Is the John 23rd Missal Valid?

by T. Stanfill Benns | Jul 21, 2022

© Copyright 2022, T. Stanfill Benns ( All emphasis within quotes is the author’s unless indicated otherwise.)

Introduction

The question posed in the above title appears to be an oxymoron, given the fact that for over 40 years this author has believed John 23 to be a false pope, and has proven he was invalidly elected. A false pope cannot issue anything and placing his name in the Canon of those masses following his election invalidated them, as the “una cum” thesis by Donald Sanborn explains. But incredibly there are a good number of Traditionalists who follow this missal and truly believe that it is the Latin Mass of the ages with just a few tweaks here and there. Sadly this is far from the truth. While many know Paul 6 officially introduced the Novus Ordo Missae, they may not know that with those una cum masses and the alterations to the lay mass prayers introduced in 1959, the true Mass already was effectively taken away. It was finally abrogated officially by John 23rd’s Missal in 1962.

There are many facets to this story and the road leading to these changes places us right in the midst of preparations for liturgical renewal and the ecumenism leading to the false Vatican 2 council. It was all a preplanned event, and it began with the destruction of discipline, something carefully plotted for decades by the Modernists.

Ecclesiastical discipline and the liturgy

As Pope Pius XII explained in Mediator Dei, after reminding the faithful that the Credo is a key part of the liturgy,

“The entire liturgy has the Catholic Faith for its content…it bears public witness to the faith of the Church. For this reason whenever there was a question of defining a truth revealed by God, the Sovereign Pontiff and the Councils, in their recourse to ‘theological sources,’ as they are called, have not seldom drawn many an argument from this sacred science of the Liturgy…’The rule for prayer determines the rule for belief.’ The Sacred Liturgy does not decide or determine independently and of itself what is of Catholic Faith…If one desires to differentiate and described the relationship between faith and the Sacred Liturgy in absolute and general terms, it is perfectly correct to say…’let the rule of belief determine the rule of prayer.’”

And so Catholic doctrine stands outside and above the liturgy. And yet this clear teaching of the ordinary magisterium is rejected as false and injurious to the Church even by Traditionalists today. This is proven by the many “opinions” concerning the validity of the NOM, the lawfulness of attending an NOM, and other matters. And yet Pope Pius taught in this same encyclical that:

“The Sacred Liturgy does include Divine as well as human elements. The former, instituted as they have been by God, cannot be changed in any way by men…The Sovereign Pontiff alone enjoys the right to recognize and establish any practice touching the worship of God, to introduce and approve new rites, as also to modify those he judges to require modification…No private person has any authority to regulate external practices of this kind, which are intimately bound up with Church discipline and with the order, unity and concord of the Mystical Body, and frequently even with the integrity of Catholic faith itself.”

This is only a reiteration of Pope St. Pius V’s Quo Primum, never abrogated, despite what some Trads now aver. Treating of changes in the Canon of the Mass, the Council of Trent, in DZ 953 and 956, condemned any abrogation or changes on the pretext of errors; and DZ 956 proscribes the use of the vernacular in the Canon. In analyzing Quo Primum, Loudikis and Whitehead, in their The Pope, the Council and the Mass, also other self-appointed theologians, conclude that this document was merely a “disciplinary” act and as such could not be infallible. (Several conclude the same concerning a large portion of Pope Paul IV’s Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio.) But these authors are laboring under a grave misconception concerning the Church’s true teaching on the subject of discipline. In the first place, this topic has been shamefully confused by a misprint (?) in the 1955 edition of Henry Denzinger’s The Sources of Catholic Dogma. In the Introduction to this edition, the 30th, translator Roy Deffarari credits none other than Charles (Karl) Rahner, S.J. as responsible for “the 28th, 29th and 30th editions.” This may well account for any discrepancies in these editions of Denzinger’s work. The problem concerns an omission in DZ 326, a condemnation of various heresies under Pope Nicholas I by the Roman Council in (860 and) 863 A.D. There Denzinger’s printed:

“If anyone condemns dogmas, mandates, interdicts, sanctions or decrees, promulgated by the one presiding in the Apostolic See, for the Catholic Faith, for the correction of the faithful, for the emendation of criminals, either by an interdict of threatening or future ills, let him be an anathema.

Writing in 1875, Henry Cardinal Manning, in his The Vatican Decrees in Their Bearing on Civil Allegiance gives this rendition of the council’s condemnation of that same error:

“Si quis dogmata, mandata, interdicta, sanctiones vel decreta, pro Catholica fide, pro ecclesiastica disciplina, pro correctione fidelium, pro emendatione scleratorum, vel interdictione imminentium vel futurorum malorum, a Sedis Apostolica Praeside salubriter promulgata contempserit,: Anathema sit.”

Notice that the words in bold, clearly translated as “for ecclesiastical discipline,” are omitted from Denzinger’s translation. Nor can it be argued that an ecumenical council erred, or such teaching was later amended without denying the infallible teaching of the Church. We find the following proposition condemned by Pope Pius VI in Auctorum Fidei (DZ 1578):

“In every article, that which pertains to faith and to the essence of religion must be distinguished from that which is proper to discipline,” the Jansenists maintained. Pope Pius VI taught: “As if the Church, which is ruled by the Spirit of God, could have established discipline which is not only useless and burdensome for Christian liberty but which is dangerous and harmful,” condemned as at least erroneous, dangerous and injurious to the Church, among other things. Under Can. 2317, those clerics who teach condemned propositions are “barred from the ministry of preaching the Word of God and of hearing sacramental confessions, and from every other office of teaching, without prejudice to other penalties which the sentence of condemnation of the doctrine may perhaps have decreed.”

Next we read from the Vatican Council:

“The pastors and faithful…are bound by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, not only in things which pertain to faith and morals but also in those which pertain to the discipline and government of the Church…If anyone says that the Roman Pontiff has only the office of inspection or direction, but not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the universal Church, not only in things which pertain to faith and morals but also in those which pertain to the discipline and government of the Church…let him be anathema,” (DZ 1827, 1831).

And finally there is this:

Pope Pius IX, Quartus Supra, 1873
“…as Our predecessor Pius VI warned in his Apostolic letter condemning the civil constitution of the clergy in France, discipline is often so closely related to doctrine and has such a great influence on its preservation and its purity, that the sacred councils have not hesitated to cut off from the Church by their anathema those who have infringed its discipline.”

Three years after writing Quartus Supra, Pope Pius IX, wrote:

Quae in patriarchatu, September 1, 1876
“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,” (to the clergy and faithful of the Chaldean Rite).

Loudikis and Whitehead were obviously subscribing to V2 theology in stating that a disciplinary decree could not be infallible. That can only be the direct result of Roncalli’s promotion of collegiality and the inevitable erosion of Apostolicity. The consequences of this erosion are most notable in the refusal of Traditionalists today to heed the teaching of the ordinary magisterium prior to October 1958. Those calling themselves Catholic, especially in a traditional sense, cannot fail to adhere to the very principles proper to tradition and still consider that they are faithful members of Christ’s Church. The faith is an all or nothing proposition; deny one article and it is lost.

The ordinary magisterium

Many ignore Pius XII’s obvious intent in Mediator Dei to reserve all decisions on the liturgy to himself. No firm assent there, despite the fact that the ordinary as well as the extraordinary magisterium is de fide, and that both equally bind Catholic consciences. To make theology answerable to what is contained only in the liturgy is to turn sacred science on its ear. Doctrine is the very bulwark of the Church, and the liturgy, by comparison, is only one of several aspects of the Church’s existence. As Rev. Augustine Rock explained in the June, 1953 issue of The American Ecclesiastical Review, “The liturgy is a part of the Church’s life, but it is not the Church…The liturgy is not directly and immediately ordained to the salvation of men,” no matter how loudly Traditionalists object to the contrary. “Theology is capable of teaching the meaning of the liturgy, but the liturgy cannot teach theology,” (“Liturgy, Theology and the Church of God”). So any understanding of the liturgy must be based strictly on theological principles, not proofs presented in a style popular with secular journalists.

We must comment further on Pius XII’s teaching that “The Sovereign Pontiff alone enjoys the right to recognize and establish any practice touching the worship of God, to introduce and approve new rites and also to modify those that require modification.” Loudikis and Whitehead offer a brief summary of historical changes to the liturgy as Pope Clement VIII’s changes to Bible chant pieces in 1604; Urban VIII’s changes in the wording of the rubrics in 1634; and the revisions based on the reforms of Pope St. Pius X introduced in 1920. Here we must remember that Divine worship encompasses many more things than the Sacrifice of the Mass. Many incidentals are connected to the liturgy and it is these incidentals that were changed or adjusted — not the ceremony of the Mass itself — and most certainly not the Canon of the Mass. Abbot Gasquet, O.S.B. tells us that “There is one unchanging ritual called the ‘Canon,’ during which the words of Consecration are pronounced over the bread and the wine…Our present detailed knowledge of the Mass goes back for 1,300 years [this in 1913], and, with the exception of one short clause inserted by Pope Gregory the Great, it has remained unchanged to the present day,” (Breaking With the Past).

This very fact should tell Catholics all that they wish to know concerning the inviolability of the Canon of the Mass, Christ’s very words. It is this Divine element of the Mass that Pope Pius XII says cannot be touched by man. Nor, he adds, can any person, religious or cleric, presume to alter the liturgy. Period. These teachings, also those found in Sacramentum Ordinis, should tell us something else. The rites of the Mass and Sacraments are not to be disturbed and cannot be disturbed — even by valid and licit bishops — for any reason. No questionably valid priest or bishop — and all Trads consecrated without the apostolic mandate never became priests or bishops by virtue of Pope Pius XII’s Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis — can possess apostolicity; they are not legitimate pastors. They cannot so much as venture an opinion as to whether the NOM effects valid consecration or whether priests may be ordained by those other than the diocesan bishop. Pope Pius XII forbids clerics to make these decisions, reserving them to the Pope alone. When in doubt, Canon Law tells us to obey the old law, (Can. 6 §4). Why this is so hard for Traditionalists to comprehend is baffling; all they need to do is to follow TRADITION. The reason they are unwilling to do so will be examined below.

The 1962 John 23 Missal

Despite the attempt to blame Pius XII for the first relaxations concerning the liturgy, the issue remains: Was the 1962 Missal sound? Was Roncalli a true pope able of even promulgating a new rite?

1.) Prior to Pope St. Pius X’s death, Angelo Roncalli was appointed secretary to Bp. Radini, who was originally a protégé of Cardinal Rampolla’s. At the time, Radini was under surveillance by the Sodalitum Pianum, the society established personally by Pope St. Pius X to flush out Modernists. Prior to this appointment, Roncalli had served as a part-time professor of Patrology at the Lateran College in Rome. His appointment was short-lived, however, for after serving only one term, he was purportedly dismissed “for having fallen into Modernism,” according to his friend Dom Lambert Beauduin. Paul Johnson documents this incident in his biography of Roncalli, Pope John XXIII.

2.) According to Fr. Bonnetere, as stated in a book review by Michael Davies: “Although the reforms of Pius XII had given some satisfaction to the leaders of the [Liturgical] Movement, the implacable orthodoxy that the Pope had maintained throughout had not been to their taste. New and more daring reforms were called for, and they needed a pope who understood the problem of ecumenism and who was a wholehearted supporter of the Movement. [Bonnetere] claims that: “The news of the death of the Angelic Pastor was received with almost delirious joy by the deviated Liturgical Movement.” The aged Dom Lambert Beauduin had not the least doubt as to the cardinal he hoped would be elected and confided his hopes to Father Bouyer: ‘If they elect Roncalli,’ he said ‘all will be saved. He will be capable of calling a Council and canonizing ecumenism…’ Silence fell; then, with a return of his old mischieviousness, he said with flashing eyes, ‘I believe we have a good chance. Most of the cardinals are not sure what to do. They are capable of voting for him.’”
https://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/remnant/bug.htm

3.) Many cite John 23’s Veterum Sapiente on the retention of Latin as proof that Roncalli favored the old Mass and would not have approved of the Novus Ordo. This is disproved by Paul 6 biographer Andre Fabert, who wrote: “Giuseppe Cardinal Pizzardo… had drawn up a paper reaffirming Latin as the language of the universal Church…Montini went to visit his old friend, begging him to reconsider. But Pizzardo was firm. Montini had to submit the draft of Pizzardo’s to the Pope. Pope John left it on his desk for two months, and then finally signed it…to appease the Curialists. He was waiting for the Council to begin. Privately he told the bishops: ‘Pay no attention to Veterum Sapiente,’” (Pope Paul VI).

4.) In the early days of Roncalli’s reign, the new pope’s first “mass” appeared, substituting “for all men” vs. “for many” in the English translation of the Canon, (Our Parish Prays and Sings, Order of St. Benedict, Collegeville, MN, first edition printed in January, 1959; The People’s Mass, Paulist Press, January 1959). These mass booklets were widely distributed and used throughout the U.S. and even abroad until the Novus Ordo was established in 1969. They came into the hands of the faithful within a bare three or four months following Roncalli’s election. So in essence, the most devastating change made in the liturgy and the one that proves Roncalli’s denial of divine law and Scripture —falsifying Our Lord’s very own words and His meaning of redemption —occurred not in 1969 during the reign of Paul 6, but in 1959.

5.) This proves that Roncalli was as much a humanist as his dear friend Montini. Indeed, Montini wrote or assisted him in writing several of his major encyclicals and was his “guiding light” so to speak. Secular humanism in and of itself is a heresy, and perhaps the predominant heresy of the anti-Church. It is the “practical Catholic” who believes that the vernacular must be used in favor of the people rather than a dead language; that the laity must be allowed a democratic share in the governing of the Church; that the Church must update itself to suit modern people and times. As we shall see below, humanism is the byproduct of another error known as pragmatism. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, this error was rampant among American Catholics, especially, and was well entrenched prior to the death of Pope Pius XII.

— “The United States [is where] pragmatism has flourished most…Individualism or nominalism is the starting point of the pragmatist…Pragmatism…is a non-rational philosophy; practical consequences used as a test of truth…[It] is a separate system of philosophy…In reality, it is the application of humanism to the theory of knowledge.”

— “Pragmatism is a philosophico-religious system…which can be defined in general as a tendency to consider everything from the practical point of view, i.e., in terms of action, seeking in action itself the reason of truth and certainty, of life and religion…The truth of an idea depends on its practical verification,” (Rev. Pascal Parente, Dictionary of Dogmatic Theology. Here we see echoes of Hecker’s heresy of action, also condemned by the Church.)

— “Pragmatism makes out the true to be something relative and changeable,” (A Manual of Modern Scholastic Philosophy, Cardinal Mercier)

Because pragmatism, then, is essentially humanism, humanism must be defined. In the 15th to the 17th centuries it was a studied reaction to Scholasticism, the philosophical method of St. Thomas Aquinas adopted by the Church. Owing to new discoveries of Latin and Greek classics during the Renaissance, a spirit of learning was revived that especially stressed the use of reason in determining truth and falsehood. Humanists appealed to the classics (especially Aristotle without St. Thomas and Plato) as a true and pure form of philosophy outside of Scholasticism. Cosimo de’ Medici, a 15th century Humanist favoring Platonism, founded a Platonic academy in Italy where a new philosophy was envisioned. Humanists Marsilio Ficino and Giovanni Pico della Mirandola called this philosophia perennia (a philosophy that always would be true). This philosophy embraced all the humanities — art, languages, literature, science, mathematics and so forth.

At that time the Church had not yet solidified Her reliance on Scholasticism as the only system of philosophy approved by the Church. St. Thomas More was sympathetic to humanism, and in its first blush, this philosophy was not what it later became. Individual responsibility for the application of Catholic principles to their lives, aided by the erudition of Latin and Greek scholars, was not in itself an objectionable goal, as long as the truths of faith were not harmed in the process. But the Reformation soon redirected Humanism against Catholic teaching, and this is what queered the movement. The Anglicans, Church of Scotland moderates, German pietists, and Kant preserved humanism after its condemnation by the Church. Montini’s close friend Jacques Maritain and the heretic Hans Kung are its proponents today in Novus Ordo theology. This failed attempt by Kung and Maritain to reconcile humanism with Scholasticism is the explanation for much of the confusion and error in the field of Scholastic thought today.

Humanism today is better known as secular humanism, defined by the Novus Ordo priest Fr. Burke as the “common heritage of all Americans… a way of looking at reality that denies the impact of God on human affairs… It denies the existence of an absolute and knowable objective truth.” In other words, secular humanism differs very little from pragmatic philosophy. And as we will see below, it is practically indistinguishable from religiosity and Catholic conformism.

6.) Roncalli’s “new mass” was intended to test the waters for the potential success of the council he intended to call. Politically it achieved what Rev. Albert Kaiser observed in his December 1953 article for The American Ecclesiastical Review: “The Gallican and Febronian pretension of limiting Papal jurisdiction in favor of episcopal equality was more or less a cover-up for an underground movement to nationalize the Church. The ‘Free from Rome’ movement in a sense dove-tailed with the Nazi political movement. As the French Revolution’s disastrous effects helped bring the dissident clergy back to the Pope, so Hitler’s providential defeat contributed to help the Pope reclaim the ‘German nationalists.’” (Doesn’t this sound suspiciously like the Sedevacantists among Traditionalists, many of whom are blatantly anti-Semitic and block any effort to restore the papacy?) Rev. Kaiser blamed “liturgical novelties and errors” on “overzealous activists” in Germany, who frequented liturgical and Catholic Action meetings in order to combat National Socialism. According to Kaiser, all the later abuses found in the Novus Ordo already were practiced in Germany in 1937. These included Mass facing the people, removal of the tabernacle to a safe in the wall (a necessity during the war), standing to receive Holy Communion and forbidding the Rosary and all other private devotions at Mass. But the liturgical movement had a long history in Europe even before the advent of World War II.

Around the feast of the Ascension in 1922, at St. Gertrude’s Church near Klosterneuberg, Austria, “…the so-called lay liturgical movement began,” Rev. Pius Parsch wrote. “In Germany it was the abbeys of Maria Laach and Beurin which ardently took up the idea.” Parsch, a professor of theology who wrote several books on the liturgy was among the first to begin dismantling the Mass, as his brief autobiography reveals. “The lay liturgical movement…looks for all possible ways of bringing the laity into its celebration. The laity must realize that much in the Mass has become set and fossilized (!) The fore-mass has almost completely lost its purpose… A new type of piety has been developed which goes back to the early Church…Our work will extend in ever-widening circles in the Church and… will erect a bridge of agreement with our separated brethren.” Here in a nutshell we have all the errors promulgated by the V2 anti-Church https://www.catholicauthors.com/parsch.html .

Besides Parsch, we also have Dom Beauduin operating in approximately the same time frame in Belgium. Although he saw in the liturgy great opportunities to instruct, catechize and inspire the faithful, in his intemperate zeal for lay participation and change Beauduin “…began to think in terms of freeing the liturgy from old traditions and rules…(He) was the first to make experiments in the Ecumenical Movement.” The monk was involved in forming an ecumenical monastery embracing both Catholic and Orthodox monks in 1924, but instead of converting the Orthodox, the Orthodox began recruiting the Catholics. This led Pope Pius XI to issue “Mortalium Animos” on true and false ecumenism. Beauduin resigned, but never publicly abjured his heresy. Later his good friend Angelo Roncalli would reign in Rome and vindicate his life’s work.

The monastery of Maria Laach in Germany mentioned by Parsch produced Dom Odo Casel, another fly in the liturgical ointment. Casel used archaeological study to promote the idea that the Church had, over time, lost the true sense intended by Christ for the liturgy. He taught that the second millennia of Christianity was not faithful to the liturgical practice and intent of the first millennia, creating in the faithful a desire to return to this initial “primitive purity.” Parsch and Casel emphasized the interaction of priest and celebrant as truer to the meaning of the liturgy in the early Church. By stressing the importance of the God-man Christ bodily with the Apostles and faithful following the Resurrection, less emphasis was placed on Christ’s Presence in the Host. This was a mystery requiring belief in the unseen based on Christ’s teaching, not His physical presence as represented by the priest. Thus was lost the Mystery of Faith. All the elements of the Novus Ordo Missae are here.

7.) “Liberals have wrongly envisioned liturgical Tradition as an experimental ground for testing doctrines before they are embodied in the teaching of the Church,” (Rev. Kaiser’s “The Historical Backgrounds and Theology of Mediator Dei,” Pt. I, American Ecclesiastical Review). Thus did the law of praying ultimately become the law for believing and accepting when the Novus Ordo Missae was finally introduced 10 years later. This may explain why Pope Pius XII insisted on clarifying this maxim, modifying it to read that the rule for belief must determine the rule for prayer. The statement in its reverse was probably already being used to justify the modernization of the liturgy. Certainly Roncalli knew all about the new prayer books issued in 1959; his old friend Dom Beauduin and other extreme liturgist friends were quick to inform him of all progress on the liturgical and ecumenical front. And Roncalli, as Johnson reports, had no problem in contradicting the teachings of his predecessors, even if it meant experimenting with the liturgy by falsifying Christ’s words. For this little experiment only illustrated the fact that what one prays becomes what one believes.

8.) Adding St. Joseph to the Canon may appear to be a slight change or minor inroad to most. Yet it was the first official change in the Canon of the Mass since the time of St. Gregory the Great, if Roncalli’s sly falsification of the Canon is overlooked. https://www.sspx.ca/Angelus/1979_August/Developement_Roman_Mass2.htm
Roncalli was an avowed ecumenist long before his election and this was no secret. His encyclical on religious liberty, Pacem in terris (written either wholly or in part by Montini), clearly states that all are free to practice the religion they see fit to practice. “Where he was absolutely adamant was in his insistence on total liberty of conscience,” Paul Johnson said in Pope John XXIII, (p. 153). “Here he demolished orthodox and traditional Catholic teaching.” St. Joseph’s name in the Canon was not an expression of his devotion to St. Joseph, or a liturgical concession; it was a doctrinal concession that complemented the phrase “for all men” silently overlooked in the missalettes mentioned above, widely circulated beginning in 1959. It was a clear signal to the Anglicans that Rome finally blessed their reunionist activities in cooperation with Catholics, condemned by Pope Pius IX in 1864, when these same reunionists first proposed adding St. Joseph’s name to the Canon. And Roncalli’s final blessing of these activities was to grant at last their many petitions. As Roncalli’s biographer Johnson commented, John XXIII had no qualms in overturning the decrees of his predecessors.

9.) But Roncalli’s real coup was the victory won during the first council schema on the liturgy in 1962. “On the surface, it seemed like little more than dropping the Traditional Latin from certain parts of the Mass and permitting those parts to be said in the language of the people,” another papal biographer, Lawrence Elliot wrote. “But most of the council fathers, and certainly all of the Traditionalists among them, understood clearly that to deprive the curia of its historically held right to decide all liturgical matters was to open the door to decentralization. If, as proposed, national conferences of bishops would choose when to use Latin and when to use the vernacular, wouldn’t they soon also want a voice in missionary activities and the control of the seminaries?” (I Will Be Called John, p. 301). The Constitution on the liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium, was officially promulgated in November 1963. And in this decree we find the following:

“Holy Mother Church desires to undertake with great care a general restoration of the liturgy itself… For the liturgy is made up of unchangeable elements divinely instituted and elements subject to change. The latter not only may but ought to be changed with the passing of time if features by chance have crept in that are less harmonious with the intimate nature of the liturgy or if existing elements have grown less functional. In this restoration both texts and rites should be drawn up so that they express more clearly the holy things which they signify. Christian people, as far as possible should be able to understand them with ease, and be able to take part in them fully, actively, and as befits a community.”

This certainly does not sound like Paul 6 or the council fathers considered that Pope Pius XII had changed the liturgy in any meaningful way. In fact the Davies article (see hyperlink listed in # 3 above) identifies those who trace the reform back to Pius XII and even to earlier popes as covert supporters of the liturgical revolution: “No change of significance was made in the Roman Missal until the post-Vatican II revolution got underway,” Davies wrote. “APOLOGISTS FOR THIS REVOLUTION (emph. mine) attempt to give the impression that it is but the latest in a series of similar reforms.” Also, the message sent by Sacrosanctum Concilium is that the unchangeable part of the Mass, the Canon, will not be touched. But what was actually done is a different matter, as all know.

10.) In Pope John and the Ecumenical Council, Carlo Falconi stated, under the title ‘The competent authority to decide on liturgical reform’: “Henceforth, in addition to the Pope and the Bishop, such reforms can be decided on also by a ‘super-diocesan territorial episcopal authority, territorial, episcopal assemblies of various kinds,’ (…regional or national episcopal conferences, etc).” The rector of the pontifical Academy of Sant’ Anselmo, the Benedictine Cipriano Vagaggini, warned that this was “a great novelty, because it sanctions the establishment of decentralization in the liturgical field in favor of…a super-diocesan territorial authority,” (p. 333). This same authority was again referred to as being responsible for use of the vernacular in the liturgy. These committees later manifested themselves in two forms: the first, the establishment of the International Committee of English in the Liturgy (ICEL), and secondly, Paul VI’s establishment of a “Consilium” to oversee the use of vernacular in the liturgy. Subsequently, in 1967, it granted permission for the entire Mass, including the canon, to be said aloud in the vernacular, (see DZ 956 below) and granted the bishops liturgical powers.

As Rev. Bryan Houghton related in Mitre and Crook, Paul VI issued a “motu proprio” in 1964 fixing the parts of the Mass to be said in the native dialect. In doing this he stated that he was following the guidelines laid down by the 1963 decree of the V2 council on the liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium. As Houghton noted, “It [the motu proprio] also announced the creation of a special Consilium… or advisory body, to put into effect the Council’s recommendations.” And this was the “supra diocesan territorial authority” provided for in 1962 by Roncalli. Houghton, however, seems unaware of the actual power given to the Consilium. Nor does he seem to realize that the 1962 session determined that in matters of the vernacular, what is decided by “…the territorial authorities… shall be examined or confirmed by the Apostolic See,” (but promulgated by the Consilium; Pope John and the Ecumenical Council, p. 334). For later in his work he continually complains that what is produced by the Consilium is promulgated without the express consent of Paul VI. Long story short, the Consilium eventually worked for the compilation of the Novus Ordo Missae. And so it was that ecumenism and collegiality, both introduced by John XXIII, culminated in the creation of the NOM and the obrogation of the Latin Mass.

For Roncalli, Johnson said, “The Council was the supreme legislative organ of the Church…The Council and the collegiality it embodied, was to remove from the shoulders of the Pope the immense burden of lonely decision… In general, the hieratic element of the Church has been diminished, and the role of the congregation enlarged…This liturgical revolution embodies the spirit of aggiornamento Pope John conjured into existence…The pace of liturgical change has, however, enormously strengthened the impetus of the liturgical movement. In this respect Pope John’s work has already achieved substantial results…The doctrinal conflict between transubstantiation and consubstantiation… has been placed in a new and sophisticated context, and is now on the road to resolution,” (p. 236-40). Johnson credits Roncalli with establishing collegiality then, and notes that when it has been fully accepted, “the separated episcopal churches will take their place in the collegiate machinery,” (p. 241). The end result of Roncalli’s open-arms approach to the separated brethren culminated in the following statement by Paul 6:

“This is why the Fathers felt they had a solemn duty to warn the faithful that, in reflecting upon this most sacred Sacrament, they should not pay attention to the senses, which report only the properties of bread and wine, but rather to the words of Christ, which have power great enough to change, transform, ‘trans-elementize’ the bread and wine into His body and blood. As a matter of fact, as the same Fathers point out on more than one occasion, the power that does this is the same power of Almighty God that created the whole universe out of nothing at the beginning of time,” (Mysterium Fidei, paragraph 47). If we analyze the meaning of the word transelementize here, we will discover that it is a new word not carried in the dictionaries. Elements, according to Webster, can refer to the bread and wine. But the prefix trans, meaning beyond, over or across, gives this word an ambiguous cast that allows Protestants to better read the error of consubstantiation into Montini’s meaning. All was done in the name of ecumenism.

11.) We learn the following from Leon de Poncin’s work, Freemasonry and the Vatican:

“The campaign for closer relations with Freemasonry remained quiescent while Pius XII was pope…The progressives realized they had little chance of success during the Pope’s lifetime. With the accession of Pope John XXIII, and the growth of the new conceptions of ecumenism…something like an explosion took place. A sudden flowering of works devoted to Freemasonry blossomed forth from a variety of authors. Historians, philosophers, journalists and politicians all worked, each in their own sphere, in favor of a reconciliation between the Catholic Church and Freemasonry.”

Even before his “election,” Roncalli had rehabilitated Marc Sangier, founder of the Sillon and “undisputed master” of the Christian Democrats, as Brother Michael of the Trinity relates. “Abp. Roncalli, in a letter clearly intended to be circulated in French political circles, canonized the founder of the Sillon [following his death], rejoicing that for their part ‘the most authoritative voices in French public life,’ Masonic, laicizing and Socialist voices, also canonized him in their own way,” (The Whole Truth About Fatima: The Third Secret, pg. 354).

It is not difficult to align Roncalli with the forces intent on destroying the Church. Once it is understood that Roncalli introduced the concept of collegiality, putting it into practice at the Council by declaring that the liturgy was not subject to the pope alone, one can see that he dealt a deadly blow both to papal primacy and the Mass, successfully destroying the two-fold center of unity in the Church. Pope Pius XII reserved decisions on the liturgy to the Pope alone for a reason, that reason being the Divine promise made to St. Peter and his successors via the delivery of the keys that whatever they would bind on earth also would be bound in heaven. The liturgists could show their true hand all they wanted, present their requests and the Pope would concede only what he wished to concede. But the decisions of bishops already imbued with liberal and modernistic ideas were an entirely different matter.

“Traddie world” myths

There is no argument that can topple Divine law, and yet certain Traditionalists will still argue that Roncalli was a true Pope; a pawn in an unholy game perhaps, but valid nevertheless. But if this is the case, why not make Paul 6 an unquestionably valid pontiff? And why bother to contest the falsification of Christ’s words in the supreme sacrificial act of Redemption at all? They read the same in 1959 as they did in 1969. They offer the same unspeakable insult to God, the same heretical frame of reference and the same intent to deceive and pervert. Roncalli was not a Catholic, far less Pope, and his actions speak for themselves.

Given all the above, it is difficult to understand how Roncalli can escape the same categorization as his successors. Yet strangely enough the John 23 Missal, which in essence and reality differed very little from the NOM itself, is deemed good enough for God. That Roncalli was crafty enough to retain “for many” in the Vatican editions of the missal is not a good enough reason to justify its use. The true effects of the secret campaign to establish ecumenism as a Catholic belief is completely ignored here. This pernicious campaign changed Catholic belief by changing the Canon, the pivotal prayer of the Mass, when liturgy is defined by the Church as revealed Tradition and this was the alteration of that Tradition. Previously Catholics firmly believed that Christ died for all men only insofar as those men could find the visible Church Christ established and convert. Collegiality and ecumenism poisoned that belief. The hypocrisy here is that “all men” was the critical open door to pagans and unbelievers, the very same pagans and unbelievers who would later be openly embraced by Montini, Wojtyla and Ratzinger. How can it not be crucial to everything that followed?!

Rev. Rock’s article quoted above emphasizes that no matter how much we may value the liturgy, it is not theology. Rock defined theology as “an orderly understanding, insofar as that is possible, of God and all things seen in their relationship to God.” He then refers to the “haphazard” formation, even in his day, of young people who then went on to develop “false notions, erroneous concepts [and] distortions” concerning theology. Those young people were later the parents and grandparents of today’s Traditionalists. One of the distortions they passed on to their children and grandchildren was the exaggerated importance of the relationship of the liturgy to the Church as a whole, primarily because what often is missing in one’s life assumes distorted proportions of importance. And this is the most pervasive Traddie myth of all: that the Church’ s very existence and the doctrines She teaches are somehow antecedent to the liturgy, and that unity in truth, the integral connection of all the Church teaches is not necessary to a true appreciation and understanding of doctrine. As we have seen above, this is not the teaching of the Church.

Rev. Kaiser, quoted previously in this article, accurately predicted every heresy that would result if Mediator Dei was ignored, and the liturgical movement given free rein. He discussed these heresies in the January 1954 issue of The American Ecclesiastical Review as follows:

“The Quietistic, Jansenistic and Hegelian heresies that affected those who took their cues from Dom Odo Casel and others led “to a kind of Pantheism,” and the rest of those errors condemned in Mediator Dei were born of the confusion this pantheism created. The confusions were many: “It confused the natural and sacramental priesthood of Christ…the sacramental and Mystical Body of Christ…the temporary Eucharistic presence of Christ’s humanity in the soul of the communicant with the longer-lasting presence of sanctifying and sacramental grace in the souls of the just…It mistook antiquarianism and simplicity for true historical and scientific research into the backgrounds of doctrine, liturgy and theology…It confused objective and subjective holiness…Hegelian monism and unity of truth…Scientific scholasticism and mere arbitrary and perfunctory nominalism, or in other words, real thinking and mere labeling…It mistook Quietism for mysticism, syncretism for integration, humanism for divine faith. And finally its socialistic community worship led to community of priest, community of Christ, community of God,” and not long after Kaiser wrote, to the People of God. This, Kaiser concluded, was “Not evolution, but revolution and devolution.”

Here we find summarized an entire collection of Traddie and Novus Ordo myths, particularly concerning grace and its operation, the necessity of theological study and research, the emptiness of exterior religion, the bane of secular humanism and the insanity that became the Novus Ordo. Already in the 1950s, Kaiser warned of the threat that emerged as collegiality. “The pretense [of the extreme liturgists] at giving all bishops equal power and denying supreme papal jurisdiction was a cover-up for so-called nationalistic… delusions of Febronianism (German Gallicanism).” As Rev. Bruno Hagspiel explained in 1957, “The experience of centuries bears out the truth that generally speaking, the subjects will be what the superior is…’as the shepherd, so the flock,’” (Live in the Holy Spirit). Bishops and other clergy entrusted with the revision of the liturgy do not share with the Pope the charism of infallibility, therefore it is no wonder they spawned a false rite. Nor is it any wonder that their exalted opinions of their importance and antipathy towards authority eventually rubbed off on the faithful.

Secular humanism already a reality

Just because Roncalli was accepted peacefully by “Catholics,” this does not make him validly elected, especially when, as will be shown below, most of those accepting him were no longer Catholic at all. The antipope Anacletus II, not Innocent II was accepted by the majority as a true pope, a notable exception to the Church’s own rule that the man in Rome is most likely to be in possession of the papacy. At that time there was no notable decline in faith and morals among the faithful like there was in the late 1950s, early 1960s. Those trying to make sense out of the disintegration of the Church today are nonplussed at why Catholics seemingly well educated in their faith gave up so easily on the unchangeable Church, giving into V2 changes and accepting the New Order of the Mass. While there is more than one answer to this question as is often the case, the most plausible answer is the one provided by Rev. Paul Furfey in his Mystery of Iniquity.

Writing in 1944, Furfey summed up the problem already at work in his day as follows: “Catholic conformism can be explained only in terms of cowardice… Catholic conformists are Catholics in the sense that they deny no doctrine of the Church outright, and conform as closely as they dare to the viewpoint of unbelievers…” Such conformists, he continues, are “timid Catholics (who) hesitate to assume their normal burden of suffering to accept persecution for the sake of their opinions…” It was Christ’s intention, Furfey points out, that “Christians make a clean break with the world…and that they should suffer the consequences.”

Furfey goes on to list “the variety of cruel punishments” that awaits the Catholic non-conformist. “In some times and in some places the punishment is the prison cell, the concentration camp, or the firing squad…” Other less drastic but equally painful methods include “withholding rewards,” connected with worldly success; employing ridicule, “when most persons are terrified of ridicule. It requires a real bit of heroism to stand up for one’s convictions when they make one the butt of jokes and insults.” And of course there is the general unpleasantness of just being different, and the loneliness that accompanies being opinionated in matters of religion. After all, conformism is rewarded with all the perks of life – companionship, mutual favors, everyday pleasantries, inclusion in social affairs and the endorsement of those in positions to further one’s business and social life. And non-conformism results effectively in social exile.

How did Catholics, supposedly trained to be other-Christs and imitate the heroic sanctity of the martyrs, descend to Catholic conformism? The best training in conformism and the herd mentality was offered in public schools, where over 50 percent of Catholics in this country received their education; heroic sanctity, if taught to children at all, was a weekly sidebar offered in CCD classes. In public schools, Horace Mann early on mandated conformism as the best way to assure assimilation of the doctrines taught by public education and enforce the disciplinary codes. Even in many “Catholic” schools, emphasis was placed on the social and political flavor of Catholicism – its external components, not its internal core beliefs. Families failed as well in encouraging the predominance of internal religion and a daily, personal relationship with God. Too often, all emphasis was placed on the superficial and the worldly.

In concluding his explanation of Catholic conformism, Furfey observed that such behavior constitutes a deadly dualism, defined by Pope Pius XI as “moral, juridical and social modernism…Social modernism combines two characteristics: an (outward) profession of loyalty to Catholic social doctrine plus a disregard for the encyclicals as though they were ‘out of date.’ Would it be rash then to assert that social modernism and Catholic conformism is one and the same thing?” And we can add here that Furfey’s description fits both Novus Ordo adherents and Traditionalists alike, demonstrating that the ordinary magisterium was already being ignored. A Protestant author defined Furfey’s social modernism as a sort of “civic idolatry” permeating America even before V2.

Catholic scriptural scholar Rev. Bruce Vawter, for all his later divergence from Catholic orthodoxy, identified the “re-emergence” of Americanism in the 1950s as a distinctly new American religion — a synthesis of Judaism, Catholicism and Protestantism characterized by an avid civic involvement. So long before Roncalli arrived, the ground was prepared. Author Will Herberg, in his Protestant, Catholic, Jew, already had documented the new religion’s existence, even quoting scholastic theologians’ observance of the phenomenon. But Vawter pinned the hybrid to the wall, naming it “religiosity.” And here Americanism’s true link to Jansenism can be discerned. For like this parent heresy, Americanism relied primarily on the appearance of holiness — the formalism and hypocrisy of the Pharisees and the Jansenists — rather than true interior mortification and genuine sanctity. As Vawter rightly defined it, religiosity is the appearance of religion devoid of its substance. Christ warned His Church to judge not by appearances, but by the fruits of those claiming to be holy.

Herberg and others chronicled the gradual metamorphosis of Catholicism, Protestantism and Judaism into one religion in this country; a religion that kept as its standard the expectations of the State and society in general, not their respective religious beliefs and practices. Herberg had this to say about religious conformism: “The religiousness characteristic of America today…is without serious commitment, without real inner conviction…The very notion of being ‘singled out,’ of standing ‘over against’ the world is deeply repugnant to one for whom well-being means conformity and adjustment. Religion is valued as conferring a sense of social acceptability and ’belonging,’ a sense of being really and truly of the world and society,” when the Catholic knows only too well he must be in the world of necessity, but not of it. “Biblical faith…is a declaration of permanent resistance to the claims of society, community culture and cult…,” Herberg continued. Those embracing this conformism he calls “religiosity” protect themselves “against this profoundly disturbing aspect of biblical faith by refusing to understand it… Nonconformity, uncompromising witness are so ‘unsociable,’ so terribly ‘unadjusted’! The very purpose of man’s built-in radar apparatus is to protect him against such perils. It protects him so well that it makes the prophetic faith of the Bible almost unintelligible to him.”

Speaking on the subject of biblical faith at the Vatican Council in 1869, St. Anthony Mary Claret noted that if those denying the doctrine of infallibility would take the time to study Scripture, the teaching of this doctrine would be clearly seen and understood. The saint then went on to explain why Scripture is not understood, and his explanation applies to Biblical teaching on many other doctrines today as well.

1.) Men do not really LOVE God
2.) They lack humility
3.) Men do not wish to understand Scripture simply because they do not wish the good.

Herberg agreed with the saint, identifying this lack of humility with the rise of secular humanism. In the end, he concluded, it is “…not man who serves God, but God who serves man…” Faith is used as “a surefire device to get what we want,” be it prosperity, social standing, security, peace of mind, Mass and Sacraments outside the laws and teachings of the Church or “popes” outside these same laws and teachings. And if this was the case in the 1940s and 1950s, what can we expect today?

Herberg further identified religiosity as “a kind of national messianism…a fusion of religion with national purpose…American culture-religion is the religious aspect of Americanism,” and Pope Leo XIII condemned Americanism as a heresy. What Herberg really said is that American Catholics long ago placed their culture and government superior to the teachings and laws of the Church, paying only lip service to Church authorities. The war was lost long ago, and over time obedience to the Pope and Church teaching eroded to the point that allegiance to both placed second, and personal autonomy came first. This is the undeniable triumph of religious liberty and indifferentism; the reversal of the order of the universe as established by God the Father, with man assuming precedence over God, Church and civil rulers. Secular humanism, first espoused, it seems, by the heretic John Eckart was long ago condemned by Pope John XXII as heretical. Eckart taught:

“We are transformed entirely in God and we are changed into Him; in a similar manner as in the sacrament the bread is changed into the body of Christ, so am I changed into Him because He Himself makes me to be one with Him, not like (to Him); through the living God it is true that there is no distinction there,” (Henry Denzinger’s Sources of Catholic Dogma; DZ 510). Nothing better expresses the spirit of the liturgical movement than Eckart’s error. Likewise Pope Pius IX condemned the following in his Syllabus of Errors:

“Human reason, with absolutely no regard to God, is the only judge of the true and false, the good and the evil; it is a law unto itself and is, by its own natural powers, sufficient to guide for the good of individuals and of peoples, (op. cit., DZ 1703).

“All truths of religion flow from the natural power of human reason; hence reason is the chief norm by which man can and should come to a knowledge of all truths of whatever kind,” (op. cit., DZ 1704).

By the time V2 commenced, most American Catholics were only too happy to make concessions to their Protestant brethren in the name of “ecumenism,” a high-sounding phrase synonymous with secular humanism, individualism and religiosity. And it was Roncalli, assisted and supported even then by Montini, who was responsible for raising this ecumenism to new heights. Catholicism and ecumenism being mutually exclusive terms, Roncalli was never a Catholic pope and his followers were not Catholics themselves. Roncalli built the NO framework; Montini only fleshed it out. It’s called gradualism and this dynamic duo applied it slowly but surely. To separate the goals of these two men, to pretend Roncalli was not in league with Montini from the beginning, is to ignore the history of the era. And Church history, the Catechism reminds us, is also a part of revealed Tradition.

Religious liberty
Trads are as much practitioners of religious liberty as their NO brethren. This has occurred because of their refusal to put the axe to the root of ecumenism’s tree in declaring Roncalli a false pope, an omission that has succeeded in blinding what is left of the elect. For as Pope St. Pius X warned in the case of the Modernist heresy, unless this ecumenism mingled with other errors is eradicated entirely, “it will diffuse poison through the whole tree so that there is no part of Catholic truth that they leave untouched, none that they do not strive to corrupt,” (Pascendi Dominici gregis). Roncalli is why Trads consistently resort to their own opinions and not those of established authority, as the Church’s disciplinary code insists, (Can. 6 §4). He is the reason why they refuse to seriously consider suspending any activities, any judgments on these matters, until the hierarchy returns and a true Pope can be elected. Collegiality rules among the bishops of their various sects, deprived of apostolicity by their lack of jurisdiction. For unless both Orders and jurisdiction exist, these men cannot be true successors of the apostles, and this is the unquestionably de fide teaching of the Church. Even the late “Fr.” Anthony Cekada admitted this, stating that “NO ONE IN THE TRADITIONAL MOVEMENT POSSESSES ORDINARY JURISDICTION!”

According to Rev. Van Noort, “What is required for GENUINE APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION is that a man enjoy THE COMPLETE POWERS (i.e., ordinary powers, not extraordinary) of an apostle. He must, then, in addition to the power of orders, possess also the power of jurisdiction.” Rev Adolphe Tanquerey writes: “The successors of the Apostles as regards the power of teaching, ruling and sanctifying the faithful are the bishops collectively taken, who have their authority by Divine right. The thesis is historically certain and theologically de fide, being proposed as an object of faith by the ordinary magisterium,” (Dogmatic Brevior). All know that both in Ad Apostolurum Principis, a binding decree entered into the Acta Apostolica Sedis, and Mystici Corporis, (which 1950s theologians agreed was an infallible pronouncement) Pope Pius XII insists that without the Supreme Pontiff’s express permission and approval, these bishops cannot exercise their right. And yet all these men and the priests beneath them are considered legitimate and are obeyed and followed as such. This is the direct result of ignoring a de fide teaching of the Church, now an option since Roncalli has opened the door to religious liberty. As long as these people are able to shelter even partially under his ecumenical, secular humanist umbrella, the acid rain of V2 will be shed and they will appear to be dry, even though wringing wet in reality.

The hard questions must be asked and answers must be given

1.) Why are those calling themselves TRADITIONALISTS tolerating a professed ecumenist and his perverted missal when clearly this completely contradicts Tradition? “The Church finds the revealed truths She is bound to teach in the Holy Scripture and revealed traditions…The Church finds the revealed traditions in the decrees of its [unquestionably approved] Councils; in its books of worship; …in the lives of its saints, the writings of the Fathers and in its own history,” (Kinkead’s Baltimore Catechism #3, Q. 557 and 560). Revealed Traditions are faithfully preserved and handed down; they do not permit innovation.

2.) Why, pray tell, have Traditionalists gone to the trouble of establishing the method for determining whether or not one must be avoided as a heretic when they fail to apply this formula to those who present the biggest threat to the faith of Catholics? Why do they “debate’ whether B16 is a true pope and assume that Roncalli was Catholic on election — henceforth validly elected — without providing answers concerning why his pre-election activities did not constitute heresy? Canon 2200, which states that orthodoxy must be proven and heresy ruled out before making such assumptions, is clearly reflected in Alexander VII’s condemnation of the following: “Although it is evidently established by you that Peter is a heretic, you are not bound to denounce him if you cannot prove it,” (DZ 1105).

3.) Why are Catholics following the counsels of men who are not legitimate pastors and cannot, in any case, decide on matters concerning the liturgy? Rev. Kinkead states: “By lawful pastors we mean those in the Church who have been appointed by lawful authority and who, therefore, have a right to rule us. The lawful pastors in the Church are: every priest in his own parish, every bishop in his diocese, and the Pope in the whole Church,” (op. cit., Q. 494). Here we must add that such a Pope cannot be even suspected of manifest heresy, either before or after his election; that he must be both validly ordained and consecrated and elected by qualified voters, and that he himself must be qualified both mentally and spiritually to assume the papal duties.

4.) Why do Traditionalists insist they must have the Mass and Sacraments when these can be received from illegitimate pastors only by cooperating in sin and committing sacrilege? The reformer Martin Luther said: “Worship used to be addressed to God as an homage. Henceforth it will be addressed to man to console and enlighten him,” (quoted by Fr. Paul Trinchard in his New Age, New Mass). God’s laws are his signified will. Unless we do God’s will, we cannot be saved. Can we be certain that these priests are offering Masses and administering Sacraments pleasing to God? And if we cannot be 100 percent certain that this is happening, doesn’t the Church in Her teachings concerning a doubtful conscience tell us that we must suspend judgment until we obtain certainty? Is there even a remote chance that any of these Sacraments is possibly invalid? Because in this case Pope Innocent XI forbids us to receive them under penalty of excommunication. Are Trads receiving these Sacraments from schismatics? If so both they and their ministers are guilty of communicatio in sacris and suffer its censures.

The following quote from Rev. Winifred Herbst’s 1932 work, Holy Mass is one Traditionalists should ponder long and well: “With justice might one of the faithful who wishes to assist at the Sacrifice ask [the priest]: ‘Tell me, in whose name do you stand there and who has sent you? You claim to be here to be able to offer to the eternal God my adoration, thanksgiving, reparation and petition in union with the adoration, thanksgiving, reparation and petition of Jesus. ‘Tis well. But who has given you this commission and this plenitude of power?’ A serious startling question this, and one of momentous importance; for it depends upon the answer whether the Mass is the most exalted and the most holy of all actions, or whether it must be called the most miserable and sacrilegious of all deceptions.”

5.) All of the above in no. 3, despite the fact that prior to the death of Pope Pius XII these doctrines and laws clearly taught and promulgated, are dismissed by Traditionalist wizards wielding the magic Gallicanist wands of epikeia and necessity. Man MUST be consoled and enlightened in these evil times. No truly merciful God would deprive him of Mass and Sacraments. And we are to believe these illicit pastors and lay experts because…? They lack the apostolicity necessary to minister to souls but Our Lord would not mind if His faithful followed them? And He has no say in this matter?

6.) Rev. Patrick Madgett teaches with the Church that “The only time one of the faithful is justified in withholding assent [to the teaching of a bishop] in matters of faith and morals and in matters intimately connected with faith and morals is when he can clearly prove that their teaching is not in accord with the doctrines of the Church…In doubt, established authority holds precedence over private opinion,” and heretics, also bishops admittedly lacking apostolicity are not established authority. Nearly all Sedevacantists agree that the last truly Catholic Pope was Pope Pius XII, and yet even his calendar and other laws have been subjected to criticism and revision. Trads will use their liberty to judge a valid pope’s calendar defective in some way. But they cannot use it to condemn a man who clearly was an antipope and hesitate or refuse to condemn his liturgy.

The bottom line is this: Trads love their own opinions — and the freedom to express and formulate these opinions — too much to admit that Roncalli was never a true Pope. They have no use for disciplinary laws and especially prohibitory laws. A return to the strict doctrinal views of Pius XII is not appealing to them. While they may espouse many of Pius XII’s teachings and views in their own defense and in the course of their voluminous ruminations, this is not the same as living strictly according to these very teachings. They and their descendants are children of Jefferson and Roncalli, like it or not; and their works they will do. If those reading these pages find this uncharitable, they should re-educate themselves on the true meaning of charity. For as Rev. Felix Sarda so rightly said, “Sovereign Catholic inflexibility is sovereign Catholic charity…To offend our neighbor for the love of God is a true act of charity. Not to offend our neighbor for the love of God is a sin. When a third party…is protected from the contagion of error by unmasking its authors and abettors and showing them in their true light as iniquitous and pervert, by holding them up to the contempt, horror and execration of all…this is inflexible Catholicity,” (What Is Liberalism?).

Like it or not, by the definitions found in Sarda’s book, Trads are at least tainted with liberalism for having lived in such close proximity to it. And Roncalli was simply a moderate liberal, among many other things; masquerading as a Catholic in the true Modernist tradition. Since the charity of Traditionalists even tainted with liberalism tends to be of the liberal variety, Sarda says it is not true charity. For “while tender in appearance, is at bottom, an essential contempt for the true good of men, of the supreme interests of truth and of God. It is human self-love usurping the throne of the Most High and demanding that worship which belongs to God alone.” In short, it is nothing other than the secular humanism espoused by Roncalli and Montini.

Pontifical Acts Provide Irrefutable Proofs

by T. Stanfill Benns | Jul 14, 2022

Presumptions, probabilities, precedents only secondary proofs

© Copyright 2010, T. Stanfill Benns (All emphasis within quotes is the author’s.)

Summary

1. The pope and his successors hold the primacy of jurisdiction and are the supreme legislators in the Church, (The Vatican Council, DZ 1823, 1831).
2. The pope, his successors, the Commission for the Authentic Interpretation of the Code and the Sacred Congregations alone can authentically interpret Canon Law, (Can. 17; Rev. Cicognani, “Canon Law”).
3. Those decisions concerning the law entered into the Acta Apostolica Sedis are considered authentic, (Can. 9; “Humani Generis”). They are binding in conscience and are to be held with at least a firm assent, (Can. 9; Rev. J.C. Fenton, J.C.L, Rev. Billot and Rev. Connell as well as others).
4. Canon 1812 tells us that acts issuing from the Roman Pontiff and the Roman Curia during the exercise of their office and entered as proof in ecclesiastical courts “prove the facts asserted,” (Can. 1816), and force the judge to pronounce in favor of the party producing the document, (commentary by Revs. Woywod-Smith).
5. “Proof to the contrary is not admitted against Letters of the Roman Pontiff bearing his signature,” (Cicognani, ibid. p. 626, ft. note). Documents entered into the Acta Apostolic Sedis do not need to be submitted in the original or be an authenticated copy, (Can. 1819).
6. “In doubt about the validity of a positive law, the law is presumed to be valid for the sake of the common good and to preserve the certain right of authority,” (taught by St. Alphonsus as quoted by Revs. McHugh and Callan; quote from Rev. Bernard Wuellner, “Principles of Scholastic Theology”).
7. Any true doubt of law is referred to Can. 18, which requires those maintaining the doubt to consult the text and context of the words of the law. If they remain doubtful, then parallel passages of the Code, the end and circumstances of the law and the mind of the lawgiver are to be consulted.
8. Epikeia is mentioned under Can. 18, but Cicognani warns against its use saying it is “fraught with danger,” and Bouscaren-Ellis, McHugh and Callan and many others agree with him. Epikeia can be used only for ecclesiastical laws and jurisdiction issues spring at least partly from Divine law.
9. If there is no law covering a case, and no parallel law can be found per Can. 18, Can 20 may be invoked. Only where Can. 20 is concerned is it allowed to draw “a norm of action” from those laws abrogated prior to the Code, among other possible options for resolving the case.
10. Here we only return to the authentic interpretation of the Code. For even where the teaching of approved and expert [pre-1959] canonists are concerned in regard to Can. 20, Rev. Cicognani warns that their opinions “are of private authority, and have no legal force…An authoritative interpretation can come only from the lawgiver.”

Introduction

Pope Gregory XVI tells us in Mirari Vos: “It would be beyond any doubt blameworthy and entirely contrary to the respect with which the laws of the Church should be received by a senseless aberration to find fault with the regulation of morals, and the laws of the Church and her ministers; or to speak of this discipline as opposed to certain principles of the natural law, or to present it as defective, imperfect, and subject to civil authority.” And from the same Pope in Quo Graviora: “Are they not trying, moreover, to make of the Church something human; are they not openly diminishing her infallible authority and the divine power which guides her, in holding that her present discipline is subject to decay, to weakness, and to other failures of the same nature, and in imagining that it contains many elements which are not only useless but even prejudicial to the well being of the Catholic religion?”

Such have always been the criticisms of non-Catholics aimed at impugning the disciplinary and teaching authority of the Church. One might expect such criticisms from those outside the Church, but they come instead from those calling themselves Catholic priests, bishops and others who have little or no use at all for Canon Law. This is because they believe that the law prevents them unjustly from doing what they wish to do or believe it is their right to do, a belief resulting entirely from their inability to grasp what Canon Law truly is and how it was meant to guide the faithful and guard the deposit of faith. They toss around legal terms without explaining them and pointing out their necessary relation to other terms and laws. Having presented themselves as astute canonically, they resent being questioned or proven wrong. They deny the refutations of their errors without examining them or recanting them. They insist they can continue to maintain the status quo undisturbed. And they absolutely refuse to recognize the fact that the continual magisterium itself nullifies all their actions.

We can’t turn back the clock

Deep down Traditionalists seem to believe that there is no real need to understand or study the true origin and application of these laws now that there no longer is a supreme authority to decide its final application. In exhibiting this attitude, they show their lack of concern for the Church’s true estimation of those who are ignorant of Her laws: “No priest may be ignorant of the canons,” (Celestine I, 413-432 A.D.) And this from Pope St. Leo I: “If ignorance is hardly tolerable in laymen, how much more so in those who are over them; such ignorance is inexcusable and unpardonable,” (from Rev. Cicognani’s “Canon Law”). This ignorance has resulted in their total disregard for the unity and necessarily integral application of the truths on which these laws are solidly founded; truths which were always meant to be taken as a whole, not split apart as if they had no relation or connection, one to the other. How is it that those appealing to Canon Law today err in their understanding, invocation and appreciation of these laws?

Although many Traditionalists boast that they have been educated in Traditional seminaries that teach the 1917 Code of Canon Law, or have educated themselves in the law, it is clear that such education has failed even in its first principles. Since the sede vacante that began in 1958 with the death of Pope Pius XII, those clerics claiming to be the continuation of the true Church have resorted to Canons 6, 18 and 20 to interpret the law and supply for what they perceive to be a lack of law covering certain cases. The presumption in appealing to these canons, however, is that there are doubts concerning the present canon laws or their existence, or that there are no laws governing the crisis in which we find ourselves.

This has been disproven in various articles here. In reality there were solutions to the problem that were not applied when they should have been applied, and the laws now in force state that basically we must live with the consequences. The Church was never intended to exist for any extended period of time minus Her Supreme Head. Just because those ignorant of the law failed to do their bounden duty to elect a pope when they could have done so, this does not mean that we now can act as though Canon Law does not exist or that epikeia, common error or any suppletory principles will correct the situation. All this has been discussed at great length on this board and is proven from Church teaching and clearly worded Canon Law itself.

Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis: a law for our times

It must be remembered that the Vatican Council not only made infallible all those papal decisions and pronouncements on faith and morals which came after the definition, but also retroactively removed all doubt that those decisions and papal teachings which went before had their full effect. Henry Cardinal Manning wrote in his The Vatican Decrees and Their Bearing on Civil Allegiance that: “The Vatican Council definition, by retrospective action, makes all pontifical acts infallible, the bull Unam Sanctam,…the bull Unigenitus, the bull Auctorem Fidei and the like…The reasons why the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff ought to be defined were publicly stated…in 1869, before the Council met…” He lists one of these reasons (5) as “Because if the next General Council shall pass it over, the error will henceforward appear to be tolerated or at least left in impunity; and the pontifical censures of Innocent XI, Alexander VIII, Innocent XII and Pius VI will appear to be of doubtful effect…”

Also in (14) he said: “It is needed to place the pontifical acts during the last 300 years, both in declaring the truth, as in the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, and in condemning errors, beyond cavil and question,” and to “exclude from the minds of pastors and faithful the political influences which have generated Gallicansim, Imperialism, Regalism and Nationalism, the perennial sources or error, contention and schism,” (15). Those claiming the Pope Pius IX’s Syllabus, for example, is not infallible, or that certain disciplinary decrees (see this topic under Canon Law on this site) do not have their full effect are defying the very basis for the definition of infallibility. And they also are not factoring in the laws which now govern us during an interregnum.

Those familiar with what is written on this site know that the final words of Pope Pius XII on this subject are to be found in his 1945 papal election Constitution, Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis. In this constitution, duly entered in the Acta Apostolic Sedis, we find these three oft-repeated paragraphs:

1. While the Apostolic Seat is vacant, let the Sacred College of Cardinals have no power or jurisdiction at all in those things which pertain to the Pope while he was alive…but let everything be held, reserved for the future Pope. And thus we decree that whatever power or jurisdiction pertaining to the Roman Pontiff, while he is alive (unless in as far as it is expressly permitted in this, Our Constitution) the meeting of Cardinals itself may have taken for exercising, is null and void.

2. “Likewise we order that the Sacred College of Cardinals is not able to dispose of the laws of the Apostolic Seat and the Roman Church in any manner it wishes, nor may it attempt to detract wheresoever from the laws of the same, either directly or indirectly through a species of connivance, or through dissimulation of crimes perpetrated against the same laws, either after the death of the Pontiff or in time of vacancy, [however] it may seem to be attempted. Indeed, we will that it ought to guard and defend against the same contention of all men.

3. “Laws given by the Roman Pontiffs are in no way able to be corrected or changed through the meeting of the cardinals of the Roman Church [the See] being vacant; nor is anything able to be taken away or added, nor is there able to be made any dispensation in any manner concerning the laws themselves or some part of them. This is very evident from pontifical Constitutions [on]…the election of the Roman Pontiff. 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.” — Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, paras.1- 3, Ch. 1; Pope Pius XII, 1945.

The entire gist of all the issues Traditionalists contest are rooted in jurisdiction. Here we have an authentic document regulating the use of jurisdiction during an interregnum, yet they insist there are no laws governing this matter, and they can interpret the laws that do exist on jurisdiction just as they please. This law is a part of the ordinary magisterium and cannot be questioned. In disobeying the law, those who do so not only deny the primacy of jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff but place themselves above him where the government and good of the Church is concerned. No one has any power to change the law, which is reserved to the Pope himself, the Commission on the Authentic Interpretation of the Code, overseen by the Holy See, the decisions of the Sacred Congregations approved by the Pope or decisions issued personally by the Holy Father.

Even attempts at change are nullified. Pope Pius XII believed, perhaps, that this would force the expedient election of his successor, but instead a usurper was placed on the throne. Cardinals could not even have changed these laws, far less inferior clerics or the laity. And yet clerics and laity continue to dispense themselves from the law, misinterpret the law, dismiss the law as no longer applicable and correct the law, all impotent acts without any legal effect whatsoever. But more to the point, it is how they go about doing this that reveals the nature of the confusion concerning the Church and Her laws, and the true source of the misconceptions that abound where Canon Law is concerned.

The Code encompasses all Church law

To codify something means to make a precise summary of all its most important elements; to systemize and place it in proper order. Because the Code is a succinct summary of all previous laws in the Church, T. Lincoln Bouscaren S.J. and Adam C. Ellis S.J. write under the heading “Source Books,” in their Canon Law: A Text and Commentary, how the Code supersedes pre-existing laws. “All general laws enacted before the Code are rendered practically obsolete unless they are also contained [as footnotes] in the Code itself, (Can. 6). Hence the Code is now properly called ‘the only source book of canon law.’” The authors then work to explain how these footnoted sources can be found and consulted. Some of them are inaccessible today, but most of them can still be consulted and much can be determined through their examination. Various commentaries on the Code also offer much insight, as do the doctoral theses which provide the history of the various canons and the laws upon which they are based.

Rev. Nicholas Neuberger, in his doctoral thesis Canon 6: The Relation of the Codex Juris Canonici to Preceding Legislation, confirms what Bouscaren-Ellis teach. “The old disciplinary enactments which are opposed to the Code, penal laws which have been omitted and other disciplinary laws which are not explicitly nor implicitly embedded in the Code are abrogated. Ordinances which are reserved…remain intact…No longer is [an] appeal to an obsolete and useless law possible. That Can. 6 is a logical and comprehensive treatise of the relation of laws is irrefutable…Laws which are not explicitly nor implicitly contained in the Code are abrogated. The legislator, therefore, relegates them to the history of Canon Law…The old legislation of itself has no juridical value today. As a subsidiary source of the new law it may be used as an interpreter. Even in this capacity it is destitute of legal value unless the Code has embodied it in Canons…As ordinary interpretative sources such enactments are never used. In very rare cases will the legislator tolerate recourse to these discarded laws. Whenever there is a gap in the legislation, be it general or particular, the canonist may appeal to laws enacted in similar circumstances, [Can. 18]. In such a case the old law may serve as a norm for supplying deficient legislation, [Can. 20]. With this one exception, the legislator passes a final sentence on antecedent laws which have been abrogated.”

The appeal to obsolete and useless laws is precisely what the Code intended to do away with; so much confusion had arisen concerning some of these obsolete laws that ecclesiastical law had become very difficult to enforce, canonists explain. Had these abrogated laws possessed any true value or reflected at all the mind of the lawgiver in current circumstances, they would have been retained and in fact certain laws were retained, in whole or in part, as footnotes in a number of cases. The rest of these laws “have no juridical value.” And yet there are still those today who insist on recreating that long ago, pre-Code confusion about the law by invoking these abrogated laws and customs not retained in the Code as though the Code was never written. They dissemble by maintaining that these customs, ancient practices or “the old law” justify whatever it is that they choose to do. They never tell their hearers that it has no legal value in the eyes of the Church, or that the footnotes to the Code are considered to be the “old law” referred to in Can. 6; in fact they fight to the death any suggestion that they cannot appeal to these discarded laws because they are no longer in effect.

Authentic interpretation is the highest law

And who is the authentic interpreter of the laws where any questions are concerned? It is, of course, the legislator and his successors, i.e, the Roman Pontiffs. This is the subject matter of Can. 17, which states in §1: “Laws are authoritatively interpreted by the law-maker and his successor, and by those to whom the lawmaker has committed the power to interpret the laws. And in §2: “The authoritative interpretation of the law given in the form of law has the same force as the law itself; if it merely declares the meaning of the words of the law that were certain in themselves, the interpretation need not be promulgated, and it has retroactive effect; if the interpretation restricts or extends the original law, or explains a doubtful law, such interpretation does not have retroactive effect, and it must be promulgated.” What is important to realize at present is that the law can be interpreted authentically only by a) the lawgiver or his successor; b) the Commission for the Authentic Interpretation of the Code and c) “The Roman Congregations [who] have been deputed by the Pope to interpret laws,” (ibid Rev. Neuberger). These decisions can be found in the Acta Apostolica Sedis and under the various canons in the Canon Law Digests and they still bind us today.

So when anyone sees that a certain congregation or branch of the Holy Office has issued any directives on a given canon or answered any questions, this is an authentic interpretation. An example of such an interpretation are the directives issued on fitness as laid out by the Sacred Congregation of the Sacraments in Canon Law Digest Vol. 1, under Can. 973. Besides authentic interpretations, there also are the usual interpretations which have to do with custom, the judicial interpretations mentioned in Can. 17 §3 above and the doctrinal interpretation, “made by eminent jurists,” (Neuberger). “These jurists are any approved by the Church and mentioned in decisions made by the Sacred Congregations, [who are consistently quoted by modern theologians undertaking doctrinal interpretations] with the exception of those who have been condemned. The doctrinal interpretation of the Code is especially important when ‘to reach the legislator for consultation is utterly impossible’… Can. 6 §2 bids us have recourse to the doctrine of the approved authors. The authentic, however, always remains the guide for the doctrinal,” (Ibid). For this reason, whenever any questions arise concerning the laws or teachings of the Church, approved authors of great name are consulted to provide a doctrinal interpretation, but one must never lose sight of the authentic interpretation.

Canons 18 and 20

You have heard it time after time: We can deviate from the laws of the Code because such and such a pope in the early ages of the Church or the medieval ages allowed it, or bishops or clergy during that time did it or the laws of the Church in existence at that time did not forbid such actions. Yet think of what has been stated above; this is not how the laws of the Church are set up, nor do these laws themselves indicate in any way that this is how these laws are intended to function. The precedents they cite no longer exist; they long ago were abrogated by the Code, save for those laws contained in the footnotes appended to the Canons. And with the issuance of “Humani Generis” these authentic interpretations are to be accepted as binding on the faithful in the internal forum, at the very least until a future Roman Pontiff, canonically elected and duly accepted by the majority of the faithful, rules otherwise. This according to the doctrinal interpretation rendered by Msgr. J.C. Fenton and the approved theologians writing under Pope Pius XII, interpretations which rely on the authentic interpretations of the Roman Pontiffs themselves. And these men quoted on this site always aligned themselves with the papal teachings of the last true 20th century popes, where some of the theologians from previous centuries quoted by Trads today are not always reconciled with these later pontifical teachings. So what directives do people rely upon who insist, against the laws of the Church, on citing precedents?

These clerics or lay people point to Canons 18 and 20, without following the rules laid out in Canon 6 and Canons 18 and 20 themselves in determining the use of these canons. Under Canon18, Abp. Cicognani states in his Canon Law that the mind of the legislator especially is to be considered here. This can be discovered in perusing their teachings on other topics and those of their predecessors, or the Congregations they have authorized to issue these interpretations. It also can be gleaned by considering the text and context of their words as they appear in any law or interpretation. The classical Latin language used in the Code is to be interpreted “according to the proper and usual meaning of the words. At times the lawgiver determines the juridic, that is, the canonical meaning of certain words. In this case then the juridic meaning of the word should be followed, not its ordinary signification… However the ordinary or the juridic meaning of a word in every instance is that meaning which the word had when the law was made…” (Can. 18).

What did the word “proofs” as related to fitness for ordination mean on the death of Pope Pius XII? Lengthy commentary on this very point of Can. 973 was entered into the Code and into the AAS in the 1950s, and as such then actually constituted the current law according to the law itself, (see Can. 11). Abp. Cicognani refers to the following legal maxims used to clarify terms: “Clear words admit no interpretation nor conjecture of the will and general words are to be generally understood. Where the law does not distinguish, neither are we to distinguish,” (Ibid).

Proper application of Canons 18 and 20

The purpose of the law and its circumstances must be carefully considered. Parallel passages of the Code are to be drawn out, if any exist. It is under this canon that Abp. Cicognani treats epikeia, although he also treats it elsewhere. But he notes that the assumption to be made must be that the legislator would not wish his law to be binding, when in nearly every instance, this is not the case. The entire presumption on which Can. 18 is based is that AFTER the law is considered in its text and context, should it still remain doubtful, THEN parallel passages of the Code, the circumstances of the law and the mind of the legislator are to be considered. But once the laws that most Traditionalists question are considered properly in their text and context, it becomes clear that they are not doubtful laws at all and that the legislator would never wish them to be relaxed. Once the infallible pronouncements of these same legislators are presented and this becomes clear, all doubt is resolved; for the authentic interpretation of the law always takes precedence. And where the laws in question have their origin, in whole or in part, in divine law, there can be no question of doubt or relaxation of the law.

Questions to answer before resorting to Can. 20

Abp. Cicognani cautions that wherever a general or particular law issued by the lawgiver can be located and observed, or a way to supply for the law itself can be found in parallel legislation, Can. 20 is not to be used. If Can. 20 is resorted to, it is to be used according to “the general principles of Canon Law, not civil law. For when the civil law is meant, the code states so explicitly…,” (Cicognani commentary on Can. 20). And here the canonist is speaking of LAWS, not practices of the Church, customs or any exceptions to the law, for “Laws which…establish an exception to the law are to be interpreted strictly,” (Can. 19). Such laws, Cicognani states are not to be drawn into precedent, “for exceptions established by the law are odious.” Before assuming that those invoking Can. 20 meet the conditions of the law, the following questions should be answered:

1. Can it be known for certain that some existing law does not already cover this case? (“Vacantis Apostolica Sedis” covers nearly every case concerning any manipulation of the laws enacted by the Roman Pontiffs and nullifies any attempt at manipulation.)
2. Have all attempts to supply for the law by following the directions in Can. 18 been exhausted? (If the mind of the lawgiver and the circumstances of the law are researched, they lead back to Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis and the numerous entries made into the AAS during Pope Pius XII’s reign.)
3. If it is alleged that there is a basis for claiming that an act is justified based on previous laws or laws given in similar cases, were these laws:
a) actually still in effect immediately prior to the issuance of the Code, before most of these laws were permanently abrogated?
b) abrogated as a law or condemned as a practice by the lawgiver long before the 1917 Code was written?
c) not actual laws, but rather exceptions established by law
d) not even exceptions established by law, but merely circumstantial aberrations tolerated temporarily, for serious reasons?

If those Traditionalist and Conclavist claims to precedents are considered under 3 (a-c), it will become clear that they all were practices or laws that were exceptions to the norm. As such they cannot even be called into play under Can. 20 concerning laws that can be used as a norm in similar cases. So these claims will be listed and examined.

Exceptions excluded from Can. 20:

Bishops consecrated without papal mandate in the Middle Ages
The matter of bishops consecrated without papal mandate and during an interregnum in the middle ages was not a law per se; there was no law that can be found which says: You may consecrate bishops without papal approval during an interregnum. It was either a law that did not specifically forbid such consecrations, which just happened to fall during an interregnum, or it was an exception to a law that forbade consecrations during an interregnum, but from which the bishop(s) were able to dispense themselves in those circumstances. Revs. Woywod-Smith state that shortly after the time period Trads cite, the pope began reserving the right to appoint bishops himself, so the law forbidding such consecrations was not yet in force, at least officially. When it became a law, the old law, which did not forbid such consecrations, automatically ceased, and was no longer observed. The old law was finally replaced altogether by the 1917 Code of Canon Law. In “Ad Apostolorum Principis,”

Pope Pius XII states that this “usage which prevailed in ages past ages [is] no longer valid because the supreme authority of the Church long ago decreed otherwise.” This constitution is entered into the AAS. The law was not even a law when the Code went into effect, having “died” hundreds of years ago. In addition, even if it was deduced that such a past practice was a “similar case,” it was either an exception to the law or a circumstantial aberration, so 3b-d above all apply. And one must also remember that, unlike today, in the Middle Ages these bishops and priests were not questionably valid and/or illicitly consecrated themselves. Also, no matter what is deduced from Can. 20, as Cicognani says, one must abide only by Pius XII’s authentic interpretation, not the private interpretation.

Divine law supersedes epikeia

As noted above, Traditionalists point to epikeia in Canons 18 and 20 as the cover-all panacea for the current situation. “The general principles of law applied with the proper equity [epikeia],” cannot apply to jurisdiction because epikeia can be used only in cases concerning ecclesiastical laws. Jurisdiction is a Divine law, as stated in Can. 196. The use of epikeia to decide the extent of pontifical jurisdiction was a prominent part of the Gallicanist heresy, according to historian Walter Ullmann and other writers. And no equity in law can remove the Divine character of jurisdiction from the laws of the Code. (See the articles on epikeia on the homepage of this site.)

‘Custom’ of lay jurisdiction ‘reprobated in law’

First there are those who believe that despite their reduction to the lay state owing to their adherence to a non-Catholic sect or some other crime; or their actual status as inconsequential laymen, they nevertheless can engage in those things reserved only to the clergy. Can. 109 forbids laymen to appoint clerics or to function as clerics. Canon 118 requires men to be clerics in order to receive orders or ecclesiastical jurisdiction. The Sacred Congregation of the Council, (A.A.S 11-128) rendered a decision in 1918, concerning those who claim a 170-year-old custom of allowing lay canonists to act as judges in matrimonial and other contentious, but not criminal, cases. The following answer was given:

“The Code manifestly requires all judges in ecclesiastical courts to be clerics, nay even priests, (Canons 1573, 1574); and declares the principle that the Church has the sole right to take cognizance of spiritual cases and those connected with spiritual things, (Can. 1553). Laymen are declared incapable of spiritual jurisdiction, (Can. 118). Hence they cannot, by any custom prolonged, acquire such jurisdiction. Moreover, since the custom in question is of the sort ‘which disrupts the nerve of ecclesiastical discipline,’ and is contrary to the liberty and immunity of the Church, it is among those that are ‘reprobated in the law,’ (Can. 27 §2).

“Besides, this custom being unreasonable, (Can. 27 §1), it is inconceivable that it should have received the legal approval of ecclesiastical Superiors (Can. 25) who must rather be considered to have yielded to the intrusion of civil power…This is directly contrary to the full independence and dignity of the Church in the exercise of Her jurisdiction,” and the practices were prohibited.
What would they say today of such laymen posing as priests, even popes?! It must be remembered here that no “clerics” today have even the appearance of an office granted by valid and licit authority. Because they have acquired ordination and consecration illicitly, their attempts during an interregnum — without the necessary jurisdiction and against the clear mind of Pope Pius XII in Vacantis Apostolica Sedis and minus the papal mandate demanded in Ad Apostolorum Principis — are null and void.

What is probability?

Probability consists in presenting compelling enough arguments concerning some opinion that would convince many prudent men to believe it is more likely than not the truth. Theologians teach that these this probability occurs when five or six theologians independently arrive at the same conclusion on a given matter. This teaching has been confirmed by Can. 20, which includes the opinions of these theologians as a viable way to supply for law when such a law does not exist in the Code. Here is where many confuse valid and licit, or lawful. As the Catholic Encyclopedia explains, “From what has so far been said it is clear that these various moral systems come into play only when the question concerns the lawfulness of an action.

If the uncertainty concerns the validity of an action which must certainly be valid, it is not lawful to act on mere probability unless, indeed, this is of such a nature as to make the Church certainly supply what is needed for the validity of the act. Thus, apart from necessity, it is not lawful to act on mere probability when the validity of the sacraments is in question. Again, it is not lawful to act on mere probability when there is question of gaining an end which is obligatory, since certain means must be employed to gain a certainly required end. Hence, when eternal salvation is at stake, it is not lawful to be content with uncertain means…It is evident, then, that the question which arises in connection with the moral systems has to do solely with the lawfulness or unlawfulness of an action.”

Nothing better illustrates the dangers of attempting to procure a necessary end without using the proper means than these words written by Rev. Raymond Kearney: “The very law of nature demands that power be not entrusted to a person who is not sufficiently competent to make proper use of it…The Church can supply only that power, the disposition of which is entrusted to her; she cannot, therefore, supply what is required by divine or natural law…” (Principles of Delegated Jurisdiction). And both Traditionalist clerics and Conclavist wannabes lack or lacked such competence. Even if Pope Pius XII had not definitively and infallibly commanded that no laws be changed, dismissed or dispensed from during an interregnum, removing all doubt concerning the jurisdiction issue; even if the AAS teaching ion Can. 973 had not been written, Traditionalist priests would still be unjustified in claiming that the Church supplies even during a sede occupante. For as Rev. Francis Miaskiewicz explains, in order to spare the faithful and the minister from all anxiety concerning liceity and validity, the Church supplies jurisdiction.

However, “It is definitely not the Church’s wish that anyone should dare to presume any jurisdictional powers when he is certain the he is deprived of them [and Traditionalists even admit that they are so deprived of canonical mission jurisdiction], or even as long as he is plausibly uncertain that he is in possession of them. And thus all light, unsubstantial, negative and therefore improbable doubts do not become beneficial factors for the supplying of jurisdiction; for they are all, taken singly or even collectively, juridically inadequate to make any rightful demands upon the jurisdictional favors which Can. 209 is ready to bestow,” (Supplied Jurisdiction According to Canon 209, p. 220). This discussion will help lay the foundation for the discussion of Can. 11, which follows below.

Jurisdictional acts invalidated

Traditionalists claim validity for all their jurisdictional acts and this is simply untrue. One of the overriding principles of Canon Law is that no act is considered invalid unless the Code expressly states its invalidity, (Can. 11). There are several laws in the Code invalidating jurisdictional acts not performed according to the laws and teachings of the Church, and incapacitating certain person from acting. Jurisdictional acts that apply in this regard include those of confessors, who must undergo examination to be determined as duly qualified before being delegated jurisdiction (Can. 877). The delegate must actually receive the approval to act validly (Can. 879) and prove that he has received it, (Can. 200).

The power of jurisdiction can be exercised directly over subjects only (Can. 201), and Traditionalists are not lawfully ordained priests or consecrated bishops, they cannot send anyone with apostolic authority, so they have no valid subjects. “The delegate who acts beyond his mandate, either as to the matters or the persons over which he received his power, acts invalidly,” (Can. 203). Where there is no delegation, there can be no mandate. One who is incapacitated for receiving delegation cannot act, period. Can. 209 has no footnotes in the Code so automatically is thrown over into the court of Can. 18 and perhaps even Can. 20. Ultimately the actual decision, however, rests with the legislator, because all insist on ignoring the testimony of the doctoral theses on Can. 209. But the mind of the legislator is easily enough discovered.

NO, Trad ‘clerics’ incapacitated for office

Something also needs to be said here concerning those incapacitated for office according to Can. 11, for this also affects the validity of their acts. Can. 147 clearly states that, “An ecclesiastical office cannot be VALIDLY obtained without canonical appointment… by the proper ecclesiastical authority in harmony with the sacred canons.” And this canon’s authentic interpretation by the Holy See, (AAS 42-601), states that Can. 147 proceeds from Divine law and the infallible decrees of the Council of Trent (DZ 960, 967), so that none can proceed against Can. 147 with impunity. It furthermore declares an excommunication reserved especially to the Holy See against those who violate this canon. This authentic interpretation of the Sacred Congregation of the Council also effectively wipes out all the self-appointed priests and bishops currently in existence as well as the V2 usurpers and any clergy they appointed to various offices.

For Bouscaren-Ellis note that according to Can. 145, Can. 147 applies also to the papacy. (This is confirmed by the fact that Pope Martin V’s “Inter Cunctas,” included as footnotes to Canons 109 and 219, so constituting the “old law” in this case, states that those papal candidates not canonically elected are not valid.) In establishing excommunications reserved to the Holy See for offending against this canon, Pope Pius XII cites the very canon of the Council of Trent (see Can. 109) that forbids the laity to invest (even validly and licitly ordained clerics) into an office by their own authority.

Canon 153 decrees that “The candidate for promotion to a vacant office must be a cleric…When the person appointed to an office lacks the requisite qualifications, the conferring of the office is null and void,” if the law requires these stipulations, (as it definitely does for the priesthood and the episcopacy). This is why Pope Pius XII specified in Six ans se sont that lay candidates for the priesthood must AT LEAST have the qualifications necessary to be ordained, as outlined under Can. 973 and its authentic interpretation. Canon 453 mentions these qualifications, declaring that: “In order that a cleric be VALIDLY appointed pastor, he must be a priest. He should, in addition, have those qualities of character, knowledge, virtue, prudence, and experience which will enable him to govern…properly, and which are demanded by the common and particular law.”

This takes us back to Can. 153 and defines the stipulations for office. Without these stipulations as specified in Can. 453, any conferral of office is null and void. Can. 154 also states that: “Offices which entail the care of souls either in the external or internal forum, cannot be validly conferred on those who are not priests.” And most importantly concerning all these disqualifying and incapacitating laws, as Can. 16 decrees: “No ignorance of invalidating or inhabilitating [incapacitating] laws excuses from their observance, unless the law explicitly admits ignorance as an excuse,” (and the laws cited above do NOT so admit).

Pope Pius XII teaches: “While the Apostolic Seat is vacant, let the Sacred College of Cardinals have no power or jurisdiction at all in those things which pertain to the Pope while he was alive…but let everything be held, reserved for the future Pope. And thus we decree that whatever power or jurisdiction pertaining to the Roman Pontiff, while he is alive (unless in as far as it is expressly permitted in this, Our Constitution) the meeting of Cardinals itself may have taken for exercising, is null and void.” Pius XII’s 1945 papal election law, the decree on Can. 147 above and Six ans se Sont are THE definitive laws upholding the nullity elections and appointments to office contrary to the invalidating and incapacitating norms of Canon Law, and especially upholding their nullity during an interregnum. These laws clearly and irrefutably express the mind of the legislator in these matters.

The Church supplying, Rev. Miaskiewicz teaches on Can. 209, is actually the Pope. In saying that the POPE supplies for Traditionalist jurisdiction, and validates acts the laws clearly state are invalid, Trad clerics (definitely not cardinals) appear to force Pope Pius XII to act against his own mind and violate the very Code he worked to promulgate as a young priest. This papal election law is binding in conscience; it requires a firm and irrevocable assent, and yet Traditionalists and Conclavists spurn it at every turn because it prevents them from pontificating on their own. They want to be recognized as the true Catholic Church, yet by disobeying and defying the infallible pronouncements of the continual magisterium, even those very popes they claim to be “the last true popes,” they compromise their faith and expose their true motives.

The appeal to precedents: Canon Law is not common law

“To some, the system followed by the Catholic Church seems antiquated and secretive. However, the real difficulty from a common law perspective may be the lack of understanding of the Church’s law and the lack of understanding of how canon law is applied…While both common law and canon law have their roots in the ancient law systems of the world, they developed along different lines. Common law developed more along the lines of Germanic and English law while canon law developed more along the lines of Roman law. The common law system is generally based on a judge applying precedent while the canon law system is generally based on an individual judge applying the law to the specific case. In common law, most interpretation of law is provided by the judicial system. In canon law, interpretation is provided by the legislator. Both systems work, or do not work, based on how well they are applied,” (Canon Law and Common Law, https://www.canonlawprofessionals.com/).

In her “Basic Criminal Law: The United States Constitution, Procedure and Crimes” Anniken U. Davenport writes: “William the Conqueror conquered England with the support of the Catholic Church. Consequently, the Church played a large role in the legal life of the country. A parallel system of state and ecclesiastical courts developed, each with its own sets of laws and sanctions. The ecclesiastical courts used stare decisis to decide cases, but their basis for deciding cases was at first canon law. As time went on, where canon law conflicted with English statutory or Common Law, the English law took precedence.”

At https://www.Answers.com, common law is defined as “the body of law based on custom and general principles and that, embodied in case law, serves as precedent or is applied to situations not covered by statute. Under the common-law system, when a court decides and reports its decision concerning a particular case, the case becomes part of the body of law and can be used in later cases involving similar matters. This use of precedents is known as stare decisis, a Latin phrase meaning “to stand by the decisions.” This legal doctrine under common law requires courts to rely on precedents, or previous decisions, when deciding disputes unless there is a compelling reason to reject those precedents. In most instances, this doctrine means that courts will decide disputes over insurance contracts the same way they have decided cases with similar facts and legal issues in the past. Nevertheless, the principle of stare decisis has always been tempered with a conviction that prior decisions must comport with notions of good reason or they can be overruled by the highest court in the jurisdiction. Common law has been administered in the courts of England since the Middle Ages; it is also found in the U.S. and in most of the British Commonwealth.”

Also at this same website, a definition of stare decisis is provided from the U.S. History Encyclopedia: “Stare Decisis is the principle of deciding judicial controversies on the basis of precedent. It is a principle of the common-law legal systems that distinguishes them from civil-law systems. Adherence to precedent, following the decision rules and reasoning set out in earlier similar cases, is frequently cited as an attribute that gives consistency and predictability to the law and that ensures political stability. However, assumptions concerning the significance and impact of adherence to stare decisis have been subjected to serious logical and empirical challenges. The continuing controversy over the scope and significance of stare decisis has served to focus greater analytical and empirical attention on the total constellation of factors that may influence judicial decision-making.” But Canon Law cases are not generally decided based on precedent, or by applying the decisions of past cases, as was observed above. Instead, following the issuance of the 1917 Code of Canon Law, the actual law is applied to the particular case presented for review.

As A. Degert said under Gallicanism in the Catholic Encyclopedia (www.newadvent.org), Gallicanism was based on: “a revival of the most ancient traditions of Christianity; a persistence of the common law.” In every possible way, in all its externals and its professed teachings, Traditionalism is the revival first of that 19th-century heresy by the same name, proposed by Lammenais and condemned by the Church. Those believing in this heresy held that faith basically must be accepted without thinking, since the average person is not capable of understanding the faith, (fideism or anti-intellectualism). This is a prefect description of today’s Traditionalists. But secondly, to this is joined the anti-papal heresy of Gallicanism, practiced first in Europe around the time of the Western Schism, condemned forever by the Vatican Council but carried on by the Old Catholics who rejected the definition of infallibility and later the Liberal Catholics, among others.

For not only its evolution and its practices are the same, but its principles also are identical to heretical Gallican principles. Thus today’s Traditionalists are a syncretic blend of ancient Gallicanists, 19th century Traditionalists, Old catholics, Liberal catholics and Gnostic catholics. They reject the papacy in favor of their bishops because they are Gallicanists, and believe the bishops and the people are superior to the pope, as the condemned heretic, John of Paris taught. They reject papal teaching because they hold to the ancient “Catholic sense” of the 19th century Traditionalists, and the most ancient traditions of Christianity. They reject Canon Law for the same reasons, since the pope is the primary author of Canon Law. And they hold to the idea that Canon Law must follow and obey their ancient traditions, that is, the common law.

Precedents and civil law in Canon Law

As Rev. Neuberger explains above, the only time that TRUE precedents in law abrogated by the Code can ever be appealed to is in the “rare cases” anticipated in Can. 20. Abp. Cicognani cautions that wherever a general or particular law issued by the lawgiver can be located and observed, or a way to supply for the law itself can be found in parallel legislation, Can. 20 is not to be used. If Can. 20 IS resorted to, it is to be used according to “the general principles of Canon Law, not civil law. For when the civil law is meant, the code states so explicitly…,” He also notes that civil law is always to be obeyed unless it is contrary to Divine law, (Cicognani commentary on Canons 19 and 20). And here the canonist is speaking of LAWS, not practices of the Church, customs or any exceptions to the law, for “Laws which…establish an exception to the law are to be interpreted strictly,” (Can. 19).

Even in the case of those pre-code laws which may be appealed to under Can. 20, Cicognani states that exceptions to these laws are not to be drawn into precedent, “for exceptions established by the law are odious.” Traditionalists and Conclavists rely on prior customs, abrogated laws, exceptions to the law and aberrational circumstances as a general rule, and in the case of some Conclavists, even appeal to laws and facts which never existed at all, (the “law” establishing the right of the laity to actually cast votes in a papal election; the condemned practice of lay investiture, which was never a law, but only the abuse of a privilege; the “law” that allows laymen to be ordained or consecrated, or to accept papal election without the proper qualifications).

Lay interference in papal elections; the consecration of laymen as priests and bishops by illicit (and sometimes doubtfully valid) bishops, without papal mandate; the possession of apostolic succession by those not at least priests — these short-lived practices, soon outlawed by succeeding popes, were never established as legal precedents to begin with. They cannot and would not even withstand the scrutiny of the common law, far less Canon Law; nor can such laws be verified at all, being later abrogated for a lack of stability and for reasons of doctrinal safety. This has been proven at length in the free download on this board, “No Apostolic Succession, No Pope,” as well as other articles. Even the principle of stare decisis was “tempered with a conviction that prior decisions must comport with notions of good reason or they can be overruled by the highest court in the jurisdiction.”

Even if laws in the past had allowed such things, which they did not, (with the exception of some men in the early ages of the Church consecrated bishops without receiving major orders first), these laws, once again, were abrogated by the Code in 1917. So precedents were allowed in the scope of interpreting Canon Law only in rare cases. None can admit what did not exist to begin with; even these “old laws” were abrogated long ago (Can. 6, 1917 Code). Things done in cases of necessity or the early days of an institution’s existence are frequently modified over time. And if these practices and exceptions to the law have no legal force, they can scarcely be claimed as presumptions in law.

Official proofs override presumptions

A presumption is, “A probable conjecture about an uncertain affair,” Canon Law tells us. “He who has the presumption of law in his favor is freed from the burden of proof,” (Can. 1827). We have already learned the meaning of “probable” above. Canonists explain that presumption is basically circumstantial evidence. Rev. Augustine explains that if a presumption is “expressed and admitted by law,” and especially when it is the law on which the presumption is based, it is called legal, (Can. 1825). Against a simple (legal) presumption of law, both direct and indirect proof to the contrary is admitted. Against an absolute presumption of law, found only in Canons 1904, 1972, only indirect proof is admitted, (Can. 1826). If determined by the jury or the judge, it is called an ab homine presumption. “Legal presumptions are weightier than natural ones and must therefore be proved,” and presumptions connected with some circumstance are weightier that general presumptions, which, however, exclude exceptional cases.

“Presumptions in favor of the validity of an act already posited are weightier than those in favor of its validity,” (A Commentary on Canon Law, Rev. P. Charles Augustine, 1918); but this presumption is overcome anytime that the law in question is an invalidating and incapacitating law, where legal presumptions are concerned. “Presumptions which are not stated in the law shall not be conjectured by the judge except from a certain and specific fact which is directly connected with the fact in controversy,” (Can. 1828). Revs. Woywod-Smith comment: “The presumption must thus be a kind of reasonable conclusion or inference from another specific fact established by evidence in the case. Since all inferential evidence is dangerous and easily misleads, the Code warns against conjectures.” Pope Pius XII positively condemns them in Humani Generis.

Please explain how the clear words of the Roman Pontiffs could ever be said to be a “probable conjecture about an uncertain affair,” when the Roman Pontiff is the Supreme Lawgiver and one can never DOUBT these teachings without falling into heresy! We have no need to stand by presumption in any of the cases on this board; they are solidly grounded in irrefutable pontifical and conciliar teaching. What we have presented here is far superior than any presumption of law; it is perfect proof that cannot be overcome. This is clearly stated in Canons 1812, 1816 and 1819; pontifical documents properly entered into the AAS are considered official documents and they cannot be overcome as proofs. Presumptions cannot even exist if they are not probable conjectures, and those offered by Traditionalists and Conclavists are not truly probable in most cases. As explained above, those things concerning validity and not just liceity are not covered by the umbrella of probability, anyway.

Even the few true presumptions Trads do offer are not legal presumptions, but natural or general assumptions, hence inferior as evidence. And even these already have been overcome by both direct and indirect evidence. A presumption only stands, and the burden of proof is only shifted, whenever it is not trumped by papal documents, which are beyond question as evidence. This is not about any doubts of law or fact — although this is the main ploy of those trying to disprove Church teaching. This is about the validity of acts and the infallible or at least the binding teaching of the Roman Pontiffs. Presumption can be used to settle cases in moral law and Canon Law where the conditions are verified and there is doubt about a law or fact, but the highest law always prevails — that of the continual magisterium legislating and infallibly defining throughout the centuries. This is something entirely separate from Canon Law although interrelated, falling in the field of dogmatic theology.

Can. 2200 and the burden of proof

Concerning any shifting of the burden of proof as mentioned in Can. 1827, the authentic papal documents found in the Acta are the primary proofs offered here and the only proofs that win, hands down. There can be no shifting of the burden of proof by Traditionalists and Conclavists onto others. In fact that burden, as pointed out repeatedly on this board, is itself based on an implicit presumption of guilt in the law itself concerning those bold enough to reject the teachings of the ordinary magisterium. This simple and implicit presumption can be found in Can. 2200 concerning suspicion of heresy, where the offender is considered guilty of the delict until the contrary is proven. It has been demonstrated over and over again, from numerous angles and separate (often multiple) instances, that such heresy in many cases is not just a suspicion, but actually exists or was known by way of written or verbal admission, or notorious fact, to have been committed. All the rules, laws and teachings of the Church demonstrate this.

Those manifestly guilty of these crimes insist that they should be innocent until proven guilty; or they protest that the law or teaching is doubtful, or the guilt is doubtful, when “suspicion,” derived from the root word suspect, is defined as “To have doubts of; to distrust,” (Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary), (!). The law does not care; all that needs to be established is suspicion. And if the suspicion is not sufficiently removed within six months of the time it was witnessed or observed in writing, then the suspect incurs the delict, (Canons 1258, 2315, 2316). So here we have a law that is based on the presumption that one is guilty until proven innocent of heresy; this is the highest degree of presumption. It is then up to the suspect to disprove the evidence, if he/she can. And yet the law states that if the suspect cannot prove the presumption has failed, then the judge must decide in the favor of the one on whose side the presumption stands.

Unfortunately, far from disproving their heresies, these suspects have instead continued to embrace heresy after heresy following the commission of their original heresy, only multiplying their guilt. Not only that, but nothing they have presented can excuse them, if indeed they even bother to try to explain themselves in any reasonable way. The objection brought against this canon is “but we should be considered innocent until proven guilty,” (also a rule of law; these critics can scarcely invoke such rules if they also wish to attack reflex principles). Heresy, however, is such a heinous crime that the Church has determined otherwise, decreeing that one is presumed guilty unless and until EVIDENCE is produced that overcomes the (implicit) presumption of guilt, which must then yield to truth. Canon Law is NOT civil law, nor can it be reduced to the principles of civil law. And this is one very good example of how some have so tried to reduce it.

A word on reflex principles

Those who have set out to deceive the elect bank on the fact that their hearers will not check things out (and many sources are now available online) or even look terms up in the dictionary. Their very existence depends on an unsuspecting public buying their indefensible contention that when the Roman Pontiffs don’t pronounce something in ex cathedra mode — whenever they do not mention specifically that what they are stating is infallible — then their teaching can be either ignored or interpreted in any manner they choose. Msgr. Fenton has disproven this heresy in “Impudent Objections to Humani Generis Confounded,” (see archives). The very ones pointing fingers are the ones who wish to use reflex principles such as necessity knows no law, a doubtful law is no law, possession is nine-tenths of the law, impossibility excuses one from observing the law, no obligation imposes unless it is certain, and “extraordinary times call for extraordinary measures,” although they entirely reject the need to observe another reflex principle especially stressed on this board: “In a doubt, the safer course should be followed [where the Sacraments and eternal salvation are concerned].”

This is because this reflex principle, where it regards the Sacraments, is not just a reflex principle; it is actually a binding teaching of the ordinary magisterium, (Pope Innocent XI, DZ 1161). These are the same people who keep repeating yet another reflex principle, “In doubt a fact is not presumed but must be demonstrated” and saying that this author has not demonstrated these facts so has not “proven the case.” But it is not my job to prove it, but only to present the testimony of those capable of proving it; this is extrinsic evidence. In the course of the presentations on this board, authors have been quoted who have cited reflex principals, but they have not been used as singular proofs to document actual cases, only as accessory evidence. Once a reflex principle is “canonized” by the Code or embraced publicly by the lawgiver himself, it is considered “beyond dispute,” according to “The Jurist” editor Edward Roelker, in his article “An Introduction to the Rules of Law.”

In his article he states: “It is only by the serious study of these rules that they can be used as excellent aids in the training of the canonist and in the proper interpretation of law…No attempt should ever be made to apply these Rules until their historical source, their jurisprudential development and their proper scope are sufficiently studied and digested…Great disadvantages will result if the Rules of Law are misused or abused,” (Vol. X, no. 3, October 1950). Those recklessly using these principles today without bothering to ground them in the teaching of some approved pre-1959 canonist or theologian familiar with them should heed these words, rather than trying to accuse others of what they themselves are doing. But beyond that, they should heed the words of the Roman Pontiffs who alone are the authentic interpreters of Canon Law.

Conclusion

Traditionalists and Conclavists are confident that their followers, who are familiar with the general workings of common law but are entirely unfamiliar with the function and the divine origin of Canon Law, will never be able to figure out the difference between the two. The Church is a divinely established society; Her laws cannot ever be subject to failure or decay. And certainly no one claiming to minister and/or rule the Church as true pastors could ever do so based on improbable conjectures, the false premises of the common law, with its system of precedents established by a “judicial system” and not the laws, decisions and interpretations of the Supreme Legislator. And there is the rub. Once the Supreme Pastor has been struck, there is no one to officially interpret the laws only he can guarantee as true. In his absence, the hirelings will mercilessly drive the flock over barren and rocky ground. And only devout lovers of the law ceaselessly seeking the Good Shepherd will survive the time of privation to enjoy greener pastures.

Addendum

An objection to this author’s use of secular authorities to explain civil law as contrasted with Canon Law above will be addressed here. To begin with, the canon law portion of this quote is brief and is easily verified from other sources as true. The civil law is treated from Church sources prior to any mention of secular sources. Additional commentary from Church sources posterior to the use of these secular quotes is provided as well, to make certain that its relevance to Canon Law and Church teaching is properly understood. An honest evaluation will demonstrate that nothing mentioned in these explanations could possibly be construed as contrary to faith.

But this will not stop those who apparently think nothing of repeatedly violating scholastic method and make a laughingstock of common sense. Readers who have been paying attention here and others who know the rules will recognize this tactic. In seizing on such an inconsequential objection, while making it sound as though it is something consequential, an attempt is made to draw attention from the seriousness of this entire presentation and its application to those claiming to head up the various manifestations of Traditionalism. Become preoccupied with histrionic headings and the gravity of the issues at stake is eclipsed, or at least the individuals deliberately creating these distractions hope to accomplish this. Fortunately their sites generally receive limited traffic and are not taken seriously by anyone of any consequence.

The quote from above is: “The common law system is generally based on a judge applying precedent while the canon law system is generally based on an individual judge applying the law to the specific case. In common law, most interpretation of law is provided by the judicial system. In canon law, interpretation is provided by the legislator.” The last sentence of this quote is so obviously proven from Catholic sources above that it does not need examination. The first sentence is supported by Can. 2218: “Not only circumstances which excuse from all liability but also those which excuse from grave guilt excuse also from any penalty… provided the excuse is proven in the external forum.”

The first part of the canon explains how “the punishment should be in proportion to the offense;” also the gravity of the law transgressed and all personal circumstances affecting the transgressor must be weighed, including sex, state of life, mental condition and so forth. Decisions in Canon Law do not depend on a similar outcome or sentence in a previous case, because all decisions are tailored to the individual. The judge, dependent on these circumstances, is to determine how the law applies in each case, whether an attached penalty is to be enforced and if not, what other punishment might be appropriate.

Also concerning the first sentence, it is written in Logic, by Rev. Joseph Walsh (1940), that “Circumstances alter cases…The fallacy [of the] special case…consists in concluding that what is true in a certain restricted case is true generally, or in all cases; and that what is true of a thing under one aspect is true of it under all aspects…The dictum ‘Every rule has exceptions’ is only generally true, for there are some rules that do not admit exceptions.” Papal laws entered in the AAS constitute such rules. There are no exceptions to these documents used as proof in ecclesiastical courts, (see summary above).

Nor can things done in restricted cases in the past, which were abrogated as law or actually condemned in practice, be used to justify things done today. And this applies whether it be the ordination of priests and consecration of bishops without papal mandate, the lay election of a lay pope or the assignment of divine jurisdiction, no less, to those not even qualified to become priests or be reinstated as priests or bishops. Whatever additional fallacies are employed here — whether it is evading the issue, arguing beside the point, the vicious circle, or ad hominem attack — the Church does not accept them as valid because they run contrary to the rules of scholasticism.

Baseless objections and comments deserve no recognition, but unfortunately they can deceive or confuse the unwary. For this reason we have addressed them here. Learn to recognize these rants and distractions for what they are — an attempt by those dependent on teachings condemned by the Church to maintain their status quo. For further information on fallacies of argument contrary to scholasticism, see Rules of Scholastic Argument in the Archives section of this site.

Cum ex Apostolatus Officio
Is retained in the 1917 Code of Canon Law

by T. Stanfill Benns | Jul 14, 2022

© Copyright 2019, T. Stanfill Benns (All emphasis within quotes is the author’s unless indicated otherwise.)

Introduction

What is written below mainly applies to censures regarding validly ordained and consecrated priests and bishops who abandoned the faith. This means that its application is limited to those who actually occupied offices and functioned as clerics during the reign of Pope Pius XII. The Canons from the 1917 Code cited here are those that feature Pope Paul IV’s 1559 Bull, Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, as a footnote from the old law. These are found in the Latin edition of Peter Cardinal Gasparri’s Codex Iuris Canonici printed in 1957 by The Newman Press. The sections that very nearly repeat the old law in its substance are highlighted in bold.

As Reverend Nicholas Neuberger has explained in his Canon Law dissertation Canon 6, or the Relation of the Codex Iuris Canonici to Preceding Legislation (Catholic University of America, 1927): “Legislation may be converted into canons not in the identical but in equivalent terms. Most of the previous enactments are thus contained in the canons…There are canons which reproduce the old law in its entirety…Canons may restate the old law verbatim.”

Or the old law can be expressed, “in different terminology. This is the most common form of integral conversion of the old law. The codifiers had for their objective a succinct and pithy systemization of the law. It was necessary, therefore, to cast aside the narrative and also the dilated and dispositive part of the former discipline. Such reconstruction necessitated a change in terminology…These old laws have juridical force only inasmuch as they are embodied in the Canons. They are the interpretive norms of the new law whenever the new and the old coincide…Thanks to the eminent canonist Gasparri, not a little chaotic interpretation has been averted through the alignment of the sources under each canon” (pgs. 62, 70, 71).

Cum ex Apostolatus Officio is a universal law affecting the entire Church because it is an enactment of the Roman Pontiff (pgs. 38-39). But universal laws also can be special law, and “All special legislation is inviolate according to the prescriptions of Canon 6, no. 5 (p. 54). Special law is any law to which an oath is attached, such as Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, Quo Primum, Execrabilis and others, and such laws are not abrogated, Neuberger says, unless express mention is made to that effect. No such mention has been made by any reigning pontiff regarding Paul IV’s bull, either before the Code was issued or after its promulgation. In fact, the teachings in the bull can be found in the Code, some nearly verbatim, and several of these are listed below.

Taken from Gasparri’s Codex Iuris Canonici’s  Footnotes to the Canons

Canon 167 — “The following persons may not cast a vote [in ecclesisastical elections]:
§3 “Persons suffering from censure and infamy of law if such censure has been inflicted by a declaratory or condemnatory sentence.”
§ 4 — “Persons who have joined an heretical or schismatical sect or have adhered to such (Catholics who have fallen from the faith).”

Cum ex Apostolatus Officio — “…One who has strayed from the Catholic faith or fallen into some heresy… shall ipso facto incur excommunication, and, become infamous…. They shall not and cannot be admitted [to] a Conclave of Cardinals or …anyone’s election.”

Can. 188 — “All offices shall be vacant ipso facto by tacit resignation: 4) If a cleric has publicly lapsed from the Catholic faith.” This canon is cited in Pope Pius XII’s Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, para. 36.

Cum ex Apostolatus Officio — “One who has strayed from the Catholic faith or fallen into some heresy…[these] persons themselves so promoted and elevated shall, ipso facto and without need for any further declaration, be deprived of any dignity, position, honor, title, authority, office and power.”

Can. 2198 — “In order that a crime may be called public, it is necessary that the fact be publicly known as a criminal or morally imputable act, i.e., that the act is known as a crime.” (The fact of the actual act must be known as criminal and the offender must be positively identified.) “… An offense which violates the law of both Church and State may be punished by both.” 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 (Paul 6 was publicly accused of heresy by members of both the clergy and the laity beginning in the early 1970s.)

Did MANY Catholics not consider it a crime to change Christ’s very own  words of the consecration of the wine? Did Patrick Henry Omlor, followed and respected by many, not label this as heresy in the late 1960s, implicitly condemning as the authors of this heresy both Paul 6 and John 23 (who inserted for all men into vernacular missalettes for the laity)? Omlor wrote: “142. …in the context in which it has been placed, in the “form” for The Eucharist, [for all men] conveys a FALSEHOOD, and also an implicit heresy: the denial of the doctrine of The Mystical Body of Christ” (The Robber Church). But this widely circulated work was not public; the promulgation of the Novus Ordo Missae was not public?I The canonists Revs. Woywod-Smith note under Can. 2197 that many canonists believe that in a small community, public can mean as few as six people.

Cum ex Apostolatus Officio — “All and sundry Bishops, Archbishops, Patriarchs, Primates, Cardinals, Legates… who, in the future, shall stray or fall into heresy, confess or be convicted of incurring, inciting or committing schism …They shall be left to the judgment of the secular power, to be punished with a fitting chastisement. Or else, by the kindness and clemency of this See, having shown signs of true repentance and fruits of worthy penance, they shall be confined in some Monastery or other religious house, to do perpetual penance… If ever at any time it becomes CLEAR that any [member of the hierarchy] has strayed from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy then his promotion or elevation shall be null, invalid and void…”

Canon 2209 — (Liability of Accomplices in Offenses): “(1) Persons who conspire to commit an offense and also physically concur in the execution of the same are all guilty in the same degree unless circumstances increase or diminish the liability of some individual. “(7) Praise of the accomplished offense, participation in its fruits, hiding or sheltering of the offender, and other acts done after an offense has been fully accomplished may constitute new offenses, if in the law these actions are forbidden under penalty; but unless one had made an agreement with the offender about those acts (e.g., to share spoils, to hide or shelter him, etc.) before the execution of the offense, one incurs no liability for the offense itself.

Cum ex Apostolatus Officio — “Further, whoever knowingly presumes in any way to receive anew the persons so apprehended, confessed or convicted, or to favor them, believe them, or teach their doctrines shall ipso facto incur excommunication, and, become infamous… Furthermore, no one shall be obliged to answer to them in any affair… (para. 5).”

Can. 2264 — “Acts of jurisdiction by an excommunicated person are illicit and if a condemnatory or declaratory sentence has been issued against him, his acts of jurisdiction are invalid, without prejudice to the rule of Can. 2261 §2.”

Cum ex Apostolatus Officio — If any member of the hierarchy “has strayed from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy, then his promotion or elevation shall be null, invalid and void… The persons themselves so promoted and elevated shall, ipso facto and without need for any further declaration, be deprived of any dignity, position, honor, title, authority, office and power.”

(As Reverend Francis Hyland points out in his 1928 Canon Law dissertation Excommunication: “Those excommunicates under consideration in [Canon 2261 §2] are not those excommunicated for heresy and schism, for these are already outside the Church, as Reverend Tanquerey observes.” This canon is referring, instead, to simpliciter tolerati whose excommunication for an offense (other than heresy or schism) is not notorious because it is occult or known only to a few. So there is no prejudice to Canon 2261 § 2 in this drawing the line between those who cannot function validly and those who can function, but illicitly. Cum ex… is cited as a source to show it does not apply in the case of excommunication for heresy, apostasy and schism, for then the excommunication is automatic with no need of a declaratory or condemnatory sentence. Hyland also notes that, “The faithful could prevent their jurisdictional acts from having effect by objecting to them on the score of excommunication and by proving the existence of the censure,” [Can. 2259] — Ed.).

Can. 2294 §1 — “A person who has incurred infamy of law is not only irregular as declared by Canon 984 n. 5 but in addition he is incapacitated from obtaining ecclesiastical benefices, pensions, offices and dignities; from performing legal ecclesiastical acts, from discharging any ecclesiastical right or duty and must be restrained from the exercise of sacred functions of the ministry.” And here the canonists Revs. Woywod-Smith comment: “If it is an infamy of law, the person who incurred this penalty 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.”

Cum ex Apostolatus Officio — “Further, whoever knowingly presumes in any way to receive anew the persons so apprehended, confessed or convicted, or to favor them, believe them, or teach their doctrines shall become infamous… Furthermore, clerics shall be ipso facto removed from all and sundry Cathedral, Metropolitan, and patriarchal Churches and dignities, Monasteries, benefices and ecclesiastical offices.”

Canon 2314 §1 — All apostates from the Catholic faith and each and every heretic or schismatic incur the following penalties:
(1) ipso facto excommunication;
(2) if they have been admonished and do not repent, they shall be deprived of any benefice, dignity, pension, office or other position they may hold in the Church; they shall be declared infamous and, if they are clerics, they shall, after renewed admonition, be deposed;
(3) if they have joined a non-Catholic sect or have publicly adhered to it, and, if they are clerics and the admonition to repent has been fruitless, they shall be degraded. Canon 188 n. 4 provides, moreover, that the cleric who publicly abandons the Catholic faith loses every ecclesiastical office ipso facto and without any declaration.

Cum ex Apostolatus Officio — “We sanction, establish, decree and define, …all and sundry Bishops, Archbishops, Patriarchs, Primates, Cardinals, Legates… who, in the future, shall stray or fall into heresy, confess or be convicted of incurring, inciting or committing schism…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…. Further, if ever at any time it becomes clear that any Bishop, even one conducting himself as an Archbishop, Patriarch, or primate; or any Cardinal of the aforesaid Roman Church, even as mentioned, a Legate; or likewise any Roman Pontiff before his promotion or elevation as a Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has strayed from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy, then his promotion or elevation shall be null, invalid and void… Every one of their statements, deeds, enactments, and administrative acts, of any kind, and any result thereof whatsoever, shall be without force and shall confer no legality or right on anyone. The persons themselves so promoted and elevated shall, ipso facto and without need for any further declaration, be deprived of any dignity, position, honor, title, authority, office and power.

Canon 2316 — “A person who of his own accord and knowingly helps in any manner to propagate heresy, or who communicates in sacred rites (in divinis) with heretics in violation of the prohibition of Canon 1258 incurs suspicion of heresy.”

Cum ex Apostolatus Officio — “Further, whoever knowingly presumes in any way to receive anew the persons so apprehended, confessed or convicted, or to favor them, believe them, or teach their doctrines shall ipso facto incur excommunication, and, become infamous… Furthermore, no one shall be obliged to answer to them in any affair… (para. 5).”

(Ed note: Canon 2315 states that one suspected of heresy who does not amend within six months’ time “shall be considered as a heretic and be liable to the penalties for heresy.”)

Canon 2317 — “Persons who stubbornly teach or defend, either publicly or privately, a doctrine which has been condemned by the Apostolic See or by an Ecumenical Council, not however as formally heretical, shall be barred from the ministry of preaching the Word of God and of hearing sacramental confessions, and from every office of teaching, without prejudice to other penalties which the censure of condemnation of the doctrine may have perhaps decreed…”

Cum ex Apostolatus Officio — “Further, whoever knowingly presumes in any way to receive anew the persons so apprehended, confessed or convicted, or to favor them, believe them, or teach their doctrines shall ipso facto incur excommunication, and, become infamous… Furthermore, no one shall be obliged to answer to them in any affair… (para. 5).”

(Ed. Note — Cum ex… says only that clerics will be punished with excommunication, but as the canon indicates, this is not for heresy. Penalties more similar to those for infamy are indicated in the wording of the Canon. Reverends Woywod-Smith indicate in their Canon Law commentary that this Canon involves matters so closely connected with the faith they cannot be tolerated without endangering it. They caution that this does not refer to doctrines that have been condemned as heretical, for then the penalties attached to Canon 2314 automatically apply.)

Conclusion

The opponents of Cum ex Apostolatus Officio who claim that the Bull was abrogated because it is a censure (disciplinary law) and therefore it is not retained in the Code are mistaken. Had Pope Pius IX wished to exclude Cum ex… from the Canons he missed the perfect opportunity in issuing Apostolica Sedis, which concerned itself strictly with latae sententiae (ipso facto) censures. Pope Paul IV’s Bull is mentioned nowhere in that document. Neuberger writes that in a doubt of law, it is always presumed a censure still binds (p. 57). And regarding the Apostolica Sedis of Pope Pius IX, he affirms that none of the censures for crimes committed in the election of the Roman Pontiff were abrogated (p. 51). Cum ex… may not be a constitution concerning the actual papal election process, but in the sense that it excludes certain persons from having ever been elected, it does treat of elections. And it is mentioned as a source of law for Canon 167 §4 dealing with ecclesiastical elections. So implicitly, at least, it references the election of the Roman Pontiff.

The preface to Canon 6 reads, “In reference to the former Canon Law, the Code states that, as a rule, the old discipline is retained though there are some modifications of the old law.” It has been demonstrated above what those modifications are in the case of Cum ex Apostolatus. Canon 6 no. 1 excludes from the Code universal laws that are opposed to the provisions of the Code. Considering the above, this is not the case with Cum ex… The interpretation of approved authors must be used when the former law is restated in the Code as Canon 6 no. 2 prescribes; Reverend Neuberger bases his dissertation on all the approved authors of his time, which he lists in the final chapters of his work.

Canon 6 no. 3 states that those laws which agree only in part with the old law must be followed in that part and those which differ from the old laws must be interpreted according to the meaning of the words employed in the Code. If there is any doubt that the law does indeed differ, Canon 6 no. 4 solves this problem by instructing canonists to adhere to the old law. Canon 6 no. 5 says if no mention is made of certain ecclesiastical penalties in the Code, including ipso facto penalties (latae sententiae) such as are found in Cum ex…, then they are abolished. As proven above, the Code does mention Cum ex Apostolatus Officio in the footnotes of several canons.

And finally, Canon 6 no. 6 states that all other disciplinary laws not contained either explicitly or implicitly in the Code lose all force unless they are derived from the natural or positive divine law. First of all, it has been shown that Cum ex… is indeed contained in the Code and how it is retained in the law. Secondly, it should be noted here that positive divine law can be that law which the popes infallibly decree. This is precisely why those demonizing Cum ex… insist it is a disciplinary law not contained in the Code and categorically deny it is infallible, despite all proofs to the contrary. But clearly this law is retained in the Code as an interpretive norm and is embodied in the Code itself; and, in certain places, it is repeated in precisely the same language found in Cum ex Apostolatus. Therefore these naysayers have no leg to stand on.

The final determination of what is and is not heresy and who is and who is not to be considered a formal heretic has ever been the duty of the Supreme Pontiff and the Ecumenical Councils approved by him. All such acts are considered infallible determinations, and this is positive divine law. It must be remembered that Pope St. Pius V in his Inter Multiplices renewed and confirmed Cum ex Apostolatus Officio (available under papal documents on the Current Articles page.)

Cum ex Apostolatus Officio has satisfied all the prerequisites for retention in the 1917 Code of Canon Law. To date there has been no credible, detailed exposition by any of the eminent “canonists” of Traditionalist description demonstrating how Cum ex… was abrogated by the 1917 Code. Let those who wish to prove it is abolished deny the applicability of Canons 2314, 2316 and 2317, as well as Canon 188 no. 4, and deprive these Canons of any interpretive norms whatsoever — THEN there can be a debate. For in doubt, the old law applies and today we must obey Cum ex… and Pope Pius XII’s Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis exclusively, since such doubt truly reigns among Traditionalists.