiff while he lived, the Sacred College of Cardinals shall have absolutely no power or jurisdiction of rendering neither a favor nor justice or of carrying out a favor or justice rendered by the deceased Pontiff; rather, let the College be obliged to reserve all these things to the future Pontiff.1 Therefore, We declare invalid and void any power or jurisdiction pertaining to the Roman Pontiff in his lifetime, which the assembly of Cardinals might decide to exercise (while the Church is without a Pope), except to the extent to which it be expressly permitted in this Our Constitution.
- Likewise we command that the Sacred College of Cardinals shall not have the power to make a determination in any way it pleases concerning the rights of the Apostolic See and of the Roman Church, nor attempt in any way to subtract directly or indirectly from the rights of the same on the pretext of a relaxation of attention or by the concealment of actions perpetrated against these same rights even after the death of the Pontiff or in the period of the vacancy.On the contrary, We desire that the College ought to watch over and defend these rights during the contention of all influential forces.
- The laws issued by Roman Pontiffs in no way can be corrected or changed by the assembly of Cardinals of the Roman Church while it is without a Pope, nor can anything be subtracted from them or added or dispensedin any way whatsoever with respect to said laws or any part of them. This prohibition is especially applicable in the case of Pontifical Constitutions issued to regulate the business of the election of the Roman Pontiff. 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.”
Rev. Nicholas Neuberger, in the Canon 6 dissertation quoted above further notes, concerning special law: “All special legislation is inviolate according to the prescriptions of Canon 6, no. 5 “(p. 54). Special law is any law to which an oath is attached, such as Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, Quo Primum, Execrabilis, Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis and others. They can be abrogated only by the specific order of a canonically elected pope, and even then, as evidenced by Pope Pius XII’s rewrite and update of Pope St. Pius X’s previous papal election law, the gist of the previous law is maintained. Our salvation depends on obedience to the Roman Pontiff: “We declare, say, define, and proclaim to every human creature that they by necessity for salvation are entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff” (DZ 469). “FromRome” has “subtracted”the third paragraph of Can. 2314 from consideration by his readers to make it appear that LibTrad clergy are yet valid, but this omission is null and void. As St. John advised the faithful to flee the bathhouse to avoid heretics, so we must flee.
A primer on Natural Family Planning (NFP)
Periodic continence was permitted long before Pius XII’s official approval of the method. Certain LibTrad sects condemn it simply because it is more accurate than earlier methods. But it is documented in Holy Scripture and mentioned by St. Augustine, as follows. In 1 Cor. 7, vs. 5-6, St. Paul says it is lawful to abstain from marital relations if the abstention is sanctified by prayer (and both parties are willing – Rev. Leo Haydock commentary). Commenting on these verses, St. Augustine, in his treatise on Faith, Hope and Charity, Ch. 21, states: “We see the Apostles have granted indulgence in certain matters. Now it is possible this might not have been considered a sin to have intercourse with one’s partner in marriage, not for the sake of begetting children, which is good, but even for the sake of bodily pleasure, so that to those of weak self-control a means might be given of avoiding the fatal evil of adultery or fornication or some other form of impurity. It is possible, I say, had not the Apostle added, ‘But this I say by way of concession, not by way of commandment.’ Who, then, will deny that this is a sin, when it is agreed that it was by Apostolic authority, that concession was granted to those who do it?”
St. Augustine here states the sin in such matters is not the use of the concession itself, but its use outside dispensation granted by proper authority. He proves this by his subsequent comments on the matter. “The Apostle permits such cases between the brethren to be decided in the Church, other brethren giving the decision, but sternly forbids such actions outside the Church. It is clear here also what indulgence is being granted to the weak by way of concession.” Such permission is impossible now, which should encourage all those using NFP to pray for the guidance of the Holy Ghost to discern whether their motives and practice of this method are truly honorable and moral.
Earlier decisions on periodic continence
- A bishop submitted a question to the Sacred Penitentiary asking whether those having relations only during the “safe period” are to be disturbed, especially if they have legitimate reasons for doing so. On March 2, 1853, the Sacred Penitentiary answered: “Those spoken of in the request are not to be disturbed, providing they do nothing to impede conception.”
- On June 16, 1880 the Sacred Penitentiary, acting on behalf of Pope Leo XIII, issued a decree stating that those then practicing periodic continence were to be left undisturbed and added this practice could be cautiously advised by confessors.The decree states, “The insinuation of this course of action may be appropriated as a means of preventing formal sins or as offering a way out of a critical situation.”
- On Dec. 31, 1930, in his encyclical letter Casti Connubi, Pius XI wrote: “Nor are those considered as acting against nature who, in their married life, use their right in the proper manner, although on account of natural reasons of time or certain defects, new life cannot be brought forth.” This reads the same in several translations. And it does not specify any restrictions to the means to achieve this end. As a rule of Canon Law reads, “Where the Code does not distinguish, neither should we distinguish” (Revs. Woywod-Smith commentary, Can. 1098). And this is especially true of papal laws and decisions.
Summary
In a 1951 address to Italy’s Catholic Union of Midwives, Pope Pius XII told his audience: “Serious reasons, often put forward on a medical, eugenic, economic and social grounds, can exempt from the obligatory service [of the marital right] for a considerable period of time, even for the entire duration of the marriage. It follows from this that the use of the infertile periods can be lawful from the moral point of view, and from the circumstances that have been mentioned, it is indeed lawful.” This is more than clear, and we must heed the voice of Christ speaking to us through His Vicar. This papal address is further explained below.
In his work Right and Reason, Rev. Austin Fagothey, S. J., wrote in 1958: “Are then married people obliged to have as many children as possible? NO, provided they use no immoral means to prevent them. With mutual consent, husband and wife are always allowed to refrain…The so-called “rhythm” method differs from artificial conception in that no immoral means are used. Relations are limited to comparatively sterile periods that nature itself provides. Since there is no obligation to demand marriage rights at all, there is no obligation to demand them at one time rather than another… Accidental circumstances can arise which make the having of children undesirable, at least for a time. Such reasons are practically reducible to four heads:
- a) Medical – the health of one of the partners
- b) Eugenic – a serious hereditary defect
- c) Economic – inability to support a larger family
- d) Social – such conditions as war or overpopulation
“Since the means is not wrong in itself, and so long as the intention is not mere selfishness but the avoidance of a serious difficulty, the ‘rhythm’ method is a morally justifiable solution. It is not at all the ideal of family relations, but like many other matters governed by the double effect principle, a legitimate way of tolerating the less good when the greater good is unattainable” (pgs. 367-69).
Many today are experiencing the crushing effects of both economic inability to support a family and the additional stressors of both physical and spiritual warfare and persecution. The necessary conditions exist also because of the inability, in many cases, to shield children from the plethora of evils that afflict the wicked world in which we live. Therefore there is certainty that NFP may be used, as long as the conditions above are observed. And because impossibility to consult Church authority excuses the faithful from the obligation, it can be used as long as it is accompanied by fervent prayer and does not unnecessarily open the spouses to temptations.
by T. Stanfill Benns | Mar 24, 2025 | New Blog
+The Annunciation+ (With a commemoration of St. Dismas)
Fr. Doyle’s Reflections on the Passion, Pt. 3
Gesthemani
OUR BLESSED LORD had designedly planned that Peter, James, and John should be afforded but a glimpse of His divinity when it burst forth on the occasion of His Transfiguration. Now in the Garden of Olives these same Apostles would see their Lord and their God bent and crushed under the weight of sin. The thought of the Transfiguration would have to strengthen them in this hour of disillusionment.
The apostles had always known our Lord to be composed in the face of attack or crisis. For instance, when the elements of nature tossed their fishing boats until they, hardened fishermen though they were, quaked with fear, Jesus was calm and unafraid; but in the Garden of Gethsemani they were to see this same Christ prostrate on the ground bathed in a sweat of blood. That which made up the very anguish of Gethsemani was the fact that Christ, at that moment, took upon Himself the sins of the world — past, present, and future. But why had Christ invited the Apostles to accompany Him in the Garden of Olives? Well, as He entered the darkness, He may have craved human companionship. It was not that the Apostles could do anything for Him, but that their very presence would support Him. Too, He wanted to teach them some important lessons.
The first lesson was this, that when one is oppressed, discouraged, heartbroken, and forsaken, he should pray. That is what our Lord did. He was afraid. He was overwhelmed by the sins of mankind, His Apostles, His closest friends, fell asleep – yet He prayed. Always remember what our Lord told His weak apostles when he awakened them the first time: “Watch and pray, that you may not enter into temptation. The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak” (Mt. 26:41).
The second lesson was equally apparent. While Christ’s closest friends were asleep as He went through the initial phases of the Passion, His enemies were very much awake. At that very moment Judas was briefing the soldiers on where to find Christ and how to apprehend Him. The soldiers were getting themselves ready to arrest the Son of God.
So it has always been and always will be — the enemies of your soul and mine, the enemies of Christ and His Church never sleep. They are always more vigilant, more energetic, more active then we are. Resolve today to make [a Holy Hour] and let the picture of Christ in the Garden of Olives come to your mind. Approach your prostrate King — promise Him to do some positive penance for the sins you have committed. Ask Him to teach you this important lesson — that when doubts, trials, sorrows, and temptations assail you, you, following His example, you will pray, pray, pray.
Our Lord had suffered a terrible ordeal in His initial phase of trial in the Garden of Olives. He had, some thirty-three years earlier, taken on the burden of human nature, Now in this fateful garden, Christ took on the awful burden of man’s sins, and He rightly looked to His closest friends to share His burden in return, if only by compassion. They failed Him. They slept. Oh how the words of the prophet were fulfilled: “I looked for one that would grieve together with me, and there was none; for one that would comfort me, and I found none” (Ps. 68:21).” (End of of Fr. Doyle quotes).
Introduction
Several readers have requested that I make available an excellent booklet written on anti-Semitism, which is now posted for all to read HERE. (Please wait for a moment to view it as it takes a while to load). This booklet was published by Radio Replies Press in 1944 and exposes the false information now circulating on the Internet about the Church’s true position on the Jews. Radio Replies was an approved publication praised by Church officials and Catholics worldwide for its comprehensive treatment of moral and dogmatic theology questions. This booklet presents the correct theological outlook on the problem of anti-Semitism and what the popes have taught throughout the ages on how we should regard the Jews. Yes, they are the enemies of Christ and henceforth our enemies as well. And during Lent this is most painfully apparent. But we must keep this in perspective and turn our own eyes inward during this time, for certainly the hierarchy we believed to be true Catholics are more guilty than they are, in many respects, for what has happened to the Church. And we must not be seduced by those who pretend to take their place.
Our Catholic faith teaches that, “…The worst [sinners] are those Christians who have died in mortal sin, without repentance and without regret; for these have despised the death of Christ and His sacraments, or else they have received them unworthily and in vain. And they have not practised the works of mercy, showing charity toward their neighbours, as God has commanded. And for this they are doomed to the depths of hell. The second kind are the unbelievers, Pagans and Jews. These must all appear before Christ, though they were damned already during their lives; for, in their time, they possessed neither Divine grace nor Divine love, and for this reason they have always dwelt in the eternal death of damnation. But these shall have less pain than the evil Christians; for, since they received fewer gifts of God, THEY OWED HIM LESS LOYALTY” (Bd. John of Ruysbroeck, The Adornment of the Spiritual Marriage, 14th century.)
The faithless cardinals, the traitorous bishops, the false shepherds and wolves in sheep’s clothing, and their cooperators — all of those leading the people astray — they, not the Jews, are the ones who bear the brunt of the blame. And they are the ones who would be most severely punished, deposed and degraded if a canonically elected pope could be elected, which sadly is now an impossibility. The baptized Catholic who has abandoned his faith, and most especially those commissioned to care for the flock, are the ones who should tremble.
The charity we owe our enemies
In meditating on the Passion, as all are bound to do during Lent, the true enormity of sins committed and yet being committed by ourselves and others should become more truly heinous than ever they seemed before. We know that the Church has always prayed for the conversion of the Jews, pagans, infidels and the return of non-Catholics to the fold. In making our First Friday reparations, we ought to be praying for this as well. Yes, the Jews are our enemies, along with those of our own household and there has been much misunderstanding on what type of charity we owe our enemies and the limits of such charity. There should also be an order in our fight against the enemies of faith and how to best direct our energies to defend Christ and His Church. All this will be made clearer below. “He who can never love Christ enough, will never give up fighting against those who hate Him” — St. John Chrysostom.
From Rev. Felix Sarda y Salvany’s Liberalism is a Sin
LibTrad apologists continually “disagree” with those who point out their errors, accusing their critics of a lack of charity or unjust condemnation of their position. This when they themselves are the ones practicing liberal charity. Since they have no authority to teach, and Rev. Sarda was a theologian commended by Pope Leo XIII’s Holy Office, it is quite clear that their objections are specious and uncharitable in themselves. Rev Sarda explains below why this is true.
“It is often necessary to displease or offend one person, not for his own good but to deliver another from the evil he is inflicting. It is then an obligation of charity to repel the unjust violence of the aggressor; one may inflict as much injury on the aggressor as is necessary for the defense…The love due to a man inasmuch as he is our neighbor ought always to be subordinated to that which is due to our common Lord. For His love and in His service, we must not hesitate to offend men. The degree of our offense toward men can only be measured by the degree of our obligation to Him. Charity is primarily the love of God, secondarily the love of our neighbor for God’s sake. Therefore to offend our neighbor for the love of God is a true act of charity. Not to offend our neighbor for the love of God is a sin.
“Modern Liberalism reverses this order. It imposes a false notion of charity; our neighbor first and, if at all, God afterwards. By its reiterated and trite accusations of intolerance, it has succeeded in disconcerting even some staunch Catholics. But our rule is too plain and too concrete to admit of misconception. It is: sovereign Catholic inflexibility is sovereign Catholic charity. This charity is practiced in relation to our neighbor when in his own interests he is crossed, humiliated, and chastised. It is practiced in relation to a third party, when he is defended from the unjust aggression of another, as when he is protected from the contagion of error by unmasking its authors and abettors and showing them in their true light as iniquitous and pervert, BY HOLDING THEM UP TO THE CONTEMPT, HORROR AND EXECRATION OF ALL. It is practiced in relation to God when, FOR HIS GLORY AND IN HIS SERVICE, it becomes necessary to silence all human considerations, to trample underfoot all human respect, to sacrifice all human interests and even life itself to attain this highest of all ends…The saints are the type of this unswerving and sovereign fidelity to God, the heroes of charity and religion…”
Rev. Sarda tells us further: “The bond of union should never be neutrality or the conciliation of interests essentially opposed…This neutrality or conciliation has been condemned by the Syllabus and… is a false basis. Such union would be a betrayal, an abandonment of the Catholic [ideal]. Such union with any group, for any enterprise whatsoever, would [not only] be unfavorable to Catholics, but actually [would be] detrimental. Instead of augmenting our forces, it would paralyze and nullify the vigor of those who would be able, if alone, to do something for the defense of the truth…The kind of soldiers we need go into the deadly breach and never flinch. No compromising, no minimizing with them. They plant their banner on the topmost height and form a solid invincible phalanx around it. That not all the legions of earth and hell combined can budge a single inch. They make no alliance, no compromise with a foe whose single aim, disguised or open, is the destruction of the truth. They know the enemy by nature is implacable, and his flag of truce but a cunning device of treachery.” And this applies especially to organizations that try to unite all those with disparate “Catholic” beliefs.
On the “incurable,” and those in heresy or schism
St. Alphonsus Liguori writes, under the heading The Duty of Accusing or Denouncing Another: “Here it is asked whether fraternal correction must precede accusation. Several distinctions must be made…(1) If the crime is public, since for this reason infamy or notoriety is already present, (e.g., before a number of people in the street), then no correction ought to precede. Thus St. Thomas, Sanchez, Sotus, Paludanus and Salmant with the common opinion. In such a case, to quote St. Thomas, ‘The remedy must not be applied only to him who has sinned that he may improve, but also to those who notice the crime has come.’ And for this reason, a public crime ought to be punished. The truth is you do not sin either against charity or against justice if you accuse without warning (1) When the crime gives injury to the common weal as in…heresy…For with these crimes, scarcely, if ever, is it to be hoped that correction will be fruitful, and delay can be exceedingly harmful,” (Theologia Moralis).
“St. Paul commands Titus: “A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition avoid, knowing that he, that is such a one, is subverted and sinneth, being condemned by his own judgment,” (3:10,11) Cornelius a Lapide and St. Robert Bellarmine understand(s) this passage as meaning that the warnings are required when it is doubtful whether or not someone is truly pertinacious in heresy. In the case of manifest heresy, no warning would be necessary.
“Cardinal de Lugo, considered by St. Alphonsus to be the greatest theologian since St. Thomas, devoted the most detailed study we are aware of to the subject of the pertinacity required to make someone a heretic. He discusses whether a warning is needed in order to establish that someone is a heretic, and concludes, after considering the opinions of all the noted theologians and canonists, that such warnings are not always necessary – nor are they always required in practice by the Holy Office. The reason for this is that the warning serves only to establish that the individual is aware of the opposition existing between his opinion and the Church’s teaching. If that were already evident, the warning would be superfluous,” (Disputationes Scholasticae et Morales, Disp. XX, De Virtute Fidei Divinae, Sectio vi, n. 174 et seq.). It should be noted here that the very law used as the old law for the canons on heresy, Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, which we are bound to consult should any questions arise concerning the law, states that where heresy is concerned no warning or declaratory sentence is required for the censure to take effect. This also was reiterated in a decision from the Holy Office in the 1930s.
To dismiss the claim that Church teaching and practice did not always clearly specify the matter of a man’s ordination and consecration without the proper qualifications, we quote the following: Pope Hadrian I condemns in DZ 301 “…those priests who without examination… are ordained that they may preside.” And in DZ 363 we find (Pope Callistus II, Laetaran Council I): “Let no one, unless canonically elected, extend his hand for consecration to the episcopacy. But if he should presume to do so let both the one consecrated and the one consecrating be deposed without hope of restoration.” This is only a reiteration of what is found in Cum ex Apostolatus Officio and Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis. And it must be emphasized here that in teaching this, the popes were not NOT considering the fact that the ones seeking consecration were already public heretics and schismatics!
And from St. Thomas Aquinas: “As the Philosopher observes (Ethic. ix. 3), when our friends fall into sin, we ought not to deny them the amenities of friendship, so long as there is hope of their mending their ways, and we ought to help them more readily to regain virtue than to recover money, had they lost it, for as much as virtue is more akin than money to friend ship. When, however, they fall into very great wickedness, AND BECOME INCURABLE, we ought no longer to show them friendliness. It is for this reason that both Divine and human laws command such like sinners to be put to death, because there is greater likelihood of their harming others than of their mending their ways. Nevertheless the judge puts this into effect, not out of hatred for the sinners, but out of the love of charity, by reason of which he prefers the public good to the life of the individual. Moreover the death inflicted by the judge profits the sinner, if he be converted, unto the expiation of his crime; and, if he be not converted, it profits so as to put an end to the sin, because the sinner is thus deprived of the power to sin anymore. (Q. 25, Art. 7, Pt. II-II: Reply Obj. 2).
(Pt. II-II, Q.31, Art. 2, Reply Obj. 3): “The excommunicated and the enemies of the common weal are deprived of all beneficence, in so far as this prevents them from doing evil deeds. Yet if their nature be in urgent need of succor lest it fail, we are bound to help them. For instance, if they be in danger of death through hunger or thirst, or suffer some like distress, unless this be according to the order of justice.” And following St. Thomas, as they do, Revs. McHugh and Callan wrote: “An act is NOT contumely when given to those deserving of reproof, or when directed toward the IRRETRIEVABLY WICKED.”
Are LibTrad pseudo-clergy irretrievably wicked? For some 40 years, they have been warned that they are operating outside Canon Law, that their validity is in grave question, and finally that their “orders” are undeniably invalid according to the laws of the Church and the teachings of the Popes. Not one of them have reversed course, admitted their guilt, publicly abjured their errors, made reparation and restitution (all of this required by Canon Law) or asked for forgiveness. It is difficult to believe that they are anything but unrepentant and pertinacious. In any event they are notorious heretics, and we are bound to avoid them and condemn their attempts to pervert those who are searching for the truth. While what follows applies to those who are still Catholic, and those suffering from personal offenses only, it provides guidelines regarding our treatment of those who are our professed enemies.
From The Casuist, Vol. 1, (p. 193-95)
“We must not wish our enemy evil; that is we must not repay evil with evil or cherish a spirit of revenge toward him. We must pardon the personal offense when requested, not always immediately. Sometimes there may be just cause for deferring pardon in order to manifest the pain we suffer by reason of the offense. Sometimes, even, we may be obliged to make the first advance towards a reconciliation to prevent scandal or to save our enemy from sin when we can do so without much trouble to ourselves. We must wish our enemy well; that is, we must include him in our prayers. We must succor him in his needs as we would anyone else. And if we exercise charity indiscriminately toward a large number, we must not exclude our enemy, for this would be a mark of revenge; and if special ties of blood etc. unite us, we are bound to give evidence of goodwill toward our enemy as we give to others who are bound to us by the same ties. But special marks of friendship that we owe to no one in particular, either by reason of their personal condition or the customs of the country, we are not obliged to show to our enemy.
“It is one thing to harbor a spirit of revenge and quite another thing to desire the reparation of outraged rights. It is perfectly legitimate to desire the restoration of our good name or the restitution of our stolen property and to take action at law to obtain them; yes, even to take criminal proceedings against the offender to have him punished. If this is done out of love for justice it is quite in keeping with the law of charity. If it is done from a spirit of revenge, it is of course sinful. ONCE SATISFACTION HAS BEEN MADE, WE MUST FORGIVE THE PERSONAL OFFENSE. UNTIL SATISFACTION HAS BEEN MADE, THIS IS NOT REQUIRED OF US. We are not obliged to salute those who have wrongly offended us unless they make the first advances, unless it be a question of the superior or unless, to refrain from soliciting our enemy for a long time could be interpreted as a mark of hatred. But if our enemy greets us first, we are bound to greet him in return except once or again we might be justified in refusing to recognize a greeting in order to show our feelings have been hurt. If therefore on account of circumstances the denial for a time of the ordinary salutations and greetings must be interpreted as a manifestation of wounded feelings and if in fact the denial proceeds from no spirit of hatred or ill will such denial is not sinful” (end of Casuist quotes).
It should be noted here that the above deals with personal offenses, but what we are dealing with today are public, notorious crimes regarding LibTrad pseudo-clergy and their defenders. These are a different species and require adjudication by the local Ordinary or the Roman Pontiff. Because we have no access to them today, the law still applies as far as it can be observed and these laws are detailed below.
Canon Law on reparation and amendment
Can. 672 §1: “[If] a dismissed religious… has for three years given signs of complete amendment, the religious organization is bound to receive him: however if either on the part of the organization or on the part of the religious there are serious objections against the return, the matter shall be submitted to the judgment of the Holy See.”
Canon 1933: “Offenses which are subject to criminal procedure are public offences… Penances, penal remedies, excommunication, suspension and interdict can be inflicted also by way of precept without judicial procedure providing the offense is certain.”
Canon 1935: “Any of the faithful may at all times denounce the offense of another for the purpose of demanding satisfaction… or to get damages for losses sustained through the criminal act of another or out of zeal for justice to repair some scandal or evil. Even an obligation to denounce an offender exists whenever one is obliged to do so,either by law or by special legitimate precept or by the natural law in view of the danger to faith or religion or other imminent public evil.”
Canon 2242: “A person is considered to have desisted from his obstinacy when he has truly repented of his offence and has at the same time made proper satisfaction for the damages and scandal caused or has at least earnestly promised to do so.” And, “Absolution cannot be denied whenever the offender ceases to be obstinate as declared in Canon 2242”(Can. 2248).
Canon 2313: “Penances are imposed when a person who has incurred a canonical penalty truly repents and asks for absolution from a censure or dispensation from a vindictive penalty. The principal penalties are: (1) the recital of specific prayers; (2) pious pilgrimages or other works of piety; (3) special fasts; (4) almsgiving for pious purposes; (5) retreats or spiritual exercises for some days in a pious religious house.”
From the canons above we can deduce the following.
If one has been excommunicated for some reason (and this could even include excommunication for material heresy or schism on the part of LibTrad followers in the present circumstances it seems), then they must be on their good behavior for three years after having satisfied the canons requiring amendment. This is true because of the element of fraud involved, even though their offences have been public and notorious. Under Canon 1325 we are bound to renounce anything that is said or done contrary to the faith. So such persons, if they have publicly sinned in writing or in actions, must make amendment and do reparation by publicly denouncing the actions or the writing. They also must satisfy the financial obligations regarding the damages done insofar as possible and perform the penances described in Canon 2313. This in order to demonstrate their sincerity and their desire to be absolved from any sin or excommunication. Any amendment must be complete; there can be no recidivism or return to heresy, schism or previous errors.
Needless to say, very few exiting the LibTrad sects have obeyed these canons. Certainly none of their pseudo-clergy have renounced their errors, publicly abjured them, made their amends and done penance. And how could they possibly recompense their followers financially? Yet this is what the laws of the Church command them to do.
Conclusion
It is contrary to the teachings of the Roman Pontiffs to continue to castigate the Jews for their sins even though they are enemies of the Church. This because such castigation has the appearance of desiring revenge and is against the virtue of prudence. LibTrads cannot blame others for errors they are not willing to correct themselves. The Orthodox Jews call us idolaters because we worship Christ and they don’t believe that he was the Son of God. Well, all members of the LibTrad sects are idolaters because their clergy are invalid and they’re worshipping a piece of bread! How can they point fingers at others when they are guilty of these grave sins? Christ prohibited this behavior in condemning the Pharisees and pointing out the humility of the publican in the parable. He forgave His enemies from the Cross, and in inviting St. Dismas to heaven, He demonstrated that repentance is worthy of forgiveness and reward. He also forgave those Jews who, following the Crucifixion, renounced their sect and converted to Christianity.
Prudence dictates that those among the LibTrad sects blaming the Jews for destroying the Church should not be further encouraged, lest they possibly take revenge and commit a sinful act against them. Christ died for His own people as well as for us. We need not be friendly to the Jews because they have not asked our forgiveness or made amends by converting, but neither should we be actively persecuting them. They are not the ones pretending to be Catholic and misleading those who should be true Catholics — individuals who profess to love Our Lord and wish to be saved. The popes didn’t spend their time and energy continually berating the Jews, but they most certainly routinely condemned those wolves in sheep’s clothing misleading the faithful, along with their false doctrines.
In the end, the Church will triumph, and the Jews will be converted. “Behold, I will bring of the synagogue of Satan, who say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie. Behold, I will make them to come and adore before thy feet. And they shall know that I have loved thee. Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I will also keep thee from the hour of the temptation, which shall come upon the whole world to try them that dwell upon the earth” (Apoc. 3: 9-10). This may not happen until the very end, the time given for penance and reparation prior to the Final Judgment. But Christ has promised it, and He is ever true to His promises. The faith and the patience of the saints alone, excluding all thoughts of revenge, will save us. If we drink the cup of His adorable Passion to the very dregs, there is redemption and victory over eternal death awaiting us at the end.
by T. Stanfill Benns | Nov 10, 2024 | New Blog
+25th Sunday after Pentecost+
Introduction
Readers are still unsure they can obtain certainty regarding the invalidity of Traditionalist orders received following the death of Pope Pius XII. By borrowing proofs from various site articles, I have once again tried to summarize what I think will help dispel the confusion created by Traditionalist “theologians” on this topic. These men make it appear that orders are superior to jurisdiction, when in fact the two are inseparable; BOTH are now required for validity. As one reader, M.L., commented:
“I’ve been reflecting on the subtle but crucial distinction between Traditionalists and true Catholics. It seems that while some Trads acknowledge the concept of validity versus liceity, their approach often stops at legality, missing the true spirit of faithfulness. They have become adept at navigating the technicalities of validity BUT SEEM TO LACK THE DEEPER SUBMISSION TO DIVINE LAW THAT TRANSCENDS MERE RUBRICS. Many simply echo their predecessors in a way that places the appearance of sanctity above its essence. These clerics, in their outward mastery of tradition, even Latin, create an enticing façade but in reality wield influence over the faithful more as a spectacle than as true shepherds.
“This has led me to conclude that genuine holiness now requires a prudent separation from such influences, lest we too fall into their error. God’s faithful remnant must remain vigilant, preserving their distance so as to avoid contracting the same spiritual malaise. Yet, we should never cease to share the truth in charity; some, by the grace of God, may yet receive it. And so, we walk the fine line of standing apart from this corruption while remaining a light for those still capable of seeking God sincerely.”
Amen to that. And please forgive me if I sometimes underestimate the damage that years of indoctrination by Trad pseudo-clergy has truly wrought and appear to have little sympathy for readers “not quite there yet.” The urgency of abandoning error sometimes overrides the patience required in the workings of grace. We begin below by addressing the means used for decades to deceive Catholics regarding the core issues of invalidity and liceity.
Tools of deception
First, we begin with the over-emphasis on Orders versus jurisdiction, when both are necessary to Apostolic succession; of the need of Mass and Sacraments as opposed to the dogma that that a true pope must be canonically elected. This shift of emphasis was a tool used by the Modernists even before Pius XII’s death. It is described in an article by Rev. Albert F. Kaiser, in The American Ecclesiastical Review, December-January, 1953-54 (“The Historical Backgrounds and Theology of Mediator Dei”) as “heretical exclusivism,” the minimizing and edging out of one dogma by emphasizing another. Orders was falsely portrayed as the all-important “gold key” in the keys of orders and Divinely instituted jurisdiction, sidestepping that of the Supreme Pontiff. The necessity of the Mass and Sacraments (the Anglican chant that “It is the Mass that matters,”) was stressed outside the papal direction required to assure the faithful that only valid and licit clergy would celebrate it. Traditionalists insisted that the Mass and Sacraments were the primary, almost exclusive means of grace, discounting prayer and good works.
Canon 196 reads: “The Catholic Church possesses by divine institution the power of jurisdiction or government. This power is twofold: that of the external forum and that of the internal forum.” Traditionalists NEVER explained to their followers that to become a true successor of the Apostles, one must possess both Orders AND jurisdiction, which they brazenly tried to explain away by invoking the non-applicable, meta-juristic principle of epikeia (see HERE). Nor did they explain it is a dogma that the faithful are bound to follow only lawful pastors, possessing jurisdiction (DZ 967, 968). The pseudo-priest Anthony Cekada wrote in 2003:
“Now, if a person has seriously and duly used the proper matter and form for performing or administering a sacrament, he is by that very fact presumed to have intended to do what the Church does.” (Pope Leo XIII, Apostolicae Curae, 13 September 1896; on Anglican orders.) The theologian Bernard Leeming S.J. cites this teaching as a confirmation of previous theologians who “all agreed that the outward, decorous performance of the rites sets up a presumption that the right intention exists…. The minister of a sacrament is presumed to intend what the rite means… This principle is affirmed as certain theological doctrine, taught by the Church, to deny which would be at least theologically rash.” (Principles of Sacramental Theology, Westminster MD: Newman 1956; pgs. 476, 482.)
Cekada, however, neglects to include a crucial quote from Leeming, who further notes: “In the case of bishops or priests who fall into heresy, the presumption stands that they intend to do what Christ wills unless the nature of their heresy gives ground to suspect that they are so convinced that Christ does not will a particular effect of Sacraments that they absolutely exclude this from their intention.” The effect of the Sacrament of Orders they deny is obedience to a canonically elected Roman Pontiff as head bishop to rule them, clearly stated in the rite of episcopal consecration — a necessary means of salvation for all the faithful.
Some might say, “Well the Orthodox held this intention and they are still considered valid.” Yes, but the Orthodox are not presenting as the true Catholic Church of all time; they present as exactly what they are -— a schismatic sect, recognized as such for centuries. LibTrads are actually attempting to alter the very nature of the Church’s Divine constitution and convince those believing themselves to be Catholic that the Church can exist and function without a canonically elected pope, which is a heresy (DZ 570c, 570d, 653, 674, 675). Cekada’s cherry-picked observations also presume the performance of many prerequisites necessary for both liceity and validity, primarily intention. This is contrary to the teaching and practice of the Church, as summarized below.
Church teaching on validity of Orders
The Catholic Encyclopedia on Anglican orders
“When persons or classes of persons who wish to minister at the Church’s altars have undergone ceremonies of ordination outside its fold, the Holy See is chary of doctrinal decisions but applies a common-sense rule that can give practical security. Where it judges that the previous orders were certainly valid it permits their use, SUPPOSING THE CANDIDATE TO BE ACCEPTABLE; where it judges the previous orders to be certainly invalid it disregards them altogether, and enjoins a re-ordination according to its own rite; where it judges that the validity of the previous orders is doubtful, EVEN THOUGH THE DOUBT BE SLIGHT, it forbids their use until a conditional ceremony of re-ordination has first been undergone.” Conditional ordination and re-ordination are necessary to obtain the required jurisdiction. And this only if the Church determines the candidate is fit.
One must first be properly called, investigated, qualified and validly tonsured by a bishop possessing an office — who is in communion with the Roman Pontiff — to be undoubtedly validly ordained a priest. For one must be a certainly valid priest to become a bishop, as St. Thomas Aquinas teaches. As seen above, even slight doubt forbids any use of purported orders. Determination of validity, hence the right and ability to receive jurisdiction, rests with the pope.
Pope Paul IV’s Cum ex Apostolatus Officio
This 1559 bull sets the stage for disqualification from offices and promotions. “All and sundry BISHOPS, Archbishops, Patriarchs, Primates, Cardinals, Legates… inciting or committing schism or who, in the future, shall stray or fall into heresy… being less excusable than others in such matters… are also automatically and without any recourse to law or action, completely and entirely, forever deprived of, and furthermore disqualified from and incapacitated for their rank… (para. 3). “Further, if ever at any time it becomes CLEAR that any BISHOP…[etc.]; or likewise any Roman Pontiff, before his promotion or elevation as a Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, (has strayed from the Catholic Faith, fallen into some heresy, or has incurred schism), then his promotion or elevation shall be null, invalid and void… 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…” Because there is doubt and confusion regarding this matter, under Can. 6 §4 this law is now the prevailing law. Cum ex… is retained in numerous places as a footnote throughout the Code.
This may be confusing to some, so we will attempt to explain it. The important point here is that only Marcel Lefebvre and Pierre Martin Ngo Dinh Thuc, also a few others ordaining or consecrating post-1958, were validly consecrated bishops under Pope Pius XII, (although Lefebvre ‘s consecration is doubtfully valid). Cum ex… must not be applied to those calling themselves bishops today who were ordained and/or consecrated by these pre-1958 consecrated bishops. Cum ex… states in paragraph 3 of the bull that any bishop inciting or committing schism and/or falling into heresy loses forever his office as bishop. Can. 188 §4, with paragraphs 3 and 6 of Cum ex… annotated, is listed as one of this canon’s sources, (Peter Card. Gasparri’s 1917 Code in Latin with the Fontes, 1957).
The canon reads: “All offices shall be vacant ipso facto by tacit resignation in the following cases: … (4) If a cleric has publicly lapsed from the Catholic faith” (Woywod-Smith). This is how we know that both paragraphs refer to loss of office. Lefebvre, Thuc, et al publicly accepted the Novus Ordo, signed Vatican 2 documents and celebrated the Novus Ordo Missae. They were public heretics. They also incited schism by establishing their own Traditionalists sects. They lost their offices as bishops and basically were reduced to the priesthood as regards their powers. Heretical and schismatic bishops can ordain and consecrate, but the value of these orders must be officially determined by the Church before they can be declared valid. (This will be treated below.)
Thomas William Allies/Pope Pius IX
In 1865, Thomas William Allies M.A., a convert from Anglicanism, issued the third edition of a little work called The See of St. Peter. It was translated and circulated by the express order of Pope Pius IX. In this work, Allies refers to the Anglican bishops later declared invalid by Pope Leo XIII: “On the supposition that they were true bishops, they had power to administer the Sacraments, but in no particular place, nor to any particular persons. They were bishops, but they had no subjects; all acts of jurisdiction performed by them under these circumstances would be null: acts of their Order, irregular. Supposing them to be true bishops, nay, to have been consecrated by the Supreme Pontiff himself and under no canonical disabilities, THEY COULD NOT CONFER ORDERS WHICH SHOULD BE VALID IN RESPECT OF EXECUTION; as they had no jurisdiction themselves, they could confirm none… Acts flowing from Order, although done wrongly and illicitly, are yet, when done, valid; but acts flowing from jurisdiction, if done upon those over whom the doer has no jurisdiction, are absolutely invalid and null…”
Is this making sense now? Only the Roman Pontiff can provide a bishop with subjects by approving his appointment as bishop, thereby assigning him a diocese. Lefebvre, Thuc and any others abandoned the dioceses assigned them by Pope Pius XII to accept dioceses from Roncalli and Montini. They tacitly resigned their offices by accepting the usurpers, committing heresy and schism, from which they were never absolved. Their acts were null and void because they were forbidden to exercise their orders, being schismatic pseudo-bishops, and they had no subjects over which to validly exercise them. Bishops call priestly candidates from the population of their dioceses; over them they have jurisdiction. These alone they may validly ordain. This only repeats the teachings of the Council of Trent (DZ 967, 968) on those priests and bishops not “rightly sent.”
Allies continues: “All this doctrine may be summed up thus: all spiritual power of the sacerdotal character is given together with a certain consecration, and therefore the keys are given with the order; but the USE of the keys requires its proper MATTER, which is a people made subject by jurisdiction, and therefore one, before he has jurisdiction, has the keys, but has not the ACT of using them. A consequence of this is that while in all schismatics, heretics, excommunicated, suspended or degraded persons, the power of the keys remains as to its essence, yet THE USE OF THE KEYS IS BARRED THROUGH DEFECT OF MATTER… Whence, as the Church deprives heretics, schismatics, and such like, by withdrawing their subjects, either simply or partially, so far as they are deprived, they cannot have the use of the keys.” All know a sacrament is not valid if matter, form or intention is lacking.
Canon 2245, April 1951, AAS 43-217
“A decree of the Holy Office concerning the consecration of a Bishop without canonical provision is as follows: A Bishop OF WHATSOEVER RITE OR DIGNITY who consecrates to the episcopacy anyone who is neither appointed nor expressly confirmed by the Holy See and the person who receives the consecration, even though they were coerced by great fear, (Can 2229 §3, no. 3), incur ipso facto an excommunication most specially reserved to the Holy See.” Per the above, and according to the unanimous opinion of theologians, there can be NO presumption of validity until the matter is resolved by the Roman Pontiff, and only the Roman Pontiff. And notice that he states, “OF WHATSOEVER RITE OR DIGNITY,” including here all the Uniates and the Orthodox, as his supreme jurisdiction allows.
Pope St. Leo I
The Catholic Encyclopedia says of Pope St. Leo I: “[Pope St. Leo I, the Great] died 10 November, 461. Leo’s pontificate, next to that of St. Gregory I, is the most significant and important in Christian antiquity.” Pope St. Leo the Great and the author quoting him notes that other popes, not just Pope St. Leo I, taught as he did, and as Pope Pius VI would later teach in Charitas. “To Anastasius of Thessalonica, apostolic vicar in Illyria, the pontiff Saint Leo the Great told him: “Let no bishop be ordained in those churches without your approval: in this way he will take care, to make the choice with maturity, knowing that they have to pass your examination. The metropolitan who, disregarding our mandates, will be ordained without your notice, let him know that WE WILL NOT CONSIDER HIS ORDINATION AS VALID; and he will be responsible before us for the USURPATION HE PRESUMED TO MAKE OF THE HOLY MINISTRY.” (The balance between the two powers: that is, The rights of the Church vindicated against the attacks of Dr. D.F. de P.G. Vigil by Reverend Fray Pedro Gual, Vol.3, p. 202).
Szal’s Canon Law dissertation
In Rev. Ignatius Szal’s Communication of Catholics With Schismatics, (1948), Szal notes that in the late 12th century, when the antipopes Victor IV and Paschal III reigned: “These schismatics had ordained many of their adherents to the episcopate…The Third Lateran Council took action by declaring that the ordinations performed by these schismatic popes were null and void, as also the ordinations conferred by those who had been consecrated by them… The Canon used the word “irritas” in reference to the ordinations conferred by the schismatics. However the term was to be understood in reference to the execution or the EXERCISE of these orders, rather than to their validity.” In other words, they made no decision on whether they validly possessed these orders. For whether they possessed them or not, they were forbidden, under pain of invalidity, to exercise them over those not their subjects.
Pope Pius VI, Can. 147
This constitution is listed as a footnote to Can. 2370 regarding the necessity of the papal mandate for consecration: “For the right of ordaining bishops belongs only to the Apostolic See, as the Council of Trent declares; it cannot be assumed by any bishop or metropolitan without obliging Us to declare as schismatic both those who ordain and those who are ordained thus INVALIDATING their future ACTIONS…. “ Pius VI further warns they are not to function in any way, regardless of “any pretext of necessity whatsoever.” And Can. 147 states: “An ecclesiastical office is not validlyobtained 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.” Notice the use of canonical in Can. 2245 above. As the popes, the Council of Trent, the Catholic Encyclopedia and the theologians all teach, there can be no Apostolic succession when both Orders and jurisdiction do not exist together. So why is anyone presuming these men to be valid??
Canon 147 was based on the decree of the Council of Trent regarding orders. In 1950, the Sacred Congregation of the Council provided an official interpretation of Can. 147, citing the following from the Council of Trent: “Those who undertake to exercise these offices merely at the behest of and upon appointment by the people or secular power and authority, and those who assume the same upon their own authority, are all to be regarded not as ministers of the Church, but as ‘thieves and robbers who have entered not by the door’ … “If anyone says that those who are neither duly [rightly, properly] ordained nor sent by ecclesiastical and canonical authority but who come from elsewhere are legitimate ministers of the word and of the Sacraments let him be anathema” (Canon Law Digest, Vol. 3, T. Lincoln Bouscaren, 1954; see also DZ 967, 968).
Pope Pius XII attached ipso facto excommunications specially reserved to the Holy See to the Sacred Congregation of the Council’s interpretation for allowing anyone to be intruded into an ecclesiastical office and this is extended to any who support them. Ordinations by these schismatics and heretics — Lefebvre, Thuc, et al — can scarcely be said to have been done rightly or properly. And such men were stripped of any jurisdiction, so had no power to send anyone. It is interesting to note that directly below this instruction on Can. 147 in Bouscaren’s work, he lists a reference to Can. 2394, where it is declared that those violating this canon are considered VITANDUS. And earlier popes, in condemning such men, made it clear they were to be regarded as vitandi (more on this below).
Holy Office decree
According to a decision from the Holy Office, Nov. 18, 1931: “A lapsed Catholic who receives orders from a schismatic bishop can be received back into the Church only on the understanding that such ordinations, even if valid, will be completely disregarded, Ecclesiam non habere neque unquam habituram esse oratorem tanquam ordinatum cum que propterea nullus obigationibus statui clericali annexis tenneri” (Dr. Leslie Rumble, Homiletic and Pastoral Review: “Are Liberal Catholic Orders Valid,” 1958). One cannot validly receive orders if one is not a Catholic; there must first be abjuration and absolution from heresy. All of us, at one time, including those ordained by Traditionalists, were members of the Novus Ordo or Traditionalist sects and would need to be absolved and abjured from any censures. Membership in any non-Catholic sect qualifies one as a lapsed Catholic.
Invalidation of acts, not orders
And finally we come to Pope Pius XII’s Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, (VAS), specifically governing an interregnum. “(1) Therefore, We declare INVALID AND VOID any power or jurisdiction pertaining to the Roman Pontiff in his lifetime, which the assembly of Cardinals might decide to exercise (while the Church is without a Pope), (2) The Sacred College of Cardinals shall not have the power to make a determination in any way it pleases concerning the laws of the Apostolic See and of the Roman Church… (3) The laws issued by Roman Pontiffs in no way can be corrected or changed by the assembly of Cardinals of the Roman Church while it is without a Pope, nor can anything be subtracted from them or added or dispensed in any way whatsoever with respect to said laws or any part of them… 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.” (see full text HERE).
Lefebvre, Thuc and any others usurped papal jurisdiction by dispensing themselves and proceeding without the mandate. They also usurped papal jurisdiction by erecting seminaries without papal appointment or approval and presumed to proceed without the lifting of their censures for heresy and infamy of law by the pope. Therefore under Charitas and VAS, all that they did was null, void and invalid. This constitution is addressed to cardinals, but if even cardinals do not have such power, schismatic bishops would certainly have none!
Let us here pause to address the objection that null and void does not necessarily mean invalid despite its use in Canon Law and certain papal documents (see Charitas referenced above; also Pope Paul IV’s bull Cum ex Apostolatus Officio). Pope Leo XIII provides an authoritative definition of this term in his constitution Apostolica Curae, addressing the administration of Holy Orders: “To obtain orders nulliter means the same as by an act null and void — that is invalid — as the very meaning of the word and as common parlance requires.” And invalid is the word used interchangeably with null and void in the documents of Pope Paul IV and Pope Pius VI cited above. Leeming also lists invalid as “synonymous with null or void” (p. 266).
It is true that a pope cannot nullify a valid ordination or episcopal consecration, but VAS does not nullify orders received. It only reinforces and confirms all that is presented above, exercising the pope’s supreme jurisdiction to protect the Deposit of Faith in his absence. This should erase all doubt in Catholic minds. The Church is most vulnerable to sabotage and profanation during an interregnum. And Pius XII is clear in his intent. As Msgr. Joseph C. Fenton observes:
“It is, I believe, to be presumed that the Vicar of Christ speaks to the faithful in a way they are able to understand… Our Lord did not teach in any way but authoritatively nor does His Vicar on earth when He teaches in the name and by the authority of his Master. Every doctrine proposed by the Holy Father to the entire Church militant is, by that very fact, imposed upon all the faithful for their firm and sincere acceptance.” Please realize that any papal document, whether infallible or not, binds Catholics (Can. 1812, Pope Leo XIII). Nothing that LibTrad pseudo-clergy pretend to teach can supersede or change that.
One last objection
“But there were consecrations done throughout the centuries without papal approval, consecrations done validly though illicitly…”. This “earlier precedents” business, officially promoted by the CMRI and others, is one of the oldest LibTrad deceptions on the books. This is yet another violation of Canon Law: “A more recent law given by competent authority abrogates a former law if it is directly contrary to the former law… or if it readjusts the entire subject matter of the former law” (Can. 22). Pope Pius XII states in Ad apostolorum principis, addressed to the errant Chinese national bishops:
“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.”
And from Mediator Dei, 1947: “Clearly no sincere Catholic can refuse to accept the formulation of Christian doctrine MORE RECENTLY ELABORATED AND PROCLAIMED AS DOGMAS BY THE CHURCH, under the inspiration and guidance of the Holy Spirit with abundant fruit for souls, because it pleases him to hark back to the old formulas. NO MORE CAN ANY CATHOLIC IN HIS RIGHT SENSES REPUDIATE EXISTING LEGISLATION OF THE CHURCH TO REVERT TO PRESCRIPTIONS BASED ON THE EARLIEST SOURCES OF CANON LAW.” This is an actual error condemned by Pope Pius XII in an infallible encyclical as Antiquarianism. We have no choice but to accept it with a firm assent.
Conclusion
I do not see how anyone, weighing the proofs presented here, could still remain in doubt, given the testimony of Wm. Allies, Pope Pius VI, the Holy Office and VAS. This is not a matter of understanding; it is matter of assenting firmly and irrevocably to what the popes teach and what Canon Law legislates. The invalidity of these bishops matters because the truth always matters, and we are always required to believe only the truth. Those holding them to be only illicit can offer NO papal documents proving their validity, proofs they are bound to produce to justify their belief. In a doubt of law one returns to the old law (Can. 6 §4). As seen above, Charitas is the old law governing Can. 2370 demanding the papal mandate, and Charitas teaches that the orders conveyed by these men are invalid; likewise VAS. This resolves everything. Another papal document footnoted to Can. 2370 is Pius IX’s Etsi Multa, which states:
“As even the rudiments of Catholic faith declare, no one can be considered a bishop who is not linked in communion of faith and love with Peter, upon whom is built the Church of Christ; who does not adhere to the supreme Pastor to whom the sheep of Christ are committed to be pastured; and who is not bound to the confirmer of fraternity which is in the world.” Following these words, he condemns the Old Catholic bishop Reinkin as a vitandus, calling him a pseudo-bishop. Pope St. Pius X also condemned as a schismatic, a vitandus, and a pseudo-bishop the Old Roman Catholic Arnold Harris Mathew. Validly consecrated vitandi can only validly forgive sins at the hour of death, as a priest; they certainly cannot validly ordain or consecrate. And on this head, VAS removes all doubt about any validity: their orders are invalid. These are the “precedents” real Catholics use to resolve doubts, those given to us by the Popes and the councils, as reflected in Canon Law.
The “illicit only” crowd which upholds the validity of these pseudo-clerics must understand that they do so only because they are still enmeshed in Traditionalism, whether they pray at home or not. This can be remedied by studying and fully assenting to the teachings of the popes. Don’t feel ashamed for accepting these lies for many years and for that reason be reluctant to choose the popes over the prevailing “wisdom” of LibTrads. If we can possibly help these false clerics and their followers see their errors, we must do as Canon Law directs us to do — gather forces to prevent them from functioning, not fracture into opposing pray-at-home sects. That is the true charity we owe our neighbor.
Christ alone is the truth, and His vicars speak in His name. His vicars are telling us that without the Church’s Christ-instituted head — a canonically elected pope exercising supreme jurisdiction — there can be no Church, no Catholic society, as Pope Pius IX taught. As members of the Apostolic College, bishops cannot rule in the pope’s stead; they must submit to the pope as head bishop. Deny that, and you deny that Christ ever instituted the papacy.
by T. Stanfill Benns | Jan 22, 2024 | New Blog
+St. Raymond of Penafort+
Introduction
“The Church is infallible in selecting terms suitable to convey the truths which she defines. Truths can be set forth in words only, i. e., by means of creeds and dogmatic decrees. Therefore, to be infallible in teaching, the Church must also be infallible in choosing words that accurately express her meaning without ambiguity” (The Church of Christ, Rev. E. S. Berry, p. 504-505). For as Msgr. Joseph C. Fenton commented: “It is, I believe, to be presumed that the Vicar of Christ speaks to the faithful in a way they are able to understand.” And we must always remember, “It makes no difference whether a person who breaks the bonds of Catholic communion does so in good faith or in bad. In either case, he ceases to be a member of the Church. The innocence or guilt of the parties involved is purely an internal matter, purely a matter of conscience; it has no direct bearing on the question of one of the external and social bonds requisite for membership” (Msgr. G. Van Noort, S.T.D., Christ’s Church, Vol. II, no. 154).
All of us who are refugees of the Novus Ordo and LibTrad sects have communicated in false religious rites (communicatio in sacris, Canons 2314 and 1258). Even though we may have been in good faith, we thus placed ourselves outside the Church, the Mystical Body of Christ, and must work diligently to regain that membership (see HERE).
We know that the devil constantly roams about seeking whom he may devour, and that his time is short. He works in darkness — what he does is often hidden from view. He is crafty and deceitful, a liar from the beginning, yet he comes as an angel of light. “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema. As we said before, so now I say again: If anyone preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema. For do I now persuade men, or God? Or do I seek to please men? If I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ. For I give you to understand, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. For neither did I receive it of man, nor did I learn it; but by the revelation of Jesus Christ” Gal. 1: 8-11). So likewise it is with the teachings of His vicars on faith and morals which He has guaranteed free from any error.
Truth is one for God is one; Christ is the truth, the way, the life. As demonstrated on this website since its inception, the teaching of Christ’s Vicars in these faithless and evil times are our only sure guide: “He who hears you hears me,” as Christ told St. Peter and His apostles. But no one speaks in His name without being in communion with Peter’s successors. And if they are not in communion with him, they are angels of darkness sent to deceive us. As noted above, the popes need no interpretation; their words are clear. And if we need any explanation of their teachings, we must strive to find it only from the most reliable, approved pre-1959 sources we can find. No one has the right to presume to interpret, far less flatly ignore, papal teaching regardless of any supposed secular credentials they may claim to possess, for these mean nothing in the eyes of God (see HERE). As Saint Paul teaches, we are not servants of God if we follow mere men who, who then and today seduce their hearers with novelties and honeyed words. And if we prefer their allurements to the teachings of the popes, we are outside the Church — and this whether we are in good faith or not.
Although we have covered the ground below many times before, renewed attacks made known to us by readers seems to indicate that this shorter and easier explanation may better assist those still of good will in answering questions on this topic.
Pope Pius XII declaresTraditionalist orders invalid
- Bps. Ngo dinh Thuc and Marcel Lefebvre could not validly create priests and bishops during an interregnum because a papal mandate and confirmation of episcopal appointment could not be obtained. The appointment of bishops and issuance of the papal mandate has been reserved exclusively to the Roman Pontiffs for centuries. To presume the possession of the papal mandate and confirmation of any appointment to the episcopacy is therefore a usurpation of papal jurisdiction according to Pope Pius XII’s infallible 1945 election constitution, Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis (VAS) that invalidates any attempt at consecration. (See the full analysis of this bull HERE). In addition, men who never became bishops could scarcely establish seminaries or validly ordain priests, acts which can be executed only by a validly consecrated bishop in communion with the Roman Pontiff.
- Some claim that the supposed orders conveyed by Thuc and Lefebvre cannot be considered invalid because these men were approved and appointed under Pope Pius XII. But the validity of Lefebvre and Thuc’s ordinations/consecrations in the 1970s-80s and the subsequent ordinations conferred by their “bishops” has been questioned even by Traditionalists for decades. Therefore they are already doubtful and to be avoided. But this is not all.
- For in presuming the validity of these ordinations and consecrations without a decision by the Holy See, Traditionalists usurp papal jurisdiction BECAUSE ONLY THE POPE MAY DETERMINE SUCH VALIDITY. Therefore said presumption is null, void and invalid.
- VAS also invalidates THE EXERCISE of any orders received after 1958, even by bishops approved under Pope Pius XII, just as Pope Pius VI’s Charitas and other papal decrees have done. Because of their adherence to the Novus Ordo (and later, Traditionalist sects), the men conveying these orders, even if they used the old rite, were at least suspect of communicatio in sacris and therefore presumed to have incurred this censure under Can. 2200 (and undoubtedly other censures as well). Can. 2200 holds them guilty until the pope determines otherwise. To presume the lifting of these censures and vindicative penalties, which is clearly an act of papal jurisdiction, is to usurp said jurisdiction. Therefore any EXERCISE of these orders, even if otherwise valid, constitutes a presumption of absolution and dispensation from these censures, a usurpation of papal jurisdiction rendering them null, void and invalid.
- It is a proven and indisputable fact that the only source ever cited for supplying jurisdiction throughout the history of the Church is the Roman Pontiff, who holds supreme jurisdiction in the Church. To claim that such jurisdiction is supplied in his absence by the law itself is an absurdity, (since Canon Law itself is predicated on papal law and the perpetual existence of the Roman Pontiff); and to say that it is supplied by Christ is a Protestant heresy, condemned at the Council of Trent (DZ 960, 967). VAS forbids appeal to the supplying principle and invalidates any such appeal as a usurpation of papal jurisdiction during an interregnum.
- Any attempt to change or dismiss canon law also is nullified. This would include the violation of Can. 6 n. 4, which requires Traditionalists to adhere to the old law regarding heresy, meaning no declaratory sentence is needed for its existence; Can. 104, reflected in VAS, which invalidates anything done based on error; Can. 147, which requires that in order to possess jurisdiction, certainly validly ordained or consecrated clergy must first receive an office from competent authority; Can. 200, which requires proof of jurisdiction be presented; Can. 804, which requires presentation of the celebret in order to celebrate Mass in a place other than the priest’s proper diocese and Can. 2265 §1 which forbids those excommunicated from advancing to orders. And these are only a few among many.
Therefore Traditionalists are only laymen simulating the Sacraments, and this we know infallibly from the mouth of Pope Pius XII. Christ warned us that in these times we would be inundated by false shepherds, hirelings and false Christs. In a binding decision approved by Pope Pius XII regarding Can. 147, which declares invalid anyone who claims to possess jurisdiction without first being assigned an office in the Church by “competent ecclesiastical authority,” the Holy Office describes such men “as thieves and robbers who have not entered by the door (AAS 42-601). Flee then while you can, lest such men rob you of that pearl of great price — your eternal salvation.
The “bishops must always exist” error
The proponents of this error falsely teach that valid episcopal orders were conveyed up till the end of the false Vatican 2 council in 1965 or the institution by Paul 6 of the false episcopal and ordination rites in 1968. Those promoting this error generally agree that John 23 and Paul 6 are antipopes or were invalidly elected. They imply that those men consecrated during the reign of these two usurpers could then have proceeded to ordain and consecrate others validly, so true bishops could and even must still exist. To presume to believe and teach this they necessarily deny the following truths of faith:
- They hold that Pope Pius XII was the last true pope, yet they deny that he had the right to exercise the fullness of his jurisdictional power of binding and loosing, granted him by Christ as proclaimed at the Vatican Council, in invalidating all acts usurping papal jurisdiction and violating canon law during an interregnum (DZ 1831). This constitution does not nullify Orders already received; it nullifies the act of proceeding to said consecration without the necessary papal mandate or letter of appointment.
- By teaching the body of bishops — the Apostolic College — must always exist, yet implying it can exist independently of its head, the Supreme Pontiff, those teaching this error deny the perpetuation of the Divine constitution of the Church as Christ established it, (Gallicanism, errors of the Hussites).
- While condemning Traditionalist “bishops” for teaching that their jurisdiction comes directly from Christ, they insinuate it in their own teaching, for they deny that Pope Pius XII definitively settled the question of episcopal jurisdiction — whether it comes directly from Christ or through the Roman Pontiff. In his infallible encyclical Mystici Corporis Christi, Pope Pius XII taught that: “The bishops are not entirely independent but are placed under the due authority of the Roman Pontiff, although they enjoy the ordinary power of jurisdiction obtained directly from the same Highest Pontiff” (DZ 2287; AAS 35, 1943, 211f). This teaching then is binding on all the faithful, despite what some claim to be taught by Ludwig Ott in his Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma. (See HERE where Ott’s work is described as containing “serious defects.”) As the theologians Pohle and Preuss write: (The Sacraments, Vol. IV): “It matters not what the private opinions of…theologians [are]. It is not the private opinions of theologians but the official decisions of the Church by which we must be guided.”
- They dare to spurn the teaching of Pope Paul IV’s infallible bull, Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, (para. 6), that those who are heretics cannot be validly elected to any office, a bull confirmed by Pope St. Pius V. They teach then that a man never elected as true pope, a bishop this bull calls a heresiarch who is to be avoided as the heathen and the publican, can approve a bishop for consecration when this bull forbids it and nullifies it, as does VAS.
- In ordinary times, a consecration by a heretic bishop, which Roncalli was even before his election, is considered valid, but the one receiving the orders, also the one consecrating, is automatically excommunicated and forbidden to exercise these orders (Can. 2370). Rev. Charles Augustine comments: “This suspension ipso iurelasts until the Apostolic See expressly dispenses therefrom.” He then lists the following in his footnotes: “For the right of ordaining bishops belongs only to the Apostolic See, as the Council of Trent declares; it cannot be assumed by any bishop or metropolitan without obliging Us to declare as both schismatic both those who ordain and those who are ordained thus INVALIDATING their future actions.” This quote is taken from Pope Pius VI’s Charitas, 1791, issued against three bishops who consecrated another bishop without the papal mandate. Augustine notes it is listed as the Fontes, or old law, for Can. 2370, commenting that this is “…an example of its effective application.”
During an interregnum, the exercise of these orders is a usurpation of papal jurisdiction (presuming the cessation of the censure, which can only be lifted by the pope) and a violation of Canon Law. Therefore, any acts attempted by these men while under this censure during an interregnum are null and void.
Don’t fall for false shepherds, lay or otherwise
All the above is directly from the infallible teachings of the Roman Pontiffs or Canon Law, which itself is based on papal and conciliar teachings as well as divine law; this is why they call them the Sacred Canons. The Church has always taught that these laws are negatively infallible — that is, nothing they command or forbid can be contrary to faith or morals. Pope Pius XII infallibly teaches in Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis that anything done contrary to these canons during an interregnum is null and void. And only approved pre-1959 theologians can analyze and explain these canons. Some of you may have recently been invited to join various groups praying at home by individuals who may present as praying at home, but do not hold or practice the truths of faith. To determine if such groups are truly Catholic, potential members should first determine whether or not their leaders:
- Insist on obedience to the teachings of the Roman Pontiffs and ecumenical councils primarily as the source for what they propose or do.
- Place emphasis on the popularity, “holiness” and personal appeal of certain persons claiming to be knowledgeable, thereby promoting a personality cult
- Provide references from papal pronouncements and the councils, Denzinger’s Sources of Catholic Dogma or Canon Law for the whole of their work
- Condemn the works of others on the basis of their opponents’ alleged unworthiness, lack of credibility or past sins, when they themselves have been guilty of equally grave or even graver offenses
- Restrict their followers’ access to other sources by means of such condemnation. Cult expert Steven Hassan tells us that personality cults often exert undue influence on members, not due influence: “Due influence involves informed consent, your choice, right to question, listening to your inner voice, freedom to interact with anyone, free will, and the freedom to leave.”
- Show the necessary respect for and obedience owed to Canon Law as Pope Pius XII commands
- Explain to their readers that, as Canon Law teaches, that because everyone has previously participated in the rites of the Novus Ordo or Traditionalists, all are excommunicates, themselves included
- And if all are excommunicates (and some of them many times over), why is it that they have such a penchant for pointing to others as guiltier than themselves when Rev. Van Noort, quoted above, writes: “The innocence or guilt of the parties involved is purely an internal matter, purely a matter of conscience; it has no direct bearing on the question of one of the external and social bonds requisite for membership.” So why are these self-proclaimed teachers of truth preaching leniency and charity towards Traditionalists but not others?
How many times have readers seen their friends and relatives leave the Novus Ordo or some LibTrad sect, only to then join an even more destructive sect, often with disastrous consequences? This is the perfect example of inviting in seven devils worse than the first! (Matt. 12: 43-45). But there is one devil that has not yet been addressed that is especially loathsome and needs to be exorcised, as we will see below.
For Sale: perversions of the Truth
We said in an earlier blog that some professing praying at home offer the truth for a price, but that is not really what they are doing. For just as all heretics do, they mix truth with error and present it as truth, in ways that the faithful cannot easily detect or assess. They then request and even demand allegiance and financial support necessary to promote these perversions. This is a form of simony, which the moral theologians McHugh and Callan define as: “…the studied will to buy or sell for a temporal price or consideration something that is spiritual, either intrinsically or extrinsically” (2318). The spiritual is that which proceeds from God or tends to Him as the Author or End of eternal salvation (viz., the destiny, law, means, works, etc., proposed to us in Christian revelation and religion). Among these things those are intrinsically spiritual that pertain to the supernatural order on account of some inherent character of their own (e.g., grace, Sacraments, Mass, miracles) or some intimate union with things spiritual (2317e). The temporal price in simony is some temporal good or advantage.
“St. Gregory the Great distinguishes three kinds of simoniacal prices as follows: (a) the price from the hand…is either money or things that have a money value, such as movable or immovable property, corporeal or incorporeal rights. It would be simony to give a benefice
in exchange for a sum of money, for a loan, for real estate; (b) the price from the tongue… is any kind of patronage, such as praise, recommendation, protection, defense, opposition to competitors, etc. (c) the price in service… is any kind of temporal labor or assistance given for another’s benefit, such as the management of his business or the instruction of his children” (2319). (End of McHugh and Callan quotes) So if someone offers others membership in a group with fringe benefits, such as the purchase of goods, property, special instruction or so on — based on the specific acceptance and profession of certain spiritual beliefs, at least some of them Catholic — then this seems to fit the definition of simony. And certainly if one benefits from the sale of things purportedly Catholic, and repeatedly requisitions those s/he is “serving” for funds to continue this service, this fits the definition of simony above.
Conclusion
The above is why, other than my 2018 book (which I wrote specifically at the request of readers, in case the Internet failed), I have consistently refused to solicit donations or sell my articles — they were written for everyone. The research on this site has been open and available to all for nearly 20 years. It was taken up first and foremost to defend the faith and warn of error, as all are obliged to do. But it also was written to spare Catholics of good will seeking the truth the agonizingly painful spiritual, mental and emotional consequences of being entangled in the webs of those many deceivers — hirelings, false prophets, false christs. For their own perverse reasons, these deceivers wish to rob them of their spiritual innocence, their children, their self-respect, their ability to reason, not to mention their hard-earned cash. I know because I have been there. As a Catholic we have the obligation to assist our neighbor in extreme spiritual necessity. You may not realize the dangers you are in, because as one sage has explained, some learn by reading (and meditating), others by observation, but there are those who will learn only by seizing the electric fence for themselves; that is, they must learn the hard way, and they are in abundance today. No one can be dragged kicking and screaming into heaven. But all can pray that those who have been deceived may be granted the light to see before they leave this world.
