Scaring up ghosts and calling them errors

by T. Stanfill Benns | Jul 21, 2022 | New Blog

+St. Lawrence of Brindisi+

I am not willing to devote any more time to these baseless allegations that are floating around about my last blog on immediate jurisdiction. Nor do I believe any of my readers are really interested in hearing more about them either, since several of them say they fully understand the point I was trying to make. However, there is an issue that does need to be addressed and it is no trifling matter. It is something very difficult to pin down but yet it is essential for all to understand it in order to protect themselves from its stealthy penetration into their thought processes. Because it is so subtle, it is an error many will deny they advance, and that is why it must be nipped in the bud if at all possible.

In the 19^th century an error was condemned by Pope Pius IX in his Syllabus; its name was liberalism. It took many forms and wore various masks. One of these was the mask of the liberal Catholic, which in its extreme form manifested in the 20th century as the Novus Ordo church. In its most diluted variation, it presented as a seemingly attractive and Catholic attempt to practice charity, but the reality was far different. For this variety of Liberals excused the inexcusable, gave the benefit of the doubt where it was not due, tolerated the intolerable, questioned the unquestionable, and essentially made it possible to live comfortably and in peace with its very enemies. That this is something the Church not only condemned as a heresy but looked at in horror was explained by Fr. Felix Sarda y Salvany, in a little book written in 1886, Liberalism is a Sin. This book was specifically approved and recommended by the Sacred Congregation of the Index. We will comment from this book at length and recommend that all purchase a copy.

The appearance of good can be deceiving

In his opening pages, Fr. Sarda explains how “…Appearances may be fair and the devil may present himself as an angel of light. The danger is the greater as the outward show is more seductive. Heresy has never been so insidious as under its present form of liberalism. Its most fatal shaft is its plea for liberality of mind. This in its own eyes is its cardinal virtue. Intellectual freedom from dogmatism is its boast, a boast in reality the mask of IGNORANCE AND PRIDE… Foes in the midst of battle cannot well be friends. Where the pressure of conflicting forces is most intense, there is little opportunity of reconciliation. Yet this absurdity and contradiction we find in the odious and repulsive attempt to unite liberalism with Catholicism.” And here attention must be paid especially to the word seductive. Because Liberalism can present itself as a tendency or a simple “difference of opinion” in matters where no such thing is allowed to the Catholic. And this is especially true when it comes to accepting the decrees of the Roman Pontiffs precisely for what they are.

Before continuing with Rev. Sarda’s comments, it needs to be pointed out that the entire purpose of praying at home is not to create yet another sect, but to honor the Sacraments by abstaining from them and diametrically oppose Traditionalism in all its many forms. We pray at home to escape the evil of mortal sin, the mortal sin committed by those daring to offer the Latin Mass and confer the Sacraments despite excommunications for schism, heresy, communicatio in sacris and infamy of law; excommunications that render Traditionalist pseudo-clergy the equivalent of vitandus. We are not simply “sheltering in place,” resigning ourselves to the Quietistic existence Traditionalists would love to assign us so they may continue their mission of deceiving souls — not saving them — undisturbed. No; we are not allowed to stand by idly and watch while those we love and who should be our brethren labor under such an intolerable deception. Nor are we allowed, in this day and age where such deception continues to present daily in new forms, to fail to condemn it every time it opens its mouth.

Some would have us believe that if there could just be a little bit of compromise and a little more respect for the enemy; a little less insistence on absolute obedience to papal decrees and a  little more cooperation; also the abandonment of the idea that we need to study hard to know our faith which discourages so many, souls could be won over to the pray-at-home position. Well that is all fine and good, but this attitude was condemned by Pope Leo XIII in his dogmatic letter to Cardinal Gibbons and Americans in general, Testem Benevolentiae. There he wrote:

“On account of our apostolic office, having to guard the integrity of the faith and the security of the faithful, [We] are desirous of writing to you … [regarding the errors of Isaac Hecker]. The underlying principle of these new opinions is that, in order to more easily attract those who differ from her, the Church should shape her teachings more in accord with the spirit of the age and relax some of her ancient severity and make some concessions to new opinions. Many think that these concessions should be made not only in regard to ways of living, but even in regard to doctrines which belong to the deposit of the faith. They contend that it would be opportune, in order to gain those who differ from us, to omit certain points of her teaching which are of lesser importance, and to tone down the meaning which the Church has always attached to them.

“It does not need many words, beloved son, to prove the falsity of these ideas if the nature and origin of the doctrine which the Church proposes are recalled to mind. The Vatican Council says concerning this point: ‘For the doctrine of faith which God has revealed has not been proposed, like a philosophical invention to be perfected by human ingenuity, but has been delivered as a divine deposit to the Spouse of Christ to be faithfully kept and infallibly declared. Hence that meaning of the sacred dogmas is perpetually to be retained which our Holy Mother, the Church, has once declared, nor is that meaning ever to be departed from under the pretense or pretext of a deeper comprehension of them.’” (end of Pope Leo quote). This is clearly the condemnation of all the Novus Ordo ever was and is, so it is undeniably dogmatic. Msgr. J.C. Fenton notes that Pope Pius XII condemned it as doctrinal minimism in Humani Generis. But it doesn’t apply to us today? Listen to what Rev. Sarda has to tell us on this topic:

“The liberal subjects God’s authority to the scrutiny of his reason and not his reason to God’s authority. He accepts revelation not on account of the infallible revealer but because of the infallible receiver. With him the individual judgment is the rule of faith; he believes in the independence of reason. It is true he accepts the magisterium of the Church, but he does not accept it as the sole authorized expounder of divine truth. He reserves as a coefficient factor in the determination of that truth his own private judgment. The true sense of revealed doctrine is not always certain, he thinks, and human reason has something to say in the matter, as for instance the limits of the Church’s infallibility, which may be determined by human science. He is intellectually free to accept or reject, but he is intellectually bound to no one. Liberal Catholics are deluded into the notion that incredulity is a virtue rather than a vice. Any chastisement of errors shocks their tender susceptibilities, and they detest any Catholic legislation in the direction of what they are pleased to call intolerance. The Ultramontane interpretation is violent and extreme and does much more harm than good by driving back the well-disposed at such a show of ill-liberality. Thus they erect into a dogma what is called the principle of toleration.” So if these shoes fit on certain feet, then wear them.

All the above succinctly describes Traditionalists and all who sympathize with them. They may be considered ultra-conservatives politically, but they are Catholic liberals of the moderate and tainted variety, as Rev. Sarda describes them. An Ultramontane my entire life, a totally unabashed defender of the papacy, of course I can expect only attacks from such people. But try as they might, they cannot change the FACT that when Pope Pius XII defined as certain that bishops can only receive their jurisdiction through the pope, those dissenting from that decision discreetly began to organize. Following the false Vatican 2 council, these men established a series of groups called Traditionalists who claimed, through various subterfuges, that they received jurisdiction directly from Christ. So from the release of Mystici Corporis in 1943 to the first establishment of these groups, the only ones claiming and practicing immediate jurisdiction were the Protestants, an undeniable fact.

 What is stated above is the conclusion Traditionalists wish no one to fully understand, and will go to any lengths to suppress. So much so that Anthony Cekada even misstated the wording of the Council of Trent to deny this was the case. I don’t think it is too outrageous to claim that they do not want anyone to connect the dots and especially want to keep any possible affiliations with Gallicanism under wraps. This at least until it is time for their “great king and holy pope” of prophecy fame to appear and “unite the clans.” But try as they might, they cannot hide the fact that what they are doing contradicts Church teaching on so many levels.

Employing a condemned error to condemn an “error”

The irony is that what these critics are peddling as erroneous involves an error itself. The real objection to the original statement made by this author, that immediate jurisdiction is a Protestant heresy, is that it could not be said to proceed as a logical conclusion from the other facts provided. Yet the only way this statement could be true is if it is somehow believed that Pope Pius XII’s decision was not binding, (and that observation was made by a reader, not me). Yet it certainly IS binding, since Mystici Corporis is entered into the Acta Apostolica Sedis. Actually the implication that such a conclusion cannot be made is a philosophical error condemned by the Church. ‘Ah, but it is only an error, not a heresy, so that is OK; we still remain within the Church.’ And that is exactly what liberals, the anti-infallbilists and the Modernists who followed them were condemned for teaching.

The errors advanced by Nicholas d’Autrecourt regarding conclusions and evidence, condemned by Pope Clement VI, reads: “…From one matter another matter cannot be inferred or concluded; or from the non-existence of one, the non-existence of another” (DZ 554).; “That the certainty of evidence does not have degrees” (DZ 556);  “That it cannot be shown clearly that in truth all things which are apparent are true” (DZ 567). These teachings were condemned as erroneous, false and presumptuous. Now the interesting part here is that if one looks up Nicholas of Autrecourt on the Internet, it refers you to a Catholic Encyclopedia article on Fideism, a topic we have touched on many times in various articles. The Catholic Encyclopedia explains under this head:

“It is not surprising, therefore, that the Church has condemned such doctrines. In 1348, the Holy See proscribed certain fideistic propositions of Nicholas d’Autrecourt (cf. Denzinger, Enchiridion, 10th ed., nn. 553-570). In his two Encyclicals, one of September, 1832, and the other of July, 1834, Gregory XVI condemned the political and philosophical ideas of Lamenais. On 8 September, 1840, Bautain was required to subscribe to several propositions directly opposed to Fideism, the first and the fifth of which read as follows: “Human reason is able to prove with certitude the existence of God; faith, a heavenly gift, is posterior to revelation, and therefore cannot be properly used against the atheist to prove the existence of God”; and “The use of reason precedes faith and, with the help of revelation and grace, leads to it.” The same proposition were subscribed to by Bonnetty on 11 June, 1855.”

Lammenais and de Bonald were the main propagators of Fideism’s sister system Traditionalism. Their errors were condemned by Pope Gregory XVI in 1832 and 1834. This pope also condemned Bautain, who was made to correct one of his errors by stating: “We do not have the right to expect from an unbeliever that he admit the resurrection of our divine Savior before we shall have proposed definite proofs to him and these proofs are deduced by reason from the same tradition” (DZ 1623). So in other words, proofs from Revelation, also Christ’s vicars, must be presented before one can expect anyone to believe. (Lammenais is mentioned repeatedly by Rev. Sarda in his work on Liberalism.)

The Catholic Encyclopedia defines Traditionalism as: “A philosophical system which makes TRADITION the supreme criterion and rule of certitude.” Fideism is a bit more complicated but is very similar in its tenets. “Fideism (Lat. fides, faith), [is] a philosophical term meaning a system of philosophy or an attitude of mind, which, denying the power of unaided human reason to reach certitude, affirms that the fundamental act of human knowledge consists in an act of faith, and the supreme criterion of certitude is authority.”  And it is precisely erroneous thinking regarding the understanding of certitude that Traditionalists have spread all these years.

According to the Catholic Encyclopedia article on certitude, “Many truths, indeed, have to be accepted on authority; but then it has to be made evident that SUCH AUTHORITY IS LEGITIMATE, is capable of knowing the truth, and is qualified to teach in the particular department in which it is accepted.” And surrounded on all sides as we are today, only the Roman Pontiffs and those approved pre-1959 theologians respectfully commenting on what they teach can be trusted. As Rev. A.C. Cotter S.J. teaches in his The ABC of Scholastic Philosophy, (p. 284): “Authority clothed with the necessary conditions is true authority. False authority makes the same claims although it lacks these conditions.” Cotter comments that those following self-styled teachers of any philosophic system have the “duty to investigate for themselves. Authority is not the last criterion of truth or motive of certitude.”

In other words, faith or intuition in itself is some kind of proof or evidence without any need for external evidence; it is in fact even superior to external evidence. It is no coincidence that these errors emphasize Tradition in a non-Catholic sense. And it is no coincidence, either, that what passes as the continuation of the Church following the death of Pope Pius XII calls itself Traditionalist. Material-formal alone teaches that arriving at formal certitude is an impossibility because human reason cannot fully know the truth; “Catholics are not to seek things above themselves,” and on whose all-knowing judgment is this statement made? But these are words we have heard for decades. They want us to believe evidence is useless in attempting to arrive at the true; truths cannot be deduced by resorting to the reasoning process but by obedience to “authority,” legitimate or not. Isn’t that what has kept Traditionalists in business all these years?

Rules of Engagement: Give the enemy no quarter

My mentor, teacher and father, God rest his soul, instilled in me the operating principle that you never insult your readers by talking down to them, or fail to challenge them with things they can test for themselves. I have always tried to follow his advice. While the Baltimore Catechism is a starting point intended for children and teens and should be studied by all of us for starters, Pope St. Pius X expected priests and bishops to instruct the faithful from the Catechism of the Council of Trent, a much more advanced work (see Acerbo Nimis). And Catholics today will find much in these lesser catechisms dedicated to Mass and Sacraments, taking up fully half of the 1943 Baltimore memorial edition of the Kinkead version I consulted. Baptism and Marriage, of course, should be studied, and one should have a general knowledge of the Mass and all the other Sacraments. But we are ADULTS here, at least I hope so, and capable of learning so much more. Consider what one author had to say about this:

“Good will is not held in a vacuum and ignorance is often culpably sinful. If all Catholics have a moral duty to understand their faith AT THEIR LEVEL OF SECULAR EDUCATION, few of us are going to be saved… Pope Pius XI said: ‘In our day and age, unenlightened heroism is not enough.’ How much longer are we Catholics going to pretend that if our hearts are in the right place, we can safely continue to live in an intellectual void?” Peter Michaels, This Perverse Generation, (Sheed and Ward, 1949).

And from Pope St. Pius X: “I admit and recognize the external arguments of revelation that is divine facts and especially miracles and prophecies as very certain signs of the divine origin of the Christian religion and I hold that the same arguments have been especially accommodated to the intelligence of all ages and men, even of these times” (Oath Against Modernism, DZ 2145). This same pope also wrote: “A Christian… should humbly seek the reason, insofar as he can, of how [what the Church teaches] is so. If he can understand, let him give thanks to God; if he cannot, let him not push his horns to the struggle but submit in all veneration” (1 Mach. 7:4-6; DZ 2120). In other words, some must simply believe and obey whatever they cannot understand.

I have subtitled this section the rules of engagement because Rev. Sarda very pointedly lays out these rules. I have always cited them and adhered to them. First of all, this entire issue really arose when I denied the actual validity of Traditionalist orders; then the objections began. Secondly, it was insinuated that it would not be possible to prove such invalidity and until then Trads retain the title to it because no one can disprove they cannot use epikeia to claim it, but that is a falsehood. Thirdly, the infallibility of Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis has been challenged on the basis that “null and void” in this constitution should not be taken literally. And on whose venerated authority is this advanced? We can believe only the pre-October 1958 Church, Her popes and councils and Her approved theologians. Rev. Sarda explains that:

“It is a rule of sound exegesis that any passage in Holy Scripture should always be interpreted according to the letter unless such meaning be in opposition to the context. We can only have recourse to a free or figurative interpretation when this opposition is obvious. This rule applies also to the interpretation of Pontifical documents.” Please demonstrate, then, why Pope Pius XII’s infallible document nullifying Traditionalist acts should not be taken literally. And do not speciously object that null and void does not mean invalid when Pope Leo XIII and Pope Clement VI both teach that these words mean just that. Every excuse is being made to regard these Traditionalist pseudo-clerics in a more sympathetic light and give them the benefit of the doubt. Rev. Sarda puts the kabosh to that.

“To treat as a liar the man who propagates false ideas, in the eyes of the [liberal theologian], is to sin against the Holy Ghost. To him the falsifier is simply misguided; it is not the poor fellow’s fault. He has, simple soul, been misled. We ought neither to resist nor combat him. We must strive, [instead], to attract him by soft words and pretty compliments. How the devil must chuckle over the mushy charity held out as bait to abet his own cause!” And there we have it all. I owe NOTHING to traditore Traditionalists; no use of “Fr.” before their name, no publicly expressed RIP when they pass (although we may pray for them privately); no “respect” for the garbage they spew out as theological discourse and weekly tales about their cats. And most emphatically, no lip service to their great work for the “salvation of souls” when such work can truly be termed only the damnation of souls. They are the sworn enemies of my Lord Jesus Christ, my Church and my beloved popes and here they will always be treated as such. “Give the enemy no quarter!” Rev. Sarda shouts, and this I have always practiced.

Traditionalist followers deceived by these men I leave for God to sort out, but many of them fall into the category of tainted Liberals as well, and that is heresy. I cannot fail to say what the Congregation of the Sacred Index has confirmed. I pray for them to see the truth and try to provide it for them, but only God can grant them the grace to accept it. God alone knows the consciences of men and tainted liberals may not realize that their approach is the administration of a deadly poison offensive to God. That unfortunately cannot be taken into consideration when the error is disseminated publicly, no matter what personal feelings may dictate.

I end with more of Fr. Sarda’s pithy statements, which I adopt for my own.

“By use of their reason the faithful are enabled to suspect and measure the orthodoxy of any new doctrine presented to them by comparing it with a doctrine already defined. If it be not in accord they can combat it as bad and justly stigmatize as bad the book or journal which sustains it. They cannot of course define it as ex cathedra but they can lawfully hold it as perverse and declare it such, warn others against it, raise the cry of alarm and strike the first blow against it. The faithful layman can do all this and has done it at all times with the applause of the Church; it behooves watch dogs to bark. Faith possesses a power of its own which it communicates to its friends and defenders. It is not they who give the truth power, but truth which charges them with its own vigor. This on the condition that they use that power in its defense…

“Instead of augmenting our forces, it would paralyze and nullify the vigor of those who would be able, if alone, to do something for the defense of the truth… The kind of soldiers we need go into the deadly breach and never flinch. No compromising, no minimizing with them. They plant their banner on the topmost height and form a solid, invincible phalanx around it that not all the legions of earth and hell combined can budge a single inch. They make no alliance, no compromise with a foe whose single aim, disguised or open, is the destruction of the truth. They know the enemy by nature is implacable, and his flag of truce but a cunning device of treachery… There is then no sin against charity in calling evil, EVIL, its authors, abettors and disciples, BAD; all its acts, words and writings INIQUITOUS, WICKED, MALICIOUS. In short, the wolf has always been called the wolf, and in so calling it no one ever believed that wrong was done to the flock and to the shepherd.”

“Better that only a few Catholics should be left, staunch and sincere in their religion, than that they should, remaining many, desire as it were, to be in collusion with the Church’s enemies and in conformity with the open foes of our faith.” ~ St. Peter Canisius

Gallicanism, Protestantism and immediate jurisdiction

by T. Stanfill Benns | Jul 15, 2022 | New Blog

+St. Henry II+

In treating the recent rash of papal bashing by the anti-Fatima crowd, the seriousness of appreciating what the Roman Pontiffs teach and how these various teachings must not be taken as isolated and disjointed proclamations was once more brought to the forefront. The remedy for this is the practice of integralism as emphasized by Msgr. Fenton, something this author has stressed and attempted to practice. Whether this has always been accomplished remains to be seen, but at least the effort has been made. Gallicanism is a subject that has been treated often on this blogspot. Likewise the actual sort of jurisdiction possessed by bishops, how it is possessed, and how it can and cannot be exercised. Because questions have been raised regarding these topics, their actual interrelation needs to be explained.

What is Gallicanism?

Gallicanism is an error that surfaced at the time of the Western Schism. There were two types of Gallicanism: political (favoring monarchical interests in France) and ecclesiastical. It was confined almost entirely to France when it first made its appearance, but later spread to England and Germany. As M.L. Cozens, in his 1928 A Handbook of Heresies, explains: “The Gallican school held 1) that the Pope’s definitions were not infallible in themselves but only after acceptance by the Universal Church and 2) that a general council’s authority was above that of a Pope. Some French ecclesiastics also claimed that the king had the right to forbid the publication in France of papal bulls that no act done by the king’s agent on his authority could involve excommunication and that the king could prevent any bishops recourse to Rome even if the Pope commanded his presence.”

One of Gallicanism’s most enthusiastic proponents during the Western Schism era, the theologian Jean Gerson taught: “The decision of the Pope alone, in matters which are of faith, does not as such bind (anyone) to believe; Bishops in the primitive Church were of the same power as the Pope; The Roman Church, the head of which is believed to be the Pope …may err, and deceive and be deceived, and be in schism and heresy, and fail to exist.” (Henry Cardinal Manning, The Ecumenical Council and the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff: a Letter to the Clergy, 1869). And here is recognized the very same teachings which the Anglicans and Luther used to justify their separation from Rome at the time of the Protestant Reformation.

This we find also from Cuthbert Butler’s summary of Gallicanist teachings in his work The Vatican Council, Vol. 1, 1930: “As the common father of Christians, the Pope can make new laws and propose them to the Church. But they have not the force of general laws except by the acceptance of his colleagues in the episcopate. The bishops are bishops by divine right; THEY HOLD THEIR POWER IMMEDIATELY FROM JESUS CHRIST and not from the Sovereign Pontiff WHOSE EQUALS THEY ARE except in the primacy which was established by Christ only to show forth unity (Cyprian). They judge with him in matters of faith and of discipline but their jurisdiction is limited by their diocese, whereas that of the Pope has no limits other than those of the Christian world” (pg. 29). So this demonstrates that the Gallicanists did indeed hold the theory of immediate jurisdiction, and because they held all the bishops in council superior to the pope, they even held themselves, AS A BODY, above him.

Gallicanism, the reformers and jurisdiction

During the Protestant Reformation, the ideas promoted by the Gallicanists were put into practice by Protestant ministers, many of them still possessing valid Orders. They declared their independence from Rome and, as St. Francis de Sales explains mediate and immediate mission or jurisdiction in his The Catholic Controversy (Ch. 2-3), a work sent to Catholics deceived by the Calvinists. He writes:

“To be legates and ambassadors… of Christ …they should have been sent; they should have had letters of credit from him whom they boasted of being sent by. Now you cannot be ignorant that they neither had nor have in any way at all this mission. For if our Lord had sent them it would have been either mediately or immediately. We say mission is given mediately when we are sent by one who has from God the power of sending according to the order which he has appointed in his Church… Immediate mission is when God himself commands and gives a charge without the interposition of the ordinary authority which he has placed in the prelates and pastors of the church such as Saint Peter and the apostles were sent receiving, from our Lord’s own mouth this commandment… But neither in the one or in the other way have your ministers any mission. How then have they undertaken to preach, how shall they preach, says the apostle, unless they be sent?“

While Traditionalists and others seem to distinguish mission from jurisdiction, theologians do not. Devivier and Sasa, in the index to their work Christian Apologetics,  lists mission, canonical, which then references the reader to page 589  “on the power of jurisdiction… conferred by canonical institution.” One would think that a Doctor of the Church would be trusted to know what heresy is when he sees it and thendedicates 13 chapters to explaining it, however some question his testimony as insufficient.

The Protestants differed from the Gallicanists only in the fact that they decided to work outside the Church for reform rather than from within. The Gallican articles themselves were not addressed by the popes until 1690, when Alexander VIII declared them null, void and invalid (DZ 1322). Pope Pius VI later declared them rash and scandalous in Auctorem Fidei in 1794. (Manning in his Civil Allegiance states that the definition of infallibility “…by retrospective action makes all Pontifical acts infallible… such as Unam Sanctam, Unigenitus, and the bull Auctorem Fidei and by prospective action will make all similar acts in future binding upon the conscience.”)

To the above errors should be added those of Febronianism, first advocated by the German bishop of Trier, Johann Nickolaus von Hontheim, (using the pseudonym Febronius), in 1763. Hontheim taught that Christ did not give “…the power of the keys to Peter but to the whole Church; that the pope’s power, as head of the whole Church… is of an administrative and unifying character, rather than a power of jurisdiction;” that the appointment of bishops and the establishment of dioceses should be left to provincial synods and metropolitans and even the determination of matters of faith should be left to these same authorities. “Hontheim advanced along the same lines, in spite of many inconsistencies, to a radicalism far outstripping traditional Gallicanism” (Catholic Encyclopedia). In 1786, Pope Pius VI wrote Super Soliditate, condemning Febronianism, Regalism and Josephism:

“All the more must be deplored that blind and rash temerity of the man [Eybel] who was eager to renew in his unfortunate book errors which had been condemned by so many decrees; who has said and insinuated indiscriminately by many ambiguities that every Bishop no less than the Pope was called by God to govern the Church and was endowed with no less power; that Christ gave the same power Himself to all the apostles and that whatever some people believe is obtained and granted only by the pope, that very thing, whether it depends on consecration or ecclesiastical jurisdiction, can be obtained just as well from any bishop …” (DZ 1500). Some of these propositions were condemned as leading to schism and schismatic, also leading to heresy and heretical. Despite the fact that it also was condemned by so many other decrees, as Pope Pius VI notes, it was still being taught as an acceptable opinion because the brief did not condemn everything Eybel taught as heresy. Its propagators then used this as an excuse to escape censure, allowing it to continue to be taught in some form or other.

The Vatican Council and Gallicanism

And so it remained until the mid-1800s and the plans to convene the Vatican Council. During the Council preparations Cardinal Manning, then only an archbishop, worked within a commission comprised of five cardinal presidents, eight bishops, a secretary and dozens of other members of the clergy. This commission drew up a list of reasons why it was opportune to call the council, and enumerated on that list were the following, found in Manning’s The Vatican Council Decrees and their Bearing on Civil Allegiance (1875):

“5. Now, if the next General Council meet and separate without taking any notice of this denial [of infallibility], one of two inferences may perhaps be drawn. It may be said that Gallicanism has obtained its place among tolerated opinions; or, at least, that it may be held with impunity.

“15. Because the full and final declaration of the divine authority of the Head of the Church is needed to exclude from the minds of pastors and faithful the political influences which have generated Gallicanism, Imperialism, Regalism, and Nationalism, the perennial sources of error, contention, and schism.

“For these, and for many more reasons which it is impossible now to detail, many believe that a definition or declaration which would terminate this long and pernicious question would be opportune; and that it might forever be set at rest by the condemnation of the propositions following:

“1. That the decrees of the Roman Pontiffs in matter of faith and morals do not oblige the con- science unless they be made in a General Council, or before they obtain at least the tacit consent of the Church.

“2. That the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks in matters of faith and morals, as the universal Doctor and Teacher of the Church, may err.

And here we see the very errors expressed above by Gerson, who, Manning relates, later “…himself confessed that he was maintaining an opinion which was so much at variance with the Tradition of the Church before the Council of Constance that anyone who held it would be branded as a heretic.” Cardinal Manning then explains in his The Ecumenical Council and the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff, a Letter to the Clergy, 1869, (written shortly before the opening of the Vatican Council):

“English nationalism became the Anglican schism. French nationalism checked itself at the Gallican Articles. The Anglican Reformation has no perils for the Catholic Church; it is external to it, in open heresy and schism. Gallicanism is within its unity and is neither schism nor heresy. It is a very seductive form of national Catholicism, which, without breaking unity, or positively violating faith, soothes the pride to which all great nations are tempted, and encourages the civil power to patronise the local Church by a tutelage fatal to its liberty. It is therefore certain that Gallicanism is more dangerous to Catholics than Anglicanism. The latter is a plague of which we are not susceptible; the former is a disease which may easily be taken.

“Gallicanism has caused a divergence, which Protestants think or pretend to be a contradiction in faith. The combined action of Gallicanism within the Church and of Protestants without it, has given to this erroneous opinion a notoriety in the last two centuries, and especially in France and England, which takes it out of the category of imperfect and innocuous errors which may be left as a vapor to be absorbed. It has inscribed itself in the history of the Church, and will live on until, by the Church, it is finally condemned.” Manning would later remark in his work on Civil Allegiance: “Gallicanism was the only formal interruption of the universal belief of the Church in the Infallibility of its Head. The Vatican Council extinguished this modern error.”

Gallicanism condemned

So as with many other teachings proposed by those appearing to hold a tenable opinion within the Church, prior to its condemnation Gallicanism was condemned only as an error, or so the proponents of this position claimed. But once the Vatican Council concluded, its teachings could only be classified as heresy, which Gerson rightly agrees with above. Manning explains that a century before the Gallican Articles appeared, Gallicanist supporters debated this opinion at the Council of Trent, asking the Council to decide whether bishops receive their powers directly from Our Lord, or rather indirectly, from Christ but only through the Roman Pontiff. The Council refused to take up the question, and this question remained unsettled for over 300 years.  Finally it was answered by the Vatican Council in 1869-70:

“I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.” And it was upon Simon alone that Jesus, after His resurrection, bestowed the jurisdiction of Chief Pastor and Ruler over all His fold in the words, “Feed My lambs, feed My sheep.” At open variance with this clear doctrine of Holy Scripture, as it has ever been understood by the Catholic Church, are the perverse opinions of those who, while they distort the form of government established by Christ the Lord in His Church, deny that Peter in his simple person preferably to all the other Apostles, whether taken separately or together, was endowed by Christ with a true and proper primacy of jurisdiction; or of those who assert that the same primacy was not bestowed IMMEDIATELY AND DIRECTLY upon Blessed Peter himself, BUT UPON THE CHURCH, and through the Church [clergy and faithful] on Peter as Her minister.

 (Canon) If anyone, therefore, shall say that Blessed Peter the Apostle was not appointed the Prince of the Apostles and the visible head of the whole Church Militant, or that the same directly and immediately received from the same our Lord Jesus Christ a primacy of honour only, and not of true and proper jurisdiction; let him be anathema” (DZ 1822, condemnation of Gallicanism).

As Manning demonstrated above, Protestantism worked hand in hand with Gallicanism, and of the two, Gallicanism was by far the greater worry. The entire thrust of this united effort was to either eliminate the papacy or reduce the popes to mere ministerial heads, with the bishops as equals; the Vatican Council ended that. But then came Liberal Catholicism and Modernism, and as Msgr. Fenton explains, “Liberal Catholicism shares with Jansenism and with Modernism (and this last was preeminently an expression of the liberal Catholic teaching itself) the unhappy distinction of being a movement whose leaders fought to keep active within the Church after its principles had been directly condemned by competent ecclesiastical authority.

“Ultimately theological minimalism was a device employed by liberal Catholics to make the rejection of authoritative papal teaching on any point appear to be good Catholic practice. Sometimes it took the crass form of a claim that Catholics are obligated to accept and to hold only those things which had been defined by the explicit decrees of the ecumenical councils or of the Holy See. This attitude…was condemned by Pope Pius IX in his letter Tuas Libenter (DZ 1683). Another crass form of minimalism was the opposition to the Vatican Council definition of papal infallibility. The men who expressed that opposition sometimes claimed to hold the doctrine of papal infallibility as a theological opinion but they showed a furious hostility to the definition which proposed that doctrine as a dogma of divine and Catholic faith” (“The Components of Liberal Catholicism,” The American Ecclesiastical Review, July, 1958).

This is what Pope Pius XII faced during his pontificate. And in order to make certain all the vestiges of Gallicanism, and Liberalism then manifesting as Modernism, were entirely wiped out, he delivered his unwelcome decision on immediate jurisdiction.

Episcopal jurisdiction decision ends Gallicanist contentions

In writing his encyclicals Mystici Corporis Christi in 1943 and Ad Sinarum Gentum in 1954, Pope Pius XII settled the final remaining question not answered by the Council of Trent — the last nail in the coffin of Gallicanism — by teaching what was already held as the common opinion by the theological schools:

“Bishops must be considered as the more illustrious members of the Universal Church, for they are united by a very special bond to the divine Head of the whole Body and so are rightly called ‘principal parts of the members of the Lord’; moreover, as far as his own diocese is concerned, each one as a true Shepherd feeds the flock entrusted to him and rules it in the name of Christ. Yet in exercising this office they are not altogether independent but are subordinate to the lawful authority of the Roman Pontiff, although enjoying the ordinary power of jurisdiction which they receive directly from the same Supreme Pontiff” (Mystici Corporis Christi). And in Ad Sinarum Gentum: “But the power of jurisdiction, which is conferred upon the Supreme Pontiff directly by divine rights, flows to the Bishops by the same right, but only through the Successor of St. Peter, to whom not only the simple faithful, but even all the Bishops must be constantly subject, and to whom they must be bound by obedience and with the bond of unity.”

This should have settled the question, but the minimalists then existing in the Church challenged the fact that infallible statements could be issued in an encyclical. Pope Pius XII answered this question by writing Humani Generis (1950),teaching that anything entered into the Acta Apostolica Sedis is to be considered as issuing from the ordinary magisterium.

“Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: “He who hears you Hears Me,”: and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians.”

And this only confirmed what Msgr. Fenton had already written in 1949: “Where a question of grave moment has been disputed among Catholics, and when the Holy Father intervenes to settle this question once and for all, there is clearly a definition, a decision which all Catholics are bound to accept always as true, even though no solemn terminology be employed.” (“The Doctrinal Authority of Papal Encyclicals,” Sept. 1949, AER).

In this same article, Msgr. Fenton also noted: “The private theologian is obligated and privileged to study these documents, to arrive at an understanding of what the Holy Father actually teaches, and then to aid in the task of bringing this body of truth to the people. The Holy Father, however, not the private theologian, remains the doctrinal authority. The theologian is expected to bring out the content of the Pope’s actual teaching, not to subject that teaching to the type of criticism he would have a right to impose on the writings of another private theologian.” As Revs. Pohle-Preuss write in The Sacraments, Vol. IV: “It matters not what the private opinions of…theologians [are]. It is not the private opinions of theologians but the official decisions of the Church by which we must be guided.” Yet always, Traditionalists favor the opinions of these theologians even over the clear teaching of the Church.

Minimalism and immediate jurisdiction

A friend recently shared the following quote from Cardinal Billot with me, and while it was not objectionable at the time Billot wrote it, prior to the issuance of Mystici Corporis, it is not something that remains true following Pius XII’s definition on the origin of episcopal jurisdiction.

“Whether episcopal jurisdiction is immediately from God, or immediately from the Roman Pontiff, was bitterly disputed in the Council of Trent, and nothing was defined at that time. In the Vatican Council, the question was not even proposed, chiefly because in practice, it is nearly indifferent, whether one or the other opinion is accepted. For even those theologians who hold that episcopal jurisdiction is derived immediately from God, also say that without a doubt it is conferred by God with a true and full dependency on the Supreme Pontiff.“

Obviously, in the face of Modernist inroads, Pope Pius XII did not think this was a matter “indifferent” in practice, and a survey of his related works on the subject demonstrates this. Cardinal Billot could scarcely know what Pope Pius XII would have to face during his pontificate. He also may have been hoodwinked by Modernists wishing to de-emphasize the importance of this question and leave it unanswered, for we know they only showed their true colors toward the very end. Bishops ruling 30 years later certainly did not reflect what Billot thought these theologians believed, as later proven by the false Vatican 2 council.

And most importantly, despite his comment above, Billot himself seemed to hold the common opinion, cited by Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani, that the jurisdictional power of bishops comes only through the Pope: “For authority [in the Church] comes directly from God through Christ, and from Christ to his Vicar, and from the Vicar of Christ it descends to the remaining prelates without the intervention of any other physical or moral person” (Louis Cardinal Billot, S.J., Tractatus De Ecclesia Christi (Rome: Aedes Universitatis Gregorianae, 1927), Vol. 1. p. 524). This information is necessary to place his first statement in its proper perspective, for without it one could be led to believe Billot was either undecided or held the opposite opinion.

Cardinal Billot, then, would have considered the matter settled with Pope Pius XII’s definition, and would have adjusted his thinking on its “indifference” accordingly, just as Cardinal Ottaviani did. Humani generis settled the question on encyclicals and papal decisions made within them, forever closing any further discussion of his decision on the true nature of how bishops receive their powers: from Christ, yes, but only through the Roman Pontiff. Msgr. Fenton, in his articles on Doctrinal Authority, also Infallibility states:

“Thus it would seem that some teachings whose main claim to acceptance on the part of Catholics is to be found in the fact that they are stated in papal encyclicals would actually demand an assent higher than that which must be accorded to the content of the Church’s authentic but non-infallible magisterium. Such truths would demand the kind of assent usually designated in theology under the title of FIDES ECCLESIASTICA… (Doctrinal Authority in the Encyclicals, Pt. II, AER, 1949). “If that supreme power is exercised within the field of dogma itself, that is, by declaring that some particular truth has been revealed by God and is to be accepted by all men as a part of revelation,” Fenton continues, “then the assent called for by the definition is that of divine faith itself. If on the other hand, the Holy Father, using his supreme apostolic authority, does not propose his teaching as a dogma, but merely as completely certain, then the faithful are bound to accept his teaching as absolutely certain. They are, in either case, obliged in conscience to give an unconditional and absolutely irrevocable assent to any proposition defined in this way” (“Infallibility in the Encyclicals,” (AER, March 1953). And Ottaviani and Fenton both agree the teaching on the jurisdiction of bishops is certain. Humani Generis closes all discussion on such issues.

Yet, again, some argue it would be only temerarious to question this teaching and would not involve loss of membership in the Church, as would denying an article contrary to ecclesiastical faith. This appears to be minimism of another sort, and one that is very concerning. It presents as a reluctance to accept the full import of this decision and a desire to leave a crack open in this door, however imperceptible it might be, for whatever reason. This then would be a conditional, not an unconditional assent — an incomplete obedience — when such a decision requires irrevocable assent. Theological pygmies all of us are, who even dare venture into these things. Therefore, it seems that it is far more preferrable to prefer the safest course, as we have in praying at home, especially one recommended by a papally approved theologian. This is true especially since we have no one to consult in such matters.

Immediate mission outside the papacy a Protestant heresy

Gallicanism was an error that became even more dangerous than external heresies, as Cardinal Manning explains, because like Modernism it worked from within, not outside, the Church. It was basically a parasite that weakened the authority of the Roman Pontiff in order to placate the state and counteract the effects of Ultramontism. There are definite indications that those advocating it worked in tandem with secret societies to undermine the influence of the Church. It eventually was absorbed by Modernism. Gallicanism promoted the theory of immediate jurisdiction — that episcopal authority came by Divine right directly from Christ, but within the framework of the papacy. Protestants proposed the theory of immediate or extra-ordinary jurisdiction outside the Church, having rejected the papacy. It was their rejection of the papacy that necessitated resorting to Christ as the ultimate source of their authority. For them, this was part and parcel of their heresy.

Immediate mission could be held by bishops within the Church as an opinion, until the decision issued by Pope Pius XII that their jurisdiction was mediate, (through the pope, not immediately from Christ). Any direct appeal to Christ for such jurisdiction after that decision amounts to a denial of the necessity and supremacy of the papacy who alone can exercise it in regard to bishops. No matter how much they protest, or claim to still support the papacy, during an interregnum Traditionalists operate by appealing directly to Christ Himself, and this is the same sort of jurisdiction or mission claimed by Protetstants.

The Vatican Council condemned the tenets of the Gallicanists by defining infallibility. Pope Pius XII ruled that the theory of immediate jurisdiction could no longer be held because all jurisdiction comes from Christ to the Roman Pontiff, then to the bishops, a by-product of the Vatican Council definition. Catholics must hold this teaching with a firm and irrevocable assent. Today we see immediate jurisdiction claimed by Traditionalists. Even if they professed immediate jurisdiction under a pope-elect opposed to Rome, they would be in grave error at the very least. But that is not what they are doing. They are claiming to possess immediate jurisdiction during an interregnum in violation not only of Pope Pius XII’s decision on episcopal jurisdiction, but his infallible papal election law Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis (VAS), written several years after that decision was handed down. For this law teaches that during an interregnum, the acts of anyone attempting to exercise papal jurisdiction or who violate papal law are invalid. As Msgr. Fenton comments at the end of his article on episcopal jurisdiction, “[This decision] signifies that any bishop not in union with the Holy Father has no authority in the Church.”

Exercising jurisdiction reserved only to the pope by consecrating bishops, in defiance of VAS and in violation of a host of papal laws, is the full-blown version of the Protestant heresy of immediate mission or jurisdiction. This sort of mission, authority received directly from Christ, is claimed by Sedevancantists; “Those whom Our Lord has bound by divine law to confer sacraments, then, simultaneously receive from Him the legitimate deputation and the apostolic mission to confer them” (Anthony Cekada, Traditional Priests, Legitimate Sacraments, 2003). Other Traditionalists claim it implicitly by appealing to Can. 2261 §2 providing supplied jurisdiction, which can come only from a true pope. Since they claim it during an interregnum it can be assumed that they appeal then directly to Christ.

Anglicans believe their mission comes directly from God and from the community — mission Dei; this is extraordinary mission. Various Traditionalists also have stated the people have called them and that therefore they are bound to administer the sacraments to them, since technically they have a right to request them. (This is true, however, only when.such a request can be legitimately fulfilled.) This error, related to Gallicanism and Protestantism, was condemned as heretical at the Council of Trent (DZ 960, 967; Can. 147) to combat precisely what St. Francis de Sales was fighting in trying to free those from error who were following the Calvinists. Certainly jurisdiction was very much an issue then, and so it remains.

Conclusion

It is hoped that by providing a brief history of the origins and progression of the Gallicanist error (basically a denial of the full exercise of papal jurisdiction, condemned at the Vatican Council); and its relation to the theory of immediate jurisdiction (a Protestant heresy which has since been revived by Traditionalists), that those confused on this subject will now understand. For those who still feel that this question has not been settled and immediate jurisdiction as it remains today is not a Protestant heresy, it would be interesting to know: What else should we call it in light of the Trent anathema and Pope Pius XII’s decision? Of course the question answers itself, and the answer explains the incredulity of those denying it is a heresy in the first place.

This topic has always been about the papacy. It is at the core of the extended interregnum we have experienced for nearly 64 years. Is it possible for bishops only to rule the Church, can sitting pope err, does the episcopacy minus its head bishop constitute the Church, can bishops without the pope rule as Christ-assigned teachers if they have not received their mission from a true pope (and cannot even be certain of their own ordination and consecration)? The Church long ago answered “no” to all these questions, but liberals, Modernists and Gallicanists that they are, Traditionalists behave as though these condemnations do not exist and can be easily explained away.

Since today they practice immediate jurisdiction without the pope, Traditionalists now join the Protestants, despite all claims to hold extraneous jurisdiction in various forms. They can possess no authority without the pope. Any objection otherwise is only one more denial of the papacy to add to their long and growing list. I don’t feel obligated to apologize for those objecting to the fact that stripped of their immediate mission/jurisdiction garb, Traditionalist emperors now appear in their birthday suits.