+Dedication of the Basilicas of Sts. Peter and Paul+
In an effort to be as concise as possible, a more complete canonical evaluation of the invalidity issue is presented below. We stated in the last blog regarding the validity of LibTrad orders that both Lefebvre and Thuc were guilty of communicatio in sacris under Can. 2314 § 3, first for joining the Novus Ordo sect and participating in Vatican 2 and secondly for founding their own traditionalist sects. Over time, the invalidities piled up, as more research was done and Church teaching was better understood. This preponderance of evidence renders these men and any other “bishops at large” as schismatic non-Catholics unable to receive or convey Orders validly, and as Pope Pius IX and Pope Pius XII have officially proclaimed, this pertains to the Oriental rites as well. The following is the final proof needed to decide this issue.
Infamy of law invalidates acts
The first article documenting this invalidity appeared on my website in 2009. Canon 2314 §3 declares that by the commission of heresy, apostasy or schism the offender also incurs infamy of law ipso facto. The canonists Revs. Woywod-Smith explain the effects of infamy of law under Can. 2294 §1: “The person who has incurred… an infamy of law… cannot validly obtain ecclesiastical benefices, pensions, offices and dignities, nor can he validly exercise the rights connected with the same, nor perform a valid, legal ecclesiastical act” (all emph. within quotes in this article is the author’s). When imposed in the form of a penalty attached to law, this sentence takes place immediately. And only the pope can dispense from this vindicative penalty (Can. 2294 §3).
The canonist Rev. Charles Augustine writes under Can. 2294 § 1: “Legal infamy involves irregularity according to Can. 984 n. 5 and therefore no layman affected by it can receive the tonsure or any other order without an Apostolic dispensation… Legal infamy entails disability or disqualification for any ecclesiastical benefits, pension, office, dignity and if conferred the act is invalid (Can. 2391)… An infamous person must be prevented from cooperating in sacred functions…” (Not surprisingly, Peter Cardinal Gasparri notes in his Fontes that Cum ex… is the parent law of Can. 2294 §1). By Apostolic dispensation is meant dispensation by the pope. Abp. Amleto Cicognani, in his work Canon Law (1935), teaches:
“An inhabilitating law renders a person incapable of performing a valid act. Properly speaking, it is a species of invalidating law for the effect is the same, with this difference only, that an inhabilitating law is not issued directly against a certain act but rather against a certain person, e.g., canons 2294 [on infamy], 2390 §2, 2394 §1and 2395, etcetera.” Canon 2394 §1 reads: “If a person by his own authority takes possession of an ecclesiastical benefice, office, or dignity… before he has received the necessary letters of confirmation, or institution, he incurs the following penalties: (1) he becomes automatically disqualified for the benefice, office or dignity. The canonists Revs. Woywod-Smith, in their commentary, reference the Holy Office’s decision on Can. 147 and the ipso facto excommunications for violating it under Can. 2394. Cardinal Gasparri lists Charitas and Etsi multa as the sources for Can. 2394.
“Those who have been assigned to the divine ministry at least by the first tonsure are called clerics… (Can. 108). “Only clerics can obtain the power of either orders or ecclesiastical jurisdiction…” (Can. 118). Here we see that all those exiting the Novus Ordo and joining traditionalist sects, then later entering SSPX or Thucite “seminaries,” could not receive tonsure validly without the papal dispensation, far less have become priests or bishops at the hands of Lefebvre or Thuc. Not only were the candidates barred from receiving this sacramental, but no valid acts could proceed from Lefebvre, Thuc or any others suffering infamy of law. There is also the invalidity infallibly proclaimed in Pope Pius XII’s Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis and Pius VI’s Charitas. These traditionalists are NOT Catholic and cannot be successors of the Apostles. Can. 2314 §3 also imposes the deposition of Can. 188 §4, even including degradation, and as Cardinal Gasparri notes in his Fontes, Cum ex… is the parent law or old law from which both these canons originate (see Canon 6 §1-6 on what canons are contained in the Code).
Incapable of valid acts as vitandus
And then there is the matter of the consideration of these men as vitandus, by Pope Pius IX (Etsi multa), Pope St. Pius X (condemnation of Arnold Harris Mathew, Acta Apostolicae Sedis, year III, vol. III, no. 2, February 15, 1911) and, by implication, Pope Pius XII in the official interpretation of Can. 147. A reference is noted beneath Can. 147 directing readers to the condemnation of a Czechoslovakian priest named John Dechet as a vitandus for reception of the office of Administrator from lay authority. Given by the Sacred Consistorial Congregation this condemnation reads: “The Sacred Congregation therefore reminds clerics and the faithful that they must treat the aforesaid priest according to the norm of Can. 2261 §3 of the Code of Canon Law (AAS 42-195).” Beneath this declaration is a reference to the “New Penalty for Occupying or Retaining Office; see C. 147.”
Can. 2261 §3 reads: “From a minister who is an excommunicatus vitandus, or who has been excommunicated by a condemnatory or declaratory sentence, the faithful may ask for sacramental absolution only in danger of death.” Although a declaration from the Holy See is required to determine someone a vitandus, this is now impossible. Because there is a doubt of law about whether Lefebvre and Thuc, also any other bishops exercising orders after Pius XII’s death are to be considered vitandus, the Code refers us to Canon 18 which states: “The ecclesiastical laws are to be interpreted according to the proper meaning of the terms of the law considered in their context. If the meaning of the terms remains doubtful or obscure one must have recourse to parallel passages of the Code (if there are any) or to the purpose of the law and its circumstances and the intention of the legislator.”
We have presented above the intended mind of the lawgiver on who must be considered a vitandus. Lefebvre, Thuc and any others acting after Oct. 9, 1958 — all violated the law enacted by the Council of Trent which states that, “In the ordination of bishops, priests and other orders… those who by their own temerity take these offices upon themselves are not ministers of the Church…[but] thieves and robbers…(DZ 960). “If anyone says that those who have been neither rightly ordained nor sent by ecclesiastical and canonical authority but come from a different source are lawful ministers of the word and of the Sacraments, let him be anathema [cf. 960]” (DZ 967). LibTrads immediately seize on the word lawful and say this does not mean invalid, but they entirely ignore the context of the condemnation. It is anathema to believe they can function as Catholic clergy. As later papal definitions prove, the Church clearly wishes them to be considered as vitandus and for the faithful to avoid them.
Can. 2261 §3, however, renders invalid the acts of not only vitandus, but those under a declaratory sentence. In his 1947 A Manual of Canon Law, Rev. Matthew Ramstein, S.T. Mag., J.U.D., OFM, writes: “A penalty latae sententiae (of a sentence already pronounced) is a determinate penalty which is so attached to the superior’s precept, that it is incurred immediately upon the commission of the offense, as if the sentence were already passed…The sentence which imposes a ferendae sententiae penalty established by the law is called a condemnatory sentence; that which imposes a penalty latae sententiae established by the law is called a declaratory sentence… But unless the delinquency is notorious, i. e., not only public but inexcusable from the point of imputability in the eyes of the public, [he] need not observe the penalty in the external forum” (p. 679-80). So either way, these men, even if validly ordained and consecrated, (which they definitely were not) could act only in danger of death.
Invalid and incapacitated according to notoriety of law
How can one possibly deny that what Marcel Lefebvre and Peter Martin Ngo Dinh Thuc did publicly was a reckless and deliberate violation of Canon Law? Lefebvre and Thuc were bound to KNOW the law. They both celebrated the Novus Ordo Missae and signed Vatican 2 documents. They later were both publicly known and recognized universally as renegade bishops. Proofs of Lefebvre’s ordination and consecration by a Freemason as well as his involvement in Freemasonry himself, also Thuc’s mental incompetency, have been available for decades. Whether we classify them as acting in obedience to the usurpers as valid popes or as purportedly validly consecrated before Oct. 9, 1958, both suppositions end in excommunication. VAS absolutely invalidates their acts. And even Paul 6 and John Paul 2 excommunicated them for their consecrations. A notorious act must be known as criminal or morally imputable, impossible to conceal and “not to be excused by any excuse admitted in law” (Can. 2197). The constant flux from traditionalist sects and the controversy surrounding them shows that their pseudo-clergy were recognized as doubtful. Lefebvre, Thuc et al never credibly denounced the usurpers or called for a papal election. They were undeniably notorious.
No declaratory sentence required
But LibTrads contend that for lack of a declaratory sentence — a hearing in the case regarding their excommunication for heresy and communicatio in sacris and for acting without the papal mandate — there is doubt about both their heresy and their excommunications. This error was condemned as follows by Pope Pius VI in Auctorem fidei: “The proposition which teaches that it is necessary according to the natural and divine law, for either excommunication or for suspension, that a personal examination should proceed and that therefore sentences called ipso facto have no other force than that of a serious threat without any actual effect” (DZ 1547). Of course the canons themselves, VAS and Pope St. Pius X’s election laws removed all doubt. But even aside from that, the very fact of their notoriety removes any need for a declaratory sentence. We read from Abp. Cicognani, quoting the theologian Chelodi, that according to Can. 2232 §1:”The notoriety of an offence is held equivalent to a declaratory sentence” (page 703-704). Commenting on Can. 2232, Rev. Charles Augustine writes:
“It is left to the discretion of the superior to declare a penance has been incurred, that is to issue a declaratory sentence. However this sentence must be issued if the interested party insists or if the public welfare demands it, in the case of a corrupter or briber or a dangerous heretic.” We are then directed to Can. 1935, under the heading “Criminal Trials,” which states: “The faithful may, at all times denounce the offense of another for the purpose of demanding satisfaction or out of zeal for justice to repair some scandal or evil… Even an obligation to denounce an offender exists whenever one is obliged to do so either by LAW or by special legitimate precept or by the natural law in view of the danger to faith or religion or other imminent public evil.” Canon 2223 states it is as a rule left to the discretion of the superior to declare a penalty latae sententiae but he must issue the declaratory sentence if an interested party demands it or if the public welfare requires it.”
From a minister who is an excommunicatus vitandus, or who has been excommunicated by a condemnatory or declaratory sentence, the faithful may ask for sacramental absolution only in danger of death” (Can 2261 §3). There is also Can. 2265, §1 and §2, which states: §1, “Every excommunicated person whatsoever… (1) is forbidden to make use of the right of election, presentation or nomination; (2) is incapable of acquiring dignities, offices, benefices, ecclesiastical pensions, or any position in the Church and (3) cannot be promoted to orders. §2 Acts exercised in violation of the prohibitions in (1) and (2) are not invalid unless they were done by an excommunicatus vitandus or by a person excommunicated by a declaratory or condemnatory sentence.” So not only did Lefebvre and Thuc correspond to the definition of a vitandus, they also were to be considered as excommunicated by a declaratory (latae sententiae) sentence and were deemed by Canon Law as incapable of acting validly, as insisted upon by this author and others for years.
The faithful would be violating Can. 1325 and become heretics themselves for their silence if they failed to admit the violation of these canon laws and denounce the actions of Lefebvre, Thuc, any other bishops — and all whom they invalidly ordained and consecrated — as heretics and schismatics incapable of performing a valid act. Moreover, failure to do so is a denial of the condemnation by Pope Pius VI of the following proposition: “That the Church does not have authority to demand obedience to its decrees otherwise than by means which depend on persuasion, insofar as it intends that the Church has not conferred on it by God the power not only of directing by counsel and persuasion but also of ordering by laws and of constraining and forcing the inconstant and stubborn by exterior judgment and salutary punishments” — (leading toward a system condemned elsewhere as heretical; Auctorem fidei, 1794, DZ 1511). Not only must we defend the faith, but we must also obey the Sacred Canons.
Canon 104: Error invalidates acts
Canon 104 reads: “Error annuls an action, when the error concerns the substance of the action or amounts to a conditio sine qua non — that is to say, if the action would not have been done except for the error; otherwise the action is valid, unless the law states otherwise…” The canonists T. Lincoln Bouscaren and Adam Ellis comment: “Substantial error invalidates an act according to Canon 104. Error means a false judgment of the mind. Ignorance and inadvertence, though not identical with error, have the same juridical effect… Error is of law if it concerns existence or meaning of the law; of fact if it concerns any other fact. Error of law or a fact, if it is substantial, renders an act null and void.” And certainly the error of invalidity and illiciety is substantial; the acts of Trad pseudo-clergy null and void.
Rev. Charles Augustine states under Can. 104: “Whether deceit is committed by hiding the truth or telling a lie or by some machinations employing both words and deeds is immaterial. But it is important to ascertain whether the deceit practiced is the cause of one’s acting in such a way… Deceit generally causes error and therefore the canon speaks of error. Error is a state of mind in which one approves falsehood for truth. It differs from ignorance which is a lack of due knowledge” (A Commentary on Canon Law, 1931). The deceit practiced — hiding the true teachings of the popes and Canon Law to make it appear that they possessed orders and epikeia could replace jurisdiction; that they could represent the Church without the pope — this subterfuge definitely caused those involved in traditionalist sects to act as they did. But now that they know better, Catholics must do better.
Conclusion
As stated here repeatedly, to refute the teachings of the above Canons and prove only illiciety, while maintaining validity, LibTrads would need to disprove the most recent decisions of the Holy Office, the Code itself, VAS, and many other binding papal documents. In truth this cannot be done because the Church does not contradict Herself. They had the answer to what should be done in the absence of the Pope in Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis — elect a true pope according to the Sacred Canons. But all the cardinals, all the bishops failed to act. Cardinals lost the right to elect in voting in Roncalli, known to be a suspected heretic; the silence and inaction of the bishops on whom the election devolved ended any hope of ever again being able to elect a true pope.
In the latter days of his papacy, Pope Pius XII granted the faithful the following commission, in a document entered into the AAS: “Especially in countries where contacts with the hierarchy are difficult or practically impossible Christians…MUST, with God’s grace, assume all their responsibilities. Even so nothing can be undertaken against the explicit and implicit will of the Church or contrary in any way to the rules of faith or morals or ecclesiastical discipline.” It would be AGAINST the rules of faith and morals, of ecclesiastical discipline were the faithful NOT to invoke their right to publicly declare these imposters INVALID, NULL and VOID under Can. 1935. And that is why it matters that those praying at home acknowledge LibTrads not as just illicit, but undeniably invalid.
So the proofs above are Q.E.D. — quod erat demonstrandum. Or short and sweet, what has just been demonstrated cannot be refuted.
More comments from our readers
From Anon.
“I am now convinced that the orders after Pope Pius XII died are invalid. Thank you for directing me to Canon 2294.”
From D.M.
“To me the liciety v. validity is a not an issue as none are even now or ever were Catholic. Had one stood up in 1958 and said ‘we need another Conclave to get rid of this Modernist’ it would be different but seeing they all fell into line, Paul IV and Pope Pius XII in VAS takes over. End of story.”
From M.L.
“I’ve been thinking over some points on the validity of ordinations after Pope Pius XII, especially regarding the Church’s requirements for proper intention and for ministers to be “duly promoted.” Pope Leo XIII emphasized in Apostolicae Curae that, “In the ordination of bishops and priests, there is required besides the matter and the form, the minister, who is a duly promoted person, and the intention of doing what the Church does.”
“With this in mind, could ordinations performed without papal authority lack the necessary intention and legitimacy, if the minister’s intention is not aligned with the Church’s requirement for apostolic succession, and if they themselves are not “duly promoted” as the Church demands? Can’t it be said that what the so-called traditionalist spokespeople after Pius XII—empowered by the devil—were really able to do was craft a deceptive narrative that buried the truth known by true Catholics today and offered to souls seeking to enter the Ark. Rites done by valid ministers don’t guarantee validity if their so-called ‘ministers’ were not ‘duly promoted’ under a pope, as Apostolicae Curae outlines. Without the proper intention to do what the Church does in conferring the apostolic succession the way that the Church does, and without due promotion, validity is in very serious doubt—and their illicit rebellion, placing them outside the true Church, only underscores their lack of authority.
In light of our discussions and your articles, I felt compelled to reply, especially given the relentless spread of flawed reasoning and deceptive arguments among traditionalist circles. These opponents falsely claim that mere external adherence to the rites of the Church ensures validity, ignoring the critical necessity of papal unity and sacramental intention as the Church has always understood it. Their distorted narrative has led many to confusion and even despair, as they downplay God’s providence and misconstrue the role of His Holy Church. Few of us remain today who see through these deceptions and can articulate the truth that answers and dismantles their fallacies. And yet, we are equipped with a powerful defense: the Rosary, our great weapon, and true devotion to the Blessed Mother, who strengthens our faith and guards our fidelity.
As Christ Himself questioned, “When the Son of Man comes, will He find faith on the earth?” (Luke 18:8). We must hold fast, in this sense, to the true faith — the faith unwaveringly loyal to the Church as He established it. In this small remnant of the faithful, we find ourselves defending the apostolic continuity, purity of sacramental intention, and unity under Christ’s Vicar, keeping watch for His return and the restoration of His Church.
Your article provides a powerful exposition on the implications of Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis (VAS) for understanding valid episcopal authority during a papal interregnum. The constitution’s infallible assertion, specifically through Pope Pius XII’s directive, highlights that consecrations without a papal mandate are “null, void, and invalid.” This decree confirms that apostolic succession cannot be sustained without unity under a canonically elected Pope, rendering “traditionalist” consecrations invalid, not merely illicit. Pope Leo XIII’s Apostolicae Curae also underscores that a valid sacrament requires the intent to “do what the Church does,” which is incompatible with rejecting the Church’s teaching on the necessity of papal primacy. Your detailed treatment of these sources refutes the Gallicanist-like argument that bishops can perpetuate apostolic succession without the head bishop, the Pope.
Your second article offers a compelling and comprehensive defense of Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis (VAS) and its crucial role in preserving the Church’s integrity during interregna. I appreciate how thoroughly you addressed the necessity of papal authority in ensuring apostolic succession, pointing out that consecrations without the papal mandate are “null and void” by decree of Pope Pius XII. Your arguments against the notion that bishops could perpetuate apostolic succession independently are especially powerful. It resonates with what we’ve discussed about Apostolicae Curae and Pope Leo XIII’s insistence on the need for sacramental intention aligned with the Church’s understanding of unity under the Pope. I think this analysis beautifully clarifies how VAS refutes traditionalist claims and makes a clear distinction between lawful sacramental intention and invalid acts separated from papal authority. Thank you for sharing such a precise and valuable piece.
Your reflections make it clear that these so-called traditionalists have fallen into a grave error, misled as “children of the devil,” who have manipulated narratives to exploit the fears and vulnerabilities of the faithful. It was their initial lack of trust in God’s providence and love, and a failure to lean on the Blessed Virgin’s intercession, that opened the path to apostasy. This same distrust continues to sway those who, even after the great apostasy, are unable to muster the courage to truly live by faith, rather than seeking the security of what they can see or control. As Pope Pius XII reminded us in Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, any attempt to act outside papal authority is “null and void,” making clear that sacramental validity requires a true and obedient intention to serve within the structure Christ established through His Church.
Trads often dismiss key ecclesiastical rulings as “merely disciplinary” without recognizing the significance of their binding nature, particularly when set forth in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis. I absolutely agree with you on the infallibility of Humani generis and the tragic missteps made by those who choose to downplay it. Your point about the visible and tangible aspects of faith really resonates, and it’s a valuable reminder of St. Paul’s teaching on the unseen essence of faith. The contrast you draw with Protestantism is poignant—modern Trads do risk reducing the Church’s mysteries to a mere formalism that lacks the true essence of faith.
Who could have foreseen that we would be born into a time such as this, where in these dark latter days we are called to endure the absence of the Eucharist and the guiding hand of a true Vicar? Our plight bears a suffering scarcely imaginable. The early pilgrims, though they often could not partake directly, at least knew these sacraments and offices were present in the world. But now, we find ourselves in a desolate landscape, clinging to faith amid profound loss. Were it not for the grace of Almighty God, poured forth through the loving hands of the Blessed Mother, how could we endure?
Thank you again for allowing me to reflect on these matters, and may God bless you in your work to clarify the faith for those striving to follow it faithfully.
