“So let your light shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven” (Matt. 5:16).
Summary of what follows
- It is no longer technically correct to state that the Church now exists in a state of interregnum.
- Canon Law teaches that bishops appointed under Pope Pius XII lost their offices when accepting transfers to other dioceses by Roncalli.
- Jurisdiction comes with the appointment to an OFFICE; the office cannot be VALIDLY obtained unless conferred “…by the COMPETENT ECCLESIASTICAL AUTHORITY” (Can. 147).
- Bishops who did not depart from Roncalli did NOT receive a pardon from their censures, Canon Law states.
- Different canons govern the lifting of censures and those canons do not contain footnotes to Pope Paul IV’s Cum ex Apostolatus Officio. Therefore one cannot maintain that Cum ex… can be used to interpret these canons.
- Bishops openly cooperated with Roncalli in destroying the Church founded on St. Peter.
- Even without recognizing Roncalli as a false pope, these bishops were personally guilty of heresy for conspiracy against the papacy, contempt of faith and harm to souls.
- Given these violations, their acts produced results and the imputability of the delict was not taken away.
New objections have been made regarding the application of Pope Paul IV’s Bull Cum ex Apostolatus Officio and it is important to completely understand this subject in order to attain certitude regarding how and when the Great Apostasy began amongst the hierarchy. Bishops reigning when Pope Pius XII died cannot be excused for their actions under Roncalli, and this is not a matter of opinion, but one determined by the facts, as judged by Canon Law and Church teaching. They became heretics either before or shortly after his death, for their failure to challenge and renounce innovations to the liturgy forbidden by Pope Pius XII and in committing other heresies. The following links will provide background for this.
https://www.betrayedcatholics.com/ignorance-is-no-excuse-for-cardinals-electing-bishops-recognizing-roncalli/; https://www.betrayedcatholics.com/6997-2/ (Scholastic method neglected in determining apostasy of bishops)
Below we will try to unravel some of the strange aberrations in thinking on this subject by appealing to Canon Law and the commentaries, also plain old common sense.
Interregnum definition and the relocation of bishops
Objection: A Bishop remains a Bishop during an interregnum …The fact that Roncalli changed the place of many Bishops (transfers) and gave them false powers and false charges does not mean they lost their jurisdiction over their flock, but only that they could not use their jurisdiction outside their limits.
Response: First, we must define interregnum. An interregnum (meaning among, between etymologically) PRESUMES that the election of a pope is ongoing. In other words, in the case of a disputed election the term itself, as the Church understands it, indicates the selection process is still in progress. (A better terminology is the sede vacante, or vacancy of the See.) Please prove there was ever a time when the Church allowed the See to remain vacant without opposing a true pope to an antipope or actually being engaged in a conclave; such an occasion does not exist. I realize some authors claim that the right to elect a pope never expires, but this is true only if the subject matter yet exists (validly appointed and truly Catholic cardinals or bishops, in the absence of the cardinals, to elect a pope) and the moral conditions are still in place (the previous election has been drawn into question by even a minority of cardinals or bishops). This statement is based on the teachings of Henry Cardinal Manning.
There was no disputed election and no faithful cardinals or bishops called to postulate a canonical election. Therefore these bishops could not have retained their jurisdiction during this time-period because it never existed; it does not correspond to the actual meaning of the word or the Church’s meaning/intended use of it. As Rev. A.C. Cotter so aptly notes in his 1949 work, the ABC of Scholastic Theology, “By far the most fruitful source of error is our careless use of words, or rather the vague notions we have of the meaning of words… [Writers must make] absolutely sure (a) of the various meanings of terms and (b) of the exact meaning they attach to them in the present discussion.” These bishops accepted Roncalli as valid; they did not realize an interregnum even existed, nor did the faithful. So why would they have retained their positions?
Papal elections must be held within 18 days of the vacancy; ecclesiastical elections within three months. In the event the cardinals fail to elect or are disqualified for electing a heretic, the election devolves to the bishops. They must convene to elect within at least the three-month period, in straightened circumstances, or they lose the right to elect (Can. 162). The right to elect a true pope never expires, but as already stated above, the conditions for an unquestionably canonical election can expire and did expire when all the bishops consecrated under Pope Pius XII became schismatics under Roncalli with no one to absolve or reinstate them.
Transfer of bishops
Regarding the transfer of bishops by the usurper, Can. 429 states: “If the Bishop has incurred excommunication, interdict or suspension… the vicar general’s jurisdiction is suspended together with that of the Bishop (Can. 371).”
And Can. 430: “The episcopal see becomes VACANT on the death of the Bishop, on his resignation accepted by the Roman Pontiff, on his transfer and on his deprivation of office made known to the Bishop.” These men vacated the positions assigned to them under Pope Pius XII to which their jurisdiction was attached to accept a “bishopric” from a usurper. This argument that jurisdiction is retained by these bishops is totally nonsensical because if a bishop is transferred from Timbuktu to Haiti, how can he possibly minister to subjects in Timbuktu any longer? If they deliberately accepted the transfer, they no longer have a flock, because jurisdiction can be exercised only over those subjects assigned to bishops by competent ecclesiastical authority.
Jurisdiction comes with the appointment to an OFFICE; the office cannot be VALIDLY obtained unless conferred “…by the COMPETENT ECCLESIASTICAL AUTHORITY” (Can. 147). Roncalli didn’t have it and Cum ex…says all his acts are null, void and invalid. There is a decision on this Canon entered into the Acta Apostolica Sedis as documented on this site many times. This decision quotes from the Council of Trent to clearly show that what is NOT conveyed by those who are not competent ecclesiastical authorities is jurisdiction, for the Canon with the anathema attached clearly states: “If anyone says that… those neither rightly ordained nor sent by ecclesiastical and canonical authority but come from a different source Are LAWFUL ministers of the word and of the sacraments let him be anathema” (DZ 967).
The Holy Office wrote: “No one can presume to intrude himself or others into ecclesiastical offices and benefices without a legitimate canonical investiture or provision. And Pope Pius XII issued excommunications ipso facto and specially reserved to the Holy See against this: 1) By those who contrive against legitimate ecclesiastical authority or who attempt in any way to subvert their authority and 2) By anyone who without a canonical investiture or provision made according to the Sacred Canons occupies an ecclesiastical office, benefice, or dignity or allows anyone to be UNLAWFULLY intruded into the same or retains the same.” There are no exceptions here made for bishops!
These bishops who accepted these transfers, of their own free will, resigned the offices given to them by Pope Pius XII and with that all right to minister to their former flocks as well as any granted them by the usurper Roncalli. “Vacancies occur by the voluntary act of the incumbent or by compulsion” (Cath. Encyclopedia). Show me anything in Canon Law or papal documents which contradicts this.
No departure from Roncalli = no lifting of censures
Objection: The Bull Cum ex… is very clear in para. 7 that bishops not leaving Roncalli did not incur censure.
Response: What did Pope Paul IV have in mind when he said that the cardinals and bishops etc. could leave the usurper without any fear of censure “at any time”? Notice, however, his precise words, for he said that the cardinals who elected “one straying from the faith… a heretic or schismatic [pretender] to the papacy… It shall be lawful for all and sundry… to DEPART with impunity [meaning without punishment] at any time from obedience and allegiance to said promoted and elevated persons… For the greater confusion of persons thus promoted and elevated, if they attempt to continue their government and administration, all may implore the aid of the secular arm against those so advanced and elevated.” And here he anticipated not only the removal of the usurper, but also a new papal election.
Paul IV did not foresee our situation here; that of multiple heretics usurping the See. In referring to this “one’s” deposition, he does not extend it past the time of his usurpation, as already stated in the links above. No one left Roncalli, and the entire paragraph — the lifting of any punishment or censures — is predicated only on their departure from the usurper. Failure to admit that is outright dishonesty. And more than that, it is a blatant contradiction of the entire array of Canons regarding the lifting of censures. Latae sententiae censures can be lifted only under the following conditions:
(1) The ecclesiastical superior is obliged by law to grant absolution from censures as soon as the offender amends and gives due satisfaction. But in the case of vindicative penalties (attached to the censure against heresy, apostasy and schism in Can. 2314), it is left to the prudent judgment of the superior to concede or refuse dispensation from the penalties to an amended offender (Can. 2236).
(2) A person is considered to have desisted from his obstinacy when he has truly repented of his offense and has at the same time made proper satisfaction for the damages and scandal caused or has at least earnestly promised to do so (Canon 2242).
(3) Any censure once contracted cannot be removed except by legitimate absolution. Absolution cannot be denied whenever the offender ceases to be obstinate as declared in Canon 2242. The censure once incurred binds the offender even though the law is changed later on and the penalty abolished (Can. 2248).
(4) Rev. Stanislaus Woywod states under Can, 672§1 that the religious who has given signs of complete amendment for three years is to be readmitted to his order. But the reason for dismissal must have been grave, as stated in Can. 647§2. In the case of material heresy or schism, infamy also is incurred as a vindicative penalty, and only the pope can lift it. After three years this censure could be ignored regarding infamy of fact, (Can. 2295), but not infamy of law, as is the case with Can. 2314. The offender would still need to seek absolution for material heresy and/or schism when it is available, and until then cannot posit any ecclesiastical acts.
Pope Pius XII’s Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis (VAS) also factors in here. VAS excommunicates the cardinals for interference by the secular powers, for failing to tag Roncalli for campaigning for himself pre-election (confirmed by several different sources), and for other violations. These latae sententiae excommunications are reserved to the Holy Father in a “most special manner” (Can. 2330), for he alone can judge them. Excommunication of this sort deprives them of all jurisdiction, from the time of Roncalli’s “election,” until lifted by a true pope. Until then they are not permitted to function. VAS states that Pius XII’s election constitution (NOT Paul IV’s Cum ex…) is the only law that applies to Roncalli’s attempted election. So Cum ex… cannot be disingenuously used to absolve the cardinals, but rather it is VAS which holds them liable. In addition, in para. 7 of Paul IV’s bull, the emphasis has shifted from who incurs censures for heresy, apostasy and schism to who can be excused from cooperating with the usurper and under what conditions.
We are justified in following the old law as long as it is clear (a) there is doubt in some matter; (b) there is no other law governing the situation (Can. 20) and (c) that Cum ex Apostolatus Officio is footnoted to the laws of the 1917 Code which now governs this particular question. This is explained in Can. 6 n.3 which states: “Those canons which agree with the old law in part only must be interpreted according to the old law in the part they agree with it; and according to the meaning of the words [Can. 18, 19] employed in the part they differ from it.” The need to cease from obstinacy before pardon is clearly outlined above and is implied in Paul IV’s bull. “It shall be lawful for all and sundry who would have been subject to persons so promoted and elevated, had these not first strayed from the Faith or been heretics, or incurred or incited or committed schism…to DEPART.” Roncalli committed and incited schism. Those who would remain with such a usurper would be held guilty of the same before departing and if remaining. Only by departing could they avoid the censure.
Cooperation in sin
Objection: Nobody can pretend to know for a fact that all the Cardinals and Bishops were collaborating with Roncalli after his false election. And only the Roman Pontiff may judge the Cardinals (Can. 1557).
Response: This is such a preposterous and mind-blowing statement that it seems almost unworthy of a response. We have cardinals who invalidly elected a man and bishops who never denounced him; bishops who these same objectors admit all excommunicated themselves for heresy at Vatican 2. We know that Montini and Roncalli were friends beginning in the 1930s, and that they were especially close in the 1950s. We have two popes, one warning us how Freemasons were bent on destroying the Church (Leo XIII) and the other warning us that Modernists had already infiltrated the ranks of the clergy (St. Pius X). We know for a FACT that all these cardinal/bishops and other bishops signed Vatican 2 documents and even those that didn’t attend or sign them died without ever attempting to elect a true pope, as they were bound to do. Let us count the ways one can cooperate in sin here by quoting from the Revs. McHugh and Callan in their work on moral theology:
“The cooperator acts as assistant or subordinate agent to the one who commits sin, providing him with moral or physical help, or supplying him with the means requisite for the act of sin… From the viewpoint of the external act, cooperation is positive or negative, according as one does something to help the principal agent, or does nothing to impede him… Cooperation is either occasional or effective. By occasional cooperation is understood that which leads another into sin, or allows him to be drawn into sin, but does not assist him to commit sin… By effective cooperation is understood assistance given another enabling him to carry out, or to carry out more easily, an act of sin on which he had resolved… According to its nature, an act of cooperation is intrinsically evil, if it has no uses except such as are evil… According to its circumstances, an act of cooperation is evil, if by reason of adjuncts it is wrong, as when it signifies approval of evil, gives scandal to others, endangers the faith or virtue of the cooperator, or violates a law of the Church.”
And of course Catholics must know the various ways they can commit cooperation: by counsel, command, consent, provocation, praise or flattery, concealment, participation or enjoyment, silence or inaction and defense of the wrong done. These bishops participated in the distribution of the missalettes containing the English translation of the consecration of the wine as “for all men,” contrary to the direct order of Pope St. Pius V”; they consented to everything said and done by those attending the preparatory meetings for the first session of the false V2 Council, and if read online these sessions contain many heresies and errors, (something noted by Msgr. Joseph C. Fenton in his diaries); they participated in the first session of the false V2 Council, they then obeyed the command to recite the John 23 missal with its modified Canon of the Mass, adding St. Joseph (an innovation that had been requested by certain factions but refused for 150 years by true popes); they instituted all the calendar changes made by Roncalli and omitted the St. Michael’s prayer at the end of the Mass; and bishops complied with a secret document issued by Roncalli that sex offenders be transferred to different positions rather than held libel for canonical penalties, a major change from the policies of Popes Pius XI and Pius XII. (Readers can request a copy of this document.)
All those acts enumerated above in which these bishops participated led them in the same direction: away from the teachings of the continual magisterium and towards ecumenism, aided by liturgical innovations. The heretical teaching alone that was allowed in seminaries by these bishops, beginning in 1960 — documented by investigative reporter Michael Rose in his Goodbye, Good Men, (2002) — is enough to indict these bishops as heretics. And there can be no question that they were — in every sense of the word. As far as the cardinals being able to be judged only by the Roman Pontiff, this is technically true. However, they are judged already by Pius XII in VAS, also by their external acts. And under Can. 2314, the infallible bull of that great Roman Pontiff, Pope Paul IV, (Cum ex Apostolatus Officio), condemns and sentences them.
The consequences of latae sententiae censures
Objection: A bishop retains his jurisdiction during an interregnum as long as he is not a notorious heretic [or schismatic] or adheres to a sect like the one generated by Antichrist, Montini-Paul 6 in 1965.
Response: A latae sententiae sentence refers to an automatic excommunication. It is ipso facto (automatic) and is incurred the minute the law is broken. Can. 2314, the excommunication for heresy, apostasy and schism, also communicatio in sacris, is a latae sententiae sentence. In such sentences, the law itself serves as the canonical warning required in other sentences. And according to Cum ex…, the old law under Can. 2314, no declaratory sentence is necessary for the law to take effect. “Whenever it shall appear…” that Bishops have uttered heresy or committed schism, they shall: “ipso facto and without need for any further declaration, be deprived of any dignity, position, honor, title, authority, office and power” (para. 6, last sentence).
The thing to be determined is precisely when the law was broken in each individual case and which law(s) were broken. In this case we know it was Can. 2314, Can. 188 n. 4 and Can. 1258. What is disputed here is when these bishops became heretics and schismatics. Leaving heresy aside for a moment, let us focus on schism. The Catholic Encyclopedia defines it as: “Schismatics and those who elude or obstinately withdraw from the authority of the reigning Roman pontiff. The schismatics here referred to are of two kinds: those who are such because they belong to separated Churches which reject the authority of the pope, and those who, being Catholics, become schismatics by reason of obstinate disobedience to the authority of the pope as such.”
While it is true Pope Pius XII was not still reigning, it is also true that since John 23 was never pope, the only pope or popes these bishops did owe obedience to were those who went before. One might be able to understand a mistaken identity of Roncalli as a true pope; what cannot be understood is how bishops consecrated during Pius XII’s reign or that of Pope Pius XI could possibly fail to obey their previous infallible teachings. And then there is the matter of the council to consider. The Catholic Encyclopedia continues: “All those, of no matter what state, rank, or condition, who appeal from the ordinances or mandates of the reigning Roman pontiff to a future ecumenical council, and all who have given aid, counsel, or countenance to this appeal. The appeal from the commands of the pope to a future ecumenical council, not only implies the superiority of the council over the pontiff but is preeminently an act of injurious disobedience to the Head of the Church” (censured with ipso facto excommunication for suspicion of heresy under Can. 2332).
Roncalli announced his council in January 1959. The cardinals and bishops knew there had been previous attempts to call a council, and most likely they knew the reason why: increasing tension between the liberals, moderates and conservatives among the bishops. They had to have known the conservatives — the integralists — were in the minority. Many viewed them as standing in the way of the reunion of Christendom. “The appeal from the commands of the pope to a future ecumenical council” was an appeal to Roncalli for relief from the “outmoded, oppressive teachings and attitudes” of his predecessors. It was Ottaviani and Ruffini who by their own admission made this appeal. And they made it against Popes Pius XI and XII under whom they had served. If this is not an example of injurious disobedience, I don’t know where a person could find one.
The difference between what betrayedcatholics is stating and what these objectors are stating is this: The objectors are saying that the bishops were not required to have the knowledge necessary to discern Roncalli was a heretic — something I have proven untenable in the links above. I am stating that regardless of whether they recognized him as a heretic or schismatic, they were guilty of heresy and schism PERSONALLY themselves — not for believing Roncalli was pope, but simply because what they adhered to was heresy and/or schism IN AND OF ITSELF. This is a very necessary and important distinction. “For all men” in the missalettes they approved and distributed was heresy; they were disobeying Pius XII in Mediator Dei, Pope Pius V in his de defectibus and Quo primum, and Popes Pius XI and XII in their condemnations of ecumenism. It had nothing to do with John 23rd, to whom they owed no obedience. Disobedience to the true Popes and contempt for their decisions is precisely the definition of schism as we’ve seen above. Revs. Alan McCoy and Innocent Swoboda point out that what they were doing was intrinsically evil, and indeed does amount to conspiring against the teachings of the TRUE Roman Pontiffs.
Presumption of guilt
“On evaluating the application of penalties in various delicts, Swoboda wrote: “The force of Can. 2200 §2 [which we have talked about at length in our writings for years] is to presume that the delinquent knowingly and deliberately violated the law when two facts are established beyond doubt: that the law was actually violated and that this particular individual was the cause of the illegal violation of the law.” Swoboda calls the presumption of guilt in Can. 2200 “an absolute presumption,” which Abp. Cicognani says cannot be directly attacked. It can be attacked only indirectly against the fact on which the presumption is based (Can. 1904). That means someone would need to produce verifiable facts — records, deeds or public statements — not a phrase from Cum ex… taken entirely out of context when Cum ex… is not even the law that applies here. This alone would show that certain bishops could not have been guilty of the crime of heresy and schism.
Continuing from Swoboda: “The presumption that a man is good ceases when it is established that he actually committed a crime and the burden of proving that the crime doesn’t exist rests with the accused… The presumption is that ordinarily when a man performs an action he is in possession of his faculties, that is he knows what he is doing and realizes the ordinary implications, both physical and moral, of his own conduct; also that he knows the law and the penalty of the law. And presuming knowledge of the law, the legislator merely supposes the individual has not failed in his obligation to know the law. Secondly, the law presumes a man is aware of the factual circumstances in which he is acting; that he knows his own actions and personal condition. Notorious facts which are presumed by the law to be known are those which are public or known to the people generally in the community and hence the law presumes they are also known in a given instance” (Ignorance in Relation to the Imputability of Delicts, CUA, 1941).
Now what well-educated, devout Catholic could ever think that it is permissible not to believe in something that a pope had taught as a matter binding on the faithful? That the Church could just “change Her mind” and teach something new, when her teachings are forever the same? Yet obviously these bishops bought into this hook, line and sinker with Roncalli. And they were bound to know and do so much more than the faithful ever knew or did.
Usurpation, conspiracy and harm to souls
And Swoboda tells us something more. He writes: “It seems that usurpare and conspirare… can be included in the classification of expressions which presuppose simple dolus [meaning that the penalty is incurred whether the one committing the delict was aware of the fact that it was forbidden by Canon Law or not]. For it is difficult to understand how one could become guilty of the delicts described and defined by these terms through mere negligence or culpa [fault].” In other words, the nature of these acts themselves require a man to know exactly what he is doing. He then lists Canons 2331 and 2345 as the source of these crimes. Can. 2331 treats of those who: “…conspire against the authority of the Roman Pontiff or his legates, or against their legitimate commands and also those who provoke subjects to disobedience towards them.”
Canon 2345 states: “Persons who usurp or retain personally or through others goods and rights pertaining to the Roman Church automatically incur excommunication reserved in a special manner to the Apostolic See. If they are clerics they shall also be deprived of dignities, benefices, offices and pensions and shall be declared disqualified to obtain them.” And how better to conspire against the Roman Pontiffs than to frustrate all they ever taught by setting up the Vatican 2 church? Isn’t that exactly what we have witnessed?
Then there is this from Rev. Alan McCoy: “When an act is intrinsically evil [and here he mentions heresy, apostasy and schism as intrinsically evil], or involves contempt of the faith or of ecclesiastical authority, or works to the detriment of souls… imputability is not taken away in such cases since in these instances the observance of the law still urges under the pain of sin, even though the most severe personal hardship or danger, or also the greatest private harm might come from such observance. And the reason for this is that some spiritual good, either of God or of the Church or of individual souls is involved…There is consequently always grave guilt in the deliberate transgression of such a law.”
And regarding how we are to view our current situation, Can. 2229 n. 3 §3, states: “Grave fear does not exempt from penalties later sententiae of the offense entails contempt of faith or of ecclesiastical discipline or public injury of souls.” McCoy has this interesting observation regarding when such public injury would occur: “When, then, would such harm to souls not be occult [meaning when would it be public] since there is a question of latae sententiae penalties, that is such as are incurred at the time the crime is committed. Only that case wherein the harm is public at the time of the actual commission of the criminal act can be considered here. Otherwise the delinquent would be uncertain as to the incurring of the penalty until the harm became public or until it became certain that it would remain occult.
“Using Canon 2197 as their guide one can maintain that the harm to souls is public in the sense spoken of in Canon 2229 §3, n.3 whenever the crime which evidently entails injury to souls is committed under such circumstances that it is immediately divulged or that it may and must be prudently considered that it easily will be divulged. The Code says that IF THE ACT TENDS TO PRODUCE RESULTS, the imputability of the delict is not taken away” (Force and Fear in Relation to Delictual Imputability and Penal Responsibility, 1944, Catholic University of America). And here McCoy explains that the very same must be said regarding a contempt of faith. How can anyone claim that the harm to souls was not public seeing the results of Vatican 2 and the institution of the Novus Ordo Missae? And yet McCoy says that when there is a question of latae sententiae penalties these are incurred at the time the crime is committed.
These crimes were committed gradually over a long period of time, but eventually these craven acts produced their RESULTS, as Rev. McCoy notes above. As each crime was committed, the sentences were incurred en masse — for these results were clearly public as well as profound and cannot be denied. Nor can the imputability of these delicts be taken away. This is true especially in the issuance of the 1959 missalettes, which effectively both demonstrated a contempt of faith AND SUCCESSFULLY CONDITIONED AT LEAST THE MAJORITY OF THOSE THEN CLAIMING TO BE CATHOLIC TO LATER ACCEPT THE NOVUS ORDO MISSAE. It also can be seen in the deadly scourge of doctrinal minimalism condemned by Pope Pius XII in Humani generis, an error courageously combatted in the 1940s and 1950s by Msgr. Joseph C. Fenton. And we must not forget the campaign for religious tolerance (indifferentism) — begun in the 1950s by John Courtney Murray and other Catholic writers — which culminated in the acceptance of this false doctrine as the handmaid of ecumenism at the false Vatican 2 council.
I guess the moral of this blog is not to take everything you read at face value. First and foremost what is stated above should convince those who study to make certain that whoever attempts to inform them do so from approved sources only, verifiable proofs, not their own opinions. Think things through and mull it over. Look up the actual meaning of the words; there are several Catholic dictionaries available for free download online. And look things up only in older secular dictionaries from the 1940s-50s. Do this until it makes perfect sense and all the kinks in thinking are worked out. The only value of the false conclusions presented by these objectors is that they remind us to stay alert and spur us on to a better understanding of what we read about what has happened to the Church, how it happened and why it happened. For that is essential to helping others understand, that they might be brought to the true faith. “Neither do men light a candle and put it under a bushel, but upon a candlestick, that it may shine to all that are in the house. So let your light shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven” (Matt. 5: 15-16).