Dr. Disandro’s Doctrinal Precisions on ‘Cum Ex…’
© Copyright 2007, T. Stanfill Benns (This text may be downloaded or printed out for private reading, but it may not be uploaded to another Internet site or published, electronically or otherwise, without express written permission from the author.)
It is always enlightening to review the places we have been at different moments in our development and existence as Catholics. Dr. Carlos A. Disandro’s work sheds much light on where we find ourselves today and how little things really have changed. But most importantly, his writings point out that the misunderstanding of the relationship between doctrine and discipline, begun at “Vatican 2” has continued to plague Traditionalism to this day. It has deepened the rift between the various Traditional sects to such an extent that discipline has been reduced to a matter of inexpert opinion, with everyone able to access a Canon Law book qualified as a “canonist,” (and here I do not exclude myself). Those laws such as Cum ex, issuing from the doctrinal authority of the Church, have been lost in the canonical shuffle, as Disandro ably points out in his Precisions.
As a result, Disandro’s “incoherent” Traditionalists continue to circulate information concerning Cum ex that is not only false but injurious to doctrine. That they are still circulating these things after 20 some years without either further researching the matter or reconsidering their position is amazing enough. But that to this day they have never discovered nor credited the man who first uncovered the Latin version, translated it and even published it with commentary a second time 10 years later, is astonishing. This is especially true since Disandro was practically the father of the Sedevacantist movement, at least in South America. We corresponded for several years, sending articles and books back and forth. His books are inscribed with kind words such as or “For my distinguished friend, with cordial regards,” a kind breeze in a then-hostile Traditional world. While he commended my fervor in wishing to end the sede vacante, he did not support the election of David Bawden. It is to my great regret that he died before I came to my senses. Perhaps it is for this reason that I feel obligated to continue his defense of Cum Ex and to fight as he fought to uphold the Bull he believed was the answer to the madness that already had engulfed us.
While some have questioned his political affiliations during the Peron regime in Argentina, his native country, Disandro’s analysis of the religious situation following the false Vatican 2 council was doctrinally sound and uncompromising. Following a meeting between Marcel Lefebvre and Argentinian Catholic intellectuals in 1977, Disandro released a statement proclaiming the following:
• The Church is suffering a global persecution led by wolves disguised as shepherds — those who have taken possession of THE VACANT SEE OF ROME — a war led by the powerful heresiarch Montini.
• ONE WHO LEADS, PROMOTES AND ENCOURAGES THIS WAR IS NOT ABLE TO BE A PONTIFF; the prophecy of La Salette has been accomplished.
• St. Robert Bellarmine: A heretic pope ceases as pope and must be deposed.
• The Church is suffering an infiltration exercised by a heresiarch who joins Arianism, Nestorianism and Jewish Christianism.
• The Montinian heresy pursues to overthrow the SEMANTIC OF FAITH AND ABOLISH THE CHURCH; to build in Her place and the hearts of the faithful the apocalyptic kingdom of the Beast. We know however that the Church will triumph always…
• There is a usurper in the Apostolic See…The new mass is a false mass and the faithful have reverted to idolatry. The days of Enoch and Elias have come.
• May Our Lady of Lepanto guard and enliven the faith of the Iberian-American peoples, for the dark, threatening clouds of the Bolshevik tyranny already are on the horizon.
In 1978 the Institute of San Anastasio in Cordoba, Argentina released Disandro’s first edition of Cum ex Apostolatus Officio in Latin, laid out side-by-side with his Spanish translation of the Bull. A second edition followed in 1987. Disandro translated the Bull from the Latin text of the Magnum Bullarium Romanum, pages 829-831. Obviously members of the Society of St. Pius X in Argentina critiqued Disandro’s work. Publications such as Veritas and The War Is Now publicized parts of the Bull, without offering commentary. Bp. Thuc cited the Bull in his declaration. Briton’s Catholic Library (BCL), first in Under the Laws of the Catholic Church the Papal See is Vacant and also in one of their “Library Letters” publicized the entire Bull and wrote what seems to be the only other commentary extant on it. Both BCL and Prof. Benjamin Dryden translated the Bull, with Dryden maintaining it had been abrogated. Traditionalists still maintain its abrogation today. Disandro vehemently denied this, as his work below demonstrates.
T. Stanfill Benns
Popes Paul IV and Benedict XV — Doctrinal Precisions
By Dr. Carlos A. Disandro (translated from the Spanish)
The illicit doctrinal changing around, contrary to faith and Tradition, accompanied by the dialectical progressivism in the Church; the cultural changes, arising from the same source, especially in a grave destruction of liturgical rites and language; and finally the semantic war which affects the organic totality of the Church — mystic, cultic, doctrinal, theological and disciplinary — these all proceed to treat a venerable past as having been abolished, a past which is untouchable. They pretend to establish another Church in the world, that which proceeds from an evolving history and from the ecumenical convergence of a supposed universal religiosity. We ought not to be surprised, therefore, that the confusion, authorized from the heart of the sanctuary, has been extended to unforeseen lengths, rendering the faith unrecognizable.
Such would be the question, raised as much in Traditional circles as Progressive, concerning the admission of excommunicated cardinals in legitimate conclaves, by the precise mention of such a circumstance in the Apostolic Constitution of Pope Pius XII, Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, Dec. 8, 1945. This subrogated the preceding canonical arrangements, in particular the Apostolic Constitution of Pope St. Pius X, Vacante Sede Apostolica, of Dec. 25, 1904, in which there also is found such a mention. The question gains a special relevancy in Traditional circles through the text of the points made by Msgr. M. Lefebvre, by reason of the “conclave” which elected Luciani (a false pope) to the papacy, a situation which was repeated, of course, with the second “conclave” of 1978, which chose Wojtyla as pope — likewise false as far as we are concerned. In fact Msgr. Lefebvre, in order to strengthen his opinion about possible criteria for nullity of the conclave, made note that the Motu Proprio of Paul VI, Ingravescentum Aetatem, (without effect in our opinion, since Paul VI is a false pope), after taking away the right to vote of certain cardinals because of their advanced age, ran into a contradiction.
Therefore, says the communique, it included excommunicated cardinals as having a grave obligation to vote. But the argument of Msgr. Lefebvre, quite frankly, is weak, inasmuch as the Montinian Motu Proprio brings to completion and complements the Constitution of Paul VI, Eligendo Pontifice (For Electing a Pope), which [so Lefebvre supposes] subrogates that of Pius XII already mentioned. This substitution continues, laying out in every way the very same thing, forcing the issue fraught with unavoidable problems. In effect, IT IS THE MONTNIAN SYSTEM OF USING THE CANONICAL DISCIPLINE IN ORDER TO TEAR DOWN DOCTRINES AND TRADITION, a thing which is important because it uncovers the null character of such decisions and substitutions. In this manner there came to light the question of “excommunicated cardinals,” legitimately present in a legitimate conclave (according to the arrangement of Pope St. Pius X and Pope Pius XII, legitimate popes) in line with preceding documents which now are not of interest. But all this occurred in an absolutely distinct canonical context.
Meanwhile, at the beginning of 1978, before the death of Paul VI, we had published in Cordoba, Argentina the Bull of Pope Paul IV, Cum ex Apostolatus Officio; and we had made known, for the first time in the Spanish language, the Motu Proprio of Pope St. Pius V, Inter Multiplices, which confirmed and renewed the arrangement of the previous Bull of Paul IV. But there was a contradiction: we who affirmed the force of the Bull and the Motu Proprio just mentioned were confronted with a resolution of Pope Pius XII, which seemed to nullify, in favor of the Progressives, the question of “cardinals despoiled of the right to vote,” and our arguments, interdicted by a large majority of Montinian cardinals, disappeared. But in reality, all that either indicates a sophism which confounds all plain concepts, as we are going to see, or simply translates into a most unusual ignorance with regard to the relations between doctrine and discipline.
Not content with this, the confusing propaganda which seems to have massively invaded all of Christianity, perhaps as testimony or prelude to a great explicit apostasy, began to reinforce the arguments contrary to the Bull, supporting that it had been derogated by the Canon Law Code of Benedict XV. Thus were laid out two complementary questions which seemed to favor mitigated traditionalism and therefore eventually progressivism: that a bull for perpetuity would be able to be abrogated (with which falls a canonical argument in favor of the Bull Quo Primum); and secondly, that a disciplinary code would be able to nullify as positive legislation of the Church a question which refers to the very heart of doctrine. Discipline thus would acquire primacy over doctrine, and there would be completed also, in a manner surreptitious but effective, one of the great longings of progessivism: to include all dispute, ancient and modern in the context of a disciplinary law, [ED. NOTE: which laws can be subject to change]. It is logical that the change in this would be able to bring about a change in doctrine, skillfully veiled by the operation of a subtle theological and semantic transference.
Therefore, if even worship turns out to be a disciplinary matter (a certainty for Progressives), it does not seem that Paul VI would be unable to dictate, reform, annul, or confirm his Novus Ordo contrary to Tradition, IN THE NAME OF DISCIPLINE. [ED NOTE: Rev. Kinkead tells us in his Baltimore Catechism # 3 that the liturgy is part of revealed Tradition.] Therefore, for the historicist, Judaeo-Christian mentality of progressivism, all the abolitions, immersions, and subtle changes took place in the proving ground of discipline, with the changes in Doctrine, as in an evolutionary process, transferring over and following consecutively. [ED. NOTE: In other words, change the discipline and the doctrine will change automatically.] Here has been exposed, with the greatest crudeness possible, the “new noise” opposed to the true tradition, the false sounds with which they wish to bury (forever, if that were possible) the ancient resonance of Tradition, which is the seamlesss tunic of Christ, in order to accommodate the abolitions, changes and semantics of aggiornamento. It underlines this theological question: in the Church, the CHAIN OF DOCTRINE WITH DISCIPLINE follows the course of INVIOLABLE FAITH — of the Paradosis (Greek word for tradition, or handing down) of the Apostles — through whose care, vigilance and utterance the Pontificate exists. (ED. NOTE: Or as Pope Pius IX wrote in his encyclical Quartus Supra: “Discipline is the rampart of faith.”) To think of a pontiff given the job of subverting this chain is a great contradiction of our apostate times, singularly in force in the ill-fated reign of Paul VI.
To respond adequately to such conditions is precisely to indicate the primary end, which we know perfectly — the tenor of the documents brandished by the enemy or the theological adversary to frighten the lukewarm. And at the same time we notice the dishonest use of antecedents, decisions and texts, good in their own right, such as the Bull of Pope Paul IV and the Motu Proprio of Pope St. Pius V, as well as the theological sensus of canonical tradition. It is to be insisted: what is being treated is a doctrinal question, and not merely disciplinary, and therefore in the introduction to the edition to the Latin text of the previously mentioned Bull, we could discern precisely the DOCTRINE of Pope Paul IV in the precise theological requirement of the question. And on the other hand, it is fitting to highlight (in the controversy which we are deciding upon) a certain boldness in our affirmations, to the point of seeming blunt, but which is necessary to circumscribe these mistakes without diminution. Where and why was legitimacy interrupted from Pope Pius XII to Paul VI if the election of the latter occurred in a legitimate conclave, in agreement with the constitution of Pius XII, Vacantis Apostolica Sedis? Here is raised up as accuser precisely the Bull (anterior and superior to a disciplinary document of a great modern “pope”). If the bull, for any canonical procedure, was able to be and was annulled (for example, by the Code of Canon Law of Benedict XV), the Progressives would be standing on the firm ground of continuity, over and above other important theological consequences, already mentioned.
But if the Bull is not able nor was able to be annulled, for this and for no other legitimate canonical procedure, then we are certain of our nullifying criterion concerning the supposed pontificate of Paul VI. And so we confront his null and void successors, WHO ARE SUCCESSORS IN THE VACANCY AND FROM THE VACANCY. And this grave theological question finds itself not modified at all in the mention of a disciplinary arrangement (with regards to restricting or enlarging a punishment upon the excommunicated cardinals); nor from that does there arise any support FOR THE VACANCY OF ROME DURING THE SUPPOSED PONTIFICATE OF MONTINI. Although the problem of the bull is most important, it is clear that it is not the only expedient to settle the nullity of the VACANCY for the Montinian and post-Montinian era. But now we are occupied with a precise question, and nothing more; namely the relation of the Bull of Paul IV and the Code of Benedict XV; the permanence of the Bull being complemented by the Apostolic Constitutions of Popes St. Pius X and Pope Pius XII, if we rely precisely on Can. 160.
To clarify these questions in a definitive manner, it is important to recall briefly the markers which bring us to the threshold of John XXIII, who attained to a canonical conclave election. To avoid any disputes that attenuate the affair, let us clarify one more time the following: Paul VI in totum appears with all the features that evidence a break with Tradition, and begins, for us, in a certain manner, THE VACANCY OF THE ROMAN PONTIFICATE and therefore in the vacancy, (major thesis) are rendered void, ipso facto, all the supposed questions emerging from his documents, and the conclaves which followed his death, (of the antipopes Luciani and Wojtyla, etc…). These markers alluded to refer then with regard to the election of the Roman Pontiff and the Apostolic Constitution of St. Pius X, already indicated of Dec. 25, 1904; to the Motu Proprio of Pope Pius XI, Cum Proxime, given March 10, 1922, and to the Apostolic Constitution of Pius XII, which, from 1945 to the first conclave of 1978, ruled the discipline of electing the Pope. That which comes after, is as is said, another matter.
In the second place, there is the question of the bond between the Code of Canon Law of Benedict XV and the Bull of Paul IV, which some Traditionalists and others affirm would have been abolished by the cited modern juridical corpus. But this affirmation lacks total foundation, as much in the letter as in the spirit of this ecclesiastical legislation. Let us see in the first place this confused question, to examine later the problem of the excommunicated cardinals. The Code does not consider the questions included in the Bull, because it considers only common law. Neither is reference able to be made to any class of canonical alternatives concerning Faith in the documents which implement the Code; the Constitution Providentissima Mater Ecclesiae, which promulgated the Code on May 27, 1917 and the Motu Proprio Cum Iuris Canonici, of Sept. 15, 1917, (where Benedict created a commission of cardinals for the authentic interpretation of the Code). This is definitively clear. I have already pointed out that in the case of disciplinary arrangements, Can. 160 recognized explicitly as disciplinary ecclesiastical law for a pontifical election the Constitution of St. Pius X of Dec. 25, 1904, following the outlines this predecessor of Benedict XV laid down in this matter of canonical ordinance.
By no means is the question here settled by the Bull; St. Pius X less than anyone would have opened the road to apostasy in the hierarchical Roman body. Concerning ourselves with the disciplinary arrangement, that the Constitution of 1904 was subrogated in 1945 by the Apostolic Constitution of Pope Pius XII, Vacantis Apsotolica Sedis, without modifying absolutely the legislative coherence highlighted until now, and the reference of discipline to doctrine. This constitution of 1945 joins the corpus as particular legislation, since there is only one Roman Pontiff. Such was believed to be the thought of Pius X in establishing, in a most special document and a disciplinary rule, the election of the Pope, and such was the sense of the subrogation of Pius XII. This canonical ordinance of St. Pius X and Pope Pius XII ruled the election of all the popes, legitimate or not, until the case of (pope) Luciani. Whether Benedict XV, Pius XI, Pius XII, John XXIII or Paul VI, they arrived at the pontificate according to the norm modified precisely by Montini WITHIN THE GENERAL DOCTRINAL SUBVERSION OF HIS PONTIFICATE. Here begins then another epoch, another stage which is, as we said, outside of our consideration, because of the invalidation itself from the Montinian vacancy.
Well then, how would the Code or the previously alluded to Apostolic Constitution be able to establish the nullity of the Bull which refers to explicit conditions of Faith in the members of the hierarchy? The Bull is not a particular disposition for a pontifical election, but an explicit demand of the bond between orthodoxy in the Faith and the cardinalate or hierarchical condition. Neither the Code or any other document annuls NOR IS ABLE TO ANNUL THE BULL, that is to say to annul the forespoken connaturalness of the bond implicit in Tradition, explicit in the document of the 16th century. It is able to perfect it, yes, to amplify it or fulfill, but it is not at all able to abolish it. That which explains the confusion (I refer to those of correct critical intention) would probably originate, perhaps in a canonical interpretation, overstepping authority in respect to the proper disciplinary mark of the Code. But Can. 6, after underscoring that the Code…retains discipline in effect up until this point, disposes in 6§1 the abrogation of all the laws, some now universal, some now particular, which are opposed to the prescriptions of this Code as not being related to the particular laws; so another thing is prevented here. And in 6§6, finally it is established that if any of the rest of the laws up till now was found in effect, and they are not contained explicitly or implicitly in the Code, it must be affirmed that they have lost their strength. The advocates of the abolition of the bull — mitigated Traditionalists, naturally, for in the case of the heretical Progressives this lacks relevancy — place the Bull in the context of Can. 6§1, since the contrary could not be foreseen; or in Can. 6 overall, in as much as there would not be implicit or explicit disagreement in the Code.
But all this is a notable confusion, I repeat, between the disciplinary sense of the Code and the theological order of the Faith, proposed by the bull to impede the abomination in the holy place. But no document of the Church, of any nature or condition, or emanating from any canonical authority, would be able to legislate against the principle, in truth and in that reality which is the Church, mainly that the electors and candidates for the Roman Pontificate ought to be integral guardians of the Faith, and that a Roman Pontiff, chosen hypothetically in conditions which would be contrary to this principle, lacks investiture, and his acts are null. This principle is SUPERIOR TO EVERY CODE AND TO THE CODE OF BENEDICT XV, which disposes in a disciplinary manner under this principle and consonant with this principle. For complex historical circumstances in the life of the Church, which is the life of the Faith, are not even able to limit or to annul the validity and effects of that principle.
Canonists are interpreters of historic, juridic, ecclesiastical facts which rule, harmonize, discharge or define case law, and in the law, THE LIFE OF THE FAITH. But they are not theologians, nor do they have authority to make of the juridical Canon A FOUNT OF SUPERNATURAL LIFE. No code of ecclesiastical law, of itself, and no canon of similar condition is the equivalent of a sacrament; it is not divine law. The order of grace is of another context and another signification, and the life of the Church is in the aspect which here we consider the guardian of the sacramental “organicness,” of the Apostolic Tradition, which is indeed a reality, but not merely an historic one. If all the Sacraments aim at conserving, enriching, and making the life of the Faith deeper, then the disciplinary arrangements OUGHT TO BE AT THE SERVICE OF THE SACRAMENTAL LIFE. Therefore the Bull of Paul IV is able to be enlarged upon, made precise, filled out or completed, but it is not able to be annulled, because it is inserted directly into the sacramental principle which is the very condition of the Church. This Bull does not lie in the sphere of dispositions concerning the juridical norm which governs, according to times and customs, the dispensations of justice and grace, and which sanctions and exempts according to an authority superior to the entire Code.
If the juridical principle is of the order of the formal cause in society — now the Ciceronian teaching formula in his definition of Res publica (The State) — isn’t the formal cause of the Church the Sacramentum Trinitatis, integral, and therefore above all juridical disposition, although it may be of fundamental importance in current history? Because the Bull enlightens and foresees beyond the theandric level (where God and man meet), how would it be able to lose effect through a code, in which each canon aims at setting a factual case? How could the Code abolish a principle explicitly or implicitly, that to be a legitimate cardinal, functioning from the juridical fullness of his mystical capacity, not excommunicated merely for other reasons [heresy cannot exist]; or to be legitimately elected Roman Pontiff and preserve that legitimacy, when this is necessarily Apostolic Tradition? But there are other details that illustrate our interpretation, which we sketch summarily here.
In the first place, the so-called Code of Benedict XV is, in reality, the work of St. Pius X, in 10 years of intense preparation. (We ourselves follow the Miguelez-Alonso- Cabreros Code of Canon Law, bilingual and with commentary; Madrid, 1947. It was published during the pontificate of Pope Pius XII, so it is previous therefore to all the aggiornamento of John XXIII and Paul VI. The second edition, which includes the modifications of Pope Pius XII, should be consulted. This edition is the only one of any value for use in studying the further context of these Doctrinal Precisions.) It is true that Benedict XV promulgated it after St. Pius X died, but the orientation of the works was conceived and executed, in almost its entirety, under the prudent vigilance of Pius X. Precisely in the anti-Modernist struggle, the most grave theological and doctrinal difficulties were avoided by St. Pius X; the ones proposed in the 16th century Bull of Paul IV and Motu Proprio of Pope St. Pius V. In a certain manner, these documents were an anticipation of St. Pius X’s intrepid combat. Let us recall briefly a history of the code: “A certain biographer of the great St. Pius X tells us that the very night of his elevation to the chair of St. Peter, Aug. 4, 1903, he was already thinking of the work which would have to be the most glorious of his pontificate.” On March 19, 1904, he published the Motu Proprio, Aduum Sane Munus, establishing the group charged with the task of codification: a commission of cardinals presided over by the Pope himself. The opinions, editings and reworkings reached their definitive conclusions between the years 1912-14. When this global project was completed, copies were sent to all the bishops, to make the last pertinent modifications.
In 1914 the war came and Pius X died. Benedict XV completed and concluded the project. The Code was promulgated on May 27, 1917, with the Constitution Providentissima Mater Ecclesiae, in which Benedict XV renders pointed homage to his predecessor and makes very opportune reflections about the legislation of the Church, following the spirit of Pius X. And later, by the Motu Proprio Cum Iuris Canonici, Sept. 15, 1917, he instituted a commission of cardinals to authentically interpret the canons of the Code.” Here he recognized again the fundamental authorship of Pius X, whose doctrine is, in reality, THE FOUNDATION OF THIS DISCIPLINE. How then could St. Pius X be able to abrogate the Bull of Paul IV? Let us clarify again that none of the documents mentioned by Benedict XV allude to the Bull, nor are the cardinals referred to in reference to the Bull. And this exactness is in spite of the fact that Benedict XV was a friend of Cardinal Rampolla, a fact which could have clouded the issue. But the link between the Code and the Bull was left untarnished.
This last and very important argument completes these Precisions, with regard to the Code of Benedict XV. The Code has a doctrinal preface, (forgotten and left unnoticed by the noisy propagandists against the Bull of Paul IV); a preface that does not join the body of all the canonical dispositions distributed analytically in articles but which gives it a super-juridical sense — the true THEOLOGICAL SENSE IN THE LIFE OF THE CHURCH. When the edition referred to is open, before the first book containing the general norms under six titles, we find THE PROFESSION OF THE CATHOLIC FAITH, which is in substance a reiteration of the anti-Modernist oath. (ED. NOTE: This Profession is found in the Newman Press Latin edition immediately preceding Canon 1.) The Bull of Paul IV is precisely on the level of the Profession of Faith, a level complementary and identical regardless OF THE PASSAGE OF THE CENTURIES, because it also treats of THE IMMUTABLE APOSTOLIC TRADITION. Therefore, to affirm that the Code, in any of its chapters, canons, clauses, (explicitly or implicitly) considered the Bull to be abolished, would be to affirm that these very textual instances of the Code itself would be able to abolish some point of the PROFESSION OF FAITH, WHICH IS THE PORCH, THAT IS THE CONDITION, FOR ALL THE REST.
This Profession of Faith reiterates the APOSTOLIC CREED of the unanimous and unchangeable Paradosis (tradition) and later adds paragraphs which the delirious Progressives seem to have forgotten. For in minor juridical dispositions they look for the impossible abolition of a GREATER DOCTRINAL CONTEXT; which, incoherent “Traditionalists” apparently maintain for certain, do not have, of course, STRICT THEOLOGICAL FORCE as a living organism in the Church, which is the LIFE OF FAITH. Here I transcribe two or three paragraphs [of the Profession of Faith], very well known, but very well hidden by the noise of the Montinian church. “Most firmly I admit and embrace the Apostolic and ecclesiastic traditions and the rest of the observances and constitutions of the same Church. Likewise, I accept the Sacred Scripture, conformed to the sense which Holy mother Church has given and gives…”I accept and admit the rites approved by the Catholic Church for the solemn administration of all the Sacraments. I revere and receive all and each one of the things which have been defined and declared in the Holy Council of Trent concerning original sin and justification. Equally I confess that in the Mass a true, proper and propitiatory sacrifice is offered to God… “Also I admit and profess without the slightest doubt whatever the sacred canons and ecumenical councils have defined and declared… “And at the same time, all the contrary things and whatever heresies condemned by the Church as rejected and anathematized, I equally condemn, reject and anathematize…” Strange Progressives who, in order to tear down the Faith, have recourse to a document that is the greatest defense of the Faith. But stranger still the “Traditionalists,” who frightened by the vain noise of the ecclesiastical tyranny of these 20 years of ruin and confusion, forget the true ramparts with which it is possible to maintain the little city of the Faith!
What, then, does this solemn preface in a general and casuistic corpus signify, conforming to the tradition of Roman law and the customs and secular dispositions of the Church? The question has already been answered: DISCIPLINE is, before all, the invigorating source of DOCTRINE, and if not, there is lacking in the Church value and vigor. How would St. Pius X, the author of the Great Restoration of the Faith, (beginning with the Cult and ending with the Code) — how would he be able to omit this fundamental link? It was precisely to avoid equivocation (as with those recently seen in the obscure panorama of the post-Conciliar church) that the Profession of Faith is present in the Code. This assures the sense of all the juridical dispositions: all serve the Faith, and if it were not thus we ought to consider them (the juridical dispositions) as nonexistent or ineffective. These conclusions, simple and self-evident, illustrate by another aspect that which I call convergence and a sense of the Bull and the Code complementing each other on a doctrinal, theological level. BUT THE BULL HAS THE IMMEDIATE PRIMACY OF DOCTRINE BECAUSE IT DEALS WITH NOTHING LESS THAN THE DEFENSE OF FAITH TO IMPEDE THE ABOMINATION IN THE HOLY PLACE.
1. We arrive finally at the question of the “excommunicated cardinals,” and at the problem brought up by the text of Msgr. Lefebvre. Let us speak first of the most important antecedents of the question, and we will see that this is resolved precisely in the perspective of the Bull, as a prophetic anticipation of the Modernist apostasy, and then as a precise semantic question which the corresponding text proposes in the pontificate of Pope Pius XII. We ought to clarify in the first place that neither the Bull of Paul IV nor the Motu Proprio of St. Pius V represent, as we have already said and underlined, an instance of pontifical election (in the disciplinary sense of the function of a conclave), or according to the characteristics of the canonical documents already mentioned, (of Popes Pius X and Pius XII). Certainly this does not annul the question which arises in the case of granting to “excommunicated cardinals” the elective capacity. But this is, as we will see, another problem.
The Bull is not a juridical entity that runs the details of the legitimate election of a pope, a vacancy having occurred by the death of a reigning pontiff. If it were thus, or maybe if there had been a disciplinary character, it would lack DOCTRINAL, MYSTICAL AND THEOLOGICAL VALIDITY. This I have demonstrated in the Introduction to my translation into Spanish of the Latin document, and we would be forcing the unequivocal text of Paul IV to transform it into an election canon. It would conflict in a noticeable manner with the will of the Pontiff, differing from this link of the faith (underscored again by Pope St. Pius V) and with the obvious sense of the text, especially the deductions posed in the first two paragraphs of the introduction to the document. Here, then, is the first important conclusion, most general, leaving the context aside for the moment, which function on the one hand is “excommunicated cardinals” (in the modern disciplinary constitution) and “deposed cardinals,” (in the Bull of Paul IV).
The Bull makes explicit the urgency of the irreformable apostolic link, that link between Faith and hierarchy, and disposes [with offenders] in an unequivocal, not merely disciplinary manner. The documents to which I have referred, in regard to 20th century pontifical elections (up to Paul VI inclusive), are part of the disciplinary function of the Code, as Can. 160 clarifies, through which the elective constitution is incardinated into Canon Law. This constitution, as happens with all disciplinary law, could be varied, redefined, reconfigured, simplified or abolished in whole or in part. But owing to the will of the codifiers, Pope St. Pius X and Benedict XV, it would never lose its insertion in the juridical body. Let us turn then to the question placed in the second chapter of these Precisions.
2. Definitely then, the constitutions or electionary documents made between Pius X and Pius XII which refer to the Roman Pontiff, are canonical disciplinary dispositions, in which exemptions and permissive references are made. Also censures and diverse judicial cautions are made, WHICH CERTAINLY DO NOT AFFECT THE DOCTRINAL LEVEL, the level of the Profession of Faith at the head of the Code, which IS ALWAYS SUPERIOR TO ALL DISCIPLINARY CONSTITUTIONS. The Bull of Paul IV, on the other hand, sanctions according to AN UNPRESCRIBABLE BOND, WHICH IS THE FOUNTAIN OF DISCIPLINE. Thus we reach the second reason for this confrontation. We now begin to work out of the confusion, which arrived in an unforseen manner, against the Bull of Paul IV: a Bull that speaks of deposed cardinals, dispossessed of their dignities and office, cardinals ” … who in the past…have strayed or fallen into heresy or have been apprehended, have confessed or been convicted of incurring, inciting or committing schism or who, in the future, shall stray or fall into heresy or shall incur, incite or commit schism or shall be apprehended, confess or be convicted of straying or falling into heresy or of incurring, inciting or committing schism, being less excusable than others in such matters, in addition to the sentences, censures and penalties mentioned above, (all these persons) are also automatically and without any recourse to law or action, completely and entirely, forever deprived of, and furthermore disqualiﬁed from and incapacitated for their rank,” (Dryden translation of paragraph 3, Cum ex Apostolatus Ofﬁcio). Pius XII, on the other hand, says: “No cardinal remains excluded from active or passive election of the Supreme Pontiff by reason of excommunication, suspension, or interdict; every censure remains suspended until the effects of the election, [but the censures remain of their own strength in other cases,]” (Disandro translation from the Latin).
Here we are on a level completely distinct from that of the Bull. Thus “excommunication, suspension, interdict” are able to occur for different disciplinary reasons whose effects are suspended by the convocation of a Conclave. On the one hand, Pope Paul IV establishes an unequivocal condition for the legitimacy of the subject, either as elector or one eligible to be elected, a condition which doctrinally is the cause of the deposition. These men are simply no longer cardinals. Pope Pius XII mentions this difference, though without referencing the reasons in the Bull, and perhaps for other circumstances. Pius XII states that “Cardinals deposed canonically, or who renounce the dignity of the cardinalate with the consent of the Roman Pontiff, have no right to the election. With the seat being vacant, the Sacred College is not able to restore or rehabilitate these Cardinals…,” (Disandro translation from the Latin).
3. So in no way should these “excommunicated cardinals,” in this elective norm be confused with the deposed cardinals, (deposed by the very fact, from any ministry of law or deed) who lack any being, entity or importance. Therefore mention was made, at the beginning of this section, of the “precise semantic question” involving these texts, which must be clariﬁed one more time. Excommunicated, suspended or interdicted cardinals continue functioning as Cardinals, that is to say, within their privileges; the right to vote is maintained by Pius XII. But the causes of such sanctions and exemptions are different from those proposed by the Bull, since were it not so the text of Pius XII, understood in terms of the “deposition,” would be null. Pius XII’s article 36 [in his election law] is talking about those “deposed canonically.” The debate is thus opened, since 1945, on the meaning of this expression. Are they the canonically deposed cardinals which the text of Pope Paul IV considers? Is there a coincidence between 1559 and 1945? Yes, naturally, and with a greater foundation [for such a “coincidence”] if we consider the “larva stage” of Modernism.
Deposed cardinals cannot function now, nor are they subject to excommunication or interdict. Excommunication could refer to other details, while [these cardinals] remain faithful to the Church. The deposition, in effect, is RADICAL, that is it affects not only the privileges or canonical singularities of the subject, but also annuls the dignity itself, (in an irreversible manner), and of course the position in the hierarchy or ofﬁce, assumed or conceived in any manner. How then would an election rule be able to determine the resumption of the state of the cardinalate if the Bull itself takes care to emphasize that it is absolutely impossible?
4. We affirm in a bold manner:
a) cardinals deposed, by the force of the Bull are canonically deposed, and they are not able to function either as electors or eligibles;
b) the reasons defined by the Bull, by referring to the bond between the Faith and the Hierarchy, are imprescribable, and they act ipso facto (by the very fact), such as the text itself of the 16th century intended;
c) cardinals excommunicated for other disciplinary reasons enjoy the exception granted in the document of Pius XII, but this DOES NOT APPLY TO MONTINIAN AND POST-MONTINIAN CIRCUMSTANCES;
d) never have we spoken of excommunications or suspensions of cardinals for reasons other than doctrinal. And speaking of the primacy of DOCTRINE over DISCIPLINE, the question which we have pointed out against the heretics who lead the Conciliar church, against the Montinian heresy, has always been and will always be simply referred to the order of being (what actually is): EITHER THERE ARE OR THERE ARE NOT CARDINALS, THERE ARE OR THERE ARE NOT POPES, THEY FUNCTION OR THEY DO NOT FUNCTION IN SUCH OFFICES AND DIGNITIES;
e) Concerning doctrine, Cardinal Montini, then Archbishop of Milan, was not an “excommunicated cardinal” in the sense meant by Pius XII. HE WAS A CARDINAL DEPOSED EO IPSO (by that itself), not functioning in the dignity which he was said to be invested in. While he was only an Archbishop, by the act of Pius XII himself, did he possess the canonical authority of the See of St. Ambrose (Milan)?
5. There would subsist on the margin of these references (which we believe are very strong) the question of the permission for the excommunicated (in the sense of Pius XII.) Should we not see in it an unforeseen door for the erosion of doctrine, or at least to give surreptitious aid to certain undesirables? Didn’t Pius XII know the personality of Montini, his ill-fated operations in the Secretariate of State and his relations with the Jesuit Tondi [a Soviet sympathizer]? This is a tragic story which we have not forgotten. It is true, he did not make him cardinal, but still. As Archbishop of Milan, in some manner there was opened to him the passageway to the Pontificate. According to the Bull, Montini was not and was not able to be a canonical Archbishop, and much less cardinal or Pope. What kind of workings do we find in the Church, that such iniquities occur, so that doctrine yields to the surreptitious tyranny of a false discipline, and so that something such as sacred law serves the apostasy and not the Faith? It is enough to reread the old and important book of the Abbe Emmanuel Barber, The Masonic Infiltrations in the Church, Desclee, 1910 (underline the date – St. Pius X was alive) to astound oneself, before this impressive dossier; which, however, did not indicate any retraction of the enemy. From this tainted dust emerged a swamp once Pius X died. And it is sufficient to study the first part of this book, to understand that the circumstances of the pontificates of John XXIII and Paul VI define the triumph of the apostasy in Rome.
6. Our conclusions in a succinct manner: no document of Benedict XV “counterposes,” or abrogates the Bull of Paul IV. Neither does the Code of the same Pope, nor the Providentissima nor the motu proprio, Cum juris Canonici. No document of any Pontiff would be able at all — considering these other documents — to abolish the Bull. It would be able only to fulfill it or bring it to perfection. There is a fundamental difference between deposed Cardinals and excommunicated Cardinals. The first are those ipso facto or eo ipso, without declaration of the act or law. The Bull situates them on the DOCTRINAL plain, on which the canonical demands occur. The reasons that excommunicated cardinals (according to the criterion of the modern texts) may be admitted to a legitimate conclave, absolutely do not invalidate any of our conclusions: NOR IS THERE A REASON WHICH REFERS TO THE VACANCY OF ROME, making up one’s mind with security about the election of Montini, and much less the condition of the “nonexistent” cardinals, in as much as they are found in the same Vatican (Vatican itself.)
1. In spite of these crystal clear correspondences, the campaign against the Bull of Paul IV is increasing. Fr. Faure, of the LeFebvrist obedience, delegated from Econe to Argentina, in our land as in Mexico, together with other clerics and supposed teachers, uphold the nullity of the consistorial Bull Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio, which has been derogated (according to them) by the Code of Canon Law of Benedict XV, since it is not incorporated into that code. Consequently, one cannot speak of the cessation of legitimacy, or of the vacancy of the pontificate in the cases of John XXIII and Paul VI (of ill-fated memory), and therefore starting with this (super-heretic, not confronted by any canonical disposition, upon the abolition of the Bull), and starting with this pseudo-pope (John XXIII — legitimate, according to them, from the beginning and legitimately functioning until his death), also the anti-popes Luciani and Wojtyla would be valid and functioning. But it is not thus. It is a question either of confusion or a crass ignorance (of Faure or of any other.) To clarify other aspects of this panorama, let us make clear in the first place two different levels: a) the theological doctrine common to the Church, which, has its systematic, irrefutable expression in the thesis of St. Robert Bellarmine. This level is previous and independent of any document, in force or not, of the Church; b) a Roman document, with the character of a consistorial Bull, that of Paul IV, which in line with this UNDEROGABLE DOCTRINE sanctions, discriminates, deposes. Here we are occupied with this second canonical level, apropos to the arguments of our contradictors (Progressives, mitigated Traditionalists, or Traditionalists a secas [without any specific affiliation?] ) understanding, however, that the Bull IS DEBTOR OF THAT DOCTRINE (EXPLICITLY IN THE DOCUMENT), and that then it is not merely disciplinary, as has been demonstrated in the preceding chapters.
2. Since the election of St. Pius X (1903), there was sufficient complexity and confusion in the documents which regulate the election of the Pope. If we go back to the 16th century, it was St. Pius X who reordered in modern times the question of the election with his Constitution Vacante Sede Apostolica, already mentioned (Dec. 25, 1904) subrogated (substituted) by the Constitution of Pius XII Vacantis apostolicae Sedis (Dec. 8, 1945). In turn, Montini pretended to subrogate these documents. Let us mention finally that Can. 160 of the aforementioned Code convalidates the cited Constitution of Pius X. Well then, here is a doctrinal point which summarizes the argumentation in depth, gone over in the first three chapters of this brief study: what were the causes of nullity in a papal election, the most important beginning from Clement V (14th century) up until Pius XII? Do Fr. Faure and his confreres know this? Well then, there were three, namely:
a) nullity because of a simoniacal election (since the Constitution of Julius II, Cum Tam Divino, Feb. 1505);
b) nullity by imperial veto, established in various ways, and which in canonical language receives the name Exclusive. It was applied, as we know only (justamente) in the conclave of 1903, according to the story, and was something done with great wisdom;
c) nullity due to heretical doctrinal impediments, according to the Bull/Consistorial of Paul IV (1559). From among these three, the superior intrinsic nullity (derived from DOCTRINE), and not merely disciplinary (as we have already noted,) is the third (that of Paul IV). And if the Popes take care in a timely and opportune moment of declaring abrogated any of these nullities, this demand is extended unequivocally to all. In fact, St. Pius X (whom no one is able to accuse of being ignorant of Canon Law, since he is the most noted codifier of the 20th century of these three reasons, only derogates two, namely:
1.) In the constitution Vacante Sede Apostolica, article 79, he derogated explicitly the Constitution of Julius II (1505), already mentioned;
2.) In the Constitution Commissum Nobis, of Jan. 20, 1904, he had already derogated in turn “the things which had been in edict and sanctified in Pontifical elections concerning the civil veto, or the Exclusive, (the right of a government to veto a papal election with Austria vetoing Rampolla in 1903);”
3.) Pius X THEN MAINTAINED THE THIRD NULLITY, that of the Bull disputed for the benefit of today’s heretics!
4.) In fact, how would it be possible for a holy Pope not to distinguish between extrinsic or disciplinary character and intrinsic or theological-doctrinal-mystical character? And besides, if there were necessary the explicit derogation of the two extrinsic nullities (one of which, however, had saved the Church from falling into Masonic domination), how could we deny that with greater reason, that of having been the clear will of the canonical legislator, the third nullity had not also been derogated, that is, the Bull of Paul IV, impugned by actual Modernists or neo-Modernists? The conclusion is clear: the will of Pius X is to maintain the THIRD NULLITY, the intrinsic nullity, for heresy. And if the Code recognized in Can. 160 the ordaining of the Constitution cited, of Dec. 1904, it recognized in an unequivocal manner THAT OF THE THREE CAUSES OF NULLITY, ONLY TWO WERE DEROGATED, and in consequence, THE BULL OF PAUL IV CONTINUES UNHARMED.
5.) Still more: Pius XII (for us the last legitimate pontiff), in the Constitution Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis (1945), which subrogates that of Pius X (because it is better in its details of procedure), maintains the derogation of the dispositions about a simoniacal election, and, in article 94, maintains the derogation of the Exclusive, and the Code of Benedict XV was already promulgated and functioning! But let us not forget Can. 160, which incorporates in the body (of the law) the election discipline of St. Pius X. From here it follows that the subrogation of Pius XII OUGHT TO MAINTAIN EXPLICITLY THE ALLUDED TO DEROGATIONS, and therefore coincide with Pius X in as far as the question of the Bull Cum ex Apostolatus Officio remaining in effect. In other words, Pius XII did not derogate the Bull of Paul IV, but conferred on it the same validity, unharmed, or in effect safe, according to St. Pius X. Definitely St. Pius X, modern codifier of the pontifical election, and Pius XII, who substantially reiterated the said codification, retained the sense of the law. In this disciplinary reordering these popes, having in sight ALL THESE DOCUMENTS SINCE THE 14TH CENTURY, DEROGATED EXPLICITLY THE CAUSES OF SIMONIACAL NULLITY; and that derived from IMPERIAL VETO. THEY STRICTLY MAINTAIN, as not being able to be abolished, THE HERETICAL NULLITY.
6.) Finally, when Benedict XV promulgated the Code of Canon Law (1917), he maintained for Can. 160 the validity entirely of the constitution of Pope St. Pius X (and the congruent documents, for example, the constitution Commissum Nobis), which means that he maintained the validity of the third nullity; that of heresy. In another manner, in summary, either Pius X, with an appropriate document, or Benedict XV (in the corresponding canonical congruity or appropriateness of the pertinent article), or Pius XII (in the subrogation of 1945) ought to have derogated explicitly the consistorial Bull (incriminated by Modernism), such as occurred with the first two cases. This is a blatantly obvious conclusion in accord in other parts with DOCTRINE, (about which we do not concern ourselves here.) We are concerned with the canonical aspect, in order to refute the opinion, inconsistent and unfounded, that the Bull of Paul IV is derogated and null.
7.) The Bull Cum ex apostolatus officio continues and will continue in force. Through it are null and void the promotions of Roncalli, Montini, Luciani, Wojtyla, which they have exercised and exercise, as IMPOSTERS AND USURPERS, of the Office and Supreme Dignity of the Roman Pontificate. No Code is able to convalidate them, and much less the Code of St. Pius X. What is there to do, and what will be the outcome (the path to take)? These are things which must be decided by God. As far as we are concerned, our imperative obligation CONSISTS AND OUGHT TO CONSIST IN BEING FAITHFUL ACCORDING TO THE IRREFORMABLE AND UNALTERABLE FULNESS OF THESE CONGRUENT DOCTRINAL TERMS. THIS FIDELITY WILL WORK THE MIRACLE OF DIVINE INTERVENTION.