by T. Stanfill Benns | Aug 26, 2015 | Uncategorized
PROLOGUE TO THE SECOND EDITION
(Text printed by Disandro’s St. Athanasius Institute, Argentina. 1985)
Seven years ago now, the Latin text of this paper was published in a basic, explanatory edition with a carefully considered Spanish translation. At the time, functioning as pope was Giovanni Montini, who by a strange coincidence figured in the series of popes by the name Paul: Paul VI was his hierarchical style in the secular history of the pontificate.
Both the Latin edition of the text and the Spanish translation appeared in Spanish America for the first time, and for the first time the teaching of a renaissance Pope shone brightly in the midst of a storm completely unknown by the Tridentine Church in that same part of the Americas. His admonitions resonated, which at the time, four centuries ago, seemed to be the result of ephemeral controversies of the same Roman Curia. And all the same, the inexorable course of a time, erosive for the Faith, brought the Bull of Paul IV in direct comparison with the acts and teachings of Paul VI, the pope of unrestricted semantic change in a revolutionary and subversive age, also characteristic of the Church.
The first edition made its way through Argentina and America and opened up, together with the Breve[1] of St. Pius V, which it completes, a deeper understanding of events, conceptions, and decisions (undoubtedly directed by the unfathomable mystery of Providence), so as to shake from within the Church of Rome the very make-up of tradition and the mystic edifice as an expression of the purity of the Trinitarian and theandric[2] faith. Within Roman Catholicism, a fissure like that of the Lutheran reform seemed to become apparent; the sense of the great ecumenical councils of the glorious past seemed to die out. At that time, there was no Cardinal Ratzinger to present to view the design of the enormous destruction that took place over 20 years and to discriminate between the untouchable and the disposable in five centuries of arrested development for Christian life.
The St. Athanasius Institute, a very modest group of people faithful to divine paradosis[3], a very modest center of learning for understanding the Sources in their purity of Abundant Life, agrees with many friends about the urgency of issuing a second edition, improved in every way possible for the ease of the reader and the student.
Americans now know this text; they transcribe it; they quote it, sadly often without giving credit, even in Argentina, to the source of their information, resorting to limited, critical, cautionary remarks that are not always perfectly clear. Nevertheless, in the face of the semantic revolution that other Roman pontiffs have described, what matters, of course, is to affirm the unity of the Trinitarian faith overlaying authoritarian contradictions all too evident in the Church of today.
The mission of the philologist is to suggest, on the fringe of the disputes that inevitably result, the integrity of the text and to summarize as far as possible its historico-systematic meaning. Each one will then make pertinent conclusions or will confront the line of reasoning of that text with a variable criterion for interpretation. However, what we cannot deny in any case is the existence of the document and it historic design, past or imminent. To do so would be foolish and contrary to the truth. [C.A.D. {= Carlos Alberto Disandro}] 1985.
INTRODUCTION
The Church is the Mysterium Theandricum,[4] a phrase that expresses the comprehensive Mysterium Ecclesiae, or the Sacramentum Trinitatis.[5] The relation or nexus of this Mysterium or Sacramentum with the history of mankind, in its complete temporal manifestation, constitutes the true central point of world history, hidden for positivist reasons or owing to the revisionism with which research pretends to understand that history.
In turn, the history of the Roman Pontificate is a fundamental aspect of that nexus in its mystical order—a sacred power that we would say encapsulates the priesthood of Melchisedech and transcends the law and the prophets, or the cultural expressions that appear in different periods of time—and in its religious juridical authority, in its temporal or political implications, etc. Within the history of the pontificate, the “utterance” of the legitimate Pontiff always has the character of clarification, growth, consolidation, interpretation. It decides, repairs, revives, reorients, deepens, condemns, anathematizes in such a way that the passage of time proposes no mere substitution of stages of indifferent validity but a kind of organic expansion that unites in a living way the notions “inviolable principle” and more or less unforeseen or independent “succession of time or transitory change.”
It is this that rejects and demolishes progressivism or dialectical modernism rooted in cycles of abolishment and reassumption. It is this that proved to be confused because of the semantic war concentrated within the Roman Church since the death of Pius XII. A revealing “new impulse” and a “new authority,” that is to say, the resetting of the “new good,” propose a complete change in the relation of “principle” and “succession of time.” One can summarize in this judgment the pastoral focus of Vatican II, the propheticism of Paul VI, the horizon of unfelt destructions characteristic of those 20 years of semantic warfare. All that is, all in all, an idea of the Mysterium Ecclesiae, an idea that we put down to a latent or explicit Docetism, in a monophysitism of human nature, in a neo-ebionism[6] that corrupts the life of the faith.
1. In this sense, we find illustrative the prudential documents of the papacy, the canonical and doctrinal cautions, the disciplinary measures, the resolutions or decrees or censures etc., to the extent that they warned of, illustrated, defined or settled complex situations in which they nevertheless anticipated assured outcomes later explicit in the fabric of events, disputes, teachings, important figures or successive conflicts. Many of those documents (which we listed in the theological category of pronouncements of the faith) lacked genuine efficacy, were unknown or disobeyed, were relegated without greater consequences to the formal archives, while the passage of time defined new instances and caused new contradictions to emerge. Nevertheless, such “utterances” do not lose their illuminative standing, especially if the times in which they were recorded are in some way the stimulus and origin of the present circumstance; and if those precautions of the past—obstructed and denied by the same authority they had a tendency to defend—seem fulfilled in the today’s Church, governed by a false pontiff raised up from those backgrounds combatted or retracted for centuries, coddled and acclaimed as “Holy Father” by the entire apostolic hierarchy, held as a Doctor of these ecumenical times, hailed by all worldly and social powers as the expert on humanity, on peace that is made in the midst of violence, on the truth that overtakes unfailing and heavenly Truth.
2. These are the facts, the unquestionable realities that confront the Faith. And these are the overwhelming terms and limits: on one side, the Pontificate and all its apostolic bodies, with all the charisms, authority, jurisdiction, and power; on the other side, a simple member of the faithful who, illuminated by Faith and by the knowledge of languages, sources, texts, doctors of the Church, councils, imprescriptible and transparent, points out the apostasy of a semantic war that the Pontificate and apostolic bodies are conducting precisely against the Faith, against the Church, against the Mysterium Theandricum. The terms, I repeat, are overwhelming. But the light of faith also is overwhelming.
Two different considerations suggest these reflections: (1) In the theandric mystery that is the Church, How could the apostasy of Roman authority happen and consequently, in that null-and-void authority, continue the mission of abolishing the Church, that is to say, the life of Faith? (2) In the strictly historical scheme that pertains to the explicit and concrete course of canonical and jurisdictional authority and that extends, say, from Pius V (1566-1572) and Paul VI (1963-1978), How could they and how did they happen, namely, the precise modulations, the efficacious combinations, the abundant decisions crowned by what affirms our previous account: Rome under the power of a false pontiff, the bishops happily embarked on anti-Christian apostasy, the Faith trampled underfoot by the teachers of the Faith, the sacraments destroyed or denied by the ministers of the sacraments, without which some at least cannot exist? Doesn’t the comparison of these two limits seem contradictory and perverse, and wouldn’t it be better to be silent so that the infallible “authority,” as they affirm, may heal, liberate, guide.
The first question has a mystico-theological character and cannot be resolved except in the framework of a Theology of Faith, of a grand and definitive Ecclesiology that enlightens us about the nature of the Church, about her existence in the world, about her theandric dimension, subject nevertheless to detours and advances unintelligible by the historicist or positivist reassessment. The second question, on the other hand, alludes to concrete temporal matters, personages, acts, and decisions that gave birth to a scheme where the theandric mystery went into exile or became obscure in order to give way to the power of the world over the Church. One can perfectly reconstitute that scheme, one can follow step by step that obscurity like a rhythmic contraction of the heart of the Faith and her semantics, while the latter, the semantics of the Faith, is expressed in concrete, historical, irrevocable, and unmistakable conditions. The mysterious margin of union or separation between the two categories mentioned remains, of course: the theological category that involves a contemplation of the Mysterium Ecclesiae; the historical category that entails names, decisions, events, and conflicts, unequivocally different, but which appear aligned in one direction: the triumph of the Antichrist against the Unique Sacrality of the Church.
3. In these alternatives, both theological and historical, Pope Paul IV’s highly illustrative Bull of February 15, 1559, Cum ex apostolatus officio[7], comes into play, as well as its subsequent confirmation by the apostolic constitution of St. Pius V in the motu proprio[8] of December 1566. Both documents are offered here in their Latin text, that of Paul IV in its entirety and that of Pius V with the final paragraphs (of a formal, legal character) deleted, and are accompanied by a translation into Spanish, probably the first in the Spanish-speaking world. The Institute of St. Athanasius (in Córdoba, Argentina), proposes to offer material for study that may permit making painstaking inquiries into the critical juncture of the present; to summarize the conflicting moments of contradictory centuries; and to deduce, of course, the explanations capable of conceiving and affirming what I call “semantics of the Faith.” Putting aside the theses that could be supported in the present circumstances and conditions of the Roman Church, nobody more or less informed about the dramatic tensions taking place and shaking the formerly solid edifice of the Church could discount the importance of this document, which exactly foresees the possibility of an apostasy like that adduced on the theological level, and the possibility of a series of historical events that extol heresy as the constitutive principle of religious life in the Church. What has happened, then, between Paul IV and Paul VI over the course of four dramatic centuries?
We are in the difficult and dense intervals of the Council of Trent. Convoked by Paul III in May 1542, the Council could only begin its sessions in December 1545. Interrupted between 1552 and 1562, the deaths of three pontiffs were recorded during that recess: Julius II (who had reopened it after Paul III), Marcellus II, and Paul IV. Succeeding the latter was Pius IV, who specially reopened the Council and brought it to an end (December 1563). In turn, St. Pius V (1566-1572) set about the great work of the purification and reform of the Church, as this expression is understood in the classic theological sense. For his part, Paul IV did not wish to, nor could he, resume the Council owing to the difficult political conditions in Christianity, because of the tensions and intrigues in papal government, or for other reasons that are unclear in the common interpretation of historians.
As a matter of fact, he governed without the presence of the Council, and in such circumstances he promulgated the document upon which we are commenting. Naturally this chapter in the history of the Church, which covers the first half of the 16th century, represents the gravest crisis since the days of the Great Western Schism and the prolegomena of the Council of Constance.[9] Nevertheless at one or another juncture—that of Trent or that of Constance—neither the doctrine nor the Faith within the hierarchical levels of the Church was affected, as took place later after the death of Leo XIII and continues to take place following the death of Pius XII. The distinction between hierarchy and heresy was sharp and therefore illustrative of the doctrinal clarity in the Church, an indication, in turn, of the life of the Faith. Why, then, the Bull of Paul IV?
The document transcribed herein belongs to the fourth and last year of the reign of Paul IV, and undoubtedly was occasioned by the grave canonical, jurisdictional, and theological circumstances that these years of the Council’s recess reveal. One should consider that the Bull Cum ex apostolatus officio aimed at preventing, in some efficacious manner, heretical invasion in the hierarchical body of the Church, without excluding the possibility that a heretic pope might be elected by the conclave of cardinals. The dramatic events in Germany, England, Switzerland, the Netherlands, France, etc. had shown in new times a new faith, and in the new faith a different conception of canonical authority, and in this a new historical establishment of open rejection of primordial Sacrality (without which the Church cannot exist as theandric mystery). What could happen, then, in the Roman Church, if a heretic occupied the seat of apostolic governance? Moreover, is this possible? The document of Paul IV inevitably involves, then, a teaching that both the “progressives” (for whom authority lacks sacred grounding) and the “traditionalists” (for whom the crises are explained only on the margin of authority) refuse to see. But Paul IV is unequivocal on this point, and because of this very reason, I believe, his pruritic text has been systematically concealed by both sides.
The motu proprio of St. Pius V betrays the same worries, now that the Council has been closed. Right in the middle of the task of ecclesiastical restructuring, the dangers of the corrupting infiltration of the Faith, of apostolic authority, and of apostolic Tradition do not appear to have lessened, insofar as this document practically reopens all the causes of heresy that could have been substantiated before competent tribunals. In view of the subsequent circumstances of the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries, and in light of the appearance of indivisible solidity in the great pontificates until Pius XII, the subject of the Bull and the motu proprio could have seemed an excessive caution, a presumption born of the tension of unending conflicts, in short, a definite taste of authoritarian pontiffs for maximizing the canonical signification of the truth and, consequently, of the force of the heresiarchs, heretics, and heresies. And yet we are now witnesses to the recurrence described with cautious foresight by Paul IV and Pius V: heresies, whose causes the popes have not impeded, rise to the highest canonical dignities and are even directed to possessing the pontificate; conclaves that elect masons or crown notorious modernist popes—or supposed popes who in their exercise of authority do battle against the Faith— render tradition unimportant and destroy it, and obscure the spiritual horizon of the Church.
Indeed, it would be sufficient to summarize the history of modernist heresy with popes Pius X and Pius XII in very recent times, or with the canonical labyrinths of the “nouvelle théologie,”[10] finally erected as a rule of faith and as a revolutionary statute of a supposed pontiff said to be invested with the full authority of Tradition, and this summary would then be sufficient to confer renewed interest in these documents of the Christian past. Without going into other explanations, let us agree that the texts herein printed have an indubitable prophetic tone, and their wariness, which exhibited at first glance a certain coarse realism [tremendismo] of the Faith, has developed in these contradictory times into unmistakable brilliance to confront the deception, to combat resolutely and courageously the semantic adulterations, and to maintain without betrayals the purity of the Trinitarian and theandric Faith.
4. The document consists of an introduction and ten clauses or sections. Of these, numbers 8-10 are of a legal and formal character or correspond to the procedures of the Vatican chancery. But let us examine the substantial subjects of the Bull dedicated to preventing heresy from taking possession of the hierarchical bodies or even gaining the Apostolic See so as to destroy doctrine, discipline, jurisdiction, etc. The introduction, without mentioning it explicitly, defines the situation caused by the Protestant heresy that “rises up against the discipline of the true Faith in a genuinely perverse manner,” a phrase that we could apply to theological, liturgical, Biblical, and canonical modernism. In other words, the struggle of popes like Pius X and Pius XII against modernist teachings, or against the “nouvelle théologie,” confronted again a situation like that of the 16th century. Was, by chance, the Bull reissued for all to read in public places, or was the opinion of Paul IV brought to public notice as a perpetual vigilance of the Shepherd, just as the same text states? Did someone call to mind this severe canonical case-in-point that cut off at the root the advance of the anti-Christian powers within the apostolic hierarchy?
Did someone put a stop to Montini or Daniélou[11] in accordance with these unequivocal norms? Did someone stand in the way of their path to the cardinalate or the papacy? Did someone call for their immediate removal from office just as Paul IV and Pius V commanded and still command? Be that as it may, Paul IV clarifies at once a fundamental theme in the post-medieval theological debates that we noticed in the semantic war, namely, “upending by ill-willed and totally inappropriate means the understanding of the Holy Scriptures.” Does Paul IV not point to the wicked work that we will see reaching its highest point within the hierarchy in cardinals Bea (The New Psalter) and Daniélou (The Theology of Jewish Christianity), to cite two well-known examples? And how could the Biblical modernism of Bea develop and establish itself after the warnings, rebukes, and condemnations of St. Pius X, infect the pontificates of Pius XI and Pius XII, and emerge triumphant with John XXIII? Is authority in the Church a living organ or a bureaucratic organ?
While the introduction advances two important doctrinal aspects, the first paragraph takes note of, we would say, other mystical aspects, without excluding a reference to the mysterium iniquitatis[12] that could operate in the context of the hierarchy and reach the long-desired goal: “that we see the abomination of desolation in the holy place,” foretold by the prophet Daniel. The reference alludes to Daniel 9:27: et in dimidio hebdomadis deficiet hostia et sacrificium; et erit in templo abominatio desolationis.[13] And then in 12:11: et a tempore cum ablatum fuerit iuge sacrificium et posita fuerit abominatio in desolationem, dies mille ducenti nonaginta.[14] The prophetic text is therefore interpreted from the life of the Church and the Antichrist: in the life of the Church, the cessation of the sacrifice (hostia et sacrificium[15], iuge sacrificium[16]), and the restoration of the Antichrist: abominatio in desolationem[17], the expression from chapter 12 that makes explicit the force of the genitive:[18] it happens that the abominatio installs itself in loco sancto[19], which is the furtherance of the desolation in the Church deprived of the Sacrifice.
What is important are not those nuances that we can give to the text (commonly displayed in medieval prophecies), but the fact that with it Paul IV indicates in the Bull an ostensible interpretation: the apostasy of the hierarchical body of the Church, whose distinctions of rank, we would say, appear again and again with a certain insistence in the document so that nobody is confused. Well, then, do we not have the “new Mass” and the invalid authority of Montini owing to the work of an apostate hierarchy? Has not the prophetic warning of Paul IV come to pass? What is, according to the text of the Biblical prophet and according to the pope’s allusion, the abominatio?
Two images in the introduction complete the description: “hunting the foxes,” or rather the hierarchs who within the Church are destroying her; and “repelling the wolves” that prowl about, for which Paul IV uses the exact term, “bark,” that is to say, utter the truth. But what has, on the plane of historical occurrence, the slyness of the foxes and the boldness of the wolves been within the clerical bodies? History can be perfectly summed up if one remembers the pontificate of Pius X, which is precisely the answer that the Holiness of the Church gives in reply to the Masonic papal conclave of 1903. Foxes and wolves have destroyed the efforts of the great pope who opens the 20th century with a promise. Who were the drivers of Foxes and Wolves in a Church that seemed to recover her pristine liturgical and doctrinal glory?
The second paragraph of the Bull reaffirms all the condemnations against heretics and schismatics. And let us note that this recapitulation comprises not only the resolutions, judgments, and censures of all the preceding popes but the sentences that all the Councils imposed. And here Paul IV seems to prophetically warn anew against what will occur in respect to the Council of Ephesus – disavowed in the title Montini gave to the Most Blessed Virgin, namely, the title “mother of the Church”[20] – and in respect to the Council of Trent, disavowed in the supposed theology of the “new Mass.” This is part of the desolation; this is furtherance of the abomination, and therefore an unmistakable prelude to the Antichrist. Here also Paul IV, by including the series of ecclesiastical and temporal high offices in the frame of the aforementioned judgments and censures, indicates the probable direction of the apostasy.
The third paragraph attempts to fill out the canonical remedies that bar the way to heresy, and seems to represent the originating motive for this document: to strip the heretics on the rolls of the hierarchy of their titles, offices, and dignities, including the rank of cardinal, without the necessity of judicial procedure of law or of fact. Moreover, concerning the judgments, censures, and penalties anticipated in the remote or immediate past, Paul IV, in the beginning of paragraph 3, thoroughly explores and develops the doctrinal question and its canonical efficacy. As to the stripping of titles and offices, he insists on the impossibility of the guilty parties’ being restored or returned to their old dignities, by which the pope underscores the seriousness of the case and the sentence.
The fourth and fifth paragraphs emphasize other consequences and requirements with respect to the nomination of new officials for the vacant positions, or with respect to the canonical and procedural consequences for those who have welcomed, favored, or supported those charged as heretics and schismatics. Finally the sixth and seventh sections resolve the question about those who, having defected from the Faith, were promoted to any ecclesiastical dignity, without excluding the case of a papal election, in the sense that such an election or promotion is null, void, and without any effect. In order to remove any doubt in the case of a false pope, Paul IV underscores the fact that the assumption of papal jurisdiction does not acquire validity either by possession of the office, or by the enthronement and adoratio,[21] or by the obedience that has been accorded to him, or by the passage of time from the election in the conclave or from the enthronement.
5. Let us now summarize what I have called the doctrinal background of the Bull. The mystery of the apostasy in the Church can develop, and it develops in the hierarchical levels, without excluding the pontificate. And, on the horizon of the life of the Church, that mystery would entail the cessation of the Sacrifice and the abomination of desolation in the holy place. Accordingly, it is the most primary function of the Shepherd to be watchful so that this does not take place in the Church. But it could occur. Heresy and schism work by trying to gain access through the hierarchy and pontificate. This is possible. In order to prevent the spread and rise of heresy and schism, it is necessary to nip in the bud the relationship of ecclesiastical dignity and heresy or heretic. In this sense, Paul IV admits the certain possibility that a papal conclave may unanimously elect as pope a heretic.
This election lacks validity with all the canonical consequences that derive from it. 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 he 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. Nevertheless, these—a false pope and deposed cardinals—would have been able to bring about, according to the convergence of events of the mysterium iniquitatis, the abolishment of the Sacrifice of the Altar, that of which the prophet Daniel explicitly speaks: deficiet hostia et sacrificium; et erit in templo abominatio desolationis.[22]
Paul IV adds that no one stripped of his canonical dignity in such conditions and proceedings can be rehabilitated, restored, or put back in his former office. And this certainly involves an extreme sentence or censure in keeping with the extreme gravity of the canonical procedure, since in reality all those officials so interrogated, investigated, or judged would be implicitly accused of wishing to destroy the Church. For that reason, St. Pius V widens, in a certain sense, the judiciary margin of the Bull by decreeing the reopening of all the canonical procedures without excluding those that might have already been resolved according to the authority of the recently ended Council of Trent. And for that reason, the motu proprio of 1566, upon declaring and establishing that decreta in reorum favorem numquam fecisse nec in futurum posse facere transitum in rem iudicatam (last part of paragraph 1),[23] attempts, without being unjust with respect to persons, to maintain vigilance with respect to the realities, and for that very reason to give formal notice of and to proclaim the all-embracing legal capacity of the inquisitors to summon, investigate, conduct preliminary hearings, and exonerate, including those declared innocent.
Finally, according to this doctrinal line, we would now demote the hierarchical body of bishops that could also in totum[24] sustain, favor, and share heretical and schismatic authority, and consequently would lack jurisdiction. And this assuredly dark horizon would complete the abominatio in desolationem[25], or, as the text of the Bull says, abominationem desolationis in loco sancto videre,[26] 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.[27]
One point remains in the penumbra or in the background of the text, one question alone that it is necessary in any case to formulate, to wit: according to that teaching of Paul IV, Can a legitimately elected pope, unaffected either in the instant of the election or in the following process until his enthronement, fall into heresy and could then that canonical pope (with all the force of that expression) consequently incur the automatic dispossession that the Bull definitely establishes and specifies? In other words, could this Roman text be considered an explicit antecedent for the teaching summarized in the maxim: Papa haereticus est despoitus?[28]
In explicit terms, the document does not list or include this case. It is worth bringing it forward. Implicitly I believe it is so, and that the supposition is probable that the minute and extended deliberation shared by Paul IV with his theologians, advisors, or more intelligent cardinals, may have brought this issue to a solution rather more suggested than formulated, on account of the special circumstances of the Church, inasmuch as the Council was unfinished. In other words, it is difficult to think that the question of a heretic pope would escape the analysis of the problem. Of the three levels that the problem involves, namely, episcopal or cardinalitial hierearchy, a pope elected in a null manner, and a canonical pope who brought heresy upon himself, the first two predominated because of the experience that faced the Pontificate on the vast confines of its once undisputed prerogative. The third inevitably came to light in the theological comparative scrutiny such as, I believe, results from a more strict analysis of the Latin text.
In effect, it is true that Paul IV recalls in passing the adage Pontifex Romanus omnes iudicat, a nemine in hoc saeculo iudicandus,[29] which would seem to contradict all the particulars of the Bull that pertain to the definite case of a pope in his duties of office. But it is not so. The maxim is understood of the pope who preserves legitimacy in re,[30] otherwise paragraphs 6 and 7 would be contradictory. For this reason, the continuation of this adage adds that Romanus Pontifex, si deprehendatur a fide devius, possit redargui,[31] using a verb (deprehendi[32]) and a phrase (a fide devius[33]) having a strong reference to the subject that the context always understands as a serious situation or a set of circumstances contrary to the faith. That awakens the remembrance of Daniel’s prophecy and for that very reason the direct responsibility of the pontiff. Thus we ought to note that both the phrase (already emphasized) and the mention of the prophecy do not pertain to inconvenient expedients, straying or heretic cardinals or bishops (since that begins to be detailed in paragraph 2), but to the pontiff’s strict duty (of which the introduction and paragraph 1 speak) in the care of the faith.
Supposing that the context should be understood in that way, in other words a canonically elected pope a fide devius possit redargui,[34] a state of affairs that prepares, for that reason, the abomination in the holy place, how would we understand, in the framework of the Bull, the persistence or cessation of his investiture? Does a pope a fide devius continue being pope? The content of the subject is mentioned as a certain possibility, [and] the extreme consequence is also envisioned in the prophecy; in the midst of these two instances, what are we to say about that pontiff? By analogy, the conclusion arising from the whole conceptual orientation of the document would seem to impose itself, namely, that he has lost his legitimacy.
In the second place, we deduce the same conclusion at the beginning of paragraph 5, which deals with those who have favored, protected, or promoted heresy. In the Bull, those individuals incur the same sanctions. Now then, if in that case bishops, cardinals, etc. are considered to be deposed of their dignities, offices, and benefices, what would be the motive for excluding someone who has the greater responsibility for stopping the fulfillment of the aforesaid prophecy? By analogy, it is evident that a canonically elected pope who would promote, protect or encourage heresy or heretics would lose the titles of canonical legitimacy and would cease being pope. That conclusion would coincide with a passage in paragraph 2, where the enumeration of official duties and dignities with jurisdiction says: of whatever rank, condition and preeminence, including bishops and archbishops, etc., or of any other whatsoever ecclesiastical dignity. What could be that “other dignity” in the Church, if the next paragraph mentions cardinals, legates, etc.? Does it not unmistakably suggest the jurisdictional dignity of the Roman pontiff? I believe so.
In the teaching of Paul IV, we would thus have the following chain–like progression of arguments [gradación[35]]: Any ecclesiastical dignity whatsoever, any rank or condition whatsoever, can incur heresy and in that case we must consider the person who holds that dignity to be ipso facto[36] deposed. In the case of the pope, the incomparable gravity of the effect of heresy (leaving the Roman See vacant) is not an obstacle to the realization of the principle. In any event, we would have three different possibilities in the case of the “heretic pope”: a) “heretic” before his elevation, b) “heretic” owing to deviation from the faith (a fide devius), c) “heretic” owing to promotion of the heresy of others. In the three cases, the Bull would establish the voidance of the legitimate office. The heretic pope would find himself deposed.
We arrive thus at the final point of our commentary. The text of Paul IV, viewed in the complex circumstances of the 16th century, represents inherently an anticipation of the advances of an apostasy that could affect, in the strict sense, the jurisdictional primacy from the apostolic and cardinalitial levels. In turn, the motu proprio of Pius V, upon confirming the Bull once the Council of Trent had been concluded, foresees, in continual vigilance of all the causes of heresy, a time of exceptional perversity in promoting heresy, and consequently a time that heralds the cessation of the Sacrifice and the abomination in the holy place. 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 inevitably foretell other mystical, canonical, and historical lapses. We could call the new times —which demand a new St. Athanasius — “Athanasian.” Does this man perhaps now exist in the mystical backgrounds of the desolate Church? (End of Disandro’s Introduction)
[1] Translator’s Note: “Brief” or papal letter.
[2] Translator’s Note: “god-man”
[3] Translator’s Note: “tradition”
[4] Translator’s Note: “god-man mystery”
[5] Translator’s Note: “mystery of the Church” and “hidden truth [or mystery] of the Trinity”
[6] Translator’s Note: Docetism : “[t]he assertion that Jesus Christ was not a man but only seemed to have a human body and lead a human life”; monophysitism: “[t]he heresy that there is only one nature in Jesus Christ, his humanity being entirely absorbed in his divinity, and his body not of one substance with ours”; ebionism “denied the divinity and virgin birth of our Lord; observed the Jewish Law…and used only one Gospel, attributed to St. Matthew” (from Atwater’s A Catholic Dictionary).
[7] Translator’s Note: lit. “Since on account of the office of apostleship.”
[8] Translator’s Note: “of his own accord.”
[9] Translator’s Note: The sixteenth ecumenical council (1414- 1418), which ended the Schism of the West.
[10] Translator’s Note: “new theology,” a French anti-scholastic, theological movement in the 1940s, which Pius XII attempted to end in his encyclical Humani Generis. It served as the basic preparation for Vatican II.
[11] Translator’s Note: French Jesuit bishop and cardinal (1905-1974) who was an influential figure in the “New Theology” movement. He was a peritus at Vatican II.
[12] Translator’s Note: “mystery of wickedness”
[13] Translator’s Note: “and in the half of the week, the victim and the sacrifice will fail; and there will be in the temple the abomination of desolation.”
[14] Translator’s Note: “and from the time when the perpetual sacrifice will be taken away, and the abomination unto desolation will be established, [there will be] 1,290 days.”
[15] Translator’s Note: “the victim and the sacrifice”
[16] Translator’s Note: “perpetual sacrifice”
[17] Translator’s Note: “abomination unto desolation”
[18] Translator’s Note: referring to the genitive case of the word desolationis, “of desolation,” in Dan. 9:27.
[19] Translator’s Note: “in the holy place”
[20] Translator’s Note: the Council of Ephesus (431) declared Mary the Mother of God (in Greek, Theotokos).
[21] Translator’s Note: The homage rendered to a newly elected pope, viz. the kissing of the foot and hand and reception of the kiss of peace.
[22] Translator’s Note: “the victim and the sacrifice will fail; and there will be in the temple the abomination of desolation.”
[23] Translator’s Note: “The decrees incurred in favor of the guilty parties… have never been applicable nor in the future can be applicable to a decided case.” N.B. The Latin is not an exact quotation from the original.
[24] Translator’s Note: “wholly, altogether, entirely”
[25] Translator’s Note: “abomination unto desolation”
[26] Translator’s Note: “seeing the abomination of desolation in the holy place.”
[27] Translator’s Note: “rending the unity of the Catholic Church and the seamless coat of the Lord.”
[28] Translator’s Note: “A heretical pope is deposed.”
[29] Translator’s Note: “The Roman Pontiff judges all men, in this world [he is] to be judged by no man,” (DZ 330)
[30] Translator’s Note: “in reality”
[31] Translator’s Note: “ A Roman pontiff would be able to be convicted of falsehood, if he should be detected to be deviant from the faith.”
[32] Translator’s Note: “to be discovered, detected”
[33] Translator’s Note: “turning aside, wandering, deviant from the faith.”
[34] Translator’s Note: “turning away from the faith would be able to be convicted of falsehood.”
[35] Translator’s note: The Spanish word gradación is a term of art referring to the technical rhetorical device variously called in the English-speaking world gradatio, climax (‘ladder”), ascendus [“ascent”] or “marching figure,” where words or sentences mount by degrees of increasing importance.
[36] Translator’s note: “by that very fact.”
by T. Stanfill Benns | Aug 6, 2015 | Uncategorized
© Copyright 2015, T. Stanfill Benns ( All emphasis within quotes is the author’s unless indicated otherwise.)
Introduction
“Fr.” Bernard Lucien, a former St. Pius X Society cleric, wrote “The Problem of Authority In the Post-Conciliar Church,” (date unknown), a piece promoting the “Materialiter-Formaliter” or Cassiciacum thesis first advanced by the late French theologian Michel Louis Guérard des Lauriers, O.P. in the 1980s. Regardless of any enthusiastic claims concerning des Lauriers scholarship and orthodoxy (although exactly why he left the Vatican as Pope Pius XII’s confessor in the early 1950s is unclear), it must be remembered that he received consecration without papal mandate from a notoriously heretical bishop (Peter Ngo dinh Thuc) and in writing his thesis was attempting to justify the jurisdiction he had received from Thuc. Thuc’s own jurisdiction had no other source but the very Novus Ordo church he was still actively involved with, by his own admission, just prior to des Lauriers “consecration.” Lucien was a Lefebvre seminarian who later became a sedevacantist and is now reportedly affiliated with a Novus Ordo Indult mass group. He has no assurance of valid ordination and advanced his “thesis” without the approval of ecclesiastical authority.
We will call it that throughout this work, but in reality it cannot be considered more than an hypothesis, if that, because the arguments on which it is based are not cogent, complete, or frankly, Catholic. Lucien now is apparently outside the Church, so why, exactly, are the people promoting this theory still using his works patterned after des Laurier’s writings as their basis of belief? The only reason that his work is being treated seriously here is because certain Traditionalists are still promoting it to facilitate “the restoration of the Church.” Those who know this theory to be false and harmful to the faith of others have asked that it be addressed here to warn the unwary. The purpose of this article, then, is to explain the basic errors of the material-formal hypothesis as presented by Lucien and why it cannot be considered viable in any way.
Lucien sets out his theory as follows: “Since December 7, 1965…the person occupying the Apostolic See is no longer formally the pope: He no longer has any divinely assisted Pontifical authority; he however remains materially a pope insofar as he has not been juridically deposed. All the theses that affirm the persistence of Authority in the present circumstances implicitly deny the infallibility of the Church’s Ordinary and Universal Magisterium as defined by Vatican I (Denz. 1792). This affirmation is the reverse side of the proof which establishes the first part of the Thesis of Cassiciacum: the cogency of this statement will become clear when we study this proof…The Thesis of Cassiciacum will add to this decisive and radical disagreement other theological and philosophical considerations in order to make the origin and dimension of the errors in theses 11 and 12 clear. It will especially expose the voluntarist conception of authority which generally permeates these two theories, a conception which leads to a naturalistic understanding of Authority in the Church.”
We find addressed in Lucien’s treatise the exact same issues cited by all those supporting this supposed “solution” to the crisis in the Church, and all these issues already are addressed on this site. He claims the Church can never lose the papacy because this voids Christ’s promise to St. Peter, but this is contrary to Catholic teaching, (see /free-content/4-a-catholic-course-of-study-new/i-the-four-marks-cannot-exist-without-the-three-attributes/iii-indefectibility/; /free-content/reference-links/1-what-constitutes-the-papacy/what-catacomb-catholics-believe-on-indefectibility/; /free-content/reference-links/7-recent-articles/the-church-has-not-failed-and-cannot-fail/). He contends She could never lose the hierarchy because the Church infallibly teaches the hierarchy (meaning cardinals, bishops and priests) must last until the consummation, (/free-content/reference-links/7-recent-articles/binding-power-of-papacy-voids-traditionalist-acts/ , pages 23-31). And finally, the pope can become a heretic and did become one (Paul VI) but he can admit his errors, be rehabilitated and continue to lead the Church, despite his questionable election, (/free-content/reference-links/4-heresy/why-a-legitimate-roman-pontiff-could-never-become-a-heretic-but-could-only-appear-to-become-one/).
Of course to claim all this is possible, Lucien denies in the process that Pope Paul IV’s Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, the perpetual “fly in the ointment,” is an infallible document. But Lucien’s so-called thesis is yet another example of how Traditionalists, in Modernist fashion, skirt papal authority and abandon scholastic method to appeal to their audience. We wish to warn all those who hold themselves as true Catholics that the material-formal movement is simply a Society of St. Pius X-like attempt to redirect Traditionalists back into the Novus Ordo and “reunite” the Church. It was always the dream of the Modernists to eliminate the magisterium of the Church. A church like the Novus Ordo where the magisterium is constantly adjusted to the “needs and desires” of the people of God is exactly what the Modernists aimed for; they did not want to destroy the Church altogether, only reduce it to a democracy. They used the Traditionalist movement as a vehicle for accomplishing this, pretending Tradition existed entirely in the retention of Mass and Sacraments outside communion with a true pope. But the true definition of Tradition, found in the old Catholic Encyclopedia article under Tradition, identifies it not with the liturgy and Sacraments but the continual magisterium primarily. An article will be posted to the Free Content site soon explaining this connection in detail.
The heretical pope controversy revisited
In his first few pages, Lucien notes that, (1) “The Thesis of Cassiciacum does not appeal to any pre-existing theory on the problem of an heretical pope. (2) This is what gives it force and essentially allows it to establish “something approaching a certitude of the order of Faith.” That is rich, since the term heretical pope was declared an oxymoron by the Vatican Council. The Sources of Catholic Dogma, compiled by Henry Denzinger, (items which are hereafter referred to as DZ) tells us that the pope’s faith is “never-failing [being] divinely conferred on Peter and his successors in this chair, (DZ 1837). When the pope “in accord with his supreme apostolic authority, explains a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, through the divine assistance promised him in Blessed Peter, [he] operates with that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer wished that His Church be instructed in defining doctrine on faith and morals…,” (DZ 1839). He who contradicts this is anathema, (DZ 1840). No true pope, in his formal capacity, could ever utter heresy. As a private person, yes, according to Henry Cardinal Manning and theologians generally; as one who appears to be pope but who was not legitimately elected, yes, according to Pope Paul IV’s Bull, Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, (1559). But this can never be true of a validly elected pope speaking officially (publicly) to the universal Church authoritatively AS pope. Numbers two and three above are addressed below.
(1) What Lucien is really saying is that by ignoring the fact that a pope CAN NEVER be a heretic in his official capacity, thus contradicting infallible teaching, one is then able to consider how he could commit heresy in his official capacity and still be a human being capable of rehabilitation who could remain pope; or not. The decision is left to the “material pope.” This is in perfect agreement with the accursed tenets of Novus Ordo liberal charity (peace not war; no capital punishment; counseling and understanding, not removal from office for Novus Ordo priests who abuse children, ad nauseum) in direct contradiction of Catholic teaching.
(2) Come again? Something approaching a certitude of the order of faith? If one does not already possess a certitude of the order of faith, then one cannot call him or herself a Catholic. Lucien needs to be reminded of just how that certitude runs, because he then will discover that he himself does not understand it. Being subject to the Roman Pontiff is necessary for salvation, (DZ 469). The belief that certitude can only be approached but not attained contradicts the following set of papal condemnations concerning the ability to arrive at certitude, (DZ 553-557). These are all binding statements. But when it is morally impossible to render such subjection, such as in the absence of a Roman Pontiff, or if one doubts his legitimacy for grave reasons, one is not required to be subject to him. This means not subject in anything, not just a few things. Why would any of the faithful, “clerics” or not, be required to agonize over what they must obey or not obey concerning a “material pope”? This is absurd. The beauty of Catholicism lies in the fact that it is based on absolute or formal certitude, that is, infallibility. In things infallible, all we must do is accept with an irrevocable assent and obey; other papal teaching on non-infallible matters must be accepted with a firm and sincere assent. How hard is that?
In his ABC of Scholastic Philosophy, Rev. A. C. Cotter explains, “Formal certitude is a firm assent (or dissent) based on motives which are in themselves infallible and are known to be infallible…Now only an infallible motive excludes the very possibility of error…Therefore only an infallible motive is a sufficient guarantee for the (logical) truth of a judgment…A guide is not called infallible because there is no special reason for doubting his knowledge or because it is highly improbable he will lead us astray…We call a motive or reason for judging infallible only when it cannot lead us into error.” If we can be absolutely certain of the source, because Christ guaranteed its infallibility, why in heaven’s name would we need “something approaching a certitude of the order of faith?” Yet the only possible foundation for this restoration is the teaching of Divine revelation as presented by the Church for belief. THAT is formal certitude, and we are bound to learn it and believe it.
These topics below already have been covered in several articles on the site. Before continuing, the reader may wish to visit the links listed in the Introduction.
Cum ex… resolves all material-formal questions and is infallible
1.) A bull is the “most solemn and weighty form of papal letter,” (Donald Attwater, “A Catholic Dictionary”), and is generally believed to be a document of the extraordinary magisterium in most cases. There are two types of infallibility: ordinary and extraordinary (solemn declaration). These types are called the “magisterium” of the Church, or teaching authority: “…which resides in the Roman Pontiff and in the bishops, inasmuch as they are subject to and united with him,” (Dictionary of Dogmatic Theology, Parente, Piolanti, Garofalo, 1951, p. 71.) On page 72, the Dictionary lists the following sources from which a declaration of the extraordinary magisterium can issue: “…A solemn declaration of the Pope, through a bull or other document; declaration of an ecumenical council or of a particular council approved by the Pope; symbols and professions of faith emanating from or approved by the Church.”
2.) In paragraph one, Pope Paul IV defines the meaning of Holy Scripture, (the abomination of desolation found in the book of Daniel) refuting the then-popular errors of the Protestants, who “strive to rend the Lord’s seamless robe by corrupting the sense of the Holy Scriptures with cunning inventions,” (preamble).
3) In paragraphs two and three, Pope Paul IV states that he invokes his apostolic authority in issuing the bull. This is a clear indication of infallibility according to the theologians.
4.) In paragraph three, Paul IV pronounces: We sanction, establish, decree and define, through the fullness of Our Apostolic power, [that] all censures, sentences and penalties, keep their force and efficacy and obtain their effect.” Some of these sentences and penalties were very severe. If the pope here specifies he is invoking his supreme Apostolic power precisely to keep all these censures and penalties in effect, one can hardly say that Cum ex… can be dismissed as only a disciplinary decree (as Lucien and others pretend). Nor can it be said that disciplinary decrees cannot be infallible. For as Pope Pius IX taught the Armenians in Quartus Supra:
“But the neo-schismatics have gone further, since ‘every schism fabricates a heresy for itself to justify its withdrawal from the Church.’ Indeed, they have even accused this Apostolic See as well, as if We had exceeded the limits of Our power in commanding that certain points of discipline were to be observed…Nor can the Eastern Churches preserve communion and unity of faith with Us without being subject to the Apostolic power in matters of discipline. Now such teaching is not only heretical after the definitions and declarations of the Ecumenical Council of the Vatican on the nature and reasons for the primacy of the Sovereign Pontiff, but it has always been considered to be such and has been abhorred by the Catholic Church. It is for this reason that the bishops of the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon, openly declared the supreme authority of the Apostolic See in their proceedings; then they humbly requested Our predecessor, St. Leo, to sanction and confirm their decrees, even those which concerned discipline,” (This encyclical was listed in the Acta Sanctae Sedis, which preceded the Acta Apostolica Sedis as the formal record of all binding papal documents.)
And this same pope taught in Quae in Patriarchatu: “In fact, Venerable Brothers and beloved Sons, it is a question of recognizing the power (of this See), even over your churches, not merely in what pertains to faith, but also in what concerns discipline. He who would deny this is a heretic; he who recognizes this and obstinately refuses to obey is worthy of anathema,” (emph. mine — September 1, 1876, to the clergy and faithful of the Chaldean Rite). Can true Catholics really read the words of this pope and believe that Cum ex…, even if primarily a disciplinary decree, was not infallible?
No declaration needed and no rehabilitation possible
5.) The entire premise of material-formal, stated by Lucien above, is that the Vatican 2 antipopes, now succeeded by Francis, could denounce the false V2 council and the teaching of their predecessors and magically become pope, as if their long-term heresy and betrayal of the Church was really not all that culpable. But if we follow Cum ex… as we are bound to do, we see that this is not what Pope Paul IV taught in regards to the consequences of their heresy in paragraph three. “In addition to the sentences, censures and penalties mentioned above, (all these persons, namely the hierarchy, who) 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…being less excusable than others in such matters, are also automatically and without any recourse to law or action, completely and entirely, forever deprived of, and furthermore disqualified from and incapacitated for their rank…They can never at any time be re-established, re-appointed, restored or recapacitated for their former state.”
Nothing could be clearer than this. And notice that Paul IV rules this way because “they are less excusable than others” in these matters. Certainly the hierarchy educated under Popes St. Pius X through Pius XII had no legitimate excuse whatsoever for deviating in any way from the true course and selling out their Church. Both Pope St. Pius X and Pope Pius XII, in their respective papal election constitutions, ratified Cum ex… as still applicable by teaching that deposed cardinals cannot vote and cannot be elected. Prof. Carlos Disandro went to great lengths to point this out in his 1979 “Doctrinal Precisions,” (see Archive/membership section of site). Both papal election constitutions teach that should anything be done to usurp papal jurisdiction, and if any papal laws — especially those laid down in Pope Pius XII’s election constitution, Vacantis Apostolica Sedis (VAS) — are broken, these acts are null and void, and this by infallible command (para. 3, VAS). So let Lucien beware: Cum ex… is not the outdated, abrogated old law he portrays it to be. If anyone, God forbid, should act on what he is proposing in his treatise, it will be null and void.
6.) Pope Paul IV, unlike Lucien, considered heresy and schism, “the greatest and deadliest crime” that can exist in God’s Church,” (para. three). His bull does not drip with the deadly poison of liberalism in regards to heresy and the virtue of charity as does the writings of Lucien, Sanborn and others, who, because they are outside the Church themselves, have no intention of admitting their errors. They have no fear of being accused of suffering the infamy incurred by those who defend such heretics and schismatics, pronounced in para. five of the bull.
Finally, and most importantly, if Cum ex… is accepted for what it truly says and the context in which it is said, it will be clear to all that a man who was a heretic prior to his election, such as the last six antipopes, could scarcely regain something he never obtained in the first place. Cum ex… is quite clear on this point, using language that unmistakeably indicates that such a man never truly became pope but only appeared to do so. Nor, according to Pope Paul IV’s bull Cum ex…, could he ever regain his office even if he was at one time considered to be pope.
No quasi-legitimacy, no remedy for invalidity
7.) But paragraph six is the one that torpedoes the rudderless material-formal ship, and refuses to rescue the survivors. First it eliminates as true electors all those cardinals who in any way whatsoever have shown any signs of heresy or schism, invalidating all their acts. Their heresy and contrary intention may not have been evident at the “election” of John 23, but certainly it was detectable shortly following his election concerning the two-thirds plus one who cast their votes for him. This majority of the cardinals is required by Pope Pius XII’s 1945 papal election law for validity, (VAS, para. 69). If only ONE of those cardinals casting their vote for Roncalli was a heretic — and the heresy of many of them was demonstrated by their acceptance of the false Vatican 2 council — that election was never valid. Because the John 23 missal abrogated the Tridentine rite in 1962 and the faithful already were reading “for all men” in their English missalettes in 1959; and especially in light of Roncalli’s open and friendly dealings with Communists and Freemasons, the communicatio in sacris with those even favoring heresy, the deviasse referred to in Cum ex…, was already “clear,” as Pope Paul IV terms it, (see /free-content/reference-links/4-heresy/annotated-guide-to-cum-ex/). In fact, according to Msgr. J. C. Fenton’s diaries, it was already “clear” in the late 1950’s before Pius XII’s death, with some questioning the direction the Church was taking not long after Roncalli’s election. Roncalli’s misbehavior in France and disfavor with Pius XII; also his long association with Montini was common knowledge. Are we conjecturing here? Not according to the evidence presented by Msgr. Fenton, who was so rattled by the blatant heresy at the planning sessions for the council that he exclaimed: “If I did not believe God, I would be convinced that the Catholic Church was about to end,” (commenting on Vatican II, Nov. 23, 1962).
Second, it limits the heresy of the person elected pope to pre-election only, stating that such heresy or schism invalidates the election and renders it null and void. Thirdly, it states that there can be no remedy for this invalidity: “It cannot be declared valid or become valid through his acceptance of office,” nor by “the passage of any time; nor shall it be held as quasi-legitimate,” (one wonders if Pope Paul IV was not gifted with prophecy here). The cardinals and the one they elect shall be “deprived of any dignity, position, honor, title, authority, office and power…without need for any declaration.” And according to paragraph five, this happens not only in the case of one who is a heretic pre-election, but in the case of those cardinals who, following such an “election,” fail to confront the one elected for deviating from the faith. Notice that in paragraph five of the bull that it is “…(all these persons, namely the hierarchy, who) 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…being less excusable than others in such matters…” who lose their offices with no hope of recovering them.
This is the censure found in Can. 188 no. 4. It applies to all the hierarchy, but only to a validly elected pope who would commit heresy as a private person, (which is not the case in our situation). It differs from Can. 2314 §1-2 in that it treats of clerics only and not the laity. Both laity and clergy are ipso facto excommunicated for heresy, apostasy and schism; clergy alone ipso facto lose their offices as a consequence of this excommunication; they are deposed in virtue of the act of public heresy, apostasy or schism. Therefore they lose any jurisdiction they may ever have possessed. This is why it is so ludicrous for Lucien, Sanborn, et al to go on and on about who deposes the pope, when, how, etc. The one posing as pope tacitly resigns his office as a consequence of heresy, apostasy or schism; he tacitly resigns and thus deposes himself. The V2 antipopes all were clerics at one point, so are subject to this canon. The Traditionalists have no such guarantee of certainly valid ordination and for all practical purposes can be considered laymen. This according to the ruling of the Holy Office on the errant priest Michael Collins, listed in the Canon Law Digest, Vol. 4, under Can. 211, (Dec. 15, 1956; entered into the AAS as binding).
It is important to note here that even if Lucien did not accept Cum ex… as an infallible document, which it demonstrably is, he still would be bound to accept its teaching with a firm and sincere assent. To hold otherwise would be to contradict what Pope Pius IX said in Quanta Cura, where he condemns the teaching that, “without sin and without damage to a man’s profession as a Catholic, assent and obedience can be refused to those judgments and decrees of the Apostolic See which have as their object a reference to the general good of the Church and its rights and discipline, as long as this refusal does not affect dogmas of faith and morals.” Here Pope Pius IX is only reiterating what Nicholas I and the Roman Council taught in 860 A. D.: “If anyone condemns dogmas, interdicts, sanctions or decrees, promulgated by the one presiding in the Apostolic See, for the Catholic faith, for ecclesiastical discipline, for the correction of the faithful, for the emendation of criminals, either by an interdict of threatening or future ills, let him be anathema,” (DZ 326). Lucien condemns what he terms a disciplinary decree promulgated by Pope Paul IV, aimed at ecclesiastical criminals, but of course his skewed definition of heresy would not allow anyone to consider him guilty of the attached anathema. If Catholics cannot see past this slick maneuver to escape blame, practiced so many times by the Traditional clerics they choose to follow, then they need professional help.
Msgr. J. C. Fenton identifies what Pope Pius IX and Nicholas I condemn as “Catholic minimism, which would restrict the fields of necessary doctrinal obedience in the life of the faithful to the region of explicit statements on dogma alone,” (March 1953 American Ecclesiastical Review, “Infallibility in the Encyclicals”). In this same article, Fenton quotes Pope Leo XIII in Immortale Dei, outlining the duties of Catholics, to the same effect: “It is necessary to hold whatever the Roman Pontiffs have taught or are going to teach as accepted with firm assent, and to profess these things openly whenever the occasion requires it.” Lucien, Sanborn and all the others engaged in this entirely man-inspired quest to “restore the Church” are guilty of this minimism and much worse: they fail to accept the teachings of the Roman Pontiffs, preferring the arguments of theologians and their own conclusions to those of Christ’s Vicar. Regardless of what they may call themselves, they are not practicing Catholics.
No deposition necessary because no office ever obtained
8.) Lucien says (hypothetically) the occupant of the See is not deposed; he initially asks if he is deposed or is only “deposable,” but does not ABSOLUTELY say he should be deposed. First, he says, those with authority in the Church (and who might they be?) must demand he retract his errors and only then is he considered deposed (by Christ?). If he complies with the demand, Lucien and others propose, he is ipso facto formally established as pope, but this is not the case. As Cum ex itself says, no warning or judicial sentence is necessary and no rehabilitation is possible. Paragraph seven solves the problem of deposition the material-formal crowd devotes so much time to examining and explaining. It makes one wonder what exactly des Lauriers was thinking when he wrote his original piece on Cassiciacum, for he was a theologian in the pre-V2 Church although perhaps one who found disfavor with the pope. Cassiciacum entirely ignores Cum ex… and Canon Law to arrive at its alleged “theory.” But it is a theory based only on the opinions of theologians and not on the teachings of the popes individually, or those teachings reflected in the 1917 Code of Canon Law.
Canon 2198, with Cum ex Apostolatus Officio as the old law supporting this canon, establishes the criteria for determining manifest heresy. Canon 2198 states: “In order for a crime to be called public, it is necessary that the fact be publicly known as a criminal or morally imputable act — in other words, that the act is known as a crime. Thus if a person has been dangerously wounded or killed, it is not enough that the fact is known, but it must also be known the act was a criminal one, [not self defense or an accident]. …The offender must be known to the public to make the act a public crime, (Can. 2197 no. 4). If the offender does not stand identified before the public as the perpetrator of the criminal act, his offense is occult, called formaliter occult in the Code.” (Canon 2197 no. 4 says an offense is materialiter occult if the offense itself is not publicly known. Under this canon it is noted that “The Code calls an offense public when knowledge of it has been spread among the people [as few as six in a small community]) or when it was committed under circumstances which make it practically impossible to keep the offense secret, (Can 2197 no. 3).
If this is the canon on which the material-formal theorists base their reasoning, they are in very deep water. Always the sedevacantists, at least, have formally and publicly accused the Roman usurpers as heretics and false popes; there is no “formaliter occult” where the heresy (crime) is not publicly known because it has been publicly known since 1969 at least. Nor is it materialiter, because sufficient numbers of sedevacantists have publicized these heresies over the years. So the call for a Francis to “repent” is negated by this canon. This is the reason that the material-formal proponents have engaged in a campaign to shame sededvacantists into admitting their stand contradicts the dogma of indefectibility. If they can disband sedevacantists, then they can eliminate the public nature of the outcry against the Novus Ordo pretenders to the papal throne and claim Francis is either a formaliter or materialiter occult heretic.
Note this well, for it is exactly what is happening in the Traditional movement today. But even this will not save the Roman usurpers. Because if Cum ex… is obeyed, as it must be, there IS no deposition from office per se because the office was never bestowed in the first place; it only APPEARED to be bestowed. Canon 2198 goes on to explain (Woywod-Smith commentary) that when an offense violates ecclesiastical law, it must be tried in ecclesiastical courts. When it violates civil law only, (in this case fraud on a massive scale), the civil power may be called on to arrest the offender and punish him. This is exactly what Pope Paul IV recommends in paragraph 7 of Cum ex… where he states: “For the greater confusion of persons thus promoted and elevated, if they attempt to continue their government and administration, all may implore the secular arm against those so advanced and elevated.”
NO ONE, then, is deposing a true pope, since such a person was never elected. They are escorting out of the building a mere man devoid of all office and title, a layman for all practical purposes, who only appeared to function as a validly elected public official. The faithful are encouraged to implore the secular arm to remove these people, but if no one even publicly denounces them as imposters and usurpers, how is this ever to come about? It is all a moot point today anyway since there are no Catholic governments to whom the faithful could even appeal. But this does not mean there should not have been and could not have been a public outcry from the outset. If there remained any hope of electing a true pope such an outcry might still be effective, but sadly this is not the case.
Heresy in the Code and Cum ex…
9.) Let us now examine Lucien’s statements concerning heresy in light of Cum ex… as quoted above. Like Donald Sanborn, whose work on material-formal this author examined at length and refuted several years ago, Lucien fails to recognize in Cum ex… the exposition of nearly all the Church’s current teaching (1917 Code) on heresy, apostasy and schism. Both Sanborn and Lucien would be bound to accept Paul IV’s teachings on this subject with a firm assent even if they were not the very definition of what is and is not heresy, which the Church has determined they certainly are. How else explain the constant references to Cum ex… found in the footnotes in Canon Law as the very source of the law itself? There is no reason to repeat the Church’s true teachings on heresy here as covered under Canon Law, teachings Lucien did not even attempt to research at any length. It is enough to direct readers to the Free Content site under heading 4. Heresy (also The true Nature of Heresy under “A Catholic Course of Study on the same page) so they can cover these topics themselves.
Lucien’s contention that Cum ex… was abrogated by the 1917 Code, and is not represented as anything but references in the footnotes to the Code, are false statements long ago disproven by approved authors who had actually researched the origins of Canon Law and the intentions of the lawmakers who codified it. Please join the site at least long enough to view the entire series on the history and relevance of Cum ex…, (also Carlos Disandro’s related article, Doctrinal Precisions,) found under the Archives in the membership section. The Archives feature the original material-formal piece published against Donald Sanborn, a lengthy analysis of his evaluation of this hypothesis. For a more complete understanding of the subject it is recommended that this article be read as well.
It has been said that no canonists cite Cum ex… in their works; that it has not been retained in the Code; that it is not certainly infallible. That those making these claims have not even thoroughly examined the matter is bad enough. But that they prevent others from esteeming a Bull that has direct bearing on their salvation is truly indefensible. Having made this observation, let Catholics decide for themselves. The Code lists Cum ex… as a source not only for Can. 188 no. 4, but also for Canons 167 §3, 2198, 2209, 2264, 2294, 2314, 2316 and there may be others as well. Rev. Amleto Cicognani observed in his Canon Law, (1935): “Under the canons are placed footnotes or notes…first from the ‘Codicis Iuris Canonici,’ the Constitutions of Popes, from the Sacred Congregations, and from Liturgical Books…In the Code there are nearly 26,000 citations of the old law.
Of these, 8,400 are from Gratian’s Decretum; about 1,200 from Ecumenical Councils; about 4,000 from Papal Constitutions; about 11,200 from the Sacred Congregations and 800 from liturgical Books. Surely this is a very eloquent reply to those who think that since the Code the old laws of the Church have lost all utility, and the history of their sources is become meaningless…,” (emph. mine). “Outside the Code there still remains in force…the old written law, contained (at least implicitly) in the Code,” along with several other laws, customs and privileges listed by Cicognani. He continues: “In a commentary on the Canons the footnotes must never be neglected, lest that occur of which Quintilian spoke: ‘the pediments are viewed, the foundations are hidden.’”
10. Finally, in his Canon 6: The Relation of the Codex Juris Canonici to Preceding Legislation, (Catholic University of America, 1927), Rev. Nicholas Neuberger states” “The old legislation…is destitute of legal value unless the Code has embodied it in the Canons.” Cum ex… is quite noticeably embodied in the Canons, and is moreover embodied in canons carrying great weight, the most important of these being Canons 188 no. 4 and Can. 2314. Under Can. 2314, it is interesting to note that Cum ex… is one of the last laws mentioned, and all the laws in the footnotes are listed in chronological order. Most of what is listed before Cum ex… appears to be the old canon laws as they existed prior to the 1917 Code. These are probably the canons Pope Paul IV renews in his bull. So it is not an exaggeration to say that Cum ex… is the entire source of this most important canon. It is no wonder Traditionalists are eager to discredit Cum ex. For if they accept this Bull for what it is and for what the Church SAYS it is, they can no longer claim to harbor doubts concerning how the laws governing heresy work, since Cum ex… is now the prevailing law. The Code provides for doubts of law under Canon 6 no. 2 and 6 no. 4, instructing the faithful that in the case of a positive doubt (based on serious reasons), the old law is to be followed, either in whole or in part. And Cum ex… is indisputably that “old law.”
Conclusion
As noted before on this site in many places, Traditionalists are fragmented into numerous sects and are vulnerable to theories such as material–formal primarily because they fear the inescapable alternative: we live in the end times predicted in Daniel, Matthew 24, St. Paul’s works and the Apocalypse, the Great Apostasy occurred long ago, he who withholdeth (the Supreme Pontiff, according to Cardinal Manning) was taken out of the way, the Holy Sacrifice ceased, Antichrist Paul 6 and his infernal system has already come, and we await the physical chastisement which most likely must occur before the Church can be restored. Pope Paul IV laid it all out in Cum ex… 400 years before it occurred. They cling to the material–formal theory because it validates their continued attachment to “hierarchy” and the ability of that hierarchy to validly and licitly provide them the Mass and Sacraments. They will fight to the death to have it their way until this crisis is resolved, to resolve it on their terms and to fiercely defend their attachment to their “clerics” and the services they provide. This despite the sea of proofs from Divine Revelation as defined by the Church that their position is no different than the Protestant Reformers who preceded them and those modern lovers of reform the Modernists, whose ranks they now occupy.
The fact that the juridic Church cannot exist without Christ’s Vicar as Her head does not concern them. Their leaders have carefully woven fictions like material-formal to fit their circumstances and beliefs to the facts, to placate them and to maintain their positions, but they have not presented Church teaching and Catholic truth as it exists for those willing to seek it out to prove their case. In 1958, we lost the head that Christ told us was the rock and foundation of our faith; the only guarantee of truth on this earth. He alone was empowered to teach on behalf of our Lord. No one will contest the fact that at best, we have only a doubtful pope. They will tell you basically all of Canon Law is doubtful but they will not draw out those conclusions where a false pope is concerned. This is true even though it was St. Robert Bellarmine, who their leaders quote at length in support of theories such as material-formal, who advanced the “a doubtful pope is no pope” maxim. For those who will take the time to examine the analysis of Sanborn’s piece on material-formal, in the Archives of the membership section of this site, the end result of material-formal is nothing more than the triumph of Antichrist’s system.
For by appealing to Paul 6’s Lumen Gentium (before he purportedly ‘lost” the papacy), they manage to place the last piece of the puzzle and afford Traditionalists the jurisdiction they lack. This neat package is no more than the same type of sellout offered SSPX members recently to lead all back into the apostate N.O. to live happily ever after. The concerted effort to dissolve and redirect sedevacantists into the St. Pius X Society and CMRI as well as other sects is only an attempt to make it appear that no one is imputing heresy to the material occupant of the See, so he cannot be formally declared a heretic. But their efforts to use Can. 2197 and 2198 to this effect come too little, too late. When Montini officially introduced the “new mass” in 1969 — beginning even prior to that, following the completion of Vatican 2 in 1965 — the Church lost half her membership, including priests and nuns. Those remaining part of the V2 sect were not Catholics at all, having accepted an entirely new religion. Those departing sought out non-Catholic sects (including all shades of Traditionalism) so they were no longer Catholic either. And the rest, for various reasons, refused to attend anything in way of church services. So good luck to them in rounding up anyone now who even remotely qualifies as “Catholic” to comprise the majority needed to satisfy the criteria listed in Can. 2196 and 2197. Those believing Francis to be a “non-imputable” material “pope,” should he “convert” would only bring about the re-installation of an antipope.
In the opening of his thesis, Lucien states: “It is important to realize that a ‘thesis’ is not a dogma. It represents a theological opinion which attempts to explain the facts, and as such is not binding on the Catholic conscience. The thesis that the pope is only materially pope, but not formally pope is but one way of explaining the situation. The magisterium of the Church, when it is once again established, will decide whether this is the correct explanation or not.” This is outrageously disingenuous, for what theses like Lucien’s and others are composing is encouraging readers to trust the opinions of men and ignore Canon Law and other papal teachings binding on their collective conscience. The faithful are not allowed to consider “theses” advanced by those not approved by the Church, especially those whose ordinations and consecrations are irregular.
This irregularity, unfortunately, applies to all Traditionalists presenting as clerics; they are not permitted to preach or teach in the Church; they are not lawful pastors. The faithful are allowed to defend their faith and instruct others in the truths of faith only if they are careful to follow the rules of ecclesiastical discipline and rely primarily on the teachings of the popes, Councils, Canon Law and approved theologians. While it is true that this author claims these men are not clerics — and this is solidly based on Church law and papal teaching, presented in the articles written on these topics — they have presented themselves as clerics. Yet according to the very laws for which Cum ex… serves as the old law, until their status can be finally determined by a true pontiff, they must be treated as hirelings and avoided.
by T. Stanfill Benns | Aug 5, 2015 | Uncategorized
Aug. 5, 2015
+ St. Dominic +
Dear Readers,
Here we wish to correct an error recently discovered in our works. For some time now we have stated that Pope Paul IV’s Cum ex Apostolatus Officio is the “old law” given as footnote for Canon 2200. This was a misreading that can explained by the way the footnotes are listed in the Latin version of the Code, but still this is not offered as an excuse.
While Can. 2200 is not directly supported in the canonical footnotes by Cum ex…, as previously stated, it is closely related to Canons 2197-2199. It is Can. 2198 to which Cum ex… is the footnote, and while it is necessary to consider it in context with the other canons, it is different in content. Canon 2198 states: “In order for a crime to be called public, it is necessary that the fact be publicly known as a criminal or morally imputable act — in other words, that the act is known as a crime. Thus if a person has been dangerously wounded or killed, it is not enough that the fact is known, but it must also be known the act was a criminal one, [not self defense or an accident]. …The offender must be known to the public to make the act a public crime, (Can. 2197 §4). If the offender does not stand identified before the public as the perpetrator of the criminal act, his offense is occult, called formaliter occult in the Code.” (Canon 2197 §4 says an offense is materialiter occult if the offense itself is not publicly known. Under this canon it is noted that “The Code calls an offense public when knowledge of it has been spread among the people [as few as six in a small community] or when it was committed under circumstances which make it practically impossible to keep the offense secret, (Can 2197 no. 3.”)
“An offense which violates solely the law of the Church, is by its very nature subject to punishment by the ecclesiastical authority only, although this authority may at times ask the assistance of the civil power, when it judges such help necessary or opportune. The civil authority according to its own law punishes an offense which violates solely a law of the civil society, except that, in accordance with Can. 120, clerics are to be tried in ecclesiastical courts only and the Church also is competent to judge it by reason of sin committed. An offense which violates the law of both Church and State may be punished by both,” (end of Can. 2198).
Can. 2197 relates to the material/formal argument today, as can be seen by the wording. This will be examined in a separate article, posted under the Most Recent Articles heading on the Free Content site. What Can. 2198 is concerned with is paragraph seven of Cum ex… stating that if the man deposed by heresy committed publicly, as the canon defines, will not give up his claim to the see, the civil authorities may step in. Heresy is public when: 1) the identity of the perpetrator is known to the public; 2) when the knowledge of the act has spread among a large number of people, or is such that it can’t be concealed and 3) the act itself is known to be a criminal act. Once it is determined that heresy is public, then it can be dealt with in the public forum. Material or occult formal heresy is if its nature non-public, because it does not satisfy the criteria.
Can. 2200 considers only those things in the external forum, committed according to the guidelines set down in Can. 2198. In other words, if we say that some of those who are included under Can. 2200 are material heretics (i. e., guilty of the external act but not necessarily the sin of heresy itself), we are not saying it is not publicly known. We are saying that it is an external act that may not be “morally imputable,” (Can. 2196). Only the Church can determine what is morally imputable or not because this is a matter concerning the internal forum, (confession). The rest of us have to stop at the part about external acts until the Church can decide, and according to Can. 2200 § 2, if the criteria for an external act is met then Canon 2200 presumes imputability when there is an external violation of the law; neither imputability or pertinacity determine the presumption of heresy, only the external act itself, proved contrary to faith or morals. Those who have been warned and do not heed the warning, even if it comes from a well-informed layperson, are pertinacious heretics — very simple, contrary to what Traditionalists would have us believe. For a complete picture of the heresy issue, please read the site articles on the Free Content page.
My apologies to anyone who may be confused by this. However even without Cum ex… as a footnote, Canon 2200 is one of those laws with a presumption on its side. Because Can. 2200 establishes a presumption of law; the burden of proof rests with the accused. As stated in Can. 1827, “He who has a presumption of law in his favor is freed from the burden of proof, which is shifted to his opponent. If the latter cannot prove that the presumption failed in the case, the judge must render sentence in favor of the one on whose side the presumption stands.” And only a lawful superior can make such a determination; how to assess this burden of proof rests with them. St. Alphonsus Liguori teaches concerning the presumption of law: “In doubt, decide for that which has the presumption.” But I suppose St. Alphonsus’ advice is not good enough for Traditional “priests” pretending to teach as theologians.
It really all comes down to the fact that both Nicholas I in DZ 326 and Pope Pius IX in both Quartus Supra and Quae in Patriarchatu; also Etsi Multa, call Catholics who do not accept disciplinary decrees heretics and schismatics. Pope Pius XII also forbids anyone to violate papal law during an interregnum under the penalty of a null and void act. Infallible or not, we must obey Cum ex…or lose our membership in the Church. We are still obliged to obey the canons regardless of the old laws that support them. Can. 2198 is important in its own right, since it basically confirms that it is not the cardinals who are to determine how a usurper pope is to be handled; he is to be turned over to the civil authority since he never held the office in the first place; it is a civil matter having to do with public order. The FACT of the heresy of the usurper must be made known, but his sentence as one who never held the papacy, but remained a mere bishop or priest who has never held office to begin with is rendered by the censure ipso facto. The material-formal crowd could find all their answers in the Code, if they would just look. But they can’t afford to go there.
Once again, my apologies. Don’t forget to look for the new article on the material-formal papacy under Most Recent Articles.
Blessings
T. Benns
by T. Stanfill Benns | Jul 5, 2015 | Uncategorized
© Copyright 2015, T. Stanfill Benns (This text may be downloaded or printed out for private reading, but it may not be uploaded to another Internet site or published, electronically or otherwise, without express written permission from the author. All emphasis within quotes is the author’s unless indicated otherwise.)
Recently some have inquired about a supposed “loophole” in Church Law and teaching that allows bishops to consecrate other bishops and ordain priests in “emergency situations” with no need for permission from a canonically elected Roman Pontiff. As explained on this site many times, the Roman Pontiffs themselves have forbidden such exercise of episcopal jurisdiction independent of the Holy See.
The website we were asked to view that puts forth several grievous errors in this regard makes these outlandish statements without providing any proof whatsoever for their reliability and verification. Many Traditionalists, however, support this same teaching without referring to it under this title, including those involved with CMRI, MHFM (Dimond brothers), “independent” operators and others. They attempt to appeal to sacramental theology, trusting that those who read their writings will be unable to puzzle out their disingenuous representations of the truths of faith or properly reconcile what they teach with dogmatic theology and Canon Law. In the article below, five different statements made on this Traditional website and also in other articles will be examined and disproven as totally contradictory to Catholic teaching.
- Myth: Ex opere operato cancels out illicit orders
This unfounded claim holds that Catholic dogma teaches the Sacraments are administered ex opere operato, (grace issuing from the Sacrament itself), because such authority issues from our Lord Jesus Christ directly, not from any man. This statement is true in itself, but is falsely applied by Traditionalist authors. First, the recipient of the Sacrament must be considered. What the Council of Trent teaches is that given the right disposition of the recipient, grace is conveyed directly by Christ from his Sacraments through the minister who acts only as a conduit, (presupposing a validly ordained or consecrated minister). “If anyone says that the sacraments of the New Law…do not confer grace itself on those who do not place an obstacle thereunto…let him be anathema,” (DZ 849). Rev. Joseph Pohle defines this obstacle, in his works on the Sacraments (edited by Arthur Pruess), as “proper disposition and the removal of obstacles, i.e., due preparations on the part of the recipient…On this point the teaching of [Trent] applies full force. It is as necessary to prepare for the worthy reception of the Sacrament as it is to prepare for justification,” (Sacraments an I, pgs. 136-37). And in Pohle’s work, “Grace Actual and Habitual,” he notes, “The dogmatic teaching of the Catholic Church on justification is formally defined by the Tridentine Council… ‘Faith,’ it says ‘is the beginning of human salvation, the foundation and the root of all justification.’” Faith alone, without the reception of the Sacraments or at least the desire for them, does not justify man, (DZ 847; also 849).
The Protestants teach, Pohle says, “that the Church requires neither faith nor a good impulse of the heart for their [the Sacaments’] worthy reception, even in the case of lay adults,” (Sacraments I, pg. 136). Pohle also reminds readers, “It is not the private opinions of theologians but the official decisions of the Church by which we must be guided,” (The Sacraments, Vol. IV). Traditionalists believe they have faith, but do they? Doesn’t faith require us to obey the Roman Pontiffs and the teachings of the ecumenical councils, in all things regarding faith and morals on which the Church has pronounced, in order to be saved? Are Traditionalists doing this? Because it appears that if they were indeed following the teachings of the popes faithfully, they would know that the Church must be one body under one head on earth, and that without the pope, the juridical Church cannot even exist. The mark of apostolicity includes in its scope the head bishop of Rome (the Pope), and one broken link in the chain is enough to make it appear that this continuous succession has been interrupted, at least temporarily. Laws were specifically laid down concerning how the Church was to function during an interregnum, both in Pope St. Pius X’s Vacante Sede Apostolica and later Pope Pius XII’s Vacante Apostolica Sedis. Both Popes teach that even the cardinals, the highest functionaries in the Church, are forbidden to exempt themselves from any of the laws regarding the exercise of ecclesiastical jurisdiction, since all these acts in this regard are rendered null and void by these election laws.
As mentioned in the blog post previewing this article, (7-5-2015), these teachings by the popes on interregnums are nothing new. Professor and historian Walter Ullmann, in his “The Origins of the Great Schism,” relates what later became law under these two future popes. Speaking of the 14th century lay canonists Baldus de Ubaldis and Joannes de Lignano, Ullmann, calls Ubaldis one of the two “greatest jurists” of his time. Lignano he styles as enjoying respect and “authority in ecclesiastical circles…His reputation was great…Both jurists deal at length with the authority of the cardinals over the pope and both reach the conclusion that cardinals have no jurisdictional powers over the pope; they cannot be accusers, witnesses, and judges [all] in one…all disputes concerning intentions, motives and will must be decided by a judge, but who should be the judge in this case? Certainly nobody else but a general council… [which could only be] lawfully summoned by…Urban VI,” (or any currently reigning pope. Canons 222 and 229 forbid the calling or the conducting of an ecumenical council during an interregnum, meaning that even the entire body of bishops have no power to change Church law or teaching, either). “Baldus refers to a commentary of Clem. I.iii.2, which passage expressly lays down that during a vacancy the Sacred College cannot exercise papal jurisdiction nor can the cardinals change the constitution of the Church,” and here Ullmann notes this is found in Pope Pius X’s Vacante Sedis Apostolica, (reiterated by Pius XII in his 1945 constitution that abrogate Pope St. Pius X’s law). Baldus further taught that the cardinals also can clear the pope elected of all irregularities “except one, and that is persistent heresy.”
So Catholics first must have faith, and accept all papal teaching binding on them for belief to be saved. They must certainly be members of the Church in order to participate in the Sacraments and receive the graces therefrom. Many Traditionalists at one time attended the Novus Ordo. Others attended SSPX or belonged to other sects which recognize the antipopes following Pope Pius XII as validly elected, but flawed. These individuals can be classified as schismatics. And all Traditionalists, whether they believe the last six men ruling from Rome are antipopes or not, are members of sects operating without jurisdiction and unlawfully outside the laws of the Church. Those claiming emergency apostolic mandate do so from the standpoint of validity of orders and the other sacraments only, but this is not in accord with the Church’s teaching on jurisdiction. A simple look at the article on apostolicity and apostolic succession from the 1911 Catholic Encyclopedia will prove that orders is not enough, even in an “emergency”; true successors of the apostles must also possess jurisdiction or they are not legitimate (lawful) pastors. This lawfulness is not just administrative, as Traditionalists have insisted all these years, but Dogmatic, as proven below.
- Myth: Lawful refers to administrative matters, not validity
The key to the “illicit but valid” argument is found in DZ 967, from the Council of Trent: “If anyone says that … those who have neither been rightly ordained nor sent by ecclesiastical authority, but come from a different source, are the lawful ministers of the Word and of the Sacraments, let him be anathema.” (Sess. 23, July 15, 1563; DZ 967, 424). Any anathema is an infallible teaching of an ecumenical council, approved by the then-reigning pope. Notice that the one anathematized incurs it for saying that priests and bishops need not be both rightly ordained/consecrated AND sent; also for holding that despite lacking right ordination and/or “sending” (jurisdiction), they may preach and administer the Sacraments. If we go to the “placing of an obstacle” teaching in Trent’s earlier session on the Sacraments, (DZ 847 and 849, explained above), and understand it as proper preparation for the reception of such Sacraments, how can we ever be certain that such men as came from illicit Traditional seminaries, taught by men who, for the most part, were never trained in a real seminary themselves, were ever “rightly ordained”? We believe the above Tridentine definition ON FAITH; it is an infallible teaching. We do not believe those who teach that the Divine requirement for such lawfulness is only “an administrative matter”; that is heresy.
Faith must precede the reception of the Sacraments, except in infant Baptism. Traditionalists who have accepted those ordained by heretics and schismatics lacking jurisdiction, who are not lawful pastors because they receive no office or the jurisdiction necessary to function in one, are accepting them as lawful and denying a truth of faith, (see /articles/a-catholics-course-of-study/traditionalist-heresies-and-errors/refuting-the-dimonds-2009-no-jurisdiction-position-tapes/cekadas-false-justification-for-acting-without-papal-mandate/ for an explanation of how bestowal of an office is necessary to assume the episcopacy, per the rite of consecration itself). Those who have participated in the NO or Traditionalist services, then, become heretics and also incur infamy of law for committing communicatio in sacris (Canons 2314, 1258). This is true even of those who are in good faith and commit only material heresy, (although there seems to be some question of whether all material heretics are considered legally infamous). Legitimate pastors are obligated to administer sacraments only to those faithful who legitimately request them, (Can. 467). The laity has the right to receive the Sacraments from legitimate pastors but only “according to the rules of ecclesiastical discipline,” (Can. 682). “It is forbidden to administer the Sacraments to heretics or schismatics, even though they err in good faith, unless they have first renounced their errors and been reconciled with the Church,” (Can. 731). So how can those receiving Traditional “sacraments” receive grace from them if they are forbidden to receive them? What use are they if they are valid but fruitless?
- Myth: “Bishops” so–called need no permission from anyone to ordain
Revs. Woywod-Smith, in their “A Practical Commentary on Canon Law,” (Can. 804) note: “The Council of Chalcedon (451) ruled that no strange cleric or lector should be permitted to minister outside his own town without letters of recommendation from his own bishop. Pope Innocent III issued the same prohibition, but said that the priest who did not have his letters of recommendation might be admitted to say Mass if he desired to do so out of devotion: he might not, however, say Mass before the people, but privately. The Council of Trent again made the rule absolute—as the Council of Chalcedon had it—that no priest should be permitted to celebrate Mass and administer the Sacraments without letters of recommendation from his own bishop.”
The following papal decrees are proof that bishops who are not in receipt of the papal mandate upon consecration and resort to schismatics for ordination are not considered true bishops and may not exercise their orders, on pain of nullity.
Pope Pius VI, Charitas:
- “We therefore severely forbid the said Expilly and the other wickedly elected and illicitly consecrated men, under this punishment of suspension, to assume episcopal jurisdiction or any other authority for the guidance of souls since they have never received it. They must not grant dimissorial letters for ordinations. Nor must they appoint, depute, or confirm pastors, vicars, missionaries, helpers, functionaries, ministers, or others, whatever their title, for the care of souls and the administration of the Sacraments UNDER ANY PRETEXT OF NECESSITY WHATSOEVER. Nor may they otherwise act, decree, or decide, whether separately or united as a council, on matters which relate to ecclesiastical jurisdiction. For We declare and proclaim publicly that all their dimissorial letters and deputations or confirmations, past and future, as well as all their rash proceedings and their consequences, are utterly void and without force.
- “We also command and prohibit under the same punishment of suspension both the men consecrated and their consecrators from illicitly conferring the sacrament of confirmation or of orders, or exercising in any way the episcopal office from which they have been suspended. Consequently anyone ordained by them should realize that he is suspended and will be guilty of irregularity if he exercises the orders he has received.”
Pope Pius IX, 1873 Encyclical Etsi Multa:
Addressing the illegitimate “election” as bishop of a “certain notorious apostate” priest by schismatics, Pope Pius IX wrote:
“24. But these men having progressed more boldly in the ways of wickedness and destruction, as happens to heretical sects from God’s just judgment, have wished to create a hierarchy also for themselves…They have chosen and set up a pseudo-bishop, a certain notorious apostate from the Catholic faith, Joseph Humbert Reinkens. So that nothing be lacking in their impudence, for his consecration they have had refuge to those very Jansenists of Utrecht, whom they themselves, before they separated from the Church, considered as heretics and schismatics, as do all other Catholics. However, this Joseph Humbert dares to say that he is a bishop, and, what passes belief, he is recognized and named in an explicit decree by the most serene Emperor of Germany and is proposed to all his subjects as a lawful bishop. But as even the rudiments of Catholic faith declare, no one can be considered a bishop who is not linked in communion of faith and love with Peter, upon whom is built the Church of Christ…
Therefore following the custom and example of Our Predecessors and of holy legislation, by the power granted to Us from heaven, We declare the election of the said Joseph Humbert Reinkens, performed against the sanctions of the holy canons to be illicit, null, and void. We furthermore declare his consecration sacrilegious. Therefore, by the authority of Almighty God, We excommunicate and hold as anathema Joseph Humbert himself and all those who attempted to choose him, and who aided in his sacrilegious consecration. We additionally excommunicate whoever has adhered to them and belonging to their party has furnished help, favor, aid, or consent. We declare, proclaim, and command that they are separated from the communion of the Church. They are to be considered among those with whom all faithful Christians are forbidden by the Apostle to associate and have social exchange to such an extent that, as he plainly states, they may not even be greeted,” (Etsi Multa, On The Church In Italy, Germany, and Switzerland, Nov. 21, 1873 — all emph. mine; https://www.ewtn.com/library/encyc/p9etsimu.htm). Reinkens publicly denounced the definition of infallibility then attempted election as an Old Catholic “bishop.” If Pope Pius IX considered him a “notorious apostate,” isn’t it likely he would consider Traditionalist “bishops” the same?
Attention is to be paid especially to the following: But as even the rudiments of Catholic faith declare, no one can be considered a bishop who is not linked in communion of faith and love with Peter, upon whom is built the Church of Christ…Therefore following the custom and example of Our Predecessors and of holy legislation, by the power granted to Us from heaven, We declare the election of the said Joseph Humbert Reinkens, performed against the sanctions of the holy canons to be illicit, null, and void. We furthermore declare his consecration sacrilegious.
Why are words in the last two sentences from Pope Pius IX’s Etsi Multa bolded (by this author) and placed in caps? Because it very well proves the point that while Reinkins was validly consecrated, his ELECTION (or in other cases it could be illegal appointment, acceptance or intrusion into office) is nullified, not his ORDERS. He is not, and cannot hold the office of bishop, because he is not in union with the pope and was elected and placed in office by heretics and/or schismatics. (The Utrecht Jansenists were considered valid for a time, although this validity later was questioned by some theologians in the 20th century.) Even though validly consecrated, Reinkins is not considered a bishop because he never received the office and accompanying jurisdiction from Rome. The Holy See never approved his consecration and so he remained an apostate Old Catholic priest. Canon Law dictates: “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,” (Can. 147). In the case of a bishop, the one conferring the office is the pope; the sacred canons require a papal mandate, (Can. 953). It is from this canon and Pope Pius IX’s constitution above that the faithful can conclude that without a true pope there can be no valid appointment to office. And only a bishop validly occupying an office can grant dimissorial letters for ordination. Both orders AND jurisdiction must exist in men validly ordained and consecrated in order for there to be the continuation of true apostolic succession. For only a true successor of the Apostles can validly and licitly administer the Sacraments.
The Catholic Encyclopedia teaches: “Apostolicity of mission consists in the power of holy orders and the power of jurisdiction derived by legitimate transmission from the Apostles. It is apostolicity of mission which is recognized as a note of the Church.” Here again, we are dealing with legitimacy only, not validity. Traditionalists are trying to pretend that you can have the carriage without the horse and still travel down the road; or operate the car without having the keys. You can make a cake, but it is inedible without an oven to bake it. For “How can they go, unless they be sent?” We would do well to remember that in Mystici Corporis, Pope Pius XII defined that: “Each [bishop], as a true Shepherd, feeds the flock entrusted to him and rules it in the name of Christ. Yet in exercising this office they are not altogether independent, but are subordinate to the lawful authority of the Roman Pontiff, although enjoying the ordinary power of jurisdiction which they receive directly from the same Supreme Pontiff.” And more clearly to the Chinese, in Ad Sinarum Gentem: “But the power of jurisdiction, which is conferred upon the Supreme Pontiff directly by divine right, flows to the Bishops by the same right, but only through the Successor of St. Peter, to whom not only the simple faithful, but even all the Bishops must be constantly subject, and to whom they must be bound by obedience and with the bond of unity.”
- Myth: Those consecrating without papal mandate are not excommunicated
Contrary to what the emergency mandate bunch claims, Pope Pius XII further solidified Church teaching on this topic by declaring those who dare violate Can. 147 excommunicated specialissimi modo, (in a special manner; absolution from the censure able to be removed only by the pope). In pronouncing this excommunication on behalf of the pope, the Sacred Congregation quotes DZ 967, to the effect that if anyone, including those who “assume office on their own authority, are all to be regarded not as ministers of Christ, but as thieves and robbers who have entered not by the door.” Traditionalists say they do not claim to occupy any offices, but this will not save them. For the actual anathema states only that these men “come from a different source;” as Trent explains, “by their own temerity [they] take these offices upon themselves.” In other words, they do not have to say, “I serve as a pastor of the diocese of Milwaukee, St. Agnes parish; or I am the bishop of Wichita, Kansas. They can simply present as “missionary” priests, but even then they must prove they possess jurisdiction, (Can. 200) and were “rightly ordained” (or consecrated). Given the Council of Trent, Charitas and Etsi Multa, how could any rational Catholic believe such nonsense and at the same time still unequivocally accept these infallible decisions of the Roman Pontiffs?
This excommunication is found mentioned in Revs. Woywod-Smith’s commentary under Canon 2394. In the Canon Law Digest, Vol. 3, we find the following comment: “Excommunication as vitandus is inflicted for accepting office from lay authority,” (pg. 71). As seen above, this is exactly the penalty prescribed by Pope Pius IX in Etsi Multa. Are all laity following or aiding Traditionalists priests and bishops with donations and other assistance considered vitandus? Because they have been the victims of fraud, disinformation and in certain cases fear, they are no doubt laboring under censure but most likely not as vitandus. Those who presume to present and act as clerics, however, are certainly candidates for this title. Canon 2218 excuses (especially lay) offenders in certain cases where the person has tried to repent and repair the damage or was caught in circumstances beyond his/her control and understanding. This may well be true given what we have experienced today.
- Myth: Orders received by Traditional bishops and priests are valid
All of the above is based on the premise that we can operate without a pope just as we did when we had one. But this is not the case. If Pope Pius VI and Pope Pius IX as well as other popes handed down such stiff penalties for those administering and receiving Sacraments illicitly when the Roman Pontiff was there to condemn the perpetrators and warn the faithful, how many more precautions need to be taken in these times when there is no one to appeal to, no one to warn or protect the faithful, no one to supervise the bishops and priests, no one to enforce discipline, etc. Bishops were never free to operate independently as Traditionalists pretend. They were monitored by the Sacred Congregations in Rome, namely the Congregation of the Propagation of the Faith (in charge of seminaries and societies responsible for training missionaries, and all matters concerning them collectively or individually involving faith, the liturgy and other matters, Can. 252); the Congregation of Seminaries and Universities, (overseeing government, discipline, temporal administration and studies, Can. 256) and the Consistorial Congregation (Can. 248), with the pope as prefect, that proposes bishops, administrators, Apostolic co-adjutors and auxiliary bishops; gives orders for the canonical investigations or process concerning the men who are to be promoted to the aforesaid positions, carefully examines the acts of the process and conducts the examinations of these men in regard to their knowledge. This congregation sees to the oversight of dioceses, assuring that Ordinaries fulfill their duties and orders Apostolic visitations, (when the bishops report on their diocese to the Holy Father).
Are people today really gullible enough to believe that without this oversight and careful precautions taken to assure the good conduct of bishops there are not rampant abuses and pervading corruption? The canons and rules set up by these congregations concerning the investigation of priestly candidates alone, to ensure their fitness for ordination, is staggering. The studies they are required to make in the seminary would make the preparation required for neurosurgeons and nuclear scientists pale in comparison. The shabby “education” they receive in “Traditional seminaries” is certainly not sufficient to assure that they possess the disposition or preparation necessary to fit them for the Sacrament of Orders. So much for ex opere operato! For without this intensive preparation there are grave doubts they ever receive the Sacrament validly. During an interregnum, when the Church is at its most vulnerable point as proven countless times in history, then must the precautions in place become all the more stringent. And this is precisely what we find in the papal election constitution laid down by Popes St. Pius X and Pius XII.
Pope Pius XII’s Vacantis Apostolica Sedis:
- “During the vacancy of the Apostolic See, regarding those things that pertained to the Sovereign Roman Pontiff while he lived, the Sacred College of Cardinals shall have absolutely no power or jurisdiction of rendering neither a favor nor justice or of carrying out a favor or justice rendered by the deceased Pontiff; rather, let the College be obliged to reserve all these things to the future Pontiff.Therefore, We declare invalid and void any power or jurisdiction pertaining to the Roman Pontiff in his lifetime, which the assembly of Cardinals might decide to exercise (while the Church is without a Pope), except to the extent to which it be expressly permitted in this Our Constitution…
- The laws issued by Roman Pontiffs in no way can be corrected or changed by the assembly of Cardinals of the Roman Church while it is without a Pope, nor can anything be subtracted from them or added or dispensed in any way whatsoever with respect to said laws or any part of them. This prohibition is especially applicable in the case of Pontifical Constitutions issued to regulate the business of the election of the Roman Pontiff.In truth, if anything adverse to this command should by chance happen to come about or be attempted, We declare it, by Our Supreme Authority, to be null and void.”
For relying on the ministrations of schismatic bishops such as Lefebvre and Thuc, members of the Novus Ordo church, for consecration and ordination; for consecrating bishops without a papal mandate and priests without dimissorial letters contrary to papal law; for priests falsely claiming supplied jurisdiction under Can. 2261§2 when such jurisdiction can be supplied only by the pope; for presuming to function despite incurring excommunication as a vitandus, when no pope exists to lift it; for presuming to function while under a vindicative penalty for infamy of law, when only a pope can dispense from it — all these acts are included either in the usurpation of papal prerogatives in paragraph one above or the correction of or dispensation from papal laws in paragraph three. If even the cardinals could not undertake such things, — when they are only bishops and priests granted an additional title — then the bishops as a body could not hope to accomplish this either. That would be the work of an ecumenical council and only the [pope can convene such a council. Even if acts of usurping papal jurisdiction or tampering with papal laws are attempted, such acts are null and void, per infallible decree. No bishops can be created during an interregnum; no dimissorial letters can be granted, so no priests can be ordained, and no jurisdiction or extraordinary powers can be supplied or extended. This is true because the Church exists in a state of suspended animation only and cannot function without her head, except to provide a new pope.
- St. Thomas Aquinas writes: “In order that the Church exist, there must be one person at the head of the whole Christian people,” (Summa Contra Gentilis, Vol. IV, 76).
- The Catechism of the Council of Trent teaches: “It is the unanimous teaching of the Fathers that this visible head is necessary to establish and preserve unity in the Church,” and this from Christ’s guarantees to St. Peter found in Holy Scripture, (Revs. McHugh and Callan edition, p. 104.). So if unity is lacking, the four marks cannot all exist.
- Revs. Devivier and Sasia, whose work was personally endorsed by Pope St. Pius X, wrote: “As it is to the character of the foundation that a building owes its solidarity, the close union of its parts, and even its very existence, it is likewise from the authority of Peter that the Church derives Her unity, her stability, AND EVEN HER EXISTENCE HERSELF. THE CHURCH, THEREFORE, CANNOT EXIST WITHOUT PETER,” (Christian Apologetics, Vol. II).
- Pope Pius IX teaches this fact from his own mouth: “May God give you the grace necessary to defend the rights of the Sovereign Pontiff and the Holy See; for without the Pope there is no Church, and there is no Catholic Society without the Holy See,” (Allocution to religious superiors, June 24, 1872). Who rose to defend the Holy See and the rights of the Church in 1958? NO ONE! The shepherd was struck and the flock dispersed. We are left to follow the advice, again of Pope Pius IX, if we wish to preserve our faith until God sees fit to restore his Church:
“We think it is Our duty to repeat this public declaration now and to request you to preserve the unity of faith among your faithful by every possible means…You should remind them to beware of these treacherous enemies of the flock of Christ and their poisoned foods. They should TOTALLY SHUN their religious celebrations, their buildings, and their chairs of pestilence, which they have with impunity established to transmit the sacred teachings. THEY SHOULD SHUN THEIR WRITINGS AND ALL CONTACT WITH THEM. THEY SHOULD NOT HAVE DEALINGS OR MEETINGS WITH USURPING PRIESTS AND APOSTATES FROM THE FAITH WHO DARE TO EXERCISE THE DUTIES OF AN ECCLESIASTICAL MINISTER WITHOUT POSSESSING A LEGITIMATE MISSION OR ANY JURISDICTION. THEY SHOULD AVOID THEM AS STRANGERS AND THIEVES WHO COME ONLY TO STEAL, SLAY AND DESTROY…For the Church’s children should consider the proper action to preserve the most precious treasure of FAITH…without which it is IMPOSSIBLE to please God, as well as action calculated to achieve the goal of faith, that is the salvation of their souls, by FOLLOWING THE STRAIGHT ROAD OF JUSTICE,” (Pope Pius IX, Encyclical, Graves Ac Diuturnae, March 23, 1875, no. 4; see https://www.apostlesoftheendtimes.com/#!unauthorized-shepherds/c1lle for additional papal quotes and information).
by T. Stanfill Benns | Jul 5, 2015 | Uncategorized
© Copyright 2015, T. Stanfill Benns (This text may be downloaded or printed out for private reading, but it may not be uploaded to another Internet site or published, electronically or otherwise, without express written permission from the author. All emphasis within quotes is the author’s unless indicated otherwise.)
Introduction
In an article written not long ago about what should really prevent true Catholics from seeking out Traditionalist “clergy,” it was pointed out that while for decades the fact that these clerics lacked jurisdiction had been the presumed and contended reason, this was not actually the case. The fact has become clear in the past several years that these clerics first must prove they are actually validly ordained and consecrated, when this is something they cannot prove. And any doubt concerning validity OR liciety automatically rules them out as anyone a true and faithful Catholic could approach for Mass and Sacraments. The answer to the puzzle was discovered in recently published encyclicals from Pope Pius IX on the Old Catholics. In these encyclicals, also in Pope Pius VI’s Charitas and in Pope Pius XII’s Vacantis Apostolica Sedis (VAS), it is clear that anyone made a bishop by a schismatic or heretic acting without permission from the Holy See (especially during an interregnum) is considered to have never received the episcopacy. Some will say, ‘But what about Thuc and Lefebvre?’
By adhering to a schismatic sect (Can. 2314 no. 3) and violating Pope Pius XII’s infallible papal election constitution VAS, governing interregnums, they lost their jurisdiction, became infamous, were forbidden to perform any ecclesiastical functions and the functions they attempted to perform were null and void. Canon 2294 §1 reads: “A person who has incurred infamy of law is not only irregular, as declared by Can. 984, n. 5, but in addition he is incapacitated…and must be restrained from the exercise of sacred functions.” In their canon law commentary, Revs. Woywod-Smith comment under the heading of “Of Common Vindicative Penalties,” (Can. 2294 §1 and §2): “The person who incurred infamy of law cannot validly obtain ecclesiastical benefices, pensions, offices and dignities, nor can he validly exercise his rights connected with the same, nor perform a valid, legal ecclesiastical act.” Commenting on Can. 2396, these same authors write concerning infamy of law: “The exercise of acquired rights may be rendered invalid…by incurring a disqualification, but the right itself is not taken away unless the law or sentence explicitly states the additional penalty of deprivation of office.” In this case the law does, for those who incur the penalties of Can. 2314 n. 1-3 also automatically incur those of Can. 188 n. 4.
Those attending Traditional or Uniate/Eastern rite services today need to consider the following: the entire state of affairs in the Church since the death of Pope Pius XII has left many in doubt about numerous Church laws and teachings. Without a true pope there is no possible way to determine the answers to many things; we remain in doubt, although generally we can arrive at the certitude sufficient to reason out our faith and function in our daily lives. So what is the rule about doubt taught in moral theology? One cannot act when in a state of doubt until the doubt is resolved. The notion that one may ignore such doubts before proceeding to act was condemned by Pope Innocent XI as heretical, (DZ 1231). While certitude can be arrived at in some cases, this is not true concerning the Sacraments. Theologians unanimously teach concerning doubt in regards to the Sacraments that no one can receive or administer the Sacraments if there is serious reason to doubt the validity of the one administering them, or the worthiness of the one receiving them. All approved moral theologians teach this in accordance with the condemnation of Molinos’ errors by Innocent XI as heretical, (DZ 1151). And as we will see, Catholics practiced observing the binding nature of such doubts long before the Church fell into the disarray we behold today. (“In the seminary, we were taught, ‘Where there is doubt; Get Out!,’” one former seminarian who attended in the late 1950s, early 1960s relates. “There was no question about it.”)
Traditionalists will claim that they fit none of the criteria for heretics or schismatics which apply to these groups, and yet Pope Pius VI and Pope Pius IX clearly condemned those who dared to consecrate bishops without papal permission and subsequently ordain priests. Over 200 years ago in Charitas. Pius VI wrote: “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 schismatic both those who ordain and those who are ordained, thus invalidating their future actions.” Lefebvre in 1988 (four consecrations performed with Castro de Mayer) and Thuc in 1976 (in Palmar; consecration of Clemente Dominguez Gomez and friends), automatically lost the ability to perform valid future acts the FIRST time they attempted to ordain a bishop, (although their individual ipso facto excommunications for signing heretical Vatican 2 documents made it impossible for them to perform valid acts long before this, (see Can. 2314 no. 3, 1917 Code of Canon Law).
Canons 80 and 83 teach that no one but the Roman Pontiff can dispense from the general laws of the Church unless such power has been conceded to them explicitly and it implies that even then the pope must be able to be reached eventually in order to resolve the matter. And Pope Pius XII forever enshrined the teachings of Trent and Pope Pius VI in his infallible papal election constitution Vacantis Apostolica Sedis, by invalidating any usurpation of papal privileges whatsoever during an interregnum. This would apply not only to bishops wrongly presuming the power to consecrate bishops outside the law, but also priests falsely (for other reasons) claiming that jurisdiction is supplied to them for their acts. For as has been repeated here many times, when Can. 209 states that the Church supplies such jurisdiction, the pope is understood as the Church. Are the faithful of the Latin Rite who attend Uniate services, thus changing rites, guilty also of presuming papal dispensation? They are, according to Can. 98 §3: “Nobody is allowed without permission of the Apostolic See to go over to another Rite…” So has Francis permitted Traditionalists who are now Uniates to change rites?
Even aside from the above, there are serious and well-founded doubts about the validity of Lefebvre’s own ordination and consecration, despite the diatribes of the St. Pius X and St. Pius V Societies against Hugo Maria Kellner and any who dare raise this issue. So no certitude can be obtained in these matters, when this is necessary to receive the Sacraments. In the case of Lefebvre as well as Thuc, we also must call into question their intentions, (whether they intended to create men as priests for the true Catholic Church or the Novus Ordo). In the case of Thuc we must also question his sanity (given the men he ordained and consecrated), owing to old age and severe diabetes. Both Lefebvre and Thuc celebrated the Novus Ordo and signed Vatican 2 documents. Lefebvre never pretended to hold the V2 popes as antipopes, and there are many who claim he was sent in by the Novus Ordo to accomplish an end-run by gathering dissenters at the time and leading them back in to the Novus Ordo through the back door. After all, this is exactly what has happened recently with the larger portion of the St. Pius X Society’s members, (SSPX).
Both these men claimed to be true bishops, ever so solicitous for tradition. Therefore it must be asked why, after both had ceased and desisted (or so they claimed) from participating in Novus Ordo services, they never acknowledged their ipso facto excommunication and infamy of law for communicatio in sacris, or the need to be dispensed by a canonically elected pope before continuing to function. That they did not do so demonstrates their ignorance of the faith, their disdain for Canon Law and their contempt of the papacy. As bishops, were they exempted from these censures by Canon Law, as some have maintained? No, because ALL are subject to the Code without exception. Today there is a doubt about whether the law applies to them during an extended interregnum and in doubt we return to the old law (Can. 6 no. 4), which is Pope Paul IV’s Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, the source of nearly all the canons regarding heresy. Clearly this law not only holds them as no longer members of the Catholic Church, but moreover states they cannot be returned to their former positions as bishops.
But there is a clever get-around being run on Cum ex…, one that might make some sense if it could be held that the Mystical Body is not one and undivided, or that somehow not ALL Catholics are bound by (Canon Law and) infallible teaching. Some errant Traditionalists, among them former stay-at-home Catholics, believe that the 1917 Code for Latin Rite Catholics cannot declare excommunications for those of the Eastern rites, for they are governed by their own code. They use this to justify their attendance at Eastern rite churches in communion with Bergoglio, who they say is not accepted by most Eastern rite “Catholics” as a true pope. Or at any rate one is not required to obey him, which is exactly the position held by the SSPX. These desperate people really think the Uniates are under the governance of their (underground, some say) bishops and only “go along” with Rome to keep their churches. Governed by the Latin Rite code themselves, these straying Catholics cannot escape its judgments or pretend that the Oriental Church can operate outside the confines of faith and morals. The Sacred Congregation of the Propaganda decided in 1907 that the Orientals, while not bound by Canon Law per se, are bound by ”laws emanating from the Holy See if: a) they concern matters of faith or morals; b) If they contain matters connected with the divine or natural law…; c) if the laws themselves expressly state that they are meant to bind the Oriental Church,” Rev. Charles Augustine, “A Commentary on Canon Law,” 1931).
Under Can. 1 in the 1917 Code we read that the Code’s laws: “are obligatory for the Church of the Latin Rite exclusively, except in matters which, of their very nature, affect also the Oriental Church.” Revs. Woywod-Smith comment: “It is evident that in matters of faith and morals, all Catholics, without distinction of race, nationality or rite, are bound by the authoritative pronouncements of the Holy See. There can be but one rule in these matters for all who belong to the Catholic Church.” Cicognani says the same, adding the following: “All Catholics are subject to the dogmatic canons of Ecumenical Councils and pronouncements of the Holy See. The decrees of the Roman Pontiffs condemning propositions contra fidem et mores, the various instructions of the Holy Office, the Sacred Congregation of the Propaganda, the Congregation for the Oriental Church, and of the Sacred Penitentiary, the prohibition of books and theories…The Congregation for the Oriental Church declared that the decrees mentioned above affect the faithful of every rite, and all are bound in the same way, since these decrees are more than disciplinary in character and refer directly to matters of doctrine. The Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office,” (1885), when asked about the Constitution Apostolica Sedis of Pope Pius IX replied), “They are subject to censures inflicted by the Apostolic See in matters of dogma …”
Cicognani continues: “The Code binds the Oriental Church in the following cases: (a) if there be a question of the divine law, natural or positive; (b) If there be question of faith and Catholic doctrine, for there is no exception of place or persons in matters of dogma and doctrine. Consequently all Catholics are subject to the dogmatic canons of Ecumenical Councils and pronouncements of the Holy See. The decisions of the Roman Pontiff condemning propositions contra fidem et mores, the various instructions of the Holy Office, the Sacred Congregation of Propaganda, the Congregation for the Oriental Church and the Sacred Penitentiary, the prohibition of books and theories opposed to Catholic faith and morals, all pertain to Catholic doctrine.
“All the above pronouncements, although they do not strictly pertain to the divine law, follow, however, as deductions or declarations therefrom, and they concern the doctrine of the Church, and not its discipline properly so-called…So, too, with respect to communicatio in sacris, Can. 731 §2 declares that it is forbidden to administer the Sacraments of the Church to heretics or schismatics, unless they have first renounced their errors and reconciled themselves to the Church…The Orientals [also] are subject to Can. 2335,” (regarding enrollment in the Masonic sect); “…Can. 2314 against apostates, Can. 2317 against persons who obstinately teach, etc. …When the discipline of the Oriental Church was lacking in some particular point, [Canon Law] was practically regarded by the Orientals as their supplementary source of law; and particularly after the Council of Trent they adopted many of its enactments. There is no reason today why they should not consider the Code as an auxiliary font to supply for any deficiencies in their own legislation,” (Canon Law,” 1935).
It also should be noted that the Pope is the Prefect for the Congregation for the Oriental Church under Can. 257. “To this congregation are reserved all affairs of every kind relating to persons, discipline and Rites of the Oriental Churches…This Congregation has all the powers of the other Congregations combined in its jurisdiction over the Oriental Rites, subject however to the jurisdiction of the Holy Office, as stated in Can. 247.” Canon 247 states that the Pope is also the Prefect of the Congregation of the Holy Office, “which guards the doctrine of faith and morals” and judges crimes and criminal cases. So there is no basis whatsoever, given this fact and the above explanations, for believing that either the law itself or Church teaching in any way exempts Orientals from incurring excommunication for crimes against the faith. Not only does the pope oversee the faith and morals for the Orientals then, but as Prefect of The Congregation for the Oriental Church, he also is in charge of discipline.
Canon 1325, which binds these Latin Rite Catholics who have committed communicatio in sacris to join the Uniates, tells them that whenever silence, subterfuge or manner of acting suggests heresy they are to profess their faith. It appears that a certain degree of subterfuge must be involved here or we would see Uniate priests and bishops professing THEIR faith and renouncing their errors. That the orthodoxy of all or nearly all these underground bishops was most likely compromised somewhere along the line is discussed below. And while jurisdiction may indeed be the issue in their case, there is and has always been much more at work here than meets the eye. It has to do with the many machinations of the enemy to reach their goal of the Church’s utter destruction, and to ensnare as many souls as possible in this diabolical process.
Reasons for examining the Uniate situation
Since the Traditionalists first came on the scene, there were those who preferred attending schismatic Uniate or Orthodox services instead, even though they were Latin Rite and Canon Law forbids them to switch rites. Some Traditionalists relied on the Uniate and Orthodox bishops and priests to confirm their children and ordain their priests. One such Uniate bishop who reportedly provided faculties for Traditionalists was Toronto Bishop Isidore Borecky, now deceased, who was a co-consecrator for Exarch Slypyj when he ordained three bishops in Rome without papal mandate in 1977. There is another (archbishop) who also claims descent from Slypyj’s lineage and association with Borecky and the Traditionalists he serviced, but who does not appear on any of the lineage lists for either Slypyj or the priests and bishops he ordained and consecrated. This (archbishop), now seeking supporters, was supposedly a “secret ordination/consecration” that cannot be confirmed and is only one of many such consecrations.
This is precisely the problem with accepting such irregular ordinations and consecrations as valid without bothering to discover whether the Church Herself considers them valid. If one is admitted, it opens the floodgate for all the others and then no one can gainsay any of them. That is why Pope Pius XII taught in Vacantis Apostolica Sedis that during an interregnum, nothing can be done that violates the laws of the Church; all must be left to the future pontiff. It is true that bishops retain their jurisdiction during an interregnum; no one is questioning that once given it exists. But while it may exist, its USE may be temporarily suspended by the one who granted it in the first place, and this is exactly what Pope Pius XII did. When he issued his constitution, it is assumed that he had no reason to believe the interregnum following his death would last any longer than a few weeks, or as long as it would take to elect the next pope. In fact it should have been a very healthy incentive to proceed without delay to accomplish a canonical papal election, but we all know this sadly was not the case.
Perhaps Pius XII had an inkling there could be trouble ahead and this is why he suspended everything until a new election; we will never know, although other things he said and did seem to indicate this. Given what Pope Pius XII taught and the lack of any way to verify these clandestine orders, they fall into the category not necessarily of doubtful validity of orders, but of highly doubtful effect (necessary jurisdiction) when such orders are exercised during an interregnum. Yet as what is presented below demonstrates, there are many other reasons why the extraordinary faculties claimed for these men may no longer be valid. And any doubt whatsoever of the validity of these faculties or the jurisdiction necessary to exercise them would mean the faithful could not seek ministrations from such individuals as priests and bishops.
Origin of the Uniate bishops’ faculties
It is important to first understand what claims, exactly, the Uniate church is making concerning jurisdiction and validity and how those claiming connection to the Uniates are actually related — or not. Among the various articles on the Internet concerning this subject, the most comprehensive article can be found at the following bloodspot: https://annalesecclesiaeucrainae.blogspot.com/2008/04/greek-catholic-bishop-returns-to-lutsk.html If in previous articles on this site it has appeared that this author favors the idea that some of these Eastern bishops could possess these extraordinary faculties, it should also be noted that this was written before what follows here from this article was found and Pope Benedict XV’s reaction to use of these powers was known. It also should be noted that I have said repeatedly, for decades, that if any valid bishops remained following the usurpation of the Holy See, their first obligation would have always been to elect a true pope, not to operate independently without one.
The pertinent part of this article on the Uniates and their faculties begins as follows (all emph. my own): “After the Russian Revolution of 1905, Tsar Nicholas II issued an edict, which temporarily permitted a degree of religious freedom within his domains… Following upon the opportunity presented by the Tsar’s Edict of Religious Tolerance, in 1907, Pope Pius X granted Metropolitan Andrei Sheptytsky secret powers over the entire Eastern-Catholic mission in Russia. These powers included the right to ordain and install bishops, in special circumstances.” According to another blog, Sheptytsky was friends with Pope St. Pius X prior to his election as pope, and the privilege granted to him was given secretly and personally, (https://lookingeast.stblogs.com/files/2012/03/Bp-M-Hrynshyshyn-to-gpl-5-6-2004.jpg). In 1914, prior to his arrest and deportation to Siberia, Sheptytsky invoked his privilege from Pope St. Pius X, naming his collaborator Josyf Botsian as successor to his see and also consecrating Dmytro Yaremko, who only a year later gave his life as a martyr. On his release in 1917, Sheptytsky “immediately” petitioned Pope Benedict XV to confirm Botsian’s nomination, (recognizing this was necessary for jurisdiction), according to the first mentioned blog.
Polish politicians objected to Botisan’s nomination and requested clarification from the Holy See. Papal Secretary of State Cardinal Gasparri investigated the matter and determined that while Botsian’s consecration was valid, he could not exercise any jurisdiction; this on the order of Pope Benedict XV. In the continued discussion of the matter by Church officials, it was acknowledged that in signing the Union of Brest in 1596, the Holy See had already recognized the Ukrainian primate’s right to directly nominate and consecrate his suffragen bishops. Following his release from prison in 1917, Metropolitan Sheptytsky convoked a Synod in Petrograd, created the exarchate for Greek Catholics in Russia, and appointed Leonid Fyodorov first Exarch. Fyodorov was later martyred. These activities were apparently recognized as valid by Pope Pius XII, if not recognized as such before by Popes Benedict XV or Pope Pius XI. But of course by then World War II had begun, and the situation in Russia had deteriorated considerably.
In 1939, Metropolitan Sheptytsky established four Exarchates: Greater Ukraine, Abp. Josyf Slypyj; Bielorusse, Rev. Anton Niemancevych; Volyn and Podlasia, Bp. Nicholas Charnetsky and Russia and Siberia, Rev. Clement Sheptytsky. Pope Pius XII approved all of these appointments, according to a letter written by Exarch Michael Hynschyshyn, a Novus Ordo official, at the request of a Mr. Gregory Lloyd in Pennsylvania in May 2004, (https://lookingeast.stblogs.com/files/2012/03/Bp-M-Hrynshyshyn-to-gpl-5-6-2004.jpg) Charnetsky was never able to exercise his mission because soon after his appointment he was arrested and imprisoned by the Soviets. He was later released and died in 1959. Also in 1959, a man ordained by Bp. Botsian, (it is not clear whether this ordination happened before or after Botsian’s case was partially resolved by the Holy See and he was named an auxiliary bishop), Redemptorist Vasyl Velychkovsky, was secretly named exarch of Lutsk by Exarch Josef Slypyj. In 1963, shortly before Slypyj was exiled from the Soviet Union and welcomed in Rome, he was able to consecrate Velychkovsky. In 1972, Velychkovsky joined him in exile in Rome. Please visit the blogs linked above for the entire story.
Yet another letter found at https://lookingeast.stblogs.com/files/2012/04/Bp-M-Hrynshyshyn-to-gpl-5-31-04.jpg by the same Novus Ordo official explains that Metropolitan Sheptytsky’s faculties were given to him personally and did not extend to his successors. Typically such privileges expire with the death of the privilege holder, (Can. 74). Here Canons 77 and 78 also must be considered, for these privileges were undoubtedly abused later by some claiming to hold them, (Can. 78). And Pope Pius XII, the superior in this case, indicates in VAS that only a future pope can renew or clarify these privileges. What is not known for certain is the extent of the privileges ceded by Pope Pius XII to those behind the Iron Curtain, and whether they still pertained in all their particulars following the end of World War II. What is known about these privileges will be considered next.
Eastern rite faculties under Pope Pius XII
What was Vatican policy during the reign of Pope Pius XII? Accounts from bishops and priests living in the underground in the 1940s seem to indicate that Pope Pius XII granted habitual faculties to bishops in Eastern Europe. An account of one consecration printed in the magazine Greek Catholic Tradition (February, 2008) explains the ordination, consecration circumstances during the years of persecution. “In those times it was established as follows: after being ordained the priest swore on the Bible not to tell anyone who ordained him, when and where. (Note: Ordination or consecration was secret and there were no documents issued for reasons of safety.) “Special faculties had been given to Czech bishop Stepan Trochta of Litomerice by the Vatican in 1949 to allow the creation of one secret episcopal successor for each diocese in case of the arrest of the bishops. According to the most probable version of events, before his expulsion from Czechoslovakia in 1949 the Vatican’s charge’ d’affaires in Prague, Msgr. Gennaro Verolino, was actively engaged in passing on these faculties. ‘Naturally it did not escape the secret police’s attention’, Stehle reports, ‘that Monsignor Verolino, a peripatetic Neapolitan, was traveling around the country visiting the bishops and vesting them with those powers to establish a substitute and underground hierarchy,’” (this was relayed to the magazine article’s author by an underground bishop).
“It seems that with their consecration the new secret bishops received personal episcopal status, which would become effective for diocesan functions only on the arrest of the incumbent bishop. Although solid documentation on this permission is not available, it seems that each bishop could consecrate one secret bishop, and these bishops in turn could ordain priests without notifying the state or the Vatican, although this second generation of bishops was not empowered to consecrate further bishops. Church spokesmen claim that these special faculties, given by Pope Pius XII, expired in the mid-1950s, and definitely by the time of Pius XII’s death in October 1958. Supporters of the later secret consecrations claim that these faculties were never revoked.” Indications that this jurisdiction was not assumed to have ceased later, once bishops emerged from the underground is reflected in a comment made by Felix Corley: “In addition, parallel consecrations [by both underground bishops and the NO] at a time when the church was able to exist legally, albeit under strict state control, caused confusion and doubt among believers. In the case of completely illegal churches, such as the Eastern Rite Church in Ukraine and Romania, for example, or the Vatican-loyal church in China, secret ordinations and consecrations were a necessity and continued much later, although — from the1970s at least — with closer control from the Vatican.”)
“As a result of these faculties, two bishops were consecrated in Slovakia in 1951, Pavol Hnilica SJ and Jan Korec SJY. ‘In Bratislava on 24 August 1951, recalled Korec, ‘I was consecrated as a clandestine bishop. Bishop Hnilica had to leave the country and I took up my duties …The police had known since 1951 that I had been secretly consecrated and that, along with other activities, I was ordaining priests. I had already received the instruction direct from Rome that there should always be two bishops – uno nascosto, uno attivo’ [one hidden, one active].” (Religion, State and Society Vol. 21, No. 2, 1993, “The Secret Clergy in Communist Czechoslovakia,” by Felix Corley). This narrative of course cannot be entirely trusted because of its source. And it is not known how anyone could possibly sort things out following the hostile takeover of the Vatican.
Perhaps the faculties granted in 1949 to Msgr. Gennaro Verolino mentioned above differed little from those of Msgr. Michel d’Herbigny, S.J. in 1926, granted by Pope Pius XI and drafted by his Secretary of State, Eugenio Pacelli, before d’Herbigny was secretly sent into Russia. In d’Herbigny’s case, Pope Pius XI conceded “all the appropriate and necessary powers, for purposes known to us,” (Fr. Paul Lesourd, “Le Jesuite clandestine,” as reported in “Introduction to the Life of Archbishop Thuc”). Lesourd continues: “Orally, the Holy Father first enumerated in detail all the powers which he conferred, including the selection of priests to be ordained and to confer on them the episcopate without the need for them to have pontifical bulls [mandates] nor therefore to give their signatures, inviting them to act accordingly on the strength of the oath.” Lesourd adds that basically this gave Patriarchal or pontifical powers to d’Herbigny, which Pope Pius XII solemnly summed up as follows: “In one word, we grant to you all the pontifical powers of the pope himself which are not of incommunicable divine right.” Here again, this source cannot be entirely trusted, since Lesourd is a promoter of Bp. Thuc. Thuc himself was said to possess extraordinary faculties, but Fr. George Paront of New York, in the 1980s, offered convincing proof that these faculties were highly questionable at best, and therefore not to be trusted. In his work, “The Sacred and the Profane,” Clarence Kelley calls Thuc a “scandalous” bishop and says that it cannot be known with any certainty whether or not he was in his right mind. Therefore any pretensions to extraordinary faculties on his part could not be trusted, and certainly no “official “ documents have ever been produced in support of this.
To return to the subject at hand, this of course does not mean that in reality, Verolino did or could communicate these powers to the bishops he created, or even a select few of them, but given the nature of the powers that seemingly were accorded those engaged in this process, it does not say he did not communicate such powers either. If his mission was truly to establish “a substitute and underground hierarchy,” who might not be able to contact Rome, why would he not communicate them to at least a few? And given the times in which we live, and what has happened since the death of Pope Pius XII — something that would appear more sinister by far to those who lived it — we cannot say for certain that they were or were not communicated. This is something that in the end only God knows, and in order for Catholics to sort things out it may well require a miracle. We do, however, know the Church’s mind in this case, as demonstrated below. And it indicates that while these bishops were indeed valid, and were validly appointed, they still did not have the necessary jurisdiction to function as bishops (or priests delegated by such bishops) during an interregnum, anymore than Botsian had the same jurisdiction under Pope Benedict XV when the see was occupied.
According to Pope Pius XII’s papal election law, Vacantis Apostolica Sedis (VAS), while these bishops may be validly consecrated and appointed, (unlike Traditionalists), during an interregnum they still are unable to function as bishops until the election of a true pope, once the deadline for such an election has passed. “During the vacancy of the Apostolic See, regarding those things that pertained to the Sovereign Roman Pontiff while he lived, the Sacred College of Cardinals shall have absolutely no power or jurisdiction of rendering neither a favor nor justice or of carrying out a favor or justice rendered by the deceased Pontiff; rather, let the College be obliged to reserve all these things to the future Pontiff.1 Therefore, We declare invalid and void any power or jurisdiction pertaining to the Roman Pontiff in his lifetime, which the assembly of Cardinals might decide to exercise (while the Church is without a Pope), except to the extent to which it be expressly permitted in this Our Constitution…,” (and the cardinals are only allowed to decide things strictly pertaining to the election)… But if anything contrary to this prescript occurs or is by chance attempted, we declare it by Our Supreme authority to be null and void,” (paras.1- 3, Ch. 1, 1945; Acta Apostolica Sedis, Vol. XXXVIII, 1946, n. 3; pp. 65-99). Paragraph 109 of VAS repeats these same warnings, but applies them to anyone making an attempt to interfere with the election, changing of laws, violation of jurisdiction and Church rights, not just the cardinals.
It also must be remembered that in order to claim apostolic succession, the minister must possess both orders AND jurisdiction, (see /free-content/reference-links/1-what-constitutes-the-papacy/apostolic-succession-are-schismatic-clergy-and-laymen/ Below we continue with the convoluted tale of the underground clergy, taken from a history of the Ukraine found online. This work deals with yet other matters concerning Czechoslovakia, Slypyj and Velychkovsky.
Slypyj’s attempt to revive his church
“In 1968, the Uniate Church in Czechoslovakia was restored. This worried the Kremlin and the Moscow Patriarchate. In West Ukraine there was another spate of searches, fines, beatings, arrests and imprisonment of Ukrainian Catholic clergy and laymen, among them Bishop Vasyl Velychkowsky of Lutsk, (consecrated as his episcopal successor by Metropolitan Slypyj prior to departing for Rome). Metropolitan Slypyj in Rome, although isolated, was becoming very vocal on behalf of his Church, for he saw that in the late 1960s and early 1970s the Vatican’s relations with the Moscow Patriarchate seemed to indicate that the Ukrainian Catholic Church in Ukraine was to be abandoned by Rome for the sake of ecumenical unity. From 1968 onwards Slypyj increasingly escaped from the silence to which the Vatican would have liked to condemn him. He assumed the role of an articulate church leader. Without Paul VI’s permission, he consecrated three new bishops. Despite criticism from many Vatican quarters, he ‘launched a great plan of revival’ of his Church. The plan involved drawing attention to the plight of the Ukrainian Catholic Church and putting it fully on the Christian map as a ‘Sister Church’ to the Roman Latin-rite Church, with its own Patriarch. Slypyj’s well-publicized activities found considerable support in the North American diaspora and in other quarters too, and were embarrassing for the Vatican,” (“To Pray Again as a Catholic: The Renewal of Catholicism in Western Ukraine,” by Stella Hryniuk, History and Ukrainian Studies University of Manitoba).
Late in life, Cardinal Slypyj frequently signed himself as ‘Patriarch,’ and was addressed as such by many Ukrainian Catholics, who lobbied for his appointment to the position. The significance for Slypyj of the title “patriarch” and the implications thereof for the Ukrainian Catholic Church were missed at that time by Western Catholics, but not the Eastern Church. Only now can we see how different things might have been had Slypyj achieved this title and addressed the serious problems he pointed out at the false Vatican 2 (V2) council with the full weight of that authority. Slypyj died in Rome on September 7, 1984. While he may not have been a fan of the V2 reforms or Paul 6, on Nov. 12, 1979 Slypyj assisted John Paul II as co-consecrator of Miroslav Liubachivsky as bishop in the Sistine Chapel, an episcopal selection made by John Paul II that was not agreeable to a great many Uniates. Some 1,500 Ukrainian faithful attended the ceremony.
What happened to those Slypyj consecrated in 1977? We find this note in Wikipedia on the three bishops: “In 1977 Slypyj consecrated Ivan Choma, Stepan Czmil and Lubomyr Husar as bishops without approval of the pope in an act of exposition of patriarchal aspirations. These consecrations caused much annoyance to the Roman Curia as episcopal consecrations without papal permission are considered illicit in Roman Canon Law but not Eastern Canon Law.” Obviously this was not the opinion of Pope Benedict XV, or for that matter Pope Pius XII in Ad Apostolorum Principis. While the three consecrated by Slypyj were valid, they were not permitted to function as bishops for a time, i.e., they were not granted jurisdiction. So even the anti-Church put up a token resistance to their appointment without papal approval. Choma served as Secretary to Patriarch Josyf Slypyj for many years and was one of his biographers. He also served as Lecturer of Church History at Ukrainian Catholic University of Rome from 1985 till 2001, then served as its Rector. In addition, he was named as Titular bishop of Patara. He died Feb. 3, 2006.
Bp. Czmil died shortly after his consecration. Husar, now 82, went on to be “elected by the Synod of Bishops of the Ukrainian Church as exarch of the archiepiscopal exarchy of Kiev and Vyshhorod in 1995, confirmed by the Pope the following year… In December 2000, Pope John Paul II named Husar apostolic administrator of the Ukrainian Greek Major-Archeparchy of Lviv, and in January 2001 the Ukrainian Greek synod elected him Major Archbishop… He is acclaimed by his followers as Patriarch of Kiev-Galicia, a title not recognized by the Holy See,” (Wikipedia). John Paul II later named him a cardinal. He resigned his position as archbishop in 2011 owing to failing health and at age 80 (2013) lost any ability to vote in a conclave. So with the exception of Czmil, Husar and Choma were loyal servants of apostate Rome.
Given all the above, the following comments are in order.
Sorting the pepper from the flyspeck
The powers initially granted to Sheptytsky “included the right to ordain and install bishops, in special circumstances.” All political considerations aside, Pope Benedict XV obviously did not (a) see the vacancy of Sheptytsky’s see as the special circumstances intended by Pope St. Pius X, or (b) believe that Pope St. Pius X ever intended the faculties granted to be used outside his final approval of these bishops. No mention of automatic papal approval is made in St. Pius X’s initial grant, as it is reported; it only refers to the consecration and installation of bishops, NOT the grant of jurisdiction from the pope. This is why Pope Benedict XV confirmed their validity but withheld jurisdiction. His reaction is similar to what Pope Pius VI did during the constitutional crisis in France: he declared that the bishops made by heretics/schismatics were not valid or licit. In Sheptytsky’s case the bishops were not created by heretics or schismatics so were considered valid; they simply were not approved by the Holy See, and therefore did not possess jurisdiction. This is a very important distinction. For it indicates they possessed no office granted or at least approved by the pope as granted to minster to the Greek Catholics. Botsian later won a partial victory in his appointment as auxiliary Bishop of Lviv, but died shortly thereafter. Sheptytsky’s second appointment of a bishop during Pope Pius XII’s reign, invoking this same privilege granted by St. Pius X was rendered moot by the bishop’s death shortly after his appointment.
One of the men made a bishop by Botsian, Redemptorist Vasyl Velychkovsky, was clandestinely named exarch of Lutsk by Sheptytsky’s successor, Metropolitan Josyf Slypyj. But Slypyj was unable to consecrate him until 1963, right before he left Russia for Rome. Was his consecration valid during an interregnum? It could have been, had Slypyj not later joined forces with JP2.
A matter of infallible teaching
How was what Pope Benedict XV did any different from what the popes decided previously concerning the Gallican Liberties? In that case the Catholic Encyclopedia reports, the church of France declared in 1682 that the popes have no power over the civil and temporal domain and cannot breach or qualify any previous laws and customs or agreements made with the Gallican Church existing in the common law, (see https://www.catholicity.com/encyclopedia/g/gallicanism.html, Gallican article 3). How, then, does the Union of Brest grant to Oriental Catholics differ in any way from what certain French bishops said the Church granted to them? Yes, the Ukrainan Greek Catholics could nominate, consecrate and appoint their own bishops. But this is an entirely different thing than the pope’s approval of their appointments to the episcopacy and his subsequent grant of jurisdiction. To hold that such approval is not necessary assumes that bishops receive their power directly from Christ apart from any “interference” with such power by the pope, and this is nothing more than a restatement of the Gallicanist heresy that prevailed during the Western Schism: “The superiority of the council to the pope, and the fallibility of the latter,” (see Catholic Encyclopedia link above). The bishops in council, the Gallicanists held, were superior to the pope, and any bishop was his equal. Throughout the entire Traditionalist ordeal, one of the most glaring heresies taught by Traditional sects has been the assumption that a) a bishop validly ordained is may exercise his orders without papal permission, contrary to all that has ever been taught concerning apostolicity, (see link at bottom of p. 7 above); and b) this is true because the bishop receives his jurisdiction directly from Christ upon consecration, just as Christ conferred it on the Apostles before His Ascension.
NOT SO says the Church: the Apostles alone received jurisdiction in this fashion, but none following them. In Mystici Corporis and Ad Sinarum Gentum, theologians teach that Pope Pius XII infallibly defined that the bishops received the authority to use their powers not from Christ, but from the Pope. For it was to Peter that Christ gave the fullness of jurisdiction, per the teaching of the Vatican Council. In reading the words below, how was Pope Benedict XV acting politically or in any way other than a Catholic in refusing Botsian jurisdiction? Even though this article of faith was not defined until Pope Pius XII’s issuance of Mystici Corporis June 29, 1943, already Cardinal Manning had gathered and presented the proofs of theologians defending this position in his 1883 work “The Pastoral Office,” where he wrote: “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… 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.”
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 [useless] 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 [prior to Pope Pius XII’s definition], 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.’”
And so we read in Pius XII’s Ad Apostolorum Principis, “Bishops who have been neither named nor confirmed by the Apostolic See, but who, on the contrary, have been elected and consecrated in defiance of its express orders, enjoy no powers of teaching or of jurisdiction since jurisdiction passes to bishops only through the Roman Pontiff as We admonished in the Encyclical Letter Mystici Corporis in the following words: ‘. . . As far as his own diocese is concerned each (bishop) feeds the flock entrusted to him as a true shepherd and rules it in the name of Christ. Yet in exercising this office they are not altogether independent but are subordinate to the lawful authority of the Roman Pontiff, although enjoying ordinary power of jurisdiction which they receive directly from the same Supreme Pontiff.’ The power of jurisdiction which is conferred directly by divine right on the Supreme Pontiff comes to bishops by that same right, but only through the successor of Peter, to whom not only the faithful but also all bishops are bound to be constantly subject and to adhere both by the reverence of obedience and by the bond of unity. Acts requiring the power of Holy Orders which are performed by ecclesiastics of this kind, though they are valid as long as the consecration conferred on them was valid, are yet gravely illicit, that is, criminal and sacrilegious.” The Oriental code does not excuse Uniates from irrevocably accepting and following these papal definitions.
Was Slypyj possibly an impersonator?
Was the man released from Siberia really Slypyj? Some would consider this an impertinent question, but 18 years had elapsed since his imprisonment. What prevented the Russian government from cleverly inserting a Russian Orthodox substitute who closely resembled Slypyj and releasing him to Rome? What precautions were taken to confirm that it was indeed, beyond a shadow of a doubt, Josyf Slypyj? Is this a task anyone is willing to entrust to the judgment of an antipope? Many are convinced that Fatima seer Lucia dos Santos was either hidden away or done away with, to be replaced by an imposter, (and this occurred in about the same time period). So why not Slypyj? Even if the man released truly was Slypyj, who is to say that he was not totally brainwashed by his captors, as was very nearly the case with Cardinal Mindszenty? Certainly his acceptance of the antipopes as true popes and his concelebration with John Paul II compromised his Catholicity. This leads into the next question.
Communist plot?
Some have opined that the Russian Orthodox church, acting in concert with Moscow, was complicit in the infiltration of the Catholic Church from the very beginning. According to one Fatima
website, Mr. Manning Johnson, a former official of the Communist Party in America, gave the following testimony in 1953 to the House Un-American Activities Committee:
“Once the tactic of infiltration of religious organizations was set by the Kremlin… the communists discovered that the destruction of religion could proceed much faster through the infiltration of the Church by communists operating within the Church itself. The communist leadership in the United States realized that the infiltration tactic in this country would have to adapt itself to American conditions and the religious makeup peculiar to this country. In the earliest stages it was determined that with only small forces available to them, it would be necessary to concentrate communist agents in the seminaries. The practical conclusion drawn by the Red leaders was that these institutions would make it possible for a small communist minority to influence the ideology of future clergymen in the paths conducive to communist purposes… The policy of infiltrating seminaries was successful beyond even our communist expectations.”
“Albert Vassart, a former member of the French communist party, revealed in 1955 that Moscow had issued a 1936 order that carefully selected members of communist youth to enter seminaries and, after training, receive ordination as priests. Some of these were to infiltrate religious orders, particularly the Dominicans (In his essay, “Satan at Work,” the great Catholic philosopher Dietrich von Hildebrand reported that the French Dominicans had become so communistic in their “evangelization” that in 1953, the Order barely escaped dissolution by the order of Pope Pius XII.)
“Anatoliy Golitsyn was a high-ranking KGB official involved in espionage and counter-espionage who defected to the Unites States in 1961…In 1985, Golitsyn reported that Russian Orthodox priests are controlled and directed by the KGB in order to promote cooperation between Soviet churches and Western Catholics and Protestants to help establish a united front for disarmament (peace and justice movements?) and convergence.” Former Communist and converted Catholic Bella Dodd also warned of such an infiltration. In an article that appeared in Christian Order magazine (November 2000), written from a speech given in the 1950s, Dodd revealed that prior to WWII, Communist leaders issued a directive throughout the world that the Catholic Church must be infiltrated. “In the 1930s we put eleven hundred men into the priesthood in order to destroy the Church from within,” she told her audience. Dodd warned that these men, “now…are in the highest places in the Church.” In her book, “School of Darkness,” Dodd explains exactly how the political side of Communism would be introduced to Americans: “Trachtenberg once said to me that when communism came to America it would come, ‘in labels acceptable to the American people.’”
UGCC crocodile tears concerning autonomy
While it may appear that the Greek Catholic Church wishes to preserve its autonomous nature regarding the underground bishops, it is curious that when given a unique opportunity to profess their faith and seize the abandoned helm of the Church, they preferred to continue seeking recognition of their patriarchate from apostate Rome. As it was with the Novus Ordo bishops, so with the Uniates. It was never about the teachings of the faith, only about political and cultural matters and personal aggrandizement. The staged “end” of Communism with the tearing down of the Berlin Wall and the emergence of the Iron Curtain clergy from the underground in 1989 was a well choreographed melodrama intended to identify as many men hidden way in the catacombs as possible, and receive them “back” into the bosom of the Church. Did some underground bishops refuse to emerge? It is possible. And it is possible they are still operating in the catacombs, knowing they don’t stand a chance above ground.
But if the Uniates were so orthodox in their faith, and were really sincere in their objections to the modernization of the Church, why didn’t they seize the opportunity to break away, declare the Roman imposters antipopes and elect a true pope? In actuality they were both obligated and qualified to do so under the Latin Code and conciliar decree. By virtue of Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, they would not have been censured for any delay in this. But after all, it was not their liturgy and traditions that were being destroyed. It was not the Latin Rite Church they were concerned about, or for that matter the papacy, as long as their liturgical rites and ability to function were left intact. The long struggle to keep those rites and the animosity that had built up over “latinization” and the forced reforms sometimes imposed upon them, although never with Rome’s approval, had left a bitter taste in their mouths. At the time, they had the possibility of succeeding and might have been able to sufficiently establish the validity/liciety of their bishops. But now, too much time has elapsed. Had they acted then they would have done so with the blessing of the Church, which long ago accorded the Patriarch of Constantinople, a title later bestowed on the Greek Church, the rite of succession following the Bishop of Rome. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia (1911):
“That the Eastern Catholics are comparatively small bodies is the unfortunate result of the fact that the majority of their countrymen prefer schism. Our missionaries would willingly make them larger ones. But, juridically, they stand exactly where all the East once stood, before the Greek schism, or during the short-lived union of Florence (1439-53). And they have as much right to exist and be respected as have Latins, or the great Catholic bishops in the East had during the first centuries. The idea of latinizing all Eastern Catholics, sometimes defended by people on our side whose zeal for uniformity is greater than their knowledge of the historical and juridical situation, is diametrically opposed to antiquity, to the Catholic system of ecclesiastical organization, and to the policy of all popes. Nor has it any hope of success. The East may become Catholic again; it will never be what it never has been — Latin.
“But the greatest change, the one that met most opposition, was the rise of Constantinople to patriarchal rank. Because Constantine had made Byzantium “New Rome”, its bishop, once the humble suffragan of Heraclea, thought that he should become second only, if not almost equal, to the Bishop of Old Rome. For many centuries the popes opposed this ambition, not because any one thought of disputing their first place, but because they were unwilling to change the old order of the hierarchy. In 381 the Council of Constantinople declared that: “The Bishop of Constantinople shall have the primacy of honour after the Bishop of Rome, because it is New Rome,” (can. iii). The popes (Damasus, Gregory the Great) refused to confirm this canon…It was not until the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) that the Latin Patriarch of Constantinople was allowed this place; in 1439 the Council of Florence gave it to the Greek patriarch.
“Nevertheless in the East the emperor’s wish was powerful enough to obtain recognition for his patriarch; from Chalcedon we must count Constantinople as practically, if not legally, the second patriarchate (ibid., 28-47). So we have the new order of five patriarchs — Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem — that seemed, to Eastern theologians especially, an essential element of the constitution of the Church [see (ibid., 46-47, the letter of Peter III of Antioch, c. 1054].” It is quite interesting that B16 dropped the title “Patriarch of the West” in the 2006 edition of the Annuario Pontificio, (https://ruskij-sion.blogspot.com/2008/12/dropping-of-title-of-patriarch-of-west.html). It is almost as if apostate Rome knows that some challenge to its papal claim lies ahead based on this title and is seeking to defuse it. If this order was so important to Eastern theologians then, and Uniates are so fond of citing the early councils, then why was it not seized upon to re-establish the papacy when the Uniates first realized the Vatican 2 council was false, or even just irregular (in their eyes)? For all their talk of wishing to be self-governing, they chose to ignore their own history and role as shepherds to the flock of Christ. The following paragraphs explain why such a privilege would be accorded them, and why they were actually guilty of injuring the rights of the Church in not taking advantage of this privilege.
Devolution and papal election
Cardinal Cajetan, quoted by Rev. Charles Journet in his “The Church of the Word Incarnate” answers the question, “In whom does the power to elect the Pope reside?” as follows: “The Pope can settle who the electors shall be, and change and limit in this way the mode of election.” Journet, in summarizing Cajetan’s arguments writes: “In a case where the settled conditions of validity have become inapplicable, the task of determining new ones falls to the Church by devolution, this last word being taken, as Cajetan notes (Apologia, Chap. xiii, No. 745), not in the strict sense (devolution is strictly to the higher authority in case of default in the lower), but in the wide sense, signifying all transmission, even to an inferior. (p. 480.) This is the teaching of Can. 178 concerning ecclesiastical elections, which reads: “If the election was not completed within the prescribed period, or if the body of voters has been punished with deprivation of the right to elect, the free appointment to the office devolves on the superior who would have had the right to confirm the election, or on him who succeeds to the rights of the voters to fill the office.”
Journet tells us that it was during the course of the disputes concerning papal authority versus the authority of an Ecumenical Council in the 15th and 16th centuries, that questions of who was invested with the power to elect the pope were brought up. He records Cajetan’s thinking on this subject as follows: “…the power to elect the Pope, resides in his predecessors eminently, regularly, and principally … the Church, in her widowhood, [is] unable to determine a new mode of election, save ‘in casu,’ unless forced by sheer necessity… During a vacancy of the Apostolic See, neither the Church nor the Council can contravene the provisions already laid down to determine the valid mode of election. However … if the Pope has provided nothing against it, or in case of ambiguity (for example, if it is unknown who the true cardinals are, or who the true Pope is…), the power ‘of applying the papacy to such and such a person’ devolves on the universal Church, the Church of God.” (Cajetan: De Comnarata, Cap. xiii, No. 202204; also, Apologia, Cap. xiii, No. 736.) But the laity themselves can never elect a pope. The popes have forbidden any lay participation in their election constitutions, which teach that only the (remaining) clergy can validly elect.
“…When the provisions of canon law cannot be fulfilled [Pope Pius XII’s election constitution is referred to under Can. 160], the right to elect will belong to certain members of the Church of Rome. In default of the Roman clergy, the right will belong to the Church universal, of which the Pope is to be bishop…” No mention is made of the Eastern Church, but certainly it is included in the Church universal as the next elective body. Because the Uniates chose to affiliate themselves to Rome, recognizing successive antipopes rather than exercising this right, they lost this privilege by returning to their original state of schism. Had obedience to the papacy really been the focus of their conversion, they would have championed it at all costs. One of the most important rights of the Church is Her unrestricted freedom to provide herself with a head and the government necessary to function as a divinely established society. Without that head, there IS no Church, as the popes themselves infallibly decreed. So what strange church are these straying Catholics pledging allegiance to? Certainly not a Church headed by an unquestionably canonical pope, proven so from infallible sources.
Conclusion
In his “ABC of Scholastic Philosophy,” Rev. A. C. Cotter explains, “We may understand a truth more fully and completely as we grow up, or a truth may come home to us on a special occasion…But that does not change the truth in itself, nor does it make our former cognition of it false…An individual…may lose his certitude and drift back or be forced back to doubt.” Cotter goes on to explain that certain types of certitude (subjective, practical, respective) can be true while they last, since they are based primarily on the human reasoning and judgment process. But only an infallible motive “can exclude the very possibility of error…Only that judgment is necessarily true which cannot err. Now only an infallible motive excludes the very possibility of error; every other motive, no matter how alluring or appealing, leaves the door open for error,” (pgs. 131, 142, 235-236). So what constitutes an infallible motive?
There are three degrees of formal certitude: moral, physical and metaphysical, with metaphysical being the highest and moral the lowest. Metaphysical or absolute certitude is a firm assent based on an absolutely infallible motive. (A certain sort of infallibility is also found in natural truths, such as mathematics, physics, etc…). Physical certitude is a firm assent based on the known laws of science. Moral certitude is a firm assent based on infallible moral motives, although the perversity of man could render such a judgment false, (parents generally love their children, but this is not always true). Both direct and reflex certitude are formal, direct certitude being knowledge of something from research and reflection; reflex certitude being the acceptance of some truth as pertaining to oneself on the reliable authority of others. Certitude may be either mathematical (conforming to the laws and truths of mathematics) or non-mathematical; necessary or free. Necessary means certitude based on a motive which makes all doubt impossible. Free is simply another term for moral certitude, which does not exclude imprudent doubt.
“Formal certitude is a firm assent (or dissent) based on motives which are in themselves infallible and are known to be infallible…Now only an infallible motive excludes the very possibility of error…Therefore only an infallible motive is a sufficient guarantee for the (logical) truth of a judgment…A guide is not called infallible because there is no special reason for doubting his knowledge or because it is highly improbable he will lead us astray…We call a motive or reason for judging infallible only when it cannot lead us into error,” (Cotter). Those accepting the Uniates as valid based on their supposed extraordinary faculties are obviously relying on moral certitude, which is man based. No one is able to prove that those faculties exist, or, if they existed at one time, continue in existence today. All true Catholics know that in a case of doubt regarding the validity of the Sacraments or one’s eternal salvation, the safer course is to be followed; this is a doctrine of the Church. Infallible teaching dictates that these men cannot be accepted as possessing jurisdiction unless it can be proven that they possessed it in the first place. The matter is a serious one, involving the grave sin of sacrilege, which necessarily occurs unless infallible motives are relied upon to guarantee truth. As Cotter states: “Authority clothed with the necessary conditions is true authority… Authority is not the last criterion of truth or motive for certitude.” Traditionalist and Uniate (Novus Ordo) “authority” has been demonstrated as existing in perpetual violation of infallible teaching. And no manner of pretended return at this late date to obedience to the Roman Pontiff under their direction can possibly remedy this situation, since the truth is not in them.
Uniate schismatics and Traditionalists hold the same heresies. They deny the primacy of jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff. They deny that a man who is elected to the papacy must be a member of the Church to be validly elected. If, as some followers allege, many of the Uniates do not recognize the present pontiff as pope, but believe that such a person could repent and reinstate himself pope, they subscribe to the material/formal heresy. This heresy is entirely opposed to all the principles of Canon Law as well as logic and constant Church teaching on this subject. It stands in contradiction of Cum ex…, which must be accepted irrevocably and unconditionally by all Catholics as infallible (see /articles/bombshell-basis-for-the-material-pope-theory-why-traditionalists-never-left-the-novus-ordo-church/ Also of interest to readers are related articles 4. Heresy, G-J on the Free Content site.) They deny the unchanging nature of Church doctrine and practice. They refuse to believe that Pope Pius XII’s papal election constitution is infallible and forbids them to function (if they had orders) during an interregnum. They cannot accept the fact, defined in Mystici Coproris and elsewhere, that bishops cannot act independently of the pope in exercising their orders. They also deny that one can rely on formal certitude to infallibly inform one’s conscience, as seen above. Yet it is heretical to believe one cannot arrive at such certitude, (DZ 553, 554). They refuse to acknowledge that the true mission of the Church, in saving souls, is not to rush to celebrate Mass and distribute sacraments but to teach the truths of faith; the Sacraments and Holy Mass could scarcely be efficacious without such instruction. For Pope St. Pius X wrote in Acerbo Nimis below:
It is as Pope Pius XII said above in Ad Apostolorum Principis: “Bishops who have been neither named nor confirmed by the Apostolic See, but who, on the contrary, have been elected and consecrated in defiance of its express orders, enjoy no powers of teaching or of jurisdiction since jurisdiction passes to bishops only through the Roman Pontiff.” Teaching and jurisdictional powers cannot even be exercised without the confirmation of the pope, far less the subsequent administration of the Sacraments.
This teaching in Acerbo Nimis is an instance of Divine Revelation defined by the Church, and who can gainsay it? It is interesting that over the past decade or so some Traditionalists have declared Pope Benedict XV, Pope Pius XI and Pope Pius XII excommunicated as heretics and antipopes, holding Pope St. Pius X as the last true pope. And some of these holding this opinion, such as Most Holy Family Monastery, frequent the Byzantine Rite. Certainly the Uniates would not be opposed to this, seeing that they appeal to the grant of Pope Pius X for their claim to possess faculties independent of the Holy See. Wouldn’t it be convenient to excommunicate Pope Pius XII, who forbade them to function during an interregnum, and Benedict XV, who impeded the exercise of their episcopal office without papal permission?
Their most predominant heresy also is found at the bottom of the Orthodox, Gallicanist, Protestant, schismatic Uniate and Old Catholic heresies, (Old Catholicism most closely resembling Traditionalism). That heresy is the denial of the Pope’s primacy of jurisdiction; the Supreme Pontiff’s right to reserve all grant of jurisdiction to bishops, or any restriction or suspension/revocation of such jurisdiction, to himself. Related to it is the definition by Pope Pius XII that the bishops do not receive their powers directly from Christ, but only through the pope. This is the common opinion of theologians, but was not defined until the 1940s, therefore was not considered by the Uniate bishop in his actions concerning Botsian. But regardless, in the end it all comes down to Christ’s grant of infallibility to Peter only, and the bishops only when they are in communion with him. They cannot be and are not in communion with him during an interregnum. So is it any wonder that we find the stars (bishops), described in Apocalypse as falling from Heaven (the Church) for uttering Satan’s infamous last words: “I will not serve!”
