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 | 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.
by T. Stanfill Benns | Oct 7, 2023 | New Blog
+Feast of the Holy Rosary+
Those challenging Francis as a heretic today may think they are accomplishing something. But they came to the game to support their team long after they had already lost by double digits. Those in the Novus Ordo church may entertain themselves by pretending they are fighting the “deep church,” but just as it is too late to “drain the swamp” in this country, likewise it is long past the time when Catholics could hope to have swept the Church clean of the Modernists and Liberals who destroyed Her. Those frequenting this blog know that the juridical Church in Rome ceased to exist with the death of Pope Pius XII in 1958, 65 years ago this month. But we also know that Christ’s Church continues to live and exist amongst the visible members of His Mystical Body yet faithful to all the teachings of the Continual Magisterium.
Of course all this Francis business will only wind up resulting in further schisms, once those believing Francis is a heretic decide to depart and elect their own “pope.” Been there, done that and it will only make an already catastrophic situation worse. What is needed here is a primer for the laity on what the Church that existed during the reign of Pope Pius XII truly taught on all these myriad questions. This in order to dispel all the controversies now being raised again, questions already debated and researched in the 1980s and errors and heresies long ago condemned by the Church. And as we keep repeating here, it basically requires only two infallible documents to answer the majority of these questions: Pope Paul IV’s 1559 Bull Cum ex Apostolatus Officio and Pope Pius XII’s 1945 election Constitution, Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis.
Where to draw the line
Why do we draw the line at Pope Pius XII’s papacy? Because after his death is when all this chaos began, when the cockroaches finally came out of the woodwork. If police officials are called to a fatal car crash, they do not begin their investigation of that crash at the scene itself, but carefully trace the trajectory of the vehicle from where the driver first lost control and left the road. With mathematical precision, they calculate very carefully the specifics which led to the crash to establish its actual cause. They investigate the history of the driver and document the condition of the vehicle s/he was driving. It can take as long as a year to pull all the pieces of what happened together to prepare their case for court. And in the meantime, they must fend off defense attorneys for the driver at fault who present every objection imaginable in attempting to defend their client. These we can compare to the many individuals who objected to the fact that the papal see was vacant following Pope Pius XII’s death. Yet it is all a matter of cause and effect.
St. Thomas Aquinas teaches that there must be a cause for every effect but that cause must be known and rightly identified. Francis is being treated as the cause of this heretical situation being witnessed today when he is only the effect issuing from that situation. This error is what is known as the logical fallacy of Non causa pro causa (Latin meaning “non-cause for cause”). “It is a catch-all term that describes any type of fallacy in which we mistake a false cause of an event for the real cause… Reverse causation fallacy occurs when the direction of cause and effect is reversed. In other words, we assume that A causes B, without realizing that B actually causes A.” So those accusing Francis are not viewing the situation correctly; they have not traced the actual cause of his heresy to its logical source. The heretical situation itself occurred long ago, and this was the true cause that is now being obscured. Francis is only one of a long line of heretics, as everyone reading these blogs has known all along. And as explained in last week’s blog, the errors in reasoning promoted by the Liberals and Modernists have been deliberately multiplied and refined over the decades to the point that they have become almost impossible to extricate from people’s thinking processes. That is why it is called the operation of error.
We also draw the line at the death of Pope Pius XII because there are abundant proofs on many different levels that the election of John 23, the heretic Angelo Roncalli, was invalid, as documented in these blogs, in site articles and in The Phantom Church in Rome. No one has bothered to refute these writings or have shown that they are the product of false reasoning, misinformation, misapprehension of the nature of heresy or for any other reason. To do so they would need to cite pre-1959 papal teaching and Canon Law on these issues and nothing of the sort has occurred. So the indictment of Roncalli stands, as previously stated. What is needed is a clarification of all the issues at hand regarding the situation we experience today. But what those seeking the truth are handed each week by LibTrads and their buddies is a mass of lies and disinformation to sort through from Rome, topped off with a heavy load of lies, half-truths and propaganda promoting themselves as the answer to the cacophony in the counter-church.
These lies have poisoned the minds of those trying to make sense of all this for decades but the truth could be easily enough rooted out. As stated before in previous blogs and articles, two infallible papal documents discredited by LibTrads as non-applicable today are the answers to the entire Francis conundrum, not their own pretensions to be able to resolve this situation on a human level, when what they are dealing with is a Church Divinely instituted by Our Lord. Below, we will counter some of the common myths leading to the confusion that escalates daily regarding the sad plight of the Church.
Cum ex Apostolatus Officio — Myths and Facts
Pope Paul IV’s Bull was written in 1559 during the Protestant Reformation, which some theologians have identified as the very beginnings of the great apostasy. The first translation of this bull was published by Argentinian professor, scholar and philologist Carlos Disandro in 1978. Pope Paul IV’s bull was addressing two different situations:
1. One of his cardinals was actively campaigning for the papacy and that cardinal, Giovanni Morone, was placed on trial as a heretic by Paul IV on suspicion of sympathizing with and defending the Lutherans. Paul IV died in 1559 after releasing his bull before a verdict could be reached in the Morone case and Morone then became a candidate for the papacy. The 19th century historian and scholar, Joseph Cardinal Hergenrother, in his The History of the Popes reports that Morone’s campaign for the papacy was “…quashed by the intervention of Cardinal Ghislieri, [the future Pope St. Pius V] who pointedly remarked that Morone’s election would be invalid owing to the question mark hanging over his orthodoxy.” In his The Papal Princes, author Glenn Kittler wrote that Paul IV “…decreed that any cardinal accused of heresy could not be elected pope” (pg. 254). Pope St. Pius V later went on to reaffirm his predecessor’s bull in his Motu proprio, Intermultiplices, which also taught that anyone previously suspected of heresy could be retried for good cause, even if declared innocent by a previous pope.
2. In a backhanded fashion, Pope Paul IV also was defining exactly how a pope could “APPEAR” to be (an) or the antichrist but in fact never became pope, in order to stem the tide of errors then being spread by the Protestants regarding the entire papacy as a series of antichrists. In other words, no validly elected pope could ever be Antichrist, but only one invalidly elected who was usurping the Papal See.
Myth — Cum ex Apostolatus Officio (Cum ex…) was only a disciplinary law and is not binding on the faithful.
FACT —That disciplinary laws are indeed binding on the faithful was proclaimed at the Vatican Council (DZ 1827, 1831), and later by Pope Pius IX in Quartus Supra and Quae in patriarchatu, also in DZ 1578 and DZ 326. (See the article HERE.) This error first circulated prior to these just-mentioned encyclicals of Pope Pius IX’s which declared disciplinary decrees capable of being infallible and those denying this fact guilty of heresy. Later the status of Cum ex… was clarified by the codification of Canon Law, as seen below.
Myth — Cum ex… was abrogated by the issuance of the 1917 Code of Canon Law, Can. 6 n.6: “Any of the remaining disciplinary laws heretofore enforced but not contained in the Code, either explicitly or implicitly, shall be said to have lost all force unless it is found in approved liturgical books or pertains to Divine law, either positive or natural.”
FACT — This law has absolutely no application to Cum ex… for two different reasons. First it is a proven fact that in nine different places, most notably under the laws that treat of heresy, apostasy and schism, Cum ex… is listed in Peter Cardinal Gasparri’s Codex Iuris Canonici 1957 as the footnotes or sources of these laws. (A free download of this work is available HERE. Further proofs are posted in the article HERE.) Abp. Amleto Cardinal Cicognani says of the old law in relation to the Code: “Under the canons are placed footnotes… In the Code there are… 4,000 citations from papal constitutions,” and 1,200 from ecumenical councils, also thousands from other sources. Therefore, he comments, “…The old laws of the Church have [not] lost all their utility,” as some have claimed. “The footnotes must never be neglected… the former discipline is no longer the immediate source of legal authority but becomes a source of interpretation.” So if something is to be used as a source of interpretation, how can it have lost all force?
Secondly, Cum ex… most definitely deals with Divine law, the Divine establishment of the papacy by Our Lord and His promise to Peter that his faith could never fail. In excluding heretics and suspected heretics as candidates for the papacy, cardinalate and episcopacy, Pope Paul IV was safeguarding Christ’s promise. The canonist Rev. Charles Augustine writes under Can. 2314 regarding heresy, apostasy and schism: “It is quite natural that a society which claims to be the one Church instituted by Christ should direct its first penalty against crimes that subvert its very foundation i.e., DIVINE AND CATHOLIC FAITH.” And here, Augustine adds in his footnotes that Cum ex… is indeed the source for Can. 2314, (although a typographical error mistakenly attributes this 1559 Bull to Paul III).
So on both counts, Cum ex… is explicitly contained in the 1917 Code.
Myth — Cum ex… can be interpreted to mean that a pope already in office could become a heretic, which is a contradiction of the Vatican Council. St. Robert Bellarmine teaches that this is a possibility.
FACT — St. Robert Bellarmine did not teach that a sitting pope could become a heretic as the article HERE explains. And Pope Paul IV wrote Cum ex… prior to the Vatican Council, which definitively settled this matter with a resounding “no.” This case is not addressed specifically in Cum ex. But knowing what we do about Roncalli, we have no doubts that he was a heretic pre-election, even if not a heretic admitted as such by the cardinals and episcopate. He was registered with the Holy Office as a suspected Modernist and this document had not been removed, something the cardinals were bound to know and consider. That they did not do so, as we have stated before, disqualified them as electors. Prof. Carlos Disandro comments on this below in his introduction to the translation of the bull.
“Therefore, according to Paul IV, it is not contrary to the Faith to affirm that there could occur the case of a heretic pope (a false pope, naturally) elected by the unanimous vote of the cardinals, an outcome that could suggest, in turn, the electors’ heretical unanimity. It is certainly not necessary, but it is possible. This would be, I believe, the abominatio in desolationem: the Church without a pope and without legitimate electors, they being automatically dispossessed of their dignities… Finally, according to this doctrinal line, we would now demote the hierarchical body of bishops that could also in totum sustain, favor, and share heretical and schismatic authority, and consequently would lack jurisdiction. And this assuredly dark horizon would complete the abominatio in desolationem, or, as the text of the Bull says, abominationem desolationis in loco sancto videre, since every cathedral (seat of wisdom and the Faith) would be occupied by heretics or miniature heresiarchs who would bring about what the canonical providence of our text tries to impede: Catholicae Ecclesiae unitatem et inconsutilem Domini tunicam scindere.”
That such an election is indeed invalid and the cardinals disqualified from voting in any subsequent elections is precisely what Can. 2391 §1 prescribes. Did the cardinals “knowingly” elect an invalid candidate as the canon states? Enough of them knew and deliberately elected him to fall short of the two-thirds plus one majority needed for a valid election under Pope Pius XII’s Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis (paras. 86, 90). And if we have any doubts all we need to do is remember that Roncalli is the one who called the false Vatican 2 council and all of those cardinals then still living signed Vatican 2 documents. More on this below.
Myth — The abomination of desolation in Cum ex… would refer to Roncalli if he was the one invalidly elected, not Montini, and the abomination can mean only Antichrist proper.
FACT — The abomination of desolation can have many meanings, as seen HERE. Prof. Disandro notes: “Could we not infer that Montini and his counselors, theologians, and cardinals fundamentally satisfy the explicit and implicit conditions described in these texts, and that from any perspective whatsoever—canonical, mystical, or historical—we find ourselves precisely in those times of the abominatio in desolationem? In this case, the cessation of the Sacrifice and the vacancy in Rome…” Montini himself served as a counselor to Roncalli; they had been close friends since the 1930s. As addressed in previous articles, Can. 2209 states that accomplices are as guilty as the primary agent, and in this case it is difficult to tell who the primary actor was. But one thing is certain: Montini would never have been made a cardinal without Roncalli. And if Montini was Antichrist, Roncalli could only be the False Prophet of Apoc. Ch. 13. Ironically, the footnotes for Can. 2209 list Cum ex… as its source.
Myth — Paragraph 7 of Cum ex… states that the cardinals or anyone who had at first recognized such a heretical pope as legitimate could “depart with impunity at any time from obedience” without fear of censure or penalty, so that applies right up to our own times.
FACT — Actually the way it is written it would apply only to those cardinals who elected Roncalli and the faithful subject to him, and the hierarchy had the opportunity to denounce him once it was made public, in the mid-1960s, that he was a suspected Modernist. They lost their chance, and their offices, for electing him as Disandro notes above and they later demonstrated at Vatican 2. No cardinals remained once Roncalli was elected. Pope Paul IV never envisioned a series of invalidly elected popes or a wholesale acceptance of them, without any effort to elect a true pope, so it could scarcely be said to apply after Roncalli’s death.
Cum ex Apostolatus Officio was a warning to all who were praying and watching. It was dismissed by LibTrads and their minions wishing to supplant the papacy, as we explained in our last blog. It has a great deal in common with Pope Pius XII’s Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis (VAS) in that it nullifies all actions of those daring to function as valid popes or hierarchy outside the laws of the Church. Those claiming that censures for heresy, apostasy and schism today no longer apply or can be interpreted leniently have dismissed Cum ex… precisely because it binds them to an even higher, not a lower standard. Others have challenged them on this repeatedly, insisting that the Canons retain their full rigor, as VAS infallibly teaches. So there exists a state of doubt among many. We know from the above that Cum ex… is explicitly retained in the Code. And since it is, Canon 6 n. 4 resolves this doubt as follows: “In case of doubt whether some provision of the canons differs from the old law, the old law must be followed.”
This is very sobering when we realize that Pope Paul IV teaches: “We approve and renew, by Our Apostolic authority, each and every sentence, censure or penalty of excommunication, suspension and interdict, and removal,and any others whatever in any way given and promulgated against heretics and schismatics by any Roman Pontiffs Our Predecessors, or considered as such, even in their uncollected letters, or by the sacred Councils recognized by God’s Church or in the decrees or statutes of the Holy Fathers or in the sacred Canons and Apostolic Constitutions and ordinances. We will and decree that they be forever observed and, if perchance nowobsolete, that they shall be restored and shall remain in vigorous observance…
“All and sundry Bishops, Archbishops, Patriarchs, Primates, Cardinals… who in the past, as mentioned above, have strayed or fallen into heresy or have been apprehended, have confessed or been convicted of incurring, inciting or committing schism or who, IN THE FUTURE, shall stray or fall into heresy or shall incur, incite or commit schismor shall be apprehended, confess or be convicted of straying or falling into heresy or of incurring, inciting or committing schism, being less excusable than others in such matters, in addition to the sentences, censures and penalties mentioned above, (all these persons) are also automatically and without any recourse to law or action, completely and entirely, forever deprived of, and furthermore disqualified from and incapacitated for their rank…” We will elaborate further on this below.
If this does not sufficiently convince those conniving today that they are placing their souls in great jeopardy by relegating this bull to the trash heap, we might remind them that it is sealed with an oath: “No one at all, therefore, may infringe this document of our approbation reintroduction, sanction, statute and derogation of wills and decrees, or by rash presumption contradict it. If anyone however should presume to attempt this, let him know that he is destined to incur the wrath of almighty God and of the blessed apostles Peter and Paul.” See the article HEREon the status of papal documents sealed with an oath.
The second document examined here will be Pope Pius XII’s 1945 papal election law.
Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis — Myths and Facts
In writing his 1945 papal election constitution, Pope Pius XII divided his document into several sections, but it is primarily the first section we will be dealing with here.
Myth — “Pius XII’s constitution on how to elect a Roman Pontiff is merely ecclesiastical law and therefore human law. It is not divine law, and it is therefore limited of its very nature.”
FACT — And you, lay person or LibTrad pseudo-cleric have the authority to state such a thing from WHO? The first three paragraphs of Title 1, Ch. 1 of Pope Pius XII’s election Constitution, Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis (abbreviated below as VAS), treats of papal jurisdiction as it exists during an interregnum, also the nature of the primacy instituted by Christ. It therefore a treats of a matter regarding DIVINE LAW and is now the only prevailing law that addresses such a situation. These paragraphs are unquestionably infallible, as paragraph three easily proves (see HERE). Certainly anyone presuming to judge an infallible document could never be considered a Catholic, for this is a denial of the supreme jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff. But then this is what LibTrads have done from day one. The link provided explains nearly all the arguments presented by LibTrads and why they are fatally flawed.
Myth — Epikeia and/or Can. 20 can be invoked to override VAS.
FACT — Epikeia, Rev. Joseph Riley states in his dissertation, The History, Nature and Use of EPIKEIA in Moral Theology (Catholic University of America, 1936): “Epikeia can never confer the capacity to act. Epikeia cannot bestow upon him the power which he does not now possess, nor can epikeia restore the power which the law has withdrawn. For such bestowal or restoration of power a positive act is required… Human invalidating laws sometimes cease to bind; but epikeia may not be applied to human invalidating laws.” And Can. 20 states: “If there is no explicit provision concerning some affair either in the general or in the particular law a norm of action is to be taken [from the following]…” But there are two provisions provided for the solution of this case: Cum ex… and VAS. So Canon 20 cannot apply.
As noted above, both Cum ex… and VAS are essentially invalidating and incapacitating laws, declaring the nullity of acts. Rev. Bernard Wuellner S.J. writes: “Laws justly declaring an incapacity to act or to receive benefits invalidate the attempted act or reception even if they are inculpably unknown or facts pertaining to their application in a concrete instance are unknown” (no. 342, Summary of Scholastic Principles, 1956). Abp. Amleto Cicognani says the same in his work, Canon Law: “Epikeia has no place in invalidating laws, for the common good demands certitude concerning the validity of acts… An act performed even in ignorance or error contrary to the prescriptions of an invalidating or disqualifying law (unless it be given as a penalty for an offense) is invalid just as if a person performed the act with full knowledge. The validity of such acts and the juridic capacity of these persons can be restored only by law, in no respect by the will of the agent… These laws are enacted for the public good as an essential requisite for validity of certain acts — independently, therefore, of the will of those subject to them.”
And this is not taking into consideration the fact that both Cum ex… and VAS are infallible pronouncements concerning Divine law and are considered special laws made by the Roman Pontiffs. And here we see why both Cum ex… and VAS cannot ever be said to be abrogated. In his dissertation Canon 6 (1927), Rev, Nicholaus Neuberger writes:
“If a prior law is bound up by an oath which reads into it immunity from abrogation the law is not countermanded unless express mention is made to that effect… But the predecessor cannot curtail the power of the successor. The primacy is entrusted to him to rule subjects through just laws… An unjust or useless law is not the only matter suited for abrogation… To make a licit annulment, it is sufficient that the law is too rigorous… less useful… or that greater dangers and evils are in some way avoided…” Pope St. Pius X’s papal election law containing such an oath was abrogated by Pope Pius XII as he notes in his preamble to VAS. However, although it is rewritten, very little of its substance is changed except for the parts Pius XII adds in various places, to better guarantee the integrity of the election process and validity of the election.
Conclusion
Pope Paul IV’s Cum ex… was never abrogated; on the contrary, it was confirmed and strengthened by Pope St. Pius V’s Intermultiplices and enshrined in the Code as the old law governing the Canons on heresy. Pope St. Pius V issued his famous Quo Primum on the Roman Rite of the Mass and its perpetuity, and this also was accompanied by an oath. Although now considered a “disciplinary law” by some LibTrads, it was never abrogated and certainly never could be abrogated by the likes of Roncalli or Montini. Pius XII’s VAS, of course, was not and now cannot be abrogated. Only the lawgiver himself, the pope and his successors, can abrogate these laws, not LibTrads.
Our last blog explained that it is a belief binding on Catholics that papal elections must be canonical. Cum ex…declares those Cardinals even suspect of heresy are incapable of positing a valid election. How could anyone today viewing the destruction in the Church ignore the papal documents above when they see the destruction wrought by Roncalli and Montini, whom Roncalli collaborated with and supported, and who he named as a cardinal eligible for election. We know that these cardinals accepted Roncalli as pope and never renounced him; that they later voted in the false Vatican 2 council to dismantle the Church. Even those cardinals who did not knowingly elect Roncalli (Can. 2391 §1) were guilty under the laws governing papal elections because as Wuellner and Cicognani explain above, such ignorance cannot excuse one for violating invalidating and incapacitating laws, (that is, VAS itself).
And as Rev, Anscar Parsons explains in the opening page of his 1939 Canonical Elections dissertation, “Canonical election is one of the methods employed by the Church for providing worthy incumbents for ecclesiastical offices. The Code sets forth the principle of public law that no office can be VALIDLY obtained in the Church unless it is duly granted by competent ecclesiastical authority” according to the Sacred Canons, and here he cites Can 147. Violation of this law is prohibited and made null by VAS. The cardinals, who later showed their true colors at Vatican 2 and were already peppered with Modernists could not possibly have validly elected Roncalli, on many different counts enumerated in the links provided here. Those agonizing over Francis need agonize no more; they need only read to understand and obey the Roman Pontiffs — not listen to their talking heads or the dictates of their own perverse wills.
It has all been an illusion, “lying wonders” as St. Paul warned us in 2 Thess. 2:9. Pope Paul IV and Pope Pius XII made it impossible for anyone to corrupt the Deposit of Faith. Pius XII turned the key Christ gave to St. Peter and his successors in the lock on the Church’s front door for the last time and took those keys with him. None of what occurred following the election of Angelo Roncalli did happen or could have happened. No Novus Ordo church, no Vatican 2, no John 23 missal, no new mass, no LibTrads usurping the papacy and spreading their errors, either. All was null, void and invalid. The Church stands as She has always stood and will always stand — inviolate. She has never changed in any way and despite the best efforts of Her enemies, even those who pretend to be Her friends, She shall never change.
Let us pray below for those who insist on continuing to crucify Our Lord in these evil times:
“Most sweet Jesus, mindful that we ourselves have had a share in such great indignities which we now deplore from the depths of our heart, we humbly ask Thy pardon and declare our readiness to atone, by voluntary expiation, not only for our own personal offenses, but also for the sins of those who, straying far from the path of salvation, refuse in their obstinate infidelity to follow Thee, their Shepherd and Leader, or renouncing the vows of their Baptism, have cast off the sweet yoke of Thy law.”
by T. Stanfill Benns | Sep 21, 2023 | Blog, New Blog
+ St. Matthew, Apostle +
The post below will address comments on the sedevacantist Passion of the Church article which was reviewed here last week because this article also makes reference to the possibility that John 23 was validly elected, quoting Pope Pius IX to the effect that even an “unworthy heir” can still reign validly. Other blogsters and Internet commentators are now hyperventilating about a new video by a Fr. Altman detailing the heresies of Francis. One of these is Patrick Henry, whose comments, unfortunately, have been picked up by other blogs. I don’t normally name names here but I am now forced to warn readers that Patrick Henry’s writings are not in compliance with the teachings of the Roman Pontiffs.
I have corrected Henry on this on several occasions, even published blog articles that demonstrate where he is in error, but to no avail. He insists that I believe that the laity comprises the magisterium, when all I have ever done is point to what the magisterium teaches. He denies the binding statement entered into the Acta Apostolica Sedis by Pius XII that in the absence of the hierarchy, the laity must take up all of their responsibilities. He refuses to believe that once the papacy is taken away, as St. Paul prophesied, the sheep would scatter as Christ warned. Here we need only cite three of his statements to prove that despite his copious quotes from the popes, he teaches falsely on Christ’s constitution of the Church and the fullness of papal power.
— “Truly Catholic Bishops MUST exist – otherwise there is no Catholic Church today and Jesus Christ would be a liar.”
— “It is heretical to state that the Catholic Church can be in existence without the episcopal order of the hierarchy consisting of Catholic bishops with the power of Orders and the power of jurisdiction.”
— “[Benns states]: The Apostolic hierarchy cannot exist without its head bishop, the pope.” [Should] Catholics believe this last sentence is the truth for even the length of one New York second?”
Notice there is no mention of the pope here as head bishop, implying that he denies the papacy is necessary for the episcopate to exist. This is consistent with the belief of sedevacantists who deny the necessity of the papacy and endorse Gallicanism. We read from the Vatican Council: “So in His Church, [Christ] wished the pastors and the doctors to be even to the consummation of the world. But, that the episcopacy itself might be one and undivided, and that the entire multitude of the faithful through priests closely connected with one another might be preserved in the unity of faith and communion, placing blessed Peter over the other apostles, He established in him the perpetual principle and visible foundation of both unities upon whose strength the internal temple it might be erected and the sublimity of the Church to be raised to heaven might rise in the firmness of this faith” (DZ 1821; emph. mine).
So the way this is worded, the existence of the pastors and doctors even to the end of the world was dependent on whether they are founded on Peter, which explains the beginning of the following sentence with ”But.” The house of the faith cannot stand without its foundation. As quoted in last week’s blog from Pope Pius IX’s encyclical Nostis et Nobiscum: “Religion itself can never totter and fall WHILE THIS CHAIR REMAINS INTACT.” The Church cannot be one and undivided without Peter, for if divided from him, it is not one. If the Novus Ordo church and Traditionalists of all varieties are hopelessly at war with one another, how is anyone ever to arrive at anything close to the truth without adhering to the integral teachings of the Church, the fullness of papal teaching prior to Pope Pius XII’s death? The cacophony out there is so deafening because even people like Henry who pray at home seem to be playing for the same team and have been for some time. More on this later.
One of Henry’s main objections is the fact that Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis renders any bishops consecrated without the papal mandate INVALID, when Henry insists that the Church teaches “no LAWFUL consecration may take place in the entire Catholic Church without the order of the Apostolic See, as the Council of Trent declares.” That is true when a canonically elected pope is reigning, as some have claimed in citing Ad apostolorum principis to support the ”lawful” scenario. But it is NOT true during an extended interregnum, and Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, which will be examined at length below proves this. Anyone who dares to state that Pope Pius XII meant otherwise and fails to accept the conclusions which must logically be drawn from this constitution denies the teachings of the Vatican Council.
The binding force of papal constitutions
The sedevacantist article referred to last week states: “It is reasonable to hold that Roncalli was the first false pope of the 20th century. Since the evidence against John XXIII, however, is not as copious or as clear-cut as it is against Paul VI (r. 1963-78), some believe the first false pope was Paul VI… There are no cardinals appointed by a true Pope alive today, that much is certain, unless we want to posit that there is some true Pope in hiding who has appointed cardinals. While that may or may not be possible, either way it would remain a mere hypothesis.” But if the cardinals are all dead, how could there ever be another pope?, an opponent queries. And the sede blog replies: “Pius XII’s constitution on how to elect a Roman Pontiff is merely ecclesiastical law and therefore human law. It is not divine law, and it is therefore limited of its very nature. A human legislator — in this case, the Pope — can never foresee all possible circumstances that may arise, and human laws, even in the Church, are not meant to address all possible scenarios but are typically made only for ordinary circumstances.”
How any Catholic could possibly believe that this infallible constitution, a teaching of Christ’s Vicar, written with the active assistance of the Holy Ghost is merely a human document is truly astonishing. This grave error has been addressed at length in the article on epikeia. As will be seen below, the first three paragraphs of Title 1, Ch. 1 of Pope Pius XII’s election Constitution, Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis (abbreviated below as VAS), treats of papal jurisdiction and the nature of the primacy as it exists during an interregnum, not disciplinary matters. Title I has nothing to do with the election itself per se, but with the exercise of that jurisdiction St. Peter and his successors receive directly from Christ. (This, however, does not mean that certain teachings in the election law itself are not infallible.) A constitution is not just a law. It is: “A papal document that deals with serious doctrinal matters regarding the DEFINITION OF DOGMA, changes in canon law or other ecclesiastical matters.” This definition reveals that such constitutions can be either dogmatic or disciplinary, but as seen below they are always binding.
The Catholic Encyclopedia states: “The binding force of pontifical constitutions, even without the acceptance of the Church, is beyond question. The primacy of jurisdiction possessed by the successor of Peter comes immediately and directly from Christ. That this includes the power of making obligatory laws is evident. Moreover, that the popes have the intention of binding the faithful directly and immediately is plain from the mandatory form of their constitutions.” The Encyclopedia article, taken from S.B. Smith’s Elements of Ecclesiastical Law, calls these constitutions “synonymous” with laws, but not identical to them, since “…even in ecclesiastical usage the word constitution is restricted to papal ordinances.” In this case Pope Pius XII was defining dogma in the first three paragraphs of VAS, as did his predecessor Pope St. Pius X in the very same words. But he made certain there was no doubt that this was exactly what he was doing, adding to Pope St. Pius X’s document that what was stated in those three paragraphs issued from his Supreme Authority (see article HERE).
Whether it concerns matters of faith, morals or discipline, then, when we see that any document has been entered into the Acta Apostolica Sedis, we know that this document is binding on the faithful and that the Pope intends us to consider it something that he absolutely commands us to believe and to obey. Pope Pius XII taught in Humani generis that whenever you find any papal act registered in the Acta Apostolica Sedis, it is binding. This is explained here by Msgr. Joseph C. Fenton. Now if you read a papal document and it says “with the fullness of our Apostolic authority, with our Supreme Authority, We define, decree, declare” or anything like that you know the Pope is telling you that this is something that you are definitely bound to believe and to hold, an order issuing directly from him as the pastor of souls and the voice of Jesus Christ. But it doesn’t necessarily have to say this, in so many words, to be binding on the faithful. When the pope does say this, though, that should tell the faithful something. It should tell them that whatever it is he is saying is coming not from his lips alone, but from the mouth of Christ.
So Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis is a binding document for the simple reason that it treats matters of dogma and is entered into the 1946 Acta Apostolica Sedis (5 – ACTA, vol. XIII, n. 3. — 4-2-946). Traditionalists can try to pretend they have the power to dispense from it and override it, but that is exactly what the constitution was written to prevent and why such attempts are infallibly declared to be invalid. For the pope explains that during an interregnum (a) no one can usurp the jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff following his death or do anything that was reserved to the Roman Pontiff during his lifetime; (b) no one can violate the rights or prerogatives of the Church and everyone must defend them and finally (c) no one can change papal law or papal teaching or dispense from it in any way during an interregnum because those laws emanate primarily from the Roman Pontiffs and the ecumenical councils. This is clearly a clarification of Divine jurisdiction, which is why Pius XII concludes with the following:
“In truth, if anything adverse to this command should by chance happen to come about or be attempted, we declare it, BY OUR SUPREME AUTHORITY, to be null and void.”
This invalidation of acts would include but is not limited to: (a) the election of Angelo Roncalli contrary to the laws and teachings of the Church and in violation of VAS and its provisions; (b) any attempt to consecrate bishops without the mandatory papal approval; (c) presumption of the VALIDITY of ordinations and consecrations performed by bishops approved by Pius XII without a decision by the Holy See, when the disposition of such irregular activities are reserved to his judgment alone; (d) the validity of first tonsure and obligatory examination of priestly candidates by those who lost jurisdiction through heresy and schism (since tonsure is a jurisdictional act) or who never became bishops per VAS, but were mere laymen; (e) any attempt, by anyone, to interpret VAS is automatically null and void since it is reserved strictly to the cardinals, who have all expired.
Essentially what Pope Pius XII has issued here is an (infallible) invalidating and incapacitating law. It applies only to interregnums which for the past several centuries have been limited by papal law and are relatively brief. Therefore, the temporary suspension of the papal approval of bishops and supplying of jurisdiction, also decisions on papal cases pending, was not burdensome. But the current interregnum is unprecedented and any so-called remaining bishops living at the time of Pope Pius XII’s death are entirely culpable for the length of its existence. “No ignorance of invalidating or disqualifying laws excuses from their observance; namely no ignorance of the aforementioned laws can make acts valid which they have rendered invalid nor can it make persons capable of acting whom they have declared incapacitated from acting. Nor can subjects be excused from the observance of these laws, for the matter is in no way dependent on the will of the agent but on the contrary depends entirely on the will of the legislator who issued such laws BECAUSE THE COMMON GOOD REQUIRED IT” (Abp. Amleto Cicognani, Canon Law, 1935, Can. 16).
Both Pope St. Pius X and Pope Pius XII invalidated all acts contrary to papal law and teaching and every usurpation of papal jurisdiction to defend the sacred institution of the primacy. Pope Pius XII did so by his Supreme Authority, making it clear there was no possibility this law could be dismissed as a mere human or disciplinary law. And given the nature of invalidating laws and what’s happened to the Church, we know why Pius XII wrote this constitution: It was for the good of the Church, because he knew that there is no better time to upend everything than when the See is vacant; and the mutineers were already at work. Denial that the Pope must be canonically elected is a heresy condemned long ago by the Church that is also reflected in Canon Law.
What is meant by canonical election?
Canon 147: “An ecclesiastical office is not validly obtained without canonical appointment. By canonical appointment is understood the conferring of an ecclesiastical office by the competent ecclesiastical authority in harmony with the sacred canons.”
A decision of the Sacred Congregation regarding this Canon was issued June 29, 1950 (AAS 42-601). It levied excommunications “specially reserved to the Holy See” against those who violate Can. 147 and who contrive against legitimate ecclesiastical authority or attempt to subvert their authority, also anyone who takes part in such a crime. This only further confirms the first three paragraphs of Pius XII’s election law.
Canon 160: “The election of the Roman Pontiff is governed exclusively by the constitution of Pope Pius X, Vacante Sede Apostolica… amended and completely revised by [Pope Pius XII’s] constitution Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis of December 8, 1945.” Thus the Code itself confirms the papal constitutions regarding elections in its laws. It is not per se a law itself, however, since it issues directly from the Pontiff himself.
Canon 219: “The Roman Pontiff legitimately elected obtains from the moment he accepts the election the full power of supreme jurisdiction by divine right” (see also Can 109).
“Immediately on the canonical election of a candidate and his acceptance, he is true pope and can exercise full and absolute jurisdiction over the whole Church.”(Catholic Encyclopedia)
Canon 436: “During the vacancy [of an episcopal see] no innovations shall be made,” and as Rev. Anscar Parsons notes below: “The election of the Holy Father has been the prototype for the election of inferior prelates.”
In the 1958 election, Roncalli and an undetermined number of other cardinals incurred censures which could only be lifted by a FUTURE pope, barring them from election. That they elected him anyway was itself a heresy, for it not only violated VAS, and nullified the actions of those cardinals voting for Roncalli, but also denied the teachings that the pope must be canonically elected, that is, according to the existing law. Errors against this teaching are condemned as found in Denzinger’s Sources of Catholic Dogma, DZ 570 d, (decree for the Armenians); and the condemnation of Wycliffe and Hus for heresy, (DZ 650, 652, 674). Then, in accepting him as a true pope, these cardinals also incurred schism, creating a new church with a false, monstrous head. And later, in joining in “worship” of him and with him, they committed communicatio in sacris (Can. 2314 §3). Pope Paul IV also refers to canonical election in his 1559 Bull Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, after stating that the faithful may depart from a heretic appearing to be pope without any fear of incurring censure: “Subjects… remain, nevertheless, bound in fealty and obedience to future Bishops, Archbishops, Primates, Cardinals and the canonically established Roman Pontiff.”
Unworthy candidates for the papacy
Above we mentioned that the sedevacantist article quoted Pope Pius IX on the matter of an unworthy heir and this quote reads: “Let the faithful recall the fact that Peter, Prince of Apostles is alive here and rules in his successors, and that his office does not fail even in an unworthy heir. Let them recall that Christ the Lord placed the impregnable foundation of his Church on this See of Peter [Mt 16:18] and gave to Peter himself the keys of the kingdom of Heaven… ” (Nostis et Nobiscum). In his dissertation Canonical Elections, (Catholic University of America Press, 1939), Rev. Anscar Parsons addresses the instance of the election of an unworthy candidate. He begins by stating: “The election of the Holy Father has been the prototype for the election of inferior prelates.” This is important, because it then relates that these canons he refers to regarding ecclesiastical elections are applicable to papal elections as well, under the canons governing what is to be done when there is some doubt about a certain affair, (Canons 18 and 20). As both Rev. Parsons and Rev. Timothy Mock (Disqualification of Electors in Ecclesiastical Elections, Catholic University of America Press, 1958) explain:
“The election of an unworthy candidate is null and void from the beginning, because QUALIFIED ELECTORS are bound to know that the one they elect is duly qualified. By unworthy is meant a person branded by infamy of law or fact or a notorious apostate, heretic, schismatic or public sinner. Canon 2391 §1 provides the parallel passage of the Code mentioned in Can. 18: “A college which knowingly elects an unworthy person is automatically deprived, for that particular election, of the right to hold a new election.” The fact that this election was based on the wishes and desires of the U.S. government alone, as demonstrated in The Phantom Church in Rome, in violation of VAS — not to mention all the other violations noted above — indicates the intent to deliberately act contrary to the commands of Pope Pius XII, i.e., knowingly.
This takes us back to the election of Roncalli himself, still listed in 1958 as a suspected Modernist by the Holy Office, which not only disqualifies him as a candidate but voids the election of Montini and all who followed him. Rev. Parsons comments that those considered unfit or unworthy of election are “…those who are legally infamous or laboring under censure [also] notorious apostates, schismatics… public sinners and persons whose conduct is sinful or scandalous… In normal cases it is PRESUMED that the chapter made its choice with full deliberation and knowledge, because it is their duty to investigate the qualities of the person whom they elect … If the majority elect someone who is unworthy, all the voters, even those who are innocent are deprived of the right to vote in this instance” (p. 197). Wouldn’t the Cardinals have been obligated to vote for anyone BUT a suspected heretic, especially given Pope Pius XII’s public disapproval of Roncalli’s behavior? And doesn’t this prove in a backhanded fashion that he was elected for other reasons, i.e., in collusion with Montini and his CIA friends?
Rev. Mock agrees with Parsons, writing: “…The burden of proof …will be upon the electors to show that they did not know of the defect in the candidate. The electors are PRESUMED to know the qualifications required by law” (p. 137). Parsons poses the question: “Is the election of an unworthy person void from the beginning? It seems that it is. For the law says that the chapter is deprived of the right to proceed ‘…to a new election.’ In making this disposition, the legislator seems to suppose that the original choice was null and void” (p. 197.)” The electors showed their true intent by the subsequent election of Montini, the CIA’s star operative in the Vatican, and the eventual devastation he wreaked upon the Church. What further damning evidence could anyone possibly hope for to prove this case?! (This discussion can be reviewed in its entirety as presented in a previous blog HERE.) In codifying the papal election laws, Pope St. Pius X removed almost every obstacle to canonical election save that of heresy, apostasy and schism. So while Pope Pius IX could be referring to someone elected under infamy of law or fact, or to a public sinner, as unworthy, he COULD NOT have included in his intended meaning anyone guilty of heresy, apostasy or schism; this is a preposterous assumption and would contradict Cum ex Apostolatus Officio.
Pope Leo XIII wrote, in Satis Cognitum, June 20, 1896: “It is absurd to imagine that he who is outside can command in the Church.” And as St. Robert Bellarmine taught, a man not even a member of the Church can scarcely become its head. We read in the Catholic Encyclopedia on papal elections: “Of course the election of a heretic, schismatic, or female would be null and void. Immediately on the canonical election of a candidate and his acceptance, [the one designated] is true pope and can exercise full and absolute jurisdiction over the whole Church.” And once such an individual reveals that he intends to corrupt the liturgy and create a new idea of the Church, he is a heretic and schismatic, and therefore was never canonically elected. Cum ex Apostolatus Officio is the final word on this topic, although Traditionalists have vilified and ignored it from the beginning. All this argumentation, disputation, and demonization of actual proofs, in order to favor only opinions and theories, could have been avoided long ago by simply following Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, VAS, and the teachings of St. Robert Bellarmine.
To claim Roncalli a qualified candidate for election the following canons would need to be dispensed from, which is infallibly forbidden by Pope Pius XII in VAS.
— Roncalli’s checkered history and close friendship and collaboration with Montini, which is a matter of public knowledge; and especially his listing by Pope Pius XI as a suspected Modernist, proves he indeed was just as guilty of heresy as Montini. For Can. 2209 reads: “Persons who conspire to commit an offense and also physically concur in the execution of the same are all guilty in the same degree…” And if VAS is obeyed, we must accept this Canon as negatively infallible truth.
— Until Roncalli could be cleared of all suspicion of heresy (which is not a possibility), he would have been ineligible for election under Can. 2200, which assumes his guilt as at least a material heretic and therefore places him outside the Church (Rev. Tanquerey, several others) until his innocence is proven (see article HERE). It became publicly known in the 1960s, shortly after his election, that Roncalli was a suspected heretic, making the violation a known external act.
— Canon 2200 contains a presumption of law and cannot be struck down until such innocence is firmly established by competent ecclesiastical authority (Can. 147; see above). The cardinals electing him, who failed to investigate him and later went on to implement the new liturgy and Vatican 2 could scarcely be described as competent. In fact, nearly all were not valid electors and therefore could not have comprised the 2/3 plus one majority necessary to validly elect. Because as Pope Pius XII teaches in para. 68 of VAS, unless this majority exists, the election is invalid.
— Canons 1812, 1814 and 1816: Canon 1812 lists acts of the Roman Pontiffs as “public documents.” Can 1814 states that: “Public documents, both ecclesiastical and civil are presumed genuine until the contrary is proven by evident arguments.” Canon 1816 states: “Public documents prove the facts” of the case … “No further proof is required and the judge must pronounce in favor of the party whose contention is proved by a public document.”
— Canons 1827 and 1828 state that: “He who has a presumption of law in his favor (Canons 1814, 2200) is freed from the burden of proof which is thus shifted to his opponent. If the latter cannot prove that the presumption failed in this case, the judge must render sentence in favor of the one on whose side the presumption stands” (Can 1827). “Presumptions which are not stated in law shall not be conjectured by the judge except from a certain and specific fact which is directly connected with the fact in controversy. The presumption must thus be a kind of reasonable conclusion or inference from another specific fact established by evidence in the case. Since all inferential evidence is dangerous and easily misleads, the Code warns against conjectures” (and Pope Pius XII condemns the use of conjectures in Humani generis).
Conclusion
As we have stated repeatedly, obedience to VAS, to papal teaching in its fullness and to Canon Law would see the way clear to resolving this situation regarding the vacancy insofar as it could be resolved, but no one wishes to obey. Novus Ordo and Traditionalist pseudo-clergy alike, and that includes Henry who received orders himself from Francis Schuckhardt, cannot, will not, swallow their pride and for the good of the Church, bow their heads to VAS and admit that these bishops and priests are invalid and Antichrist has overcome the saints (Apoc. 13:7). For there is actual infiltration of Traditionalist AND pray-at-home ranks as noted in our articles on the Feeneyites. And some of the sources working behind the scenes to seduce the remnant have proven ties not only to Freemasonry but to Gnosticism, even Satanism. This we also have already covered in previous articles. We beg readers to do the only thing that can be done in this situation, the remedy that was suggested in a previous blog: daily pray the long St. Michael’s Prayer, that the evil spirits who have entered into our midst be expunged.
by T. Stanfill Benns | Jul 19, 2023 | New Blog
+Feast of St. Vincent de Paul+
The articles we have presented here over the past several weeks boil down to two things, in the end: refusal to obey the Roman Pontiffs and an inability to recognize and call out heresy. Some will say, well that was Pope Pius XII’s job. But they could say it also of Popes Liberius and Honorius, and they were not held by the Church, in the end, to be heretics or even certainly blameworthy, in the opinion of some theologians. The pope is the one person in all this who is immune from heresy. He received the charism of infallibility only in matters of faith, morals and discipline (Vatican Council). If he declares a man a heretic, he is definitely a heretic, and we must accept this. If he fails to condemn a man for something we believe to be heresy, but he has not yet determined is heresy, that is a different story. It does not mean he is wrong in not condemning such individuals or that we are wrong in our perceptions either. He may have reasons for not condemning them that we know nothing about and cannot even imagine.
It is the condemnation of a heretic that would be infallible; the lack of a condemnation is a moral fault concerning the pope and a grave sin if he is culpable, but we are not allowed to judge the pope. This goes to impeccability as we explained in another blog. All that Cum ex Apostolatus Officio states is that if it ever “appears” that a pope has “strayed from the faith or fallen into some heresy,” then he is assumed to have been a heretic pre-election. In no way could this ever appear to apply to Pope Pius XII, although certain vicious Traditionalist factions have alleged this. Under Canon Law, only the pope can judge whether bishops or cardinals are heretics, when we have a pope; the only reason we are able to judge the cardinals and bishops today is out of sheer necessity, because we have no pope. And even then, in doing so we must strictly abide by Canon Law according to Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis.
The bishops and cardinals could publicly accuse a pope of heresy or of dereliction of his duty, and ask for a retraction or clarification, as they did with Pope John XXII concerning the Beatific Vision. But no such public event ever occurred in the case of Pope Pius XII. The clearly heretical intent of the cardinals and bishops only manifested itself with the election of Roncalli, whom they knew would support their ecumenical heresies. And that is exactly what happened. I have never insinuated that Pope Pius XII’s will was so attenuated by Montini and his other advisors that they actually controlled all that he did. Persuasion and indirect influence are not the same as someone running the show in the name of a pope, as some have observed is happening with the U.S. government today. That did not happen with Pope Pius XII. They attempted to sway him, and to a certain extent, in some cases, they were successful; but in others they were not. More on this in a separate article soon to be posted.
First, the cardinals violated Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis (VAS) by ignoring Roncalli’s suspected heresy, and Roncalli and an undetermined number of other cardinals incurred censures which could only be lifted by a FUTURE pope, barring them from election. That they elected him anyway was itself a heresy, for it not only violated VAS, and nullified their actions, but also denied the teachings that the pope must be canonically elected, that is according to the existing law. Errors against this teaching are condemned (see Denzinger’s, nos. 570 d, 650, 652, 674; also Canons 147 and 219). Then, in accepting him as a true pope, they also incurred schism, creating a new church with a false head. And later, in joining in “worship” of him and with him, they committed communicatio in sacris (Can. 2314 §3).
The same is true of the bishops, who should have known on approving and accepting the missalettes, if not before. And it must be understood that these missalettes were distributed all over the Unites States, at least, for they were in the pews of our parish church in Kansas by 1959. And as noted previously, the liturgical movement was international. Under Can. 2200, the bishops are ALL considered heretics the moment they accepted Roncalli as pope, since none ever left him. On this application of Can. 2200, even St. Thomas Aquinas agrees: “Concerning such things, anyone may have a false opinion without danger of heresy, before the matter has been considered or settled as involving consequences against faith, and particularly if no obstinacy be shown; whereas when it is manifest, and especially if the Church has decided that consequences follow against faith, then the error cannot be free from heresy. For this reason many things are now considered as heretical which were formerly not so considered, as their consequences are now more manifest” (Summa Theologica, Q. 32, Art. 4, Pt. I). Malice and obstinacy are presumed in the case of those who are obligated to know the laws and teachings of the Church. Their external acts convict them of schism and heresy and they are outside the Church.
The Oath Against Modernism
EVERYTHING that happened in 1958-59 can be laid up to the fact that the cardinals and bishops violated the oaths they took at their episcopal consecration to: “…be obedient to Blessed Peter the Apostle, and to the holy Roman Church, and to our Holy Father, Pope …. and to his successors CANONICALLY ELECTED. I will assist them to retain and to defend the Roman Papacy…”; in their oaths on acceptance of the Cardinalate: “For the praise of Almighty God and the honor of the Apostolic See, receive the red hat… By this you are to understand that you must show yourself fearless, even to the shedding of blood, in making our holy Faith respected, in securing peace for the Christian people and in promoting the welfare of the Roman Church…” and at the election of the pope (see Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, para. 12a). Add to this the Oath Against Modernism, contained in every book of Canon Law and required to be professed by all the bishops. Monsignor Joseph C. Fenton wrote on this topic as follows, quoting from Pope St. Pius X’s Oath Against Modernism:
“We believe that no bishop is ignorant of the fact that the wily Modernists have not abandoned their plans for disturbing the peace of the Church since they were unmasked by the encyclical Pascendi dominici gregis. For they have not ceased to seek out new recruits and to gather them into a secret alliance. Nor have they ceased, along with their new associates, to inject the poison of their own teachings into the veins of the Christian body-politic by turning out anonymous or pseudonymous books and articles. If, after a re-reading of the above-mentioned encyclical Pascendi: “If this audacity, which has caused Us so much grief, be considered very carefully, it will become quite apparent that these men are just as the encyclical describes them: enemies who are all the more to be feared by reason of their very nearness to us. They are men who pervert their ministry in such a way as to bait their hooks with poisoned meat in order to catch the unwary. They carry with them a form of doctrine in which the summary of all errors is contained. While this plague is spreading abroad over that very part of the Lord’s field from which the best fruits might be expected, it is the duty of all Bishops to exert themselves in defense of the Catholic faith and most diligently to see to it that the integrity of the divine deposit suffers no loss.
“What these men were really working for was the transformation of the Catholic Church into an essentially non-doctrinal religious body. They considered that their era would be willing to accept the Church as a kind of humanitarian institution, vaguely religious, tastefully patriotic, and eminently cultural. And they definitely intended to tailor the Church to fit the needs and the tastes of their own era… What they sought was a declaration on the part of the Church’s magisterium to the effect that these old formulas did not, during the first decade of the twentieth century, carry the same meaning for the believing Catholic that they had carried when these formulas had first been drawn up. Or, in other words, they sought to force or to DELUDE the teaching authority of Christ’s Church into coming out with the fatally erroneous proposition that what is accepted by divine faith in this century is objectively something different from what was believed in the Catholic Church on the authority of God revealing in previous times.
“’All these prescriptions, both Our own and those of Our predecessor, are to be kept in view whenever there is a question of choosing directors and teachers for seminaries and for Catholic universities. Anyone who in any way is found to be tainted with Modernism is to be excluded without compunction from these offices, whether of administration or of teaching, and those who already occupy such offices are to be removed…’ (end of Pope St. Pius X quotes).
Monsignor Fenton comments:
“In other words, the obligation of the individual Bishop to exclude Modernists and sympathizers with Modernism from the administrations and from the professorial staffs of seminaries and of Catholic universities definitely did not begin with the first promulgation of this law by St. Pius X. Given the position and the obligation of the Bishop within the true Church of Jesus Christ, and given the nature and the necessity of the Catholic faith, it is always the clear duty of the Bishop to exclude from the dignity of teaching in the Church in any position under his control any individual who will teach or favor the contradiction of the divinely revealed message. Modernism was and is such a contradiction. Thus it was and always will necessarily remain the duty of the Bishop to see to it that any individual who teaches or who supports Modernism in any way be excluded from any co-operation in the apostolic task of teaching the divine message of Jesus Christ within His Church.
“In the Si diligis, Pope Pius XII explains the directives issued by St. Pius X in the Pascendi and in the Sacrorum antistitum. The members of the apostolic hierarchy of jurisdiction, the Pope and the residential Bishops throughout the world are responsible before God Himself for the teaching in the Catholic Church. All the legitimate teaching in the Church is issued by them or under their direction. They have full responsibility and full competence to see to it that the faithful of Christ receive His message in all of its purity and integrity.Naturally if they themselves contradict, or transform, or withhold any portion of the revealed truth, which has been entrusted to them, they will have been recreant to the commission they have received from Our Lord Himself. … The man who takes the Oath calls upon God as His Witness that he rejects these false judgments and firmly accepts the statements of Catholic doctrine opposed to them. The man who taught or in any way aided in the dissemination or the protection of Modernistic teachings in a seminary or in a Catholic university after the issuance of the Sacrorum antistitum would mark himself, not only as a sinner against the Catholic faith, but also as a common perjurer.” (“Sacrorum Antistitum and the Background of the Oath Against Modernism,” Catholic University of America Press, October 1960. End of Fenton quotes.)
And perjury goes directly to the “…silence, subterfuge or manner of acting” which signals “an implicit denial of their faith, a contempt of religion an insult to God or scandal to their neighbor,” the very definition of heresy found in Can. 1325. But eventually, of course, their heresy became undeniably explicit.
That someone as astute as Msgr. Fenton could not see Modernism’s full impact, even in 1960, testifies to the fact that the campaign to destroy the Church was so well disguised, had gone so deeply underground, that until Roncalli was elected the extent of its true damage was almost imperceptible. Msgr. Fenton would later comment in his diary, while attending the first session of the false Vatican 2 council: “The sense or feeling of this gathering seems to be entirely liberal. I am anxious to get home. I am afraid that there is nothing at all that I can do here. Being in the council is, of course, the great experience of my life. But, at the same time, it has been a frightful disappointment. I NEVER THOUGHT THAT THE EPISCOPATE WAS SO LIBERAL…” (Oct. 31, 1962). Perhaps in a way, Msgr. Fenton had lived too long in an ivory tower, as so often happens with those in academia, and had entirely lost touch with the episcopacy. But it is also likely that the bishops had been careful not to reveal overt signs of their liberalism/ Modernism. After all, that is precisely how double-agents operate.
So if anyone wishes to know why these bishops were already rotten to the core, the answer is stated above. Modernism never left the Church. It simply went more deeply underground. It lurked in the shadows and hid under false pretenses. After Pope Pius XII became ill and began to decline in 1953, it moved in for the kill. As one Catholic theologian explained it: ”Careless, unprecise departures from traditional and enshrined doctrinal expressions have a way of coming back like boomerangs upon the unsuspecting pious, whose enthusiasms are not always as contagious as their errors. Storms do not spring forth from a clear, unclouded sky. Movements spring forth from ideas and even from clever shibboleths and catch phrases” (“The Historical Backgrounds and Theology of Mediator Dei,” by Albert F. Kaiser, C.P.P.S., Pt. 1; American Ecclesiastical Review, December,1953). Men secretly working behind the scenes had everything ready to implement their plans the moment Pope Pius XII breathed his last; and they did. And their years of secret preparation paid off handsomely.
All Catholics must hate heresy
It is appropriate here to remind Catholics that not only must they study their faith in order to learn to recognize heresy and flee the moment they detect it; they must also pray for the gift of piety, that they may hate it. Why this is true is explained below.
“These men falsify the oracles of God, and prove themselves evil interpreters of the good word of revelation. They also overthrow the faith of many, by drawing them away, under a pretence of [superior] knowledge, from Him who rounded and adorned the universe; as if, forsooth, they had something more excellent and sublime to reveal, than that God who created the heaven and the earth, and all things that are therein. By means of specious and plausible words, they cunningly allure the simple-minded to inquire into their system; but they …and these simple ones are unable, even in such a matter, to distinguish falsehood from truth…” — St. Irenaeus, Against the Heresies
“In Christ’s Church, those are heretics, who hold mischievous and erroneous opinions, and when rebuked that they may think soundly and rightly, offer a stubborn resistance, and, refusing to mend their pernicious and deadly doctrines, persist in defending them.” — St. Augustine of Hippo
“What, then, shall a Catholic do … If some novel contagion attempts to infect, no longer a small part of the Church alone but the whole Church alike? He shall then see to it that he cleave unto antiquity, which is now utterly incapable of being seduced by any craft or novelty.” — St. Vincent of Lerins’ Commonitorium
“[Heretics] mean one thing in their heart; they promise another with their lips. They speak with piety and conceal impiety. They speak Christ and hide the Antichrist, for they know that they will never succeed with their seduction if they disclose the Antichrist. They present light only to conceal darkness; through light they lead to darkness.” St. Jerome, Homilies on the Psalms
“The declared enemies of God and His Church, heretics and schismatics, must be criticized as much as possible, as long as truth is not denied… It is a work of charity to shout: “Here is the wolf!” when it enters the flock or anywhere else.” — St. Francis de Sales, The Devout Life
“And therefore it is that everyone who has in him the gift of piety has also an instinctive hatred of heresy. The instinct which detests and recoils from heresy is part of the gift of piety, because piety loves the revealed truth of Jesus Christ. We are thought to be intolerant and bigoted, because we will keep no peace with heresy. But how can any man love Jesus Christ, and not love every jot and tittle of His truth? And if we love His truth, that which contradicts it must be hateful, for it contradicts Himself.” — Henry Cardinal Manning, The Internal Mission of the Holy Ghost, p. 236.
Fr. Frederick Faber on Heresy
“If we hated sin as we ought to hate it, purely, keenly, manfully, we should do more penance, we should inflict more self-punishment, we should sorrow for our sins more abidingly. Then, again, the crowning disloyalty to God is heresy. It is the sin of sins, the very loathsomest of things which God looks down upon in this malignant world. Yet how little do we understand of its excessive hatefulness! It is the polluting of God’s truth, which is the worst of all impurities.
“Yet how light we make of it! We look at it and are calm. We touch it and do not shudder. We mix with it and have no fear. We see it touch holy things, and we have no sense of sacrilege. We breathe its odor and show no signs of detestation or disgust. Some of us affect its friendship; and some even extenuate its guilt. We do not love God enough to be angry for His glory. We do not love men enough to be charitably truthful for their souls.
“Having lost the touch, the taste, the sight, and all the senses of heavenly-mindedness, we can dwell amidst this odious plague, in imperturbable tranquility, reconciled to its foulness, not without some boastful professions of liberal admiration, perhaps even with a solicitous show of tolerant sympathies.
“Why are we so far below the old saints, and even the modern apostles of these latter times, in the abundance of our conversations? Because we have not the antique sternness? We want the old Church-spirit, the old ecclesiastical genius. Our charity is untruthful, because it is not severe; and it is unpersuasive, because it is untruthful.
“We lack devotion to truth as truth, as God’s truth. Our zeal for souls is puny, because we have no zeal for God’s honor. We act as if God were complimented by conversions, instead of trembling souls rescued by a stretch of mercy.
“We tell men half the truth, the half that best suits our own pusillanimity and their conceit; and then we wonder that so few are converted, and that of those few so many apostatize.
“We are so weak as to be surprised that our half-truth has not succeeded so well as God’s whole truth. Where there is no hatred of heresy, there is no holiness.
“A MAN, WHO MIGHT BE AN APOSTLE, BECOMES A FESTER IN THE CHURCH FOR THE WANT OF THIS RIGHTEOUS INDIGNATION.” — Fr. Frederick Faber, The Precious Blood, 1860
Conclusion
So it is now clear: Only those lacking true piety make excuses for cardinals and bishops, commissioned as defenders of the faith, who defect from that very faith. As Louis Cardinal Pie, the ultramontane friend of Henry Cardinal Manning, stated in one of his sermons: “The first requirement for holiness is orthodoxy.” Cardinal Pie also remarked: “Everything has to be redone to create a Christian people: this will not happen by a miracle or by a series of miracles especially; it will be through the priestly ministry, or it will not happen at all, and then society will perish… The true dignity, the true liberty, the true emancipation of modern nations lies in their right to be governed in a Christian manner… The time has not come for Jesus Christ to reign? Well, then the time has not come for governments to last” (Cardinal Pie, meeting with Emperor Napoleon III). Cardinal Pie died in 1865.
With this blog we end the discussion of the bishops and when they first fell into heresy. In the next few weeks, for those who are yet interested, we will post articles on the site under the Papacy and the Mass which will track the gradual development of the Novus Ordo Missae over time, explaining how it was intended to democratize the Church and prepare the way for the New World Order. Links to these articles will be provided in future blogs.
