+Feast of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary+
An article written in June has been submitted for comment by a reader from a Novus Ordo site called Canon Law Made Easy. The Canon Law referred to on that site is the false revision of the 1917 Code issued in 1983 by the usurper John Paul 2. This revision was first suggested by Angelo Roncalli before the first session of the false Vatican 2 council. In the Novus Ordo article, statements are made and links provided regarding the “schismatic” sedevacantist position and the false basis for this position. Of course no one expects members of this non-Catholic sect to get anything right, regardless of their supposed canon law credentials. But the points they use to deflect enquirers from sedevacantism need to be addressed, since they predictably fail to inform their readers that they do after all have the obligation to diligently research the legitimacy of the 1958 election and form their conscience accordingly.
The revised 1983 “code”
Abp. Amleto Cicognani observed that changes to the law are odious and are to be made sparingly. Revs. Woywod-Smith state under Can. 22 that “Changes in the law are made solely by the Holy See, and only for serious reasons and after mature deliberation… It is a fundamental principal that the general presumption is always in favor of the old law remaining unchanged.” So if those considered doubtful “popes,” at best, change the laws, then in doubt the old laws always remain in force under Can. 6 §4. Doubt concerning the validity of these false popes suffices, for those not able to gain a more advanced degree of certainty; a doubtful pope is no pope, as St. Robert Bellarmine teaches, and as a doctor of the Church his opinion is probable according to the moral theologians. We are to use such opinions, also reflex principles whenever we have no one to consult regarding such situations. Canon 22, in the 1917 Code states: “A more recent law given by the competent authority abolishes a former law if the new law explicitly says so or if it is directly contrary to the old law or if it takes up and readjusts the entire subject matter of the former law.”
The entire question here must be asked and answered for those who have not yet done the necessary study: were Roncalli and his successors true popes, “competent authority”? Were their elections unquestionably valid? The answer to this question should be obvious, given the fruits of these imposters and what has been presented by this author and others for nearly 35 years. This is why, of course, all these objectors assume the question is preposterous, schismatic, absurd, etc. They list those who have the least likelihood of offering any credible evidence for Roncalli’s false election, the more fantastical sedevacantist proponents, to make sedevacantism appear to have little value as a tenable theory. While claiming to uphold the law, they violate it, resorting to sophisms to avoid addressing the issue, that is arguing beside the point. The elephant in the room remains very large and real while they talk around it.
They don’t even get the real jist of the issue or the sedevacantist position held by LibTrads, writing: “And since a man who isn’t validly elected Pope can’t validly select new Bishops and Cardinals, this means that subsequent Popes were chosen by non-Cardinals, meaning that the new Popes weren’t/aren’t validly elected either. So sedevacantists are basically saying that the hierarchy of the Catholic Church has pretty much ceased to exist” (June 6, 2024). Only those praying at home really believe the hierarchy has ceased to exist, in this the end times. Sedevacantist pseudo-clergy believe they are the hierarchy and can continue to function without their head bishop, the pope. The proper term, which all canonists should be familiar with, is actually canonically elected. And the real issue here is not whether the non-cardinals chose subsequent popes or a non-pope could select new bishops. The old law easily solves the problem, and if these commentators were truly competent canonists who had done their due diligence, they would know this. Canon 2391 § 1 states that a college electing an unworthy candidate is automatically disqualified from proceeding to a new election.
Certitude and matters of faith
In a link to a 2017 article, provided in the June 6, 2024, article, we read: “Canon 205 tells us that a baptized Catholic is in full communion with the Catholic Church if he accepts the Catholic faith, Catholic sacraments, and Catholic governance — and it’s the issue of rejecting church governance that is the key problem with sedevacantism. If you don’t believe that this or that papal document was issued by a man who is/was really the Pope, then you naturally don’t intend to abide by whatever it says by refusing to accept the authority of the current Pope or his recent predecessors, a Catholic who’s a sedevacantist willfully puts himself into a state of schism… But since sedevacantists tend to cite (incorrectly) a lot of canon law in support of their positions, it seems reasonable to assume that they are aware of both the Church’s position on the crime of schism, and the penalties that may accompany it…
“Sedevacantism… is a schismatic movement rather than a heretical one. As sedevacantist Catholics refuse to acknowledge the authority of the Holy Father(s), deciding for themselves that he/they are not really Pope(s), they are deliberately taking themselves out of full communion with the Church… When people take it upon themselves to decide that the Pope isn’t really the Pope because he took a sketchy theological position, or because his personal morals were scandalous, or because it looks like his election wasn’t done quite right… they’re playing with fire.”
But there is a major problem with these statements. Catholics MUST decide for themselves, for they are obligated to arrive at certitude that the man claiming to be pope was canonically elected, according to the laws prevailing at the time, NOT the revised 1983 code — the old law still prevails. Theologians unanimously teach that one cannot act in a state of doubt regarding matters concerning eternal salvation, such as obedience to a true pope, unless and until that doubt is resolved, and no one will consider ALL the evidence to resolve it. That we are bound to remove this doubt is clearly demonstrated from the binding decrees found in Henry Denzinger’s Sources of Catholic Dogma, (DZ 570d, 650, 652, 674, also Cum ex Apostolatus Officio): “A pope canonically elected, who lived for a time after having expressed his own name, is the successor of blessed Peter, having supreme authority in the Church,” (DZ 674). This is an article of faith, proposed for belief to the Armenians and to Wycliffe and the Hussites. The article proposed to the Armenians asks them to hold that “all the Roman Pontiffs who… succeeding Blessed Peter have entered canonically and will enter canonically,” will possess the same plenitude of jurisdiction Christ granted to St. Peter. Msgr. Joseph C. Fenton states that what was proposed to the Armenians is to be considered a dogma of faith, (The Concept of Sacred Theology, pgs. 132-33).
In his 1896 work Dr. Littledale’s Theory of the Disappearance of the Papacy, Sydney F. Smith, S.J. wrote: “The following passage is [found] in Ferraris Bibliotheca, a work of the highest authority. In his article on the Pope, (S.v. Papa, p. 949) [the respected theologian] Ferraris says: It is of faith that Benedict XIV, for instance, LEGITIMATELY ELECTED and accepted as such by the Church, is the true Pope (common doctrine among Catholics). This is proved from the Council of Constance, where Martin V’s Const. Inter Cunctos decrees that those who return from heresy to the faith shall be asked, among other points, ‘Whether they believe that the Pope canonically elected, for the time being, his name being expressly mentioned, is the successor of St. Peter, having supreme authority in the Church of God.’ For thereby he supposes it to be an article of faith, since those who abjure heresy are ‘interrogated only as to truths of faith.’” (See DZ 674, 675).
No schism if positive doubt established
This same article of faith is one we ourselves must believe. But if certitude cannot be had regarding the canonical status of the election, and the book The Phantom Church in Rome, also articles on this site have provided sufficient evidence for years to cast grave doubt on the results of the 1958 election, then one is bound in conscience NOT to hold such an election valid. According to the opinions of seven notable theologians, in withdrawing from the “obedience” of a man claiming to be pope who you believe was never canonically elected, no schism is involved. Vermeersch-Cruesen, Reiffenstuel, Schmalzgrueber, Ferraris, Vechiotti and Szal state: “There is no schism involved… if one refuses obedience [to a pope] inasmuch as one suspects the person of the Pope or the validity of his election…” (The Communication of Catholics with Schismatics, Rev. Ignatius J. Szal, A.B., J.C.L.). Serious reasons, that is positive doubt, must exist and proofs must be presented to support such a position. This fulfills the provisions of Can. 20 and establishes probability according to Church teaching. These theologians agree that one need only suspect that the man claiming to be Pope is irregular in some way or invalidly elected (Can. 2200), and we have established far more than just suspicion in the documents presented on this subject.
And then we have the probable opinion of St. Robert Bellarmine, who teaches a doubtful pope is no pope: “When there is a prudent doubt about the validity of an election to any official position, there also is a similar doubt whether the person so elected really has authority or not. In such a case, no one is bound to obey him… But a superior whom no one is bound to obey is in reality no superior at all… An authority that may be justly doubted at all times is no authority; it commands neither obedience nor respect as is evident in churches that reject the claim to indefectibility… One who intrudes himself into the ministry against the laws of the Church receives no authority, and consequently can transmit none to his successors…
“Therefore,” continues the Cardinal, “If a papal election is really doubtful for any reason, the one elected should resign, so that a new election may be held. But if he refuses to resign, it becomes the duty of the bishops to adjust the matter, for although the bishops without the pope cannot define dogmas nor make laws for the universal Church, they can and ought to decide, when occasion demands, who is the legitimate pope; and if the matter be doubtful, they should provide for the Church by having a legitimate and undoubted pastor elected. That is what the Council of Constance rightly did.” (Rev. E.S. Berry, The Church of Christ: “p. 402).
St. Antoninus, commenting on the Great Western Schism, also noted: “The question was much discussed and much was written in defense of one side or the other. For as long as the schism lasted each obedience had in its favor men who were very learned in Scripture and Canon Law, and even very pious people, including some who – what is much more – were illustrious by the gift of miracles. Nonetheless the question could never be settled without leaving the minds of many still in doubt. Doubtless we must believe that, just as there are not several Catholic Churches, but only one, so there is only one Vicar of Christ who is its pastor. But if it should occur that, by a schism, several popes are elected at the same time, it does not seem necessary for salvation to believe that this or that one in particular is the true pope, but just in general whichever of them was canonically elected. The people are not obliged to know who was canonically elected, just as they are not obliged to know Canon Law; in this matter they may follow the judgment of their superiors and prelates.” And the superiors and prelates WE follow are those writing before the death of Pope Pius XII.
Another respected theologian weighs in here: “A doubtful pope may be really invested with the requisite power, but he has not practically in the Church the same right as a certain pope — he is not entitled to be acknowledged as Head of the Church, and may be legitimately compelled to desist from his claim,” (The Relations of the Church to Society — Theological Essays, Rev. Edmund James O’Reilly, S.J., emph. his.) Rev. O’Reilly was the theologian of choice in Ireland for local Irish Councils and Synods and was a professor of theology. The opinion of these men and the proofs that the 1958 election was invalid also constitutes the juridical certainty in way of evidence required by Dom Charles Augustine under Can. 430. What Szal presents, then, is a solidly probable opinion, one which helps establish certitude, and according to the laws and teachings of the Church it may be followed at will.
So those among LibTrads holding John 23 as validly elected and the Novus Ordo “experts” who criticize others for misquoting Canon Law and accuse them of willfully committing schism are asking Catholics to actually ignore their conscience and deny an article of faith. Furthermore they have entirely argued beside the point regarding the question, refusing to consider evidence that amply shows there were numerous alarming irregularities and evidence of outside election interference in 1958. These facts have been available for years, even decades. Pretending to be champions of Canon Law, they entirely discount and ignore the canons then in effect which have been cited here numerous times. But most importantly, they entirely dismiss Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, which infallibly voids any attempted act or acts contrary to those canons, and levies penalties for violations of his law that could be lifted only by a future canonically elected pope. This renders their reasoning and their arguments null and void.
Peter’s faith lacking in Roncalli, Montini
We read above from this NO site that: “Canon 205 [1983 code] tells us that a baptized Catholic is in full communion with the Catholic Church if he accepts the Catholic faith, Catholic sacraments, and Catholic governance… it’s the issue of rejecting church governance that is the key problem with sedevacantism.” No, the issue of Church governance and unchanging faith is the key problem with ALL LibTrad and Novus Ordo sects. The Church was founded on a rock — on PETER’S FAITH. It was not founded on fractured rock or sand. Both Cum ex Apostolatus Officio and Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis exclude heretics or suspected heretics from election and Roncalli was a proven suspected heretic (see HERE). And the Catholic Encyclopedia tells us: “Of course, the election of a heretic, schismatic, or female would be null and void.” Neither Roncalli or Montini were loyal to Pope Pius XII or retained that same faith. His governance meant nothing to them; they were working together and with others to establish a new church, and they succeeded. Many instances have been cited proving they questioned or denied the faith; Vatican 2 and the Novus Ordo Missae proved that most effectively. Montini and Roncalli were Catholics in name only. But how do you make an objective judgment in this case when the man falsely elected has been declared a “saint”?!!
Dr. Cyril Andrade wrote in a 1976 article, Are Papal Elections Inspired by the Holy Ghost?”: “Pius XII is pope: Montini is his pro-secretary of State: Roncalli is Papal Nuncio in Paris: the Pope suppresses the “Worker Priest” movement in France because far from reclaiming the workers to the Church, all of the 200 “Worker Priests”, themselves, lost their faith; but Montini and Roncalli, in collusion, secretly encourage the movement and keep it alive against the order of the Pope.” After explaining how both the elections of Roncalli and Montini were secretly engineered by Freemasons and others, Andrade writes: “Does this scenario of low, vile intrigue, connivance, collusion and treachery of the hierarchical mafia led by the liberal (heretical) gang of Suenens, König, Döpfner, Lercaro, et al, in any way lend credence to the canard that the Conclave that elected [Roncalli and] Montini was “secret” and “inspired by the Holy Ghost”?
“To thus make a mockery of the Third Person of the Blessed Trinity, in this vile fashion, is to be guilty of the unforgivable sin. But, then, the Vatican II Mafia does not believe that the Holy Ghost is God for, in the fourth Eucharistic prayer which they have concocted for their Novus Ordo Missae (New Mass) they state categorically: “Father in heaven, you alone are God . . .” (Emphases added), thus excluding the Son and the Holy Ghost from the Trinity Godhead.” And these Novus Ordo pretenders can dismiss these heresies and proofs that faith is lacking, in Francis AND his predecessors, to accuse sedevacantists of schism and rejection of lawful authority? Please see the article HERE which confirms what Andrade wrote so long ago.
And not only must the one elected as pope be considered here but the ones electing as well. As Andrade notes and Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis states, the cardinals are tasked to select who they believe is the worthiest among them to act as Christ’s vicar. Those making this selection must certainly be Catholic themselves. Yet we see that all those cardinals who participated in Roncalli’s election, minus those who had the good fortune to pass away, went on to convene and approve the deliberations of the false Vatican 2 council. And they were good Catholics, they can be trusted and we have no reason to doubt them? How could anyone be so blind? A canonical election requires that all those voting be Catholics who have not automatically forfeited their office owing to some heresy. Ecumenism is a heresy; religious liberty is a heresy; the insertion into missalettes distributed in 1959 containing the English translation, “for all men,” is a heresy. If only a few cardinals could be proven to be suspect of heresy, or disobedient to the pope or to have participated in plots to confirm Roncalli as pope before Pope Pius XII’s death, and there is proof of this, Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis declares the election is invalid for want of a two-thirds plus one vote.
Peter’s faith is the rock, and without it the entire foundation that is the papacy crumbles. Does any true Catholic really believe that the Holy Ghost would descend upon and grant the gift of infallibility to a man suspected of heresy for over 25 years, elected by men, some of whom were complicit in rigging the election, with assistance from the CIA and other groups? Canon Law and pre-1958 canonists deny the election would be valid. Pope Pius XII declares in his infallible Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis that anything done in violation of the sacred canons during an interregnum is null and void. Common sense and any reverence for the institution of the papacy should tell us that such an election is doubtful in the extreme, especially considering what went before compared to what followed. It would convince a rational person, if we were dealing with truly rational human beings identifying as Catholic. But sadly this is not the case today. Pray that the veil be lifted from their eyes and the hardness be driven from their hearts.
