TRUE OR FALSE POPE?

Refuting Sedevacantism
and other Modern Errors
TRUE OR FALSE POPE?

Refuting Sedevacantism
and other Modern Errors

JOHN SALZA
ROBERT SISCOE
Foreword by
HIS EXCELLENCY
BERNARD FELLAY

&STAS
mmons.
TRUE OK FALSE POPE? -
Refuting Sedevacantisn
and other Modemn Errens
w.cmsw;—mr la
Saand a
Robe rt | -

ATl nghts resarved. With the excepion of short excerpis for criscal
sevnen, o pert of this week mav be reproduced of Waremutied
from any
in the
foem o by any meare Without permuslon in WRng
coprright belders
Published by~
STAS Ediwens
& Thesus Aquunuas Seminary
21077 Quarry Hill Road
Wimena, Mincuesots 55967
est ocg
SBN 97814951 51429
Prin keed
and Publsh d 1 the Unded States of Amenca
Fast Edshon,
First Prusung
WIs7654321

Crver Demgr: joue Senc

ANScripaure quotateons are Eaken from the Deuay-Rheims wanalation.
To ondar thus bosk. 3o 18 worw trucerialaepope
com.
Piosse slas are the suthery” weisotas:
www sehnaslza
com
Www reberiacer
com
 John Saiza

John Salza 8 a cum leude gradusse of the

University of Wisconsin Law School A
pra atter
cneyeforc over
n20gyears Mr Seiza
w also a widely acclaimed Catholic writer and
speaker He is the suthor of eleven books s the
topics of Catholic doctnine, Scripture. Fatima
and Freemasonry including the pegular *The
bicel ems for = apelogets senes (the
Cathwhc Faith Euchanst Papecy Purgatery
Lrausiosny publishnd by Our Sumday Vietor and 5t Benedict s Press.
His book The Mystcry of Protestation - Accending 10 Scripture the
Church and St Themes Aguinas (TAN Bowks) is also considered wre of
the most important contributions te the field He is a regular columnist
for Catholic Family News, The Remnant newspaper, and The Fatma
Crusader magazme He has appeared on radso and welevision pregrams
throughout the world, including the Eternal Wand Television Netserk
{(EWTN) The Discorery Gunnd and Church Miliant TV and has
produced a daily Cathelic apolegetics senes for Fatma TV called
“Apolagetics 101~ Fer mece information, inclusing books, articles and
videos see www ohnealza.com
Robert Siscoe

Rebert Swacoe was born and rawed m Housten,

Texas. He has enjoved a successful business
career bepaning at the age of 23 when he was
the top producing trader for an wternagonal
Forex trading firm. He has founded several
successiul companies, including 2 mortgage
roketage firm at the age of 35, and currently
works for hemeell m the wwurance and
—— financlal industry Mr Sscoe converted to the
Catholic Churchin fus 206 and never fost hus convart's seal. He quickly
becamea fervent student of all things Catholic, with a special maerest
in theology and metaphysscs. Mr Siscoe .2 widely published author
His articles have appeared i publicabors throughout Amence and
Europe and he 1s a regular contnibulor to The Remant and Caboin:
Faruily News, the twe leading traditional Cadholic publicaons 1 the
usA
 Dedication

We devticate this book ko our

Mother
and Teacher (*Mater ef Magisira™),

the One, Hely, Cathalic and Apestolic Church,

and 10 all thewe who have remained farthful

e her during her mystical Passion.
I uniteion of Our Lady's unwavening faith
uring the Fassion of Her Son,
may we ales persevere in our fidebty to the Church,
@vee whom the gates of hell shall never prevail
 “As dvine scripture clearly praciaams, ‘Do Bot find
investiguic and undefirst
rs and ta
then find
nd fauk. And doos sur law judge s
person withoul first gving him & heanng and lewseng what be docy”
Censequently this hely aad uaiversal syned yusly aad fimgly doclares aad
lays dewn et e lay persen or menk or clenc sheuld separase himsclf from
communion with his ewn penarch before u carclul inquiry and sudgrment 1
synod () If unyone shall e found defymg this holy syned e 1o be
debarred from all prctly funceees and sissus 1l b 16 3 buorho clenc;
p
monk or lay persan km—ka«lufidfimfllm“md
the church [, excommunicated] unlil be w senverted by ropemtance aad
reconciled*
Fourth Ecumationl Council of Conscaminewie,
Camen 10(863-5A.D 70)
We must pornt out, besudes, that the fanhol cas eartamaly datnguh 8
Wrue prophet fromm fakic ene, by the rule that we have ltod dewn, bt for ail
thel, 3F the pasior 15 a busbep. they cannet depesc husm mad put wnoihec o his
place For Out Lord aad the Apostios only ry dewn thal fakee prophcte we pot
%0 b isiencd te by the povpic, aad nel that they deposc thom. Azd 1 certmm
that the practce af the Church has always boe that hercweal ahoge be
deposad by bichop's seumcil, or by the Severeign PonmlT™
& Robert Beliarmine (1342-1421 AD)
“Theee things beve beon establubed wak ocrimey namely 1) shar the
Pope Imccauc be ks bacorme 2 erowc 1 B0t depoond. fuow focto by humen o
dwine law 2) that the Pope has ss supcrier on sarth, and 3) that if be deviates
from the futh, be must be deposed ™
Cardwial Thomas Capetem (1863-1534
AD )
* 2 horenc should be averded sfher twe adcusariens legally made wad
with the Church's sethectty, aad B9t acceniag, %0 prvate sudgment. For gras
canfonion weuld fellew i the Church if i weuld muffice hat et wamag,
could be madc by x private individual, ratics thas by a declarsien comung.
frwim the Church Therefore, i 15 necessary thal, just ¢ the Church designetes
the rrun aad propedcs i 1 the fushful 26 beng clacid Pope. thas alee the
Church declares hum 2 erow: s propoces hom 26 onc o be avonded.
Joher
of St Thoman (15891644 AD)
 Praise for TRUE OR FALSE POPE?~ Error Refuttng Sedevacantism
awd other Modern s
“The most devastaing prosecution of the Sedevacantis t thesis i
otA Sedevacaniat who1 geodrewds this book with an open mund can
e Jonger hokd hus positeen faith.”
“CHRISTOPHER FERRARA, ] D
Preméent, American Camhalic Lawyers Assaciatian
“Thas book appeatsal 4 very spportune moment, when increasing,
rmbers of surows Cathalics are epenly expressing profound
disenchanment with the bberabzing direction of the current
we One harmful responac o this crisis is Sedevacantism, which
chakers that the conciliar Popes have not been Popes at all This book by
John Salza and Robert Swcoe i the most detailed and scholarty rebuttal
of Sedevacyet wo appear They show that
amiism while classical
theolepans and canenusts agree that a Pope might fall into formal
heresy and so Jese his office, these authonties would unammously
reect the modern Sedevacaniet appreach, which leaves the decision as
- and, od30 what to do aboul il - to the
® whether #us has happene
pevale padgment of wdidual Catholws. The lLast chapter
decumenting Sedevacaniets bitter, pnde-filled - and inevitable -
el dvisiens w paricularly revesling. Salza and Secoe are
thawwalves svewed Tradrionalists who sharply miticize the revised
Rowan ktorgy and certen Vabican [} teachmgs But one doss not
nacessarly have W share shat sance in order to appreciate their
valiable and Wely effort o prevent fusther iflichon of wounds on
the Church's wnuty *
-FR. BRIAN HARRISON, OS
Ementus Professor of Theslogy
Ponbfical Cathelsc Unicersity of Puerts
“The swst comprehenaive, exhavetively dacumenied, well-
osseried crisque of Sedevacamism
1o date A calm, objective treatment
f whel can wften be an emwtional
topx: Outwianding work.”
LJOHN VENNARI
Ediior Catholic Fanly News
 “With an cver deepening crisis in the Church, Sedevacantiom peses
aveal danger bocause it offers an apparent solumen ko a real probiem 1t
decs 50 at the expense of fidelity 1o the pererual Magisterium of the
Church This masterful tome provides » detailed, well-researched, and
persuasive Argument againat the many vaneties of she Sesevacaniiet
position Salza and Swcee start at the presenting » fem.
grounding in mmutable docwine abowt the natu of the re
Church. They
proceed to demonsiate hew every form of Sesevacantism besds e the
denial or distortion of traditional ecclesiology The awthors use
pronuncnt Sedevacantion’ own werds ta refube thex arguments. Al of
thie vast marial ie wnitien in an assy 1o read and undarsmndable
style Anyone who i aware of the criow in the Church must resd this
a clasaic *
ook, destined bo become
<BRIAN MCCALL, | D
Asocute
Dean of Acadermes
Unwwersty
of Obdavame Colege of Law

“1 read every page of this beek with preat interas. |t w tharough

Weaiment of the questions raised by Sedevacantiem, greunded in solul
Catholic theology, on the Fathers, Doctors and Popes. 1t will give light
1o all It resders and be an uwaluable help e dwpel the confusiens
caused by she present crus of the Church. May our Lady, Mother of
the Church, obtain these graces of light and leve of the Church o all 1
readenst”
-FR FRANCOIS LASNEY
Former L1 S. Dwinct Superr
Sacwy of St. P X

“This i the most thoroughty researched and articulately prescaked

bock f e kind Whether you are » Sedevacant et,
ot resaarctung the
Balliantt”
‘mavement, lhis book i ureplacesble.
-TIMSTAPLES
er
of Apolog
Drrect etcs and Exengeliaeim
Cebholc Anscers
 we 3t The Rermnant have fought againet the faf
mewmm have ineisted that, 4..:;
the revefution, the Church 1 stll ours - our castle, our hame our
mather and we cancet abanden her Tathew ki leadng
from St
and Rabert Siscoe haye
Athwrasius during the Arian crisa, John Salza fote
clevated the dacour pivolal deba an entirely new level
of shis se
\hat erceursges Cathelxs %o heep the oid Faith and fight for eur
Chwrch under sege Thes besk serves nokce ta the occupiers of the
Cathwiic Cinurch. Tradiiional Catholic s going anywhere Wei
are nol
say and we'l fight unil all of “our buildings’ are i the haruds of
Cathet agon.”
ence ics
“MICHAEL MATT
Edeto, The Remnant newspaper

=True or Faloe Pope? i simply Tumineus. This haghly resdabic werk

of coclesiogy draws frem the perenrual Mapisterum and practice of
the Church the lightof truth neceseary ta lay bare the myriad errora of
Sedevacanuemn. Selsa and Siacee expest the contnen opinions of the
ane
& way accessible
grewtent thesinlogi of
o alf This clear expost
Cathwlic doctrine will neurish the Faith of al) Catholicsof good will
while remdenng the Sedevacant it
thesis urrienable
The mithers meceaver amply (luswate the princip of ic
Wue
Cathelic abedience in taday’s crisis - “Recognize and Resist* This
frinciple commands us te reverence the Vicar of Christ on Earth and
obey hem i all things Lawful, but ke refuse any of hus directives at odds
with the teachurig of Christ a6 expreseed in the constant and infallibie
Mageserium of the Church. Follawing the example of St Peter, we are
b0 obey God rather than anan.
Such a caim and scholarly iweatment of such an impassioned and
tangled conirwvera y Caveringa vaal territory with
s long everdue
suqoe clardy # surp work of itsskind Truc er False Pope?in
everyasse
arguably ene of the Wt impertant becks writien en the post conciliar
CTine Serving as & sert of Nerth Star the book indicates the true path
o Gdeitty 1o e Church during these dwerienting ¥mes May the
Honed Vieyn Mary, Morming Star, ebtacn for it reader thes grace of

-FR STEVEN REUTER

Projeseer, Natural Law Fihcs
5t Thewias Aquirias Semnary Winena
ket
 At last, the English speaking werld ha< in us hands a
thoroughgoing refutation of the error of Sedevacantism. Salza and
Sscoe did not leave a single stone lace down in their seck and destroy
trussion, loppINg off head after fiead of that hydra which snes i every
which way to prove that the Church has no head The exheustive
completencss of this book 13 alene sufficwent te recommend 1t to
traditionalists fora place on their shelves. With it in their possession,
they will neve be runprepared when encoun semeon
ter e locking
ing1o
ek thes th n Mathar Charch
Moreover, 1 thewr deswre o systematicaliy skewer Sedevacantism,
Salza and Siscoe commumcate W thelr readers another great benefit
they paniently and clearly present the constant teactung ol the Church
on her own niature Thus, readers are net just informed about the etrors
of sedes. they are alse decpened conaderably in their knowledge of the
Cathoiic Faith, particularly in the area referred to as ecclesiology And
1s It not precisely the Lack of such knewledge thet causes Sedevacaniete
themeelves 1o falf into their despairing position”
As if these twe advanteges were net sufficient to recommend True
ar Feise Pope?, | must mention a third & seberng example W presented
in these pages ol the grave danger of extreme reactions to the crisis In
the Church We are told by Our Leed b8 judge by fruds. and the frus
ol Sedeare va out in nt
lald ca wwpect Its sdhereni
us to m
detail foris
are caught tme and again in the act of ansthematzing and ridiculing
one another, deposing centuries of Papas, creating parallel heerarchies,
home-slonemg i, twisting quotes, and arguing sophiscally The
\mpression becomes overwhelmung thet Sedevacantism w not healthy
for the soul, and that thus alone 1 sufficrent motive 1o set it aside
Let the reader, then, take up this book, expecing o find withun ds
pages & refutation of every Sedevacantet argument thet has ever been
put forward, a user-fendiv presentaton of fundamental theology on
the Church, snd a case study of the effec of Sedevacantum on the
soul True or False Prpe? would be worth a perusal for posscsmng saly
one of these attributes,et all three, then, calt sut for 1ts purchese and
carcful reading ~
-FR. PAUL ROBNSON
Prooffes Thoolegy
Dogmatecer
Hely Crove Semmary Ausieaina
 Acknowledgments

The authoes are grateful to acknowledge the follow ing peaple whe
laved a role m helpng s bring this book to fruition
Hs Excellency Bermand Fellsy who graced us with his
endecsement and Forewsrd be this book, Fr Shannon Collins, Fr $nan
Harrson, Fr Sean hopczynaks, Fr Francoss Laisney, Fr Paul Robinson,
Fe Thomas Scott, Fr Daniel Themann, Fr Raymond Taouk, Fr Stephen
Zigrang, Br Anagar Santogrosss, and Dasd Rodriguez, who critically
Teviewed chapters and provided valuable insights, Fr Yves le Roux
(Rector) Fr Steven Revier, and Rev Mr Reid Henmick of St Thomas
Aquinas Setunan,, who provided helpful guidance and assistance, Fr
Paul Rotwnsen, Fr Brian Hamson, and Ryant Grant, who assisted with
Latin trarslations of onpnal texis Professor Albert Doskey, wha was
kind eneugh to translale the entire treatise of John of St Thomas on the
Joss of sffice for a heretical Pope, Mr John Vennan Editor of Catholic
Family News and Mr Michael Matt, Edutor of The Remnant newspaper,
whe fist publshed our articles en Sedevacantism, Mr Laurence
Ganzaga, who mansges sur webslics, and countless others who have
provided pravers and enceuragementover the years.
N

Table of Contents

Foreword
Preface 1
Chapter1 - The Church and Its Attributes 15
Chapter 2 - The Church and Iis Marks +*
Chapter3 - Church Membership and Bonds of Uruty 89
Chapter4 - Church Memberstup
and Salvation m
Chapter 5 - Sin of Heresy and Less of Office 1
Chapter 6 - Suspicion of Heresy 161
Chap 7 - ter
Theological Cene andures
“Herebmng™ 175
Chapter8 - Can a Pope Fall Into Heresy? "
Chapter 9 - Proving the Crime of Heresy -]
Chapter 10 - The Chusch Must Judg
the Crime
e 25
Chapter 11 - The Deposition
of a Heretical Poge 1
Chapter 12 - Peaceful and Universal Acceptance %9
ofa Pope
Chapter 13 - Vatican I1 and Concibias Infallibiity 4
Chapter 14 - Vabican 1l and the Ondinary Magusterum 435
Chapter 15 - Unversal Disaiplines and Infaliibulity -
 Table of Contents - continued

Onp!rli—fl\eNele-lndlfllllhblllky 493

Chapter 17 - Canonization of Sawnts and Infallibility 55

Cha18pre New Rite of Episcopal Consecration

- The r 549

19 - The New Rite of Ordinationof Priests

Chapher
anduze
Chapter 20 - We Recogr Resist
Chapter 21 - The Bitter Fruits of Sedevacantsm

8
- Theological Opimonson Loss
Chartndix
Appe
of Office fora Heretical Pope

8
Bibbography
of Selected References 685

Index
of Selected Persons
and Topxs 701
 Foreword

When we reflect an the crisis of faith n the Cathelic Church, owr

heatt carunot but ache for % countless victime, both lay and clerical
The vichms whe mast readily cowse 1o mwnd are these of the ~laft
*
‘Through unwitting ebedsence be recent Pepes theme now profesand
s
practice a fsith unrecogruzabla te sue farefathers. Nevertheless, even if
.nu]krlnnumkr,fi-edfl-'nfl\fnu_
km Sa
scandalized by the deviakons of recent Popes, these overresct by
denying the papacy Io such men. Left ac right, Soth exwemes result
from tha same error—an exaggerated noken of papal nalkbality
Chanty demands thet wa show beth lectiens the errers and the
dangers in their respectiv pathae.
Concernung the left, the histery of our Society bears witness b sur
constant effort ts do just that But unil now —st least 1n the English-
speaking world—only articles and booklels heve been publuhed
sgaint Sedevacanksm and it related errers. A comprahanerve and
definitive refutation, firmly greunded in eccleshas olbeen sarely
ogy.
needed We thus pray that True or False Pope? finde i way be many
Catholics of good will, be they of perplexed mind st the mement Mr
Salzs snd Mr Siscoe’s beok will surely afford much clarit
te the
y
reader, but the underlying mystary will rewain. soday's crisis Swoches &
mystery that can be confrented enly by faith—the mystery of divine
wiffering
As Fope Prus Xit defined Her, the Cathelx Church 1 the Mystical
Boofdy
Christ At present She is re-living Hin Passior. Let us take the
Wlessed Virgin Mary, who stoed faiktful by her Sen's Cross te the very
end, as our model of fidelity The Mother knew her Son to be Ged
Almighty, but knew Him alse 1o be the suffenng servant The suffering,
was real and net s fantasy a6 the Docetuks teught These ancent
heretics renounced the Incarmatien and the Humanity of Cheet because
o the scandal of the Cross. In like manner the Sedevacaniem,
Succ tempiane
#his samebi
to um ng n, deny that the vimble Church,
during Her Pasmon, remains divine Let us ream beief itthe
our er
mystery of Her dwane and human reality The Cathalic Church = One,
Holy, Catholic, and Apostolx;, yet compesed of frapile members. She u
founde on dSt Peter and the gates of hell will not prevail aguret Her
Our venerable founder a true son of the Church, sulfered very
acutely at the sight of his Mether n such a puable state. The vicns of
Sedevacantem wha failed te accept thus great mvstery of the devine
suffering sugmented his ewn. Yet, in spie of hus susfering, even ot the
 munmammmhmmm.ummund
Pasion. 135 In o spar of ity that e had fou unnm
it this sparrt at we stave o keep May Mary »eMo nded e by
and the Church. and s through the rarmom gate and the m«rormz.
Wt b 0 ife. exring nesther o the Ieft o 1o the ught sny - v

e
+ Bernard Fellay

Swperier General of the Saciety of Saint Pius X

Foofse AN Sarv
ti, Novems1,ber 2015
 Preface

Since the clasing of the Second Vascan Comncll (1962-1%5),

Cathotic Church has expenenced ene of her worst crises in historthe y *
Millions of Catholics have defected from the Faith, inchading countless
priestn and religious Al aspects of Cathelc Iife fe g.. pariehen, scheoks,
seminanies, vocatons, baplsms, erdinakons, eic) have expenenced
rapid decline Acco tordseme ng
reports, the numi of semin
bearian
rs
has drapped by more than % percent, semiinaries by 65 percent, prisess
by &0 percent, nuns by almost %0 percent, and Cadiotic high schook by
more than 90 percent 2 What happened?
Honest Catholics would agree that the seurce of this criee can be
traced to Vatican 1] and the reforms that have bean implemenied since
the council However from shis group ef people, fwo exireme camps
have emerged In one camp are the “conservalve” Catholics wha argue
thet the crisis has ot been caused by Vabcan 11 Iwelf, but by a failure 1o
properly understand the council s decirines fe 5., ecumenisen, celigious
Uiberty) and a faddure ts properly umplement it reforms, (e, & New
Mass, eic) Th postien is Wased upon the Majer Premise that
whatever comes frem or is approved by& irue Pope must necesearily
be trand uegood because "the Pope 1s infallible * The Minor Premuse
is th theat
Vatican 11 teac and refo
tu rmsngwere rafi
s ed by, and
therefore came from, the Pope Therefore the conescvatives’ conclusion
is that the council's teachings and practices (approved anl promoted
by the conciliar Popes? from John XXIII te Francw) must neceasarily be
true and good i Wiemseives and conseq the probl
uaemnt can ly
only be

+ As leamed Catholxs well know ur Ly warmed of this arin i hev appariiore ot

Qe {“Mastuey swill entes thw Clvech the tweraeh cemury ). La Soeme “Row vl
lare the Faith and beowme the met of the anecint"}, Fakma (e apooisy will begin &
the ) oAbt (*Ihe devil will inkiwai W Claech').
3 See’for exsmple Michuel 5 Row ety Cod Men (Washingion, DC. Regerv
Publishing, I 2002 py 1 12) See abae T Linworth, The Lot Prcs 1 Aarcs (New
York. Crasmrasd Publzdung Co. 19¥1) ar John F Qhurm, “Priest Shactege Paric” in
Criis Magmezne Octoler 1 1996, Konvwth C. aran, (ndes of Lawdvg st indicnr. The
Ghurch susce Vet 1] (Fart Collina, Colorndu: Kamans Coibwa: Rocim, 203 A.
Richard Sepe Ceibacw 1 Lras 4 Secret Void Revwnind (New York. Brurmee-Reuticie
2003, and, Richard Schwenberr and Lawrerwe Yourg, Fafl N sud Empy Alkrs
Demegrephacs of the Pruat Shortege n Uniaed Sk Cott: v (Mo, Yo .
Univeruty of Wisconsin Prom, [99))
Tin s ek, wr- e the teem “conallar” w deanmibe memedhing prvisining s the Secid
Vatican Council The *conciliar” Pepes are vwe Pope whs hive ruln the Chast mact;
the begpeueg of the cwancil (e XALIL Pael VL jobet Pawd L johes Pl U, emedhct XV
e Prancis)
 Falee Pope?
Trovue

that the teachings and Teforms are being misunderstood ang

Those in the other camp begin with the same Major Premimugs,
amedy shet whatever comes fram e is sppreved by 8 true Pope
necesmeily be wue and good. brcause “the Fope s infallibie*
Hewever. they have the opposte Minot Premuse They maintain thay
the current crwis can be Iraced 10 Vatcan 11's teachings and refoeme
Suwhs, not simply % & misunderstan incormect
of din g
of them. This greup ends by concluding that the Papes
srom Vancan (I forward ceuld not have bean true Popes, but false
Pepos, s thewe purperted Popes have approved. or at leas
embeaced, the esroncous keachings and reforms of Vatican Il These
people are referred o0 as “Sedevacantien” (from the Latin sode vacante,
e ammpty chaur), and they held that we heve not hed & iruc Pope since
e doath of Pius XII in 1958, 1f not carber They claim that since that
‘e, the pepal chair has been vacant ¢
The rerpecive syllegisma.s which show the same Major Premise
and the eppemee Minet Premise, leading to different Conclusions are
= Foliowr:
The Syllogism of the “Conservatives”

Maer Promusc:
Whatever cemes from or i approved by a Pope
unt be true ar goed because “the Pope s infallibie ©
Promuc:
et
The conciliar keachings and practices
ware appeeved by the Pope
Cancixnen,
Therafure, the conciliar inechings and practices
mut be e and goed in themaelves (they are only being
mimnicrpeeted and incorrectly applied)
The Sylloglem of the Sedevacantiols

mm——&f’:‘pwdbynhp
_—
ey b ¢ v Pope o hidig.
.e v 1- 4 i et Ty eomteiieg
i
W propestiens: e prosstes {4 Mape 50 ¢
 Preface

1 i trwe and good because “the Pepe is unallible *

Mimgr Premme.
Some of the conciliar teachungs sl practices
are erreand/ neerou harms
éul.
Canchusin
Therefore, the concilar teachangs and practices
could et have come from s irue Pope +
Both cenclusions (ef the consarvatives and Sedevacanticw) are
overreachens 1o the ces in the Church, resuling w twe oppenie
errors against the Faith. The conservauves' Conclisien (the conciliar
doctrines and practioas must necessarily be true and goed} s erronecus
because Vatican Il s novel docknes {e g, relipous hberty, ecumersom)
and post-Vatican Il prac (e.g.. tc
female alter
es boys, werfasth prayer)
a1e ot odde wilh the pre-Vabean 1l Magist Theeri
Sedevaum.
cantias’
Conclusion {the concitiar Popes are nol true Popes), which is based
upan the same erronecus notion of mfatlibiity, ends in a devial of
essential docwines and preperties of the Church (e.g. indefecybility,
spostolicity, and vieibibty), as we will furiher explan in this bosk.
Both errurs are due to the same faulty and incomplee Maor
Premuse namely Whalever comes from or is appreved by Pape muust
be true and good, becatwe “the Pope 1 Infallible * As we have sad, this
error I rooted in an errenceus undersianding of the degma of papal
infaliibity, or, a we will are in Chapler 13 an emancens
undersmnding of the infallimity of the Ordmnary and Uneversal
Magisterium, As St Thomas says, “s small ervor n the beginning
resulls 1 o big error in ke end” and the w the case with the
Conclustons of both the “conservatives” snd Sedevacante, whick »
due ko the error of these Major Premise (ke “ervor in the heginaung”)
‘Thie correct Major Fremuse s actually the followang; A true Pope
cannot give of approve evil” teachings and pracices wien e wwes
Chri of wefalls
gyt st 's naty” (whick is met an habisw chasiey
acuveall m).

& An we will e Scdevacantion snger that citha the Pops wese public hereéics bebee
ring, ciecien] (and then were oever velidly elocied o begmn wib) o Decame pubic
eretics fte thew eiecion (s cormeurmaly et thew i 22 tha b, 11 ctha s,
the Sedevacantivie winiwmn tha the eri did fw come Srom Wrov Pupes a2 1l but Srom
iake Pops.
¥ The waed vl here i ring, waed: be e philovopbval sane. of “a rivation f 8 o
S A “charkumn” I s apusial grace of the Holy Gt wehich i srered 10 the Barntt o the
Chuwrch. CJ, Caeciono she Catholke Church, pare. 790
3
 ue
Tror Falee Pope”

Attt all, Chomt granied St Peler and his suuvwons the negargy.
of infallitality {mmunity from error} onty when they “byng
o Yoas c (f ML16 19) 1t follows that when & Pope docs ngy
06 earth”
sveke the chariemof méallibdity (he does not “bind” of “looe") e
a grve il teachungs and pracicss (o the Church (as history prove),
but the teachungs will merer be defirutively mposed upon the universys
iverch aw revessied truth that must be beieoed sith Drvire and Cathwiyc
Fak e will ureversal practices (diaciplines) ever be imposeupen d
e wreversal Church wiuch are dieectly contracy 0 a revealed teuth.
Thus, the current cnwis 1 the Church is not only a crisx of faith,
ut alow 4 crises of infulliblzty, and this 15 30 for o resons. First, the
concihar Pepes over the last 50 vears have falled t exerose thew
mialibility by defining dectrine and condemung error (indeed, she gift
of mialktity does net mapire the Popes 10 teach wruth or condemn
uresy). Rather, these Fopes have chosen (o teach 1n a non-dogmatic
and pastoral way, even admuttin g Vatican I itself did not define
that
anv dectnnes with & nete sf infallibitity, nor did it efinctoely impose
any evrencews twschings o€ practices upen the universal Church (which
the Hats Ghast would have prevenicd)
Secend, the Eaithful whe have fallen into thase errors have falled o
wnderstand the Church's definition of infallibrlity {that 1, the scope
and perameters of papal. concillar and disciplinary infallibility), and
s, irerucaily, s very wwach due i the novel nature of Vatican Il
Never before had the Church convoked an ecumentcal coundll {s
gathering of the werld's bishops in union with the Pope) that did not
define arry decwrines. rwe definitively condemn errors, until Vatican L
Incheed, the Second Vatican Councll s in a category of i own, and
osequantly Cathalics have been trying t0 determine how 10 quaity
iss wuchungs (copecially theme of a nevel characier) ever since i Last
Seauan clesed in 1%5.
In e dewng, thowe I the twe mivesme camps have committed the
wcrer of excess, by extonding infallibility 10 all sepects of papal teactung
and pracuce (iclading the nevel Vatican 1| docwrines and practices)
willout cusmecuen. This arrer has Jed them 1o conciude either tha the
mevel Vatcan I dectrines and prackices cannot be considered evil, of
Wt they did nwt came frem true Popes The cardinal virtue of
Irwdence. ernkighiened by the Wue waching of the Church, sinkes al the
e, brtwoun wccme and defect” asl, 2 applied here, leads 10 the
-
 Preface.

conclusion that while some of Vaican 1 s beachings are ambiguous and

even ertuncous, they have not cemprommaed the Chwrch s miatlbelty
Whle the current crisw i the Church, in seme ways, unpreced
the gate s have nol prevailed againet her, and cermequenente
of hell d,
ly,
the
visible Church remuine indefecubie, accecing 10 the prosase of Chrio t,
Thie book primanly critiques the error of Sedevacanhsm, wiile alse
addressing othes modem erers which are an everrcaction te oppesie
erroonrs the Liberal Left. While the Sedevacantis pesits
only an cxtreme minerity of people (leas than 001 percent1s heidafenbythe
Church), i plausmlity 15 nevarthelcss & quastion i the munds of
certain Catholics who are lseking for & umple explanatren fec the
crisis This nced has increased during the resgn of Pope Francis, givan
the many statemenis he has made whech undermane the Faith, France
opering the door 1o admitng sodeemites and fornicaters te Holy
Cemhus monly
uadd redu fuele 10 n
the fire Adtadthued
controversial resignaben of Pepe Benedxct XVI, whch left ismany the
publicly questioning if he was ferced out. and if he truly Intended te.
rencunce the munus petrinug (the papal eifice).® Seme have come
forward publicly and acgucd that Benedsct is still the Poge.!t while
many others secretly hold to this posrsen. Whike some recogruae thus a5
a thearecal possibility, the thess 1 probiematic and ulkmasely would
have to be decided by the Church.2
What cannot be deried 1 that sehat we have sem thus far frem
Pope Francis s exiremely troubling. Dunng his short regn, he has

1 The queslers surrmunding Pepe Benedict KV1 1 rewgrwiion have beer pubialy raused
ey seme af the Mt pemcnend Jourmaleh. 2 Rawse mich 25 Sctan s [Proiessatof
Canany Law at the Faxulty of Theviwgy m Belogna and Lugane) and Ralv + evcemed
Wrie Vittoria Mcmerl. whe Rypethesier ihal Pape Benedict XVE did not tedard 40
rmeunce the_papel ellor Ini acly the ackve euctewre therwel 1 s bask Now ¢
Framcrsce Ls Chass Nolba Goami Trmprote (13 Nt Fooman. The Churd 10 Grvt T,
M-mm.m.wmhw.w;%-:m:k:
iregular caronical pracedures that Bermelio Nimeck may have ke o
Nis bowh calied The G Reformrr Dr Avoses Ivereigh alae qumtiams i aasmmal
validity ol Pupe Berodis righuloon givan the focmal cwmparecy s g Do
elevten, whaht has alas bean ackwwledged by Candioal Gt Dasecel (whe-even
sdmied publity W he wan par of 4 secoel b of Cardonat whe eppases Bucclet
XVt and suppertc ihe vheceon ol France}
d
0 This haa been publicly argued by pupolar wadbioni pries Fy Pasl Kousv
5 As wr will e in Choper 12. when 2 Popr s mrivermaRy and prasvobly sosmpecd by 2
ol unareaity of e Church, o 1 an il s ot e .5 irae Pupe and any
concnical frregulariie 10 e elechan e ~heaind it e rowt * DU to Lhe connwvey
Survning Pepe fenevi s crugraises and the slecuon of jorge Begrogio. eupied
with the public dwubes bring, reed sbowt Rope France lngtemay xome heve
quesionind it Pape Francis baa s Jact, bran prosshilly and wivesesly acvpied by the
Chorch.
 (
Trwe o Faloc Pope?

Goxd 11 515 20 1Heaven,by

stated that shere is o Catholic
Beear't fudge sodomites, we shouldnt chacw ss about sine againy
Mm‘umimmlymmu lflnnm
o Lady may have feht deverved during Her Son s Passion, the sou,
dnlm"hu..bh.
dna-md-wmmmcu.:ohsd:ndare
the grew youth unemploy
cung the Chusch
afist
eviete ‘n.
:nmdm.gtw-m-hngmlm-c
e Fope speak e thu?” As Fr Linus Clovis recesad “There
nt. ly
ocd 1o be4 seyng, rheserical, ‘i the Fope Cathwhe olic? That's no langer
faney *15 Indeed, # wn't funny, especully Chu n such scandalews
mcmerts lead scandalensd Catholics out of sethescandarch and into cre
of the Sedevacaniat sects.# But none of the lous statements
were s any way cenrary @ the decirine of infallibilit y. snce papal
ickekibilty ' oaly engaged when a Fope defincs a docirine, which
Pope Franc has never dene:
‘Sedevacantun 1 a brand new erree in the Church, datng back enly
were m full swing)* and
40 the tmud- 19706 (whaa the conciliar reforms fic
-&kvfl_h.wv‘mdlmm defimoim
poscha n Ne such work will likely be produced, not anly
o dave
becrwse the Sedevacanist thesw's i ndefenetble (and any
Sedevaceriot apelogu will Tww have te answer the many enliisn cal
brchons. set fanth in this. besk), but also because Sedevacan
diagree amengst theweives about the most basic nt “tenew” of ther
i posiuen. This s becaise Sedeva ca
is fou n the m
nded upois same
Teet error 2 Prowgsun - ie m,
namely private judgment, which
evitably ends in divisien, e
Seme Sedev acaniets claism the cenciliar Popes are not true Popes
Sacause they were heretics before dhelr slection, whille others claim they
2 e -t comd 18/ 8 oo sichirancHect4]
Oy "t e vt 3 Sedrvasustiol group. whech stands in oppmiien te the Cathel
ot 7 kg e s Py and e of e ot Va1l Mearchy The
o4 b g e v St whe v embreced e
e e ey b Smberumroiom g i i i 1970, s s
o P o o S Arriaga (.
e et
v
1978) fur being,
font mbevarrniat
T o s b o Canclrs o et & e Puge O w7
_.--“:m‘mhulm--hmmw.:m e came o
b soed “Comitcim’”
v “sobeprrcaurir’) thess
Ym0t
--un-.,.,___.-"" Mgl material deigrevs 10 the papecy, Wt
b1 MGl ot et public hereates (diacussed 1n Chapser 10] Whike
v s3 doctred bnmacll P s 1958 duieg he g ot Pow XD
Hly Vg o earrst et the and o the e of
 Preface

were valldly clected but fell from their adfice after the fact, due o
public heresy Seme Sedevacantiow clawn a Pape autemancally lovas
hus office for the sn of hercsy, others for the crime of heresy, while
others belleve & Wue Pope canniot fall inis herwsy at all Seme
Sedevacantists {called “mawerial-formaluia™) claim she conciliar Popas.
are only Popes materully (legal demgnees o the pupscy). but net
form (in fact,
al or ly
actually) while others ay they are not Popes ;1
any way {called “1otaluis™) Some clum Paul V1 impesed the New Mang
and other harmful disciplines upon the Church, while others say he did
not Some argue that the new nies of erdination of priess and
episcopal consccratan of buheps are invaid, while others disagree
Semne Sedevacan claim iis
thet Vamcan
ts I was an wfalli actble
of the
Extraordinary Magutenum, while others claseay it as being infallible
by virtue of the Ordinary and Universal Magaserium (and therefore,
thet Vatican 11 vielated infalbinlity by leactung emmor) The
disagicernens go on and on. But wh1 at cemmon among them is thelr
belief that the ulimane determinaben of wha is a valld Pope and whe
1610t 15 & matof ierhe provate judgmeof mdundu
ntal Cashalcs, and et the
suthorty of the Catholic Church.
In fact, this ulkmate judgment of whe is a valid Pope and whe is
not perhaps best exemplifies the reflexive “Protestant” nature of
Sedevacantism While the majority of Sedevacantists believe the last
true Pope was Pius Xil, other Sedevacantisie have different opinions.
Some 52y the antipepes began with Lee XIH n 1578 Others say the
antipopes starsed with Innocert 11 1) 1130 There is o tellin how gfar
back their prvate judgment will eventually tke them Seme
Sedevacantisls have even convencd a “Conclave™ and elecied thew
own “Pope” {they are called “Conclaviats") There have been well over
& dozen “Popes” elected by the Sedevacantist sects to dake, with each
purported Pope competing against the others for the office of Vicaraf
Chnst.
For exampie, Murke Fabeis (d 2012), & stnd-urp comedion from
Croatia, waa elected by & “Conclave” in 1978 and became *Pope” Krav
(hus shage name) David Bawden. & semunary dropout who lives with
his mother (n a farmhouse In Kansas, was elected “Pope~ Michael by
aix lay people including hie porents in 1990 During his “reign.”
Bawden hae had to compete with varieus oiter Sedevacaniet grwps.
who have elected thew own “Popes” - namely, Linus [I (in 1984). Prus
XIIIin 1998) Leo XIV (in 2006) Tnewcent XIV {mn 2007) and Alexander
1X (i 2007) Still other Sedevacantiots have smply declared themmeives
Pape without an election. even clumung their elechon cime fron
Heaven Itscif, such as Gregory XVII (in 1968), Emmanuel (in 193,

7
True ot Palee Pope?

ancthes Gregory XV {0 1978}, Peter 11 (1%80) Gregory XIV (un

hesIl fin m;,c«gi,y'x’m
encaber Peser 11 (i 1995), vet anetPeser
fn 2011 and Jebm Paul U1 (in 2015) among others And g
Sedevacartn clerics whe bave i declared thermaelyes Fope ceraiy
o de focks Popes over their Sedevacantisl communtties, such¢,
Baogs Clarence Kellv, Donald Sanbor, Mark Pivarunas and Dung
Dedtwert well @,Fr Anwhony Cekada. a flambovant Sedevacantm
'und prolife defender of the sect, whose theoeies are critigued
oot dewil througho this book
ut
When you baul it down, people ullimately embrace the error of
Sedevacantem, not brcause of seund theological argumenss that faver
gp‘m(m-m-mb—okdamm),bulnnn
becaofuee e abality o believe that God would permit His Church
1o sutfer what th Chwarch s undergoing in the current crms. Such
draial o anviwe g, c [n bus 1882 book The Relations
but Catholi of the
Gharch io Secarty Fr Edmand O'Rellly warned that we must be carefl
when # coes o putting limuts an what Ged may permit His Church
to undargs.
He says:
“The groat schram of the Wost suggees o me a ruflecuss
which 1 take the liberty of cxpressang bere 1f this schuem had net
eacurmed. the hypethesss of ich a ting happcning wauld eppcar ta
many chimencal They wauld spy it could not b, Gsd wauld not
s the Chursh ceme vike 30 ushaney 2 tialian, Heresies
migin spuag up and sproad and lask pusafully long. thrsugh the fault
and 1o the perdition of the suthors and abettons, 10 the preat
duawens 10w of the (amhful, wncreascd by actuml peraccutien m many
Places whare the heretics were dominant () What Lwguld st i
that v st ae b oo rcadh 0 arowsece on what God my
sorme % knew noh abaabetc ceraary that He w il fulfil Hi
Bevmecy. wel sliew smyihyag 1 gocur o Yanasce with them. that
He will wom His Church and cnuble her 1o tumph over sll
#ncmese 10d defTicukres, that He will give 18 cach o the Iaitfbl
thwse graces which are oeded for each one's service of Him and
amment of wlvsumn, a8 He dod durmg the great schivm we have
Soon ovrmdermg, a0d i all the wiflcrings and wals which U
Courch has peated throuph from the begioning. t ) But we of oo
oo 18 fore ganeratwns of Chrucane siall acrba X8
oot cvlp_than
heen_ cancncacedcven
havc vl . before the
mnadisic sppriach of that great »inding up o) all things on eanth
Bt Wil procede the day of judgment | am net sctti for 2
up ng
Prophet Al ) mann 1o omevey b that CuiREOCE ISEANIVIR Y
 Preface

enctially inexbic. o bacage they seuid b tambic and

As ir0csa verysi
high ng
degrec.”
8y arguing that the “terrible and disknecinig” dhungs which have
occurred n the Church unce 1958 exceed what God in His Divine
Wisdam could posbly permit, Sedevacantisis pecsume te knaw the
liwats of the permussive will of God But what Sedevacaniisk (and the
sest of us) have been expenencng, dunng the Last five decades w net
the ruplacement of the true Pope with a false Fope and the true Church
with a false Church, but rather the Passson of the true Mystical Sody of
Chast, quite simular 0 thet which was enduured by Chrat Humelf
Like Our Lord dunng His Passton, the Church today 15 besdy,
disfigured, and in many respects unrecogruzable but 1t s sall the true
visible Church - ust 26 our disfigured Lard was true God as He hung
dying upon the cross. Due to thus unprecedented ecclesiasical tral that
Ged has permutted, many have lost the Faith 1 the Church, pust 46 the
Apostles lost the Fasth 1 Chns on Geo
td Friday Dunn the Pass
gion of
Christ, the Apostles retained faith in Ged's Old Testament revelabwn
(€ 8., the promise of the Messiah), but they lost faith thet Jesus Chriet
was the fulfillment of that revelatien. In the same maaner, durtng the
Passion of the Church, some Cathobcs have retamed faith in Gods
New Testament revelauon (the Cathvele Fauth) but have lost fauth ar the
Church the Mystical Body of Christ and the divie repouitory of thet
revelation
During the Passion of Cheiat, the Apoaties ceuld e lenger discern
His divinity, because Christ Himself willed that His divane nature be
entirely tudden bencath his disfigured umaruty 1t s the same with
the Passion of the Church today Her divine nature (e basly of hor
fenchngs, her sacraments, etc ) w hidden ebund her dufigured human
nature (her members) - disfigured in large part due o the ackon and
inaction of the conciliar Popes who have faiied to use therr idallible
teaching authonty Lo defme dociine and condestn erroe, and 1atead
chosen to conclliate the Church s enenues with the new, ecumenical,
pastoral teachings accordingto *the Sprrit of Vatican Il * These achions,
and lack therrof, have contribuled % the dssfigofur thein
facegof the
Pride of Chst, changang her appearance while retaining her substance.
And 50, [ust as Christ Out Lord suffered at the handa of the High Priest
Cataphas and the beaders of the Old Covenant Chusch, 30 it with the
Mystical Body of Christ w1 our day, which is sutferung at the handa of

"oy The Rrishwns of the Oneteh 9 Sovrty. Thoringunt ratyp (Lavalrc Jobn Hontgm,
xm::’mum.-«mmmm No. 27 (S pp NR20
*
Trae or Faloe Pope?

e concilar Pupen and Blhape, ¥ loades of W New oy,

Charch.
I the face of this sremendous crisis, and having lost fauh iy
Chrarch. Sedevacaniets vily the Church with diabolxcal fervor vy
W Literas and Moderisw atick the Church from wiggus,
wmnm(mmha)!mmh.m
the weunds of the Curch, not 30 they can be dressed uy
faraled. but in eeder v@ mock, ridicule, and discredit the Church,
ericiome (which i many cases are obyectively fushficd) are ng
wedacrral in nature, but posencus. They end by becomung the enereg
of the Crurch, post s the unbelievin g (who claimed 1o believe
Jews
she Old Testament revelation) were the enemics of Chaist This canney
e e trwe Charch,” the Sedevacantists proclalm *God would simply
et perwut it It s impessible!” And why s 1t imposeible? They claim y
s not pessibie because of the alleged violations of the Churchy
infalliiity Dut about Whis thev are gravely mistaken, for nothing tt
Ged has permutied has vielated any of His promuses or the infallibuity
of His Chuarch, as thes eck will aptly demonatrate
The quesion of the Sedevacantist thests appeared 10 weigh heavily
o the wind and heart of Archinsh opre His Excellency
Lefebv was
scandalined by the inkerreligious prayer meeting heldby
Pope Johs Pua ] in Assia in 1986, in which she Vicar of Christ iaviied
Wcmbers of amerted pagan religions and provided each with a special
‘oo whee shev could offer falee worship fo the “gods” (a mortal sin
agaurwt the Farat Commandment) in the hope of attaining world peace
Even before the event octuered, Lefebvre publicly questioned whether
4 trwe Pope could engegei such& sinful and acendalous activity Ye,
Archinalop Lakebvre Lived not enly 0 see Asslat tn 1986, but alsa John
Poul [T+ cormiriued and engeing participation 1n pagan worship which
sk place tn Kyeiw (1967), Rome (1988) Warsaw (1989). Bari (19%0)
and Malta (1930), and the Archbichop still refrained from declaring the
Popr & mandest heretic, which, In his words, would only “lead to
intcrmineble, shearetical discuspions.
Being, the prudent churchman thet he was, Archbishop Lelebvre
aveided the erree of excess, preferring fo leave this most scriow
queskiont for the proper Church sutherities. Archbishep Lefebvre's
Seograp har Bishep Timicr de Mallersis, explaine that the Archbishop's
peslerence was te aveld private judgmen, even by those in poeitions of
Sutherity and defer 1o the Church's autheritative judgment insicad
-—_—
8 Mos o X akd (Nt oDiovaicts donigrm
e Mnberssen
e efnd” o e s Wk wpesaiion e from
Govgn, Moo ). Septom mbes
B, 1907 emgiioss
 Preface

“But the wiedom uf Archbahwp Lefebvre made him feel, te the

contrasy, that the prerofmu thic se
ressering
s {regar dhesdi ng
quest ion]
were s shaky as Uie autharity shat formuletad 1, be st shat of o doesiogien o1
rshop "1+
& en
ev
Tissier further recounds “He [Laf saideb
mare vr
these popes - abeut Paul V1 frem 1976, snd sbewt Jabe: than e]
ence abeut
Paut I, after the
prayer meehng of religions st Assas in 1986 - that he did
the possibility that these papes were not popes, that one daynottheexch ude
Ciurch
will have to examine there situahem, that « futirr pape and s cerdi nale
mught have 10 pronounce the finding thet theae men had net been
popes “2 For all of the brilliance, education, heliness and supematural
virtue of Archbrshop Lefcbvre, Bishep Taser explaina thet, “But for
himself, he preferred te conder them as popes. Thes suppescs that he
did rot feel that he pessessed mfficient knewladge of the pertinext focts ner
the necessary power for making such o judgment This is ef eritical
importance 1o bear in mund “¥ Our years of rescear thischsubject
have enly confirmed the pradence and seund mdgment of ts
posibon An the permicieus fruits of the Sedevacanist sect, which will
e discusaed throughout the buak and expecially 1 Chaper 21, are &
further confirmation that the pesition of the Archbiwas shcorre
epct,
since a goed tree does not praduce such retoen fruis,
"This book responds o the lwee general arguments used in defenae
ofthe Sedevacaniiot thesss:
1) That the recent Popes have been harchcs nd therefore coutd
ot e true Popes;
2) That the men who have been recogniaed as Pope sce
Vatican11 have done things that u rue Pape sunplycould
ot do (i.c. violated papal inkeliibu s Srgfore
lity), couid
ot be true Fopes;

3) That the new nie of cpiscopel convecration. approved by

Paul VI, is invaiid, and conecquently these cenmecrated
" Fidelder 1908 {comphases added.
BTl femphusis added)
T TR, {ephesia sdi) Becawe Archbubap Lakcbrse prebered 1 beave the publc
Judarrient of e cwceuh W the Chuech, and Becaime b belbrved publi disaproesmand
et the qurten coukl lnad W xchioe, be sippesiant eve s e Secty whe
Publicly promeied the Sedevacanint powtn (he even deamumed Fr Cuemnd det
Liuners in 1977 arsd Bermand Lt in 197 foc thee peomwetun af Sedrvmsrman, and
refined o ordain members ad Fr Chtvier Do Wggueoes’ righous. comurmanty i weve
operiy Sedevacorahr)
"
Trwe o Faloe Pope”

i thus rew el (Benesdict XV and France) are ey

e ishops. nd sherefore could ned be true Popes - singe 5
‘oo shep cannot be Lhe Baehop of Reme
The first and thind arguments arc based upon the ruatn of keing. gy
u,either the Pope i & herea (in the realm of beng) or a non-bishop
e sealm of being). and dherefoee camnot be 4 Pepe at 4y
The second argument i bamed upen a conclusion smved
cormderng the rrelm of ackers shat s, the Pope has dome tiungs that s
_p—hbknrppudo,-mln-fivrkanmkumm
Respending 10 all theee medes of argumentatio n,i
thia bosk
arganized m follows. We begn (Chapters 1-2) by conidenng the
Qharch and s qualines (marks and attmbutes) These first tws
chapters, m and of shemselves, demenatrate that Sedevacanbem s net
Jerablc and, 10 fact, leads siwaight o heresy Next (Chapher34)s we
seme very smpostant foundational matenal on
{icludmg hew the loss of faith affecs memberalup in the Church, and
Lhe loss of ecciesmsancal effwe), whach will serve the reader w
werstanding later chapters. and then address the dogma of Na
Salvawen Ousede the Church (Chaptee 4) We then addres the
disticcuen betwren hetesy and lewer degrees of theological emr
{Chapeers 67) Neat, we address the isue of whether a Pope can fal
ke heresv and, if se, hew he would lose his office (Chapiers 8:11) Tn
shese faur chapiers, we explore in depth the various theokel
opmicns conce& rning heretcal Pope respond to various Sedevacantit
arguments and obectens. and demenstrale Lhe common agreement
ameng the Docters and theslogians on the role that the Church must
Play in the determinatien and deposition of a heretical Pope
After 2 Warmiveral chapter dscusaing the isue of heresy prevemting
4 Pope trem being validly clecied, and the peace and ful
unwersl
accepuance of an elected Fope (Chapter 12), we begin our consideration
o the Sedevacanuet arguments corresponding to the realm of acting
{Chagters 13-17) Thase chupters directly sddress the alleged violations
of wéallibnlity (e g, conciliar tmachings and disciplines, the New Mam,
canaruzatvere), which Sedevacanisls claim could not possibly have
bomn appraved, o even tuleratod, by truc Popes We then undertake 8
demiind and therwugh analysis of the new rites of episcopsl
soracraien and srdinstien (Chapters 18.19) We conclude with
Material an the “Racegrae & Resist™ position and ihe unforunake.
Witbes fruian of Sedevacantis en The chaplers proceed In
(Chapters 20-21)
40 riberly and systemasn, fashien, with later chaplees refesring back ©
4w bsidsng, upen material cavered m Lhe eariwer chapiers,
 Prefa

Refore clothis smg Preface, these authees wiah to ke it cleat that

this book is 0ot a deferwe of the emronceus dectanes and nevel
practices of the concitiar Popes. To the centrary, aur own personal
ewilderment over these departures from Catholic seachung and prens
has ld us o investigate and tackle head-en the quesion of
Sedevacantism, with an open mund Te that end, we have spent the Last
ten vears researching this topic, by studymng all of the writings (to our
knowledge) of the Church s greatest theologiane on the question of a
heretical Fope, and the arguments made by the world's leadmg
Sedcvacantist apolegiste As vou will sce our method = 10 let the
Church's theologuans and the Sedevacantats speak for themselves.
We have caordlnated all this material 1o a systematic treatment of
the major issues which has resulted in this 700-page Wook. In the
process we have discovered an abundance of material What
Sedevacantisis have nover addressed. at least publicly and which
proves fatal to thewr thesws. Our study into this sabect has led us frem
wondering if perhaps the Sedevacantist position provided the anewer.
to the current crisis, to the firm conclusion that @ W an utterly
erroncous thesie that cannet be defended or held
We pray that this beok will not only sssiet Catholics who ase
questiomung the legitrmacy of the conciliar Popes as they seek i make
sense of this crss. but also those Sedevacantisis who have emraced
their error in good faith, as an easy answer and simple soluion to the
crisis. A crisw of this magntude will require a supematural solution,
and that will come from God alone He has walled tw permut this crsis,
110 doubt to 4t the wheat from the chaf, and it will rat last a second
longer than He wills In the meantume, let us recognize and follow the
Pope In all things lawul, and resist him if he depars from Christ and.
the Falth And te remain unchaken in our faith dunng shus present
creis, et us heed the dvinely wpired inatruckion of St Paul whe
teaches s o stard fist and hold 1o tredtien (TThess. 2.14) whuch, as St
Vincent Lerina sald ~can never be led asiray by any lying noveit =

JofhnSalza
]
Rebert Siscoe
3September AD 2015
Feast of PoSL.pe Pius X
 Chapter 1
~The Church and Its Attributes ~

The Sedevacansist thess begine by affirmng et there 1 na Pope,

and ends 1n a rejechon of the Church ilell Beca of s, weewill
begin ur treatment of Sedevacantum by coneidering what us
is, how Our Loid Jesus Chnst constuted His Church,the and Church
the
permanien] quelities with which He endowed 1t We will sce that these
permanent qualities enable us % know net only thet there ts one true
Church, but also where the Church is at all imes - even in exteaordinary
times, such as the Modemist e and diabolical dwecientstion of swr
day
In this first chapter, we will consider the Church's atimbutes, in
Chapter 2 we will discusa the Church s marks Although the material in
the first twe chapters 1 related and, in many ways, inwercennected, we
have chosen 1o discuse the marks and atwibutes separately, a6 fat 20
possible These st two chapters will demonsirate thet the
Sedevacantist thasis is et fenable an), in fact, Jeads directly 1o heresy
The chapters thet follew will provide a syswwunc trwabment and
refutation of the erronesus arguments used 1o defend Sedevacanism,
and which have been used o drsw individuals unte their sacts. All of
the arguments and obyections presented i defenve of Sedevacannem
will be addressed directly and ieated shoroughly
At the outset, 1t % important to make a diskinction between two
diff buter
relaten
ed error
t s First, there x the simple erree thet the pest-
Vatican Il Popes have not been srue Popes and that, censequently, the
Papal See 18 vacant (sede tucente) The second error, which follows
almost immeduately, is that the entire Church ever which the post-
Vatcan Il Popes have resgned % a fake Church. Varwully all whe
embrace the first error quickly fall inko the second Througheut the
book, both of these emors are referred to under the name
“Sedwhac
ehv is nel
a c& a
only neft
reyection dhem ”, but
t Popes
recen,
450 a rejection of the visible Church founded by Chriet, evec which the
recent Fopes have reigned As we will demonswhen irat onee,losss
fasth vt the Church (ihe second errer), he ends by sdhenng te a
definition of the Church thet % virtually entical te thet profeseed by
Protestantiom, whose founders, coincdentally, alee lost fath in the
Church.
‘While most Sedevacantists clamn s believe 1n the Catholc Chuardh,
ard in the permanent qualities (the atbutes and the marks) that

13
True ox Falee Pepe? Chappe

h, n-(us-luhuumyh
constiture and kienibly the srue Churcthewr
therm the cruafied Church of our it resulls 1n & practical deng,
shext existeni ce in2 practical o cxphicit demal of qe ¥
(which resulls
these engo
racles of Fauth) Because the Seden acaniets cannot see clain
qualities w1 the post Vatican 1l Charch (which they 1 o "z
and further cannot pownt to 4 ‘Church that does them,
Chunch)
thev end b reducing the meaning of “Church” 10 the Proteyge,
concept of & scatiered body of "true believens™ (rather than 3 gy
inetituseon)
As we will demonsrate throughout tus chapter and the nex), g
unaveidable conaequence of their staied position Is that “the gajes
hell"! have indeed prevailed againet the 1nable Church lounded
Chwise. We know. hawever, based on the promuses ol Christ, that thy
can the case No heresy - not even the "Synihesis of a1
benet
Hereswes” * - will ever destroy the Church or take away any of her
emcrial and permanent qualities. Nor will the lathlul have 1
question where she bs, lor # Our Lord sald about the Church *A dy
cannot benhid” (Mt 5 14}
seated on 4 meunta
Thisw net tosay hewever, thet the human clementsof the Church
Wil never disfigure her in the eyes of men,by their sin and errors fus
s Chist suffrred and died 1 plain view on the mountaln of Calvary
{Weody and duifigured in His human rature), 30 100, the Church today
smed on the mountin of Christ, is suffering her own bitter Passionn
plamn view for all 1o sce And just a Jesus warned His Apostles, “allo
wou shall be scanda e this ed
in liz night™ (Mt 26. oo are ,
s031) many
today scandalized a they witness the Church going through het own
iwer Pasmon. And if the Apostles (thofree whom having jut
wilnessed the Tranafigusation) lost the faith in Christ during Hi
Passuon, 1t shoubd be no surprise thet manv today have lost the (aith m
the Church a6 she undergoes her Passion But as with Christ during
His Passsen, the Churcit's divine rature remains unchanged, and het
marks and anribules are sl intact, and recognizable by the faithiul -
Hhal is, net by s whe have been so scandalized thet they fled butby
thase whve have remained s faith at the loot of her cross, betieving that
Qwit wil remain with Haw suffering Church “even to the
ewrcmaration of the world” (Mt 28 30)

_—
" Poge Vi deinad e ot ol bl a0- b * davstealing. Sngpars ol harts”
S (o8 oComtartivespn WY AD) and g 4 Lew X sirilary refeeed
4 tow dagutateme ol botetn’ (10 trrre pum homiades, 106) AD)).
T o v b Fuge 4 P % gand b rriey ‘mes, koo 5
Mudosmtn (Rourt, Mo 79 Smptamber 3, 1997 ) o e o o e

1"
 The Churand
chIts Attributes Chwpter1
We will new disciss what the Church fa, and then conaider the
atinbutes that perf herec
natutre. Alt somhe ofotheumate
grial
hthat
loll may seem
owbasi
s c for some 1t is necesmary 10 lay the foundabion
50 thatthe crror thal will be addrested at the end of e chapter and
shroughout the rest of the book will e more clear ly undersioed We
will close the chapter by addresing whal i known as the “Sirl
Theary"
Wh
is the
at Church?
‘The Roman Catholic Church 1s the Mystical Body of Jesus Chst on
Earth, the supernatural and supranatienal sonety founded by Our
Locd lor the salvakon ef mankand. The Church of Chnst i et an
Invisible society ol true believers knawn te Ged alone 1t does not
constat only of the just {as Luther taught) or anly the predcsted (as
Calvin held) Nor does the Church exclude sinners, for 1t concsm of
both good sced and bad (M1 13.30) The Church was nat esiablshed by
4 group of individuals whe, profesming bedsef 1n Chrt as the Messiah,
came together 1o form a community, nor was the Clurch indirectly
founded by Christ threugh the agency of men with whom He
entrusted the task
Rather, the Church of Christ was insitubed pervenally and directly
¥y the Son of God, Our Lord Jesus Christ" as a ousibie huerarciecal
seciety 1 1 was established upon the fundanon ef the Apsatles and the
prophets before them, with Our Lord as 1ts comerstone (Eph. 220-21)
and St Peter it viable head (Mt 1618-19) Blessed Peter, and his
perpetual succesers. serve as the principle of unety, and the vieibie
foundatio i n,
the Church > As Vicar of Clwast, the Pepe recerves h
awtharity directly from Christ, and veibly represents Him, whe is the
true but imcnsible Head of the orsble seciety
Christ Establishes the Papacy
The divine inatitsiion of the pepicy 1 revealed in the Goopel of St
Matthew, Chapter 16. when Christ declared tw Sime:

* The Outh Moderctmne “With rnhslbes fuith | breve hat the: Chareh wen
ety ek eets oasbibed o st et o ot Haach A b
eaa i s 0t e (D, 2145,
e mabiahed e ot e+ e secs it e Mol
ly Cogmaatc Fovigu Vol L . 14}
dr ke (Tarupacry
cortio, 14 lnvwhvppica
*Vatican L Degmnatic Cansituton Paier Astrvaen,
38 fuly W 18P0,
17
Trae or Folee Pope” Chapir;

~That Thou ant Peowr, and upon this rock | will builg
mnkp-aknmum|.,......lA,‘l:lyl
Whaisocyy.
e w thee the keys of the kingdom of hoaven And heaven
oo shak bl upens eurth. 11 shall b bound alse in ng
whamecvec heu shalt lowec upon earth, i shall be lowsed alsa 1y
eev(ML en” 16 139
The pamacy f St Peter 3 head of the uruversal Church, wa,
personal premogative of St, Peter alone nsofar a4 was nol given ot
Mlhpflb,hnllwulkfllpfl!fl\ilPl’!v\‘puveinuuwm.m'
was %0 che with Tum. Just as Chrsts Church was established 4
comtinue unad Our Lord's Second Comung, 0 100 was the offeothe
Peser to cantinue perpetually through hi succeseors. Coneequentlyofy
papcy 16 & permanent office that wil be filled by the auccessons
Peser untl the end of time And, as hstory confi there has been s
rms,
contanuous successron of Popes accupying the Chair of St Peter svwe
the beprnang
In & letier wnken againat the Donatist schism. St Augustine
prvsded a Tt of 5. Peter's succeseors up to hus day He wrote
“For f the el succcssien of brsheps 1 1a be tiken wnie
acosunt. with Sww moch mere certainty and boneflt te the Chursh
o e rockon back Ul we reach Prics humsel 1o whom. as beanng
2 figur the whole Chirch, the Loed sewd *Uthis po will
vockn
bunid mry Church, and the gy of hell shall not peevasl agamst 1"
Mashew 1615 The successe r was Linus, and b
of Peter
mccamers i wnbcshgn contmmety were these — Clement.
Avacienn, Evarwas. Alcucr, Swum, Tclcsphores, g,
Amcrwa, Pus, Seter. Elcuherius, Vicuar Zephinmue, Calintus,
Urbasms, Postiama, Antherus, Fobsanus, Conclivs, Lucius,
Swphasm, Xyws, Diwaysus, Felis, Euychunus, Gaus,
Marvoiima, Marecibus, Emebwm, Minades, Sylveser, Marcus.
Julwa, Liborws, Damasis, and Sincus, whese successer 15 the
:l;alchqA_-m'(SLAmnme.Lflfl!flILAD
}
e defined by the First Vatican Courcil that
of Faith,
1t 16 an srticl
Wovud Peset will have a contiemuous line of successors.

P —
I brthor- ondermati
*e s.e’y i esoraive Scripaunl and petritic Srsimery €Y
X Swizs's Ty Bbtut Rate for thr Papay (Hunding ion, Inuana. O
-H‘dfih'&;wdfifl'fl—
P dyA seees Loy of' Blarmy
Stiies
Prpr Ouk

1
 The Orurc
and tis Aftributes
h Chapte 1
“For 10 sne can e m dowbe, mdond 14 k1 a1 1t every age
that the hety and mea blessed Peter, #ance and hesd
apostles the pilac of fath and the foumdation of the Cacha of the
lic
Church, recerved the keys of the kingbem from our lord Jcsn
Chinst, the savior and cadoomer of the human sce and
day and for ever he Inves and prosides and cxerciscs yudgmthat Ie this
ent ts hia
. succesyons the bishops ef the Hely Roman See, which he founded
and conscc
with
rahis
icBlood
d Thereforr whacver succeeds te the
r of Peter obiaine by the wstiuben of Chot himaetl the
cy of Peter ever the whelc Church
Therefore, If anyone says shat 1t 1 mu by the matrmton of
Chist the Lord Himeelf (that i< 1o say by divine lo
thatw)
blessed
s Peter3
S (our) gt the Roman Pomil]
1 et the succemer of bicssed Peier 1m thu promacy ket hin he
snahen>
Twao articies of Fath must be affirmed according be the above
teaching; 1) By Divane law, St Peter will have prrpetual succrisers n the
primacy and 2) the Roman Ponb ts the successor of St. Peter n this
primacy Notice that the two clauses in the akeve citabon are separated
by “or” (Laun, sul) 10 dwtinguish that St Peter will have “perpetual
successors in the primacy” frem the dogma that the Roman Pontf
the successor of St. Peter The Vatican Council makes a clear distnction
etween the prumacy of the papal office, which will centinue urial the
end of tume, and the indrvidua] Pepes - the *perpetual auccesons”-
who full the office. Thus, they are each dogmas tn thewr own nght (the
former refutes the errers of Protestartsm and Eastern Orthedery while
the latter refutes Sedevacanism) This means the Church wall aeys be
able to elect & new Pope to fil the chaur of St. Peter after the deathor
resignation of the former Pope (of course, having a perpetual office
does o good unless the Church s able b fil the office with &
successor)
Now, becaue Sedevacaniets clai we have not had 3 successer of
SL Peter for the past six decades (or lenger), same will atiempt 1o fimt
the council s teactohing affirmung thet the office of Peter will continue
until the end of hume {ze. that the prunacy dsdnt die eut when Peter
died), but not shat there wall be "perpetual successors wn the Prnacy *
# Flst Vatican Counc il[V I 11, L' fewmphatu adbelL. The phrase “pacpesm
Sevsiom
ccesmets s tic prsaicy” sl condrms that Wewr whae the Churvh o to €1 61@ the
VAcary e bgtimake sccroeses 9 S¢ Peier Lamn. 54 g g0 ks, mem i smrerum
Chrity Dwmat inkiubume seu aive doune, w1 bas Petrus in Fromaty s 1 aulom
Ensroion hebent prpetss. macumeres. i Kowanom Pomborm aom e buoh P
Frimats vot , ot (Do 1988
1
 Troe ot Faboe Pope? Chapier;

They will e doubt concede that those wha are elocted (0 serve iPope
~perpetual oftce” (and who they personally accept an being true (o
e sccessers of St Petet I the same PrImAcy, Put again, iy
poaition eques them o deny the €ounci'send Pl teaching that
perpetual fime of successers unti the
il eI a reapo nee to 4 quesboner during one of his ulks, g,
he and
Sedevacantut preacher Gerry Matatics, revealed how
Wmhvdhde«ydumdduflrflvmkmcw,m
~Queshancr “Ceacorning an arnicie 1nVaiicen| Proplc againg
Sedevacanharn satc thac m Vatcan | there 1 an anatheraa that says
sooac wive belicve that there wil ot b a pope7" unth the end of ume,
et hum bamashe Se what
rn you 12y
de a,
Mamncs OK. very good dessn’t Vatican | exclude
Sedevastamrs when o 1ays that Pescr will slways have perpetial
sussunti} ssthesa of twoc and snatherma
ond rs tiz
those whoescay
sthacwue? Vau[ cawdoes not say that Peter wilk always have
sscccmens, w the scrae thae there will always bc a pope st any
prvmume [n the Latn 116 m the prescnt tense, it says. Peter has
sececsens.” @ cihcr worde, the offies. of Peter 1 not un offics. tha
dud wiik hn There sre saccessors o 1t, thal s all thy Vtican |1y
Mg - thae the papecy % an effice that docs centinue m the
Claavk 1t dide't e whem Peser dod ¥
Se, Mr Matatics claime that Vatican I's reference to “perpetul
swecwrmecs in the rimacy.” only muans that the office of the papacy wil
sanirice, and et that theve will he a continuous line of successors whe
1) the aifice (an f the office could have any significance without &
successer of 5L Peter 1ol ) In his anewer, Mr Matatnot iceonly
currveriantly owiated the wand *perpetual” from his quotatien of the
indilible Vaucan | canon. but he ako erred in claiming that the verd
“has” s in the present tense {"Peter fue successors”), meaning the
proent indicadive No. the Lawn vers huboet ja in the present
bjonciive which means that the sevence expresees the Ides of an
wibxachowsd purpese ot wientien, lesking te the future (Chrl
entablishe that St Feter would Hwer perpetual successors) rather than &
vhrple wabemen! of what currenaty happens to e The case (St Peter hov
SCCERGTY)
Mr Matatcs then reforred 18 serne unidentified iheologiane who
e claioms, eve held that an ofice can continue to exet for up Yo 100
7o- U & 4 ot ackeally flled (which bege the question of why 100
Mhetsten. Compat D {CI7'} 1k anditiod. *CountarioN Cathulistom ve. Caruiohtl
Lottt Sovard Ens 300 (rviaed e Snpubacend, i 4 b wrach 18
n
 and Its Atributes
The Crurch Chaprae1

yoars and nol semething mere or lem7). He then asseried thet,

according te this teachung, the affice of Peser would only cese te cxiet if
It were vacant far mwre than 99 years Unfertunalely i additon te his
omission of ~perpetuat” and erroncous undersiandung of the Latn, Mr
Matetics does nol quoke a sungle autherity 4o suppoct hus asserien that
Vatican [+ use of “perpetual surc in theempramacy”
or means
s only
that the fice will continue, and net that there will bea comtrueus lineof
suceessors who fll the eéfice Thic because Mr Matancs” view dwactly
contradicie what the Church s sheologiane teach regarding the matier
Duri thengsame tolk, Mr Matatics sasd one of his "favorite authors
(s F E Sylvester Berry, professer of Scripture at Mt 5t Mary's
Sewnary i the 19205 and 305" He then raferred to Fr Serry's
“wonderful bosk called The Church of Chret *3 Simce My Matshes
publicly prases ths author and book. lets listen te what Fr Berry
humself teaches i the beok about the unbrwken line of successar te St.
Peter Commentng e the above Waching from the First Vamean
Council, Fr Berry explauw thet “the prunacy with all ite pavars and
priviloges s transmutied 1o the succemans of St Peter, whe firm an
wmbroken tine of mipreme pesiors o rule e Church m e cominued
enstence * A little Later, he adds: “she Church must roer hawe # cusoduan, »
supreme lew~grver and yudge f she w 1o contum ie feumde
as Chrit her 1dSo
one of Mr Matatics ~faverite authers™ seaches thet “the Church must
ever have a custodun,” whereas Mr Matcs clasns shat the Clvarch
fraar't had a custodian for twe or hree gencrations.
Msgr Van Noott teac same s
the he # Fr Berry He wrete: it s a
fact beyond queshion thet the Church can ncver fal o have a swccrmer e
Peter "2 Commentung, further n the sune powrt, he wrwte: “Since
Christ decreed thet Peter should have a never-enderg line of succaseers i
the primacy, there must always have been and there must sill be
someone tn the Church who wieids s prsiacy *5
Conttora ryMr Malacs cla, the First Vaticsn Ceuncil net
what
only alfirmed thet the Fepe holds the prunacy of St Peter {ac thet the
effice ia perpetual), but alse thel St, Feter will always have parpetual
successors o rule the Church Neediew 10 say, the peses an

v MooTy Ok o e, fagrm, Crege: gt and Sk Pl

ot 3968
ol bt by o S s+ oy 1581 7. 1% g
oy
U Van Neert. Chria's Churoh, (Westanrotsc MarNewsun yla 11} p 138
Press.nd.
b e
# 75 (rmphasm added).
* Sew alve Lndwig O, Fundamratah of Catbolic Dagmt, (aoktusd, Sums: TAN Pumis
ol Publahers, .. 194), . 208
an
 Puise Pope?
Trorwe Chagtery

m—mfihmhs«kvnl\hwhothlmlhalhm
W'ulcllhln.g(-::
o bren urable 19 elect » Fope for gemenationsaware
Vorican Counch Fathers were obvio usly ) 1hat there 4,
vacancy during an mterregnum (following the death of gn,
mmmmdm},thcfiuxhhmnmfindmm
2 scce1o mo 5t Peter
r de
o the post Vatca n 1l e, the Church has ot fasked 10 provisy
Praer Following the death (0 resignHeato
of Stsoe of n)
macors may ny
Pape & Conclave has been convened and a Pope elected
heve been » good Pope but Fope was nevertclect hel ess
ed to il the
Chof
al St. Petet
r

The Church is Beth Human and Divine

The Charch 1 at ence hurman and divine, natural and supe rnatunl
Church
Chst, het Drvine Fourder, w the wue Head of the Church The
1a2 supernatural soctety in her orgin, constitution and purpose, as wel
a8 in hex authority and means of sanctification. But the Church isalsea
Puman secety insedar ok 1t coneists of human members Pope Les XIR
wrwe
~God mbond cvem made the Clurch 2 socwty far meee porfoct
han any othcr For the cad for whick the Church cxiots 1k o5 much
luphor thon the cnid of sthcr 1ecKtics o divine grace 13 sheve
sanure, o6 mmarial bicsngs arc sbeve the ieanetiory things on the
et Tharctore the Clourch 1 3 secicty divinc in 15 ongin.
wupernanera) 6 w5 ond ond W maemns. proxumaicly sdapted to the
amvrnons of that ond, bt 4 16 8 humen commmniy, msemuch 85 1
ompoofsed men ™1+
As a divinely inssituted society, the Church s also a “perfect
sacety * whach means # is complete: in and of itself, and not dependent
upon zny ether socwety far e existence or for the attainment of i
o0 " Yot, bacaee the Curch cornmists of husman members subject 0

Thw ionpest inv rag

share
ean nm
etr ane-hal mfl
sm
s dm yrars be
.mshem
tw ew
deuih n SO
of Fape
%m uw vu
0 Lo N ot o (N 1 e 29 1081
T S Clumnt s o St peviect st Theth wpasuao patpon o the S
St gkt o i o e Church l ot ad sltsben
i Wit 0 mcies e Gak, ey shuld s e aligribes arparoned, A
g o e gad of e whyde man (har bosh Gis rstursl 404
e, o Mgl vty oot s i G o
Ok for guidanes Pope Lom XN brillioraly oxplicutnd (50
T
The Church snd 1ts Attribute Chaper1

sin and error, ber drvane nature can. i funes be checurby cdher
human natare But even in those tumes in which her drvine nata re
secms 0 be echpsed ey her weak and wavenng humun members, she
wll never disappear at be deswoyed, and an her divine nature thers
will be "o change ot shadow ol alkeraion” Jam, 1 17)
The Life of the Church

The life and exmtence of the Church Miliwnt will reflect the
earthly hie of its Head Just as Chosst sulfered, so tea will the Church
suffer As Our Lord endured a Passsen at the end of His life, se iso will
the Church undergo a Pass:on before the Secend Coming But, like
Chrast the King, she 00 will rée agan. In the weofrd Pope Puus
sXIL
ITlhe socicty establishedby the Redoar of thenerfuman race
resemb i1s divineles
Founder whe was persecuted, cahmmmiated sad
tartured by those very men whem He had undermko Lo savem™1%
Persecution (whether extenally or wernaliv) has been called 4
quasi mark of Ihe true Church. Fr Sylvestes Berry, in hus beok The
Chtrch of Christ, elab onorat wrwte:
this pesnt. Heed
“Persecution rusy serve a4 quas-mark of the Charch
Chinst has forcteld shat Hie Church must sulfer uarelenmng hoard
and persccutien “If the worid hates you, know that it hated me
before you As Christ was hated, despesed. calummusicd sad
perscc 10 His uted
naturs! body se alse shall lie be 1 His mywcal
body the Church Therefore a Church that 15 v thow despised and
persecuted. can scarcely be the ome whach Chrst had i mund whan
Fle utiered the werds queied absve It 15 abways conaaiigte reulac
thet those whe calumnutc e Church and sir op persecumen
spunst her wre Glfillmg e prophcoes of Chrmt sad thos
unwittingly prove b dvare character Thiss does "He that dwelieh
10 Heaven laugh ot thom. sad the Lord dondad thom’ (Pasi
24

rnciples In such encychiasis as fessrisdr D, No. ¥, Nevessber 1005 and Liwetus,

No.
9 Jurw 20, VNS,
Mysct Gorporss Chrmit, N 3, June 20, 1900
“Bery The Charchof Crml, p 19

3
True or Faive Pope? Chapier|

The Crurcl's Prepertics

Curei's properties are those qualitics shat flow irom heyaviy,
ly-plfld'fl nature Although
-:::viv&hm“fl enumeration of these proertes, e
T tenes ddiec in ther n
hod and terminology rather thath,
dsfference is pumarily one of met of the Church can be apily braygy
subgect wather itaclf The peopersies
and three atinbutes
wt inio seven dmwict qualities. four marks ters csey
thattirend
The meris of the Chwrch are dietinctive charac
she Church e all, and clea rly distinguishmit“ from every
"
“Mm;mmrmdwom-
" the Niceme Creed, that she is ~one. holy, cathalic (universa)
Td apeseinc 3 (Thase marts wil be treated separaiely n the neu
tha
chapter) The attribules are those inherent qualilies of the Charch
pertect hee nakure. The thee atin butes can be liked an perpetal
Indeteviel cu , and
witybi li Infaty lity
llin,
I sy of al the wrale shat God may permut His Churtoch sufie
wm.m m
imywlhmfldmm,lhwdlllw
properies. precicty becawse they are essential to her true nature ¥
Mfiflmk-mlhln\ewmhcfiun’h mll lack a single
ble *
acve of them, for the Church’s organc conssetution is Immuta

The Chueisrc Visikble

The Cathelic Church was constituted by Chist as a visible seciety
For thw ressen. 1w described in Scripturc as a city seated on 8
wuntai or n
hall.

7The Chiwrch, w8 & cty sonted o 2 moumtaia. shall ever be

vwiic Newhor the mat wor the sun's light 16 b0 plan w4 the
b Loown by &
“The ur Chusch wf it was vtablished by Divirw euthocty, andof these
Smwteld . whash we aaet I the Coved ovt b belirvee; ash aneof the Holymarks
DT
Cling. o tar sahars Wt ¢ coreut b wepursied. o thean” (Letier
y 16}
11, 1L Der.
ket Prum [X. Seytrmie X1 o 5 W maeh. 1 we wandd dfie ard escrie
© I Myutcs Carprts Chrmt, P
g Rasmit
W Churcts o fevms Chat - which s the O Hdy Cothulie Apaatelic
Qs e shall ird moding meve qable more @b o wary diviee than $e
',"_":"" Wl-fir-mn'm-m-mxw
Chrch con tirver lase ¢ wnghe ane of sthem [her propeersias], noe hol in hee
St I bt s e Clmirch bmdd by Chrint evant smist Wk e ev o e
s st ot9. 31)
dange (e The o f crsivm o ¢
Ty o i Lomoni Pop S P X e propestien
vad
ey St s "t e st o e Chumch W et -

n
 The Churdh and tes Attribate- Craper1

Church for the haume of e S.ord e on top of the rmeuriovan,

St John Chrysestem. There 15 ve safeguard of tmvty, wroie.
Auguatine, save frem the Church made knewn by the promices of
Chrst 2 Church which being sesied oa 2 hll, caet b hed.
Hence i 1s known 10 all parts efthe werld
Now o one denies thet the members of the Church are vieible but
the visubibiy of its members alone w not what w meant by the ke
Church Protestants erroncously profess an wmasbe Church ("an
Invwisible society of Lrue believers known to Ged abene”) but they da
ot deny that the members of the Church are msible As we will see. the
Sedevacantists having lost the faith i the Church, have come to
profess the same Protestant errer, which reduces the notion of the
“visible Church" te “visible members” who profess the true Fasth
They both err by not realizing What the Church i a permanent
vunble socuty - a visible socal unit - composed of a divinely msatuted
hierarchy® (a Ppe, buhops, prcsts, descons) and laty Thie vimble
seciety will always exst, because 1t w the rele sy, as mch, ko
which the promises of Christ apply the gates of hell shall not prevail
against 11" and Ҥ will be with you all days, even te the coneummation
of the world,” ek Acconding te the prowimes of Christ, the visible
society can vever be subsiantially altered or trancfermed into a false
Church, nor can 1t be reduced o an mvwible socsety leacly cemposed
of merely msible members,
Commenting on the visible character of the Clirch, Van Noort
‘wrok

“That the Church 15 vieible follows necessanty frem the fact

that it s a res] saciety, for there can be ne gomuine socicty 1 the
warld of men umiess 4 be vimble () Ne ssc dames that the
Church's memiers are vasibl. for they are fiooh amd blood poople;
ut some do question whether y the msbiutien of Chrra Himeel
these members are bound togetbar by cxmnal bende 30 45 10 farm &
smciety that can be perocised by the semes, & socty of mek a
nature that onc readily drscerns whe belongs te K and whe doss
o>

5 Sublcatusms of the Cathee Trath Soracty val. M, (Lomdion. Cothoic: Truth Soety. LY.
oy by
5“1f anyacse aays that i tr Cotelic Chuuch 3 bawarchy s st bwen s
Wivine cedinunce which cuneiots of Wahoge. prievt, and manwicrs, Lt b b st
(Council Trar, Do of 9y
Owie s Ghurch, t. 12
B
 Chaptery

Coapter 3, we will discums n detil the bl and exterat

,_.'_',..,,.....-uv-u-xmy For now h( it Im ""_‘
mewnhmhmwmu!x- wm
T el “trwe belicvers”) te which the promises of Chrst apply vy
Neert? affirms.
Owce s proves that the one aad enly Church which Cheu
1t necessant
Sounod ® viibie fram 1 vers manirthate, 10thenwhich folieyws
(02t v Chrce uch on Protes taris appes]
pore ficwen, sad h)uuuu:slnwflnmm

rs
of Visi
The Natu bihty
Vaadihty sogrufios twe shing= 1) thit the thung can be seen, and 7
thet it can e known fer what it is. The material sspect offorme visibility is the
st of the senass (what the senses percewe), the the l*wha spect of
‘emility i the object of the Intellcct {the giuddhty™ - ot tnes
o the thing)
In bie comprehensive book, The Crasd Explaned (1897), Fr A
Devine explains the distinction between formal and matenial visiblity
“Matersal vietbilie, w #hat which we poc 10 & thing, when we
swand only 1o corperea l (n this scrs
aspect c 2 ta b
8 man
bod y Farmal visthility w whea the exicmal wgns,
w visblc of that
whib u sen by the ey, comveys W the mand the invinibic o¢
torver quaiofsies 8 thang, "
The followng ensmpler will help to illustrate this point
A persen may sec an animal {s deer, for example) running throuph
the wonds, bt be unable to tell what it is he scos, The senses percelve
'W-‘.V—Hr—mmh_hhfimy'qtfl
sy 3008 Swevasariens (Gl s pesting o peren of Mgt Van Newrs
Sopras musnmi 0n s et the Sodrvsuartior apelogie. John Lane, ssied it #0
b prtwned b ovenerd on the twpic i yorsiers urtkl they have rred the ot
o Von Nowrt. He then adda. “Nr 1 sevybady proisint o diaagroe with Mensign
Ven Nowt uslms they on quete anthes dwlopian deing e ® Thus, we wil
estmctouiy thy vevet o Swdrvasantonm vaued upen the Iraching of thew own Lot
et Akarime
stet (Vim Nowrt, o | Choaes fowm M Lar ond o8BI/ /%
e pghe 134
iy
v 7m ey ¢ pbmmphiond v whish e o o i o oo
79 o4 (0
Y. v G, A UrewChsage
Tiv Cond Lplod.
Revirge [V 3 2of Cotobec Dontra,
ons Lot

»
The Chunt 1 s Attrabutes Chwpter|
somethong running, but the wiellact dees net yet knew wa it . 1f the
animal uns e 2 clearmg, the wellect will be able to judge sehat 1t '
that the senses percetved This example heips 10 illusirate the twofold
visible charactes of material bemgs the meterial vrsibilty which s the
external visible qualites {(what u perceived by the serwes) and the
formal orabtity, Which the guiddity (what the thing w) The senaes
percetve something bt it the job of the nteliect to knew whe s
Now, 2 religious society also possesses & formal and material
wvisibility The matenal vieinlity i mewbers, 1t thes and
ceremaies, the places where ne members meet, eic By perceving
(with the senscs) the extemnal charactenstics, the Inieilect can
apprehend than it is. 1) 2 religaous sockety and, with further absieackon.
2) what particulac religion it I ether werds, the mellect w not only
able to apprehend that s particular group (ews, Muslons, or
Protestants) is some knd of religious seciety, but it can alse deduce
which religious sectety 1t happens bo be Let us betebenFr Devine
“A Society 11 asid 18 be vieible in & masenat sence, when 1t 5
made up of men sscmbled togather 1n 2 cangregmion, wrthesx
atiendung bothe sbect o cnds baat binda them Sogeiher 1n ane bady
The format visibiity of s secrety it by which we regard 1.
901 mevely as an wssembly of men bul 2m ssserb of menlyuted:
together for seme specific sbiect When we spea of khe
visiblity of Uhe Chumch, we heve bo umbarsond that # % net waly
visible 1 the malerial sonse, thal M, & succty of dam whe AT
visible 10 then fellow-creaures, but i 2 forrmel semec, that 1, that
she cas be somn an b sacrety of Uhe famtafl, sl that she rmansfamc
conepicusunly he charsciers of ber devaty The Church »
isible w thug two-Gold scrc 7
In light of the above explanatien. we can better undersmnd what i
meant by the visible character of the Church. 1t dems net meraly refer to
its members being visible; nor does il vty simply imply éhat 1t can
e known as a religious society The msiaisty of the Catholic Church i
such thet it can be known to be she frur Ghurch establiahed by jesus
Chnist What muakes it possilse for the Catholic Clurch #e be knewn as
the true Church are the four mrks which she possesacs, nanely, she is
one holy catholic (unrersa) and apestelic Van Neert cexplains the
vasibility of the Church as follows:

"opp. 248200,
True ox Falee Pope” hapiery
vasbic forss of the Cusch, which 1 the sibpect of
___?:m..‘ ot ot be confused with whas 13 “.“.,"‘,:
Trwwateliy 1t 1 onc ttung 19 ask whether the Church which Chug
Toaded 118 publi vecicty and quite another o ask whether iy
o can he rocognized o the true Church ofUhrist by ceram
maapushing sk 15 beg formally rocognizable presuppose;
- bemg [matomsaly] iible, but the Pwo are DX idtical 32
1 b ook, The Gurch of Clurs, Fr Berry wrote the (ol
abot te visible charofacte the Church
r
“When we say that the Church of Chrit is visible, wentesmeaa,
and
ey, $at 4 2 secxty of men with external by which
corcrmonecs and all the cxpemal machincry of gevernment
% oun waly be recogn as 8 iac d y But we further mantam
wruc secrct
ot the Chorch o Chroot aleo has certain marks by which 1t may beHe
rocegured s the onc e Church faunded By Chist when
commtheus apestiio ne
cs 10 conve d.
t all natians In other wonds,
we masten that the Church of Chrint 6 formally visibe, not enly
0 socuty knewn 28 3 Chrmtasm Church, but 3130 a6 the o0 e
Chur ch"
of Corme.
Elabarating further, he adds:

“The Coorch of Cherst1s formetly vistbie ot only as s Church,

et 2o 26 the wruc Chuch of Chrst Ties w an artiche of farth
Nving boem defined by the (Fire] Vascan Council i the following
works: ‘God emablihed 3 Church thewugh Hu only begorten Sen,
a0t ondowed & with mamifot marks fmateral visibilny) of 16
metrmen, that 1 ight be Kngws by al (formal visibrliy] as the
Fuanian sné toucher of the revealed word. % This s clear wd
comprabenseve defiason of famal veilslity The Chucch has
oerimem cvidont marks by which 1t can e recogriized as the wuc
Chnarsh of Chiet, she guanionn and tanchiet of the reveaied word ™

He continues:

“The thasis somtams two proposctions (z) the Churcshan

vmarnal soveety hat con b recegrised as such by all, - and 16
hflv‘hy-lvdo—n-fl’wm.l»nlmfly

_
= Ot s oot 17 gt o)
15-'.'.5“.’;"‘“' 7 tomphass sddod)
* Tiv Cmont o O, pp S0t
 Chaprer1
| n rhe ey which 1t may be dionaguh
1 1o and recog froed
m sl
s the
ni wieaCin
ed rch , u- h- dl
© true Church it has been amply praved the,v ::
| bud Hes Church under the farm of :“akmd t Chr ist
visible
o
In hus book, The Puler and Grow of nd
Trush, publishe w 1900 Fr
‘Thomas E Cox explained that "the Church which Christ destab irshed is
a visible, tangible inshtumon, capable of being known and posaied
out " He then added poe
“The visibility of the Church fallews of weseifcntherety
cxum
0 ebli1ga cateti
r the on
Church Gud ewuld et camman
hear a Chiurch thet could net be knwws, net 3 eniar 2 Cherchmcd 1s
thet
could no t "
be faund
W!mnkethalthe&“t&umhhma?flmlmfl!mfly
that can be knewn, by the light of reason alene 1o be the srue Church
founded two mllenria ago by Jesus Chrwt * Thie w what w meant by
the viaibillty of the Church.
Perpetual Indefectibility
‘The Church also possesses the inherent qualives of indefectibility
and perpetur which arety, closely relaied te one another and eften
combined mto one single attribute Fr Berry defines mécfrchinlity 2
“the Inability to fail, to (all shert, to perih.” He conmmues: “Appled W
the Church it mears that she cannot be deprived of any sssenal power
or quality, 60 long as she continues 1o exiet™® In shor. tndefectiblily
gusrantees that the Church will always pooscss the feur marks and
STl p 40 femphasis sdded)
= Con T £ T e d o o P, S o onkon Lo o b T Char
Marls s At (Criamgr |5 Hylard andl Co 1900, 5 36,
*ivd p 37
* A Wettu arud Vial nake i Uheir commentary ont aaters e arriving ot the kiwwienlge
that the Cathelic Church =, in fat. e true Chisrch sopuarms maval g They wrose
“the visiblity of the Church consits 1 e fact that she poscstcs sixh agrw el
enitying wurks thet, when meval dibgerce 8 used, she con be mcogniad and
dicerrest eoperialy an the port of her kepmaic wilcrrs * (Wems-Vidal, Commmreiory a6
e Code of CanLo 454 Schoion ) v i the st of our currens clesiascsl cra
Whe formal vieliity of the Chuich can be ke, shhugh & may reqere vt mesel
dibirrce 8 amve ot the canchasicn. This 1 specsify ot d the Church s viewed i
g of her current carvicien (as shw salfers bes Pussian), aiher than wmply tro &
ararical
“Tiv Crif reh
e, . 2
»
 Chapr)
Frue ox Falee Pove”
l continue 1g
riwses, Perpetinty means that the Church wil :“
‘, ’“IL end of the world Compering these two qualities .,“
ano the r Fr Ber ry wrote
Chuch an d the w rel ate n v ome
~Porpemin 8 micfecsbubty 0 exisence Sincily speaky
micfocatdli perirs o the csocnt al queltics of the Chwer
1o o cxm cnc e The se two qua lie s. skhough disuncy
errein 18 st ther scparately
B Cloacly rclzsed Wt # 1s defTiculper penual indefectibilin, "9
o rwe slbutesey be combuned a8
When combned, these attnbutes tell us that the ousible
of Hime, exactly
founded by Christ must continue 0 exist unal the end
hert h
mark s ang
a8 He fownded her, with a0 of her qualines - that is wi ities ang
atiribudes. “1f the Church w indefectble n her esse ntial qual
per inphere cxist e,”a
tencu wrokle Fe Berry, “she must be perpetually
ndet1tec nial bl
all esmeti s.” ¢
qualitiee
The Church may be persecuted from without, and Our Lord may
even permet 1t 4o be infilirated and persecuted from within fer u Lme,
Wut it will never be desteayed St Jerome said
W knew tha the Chasch will b harassed by porsecution unul
acmnd o the werid, but #t cannet be destruyed 1t shalbe tned
l but
ot everceme, for such w the procuse of an smnipolent God whese:
word 4 to 8 law of naiare ™9

y, Van Noort wroke

Refrrrng 1o the Church s perpetuitMsgr
“The prosent quasion has %0 do with the popenacy of lhat
Civmrch whuch alenc was founded by Chns, the visible Church
Ay socicty can sl entber of two ways 1 can simily cwase 10 be.
2 4 cam Bocome wafit for e comymg wcd of e avewed L
-v-?:--——lmmcmmmmlmmum
way
Due 1o her pro mse of perp etua l indef
mn
ectib
fim
ilty, the
hh lm
ousb
ufl
le sect
mm
ety of
hofl.mmnmunh.mm
@tab lish ed by Crwi t, wntil the end of the world Bven during those
Sianes 1 whach God permite her W suffet through imemal and external
Porecuben, which diefigures Ter husun nsture and eclips her
—
i pp
it
O e i,B T M e f G, S4
1 Gy The ot
G
T —————
The Q! \itributes Crupter 1

divine nature, the Church wil remain “wiiheut -

This is the divine promise of lesus Chrat Y vl change 7
Infallivitity
‘The infall of theib
Churcil
h mean
its ythat she soachas withowt
whm-heumlhelu“mdhfllul’mryb.::fik-\amded::
Thie chansm can be exercieed by the Pope persorully, or by an
ecumenical council The chensm of infallibility s not to be cenfued
with revelatin (the communicasen of seene truth by Ged thesugh
means which are beyend the ordinary ceurse of natere) ar rmpmrtion
(the act by which Ged moves a human agent se write er spask whet He
witls) Nor is it 40 be confused with rmpcca which
shiin the tywnaili
,ty
tosin.
indallibility is merely o negative charier thet prevents the Church
from the possibility of errng when she necesary comdbtrens are present By
saying “when ihe necessary conditions are present” is meant o shew
thet the chariemia not always ackve It is enge anlype whendthe
conditions (as the Church has defined them) have been sabsfied We
will address infalliblity in deterl 1 Chapiers 8, 13 and 14 and thus
only briefly mentio it here
n The resson it will be trented mere
thoroughly in subsequent chapiers is Becauer, a8 we noied in the
Preface, a fundamenial misunder of inkal
silibli
an ty idi onengof the
principle causes of the Sedevacantist esror
An Intreduction to Sedevacantist Errers

As was mentioned prevasusly, the error of Sedevacantism (the

beief ihat the recent Popes have et been srue Papes) quickly leads to
2 lows of fasth In the Church itsell It ends by denymng thet the Catholic
Church of today is in fact, the same Cathelic Church thet exiied
efore the eloctzon of John XXIIt in 1958 Sedevacanusis claim thet the
Church after 1958 ot only tacks rue Popes. bui also lacks the attribuies
thet the true Church will ahweys posscss - namely, visibility,
Indefectibrlity and infallibility Sut 1f the Church from 1998 enward
(“the Vatican 1f Church™®) does not posscss there three ettribuics, then

The Chursh of Ot emplhaae added), p 31

The vast majerity of Sebevacartion bebcer ha the i s cormacutive Popes ok
XXHll Poul V1 John Paul L ol Poed iL Berwt XV1 ared Prame) are faoe Topes.
Aithainh swhers e furkaee back eyeed ol XX
e veataees o oy e Ot b 1908 e 1 . Vot ¥
Charch,” weun thewgh ihe Sacersd Vaman Councl gt i 1962 ol b in 1905,
n
Trwe or Folee Pope? Chapary

et i otyaixvs h, since
Churcpossa the hs which
wrueBat Churcwh|c m"d'-z
m,,':,,m, il se them.
e e what v secal unit 45 Whey to be 10Und? And whey
ey oot Church, exactly? That s the question the Sedevacanieg
o the Sedevacantist Chur seck do not possess (hese atinbuis, te,
canmn b conaxdered “the cannach as some of them |
oct ves to be. An ifdthey t poat 10 & CiHle seet y that daey
pamess thes atriuis {and thev can'), it messw the Church, &
Frmied v Chrwt, 1o Janger etwhich- butis nattheposeiwould mean that e
Indctecuble Church has defected, bishop, recognized ble
Dorald Sanborm, & Sedevacantisr In hi sricle “Realthis difficuty
with ahe Sedev acant st thesss. stanc e s
Tedefecubiity~ e comrectly frames the issue when he writesh . Wher “At the
raot of naacly all of the diepues 15 the queskeion s ofthethe viablChurc es
o Cmrch® After asking sgan. “wher e Churchy®
Ganborn responds by saying “it w realiz ed m those who publiclyi
here 1o the Catholic Faith, and who at the same time look lorward
theeofke chPontf
a Reman en f ~*
‘Nowce what the bihep pust did He redu ce
the Chur ch d 1o the
Protesmrs concept of 4 Wowe sssociation of tndividale who proless the
e ks, yet whe are net uniied under & dvnely estabitshed huerarchy
This = what he arencously calls the “visible Church® Thi s
esentialy the same noson of the “vasibie Church® prolessed by
Prolestantism. Fer example, the Frofestant Westminster Confession
sy
“The visible Church, winch 1 alae called Cathobc o usiversal
nder e goupel. comeints of all 1hore throughout the wackd whe
profons the Wue religon, and i childeen ~%
Thus faise wation of the viible Church, s prefessed by Bishep
Sumborn and the Westorurater Conéeseion, is most certaunly not what
mmend by the e Guirch As we have seen, the mble Church 1 it
ot wdrvadala, bt vather & v and haenerciucal society
and ex Protestant ministcr, Gerry
Matancs, rediucespreacher,
Sedevacanmd
The murularly the ~viaible Church® o the visibility of het
-
Serbars R snd, o ity * b /s smodiociemamm
g/ aiet!
m»w&——nt—.—..':../."'
-o e S Yithonst torbtngn v VE, 1" Serien (Lamdon: A. Hall and Ca. 1891 T
B ———E|
The Curch and lis Attributes

individual members (rasher than & yawble

lk entiled “Counterfeit Catholicarn va. Consistent Catholuiam,” he
sy
“People will say ‘Where 10 the Cothakic Chrch m sur duy™”
1t net thid the Church is wivisible That is a Prossstant hercay The
Church 1 always viible — 's mede of yihi ma e pic. poepic like
‘you and me "%
Did you catch that? Like the Protestants, Matatics defines the visisle
Church a5 “visible pesple * The explanason, of ceurse, & virtually
identical to the definiNon of the Church tn the Weskmuresar Cendessson
- & defition Mr Matabcs surely leamed at the Wessninstor
Theologcal Semunary where he studied Perhaps realizing that what he
just sud would gladden the hearte of the mest Modermst sl
Prolestants. Mr Matakcs went on 10 add the words “One, Holy,
Catholic and Apostolic,” 10 his Pretestant defintion, 1o deubt 1 the
hope of making it sound mere Catholic Unfortunately, % dsda't help.
in lact, hus second attempt was even worse than his first. Malancs
continues
“The Church ol Jesus Chast - the One. ltely, Coibehc and
Apestotic Church s stll here 11 ¢ foumd 1 G cars and aagls
and the Iives and in the faniles and the pesyers of all theec whe
beliove what the Popes heve wupht us e belicve. %
So Mz Matatics would have us believe thet the vieble Church
exiats in the “hearts and munds” of the laithful Clearly, Mr Matancs
definition of the Church is a denual o the attribui of msibrlity no matter
how preus he wants 1o make Iwe defiruien seund. The reason Me
Matalics is forced to profess such errors about the vibility of the
Church 13 because he beleves, and publicly states, that the huerarchy of
the Church (the Magsteriumn) ms foger exisis, but 1 only & tung of the
past (which would mean the Church defacted) He asmerts that “there w
70 living vowce of the Megmtenum. It deesn't mesn we re loet: it
doesn t mean we're abandoned. because we ve get the Mageskerumof
the puat ™
’:;mwmmmmmmw.nhkfib(o(mm)wmw
Magusterlum {composed of validly ordained Swheps widk funcdciion)
will slwaya exist. This % ene of the most essential marks of the Church-

“Coumtericht Cathalicium va. Consisbens Cathwiciom.” dic 4, rack 18

1ML rack 16,
b ik 5
 Troe o Falae Pope? Chaprery

choarty distinguishesthe true Church from o

Unfertenately, wmm;mmm“:
:'a':-";‘“m-
o encaciam, Mr Mutencs has reverted back fo by
st the “veaible Church” means onlv that she
dilference 15 Wiat has cuTTent opinion affirmy
mmmnw uwSAD,whkM.d“"',;
eckrnled e whule a Prosestent, Ove can't help but see the 1rony of he
Sedevacanhans’ repection of the Last six Popes, because they o
pretomeed heresy while the Scdevacantues themselves, publcy
,.‘_nmmsyinhmbkoumm-m‘u
'“:,h"wuu.n,-ao-m'wpnmnnm
st preval” agaaret the Church. spplics te the rxsdie socety 1t does
‘voan shere will atwayy exit s the world “true believers * But
ot does Mr Matwtics teach sbwut this? In the same CD series,
again
Counerfert Catheliciom va. Conmetent Catheliciem.” he once(ollowing
departs from “consisiert Cathelicem” by proseniung the
“cmmatecieit” Waching He tys:
“Ow Lard prommad that e gates of hell will net prevail
aguwnn she Chareh, et thrs w el alwavs e e helievers unul
ol of wme ™
g Maiu
of Mr
Camnpare the above touchin the following
withtics
taken from the exghicanth century snk-Catholic bosk, A Preservatme
Aganst Popery, daferding the Engllsh Reformation. See f you find any
sionviarites between their explanaton and thet of Matatics Afeer
danving the waching of the “Roman Church™ which insists thet e
:—imfly-nflmhhvfiwm,hmflwk
sayx:
“Ow Sevier promwed, “Tht she Gaies of Hell should ol
prvad aqun
0 A etPromssc fat bty shaild wover wani 3
Warld nat te any pecuculss
Somisn o ruc Rellevers w e Worid
wcpmund Charch — Wdom Our Savier says, stha the Gates of Hel
shal ot prevae] agamet lus Church, we may conssder 1l citlier a6 &
Promunc. o 2 proghacy, ot both, thes thars_always shall b (ound
o mabhadon, Balicva 0 the World -

—_—
T e St kW
@ St Pty Agmat Ppery. v, L anden, 1740 ch L TIT P
e ——EE
The Chwrch a1 Alirbutes .

Note thel Mr Matatics' defuition of indefectiblity 1 ideracal

thet professed by the Profestants The reason Mr M..,'.Z,"m__ e
Protestant AoUON of imdefectinhiy s becaine he has eombraced e
Prosestant potion of “oisbrty™ Having Jost fath un the Chvirh fihe
visible society). Mr Matatics has reduced the Church 1o the Protestan
netion of “true believers.™ If the vieible Church 1w only -ieue
Felievers,” 3 Mr Matacs crronceualy believes, then the rdefechi
of the Church must meart there will “always be frue behevers un.'."i'fl
en of time
d " which prec what uc
Matahcslyclaums. Beung
Matatics publicly professes such errers i the name of Cathethat Mr
perhaps he should have shortenex the e of hue CD set 1o smpllicie m,
y rend
“Geunierfert Calfolicism. a3 this would have mere accurately descr ibed
the content of hus memsage
The late Sedevacannet apolopet, Rama Ceomursswamy, further
demonstrates that the Sedevacaniist apolegiat. are unable te pravide a
cogent answet 1o the obpection thet theie posstion 1s incompatible wikh
the wmiefectibiity of the visbe Church. Fee example 1 respending 1o
the book Sedcvscentum A False Selutn b ¢ Resl Probem, Mr
Coomarmswamy wrete:
“The auther belds thar the sedevacunin demis the
indefechbility of the Church. This 1 1o Jt « mildly nencemse.
Anyonc who 4 net as blund a5 the proverbel bat can sec st the
Pope and the Bisheps 10 unien with hum' have defected from the
troc Church |1 should be cloar ~ docd sbvious K 1o tot
tha
she Church whuch has defccted for such 1 umpecaible It s the new
and post-Conciliar ecganiantion wiich has defccied o she et

= There s an alben-ciied siion sinibwied @ 5 Athunsssa The aleged queiston.

Which @ directed to hi flsck. aayx:*Even U Catholics Lawhiul to Traaitom arv esdueed to
4 hardhil, shey arv the eore who are the iac Church of fans Chrmt” Same
Sedevncanisin {such as Cerry Mataics} have quesed thi as wpgart foe Bt Posnion
Wt the viabte Chrrch can be vstmeed fo 2ty fetwiant of “ruc beierers ™ The svutce
e foe the alleged quetatian 1o “Call Seloc 55 Esul Peiren. Caie and Guslow, vl X,
PP AUHI2" The complete Udle of the book @ Collut Seimte St Exwiar Parraet
Compicsiens Erpuisestmnt Opers Tum Dogwaies £1 Marah it Apeiogenes E Oremese.
ol XXXl {Paria Ant. Poilies, OO, o8 by Armand-Ber Calaw gomin(e
and Gadlos
lewer ot Atharusis 1o @n pp A1IZ The bask o be viewed onioe 3
DR/ /v archive wrg/ siream/ operasboihadpege /2] mpde/2up. Nt ey dvus.
e alieged teachung of St Athanaaks vielai the docwre of mwrsd Calblinty e
‘eemingly confase Ciumch membership with safvaten) as e will e, bul she sominbom.
o 4 tabuication, A chech of she bosk, whech s 18 Latin, shwws that this seriemce K.
Klaing, Wiwever fird travalaied 1t cvuderady oo ot semiancee 4 the and. A revws
7L e e of St At o i B, St T Pt Vo
Fathers (1002) by Philip Scha. tsecwnd o vl IV 1), apoiny wemtence
Mh:mfl:fl'hwnnnfiflqn—mm“
35

E———————————
 Tree o Fale Pope Chaptery

whu
Co il oos
ch c iGo
himtn o 3 oagaies uhthe csh
me
Hell copot is ™
prevt
sstement in e way helps Mr Coomar aswams 's pouy
where, e
“" :e":e-n el us where the true Church s only
in his bowk. The Destructi an
ot He doc s the same ica rg,
o Toudios I the chapter ded ted o the marks of thekChu w
hwmhmwmmwhy‘ mmmwl
llknhfltln&umm
Q..Kh.(-‘lydfllwy‘-’l&mflkbfl rc
it Chvrch teday they can be found All he can say 1, “the Chaand
{Chnst) taught,”
hes and wer shi ps in the man ner that he
hat Mac nndmmml
.h_.ud-nnxkdm&uuhunhnn is, ag the
catent of Crest dttsthe One. Holy, Cath andob Apocstoly
as weaomdif
ldthav yult time
mfic fin din g an
Chanch *» .Mr Cosmarweu defirution of the
e Cathalac Protmtant whe weuld disagree with his
therVica Chrstaand
of w
ar s mhisybis,hops
“Accondg te Covma s
of & New
(o well 26,929 percent of the faithful) all ebec ame member
Charch, wrihout realizing i But if tus wer the case, then the gates of
hell wwcld have prevasled ever the rabic socrety which ble 1 the Church
And if the “undergreond Church” is still vis de , as Mr
Coomacaswamy cla™ w whe,re is it? And why are Sc vacanis
themn s
ow farced 1o probess & Protcstard definabon of the vieible Church te
def theie niti
r pos don?
As we pgather frem the statemenss of Sanbom, Mattics,
Cosmersswany and ethers, Lhe propenents of the Sedevacanbit etror
ot oy clam there is no Pepe. but also maintain that the oinble seod
w1 bacame 4 New Charch ™ The ressen they hold thus position ¥

¥ Comtatasmcamy “The Sucrety ot Pone X, A Faide Salirins 30 5 Reul Prabiem” (004}

Mg e e avee/ oo rad Jar.
¥ Comuammeey The Ot of th i Tsom (Wowarbery, Indiar ol
Windom,I 283 Al0
™ “Tht thr wae Church b 0. aeen arme. enderground, i by e wewrw v @
i Sy e Commssanramy “Thar Sacarty of s X, A Falar Salution s0 8 Ratl
:z:-'&-uh(—nm--——‘nw
Lot 12 et et b e ha the Cohic Church morphed (ke
e e b b decre s b b o’ i e Crarch (.
et ek L v iltedthe harch it e ket o s ) €
e itb I e Chuich ol thr W i) avershe jit 1
____,d--—nnntm-» —n--w-mr
T ittt Lo oyl b o B, 13 March 47 0
v oo Braaki fone e e S “Comahor Chusch 0 He
tieras Wb Adhibidenp | siptecr (Laerrve thorasiier wasd i
»

——— |
 Y
The Church ard Its Attributes Chapter 1

fecause they erroneoualy believe shat the Church after 1958 {after the
election of Pope John XXIl1) has dene thungs that are canteary o the
promise of fallibility But because they knew the woe Church &
infallible they are terced 10 argue shat the Church that allegedly
violated infaltibrhty is a New Ghurch, and nat the rue Church Haw can
they posstbly make this argument” Here's
whe true Church elected a falae Pope and hew: They say that I 1958,
then mevpihod 1nto 2 New
Church It is this New Church they say. and not the True Church, et
defected from the Faith, leaving the true Church behind and 1ntact
Wut if that's the case then where e the irue visble Church go?
Wasn't the Church that existed on October 27, 1958 (dunng, the
Conclave) the same Church thet elected and accepted Jotn XXII as
Pope the next day? If not. then again, where did the true Church ga?
Up in smoke? Out to lunch? On vacation? How could the pre and post
Conclave “Churches* be two different twibie soncties paswculacly
when thele membership was identical. asde from a few deatha and
baptisms during the tme in which the Conclave was convened”
Again, Sedevacantists have e answer, ether than fo say, &
Sanborn and Matatics do, that the true Church now exists "in the hearts
and minds” of true Catholic belsevers, “those who publicly adhere b
the Catholic Falth. But this explanation is not satisfaciory since, as we
have shown, the promuse of idefecitility pertains 10 the tmble secaety
Iielf, and not to ndwvidual believers And the rxable ssrcty that existed
on October 27, 1958 i the same eusible sscety that exssted on October 28,
1958 and in the years and decades thet foliewed.
That visible soctety includes the Cardinals whe elected John XXii]
and the rest of the Church whe accepted him as Pope Likewwe, the
visible society that existed In November of 1965 (before the decuments
f Vatican Il were rasified), remained the same vilble saciety thet
existed in January of 1966 (after the clese of Vabcan IT) This means that
do that the “New
a person cannot mamtatn, as manv Sedevacantists
Church® was hem when Vatican 11 was ratified - that s, without
necessarily denylng, the mdefctidiity of the Church, er reducing & as
Mr Matatics has done te the Profes “true believer
notien often t s”
existing “unttl the end of time *
Others claim that the defecion did net happen at one event (such
s the clection of Jahn XXIII or ratification ef Vatican M) Thev adit
that 1t s untenable to matntain that an sweant defeckon occusred.
Tnstead, they Insiet that the defection happencd gradually as i them.

M 0 2 mtaphrical verwe 0 dacribe the whele new eremisn o the

whifepeching
e Sevevacaotl theai).
37

I————————
True oc Palee Pope” Chapiar;

Apolagy,
sy way helps their caet For example, the Sedevacantst
Jobn Lare, wroke”
Coolic Chursh dedet oomsc (9 SucCU o 1n baveo
;n n- y. lfl iu lm h 8 vie w weu ld e
.mxm-n
ety muty bt mwsufoity unenthodex. It ¥ suliccrly cloar
e -
Someane should inferm Mr Lane that there i no
wderee between clasung the Chur ch deferted svernight, sd
Clarmung 1t happened gradually over a penod of manths. of perhabyy, ¢
yours, sice any defection of the Church (enhe r vermight or
Loeeces®) would vislae its attnbute of indefectibillty And Mr sanly Lane
sterns cuneusly awase of the ciificulties that fus position neces
entadl, mice he concedes that recenciling W with the Cathobc Fait hi
edes, that these
“an crsordinanty difficull task” - 3@ much 50, he concthod
whe artempt 1t usually end “with seme kund of unor oxy * Thes an«
what he savs: “Explatrung this process in lerms properly arthodox
exwaersinaniy dificult task. Mest commentators wan't even atiempt
i do o Thewe who have inied, usually end with some kind o
wnarth o ated follyy*
loesten
1 stwarda,Mr Lane cannt explain how the Church defected
{Le. Sedevacaniam), and yet he checses te held the pomtion anvway
Of cwutse, the rensen Sedevacantisis “ueually” (read “always”) end in
“unecthedexv” n atiempling e cxplain their position 1 because the
pesition 1 lalse: they begn with an erronceus premuse and then iry s
eplun seme tt
that didunnet geccur The reme dy
for ther
unenhadexy te reakac $ul the rue Church did not merph ko 2
New Church, sither I an “utant” o by a “process of apostasy”
Rathe, the e Church has been infillrated by Moderniste wha are
frem with
atiack#ing in
and, as , s, it is currently undergoing 8
& resul
Pastior smilac b dhuat of Chewat, while rematntheing
same Institution,
oot 2 Chist rmmained the saxe Divine Person during I4is Passion.
Can the Trme Charch Elact and Follew a False Pope?
The Sedevacantisn cannet aveld the inescapable conclusion of theif
zm ramely, thal the wue Church defecied, mmply by cluming
s 1ot & trus Pope and the trur Church that defected, but rathet
takar Pope who gove birth 80 4 New Gurch that defected The reason
—_—
* Vit
P { lrvassttat e oot php - s 61 fermpinnie sdced
 |
The Church and ts Attmbutes

subsequently taught heresy

Cardinal Bidiot explasns thetif the eniee Church accepted
Pape 23 the irue Fope, 1t would nmhp_dkflhmn;:l:
aguinst the Church (the visible seciety). He wrote-
“Finally, whatever you sil tink shout the poseibel
mpossibiliy of the aforcrucniiancd hypethcsis [ofe Pape ?Z‘.:
mie herery), a1 kast enc pomt must he consadersd sselutcly
wncontraveruble and placed fialy sbeve amy deubt whescver fac
miallible _suen of the legitinacy of + daaryuned PorniT aed
Iepumacy 1EH 1815 nex necessary s heek far for the proof af dus,
but we find i immedicly in the procaioe and the infallible
srovidenceof Chivst The gates of hell shall not previnl aganat 1.”
ad “Bebold 1 shatl be with you all days * Far e adcsn of (e
falic rule of (kS As will baceme evan mere clans iy what we
shall say later, God can porruet thet 81 times & vacany m the
Apostelic Sec be prolonged for 2 loug rme He can tio porrat
thet
doubs anue akout the legitimacy of i o thet clecuen Hesutnat
u
0ts0 uly and kpitinately
™
Notice thet the adhesien of the Church W a Pope w an mfuliite sign
of his legitimacy As we will dicuss 1 more detail n Chapier 12, Vo
ctaim that the enture Church adhered te a falsc Pope w itself Lo deny the
Church s premise of infalisbility as well Hence, those whe hold 1o the
Sedevacankiet thesw are forced V deny, net enly the twibuity and
wdefectibnhty of the Church, but also the Church s nfulibdhty (all thrve
attnbutes)
Like the Aposties who lest faith i Christ durmg His Fassien {by
witnessing first hand what Our Lord permutied Hu anewsns to dlo o
Him), 20 1o, the Sedevacanmets have et faith 10 the Church (by

e should st hare hal the perners] apinievs of 2 Toge d oot coramivs the e af
“Serae
€alh. The rule o taith conmists ol the dieiruite (ralible) seachngsando iheiChach,* Catelc
a1 Divi w W rmie o et mmt e slom Drvin
and sedaiibbe
Encycipnius (1913), vol ¥ p. 7o
Billa, Tt de o Cort, vol L s $13413 fomphos abdet).

I—————————————
 Tre o Faloe Fope” Chapter

Ieowgh what God & permutting His crernies to

o Ao cons oque nce of e s f hth s e O'"'d-‘;:,
T arib utes and e {0rc ed 10 prof ese the Pro egy
B acmng the rts 4nd minds” o g
Chir ch, 2 s In the "hea
ev ot
~who pubily adhere 10 the Catholicof the Fakth” Wha
e, 15 we noted st the beginningthe gates chap ier, g
et i thesis necosarl y il that of Rell
e gt the viibclee le Church,e to some thin
t g ihe Sedevacaniag
I acives fon L realue, or refust, whoadmi attended & Sedevacanky
A former Scdevacantist apologis
sextnary, recently published 8 beok haddemo nstrating this very poiny
e o Sadvac he ti
ereors an embracsed, he was forced ts
e ot what he had come oAfthbelieve and professed “pro ved” that
eol Churrch defected ough he is quite mistaken on thy
o, bSeicvacario et ham te conclude that the Cathnow olic Church
B il nor welectible, a8 shethe clai me 1o be He publly
T thse dogmas and, having lost faith i the Church, ended by
few
g the schamac Eastern Orthodex sect. The following arevace&ntst
cefromrp b n recenily published book, crtetied The Sede
Deluson:

= _al) Sedevacanmms deny the passibilisy of & defoction of e

Conarch. wiule smmianceusly proning that a defoction has escurred
mfact. That s why the Sedeva uat
1o beac therr
had can s t
argumncs
wpen & thuacy of twe Chrches. 28 apestasc Church in Rome snd
v
“As carnes search far a8 infallible and indefactible Catholic
Cluarch wurms up cwatradictions. on all sdes. Today | have ae doubl
that the cousw 1 thal 30ch § Chirch, sever cxisted “%
My cbyocuv s s worke 15 o prove thal Scdevacaniism
vielmes fusdermental docwrmes of the Church and 1z Lherefore 1
Rorical theery In addition, | will propose an mliemalive
xplatati on problem
in the dacwral the Church hae crealod thal
dom ot novesckaie swpesaing conendictioms This will eresil
snizrinineng the (ollowmg flve premuses abowt the Catholic Church
MIW-‘—M&MIIM

2 Fosc
faha, The Solrvm
.mist Carwll
ndrparvdans
Sothson
Debuta (Nurth Chario ,ns.
 Y
The Church and 115 Atirbutes Chapter !

1) The Sedevacantits have suseesstilly provim the defocsen of

the Catholic Church at efsubssqteuc Vannt
cam £}
2) The Church can defoct and rema the Chu rch
3) The poct-Vatcan 1 Charch w the el Cahate
Francis s the real pope Church. md
4) Il s 3 mych
$) The papacy o net the ongmal fousdetion of the Romem
Church
the Sedevacanusts have w fact praven the defoction of the
Cathotic Church™ which 15 “precuely why Scdcvacanosm 1t 2
dcvastalig 10 Remun Cathahicm and at the same tuoc sappernve
of Easiern Orthedexy ™
“Pope Francas 15 8 wuc Cathelic gope, but sty bucanc the
Catholic Church can defact and il reme the n e inetrutivn
down thro agesh™
theug
ol“1 belicve that the dovme: procogurves
of the Papecy acc

The logical deductions of this author, alkett from very faise

premises, confirm exactly what we have sasd, namey, that the errors of
Sedevacantism logxcally and necessarily lesd to a derual of the
atributes of the Church (at least indefechiilty and falliality), 1o &
lows.of Gaith in the Church itself and finally, te heresy
The Siri Theery
Before concluding thw chapher, we will briefly address another
theory that has been used te explamn the current cnsis in the Church,
While this book examines the sanetreas: Sedevacanist thess that the
post-Vatican 11 Church has been deprived of having true Popes, some
present another theory 7 This theory mamtaing hat Candinal Guuseppe
SIr {1906-19%9), the former Archbshop of Genoa, wee elected Pope in
1958 in the Conclave that eventually elected Cardinal Angele Rencallt
but waa farced fo resign during the Conclave@ They
M
“Ibid 101
I bk o
Tp 103,
™ 1n ok s we tuseuthe tor
i m “th
o t eceey” d1 3 ne mackiic mascee, e e 10
Wnmubexplanationroiswppert ¢ conchumion.
e clalasthat ek was.slae et 1 the 903 a0 1978 Conclaves.ds woll.
a

I —— e ———
Trwe oe Faive Pope? Chapie
ferced rengrosion was invalid and a1 Carding
e e rune Fope Gregory XVII) remained g
O o e Gasth 1 1969 Some ga fusther by claimutgngo
”mm.««ww mwflmmflw'm-Fope m
v amd st " 2w Pope was clecied while a fale gg
Tpeery o nat hold for a numb erus
of abvio
10t possibe fox e
st g e have scen anc will fursher explax,case,1 8 Jobn
e Chcch o follow a faloe Pope (in thar X0y
o eti rpecu that Swi was(byeecte closed doary
d and forced b revgn behinddthose
laton peeple who were ot betun clowd
oy I ham et been comeberaied by any proven fack, ner s the
oath-beund
Sheory even provable. given that the Cardinal electors are
under pun of
o 10 scveal the canfideniual happerungs of the Conclandavecontra
excommuerscaben. Weuld it net be extremely rash ry to the
Cathaio sonse fou s ke have 10 bae our faith, exir frue eternal salvanen far
\hat matie, an speculation? Third, if Siri were theave (sincePope, he would
ot hiave bean bound by the secret of the Concl the Pope is
1ot bound by pasitive ecclesiaatical aw), and therefore omuld have
revesied the iruth te the Church. Fourth, Sin not only gave ne
Indicaon that he was the Wue Fope, but he hiwelf publicly accepted
johny XXII1 as Pope Fith (and mest damaging o the theory) Sei
semuined a member of “the Vatican 1f Church,” and went along with
all of the chacges thet feflowed the council, which would mean he was
part of 1 alleged mass defection.
Of course, i Swi 3 acquiescence, to the noveltics of the past fifty
years, could be excused foe such reasons as threats, undue influence, or
whatever sther crustive explananen Sedevacaniels may come up with
@ explam how S could e a member of the “New Church” and st
e Pope of the rue Crurch, then the same miigating ressons could
dow br applied 1 the concillar Pepes. For this reus onhave
some ,
claicned that even f Swl were the true Pope for a time, he fost his office
‘wher he went aleng with the ermees.
Nevdlem o say, this thwary raisas the same objectons conceTning
e dusppe sc
of the ar
visib le ce
Church. Furtherma were,
have
mmfl:flhw:‘mmmmdub mm fi
versally and peaceshly accepied as Poj
rmuwmafim{hmwmdf&w
munive
flu ral«Churc
.u h . etymprovi
nat u des infallible certitude of his
nymmwm This meane
.“m—h‘m:;‘ was hmhuylunn;lkc.rhw(whnfi may
the acceptance of fehw XXIIL by the Church
——
The Giurch et | Coupaert

removes any doubt sbedt the validity of his saction. Regurding

Cardunal Billot wrete- ¥ fepring thie
“Erom the metacnt 16
Church and umudmh-uwhic h the Pope u moscytod
r-m.':uy .,.,..'L':.
permited 10 rake dauble sbeut 2 poacsble vee af clecta ot 3
possiblc ack af asy Conrien whetsecver neceisty for epmmacy
For the aforcmeriticed adacsion af she Church
censurad condtiane.”
In Chapier 12, we will see how the Sedevacantis: bishap, Denald
Sanborn, attempts to et around this Waching by cluming, that the
peaceful and uriversal scceptance enly gusranices thet the elsction
was valid, and riot shat the Pepe ehocied 1 irue Pope, when the aact
opposile io truc: universal acceptance gusranives we haveo true Pepe,
even if there were irregulariies in hw elecbon. With the information
covered in the following chapters, by the Wine we get ko Chapter 12 the
Wishop's ervor wil be crystal clear
In his Docirinal Diesertaisan, “Supphved Junsdichen Accerdmg te
Canon 209," Francis Miaskaewicz explainied thet even “if « Pape were
invalidly elected, snce he were regarded by the world as Fope all i hu
jurisdictional ace would be valid 7 1. Alphoneus Liguen taught the
same “It 13 of 70 importance thet in past cenbries seene Portéf was
Ulegitimately clected or took possessionof the Ponkficate by fraud, it s
enough that he was accepted afterwanis by the whole Church as Fope,
since by auch acceptance he would have become the irue Fontff *™
The notion that the true Church elected and pesecfclly sccrpiod o islee
Pope cannot be held witheut denymg the wéallbility and
indefectitulity of the visible Charch - that 18 to say, without fallng 1o
heresy
AS neted, Chapher 12 s devoled anticely %o explaining why the
Church'a universal and pesceful acceptance of & Fope 1 an infallibe
aign thet he @ the Wue Pope Fer now, it suffices s clese this
inwoductory chapicr by eting ihat the Sedevaca thes ni
teslet
s1
practical el of e three stinbek f the Churdh peretut
mdefechinlity, orseand himfelt y By clas
lsinkty the Churc
that su ng h (the
T Bibat Track etus
e Ecvions Ghrsh. vol L pp. $12-613 femaphans added)
™ Miseklewrkcs, ~mpphicd |urwdiction Arcunbing 0 Caren 39 (Washiogie, € The
Cahola Universty of America, 19001 3.
751 Alphemaus Liguo. Veris deka Eele ~ Opvrs e 5. Alfeme Marm ke Ligwer, el VI
Toion Mariew, (R, p 73, & 8 Mg/ /wore naratmnLosem OXT /ITASASID/
/
O M.
©

—_—
 Trwe or Faloe Pope* Chatey

ic socier) moephe (ke & New Church. and then rey

owon f the vible Church i “vesble persons” wha haee ,,."‘.:
fath i ke “earts and mie” e Sedevacanits e g
cmiraccd the Frotestont heresy of the invisible Chypey 4
inexcapabie conchusion of ther? posion 1 that the et Churt
et s omequonte it the gat of el e revaie g
e Church, whch s conary 0 the prome of Chnat. Ty s e
chapes e il cmmre the four marks of the Church ang 1
dowrg, Further expose the errors f the Sedevacantis
thestjy,
|

Chapter2
~ The Church and Its Marks ~

1o Chipter 1 we saw thet

secicly We alo saw that the Churthech Chur ch 1 an indefeciible pwible
has certan distinguhing merks,
whuch enable 1t 10 be kvewn, ot enly
true Church founded by Christ In thisaschap& reli peus sorety, bor as the
ter, we will conmider each,
of these marks wdividually, and. wn o dein
Sedevacantist sccts lack these marks, and 2} theg, only
will see- 1) thet the
Chur
clauns to possess them 13 the Catholic Church - thet 15, thechChurthetch even
thet
everyone except the Sedevacantists recognizes as the Catholxc Church,
Because these marks must be with the true Church untif the end of e,
1f the Catholic Church {the visibic society) were 10 lose 2 single one of
them (which the Sedevacantists claim b be the case) 1t wauld mean
“the gates of hell” hud prevailed agawst the Church, which i not
possible (Mt 16.19)
Although we will address all four musks in this chapter, we will
succinctly treat the first three (one, holy, catholic), and focus specal
attention on the fourth mark, apestality suxe thus i acknowledged by
the Church's theologians as being the most important of the four
marks, in the sense thet 1t 15 the one that most clearly dwtinguishes the
true Church from false churches and heretical sec. At the end of the
chapter, we will see the dificulty thet apestoicty poses for the
Sedevacantist apologists We wall clese the chapter by brefly
addressing some of the "end tmes” propheces used by the
Sedevacantist apofogists to defend the Sedevacantist thess.
The Marks of the Church

I Chapter 1, we discussed the material and forma viedlity of the

true Church which is known by her four marks. The marks of the
Church are her unily holmess, cablmty and apostohcrty (“unam,
smnctem, cuthohcam, apestolioem”) Just as the emer of Sedevacankem
ends by denying the three attrbutes {as we saw In the tast chapter) so
100 Sedevacanhsm effectively derues these four marks, sinwce it cannot
Pomnt to any Church today thet possssses them. Because these marks
are ot found in the Sedevacaniat secn (o€ in the “haares and munde’
of "true behevers”), the Sedevacaniis ace again forced 10 denv the
Vislbifty of the Church, since the marks are those things by which the

5
Trae o False Pope? Chapter

et Cinreh con be lowwe. Let s 0% €220 Lo these oy,

he
The ChuriscOn
rc ness of unity The
sneh o
of the Chuibs
et o 1 i ity of de cn e, worhedupand o
. The wnut of docwnne w professed in ber Cre
et de fi ve tro chu ngs , whi ch al Cat hot ics are required iy
B i als0 unified n hey
e eniwih the asen ofd attne Fth The Chutyrch
s and wershp, thu aspect ol uni 1S not compromised
udmmdmhvmdmumc humhlusuy the
M.mm_numdumm wwumhmmhy,
\re aho thes
and p st, the
Pope Ancording to the promue ofne,Chuwor
Chuirth will aways poasess thos threefold uraty ol doctri ship
and govemment.
Material Divisions

Due 1o the imperfecon of the human cendition, It Inis possi ble for
share 1o be metera divisers. within the Church doctnnoe
due Yo an erter of fact A matenal davision in government
accurved, foe example, during the Great Westem Schism (1378-1417)
when there were twe and eventually three claimante to the papal
theone, and t was unclear which ef the claimants was the true Pope
Bui & Van Neort cxplaine, us matenal diviion within the
membershep of the vieible socwty did not cavee & Tupture n forsal
ity He explasned that “at the time of the Western Schism, when for
farty years two ot thrce men claimed 1o be the sovereign pontill,” unity
“was wnly materally, nat formally, interrupted*2
Due te those exiraerdinary circumstances in which it was difficull
for the fanivul ts ascertan which of the alleged Popes was, in fact, the
tewe Pope “thase whe through ne laull of thewr awn gave alleglance 10
o0 illegrumake pope would ne more be schwmatics than a peron
waald be a heretic whe, desirows ef following the proaching of the
I ——Y
The Chuerch and Its Masis 5

Church, would admit a false decwine becase he was wder the

impression that it was taught by the Church 2 Laer 1 i chapter s
will address matersal divisien in doctrime, such as what eccurred dun
the Arian crisis e the lourth century We will sew hew there can b &
meieriel doctninal divison withen the ‘of the Clurch,
during time of doctrinal crisk, without there being a fermal ruprars
un doctrinal unity * "'
The Church 1s Holy
Hellness consiels in umion with God, the Supreme Good and
Seurce of all holiness. Sy speakang, holness can be applicd te
vationat creatures alone However it can be predicaied aralogeusly sf
irvational things, such as Church buildngs, altars, sacramentlefc. s,
inasmuch as they are set apart and used foc the worship of God.
The Chusch is hioly, firstly, because 1t was lounded by Jasus Chriet,
who is All-Holy It 1 bely becavse it w dedicated and set apart by God,
and because ol the mission it recerved from Chiist, which w the glory
of God and salvation of seuls. It w holy n the dectrines that it feaches.t
in il spectal gifts or charisme, and 1t w externally hely in many of le
holy members. Commentung an the mark of heliness, Van Neert wrete:
“Chrst 3 Church 1 holy o0 scveral seuns €. because of i
Founder and Head, whe u the ealy-begoten Sen af Ged. became
of itx pucpose, which 15 the ghary of Ged and the sancuficiton of
wankind, sbeut these thers 5 e difficulty Catbeli toachmg staes
10 sddibion that the Chrch, by the matiuts of Chnet and thercfoce
nocessanly and irevecably, 4 sdorned witk a Uureefold ratenul and
visshle beliness. vt of s means of sancufissuen, Sut of 1
members, and that af s chariems"3
The cherisme that the Church will always possess refer 10 the
miraculous gifts and miracles that will alwavs be found in the Church.
While there wall be moce miracles in some ages than sthers, “in every
age” the Church will “be enriched with certan muraculovs gifis
threugh which Ged marefest 1 heliness.”>

o
4 A we il see loer the dcrinm defrarvely ought re et b0 gbe
by thebChareh e g
confomed whl et peotecd b7 s e, v 5 v
prelaien
+ Chret» e, p 138
i p 1%
 o Fater Pope”
Trae Chapr;
faliness of 6 members, this does nottheexcQ‘u lude
in the field of
‘Tr:ar“:ud etwith thethe eff“whecteet” of On m\“;':
e eoes mal S 30 possn g
T el they are capable of W # e oul of confornyy
ands moral precepts that they profeaugy Ty,s
i the Church s doctrine
e chaf ace “chalf rather than *wheat” s preciacly bec
e fal 1o Trve up 10 the seachungs they peofese, The holincsse, of
s fownuthonsed who by the help ollivigr do sancusy
ac
s . partakong o the sscram ent e and ng in
e seaching o the Chusch. Ordinary hlmess conaiss of Invng
e habstua) staie of sanchivigrang ce, which entails being free from,
everl y diffcult witheut the sacramentsbul , very atainabe
i them), suistordag hames ia found in those membersg whe se
herm
wruordinary ioteriec sanchty mansfeot stelf in & hfe of shunin
We aieo find the mursculous dunsns m the post-Vadcan
virtue
|
of the
Church, Padre Pio for example (who remained o memberw 1958)
‘madern Church and accepted Paul V1 s Pope until his death edthe
l He posses
hus hfe
countiess muracies throughou
miraculous gt of teedng hear. which he did daily in te
conjenneral He alos swraculeusly bore the wounds of Chnst (the
“sigmate™) wehuch he suffered url hus death. This 15 just one exsmple
ok the durwaw presant in the Church snce Vatican 1)

The Church w Cathelic or Universal

The riext merk of the Church s catholicity No Church has

thew,
been called by the rame Cariwlic since the sarllest years of her
existence The Apesiles’ Creed says “1 believe In the Holy Calholic
Church.™ The Nicene Creed says the same 1 believein the One Holv
Cathwh a0 Apostolic Church.” We also find the Chubeing rch called
by the name Cathelsc 1n the whtings of the earlicst Church Fathers, such
2 the Bishep of Antiech and wnartyz, St. Ignative. whe is commonly

o8 2 e o i rcard st Prde P, ey Detore b death, 1ot 3 betier %

rum«nw.—uuunm-m..-vw
b mrockl of Yo Vinkgans' wovseg, ish o Captulos Fathere. | reed sovac 0
AP ok ay Bt ael i 2 wpivie of Loth, love and simlunce (9 he prCANNN S
Iuteity imac
44tn
Vour g
tevt thank your Liuisa for en
e cea
sr and daciive workt
T ot opekon i e oo ancy| chea l Huomane Vider sl | anteir iy e aie ot
e o e e e
o e
The Chus rch amd v f1s Mark
Chapter 2

believed 10 have been ordamned by S, Peter * On his way o Rome

where e was to be martyred
Smymacans (m 107 A D) 1n whichSt helgnaius WIote an cpusw0ethe
said “Whereo, Chnst
m.,u.omxm-m"s.muu-sm :-’:“u:m ‘:
Catlwlic s been used s the proper ame forthe Cirurc fmunded by
Christ
But the mark of "catholiity” dacs et refer 1o the nsw of the
Church bt to 1ts true uniersaltty Unsversality means thal the Chorch
ol confined 1o one period of kewe, ec % ene ratien, but
throughout the entire warld The Catechum of the Cauncil of Trant
explalne
“The third mark of the Church it she 13 Cothelc that !
umversal Asd junily 13 she called Catholic becssec. 2 SI !
Avgusting says *She is dufTuced by the splcader of enc (aith from
the nang 10 the seritng wa't Unlike repblics of e
utitutien, er the 300 of haretics, she 1% nat conlined 1o my enc
owunicy wr claus of noer, bot smbcaces withen the amplondc of her
tove all mamkind, whether barbanans s Scythusns, siaves e
frec maime
e or n,
famakc Thercfore % wrimem Thes hast
rodcemed us ta God 10 thy blosd, et of evaty e and loupus,
and pewpandleniati .on and hat made U6 (o our God. 2 kingow®
(Apec 59101712

Meral Cathalicity
‘The Church's theologians make a distinciien between cathelicity by
might, and cathobicity in fuct Catholiaty
by right mears the Church “bas
the aptitude 10 spread aver the whole werld because there 1 neshung

*Poc cxamphe Jofus Malalas (491 578), the Grrek chremasie froun Aniooch. sokd. *SL Petwr
ordaledSt Ipyuatins after the dedth of Evontiws. The Dublin Review val. 123 (Lowaor,
Burms & Do, fuly - Octwber 199] . 23
¥The Eplatie of St (jratius e the Sarymacene, Chapter VIR . ypatne 4 the st
Wtemer of St Prier 20 bihop o e Charch ot Anoch New i the Acw of e
Apostien, we learn thet st Asbech e disciples were fird emed Chrisurs” (Ack.
1128} Sriups ot Antwech, Chrvtaars were aiow st o] “Catholis” (e ermm being.
ymonyeue at that ime. urkihe bedav), givers e uar o the rarme “Cashwlic O™ by
St Ipatien i thus eter
1 The Charch a universel 8 lame bmetpy i iichidas o o fsihl who have eve ved.
“Hrom Adarn to e prenmt day, ot whe shall e The Cotmm of the el @ Tromt
Rackdond. et TAN Boeks and Publishers, I 1. . 108
5t Auguanne s, 131 & 18] de weanp
4 T Cakeupe of the o of Trat. o 10,
 Troe o Pulee Pope? Chapey

2 siructural mellwmmfion"llgmkfly‘
foct refers o
acwad sproad of the Church threughout the werld 1
_:‘:-m- coonis 1o il pooplc. 1t W called .A,.[t
ml--rnm-flymmt.m.-nmlu
maral sotboliciy 14
ca
Van Neect explairs ihat orce the Church obtained efounding
" fi:‘(wm i did 1n the decades follewing its ), g,
of the Churgy,
characterainc became a pespetual and necessary quality
He resaris.

“The Church 1 oadewsd wik menal catholicky Chrs's

Comrch, afher s begunng, should aiwsys be conspicums for us
monly wnrversel diffuswn.
To sy the roquuemens of maml cathalicty (s foot - 3
snicy hcieageng ¥ Canst 3. Church moraciually and acoseanly
we saind there was tequeced ‘2 greas mumber of memfrom masy
Aforen oo Such diffusien ebvieusly, canciot be had
witheut 2 roaly large womber of sdhercrit™4.
Waczuee meral cxthainrty roquires *a great number of people;” the
cwibie ety will never be reduced t only a small remnant There may
came 2 time when the intemal wrrtue of faith 1s only present in a smal
rmber of the members of the visible Church. But, as we will see
Chiapier 3, the low of interier aith alone does nol, in and of itell
acparate a wan frewn the visible Church. Hence, the loss of faith in the
ond nanas, alinded te by Cheist (Luke 18.8) and St. Paul (2 Thes 23,
does rwt conwradict the beaching shat the Church wil always possess 3
Van Neerl sasd, “s greal nusmber of man from many different nations.”
The Church is Apestolic
The Snal wark of the true Church s apostatiaty Apostolicity s the
mast unperinnt of the fr marks, 2ol enly because It implicilly
@smiars the stbers. but aloe bacaisee & 0wt clearly distinguishes
the
—_
"t ot 10
T sty Mkl St e sty wil b avsioud bebors the Sraard Comg
4 ooy e
'_;:’-0_‘ darg oo.fll"-i‘d'—mfi'-h-m
Oty sy 4V 1 gl vts}
 Y
The Chirch and It Marks Coupar

true Church from lalse churches and haretical sects. The Catwinc
Frcyclopedn explaine
“Apeatalicty w the mart oy which the Chorch af
recopuzed s woical with the Church faundod by v Corn
upan the Apestics. 1115 ol arcat importamec because 1 1 the sarast
indication of the trac Church ol Chret. i ¢ rmes samly marhoood
and 1t virtually conmne the ether theve marks ey, oo, Uney,
Sanculy, snd Cashelicaty ™"
Al of the non Cathalic “churches” and secs that profess o be
Chrstian acknowledge the mrk of apostolsaty n seme sense, but the
deflnition always “musses the mark” {pun intended) i one way ar
another For example, Van Neort explains that Prowesiants usually
mean by apostolicity, apostolicty ef docwwne That 1a all that i
required, they say, and it suflces” He then adds “But Greek
schismatics and Anglicare - at keast 2 large number of shem - require
wn addinon to spostoliaty of decinne, some sert of apostoliaty of
government They do net, however, specty iegrhmacy of the mode of
succession.”* Van Noort then gives the e understandung of Whis
mark, # taught by the Catholic Church. *According to Cathol
teaching, Chinst's Church essenibally and necessanly aryoysa wiple sert
of apostohcity apostolity ef doctrine, govemment. and
membership *1*
The principal difference beiween the teaching of the Catholic
Church and that of the Anglican and Eastem Orthodox sects regarding
the mark of apostolicity, w aposteliaty in government Ths 1 because
they lack legehumate aposiofic succession (lormul aposiolic succession),
which is also lackang i the Sedevacanhat sect. In lact, 1t w apostolicity
in government (ihe clearast mark of the irue Church) that gives the
Sedevacantist apologists the mest difficulees. Thewr powtien forces
them to openly depart from the oaching, of the Church, e elae mvant
wild theories to keep from having to reyect what they know the Church
teaches. We will address this thoroughly in s moment, but before deing.
50, we will irst address apostolicrty tn dectree, and apowtolicny 1
membershup
(15 vmane
¥ Cothoa: Emcyniopudie (1913}, vl L . 642 N shat The Caol: Emrysiepdoo
10 11973 e eoerd o 1911y e P, . 42 e i
Wor gl ool Encyclope {ovigiaal 15 vohunws phas ¢ e Ve 10 whuch .40
Inden) For ewms of reference. we wil simmply cvior to thin 3oy 28 W"o
Encychopeda (t913)°
O sp. 191
- ver
 False Pope?
Trorae Capyy

Apestelleityin Dectrine
\pewtelicity in deckne means the Church will always reigy,
,.,.:miumu reccived from the Am"flwmnh ::
i e a fery,
guarsniees that the Church will never Impos
upon the larhéul to be believed vathSedevthe ament of laith “Thin iy,
e swcking ot soday forthe acantists since they beley
, and Infallibility has feg,
ity of doctrine no longer areexivsmista
‘ioiated About thas, however they ken
ve, even i,
‘A hustony shows, apowtolicity in dectrine will thesurviAnan heresy
severe dactrmal criss evthun toe Charch stelf, suchtheas fath of many wa
e fourth century During the Arian crisis, unknowingly dnfiel
shaken and 2 mayonity of bishops knowngly, or
ko heresy (about the docteine of the divinity of Chrat, no less) |y
Jargers, who edted the book The Farth of the Earty Fathers, estimaied
\hat between 7 and 99 percent of the bishops in char Churchy
of thege
dsoceses dnfted 1o heresy,™ yet the Church never defimtroely taugi
heresy (by imposng It upen the faithful), and the true Faith contivied
o be prafemed Iy 2 maponty of the laity
Whileit mus have seemed “impossibie” {or the bishop s
to have
wavered n thelath s0 such an extent, 1t happened (and it also werth
Totngat the Church has never aught that these 97 to 9% percentof
buhops lest thex office pro focko al the tmeT) This hustoncd
peocedent serves ¢ 2 useful remunder fos our awn times, by showing
us what o and ideed has huppened in the true Church Dunng the
Pasm Church, we can expect that God will allaw the Church
of the on
wndure everythung that can be permtiad withoul any of His promee
beng vielated Therefore, in times such a6 ours, il s always helpful s
conseder what has sccusred n the Church, in ordes 1o knaw what ot
accur with ouofthell prevailing.
the gates
Cardmal Newman, who studied the Arian crisis in depth
ssbwraied the percentage of bishops whe fell inlo heresy to be closer 0
0 peroant. He expluns whal tranepared during this extraordinary

-_—
o
—1
Al e
o
1 the o
RWiahopL
s 1 pamatan of
e
seve. was o provte r
e
. amly 2 b yoars befare Caregoey [Nasusncols
than semellrg
3% 6 el 10 dactrne ewr, devormunen by puplacky todsy 7
Felers. e 1 Koragerti o wpperats mt oo Spars * fueger, The Farke of o L2
Pt e ot Uhev Lt gical Pross, e
1979, p 390
vt e o th b .

S er—
The Church and Its Marks Cupe

prampt aed concondant at Nocaws en the e whe sc achen wis

of Arianism, dd pot,
15 8 class or order of men play 3 goed part
conscquent upen the Council wnd the laty did 1wThethe woiley
people 10 the lenph and beeadth af Chrusiendom, Catoalie
obetinate chamof piCatho
on lic sit b .t cge e it o
‘cwaric. there were great and Wusineus exceptions fire, Athanagrus,
Hilathery Lati
,n Euabiue, and Phocha and shcr
drshern
is , Bastl
,,
the two Gregones and Ambther reo arcswibe
ers,;toe whe
uft 1f they
cdad noth
red. ing clae
After noting that some of the laity wnfortanately fallowed the
laheps into heresy, Newman went en te nete that mest of the ity
held fast 1o the faith
*And agsin 1n speaofking
the lanty om the whele takung1
wide view of the htory. we are ablunad o say et e goverung
‘bady.of the Church came shart, and (hc severnad [the gy were
ae-caneni e fah, aml, caurape, and cesiancy This is 2 very
remarkable fact, but here 15 2 macal in u. Porkape 1t was permiked
10 wrder 10 Umprrsa upen the Church at that very time passing out ef
her suite of persecutwa in har bong temporal mcendarcy., the
preatest evagelical lesson, that, net the wise and pewerful Wi the
obscure the unlcamed, and the = esk consttute ber real secngth. 11
was mamly by the Sahful people that Paganise was overthrown it
was by the fauhFul people under the fesd of Athanaandsithe
Egyptian bishops, and M semc places supporicd by thert Buhops or
priests, thet the wors f hervases was withsiood and stamped eul of
the sacred termrory "%
The Arlan criass is 2 parallel of the situanon in which we find
surselves taday, when vaet numbers of Catholic bsheps have been
Infected with the heresy of Modernism, ust as the mafority of the
Wishops in the fourth century were wfrcied with the heruey of
Ananiem But, in spite of the docinnal crisls cutrenily aiticting the
Church's hierarchy, the true Faith w stll professed with clanty by
countiess traditional-munded Cathohcs roughout the weekd (proesk
and Lty atike). just aa it waa dunng the bime of the Arian crisis.
2 Netwrran, Arions of the Fourh Crutory, 3% o, (Lomdom: Piabarion & Co. 1504 1. 48
famphasis added).
I, P 445448 (emphonio). a
s

——————————E
 Trme o Fatse Pope? Chapiey

Material Divisien

can be o mwiemal division in the membershofip the

‘—:’:;,./M,wmflhfl!mlwdlvmm AS Wit o
abeve, this accurred during the Greal Western Schusm, whey e
Covarch was divided (maberially) into three major camps (Rome py
1t Avignon. due e there beung multiple claimanks 1o the pupy
Sombaned with sufficent uncertainty as to who was the true Poge Ty,
natenal drvimon was due Y0 an errer of fct (who is the true Paper)
It 3 there can be an ervor of fact im gewrrmimen!, 50 100 can they
‘e s exror of fact m dactrme - that is, an exrac in knawing what s 1o by
ssecriied 1o . fasth. Those who adhere te the Magister the ruj
as ium
of failh, yet profess & faae docwnne, or refuse (0 accept a true doctnge
ecacas they misbenly belicve that what they peofess o reect 1 iy
accerd with the twachang of the Church, are nol truly in hermy
Candal llot explaine that hercsy consisk in vejectng the
Magetcrom a the rule of (aith, not simply in adhening w0 an emw
Wecasse sne swstakenly Bebeves it is taught by the Church Iy
ducusmrg forwal and material haresy, the Cardinal said, “the nature o
harcsy cormets in withdrawal from dhe rule of tha evclesasaal
Magutenum, which dess nol take place™ if there “s simple error o
it comcarnang what the rue dictstes [ve , what the Church teaches]
One of the charactertics o Modernism is ambiguity, confusen
and doublespeak. whach ebecures the Faith itself, resuiting in confusen
for the tathiul in knewing what, precisaly. the Church teaches. Durng
the Modemuat s o our day, the obpect of Faith (what swst be
eiscved) has been sbecured by erroe and smbiguity - at the hands of
Ve very Iwedars of the Church, na less (just as in the Arian crisis) But
1= spute of this s in the Fasth that Ged has permutted, none of the
Tecent Popes have defintimely impascd any heretical doctrines upen the
Church s mamers of fasth (which the chariem of infallibility would not
permat). As we will show in more detal) in Chapler 13, none of the
oveitus, ambsgueus (etmulabions, et spparent errors ef Vatican 1
ich hove cied ol o the cveluson and el
e Y} were propes cdes that require
ss doctrin
amand of (auh.> Tharciore. there fua wen no formal rupture in the

St o ot Th o8 sttt prided 0 Crpir &

Chagtors 11 and 14, o suctungsod Vetica
e ok ot et 1 45 amard ot Wo )eeoly magowe
n &
wil e S
—— B rvenliural aad way b wipemded udet anon

Vimemm—
P ——EEY
The Chnrch amd1d 13I Marks 2

Faith - nesther 1n what has been Propescd a6 a mater f Fath, e what

st be assented oy faith,
To further clarify. a formal dviesn accurs when
a principle of urty, and not when this er thet nm:"(::::::
members) 1s discantinuous in some way with the whele A formal
doctrunal division in the fubi weuld ccur for examifple, the Fape
tmposed an eror of heresy to be believed by ail the fathtul with she
mscn t Not every docknal wachung of » Pepe, catechum, or
of futh
even a council 5 proposed as an sbpect of fatk Only those doctrines that
have been proposed infellibly are b be assenied b with She asent of
faith.Z Doctrines that ze et proposed infa areilib lyte
only adhered
with & refigious awent, which i an assent of sbedience, and net of faul.
Thus 13 why a formal drvisian in she Faih weuld enly eccut i the Charch
wfallibly taught an errer {whuch % 2 canwaductien), sance only thet
which has been proposed nfallivly 13 amenied Lo with the assent of
faith As we will demonstr m futureaie
chapters this has not eccurred,
and cannot occur by virtue of the negative protechon of intalliblity
Therefore, the ercors and noveities thet have spresd througheut the
membershup of the Church cannot be said ts have caused a formal
rupture 1 the Farth, even though there % 3 materal dactrmal divissen
within the membersh ip
of the Church.
Notwithstanding the fart thet the Modermwat prelhave atesblurred
corteun teachings by an ambiguity thet lends riself 10 an esreneous, and
at imes even heretical anderstanding, all Catholics stll profess the
same Creed on Sunday, and no errors o herasies have been wfaltibly
proposed and imposed upon the Church, which wieans the Church
Today cantinue s (sbyec
to be unubed in whattrv asered) 1o
must beely
by Faith 1t 3 important to note, howeve r, s unity in
thet the Church
doctrine 15 not conditioned upon how many pesple actually adhere to
what the Church officially seaches, much less how comectly each
prrson understands every sspect of the faith, rather apostolicty in
dactrines means thet the doceines officully taught by the Charch and
imposed upon all as & matter of fith have been believ ed
by the Church,
& least implicit ly, .
since the begnning
Let us turn again to the Arian crisis te see what paralics we can
find between thet docinal crs and the sne we face kodav St Sasil,
one of the relatively few stalwart bishops wha lived duni the ng
Asian
crisis, describes what he and the fathful endused dunng that penod in
which the Church apprared b be almeet snairely overtaken ¥y heresy'

Thie it will e dcsamed o Iemgth s Chgaee 13

»

e
Tracor Faise Pope? Chepier;

e dangur 3 0 confined 30 00 Church Tis 41 l

of ey
T The docwnes of Gedliness € o1of crtume d riey
U
e Covashare m eoiy. nf sbeioro
theus n n, the. i
O oo place o wahor ahd the G 568 1a km, hoW vpaly
.;mwtam.]u’mnl:um'?m, u“
" fmore cligible fos the m ersight of the
mx"fimu.m-emlmenenare €\Ct_s o fecd thLants
e \newlcdge ambiiaus penduag,
posseasions which they
Do
of scif mulgence
fo the poe The ccuri c oBRervofati
and Weibery
on g
he canee
o are. there 1 e resm mt upon si0_Unbelevers doubilaugh
a1
ey sce, wnd the weak aee. unsttced,U adler
e pred e e s, Becaun aiosof he
ek vdmem it Ui wuth Reli peopl
gi ocsieuce
e Crop s ,
o very basphng waguc w et beosc. Sacted things e
plice
v o e Lty whe ace sound 0 (008 avoud thei solide
B rvab. 1 chwsls of impicty. sad rasc ec. hinde s mom
at
e ke 0 the Lard ' Beavo which. Wh scems e be
ey of sl even e porien 10amoni us
T o ] 3v e G calamitics beset ke
ase which camc upon Jecusmlem when I} was besic ged ™
The Acian crems an historcal example of how the Churh the
scffered a very severe materul dwion in doctnne, & majonty ofrun
bahape dnfied 1o heresy, and the Pope himecl! signed a sem-A
{amingueus) prafesmon of falth.™ The Church was shaken to I cre
Jo L s woday Vel, the Pope did not unpesc the Anan hecesy upon he
Church. Foe hw reason, the Arian crsis serves as a near wential
porofali today’cis craw Those who femained strong n the faih
retused to atiend Maw af churches Infected with Anarsm, fust »
san Catbwlics today, who have remained strong In the faith, refusete
attend Mass i churches infected with Modernism 51 Basil furiher
expl what theum fadhfued
l endured
“Momms bave come o s pass the peopl have leftesheic
oien of prayer and asscmbl ed - 4 pitible gL
m the deserts,
732 Rant, el Lot &0 e Biwey of ty dmd 1 Laken
froem Newrra T an,
Gtk s
e Faturs fambn Sorm. O rd Compny 1108} 52 7677
A » gty tarval sy of conr f Poge [ sberiuen. [l wervte: “We b
etk st derg T {Sartn, yiebdin, 4 fowcr and winbing et mady four
o se o o mocalied b Sarmian el 1ot . e b
Ierrmudan o bt dcseyaod of h shurd Seman Synokd of W Tie il ek do 4
Wkt wruphes ot the St Aran charaxtes b i of Swae trrwemlas wert ¥
oo
Tt 1 0 o-\m:zm. Srom ty Ovigimeeduveh]
b Xty'“l‘
rfi
The Chwrch and Its Markw

women snd chidoid rn

ran,,wd men ohorne
wretchedly fa wre
the open
ogav, - mf
smowsaant | To ths they subrar, becoaes they will have a6 part

Those poisoned with the Arlan heresy raterred o

Catholcs by the deregatery
became & badge of honor ko thoseterm wha
of 'mmfl-u':um
an exact parallel of Loday,St Raeil descrremau ned firm i the futh ™ i
ibed the one offense” thet was
nol telerated by those infecied with the Anan heresy, which oot
to be the same offerme that w net talerated today by the
Modernists “Only ane offnse s news vigorously punished * wrove St Basi,
“an sccumaic sbserv of enc
out favher
e s tradsbons.%
St Athanasius, one of the greatest defenders of the Faith dunng the
crisis, was banned from hu diocese five mmes, spent sevenicen yeacs in
extle, and suffered an uast exconununicanen fram the Fope 3 By all
appeatances.St Athanasios ws an excommunschis icat, ed
reallty he was one of the greawest defenders of the Fauthmusic but i
the Cacch
would ever know
‘The Arian heresy shews us what Ged can permut His Church and
the fauthful to endure, witheut the gatofes Tell prevarling, and without
the spostolicity of dactrine being loat. By serving a6 a precedent for
today, we can see hew God draws geod eut of the evils that afflict the
Church. If our current crisis 15 & fersshadowing of the great apostasy
(s many bebieve), it will alio serve as & useful precedent for these whe
live dunn that gtme And. no doubt. the crms duning the finai

= Newmman, Arstem f e d#h Ceniury (Laden. Pickering aee Ca., 1), p 458
5 2t sl sdmburded 10 ey e e Ariow Fod sbt Ve ity ke
uthered around leyal pries, kept e e taith and ameribicd for Mase ewisnde
Clios...The sherive e, couniry Chrintana, g/ven thesm by s Arians beussms a badge
o horar The (aiiVub Laity and slergy bept the faith s, 1 W1 the Secund Rewmencal
Coul wae corvvernd 11 Cocwiantople, the Cracd compleid nd Artaruns: opon
Condemned” Cound Neri Cappoci, Tt of Qi Twwem for Falh” Maps//
‘wrw ewincomy libeary/CANGNLAW/ CRIFATTHHTM.
=i (emphasis sdded).
¥ “Sarne Cathelic apolegeet have attempind b prave that Libciun sewher contirmed e
msemmurication of Athanesue noe sebmcrfied 49 ore o the Socmulae of Siembum (el
B4t Cardinal Newman has o deubt 118 the fll of Liberuss # an hsewed foct. Thas '
0 the came with the e andern warks of tvbrvmce et sied and the ecieduated
Tl Dicioamy, eived iy Al ars) Al The L e it st s there . &
fourtold curd af evidurne ned susly brokas 1~ the irssmonies of S Athanssuin L
Hilary Swzoume. snd St ferame & s Wt "l the acoown are 3 o
irdhepuradent of arad conaens with rack siter ~ Cuvim. Mishast, Apeleges Fro Muand
Lafbos. (Karean Gty Mlismwurt Angebus Poom, 1999, Appenin |
 Tre or Faiee Pope’ Chapy,y

of ansichrist, will be much more diffieul;

iy
m.::m.ummummum.y
Apestehicity of Gavernment and Membership
dlvlnlx;eImmune.L )
The Church 16 a monarchical s::;ty bye memb
s s a0 unequal secrety 1n which som ers goveny
with the ,:':
5‘“...” are govemed The buhops together p faith
conotitute the Eccleme docens (the “Church teaching™), the divi m,
The
sepresent the Ecclesis desorms (the “Church taught®) hier
I eten the eachimg Chrch and the Imught Church (the archy ang
e Iniv) i o ene of Ewo separate societies of €ven two halves o by
Sare society e two distct sets of members Rather the spre drvinn
power amsested By Chtor
the n defi
s net, ulawve
betw these with
ee
thy
and prackical i, en the one hand and thosalon e who recogriae
power on the siher Abbo theug hy
huerarch e represent b
Church, because the bishops themselves must beheve whatthe
e Chrch maches, they, 100, aleng with the Laity, maupk parteof
beheving Church. %
‘Apessohcity of membershep is sometimes referred o as apoststicmes
origen ™ It sears hat the Church 26 a whole remaine iumerically
and the same crwbic secicty se that which existed during the days of the
‘Apost¥ies The hieraschy, which is the principal part of the Church
(instituted drectly by Chrat) will remam numerically onic with the
aposelc callege In fact. the bishops collectively (the college of
ahe=¥) form “one and the same sundicsl persen with the apostolk
= lewmmmach 20 thry are the depastarie and v ergars of the prower of purisdiction, e
Pipe sl o Db ermmttnte thr Chutach Smaabuing | Ecrirnss dhervoto], I iromsch 3
v 520 P ety perve. e il brarte tw b derdicaird ty Cad they are e of
:u:-u.-.‘l::-a-q They are e, ke all athey Chrmtions. sndst
mbingriog, S cxmm mivatan, b0 sccvpe all utezseves periainieg. 1o W
iviaw ko vy wium ¢ Lol fo S o 00 propos. e asieonnly W the wersd for
:—hl:.:h-h_i 1 A0 o ducrove routinng, o saclesiantical Lo i
rmahes hwhmmh—d‘vlw'
tbvern.
—had Wy Cardunal pumcret, st of By Wond imvwrste (Lurwden aned New York. Swrd
= e Ot O 7 08
Numercals o memas ot sad the same samrel barly. ecer anuph the ik
MlP ke e2 by il mimermb o i by b vt W e o
2D 1o o ol smuatemsanding ropdieng, e hevats collrge of e, WY houbl
T ot s s i ore e et dwoewe S5
e o AT e ot ptadictum cvrs the votioe Church The ieam
i 72 4 prhomas s e e b1 gy 4 th el O
PP et ot S Bttt s s the el e
Y
fi

TheCuri 1 1 My Crapser2

g‘lkr,"“yulk-lh(mlmchu(fi.llwhde‘
moral body with the Church
members are “born” into the fram the wme of lhz:wldun-‘ln.::r::
Church and Vhan die, benng replaced by
others 4o forth a0 58 on. througheut the sges.
rematns onc Regarding the mumerical onenessbtofthethemeraChur
l dy et
ch, Van
Neort wrote
“A moral bedy desprc the fuct tt & seneandy undcrgom
chan and Tenov
ge alion 1n s pers remaen
s musen
el , the
caily
same meral bedy s long a it retai ne the same sacial swuckue and
the same authanty
Mty A mere specific bhenws weuld mever sausfy the
requirements of apesiolicty %
Just as the wmdefctiblity of the tsbe sty refues the
Sedevacantist claam that the Church in 1958 morphed wio a New
Church after elecung fohn XXIII (43 we saw in the last chapter), se tos
does the numencal onencss of the Church refute tis error This is
becausc the Church of October 27, 1958 (before electing John XXII) is
numencally one and the same Church as thet which exwied on Octeber
28, 1958 {afier electing John XXII), and the Church of 1958 is
numerically one with the Church that custed 1n Jamuary of 1966,
Likewise, the Church of 1966 15 numencally one with the Church of the
Apostles, as well as with the Church of today In other words, the
Church that ever excepyo
t the Sedev
ne acanb
,ets frcognize as the
s
Catholic Church 18 numenically one with the Chusch of the Aposties.
This demonstrates that the Cathotie Church of taday cannot be & New
Church, as the Sedevacantis claum
ts.
Furthermore the Sedevacanbet sects did not ongunate unid the mid
#o lake 197081 If the true Church defected tn 1958, and there were ne
can exerciae I authority sogularty ox il b he ot bshape ot o rcvunervest
okt ori gl fopdondvain by ey
mcreise of i univrrea) Fuisdscuers The Wohops collecirly do i conaaaste & sccond
peee sutheeity i she Charch twhich 1 the crrer o “colepsably | bt only pwhcyer
10 the autherity that belar property ko the Pope sehen gutbered ot oe el
council Cardinat kounet explaics that “the Jowet 18 re the wiversal Churh rrvabes
03 of 4l Inthe Severeign Pordl, then in he eptacopal collgr oo with the Porlt:
20 8 can be evercned aither mryly by the Sovereign Powk, o jare by b Tt and
the epucopal collgr the et o the Severegn Fosndt smgh and that of the Swresongs
Porkift uniked with the plecupal collog coraliing e e s sty dact
Bt o sl mpreine pusver._” (et Gk of thr P Scurmat . 6123
* Chrit s Chreh p 156 fomphasi adied).
-t
9 Thers were s individusts whe qucesvncd o riecied the Papms prie 1o the mid-
9700, et e Sedevasariin s, 28 e, did ot st e o shat
 Troe uc Felae Pope? Crop,

Sedevacanko secw ura] 20 years Laker, where was he,;}*“-«

,,,,,."‘.‘.,‘.,"m.‘m.rummum...
M“"",_,_.(.,mm.mmumaunn“,,,m,‘-
s f ell woukd of have prevad agairet the Chuch, ot
contraxy 1 the prosmssc Chret.

Apestelicity of Gevernment

ema
o gov(mission ant
of suthority®) i not
e angticng mart of o W Charch, and the st xnpaneney
furty3
e wewhas,® but 1t ales represents the greatest difficul
Wnfl‘mfi-p-u-lo«ammopmlymwmh
Chrch teaches, of eise mvent sovel theories (based o1 1o veritayy
4w sty sheur thesis.
iy et meare that “the Church s shap
ruled by posters who ferm one same jurudical persen with the apoute
I othar wordk, i always ruled by pastors who are the 4
lepiwuste muccessers.”* As we have scen, just as the Church lned s
nusmencally ane with the apostolic Church, 50 likewise her hierarchy
ruamencally sne with the apostolic hicrarchy, which will always conet
o legimaie succm mers
of the Apesties AL this polnt ,
an imperie
quesnen aness. what mmakes 4 person 8 legitimate succeser of b
apewies” To anwwee s question, | is necessary 10 make » distncwn
Itween the prwar of Orders and the power of purdichen
The Power of Order and Jurisdiction
The members of the boaching Church (the hierarchy) participake &
the hrcleld affice of Chowt (who s Prophet, Priest, and Xing) by
of the Church®To
and gevernmy e members
fuduny, sanchfpmg
-
:‘.'--“:"—-'bqv fan News. A ,._.....,"" - poverment - ot i
ey e i e Cha 3 whe fur
et savde,e ¥ 'byshways sreed
sy e s who pded
¥y pastars o 90
A ot i (Ot s e, . 131) v
e of grremters by e e et tar per
of the ian
mrutes d ot49
becsss
G oy ™ W assiomd 1 smy lerag of wow” {Bevy, Tt OB

“
N
 The Church sl its Marks

accomplish these dunics, the mermbers of the hisrmechy possess

twefold powe of srderrand jurssdtctren the
The pouer of oder carvespponads. e the oifice of sanchfn powar
s confetred by ordinabon to te disconate, prw“ornv:m
and imprint an indelible character an the man 3 soul that can nevermbe
token away Even the reprobaie clergy retain this permanent characwr
a8 they are purushed un hell Holy Orders are concemed primarlly with
the worship of Ged and e sancaficatien of seuls. The indelible
cheracler GIves cerimin powers 10 the ordained, which are not posscsacd
by laymen. Fer example, one whe has been consecrated (srdained) a
Wishop e able to validly ondain another man e the priesthacd or
Pishoprc, even 1 the erdaining bsiwp has apestatized and left the
Church Staulacly, a man erdained a8 a priest will aheays be capable of
saym & vali
g d Mase, even if he has boens formally excommurucated. I
wuch & case, the Mass he celebrated would be ikt (llegal), but it
would neverthelasa be veid due 1o We permanent indelible character
recerved at ordnation.
Junsdiction pertaing 10 the office of tasching and gevernmg i the
Church, and can only be gven by & legimate supenier Jurisdicosn
does nat imprint an indelible character, neither w [t & permunent
quabty that can never be revoked Some sacram (e g, en
Perance
tsand
Matrimony) require jurisdiceon to be valid The sacrament of Penance
requires be¥ Orders (at least that of a priest) and junedicien.
In his Dogmatic Manual, Chrst’s Church, Van Neect writes the
following about the poofwe orderrand yunsdickon.
“The power of anicrs 15 the same 2 that of the proostboed, It
has ¢ rts imencdate ohpect the wornhrp (m e sinct semec) of God,
and alse the wicrnel sanctfication of souls threuph the fien of
roce |t mkes 15 name from the sacrament of enders o smcred
ondination by which 1t 38 cenforred on & persen.
The pewer of juedichen = the moral powar be plase others
tuer abligation, ie b and e loese, and compross ut suce the
Twe powars of taachung and rulig. 1t ass 2s i wrmsediote sbyoct the
governing of the peoplc the reaks of belef (cough decwmal
decraes) and conduct (shreugh dsciplary laws, jandscal
sentences, peaalics) Finally, o dwecw the el m scqurg
helincas threugh their ewn personal cffors Thus powet 15 canferred
0.9 Perann whon § SCOAC MISNNCE X 8 Whn the A0S # SR
alepiumaic misses- ()
-
Teogh egiabiaion rovgh Judilsl semborim asd ponslon. ¥ compris.
mms:nmw-ma-.a-n‘
.

———————————————EEE
True oe Faloe Pope? %)

of erdery
wn thew bawic mamre The power
T mcral Smec God sloou can roens e
o
o rpe, o he Cham ™
Couee W ffcual parsonie!
oo God s T, O, W1 (Y A e ey
= o s of st on the (b hamd, e o
et e, bk ol prscipal causaly "%
r, yy
With thus distancieon 10 mind between the power of orde
of purmdiction, we will now discuss apostolic ™
-
mwhlhu‘ufl!flhlmmh-\‘(gmmkm‘
Agosiies.
Apestslic Succession
Apesiolic successien 1 the unbroken tine of succession beginuy
with the Apasies, who were ordained by Christ (M3 1), K. dewny
whe buhops of Wday Becausea bwhop can onl be wrdun
y
{consecrated)by the lay of hands by one wh
on ing o a
ia already
Wheve 8 an unbroken pirysical connection betw cen the Aposties (e fre
Wahops) and these whom they consecrated down 1o our present dy
The laving on of hands. during the ordination {or epucol
consecrakon), cenbers the pewer of orders on the ordained
We see this succmeion beginrung just after Pertiecost, when b
Apentes sebecied Matthuas b succeed Judas Iscarfol "And praye
whev s Theu. Lend, who knoweth the hearts of all men, show wink
ol these s thou hast chosen, 1o take the place of this munstry sl
which Judas hath by transgression fallen. And ey
from tup
apestics
£25¢ them lom. and the lotm fell upon Matthuas, and he was umbenl
wih the cleven sposties” (Acte 124-26) Latweer, see Sw Paul md
Sarmabus (both of whom are reserred 0 2s Aposties) being coneecraed
ahaps by the laying on ef hands, when the Holy Ghost sad
“Sepnate me Seul and Barmabuen, fot the work whereunto | have bis
:“fl' Wy, fasting and praying, and imposing their hands i
oy them away” {Ace 1323) Having been consecrate eyd
- “':x‘!-flflmummwmmlmolhflm'
g continn
has sio
succes ued in the Church
¥ Cheit 1 sur present day, without interruption
v e s 1 et ey 1C
g o tre g, and st A IS
B
o v i v
 Apostles. they de not, 1n and of themuelves, make a man a fop
wmmwmhmnummmmmmg’n e
recerved at ardinaben remaine cven if 2 ishop were
te
m
ape
lesve the Church. er be publily excommunicated by the Crarche . and sta tiz
such & case the character receive at ardination. and the powers thatIn
o with it rerain & vatidly coneecrated behap left the Cirarch
founded & new rellgion, he would stll retaun the power ta consecrat and
bishops who would be pirysccel successors of the Aposties (they woutde
possess valid orders) but they would net be legrtmate successo of rs
the
Aposties To be a iegttmate successor of the Aposties o must pos ess
the authenofitthe y Aposties. and thus autharity cewit mh e jurss dhcion
Legitimate Apestelic Succession
lipiscopal arders (1 , consecrabion to the buchopric) i the meral
aspect of apostolic succassion, jurisdician, which w the powet ¥ beach
and govern i the Church, consti the farma
tuk i esaspect, Even memb
of a schismatic group, such a6 the Orthodox. pessess matenal apestoers lic
successlon, but this does net make them lopiimate successors of the
ApostlesFr. Berry explane:
“ISlome kniowiedge of sscessmen w osossary for & proper
concep of apastelitio
cry of minisy
n Suscessi m weden, wB
connectien. 1 Uhc feliwwing of enc persen afler aneificr =
oflicul pooson, md way be cobr icgitiouse o icginmare
Theologuns call the enc formal wiccesmwn: e other maveriel A
waienal succeser 1 enc whe aumss the officnl pection of
anether contrary e U Liws ar sonsmiuiion of the seciry
qucstion 11z may be caled & succemer in 26 much 2 be acheally
holds the position, but he has no auiherity. and his acts ave ne
@ficial valuc, even though he be 1peraat of Uhe iepsl toncre of ki
office A formal, of legitimaie, successar pat only mgcceds W e
e functian of hu office wib hedine farsr 1n e saacty |t
cvident that wuthonty can be Wanemitied wily by ko
successwon thercforc, e Church mus have 2 legmaie. of forial,
sccentian o paskecs (s irandsns Uhe apostalic susheciy Srom age b0
agene

Cheysostum, Homilies on Tias Homuby 0 Twus 154 Translaied by she v Jasnes

Toreed, M.A. of C b the v Filp Schell.
s Chrml Collnge Cambridge recdeed
/ PRTIS-11 TXF
FATRISTCmey/
DD LLD Sew Mipa/ /seww ewinom/Ubs
@ Berry The Churvh
of Christ, p 78

E—————————————
Trae or Falee Pope? Qu,

X P Herwann, in s besk Theiogss Dogmatce |,

elaberates on e SaInE PO g
~Surssmnen l
or formal
e metona Matena)
.._.-fiu-z-mmem. ,,
Jve cowmuenly beon sobsrtuied for the Apomies, [yvy
mcccaeen commtt 1 M fock hal thesc mbattiied pervan
d fium by,
ey, oty derrved from the Apostics and 1ocrive
0n
19 be made
oo 1 2l 10 cormmumcatc1t For 59me &c
sucomy
of the Apatios and pasec 8 the Chirch, the fower of anjery e
anch . always valuly conferred by VINe of OrOINMKION —
wragh. the power o Jurndicuon (s s1so requircd, and she
cembered W vy vt of wrdinatien bt byed Vitue cna
of &e powy
sccctved from i w6 whert Chet has smirust the sprem
ova thc ustvensal Charch ™
Van Nowrt pesed the questecn. “Hew can vou be sure that the ¢
shet buhop should be counted as a legitimate successor
of iy
apo Hesti d 28 follows.
rspandeon”
Oboeuely 8 man dows BeX boceme & geTIUME WCCMSSN 1a th
Aguatios marety by aerogating 1o bimsctfthe title of ‘Wishop, erky
arymg on 1 somc fmhiou & function ence pecformed by the
Apouion Nevhat 1 # onwugh for & man mercly be possoss man
onc. mdrvobeal power 2y for cxamp lc,
the powar uf orders - Tt
Pewsr of srdurs can be saqured even tlhcrtly and ence soqured
an e be it What 8 required for genume apesels
swsvnoe 5.l & men emyey the compicte pewan (i c., orduary
P, net ournsrdmary) of va apestic. He must, then, m sddoen
1 e prwer of ondes, possess aite e power of jurisdiction
Herwdaciuan manas doe pows 1 laach and gevem "
he wrete:
phooc, or
b acth
“Any una, then, whe beasts of apsssehic sussmtsion bt ¥ s
ks R poatd. mary indood schuslly possons the povet
b be wmy cvew by purcly physical sicceseon ooy b
h:-'v-w-lvy-m..mkmua--m
_&’uh-u_—-uummm,-—d
e
The Church and ls Marke Chapter2
1t is 2 degma of the Faith that the Charch will atways posorss
legitimate successors f the Apoalles - thatm, validly sedmned puhaps
who also powe fensdiction in the Church.® These men are ot anty
the physical successors of the Aposes (material succession) but Twer
ty
continue Christ s divine missions theough Hus one(fortrue
mal succesmen) o
Curch, Favmal
apostolic success si the on
surest mark of the rue Church becaune ft
distinguishes t from all others.™ The Crsheic Encyclapodie explasra:
“Apsatelicity w the mack by whock the Coarch of woday %
rocegn a iz
ident
ed ical with dhe Church founded by Joass Chnt
upen the Apastics. It 1 of graas waperisnec bacauec 1t 1 e sarcst
udicalion of the wue Chucsh of Chewt. { ) This Apestelic
mcccwien mes b boih matenel and farmel, the maicnal
sacsisting in the achual sicemsion w e Church, through # sores of
porsens from the Apastelic age ta the proven; e formal adding the
clement of aulhenty (junsdnict the iranem
ion istien
] af pawer It
comems In the leprlimaie wumarmasion of the meicral pewar
conferred ¥y Chret upew His Apestios any
cascetof
Avswialicity that sxcludcr asharraive wice wih U Apostalic
M Apomalicnyo
Apeatalic successien, thes, means that the musion coaferred by
Jesus Chinst upom the Apostles must pass from them 1o thew
legitimete suceessacs, . sp usrekcn linc, uslil tac wad of s
warld "
Bisheps Receive Their Authacity from the Pope
From whom do the Buheps recewve the pwer of urwdichen
(authority) by which they become legthimate muccesors of the Apostes?
They recerve it directly from the Pope, and iy fown the Pope
Jurisdickien comes from a superiec Because the Church w by divine
institution a monarchical secrety, enly the head of th soqety ~ the
Pope - receives his autherity immediately and doecily frem Christ.
The other bishops, a Fope Pius XIT wught in Myshcr Corperse Chneds,

= “shere wik sieays be i the Church 2 bay of man anvesed wilhthel trostohd povst
i o sposion emred T oo = 5 dogmt 4 fs. * (Yon N, s
Grrsk,p 37) -
=Dr Lidurig Van O seidk “in e wabvolesm seasereion of Bshops fove, # Apasin
Sywsielsc dharacirs of the Chreh mmaet ehiarly appwarn.” (Fundarunivls of Cathul Dogma. .
0y
Catholic Encycivpesie (1913]. val. | . 640 frmphasis adbled}.
s
 e Pupe? Cape,
Trwe or False Pope’

p-dnm'mh-ml-eflu“ Paoki
ecsive
e
.,..mfiTuno-L'Fr Berry expiains
ar wd ac on 1 srt hee ity ¥ QEV ETD and Tu st be tra namingy
~p 40 the Church
e Church _ thar con beed10Jur Ieqimiake wUCCCak ecl
Caa, i ha otausrocherervsts Bt uic28tiowiln l cih er dir y o nd ereg
o preme be proven clicwb
rone, aharcy 10 the Church 8 Ch et was commuid iy 5,
ey o s Urwfel succassees. the brshops of Rome **
m.nrdnhwmmhlumdmh’
Fn-uflvmlv!ihlflrynflmnoflmnmn!dthuh“
by sPope
ww.pd:wmwmhu wwu,m“
mmw--mflzm permanent reality in the G,
h.
e rowd i Vans Noaet's degmasic manual, Girst s Churc
ng poer
Propotoss 1t wax Chriat 5 will that the sacred nseruliforev
whch had beu i the apentelic cwllege should conti efald pows er
Thia propossian 15 cencerned with the same thre
whach we have proved 10 huve bown given 1o the spost ies ic.
tnach, fancias a6 v, and govers) I ansc that ri s powesr was
gred by Chrat wish the feflewing strpulation that 1t be handed
o 0 2 ondioss Iy of suscessers We arc ol concernad o1 the
mament with Uhe subordnste os-warker s apestics The ooly
of the
o 10 by proves hore 15 that o was Chrrst ¢ will that the aposet:
wlioge should oommse forcver 1 uch 2 ey \hat there woud
atways e 1 e Charch & by of oen ameed with the thevelold
awewr whch the semien weved (which Uncludos. (unsdictonl.
The Gt 0 srmo of i 28 e K, <5, (o (h Coutesd

v s sl opireene repardingens hew 3 By e

e
..._.." The asaursly apuanss Plm‘ s fl givfidfl
wasl b tar minehor 3
ynit
auitho m wbm
hmnhm-"hw
mflw
""‘% w-mmmm
el darecthy grom the purtodician. The sperity chd thaal jurucicor om0 B

:" e ks i e I e Lot SRS

"-“—--.,,. __ "' gl sea ctu rg the map mrt y op an kn “Ye
i t id er rv be rs $ua ore mibrSORT T
'. ,' : mhe pe) ] o vt
:'--.-.v .:ey e e Renan Mol anel abuiugh thess furmiction 1 o
2
::s_.m"m'-fiwa-wm.uwm&)
237 e g, smdecire abdet) The Lamsch 32e ol
s, . s B
2 iy oy e 1~
—_.__.‘_:p-umunyn}xm
g
The Church and lts Marks Chapter2

e went
on e say-
“The Church deponds aniemtiay om the toachng. prvmly,
When our Lacd gave the spotion
their definive mistion to louch, sancufy, wnd auke be wem on 1o
say 15 the clearest Lrms “And bobeid | am wih you all days, even
e the consummatien of the warld %(M1 28.30) But hew coulHe
possibly be torsver present ie the apesialic calloge, w1 the wac d
tesching sanctfyng. and rulmg, usics thet cellege nactf werek af1
ast forever unless
suscessens in thow wark as ackers. aes, aad ey ™™
To be 3 successor of the Aposties in the effice of tacher and ruler
requires authority, which s recewved by junseichen
While 1t 15 possible for there to be & kme when there s no Pape
(e, & temporary mierregnum fallowing the death of one Pepe and
before the election of another), there can never bea tme in which the
Teaching Body iielt {the Magrstenum) censes b exmt. As noted abeve
this w & dogma of the Faith, and terefore cannot be denied witheut
embeacing heresy ’
In the magnificent boek, Menual of Dogmetic Theslagy (1906), ¥y
Wilhelm and Scannell, we read.
“The Indefectibilty of the Tanchmg Rady* 1 ot the same tine
condition and a censoquence of the Indefectinlity of the Charch
A duiin must, ction
hewever, be drgwn beow sus the indefectibility
of the Head (Popel, and the Indeficubilty of the subscdiaate
members [Bishops] The mdividuat whe u the Howd may die bt
the authenty of the Head docs wot doe with bum 1 15 iransraiied0
his successor On the other hand. the Teaching Body a4 2 whele
souldnot die ar faul without srsparably desroving the canunuy of
awthentic_testimpny Agam. the Fopc s suthenty weubd
oo be
inyured 1F, when wet exercising 1 (exwe wicrm), be gefesscd 8
false docinnc, whercts authoatcaty
e of the cumcemal SmA
sl b dcaroved 1 wweler 2y cucumsnnss the whalc bady e

= The sraneiasion weed i the ergial s replamst by the Dunary Rk ilatis.

Chrst» Church, pp ¥7-W {ernphase added)
= To b clear the Toaching Dol covomsn o tae nope e posias swmshotion resivesd
frema
b e, and Sl Thnan, A Mol f Catol T o 3=
(New York, Cincinmad, Chicoge: Bemingsr Bres. 190K, pp d6-40.
o
Yrae or Fabse Pope? o,
et nal I the “udevacantier
provertnal
M'::fi...rmuy--nm ell .nm.,,,_'y"“h"‘h.
the Church (becoming o/
rbdichen, ad ceased 10 be part ofu_c
ok H.“mumnmm humhwh.
,,‘mmmunudmrmnmswhm:«
Mmdh&nflhbmhwmw&dwnm‘:
e prois Church withool Fope, bul 4150 2 Church e
is hnot
Teachung Sody (the Magisterium) whic i
Fr Tranquilio powits out: x
~Aseardi 18 Wdsy's
ng Sedevacantss ned ony 1 the Chay o
Potr vacam, bt alo ol of the cprscopal scca. This, one who wane
1 appy heec thescs 10 the CurTend Sifustion st recall that be
ot g ferwand 2 Chorch “withewt Popc” (whichanyhappcas an e
venon vty coclove) but 8 -— Church without hicrarchy ag
fi-t-n--.—‘—nl: n&

As we aw 0 Clapler 1, the Sedevacan lis

preach t
er Gany
Mamics, publicly Weaches thel the Magistenum ne longer aiey
Accerding e Mr Mawtics, all we have loday are the writings of be
Maps te
from the nu m il did exiel He nays. “there 1
me when
Wving vewe of the Magisterium.” bul that “docsn’t mean we're lot4
docsn t mesnt we'ne abandened, Secause we've got #he Magistenn f
e pest ™S
A "Mag ofst as
the past” doeswe n Contrary
ot sulfice \o wha
Mr Mancs publacty preaches in the name of Catholicem. ¥ w4
dogra ol fash that the Chwarch wil always possems & college of behaps
- that n, leginesate succmaces of the Apostles - who posess boih be
power of weders (material succwsson) and pursdiction [tk
wwwomon) The 2t srmcthung of the past, bul a realiy of b
Pomers. OF course, the orly Church thal even clarms ko have bsbept
who huve racurved punsdiction frem the lope is the Church W
overyace, bt M Mawics and his Sedevacacolleig ntel as
as theia
cegn c Church.
Cathelies
Now bocaue acy a Fape can grand furiedi ction, f Pus Xl -
S st irve Pope (m wumt Seddevacantista claimi. then there o @
Tong any Webops, # i, currently in charge of dioosscs WiV U
Ieadicven This would masn that legiomede
aposiolic wa .
 The Church 111 lts Marks Craptar2
weuld 0t even be found in the ene and enly Church that
posecss bishops whe recetved thei urisdxiien fromn s Pope .
“Bi be the
sWeedhe s” pTheery
Faced with the reality thet the Sedevacanmst pesition
amumxmmmnquwT-qummx:n;
the lay Sedevacantist apologist John Lane came up with a creative but
unsuatte cc mpt (o saive the ul
diificulty He bebyga notgn
bishop cannot retire es sf
unless the resignation i sccepted by the Pepe He
thet
shen argued Mulllflthpslm]ohnxxllll.wudm
antipopes 1t would meanthat the resrgnatien & wishop 1w enw
of these false royswmumhnmvv?:ymmpum
Consequently, he reasened, if any Waheps were Wl slive who had
recerved Jurisdiction from Pius XI, they weuld centnne o possess rue
Juriediction today even i they dids't know about it
Mr Lane presented this argument a s way to explain how it s
possible for there 10 be a true Teaching Body {a shop er twe with
juriadichon) in existerce teday He ima thet g
this n
theore y (whi
sch is
ebwviously Wuilt upon the false premue that we have net had a wrue
Fope since 1958 to accepl the Wshops reagnators) allews
Sedevacantisis 1o reject all the concrliar Repes withiout having ko admit
that thiere are no bishops left with ordinary juradicwen. Lane came up
with this wild theory 1o avoid the ebvious clamsiication of fus ewn
poution a heretical, which he knows it weuld be if no such bhope
exist Fr Cekada, realizing how ridiculeus Lane’s theory 15, referred
it a5 the “Bishop n the Woods™ thesis. Mocking the thescy uvenied by
his fellow Sedevacankiet, Fr Cekada wrete-
“Mr Lanc's Bishep 1 the Weeds thesis. m fact, DEFEATS e
Twe things sheust lhe Chrorch o suppeced to sere
. Viaibahty - becwuse ne one can sec this bihep
& Apestwiicay - far bew can, the Church be RECOGNIZED
by the mark of apewelicity f ne enc can FIND the onc bukop whe:
10 suppesed 1o coumauc and wbedy 47+
In sddition to the devastating otecuens Fr Cokada raised, john
Lane’s theory creates a burden of preof #hat he cannot meet.appouni Theorimng
that there culd be a bishep or twe skll living whe were ed by

S Fr Cekada's cumplete somemenits €98 b oad of b/ /seorw ke boardn st/

therud/ 341/ ather-cekade-du vad
Tpagrd.

———————————E
 Troe o Falee Pope? Chaptery

mest six decades o i nof the same thing as prosisy

exst, And prese nting the “Bish op in the Wood s: T"
‘n::: T,
re ~possbiity” necessarily sdmuts of the possibiity that they s
ateps left in fuey
exst at il - and Mvms, What there are 10 begrimBisho ordinary
Mo Lane actually admis that i there are na bishaps leftbe withatie
flse But
theas 15td mpi1o
Jaradicoon, hew de Sedcowoan
mwwmwwmwhmmmluhuml
Here s whheat sayx
~Frore this we eonichude that the Chwrch must always possessbe
d ret
o Yoast o0 Wvop wilh erdunary Jurredicisonbisheofp,shethenwoulather
the Church. Now, if thoccthal15 1.wewesuch the
Jropeciien % wat wuc ~ musunderstbed the decienal
she doua ion 15 ny
salutce Of ceurie until
wroeg. st it w
ponk &Sc ess even one isbop
Aensnstried hai the Church doese ol1 10posscooc rete problem The
ik ormary purdsction, then
problers 1 met past thoarwical, bt hypothetical
Nowce thet Mz Lane puls the Wurden of proojuri l en ethers to
demomatrate that there i met @ Pius XII Brshop with sdichon. s
quite convenient fer Mr Lane ro declare, en his own authonty that
e brohaps cxurnmily tn charye of e eptscopal see< lack orduiary punsdicton,
arvd then tell his epponents that they must disprove hus own theery by
demonsieating thata Pius X1 “Bishop in the Woods® does nof exrst ng
Mr tane is guilty here of the logical lallacy known as Shifti the
Burd end Since 1t is Lane who w making the claim (thet a Pios
of Proo
XI1 bishop with ordinary jurisdictien exists somewhere In the world),
* Scmewe. suasrding i the Sebevacantio thesin, lhe vacancies of the eplacops! wers utv
Lot grrevaiver nd Excrodeng e srerage husran tfcvpan, Sedevacaniie
ruambling o rew thewries 10 sy mare S T0 v themw time beyond e
moreelvcs
et =t P X b 950 19 v vaid tmchopm, i hrve s that sarme Sedevacanin
M‘::Tfln:-::’::yv-—thhumwymhw.vui\w
e 1 akly Voucan (1] s s s epincopal appantientn, heouph
1969 manedvolid Serslrly some Sekevacaniiss have suggesed that Peut Vi wae o
S2ld Poge wrtl N ot Vowcar U at e erd i 1%S and thus his eplscapel
e s e Wt were vakd OF sowre theer ergumerts fail o accound for U
incaofinia e vasble y el arst which i the Church. And the longer the curret
e g o, e mooy Wb, a7 Tiduboumn, the “Biher: in the Woeds” thesry
L
—e cowwnets v Lakan e b bte 0t g e svdevacarii on]
< "Wetung the bnirdens of prumd e 4 kv ol fogica! Lallacy in argumeriation whereby the
Pormm
Ot srdd 1ovdrarity
ks bt S bt e e
perar butden [19
in an acgument atieryts
v g& ¥N v «f prootit sk
O se e N . e sl
- T b b et e O

~ —————
-— T——
and 1ts
The Chut ch Marks

the burden of Proof lies with him ke demensiraie

else 10 disprave it (how Lane would ner :..:.,: oy
rudimentary clement of debate is quite sirpruing)
To lusinate the lallacy of Lane's reasonung, these authars claim
that there are greens men on Mars, and “unkl it s demorewated- by Mr
Lane that Mars *docs net posses even ane” geeen man, -then thare 1s
o concrete problem,” and we can aamume green men on Mars exjor,
Unforturately for Ms Lane the burden cataing with b to preve &
Fuws X1l brshop with ordinary puredicsen exists not on sthers se
digprove1t But she prebiems with his “Bahop in the Weods™ thesis
doest end n theve
Even if Lane were to prove the existence af « Pius XII buhey,he
weuld skli have the burdenof proving that tie biahop rejected -ihe
Vatcan IL Church.” ard 11 Popes. in other weeds, he would have 1o
find a Sedcoacantist *Bishop i1 the Wowds™ who wa never a temberof
the *New Chuarch” (what the Sedevacantrste call the Cathoti c Church
aftor 1958) Why never member of New Church? Because, sccaedrg
10 the Sedevacantuts’ ewn pasition, the Vancan Il Chwech i & false
Church, and, according ko thewr favore canon From she 1917 Code 1f a
cleric publicly adheres 1o a nen-Catholic sect (8 falee Church), he
automatically vacates his. office (Canen 186, §8) and hence boses hw
Jurisdiction (which means the bishop’s ressgratien would not have to
be acce bypta trueed Pope) This would mesn that 1f the Pus XII
“Bishop in the Woods™ adhered ko the New Church that allegedly came
into existence in 1958 (ar 1965), even for a short Nme, he would have
lost his junsdict ipwion
facte acco te thewr
rd own
in logicgand
arguments.¢
Now, dear reader, what scems more likely, that Jehn Lane will
prove that there s a Pius XiI Bishop (consecrated six drcades ago,
which would put him well into hus 90s if ret over 100 vears o), who
Voth a Sedevacantist and who was never a member of the “New
Church * o that the Sedevacankst position w wrong?
Moreover, “the problem- of egitinate apostolic successton w not
“hypothetical” as Mr Lane clatma but adusl, with actwal (not
Hypothetical) coneequences - no less than the defection of the Catholic
Church founded by Chret. I John Lane cancet preve his case, then. in
his own words, "the Sedevacantst soluson ds wrong® since the

Erer o theve i evioh 2 Phon XIL b o 1o s the srsocs b sy faimdicoon,

Wit Sedevaconiint Tsmlubon” wekd Wil cmsmie 3 vwionen o e
Church
s ndekectiblity {unce @ maiomens thot the vinbie bummmchy Gt ameos.
calming M vinible Chureh e matph et 2 New Clrchd snd smssal Catbalcky (e
to we havw soen.
can never be rduced 18 2 small maanber of memsbens,
Chusch
n
 True oc Faloe Pope? Chagaery

alway lepih
s be.. succe
iruen, ssory
T e etfdetherew«sttm mm wm w“::
solukion for Lane's difficulty 6 that the bishepe of ourareday,e curen y,
of e dioceses threughout the world, iegyy
of the Apeothas with ordinary jurisdiction - a reality 1y
-~ ;","‘l,,,,.mdm.s righ n the t
face
#. Cekada's “Selution”
Fr Cebda evidenily recognuacs that the Sedevaca nists bear vy
mrden of prosf that they cannet meet, which is why be coined wy
wuied M Lane's “Bahep tn the Woods™ theery But:‘wh at
w Fy
cm’.m-nrflm?flh'fl;‘-“l‘hpm wm h
Cekada's way arsund the problern # 10 explicily regee! she teachingo
ke Church {as exproased by Piue XiI) by claiming bt bishst)ops andtedarety
recerve theat jurmdicken at srdaties (fmmsediately from Chri
Srom the Pope (whach is precisely what the Eastern schismanc bncheps
declared a millerage) niumIn Fr Cekaewn dsword 'ss.
“U thare w0 i pope 20 & sode ke mc weuld muntan, the
provsens of secheasrca! Law perainung to legilimacy of mustas
and spesial soscemnen can ne loager be said 10 spply xnctly
Nevarhclon, s musion and sommend Our Lard gave to e
apovies and thosc whe would susesed them sl applics as s maxer
of drvinc Jaw = bocaanc the duvine [aw crdores foe all time, cves
witem the previosons of human-cecles {law]ssetic albe
can no longer
fellowsd Tradsumnal bubops and priests recerved the abligstionte
conme s spouainc mision from Chrt 1 virtue of ther
‘sensecratisns
and ordinsiens =%

Noticr, Fr Cekada claima dhat “spostolic mission” (which require

jurisdictien) comes dirretly b Sedevacantist bishops and pricets,
by
virtue f their erdination. He continues. !
“Denpric (hc fout thos thow miossont and succantian il Dot came
19 tham eugh the provissens of human-scclesissiical Jaw, therr
Smuteast mad sasosamon is mdond ppestelrc te rogerds the divinic law

= 34 eL by et b et o,
A e Wi
T b b e sty e k4 et B
[y U it G sohariies of e Civewh boové
Fo Cobads+ e
e vS vt bty s et s v PR
n -

~
— T———
The Church i Its Marks 2

becauac 11 is wdenecal
with e T Chrwt
Church. ™ e e
We see that the only way Fr Gekada can defed his
position s to repect the wachang of Pros XII wxhfln’-k- Sedevacanst
punsdiction (mission) “directly from the Supreme Pomtf- ::n m
For Fr
Gekada, there 18 appa
reception of ardem andrenllythe noreceptio
lenger 2 distncien betwoen the
n of junadiction (+ dogmasc
distinction that w reck in ed
divane reve aod taug
la ht bywethe Church
swnce the very beginrung) because. well. e darsn | thunk s howe n
Bope 7 What thus shows s thet ust a5 Catholec th bulds upees 4 wruth peisd
,
50 the Sedevacantist error breeds more errors, as the rewctionof one
truth logically and necessnly leads 1o the reyaction of the others.
John Lane, who, a3 we saw above. s guity of hu own faliscieus
reascning e the question of jutiediction. nghtly criticuaed Fr Cekada's
un-Catholsc position n 10 uncertain terma. After saying Fr Cekadas
pouition “just reeks of Prolestantism.” Lane wenl on to say
“Prvaie Judgement erecteg mmsiers of Chow. No public
authonty velved This 1s wersc than Anglicwhick anem, t lesst
replaced the suthonty of the Church with sacular suthery It 3 vae
thing to defend anether whe « under ttack whan the petice cannes
b found, u s cnuirely another thing 1o den 2 uniforms and pese a6 ¥
cop Who's the judge of the fuiess of & polcotial Wishiep? The
potcrtial bishop (and his sidekick, perhope)? Whathel's autheraty
of & bishep withoul & muuen frem the Charch? Hi ewn
declarations w the cffact shat his Geopel s the irue sac” Hew dove
this differ from Protestan Decs net
tm” cvery spolegetics manual
condemn this Kind of theory on evary secend page” Fr Cehada tetls
16 *Auregards hrcraechy miaandsie spesoln
crty the shor answer
W ths * He vecds la give the long answer ASAP His shoet
weewer Just opens the deor te ceuntless herestes, 1f f um t heretical
selr ™7
Another one of Fr Cekada's fellow Sedevaca<aid, “it i not
ntlats
true that the power o teach and gosem comes through coneecraion.
N oed.
Tt Cekada b being inconwistant m his owny Weatment o the puer of wrde amd
As we will sce i Chapter 18, Fr Cehada clams thet the for o the new ol
Ieridiction,
M rpiacopal curmecration a wrvalid becausr i dom met univemlly ugnity the gace of
orders, enly furisdaaion. Bt hare be argms the the pammer of eriers ook the
et ol jurisdicten as & mutter of Divane lavw muamen
! e apesteia; of Chatet, &
Ioast during this tre of crisis.
P view g phgdiedist= Lins.
/v esevacanbiescoun/
n
Trwe o Falee Pope” Chupy

Ihi s st she specic teschang of Plus XL, se everyboy Ly,

snd then added “With defenders like Fr Celada, Sedey, g,
tced enenues..
“-Al-mw.mwd,h Cehda'n.mhm:'flrmuu.. _
g
but the sarme 15
countiens heremes. f 1t ant heretical taell,”
Fo!kno\un.lydrnhhl'.
i-sdmnmu.--nwmk
Mlflwmofllflwflhlnh\hlhmnndh
Tegmacy ss Card Billot
ir alned (a8 we sw in Chaper1) by,
explai
o derues the indetecuinlity of the visible Church by claiming thay
vesibie saciety, with 1 members, morphed into & New Church, wy,
the some members. We aleo have the public profession of hearis heresy 4,
shase who claim thet the wue Church today exisk “in the 1y
minds® of true bebevers, whe ~profess the true Falth,” and whe i
somehow spintually united wgeiber without & Pope or
Therr loas of fauth 1 the Chwrckt ha caused them 10 deny the marks ag
anributes of the Charch. They have been led nght inko the emwr o
Prowestantws. which substubes vielble members for the materul ang
formal visibuhty of the Oerch of Jesus Chrast
When John Lane first discovere that dFr Cekada explicitly daws
shat there are any bsheps left with ondinary juriadicsion, he said )
mysel was shocked o ducover that Fr Cekada's ‘sedevacanion
invelvas the expixat danal that the Aposties have any Successers 1t ol
todav This msertion 1 devctly eppesed b Tradlition, as formulated a
VencHe an on te™say
wend1“
“1ave opet saare than fifieen yoars cormbatiing what | theught
wis 2s entarely uayust alicgaben ayainet ‘sedcvacan viz , that
- usm’
we hoid shat the Mocrarchy ® cxtinct - waly lo discover that this s
easctly what Fr Cokada belicves. Not only thas, | found eut slso
4hat i s hald s vicw far many yoars Se the SSPX hus 0ot boen
wipunly defumung ‘sedcvicantism’ - they have beca justly and
sonusicly oppmang as harsixcal thanry heid by the met prormancnt
tedcvcames” propessst w the Eaglrh-speaking workd ™
Unfortunately fae Mr Lane, while Fr Cekada holds ko 8 ~heresiol
theory” st epacopal foradichon, L falla o & rlated berey
‘h. derum Sagltimate spoviolic suctession), unless he can prove thit
& P XII buhop semewhere out there with ordiowy
Pirtedicson (cartrary o the asmassmian t Cekads
of Fr ),wh
and who
-
“a
e et s i gt e 463

.g el
— T —
The Church and its Marin Cruprorz
never a member of the medetn Church, OF caurse, eve
wch a bisInhcxs otenpce it would sl mean then i ethare oware
Ierarchy defected, and Lhwe w v condeary o the defech
Church, since the oube Church will always have bali o ey
she
huerarchy Thereferc, Mr Lane's “solu1s tsleie e o omiie
hevn
esi”cal
Supplied Jurlediction?

Fr Cekada should realize

there are 1o bishops left with the tmplicanane that his theory (hat
ardinary pandicti has on upplied
jurisdiction” which e and all his paruhieners en) depend upen for the
vallity of the sacrament of Penance and Matraneny In a recent article
published 1n the Cournerde Rome, Fr Trarapuilie explaine thet supplied
junsdiction presupposes habitual (ordinary) funediction in the Church,
Because all jurisdiction cemes 10 the Church thewthe ugPope
h 1 thece
i e Pope, amd 1f here are o mers oy who recerted junadiction frem &
wisd Peye, “then junsdchion delegated in exiraordinary fashien (L.
wpplied jurisdictien] weuld alee ne longer exiet. "™
7 Church law seaches shet un caaes of neceanty chergy Whe de nat peorss aculnes (15
oditary [uredicuen delegated by bubop), cans STl vainly aémowusk the sscusmets
thet requlce Jureaican (hearing conlemiarn, wimang, tiely Matiecy) Ths
Jewn as sppiod ucdichom, i ieie sppict Cihe Chuch peoedes”s Swppliod
unaicwn (ormeper 11 Caes e laned s sk gt Lo o she Choarch, whadh
i e sulvaten of socls {Canens 1752, frw she 10 Code o Camn Law) I these i o
prictis available 1 narw b can he irusaed (which, Unferienabdy s ofen e cas i
today's crims), Whe fadhéul are permried @ spgrasch ad el Caihalc pres
rowcive e sacunania, even i heve s Lack (aculaes (ardloary juridition)
Acan1 ing canen v sheve prvmt iay vty adares the crasmvl, e ol
ety of grave recessty (€4 o perwan i u darger of dovihl, bt even when the
Ll request Lhe secrasvenie from en fr any sl anwe (vanding Mderrat priess
whe are aading soule she orrer el sedacyirong thee eternal s« cormunly o
onee ful and evem weraay coure). For example i the 1917 Coe of Conon L corwms
Zit 82 permit the {alital b even appreach an exomemramnd pres B Wor of
Decwmty 1 days et * e bl iy e oy (s sk W s
macramentals of scc whe & erssmannienicd. sspecially i thete 10 ane car @ e
e~ Maty other mners 1 buth the ohd ) new Code mcopite wpsed
indicten in various circuenc sudh ot ssnass,257 208, 82 and 2252 (1917 Coe)
4 cure 144, 976 e 1357 (1983 e o
Fr Tranquibe: "l srdinasy uridcvion weve bo duoppenr cumpletsly
Individu Wi et thans pursdicions delegad in exiasrsracy
bving wpen als bvivem.
otk alup 0w loger vaiel, because 1 1 delegaiend By mmamete. W she e of es
04 bnt by W Chorch, 40 mbemaned 0 the abetroct, Ceriasnty Camm Lo mabes wse
o Wt eupresaian mpplel Tackda, bt threlegnlly s melsphviimBy jurbetem
Tosdes 15 e whe ave recetvnd i v ihe Pt irom ot an the cnr of the
Pepe alire). 111 n (atong Arwurs! e the i walkeg o e @ b1l Nf
om0y M Pape bt alas all o the lecal Bahers are maeme, we ot b P et 2
PoeL cuulel rncuve puricict, e i sk e ot W cvodemlin of o dying s, The
B
Yrae or Falee Pope? Chup;
jurisg,
lie’s conchumeens w comect (supplicd
e wit h erd ina ry fur adi cti on) , the n this "’" ‘“h“:-:
m.‘;.m pri ese s, wuc h 43 Fr Co la d, who dey e,
S o Sed eva can tis the Poge yo
e hope lh eho rec,eivgiv ed thelf punedi cuon from abs cluben
r gum potn ing their flock invaild
acvoedms, o the
d Fr Cek ada 's e70 r tha l Pre sts Fec oiv e jurudyy,
eeanissona(arl m,s nmhum
mmmfldo-mndwmpmfl
fimlvcmnm
mmmmdm-\emmm«'mo ect (end upplicd furisdicjey
1 Fr Tranquic’s cenclusio n w incorr
d for ordinary Jurisdictim)
1 delcgated by Church law. witheul the nee ienis becauseey
sewuld siil not benefit from the h sacram
un omwm.
mnm(mmnmwwfi if you deand
ch- 2 i a cla sec cos e of bei ng “d am ne d
Pilery Ths Cak plicd qunsdicten
Gamncd ¥ vou dent because Sedwheevathecanr tissup t sect will net
Avatlaoblnele, menibers of the emun
it snce extide the Chuch there is neriher salvation, nor
L
Unawtheorized Shepherds.

Seme Sedevaamies, who are well aware that (and none of the
Sedevacantist buhops of pricsis pomess purisdiction therelare
te
have ne fruc “mismen” from the Church) clam il s forbidden
receive the sacramenis adminustered by Sedevacantist clergy (which&
at least betng conswient In their position) Yet these individuals slse
in st
claum 1t 3 forbndden 8 recerve the sacranents from a prie uc
wath “the Vancan 1l Church.” or even from waditionaliat clergy {tke
these of the 55 PX) Obvieusly this doesn’t leave many options fer
amengis. I fact, il leaves ne options
sacran
recethesv

-
proki
m i etess
kawwing 4% axviain atturions, the pewrer can e delcaied snde
mmerdrary s I s compiviely brymnd daputr), but by whems 1f nec
:—:M—-m-:-:y-—h—omh_bwfll::’z
Tvamn
@1 et
g to thr prwcrple = hereby ol fanadivhenor "
oo b e Pore e ey e e e e fren e Himesl
et Formao ren e Popecy Permrro she Churh” Tralsiede
e h-;-u—nc—-..u— Teanm
frwm French
laied o Erghelt Y
® Sew wede S 193 Code o Carun Law chomatica Wew bl s
s ston 1156, 1 wd emniied pomarn v foriddon (0%
Shimang @ g ee (131 §1 2
 —
T———
i The Clhurch anid 114 Marla Cropme2
For those in whom the discase of Sedevacantmen
metastanized all post-Vatican Il clergy (including E,.....h:,..fi.‘,".:
tradherd
shep ionasl clergy) and caen doe Sedevacantut clergy, are *anmthareaed
* who “irue Cathalics” must aveid These Sedevacantion
{who are known &3 “home-aloner”} refue 1 recesve the sacramente s
il thereby depriving themeelves and their famulies of the
ondl
means of salvation - all becaise of the emmenesus theary they have
coupme With 1o Explain he crin n the Church, These souls stay fome
enSundays, reading their miscal and atiempang cixit acwof
comtrition, wn the hape that Ged will directly sbasive them ofperf ect
they.
grave sins (agarust inlike
, Protestants)
Mr Matatics, who has embraced and publecty defands the
poution, recently explained how he fulfills hie Sunday sbligawen. He
wroke”

“1 unite mysclf and oty faruly —— a5 we de cvwry Sundey aod

every oty day -uuhan-ywayum"y:--gm
for family worshup — wirh aif wrve Catholics aroumd she werld 30d
doun threugh the ages whe by Ged's grase, sacept all of the
Church’s teachings and srrve 1a absde y all hat ows. ™
This ia where the ermor of Sedevacantsn legically leada a complete
withdrmos! from the visible social urut of the Church and the God-given
means of sanctification, by staying at home on Sundays, uniting in
apint “with all true Cathelics areund the weed (wanslaken. those whe
P TIv0 t the ithe of a a a5d U et sobd by Me Matmacs. b e k. Moty claume:
What U e hla that » purvee can be rved i the poat Vatan 1] Chumch,then there s e
e st of recesaity and therebure they carmet arguc that the SSPX bohwpn sl
prevts have supplicd Jurmdicion This s anmther example of hew Sedevacemasts
rerpen Ghts argurnentsi
era Matics e ts didgish terwren abmsle and
ion,lie
eletive necemity Whie it 1 et ailxiey riecTisary tn appreach tradeben) gresh o
Balvaon, ene piay certainly argue st 1t 8 ey ety if e cutnet crae, dux e
darr ok atrendig Mam ot the svrrage Novws Orde pureh. Dt the Anan i, &
an Crrsunly s i stve one: s 3owl by srtaing. the Mam w prie iecied il
e hcrmey S0l it wan dargrreus e de se srce ihe flihéul wasaly 634 by bl whet
Uheis priost dewchen For this remmn, ihe WA cveided e laswd Churvhes and
wmcxbled I the deert, moeving W mamomenn fum At
“exraenanunicatedt” pricat whis was apyerestly a achue (bt by madictun).
The stabletics becay siew that & mafory f S Oni priest, st W vost mmecey of
Thae 1who atterd Noras Orde parihen, ferct the Chrch s sl bechag e W
ammirel aral et deciival tusching (e, e trar prcemac the Cosnplc Cuch t the
only wae Chuach, eic ). The tact that ardy 21small
Ol belee ol Vot the Chsrch baachos povet prrcsinge
Wt 4 ek ofo Cathuis 0 e vtoo f
Posmesr €3,
s ey reative neceaity
Matoiim, “Uiorme (bt ot abome)” Angus 15, 313 (Pareribriual congmemis resesod
4 cmphae added, tap. /e gecrymaseck arg/ LTS b,
”

A
Troe o False Fope? Chapsey

an Sundsys), while imagining themsetves 1o

e eren, which s . “thei heartKN and (0rming” m
e avislb o true
le behev
“C er hurc aong)
God h
o
St what Inescusable 18 ot that these indiviguy,
e even moreudgme
Jave erved 1 thel private nt about the crisis n the Church
rather that some of
mwmmm.wmamm
send theif mesusge acrosg g,
e have et been “sent.” neverthelessperson
oorid wede web and even shernaelves ally across the counky e
‘wwirn, in an atiempt te persuade oihers that they, tee my
feliow thew exumple by completely evwding Mam und the sacromeppon nts 1y
ene Provestant fshen, Whese lay proachers and sell-a
mumsienarics (wha themeelves have no mussion), “presch” confun o already.
condalimed and confused seula, which enly causes greater en,
A when the clergy wam thew faithful to ignore1 being these unbatancad
andrviduaa, they play the part of the victim who Shan preach persecuted -
M the praphets of ld - for doing nothing more ing e
it
What w meet puzzling ia that shese lay preachers don't seem at ot
cencemed that thew private opinion (which they publicly proclaum i
e *the truth) has coninueusly changed over the vears (today dmty
comtradsctng whal shey Lught yesierday)® This realization does rel
seem to hinder them in their effors, nor dees It cause them to thek
St of what they are praaching tedey is true, it means they were leadmg
souls into error schusm, and heresy yesterdsy Sut if, accordin g
to thes
v stendand.® they were leading soula into ercor, herand esy schum
veswerday, hew can they be sure they are not doing the same today?
Perh those wheap havesspent narly thesr entire aduli life leading pesple
asray were nad cut sut 1e be lay preachers of tha Gospel, as they
imugine themaeives to be but should instead keep their continuousy
dhumgurg posthen te themaelves Vo avord further harming souls Bul,
endently, wimlectual pride w net saslly swayed by such thaughke
S 3e Mattin, wham v ve reevevnd i i secen, b # clasnic xample MatalksS
7 o g o0 emlaied Foryieion miriser I o otws Orie Cotbuikc = 4
M"“"‘“"'Mbmx-flm—- Ppaciahes]. i o0 “inabeperviest
! ot = 8 et “Cobah” 5. 3PV C4 R} s, ik2
— TTTT———
The Chursh nd s Marks Crapter2
which enly goes 10 show ¥het the “cabaixcal
!anmrdenalhunfllwllyhmdmhuypnhk disrenasio®
nn:y’,‘hlhh
lwer raniks of the Lalty 2e well. What shs alee show
many victms i thus crisie, end they ace cestanly s vo ot ters ace
Bu no tmatter what brand of e e Lot

Gerry Matalics - the pracical anewer = et it e longer uin,

matier how they wish to spin it. Clearly, they have hest facth

t1]
Church a3 she suffers her Pamion (uet as the duaciples host fusth §

=
Christ during His Pasion) They've snded oy pubincly profesmng ha
Protestant heresy that the mible Chvuech exasts *m the hearts sod mmds”
of true beltevers®
Anategies and End Times Prophecies:
More Grasping at Swaws

Sedevacantisis often resoet te using analogies e defer thelr pesition.

For example, they will say shet just as Chriat's dood Bady was net
viible 1o those wutside His o (but was sill vieibie in isell), 20 oo
could the alleged Pius XI1 “Bishep in the Weods™ net be visibie 1o the
public, yet still exist. The analogy f the somb, of course, could be
twisted 1o mean many different things; and the physical Body of Chriat
in the tomb does net have a one-te-anc comespendence with the
peomnises Christ made te Hiw Mysicat Body, the Church. Furthermore,
while Christs Body may not have been visible b those sutede the
tomb, the funthful biew exactly where His Body wes Such 15 et the case
with the alleged “Bishop 1 the Wends,” snce Sedevacaniss den't
v know if any such bishep exints, much loss where he can be found
-llmuuuwumun_mm»—unmt:’:-o-a
has
e way of hectng& Pape avandiog
1 currt egalaben, Why? Recaune
mq:-nm—m‘.h-m“wnn_mmu
“Ther righi of slecting she Kaman Poatid purtaing selsly s ewshusively o ihe Cantaaals
u».ruyb-nam'¢v.-ws¢~snmmau-t:u-h
wppoindect by Pus XIt are desd if all the Popes atter Fius X were smpepes, # S
u-mzh'm-wm—mmmmm-wm
2 Pope ronically Sedevacarsiot wil sppesl 1o Cartan, wwhe taaches ihat the Church sn
Provide e manr to bt o Popc i i b mpossble s e s f s . 0
hed that
Candirub-ehcters). Yot Cajetan afae evplaaily heecacal Poge dors ast lome b
0l wntl e Is deponed by the Churoh, This 1 atother Omipic of Jome Srievataoibols
it e teachings of thcbogians, v el sesmethung ihul g i mer s e,
Mt like they “olt” she Papes.

I—————
 Sy

aralogy that con e drww ctwean the Body of

—: um dn mw v, uhl.un lnm. h'.. fi”‘&t
o weparaicd from e sou and. in (act, desd.
Tematned hypetabcally uni b0 t d d of God At that teme Py
theeWor
the Bie see d Mot her , wou ld hav e po ss these
es fayd o
e tha n st way p,
i thet the wetured, disfigured and dead Body ofh Chr
Body o the Messiah and Son of Ged?yetTothetprodea less suc 4 thing v,
bave boer consud emeus, wofidcmd
ered blasphdb d and disfigured gpyy
w'my“wafl vu nh nu Sinvlarly, in gy
Pamcion of the Churtodchay alththe gh
ouChu rch 16 disfiguredwy
it remasns the srue Mystical Body andtheBrde of
R ited o the Wend of God, whe is Chnat Himaelf,
Jas aa the Bacy thet laxd i the somb rose again, 50 100 wallthe v ne
pom<oncikar Church along wilh s members. rie again a the
appourbyie Godd.
at La Salese
Sedevacannats will siee refes to Our Lady’s prophecy
when She saxd “The Church will be 10 echpserch * Baced on these
words, they rsason the1 fust 3 the Chu will be hiddan
by a foreign body (35 the sun hidden by the moor sdurdur ing an eclips),
oo it willbe with the brue Church and the true bishop eclng the criss,
Sut this anslegy aise dow not Iellow, snce during an ipse we tnn:
{ard ot puat opeculate] thet the sun cusie, and we aiso ke where il 5
{ohind the mace), past as the faithful knew the exact place of Chrety
Bady in the tomb.
The Church of Chrmt boday s eclipsed by the wioral Alth and
dacirinal and liturgeal sberraions cavsed by her bad members, whek
bades the basuty of her mers! and docwinal keachings. But just as it i
durmng, the Passson of Chrit, the divine nature of the Church (o
Wubng docneal and meeal beschingsll ) lu aireunkm
remmn hanged
uncdm l
no
Fumdufl‘m.dlpe.lhellfl
the I, pust s the light of the Church todey w still seen today aleng
the “fnnges” {where Wadiben has been maintained)
O course, such s not the case with the alleged “Plus XI bistops
wive never exibeaced the New Chusch” since no oric knows il any exist
much lame where the y cannb m nd.flAnd
foum w r1 non
i emofmOur
fl Lad
w y's
fl :many
m:mn ‘ : fi
suggmt the pracical dwappe thear
ofar hierce
archy of the mm
.( reignfi
""F“*'fim-ry.-w-muusumu :c wu
%oy thet thete wil b & “diabmixcal disoricnitation of the uppet
<wr
hime net a
a rectc
def hofy
ien the upper hierarchy
l
Her prophecy
8t L&
ity thate the truYe Church, rathet thas(hus
uu h fi fi : n ‘
o Py eny” Wi
leve
id tofh
rnan
uniderem a
“ir uebbeb
— T———
The Chwrch and its Maln 2

continue to exist exctly ¢ s ahwys hue (ke she

cclipse). even though her brilliance wil he sbweured
k.unnmrlhbflmhmbk&nfor fi
o™ "
of "truc beltevers” and a beerarchy that % ne where hln:m
Sedevacantits 15 aherpt o sy thew pession by :;“';""h:
are carrently 1ving in e end times. when 1 prdcted that very fow
people will have tha true laith They point to sbibical and extre.orpheat
prophecies about how he faith wnll be nearly exhrct nght before the
Second Coming of Chrst As Our Laed sad, “But yet the Sen of man,
when he cometh, shall he Find, thank you, farkh om sarth*? (L. 18.8)
For example, in fos CD talk "Counerfest Cathebxom,* Cerry
Matahcs compares the Current cruis of
Flood when cight people were saved, thatthew, Church te the tume of thy
these wha ware inside
ark, which he argues is a type of the Church in the end Nmesthe&
Matatics platnly admite he believes we are Iiving m the end bimes, as he
apphes the follewing worde of Our Lord we eur day “Ard a in the
days of Noe, 80 shall also the comung, of the Sen ef man be” (M. 24.37)
Healso mentions St Peter’s reference 10 the remial quets of the seved
duning the time of Noe - “whevein & fow, thet i, eight seuk, ware
saved by water” (1Pet. 318.20)
In his daik, Matats atse refers to the Exodus where ealy twe
pewple (josue and Caleb)* out of twe miltion were sllawed ta enber the
Promised Land {of 1Cor 10:1:5) He likewioe argues that these
lsraclites are nother type of the Church 1t lhe end fimes, when maet
souls will be lost St Paul aliudes 1o these Okt Testament typologies
and their imporsnce n hus first letier 1 the Cormthuans. “Now all
these things happened 10 them i figure and ey ane wriken for eur
comechon, upon whom the ends of the world are come" (ICer 10:11)
Bused upen these and other similar patsages, a8 well as exira-iblical
revelawons about apostasy in the Church in the last days, Mamucs and
sther Sedevacantisis argue that the Church i the end tunes weil be
reduced to just s few, and that we are Jiving an those days new This ie
how they rationaliae that the true Church has all but disappesred
our day, Yut ot defected
Now, assuming the number of the ssved whe are living during the
end times will be small (which is likely for jesus sid God will sherten

* “Counterfet Caitxlicise va. Canstmarnt Cotholiowmn.” doc 4 o2 &

¥ Sov ot enample Nom. 143036, Jnbh, (L2 biataken e reives 1 the Toll af Advem108
00l v 0 & type af ur Church in the el Sarwm, when thove o, bl ol
Percens spostasy *
 e oottt members of the cwible oty wll be re
.mmmflmdhm&mmwy “
b act i i confirmad by 1 Coriewhiars. chapher 10, which
cmes in deferee of his potion. The pamage apeaks of & great gy
o sowraied 2 million) who belonged o thein theMbic soety . 4
e had been bupaacd *in the cloud. and sea” (v2) Ty, &
728 eat the same spatual food And all drank the same appy
arni (v 4) This large visibic secwety, which 11 partaking of the
apwitualfoed (e, the sacraments). i & type of the Catholic Churcy3
T sells e, hawever, thet with most of those in this viskle
“Go was ot well pleased” (v.5), and consequently they did at arme
Land
atthe Pro mwe(Heaven)
This passage sumply confirme thet not all she members of by
vimbie saciety are plassing W Ged, noc will all be saved That st i e
poiek . Paul was making with the analegy, which is why he
“New e thngs were dane in a figure of us, that we should e
cov Hungs Newar becomne ye idolaters.
evilet Neitheterw
comentt fernicalien Newiher let us tempt Christ: Nesther da you
acnur 26 seme of them murmured, and were destroyed by e
daswroywr New all thase things heppened to them in figure and they
art wien for eur cerrechen, upon whem the ends of the word a
come Whercface he thut thinkesh himel b stand, let him take bood
et he fall” (1Cae 104-12).
St Pawl was insicucting the Corinthians (who were members of the
Chuech) et be batuve Like the lsrselries did duning the days of Mas,
et whe same ihung happen te them. But this reference 1o the Iselin
1w way helps Matacs case since he humaelf has withdrawn fren
the vasbie sacicty and nw longer “eals the same spiritual food.” ne
“dnnks the same spintusl drink” as the iembers of the visible Church.
Thes analegy applios 4o the visible saciety of the Church from which
Matstics hws publicly scparaied, and oul of which he sceks to
others. Neithar dows the sculngy of the eight souls saved by water &
—_—
% Wien Matsscy addrmams the salvakian of e Bact (on diec § o §). Do s
,‘__ "“""Chun S -'hu
ot ren Ouede e "‘"h the 'u-ywu.m u-im
i prople of falneamm' *Os
rellgpor
vt tn S ek eigers bt by o e rlighann Matatic eves s el
ey e baet et (o dding hat pmstiom. Ayt Matatics ook
il by Uk, sien s & Cathlic 30 b aaved i the Newws Onio sk
___M_" Uwm o 4 (se Uik snd 2 tader religpen Thoe, by hs v
M vyet gl oo el dupiny), Main - BS
Loy dramirird v No Sabvwtson Outade ity Chorsh” 204

‘rw—
0
— TTTT—
The Ghurch nd It Marks Cluprer2
e time of Noah hefp hia case, since those
semairun, in the ark (represenvmng
the Churchy -:nh M
For those who believe ane curcenty un the end wmes - hat s,
the time that mediately wepracedes
thee are some Umparil (acks te the Second Goming of Chugs
cansider ® Fox ane. Gur Lady's
prophecies at Fatima reveal that 3 period of peace i the worid morey
infervene between our currend M, and the final apesiasy and the
reign of antichrist These prophecien, confirmed by numersis
veveal that the mivacies,
Pope will consecrale Rusata 10 the Lunacatsse Hears,
Russla il convert 10 the Catholic Farth, and a period of peace ul o
granted 1o the world (whether thus happere after a great chassemans,
presumably revealed in the Third Secret, remume b be sevn) ™
Setting aside the speculative question of haw leng the period of
peace will Last ¥ the bottom line i thet these events (the conseeratvon of
Russia Ruseia's conversion, & penod of world peace) heve net et faken
piace To argue that the fnal apostasy and resgn of anicheist preoodes
the period of peace and consersion of Ruseia as the
who still believe sn Fahma, must do) alse contraducic Sedevacaniiol,
the urnanimev
coneent of the early Church Fathers and Dactors, including St Thormas
Aquinas, all of whom held that the final apestasy and appesrance of
antichrist comes right beforr the end of the werld We furtber nete
there has been 1o significant, universal conversian of the fews,thatte
which Scripture alludes and many Fathers and Dactecsof the Church
feach must take place before the end of the werld
It 1s also worthwhile 1o consder that tradshional Cathob
commentanes make & dishincien between the miermal subversion of
the Church (which we are curmently experimcing threugh the Vancan
U revolution) and the external persecuion of the Chusch whuch will
Note that sewar of the verses caied v Mr Mt e o rebrring w the sdte o e
Church in ur day, but rather g thefne apvmby i el peemie o Socond
Caming, o the emd of e We see 1 famsewn wends. whe, for cximple, in His
Peerrre e the Floed and the lack of fash an Earth, He explciay reers o Ha Sacomt
Coming; “when e cometh” (Li 148). and * hecomungof he<en of war” (M 247}
Fox & Iharwugh yet essy - read irrobtens of Foma. ee John Sala s A Comivnt of
Fatme And the Relaed Crm o the sk (13, avalable 31 hae/ /s wbon
solascom.
" Same prophirin have even predacted that ihs will be 2 berg paned of peass, wheve o
8t Cathalic king will ey s v e Cherch s ewes 52 Catebdus of e
Stury Mork Adeo of Whe toruh omaury Abbot Jouchm Martin of e shirirdt
century: Menk Hilarian of the Fiftnanth cmiry Tolaaphora of Coarra uf he rieenth
iy Verambie Holheuare of the mevenirenih concury Owrid Poroms of the
sevenicenth century Breibet Louts R of the e, ecnavy: and Mokanar Calv
© La Saletie in the ninwicrrsh canbery omang ek Sev Yves Dupnt, Cathale
Prapiocy The Costimg Chmstcment (Rachined, ilineis: TAN Sools and Poblnben. tnc.
o w7

IE————
 Cupy,

) apostsy of the end Umesin. his(s hch the Sede,

:‘tm ) Fox emmpl. classic “"'\nn:r'
p b l s i h e
192 d
1, Fe. E- Syl ves T
ier Berry sy,
Sa me cp e 5 o
pavwos of the Papecy
—Sanam wilfrt smcTnpt s dusareyrche thr
g shot the downfal of the Chu follow sug(el h hercaie, S
e werecanons. that st surcly Buberae
lextemay

altempt 10 destrey o
Fe Serry further explains that Satan will ater
from with out by rais ing up ant ihn st, be reallzes. du
Chu eh fy
within
the reagn of peace that he cannot destroy the Church from
an now reuiam
Modermem, homosexualtty, ex) Fr Berry t$ays(ailed"Satmise rably In sy
hat vactory will be difficult. Ha first attemp
smcond confixt new tacwcs st be employed e will now scek ts ld
\he fasbiul asway by 3 fakee Messias whom he will rals e up u #e
persen of Antichnst" Fr Berry's opinion 15 that the end um
apostacy comes afire the intemal subversion of the Church and the
resgn of pasce promused by Our Lady of Fatima *

mgow the prrarcuiion of the (hurch will lesd bt g

Whely thet, durthes
= Az thin aw H wowld srevn ths Rome will Dreame an eneny of b
Chuarch e e the sret of the antachriet ae Our Lady revveled a8 La Saletwe St Paul wn
d
qu—q-'m"w-m'nmdmm’nfllhmfl
“whewil whesh in the temgle of God (the Church], shewing himeelf 4a 1 be were Gol
[ arsipwpe] @Thess 234) At Wl s the Krue Poge i@ “Laben oul of the may
ated by the Remars il
orvasmal by snartyrden by 7). hust o6 the Church wan pererc
et wnderyy ot 2 e vory Bgierery, o e will s the same a2 h d o .
ot am 2t e Dl of the neachewt Fr Beery sy “Thowe shall be dan of ot
et 0 which the Coureh will waber ol the barrars. of the early ages 1 L
St Ny e Ay f St e (GO,o ¥ Wikerich, Y18
ot p i
i
flk(fl dm‘l lw
-mu"
:‘ _d-.
hfiuw dh -m -dmu
m"—l-- mm nm ln 'w w"
___:“-hq-—.umdnn—t.anhfl
i bt vt ot R 2 ety oot~ A o s
o s S (s b
70 bl o o g 1 T
1 o
T St 2t o et et o i han
in plaves 2
W LT
s--...'_"__.".—». nd e, and cortbwpaa
— TTT—————
The Chreh and It Marks Cupier2
Infoc,Fe Bery saysthat e vacancyofthe Papal oifice
ol antipope(s} will occur, not dunng the and rengn
o
{the Vatican I revolunon) which precsdes e per
dusing the extermal persecution of the Churchooiod ‘.im::l..:: ther
of peace The vacancy ol the papal office wil which fuings the peiey
the martyrdom ol the e Pope and the duficultpesibly be the repult of
in electng 3 successor duning the tmeof extamal y the Church will e
thissergn o 2 llse Pope (o Popes) 13 cae e eccut pecs ccunen, Agaes
i b et o o e
Church dunng the time of antichnst and the fial spes taey Wrom Fr
Berry
"1t 1% now the heus for die pewers of darknens. The scw-born
Sen of the Church [the Pope] 15 taken ta God and te His trome.”
Scarcely has the newly elecied Pope bewn sntbremed when he 1
satched away by menyrdem The YSIE
develeping trough the centunes, canvet bof full Wwauity pradually
TY
y canummated
During the interregnum that wicked eme (i ammchiee] shall be
revealed 10 bis fury against the
Church ™
Fr Berry's arulysia w coneisient with meny other prophecies which
predict the martyrdom of the true Pape and the reign of an ankpope
{presumably the antichnst of hus false prophet) duthe nn Last g
dayn
Vefore 5t Michael the Archange] desiroys the antichnet and Chest
comes in His glory 1o fudge the hving and the dead at the rrd of the
world While we don't wish to engage in endless speculatien about
these matters, the foregoing strongly suggesis that we are not currently
in the end times and the final apostesy And even 1f we were in these
days, it would n 1o way help the Sedevathess ca , since
nithe is visib
t le
Church will necvr be overcome by the gates of hell - not even dunng
the reofig anticn
hnst.

hem ahultthe corammatbon cume™ (i sl apestiny and reign o asaceo] (s 13-

19 1.
T Apocuiyme of St joee p 1
For arpe e of Voguees (e censy . ek o e I B, arirmsh
) 4 Capuchin Frar [ coeu), o Ko of Tows purctomh
cwntury), M. Arisa Maria Taigs (ranciverith conmiry’ a1 50 P X eomocsh ey \
ameog hera

[
Tree or Faise Pope” gy

Clesing Comments.
pgy
As we have scen in theee first two chaprens, the Chu
Indefe styib
rusbic ct posle
essing four marks and three sy, 0
The vt sotey i mum with the
ercll ome um thenhApegu%par:
RChcro .u
CRUmm
,....d,,,... nn.dynmw w- y- mm
opive of any wriale God wills to permit It lo suller If this visigly
d clected 8 faine Pope acul then mer phed 110 & New Church iy
{or 1965 eic) a6 the Sedevacantichs claim, the ChuNch woul ey
ang g,
defected This, hawever, i contzary to the Rature of the Church
peomises of Chinst, hee Drvine Founder tot& -
Furthermere, Sedevacanteis nel enly lail to poin
our time which posscsses the marks and attnbules of the Church, jy
thesr own commhav ue no dofa m. s
thec Thus, it is imposeibegy
shesr secis 1n be “the o Catholic Church as they claim (or even par
of the Chuch, stnce they cannot even point 16 the visible and d infali
Qrurch of whach they are part) And, as sho beu evil
dent, a x
rpeossible o them 10 claum thet the true Church merely indwells u,
remeant of wue bebevers, without embracing the Prolesa
understa ndChu
of the g, which 15 precisely whal they have done
inrch
As we have shawn, the only Church that cven claims to possess these
aurks and atibutes 1 the Church that everyone in the world bt te
Sedevacantiv recogr Cates
as theuz holic Church This means thal
ths Church is net the true Chuzch, the Irue Church founded by Jaw
Chr ier
e lovg t e.
ncast
While much meee material could be previded on these man,
Whese it twe chapiers, in and of themnaelves, suificiently demersiax
that the Sedevacanust shesis is completely erroneous, and, in f,
canmet be hald withent ai least logically faling into heresy 1t 15 sunply
40 overraachen: la the current craa, fucle by & faulty understanding,
o she Churck's atefbuie of idalkility This is combin with ed
s lack &
fash wn the proses of Chrat, & presumption of the limits of Ged's
Pomamive will, ardl the pride of pavate judgment.
— T——

Chapter 3 Terms and Explanations

Before proceeding with this chapier, t w crrical ke moderstand
Jermunlogy to be used Toiulfld.wehvemtkfdbw::
rerme and explanations before the beginning of the chapir Flease rens
{and refer back to, a needed) these unpertant larwe > help facitate
compreheraion This chapier i foundanienal for the materal that
follows.
Bedy of the Church The vicible secul, seclosinsical secuty
founded by Jesus Chast for eur salvation, whes members
certain rights and prrvileges accendme te thee s 1 the poste sy
Clrrch,
Exteraal Bands of Unlen (with the Bady) Profousion of the e
Fath communion m the Secramenis (hegusnng Wik water
aptism), and unier with the Pope and hoaracchy Those throc bande
iy e pumrransed as the bonds of Sk, wership, d fevecnamec.
Ay way of analegy, or restsphani the extornal
caly, bonds af unien
e tacmaclvas sametanos refcrrod (s as the “Bedy” of the Church,
Peefect and mperfect Usion with the Bady. Osc hae porfect
wnion with the Bedy of the Church 1f be passcascs al throe cxternal
berds of unisn Perfact uren with the Rody w knewn m “in re” (m
toainy) and makes n man 8 member of the Church One has
mperfect unien with the Bady if he doas nat passess all three
extemal boads has sesires 10 be & mewber of e Church (e 5., &
catechumen who wills 8 cnicr the Cherch or se pubbcly
excommunicated whe wilk to fum o e Church). Lmperfact
untet with the Body w knewn as “n vese™ (o dessre). Noc that ome:
wie has imiperfect unien with the Bady 1 nac yet (or B longer) &
mem of theber
Church as wck.
Seal of the Charvh: The Holy Ghont, whe is e Lond and Givor
of ifc ts the Church, and 18 thooe jomed 1o the Church, criher
realt y
o desie
latcrual Bonds of Unlew (with the Sonl) The tarelegical virties.
o fasth M’c-ddumy,-wdlnmfy_-fl-‘k~
Bfts of the Holy Ghost which dwell m man 5 soul. The mbarnal
bonds of union e semchmcs feferred (s anlogously. or
actaphen call
as the “Seul” Churck.
of the y,
Peefect and tasperfect Union widh the Sook:sesOnc3 has purfect
umion with the Seul of the Church f be pomes he uairusl
boode of unien (.., & Cohaix in & s of grce). One
 pecfect oneem wilh the Seal 1f be: haw farh (i hope,
ety (63, & Catholsc m morwel 51m) Onc has 70 umon wiy -
Seul 1f b s Jot T, tmce O o001l 1610 O hop
charny cuame romash # b farth 1 lost
Bebmg 2 member of the CHErch Onc who K Perfest (1 rc) gy
it the Body of the Church, snd consequently possesses the g
wnd oivieges of Church membership One who 1 extemaly
rwcopruzed1 4 Roman Cathelic 11 good sanding 15a membey of
the Chuarch
Belag joined 1o the Choreh Onc whe has imperfes! unien
voro) with the Body of the Church (and thus 18 mor 2 member af iy
Chrch 26 mach). Relured 1o by Pope Prus X11 3¢ being ondained iy
the Church

Setvasion: Salvasen w dstwct from the concept of fomml

“mcnberibep” 3¢ the Charch Sl ation roquires perfect unien wik
the Sowl ofthe Clawrch (shroogh fark, bope, charity and saactifying
grace). 1 well e caber perfect (in re) o o bt imperfect (in vore)
unren w1 the Baudv of the Chorch. Thus, onc can be saved by bermg
Joined 10 the Body of the Church in desire, even 1f he 1 not an
‘sctn] “mernber”(4 defined above)

S M, et
— T
TT——

Chapter3
~ Church Membership and Bonds
of Unity ~

In Chap 1tande2,rwessaw that the Churchs

mpld!mnndollfid',mpu(dolawumnghfl"uv;: saclety, ,
we saw that the Church has marks by which 1t can be kop‘: fih
own
atimbutes that perfect s nature I this chapier, we will sce that ,pusts s
the true Church can be known by 1l murks, 1 10w can the members of
the Church be knawn by exterior bwds, which urute the to the visi
soctety and to one another We will see that shere are beth mernal and ble
external bonds of urity wikh the Church, and shew what the mursarum
requirement 1 for 2 parsen to properly be coradered a member of the
Church We will discuss various theolegacal epinions regarding whet,
precuicly, conetitutes membervip1n the vieible socwandetcoey,
seme recent ambiguities and errors cencesming tix questien.ide r
The
miormation contained 1 ¥us chapter will serve as a foundawen fer
seme of the arguments presenied in fiture chapiers, and the
distinctions tsat will be discussed will be used 1o moee clearly explain
the erron of the Sedeva thesc as n
ie a we i
g sfert
ward
External Sonds ef Unity

A person enters the Church shrough Saptiesn, which ifuses faith,

hope and charity Into the soul, and incorporae tum into
s the visible
society While baphism 15 necessary for one te be 2 member of the
Church,! baptem alone does not suffice for membersivp. Even
members of heretical secks can recerve valid bapearn, yret shese e
to heretical secks are not members of the Church.? sunce ihey are ot
part of the twdie saciety which i the Church. T belong 1o the Church.
10 additon to receiving bapism, snc wwst alse be 1} uruted to the
hlerarchy (especially the Pope), 2) parike of the same sscraments, and
3) profess the true faith (must acknowiedge the Church as the rule of

“Thirmgh the walkrs of Sapaum thase whe a born ke #his s dead i av

oy borm apein 4 made members of the Church, bt hemg seumped wikh 8 Coor sl
el thry become able and 1 1o ecetve the et Socmamen” (Pim Xl Myes
ot No T8, pune 29, 1803
¥ The evcepiion are thewe Delew the age of eaoow, whe are xucpovetnd mis the Churdh
€0 bapitond by 8 heretic yot they ceno b ba comabdord mambee & the Chirsh sase
ey reach she age of rmssan and smbeace the errors of their et Soc Pope Bramict UV
len
Node, Now.
Siga 13 and 14

——ee
 Troe oc Falee Pope? gy
ul
le bon
vielrr
exte , v the
ds unii
mmm T:x-m indivi to the
belongdu sble socyey, ™ %
alvisi
W
mbd—kwmaflde:tmurm&mM
Robe
S0“‘ rt Bell armu ne, whe particul
wn mfl
knefiw
is‘e arly
hn mm .‘:
mmd.
lmuy L
an o‘ r" o“ mx uw
e are unted by these three visbie bonds
“Tha snc and Wuc Church 15 the assembly of mcn beusy
Togetr by the profcssion of the same Chrstan fith and e
comemmnws of the same sacrament undcts, the rilc of the legitimay
Jasor. nd copcilly hat of the Roman Pordf, he one Viear of
18 sacy 10 infer which e,
Fhrws 0 sarth, Froen ths definition, 1tbelo
cleng ta the Church and which do ot ng 10 2. There are thre
pars of e delinmon he prefofos thevev n faith e
commee of nthe sacraments, and the subjection 1 the Roma
Posadl, he: logrim esc
pasie r “!

I the sngemal schernas prepared for the Second Vascan Ceund],

we read that the members of the Church are those who have ben
aptiacd and pessens these three cxternal bonds of ureon.

“Acsarieng 16 the mest sucwmt Wndition, snly they are called

wwabes of the Church, ® the Wuc 3ad proper scrie in wherm the
Courch, sac and mdrvisbic, indefccuble aad snfallible, comes
‘wge her
@ wnty of fash, Sacramenss and governmenl They
thercfere, we irely and property saud le be members of the Church
who wasked the btk of regcacration (1 ¢, baptism), profesming
e wuc Cothohc fash. 3nd acknewledg ing of the
she suthonty
Courch, we jowned @ s vuible srucwre 1o 113 Head, Chi, whe
ruiss & browg b Vicwh aad heve not becn cut off from the
weuchwe of the Myswenl Body bocasee of vary sevious ofTcnses.™
In hus Apsiegetic and Dagrnatic Treatise, The Church of Chrmt, Fr
Sybveser Setry refers ln theve external bonds of unity as conditens it
mombars in thehip
Church He alse elaborates further on them by
explaiung thet mbjectionW the hierarchy i essentiaily submission&
the Church's ruling authorty, while the profession of faith is realized¥
the exterral an public wilbmiseion te the Church's fracliing aushontys
- thowe, Couml drwse huavity fowm e witsings f &
O etettt Bt dover s i or e e of te Gtk
*Doyt CovmtatiOon, Chureh, b 2, The mvembars. o the Chvorch Mlion 164
e Nty o
/t-n-"_,,. Ne 3 b/ e snnmasnctummsitbolio nst
s, 0%

L EEEE—— 0
— TT——
Ohurch Menrbersieip and Bonds of Uruty Crapr 3

e rule of frth As we will see belov, *profussion

does not require thet each member Profess cvery oA she true taidh”
aspect
with theological precsion and no admixture ::yr- wm:.;::r'
the profession of fath w that they acknowledge the Church ae 1.
infallibde rule
of facth For thu reasen, Fr Berry explrine
thet “yhe
profession of the faith practically resolves seelf iose 1o her
leaching authority °7 Regarding these conditiens fer membersh p he
wriles
* three condbiions sre wheshvicly naceusery wd of duemmely
sufficknt for membership, viz. “
(a) Insatzen by baptuarn,
(b) Extceal profession of the true Fah wich u kad v sibeigiunn
10he tcaching authacery of she Church
(6} Subrmussion te the ruling autherity ef the Church,™
He yoes on 10 explan thal perfect sbservance of the condrhens (the
-umm')um-b-oluflymry!--m-mm-mham;
in the Chisrch. He wrote:

“These conditians may be brclly summac m sac

med phrase
the eception of Baptism, sed the presarvation of the unres - ity
of funh unity of wership and unity of goveonment wsy @
anole. fxcoptieg of Bagtum aad xibussen @ e cachinz u ad
uline_wthonty of the Church, It shauld e weted, howsvsr, that
norfect obscrvance of the untes W sel Kuured far mee
2 porson meed met make as explicit
pewiession of faith s all umes. wer caform all ki actions bo 1t He
necd nat make 3 diligent usc of the Sacrameni 3 i trmcs nericr
muet he be free from all infractens of Chvrch laws and peecep =
That the unities need not to be owmerved perfecty at all bmes
confirmed by the fact thet a Catheixc whe has drited away fesm the
sactamens w not. for thel reason alone, uiechately conswdared » ron-
of the Church.
member because the profession of the
Furthermore,
true (auh” means, practically speaking, the publxc submemsen W the
Church's teaching authority a ¢ e of fah, thus evorral bund doss
et require that every member profess each and every sapct of the
* 52 Thewas explaina. “New 3 1 muniiest that he whe wdberes b e tsaing «f e
Church, aa o bl ule, asevrs 1o whotevor S Chumsh wovhas.. * 9F 1L¢ 3
a3
e hrs of Chit,h. 128
At rmphemts addd).
4 (emphasia sddend}.

E——EREERE
Jrue or Faloe Pope? Chapy;

swelogical peecieion, roe does the profeseon ofM"c' 4

ever one from the Chur ch for here sy :m,,
e tha
n “a p e 15
r not
s Lo be
o calie
n d o o
e runch of Tren t ex pl ai
oo e shall ave offendedt in matters. of laith,but heingan.y g
g domegaricd the horsy of the CHArch, mainta
pertinati"cy
.,.,\;-mt confirmed by the lact that exc the Church doss
exc omm und cat e (ot cons ider ommunicated) vy
imme diat ely
e maak lakseeoseven heretical statement Ax we will ey
T chapier, wvoce w required before & Peraon 1s cut off ramg
ble woe forthereysy I those who simply ate made &
were “pub lic here tics ” who were imm edi ly cut ofl froy
stement ld be oy
e Church (s many Sedesacanbais. believe} there wou
Catholxcs in the world, since most Cathatics have Hle said something tha o
nall y here ncal at one Wme in theie adul t Fr Berr y explany
aase of faith, vet who hed
‘ot those whe recegnuze the Chuirch as the fule
herencal decwines are not, by that lact alone, commidered e e
here ! Hetc a.
explas
“A ber16enc umally defi 25 &ne den ve, a baptized
Chnsti
person, whe holds & decnine conwary to & revealed truth Bty
cliten v waccuric, sace & would make heretics ofd atsuth lgs
A dectrinc contmry 1o & reveale
wually wgmati hereteal but a pers
85 zed ons an
who professe
Warewcal dacimc # hat nccessanly a berclic Heresy, from the
Grosk hameais sgulie s . therefor
& cheoning e fs one who
a herctic
cheous fwr limsctl n maticns o faih thorchy roectng the
whouty of tc Church cuablished by Chiral Lo fach all men the
e ol agms {
rovel ) A person who submits (o the authonty al
& hereli.
e Church ad »ubes 10 aceept all her teachings 1s not
©5 houwh i woless herviical doctnes throogh ignoresce ol
what e Church really seacher he implicrly scccpts the e
docrmc bm b sl tenions Lo pcvepd all that the Chuach

Again, we sec that the “profemion of true faith,” required for

m‘uwmwumm the Church's teschog
and the puibic wibamiasian, o It a the eule of fanh T
—— T ——
Church Membersivg and Bends
of Linity Cuper

T A ey Sthave cosed
ressen this 1s Imporiant m because many
longer “proless e true Faith” and therefore ey1. o
mesmibers of the Church (since they belseve thet they lack an a ec
bore of urule} But. 46 Fr Berry explthusaine d,
cxtormal bord 10 ot
imenediately bioken by those whe make an erranoceus, even hevey
statement Hetce, 8 Cathohe who profmacs & hermey does not
sutomatically cease 10 b 3 member of the Charch. Dunng, the
Modernis criss o ur day, i whuch the obyectof Gt has been grealy
sbe by cur ed
“the Synihesis of all hereses. there way be maty wet
meaning Catholics and even prelsies who proiess harssy, while
publicly submutting to the Churchae the ruleof fath.
Example of Imperfect Observance of the Unities

The Sedevacantat writer, John Daly, cited an inkcbing cxample

o how far & Catholxc can go while st being cuneidered & member of
the Church On Januar10, y 1907 during she perfic of at
Pope St Pius
X, & parish pricst subwutied & question e & meral theolegianeen the
stalf at L Am: Du Clergst, concerning & lamuy at his parich. The
members of the lamily were all baptiaed Cathelics and openly
professed 10 being Catholic, but they had shepped regularly atiending
Mas sent their children 1o Protestant schosls, and from wme e bme
attended Protestant services themselves Thev even professed
Protestant berosies sbout the Blessed Sacrament According ta Mr
Daly, they went so far as having “blasphemed the Blessed Eucharist v
the parish priest, relying on typieally Prosestant arguments -1t Even se,
the family professed that thev were Catholics. net Protestanis, and
wanied 10 have thert newbom children taphzed by the parsh priest
The priest contacted L. Ami Du Clergé for gusdance wn arewering
several questions He wanied 1o know “whether the purens had
Incurred excommunication, whether thev could be bunied as Catholics,
and whether
if he should
, manage 0 convert anv of them, they weuld
have 1o make4 formal abjuration.”13
L'Ami Dk Clerge » highly respecied publication that was
approved and even encourag edSt Pius X at the ame. rephied
by Pope
P L Ami Du Clergé (The Frier! of the Clergy) wan s French-baguage weeckly saguune
Publahd betweyn L78 and 1998 b pucponr wan i complionerit and aplate e
alring od clergy, o0 all tatiers dogmanc meval kturgicel, thesiogel amd ustoncal, .
1 4 provice paistance with qursiens reeked e catwn i
.WNY:NM'!-MM'Y 000 ap./ warew swwelvmribellarmine st/
Sty bemi

s
Trwe or Foloe Pope” g,

the fumily's ateendance at Protessant servi

¥
T ey werded 1o leave the ChTch which, g %
by the fact that they publicly declared themaelyey '
%1 e, Beca contineued to prof
they us being en s the
Catholic,
Cat
e o concluded hat “these poor Musgdec souls had g e
£
Iy ard willngly reyect the dogma of the Church co "
Bucharst” Mr D.lymd-‘edmmmmummn*m‘:
it

~So m cvaluebng the questions pesed by the paneh pricxt, i

A dm Clorgt roplcd kot she culpits were ill mombers of he
Cotholc Chirch, wace ot cxsemmunkadicat 1o mals
50 needod.
formal shpurswen of thew cwes, Wt only e cepuir the scands)
o
This Nistencal exampie from the days of Pope St Pi shows
X us
it how "imperfectly” & Catholic can observe the external This bandso
nity whie sl g considered & member of the Church. i
shows how tash the Sedevacantists are when they declare that sanyere
whe muakes & heretical statement, of multiple heretical statemen eve
a periad of e is thevefoee a “public heretic,” and consequently hy
cut humack o from the Church, since he o longer professes e
Fasth”
New, you may be wendering s there i a difference in thi respet
between akayman and a member of the clergy who professes heresy b
Chapter & we will conmider examples of prelales who publs
yrofemecd crrers and heresies, yet were ot considered by the Chuch
a thexr contemperanes to have severed their external bond of une
with the Church. One example we will consider concerns a pricst whe
was & dacter of theslogy and unsverslty professor (obviously & hughiy
educsted Cathwixc) wha net only professed errors and heresies b
sehose errars and herasios were formally condemned by the Chrch &
the wane, even though he, hivwell, was nat publicly excommunxated
by the Chweeh, of ramed in the condemnation. We will sce that St
Sellarmunse, whe frved theough thee cvenis and knew the ma
standig
pecsanally alwiys conmdessd him 10 e & Cathelic in goodm
mihManmMWI M h
dow nct agrve with the Sedevacantis! position that al whe
Pl powies hermey wrediaely sever their bond af unien With ¢
— T—
of Linity
Church Menbershep and Benids Chaptar3

Church.™ We will see througho this beakut

that aod
‘misapplying the leachinofg 5t Sellarmne s €t comimen smeagat
Ihe Sedevacantist apologass.
Internal Bends of Unisn
Just ae man possesces vieible and kowiibie clemens (bedy and
soul) 50, 100, the visible Church possesses visible and invasible bords of
wruty The invisible spirtual bonds unite men spirtually be Cheist and
1o His Church These internal bons of unven are the theolegical vietues
(taith, hope and chanty), sanctfyung, grace, and she gt of the Holy
Ghost These are conaidered special properies of the bmible secxty whech
1athe Church. Msgr Van Nowrt explaine
* there are in the Chareh just 2 share arw by naire 1 man
two elements, onc vicibic and enc imvieible e Holy Spuot mt
Hoe wark arc bysthe tnatrumon of Chrsat the specel proparty of hat
visble wociety which 1 the Ciurch, masmuch 3 they can hever foil
10 be found theretn and canset, 2 e srtimery coune of cveats, be
obtned outside of 119
In Mystict Corpons hrish, Pope Piua X1 explained the exsrnal
bends and the internal bords ef ecclesasucal uruty as fallews:

“New 3ince e Founder willed thus secial bedy of Chret ' be

viaible, the cesperaiion of all s mermbers st alee be cxisrmally
macifst threugh their prafcssion of e s fevsh mad e sharwig
the same sacred riies, through pariscopanen in the same Sacrifice,
aad the practical observance of e seme bewx These urdral
ude 1 themaelves far surpass thesc of sy other humes sacrety,
Sewever exalicd, and yet another pruscipic of vmen st be added
18 them in those e virwes, Chrwaes G, Sope s cherty,
which bk us 26 clasely to sach other sad 10 God ™
‘There lu a deep relation between these interral and external bonds:
for interior frth leads 1o the profesmon of fah, % St Paul sayw: “creded

whe i
al vmss
* Fot auampie. the Sedevosmai blogger, Sieve Spamy mairiu
Kidged by privuie pedgrment Vor have ke 2 herehss siamen 1 3 “pablc hevwac” wnd
Wrviare 1m lorger 4 Mesbe of the Charch. b has areivad o ol erromevas posiive
Suard upon hin peivate interpretainn of cerm anenis is. (Spe Speoey “Robert Sucer
i Cathalic Farnily News Prevant Anwiher Fase Angumeat Agoirmt Smbevssaatin
Septerni 18,ves016
or wd
»C 1 Chure, . 225
Mynic Coror, Noa. #4978 o 29, 1943 fmnphams adda
 Troe o Fabse Pope” Cromy
lacuins s = | have believed havee
theref|or
propier
and to m,.,_“‘:'_:d
re
(Cnr fl:n 115:1) Hope leads to desim
mflwmmnmmmml .-&mc«
mwflmmx«m’nm h(-uudmlomhw
e submusmen o Magusterial authonty
fo twue .
14.21) - and herc both the g
In D Ecclene Mitante St Bellarmine discusses
el (whach abene suffce for one to be & memmber of the Clruc) vy
the mirrnal bands whuch umite men tutereriy to Christ and i Ha
mmmmmmdwmmlhond e voquired
‘ot te b 2 true member of the visible society thel 1 the Church Ty,
erty
& svudent from the fact thet (| anv interior spiritual prop
meired for person to be a member o the Church, the Church oy
wn He,
7 longer he a viible society whase members could be knober
i thewaenor virtue of fasth were necessany for Church mem stup u
serme Sedevacaniets bele).ve the true Church would nol be a 1y,
ety bul an invisible Church of true befierers known to God alme
But an “wvasble” Church, whese members are known to God alene o
the heresy of ProwestaniieIn m fact, this is the argumewient d by
Setlarmune hamaelf to explain why the external beofnuni donsde
sutfice fo ane lo belong te the Church. He wrote:
“New thase s thes delVerence Between our teaching and all the
others |the harchcs ducwssed proviensty| thae sl the ethers require
waernal Vi te consitute 3 man “within the Church ang henge
waks e vuc Clrsh srvisblc 8. despitc Lhe fact that we Beheve
S all e vwwn, Fash, hope. chanty and the res. are (0 e lound
wuinn e Clurch, we do nat Unak that say incrnal i ¢
el e b, € et et 2 1000 <2 b skl nalutly 0 b ¥
el she e Clhumch of which the Scripures spesk, but [what ».

= Dlarma s thens
e bt the O™ *member of the Oarch “part o
Coumch” and i the Clurch” synarinm ely (Fentan, * Memiberah
i the Chur
lp
m. .m»—umuonu. ApeiL
oo cmple the rdevasarv Kachad Thesny | tom815 ep th293
e whe b wmk bt i akh) o ot 4 *member”" ecculot theheretChur
i” (ehih
t
Therkoer el (secret) formul hervtic hekd an office he woult
Sy e ¥ i e »2 ¢ et oty Calhullc Chuch 0
e b O o hed et Catolc Chrch* (b7
et '+ Horrsies an Furmal Hetwiics and Lawe o Tapal 06T

= Cad, by vy o chunch sl et ok 915

—rirn” .Yv ""::: e
;-o-w_.u-mm e il

»
—
TTT—
Church Membersip and Sons of Umity )

For the Church s 3 vmrble 3nd palpable Mossmbly of mon, o 20

K,
the assembly of the Roman peepie ar the mdons of Fraace o the
Republic of the Venetins "3
“The sufficency ef the external Bends aiewe for Church.
s confimed by coneiderng (hat the ighe and dunes og™
g0od standing are ol based upon any inkern
al theotmgical virtues Fac
exmple_a Catholic’s external bonds alene permu t b 1o receors g
sacraments n the Church (eg. Holy Matrumeny, Confimanons.
irrespective of hus votemal virtues ™ That 6 cvidemt whers we eeopon
1t me
marmage @ be mbof the
erChurc h must follow the aws of he Clscooh
valid, whil a baptiz
eed no Cacanth
sacramentlly married without having 10 do 5on- be ol
slicand
Tha is becaces be
non-Catholics (non members) are. dispensed from the
canenxal form of
Mstrimony (which 15 part of the Church's posttive law), wherses
mentbers of the Chusch are not™ Smice the dispaneatan from the
canonucal form for marnage w net based upem whether the Cathole
possemes any of the Lheologwal virtues Church law reflecw
Bellarmine’s opiruen that the external bends alone suffice for Church
membership Therefore, as Bellarmine’s teaching ceniirma, the los of
interior faith does nol cause o Catholic & canse beinga member of the
Church
Body and Soul ef the Church
Pope St Prus
X and St Bellarmine
(ameng ethers) vse the terma
Body and Soul of the Church ¥ refer to the external and nternal sonds.
of union This terminology, which is used in a metaphorical serme,?

HDr ecvesse mikpenw, ch. 2 (emphosi added)

The state o grace w oy required b fovetve sham sattuars oty but & U0
swguiced by Church Law to reserve them raiuty
Those who mroerve Iuplsm are subpet ve the pomirve b of the Chorsh by viowse ot
Vel bupaemn, bapiaed dtvicuaks whe are ot mombees of e Church (65
Trteatante) are Liaes diapered From certain pousuve i, mch a ha paiaoing. b
g
T The b Ry ansd Sowd are only wed snalogelly @ metspleuicaly whon deasrberg
ke e i o o G Col T i Yo i 0
et {ierally the twul ot e Church, and the sutwand burds ars not Serally the Body .
Rather it Sond of the Couarch 1o maee properly the Fly Gee. 2 ougt ¥ Popes Lew i
KU (Drcunaim i) arad P Xl (Mysas Corpurieh The srand burs of vty 4 shaer
il redlim that urite 8 s fo the 3ol ol the Chueh, The Joky o the Church s e <
Viible mciery whach Mg, Frosen demtis 2o ‘e e Visible Mysoaal Bty o bt
2

———ER
Trwe or Fabee Pope? Chupayy

ndperi
In underhowmene gbe
senncan
“",",mo..mmm It ialso useful mmm,,,""“:v‘
remberof
anh can be vewied spern ec tl y Howeret.belore,‘,"h“; “"“"-pracegos
1o her
o importan wond of causio showld be mentioned m‘.
o these terms. wlogiry
During the first Mlf of the twenticth century, certun the
Segan vein the Body and Seul terminology . en IMprecice manvery
e rapeeoemon led some theologuns o imply, and otrch © exrs
he pi,
seach, that the Reman Catholic Church (the “visible Chu ) wag iy
Sady, while the Mysical Body of Chnat (an “Inthevisible Church) vy,
o Socl This error eventually developed into WW erToneous neve
QM
MMRM”M“MQUM
Church (the “Body”), and the Mystical Body of Chrust (the “Sent)
which serely “subsests” 1 the Reman Catholic Church, yet o the sume
e was 8 larger enbty
Ta avend thia esTee, it 6 imperiant ¥ note thet the Seul and Body an
et iws separate Churches, ner does the Soul merely “subsist” in the
Sody, while umulleneowsly serving as the Soul 1o herctical seck w
nonCatholic religons. Rather, the Seul and Body are two distng
chementa of the sme irue Church of Christ, which is the Rorman Cathalc
Church, siandar to hew the soul and kody of man are two ditind
awpects of ene and the same person.
In he manofuDog lic Theology, Chnst’s Ghurch, Van Need
amat
wrwse “The Seal and Bedy of the Church are not two Churches, ihe
one nvialble aad the ether visible, but tegether they form the we
-
Ot o wwrth” The ewtorund b are Vhoar pasibic rvalities that Uit 4 man te iV
rtbie vocety For thin rassar. Fermn nated thal when the berine “meul” and “hedy” e
v to gty Whe iwrmal and enterral bwrde of unily they are Tctapherks o]
s of Horurnar Cactocs et furetion em berids of unity i e
Courch Vitart o kitthe New
Appierd 0 e
Tevtamant.” Ferwon, The Gadulic Churck end Salcutin. 190

£nple Ve dores-suvmaned ke “The e & W 1 and Soul & 9

h‘hq:h—wb~mo.¢'a-_m~mda
:fi-:—-—-”«a...,..";-'r:""fl—fl"‘-"""""""’
g Humens Geere (1934, whoo $e 2%
-..-,."._"‘“"f-&--u--.m«mn-.um-fl
»’-,..-':.::;—m-‘:‘ay are ol Vigor ug.«qmrd" of Masbl
Vensioedvt 1 ot Form 103 and Karv g
L Wit B Yok S s W, 1930 p 142

S TEEE—.
-— ——
of Unaty
Crarehe Memberdg ard Bod s s

urch, which 15 at once vimble and endewed with merier e

O e A eT
8‘.‘....| Ottaviani, Pro-Prefect for the Haty.
Myw(dnodynlchrfilmmml
tfe"x
lkmrrlmywm
different aspects "%
Whe pro
n perly undersiood the terms Body and Soul (which were
on byePapde St Pis X in s own catac
sigrfy, can serve a3 » useful analogy for undersiananddinhgtheutherat
miis), ey
nanure sy
being,of the one Church of Chinet, s well as fuber explaning the
ways in_which the mtemal and extemal bonds urite men 1t
Church The distinction is also quite effeckve for tinderstand, g some
of the errors of Sedevacantism whwili
in De Euclesis, Bellarmine explainel dbec
dwchussed Lk
the Body acd Seul of the
Church a follews
“We must note what Augwime wys m ke Erevicrks
Collationis, whete hc 15 dealing witk thc soaforvac af the
e Yord
day, thet the Church 15 & living Wedy, i which lere 15 4 Seg] and &
Bady The internal gils of the Holy Ghos, ok, hope chacrty and
the test are the Saul The cxiemal prfession of the fanh and the
commun af theic
sacraments
at are
io the Bogdy
n 2
Hence 1€ 15 that seme e of the Scul aod of the Rady of the
Church, aral benoe jomed bosh mwardly and euewardly te Che the
Hesd, o such people are wwes perfectly wotun the Church. They
are aa 1t ware Living membinor the s
Sody shheugh samc of thom
share 1 thus e 1o & greaver cxtent, and ethers te 1 loscr cremt,
while atitl others have waly the bepmnng of hift and, 0 K wore,
seneation witheut mevemen, bike the pouplc whe have saly fash
witheut chanty

st s Chrurc
p. 225,
h
¥ et Sertes [L vel R gt (1L pp. 98993 emphase abdrd).
" Cauhisn of P X “Quamblen 22 In whal dees Wir Sout of the Chnks comame?
Anawer The Seul of the Church carssie In her .-m.llD:
r hww"h-: ..:
. L, hope charkty the i of grace and of
bty e i e g el e e v
o The Saints. Quantien 2% It what dees the Body of B Curch conust’ Ansere r: The
Badly of the Church consss In her extermal and viaible syt that i 1 the sascuiiun of
bt memers i v werbip ke g pewet e 1 Iy el e
IPeTenent” Roberte, Marshall, Catwhuum of Prpe 52 Pans X, (Winahwatee, Viegioia:
Michael Presa, 3010, Lulu com, o 41 -
'Mn—u—unmmm-v—nhfl-—l--—v—d—:‘
Sencribe e Initerred st vuimmal bovids Whet sanibe mom itk i S (Haly Ghoat)
The By (bhe vinide sacietyl.

————EERE
True or e Pore’ ? Chpyy

Agam, socre are o1 e seul and yithavof e efahbody, s cu

ied por nem s if the and chaniy, :':y
and excommmca
can have tham. ace of the Wed y And 108 OF 11 Saul ,e
s they
Fnd , inal ly, socr e. By 702500 af sepy
wha have 20 intermal virtue, but whe il
owporal hope e fear profess the tor fah and communicaie g g
e under the rulo¢e ofevilthehiqupasids ins a hum And suuh 1nds¥s éuls e
Ve hares ov fingermasia an body
Joternal spintual bonds unite a man to the Soul of the
m.r:nmwrmmnmnhnmmu\eloq Noman w we)uvrsfi'\nz
a member of gy
e exmal bends alone suffice o render &
Chorch, wut 1 16 possible for some members of the Church 1o be men
pertectly wnited b the Church than others, as Fr Fenton teaches.
that onc mam cam
“Thare w50 doubt whetsecsor sbout the factthan
Ve mere poricctly united to the Church anether AN
wcknrwlodge hat 4 Cabelic i the satc of gracaeil 1 Inung
evamatensty b s membxr ipch wh Catholse
shChur
i the e
e st o mocm i 3 vt
Perfect and imperfect Union
One i prrfify ututed ta the Soul of the Church when he poscas
all three theslegi - lath hope and chanty - and s thereby
virtuescal
livag he supernatur aj He is imperfec
bife of grace united totly
the Sest
of the Church when he pasacsscs the aupernatural virtue of faith [
Voth faith and hepe), yet i cut off from the life of grace and chartly
., 2 Catinbelmortalisin}
One w perfctly uniied wo the Body of the Church {the visibe
seciety) when he & & member of the Roman Cathollc Church (meaning
he paseses all theee exiernal bomds of unity) On the other hand o
persen s wnperfectly united (srdatned™) to the Body {the visible socet)
when he w 1ot an actual membver of the Church but desires (mplicoly
o explicily) te enier the Church, elther for the fiest time (€5«
echamen) o by retwming afwer being expelied (it
encmmunicate) ® Pope Pius XI1 referred to those imperfectly urused

» Fanvea L&&
t vt
icise
iy P e Chusd” Aruermser LosieainRev
270 st eG ty by Tope Poums M i Ayt Covpre Clrioh (. 180}
* Ao Mellarnanr wap b
it s se 4 eorsrmsmoeted e eW
ok, ot
- ——
of Uity
Ghurch Membership and Borwds .

Body by an imptiat
desre in Mystxr Corpors
::,, o “those who do ot belong10 e "-*Hmm:
Church” but, neverihelcss "by an uncumsceus deare ang |
ave a certaim retatienahup (rdmentut) with the Mysricat Socy ;;1
Redeemer *7
Becausc 10 one can oblain Heaven uelem he dus wh
supernatural faith, hope and chanity in fus seul, it e clea that perct
union with the Sou of the Church 1 absalutely necessry fot salvarion
On the other hand since one can b uuled te the Bedy of the Chrcy
m voto (by desire)
or i v {act uall
imperfoct y),
unien with the Bedy
ean suffice fon salvation.
To illuskate this pont. lel u umepne & man whe was valully
aphized in 2 Projestant sect as an nfant, and rawed as 2 Protestnt, Let
e aleo umagine that when he reached adultheod, through prayer and
study he arnved at the hrm belief that the Reman Cathehic Church
the trve Church of Chriat and Imenedustely began toking nstractiars
froma priest In addihon 10 bebeving all whet the Church taaches,
during the time of his Inetruction, but befare beung formally recewved
into the Church, he recetvesa special grace frem God enablmg him te
‘make an act of perfect contrition for hes past sine and thereby ebtamned
the stake of grace
I the rran: died in this state, befoce being foraully recerved irte the
Church, bis perfect union with the Seul of the Church, combined with
His desire to formally enter the Bedy of the Church, wonld suffice for
salvation Just as the will and intent 1o sin satisfies the condstion fer
mortal sin (¢f Mt 528), 50 too the will and wwent 10 lormall jeen the
y
Church can sulfice in place of actual membership in certin
circumatances. Hence, in erder 10 sbiun salvatien, a persen must die
perfectly united 1o the Seul of the Church (he must posse faith,ssbepe
and charity) and be united to the Bady at least in tefo (tmperfectiv)
Thus Bellarmine says' “When we say ‘Out of the Church there w ow
salvation,” 1t must be understood ef these who belong te the [Body of
the] Church nerther 1 fact nor or n dese ™

-_—
e
xct udo
(et o the By,n-u
membersd e ot ot adbmiodu—o e
becousr Vs foraer-m—
.m.inmm-n
«m“ —mm ru»
Mibsiwie (b 2). o
Sl i e ddrs o 1t f e Rk Oy el
I, Myt Corporis Chriah, No. 10
D Bapi IV tame o G,h1 1
22, cited 1 i By Tho Chr
1w

—————eRE
 Trwe oe Falnc Pope? ey

Matens) Heretics Are Not Members of the Chure,

seral hevetics are those haptized indwiduals who do g
,,g,‘,,,m. eaching authority due to {gnoofra ncye<
the Chung
wpopkfimxhwkdsffl\echunhnfl\e mk"!/"'"h«
lack what is necessasy for the “profession of the true farth” Which,
mhwmlmlmwmklmmh«ofu‘m"h_,:
serm"materil heretic” i an objective classification, indeperento gy
impr of theesoul A person baphzed and raeeo'y
sute wv d
Prokesant sect,for evample, who w ignorant of the Chusch, s g
a6 4 material heretc even if he possesses interior falth (whih
. As Cardinal Billot explains, even if such a perser i s g
Gk, e 380 it @ ey of the Church.
“Haroncs are drvided mto formal and materiat Fermal herscy
e ke to whorn e autherity of the Church x sufficindy
Tnwwn while matcria) bovetics arc those Who, Seing n mviscible
sgnorance of the Charch herself, n goed farth chagts L skt
Sung ruic 5o the bareey of malerial herctics 15 el Impulebic
o ad méced # 1 Bt neccssanly sncompauble with th
sopornannal fath whick @ the begmming and reot of all
onicamen. Foc they may suphicaly beli princiepel arucles
the cv
Tof Fum), sné beleve the athers, not eapliciily bul implicily
rvagh e dpounen of mund and good will W adhr: W
whaicver proposed ta them as Seving besn revesled
95 Ged In fact hey can sl belen 1o the body ef the Church by
duxe, aad fil e oher conditions neccssary fas asivatien.
Nenctheiows. e e their scrual iricerporatien in the vesthle Chusch of
‘Chrat, which w oue proven subroct, our thesin makes e dislniction
Sctwon forna! and museral hereucs, undersmiding everylbing i
sovveimce wi ihe astian of muterial herery Jum given, which
dond i the enly iuc sud gemume one "
The Cardunal goes on 1o ewplain that if ane coniders 8 person whe
Peoirwn whiee ck the Chur
on ch » Magisterium in matier of Fah
s
(2. Cathalics) 1 e & material heretic for inadvertently holding a1
Qpinien cortracy b6 what the Church hae defined, then "maierid
em"""whr-ta‘uwcmm But, ae the Cardesl
s, M 11t proper defiration of material heretic (AIHOUE"
Wsemen for this iicerrect definilien 0 fer used) He eaplads

>et O Ladrms
mh*&-r&mnmmmmw*f
-
0

A
— T——

Chopier3

Magisiarium 1 maers of fath, mevariacless

s
d:nn!“'ylfitfhll::umk«mkml:kf—d,:
the same leken an en oppewed .
Dcaie e Tacly thinks ....":.m:.u".ffi":.‘::
i bsurd 10 place matenal heretis aute e vedy of o s,
Church, bul 08 the undermanding the kepimate mc af the
cxpression weuld be entstly parveried. Far 2 retonsl s g st
cxst enly wien that which belargs 1s the naae of e o ke
place materially yet witheut advert ac aen
delieee
rate
e of heresy concts m wildereat from he willuie ofBostw
“hfl‘dmm
aance: thi 18 @ fumple ermee of fact“conce
flmm-“u
rmua what he e dictaes.
Ané thacefore Ihere 5 oe scope for harssy cven maserlly ~
Accoeding %o the proper use of the Wrm, material herescs
pfiudm&flwln)mmmflkchunh.wnfilwy
ase It good fatth, whereas Cathalics who nadversently profess materal
heresy remasn true members. The ditference % that the former de net
recognize the Church a the rule of fath (and therefore do not profems
the wue Faith), while the Cathelic doss, even if he profmses a matenal
heresy

Whether the Virtue of Faith is Necessary foc Membership

A question that divided theslagians for centunes % whesher a

person must have the interver virtue of faith m addtam te the external
Vonds of urion be be conmdered a “member” of the Church. Over e,
ewever, the poaition of Bellaranine (that inleriec fath 1w sef necessary)
has become the common opiruon of the Church s theologans, and fer
500 reason, as it mere sasly reseives difficulues and is meee
corsietent wilh the posrve Law of the Charch. While the comicary
opinien has never been condemned by the Church, Mogs Fenin

i
" Canaes 7312 of 1917 Code of Carwn Lo sys sl hescoms whe “art 8 good 0"
(material horetics) e “omtmde e Chussh ~ Ludurng O% ove sabn it “Pubs horeion
a0 Ko whe 17 s gl bidh [snairial heveiice) s rut buieng 36 the by 3 e
Ohmrch” Fundsearnials
f Cathc Degs, . 311

SR
 Pore
Fois Pope”
Traeor Falee O,
e that the epirwen of Bellarmine now holds &
Coal heclogy Hewnies P
T opanion that & mam devend of (ath Con b & rea) e
of the Cothehc Chorch recopmred €ven by 1hose who dy gy
acoopt &, 46 bewg mare cocmmenly held than s opposre Ayy
docea communinr 8 bk 8 30 Of POIVICECS MUS 1 the Ml of
Casbolic thevlegy "
In The Church of Chnsi, Fr Sylvester Berry fish a numip, o
who fell on either side of this queshon He wrote -y
sach a Belarmine, Coenelius a Lapide, Perrone Palmien, Sirauy g
Toket mantam thatthey [weho lack intrlor fath] are true, even taugs
wrv wembers of the Church. Suarez, Franzelin by,
Dorsch, and others hold that they are not member and, s,
thereion,
elong e the Church tn appearan onlyce*+
“The differmg views appear 10 be a result of the perspeckve fwn
whach the sheologars appreached the question For those whe viewnt
the quuasion from the potn of view of iberor union with Chrst and
saivotom, the uward virtue of faith was conewdered abusiuly
recswery foe o 10 be & memter of the Church (since the fos of inien
fauhs causes & compieic severing of supemataral unsen with Chot,
Others, wick a4 the Sweenih century Domuncan, Cardnal Jehn de
Toquemads (or Turmacremata) went even furtherby matainng tw
v martal e resdied 10 loas ef memberstup in the Church, s
mortal w deprives. the persen of chaity and sanctifyng grace and
Sranetone of perfect urwen with Chiet,
The wpwuon that wenor faith s necessary for membersiy
wradusky decrasscd due 1o the problematic consequences of e
pasisen. and the epinien that any mortal sun {resulting in the Lo of
yin
grace)
Shanty and sancuf gd one from membershinipthe
severe
ourch® was explcilly contradicted by Pope Pius XII m Mydw
-
Sutin o) S0 Raborrt Rellarm's Towching, abuoul the Mrrartip€
= e Catbolic Chmarch,” Ameruan In.:\-::ilbwl- val CAXIL re 3

oo p 133
o ot
u:n..‘,"'hfim 0 e O™ Arrrican Luievianiool Revlowr vl X 1 4
i e
ot k
ot b 2 3eral wn foncuding mew ageisad the Paish] tecome
u&.._f:_."mh-man-»nuxuhrt‘
St o e By of e et ¢ P 1 e el foure commpleRy

™ =
— T——
Church Membershop an Rerids of Uinaty ,

1s Christh Some others, who viewed the

view of salvamon, such as Wychif, Husa
O mer by clumung. hat only the :.g,.m,.(.:: m‘;"" even
atisn the Beatific Vision) were “members of the Church, The v
was fermally condermned by the Council of Coratarce o e~
For those, such as Bellarmme, whe ty viewed
mlhwlnldv&wdnmm"flh"d{-w-fl:’y‘:‘:
the foss of sanchfying grace, Ror the low of inkere fanh, severed err
from the Body of the Chiarch, that 1, fraes acual“meminraiusg®the
visible socrety This 15 because the low of the iverior vitoes (.
hape and chanty) occurs in the mbernal (irvisible) farurm and therefees
cannol be seen Consequenly, the Lo does net deprive ene of the
righis and privil of aege
Catholi
s. c in the external (vieibie) forum, per
does 1t have any effeonct
the person s standi i the vuible.
ng
Thus explaine why the common opuon maintae that the few of
interior (arth does not cause a persen W cease bewrg a member of the
vislble Church.
Scnptuze also confirms that the visibie bande alone suffce fo
Church membership, since it conswiently refer to membershmip the
Bady, without regard w0 any of the inseree, supermatural viwues of her
members. For example,St Paul tells the Connthians “Now you sre the
Mady of Christ, and members of ewber” (1Cor 12.27) He alea tells
the Romane “So we, being many, are one bogy 1 Christ, and every
one memnbers one of another” (Rom. 125) and “by the body of Chret,
that you may belong to another” (Rom. 7 4) St Paul furthes says. “For
% the body 15 one and hath many members, and all the pembers of
the pody, whereas they are many. yat are one pady, 0 abo @ Christ”
(ICor 1212) St Paul aleo refers W Chrwts “body, which w the
Church” (Col 1.24) and says “Chast w the head of the Church. He w
the saviour of tus body” (Eph. 5 23)
We also have the example of eur Lord net excluding the (anhless
Judas Iscariot from the Last Supper St. Augush akong withnc,the etber
Fathets, held that Judas was amengst those tn the Gospel of John,
Chapier 6, who “believe not™ d{v 64) * and Our Lacd Humael, at the
time, went e far as 4o call him a “devil” (v 72). Yet, i spube of the bous

T wvery ke, rer g i ey v w8 o e owh e 9 2t 3

o the Body ofthe Church. * (P XIL Sysics Lorrs Chrwd, M 25
* Denr_ 427 Fut o thorvughs Thetrsiement o the bopk of pendesenvasn ond de rvom of
Calviniam, sre Jahn Salsa Mywicry of Prmanaien ~ Ading b Sewbue.
st ond52 Thaowes Aguress (Chaclosr North Caroina. TAN Books ) Fubluben.
Y. 2010 avaiteble 1 bt/ /woww owaliacoon.
* Cominumitey i e Camped of Job. Wt 27 5K, Augusie.
15

SRR
Trwe o Falee Pupe? iy,
irverioe faith. fudas was invived bo the Last Supper Mot vin g,
o Apaoties 5. Theaus explained why
“Sappc Chrat Wi 10 SCTVE W 26 & PONETT of Juatice, x
1 bevpeg o He teackong ety o sever Juda, 3 ggy
the others without s scouser
e, from Compmmson with prelaics
o proo, om the Chrch's THEhL bave an cxumpe
nang e like ™
In the reply 0 an ebjection ) the same Article, St Thomue g,
expluned
~The wickedness of Judas was knewn te Chrust as Ged, b
was unkcnaran o Him sfter he manncs m which 1 is known by s,
Cousaquenily Cheut dod vt repel Judas from commmumas 1o
foranh as cxarmple that such PUCTEL SmeTs B1C 10t 19 be repcliod by
‘saher prosts ¥

In Shis exampie, we see that Our Bleseed Lord Himeelf wosied

wribehiever as 8 “member” of His Church. Since Judas was
evernally ta Christ, he was invited $0 the Last Supper and s
external lyas
are of the faithiul.
Fellowing the example of Our Lord, the Magisterium aleo ruy
these whe arc united %0 the Body of the Church exiemaly »
“wembers” of the Church. For cxample, Pope Pius XII definese
“Quzeh” a6 “all the members of His Mystical Body *** Pope Lot
173 “those whe “peiang 1o the one universal Church, outside of whdt
w ane al all w saved,” are those “helonging 10 the one same body ™
Poye Pius X1 ivachas that “wheseever therefore 1 not united with e
3. 8 o by of &, neither s he in communion with Chiwt %
head * Pape Clemant XIV asys. "One s the body of the Qund
hose head w Christ and all cohere i it *5 tn refererice %0 the Chrurch
Tope Prus DX waches that “they, s members assoclated In one hesl
catience ane hoglly
inteudm structure B Pope ;im
nmn
[V similarly sip
Eugenemly
mnm «vw mhw for {hese
he sbide in W are the same sacraments of the Church of benefit

Whana
g2y
+ My
— ————
Church Membershay onid Bonds of Unay Chepters

alvaton.” 1 Whese st sther pascage, riber Sriprae. nar the

petcriam makes ieterior virtue 8 teywemma
.M‘:-bennnpmmeumm As noted - for actual
et sulfc for memberestu oat p, e ] e
mble seciety, but an invimble Church, ‘.
Unimately, however, the divergent opiruens regarding whath
vitue of faith s nccemary (or one to be conaidered & “memer of b
Church 1 only 2 sprculabiv question
e with 1o prachcal diferenen Thr.
s because, on the practcal level all agree that thase whe reiam e
viaible, external bords of anion aleme (even if they have lost e
imemally) continue te be troeted 26 sctual members of the Cherch ay
gond standing, and consequently possess equal ecclesiasical righa and
duties, whether they poseess the virtue of faith or net.
As we will see later, this applies squally to members of the
‘huerarchy, which means that eve i prelates
n (ihe Pope mheps, priests)
happtoen lack wnkerior faith (which s known with certamey © God
alone), they nevertheless retain the nghts and dukes of a membe r
the Church according to theie posion, including ecclamtastical officeof
Hence, f & member of the hierarchy happes ko lese the (arth, e docs
ot by that fact alone, lose his office Gunsdiction) * As we will we in
Chapler 5, thus point 1s effirmed evan by the minontty of theelopane
whe hold that inkeriec faith 16 necessary for sne w be considared,
& “member”
techni cal of the
ly, Church.

Non-Members and the Seut of ths Church

In the next chapter, we will discws the dogma “No Salvation

Outside the Church,” and explain how it w pesobic foc onetw be saved
without being a formal “member” of the Church. in rying be anewer
thus question, certan theologuans fell 11k an erree that essentally split
the Church I twe. Ths cenfused ecclesiulogy resaled, in part, frem an
incomrect understanding of the Seul of the Church, which wes
coneidered lo be scparaic and mdepondent of the vmible secety
conaituting a Church un simelf with s own "members.
Whereas Bellarmune's ecclesiology rightly holkds thet “Whers s enly
#ne ccioma, and not twe,"® this Modernist sheory comulied w the
concept of twe Churches, o at loast twe duwnct mdes of sembrrsip
in the ene Wwue Church. namely, memberstup with the Body, and

* Courctl a Flacwrce, Condoie Drmson, 1681

” Theskegically ageakong, there i ne actophymcal incmmpetiniey Seimorm the ask af
irior ith and habivual priacion.
D Livkess Mitenie ch 2
l wr

—EERE
True o False Pope”
Oane,
. " with the Soul Thw resulted in the
e of Chit (the "Soul") s o Church, ang ot
“Body”) s & separate Church,.nsie
vt Church (ihe lu ad o
mnw-pubk npmmwm wn ,,mi“*m
up wity
~member” of the Church to be saved. Modemiste came our, g
ontn of a econd Church, with “members”Churof chits "Hm.::
‘fferent medes of “membership” in the one
s exvor, Fr Fenton said
~They have aemved ot the implicatio n in some
that,
another, sl of theac taem and women whe arc cligible for saivama,
o6 0 the st o haboual grace, muet be members of the lace Church.
They have net comsudernd the classical docirine, & commonp w
schelasc ccchesasiogy simce the days of Thomas Suapleton asd S
Rebert Bellurmmme, that & mem pax.be saved cither by bemg o
mawibcs of the Church ar ey amtendung fo soter Uy 3okt ag y
In therr smurey to find & 5ot of memberahip which woid
apply o a1l men of goed will they have vorl icrm mermber
theed
f s owoomal cnoaning. nd they have thus occasiened confumes
shout e rnature of the Cathelhc Church tiscif ™
Pope P XIT alse responded te this evror (which essentully st
the Church an two) in Mustics Corpents, and again in Humem Gener,
when he taught that “the Mystcal Bodv of Christ and the Roman
Catholxc Church are ene and the same thing,* and refer1orede
who were undermining this truth a» being “deceived by impredet
3ca) foe soula
The anewer for understandin howg nen-membersof the Chuxh
can e saved le 1t te tret the Body and Seul a6 separale entitics, &
there arv two separate Churches or two separate modes of membenhiy
n the Church, which dees vivlence to The nature of the Church lell
Rather the selution s 48 simply raalize thet one can be saved by berg
;‘"_L*’“'*'Mmbykvmummunammhmm:‘
e, Yohowever, it s absolutely necessary for salvation
e oosituanen saf
o4 grace, thet s, with the theologsvist caoesl
M’J‘""“Qfl:ylnh-v-d »
ets e Churcs . viibde society with both intermsl
fi“mmmMflmlh&dunbfilmmW10 ¥
e{which Is primardy shown by a submission
AL 1905 1 i s Ao Lt Reviw, vk OXE
i eA 12 1910,

e e
 .
Cqch Membersig s of ity

hs te am 5 1€ ule of fuk ) pac tic ipa ien v e sane ecPoprmeicnThe

ag Chu rdt 's hie rar chr y, esp ecu all y the
and umon with the lwmhhmfari fla d.mmhd
flmlmd!almmallborndn s of ure ty are h, hop e and chanity,
the Church The wntern to Chr st and Hie Church, and
which unite a man mor e
can
per
be
fec tly
axv ed In the nes t cha pter, we will
oot windo ch no one e bhe Church therew e Salvetnen
“dress the gma Outsid
PRRE LIS ELARL L
S

0
|s

|
.— ee
T ————

Chapter 4

~ Church Membership and Salvat

ion ~

As we have scen. the virtue of faith is et necessary

be & memher of the visible Chureh, but supernatural t..zh‘:.::m
natural knowlede of God based upon, easen) 1 absoluiely necesaary
for man to possess supernatural grace and ko achueve his ulkisate end
{the Beatfic Vision) In Chapter 5, we will consider the virtue of fasth
relation to jurisdiction in the Church. Befare deing ae, hewever It
seeme opportune to further ducuss the necessty of fath, and the
necessity of the Church, for selvetion
This chapter 1 intended primanly e counter an sverreaction on
the Right, 10 an opposs erver te
of the Left. The error an the Left i
religious indifferentism, which mainkalns that all religore are mere o
less good and praiiowofar sewo as they help man to live a,
rthy better
life This error also malntaine that salvaten i3 aMamable ¥y the
professio of any
n religion (or even ne religen at all), ¢ long 46 sne
Tives a naturally goed life and follows tws cenacverce
Those whe possess the serwns fiddium {ihe scrue of the Fak)
ummediately recogruze this errae But some, who de et have complete
knowledge about what the Church teaches, end up everresciing by
embr an opposite
acin error gon the Right - namel y, w
Wt salvabon
possible eny for those wha are forma) members of the Catholic Church.
Altheugh this overresction 1s understandable, it s it what the Church
teaches This chapter will address the speafic detils of the dogeu
“Outside the Church There is No Salvadien,” by shewing hew those
who are not vieible members of the Church can pessbly obiain the
Beatiflc Vision In discussing the finer detarls of the dogma (what some
wrongly call “cxcweepti do not imend ons” ), fer
te mrply Wt salvasen
non-members i commen. On the contrary, we believe atiaining
walvatlon without being a formal member of the Kemun Cathellkc
Church 1s likel e, lty in this day The pount s wet bv open
.mwtmy%mflm-nmd.mw
ditarting it ither to dre Left o bo the Right.

m
 True o¢ Faloe Pope? Chapiary

The Necessityof Faith and the Church for Salvation

The fuint of feth 15 a supermatural virtue that resides within
intsllect.! the purpose of which 110 cralble man, with the assistarce of
tual grace, o beleve what God has revealed 1o be trueof oy gy
account of the intrinssc truth percerved by the natural light
Revealer wha oy
ut because of the authonts of God Himeell, the
sther deceive nor be decerved ? The formal ofgevt of faith 15 theofFiy,
Truth - God the revealer The materal obpec! of fath coneists the
wuthw revealed by God (contawed n Scripture or Tradikon) and
behef The act of faith is the inbellaciuy)
forch
proposed by the Chur
ament 1o the wruths sevealed by God and proposed for belief by the
Chuech.
These who have not obtamned the use of reason can be sayed
through the bt of fth infused in baptism (along with the oiher
Sheologcal virtues and sanctfying grace), whereas an adult who has
aained the use of reacon % afso obhiged to make an ¢t of <upernaiural
Jaish (bv accepting the truthe of revelation) and perform works in
chanty w attain salvakon,’ because “falth without works 13 dead” (Jam.
226)

‘What Must Be Believed Explicitiy?

While 1t pacesary for all who have attained the use of rexsonte
amsont s cach and cvery ardcle of fath that has been sufficently
propascd 1o tha for behef, it 1 not neceseary that evertruth ofythe
fasth be believed expliatly for salvation Because some articles of faith
contain others unplictly (e.g,, explicit befief in the Incamation contaims
implictt belief in the human and divine wills of Christ), it suffices thet
som: articlas be believed impliciy, provided the person 15 so disposed
What he s wiling te beheve all cxplicitly when they have been
sutficuently proposed te hum. St. Thomas says. *A man whe cbstinately
dbviicues a thng that 1 of farth, has ot the habit of faith, and yet he
i doss scxplcty ball. whule he 15 prepurad e bolicve all, haw
the minianum that must be believed explratly
Now, by cmnsidenng
fasth and atuin salvation, if will
$or an sdult s possess superratursl
auble ws 4@ sveid 2 medern error on the Right, whic h
hae resulbed
Ty
i far aample e P Votcn Couneil, Smsan 4, 1
< Sopmricural
asts w a abuaiu Tevevty good worha are reinive recwsity
CUTANGS 0 4 0d | lomphianis added)
f *
ard Soloation
Guarch Membershp .

an avemreaction to an Opposie eTTer on the Loft. The

h[:l'lnl; either an outright rejection of the degma 'm,fiT:c;‘.:
here Is No Salvabon.” & i least reducmg the degms meek o o
sgeanngless formula” as Pope Fiua XIl explamed n he
Fama Geners. This ertor of the Left has cauaed an eppowe scaer oo
e Right, which departs from Tradikon by mamtaming shet 1t &
nprscible for & PeTsOn 10 be sved f they are net an actus) mersber of
the Church. The erroc en the Right & refuied by conaudering the
slsuerum that must be believed expicily for an sdull o possas divies
faith (and charity) and obtatn salvation.
Four Necessary Truths
The theologians and Docters ate unanimous in holdmg Wt the
two prime credibles - namely, that “Gad " and “He rewards these
who seek Him® (Heb 116) ~ must be believed explicisty for an adult te
sbtain eternal salvakon In addstion to these two revesled truths, St
Thomas Aquirus St Alphonsus Liguon and many others mamtain
that, after the promulgation of the Gespel, exphot belief in the
Icarnation and the Blesed Trmty & alke absoluicly necessary for
salvaton For example, St Thomas says. “After grace had been
revealed, both leamed and simple folk are bound o exphat fasth in tha
mystenies of Chrst, chuefly as regards these which are sheerved
throughout the Church, and publacly preclaumed, such as the arwcies
which refer to the Incamatien ~' St Thomas sko says. “And
consequently, when once grace had bean reveled, ol were beund to
explici fauth in the mystery of the Trunity “»
Without discussing the controversy ever why some theelogians
hold thet explicit belief in the two prime crecibles alone is abwelulety
hecessary,” suffice it to say that all agree there are at mest, smly four
vevealed wuths that must be believed expictly foc an adult se pessess
the virtue of supernatural faith. As long as a persen explicith beheves
I these four truths, and is so disposed e lelicve the ofher arucles of
faith when they are proposcd (0 hi, he can obtam salvation, previded
he has also obtarmed the stmte of grace and not lest it threugh mossl
sin.
o it s AT

ST kg LaY
-il'nuq:..n o
will diacisn e siegrers of neceseity e on the chapley For e an
TWe
P Repiruald Carrigou Lagraoge, The Theilogical Vistus £ On o, (8 Louin & Lovdosc
Herder book Ce, (94, ariginally pubbliahed by inbert Sorms & Co. Torums haby 1040
P 1% and, Ven Neart, The Smuncm of Arrvishon, (Wosimamstes asriont. “erasn
Trew, 1%1) pp 378308,

_—————————
True or Falne Pope? Chaptery

the Church Net Necessary

ofedge
Explicit Knewl

Because knwwledge of the Church Hsell s not @nc of the four ryg,
shat must be explcisly bnown, it {5 pessble for @ Person 0 possen
superatunsl faith wilhet ever having known ebout the Gy
Whde futh w absolutely necessary for grace and salvation, g
necesmcty of brwwing about the Church and belonging 10 the Church gy
2 mamber can b supplied by an implicit desire to join her rang,,
wfldwmhmwm,fimfllmllflldh‘!mmm.
Catheisc Chuech w the true Church of Chriat, yet “is prepared 1y
alieve all" o iae the words of St Thomas In his magrificehosk, nt
The Cathoc Churds and Salvation (1958), Msgr Fenton elaborated an
hat powst:
“The drvane public revelenon 1 compessd of § oerasn rwrbee
of wuks o smwmosts. [¢ W quie manifcst hat Fenuinc and
swparnasaral devare forth com st and docs exiot 1n individuals whe
Kave an clear and duomact swareness of seme of these wuths, bt
whe smgly sevcpt thcan o they W contasned of 1plicd in wiber
dacmmes. T, m onier that 1tk arcy cxd, thece cernly muet be
some muntmn of Wackigs which we prasped dustinctly by the
Vehever and wikin which the ret of she revealed message 15
wnptid or smpiicx. Cathohic thaelogy hekds that 3t 15 pecsible to
Lrve pebemre drvine (ash when twe @, accending 1@ see whters
four of thaac revovied wutu e beticved distinctly o explictly
There cam be rwul divine farh when a man beleves explicitly e the
ety of God revealing. the existance of Ged o the Hand of the
smpornanal ardes, he fact $hat God rewards good and punshos
vi, und the doctiess of the Blessad Tristy and of the Incamatien.
1t 1 defincelymoi 8 aching of the Catholic theologians that
Shore o b e rue ot of divine or mpernatural faith apart from an
€xphct awarwncta amd soccptarice of the Cathelic religion us e
true religuon and of the Catholic Church a5 the truc kingdlom of
God{ I True supcmaiunal farth can cxim even where there 1s only
an umplacst behef 10 she Cathelsc Church amd Catholic religion ( )
A persen svincibly ignerant of the true teligion can attain ciernal
salvaton { ) Hence seme 1 1 pasaibic for 8 sman te heve genume
spornacsl fash and chanty and e Ife of sncufying grace,
Wik 1irving 2 duowact and explicnt vewledge of the snue Church
20d o the ruc el K in posmible for thas man 1o be saved with
oy a0 mmplact Lawwledge and domire of the Church ™

-
o, Tir Catel: Cours ond Scbeton, p 68
ne

9 S——tl]
> TT———
Church Memibersbep arid Satpetior .

The desze 1o fom the Ciruch i i, she persa . espos

1o sctaa grace an i ecking he wil of Cod o fara
Yo uraware ofthe Chech thraugh 1o el of s e Tre he Foemor 1
T the Church 1 cxphiat f he kneues et the Catbelc Churh s
domes
Tue Church. and exphucitly desirss v become 3 sambes
covechumen)* Either can suffice for salvakon in place of(e,s
‘mcabership, previded it s iformed by supennaturl fash and e
iy 1 This a0 means that unson withthe Chusch, at lout i .
s abaotately necrseary foe salvanion. ? And. ve ke clar, while wmpines
desre to enter the Church can suffice for salvanon, Ll fash lene
Wil not suffice Thu 1a bacause mmphct fah i cermn supernatmea]
wuths 8 dependent upon_capixil fath 11 ether, sre general
superatural truthe (¢.g. the Triruty and Incarnatien)
In tus 1948 article, “The Theological Proe! ef the Nacesity of e
Cathofic Church.” Er Fenton explains hew the thesiogane have sheays
understood the teaching on actual memberstup vi-dvis dewe for
in the Chiasch.
membeesh ip
* e theslogsan demands as sbeelinely requarie for cerme!
selvation any cxplick bebef 1 the Caivahic Church ieeif Homoe 1t
@ abvieus that the very Schele Theslogerum (Theslogscal Schaels)
which has massted upon the validsty of the dece that the Church
requistte fas salvation, ncver imcaded w teack, e corml be
interpre an tewchi
tedmg Giak 3 man had to b an schual membec of
the Church ar absolutely spewking. even had to possess copinct
Wewlodge of the Church w God's kingrlom ou surth 1w scr Yo
s sscral salvation, The men whe have cxpounden the Church’s
loaching aboul i ewn necessty bave always caplmed et
teachung sganat the backgroud of 3 theelegy which st that 3
man can be saved by 2 desire of the Ciurch even whew shar desire
s merely faplicy
Before proceeding, we will tahe this brief mement 1w nete that
while ane cannot presume formal heresy for these whe have never
been members of the Church, we can do 50 in the case of those whe
have left the Church of their own free will (ex-Catholss) The Fiest
Vatican Council teaches ~for thewe who have accepied the fnith under
‘i pp 101100

UTr o exasnpie, Clrwt s Chmrsk, p. 364 Hare, Van Newet medi

Sew in thotthom
wocts
erin
1 nahagukand ciuklean s the nly excpion s the principle 1l of ot gl demisr
0 oot et Chasrchy s abasluriely nevemmry hor sbvation, .
© frwer, “The Thes logical Preel ol the Necm ity of W Latho lic Ok, P 1
Averiow Evslasimiivel Retwrr, Apeil 1998, p. W teomphnss s3ed)

ns

[
 True o¢ False Pope s ey

Civarch’s magioberium con meeer haTe & ust ONse for dovting
:smws'fi"‘ flv"xh'n"-wllun“om:‘.,x
Uhwough the knewledge of out Lerd and Saviour Jesus Chist, they 3y
agmin cnta i them
ng andle overcdome their Latier sl s become ungy
therm wothan rs former For 1t had boen betier for them 1ot e hyyy
the e
\porm the way of justce, than afier they have known it 10 tum bag,
o that hely commandment whach was delivered 1o them” (opy
s, Shawe whe were raed Catholic o are acult converk e e
e Church are prowmid 10 be farmal heretics for defecting that fram ihe
Chvurch because they have leamed (and, thus, should know) the
Ch15ue h le rul
the mislhb e 14 The First Vatican Council ale
of Faith
condemned the s sew that Cathwiics and non-Catholics sre in the suneh,
condinen a6 regards their meral responeibility o the Churc
Indicating that while the later may be excused for doubting
while they mvestigate the Church, the former would be presuned
culpab leo
for deing
“Af amywoc shall ey that e condeen of the faithiul and of
Whone whe have not yet cerec 18 ihe Iruc fanh 6 squal, 5o that
Cathelics can have 3 pust camse of doubing the faith that they have
svecpecd wnder the Church s magrernum, by withholding assent
i they have completod the screntfic demonswanon ef the truth
d crodibliy ef then fath, et hum b snatherma >
New with regand 1o ignorance of the irue Church and salvation, m
Tie 1843 encyclical Quanie Covficummur Meerere Blcssed Pope Fius IX
affirma the dogma shat there i e salvation outsude the Church, yet in
the wme peragraph explains that "they who_labor
in invincible
{grorance of our mest oly religion and who, zealously keeping the
natural law and 1 precepis engraved in the hearts of all by God, and
being ready
te obey God lrve an honest
and upnght
life, can, by the
speraing powe of divipe hight and grage, sttarn etermal lifs *
Noie shat such men do not ebtain salvation merely by following
the ratoal bw snd living & goed wworal life (2 tenet of
raturalem/Freemasensy), but “by the sperating pawer of divine light
and grace” whach meves them o make an act af supernatural farth If
this falth w combined with an act of perfect contrition, or perfec!
_—_—
~ Domc, 74 (rmphase
b .
ot b v iaching, & weonhd sk seratly b culpaie rcarce 408
., 1115

m
- TT——————
shership and Safwatim
Cwireh Merbersiip Chapaer4

hch . poseibc). Whe persen wowld sbtan

‘"’",z.ém even without being, explicitly aware of n-.:h::: s
rated into it a5 an actual mermber In such
2 case the g
weuld be united pefi«uyhn-s..ldn-chumm
superatoral {ath, Bope anc charky. and unvied te the Koy of s
G
‘WhileY ssuch exceponal itsifuations
exceptional are nel te be
ynd may cxeut only 1 rare situamone, it ,...u."."v?',"",.....""‘":
obtain salvation in thw fastuon, 28 Pepe Fue IX clearly wachen
simply because those en the Left err by muking a rule wun of the
poasible “exception” and shereby undermine the rule ek, is rw ressen
T overreact in the other direction by denying, the pomiblly and
inerprenng the dogma 1 a way 1 which the Chierch herself has never
understood1L
The prolific Sedevacankest wrter, Richard Thrarys, w 4 perfect
eample of an individual who has overreacied and fallen te cvor1
the opposite direction. Mz leranvi refers t the posaiility that
can obtain salvabon without, techmcally, bemng a “member”2 person of the
Church as “the salvation heresy * He goes so far a6 te hold that Blessed
Fius IX lost s office and became an ankpepe for seaching this
waditional doctnine of the Church. In an arkdle written agaist ha
fallew Sedevacantist, Hulton Giwon. Mr Tbrany: accuses Mr Gibson
of whal he calls the sins of “nonqudgmentaliom, ad -nen
pumshmentahism.” Wrote Mr Tbranyl
“Pius (X tupht the saivamen hecosy s 1856 s b sliscution
Swguiors Quiem and w183 m e sacyclcal Quamie
Conficsmmur Mocrore Howce Prus 1X wumemati boscally
s offiee
in 1856 and thus became an apommic urwpope He {Hunwn
Gibson] 5 akke gulty of ne-dgrcobon and sen-
punshrmentalism | peay shat he will nww see that Pus 1 dod
Publicly defect rom the farth by denying the Sulvanon Degme and

* We tay sulvabon by impliit devw fo ey the Ohursh waud e 1 e 19 re o

doe W the narrew scope of wvincble igorrce whch, @ St Tieus ladun,
donit
igrecince what “cannet be overcome by staly® 5T HR & T & 2 Whileel neprmena. .
Proume 18wt the beondarics 8 invincibe e foc
reccecniog, igronunce of the Chvurch thewuh shdy would v 19 be pusmsbl foc the
ey
= Becase one whe. desires 4 eviet the Church s Wy oincd 10 e Couech b b
A by tasrw of superrtaral (aih, e speriect wrwen by dossr (45 Sy 5 )
POt wreen shouph water epieam) it 48 *sacvpien’ 6 e dagms "o Sulvace :
e Charch
Oulide e st b o 1. e Cathlc Cumt &0 3 member &1 =
dexire
to b aaved.
n

s
Trise s Faloe Pope? [y

e Hioter Will ne longey

var smammamcally oot hos offiec el barieramo
Sallow P 1X in b heresy ond 10 his dasm n, ™
Here we see what happens when & Person overreacts 1o ene ury,
epposite direction.
andends by falling it errer in the Church
Tn b beok on the carly Fathers, Adran
"hat herestas often arose i Teaction 0 an 1ot and ende by
o tee (1t in the epponite durection.
2 1 never the case that oac e out of shoor Wickedoften nc
sudd wvems en y n ( ) A mevement beging,
8 false dacwi
vary nghily. by 3 vigoteus 3ad exWETIE oppOSILIAN 10 KORIE Bacrily
falc toachuag. Theu e wey af lecking & things crysiallues sad
‘ardens, 4 1 token up crthussastically by some school, it becomeslax,&
ot of omeur with & corian party Lo st upen it At
Sermcenc gois hold of the thoury, sveriiepe cvery bt n s
dcfeons ol sd u cagerly supperiad by the rest of the party And
s e find imself condemmed by the Clorch.™
The errecons teachung of Fr Leonard Feeney, who held that water
buptiom {and formal membershop in the Church) was abeoluicly
necessary for salvaion, # & perfect example of an overreaction to e
error of the Left. in lact, Feene by excess prompted the Holy
ervor y's
Office, under Pupe Pius XIL to weue » letier on August § 199 v
Archisishop Cushing ef the diacese In Boston ko address the problem *
The Letter atfirms the teaching of Pope Pius IX that one may be saved
withext waser baptnn, and thus withoul being an actual "member” of
the Church, an long so he i joined to the Church by desire
1 order that onc may obiun ctermal selvaion, 18 08
s
stways roquared that he b incorperaics into the Church actually
@ member b 1 15 requred that t foast be b umited 12 it By
sad n,
whmto dore However, th deure nowd net always b
aplica, 1o 1t 1 1n catechumens, but, when a person 13 involved in
Imvic:bic gaerance, God acoopes alse an uplicit tateatien {vetim)
which 1 10 called bncause & - inchaded 1o that good dicpomiian of
-
Soranyt, * Agurat Hetm Clvwan, * Dvwrmbe: 212
*Adra e
B
- oo ey Olfio s 40 a8 Sepermm s b e e
Patce t 12,8 8 - oA
Wikt v dimprte whsthar
....__.\_,_m“fl:-wr ~un—mmw
ovtaplen ity with b rievan e the fact ha e Lo

1
| Owrch Membershp and Saivation Cluprer4
mmlwmfiy-w—nwfl-hmfl-hm
wilefGod © he
The Letir g0t e ket this doseealoe (e, imprt
it the o) will ot suttce ox salvanon, agen o2
vy “supernatural k" arw “perfect chanty” (et b wige
Seul)
“Ner st we thunk that any ko of micamen of anicrnsg e
Chorch ufficical ta erdar that ne sy be seved. t m roqute
e the ention by which eac o erdersd 1a the Church thould bo
nfor vy REISL
me CAMIL
d Y and o8 explicet miommen can produne
0 cffoec umlaws the mon has mapcraaiuryl fay "
The Letter from the Holy Office reflects the teaching of Blesesd Pias
X, and the constant trad Catheix
of thest io c Church
n .
Waptofio
Desir
me
In Jus March 5, 1941 address te hushands and wives, Pope Pias X
exprossed the perennial ieachung of she Church, whan e sasd.
“In the case of siher, mere necessery sectamcem, when the
minsser s lackng, he can he supplied drwugh the force of devac
mercy which wil forego cven extarnal srgnt i onder 0 hng grunc
o the heart, To the caicchumen whe has 4 onc to peur water va his
Wead, 1 the sunmer whe can find ne enc te sbselve hum. 2 loving.
God will sccani. out af their desure and leve. the grase which makes
them His foends sad cluldren cum wilheut Ragtem or acusl
s "D
Some modem Catholics have strugghed wuh the difficulty of
reconciling the Machings that: 1) Oubde the Church there ® e
salvation, and yet 2) catechumens, who have not lkeen ncerperated
:m&-el)mrrhbyhnph—n.unkun‘.ldln—t_n
ifficulty

¥ Sepremu Harr Sacre, Snglhsh Maslaon publohed n Amareen ik Susn

SV ek 1)
2 Humbaads an oo Minioers of the Samvomcut, Yo XN, i 10 D Newywmh. (amens
Oty Mcasurk Sovie Houme. 20013, p 13 tevmplianie ol
ue

e
True or Falee Pope? Chaper¢

~Conpsrmmg cavechmes tarc i 8 groater diffsave icult. bace

they e fwkful{nicror vurmuc of fulh] o can be avded o they de
= o s, wnd et outsade the Church" e eme o8 35 [ng,eme
e saved] oumade the ark of Noah
After provdeng the explanation of cthers (sucher as Melc luer Canyy
1o b question, Bellarmune gave his own arsw 10 the appureny
Aiffculty
1 maswer therefore that, when i w8 stid eutswde the Church ne
ame w saved, & must be undersioede of[desi thaec whe bcleng te her
ke m scaual fact ner wn desie derio], a6 theologans
osmmualy spesk on bapussn. Becaise (e catcchunaens are in the
Chearch, thaugh 0t achusl fact, Yot & loast 1n reselulion [vete),
herc io
they can saved. >
be rt
Thie explaraton of Bellarmune & founded upon the teschi(cblain ng of
\he Council of Trent, which explaine dhat ene can be justfi ed
the state of grace) either by baphism (“the laver of regeneration”) ot by
the demre foe baptam. The Sacred ‘Councif teaches.

“Ard o Wonwlaten [1e the matc of jusification) since e

provofau ig, ut
the Goapel caret io nad. withoutthe lave of
be cilict
ognarsiion. o8 @8 SOAIT (4né evut vodal, 88 1 15 writicn, ‘nlew A
mant be borm again of water snd she Hely Ghost, he cannot cater
ko the Kingdo of God.m" »
Beswd upen this teaching of Trent, which reflects the constant
can
waching of the Church, Bellarmine explained that srue conversion
“withou deubt® supply for water baptwa, provided one dies without
‘water bapan threugh nie fault of hs own.
ot warkeur doubs ) ek b belicved thel e convensien
soppies for Baptumn of waner whan, eme dves withow Batisn of
water. s ton of Comempt, bun 991 o riosssnity Thus alse the
Cowcll of Tront, Seswon 6, Choptar 4, says that Bapsm %
Wassssary fact or m dovae (e e vel i veve) "7
20 Eatone bty i W, .2, opere s, Nophes 872, p 75, ~
TG O e v e p T4 e -
* DComaratn, 0 Beyis” . | ch& Ax nosed 51 Befarmune ot i S5
gt She buskmer of the Counrdl o Trowd o0 Raptoom of Deuier 1n der rafar =3
Do Yo v W o W Lo, 4nd which b e g 7 - 353
> T ——
arch Mesbershop
ani Sal ot .

s intecpretation and applicatien of Trent

th the explanation of Pope St Piue V. a setfort in he
Hrent (or Roman Calechrn) which s conmuered by ,,,,:::":"":
st catechiom the Church has ever producd Pope Crmens 3
from Catechicm
Church.thatthe
Fecared Trent contans “the comimon docmenof
which sl ofdanger of docieinal errer 1 stucun o
Pope Leo Xil confirmed “the exactnso i dacteine” In regors 1
aiull beptism, the Casechum says, “should any unfersseen accrbent
sake it imposeible for adulls 1o be washed in the ralutary waters, theie
[ntention and determination 10 secetve Baptiam and thetr reperiarcey
for past sinw, will avarl them o grace and righicouess.»
'S Alphenwus Liguori, another great Doctor of the Church (and the
patron saint of moral theologians), teaches that Bapnoen of Desre % 5.
e e doctrine (requiring Ve assent of faih) based upens the nchurgs
i the Council of Trent He says
“We shall speak below of Boptim of water, whch was vary
probebly mstituicd hefore she Pacsien of Christ the Lord when
Chrat was Suptwcd by Joho. Bux baphorw af desw » porfact
conversion 18 God ¥y cenwitien s+ leve of Ged sheve all shings
accompamed ¥y an explicn oe impiict desee for wuc Bapuemt of
water, the place of which it takes 2 1o the rumassen of guik., bt
ot 25 10 the 1mpression of she (Wekismal] character or 2% 1a the
remeval of all debu of punubment 1w calie "ol wind™
d
[*flnminis™] because it mkcs placc by the upulse of e lialy Ghast
whe s callcd a wind (“flamen”] Now ¥ @ de il that cacs ars alse
Rant
vl of dosis ¥y vitue of the Cason Aposiobcom,
ty ish
“de preshytero nen bapiizate™ uad of t Coumil of Tront scymem
£ Chaptor 4 where 1t sl that oo s ca0 e saved wihes the
rop
laver of eacorrai fary ™
the deswre on
m&khhndh:estfimx(mwmm
Mederniat) explicitly teaches Baptioen of Desire-
“Question. Cam the sbssace of Raptiss be supplicd 1n 2ny sl
way?
ev: The absence of Bapters ean be mppiicd by marmyriess,
which w called Baptem of Blood, or by an act of parfcct leve of
-
Ambeone Augustine, Gregary Nostaam, Bermand, Alburt the Groat. benarestem
Toomac Aquins, Aiphurei Ligue,Tope racee, s ¥ P X, P (X and P
The Cotrrlam o the Cronsdl of Tt o Sewd, Iciosa. Marian Publioatiora. Third
g, p 179
58 Alphorms Ligumei 3 Mol Theviogy, W 6 e 95 fourpoats st
m

R
True or Faloe Pope? ? Q"h.

God. o of comrmen, siong wilh the desirt, o lenst impiscy

Sepoms, and thie 1 calied Bapiem of Desure.™* o
Further, St Piws X had Baptionn of Desire incerporaied inke
faw which was premulgated by hs successor, Pope Seneq etCanen, Xy
Canen 737, §1 of she 1917 Code of Canon Law says Ba
2 feundation o the Sacramente, i £uckor 1 st 1t oA
rte salvatan for all s not validly conferred except thempy g,
abiubon of teue and naturs] waber with the preecribed form of waris:
femphas added)
We aloe road the follewang in the Douay Catechism (1649 A D),
“Quastion: Can aman bt sved withoud bapsen?
Amewer- He cannes, unless be have 1t cither sckual ar in derre,
w1tk Comtrmen. o to be baptized 16 hus blood as the baly Inneces
were, which sufferedfor Chnat ™1
The Batiianere Catechism teaches the same doctrine

“Quasticn How aen thase be saved who thraugh ne faull of e

wws harve not reserved the sacrament of Bapham?

Anawer Thase whe thesugh ne (ault of thew swn have nel recerved
the sacramer of Baptism can be saved through what 1y called
‘Sapuem of bloed o of desire ()

Questisn How doss sn uwbaptsed porson rovesve bapham of

dawre?

Anrwor- Am usbeptiand person recerves bagtrim of dcsire whes be

loves God abeve all things and desires o do all that 13 necessary for
s salvation
{a) Bagam of dose wken away oll s, orgenal and aciual, and the
wornal punchane duc Wnt
v ¢ doss ok, however, impnm &
sharacier wa the sl mar dons 1 newessanty take away all scmpors!
Punshm due t# actual
enym
) I the bapuism of deere, thre novd et akwarys be s eaplicut desire
0 rosuve baptem of water ~3
_
-_‘lhl(h-thl—* "y
'A-A-q.—qum-—n.....(-_:-..u::ynn Twrareile, 20
o g Cofags af Semaay (N York: Jabes Dyle 1803)
p 0 -
m
P— e
Chwarch Membership snd Satvatiom

The theology of the TridentinFathaers

followed) was greatly influenced by the
Doctor of the Church,St Themas Aquines, whose S,
was placed alongside the Sacred Scriphure an the
s
Councll of Trett. Tn the Summe Thevlogsce, St. Thomas
following about Baptism of Desire the
“Marvever,
man may receive thethe sacr aments of rave are sriamed m erder that
infuston of grace, a0d befav be rvcerves them,
crther acully e 4 his data. he dess aet rescrve grac
evidemt ie the casc of Bapharn, and applios 16 penance kewie,se.Th ™ i
In answer
to the queshen, “are there three baptions” (namel
Wapim of water, desire, and bioed), St Thews repies: ”
“t wnewer that, % sieiod sbeve (Question 62, Arwcle S),
Mapiisus of Wator has s efficacy frmm Choer's Fassion, to which &
a5 canformed by Ropuens, nd ake from the Holy Ghon, 2
first caute New, ahtheugh the effoct depends om the firs cause, the
cwse far vrpesees ihe cliact, mar dew X deperd o8 W
Comscquen 8 man
tlymay,
, withect Raptism of Water raceve the
sacramental effoct from Chrat's Passson, w to for 25 be
confermed le Christ by sufferforcag Him (tc., Ruptisoof Blood]
ey of the Holy Ghos, net saly withews Bastiare of Waler, bt
li0 without Baptism of Blecd fora as Wsmuc
hear
1he Foly Ghest 1o belicve it and love Ged and 1o cepamt1 ofmeved
h by
s v,
shereiors Yue ales calied Ragtiem of Repaptensy [ic . Bapuoms
of Dewire)"%
We can alao point to those whe lught Sapeam of Demre price bo
the time of St Thomas to demonsirate Wt the decinne s past of the
Church s comstent waditien. Fer exampie, enly x few years before the
Feusth Lateran Ceunetl, Pope Innocent wrote thet & cerian one “whe
2 Jmare Catechin Mo 3. Beringer Bt b 39 ol eS
Colnrnde: The Serupham Comparry L., 1P 1991 (V85,4 X X0 py. prometed e
ST, Supplement . 1 {emphass sdded). Nt abw hat 5L& Tharas
tachings on Baptimn of Desire ater e Fourth Soomemind Latcmn Cruncl albbly
seclened the degma “No Selvatien Ouiside St Church ™ Therchore, Saphom of Deaire
wEre incomspaubie with this degpea, them St Thowmsn, the Uriveral Docor o i
Chureh, wewid have been & pablic herrti, and the mmmy Popes whe publicty proweied
¢ Thasmas i their papel taachings womid have siop beer mnpacid of bovan! Truve
Wl iciuse Pages St P V UrhenV broscomt V1 B Fom D, Low 2, 52 P X,
Fiam X, emecic XV e Pope Pl X0
H5T Mg 0 011 emplvanis
sdded)
L]

_————————S
Truwe or Fabse
ke Pope’ Pope? G‘Ph¢

i
hadd died witheut the wates of baptism, bevause he
fanh of holy mather Church and in the confession of the myr™
o, was freed from origin s al
and attained the 0y of heaygr:
fatherhood “* y
oecasion, du
‘Pope Inecon, n anothernh also conf irme d the Chun
;
g;
mnflmwhmum- w” mwmfl .‘
the poofsn deathtand surrounded only by Jews, immersedbapti hurmegg
wats and atic$omp baptite dell Even thou
ae hims this gh m ye.
walid Tope Innacent sand “If, however, such 2 one had giog
mmediaiely, he would have rushed ® his heaventy home withay
delay becsus e faith of the sacrament, though ROt becaue
of the of ee
sacram nt. ™
of themeFarth
I the book Cify of Ged. S¢ Augu ury) e
centin
(Athst wroke
~0f the Dewih Which ihe Unbaptised Suffer for the Confession
of Chvist
“For whatever wnbepmimnd perions die confessing Chsl,
were washed 8 the mored (onl of taptism Fer He whe said,
Urices a man be bern of watcr ond of the Spirit. be cannon eotec
s the kingdom of Ged." John 3 5 mudc uls0 mn casspiios in they.
(e, thet othcr samienec where He 80 loss absolucly sid,
“Wheswever shall cenf before mon, hum will | confess alse
me es
efore my Fothor wioch 1w losven,’ Mahew 1032 and w
amothoar place Whawill sec ver
lese Nis life for rmy sake shall fid
e Mamhew 16257
Commmentingon the teachung of St Cypnan® (third century), whe
held that martyrdem could supply for baptsm, 5t Augustine sko
wroke
1 find thet et wnly rmartyrdem for the sake of Christ sy
4upply for whet 13 wantng m bagtsam. bt ahe faith and coaversion
of heart, (f receursc may set b had 10 the clebraten of the
mymo for wantry
of e Bt Uhe woat ia suppirod snvably enly
™ Apoebe: v, et ko e bishap ol Cremans, Drne., 388,
e e s, b o by Wtz Augast 2, 128, D
13
¥ Avpatm
Cioy of ols,
Vol L Wk X(Edubmrgh 14T Claek, 1890,p 52 femihih
"M*m”fl“mnmlflflmlm‘h‘ym
Rt e Chwest” it sonegral Fouh and tuth of the Onarch. % 77
{ptant by he s giovtons el excelimr Bapusan, iy which tie Lun Himaelt el 3o
ol s bSopriand (1L 12501 That thase who ane baplised 20 i rove-beed 24
onvihed by Veée passiam wese gariie ard recivesdthe Divine premie € HREHTSS =
7 the Lard sl i e Caopet, when He prasminnd o the Wid Wito beiiered el
@ombacat oo ot b v et . i, i * (s, e e LT
o
. T ——S———
Owrsh Memlersinp and Saivaten .

1 grevan
bapharsren
whan the adrmnsofiat
Tor rebgeon. i by the nesesety of the rovment o 7T

e R T 2
Tecause wrue “faith and conversioofn heart
os o e
salvific effects of water baphsm (sanctifying grace and usNf
mwufimhwmvawld‘su-muwmg icatien),
Heb Paul i
rews 6 2 refers 10 the dectrine of bapiema.” i the piur © alf the
catechumen receives the salvfic effecs of water baptum, e s nat onfy
jowned 10 the Becdy of the Church (mperf by daus
ec e. tl
but oin ed 1
y)
the Soul of the Church perbyfaith e, chapetandlchan
yty If he warev
die m this state, he would wisheut ¢ doubt obtan salvatian
Mareover, the Catholic Chunch publxcly warufests her faith wn the
decensed catechumen's exiernal (though mperfect) union with the
Bobyd burv
ying him as ane of the baptized While canen 1299 of 1the
1917 Cade of Canon Law prehuimis these whe died without bapiea
from receiving ecclesusical buna l, canen 12992 siates. ~The
catechumens who with o fault ef their ewn dic without baphem,
sheuld be treeted as the beptized” (emphasts added)
Medern Errers against Baptism of Desire
As we heve seen, the doctrine of Baphom of Desire is rosted in
divine revelation, and taught by the Charchs graaiest s, Docters,
Popes and catechisma. Accerdingly the teac w udallibie
hung ¢ loset by
virtue of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterumn, if net by the
extraordinary Magssterium exercwed at the Council of Trent. In eur
On taphm, Agewnst the Domatutn, Wi V. (k. 22 5t Ambwwse fand cmhary) alew
Fapleily twughi he dacine, specifically thal Valenwisn, s comhumen wha daed
bebace recciving hapliam. reeerved the elives o e sacramend segh b desice “DW
e, them, et have thy grace which he desrad? Did he ot Rave sehat b caply wght?
Cartinly becaose he vouht # he roveived ” R) No 326
* Thwee rifeem include forgrvenes of srgral and schial s, s of srcatying
Jm arul the theshogical vieturs, st weden {albit impviects walh e By of Clie,
W Cathalic Qurch, but woukd ot inchude the deliie wack on the soul drvmr
K of Desare orad bied) 1+ o 1 scrwacet s ety but oy i duare
* While there o enly s sacrament of Raptmn (Eph 4.8}, S Thesaas 22738, Pl b
18 “hapasc” s the plutal i Picberws ¢ 2 b vt “Bopamn o Wae. of Srpenamnce
* ST WL ¢ 6h. 4 2 The “dorwine of Daptsana.” hm,
Tasire], and of Wioud [murtyrdvms)
::-nwm..m‘-mmamn-mnw‘-\“*
st of hapam may be oblanod
Fur more en Raptiam of Deswre, see Tanquerry Eogmis: Thmivgy. vol 1L {New Yok
Touman, Parie, Korme Denclee Compary 1999, fy: Z25-2, Somes Dininges Wy o4
11 08} dimnids of Cothulc Drgma, . J60-367, Doy, The Chuesh of st 1. .
YanNewt,
Chit » Chrurch, pp. 296200,
15

E———eRE
True or Falee Pope’ 7 m’hq

however, W which vietually every tradifional decirin,

v culed wto question, I not outght demed l.p_..,,;:
s ot been spared.
Tre denial of ths perticular decwine 1 due i large puy o
Philasephical erTor nown as false CBUKC (nor Cousa pre ceise, i
istakenly atwibutes an cfect 10 & couse that did net produce i o yy,
case when in comes 10 bapuom and salvaNon. the Liberaly e gy
making & rule out f the exception, and end by destroyng the rulg 1.
rule1s that baptiem ef wart i necessary for salvation, the *excepipes
s thet In certan rare circurnetances, the salvific cffecks of baptism ey
be mupph person's desre
by the ed foc baptism (when accompaniedby
supenatural fanh and perfect chanty) This means it is pessibe or )
person te be saved without receiving waler baptism. The Liberal e
the posslity of an extra-sacr amerv
effect (grace al
and salvakion bewy
atiined without water baptuen) bo fustify the fake docwme o
unrversal, o nwar usuversal, safvation (which undermines, and
eventualty resuhte in » dania) of the dogma “No Salvaben Oulde the
Cathatic Church™)
Seme on the Right, whose sersus fidelium has alerted them to v
erver, have not comectly attriinuted the root cause of the ertor te the
overrmphecs of the excepien, but inatead to Wi dactrine of Raphom of
Denre stwlf Consequently they end by believing thet the docinneof
Noptam of Desire 15 ielf the cause thet led 10 the Liberal errer of
universal e near universal salvation, when in reallty the true ot 4
an everemphas is
on the exception (the " possibility”) which Teads e 2
dasiruciion of the rule. This ereor of false cause thus forcrs them i
- the Churci's feaching, most netebly thel of the gral
Gauncrl of Trens, in 2 mnanner entirely eppostic of the way n which all
e Popus ard theslogiars have underssood and cxplained it
Speciicaly, they are forced o asgue that the Council did et
sciually tach Shat the dewre for baptism can sulfice for satvaum.
wnlews e desere ia accompened by e actial recephon of Whe sacrament itecf
which is exactly contrary 10 hew the phrase in question has always
et undarstood (#his is he erzor of the so-called “Freneyites”) Oneof
the mave clevar ways they defend thewr novelty is by argulng thet when
Tront say3 & pemon cancwt be juetified “with theout ver of
gancisten u s desire.” the "~ (Latin, sut) really means "o
(Latun, 1), mearing boths e “lavar” of water ang the “desire” for e
opuirnd (thereiy elanimting Baptiom of Desire)
For mample, the Sedevacantist wrothers, Peser and Mo
y,
Dimend of Mo Hely Farmity Menasterwrwie
— ey

el
w— | —————————————
Cwreh Membersing
and Salvaties
Chopr4
“Tive baptrn of dessrs poapic bebeve tam the
or” (Lot ) 0t hove pasongs menn he e ot
ke place by he wales of baptiem or the daswre for 1. Bat ¢ carcil
teok Bt the passage pEOVeS ha ta be faee The poosag
saye se
Jquetificatien cumet ke piawc withow the lever of regonarsnan
(watee hwsmm -l';:-T-:-hr w, Llh:nt_n
uppesc _.g
*Tht shewer Canaer take place wrikes
w.m
takos placembyhthegdes
mmmun-u'mmmm::m
irt (o
take 2 sbewar Abuebatcty aec. |t moms
shat beth are necessar™%y
Notice, these brothers, who clum i be “Traditieral Catbelia,”
depart entirely from Tradion, not only by rejcing Baptofise
Desire,
wlmbymmnu-mmmmdrmmywym
emor And, as we have seen, their prvate imterpretation s cxaclly
contrary to lhe eofficial mlerpretation of the Church and her
theologane No reputable theologan has ever woerpree Trantdas
teaching that the desire for aptism can only suffice when accompanied
by water bephsm (they say only thal 1l can sulfice in place of water
baptism in certain circumstances) Furthermore, i both dasie and
water baptsm were required, a6 the Dimond Brothers claim, hew
weuld an infant below the age of reasan (whe cannet demee baptism)
be sanctf baptism?
by wakeried
The enbire corpus of Catholic teaching en Ba pham of Desice refutes
1his argument, but we can alse negate the claim on grammatical and
contextual grounds as well. It is wue that, on a purely pammanal
basla, the Latin “aut” oould mean either *or” (disjuncirve uac)
ae “and”
(confunctive use, this can also be the case in English) Hawever, we con
wndersiand the true meaning of Trents use of “or” (a regands the
“laver of regerieration gr i desire”) by losking at hew the Council
uses “or” in other simlar conkexte. in dewng 50, we see it in the ether
lostances where Trenl uses “or” in the context of the sacraments, the
meaning of “er” w, in fact, “or” and not"and ~ For example. n Chapte
14, when referring to the sacrament of Canfessen, the council asys s
are “remitted together with the guilt either by the sacrament gf the
desire of the sacrament *% Since man w facgiven of sin eutede of the
sactament of Confession when he wiakes a perfuct act of contintion, the
"o in this case mewns “or.” not “and *
Similarty, Trent seaches that san can seceive the fruits of Haly
Communion through the actual reception of the sacraswent of s desire
Troe or Fabe Pope? ey

Mrwugh spirtual cemmuneon. In the Council's Decy

Sacrements, Canen 4, we road. "k
A amyonc says What the sacraments of the New Lay
n—yfuuhflmhnwwumwmw"hqnmm:
(e desire of them men oblam frem God through fuzy
owihow
tlonc the grace of yustification, though sll are not necessary fo euch
snc. fot i banstherna.™
Therefore on & contextual bass, the “or" in Trent's teacting g
aptw (46 with its teaching on Confession and the sacrameny g
general) clearly inducates the meaning “or” and not “and.” fustas th
Popes and theologiars have all understood st
More importantly, as we have demorstraked, the Church 1y,
always interpresed Trent’s seaching to nclude Baptism of Desue fand,
‘s, Trent's use of “ec” in the disunctive senc in its teachung
pustific w aleo seer in the Holy Office’s 1949 Letter Supremg
Thisahon).
Harc Sacra, weued dunng the reign of Pope Pius XII, which we
examined sarlier The Letter not only teaches that the salvific effocws
Saptsm can he obtained by the intenwon and desire 1o recerve the
sacrament, but alo explane that “this i clearly stated n the Sacred
of Tren.
Counail of Trent.” This w pust one more official interpretati on
5 Wactwig Baptisus of Dumre. From the Holy Office Letter:
“In Hu wfinge mercy God has willed that the cffects
secassary for snc 10 be swod, of those helps Lo salvstion which we
drecred tewards waa's fimal cnd, oo by mannsic necessity Wt
oty by devine mebemen. can ales bc cblaiaed 1 cemin
Cwrummaners when these helps are used 9nly 10 INICRINR &f SCUIT,
Thos v s clcarly saked w1 thec Sacred Councal of Teent, hoth with
e @ ———————
Ourch Membershop and Secoation .

Hore we soe the Haly Office e

Jeaching that the anbention and desire for PepscnCowrci
(whanof combined
Trent s
with supernatural facth and perfect chantv) can praduce the sabviic

Councll of Trent employed by thowe (e, “Feencyimn- Do

thers) who
labor under the exror of fse couse and
e docleine ord by danying
Needless 10 say_the Dimond brothers tma,
nerpreiation o the Tres it ot one R spee e
judgment, they reject what the Popes, Dectors, saints theologians and
catechisme have taught, and publicly declare the 1949 Letier of the
Holy Office to be heretical ® They claim the ketier w net an séficual
document of the Church, since & was not publihed in the Acte
Apestolicae Sedre (the journal of the officul act of the Hely See), even
though the complete text (ot available in Deanger) mclude s the
statement that alter the Cardinals approved the decument in planary
tession on Wednesday, July 27, 149 “the August Pormf in an
awdierice on the lollowing Thursday, July 28 1949, deigred w give fit]
his approval *®
As we have democstrated, net only dees the letier reflect the
lengsianding tradition of the pre-Vatican Il Church, but thase whe
prepared the origimal schemas of Vawcan Il alea conmderedit
authontative, snce they cied it many Smes a6 2 foeinole And,
neediess to say, the onginal schema of Vatica
s n I taught the kadiional
doctrine that the Dumond brothers declare (hased upon therr @wn
prvate judgment) to be herecal
The followlng 15 tha original schema drafied for Vatican IL, tiled,
Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, along with the onpnal
footnoses.

= Dimarad Wrethers: *As explained n dhe secims on Protesd 122/48 (8 our back, e
aretion et wan werire in 1909 by a membes ot the taly OKe 1 e owdomt
Anhbiliop of Bastun, Richard Cusiveg 1 ot the smachirg of the Cathwlac sk #
Iwachee that peeple whe ate not nersmbers of the Church can b pred, whach i Jereey
This ettt = a herencal denial of S dogoe Ovtmde the Gt Thure & N0
Selvemon” (Mast Holy Family Menuiery internct acacle on Bodup Lovostin/ & Vo
com/ eutholicvburshy
0D £/ orveve mmcetmolytamel ysmnast bishap-iovieery.
® The Compansion 1o tar Gt of the Cothwiic Orvh (5 Frasgmntn, Callarnis, gt
Prasa, 1993}, 5. 0.
' 1

E——REE
 Trwe or False Pope? Cuping

“The Hoty Syred sasv, 25 G0 Haty Church b iy,

e o Charch 8 cespary oCothelc
sa b Church1 wastet (g
o7
e moved whe, knowmg that the
ncverthlons <fises i e her 1y
by God (wrwugh Jesus Chie,
' b 3 ot o e o can b 80V €XCEP by rccrmg
~ ry wiieh anysme Who ducs AGt POSE 3eme ehelnc
e wecsars o bt o the Church - o g 1y
ot fo baptums,® 53 410 Be amc can 4K sal 2t unless e
s ol the Church o ot kst 15 ardered 1ttowands he ey
By dese, Bt for axyone 1o un 10 GalVAtion 13 10t enaugh
that be dic 10 the stae
o #. 1 3 i eand chary g,sndemd
o o eelly a member of the Church Or be by ofdesure oand
S God vy fvh, bape, 7%
This wnditiomat docieine of the Church is expliitly denied by many
Yaday, wuch as the Dumond brethers, who clarm 1o be “tradikend
Catholics.” yet depart from Tradition based upon their own priviie
judgment. And the Dimond brothers don’s fust reyect this teaching o
® Far v tasviung of e Fathers, lgratus of Anseck, Origen, Cyprie, o,
At Frigmiam, s Trmp, D Spunt sk Awimt. pp Z18-13 Far she! ns
‘o the Church, sev e Asomatow Criad (Deric 401, Pelagpe . Levie423)Diecho ok
D 27, b 1L, Pomon of Fah fo she Vel (Denz. Barila ce
VR,
Sl i sonciom (O, 448} Clemerd VL, Epiet. Super quibendom (Denc, 5700 by
Coumdl of Flarurce. Docrar o e fassbes (Den.. 714), i Trdentine Drofewe f
(D 1000, BenecctTV Peofreon of Foih fo e Marwshe (Denz, 1473] GogoryX¥L
S Mwors wee (Dvns, 1131, Piw DX, Enc Quanie comficam (Do WTTy
meeroreur
Syl 16-17 (Donz. 1716-171 P . Mys Corpovm (AAS 35 1800, p 202%
e gDevc. 219, Lot f e oy Ocx 10 o Arshasher of Bevios, S L
IO o 0 1 Agpert b 51 Trommp + $urd essvar o Mysiuct Corpers).
Lotnot ol thr Haly Olfoer Yo the Axchinabop of Rubus.
% The ohmtacie may b psed ot with regard 1o grace ard with regand M the jundil
aft eect COC. mmt; F The ebmtacle o grace, fov exampic, i had 1f an sdult io te
boptamd dous ek ward 4 st frown mortal s, theve s 45 sbatacle b angmienihip ¢
I st 0 b bmphined Uk farh. I Church deruments the limiatien, “unloat it
shut 4 pemed”
acke i ofmthatpresep pmend. Sae the Tridenane Profbession (Dont
of Feith !
P, wharr & @ ad “wcrmnmie cander grace© wish ewen, B
any reuric
oyypumtes 0 e Caran o1 Sacswrente i grrwra) (Drns. 649) And 2 Sacrazemd&
Dty dewad o o srnible wgn imettuted by Christ which cenders the K¢
i, aned v ot roqres e b, o dosure i plase see obtache™

Pt 2y dhsure 0 e
“Nar should it o theught
she Chuirch wafars for & perven 16 be saved 1 s roquir edU0
that
ase by whach st s wtdered ek e Church
be indorrwsd by perfect !
O U1 eo etf dowe e i e
T (Deme 7). § e pras o ot bt seperrtir] -
..,__"""-'
Dot _ - e Churd, o 2. The msmibrs o the Chureh Milaand

130
-.og— T ———
Corch Membersiop and Setoahen Croprrt

Church, they g0 further by declaring that secep

e In lact, they have wflkly‘i-::n'h H‘"n..-
Sedevacantista, who accept this feachang
of the Church
en Bapiien of
Desre 10 be not enly hereics, bl “the scum of the carkh” aned pver
“sbominable ~ From the officl website of e Maat Holy Famiy
erastery. we read
“In she, Tem D [Netw Tem Drwleaky Tollow
Sedevcanist] belongs ta the crwwd of .
whe not sy helrove 1hat soule can be saved ok relgoons. bk
who deiest and wish 10 extrpatc futh i Sesue’ dagma that el s
e 15 borm again of waicr and the St be caanet onter mte he
Kingdom of God (shn 3 5) I ether wendd, be's amaog the vary
worst o the false tradtionalio hcreucs
detariied a3 Y0 scum of the Earth. They are shaminable ™
Here we see what happers when sndiwiduals cmpley the Prosestant
dectrine of private judgment 1o interpret degmas of the fath wtheut
reference 1o the Church’s own unterpremtion snd understanding i
foads themm not only 4o directly contradict ihe perenncal seachang of the
Church (including thal of her greatest saint and theslogiars) but aise
drives imbalanced soule 4o accuse those who dwagree with them (e.,
ihose who do accepthe t teachung af the Church) af being abeminable
heretics We will
. have mece b say aleat these bitter fruite af
Sedevacantism 1n the last chapter
Necesslty of Means and Necwaity of Precept
To clanfy matters further, it is nportant so understand the vaneus
kinds ol necessity The werd necesmty denwbes & stnct conmectien
between different beings, or the cifferent elements of a beig, o
between o being end its existence |1 s a prmary and fundamental
neton, and 1l e important o deternune
its vanous meanings and
applications in theology
The Church teaches baplism i necrssry for salvalen, and
anathematizes those who say otherwise “If anyene shall sy that
Bapuism 15 eptional, thal is net necessary for salvaien: let hien be
anathema.”® But in whal wey i Baphism said to be nacwary? As
always, It criticel 4o make the proper distincions. lest serer ek
® See Wt/ /vvew meethelytamilymenastery
com/ eniwisamiaroh/ guTy-matsen, 8.¥
T2
* Cotuic Encyclop(1913)
ritavol X, 71X
¥ Cour Trend,ci
Canenlo
2, Dens.
fW1
131

e
True o Falae Pope? Chapy,

Charch dwhnguishes Setween the e i1y of maans (upug;

.,:rm)md the neceet y The (ormer are the ,_":":
of precept
{avsoluy
very nature
salvation, and are cevetituted such either by Sheir
y) mstituttent (relative neceusity), the latier (neceg,, iy
or by dwnc
necessit by law
of precept) i necessar because t i@ prescribed
Matiers that are necessary for salvation by precept slane g
ecemsary because omutting them constitutes & sin which wself |y
hendrance to salvawen. For example, attendance at Mass on Sundy;
and Hely Davs is necasary by a necesslty fulfill of precept, bu
cecumetsnces arose that prevensed a person from ing the
doc te e fawht of shewr own (such as iffness), the violation of tke
precept weuld nol be a sin, and therefore would 1ot be an obetacic g
salvanen.
Ovher matters, hawever, are so necessary that without thean one
canciot ebaain salvaton - that is, fic cannol be translated from the staeof
son 1o W stale o jushfication These are necessary for salvation by
acesaity of memns Some of these mattcrs are, of therr very natur, 0
necesary that nothing can supply 1n their absence Sanctifying grace
for example, 16 an absalutely necessary means of salvation, since those
whe dic wilhout the hfe of grare i the sout cannot obtain the Beatiic
Vamon. Ovher Whings are necessary as a means of salvation, not ef theu
nature but by dwene vishitutn These are refe as aed
torr relatre
Tecessty of wans, suwe the necrssary offect can be obined by s actof
the will when the person w hundere from fulfillng the act iself
The necessaty of water baptism and of becoming a “member” of the
Church, are necessary foe salvabon by a neve sstit
of precep y
and alsoa
ecesnty of meens. But the necesmty of means in both instances s only a
relsie necusaity net an abssfute necessity Henc in bothe,of these
cases, the act itself {of bewng baptized ot becominga “member” of e
Church} can be supplied by a pesltive act of the will (the desire and
intend o fulfill the act) when the act itsell is hindered through 1o
penona) ault. fn the Summa Thelegrcs St Thomas affirms this bn the
faliewing clnecuen and sswer-
“Obyaction the sacrimcmt of Baptram 13 necessary far salvauen
New fet w mecwary ‘wiheu which semcthing cannck be
1 socma thet oase wit
{(Anmedc’s Meuphysacs V) Tharefore,
g TT——
Courch Membersing end Selvation .

Reply The sacrament

of baptaorn w saed ‘aessnry
sairon 1 50 (4 38 harc can be 2 xavsen f ™en
s uslows
he -g
Jeast have 11 desie whick. with Ged. cmupte for 1 dogg
Fe Berry explaine this unemimous tasdng of the thewtoguans ae
fnllows-
th regand fo ataming xalveben, (beelegine et
between thosc things which are necctsey by » aecessty of rases
and thesc which are neccmery by & neceasity of pracept ()
Maticrs of mCTe pROcCRt are mecersery because by smtmg them we
commut grievous sin. { ) The case 15 qure dilferent s thwns
Hings necesSary 4 the meers 4 salvasen, they cannet be arsed
without the hoss of salvation, cven theugh the emasion be withat
Gaulton eur pert In seme cases the dung v abeoluaely .
ecause 1t 15 O such Rature tha nethiag can supply foc us sbamec:
€ SARCHfYME BraCE 1S an abselute Doty whees nbremac
cannet be suppli by anything
cd clee Other things are aeccacary,
aet
by thetr very nature bt by divine nstitutoem, n repacd @ heae
tungs God is plessed 10 accept subsiuies when the Whungs
themaeives cannot e had Such means af satvatien may be called
relaively neccary te disongush them Srom these of absolase
necesnity Baptiern 1s an cxamp of & le
relace necwarty for
salvation, f w a nccessary Theans of sivatien, becasc Chost has as-
ocdai any reases 1t 15 impessib
but 1f forned, le Bapiuum,
W rucerve
s absence can e supplicd by perfect comniten and a sincere demre
o recenve L
Fe Berry goes on Lo explain that “mesberalup in the Church w
uso] necessary by the twofold necesmty o precept and mears” and
shen adds, “but the neceseity of means s enly rrlsiev.” st s it s with
Saptism.
Magr Van Noott taught the same in tus well-ewwn teelogecal
munual, Chnst's Church, when he explancd dut baphem and
aembershup in the Church are necessary by necesity of precept. and
4 elative neceasity
of mears.
“Twe genarsl types of ncomsity arc dutnguubed: nosmty o
pracept and necessity of messs.
Necesity of precept significs the type of scchsuy wush awes
exclusively from a mern) ebiigation. It conduom 1 salvaieen aet 58
Tuch by o pentive causel mflm 3 the waseral af sbouckes ¥
-
5T Lo M, 0 2 (rrmphasms adde).
The Ouirma
Ckru, p f134
m

e
Trae oc Falee Pope? Chipiey

ivamn If the peecept 13 to008salvbwwr vad, 10U 11 11 Cornen eed,

ad s el 6 80 obotecic atien.{ }
Necoslty of meast ssgnies Wiad something - absircting from sny
o f thersl ebligation e B - S & Ricans requitt fe
Nvatvon m e 8 caueal force positively leadng 10 13lva 110n i uch
3 ey that wikout that cause salvatiem simily cannot be skaed,
)
mescs cbier by 1y
A shing muy be neccasery by & rwseseity Iaaf the
e 8 by the posiave scdnonce of Ged e firs case thare
ok a1 v relatenship betwoen mean aad ond thar lyne
bt can whe 1% pliace Such a means e said 10 be ahsa iure
al order betwess
eccseacy Suck a relsoenship obtaing i thethenatursupc
e oman cyc awd the 31 of socin ng, 18 Tatural onder
botwross graec sud the bestic vicse
Nevemcty [of mesas] by & powttive sedinance twguhs frem w
Cxtemnc boad osablinbed borwocn twe ihings by God's fial [suck
wr] the sacrasmens of bagtiom 30 & remedy for enginal sin Sucha
wmctas com b & substtace, o6 [sad diffcrantly] the means cax be
rappiicd foc 1s semc other way tham fis sclusl vee In the
suparmanral sder boptirn af wiker 6 3 TeCESSary menos for the
rncten of evgiasl 1 and the receptien of sunctifying grace But
# catechumen whe s martyred for Chrust before he can be baptiaed
‘Bag lus 3 romemed, snd rescrves sanctifying grace by his baptnm
ofblosd."
‘Such asesseary s, 900 vp by God's ardinance, arc sand Lo be net
sboohacty, bk disjumctivedy [i e relatively] necessary Thai ls, the
mesas st e empleyed cither actually or 1 desire (in re ar in
o), Netce howevee that the extemal means a3 actuslly
cmplayed sed the subsstute for i - the imemal desire of making
e of the catamal froams e wet twa distinct and different meane
Rashar ey are relsiod i onc sneiter as the perfoct and imperfect,
e Full snd partnl ae of onc s the same meacs "
Magr Van Neort goss on w0 address& point that was diwussedB
gorvmusly in b chaper He begine by neting that the Church
maameary e salvetin. yot af the same sene cxplc! inowriedge of ¢
el 1 ot awelur ely rcesmery for salvation for those whe
e wrvincily igriatant of the Chusch) He then sdds:
—_
© et ootyp B0
f *
Comree Mcmbershép wrd Satvetien .

It 1 de TS 50c% are rmmlbamemmatk.y ;.c::

,,‘—uybyuwyd—-huh—l‘:l‘h
quen purcly by secidenl cin ohia mivenes wrkows
Vecomng 5 members of the Cloach, the cosegua
& means mesesiry for wivibes
nce 5A
st sbeanaly, oo
duunctvely (1€ selabvely] ane muk be jomed t the Chovoh o
ot i fact 11 7e) o€ owet 1 dere (vt o) 3
As we have seen, the Counail of Trent reveals this
‘petween ebsalule necessity and relatroe neceseuty of mears m -:“m
en the sacrament of Confession and other sacraments. As we powtey
.ux,TmlnuchuMlmmybefmmuin‘byfl!m[.(
Confesson of the desire of the sacrament.” Here Trent i talkung sbeut
ane who has perfect conkition but i unable 1o confess hus s te s
prest The spintual *rebur th” nto the siate of grace (here
o translaien
through love of God and sorrow/repentance {or siw) 1 an sbsolule
necesaty fot Jushification (since grace 1 an absaiulely necessary maans far
salvation), while the external reception ef the sacrament b eely o
relatuve necessity of means (sunce an act of perfect coniriben can mifice
in 14 place)
1 a person concedes that one can be forgiven of grave sin eutide
eéthe usual means of the sacrament of Canfession (surcular confassion
0 3 priest) by means of a perfect act of conirrhen, then e sheuld alse
cancede thet one can be bom again eulside of the usual mears of the
sscrament of Baptsm (wakr) In beth cases, man w freed frmm
mertal/Onginal “sin by the sbsluie newty of 3 spetual
reburth (infusion of grace inte the seul) slong with the dasre for the
wtual exterior reception o the sacrament, which iself w enly a sty
nezsmty In short, perfect contntien (i the case of mortal sn) and
supernatural fasth, hepe and chanty, slong with the mplicit er explicit
desire for baptum (in the case of Original sin) can jom sne 1o the
Mystical Body of Chriet {even i 1t does rat sake sne an actual mamber
of the Church) and bestow the effects of Chnst s Passsans which are
necese ary
for salvation.
1 we apply the concept of abselute and relative iccesity of mesrs
#w union wilh the Body and Soul of the Ciurch, # clear What perfct
union with the Soul (farth, hope and chanty) is hislulely necsry for
salvation, while the perfect unien with the Body (sctual memberslup i1
the Church) is wnly s relatwe mcons of necwsity which can be B
vibslitu by ied
desre The great Thommt, fr Regnald Gamgeu:
Lagrange, uses the lecms Body and Seul in this centest
—_
dp
8

—————
 ,
Trwe or Falue Pope?
ly ty
of meams. 10 beleng raa,“
1 1 peceuacy, of 8 mecsmc-yinua mmbelm,... :;
_d.yfncu-:nlu-m— desuu e) 5
21 the Church scaslly (ot re) oF by ice i vos
We aise sce Wis disinchon in regard to the sxcrament of 1y,
Commmrion. Jesus traches that “Except vou eat the flesh of the Sun gy
sun and drmok b Wood, you shall not have ffe ina vou” On. ¢54)
20 all adawt, recesving Holy Communion 55 only relatrue necesaty of
Tears, which can be supphed by desive alone 1f those whe qen
Bapham of Destre were conwtent in their excgesis, they would havey
convber recennng the Euchanst as an absslute necesslty of mean
(e than relatve necessty) ust like they do with water buptcm,
fot e sand “unlase/ercept” we do both of them® we have e fife iy
-
This w the Church's understanding of the dishnction between
absolute mecessity of means snd relative necessity of means regarding
apusrs seul membership in the Church for salvatlon With s tany
ervers o0 either side of the ruth todav, the anly safe course is to hald
be led
faut 10 tradsnen, which, a8 St Vincent of Lering said “cen never
anteay v any lyung novelty* Those who depart from tradition loday
are sure 1o fall 0 errer in enc direction or the other
To summarize these pemnis, while supematural faith and
sanciiving grace are. of theis nature an absolule necessity of means foc
salvaien, waler baptism and actual membership in the Church ae
anty & reative necessity, which, w some cases, can be supplied by an st
of the will % As we saw, 5t. Thomas explains thus pamnt by noting thit
Iacatue the catechumen's dewre far membership and baptism is ftsclf s

ia
* Carmgou-Logaryy D Revv{Rer e ho p 813,
1925),ns
:..,,.”""‘"""'""-" -w-t-m.un-nm ,aum.ummm mo.b
yo” . H54) and drink i
Yo sl
fi,‘m"m‘.n”' e e o
t vwu eut the flevh of she Sen
"Enwp of man.

Thr et o Mot prosesces a b gracesfectfandd 1thempeir i 4 Undehble it 37

G sl sanch ivig hesbegicnl virtuns). Wher
..:. .-‘ ke
of st g Bapt isn of D abor e sy ecrvs e
e th sake 37
ke s b (g and e shealemcal el and e she bl conh. S0m
o0 shwem
oy h—m‘e.‘ hw ”“fl- ‘h ww ufluu naihenm
s the w.
Lt
Yoo thwola vy an,
s t.
tough
everot
havesg vt arcb or vty
= Aga s “mrmbership” o e clamacal v, 14 best e s, the persston

136
 TT——————
ierch Memibersup and Saboehen .

Jled by God when the extermalsct

.wlfllz‘od c:uynwo- nrd.,a--v el i hiedered, e deswe
‘Atiecall salvabon is primanly the werk of God,
aa bound Himself by the visibie sacraments He is .;7::::7'-’»2:
ince salvation repes that 1an b 1o 1 the Circ el e e
destve (i € OF 41 T0L), 1t 80 means there are 1o excephons m e
hat cutside the Cathohic Church there 16 o salvation ey
{ecena il sl 1) To be saved.& person must be perfe smicd
cy
{re Seulofthe Church o e 1 oulty), and urted 1 the Rody o s
invele oy desice)
The Death of Fr Hermann Cehen's Mother

We will enal this chapier with the stety of Fr Hermann Ceben's

mother, which serves as an exampic of hew & persen can ebtmn
salvahion through extracrdinasy mearw. The followig accewntis eken
from the 1883 book The Lt of Rev Father Hermam (e fursher
commentary
1 required)
“The last momicnts for Mrs Ceben ameye 13 Decemb
d ar
1855 Faiher letmann was preachung Advent n Lyses ot the wme
and be anncunced this and news 10 has hend 1n these terms. ‘God
has sruck & terible blow (0 iy heart. My poer mether % deed
20d | remain en ncertinude’ Howeve we have r,
so omch prayed that
we must hope that something has passed between e soul asd God
duning these Last rmoments that we coneed know sbet We cam
sasily imaginc the pain of Father ({errmsan 1 lcaofmng the douth
of tis mother [1c had prayed so mock, and had se masy prayers
sl for e conversion, yet she came be appear befere the tribunal
7 God witheut having received hely Bapaarn' () | alse hve a
mether * woukd he while onc dy | kave kel ber o follew Jesas
Chnt, she o lenger calls me ber good sen.” Alread het hary
silvered, aloeady ber leow 1 furewed, and | am s to sec bt
dic Oh' No, | would net Iike to see hus dic befors leving osvs
Choet, and already for many years ! awas far my mether thet hach
Meruca awal edime *
for August
God secracd 10 have dospused all b praywns and recied b
Veving and legiumaic desires. His fauk and tus love ware it
thraeug harsh h1ia) Nevert 1 hus serow
hele sshis,hope
was doop,
w0 the infinnic goodness of God woull net allow deci io be sruek
down() a shet tme loicr, e confided to the Cure of Ams {SL
—_—
TSeeST il g a2

w7

_———————E
True ot Falee Pope? Clagte

Vieuncy) b dimquret oboust the dealh of his poer mather

s ofe one
oShoper you wil roserv Bptodaym o“Hopc! op le d
ur oul;
he minImmac
the feast of the
Comcepren s ot thal will bn you great eonsol ation ()
Thew weeds were almost forgotion, whta onher e gy
Decerber 1841 50x yoors after the death of bus mot » Fatker,of
e Company of Jemus haaded 10 Fahet TlermannIn the the followingof
feam (The person whe wrwie this leticr died odour
st sheywas well knewn w the relipi and ous
ascetical warld,
vy b wriicn werks o the Enchanst) The leter red. On the 1
Ocseber e Holy Commonron, | found mysclf in onc of these
o of umete union with Our Leed, where he mede me sy
ool s prraence the sacramen of Hut love= short that Farth secmed e
Tonger mecasemry te belcve hum here. Aflr time, He had me
oot His vowe and He wanied te give me some cxplanations
relakve (o ¢ socvorsnen et | Nad had the night (Anna) befece |
romembar that, 8 (hat coRversaien, sec of my frends had
manfonted Sor surprae that Our Loed, who has premused te accand
cvor yi
(5 praywr , in g er rems
had, Bowev deafio edof
to these
Reverond Father Hormana, whe kad 0o many umes addresd Hum
(0 obtass thc ewaveriien of kit mother; I surprisc wen almest
for m dueonicrament, wnd | and and difficulty ® having. ber
wedersiond i we most ader: the justice of Ged and 1ot 10 seck 1o
panciee e secrew | dared 0 4k of my Sesus how 1t was that He,
whe wes geadasen macll, had been shic 1o resist the prayers of
Fter Herraann, ad 1ot grant the cwnversien of hus mother The
was Ho (Gur Land ) respomse
Why doss Anas always wasl 10 saund the secrols of my Juskcs
and why dow she sesk 1o pencuate mymencs thal she cunel
oormpcchend” Tell e that | do et ewe my grace te kayon, that |
v K30 wivwen | phosec and that s actung n this way 1 do not ceuse
1o be at, andjustc e Mt thet the mey knw thet, rahet than
rsclf
ot kecp the promcs i | have made to prayer | will upset
houven and carth, and that evary prayer that has ray glory end the
saluation of souls foc [11] object 15 always heard when 1 15 elothed
.” *And 1o grev
He sdded
W the mecerswry qualives 1o youethis
wuak, | willgly make known that wiich passed i the reomen of
e deoihs of the mother of Futher Hormann
My Jowes than culightzned me with ¢ my of His divine light and
Vod mc umdarstand or rasher 18 soc in Hum that which | wast o o
@ alate. Al the mament where the mather of Father Hermann wé
O (he pount of ronderng bur lasi brasth, a1 the momen thet she
omed doperved of enarencs, alment withaca life: Mary our good
z‘;—;—uwwmmnmnmu
oo o St 10 10 tKo “Parden and rorcy, Oy Som, 101 s
purich Yl snother instnat and she il b dest.
5 9v(0mg
 - s Mombership and Salation
o. —
foc cternity | besecch
you, do far the methar
recmann, thel Whech you wonld 1Az s be dame o o el
She was 1n hor place 45 1T you were i ki The coul of ks mot
o s most precwwus gond, hc has consecrated ket 2o me 2 thevang
e has conaccraied her Lo the terernons mnd sohimade of
boart Coutd | suffer her to persh' Ne e, Ui soul s mene, | )
11 clasm 1 2380 ihemance s he pce o you Maod md i g
‘fcrngs o the oot of your Cross
Hardly bad the sacred supplund cosmd spaskng. when o
srony, powertul grace, came forh frorm the source of all
{rorn the adocablc Heart of our Joves. 114 came L onlighten U sout
of the powr dying Jowess, inamlly Wnmplung evar hor
abberniness and reuistances. This seul wanwedsately nrmed borvell
sl loving cenfidence Wwwards Him wheee morcy had porsaeed e
20 far a0 the arms of death and veid s Hinw 'O o, Grod of the
Chwoars God whert my sem adares, 1 believe, | hepe m Thee,
bave ity an me * In this cry eard by Ged alone and which came
from the wtmwc depths of the hoart of the dying women, wece
anciescd the sincere serrew for her abetination end for he sins. e
desire of baptism the express will 1 recerves and 10 live sccerding
10 the rudes and precepis of owr haly reivgron, if she had Do abie:
1o rorm 10 Iife This leap of fath and hepe m Jonue was the last
sentiment of thar soul. it was trade i the momemt what she (was]
Wroupht ewards the throne of the divinc mercy Bevaking xnay e
weak bands which fild fer Us fier mertal camng. she fell M the fout
of Him who had bosm her Saviewr (& memont) beiwre bemg bor
Judge
After having shewed e all thase thagn. Ow Lord sdind:
*Make this known te Fathet Honmans, 1 1 8 comsalaten that | wish
1 hccord 10 hus fong seerews, s that ke will biows, and have blomsed
everywhere. the geedacs: of the hean of my Modber asd Her pows
wvermine*{ ) What appears 1o sdd grons suborty Lo o e,
(hat had ecn anneiced s yoars m advance by the vencrable
Cureof Any ™

_—
1 Cuan Charies Sylvain, The Lok of fev. Falher Hormann, # sekgus fustr-bore o
:mluyh—un.u..—-mm—_"mm«wh—

[ ]
>-— @
——

Chapter 5 Terms and Explanations

In this chapter we address the topich ofChathepiesiy of
poct on ecclestastial office As wit r 3 --“‘l"!...'_i‘. "
anderstand the termunclogy 1o be used To thatend e have procsing
nother brief set of terms and explanakore at the o e
chapter beporung
Heresy. The post bapiismal dcwial ae doukt
of u ot whh
e belicvod with divinc and Cathelxc fash, .t
Marter of Heresy. The muer,o matarnal acp
of oct
herery, ¢ &
belhef a¢ peoposition cearary ue whal st be belicved with devine
s Catholic fath The menofiae harcsy the ebyecive elemen of
heresy
Pertinachty: A term used ta describe the conscions and sderinate
demi al of 2 wut
o¢ doube Farlk
of the k
Form of Hersy The form of hercsy 1 permmacay, whick cvmts
thewill Pertnacity 1 the subjective clomen
of harvey
t
Enternal Fornan. The sbpective, external realm.
Interasl Forum. The ambjecuve, miarmel
roainn (conscoanec).
Matertal Herethe: This term 1 wied s describe o validly bupoacd
nen-Caihlic who prefesscs 1@ be & Chrwias yot who has cver
been u member of the Cosholic Church and therefore dees nol
bt (© the Magrsicrium an the rule of itk Tha 1 an obpecure
clasification 10 the estermal forum, ndcpendens of2 mobecve
gment of guih Only non-Cathelics can be maeral heretis.
Caihelic ia Materlal Exver (hermy): A mombcr of the Romen
Catholic Church 1n gosd snding. wha ackmewiedgrs the Church
w0 the rule of fhith, yet whe bas musiabonls swbraced 20 cmec
oortry 1o what rusmt be belicved with drvise and Culbelic fuik
Such o persen may be called sn igrerant Catholc oc s Cabalee @
mastcrial heresy. Wt net & “mescrial bereuc.”
Farmal Heretic (external forvan): This wres refors & u bapuood
Catholic whe consciously and publcly dusews from 8 fruh which
st be belicvad with dve and Casboc famk, oc bas bocn
declared u heretic by the proper susbermen. This 6 alss 20 sbjecteve
slaamfication s the external foram.
W

;4
 Formal Heresc (imternal forum) One whe has embraced
(the matie with perumectty
r} (the form) Such & person 1 guiny of
e el o of herosy
Celm of bereey
e The casomical affenee of heresy under g
Coarcts. possave Lo which roquires prwof o the eame
micesa (obpechve clemen) m well m pertinacity (subpacr
sloment). [t mey o say nat be sccompanicd by & declarstien fram
the Courch.
Toviecible Igsoranee: The (sveluniary) mabilty 10 know why
onc 1 bound 10 knew One 15 bound 1e know the artcles of fih ,
Thornas defines urncidle gorance as ignorance “that cannot by
evercemc
by study !

W N, 2

2
>~-— Ty
Chapters
~ Sin of Heresy and Loss of Office
~

‘We begin this chapier by addressung the mather and

m_zmdwuyh-hducm,,...um’:';‘%“'y
{revealed in Scripture
or Tradition) whach must
be believed with drvine
and Catholic Faith The matier of heresy exos 1 the suellect and con,
be prosent with innocent \gnorance er with sinful parinacky
The form of heresy is permnacity in the will. Rerwnacty u another
word to describe the depratnty of the will . sbcknaely sdering to 3
heretical proposition When » person knmeingly et er wnlfully dmbe
» doctrne of the Church that must be believed by (i, he w guilty of
ot heresy (she sin of herney) n the mteral forun (the reale of
cmnacience)
Unhike the natural moral virtues which corrupt gradually ever
sime, the heslogical virtues Corrupt enterely whvn » persen commte »
single mortal sin contrary be the virtue Consequent if 2 ly,
persen
commits the an of herery, by denying a single aricle of futh, he
smmedately loses the ntenor virt of ue
faith compleely Just as one
mortal sin removes all supernatural chanty (and sancafying grace)
from the soul,! 30 160 one mortal s agaiat the faith remeves of
supernatural Ialth 75t Themas says
“Just a8 maetal sum 1 comrary (o chanty a8 is dishehel 18 wic
artcle of fmth conary te faith New chary dees o remm &
man after ene menal sun. Therefore, nexher docs k. aficr 2 mas
dmbclicves one arucls Therefoce,
o is chas that such & harens
with regard te ene article, has ne ith m e sdber arncles, bt snly
8ko0d of epinven m sccecdemce with b ewn will
Now, since falth is “the founcatien ef the sepernatural bfe,” whan
the faith e loat, 50 100 are the theological virtues of hepe and chanty.
which, along with falth, consktute the intesal bonds that ualie » man
te the Church. Therefore, when one loses the fath, he Is complemly
severed from the Soul of the Church.

'gICai3r Ly
150 for rxample Pope Low Xil, Soke Copaen, N § st 20, 108
STl g502
w3

e
Troe or Falee Pope” Cupyy

owever, ok we discused in Chapter 2, the lous of

mm"d.anfl. i and of stself, sever & man lrom the w,.,,,;a::
e vl ecclemastcal socet founded by Chst) Thi e ey
when oo coreders that the lose of (el (ath docs et o e
canse a Catholx 10 lose the rights and privileges of fus. membersh,
‘e Charch. And 1f the Catholic who loses the nterior vmucm:x:
happens 1o be 2 bishopor exen the Pape_the s isible and external
e sulfice for bun 10 resan Fus office This crucsal pount strkey a e
heart of ene of the principal errors of Sedevacantun
In Chapter 2. we duscussed the dispute over “membership' iy g
Church. We saw thet certaun theologsans. such a Suarez, mainisineg
that the loms of inwnor fath was ncompatible with iy
~mewbershup® in the Church. He and others held this view becaug
thev considered the concept of “membershup” from the perspeciiveof
oot wth Chrse, vather than urion with the Bady of the Church (e
viibte eccesastical secwety) However, although these theologians du
et consder those who lost the faith to be, technically speaking,
"members” of the Church, they nevertheless realized that the external
Wends of unen alone sufficed for a person to possess jurisdiction and
fald effice in the Church. They mantained that a heretic Pope for
example while nel a “member” of the Church (as they defined It) was
il the head of the Church.
In siher words, their opunson on “membership” (who can be called
a “member” of the Church) only pertained to the speculative level and
had 1o pracical effect on those who held office 1n the Church Thiss
clear from the follewmg quotation from Suarez Although he held that
fasth was necessary lor “membership* in the Church, he conceded thal
fath was el recesary for & man 1o hold office and perform ack o
furisdsction i the Church.
“Faally, the Cash w el sbralutcly mccossary 1n ores that 3
Man be capable of uprnal and ecclesuastcal junsdicuon and that
be be capable of craviing Wue acs which demand thi
Jundicien The farrgomng w sbviens, pranted thet, as 1 1aught 11
the atncs on ponmsac and comeurws, 18 casc of extreme necestity &
ot bt ey sbeelve, which s Dol pessible withou
Westicnen"t

—_—
v Tk g I, s . om 310, 1
1w
- ————
smof ey and Lows of Offce Chapters

Suarez
aleo says.
The oss of ath f hercey whick s merty el dacs ot
cause the bess of the pewer of jurisdicien{ ) Thie
fintvhw'rk’!"-kmub;:fi‘::
mwm'fkmw-:w._‘.
and sins Another prwol given that the Church 1 visile, . 1
ecessery shal her goveming power be 1 me way viible, dependeny
therefore wm caternal wciions. sl ok en mere wenal cogramns s
The French canorust Marie Domingue Bouix. (d. 1570) teaches the
same
Fanh 15 0ot necessary for a man o be capable of vaclosiasmucy
Junsdiction and that hc might exercme e acw which regaee mugh
Junsdiction For 1n case f extreme neces stty
a harcacal priat ca
sbsalve a3 15 taught in the weatnes en perance and comeren,
Wewerer abeolution requmes and suppeses Junsdxction
the power of onders, which n 1l way supenec canMarsevar, eie
wiheut fath, tat w, wah bercsy thercforr ccchmssnesl
Junsdwction can de se w0 ™
Secause interiot faith 1 not necessary ¥ obtam e hold office in the
Church, St. Robert Bellarmne explains that a Pope who loses the virtue
of faith does not, for that reason alone, cease be e Fope This
s evident
since Bellarmine beld that a Pepe whe 15 an eccult {secret) herenc
retain his office, and, to be clear, an eccult heretc is ene who i guilty
o farmal heresy - the mertal s of heresy - 1n she wternal forum (ihe
realm of conaclence), but which has not become public and noterieus sn
the external forum (which will be discuseed later)
In support of his position, Cardinal Bellarmune cikes the authonty
#f Melchior Cano a theologian from the Council of Trent, who explane
that #nce an occult heretic remains united to the Church by en external
union, a Pope who 15 an occult heretic retaine tws office Bellarnune ales
notes that this is the unanimous opinion of all the authors he cikes in
hus book De Ecclesta

sult of the Church, they are pans and

are cs
“{OJccult hereti
members ghercfors the Page wie 1t 41 accull harcws ¢ il Pesc

—_—
*De Logiun,
Lk 1V ch VI 07 i 20l prmphesis
abded).
B, Trct wn thw Pape, Tom. ¥, p 62

us

_————E
Tree or Falor Pope? Chapgg

Tou e sise the opimren of e othcr DO Wham WE e i oy

De Ecclossa™
Agun, by refrring 1@ & Pope 24 an oocul heretic, Bellanmne
spesiang of e beang 12 meierel crror He is referring be s Py, -
e comimetied the n of herasy 11 the el fortm and. therey
the falth entoly ®
The great twenbeth century Thomusl, Fr Reginald Gu,
Lagrange, laborsted en this keachiog.from Bellarmine In the ol
quemon, ne thet Gamgou-Lagrange (slong with Bluart whemg 16
o) Maid the ety opiion that the interior Virtue of fah
necessary b0 Be a “member” of the Church (for the same
cusecd casr) et al the same time, maintained that Pope why
affice Garmigou Lagrange write
faees the fanh imteriorly wAll retevrm
“St. Rebert Belarmine’s sbjccuion. The pope wh bocones s
sccrat harcuc 4 il an scwnl mcmber of the Church, for be % sul]
e laad of the Cverch, a8 Capctam, Came, Suarez, and others tach,

Repty Ths conditon 8 quitc abrerrual, hence no wonder that

vomethimg sbnertral resus from 1, namcly, that the pope becoming
sectly 2 haretc would ne Ionger be an actual member of the
Church, accandung 18 the loaching as cxplancd 1a e hody af the
ancie, b would s} remin e jurisdcwen by which be weuld
infinemc the Church [he R} ruling . Thas e would sl be
ewanally the bead of the Church, which he would sill rule as hesd,
heugh be weuld ne longer be a member of Chrt, becsusc be
wauld aet recetve that vital milux
of faith frem Chrint |frst i
Sauf]. the weiblc and powmary head Thus m quiic & sinormal
masner be would be m posnd of jursdiction the bead of the Church
28 Rade]. gl b would mat be & momber of 1.

1n fact, Carngou Lagrange explicitly uses the “body” and “seul’”

diswnciens when sddreseng the jurisdiction of a heretical Pope”

—_—
%oDTheRPastir
1o 1t it addod)
i Wi the2 ictnphsse Bl s ot 0 syt e aucull el
i femenmdthetheel
meeted vith e ardy
srbers.e adhough, by external wrien,
Su! o the Clurch
”o
whish means they
doe b e baas of [t
*o s Sowaar A Commsen taMot
the Tiurd of SI Thomeas Theviogscal Summi. 41
ry
vy { /ororw shevamma ke oVl /svione3Tphp (peph ane added) Albwugh e
Ot of s bdinrgrve . irth thene“sectet n
herei”
el e ol e Wedy ¢ the Charehs {1averng theo ap
apunium of Beltarwine el b0 ¥
82 A, 68 g et e ok et e et bt ol TP
 T ———
S Heveny ond L of Office Chupers
“Tius ovmdion could Wet 9y 10 the somrn
reauen 10 Ui body. bt o & Comitinn et o
casc o e morel 2 vocamdary et The rvmcon w e
o s iad s 1ECEIVE 8 Vel i Foer e st e
an alle
pope: nce cac
¥, can 1he merm
e bers of 1 cen
Wiy the el e s ey
i Jrdi et Chech e
ar

although he rece nes 1o influs of wicrat faith 1nd chanty freey e

constituicd uicd 3 m..'?:
o :m[?."""‘““"e perso
hikmaln Ty
Tt yo junscan dict
Vs,on 2 s hendig of
54 pawer s compeic with ]pveso
cemwamy

Rah]
“The Church will always conmt m the viibc uve o someb sccs
with s sl ead, ramely, Ui pope of Rome. shuougy romy
whe cxiemally sccm 1o be mermbers of the Church, may bt pvpe
herenes
Conwiatent with the disknction between the Bady and Seud of the
Chrch, formal heresy can vemaun hudden in the woasemal forum (e
ternal san of heresy). o it can be manufasted n the eernal faram, Fr
Sebstian B. Sruth confir the me
same In his clamic beok, Elmenisof
Ecclesie he says.
Law,tica l
“Formal herary, of which weac we hare spoak, is. o
internal - va , wet caanifonted cxiermally by any wod or bewer: or
wicmel - 1€, wutwandly cipressed, = & sslficuet masner, by
we actions "1
or ds
Fermal heresy in the iternal forum alene (secret or “wccult”
heresy). only severs a mian from the Seul of the Church ! It requires
formal herusy in the external forum te sever him from the Body of the
Church - fram the visible, ecclesiastical society faunded by Chiet
Hence, the Ioes of tnierier (aith alene deas net cause a Pope or bhap
0 lose
hug office
As Suarez reasoned, if Lhe virtue of faith were absslutely necossary
for & man to hold office m the Church, one could never be abselutely
cettain if a man clected Pepe was a true Pape or an ankpepe (4 believes
o & pretender), since, absent an extrasedinary grace. e cATOt sce
1010 the hearts of other men. If the sin of heresy alone were b cause the
Toea of office foc a prelate (or prevertied one from gumnatcly and
o~y
" Snith, Elaenie of Eceiemmrrice Low, (New Yo, Bonainger . 10813 turd od. p 00
i es e B e xplaiom ool s a5 ot which & “lpuee & o9 or
ly 104 few ¢ . ive ar o pursese sk whioh, mervevr, ot et gt ke
e il o eninal foram.” il p 300
"

“
 Troe wr Falae Pope? hapters
the office), Catols cwuld 1OVer e ey,
e repe wha defined decirine Of (AIed k0the decree ]
Coumell,ws the Vicar of Chiet or a pablic IMPOSIE was secregy
o were the caae theee who professcd 10 be Cathal,1y
acfined dociines, could sunply cast doubls upon the
e defined them n arder 10 cast douBts upon thefora doctrine
Pope gy
Shemeelves. if she mienwr virtue of faith were necessary
Vabep 1o legrkmaily remin s ofie, 8 messure of doubl wou
ooy cust. and hence everything would be lefl 1o the pryvay
& cach mdwdual to determune (a5 w the case
Sedevacaniem) With weunded human nature as it is, the weyly
‘wreak havoc 1n the Church with no certain means of resolution. Fa
{a veason, the theologians wha disagreed an whethet interior faith
sesuired for Church “membership” al agree that the visibility of the
Chuach a dependent upea that which is hidden m the heart of
man. betwren
AN the great ihcelogers slie recognize the disknceon
emg jownsd to the Bey of the Church {for purposes of uriedictien)
and the Soul of the Church (for purposes of spiritual goods), especialy
when speaking abeat the Pope For cxample Bellarmine says tha “the
occult heretcs are uribed and are members although onily by externa)
anson [t Bocyl, on the comrary, the good catechumens belong to the
Church only by an snternal unien [ Seull, not by the extemal *1
Whle Suarez held thal 2 Pepe wha 15 an ocvult heretic is not «
“member” of the Church {ihe Seul), he did concede that he would still
be e “hod” ofthe Church (the Fody) He says
“The Pape heretc & mot & member of the Church 36 far 35 the
it and form (1 Sa]) whech consumc the members of the
Church, bt he s the heud s fac a0 the charge and acuon {ihe
Kuch) amd tha 13 Nt surpnung. since: he 16 net the prmary and
wemcipel tad whe ocw by b awn pawer, but o as 1t were
wawurncotl, he 15 the vicar of the pracipel hesd, who 1s abic &
ancrctic b spotual actiee eve the merabers cven by mesns of &
hemd uf bewaxc smalogously, e depliacs at umes by means of
borcton. ot vonas he ahuolvas, ot a6 we have slrcady said "M
Seur {wha,
s wacamary for ke“memb
Suarez, alao held she apiniom that internal falth
ership” in the Church) responds to those Wi 1
—_—
2 Ky Pt . 2 st
e e ey 8 7 3.1, T g sl
"

fowge.
 s ey sod Lo Offce Crepurs
1d arguc thet a nen-me
of the Church
mbe cannet
r be the “hoad-
::’a“,m.y making the ummm:mu x
power (which takes place in the Rady) and the sopermatural aaar
! P hsch takes place i the Seul) He wrewe wnien
“To the argument that, not bervg & member of ihe
mflfll?-rumlkhddlkfi-flm“q;:‘::
gove the Tollewing anewer | concede (hat the Pupe horvn 1 s
eraber and bcad of (he Chirch m o far a the superramenl e
which cmsemences by faith 40d 11 somplcind by charmy, by wiees
il he mermbees of the Chinch ae unted oo Yy mapeameerny
ahv 1 e S} but | deny thal he might met be rambcr and head of
the Church as far 45 the Joverming pavwer proper 1e s charge 1
fh | Inced. 15 10t absued that Chiwe waches it the Page (1be
Same mighs b said Ofa bihop 1 elatien te the diecesc) whlc b
might 16 be part of this bedy supemameally alive o herey,
shauld nevertheless sl conserve Uhe pawer of doc goveming the
Church exmctly us f Ae houd ot et the superner ffe mamsme
urald
shove ™13
The Majar Erroc of Sedevacantism

The false Idea thet the sun of heresy alene causes the low of
ecclesiastical office is a principal errer of Sedevacantiem. Because
Sedevacantists know they have no suthonty e udge a Pope for the
erue of heresy under canon Law, they appeunt themeelves s the fudge
and jury of the sin of heresy ry appealing 10 Ditwnc law The errer of
the Sedevacantust, 1n this respect, 1 Wi twoleld. First, the s of
heresy 18 & matier of the intemal forum of which God 4lone s the
1udge Second, the s1n of heresy alone docs not cause Wlos of office
We cannot overcmphasize thw cructal pomt The Sedevacansiet
thesis has been erected upon the false foundasion shat the internal w of
heresy {against Drowne law) causes the loss of office and ursdicneno
the Church. While many quotations frew leading Sedevacantists could
be provided, lel us look al just a few from Fr Anthony Cekada, enc of
the leading Sedevacantist prests m Amenca, whe has been maching
this erroneous position for many years. In facWust,
w Fr Cekuda's
Tavorite defense of Sedevacantism, which he uses 1 almost every sne
of hia "rebuttals” of his oppenents’ arguments (incliding awesipis B
Tespond ta articles written by the authors ef Wus bosk).®
-_
* Boutn, Truct o e Te a2 fruphane sdied)
5w hm:w‘m%m“w—-w'qmm
Reniotng e P Secirvacanmum, and Franerarch” (B “A Pope ma Masdat
1w
Tree or Falac Fope? Cupiery

1 respone o an arvicle wrstien by Mr Thormas Sparka, Fy onegg

wevte b o etprece cal ed “Sedevacanurtm theRefu ted7 Afterc
Vo Sperta st a Fepe camnot inc ecclamasical cenpure
wiwmm
mm.r-peumwhmmc.mh
illclanty in Chapie9 rs and 10), Fr Cekada anys the followng.
e waty whe have wRcn agamst Sedevacascem ntism, ene
e rone threugMrh Sperks” mrwcle e s uterly
human occiesisetca
e of the daatncnen between inct l (ciasm)
o o devime lew, and how thus dist ian apph ic so
10 the case
haccucal pope.”

“Hiorery is both a cnme (defictum) ageinel canen law and 2 an

(pecsmasm) sgunet devise law andThe with msicraMr l Sparks quosss
‘doalc wh hermy a8 & delicauns the ecclessastical censure
(ansomamm the horeti
thitmen tse m} ™
c incurs
“Tho 1 tnomtly ueicvant o the case of 2 harotscal popc Becausnby
1« the wapreme legclater and therelors et subjct 1e cason law, &
popc ot commutt 8 ue delicrum of Mercey ¢ tacur an
Cxcummimscaen. He w subyect anly 10 the dvine law ™
K i by vieleting the drvme law dheongh the sin (peccatum)of
al boscs hus authonty “having beceme an
Jorwsy that # hereticpuge
‘mbchever (factn infidklis] 26 Cardonal Willot says. “he would oy
s own wil be cant outssde the bedy of the Church ™7
Using his wwn wards,Fr Cekada “setns utterly unsware” that the
sin of heresy dees net, iy iwell, causea Pope le “lose his authonty”
Netce 1leo that Fr Cekada ended by quokng Cardinal Billot as an
authartyi deferwe of hus sheory What Cekada failed to mentien (et
even indicate by an ollipsis} is that he only provided his readers with
huf of the sankerce If ene takes the time 10 look up the complett
menience, it becomes clear that dhe Cardinal is et speaking merely of
She wakerral st of hereny, But of public and nokorious heresy, which is
canenic
theSe rt al mm
rnmn e alof heveny
Cordence
i e exiernal ferum. Here o tha ful
Billet.

_\—/‘,
._-./,....-....2"_" “Sebevertom A Quick Prima” (1% 4
Ak nary AT 4 S0 e smdtac s.
articls
arichesva
wey/ si phtd

150
 ey nd Lo ofOffcr Copoas

astonatsly Serctical. onc st senseds without heure

ould by that very fact losc the postifical m.r-fi-,';,:
ccerne am nabebever,
oy efihe Chucch"
What the half senteace giveth, the complete sentence tketh sway
Secause “nolonons hercsy” 13 & “crm under e”
canon Law (se cars
2197, 7 and 2197, 3 ol the 1917 Code) seans it Candmal ik, e
his predecesaar theologiane, hld that the crme of hereey (natthe v of
heresy) causes the loes of ecclesiastical
office. And. 20 we wil see Loar,
the person must be a public and notoniows hecewc by the Church
udgment, not aumply by the private judgment of ndividual prissts o
Cathel in the
icspew
For now U is crucial 1o realize thet, contrary te what Fr Cekada
and those Sedevacanis who follew him believe, the s of
slone netther prevents a man from beung elecied Pepe, nor dess it
cause a Pope to fall from the pontificate, since the entemal sin doss nat
sever the external bonds of uruty, which themeelvas sutfice for a Pope ta.
retn his office 1f the sin of heresy alone caused a Pope te lose hu
effice 8 Pope whe fell into occult (secret) hermsy would alse cease © be
Pape which, as we saw earlier is not only ceneaty o the keaching of
Bellarmime {the Scdevacantisi’ favante theolegian), but, as Bellarmine
‘imeelf sad, alea conrary to "ail the Reelogians” he cted tn hus beok
D Ecclesia
Anether authonty Fr ekada often cives in hus artcies i the well
knewn commentary on canon law by WemzVidal Yet the
commentary also explicitly keaches thal a heretical Pepe loses hu office,
ot for the sin of heresy, bul for the crune of heresy, which Fr Cehada
himsclf dentes. Spea the case of a manufestly heretcal Pope
of king
Wemz and Vidal say “the General Council declares the fact of the
e by which the heretical pope his separated hudelf from the
Chrch and deprived himself of has dignaty **
Pr Cekada'a posstion s alse conradscted by Suarez, Caycian, and
NN

John of St Thomas who, in hus treshee e the deposskon of 4 hervacal

Pope (foured in Cursus Thewlegia), states e less than twebve ames that
itla the crime of hereay that causes the Fope te lese his office For
he says:
oample ,
N

De Erco, 1927, 9 i, p. 032 (ewphimie st

20 Koo Prsnfr b 2.ch 30
"Weme.Videl o Cammacum (Reae 13 8 p. 908
244

13t
Trme erFalec Pape? Chapiey5

pewec shenid 4 depoeiven happen with rogand v

-'yy:':m—flhmmmfillh. n-mly.m":
T rsave mmcce. by which e decla rcd - but by whom? g
a0d 1w, the depotien nseif
whach vt be donc aficr the declanswvr judgnent of the crime

And & btk lnter

Cwmrch w able to daclarc the cime of 2 Pasiifl and,
.:—:::uh_‘hw.mmulk fmhfillnth
i b svondcd { ) the dapositsen of the pope with respect 1 the
bui le 2
dacleratne of 2 TING 10 ¢ waty pevaass 10 (he cardinals
owecat council ">
Fr Colmda wil sourch in vain fot 4 compleic sentence fram he
‘marals which says the intermal sin of heresy ot severs one
from the Body of the Church. As noted sbove, if hus theory were trus,
the Church would never have certainty (hai an elected Pope was a lrue
Pope o an ankpepe - & belicver of & pretender - aince man s unableto
see 110 the heart of anether man Consequently, there would be no
certainty regarding the Pope's binding decrecs, and this uncertamty
weuld tnfect the enbire Church This practical consequence alone is
sufficient ¥ reveal the error of Fr Cekada's primary defense of the
Sedevacannst thesis.
Fr Cekada used the same fallacious argumen! in resporse to Jsha
Salza's arkkcle against Sedevacantism in the April 2011 ediion of
Catilc Famdy News 1n the article Mr Safza explains that expulsion
from the Body of the Church is ot & matter of ain in the iniernal forum,
ol reques & determisten of the crime in the external forum. I
Cekadas “rebuttal® ariicie colled *Salza on Sedevacanhsm. Same OM
Fare” % he begre by glibly stang, “Mr Salza does nothng more than
racycle the same mystucal ebyecaens to Sedevacantw m | and others
thal
* Carar
e Theviogut " - fobvs of $4. Thawws. D Ancioriiadr Sumams Pantificss, Dop 11 At
S04 (rmphasis sbdody
i bt e e oPrvasmgan
.,-u/‘:-.um-«.a._,m/u/u/m...:..mmuml Cat Fomly News, ApeE 11
eeo- e aee “Sulra Sk Sarme O%d Fare displaying 4 picire o e
s retering b the a0khor's arguments s °4- dash of
e e pug r
Sobra. hfl::a-uu-‘ ym-nnm‘s.mnhuw("""
-M--ly_‘ Mm\:fl "
Bg wt eborrontty vymcom
-wh—u-—mmnw"“‘“";
mens , amung Sedevacanise wiis kers {and, i
S et v et e €t& e3
) The Wle

182
 sunof sy and Loss of Offce )

L* Cekada
Feime and Sin” & he unwittmely pwmts oot thet s:lz:u-"y g
epmin 1o the ca crime of here
nerucal sy “_ b;“:“
heresy” {emphasis i oagnal). Amen Fr Celadat We o
Fr Cekada then repeats hus ertor by boldly watng ~tn the
o hand when canonss and e
autom dea
privtesi3 c
papeaoflhil
kyoffice they are refertenthengsin
ofFr heCerekasv. nogo to the canwnical crise of heresy” fewphame in ongunal).
da t es on 10 Provide two quotes fram the eanoner Nochel
who explams the requirements lor the sin ol herwey, bt whe neser
such sin “automatcally deprives 3 pope of hus affice” s Cokag
uma Th is bet cause the imernal mn of hermay alone does na such
#ung, 4nd notaa si ngle quolion cited by Fr Cek ma and
y ofahis
arhcles proves otherwitwheic,h & why he u reduced e atmg huf
santences {out of centext) to support hus positien.
But Fr Cekadisaa master of the rhetor skiillscofalthe
{particulaly with his use of icicule and sarcam) which enables hin
twappeal 10 the emotions, and hence the will, of hus resders. This metic
serves o divert hla readers atiention away frem the miellctual
deficiency and general weakness of his argum whiceh,niftheeka,eps
them entertaned and taughmg, they are less likely 0 spet.
Unfortunately, this factsc secms to have worked, si&n nuc e of
mber
wrsuspecting laymen have fallen far the “sin of heresy” sheeofryFr
Cekada, and then used 1t i their own defense of the Sedevacantiot
posttion One such pers13onMr Jerry Ming, who wrote an “Open
LetsteJorhn Vennan,” the EdieftCe oswric Faraty New< n resporse
1o the alorementioned article by John Salza whch Mr Vennart
publisinhe20d11 Here is an excerpt from the “Open Leter “See i any
ot sounds famhar
“Se 1t should be clear (0 all, dhae baresy 56 & crvmc agumet
cancn Law sod & 3in agawat she divnc law It 15 by vilsting the
drvine (W thraugh the sim of harcsy that o horcucal pape loccs ki
wuhonty~ “having becem e * as Cardinal Wil
an unbchever
2ays, ‘he would by hus wwn will b cast owusde the Sedy of ke
Church ~»

ot %2
scg/openarch
* “Opens Later 1 Jnbn Vermark™ Miyc/ /o swrammmbvw
Jobn Veneart hem,
1

"
True o Falec Pope” Capiars

Fr Cokad
t M: Ming et snly parrets a
(a comumen
"“F“ )mhmquo-fi-mh.l[mhm;:
Candanal hllot (et of centext) to make his point!
Thw onh goes bo shew the danger of followng
"soch as Fr Cekada, witheut deuble- their source;g5
checkin
Fenty \he accuracy of their teactungs. To those who wuh to
the accuracy of therr materials, we say armt empior % One thing 4
mumm.umsdnmmnm,.
quowors they marshal. Any citation suggeskng that fermet
s b hoss f ecclesiastical office will necessarily refer 1o the crime
of hereey (fscwal hersey m the external forum), not the mmbernal an of
heresy (formal heresy in the inteeral forum)
“Aneiber indndual whe has embraced Fr Cekada'a “sin booksof herwey*
Wheory is Ruchurd lbwanyy, whe has authored numersus in
defonse of the Sedevathesw canms Having fallen for Fr Cekadss
theery Mr fbrany: has now gone on record and publicly declared that
Cardinal Cajetan, and Cardinal Bellarwiine himeell, a saint and Decter
heremcs”
of the Chuech, are “neteno s sccull
us for holding that
haretic (one whe is guilty of the witermal s of heresy) remauns a
member of the Curch, and a Pepe who is an eccult heretic retaine hus
ffce Mr Toeanyl warmed his resders.
“Bewwe of nutorews herencs, wch % Cajeran and Robert
Belarmame, whe dany e basic dogma that ma ecrult formal
harvsc 4 a2 marabec of the Catbolic Chuwch and not Cathelic
They hald the formal heresy inrnduced by the schnlaetics, that an
secult fermal bareoc 15 @ member of the Cathelic Church asd
Cahic Homoe they belicve that s eccult formal herotc (1asemel
forum] can haid an effice becauac they harcweally believe he 6 3
mewher of the Catholsc Church aad Cathwirc ™
Notie ks the sbrve ctason that Mr [branyi accuses the scholastics
of wactung what he calle the “formal heresy” that occult heretics are
member of the Church
s Dess that uean Mr Ibranyi considers the
! schalashc heslagiane of the Church b e heretics s well, for
:nm.—-nwmwmo months afler publishing
ahove article (rrvised Nevember 2013), he came sut publicly and
R
¥z Let e bwyer e
- “Copmn's snd Brilarming's tarmies.
Chae” ergralty = Poruma Hotstian and Low of Fapel
rotamd ‘*-'-v_/:z Yevint Nevembwr #13) (emphese
b S it o -)-Uw—-u-/.-«./.,w

=
 —
oo ey and Loss o Office )

t all the Church’s theelogians from:the your 1250 srwward

‘::v':::,..pmm He wrote:
“All of the theale gia
wd canes ncframs 259
iewyms
were aposaies. Many thoolagians and caomn lewyms batern 1750
e sk 1poscs, WA onch Cae ot b tdd iy
Se, accarding to lbranys, alf the Churcivs
Luwyers from 1250 onw--dwm-mnuul-uu'::rzo“;
tave o be judged 00 & cade by cace basu The ,
of coume, weuld
jnclude the Universal Dector of the Catholic Chrch, S, Thawas
Aquinas (4 1274} and the many holy Popes and cewncile whe have
enclotsed his veachung (even refernng te St Thewae' teachug as e
phiiosaphy and thealogy ef the Church) In the same artcie, the auther
tvent even further by declaring that “all of the so-called papas and s-
called cardin als t I (1130-
from Innocen 114
unkl seday were3)
snd are
apesiete antipopes and apostats anncardinale.”
But sunce these Popes and Cardinals wece ot declered guilty of the
crime of hercay ot apostasy by the Church, Mr Tac{aany iof
a disciplc
Fr Cekada) must hold that they are apostates because they lont e
interier virtue of fath And, of ceurse, thw conciusien sesumes Mr
Toranyl can peer into and judge the swuk of men - mwn whem e never
knew and whe lived hundreds of years age, o boot. Ta make such an
aswertion u to refute it This dear readers, & the spant and hubris of the
Sedevacantist position, whether the indrvidual Sedevacinist goes back
t the yoar 1130, 1250 or 1958, oc any other rander year shat he arrives
at by his private judgment. St. Thomas ebserved that a sl ervr m
he beginning {in principle) results in a big errer in the end (in the
conclu sio
The conclusi onsn)
of Mr Thranyi serve as a case in point
Sedevacantist “Proef-Texts"?

Sedevacaniets heve managed 10 dig up a number of “proel s

in an attem pt their asserion that the inkernal =n of huresy
to defend
alone severs a person from the Body of the Church (Wius, causing a loes
of oifice) As we will sce, arguments based upon these Rexi were
anewered long ago by real theologiarw of the Church.

s
= Ihruryt, “No Popes o Cardinaie sice 1136 Janwary 208 See how/ /o
Mgt/ ove_ergliah decmants/ arcon/ g 3P popon, o s e 11K .

1%

——————
 True or Falec Pope? Chapirs
St Jerame

The frst ~prowé-fext” . feurth Cenbry UOGON UM St Jorame

wham Bellar quetcma SAYINE-
s 2 nc
sentence of
= ihac siamers are onchodad from the Churchesby and
exommmicsiin, Wt the heretis caile themseiv separate
hemecivas by theie awn act from the bedy of Chrint.">
HON to Mean thet Pupe
Sedevacaniats have inkerpreted thas qUOMmati
wehom ey precwicly udge b be a heretic auto callmas y loses his eiic,
which ia nel what St Jereme sand John of St Tho explains that
Joveme w referring ko the natire of the crime, which severs one from the
bady of the Church with no addiwnal censure attsched crime 1o it In thy
sense the crime wf heresy differsn ifs nature from other s, such ug
tion, which are criies
yeieally siokang the Pope ac precuring an abored
:Mdyym:wrmnflthWm m.“.w
censure attached s the act. ¥ As John of St Thearas explas. by saying
2 heresc severs humacit frocn the Body of the Church by his own act
dwes et exciude the necwrty of the Church o render a judgmert,
espucially whem the persen in quastien w the Pope He wrote:
“Jorwme. when he says that & heretic cuss himeelf off from the
Wudy of Christ. dows mat cxclude the judgrment of the Church in such
& grave matker 3a that of the deposstion of the Popc, but he tnatead
refan 1o the i wf the criame. which, of wiclf, cuts ene ofY frem
the Charch waheot any other further sdded consure of the Church
s ol i b o G ™
g heresy of iis nature severs a man from the
As we sae, sayinthet
Body of Chnst does net preciude a judgment by the Church (whe
deteru crme of herasy has been commatied), especiallyif
it thenes
#he pervan 1 question il prodosens 10 be a Cathollc, and more 0 i the
Porsen s a predate whe helds aifice in she Church
_—
2 Qusted by Bl o D Rovims P . 2,
Sro caoan TV o she 1917 Code ard canar 139 ch 30
of e 1983 Code of Carmes Lo ¥
 sy md Low of Offce s —

e, T Sylvestes Borry prwvided a shghily dten

“fi.m from St Jereme {along; with & seurce refereores
it
e hich T clealy shaws tha S Jerwme e v,
4 of heresy (wiich, by s nature, severs ene frem the “‘)m
ey crimes (which sever one from. the Church by mc"“““"MI
al
e Ferew the trarprov idedah Bery.
by £on
“An adulerer & heraiciée, und other smancs
xev devem (racn
the Church
by the prcsts (1. by exssmumumcasen)
pais venience upon themctves, % bbereics
feswill (Serm. LEL PL 339%0)%
Notice this translation mdicales that the heretx in queskon w one
e lwces the Church of s cun free ol . s ot suoaply a Cathalie wha
makes a heretical statement (which w how the Sedevacanwats have
ierpreed the quote) A person who leeves the Church of his sw free
will {esther by the crume of heresy and/er public defechon, discussed
later), thereby, without additensi censure, severs the external bonds of
unly, by teyecting the Church as the rule
of futh, and separating o
she Church’s goverming authenty
Needless 1o say, none of the post-conciliar Popes left the Church of
sheir own free will. On the contrary, they all profrseed o being
Catholic and they were all recogniaed by the Church to be members in
gwod standing Hence, nothing in this quetsken from St ferome
uppers the Sedevacantist posiben that a Pope, whe is recognised s
Pope by the Church, yel is judged by priovie epomen o be a herew,
sutomancally loses hus office
Mystici Cerperis Christi

A second *proof-text” the Sedevacanieis use is taken frem the

encychcal Mysicr Corperis Cimstt in which Pepe Pivs XII wrete

“For not every offemic (udkmissum), afthough 1 mav be @ grave

il 1 soch ag by o YCrY CUR AaS W Sever & e frve the Rody
OFthe Church, a doss schum oc harsey or aposiesy ™
-
Oomich of i, p, 129
3 Tiw -
2 Mysi Covpors, ot 23, Jurse 29, 190, It the previoun pasagraph {Ne. 20 Fope o
Al thoe crnphiasiav that he i spruking of the exwenal buns and e el och ot
:u—wmm»mm‘v_m('m—fif‘"
" by teaving the Church, ot being “sxchaded by ingaama sulecty
have |~ Actosly
msmred e
ey hare v o b ramibered g e waembrs ot Charh i
1%

e
 Faloe Pope? Chapeyg
'

Netice Prue XT} explicity swates thet he is referming 1o the ~ny,. .

of theve “effenews” which is presely what John of St. Thomay ":'v
mmm-»mm.fi.mfl"‘:
crmes (heresy, schuw and apostasy} differs trom iy
et offerecs which enly severs one from the Church due g
adds al
otached
consuretm of St Thomas explaney
10 them But, 2 John
above, i dees not climnale the need for the Church rmuum,.,.'::
a judgment and declare the crime - espectally wher the culprit 5 1 prj
awho halas office 1w the Grurch. Pive X1 did ot teach that the intermal g,
of heresy aleme coueas a prelate 10 automatically lese his ofice witheyy
the Church WmeH rendenng o fwdgment, which s hew pe
Sedevaimacrpre cant tel se
the passag
t fact, Mage Ferven adairessed this point in an article published
the Amenican Ecclem Rerewash cx!
in March of 1950 The purpoofseFr
Femten's arucle was fo show shat this citation from Mt
Clrsti wis 1n 70 way cenieary 10 the seaching of St Rellarmme who,u
we have socn, Mught that the sin of herasy alone does nol sever &
Pporsens from the Bady of the Church.
Fr Feren began by explaining thet the teaching of Fius Xl was
idermica l Bellarmane himeelf wrote in the fourth chapter of De
bo what
Ecciewa Miltiante, whe n that heresy, schism and aposmsy,of
he 1aught
thar nature. sever » man from the Body of the Church. Fr Fenton wreke
1 the encychaal. the Holy Father spouks of schism, heresy,
and spastssy w5 s[sdbmisnwm] which, of their ewn_samre
meparmac & raem from the Body of the Church Hc thercby follews
the wadshonal procedure sdopied by SL Rebert hmaclf 1 b e
Enciesse Millserwe The growl Doctor af the Church devotsd. the
fowrts chopier of s bosk 10 & proef thel (public] herctics and
apestots arc ot mcasbers of the Chorch ™
Fe Forson then nwsed shat Bellarmune dedicated the tenth chapter
of the same beek (De Eccless Militante) to demonstrating that scoult
indidele or haretics (Wowe guilty of the st of fetesy by an internal acth
oce raally members of the Body ef the Church.

_— -
Yomtt of tograwrstian a0 prvds s aroe (o s have ot sparvid Wmeioes fram
sty of e Ny o v st by bt sulcxiy”
- Wies aaded)
Fr borums arfass 1~ {ademan] 1t S ecbem, h I it 10 e SOE
ebladct 2 s . o el e, ch oy ek namre wrvey s trom Vo Bod
bogt oy

4 Chuart, bt i o ot puchad fodgumant by thr Chwtsh.

a 1
 ———
; W”Hlmy'"‘b-.lam“ Chapter 5

“The sk chagtcr of the semc wark 16 swtimg

han a demmonsczo of e fct halensccul iy o e
eally members.”%
Fanton then, m!:(dhdul;:hn Bellaerrune biansck wrete m the tenity
esy
(tha tha sin of heralone
Ty
‘of the book
e oy o by o
dow
o e
what he wrete in the fourth chapier of the same bosk: (Ihst public
are not member s Just a6 Bellarmw
of the Chusch) did eet
contradict himselin
f these chaplers se likewse, thenere' reasesto
Yelievethat when Prus XII epeated Bellarmune wachung from chapier
four, he inkended 1o Contradict what v saint wreke in chaphe ten of
same book. T Fenton saud.
“In wrikng what 5t. Rebert (Beliarmac] mcinded w b foarh
chapter the Holy Father must net be conssdersd s douysmg what
the same great Doctar ef the Church tught tn e temh chapter of
the samooke
The correct interpretanan of Pope Pius XIT's Wachrg 1 not that he
was referring 1o the internal sin of heresy alone, but o the public
affense {the crim of e)
heresy which, of s neture, severs a persen from
Yhe Body of the Church wnih ne further censur aitached bo e offore It
also worth nobing thet the word admmsuns used by Pope Fiue XII, which
o somewmes transialed as “sin” o “efferse,” elso mesns “crime ¥ A
crime . public offense, ot merely an inkermal sin. And the public crume
must be determined according o the Church s mdgment, not the
private judgmentof individuals thet is appesed vo the public fud gment
althe Church.®
Van Neert further elabeeated on this pown by explaxmng that the
internal sin of heresy alone only separabs a pucsen from the Bedy of
the Church dispositively He said “uiernal heresy, since it deskcwys
Wt interioc urity of faith from whach unity of profemen is bern,
of S Robert Beflarmine's Teashing abeut the Mewbendup of Oocol
* Fenlon, "Stalus
Herekcs in the Cathalic Chirch.” Amercom Ecvirsschen Reswew, vol. OXIL 1 X p. 219

e n *a wrwryg dowe, s rropon, ok, ariew

of sswiaper:
¥ Definitio ad Swrt, A
Lowws
Latin Dichorury Founviod on Ancheurt sdibo of P s Lain dckray (Onfod. |
Mwstees
of Totts Liniverity
2N G
1079
emgrion o esote 2.4 o ofdhr o i g s e .
Peivie gt of oulivhanks vhe ersenally conakies lmweuld o be 2 barsc. dus e
ke him & prublic heresic ™ since thie peivete Judgaed be e @ the

1»

[
fi
Trae or Faee Pope Chapn
ses one from the bady of the Church isposjti vel it gy A
m-rhuhflmmfl—\dm,'lx m,
-
separuted trom the Sody of the Church, but the actusl scparatin dor
ot take place unal pertnacity w1 the exiernal foruns 13 established ung
the Chrch renders & udgment (unless, of course. the person openy
Jefthe Church of hus own free wnlly Becaus e el dogs ey
the Church
Jodge fotemal (de imtems evcec e udoe) i orcler for the s g .
Jodged by the Chrurch, it st be public
‘Ore final poxnt w that shas particular Sedevacanist theery tht g,
internal sin of heresy alone hessevers o persen from the Body of i
Church® - actually approac heresy, since 1t logioully derues g
dagma of e vistalty of the Church 1f an interna sin of heresy dne
severed & person from the Body of the Church, the Church would ng
Jonger be & vrsible society but an “invisible Church of true beleven
nown o Ged alone * which is & heresy of Protestantism As Pope Lo
hddan
XI sad, thawe who “confure up and picture 10 themaeives *4a Hence
and invwible Church are in grievous and pernicious error
those whe privately inttherp excerptret
of Myshax Corports Chrst {or
any other cmuon they manage 1o dig up) as teaching that a mere
imternal sin of heresy severs & person from the Church are ingucally
Jorced b embrace this *grieveus and pernicious error * Such is the cae
‘with the pramet ers
of Sedeva canien

- X*
= Ghest 4 Chmtrh,p 242 irmphasis added) Ui, Thormasm werminslogy wrsnsav e &
pmatian o Wor Sady dot bo kel i alace in i podncy b i v E
= Par rnample o Sedevawutbuoe Richerd beany) wroke:
cartit format e
b o formal ovrc. -
o 10 Cathelc oy ” ey, Coptans A Repers 3 Home. —
On Farmmd Hevwtan And Lo 1 X Papel Otbuar” (Novesibor «
¥ e Cogmitns, N 3, June 20, 19% .
 Chapter ¢

~ Suspicion of Heresy ~

In the provious chaplers, we have demeosirated st the sin of

pereay alone does ot sever man from the Redy of the Chrch, One
whe 1s & formal heretc [n the secrecy of the intemal forar reavion ¢
cmber of the Church and thus cenknuse ke possess all the rghis and
of a member, Lncluding ecclesiastcal effice When the sun of
Feresy w proven to be mansfest in the external forum w a pubb and
noterious way, it also censtitutes
the crime of heresy, which severs a
oan from the Sody of the Church (more on this ater in the book)
Before we address how the crime of heresy i provim, we beleve it
w umportant 1o demonatzate what factors merely vendera man suspect
of heresy - which does et resuit in the las.of effice (2 man suspect of
heresy remains a member of the Church) Some ef these factors are tet
forth In the Church s canon law, and they include the mortal sine of
Knowingly propagating heresy and taking part in worshiping with
aer-Catholics (cormmuntoatss wn sacre cim acbheiscw)
In this chapher, we will see how very pewent and peudent Haly
Mother Church is with her members before making a usgment of
heresy, and [ust “how far™ one can ge winie only being conaidered
suspect of heresy We should likewide exercise the same prudence in
wur personal judgments of other Catholics, especially when tt concerns
the Pope who has 10 judge on this Earth.
In bus commentary on the 1917 Cede of Canen law Fr Charles
Augustine explane the meaning of suscien “Suspicien, in the
peychological scnse, is doubt, coupled with a posihive learung to one
side In our case, towards a heretical decwrine In law ¥ may be
expressed by presumption oc circumsmnial evidence 1t w, therefore, 8
fudgment formed about someone without sufficent evidence on the
ground of certain meicn”t Fr Augustine goes on to explain thet
wispicien is generally breken out into three categoriex. hight. vehement,
and viofent Light swopicen 15 suspucwon s based upon nsufficient
wdications, and thercfore ofken amounts t» oe were Whan rash
[udgment based upen effective sy
Vehement susprcwn 15 suspiaon
and conclusions Vielent suspicien amveuns be mecally ceriain proot

! Avpintion, A Crememiary i the New Cole of Casvs Law, vol. VEL B S, fombon.
Hevdet Kook Ca., 19190, 9. 384
16t
fi
Trwe oc False Pope’ 7 Chupury

! The 1917 Code of Canon Law provides thal Uxse whe ok g,

following act are suspect of heresy-
1 The propagaiors of heresy and those whe participatewi
Cathelicsin drvis (can 2316), " wn
2 Thow who conact marmage under (e Conditon of havig
the oftrprmg cducased 1n & non-Catholic sect and thase wye,
have thew children beptised by non-Cathohe munmers. o
ucated 0 8 nen-Catholic denemmnation (can 231),
Thoot whe desacrate sucrad hows of spacies (can 2320,
Thee whe appenl from the Popc 10 2 general counci (an.
P

B,
5. Thesc whe rwnmn under semcaec of cxpomMUNICEIen for
‘mere than a your (can. 2340),
& These whe sdministcr oc receive the Sacraments simoniacally
(cam BTN
In sddssen ta these ant-Cathelic activities apecificd under canan
Law, the hughly respected commentary on the 1917 Code of Canon Ly
by Wernz Vidal also sew forth extracanonical activines thal are
conmidered grounds fiee suspicoen of heresy They include taking partin
the exerciee of sugsc, charms or divinason, and those who become
members of sects which, whether spenly or secretly, hakch plots aganst
the Church.?
In wher werds, a Cathelic can propagate heretical doctrine,
participate 10 false worshup with non-Catholics, baptize, raise and
educate sheir chuldren n non-Catholic sacts, commut sacrilege aganst
the Mlenead Sacrament, take past m salanic “black magsc,” and formally
Jon anie-Cattolic sects and secret sacieties, and only he suspected of
herexy Even though these achivilies are objective mortal sins againet
the Faith, under the Church s lw they are only greunds for sugioe
Wat e 0.2 heresic.
Because she propagatien of heresy such a serious assault on e
Eatth of the Church,Fr_ Augustine sets forth four categories 1o moally
disinguiah the types of “propagaters of heresy” (can. 2316}
) “Crodorses are mach 2 cicraaily profess the errers of hetehes,
€4 by amaring that Luther ar Dillmger were cormect i thert _
view, €vom though thy may mas hnew the particulsr O o
——,
-
Iied p e -~
o
Vidigel ooXanvier fi-.—:_r-v-
+ ot by Arvalde vamiias m_.v - et 060-
Duby M/ /e

w o
 ) Fowtaeares
such a over Hertics bocame of e harvy by
“Mice o1 by DD suppert te aam Cotbon: propetind,
aticr e way of gropagatig hecwy . fallowed by pec v
pevat persons who wric fo hereiss, pae e s ooy
Tapects, recothew mm and de 1 tanal seppurt,
worken
aiways pravided dial the heresy mell u the sbyet of e
weats] aed maicral favers.
&) Defensores means Lhasc whe defumd herwics for he saic of
borssy orully w witting, ot by acks of defensc proper All such
porsoms arc sunpected of heresy if they act of herr e aecerd
and knswingly Spente s oppesed o compulises snd foar, and
hecefarc umplios full deliberatm a will net hundered
and 3 free

they are helping heresy a5 such ™

Thus, se who “extemally prafesses the arrer of hereacs” o whe
favors heretics “lecause of thewr heresy,” or whe “defends herencs for
the sake of hereay, orally, in wniwng, er by acts,” sre only considered
suspec t While s Catholic may be unclined te conclude that
of heresy
fohn Paul I} for example, was » heret for wershiping with pagans
and prassing the errors of Markn Luther, the Church says thewe are
anly grounds for suspici on One whe commi
of heresy ace i
theseie
not conaidered » “public heredc” (even if the scandalous xcis are
wultiplied) and, # the person in quasien is » deric, such ackvines de
effice
ot deprive um of hus exclesiasncal
Fr Augustine explains the canonical procwss and penalties fer
these who are suspe ct
of heresy”
“We naw procesd te the panaties the Code ik sn lhavs
suspectcd
af heresy
i 0 TR

®) They must, fips, e wamed accordusg t cance 2307, W cemave

the cause of sueprcron. A ressesbic arne should b gramied for ths
Purpesc it the canenscal warnng.
—_
*Augankine. & Cammerrlary om the Now Code of Conem Law, vol. VIRL Bl S, pp 208208

16
P—*
Faloe Pope?
Trorme Gl

1fwe ara provm frurtless. the suspectcd peren

as g
:.u--,-r-m any ecclesiseucal 'mlmmw.,.""::
T2t 1he 1. chnc.be st b mperded 2 v il s oy
warmng has hase lcft vabeudod
€1 4. atar the Lapec o€ 50x Taonth, 30 b TTckonod from the taomen;
the penalty has been conwacted, the parsen muspocted of hercsy iy
ot amendod, b st be rogacdod 56 & beretic, mmenshle w g
pomalics sct forth 1n canon 2314 Whl the pevaliie enumcesieg
e 18) 2 feremdoe scwentioe, 8 be Wllicted accendmg i can
222, 3, the pomaincs wmied wider (c) e @ e and ot
semervioe
Nett But, wace the formnder scnicmiioe povallits requee o
canenical warning sed & cloar stasoment of Lhe tinc grankd, the
moment from which the pomakty @ commcwd can be almest
mathemencally detarmuncd. "
As we can sev, inder the Church's positive law, If ene commuisan
act that renders him smepect of heresy (eg externally prolessing
heretxal errors, wershuping with pagans, profaning the Eucharnt cic)
e 1 mot coneidereda heretsc until the above procedures have been
fallowrd In hus commentary an the 1917 Code, Fr Henry Ayrinkac
nokes that person s ackone may render hum suspect of heresy de fcto
ye1 “the suspicen has no cnomicel ffect untl the warning has been
rven.” He than gors on #e explaun the peaceduures and perialties.
“If a persen whe 15 suspected of heresy does not, aflcr bemy
duly warscd, remeve the causc of the susprcion, supposing that 1l is
rumally posashic t o 0 he shevid b dcbarred from the leginmale
i A clenc sheuld recene a secand wemmg. and 1f dhs 108
comined fruuess b should be suspended o divinis Afler milicting
thcse pusahmests, s mectu mere may be allowed, and 1f & the
and of s tme the party suspacted of herey has show rio signt of
@mendicnt be @ W0 be ounmdored 36 1 heresc amd punished
eschagly
We.can see the prudence
and patierce
of Hofy Mother Chutch wil.
regord Yo sixch people the Churchs law, » prelare
Under i 0t~ ~
camdered & harenc for engaping in any of the alorementoned &
scivin
e ekl b e b duly e by tegitimate suthorit. F-oF
Rl
s
drtad
4 Myrvdar, Prast Logisanan =
o S B 0o e .New1 Cule ¥ o Lo i e, G, [-

0]
 s of Herey Crupirs
even be suspen from ded
his elficia}
:drml warming, Further, the prelate m:u“:;::’,:“ -
e to remove the cause for suepicien, and afer that e 1
omdered 2 heretc by the Church i he shevs me wonsof eneeer]
Fmaly, even afte the six monkh perod in which amendmens g e ape
gace 1 the suspect 13 & clerc, he is not imeneiotely soapended oy
fervidden from performing ecclemaslega ticack.l Suchp —
ot automa
sut muattic
be impose
, d ferendar santentuae ¥ the proper
oclesiastcal authonties, whe may have resson e refain from g
e anto effect
1 these canerucal rules apply 10 all Cathelics, thec proncpio ake
apply to the Pope who ia nat subject w any jurisdicion m the Charch
ané could only be “wamed” as a matter of Charity 7 Sedevacariien
way wish te argue that the concihar Papes have repeatedly engaged in
sevitiesthat are suspect of herany well heyond any “six menst grace
peried, but such a period - which does et swctly apply o e Fope -
weuld neverthelcss have relevance only after chanmbie were
lasued by the proper authorties. Thua, alleging thet the concilar Pepes
have persisted in therr suspiious activities could prove netfung
beyond the aliegations themeetvas, and certainly dews et prave public,
netarious heresy or imply los of office
s
As we have scen, the sin of heresy (and thus the loss of the Catholic
faith) in the unternal forum does ot sever & man frem the Bady of the
Church, andl either do external achens Which render man meraly
sspect of heresy, notwithstanding how egregus, scandaleus and
sinful they are, and o matter how often the ack are mulkplied Whiie
the conciliar Pepes have engaged in ackwons rendenng them suspect of
beresy, and may have even lost wierier faih these scione by
themacives de not cause a Pope te lose his effice
Historical Examples
To ustrate these prncaples, Jet s cansider the following
hypothenical case Let's imagine & bishop, e perhape even an
archbishop, who publicly preached beresy to & body ef Lporiant
gevernmental figures. Let's aleo asoume the heresy in queshen was &
Public denial of a basic truth of the faith, such as the dojpra shat the

" St canos Lave o & furiher sprckcsn o she prineples of divies b applied W
Iolvidu caues, even If o mairavire Vet 2 Pope @ et subiect 19 oen e Sy
Priciplen o danen aw ikt il mod o e follewee 3 e o sk, arcoe g
b

the Prineopie ot reuwen shet the ~gossint insindes e lnmec ~ mverding

Artetelon Thamitic wadiown.
"

[ |
F—_*
we Faloe Pope! ? Cupiey

Pope 5 the head of i urwversal Church. Let o fursher aasim,

Ilhallnrduslsfillhpufln\:dlhlhlflymmw‘hmh
211 vo resd, thereby resulting in untold scandai 1o the faithfy] w‘*
mnnmmfimfim.lfl'suyhhn:hbflwpw.w."-.:
N belief was hereucal by the Pope himeell (thereby removing
charwe of invincible ignecance), and yet retracted nothing. oy
Should such & man be conmiderd & public heretc? And i 5,
(o say g
he have immediately lost hie sfice? We venture
would
wast, ¥ nat all, Sedevacantiot apologies would respond in g,
o
alfirmakve before anng (out of context) excerpls from a Titany
Qiwech Docters, s and canonils 10 seemungly support they
posison. I fact. any would argue thet a Catholic whe remuined i
umien with such a man sheuld be conmidered a heretic humeelf by
nat the knd of argumentaion Sedevacanmets often engage in? Yet, thig
scenanc of the archbishop 1 not hypothetcal at al) [ti
inwtaad the histercal cawe of Msgr Darbey, Archiishop of Paks, whe
Sived a1 the wane #f Pope Pius IX ~ the Pope in the sbove stery whe
warned Darbey thet his publxc pemon was heretical.
Archbishep Darboy
An acceunt of the Darboy aflair i feund n the article *Heresy in
Hasry” writeen by & Scdevacaniet auther named John Daly, wha ne
e o scuse of distortng, the lacts In order to undermine the
pompe he humelfns helds M: Daly beging his discussio n
of Moy
Darbwy s follews . Darboy, archbis
“In 1845 Mgr hopand
of Paris
merbet of she Franch senate, expressed in an imporient speech 1o the
sonste idoss claarly opposed to the divinely instituted primacy of he
Reomacs Portt ever the enwre Church, which, unlike papal infallibliy,
already belonged 10 the corpus wf Cathalic doctrine The speech was 2
publc deflarce o the pope and & Tefusal 1o recogniar the ppes
wrdinary and urévarul jurisdicien 1 the dioceses of France ™
Daly gom o0 40 explam that Pepe Fius [X himeelf, who was already
awart of the idass of the wayward bishep, “reprimanded hun stercly
im.a peivaie letier,” i which he infarmed the archishop thet his public
whe had
Wiese W Febroni
in hie
tuachings were compara us, bren
S surpl = dene Cobails whe dir i wnien with she conciliss Pepen
“"'—-u‘_ Frmabes Gy Mataticn Cloire. that Gond “will crvli s yout accownt ¥
e e " Tht i o il e e lleged burwies i ot concllr Popes ™~
il makur
S e dua Catotiauss v e g, s will cover thas 0 KHE PV
,)‘C——M . Carntaterst Cotelicirn.” dooc 4 o &, rack 4 -
By Wy 0 Yy My 200 W v vlot et
166
v |
swapom of Heresy Chaprr ¢

condasmned for o Viewrs 3l sl oppascd thetonching o e Fau

Titeran Council. Me Daly novs tht the letir frao Fr .
ned of Msgr Dathoy's presenceat
%.wellummmmwmmfi;& k"'""“
Mr Daly goes on to explain Wt after manity of
Darbey finally replicd to the Pope Dut Durbey
effer an apology?
Quite the contrary Rather than renouce
hu ervor,
Daly telss thet Darbay *adopted. haughty e e ety ha cts
and rebuked the popel He reivacicd nothng whatever of the ervees
wmhmmmmmxsrmm.hb,fim
Catholle press'™
Ther in 1868 the evante again surfaced whee: the prrvase letrer of
e Pope was “leakied” and widely published. At the e, preparaiivs
were underway for the First Vancan Councll Prier ko the cawrcll,
Mage Darboy opposed the dogma of papal wéallibiity *Fer sare thas,
five yoars, despibe the sebukes of the pope and of the nuncia, he never
Daly * e when w! 0o et theo dege
council proclaimed se
,.L,-,mm,hedmmmmu»m~
it wam t unial March 2 1671, alsast vie yaars after tus indamens
speech, thet Msgr Darbey at last informed the Pope, v 4 privese etier,
that he accepied these dogmas. Yet, in another act of deflance, he
conknued b delay execuling his duty of promulgamng the Councal's
decrems in his diocese At lasl, he finally did s, which, accending 4 Mr
Daly, “conettuted an riplctt witivirawal of the falme deciwes he was
0 pubic recard as holding, despie the reube of the pope, since 1865 *
New, 10 the Sedevacankss, we must sk the sbvieus quasen.
From 1845 10 1871, was Megr Darboy a publx: herewc oc nat? If not,
why net? The facis are the (ace. Dasbey, an archiishep of the Cathelxc
Qurch, clearly demied a et fundamendel dogma of the Failh {defined
by Vasican 1), and he dd 5@ in a public manner Darbey was even
wamed by the Vicar of Christ humeelf, and yet refimd 10 rewact h
public heresy - even refusing t» de 30 after the Pope’s wntien warmng
was “loaked” and published Hence, Darboy shewrd srrimacty of the
will n the external forum in denvang a dogmma of the Faith, afier bung
wamed by legitimate authority (the highwst authonty in the Charchi).
For the Srdevacantat, the Darboy affax i as “spen snd shut” case of
Pubiic heresy and loss of ecclesiastoal office
Afier all, dert Sedevacantst apelogms argue hat whe an
BRIy

exlernal violation of the law occurs in the external forum, the ewsence
o malice is presumed untl the centcary i proven, cung canen 20,
27 And don't they clam thet the very comumen of any act which

187
I or Foloe Pope”
Trae Chapiyg
.

agrifies herwey (og. the staiement of some doctrine

ok s defined
premimption dogma),
of “heretcal goves S and furthermore,
depraviy. ground forthate.h"‘m
Lyt
of rebatng the presUMpLion 16 00 e PETION Whose action has g
e %0 the tmputetion of heresy? And, further don 1 they clum g+
hmolm.mmhunxhum...pmm_“
exiat? And don | they conclude from shis thet a cleric whe pygy
heresy 15 consudored by the Church 10 be guilty unt prayey
Immoceri? Anst from thus deon U ey draw the concluson that o a Pege
makes & heretcal stternen, the (aithlut should presume he L “puing
herewc” and therefore ot the Fope®” And, still further, dor ey
aintesn that we are motally bound 10 withdraw from communey
with the Pupe ey persenally declare 1o be a PUblic herehc — as well
these pricss who dare ¥ include his name in the canon of the Max
Jest we share i the heretic’s gl Indeed, this 1s preciscly the ine of
conewsently employed by Sedevacantist apologisk.
Yet,in the Darboy case, we have the example of an archbishop whe
taught heresy n pulblc, whose heresy was published throughout his
courry, who was warned 1n writing by the Pope about hla heresy, and
whe “retracied nothang,” even after the Pope’a letter of warmung was
loaked te the public. Yet Bieseed Prus X - the very Pope who gave w
the Sullams of Ermwrs, Quante Curs, and ratified the Hrat Vanean
‘Council - remaued i urson with the man!
1f the Sedevacaniists were consistent, should they not conclude that
Pope Pros X wan an anwpope for remaining 1 uron with a “publc
evetic®? 1 3o, what weuld this say about the First Vatican Council that
he convened and rawfied, as well as his other Jdecrees to which
Sedevacantiels
eften appeal? And, if they consider Msgr Darboy
to e
public heresic (which they would have to do if they were conaistentin
shex argumentanon), weuld not the enfire diocese of Pans, clergy and
Laty alike have sunuliencously fell from grace by cemung in unon
‘with such a man?
Or, could it be shat Pope Pius 1X 4 approach was the correct ane,
and shal the Sedevacaniets are rash i judging thel a cleric (including
the Popel) whe utlers harmy is aulematically deemed 2 “publc |
hereic”™ whe has lowt hus office ipre facts? Could it be that the
Sedevacantion’ private fusigant and application of the Church's liw
-
- Do e wmt b TEn by ) Chke i el oSedrionrian
s, ™Mot | Areat o & Mam. Tha Naten Bemedit XV1 fn e CorueT” 5
"8 We G The L Com Moss 10 e {mers o Wit 5310
® -
 ———
sugoam of Herey Cruprs
o thaae atirs 6 completely eroneeus? Indecd i, 28t hitarical
:kmm-mmnmuuuda-mn..m i
Ereswins of Rotterdam
The historical eumple-murrbth.nu.ow.m
worth considering. Fr Ermm-w.hnm&hbafl,l‘n:::
early age e was received among; the Regular Canons ef S2. Augussme
4 made s religious profession. After taking fuc vews he rventoat,
‘weary of the religious lile, sought a Papal dwperaahen whch b
Tceived and returmed 1o the worid He shawed an inseres 1 baerati.
and after leaving the clowker began to wrie en theslogical matiers.
Altbough he was 2 man of great learming, hus wringe conmined many
egpepous errors against the faith
St Alphonsus said that Erasmus wreke 0 an checure manner
concernung dogma, and began te cikcize the Fathers of the Church,
His errors eventually became more pronounced, which
led the Frenc
Donunican theologian Noel Alexandre
b say “the more works he
wrete, the mere errors he published.” ! Many Cathelics spanly acased
him of heresy and lor goed reason.
According to St Alphorwus, Erasmus “called the Invecakon of the
Wessed Virgin and the Sanke idolairy; cendewined Menasters,
ndwculed the Religious and condemned err vews and rabes” He
“was opposed to the Celibacy of the Clergy, and humed e mockery
Papal Indulgences, rebcs of Sun, fsasts and fesis, suncuiar
Confemion.” As a prefude te Luther, he clamned "Wt by Fah alene
man b ustified, and even threw doubl on the authorky #f the Scptare
anid Councils.* i one o his published books he even declared it “rash
to call the Holy Ghost God ~ Certainly, Erasus was a foreranner of
the Protestant revolt, and, if he perswied in theae erren at a canencal
sl would e conaiclered a heretc even by Vaticen Il sandards.
But 1n spite of all his egregious, public errors agaat the Foih,
Ersarmun was not considered 2 public heneic by us contemperaries, of
even by the Popes rergning at the wne Rather, 20 St Alphonsus
teparied, Crasmus was “esteemed by several Popes, whe invited hum
6 Rome, 1o wrte againat Luther, and it was even reporied that Pope
Paul 11 inienided him for the Cardwnaichip* After latng the aboee
€rrars and heresias, 1. Alphereus concludes hus hustery on Erusaes of
—_—
+ AT

¥ Ligwmet, P Hesdary of Hevesars, amd Thrw Rejatoiwm. vl 1 (Dublin. Pubnatues b Jamnos

?':'Lwtr-\mnmnw-.'m
r
1
|
fi
Trae ox Falee Pope? Chapiyg

Rotardam by saving: “We may conclude wih Berruni,

mnm.‘muc.fluax,mmn:zf:
cberetied s wrstings to the pud ganent of the Church,"1¢
Ve, what woud Sedevacaniits say about POpe (0r Candny
Wb i e caled the Invecaien of e Bhesacd Virgin and the sage.
tdolaty mecked wndulgences, relics, fasting and confesmon, yg
a did Eramus? ey
call the Holy GhostthalGod, e man
dectared it rash odeclare
they net publicly the “fact” was a "manfe
hontic.” whe lost his elfice pse facw due tw heresy? Or dn these
faver of -y
hisroncal precedenis feach us to reserve our [UdgTents incloar
Jdgpment of e Charch” in such mazters? The arewes i«
Dector Michel de Bay
One final exampie e shat of Docker Miche de Bay The da Bay case
s 0 pariicular mierest because it involvesSt. Rebert Bellarmire, whom
Sededevacantms eften cite as an authonty for thewr pesition. Let us ser
how St Bellarwane hunwelf reacted 10 thie professor and celebeared
Aheeiogian of i ewn day wiw was publicly leaching heresy Let
Mhen compare s example of 2 samt and Doclor of e Church o the
rashness of the Sedeva spologsss
caniet 1n our day
Dectec Michel de Bay wan bom in 1513 He complewd his
univeratty stadies at Lauvain and was endained in 1541 Afier serving
s the principe) for Standonk Celiege fram 1541 b 154 he was given
the chaur of phiesephy He held this position until 1550 when he
sarted e degree of Docter of Theology and was appolnted President
o the College Adsion. He was aive invited to lake part in the gral
Cowncil oé Trent
In sptte of his learning, he posscssed a love of navelty and a
dindain for Schelasticiam. One author noted dhat “a prenounced vice in
his character was ihe same wikh which he called heresics all those whe
folled 1w sgree with hu Vcwlogical ideas, which, of coutse, he
secaidered bo be manvfestly the only evthodox ones.”ss Shertly after
Seing appeunied Prasident of e College Adrian, he began o smach and
#yread wrnes and herasios. Finally, in 1561, Pope Pius IV, threugh
Condirul Gramvelle, impesed silence upon him, which he faled W
shey On Ocheber 1, 1567, Pape 5. Piuss V sgned the Bull, Ex smmie
r&.mw—-mmdamy-mlm
sevensl being qualiliad as horedcal The Bull was sent privately 1o
Bay
deTR T being publuslied. Michel de Ray refued to retract b
T ‘efore
Mol
e iy “Hferay
i ity My 2000

”m
- ————y
swpcon o Heres¥ Chapiecs
bt utead defended huvwcll §1, P y
;mm,mzmm Preporitians. witheut, huweve g 7
B3y uay
T+ wisde et
paming ] the papal Bl was st b th sy o 1
y) ard vaiacr
agair nprof
, heothe Howe when. e Bul) was 1oy s
2lpobicthe ndedrs. hirmselver,
defeessc and his error, whheic clapmed
hg
nething
but the teaching of 5L Augusttre. He defended
:mwldmmo""mwwmmvmwz
weunos
legy of the Scholastics, they were yet the gunuine sayings of he
e vts during thi tme that St Robert Sellarmine arived o
Louvaln a8 profeserof theaiogy From 1570 te 157, he pubicy
ep esed the errors of de Bay in hus lectures, but witheut ever namang
Jum peesonally I speaking of hum, ae one author noted, “he always
consdered him &s & learned Catholic, most werthy of respact, and st
e time called him “prudent. prous, humble, erudite ™ In spite of
\hs, 5t Wellarmine continued bo hope for & new condemnatien of h:
ermors. The second condemnation would come in the year 1579, afier
\he election of Pope Gregory X1ll, in the Bull Prewsisnis Nestra
Around thus time, Bellarmine wae teplaced st Leavain by
Venerable Leonard Lessius. By way of preparatery sformatien,
Kellarmine told Lesenus that, in has opunion, the dectine of de Bay and
His dusciples on predestination was hereticel Lessius laver wroke ta St
Rellarmine, who had leen tranaferred to Rome, and informed hum that
de Bay “continued 1o spread his €rTors 1 private, even after the new
condemnation, and somemmes even 1n public.” and that “hns numerous
diciples propagated them with great enthusiasm.™ Bellarmine
advised Lassrus to conlinve o oppose these errors 1n his lecsres, but
witheut ever naming de Bay persenally of cendemeung the man whe
wat the source of 50 much evil, and the precursor of the heresy of
Janseniam
Afier relating the history of Michel de Bay and St. Bellarmire in
one of his articks, the Sedeva auther
ca pevedtthe
Daly,is
, jehnnt
fellewing question
“Now in the light of this scome, ene » farced i ask whether
Bome Sedevacantists 1n our day arc el very ssch prompler ihea S
Robert Beliarmme was s werufymg pocwmacity, sad mare
_—
. 2%
1 Catmic Excyviapodus (1913, vol. 1 (Ml e Bay v Bo. b
<o Dely ey b ory.” ey 2008
m

|
 loe Fope? Cupiar

mated by the bed cxarmpie of dc Bay hemaelf than by17 the ™%

tample 'S, Rebert and of the Ve Leonard Lecwiy
Daly concludebys say ing-
“{1)f tae Chrch prosusnes ail whe go 2ay in doctne i b
St Rebert Bellamunc wax cloatly 10t aware of 1. Ang
whike 1 cn be pesmblc b8 Tcoagrme someone as 3 .
harcwc even before the imerventen of the Holy Sce, the fag
remams that S1. Robert was slower 10 draw that conclusion even
aher seversl Roman condemthan nat are todsys,
someien whes
retymg only on thewr ewn judgment of whal scems evident ~%
We certamnly applaud Mr Daty for his honest and true assessment
of the Sedevacantut mundset, bul 1t 1s 3 mindset that be also ultimalely
embraces along, with hu Sedevacantist colleagues who put “therr wwn
Judgment of what seems evident” ahead of “the gudgment of the
Chuirch,” when 1t a queshion of who holds the papal office
In conicast, notwce how thewr favonte saint, Robert Beitarmune
Tirraek, reacted when faced with a man of influence who was
spresding heresies that had just been been formally condemned by the
Church. Bellarune did not declare de Bay a “mamifest heret™ a
Sedevacantum no doubt would nor did he demand that others
withdraw from cemmurion with him fest they share in his guilt, On
e contrary, whie hoping for another condemnation of his emrery
{which was, in reality, not necessary), Bellarmine treated de Bay with
respect and even referred to hum as * prudent, prous, humble erudite”
Nether did Sellarmine assume pertinacity, even though one could
have easlly drawn such a conclusion, since de Bay was perwnaily
warnedby twe Pepes (Fius IV and St Plus V), and his errors were
Jormally condermed Wy two Popes (St Pius V and Gregory XiT) Yetde
Bay condned fo propegate hus heretical feachings even after these
andrang
‘war s
cendemnatie ns’
With Mr Daly, we must also ask if the Sedevacantiste m our day
dre rat “very wnach prempier than St Robert Bellarmine wab n
Metéying perwructy, ané more animated by the bud example of de
Bey hirrucll [wha rashly accused others of heresy] than by the good
example of 5t Rebert and of the Van. Leonard Lesetus * The answer 10
this thelerical auashen 1 obvieus.
-—_—
-
4 i sty
”m

e
- Ty
suspicon of Heresy Chapieré
These examples demonetrate the utter rachness of Sedes
erdsy wmmm'wdrmumu..n,,.,bh."u:’_-w_-
ot aoe dectare them to have Lost therr offce, a0 suive o e
abers tha they too must withdraw from commamaon wih ey o,
e above examples demonetrate 1ust becavee» reaenabi pemon e,
Toience 1o conclude someone e m heresy, daes not sulfice to rerder
i 3 “public and nolonious” heretic, a least according t the canen
Heasung o the terme, which we will dcus in the falewrnny e
Whie Bily s purpose for wriing b aricle wa m h@wm‘bfi, o
endepey amang Scdevacantists who mutully cendemn esch athas oy
herencs over doctnnal and hrurpcal meues (a Dar frofr o
Sedevacantm that we will discuse smchapter Z1), we maiewsin tha 1.
oen more ash 10 conen the Pope and declare by proote udgment et
s fost e office - an office which 15 the very beidge hetween
and Earth

-—
The e “Parldf™ swanes troa the Latan pums whinh msams brodgy
”m

|e
 Chapter7
~ Theological Censures and “Hereticizin, g~

e ey IIn thus
t of T clhapir ,wewe direct
o oour atwention
o dangerous modes. of exprescen, and ko e el
| censure attached %o them by the Church, The cn
spplies theological or dogmatic ceneures o errors commensurate with
weie deviation from Catholic truth and 10 modes of expression thay
t o gave nse 1o confusion
or efmer Suce thelogical carvures e
lirected to docinines and modes of expreson, they e rot 1e be
confused with eccleuastical censures, such a6 excemumunicationor
imterdict, which are directed 1o persoms
Heresy constituses the greatest form of deviakon from Catholxe
wuth, Insofaras it represenie an immeduate and direct wppasitionie
what the Church teaches to be contained 1n the revaaied Depesit, and
sa 10 be held with divine and Catholic fasth As we have soen, these
who embrace heresy with pertinacity of the will are herehcs. The lesser
o emmoc we will dscuss do nel conshtute such duect
opposition to the faith, but nevertheless represent dangers te the
integrityof the revealed Deposit. These arrers heo are rightly canwured
by the Chusch, but those who hold them are net in heresy, even
matersally
The information in this chapter 1 extremely wortant when we
remembet thet a Pope could only lese tus office for heresy, mnd nosiang
s then heresy, on the shiding scale of sheobegical censures In fact, 38
we will see in Chapter 9, the deviation must ret only be maenally
berecal, but also forwally hevetical in she crternal forom.! W ith thas
understanding of the distinction etween heresy 1n the first degree, and
these errors which are less than heresy, we will see thet statements of
the conciliar Popes which are declared o be “heresy” by Sedevacunhats
and others, almost never (f ever) consatute heresy properly so-called,
butinatead are qualified by a leseer category of theslogical consure.
There are & siguficant number of coeures baied by the
theologians, but they sre generally broken out inks Shree main
<ategories. (1) the import (dactrine fought). (2} the made of expression
_—
Nth the matir (hevetical dctrine) ard the horm of hevery (parimcier) ah 10
Nn-fll(:":’)"fi’n‘AM A Commpuatory ou the New Cade of Lanom Low, w0k
VIIL A3,17 Formal hersey in the entemnal farman rquis Shat ddh thr st ard
4 are pabic,
o et
s

e
P—
Teue
ac Falee Pope? Chaptery

(the sermnology wsed to exprem the doctrine and, g

comsepuences of 4 parucola leaching. We wili discuss cach of (g,
{ categones mdividually
The Doctrine

Heresy in the Pint Degree As we have leamed, heresy

tooene peection of a dogma that must be behieved ity ;vt
and Catholic fath A degma 15 & eeealed truth - & truth conlaieg
rthin the seurces of revelawon {i.e, Scripture or Traditon) - wiyey
has been definitrorly propercd a6 such by the Church A reveated iruty
thet has et yet been defirutively taught by the Church 1 consideredo
“matenal dogma.*
The Church can propese & iruth definitively cither by o salema
decree e by the force of the Ordinary and Uraversal Magiskerium The
former eccurs by a single definiive act of the Extraordiry
Magistermum (3 Pepe or ceuncth defining a doctrine), the latter takes
phace by vurtue of a muulitude of non-definitive acts which, when taken
15 & whole, clearly make 1t known that the doctrine 16 taught by the
Church as & wuth of the Faith." According to the First Vatican Counail,
revesied Iruthe that have been belscved “always everywhere and by
all are corwidered infailible by virtuc of the Chuech's Ordinary and
Universal Magisterium, even i they have not been solemaly defined by
a Pope ar council
il o revealed Iruth has been proposed by a single definitive act al
the Exwaendinary Magwtenum, the decinne & de fide efimia (defined
a.0fthe Faith) 1t huas been proposed by the coslexcing ofa multitude
o nenickallible acw by the Church’s Ordinary and Unlversal
Maguicrum, it de fule (of the Faith) ¥ Revealed truthe that have been
defiruvely prapwsed by the Church, whether by solemn decree or by
her Ondinaey and Universal Mageterium, must be bebicved with dvane
and Cathwixc lath (de fide diomna et cabiolica) The clear, direct and
comscisus sejction of such a teaching cenetitules heresy purc and
simple, oc herwsy i the first degrre ¢

+ A mubeia degmu @ ¢ ruth sontsne wilkin he: seurces of rrvelatien, whih bt oo

Veot o defed by e Charch,h oS OW, Fumaniomials o Catiic Degme P & s Ve .
N
N e 24, ow,
T S f K,. 20627
(13, valeW p 756
Cathub Lacyseprt
17 -

SN
-
uelgioel Censures and “Hereiaing” , .

|fa doctrine has been clearly proposed by the Ch

e bel definitively bul not proposed as x etded Iruth? 0the dowuth
ctrines

g, ot the authont Ged revealing. I the aceree

':"W','; s 2 revealod ytrulh,ef the denial of et et "
New Cod of Camer
e
"The fllowing 1= b
e Laso (1930
Fr Ayrinhac’s Pevat
e
.
“Formal hervey mppeses the rosctee of 2 sk propesnd by
the Church (or W cccptance snd kinews w be contuined oty
depo of fanh
w 1F the wuth was Wet knewn e bé propesed by the
Church for our belic, the baroey would be saly matera ¥ the wush
was propascd by the Church but net as comiarnea the dapasit of
Jfiath, 10 reject 1t WouM be 30 X 2f dicaber of hervaond
ik wetence
uabelief
For # deckine to be quaified as heresical, the proposibon must
clearly and directly contradict a truth that evust be believed with divine
and Catholic Faith, 1 a plam and unmustakable way, such that na other
interpretation
is possible As we will further sce, She propesihen cannet
depend upon ofie OF mOre sieps of reong e prove ths direct
contradiction This 15 why most doctonal errers partcularly those
couched in amimguous, Modemnist lermunclegy fall vto one of the
felbow lesser categones of theolegpacal errer
Preximate Heresy: If the dociine hae not been sinctly defined by
the Extraordinary Magstenum in a selemn decree, or clearly proposed
by the force of the Ordinary and Unuversal Magstcoum (a duckue
believed always, everywhere and by all). but only held b a mapnty
#f the Church's theoiogara aa being a revvuled ribt {conmuned in the
Ward of God), the repection of the doctrne & condered snly “an
opinien approaching heresy” (senterie harress praewe)
Smackingof Heresy: The phrase “smackang of heresy” refers b *a
proposition which offers serious grounds for feanng a heresy may be

vtk o Wt
10ec cample « Mrsiogua caacisen erght by the Chursh 530 & el comchasen
Popmace lar betiet by sl Chusnsh o 2 revvaled Wroth A theslagical s &
chuanr setived Srom twe prramen, wne af which 1 o rrvaaind iruth snd e st 2
0 ke by rranon. Whe the Chusrch Maches 2 Shevkigam comctasten, & vy duld
tath, More on shes &6 Chapee
4 ccclenlantical Hasth, not divine and Cathelc 13
Aminc, Fomd Lot i h Hew o of o L . U ompha b

e
Troe oc Falec Pope’ Chamay

wmm’*mywdhmflh.rmu‘h
this capego ryc
of erre
,%
5"""'”"‘"""""""""""""“““%..‘y
“Ayny-m-dlm\lywllmufidedhllh,bukm
doceine the
Lo cotblished with @ certain degree of probability, haer
tormod “savering o suspact of hermey” (scnicntia de esi sy
explains, “Saverng of
harews sapens) P Fr Gamgou-Lagrange here
hacesy sy bewg concealed
u foas of the powon of
chac56ebol k, int
speaa eosti
& prop con aopen ie dguit
ko ambi ,y *u
Erre s The soloe gy:oAm docsirine that does not o
contradict a revealed truth. but wwetves legioal n msaquences that are at
mmmmmfim:m@ y1 ofm .
(proposise sheviepct errence) 1 For example, a theol
m-m.m'-a-mntiu u\npmnwm
Limbe of the chubdren {limbus infe m) i this catechen gory, snce the
denial of ¥ decwine can logically laad 1o the reju of defined
dactninen.’s
In an aricle on judging hereay, whuch included a list of “pitfalls i
be avewed” the Sedevacanket John Daly cemreclly includes the
follaw a pifagll
se in
“Geving Whe same heresy” 10 an crree which 13 oppesed 16 3
docuin e with divinc snd Cathotic fasth where the
@ be belevad
opposnen w mat darect sl menfest bt doscads o severn! weps of
comaaming. in such cascs the qualification ‘he15rwe y” e
nol applicabl
efoce » defimricve judgenent on the part of the Charch “

The Phatopaad Virtw: O ot 51, Louis dr Lovders B, Herder Baok Ca., 1904) 9438
© Cottwhs Encyslspadee
(1919, val. U1, p. 2%
i, vl Wy SR
Far evample e Courch of Paveris, toavlam the following; “We define e that. (=
e of e whe depact thus e in acheml mertal win, o in scginal Nu dme
Sephener ek b snderye et o S amed il of (Dev40) s
lv-’_ el ” it s cmmmardy ebveved W e 0 natural happuess.
iaghiinid Wn‘-—ndh-mpmn:‘:nu-fivmfl
W0 o
ee s o |imion, he b ot
e v Lo o e o
bormd o babd. that aribepilacd infarm whO
wbing ok “haae what tha in extyinal e ey go sieaightawayeo et
el -
Wt s “Lindn”
TThe deciion ofo Linbe. 16 4 thoskegical canclunion
inine thetot receecies d
oy Tg b ks HormyR, kg s awbecbelacmise S/ AT
Lyt dictr

”™

A
 ghol Consures aed “Heretcung™

Mede of Expresevon

fMMmIMb‘ynlmmk‘,mfilFs‘h'
following modes of expresin In ehingen,
I e for the Ol Cobalc ey re® be wrvie mm
"Ambiguous. A PTOPSILon i amingeecs when it s warded s0 20
o presert (w0 @1
trample “The Churchmoreof senees, one of which shechorami Fe
Chirist subeiste 1 the Catholc Cranci: Tor
can be understoed 10 mean that e Charch of Cheret s one g
\he same thing as the Catholic Church (truel, or k can be wnderstesd to
aan the Church of Chrit only subsise withe, bet s net aeepay
oth, the Cathelic Church (falue)
Captious. A phrase is capheus when acceptable words are wed
oo, obpectionable thoughts. Fer exampi. a recant Modueio
ieslogian declared thal the Cathelic Church, as we Jeww tody, i =
jow2 1500 yeats okt The statement is technically srue since the Charch
st feast 1,500 years old, but 1t g1ves v impression thet he Cathellc
Church, 28 we know it eday, mughl net be 2000 yeurs o, whih
false Another cxample s the ofterquoted stmtement that “Cathelacs.
eject nothing that Is true in ofher (read false) reigiona.” Cerminly, the
Juiement lielf 1 true, but it i incemplese and misloading, Cathalics
4o not reject what s true in ether Teligrons, But they reject falee
wligions, 28 such, eniirely because of the errers they contain. By
sutting tus explanation, the stalemant gives the impressien thel the
Catblic Church parbially accepts these false resgaons 26 beng meer ae
Irss gond and praseworthy 1 Thi favers the etor of indifcrenism
wheh, when taken o it legical concliumen, ands 1 the many

* Colic Encyci 1913},ope

vad L.is
p. 532
“Certainly vach semptn Can v be spproved by Cotbulem, ioanded 0 ey 1o
Wt ol apirions w hich Curiders al reiigans 18 be Swee ar v good and prslarectior
oty 4l i different weys marwhest and ety shal mesy e snburn in 20 3L
0 by which we are 1 to-Godl 4 o the cieceri ackuwirdgmen of Hos rle
s ot
ky mr thone veho held this epiruen in erver snd devrrved, but alm w disterna g the sk
e reigion they reiec 0, i Wit by Wil b e i nobaroont 4 a4
o calld, froem which 18 claarly felkown that sne whe sepyrts dbesr whe bubd shese
Uarios 11uh ativmpt ko taalioe them, i aibogeiter shandaring e dirowly revesicd
et Fin X1, acitim Amman, No. 2 Jrnatey &, 1909,
”m

|
Trwewr Faloe Pope? Chaprgey

meelings” thet some o

“praYeruous
scandalous and sacrileg
conarliar Poges have held over the years.!*
Evit-S A phrase
eun ing When impreper vy,
nb-soundg
13 din
we macd 10 cpress. sherwise acceplable Buths o exampe
descrbing fesus Chewt as the "Grand Architect of the Universe,” by,
wich a tervn s ueed by Freemasens b describe the god of Freemasen ey
Offensive: Speech s offenarve when the verbal expressien Is such,
0 as 1s nghily sheck the Catholic serse and delicacy of faith Feyg
A semeonc were o say “there 16 ne Catholic Ged,"s
Cathelxs shed ot Irved ~like rabimie,” thas speech would effend
the Catserwe hel and prous
ic ears.
Nevelty of werde: in light of the serminelogy used by Pope St Prug
X agamst the Mederniets 1 hus classkc encyclical Pascends, we have
ncluded “pevelty of words” s a dwtinct caegory deserving of
sheolo This phrase
ceneure. gic al aptly expresse s mode of
a confusing
speech that has been empleyed regularly duning the postcanciliar s,
nemely whlizing words which, due 10 their novelty, de nol have a
Goned and definute theslogcal meaning The Iack of a cloar and fixed
essung pives re ts confusien, as each person is left 1o determine for
‘iamaelf whal the werd ef phrase means.
For exampie, the term “ecumanism” 16 bantered abwut in vaneus
and divense conexé, and used e justify an entire un-Catholic
mecnality What dores this term mean exactly e the posi-conciliar era,
and hanw doms the mearung difer from the ecumenical movement that
angnaied 1n Protestanu whach was explicitly cendemned by
and em,
Pepes Fius X1 and Pius XI3 Are we 10 urderstand the term as
refemng W the process by which Cathobcs seek 10 persuade
PFrotmianis i rect their greveus ermars and convert te the ene e
Churc O h?does st refer te some nonsensi and cal
lllogical “uruty 1
divasity” thet seeks o bring about a cenwergence between Cathulics

:—"-"_—u—fi-iflamhd m|n..|~).4n..mmxvummnn-:
- wlree oumein Asaia, haly ducing, which e the Popes prayed w
2 bude in Gt 10 ot Gond, e s %0 Cothelic
T o Wil am A" Cobtec Workd Repor. by famesGond¥ St
™ (Popsc Pranci. “The:
5] Octobes&
3?'”“

5A aling 4 oyl & wwman le et i R wrine had s bicth b sevan cluiieon.

12 Comtrr b s rm preg s e, P mhnhhFrsecis sind hhu” e
:_-n—fim-flm -fihh' -(&-h
Pl Cotas rparte * Froreis lsiani Iesme4, raion al
sageisls CaTDES
oe B4 "‘ffih

Mo e iek ATe, by Lo | ki (152 o 19 o, i e 6057

oo sy e Mo A s Pon K3

aEa——
 glest Censures nd “Herelcezng™ )
Chapter:
Prolesnie® without the laller entering he Ca
::M,.,wmhlr Farth whand
el smvieta
enss " and
Wonds Have "Substance” and “Accudenty
The very purpose of wonds iu te canvey a masrng,
Fiosaphical termunelogy of Thomustx metepiyise, werts Soy
pheasesave a substonce and accudents. The substance v the meansys the
nmmoflfl-mmmb‘ywdumfim
Traditional theolegical terme have fixed theslogical mearungs Hercy,
when the serms are used., the meaning is immedi kwwn,
ate o ly
can pe
known Nevel @5 new termunology dees net comnunicate the se
fued and ketown meaning _Consequently, when “the nevely of
words” {accident) 15 emploved the lissener i Icft wendeng whal
precscly is meant (substence). Ths resulls 1 confamen thel breeds
dwision
Fac example, with respect e ecclesology. medem chuschunen sften
spoak of “full” versus “partial” communion with the Cathelic Church.
What, precwely, does (his swwunology mean’ Dees “parial
communion” refer 10 a baphiaed non-Cathelic whe w invinckly
, 1o belseve all. and untied te the Seul
but willing
igneran of the Church
of the Church by supernatural faith (smething that s knewn 1 Ged
alansy? Or does 1t refer o all whe conswder themscives Chinstuns and
simply profess some fush in Christ? While tf meght theoretxallybe
pomsible to reconclle the terminology with the Churchs tradional
understanding after making certain qustifications, the lack of a fixed
and definite meaning of the words has gen nise to much confusron10
the area of ecclesiology (the studyof the Church) This has resulied n
¥ 1t foveph Hamingee wrate: “The Cahaic Chyrah D o> gt o sbmarh s bt
Churchea_ 1A] baskc ruty — of Charches thal i Chuarches, 4 brcoen ane Charch
— s e M s of oo v Yhough converien el 15 Smrwgfuines
oo 1 conacterce motivased Vo sk I (hdogaca Highhg f | amam U1, New York:
Poulot Pree. 1966, p 73)
Mo 281 Cardical Kasper she hesd of Pestiionl Counci ar the Promin of Ol
Unie exprrsse the: same hermenevii of rapture &~ Fr_Ratangre wihen he sad: “The
decialon o Vatican 1, b swhich bhe Poye (jotes Paul L] adhers and sprasds, » shustuie
Saar Today ime o lomger underatand exumenan in he sowe of ccmmraam ol 3 v,
¥ which the nihers shoukd be comverie” ad retum o buing catbelen The wae
“uprimy abarhored b Vatean I Tadey ccumeniam i cunabdared o s coarmen coad
3 bt b corvarind o the folloming of Ohriat. and e U bas Wl we shoud
Veeome Prutesians or that the ethers sheuld become Catbolics 10 e some of
Tepting e condomsaral e of Catholictom” (Kowe Adwin, Frbrua 20 ML 7 8.
2 “Whiwver sishes b0 he atved, revde abwee all te hald the Coswb it e et
e rerves. Lhis swhele and invielate e will withost 2 deobt pursh 1w remi
(hsharin Crved)
wm
Tewe or Falve Page’ ? Chupier
urdecstanding o the nature of the Church
_Mh.mmmmlmlm.mb;:" Such
“The Consequences
A tturd category of censure i directed againe "such prg
s wouid 1mperi] rehgen in gerera) wqm.mmm
Sovemment 4nd. herarchy, crvl society, moraie in generd of
Srtue of religeon, Chrwian meekness, and humility in puracular s
This categery wncludes stements that are deriive of relp,
sbverve al the hierarchy, and destructive of governmena, |
inchudes stmkemanas that are scandalots, PEmicious, ar dangereus
orale, aa well 6 those hat are cenductve 10 idolatry, supers¥tlen, o
sorcery¥
The aforcmeniencd categaeies are nghtly cenvured by the Clurhs
e to the evil ffects thal bhey can cause Suich erroneous preporiier
aned medas f speceh can undermine the farth and Eood merals wehe,ut
beieg aqualified, weicly spaalu ngical
a5 heret , Conecquently a persen
whe Expresecs proposiwen that is qualified by a lesser degre s o
senacre, o who uset & mancer of speech thal undermine the Fai,
canmet be regarded as & having taught heresy, unless he direcily donies
revealed tnuth that has been definhvely propeved by the Church If
o srrencous siztement s derectly contrary (o a theologacal conclusien,
w4 R requires peveral sieps of reasoning to demonstrale that
Propesition a conieary te & defined dogma, ¥ proposition ileei
carovet be qualif as ied
herwy
Heresy va. “Horeticizing”
The very laarned Braailian layman, Arnaldo
da Silveira, coined the
am “herescinng. " The werd refers e the act of employing decionl
arrees and medas of exprsssen that favor and lead to heresy, snd
which thersloce nghily deserve a cunsure, wxifwut, howetvr, cphally
Sruthesen herary He wrote:
line mte g
“Symemewscally, the assumion af hereey must alsa have §
sncly expica fmmdevon snd nat & broad, ansleguus or penenc
anc. Ln wnde for 5 propacines 1o be farmally callod heratrcal L T
Somally snd acaly counict 2 vk of Fash_defined by 4
falli
.
:‘:‘- Ennpsiopalis
A3, vad, M, p 33

"

e
-
iopual Censures snd Herticrnng™ |
Crapres7
lffi--m--.-—-.u.-
e 10 hercsy. with the (lever of heresy, mpacsed
Tovenag heresy. o descrving seme athcr Gantugen) (_" "'""',“_
s does Mot Bave an havchcal (ext peoparty spontamg >
He them xplatns what he meane by e erm “barehciang”
~Many wards ending in “ac” kive bovs miradused
sunguages, especnlly
‘lperaliziig POWCIE evera0 theactionlast conmury
com be ( yufi:.'.".'F .o
medermzang { ) sll thse cxpretheation *m” trmensies
s, g
it dervatcves carry Lhe oeian of & erdescy Wewand & conen gec,
o development of tngs and idoss Wwdrd & sormen ool &
mevement 1 & defincd, thewgh not vary explcs dwachen. One
example should suffice a ‘lef or lef-lourg
izin memsmrs
g’doey
o camy a0 exphcit and Obviecs lefet chacpe o ie mot really lefint
bt leade b the let dructly or aduroctly, et m & ke womend
and porhape cvom wblumem wayal7
He then adds

“The saneopt of hrcticring oomprioss X thosiogacal sansurss

"
W fal) short of heresy
Herewcizing has been a charactenietic of pest-conciliar “caechems,”
and cersunly & Wctic of the Modersis te subvert the Fauh. But this
“hereticizing* while no doubt harmful and cven desuchve te the
Farth, does not constitute heresy in the first degree (nat even an the
material level) This maneer of communscat which ~falls
ien.shert of
here nol, of Itself sever the external profession f faith that
does sy,”
unites a man (o the Body of the Church.
Because these lesser errors de net censktule s clea and direct
denial of an article of the falth, regardless o haw much damage they
have caused, they cannot be qualifisiricily ed, speaki as ng,
heresy
Hence, a Pope who cxpreses proposihens that are ervonesus o
svering henaty, or who uses & manner of speech that % ambyguevs oc
sfieraive, and which fustly deserves b e consured by the Curch,
cannot be regarded ax having taught heresy, unless he directly dovucd &
rvaled wuth that has been defiutively propescd by the Chunch.
-
& Arnalde Xevier da Sterien, “On the Exirvm: Thesbogeal Qualibeuion o he Second

=
 Faloe Pape?
Trorue Qg
1o
Further, as we will see m Chapier9 cven il 3 Pape were
deciice Wt was ciearly and directly conltary o es, an artcofle (g .|
would onlv consktute the matenal aspect of her "’“fhnu.':}?
ifest heretic *
hocs ot suffce foc fum be be considered a “manteuh
I 1 unpottant to realuse 1hal the vers mique of M
seniecally ecwuds such clantv, which equl ocales on "d""“w"‘
gives rise to muliple sverpretabons and explanations. This facqy
rwiies the Modernist ko ineinuste emot inlo the minds of they
‘cere withowt clearly and directly denying an article of Faith. r 4
cortarnly & duabolxal tactic, 0o oubt permuited by God as a tria of
fath, b it falls shet of explact heresy
Fer example, s we have seen, Vancan 11'a smbiguous teaching thay
“the Chrch of Chnet subssie n the Catholic Church.” dees net
direcily contradxct a truth of the Faith, even though i has been used
the Modarnies be underaunc and dwtort the nature of the Church
\hat the Ciur Chrst is not identical with the Cathelic
of ch
Cluach? but extends beyond i visble boundanes e siher
“acclesusencal communttics.”
Likewase, the ststement thet man has & right o religious libarty and
freedem of conacience w in tmell perfectly orthodox, provided one
\nderstands K te mean thet man has the nght (0 embrace and publicy
Pprofess the one teuc religion cstabluhed by Christ, and the nght o
refune evil hased on the dictates ofa well-formed conscience However,
the ste ld bee
weum errn tif 1 meant thal ma
oncous has n
& menl
right Yo vislaie the First Commandment by practicing a false religion,

* S 4oy ey a9t B by the dacirie explaind i Oue Encychcal et ol

e yeoms agm. and basd a0 e sacrcrs of revelston, which waches thei e Mptod
Bty of (st ond the Resnaw Cathoinc Chureh v emc ol e e tieng * (Pape Prus XiL
My Corpora Covm. No 27 evopivass adbed )
& Foe cxample. Cordrul Ratangar sald “Vaican 11 def not e P Xil o cxprrmen
smardng e whuch the Rean Cathole: Church in the only (hurch o Cheit ntes
gemberied he expramser The Church of Cheiadsutiat i the Catholic Church. besums
e aaid, 1 wohed te affirm that e Teing of the Chusch as such s 2 larger ideraity than
e R Cothmic Chuech™ (Franktveiwe Alfgrmeine. Frgfinh loaration sken [
e et ot Fr Joun V mlese 57X, Tormmio, October 3000
O huoe 23 D7 the Congregation fur the Uncirine of Fash rricied Habimgeds
mttmmieuts: o ropr. {we shve fasirate, by explaioioy al the word v’ ©8
e rdorsteed on 2 st hrmaic (mbr tha . an Tistorka!
subsitrrce _ihata.
Wm0 otber wonde, st e Charch of the Apatis “subeivn” i the Cattulkc
Churdhe The dervmerd soy: 1 rsember 8 of the Domiioc Cammitttion Lo
reius wiserce e ths perduring, bissriaa! corsousty the word ‘aitn
ATonky b o 0t Cotbc Cotic O e prchty e e B ik,
Lo T e
¥
- ygical Crrsures and “Heretirzmg:
e T
, y

ottt he hould e permited v publicly vielaie »

Do b el
ypesin 10 us “conacience” which dom nat PEPT Ha bdaiby
farch ng
acks of heresy, since 1t fovers the modem
t was never revoked by God, and coneequently -
for Jews” wmm-flflw-tl\-r-bhmg-u-m"l":
hewever, because it does NOL Specify o the ~Cavenan” 1n queston
e Abrahensc Coveran, which ia certainly an *old cevenant- they was
never revoked by?n:;v‘:hmrhbhuumr*m(.
have argued rase leaves puet enow,
e g e e bercheal o o 0 prevent
Stmilarly, the Modernists nauseating prase far fale relrgians el
Catholis have been forced 10 endure for the post 50 years™ certanly
amacks of heresy and religious indifferentiam, yet falis shest of
‘heresy since 1) 11 does nol coratitube a denial thet the Catholic Faith s
the onty true religion, and 2) even false religionscan be saud te-
same natural (though not supernatural) gode. Ales, the sffersave and
scandalous statement that Muslime and Cathehcs “togrher worsbup
the same God,”* alea stinks of heresy and indifferensism, but it does

“The first demeofnaen i duslogue Wt 1. the mting betwren e propl f e

1 Gavera, ecv? rveda by G, A1 Unal of e N Cvemand, 4t same e
dulogue within st Church, Ul @ b say between the st and wcoend prt of her b,
s nd it a0 children of Abesham. * [Queard s Darey G e, T ke
Pope (New Yok, Deoylbvah Bowha. 1998, . 316. Thia weme i aoo ppear i Ay ok
Bt il On ks and udsoms. 1979-1966, published by sy Kalonal Couc? of Cothalc
Wnbepe, Washingben, DC 197 p 36
¢ teaching tha the Manaic Cererwnt. o the "0 Law* has bean revabed, s b
foand 1 Hieh 718, 8.7 13 109 2Cor 314 Col 214, Poun X s Mrsars Corporm e 18,
Benwdict XIV's Ex Qua P, N, 61, e o] Bull, Comiie v 400 the Cimrl
o Forerce and e Catechiam of the Ceuncl of Trend, ameng sibe piocm.
* “Ugiadly Lake this ocCasien te dsvore dhae whe fellw (he Dbt elgen of wry
decp rewpect A sceme euem.” (Joher Faul B Genrrel Amr Jommary 1, 198,
Limerui Revwrn, faniary 18, 1995, 5 11) “Yowrs s & prowd snd sucdy
P Seanp splendid fruits 0 art, reiupon, and huwan bring. Yo ancdem
enbraced uch everwhelming, wpiritual werids @ Confweaniom ad Becdbiam, v
e hem Il their ow. eriharced thew, ived ihaoe and cvem maremniaod e b
bers” John Prul [, Adirme of Awport 30 Kerw, May . 1964) “Froue o you. il
€ eam. Prusme tw vou, Jrwetsh peaple Prame spacaly tu ron, Ortades, Charh.
04 Paud 1, Adedoss, My 22, 2002, L Comr Rompan,
waio May 20, rs . 3. &}
2% the ellawers o Lslam whet beliere e some goac ard urt Gl (s Pad I
Serinar, Octebwr 1L 1999, L Owerrwiers Rovasms, October 23, 1999 . 1) “Today | wouid
i b repeut what o b yinmg Mhnlowes eme veurs age 1 Crublomm We belar—é
P am Grd (Joher Paet 11 Gererad Ao, May & 199, L Coormmbor Remiat
11) * Mualiow, theow proiven bw bt the fasth of Abnahum, and
b 9,
Miy 12,19
9¥thac with Us they adere the ane ekl Gee, mankias Jodge on the ket dav
o8 Pl 1, The et f the Catikc Cluroh, o 341, p 223

e
 it
mever been fermally condemned by the Church. mcxv.r,,,""“"
VI sed the same hermiinelegy a2 mnwmm‘h‘a"’v el
Xing of Mauretania, when he said.
“Thie affecton we and you ewe 10 cach Oher 1 o mare
pacwbar wey then 1 peopic of other faces becaie
‘heugh 1n diver formsse
and dauly peaises ang
‘adorc humm 20 Lhe croatr and ruler of this warld For, 1 ‘%the wendsof
e Apotic, 'H 1 our peaec whe hath madc both enc
Furshermer e, implicaion that all menare saved,” whic,
the fakie
wndermunes the dogma of Ongnal Sin. No Salvation Oulesde the

© Faurton, fphovim, The Cormpandense of Pope Gorgory VIL (New Yask. Odirk:
Cobarns Unéveraiy Press, 1932, p 94 Becatae ~ ALl meurs God o the Divily thei
Arwi, e have argard W th st of Munlin wersivp i the irue God Whe u
Dvvwe ot Shernal Crvate ve-tovm the pagans wha worship Arise s (o Kam.
120, At 172229, whish s & prachice that Muslins canden. This corchosan
sy ot Manbers arv et ity o the velantary i of unbelel (e of
Gad o i) in which asa they would et Arwew Gond “i0 sy way at al, becaine e
it of s opien s hot God® (57 1141, ¢ 16, & 3. This would raplan whv Fope¢
Copery VR (1071005} would have wrotes what he di fn she Muskin King. Even
e mairnare that Muthers o e worship he sume Gad, the prepasiion lus nrver
T dectared besrow by the Church | 1 Ingportant fo hote, haweves that 4 mne
mairdatea ot Mmbr e woesbip the o e Gd, 1 s cartain thet the publc wonhip
Wy ater Hi o e s sehich i dipleasing o Ged 4o Conmtihues 31 sbieci¥e
st Commardenre.
st agaeet the o broken?” Far evample, o the auestion “How misy the
AtartlCommandman (Q 1148), the Bty Crieshom responds *by vt
oy ” In sewner 3 the queson: How s we aftr God {aloe woeship?” (Q 114,
e s Catchwn eples: A, Wa affr G fobir worsip by rejecny the rolien He
I sntuted ond lalowing e plssing fo eursaives, with 4 fortn of weership He Tab
e bt sppemred ot sarvciomed”
™ The Rabempton rrev g waivaten o o, ‘o steh w8 incded i she myery
O the Redempuun " John Paul 11, Rendemppbirie Mianin, N &, Doc. 7, 1990) ~We are ol
At b i s e shact, It e she P, carcrete hitecica e le
O doung wilh wmabs idivebusl, ser eoch ome o incloded i the Mysior; o e
i o -

ootaric o4 Srmugh bt ey et e e i aach g v

S P I Cottmtmn s No 50 My 1, 19911 S g . i Twmaoll. 0008
o ama ol W Bt Pt He wbtain, scwe o For il the alvatian of man of et
TR p 3 Wike" Gk she wtur W, Homby
Pt ammebia Apeid T 1980, L Ormrrmaere Kemana foct T
r Ppes wiow srgaged n ~heveicisng.” JIVET 0T
Vit o s vl o it meris, ot Pl U] couido b i i b *ian i Gl
e e
ey
 41 Consures i and Heref
Hereticizing - |

, (and therefore redecmed sbjectivaly)

;":.':?mmmnmwmnum-.nn:‘ e e
‘Countless other cxamples could be previded but the point u thay
e herencrzang’” that Calhmlics have been mubec v snce thertens
e Second Vatican Councll, as dumeging ue & has e, g
romally and preciely cousier & Wulh of Fa" deoed vy e
Gumch, in the werds of Sivewa Therwre, the acaniy
propotions would 1t conaitute heraey “balove a defoive rdgmen
T the part of the Church i the words of Daly Morcove, svr whe
Sivances such teachings s even ene whe heips ta Tereey
o ot considered & “miamulest heretic.” It a only “soepect of korey
s we saw n Chapter 6, and therefore remara in the Rady of the
Church. Mederniots, as dangerous 46 they are, are wsually suble and
crafty eneugh to aveid exphat heresy This explae
why Pope St Pius
X could refer to them as being "in the very womls and hesrt of the
Church,” and as putting “into operation theis desigris loe her ardoing,
a frovn wnbsout i from wnthan” the Church. Netce, he tofers to them
4 being unihm the Church,
When the Church candemned the wrtngs of the nateriows
Modermist Pierre Tethard de Chardn, it did nat condamn his
pernicieus crrors as heresy, but tnstesd saud it in quste evident that in
philosophical and theolegxcal mutiers the meraiened werks are filed
with ambiguities and even serieus ertors that effend Cathatxc
deciricee " Hence, hus writngs were only cendemned foe ambguty
and “serious errors.” which are qualified by leswer theologacal cenmres
than heresy Because of the “hevencizing” empioyed by Tedhard de
Chardin, and the extreme danger such errors pese t5 the Farth, the
Haly Office exhorted "all Ordinarics as well as the Supeners of
Reilgious tnatitutes, Recters of Sesunanws and Durectors of
Universities, b prowect sunds, pariculariy of the ymuth, agamt the
dangers of the works of Fr Tenlhard de Chardin and hus sssociaies™®
In spile of hes pernicious wrilings, the netorwas Madernist
vemalied “with the Church” and conmequently was always trezied asa
Cathwlic in good atnding (even though he may have nghily beem

have beer redeemed d s b i

= Tu crly it la comect b say al ehu‘
mhunmmnmm v—inumw:
remarie secv ey o roen
4920 a5 traparme e that rce Folng o qualdtheth:satvment
cerware bot it does nat rencer
Fighly deserofving ivel hurieal
'Ml.yPancewh, Seprember 5, t9F
::--—n.m,o-ua—--y—nmlw'—"""'
o pt
 Trwe or Faloe Pope> Chapter

the reign of
corstdered suapect of heresy) He died dering
SOt andi 1955 was buned as a Reman Catholie .numc,.,.,h,;,'":
Jewwit nevitiate 5. Andrew's-onthe-Hudsen if & propesthan (g
\t = alse imporsnt to remember thet a even
scmtiee) w quabified as herescal, in erder for per 10 be conudered 5
heresc in the odemal forum, pertnacty weuld also have 1o b
asticienly esmblished$ Il we racall the omes of Erasmus of
Roterdam and Muchel de Bay, which were ducuased in Chapier 6, we.
heve hatoncal examples of indnaduals whose ermors Tikely crossed theof
Tine into heresy (cerinly in the case of de Bay). vet whose lack
prblic pertinacity prevenied them from being considered heretics by
theiz consemporanes.®
‘Recalling what was discuseed i Chapter §, Erasmua referred tn the
Invecaen of the Bessed Virpn and the saints as idolatry, he
eendemned menasstenes, nicuied the rebgious bie and condemned
Shew vaws and tules, he opposed clercal celibacy, he mocked auncular
confession {confesmion te a priest privaely), papal indulgences the use
of relice of saink, and fasting, He taught that man w justiied by faith
alene (sls fide) and didn't hesitate 10 cast desbt upon she authorlty of
the Scrip and scumenical
ture councile He even went so far a 1o
dactare it raeh to call the Haly Ghost Ged."*
Yet, wn spuie of all this, St. Alphaneus Ligeun, a Doctor of the
Chureh, concluded hw hustery en Erssmus (in which the abeve
‘menaned errors are all Tisied) by saying “We may conclude with
Rermurw, that he (Erasmua) died with she character of an unsound
Cathalic, but et « hevetic = Why didn't St. Alphonsua ceneider hima
hesetic whan seme of his errors weuld likety be qualitied as materially
herewcal® The reason he gives u because Erasmus “submitted his
wings te the judgment of the Church. "¢
I othet words n spie of the matesial arrers and even herasics he
publicly held, and w0 spie of lus university taiung, fus brilliant
Intellec t, meaecy and an extraordinanly quick power
hus “wardesful

= Thee way
o7 i which
ik ety - b il b diacummed n1 Chogter3 . “Freving
Allgh i de Bay's sime e sl srgue that be s pardcacions, given He
e it ety
e Fopen Shermastm) This s
et o e e k1
ey T St Beilartmive: viewed sich a udgrment te be
2 ettt e Charch s it i) Cathan, Inclding hmackl
% AN ol thrac are tnbed by 52 Alponion m T book The Hiiary of Herases pnd Thet?
mu lwwnbmmmlmmfifl
p— )
o Consres s “Hereherg”
on .” he re wa s ot ul fi ce nt ev dence idemeraeste
eperai perunacty, and commesoenly
o l be he re t, Wl on ly an *
Ve e w1 S Ni ph er eu s to ar Po pe s, whese
n be sand
ed th em
for the
“s ua pe
co
ct
nc
of
ii
he ry © bt whe
catholic” ehe sa me ca
mave cend er fi ne d do gr a of thie
ll y de pa rt ed fr om de
e said Io ave nldrfuess this weoe of peranacty m Chapee3, g
T Wewit lO fle!tmad m o " w b k n \ d m m m flguy
M(fl\w n n

-_ vo
p e
l. V.d1.i518
o

* Co te c E n c y (1
c l91o3,
»

&—A
 Chapters
~ Can a Pope Fall Into Heresy? ~

We will naw begn 10 diacuse the quasons related e papal hareey

e s of office o a herctical Pape n s chapter we wilbeg
vy considering two related questions. (1) Can a Pope fal It personal
heresy nternally? (2) Can a Pope profes errors and heresy externally?
It s the common wpinion among theologians shat a Pepe can fall
o personal heresy (intermially). and even pullc and rserious herswy
thet o Pope mpwcoskic
{euernally) The Church has never taughtexamples
nuble to sin) and there are hiskoncal diacuseed buione
‘here Popes have indeed taught ermers — even errers that heve boan
tondemned by the Church and are now qualified as herekical Whe tha
charism fsupernatural gift) of infallibulty will prevent a Pope from
eming, when he meess the necessary condittons, accending te Oue
Lons's promise 1o 5t Peter (f Mt 16 18-19), this chanem will in 1w
way prevent the Pope from teaching errot or heresy when he operates
eviside of these limued parameters, ner will it prevant ben from
committing actual m. Consequently, unfallibity will net prevent a
Pope irom cemmutting the personal st of heresy, nee will it prevent
Ibe Pope from teachung herwy publily, when the condisece he
are not met.
wiallibility
The common opinion that a Pope can become & heretic w Wught 1n
the consecration sermon of Pope Innocent I, whe i 1198 sad
“Truly, he [the Pope] shouid net e hrwself shout s
powsr nor sheuid he rashly glory m bus besec asd high ommc.
because the fess b 15 jodged by man, the mere e w udged by God.
Sull the loss can the Reman PooufT glory becauee be can e rudged
by mem or rather, can b shown te be siresdy pudged. (L
saamale. he should wiACT RWEY WMie harsSY; becuuse e whe doct
ot believe 15 alresdy ulged In such a case it should b send of
Him If salt should lese 1ls savor, 1t w goed far sedumg but to e
o8t ot a0 srarphod underfoot
by wen. ™
The Abbé de Naskes provides another queke from the same Pope

—
e Inewcevt 18, Sermen(V. Beievrn G ot Mt St f Po It S0
(ashogion, D.C. Contolic Univeraity of Amerias Proms, 04 o 85-880
"

—ll
 Adrun VI 522-1523) aiso stated thal "1t is beyond. .
ofli th, and even “teac h horeayr
Mpfi*mmgmm
—tsny by the Rorwan Church ywu asan 16 e of i,
eywad sucovon that b can < VSR 10
TS UChIY e futy
l‘kbh‘-k_mmlyhmlflm.
decroud, Ja sk, s> Rouiaa aaalfly were hersticy The fas of
™
hcm was Pope Joaa XXIN (1 1334).
Accordingly, theslogians throughout tha centurieswixihave held tha3
Pope can Wceme 4 herec! For example, the. eenth cennuy
Derunican, Deasings de Sete (4 1560), taughl
2 1 thagh tome mastors of eur I1nuc sustaia thal he Pope
canet e » harzuc o8 eay way 1ha CUSRINM MM AR 15E R
hewe ves the
eppecik onc. For theugh he Tigh et he sblc 10 crv a5 Pope - thas
o hc could e define an arrer 36 an article of faith, bocanecn (hei
Holy Sy willmet pormat # - meverthcless 26 2 privale perse
ncurfulk the mme way that he can comumil othes sins,
boonunc b 6 o ampeceable

Serm Lot Poutf R P L COXVI, col. 656

The ot ke 5 Sembent. Qi e conyirm. Qe by D Bonsnet (170001
e wmptte” Trmw KV1 (Farw. Acewrn Le Clbe. imprimeusr-fibenie roe Lile L
Lok, imprases-bvsar. 13461} p 484, Origpral Lain abue ced in “Vas Adriasn i1
¥ Andew Fundacw Cheiwmicts {Swamnukkertf Loman. Kiekerger and Ve
Kersemn, Amterdoo. 1471} p %, Ascording w0 Church hiatwrian snd theebog
Detiagr (rrarg, wndar th pem mame *Jamar”). hin ot was munde while fope
Adean, was & Prubusns uf Thewiogy 18 Lowvain, prses s his clection te the penulicalc
':'——ll-imn well-krvewn al the tme sixce il was inelided i
Prinapt <o e The Pope and the Courwil” by “Jaman” L., Johannes et
gt T8 Dallgm, sacomd dibon (Rivingtore,
London, Oxford snd Ramivige.
2"‘ We dheukd mete Wt Dallinger denied the dogms of papa) (Y
ot b 8 2 defod o e b bishorwal research and facks way be o
. i it b s o e e i s e
.“~1hhuhmdhdmm.mmuhnmwfi'
o L e pope vaachas unything contrary 1o the Cothlic Falih she i 100
Plo1 K ekt cle i Chaw Vacaw? An 967K Doier %
Covem oWt it g 2029 1001
mn
 ——————y
e e Fll e Heresy? .

s famonss bk The Cabhinc Contromery,e

Chlllr:hstFr-fldes.les(d 1622, wemer P Dector of e
“Under the ancient Law e High Prcst dd meq
Ratsonal cxcept when be wab vesed woh the pomeint

f‘lg
o cnkerng before the Lord Thus we o mey wy o

rE
et err i hus prvatc opiniens s did Jobe KX1Y
MG, o5 perhapa Hemerios was."s hatacie
Refernng to the teaching of Pope Incent I, Mattheus Come o
Coronata also said
“It cannet be preven Mewever that e Rorman Posmfl 2 ¢
prvaic leacher, cannot become & Merctic — i, for cxamle, [he
weuld conmumaciously
wnpeccability was acver promised by God. ndesd, Pope ismecom
11 expressly samits mch a case 1 possible *7

In the Memusl of Degmatic Thevlngy (1906} by Wilbeln and

Scannell, we also read
[Tihe Pope’s authertty weuld net be wyured 1f, whea net
excrorsing 1t (extrw judicium), be prefessedu fake docinme The
Infullibilty and Indefocuimlity of the Chrch mad of the Fuk
roquire on the part of the Hoad [1c the Pope] that the law of
Faith should siways be nfallibly propescd ot s decs aet roqune
the infallibility and ndefectibiity of his ewn wtcrier Fartk asd of
o cxtrajudscial uticrances ™
The Jeuuit theologian Fr Paul Laywann (4 1635), whe was
contudered “one of the grestest moralisis and canarsts of hus some.”*
explaned that 1 13 more probable than et that a Pepe cvuld fall e
notenous heresy
“18 6 mare grohaic that the Supreme Poaiell, 20 comsame b
wn persen, could fall o ReTesy, CYSR & nOlACUS sac. BY CE
oL which he would deserve i be denousd by the Church, ec cadket
woa
seslared rniod
jo be from har The powof of s acserissnu
-
45 Francl de Saben, Thr Cathic Comtrervray {Chasbtt, Nt Coroious TAN S 20d
Fukiahers Inc., 194) pp 06308,
Coraaa, Lnsiluowes furts Comowe (Roeme: Maraes, 19608, val 1.9 3
.e York,Jaoeph, andd Sxcanmell, Thomas, A Mames o Cathsic Tamigy. vol. £, 34 08
b

Cinarnar, Chucage: Berainger Sroa. 100} . 4340 b i

Cakwla Encyriopod (1913), val [ (Fr Porel Laymama). p 96
k]
|
 Cupgry

ol Chne of
e fromL the foct Lha the pracruscs made bym.w:
gty .,....r---::m;s“ pmmn
bt oaty &3 (hG SUCCES
oic pacsons, SOF
of Peiet n gy
“"',:"-uwu«mwmumnfi.....
e s 15 ol the cowtrary thal o0 finds 10 the wirtings of e
st dwtons ot ndcoed 1 the RO, Porils were
oo b e fck (o s coud bardy shew tha) gy
.
Iz should scem (o have 3
.fi“mmrfnfiwumwwm.jm
o maacr 2 one cah o 10 the Suxth Syno d. Adt 13, theof
Soves Syed, oot Act whe ght Syned, ActCoun7cili thewndeopit e
o] Hodeun, 0d 1 the Ml Romea r Pope
w"

Before procperm ee ét di ng
om a brie ,ur We have alresd
f deto naieyd
e deforence that Sedevacaniats give 0 the sccleslology of St Reben
Sellarmne As s will further demonetrate in the next ne’s chapicr, thee
dfervnce besed upecs a musunderstanding of Bellarmu
Wt& herewal Pope automuaically “ceases 10 be Pope” withouts
deciaraven from the Chusch (Bellarmine was indeed zeferring te i
dine consforeq uee nc
the crim of hereesy, but 4fler having been
determmed by the Church and not private judgment ~ more on tha
lowr} Hewever Bellarmine alom Believed thet a Pope could i
achully all wke persens! heresy, even theugh Popes Innocent U ané
Adean V1 cxpeesalye, toupht the conirary The Sedevacantiets generally
side with Bellarmi and 10t Papas Innacent and Adran Why?
Petiups the Sedevacansists ke with Bellarmine becaure Vi
postsan (a1 2 Pope cannet fall inlo heresy) makes their cue much
s ta “prevewioce ;”4 “herelicizing” Pope could certamly be
conuudar ed by & ressmable porson se have leet Srerior faith Thiu s
Soemmen apiaian, snang many kaditienal Catholics, o whem i scame
Micly that the Vaacan rs11 Pepes hloat the falth internally, due 10 the
ey wocds and acko whic render them suspect of heresy and
Touretpio nsy Accerd
f herez in
if the gl
Sedi aniist can convin
evacy,
Cil ics It 2 e Pepe carvet lose ther faith, then thee
Cothucs o be it 0 conclude thet the concilua Popes are not Ko
—_—
Lo Th b .2 a1 a7 . 198,
™
v —————
s Fope Fall vte Heresg?

popes. Many Catholics have been deverved

"“""'"m
cther‘:-c use
beca Sedevacantisw base therr
e vexhing of Bellarmun (who mid x i i
autematicatly loses hs offxce), many of them exalt ldl-m,’:':
uper Magsicral” status, ane thus fllhi ow pouon (ut Peps
cannot be a heretic) aver thet of Popes innacent and Adrian (whe sd
o Pope can be & heretic) And they deferd Bellarmi opuven
ne's
slmat
a1 it wene a dogma even thaugh Bellar
himaeltmun
aduiedeshat
he common opinion was contrary ks I ewn
To show the extent 10 which Sedevacantions go 1 defending
Jelarmune, we can look 10 the exmple of te lay Sedevacomis
spalogst John Lane Lane has gone 5o far 15 4 pubicly declare that e
quoie from Pope Adrian VI, whe teught that a Pope can “lesch
heresy Ia # fabrication Lane even hwspugned the goed name of Py
ue Boulet whe used this lason frem Pepe Adran in b
asticle “Is That Chair Vacani? A 35PX Dossser on Sedevacantem.”In
resporse to the article, Lane rashly accused Fr Soulet of being “derroad
by traudulent quotes Which he has anviesely lifted from seme place
unknown.” 1 On hus websie, Lane further derugrates the prest with
tus smug comment “Poor Fr Boulet - he Inerally grabbed qustan from
the Net, it seems and colthem ble d * 12
together
When Lane himaclf later discovered that the “unknewn® mxiserah
contury citabion was not sumply grabbed from the Net, but quoted i an
ealy twentieth century bosk (published in 1904), Lane with no
evidence whatsoever, clamed thet the quotaten incliuded the book
tud been "invenied” by the suthor (ancther rash and bescies
scnsation) Because the 1904 beok had bren placed on the Index, Me
Lane used this fact to support his assertion that the quetztion was
“invented” by the author {as 1f the ook bemg en the Index in any way
imphes that the quote was invented) When the sane quotabon was
lter clied by Robert Siscoe in an arhcle publshed in The Rannant
newspaper, Mr Lane referred to it on hus webute ax the “invenied
queke from Pope Adrian VI, taken from a book [the 1904 bosk} which

|
St Pus X put en the Index * Lane then acrused the nenSedevacaniut
Lane “Caowerirg 4 SIPX Demmer o0 Sedevocorim,
Uy Aev Dormalqee Souel

%
SEPX" (omphsis added), which way be lownd ot hapc/ /e
[ damicn sede pa
1P/ /swww sieobertiellarmiee X7 vrw o porvss.
st/ vewtopisg phpli=2it=1
L ee e o P Lt 1900
*Rebert Sicer “Cary the Charch Depase on Hervacal Pope? * Tie Kaommwe cewpopet
 Troc or False Pope” Tapgy

s b the

e
e
on
vl o s
of being, “comy

good rame of e Boulet, and 4, ,,

wbaute <1
Ko Taoe accusations of John Lane, we proyidy e
vetsion of the quetation, tn the anginal Lagn, ™
Y angs ol n suthae whe dd e cenlunse b quciame, 1,
e w eniad” (ehich Proves that o
et e
s o the 1904 bk, 25 M Lare clamg 1o
P fotn Pope Adnan V1 was queted by Bishop Bousuet (157
mWMdMJlndeuhfld w Parisin 18y
A secumdum prmc pale de fict Gregoril dico privp gugy o
,

s owm e Paatifices Ramoe hucrvticn, licn ot mevicome

qued publice docuil declaraviy et ah
ommbus demert manderit quad animas purgaiac ante finule
claris ¢t facealss visie Del
ke nom hobont Holawt qu<3tae
Sewe Me Lane did not hesitate 1o accuse those who cted the
pestanen {whick he fakely claimed 10 have been “invented” and b
publshed n 1904) a8 being, “complete charlatans” who lack e
shyhiest affechen for the meral law or truth tself,” we hope thal b
offens public apology for hus rash judgement and slandering of the
pood name of Fr Boulet.” f not, one might be led to conclude that 1
the puble standerer himself (Mr Lane) who lacks “the slghint
alecuon for ihe meral law or truth tself* Having cleared up ¥
poa. wehich we hape will help sarve 4o restore the good name of Fr
Wolet, we rew returm 10 eur covderation of whether a Pope can
ke heresy
While i is true thet St Bellarmune peronally held to what he called
he s opinion” of Afbert Pighuus,”* namely, that s Pope could not

_—
2 { et v pogt =21 772
er,eeyn
cChi
.:::LkOrerreb s complons’ Tome 1V {Porw AdLo
M-.a....."'" T—-Itinm- ML p 66 (urderiined pene
LA o L' et s o et 1 ppving Lane e berfit of e St
o £
o e, vt i it e o vt ey tars 8 e DORAION
i “;—fi-.-...n“..nm.--ynmfl
-u»s_,._‘fmu:m-uv.,m

n
 oPope Fll e HeHeresy ? . —

el heresy, Bellarmine himeelf,as

!:‘.L""_'“.m apiruon s the conteary 1 o Sdmitied day
Paster Acternse
Several years ago a lengthy artxle was publiched
attempted to interpret Chapter 1V of Vatan Ty C'I;n.mm:::
Adternus s tesching that a Pepe cannet fall into h
{cannot lose the vartuc of faith) The author esenteally arged hat tr
Pinst Vancan Counail raised 1o the level of the opmen af 5t
Selarmne and Albert Fighus (who both heid the misanty spinven
‘a1 Pope cannot lose hus personal fath) and that cersequenty, the
contrary apinion can 10 longer be defended. Without gertung wie &
Jruled analysis of this autho’s novel interpretawen of Vamcan |
{which, as far 4% we know, 5 shated by no one) sulfice it ko say thet hin
prvate terpretation of Pastor Aeternus directly corteadicn the eificaal
tion of the document given durvg the Councd.
In his famous four-hour speech, delivered dunng Vawcan |, Bishop
Vincent Gasser the official Relator (spokesman) for the Deputation: of
the Faith, stated that the Prghus/ Bellanmine epsnien was precsely not
what the document interded e teach Dunng the speech, whuch
provided the Church’s official interpretaion of the decument te the
Councit Fathers, Bishop Gasser responded te what he called “a mest
grave abyoction that has been made from this podrum, namely, that we.
wish to take the extreme apinion of a certain school of theology &
degma of Cathohc Faith Indeed this ts a very grave eineckon. and,
when 1 heard 1t from the mouth of an oulstanding and most esteemed
spuaker, | hung my head sadly and pondered well before speaking.
Gaod God, have you 50 confused our minds and eur tongues thet we
ace musrepresented as promoting the elevation of the extrmne epruas
o a certain school ta the digruty
of dogma. 73
What was this extreme opinion Bishop Grasser speke of? He goes.
oo te explan.
“As far m the doctnne sel forh w the Dl oo, e
Depuation 15 umusily accused of wanting W roec a8 Cavue
wpitien. namely. this of Albert Prghue, 1o e dgney of 4 degme.

D¢ Remaws Powtifice b WL ch. W,

-l—.n.-.\-fis.m.‘ The “ver-Fasiog Fah ol Feam * W/ /e wmarmgrinst
el com/ nade/ 4.
% Rev James T (YCanooe The Gyt of Inalinky (Sam Framwen, Cabornis. Jgrakest
P 19001 S0
1w
 Tre oc Fae Pope? gy
At Prghses. which Bellanmine indeqq
F:.:——.m --ur-a--n.;‘.vmm._jy‘:e0
e toacher ‘wan able b0 er ot & 1P of igneranc

the text {n Which St Bellarmine agrees v

A 8 ghua, Bishop Gasser concluded by ..y.,,"'!“":
ot e ducine n e propesed ChApE (of et et
e At ighuosor e extreme 0piren of any school -
el ol Mazaela (1KS31300), who served st the P
acs o the Index. of Shudis, and of Rieg, dunqy
:._,.“_‘p-w.wm
2} e vme thung shat the Rocuun PontsT cannet tcash
ey nhca spekong ex cavhckur (what the council of the Viczn
defined),
1 iccone 3 IKTOIK &5 & pvalc Ocrion. On (s Liat guestion g
Caprcd) sud aaching, and the theslogians
and canenits are not
aprwent uneng themscives i reged 1 th <X "

Sualiive 11 48 say that the teaching of Fepes Innocent 11 and Adeian

Vi kot 2 Pope can all 10 personal e even public heresy) u nat
contrary %0 the tmctang of the First Vatican Counclt Even
if ane wer
to argue tat Popes [noacent and Adrian were teaching as prvaie
and net 1 their capacity as Popes, their teaching wuld
8 be corsid theered
commen theological oplnton and express the
mind ol the Church. This explains why the dogmatic mandal of Msgr
Van Newrt. which was published many decades after the Courcl,
neied Wt "seme competent thesiogians do concede thet the Pope
wheni i speshung 3 cabhedrs could fall into ferme! heresy *® Clearly
sevher Mag7 Varr Nowrt, nor the other “competent theologians® e s
smictring t, considered thas Waching 10 be at variance with Chapter [V
of Favter Artornms.

Papal Infallibilsty
Thee s & gost doat of confusion over the imue of pars)
"haNiblty. by which Ged preverta the Pope from erring when he
—_—
PP 3% (gadda
',-'m"::hu—nh_s‘uu-mwifl"-
Cad €

R ot 3¢ s ity
1.
- .
ot Fope Fll mis Herwy Croprs -

duc es
the uneversal
forwin Church,
fl’:, arim would pre8 ven t o valy pohere
man rasert)
mwmsrmngmmmdm“m“,:"““ -
dflr""""‘;"‘“mb'l‘"y only p-wm-fieropb.,,,m,,'h‘vq
rar row
defined ly
circumsmn ces. ft
e e papal ofice scker
70t 8 habrmalty
o 1 «
e L Ay e ettt
we saw in Chapter 1, infallibdity 1 net
controls a human agent in what he says or write. ner is it o be
with Revelation, which 1 the comumurica tion
of semc a
by God through means which are beyond the enduary cwsrme of
ing and explaining the wutha
® Infalhbility
sature pertains to safeguard
srrady eveated by God, and communed witun the Deposit of Fach,®
which was closed with the death of the Lt Apostie Because
afallibality 13 only& negative chansm (gt grans date it doms) et
& Fope to teach what i irue or evan defend revealed irusts, nar
does 1t “make the Pope’s will the ulkmate smndard of wuth and
"% but smply prevents hum from taaching errer wider
certain limated condiwone.
Dunirig Bishop Gasser's address st Vatican I, be said
1a 1o sene 36 pontical imalibiity absoluic, bocsuse shovlute
sfal ibility Selongs to God aionc. Whe 1s the firnt aad soswomal
wruth, ‘Whe 13 scver abic to decerve ot b docaived. ANl sther
infaliblity, as commum foe a specific
cat purpese, ed
s e lvwrts
nd ts conditiens under which 1t 16 conadernd 1a be prosent The
same 5 valid 1m reference o the mfslininy of the Reran Poul.
For thi mfalliblity is Bouwnd by cartsin s ssd condnems. >
The First Vatican Council fixed the condiiwens for papal nfallibisty
when the Pope exercises hia Solemn e Extraordnary {Pensifical)
Magwterium:
“We teach ul defioe a8 & drvincly revesiod dogme shat whes
the Raman ponifT speaks 2 cavhodb, that w, whe, m the coarcme
oF s effice as shepherd and wacher af all Chrsaans. s virtue of
ks supreme apesioiic authercy, he definn 2 decime comcuung
Tath oc moraia to be heid by the whele Churoh, be poasesess. by the
_—
2ol Excyciopedss (1913), val 18 (Ow Revelation). p 1
*Cewt
s Grsh, p 120
25t Piow X, Lamotiaick
S, Nou 21 1908
20wt s G, p 298
The Citof njainity p. 4%
19
 e False Pore” Crapry
proecd 10 hoss 3m bioFetcr d in U
wseshat
::fimwur—mmmmmmflm o motale.”>!
decame concrTHeg: farth
the drvine sssistance of Chrst g
Hare we see st s supreme 3postolic
tol authenity in Frasett
e iy
e Os o mora. e of() o be Chrstare @ s 4 —
the uruversal Chur,
are ,,.,:'V‘:
comcemingo e Exiascdirary Papsl Magisierum
"‘m“‘:“ sy mued 10 combat AR €ITOT OF setle 4 dacy
caniemversy Fr Nou explains:
B s oohed of presemiation, semetmes caled we
esroondmury Mogmicrmom, 6 oaly an exceplionat occurrence Iy
2 Comewy
oo ofm e 10 iy 10 48 wrer 9¢ put 40 cndall 10pacsible
o where the mtambon 15 o obrviakc 1n wivance deoks
Iy sty prommumcing thst & Wk which 15 alroady adred
o e o dogrra of the farth ™%
At the Fiat Vatkoan Council, Cardinal Franzeln emphasized ve
same pous in the context of the Pope's Exwaordinary Magiskenca,
i exerced Weough ecumenscal councils.
I was mever the amm of the: hely Councils, n prepesingthe
defirvan of decume, o 30 farth Cathelic dectrine In el un 5o
S w4 was ckeady pomcised by the fathful in complete
wanqulny the am w abways \o make clear the ervors which are
ersicamg, seme doctrme 2ad o exclud thern by a declaralion af
o whach i drvtly oppoed (0 such errors. ™
Wb Wi a0 2 background, let us new cxamune Pastor Actermsi
throe reguared clements for papal infallibality, when exercised throogh
the Pape s Extraordinary Magstenum, under the following headings

—_—
sP Ak Chagte IV Nete thet e Tepe's Sele
ov Extrmn
osrboay
"——.m-—nmuum.'.nw
A— Vo rklildy e e traching . (1} propesed m-nnu
20 2 revesied trubh mn
s e weverslny ot Cobelic Traditho (Vatican L Dot Fiies) The ialivey
- ‘*fi-r:mwwwumammmmu For ew =

m
 sP Fall nte Hermy? -

1. Matters of Faith or Morate

first conditaon fee papel infaliinh
T efimtions or linat definive sanmene CONCET*MINlim ited 1o,
G fartis or
“This scope of papal ofalhibility is the same
e organ of inlallibtity s the Church (e . mm.::;z
Theclogians distinguish between primary and secamdary syt o
O i evary obget ol éalibibty consshe of she rube shat have
baen formally reveaied by God, being centaned within the sources of
jevelstion namely Scripture or Tradiben - and extende s o
pocinve and negative decisiore of a definive nature Pesinve
decens include such tungs as degmanc decrees of a councl, wr
alicia statements from 3 Pope and efficial creeds of the
Clvarch, Negative decisiona consst ef “the determunation an rmection
of such emors as are opposed 1o the teaching of Revelshon.” When
the Church definitively proposes lor belief a truth an faith or worale
{hat Fas been formally revealed by Ga, it ruet be beheved with dipme.
£d Cathalic fith Divine and Cathelic fath is fath in the autheny of
God revealing and the infallible Church teaching»
The secondary sbpect of wndailibrlity includesshave wuaters which,
alibough ot formally revealed, are connected with and inkimately
related to the revealed Deposit. The secondary ebject inchedes such
things as fheolagical concisens (inferences deduced from two premises,
one of which s revealed and the other verificd by ressen) and degmeke
fcts {contingent hustorical lacts) These are se clovely relaied W
revealed truths that they are said te be virtually conmined within the
vevealed Deposit
With varying degress of cerntude, dwologans ake it uncersal
discplines and the canomzatuens of saents within Uus categery (which we
will sdeiress n Chapter 14 and 16, respecuvely) Van Nosrt explans.
that the secardary obects of infallibwhity “come withun the purview of
infallibility, not by thewr very nature, but rather by raaon of she
revesied Muth to which they are annexed As a rewlt, infellinbiy
embraces them only secondarily It follows that when she Church
Paises pudgment on matters of tha sort, 1t w insallible only weoker s
they are connecied with revelanon.Ӵ Secondary siyecso ifalkinicy

L0t Gk 24
adomofeu Crthia
okc Doge
sn. p 299
5Tou Tanmsrey ot Thmir. o 1, e Yo Dur Comony T R
‘enaOp. d.
284
s Chu t
r, p. 10
 ey
ey propesed by the Church ure
mm::‘h‘;',“,_.,; mmumm»-mm,,.’;“_’n
exclensencal Db e authority of God revealing» -
0—*_" :";:'“ the Church speaks infallibly when
R daclenar reveul
at ed truthe
ion (e oS¢
b o the First Vaican Council could rule i, e
ol B o the Church can make an mjallibe rmn-m:,.:,"'
ey chjects, the Councl was hialted by the Franco- "

embewens the sccondary objects. For this reasen

F_‘mlfimflhmbfllmfllllflymm\d‘wmb:
‘,fl,(.unLh---\lycm-da«l w:olopallywu.
orsema arie) Van Nowet qualifis the canonization of sama by gy
et deggee of sortude o s the cammen opten 3
Ta conciude thi peet, the obyect of nfallibillty conen ¢
dncemes concerning aith snd morals that have been revealed by Gog
{pemary obyect), and matters hat are intumalely related 10 the evea
Depoat (secundary obect). I 1 de fide (of the lah) that the Chary
speas wiallbly with wpect 4 the formet, and 1t 15 qualifed
Singraly oriam that the Chrurchy's méallbility embraces the later «
Jast 1 soe exter, with the encephon of the canonizaton ef s,
whah was anly qualdicd by some sa the commen apinion prio 4
Vascan 11 {aod, me we will see sn Chapler 16, may 1o longer be e
comman opicien of leday)
L Dectrines Defined far the Umversal Church
The sssard condision for papal indallibillty in the cliar indnt
et 2 dectrme conceming faith ee morala to be held by the universd
Chrarch. The Pope comai the autherity Christ gramed to him snly &
the degree in which he innde 1o do 38 11 & Pope merely teachers
dacion yot dows se e.
witheut tntendmg 10 issue & doctrinal definitin
far #ha universal Church, thia condition is ot sabisfied Consequenily
She poasib
of rrer siliy
ot enclsded.
 ann o ol inte Hereny?

srthermore, the Fope must previde a daciein

_’M:,, the faithful can inteliectually ...,.Lm:..
satement of beliel, 2 propestion which can be read, -Hems o:
Sefiumely beld 1f the Pope fals 1o previde an actyal “defipition
en such an act would clearly not it the narrowly defimed
purumencs
S infallinlity as defined i Pavior Ackerris® Today, for cramn e e
Rear that we must accept ecumeniam, collegiaay, relipeos n,,,,
of corucience,
the “epof i VaticantI e wbons o)
"«Wm rlfirdrflmmndwhlh—qmmn Thes is enie of the
antingush‘l
ing characiersacs of Moderrisa. which abbors clardy
orives i the murky walers of msguity and undefined terminategy
Bt undefined or ambIZUOUS expressions are not decirinal defininons.
WMHMI
didn't simply say "we X MMM‘WM
declare, prenounce andM MIMMM
defne that all Catholicy
soust believe in the Immaculate Conception,” and then leave Cathaics
it the job of figurIng out precisely what the lerm meant. After usiog
the ferm bwenty six imes in the Apostalic Consktubion, when it came to
e scwon i which the doctnine was defined, he explamed pracasly
whsat meant. He wrote
“We doclare. proncunce. wad definc that the dociome Viash
halds thet the mest Blessed Virgin Mary, i the fies smavanec of her
soncpion, by & singular grace and provilcge grasced by Almughty
God, 1n view of the ments of Josws Chret, the Savier of the human
e, swas preserved free freen il san of ongimal s, 1 a docwac
swvaaked by God and tharciore te B bekeved fimly sad oonstasdy
by all the bl =0

# We are apraking here of infalibity of the Gatmerdinsry Magiaim. A3 il be

ducoses iy Chaptet H, the Ordinary #d Unirersal Megpatcio e ala itaile T
e et f 4 Pope ln teaching what the Charch bas ahwiys taugfi. and whai b
dhways tven believed o be 4 aricle ae dopect o (o evem i nat e defned) 1
Wlelie Ve huve an ccumple of this 1 Paal VI's excychal Humous Ve whish
ondemned cuntracepiion. Even theugh the trachng Vb cacyulcal was et wdelible
by Y of e Exteavedicary Maglterium {snce Pagt V1 dof nat weor o “debiovnn”s
Beverielen, the tcaching was Indalibie by vitue o the Ordnry and Ureversl
Magiverium, andd therefore reauiers the assent of Laith Cordinal Felicl eaplained this
el the nsaarce of the encyviical Foams L Cmrmmr Kempar “Oo s peobiens v
Ot revsemiber that & i may be swre ard cvetn, i hamer 8 ey e ebbgur
0 it he sanetien of an ez amfhaie deiitian 5o & ekt arcvchal Hument
Vit i wich the pape. the supvewse ponlf of the Chuch, uthrs st sk s et
miasiy mghd by the Churei Mlaguarrm el witch amminde wilh the pouseps of
Revelaient (L Omerwire Romw, ittt 15, LA, L ewphase adnd)
P Fin XL A pastwlic Covmistutbus i Do, Docemsber & US4
203
 ey
rred for infallibility to be en,
“"""M,,n,.ufiw ‘Council of Trent definedsP
it defined preccly e e 0ty oo
e ey what st be believed The Councl deare
somsacraten of the bread and wine thave takes pigge
,_:’.(:-m.—w.ruemmue%.,,:‘
of th i g
et our Lord ad o e whele SUbRARCECatho
- o W biaed. This change the hoty lic Chug,
e popety caled wsanision. (i Xl
chapie IV)E

The Council then anathemaized anyone who denued this daciia,.

A anponc domes that 0 the sacrament of the meststy
Suck vomtusned wly reaily and substantially the hody sy
< anst
Vood togeher wrk the seul and divincty of our Lot Jews Chr,
2ed samscquent Christ but says thet He 15 un I onlysy
the whele ly
8 2gn, # figure oc force, ket him b anathoma™ (Sevnen XIll
Coma 118
Thes shows the way i which the Church defines » doctrine ¥,
Pope oc council (aie to define - ¥ provide » clesr and defreinc
of what s b bekieved - infalisbilily 18 not engaged
When the Firt Vatican Ceuncil defined the infalllbility of lhe
Rowun Poriif, 1t referred to Ovr Lord s words In the Gospel ol &
Mahew chapter 1, 2 2 basss for the dogmatic definition - “Thalts
an Peter and wpen this rack T will build my church, and the gakes o
hell stull net prevad sganet ii* (v 18) % Note that in the very nex
varse. Oue Laed says 40 5t Fetar, “And | will gave to thee the keys o
the Smgdom of haaven. And whatseever theu shalt bind upen sth,«
stull be haand alie in heaven” (v 19) We thus see a consecten
betwaen “the gales of hell” and St Peter’s *binding” authority From
the we can sac thet ane of the guarantees astocuated wath this dine
:-hs&m-‘bmmwflm"hfl'wflmfll'
n--hu.w-"-sdhu'ydmmm-ymdmk
tmplc. Pope Vighu
sayss * we bea r what was preme!
[n mind
A Gt
Chopen 1 ofDy19 gy ™% The Mot Holy Saceamment Of T Ruchamt, 5ot L
(.-h‘lh‘"m(—--hbflyisr-—dfiwh“ !
"'Mvn-t—;h-:.a..-upy In e,

0
) na Pope Fallt i nte Heresy Her sy? . .

1 the haly Church sd Himn whe s

will et
;’"«l AL 6 Pope(Bt eX sdentand “m'l';-mj
ko says: “The hel
Eftf’m s Chrnst and upen Peter mwym"hm'"";“‘;
,wnmwflmlz,?mwmm&vmmmmm“
il the b of e aibhol
L st
and put e
te sence 20 o e
w2 s fttingly referred to as 1 the dived flly of
“Thus whether the “tongues® and ~disputatiens” of herets
e Church from without or within (even by the tengue of ,,,,'",,:‘;
Ty Chrst will neser allow the * preva againe the
Church which would happen il the Pope “bound” the Lasthful to the
beresy by Imposing it 23 2 matier of faith 1 be belseved by the Chareh,
Juy, 45 we have noled, e be protectedby méallibly, the Fopes
pinding authonty must be smvoked imientionally and conachaty -
sierwise the act of binding cannot preperly be saud te have taken

"x:mmm; the mode of expression lor an wnfallible er cothaira

incement, there is no specill lormula required vee i any type
o sobemuty necessary What is nocessary however 1 the Pope's clar
tention of grving a defirutive and unversally Innding decsion.® This
condtion of inlallibitity alsa applies 1o the Pope whether ackng aleme,
ar withuns the consext of an ecumenicouncl cal What this maar s that
jt 6 posstbic lor a papal encychcal or even o decument Wsued by &
genersl council of the Church that has been ranfied bv « Pope, to
contain error, 43 long as the Pope (of ceunct) did net imtend to b the
Church o a doctrinal defiition. Morcever even wher mifalliblty is
engaged it does not necessarily cover an entire document, but onlv the
specific definitions or defeitive decielens, contained theren.
The followng t« taken from the pre-Vatican [ manal of doganatic
theology by Msgr Van Noart-
“The Church s rulers ae mfallible wat wn any and cvary
exerrite of their leachmg power but enly when. usmg all the
ullness ol thewr sutherty,
alsoiuic ament or. ¢ crnmen aarlance puts . wheo s ‘defic
amchne m maricn parwise b U Chostas i Thel 0

S Pope Viglhus, Servm Crumarl of Comstamciple 360 A D

2Tope Lew 1. In st rrrn homemis, Sephemiber 2. M3 A D
#1rie To Catens Ao
 even witun degmatic decrees issued by o
e mwe it sty b 1 gy &
(alihty (eg, degmatec canons with their Accompanyin
ssitamas) Frtharmere, it I necessary that the Pope's intentie o
sufficienty cley oy
ging a deiukve docwnal defintion chbe madeguess
TRty w be engaged If the Chur i left ing,
snd endiomly dedaning whether the Pope {or council) inlended te g
e urversal Chwirch # a pariicular teaching, ot 15.a very goo i d
ot she definutive characker 1 lackang for an infallible proposson. A
ur wadition hae well cstablished ways by which this definitive ey
e cloar for example, the se of the “anathioma sit” formula,
Jhat ere st bebeve W under pain of excommunication, er unde
e o lomnthe g (i, or swmilar such statcaenris
The Case of Pape John XXII
One example
of a Pope publicly keaching error (which would laker
e condemned as 8 feresy), but withoul invoking his binding authonty
¢ Joiws XXIT (1322 1334) The Pope taught publicty that the souls
of the
vl departed would enly possess the Beaific Vision after the Lt
Jodgnmt. in 2 sermon delivered to # distinguished audiee
corsastrg, of Cardwals, peelates, and theologuans, the Pope taught
“The seuls o the faithiul deparied de not enjoy that perfect or face In
foor vinen of God, in which, according ko St Augustine (in Palm XC
Serman, No. 13), convets thew full reward of gustice, nior will they hare
St happwrass v afies the general judgment. When, and
the sonl will e e-uonied o the body, will this perfect biiesonlycomewhen,
s - somung 10 the whele man cempesed of body and soul o
s erlre beng. "%
—_—_—
e Qertp
et ke XOB e maiod 1 ' F ) Doriel, ot XX1 And The BestC
ot ey by TT Cota Unérersy Bulrt, val VIR, (Weshingpor. DC-T
i
o Anevian
12, pp 3657
 >
[ o Pope Fall inte Herevy?

Johw X1 ‘Laughtunthat afer b, puri ty

"mukph(! duhnlgr“”(‘,’:':‘:'*y.:
of the Body He ""lm...
clai med ""‘“
Srperal Resu rrec tion . be
G would e coneoled and promcied by the \anity of Chat,
the Beatific Vision.®
1 # ract
Jahn XXII taught this erro
ecton (while Al Cardnal dy o..,Fra,. ,‘d.hm m'y - e
St o3 ¢ §RVE 1, Ao, ncedunng s g o P
‘hs Pupe, e even tried to force it o the Faculty of Theolagy i Par.
Jefore eventually retracing the error on he deathbed The Tollowng
acvwunitis taken from the 1913 Cemaalc Excyclopedas
“In the lam yours of Joka's pommficste thee arwec 2 dogmatc
conlict abeut ihe Bemific Visies, which was besught dm by
Jumaclf Before hus clevation ts the Holy Sec. b hod wrien &
werk 0 this questien, in which e swisd that the sacls of the
Wlessed depasted 40 el see God umtil aftc the Last Judgment Afr
Secorning pape, e advanced the same teaching i h scrrmens. la
this e met with siwng eppeciuen, [wiik) many thesleguas, whe
adtcred 1o the. wsin] opinion that the blessed doported 654 2ec Ged
Sefore the Resurrection of the Mody and the Last Jodgmient, evem
calling s view heretucal A groat comme was wecsed
nen W the
Uaiversity of Fans when the Gonaral of the Misontes and
Dormican wiwd o duasomunsc there the pope’s view { ) ln
Dacember, 1333, the thesloguuns ut Pans, afer soamulinien ou the
quastion, decubed 10 faver of the docime that the souls of the
Piessed deparied saw God wnmediaicly afler douth or aftr thow
complete punficalien, &1 the sums ume they poied out that the
#opc had grven ne decrmen ne this qucsen bt only advasced ha
perional opimen, and new petitoned the pope (o conlim e
decimn() Before hus death e [fohn XXII) wribdre. b former
opnion and declared
, s Selicf that seuls separsic from therr
d
bodses anjoyre in hexven the Beanic Vi ™
After the death of John XXIL hs successer, Pope Banedict XIL
iallibly defined that the souls of the fahful deparied, afer berg.
purified 10 Purgatory 1f recessary, de indecd posnss the Beasfic Vison
Prior e the Last Judgment
¥ Md 5 56; Mare yDykenans i Lo sermas deTrowmn, v
Jona XU Ls ocwiono vbyNeoerDO“!I.M
Gregarian Universit 1973, sew ales Chvistian
;fl'fl-flfi-’-nl—‘xfl.l’nfil—&h‘&l‘n

(1913}, vol. VL g 43833

A K Encyclapwita
2 Gl
B oy 3 (80T
xw
 e or aloe Pope? Chapiy
the formal condemration of the erroro)
*_:‘:,.\.\xxlumommunmmm.mw"“\h
ol .'mmwkx:mll_flmmm.u_h
_m,‘wmmu%
Mmmm%
i e aclarme whe deall amply with Wi i ik
Romone e wes that M’Lfllflmfi_uumm
ok, wihGou
e pranciplc of pontifical snfallibilily by His hehay
of ingJohn theXXIaitI h wasof thecernChulyrch bsy oouy
. sorwacianurgregand
atibic, s was dcvnd of defining mature %
mmdh’emx)(flymfiflmarv‘pem tech pube.
‘sganw the Fash even errors contrary 1o material doguy»
i, srefore, could aver be declared ferehcel While the m»
defiubm hat the departed seuls of the just enjoy the Beatific Viyony
wat net mowed uniil after the death of John XX11, thus truth is pat of the
Depont of Fath, which explane why the Pope’s teaching wy
immedu ise
and vigereusl ly by theologi
y epposed (even asans
e
well beyond the condines of Avignen As we saw, Pope AdrunVi
called john X1 2 “hereac” and. as de Matie correctl y
novs, Fupe
Bencdit X defmibon officially renders fohn XXIFs teaching
“lermally herewcal©
At the end of his recerded CD talk *Counterfert Catholicism .
Consistent Catheliciam,” the Sedevacantist preacher Gerry Matana
fields 2 questen frem an atiendee who asks why Pope John XXII didny
ing After Matatics properdy explaims e
dose b office for teachheresy
theee conditanu for papal uialliblity defined in Pestor Aeternuc he
s4ys st Jahn XX did not violake infallibibty because he did st
“wipsse” hin errwr upen the umversal Church (even lhough &
Bellarmuine sad fohn XXII did intend to umpose it upo n
the Church)
Of ceurse, i the (allure to “1mpose” {using Matatics” own witls}
Srromsons dactrines upen the Church saves john XXII from fallkg
-
1+ O e Voo, 139 Bk IV chap 14, coll W156
100 Mt P b o o oy s ot
et o X1
& e Y W WIS tempheun added) at hitp /fwane
- /& ppe-urhe- ol -iria- bw-rewy church-that
Nl
e it 4 b et sT s f reveiaion, and
ik Mot yet bt e by b Chrse, Sev ON, Fundammrisd#
“‘Mnx-v.u—;quu—u—.,m
 te Heresy?
cana Pope Foll ntw Heresy rupiors

o effice,
ene the the same wauld alie apply to ihe poy.
of them defmikvely “umpesed trg “"‘"‘;;T'
P zch elther (and the Filare e meet i ene conditon i
‘have not vielsted mialkbility, even i their errers. eara
sl heresies) Wiile the conciiar Papes, may v allied
feiafal to foin e in the ecumenical vembure of Vatican I (h helics gy
Jave ne abligation to do 50 and remain o govd
eoen I they refuse those novel doctrnes and pracces fhat av v &,
ty to Tradition. Mr Matatcs” sdmassion fata e s ewvm
s What
":,vmllmfl"“ applies to John X001 apphes to John J0GT and the etbher
“The caseof Johnt XXII ke shows ue dat there wil ways be
spapaloters” who follow the Pupe ko any nvely o hursay
whatsoevesFor example, even though there was sirwng, oppeationby
John XXIi 3 teaching by the “Wadtionallat” Cathelcs (1he - Recognae
and Resist™ camp of the day) the head of the Francucans, Gerard
Ordon, eagesly supported the Pope’s nevel leaching, Ordon and sthers
(ncludung & Dominkcan preacher 1n Paris) pramoted the Pape's errers,
which caused an uproar at the University of Pans. This rwsulied in s
\heotogians publicly epposng tie Pepe (not ust thase who agreed with
Tum, &8 we see by some "censervalves” in eur day) and askung that he
{the Pope) cormct his error
The case of John XXt further demensirates that a Pope whe
tesches error publicly - even an error conirary to a metenal degma - dees
et automatically lose us office for deng se, even theugh, e deubt, if
faced with sich a situation, some would overneact by declaning him te
be a “false Pope ” Such accusations were, in fact, levicd againet fohn
o
The Catholic Encyclapedm article en John X1, which was cried.
above, spoke of the “great commoton” that enetied when cermun
wdwiduals began o disseminate the Pope's ermar As enc would
expect, at the time there were seme unstable seuls who went los far in
thesr reackion Lo the papal crisia. One of these indrvidusls was the
rehellious Willam of Ockham, who has been calied “the Art
Protestant "5
William of Ockham s comnenly held b be & prisme moves in the
e of Nomunalism. and advooaked o “secular absolubiom.” that
denied the right of the Papes to exercise iemperal pewes, of fo wkcriere.
i any way in the affairs of the Emprre ™ Alihough he was never
formally condemned as a heredc, o commissin of s theologiane
-_—
:mf-flk:-mu-nvmnuvm-wnmr“
 Chapigy

rew up tore s of his doctrines sy

appoised b e Pere 25 mmdmulcdnn“bym
'_xnwt:d“""wm‘mm'“'""‘“*‘"w.
T ope” whe lot 1 affce de 0 heresy Ho wouh.
e of e arters mnd W baresess Mosbonedofshev e oy
oo, 1 W away fom the obed icnc e the G
e same pecid Poge
o on of b aros sad besisexheco mmICbyAC Sa
Cana
F ol daperved of b papecy. 4nd
Vi el wibow wced of furte scodcroe e] o
e shau ik o recall me [10 s obedicncs
uy1 dctnd s comn scrar
4. s ns,o #0dn shev s
i Hety Scrpeere, o that & Pope cannet auth Tl nte sy
ecrieso
O ctows of borory, ot It b shew by holy (@ be & netenwus
fot rseams hst wc whe kaw3 thedePope Succ esst vis) "
orwic m sbinged @ wocy bam” (Tracumtur
Needieus10 say, the Church never agreed with the claim of *
hm':’mhflthlllnhnXXllwalallluPcpewhnlq:
stfce foe teaching heresy But what tha histoncal example of Jahn XXt
2nd Wi of Ockham shows us is that if faced with tha crie of s
Poye seaching errors publicly, we should et be surprised 1 find an
overschac by wnbalanced seuls who rashly declare the Pope te have
fowt bin sifice Such an everreaction is precisely what we see wih
teday's Sedevacankioss, whose lack of smbility and general spiritual
disacder are nm secret® (et e mention a lack ol integnity. a6 we have
enéortansiely seen, for cxample, with Fr Cekada and John Lane) In
fact, ane former Sedevacantet said that when he was entanghed m the
movement, he found nothing but spiritual dlsorder tn all the
Saderwomients he cocr met - humeef included He wrote:
“1 myscif b once boen 3 Sasievacentise Only in Pewospectcan
1 ommly e the gromt bcnorncss and lack of chartty that this lod 18
%0y port {ineve found netiuns bt aperiial Gsacder 0e
eSed
b cva
_m_3l] U cesiis
| ave cvor el
(aevscl{ cluied aad Commant amang (hary) It would
be bet b
o

—_
*Chod i KCowmmaermosmey'sh—rTy-
b e

- '::;-mymmmw
e, ra¢ maSmbtorvan matbmmattreapuwredeg
g B Sd lebes Lane ddticd Wt “propic o £
tsbele in thetr spicitual lves, co
rfumd 3
7 hrmmte asily Sucs e peoms o Vo pares. £ wbonrvad dll o 1 7]
-t -:n-r-— KW e g/ /e acaniat.o
WYoen
oAl

w
 Cama Pope Fallmie Heresy?

We will deal with the ad fruiss of Sedevacantism

for o ulice 10 52y thet every papal crus ha had thene ot
+ m onc direchon er the dr whetherit
e o the fourtcenth cenlury whe *'Mw'm“',"_."‘
;,, XX, of the John Lanes of eur day whe have daclared sl e
Popes for the past S0-plus years 1o be “antipopen” But o Willian of
ek crei, e cid 7ol 0 rwaily a 7 4 Jofn Lane 1 oy
Sedevacaniat collewgues, whe now claim Wat al the e Suhepeof
e worl - #¢dat least all who are i charge of the diccmes - have ales
publicly defected from the tath and lost heir effice
An Ecumenical Cenncil Condewns Sedcvacaniiom
To cush such everreactons frem unatable individuas, the Fourth
Cou of ncl
Conatantinople
l (863-870) condem anyaqe whe
nedseparaed
Fumsel from his Patriarch by private judgment (i e, Sedevacaniam)
befare the matier had been aettled by 2 symod, attachung the grave
penalty of excommunication to any monk or laymun whe did
etherwise:
“As dvine scripaure clearty proctaens, ‘De net find faul befor:
you svesugate, and undersand first sed thoa find foult” And doos
our faw Judge a persom without fink giving him & beanag ad
leaming what he doca” Conspgucnly s holy nd wuvarsal ryamd
suelly aul fittgly declares wd lays down (st e lay person of
mank of clenc should separate humgelf from commtunion w1 be
e npirarch before » carcful inguin and 1dgment o sud )
1€ anyone shall be found defymg this hely syned. be 1 W he
dcharred frocn all pricstly functreas aed sis if he 5 2 buckop ot
(h\:,vlamfimhymmm—l‘fl
SomuEIe sad mcctungs o the church 15, SIAMCHES]
i is oanvaried by reperimace aed ressnctled™ (Canen 101
As we can see, an ecumenscal council af the Cathalic Chusch has
fatly condemned the Sedevacantist thams. It has dene se by
condemaing the error by which ene, in an ct of prvase jadgment
* Lamie Scjarte, “Pope Sty - Dificaibes wih Sedrvasmaiom” Angohs Prs
Aapwine Ocwiber 1995, pp 11 16 fervaphame addwd].
Fomih Coun of Corstminpie, Conon
i/ Courxtie/
00810, b/ i pape v
ecumblbivm.

m
 Chapiery

with his Patriarch o

separnis "":{.',"".« Roww) Cleatly the John Lanes, L'"(,‘i:
e Cebadaso today think they kow betir
‘of Constantimople and Pope Adnan, who ranpey|
jves have done, IM’ .;x 10 persuade wy,
expressly forbade a
i ply b ey T 2b
ot depuaing, lawtul religous sty
"} dgert = ostod i the drvinely revealed wards of Our L
Who tught His dwaples not 10 usurp such authonty, ey,
H ey ogh prics (Catapliaa) who put Him 1o deathy
Tnam Jenn spokc 0 e okrundes and 0 bis dcipics,
Seyag The acbes 4 the Pharees Aase ST 0 the 10 chair of
ek AR kg therciors whatsecver thcy shall sy yey,
e andde. baccerd 1 thcie works
ong do ye et for they say,
el o aet” (ML 23 101
f Our Lord Himmell acknowledged the legitimacy of the office
hatders of the Old Covenant “church” {the successors 10 Moses) bow
saxch ware does He will us 10 do the same for the office-bolders of the
‘New Cave Church,na
and w08tnt notably the successor {0 sSt Prierd
Eape t Che ll
whencu el y us to “hthe ea chursch® (Mt 18617) in the
same Gaapel?™ Inderd, qust as Christ Instructed His discrpleso
< and f mpeme et € 21 b fo 90 el rm b condemned b chcied s rgn 00
Igomow Popy the Concil o Camtanoe {L14-116) . follewig
e o tim sk el * e Pope e foecheween acd i, ard svrmoqurny
srmive o e deuil. be does ot have the puwver ever the (aithiul given te fun by
‘e wolews parchanae ey Casaar* - CONDEMNED (Sasaions VIIL erroe No § ol Joba
Wchihel It the Poe i wicked and espcially il e I+ forchrunn o daswialions thenhe
it devd K fudas e spmmthe 2 ued 2l 2 w0 o] perdiion and b it Ihe tead o e
oo churc skt siner be Jo st cvem & ey of U« CONDEMNED {Seakon X4
e No 0ot labn Hun).
e Line sngun it e sompstaon Wl O Lord's recogpiion of the Vs
Mmer, (o bcaune “The OM. Tastamed Cluiech wu s the periect vty of Fa
and Qharty whch the Mvacal Bady of Chrid in. anvd Wherefore & Lack wf Faith dul ol
i ot o mrwsberalp ; Shat Chasrch ao i s i wrrs * dhat the Exct thas Our Ll
Tkt the wucztoen o e suthomies ot e taefect OU Tetament chuurch ool
ST 4 g e it e o grve o e o il wlics 4 e et
Ty W e Cabote Ceh, sopreially that ol the Vime o Chri At
ek Chager 3 tht s bk P e 1ot “rrsc i o ot
b, 25 Lame ervermainly eppyrste. Sew Lorw 3 Conarming #
X vt o Smieramo by Kev Dacm
tam. Bouki,
ragaS #s DO/
- S dades_uode il
T o rasamt
g 3. esbewing
1 ! ot povule, e e pomagr i . Mathher's (acpel, et
2, O Lord i e o secopise e ket 4
n2 o
 o Pope Foll i Heresy? .

those who have “Sitten on the chaie of Mesey -

“‘Mgmhmunlmflwwhfllmhfluuflsg_rm&"_-
The Case af Pope Homernis
The case of Pope Honorius (625-638) 1s anether hister
ot Pope ho vt only fell o heresy, bet was afcially congen
e Curch a2 heretic % Pope Henerius promoted he heraey
¥ ieiies who held thet Cheit had onty ene will & Tog PPopesdid
i cffcu leters to Sergaua I, the Patrarch of Canetentnopy.
BJowers were sent at the time when St Sophroniue wae ddmdln ;t
alth by publicly oppesing the Monothelite heresy (snd
,F....:‘yu actually rebuked St Sophronius) Ths was -Lu:r.::::
Leo the Great had defined the union of the twe natures of Chost 1
AD 449 (which can be said to affirm the twe wills, whuch the
Monsthelites donied)® and which was roiterated by the Gourcl of
Chalocdon in 451
In one of his letters 10 Sergius, Pope Henerius seld. “As regands
definng » dogma of the Church, while confessing, shere are twe
satures unuted 1 Christ, we sl " wt
1 the Mediator betwean God and men*»
Honerius refused 10 “cenfirm the bretheen” by defondang the
mmhfmdhmmhdm)uuy,ummlvm
truih and error on the same level” Wiile some have argued that
Henarus did not persorully embrace the Monothelte heresy, hu letter
e Sergius suggest otherwise (a the Counail of Constankneple welf
revatked), and he cerminly faled in his duty te condenn the arrers,
lipous aubeciies (.2 3) and then painks au Vir “Ming” faachung. subuty i
W fent et [y 4) Siilarty 0 Marthe 18 Our Lovd beb Hio doiyics b0 s the
bk [V 17) anch then i ou the Apouties “nding” teachung actbocsy 1 e st
e{v 1) Our Lord 1 reveaben; that 1o melt how evi 1 Fapes mar e ey et
it hold valld aVfices, bul alve Pamecsn ntalible Wachurg suthecky [hush wil be
w0 miore el begprning i Chogrce 13}
e cuuld alse point i Pojw Liberius (352-Jeb) wha acceyicd & wm-Arin Croed snd
Cwnrronecated5t Atharasos, and Pope Paschal il (1071110 whe was asoueed of
Jeapayallog heresy by promosing lay Wevesiture (whete slar puery wnd W diere
5 en) bubeps ard abloo) g the Seshamony of Wkt sl e ovpbt iy,
£ his el predeceane
e Chrt, s s e G ard e man s bt bemmast and v il
*Denz., T340
a1
Mh-‘q;wwm'..‘n.,.»mrn-num-w_""
" Pupe Hanerlis acaiems are quis similar te thave of the cumulor Paes, ~be have
v the Cathob reinghon on e soie level s sahor sllghin.
ns
 Cuapyy
o them, accordto in
gy,
g
which of el ameure
10 80 FFET o) *Not to opyPO errac

wan foemally condemne &5 2 heve bydo

heresy Pope Hosemt
s of the Catholx Church (Conetant
(C inoply
tfj 4,
o nmmwc.m-umpk-wmmm,.m““
Ycal Chech counci (Trulle in €92)
e Thnd Councl o Canstantimopie, Seseion Xill (Murh
@ weread
aer we hod roed the ducwwal lesers of Serguw o
c.:d:-(‘yml-rh—ulnrwc"-m\-.-m!lu
Uhe i of the haser 1o Sergius, we find that these documeny
ichag he lomer o Honorioe] are quite forogn 10 we
2o aisa 0 the declarations
of the holy Councls, mnd
1ol the accoptad
Fachers of repuic and fihat they)
of S hTchcs. Wherchore e cnurcly reject them, and
chags
i o 40 hurtfl 0 thc seul But the namesaf these mey
s aive be cxpeticd frum the hady Church, samely, that of Serguw
spatiemairred
€ ) We e all And slong with them. {1 1y gy
wasnamas dacrac (hat thery shall b cxnclled from te Church aad
ocause of
Whit v fomd @ b looer 1o Sergios that n ali respects e
followsd b vew snd conlemed W impious deciincs Ty
Hananus, e bt wathams
™™
in Seasion XV1 {August 9, 681), the councl also declared *Anatheru
the herelic Serguus. 18 the heretc Cyrus, (0 the heretic Honpriys o
e baret Pyrehus.” In Swssson XVIII (September 16, 6}, we futhac
rosd

“The comede (of the sarler Ecumenical Synods) would have

#Mowd (o uwwicdpe and confirmatien af the erthodax faih
Secaune. bevever, the engmater af i evil sull always finds »
halpeag sorpemt, by whech be may diffine hia pocsan, and therewith
finde 54 \wel. o bt wil, we. s Thoodore of Phacsat, Serpuss
% e (that 13, the devil]
0. by tham. 10 awvac womble 1 the Clvarch by the scancring foied
of e

—_—
ek Cirire brmars 72 Hutek, A Histry of e Coumali of e Ok fo&
"W'—--vwmmmq,”usm
v o Pope Fal i o Heresy 7 . ~—u
%-fu&vnflflm-flu“m o

St Agatho died bafare the conclusion of the

“’"nr*dbyhum,hp&l-nwhm'm::‘:
V6e said.
tn s leterfornally confirming he ducroe o the Courel, e
“We anathematiae the inventors of the aew rre, thes
Theodore, Sergius, gad Hona
also rwe, who did net atlempt o
fy ths Apostobc Church with the mechung of Apastesc waduon,
b juied "
u..mu-wmmw.dnmmc..,mmm,"“
mmnmr-nwr-pd(xmufm—-mufnmhy
aknawledged Constantinople (11 had ansthemaband Pope Heneros
{a scen in the Liber Pemiificas and Liker Diurnia) Als, the lassara in
the Reman Breviary (for the odfxce of SL Leo 1), up te the simsenth
fonury, lsted Hononus e among whese anathemaxasd and
emommunicated by the same council.
Notwithstanding the feregomg hutencal fack aéfirnung the
Church’s repeaved condemnations of Pepe Heneous as 3 hereic for
tallewing "the falee leachings of the herencs” and 1 order for
Henerius’ leticrs % be Irurmed,™ the Sedevacanit author, Jshn Lame,
tad the audscity te clum that “w w commenly admemed” that
Hevwrius’ lether & Secgius was “compicialy acthoden.”™
adritted by whem? Lane decs't asy, ner dom he pravide even &
sngle citaion to justify hus gratuileus amerton. Sut wheever Lane %
referring to, 1t oviously deemt wxlude the Pupes and hops
gathered in the Councils who issued these condemnatiens, and shese
‘whe, by & “unanimous decree,” ansthemaiised Henethus and expelied
him freen the Church.

4 Hidwry of e i of the Chur from the O Dvcxmani, e 151

rut
(1913), vol,
* The Cathct: Encyciop i e
VI, p 452 We alow rvad in Tir Produmiens
Empr= we cosl out of the Church and rightly subjert 1 anuthums ol sepaiies.
rair of fere
whe was theon,
rvebien 20 well as thair wrveriers: o wil. Herwri 1 b
lovced e i R Shings” ard 1 The bmperal bt Py P * A b lamparer
Contaane] tocugnized the five ewbor Ecume e srodowiars o
Syred, 20nwul
Seretce. e Pope Harwrtn, whe was W adbarers and poren i everribing, and
etk ey N it “We b s vt e ol e
by Sergpua, Herwr, os sodhar the
o Rume. =tllneed
Corva ~Sn, we amabessutr Horarun
IV declared.riie
ke tachings of e unhoty hevemarchu.”
Gt Encyciop VIL p. K2
(19131, vlesia
Loe “Concrrmiog o S\ Demsier a8 Sedevoversom. By S Desmiiqus Rosies.
L Wi/ /veww revusede/mim. damior _ariepdl.
wstchaeg
ans
 The vy seaci e Lane himwelf qied direcly contradicus eo
and " doon 20 1 rauli ple plac e: 1t 2l ntcre sting
assari- on reference for*o
10 aic Encycfuwioped
that Lane (abed Coth PrOperWh
wilh & cive
seadersarncl yw:‘
oa e he d
etleforCoul
o Lprpet e aric d 1 b beca use e did nckhat ve s
-
Toaders themaelves and discover
o etatcd by the very souse he himeelf cries a5 an o
T Lk obac Scdevacaniste (recall Fr Cekada's half san
het wh on the quete frem Cardinal Billot) Lare provdee
"n.wmmdlmfilmlh.m
-,,..,..-,,.ve'h-pdnhmmxhdu-wyammuu"
oty s o pansen Untortunaely, these are typical -
"Mby.d-mmhimddmwnnmd&dcvn,-:
wuch a6 Fr Cekadla and Jehn Lane
‘Te tusther demenatale the complete baselescnens of Lane s clin
shat the view of Pope Lee differed from that of the council bu
-flr-u‘mmnnumhwrolropemmmum
Eaperee of Contanineple. In the letter, the Pope explil sy
he suthemaksed Heoorius huflh"n\dflvmndyby o
m-mwwhumdwumnum:
-n_hmmnmnum:hmwn;:dh‘;
mmfl.rmfl-mu-wnmudzdmuu-lu-dmn:
snstwmstaed by the Trullan Syned, and by the seventh and ¢
_-flmmmfl,ml}eonmnkmbyrvayfmfl
the aghth to the cleventh century, we find a phruse condemm
Harotna, whe aded el Yo s ek aseerions Liker Doy
49 Lane's cantmiion x aleo refuted by the G (umn.mum
whe have unequivecally
L speivecaly prociaimed precimed thet
_W‘om:l’mndmu\nlmw-
H s e
Subop dflm Karl Joseph ven Hefele (IS:]‘UJ), Havy”:
Mmm)mmmmmmlmmdw
1

o0 this peint in his 1907 aricle, T

—_—
o
« iy st

o, ‘-v--:n;uwl.n
- it W ot Honuriers Lomethrmett e, qut harc speaiwiicom sl )
et iBs Vo . 721. s ekproone 1k plovmiolymmara
P e of Gt ot
s,
e York, Horper & Gewttaer Prbdia bur. 1857), p 543
ns
 o Pope Fall nte Heresy? .

Conication # Pope Hamors, Do Jbes Chapman, 05 5 g

Coer b penned the Cathli Encyciopass armc coed by ory
e
it has been sameni sadmevtsSt
the deciswen of the Coun cl .-.."»-2.'..:‘.‘ .
scnse o thet he Medifics i 1 6 supposed it by “perronked.‘;"
polluied Loo II NN we pommve actiom. a2 mare wepiot1 byof
duty, rave enough m & Pope. but e meuating 46 the scrve
toacofhiberc ngsy 1T Loo 11 Tud messt thi, he would heve boas
mistahen Hononus dd pestively appr the fence
wv of Serg
era m
the Counctl pernicd oul. Furtthe mare
sypus had becn candemncd a6 herehe r,ly segauve rimg of
sy Wy the Latcran Countll Agtheo
fact the werds of Lo Il are harker than Viese of the Coucrt He
doctares that Honersus did net publich the apostec decwse af hoy
Sec_ and e reproscris this o o dugrace 10 the Cherch of Reme
el 26 & peliutien of the uropoted. Ths we Exstern Ruhop hod
vemaur 10ed35y The ansthernas ou Pope Honorius heve boow again
ard agan contniucd. A few yoars Liar he i tachubed 1n the lae of
here by the Trul
tc lan s
Sysed the sevamh and cighih secunmanscal
Coun dod ci ls"4
the sare
Se much for Lane’s atiempt 10 impugn the geed name of Fr Soulet
Wy claiming it w “rash and unnecessanty inyurious t the reputaien of »
severeign pentiff” and “incompaible with the words of Pepe Los II* 1
cie the Councii of Constansnople m suppert of the mere
“yomibility”® sl& Pepe falli w0 ng hervsy Quste the conwary, 1t &
foh Lane who has Inyured the reputation ef the Soverevgn Ponkif (St
Lew 1), by actually alleging Whal the saunked Pope disagreed with the
vary cwuncil he approved, hat w, assuming Lane will finally omcede
the council’s decrees are authentic Pope Honorus was anathemetiacd
by the Church and condetnned by three ecumerscal councils for heresy
and for centuries he was hsted among other hereics in the Reman
Seeviary and in the Papal Outh. As Fr Chap went eaani say i the
have aricle fror the Catholi Truth Secsety
“Unquestionahly ne Caibolcc bas the ngh te duay tha
Homare wae 3 b (Wough . the turme ot Onpem
o, b, The Condrmon o g Hor, (b, Cablc Toh Sty
Pp LIS,
*The possage fraem Pr Tamlet's artiaty, swhich Jab Lane communies. o, saly whed the
i 12 democatrate the puibéity thet 3 Fope could all vt ey 8 was & vory
Srwured ceemnent, yet Lane toacted e i 0 hes wuel webelanced e, by
Urrching It s i taloe arvnstbos that B the ama o the goed pres:
as
 e o Fae Pope? Crupiry
M_m—_.m;-m-;n-n.. > workt i na
oo™
wrone the same in the Cathofre Frvy
..m;"’:"‘f“"h i degmse of Honorious 4w.u-...k::f,"'.:’*
s ler a0 Coth alc b the gl X
e
mnnm,mmmsM10Monly 'fl
[t
B Tane has deversirated apparent
ormseney_betwees,n whothe. havSede vacantity s
e Nt inc et Vascan T Pope e oot been
It e D
T he Charch, s dcenseaf of PopE HONOTu, h iy ey
ch (albwt dosth)!
fusfr
e heete by the Chur any way
The cae of “Henotius. the heretic,” however does not inligh
convdt ¢ dogr of papal wlallibifty, but rather high u gy
_m
wmdhm!mmwh-hmmsag.“w
tion, Pope
a private Jetter, bul ather an offwual papal communica
Toamaous did rt intend ko define a doctofrine (o be held by the univ erut
Chunh® wheh, a8 we saw, is snc the con dit one for pu
ialinity Sice Wus condron was lacking, infalibility was re¢
evgaged. Commenting o0 Pope Hononus in e light of Vatean 1y
dehriw onl infallbility, Fr Chapenan wrot
of papa
“We ige the loacrs of Pope Homonus by the Vancw
dcfurnn, and deny them 19 b cx-cathedra, becauce they do au
dcinc any éncinnc wnd Wnpese 11 upon Ve whole Church the
Pope was wot defiang with scihenty and hunding the Church
Fr Chapales explamed why the letters of Pope Honerius
enan dd
et uply that the Church of Reme evred in the farth.
“Rome s s wdsiocuble forth, which w sutherativaly
osssiguad b the wheic Church by the Bishepe of the Aposeix
Sac, the swovmanrs. of Poter 51d the s ot ence of lus faith sd of
possible 1 ascrt this, and el in the
Mo oy How was tHonorns st
Ve bo oo Poge as a herctic? The aniwes 15 suncly
Paun eagh. Honornn was fallible, was wrong, was a herews,
o it s

s ot eo eG T 0
:rm:x: i vt suarsiamvely decdant B¢
:-".T.‘::,".-;‘--—-.’;‘:‘m...'?...mlm«-r
-hb“'——'hh—mpm
 cona P Fall e Heresy?

Whal the case of Pope Honorue shews x hat 11 s peus

pope “by profane treason o overthrow the immaculat fagh :’n.:
foman Church” and yet il retan bus office What apphes to -
of course, apphes 1o the concillae Popes Because they have nat peen
Seclared heretics by the Church, they must he accepted 3 wue Py
even though many would argue that, like Honerrus, they tes have
camprosused “the immaculate furth of the Reman Church-
Pope Stephen and The Cadaver Syned
In the latter patt of the runth century and inke the ferh cantury,
here wers r1val camps batting 1o gain centeel of the papacy Dumng
th period, the papcy fell 1nko the hands of ene or anether frew each
of hese rival groups
In January of the yoar 897, Pope Stephen VI had decuied te put iis
v fram the nval camp, Pepe Formesus (#91-9%) on & mock
wial fae alleged violatio of ChurchnsLiw To that end, Pepe Siephan
bed the body of Pope Formosus exhumed, clethed o ha papal
vesiments propped Up en & throne, and placed en ul A deacon was
appoinied 10 answer the charges en behalf of the corpee Dunng dus
symod, which came to be known as “The Cadaver Svnod.” Pepe
Formesus was found “guilty” of perjury, ef heving cavered the papel
efice, and of violating the canons of the Church Pope Seephen ardered
that three fingers an Farmosus’ nght hand (these used to grve the
papal blessing) be cut off and his body thrown ine the Tiber river The
dlecuen of Pope Formosus and all the sfficial acts of s ponificae
were rendered null and void, and i onfinations were declared
invatud,
Pope Stephen declared the ordinatiens ef Pope Fermosus invaind
Becsuse Stephen held the erroneous bebief (commen during the day)
that
in order for an ordina
1o be tio
sacramentn
ally tafd, it ales had
be canenucally it Teday, there w o queshen that this pessen na
rely ervoneous.
Pope Stephen V| was succreded by Pope Romarms, whe ageeed
With the declsion of Pope Skephen and the Cadaver Synod. Pope
T
—_
“iid.p 10w
w
 Chaprey

Pope Theado
Il whe re
was 4
Ao e e e et chcied e the
i Formxwus came .,ym‘dhlmnlndwm“m'
Pope Thewdore 00 Pupe Stephen, and the Cadaver
decion o BeP and sediasons performed by ro...“,fz":‘h:
e venered the dergy 10 theie offce Pope o
deen v ceset Fope John IX. held two synods, one at .,“
iaeedine o1 L0 i confimmed. that he clecon
e o Facawus hod indeed been VaIId ™ Then cume page
e e the sppomng, cAmp), who held another symeq o
m,dnm'”'vflmu"“'“‘""&wm
wkmmdlhmmmduduunmpmnm,,yhk
Formens*
Dorag s tumltawes ke fox the Church a5l the papacy,
m-ufingyufi.nfl:-wu-dmdmyy“,,m
Fepe which weued contcadctory declarations Moreover,thrseof ey
syasda weved 40, serenceus decilon that was rodted In & ditrg
mmmmedlhwnhhthh
Firt Vatican Cou thete
nct vietanon of papal mfallibiity sece
was 10 l,
e erroncens judgmenis rendered ¥y the Popes were nol intendedts
e doctrn efiion (even though these Popes willed their decising
w b hed bv the unversal Church). This historical
wnderscores i & mwst sirking way that it is only when a Pape s
ifeung a dactrme (n divinely revealed truth in Scripture or Traditien)
that he s praserved trom all errer, according to the definition of
Vatkan 1 A vielanen of infallibdity weuld have occurred in these cam.
wnly o the Pope had defined that erdinations are sacramentally vald
iy whan they are canenically licit, and hen by simply acting on i

=0 Catate ey (1133 wol VL p 101

* Sale Grerge, Pualowr ase Covrge, bowve, Archibald, Stwtvuche Cowrge, Comphll
s S, . A Uneea oty From Thoe ot Acwmnis T T Poen T
Landen. Wikes oo Rrngion, S Crowder 176) p 2oi aba we Caboke
et 5 . 41 0 ’
® The Catbob maguare Tié Manh, provided the enplarution of Abit Saet o 8
ot Cathugas e Tobimme, b s doxisal evrme Kiplainang why it wi teleset
::---—-um-m.-.\-umnqnwmu-wm A
o A Sl w1 s urcitured
age iehers the dicta of sarly Popes il
Tl ot et L i thew comns., st arde i shert sbatracn, arel seee k6
802 4 % hugurtion, o b Shagrther S smbogucam utwraevm of WCF
by eomun. b S prevaiiey; ifluepan ev, mindds ¢ the accond o e W %i
“"- :-M-h&tmw-mw‘h-.dmmmuwfl
Rt s
Grlees wrioutaty w1 The Mol e Larert Lomgm <

m
.
 —
o PFlt e Hereny? .

belict These extraoniinary even show ye tha

e mbcace 17 erer »unb.mnp-.unm‘.:‘.,:'
" aotold confusian and HArm o e Church fupe
doubt 1 the Church about the validty of the narea e 28
efective ordinatione) e due

J iovalid These coniradictory declaratons fro Pepes and

:::lnllnwd by additional papal scandals, ene afier anether, that
fos over
a century Commen
en this detficult
tin Sane in g
Church
my.flrc-flwlmmlpflm.mmnhm
“The penod of himery 18 which thewe exvasbaury
proccwdings belonged wc the oud of the ath ovemry, mad
f that ceatury and a Kalf donog which the Hely

itrr
under the dmcbing nfluence of the foodal press of
neighbeurhond, was drag d of
h the wure
threupge
candale.™
This chawnc e shaws us what Gad can and does permit Hs
CGhurch to sutfer [t shows us thet He can allew iecredible damage 1o be
inflcted upon the Church by its human element {cluding bad Popes)
wilhout the gates of hell prevailing, thet u, witheut unfalliblty betng
violwied These evente alsc show just how gravely musteken are theee
whe extend papal wnfallibiity beyond the siict limile established by
the Church, which 13 precisely what the Sedes acanis of our day have
done
In atternpting be explain how this “impessibie” evant sccurred. the
Sedevacanbst wiiter, Steve Speray, was fomed b deny that Pope
Stephen wasa true Pope He wrote”
“Thecs i e question thet Stcphen’s mem) capecty wm
vasiable Becane of his ncanity, Skcphon should be conndared
antpope One theslogien says this wn't 2 nevel wadcraanding
amang canenists “Net few casenmts ieach that, sutsdc of doul
nd abdication, the pentifical digity can alke
be Jost by fallmg mas.
senain meanity (lsrodu cie 1966 D Udainews
@ Codicoms,
Besie} * Who would et think Stcphon was ad afte the saderer
ed? Stephen V1's chee shows that ket the Clrurch has Gabed
—_—
.
m
 Troe
or Fate PP Chaprery
recegnuml
tha Shebyh
., or ""g an msane
iacd nlpm;vz "
-*‘:""'T:
sl .
reveals us loss of farth 1n the Chy,
2 N:B :‘In;m {-er eyfaled” W recogmze Pope 51-:.:‘“”_'
Sp $ epiniO n, Was actually &1 ane anipase
ot Speray
M;‘v mymm credenfih
i e lh tislelxn eithet
&umh thealogy or peychojegt
"ws""'"“"hw
Of defecting, sy
rmi—l!”"‘"“'“'
im ss 3 valid Pope Yot Sicve Speray believes that
Cr ' has been 1n orrer aboul Wus maties, and for ouer & milerayy
el course mears that tha Chuirch defected over & thousand yeu
age, e W s recognuaed Stephen V1 a6 & true Fope
Mr Spar sv
orrer s y identified by scen
w esell dut g
he py
infalliiity beyond the linum cstablshed by the Churcy
Sece s wmal error in the beginsung 15 & big error in the end, the sy
war he can recencile he personal beief with thia historical event, i« by
claum that Pope Sephen secvetly lost hoa office ~ even though ne
o Uewl hasogever iasuggen
sted such a thung Although My
Sperr concedes that the Cathelic Church recognizes Pope Siephen asa
valid Poge, be w neverthelem forced, by hus errors regarding papal
intalidvliy, declace hun an antipepe The sotution for Mr Speray's
dificulry s not o declare Fope Skephen an antipope, bt o resllze that
e nd hes Sedevacanimt colleagues have an entirely erronewus and un-
Cathelic wlen of papal infallibality This historical event shows us why
she Chrch, guided by the Holy Ghost, defined papal infallibility ¥y
that 1trs
e sarict pasmeneta dsd

3. Exerrsee of Supreme Apostolic Autherity

[ The thud and final condateon necessary for papal infallibilily i thal
e Pope achs using hue supreme apostolic authority Two things are
.kmm‘m‘fl\-m\dkm {3) The Pope must be acting
i s abficual capacity se Pope; and. (b) he must be using his supreme
N_‘M_'_‘
at s maimum pewer Regar
i theding
first polnt, Mugr Mags Van

_—_—
iSwme.
Sy tPt Al andTk [ phimtions; Socond o (Vermilie, Kectd

R
——
 r on s o Fll e Here ? Chepers |

-A a0 beldng aec doms oot v an o

iy Agan same persen heuds sevan
,,"',,.T...mly heb\smhmehbe——.,a.m“::
Bt function We mum ke these ponis 1n mond Lt
rscuasing the pope 3 mfalliity He x nat
ke Church, he 15 also the local busbep of the dumcors
Tevopeliian af s surtoundg secs, and icrapera sac
Vatican staie CW*‘I“‘“':{;"WMMM
dw or
da 1 3
l,privatc theo ¢ 8 terpeca
otlogi an. severengn
'_"K,,,,,...‘muy of the dsscwc of Rornc. o precucy oy
tan of the pravince of Reme b sheakd et b leaked an
o scting In[allbly{ ) As privatc iacelo be rught
gan wrme o
bos k aspects of the spunmial fe At o tempera severengs
on same
af the Vatican satc b might wsaue decrecs of Lcs, o sovmemne
reform{ ) Speaking prcciscly a8 erdisary of the disesnc of Rorme
I ght 1VE & semcs of NSNS 26 & forvat 0 the puopie of
sarnc deflnute parish in the city
What e ceguired for an infallible doclacoisan, therofere, 15 that
the pope be acung preciscly a5 pepe, that m, 2 the suprame
shepherd and teacher of all Chistians s shat M decwsan losks 1o
e uruversal Church and pivew foc the sake of the smiversal
Churc™h
With vespect 1o the second point, namely, using h suthonty s i
wasimum power, the same pre-Vatican Il dogmatic manual teaches the
follewing:
“A mam whe 5ci 10 an efficiel capactty decs nat alwsys make
wec of hus ull powr of the whele weight of the authenty which he
possesses by b very positwn. Thus the pope cven acimg of
pope crer teach the unrversal Church wachwot muaking e of b
supreme authority a1 1ts maxtum pewer New the Varcan Council
defined merely this powk the pope 1 mallibic 1f be uses b
docinnal authonty ot it TAGEOR pewes by laodeg deve 3
nding sad scfimiive decaian such o decuen,
for crampic, by
which he guile clearh stcads (s Vind all Cathelics b an absehicly
fim and rrevocable assent
Conscquenly, even 1f the pope, and acuag a5 pope. praes
seme docinine, of receatmends 1t e Chrnsnans, or even erdom thet &
slonc sheuld be Laught in thewiegical schesk, that act sheuid ast
necossanly be consibered an infallibie decree sce be oy Wt
Wicnd e hand dewn & definstive decuen. { ) Fot the srousn.
famely & lack of intention 1o hand down o fimal decisn, ot sl -
- E°)
Mgy
 e o e Pope? ity
1 dociners which W POpE BIEPOSER in SNCYCical ey,
;‘"m,_“amm- v ihers st gy g
r “"
MM
’
é a l l
do i
es l
oticotve y
r al l th e t e a c h i n
of g
a sl:
p -mmnm,wmhh ; :
mdr.n-mhw on th e un iversal Church
T et mi ue an d Wi nd in g up ag e hi s ch angy,
e mes a Po pe mu y ex ph at ly de cl ne 10 ng
indallib el ie y ‘even when he 18 teaching the entire Church on namama tjer, o
l. c cx am pl e, Po pe Be oe di ct XI V s De co pyny
o mo ea Fe
smctorma (July 20, 1753} expoosaly affi rme that this docummentV1,haupsnye
ey satbety tha Wleofnt e auther ® Fope Paul
8 prival
l, so stated "l
aed e documafrethe SeshecosCondunciVal,ticait navorCodeundcianyalex
snew of the pastaral ratu of y
e of dogmas endowed with the note of infallibilit " T
tge
kga yd since the chariem w enly engaged
ecs, ichallo iotben
whan the Pope tricnds to engage it oy using the full force af fy
atherity
o cenclude this seckion, infallibility 18 a negative charium thy
prroens e of error, Wt 15 only ackve when the condinn
et dowrs by the Fiest Vamcan Council are met 1 any stngle one of these
condiners w Lacking, ifallibility is not engaged and ervor ls pewibie w
Taareioce, when conmdering wheiher a Pepe can teach errom ts the
Church regardung b and mecals, we ust make three duncisrs:
, 1) A Pope uchang as a private person.
| 2) A Pope maching as Pepe on masiers of faith or wwrals, but net
Iniending
1o dafine a dacxrine
3) A Fope Waching as Pope, defining a decirine on faith
e maralt 1
e held by the wrivarsel
Oharch.

T
i e Naw P & Q! . 21 New slan s Apeobci Mamikrt (Sepaember i
X wnde ofpromssraed.
7Y 4 54 P St
s during thw courne of privaie papal sedienem.
S b o By o i,y 38, 1980 5
C Antimer s ey 12190 e
__::fir'nhmmmlumnmmfi =
e e G-yl i A Vo somedered a1 norlt . -
26

~
 a Pope Fll e Heresy? .

¢ 15 only 1n the Lact Instance that the chanam of

e Pope from errng From the fact ...nm'l’fl
Ean e when teackung 35 & prvate theslagan, and ako when acung
o i capicty as Pope (as we saw i the cases of Jabn XX ind
Hononus), a8 long a5 he docs
oraisw be held by the uaversaetl intend
Churchko,mdefine a decirine on faith or
The reason this 1 smpertant u bacase some Sedevacantion
y beheve that it s “impas fr acibPope le”
ko wake 5
hereical saement (i, contradictinga defined dacwe, bebeving
\hat the charism of unfalliity would prevant huen fraen deing 30
Jased upon this first error, they arrive at the sacond, ramely, sut if 3
Pope stys someththet ingthey believe w be hareti & “provar
cal ®,that
he must have aleeady lost hus office (since, they believe, 4 wuc Pope
cangot make & herencal statement) This w an enkirely esrencwus noton
of papal nfallibillty As we have seen, the charsm of infallibiliy enly
6 & Pope from erming when he o defining a decrine for the
Universal Church (bunding the universal Church) 1 dess et prevena
Pope from emng (sc makung & herelcal statermant) when he i et
inkending to define, even i acting in his official capacsty a6 Pope
In light of the foregoing, we conclude this chapter by netog that it
s conminly withun the realm af possbility for a Pepe ve bese the faith
intermally, and he can witheul a doubt profess errer eernally,
provided he does ot meet the condikons set dewn by Vakican | for
fslliblity To insist on the centrary, as do Sedevacantsie 15 to exvend
wéaltillty beyond 1ts narrowly defined fumuts and comeut the arrwe of
excess I is to reject the eaching of Popes Innecent I1] and Adnian V1 as
well as the “comumen opuuon® ef the Church s thesloguns ™ It is W
deny the historical cases of Popes Honorius and john XXIL And, as we
witnessed with the sad case of fohn Lane, 1t may even force ene te cast
doubt upon the autheniicity of a general council thet was raified by a
Pope, and which has been accepied by the unversal Church for
Rirkeen centuries, In the present ecclesiastical cruis, this errer of exerse
{exdending Infalllbility beyord the limuts establihed by the Church)
Josds rapidly 10 one of the twe oppostic amecs: Sedevacaniem or
“papolatry"

-
Cf Silvrinn, “La Nosivelie Mewe de Paud V1 Quion perene.” g L8-154
Ste. Comee. i 1V S dio. 2.4 2 4. 2.1 100
-4
 Chapters
~ Proving the Crime of Heresy ~

wll now turn 1o the discusmion of hew a

s gt e il e e o e
of papal heresy is established by the Church. In Chapter 10, we wyy e
address why 1t 15 Recessary for the Church e to xtabiu e
m""" (av opposed to individual Catholics 1 the sireey deing 30} and in
Chapter 11 we veill
Pope 16 “deposed” by chrectly addrese the quesien of how hereas)
the Church In these three chapters we2 will e
caborate at length on the similaniies and differencas between the
epunen of the two Jesuts, Bellarune and Suarez, and that of the twa
Dominicars, Cajetan and John of St Thertus, regarding the compiex
su of how a herchcal Pope loses hu eifice’ Thu chapher i lengihy
and containe some techrocal and weighty wakenal. As an everview
Jellowing are some of the key poinis that will be cevered
« We will begin by defining the crime of heresy accarding te the
various canonical definitions,
| . Wewfllfi\fl\(vluldfll\elmpfl.\mdmlmby
shawing what they sccomplish, and then anewer the sbjeckon
! which masntains that a Pope cannet be warned.
o We will also discuse the penalties for heresy under canon lew
and see what s required for a prelate to lose o office foc
heresy
+ We will then explore the difference between cme and
yumhment, and shaw how this dietinckon synihesiaes the
teactung of Bellarmine and Suarez.
+ Finally, we will end by discussing Canon 186, 54 (1917 Code)
and Canon 194, 52 (193 Code)
Let ua begin by briefly recapping what we sddresved 1n previow:
zl::enlbullthlwodflmdhflsv,mnly,hnhm

The rustter of heresy is a clear and direct deviial of a decirine thie

must be believed with divine and Catholi faith. Net all errees qualiy,
as heresy Those errors which are et durecdy
Praperly apmaking,
contrary to an article of falth, but depend upon several steps of
| Tmoning to demonctrate the contradickon. cannet be qualiied 2
heretical before a definibeve justgment by the Chuarch.

k-4
 peri naity, ot incorrigrhliy,
e forme o ’,":..um Tt or donibn of m'h
ikl (et S5 ine and Catboli (il Fertraciy o ® o™ )
ot be {snier) o the Cathollc dagma and
ol Il el prapomtion. Withous perupartt
subjecuve clement of hr‘r:-y IL ot preseny, .“:.
persenin question would not be a heretc
cooquendly e P earding %o the canorcal defimm{m
e, e divine ang "fi
deraee or doubl @ truthmonof hu.
whe " u.,amdu_-d»‘ .g\i'z
s net in heresy, but enly In eror, as St Thop

heretc who - pertinacreuly

net prepared o Fallew
me
Ul ri
14 emacoui

In anether place, St. Thomas quotes St August whoin emy

cenflo
the e
“As Augustin e xltin) and we find it siaied In the
says (Ep
Decreteh (v, qu. 3, can. Dicir Apousaii) *By ne e sheuid
we sscame of herwey lhose whe. bowever faic snd perverse thor
),
opesen may b, defand it wilbout obptnate fervor |pertinaciryand
ookt o with carclil amxicty, rwedy 18 mend thes opuwen,
whes ey have found the trulk, becausc, 1 i, they do 1ot make
& choee somr 18 ad ec
the dacirr c ofti on "
the Church
Public and Occult

“The matier of harasy can be public or occult (i ¢, secret) If a penat

adhoren %0 2 heretcal proposskon internally. but docs ot profesi
omrally, the muterial aspect of the heresy is occult (matendier
i) 1f a porven proiesess & heretical dectrnie extemally e
Aericalraterweuld be pubinc.
The form of herasy can alio be public or accult If one knouwmglyit
wllfully denies 3 degra, yet dows me without providing wufficent
wiwrnl cvidenwe of e, permacty weuld be formally ek
{prwalir sacsitvm). 1f a pervon provides sufficient evidence o
 v thmr'IHflBy o . B |

ty 10 the extern e.g_by

forum - al #penly loaving the Charch,
17 publily admittng to knowingly and wiliily 'M\':w)-c he
m..xh‘-:-dfl - .y"':' moraks, o by remaning sbatinate afiey
aly warned proper authonties, the form
oA oentd be public pect of
Public and Neterieus
Canonste distinguish three kinde of crimes: eccul
Ammhmnmnm-mmhh-ml\”::':::
acly s few ? A crime 1s public of the act “s alresdy commonly kwwné
o the circumatances are such a8 10 laad o the conclusion St # s
s will caslly become so” (canen 2197, 19
Both “Matter” and “Ferm" Must Be Public

Cancn law i only concerned with extermal violatiens of the law,

oot with imternal acts shet remain concealed un the heart. Bacxwse an
wesrial element of heresy & pertawaty, 1 srder for & parsen 1e be
considered guilty ol the cansnucal crime of heresy, both the matter and
form must be public> Fer thia remen, pertinacity is cwnmdered an
emential part of the corpus deiicti the body of the crmne) of heresy
While the exteral presence of the materlal aspect aleee (eg. +
heretical statement) may provide sufficent grounds for she suspcim of
heresy, or the presumpwen of culpalnlity by the ecclesasical
sulhorities, & dees net provide the degree of praef neceseary ta
conatitute the public crime o heresy Thus ot 1w acknewledged by
the Sedcvacantist author John Daly, who wreke:
“The canenwss have defined pertnacy ms recegririon o
awsrenese of the cenflict between eme’s belicl nd oot of the
2Bt Augusiine teaches Ui the act can be S 49 @ Wany 48 six persens whike Wl
g conaiarest accuh (4 Comvinriory on o New Coeof Conot L, vk & 173
STheTe s @ disiochon brtween pobic ad wamssnly b Acsweding 0 the et
Beucaren. ~ Comumamly known (degriun) smsars S to the groom poct o the
Wbt of 3 place ot the members of 3 commanity but e 8 net 19 be eben,
Methemaiically bt in prudent el conmaten” (Cowss L A Tt and Commeeary.
1511 A crimve can e public Ut o ot yet oy b, b s comentiad vder
och crcurrmiances Lhat 1 ean saily become commvoniy beawns
P Auguesire explaine: “Every crisme which is red pubic. mys ous trok is worll o0
tewst. The Code distinguishes3 twotehd swecy vie wwrely swrial {mrmabley
| ‘swulbur, whicis anists whers the fact ia unbriown. ar Wworn ey 19 the perprinsr o 2
v ratornt peryems, and fertaal (fsrmslir swminvh when the meral and jurioel golt
W urhneun (Ausguetine A Commmatery on the New Code of Ganms Low, vel & 27

m
 rwe e aloe Pope” Chupiy,
ey 1 om0 e canomca)
iA mr ot (chrically) corpus .:k,,":',
g i ayrel efore anYONE AN B contidgng|
| by Honce 22002
-~
wilh 8 PESUTIION OF Ulpabiny gt
ot g prve #
«Netoneus” Distinguished from “Public*
Jam that a netonous crime differs from a
y Canoeite
e degreeOFof incuousy Wity of the act. Regarding this ::m?';,'
Augustine explains.
- - matenous Aseniciate fact {nelerm by fac
_,A,f::y, Laewn ané ba been commuticd u.u,,’",:
o e that 1 conat b concealed by any arifice of o
o iy fgal sevumpton o CYcumsanal evderer
e w saly the fat useIF s b ofnotonious b ale 1
e a1 w s clement dovdwoexcusabiiny o of
et of e cromaal character of the thal Sppous o
amapess 4 bl fro 4 metoreun crme For he iext manfouly
ey vcw em duigarion wh regand to public crumes, wnd
enphasis the crunsal characetan dnown end inexcusuble [fora
wotaneus crme] 7

As Fr Angustne notes, the principle disinction between a i

1o e
visavw nelorwes cnme @ Whal the latier relates dieflv
wecuaahnlty of (and, hence, moral responeibility for) the crime whie
the focer relakes dufly 10 the cxtent 1o which the crime is known e
canbe knewn.
Fr Domanque Boulet explaned that for “heresy 10 be Noterws,
et anly weuld the heretial act have to be widely known belt
would sise have w0 be an act whese crimunality had been kgl
meogazed” In sther words, since the crime of heresy requires bt
smatc r for & cnime to be considered notorious pertinadly
ard form,
(e focwn) weauild have W be 30 evident and so inexcusable thl st b
bocome egally rmsegrzaed, that w, acknowledged as crimunal (mebt
Imputabie). Applyieig this W the case of & Fope, Fr Boulet wreie:
—_—
SS D “Pararmcsty Matoriad ard Foratal Harumy * 1999, Sne b/ /ewwsed
oot/ prvesaty bl Daly coracedy s dhat an exdeval vielson o W'
o s TN $2 tpeios s devred frerm an asecle o o belar ok
vt The bty brvianl uatewers e dars et crevte 4
Vet £ b ot by e bl 8 vredatns &
Ao, A oty m the N Coe of Cotom i, vel 8. p.17
\d of Heresy -
g the Cme Cup s
i cther werde, fo the crramalry of a Page ¢
k"”m-fllfl"--flml-hwywhh'-y‘:
Natoreus, nat enly weuld 3 knowledge of hu heresy (the gt 3
e 1s have spread widely threugh the Chursh
Moo, bt 1t woul slsw Hrve ¢ kive bowm
enlly imputable come.™
com this 1l clear that the matenal act iaif of sa
: ing heretcil (not a losaer degree of emve), a.,mm:m
ock sulice for the cime Lo be noterieus. Mecal amputably (el
also have to be publicly and legally recogruzed Thus can happen
e of tw ways.
1} by notoriety of law, o1 2) netenety ef fact,
Neterieus by Law and Neteieus by Fact
Netorlofety law The 1917 Code expliing that a crime 1
~Neterlous by noto of Law,
ri afieret
3 semen
yce by a competant
Jl. venders the matter an adjudscated thing, .:.yha .\ mms.: :;
e offender made 1 court 1 accord with Canens 1750 As Fr
Augustine explains, “extrajuducial confessions da pot render cre
soteriousby notonety of law *1* Because a semtence has et bean
pussed on any of the concilar Popes by 3 compesant judge and nane
have confesecd their crime tn a court of Law, therr alleged herasinn
cannat be consdered notorous by nokonety of Law
Netorlety of fact The same 1917 Code leaches that & e is
Netwrious by notoriety of fact, if it w “publich Lnewn and was
commatied under such circumstances that ev o cleverisio » peswb
n le
and no legal excuse could excuse "1! For a crune 10 be notoneus by
owenety of fact, the offerse must be such Uit 1t leaves no deult a8 W
the culpabihty of the crime, even withoul a legal wial This means that
the woral imputability {guilt) must be publicly knewn.
The 1943 commentary on Canon Law by Stareslaus Waywed
confir same-
the ens
“An effensc 1s Notoneus by petencty of fact, if # 2 publicly
knwwn and commmenl under such corcwmetanes that canmet be
oonce sublerfige 1ot excuscd by aav excoee sdsmied
by anyaled
—_—
¢ Bouiel, "l That Chair Vacant? A SHPX Dasmiee o Sederamom,” Cramtuaiansi.
O Drceniber 2004 No. 2 trphase odded)
N7 Code cf Canme L canae 219 2
.717 Cade olA Canon e Comem2197, e vol R g
Lavw canen (mphosi e
m
 I

W o et AL S ML by
. oy g
recognized as ot
eresical ot w""::mm uy,nmml and delemmk:";:
o
Pt known,d but aisg
eretcal act beng widely ize
e oo wdely rec ogn 45 s monaly m,..,,.,,/'m"'.':";
N—’m-n For example, uf a person openly and publily je )
o fined aniber relig1en. hus OWN actions would rendey .
by ratsieryo act. In the case of the conclur Py
Poeve Wt “matal imputability” 1oL “widely known iy s
e allegeion of muerat heresy would be refected by vitual e
e
anre Cathelic populacwere
Thess, even if ene to argue that the conciliar Popes prolesgyy
e 1,
that bow
acrocs o1 even hereses publucly, it is certminly mof the cas
atter (heresy) and form (pertinacity) have been
Semansir the extent that "no clever evasion ks possible ” Ths
to aied
evwdeni i hght of the fact thet the “conservatives” have made » caeer
vt sfunng “clever evasians” 10 £xcuse and explain away erronensy
even wemingly-herebcal sustements made by the concillar Peps,
which they: weuld net be able s do 1f 1o clever evasion xere pesntie ¥
Tu it just one recent exampie 1o demonatrate this pent, Fr B
Harrioon. wrote # letter to Whe editor el The Remnant newspaper o
respacac bean scicle by John Salza on the validity of the canonizaters
of joha XXUI and John Psul 11 In his article, Mr Salza sccused thew
twe Popes of taaching errws contrary to the faith, which should hure
aipmacally barred Wiem from canenizahon under the Churchs
current legela should n.#
(it tio be noted Mr Saiza did riot make 1n
socuseton of farmal boresy, but enly material errer) Fr Humws
oponde d
te folens:
® Woywnt Samslows. A Pracuad Comarsiory om the Code of Comen Law (New Yot
oyl
£ Wagner 143, amphases adided
® ket “Is That Chalr Vasmrt? A SEPX Dossies o Sesdevacandiam,” Ne. 21 fmmphise
£ That® the snot ot vt wp b ol rmbusding Papee Beredict XVI
£ A0 wt ol forihet e h—hnuun:mmmmv-hm-"
it v, o Dentors ard Gewiogane wammenity conchnde W, Sov 4 98
39 e teriety oot of s sy come i e f e Ourch ok b
o e gt
S b Sl Qupmioming e Vality of e Comonssatboras Apirt
s Fct Tt ¥ i
s ” e Kt g, My 15, 14, el svallsl +t /%
™
v mhc"""'/""" -

o1 shiak your reeder shousd

s bs sdvaad
",,:,‘.mydcu-nk.'un-;,:":*"‘-
T XIand ILJohn Paol 1 semee teachings
o fath or Werale 1 wat clearly sueblmied o o "®
Cuhe based a0 ME Sale 5 oun ey e 0 8
translat
20o,Englishndison ions of the wntings of e rwe
sl magera) seermemts whik be ks
conradict™
F¢ Harnson then added parenthetcally
My Salaw’s inerpretations, K mesd hardly be seud,
el by the competcnt Romas Comgrepaions that ware repurnd
by church lw 10 cvalusic the wrtiags of e twe papes 2 part of
e tocess far their canonizanene.™17
Similar excuses based upon “nterpretation”
have beent used for
ywes to defend the Vabcan1l Popes aganet
the accusason sf
g errors of heresy (and Fr Harrisen previded rs arguments 1
rebut Salza’s assertion of material ervors in the teachungs of Jehn 10T
ad John Paul 1) Even if one docs nat concede the ments of this
pricaular defense, 1 & "clever evasion” 1 merely pose (snd the
Medernmts are most clever an their evassens of lormal herasy), then
aeterious heresy does not exst What this shews s that the conciluar
Pepes cartno be classified as public and nebersous hereics ccanding ta
she cerical defimtren af the terns
Lawering the Burden of Freet
For years, Sedevacantist apolegits have presented quotekons from
thesloguars and canonists who Mught that f a Pope were 18 becorme
awlarisun heretic he would lese his office Withut ever defining she
‘om “notorious,” much less demonatraing how the recent Popes met
the dafiruion, these apologes would smply present quetaions frem
thet theology manuals as proof” that the concliar Fupes were nat
¥a¢ Papes. Over time, however, as they began te reakar the dificukt
Mak they had in demornstrating that the recant Popes met the canenical
deficution ol "notonous,” they began ko lewer the burden of prowt by
sSiftng the emphasia away frem the Acwnwuws sspact (mecl
Imiputability) to the public aspect (the extent b which the act has besn
John Lane wroke:
divulped) For example, the Sedevacansist
-
"M Kevmant rewspagen,
v, &7 N 9 Moy
1 014
5
 1 or Falae Pore? gy
e acuing st Paal V1 Joho Paol 1 o
W:Immmmmwlmlmm:
X ool e made” Lanc doeun'y o0}
(NB O course,
ke e co o o™ BTy Vo e o
..,.,,unm-n-}
Then, i the next enkence, Lane aays
b demenstrated tiat all three
e i v ok ot et 41 o
what? Te muke his case casier (o prove? A,
. F'“‘“.k:"':“ wone now sulfices, what about all the q:f.,',',,":
Shiena car
have cring all these years which say thut pyygy
been met
s c” 1063 his ofle
rous. hereti
a “naverme
e beco Are ? they
search lop “"'"Whmw,
o react these authones and
Betxve support their new position? For example will they removee
thewran
fromai
fodlowing quet s?
websites
“Geven, tharcfore, the hypothenss a1 2 popc whe weuld becen:
. enc muet concede witheut hesitation thu e
weuld by that vy fact losc the peniifical power, msofar s, havig
b o unbclicver, he would by his swr will be cast sutsude the
oy o the Church = (il - D Ecclesia, 1927)
“Twonh w . the Racoon
oo, shouid b fall wie heresy by that very lact (ipso Hacte)&
doctuad 0 b doprrved of the powar of junsdiction * (Wemz Vadal
194
Mot 2 fow camsae Wach that, eutside of deakt wd
s, the pomtifical digruly can also be Tost by fallinge

Z
owa wiansy which 1 legally cquivalent o death s well s
Worvugh mastiost wid aptariaus Krcsy ™ (H Inpraducire n Codioom
[1946]
- Udnincus Bese)

I, hewever. God ware 10 pormu 2 pope o boceune » kAN

and sostemecions harsic. e would by such fact consc e be posc
Wd e apatoac shu winald be vacaat ” (SL Alphoneus Ligoun)
"G e, s 3 privaie penon, the Pennlf could mdeod
Vevomn » pubic, bcrmun, and shaiAN aretic (s ¢ pertnacons}
_—
s o, 40 S (hmtes o Sedevasartiom,
by Rev Domstgee Wk

2
 g e Crmeof Hermy Cupters
e weuld fall by the very fact of barcey rern bin
s et e bl it oe oy
- potond " (Hervé, Mamale Thasipguat
fl,.,,‘mum} 1508y
and sunlar quotaions have been cog
"Tmmxmuw&mmmmnm;
m““mmhflvcb‘lmdihc Naw that they realize the reces
Fepes do ot meet the defiition of neereus xrc ther “peranry”
o gl w not “widely recoprand®), we agun sk, e e
Sedevacantists now gomg lo distegard these qustanans, along wath
sthor sl quotalions they ve dug up ever the yeas, acwe ey 10
e bar iow fugh for them 10 prove their case? And will they remove the
quiasons from their websies and include a nete w therr rasders
them that of they cbraced the Sedevacanist pesihan based
upea any of these quotes, they must raconsider sheir pesinon? Takea
s
FWhat the fud_ approach of lowering the evidentary bar
dewonatrales 4 that the Sedevacantists net only imapne demssives w
bethe [udge and jury, but loemeler as well Fot they et soly determune
by provate Juchgmen) that the burden of proof has been met, bt aise
i what the burder of proof ! And when they are uable vo meet
e burden of proof that they themaelves have csiablshod, they emply
lewer the bar
As one might expect, this lowenag of the bur dud not skop with
i reducing the criminal elements of heresy from “publc and
neterius” 0 sunply “publac * in response . fecent acicle writen by
Robert Sucoe, which demonatrated that the concilar Papes carect be
awerdered se having lost thewr office due to the public crane of
heesy * the Sedevacantst blogger, Skeven Speray, reduced the burdem
o proof 30 low that, according ¥ hum, the Pope dacms ¢ have 1o be 8
fertc af af 1o lowe bu offce for heresy) Yo read Wt corrctly After
agping for years that a Pope who becomes a “marifest hereke”
Autematically ceases o be Pope, we are naw teld that “a pope deemt

e it tha al of W quuweniors fencepl Sraas Hores) wire e ireesSesevosnaiod

i (nane of them provided Wllegrophionl Teierarces fur the quaors). The
. 18 He
Postaanes frown 52 Alphacess ia tales fromn borid Dola Fk. PL L ¢ VL
“nkenaed by saying; “But wrre he anly 2 seeret brrra s dd avt popes o i Ot
271 dogma. e cose would happen 0 e Couch” i
m:‘a‘-_tmmmp..mmh-v-mu_—-—n- Normmber X,
.
oz
 i haptry
office, much ess an obetey
ndmhl':“‘m-h ™o g,
el 00 rhese dicegard for the laws of the Churchy
Mr Speray o,
o manivan equily and fairness), g
e apeas b T (0 L
e you may be sondenn, i the !
¥t Pope apees 10 be & heretic? You e iy o8
devemines £ 2% amest lnyman 0 the pew Who else?a g o ¥
mm.m;flmms«dflmnm,“wl:
e ot pashce” aong e, and ShowS Just Fow (r spme
M...,.-mmym*-‘
. e quite oo, and as we will discuse in mere dog
e next chopeer such a ifficult and werghty matier et lef vy g,
ity 1 of indovoduale i She pew, ANy of whom are sagy
e veie" Ihex case by any meare possible (as the lowering of
alenc have e
bar dmnenwicates) The competent Church authorities
Tabs and doty to sstablsh the crime and. perform the minsery
s necessery M remavea heresical Pope from office This fact,o
cmune explain why e theolegian who has addressed this weue (o
e’ has ever gt that private individusls have the nght buel
upen theic o privale opisvens, to declare Uhat a man elected t e
pepal oice by the Conclave, and accepled a3 Pope by the Church u
ot e and vald Poruill

Syarey “Rebrt S 3, W13

and The Resneunt's Latest Cariow Lew Frasce, Febraary
Thodd bk Wt alyring Kober Scoe's lengthy respacee (publabed by T
niened
Remastt arwipepe] 1o Do shevemeanicle, the auiher Skeven Somy
campleelyw-wroe b e amd 1 puiblihed Jt o hin et wih i awplaraben k-

s bin b el problm. Bocaue th: Charch el I urabe s fod e e

es . okt ¥ . sacerain. wheshes 8 ope whe publcy Y
iy s dogna exiernally i e (ace o an ecciesiati bW
warning,cel
vt mrvaly m b bmart) Tharetace aa Jotw of S¢. Thaemas himucll i, shosld
by e
Pope shurs Pk 10 b ¢ puctenacions heretic exernally he con be depoed
Chuosh, eves ¢ b ot wady hervacal smirrmally Bt a0 we huve shown, ihe pdgeeet
v hove 10 be made by e propes suthoriies in the Charch (et privete
:':-—-ln-:-dh--u—m-n.- o o St Thenws o
ot ¢ depad
Sl gPl oot L the particate encept W tws ound s
ey 1tand e, Wt pbic and Lepalty wobrvers dodirh
. mwcflm-/Hnny Chapters .

Eatablishing the Crime threugh Wasnings

Whle the Chusch doss 120 possese the autharity e judge s
‘”Wdu,wdpmmm ,nmmmnmu:
e ight 10 pudge whether o N0t & propamtion profescd by a Pape i
e erally heretical The Churchia shiity 1o judge pepal horay coes
aoght by Pope inocent i1, Pepe Adrian, St Rebert Selarmine s v
furwse Decrem] 51 Pepa.5 and semaine the commen teachiog of s
Crore's Doctors and theologiane This 1s an objectve judgmen mads,
t
by competent authorities and therefure 3t wiakes e difierence if the
.xmw-rflr—d"y-"r-nnywnu.,n.,.ym
or not) was to proclalm. for example, that *the resurrection of e
body, 14 not & resurrecti of physical on
badies but
~» the Church, or #ny Cathelic who knewsthehisrasurrechi onof
Faith fer that
Fosticr, can fudge the statement 10 be heretical
‘Again, such a determination would st conmicute & pudgmant of the
w tha Pope because it 4 only an objectve fudgment of the
jtion ftsclf For this ressen, s council wouid cerminly be
permtted 1o fudge whether or net the materal aspect of 8 keaching
grofested by & Pope was heretical, bul this slneckve judgment would
ot et dtermine Lf the Pope humaelf was gutity of the crimeof heresy,
since the second clement of heresy, pertinactty, weuld alss have 1 be
porv by he enChurch.
Eatabhshing pertinacity i mere difficult bhan [udging the matter of
heresy, because 1t invotves semethung that exiol withen tha wnkernal
forumm (the realm of conacience) if a persen dews not spenly leave the
*Bellarrine wrote: “Finsly. thet 2 heretical Pepe can be fudfed 1 expremty habd in Can.
0 P dut 40, and by Irewcent B (Serm 1 de Cowee Aockf) Futhermere
i the b
Courcil, fact. 7) the act of the Reman Cuuncil unber Pepe Hadrian see cocke, in which
v firs thet Pepe Homerts appeans te he puady ansshrmatiand. brasne be hod been.
toericted of herusy * {Dx Keowate Pendice Wk 2 ch. 30}
7Lt e maetal Man pevsume to sccume the Pope of fouk, e o being incanbens vpen.
em M judge ol he shautd be fdgrd By ne ane unlams he 1 seddvnéy couple devisuny,
o e taith”(S/
P Doet 40} Latin kown in Brian Tiermey Fhe Craut
of Onorsh s
S (Englowrod Clifte, New Jerrey Prectee-Hall, 9641 p 10
“One g at any ra may be fly clear Soth Jor {63} and Poud 1 Car 1509 ile
Wi all pasaibie emphenie Wt resurrechen of the fesh, v the remucrecian
of the
ey et resurrecian of physical bedies. Thes, irem the point of virw of swdern
“hovght, the Palive sketch in ar beas ratve dha e theelegeal eridinem with s subthe
U7 of corniraing heve there can be il phesial b To tospuniots Posd
toachum, i she remurtectaon of phrwcal bedien, bt the reurrvcsan of e, and s
™ In the tebum
of the feshly bedy muum.nl-m-.u-;
2 Chrudmily
as impasaible * jamrph Relinget wrademtion
prewy descrites
frrcacs, Catloenis Iguive Prem. 2004) wikh 4 wor Farweed by Canlins! Kuioge:
o A 2000, pp. 37368,
»
 o PFore? oy
crut that he knewingly rejects what
h, 20
o publly
Crurc orals (which none of e, T
deficiwvely “_W"") pertinacity would need (0 be cstablishe :’:h»
T iay, sccerding 1e Divine Uw and canon 1y,
way “; 2l waming to the suspect "y

ewacty, sexe the respenac vl determun,

et degree of cestwheth
ud ot not I}mmw::‘h:
ere,
_‘m(_.u—m)uwlymn.‘,m
otai
mist cn
perha , gullty of 3 regrettable saiyey
ps oaly
et ot buman weskness, which Tigh! ke 2 10, oyy
e o o beresy Because pertin acit
s telf o ey
e o haray, 1 does nat sulfice ENat e presence be pracu meg,
e prven The warrung accomplishes this by removing any ce
o inwcent ignetance, o6 EVINg the suspect an OPPOTLNILY 10 afy
i wos denucd i 8 moment of weakness,ded auch as the momen o
sk experenced by St Peter, as recoe in the Gospels “Ang
s be {Peet) dorwed with an eath, | know 1ol the man Thene
Segae o curse and to sweaz thet he knew not the man” (M. 262.2%) s
o the rossen, in order be establih pertinacty. canon law requr
o o wacren is deposed for the e
g be iven 10 3 prelate before he ed
o heresy 7 This aspect of canan law ia found upon Divine law,
reveaed In Scnp(eftu 310) and s consid
Tit.re ary hat
necessed
50 er
even i Lhe extremne cae 1 which a cleric publicly fous a fake rebpm,
be st he duly wamed before being degraded ® As we will ducusin
et depls Later, becauee the Church has no authanity over the Tope
these warmimgs weuld net be an act of juriediction (s they would fir
ether Catheiics), but cily o act af chunty, a8 St Thomas tesches
regard ta frakemal conechen. ™

Comm 130412 sy AN pestags oo e Chraian st o each and evrsy b

et Lebms ey mope wirrargp, W are deprived of banclu, deper
e, sen o bt duey hut ey have 1 e Church, they are daclared adomems
204 8 e, w1t she g g repmeted, {1y are] deposed.”
'l . bedem, b degrndend5,
A1) the dfices b may b becom
e ke bty
04 vy the v ancy 1w e fock £t e (by fact 40 b ¥
:T\Au—." --m-(u4c_.w vl 8, b 5 p 20
0 oot mar s s Vo amcrvet e pree, . Thomas tewches: *A subfec 6
S it e v el
e carecion vhich 1 an octof e et
._:"—'*--',-u—.uumwm-mnmmdflz
oy of overysme . vespect ol any g towards whe ¥
40
 i e Crine of Heresy ,

whe professed heresy or deried the

,,,.IL:T'!' kevow ot the man) Carked to cerrect m.':,'#?.,."“"""...,_,, s
eclenaatical warning tsued By the proper autherines, he wn'.:
ek demoricale publicly tat he had wilingly and
e away from the Faith His heresy 1n the e senet of the v,
Dt he moarlest 10 al, and e weuld Wy render 3 rocg
o tumwell He would be notoneus with 3 nokorety +f et and
Vi become Rotorous by e once the hs heresy waa declaed by e
Careh.
The eminent eghteenth century lalan thesloguan,
wha subscrbed o Bellarmines famous mm
(s il be discussed later). discucsed how the wamings weld
e fo_ demonetrale pertinactty for a mibing Pope whe' pubicly
teresy I the following wuetkon, Fr Balenns begins by
g to the question of who would be responaibie for warming»
Pope wha publicly professed heresy, and then explain the effecws What
sucha warning would produce
“I5 t 008 true that, Gonfrented with wch 2 danger 1o the faith [
Pope teaching heresy] any subgect cam, by fratsrmal carecnen,
wam their superioe, teclst him te his face, refke S and, of
uessary summon him and press hu 1o repenc® The Canimak,
whe are iy counselors, can de thi, o the Roman Chergy ec the
Roran Synod, 1f being met, they judge us oppertune Far any
person, even a private person the words of Sam Pacl ia Tinos hed
Avord the heretic afler a fint and scoand carrectias. kncwing that
such a man 13 pervertcd and sins, srmee be i condemnnd by his own
Judgment (Tit 3, 10-11) Fer the peran. whe, admasmbe sncrdof
Iwice, does net Tepent, but comtinues perlmscieus in an epien
canirary 18 a manfest oc delined dogme - net being shie, on
account uf this public pertuaciy 1@ be excuoed. by amy means. of
lorosy properly so calied, which requures portmactty s porios
declures himself openly a herenc. He reveals 1t by b own will e
has tumied away from the Cathelic Farth and the Church, = suck 2
way that now 10 decharation e scnicoa of anyene whakecy
wecessary to cut him frum the body of tbe Church, Therefore the
Pertiff who -
Candirnls, by the Roman Clorxy af cvce by the Sirod. would
wernan himecll hardened 1n herssy and epenty tum himsell awey
from the Church would have (s be svoudod, acceding te the
oot of Saint Paul Se that he might oot catec damage 18 1he 1.
_— <o
st by charity provided e be somriking (n Gt g Wik roques -
wchon.” ST 1L, q 3,0 4
e Wiveirn *La Nowvele Mesae dv Foul VE Quien pows * . 148
m
 e ¢ an adherent of Bellarmine’s teaching regarg
o fr 8 ereucl Pope xplain how pectncy (e rong
5 o o) 1 oade public o6 “anufot” thereby renenga’s
e o e hersy 2 maafest beretc We see that bt o
T o whan the acvaed remains hardened in ey,
b serning.from ecclesushonl authwrity ("Cargrarl
fi.n—"w','swd"‘butdm'fims3m
Puy
by Sng
etanrioe huwell mentions this twofold warm n),e
Tius 310 b b responae te the “Fourth Opinion” {that of Cajeta
qooes5. Panl's eaching 1o Titus as his authonty for why o runier
tur
T« atomucally depeced, and. In #0 dong. shows
Feniot evehc” one whe shows himsell obstnate (pertinacae
vy seminieg, hardaned n heresy following 4 twofold wamung, Ho
e
For 16 e fiex place, 1 1w proven with argumcats kom
suborty sd fom russon el the manifest heretic w ysa facw
depoed. The arymmcnd (ram puahonty 1s Wesed oo Swnt Pau) (T,
1401 whe enders thas the hierstic e aveided afler two wamings.
Hhat . o showing humscifhe be munfently obstinate N
Sollarmine explaars that s who rematr an heresy follewing be
Tweleld warming Whereby shows hamsell o be mansfestly cbsu,
d. cormageerdly. can be considered a manifest heretic 3 It i dh
thut the proei of sbwbincy (perunacity) is esuablished by the ‘v
warnings” frum the competent authonities. Honce, there la perfict I
@ty betwean the eaching of Betlarmine and that of Fe Piws

-
::I'\-hh—,l\h-uwmmllmrhh«

Byphers et -
g
kit
s ol aan e proved na
ol ‘I‘b--u—umm.m'w-w-‘alwl
o s
—ey ‘ ':T;«n-u-m.—unw

2
 g e Crime o Heresy s B |

cted abowhe ve,i & knewn mupper of ter

Beisrnu
B Baliern siaply explained the pescion inmer Ly oe gery,
e v " for
eno o 5. Thormas sl clies Titus 310 Drvin
epinng wAInES ts determune permracios hereey He
e 8 public hereac bulwulwh!h-dr‘vunm.-'fi.:
g decored e by the Clunch (wheh i
by law) Commeniing
on a stalement of Capctan, whe said »
sl Pope s ol deprived of the poniicate and deposed by the
pere factof heresy alene John of St Theasas wrese-
“The firsl pornt of Capeten 15 sbvrous ad 15 et
Bellarmine The truth 15 cvident r..t.m...,m__rz
Wectuse the Pope, 1o matier Tww real and public sway be b hervey,
|fh|lmflhkm,kmkw(_“-h‘-y
uid sheve). a0d the Church canoet depeac him, accerdmg o
Jow, fo she cannes or sheuld nol evawd hm sunce the Aposc (Paal)
seys, "sveud the heretic afer the fint mad sacend senrecten’,
sherefore, hefore e firsl uad scomed caracines be shauld et e
auaided. 20d coascquently be thould net be depotad. thecolore £ &
wrong 10 ay that the pope i3 deposed (150 facie) e seen s
horvey
ts roade public
e,
ns™3
by law
notene
Cardinal Cajetan ducusses the same verse froan Titus, chapier 3, in
hs extenstve and detailed wease o0 the foss of office for a hereca)
Pepe After one of the anoet thorough rsatmenis of the subject shal has
wwer been writien, Candinal Cajctan addres ene finaléespourt. He
wrete “Only ene pomnt remains 10 be cleared up - namely, whether
beresy alone suffices {the matter). oc whether ncemginlity or
shstrate perseverance . heresy (the form) 1w aloe required for
depesing a pope “%
Cajetan_then proceeds 1o give what he calls twe “exdreme
epwiions.” One opiruen holds that a heretacal Poge canrt be depovcd
i5¢ harusy even If his crume has been publicly confesed (whuck, ae
we've seen, would render him nioterious by nelonety of law). The
osher epinion maintaine that a Pepe can e depescd for 8 single lapee
il herasy, without parseAfier
varanprepawsg ce.
the vareus

* Corvms Thewiugicr 11 1 D Awctoritnte Suarmé Pvuigicia, Dup. I Art. WL De Dopumntins.

Bowr (omiphasis edded)
© Covun, De Compretwne Anciortiats Pupoe ot Omobn, lagheh Tommbbdon
f‘;n‘-'::lbmnmamm.v.gmmv—
’
 g,

P i dernae ofcach o the two “exieem

eavigatig the middie oo
e.
happens to cormespo 1 thenddi
miadic course (oot % TR o Caetan says. inely inspy
- mr‘nablc
y e mudic and resse ”.;',: opine
“""n !‘m“:
‘Accerdmgh
deterrmaing thie Pt says‘A AR AT 15 & haree
w“';.':.u,‘:n—mm aveid' [Tis 3 10} Anigrng
“_.mk-hkukrlflulfl!fl he adds, “Knewy
e &t mch a0 onc 1 bveried [ 11} where gy
o o the word subvericd CApL “out,N g,
1t 23AI
* The
2 phse sk @8 onc. i CAPIAING 1t 2. “Incomigibic
sanung of the kcxt s hat, because human judgment 15 gruem
earing o what i found 1 mout cascs and accerding to
. abocvct dechioes for the firs ime from the farth whickke
Pised by s own wil e b tuc, Mt amg
COTSTO N.2o
Thercfore, a hereu pope deltnquent
k. must e shunned by
dcpeuen. The fathful cannot shun hm while he remans pape,
oo the salvame of all dcpeds on hn sfier the Locd Josus, 24 %
sudu i Pape e 40 6
Becouse, herctore. the apesie comimandod ial ¢ hecetcal man
who offends aguunat the ferth afict [we Mdmoniions sheuld net e
mlorated b shasmed, the consaquencei sy, that, ne maries hew
roudy a barenc pope relapsced aficr twe dmosriion may b te be
nrrected. hc et sty can Wt sught e bc deposed - and nghily,
ot men pgrnant be procracted infinncly, 1t should rather S
Iroupht 10 8 end 2 seme prescibed peint A ressonable tomil w
dofand 212 threcfold wifcace with a (wofeld admoniion ™
At ver can see, Capetan salved the difficulty by choosing the midle
wucve and e did sa by simply sdhering tn the Divina law revealedby
G themug St Paud.
h
Babore contineng, it will be helpful te cite 3 passage from Cajean
which i found in the praceding chapter of his work. In this passage b
®plims Mot 2 Pope cannet incur the ecelesiastical omeur &
mosammusication, aae e sensure - & canenical pernalty which s
-
e Comten g 4 Py e i el ione hereey and sepurt
o i
O e bl 3 75 ot v & smor oy borpi P, bt the
ve Cm
“"’.hfin“m‘(‘:&hm hfi-“

O ot
At oy f Comt pp 100183 emphuain
e

R
 s the Crimeof Hereey Chapburs ™~

of T righi and priviieges as a Cathoh-

n-r':::"::' which does not havtfl:‘:nve power m': :-:(:::
;,"‘“,,,.. lawer} Capetan begins by saying the notien that “ghe pope,
g into 8 condemoed heresy, als ke excomuncaen,
»
e s
“Stnce every excemmunicalien. which x aa eecievismtica
g:‘ll‘(ln‘lhlumll“iwfl).llh‘dnm"m,“,‘
Gooe 701 Mave COCTEIVE [ower over the poge n the sccienmm
whereas CXCOmITUICKON inplet coties 1 the
aeciesiasical forum, we must cenclude Lhat dhe page comnat inc
any censure The docters carry this parm se for that St Thormay
sys that ihe pepe cannot confer upen amyonc the pawer 1o
excommunicate fun_ Alkert the Greal and Sant Banavesore are of
the s mpinien. 5 Lord Jusn de Torquom ropacs eds
of ther >
With this teaching of Cajemn . mind, we continue with his
weatment of why & hetetical Pope must be wamed before hemg
for heresy He nows lut because other hereics may
sutomatically incur latae sententime excemmuracanon {the cenmure) by
speration of canon Law™ (10 whuch the Pope% net subject) 1w net
sboluicly necessary for the Church 10 issue warnings 1o these before
declaring them excommunicated;# whereas in the case of 1 Fope, whe
et subject to the ecclesiaatical censure, the teachung of St Paul s
Titus shouid legrcally be falloused te thae letier In Cajetmn’s
swn werde:

“The second consequence m that & heret pope sheuld net e

dcposcd before the adkmonitiens for b 13 et Excommmicatede
account of heresy, but should be excemmancated by bemg
deposcd Therclare. the apestc 3 command ccummg, the deuble
sdmonion, which seed ned be shsarved [18 the icter) i the case of
ehers, whe are inferiom, e scceunt ul the addwen of
cxcommanication leiae senientiae, whech the Church wapeses s
horetics, sheuld be observed 1s the beer ik bun 41
T
¥ Here we can ik of catain ol pobiscars who apealy cknowindge o ey
Cobatc ienching, s 3. abartion) b the wortd. thereby eatobiwbing e periousty 5
s by otariety of Lact As c<lerion, shei Excomsaniostian may be eoagimd
W the Church without the reed for eccleaasacal warming o srware
*Neithes s U abways. demanuied 1 i evtoral b thet e be 4 wasrg &
i s decribed abore e somchady W be pumshod u hevcecal el
NTiacions, i such & crquirvmnrnd K by 10 Pasnns sheers st i pemc i by the
Haly Olfice” (D Lugn, disp XX, sect IV 1 67 195, cowedo Gnaay o Hereny” by
Araide do Siveieny.
O Comparainae
Awchoritubls Papa et Conolle, p. N
a5
 Chapeey

Wm"* defe nse enchngof the two “extreme

ofgati
by navi the middic coure g g
ot 50 happens 1o coerespond to the divinely
""‘"""Wwahmmfmurhnflvs P

e
. . the mudle and reasonable opimion 1y
Pl dcerminng this pownt. says A man tha 1 a
e
Asuprng
e s wod sccved sdmocuton. av0ut er.[Tnhessaeds310], "Kno
e o why be 1 1o b tokerated 10 fong nung
Sk e a5 ch am onc s subverted” {vs 1] wheree
in
Teatglos the r
, otca werd_subveried” cxplams it a3 lost,and,
o the phrase “such 3n ene.” it cxpluna it s, “mcomgible * The
msanng af the lext 18 that, becausse human judgment 15 given
Yo what w found 1n most cases an according to commen
s, whacver dechies for the first ime from the Tauth which he
proi
by hosossa
owr will d
1o be wuc, aflr
corre
ane ctian
a secand
,
acamgble, Therefore. a heretc
assion
sami
o pope delinguent
must be shunncd by
The fusthful casnet shun him while he remains
e the sahabos of 5l deponds on lum afer the Lord Jesus, s
snSdmPapald 40c 6]
Becawe therefore the apostle commanded that a heretical
man
whe offers againet the futh gfier
admomiions
twe ahould not e
Wierated but shunned, the consequence s firs, that, no matter how
randy # horetc pepe reipsed aficr two admontions may be to be
sorrocted e et omly can bt ought b0 be deposed ~ and nghtly,
ot man udgraent be prowacted wifiniicty, ™ it should rather be
Prought 1o a8 cad w1 some prescribed pont A reasonable hmit&
defined 3¢ 2 tipscfold offcace with 2 iwofold adrmonition ™
As we can see, Cajetan solved the difficulty by choosing the mddle
courve, and he did se by sunply adhering to the Divine law revealed by
God Whewog h
St Paut,
Selore canmnuimng, # will be helpful ko cite a passage from Caeisn
whuch & found in the preceding chapter of his work. In this pawage.bt
eplms #at 3 Pope cannot incur the ecclesiastical cemsure o
Exonsu sncenc an-en
the omsure a canoni,cal penalty which S
_
e Coven . e 1 s Pope: o owould case
al ikma heresy
God ocgive andi, eperd
bol eo Ok20
e ety Heses Wt
ey epose him, ater W third telapee (which meara after the
Prpar 1 Conc, pp 102 105 (emphosio sidded)
e Ansartaty
I
| i
 g the Crme 57 €1y Chapiers

fender of tus nghts and prvileges s a Catholic - i

e aw, which docs 10t Bave cocreve power ver 5 Pone (1o
:m later) Cajetan begine by saying the notion. that
g to & condemned heresy, falls 1o excemvmunicaton, m fun:
and then adds. ;
“Simce cvery excommunicaion, which w m scclessamtica
censur (ad that 15 our SbICC), ts based on povtuve e ey
ocs Dk have coercive power over the pope 1 the ecclesnn
forum, whereas cxcommunication imples ceercion @ the
ecclesiasnical forum, we must conclude that the pope commel incar
o censure The doctors camy this pomt up ew
se for ateSt Thomas-
says that the pope cannrt ot co nf er
o mmanicate him Afbe the Great and Sam Bonsveatonse of
ss™%
of them
the same opinion as Lord Jusn de Torquemada repor

With ths teaching of Caetan tn wund, we centinue with his

yestment of why & heretical Pope must be wamed before being
deposed for heresy He notes that because other herewcs may
sutomatieally ncur latee sententiee excommunication (the censure) by
operation of canon law (o which the Pope is not subyect), 1t 1 not
swelutely necessary for the Church ¥ e warmungs to these before
declarng them excommunicated,® whereas i the case of a Pope, whe
et subject to the ecclesiastical cenwure, the teaching of St. Paul v
Titus should logrcally be followed te she letter fn Cajetan's own words
“The second coneequence that & hereac pope should et be
deposed before the admonitions for be 15 ot excommunicaied on
account of heresy. but should be excomommnicaied by being
deposed. Thecefore, the apoatie’s command concemmg the deuble
sdenoniion, which need not e observed (W the lewer] m the casc of
others, who arc inferiors, on accouct of the midiuon ef
excommunication farae sententiae, which the Church imposcs o
haretics, should be observed to the letter with hum.™
-
> Hare we can
':r'” think of cermin Cathelic pelcars whe ackrweredge and defy
Lo iechie, fe g .m;.u.»«ummmun--«v-
their exoammunicsten may be:
by notariety of tact As nen-clerica,
Teteriaus
%1 he Charch without the need lor cclcsiambcal warang o cenoure
N«.hn.m,.mmh-mm-mmn-mfl:"
o described abere for semetedy W be punhel @ sl
lmm...uun.w-by-—m..-umrm”_:
(De Lugo, dinp XX, sect [V . 57-13% cried a0 “Eay o Hermy:
ly Offce”
Arrulde
da Siiveira)
e Comparatione Ancioritete Papme ot Comcile, p. 103,
5
PEE—
Trueo False Pepe? Chaptery

‘ sellarmine Requires Ecclesiastical Warning,

ted, it i the conseneus among 4
As e N:-m e ciectly contradicts an artcle of 1':’th,Iogun
g
e the e of an ceclesascal warming befoe ¢,oumt
and
E"ZE«.« he crime of heresy Although Bellamune
mm;-r-dywkm“h'“‘;:;’;"“'”""ymflmum
st b preceded by 8 warms
”:"fi Captar's pomon {that the Church plays o miniseryy5
o tll from the Ponubcate), Bellarmune employed the useof
rote
g 5 defend hus ows pombion. BellArmne’s 0puon is tha
o & office would oceur e facte, without Whe Church having 1y
actualty *depoec”the Pope by performung & jundical act® that seyery
the bard urutimg the man (the Pope) to the office (the ponbicate),
therchy reslongi the fall from office The syllogism employed by
1 24 ollows.
Bellarmune
Mager: According bo St. Paul, » heretic must be avoided after
wo warnings.

Miner: A Pope who remaina Pope cannot be avoided (for

haw could the Church
avosd its head?)
Cwaclusion. A marufest beretic cannot be the Pope
Hare i the syllogism as expounded by Bellarmune in De Remens
Pkficr
“The fowrth opion 1 ket of Capctan, lor whom the manfesdy
lconcal Pope 3 a0t fpee facte deposed, but can and s be
dopored by e Charch. To my judgment, thiz opimion caneel be
_
« Searmire:
meirtare €1 the hareucal Pope swould be depaocd by Chrint afc tis
-,uin:mq:‘:-a?“-ynm-"no-mt
duiuan o the crume depomine. coune of the depossion, Cajean, o0
:.T“—nmh‘w—upfiynpnhhwbym
o ke ["mber”) et bt s shawes 1 b obmtirate, and thert repuraiey
-__)‘-‘-!"-Mhmdmlmhmm\-\-‘*
_'__““-hu-_.anmmm.-nmnw
oo vastle grver the Churcts. s endeved (mmpeteri, Chewt wold
.‘__“"-lh--nmmdm-m-flmdi‘
-~ Copen, bowrrver the o of Clvin b the efficent caisor of the (1] 08
i
A porvdcal,
g 28 1 Charch rn sP, a will b s in ot deid

%6
 .
Mk(.‘nmo;nnsy

acre,1s - o~
efended. For. in the firfrstom pl
and resson [Minar] that '-h:llm'
uthortty [Major] ! manifest heratse
.'5 jpso foctn deposed
L showing v
by himecll o b:
wo _w am in gs [Ma jor ] tha t 1s, aft cr ing
y obstinate wiich mea ns bef ore any
nanifestl
sn te nc e ) N oa Pop
w e
, wh o mm na'm o
Judcia l wh‘m“;m"mm
lvolk‘.fmmwwuu w P:fl_
Minor] thercfare the manfest o can-
not
[Concl ymi on]
What Bellarmune seeks 10 demonatrate by this syllogssm
pecause Divine law leaches that we mufl:yvldd a heretic fl:r%
yarmngs, i evident Ut a Pope who remains obssinale followmig two
warnungs, and who therefore must be avosded by the Church, can no
longer effectively govem the Church. Because hecan no longer rule the
Church, Bellarmine (and Suarez also) maintains that he would fall from
the ponnficate 1so fucto, once the crime had been established (once his
Jwesy was public and notorious) and therefore before any public
ocommunication of fundcal sentence by the Church,
It 15 important o note that the Magor n Bellarmune'a syllogem s
ken from St Paul’s instruction to Titus that a heretic
must be avoided
“after two warings It is by remauning hardened in heresy, following
he ecclesinstical warnings, that a mtting Pope would be considered &
“manifest heretic” (who must be avoided), and consequently incapable
o effectively ruling the Church But th would not take place before
the Church lesues the necessary warmng, and the Pope “show|s|
hmeelf to be manfestly obstinate,” as Bellarmine noked. It alo
Iagrally follows that the Church's judgment would have W be
communicated to the faithful, cither by a "declaratory sentence” of the
crime (Suarcz says this 1 the “common opimon®) or a command to
vaud the heretical Pope (Cajetan/John of St Thomas) %
In the face of the plan meaming of Bellarmune’s words, the only
who clum W hold the pomson of
resporse of Sedevacantists,
Bellarmune, is to argue that Titus 3.10 does not requure that the
wamnings come from any ecclesiashcal authonty, but tetead can come
from anyone Then, all they have W do 15 clam that the Pope o
have been warned by someone (of claim to have heard of someone
ho has rebuked/wamed the Pope) m ordes¥ hold their position.
Mtw)w-n-u.eymdm"ll'evkkmflmsthulsmn

-_
Caj eta n Job en af 5&. The mes wil b dua cum cd i dep éh i Cha pter 11
“The apiniens af
M7
PE—— -
Troe or Falee Pope’ Chupiery

e Vichop - ishop Titus® t0render a judgment followng p,

eciasasncal warIng’
arnangs Must Come From the Church Authonities
Chuech s aiways understood St Paul’s instruchon
wmiTTp e 1o eclesastical authonty, which Sedevacantg,
T o o they would read the various commethentari es on fhe
o or cxarple, 0 the onginal annotations of Rheims New
Testament, it says.
~These admonstions [of Titus 3 10] orv correchons must be
1o suchas erv, by our
1o vehom f they yield o, Chrstian men must avord them.*
o St Paul 5 Eptstle
1 i Comrmambary Titus, St. Thomas condirme
Rt the sdmenitions spoken of 1 Titus 310 come from ecclesiasmcal
suthenty Spesking of a persen who has deviated from the Faith, St
Thomas wrole “Such a person should be wamed, and uf he does not
d And e jthe Apostle] says, aftes the st
be avorded
desat he shoul
d i e Chul
acommumcang”
In the Summa, St. Thomas confirms the same point when he ol
that “the Church” condemna, ot at once, but after the first and second
waming, accerding io the seachung of St Paul He wrote.
“On the part of she Church, bawever, there i mercy whch
ook 1o the conversea of the wanderer, wherefore she condemne
M ence, bt aflr e G sod second admontion, ss the
Apose drcs afac that. 1f e 6 yel stubbomn, the Church
Vomgue baprag far hrs conrverssen, Iooks to the salvation of others, noBy
and
furthermare delivers him 1 the secular tnbaal to be exterminated
Ghcreby from the workd by death o
-_—
e Commaiery e 5. Pus nmumm St Thoman says
it b Tius,u.mmfi I is
zn-wn mm sy 10 gaihe
fi:‘:f m'-m-
e, iy o e o S, (o what s wtienCocdeot theWialbeginning o 0
thec shouldast
o Tl v “For thad coume { et thee (Titas] in
b gy hat aor wartng, and shmcldent ordam priemi 1 cvery city ® L
 ot the Crime of Heresy @ »

ther words [ust s the Church hepas for

m"l:":"‘ Ihrough the “two warnings.” so the cmmnfl:n,, o
the Body of Christ if he fauls 10 heed those w;
*la a 1909 artcle published 1 The Amenom Crbwic Quarey
, Fr MaumHaMtonfimrdnnm.Qmm.mm.,
bySt ‘Paul must come from the proper ecclesustical authoribes:
“From the carlist Chrisian umes heresy was umevertly
ax the most hewnous of suns. The heretc,St. Paul nsirocs
Titw, shall be admonished first and 2 secend e of the grave
characterof his offemse. 1 he will not heed, e must be avorded by
Chstans a5 a man in cvident bed fath, who sands self.
condernn
- Titus cd
310 € 3 Heret
were conscawently
ics cis off
feam all association with the fathful whe must hold we relevons
wnhflmflwmlsmflbumlylf‘fiuhukm
of the
emons irane s ™
Church authantics
The 1913 Catheic Encyclopedia’s asticle on heresy explaina that Titus
310 wan example of early ecclesiastical law, whach iiself is based u
e words of Christ, as recorded In St Maithew’s Gospel, 1817
“SL Paul writes 10 Titus A man that w a hereoc ater the First
and sacond admoaition, avosd knowing that e, that such a ose,
s sulveried,and smneth. being condemnedby his awn judgrecni’
{Twus 3 10-11) Thus early mucce of legrlation reproduces the will
saclcr teachmg of Christ, *And 1f he will not ear the church, bt
hum be 10 thee a & heathen and the pubbcan” (Mambew 13 17), &
ke mspires all subscquent antihereical iegslsion The senimee
o0 the obstunate heretic 15 invarably excommueicatien
We see that Ihe necessily of 8 warning 1s an application of the very
words of Christ - *if he refuses o hear the Church™ (Mt 1817). s
4pphed 10 the case of heresy And because the legula iisell
tion - the
apphcation of Chrlst s words - is contmned 1n Scripture, it 100 1 & part
law
¥ the same Divine
John of St Thotmas also sddresses the Sedevacantist argument {Le.
Ut wryone can issue 8 warning) directly and explactly when he nows
S ——
I¥Porbertie bothe crime af hurming “the salvetben of sthers') Sec o cample. ST 1
L81103.4.04,0.3,Gen. 2. Lk 197 Rom 1M,
Yosen, * hurch ard State i e Fouth Contury. poblished i Ths Amermas o
.q"m""“'hm-luluwy-aufl 1909 pp 301308
" on hecarv). p 20
193}, vl VI (arshte
N
pE
True o Faloe Pope?
m— -
Chapiery
- manife w'd.fi)pemullbed!dn«lbym,wm
before be e ke avorded He seys
1 A1 e should b avonded afke w0 sdmomtons Iegely
i i z2b SOrvas confusion would follow 1 the Church i §
vmm
mmnmkmhy.m
Ther efoe e, lo 1o o say tha t 3 Pop e, whose manifestly heretical
pust . 15 o be vouded For the
mamfes baresy of 2 Pope cana beetmade know10nall without the
of wihers, Wk such testumony, if 115 Dat made undically,
docs 0wt blige. and consequently nw one would be obligated to
evod It Fae it reson, it 1 riecessary that, just as the Church
g m by varwe of e clecton snd Broposcs him 10 alf a
hun, that she declare b
einciod, 58 1o0 1t Reccasary, to deposc kl
hflm‘mlflhlfl!_fim&l wh&d"

He then added

“Se Jong ¢ ¥ has net been doclarcd to us jundically®® dun he

5.0 afidel oc ovetc. b he over a0 mansfestly herctical according
be Tommans, a6 far a3 we are concerned,&
member of te Church and consequently us head Judgment
roquiredby the Church [t 1 only then that be ceases ta be Pope
ar 20 we are conecrned=1
Other examples from theological commentaries could be provided
ut the point has been made The requirement to prove pertinacity n
she ewarral forum through “two warmungs” must be officully camed
out by sccesusheal authonty (the legihmate trier of fact), and not
indsvwdual Catholics who have no such autharity This is the true
and
saguivacal mearng of Titus 3 10 upon which St Bellarmine rehes.

Nestoring’ Loss of Office? Objection Answered

We whl new acuwer ene of the commnon objections, ramed ¥y

m-hwnmr&:mwdwm
Hmlp:dml-ah.offieefwhagy To support their posiwon.
N'fimmbhmdwuhl’lmi
—_
et " it b, the Chasrch, and ot e TP
S. ot e i eofO ele e .
e gy O Asnterist Sumas Poniicn, Dinp 1, An W, De Deponhent

20
 mwcmwfl/""m Cheprers

tinople They claim that Nestor

was iue
deposed
t publcy preacung h‘:’y"‘.‘:‘:
he began
e the momen
Mm,umum|Mym|m|uumdenmmM
amings are ot necessary {or a prelate 10 be deposed We wil allow
e Sedevacantst blogger, Steven Speray, ko present the standard
mm._n-lollunm;uukmhml—mbmmby
ert Sscoe, which was published by The Remnant newspapar-
“The Remnant alse comradich Pepc St Celoune | and i
Rtokcr Belarmune who beth aught that warmings are net ecsssay
o rove defoctofionfaith Bellar pot men s way-
c
‘And 2 leser w0 the clorgy of Constantimepke, S
Celestine | says “The authenty af Our Apostolic 'so:n
determincd that the bishop, clenc, or simple Chrstian who had hem
deposed or excommueicated by Nestoriua or hus follewers, aficr the
takcr began o preach heresy chall net be coneudered deposed or
excommunicated For he who had defoctad from the fmth with such
proachings, cannot deposc of remave anyone whatoever %
The firsl thing ta nose i thal the above citabon no where says
“wamings are nol necessary,” as Mr Speray claimed After quoting the
sbeve citation, Mr Speray proceeds 1o give us his inferpretation.
“In olher words Nesterius lest hus affice wasmedistely
after be
began preaching heresy, which s why hc had 00 suthenty te depese
or remove anyone It happens
by Drvine law net by senicnoeof
Church igw “®

First, nate that while

Mr Speray presends to be pving us the
wchung o Belisrmine, the quote he uses does not wclude any
commentary from Belisrmune (Bellarmune was only quoting Pepe
Celesine) As we will see 1n a moment, Bellarmine had much mere Mrio
12y aboul the case of Neslort thanusMr Speray kiew The reason
s.
Speray s nol aware of Bellarmine’s actual commeniary about the case
is because
o Nestor from
lus,il was never wans the Latnrd
late and
websites for tMr Speray
Poied on Sedevacantis te read Second.
oetther Bellarmine nor Pope Celestine sad that Nestorus “lost has
#ice” by “divine law" the momenl he began preaching herosy, as Mr
claime, which is why Mr Speray was forced to begin bes
plaration by saying “in other words.” Celestine saxd only that the
—_—
38T, The Remoant s Lewest Comon Law Fiaacn” February 3. 018
1
PEm— v
fyse or Falee Pope” Chaptery
and depamtions pronounced by Nestorus, a
exonmunctions 00 L \28), were to be considered iy
b e nothing about hum losing bis offce by divpe
Vine
veid There ‘upon the provate dgment of ndidual Gt
hm n::‘um But Mr Speray “interprets” the quonuo::’
because
sumply
A
e
hat
e
Nesorus lost lus office,
ronounced. were later overtu med by gy
e f 15 o possbic for a prolae 10 have mataned hy
e offie, amply because some of hus officral acts were nuliied arg
Mu?h?uds De Ronwrse Poaifice (the same book {rom which the
quviaion weed by Mr Speray was taken), Bellarmune addresees e
Sepositon of Nestorus direetly (with his own commentary), and el
s Wtk the deposabion occurred by an act of the proper authorities, not
by “dovoe aw” s wnerpreted and apphed by the privete pudgment f
mimdual Catholzs, a6 Me Speray would have hus readers believe tn
fact, it was the fasthful Cathohcs who were scandalized by Nestonus'
who appealed to Rome for & condemnalion and lawful
tion »f sheir Patnarch, winch is what ulimately occurred at the
Ecumenscal Counal of Ephesus. In book one of De Romano Pontifice, we
fnd Bellarmine’s actual commentary on the deposttion of Nestonus,
and tow e was deponed. He wroke:
“Ne bubop can he shown te heve either been deposed o
acoammunicaindby the peoplc, although many are found who were
deposed amd cxcommunicated by the Supreme Ponuffs and genenal
Councilt Corpenly, Nestorus was deposed from the episcopacy of
Contaatople by_the Councit of Ephesus [AD, 434), from the
meadeic
of Penc Ccleaing, a3 Evagrius witnessed"
And w beok twe ef De Revianie Pentfice, he taught the same
"The Counicil of Ephiesus, 26 1t 13 found tn Evapnus,® says thit
% depored Nesorus by a command of a leter of the Roman Pope
Celemmne™
Here we see 5t Bellarmane explirtl ly stating that Nestorus was
deposed by she Courct of Ephesus (A D 431) with the approvofalth
Pepe, which shows that, according to Bellarmine, he did
—_—
*-,,,’_"_4“'":4-&|
Mearwane
e Rpane -
e imene Pt W 2,13
 g the Crime o eresy Chaptars

snedutely lose his Office 50 fecto by victue of “divine o

b a3 Mr Speray clams Y Ve yoes cxcer (Docemeeo
w)éu“-“ 1t 10 say that Mz Speray's merpretaion of e case of
Netorus 5 entirely_eroncous Belarmanc’s acual veachuog, ot
by what we saw above, not ony contradicts Mr S
evderced
Ferpretation, bt entirely undermines the Sedevacantst thoue
siows that one who preachies Deresy in publsc must stll be d
"declared 2
e proper authonties 15 the Church, and not
e pvate yudgment of Catholics i the pew We will huve more o ay.
shout the case of Nestonus in the next chapter
Canonical Penalties and Loss of Office

Before proceeding, it seems appropnate at ths point 1o discuss the

Ihes under canon law which do, and whch do not, result in the
o of ecclesiashical office Addressing the procedural complexibes of
canon law with respect 10 the loss of office for heretical clers, will
show us Just how seriously the Church views the question 1f what
follows is true for other clerics, how much more s with regard to &
Fope who 1 above the positive law of the Church, as Cajetan explaed
shove
In canon law, there are two distinct penalties for heresy a camurr
and a vuichctive penalty A canorical ceneure can be incurred
tn one of
o ways either ferendae sententme (imposed as a result of the
intervention of Church authonty), or letae sententae (that 15, pse fack,
w autematically, by force of the law itself), when a law 1s contravened.

The Censure of Excommurucation

The censure of excommunication (lelae <entenhue) s incurred

tutomatically by one who knowingly commts any offense that carnes.
the penalty ‘Such excommunscations can be publx of occult (secret),
and require no warving or declaration, per e However, although the
€eneure of excommunicatio does not, of itsel, require a declaration,
Ganon law does require a declaration when the public geod demands it
i order for It to have any canonucal eifect n the external forum. In
olher words, in those cases in which a declarabon is required for the
e of the Church, no one ts presumed to have ncurred the censure
% the extenal forum without 2 declarators sentence And as canon
223, §4 of the 1917 Code provides (and the canonets confire), when
Suspect involved is a cleric, the pubbic gomd demends tf Thus medns

3
— Tre or Falee Pope?
oy Plery

coverdered 1o have meurnd o Censure

Wt 2 cenc @ ol S en declared by the Church
e 4 cs foh th s for when eclarakory senigey
areroqured.
ponea, 0 dechre & penky oo scnicnii ac 15 Ieft 1o e
o s sopcror; bt whether at the Instance/requeofst3
party wihe s mveived. -

b popular commentary on the 1917 Code of Canon Law, Fy

Mn-!wmk

incufred ipse fucts,

“The cemsare milicled & cxcommwiicationsenicn
which per se feques et cvea a declaratory ce Only if, m
¢ prudent poigment of the superior. the public welfure shoud
Toqare weh 3 seatence, ft must be pronounced Thecase bomum
Jublicen (ibbc goed) corainly demands i n the of
clorgymen®
Proee 1e such a declaratory sentence by the Church, even if a clenc
uncwes Indden (oceult) ewcommunicakion in the miernal forum (which s
of » Catholc in goad
and prvileges
poseible) he will retan the nghts.
‘sterwling n the external fecum. This means that a clenc will not lose the
power of unsdiction as a result of mcurrng 8 (hdden) censure of
excomaunicanen, unless and unti! » declaration 15 136ued by the
Church. Further, a6 we will see in 8 moment in our discussion o
vindickve penalwes, 8 clenc suspected of heresy, who holds office
wast be duly warned before a declaratory sentence
can be seued
The Origmal Catwitc Encyclopedia explains the difference, on the
peachcal level, between a denc who has incurred an occull, or secret.
excommunicaion (Le , one that has not been declared) and a cleric whe
has incurred & public excommunication (L , one that has been declared
a0 sherefore has » canoncal effect in the external forum)
“The pracecal defforwnce w vary impormnt He who has
ourred fl::!mmm should trear himeclf %
xaomananuaied 1nd be shsoived as soon a6 possibic, submiting0
Whaievar sonditions wii be wupesed upeo him, but this enly 10 e
Y e "
:.‘._.::""""pm-mmmuwd fl
- e 23,40 17 ot nphos sdded) .o crbc1k, aakal Al
Y 4 o New Code of Caers L vel 3, M. 5, pp 8279
24

. A
 s e Crome o] Heresy Chapter

ibanal almm.l%flm 10 donsunee hrmacil v 2

e noe
e () According W the icaching of Benedrey X1V, g
L iiory scmtence of the affence 15 Aways nacsacay m
emal forum, since n this bural no one 15 prosamd e g
catcd unless conviciad of a cnme tak el suck ¢

What thus shows 15 that it 1s possible for a ceric 1o incur the hudden
of excommunication in the intemal forum (by secrely beung a
erber of the Masomc sect, for example), yet st be capable of vahd
eenal acts connected with the exercwe of junsdichon” n the
al forum. Ths pomt 15 also explazned in canon 2264, whuch
yrov following-
theides
“an act of junsdiction camed out by an excemmunicasd
persan, whether in the tntemal or the extermal foruen, s iy, and if
asondomnatory o declantory sehiehce has becn mronounced. it
siso invalid, without prejisdace e ¢ 2264, §3, stherwise it w valud™
Nowce thet 1f a clenc wncurs the hidden censure of
a declaratory senlen
excommunication, without by the
being jswuedce
Chusch, his acs would be illicat, but they would nevertheless remem
vid And this s true even for & hidden excommurucanwhich on
conuls from the sin of heresy Commen ting
on the Last four words of
aanon 2064 - “otherwi se- Fr Raymond Taouk wrote:
st 1s valid®
“These last four words ace highly signific. Lat s assumee
Wt this Pope - the valudity of whose cloctven nobedy dispuling -
efuses to admut that he has now (allen inte heresy Then, since o8
olher earthly person or authonty would be competcnt o pass &
condemnaiory scnicnce againgt Whis Pope, 1 fellows from the
Church’s aw that, ofhe refees U8 resign, all fus acts of junsisciion
ot valid, even though they are il ™
What this demons s thattrates
even if one persorully beleves that
2 enc has incurred the censure of excommuncination fe sl
Jori - for example by jouung,the Mason sect - 1t would
ic be quie
€rtoneous to conclude from this that such & one would have lost fus.
ofie and furisdichon. Thus 15 especially brue i the person n questen i
—
el Encoperis (1913, ve! ¥ g 680 femplani addest)
Tiok Wbt ane wate Sk, of e Sedevesno Ponien” R/
HTpInfe/ sia mdermproblens /cuttanierromc
gri tade S
53
PE—
Troe o Faloe Pope?
v
Chapiers
e mot subject to ecclesiastical cenaure A5
"‘MTfl‘:mmCAflnlhwhmahlthlwx .
e moreation at all (4t least not in the external oy .
8 e ofpowtve aw, which s A0 COEtve potwer gy
afope t is importnt because some Sedevacantist apol
m::" o upon shew own prvate judgment (and therr P“,’,fi:
on of canen law), that recent Popes incurred the censureof
o and thereby lost ther office Others claim thay
e red the hudden censure defore being elected Pope, and thereiory
e ot valld candidates for the office For example, Sedevacantiy
preacher Gerry Matatics, claims Cardinal Roncalli (elected as fohy
XXTH in 1958) wncurred the automatic cmsure of excommuncaton
before bewg elected Pope He claims that by incurring this hidden
of the Church, and therefore coui
he ceased to be& member
cenvure,
ot be vahidly elected Pope Before responding to this point, we wil
allow Mr Matats to explain the multiple ways i which he personally
beleves Cardial Ronacls incurred excommurucation before being
elected Pope
“Angels Roncalli Incurred. sutomatic excommunication i
several dierent ways. Fuest of all, by fraermizing with » man who
hid bacs cxcommuncuted [Viandus] A Cathohic 15 forbrdden
10 suppert mch a person o they share fus excemmunication, they
e e oqual censure acconding to canon law And that ts exsctly
what Angele Rencallsdid He utierly dispoxsessed himselfof s
membecip 0 the Cadkolc Church But you can also
wosmumaicate. yourselfby Becominig & Freemason, according lo
the 1917 Code of canen lew sanike number two against Angels
Roncull 1 that he was inducted 1o Freemasoney A third stoke
agunst Rencalli w6 that be wae # Socralist and a promoter of
Commxmmse. be dud the before huy claction, when he wae
Cundnal of Vimms Every Catholic must reyect him [as being
Pope) focthe reaseme { have yus gaven
He slse acciues Roncallt of bewng a heretic (sinke four) for
rometing Talmudic fudaiem, durung this time, even though Pope Pin
X0 acdt al the bbeps and Cardinals of the day considered him 4
Catheix: i1 goed standing (which would mean, even If Mr Matatis
were comect, that Roncalli would have been & secret, not pubic
hevetc) And bew, 5ou may be wondenng, doss Mr Mataties koW
——
et "Coumterta Cabcum va. Comssters Cotriicom,” dine 2, ricks +12

2%
——— P> .
 g e e 7S Chaptaes

roncalli commutied these acl whch

st R ation? He claime 1o have read about mb:h:"m
Goeds, he reltes upon nothing but hearsay evidence that weuldr't pe
b even I & secularcourt of law (and “evidence” thay st
“ranly dsmussed by Pius Xt and the entire College of Carduaie)
e based upon what he claums to have read. (he also provides np
cual quotations with references), Mr Matatxs Ppublicly declares, as 2
at Cardinal Roncalli incurred the cenaure of excommumcanon,
et be # member of the Church, and therfore was ot by
Secied Pope Summantzing hus thesis, he sad,
We saw that, because of this fourfold strke aguinet hiss -
beung heretsc, an aider and abetior of cxosmunicaied hervics, &
of Communism. and a mcmberof Freemussay, which
adoenanically excommunicates you frw the Church ~ Angele
Rencalls was no longer & member of the Catholic Church by fhe
e ofus election 1n 1953, and not being s member of the Churc,
wesw If 0 man 1§ oot @ member of the Catholic Church, he
eannot be the head of something that he 1s not cven member of I's
thavsuple It that steaghiforward It's that ogical "2
Bused upon the above erroneous reasoning, Mr Mataics then
“logically” concludes that the 1962 Mussal, which was promulgated by
fobe: XXIII, “is not a legal Mass of the Cathoti Church, because john
XKl was not a legal Pope of the Catholic Chusch *¢
Obviously, there are a number of problems with Mr Matatics
logic First, just because he read somewhere that Roncalls {John XXII)
wis guilty of the aforementioned acts does not prove anythung, Aot
does it 0 any way confirm that he tncurred the ceneure of
exommunication That Mr Matatics would mtroduce as “proof” an
alleged statement of an umdentified author whose assertion cannot e
ossexamined shows how far-reaching he is willing to go to “prove”
Tis case (Matatics would be laughed out of a courtroom for such a
) More Importantly, Roncalls was treated as a prelaie i good
tanding during the entre pontificate of Pus XIL and was even
Slevated
to Cardinal by Pyus X In 1953 - which was afier Mr Matwcs
lleges that he incurred excommunication. Thus, Matatics would have
accept his udgment of Roncall, and that of an unknown author,
¥er the fudgment of Pope Pius XIi (whom Matatcs recognizes s
Pope) and the entire Church

AL dae 4, wack 3.
ML e 2 tracha 412,
a7
P——gy Falee Pope?
or ae
“Tr Chaptery |

i Candinal Roncalli did incur the censype i

Yot anyo ne ek at the tme evid entl y knew _bm‘“\‘;m
e .i‘?fireare would not have caused hum (0 lose any offce thgye |
e, we have g
mu—m.m mm ma nx fifl
sence s required for a prelate 10 be conpdeny
that the vy
encommunicated T the external forum. We also note
mmunicates, Promoun,
Mamics menkens (“frarennuzing” with exco yy
only rendered Rong
ud Commoruewn) would havewithout
of heresy wn the exwernal forum, further cclesiaoncs)
Inauicy ko the alleganons.
n-':smmmoumlzem.rnomu.m
sncured the hudden canpure of excomMUNICAtION, 1t would not have
‘ hut from bemng elected Pope, since. a6 the law promulgaied
oy Prms XL sintes
“Ne Candens] can 10 amy way be excluded from the active and
pams cocten t® e Ponti on the pretext
af the Suprem of by
Teasen of my excemmumcation. musperision, micrdict, of her
wclovasmcal mpediment whatsocver We tn fact suspend these
censures only fox the clfect af am cloction of this sor ™%
So even 1f Cardinal Roncalli did incur the hidden censure of
excommunication before entenng the Conclave, it would have been
lifted by virtue of ecclesistical law Mr Matatics’ entire case s based
upon Rothing but hus own private judgment and misunderstanding of
Church law Unfortunately, this same error is repeated by many of hs
Sedevacantit colleagues, who are equally confused over this issue
Thes snly demonstrates how gravely Sedevacantists err in their privale
interpretation of canon law, and wn applying its penaltics to prelaies
and Popas.
Seme Sedevacantsts centradict themwelves by requiing 2
declaratory semtarce foc & clenc when it suits theur own personal needs.
-
di)s
* 8 o smmanly beid hat anly dhove avesaamumicated by nawie (iencome
ande, o e Chasch To quote Fr nm.-n:’-_-ot,.-u, mt-
mmiate4 d. w s eha are called icrasod [ere], arnd b ¢ e, 0
the Chireh. i the caee of the g Ierated, and Whawe to b aveudesd [nbont]
2vveds. & arms, in which the sectemee of euspmuranisaiion n inflicted. have 18 ¥
i 4 e b 0 b Jodged acconding i the senten. whether i e ¥
oot “-—':‘m»-uydnm'(ww
*A v 24cd. p 42
n.....:::" "'"“" fl-w-l‘-r poveive clection refrrs in e s o
XA A A, ,vl XOKVI(1946) .3 P15
S, N 34,196

25
 g e Crime f FETEY Chaptars

of Most Holy F;
je, the Damond brothers
m.',;.um.ps.-dumm pansh m-mm with Pepe
hape,ivm flwu sh lhe ydedeoyanmu.,.,_,
rwm and the Chrch aver which b rues 1o be a fale Charchy
-numm"
;mmm.mmn.dupamfidq wuuyd“
‘Mm'.ndwhlchhlplnnfwchm:
-..m,,cmmh"“Howdutlry|usulyzh.?n.,y¢o,..y
o atering Mase at the Church 1s peevutied, bcesse the prcst s et
o docared 8 eretic by the Church That's nght. And they even uae the
bevapl en Luther to defend their powon. They say that whie
of Marti
s Kue that Luther was “an obvious heretc” (by private pudgnant)
\efore he was excommunucated, he wan't considered a hereac
eardtoin gh law (by the Church's udigment) unhisti
Churc heresy
s declared by the Church. Here's what Peter Dimond says:
“One point on which ¢ spent seme time 1 the debate wa the
dsmction bctwacn the way the Church uses the lom “hereic™
s dogranc decrees and 10 itecclenatacal law We kaew thet,
accurding te the Church 5 dogmatsc Leackuag. alt wha duset fram
an authontalive teaching of the Clrurch are heretics witheus any
declanaion However, the Church's ecclesistical laws kave ued
nt The case af Marts Luther w 2 e
Whe termn w1 & diffcresere
exampk Marun Luther was an cbviols hereuc hefoe be. wag
secla red
19 be such Certanty we are nat saying thal you canmet
Tecogize someone as & hieretic untit the Church's declaraton I
studying the papal bulls relating 4o Martis Luther enc will ducever
tat be wasn't conerdcred 1o be 3 horet m the Chursis
scslaw
los uptl besca lwch At that pow, the
was scclared
sbsoluie obligation 10 avoud hum was imposed
5o the Dimonds adimut thet not even Luther was considered &
cenc accending to the Church s Law, unil he was “declared such” by #e
Qurch Without realizing s, the Dimonds heve pust invalidaed the
®we Sedevacanst thesis by conceding thet the declaration i
nacammary for a prelate to be considered & heretic by the Church (sl by
4l the members of the Church), which is precuely what canen law
-_—
pEmm——v
Jroe
oe False Pope? Chapery '

Dwmonds need to do next is realize that a cler,

j,:];];:unh lks judg a herctic
ed that same Clrurcy,
by "’“”mmm ,g’,
(:*
'“‘Z‘,. dymu\w" “""”'“"
P et ha they sbandon the crrae they learmeg o
Ceiads, whuch maimiaus that 8 Pope loses hu office, o
P oong -Drvne law” Wweugh comemutting the “sin” of heres, (o
paged e judgment)
mzi"h”;mmm.w m.mm qm 1ng
decraes”
does 70t undarstand heresy one way for “dogmatc
eher way fog ~ecciesmastcal low” {which 15 why Heresthey were unable
assertion)
thewort 1 they pogt
oae vy sutberty ©0 supp
Topomnat derualor doubt o & truth that must be believed with dime
and Carbals: fath, The distuchion they have apotted in their (e, readwg
(oot o urdersiood) s between heresy In tha internal forum
ot fanh) versusshe external forum (s . public and notorious heresy, .
Judge d The Dimond brothers fail to undersianwal
by the Charch) d
he s of heresy alone which hus nel been udged end declared by e
Chursh, does ot resuit 1n tha loss of eccleslastical office for a clenc
The loss of office fur & cleric is 4 vindictive penalty, and there is »
in Church law which must precede vindictive penalties
process

Vindictive Penaltiea

We have seen that tha censure of excommunication can be publicor

acrult, We have alio seen that while a cleric may incuran automste
(et semientue) occult consure of excommunication (eg by secrelly
becomang a Freemason), he ia not considered to have incurred the
penalty un the external forum unless and until 1t s declared by ihe
Charch (i a clenc, the good of the Church demands a formu!
declaraben of the crime) Thie also means that the loas of office fo s
cenc most be anposed (ferendac semientiae) by Church authonty®
whach makes the loss of office & “vindictive penalty * Note, howevw.
shat she unpowion of the penalty must shweys be preceded by a0
wclemastical warnung (usually two) This means that for a cleric 1 i
120 ffer for she crime of hevesy, he must be duly wamed, and i
oxwewmunication must be imposed by a declaratory sentence by the
Qurch ¥ 4 prelate had previovsiy incumed a hidden {occut)
Scwmmuncabec {1s the mbsrnal forum), his jundical acw weuld have
_—
::"_",".‘_‘—Wazu—b-.mu-.mw
o 1 iyTho
Pk % o, il o the e wern A
bapec il e discamerd o1 the wnd of this caphr
%0
 g $¢ 7T Chapier9
e i, bt pevertheless remained valil ok she dectacabon wag
": Augustine explains vindickve penaltes
as follows:
“The prnalties bere crmcui
arc ed
twoield cmewe and
dictive penaines. 3
¥) The vindiciive penaftics nflicud ac { ) For clencs,
ation of every benefice, dignity, pensson, office, e charge
which they may hold, aiso infamy and, efier & fruless warning,
aon A WARIRE must preced these vindicnve acagltcy
The mfamy flicied on both laymen and clergymen, i n
position pronounced agawnst clencs, are ferendae senteniiae
Jor - W afler the first ane hus boen
served, with the threat of privation and nfamy *n
Here we see that all vindictive penalties must be preceded by o
warning, while the vindictive penalty of deposehin must be precrded by
4 cond warming. Hence, according to canon law, which inberprets and
applles Divine law, the two wamings required by St Paul (Tit 310)
st be rssued to & clenc before he can be deposed for heresy Of
counse 1f ecclesiastical warnings are required before just any clenc can
are suchary
how much more necess
Iese his office for heresy, warmings.
s necessity which 18 rooted n Divine vevelabon) when the clenc in
question 15 the Pope? To ask the question 15 to anewer It
No One Can Waen the Pope? Objection Answered

At this pomnt, an objection needs to be addressed Almost all

Sedevacantists claim that s Pope who prefeses heresy cannot be
wamed by the Church They say that a warming requines & udgment,
ind since “the First See 13 judged by no one” feven though they
temaelves Judge the Popef), o one 15 permutted to wam s Fope They
further mauntamn that & warnung must come from s superior, and suxe
Ye Pope has no supenior on Earth, 1t follows that he carnot be
#amed7 n other words, Sedevacantusts mantain that no one can warn
e Pope (nol even the College of Cardinals), yet individual Cathobis
—_—
Aot A Commeniary ow the N Code of Comom Lowe vl 80 5. DY
"'“’vkh-sd:y.(mu.‘w;rwswnm'hlfiil"*
e nly superiars give wearmings e ar he pope has rw seperans. Tharlors, tare
010c) thing s proerFamuly
e ssch srd Tperiy.
wuthorines b nsior twe wamings be he pope.” Ageicet
agbetSiwve Catholc News Preserd Anadher Flor Anpotet
e, Scpmember
18, 014).
1
PE—
frac ot Felae Pope?
Y
Chapiery
e can pudge he Pope guilty ol heresy and deciap by,
“d";;m’wmmbk
deprt #hmflnmmdmmu\drmnmwm"q
o rmtard 15 that & wammung can be etther an act of judgery
""h:h‘; \oa superioe), 0f 8 wark of mercy and therefore3y gy
‘_"'M,y' - o act of chanty, an nfenor can certanly wam,
mrymmump«m,'pvm-dcd. St n?mm-h
o " e person tat requires ceeection. "™
T Ballonn, who was iked at length abave with respect ow
. Pope, made this very point. He said *whatever would by
done agunst him & heretical Fope] before the declaration of py
mmmmw,mo.dnmaflhn:mmmwmdwm
an obtigavon of chanty, not of punsdiction.
‘Scnpre teelf provides an example of an infenor waming
’lm'“hflmmmscak]mflupptmdhkhfopeh
Galaharw, Chapier 2, we read that St Paul withstood St Peter to hy
face “becausehe was to be blamed” (Gal 2.11) That is, St Paul, whe
taught Titw about the necesaity of warmings, practiced what he
roached 1n ha public warrung b0 St. Peter Thus, Scripture reveals that
we are permutied be fratmally correct a superior, as & matter of Divine
law
Also, in the conext of St Paul's warmuing of St. Peter,St. Thomas
Oherves that e withstand anyone in pubbc exceeds the mode of a
fratermal correcion.” What St. Paul did by rebuking St Peter in pubiic
excreds & mere fraternal correction. Yet God wlled the event o be
recorded in Scripture for our mstruchon. What are we to leam from
thw passage” We loarn that a public warning and even rebuke, of 5
mupener (12, the Pope), exceeds what m permutted, uriless Where » ot
“mmennent damger” io dhe Fauh In other words, what would be excessive
in nornal circumetances 1 jushfied when the Falth is endangered, and
hance wiin the salvation
of souls s at stake St Thomas wrote
Ut mom be obcrved, hewever, thar if the fath were
adeagured,
2 mbgect sught te rehuke ks perlate even publicly
Honec Pau) whe was Peicr’s subject, rebuked him in public, ob
comum of the imvment danger and scandal concerming the farth ™

—
T DALy B0 g
:.,“"m T Potvmtat Covtmastion, (Mamanteris Wossphalorum, Deers, 1147 #h 6 -
..:"Hnnunz
 o eC 7 1Ty Chaprees

Thamas goes on to quoteSt Auguskin e

who said,
s;k © ,‘.Pgnofi. that if at any time they should ..::: :";_:"y
o sraght path. they should not disdain 10 be reproved by theiy
“ Clearly, if & subject is permitied w0 fraterrally correct 3
» eror (which is what the wamning would conwtitute), and if St Past
R Apestie and bishop) was fustified i going further by publcty
0 nding St Peter 10 Tue face because of an immunent danger w the
ik I logeally follows that the Church 12 able 1o i public
m‘n‘mmors« I’e«er’un«_m;,-rhzm-mmm‘
futh by hie words oactions.
In his Commentary on the Beok of Galatians,St Thomas makes an
pertant observation about this mncident between St Paul and St
Peet He notes that St Paul was cesistingSt Peter in the cxrro
of ehis
bty but 10t in his authority of ruling s such {which weuld be
chwmati). He wrote:
“{Tlhe Apostle opposcd Peter m the exercrsc of authenty, net
hus authenty from the foregewg we have an
of ruling. Therefore,
example for prelates, an cxample of humility, that thcy ot dusdam
comrections from those who are lewer wsd subject te them, whilke
nubjects have a0 example of zeal and froedom, 30 ey will net fear
1e cormect their prelates, particulasly if ther crrme 1 poblic ad
verges upon daniger te the multrtude 7
As we have demonstrated, a warmung is an iiegral part of
wablishing the crime of heresy for a reigrung Pope, which 15 why the
Crch s theologians agree that a resgning Pope must remain obstinate
lswing an ecclesiastical warning, before being deprived of his office
for heresy Such a warming would not constitute an act of junadichon,
Wtan act of chanty, which would sufficsently demsonstrale f the Pope
were incorrygable in hus heresy, rather than merely mustaken.
I a Pope were to abstrately refuse to heed these chantable
wmings by retracting lus heresy, lus resporwe would peeve
In the external forum and the Church would declare im w
Perinacity
Wore judged himself This 1s indeed permutted, an Pope fnnocent Il
paimed when, during one of his awn Coronabon sermons, he said.
“the Roman PontiT should aot tustakenly flomer homacif
Mout hus power, nos rashty glory in ks eminience er hanor, for the
Yess be “Jl-dkvdbymm"m:u"::'adwfid" ta y ke’\

—_—
ST Epituin 5. Pl Ad Calat, 2 11:14 (Twocha/ Romar Mariew, 1963w 77
k)
PEEEE——
Trme oe False Pope? Chaptery ‘

e clouly loucs s SAVAF

L8 RETESY, Sinee he *who does not believe
« alcady mdowd. ™
ae shown humwelt incorrigible by remaining obsimaye
h,‘:;':':,,..m warning, the caume of heresy would belufl;m,m‘;
e Th would pave the way for the dvine punishment (u
ey, wehnch would then be followed by the Ruman pumshinery
{excomamencaben).
Distinctisn Between the Crime and Punishment

One of the toot errors of the Sedevacantiet thests 15 tha faturejp

reatize that the Joss of office w consequent to (but not the durst
consequence of) the crume of heresy, and 1ot simply the sin of heresy
These whe erroneously bebeve the loss of office 15 a direct
of the s o heresy (and loss of the viriue of faith) belicve that i they
personally bacome "mwecally cermin” that the Pope has commutted the
s, they are equally “morally cestain” that he has lost his office Such
ressonung exchudes, i thewr mind, the necessity for the Church kel 1
esublh the crime For those Sedevacantiste who maintain, along with
Bellarwune and Suarez, thet the loss of office is consequent to {follows)
thw crim e {and there are some wha do recogmze this pornt)
of heresy
thev err ¥y conedering themaelves, rather than the Church, to be the
udge and jury of the cnme, just as the others make themselves the
fudge snd ury of the s
Bot both groups have failed 1o consider an important point What
they fail 10 realize is that it 1s God Himself who severs the bond that
unites the wun o the pontificate The reason this is important b
because the actions of man do not directly cause God to act What this
s 1 that nerther she o of heresy, nor the cre of heresy 4 such.
1 the duract amuse of the loss of office. In other wornot ds,
even the e
of hetesy relates 4o the fofl from office as an efficient cause producrg
an effect Rather. the cime of heresy is an antecedent™ which onlt
dopethercs®
heretcal Pope 40 be deprived of the pontificate The o
of effice 1tsell wccurs by 2 direct and immeduate act of God
Thnssndunwhnhmpumwnhdwekchmoflfvp‘
Duriag tbe eloctan, the Cardinals elect the man who is to becom

—
by G 2 Mo Sermoms of Bpe Insmcent ] Servan WV, pp G849 (cmplost
 g e Chapters

s uct ol beng elected only diswses him 10

m:;:::e.bumdoumn make fum Pope m“fimn‘i‘mz
e man elected) to the form (pontificate), eccurs directly and
‘,,,,aurlyhrfl"‘“"'c“‘
he contrary occurs the1lPope
a Pope falle from the pontiicate due to
beresy , while the loss of office 1selflirst{diouung,
becomes dposed for the Joms
the
oo occurs ummechately by an actof Chrat. from the
™ hge Van Noort used the concept of dpowte ceue n s
1o the abrection that “the sin of heresy immedutelysevery a
v"”"“" frwmthe Body of the Chuzch * In respondwg, he explame that
“internal heresy, since it desiwoys that inserior unmty of fasth from whach
sty of profession 13 born, separates one rom the bady f the Church
Japoiely, but not yet formally“3) In other words, the un of
iwoves 2 person to be separaied Irom the Church, but the actuai
,'.nmfiumxluvmbksncmydosmumunnm the cnme has
firt been suflicrently established
or the person has hianselt openly left
the Church.
The same principle is true with the Pope
s fall from the ponaficate.
Jecause 1t 15 God who scvers the bond thet unites the man to the
pontificate (just as it was God who jomed the man to the ponuficate
following the election), even a notoriously heretical Pope w only
dopoced 10 lose the pontificate, but nerther the crume of heresy, as much,
et even the declaratory sentence of the crime directly cruses the full
komolfice
Agamn, the reason this point 1s significant 13 because, since the lose
# office occurs immediately by an act ol God, and net as a direct
amequence of the crime, Christ can continue to give furisdiction even b
4 notoriously heretical Pope as long as he 15 bewng recognized by the
Church
a6 1ts head It is possible
for Christ to sustan
a heretical Pope in
oftce because the relationship between heresy and jurisdiction is not
#ne of total metaphysical Incompatibility, and Christ will do so because
He will not secretly depose a Pope while he 18 being tolerated by the
Gurch and publicly recogruaed as its head Thus 15 confirmed by the
Maching of Pope Alexander Il (d 1181) who said "a hereic retamns hus
Jensdiction as long es he i< tolerated by the Church, be loses it at the wme
b is reprobated by Her*® This is also taught in the Summe,
Thictatiras Maguster Gratianus, which states that a heretic retains his
WET (satesian) as long as he 13 tolerated by the Church (qumsde
————
¥
. Noae, Gy s Orurak,
p. M2
A C. 28,0 T . 100 Peter Hulairg, The Exivet Decuo po
Exramon
sanein
soximbiae Shudla Gratiana 3 (1958), p. e

265
PE——y
Trwe o Faloe Pope? Chapiecy !
potet) ® This, of course, makes periect
seratir ”:;:uy ‘sever the bond uniting the man to u:;::m:‘ ":
he acumy
mfim @mm mnmmwmufi,w
g weild cfiectiely decerve His Church into following
oo ully
et o lawfelected and publily present1oede
deposed byetGod
secretlyes,y
R Fope by the authonti
adien 1o say, such a result s 0t only impossible,
for g

LD T
amk-dmwu.hlmuhumthcchammammhm

- = smEsREmsETORAE
by icly
weakd net prevent the snan (recogruzed publ the Ghun, 5
Pope) rows comg what a rue Pope could never do - namely, bydeg
the wveral Church o false: and heretical doctrnes Sach ,
emonrophe would be pessbe ool 1 God Himeelf - by Hus own devme
n.wmwmmmm»‘emmmmm
et the Church being aware of 1t If such were to occur, the wan
ected Pope, ard recogruaed a6 such by the Church, would be capabie
of dowg what the Church waches and believes cannot be done The
‘ndetectible Church would be capable of defectiand on,it would huve
Yocn mude posmble because of a huddent act of God This reasoning
explans why the crime of heresy must be detormined by the Church
rather than by ant act of privake judgment, before Christ deposes a Pepe
for
::'lmmmubyupmummrr Paul Laymann, §] ({
1632). In b classic book, Moral Theology, he explained that if a Pope
were ¥ fall into heresy, and cven “nolorious heresy,” he would remtin
2 wrue Pope a5 bong s he was being tolerated by the Church and
pubcly recogruzed bo Fr Laymann
as tle head Lusten
“Ut & mere probabic thai the Supreme PonnfY, as s porsen,
gt be able 1o fall mie horesy and even & notonious one, by reasen
of whick e would merr 10 be degoced by the Church, o rather
dacieced 10 e scparsie from herd () Observe, however, thal, "
Ubeagh we affine that dhe Supremse Ponufl, as & privaic persen, »
sught b able o bacerme 3 hereiic and therefore cease to be & e
vnmbe r () sill, while he was leraied by e
1{ the Church,
Shurch, and sy ogognized™ a the umversal pastor, he wauld
il sy she postifical powes, 10 such & way that all his decrees
would erve 4 fess force and authority ¥an they would if b wee
—_—
:A--I:fi—:m
0 thr sociunn we e s and sivovsal acceptance of 3 oy,
-h.a--'-u-u—,:»,..n.:“-urgm-'!"‘
c.,‘_’::.:"‘-’\"-hl-n-idu--hp:l:::
-m (such 20 the Sedevacantiots), t wouid
20 Pepe
P "'"""‘ufifly

6
 g e Crime7 Deresy [S

oy (ibfal The roomon 5. Bechite W conducrve 1w e

g of the Church, even 36, 11 any ather weil-consbed
owwealh,
O i the acts of& publc Magisaeirate o fove 2
ov i renuais 0 ofice end 1 publcly taerssed
Jself confirms this teaching, For 4f 3 Pope were able
M‘:‘,:’"MMKW wndmlflkchumhbnn‘lwmdmwe:wh:
o koow for sure which Popes in the past were true Popa, and
Mmamdlh-hmmmh-mvn-dmumm«n Hence, we
" oud have no way of knowing i the definutive decrees of the vanous
wancls had been ratified by 3 real Pope, or by one who had lapsed
o heresy for & me and secretly fallen from the ponificate
Cwequ the ently , iiself (the dogmas that mum be
object of the Fath
webeved) would be uncertain, and the determunabion of which
were defined by true Fopes, and which were not, would be left to the
Jovae judgment of ndividual Catholics 1n the pew 10 decide The
supulous would be paralyzed by doubl, and the unatable would lall
i the most outrageous conclusions. Those who demed vanous
dagmas would only have to cast doubt upon the Popes who defined
em i order 10 jushify thewr incredulity With fatlen human naturea it
1 soch uncertainly would quickly lead to confusion and division - past
ihe we see in Protestantiem, where everything is besed upon sech
Jerson's private judgment For this reson, Billuart seaches that:
“Chnat by & particular previdence, for the cormmen gond and
she wanquilty of the Church, continues %0 give Juwdxtion te a
even manifesly herehical poau(T uni] such tume 2 bshouldhe
deciared 3 manfest beretsc by the Church.”™
This common opinion was aleo confiemed by John of St Thomas,
who said & Pope who w manifestly heretical, acvonding lo prowe
Pdgrent, remnasris Pope urvel he is dectared such by the Church.
“Se long a3 1t has not heen declared 80 us jundically that he %
2% mfidel or heretic. e he cver o manifiatly heretcal accanbing e
Mivtis fudgmeni. he remains, a6 far as we are concerned, membee
#F the Church and consequently s head. Judgment u roquurse by
Chutch 10 is only then that les conses te be Pope s far 26 we are
She
conconuee
—_—
SLerman, Theel Mar, b 2, wact 1, ch. 7. . 153 emphosia e
.""nc._ De Fue Dims. V, A K1 N3, OW. 2
T Thvvingict 1111 De Aucterisaie Summs Poatyias. Diap. 3. Art (1L D Dapasiiont

w7
P P — — g Capiery ,
Troe ec Falee Pope?

Reconciting Bellarmine and Suarez

between the cnme of heresy, established
The o owncwonabes, and the {all from the pontificate by.,:z‘:
m;
.udw,wm«ubleusmv«mkwmtmsion m“"fl“‘y"'
A fecicredby st modem wniers 1o be & contradict
e Searez egarding the 10 of ofe o
e Rlaminand
By way of we note that Bellarmine, in his treape [
i, sad there were five different opiions concernin
.‘f;”,;‘:."..'l’"..’i". heveneal Pope (with the Fourth and Fifth owm..":
s most commnly accepied) The well-read Brazihian schalar Amatéy
Xavaer da Siivera, mn hus book “Ls Nouvelle Messe deof Paul Vi Qyo
pener and Fr Dowurique Boulet, of the Society St Pus X
categeruaed vanous authors sccording o the five opimons laid out by
Bellarmene The Five Opiruons, and the categonzation of those
e vanous opwusors by these two authors, are as follows g
+ First Opicwer. The Pope can never fall inko heresy e g , Bellarmine
ilot)
« Second Opinon The Pope loses hus office ipso fucto for occul
heresy (e g, Torquemada) This opwnion "has been complekly
abandonedby the theologuane.”™
* Third Opuwen: The Pope never loses T office for manifest harwy
Bous)
¢ Fourth Opuuon. “The marufestly heretical Pape 1 not ipse fick
deposed, but can and must be deposed by the Church™® feg.
Cajotan, Suar®)
* Fifth Opitwon. “The Pope whe is manifestly 2 heretic comses by
bemaeifte
be Pope and head and for this reason he can be judged
and puniched by the Church "% {e g, Bellarmne, Billot)
-
it seles”
“lo it Chue Vaaori? Anm WPX Dosmicr o0 Sedevcario e4
,.','—/f----/m/u_nlm _vmu
w’
e iaicd by J. & S
Mamse de Paat V1, Qu ws perer” {iar F

foe, o e e sbiahed the. cree emblighed thesugh ¥

xare
e eharmmas. astualy heid o Fitsh Opinian.
%
 g the Crime of rieresy. Chaptery

veira and Boulet (mnkm&devmm)“m«!

gaveisco Suarez. - one of the greatest theolo agen . 2
of hispan
g the Fourth Opinien along with Captan, Agan, the F,
o1 hat the marufestly heretical Pope docs neg iowe hus offics
facto, Wt must be deposed by the Church Thus differs from
E,m.,,', Fiith Opinuon, which holds that a marufestly hereact
Yot dors Jose s office 1y facto Siverra and Boulet premamably
“ms‘nmumdmshhflhopmmhzm&muyl'l
. he were a herebc and incorngsble, the Pope would cease 1o be
wl tence w ™
pe { th
wu_g_mwmn " C ‘ompare i of
that statement
O etta what Bellarmune wrote about the Fifth Opimon:
“Therefore, the e opinion w the fifth, acconding 18 which the
n the same way as he ceases 10 be a Chrstian and 2 member
of the body of the Chutch, and for ths reasem b can b judged wd
punished by the Church This 15 the opmon of all the ancicat
Fathers, who teach that manifest
immed hereucsigicly
g all
ansdicion ™
‘The problem, which we have not scen addressed before, i that the
Sdvewra/Boulet classification of Suarez as shanng the opmion of
Catan (listed as the Fourth Opinson) 15 not correct, Suarez did not
agree with Cajetan, but wnstead held that a heretical Pope loses hus
office ipso facto (being deposed immediately by Chnst), which 15 the
Fith Opinion For example, Suarez exphartly teaches thata marufestly
berewcal Pope 1 and_ymymeduately
(p<o facto deposed by Chnst"%
whch 5 not what Cajetan humeelf taught™ And b be clear, the
Sl
"Catllc Encyclapestin {1913, vet XIV (Francisce Suarec). p. 31%
<Defide dinp X, wocl.
V1, nn. 3-10 pp 316317
'Drl-o'-mfilr,il 2, ch 30 Thame ether sainis mchude Alphansus Liguert and
':fim-«w--m.nuwmmm—.umvu
o Creuacn, Coramata, Attwaser Naz, Regotlie,
ot Suia Firs addreseed shne st i Ladmarkandartck
ingut
*Rllarmine ageiest Sommes?
Aot Citcal o in the Sedevacantl Thesi” publisbed an The Remast neveapopet.
*0eFike
wpy s Diey
- 10,Sects,
n 10, p. 317
nmmuflmmmm'm-mmam'-w-:mz
s Five Oprvens (which hws served as e bosls wmany
rmciaris) fllvm’-(--'ymhmoflhd—mmndy’*‘
e raring
o Mellarmire For cxample. Sveirs seid: *Acconding b the fouh st
1P 1var s the Parsdicate by the very oc of b ol ks hersy Rashar fo
it e efncrtve, i e mcermary ot e b ctdecioriey of e deecion
s
 _ *
7— epey
Troe o Faee Pope?
Op sa en ” sv am ca te d
by D e l a s
r u
ro n
ne e
ot he r
oty uwh“""“ "“‘m:
Ve As we wil sce laer, pre-Vatan 11 an
wat ed tht Be la rm in e
e B o o dp e o f ffi ce for a hr eneape” Mo
ol 2
plnan]eunm.
'hmdlelluml!u\dSulMl\nfl!flm
e e a e o i 1 ez ht e e
‘renson for thix.

P v declaranons,
of # rgrngof Pope
at least two separate acts of the Churc, 4,
who has professed heresy hene 1
o atnguih 2 Fope who merely professed heresy, u
epposed 10 2 Pope who openly left the Church, which wil j,
sddressed laes)
M!lh’l\limdu\dfcmul elements of heresy have hewy
swificently estabbhed by Whe proper authorities, the Church
determunas that the Pope w guilty of the crume of heresy (and will lkely
o i 2 declarstory sentence of the crime). At this pount, sccordung
@ the opiruon of Bellarmine and Suarez. God 1mmediately severs the
hond that unites the man to the office, and he falls 150 facto from the
ponificate {dwne purishment), without being technically “deposed”
byhmu(dt"l\rw/xthll from the pontificate is followed by s
separate act of the Church — the declarabion of deprivation - which
merely cenfirxw that the former Pope has fallen from hus office due o
the cnme of heresy Thus second declaration would presumably include
a public excommunication of the former Pope (human purushment)
‘The following w the sequence of events we have just described, whith
follews whe opireens of both Bellarmune and Suarez (the opion of
Caetan and Jobar of St Thewas will be discussed in depth n Chapher .
uy .
1 Thecrime is astablahed by the Church (human udgment)
the “com mon opin ion” w that a declaratory senience
Seught shat
-
0e s st of i e Chein bmec w1l dennc the Poge ot 9 e
al Fopel
depat. o W Fomrh Opurwan, Bellaraine dees rwt cay the 1hesrewc e ¥
e . l ncd vy s he docs e beive
o epithodepasho
et ove mading of Caeas+ ve het

70

e
 gP 7 Chaprers

wcnumh‘wll\ef’opeloknchhnffifl.

e severs the bond that urviesthe man o the ponitca

lg::hus’,’g/“m,lmmnl m vine purghn” e
Church issues the declarabion of deprivation which confirme.
3 e \be Pope has fallen from the pontifcate, paving the way for
the Cardinals
to elect a new Pope 'nulonmrvph,..u.dy
exommumcaved by the Church (human punsshmerg)
Inw,.nfmgqumnlzvenb.weunuetlmwheus\.muy;
e Pope would cease to be Pope just when a senlence was passed
sgainwt him for his crime,” he 15 confirtung that the Chyrch must firt
esublish the came (by proving guilt) and then issue the declaratory
senence’™ before a sitting Pope loses his office for heresy (point #1
Jbeve) This effectively dispeses the Pope for the fallfrom office, paving
e way For the divine pumishment (loss of office) - that 1s, the divine
i cfsevering the man from the pontificate by Christ Himself
Thus, when Susrez says the heretical Pope “w tpw fucke and
wmedistely deposed by Chnst” he 1s refernng to the divine
penshment (point #2), by which Chnst Himeelf ceuses the fall by
tevenng the bond that urutes the man 1o the ponbificate, without any
firther part bewng played by the Church (which duffers frem the opinien
o Cagctan'®)
When Bellarmine says a maniestly heretical Pope is e facke
deposed “befare any excommunication o qudical sentence,” he
owditmung that the divine purushment - s facks loss of office (posnt

= h order prev
theent
neden that the Church was inagpropri
“judging”
stely the
Bpe. some have mamiained the the fall would techically tabe place beiece any
ddamicy sarvance was imord See, for example. Vermeersch, . Creusen, Epseme o
G Rowe D, 1949, p 340
Agin, Cojetan heid that after the crimme of heresy has been csmblabed, the Church
A riiserial par i the all trem the poriificale He bases hin spisonion Drvine
He netes thet, accerding te Drvine law (Tik. 3,10}, the Church hes » ight te scparsee
:n'mm,mn-mmammmw«whm
Church can licitly separeie ilelf from the heveical fope. the
s by 4 furidical act comenandang the fanbful that e man mwst be avesded. The
Sl WeeliR plays
."'h 4 *mirusieral” par m the severing o the band v the mac 6
explaies this poin in taeer detall Inies Fox e we smplv Dok, oga.
VotVo aching of Cajemrt i essemally diferent from L f Suares an) Belasurt
e tat the heresical Pope in “ipoe fose” aadh ety deponcd by Christ
'-mo-mma-.n.m.-u.

mn
 Clapy
True or Faboe Pope”
the npan pusnshrent excomemy,
R ee
ecent authors )have
failed 1o ecogize 1
iy,
thaySuang
in the above quotations, are Actally ad rong 4
e questiont' and N0t eXPIESSING (w0 dyferent ooy
_.mmu some have failed {;":’
L’T‘_"’.‘T‘fi-”’. an sing 1) the crineof heresy ) th ,
ot
i the wevlog 1 addres
ruchment fo the cnme. or 3) the human purushment for the
('d'xmm of deprivation and excommunication of the formey pr
The rescl i it they see contradictions where 10 actual contragpe
oass.
"And 1t w ret oaly with the distinction the cruve uy
between
Wat Sedevacanists find apparent contradictons. fu
cxample, the Sedevacantist apologist, Richard Tbrany, admp T
fog o
when e raxds the wangs of canomusts, he se“aes
coniradictions” that leaves lum in total confusion He wrote

© al the camemists are wet clear Many conradict sec

smother and even conwadict themeelves regarding the teachings ea
Moresy, boeetcs, culpabitity, and the sneuming of penafues, e
Theree braf memenis af cleamness 1 thetr wiilings, engulfed in
Jox of conwacsons ihat leuves thew as well as the ceaders in wisl
confaion1®

The crdumen 8 it the fault of the Church's trained canoniek bt

of the unraned reader [t Mr [branyr’s lack of understanding of ibe
Secminology and disninctions that leaves him “In total confusion” Ths
15 why such complicated matters are not lo be resolved by the pruk
wnlerpretation. of individual Catholics m the pew It is the sume
confumon an¢ Lack of understanding that has prevented bim, and b
Sedevacanhat celleagues, from grasping the distinction between e
me {awablished by the Church) and the purishment that follows
We aan further illuntrate the distinction between the crimme and the
Prunshent
by considering our own American legat process, wheree
othenee {the crime) st be proven by competent authortty before
t
serderce (e punwhment) s nposed In fact, in secular cimedl
7erm. both phses usully require separate legal proceedings Wi
the investigation and removal
4 perfact analogy, of heretial P
—_—
et
—— s sermmag the g Jocie Lows ot office while Bellarmi ne e
io refems
= By et semere bt falbows the fons of elice i
e i, " Lt Drnsmber 2003 {ctophosia sdded 5

m
 png T Clapiers

vertheless paraliel the secular process the crime of

::';: rdflgm\fl\fd by the Church (the competent authority), and the
Mm(usmflm\fllbybothflodflmdoffia).dm
o unication) This distinction between crime and the fwofoid
lf""‘_,_m. veconciles the apparently contradictory sekements o¢
e and Suarez.
s turther evidence that Bellarmune {d 1621) and Suarez (d %17
d the same opinion regarding cnme versus punhment, we nowe
gl the two lved at the same time, yet bath held that thexr position
w opmmon of the Fathers and Doctors of the
o larmune and Suarez are held as emment
Bclogiane.'¥) For example, after teaching that a heretical Fope ceases
obe Fape upon a declaratory sentence of the Church, Suarez says, “Th
the common opinion among the doctors” However, when
Jellrmune
says & heretical Pope ceases to be Pope jutomancally,
he
ays, "This is the teaching of all the ancient Fal whe teach that
manifest heretics immedhately loce atl junsdiction =
How can they both say that thew seemingly contradiclory spions
represented the common teaching of the Fathers and Doctors of the
Church? Agaln, the answer is that they are not gving two ditferent
epinins, but are instead addressing two different aspects of the
question, The crime “manifest heresy” 15 deternuned by the Church
fommon opision number one), and the punshment x eifected
meduately by God {common opinion number two)
In fact, Bellarmne explicitly teaches that a heretwcal Pope will not
e deposed by God without the judgment of men. He begins by notng
Wat althougha Pope 18 made Pope by God (God founs the man to the
pontificate), It does not happen without the coopetation of man (the
dection). likewise, a Pope will not be removed by God without the
mdgement of men. In hus refutation of the Second Opumen (which hae
beec completely abanwdoned by theologuars), Bellarmine wrote:
“Junsdict 1 cermunly
ion given 1o the PenuiT by God, bt with
0 [re the clection] as 15 obvious. becauee this
™an, whe beforchand was not Poge, liae (rom sew that he would
Ve to be Pope, therefore. v
But a scoret heretic cannet be judged by
DM heresy, the only reason where % 1 lawful fic nfaers o

—_—
;h"hhlvd«ms\u.u-p.u:—-ar-rdicg; Swaree's lebme. 4
gy vt ormaly dectared # Do of the Chusch. Foe the meoning P
Dectar," sce Catoiic Emcychopaiua (19131 vel. XIV (Franciece Suarse) 1 315.

m
 v
o
w saying thet a Pope will not be ¢
rh!w"n"“i Lmnandmmw-m‘:“: E
un” (uman udgment) '
g
As We have
oo ancther punt we should Menton.
Suarez exphcrtly taught wat & declaratery senlence of the cr, s
meanary pefore Chast would act by deposing & heretca pop
whereas Bellarmine sunply states that the crime must be “manfey-
without speafyng f it must be “mamifest” to the Church W
aeclaraory sensence. Because Bellarmune 1n De Romarie Pontifce ig nay
spectically address whether the Church must issue 8 declarate
sentence of the crume, Sedevacantists have assumed he did not reque
declarabon of the cime before a Pope would lose hus offeo
aresy But thes = 2 rash speculabion on thewr part, and injuriovs te the
good name of St. Bellarmune The reasen % because, &s Suarez noied,
a declaratoey sentence was the common epinwen duringthe
day in wisch he and Bellamune Ived, and, as Sedevacanuss
themaetves ke te pount out (when 1t helps thewr position), departing
from the “commen opiruon” ef the theologians is, at munimum, an xt
of imprudence and pesaily a marial sin 1®
Therefore, in chanty, the Sedevacanhists should presume thal
Bellarmune wideed required a declaratory sentence before the Pepe
would lese hus office Samply because he didn’t directly address the
Taker'® (3t Jeast not within the snippets posted on Sedevacarmt

-:fi_’.w&Z&l ke
- Nedd thet & heretont Pope can e jokged, 26 ans auception 4 the generad
ot i s S 10 padid by e wove ~ This bent will b csed i s naent chapier
€ Requnieg us poin. 1 respunor o M (oaching of Van Neert, whe taught thal b
IdaMey o cantvezaimece s wnly the "seminme opinien,” 8 very pepular Sedevacirit
webaite wrwte: “New, some deterders af the pecogrim-andpositivn
-res , ist’
unlamiir
with Sacred Thwalogy il be quick e boy, Bul this just & theelegi caland
epinion
Wessket Winding, Wit 11 daesrt quie work this way By siIhal
kore ln the view
g B4
Semsciskors we okallibie is Uhe comman opinien of thewlegians, Van Neert b 61
:"'F‘-u—-hmflmm‘npm(mlly)dm-mlmlnlfilfl
Nn Corishet, S & dogmaic theslogan taching o1 (he Gregerian Fonbbal
ety 1 Rome. publutied a0 imprienatuced busk calied De Vaire Nobna
winh mascs O e Valur of Thevlogint Nows c.mdnm!‘:';
are iun
Munlog thealagecs
ally cerisin, the !
Tyt emmly il i of ey (- Fope Francs vo ‘Canarie ;-rn"-""
 o the G 7 60 Chapers

13 o reason o thunk. he departed from the comnen opuo

"“:fiaww theologans Furthermore. John of S Thowasr s
d of Bellarmne. who knew hut possion well, et fug
Chreune ol n fect hold she cammen eprao that a heredeal Pope
would have 10 be “declalr:d ncorngible” before he would be ~deposed
vely by Christ*
"“"lf.d:.,pon, then, of the Fyth Opirien - that a manvestly herenca)
Mh,'g/’cmdcpofidbycmm(whthnum-\lymhp-m
Opewecof Capetan) - Suarez says:
“The
on rcfi
depaging » re
herctcal Pege, the Churc
wouldhnat
sct s superior to hum, but jundically and by the consent of Chnet,
she would gicclarg hum 8 herctic [crime] and thercfore cawenhy of
poaufical horors. he would then yase facio and immediately he
depos ed [drvane punishment], and ence deposed he would
by Chisst
‘ecome nferior and would he sble 1o he punxhed” (humas
pomshmeat] 1%
Notsce the chronology The Pope 1s first declared a heretx {cnme),
e s “then” o facte deposed by Chnst, finally the former Pope is
punished by the Church (e g., public excommuncasion)
As we have seen, Bellarmune esentally agrees with Suarez:
“The fith opinwon therefore s the wuc onc. A pope whe 1 3
manifest herctic [orme: established by the judgment of the Church,
sl possibly declared] automatically cesses to be pope and hesd
[ivine purishment]. Just as be ceases automatically te be o
Chnstian wnd a member of the Church Wherefore, bcan e judged
and pushed by the Church [human ponshment] This s the
teaching of all the ancrent Fathers who teach Ut mandfest bacetics
mmadiately bosc all junsdichon11!
Here we sec that both Suarez and Bellarmine are smply staung
that a manufestly heretical Pope (whose crime is judged by the Church
and not the falthful) ceases to be Pope withoul the need of any further
dsliraon, due 1o the nature of heresy usell But agam, smce the
-
2 ing the man e e ifice - it 5, i the acimal depruthes ioek A marely
dodinry ertence of the crime is et o juridikal act, Referrang o e coa of o bl
:memdm ‘l\ m-y mdn m havwevee, i net ackoded.
merlyedeclaetry This des ot brong bout e pdgmeet f e et Ik
P sha11 khat haw s e (fus Come mecm
Rome ,
Gregonan, 193 2453}
_f:;mmum m.um uum— uh—- l“‘
Disp 10 Sect & 1 10, p 317
"Dt P, . 2, . 30,
s
 Treesr Paloe Pupe? Ch, 'Plery |

of man dov drpesot

actrons cruse God to act, heresy. even formatty
es the Pope for the loxs of office, which oot "V
e u:m‘;y"m T Chwest, and not as & direct corscqumn
gn

Tansm T
:": erme (0 expiamed_above) Moreover, when Sutre
4 say bhe heretical Pope can now be “purished.” [
o ot having fallen from u: punh';:zn‘. the Church g
- Pope. fust s 1t does other heretics.
o e I Cutr s \.
elmn
agree
gy mm
d onhoboth
mu the
yu me
th
""”"",m“
of St Thomas (d 1644), who wa ,
As menboned above, Johnra
contofem po
both Suar ry
ez and Bellarmine, and one of the gresis
Tomwts the Church has known, confirmed that Suire; sng
ar
Sellace inru ne
agree rdques
ment regathis g He wrote
intion

the
vory fact thet b % & mandfest beretic o
mcurngibi [comc). w deposed immediately by Chnst the Lord
Jime puushment], and not by any authonity of the Church "t
[Agum. petce the “deciaratren” pust tense and the * depositan” w
e i, maderseoring o0d confirming the chronology |
Nokce that Jeh of St Thomas, who studied the question
shoroughly, and wam't linited to & few English translations of
Bellarmine posted on Sedevacantist websltes, states that Bellatmine
and Suarez both held that « manifestly heretical Pope would have to be
“declared incomigible” (declaratory sentence), before being deposed
immediately y Chrt (diwane punishment) This is atso the teachingof :
Fe Ballenn (quoted earlyer), who exphatly stated that a Pope whe :
remamed bardened n heresy., following the solemn warmung by the !
authorriees, “would have to have tus heresy and contumacy publicy !
prociamed" Here we have a known adherent to Bellarmn's :
lus heresy
opuwen saving that a heretcalPope would have to have
dacared
by the Chanch,
And what & even more
-
clear s that the position
of Suarez % e
that of Capetan (the Foursh Opurvion), sunce Caetan held that a heretl
Pope, whe x dectared mcorngible, would then have to be deposed by
She Church (v a Vitaridus declaration) It should also be noted that0
the wextee i which John of St Thomas said that Bellermune a0d
_—
- Cr
mtmwm‘wmmmumww
h&‘q"lulfl

26
 g BT Chapters
that a Pope would be deposed by God 4
w"'fy"f:, Church, he was defending mwmmfizm;
Mp.mm.., against the opinion of Bellartmune and Suares (he
b mt) He taught that Bellarmane and Suarcz held the same
e e which differed from the opinion of humself and Cajetan. Th
W‘F“’“,,,h,m that Suarez did not agree with Cajetan, (As an e,
ke end of Chaptet 11. we wall sec that John of St Thomas refuted
4 hand every one of Bellarmine’s and Suarez objectons to Cagean's
ruu:mmu, Cardinal Joumet (IM91-1975), who studied
Jiarmi ne,Sua rez, John of St Thoma s, and Cajeta n atlength regarding
s mater, also placed Bellarmine and Suarez in the satme camp, ang
and John of St Thomasin the opposite camp Speaka of gthe
cur of & Pope who “withdrew himself from the Church” (that 15,
apenly et the Church, the Cardanal wrote:
“Some, such as Bellarmune and Suarcz, considersd that such a
Popc, withdrawing humself from the Church, was qpso_acre
R0ied, pepe hwereticus €3t depesius () Others. weh as
whote snalyzis seems fo me mere
penctrating, Yiave consdered that even sfier a manifest st af
Weresy the Pope (s 1oL yet deposed, but
Quh, popw hovreticus mon est depaues, sed depencrd
Navertheless, they added, the Church 15 niel on Shat sccount abeve
e Pope 15
As we can see, Cardinal Journct, wha personally conssdered the
irguments of Caetan and John of St Thomas to be “siore penetrating”
Wan that of Bellarmune and Suarez,* expliitly stated that the two
Demumcans (Cajetan and John of St Thomas) held the contrary view o
the 1wo Jesutts (Bellarmune and Suarez) This further confirme our
dwernn that Suarez 1s most certanly not in agreement
with Cajetan 1
daiding the Fourth Opimion, as some modem wrlers have mustakenly

-
" Secx the sn of heresy requires perioacity & mandfut sin weuld requi mstat
ITUICly 1 the coe of o Aing Pope, tha eubs rsuie. e lervenons of e
Sourch s dacumped abowe
Wi, The Church of e Vo Inesrnee, p 483
‘Nflhmxcmhl]wmdldmm-hmhlw"—
i 4 Doctes f he Churct his epation mus be cosrect and therciere -
- s ot autemaically sdopt the epiniecs of hey Ductors. For ecaple
SHuneslang debate aver the fmmaculate Corcepsien between the Demincars
Aol 54 Tharias) and the Frarcacans (whe elkowed Scwh th Dot
hien icteey slnplybec aume St Thomws i the Commsn Decter ol e
m
r_*

True or Feloe Pope? Chapiery

cncinded " o fath clanficabon. see the Appendsy chug
e agrie nathaveSuaseen,
From
1t 35 clear that the reason Sedey,
rez 1 becausthey e have failed to ACa gy, !v

B e (cstablished by the Church) and d:::".f':"‘

bt for the crime (1p30 facko lf-:dn‘ffr‘fl Tt causes teme
Bellasmune’s teaching (ipso fucta loss of
""""f‘:,::.‘ ‘Gows of office folowrng the declaraion of m’;’:
s:vsy ¥ the Church) represent (WO Contrary opinons. Sedevacangge
e ot hat because Bellarmune 15 & Doctor of the Church, ang
Soarez s ot, Bellarmine’s opmion must be true! While they
cermuly entied W pref er the opm ion of & Doc
m l
tor
l
of
u
the
h
Chiu
“ u oyer,
rch m
mm.w.mmsmwrmw
2 compleily fallcious duetncwon, a5 it s in this case Further, g
ey du
Sedevacantts go out of thewr way #o denigrate Suarez (as
anyone who serves 2 an obstacle o thewr Sedevacantst posiion)in
wrsde edit his seactung, which, quite embarrassingly for them, u
drcrr
qone sther than the same opinion as that of Bellarmune, ae we have
demonatrated.
The followmng quotabons demonstrate not only how the
Sedevacanheis have wusunderstood Suarez’s teaching, but also hew
ey have atiempted to undermfusun gooed na andmcrede
ibility F
eample. in atempung 0 counter an argument presentedby
Chrwtopher Ferrara, who pownted out that “nowhere does Suarez teach
Ahat any member of the faithful can declare that a Roman Pontif has
Tost b office based on their own private judgment,118 Fr Cekada, <
respanded by impugring the reputaion of Suarez with three flagrant
tweoo
falsieh ds
senten ces. He wrote- *
“Suwez, who tonded 1o lose moal controversies with ather
Cathelic thaclogmas [falschood #1), was the enly theologuas whe '
beid shat powon [falechoed #2] The rest all taught [falschoed ¥3]
that 2 schumnaixc pope loses the pontificate aulomatically because \
Iorecy 2ad scivern bels roprescaiad *defoction from the fath '™ «

—_
"'Wn-thlt—-i-lfiuw. Tighly ssmplex 1 is trviet
-urumsummumm;munuwmn“‘
Opuner,
fast. Werne-Vidal aive wwmtakerily plased Suarcs in the same o ¥
-Mw&-mnm.mwwmm‘
% Sbrvicmtan
and Mo Ferran's Condlard Fope.” hitgr/ fweww Wadiocsimss |
 g I 2 Chapiery

Sedevacantist who has atiempled e ducredst

A e, who has. demonatraied that he. o ns'::m';
ws,,m position, wrote
Suarez did 10 fuct hold the ducrriind mivarty
puson that & public heretc would have te be dopesed by he
Fhurch Bt since hus time the [Firs) Vatican Councii has decs
shat the First Sec 15 udged by no one %

it a5 we have seen, Suarez explicatly taught that heretcal Poge

» deposed “ummediately by Chrst” and thus held the commen opmn
s the question, not the “discr edied
mnority opwon” s Lane falaely
dams Second, Lane evidently believes that the aaom “Prime sedes a
wemine mhicatur”(the First See 1 judged by no one) first onginated st
e First Vabcan Council m 1870 Mr Lane will be surprsed o leam
Jut this famous axaom 1s found 1 councils datin back 10 thegfirst
qenturies of the Church,' and was ted by Popes and theotogians
swoughout the Middle Ages. For example, It was used by Pope St.
Nucholas in Propesuerantus quiders (685 A D), 12 by Pope St. Leo IX
e Epustle In Ter Pax Homuntbus (1053 AD) and by Pope St.
Gregory VII, in Drciutus Papse, (1075 AD') 1 1t 1s also quoted by John
oS Thomas and Cajetan i their treatises dealing with the ios of
ofice for a heretical Pope In fact, Suarez humself ates it i his
whuistion of Cajetan’s opiruon ®
‘Yet john Lane clalms that “the First See is judged by no one” snly
wigoated afler the time of Suarez, and then claim that because of this
“new” teaching from Vatican I, Suarez’ position 15 discredsied! Such &
sulement revesls more about John Lane's knowledge of the subject
keedevacastums o 18 Cabelic.” WP s sedevacano.com/
umbolc
Tur example, regarding the case of Pape Mareeilinus (d. 34 AD). Cojetnt wrow
“Woen the pope incurred the charge of idelatry, the evarcil which wes conred, secmg
Jom coniee of heart, said, Jiudge yourseif The Sirsl see s ast jadged by anvene ” {0
Papur et Concale, p 101). The phevee is o bvand m: e Syried of
Axctoitate
Wmsm&m,mqm--—unnm..-\m

™ Netkuby Auguatua,rree by all the clergy. nae by reiigrus, wer by the people =il
ige e padged m:y-suml_up‘fiby-y—'w—'—
fbm 5 AD, Deriz, 330)
""“g:;w
! (1075. AD) s dcard The
e o PDica P, s- Nu.19 e et
e VL. e
'.“,m""!'--.'nuummnnm.-ndmh:
X sec.
an nasl, v was certaindy o peivaie persen (Saures, De Fide, Digpulohs

>
r_*

Sroe
o Falae Popel Chapery
h
Mkm‘“‘“mwnm"ws"‘fl
watier shere. He went on $o say
Lane dedn t step
that sewe suthonlics have taught
me
tha
th ngche : .
T ease of pope falling 10 heresy ofsooffice would ne; t
beroes belicve 10 be smpossible),aflerthe 3 105 3
o oc woulbd not be kawwn, until dectaration by 3 Genen|
yy, |
Councrl or a Conclave Whe are these few” Jobn of §u Thom
YT
typical fashuon, Lane attempts to smugly denugrate the = ¢
El-hlndhn'mdlfl'flbnllunl theologians, whose Dectr '
an obstacke Jo his personal opiruon. Denrgralio n
of those iy
disagree with s opuruon unfortunalely a common tachc of the t
layman John Lae and s fellow Sedevacantists In revealing thai he ¢
100 does not understand what Suarez sctually teaches, Peler Dimond '
ko atiempts to denugrate the esteemed Jesul theologian by Tefernng !
to hw teaching as tus “fallible speculations from 400 years ago” and v
“the inaccurate speculations of Suarez”*Z - which would necessanly
include the “fallible” and “maccurate speculations” of Bellarmine !
“fom 40 years ago” a well' Like John Lane, Peter Dimond
completaly musunderstands Suarez and Bellarmune, and thus reveals in
pan view the emors of he own and te”
“inaccura “fall¥e
‘speculaens.”

A Pope Whe Openly Leaves the Church

We have shewn that rergrung Pape will not lose hus office before
W Church has established the crime, and most prabably not before the
Church issues & declaratory sentence 2 However, we do concede thil
i 8 Pope were ko openly and publicly lave the Church of hus own wil
oppusesd @ smply profeseing heresy, ™ w case could be made ¥t
-
— Faspn 16 o
Same Arsi
Endevasatiar hpacsions,” - herp//
veveve the-pore: al
i Femmt ik Rt Stovee Refuied wn Sederacecilon” bitp] [ o
eV tobert-sipcec.retuied
catholachvmrch /ramman Sederscams
= OF e, the crast a0 which Cind would depese the Pupe s oot-
Wby
o o gD o e, g, o semenn i the Chrch e
1= A b0 f
Olr)
o b e Catulic:Ciwerch gactus formaelis dafrrtiont e 4 Emont
o il provabe purdical act of departure from the CA\MKO":
1963 Code of Caors Low 28 havieng cxraain uridica effecta enimer
 g e Y .

ve
1d sethe bondrthal unlied the man 1o the ponufcate,
O publc defection was acknowledged by the Chuch, wor
1 8 declratory sentence of the crime (for exampl, the Fope
ecly declared he was no longer Catholic and.then jomed and
o mea pastoro f the Lutheran sect)
"‘n_ 4 because, 10 such an extreme case, the Church would no
g have eason 10 recogruze, 3 15 head, a oun who no longer
1ed tumeel f In sucho case, the crme of heresy (maer
as such
and form), would be sufficiently mansfest by the aclions of the Pope
Jumsl (notorious by fact). without the Church having to prove it, and
e "clever evasion” by the public defector would be posaible (Note
i "public heresy” and ~public defection from the fauth”ts
are fwo
ifferent things Sedeva ca10nt
have failed graspis
tha pemnt when
Jey attempl to apply canon 188, §4, 1o ihe conciliar Popes)
Consequently, it 1s possible that, once this crime was acknowledged by
he Church, God would immediately act by severing the bond unrting
the man to the pontficate, without the need of an addibonal
declrstory sentence In thus case, if & counctl dud iseue & decieratory
smience, 1| would merely confirm the fact of the cime by which the
lost his office 0
Pope had airendly
As we will see below In our discussion on canon 18, §4. the old
17 Code of Canon Law taught that in the extreme case in which &
prelae publicly defects from the Faith by jorung & non-Catholc sect,
hew deposed uithout the need of a declarstory sentence Nevertheless, the
format deposition would have to be precbyed edal warmng (1o
& cenenic
confirm pertinacity), but it would not require a declaralory sentence of
the crime In fact, this extreme case may be what Bellarmune was
actually referring to 1n De Romano Pontfice, when he wrwte

“Thus 15 the opnion of all the ancient Fathers, whe soach that
mnfest herenics immeduately lose all jursdicuon, sed
avtsundingly that of St Cypnan (hk 4, epst 2) who speaks s
allows of Novatias, who was Pope [sntrpepe] 1 the schm wiich
sccurvd duning the peatificate of St Commelrs. “He would wet be
ahle 1o rewun the episcopetc,and., if he was made bubep befoce. b
-
cuen 1084 1117 and 1124, In 2006, the Penifical Council SLegulaive
Tevs
Red in what a format act af defecuan frem the Cathwlic Church ronsed. - st
ml’nfumuhfln«rmvmay,mummu
»
T wocd correapand te sehat Fr Warnz wrvte shen e aid “ Genwral Cowmtl
:hhlflhlummmk-lm-imtnmwmfiynmfifl_lw‘
Yot serurate] melf froor the Church ad depeived hiaerd of his rank” {Werr
Prcritiom, 1953 1, p. htS).

-2
7—_*
True ox Faloe Tope? Chapery

sk
foom e by of Whose who were L |,
eke passuge,
it Novatan been v
a0 cvenUbad i she
2":,:,,’:":;.‘; ¢ weuld have automatically fallen r.-.'".,:
the
T 1 the opunion of grel recent dociors, as Jobn Dricda (1,
e Sc ri¢t deg
pt .mat Ecc les , cap 2,p ar 2, 5en 1 2}, who teache
4
that ] Who ae
expelled, ke e orexcopp ommuni cat ed,
ose her, as heretiand cs schsmatics Ang
o scvenh affimsvn, S maintains dat in those who gy
ram the Chilrch, Wheve remains absolutely 1w spintual power ever
wihe 2e wecthchigChutharcht BerMeleucchis or[thCan
shee,accap io says the xame (b 4 de
ose who have wumed rway
froms thc Cherch] arc sersher pars nee members of the Church, and
et 1 canmel o be concerved that anyone could be head and
Pope, withowt bemg mermber and part (cap ult ad argumest
12
By referring ts heretics a8 those who "scparate themselves from the
Church” who "tum away from the Church,” and who “depart by
s Bella
from her,”
themeelve 1s referring
rmune ot to those who mery
profsss 2 heretical proposinon, but to those who openly leave the
Church (o longer accepting the Church as the rule of faith) Thuw
cofiemed by the cample Bellarmme used, which was that of
Nevaban (m recorde d Now, Novatian dsdn’t merely uy
by Cypran)
somethung harecal, he openly left the Church by sdamantly refuang
8 recogmiae Pepe Cornelius a8 the true Roman Pontff, and then wanl
further by eventually proclaunng himeelf o be Pope Ironcally, ke s
exactly what over a doeen Sedevacantut priests and laymen have done
in our day, including David Bawden, who not only left the Church, bet
fwve proci fo be “Pope Michael* But the pomt 1 thit
himeelfaims
lic
sect
Nevatun effectively jomed a non-Catho he declired
of which
hwaell the loader He didn't smply make a heretical statement
Fr Mattheus Conte a Coronate discusses the case of Novadan 1
s own rasiernt of how a heretical Pope can fall from the ponkfiate
Fr Corsais cted the same seurce of the story of Novatan ¥l
:*“'mm-dum-twmsmm.knwnwu wrmmi;.:
w”""m‘ o) Fr Coronata ta wrote {the context s howa
s what

—_—
e Ko i, . 2.t 8 (omphase added)
w2
 gt Crme o re7esy Coupters

~Tiurd, of be would separatc Mimeelf wn accoun: af et

cagse from the commumon of the whole Cnurch and o e
Sushops [whm%
2 EM—"“‘ who was pornieoudt by Cybarlili e afi
aernne &
M
see that Novabian didn't merely aey something heretica
,F,:I; jet the Church by declanng hmsell Pope, i w..":
it schusmatic who set Fumsell “outmide the bosom of the Church-
T ctng, the example of Novaban, it seems that when Bellamune
ks of 2 “manifest heretic” automatcally falling from office, he i
i simply refernng 1o a person who publicly prefessed heresy (s
Sedevacanitsts have imagined), but one who openly left the Church by
oinng another seiigion or, un the case of Novakan, declaring himweil
P certain that Beltarmmune did Aot conetder a persan who merely
heresy 1 public to be & “manifest hesewc,” by the fact that
Bellarmine bumself cansidered Michet de Bay to be a Catholic 1n
sunding, even though, as we aew in Chapter ¢, de Bay publicly
peofessed heresy, 1gnored Pope Pius IV who mposed silence on him
{n 1561), and continued 1o teach hus heresies “in public,” evan after
ey were foemally condemned by the Pape Yet, i sge of ths, as the
Sedrvacantist John Daly noted, Bellarmune “always conssdered hun s
2 lened Catholic, most worthy ol respect, and at this wme [shat be
was professing heresy] called him prudent, pious, humble, erudie.”
which would be a strange thing to do 1l Bellarmine consudered him to
b “marufest heratic*
Now, 1f Bellarmine’a use of the terrm “marufest heretc” referred not
wrely lo someone who prafessed heresy, bul te one who openly leit
e Chusch (thereby openly reyecting the Church as the méatiible rule of
fat), and if he did not require a declaratory senkence of the crune in
wich an extreme case, hus thinking would have been in perfect harmony
Wikt canon 138, §4 of the 1917 Code, sunce, 2 sce will see below,
#cording to the 1917 Code, i the extreme case i which a peelate
Publicly leaves the Church, he 1s deposed without & deciaralory
sentence- but no! before« canonical werning There i cersminly10 “public
feection from the faith” in the case of the conciliar
Popes, all of whom.
ke Michel
de Bay, continued to present themaelvesas members
of the
_—
:,:’:'""M-annml.uq-mnlrfl wanviaed b7 .
Degriole (ermplasie added).
20 Ouly, “Heresy ly Histocy.” bite/ woev sioberibelia
et/ besvogi
smut shes.
e
 True or Faloe fope?

o T i he Chuch, whih means he hasfromnoythe byPublu,

id
t a cleat and evident defection
poHf.'f:l: m.:u woukd have to be sufficiently establyy hfl""'”
Church belore a Pope would lose fus ofice
;:A ciared) by the prlate who was suspecicd of heresy “w
e voul forany other
Canon 188, §4 {1917 Code}
seere this chapter, we will address canon 108 g
whch bas been used by Sedevacantiets lor years 10 supporthey
t
Even though they claim canon law docs ot apply to a Page
foben & an obetacle ko their position). when they cap
.mm!_“ Al canon a6 supposting the Sedevacantor thess,
Mm“wlmflm‘xs,yplyloflwhpe The particular canse
s then presented as absolute and irrefutable proof lor their position
Their favonte *proof canen” of all is 188, §4 of the 1917 Code wheh
owng:
olles
prevtheid
“There are cermn causes which effect the tacH resignation of
am #fice which fessgnation 15 accepted im advance by operatian al
the law sad hesce w clfective without any declsmation These
oomes e 4 1f e g Jeiblicly defectod from the faith, "
What exactly doas the canon mean by “publicly defeced from the
Farth"? The Sedevacantists interpret it 1o mean that if shey privately
a Pope @ be & heretic, he has therefore “publicly defected from
judge
tha faith” which means his See (Sede) 13 vacant (pecer herce sk
sacenk) But je the really what the canon under tact resignation
mwans? No, not atal. To quote £t Brian Harrison.
“Cawn 183, §4 wews thet wmeng the acuons which
mwwmancally (ipoe facse) cause any clersc 1o losc his office, even
Wilww my declaaken en the part of n superior. 15 that of
“dnloc{ing] publcly e the Catholic fatth (A fide cathalica
pobiice defecarst ) Howenes, to *defect publicly” frome faith. =
B osaicat, clewly meams somcthing & Lot more drastic that
madong harvacal (or alicgedty heretical) statements in the cowse al
bl sponchcs o documents Thu particular cause of losing 20
T
:.M‘.T’“'::-h'mymmmmflwfi“"
c.-mmmc.aur._u,mm,
 g e L 2 e )

ffice 15 found in that sactwem

of the Code
resignation of such an office (o 134-191), -u‘:l::{‘.
o on which lsts €1ght soct of achions which the Law weass me vack
O atatons ” In other words, they arc the sorts of actoms wheh can
ey be taken 2y cvidnce thal the cleric in question dees nef v
B ol 10 contliue i the office he held v Ul that ume. cven
logh he may never have botherad 1o put Aus resignacono
abcation 1n writing "

A smple review of the explananon of thus canon, as found in the

) manuals, explauns precisely what the Church means by
o whc defection from the faith * The statement does not apply, as Fr
cotrectly notes, 10 a person who merely makes & here
satement Public defection from the faith refers 10 a preiais whe publicly
s ¢ fse relgron, exther formally or Informally
r Augustine also explamns the pownt at length
“The vindwctive penalies are rendersd more severs m twe
casee, which may be distnct, but may ales eccur by eac and the
same act. sectae acatholicae nomen dere [formally) o publice
adhoerere [informally]
A sect means & religious socicty establishad 1n opposition ta the
Jews, Moslcms, nen-
Chuvch, whether 0 consist of infidels. pagass,
Cuthelics, o¢ schismatics To become & merabar of such & socty
{nomen dare) means 1o nscribe onc’s narme on 1 resker Of course,
I 18 presumed that the new member knows it 1s & noo-Catholie
society, otherwise he would not incur the censure If he hears of the
censure afier he has become & member. and promplly scvers hw
wensection,
the penaity 15 not incurred
The text alio provides for cases of aferaul membership.
HFublice adhaerere mexns (o belong publicly te 1 non-Catholic secL
This may be done by froqueting s services without any specl
came of remson, or by boasung ef being & member, though wet
sorolled, oy wearng & bedge or cmilem undicative of mbershp.
k. Those guilty of such conduct, whether layracn er clerics, rwder
themucives infamous (infowie runs leter somcniioc) wed
oonscquentlycan. 2294, must be applicd to them. A clanc mus,
besides, b degraded!™ if, afict having been duly wamed. be
Perisia
tn being 2 member of such & suciety All e officcs be may
bold bocome vacant, ipse facte, witkeut say furtker declasation.
—_—
-
h ‘A Heretical Pope Would Gavar the Church Wkl bt Valdy * Laving
e No 87 1(May 2000
the servierce of Bocesiasiical Law, whereby o minists 1 dapesed i
< iy entirely, und o tmers & hghes o & bveee Oy
25
 e as Faloe Pope? Chapiary
A
_"nu—"'-"'g""m
sy s omc de focte el jore (»y"'rmm..‘:
™
Tac esgraonfor publc defection from from thtehe£faith occur iy,
fon: Cathlc sect, not when he simply makes s heepy
p eudged s0 by prvate judgment) Caon 2314, §3 conprct
shis when it pravides.
Canen 2314 (3) ofthey have yomed 2 non-Catholic secs (5
sectar acatholicee nemen dederint) or publicly adhercd 10 1t (ve)
kce sehacscrmt, ey e i Jacte infamous and clencs,
d renouany
(9 have taciily
‘sdérten to being cenmdere ncedoffice
ey ey bold. . 4
o Ervulca. to be degradod™ (omphissis added).

Farthermore, & neted above 1n Canon 2314 and in the quothon

from Fr Augustine, even in thi extreme case m which a clenc ‘Ppublxly
deficm froms the faith by Jouning o nor-Cathoic sect, the prelate mut
e duly wamed before being degraded or “deposed ™ Thus, even when
a clenc openly leaves the Church (by jolning ancther religion), therely
abandoning his office (which 15 &¢ facto vacant due fo his “lagt
regration”), he must first be warned by ecclesiastical authonty befere
he w formally deposed {or degraded) by the Church
Ths aso confirmed by Fr Ayrinhac's commentary on she 917
Code. wheren he notes that a clenc who “formally affiliates with a
sed
n-Cathelic sect, as publicty adheres ¥ it” ts only depoafter bavg
wamed Wrote Fr Ayrnhac
“If they have boon formally aiTiluted with a non-Catholic sect,
o publcly sdber: te . they meur ipo fcio the note of infamy
chanca lesc afl acclesiasucal offices they might hold (Canon 185 4}
ond ofor 2 fruitlass warning
they should be deposed “1%
Bt the Sedevacantiets have their ewn interpretation of thu canen
uie diferent from hat of the Church and her theolograns. Accordng
3o the Dumend brathers, for exampie, *public defection from the fatk
8 the same as & public e
—_
e Mt A Commeninry ot New Code of Cane Lo, vol 3,1 5 pp 793
o b, Pl Logmbeton e New Code of Canan L, p 193 Node *A
vrakmach
andcalo rchne pevity by whach a cleri s favever depriv
il

. ed of N6
nn),_..m,m""'"“*l""""*’""‘""" vCahulic

8
 the Crime o7 rieresy Chapters

book, The Truth Akeut VWhat Reslly Hepyened

';,Tu.. section hiled, “Answers to Common o\,,;;:: m
zevx-"“-‘"‘" the Dimonds ask the queston. “What w a pablic
1 against the faith” Here 1 their answer- *Canen 21971, 1917
ode of Canoo Law ‘A Coime 18 publtc (1) of 1t % already commonly
e ot the crcumetances are such as o lead o the conclosion that
iwil easiy become so "8
Nofice, they answer by providing tha canorucal defiration of a
i crime, a5 € “public defection of tha Lauth” and “public crune” are
P and the same thing Irsead of precing together unrelated canons,
why not smply quote what the Church and her canonusts teach, or at
it e the canons (such as canon 2314, §3) that specically reference
vd explain the canor in Guestion? The anwer, of course, u that dong
o wauld undesmune their Sedevacantut posttion, since the canons
all teach that public defection from the faith refers to those who
publcly poin & non-Catholi sect
Clearly, canon 188, §4 10 no way supports the Sedevacantisl
puiton, since” 1) none ol the conciliar Popes have publicly defecied
from the faith by joiming a rion-Catholic sect, and., 2) they have not been
warned {which the canon requires before deposition, of “degradakon”
scrurs) Without even addreseing whether or when canon iaw apphies
W the Pope, the loregoing analysw dewwnstrates that the
Sedevacantie’ effort 1o commandeer this canon in support ef thew
tesis b categoncally musapplied and thus completely erroneous. It
i demonstrates why such cribcal weues are left ta the public
dgment ol the proper authorities 1n the Church, and not the privake
égment of indrvidual Catholacs 1n the swreet.
Canon 134, §2 (193 Code)
Finally, in the 1983 Code of Canon Law, which is in force wday,
Canen 184, §2 (which is the equivalent of canon 188, 84 in the 1917
Code) expressly sates that the temoval from office dwe to public
defzction Irom the faith can only be enforced if 1t has bren established
= declared by the competent authority From the 1983 Code:

“The following are removed frorm aa ecclemesmcal effice by the

law el

i*n person who has lost the clerical s,

 True o Foloe Fope? Chapiery

3+ clenc who hus sicmpted muiage even i only crvilly

e removat mentsoncd 1n Canon 2404 3 can be wistod upon
B bl et suthery ™
acverding to the Code currently i effect the remova)
e vabiched by & declaration from the compn
authones. The declaration makes the loss effectroc it s sinular to g,
ce,
o of offiby law fo a bishop who reaches the age of seventy
fiye
He retaire the office until the resignation 15 accepled For a clenc why
e from W futh, e will remann 0 office and all of the acy
:Tm w;{;'r:nlm valid, untl the Church dectares him removed
The follownng commentary on Canon 194, 2° and 3, 1s taken from A
‘Nety Commenteryan e Code of Canon Lew
“tn the cme of defecten (194, 2°] or clergy aMempiing
mamage (134 3] the declaration by competent authority is similar
10 e declaratien a1 the eod of & tenm of office or completian of
age The fact o which the Yose of office 1a based does not depend
on i atheaty’s declarmion but_ts_effectivene does. ssTie
fficeholder remans 18 offise, end the actions which_reauire the
vy W v 1
thc
officabelder 12 wriung "'
There has been nie ssch declaration for the conclli Popes, arot fw
she other 5,000-plus bishops of the Catholic Church What this shows ¢
shat neyther she 1917 Code (186, §4), nor the 1983 Code (1%, §2)
sapperis she Sedevacantiet posttion that the coricdiar Popes {along ¥th
the other Wehwps) have lost therr office ipse fucio due to "pubix
defection frem the farth
Urnable 1o wield the “public defection” canons to their favor, the
Sedeva cariem
are forced beck #o the unanumous beaching of e
Docters and theoleg who uans
maintain that the Church (agam.e
‘csnpesnl suthonty” that Sedevacantisis reject), and riot prvik
wdivaduals, st determinie the crime of public and notorious heres/
fo & Pontitf to lose hun office - which has not taken place with ¥

—_—
= S, o Carsdem, fasvm,
Lo e Yoeh 7 h;‘;;;‘;‘li&r-u- yn e Cade
o CB
 g ee e Chapters

Canon 151 {1917 Code); Canon 154 (193 Cade)

Cekada recently discovered a new canen from the 1917
cm::' Low, which he has confidently brought forward in an mi:;:
drhend Bis novel theory of ipso facto loss of office due 1o the ~sin~ o
Yy, 43 discerned by privale udgment Hae reason for cing th
e canon i 1o “SXpLin away” ihe esc of thehthe
isog
n ams
P e sated that 3 declsenb arence
at of or
the enmye % neceseary or.
o lose s offce for heresy 12 Fr Cekada introduced thvs cayom
T cent video he made defending the Sedevacantiet thews, I the
* e, Fr Cekada ilustrates his misundenstanding of the ‘verm
Heinton,” irorucally, m the section of the video that he
nately ttled “Msunderstanding the Term “Daclaration1%.
Fr Cekada begin this portion of the video by admutting that “laver
ans,” who accepted Bellarmune's potion regarding s face
s o office for & heretical Pope, “nevertheless allude to some sort of
gecaration by the college of Cardinals or bishops “1# Fr Cekada then
caims the “declaration” that these theologians are referring to = not a
decaratory sentence of the crume (which, as we've seen, follows and
e the Church's fudgment), but mercly an admomsirabwe
ot
In s usual fashion, Fr Cekada smugly and sarcastically atiempie
w ridicule john Satza, Rabest Siscoe, Chrie Fervara and $nan McCall
(whose acticles the video was Intended to refute) by saying if his
*soonlighting lawyer fends had taken even a basic course in canon
b they would reaize that the term “declaration’ m this context.
merely reflects a general principe laid down i Canon 151 reganding
ippointment to a church office "5 Here is the canon Fr Cekada w
witring to
“An office that 15 vacant de jure [by law], but thet perchence&
il held by another iliegitimaicly, can be conferred provided that
duly according o the sacred canens, s posscsnen & declared nat
on w mede
of this declaranen
and that menti
18 be [egutmate » the
leticr of conferral “Me

—_—
::’:flt%m«hnhmm-'_“""-
:;‘:‘hvlduullfl “Stuck tn & Kur”
kg
o 151, 1917 Cavto of Canoes Law femplhane sbded
2
 True or Fabe Pope” iy
she “deciaration’ spoben of in this cangy
MM‘:: office, which 15 vacant by law, i being .n.,.""“’
mfle dm fl’ e legal vacancy having aiready b&nm
(i act causcng
mmuulm:mmfi%

ke illogrtimately furctions in an office, he has o 5

" _‘:f‘;c say. whose mesllation
u::sho;: of the diocese \:fl
e by the cvil power - the pre
::u“i m*:_l ‘poner ta confir the office laimayc o clector whe
ety 1T the llegal occupant’s posscsvalsioidln y ofapporsy
y x
™
daclared not 10 ¢ logrmaic.
10 the case wher
As we can see, canon 151 applies ehy
an office
aiready been vacated by law and yet remains illegsimately Occuped.
Thos, a “declarakon” under canon 151 merely serves to faciitaie te
‘removal of the Wlegitimate occupier of an ecclesastcal ollice g
oeder to fill the office with & lawful occupant. But how could the Qura
dectare thet the office 15 bemg occupied illegiimately without fint
establhubung how oF why the person 1s not a legitimate ol fceholder?
How could the Church declare that a Pope legally lost hus ollice lor
Docesy, for example, without first establishing that be had, m lac,
falien mso heresy? Clearly, before a declaration of Hllegibmacy could be
soued, it would requure @ prer judgment that tha Pope was nets
legiumae officsholder And this first judgment would have to come
from the proper authontes of tha Church, who, in Cekadas swn
words, “have the canonucal pawer to confer the off“ ice
Just as the
Church alone has the auhority 1o confer the office, 1t alone hus e
auth en
o pudge (andty
declare) that a clenic has legally lost hus office
To further lighight the error of Fr Crkada’s theony 2
“declaration” under canon 151 s similar to an evichon notce after2
sticandalred
roal wiake forclosure In the cases of both ceclesiaoffice
wale, the underlying cause (heresy/debtor default) that gave rise o
she o {office/ preperty) has airwady been adjudicated by the propes
axthoriies (the’ Church/secular court) Canon 151 has absolukly
othieg 18 do with the imtal desermination (i, the cru ofme
hersy)
that gave rise 1o the vacancy, and the necessity of declaratory senlen®
W the case of heretical clencs (1., canon 2223, $4)
wankYet, bbaswd upon s mngle canon of Limited applcation, Fr Cokaét
flack 1o draw the general conclusion that every me B¢
spoek of 2 declaratory sentence ey relation so the oss of ¢
—_
** Coka. idow auti “Suuch i ¢ Rt ™

20
 g the Crime & rieresy Craphers
creical Pope, 3t refers K a declarabon
e m,,,.,:m That s, Cekada w...:’,"f'n'”fi"'-.".;v'.""»...""...:
i’:::nm sentence” refers exclusively to the hmited case where th
e decares that the office is slready los - and, evidendy,fow
rording to the private judgment of 001 percent of the Church Not
iy i s theory nonsencal, but Cekada houks humeelf on e avn
the very quotation he includes in hus video fand shaves
P e bast course m canon Law) ¢ whe
‘The quotation comes from the weil-known
commeniary an
W,y:,mmd Vuhl.wlmeehdaues-mm:\;{g-(::
peoogiana” who adhered to Bellarmune's opinion, but who
Jess spoke of “some sort of declaramon” In the video, Fr
Cekada displayed the following quotation (below) on the screen as he
wrelly “read” the quotanon. But, wnierestmgly, Fr Cekada chone to
ectu de
a few key words from the quotalon in hu oral “rectanon *
What words did Fr Cekada choose 10 exclude? Those thet show these
st theologians” (Wermnz and Vidal) were referring to the declariian
e crme, and. 1} the deciaration of dlepytimacy, as Cekada contends.
We will anderl the partinehe quoled The remainde w whatrhe
convenfasled ¥ cre.
iently
A declarory sCNEacE af the crime, hewever, ig aat {to be]
axcluded a5 long as 1t 33 merely declanstory This dees net brng
abwut the Judgment of & bereticat pope, but rathcr shows that he has
Vocr judged<14
Notwe thet Wernz and Vidal expliatly mention a declaratory
senkence “of the crime.” not simply a declaration “ef llepitunacy.” as
Ft Celada would have hus sect believe Once agan, Fr Cekada
converuently omuts (at least verbaily) the part thet compietely
cnkeadicts his position - qust like he dud with the citatien frem
Cardenal Bullot, as we saw 1n Chaper 5
. Now, when Wemz and Vidal say that the declaration ef she come s
Werely declaratory,” they are sumply noting thet because the Church
b5 o suthority over the Fope, It cannot exercise an act that requires
tuthwrity over hum Therefore, the Church does not sechnxcally “dge”
& bevetical Pope, as a auperior judges an infenor, but merely declares
e crime, thereby showing that he has alresdy been pudged, just 2
Pope Inocent taught,' Furthermiore, the decleratory senkce of e
—_—
¢ Conomcumn Rocre Gregorian 1843 2453.
e Huve nwted pevioualy in i chaphe, ofthre may be 4 secend dodksaon
Uelrten of deprivaion) that fellews th I oice, bt Ve b o ofer ol
»
 Troe
o Falee Pope? Chapiery
\bisshes the fact that resulls in the loss of oy
fl"'[:':“wf,,,v. Jo precede any declaration of m.sm,':"y":*‘h
T e b e anly f 2 Pope soughl 1 retain the i Per
mkd..filhe«bcanddfipfl!dhvmolfke)
s we sav eusherWi this chapier, Suarez explamed yyy
canman opesen of the Whcologua the 750 facts losy of g
1s thatns
weuid flmp the declaratory sentence of Mie cnme “On depoung
Teretcal Pape,” wrote Suarez, the Church “would dectare fom
[daclaratary sentence of the crme] he would then ipsa iy e
\mediately be deposed by Christ *1¢ But before a Pope 15 declyregy
" the proper authonbes (or at Icast before the crume&
be remains the tegal (legitimate) officeholder
the canon cried by Fr Cekada, which applies to siegitimate sifey
ekdect (based upon the Church’s judgrment and not prvate udgmeny,
1 no way applies to the recent Popes, who have not been judged
hareiucs by the Church, and thus were lawful occupa the pep
of nts
alfice
In @ct, Fr Cekada's fellow Sedevacantist, Bishop Sinber,
concedes ths very pomnt. Bishop Sanborn confirms precisely whal we
have written in this chapler, when he admity that a heretical Fape
would have lo be wamed by the proper authorities, and the warmng
would have 1o be followed by a declaratory sentence issubyedthe
Clrarch, before he would cesse to be a legel occupant of the papal offce
Refe post-V
#0 therr mg aican Il Popes and bishops, Bishop Sanken
wTele:

* we do et have the authonty to declaee the secs legally

Vi which hese poseess die facte Only the authorty of the
Cinrch cmdothat. [uom ] 1s iegally declared null and voul by
competent sutberty, the harctical ‘pope’ ec “brshop’ ¥ in a stac of
doal pocsession of the we He can ealy losc that waic of iegel
possomion
by legal depusinen. N

-
as Herrs i
il ot preerds the Cloard's podgment of the crame Furthes, 7
'-‘;:"---u-tyh-ub,-'-nmmu-omnm-:
-flu ! aablished tha crime)
ol a4 nded becaere # pubie,Imwvm'ckvmihll,nlyr(vllflm
noterious, and cistinale herctecoly €
T e 1t e ditae e s vaca 1 i the i sectos coud 2
a octen” (Harvt, Mamasie Thaslogme Degmiaiemr (1843} 1501, «oP™
=D ik v . 8wt 10 p. 317
ko Semm, “An Gonprrer Wo Have, Bt e Blaiep” (smphaae sddrd)-
m
 ey -
Chapters
prong I
will have more to say about Bishop N m::
in the niext chapt er ¥ We ate n.s'moy
... vecs ien
Sd:::mnnsm
gl realizes a Pope or bishop will occupy hu office ,f‘_,',y
e and until he s legaly declared egitmale by the comps
ortty Only after a legal declaration by the Church wauld he, pe.
" an llegitmate officholder, 1 be atiempled 1o reman
ofice As this chapter has demonstrated, such 3 declaration chsof
necessanly be preceded ¥y the Chur
egltimacy would
tion (and declaration) of the crime of heresy, which 1 the
Lammeus opinion of the theclogiane What thus shows w that
151 in no way applics to the current Popes, as even Bishop Sanborn
weuld concede Fr Cekada s effort to commandeer this canon o s
e further reveals not only the errors of hus own theory, but the
errorof the Sedevacantst thesis as 3 whole 1=

—-_—
i the xt chupter we will explain hew Bishop Sanbern can concede thal ihe roart
o7 ave b inimggly, eccu cy, et e tr Popes.net vary well secetved «
pare ofthe papa“Stu
Mot surpe Fr Cekasias vides ck i a Rul® was
by thesc wh are e to the Sedenc 8 few mancri shat
vacantiol thema Here are,—
"“
z,lel “"'"lhm' Almmmfl“'s‘(‘-h .mamm. _ actualty
ltli'wllh‘smh-n\'
T T Why? Necause it seive nashuny,” Anethoc added. sl s phecamener
Whe n Fr Cekada wics to swalplok n
e his (ace actwally peoshces a4 frvc
[~ 1ot ot o abc asio
cath phpt e WAT7 b= s <.
20
 Chapter 10

~The Church Must Judge the Crime ~

he previous chapter, we explaned how the crime of heresy

;,,fiuauhlsw.mmnmm-umnmz:
wd of the Church We alie dutmgumhed between the
of heresy (established by the Church) and the twefold
ment the divine purishment (1o of office cither tps fucteot by
o), followed by the human purishment (exewmmunscasion)
I itus chapter, we further exarmune why the Church alone
e authonty &0 judge the crime of papal heresy We then conader
some of the errors that individual Sedevacantists make when they
atiempt toudge the matter for themselves
In the Summa Thoologice, St. Thomas explains that just as it belongs
1o public authonty alone o wnie the law, 30 0o it falls 10 public
authonty alone to mberpret the law and apply st e particular cases by
rdenng judgment. He wrote
“Since yudgment should be pronounced sccerding to the wnikca
Jaw, a8 suated above, he that premousces judgment, tatcrprets, 1 &
way, the letter of the law, by applying f 1o some particuler cose.
New sunce 1t belongs to the same authonty (@ iieraret and to make
#law, just s & law cannot be made except by puklic authoriy 1o
tiether cxa & yudgment. be pronounced gacept by publy authanty,
which cxiends over those Whe are subgect 1o the comamuarty ™!
The Angelic Doctor goes on to explan that it 13 unlawful for a
person o render a fudgment he has no authority 1o make He explaine
¥atthose who do sucha thing are guity of the unlawful act known s
“Ndgment by ueurpation.”
“ludgment 15 lawful 1n aa far aa o 1 a8 act of jusuce. New
follows from, what has been siated sbove (1, ad 1.3) that tioe
conditient are requisite for a judgment Lo be an 3c1 of jusice firsk,
that 1t proceed from the inchoation of justice. secandy. sl 1t come
W o dundy, that 0 b promousced
acording 1o the right ruling of prudence. g ol e ¥
fi pwiul First, whe i
omtr rectityude of jusice, and then it s called ‘pervaceed”
o thear
———
AR 6006 rmphua i ).
added
 True or Falee Popc? Chaper1,

o secondh Mm%
g B0 B e cermny. = when u
e,
hen the l, Wi
:mnmllve. Torms# Judgment on seme mmmlurnlm
e s o 115 calod JodgmE by e or gy
Judgrent ™
will conin
what we have already presented andproper
“,.l.,mn should be endent that only the ,@hu‘:x:
cy
o render
s possess the competen the neceseary g
:' the deposimon of & heretcal Pope, |ust as only ul: pm-:
eccienaoncal uthoribes have the authonty 1o render such judgmay
foc ather biahops who deviate from the Faith {and wha reta ey
e before bemng, deposed by the Church) Further, because the ey
dkfluy-nn«vdfl\lmlhtlulo(olfifl.lsexplamedmhym
chapler, in onder o a sitting Pope 1o be deprived of the pontiicyeby
o act of God, the crume tiself must first be establishe and declang
d
{commen epuen) by the legitimate autharities of the Church In fag
she declaraw enby the authoisnihes
of the cme considered 1o bey
this pews,
amdien required fora Pope to lose his office. Regarding
Jobw of St Thomas wrote
“The poats(F cannot be deposed and losc the ponuficaic unless
1ve
endruans are fulfillcd tegether- that the heresy 11 not huddwn
bt public and legally 0ianous {1 < . declared?). and then he mas
e mowmpibic condiansare
and pertinacious in bus heresy 11 both
Fulfilhed the pontiiT may he deposed. but not without them ™
Suarez mentoné both of these conditions as well, and expresiy
shwtes that she declaration mwet come from “the legitimate jurisdicisn
o the Church” He said
“1affiem. of he were a hcretic_and incorrgble feondstion], the
Popc wwuld ccasc 1 be Pope just when 3_seritence was passed
auns b (o hie crime [condition]. by the tegitunatc lunsdicias
1t Church. Thus 1 the somment opinion among the doctors ™

-
5T M6 0.0 2 mphas sdded).
i Ity st “sb o sestere by o competcnl fudge that T
‘G_‘_'"""";Lm;"lmuummuu.wzms'fim
o oo\oatriate) Sus vt Daonie
Powtficn, Disp B At
Pl o XV,30, 316 frmptini added)
%
 e Gt st e Chaprer 10

on 1o explain
who n the Chuch would consmrase
e ate jurisdicion” to pronounce the necessary suvence- the

*In the first place. who ought te prenewnce wuch

otsy tat 1 would b b Cardmnls, aod he Chrch ocurce
S andoubtedly (0 aitnbute W them thi faculy shove 1l of
e s esablished by the cansent or dcierrumaton of -
Sopreané Pantfs, s was donc 10 regand (o the clction Bus up v
ndvy we do nol cead in any place that such » judgment has bees
confided to theen For
o f for, being the srdumary
postors and the pillars of the Church, one must comsider that such 2
case concems them And since by divine law thare 1 ne greater
seasan 10 fTirm that the Matier 1s Of more interest to these b
simn o those, and since by human law nothing kas been established
n the matter, one must necessanty sustain that the cass refers 10 g,
asd even o the goncral council, Thal s the caswmen epuing among
thedoctars™
Suscez mates that the “cnme” must be determined by “the
lgimate jurisdiction of the Church,” and concludes that this 1s a
council (and even says this is the "commen opinson among the
dactors”) ” Suarez thus confirms what should be obvious, namely. that
a mgning Pope 13 not declared a heretic % an exernise of privake
ndgment by appealing to “Divine law” as the Sedevacantts Imsgne
Rather eccleslastical authority alone (an ecumencal counct) 1
nequred 1o judge and declare the crime of heresy, which is a condshon
that must occur before » sitting Pope “would cease 1o be Pope * Suarez
further ressons by saying,
“[HF the extemal but occult heretic san stll remem the wue
Pepe, with equal nght he can centinue o be 30 1n the event that the
@0
- became known, s long a6 seaicace ware nal pesscd
affense

“Exiernal but occult heresy” ta herwsy that has been exsernaliaed

foat completely Iudden in the heart), but known to only a few Susrez
reas anthat
by noting s if a reigrung Pope can remain Pope if hus heresy
Weermes known only to a few, with equal nght can he reran Pope if
—_—
i p 316397 farny phasi addect.
(e othee airon she matter o the gverat councll (petect and impeciect) o e st
. emphass added).
297
 mhpwvfl““”"'*‘"fl‘"m'"mqfd.m"
e Pope 0 lose s offce 1 effect .”
he wrote,
abere would s doult about, the degree of infamy
fac bem to Wec e charge there would nae schm
1] because of thus. and everything would bepon
s, sbove all If_afler being kNown 13 2 heretc ,
the Poge
Tmouhd have mausiahimcIf ned 0 poseofca ston
his charge by fuse
o otber ™
these prophesc words ot reflect the situabon
s.«?nnn‘s.whnmpmhb)y wmore divided .mn;s:m,:
han were the Protestants 40 years after Luther publicly defected frwm,
the Church? For example, how many “Popes” have been elected te dyte
by the vaneus Sedevacantst sects? Well over a dazen! As we saw
the Preface, enc of whow ("Pope Michael”) was elected in 19%0 by by
and four ether indaviduals, and who professes to have a grand
ivial o 50 fellowers throughout his rewgn a
the world * Dunng
anipepe. “Pepe Michael” has seen the election of other Sedevacania
“Popes.” such as Linus [1 (11 1954), Peter 11 (1n 1995), Paus XIll (n 199,
asoter Peter 1l (1n 2005), Leo XIV (in 2006), Innocent XIV (in 200,
Alexander IX (in 2007), Gregory XVII} (n 2011}, and John Paul [ (i
2015} Here we see what happens when individuals declase the Panl
See vacant by thesr ewn authority, as well as the schisms that rakirady
follew - post 28 Suarez predicted
To fustly thew ackons, Sedevacantiets will often cite the wel-
bewn quotanen from St Jerome, who said *heretics exile themeelis
and separate themaelves by dheir own act from the body of Chat”
This quoletien: i crted to defend their posstion that a Pope whom they
have perwmally rudged 0 be a heretic is not a member of the Churth
and therefare
101 the Pope John of St Thomas addresed e
@mwcous derpretabon directly, and even applied it to the case of 2
harstical Pope He wrote:
 P Chapter10
“when St. Jerome says that & heretic scparsios hamself from the
Jody of Chas,
copecally » such a serious matler 56 e deposiuon of Uhe Pepe He
s mstcad 10 the oature of the crume. which s such e se 1o o
o olo from the Church without any further ceamure amached
— yet oaly 90 long as o should e declared by e Chyrch,
o ove 50 manfestly herctcal accordmg1 o
Y s a8 ot w8 we are concerned @ membar of the Chursh mg
sossequently 15 head “1}
oe would expect St Bellarmine’s thinking w perfecti
s o ah that of Suarez and John of St Thomas regaraing vhis
i, In his book, De Membris Eccesue, Bellarm by cting
begirs une
Binelaw (O 10, Mt 7, Gal 1) to show that heretical hishops should not
Jelistened to by the peaple He then explams thal heretical bishope can
niy be deposed by the proper authonties This shows that, accordingto
Sellamune himself, a bishop who publicly professes heresy, yet whe
Jad not openly left the Church, would retain tus office Thus, a bishop
wha publicly professed heresy would not, by that fact alone, be
wosdered 8 “marufest heretic* (sccording W Bellarmine’s
understanding of the lerm), since, in De Romane Pentifice, Bellarmine
wight that manifest heretics automationlly lose thewr office (and he
ade o distinction between a Pope and other bishops)
In the following quotation, Bellarmune uses the term “false
prophet” W0 refer those who teach false doctrines, nof those who make
predictions that do not come to pass as the term w commonly
understood today He begina by explaining that the fahful can
owtainly distinguish a seue prophet from a false one by “wakchng
arfully %o see if the one preaching says the contrary of he
redecessaes,” and then, one paragraph later, he adds.
“We must pomt eul, besides, that the fathful com certaly
disitnguish a troe prophet from a falsc one, by the rule that we have
Ul down,
but for all that. if the pasior w & bishop, Wy cannal
and the
fposs huw and put another 10 his place For Our Lord
Apoxles caly sy down that falee prophets ane nel i be lwiencd to
¥ the people, and ot tht they deposc them. And i 1 ccriue Gl
e mnctice of the Church has alwavs beon that hereucal biskons ke
dezesedby bishoo's councis. o she Sovereuga Pantf ™
—_—
o S Than, D:Il.-ullh(—vhfi-dfl) P Vi 10, P
.,""""fd-l-“m. L De Gercw, ch. 7 {Opera Oua,
. Troeor! Faie Pope? Clup W '
the true thunking of Bellarmine regard,
dfi"‘;"_::f,flm ‘He explains that a herebc %o
b al
" the fauhfut who should ot listen 10 hum), but theyP ok
spored bim~ o what amounts to the same thung, -dm‘,""u
depene e to “manfest heresy~ Of course, if the judgmeny mhfl
Cimirch # necessary for other buhops to lose their office, hay n
e neczsay 1.t when the bbop X Lhe SUpTEIT Fonkif Conpet
e Sedevscantw “wierpretation” of Bellaruune, the oy
repects the Sedevacanhst thesis by teaching that hen
ey e deposed by the Church, and not by the .
W—‘" of the fntnful shrough some fallacious appeal 1 “Diony
w”
As we've seen, Sedevacantuts (such as John Lane) will likely ot
10 the plaan wesnung of Bellarmune’s words by saying that becausee
First See % udgedby o one,” Bellarmune could not have meani tat,
concl would eversee the deposttion of a heretical Pope, since w
weuld require & “udgment” which the Chirch 15 not permtteds
render They will then likely argue that this 1s why Bellmune sad,
feretical Pope toses I office 1pse ficto, since he cannot be yudgedby
the Church But this 15 clearly not the case, since Bellarmudidneo
st hus eachang on the ipso facts loss of office to & mamestly herescal
Pope, but argued that all manfest heretics immedutely ine
mnedction.” Yet, i the above citation, he explicilly sates i
‘hercical bhops (whose heresy can be identified by the fanbful and s
shereiore public) can only be deposed by the Church, What thus shaws
s thata “manifest heretc,” according #o Bellarmine, 15 one who i swh
by the Church's pudgment, not by private judgment Secondly
Wellarmune hmwelf defended the opinuon that o heretical Pope an v
meged by & cowncil, which eviscerates the Sedevacantist argumen
aliogetter, and further proves they have not undersiood Bellarmunes
posinen,
In his raaperie 10 the “Third Opunon” (ie, that & heretical
Pope
cabenn et
depese d even if lus heresy s marufest), Bellarmine obecks by
g
“Fanly. becase that 3 herstical Pope can be juiged ¥
cwpeewly hald m the Canen, 5/ Pape, dist. 40, srdl with |nnecent
-
vt o s epuien s the Nk, apowesing e Poge whe laied?
:*hu-nn:dun‘:fl-::mn—-*‘
- d-nfl-dhflyihm.‘hnmhunnfl:
e by the Church. hes o por f al he anciet s bo Kt
Nt oemaditely oo oll pstodictinn ..~ (D Romame Posiifice Bl
300
 e e Mtoy e v a 10

i de Comec Pontf) And whet 13 more, 1n she P

t-s:uxmnl of Constantinoplc, Act 7, the acts of the Reman c.:.':
usder (Pope] Hadran 25¢ reciied.* and i thace 1 was consumed
ihat Pope Horonus aspeared (0 be iegally ansthemacized becaime
he had becn convicted of
5 supenars
The above quotation from Wellarmune himeelf dwectly undermanes
he Sedevacantist’s “interpretation” of Bellarmune, by demonateating,
e cleaty, that they are ot un agreement wih the Doctor
of the
Chutch when 1t comes to judging a heretical Pope. Therr dusa,
1 Bellarmune 1 clearly evident by what John Lane wrose about
As we saw earlier, Suarcz taught that a general council must
seersee he deposition of u heretical Pope and wsue & declaratory
sevser of the crime
ce John Lane uses this teaching of Suarer as ay
apportunity to further denugrate hum. Lane wrote:
“Sutdea arethat the z’s
Church could *decl bum 2are
herete”
w completely wdefenaible Aficr all. what clec % 4 ‘jurdical
detcrmination” but 2 public judgnuens” Suarczs acgument that 1n
such a case there would be no vielation of the panciple, The Firk
See 13 judged by no-one. 1s handly convincing. end Bellarmine
explicaly rejected 11 T 15, indeed, wne of Francisce Suarer's
fimous disinclions - a dwainchion without a difference s the
scholastics say Suarcz. with this docieine, places the bshops m
caucit over the pope, a notion now cosdemacd exphertly 2
Wy "%
Lune's embarrassing misunderstanding of Suarez continues when
hellkewise accuses John Salza of heresy for teaching that the crime of
papsl heresy enust be determined by the Church, before a Pope loves
hsoffice, In response, John Lane declared.

_—
¥ Heer e the werds of Pope Adeian: “We road that the Rewun Pertié has atwitys
Il e chieis of il the churches (thwt I, the palriarchs and Vishwpe). bul we do rot
ed Vhal anyonc has rver Judged him 1 wue Shat, after e death, Henoris wes
by the Orlerals, bul orw mst cemember that he was accuscd of heresy,
Ny crime st s W et of mfeaoes e suprs, a o 4 . e of e
Pomioess dactrine, legtimale” (queted in Le Newvelie Mevoe d Pand VI- Qu v pewr’ by
:":khn.mvdn,w 19-20 cmphasie adied).
Ao Pebfar. . 3 ch. 38, warulaion by By an Grerd cuphatis sdded)
i L, ~AntGedevacamam. s & Cabhalc? QU) (rmphaus.
sbdeds
1w sedevacartet.com; wikathelc bl
304
e Traeor! ChaptryyY
—Salin s Concilianat - he chesrfelly asseris what ev,
Galhean shovlogmn since Cayetan has been at pains 1o deny ;"‘;"II
e 8 pope Since thus postiton s
ek we ecd o oo curselves any fuher with g |
daclares Suarez and Salza’s position 1o ke 5
_m'p“::sg_ pudged by o one.” cven though Bellarmng (e,
Lane prawes
a5 the authanty fof his oW pORIOR). explictly pagg
s heretcal pope om be pudged” and "wnmufiuun-.....,,,,
saymg Wt heresy the ooe case in which “itis lawtul for infergn
e supenocs.” I fact, Belarmune 18 musch more explict an Sqyey
Teparding thes matter Susrez merely said the Church can declreg
erime of & hereacal Pope, whereas Bellarmune explictly mates the
can be “judged” This further confrms what we have shewy
domeoatrated - namely, thet the Sedevacantists, such a3 John Lane,
Fr Cekada, have completely musunderstood Bellarrrunea po.m.,:":
aioe confirme that Suarez and Bellarmune held the same opiuon, juy
the pre-Va ns (John n
[} theologiamca of St Thomas, Cardinal Jeure,
ard others) have sad
We she uld
again note that there 13 3 nua
in nce
the nolien o
“jndgng” & Pope in the cae of heresy, a6 we discussed In te lat
chapier, but Bellarmune clearly taught that tn e case of herew he
Pope (the “supenor”) can be "judged” by a council (hus unferior’)
And 1o be ,lear, Bellarmune does not 34y a fermer Pope (one whe has
already lost us office for heresy) can be judged No, he explicily strio
Wt “a hershcal pope can be judged,” thereby conflrming that be wil
reman the Pope at least until he 15 judged guilty of heresy by e
Chuxch. According 0 Bellarmine, this judgment of the Pope a
\ permied, because heresy s the one case " which infenors we
| permumed 1o judge supersors.” If the heretical Pope had alresdy falen
Jeom oléice e, facte, prior e the Church's udgment (whic 1 hhew
| Sedevacaniss wcomrectly wierpret Bellarmune), the former Pope
weould e looger he “supener” 10 the councal. I the next chapler, we
| will explaay how the Church can oversee the deposttion of & herekal
Pope, while avouding the heresy of Conciliarism For naw, we simplv
wishto shew What even Bellarrmune said the Church can "judge” a Pore
int cace ofhe
heresy

\f viewtopic phpti=2ki=1757dastort™).
pwiarna. dus it srictly e the Pope nmp""":,‘:,
! ey funchons 18 esablish thet he Ja perinacins.
‘:’;-uhhh---a,—wrm--.:-wmml"

o
e Church Mustfudge e rime Craperi

{armine £005 0R 10 €XplaIn that even i Pape Adrian refied

n:P‘“’ text from the Oriental bushaps (which soome beheved sy o
» nevertheless * wrote Bellarmine, “we cannot dany, n fa
Y Popeo Ha Hadnan [Adnan], and with him the Ro man Counci, nay
whole exghth General council judged that,
e e Pont can be mdged e that. 1cue the of
Lane now going 1o declare Sellarmine’s
w':fi:{ 28 he dud with Suarez (and Salza), since vm;;
it vthe First See 15 pudged by 1o one”> Or will Lane admut that he
s o properly undersiood Bellarmines position, and consequently
We been publicly musrepresenting % for yean? Agam, the
ing 15 pervasive among Sedevacantut apologis, the
vt mayonty of whom have not studied Beflarmune’s wrtings t depth,
wt Insicad formed their opinion by reading small snuppets of his
wnings posted on Sedevacanst websltes
Jtls important to note that when Bellarwune said the Church must
aversee the deposttion of herencal bishops (whuch obviously includesa
heretical Pope), he was simply following the teaching of the
sderementioned Fourth Council of Constantinople (89-870) This is
another most devastating blow to the Sedevacantist thesis {and, this
ime a Magistenial blow) The same councl, which stated that *tn the
e of heresy, a Roman Ponbiff can be yudged,” also forbade anyone 1o
separsic humself?1 from hus patriarch {the Pope 1w the Pamarch of the
West), before& careful nquiry inta the matter by a synod The council
then atiached the grave penalty of excommunucasan to any laymn or
monk who refused to heed this teaching of the counctl, which
sbviously applies to today's Sedevacantists Again, Canon 10 of the
ecumenical council says:
“As divine scripture clearly proclasme, “De wet find fault before
40 invesugate, and understand first and shea find fault” And docs
aur law judge a person without first gnomg him 2 heanng and
Tearning what be docs” Consequently, this hely and unrversal syned
Jostly and fiwingly declercs and lays dowm that eyerim
Lay &
Monk o cleng should separate himaclf from commupias wit e
240 patriach befors n sarcful nquiry aad yudemeot 1 syied e
W he alleges that he knows of some cnme perpeirated by b
-_—
3D Kamans Prific b2, ch.
e30 (esnghasis sdded)
20t e previcen shopar the avbom “ihe Fit Suo b pudped by o0 o™ dd
™ iwith t Vatican £ 4 John Lane brwgics, but has been oed by op
Thocis sin
the earlen cof the Church
yours
h%fim‘mwmm-h‘fl el seputonact

303
 Trwe o False Pope? Chapteyyy

arch, se o not refne 80 clds b patrarchy

e dee mysenes
of affiees ¢ ) 17 anyonc shall e
et e hoty symed. b 38 10 be debareed from, il peand
el arus T be 15 3 bishop o ¢leric, if a many, oty
Tt b xcloded rom all CORTOAM
unil e 13 40converig.
mecims g
T e e excommunnaed)
repentasce and recenciled."
Here we have an offical teaching ol the Church oot g
on of a iheologuan) which explicly condems the Sedevacarum
pomtion. By wirtue of tus decree of the Founth Coung o
Eorctanmoople, vo lavman of cleric "should separate himeel yy
communson with fus own patrlarch™ (hus bishop or the Pape) beiog
lawful wqury by competent cclesiastical authonty, lest he «,
excluded fro all commuruon” and separated from the Church. gy
st 1 procwel) what Sedevacanhsts have done, and with regard w iy
Sepreme Pontif no less. This decree shows that the Sedevacanua
pomsion x formallv condemned by the Charch. Those individuals,
sch
2 John Lane, who have spent much ol their hves Atempting
‘persuade people to do precusely uviat the Council forbade, will have mish
w answer foe in thas regard on the day ol judgment
Mr Lane actually mockthe s
sdea that the Church herself mat
tand er for a prelate or Pope to lose his office, by argug
a judgment
that any Cathol 11 the pew can judge “facts as facts without requinng
Deddy 1o confirm them *® “Daddy” 1n this case, i the Cathelc
Qrurch What Mr Lane 13 saying 1s that he can judge whethera peeii
has loat hus offce lor heresy, without needing Holy Mother Church [«
“Daddy”) 1o render a judgment Let us see how contrary the thenkng
of St
of the arrwgant layman, john Lane, is in comparison to the actions
Cynl of Alexandria,a Doctor of the Church, when he himself was faced
with a prelate teaching heresy
In the encyclical Lux Ventatis, Blessed Pope Pius X1 duscusss lhe
reeponee of SL Cyril to the heresy being preached publicly by oneof e
iellow Farurchs, Nestorius of Conatantinople What did SL Cynl #
whan he received word of Nestorius® public heresy? Did he declae
:‘-' ;P;:‘ fi:mr who had automatically lost his oIfx:’ ..f’.“n:
Whing St Cynl did was ko publicly defen
10 ne
doc hus flock Next, he sent .mtofimflmmma\mwfl
boing b back © the cormect doctrine (of Mt 15 15) When Nestoré
Publcly pamuied 1 hus herasy (thereby demonstrating his perims®
[
a7 e, Tre ot o o Constantinepe, Carer
10 8 AD)
M. e et e vivctope plp et 757
304
 e Cch Mt Juege e e o

semal forum), St Cyril did not declare

1B e as no doubt Mr Lane and s fotonm depoced by
D ave dore Instead the Patnarch and future Docior of
e (ot 8 mere Invman) appealed 1o the Fope (o renders yudgmens
f Mt 1817) and refraincd from taking any further action on hus swn
e Furthermore, 5t Cynl refused to cut off communion with
Nesiorios unti! he received 3 udgment from the Pepe Pios X3 exp

“These cvil dogmas [of Nesterius] which were ot taoght new

soverly and obscurely By & prvaie irdivadus), bt were openly ang
{ caused a very great disturkance of the wunde of men. more
sepecially 1n the Easiern Chusch. And armong the opponents of e
Nestersan heresy. some of whom were four n the capital cty af
the Eastern Empire, the foremost pluce was undeubtedly ken by
that most holy man the champion of Catholic ntegnty, Cynl,
Patrarch of Alcxandns For s he was most zealous in his care of
s own sons and likewisc wn that of emng Wrethren, he had ne
woncr heard of the pervernc opmion ef the Brkep of
Constsntinople than he strenuously defended the orthodox fasth im
the presence of his own flock, and sise sddresscd lowers 1o
Nestorus
and endcavoured in the mancerof 8 brether
(o besd fum
back to the rule of Catholic tnuth

the_chapable attcmgt, Cynl, who understond and sgrorususly

muataned the suthonty of the Roman Church, would: pat himsal(
lake lurther steps, or pass sentence o such 8 very Brass. matter, unlil
A hd finst appealed to the Aposiolic See and had ascrinad 13
dacision Accordingly he addressedmost duuful okers 1o the most
Messed Father [Pope] Celestne, beloved sf God.” wherem among.
ather things he wnites as follows The ancient costom of the
Churches admomshes os that maners of tus kind should be
communicaied to Your Holiness * (Manen, e 1V 1011) Buy
5 hings ! Voucheslt,
e,e what you fect in this maser 50 thet t mav be
10 prescrib
therefor
cowe
clearly known 10 us whethar mmituncawith ie i o
bhether_we should frocly declare te hum Gl he_sac cab
mmuues withtegne who chenshes and preaches sucklike
ermoneous doctrne Eurtho of You re,
the rundrmo lmcgnty amd
wur jodgment on e matker should be clearly 3¢ forth 1 kcacrs to
the Buuhops. ef Macedonsa, who we most pievs and deveicd to God.
 gy
Tre oc False Pope? Chapy
(Mans,
.unkmnmmlfluol-lllhem‘ le 1y
oS y® "
Heve we sec the response of & “champion of Cathole
Foae s futare sint and Doctor of the Church, when itegny,
Toaw poicly.toschug heresy He didnt declre 200w,
P wes sgnficant, that Nestonts was deposmd g "
vyP"D law” and that he didrit need “Daddy” 1o jug oehn
N, he appoaied to Rome and mequesied that the pfeh""‘"
dgment. e refmed 0 overstep s own authoniy by taging 4
s o hands, The saint even siated, quite humbly, that e et
ot apenly and publely forsake commuruon with Nevor e vl
ierng the pudgment of the Pope Here we see how dilf e e
actions of a Doctor of the Church 1n comparison to the n et
Sadevacantstsof our day, such as John Lane rahress of e
In the last chapser, we saw that the Sedev
Speray, used the case of Neslorius in a vain .."n:flv?nms'"'
prelates who prefess heresy lose their olfice aum:m:u"m -
We also
needing 1o be wamed or deposed by the Church. o
Speray atiempied te use a creative interpretation of l:hwmuuml“
suppert tus theory, when, in fact, Bellarmune humself .
W0 2 different chapter of the very same book. .,..."fi':..!”"‘“
depoved by she Chirch (at the Council of Ephesus) in the i
automacally
Sperey clred,s he year 428 (when he began P preactuny 5 hm.yym),.
M
e .my;lc:\:f,
The Sedevacantut Gerry mm;sd also uses the ciseo
v om ofo ficee ee ~Orvine
et o D i 2 s drcemed
iscerned and delredy
b
Coctemen ceipy e l;:. o tatics, “though Nestoriw
oo upy he patmarchul see of Constantinople de futef
- mhrmy'b w-t::ldosolt/urr(mlheeyeduwchmd\i
b heh Nudk];nl(msd:wanlt,huseuw(}m\‘h'i
WW.. ""mn‘h: say. Mr Matics did not o 2
I'P”!"Mwlhl}qudm see wab
ascertion that Nestorius®
Church law (because none exst) Mt
W""‘*" sumply applied his own erroneous Sed runciples of
o e fudgment 10 the e case then declared, an b
¢ of Nest tonus, and e
suthonty, vl M.orhn legally lost tus office the moment b
_""‘"‘".fl;-yll)ficmhufl I:'\m provides us with the ressonng
husion. He wrote:
—_——
*Nope ea1, Vot Nem 1.12. Do 75, 1951
 wa""d' Mus! Judge e trme Clupter 10

0w an officchobder m the Chirch ramifos b vy

Nestors dud n bis Chrvizaes Dey bormy [ 426]) -
T ol
e fundarmcnial prnciples of e Cathoic Faghy
1) Hereucs are not members of the Cathotic Church, suace the
Church 15 “one body professing oac Faith” (Ephcsiane4 4.5)
2) No onc can lawfully hold office 1n » bod
af which
y be u net
evenn member "%
Ewdently, Mr Matacs’ private judgment of “fundamenal
pncpie of the Catholic Faith does not comespond o the pudgment
£t Cynl of Alexandria, Doctor of the unsversal Chureh, nor 1o that of
& Belarmune, another Doctor of the Church, who affirma St Cynfs
vestment of Nestorius Regarding the case of 5t. Cyn! and Nestorias,
Bellarmine wrole
St Cynl of Alexsada . Eptie 15 5o Pope Celeshme,
whomn be calls ‘Most Holy Father® at the begumng, be ks from
him whether he would have that Nesonws was sill
communi a1 that time [afler preaching heresy),m whether
withcated
e was
shune
to be dby ail Al of which sufficiendly shews i
what place St Cynl held the Renam Poouff. sice m the
codemnation and depes:tion of Nestariug, be shewed that be wat
nething other than the execuier and sdnmassiraiec of the Roman
PontiT 7

As we see, Bellarmine accurately relates that Cyril

did net believe
Nestorius automatically lost “legal title to huw office” for publly
presching heresy (much less by private judgment), as Sedevacanbets
wagine, but rather appealed to the Pope to render a judgment of the
matter (whether Nestorius "was stil [to be] communicated with” or
“was 1o be shunned“) In the meantune, St. Cynl conbnued to
ognize Nestorsus as a member of the Church and Pamarch of
Constantinople (and remained in communion with hum), unkl she
Onrch uself [the Pape] rendered & judgment While Nestoes' heresy was
steadfastly resisted by St Cynl, as well as many of the futhful i
Nestorius’ own diocese (who were later praised for doleg %), neither
St Cyril nor these falthful declared that Nestorius was nol a memberof
the Church, nor that e *no longer hokds legal tille v has office
—
g,
7Melutmice, D Koo Potyioe, Wi 261 15
307
 True oe Falos Pope” Chaperyy v
Maatics' fallow Sedevacantist, $ishop Donaid gy
e e s hese s lu
i kh
ore dep t than
mulh«wh“
Mrbo
he
MTh(
ml
:"
ol nthmndemflkxd ly
ves25y,Mr Matatics clatns I 1act, one mughbetsyrpc 20
Foam that Bishop Sanbom actually acknowledges that only ,"q"‘i
Mmmi\mwmd«hfimolfhvmnn and that UP to thay
\he officehokder retains legel possession of the ollice 2 Pome
I an artcle about the case of Nestoris, Bishop Sanborn vergy
folo1wn gh he draws a parallel to our current day-
whic
« deopic T public Beresy. 1t was stll necossary iy
s n 428 wa
o 431) which W
Nesworws undergo warnings by the Pope, and having repudaicd i G he lost his
warsmps, be offically excommun ic
and depo by cd
sedai the sam Sedevacantiats de
The casc & siikngly close to our own we do ngl huve ge andeined doctrine
I Only the authontyof demaed had mot ¢
(he Churcan chdo that unul their desipn1oatpessc ious ne
bt&y legally dociarad null snd vord by competent oy, ifice for publicly
tae herztical “pope’ or *beshop’ 16 1n # state of legal possessin of retan his office w
e sac, but without pthonity, He can anly lose that e of icge) ut wuch contradh
kegalu
by a
osc n
depo sion et
S0 Mr Matatics’ claum that Nestonus legally lost his office ifute S
(automancally) the moment he began to preach heresy. i not enly
cwriradcted by St. Cyril and St Bellarmine, but even by one of by Regarding the
Fellow Sedevacanksts, who happers to be a bishop himsell But ihe Wt the recent Po
problem with M Matanc 5 theary does ot end here, a we will new and legaly retame
st enyoy the powers
Matatics' explanation of the Nestorius case (which 1 cited reguldy Wat their alleged
by other Sedevacantst apologists as an example of an jpso fucts Yossof operate a1 an 3
office], durectly contradicts us explanation ol the case of Pope Jobn Themistic termin
XXIl {d 1333} Why? Because Mr Matatics and other Sedevacass
- for cuample, the€
» fubop Sanbom w o dfferat wiripe of Sedevacantist, Conteary o wany of W e Mewed soule dn
Aaresdas he acknwwiedges that 4 Pope {and bushops a lse) could only be deposed by e oy oratitulet
uthecwllye Church, bul he wil rehses o recognize the concilar Pepes & b v et Thureton
o, Ascarding tm Sanberrs theary, which was lis! prapeunded by Fr Gutrand 4 deteed Ihe teaching
m—hhl &lmfl- wfll‘u hmulldlynl«ldil"&'“"".d: Foundallon lor Sed
VTt s e them e rcciving the auiherty (uitdicio) o 3¢ fm/usicgarysede
(e are nt “tocxul” Fopes) L Chapher 12, we will scc has his el esey * By mzm‘ an
dacine W the Gl
:hmlhhnhwwlhflmnfinmuhmlummlhflv‘:
e e acl tha b was vaidly lecied t the éfice bl did et EHE et opecilcall
bk Qerwluco o a beretic
e Gusogians earen]etaughAs bt
w il e, S oy 1 exacly oy @ “
the pesceful i univeral &P el magileri
Pope
> Sanbiwm, " An o Bahop)
fod The pr
s been taughy
g "’-:m-.mr:‘u.,‘ -bty whew meathatywinly=ot P heretic, Sedev
308
 Chapter10
1t rét
hisa
offn
ce e
m spr
die o publcly
revealed Aruth he contradicied ‘et {4 prgVetesebeet
by the Ghuurch Therefthe say, Pope John
ory e,
«fessing; heresy, but only an errer .,..:."' uL r.,fl
« th was formally defined by the Extraord,
v r‘ue,wnlh:mhennfudhulymnu:‘:z

is that Ihe!lmefltruemlhemolNgm.
5 (Mary Is the Mother of God) thet Nestorus p..nn.;;;
ot formally defined until the Counex of
a5 three years after Mr Matatics (and Mr Speray)
office “Wy Divine law” for public heresy How caq
Neslorius a “public heretx” for
exeuse John XXI by arguing that the doctrrws anhe
defined? And 1f Nestorie allegedly loet ha
+ ymg an undefined dogma, why dsd jobn XXT
he did the same? I is a complete cortadichen,
are legion in the Sedevacant:st world of private
s
-anborn’s “Material Pope” Theory

teaching of Bishop Sanbom, although he cancedes

have been validly clected b the office of St. Peter
« the office, he nevertheless cluma that they have not
«f the office (i, qurisdiction/suthonty) He claure
- blic heresies” (ss personally judged by Sanborn)
«iment to them recewing the power. Usng
1+ he argues that the heretic “Pope” (the rmier) &

acantist bleggar, Steve Sparay, wrwte “Fope john XX11 dught

ltatn the Beafic Viewen: unid afiey the General Judgment. The:
ol opinion in his day beomse dhe pwricutar udgmont M ot et
Pope John XXIt erred, but not against the Cathalic Fath, whah.
sther Pope Johns death” (peray Vakcan ['s Drclaruten
) mism, May 24, 205} Sce hups.//shevensperay wordpows.
“w
e e Nesoice w4 berenc bt b derid s
naversal Magisteriurn. He wiese “Nosors. eraend
Uty any at of exirme ndiury
magsiarium. He wen.
s ie the snliary
sen contrars
derlals and waching
1 i Chuarch.” Sanborn, *An Emparar He Have But
Fen assaction i tha the decims devacel by Jobe XN
© and Untvarsal Magis < wrium
i ss\esaormes .00 4
1 ands that fohn XX08 was o hereic wall
308
— T
Troe c False Pope? gy, pecaurc Mt
1o recenve the authanty (the form) of his office, since believ
fiflmfl,, pevents the congunction of the merie .,':';:: "':"::.y.,,m 1)
mqmlmsmmpo,...my_._%: b docirioe
Therelore: of the
m:mmhnmmngumummmw m.‘mfi
Firw. » man becomes Pope by receming the powers of the g weitonel Cathol
Jarnsdichon/authority) As Cajetan said “a Pope 15 constiuieq p.'f'* The fundam
e pewer of punsdichon elone "l’htll':kl)unsdn:hnn,kh_z theChurd!
Pope. even materally anwldllm'hfldeflm.hnw she makes N
iy alfcehoider o 2 *materal Pope” 13 Sarbom argues, S tical off
appealng to Thomustie serminology and paying Lp service 1o gy ps heve) 81
necesmty foe the Church’s authonty 80 declare a Pope deposed degs iction) Jut
save Sanbecr's eniely vved theory From 15 familiar Sedevacs ‘e nghte and p
defoct: priowke pidgent by usurpataon 4 Whether one claums the e whe legalty hold
ffice wa hot o neves bhined) due to the sin of heresy (Fr Cetady powersof theol
um&ndfi«wskxdryobhmd.whkuumom“fi. Fusthermor
ware never aoquied (Bp Sanborm), 1t 18 shl being determuned g heresy does
peblly deciared by an act of privwte judgment (and conteary e e (sticeholder) &
Charch's udgment). which they have no authonty to make scknewledged {
So while we applaud Bishop Sanborn for acknowledging thatbe and as lawfult
shoes ot possess the suthonty to publicly declare the papal see vaan. Suhep) As Fr
what he doesn't realuae 1s thet he also lacks the authonty te pubiy heretcal Pope,
declare that a legl officehotder has lost has junisdichon Infact
the ,vy recognized
au t
‘wion that a s can lnwfully hold an office, yet lose (o never acqure) sowe
g r,
such
she authonty of the office, w absurd If a person lawfilly helds i bty than |
ecclesustical office, he possesses the authenty of the office {which ks bectu it 13secot
Uwful pessesnon entities hum to receive) He may abuse the authenty sher well-con
b offwe, but the Chorch has never taught thet a prelate am Dapuinite are |
lwully bald an office, yet fail to recerve or lose the junsdicu rate** dI
inheinrent the office And notice carefully what Bishop Sanbenha #ifice” (an offic
done Firs, he professes an enturely novel doctnine which has ™ enjey the “pon
wupport i Catholic Tradiion (Le., that a man can legally hold siie hermy, hia acty
witheut having the authority of the office) Then, he applics W were truly falth
Peve 0 thelty
last aix Poandpeeverys single bishey 1 the world g tu Popes,
oo of 4 epucope e, by declaring that they hav no subwry
e Uneantls
- h Senbom couldn't even name them all, much fess koo s nfortunat
fuker, by giv
;k‘:_"-fi”e “The Mascrial Pepacy,” st Wy /s sdalivenpios P'Ell::‘t'::’l:n’;
oy o it P 0 Comebt, T Tl ® e, Bahop
‘hhnm.mm.,_.,,._,,m Law (whethe
one ro _
e e e e o e ey 18 Sy, Thee!
310
 Chapeer 10
) Sl havea conchusen (‘hey lack svthoriy)
& rash judgment (“they are heretis™), and 2) a ,Mh,;
(“thet & person can legally hold office yert lack the
office")Awhich has abeolutely 10 suppert 10 Charch
Bishop Sanborm has the gall 10 refer by bumtelf we
lic bishop.
tal problem with Bwhop Sanbem’s thesry »
‘makes a distinction between Orders and ,.._,‘;"
distinctién between the lawful possescion of an,
; {which Sanborn admuw tha concihar Popes and
d the rights and prvileges inherent in the affce (e,
t 25 a legal member of the Catholic Church enyoys aif
vilcges of beinga member, 5o the bishops and Pope,
1 olfices, likewsse enyoy the nights, priviieges
and
they hold, including unsdcion.
, notwithstanding the clamms o Buhep Sanberm,
ot absolutely 1mpede the “conyunction” of mather
Jorms {authonity), especially if the man w puiiscly
the Church's judgment as a member good sanding
hotding the office 1n questen (whether Pope o

even ion
andwct
power” (junsd ),
if the Pope w 1n
10 less force and aushenty than shey would i he
113

bishop's positien (thet the concilar Fopes are

actually a most useful argument agenst she
——_v
Tree o File Fope” e 1y
farthiul *have the nght and obiy
Y
and evenShoee
cut communion with heretcal aper, Ty
s, with prela s who legally
b hold oflices 1n the
Bt Church g, -4
e b
allyto be heretics
e falthtul personjudge Bis ps-nbm,.w_"_
by notng that some people durmg Nestonus "'Nld.-.h‘
e commurvon with Nestorius before he was deposes e
G Sanborn pinc o the example of these inviduals, gy e
e campicofSt Cyr, Dockoeof the Church 10 il s i, oy
¥s nw wonder why
The problem with Bishop Sanbomy's' chosen exampie s that g
“Nmmnnmc«nmlnmeunnmpuw
o the verv temtocy w which the Nestorian heresy onginated) ng
snly confirme thal the posikon of St. Cynl was correct, but
e nowon that he faithful can sever communson with thetr Painary
before the matter has been settied by the Church - which w
what Sariborn ells s flock they have 2 nght, and even an obigating e Church's Juc
do. And, 2 we have seen, the Council wenl 30 far as to debar clergy pevel theory by
(inchudg Wshops) From priestly funchions and status, and atech s aneaical cnme ¢
excommunicab 10 on
any layman, who separated Irom thewr buiwp outof the realm
based wpon st private judgment of she alleged crime »*lact” based u)
While the mdividuals who severed communion with Neswous dgment), the ¢
before he was deposeby d the Church could perh be aps
excused m authortty to rem
thar day, those who follow thewr example today cannot be excussd, Wi judge and |
ance we now have the seaching of an ecumenical council that femally What they |
condamune what thev did, The council also condemns those prelakes wdesiastical au
whe refuse 10 nclude ther Patriarch s name tn the canon of the Mas, wdesiastical lav
before the Church had rendered & judgment Wishop Sanben pdge under DIt
completely ignores this leaching as well, since he hamself refuses them the right
rame he current Pope (hus Patriarch) un his Mass And Sankomgees n ecclesiastical oft
further by clauwung it i fordden lor anyone to attend a Mass Inwhich pdge under car
Wi Pope s name 13 mentioned ¥ Sanborn's argumentation, whie more and is further ut
“ompluscaied than thos of e
the lay preacher Gerry Matatics, wers Fira, the de
the same defect of judgment by usurpation, and 1s thus equll think results In
rathematisnd by tha Council of Constantinople IV the internal for
mienus eeclesia n
Pvate Judgmient of “Facts” under “Divine Law”
We vnill new examine the Sedevacantist reasomng for why W/ —_—
foagive themueives fustlied in Ignoring, the explicit teaching of ¢
th Counal of Conmtaniinople (assuming they know about 1) %
* Aswesa
in wCh
8 ey
7 7 neanknop Peric incurs T
e leislaba
vl L S, A0,
Thos itDasd
TP . o i oo eresy e (
uuk:';:-;.w'"" But Ne Bishop Coedevacantion e
a2
 e Chuper 10

& themaclves from their Pamarch (the P

resolved by the Church, We wilrevest gy mrer
jgmant which further demonsieate why such 3
by the prvare g
Dot 1o be decided of
seturning to one of the fundamental
errers of
- ‘was addressed 1n Chapter 5, namely, the errer
ce for & Pope (s merely a queswon of the sin of
{and eta determinanon of the crme of heresy by
, ., and shat anyone in the Church can pudge the case
eclare it 40 be a “fact,” and shen clamn, based upon the
t the Pope has lost hus office »
8 thatmot a single sheologian in Chusrch hastory has
ndividuals can personally judge (and declare
al hushap o Pope under Divine law independently of
» gment, Sedevacantists will atlempt 1o support thewr
guing that, since the Pope 1 above canon law, the
cannot apply to him By miang the queskon
«tical law, and making 1t solely a question of
Divine law (determined, of course, by thews privale
+evacanhst thereby elinunates the need for Church
the necessary judgments, and appoirds humeelf a8
Hthe case
++ iously faled to realize 15 that ¥ the proper
alone are permitied to udge heresy under
me authorities alone would be the competent
This Sedevacantist theory, which claims for
defimtive judgments of who lawfully holde
r Divine law (which they are not permutiedto
J has no basis 1n Cathelic teeching or pracce
for the following reasons:
tion of the internal sin of heresy (which they
of office for a heretical Pope) 1 a judgment of
ot even the Church fudges inemals (de
o), nerther can the Sedevacanhets.

Fr Cekada verobe ~The materil M Sper is=

quotes daas
with the ccciconme es saiion)
(exommamin
rt ia cal ot 0
ty Ireehevant o the case wf w hercacal pape. ""‘"’"_
v subj ectw8 Pope camnat comei &
bo canen
Incur an excommunicatien.
! Auguat 2004) ephasi s
sbied
n
 Teue o Floc Pope? Chapiayy

Second, eveni them,wnte.‘rnal,miugof-o sy mm

hesedy ummhmm::
wereo.com
Joe bis pmedichort. m, . the mm ous ,,
unanumnw teac., of theg:?
tung ,“
mm‘:, Chaptervwa 3} sts
R nti contradict themseives when thy ca
canen aw dees ot apply ¥ the Pope. and then defend they
.ymnr-mhw(-flfy regularly do), which amouny
e o e ofthe fence i alao vilakes the principe o
Wt cacon v both 3pples 1 dors s ppy
Festouen by sy time ).
m the Pope at the same
For example, in response to a recent article published Iy 7,
Reamt newspaper® the Sedevacantist blogger Steven Spay
e defend the Sedevacantist posinon by ating canon 2y
afthe 117 Code. He began by saying:
“Com 2340 n | sates that heretics, ‘meur tpeo facte
sxcommmication
* This sutematic gensure® refers (o the extemal
for #
happens witheut
and um, wamings Excommunicated persens
eaa't hoid ofiice sumoe they are 2ot members of the Church n the
cxvorns] forum "%

Than, in the very same article, only two paragraphs Later, Mr Speray
durecty contradicts lumself when he says that the penalties of canon
law do net apply 0 a Pope - including the very canon 2314, &1 thathe
previsuslycied a8 applying to s Pope He wroe

™ Sacer *Cart the Church Depase an Hevetical 1 The Ranvunt rwwspapet wriee
ovemio 18, 2014) Pepe )
'Muwh‘!mm.l cannat wncuc the cowmt
rum_hh-nuh-mmmnwuhom-rfl"
1 Asm0 o st im s o chephr she cerwre io et awbermati in the exernal St
i v 0theM Spuraye iclaia.
ee 8 dric. Ratbar, 8 declaratery senicnce must be aued 401
e exvwemal arum, sice thia
s ecesaary forthe gotd o0
b the Church s pesinve b and theeiet
erm.o Pupe i ot sublect
vtb, Bt 2o woted. —
T e 4 edeckmen, 4 drcc remainsi 4 member o o Church ii shee ils 0
il vould et 0 G slane -
ATy abet St s The Remrs's Lt s Law Famco,” Fbrussy S 358
el provimidy s Spowsy sompleely re-wrvte bie arile aftr reedd 5L
Aot Ko Sy mpasied the new aricle witheut charging he o184
Smieng that i ad umn sompirirly revieed.)

4
 e Owh Must Judge the Crime Chapier 10

“popes and cardinals don’t fall wsder the penaly

1w Therefore, canons 231} 2, 2223 4. and 2232, w?,a'.f
‘mmhwmm'lhw“mnu

on the one hand, Mr Speray quotes canan 231,

hl‘-:‘"‘”" 1hat a herencal Pope & automancally m
ind then, two paragraphs later, says the penalties of canon 2314, §1 do
ot apply to a Popel We have soen ihat auch embarrassing
coniradictioare
ns pervasive in Sedevacantst argumentation.
Feurth, canon law interprets and apphies Divine 1aw 4o the accused
1 acvo withrdan
penciples of
ce fustice Ever f a Pope w not subwet
canon law, the principles of canon law, which interpret and apply
Dwine law {such as the necessity of warmings), would have to be
folowed 1f a Pope were accused or auspected of heresy, both a¢ 3
sutier of justice as well as under the philosophical prnciple emne
aupus comtin n s¢ minus
et - “the greater includes the lesser * While there
sught be some modificabons ko canonucal procedure since “the Fast
See w udge by no done,” the general princ of ipies
Divine law, a
reflested and codified n canion law, would stifl apply
Fifth, those who publicly defend the Sedevacantiet pomtion by
appealing to either canon law er Divine law usurp an authority that
docs ot belong to them snce, s St Thomas explaned above, &
Ielongs to one and the same public autherity o wrik the law, mierpret
the law and apply the law to particular cases % As follows from the
tesching of St Thomaa, 1t would be the Church (the competent “public
wthonty” who alone has the authonty to definltvely mierpret her
laws and the laws of God), and not individuals Catholis, who would
tave the authonty to miterpret and apply the applicable laws n the
case of a heretical Pope
This erroneous reasorung makes it ciear why indrvidual laywen,
d even individual priests, have no nght o declare a Pope deposed
{even if he were to publicly profess heresy) by an exercise of their
private udgment through an appeal to esther Divine Law or canon law
Such judgments and declarations belong o the proper authorities
dlene. And the Sedevacantists’ clam that shew positien 15 snply besed
. “fact” .« 2 "fact” that 13 disputed by 9999 percent of the Church’s
flthtul, which means st 1 not an established fact at all® - does not
Pullfy this necessity, nor does It in any way help their case
—_—
SS
WEeeSLstIL,I ik ¢ 64,6 G and ST, LEIL ¢ 60,.2 .
The Oue Dictionary defs oc a3 ting thed i dloputably o core
315
 —y
Trwe e Salee Pope’ Chapier

Private Judgment Includes Judging Pertinacity

acantets’ erroneous Judgment of “lacts” under

Wm of course their judgment ol pertinacity (Whethe
e conscrously dissenting from Cathohc teaching) since e o
T b both & “public” and “poforious” {pertivacious) herete
ol loe hus office However, knowing they carinot prove ety
aelely by the Popes’ Medermist words and actions (which they g,
their pror
Tave the authonty to do anyway), they are lorced to get
ancther way To that end, Sedevacantists retreat to the speculatr
am of the Popes’ academic backgrounds by relerming to fhey
education wn theology and seminary traiming On that basis, whh LY
clnc example ol petho prnopn? the Sedevacantist wil piesg
“Cmon, the conciliar Popes must knaw they are leaching heresy
For cxample, John Lane argues as follows.
“Dwl Johe Paa! 11 e that the Church teaches that we e
farindden 10 do the many, many things be did, and that we e
Torimdcn 10 beheve 1n the avedcal notions Wiat he wae plamly m
feve i, such 36 usversel salvation? Well, be was prusiada
Decwrate ™ Sacrod Theslogy by the Angelicum, and the sponser of
s theme was the Iameas anc-Medernt Fr Gamigou Lagrange it
o ndacuious 1o suppose that such a swbcnt did not know the bsics
of dac Cathelxc Farth To revicw the lacts 13 10 behold the answer™
Seweone should explain to Mr Lane that what one sught o
“know” and what one actually knows (that 15, understanda) may be two
difierent Mungs, and thus distinction 18 casential to any finding of fact
That John Paul Il studied under Fr Garrigou-Lagrange (when
Sedevacanhele themaelves disagree with on the question of loss of
alisce ofa heretical Pope®) does not In any way prove that john Paul
sellrully dwsented from Catholic teaching, Furthermore, neither Joht
Lane 2o fus fellow judges of “lact” have sufliciently demonsteated tut
Jokn Paul 1l taught
even material heresy (that s, that
he diretly
of the faith, without requiring additional sieps
contradicied s dogma
Pesserung ko demonstrale the contradiction)
 e Church MustJusge e rime "

riheless, Sedcvacantiots take this approsch (

opes senderu backgraunds) because they knw "‘*n:ore*'.' out the
" proposttions. aiome do not prove the crume (much les e
o besesy Ths. ey are forced o reach for addibonal “evidenee”
2 et thetr self-sssumed burden of “proving” pertnaciy, wut
2 devic vackgrounds, ke obpectve words and acuarw, ae sinply
” lmhwflllmmhwmumm“n
warngs and tnals to establish lhecrumofi!luy.bulllmflymfim
it the pezson who professed heresy complesed the roquired semmary
nu:l"o'rmfi.whlbzoodlmh&devmmm-whh
Catholc gander If Sedevacantists
wish o pount 10 objecuve words and.
wcvore that they believe serve as evidence for pertinacity, we can also
wier to the concilr Popes’ own testimony. such as thewr
subective belief that Vatican If was 1n conformty with the keaching of
e Church, however objectively wrong thesr amessments may have
wen. For example, when confronted with the allegaten that he has
Communist learungs, Pope Francs rephied.
“I'm sure that| haven't sal anything mere than what's wrien
1 the secial doctnne of the Church. 1 am the onc follewiag the
Church And 1n this it secrms that I'm net wreng | believe that |
never said 2 thing, thal waem't the secial decine of the Church.
Thups can be cxplaned, possibly an cxplacsten geve an
impression of being 4 Ytle 10 the 16" Wt 1t would be an arrecof
explanation Al of this, us the socuul doctrise of the Church ™™
That Paul V1, John Paul I and Benedsct XV1 all publicly lamevied
the disastrous effects of the Second Vatican Counall 1 further evidence
of their subjective wtention net to depart from Church doctnne with
thelr novel “pastora)” approach, even if one bebeves they did so
hjectively In fact, this pomt was conceded by the Sedevacannet,
Richand [branyl, who sald.
“John Paul 11 docs not elieve be 1s wacke conrary 1o Chiutck
JP2 not
#nly verbally profcsscs (o be Catholic, he alss verbally submuis 1o
the Catholic Church and the papacy ™

—~—
Pire i (ephember 22, J015, See Cahalc News Agency 3 epac s Mg/ /s
M“:;:';’/-mm/mm/lumfid popesi igh-istervien-ir amm ok
0 Aginat Johu Lane:* Ducessber 208 fumphasi sdded)
37
 —y
True oc Falee Pepe’ Chapteryy
o john Paul 11 dees ned beliere e 15 teachin,'% Contraryg,
n.";’;mm Ihenh!unktvm‘u,lryd»f:".’fll
"‘",mk’hwuxmflhflwlhwg‘h o
.,.'.’nh—n-fl most succinet refutation of Sedrvifanh.mm.:
have feund!] ade .,m .Tun-s":ng Ghservation, whyg
relevant W this point. He t the Modemist crigy
- M.mmohauhn“mh.bulv/nw‘mm“;‘}:
‘i, whach conduct iself on the tracks of liberal Protestantury¢
T cihes words, Moderrusm 1 chuefly a duscase of the ntelect,wh
where the virtue of faith rendes. Hence, the faith
indirecily by a iwect attack on the intellect As a result of thys “grave
maladv of the intelect,” it may well be that a prelate who 1 infaey
wath Modermm subjectively miended % hold and profess the Cathgle
Jank, in which case he would not be pertinacious, but only matake,
This 4 parucularly the case with the conclliar Popes who urbke
Protestant heretics, claims 10 be teaching the Catholic Falth Becaue
Sedevacanwom nghlly accuse the Vatican 1l Popes of bemg ek
Modernists, they cannot exclude positive, prudent doubt that e
concrliar Fopes are only mustakenly in error, In which case they woud
not even be guilty of the internal s of heresy
Lastlv, even if one became personaily convinced that the recen
Popes have been guilty of the <n of heresy, private judgment on the
maner would have absolutely no effect whatsoever on the statusof
thex penificates swnce, 2 we have sufficently demonstrated, e
Church sell must estalssh the crime of heresy before a Pope will e
has olfice for the same
The Distuction Between Questions of Fact and Law

o hurther lustrate the problem with the Sedevacantists pre

nudgrent
of wn under “Divine law” based on the “fack,” It @
cumader the arguments of & Sedevacantist blogger who masquernds
behind the pen-name *Geegorius~ This individual wrote an e
prece calied “The Chaur i Stll Empty™ for a popular Sedevacarst
weebmie. The piece was an attemphed response to john Salza’s 2010
_—
kot s ¢ sune e e spver of “The Erource and Topicalty of Thomises” 1
M"‘““’"WW 1945 eaay published tn besk form in 213 (7%
«
D e Sciahon by Alen Averse), ormphianis addod gl
e rade by “Greyrina” mmy b fourel ot ewew com Sa
Towserdaveaich ¥
Tempirbed maprue 40 artcte caled “The Chulr e Empty? Says Whal I
1 N O Wakch” at 1 /v foemalzn.com
3
 ot Mis Juage ime nme “

articles o Sedevacanbsm which were published in The

'",P.per # In Gregorius' resporse, wiuch ia filed with ey
':;,P,,gnunnns, and presumptions (not to mention the perfun
| attacks and chuldish inveckve), Gregarius ady,
".uum‘StdtV)canh-l argumenis o.a e ance thase
o sarters, Gregortus, bases s position on the “loss of ofice by
e of heresy” theary of Fr Cekada, which he hs fallen for hook,
e sinker Parroting Fr Cekada almost verbatis, -
avie “the Sedevacantist case 1a based on the sm of heresy, not the
delsct **» Based on this theory of Fr Cekada, Gregorius then
fagnes that f he personally “dwcerne” that the Pope has commutied
the sin of heresy, his private judgment constitutes a “fact.” Hence, the
o of ffice,he claum, ia not determuned by Church law rudged by the
compelent authoninies, but by individual discernment of “facte” of
which Gregonus, a private layman, i the judge
for example, in addressing the determunation of whether the
cnciliar Popes have been heretics who lost their office, Gregetive
confidently tells us “And this, we are bound te inform Mr Salza, ik not
4 matter of bnw but of fact * Of course, his gratuitous amertion ignotes
on u at the heart of this 1seue- YWhe judges the
ihe very legal questithat
(xw’ Church authonty or indwiduals like Gregomus with no
authority?
As we will see, whether a person (e g, the Pope) is a heretic is,
indeed, & question of fuct, but the related questrons, namely, wh tries
a er
the facts whe rend s aganet a reig
judgment Pope, ng
ruand hew
law, sthe
of on
punuhment for the offense 15 camed out, are questi
detals of which have been debated for centurses.
Gregonus then adds.
“Salza's fuilure 10 properly disunguish aw from fact 1 the
et fundamen ervortal
of his entire grece He makes cverythng
e & matte of Chucchrlaw when the Sclkvacant ist1
peston
Wsad on dhe order of fuct, nol the ender of law %
But what Gregorius does not explam is what happers when
individual Catholics i the pew disagree about the “facts™? When the
happers, who decides who 1a correct? This dileauma underscores the
—_—
25 The Emom of Sedevacontam and Sccleiasesal Low” QRB snd
Selevicankar and the Sin of Presumpten” (N11), publiebed i The Nowat
TP andenlice a1 hitp ] fwerwe braalza com.
:_"D- Chaie s Sell [-\.:7' e o1 b/ /e o/ te. chair
merissrdomeich
.:“ mpty baem.

3
 Tre or Falae Pope? Chapey

+ nature of Sedevacantism. where private fudgmeny.

the Carch, serves as the finat court of appeal Lers com::"“'
pkolsdevaflmisu who disagree over the “fact” aboyg
e, ¥
s c
o aeed # manife heret who los hus offics g ety
au
Pope HoneJohn wrote:
Lanes,
Howorus was oot 2 menifct heretc, and nobedy
nr.anmm m.rwewa:m-dmumuhm.:
he wy
Howorws really was 8 heretc, which we do not admit,
cormaty aat 2 mecufest hereic and thus hus case has no bearing oy
e quesmon ofthe tacompatibiliy of the Status of ‘manifest herguy
‘o he possesuon of an ceclmwgtical office 51
Mr Lane believes Pope Honorius remained a tru Pope gy
though he was later condemned by the Church as a heretic by g
Sedevanmel blogger Steve Speray, reaches a_ completely diffenm
eseclisionm response 1 the “question of (act.” He claims thate
Henanous kst Tus office and became an antipope In response is
arscie that powiied eut the difficultics that the case of Hanene
Ppevsenisor e Sedevacanhist thesis, Mr Speray wrote-
“As for Hesorus, he was not considered a pope afcr
arony! The fict that he was at best doublful afterw ands, means e
st be conaideredo aniipege So Hononus proves sedevacantimn
ant doproves 1%

Nobce, Mr Speray sumply asserts that Pope Honorlus *was

wenmdered 8 pope after his heresy,” which is something the Church has
never taught. Speray further tells us that Honorius was “al best”s
“doultful” Pope, which 15 also something tha Church has never taught
Then, based on hus ewn comjecture Speray claims that “Honeens
provas Sedevacantiom.” For Skeve Speray, as for his Sedevacant
onlleagues, hus private judgment of tha “question of fact” becomes2
ot in itself $hat settles the mutter; yet, as we saw, his judgmert®
exacly contrary b that of his fellow Sedevacantist John Lane
Who decides who s right? To what higher authority can ¥
Sedevicantions appesl? And what about the Sedevacanlist ault
Richard Itanyy, who conaiders it 10 be ¢ “fact” that all of the Fop?
since Incocant I] (1130-1743) - 102 In all' - have been antipopes”™%
_—
o o Commring A S Disar On S ssortiom.”
2TS, Agurat John
"7t Rithe, "N Popan e 110" (lrary 2014)
32
 .
e Curch Mt o 7

it is a “fact” lhaltluema!wfl!hqgh“
::‘," Topes Agam, who decides which persen’s ana ""':’;':
“guestion of fact” 15 correct” That Sedevacanisis aff claim thecancibar
are antipopes does ot resolve the problem, mnce the conclusen
b based on the same fundamental exror of private yadgran -
whch happens of the ruet of their diagresmeots
to be the 30urce and
wons.
MNRdl’hs.y,Gmgoflul'llflmefl-h-do«n-nHy
opased on the order of act, not the order of law” is enirely erroncors
i gross oversimplification of this most weighty topc As Mr Saigs
esplamed 1 his response 10 Gregorus, this complex question e not
oaed solely “on the ordfld(&t'b\lln‘lwhllmbp.lm
as.a “rmixed question of fact and law" (de fackw ¢t urr) # The
season it is @ muxed question of fact and law w because the Church
ot look solely 1o the law, or solely & the facw, ¥ resolve the
yoestion
of whether the Pope has lost hus office, s we will expla in 3
moment. This mixed question of fact and law 15 not only recogniaed. by
secuiar legal scholars and practitoners (like Mr Salza), but by the
Church s canon lawyers as well
For example, in his commeniary on the 1917 Code of Canen Law,
Fr Augustine menttons the mixed question of fact and law as it relates.
W the tyse facto loss of office due to a “public defection from the fasth”
undet canon 188, §4 Fr Augustine explains.

“A clene must, besides be degraded 1, afict

having boen duly
yamed, he persists in beng & meribac of such a secaty (ven-
Cathalic sect) [Fact) All the effices he may held becomne vacant,
{950 facto, without any firther declaration [Law} This 1 tactl
reignation recognized by law (Canon 1884) and therefore the
vacancy 1s one de facie f ure [from fact and law] !
#r Augustine’s statement that the determunation of the loss of
oifice (vacancy) w ~from fact and law” (de facto ef rure) hughlights the
pomnt that the determination {of the vacariy) cannot be made solely by
locking to the “facts” (as Sedevacanbsts claim} or the “law* The
—
= For cvampie in the case of Conaiao Seutham, fuc 1 SCR 708 (1997 bodge Frank
Lewbicet exlained ~Briefly stabed questrons of law are quesiers sbut whul the
T epal ket . Quiestions of fact e quesiaves abowl whial actuafy seok piace And
Tt of miacd e and fact are questisns bt whether the focs saaefv the kegel
o Ts axplarabon from & civil court pge accursie ty sescribes e deecten
mmfllflwh~.mmdm-“-flhflw
Meoprudence
":’lflmflft—-m-ku@(filf—mdu
lil\fllfl‘"

2
 —y
Trwe or Falee Pope? Chapier

m]Qflnlwmhn-clmcmm
Ae nd “permted” after being, wamed n,b.l‘.,'y‘__’“'fl_l"i.
- e whether such a clerc automaticatly Toses b e ot
o under the samme canon 188, §4) 1s 3 queshionof g | ™
esablished/
ostbe we
e eichan ande, decsded by the Church b
merioncd that Caron 188, $1 x propey,
savente cancn Of lhe Sedevacantists. |lulkunnnumymmq:
o prove” the conciar Popes have lost the office, even though g
2o applics 10 clencs who publicly 1o1n & non-Catholi sy gy
Jhose who sunply profess heresy In fact, 1n Gregorius’ article, by o
s prece
by providing his readers with a scanned copy of cangn Wy
Zin Latin, no fess - which s quite& cunous thing for him to do uhey
be masains, 10 the seme article, that “the Pope, being the S
Legslatoe @, otrctly speaking, above canon Law” (e upe
conradcton we saw Mr Speray make in his article) In any evny
Geegorns, quite predxctably, argues that canon 198, 54 1 actually bued
o0 Drve faw, and that he s thus renderng his judgment, e
accerding Y8 conon law (ioinch he cites in pport of hus peston,
accerdig to the “tacts” under Divane law (of which he makes himet
Ve udlge) We have exposed the complete falsity of this posibon.
Sat iet us forsher dewmonstrate why one cannot look sy fs e
“law” or te the “fack” o resolve the complex question of whether fe
Pope 4 a muntest herenc who has Jost hus offire The folleweg
wetraies the “queskeon of fact” versus “question of law” dutinckon.
Question of Fact - Is the Pope a manifest heretic?
Question of Law - Doesa heretical Pope lose his office for
Heresy? {1f 30, when, how and who judges?)
As we have seen, S, Bellarmine said there were five diferen
Spiruans about the question of law, nevee of which luve been defrimey
by she Megistenum This point alone demonstrates
wiopiad that the e
of Sedevacanivem s not “solely 3 question of fact,” but mvolves 3 T
question of law that must be resolved first. Even o
#grecs wih Bellarmune’s opunion on the question of law, that Uats
sacsesly barccal Pope loses tus office ipso facto and not by
depoutuon, the opnion has ot been adopted by the Church, and ot
e repulsile thesiogians who disagree with this opinion© And oo
—_
* Sblarmine awell adivied s pusition:
of law Wit s e
-w—u—u.m-mhum:».mmowm(m-hrf"::
his question

iy “wtsadingly improbable” te mates the B

e qualiciNT
Fourth Opteiam wher he anys “in my jugment, this opinis!
32

i
 e Ghurch Mt Juage e rime Chapter1o

Bellarmiune5 position on pse facte loas of office

"“"’“"y‘wmand how !!ulo:o{offiwmn.ll\dwh::’::
Thonty to judge whether 1t has occurred, are additimat quaskions of
o which have been extensively debated for centunes, This point
e proves that the question of tha oz of office
for a heretcal ope
B i questo ion fact and law, and ot solly " on the ey
‘"';d..,mnsu cAnnot even get to frst base with their “quesion of
st” approach until they resolve these “questions of law,* and yet
esalving these camplex queshans are not within their power (nof even
e Magisterium has chosen 0 settle these questions) The eniire
gedevacantist case, as 1t relates to "law,” rests upon nothing more than
thewr awn private nterpretation of the epmums of certamn
(apecially that of Bellarmine, whom Sedevacantists have faled o
understand), and which in 1o way constitutes tha official teaching of
the Chureht
The fact that indrvidual Catholics {even priests and bishops) have
e authonty to settle speculative questions of theology and law whach
have not been resolved by the Church was even conceded by Fr.
Cekads, Bishop Sanborn, and seven of their colleagues In 1983, these
& letier
ine priests (former members of the Socuety of St Plus X) wrowe
10 Archbishop Lefebvre complasning that they were not permutied 10
the validity
quesh ion of the New Mass and the new nie of endinakon.
They claimed that forbidding them to do so was infrngng on therr
lierty slnce, as they saud, these speculative questions had not been
msalved by the Church (as if approving a ite of Mase and erdination
4id not constitute the Church’s judgment on the mattes) Here 1s what
these une priests wroe in thesr 1963 leter:
“The present situstion m the Church has generated many
unpescedonted problemu ofa theologcal and practical paue — for
example the question ef the or se [sn self) vabidity o¢ snvaludty of
the New Mass
Weculative quesions w an suthontaliee and defintive fishon,
ice 1 bas absolytely o subhonty W do x> Any atempl by ke
Society 10 tesch and impoee 15 cesclusions om makers of
Epeculative theolagy as the only possutleble iti & Catbobc s
for ons
-
Mok {we o nute that when Sedevacanthe kos e tes qusisaec, thex ahen ey
17 fodgrment” froa: the quetation be grve appescance shat Bellasmine & wbrciive
Jhlen 440 apparatstatern of ens
fac. L Dulore
l
b i piame ae fev Clarence Kelly Rey Doruld ). Sonbor, fov Dusie
Sy Cokada, Bev William W Jenkiew. Rev e Barrv v Marsn
Rev Jaseph Colirw, and Kev Thomas P Zapp.
s
 Trac oc Faise Pope?

‘Now while m theory the Society may deny any clam 1o Sy

sesching suthooy,
anauthoney "
the end of the letier, shese mine priests (who were so, " © ¥
aq:]ltd o the Socrety), added the following “resolution+
“Reorspe the magsten
ctal authoriy of the Church us the seje
arbo of thowiegical questions shall be enforced. Therefore,
Secucy ahall fahfully adhere 0 the teachings of the Churck,juy
It
efmuvels auesons of speculative Wigology ™
S0, accordng 1o the reasonang of the priests who signed this koug
(mese
oc all of whomare now Sedevacanhsts), the Society of St g
-mprnm&dhummwulmwofaMlslhalwnlpwwfly
the Church, vet e Sedevacantists themselves are permitied (o seie
speculative quesons of theology and law regarding when and how s
Pope loses hus office for heresy In fact, Fr Cekada and Bishop Sanbers
e 50 dogmatic about their personal opimon regarding this mater
shat they not only publicly declare that the last s1x Popes have been
antipopes, but thev go further by publicly declaring that it is forbidéex
e adend & Mass 1 which the Pope’s name is mentioned in the cane
{and ths 15 the same Bishop Sanbom who concedes that the post
Vatican || Popes are legal Popes) % Clearly, these priests are gullyof
dung precisely what they complained about in 1983 - mamey
ururping Maguieral authonty “by allemphing to setle deftively
ueshons of speculative theology,” which have not been resolved by
¥he Church. Indeed, in the Sedevacantists’ own words, ther enee
thesss s dangerous and opens the door 1o great evils, for it assumess
Wagiserial authority which belongs not to 1t but to the Church alone
AS we have seen, even 1f the question of fuct (e, 15 the Poped
Pblc amd nolonous heretic?) was established by the prope
—
Lt o N 0 Abp Marce Lefebvre (March 25 1989 emphasts sdded W/
g el .t aeces aricic pipid 2 atrorent L.
b e 1 Chupor 21 We shos et Fr Ceparied kaonde ik 7%
s whichIn o es nrvom, wruld ot anly fat o Fulf S50
S > e e was XVmasdiori ke wh tendd 2 Ham
nd
 g Gren mawes y=mam = == Chapter 10

the question of laws (exactly when and hew

.u"“":“les,“ffice) remamns unresolved It jo clear that m,::mw
ogon f v 12 of s, completely negoesthe Sedeunconn
gon, without even addresmng the question of fact, vhich w
Pi something Sedevacantsts have no authonty o pdge
‘Continuing with hus theme that he can personally judge the Popea
e heretc under“Drvine law. Gregoriussuys.
“jeht Salza’s error hies it hus claum that ‘Cathelics ar roquired
1010wk 10 the ecctesiasucal law of the Church te fesolve: the sroe
of whether somconc 15 heretic of noL. Nele that Salza dos i
qusnyet peoofcfae this claum - be merely makes the
boping everyone will accept it But the assertion 1 false ™7 e

This is quibe an incredible statement, not only because

*does nat quote any proof for ins claim” (because there w none), bet
also because all of the theologians who addressed the hypothetical
queston of a heretical Pope since the sixteenth century feg Cajemn,
Tellarmune, Suare, Francis de Sales, John of 5t Thomas, Billuart, exc )
sid the loss of office (loss of pansdwction) was a result of the public
enme of hereay, not simply the sm of heresy, as Gregorus maintairal
This is why Johe of St Thomas says that in the absence of ecclesustical
iquiry and public wamings, which are necessary te establsh the
me “the Church, by divine law, amnof declare him (a heretical Pope]
deposed,”ss which ia exactly the oppeste of what Gregorius and other
ndividual Sedevacantsts have done Hemce, Gregorus' appeal ®
Dvine law to prove his case shows just how urwsed he and bis
colleagues are on these sssues
Gregorius then attempts to dlustrate the Sedevacantiet “lows of
olfice due to the sin of heresy” theory with the following analogy.
which further demonstrates the erroe of his position. He says:
“While canon Taw can help us undersand dve law. 1t s
Srucial 1ot te mix the twe or 10 reduce drvine law %0 canen lgw
The is easily apparent when we consader, for cxampic, that there 8
50 ecclestaatical Isw against entermuning unpurc thoughis fas
—

et
ahwit
© "The Chair s SUll Empty * found at i/ weewr comemrdowakchorg/the..
Ao Pope irwaar an he s e
W(nw.mm-m;wnm{nnmmmmmfi
Jo bt
& haretic, f e o prapered
o4 Thereime, 1 e fae t sy ot Pl thet e &.
epoerd by duthebe eyhasbtot vt
4 heretic: Wuly
crrully he ia abie o bt gublicly ae g
X'Nbrmmm'(c“wumms—mw
LT b E38 formphasis added)
b
 Trwe o False Pope? Cuap " I
Are we, then, 1 conclude et 1t 1s et gy
eA e we 1o concluse that wnlce ey 1S
:_nd-dnmmkm-rnmm.."m_:
‘AM'-Wnrlhep-mmqlfiummum.h
™
panifon by b acvens
aende thefact thet this example of a sin of impure¢
,,,:::m because it is nota sin against the Faith and ‘““’h:-ii.
Wwwammdum«(mmdm.w‘"
1 our crcal queshons of law), there are 4 number o other
mmh.mmpk(hq’m‘ln mund "“"‘PP"H&
mahwwmmmh“w“ll’vpeh-lmhm

"'T,:Y)G.,,,m..' arulogy begina with the eTTaneous stsumpun,

st the s of heresy ageinst Dame Law 1 the intermal forum causes oy
Joos of oléice 1 the external forum.™ Thus is error number one
‘Second, Gregorus imagunes that he w the competent authoniy
fudge whether the nterrul s has been commutted by examuunge
external actions of the 1ndividual, when not even the Church judges the
intermal forum. This i error number two
Third, Gregonus’ pudgment 1 based upon his persoral, unilaal
dcomenent of the facts, witheut any due process for the accused Evn
Whaugh the Church dows riot “udge a person without first gving huma
bearing” {per the Fourth Council of Constanbnople), in Gregoru
cour treo
the sccused gew nom,hearing This is error number three
Fourth, Gregonus’ judgment of the facts based upon his persor)
siscernanent becwnes a fact n ifself Gregonus takes Descartes’ fallsoos
it “] ik, therefore | am” 10 8 new level, for Gregonus’ “ducems
W and therefore, i " For example, he wroke
“So, all of Salaa’s peunts sbout haw canon law allows only #
oo of
Pope 1o yodge » cardinal, cic. are not relevant (o the
Sedevacaamen, because we are set preteading to be judging s Pore
= 2 cansel m 3 canemscal sl [nsicad, we ars eerely diiceae
.2 cotum sl docs not fess the Cadiolie_ Fash and e
Sammei & » scamhay of the Church™ (cmphasts sdded)
_
*-yThe Qe i SUN Bty *. ity // wwrw.nwvuseriewsicherg/
. chaie
% Ve b sy noted thet e crtme (et s of heraey 1w antccedunt
to, b oo
o -.n.l-afl-.m.-),d'—nr:pl-m.m(-uw"
ee S she g s i o i divct acien of Cheio) i
s ® N Empty. b e nwvusecdewaich weg/ .

32
 e Courch Mt g ei 10

applied to the Pope, because Gregoriug “4,

,:‘.uifn of hereay Im the Pope's obyective wordso mmf,,fl
:‘,‘,,,,mm, his personal yud gment alao becomes obeckre fact, Trgy
* " of course, = smply, in e words of 51, Therae, ¢
nt * And tha s rrer mber four
by usarpaton
pdge
‘Having pointed out these most basac errors, we migh
also mentien
t
some other errors. and omissons in Gregonus' hypothencal For
eample, the Church, under her own law, must prove (net Jost
prosie) Lhet .t:a Inllem “mu;k: an individual are
w0 Catholic nne, wl means are
e hrcivs nd do ek cepend ot s
of ressorung (a nuance that Gregonus, in hss faulty approach 10 the
qusston, does ot mention) Fusther, under the laws of the Church,
what 1s “made marufest by his actions,” in Gregorius’ example, doss
et by tielf prove any sin was commutted, because it does not prove
e person cmscsusly departed from the weach Church. The
of theings
Jurden of proof cannot be sustained by looking at the obcively mful
acisas alone {another nuance that Gregorius fatla be menkon)
Funally, even 1f the competent authonty preves there was &
cwnucious departure from Catholic leaching, the presumphon of guilt i
aiways revuttable (praesunphio wrs fanfum) 1 the exiernal foeum, If
the average Catholic 18 afforded the opportunsty to rebut the canonical
prsumption of guilt n the external forum, then the Pope, who i
dged by 0 one on Earth {andt wha i above he canonsc alof
element
presumphion), (s afforded the same dignuty, as St. Thomas says. by
“gving him the benefit of the doubt, because the judge ought to be
were inclined to acquit than to condemn.”? Gregorius, like the rest of
fwt Sedevacantst brethren, fails 1 menbon these imporiant detmdls s
he plays lawgiver, udge and ury
One wonders how Gregonus would “discern” the case of
Archbishop Darboy, which was discuseed in Chapier& Recall thet i
the presence of a large govemmental body, Archiushop Darboy pubicly
dened 3 dogma of the faith (which constitubes heretical wiatter) and
Perwuted in thus derual for years, even afier being warned by the Pope
hureelf (demanatrating pertnacity) Yet, i spibe of this, Bleased Pope
Phue IX conmdered Archinshop Darkoy to have retained has office, and
a0 invited him to take part in the First Vatican Councl |
1 Gregoriua hiad been alive at the time, weuld he have “ciscerned
{at Archibsbop Darboy “did not profess the faith” sufficantly © "be&
Wewber of the Church”? If s, has judgment of the “fact” would have
—_—
Z;,'-mn---M...—_nmm
70,0 2,082
kA
 Cramry
to thet of Pope Pue IX
een in wumfest BPROC X ehich we have also d..m:': hatshyy
5 Not saly did he profess heresy, but lus he ™
b b the Popeat the kme - and they WEIE congement®
s hersies even though he was ot porsanally napeg ri %
Soeemnstion. Yet the whole hme Bellarmine (and his conterogy
coaned o recogruze de Bay a6 2 Catholic In good standing Y
I the Pope loses hus office based upon the judgment of
ndmdual Catholics, as Sedevacantists '""“"‘hw',.yw
happens i one Catholic judges the Pope 1o be & heretic, whis g
does not? 1l John udges the Pope to be a heretic, while Robert
does that mean
fum to be a Catholic, lor Robey :
be 15 the true Pope
ot for Johe? And f John ister ChamgES his Judgment, would theey
Pope suddeniy become Pope” Or 15 the Pope the Pope regardiey y
Jobn and Robests personal subjective judgment? Obyectively, whe5
and who 1 ot the Pope 15 not determined by the subjective Judgra
of each individual Cathole And it 13 also clear from what wy
dscuseed 1 the last chapter that God will niot secretly sever the band
shat unies the man to the pontificate, without the Church
about itTha further cxplains why 8 judgment must be rendered by de
Circh, before an apparently heretical Pope 15 deprived of e
e
John Lane takes the same facile approach In his argument that be
concibiae Popes. were never validly elected 10 begin with He defads
s dau by saying “only a Catholic 1s vahid matter for the papacy
any scclestastical office) and therefore a non-Cathollc canntot under any
arcumsiances held an office “** Notice Mr Lane declares s an ato
private |udgment, that the conciliar Popes were not Catholic ewn
though al the Cardisials in the Conclave considered them memberso
the Church 1n good standing In the world of Messts Gregonus i
Lane, therr personal opimon is fact, even when thetr private judgment
s exactly conirary 10 the public judgment
of the Church
But none of the will persuade Mr Lane since, hie Gregonis,
considers hus udpment of the facts to be fact itself, thereby usrpeg
the legrmmate authwnity of the Church 1f John Lane says they were
Catholucs prioc 10 thenr elaction, this “fact” alone confirms for him ¥
sheir elacions
were null and void And 1t 18 worth noting
that Mr Lt
ad P-'nth;ue- 4o apply the seme “log” 1o the m;
m""““ Huerarchy, claumung that all the bishaps ol the ot
#cclena docere) the Fath s
have publicly defected from
- ™
'.‘,":,""—'-u--m-.-.un-—wm Demiiqe o4

k-
e Charc Mt e e s

™
te An d th ey “d mc en ” the s “f act”
e iliegitu
e men (much le
ma
ss croe-camu e bt e
et at is quike a .
bkpmnwi
hom they could not even name Th remarkal
mt
Lane and
ortunately, without realizinesg tait,ntMrmund: m‘\: ::dm‘mt
d,::,,, ‘have embr aced the Prot ud mflnmmh
up on th ei r ow n pr va te
e modern age Relying d ex ec ut io ne r mh "l 'm mh“m“y' e
\emsclves the judge, jury an
tosider themselves to be the coesmptietonens tof au“fthacon ty o decue some of
le x th eo lo gi ca l qu t™ and “law” that exu:
e moet comp ty © dge and
queswons of “fact” which they Tahaveve nobeenauthdeon
amplicated questions of “law” that elf has nevebartered sebyived.
o conturies, and which the Church hers

—_
e
1998 forward, Gregeriopts ysui™.d “is hoads
o the Church fram ” (T
- Popes, 136 hlararchy Segisimety he e s Sull Em
>
 Chapter 11
~The Deposition of 2 Heretical Pope ~

dus chapter, we will exarmune the 1soue of how a herecal

e We sl consider this complex and diffeult queshon m
i apeculative and practical level by conmlling the Wheologians and
‘who have written on the subyect over the caniines. We il
caploy the dustnctions necessary to ravigate thro the munefield
ugh of
Josble errors that touch upan the eater, while carehully avordingthe
feresyof Conciliansm !
‘At the ouset of thus chapler, It 1 critical o recall the disnction
of the
petween the cnime of heresy and the twolold punishment e,
I Chapter 9, we demonstrated from the wntings of Bellarwune,
Suarez,
France de Sales, John of St Thomas and others that the Churck (not
dridual Catholics) must preve (riot presume) the Pope 1 guilty of the
enme of hercsy through
a formal finding of fact befere a resgrung Pope
lwes bus office for heresy Thus finding of fact includes ecclesiastical
vamungs (as & matter of chanty, not junsdiction), which 15 based upon
S Paul's mstruction in hus Epistie 4o Tins, 3 10. If the Pope remawns
ewsrate following these public warnungs, he publely manifest hus
pertuacity and “judges himeels,” thereby demontrakng W alt thet he
lnfac & heretic
t,
After the Church establishes thet the Pope 1 guilty of the crime o
hurwey, she renders a judggnent of the same (and, 2 we will see, iva w
% be done during an “imperfect” ecumenscal councl) Whether &t
wai ld necessary for the Church to publicly weue a
be sbvolutely
declaratory sentence of the crime to the Church (which was the
<ommon opimion during the days of Bellarmune and Suarez) is open to
eculation, whether the Pope would be deposed oo fack and
mmedately by Christ (Bellarminor if the Church
e/Sua rez),herself
Would play a part in the deposition by jundical act thet seperated the
from the Pope (Cajetan/ John of St. Thomas), has been debated
by the Church’s thealogian as we haves,seen.
What 13 unanimeus, however, is thet #ie Chitrch must establish thet
e Pope 1 puilty of the crime of heresy before a Pope will lose ha
Because the Church is a visible socety, the Guthful wwst
o i he Fope 1 indesd a heretsc wh 1 longer e hewd,secs
Himaelf will ot deprive the Pope of he office whie he i sill
—_—
Conclarion: a3 harsey W hetde Wt counc 0 supeciee e Pope.
m
 Frae o False Pope” l
aptry
45 Pope by the Church The Church's form j
a condtion neceseary fr & SIINg Ppe 10 be depy Weng
s wehy Suarez saud i he wepe s gt e
e e eresy This
pont the Pope would cease to be Pope just when
a senss 4
m&;. e for his crime, by the legtimate ;umdk‘::‘m::
-
%wmmhtumd\e&nnhudp
e cnume, & herctca) Pope loses his office 1 fcto a5 o g
un y ‘:
Dryane law, without the Church havng 1o, techmcally, depose
it “Fith Opinion of Bellarmine) This conclusion i based ypu gt
undersanding thet only Catholics can hold offce 1 the Chury o
e mansfestly heretical Pope - that i, one who hat openly (g g
otChurch or been judged guilty of the crime of heresy by the Chur |
Catholic (b has separated humself from the Church) Accordig
the opinion, hewho 8 1ot a member of the Church cannot be i by
‘Other theologiaris mantain that the Chisrch plays a misteral g
in the depomtion iself, over and above simply establuhurg v
dectarmg the crisne They say that the Church would also declr e
harec Pope “nilemdus” (1o be avoided), thereby separating ixelf v
the herenc Pope According o this opiruon, then, the loss of effie
wowid occur by #e Church scpareting from the Pope (hot the Ppe
from the Church) Because the Church has not spen
definiivaly on these matiers, both opinions are permitted Accoiing
# both opuone, however, only a general council would havet
authonty to declare the See vacant, thereby informing the faihfe) éxt
the former Fope i m fact, no longer Pope
n thes chapler, we focus on the deposition Iiself, the queshorshu
sureund t, and the vanous opinions of the Church's theolegine
Having explamed the painon of Bellarmume,/Suarez in Chapter ® s
chepiar will be primarily dedicated to explaning the posibonof jaw
# St Thowas and Cardinal Cajetan, who taught that the Church ha
part 19 play in the deposibion
itself We wall see how they explansd
thaic powen without claiming that the Church has authority ewrs
regrung Pope (thus avoiding the heresy of Conciliarism)
We will begin by addressing the more fundamental questior &
w-w Pope can, in fact, be deprived of the pontifiric i

—_—
De Pk oy X o V1, . 310, e 316317
332
 e Depomton of# Heretcal Pope Coupher 11

Can a Hezetical Pope Be Depased?

mon opinion of theologians and cano
I‘:m for the cnm e 'Y“*mm‘:?umr?,
of heresy
;,, e formal process by which the Church oversees the herenua
e removal from offce, exther by estabiutung the crim. and
aeclanng the See vacant {one opuwon), of by depriving the hevencal
Fo o the pontficate by actually depoeng hum (acond opimony As
we mentioned in the previous chapler, Amaldo da Stivewra examined
e wtings of 136 theologsans on thus queston, and found anly ane
{Bou n) that a heretical Pope cannot loce hus ofice
whe taught even,
e were to fall into heresy > Al the others affirmed that s heretxcal Pope
can and incoed should, be deposed
We will begln by ating several authorities conirmmyg thet &
Jerctcal Pope can be udged by the Church For example, Pope
Innwcent i1l sald

“Without faith 1t 1 impessible

te plcase Ged Ta shis end
fith 1 50 hocessary for me thal. though | have for other yag God
slene a5 my judge. 1 1 only fora
com 118
may e udged by the Church For ‘hees: againat
tic faghd
that |
wive docs not believe is
already judged ¢

This same teaching 1s found in the famous Canen Si Pape,

stibuted to Pope St Boniface, and contained in the famous Decreturm
o Gratian,? which reads.

“Let no mortal man presume ta aocuse the Pope of faul. for,

being incumbent upon him to sudge sl he should he juiged by ne
-, viats ~

The renowned canarust, Fr Paul Laytann, slso wroke

! LaNowrake Moss de Bl VI Qw e pemer’
15emen 2 Comsecretione. P L. 218656 (empluasis ).
+The Decrerum of Graian, or Concone Ducondwiurn Concmwn by which is shoo
e, i 1 collection of canem buws compued and weitien 1 the telh omtury by &
it krwwn 28 Grasion, and wed a6 a fogal dextbook. it farm S st port of the
o sin legal texim, which lugether decame laiwn as the Corpys furw Cowmet I&
by cangriai o the Cathellc Chorch unk) Peniecost Mav 19, 1914, when
0 usedCade
T¥vlcd of Canan Law (Cadex Jiire Canonsc) promailgaied by Fupe Benedict XV om
Way 21917 sbtaleed legui farce The Canen S e, whech is contamed i the
::_":""C--m-.mm..n,.n.m-nm;-——m
[t o, p 110,
D of oo 1 diot. 40l 6.
33
 —y
Trwe ox Falee Pore] ? gy,
11 0 mare probavic that the Supreme PomuY, ag .
ow perom, could al 40 ercsy. €461 3 BOLORIONS o, 3y
amu“umwbuwhyflnmm.,‘.
ecard v bsaparne fom dbt 1 51ch thing sholdygmee
Save happend. 11 weuld permin 19 the other bishops 1o cxamume
e 8 adgment on the MATISE, 85 OnE Cah < n the S 5y o0
Act 13, the Seventh Synod, last Acl. the cight Synod, Act 7 in g
eprte of (Pope] Hadrian and 1 the fifth Roman Counci gy
Pope Syramchus By many of those who came before ug 4
deciared and ranfied 10 Synod, that the sheep should not repreheng
thew Pamor. unless they presume thel he bas deparied from g
Fa® And w0 St Popa d 40, 1t 18 roported from Archy
Beaface “He whe 1 10 Judge all men 12 10 be sudged by nop,
wricss i e found by chasce 10 be deviating from the Fah g
Bellurmme hmaclf, book 2. ch 30, writes *We cannet deay thy
[Popc] Hadrma with the Rorsan Council, and the entire B* Geaery
Synod wae of the behiel that, i the case of heresy, the Rones
Poruff could he gudged.”™
Thesloguars commonly understand the phrase “udging the Pope
1 the sense of establishing that he has wllfully devialed frome
Fasth, which demonstrates that he 13 alrady judged In the
quomen from b Coronation Sermon 1V, Pope Innocent 1l wses by
Setmunology when he seaches that a heretical Pope "can be udgsdby
en,” and then adds "o rather shoton 1o be udged”
“{Tioc Roman Pocuift should not mstakenly fisdcr hmeeld
shout ks power, sac rachly glory 1n bis emucrice or honor, far the
Toos b s judged by man, the more e 18 judged by God 1y ke
Sacuc b can e rudgcd by men, o ratier shown (@ e sudsad. ¥
e clearly loses hus savor 1o beresy, since be *wha does
not hellese
w akwsdy judge (John 3d18) "5
Using thes termunology of Pope Innocent (11, the famous canenis.
Fr Wermz. aleo obaerved that the declansiory senkemce of the come of
heresy “dees not have the effect of judging a heretical pope, het#
demormieatingthet he has dirrady been judged ™*
Becaise o Pope obetinale in his heresy shows fumself to be sl
fudged, scoerding W the words of Our Lord (Jn. 3 18), the great Mss'
# the Dowwcan Order and advisor to Pope Clement VIl Carins

Zwatl,ch,p 153
P L 210470 frmphiasis added)

334
 i Depomtr of # Herecal Pope "

held that the Church can depose the Pope for

OyFor cample, Caxtan says tha 'Wr;:e mw::;:
gtimately because, granted that power 10 depose the pope resides in
ngml\d‘ apart from the pope. it must be able 1o assemble i
Jatered members, in order 1o depose hum, otherwise, whi a pogolwhe
m‘kwm{used to summon & council, he could not be
“ He also savs “in a case of heresy, the connection between,
{he papacy and that particular person is subject ko the decisi
Charch and the uruversal council, so that he {the hereticat Pope] ofcanon
the
be
u
Cajetan also explaune thet deposition must follow the cme of
heresy For example,
he wrote “the pope can be deposed for the crime
heresy "2 And & lttle later “But the pope s Liable to the penalty ofof
dpontwon on account of the crime of heresy, as the dectors generally
‘ap. iluebynced [the canon] St Pape (dist 43, ch )
Suarez ikewise held thata Pope who has been found guiltyof the
e of heresy “should be deposed” 3o that the Church can defand
herself from such a grave danger * He says:
“laffirm 1f he 1 & herene and MCAMEIvic, the Popc cossct
e Pope a6 100n a5 a decluaive senience of s o
peonounced againet him by the legiumate jursdicties af the
Church. This the common posttion keld y the doctors, and can
b concluded from the first Eputle af Pope St Clerent 1% 1
which ene reads that St Petor taught thal tac heretic Pope should b
dpsad The reason 18 the following It would be cxwemely
harmiful 10 the Church (# have such a paser and not be able W
defend hersell from such a grave danger; furthermore it wauld o
sganst the dignity of the Church 1o oblige her to remam subject w &
heretic PontfF without being able 10 expel hm from herscif,
for
sch a5 are the priace and the priest, 30 the people are accustemed
W be() heresy ‘spresds bke cancer,’ which 13 why herewcs
should be avoided 2 much as possible T ss, therefoce,
all the
mere 50 with regard 10 an herctical paater; but haw cau suck &
danger be avoided, bnfcss he ceases 10 e the pastor™™s

i Compermsiome Aucuriiade Papue ct Conaill, p. b femphasts added)

AN p 84 (mphasi adeed).
_&r:;(mmum
¥ 102 (emphasia added
“wu&m-‘--hm’-mm—(w‘danummhmwd
e Carihiara. Hamever, we huree boen unabe 1 inos he quoishon it e
::-;ni-u-dn-:m
e vol. X1} (Parin. Vivea, 1956), p. 317 (cmphoaie added).

335
 g e case of heresyo mfidelity The sccond caseihe 15
wdcss. The thrd case 15 deubd about the validity of o ry o
Conceming the case of beresy theo lagians and Canon ulawyeo
“:;w the m}‘:nu
dsputcd very much ‘[:Ihoul n;.nlyques
1% BOL MECESALY 10 delv
e 1nto this tion -now Howey e
Y
i caeesc
dcpo dsy € )
of bere
A specrfic text 15 found mn the Decree of Gratian, Disy
10 choper 5 Papa” where 1215 5w "On exri 10 morth,
l ey
resome6 rcpeoachs the PoufF for any fault, because he who hagga
other s, shoul d not e judg ed tudi cand ius} by anyone, uieys
Judge
1 " (Pars LD 40, ¢ ) Tie
Ccxcepton sbviously means that i case of heresy,
“The semc Uning 15 confirmed by the letier of Pope Hadose,
reporied i the Exghih General Councal (IV Constantinople, 543,
$70), m the Toh seasion,!* where it 15 said that the Roman Ponifa
Judged ¥y ne eve, but the anathema was made By the One
g Homeer, bacauec he was sccused of hetesy, g caly cuse
u
Ao, Pepc SL Clement says in his finst cpistle that St Petw
‘oght that & heretical Pope must be deposcd The reason t that we
o separaie oursetves from hereitcs, acconding o T 310 &
mea that 1 & hereic, afer the first and second admonitn, aved
b New, onc sheuld ot avod onc that remains i Ge
[Sovermnga] Pontificaic wn the contrary, the Church should nsiesd
oc und 19 ham a5 her supreme head and communicate wath kom.
Thecehre. 1f the pope 15 a herctic, either the Church should
commumicate with hum, or_he_mysi
be deposed from e
Pauficai™
The (it sohuon lcads %0 tha ewvieus dewruction af e
Church, and has wherenlly & risk that the whoke ecclesisocal
reomement e, (f she 2a¢ 10 follow a berctical head In adduen.
w the heretc & an encriy of the Church, natursl law provies
Peoiecton aguinat vuch # Pope sccording 1o the rules of wlf-
deforse bucace she can defend herself aganst an enemy such 2
hml?quhr{n:.-tg-m(mlmmlwhlmi&l
-7
—_—
‘ " Comhros s cuie e mmplisime {Vsmice, 1771), v8l 18 »
’:7 sl O Achricc Sum P, Dip 1. At I D

3%
 e ¥
1 Dpelonof o Herehcatvope u

£ Mattheus Conte & Coronata taught the same in s severdseraty

ry book, Tracheiss Postumus:
‘A Pontiff, lapsed 1m0 beresy. can most
Thus, Duvallius above inq 10 The reasen mh:"n:«m
i Chst Wants 10 reiain him » Vicar af His Church, i
perumacrausly SRTERMES (scxrepel) hinmell wholc from Her, smea
Chast has e]sp«u""ymmm"wfld[ .m“: s hear His Voice m o
Jthful people, and (o comply with 11m, jos a4
£.nre ur‘fl. shepherd The sheep hear Ths Vore ..".f‘»’.,,"?,,‘,fi:
. The sheep follow Him (cf John 10 3.4} Bul far be n that the
Church shoutd hear a Portif lapsed o heresy She whe s racher
Vound 10 t0p Up Her own ears against ki violent speach, lew She
¢ mfecby the venom of his doctnme. [rather) iy casting-aup
ted
a0d sew clection qught 1o e yracd by e sicrably of the Sacred
Cactinals *®
More quotations could be provided, but suifice it to say that what
we have Just seen (thata Pope can be deposed for the cnme of heresy)
represents the common opton of the theologiane and canoruss. The
soleexcephon we are aware of is the French canonist Mane Domlruque
Joun {d 1870), who maintained that even if a Pope publicly fell into
heresy e could ot be rermoved from office He wroke:
“There 15 not wulTicient romon te Uk thet Chet had
determined that a heretical Pope could be depesed The resson
slicgeable 1 favor of that depostiion weuld be the cnormews evil
which would come upon the Church 15 casc uch a Pope wat 8ot
deposcd Now this reason dees net hold. for. 0a the one hand, &
Pape herctic does net cenatikle an cvil 4 groat that K mecessaly
Wads the Church to ruin and destructon, £ad, 0n the ether haad, the
deposition would be a remedy much worse than the evil tsetf™
U Bourx had hved to see our day, 1 which modem mears of
wordsus
commurucabon have made 1t possible for the scandalo and
whors of the conciliar Popes to be broadcast wetandly and
‘ntinuously throughout the world, he may have had a different
Opinion about the harm that a herctical Pope can do to the Church.
Nevertheless, since the Church herself has never spoken definutvely on
Yhe question, 1t 1s persusaible for Catholics 1o hold the opwuon. In fact,
—_—
'“fl:;nr.mmun,,umnmnmwmnunu._uuw-
s Buprale.
 True or Falee Pope ? - Q“Ph“

Jumacll only referred 1o thue opinion (helg

::""","‘" ingly improbable;” cather than certainly i 30 x
Whe Would Oversee the Depoaition?

Thomas explains that because the Chur

_‘,I.:‘:'.::ogfiwn o o separate tsel from 3 heretiey rh;,',;"'*
e gh to the meana necessary to accomplish such g .,,,,,:
Now, sce the only competent tribunal to aversee such a Erve g,
‘e uruversal Chrch 1 # general councl, (olipm g,
Clvich hoself st poseess the suthonty 1o convenesuch s et
He explams:
“And s o remainé 1o be explaincd by what authenty iy
s 10 cil
Coun b calied ¢ ) | respond that such a council cas b
ssmvencd by the authonty of the Church, which 15 1n the bichope
fncumnclyes, of the greater majonty thereof For indee d
the Churcy
has the rght, by divinc Law, 1o separatc herself from an hersuca)
pore Comscyue she ha thently
nght. by the same divine Iaw touse
2l means of themsclves necessary for such separation, and the
acan that are *of themeclves (per se) necessary” arc thase that e
logally able to prove such crime, but one cannot rove the crne
legally unicss there be a competent judgment, and in such
a grve
mamer a6 thi, the only competent Judgment 15 that of 3 genen)
souncil Because we arc treating here with the Universal head of the
Church, Ui periine o the judgment of the umversal Churh,
which 18 3 General Council
And theccfore | da not agree with Father Suarez, who believas
Wi can be wrvated 1n Provincial Ceuncsla 2 For truly a Provncal
Cowncil dous nat represcni the umversal Church, and therefore dess
ot posscs the suthonty to decide 8 maticr which pertains te e

-
70 Remows Pt W 2. ch. 30 Lassied in the pection of the “Thind Opiien”
Necaliego what
(et was said
Bekarmioe sbowt il questiors of {act and e in Chephr 48
demanutrvins, ao W sobd, il the puitors resking 0 U (-
'h-u-—.mlch-.-*uuu&umofimmwmnfl .
:fi—“wmhw'.flumfimmwym -
‘:"'"“-—-na-umummwd-r-nnl;,
oi e i pertagn 1t ol i be peceadary fu & LG
ot et U it b srwgh ¥ 1 sach reghon there et p .
vsind by e Archiuishepe ot Primates, and that all arived 8
i ok o1 S Thatmas dagrend seih i pichision of SUATEE.
k]
 1 epentt o Heretion vepe "

ersal Chiurch Nor would several Previncul Couacs

O ecty 10 reprccn the amwversal Church - " PO
fegarding the separate quesbon™ of whe withun the Charch
fave the authonty to convene the council, John of $t, Thomas ex::::
[hat sance [t has not been entrusted 1o anyone in parkcular, wch a
cobeul conven
ded by the Cardin or the neighia
als cing
{orevenat the request of secular authonities, "lhe princes”) He wrete:
Bt 1f we should ok speak of the authonty by which such a
matit 13 to be Judged, but of the convocanan af the councl iself,
ssd who has the aulhonty t convenc such a ceuncil thea | judge
hat 1t has 0t bee entrusted 1 anyonc in particular and thercfore
can be comencd erther by the candinals, who arc abic neufy the
shepe, of clsc by other neighboring bishope, who shen neufy the
athers #0 that they can be gathered, or cven ot the request of the
et 45 2 summons having coercive force, as when the Poge
convencs & Council, but as an denunciative convocstien, wherchy3
crme 15 announced 0 the bishops i order tha they may hassly
gathet logether 1o remedy the matter The Pope cannet sanul wuch 3
Council for the Church has the authonty, by the divine nght, to
canvene a councal for s purposc, sice she hss the nght to
separaie hersclf from a heretic ™

Perfect and Imperfect Councils

How can the Church convene a general council to oversee the
deposition of a heretical Pape, when a general councl must be comened
and omerseenby a Pope, etther personally or through hus legates? In
aewermg this question, Cajetan makes the classical dwtinction
between a perfect council and an imperfect councdl, or, & he pute it an
saiutely perfect council, and a perfect councl 1 reiation o the present
stabeof the Orch ch the
Capetan explaing that a perfect council abssulely is one i w!
¥ody13 umited to 1te head, and therefore consests of the Pope and the
bishops % Such a council has the authority so define dogias and issue
-—
‘:mlr’;nbmmmms_-mm W, Art (1, Oe Depuhunr
.p.
The At questio n
vems by what i ch a cowncll
autharisy .umw cotvamed”
d'mn
secomd
Thiohfi
1uw. u'wm mxmm 7¢mu —num
a 7€ "uestecs
of Law *
Py Do 111 O Anchoninc Sumes Foio. Dig. U, Art. I Dt
*De Coupuretne Auctortiats Popue ot Comeil67
»»
 True or Falee Pope” Capnyy, I

late the universal Church T A couneyy

e Embers weho can be found when the Churey jo T4 ¥
conditon {eg with several doubtful Popes or with one .m"’i
councll
hereucal Pope). which Capetan 1efers 10 45 "2 perfect oy acepgt!
“Invoiye. .l
1o the present state” (1€, an imperfect counal), can
3 od
with hewniversal Church upma;pamdpmm
“An mperfect counal cannot or insues¢
define doctrine
regulaie the unmersal Church, but only possesses .,.,,u“’“:.yn
Getnde the mabier that necessitated 11 CONVOCaNON. Cajetan nop .:
{pere s only two cases that sty convolang auch & counci -y
there s a suigle heretical pope to be deposed. and when thery
aeveral doubtful supreme pontiffs" In such excephional cges
counar can be called without the approval ol, or even sgu
the will, of the Pope Cajetan explasns
A perfect cowncil according
1o ¥he present state of the Chrch.
v€.. am waprfoct councit] can be summoncd without the pope and
ageonas s will, of, ahthough asked, he himself docs net wisk s
summen 1, but 1t decs et have the authonity te regulate e
warvemal Church, but only 10 provide for the issue then o suke
Ahiough humes cases vary i infirte ways src enly vy
there
‘canes that have occurred or can ever eccur, i which, | declare, weh
a comci should be mummoned The first 15 when the pope mod be
dcposad on account of heresy: for then, 1f e refuscd, althogh
sk, the cardemals, the emperoe, of the prelates can causz a counal
10 be amembled which will not have for s scope the car af te
unrversal Church. but only the power to depose the Pope (1
The scond 15 when one of imore Popes suffer unceramty wib
rogaré 1o thew cloction, sk sccrme e have anisen n the schws af
Urbas V5 amd ctbers Than, lest the Church be perplesed, thoe:
members of the Church who are available have the power 1 pue
whick 4 the true pope. if 11 can be known, and if W camncr be
Imewn, [they have] the powar 18 provide that the clectors agre
o8¢ or anedhcr
of them
. The council
of Conatance 13 often Gled as an examplc
&¥
wnperfect council” 1t was convened during the Great Western St
whan there were three clamants to the papacy and
mnowtainty sk 46 which of the three was the true Pope The coundl (W
 e Depoo of & e Cupe Chaptrtt

duafsects of clergy and laity with no ofticial suthority) ended

i by deposing or accepting the resignamon of ;u)n.. pepal
ahus® he
hich then paved the way for the election of
dumarl®, B K the riame Martin
G A et counci that 1> often mentioned U 3 Candinal Odo
s the Counce of
e i convened by the bishops 1o ovence the mater of Fope
nus (d 39, who had offered incense 1o Wole® by aur
e he Church 15,1 the wordsof Our Lady of Akua, “fllof e
e compromse™ and infested by “trarorous co-rehgroniew,> ey
upl achons would ety be explaned away, ox ke pramee.
e ecumenucaf gestures in the “spnt of Vabean 11~ I te e of
o etly Chusch, however, when the farth was strong,and the fadhfot
e mfiant, there was a different reaction. After Pope Marcelimus
amantied the grave public sin againat the Fah by offerng incence at
e sl of Jupter, council was convened and the compramaed
Tope, through shame, deposed imself and anashernatized anyone whe
would bury hus body ¥
Sut ths story of Pope Marcellnus has a happy ending, for the
Isheps were so edafied by hus public yepentance, that thev reelected
um to the papacy (foflowing us resignation) Pope Marcellins went
onto due as & martyt for the Fanth and 1s now a canorzed salat, Here
we se the good fruut that rusulted from an imperfect couna that was
convened 1o oversee the deposition of a Pope How diferent his end
may have boen had hus scandafous actions been explained away or,
worse shil, defendied and prassed as positve good

Gl Excyclopodia (1913) vel. IV, p 2900

*In a letwt bo the Emperar Michacl 1n 565 Page Nichelas wiuee “In the reige of the
sevezeigna Diacletian and Maxlmian, Marceilinus, she Bishop of Koase, whe aftrwards
came an Ulistrnieus martyr was 38 persecuind by the pagans that he anirord ane of
mmwmmm‘(mmhhmsmhmn—y
| (Phladelphia Perinsylvana ok Joscph bcVey 1900) p 518
"fc'::-kdn-wx':.ynmmmmmun-m“a-.-zm-d
Yee Cardinals appasing Carinale. bishepe againt bisheps. and The prsts whe venevic s
il be xcwrred and wppaned by thenr confrenes._cherches altars sachenl. fhr Quursk
8¢ fll of those trve comprowmine ane the demmn will praas wiary procst anel conercrsbtd
m&hnnmnuuwmwumu-stA&fl'
*“Whan tn Cathiicare urd poamed by
it g oot Chore el b i e deed e
everything has been rulned s

:Mnmm»mmwmmmmnw
M?mm.mm—fl"'fl"""‘u
¥ 10 raman urlerstanding” (Barsholomew Halehawer)
See Hidyon, Palychromsen Rwuiph Higden rasadss Coirvas. Vol 3 (Landes:
8p. 107
Ml
 —y
Truees False Pope? Chapery
“Judging” and “Separating” From a Heretica) Pope

necesmty of sepera tinherese

from & mandfest g
dmm (g 310 2Cor and common
614) had semge %
ot quesions e theologiare have 1o sortoul s ear s
o eopodgedg gt o suthonty (or theane ce
deoucdTheologi
heresy andoverthenhim? hure o
mavigee teoegh these difcult questone while carefully gyt
ary exos - epecally the er0r of Concians, which marmigl
.Fmflmfil-wmhlhw.lndcmnmuem
the problerf
e aeecpaia thenatureo
mmuuhwwmnnuny,u
sha thc pope. becauue be has Bocome a hereic, 15 Mot deposed s
facte by ummam o¢ divine Law, 2) that the popc has no supener sg
from the faith be must
‘woth, and 3) that 1 be deviaies be deposed,
2w C Si Papa[D 40 6] Great uncertainty remains concemg
e and by whom the pope who ought 10 be deposed will (in fact]
e judged 1o be deposed, for 8 judge. as such, 1a superior to the one
wherjudged. ()
Fou 1f e 15 10 be judged and deposed by a umiversat coul
then 1 follews that the pope. while temaiming pope has the
warversal council supenior 10 bum, especially i tbe case of heresy
If, bewever neither the ceuncl nor the Church 1s supenor s hr,
thaa v follows drectly that a pope who has deviated from the fuh
Shmuld bc Judged and dcposed yet no one could Judge and depesc
m, which 15 rdiculous. What shall we say, therefore, 1o averd betk
owrvmas”
The enly course 1o take 13 tewand the middle whichs
fwrd %0 rvach, vitue indeed coneists of reaching that goul, wheb
ity roselis 1 the solution te many probicms.”*"

-
2 a Var Sont pabn. Cojetan i referring to the s of herery as such, and rat e bk
Sutas of hervey emtasiohed by e Chrcth. John of 5. Themies addromsas Wi firt ¥
‘Coretam st that Beflarmine himawi does ot disagrre $se vrake The fies pout
Coran & hvivws and 8 net owrarsdicied by Belinrmice The srulh s cvidend 6 00
Subvring s Firt, bactuse the Pope, e miahiet how real and pubic miy RN
Ay P e am e cagee s e cormacte, he et b depesed. i e ook
ooy Sepow hun by drvere g, fu she aarcust nee shewld she averd Him S0
st 1P . svaed s hevsc st the it ad socord conecien $ories
ot 61kt 4t mcerd correcthan b shewld et o avevdcd and comeT
Yol 0t b depead, tsoce o alaely id het by the very ot s e P
M‘**-«:—- wuly be s abie to be public [in his heresy] Wt
v by the Clwsch, und et daciared s inceerigible * (Cursis Thobogi
P Auclriitr Papar of Conedl,pp #283
2
 3 Dopeiton f » Herett Fope Cheps r 13

Four Opiniens
(Fwo Extreme Optruone and Two Middla Oiniona)
ted Captan
H.vm:‘wc"’:d“ml the difficulty regardmg
e how heretical Pope can
;Mlo\lrnpn:lm\s. he refers 1o twe "extveme oprwons,” and e
<uddle opinions.
Two Extreme Opinisns
The two extreme opinions are
1) That a Pope who commuse the sin of heresy falle from the
pontificate rpse fecte wnthiout human judgment. Te be clesr,e
mamtaina that a Pope ceaes 10 be Pope by merely
commutting the sn (the tnternal act) of heresy
2) That the Pope has a supenior over him on Earth, and
therefore can be judged and deposed for heresy
f opinion#1 were true, the Church would never know for sure if a
person elected Pope and considered Fope by the Church was, in fact, a
¥ue Pope or false Pope ~ a true believer or a pretender If opinlon #2
were true, It would mean the Pope has a supenor on Earth {a general
concil), which 15 the heresy of Concaliariem. Both of these “exireme
eprions” are therefore ahown ¥ be false and consequently rejcied.®
Capetan explains
“We say, therefore. that there are two exwene ways, bol of
them false enc 1 that the pope who hes beceme a heretic i
dcpocd ipes facte by divioe law withowk Wumen judgmerr. the
wther i that a pope, while remaning pope, has a spaner ever bim
on earth by which he can be deposed."
Two Middle Opimons
Within the two extreme opinions,” Cajeten discwses what hecalls
oo muddle opinions:
1) The first yruddle opinion masntavs that a Pepe doss net have &
RPeTIor o earth unless he has fallen e heresy, in which case the
_—
~
Nerm
 —y
Troe e el Pope’ , sy
be superior
#0 the Pope This opinion, w
Sm:m':? s » vanant of Conaliansm, and u,h:,t:‘:*-u
cted, for a ceunail has no authonty over a n,pe,,.,mmh::,‘
hevesy secend middle opiion holds that the Pope hag
oo oot e oo of ey, bt that te Chih dous et
rameteral power whe 1t comes 10 deposing a heretical Pope m‘
sl power w exercised by the Church performng ge
wm)papwmmmmz)mmmz
e heretcal Pope, wn ccordance with Divine law & Th g
the error of Conciliansm, since it does not claim that the.Church
avoids
us autherity ocer the Pope, nor does this opimon hold the Chun
parsell punashes the Pope ey deposing hum. Rather, the Church yagy
wikh Chiet 1 the deposttion by performung the munisterial funow
necessary for she deposibon, whule Chnst himself_ authortateey
deposes
the Pope by sevenng the Bond that joins hum e g
pontficnie
Cajetan explains the two middle opinions as follows

“The weddic way toe hos & double aspect onc helds th
wttbough the pope. sisolutcly speaking. has no supenar on euth,
neverticlow e docs have a superior on earth in the case of heresy,
the unuversal Church held by Azonus] The other [mddie opnie]
hobd that the po has no superior on eanth, enher absalutely ot n
the cace of heresy, but that he 15 subject (o the uriversal Churcks
menstanal power exclusively in regard (o deposttion.”2
Secend Middle Opinion

With respect to the second middle opinion, which is defended b

Cojetan, the runusienial function conmsts of those acle whih it
necemsary for the Church o establish that the Pope is indeed a herc
by jwdging that he s guilty of the crime of heresy, and then separa?t
hmhh-mlrvpebyvxmnoh)ufldnlm,whxhd«hmhl
he must be avouded, according to the teachingof St Paul (Tit. 310 A
Carctan wakas clear, the act of the general council, in this case, 8 ™
o0 o subjection - that 1s, 1t 13 not an act of suthonty over the o
swice the Pape 15 subject ko o carthly power - but rather an €1 ¥
_
Asrva,
. e 1. cap VI
forg puarple N
i Scriphure, far
e etevenaty o wrpurate iram urhelievers la rovealed
GG 8. et 34, 3Cur &7 Tit 3 0and Zim £ 10
Poper c Conclls
p 13

A * -
 e Depestion of & Heretcas eape Chaprer 1t

ton, baccording 10 which the Church separates hersei

mmulsepinbmnlnhtmmm::
fl""““m" by the Church, which 4 part of the deposinen self, and
P act that the Church has the authonty 1o perform, ag €
explainé-
“ln shon. e where do | find svpenenty or
gne aw the coee of heresy, b foly] eoarigc N
gwvious thatthe Church can separate el from the pope anly by
e rsnstenal power whereky il can cloct hum. Therefog, e o)
et 1w down by devine law that & hereo shoud b sy
sl banished from the Church docs not crete 3 nace for 4 powes
which 15 grester than & munstcrial onc [Ths snocieral power)
conscquenily 15 sulficieot {for the scparstion], and 1t 1 known te
Teside 1n the Chureh ™
John of St Thomas also comments on the fact that while the Charch
has no superiority over & Pope 1t does possess the authority, by Divine
Lsw, 1 srerete from him and avold tum, if he should fall into heresy
Heexplained that,

“It can never happen that the Church has power over the pope
focmally One cannot cite any suthenty sating that Christ the
Lord bas given the Church authonty over the pope Those who were
cited 1n the caec of heresy. do not mdicate sy supenenty ever the
Pope farmally, but only speak of avomdug hw. wepsratng from
m refusing the commumen
with hum, etc_ i af which ca be
done without requinne_s sowsr formally ahove the Pope s
s W
As Cajetan and John of SI Thomas keach, because the Church, by
Divine Law, possesses the nght to scparate from a heretcal Pope, the
Church st also possess the right W the means necessary W
accomphish the separation. Now, because the Chusch has no authonty
#vera Pope, It follows that these neessary maves can be exercmed
Soward a Pope without requiring authonity over hun. Thev respond by
Penting to a “minustenal power” by which the Chwrch can batly
“peate herself from the Pope, withoul having to exercwe authanty
#ver the Pope ‘The same would be true in the case of 2 wife who was
forced 1o separate from an abusive husbend. The act of separshon
_
I8 .24 empham added).
h‘: n-m.,nn.unmmus-—wnblml“'h—"
138 {oemphiaais sclded)
345
 —y
Trwe o Faloc Pope? Cupeyyy
her to have authorlty over her spouge
wenid ot %m can separate from a heretical Po pe gducgy
W ranet, e 0ot present, williout, howe
ver, by iNg 10 gy
E;:dlan authonty supenior to him
When and How Does the Pope Fali from Office
of the quesbons debated by the theologuane is exacy,
_‘c‘:,d,. how, the Pope falla from the pontiicate Doe, ::
pice wmeda aftr the Pope's pertiacity has been
tely "
e o who waced the warminigs? DOes it 0CCUT i and when gygy
gooural councr sssues a declaratory sent crime? Oy
of theence
et and when the Church formally separ the Pope?
fromates
As we've manboned, the Church has never defiutively seuyg
shese queshens. Commequently, the poine are open to debuleg
sndeed have bean debated for centurics Regarding these speculsimy
John of St Thomas said, “theologiansand canon Ly
have duputed very much.” even though many Sedevacanhss, e
have formed s judgment based upon snippets of materal posiedan
Sedevacantst websies, mistakenly belleve the matier has been setled
But notwithetanding the different opinions regarding. precisly
when and how a Pope falls from office, the unammous opinion k fhat
she Pope losss the pontificate after the Church (a general coumi)
establiches the crime of heresy (and probably after the Counail s
she declarative sentence)
As we've seen, John of St Thomas, who was a youy
cmtemofporar both Susrez y
and Bellarmune, confirmed that these v
great theolopians agreed that the heretical Pope 1s deprived of the
ponificate immediately by Chrst, but only after he has been “declard
wcomgible” by the Church. He says:
“{Ojwly Chrwt our Loed is supemser to the Fope And for that
ranten Sictiarmassc and Suarez judge that the pope, by the very fict
that b 1 1 memifest heretsc acd hae been declared incompible. &
Goposed wnnediaiely by thc Lard Chnst, not by some olbe
of the Chgrch
by

“Conmmrng
he s o |depostion due 0] ey, boiogiann
and o WS90
—Wm—a'@-wfllmw-mwnwfi"

27 £ 130 N e condingby o ot ot1. Thowsa, Blarine heid 42 ¥ 0

4 5 dodind g™ b et i
36
 e Dapetion of Heretcal Pepe

Chorch'a establishment of incorn, (pertinac

wf:"{mahpeinlofiehldhlwhz;‘mY( » 2
s esentil element of the crime of heresy Some, but ot af hotd
Yt aver and above establishing the crime, the Church mvast uapg o
dcarawry sentence Tlmmmmnumm:d«hnhon-m
conditon
for the lose of office AS we have scer, Suarez said it was the
common opuon thet the Pope will only lose his office upom the
declaratory sentence of the crime Ror pracncal purposes, requiring
declaratory sentence as & condition for the lees of office salves a
umber of potential problems,
For one, what if the Pope renounced his herasy semetime
after the
wamings but before the declaratory sentence was iamsed” What of
some bishops at the councll yudged fum incomrigible before he
renounced hus ervors, while others had not yet resched a defintive
nt? IF he recanted just before the declaration was read, would he
suil be Pope? If the declaration is & condiion required before Ged will
act by deposing a heretical Pope, the Church knows precuely how leng,
an apparently herstical Pope would heve to renource fus heresy - s
lang as 1 takes for the Church s0 establish thet the Pope w persinacious
{condition 1) and issue the declaratory sentence (condition 2) After
#hat, he would be able to renounce I heresy, but it would be fee Late
forbum to retan the papal office
Because under Divine Law it i neceseary for salvabon for every
human creature to be subpect ko the Roman Pontiff, the Church st be
ivolved in the deposition of a herebcal Pope in some way, either by
achually deposing him, or at least by establishing the crime and
declanng tum {or at least judging him) bo be incomgible Knowing the
prece moment duning the council in which he loses hus office s, in fact.
M‘;—l:‘ml In reality, it 15 merely an acadewuc queskon for theslogiars
o discusa.
What is necessary, however, is for the Church to be nvolved in the
process by overseeing the matber so that, just as the Charch presenied
um to the fathful as Pope folowing the election, it can declare him
“ren-Pope” following the deposion. This w necessary so the fathful
will know that he 18 no longer Fope and thesefore should not be
™™Cognized as their head No auch ceriainty would exist o the fall fremn
office were dictated by the pvale judgments of individual Catholics
{ie, the Sedevacantut), who pretend %0 “dmcer” that the Fopes &
tretic, and therefore has lost hu office. This 1 why the Chuirch el
must sstablish the crime before a rergrung Pope loss tus office
—_—
{rhich mewr Bellaie, ike Suanse, belrwed i o necess of 8 Sosoiary i
e criee issucd by the Church).

M7
 Whe in the Church Renders the Judgment of the Crimer

the Church would. possess the suthorly 1,

i odgmen t the Pope 18 guiyit obe thee cr in
of eper
Cardinals l, ™
e
aaclaratory sensence)? Would
%hmm Pope, or ;flmflmw,;“:':h
s apswers thas queshon &
it sasn be sard that the declaration of the crime does aot come
from the Candinals, bt from & general council This s cvigey,
Fraty, by the practce af the Church For 1n the case of Pyge
Marceilms, whe effersd mccnse 1o wols, 8 syNod wee gutkereg
pos
for the purof cng the casc, as s recorded
discussi
Drsancnen 21, Chapier 7, (“Nunc auiem’) And 1n the case of iy
{Great Wesern] Schism, during which there were thrce repued
postfls the Council of Conetance was gathered for the purpose of
seuling that schism Likewise 1n the casc of Pope Symmachus, a
council was gathered wn Rome to treat the case against him, x
reponied by Aswenc Augustne. m his Epriome Juris
Vesers (Trle 13, Chapter 14), snd the scctions of Canen Law
quoted shove shew that the Ponufls who wanicd 10 defend
hemuclves sgainst the crimes imputed (0 them, have done 1 kefare
2Coumal
Secend. 1t 1s commonly agreed that the power of treatng the
cans of popas, and that which pertaine 10 hus deposition ,
has st
bovn sasrus cardinals. For the depesiion belonogsthe
16 the iad
Churck, whese authonty 1s represcnicd by a general council
indced ealy the chection 15 entrusied to the cardinals and no more,
2 can be clewrly shown by reading those things which we have
deawen ot Sren the law m Are 1] Coscerang this makter ket ose
ooassh Terqucrnode (Summe, | 2.¢ 93) Cujemn (De
Comparationc aucioritaits papee) sad the Canonists (On e
Decrofetal Boniface Vill (in bth) chap 'In fide de hocreicss wi
ee Dist. 40) %
of Gratiam,
the Decr

As we can see, John of St. Thommas says o less than a genel o

o the Church (s gathening of the world's bishops) must make ¥
dafiestive udpment that the Pope % gulity of the crime of heresy B
Saecs hue conchusion upon the hstorical examples of general curc
being convo1oked resolve the casesof Pope Marcellinus, the G4
Weatern Schism, snd that of Pope Symmachus.

————
eT 10,0 At Somas P, Dip. 1, At 059
k)

-
 e Depovtion o HereTons rope n

Declaration of Deprivation (Depesiti

Two Optrons )
The crime of heresy heving been esabluhed by the Church (and,
cording, o the common opimon, & declaratory sertece weued), we
o teach the firal phase 1 the procese the deprrhon of the Pope fone.
), or the declaretion that he has already fallen from ofty
inoiher opinion) Thus 15 where we find the diference between she
spioans of Bellarmune/Suarez and thet of Cajetan/John of St Thomae.
Opinion of Bellarmine and Suarez
s we heve seen, according to the opinion of Suarez and
Sellarmine, once the Church establahes the cnme (and menes she
declaratory sentence of same), "he would be then rpse facke and
mmedistely ~deposed by Chrst” (Suarez)® “before any
excommurucation oF fudscial sentence” (Bellarmine) ® Thewr reasening
ithat, since a heretic 13 1ot & membes of the Church, such a one cannot
remain as 1t head But one who has been declared a heresc (or apenly
et the Church) is not & memberof the Church, therefore, eic Not
being a member of the Church, he i depnved of the pontficate
immed iatel
by God, at which ypomt the former Pope “can be fudged
and punished by the Church ,”* fumaelf taught
as Bellarmine
According to this opinion, the declaration of deprivabon (which
follows the Church’s judgment and declaratory senence of the crime),
wiuch is issued by the general counil, is merely precedural mater
dectanng whet has already taken place The declara does bon
not relae
o the “deposition” itself (since God has already severed the bond thet
uniies the man to the pontificate), but simply declares the See vacant 0
that the Cardinais can move to the election of a new Pope
According to the oplnion of Capetan and John of St. Themas,
bowever, the conclliar declaration doesn’t merely declare that the Fope
tus fallen from office, but instead plays an miegral part in the
ine
their positon
deposibon itself We will now exam in depth.
Opimion of Cajetan and John of St. Thomas

Cajetan and John of St. Thomas mainken that she fall from the
Pentificate oceurs, not when the Church establihes the crne, but
-_
:me;mmew 10, Sect b, L p 318
Py Penifior bk 2 ch.30,

My
 —y
Troe ol Pope? ey
Church, wsing the authonty of a coy,
{;:;,';’:‘:m and commands the (uhful by 5 g e
avoided
G- an st‘whenbe the (ottand s) 3 1115 only then, they boy!
crime has been established and declapgg 1™
o e dat Cht aulbantatively deprives the Pope of 1 ¥t
e ey masnian tha tha separation ofthe Chisrch from (=
o the dupetie cxuse for the loss of office, whereas a.ll,,,,“,‘"u
believe the depomiree omse 1 the Church's estabi ,:":
e whch el sepirates the Pope from the Church, Nopee
ot cass1t ¢ perston tht poscs the Pope 10 1os th s et
cose, e Popt i separated from: the ChUch. 1n the other,the ey
epirac from she Pope
Having conssdered the opinion of Bellarmune and Suur,
Chupier 10, we wall now coneider the Posi tianon
of Cajean o y
5. Thomas. Because we will rely heavily on the wrting s
of oimery.
Thecras, we will bebygn telling a Litle about hum.
John of 5t Thomas 15 recognuzed e one of the greakest Thamex
after the Angelic Doctor humeelf. The Cathol
Dichenery notes that “his contemporaries unarumously called hums
saccr Themias, a braght staz in front of the Sun (St. Thomas Aquna”
and want o to say that “His doctrine is none other than th of e
Angelsc Doctor, profoundly understood and faithfully expresed 2
He was born tn Lusbon, educated at Coimbra Universlty and i
st Louvan Uriversity, before foimng the Dominicans 1n Madridat ke
age of 23 He was a long time professor at Alcald (Madrid Univeney)
and dunng the last years of his hfe served as tha confesso r
of Kig
PAlip IV of Spain. The Catheiic Encyclopedia says of fam
“No mss speyed a gresict reputation 1n Spain, oF was were:
froquenlly conmitied on pownis of doctnne and coclesasical
matters His Uwolegical and philosophical writings, which have
gouc thewugh masy sditsens, are among the best capesitions of
Thomes Aquinas's decinne, of which he 1s acknowledged to be e
of the focchuet terpericrs Though he took an active part i e
schalaanc drcussions of his times, his countcsy was such that he §
$ad mcver i have bt an epponent'a foctings S0 faithful was be
e nditsns af bt aciber wed the principles of the Angeti Decer
Shat it ks e could dectare that, n alt Uhe thirty yours be
-
+ Adeugh $is megfi omr smitarceunly et the lamince
of dhe St
St i itsaedg
bl e e Gclrmben of the v St o8t
o o,
Famtoc, Dhtmne & sitopc mtelqe, “Joan do S Thormsn.” st 90
350
 o Deproen 8 8 HETERGRL Fpe Crarrty

evoled to tesching wed wrting, ke had net

:‘ymflcomnryw& Themmas "5 A & e
one mught expect, John of St Thomas' scholasi,
r‘fily how a heretical Pope loses hus office is dfepy mfi?‘.,:
e profound He utiizes the clear duinchons of Themseuc
oauphy and theology 10 explain, in preciee metaphymeat
demi.
way in which the bond untting the man to the pontificate 15 severed,
\ereby causing the Pope to fall from office He also anewsrs the
pene that Bellarmine and Suarez presenied agamm Catan's
Josnon We wil cte the obyections of Bellarmune and Suarez, and the
T wens of John of St Thomas,at the end of this chapter For now, we
t his magruficent explanation
of how a heretical Pope falls from
the pontificate
How the Church Deposes a Pope
John of St Thomas explains thet after a heretical
Pope has shown
tumeelf obstinate, after being duly wamaed, and the Church's judgment
af the crime having been rendered, the Church, usng the aathonty of
the council, Issues a decree commanding the fasthful, by a furidical act,
thet, according to Divine law (Titus 310). the heretc Pope must be
avorded This effectively separates the Church from the Pepe New,
Wciute a Pope cannot govemn the Church a3 its head while
sumattaneously being avoided by those whom he is te govern, the Pope
» effectively rendered impotent by thus legal act of the council. Being
incapable of ruling the Church dae 1o the legitmate act of the Church,
God Himself severs the bond thet unbes the man o the office, and he
falls frem the pontificate
S0, according to John of St Thomas (and Cafetan), the Pope w net
depored 1ps0 fucto by Christ upon the Charch's judgment thet the cnme
o heresy has been comurutted, rather, the jundical act commanding the
faithfut that he is a heretic who must be avoided plays an insegral and
itself This differs frem the opunuon of
necestary purt in the deposition
ine/Suarez, who mamtam thet the Church plays no pust in the
atal fall from the pontificate The Churchs funchon surply
stablishes thet the crime has been countied (and h-xu-k(fim:‘y
smimce announcing s jud, 1), at which
bime Chaist
“"thybydm,ucr‘;:mm:wma-\mm

_—
Cabic Encyriopedia (1913), vl VIIL p &%
381
 —y
Trve or Floe Pore? iy
ssowed by the Church. The dfference s aubite
e b o doibt el ™
l
‘Candina Joumet wrote the following about the opiiop, f Joig,
5t Themws.
“
o of SL Thomas, Whooe anaiyoe seeme 10 ey,v
pensramng [ihan that of Bellarmunc acd Suarcz) ( ) remuriye)
T onc bod that drvnc Law the Chnch 15 10 be unted g
Poge s Uhc body 1 te the hesd. nd on the other hund thay |,
dvme I, b who shews el & hercic 1 0 be avorded s
anc ot twe sdmoniuons
(Tit - t0) mmummlmu..\wh,‘
commdcuon berween the fact of beng Pope and the fiq ot
perscvenng 10 heresy aflr onc o two admontions. The Churchs
action 1s wimply declaratory then the authoriiaive action of Geg
disjons the Papacy from a subject who, persisting n heresy ae
‘adocaizcn, becomes 1 divine law inapd 1o retain it any longer
siwe hercfwe of Scrprure, the Church designates and Gog
dcposes. Ged scls with the Church, says John of St Thomas =5
Jot of St Thomas i careful to note that the Church enly playsa
wwestenal part 1n the act of deposttion, Tather than an authoriive
part, snce the Church has no authonty over a Pontiff - even in the cue
of heresy He employs the Thomishic concephs of form and matier
explan how the union between the man and the pontfica 4
dwsolved A distinction % made between the man (the matter) the
pontificate {the form), and the bond that urutes the two He explame
that just a the Church plays a minusterial role in the election ofa Pap,
0 ltkewsse she plays & nunistenial role in the depesttion of # heretial
Pope
Dunng the election, the Church designates the man {the mater,
, whe s le recerve the pontificate (the form) immedately from Ged
Semveshung smrular happers when a Pope loses his office due ko hersy
Swce “the Pope w constituled Pope by the power of junsdiem
aleme™ (which he is urable 10 effectively exercise if e mit &
aveudedby the Church), when the Church judges that the crime i
bown comanitte and then
d presents him to the faithiul s one that mst
be sveidad, the Church thereby induces a disposthon into the D
the man) that renders him incapable of sustalmng the form (%
Ponificate) God freely responda 1o this legitimate act of the Chir
(Which the Church has right and duty to do in accordance
_
e sQo of e Wit meornate v
"o Paper i Comenlit, p. 75,

352
 e Depoton o Heretcal Pape Chapirn

oy by srbdrawing
the form from the mate, theres
D vl from the poniicate InJohnof
St Thema wericr ™
wThe authority of the Church bas1e fora gveus n ohpact the (w»::.:.y
of the powee of the Pape (fo rm)
deng thao ti
ason
t per by n ction and the sey """Mm-am‘m“
cleg
from the person,
And 50, bectheau decs een of s crime
larati
warks hke an antipatory disaosiian, preceding the depesitien
sself, relates w the deposition oaly minisicrally, nevertheless
ve
iimin
alse reaches the form asell dysposand mcrly
ully, inefar
us
w0 & cathe dupc s
ost on, and thereby ndirmetly (raedunely)
wflvences the form
He delves deeper into hus explanation by noting that deposing.
he heretical Pope the Church acte directly upon the matier (the mar),
bat only mdirectly upon the form (the pontificate) He describes tha
peunt by ustng the analogy of procreabon and death. He explains that
1usi 8 the genezative act of man daes not produce the form (the seul),
weilher does that which corrupts and destroys the matter (disease, ek )
directly touch the form (the soul) - nor does the corrupting elemenl
diectly cause the separation of the form from the mater (but only
renders the matter ncapable of sustalnung the form) - se, t0o, 1 it with
the elechion and deposition ofa Pope John explaus.
“Just as 1n the generation snd corruption ofa men, the begetter
netther produces nor educes [develops] the form (the soul).aer decs
1he corruptor (discasc, cic ) desiey the form. but accomplishes the
comng together {of the form and matter) or the scparain (of the
form from the maticr) by way of allecting duccily the disposssens.
atmater, and by this reaches the fort mediaicly (indicectly)™
To make thus deep concept more comprehenaible,
we wll cite the
following explanation given By Fr Paul Kobineon, Profesor of
Dogmanc Theology at Hofy Croes Seminary
“in all actvities perfermed by created agents, we oaly affict
accidental forms of things by acting on thetr waker, withou brisg
able 0 affect therr substantal form dircctly We con valy come the
death of an anumal, for cxample, by hiing o evec the end o
-—
Corsss Theolagc 1818 De Auchorsie Sumoe
- P8 e, Diap, 1 Ast. T D Depuaemsc
iphas added)

38
 rue ox Faleee Fope’ ? - ey
somethng wmar, 1€. by exaring extemal violence
e chon eching 100 1 g 4nd renchon "
sl forn And 38 we only dispose the maticy of g, U
for loong, 1swbosamtial for, withou! having the m«m:fl
away dwuctly ™

In both the clectiens and deposition of a Pope, the iy

drecity upon the matter (the man) and only indirectly Pon the ;.
(she pontiicaie) Dunng
the election, the Church designates 4y,
who 1 %0 receive the form mumumnumuw,},m"'
receve the pontificate God freely responds to th »
wsmst Church, which st has & ght 0 do, by i
actof theeral
o tothe pontficate, thus makung him Pope I like manner,oo
coses th .
to deposing a herenical Pope, the Chusrch irst udges
hereoc” and then commands the faithful, by 3 purhcal act, gt 1y
must be avorded While the Church has 1o junisdiction or autary
over the Pope, it does possess unsdiction over the faihful, gy
can issue ore
theref commands that they are obliged to obey
Now, since Divine Law teaches thata heretic must
be avouded afie
twe warnngs, the Church has the divine night to command tha s
Pepe, who has remained obstnate following the warnings and b
declared a heresc by the Church, must be avolded And becawe we
whe mwet be avewded cannot edfectively rule the Church, this act o
Church dipeses the Pope for the loss of office God freely respenis
s legal act of the Church by severing the bond that urutes
the fumis
the matter, thereby causing the man to fall from the ponficaie Inte
werda of John of St. Thownas.
“The Church % able to declare the crme of the pomnf and.
secendag 10 divine law, prapose hum to the faithful 43 eac whe
vt e svended, sccordingto the manmier 1n which feretics sheuld
-
and the svibonr i
= Taker from privete emall exchungs betweeen Fr Paul Rebiron
S0k The et fllves Our Lo » words, “Arl fear ye i them 0t U1
ody arl e nt abde e il s sl b rathr e i that cas dauiy b
.:I.Y-“M‘m
Do w s 1 Chmpiar 9, i 8 es agrumenst male by Bellaraine, et esst
Jndicos s cactmaly gren et Poril by Gad, but wit the sgeeement o S5E
tm].umnu_ummww-mhwi‘"
re et b sl g 1 e Ppe, thereire e is 1t remened
by God = B
-v—\u.-mm(..-u,.a.uym'maumnfl_
 e Depeten of s Hertce i Pope Crapterty

avoubed [Titon 3 10] The Posti], hewever, by the fact af heving,

:um;‘e‘.-memnlymmbymh““
3 declarstion. SInCE a Pope Who MUs 10 be. svorded u imable 1
tfluence the Church 8 1ts hesd Therefore, by i of sucho
o, the Church dissolves muntcralty d dpeawrvay the lnk
A e ponuficate with such aperson.( )%
And a bttle later,
“Thus by doclanng a ponilF as Virendus {1e be avoded) the
Chwrch can mduce a disposion m that persen (ke maer) by
which the pentificate (the form) cannot ramese, and thes [the
o of ferm and maker] w6 s dwsoived mensmernlly and
disponiively by the Chucch. and wathertatively by Chiet, ikewise
by designating hum by election, she ulumately disposes him to
receive the cotlation of pawer [directly} by Chast the Locd. aad
o [the Church] munistenially cresies s page.™t
We can see that, according to thus explanation, the Church does
indeed play a part - & real munusiena! part - i the act of deposition, afier
the crime has been established As we have seen, this differs (albeil
sightly) from the teaching of Susrez and Bellarmine, who sud thet a
Pope la deposed, wse facte, by Chret (once the Church judges the
enme), without the need of any further juridical act on the part of the
Church. This is the essential difference between the twe pesitions
which, in reality, represents no practwal difference st all when
considered from the perspective of the Catholic faithful It 1s only an
academic question aboul how the fall from office exactly occurs.
Iohn of St Thomas goes on to explain how two sews of canenical
lws, which might appear to some to be in contradicwon. are
barmbyonia ed He says:
his explanation
“{Accanting te Uus cxplanahen] the provisions af the low,
which sometimes affirm that the deposrsen of the FostifT belongs te
God siome, and sometimes sey that he can be judged by mfcnes =
cac of herare esy , Both are wue For on lhe sac side,
i harmony
the “epcti on”
or depestti on of the Pepe 15 resecoly
rvedte Ged
—_
;‘:"‘mems—-mwlmlnw—-
7.1
2 35d Just an U suthecitien of the Church fanel nt the foahéul) aict the Pope iackng
el upan the matter ‘Which 15 the man elecied]. 7o e suaw authrioes (376 1ot he
V44 depowe i Pope (acing darctly upen the matier_ which s the man deponed)
::"“Hnmmlmfllyu’mmmbypifllkmnhm-
2% directly upen the farm by sevenng the sn irom the postiicate
s
True ox Faloe Pope” Cuapy '

ey and pemcipally. a5 sizied n e

s R wnctio n | D 79, ¢ m.....,.,“‘;‘;;"'-f
79 (Pars
eof e . which 8y tht God s e5ervc 1o ey .
Rogoent of the Apowolic Sec. On the other hather, Chuney
ly and dwposiively by JdgIN g the COTIc nd pryges®
T 1o th ol s 00¢ 1 be mvanded. s 11 s way s gt
e Peaaft s siacd
, 1n the De crofPtGratia
ee 1L in Dist.e4 gyl
n,Chapte g 1
55 Pe(Parspe D40,
L ” 6) a0 10 r
e
The wsersl funchon of the Church, then. s to csabyg,
cnse, e e declaratory sentence, and then command the iy
s a i (and therefore bunding) act, that the man must be
0w s il act, rather than the crme isel, thal i ge
doponton o the matir thal renders him incapable of susmngb
focm (the pontficaie)
Now, because the fundical act relates essentially o the o o
office, 1 # evident why the command to avoid the heretic Popeg
come from the proper authonties For if such & command came fum
o0¢ with no authoity 1 would 1ot bind, and consequently e
would be obliged to avord the man John of St Thomas explains.
= a beretic should be avoided after two sdmonitions legally
made and with the Church’s authonty, and not accordingte pnaie
yudgenent. For great confusion would follow n the Church if
would wffice thar this waming could be made by a povie
indoyadual, rasher than by & declaration comng frem the Churck
watng that il must avoul bum For the pope’s heresy cannct be
public [made mamfes} to all of the faithful except by an ndictmel
brought by sthers. But the idictment of an individual decs
bnad, smce 1t w5 not jundcal, and comsequently nonc weuld be
whliged 0 accept 1t and avoud hum Therefore,1l 15 necessary
Jun 28 the Church designaies the man and proposes hum 1o ik
farhful as bewg clocted Pope, thus also the Chuech declares b a
boret: 2nd progoses i as one 10 he avorded
Thereface, we see s this has becn practiced by the Churck.
whan 5 the case of the depositven of the Pope, the cause i5elf Wit
firs addressed by the General Council before the Pope was decered
4 10 be Pope, as we saud sbove Therefore, il 1 pot beomse 3¢
Popc 1 2 hacwrc, cvem publicly, that be wilk ypso facts coac 0%
 “
¢ Depeotion 43 risnn sy

Popc before
the doclaraten of see Church,
MMMM-»
The Difference Between the Two Opiniens
o reiterate for clantv the principle diference between
T .mxommxmagm.unmhm
plays @ part n the deposiion nself, by usng the authonty of the
Feuna o jundically command the (aihful 1o avoud the heresca Pope
Thus act legalty
(Tit 310) separates the Chusch from the Pope, thertay
inducing & dispositton into the matter that renders the man incapable
of
sstaining the form, at which time Christ authontatively severs he
bood that urites him to the pontificate
Sellarmine and Suarez, however, maintm that & Pope, whose
heresy bus been judged by the Church to be mandest, & e longer a
member of the Church and therefore “ceases bo be Pope by humself,
witheut any depemtion.” to quote Bellarmine directly # According o this
the Church does not actually depose the Pope, or even play an
actve part in the depoaition, but only establiches the crime, at which
me Christ Himself immediately removes the Pope from offce It
sheuld be noted, however that according to both opwruons, it is Cht,
net she Church, who authortiatroely deposes the hereiscal Pope {which
we have referred to as “divine purushment™)
Sequence of Events
Following are the sequence of evenis according te the two
opituons (Also see the Appendix chart at the end of the bosk.}
Bellarmine and Suarez

1) Establishment of the Crme The criminal phase, in which the

Church establishes the cnme through wamings (and may
#ls0 issue a declaratory sentence of the crime) We here
remind the reader that Bellarmune himeelf defended the
nohon that 4 council can judge a Pope for heresy And hs
wording makes 1t clear that the heretical Pope remas Pope
(superor 10 the wferiers who are judging hum) dunng the
Process and until the come i declared. The crme
_—
€ Theotogics 1 1 De Auctorsiie Sumess Poaigich, Diep. 1, Ast WL D Daportiont
8P 198 (emptaci sdded).
Romane Porifi ch 30
bk 2, ce
True or Faise Pope? Chay '
ey

Pope
souboberd by the ChuTch), by which the sem.
i md:Olwd\.hlhedrwmwuu }.;::
ifice.
Drome Punmbasent/Depowibon Automanc ipse facy,
offce by a0 act of Chret, Who severs the bond ”":
man and the pontificate (this 18 the efficaent cause for the (o
el office).
3 Drctartins of Deproationy/Humen Purushrient The Chygg,
declares that the Pope has lost hus office due 10 heresy Ty
merely confirme that the lows of office has eiready taken plys
The former Pope 18 excommunicated and, if herssys 5
vielahen of cval law, turned over to the secular power fyy
punshment.
Al iwee phases ae seen in the following quote from Suarez,
“Tharciore an doposiag 2 berctical Pope, the Church weuld en
51 36 supener 40 hinn, bt jundically and by the consent of Ch
she wauld declarc him » hereuc o
tharefore unworthy of Poatifical honors, be would thes insa fact
and nrnadine be deposed
ly by Chnst ((2) punishmen
divine t] wd
wace deposed he would beceme inferior and would be ablc te by
Poehed ((3)
masichmew]
e ™4
Cajetan and John of St, Thomas

Accordmg ® the view of Capetan and john of St. Thoms, be

soqu
of evenien
s are asce
follows.

) Establishment
of the Crime The crumunal phase, in which the
Church establishes the crime through warrunigs and issuesa
declaratory sentence of the crime This phase precedes the
actual deposibon. John of St Thomas was clear on this when
R said. the deposition fecienda est pout declaratioam cnmins
e “i# 0 be done afigr o declaratory sentence of the

_—
-vnn.mm.nuu.s
‘n,nnrm
* Curna MM&WWW D&.IN‘ 1, D Do
P Y g sddedy
358
 e Depesition1 8 rETE P Chupre 1t

hon/Drrme Pumishment The Church hdhn

B D s the faithfal that the Pope, whe has b found
oty of heresy, st be avorded (iamdis) Thi juridc
causes the disposition that renders bim incapable of governung
the Church (the sbsposaioe cause for the loss of o), Dreps
Punsshment Christ authonitatvely severs tha bond thal vt
the man 10 the office, thereby causin g the sun o fal from the
pontificate (the effcent ceuse for the loms ol office)
3 Human Pumshment The former Pope could then be
excomm uni
by the Church cat
and/er punished ed
by the crvil
authonty
None of the theologians we have consulted speak of a determined
lape of time thet would be required between the aforemensioned
rvents.
Therefore, 1t would seem that a mngle document tsmed by the
cwuncil could. 1) publicly declare that the Pope is guilty of the crime of
heresy, 2} command the Church thet he must be avoided ("witendur”),
and, 3) declare the See to be vacant, and pubicly excommunicate the
fermer Pope Of course, the exact procedure would be determined by
the proper authonities, but what clear (and what Sedevacaniets have
faled to realize) is that whether one holds to the opmion of
Sellarmine/Suarez, or that of Cajelan/joh of nSt Thomas, in both cases
the Church (a general council) must render a judgme of the crne
nt of
heresy before a sutting Fope loses has office for heresy
This was confirme by dFr Seba B Senith
stan in Elements of
Eclesieshon] Law (1881) He explans that there are two oputions
regardi the loss of
ng the pontif for a heretxcal
icae Pope One opinion
(ellarnune/Suarez) mamtaine thet he falls, px facte, from the
ponificaie {the crime, established by the Church, beng the dpative
e for the loss of office), while the other (Caetan/John of St
Thomas) holds that a heretical Pope 15 only deposable (he pudcal
sommand
10 avoid tha heretic Pope results in the dispewime onuse) After
metor these two
ung opinions, Fr Smuth expla shat. ins
sccording o
both opinions, the heretical Pope wwst at least be declared guiltyh
{declaratory sentence) of the crme of hesesy by the Church. Fr Smit
Wrole

juoe fure,
“Question: Is & Pope who falk awo heresy deprrved,
afthe Ponuficate?
 —y
Tree or Faloe Pope’ > oy
Ther e twe ammions one holds that he 15
Ao dvosed 750 facto, of he oo, (7of
e, i
e e . e dvino.only removable
Le, -+ ccumenical council o the College of Cardualy o
Sauth expressly states that “both opinions agree” 1,
‘:;,,,Mh.“g guilty of heresy by the Church It h..,,'m"',;"'
Sy, he remaurs trae and valid Pope The teachung of fy s.m':
confems John of St. Thomas” understanding of Bellarnune ang:
posin, since he sated that “Bellarmune an Suarez” both helg
beretical Pope loues Ius office only if he 1s “declared incorngibie
1t should also be noted that Fr_Smuth's book was cu,
examined by two canorusts in Rome (ollowing 15 bl publier
The Preface of the Thurd Edition explains that Catdinal Simeon, g
of the Propaganda Fide “appomnted two Consultors, doctors i angy
1aw, 1o examune the ‘Elements” and report to him. The Consultory, ajye
exaxurung the book for several months, made each a lengthy repor
the Cardinal-Prefect.”* Their detatled reports noted five inaccuraca.
or exrors that required revision. The above quotation was nof cited
an wror, or even & shght maccuracy Therefore, 1t remained 1n e
Thard Revased Edibon from which the above quotation was taken
the sitement of Fr Smuth were incorrect, it would have been now!
dusieg
the detatled exammation by the canonists and revised, yeti
wasn't. That means the statement 15 correct and thus reflcts the mnd
of the Chvrch on this matier
Sacatse the “two opinions” agree that 2 heretical Pope “mus o
oastbe declared guilty of the crime
of heresy by the Church,” therear
ackually these opwon 1o be noted, which, for the sake of sumplicyi
sy recall, could be classified as follows. 1) the * Jesut” opioon (€
Sellarwanc/Suarez), 2) the *Dormiucan” opunion (of Cagetany/Johnof
St Thows) and 3) the unanimous opinion. The Jesus opirion i thitd
herecel Pope falle from office after the cnme of heresy has b
wabished by the Church The Domnican opinion b that a herewal
Pope fall from office only after the Church commands the fatifl ©
wvoud b But the unentmeus option s that “he must #f lest ¥
declared guilty by the Church.” The Sedevacantists accept the!
opnien, yet nensensically reject the unantmous opiron But one o
hald the fat apnion (the Pope loses his office iy fucta), without4
—_—
Eltmoniy
e "-:ul-,rmmw
l

360
 ¢ Depeoee o7 # TS £ n

unanmous optmion (the Pope must at

ey ey e
‘sedevacantist rejection of the unammews opinion
. T ot sound acholarly xesearch o the casswon. buy ,,:::’:h
et maperficial judgment based, in many cases, on anippets
read on the
et or even despair over the creu. If Sedevacanets studied the
e 1o more depth, they would sce, 2 “ihe second . Thomey®
explamed, that “the pope does nol cease to be the pope by the fact of
Yot& hecetc, before an ecclesial tral (and) senterce “ Wishout 8
wdgrent by the proper authorities, a sittmg Pope, whe 1 “ducemed”
T bea heretic by private judgment, remains Pope The visibary of the
Grch {both formally and materually) s too necessary for the
tobe the case 1t 15 nol a comncidence that the Sedevacantists, who have
ecied the last six Popes, riow also repect the vasbility of the Church,
24 we saw in Chaptes 1
‘One final pount 13 that alt agree that only & general council would
Juve the right to declate the See vacant, not individual Catholics in the
pesw based on their own pravate judgment of the situation. The point b
explained in] M Herve’s, Mamuale Theslegiac Degmaticac, which says.
“Grven that, %6 2 privaic perven, the Pentf) could dend
Sccome
3 public notonows and obstinate heretie galy » Carull
would kave the vight to declare s scc vacant se thut the usual
aiectors could sefety proceed to an chection ™
50 whethera heretical Pope 15 “deposed” by the muntenial actions
o the Church (Cagetan and John of St Thomas),oc whether he loses fus
wifce 1o fucto and immediately (Bellarmine and Suarez) ts merely an
audemic queshon pertaining to the speculanve order, since, on the
peactisal level, both opimions agree that the Pope must have at lesst
been judged guilty of the crime of heresy by the Chusch. Furthermore,
only & general (ecumenical) counctl has the nght to declare the Ser
vacant. Before the actions of the Church, a Pope who considered t
::- heretic according 1o private judginent remains a e and valid
pe
PFopes Alexander VI, john XX11, and Honorus | were all accused of
yet none of thewm ware declared
by their contemporanes,
deprved’ of the ponnficate by the Church while sull kving.
Conaequently, they have always been condered 1o have remamed
—_—
oy
:*":l":“ldlll.bums—wwl“‘ 5, DDapuions
' Masuale Thewlogiar Degmatase (943} L301 foanphasia sdied).

361
 True o False: Pope? ey

oy the Church, even though Py

:;:h::p:xpdkd rom the holy Churn o1 ol
1 emataed™™ for heresy. by the Third Council of Cong, ¥
= we dcussed 1n Chupier § lnspneu(nu-(acfl)\anhgma;:t
Casirc Encycapedes eniry on Hononus says, “It u cieg, ¥
3 herey, 1y
Cathobxc hae the nght to defend Pope Horonus He was
o even Pope Hanonue 5 considered by the CHUFch 10 he jog 1
whele lving “b
nmwmwenmmn;dch..n‘:‘,.d
heretcal w nevera matter to be determined by prvaie
-t r-w::q\m the authontative and dcfimhvey;d‘mm::
Mnmdmmn«nmm,molduwmmn"
Cch have phambed the theological depthe of this mo deog,
quesmon, ard e o thers s cver teught Lhat \ndrondual Catols
of heresy declare i &
permeited o pudge 8 Pope guilty “mamjest hewtg:
they ail hold that, m
and clowrt publicly that be 15 ot she Pope Rather,
who falls nto heresy, the Churd must overse gy
race case of a Ponsiff
depomtion, and that it alone has the nght to declare the See vaan
Thiss, i obedserce 10 Jesus Chnst, we “hear the Church” by
watmg for her udgment, and do not take this gravest of judgma
unko our own hands
Pope Liberius: Objection Answered

Sedevacaists will often te the case of Pope Liberiss whows

replaced by Pope Felix while still living, without a tral or e
frurless warmng, They will note that Belfarmune defended the s
of the priests of Rome who elected Feltx They will then argue that b
proves Wt a Pope can lose his office without being wamed by te
Church. Here is the obection as formulated by one Sedevacanit

“Objaction: Bellarmne cloarly rejects wanings a6 necesery o

wobink sbstmacy before onc % considered a mamfest hereue shee
e wroee w she previous chepter 29 that Liberius defected by marly
ppoaning 1a he 2 borstc 5t Robert Belisrmine writes
“Thca wdood the Roman clergy, sinpping Liborns of b
poasdicil dgnry, wonk oves e Felix, whom they knew 0 ¢ 1
Catholc From that tume, Felix began (0 be the true Pontll For
—_—
pone S vl Gt o pe 343o, Vokume NI,y Pt -0
Company 1300 a
7 Cothele Encyl opedt
(1973), vel, V1L, p 455,

%2
 e Depeson of# Herehce Eepe u

povgh Liverius Was Dot herets, nevenibclens

b
e acount f hE peace b Tade W the Aame g vy pot
rcsaupton the pontificaie could nptly be iakem from han for
e nok bound o 4ble 10 tead hewis, I whao Byhue 1e bev o
Toracane 18 & heretuc by hus cxtemal works, ey Judge
s pure #nd simple, and condemn 24 4 bt (O o
Roman Pontilt, 29) "
According1o Bellarminc. a pepc docan’t noed i be 8 herenic a
o1 losc office. mch less on obstinate manifon duclumd
s 1
e always necessary o cxtablck obeunacy before
et » beretc, then the belamt Bellarmn wade ¢ roveat
™
contadiction

Anawer First, the removal of Liberus, and the subicquent

<election” of Felix.™ wes made by Wi autbonties m Reme (*the Roman
) not by an individual Catholic i the pew Hence, Bellarmine’s
scwunt of Liberius belng replaced by Feltx confirms what he wrote in
De Membris Ecclesine, namely, that heretical bhops are only 1o be
depoed by the proper authorities, and not by the fanthful »
‘Also riote that, at this time in history. the “Roman clergy” elected
the Pope (ke the Cardinals do today). and thus they had the

TSacvenSperay's poar schelarstup e fucther diplayed ry s citssion o Sellarmin's Dr

Reoaro Pecitifice Waok 2, chapter29 when Bellarmine’s quete actually comes o an.
el dilferent beek (b 4, chapier¥
¥ Thia oiyecen wae Made by Steven Speray, in an arkcle Stied “Rabert Sucee ard The
Remeunts Lairst Canon Law Fiston.” (February 3, 2015), which was pased on Na.
b {we crikqued parts of thus articie in Chapter 10
" For eunturies there wis condusion betwren a st and stactyt named o, and Lhe
Rl elecied te replace Liberius, whe is new rcognised os having buin an antipepr
hid et yet been ceared up It s evident ihat
s day the confusion
Dariog Ballarine
Mellarmine wes mistaken ever this histerical matter since T said. “wnlass we arv %
it thel Liberius defected fur a Sime from consiancy in defending b Fah, we e
tompclied 3o.cuclude Felix 1L, whe held the pantficate while Liborns was akve, irwe the
umber
of the Pupes.
MADYT” Thes, it seers am if Bellarmine feit compelled (0 deiend the scuvs of the
Koruun clargy, due at beast in part, %o the “act” (armer) that Pape Feiln [ recoguand &
st
I rrality_ however, St. Felun 1 an eniacely daifersnt peram from anapope ol
e 013 "clectod” tu replace Liberius. Anipope Falix was reiccied by dhe muerity of e
ol In Rame a1 the Ume Abewt anupope Feli, the Catholr Emcwiae says, “she
H#Tquhnwmqnaw.numnmm-mmw
Pore Ubarin]~ Castwiic Encyriopuades (1913), vl V1. M.
"i-p-—---qulnmm-—q—n--np--‘—"";
Pooc Our Lord ard the Apwetias sy lav down thal fier propbem fhereucal bohope]
11 30 b i o by the peoplc s ot that ey deposy them. And it iy
S e pracie af the Chusch has always bean that herewcal buboge b depeced b7
m‘"m&wqhmw'&mwfi‘““’“
 oe Faloe Pope?
True '
hapry
for elec
& new
tiPope
ngwhen the See way
m’:“,'!,,..m bclow, was the case al the time |jngqr "4
e} Neediess 1o av_there 1s nathing in the cutatian fron, Yy
Cocwt a Pope being declared “deposed” for hemsy by"‘““"'n
igment, 6 our Sedevacanist Bogeer imagmes, and 1 e,
Selarmmne would have indeed been guilty of « h-::
contradicton,” wnce he explicitly taught that 1 & bishop gy
bl heresy “shey [ihe Futhful] cannot depose hum and puy ,M.':

B 4 Pope Liberuus had boen bunished by the

Constantrus to Berea in Thrace,™ and consequently the papacy yy
s of Scke wpedte. Thes 1 defined a5 “the conditon of e
wpossitality of exercsing the function when, by reason of
bsetencnt, exde, o6 icapecity 3 diocesan bishop is clearly provway
from fulillng his pactoral function i the diocese, 5o that he s et s
te comm in hus dioces
those uc
withur at e by let*™ter
e even In the
yours of the Church, when the papacy teelf was 1n a stie of 4
Impwits, the Pope wa considered 10 have resignied, and, conseyumy
s See was vacant. Therefore, the clectors could either wast foc e
resam of the Pope (which mught never happen), of legitimately mys
10 electa new Pope without having o conven e or overseee
& counail
depomionof the exited Pope The latier course of action was chosenty
the Roman clergy in the case of Libenus, and the controversial slecom
of Feloc® The following s taken from The Church of the Word Incumk,
by Cardunul journet;
“How can the pomtificate, once vahdly held, be lox? At mekm
teoways s the first s death, er that specics of death which
consws s the uremediable loss of reason, o 83 & result of the fiee
fwmcuationof the pontificate as that of St. CelestineV {In te
ey yaars] The Poge was conpidered as having. resigned whet i
2 50 placed that e could 0ot porsibly excrcise hus powens 1
9pcans thal 10 thesc imes, when 8 bishop was removed from ke
or by ¥
(domth, xile. relcgation)
e by a capmel sentence
Oguevslent measare cmenating from the seculse authonty (i
26 convdcrad a¢ vacagt. It was under these circumatances thet ¢
-
iy F Wil Tir Popes An Hintonasl Limws o Phus IX. (Looden. f—
-e ""'G-flvwmwfi:-n-nm)nn . .
s Acteba Corde “Sede Vacere i fistory snd Cann Law” PO
.'h'—-r,- Rosase, Workix Ediens in English, March ¢, 2013 p S
.m“‘::wwmmmummd«v ot
sd TPl o] cormrcranan bt the lakty woubd have nethiog 0 6o 10
Rl W e tar harad bt Lavwful Pupe [Lieriue] * (1913) VoL VLF-

34
r wwm.[l"mllul’qe Chapter 11

oman Chrorch replaced in the third sonmery Peatemms

e s ceniary Stverns by Vigins, v the m..."MA"".,_,,
Fogennus™® (L Duchesnc, The Early Histary of the Church, yey
MLy 60,noe )
So the answer to this objection 1 that because Pope Liberius was
‘mkde)uk(havln‘b«nhm.d\ed 0 Berea by mr_.,w,‘a,,,,,.‘:
wnsikered to have resigiied Sunce the papacy was considered vacant, the
poper authorities could, if they 50 wished, elect a new Pope without
Having to depose the former Pope Thus, it ia clear that Liberius was
for an extraordinary curcusstance (exile) and not for the crime
o heresy, even il the clergys suspiion of tum beng & beresc
contributed to their course of achon. And Liberius waa replaced by the
cempetent authorities {the priests of Rome), not by laymen in the pew
Fara Sedevacantist to use the case of Liberius betng replaced by Felin
s support for their thesis 15 the proverbral “grasping fee straws,” and
shows only how stertle the Sedevacantist posihon truly s.

Bellarmine and Suarez’s Objections

Answered by John of St. Themas
In the interest of covering further ground and showing wiore of the
genva of John of St Thomas, we would Uke to conclude this chapter by
providing the answers he gave Lo the objections made by Bellarmine
and Suarez agaimt the teschung of Cayetan. The profound responees of
fohn o St Thomas require no fursher commmentary
Surer’s Objection: “From this arises & third deubt: by what night
cwuld the Pope be judged by the asermbly, being supeniar te ? In this
efforts to aved
walter Cajetan makes extraord inarseeng himself
y
forced (0 admut that the Church or a Councl are above the Pope i case:
of heresy, he concludes in the end that the Church and the Councl are
urprnorwuul’npe,notu?npe.huln.pnvmpmm
distinction, however, does not satisfy, for with the same argument one
would be able to say it belongs % the Church & judge ot be purush the
Pape, not as Pope, but as a private person () Faall the Curch
y
@mot exercie any act of jussdiction: over the Pope, and en siecng
tuzn does not confer the pawer upon him, but designates the peron
—
7 We e Wt e of the reaser that Liberioe/ el ane et inaded 0 i shart i
i o o the it pever accepeed Folin 1 as Pops, s invsead rronved Libeks
2 Bepe when he retumed
froun extle
e Curch of e Word incurvalk,
p. A3
3
 —y
Trwe o Feloe Pupe? Q.h“

Chist directly confers the power Theref;

avf‘"""‘;"ow he Charch would not act as sllp:r;:fm“ oy,
N‘"‘“ cally and by the consent of Chnist, she would du,.,e';:n
heretic and therefore unworthy of Pontifical h?,"m' he woulgjnt
W”m‘m\ltdlnelydrpmdbychml 0 ey

s
of St. Themas Answers: “Suarez reproacheCaj
'.;:no“mmmfl-onmsy,u.m.mpo’:"h':'m
persen, bt ot a3 Pope s ot what Capetang
But this
[Capoen] holds that she Church is ot above the Pope abscluil ot
in the case of heresy but she 13 above the bond joining she Pony
s perscm whe she dwsolves L, i the same manner by wi .,
# by the clecwon, which s the ministenal power of the.
for wihout quahfication Chrestthe Lord i the orlly superior [owes
at
the Pope This why Bellarmine and Suarez judge that the Popeby
the very fact thet he 15 a maniest heretic and has e dogny
wormgible, ¥ be deposed smmediately by the Lard Chrit, i by
soene sthar authonty of the Church."%
Dellarmine’s Objection 1+ “The sacond affirmation ef Cajetan, thete
Pope heretic can be truly and authoniatively deposed by the Church i
e leve falee than she first. For 1f the Church deposes the Pope agin
he will 1t is certainly above the Pope, however, Cajetan huwt
defands, 31 the same ireatac, he contrary of s Cajetan responds bt
the Church, = deposing the Pope. does not have authonty over te
Pepe, but only over the link thet urtes the person to the pontiical b
she same way that the Church in uniting the pontificate te such
persen, is not, because of this, above she Pontif Churcion
50 also the f,
sepacate she penficate from such a person in case of heresy, wibwet
sying shat 1t is above she Pope "%
Joha of S¢. Thomas Answers: “When Cajetan says thet the Churhcs
with authority (euctsrtiatroe) on the compunction ot seperatron of e
Pporiidicate with the person, and mirusterially on the papacy heef ®
must understand 3 in the sanse that the Church has the aulany ¥
daciace she crune of the Pope, fust as she has fthe authonty|4
She same snan 1o be Pope; and that whet she doms ¥
suthenty (1o the matier] by such declarations, ack, at the same ¥
-
20 k Dl 10, S0ct 4, . 30, vel 12, 317
h"’;fi-ummz—-mmnm:nm‘
Lo
Pt 2. 00,30
36
 e wontianof Heretice Pepe u

Iy on the form te ewther join of 10 seperate;

for of
¢ unabe 10 do anythm10g the form, sbsotwiey ...':".'.:.'
ot ) 10 the Papal powet e not subfect o the authontyof
e Church ™%
‘i Objection 2: "But contrary
Selisrmune’s ary o thus st be observed in
st place thet, Irom the fact shat the Pope deposesb
::dmmn m:ropeuiwvenllnummwmp*n:
g a bishop does not destray the episcopal furksdc
:::«!nhomlluipem"" L but only
Joha of St. Themas Answers: “We anawer that 1t is not m the same
wanner thet the Pontif has power ever the buhop when he deposes
Jum, and the Church over the Pontff indeed, the Ponbff pumscs e
5 somicane who 1< <ubjected to hum, {the latter] being nvested with
asuberdinated and dependent pawer, which [the former] can limt and
tesinct, and, although it does not remove the epwcopate from the
person [purnshed],
nor destroys it, nevertheless
he does 1 by the
supenority he has on the person, including tn this power which w
subordineted 1o him That is why he really remaves the pawer to that
and does not just remove thet person from power On the
not by supencrity over
coninary, the Church removes the pontificate
in 3o
lum, but by& power which 1 only minstenally and dupesitiely,
far as she can induce a dispesthon incompatible with the ponhficate, as
Itwas said **

Bellarmine’s Objection 3: “I the second place, b depose anyone from

she pontificate against the will of the deposed, i without doubt
punishing im, however, to punish w proper to & supenss o 8 3
mdge“®
Johnof St Themas Answers: “In response 1o L confirmaton ef the
tesorung, the Pope ia deposed againet has will, in & suwimal and
by Christ
dispositive manner by the Church, suthorri ativ Lord. so
the ely
thatthrough Hun, and not by Ciurch, he 15 properly said punwhod.

w
h:m‘wwllmfimksa"mwlmllfi
»
<BeRomos Pontfice v1.2,ch 30
:':"'lznbw THL De Auctoriiok Susime Pontyice, Diag R Art. L. e Dapwamons
Trcp
D6 Ramase Ponibkir 2.ch..X
:;’T|TthuAmsfi—*Wlmumw

7
 True o Falee Pope” l
Oy
s Objection & “In the third place, given tha
::“,;..‘.’;mmnmmm realty the whole and ,M"P‘:'m"m.
o whole are the same thing, he who has authority gyey ,}'%
.mnamk,mahkms«pmm them one from LY
aleo authority over the whole itself which 1s conshituted by ,,,n: -~
1o desigraye g, %
of the electors, who have the power
The cxampie
ox the poriificate, without AOWever having power gt
Fore, given by Capetan. also destitute of value For when youep®
is bewg made, the action 1 exerased over the wniter of m
Rung, and not over the compoe, which Ges ROt yet exist, b e
M'dsuwd.urmnxsnmscdnm&gmm;
of nature Therefor, ¢
Iecornes patent on consideration of the things
crestng the Ponti,the Cardirals do 0ot excrcise their authonty g
she Portf for he does not yet exst, but aver the matter, that 1, apg
the person who by the election becomes disposcd to Teceivee
pontificate from God But f they deposed the Ponti, they g
necessanly exercwe authonity over the compostte, that s, aver the
andewed wish the pontifical power, that 15, over the Ponuif
she true opwruon % she fifth, according 1o which the Fope whe y
macufesily a heretic coasas by humeelf to be Pope and head, eic ™
John of 5t. Themas Anawers: “Regarding the latter reason,
he wie hw
peweee over the canpunchion of the parties has power aver the wheke
mmphcicr, unbess his power over the conpunction b mimwiensl i
dwponte; we must dtinguish brtween physical reafibes when be
duprntions have a natural connection to the very being of the whole n
sucha way shat when the agent realizes {brings about] the combim
{of form and matter] by producing the duspostions binding the bre
in whichte
parta, it preciuces the whole smpliciier; and moral realitiss,
duponiom made by the agent has only & moral connection wilh e
form, in retakon to & free institution, s0 that he who disposcs [whe
cawses the dwpositien| % not udged to have affected the whole ke
conjuction] smply and authoritatively, but only munstenally [
example, whan the Pectiff grants ko anyone the power to deagnies
place bo be favored 10 gaun indulgences,
or ko remove
such srdulgnc®
by daclaring that she place 15 no longer prvileged in sucha mant
Shat desigrubon or declaration does not remave of grant mdolgEe®
#uthwntatively and principally, but only mimsterly **
—_—
o e a2 ch 20,
.A:: D
:«-umm;._ mmw IA WL 0

-
-_— |
 Chapter 12

- peaceful and Universal Acceptance of 2 Pope ~

Following the publication

of a sencs of articles aver the poot ten
these authors and others} on the ave
years erons of the
Ledevacantis thesis, Fr Cekada, having not been abl to ofer cogent
- \nuxemnquesofhxslrmpondmmumhhmhm
declanng that “the Sedevacantist argument must change™ (which, of
course, must be the case when the argument - that a Pape loses hus
siice for the sin of heresy under Divine law - 1 false)
Fr Cekada proceeded to nform his followers thet Sedevecantista
should o longee argue that the concilas Popes lost therr office due o
heresy, but should instead insist that they were never validly elecied o
begin with. He explaned that hus previous research had not enly
evealed that “a public heretc automaically lost hus affice and papal
authonty,” but aleo that “a public heretic could not become pepe i the
first place Thus, the new argument gocs ke this. Jocge Bergoghio
{Fope Francu) was a public heretic before bemg elecied Pope, and
therefore he could ot have been validly elected Pope (because, a8 they
nay, & herelic cannot be elected Pope) Cekada explains. “It i to this
theological principle (rather than “loss of offiee’) that Sedevacantists
mu appeal As a publc herenc, he [Bergocould
nowst giinote]be
validly elected pope 2
Fr Cekada then proceeded lo cite the following quotanons hehad
dicoversd which, 10 his. mind, confirm he veradity of hus “new
argument”
“Those capable of berng validly elecied are all whe are wot
prohibited by divime law or by an nvaldstmg ecclesastcal Il'."
bt jng v
women, childran who have not rea sge of reason also,
the ked
e afflicted with habitual wsanity, the unbapuaed. BrStiQ:
schimatics " (Wemz-Vi Jus dal,
Canomcum | 415)

—_—
T ke ol the article o “Bergoglio s Gat Nothng 10 Loar, 5w The Sedevansnios
Must Chrarge (May*7 14} beie/ /e Sathercom/ 14/ B/ 98/
cekada
INotn -gotodung wvlon/
 Chapy,
Appousment
of he oftice of the Prmecy | Whee
'.I,‘.mwra shus appountment. Also required fwl:,..'::':
ot thc spporenent
be of & member
of the Church fiee
Mmmm:m‘(&-‘
Insomenwnes 1.312)
) The law now wn fore for the elocton of the Roman Py,
seduced to these points Barred as ‘ENML&_!:MM
gited are all women, chikdren who have not feached [ vy
feacoa, aiso, thesc afflctad with habitual tnsanity, the un:.;‘:.:f
st snd schismacs ™ {Badioe, Institiones, 160)
“For the vality of the clecnon as regards the persen cleciod, 5
uffocs only thel he ot he barred from the office by divine tyy
et x, amy male Chwtian, even a layman The followngwe
sercfore cxcluded women, those who lack the use of reacs,
mfidels, and hasc who are at least public non-Catholi(Cacch,
gs,”
Commerni
10 CJarium
C, 2 151)
“Aay male whe has the use of reason and who 15 & member of e
Chach may be clocied. The followng, therefore, are lgvalidh
chected women, children, those wufferng from incanry oc
vabaptzand. Bereticy, schismatics.” (Sipos, Enchiridien 1 C , 1))
(Emphase s >
i onginal)

Agparenily Fr Cekada doesn't realize that his “new

suffers from the same fundamental defect as hus old argument fia
simply another application of fus same error which maintains tut
wdvidual Catholics can determine for themselves who 15 2 "’
memiber of the hierarchy, based upon nothing but therr own prve
fudgmant of whether the person has or has not been guilty of the *ss
o heresy sgamet Drvine law* Whether Fr Cekads argues that the st
o heresy ("ducemed” ry private udgmnent) has caused the losof
olfice,
ot prevents eve from being vahdly elected, the same
e pecus,
Fr Cekada unwittingly acknowledges that his new argumert4
swerdially the <eme #d argument when he explalna that hu “re
drgument” s based upon “the sin of heresy againsi Divine law” 1%
like she i one. Wrote Fr Cekada.
Bt amtc e caneniets explicly
state that 1t 13 1v0C ¥

_—
g
 sl Unroersel Accephance ofa Pope Chuprriz

ot 1 Thore 1 e roquaerent othat ehe f

meqicted under ecclestastical law af the canenucal trwae .{"‘h.,,,"
vefor the impedimant applics. 1n the case af heresy
he rest Of e canonscal ngmarcle come e play, ey warmmgy
e
crune These o1 not requir as & condi
edon for cmmiin (egg
ef horesy agaiont divine law ™!
/e have already refuted Fr Cokada's “sun of heresy” as
w::m (and we also note thet the canonusts Cekada {I‘H‘;‘V:ms:;
\hat the sin of heresy precludes the member from bemg lected be office
Mecause, #s we've seen, the sin of heresy alone does not scver
memberstup m the Church) Nevertheless, we find it cunious why Fr
Cekada would attempt to change the argument (or, rather, il hig
followers that it changed when w really didn) i he thought his
argumentation waé sound And how does 1t “change the
arguvnnt” to claim that the sin of heresy preventsa Pope from being
elected
as apposed
, to the sin of heresy causing a Fope to lose
hus office
after election, when both are detersuned by prvate judpment? if
pavate judgment did not suffice for hus old argument, how will it
suffice for his new one? This new angle certainly does not help Fr
Cekada s case 3
Rather,1t reveals that Fr Cekada, by his swn admissi no on.
lenger
wants to address “for the nth time,” as he says, arguments hke “one
must heve official warrun the gs,
accused musst be given an opportunity
te meunt a defense, some sort of tnbunal must be convened, the
excusing causes [that] canon law provides [for} must all be carefully
cenei ek: dered
¢ In olher words,
, Fr Cekada no longer wants ko argue
agairet the “unarumous opiuon” of the Doctors and theslogiathat nsa
heretical Pope can lose his office only after the Chusch hersell
wablishes that he 1guilty of the crumne of heresy - and thet is bacause
Cekada has o argument He has been “beat down as they,”
say. and
Tather than admit us error, he pretends (o heve come up with a new
“new argument” which, he claime, has caused all the
- a nt
atgume
Sojections to tus old argum
o ent
disappsar He unagme
that ifshe
smply clauns the recent Popes were never validly elected to begn
with, he can avord heving to address the obyections.
—_—
e
e 0w argumnert” merely ughinghis Cekinda » s Cathalc thears that whle e
mhmmmdmwm.wmhummfl—‘
47 the definitive nkerpreicrs
of ~Divine aw *
Colads. “Bergugh's Got Neting, 49 Love. So The Sodevamnit Arguswmt Must
hange ™ (May 7 2014),
m
 Trwe oc False Fope? Cupa I

ion
e, after hetng seven object(o alg
hu s
. r‘;:’:'"flmp the mecessty of the Church earEi
o8 emmi Pope ng
the so e 1%h
o defend himsell eic - Whic
e to mewer (heyond of hemumem attacks and wnappro :'-v.
Fr Cekada wrote®
calling} thes 15 what Tng.

“Peoft n the fice of the pruciple laid down n the f

secwon l1e. his "vew srgument®], al these spunous m
daagponr7
Unfortanately for Fr Cekada, his "new” argument dos no
hese “spurous obpechons” - which iclude those made by Bl
Sarez, Caytan, John of St Thomas and the Council Fatyes
Constanwnopie IV ~ disappear A:wehavexm,:llhem,”.
e been accused of heresy prior 10 therr elrction, Church L weng
have required that the neceseary wamnings be lssued, and the acue
given the opportunily to_defend themselves, before they war
coneidered heretics by the Church But this never happened, wheha
why they were ail conmdered Catholscs 1n good standing pror teher
clectiona. So Fr Cekada's “new argument” does ot mube e
ebjectionso hu old argument disappear Not only must he responde
these "objecbons,” ae he calls them, but is bound by them mashr&
thev represent the mind of the Church and the definive teaching ol
ecumenucal couneil One also wonders how Fr Cekada can be sur e
previous 259 men clected Pope before John XXIIL, and recognized
sueh by the Church for their entire pontréicates, had not alo commitid
the “sin of heresy” sometume prior (o their election, thereby rendenrg.
Whe elecuan ull and vosd? Or does the alleged loss of office
for e
of hetesy apply enly te the last ix consecutive Popes and no one e’
Fr Cekada doesn't say
What s even mare cunious is not that Fr Cekada has come
up wib
thal the
anether nanserescal theory to defend his postion, but rather
e actually some indrviduals who are unable to see the absurdt o
0d nstead fal for 1, lock, stock and barre] For example, soon afer
Cekada posted the aforementioned article on s website,
Sedevacant blogger, Steve Speray, used it in an attempt to respeod®
bt "‘: by Robert Siscoe, which demonstrated that the recent P
cannot be coneidered 10 have lost thewr office for heresy
ek siep buhund Fr Cekada, Mr Speray wrote that “Sedevscs™
 ut ol Uneersel Acceplanice o a Pope Chaper 12

that o true pope has been validl

y ele
hold o no off10ilocsee * How veryumvr cted since 1 nmm‘ud_’s.
Theratore,
‘Now, let's thunk a little more about this argument. Haw
10l (A
o helectngioeln.o Rowancthaloulut, anfory ex ample, have been a “publac he::'l(‘ ;’::
o the bxhops er Cardinals knevwing aveut
1 And keep i mind that this was
in 1958 Pope Pus XII had yust diest
'.,\dmecmh In the Church had not yet erupted. If John XXINl was &
jinal tn good standing dunng the entire revgn of Fius XII,
S,':,Jy 4 he become a ~public bereke™ Ronea may m.“:
susprct of heresy before being elected Pope (as some clam), but he wes
sppeinted Cardinal by Puus XUl 1 1953 and was recogniaed as a
Cath 1n goodol ing by the enkre Church up te the death of Five
sandic
Xl As a Cardinal in good standing, Roncalll wis allowed to
partcpate in the Conclave and was elected by a mapority vole In light
of these facts, how can anyone serwusly contend that he was a “public
heretsc” prior to hus election? Are we to believe that the privwte pudgment
of individual Catholics 50+ years later, overndes the public fudgment of
Pape Pius XII and the entire Church at the bme? To ask the queshenis
1o answerit
‘As should be clear in Light of the material covared to this point, the
quet from
at the io
canonusis
nsthet , Fr Cekada dwcovearere refe
d, mng
to individuaie who are not members of the Church - that . peaple who
are ast publicly recognized by the Church as Catholic They certainly are
oot refernng to prelates, recognized as Catholics in good staning by
the Church, whom individual Catholics persorally believe fell o the
“sin” of heresy prior to their election. For example, Corarata says
“Also required for validity w that the appointment be of mcmberof
the Church ™ Sipos sinularly says only one “who is& member of the
Chmay ur clected ™ Refe
be ch those in
to rr te be
who aregnot eligible
elected Pope, Cocchi refers to “those who are at least public non-
Cathlics* These canonists are makang & disenchon between members
of the Church (who are eligible for elechion) and nen-members or
“public non-Cathiolics™ (who are not eligible for election) In order for s
member of the Church to be expelied from the Body (and thus
Inellgible to be elected to office), he must be guiltv of the cnme of
public and notorious heresy or have publily defeckd from the
Church Neithe
is the
r case with the conciliar Popes, exier hefore or after
Hrer elections 10 the papacy, which 15 why they were all recogruzed by the
Church as members i good standing, 1f they weve nos-membersof the
_—
e
*Sucwe “mering
- Sedevicuol Crkle” * The
T Ranuant ncwopaper, Masch 18

373
 Trae or Falec Pope? I
vy
(according # the Churci's judgment), w
ml:mdm:‘mflhethw i ey O e
"By way oilustration, “Pastor Bob” of the First Napyyg,
mwmuefipflemkek&d Pope,,h“'-hwl
mernber of the Church. Pastor Bob is not a member of e o ¢
Becaume he 16 & public heretc by the Church < judgment ,m_%
lobkmmwflxdflbflnllmnbndwu.the umkwhh
Churey
be clected Pope, since ene who 18 10t & member of
e i wad However, a Cardinal who cnters the Conclave |y
e the Church (at least externally), even if he hay ™
Too the fath due tothe “sun” of heresy, 16 certatnly eligible & :1‘:"
Mumnmwmhwlmnundummmh
wes a true Pope or falee Pope.
Legislation for Pre-Election Excommunicationy

ec
te enwure
Overth valldityta
theen ie
of papal s,
etectio ns, Chud
low has operated 10 remove any doubl that a man eleciedby 2
Condsve beco true s
the me Wyte 5
Pope After all, the assuranc
Conclave pives us & wue Pope is among the most important of 1)
assura Churcsh could possibly give To that end PopStePig
thence
X for eample, waued the following decree which remeel
excoramuucanons and other ecclesiabical smpediments that wad
revent a candadate from bewng validly elected
“Neac of the Cordmals may be in eny way excluded from éc
acrve or poascve: election of the Sovercign Pontff under pestexto
by resses of any cacommunication, suspeneion, Interdict oF s
oxciosnstcal mnpednent
Pope Pius X1 woued
an almost identical decree which Iikevse
Pemoved the canonical impediment of excommunication as A bar Wi
valid electian. In the Conshtution Vacentes Aposloliose Sedss, we read.

“Neac of e Candmals ey, by preiext o rcason of say

nconmmicaen,
wispension, or serit whasocver, ot of 3}
her acclsismrcal wpedimcr, be excluded from the aciwe04
Pomsive slaction of the Supreme Ponuff "i®

Apovishan, Deecmie 25, 194 0 £

/
P X, Apesamic Conatstion Ve S
fi i

Samew Ack, I, 1900 pp 200.202) -

Pias X0 Vinonte Apeilcn Sadle, N 3, Dosweriver &, 1945 Posl V03 [0
Soe papel vactiorn vertaion almast idarical Langurge (e PO
m
- J
 pacey and Untversel Acceplance ofa Pape Chaprer 1z

- election refers to the act of -

efers to the act of being elecied Pope. Srace .:'a.,,d,"‘f"'“
et udge mteral s,the mber
and ance virtue mal
of fauh w pot
aolutely necessary for the exercise of the papl aifice, this decree of
Pius X1, which 18 simutar to previous decrees of Popes Clemen v
(1317, Pus 1V (1562), and Gregory XV (1621), removes any deube that
4 san who 15 elcted by the Conclave becormes the true Pope Claary
e wund of the Church has been. for centunes, to remedy (vr has] 3y
e rost) all potential defects in a papal elechon.
Even f 2 Carchnal incurred the ceneure of ewcommuncasen for
persy, he could stll vahidly vote for and be elected the Severeign
foomff, under the foregomg legl If aton
1t were net for.thie
tion, the Cardinale and all the farihfal would never heve a
tee that a given election produced
a valid Pape Such a hingering
deubt would erode the Church from withun, fer no sne weald know
with certaanty whether the elected Pope were really the true Pope This
confuston would lead to schism after schusm, and the Church would ge
e s paralysia. To avod such a catastro Church's law enwures
the phe,
the Pope-clect’s candidacy by removing any Impediments 1o his
election
What is Fr Gekada's resporee 1o these decrees? An appeal W
Divine law, of course He sayx:
“Prue XII's Conatitutvon suepende impedimensof enclessestical
law enly - censures such & excommunICaen, e (Sec pars. 34
* aut alius exclesimtict wmpacmenti praciextu’) It does aet md
could wet cuspend impedine
of divin
sts law ™
Again, Fr Cekada anewers by retuming te hus same argumant (sce
et 222)2 that the recent Popes have violated Divine law by
commutting the “sn” of heresy, and because Fr Cekada personally
believes they are guilty of this sin, he believes he is completely pustiied
in declaring that therr elections are null and vord f nothung else, Fr
Celada e consistent. The problem is that he 1 conmiently wrong 1f
the un of heresy alone (“discerned” By private judgwent) prevented a
Person from belng elected Pope, we would have absolstely no way of
Inewing which of the 265 men elected as successors o SL Peter, and
-~
Ecim OF The Soman Fanat, N 35 Cctobes 1 1973), 28 dovs st e by ol Frod
10199 fahn Put U, iurmersc Domwic G, Nt 6, February 22, 196}
< “Sedevacaniiom Refuird?, August 804
" &,Mdhmmmn,‘;‘:flnmmq-mnh-‘
40, The mw that wae washed, 4o b wallowring in the sare” (2Pce 223

s
 True or False Pope:
7 - Q“n.u

m"d.‘,fld\bylh!chumh,wntma]l’opu,.“mm
were not.
ause thie legislabon 15 s0 damaging 1o the
e er Damond tried to wiggle around ...s:.d;’“%
o range wrih John Salza n 2010 1 When Mr Saiza _—
leguiation refuted Dmonds argument, Dimond attempled e, m*-
appheaion of he law to “munor” crimes subec! to “"m*t
ol to “mapor” crumes (which distinction, by the way, no h:
exs under canon law) Dumiond stid “The refulaton s s gl
Hatoncally, exommuncations were distnguished by the termy
od emer Mapor excommunications were incurred for ":;
schior (orm agaunt the faith) and Certain ofther m0r s Thooee
received mapec ewcommunication for heresy were not membery of te
Church. Mo excommunication, Rowever. did 101 reviece o famgg
Curch, but foxbede one 10 participate 1n the Church's sacrameg
e 1t
The “hwtencal” dishnction between minor and
axcommunicanon, which Dimond referred %0, has not existed since
uncicenth century; and when it did exist, a major excommuncaimn
could enly be umposed following a canorcal warning 1 Furtherun,
the legmlation of both Pius X and Pius XIJ states thal a Cardinalwie
enters the Conclave 1 external good standing with the Church wo
excluded from being clected Pope “for any excommunicetion
whutwever* Dimwad simply discovered that there used to bes
disknchon between major and minor excommunications, ad ben
scroneously atiempled t0 apply it to the current legislation
in order o
ety
has pomtion.
Acknowledging that his angument may actually be wrong, Dimond
than seid.
“ W's sasume for the sake of argument that Pope Prus XII's
rucan that s herenical cardinal could be clected pope.
logoedudlatom
8 20l wouldn't make a difFerence Notice what Prus X11 says “We
Wecoby suspend such censures solciy for the purposes of the sl
slocton, ut wther Limes they are to remain 1n vigor This b6 M
_
e ehe Sulzs Rasporndo 1 the Lins, Krraes and Hypecriry of Scdevaca
2010) wnline at fohrsalas.com
e ki, .'m:\mwomf el o
o,
ol B i e el ol moper emswic
st pryviou
ab ST 1T
ol Mt ¢ o b g~ Logar, Db, Esrori earatist an
2 5%
s Loglnt
oMu.
y L) Poede
& Si l eT o eS
dudnuw:u,,u

- |
 sl Linmersel Acczptanceofa Pope n

cxwemely rmpertant point. Prus Xll-y’m-vbea

nn-_m...
rersum
mnsperded
10 vigoonly for time of she clecton, w4 wiher trmes
t This the
would mean that the cxcemmmcatien for
eresy would fall back e force immncalaicly afer the clacown g
then the herctic who had beer clectod pope a weuld lose lus offi
oycel
Thnosmal ,ier what way you lo"1sk a1 1t
validly elected and remain poge heretic cauld
Now the Sedevacantists have pul forward wany bed argusmen
defense
of therr posinon, but this one surely nnh..y;mannwu:
Dimond really beheve that a cencure, which w lifted
ecclestastical law for Ihe express purpose of ensuring the validity of an
election kicks back in immediatcly after the clection, thereby causing
the recenlly elected Pope to fall from office at the very moment the
Candmal Protodeacon 1s announcing to the Church *Hahermus Papem”?
The would render null the obvious purpese of the legistaton, which w
1o ensure that the Cardinal who is elected Pope validly ascends to the
papat theone, notwithstanding the existence of any pre-election
excommunications {which, 1n the case of the conciliar Popes, do not
exst) Furthermore, as we saw in Chapler 9, a censure % a part of the
Church's positive law, which has no coerive power over a Pope
Therefore, once elecied, the Pope will not sutomancally incur the
censure and losc his office as Peter Dimond imagnes 17
According to Fr Cekada's “new argument” {discussed above), esch
and every Catholic 1n the pew would have to decide for himself which
Popes committed the sin of heresy pror to their elections and which
ones did not. O alternatively, under Fr Cekada's “old argument.*
every Catholic would have to determine for themselves which Popes
commtted the sin of heresy sfter their elections (and thereby lost their
office) and which ones did not Pick your Sedevacantst poison Either
way, the verdicl would be based upon nothing but one’s own falllble,
private judgment, which has no effect whatsoever on the status of a
determuned Pope when he Is recogruzed as Pepe by the Church’s
public judgment
And if Fr Cekads and Pete Dimond get to determine, besed upon
their privale judgment, that the last six Popes were not true Popes, on
what basis could they obpect to thew fellow Sedevacantil, Richard
Mr
Toranyi, who now repects the last 102 Popes? As we saw previsusly,
-
Agairt Sedevacornam Crushe” Mg/ /ore
Dimar. “Johun Salza
*sblytaruilymcaa teeys Argmaserts
com,
225 e have als scen, the e of excwmanicain slon doos ot came 3 oot 4
et bl it The o of sifce 16 & it ety Wt it ba groecded by e
nieal warrings.
k4
 oc Falee Pope?
True Clapu,

smé o have discovered “conclusive evidence

Yo sice Inpocent 1 (1130-1143) were formal heretics il
that gy

Mr Torany expiaine.
- onnary 2014, | have discoversd
.’,::.“vmmuln»anm o e lyw,
e aneccat 1 (1130-1143) onward tiave baen Wolates
af et
cromcs e thus were apostate antipopes. and apostate anlicard nyl;
Alse all of the theologians
and canon lawyers. from 1250 onwang
Aave bocn spestics. (Soe RIMI aricle and 3udio *No Pype
Cordmake smce 1130°) Hence all ther teachings, laws, ey
sad othor act are null and veid Therofore. all of the scumency)
councils, canew lews, and other acts from Apomtatz Antipoge
Ianwcent I owscard are mull and vord. ™
Richard [brany, who accepts Fr Cekada's teaching that a manwhe
s guilty of the “sin” of heresy, against Divine law, cannot be Pope or,
Cardural, theologlan, ocanon lawyer), has judged that coery single e
Jfor the last mne amturies has been guilty of such a sin, and was themisy
an antipepe This would mean, of course, that all of the councis i
wfallible pronouncements snce then have been null and vod f fut
were ue, 1t would mean the last 12 councils (out of the 21 ecumenca
councils asmembled by the Church) would have been null, with thelat
true counal being the First Lateran Councl m 1123 Ths wedé
owwiously mean that the great council of Trent (1545-1563) and the int
Vacan Council (1870), which defined some of the mosl tmporus
dogaus of the Cathobxc Farth {dogmas Ibranyt claums to behieve), wer
faloe counais.
Unfoctunately for Mr Tbranyi, though, the mune valid counci ke
helds m legihmate would include the Fourth Counal &
Comatanwnople (M9-870), which explictly condemned ¥
Sedevacantw theory of private judgment “deposition” by vigline
{aymen Like Mr Ibranyil Here we see where the utterly absurd they
of Fr Cekada mevitably leads. Contrary to what Fr Cekada weid
have hus (ollowers believe, a public heretic w nol someone W0 &
1odged a8 such by pricete gudgment, but one who la recognized as st
¥y the Omrch s udgment And he who is prayed for i the Cano&
cvwry Mass ("une cum fémile tue Papa novire”) ta not a public b
covrdung o she Charch's jusgment

_—
* eyt “Ne Pupem o Cardirue i 1130 Jacaary 216
s
 sl nd Unroerssl Acceptence ofa Pope Chopter 12

Peaceful and Unversal Acveptance

ust 8 we can be sure that a Pope will not fose his
it the Church herself knowing sbort (spee Q,."':,,'“‘,"'_,":':V'
the bond uniting the man to the Pontificate
as longas he i
o5 Pope by the Church), 50 100 can we rest assured that a man whe s
cected by the College of Cardinals, and peacefully accepied ve Pepe by
e Unuversal Church, 15, indeed, a iue and valid Pope We den't have
o wonder f his electon was null and vord due bo 2 “n” of herey
commitied prior Io the election. On the conwary, once the man i
sccept edby the universal Church
a8 Pope , infellible certitude
we have
that he i in fact a true and valid Pope He may not be 4 good Pape, 20
hstory shaws, but he will nevertheless be a true Pope
Dogmatic Fact and Infallible Certitude
As we heve discussed in previous chapters, dunng the First
Vatican Council the Church infallibly defined that when she definitreely
teaches & truth revealed by God, she speaks infallibly The truths
revealed by God are known as the promary sbyect of the Churchs
infallibality’ When the Church defirukvely proposes a revealed iruth,
tha doctana must be believed with Dsvine and Catholc Fath, which 1
faith 1 1) God revealing, and 2) the infallivle Church keaching.
But, according to the teaching of the Church's theologiar, the
Church also speaks mfallibly on other matters, whch fall into the
caregory of secondary objects of infallibility These include (a) Vewoguoal
cnclumens (ve , inferences deduced from two premises, ane of which
mmediately revealed, while the other @ a iruth known by natural
reason), {b) dogmac facts, () unmersal disopimes, and the (d)
canemzation of saints. These secondary objects of wfallibiity are not
beheved with Divine and Catholic Faith, but with Ecclemasheal Faith,
which @ faith in the wfallible Church teachung (but net 1n Ged
Teveahing)
The peaceful and universal acceplance of & Pepe falls inke the
Category of a dogmatic fact Theologians explain that the unanamous.
acceptance ofa Pope, iy the bish falthful, is an infallibie sign-
andops
n “mfallible effect™’ - of his legihmacy They explan that the
Uhanmnous acceptance does not oause the Pope 1o be a true Pope. but
mdme,mmammndmbepmzmmuum—(awbrl
Wat tself present If the Church uruversally accepts & man a4 Pope. we
_—
e Vudal
iy Ca.,
, 1 p 530, nete 171 bl 0 Th Thes
Hypodms
egio oo Hevsk
t
p1as
e
 ? u“".u
True or Falee Pope?

b ility udeextend
fallibcertit indeed
thats hato is,dogma . 4 true Pope
ti facts b.(.::";:y""w.
Churd by connectexd fo dogma that without certam knowleg, . T
e tere would be no certain knowledge of the doctrunes ob. " b
Aor example. f 1t were ot certain that Pius XLl eg
e would have certitude that the Assumption, which he
ot a,
o dogr was mfallibly wue The two truths sre linked lnmh«! n"“'
ot ety conceming the ormer would el
The following, Wken from Fe Sylvester Berrys Apoigy
Dogmatxc Treawse, The Church of Chrst, further explang :
procples:
“The cxtems of falubilty refers W the truihs that may b
dcfioed by the Church with sfallible suthorty Some truihy e
dsrwctly subyect 10 the afallible athonty of the Church by they
vory souare [1c wulhs revealed by God and contamed withi the
sources of Revelaton Scriptuce and Tradution], others only
wdirectly becausc of their conncctin with the former The one st
of wuthe constituies the primary, the other secondary extent af
whailiily ()
Thus secendacy or indirect extent of wfallibility ncuies
espocully {3} theologrcal conclustons. (W) truths of the natul
e, (¢] dogmaisc facts, and (d) genceal disciplinary matiers{ )
DOGMATIC FACTS A dagmatic fact 1s one that has not been
revetled, yei 1 ke atimaicly connccied with & doctrine of fsuh e
withews cectam knowledge of the fact there can be o cerum
tnonlodge o the doctrine For example, was the [Frst] Vatcan
Counci tuly scumenical? Was Prus IX 4 legimata pope” Was de
election of P X1 vald® Such questions muse be decsded wik
cermny before decrocs 1ssued by any council of poge can be
scccptcd as infallibly irue of binding 00 the Church |t 15 v
then, Ut the Chruech mua be 1nfallible 1njudging of such fucts, s
sme the Chrch 15 wfallible believing as well as 1 teaching. 1
folows that the practically unaniimous condent of the bishaps
fontiFal 0 accepting a councl #s ecumenical,or a Roman Foraf
"::'yd-uu.mn-m.ummnbhmm-f*

TN Gl of otpy 20, 200, 200,

r sl and Universal Accepience of s Pape 2

Mege Van Noort offers simular commenta

otes that the niallihty of dogmanco facke issaequatpaint
if ed es
f::‘,,o‘.auy certain®
~Asscrtion 2 The Church's wfal
A dograt
fic not coniamed 1 the souces of eveieoen, (o oy s
sdmssion of which depends the knowledge
or cerainty of » dogeme
or ofa revealed truth The fallowing qucstsons arc osecersed witk
dogratic fucts “Was the (Firw] Vatkcan Council a legstonate
ccumenical council? Is the Latin Vulgate a substantially fanhfl
wansianon of the onginal books ef the Bible” W;
i 5! ? One can readily sec that on
these facts hang the questions of whether the decrees of the [First)
Vatican Coucil are infallible. whether the Volgate 1 wuly Sscrod
Senpure. s

In another place, Van Noort addresses the same pant frem the
perspective of the Ordinary and Universal Magsterium.
“Meantme, notice that the Church posacsecs msalliminy wt
oaly when she 15 defining some matiers selemn fashian, bol ales
when she 15 exercising the full weight of her autherny though her
ordinary and umversal teaching Consequently we must bold with
an absolute assent, which we call ecclesustical fah, the
followng theological truths (a) those which the Magitcrim has
infallibly defined 1 solemn fashion, (b) those which the ondinary
magisierium dispersed throughout the world uamistakably proposes
10 1is members as something (o be held (renendas) Se,
examole,
for
o0 gust give an absolute assent 1o the aropesitian. “Pue X1 1s the
lextunae successor of St Peter’, simularly — ons must give an
aolute assent 1o the propoution *Prus X1 pesscaecs the pmecy
of junsdiction over the entire Church.” Foe — skipping the queshos
of how 1t begms 10 be praven mfallibly for the firt eme that thes
— whea
individual was legatimatcly elected te take St Peter’s place
0d pracucally been recopmized a6 such by the baliogs wd by e
srversl Church, 1t 15 clear that the ordvary sad varvarul
—_—
7 Becaune the Chisreh herselt Yas never defined if inialiniiv eximads in the secwddsry
the Fropasiien that 1 dews 1 snly suakfied a0 Susipisly el I the Chursh
r.munmm—m-m*hm"'
0 et e .
Comt s Charet. p. 112 frmphans added.
an
 Gy,

mabes o number ol interesting obsery

addtnon 0 expiazming, that ofthehusm:;"‘,‘:
m?-'du;r“:rfl- T Church h‘
by the universal i an infellible sign ,,g,m“y* .
2o explains, quite logically, that the universal acceptane g he
nialiible sign of the estence of all the comdctions requined l'“
Jegimacy, sach s membership n the Church (3 conditon wi
Sedevacantiets clm the conciliar Popes did nol have)
ieterestng and quue relevant pount he makes 15 that God mught pemmy
an extended vacancy of the Apuflollcsa‘,bullwmnnotmnhm
Gt lo acapt # flse Pope a5 bemg e true Pope (wwhuch, u shoud
noted, presents more problens for the “Sin Theory”) Here
Cardinal Billot's beachung on this subect:
“Fmalty. whatever you il think sboul the possibilay o
imposakitey of the aforcmenttoned hypothesna [of a Pope fallig
imte heresy], #t least onc pomt musi be consulered absoluiely
nconrevertivle and placed firmly above any doubt whatever 1
abcsian of the unrversal Church will be alwayvs, wn_vsclf, yn
wiillbic sign of the [sgumacy of u. detemuncd Ponuff, wd
lenumacy miclf 1t 15 not necessary to look fie for the proof of th,
b we find it ummedusely i the promise and the ifallivle
provideace of Chrat “The gates of het) shall not preva sgainx i
8 Behold | shall be with you all days * Eqr the adhcsion of e
Church 1o 2 fakie Ponu( would be the samne 35 115 adhesion e 3
falas ruke of fauth, seeang thet the Pope 15 the Inang rule of fak
which the Church mnust follow and wiich w fact she alvays
fallows As wil become even more clear by what we shall sty later,
Ged can pemart thet ® umes a vacancy tn the Apostolic See W
-
Souras of Kevdatwa, p 25 (emphrans sdded)
* As we o iChager1 the St Thewry held by seme Sedevacantiots, maiokics
Corlemal St way aldly ehacted in the 1958 Canclave, taking; the name Gragery XYL
25 Fmugh somrion wse forced 1 reigns efare being prescried 1@ the Cherchas PPt
They bold that 3 davced. remgriction 1 wrvalid and comsequently Cardunad S (42
poblcly roompriand Jotmn XXIT, Paul V, John Paul | and Jotms Paal [f a valid gt
:;m;l:w..mnvmmmnww
&¥ThwiPope b e e of it o the e tht e indalkibly proprose dackines 1 =20
1 by ik A5 will b enpltced I the net chapace ooy e AR
PPormad arv smaried b woth the sasurt of failh m—-u.,-.u-u.mm“w
oot ! & Pape do et smmtoe aricies of fath. Hever, b Xl vt 414
oth whar i b gt s arver regarding the Nestic Viien.
2
Pesceful ond Liniversal Acceptence
of ¢ Pape Cupee 12

prolenged for & leng time. He can slee porrme that dowbt arise sbout
the legitimacy of this e that claction. fic
be t evi
aneev er pumy
that she whole Church accens as Pant:fT um whe u net 10 trly
sad
“Therelore from the miomeat i whick the Pape i sccepiad by
the Church and united 6 her 2 the head 10 the bedy, 1 1 o longly
permitied 10 ranc doubts 300t & pessible vice of clection oy &
porsible [ack of any condition whatsacver nccessary (olopiumacy
For the aforcmentioned sdhcssen of the Chorch heale 1 the rogs all
frul sn the clestion and wreves wfallbly U exmtence of all ihe
romured candinane. ™

Bishop Sanborn's Novelty

Due 1o the problems that ursversal and peaceful acceplance
presenie for the Sedeva cantie
thems, t bishep, Densid
tha Sedevacanhet
Sanborn. came up with a novel explanation in an effert to get around 1t
He clalme that the peaceful and universal acceptance of a Pope tesns
enly that the he was validly elected, snd net thet the men elcted.
became the Pope You read that correctly Sanborn claums it only eneures
2 valid election, but 1ot4 valid Pope The follow i takeningfrem an
artcle the Bishap wrote 10 2002, whuch s still posted on his website:
“Q Can a papal chectron W comvaludaisd by the gencral
scecptuce
of the Catholie people”
A Yos. Thus is genenally ssnssded by Cothohc thestogians.
The ultimate guarantee of 4 vald clection 15 the warversal
acceptance of Catholics (hal 2 cortain mas has boea clectad Nete
that ts
pcriums
saly o clociue, 1¢. desgration, and wal
asdiciun For the Cathelic people cannet confer jwnedicts. bt
aly conficin des:gnatson
te junsdicuen.”
Now, this is quite o nevel theory that tha Bishep came up with
Unlortunately, a6 w tha case with wiost nevel sheerias, 1t i enmely
3 Wllo, Traciwis de Echwis v, vol L pp. 6124613 fomphasis saded). .
Bushop Sunbern. "Explaratier: OF The Thesia Of Bishop Guérwrd Des Lavciers” fune
B A2 See hbp:/ / manialywinityseminacy g/ Buplanation \20e L Jhe L W These
metiered in Chaplar 8, Sanborn 1 haaing b posiron upe \he taste of Fr.
Goleand des Lauriers (ofies referrd %o s the “Castacucun” s which haide Wt
ch sovcilier Pope was & metrd Pope (ihev heid the papal slice lowhuly), it red &
| Trucer Falae Pope? hape

oo and umversal acceptance of a P,

was vatuly clected, 1a, sape
Smply ‘urnh:m Wt the man legitwiale m:"’
@Pope (that
Sl it guarantees thatto hethe1 malter
‘ that God foined the form foflowing the election) ey
| o we saw abve, the peaceful snd umversal acceptance of
¢ an wiallibe s that the Pope 15, 1 {4t U Pope The e qeTey
‘ Pope) produces the effct (universal acceptance) Notice that the
ot only a veld clechon, but & waiud Pope In fact, St Alphoneus g,
Doxtor of the Church, even teaches that the peaceful and Unveny
acceptance of # Pope means that 3 POpe WHO was ol egrnumhy
‘ aected, or semwhew Wok possession of the pontificate by fraud
that the
heceme 8 wrue Pope Agatn, this shows
neverthcless uny
acceptance does vt simply guarantee that an election was val
curing any defects that may have existed in the election), but iy 4
Pope 15 ¢ irue Pepe Here is. what St. Alphonsus taught

“1t s of a0 impormacc that 1n PsE CRUNCS some Ponuff way

Micgtimatcty ehected of ook possesston of the Pontifibycatc fraud,
& w eneugh shat he was sccepted afterw ards by the whole Church
Pope. smoe y_ach acceptance be would bave become the 1
el
Cordanal Billot applies the teaching of the peaceful and univwu
acceptance
of a Pope to the scandalous papacy of Alexander
V1. e
does0 i order 1o demonstrate that he was a true and vahid Pope,
e
theugh there were some in Alexander VI's day who brheved humwbe
a public apostate Girolamo Savorurols, the controversial Domuian
monk, was one who denied that Alexander VI was a true Pope. Ina
Jether 10 the Emperor, Savonarola wrote”
“The Lord. moved te anger by this intofcrable comuption. has
o seene ume past. allowad the Church to be without a pastor Forl
Voar wtmecs the name of God that this Alexander VE s 1n 90 W3
Pope aad canatbe Fer quite apart from the execrable cnmsof
swmony.by which be got possession of the (pepal] tiara through
scricgo brgaining. and by which every day he puis W ®
ke aad bmecks dewn (s the highest bidder ecclesustcal
-
el dttos o dote ot et i raly, Wit that oo can be & el CO%
uubm.nnm.n——n-:yuymmkwn»r“h"_‘,
et ik e sty oot it el membehip (474 FOEENLL
by Pt b ke o), Nevlies i 1y mn;-l:m
T Sasioen hae over bought auch otyo
" Vorss ds T, *Opens. .'-tv::‘:‘mu
 peaefulru Uncoersal Acceptance of Pepe w

Wonefices. nd qutie 3per fror s shor vices wel-imewn

winch | will pass aver 18 since, tha | deciae e1 the firs place and-
toail
i it witk al certiude, that the man s et @ Chrismon, he dors
et cven helieve cmy longer that un pr there
et y ** i « God: e gacs eyond b
imal Lruts of infidc lit y an d
In spile of the scandals of Alexander VI's papacy, inch
grave accusations of heresy, apostasy, and -len’:yqunu‘:.: “u:
Fapal Sec through sunony, leveled by hu conlemporaries, Candinal
Biiot explams that the unsversal acceptance proves ceriam that
Alexander VI was indeed 2 legibmate Pope The Cardinal explaina.
“Let this e sl 10 passing aguins thesc whe, kying io ity
cartain alicmpts al schusm made 1 the ume
shat sts promoter [Savonarola)] brosdcast ofst Alcxan der V1, allege
¢ Ned mest owisin
prwofs, which b would reveal 1o & General Council #f the heresy
of Alexander Putting aside here other reasans with which ehe couid
caurly be able 1o refute 3uch an opiniee, 1t 1 enough te remember
thns L1¢ cortaw that when Savonarols wae wntng he feten the
Prnces, all of Chnstendom adhered to Alcxander VI and sheved
hum as the true Pantuf, For ths very coem, Alczander V1 was mat
afalic Ponc, bt » lepitien anc
alc™
The same holds troe for the post<onciliar Popes, whe, in spie of
accusations of heresy, were accepted as true Popes by the Church. ®
In his book, The Church of the Word Incermabe Cardinal Journet
wrote the following about the validity and carstude of 2 papal elecisen.
“Valuity and certmude of cloction The [Papal] clocon.
remarks John of St Thomas. may be invald whex camed sut by
persons ol qualificd, er whes, aRbough effecacd by persens.
qualified. 11 sulfers from defcct of form o falls oa an mcapablc
subject, as for example one of unseund mund of onbepuized.
But the peaceful acceptance of the universal Church grvon s
eloct, a8 10 & head 1o whom it subs, s an act m which the Church
engages herself and her fate [t 15 herefare a0 act w wsclf mEalihic
0d_i3_immeduicly recogmzable a3 swch. (Conmequenily, asd
meduately, 1t will sppear that all conditiens prerequishe to the
vahdity of the cloctren heve been fulfilicd)
_—
* Schritaer Savesarals, ialis wanelaton by & Rouk (Mdae, 191}, vl & p 38
Qutted i ourret's The i of s Word dnatrnse p. 484 emphams addedt.
i, Traciarus de Eccioms Chreh, val. L pp. 612413 femphms addedl
At tplained bclave pwene have questioncd whedr Pope Prossis has @ foct. St
Pecvfally and urversally sccepred by the Charch.
E
 ey
True or Falee Pope?

Aceeprance by the Church operaics cither negauy e

T oce conemox POy wpen
fi!mfil“ymfl““"“m"‘“‘"yhylmmn]i
s cleced”
of the degmahie fuct that the concibar Popes have
MI::P::VM by thetr pesceful and uraversal -mepn::“ e
Colevscantue, sich % the Dimond brothers, have. desperny
appealed to 8 quotabon from Fr Edmund O'Relly, which deggoy
how long the Church could potentially be Mlhnul;hk
of e
the wsc
the, however, w 3 different question from whether a Pope ybyy
and uraversally accepted by the Church he15, in fuy| .
legstenate Pope In the quotation, Fr O'Reilly says
believes 1t would be possible for God to leave the Church withou ,
Pope for as long s the Great Western Schusm lasted, which was 3
years(irom 13781417) In Fr O'Reully’s words.
W way here 0 1o nquire what 15 1o be said of the pesioen,
of the Lhroe clamants, and their nghts with regesds
o4 st time,
the Papacy In the firs place tuare was all through, from the death
of Grogeey X11n 1378,3 pope with the exceplion of coune of
the icrvals betwes deaths and elections o fill up the vacarcis
heroby cresed There was. | Sav, ol every given Hime » pope, rally
wved with Uk dignity of the Vicar of Chinyt and Head of e
Chirch. whatever opimions might exist among many as 1o ha
ot that a0
genumenses inieregnum covening the whoke aened
‘would have been ympossible of inconsisteat with the promuses
t st n
Shcre was wal sach a0 niervegnume.
™
Of course, Fr O'Reilly’s opinion about how long he befievs
would be pessible for the Church to be without a Pop {an oprwn
e
anyone is free o disagree with) does not impmge upon the
certanly that the post<onciliar Popes, who were umversally 3%
paacetully accepted by the Church, were, in fact, legitimate Foret
Whether there could theoretically be a long papal interregs®
—_
Gt Fm el Thmm,
1141 g9 17 diop 2.0 2 now. 1, 15,7, 34, 4 pp DR
TG
ant f
-u 0 Wt
ifi 7p
mm -m -w z— pu mw ‘fi e
1% Toe Dimmad brothars assualy was il queiatiem from Fr O'Keily 880 L0
s e Mawt Cumamens Sodevacaniiet Objecions”, swe Teg/ /4"
e/ 2Chpoianspid
puceful md Unrver<el Acceptance ofs Pope

sccording
$0 Fr O'Reilly, or anyene slse, decs ot mean dhat sch an
regrum could occur durmg the reign of& etermmed
Kot by the Cardinals and peacefulty and uncsersalty m,:::.“,',",";
Ghurch. msts »
ntuexi
Clearly,Fr O'Reilly s referring o sterregtha
\he death of one Pope and the election of his successer
He i ynot
speakang of an alleged “mterregnum’ that ceuld possex elbaaed
iet
pon accusations of papal heresy (and lom of office) by individual
Catholxcs (who represent 00) percent of the Chusch) after the Poge has
been pesc iveru
andeunf sall ly
ly accepied Fr O'Reilly makes
s clear
when he defines intermegnum aa “the intervale between deaths and
s”pe Thus, Fr O'Reslly’s speculation about the pessible
clectiofoanPo
fength of an interregnum does not apply 10 eur time, since the Church
nas had @ continuous hne of men who have been universally
by the Church as Pupe during the post-concuar period.
Furthermore ae Carcinal Billot taught un the earlier citaben, “Gad
can permt that at times a vacancy in the Apostolic See be prolonged
fot a long tume” but “he cannot, however, permit that the whele
Church accept as Pontiff hum who 1 not 5o truly and legitimately “»
Ao note that Fr O'Redly says that dunng the midst of the
<onfusion of the Great Western Schusn, “There was, | eay, of coery poen
ione 4 poye, really invested with the digmuty of the Vicar of Chost and
Head of the Church.” And yet, most Sedevacantiss clam that we have
oot had a true Pope for nearly 60 years (except for the Conclavists whe
have elected their own “Pope”) If there was a Wwue Pope dunng the
Western Schusm {even though there was net universal and pesceful
acceplance, as large factions of Catholics duagreed with each other
about who was the true Pope), how much more certadeiwe nthayre
today that the conciliar Popes are true Popes, when they have been
uuversaily scceped by the Church?
Meral Unanimity
11 should be noted that the universal acceptnce does fiot hiuve te e
Watheratically unammous, but only prackcally unanisews. This
common opinion of the theol ogian
was explained s
by Fr Sylvestar
Verzy,
who wrose-

“The praciically wannsmevs sonosnt of the Buvops and fashful

in acceptmg a council ms scumenical,

—_—
et Truckat e Ewlena Ghrink, vol L p. 613
7
 |
. Troe or Falee Pope? Chapi
M‘mfln‘mfi!flmfl%
Py
the obvious, 1t 15 not necessary that an el
T 'ty 100 percent of fathful (what the eclopr
mahemabeal unanimty”} No, mfalllble certitude only ..,."" !
orsl umamenely Anmlummmnysles&unam,huh"
ansmity but cermnly more than a mere mathematica) Taonty
e fathfl. for the word unenuneus comes om the Luin o
(mearung “one") and avumus (meamng “mund”) - in other words g,
accepianceof the Pepe reflects the one mund of the Church, wigh
clrly the case wath the universal and peaceful acceplance of gy
csacthar Popes. Sence the conciliar Popes were acoepied as true uy
vabd Fopes by at leasta practcally unanimous consensus of Church
claim they were not true Popes amounts to a denial of the infallibly
ok the Chuech.®

Providential QkA from 1965

The Amercen Ecclemssticsl Retiew contaned a provideoka

Question and Anewer wn its December 1965 issue Considering lit
viewallyall Sedevacantiw reject the papacy of Paul VI (since it wasbe
wha ratified the documents of the Second Vatican Counal nl
publiched the New Mass), it 1s quile snterestingto nole that
in thevey
same month shat Paul V) ratihed Vatican 1L, Fr Francis| Coondl
explauned the teaching o the peaceful and uruvensal scceptance o4
Pepe, and applied it 1o Paul V) humself The following s the QiA fon
the December 1945 weue:
Question What certainty have we thai the resgning Ponulf 2
acully the pimete of the universal Church . that e
bocacae 2 mcrube r through valwd baptiom,
of the Church and that &
was validly clocted Pepe?
Amwer: Of cung, we have humas maeal cenunty dut ¢
osnne Postiil was validly cloied 1 sonclave and aexspted 8¢
olfice of Resbce of Rorwc. thus becomung head of he uanveesl
—_—
” Tix G of o p 230
-s-lm....mn.-p.-..,“
m‘umm-w"e ‘“ it “ 0
Svt s st y Fas otu l scm pet re o reoed
r penceful and Uversal Acceptance of « Pope Chopter12

Qmmwmw
camposing the cleswanl body gave us this sy
Save human moral certainty Uit the rey A‘,':"v‘_l':,;
beplized, $Ince there 1 & recerd L shat effect w the bapusmn]
regiser of the church tn which the sacrament was sdmuusered. we
fave e sme e or conamy »ah 25y Wshap s the e spoun
head of the e particl aver wh he prosudes Thg e of
Bt n the case
of the Popc we have » hugher grade of cenanty
- »_cortaexclodes
inty_th atth
st merely

adly e Fo dd
n0t have wfalhible assurance shat the ruling Penull s wulyil wec
m the
cyo of Gedsthe chief teacher of the Church of Chinet, hew ceuld we
accept o (faliibly wue his selcran promeuncements? Thie % an
cxample of a fact al s net contamed n the depesut of revelaien
But 1s 30 mtimately cennected with revelation that it must be within
the scope of the Church s magterual authonty o declare it
nfallibly The whote Church, tcaching and beiieving, declares and
Welreses this fact, and from this n fallows that thus fact s mallibly
true We sccept 1t with ecckesiastcal - net drvime - furt, bosed on
the suthonty of the infalithle Church ™®

Based upon tha Church’s infallibility sa i relates to dogmasc iact,

Fr Connell nghtly explains that in the case of the Church's universal
accep of a Pope,
tarce we not only ownat have “pruden fear of the
#pposite” (thet he is not a true Pope), but cannot even have “peseible
fear of the opposite* In other words, 1t ts not even prsibie to have any
prudent, positive doubt that the validly elected Pope, accepted 88 wich
¥y the umversal Church, s not a true Pope This level of certanty is
¥ased upon the very ifallibihty of the Church, which cannot err on
expounding dogma, nor judging facts which are necessary to bebeve
the dogma Hence, those Sedevacanwho deny the legriumacy
tats of the
post<onciliar Popes, who have been pescefully and universally
the Church’s
accepted by the Church, are once agam forced to deny
sttribate of infallsbility - just as they are forced ko deny the Church8
sttnbutes of visitnlity and ndefectibisty (a8 we saw in Chapler1)

—
* Aricon Esiaiast
Revims, vel,ion
53, Dec 1965, 422 cmmphad added.
E
 True or Falae Pope? Chapyy v l

Contraversy Over Pope Francis

2 of what we have leamed regarding the theclog,,

M‘:“r‘f; who has been peacefully and uruversally .@L‘":'*y
Charchm, in fact8 legstimate Pope, we brefly address the .
reundig, the unprecedented resignabon of Pope Beneducy xy;
wumg(mfimpopemm.mmsmym,,w‘:
subsequent election of Argentuuan Cardinal Jorge Bergoglig o
Francia. Without # doubl, many Catholics have questoneg g
of these unexpected, niay shocking, events, and cven wheyy
proprety
The reagnaton and subsequent election are valid (thus, rauangg
of whether there has been a peaceful and universal accepuey
of Pope Francs) These questions have not come from fringe elemeny
within the Church, but have been zaised by some of the myy
procinent and respected journalists in Rome, such s Vittorio Meuey
and Antomo Soc And the voices pubicly questiomng bath e
wumn\ddxfimhavemdykrmfledanmewm
has progresed.
s Antoro Soccr published an entire book tited M ¢
Froncesce La Ohese Nelle Grande Temmpesta {1t s Not Francrs The Churckm
« Groat Tempest) which challenges the canonical vahdity of Pey
Benedut's remgration. There were also numerous stories muggem
¥at Pepe Benedxt was coerced into resigung followng e
“Vallesks” scandal® which, of true, could have rendered te
remgration nullé Further questions were raised when Stefans Viet
esteemad Profe Canon Law at the Facul
of ssor ty m
of Theology
Bologna and Lugano, published a study of Benedicts resignatan i
whic he argueshthat Benedict did not, un fact, renounce the papal sffee
only a portion of the active exercse of e
but s),
(she muns petrmu

Prioe ko the cosgrutien of Pope Senedict, ecret Vatican documens were lsied w6
modia which revesied cormuption, blackmail and hemesczual conspiraces bide W
Vatecon tincluding 4 possibie cover-up of the semial crimes of the netwciows Fr Mon
Maciel Degallade, fourer of the Legiorisires of Chrut) Invesigati nde the bsk
whish became e a6 “Vokleaha,” froulied in 2 300-pege deseict complied
by ¥
Cardincl the rpert of Pope Bemedict 11 won reporied thal this desir s w4
o Pope Bammiics o tmign the pupal sfice For caample. flleving e 184
Tigrat ienwrete
The Specieler , "The hafuan mmflumwfi'fl’:‘_fl

© TA Irgton made ol of grave fear thet b indlicied urjuetly o ol

Ahotonhal aree, wx simasy tn oveaied by the Law taeif™ fcanen 198, 1963 Codc)
390
 Peaceftand Unrversal Acceptence of s Pape Chaper 12

ce (the agendo ct oguende) ® Te 334 40 th

fiv‘g hmhwwndflwmm e con 3
coat of arma, and Continue 10 drese s the mflm:
to be referred 1o as Pope (PopehiEmleenpatupan)l camach, Hy oy
wahes , Don Georg, Ganswewn, ev
en sa id
@ His ey
i Fope” be cause “he considers that fl
th at Benedict ke the aite
Needices 10 sy, this 15 an entirely unprac\mfl(kwhmll ly'“
edenied simaton ar e
Coupled with the questions concemung,the canorucal validny of
Pope Benedict's resignation, there have been added allegariona of »
corapiracy to elect Cardunal Bergoglo (Pope Francs) The consprracy
was first brought to light by Dr Austen Iversigh n his ook The Grasy
Reformer After the book was published, the Belgian Cardinal, Godfried
Denreels, adrutied pubicly 1o beng part of what he called a secret
“clercal mafua” (The St Gallen Group), which conspired o push
Benedict out and elect Bergoglio.® Accerdng 1o the laws astablushed
by Joha Paul Il for papal elections, any secret pact er agreement which
would oblige Cardinals to vote a certam way in a Papal election, carries
an automatic excommunication although it would ot necsesarily
invalidate the election.”

Sec Sisces, “In 4 Papel Drarchy, Which Half s indeiibe,” The Remamt newespoper, oly
32014 sec als0 Ferrara, “Lotest from Seccd The Papal Gamen.” The Kevwwant revwspapar,
February17 201
* For moee Inforrnai sec Siscwe
on, Rabert, “A Behop Desmed b White,” The Remwant
Dewigeper March 013 Selan, John, “Wie i the Bahop Dramrd in White? - Cotha:
Famaly New. Jariacy 15
:WI/MW“VWW
#See Pentin, Edwrd, “Carslinal Dannwels Admils be Seing Part of Mafia”
Club Oppesed
0 Benedict XV1* Nationa! Catbic Register, Septestber 24, JW13; alow sec the ekcle with
the same Nile by joarine Smatts Lifosite News.
* “The Cardinal ciechors shall furshar sbetain lrem any ferm o pact, agreemen, promise
@ other commitmend of arry kind whuch could wblage them to e ot dany thear vuie 4o 8
PeTen ot penena. [ tus were i fact done, cven undec aath { decrr fhat mch &
Sowarsmant shall be null and vend and thet ne onc shall be bound bo shurrve @, and ¢
Tureby unpsse the prnahy af excsmmurcasen it seninsar upen theve whe vielsr
e prohibition.” Jahn Paul 1, Linterrss Dewrics Greges, Ne. a1, February 22, 19%.
*“Na Cardinl ehector can be exclused from acive or pasmive vaice i e clecton of the
Paciilf fox 4y rwaaen oc pretet, wikh due regard foe she provases of Ne 40
Conituion.* (id., N 35} The legielaben of Pl V1 peevidas the s, and
clanies thet the " any rmses: we pretrat” tncludes excwmmunicaart “Ne aandmal sector
7 be sxcluded frem actve and passhr paracpaen in the clecton of e Saprrmar
e of ac on pretmt o any exommnicohon, oo, it f et
| impesiment. Acy mch cenaes are o be teganied o smopeted ob o
08 tlect af the clechen i concemed* (Paul V1, The Elccian Of The Koman Posall,
Octeber1 1975

m
 Trwe or False Pope? l
Chapy n

surrounding the allegedly coerced

Pope TBencd et anct he conepiracy o elect 08110 Bergogho pehas S5«
ogy
rwdermg ¥ Francs 15, in fact, the Pope or 1f Pope Sawy
retamed the papal office Thus, 1 hght of what we lm.,“,,mh
some have questioned whether Pope Francis has been "N
aeversally accepted” byl.!c“"d\uf‘ape,m“‘m:u Yy
rengnavon and clectien call into queslion the “peacesy|” %"W
Francw acorpance, while the number of people (some opegly
apme secrely) who believe Benedict 15 stll Pope raes. gt
concemung the "universal” aspect ol Franais’ accepance |
‘whetherthere g
1 or can be a “peaceful and uruversal acceplance
such a controversial resigraton and clection 15 a legitimte gumu
and ceranly puk 2 spotlight on the doctrine and how it wonkd gy
it case We mention this, mm-mul!mim-mxr.,.,h
te decigg
rather 1o pewit out that 1f the Church (a luture Pope) were
Franw’ elaction null, 1t would not violate the infallibilty of ge
deganc fact that 2 Pope who 15 “peacefully and umivernlly xcepes
w10 fact, a true Pope.
We should alko noke, however, that just because a Pope has rt b
poscetully and unversally accepted docs not mean he is Hot a iru by
Thic was the case duning the Great Western Schusm, when there wass
rue Pope regrung, even though he had not been accepted by the
universal Church.® But 1n a case in wiich there is no peacchulind
sreversal acceptance of an elected Pope, if the Church were to lur
oullfy the election (e, by an act of deposition by an imperhc
council, f the man were still hving), this act would not infinge upn
the Church's mfallibility concering dogmatic facts Of coune, any
such detecaunation could only be made by the proper authonibes mbe
Church, and riot by the exercise of the private judgment of ndvidsd

Cun Ex Apostolatus Officio

Our analysw of this topic would not be complote wilhosl
@aminang the papal Bull of Pope Paul IV, Cum Ex Apostolatus Ofiot
sued February 15, 1559, which 15 one of the favonite docurents il
by Sedevacantut apolopeis in defenec of their posibion. 1tis
reud that the pucpase of the Bull was to prevent Casdinal Mot
from b, edected (0 the papacy Pope Paul IV suspecte Mo d
member of the humaniet party. of being a heretic In fact, Cari?
T
—_
;l:mu-nm-ommm-mdum-mm“"‘
Potee wan 0 1act, e e Poper

N
powceful end Uneversal Acceplanice of # Pope 2

puceen wioke Kang Phulp 1 the day the Bul

Bt wia aimed ot Catdiral Morore el rentying
‘Aliera bref opening paragraph. the Bull teaches that f a Roman
Peandf found to have deviated from the Fah he who i Todged by
o ene” can nevertheless be contradicied
“in assessing Our duty and the Smmonn new prevail
m=h¢nw=-¢wum*¥‘kwuu-m':mm:fl:
so grave and so dangerous that the Roman Pesiif whe w the
v upon carth of God snd eur Ged and Lerd Josus
Chnst, who holds the fullness of power over peoples and kinpderss,
whe may Judge all and be judged by nonc m this world, may
poncthclsss b contradicted 1he e found tw have devaied fram the
Fith (posst 51 deprehendatur o fide devies redargui)
Remembening also that, where danger 1s preaier . must be mere
fully and more diligently covnicracied e
After teaching that it is licit to contraduct a Roman Pontiff who has
deviated from the farth fter being elected. the Bull goes on 1o say thet
2 Bishop, Archbrshop, Cardinal or even the Roman Ponhff fumself, is
feund to have deviated from the faith prer to be being elacted tv office,
e election is null and void

“f ever at any tme # shall sppear that any Bishop, cvea if he

be acting 5 n Archibishep, Pariarch or Frmaic, or any Cardinal of
the aforcsuid Roman Church, er, a4 has already boen menisened,
any legate of cven the Roman Ponif, prior to hi wemecion o he
clevation ss Cardimal o Roman Pentiff has deviatod frem the
Catholic Fasth ot fallen 1nto seme heresy”
) the_pe omo
o shcvegian, & sball bavenbes
cven 1ftio
uncontested sad (accepted] by the wiamimous sl of all e
Carduals ,sha
be eull, vord ll
wad worklcss.™
In Iight of thus teaching, because the Sedevacantisss persnally beiwoe
Ve lagt six Popes deviated from the fauth prior 1 thew clections, they
Melieve they are entirely justified in procla thewinu ng
elecuons null
d then publcly declanng them to be ankpopes. Out old tnerd
Richard fbrany) (who bebieves the past 102 Popes - iciuding P IV
0he 155ued Cumt Ex Apestolatus - have beon false Popes). provides v

:::rmw Clr ex Aposteiaius Offc, Febrwary 15, 1999

3
.
Tree N %H

with the Sedevacantst wnterpretation and applicaton ofthe

¢ ocuny, .
In the follewtng quotation, notice that lbrany:’a *pplication
decument is rooted in Fr Cekada’s “3in of heresy agaimug Divin ciy
Aoy Mz Tbranyi begine by saying, “Even though Paul 1yrg
7 Apeselates Officoof 1559 b Invalid a0 allicle because o ™
“posak antipope, 1t nevertheless feaches the ordunary Magye®

“Thorsfars. cves e secret sia of (ol heresy s e fiog

holding effices 0 the Catholi, Chund Hence even if the so-calieg
pope x umanimously clecied, enthroned, and given “nverm
ebodrcnce” and thus beheved 1o be the pope by every Cahal
e warld: hc s ot the pape 1f he has fallen 1nto formel heresy ™
Farst, a8 we have amply demonstrated, the internal sin of
alone does not cause a prelate to lose his office, nor does it preventwe
from acquinng office If 1t ad, Catholics would have absolutely newsy
of knowtng which Popes and bishops of the past or present possend
junsdiction, and which had secretly lost their office (or never acqurd
1t the first place) due to heresy
Second, the judgment and determination that the one elected it
papcy fell nto heresy, prior 1o his election, is not based uponthe
priosic judgment of indlvidual Catholics, who personally beheve a ano
heresy was commutted befote the clection. The judgment woul have
be rendered by the proper authorities before the clection would be
rendered null. As St. Thomas taught, a public judgment must cme
from the public authority Cum Ex Apostolatus was a disciphinary deaet
What atieched a reteaactive penalty 1o one who was suthontatioelyil
by the Church {not by private tndividuals) to have deviated frome
fnsth prier10 thew prometion or election.
This was condirmed by two canoniste who lived at the time
the Jel
was ioswed The canoust, Maurcus Antobius Borghesius, said “theb
[Cum Ex Aposseiatus] Inciudes only those who were
o % The canoniet, Antonio Mast
-
M0 Y fomr Ot fa S o Secrt Foeral Heeeey® ket FEX
SO v estelapit s fw gl dcuneensoricioe
e/ 31 berS
.‘:;;“-'r—'-rfl {omphasis sddes)

k]
 o
el ofa Pope
sl Acceptence 2

bes the same” “The Bull of Pope Prul does

annoferone having been duhmd,"'k-&ughg';;‘_:.
of wi
" (e
e Pauh pontificis mode defuncti Wl dispomit nist ile . cr
u s vel sponle confesmus el wb alus commchu ) Withowy e,
suthoritet ive nt,
pudgme oactive penalty would not occur Pat
the retr
snether way the authortative fudgment s a necrssery cmdibon for
~ction to be rendered nuil the
Cum Ex Apestolatus:
Netlher Ex-Calhedra Nor Ivevscable
Net only have Sedevacantists faled te undersand that the
rewosctive. penalties fisted 1 the Bull would enly take effect upen &
jodgment by the proper authorities, but they've also failed to properly
undersiand the nature of the document, imagining 1 1o be an infalible
ex cuthedra decree, rather than merely a dmaplinary document
contaming penal legislation. For example, a popular Sedevacantit
website presented the followang in their inwodiucti ko the papalon
Bull
“Dunng the time of the Council of Trenk Ppe Pacl IV wsued
s Apostalic Consuruon Cum Ex Apsewiic (sicj Officie of
15, 1559 ¢
February ) Nocamuec 1t deals with futh snd saacaly and
was 1s5ugd ex cuthedre (fram the Cha of Peter) [t ) Sharcfare
canndered not only infallibic, but 10 be held 1 pepenuty ™
The Sedevacantiet, “Pope Michael” (clected “Pope” by six lay
people, including himself and hus. pasents), also claims tut Cum Ex
Aposolatus e infallible In hue book. 54 Yarrs st Charged the Wrid. be
wrele

“Thi Bull of Pope Paul 1V desarves specul considerstion,

especally wn ight of the fact that 1t has beca igacred ¥y meny
this Bull appears n the Fontes of the Code of Canon Law w several
places |1 considered nfallible because 1t teaches 0w 2 mater of
Fanh ™

—_—
AP231
* DatyCathelc com. dntyentplac sry/ cumerapeum.
ee ol Gt 1858 90, Crmpore
Indepardent
Publishing Pasorm, 2011 1 3%
5
- or False Pope?
True I
iy
Mr Ibranyi aleo attributed an infallible character to i1
The filowing was writen before he discovered “conclusips
L 0t
rat Pope Paul TV was an antipope”
oo 1559 Poul ‘itIV 2 0 so-cb alleBull Cum ex Apora
d Offccholier whe 1 Wce
w%ly hold the office and this al us acts e g
s vod cvem if cveryeme thinks he 1s an officckoldes "

The Sedevacaniet websie, Today’s Catholic World, als,

Coe Ex Apostelatus W0 be an infalhble ex cathaire documen,
fortarate but conunon Sedevacanbist tone, under the head; ™
Useful Idsots,”the author wribes. ", “Voy
“The absetutely intellectually dishonest Pieny Oppositon fue
Vadcroustin groups, such 2 the priesticss SSPX, Una Vace, Jog
Vowm 3 “Cathol™ Family News, Michael MaiCs (inly log)
Remcam e, by willflly refusing 10 accept ¢
. which
mmustakenly [sic] condemns amposters like Ratzinger aka Awi-
Pope Beacdt XVI
As with all sophists, once one gets past thelr demagoguery,
her
riddied with Inflammatory Invective (“idiots,” “dishonest™ “fake’
“prestiess,” “lost” “imposters” - and all In one sentence) we
generally discovers the sheer barrenness of thelr argumentation, whh
seeks 10 appeal to the will, rather than the intellect Not only does ie
author entirely muscharactenize the nature of the document (whihwe
never nsended to be an infalllble decree), but reveals much abmt
humeelf by cloaking fus ersor in auch demagoguery and mlwg
thetonc
Durwng khe debates surrounding the defimution of papal nfaliby.
was brought 10 hight by the dissenters
Cum Ex Apostelatus Officio 02
ahasspt b prevent the Church from defirang the doctrine Thes sek
of eperabo n First, they attempted to atinbul
was thus. an wiali
e
degmatx: character 1o the Bull Next, they ponnied to the vaniou pd
meckors 28 being ulterly tyrannical and contrary to Cabe
prnopies. Firully, they argued that auch tyranmcal and
waactions
-_ prove the Pope is not infallible.
o o “Ptane Otfbders and Lown” December 12 W1 0ebsd
:"fl""/"wm-“/umm/m puiaive,sstoidet <4
e ddarablicwartd
o i .
3%
 el and Uinrersal Acceplanceof « Pope 2

One of the main voices opposing the decirine was that of

i
1T ooIz book, vom T DOILEET.
Papesnd& thebeceG,opponentofpapa
it e e o miayo
Jinus, Dollinger aHempled 10 demensirate the tyranmcal an oy
Fvarer of Cum Ex Apwicetus Afir Vstng » number of pion
Cetiors In the document, he wrote-
“Such, then 6 1 Meet selcran declaram wevend en,
ae late me
1558, subscibed by the cardnain, and aflarwacks cxpremly
confirmed and rencwed by Piam V., that the Pope by vinie of his
sbiolute authonty. can dépose every monarch, hand over every
country 10 forergn Invaeion, deptrve cvery onc of hns praperty, and
that without any legal formality, 3nd et enly en sccouat of dsant
Som the doctnnes approved at Rome, o separatien from the
Church, but for merely offerig an asyham 1o mxh dusidents, so
that rio nights of dynsety or natien arc respectod, but natomémre to
ke gwen up to al the homrors of war ef conquest And 101l this 1
finally subjoined the docirine sthet all afficial and sacramestal acts
«fn Pope or Biswho hop ,— say twe
has cver thirty yrs
or aty
before — boen heretically minded on any singlc peat af dece,
are nul and voud! Thes Laet defintron comma ae emphatc and sl
a contradicuon of the princrples en the valulty of sacramens
unwersally recewed n the Church, although miswkes have
sometimes been made about 1t at Rome that they mus have secmed
W theologmns utierly tncomprehensiblc The serwus
wsnventences which at former perieds such decwnes had fod 1o 11
the Church would have boen reproduced new, had net even the
mest decided adherents of the wfallilny theory, the lomuit dvincs.
shrurk from adopuung the peincple hd down by dus Pope and b
cardinals, though Paul IV threalened all whe resiiod e decracs
with the wrath of God Bellamine himeel, forty yours laer, said 10
Rome 1self that a bishop of Pope did wet lesc s pawer by
Becomung
er by having been a concealod (eccuh) hevetic, of feise]
weuld be
everyt hinneducedg te uscers Church
wholey,
and theamt
thr
wto own
confusion ™®

Déllinger never accepled the dogma of papal infalbbality and on

April 18, 1871, one year after the close of the First Vabcan Council, he
was excommunucaled by name for heresy, and alihough he nevec
offically youned the schiumabc Ol Cathol Church. Dothnger's
TiRngs contnbuled greatly to its establishment
-
*Ja, The P e the Coumell, (London, Onfacd, Cambeidge: Revinghma. 101, PP

»7
Troe o Folae Pope? Oy, l

10 the arguments of Dollinger and

In 1= f e dogmt i ot atimpt 0 et he BT .
accusehons that the penalties were extreme, upjyyy
e e on good Rathes, they defended papal gy
ol hat the Bul w nol 3 degmaic decree and, theror
24
kammmmywwwdfim‘;:

the PP 470 anice that was published in The Dubign Revey

authoe confirmed that Cum Ex Apostolatus does Indeed requipe o *
conmderation, due 1o the 1ssues raised by Dollinger and :vmp.:"&
et because of any violabon of infallibility, since, a5 he sad gt
Nterally o pretext for thinkang that this Bull was dogmaic
serwe* He wroke. b
The meet formdable-looking of all Janus's ciations [sgany
popat sialliviny] w6 Pasl 1V's Bull “Cum ex Aposiolans officis®
(0 382) wor. mdced. do we ot all deny that that Bull requires vary
careful consideration, though on totally different grounde from
hese alicged by Janus. But ()
] the wnly
degmatic ssicment which Janus quotes - that which he numbers
A1) - o fur from bewg defined 1 the Bull, comes m quiz
wocudonmlly and parcathetically "
Anwther authority confirming that Cum Ex Apestelatus 15 et
indalkble cx cathedrs decree 15 the Church hustonan, canonist and fix
Cardinak-Prefect of the Vatican Archives, Dr Joseph Hergenrother b
hie 1976 book, Catheiic Church and Christum Stete, he responds oe
accusshon of “Janue.” In 30 doing, he readlly concedes that the 3l
“say be perhaps considered 100 severe, injudicious, and tmmedae
m s purnashinenis,” but he defends papal infallibility by explamng 2
1@ uncertan kerms, that the document is ot an Infallible decree.i
enly cencerns penal sanctions. We cite the Cardinal at length
"Appoai % gloe madc 1o the Bull of Paul IV, ‘Cem &
dpoucians officie,” of L5th Feb 15599 to which our opponers
0 Moot sager te attuch the character of & dogmatic ex-cathednt
docmwenS sayng that of this Bull s not an universally Sinding
—_—
= Dbl SevivlewX0V Nevw Sevi (LondaSn, ey 417
P Bkt o
L St € i ke Haret v 3 Rayrald & 1968 1 14 M Bul 1 40 5e »
T 3,28 g it oel
P 4% sy, Sabaite . 12 (cnaen: in sriginal]

k]
[
peoceful and UUnroersal cceplarice Acceptance of o Pope Chaprer 12

doctnal decree (00 he pot of th Papal actwey), ne g

v Papal decree can claum e be miokS Bl e of e crpcmmmn
Mmmm.m-u
mmmmmm%mmn
We see the tclis of the Church's eppaecnts have bocn o
foemcrly the: Janscriats and lawyses of the Franch partismnens densed
that the Bull Umipeninus’ was dogmate, theogh sil Cacrame
theologiens regarded it a5 such, sew the Junus {1 ¢, Dollingee} party
and Junsis who Proicst eganat the Vaticas Council acser hay toe
Bull of Pavl IV 13 dogmatic,
1n ruth, neither the wording of this last nxmed Bul, ner
us contents a8 & whole aor the rubse
thoologians, allow N 1e be regandeds &unversally received
dograstic decrriem., If ere
w ta be & doctnnal decree binding on all, 1t 1 requisne e 4
[particulac] doctrinc te be beld, of propemtien te be reyectad, be
phaced before the futhful 1n terms imalying ebligaen, and be
srescribed by the full suthonty of the Church's teachiag sffice. This
%001 the case with this Bull
Truc enough in the imirwductien the Papal power spoken of
and 1n accordance with the view of1t held unrvemally an the Mudde
Ages. But here, & n every ether Bull, the rule already spoim of
holds good, that not the nwoduction and the reasens atleged, bot
simply and only the enjoining (dispesstive) partion, the decision
itclf, has binding ferce Introductions qurte wnwlar are te be fousd
18 faws reiauing purely 10 mati of ers
disciphine a6 any one raay sce
whe consults the Bullanum.*® Ascuu \e the nin senae of te
Bull in question, Ji only costaing Renal suiclons asnasl haesy,
‘huch
wnguesbelong
tio 1 disciplinary
nab liws
ly sleas "

$Hube, .47 (cttaion in crigeal) -

Proiosssr Densingrr has caliccied 4l dogmatic dochiers is bis Enshridim
Dt whach unce 1053 hat gone iemuph fowr editere. bumn recommmemded by
iy sheps, and much pratecd by the Holy Fathar No theologasl reviewsr i ol of
Chrisendon has complaines of the owiaion of the Bull in quesion, si wowid much
Tather have considerrd demand for its insertion ridiculous (ciastion m engiel).
SDr Feme, p 4. Cf Artjan, . 166 s, Vot = e Voncan Cruncl, M
P 4530y {chation in wriginal).
Sy Urbam VL Cone 15 7 bart 162l e i Exdesiac L p 4 ot R pt principunen
7900 et wcomeen il dune precudcni uneecsabe
chritem 8 Chrote pev §. Petrum Apretslorsm cubrn st irabiom minhpes, of st
el o destruet, ubiwpue plantet ¢f ambgiort” be. The entre Bull celaim to the
Cormitivang of the Fraiers Reformal siiieris shosrvarioe Ordeus 5 Frarcirt
Conal 64 d &,Feb 1608, relaing b the aboiiion of o congregiaun
Franchcanai . 119,§ n
“mnnhm' . _)MMM-‘*:‘A-MM“IM_
"4 Oul, 1078),5 42.
»
Trwe or False Pope? l
hapry

rai Hergenrother
goes on to explam that Cup
“C,‘,':;,., renewing eartier penal sanctions agaat E'."‘HM
e penalties whach, by their very nature, are dusciphinary Mg
) Paml 1V rwnews the cacier cenmces and peny gy,
whoch s prodecesmons. &CUNE 10 €onCer it the emperes
woed agamit vanwus heresics, he desires that they b omey
cverywhere,and pul n force where t1ey have been unenfoepto
v
Jaws, which by Uieir naturs ee disciplinary, and proceed notfrom
e revelation. bul from the ccclesiastical and il peng
suthorrty Beswdes the renewsl of old there 15 an sddiion of nes
ponhments.™ which equally selongs to the sphere of dicrpime,
)
! The Pope decs nat here speak 38 teacher (ex cathedra) bts
e wachful shepherd cager 1o koep the wolves from the
shacp, “and 0 & time when the acmal or imemnent falling swsy
cven of brsiops and cardinals™ demanded the greatest watchfulnen
and the swongest measures The Bull of Payl [V may be pedugy
comdered o sgvere. wjudicrous. and immodenilc in_y
mashmetl bul it ccpaunly cannof be considered an cr catiedy
ocxmat decison Do Catholic theelogian has capsidered 1 as such,
st placed 1t 0 3 collection of degmanc decisions, and to have doe
2 would have anly deserved ndicule. for of this Bull s 1o be
wenadersd a3 doctninal decision, so must every coclessasteal
pousi lew Pupal Infallibilty 11 15 most true, excludes any error s te
wonal teackng 5o that the Pope can never [defintively] declare
amythung monally bed 10 be good, and vice verss bul nfallibiixy
ouiy relatcs # maval procepis, 10 the general prnciples which e

< “Omaws 11 mwgslas covemomimentiones, suspensiomw, et nieritcti ac prrvetion o ot

~-hhmn“‘mlnmnlthlm‘whhfl
Prosigin apvsteivs wiclonieic spprobemius o inrwwarais o perpetus chaerian o b T
Shicriimbs, ¢ forsan n a4 wew ML repori ef ese debere nec e quescungue
(Wi
wmn:..mu—.n,.-mmmmmw
{slotenin argra)
© Eg. o ipve (acke of al] fices and digruties, incapeci Vo ook wthers, confucaion ¥
oo, i (ctaton m evipral)
o
-uwm-nuahh—i'w.hu‘mu flflf.:’;
-"“h_:":::v-m-m#umnmaw
- )
700 Subay Vicrs o6 Bergame (Rayraid a. | Bul
lacob ofop
Neers (0
("”“’lhfiw%(n:m?:z:*ww—r‘“*‘f,fi'w
Choion by of beouvats (B & 1561 0 84), dc Cf theel b ”
:n“"-l'-v-fi-fi-y ® 1569 19 ~Cum sicut noper”

40
 pescefl and Linsverl Acceptance ofo Pope etz

Pope 0 il Chrustans at 2 v of sonduct,

sphcaon of e OCTIcEt ikl caes and oy
rcans excludes the possibilny of he Poe making msmibes 1t e
povemment by 166 geat seventy or etherwe { 17
One of the potential problems with the peval sancaors
n the Bull (which Cardinal Hergenrother said could bz:mmua:]
“severe,” "mpudicious” and immoderate™) s that i could be
interpreted by some to imply that & Pope could be peacefully and
uversally accepted by the Church, and then Later declared ta hive
pever been validly elected, which ts nat powibie™ Although the
document does nol exphcitly teach this,™ some Sedevacantiels have
ierpreted 1t m this fashion and ended by denying the teaching
reganding Ihe peaceful and universal scceptance of a Pope The
problcmatic wording (which has led these Sedevacantuss inlo errur) s
another clue as to the failible, disciplinary nature of the new-defunct
document
Continutng with his commentary on Cunt Ex Apostoletus, Cardinal
Hergenrother responded to those who opposed papal wfallibaity by
amerting that, if the Pope was really infailible, the document sheuid
have been covered by infathbuity since 1 was direcied 1o the entire

of Suarer, de Fule, diop 5.5 8,17 Alse Schaeteler, Die Papuishe Uniehiborkell,
Freiurg, 1970, p 197 an Merkle In the Augebarg Paswcalbiat, 11 Seb 1571 pp. 4758
o i rigil)
TCardinallergenr Cotwlic Courch and the Chrisa
ather,Sk, . £2-43
I light of he earies iching about the “pesceful ond univeras aceptancy” o Pope
# could mever happen thet the clecion of a Pepe, wha was accepaed peaceflly and
aniversally by the entire Church et siiply ehected by e unanunecs conment of e
Cordel. wouid Lo b rendered il e, a6 v o e pectl wd v
smceptance of a Pepe provides mnlile rhme of Mo leguanacy as woll s ol
s required for leg/imacy The electien or provancn of bukep o Cardiaal
weald et have the xame gusranike bul s h 2 guaraniee does et with « Pope Ti
ek thal if a papal elction were ever rendered oull afer the fact fwhich some clum
beppened a the 1303 Canclave, when the Bisheg af Krakiéw aiegeally veioed the cecton
# Cardinat Manane Rampula, paving the wa for e elechan of 51 Fus X). dunng the
e erverung betveren the election ond the dectaraban renderieg e clecen nul. e
Pope would st have been accepied pescetully and urwversally by the Carch. Eitus hio
sheckn ((ollowing & qucstionable resigration of a fertxe Page, foc snampic) would be
doubied by i falihol, of e would be doubaul foc ether ressses. Orce thirg 8 i
M ficver acrurred, and will never accur hat 4 Pope whe was pecrful snd
Wlflvfldwmmm»um.m-—mm
defectinthe ehection. amers o 8 e
* The decument speahs of the chected by o “wnanimons
Corenal = um-q:*r“m.mmmmfl'm‘
shese Salllbl uasewmmie direetly contradict e taactong dhat 2 Pope who i pracshily
@4 universally accpied by e Church i, it act, epibaste Pope.
0
 |
Trwe oc Falee Pope? Chapy,

,
and was
Charch(cx o) published in solemn form, Cang
Wssum The
Bto s sand “Ths Bull 15 sirectad 1o the whole Ch
Mudbyncfind;udmmhnh«"wmln“":«‘:
sl fom._ @ comily e carhedea ™ T¢
decurcn The sext of proofs our ops onebring iy
nts orwand un h
macr show an eotre ignorance of Papal Bulls™ Compuy
exarplc. snother Bull of the same Pope directed agaung1y
s endoavours of those whe coveted the Papal digniy, s of
ull has equally the agrocment of the Cardinale, 15 publiched
e pleasmude of the Papal power, is declared 10 be foreva 1 fory,
thecuiens. cqually all spinnial and temporal dipmtanes withoy
el And yet 1t 15 undoubtedly
exceptisn, a dogmyiy:
not 1n the lean
Bl

As the Candinal explamed above, Just because a Magow

decuswnt weued by a Pope teaches that it 1s to remain in fare
perpetuty (comstztube in perpetum vahtura) does not necessanly man
it cannot be abrogated by a future Pope It depends upon ihe rafuro
the decree (doctrinal vetsus disciphnary) According 1o the anomt
principle “equals do not have power over equals” (wr m yam
pwiesiient
nen habet), a Pope cannot bind a future Pope
b many
ducplrary matiers and ecclesiastical governance A Pope came
change Catholic doctrine, of abrogate a defined dogma, bul be canaw
duciplines, such as the punishment for certain crimes
We provide one firul reference to confirm that Curn Ex Apwieeia
is et an ez cathwdra, srreformable decree, but only punitve lepslaies
In s book True and Felse Infallitnlsty of the Pope, Bishop Joseph Fesie.
the secretaryof she Farst Vatican Council, responded 1o the argum
Profasor von Schulte, atiother opponent of papal infalllbillty wheel
Com Ex Apsstolatus a5 hus weapon of choice Bishop Fessler wioe

_
omginal)
Tithale, i p 3.0 | (chatirsin
oy v o S 1, Arce Fur Kirchenawchs, 1671 vel Y B0 47
e P, Le .12 vy koo i i de Amdui 1 U vik Dot et .
Cop L Com sAt 1 v 18
ard
*Cordoud|
Oun, 1004}, 4445, Coathol: Churs amd the ot Siate, Vo | (Lo 4™ =

«
r Frceul and Universal Acceptence of Pepe Chopr2

! “Dr Schulie prowithces anstherds

Butl of
o Apastoianz), sowcd m the yoar 155,',-",’::‘-"’"[:';
dsscrbed 0 the callection of Pagal Bulls under the nale .Y'
“Reneval Of prcVIoUs cenures wnd pumabments agarm hecatin
and schematics, woth the addiion of furkcr paeathcs.” Why, the
very itle, which §Ives & Kuc Bcceunt of us centesss, % of Nacil
slone enough 10 show cveryone who reads , that dox Papal
delivery 15 1ot & definino d fide
n ad cannes, therefore beun
uneran ex cathedr
cea { )
cathedra I 5 Hmply an outcome af the sepreme Papel aushanty
Eaultior 0 o0 1owance af H6 cxcr b cs
powee mm g g:
af punmhin
wis -

In light of what we have seen, il is “beyond all question” that Curs

Ex Apestolatus i6 10t an ex cathodne and therefors irreformable decree, 2
some Sedevacanhists have claimed, bt 1 snstead a document of penal
legislation which, by its very nature, w only discipbnary In fact, after a
thorough atudy of Cumt Ex Apestolatus, which included some of the
shave-cited quotationa, one Sedevacantiet was fercad e concede this
pamt He wrote-
“Pope Paul IV's 1559 Bel, Cwm ex Aporieintus affcio. % ofien
clicd by many Catholies today fer s sigaificance in regand o the
current cnsis of the Church Some af us have Sclicved this 1o be wn
wial ible docurient, and have uned that pou @ add force 1w our
{Sedcvacantunt) argumcnis AU elher lames we have, m shuskaeg e
Bull was infallible, declared as hercucs shoss whe seem o
cantradict the Bull Afthough this papal bull s cerainly significant
for our times, we weuld be cnurcly mistaken aud 1 emec o refar lo
the Bull as infathible or degmatic Cum ex Apossslanss Officss 1wt
wiallible, nat dogmatic, wut imerely a dueciplmery stame™*
After clting a number of reputable suthonties confirmung thal the
Bult was not infallible, the Sedevacantst author cencluded.

Vide the Bul) Cue Ex Apoviolalus,

bn the Bultar Raan,
ed aiL L v pi p 364 “wrni
Pk e creurarm of poenarm el hacrebces | hamahen,” £ fobatben I
oF"*:NM-:M-M-{&A—M!—:M Cathalic Publontion.
Seciety No ¢ Warrwn Stevet, 1675). pp. S6-09 .
Ml-;mcmmmumw-y-mhmnu-wa ann
s LlkaCHACH.
Thobian-tndalkieyCHCUmEXA
Fveww atchive ang/ detlie)
a0
Trwe oc False Pope’ 7 opay

—Sacwt of the greaiest Cathohe expens on the supy

Com 3 Apostolats afficio s ot
mdc et g it
s stsding who have considercd M_':
emany
The caly persof
d
uncpoiosecdabyseeGt
b ave becn €scommand
naL e i in Dght of e miler o e
P canima] are obiged (0 dconunee refering 1o o "¢
posisians offcio s fulible. Not anly Would 1 be very deon
ori et 10 croncously et ( the Bull s bl b
28 crroncous satement greatly damages th argument we are
1o make, along with oux everall credibilty on religious manery
Now, snce Cum Ex Apestolatus was only concemed wih gy
pracical eaecution of previous penat laws, which by ther nature ay
ducypiinary.” as Cardinal Hergentother explained, its penalies coud
e, and indeed were, abrogated when the 1917 Code of Canon faw
et ke force. Canon 5.2explains.
“That which periains b penalises, of which there 1s e meiwn
wmede 1n this Code, be they spirtiual or temporal, remedial ar, &
they call 1, punitive, automaic o declared through a Judgmen,
they are 1o be held ns sbrogated.”
Nene of the prescriptions contained in Cum Ex Apesiwatus
Oficw
were wncluded 1 the 1917 Code, and consequently they were al
wifically and authonmtively abrogated
The Sedevacantst brshop, Donald Sanbom, also acknowledges e
papel Bull is 0 bonger in force He further acknowledges that, # we
explained above, the heretical prelate would have to be recogruaeds
herctic by the lew of the Church (by the Church’s judgment), and
simply by private judgment Bishop Sanborn wrote
tus conelituti
1% an spostolic
~Cum £x apostela made
a law,on,
by Pope Paul IV which says thal 1f a pope shobeuld a herenc s
slevition 1o Wi digraty woukd be null (1 was mad e¥
in order
omaurs hat a0 Protostan could cver become the Pope It docs oot
aply 0 the prescm case for twe reasons The first 15 that LM
Iang Law It was derogated (made obsolete) by the 1917 Cok
the e
o Canen Law The sccend reason and the more mportant s ¥l
Mmlk_-ummmn:uun&hm Bl
-
N (s sdded)
 il and Umiersal Acceptence of a Pope Chapter12
26 we have seca. hcre 1 ae logal sanderimaion of Rungcr
ecause {11 be himecll does net heid humwclf gurlty of harcey
(22 no leg umate superior helds him guilty .n..m',y- d
Cum Ex Apostalatus and Canen 183, §4
Faced with the proof thet Cumt Ex Apossolatus was a
tha 1917 Code came aniv force, some Sedevacantise wmh::.:du:.h::
penal legislation was based, not merely on Church law, but on Drowne
lzw and therefore remauns n force They will then point ¥ the fact har
Curm Ex Apostolatus 15 referenced a5 4 footnote to canen 183, §4 {1917
Cade), and then claim thet this proves 1% automatc penalise ae sull 1
effect. This argument is esroneous for the following ressona
Furst, there 15 00 Divine Law {nor has there even been an
ecclesiastical law) teachung that a prelate who is udged, by privare
Judgment, 1o be & heretic automatically loses his office.
Second, as we have seen, canon 188, §4 applies w clerics validiy
elected to office, who publicly defect from the Faith by jowung a non-
Catholic sect after being elected, wheress the penalhes contained w
Cum Ex Apostolalus rendet null an election i it 1e shown thet tha clenc
deviated from the faith before being elected Cum Ex does not decree
that a validly elected cleric who later “devistes from the faith”
automatically loses office So the penaities conmined in Cum Ex
Apestolatus and canon 188, $4 are clearly not the same
Third, footnotes are not part of the Chureh's law {they have ne
authorty in themselves), and are often cited (by editors) to show
legislative history related 10 certain canons As appired here, the
footnote to Cum Ex Apostelatus is nothing more than a reference to prior
lepsixhen which prevented certin clerics from holding office i the
Church. I¥s purpose 1 to simply provide some legistative precedent
for the current legielation, not ¥ affirm & myihical “Divine law” thet
Pprevents heretics from holding office based upen individual peivate
fudgment4
Fourth, 1o further prove the foregoing point, Il is certaly a0t &
matofter
Drvine law thet a person, who had once deviated from the
faith, would be prevented from later being elevated bo the efficof
e
bishop or Cardinal. For example, the great Cardinal Manning net snly
_—
;lmw-mmammamm"““"‘ =
D5ee lor example,Fr_ Albart, O *La Consihulem Apestoligur Cim o Apeetootas e
PtV " LeSel de ba Terre, Ne, 33

405
 —y
TroesrFalse Pope? (oY 2

sted from the faith he secerved at baptism, but he wany

become & of the Anglican sect Yet, 1n 5ye ¥o %4
“
defection, he was later received 1o the Church ang
fl‘m e ofice of by and shen Cardinal Ths clevation :‘;:-.
offices in the Church occurred 1n spite of imcfutable p. o ¥
be had devaated from the faith pror to his elevation 1f one dmh
Paul IV's profubition from being elevated to the ofhoe of b“hv"'w
Candinal docs ot apply 0 those who deviate from the fl oy e
ter convert, they will have o point 1o the section of Gy &
this
Yet the section contauning
menbonmg ths exception.
will not be found, because 1t does not exst (lnd.beclluellw.‘.u:
ducipheary, it would still have been abrogated by the 1917 Cod
fact, this was one of the objechons Dollinger raised -
Hent
decume te
wro.

~And to all thrs 15 finatly subyorned the doctrine, shut all offcy
ad sacramertal acts of a Pop or Bistiop who has ever - gy
- been hacetically minded on any
sngle point af doctne, are null and voul™*
The penal sancsons of Cum Ex make no excephion for & person whe
deviaied from the fath and then later renounced hus error The bl
mmply states that the election of one who had previously devumd
frow the futh, or previously embraced a heresy, is null and vaid. New
if Sedevacantusts are gowng to argue Lhat the penul sanctiona tos bt
are still wy force today. and that they take effect without
authorwiive judgmant by the proper authorities, they wall haveb
explan how Cardinal Manrung was elevated to bishop and e
Cardunal duning the ceign of Pus IX, 1n the face of imefutebie yrsf
he had “deviated from the farth” priof to hus election.The trush of e
m-mhmlmmambAnmna::"':
eoroed, and corsequently the lepslation had
heslcscence,
even before it was abrogated when the 1917 Code &
Canen law was enacted The case of Cardinal Manning proves4
someone who publicly defects from the Faith, is ot barred by "Dvee
':‘:hmh-'dev.kdhuutpumpxy(flhplw)‘“h‘
1t i wiarveting te nele that the opponente of papal infalliE!
wnarthed the Wull Cum £x Apestolatus over a century ago {(whih P
a1l bt ducappeared from the mind of the Church), in order 10 ¥E%
gucwt the inkallibility of the Pope, and then sed the contents o
—_
b, The Sape ot e Councd, pp 303304
 Pescefil and Untoersal Acceptance oo o Chaprer 2
=

1o justify their separation from the Chvarch,

::l,.gmmr - now legally defunct and m_.,:‘d",','"" the cuact
s agam esurfaced This tme it serve as the weapomef en o7
ey

Gedevacantits, who use iis contents, not ko deny a partcular ;‘" the
of the Pope, but lowmlhe?vwhnmv.nd,u...iymfl:
sepraton rom b, ehuch. et 1 sy, place W st e
yropardy ™
e

_—
18 the Bl of Pope Barilace VTTL, Lin Senctans, promulgaied Novamber 18, D02 the
ilsring waa defined a6 doga of i ~We deciare, we peoclows, e deine sl i
ivluily necemary fo salvatien et cvecy haman crashare be st b e Roman

07
 Chapter 13

~ Vatican I! and Conciliar Infallibility ~

‘The adherenis of the Sedevacantst thesis defend their positlon in

ywo different ways, one of Which corresponds to the realm of being,
and the other to the realm of acting Regarding the former, the
Sedevacantisls claim that the recent Popes have been heretics (in the
real of being) and thercfore could not be vally elected, or if they
were elected vahidly. couid not become! or remain Pope (because, they
malntain, It 1 metaphysically impossible for a heretic to possess
habitual jurisdiction in the Church) This aspert of Sedevacantam was
addressed in the previous chaplers.
In this chapter, we now swltch gears and address tha Sedevacantint
arguments which concern the realm of acting With this approsch,
Sedevacantists pownt to certain things that have apparently usued forth
from the Church over the past S0 years which they wist are contrary
to the Church'a Infallitality Since these acts are said to be & violation of
thenfallibility promised by Christ to His Church, thay maintan that
the Church from which they issued could not have been the true
Church, and, consequently, lts head could not have been a true Pope
As one can sce, this argument extends beyond the person of the
Pope to encompass the entire Ecclesia Docens, of teaching huerarchy of
the Church Accorcing to this theary, there 18 not simply “a diabolical
disorientation” of the upper hucrarchy, as Swter Luci of Fatima
descnbed it, bul & complete defection of the upper hicrarchy, not an
infllizabion and subversion of the Church by Freemasons and
Comnunlsts, reeulting in & cormuption of its human element (which is
undergoing & Passlon almilar to that which Chnst endured), dut the
complete destructlon of the visible Church which, in their opiruon, has
been replaced by & New Church
In the following chaplers, we will address the asguments
corresponding to the realm of acting, and demansirate that Christ’s
promuse of infallibihity has riot been violated We will demonstrate that
the current ecclesiastical crisw 1s not “umpossible”? a3 Sedevacantsls
claim, but rather 4 trial permutted by God to sift the wheat from the
<haff The current crisis also provides the (aithful with an oppoctunity
—_
£ A2 ¢ saw, according s the hasa of Buiop Guerard des Lauciee, he would vely
4 “materal Fope,” neta* -
¥ Soe Joh Duly e ..“,"..‘..’.:"?‘..."" Fonr Mlarn, Apel 2008 Mo/
[ e
hacom/ artiches htmAcriss.
409
 Troe oc Fabee Popei ? 9 Chapg; “

on by demonsirating thewr fidel

::éh“ur::hm th words of St Peter, who :,ydhh g
Wethren, lsboor the more, that by goed works you oray g
et callng and election” (2Pet 1 10) While the current crug a2
T aitvshatig tral -8 tra hat ey even be xpproaching ei
what Previdence will permut at this moment n history . prt
olated a sngle promuse of fesus Christ 3 ™
The Council

ment begins with the assertion that the Second

ot have come tfrom the true Church my..,..,.::;
Coumvoab
Vascan 11 met the conditions for conclliar infaihibrhty, and thersige y
¢ was by a counal of Chnst’s Church, 1t should have been fee s
all eror But the docume Vatican I COMAIN etrots, they sy
of nts
therefor e not have been & counail of the Catholic Crg
3t could
the erors of
overseen by true Pope In other words, they claim that
Vatican [ prove that Paul V1 was not & true Pope, since ifaliblyy
would have prevented a true Pope from ratifying such documents F
example, Peter Dmond wrote
“We have cxposed in detl the heresics of Vatican Il We have
sloe shows that the men who wmplemented this non-Cathelic
Council were niat trse popes of the Cathohic Church but anupopes
Desprie all af the evidence. same people remain unconvinced They
bold that there are indood doctrmal probleme with Vaucan 1L, b,
accerdimg e shern, this 15 1o problem for Paul V1 becausehe dul st
indaifibly prowaigeic any of the Vatican Il hercsics “The herscmn
of Vatican 1) don’t mater,’ they say, ‘because Vatrcan 1l was ot
wfallibie’” We will new show that f Pau) VI kad bocn & Wuc saec.
the_dacumess of Vancan Il would have bace somulssl

‘uu-n-u«h-—nmuhnmwum-:::
= Grbik ity posmible), the authers speculate that the i
Mhm«munymmnprmm—'“
-m-nr-mmmmm_unfluz‘“
nd Jobe Foul ) wreught shew dumage more in an oficel toaching OPIY
w%-u.mm.fiymnmnmnw‘w‘ ¥
I8 P 11 (eg. dhre arv wove wnditiorm) Masees and vecauers: ¥ S0
420 0 longer wcommmnicaied, the SS.PX. priesis have bven w
m-hmm,»,nmaumwwudm.
Soond upen many prophecien, the Churc in the ond s W
e vt ol of lth Yot e vor boday

410
yatican I an Conctiar tnfaltibiiity Cupler 13

nfallibly. This wall areve o, that Pau) V1 .., was sl sad couig
ot hiave been » true poge “ ¢
His fellow Sedevacantist commde, Jobe Daly, agrees He
“The truth 15 that Vatican 11 se plaraly fulfils
required for mfaliiblty that net even b mm"’:,"',y
s Hence 1f s teaching contaims cyregio svom aperet
futh, this fact necessanly calls ite questisn the papal watus of Peu]
VI imself

Belore proceeding with & critique of this Sedevacantit argament,

note that it is not our intention to defend the orthodoxy ol the concillar
documents, which we atso belleve are replete with poorly lormulated
and ambiguous assertions which lend themselves to erronecus and
ibly even herelical interpretations We wish only %o demonsieate
ihat Vatican 1 did nol meet the condutions for infallibility When the
Church does not exercise her mfallible beaching authority (which was
ihe case during Vatican 1), error le pessibe Therelore, any emors
contained within the conciliar documents do not conatitute a vislalion
ol the Church’s infallibiiity

Conditions for Conciliar Infalilbility

As we will further explain In the nexl chapter, the Church teaches

Infallibly eliher by the Extraordinary Magisterm, or the Ordinary and
Universal Magisierium In isyman's terms, the Extraordinary
Magisterium is exercised either by soler papel decree (called an ex
euledra of "from the chair” staiement), er & dogmatic defimiun of
tevesled bruth conceming fallh or mocals emanawng lrom an
ecumenical council (s rare galhering of the worid's bishops i1 unien
with the Pope) This latter mode of infallibdity is called “cenciliar
inlallibiltty * In his clasaic book, The Church of Cinel, Fr Beery lsts the
three conditions required for conclisar wnfallibility-
“Certain condilions are necessary foc the exarcie of infally ibest
teaching suthority by the bishops assembled 1n council, mamcl
the council must be summoned by the Roman Pean, o 41 losst
Wilh s consent and sppeoval b} The council must be Wy
-
&M“Mmmnm:mmwunrm mmmu-u
sbded)
mal Holy Famity Maruastery 2007), p 449 (emphasis
¥ Duly “Thu Vatia n 1 Teach Indub iby?~ Seemd Revised Sdiom, 2018 {emphass
emiinfalli
vaticdem
seg/see
Hiod) g/ vrwrve.navis atc Mo
bleh.
m
 Trueor Falwe Pope?
—~ Clapigyy
acnmencal by celeteaton, 1, e Whole body af biops
roprescated.
s excrisa c)m mmnummflw
miacTe authonty &5 teachs of futh o
C1 s
fore, 10 be accepied by every member of the Churcly g,
e s ahepe need oot 1merd such a1 ey ocuble decttvo u o Pt
the buhops
[shrng the Councill, u_l}.netsmul_lhiLIl1_llrnjlualmgrm,.lk
‘5o worded as t0 sndicaje cleaddy 1 definitive charcter
Now, Vabcan Il met the firsl two conditions Iop o
fallitehity sence it was (3) summoned by the Pope and [
ecumenxal by celebration. But 1l did nol mect the third condm.“'.i’
the coanci proposes 0 eveed il 0t bt “by a defeeoy
srevecable degree %0 worded a5 10 Indicate clearly 15 defiuns
churacker* On the contrary, Paul VI himself explicitly stated oy
Vatcan I} intentionally svwwded defining any doctrines During4
Ganeral Audience on December 1, 1966, Paul V] said
“There are those wha ask what authonty, what theological
quaification, the Council itendod (0 give to 1ts eachings, knowing.
that 1twronded sssuing solemn degmaue definitions backed by ¢
Chursh’s
weachwnfallible
ipg_authonty, The saswer 15 known by
those who remember the conciliar declaration of March 6, 1964
repested o0 Novemiber 16 1964 In view of the pastoral nature of
the Councrl. 11 s oided proclaiming 10 An quirso\ry manne: v
dogmme utving e mark of infallibality™
Alihaugh Vasican 1] was an ecumenical council, by delibeniy
ovwiding defiming any dogmas, ane of the conditions for cencr
whallibdty was clearly lacking, which means infallibility wis nt
engaged during the Council This fact necessanly permits the possbiity
mmuuuv.m uTo dnmo!huwixp':‘:;;;“
ity beyond 1% proper fimits (which 15
the Sedevacanhave
ivsts
done)
One year after the close of the council, Cardinal Hewst
commented on the purpose of the Second Vatican Council He explaned
the coumcil “deliberately l:muted its own obyectiThereves.
were tote®
—_—
The Ourek of it pp 268-261 fommphasis sl
Foul V1. Coneral Andience December 1 «u’,.uu-dmlw"“
 oty
Vetioan It and Concihar infetbiity
lic definitions. Its purpese from the fest was
m... the Church "% e Ppestoral cenewat
Gince the exptess purwse of Vatican If was w e
(and not to deline revealed doctrine), it lalis Into & unm,’"‘“ w
than the previous general councils of the Church. Paui V1 himsel]
explained this during & General Audience In 1975, when he said.
“ifferng from ather Councils, this one was not direcly dogmatic but
doctrinal and pastoral ** In 1988, during an address to the Chilean
githops, the future Pope Benedict XVI, s Cardinal Ratnnger,
complained that Vatican Il was being treated as & “super-dogma” and
admitted that, In reality, it defined no dogmas at all, and instead
semainied on the modest level, a3 & “merely pasioral (sen-dopmatie]
council ” He said
“The Sccond Vatican Council has net een treated sa a part o
the entire Tiving Fradwion of the Church, bt & a0 end of Tradstion,
new stant from zero The truth s Ut s parucular Council
a
medest level, w3 8 mersly sastoral council, and yet many Treat 1 a8
though 1t had made itsclf 1nio a sont of super-dogms which takes
ay the imporance of all he rest ™
in an acticle tilled The Linnts of infatliwhity, published in The Tobet In
1967, Bishop Butler from England said “Not all teachings emanating
from pape of an Ecumenical Council are infaliible There 15 no single
propositlon of Vatican 1] - except where it i clting previous infallible
deinitiona - which fs in Itsell Inlallible "1 One year later ko an article
thled Responsibuhty and Freedom published in the same periodical, the
bishop again affirmed hat Vatican Il defined no dogmas He wrote
“[Clouncils normally define doctrines and promigate laws The
Girst of thems all the first Council of Nicea did both theae things [t
defined tha the Son ef God s of one substance with His Father, and
W 1ssued practical instructions which are (oday regurded as the fint
clements of Canion Law () "
defimtions, and on the whole it preferred te loave legulation te
offier organs of the Church “12

+ Hoemar, Councit end Clergy, QLoewimn. G. Chapman, 1%66). p.7

Pl VI *Weekly Generat Audierce " Augostb, 1975
+ Candinat Ralzinger, Ankdrese bo Chilesn Sishops, July 13, 1990
e Tablet November 25, 1967 val 21, Na 653,&
MqM)RhllMNLIfl.N‘.W,p?

43
True oc Falac Pope” Qupyy I

tplied, but what 4 of gy iy

The quotations could be mulrao nary gathering
Vabian [l although it was an ext rdi
Wabape it the Pope, i ot defie,11 didand notdd meet
1t ni en g*
s gy”
the con el
doctThis rmmea es that Vatcan
ns .
conciluar infaliuhty 3 Because nfallibality was not engage d g oyg,
Council, # follows that erors in tts formulations was ,-m.»k""" "-
as Sed eva can tst s clai m. . 10d1 g
~impossi ble, ”
Tt s ako crucul to note that even if an ecumenicat
define doctrnes (which was always the case untlh theVae, 1
does not cover the entire document in whic
“ih“
is contamed, but only the speaific defimiion contained ther ls
aricie oo malliblity wntten for the 1913 Catholc Encyclpe 3¢
*the believer hl
Toner explains that before givang the assent of Farth1 , defi
SHON
Rght ko be certain that the teaching 1n QUEadd nfoe (s w,
defioire teaching 1 mfallible),” and then s y
“1t newd only be added here that pot everything in s corgihur g
!
i For cxample, in the lenginy Sl
of Fue IX defining the Immaculaie Conccption thesty
ad the sarme 15 troc 1n mkny Cases n regand 1o concilar decwisns.
The merely argumentative and justificatory statemcnts embodind
defimsrve Judgments, hewever truc and authorrtative they may be,
are a0t covered by the guaramiee of mfallibiity which aisches¥
she anctlv definiive sentences — unless, indeed, ther infatlibilty
42¢ boon pecviously or subscqueatly esteblished by an independent
ocren ™t
Msgr Van Noort also teaches that in the dogmaii decrees mwhc
docnnes are defined. it 1 only the definions themselves b o
by the Church's mfallitabty For thus reason,
Prosected the definben
alone require the sesent of faith (as opposed to a lesser degree of ssmnt
0 will be explacned
later)
“Fimally, ploase noic the term defnitions In the very dopess
dacrucs 1ssved by councila and popes 1t often happene that e

Tonay, ok 1 & dad et engagr thr Ouurel's indsllibliiy, but merely e vt .

~-lfly'~v-mn..—.an.mmmmv-‘:m
St toretus achurg of b Ordioary and Univarsal Magnerss&
frrsrey solaiibilay arld was neves angaged diring Vasican I
Lnoyiopati (1913} ved VI,p 000 {emphanis adod)
4
 Vet 1 and Conclar Infetinhty Chapuerss

are meniencd which arE by 30 e et to be

ot of faith 3 exacted for such mosem"t5 defoet No
n the followng cisetion, Fr Berry quotes St Bellarmine
atnot everything,contained i a council s covered by ml.u.!t;.;m“‘

defintns. becausc thev are 0ot wntnded s mich. “Netihes

ducussions wnncl:‘ lwt: 2 dograisc ductee, net the m.“",.'
alleged 1o prove aod explain i, are to be accepied
ve wialh
nothing but the sctual
ot decrees are of fas, Dy e
«
Thare is 0 specific formula required for an infallible teaching.
What 15 tequired, however, & that “the infaliible definion be 5o
wended as to indicate clearly its definitve character,” which, of
course, requires the express mienbon of the Church W de se - an
wlention that was not only lackang at Vatican II, but speciicaly
“aveided,” according to Paul VI umself
After further explaining that only the definitions conmined within a
conciliar document are covered by the Church's ifallibity, Van Noort
then notes that it & necessary that the mienben of grving a definitive
decision 18 made sufficiently clear If the inken Vo define
tion 1 net
sufficiently clear, he explaina, no one u required o pve the ament of
fith
“{The Church’s rulers are mfallible net m any wd every
cxercise of their (eaching power: but galy
whee,
uenk il the
fullnces of their authonty, they claarly wind 0 bid svarvan:
Jamcibing wn makers pertainmg % the Chrwtwa rehgwn. Thst &
why all theologiess dieungush 1w the dosmane decrecs of e
SUnGTjg oF of the papes between those things set farth therwin by
way of definiuen and those used sumply vy way of ilivstrationo
argumentaion. For (e wniention of bidug all affects caly he
sefinilion and not the hustorrcal cbecrvalions. reasems for the
and so n,
defiattio forth
»

—_— .
2 The Sourcm o Revelatn pp. 21222
» Sellarmine, De Coucirm, T
_:Dw-4o-m,m (emphasis sddad).

415
Traeor False Pope’ ? —~ Chap

v (hc asical of fgh, # doubtful law 56 50 law w att “efitong,

As we have seen, within conahar documents ml-lhhu.y .
engaged whan the bushops, using thetr supreme authoryy,
m\dmdefimamurmhlmd w the revealed Deposyt "Mh‘
aloo seen that Vabcan Il ntentionally evoeded defirung any d e
What thes clearly shows is thal, contrary to what Messrs Daly
Domond confidently procia, Vatcan I 4 nof et the condiegs
conckae nfallibdity
*“Monolllhic Infallibility”

The erroneous amertion that Vatican |1 met the conditiony

concthar infallibility 1s a manifextation of a fundamental error Auike
comunon amongst Sedevacantist apologists who, like their Novus Orgy
counterparts, extend anfallbilty beyond the boundanes estabished iy
the Church. Thie is called the error of excess, and it fads lo
comprehend the nature and scope of infallibality, a5 well as e
racessary condibons that must be present for it to be engaged
The chanem of mfallibility does not reside w the mund of the
mem Magisteriumsas & perman
of theber is dependent
habat, but ent
s excrome upon an exiernal help The chansm of wfallibty
habekiat enly in the sense that it wall remain with the Church fwever
Tt 1t 15 only actually engaged when the Church mee neorssary
the ts
conditions. If each and every one of the conditions are nat n pixce.
the chansm rewiatne tn a state of polenicy
Since the guarantee of infallibility is limited to those reveed
\eutbe defiratuoely proposed for belief by the Church,2 1t 1 wilhn the
realm of possctlity that a Pope or council could err when not teaching
dcfinrierely In such a case, the principle enunciated by St Thorw
app qued
ise est nen csse, yuandogue non est - which can be
pesaiinics.
Joosely tranalated as “that which is not impossible, will somekms
be"2 Armaldo da Sulvetra applied thia metaphysical principle le It
Maching of a councal specfically After noting that a Pope can e b
dom net meet the conditions for infallibility set down by the Fik
Vatcan Counctl, he wrote:

—_—
= Ot s G, 104 (rmphusta sdded)
:'fi&-fimr:”n
erery-‘M
M_M apecs o inda iy wil e dacxissed 1 Ltew chapters. ’
uum,—a,uup-duyhmw"

e
-
 Chuperrs
Valoan It and Concriar njaltvirty
[Tihe same thng must be samd n relaon
daw?rm):: which do et (il the same condmene T::'
cwm:lmmnwu«rwmw,ym'm:
fall w0 eors Such a cenchusion folkews from e
cxisung between the pontifical nfallibility and that of she Church,
e by the First Vatican Council “
The Branlan scholar Liwer comed the term “Menolithic
Infallizility” to descrbe the error of those on the Right and the Lefy
who extend infalllbity beyond it proper limite In response te tns
ervor of excess, he wrote:
“the notien afa raenalithic infallieliy inepies mes af the
scde vocaniists3 well 26 tha we-concilur mpporicrs whe ssech
dogmats authority 10 Vatican 11 This noton 18 alsa t the roet of
the doubis, perplexitics and troubles tha terment many fasthful
minds "%
He went on to explain
what he means by the notion
ef infallibility
a monolithic
Mhat possc ases character
“To absolutely deny the possibiliy of error of cven hercsy m s
pepal ot conciliar document oot guarantesd by mfallibiiny is te
wssign 10 1t a menolithic character, which 1 #et what Our Led
wnionded ané did whan He ssisbimhed o ™%
Then, describing the Sedevacantt argument W a e, he wrote:
"Some clam that, although pol alwrys puarantced by
whallibibity, a papal or conciliar docwnal prenouncement canoot
‘comtain errees. This pesstion s betiec sotcd 28 follews T say thst
2 eaching 18 net infallible docs net mean th o may have an oo,
but merely that 1t 1 not formally gueratred by tha chacirss of
whallibibty However, even 1f net acsisiod by mfallibty, s
teaching stll has the sasistance of the Hloly Spnt, und. thereforc,
the prnciple stande that 11 caneet cootain emors” The correct
teaching, however, . complctely differest. MSusANCC
s
Sconused o the Church can be absalulc. cumunng the wuth of e
-
* Silvees,
"The Theslegical Hypeihesia of a Haretc Pupa.” al Nape //wore wadivenin
{etocg/ Quentione/ Webbources/ 8_612 AX-Enghsh pdk —y
Secira, "Manatithi: (nfallibility 4 Dilfarerces ameng Amt-progeeshis lune
W3 at g/ wew amaldeavievdmiiveisn.com; 2814/ 00/ meriae il By
o
417
 True or False Pope?

)i somd lopc1 bil1 ityIm, os ssco

"and menolithre notion of nfalli whacl
y of an mia lli bie fal tib le * { 1® Would e gy
::": :m
Fr
The Dowunican the same
referred 1otte
Labourde 0, why
. unforsun common today
all to aiel y,
“Many parsos have reuned very TAIVe wdeas hout what ey
Save kearned comceming the personal mfallibility of the
osff the solcrmet and abnormal exercise of bis pows g
For somu. every word of the supreme. portiff wil 1t seme
way parke of the value of an snfallible teaching, requng
shmsivec sesont af thowtegical faith ™7
Sedevacantt bishop, Don Sanborn, like mos] Sedevacaniuy,»
guilty of axcriving “morolithue infallibilty” to the Magsienuy
Without makung any of the necessary dlstinctions, Bishop Suriy
twaches tus flock thal the Magsterium “ls infallible, and is therfue
necrssarly wraditional " He goeson 1o say
“Ta deviate from Tradition 15 to be In ecror The very notion of
wfallinlty icludes that the doctrme which they teach is m
conformty with Tradstion How eould 1t be Infallible f it devatos
from Tradstn” If thex dacwne deviates from Tradiion, there
"t ane thing te say- shey are nof she autherity, since they naniTak
hat they are et ewimed by Christ in the promulgation of
docirme.¥

Here 1 Sartbor's error- He effectively says “the Magisterium (.

the hwerarchy) w Infallible, and therefore It teachings confore¥
adihon.” What he should have said s thal “the ordinary Magsicrus
» wiallble when I conforme 1o tradition.” When members o e
hierarchy teach i sccord with tradition, they are infallible » Whea ey

-
2 ond emples adied)
= P o Gouc? pp . -
Sasbern, “Renponde 6 Bahop Wilkiamoon on the Subject of the Vecancy of e 20
oy e rovtarde ey scaropenas wllaasn et
2 Bnd femphanis
i original)
* Hare we are o ,‘mmufl""“
e
periom rm"""",‘.’."""".,._::':""“" s cmarsing (% ¥
418

]
 Crapterts
Vatican 1t and Conciler Infallbehty

te from Tradition,
they are nef infallible As
;',"',. why e First Vatican Council specified :‘:m_r:i;,:
adalibility, as opposed 1o saying infallibility was seme kand of
¢ hatnt fesding m the mnd of the membars of W
Magsterim, which 1 what Buhop Saniorn's eaching woald suggest
Futther, because Sanborn erroneously believes the members of the
Magssterium must, of necessity, alieys Woach in acrord with wadinon
{infallibly 30), ha correctly concludes thet any deviston frem
iraditioral teaching could not come from members of the e
Magisterum The root error of Bishop Sunborn s equaing suthenty
with mfallibiitty The consequent error (the error that follows) is
concluding that the visble Church ceased 1o be the teue Chisrch
sometime after the death of Puue XII Here we have another perfect
exampleof the axiom, “a small exror in principle results 1 a Ing errer
in concluson.” One wonders ¥ Buhop Sankom's theory (the
Magsskerium s “infailible” and therefore “teadinonal™) applies te Pope
Libenus, or Pope Hononus, or Pope Joha X1, all of whem
the charwm of infallibnlity, yet sach of whom deviated frew the Faith
{deviated from Teadition) 1t obvious thet their gift of infaliinlity
did
not make tham “necrssanly tradihonal” at all times, ss Sanborn
imagines As we have demonstrated, Popes are suly infallible when
they teach definitively Consequently, it is only when they define
doctrines that they are prevenied from departing frem Traditon.
Bishop Sanborn and other Sedevacantists accuse Cathatics with a
proper understanding of shese principles as having a Preteswnt spint,
sincewe are said to “uft” the Magtenum fo what is frue and falee
Sanborn says: “Catholics consequently need net snd may not st the
magisterium for error and heresy The very purposeof the Catholic
Church is 10 teach the human race mfallibly in lhe name of Chewt, wha
gives perpetual assistance [“monolzthic nfallibility!”] 0 the Church b
do thus precise thing." Someone needs to iform Buhop Sanborn of
the necessary conditions for mfallibility to be engsged
Tn a reply to Bishop Willamson (who has a cerrect wnderstandiog
of these principles), Sanborn mocks Williamson's Catholic appeal to
Trditon by saying: “Bishop Willamson'a system of sifting the
Tagstenum in order to determune its conformity to Tradikon
completely overturns the Catholic rule of faith, which 1 the magustmum
#f b Catholic Church. His system w essentsally that of the Frotestant.

-
Gosardinary Magiotertin, The infalbbiity of the OUM sl 49 daciamed n the ot
"L
a8
 Trwe o Falee Pope?
I

that each Indifvidual must decide for himself v}

mma»-&npmms“ Mt by
Puting asde the hypoctisy of the Sedevacantist big,
peivate fudgment and “stfung” goes well beyond deqy,, "o
Femwes e tradlbonal, to decding for humself who sapat *
ofices (true “Magistenum-sifting”), and who is and why s ,.0{
Pepe (*Pope-sifung’”), Bishop Sanborn tells s that we cannoq gy ™
St Paul commanded that we must do, namaly, hold fast to Tnm.h:h
Faul says. “Therefore, brethren. stand (ast, and hold the yprt
which you have leamned, whether by word, ar by our epistie™ (m:
214). These “traditors” 10 which Bishop Willimson and )
Cathales appesl are 1o les than the revesiod truths contaued g
Depomt of Fasth (recenved through both the wiitten and oral Wapg)g
proposed definitively by the Magisterium in the past
“The Counai
of Trent explained that it sets forth dogmanc
“pe that g, making
vse of the ruleof faith, with the assseq
Chuwt, may be able to recognize more casly the Catholic iryth in e
st of the darkness of s0 many emmors ™3 This 15 not a e
interpretation of Tradition, but an infellectual assent to wlate
Church herself has definstively {and therefore mfallibly) taught ome
the past 2,000 years, which all Catholics have the ability to do “wihe
sswwiance
of Chnst“ Hence, belief 15 based upan the authenty
of &
falliie Charch tascing, and ot on a privwte judgment mteryretimg,
wa
Prosestantmen.
Canon René Berthod, who was a dutinguished Profeser o
Theslogy and director at the Seminary at Econe
for several yom,
replied te the type of argumentation made by Bishop Sanbom and he
like-minded followers.

“Conformuty se Traditise s thuw the ulumate condition ef b

mfullibilty of the ordanary magisicrium This condition does nol st
somc have proicsied, subject the magisterium o a Protesant-like
froc persemal mquiry This 18 00t at all the case, for the Protesiast
firce caquiry sigmifics the exclusion of the Church’s tradition (s
what the Church has always believed and taught) It goes coneary
W the Catholic doctnne acconding to which the Bible is 1o b
wndersioed 1n the sanc way 1t has Seen throughout the centunes:
The cxaminaton of particular acts of the magisicnum (o et thef
ovaformety w Tradtion is a far cry from subjective
Julgmant. 1 iscs 2 gomsinely obpecive critenon ™
—_
2Bl o gl
*Pope
Yy e P 1V Coace.
’_"047’-.5— 13, Chap. § rnphasis sdded).

420
 yatiome 1 and Concel Infulibiry i
Winwelwil e l have more 10 say on this subject la
sote that ‘when a Pope or council teache
a necessary condition for ifallis eliw!tylhs'ulac
m mzn';'szw:e
e Church'a promuse of inf
allihty w not engaged. In
kng, and shersters
er8 o sible. To claim etherwioe 110 depart from wha mac
posr h a cage,
the G,
s her theologians teach, by adhering 10 e abeurd
nowon of an vy
allible fallible*
“Religious Assent” va. Assent of Farth
Cabw
areolic
subject tosall that tha Church tach
btes,
there are
lllmlwhdlwmwmhl)hmdmm
ceritude concernung the truthfulness of tha dectrine proposed (le,
proposed infallibly. o 1ot proposed infallibly), and b) the riefure of the
doctrine itself (i.e. revealed or not revealed)
The Assent of Faith

Truths that have been definthoely proposed by the Church pomess

the highest degree of obyective certitude - an infallivle cestitude which
admits of no doubt Accordingly, these truths must be assenied to with
the highest degree of assent, which is the assent of faith.
There are two different categories
of definable trutha that must be
aséented o by faith 1) revealed truth, and 2) trutha that are only
connected ta revelation The former are fermally revealed. The laticr are
referred to as bewng virtuatly rvesied. These two categones of truthaare,
of thewr nature, distinct, and consequently they are assenied with
different kinds of farth.
Formally rewcaled truths (those that are contaned i Scrpture e
Apostolic Tradion) which have been defimrioely prepesed by the
Church must be believed with drvine and Catholic Fisth ™ The reyecion.
of such a teaching is heresy In the first degree
Trutha that are only vrrtually revesicd (1 ¢ . iheolegical canclusions)
and which have been defimiitely proposed (de fide eccleseshes defimiie) by
the Church are to be assented 1o with ecclessestial finst ¥ The rejecten
of such a teachung 15 a mortal sin, but not heresy n tha fiest degree. ©
_
™ “Divine aod Caielic Falth™ o failh in God revealing snd the (Nalible
g, f—
% ctenastical it a s s the indalibe Churchaewachen
’ o “kcuths. o b briacved net with necemag.tybutof decaw
e 8 Godfouhvt
bt B
desiautical faith,” Situs Carechire smplasre shat *% skt sheavs be & e o8 2
Tt oty vice of rachrmas {seinm tom o) T o sler A 00
°m
 True or Faee Pope? '
Chapryy
Keligious Assent
A thurd, lower leval of assent, is owed 10 those docy
have been abentidly_propmcd by the Maguenum, g%
defwutvely, and therefore, not wifaliibly propescd These Weluge
evesod rut hat have not been defined by the Chuch 1 .}
Gogrns), ¥ oty eesied doctrnes that have ot ben d
) decinnes that are not contained in the revealed Deposit all gy
formally o¢ virtually), but which are more or less connectey e
futh®
mflu!flmfimmmfl\ufluwh“-
been proposed infallibly, error remains a possibility c"'““l“flyn
Jower level of assent u owed to these teaclungs '"'Elmfldem,‘
mwuhkflrdm«olommu
concermung the teuthfulness of the doctrine taught. This lower e
et 1 known as “religious assent” or "religious observance*e
importance of Wus lasser leve of assent wall become clear by she endy
Vus chapter
Magr Van Noort provides us with & definition of the terms repwy
anent, and aubenboally proposed. Regarding religious assen, e
expluns:
“Relipous sescnt means an mtcllecnual asscnt given ot of
rehipous mewve, 1.c., out of a mative of obcdience 1 the religieus
auchority eseblished (whether diroctly o indiructly) by Jess
Chrna™®
Notice shat the momve of religious assen! 13 one of obedience,
ot d
hith. Fath i a theological virtue and the assent of fath 1 abeslue
Obedwece 1 & moral virtue, and like all moral virtues consisis of 8¢
iona] mesr; between the two extremes of excess and defect, that
betwemnfalee ohedience and disobedience@ “Religious asent” ¥
-
Soboitor” Swias Cortmabivi, De polere moterum shcologioaruen ot de ik 4 o
dagmcniss (Rowe: Gregarian . 1951, p. 50
‘%uwmmnw:o-mwwfl*:
St okl magesunion, ever and sberve i privascy mision, which s 1 b

ol ov,ibarvedo { s dhec
et s otket4 oprrvand
T2 Ohbrur oot o God, Wi e PR
)11 v, 3 sl et S
A 4 asiar 3 e vte the maan batween smsess and delcieney EXS T
el e rpuct. v of gy, Ik of sahr Grousmeturae, i 0 147
2
Vatican 1l end Concthr Infuliirty »

upen the e Curch defimtocly propeams,

mufi: of the Intellect and will that & pve o ey e
opimate ecclesiastical 3uthority teachung Thercire, o oy
not absolute and unconditional, since the doctnine taught . not
ey {indalliby) true Only the esient of et e urcomiomons oo
amolute because the doctrines that are beheved by faith are hose
ane which have been 1nfallily proposed, and therelore do nos sty
the possibilty of error. As Cardinal Pillot explained, *the command 1o
onive ity and without examnation of the matier n hand - can b
Tl binding only the authorlty concerned s nalie
Van Noort noted that “theolopcal truthe which the Church'a
Magistenum tesches merely authenhcally, mus be held with a g
wien and then he wenl on to explain what the Church meansvy
“rmerely suthentic proposal”
“A merely authenlic preposal An wuhensc tescher, je,
endowed with real authonity 1 the Church, means & teacher
poasessing the night xnd duty be tcach doctrmes en faith of menls %
sisch fashion thet the subjects are, for that very reasan, namely, that
It proceeds frorn such a persen ot group, beund te sccept it &
Van Noort then explains thal “those who pessess the fulnessof
this magisterial power [ie, Pope or councll] may exercme their
leaching office withoul vsing its full authonty, that m, without
intending to hand down 4 atrictly definitive judgmen {as, for example,
can very easily occur i encyclical letters of the popes) "® Thus, these
non-infallible proposals emanahng from the authentc Magisterium are
only ewed a religious assen! (again, due to 3 legitimate ecclosustical
suthonty leachung, but not the infallible Church proposing)
Fr Nicolas Jung elaborates on th pownt in hus clasnic book, Le
Magistére de L. Eghse (1935).
“Tius 15 why we ewe she ‘suthensc’ Magaserum 00t a biind
and unconditional asecot bet a prudent and condreens) csc Suce
0t everything taught by the Ordinary Magisterum w wfallibic, we
must sek what kisd of ssent we should prve (5 W vineus
ecisions The Chrstian is roquired (8 give the st af (ath to all
the doctrinal and moral wnkhs defined by the Church s Magutcrium.
-
Sheys it wham he sughl met, o in sulters Wherein he sught ast obey. b e e
religion (02, 2)" { | ST U4L4q thLa2 sd2
Wated abeve reparding
:lr’;f;-:mmxm
S et p 28
Trve or Falve Fope” l
Sy
1 20t requercd 10 EIvC e S3TC Assent [0 Leachung |
B overergn poaul that 18 oot umposed on n,,h::fl,':"&"""“y
Vody 45 # dogma of fauh In ths ca5c It suffices 1o pye 00
sl Tebgeos asscat which we gIve 10 legitimate eccley, _""
“This 15 not an abselute asscit, because such dacy
not wnfallibie, but only & prudential and conditional ass N, Since xe
of fuch and morals there 15 & presumpion 1 e
sacs mperveSach prdental asscnt docs nor chmae
poecby of subruting the doctnne 10 » further exammtn,
that secms required by the gravity of the question "« b
of the non-mfallible teachings contai
mfi:flow Plus XI1 stated “Most often ()fim.,.,,..,)"fl:‘,“,::
w be tught 1n the encychcals already belongs also 1o Cathoe
doctrne "4 In other words, some thinge (those *loss often” procnyy
in encyclicmayas nof be part of Catholic doctrine and thus subpe s,
emoc Msgr Joseph Chifford Fenton explana that the forthfy) 3y
required 1o submit to non tnfallible teachings only with "ineny
rettpions assent ” He then quotes from an article that was whtten by
Pegues and published in Revue Thomste in 1904 Pagues explarnb
the non-infallible teachings sre owed s certan degree of mental amen
(sme they come Irom a legiumate authority), but, due to the posaiby
ol exrer, they are not owed the assent
of faith
“the authenty of the encychicals i not at all the same m thatof
the selcma definrion, the one properly so-called The definiien
demands an mwent without reservation and makcs 4 formal actof
Joith obingatory The case of the encyclical’s suthonty is aet the
samc T suthorty (of the papal encyclicals) s undoubledly
o [on wely) an tiemal menwl assent 15 demanied
Uhimascly, hewever, this assent 15 not the same s the one
dermandad w the farmal act of farth Strvctly speaking. il 15 posie
Wiat this Weaching (propescd in the cncyclical letter) 15 subject
wre becasc God deed not guarantec it 36 He guaranices lhe
Wachimg formulatad by way of definition %

. After quoting Pegues, Msgr Fenton swent on to explams 4

iigyous asmers” is owed ko thase leaching of the Holy Father,widh
dee not guarantesd by his nfallibility
- T
Mondn g, Lo Mot de L Elo, 1935, p 153, 150 clied i lor o 0%
ome b Maguieron, S5ikoNe famoey 3005, Na. 4
2 Hrmens Coner (pungat 12, 1950) 7S -
*G Pagom, Ackde 0 ¥ Ravue Thowsats, Nevembor-Decerlbar 1904,

24
 Vato It and Comcthar Infelhitiy Cuprrts

“Despitc_the diverpent views sheut the axtanc

fllile pontifical tesching n the encyclical lnser g o
o on which all theologians are rmantfondy 1n agracracne ,:;
are all convinced that all Cathoareticsbeusd in cemscronce10
-kfm-w-mlwwwm-ankm
Faiher teachcs wiien be speaks o the unsversal Chorch of God o
carth witbout employing is God grven chans of wfaliduy *#
Fenton further makes a distinchon betwren acclessastical faith
(which 15 owed to theological conclusions definurvely proposed by the
Gurch), and other teachings of the Holy Father which lack the
defininve character neceszary for them to be protected by Infallibility,
and which, consequently, are only adhered 10 with relypous assent,
Wrote Fenton
1t is quitc probablc that some o the teachings set farth o0 the
suthonty of the vanous papel cocyclxals are infallible scmantsof
W Sovereign Ponull dema the asent
ndofwg the Sl
ecclesinstica (coclessastical faith) 1815 shostusely convem that 3] of
the teachings contained n these documents, and dependent upon
thelr authonty, ment at least o imemal hgiows assent fram all
Catholics "
In the aforementioned article by Bishop Butiet, “The Limie of
Infallibdity.” he touches on thus pownt. Alter saying not all offical
Ieaching, of course, 1s infallible nor are allteachings emanating from
aPape or an Ecumenical Counci infallible.” ha adds.
* However, ta sty that a prcce of afficul leaching. whether
of o
divwdual bishog. a aatienal centetance of bisbeps.an Ecusenical
Council, of & Pope, not prevably mfalliskc 15 mec be oy that t
destitute of all magetenal authonty As there w a virtucof
abedrerce by which we accept wih eur will what authonty
prescribes, 50 there 5 3 virtuc af dociliy which disposes us 10
2ccopt with our untellect what authonty teaches.™*
Now, the average Catholxc in the pew 16 1ot going 1@ knew which
seachi owed the asent of drwwnie and Cewwlic Faukk, whach are
arengs
awed cccleswestical fuith, and which merely requlre & reluguus assent So
there is little practical dufference when considered from the perspective
—
© Farken, "Tie Ductrival Authanty of Papel EncyAnmuas
cica Enasnarsl
ls” Sivem.
000 Auguat, 1949 pp u,.Z‘_."L'...«,
S pp 210220
The Tabit, Nover 1967, val 2t e W5% B4
25,nber
425
True o Palee Pope” I
i,
Catholic But these distinctions are
mf draw, precisely because of the difference Y ™14,
e yroposed and those taught without nvolnng. e Ty
ity These disinctions are also ymportant for us k"w“-m.
e, peesert criow, lest we fall Inlo the e1T0r of excesy 3og
2 the Sedevacantists do, that an error n 5 o™%
document conshtutesa violation of the Church's infallbuity P

“Religious Asscat” is not Unconditionat

As we've seen, only a rhgious assen! 13 owed to the
Jeachings of the Magsterua sunce such ieachings do not extugy
Pomsibily of emor Because our assent 10 Lhese teachungs i oy
apon the theological virtue of faith, but on the moral g o
obedience - which 15 the rational mean between excess and det - gy
“palipious assent” 15 not unconditienal Van Noort explarw

“Grantad the nced for submssion 10 the aurhenic Magian,

« sull remams wuc that gust as & merely authentic proposl by i
very aalure incemslcic and provisory, s, 100, 15 the relgious sen
due 13 1. Quite Frequently the decrees of thesc congregations de st
ook 10 the Wuthfulnes af a given doctrine but rather to s sevurny
Now the secunty of a docime, 1 ¢ , whether 1t 18 safe to adit acto
leach this or thal point, or whether religion would therey ruff
some jury depends somewhat on the circunwtances and, sbeve
all. on the present staic of the question somcthing which may
change with the addition of ncw evidencc or argutnentation "
The German Jesuit and malitant anti-Modernist, Chnstun Pack(i
1925, goes further by explaining that assent should prudent b
swepended when there are sufficuent motives for doubt. He o
M‘.:\Lllpflhh the non-infallible teachung of the Papal Magswst
-
) eac mum sssest be the decress of the Renmt
songroguions, s long a4 1t dows ot bacottic postvely wure 1K
perations,
they have arred. Suice the Congreg se, 4o not fumsh 8
aboslincly cortain argumewt i favor of a given doctrne, one may o
van must invesgate the reasons for that docwnne And thus, 6
% will comic 1o pass thal such a doctrine will be gradually #6< Pe,
W the whele Church, saaming m this way the condwet
ot wall happe tha the ervor 8 e by It dewced

T S of Koot p 273
 v Jateoe 1 amd Concalor I Infallintiy Copers

For, psee Uhe religiou Saient cefcimed (o s aed amed gy 5

Eww =ara

Mwwm
saclude al suimaion of ertur, Fae s tcaion as 1000 gy
anpsndsd m:flhtlfi\film(-mnmm‘h-‘-b“—
e, he uthonty of the Conpegatiens s suffcint s abhgs aee
to assent
w well 25 G decwan of so
B esiaetrcal superrors wio art e mialile -5 o
Claarly, Pesch does not agree with Buhep Sanbeen who
suthonty eih infallility Just becatae an authorly may be it
when certain conditions are satisfied, does not mean that the authority
srases
10 be an aulhority if he should errer when net meeting the
sequired conditions.
Franciscus Drekamp also does not agree with Bshop Sanbem,
since he teaches that the religious assent ewed to the nen-unfallible ac
of the Papal Magistenum permils of exceptions, which would not be
the case if evarythung Ihat came Irom a Pope was infallibly true-

“These won nfallible acts of the Magutarum of the Romen

Paaufl de et oblige one te belcve, and do not possiluc an
absolute and definitive subjection But 1t hcheoves
snc (e adbere
with 2 mligieus aad wicrmal sent 1o such decusions, smac they
constituic acts of the supreme Magisicours®® of the Church, and are
founded upon solsd natural and supematurat reasens. The obligatien
10 adhere 1o them can only begn o termunate case, and this wnly
eccurs very raely, (when] & man [whe ] fit ts yudge suck 2
queren,

-
* Paach, Prasieciuries Dugwasiase.. vol |, (Freibry; Hander & Harder 1096), pp. 314318
¥ As we address in Whe rend chagter Sedevacanists, s s Jotvs Daly, have argued.
wibeut caing any authernmem te back up the clam, thit the m “Supreme
Magiterium™ fan uevdefined term that Paut V1 used ta describe Vot W) i spothes
PAsme far the Ordinary and Undversat Magisboramn (OUM) They then claam that brosuse:
De Flug defined that she OUM is infaltible, whert Paul V1 refrered (@ Vakcan 1l 0 the
“Suprane Magisterium,” he mus have swan € wo i covered by the Chuchs
Wakihuity
fSee Daly’s *Did Vavcan I Tonsh infalibly ). The probicm is that tm oo has.
O Mgt that e Swpeame Magisieriom i anether name for the OUN. I fact. 22
Dkamp makes clr Une “Surprrrne Magiotran” s s, n . sk, whech sd
Wt the saane ae the OUM, Te be claae, just becaase & iaching s e “inialiie’
Pt Supgeet that it i evvemeeus, anty that errer 1 pussie
@7
 or Falee Pope?
True I
apy
_‘m\;_n_utgnm_m_m%

Merkelhach, one of the leading Dominican moraluts ';';"'-n

st bl of the fwentith century, teaches the same
Theoleguee Marsis, he wrote: Sirmg
e e Chachdos ok ech il b e
is no, s such, unreformable,f
4ocane preposcd
|'r‘;a ks, n & hypothesis which 1 however very it - -
very careful examination of the matter, i appears to
""““"‘Y""mmmwn‘“‘mh
docwene
progosed. 1L w
meralaaent (¥
We can see that the rrigwous assent due to non-infallible .
5ot unconditional If & “merely authentic” teaching of the e
Magieternum (Pope Francis, for exsmple) appears to directly contrad
a previous teaching of the perennial Papal Magisternum that vy
proposed with an equal or higher degree of certitude {such as o
teachings contained i any of the anti-Liberal encyclicals of Les XU,
the Syllabus of B! Pius 1X, Pascnds of St Pius X, Quas Prne a
Mertaltum Anmes of Plus X1, or even the moral teachings of he pat
concitiar Popes which are in accord wath Tradition) a legitrmaie rte
for withholding religious assent to the “authentic” teachmg wwld
oot Sumilarty, f an ambiguous proposal appeared to conrada
multiple clear propesals, withholding religious assent from b
ambiguous proposal (which appeared to contradict the cless propes)
weuld be enturely justsfied untl such time as the Church reconaled e
apparent contradiction.

;;flwmuumwmnm Parimis - Tormac Remet. 9

:MS«WWMB.MIM.FMI’H).'W‘ ‘
ol the pwifiabc
Anbidahap Laebere provides wo & great exarple
-—-u-m,.cv-—.-nu..:‘;.wynu.du_-—l«*;
S amanciT's tmchang 1 Drgibacs Humane
on rellguous Wiberty I lact,
n Ot
Lalebvre submustrd Ma famrss Dbia alwat Reliyinus Lierty %o the Secred Cont®
for the Duciie of the Fuith whech demmrsiratas that the couociy et
maepellis wilh e Church s perennial condernraners of rebgn B0 L
mvtrs heve & wopy of the Canpyregalion s 21-page urpublished roply (ed M
1D i Lakcrrvs dis agairet Vaicun [1s teaching on migow 1olL
8 ruply dawn mamnumsn
-n.mm-—m bile mave than repest uuam""‘“
the teachings of Dot"x 0L
Crgrrgatm st e pumalbily of further sy o the probem
Pt e duds irioure de cx probiime ")
LY
 Vot 1 and Concler Infolility Cpers

The samne epplies to « counct, should It lormlase

s way that they €ppear 1o contradict what was P'W*::;':rn::
e eauncil attempted 10 tecocrle the Cathalx: Farth wah e
Panapies of 1789 (condemned in the Syll of P an
1X st sean;
Fier paces) for exarmple, and f the attempted reconcihanon et
r

the councl teachung, doctines that i e prevsoy conderres

he Church, # ustificetion would exst for withholding regious sy
Wit this in mind, tet us recall what Carcinal Ratsinger sud shoes
Vancan I
“f 1t 13 desirable %8 offer 2 daguoss
of the lext [Govdrumo1
Spes) as 2 whole, we might asy that (m conjunctien with the lexis.
»a religious iberty and world creligions) W 1 2 revisien of the
Syllabus of Pius 1X, a kind ef countersyllabus { | Let s be
content 10 asy thet the Lext scrvas as 3 countarsyllabus and, as such,
represens, on the pan of the Church, s sempt & an efficul
reconclation with the new ¢ra insuguraiedin 1789 () the one
swdesdness of the position sdopied by the Church under Pius 1X and
Pius X 10 response 1o the situation creaiad by the new phssc af
Hustory insugurated by the [Masanic] French Resolutien wa, 16 &
large extent, correciod vur foutt especully in Centra! Europe, but
there was still 1o basic siatement of the reistensbip tat thecld
st berween the Church ad the wold tha haé come ke
exwten 1789 () Let s e contaut te say bere thal the lext
after ce
scrves a8 2 countersylishus and. as such, Tpresc 8 the
Ris part.of
the Church, an aticmpt ot an official recescilisins with e 1ew o3
inaggura 1739 "
10ted
Cardinal Felii, the Prefact of the Supreme Congregatian of the
Haly Office, edmtved the possbility of withhoking relipous ament
from the teachin of Vatican fsuch as
gs 1| which are novel m characler
those that seek to racancile the Church with the Masecuc Principles of
1789) Archbishop Lefebvre related the follawing In ha beok An Open
Letier tp Confused Catholtcs:
dogm
“A nen-pasers ceuncil ai cepc S
% mel ac,
mfallibility When, at the end of the seomots, we asked Cardinal
Felicr, “Can you niot give us whal the tesloguas call the
“theological note of the Couneil™” be rephod, We have W
disinguish scoording to the schemas and the chapiers those which
Have already becn the sbject of dogmati dcfiautions W the past. b
farhc daclarasions which have & aevel characiar, vo hans 10 mks
-
of Casuiic Thesbery. pp 1002
™ Ratriger, Proucipies
o
?_fi

Troe o Faloe Pope? Ty

* Vemcan 1 therefore
15 %0t & council ke oty
e why we bave the night 10 JUEE 1 With prugengy o4
weerve.”™* i -

mmanze, we hsve seen that there are at least g

T of the Magisterium u‘eh,,";m
e o the teachings tcal
vme foh, (@) ecclesas faith and, (3 uu" 0
Semcnt/observance. These three levels of assent correspond jq If'-
degree of cerhtude concerming the truthfulness of ihe d hod
and B} the nature of the doctrine taught (forma™
Fevialy reveal of not ed,
revealed) Trthat ut havehs
been dmper.
and therefore tafullibly proposed must be accepted by futh . m:"z
of dne and Cathobic Faith (formally revealed truthai, or cc
fatth (wetually revealed truths) Truths that hsve been taught by e
Magwierum authentically, but not infallibly, are only ewed g
awsent, which 15 based upon the motive of obedience, and theruaey
et uncendebonal.
Vatican 1l Owed Only Religious Assent
In Jeght of the above explanation
between the assent
of futh e w
wallible seachings, and the religious assent that is owed 30 nan-infliie
wactungs, let us consider another argument put forward by the
Sedevacantwis to defend their assertion thst Vatican 11 violuied the
Churdh's wiallislity in spite of the clear fact (admutted to by Pepe
Paul V1) that Vatican Il intentionally avoided defining any dogmass
condition required for conciliar nfallibility), Sedevacantists will arpe
that the documents of Vatican 1l should hsve nevertheles b
covered by the Church'a infalliility 1t toto They advance tar
argument by powting 1o the “solemn” wording used by Paul Vi wbet
he rainfiad the dacuments (as if his closing statements could nulldysoy
o the necessary condison of infallibility decreed by tha Furst Vati

® Avbishap Marce Letebvre, An Open Letier dv Confusal Crhains, (Hersiwhber

mr-—wmuu_un;mmu; 117 (alae poblished by Arpe
r' Vetwan § and Conctar Infallbity
1 s

rcil) In the followmg citanon, John Duly uses

g:‘“y‘:um.ponnmmmmm e vy s
“Morover, anyene who carcs eenmult the 1965 vehme
e o Apostolcar Seds o we 3 e o o "
promulgated the gravely errone religieu sus
Hharty tex
mmxmnmbamsmmnummn::nrz
required f he had boen 3 wue pope promulgetng seusd and
obligatory truth Here 15 n extract* we ender and commend that
all that the Council has decided 1 synod be sacradly and religicuty
2ekd by all of Chists futhful unio the gler of Ged
y Ty
Sungs we edict and prescribe, decrecing that s present ekcr s
ever e and rema firm, vald and efficacieos and obam aed resm
s full and integral effects Grven at Rome wer the fisherman's
nog Imdoed there could be no doubling the ebligaiary checacter
of doctrine 0 put ferth, f saly it kad been put forth by 3 Cathohe:
wrd kad ot been manufestly falee and heretical *
Whal John Daly clearly doesn') realize s that by enly requiring that
the teaching be “sacredly and religsously held,” Paul V1 is further
confimung that Vatcan 11 defined no doctrmes, since infallible
propositions would requite the assent of futh, and not mere “religious”
obeervance The solemnuty with which Paul VI chose fo "dress up” the
documents with hus closing statements does not change this fact, and
certalnly does not change the requirements for infallibulity set forth by
the First Vatican Council Because joha Daly’s mesve, hewever, u
prove that Paul V1 wasn'l a true Pope, he perverts Vatscan I's definiton
of infallibality to include non-defirive pasteral propomtions, be defend
Fus Sedevacantisi thesis. Thus only shows how weak us case actually s
Peter Dimond makes the same estor He wrote:

“In bus brief declanng the council clesed, Paul V1 agan

inveked his ‘apostolic authonty’ and scknowlcdged that all the
consttutions, decrves amd docikrstions of Vatican 1l kane been
approved and promulgate d He Furthor smsed that all of it
by hum.
st be: ‘relipiously ahacrved by all the fankful't™
Dimond then goes on o quote Pau! VI saying:

-
™ Daly, “Did Vancon 1 Tonch Inialkibly?,” Sccmnd Reved Gdmen, 14 b/ /3w
avrusscdewaich oy vetcam{-in
e isili
(eruphasisbke
aded)
. mr::lmv\un-upu,—-nmuxwwv-‘-'

31
Treorle Fore? O
“At oot oll winch regands the Boly ecumenscal coung g,
s help of God. been sccomslished and it the cop,, "8
docrocs. declantions and vOIES RaVE bett apmroypy iliggg,

ecvded
oonand promulgaibycde Themel, %
of teerssynod
welibe
10 close for all mien and purpo
isses with gy ¥
‘uthonty. s same ccume nical counci l called by our grogre
Pope Jobm XAIII which opencd October 11,1942, m’t::‘:*
contmu by used
afict s death We decided moreov thay er
go
Jas been esiablishod synodally 1s to be gly »,“'
tac uhfl, for the ghory of God and e dignity of the Chupgy !
fou the amquillity and posce of all men ™! -
Dimond concludes
by saying;:
“Thcre you have 1t The apostate Sccond Vatican Counil sy
e “rebgiousty sbeerved,” if you accept Paul VI Thecanre i
v
tho] 965 1F Paul Vi ways
pope. Jema Christ 3 promuses 10 His Church farled. If Paul Vi vy
thac pope all of Vaucan I1's teaching om faith or moakwu
promulgated infallibly (ex cathedra) But this 1s impossible - mi
ayene who would say thal it 15 poasible docsn’t believe i Caihale
Wacking on thc wdclactibibity of the Catholic Church Thas we
Jonow thal Grovanni Montini (Paul V1) was nod 3 teue successerof
Peter bt an invald antipope "%

Here we have a perfect example of the error of excess and vir

selfappomied Sedevacantst apologists ke John Daly and
Dunond have no business publicly writing about these matiers.fe
engaged 10 real scholarship, they would quickly learn the diskcwe
between “religious observance” and the “assenl of faith nd b
difference between non-infallible and wiakik
toachings. Even & mumple layman can understand the words o PalL
whe said that Vatican 11 "svoided issung solemn dogmatic defiben
backed b the Church s snfallibie teachung authority “** Nowhere e
Paul V1 declare thal the concilar documents musl be accepted wib¥
asient of fah, because none of the novel teachings of Vabean 1149
ly proposed
as revealed truths,
they were mercly Pl
\eachungs frem the *suthentic” Magslerium.
-_
e
Sy a2
¥T
Pad V1, Comars
Corurnt Asdirar, Dossrie 1, 1908 pablishod in £ et4

432
 Y
Vetan It s Conila Tnfelinty
We can smagine how such selfasured. praciamatora
Liesof Daly and Dmond conld influ those who e
erce e
qmple solutions to explain the profound mysiery of the Passuon of the
el Body of Chnat. but i reshty thn “scluion” doss o such
N e imply an etror s conlusen besed upo s error m i
KRS g o Farh, the focal Wshops would have quicly desl wah
o onduls such a5 Dimond and Daly In us age of aposaey hewever,
e are allowed o spread thesr errors throughout the workd vis the
et thereby causing untold confumon 1n the (athful who are
already far too confused
f we conslder this from another perspective, we can see God's
pand present at Vatican [ He was not present m the serwe of
pevening ambrguites ard error i the concilar documens, bt by
g the Modernets from engaging the hirioof wéallity and
violating one of His promiscs. God may have permutted 2 high
yegree of termible and distsewing” things at Vatican I, 1o use the
s of Fr O'Rely, but he did not permit a violation of the Church's
nfalibility - something that would indeed have been "impossible*
na
e
~mAm
 Chapter 14

~ Vatican Il and the Ordinary

and Universal Magisterium ~

In the previous chapter, we saw that the Second Vasean Councit

dsd ot meet the cenditons for concilar wfallblity, suce 1t expressly
awouded defirung any doctrnes. As Cardial Ratznger sasd, the
Council “chose 10 remain on the modest level of 4 merely pastoral
council ~ We also consudered the different levels of acsent that ate
owed to mfallible and nor-Infalble teachung respectively, and saw that
son-unfallible teachings do not require the auent of fut, but only 8
religious assent, which is not uncondibional We saw thet Paul VI humaelt
ot only admitied thet Vatican Il defioed o doctrnes (and therefore
&d not engage infallibshity), but expressly taught, at the clawe of the
council, thet the beaclungs were only te be adhered 1o with a “religious
steervance,” which is the level of assent owed to mem-infelibe
teachings of the “authentic Magisterum.* In this chapier, we will
address the infallibility of the Ordinary and Uruversal Magisterium,
and 1n 5o doing refuse another error used by Sedevacanists to defend
their thesss.

The Novel Theory of John Daly

In light of the clear evidence that Vatican II did not meet the
aditions for concihar infallibihty, the Sedevacantist apologss, John
Daly, came up with a new theory n an atiempt 1o demonstrabe
that
Vatican I still violated the Church's nfallibty, even though it dud not
define any doctrines. This novel theory w another attempt ¥ “prove”
that Paul VI, who ratified the documents, could not have been a true
Pope While Mr Daly acknowledges thet Paul VI fumwelf admutied that
Vacan Il explicitly “avosded proclaming i an extraordwary manner
0y dogma carrying tha mark of anfalliality,” he nevertheless clauns
that Vatican Il met the conditwns for wfallibihty i another way He
claums thet because Vatican Il was a gathening of the buhope of the
world along with the Pope, its teachings conshiute an act of the
Ordirary Untversal Magisterum Now, since the First Vancan Courall
w infallibie,
(1870) taught thet the Ordwnary and Uruversal Maguwieniu
Mr Daly assests thet the teachings contained an the documents of
Vatcan Il should have been covered entirely by the Churcha

435
' | Troe o Fake Pope? e I
‘ Accordingly, he concludes that If the docu,
e o 1 it Paut VT could mae e et Vokon
Pepe, snce the bisheps throughout the world, when ung ':n
Pepe, teach infallibly .
Now, from what are have already seen, it should be eviden,
there @ 8 flaw somewhere i Mr Daly ¢ reasoning Afier g ¥
I counart of the Church consists of the bishops of the yer
iy ot the Pope, vet even In the councils in whuch dogm
nfallibly defined. enly the definifions themselves are prosecie ,y:
Church's méallibikty, which, interestingly, even some Sedevacuyg
scknowledge How, then, can Mr- Daly claim that cverything in Vgyen
1 should have been covered by Churcha inallibiry, when, i
unhbe the other general councils, Vatican I1 issued no defimtuns 5 a
The fct that Me Daly has been apreading this errof for years, and
bsnumbkmmwmdenlpmflemwlmhnmmm;-nu’
quite tellmgw and of atself
Sefoce exploring the errors in Mr Daly's novel theory we vy
atfow ham to explain hus position in his own words Notice how Dulyy
presentation is another case of petitis principn (begging the guestion)
that w, VabicanIl met the conditions fer infalhibrlity because be saysse
“Mast rsd:momal Catholscs know that Vatican [1 taught haroess
wad her wrrecs They rightly refise (0 scoept this falsc teackung.
Mot when asked how 1 can be nght to reject the tesching af4
Genera! Council of the Catbolic Church, they reply thet Vatean I
was 8 spocaal kind of council, it was mon-dogmaandtic sen-
\afalle As such it could e, and did e, and Catholics may roeed
s arrecs withow doubting the legitimacy of the authonty thu
promuigated thesc crrers.{ )
Thi populsr explanawnr rides rough-shod over Caibelic
docwne and plain reslity The truth is that Vatiean It so plawly
fulil the comditiens requred for imfallibilty thet not even Pacl Vt
var dared 0 deny tlus. Hence, 1f i teaching conhne capepoe
7005 apavt the Rk, thus fact niccessanly calls inte quesken the
Popal et of Paul V1 tumeclf.
Te shew thet thes 15 se. let us lesk mere closely at the ways W
which the Church infalhily teaches divine truth le her childrer
Here 1w what the 1870 Vatican Council taught
“All those things are Le be lclicved with divinc and Cawix
Dok which are couned 1 the Word of God, written or
$own. md are preposed by the Church cither by 1 solemn yodgTn!
o by Mac ordioary and wnversal magisierium 10 be belicved ®

©e
r Vatcan 1 nd the Ordirary Magsteruum Cuprc 14

jivincly revealed* (Degmatic censtitunien

omearomg Farth™) Det Pl choper 3,
It 15 quite_exwaanimacy how many tsditonal
ncluding some Sedevacantists, have catiely forganien .‘Sm
o means which the Chuech uses 0 teach s It w vacy eften
asserted that only the sokmn defintiene of popes sed councri
eblige under pain af heresy and arc protected by infailinlny Yeu
here we sce Just such 2 selemn definten sacing hat Cathatio have
an wentica) obligalion t beleve the Church's teachungs (under pun
af heresy) mespactrve af whether dh teac himg
1 cormmmicate d by
*solemn yudgments of by the ‘arbnary and universal megiesrem.”
Beth
are equalty mfallible."t
There are two fundame
errors
nial in Mr Daly’s theary 1) an
(ocomplete understanding of the Ordinary and Unsversal Ma giterium
(“OUM"). and 2) a fatlure 1o realize that, just as there are conditionsfor
Fapal Inallibrhity and Conciliar tafalliality, so too are there condtions
foe 2 doctrine to be proposed miallibly by virtue of the OUM
Regardless of which organ of infallibahty is doing the teaching (Pope,
council, OUM), what 15 taught, and fews Il 18 being taught, must meet
certun conditions for the Church's promume of mfaflibility to be
gusranteed
Conditiona for Infallibality ef the QUM

According 10 Vatican I's Dogmatic Constitution Der Fius {the

docament upon which M Daly bases hie theory) a keaching s
infallible by virtue of the OUM only when 1t 1s 1) & drvinely reveuled
wuth, and, 2) definutoely propesed a4 such by the Church. Der Fiies
ales.

Al these thmgs are 1o be beicvad wih divise and Catholic

fuuth which are contamned 1 the Word of God, wnen [Scnpiuee] st
handed down [Tradition]. and wre proposcd by the Church eiher By
selemn judgment g by et ardunary s usiversil IALWCTU ¥
-

* Daly *Did Vatican K Tassh indaibly?,” Sraamd Revescd Eaiom, 2014 s/ /e

. aich weg/ vatican-i-iadallivle haey. .
Doprunc Consiitution Dom Fibwe, shunptar 3. “Concernang Fasth
07
 True o Faoe Fope” |
Sapy
Divinely Revealed Truths
condition for tfallibiity of the OUM
J .fi'u:r the truth to be believed must be 'dn(,mi;v";b
truths are those contamed i erther Scripture or Tradey :
Deposit of Fatth). wrrespective of whether they are later defineg L‘h
“solemn udgment” (Extraotdinary Magistenum) or propogey by !
Church's “ondunary and uruversal magisterum * Only rggyy M"'
which have been defintively proposed a3 such by the Chygy
Seleved wih the et of Divine and Catholic Fah (whichu ey
of asvent specified m De Filtiss)
New, e revesle deposit was closed with e deak of e
Apostle a Cardinal Journet explans:
“The carn-sndmiary light bestowsd en the Apaetics a5 founduns
of the Chorch caabled thern te cmbrace, i the simplicitofy5
wasque glance snd m an eminent manner, the whole revelution of
the New Law Wlnlkyhlvthlndcddownlnul,lheuplmly
revesked depestt, contams, cither exphicitly or implicatly, ol the
wuthe af the Chrstia
fanth
n Hencweefor
are not 1o th
expact any
further revelauom of the SpInt imaugurating somic new age of e
world. e axy soet of advasce on Chastisity The New Tesael,
the reveaied deposit as It has come 10 us from the Apalcs onlly
(Tradiuon) er 1n writing (Senpture), i final 1t will be valid tl the
and of the worid The Church herself haa no autha 10nity
medify &
Hor sustion 15 ssmply b0 kocp it intact 'O Timothy keep that whih
s sommined te thy wuet, avouling the profanc novelkes of
werds "3

The noveltes
of Vatican Il are not part of the revesled Depost&
Mr Daly would 1o doubt concede,
nor were they proposed
ss
dunng the Council, Because none of the errors or novelties Mr Diy
Glyects
10 11 Vatican |1 are revealad truths, they are not included
as it
86 the shyect of miallibulity of the Ordinary and Universal Mapwiens.
Thus i the fiet erroe w0 Mr Daly's
The First Vatican Council taught that the Holy Ghost was¢
promisad 15 the Pope 50 that he could reveal new (novel) docirioes
only 5o he could protect what had been handed down
o hum 5%t
Apwsialic Tradiuan,

—_—
Tt Courde o e o et. 399
 r Vatsoan Ord
1 and the Ordinary Magisterium Chapier 14

“The Holy Spint has mcver prouused the suscesses

which munlwmnawm.n_.;‘,;"
that, with the axststance of the Haty Spent, they sheuld peoserve: :
futhfully sct forth the holy depesd af Futh. s u te sy, s
T

Definitively Propesed
mN.

The second condition for the infallituity of the OUM w thet the
dwinely revealed truth be defimtively propesed as wich by the Church.¢
This same condikion exisw for an wnfallible mm:ya a r‘“:':,
e

council As we will see 1n & moment, the differer u the way snce
which
ihis condition s salisfied by the OUM
When a Pope or council definesa doctrine 1 is clearly propesed
ihe Church as being an article of faith, Ths removes ..?yy doubt en .".l
part of the fmthful regarding whether the doctrine is an article of Faith.
Soch clanty, however, is lacking with the teachings of the OUM The
principal way 1n which doctrines are known to belong to the Faih, by
virtue of the OUM, 1 by thar confornuty te Tradihen, thet s, by the
unarumous consent of the Fathers, the agreement of the Scholasiic
theclogians, and the constant behef of the fmthful. The coninuous
elief of these witnesses confirms the revesid nature of the doctrine,
while the unanimous belief over the centunes provides the defimirve
suracer neceswary for them 10 be Wmught infallibly
In hw lengthy explanation of the OUM, F¢ Adolph Tanquery
Included these “wibesses™ as an integral part of the OUM He wrote-
“The ordimary and umiverssl magwierm s that which s
camed on daily through he contiuveus preachng of the Church
among all peoples.
It mcludes
1 The proaching and prociemetions of the Corparsic Body of
ishops,

e alom ok that the Chsch can ey define, w0 an objctof divias and Cotholc Sl
€ “wuterial dogma.” Material dogmes arc Wulhe contained wilhis the sarcm o
Tevelaison (Scripture ar Traditben), and therefere defuubie, but which huve rut yet beew
Shacty ard definitively proposed by the Church 1t 18 el recommary fur ¢ material dogmt
Ve uve been aught explicify fram the e of e Apevacs o e definrd i & Laes dic by
e Church, bt it must have bren beliewed al leas il cvan U scmrmhit
Shcurely If the exphicit bure enly Iecsme radend vee tone, the st Raching
Would Huve te be i pertect contiity with what the Charch hod abweys explicky
Welheved m.mflmumflu-m-n“n—dbfl“
hoch s a degania i the tre scnoe of the s, as Geboed by i Filie 1) o
210
h te dently propesad 0 sush by the Crurck.
42
True or False Pope” Q'"P"'u I

2 Uncversel comtem or practioe aesocimied with dogr,

3 The comenmes or sgrEmenl of the Fathen og o
Theologians,
& The commos or gwocral understa fauifng
of thend y) -5
Canen Berthod explauns that conformuty to Tradition 4
for the infalliwlity of the Ordirury and Uruversal Magisterign, o
~Ordmacy st of e Magisterium alsa teccivad the
am—mmwfiummmuum..“m
stk Unbike the scts of the solemn Magistenum, though, Uydo
2ot have Whe same defaitive char1or ac they r,
do te cary e
anwhcrnms by which recusants arc formally excuded from g
Cathols Fath. But for thert 10 be considered as belonging ta g
Church's teaching. 10 which the divine promise [of mfulibiley] g
stached. they cannot be tahen separately, but must he cononm
with the body af the Church's tcaching they are infulile ony
meofar s they it 110 the gonstant teaching only ineofar a they
reflect or ccho the permanent teaching and unchanging Faith of e
Church. In short, they are only 1nfallible insofar as they agree wik
Two condntons, then, are requircd 1) e
Jonching must he proposed % a revealed truth, 2) @ st be m
acoecd with e umiversality of Catholic Tradinion "4
The definstive character of the doctrinesof the OUM s ot knen
by a sngle act, #6 with the Extraordinary Magisterum, bul rather i1
walstude of acts whch, when taken together, clearly nd
unmustakably confurm that the doctnine has been defintroely prepsdby
the Church as "divinely revealed 7 This means thal whal is ey
roposed (revealed truth) becomes unmmstakably definstive by virtuests
collection of leachings over Gime and space Such teachungs of the
O
are de fide (of the Faith) and, although they have nol been selemsit
defined by the Extraordinary Magisterium (and are thus not &&
defimita), they are fust as infallibly true as a dogmatic defimition

*Tonawerey,
A Momsast
.Iz&d"’#mwdlplu
. smplains. that “the mungisierun evimaraos (Orbe)
Cotaix Encysopades
“fi—;-w.-mmmuh--mmrn--‘
A0 be“practcully incsactve aa an eegan of sntalkiity (vel VIl p HOO) o
A do9pms 1 the it and cusmemary mearig o the trrms i 8 st eveald M5
Nrw—.-mnu-unumm-m.-dwlrwfl
Sove poevieusly explained 1f the peopenal is mude by 4 solemn decree s18doTbor S5WERET
prponc
o o dogre.
Mool by s weinary sl antverial Mgk
Le rut daincd velemaly Ad-.-mn-w-w*‘“‘";y
Ty e vt 34 3 Wit o Catbelc Falh * Vans Naart, The Seurcrs f Ronehh P

440
Vaticen 1 and the Ordinary Magisterium o 1

Magr Van Noort explaine the way in which & woth i definivvely
posed by the Extraoedinary Magsterium,
::pmd definitively by the OUM and the way it ia
“Ways 1n Which the Church Propescs Revealed
popossl of & Fevealed Wb by the Chach, Jch o5 o nacs
escrbed hove, can, accondmg 10 the Vacan Commcl, Mbe plas
In it of W0 ways. cither by 8 salomn docrc, o by the Chunere,
erdinacy and unaversal teaching,
1 Under the formuls selemn decree are included the fallowing (4)
defintions made by the pope when speuking ex cahrab, ()
definutions made by particular councils which have cihec bosa
raufied by e popc 1n sobemn form, er accepted by the urversal
Church ~ Finally, pleasc note the term definirions I the very
degmatic decrees 1ssued by ceuncils and pepes 1t often happens thet
masters arc mentiened which arc by e meass meent 10 be defincd
o)
2 The exercisc of the ordinary and wirversal Magmterium (OUM)
includes the whole gamut of diverse ackens by which the pope and
Wahops disperscd throughount the weeld, cither by themaclves. o
thraugh vanous kinds of helpers, contiueusty expmund doctrine on
futh and morala Thia seaching w exercised fit of all by explicit
teaching. cither oral o wntten Sccendly. It alee exervised by
wnaplicit teaching through the practices ard Inurgy of the Chorches,
by the promulgation of laws. by the appeval of custems, by the
recommendation of devotiens, by the spproval of beoks, and 00
forth
Clearly, 1 & truth 1s capable of bewng declard an ehyect of
divine-catholic faith through the force of this ordinary aad vnrversal
teaching. there w roquired such a prepesal as © ypusmkably
sefiniive The proposal must e of such & nesure that withewt any
sy v
throughout the cntire world g rrivaled and, ceneequently o
something neccasarily1o be believ ed ™
by cvery Catholic
With regard to the *heresies and othet errors” of the counl that
Mr Daly calls into question, none of them (eg, religens Lberty,
ecumenism, dualogue, collegality) were ciassified by the council as
“divinely revealed”, nor are they clearly and defirutively proposed ae
such In the concliar decuments. Ambsguity, in fact, ia enc of the
distinguisiing characteristics of the conciliar decuments. In & recerd
" The Sumroes
of Revelotion. p 222 femphonia sded).

“1
Thue oc Faoe Pope? y
oy
1
tle publihed i the Vahican's offcial newspaper, mb'“"'
Mp:mdm-l Walter Kasper explained why there g "'
B wpparens contra 1 dac bon
the conciliar texts He pad
g wany plsces. [the Council Fathers) had
1o fing
m—umm-mhmnfww-em
srneduicly wext 18 Wode of he munerity, desiged delumi ey
Ths, she comliar w3t themselves have s huge poicyyy gy
contlit [and] apcn he 0000 W0 8 sclociive rareminn 10 ey
dhrechos™
rty g
1n the conclur
Fr Edvward Schillebeeckx saud the ambigu
wing He said
was an mienbonal tactic of the progressive
“We {progressives] have used ambiguous phrases during i
Council and we know haw we will iierpret them aferwarde;
This ambiguity further demonstrates that lack of a definstive nayre
m the nevelises found 1n the conciliar documents
Further, if any rvesiod truths had been proposed in
“unmustekably definihve” manner by the Second Vatican Councl,e
defimirpe proposal would have constituted a solemn decree (s singe
definimve act), and therefore the teaching would have been proecnt
oy the Churcir's infallibulity, not by vartue of the OUM, but by v
Exwsordinary Magwierium, snce 1 general councll w ricli =
exnaondinary event dunng which méallizwhty is exerased in
extrserdinary way (when the necessary condibions are met) A
bacause a definitive character is also necessary for a doctrine W le
wiallible by virtue of the OUM, st 1s evidently false to seert,
a3 M
Daly doss, that the nen-defimitrve Waching of Vabcan 1l met e
condiwons for the infallibihty of the OUM
Where Vatican |1 “differed from other councils,” is thal it wa in
exraerdinary event!? (a general counal) which specifically avedel
Wachng in an exieaordinary manner.? The formt (gathenng of ¥
'Cardinal Walter Kaaper 1, Oseermotore Romone Apei 12, 2013,
o rkintng Marval Ladcbvre, An O Leticr te Comfuned Catwticn, p. 111 -
Durng cioving spoachs, Pl V1 said This counci i compiciely tormicse
11 e sd s
mmere sy by » disbarded * (Vatcan 1§ Cing Spesch e
One doy aarier Pl V2 st T e Socwrd Vaskcan Orem
in-m—hm:m*:'mmm“""';::
Sereugily b o o xovier
o qursbens. (AT 03
"h--u-qd-h-um‘c-fl.mmmw"

“2
 saticon 11 and the Ordimary Magsherium
v " Cuprr 14
Id'a bishops)
was extrasrdinary, Wt
tentained 1n the documenie) e ,..y"",,,,"',,',',‘; {ihe kg
\eachings wil be infalible only if they were previeosly detumes, or
ey meet the frue conditions for infallibility f the UM - (scfiores
always, sverywhere and by all") - which certairly do not apply to
ofthe novelties in the concliar documents. And becatse the dacrmenss
themaelves were only part of the Ordinary (but not Unversal)
Magterium, there was no aingle teaching of Vatican 11 tn which the
chansm of infaillbulity was engaged to prevent the posibility of esror
We finally note that not even the Extraordinary Magsterium can
infalllbly propose a novelty (such as ecumenism), with no foundation
inSeripture
o Tradition, 6 & dogma that must
be believed with Divine.
and Catholic Faith God would not permit it, and He did not permt it
Msge Van Noort further explains thet the definitive character of
the doctrines of the OUM is known not by a aingle definutive act (such
a8 an act of a councl), but by “countlrse activities” - 2 maltitude of
pon-infallible acte - which, when taken as a whole, make it clear thet
the particular doctrine has been clearly proposed a & revealed wuth
He admits however, thel thw “1s frequently enough not tos obvious.”™
He also notes thal one of the major sgne thet a doctrine has been
sufficiently proposed s & revealed truth by the OUM is the universal
and constanl agreement of the theologians thal the decirine is a mater
#f divine futh In his own words
“New, asnce a delimitive propeeal of this sect cauet blossent
forth frem countess acuvities which mdividually arc ncuber
definitive nee nfallibic. the existence of much a propesal (with the
exception of seme fundamental Krulh) is froquantly eneugh net toe
obvious The major signs of such a peopesst arc these that the truth
e taught throughout the world i popular caicchisom, o, cvar
mere importantly, be taught by e uavcral end conten
agreement of theotogasns as 2 mater Ielongrng e k.
The reseon we prefer she agreement of theslogus to the
agreement of catechisme ts that the laker by the very fact of beg
tended for popular wekucwen, eually make 6 dimncien
mmwfid)mflkkflwwmmfl
theee which must be held by scclcusstcal fak, o umply
theologscally cortam. Furthermere, & papal decument dosrpnas,
of theologians as & sigw of a delimuna
we have, the agrecmant
roposal by the Chusch. Listen te Pus X “By divm Fash arc lo be
Pelievad those things which. threugh the erdumasy lesching of the
whele Church throughout the werkd e Ipesed 20 dvscly
 or False Pope?
True
o, I

vl 0 L b e U1 O Consan o
Gl theclogeans are held 10 be matiers of fanh 1¢
Authonty of
o s Jul 1956 article “An Essay on the ains
Dom Paul Nau expl
ofthe Soverewgn Pontff,”ster the ““-lm.;":"“l o
et s Ordunary Magu num a5 follows
“The hallinlity of the Ordmacy Magwicrium, whether
Umiversal Church or that of the Sec of Rome, 15 not ‘Mor.:
Jugment. a0t Ut of an it to be cansidercd 1n| ssolaic, a if-
‘oukd iself provide all the light nccessary for 16 1 be clearly sy
K that af the guarsnice bestowed on a docinne by ge
i v
fonc of which could ring posime
cemm 1 # werede ke by itself alone Certrt expectad
can beude
o from ethe whale compler, but al the parts concur 1n making op
anly

Since a defitive proposal from the OUM s known by e

coalescence of a multtude of non-infallible acts over time w¢
geographue which are in conformuty with Catholic Tradstion, i ges
without saying that a sngle won-defimtrre teaching of a pusni
council” does not conatitule an infallible teaching of the Church, eiber
by virtve of the Extraordimary Magisterum, or the Ordinary and
Universal Magisterium,as Mr Daly imaglnes.
Revealed Truths vs. Disclplines

Mr Daly’s erroncous theory hae unfortunately bren adopted by

mumber of Sedevacantists, who have themselves used it i an Jwog
%0 “prove” that Vatican Il violated the Church's infallibuluty, thenety
further “praving” (as we noted earbser), that the Church from 195
forward 1 not the wue Church and the conciluar Popes not true Popes
Furthermore, Mr Daly's novel theory has even been extendedb7
o ¥
10 ewmbrace othet aspects of the faith, such as disciplines
Ururgical matwers, which are saxd to consitute a violaton of ¥
whatli of thebiity sl b
Ordinary and Universal Magisterium Because
addional error, it I neceseary to clarify the obpect of ikl
specfied by the Firs Vanican Council Before doing so_however ks
Al read the quotstion from De Fius that Mr Daly uses #
 Magister
yanom 17 amd the Ordinary Magster nam Chapter 14
shority for his posiion (notmg the plain werde
it s ~divinely revealed”) Note well the undfllll\e:{l:'; y:::m .
“All those things arc ® be w
which are contained 1 the Word of Ged, weren or oy
o Mmmnn‘mmmum»y-mmm
mmnmmmfimm_m‘
drvinely pevealed ™
As was discussed earher in this chapter, only Wuthe roasted
and defimbely propesed by the Church are ::Z “bebeved wunm
ard Catholic Fauth.* These truthe, of course, refer exclusively to those
centatned within the sources of Revelaten, 1., Scripture
ar Tradifon,
since only these have been revealed by Ged This w further confirmed
by the last underkined passage from Der Filtus whuch explicitly states
Wt such teachings must be propoacd “w be behieved as dwndy
nevesled” Thus, she sbject of infallimbity specibed by the Councl i
revesled truths, and revealed truthe only It does net include universat
disciplines or hturgical matters, a6 some Sedevacantwm have
emoncously imagined (we will addrew dwaphnary infallibdity in
depthin Chapters 15 and 16)
Commenting on the abave teaching frem the First Vatican Ceunci,
Magr Van Noort explained the meaning of the phrase “as divinely
revealed * He begins by saying, “the subyect tatter sf divine-Catholic
faith are all those truthe proposed by the Church's Magisteriom a8
drvnnely revealed,” and then adds.
“Nete the phrsse ‘e divinely reveolad To mect Wi
fequirement the iruthe must ) be centained in public reveluen,
the depositones of which arc Sscred Scriure and divine spostelxc
traditton b} It s more probable - in accond with whal waa
explained 1n the preceding article shoot “virtial’ revelzien that
the wuths st be contweed n the sewces of revcation
Jormaily "7
same
on thets
In the following quotation, Canon Berthod cemunen
teaching from the Fust Vatcan Council, and explains thet it does not
refer to everything taught by the Magwkenum, but enly those teactungs
Propose d truth.”
as “revealed He wroke

—_—
* Dogaatnc Conotitubion D Filom, ot 3, “Canosrrang Faith*
" The Sourm oReveiaiem,
p228.
H5
 alee
True or Falee Pope’
Pope? q"‘h
‘

“a e Coacrliar definttion (Der Filis, chapey

eblggatton 1o believe has & spocific object one must bel-m.)f. &
& commmned m the depostt of revelalion and whar the g3[
proposcs kme\dummummmfl
m;wwmw%
thanc Bu006 0086 U MEISIETINR TR0 1 revaled g
Universal disciplines, the htuzgy, and even theologscal con
do net fall within the category of formally "revealed truth.”
the mfalkbity of the Ordinary and Universal Magmternun, u pocs
byanLdoesnolau\d to these aspects of the ‘-mNn:
woald fallibkty extend to the "pastoral” noveltes of Vatan i g
as ecumemsm which, a3 Cardinal Ratzinger humselt admmiid, g
foundabam n the New Testament!® (which confirms that they uy vy
“revealed kullu") Novelties, disciplinary and Lturgical matten, ug
eher nwe-revealed aspects of the Farth lack the guiddity™ necaay
be the object of an ifallible teaching of the Ordinary and Urvves
Magsterum thet must be bebeved with diine and Cathole Fiy,
Hence, by their very nature, these matters clearly fall oulsde the
o infallibilty of the OUM as taughi by the First Vatican Counct
Formally Revealed and Virtually Revealed
Let's briefly exploce the obyect of infallibility specified by the Fox
Vahean Council by considening in more detal the two categoos&
revcaled truths, discussed carlier in this chapter, a3 well as the b ki
o farth owed 1o them
Formally Revealed: A truth is said to we formally contuned &
Revelation o it % taught In Scripture or Tradition, erther exphcilly &
wnplicitly A decirine 1s explirtly repeeled if it taught using termanelegs
shat is absolutely clear and unmustakable {e g.. the Divinity of Chis)
A dectnne is mpliatly revesled if 1t 15 contained in Scriptweo
Traditen in a vague fashion, not in precise terms, but in equmlet
ferma
(e g the Assumption of Mary) 2
Ansther way a doctrine is contained umplictly In the soorcs¥
Revelation 15 when the truth is deduced from two explicily T
—_—
2 e or Ohursh! p 7 (amphhasi
addedo).
- in e 154k, Thadegin gt o Ve 1 Ratmnger wroe:“The ol
VTS e vt of 4 atuation unkriewn be the New Testamart snd for W15
:b;!-- mtni-«mmn' el
‘:"hzhml uidéit y 1« phile vaphi cal term which meane e
e — e e sbagT “hotned ot the thing.

i
 " Vakom It and the Ordviary Magisterium Guprer 14

emises. Van Noort uses the following as an .

P
conchision Iured
Pired for each and every supematural werk” (,.,um.',’ ,,,c',::")'
for A
e mphialy, but Jornl. conane Revanl! Pl e sad
e
Virtually Reveal truth 1s sasd to be prry
the sources of Revelation when the doctrine w mm:;«uw:h
Limbo for deceased, unbaptized babres), but 1 dedoced froms ohs
premuses, only one of which 18 explcitly revealed {cg. bapar
AaTRSS

fecessary for salvation), while the other s known by ressen e .

unbaptized babies ment newther Heaven nar the pan of
weree n hell)& As we fave noled, anether name for 4 wuth anly
virtually contained in Revelasion is a sieslogrcal sonclumen

Divine and Catholic Faith vs, Ecclesiashical Fasth

As we've seen, Divine Faith is faith in the autherity of Ged

e

revealing, Ecclesiastical Faith w farth in the authonty of the Church

teachung Truths that huve been formaily cevaaled by God must be
te a majerity
Welieved with divine and Catholic Faith.5 but accordin g
o theologians.® including Van Noort and Tanquerev, Cathalks are
enly required to accept truths wirtually contained wathin the seurcws of
Revelation with Ecclesiasical Faith. Msgr who
Fen ten , e
happened
adhere (o the minonty opinion on this point, admined that “a grest
EaR

number of the manuals of sacred theology, current in our ke, aeert

that the aseent due to these teachings [truthe virtually convained in
of a strictly Ecclesustical Faith."®
Revelation] is that
The distinction between the two kinds of faith awed te the two
wxemrE

categories of dactrine is due to the differing mokoes foc babied, which

God, the
can beher
cormespond to the authenty of the ieacher The keac
man The motive for believing & truth formally revesled by
orh,
Churc
God is “the authonty of God Himeell revealing, who can nesther

Sl p.207
® iy 206,
S lhld_ pp 197 0.
:v'”""
a1 Nourl discrmuws bt wpiniens and provides ¢ ovmpeliing reivessen of lhoor whe-
maitan Wt Divine and Catholc s e to Iruiby eely cinmedy coomsned fn
o Dogasis: Thedsgy,
Alas see Tarupuerey A Marual
:-;:---nu." 209.210).
A Murval of Degmatic Thelegy, vol 1 p. 145
:;m-’v’umunu.}-nrnwm“n—m

“7
True oc False False Pope? Q.hu‘

e nor be decewved.”™ whereas the motive for

-ty virm":ll\ contained ll; R!vt'l:lfl.;n kls u‘:d auum,yh;,l';::t i: E
seaching Hence, Dwine Faith is owed to the fo
O ot s anved 10 the latter T Wiy
Drvine and Catholic Faith 15 used to desy
h.m“:w:m o doctrines that have been remeried 1o&C'_',"'"“’m
dmitooly propeved by the Church For example, the -
Infalliblity must be beleved with Divine and Cathohc Faith yo ™™
‘o both formally revealed (in Scripture and Tradition) and geq
by the Church (Paster Ackernus) However, when “,m
el s that Pope s X, for example,is among the blessed n g
we beleve it with Ecclesiastical Faith
As we saw carher, when the Church pmpo-es-rmu‘,,.fi
“authentically” {and not “defirutrvely” a5 “revealed truth), ty woy,
s one of relgrous obedsence only, and conssquently the .
accepred with a rehigious assent. When a teaching is accepied wge
suthority of man aione (such 5 & SISt explaINg his concuomy
besed on astudy of emparical evidence), it 1 called human fasth »
The dustincion between Divine and Catholic Faih w
Beclemasical Faith is smportant because the definltion from the Fy
Vancan Council specifies that the subject matte r
for an inabik
\wachig of the Ordinary and Uruversal Magisterum conelets o euk
Wut “are 1o be believed with Divine and Catholic faith” whe,
according 1o a mujonty of theologans,* imits the scope of the siwt
matier 10 truthé contatned within the sources of Revelation femalyt
As neted above, the necessaexcludes rtly discipland inary rupw
sapects of the faith, a8 well as novelties such as “ecumenua’ab
“wierrelipous dialogue,” which do not even have a clearly defved
and areing,
menn most certainly not part of Revelahon

—_—
2 T Sowr as pyp 197, 2086
of Revelaion:
*hd p o i
# It dhowk sl dbe ated hat the minerityof theulogians whe hehd tut DIF -
Cothaotle . mtrd s srwthe endy sirtnally rrveaied, all agree thal wich 0 st
oy oured when, e dacirinms have bean “dedind by e Church” (id P20,
S houid be oted ot we wme e addrassieg s questian of whestes V0 S0
-whm“mwymmnwm",’:‘m‘
0w s what e tmacing femn he Fiat Vasican Corcl 1080 "
eS ol e ity ot the Ordiry asd Univerea) Magioertam
“a
 Vahoun if ar the Ordunary Magisteraem Crupper 1t
Xy

Truly Universal
JFF

¢ Daly's private iferpretation of the

z.dxo mzm that for a teachung of uf o V"“';S’:,"‘“ o
Magsterium to be Infallibe, 1t must be wuly wrtvrsal - thay e
conformity 10 what the Church has ahoeys Wugh s atweys ety
FEEZANE

(o s umphcaly) In other words, 1 mues be i conpemmeny

Tracibon. Agawr, Vancan I's De Filius staws.
“One must Webicve by divine and Cuhelic fah all that 1
cantained n the word of God, whether wiien otraoumulog
Teaduson. and which the Church, whether by sotemn judgment byor
oy her ordinary and universal Magistenum, progoscs te be believed
XN T¥3

s revealed wuth ™

In order to justify tus assertion that Vasican | violaked the Church's

fallibdity, Mr Daly actually denses thus mwst Fundamental teactung of
the First Vatican Council That u, he claime that for a leachu ofng
the
Onhinary and Unlversal Magistenum to be protecied by infallimlity, 1t
enly has to be unuversal ur place {svchronic universally), and fot also
LARREPFFAL

umiversal in fme (diachronsc universality), and therefore does net have

1o be “contained in the word of God,” and “transnutted by Tradinon.”
Of course, was necessary for Mr Daly te make this crroneous daim n
order to argue that Vatican 11 violated the Churchs Infallibility, since
he knows full well that any errors or novelties found in the cenciliar
documents were not taught by the Church universally m time
n umiting Sacred Tradition to just a mement in S, Daly et snly
perverts the very mearung of Tradibon, but aleo concedes that the
neveltics of Vatican I were never taught by e pre-concilier Magisteruunt,
be
That 13, they were not taught unroersatliny trme and hence cannet
“wdallible * But for John Daly, mfaliiblity has notung e de with
Tradition, much less “revealed truths™ that are ~definutively proposed”
Rather, for Daly, every utterance from an ecumenal councl - fust
ecau
the utter
se ance 1s voiced by a majo
of buhopnt
s i me
y- %,
and indeed, must be infallible
We will allow Mr Daly to explan it for humeelf 1n ha customary
haughty tone, he wrote”
EEETex

“Other cscapists, unwilling 1o faimfy samdy venfisble fors.

Calholic decxme
altersd ully
sbout the Council itsclf, have cherf
tatcad They claim in pacuculer that the Ordimary and Ustversal
Ma.umumummmk-nyn-k-dn"rw-":
wily taoght by all she bashope 23 Kiven asamanl bk can tho

449
 -
Tree o False Pope’ ? q,h"

]:",;':,, Iavie beethe

n woght by them
y spper 10 the famos e“Vinccruan
!
it “W Cpen1
owchwone o ha s abways b
" MLILIMMLML“

wwmmm&
mm e
iy faec docurn e s ught Under condiions thay oy
e bty 1 5 508 ust the ROVERY that st bremg
also, for Iegstimate authority e gyoy
ot e suthonty mposing 1 eor
o ch cosos 2ad baanl 16 HCITFONE 2 st preag
llcgsomacy "
The rue “escapist” % Mr John Daly, who has “escaped* frun
definution of Sacred Tracition with his Sedevacantist agend,jy
fact, Daly's agenda leads hum to accuse the Church s definutin
w why
Tradion a being ~heretical,” since Der Filius defines Tradinon
s ught-g,
haa been “handed down,” while John Daly says it s what
moment * If Daly’s defirution is correct, then why werent e
ol s
Anan bishops teschung infallibly when they sard Christ was
» tha Father? After all, almost the entire episcopacy™ “at ths gye
woment” n hustory embraced this Chnstological error The answe?
John Daly’s definstion of Tradstion is erroneous and even heretcal, &
o de
heretcal, in fact, as the most anti-Catholic Protestant's usage
e
Even the most unsophisticated reader will note that Mr Daly dd
et cte a sngle source to support hus novel statement that the worl
“universal” refers to uraversality in place only, and not also time N
did he provide a single quotation supporting his statement that “da
synchronxc unversality (in place), ot diachromic universalty (in il
awhuch comdstuoms she mialiibrirty * That's because no such Cathalic sours
Such ipse dixi! assertions may impress Dulfs
exsl. ions.
o auotat
Duly, “Did Vasican [ Taach Infallibly? * Second Revised Ediion, W14 (aphon
obded) g/ s movimardowaich
g/ vatican it infaltible b "
= the bowk. The otk o e Earty Fathers, Fr Jurgens rted that at ere peint ¢ar¥
Arier Crins, the percentoge of bshogn in possession of Scrs. whe sdwred to b0 1%
Fo 20 ey o iwe advrng tn the Arta hereey, “oeas v grevicr st
Setwann 13 el 3% of the sl * (uegene,the The Farkh of the Larly Fabers vot 100
ke st o of the bishopn emibeaced Arian heresy: a good share of e Y
2ot Ard et 1 ekt s ever Laugh thet the cpiscupocy delciod S
e She jedpuard of e Uity wha hwd e autherity te depoer thew WP L0
e, hawey o st ot explaie, how all o these deiecting WP V0
—F-‘M-nno-mq-mlym-aw"u—-"‘_
Tk b o bt b v s o ratsring) el

450
 o L 6 e o rapter14

et audience,
but they wall not fool the Cathotic
with even 2
s dimenry understanding of the true meaning of Tradition.
Universal in Space and Time

ror additonal. Catholic teachung that revesls the emors of Joln

Daly s position. we can loak to the wnstruchion of Rané Berthod and hia
i on the mfallitabty of the Ordinary and Universal Magaterum
explain that the word “unaversal” in the phrase Ordmary and
Unversal Magistenum comprises twe dimensons, namely, exkension
n space. (synchromc universality) and duration in tme (duchronic
wuversality) He wrote

<1t would be an abusc te declare incfommable all the acm of the

endinary Magisicrium I onéer for them te be preserved from emror
sccording 1o the divine promise, they must be unversal, which
means that they_musf teach whet the Chyrch has always belicvad
i e1 I
w ‘The Magisierium 15 universal when 1t prectaims
the Farth of the Church unaliered throughout hustory The noyon of
¢
dunuee w4k _... This 15 how the teologians tave siwavy
understoodit For the authe Ordanary Magistenue
of thenucit y
16 be guarantecd, 1 15 necessary that 13 leaching be universel w
seope. that 15, 1 conformity Lo the constan! \eaching ef the Church
w
Indiwe For the Ordmary Maguerum of the Church W be
wiallible, 0 must be uaiversal i the full sense of the word
Icluding
both smace and tiree,™
Here we see & real Church-approved theologian (with a mandate &
teuch about such matters) diractly contradict the claims of Jehn Daly (8
byman with no authority) by esplaining how the Churchs
“theologians have always understood” the term umversal - an
imderstanding that Daly publxcly proclaime w "heretical” Perhaps
Duly should add the word *heresy” {along wath “Tradrison™) s the st
ot he nieeds % bearn before publicly ponficating abowt thes:

"o Chur, pp. 50.58

451

b
 fl
True oc Falee Pope? O
\ Synchrenic and Diachronic Univ!rlillly

Daly's abeurd claim that synchromic yniy, :’“hy .

- mfallibiity was aleo tmected by h'{
Magmwherrum. In 1998 the Congregation for the Doctrine of F-.‘m‘“'
(N
s nfcabon of fohn Paul s 1969 Professio Fuder Ty,
Commentarv on Profecwo Fuder, signed by Cardinal Ratzinger, nD""‘,.
“Twe Magrsierim of the Chrch. however, teaches 1 dpcpm,
10 be beleved as dwincly revealed (first parigraph) or 1 3¢ g
definmely (sccond paragraph) with an act which 15 either defip,
pon-defnng I th case of2 defining 11, a truh 1 o
defined by an ex cathedra’ pronouncemment by the Roman Py
ot by the acte of nan ccumenical council In the case of g,
defining ct. & docwne w taught wnfalitbly by the ordinary g
warversal Magiienum of the Bishops dispersed throughow ke
werld who are n communton with the Successor of Peer | )
Consaqueraly, when here has not been 2 judgement on & docrac e
the selemn form of& definition, but this doctnne, belonpig to ke
mherwence of the dopasium fider,
unwversa) Magidenum, which necessanly ineludes the Pope, mchy
docne W be undersiood a6 haviog been set forth wnfallbly
un™

Notice that the end of the last sentence includes a referenceu

foomote “17.” The purposeof Hus footnote wa
to clarify
s how L wd
“unversal” included in the name “Ordmary and Univend
Magwtanum,” is ¥ be understood Cardinal Ratzinger explains bl
“unwversatity” i understood primanly as refernng lo dudrm
uneocrsality (wraversality in tme), and not necessanly a sy
wwwcriality (urwversalily in ) Thus, Cardmal Ratunget
explanabon w the exact opposite of John Daly'a asertion Wi
Condinal Ratzinger
“It should e notod that the infallible icaching of the scdmay
20d vnrversal Magmenum w not only sct forth with an explet
declarmson of a decirine 1o he belicved ot held defitively bl
cxproued by & docwene implicily contamed in a practce o5
slChurck's farth, dertved from revelation or, in any case
for cianmal saivaten, and micsted v by the unwacrupicd Tl
_— w
G
Fules, rts
> Dortnd Commantiry ou the Conatuding Forvadis of e Profe
,,,“"'—"";M-L;-_:;n.w«uyw’“
1990, 9y, 34 {cperasi
adleds).
452

.
 Vot1120 = ~amprer 18

mwkfi%muum%mmmmm
mem
senac.” “‘h‘
we have an official explanation from the Magioeriam
g that unwversahity refers prmany to » uversality in fome
R oton) and et necessanly s unversabey serae in spae,
(. shaanding the clams of Mr john Daly Common slone
dictates that what 15 taught “ata given moment” (baacd, perhaps, on
"tural or cven demonic influences) may not neccssarlly be
o the Church has afuys believed, a6 we saw, for example, during
he Asan crsta of the fourth century
Professar de Matter reiterated the Church's emphasis on diachronic
snvensallty {extension n time) as the earmark of Apostolic Tradition,
He wrote

“The coosttuhon Der Filns of e Fist Vancan Ceuncil,

wceriamed, n chapter 3 that there can be truthe that must be
belisved, with Divine and Catholrc farth i the Church, without the
necd of & solema definuion, since they are cxpressed i the
Ordunary Universal Magisterium. The cenditions necessary for the
whalluliy of the Ordinary Universal Magisicnum arc that o
concems & doctnne with regacd 10 fath or menls, lupht
auhoritatively m repeated declarations by the Popes and bubeps,
with an unquestionable and binding character
The word universsl ts meant notwn the synchronis scuse of s
salenwion of saace 18 a parvculsr hislongal penod bt w te
dachronk sense of o coptimuity
of umg. ™ in order b cxpress 2
conscrisus that embraces all epochs of the Church
For example, 1 the case of birth conrol, suce the Ird certury
the Church has condemned atificial methoda At the beguaing of
the I5th century, when this problem surficed agam. the declarshons
by bishops 1n union with the Pope statcd at il wmes, as definimve.
i Winding doctine of the Ciurch., that ceniraccption was 2 mertal
0 The cxphort declarations of Prus X1, Prus XiI and of all thext
wuccemors, confirmed raditional leaching
Quite different 1s the mater reganding decirmal Wacvatens
meluded 1 the documents of the Second Vaticas Counarl In those
©MES N0t only 19 a8 €x cathedr act mussing by Ui Posufl s umon
with the bishops, but nenc of the decumeats ware cxposcd s 2
degratic manner, with the itention of defining &k of the fasth
—
:‘?mwmuhm“d*mmlm
" Horede Mathsrefarerums the shove Decirinal Not by Cardina? Ratmger

53
 =
True
o Falee Pope? Capiyy,

and of binding the mesent of the Galihful |,

:n.."::y e cam only be some passages infallible m.'.,‘“",:
docmne of he Chinch s confirmed. “Catholie, ey
ot which 16 wnerzal, 0t ul v e
i’ believed by cvoryen - WAKh GO OCCUr &t & Comncil g 1
Syned - but what 15 perennually mrywam believad by ev
without equivocations and contrsdictions ™% e,

The Holy Office Letter, Supreid Hacc Sacra, which we ad rugy,

mwl.ikomfimllhal unversalily R&nloflulwhn..
dreys been bebeved, when it teaches,
“We e bound by divine and Catholic faith t believe all thogy
Wngs which are comtancd 1n the word of God, whether g pe
Scripmre a6 Tradiow, and wre peoposed by the Churck 1 e
bebeved s drviely rrvealed. not oaly through solemn judgment
ot abo through tic ondary and universal tesching affi
(magwserum)
v W
aeach, these s also contained that ifalible statcment by which we
areiaught that there 16 1o sahvation outside the Church @
Pupe Pius IX's Tuss Likenier also confirms the universality in bk
Mane and space when it teaches that the Ordinary Magistenum iy
wfalliblet! when It proposes a teaching that represents the “common
md comstent meactung of the Catholic theologuns* The venerabe
Fonki says
“Evew 1w the mamer of that subjection Which rust be gven m
the act of drvinc fath,1t should stll nok be: reetricto thote ed
things
What kave becn defined 10 the obvious degrees of the Occumentca]
Councils s of the Romas PontifTs oF this See, but must also be
otandod o hat whnck 15 wught a3 dsvinely revealed by the ordunary
Mogsterus of e catre Church spread throughaut the word
_
74 Mo,
“The Symed ard the Ordinacy Magistertom i the Chusch,” Decemter 14
"",‘_‘ PP/ /recsiecorl bogapet com, 3014712 /she-synad -and erdinary megietin
> Suprs Hu Sers. Esvpohs wrarmdawont publshed i Kariaey's The Cahlic Ok o
.“:“"'"h -nn—m1»mm
Nore mode & dutrcoam betwaen the Ordinary Magioterin and the Asb
iegternen. e spond bt Ordnary Maypetern i atways rfalubc whese B
e W oL Thia distnciens w fine om the specalaive feel 164
Slolto oppty i pracucaly, siwe an the pracica) tevel wne wil Bt s
i naking o ditinckan betwoen the twn. However this distinchn 5
by e hasiogians will puak ad the Ordrary Magisteriom being sl
454

—— et
 [ —ra

[omrversetly w0 apecc), and which, a6 8 reml w wesruy y

wuwnumm
Wmumguxmuflhsmmm“u
Jt s quite iferesting lo note that Me Daly himself quosed Tues
Jenkr © the artcle we have been discusemp. But what w mowt
ng 15 that he quoted it twice and, n both etances chose to
1s one
remave the portion that spoke of the uruversahity in tunet Here
e sections of Me Daly s article in which he cikes the teaching of
Pus IX The elipss (three dots indicakng sometting is
m_‘)-mu\ennpml_

“it should slee be notcd that when the Futhers of the 1379
Vancan Council were discuseing the drafl of Dei Filis Wofore
ating, questions were ruscd about the meaning af the wand
‘garvertal 1n the expesesion “Ordinary and Universal Magesterum'
aad the Council's official “relator * Bishep Martin, reforred them to
Popc Pros X s Tuas Libenser This document clarifies cxcsedingly
well the obligations of the fanful reganbmg ac by whxh
represcniaives of the leschmg Church communicate docwne to
them Here 15 the Mot relevant part, whick cenficms precwely the
words
of Mpr Masun.

Eves lnting oneself 10 the submussion made by the act af

drvime futh, 1his could 1ot be reswicted to those things that have
been defined by the express decrees of ccumcnical councile and by
the decrees of this Sec. but must be extended also to what 15 passed
#n 3 dvinely reveaicd by the Ordinary Magisternum of the whole
Chucch spread oves the wotld * (Tuns Libenter] "0
SoMr Daly chose to include the section referring 1o a uversality
imspace - “the whole Church spread over the world” - yet temoved the
remainder of the same sentence that spoke of a universahty in tme -
“the commen and constant agreement of the Catholic theologuare.” And
heconveniently removed the same part of the serrience sach time that he
quoted
the document (which. as we have seen, 1 an editoral sachc
commonly employed by Daly’s colleagues, Fr Cekada and John Lane,
# well) Is it possible that Mr Dwly ran out of word space in hus prece,
9 13 it more likely that he ntentionally removed the ending of the
—_—
£ Tus Lidcnker Englah warwlotion
[ published in Thy Cothisc Omosh o sukunenby,|
. (Semitary Presm, New Yok, 2006, p. 4.
Dy “Did Vascar 1l Toach tovathbty? - Secened Revmed Eduvon, U, hg fwwre.
#ich erg/ vatkcarr i inbslibble
455
True or Falee Pope? gy, '

te ly vi ec er at es th e en te ey , |
le
crtene because th1L ecorempader decide an
arncte? W shall let John Daly 1s not the only Sed, ants o
Unfoctunstely,
e on hk ee de rs . [ 0 e t e y g
puled s {2tancn artice publuhed wn Cthoic Farmly pench™
o
vscantat poriificatheor wrquotot e ed
(e ll Tu
psssss Li
n bo
thnl
e er
on igan
andal ) re mr eg g o *
o art Here s wh at
=A pleors of magusena] sources teach Uit the chany
falliwlity exiends not only 1o solemn judgments, b 1p ;‘f
ordmary and universal megtenum When the Vatican | Fay
oned the meanmng, of the word ‘unisersal * the answer wey
geven from reforcnce to Pope Pus 1X's Tuas Libenter {12211t
T ven lmsting encacii to the mubcatssion mase by the uct of divee
foih, s cwuld net be resicied to those things tat have begy
defined by the cxpress decraes of ccumentcal councils and by e
docrees of his Sec, bul must be extended also (0 whal & passed g
14 dhacly revealod by the Ondinary Magistenuns of the wheic
Chrch spread over the world 5
As we have seen throughout thus book, such deliberate decephon
and edtonal subterfuge 1s chuef among the tactics one finds
In Sedevacantist wnings. Willful omissions, use of senterce fragms
and quotes taken out of context, coupled with sophwsal
tation and accusations of heresy against their opposihon 1s r
for the course for Sedevacantist apologists To be fair, the ieme
pontiicator almast certainly cut and pasted the quotation from Mt
Daly’s article, without bothering to venfy the source But such shabér
copy-cat research among Sedevacantist writers, which is motvaid
more by wwwung an argument than presenting the truth, becames&
case of the blund leading the blind (cf Mt 15 14)
In closing, while Vahcan 1l was an extraordinary gathenng
of be
world's behops with the Pope, 1t did not teach infallibly ettherbt
vitue of the Extraordinary or the Ordinary and Unversd
Mageterium. The counal's novel teachings on religious Lbetty
ccumensm, collegiality nterfarth prayer, Interrelgious dislogue ¥
4l the rest are not res ealed truths from Scripture o Tradition (b
foomully nor virsaliy), nor were they deflmtvely proposed by W
ouncilas such. They not only lacked synchromic unwersality, Sue™
-
- Com We Renoguiar vk Resiat?” Cothalc Famaly News, Jariazy D15
T “Cotl Famby s, Neprabaid, Frascrbed, and Crremnnd” W

45
Vaieoun it A1 —pr

t h e n m e p t e d t h e s e n g , b ,
o brpcoapnstst_stthe acce m, tese ch
g e r
Hh .ttfllmns:,\)* s p r o c a ( e g . re ny s
e
' " d " ‘ fl ' : ll::‘
i " s p a x : . o T
m‘::
t h e
r scLhatayrs: T "
l i ' l c m V
e hroreengage clear
u n v e
y, Whieh : : a n d
m o f w n f a l l i b i l i t B enedict
SVl Thhaovsee, makdee the Sed vacantists, who ha d { n f a l ibil fe
m m e S e r b e n
ay ican I have thacto T e or e ospeprxv,es e beuptorune tahnde good
Vajor Premise Pope 12 e blle e DTohpis small m’:“‘" r n it
e “ t h e
pecmanus o a big exror m c m : c
r o r e v e a
o Sedevacantism and
the s i on - t h e € r
h e C h u r c h
eparaonfrom t
 Chapter 15

~ Universal Disciplines and Infallibility ~

chapter, we will address another alleged violation of the

o ‘“,;:" .mm:my, which s that of urversal disciplnes
acantists will begn by ating reputable sheologins who teach
e Churchs mfallibhty extends 1o uruversal discrplinary laws
N, they will argue that certain post-concilar discrplines, such as
Mot slar servers and Commurion n the Har (nd the New Mam,
whuct will be discussed in the next chapier) are harmful 1o the Farth
They will conclude by sayng il 18 “impossible” for these dwciplines 1
vt been permitted by the Church found edand
by Chnst,
cocsequently the Church that approved them could not have been the
Catholic Church. We will allow Fr Cekada to explain thewr position.
“We have published this Iritic summary of the segument many
ames over ihe post decades, and 1t will be belpful to de 30 agan
Soce. The argument 13 essentially the same for alt the pout-Vatican
1 “popes. cven though ms force has become auch maee cvidens
wath theactiv of Bergogle
al
o Offcully-sanctiencd Vatican 11 and post-Vatican Il teachings and
lows embedy acrors and/er promote evil
s Becausc the Church 15 indefa ctible
her teaching ,and
conmel change,
becavec she 1 afallible. her laws cannot geve cvil.

+ 1w therefore impessible that the emors ané evile efficully

and laws
sanctionedn Vatican 1l and pest-Vatican |1 teackings
cauid have proceeded from the authonty of the Charch. ()

o The bet explanation for the pewt-Vatican Il emor swe

aad cvik
Tepeatedly encouni that they proceed from mdivwbuak who,
15 er
dewpite thewr occupstion sf the Vatican ané of vanous decessn
cathodrals, publicly defected from the fank, and thercfodorenet
#hyectively posscss canonucal authonty ™t
New, we have already demonstrated that it w not *wrpossble”
for
Pope 1o keach error when he does ot overrme the chansm of
—_—
!,’m’fi:{hAMhfiu, - r.u/wymw/-- Saarcekade.com
 or False Pope
True ? v
Chy -

lity, according to the parsmieters set down by the ,

R an usorialfactthat Pope John XXII publcly b
mm,cm..pmnummhd;anem,.h_."fl ol
omdemned 25 a heresy by hus immediate successor 1 Thys g™
het Popes cam teach error, since “against a fact there 15 n m"“g
(comtra factum nom it argumentum) e
Fr Ceads’s staemunt that “emors and €nls”fromcouldthe ayfay
come from those who have “publicly defected
thenefore do not atyectively possess canomical authonty” s .hh‘,':
As we have seen, according to canon law, a prelate "publicly g
from e fath* by ublly oiming non-Catholc sect, whuch g
happen with any of the post-Vatican 11 Popes ot other members e
Tuerarchy who have, to use the words ol Fr Cokada, contme g
acrupy the Vatican and of vanious diocesan cathedrals *
Like Bhop Sanbom, Fr Cekada has fallen into the ey y
confumng authority with mfalllbility As we saw in the prevey
chapter, this fundamental error, which Amaldo da Silveira refers oy
Monolithic Infallibulity,” extends infalliihty beyond the precise lingy
wtabisshed by the Church. As we've seen in spades, ths e a
pervacive wilhn Sedevacantsm, and has caused s adhereos
conclude that the visible Church has defected (a view whoch i
contradscts the doctrine of the ndefectibility ol the Church) We we
tus emroneous conclumon above, where Fr Cekada aseerts that te
“best explanation” for the alleged violations of the Chusch’s méallinley
i Wt the huerarchy ha defected This may be the "best explanaben’
for Reverand Anthony Cekada, but it Is 70 explanation at al for ke
wha have retained thetr lasth n the promusesol Christ for His Clarh
In thus chapter, we will demonstrate that Fr Cekada and he
colleagues are wrong in claiming that the novel disciplines Whing
from Vancan Il have violated the Church's infallibility God may have
parmuted much evi) in the Church over the past 50 years, st s
much evil Lo be nflxcted upon Chnst dusring His Passon, Wt
pernutied
He ha remaned fathful to all ol His divine promwes o
coneequently ha not allowed a single violation of the Churhs
infatlibthty

_—_
T Whars eI Fope o X1 i b enpose thin srenaus deckine an e Fll S
Pt King of Fraece Prunp V1 f Valai, probibted I lschnd "4
el
Hanel, “Fope Whe»m
Visemy” that Resisted vohn XX11 ard the Boi
e Hermey. tiermsy, a Chwurch
i X, B P o ey 28 £33 R
Cotk Pope Engre ) e by e ot of oo (eses 99

— |
 Lnerss U . aprer 15

Primary vs. Second Objects of Infallibility

peen explained
A enary. i previous chapters, theologiane disti
and sccniery obyects of mialiy The promay
Tm) et of Infalhibilty conceme the trutha revealed by God
e i Scnpture and Tradhtion the Depost of Fauk) When sese
b are defntely propesed by the Church, Infallisy 1 engaged by
o Dvine. Redeemers promise, and the possibilty of errar is
ted
Pt are also secondary (indurect) objects of mallitubty winch
clude such thinga as theological conclusions, uncversal duciplines,
tic facts, and the canomzation of saints (canerzahons are
sadressed in Chapter 17)¢ These matters are not contained in the
Deposit of Faith, but help 1o foster and preserve the inegrity of
ed truth While 1t 15 a common theological optrion that the
Church’s infalliility embraces the secondary obyects, the Church
Jeself has never defimtively taught this, much less clarified to what
exent infallible protection would be guaranteed
As we saw, the First Vatican Council narrowly defined the precise
xope and pasameters of papal infalhbidity Whenever the Pope, 4 the
universal pastor and teacher of all Chnishans, defines a doctrine on
fith or morals to be belleved by the uruversat Church, he leaches
whallibly Thus, we know with certainty the scope and parameters of
ialibdity as 1t relates to the primary object {farth and morals revealed
0 Scpture and Tradiion) However, because the Church has nat
spoken defirutively with respect to any of those matiers thet conshtute
the secondary objecté we do not have the same clanty regandmg
whether, and, if 30, to what exent, infallible protectson 15 guaranteed.”

*For ramphe, the decwrine of the of the seul” i 4 sheolagioal comchumsn.

deduced treen divine revelation. That the Council of Nacwt (325 A.D} was an evumerwal
cauncil of the Cathelic Church 1 a dogrmatic Esct. While these and siher such ruths are
1% par of the Drrponil of Fallh, they are rusential 1o 11 prsservation and Insnasmission.
41 impactard bo trcatl thet the Magisterium has never defirvively settied the queshon.
whethet 1 can speal defirmirvaly 2boul a matter dhat i ot s the depert of revelasen
2 N exs has # setiled defiruinvely the qurshon a5 b0 the ke of sach an shect o
iallile Maching.” (Sultivan, Francia, The Throdegu 3 Eccianal | swiven, ).
A scherna was dratted er discussien ot the Firs: Vaucan Courcil, which was iecuded
1o define he parammaters for the Church » inalibie twaching sty with respect v Lhe
seoomday styects of intallibility Dwe to the brrak eut of the France-Prusmen Was, the
1, “mn‘m(hhuk&d‘mmullfiu
“,A:-Vvh.wu..mu—mmmmam he pramacy
Ty mesverding to revedie wuihe and a secredary ebject curpaniig 1o
":::Hkmmml}-mukh—mr—hm‘\‘m;:
narmewly s those fack necessary te deberud revelssn,
e, defimed quike brvediv 46 fact merely “cernecied” e reveaton. Bebup
481
 -
Troc e R Pope? G
fawyy ¥
Docs miallibiity extend 1o universal disciphinary
enly dnfvemaly binding aws. or docs it even wnclude i g 44
permts? And what do_the theologans mea by o
iversal law cannot be spintually harmfu tisy m
l? Sedevacanm h :
W’h
s u o m a m m w
_mhmmmduque
ermwelves duwagree with each other about the answers ey
For example some Sedevacantists argue that Comunupgy In
Hand % 4 harmful and sacrilegious discipline, whuch ey
e e Car c’s wa ll ay
"
,h
whl
‘ “
e ot
‘ “ wSe
d
de
l
va
h ncamnu
e ty
Mu'!fl"*mmw
Sedevacantst apologist stated that he has no w"".
Commuon m the Hand, since it was permutted 1 the early Oy,
while another declares that such PETTISGIon 1 “Proof” thl the ey
Vancan [ Chusch has defected
Some clacm that she 1917 Code of Canon Law contau e sg
harmful dwaphnary liws. For example, the Sedevacantut 4
Richard Torany, declares that canon 1258, which permuts Cathotes
possively atiend the religrous service ofa non-Cathohc sect is otiy
anevil law, but one that asises men 10 commit mortal sin. He wiele

“Th [Conom 1258] 16 an evil low because 1t denos a docime

shat belongs 1a the aedinary magisicrium, blasphemes God, creuas
scandal, and cavaes men 10 commit mortal sins_ Hence, any pope or
aaywac clae who mupperts and defends th cvil law commis allof
shose maril sims. 1t 6 & doctrume of the ordinary magiserium
Cashelics are farbudden 1o cven passively attcnd services in now-
Catholic churches which means being present but not particpating
the services i any way Hence Canon Law 1258, which teaches
Catholicsre allowsd k> pesstvely attend non-Catholic services s 1
mecully smful law for violstng a doctane that belorgs te e

-
G, b0 s ks afireed 1o the concil, musde €xplicit mention of the passhisy {
km.“mumflmmmm-"
Swht iy oniy e the et thal they are necemary to salegund T
Woriston Coularsiess, Rashard, The Ordairy Uneovrowl Magisiertam.
.'b"h" Quastoms, Theekogscal Studins &3 2082) -
17 Code of Carn Law “Caraes 1258 1 o uelewlut
far the fakhiol to ot
0 e o 0 ke purt be the secrvd vervices of nen-Catheticn. A1 funerss o0
Mnu%uwmwmunwh
Jirroraen
e o s, pemae o merely maieoet prvence ar Accond of 8 civl % %
o i hoscing, cospes 10 4 parsem may be oleraicd for 4 port ™

%2
 Lrerst ~rmprer 1y

ey magieicri, 36 el 6 for the avbor meria] s mesmenad

sheve™
ranyt then goes o ta argue that this aw 1 condemned
“fi{*,mwu’:'u.om and New Testaments, and um.z
s lcaching of the Mapsterium. According te b prrvate
;::""“" canon 1258, which was promulgated by the Pope jor the
S sl Church (st least the Western Rute) s an evil law He aise
\hat canon 1374 of the old 1917 Code, which iolerates she
of Catholic children being educated tn non-Catholc schosle, 1
Pl law that leads to mortal uin He says
“Cason 1374 13 3 mortatly sinful law that offende God snd lands
Cabotic children o monat was because x allows Casholic
ehildren 1o anend certain non Catholic schools under the false
premise that there can be such a thing s a non-Casholic school that
docs not craanger the faith and morals of Catholic chuldew,™*
Mr Ibrany ctes ather canons from the 1917 Code as well, which he
personally judges to be evil and harmul to souls. Does thet mean the
1917 Code violated the Church'a infallibility on untversal discipitnes?
Te e Fr Cekada's reasorung, should we conclude that, since the
Church 1 indefectible, the “best explanation” for these “evi laws” is
hat they proceeded *from individuxls who, despite their accupation of
the Vatican and of varous diocesan cathedrale, publily defected from
the fath, and therefore do not objectively possess canonscal authonty”
{which would include the anti-modermust Popes Pius XJ and Pus XIij2
Are we to rely upon the private judgment of individual Catholxs, such
M Toranyt and Fr Cekada (who disagrees with Tbranys regarding
the 1917 Code), to inform us which laws are so evil and o harmiul that
they constitute violations of the Church’s disciplinary wfallibty, and
therefore prove that the Church from which they proceeded was not
Ve Catholic Church? For afl sane Catholics, the angwers are obvious.
The Scope of Disciplinary tnfatlibility
When we consider how narvow is the scope of doctrinal ifallibdity
(4 defined by the Church), is 1t ressonable o preswme, 4
_
WL "M Laws i the 17 Codes Ocwbes W Bip//wwn i
bt /et documentsbooto! /W15 bed X2 aws. 1917 Ombe
Ve
True or False Pope’ ? Gl
do, that dsciploary infallibilily (which o
fed by the Church), 15 even broader? I it 15 noy oty
eh nfalliality {0 & PP t0 publicly teach erpy 1+ ¢
nirs dactrinal
John XXII (which was certamly harmful to s0uls), should e
resume that discptmary wnfalliblity operates more """"“Im,'.“’
ol tarmful laws and practees? Put another yy, .
which hay i :':
reasonable to hoid that disciplinary mfallibility,
defined by the Church, atfords greaker and brotder prolecugg
decwonal walliblity, which has been defined? matier, the iy,
To add to the lack of clanity over this
thecloguare speak of papal infallibility a3 both applying and sy e
applying to disciplmes promulgated by tha Pope For example 1y,
1992 ook, Cinstarnly and tnfallinlity, Fr Daniel Lyons explaed vy
papal infallibuity only apphies to the Pope as teacher, nol a3 kgl
{re. lawgiver) He wroke

~Again, the pope, a5 Suprerme Head of the Church, combines i

s person four distinct offices, namely first, the office of Teacher,
and Guarden of the Chinstian Revelation, secondly, the office of
Legulsior wn Ecclesuatical matiers. thirdly, the office of Judge w
Exclostastical cauacs, faurthly, the office of Governor and Ruler of
Gods el Kingdom on earth In this fourfold charscter the
Pope 1 Sopeome, wé has the plcriude of authonty over the entee
Church, and ever every branch of it throughout the world But, and
mmark this well, e 1 19falible only 1n the duscharse of e office of
Toacher md Guarda_of Revelaon. He i mol wnfullbk »
Supreme Legisator, ar as Supreme Judge. or as Supreme Ruler, ie
s ofallik only o Supreme Teagher, for 1o the tcaching effiec
slonc has nfallibslity been promused and 1o tha office it 1
exprrasly restncted by the Vatcan Council Comsquaaly
ehicctans haecd on U ace of the Pope ener a5 Legisiator, hudec,
o Eaeevtar, have e foree agaunst the dogma of Infallibulity ™
he
On the next page, exphicttly teaches that a Pope s not infalibe
in deciplinary matters. phaty
“Now. 18 Catholc belief andl teaching, L
10maic of dciphac.
rs or of govermment he 1 mfallible only ¥
e of futh d morals, that 15, exetumvely i the doctrines (st
are s be believed and the dutes thal are to be fulfilled under 156
Chrstian Dispanaation. All obyecuions 1o Infallibiity, therefore:
—_
¥ Ly, Consromy, ol ofibtity (New Yark Lomgmars
Green & o, 178 1 o

44
 noersm ez 1

on Bulls, Bricfs, Constiumenc, o Letler of Poge, or

of Councils dealing with any of the many powe of
asciphine and EOVETTITEN JUK Mentoned arc m ouce dwpased of
Toey o ot touch the doctrine; they are sumply wreicvam ~i2
[

After sating above that "tha Pope 15 not infallible in discipkinary

sers.” Fr Lyons included a footnote qualifying the statement by
:.“,um that ifallibahity does extend to disciplines wn rare cases The
fooinoh $3yS
“lt may happen 1@
are cases, that disciphine
is e clasely
beund up with matters of faith and morals, ef 1% se nessetry ts the
conservation of their inkcgnty and purity, s 10 e mscpanable from
them I of
bt thee, 1n such cases, descrpline comes ander the hed af fanth and
morals, and strictly spperiains to the officr of taachwg end guariing
em ™"
S0, 0n the one hand, we are told that “the Pope i not infallible i
maers of discipline,” and on the other hand are told that, *im wome rere
aes the Pope is infallible 1n the matier of discrpiine * How are we %o
woncle tus difficulty by knowing when, according 1o these
Ieolograre, infallibiity does extend to universal disciplinary laws? We
i 50 by making a basic distinction that is nvariably overlooked (or
purposctully avorded) by Sedevacantist apologists. And tha reason it 13
sverlooked or purposefully avoided 15 because of how limited the
scope of discuplinary infallibility sctually 1.
Doctrinal vs. Prudential Judgments

When explairung what is and what s not covered by dusciplinary

éallibinty, tha Church's theologians make a distinction between &
twofold judgment contamed in disciphnary Laws. a doctrmal ugment
{whether the Isw squares with revealed truth) and a pradetial julgment
{whether the law 15 prudent under the arcumstances). The theologans
explain that infallibiltty only extends to the docinnal judgment, and
"t the prudential judgment
In his clasic book, The Church of Chrr, Fr Sylvester Berry explaine
mk believes that the Church's infalliblity extends %o disiphnary

—_—
1 (cmphueod
"“-W(mu::t
Trwe o False Pope? Chupny, '
“vcopency Mo Under his best arc includeq
i gt coublshed by ccclesiastical authany
Teiamen of worshpo for the guidence for the aihfyl ""“"Mm
ne worh. Such s 4 PrEcepts W Beceisanly subee g
wfalible aonty of the Chunh

He then goes on to explain the twofold doctral an d pridenny

judgment conteuned tn such laws
rwafyq
“ticaec, m making laws, the Chirch umplicitly pas&scs
udgment. onc of the dockeme, the other of prudence she judgetys
the law 13 0ot opposed to any revealed cuth and thet under i
cwcumances, @ will st and gwde the fathiul 1
pocfonmance of thewr Chnstian dubes
for 1t she were not, the fuikiy
migh be ied mle ermors n dociine at any tme Byt thore4
seomue Wt the rukers of the Chiurch shall slways enioy the greigy
searce of prudencs: consequently, there s 10 guarintee kgl they
wil alw il
orcumeances. Neuhee the Church infallible 1 applying bt ins
‘e garucular casgs™*
The temson infallib & believed
iity to extend to the dscinl
Judgment (mmplicl 11 a duciplinary law) is because infallliy5
directly a property of the Church’s teaching function (when she tadw
doctrine on faith and morale). and ot (or only ndirectly) part of e
goverung power infallible protection does not extend o te
prudenial udgmenis of the leaders of the Church (e g , when aliw s
promulgaied, whesher 11 15 prudent under the circumstaneces, s x
Ia worded, ekc ) Dusciphinary infall 15 believed
ibilitto mean onlyy s
univensal ducipline imposed upon the umiversal Church sl
durectly contra dict
an article of faith
In condermung the Liberal
of hus day
s who were expresg s
sdoaure
to change ihe Church's disciplines, Pope Gregor
XV nolesyfut
wome diaciplrary laws are rooted in the divine law
“Whea they prct
that
endall the forme of the Churc
wilkost
h
Shutciuon cas b chasged, e they net subjecting W this chE
Shcic Jmmi of duciplie which buve the foundauon i e 447
v 2tf, whech e Joviad w0 dostruics of faih by so close & bent
—_—
h“r"p 201 {mmphasis addnd).
of Gt
< ele Gure

466
Leersen =+ e

of fasth determmincs the rule of actien

:_“_h‘,,’_":m,_ to make of the cs-nmu...‘m:f.:{:
ymnishin 2d the deve pewree
hich gudes her. 18 holdiag thal het presant discrphne sabjoct 1o
ocay to weakness. and 1@ other Flures of the same nere, wnd 1
e ning thal 1 coniair many elements which ace we only osleey
o even prepodicial 10 the wel being of the Catholic religon™ie
Pope Gregory here expresas the relation between ndalliblity sad
e Charch's disciplinary laws which ane rooked a0 “dne law" and
e to the doctrine s fath~
of the
In e classic book, The Church of the Werd Incermate, Cardinal
Journet explained that “the precepts of the divine law, revealed by God
wafldbyuud«hmurywwer,hvehkmmdmw
wn the precepts of the ecclesiastical law, promuigated by the
canorcal or legislabve power “" He went on o nete that the
ecchesastical laws {1.e, disciplinary laws) that relate to the Deposit of
Fakth all nto one of two categories. they will exther be a consequence of
4 revealed truth, or the deterniation of a revealed truth. He explamns
voth categones and provides examples:
“The first will be drawn from the revesled law by way of
comsequence For example, there 15 & divine precept cayoming all
10 et the flesh of the Son of Man aad dnink his blood” (Jabn vi.
$4), and another enjotntng the sinner to have recourse i onc who m
Jesus' name can *forgive of retain sine’ (Joha xx 23). But secing
ow cannly men lose sight of things 1avisible, these preceps mught
¥ neglected by many, wherefore the Couscila of Laeraa asd af
Troat, with a wisdom cosfirmed by expenence, bave concluded te
theobligation of annual confesston snd Eastét conmunion.
“The other elass of precepts are drawn from the revealod law by
way of deterninatien There 16 a senpiural preoc aposung self-
denal and fasting, henoe the Church has deterounce cormus forme
o selldenial such 26 abstincoce aod certain medalioes af aetung. It
#adivine peccep that Chast 15 10 be bonsured wherever He w. and
He w 1 the Euchanst, 5o that the Church bas provided for the
public vencration of the Blessed Sacrament in procesmons I 1 &
ivine precept that the Flesh of the Son of Man 15 10 be oulen abd
His Blood drunk, 't the Body sad Biood of Christ see feund umder
both the sacramental species, so that the procept will be obscrved
Whether we communicate wnder one specics o undes beth, and the
can regulate the matice according 10 the noeds af the age.
_
00 Gractre Octmber 4, 1833
"Mfl-mr—-t. P
47
True o False Pope? Chapiy,
we and of the Muddle Ages she hae chogen
mmu.mlwmlynflflmm.um,flwzm
1w when they are ot seying Mass The precepts — are e y
e camoencal
o legwlairve power, whi ot
w_umm%nfmfi“hfl
commumse sccondary pracwcal messege of the Church “in
Nohce that the examples given are applications of revealeg oy,
pracucal betavior and the laws 1n queshion are uruversally sppe ™
e enare Churh. But v ths e, he halds thl heses
Laws are ot suppovted by an ebsolule asaistarice, but only
by 4 pryger
or relative amtstance This duffers from the divine assistance
ag i
to ductrines defined by the Church. For example, referring jy :
prmary ot of fallblty. the Cardunal wrole “In tranampey
and in declanng 1ts meanung, the Church enjoys an infallie ay
sbvelule masistance **
Like papal and conctlar infallibuity, disciplinary infalliblty youy
ot be a posive quality of& particular Taw o disctplime It woudpe
iwpwe a Pope to promulgate 8 law or establish # disciphine {much luy
2 goad one) Rather. 1t would be only a negative protection Thu meas
the Holy Ghost would merely prevent the Church from impoing 4
unrersel e that directly contradicts @ doctrine on faith and morals Fr
Pesar Scott explaus.
“Toes % & grofound obscrvation en the negtive qualiy of
dacimery miallibslty W cannot be some posuive quality of s
eccleniasucal law, 15 1 13 commonly understood 1o be [t 1 simply
the purely negative fact that the Church s disciplinary law docs el
conteadet drvine or nakural law Consequently, there can be i the
Cuurch, ad froquently have been. bad faws, laws that ar et
sdagtad to the cermmon good 1aws that contan all kinds of emors of
foct nd practice: St Thomas Aguinias would sey that such laws are
ot laws xt il wince ey are no longer wn ordenng of resson Io the
@omenon £90d (1-1). 96 4). and that consequently it makes no Wt
$o 3pock of thew mfallibylty However, we can certarnly sdmit tak
wasmuch aa puch umversal “laws’ we promulgated by the highest
withonity n the Church that of the Pope, they benefit from (his
urely negatve infallinlty of which we arc speaking. God would
et aliow the Pope o make » unrversal iaw, relsicd o the salvanon
 o 7

sfsauls M;o:l'dmmmllmmuuuh:m.{
farth and mora!
rve mentioned those who hold that ifallibity e
s M ws should not understand 1t to mean m.,gm;:
e 1o permut imprudent disciphnes, such as allowing the use of
}"“ altar servers of receiving Communion in the Hand {renther of
e e diretly conirary 10 8 revealed truth) Whethera dncpitnary
W,,Pn.demundulhewmhrrxumdmmmm.
vously a much different quesnon than whether 1t g
oradicts a revealed truth, and therefore leads 10 sin and spiritual
form There’s no doubt the assistance of the Holy Ghost helps to gunde
the Church even in its prudential judgments but, as hustory shows, the
Chasehs authonties are certainly capable of resisting grace
The theologsans aiso nate that displnary infallibshty would enly
esten to laws intended for the unuversal Church, and then only when
the Church engages its canonucal or legilative authonty fully, rather
than merely partially In this we sec the symmetry between
diciplnary ifallibality and papal infalhbility, which 1s only engaged
when the Pope uses the fullness of hus authonty v define a doctrine of
{uth or marals for the nversal Church Casdinal founet wroke:
* When we speak of measures of general apghcatliry [universal
Dws[ the expression should not be taken in & materal way [
spplymg 1o each and every mdrvidusl], ut i a lving. qualiietive
nd formal way It indicates ecclesiastical measures which arc
gevecal in a threefold respect (1) by thew final cavee, (2) therr
focmal cause and (3) their efficient cause. (1) Furst, they reflect the
cwnmon good of the supematunal seciety, 1o which they v
mmeduaely ordered, and they are, om the supernatural fevel, whet
measures of public safety ase on the patural {final cavee] (2) Then,
they ure laws 10 the stnct sense [formal cause], sot commands in the
ot scoee law, says St. Thomas, defincs the rule of the commes
#90d, commmand apples this rule 10 particular macrs. {3) Lastly,
they engage the prudential authonty of the Church fully. not merely
pertally they must be approved by the whole Church [cflicrent
cause] by an occumerucal council, by the Fopc tet mercly by
number of bishops or the Roman Congregations with the Pope
s approvat only ‘in forme communs * Most of the measures
™ qucswon will in sddihon be gencral im thew materal cauee, that ¥
_—
ADoes Lawsl* Quoskors 204
the Church's todalliblity Exvond 1o Diiplinary
Arowen, Nevermber 2008, 7/ www angetussiine aeg) indec Fhp heswoneartcin
Slactmcmsbur pricictaricie W08
44
 True of Faloe Pope” Q'P'fl]; l

o v the sebgects 18 whom they ! ap ly the law, % on

Commution, on fasting and abSDETC CONCTD all he. 1
somc bewever may concem only particular m""“’-"’l"flmfl
of the farthful such a5 clics of religions” Hogeye: "
apiic o all s, 1 wll ot al lways be easy 1o rec oguze
it arc wuly gencral i e
*Wmnhw_lmnflym%
Wmmmmmdummumwk
“n

Note that, in Jeumet’s explanation, s universal law is one g,

promulgate with th fulforce of the Church's Magisteral autory,
st kast one thet the Church has proposed, approvey oy
recommended throughout the centunes It also must be approved
an ecumenucal councal or the Pope, not spproved durectly by
{or 2 isheps’ conference), with the Pope later granting hus approval
formi commum This encompasses virtually all of the novel diceyiom
‘g sunce the council (ncluding the New Mass self discussed
she next chapter), which have been largely introduced
“buhops” conferences and “Roman Congregations™ {using Cardng
Joummel’s wecds), or merely permutted as an “indull,” and thereime
lack the full force of the Churchs teaching authonty A memy
imprudent practce which 1) does not directly contradict a reveued
truth, and 2) was not promulgated with the Full force of the Chuts
Magwierul authonty. will not be covered by the Church's sfallinlty
The following will ilustrale why theologiane manwin
éallibibty extends 10 universa) disciplinary laws only as far a bey
direcily relate 30 revealed
truthe If & councyl of the Church were
issue o universal law limibing the number of children in a family oé
Ppermutting Catholics use contraceptives after they reached the requsit
oumber such& law would directly contradict 3 moral doctrne
of e
Church. and shereby lead directly 1o sin and error Such a law wouldte
contrary %o the very mission of the Church O, if the Charch were®
woue 2 “non-dwcnminatory” umversal law allowing couples o be
same gerdet o marry, we would again have o disciplinary law dreth
amirary %0 a revealed truth, susce, sccording to Divine law, mamisE
2= enly be butween & man and a woman Once again, such 3 b
B¢ contrary 10 the miseonof the Church #a 1t would lead%
weuld
.mmhfihmllmw lhechlll(hltlkl(hifl"'"
detind 4, eclogans: commenly hold that the Churcha wlalli®
m————
e Mo
Tl Churshofe, p 347 {orophais addd, rumbers addod for S
47

_—— |
 e Capr 1

fl.,\am u-flv"‘;"sdw"““fl'afl\qnw
revealed trul
nl"&‘,'l‘,’wo.,‘,,md,.vmeo-mMmm.m,"w(_
1o the on
cepti general law), which permitted Catholies who had
:md’wmi and cwvilly "remamned” ko recerve Holy Commumuon,on
e ittty leed ogether £ braber md et e v ol
e et a dactrne of the Church Such a lw may lend e o
,@ah&,bflnflwp«nmmflxflww“mk-vwhmdh
udgment cont inai
the disc
ne iphndary Law, sn1tceweakd
e ny doctrine of the Church (e, mamage w
e ssluable, fornicators and adullerers - which those Lving together
43 brother and sister are ot - cannot partake
of the Euchanst) Further,
2 Pope were 10 delegate authonty to a bushops' conferenxce to decde
dscplnary matters, and if the buhops permitted a duciphne that
m:.dmdadmfimdmechwdlflmwonldnhmvnhhu:
Ghuxchs infallibrlity, since the decisions of buhops’ conferences are
sat protecte d infallibihty In the current
by the Church's crus, i would
ot be surpring if God permusiad such an evil for eur tune, 1o further
st the wheat from the chaff
We can apply these same principles to conreversal legulaen
recently 1ssued by Pope Francis which radically streamlines the process
for obMining marrlage annulmenta.Z The new law substantaily aliers
\he time-proven juridical process by requining only one judge and one
santerxce (thereby abolishing the requirement for a second pdgment of
ity 1o settla the mather), shortenung the process and even making it
ireeof charge In fact, following the announc ement
of the Mefu Propre,
reports emerged thet a dowsier was circulated around the cune by
swnor Vatican officials which expressed grave objections to the new
daciplines 2 Whale the Pope’s new legulabion u clearly mprudent and
will likely serve as a springboard for even more abuses w1 regard o
declaratione of nullity, it does not directly contradict the Church's
idallible doctrinal teaching on the indissoluabilityof mamage
In hight of current events, which have pitted “Cardinal agaunst
Cardiral” there ia reason to believe that further dwaplnes which
undermune traditional Catholc beaching on marriage and fauly could
mdeed be introduced under the current Pope, and pechaps even
fcive the approval of those Cardinals who are valuntly snding up
-_
7 Puliihesd under she Htke Mk udex Duminue boms (for the Lain church) ant Miss o
:'";’"‘“‘(hhwmmml.mfldwtmiCandal Kapor
Edwand Pervin o article “Pope Attacked Over Moty Propries
His Prapoual” Gepiember 11, J0I5), Wi/ wovw crvganc.con Mg/
ek peria) pupe-aticked-ver-mtu-prup ete-c
kispereus mser b
ontaa b
propessl
4
 -
o Fatse Pope?
Troe Crap

moral doctrine in the face vt unrebentin,

smlg
';'l:fi a5 lonig as a umversal dl!(lpl.::ry st
o deectly contradsct 8 dactrine of the Church, 1 woulg ey in
- dsciplmary infallibility as it relates 10 e | "
pudgment Further, there are tustonical cases (a5 we will see e :’w
by
conjegg,
chapter) in which uruversa) duaphnes could be seasen
hechin,of the Charch. Ul the Church herey !
oty s it relates to the secondary obiects, there will sy,
casre of unceristy a6 10 whether and 1o wha extent the Chuy.
chansmof wnfallibihity appies to laws and discrplines "

Prudential Decisions and Experiential Knowledge

Reganding the nomvinfallible prudential decisions of the
(which ase cevtanly not covered by the Churct's infallibiiy) cm
Journet makes an interesting obscrvation when considered in ligh ¢
the current scclessastical cnms He notes that in the Church's relawn
with the world, there ts a cermain depmofmunmbym.my
Ghost, but one that will not spare the Church trials, or even preventher
from falling 12k postve errors. God permuts the Church to leam,by
expenence, st a6 Christ Our Lord leamed by expenaosd
knowledge® The dsfference, of course, i that Christ could not makes
prudenial error, but only learned by expenience that which He already
knew by infused knowledge and by virtue of the Beatific Vision tht
He possessed frem the moment of His conception The Church, on e
wther hand, i able to leam expenentially through mistakes, which s
porwutted by Cod fora greater good.
The Cardinal notes that there is a certan degree of reaine
infallimity {which & wore akin to Providence than wifallibity
propesiy so<alled) in the Church’s prudential relations with the wed,
but only nkofar a it sustawns the Church in her existence, enabling ber
10 retan the visible and permanent charactes promised by Chrst. He
Wt

Al the probiems concemng the concrete reistmas of U

Churck wik he kingdems of ths world, with great poluesl
Mevomenn a8 greai culiunal sncniations, are therefore bowd W
Prosemt themueives o the canoncal power To enable 1 1o s
—_—
example has spatrn
Bk, forod
* Conk i
bt
hmot puicly and appeeviraly
UMY eemarried and iving wpter so ot and A%
i
eS
S for g, 07, M. . 12,2
a2
 st rapier 15
e, the Holy Spmt witl swpport i ot this drvase
whieh | have catled buological, wll be of a partcutar kind [ wy
either trals,
ugble errors It i
ol over het
wmwnwm
enl ai the 111 Even mare
B the assistance promusod to the particutar scclesussncal
i wological assistance will be 1n the proper scwe falbile. And
af this 100 11 may be sad that it s, m 2 sense. mfallible. wace &
T30 be always sufficient to aseore a cortain general dirscton, te
Tave ot least the mummunm of temporal conditions aceded ta camr
e permancnce of the Church and her unmmcrrupted viabie
pescnce on the stage of hesecy ™
In light of these comments, we recall that Cardinal Ratzinger said
e of the more contraversial documents of Vatican Il were ssended
1o reconctie the Church with the world, specifically, with the new
Masonic era that came upon the world followng the Masonic French
Revolution in 1789 Commenting on “the merely pastoral council,” we
saw {in Chapter 13) the future Pope actually admat that the concrluar
documnents serve as a “countersyllabus” which "represents, on the part
of the Church,an attempt at an official reconciliaion with the new era
maugurated n 17897 Needless to say, such an attempt 1o reconcrle
the Church with the world would be a grave mistake in the Church's
practical judgment, but 1t 1s an “indubitable error” that God n His
Pravidence could will to permit
St Auguatine explained that God permuts evil (including errors in
practical judgment) 5o that He can draw out of It & greater good The
experiential knowledge the Church gaine from prudential mtakes 18
elf& positive good which God draws out from the evil. The vanous
¥l that have shaken the Church over the course of her exmience
{#fien due to the actions of her own members) heve only left her
swonger in the end, and provided expencntial knowledge and
precedents to help guide her i the present and future God way
Permit churchmen to make hormble
and costly sustakes, but He will
fevet permit such mustakes to destroy His Church. While He allows
$he Church to leamn hard lessons
by experience, He will alwavs provide
suffcient assistance to preserve
her to the end, in sprie of the tnals
He
willto permit Wrote Cardinal Jourver:
-_—
3T G e Ward incarnate p etV71 igrasis Pras, (99 p.
T™Katinger, "'P‘l':flmfl--l Thevkogy (Sen Francierw:

4
 ‘

True o¢ Falee Pope? i

“mwdfiumor,umfln
e Mg, ot o ot ek 10 rpens e {,.,,,“,"J,:
reflechon or hesttation. He scnds e labourery
e s esone them © ek Al s ofexexpere, e e
: be the sport of the windy ][
,
fmes what He leave s her 1o
e o on the Lake of Tlenss,but ie realy He neversol €
1o waich over hee, and it & His omnrpotenc that finall y desormine,
M line of woveosent Grough history To ut adep
s a4 the grace of predesunstio n,
witho
s tiberty o sparng, hun sl bewngs hum infallbly t0 the gug
without
of salvamen, 86 the grace of divine assistance,freein
the liberty of the Junsdictional power or g N from
ebigion of enquiry, censuliation, eflection and praye,
Severthclens durects ts sicps snfallibly to the grea cnds that God kg
usgned 172
Selective Sedevacantiat Quotes and Omissions
It % quite revealing
b note thet when one reads Sedevacanie
whitings 1 which the infallibilityof uruversal disciplines1s addresid,
the twolold judgment (dectraal versus prudential) is rarely, d evw,
menoned, and the unimersal aspect w erther ignored or downplayed
‘The fact that the prudental judgment ia not covered by the Churht
nfalllty (meaneng thet the Church can permut Imprudent and v |
somewhat harmful practices) strikes
a critical blow to the Sedevacaniat
acgument thet “1o error or evil can come from the Church” {thal w,
from the prudential deossons of the leaders of the Church)
We have an exampie of selective quotations and omiswons
in
artle by Fr Cekada, titied "Tradstionaliste, Infallibihty and the Pope”
The arwcle corsiols mainly of quotations from canomsts
4
Gwelogas, whom Fr. Cekads presents as suppornng e
Sedevacanist pownon. In the section on uruversal discplnes,b
quotes a number of suthonibies, yet, in each and every case, he remeved
any mention of the prudentil judgment, providing his readers with oy
the porion of the quotation thet relates o the doctrnel juignient
Wi ciles the suthorilies who hold thet the Church is Infallible 0 1®
onvecsal disciplinary laws, but fails to mention thet the infallbi
would
revealedanly
iuthapply
In 50 10doing,
the ducipline insofar as It dureclly relis *
he leaves his reader with the ImPTEe!
¥oat anyhung perceived (by private judgment, of course) as haml
_—
Pl 01202 ermphe k),
474
U “ruapuer 15

pernutted by the Church constutes violation

. Kh!:‘d";dpllnlry infallibiity of the
O the citations he quoted were, n facl, quie good (athough
complete) We will clie several of them now and provide our ovwn
commentary
“RM Schulies (1931) The question of whether
the Charch &
nfallbic n estabinshing & disciplinary law concems the
of umversal disciplinary faws — that is, whesher such laws can be
coary (o ateacting of fath o morals, and s work te the spal
Yams of the fuehful.
Thews The Church, i establishing unversal laws, mfate
The Church s mfalible w masers of a5k and morals
dncrplinary laws, the Church teaches sbout matters of farth sed
merals, nol docnnally or theorcucally, bui pracucally and
effectively
The reason, whercfore, and foundation far the Church’s
wialliblity m her gencral disciphine 15
stween truths of fasth or worls and duciplry laws ™
Notice that Fr Cekada conversently cut the sentence short
ummedialely after 1t spoke of the “doctrinal qudgment > shereby
ehminating any mention of the prudential pudgment Also notice in the
above quotation that infallibality apphes to the substanceof the law (that
s, whether the law 15 in accord with faith and morals), not the scadents
of the law (whether the law is prudent In the circumstances) Thus la
another cntical disinction that Fr Cekada fails to make in ha
“analyma
The next partial quote that Fe Cekada providesi from Serapie
Iraquiand also containg some useful (but partal) information.
D) Disciplinacy Decraes. These decrees are umversal
ecclesastical laws whick govers man's Chnsan ife and divie
waship Even theugh the faculty of estabixhrag laws pormms w
Uhe pawer of jurisdiction, nevertheless the power of the wagsterme
1 consudered in these laws under another special aspect, meofar %
there must be
Mulive law, In Uns respoct, we say that e sudgercai of 06
Chc h
1 naflible

"0 aiens
s ok, (Packe. Lesrw19811, ,
pp. 3147
475
True or Falweoe Pope! Pope? q.h“
~v
e ) Thas ee Coorchrequired bymustthe sature
lesd beraiid purpose
subjecs of 1oinfy]|,.,:J'rm
of docine
& comect expostt
Saccugh ion Indeed, 1F e Ciyng
r would mposc false doctnne, by ‘:
very fact Taen woukl be fumed awsy from salvation, and the
ature of the wue Church would be placed i penl ey
Al i, bowever, 3 Epugeant 1o he PICIOBAINE o naly
wih which Chnst cndowed His Church Therefore whey
Charch cxubibes disciphacy laws. sbe must be ifallinle ™o
we draw your attention 1o The well-
wmfl nght after the explanation ol the Inlalhhhry..;m
octral udgnen (“uruversally binding decrees” thal are “Inpece)
20 before any discusmon of the non-infallible prudentia judgnen i,
on 1s made between thepowl'rdyumdm
ako noke the distnctithat
(governung power) and the power of the Magisterum (teaching
28 1t peltoate sal disciphnes. As we noted above the xwm
unsvers
held that 1t 15 the Magsterial power (or teaching function) that
\nfallible insofar as the disciphnary law corresponds to revealed tru,
Every theologian we have consulted makes the clear distinc
between the twolcid judgment, and then explalrs thal the Churh
ot nfallible with respect 1 the prudential of practical judgmenty
every single citation provided by Fr Cekada was mussing thi lter
pomnt Was this omiseion merely a coincidence, or did Fr Celads
imtentonally remove those portions ol The quotation, since includng
them would undermne his case?
In os theologscal manual, Gmst's Church, Msgr Van Nowrt ilw
makes the clear dishnction between Ihe twofold judgment, and nels
thet the Church's nfallibility would only extend to the docenl
pudgment He also explains, and emphasizes, thal disopiny
infallibility would only apply to disciplines applicable to the urivers!
Church. He wroke:

“Aswornen 3 The Church's nfulfibility extends to the goasl

duacrplines of the Church This proposition 1s theologically conain.
By the term “gencral disciplines of the Church” are meant those
«clessustical lows passed for the universal Church for the direction
of Crutian warship and Chinstuan living. Note the italiciaed work.
seclesiamticel lows paswed fos the untversal Church
The imposing of comenands Belongs net dursctly 10 the lachi
oltice bk (0 the ruling efice. disciplinary laws are only wdirees
= objoct of wfalliblty, 1, ouly by reason of the dod
-_— "
Mt Tt Degmatin (i Bdicsur Stodium, 1999), 143847
476
 e -

secsons imphct n them When the Church's e .

ey implicitly make a twofold judg mont 11 *Thg iy
docirines on Faub and mwerals’, that 1, & miser
Chur15ch a1> Duds
I lheg that ik soumd bebef a0d goad morals Tag
37 s taw considering all the circumetances, s mes: oppenc
of
A ihough 1t would he rash 10 cact asparsienc an the urmcessnese
afa lnw, eopecially at the very moment when the Chorch smposes
o capresly veaflime u. sl
| For the Church's
tlers wre never promised the highest degree of prudence fer the
conduct of affars Bul .
mat e ~ and 10 such an extent that it cas mever
Sancton 8 universal kaw which would be ¢ edds with fau o
maralty of weuld be By 115 very nature conducive o the ayury of
socls ™1
This quotation from Van Noort reflects the common seaching of the
ineclogians who hold that infallibility extends to uruversal duaiplines,
Vot enly 1o the doctrinal judgment contaned wriiun the lew and enly when
possed for the wmoersal Church And, unhke Fr Cekada, we removed
nothing from the above quote
The Sedevacantist bishop, Mark A. Pivarunas, employed the same
cherry picking, techruque as Fr Cekada m a 19% artcle he penned
cilled “The Infallibility of the Church.” Like the techrique used by Fr
Cekada, the bishop cited the above quotation from Van Noort, but in %0
domg, he defeted an entire secton, and he did so without s wuch 28
a0 ellipsis indicatin; that somethung had been removed.
Now, can anyone guess what section the bshop chose to remave?
That's ight, It was the enfire <ection (more than two full paragraphe) v
wheh Van Noort discusses the nom-nfellile prudentul judgment
Pivarunas also removed a single sentence that was intended b draw
aliention to the fact that disciplinary infallsbility applies 1 Laws that
are meant for the umersal Church, as opposed to laws covering only
one particular arca, such as a diocese i America or laly He also
convemently failed to provide a complete footnote, but onlv mentroned
hat the citation wats taken from Van Noort’s ook, Cmst < Crurch,
Now, why would the Sedevacantist bishop have deleied the entire
sechon that addresses the norinfallible prudential pudgment (as well
& the addihanal sentence drawing attention to the unsversal aspect of
e Law), and why would he have done 5o without giving he resders
—
it O . 114115 (emphams added, #olics
m srgmal
v
 Troe e Faoe Pope? Oy y
cation that something had been removed? Could
Ay I e avle lo make & persuasive case m_:"::"m.
‘v-..
duaphnes of the conctlar Church, while imprudent, do o
catiodict any tevesied truths? And did the bishop f] gy "W
Teference to the book he was aiting, and vy . !
“forger”
an ellpss (both hmes) in order 10 ehminate the possiyy ml."‘
2o reader would check to see what had been removedy | 4
‘Aher cutting and splong together hus carefully selectd Yo
the bushop wroke

“The reason for this lengthy explanation of the Chyrehy

peoperty of mfallibihty % that o
For how could
Casolxc Church Guikfully, consmently and infallibly teach 1
e futh for 1900 years, and then suddenly propose, dunng i
Second Vetican Ceunci, falsc doctnnes. previously condemnnd by
the past Popes and Councils (viz. ccumenism and religon
Uberty?™
Once again, we see she erorof Momolithuc Infalliblity rearg iy
ugly, Sedevacantel hesd Infallibility has hiits and condrian
required for its exercise, and neither the novel doctrines of Vaucas
o the novel duciplines thal followed the council meet the specied
cntena. Yet, as the bishop just adnutted, the Sedevacantsts’ emoness.
neton of mnfallibbty (Monolithic Infatlibahity), 8 the sirongest argumet
Wey have in defrwe of therr posinion! IF their "strongest argumen”
(Pivarunas) and “best explanation” (Cekada) 1 rooted in sch 4
fundamental error, it surely does not bode well for their remunig
arguments.
Buhop Pivarunas then proceeded to explan what dds
Tradsmoral Catholics (who have not formally separared themeeive
from the Church), from the Sedevacantists, such as humself (who have
done 10) Here i the buhop's explaniation for this dwision
“Yot, u # pemanly this ssuc of ipfaflibaliy that divides e
whe cali thcmaclves Waditional Catholics Some traditens]
Cathelics reyect the errwes of falée ecumenism and religrous hberty
af the Seceod Vaican Council and yet insists that the v
athors of e crrors are sull Chinst's represenuati here on ve
card
Seck 1 concluion 1 meshing merc dan te deny the infallley
#fthe Clurch."
_—
..'."“"""""““f"flu-ch-m' (19%)

-
 Ui - ——r 12

Pivarunas correctly notes that infalkinkty

<P s trahtonal Catholic from Sedevace e
Fison_leads 10 the nescapable conclumon thet if the
tists’ understanding of infallibility Is erroneous, ey e
ut posibom 15 crromamus Indeed, it m thie error Wat causes
S believe thet the Church, currently undergng i Pasmon, 4
et the true Church Based upon this eror, they sepurate from the
Church and begin 10 attack her from without, like an enemy of Chras,
i 3 groater and more butter zeal than that of the Liberal wd
derm as
who attac k her rom within In fact, many Sedevacaniets
wpress delight m secing the Church suffenng thi crais, suce the
warse the situation gets, the easier 1t 1s for them to rationalize
thew
yomton and draw scandalized souls t thers cause Hence, they reyoce
¥ e they shou ld
weep, and they laugh when they should mourn.
Before Our Lord's Passion, Jesus sard ko Hue Aposties. ~Aman,
amen] say to you, that you shall lament and weep, but the world shall
e, and you shall be made sorrowul, but your serrow shall be
wmed into joy ~ Likewse, dunng the Fasson of the Church, the
Cathotcs lament and weep, while the Sedevacan hst
reoxe s
. For
enampl, followlng the purported *canonuzations” of John XXl and
John Faul 11 (addressed in Chapter 17) which inflicted a ternble wound
n the Church, & Sedevacantist apologist posted an artcie en hus
website declanng: “This 1s 2 Great Day 1o Be a Sedevacanist!” He then
wrote “For all those anti-Sedevacantist waditionalists out there, that .
badl as 1t gets for youl” Indeed, the enem
sbosaut of Christ sd
ierepice
in His sufferings just as the Sedevacantists rejosce i the suffenngsof
the Church, while the faithful weep and mourn Her Passon Ll #a
Catholc's sorrow “will be turned wnto joy” when the Church nses
agan, as Our Lord revealed, what will become of the Sedevacantst's
rpcing?

-
e sgle. nete: hat 5. Phus X referred te the Maderrins as baing, withe the Church,
""“":::’hyw-mfiu,-ummmq_-wu-v-fi—
et b e wihan” (Pascrnds, Scpaember 8, 1907
This call o ming the werds of a wine priast whe sakdk “The pevblem wilh mary
- o hat they ol conder the amwdonts (Le., e svossc lar heideg
Pt mid et the conomuences o sich pomtien, They should rather connidec the
eSences, ane sun sway frean sach gruve errer

m
 fl
Trweoc alse Pope? Chapy g
An Example of» Non-Infallible Discipline,
Female Altar Boys :
cacantions are quick 1o claim that the
mflkmw:ohw disciphnary ifallibiity, when T':.:fl"
g, concrete examples, there s disagreement among
"W“”‘ they all agree that the concliar permission offoa.
‘used in the Novus Ondo Mass, 15 a clear example ofo “violger
¥ ibe Church's dwciphnary nfalbbilty Therofore, we wil s g
eur example, noting thet the following analysis can be applie ,,.,’:
the conarlise dcrplines thet are behieved to violate infallibisy
n-mprx‘mdfeflukm,o{mum,lsaw“
of the femmst 1deology that has pervaded much of the
Curch. The practice was resisted by the CONSETVALives for decady,
befere John Paul 11 finally caved in and permutied the practes |t
fashion, the “conservatives” promptly reversed courye
declanng the practice 1o be perfectly acceptable and even “tradinony:
mmply because the Pope approved it, the Sedevacantists, on the eihey
hand, chearfully proclaimed thet the practice "proves” the Church sy
Vahcan Il is not the true Church of Christ. Both the "comervatiy’
a0 the Sedevacantus are gravely mistaken
To recall what we've learned thus far, there are wo conadersn
ta determune ¥ a uraversal disciphine (here, female altr boys) a3
wiolation of the Church's infallibility 1) whether the practice i dinety
contrary 4o a revealed truth {doctnnal judgment), and 2) whether e
practice was imposed 43 # universal law upon the entire Church. (T
prudential pudgment s ot a consderation since infallibility does e
ambrace Vs aspect of the law )
Doctrinal Judgment
First, the decinnal udgment. Does the discipline permithng femie
;l.lxmen durectly contradict a revealed truth? Some Scdcvx':;:
ve argued that aliar boys represent Christ as an extenson
prestood, and therelore allowing female altar boys equaies ©
contradicng the Church's doctrine on the all-male priesthood T
Ppossien was advanced by the Sedevacantist blogger, Steve Spersh,
n arcle viied “Almr Girle are Impossible for the True Ciinek
Church.” He wrote-
Al boy1, i pricws, represant Chrue through their cxisnsss
14 et whe carry out the searifice: The rwsson why formulcs ot

480
e aprer 15

+ the alar a5 sl boys falls m s with the rensen

ke i
Of course, Mr Speray cites no auihonty suppors
s asseron
ng
pat ltar boys “represent Chraet.” and that 1s because none exwt It
e alar boy who acts in persenia Chrst, but the pries hurnselt wha
s the Socrfce 10 the Father Speray claims that the protubaion of
alar servers “falls 1 line with the reason why they canf be
grests,” but this 15 a fallacous argument. Women cannot be priests
Leeauee they are nvalid matier for the sacrament of Holy Ordars. Ne
such metaphysical 1mpediment exisks for females 10 serve at the alfwe
hecaute, unlike a priest of deacon, altar servers are not a level of Hely
ers.
Afer cffectively stating that female altar servers equate 0 & fsmale
Speray concludes that the presence of altar guls proves
2 Church and te popes are not Cathobe.” In another
“the Vabean
campleof Monolithic tnfallibility, he wrote:
“One sl argument (perhaps the nmplext) 1o prave
Sedevacantism
The Catbeixc Chuarch has infallibly wught that s duciplincs cant
e harmfal o conwary 1o Divine law
Ahar gurs are eutwand signis used in the ceichranen of mass m the
church of Vatrcan 2, which has been approved by Jokm Paul II's
sificl interpretation of the 1983 Code of Camon Law
The Vatican 2 church aad 16 popes are st Cotholec, thus they
ww L prt of the CatholieChorch.™
Did you get all that? Here It is in a nuishell. “The Church's
disciplines are infallible — John Paul Il permitied female altar boys -
The Vancan Il Church and 1ts Popes are not Catholic™ Speray's
ndemnn ati
of “the Vatican onand its Popes™ eviduntly ales.
2 Church
ncludes the Vatican 11 Popes prer 1o john Paul 2 who ded not permit
femalealtar boys
Needless o say, Speray s completely out to sea on these matters,
lad withing , mapor premsse (which Gals 1o duskngush
a confused
—_—
Grem7,“Altes Girl are Impeseibl for the Tree oo Charch,” ey 7 213,
077 Mt maken e sarme arguanart i T CD tlk G oureriod Caboboam 12
fmmc.mm.l-

431
 |
Tree or Falee Pope” Chupry,

betwean prudential end doctrinal judgments) a fa)

'i;::;;'
are contrary 80 Divine iaw), and arethen,,..‘
fhat o piisconclus
o on (the Vabcan 1 Popes m:‘:u
“is not Catholic”) As we have e
entire post-Vatican 1 Qhurch
osamng, fallibilty extends to the doctrmal judgment m.':fl
withn arwversal disaphines, the chansm would certanly noy ey
\he Church from passing imprudent disciplines which do ngt “,_3
contradsct an ariche of fauth. Coneequently, imprudent discrplngs
way prove Wt they came from illeginmate authonty hws”:
fak 0 chatnguh between the doctrinal and PrUdential pdgmmy
swpect of diciplines, he doesn't explain, much less prove, by|
Iturgioal permsshen 10 se female servers could directly coniragyyy
doctrine of the Church (and thai is because It doesn't) Yet, for Sieyy
” argumen
Speray, fewwle altar servers “is perhaps the simplestand
Sedevacanism {echowng the “best explanation” -,
affirmanons of Cekada and Pivarunas, respechvely)
Te be clear, we are not defending the practice of female i
servers. It is a scandalous practice and was rightly banned by e
Church in the fourth century % Nevertheless, serving at the sltar iy
Wiurpcal function, and permuthng women to perform Liurged
funcions w not drectly centrary t0 any doctrine of the Church. Infat
1911955 Pope Fius X1 permutted women (0 serve in a liturgical funcn,
which was previously listed to men (more on Pius XIT's lituegka
reforms in Chapier 16)
Nota Univerally Binding Law
We have seen that the use of female altar servers, as imprudent &
# muy be 1 not a violation of the Church’s mfallibillty, because It das
net directly contradict any revealed truth But there 18 aniiet
consid that erabio
should be addressed
n the use of femalealtar serves
6 net ruqured by any uruversal law of the Church On the contrary®

-
o e Church Jagainat female altar service} has b
* W] gueral disciphine L0
—-hn—-u-wc-nn-.-uluwmummuymwni“'
of E2s 44 120
b ey snd which tus figored 10 almest all canerucal calectionsFoundaien
27 G wam by Michae) Saker The S joseph ST
,'""*M 199, quoted in “ Adtas Garla. Feminisi Idcology and Ihe Koman Likg?
o arrwun, Lasey Tradtivos. Ne M8, July 2000 i
.":-hnmhpm.m_uwmdmmm&fl ei
Wt NNo 761 feend Bakory permitied wumen ve moy the Ulurgleal w8 00,
fd which il n & eurgical tunction - one that Plos XI bl 2!
mambutety Jarid with the Chorch » lurgicai worsup” (1bd Neo.41)

w2
 paersl U \naprer15
Communion in the Hand,# fermule servers are mera
w“'" “indult” which 15 8 conditional permussen, at nmw
W‘ 10 do what the general law of the Church profibts
VY

T ase of female altar servers 13 permutted besed upon « 1984

[erpretation of canon 230, §2. But the Interpretation is worded ag an
RFaFBER

on o the general law, which Itself sl yrohubits the practice The

el pertnite the Bishops 10 allow female ata serversat hew
gwcretion. It reads
“If m thns oc thit dccese (SI mdent in aligus disccesi) the
Bubop far purticular reaons (peculiores ob ravemer) gormrs
fomates a6 well [as makes] 10 serve at the alar 4
Jn the offical communication, in whuch the Secred Congreguien for
aF3

Dutne Worship and the Discipline of she Secraments notfied the

of the new interpretation, Cardinal Antonio Mana Javierse
Oras included the following explanation.
TX

“In communicating the above mformation 1 your Episcopel

Conference,| feel obliged
to clanfy ceriain sepecw of Canen 230,
§2 und of iis suthenlac miterpretation
esne

and aotive
1) Canon 230, §2 has a pomus 3 preceptive
sharcier ‘Lici possunt’ Hence the permiugsion givea w thus
rogard by s0me Bisheps can m Re way be considered 35 bundung 0n
wiher Bisheps In fact, 1t 26 the conmpetence of cach Bhep. o fus
dsscese, after heanng the opmion of the Epucepst Coafereace. o
make 2 prudeatal judgment on whis 10 de, with & View 1o e
wcicrad development of Irturgscal life 1 his own dhecese
2) The Holy Sce respects the docuson adopied by cortiss
Wiskops for specific local reasons on the baais of the provistons of
wuRE

7 reply w she requesto yaur cenbarence of aheps regandeg DU '8 g

-—uwmfi_.\wmdhmmuwfi-mmn
Ielewing. Pope Paul V1 calls aMcritbon o the e of the Instracion Memaraic Dot
#23hay 1N an retaining the iraditarnal pracice in use Al the s te he has lakan
260 account she reass givan W suppert ysur request and the suicosse of the vour ke
s mutier The Pope grants shal theeughsut the trrvibsey of Twar cankerener. sach
:'-ruy acvorsing te hes peudent adgment and cormeience autheruae m fus discwr
FINRN

Wemt nduch en of the new rise for grring commureen. (Sacred Congregutem foc Drvioe
s Combarmacas
b, Letes N reponee i n domcane. o pravidens of thoue Ryo1 199,
o e [ngull fie comamurien in the hand, May I8, 1968 AAS pp. S84
s, pp 351, v
,M:‘Asl-um PP S41-5E2 Canen 230, §2 provides: “Lay pemers 24 (A e
k¥

M-‘I«mmumw-a-by-q-mhflhnmvfl'-“‘ e
.“::_l\md commertitler ar canter, ar sthar funciiens, JTUrdg ¥

@
 ~
Falae Pope’ Pope”
True or False et

Camon 230, §2 Al e smme . . howeser the toHoloyfollSec m::

v
Tecal thex 1 wil always be very appropeate ow :
Taditen of biniag boys serve af the alar As 13 well gy,
hae led 10 » reamunmg development of pricstly vocatims n..';:

3)If m some dhocese, on the basis of Canon 230, §2, e p

thas, for pariicular reaéons women may wlso serve g
St ths decrston must be clearly expl ained to the fanhtus :.2
gt of e sbove-mentioncd o "2
Clearly, the permussion to use female altar servers yy -
wiended to be a umersaly budig e The disclphne hog o
permustve and not a percephive character” and Is “not considerg
Iunding on other bishops.” Furthermore, the Holy See exphatly suw
“hal 1t wished to remnforce “the noble tradition of having boys serve y
the alier,” and “the obligation” to support altar boys, which 15 e
porm® (or law) of the Church Thus, the non-binding, Iiturpey
in o way invokes the Church's discrphnary infality
permision
Commenhng on the wording of the new official interpretansnof
Canon 290, §2, the canonust, Msgr McCarthy, founder and dureciseof
the Oblaies of Wisdem, wrote:

“The imphcacien s that (e sencral Wturgical norm grahtbyise

female allar servers remains an exustence,
5o that, an gencral, werse
may nok scrve al the altr unkess » local ordinary ntervenes bys
posarve act and granks permussion for his territonal junsdicten.
hes egata
Thus, the Congr n
clarified the authentic interpreisuenW
moan that 24 1/ 1s grvem 1o dieccsan bishops 1o perml Uhe wee of
formlc sorvers.™

Fr Wnan Harmson offered his own observation on the wording o

the new indult, ag well as 146 practical implications.

_—
Vacam Communication on Femaie Akar Servers, Cangregatien for Divipe Wordd:
Rame. 15 Mamh (9, wpped by Cardinal Anianis Maris javierre Ot P
{emphane adied) S bt [ vevew v o libeary curia chwommenm. | |
SCarhy, “The Cassencal Maurig o the Ravasd Autheric Inerpreower o O
Ketpdiog Feomie Aar Servem.” Fellowship of Catholic Scholary Nl
Dcetsbes WAL p 15 (emphusie added) (Citation and focwoie takan 0% L
v, No 88, July 280 ) The suthar elas aioervee (p. 17) thal in sy 3% Y0
SytOromadarpeetaion appiis endy to v Lunrerive Chssch, s thet e 08
e Cut horchun comtirsos s facbid e ahar 448
 Lpwer= = ——r=iz

aaf m fact the suthenlic SnCTpCIMN af € 230, §2 sag

ymg, Insiruction construte am duk - w1 ethcr werds, pa
r 10 the ik, & CONCENION 18 depast fram the ner o
chusvety male attar service - it should follow lepcatly ey
oy has the Fght 10 Tpose this EXception on thode whe want 1s
earshin accord 1o the
ing nomM tn other wor1tke, thould ke
wksowledged that paicsts and Fathful whe swouply whpect 14
e or assisting al, Masees scrved by womes of girk have a
{phi 0 be able 10 assiet al Mass celcbrased acconding te te
e
~a

As we can sce, the liturgical pernussion of female altar servers

other such conerlar novelties) cannot be coneidered a unuversally
Wnding
law when 1t 15 1ot the law of the Church, but an exceptun to he
Jaw (and onfy m the Latn-nte) Moreover, the excephion does not
BErex

compel the bishops to grant the permussion, nor does it compel any of
the faithful, even 1n those dioceses where the bishop has gransed the
permusion’ 1t goes without saying thet every Cathobic has 4 nght 1o
weniup according to the nomms of the Church This proves that
dscrplines of a “permissive character.” which are exceptions %o therr
elated norms, could not participate in the charism of infatlibilty @
==

Women Deacons?

Ia s CD set, “Counterfat Catholiism vs. Conuiskent

Catholxism,” the Sedevacantist preacher, Gerry Matatics, argues thet
female altar servers are “not possibie 1 the true Church” because
“women are hot called to the sacred munustry or to the extension of the
scred punssiry thet altar servers constituse % He then saud.

“"Tmummmwwunmuw:hnmm
'r
“We ale ot that el Lives are seperaniad by i i of oo Crivm 248 et
Cobulic prwprudence and ecciesiascal Lew (anethey it igrercd i Sedevacasht
g and spevches) Hence: the never Laws of e conciliar Chrch te.g, sarmuntl
cremakien) in e way vielate dieciplinary inkslihiy, rec do thev svertiom the
prohibilian of (hese practices. Fer cxample, carsn 26 ef the 193 Codesars s
Sminary (100 yeat) we (munemerial custem can pecvad againet 4 corrary canescal Liv,
s

14404027 sy Cutbom i the beat eepeeie of L * Fusher canen 283 Lol

Pbes cxprum menon of thew, however a Uw daes ot revelr conienyo8
S memecal Cutean.” Sce the Chsch s inesaeial cusems e e b P
xanw

tohig ""‘-p-mu.,,.u-nm.-nt'h-mmw-'dnv-“"“'a‘;
h e treve permisatons and not obligatory practics) meane such iew e v
Decied by the chariem of infaflibility
Mo, Consrhatat Cathl i vx. Comsoteot Catholiim.” dox L wack &
485
 ‘
True or Fale Fope? iy
Cuorch Faahers mugin Ut for women 19
_,,,..,,w would be & profanatien of the order mmh;;' the
e It canot be. 15 contrary 19 divine law, it 15
och con change, ey sl 1t 15 not & matter
of et
:Cc:niemldldn 10 roated 10 divme law nself e T T
uently about why permusaion to
"’im‘- m m“yc.monc ‘Church fodsy canmer ':“n'r::'l"
Church, e said “next they will have deaconesses" e
Now, aduutiedly, female de:lmm would be 10 a cony
fferent category than female altar servers This is
ww‘mommm-mehnskpwmmh“’" I
and only men can be sacramentally ordained to Holy Orders |y
metaphyscally impossible for a woman to be ordained as o
Just 54 1t & metaphyscally impossible for a woman to be ordaned,
pcst, but there w no such metaphysical umposeibibity for women
serveat thealtar
Dunng hs talk, Mr Matatics went on to say that some people
argue that the reason there were no female altar servers or women
deacons 1n the sarly Church, w because of the cultural norms of thy
day He responded by saying thus argument 1s entirely wrong, s he
el culture in those days would have had no problem with womes
serving in such a capacity He said “1t was only larael and then the
Church, the new larael, which stood out Likea sore thumb, that did et
have women as sacred funcbonaries within the temple, within he
Church* He sad the real reason there were not female altar serven
:wm i the early Church s because it is “agairst Drme
Now, we can only imagine the enthusiasm and zeal with which Mt
Maetics would declare the Catholic Church today to be a false Chuth
of deacens. Al
¥ it began allowmg women 1 serve 1n the capacity
all f altar grrls “prove™ the Church s 4 false Church, how much mee
8 would women descons?
What Mr Matatics and his fellow Sedevacantisis will no doul b
surprised
10 leam 1s that the early Church did, in fact, have women
to serve #
soucecs. That's nght. The early Church allowed women
doscwrs, and for centuries. In fact, the women deacons even wert
Wrough an ordination ceremony, thereby giving the fasthiul e
impression that they recewved the sacrament of Holy Orders (which%
 e —re s

, 15 metaphysically imposeibie)
m’::fmmimg 1o Mr Matatics, woml..'"' - :::“‘:
B ese female deacoriesees (and cther women) e o
O the sanctuary during the Mase ~ another thung. shat ¥
5::'-’ eclared .7 u-l m:):ubw' and “contrary 1 Divine law=
tting female allar servers,
as an excephion
W‘LP',',\':'.' ihe Catholic Church today 1n “fase Chore
e 1.
Matates caims), what does the unmversal use of fewale
* about the early Church? doscone
I Mr mum“mlnhmhmumnm
gt the early Church was also a false Church for permuting femade
which, according
to him, w a violakon
of Divine law These is
Sy no other conclusion that he can reach, based upon hs own
mentation And Mr Matatics will have to go way back o discover
ly when the Church became a “false Church,” stnce the first
Forule deacon (Phebe) 1s mentioned a the Sible The Bible clearlytells
s that Phebe served “in the mimistry of the Church® (Rom. 161 even
sheugh, sccording to Mr Matatics, “women are not called Io the sacred
sintry of lo the extensions of the sacred munsstry
** Here we have
Mr Matatics darectly contradicting the inspired Word of God And
Phebe wasn't the only deaconess The 1913 Catholic Encyclapadia entry
on Deeconesses begins by mentionung the deaconess Phebe, and then
sintes that "1t 15 not improbable that the ‘wadows’ who are spoken of at
lurge n 1 Timothy 5.3-10, may really have been deaconesses.” It then
adds.

“In any case there can e no question that befare the muddle af
the fourth century women were perautied 1o exercise ceriain
defintie functiens in the Church asd were knewn by the specisl
e of diakonon or diakonissai
Most Catholic scholars incline 1o the view that & 1 nat alwsys
possible 10 deaw a clear destinction % the carly Church betwasa
desconesses ad widows (cherai) The Didascolia, Apasieiic
Comstitusions and kindred docurments undoubledly recognize them
% separate classes anid they prefer the deaconess 1o the widow %
the duty of assisting
the clergy Indeed. the Aportiic Constiutions
1L 6) enorn the widows 10 be olssbcat t9 the descemcsmec. It %
Pevbabic akso, 2 Funk mamtass, that m the sarbicr peniod 1 v
Sy 2 widow who could become a deaconcs. buk usdoubledty the
Wct Tty Of age, suxty yours, which were st first prescbed for
Widows, were relaxed, at least #t cenmn perieds snd W cerun
—_—
Motk “Countarel Cotbalicim 1, Consiount Caaivm.” dac L vk
&
 Trae or False Pope”

e case of thonc te b SPPOINIEH10 bdea

:,“,,,‘;"': e Conme of Trllo 1 692 Fixed the age a oy v 1™

o Aot As
o s o
(e - ol occuped a place i the Sanctuary during Mg, o
though, according to Mr Matatics, “the Church Fathers taughy m.?,:
1o be n the sanctuary would be 2 PeOTInALON of he g
Drvine law 5
whach God has establashed” and “contrarythisto "Violation
e the 1913 Cashelc Encyclopedia article, of Dy ,N"‘
{ird ducpliary wéalliabty?) was practiced tn the early Chorch,
“There can gaun e no question that the deaconestas i e
fourh and fifth centuncs had @ disunct ecclesistical s
wmmm-fmflvmflyafomuwdm(hu
wewly descovered “Testament of Our Lord' (¢ 400), wilows kad y
g 0 the anctuary dunns the colchratian of the liturgy
stood 1 the anaphors belind the presbyters, they commllmcm
et the deacons. and before the readcrs and subdeacons, and
sesage 10 wy they had a charge of, or superintendence over the
descancsses Wi
anlinatan of deaconcsses by the laving on of hands. whick was
‘loacly modkeled on the retuml for the ordmation of a descon™
Clearly, Mr Mataties 15 gomg 10 have 10 go way back beyond 198
1o find the onigin of the “false Church” that he denouncesand
cendemes i s talks.
A record of the ordwnation ceremony for deaconesses is found 0
Apostolic Conatitutions™ which date back to at least the fourth centurv
‘The following Constitution even gives what appears to be the form snd
matier of lhe rite It reads.
“Conceraing a descomens, |, Bartholomew enjon O Biskep.
thou shalt isy thy bands upon ber with all the Presbytery and e
Dowcons and the Deacev a0d ems cssay Ciemal God. the
thou shalt
Faber of Our Lord Joms Chnat, the crester of man and womi
_—
<t Encycioped
1913, vod 1V,p 681
_r“c—n%nmmwm,ml
(mmphanss ndded)
¥ Thw Apenikc Corsto 1. “emacen,i ight b, f ndeperdt
ot 5%
uh—mmmm,w-mw dactrine, wuams-"wf“
Smarial of ryed
[T guidare kot the chergy, and b seme evtent for the laily « Cabwlit
 -~ e

fll with the Spirt Mary asd Doboray,

‘;"uzf‘mdmmmmmm‘m.mmukfl::"
v vor of # worsen Thou hat 1n the tbernicle
of winca aad
of thy holy geies Dy
the temple didst appoinl womicn guardiane
e now took on ihis (hy handrmasd. whe 1 apporsted mas the
quo‘-Drlwmlenlunmhfl&gMyw“
Clanse ber (rom all pollution of the flesh and of the sprt, that she
Sty wortuly accomplish the work commmed use ber 0 thy glry
o e prasee of thy Chnee. "%
As one can magne, this uriversal duwcpine of
was nol withoul 1ts problems, snd certainly resulted in harm to
e tithful, partcularly due 10 the abuses of ewcess. In fact, some
b pen deacons began 10 claum for themselves
the power fo conacrate,
whih resulied in thesr offering of sacrilegious and invalid Maases! The
Catainc Encyclopedia article on Desconesées speaks of the ~spasmadsc
atiempts of certaun {women] deacons
10 exceed their pewers
and to
Gam, for example, authority to consecrate “% It goes on to explan hew
e Church reacted to these abuses
For example, the Council of Nicea declared that deaconesses, who
1ad undergone an “ordwnation” cevemony, where, in fact, lay persons
ordination, while the Chaldesn
whe did not recervea true sacramental
ke of ordaining women deacons states thet “the laywng on of hands”
does net confer an ordination, but only a blessing - but neither
condemned the practice of using female deacons. From the Chukisan
e
“The archdeacon presenis the deacomcss-canduistc 0 the
Ishep, et hands are joinied, and her bead s bowsd Thes the
doaconess raises herscll flly erect snd the bahop pleces huc hands:
o8 her hiead. but mok tn the manner of an erdination, ruher, be v
Ber bus bleseing, rectics & silonk peayer sver bt and commands her
wavou prde 5
The Caeic Encyclopedis explaine how the abases were suppeessed.
“ITThe Chirch made siaclf heansl 1 conciher decroes, and the
ahusc 1 the end wen represscd without difficulty Such reswcuve
—_—
» elkc Emcyciopadis (1913), val. IV . 651 Taban fram Apsiekc Comenitons (Pook
V)» Rk, Secha1%13), 1 volOrdinaos and Do e gy par KA
LA Vg oy vl VP 862
IV, p. 652
Ve
d o, Chaldamorum,
e, Vatcan 1937,, 101
"
Troe o False Pope’ ? Ty
scom o e feund i the rather obscure |ty
Devtcen. and 1 the more exphen (SUL ca10n of the Couy ¥
Nocase.5 which last dsnmctly lays down that deaconesses ye ‘:
- lry and that they receive no oy,
o caled (Helcle-LeClercs, Conciles. 1, 618) tn ne pont
oo scemi atways o Jave been considerable reluctance _“;
e deaconcsses, st any T nder thal NBC, M3 N Tecopuny
eoniton of the Church, The Councr of NiSes in 304 reprmeg
he mumpton of the levitcal RISy by women
ellr docroes, notably that of Orange 1n 11 (can 26) forimd g
amlmmag of dcacomcsacs sheoptihes "4
Over time, the unversal discipiine of permitting women 1 4, .
doacons, and the abuses that 1t brought with i, were brought io anent.
“The Catholic Encyclepedsa explains ther gradual dusappearance
“a the e of Justiman (& 365) the deaconcsses sull held o
poswen of umpora the church of St Sophn w
Al nce.
Consamtinople the safl consisted of sixty pricsts, one hucdred
dascons, forty deacencsses, and ninety subdeacons, but Balsaman,
Puarch of Antiock sbout A D 1070 sates that deaconesses i any
poopet scrsc had ceased 10 extst in the Church though the title was
bocne by cortaim ouns (Robthwon, Minisiry of Desconcsscs. p 93,
while Mawhcw Rlastares declared of the tenth century that the i
ranke
leglaton concerming deaconesses, which o
themd
amang e clorgy Wan_the laity had then been abandoned o
forgotten (Migne, P G, CXIX, 1272) In the West i spie of the
Woacike decrucs of several councils of Gaul n the fith and suth
scaturcs, we sl find mention of desconcsecs ceciderably st
1han dete, hough 116 chficuh 19 aay whethes the fitle was mere thn
8 hesonfic ssme scrbuted 10 consscrated ViTgins and widows.
Th we rwd i Fortunatus.
that St. Radegu
was ‘ordusel
nd
dcconeas’ by SU Mwdand (about AD 540 — Migne, PL,

* Couwn
of Londcos Comers
l 11 “The appeintmant of_socalied female i
A Himy o
(prodbyides) or prosderss shall nat hake plase tn the Church * {C Hefele,
e Conencis o she Church. vol. I (Eddburgh. T de T Clark, 1996 p 305
Councll o Niswe, Coms 19 “Concernie the locmar Paulinisia whe sk i 23
G Courch, i determined thal they must be rebaptised unconditorsly T2
b to b bameies n
1 e pant have bovs seiled amang the clergy if they appedr
Mm-umumnmwumwm
3 om ey they ar dhanr, s b bl H 1 rgh s they shwald e 090
‘-finmi-d-—-uuhmmmunmh‘“
90 e rul e o form shall Ve whervesd. We reer fo deaconemce W BT T
@00 o kb ot ey d o recetve any npraitan oL hands, 4 1t they 4%
iy v\ioyapas
Cotilic smamberd(1913}, e oty
eyvel. IV, -
p. 652
a
 e = —p i3

LOOXVIE, 502) S0 also the aih Ordo Komanas mermam, o

focrg port of the pupal precession, the feminae diacony
hyrerissac quoc eodem die bencdicanrw” und .:
ned in the procesuion of Leo [l 1n the ey
:f,“:&,m. Lib Pont, I, 6) Forthcr the Angle-Smen Laates
il he clevernh conmury sill rtarid prayer ad daremosen
Jendom which 19peirs i the form Exsids Dwmmre, comaon o
s deacons and deaconesses The only mviving feie of the
Srimaion of deaconcsses n the West secre 1 be the dervy by
siole and ™81maniple o Canbuwan mms m the
fe bishop of & profession
carcmony of thear
Here we have a urwversal discipline of the Chrch (present both in
e Enst and West) of “ordaining” women as deaconesees - a practice
\atmplies not merely a prudentul error, but, one could argue, even a
inctrnal evror, sce a case could be made that women deaccre tre
this wae
contrary to the Divine law of a male-only clergy Certanly,
much closer to a dectrinial errer contawned 1n a disciplinary law, than any
suversal law of the post Vatican 1) eva. Further, ihus ducrplane caused
harn o the falthful. and even led 10 one of the gravest of all offerses
apunet God - olatry - sice the female deacors would induce the
hithful to worship bread and wine through thelr uwalid Masses
{which some attempted o celebrate)l }t does't get much more
“Marmthen ful”that.
Now, f Sedevacantios like Steve Speray and Gerry Mabcs are
g 10 claim that the mere permussion of female altar servers violates
the Church’s infallitality, and proves the Vancan I Church has
isiected, then how much stronger coulda case be made agaiut the
euly Church, which permitied females ¥ be “ordained” and serve as
dracons” One can only imagine what the Sedevacanbats would say
Ve Qrurch foday began “ordaung” wemen descors. It s
they would
aspeseiv ier” say ~The true Church could never allew mch
thrg. The Church 1s infallible in ‘her discaplines.”
And what wou “harmful disapline” say abo
thus ld Pepe
ut Peier,
who may have pernutted Phebe (Rom. 161) 0 act as a deaconess
Is Mr Matatics now going to cast dowbt upon the
#wng hue day?
Ppacy of St Peter humeelf, for pernutiing th violabion of Divine law?
And what does Mr Matatics’ preaching bell us about the mepired Wosd
#God? After all, accordingto Mr Matatucs, #t s “not possibfor
le”the
:flemmhmmawom.lmmmmflu”m"
Oty 10 “the order which God has esmbiashed” and “Divine aw”
—_——
Sl it 1913), va. IV, . 42 (cmpini added
491
 ~
Trwe o Falee Pope” g
emen
to serve m the saceed munistry - o,
,T,.: e Yel,the Bible el ol us p,"l') .
e sty of the Church” Either M Matatic s ™
hay erpeg',
e er the Bitle, Apostofic Constitutions and Chypep "
have all erred im thesr recording of history Which ’*mnwmm"',"
‘Agan, 1t should be obwious that we are not defending the F')h
of fewale altar boys or women deacons We freely concede thyy owien
harm resulied from both of these practices (and therefore should py
shunned by all the fathful) Ot Pomnt 15 SImPly (0 show iy,
“posstie” for God 1o allow in His Church without His gy ¥
whalliity bemg violated I the umiversal practce of pery
women descons - even allowing them 10 undergo an ordpys
ceremony - is not contrary 1o dwciplnary infallibility, then nehey ¢
altar s or anything else that has occurred in the post-Vancy, |,
Church.
Te conclude, noke well that we can easily apply the
analyss (dwciplnary vs. prudential judgment, and whether it
: as.a universal law) 1o all of the noveluies lmln‘h‘..':
post<conalar Church. They include female altar boys, lay lecses,
Enchanstxc “murusters,” Communion in the Hand, Communion whie
smnding, Communion under both species, the ane-hour Euchanse
fast, mandatory abeti from meat only twice a year,
nence and so forh
and 50 on. Imprudent? Yes Impossible? No Violative of the Churhs
dmaiphrary fallibality? Absolutely not.

"
 Chapter 16

~ The New Mass and Infallibility ~

Jnargy of the Chusch falle 1o the category of 2 yruy

F R 2THE

M‘;:,g, and is therefore commonly believed to be covered ¥y the

Church's snfallibility As we have seen, discipiinary laws conta two
igmests, the prudential judgment (whether 1t 15 a $00d discrpline
under the facts and crcumslances} and the doctnnal udgment
{shether the duscipline squares with Church doctrne) Oy the
{nal judgment of a umversal disciphne w covered by the
wiallibiity of the Church In addition, the taw must be promulgased
it the Charel's full canorucal or legislative authonty, and “wpred”
=

ypan the Church (by uruveesally requinng or pemutting Cathalics to

4o somettung) Only when these two conditions
are met are the
Cuuuch's disciphines tnfallible, or “spotless.”
As Pope Pius Xil explars.
EERITIR

“Certanly the loving Mother w spoiicss m the Sacruments, by

which she gives burth to and nounshes her children, 1a the fash
which she has always preserved mnviolaie in her sacred laws
1n the evangelical counsels whuch she recommends,
¢ those heavenly gifts and exwraondinary graces sheough whick,
with mexhaustible fecundity, she gemeraies hosts of taartyrs, viegins
and confessors ™)

In bis 1926 book, Hlustratsens for Sermens and Instruchens, Fr Charles

Callan, O, explaine infallibaity 15 the comtextof lturgeal matsers.
“infallibility, then, 15 not the seme thing 36 mwpration. %
dacs not apply 1o any and every act of Pope e Church, but o
teaching concer faith ming
and morals { ) 1t does ok conlerupem
hm [the Pepe], whose prerogative it 1s, cither smlesmcn o
fresdom from liability ie err n cverythmg be may spesk sbeut, mec
0 cvery occasion on which he maey spesk The undallilnyof
the Pope docs nor mean thet he cannot sin, 1t does el meas that he
CAnnt err in matters of science, it does nor wean thak he cannct e
% political matters; 11 does mer mean that he cannct err m ke
fersonal theological views, 1t #o¢s aor mean that he catnot oer m
4 pervate theological utterances relating v faith of morals, it Goss
ot mean that he canmot err in his persomal decisions, 1L d0cs 24

————
P P XIL Myt Corpors, N, o4, e 29, 1043 (bt sdiodh
Lo
 ~
Tewe
o False Pope? Capy, h

2 Order, reve
ofpts
worshp,
e s iy
ecclesuastical rules etc "2 satvg

Noce thata Pope i able 10 €77 0 the Precepts of woryy, aty

matters.
mln:\rp:lm The Curch of Chnist, Fr Sylvester Berry Tive
concrete examples of when infalliblity would apply to ™
natters: Commuruon urder one species and the veneration of gy,
Communson under one species reflects the Church'a docinne Vit gy
Lord s completely and substantua lly in eit
present theher
conserany
Host o Precous Blod, while the veneration ol relis
infallible certitude that such veneration i hicit. according to the Mindof
the Church and the law of God Fr Berrry also explains hoy
displinary infallibty applies o the prayers approved by the Chuag
for uruuse ver sal
1 public worship He doe notssay it the prae
will necbe san possible, but only thet they wil
the bestly net je
contrary t any revealed truthe - that 15, they will not be directly
heretacal In fus own words.
“Dacoplsnery Maters. Undar thos oad are included the laws
and prceps cssblished By ecclesiastcal authonty for ihe
regulsnos af worship e for the gudance of the faithiul thrwughece
the workd. Such Laws and precepts are pecessanily subjeet to the
whiilble awherty of the Church, bec
ofaus
ther inomag
c
cana
of acue
(ath seé manals
s For example the law prescnbing
Commumon, undcr onc spacies presupposes the docwnne Our Land
ie presant whole and cntwe under esther form, and the v
woncermmg the cxposmmen of relics Iikewnse presuppase veneration
ofthemuiin ()
Covlianes. A} The prayers prescrib or appreved
edfor
whrversml wie i publsc worship cannot be nasased 1o any revasind
k"

In heht of these explanations, it is clear thet disciphiary

infallibuity, as it relates o iturgical matters, is actually quite llmied. I
orly preverts the Church from imposing a universal low ut ¥
dirschly cardrary 10 2 revealed truth, or from approvinga prYer
univesal use, which dursctly contradicts an article of farth. In o0
 s - T 18

e Churchva universal laws and dieciplines wi ney

faro? nterapplcation -
pangs us 10 the iseue Newis Orde Muswar, or -
T e was publehed by Paul V1 m 1968 The segor -r '
" that the New Mass violaked the Church's miallibliy becus
Ha ins docinnal crrors o omusstone, and then ot thie
B O < Paul V1 could not have been a true Pope 5
The first thing to note 15 that doctrnal emors and omesions in a
‘40 not, m and of themselves, violate the Church's duey
Ty Disciphnary infallibiity only guaraniees that the practicn
{o prayee) will not implictly contain 2 doctrnal eror that dyeely
.,,‘,dunmmleo(the&flwlw Faith (1e, 5t wall oot be .
nd thi sopect of mfallibuity only zpphies when the dimcy
utter has beer legally promulgated and imposed upon the universal
Church, which did not occur with the New Mass, 2 even some
Sedevacantists apologists acknowledge
‘Net only did Paul VI not violate infallitnlity when he publhedthe
new Musal, bilthis peaceful and umiversal acceptance a6 Pepe
,.anm«sdm!umuldmhavedmuo As we saw 1n Chaper 12,
Faul VI's peaceful and uruversal acceptance by the Church as Pope i
an ifellbie sgn (which provides infullibe certitude) of his legibumacy,
which ensures that he could not have bound the Church tw heresy
Since we have infullible certitude that he was the true Pope. if he weuld
have violated the Church's promuse of infallibality, the ene 1o biame
woulit et have been Paul VI, but God Himself, who would have fasied
1o keep His promuses. But this, of course, s not possible.
in ths chapier, we will demonstrale shat even i one hokds that the
Irurgcal aspects of the Novus Ordo Missae are evil (due te omussions
and imphait errars against the Faith), one cannot clam shat Paul VI
vislie the nfatlibility of the Church when he published the new
Mt This 15 because the new Mass was never napeend an the

Reculeg what we kearmed iy Chupaer 6, an etror that does qwi ety wud momfally
Mihmwkd’.{mwtmhfl‘lmq‘imnm
Ve amtradichan.
docs ot qualifv a6 herosy buta lesser deslegaale
The Sedevacantusis fiest agmert that “the Pope canmet give evil bo the Owrch” (Moyar)
Thy thers clatm that the new Maas b evil (Minec). They conctude by wming ihis promss
whe gave s ihe e Mass, was o 4 i Twge Ther arto b Mapec. by
St Paul V1,uuxnhwuumnwm-mnd-nmmmmwmm
:;“M;I"Ilmkhmn-m Ihe Pope cannet errer e b icule i ilindty,
T ANWMM“-MNMMMM
¥ Focuis Luorcy righty berrvesd “ven thone whe farsscet) ddam e
ekinty v se o e New Mo, # prmion which e Seciety of . Pas X e, e
Tt preseied sy paaitively hevesical et in the New Mams® (ie the Novis:
ViBl7 Amyetus March 1997,
%5
 ‘
S,
TromFaelse Pope?
s some trcke
versal Charch by law No doosubt t dithd ernoe twapermit the Popefy u:n] oy
flmfl shaw, but the Hoa ly Gh
v th o
e u
Ne wl Ma g
as , tno e
r di d he pe rr mi t h| mm ,u ""m"yn4u’
pro be en pr omulgated, in ...""'
ss , wh uc h ha d
the Trad it io na l Ma
e Bu ll Qu a Pr im um Te mp or e Pe rpetuy,
Pape St Five ¥ in th
St. Prus V' Quo Promum Tempore
In1545 the Comndl of Trent (1545-1363) was convened to oo
the emrors of Protestantem which had onginated severs) decidey
curlir These errors andheresies began 1 show themseyey o
raforu” 1o the Mass, which the mnovators sought to bring
Mass mere 10 Iine with the errors of Lather (such a5 less emphagg o
the sacrificial nature of the Maas. which Luther denued) Since the g
of prayer determunes the aw of belief (ex orari lex credendi, the Hyy
Council of Trent responded ko thia danger beng posed by b
innavaters, by anathematizing anyone who said the “received g
" of the Church could be desprsed, ormutted o changd
into new rites. [t also directed that the Roman Missal be restored and
codified 30 that the faithful would know, once and for ail, what s the
“received and approved nive” of Mass for the Roman Rute 7
T shat end, Pope St Pius V issued his papal Bull Qus P
Tempore. which rendered a defirutive applicaion of the concillar ducme,
by mandating a single missal 10 be used for the Roman Rite for de
Latin Church, with some munor exceptions for missals that had beenin
use for move than 200 years Que Primum served as a unifying force
she Raman Rite, and 2 bamerof protection for the dangers threalusg
the Mase at the time.
The Mussal promulgated by Quo Prumum is irreformabie, at esstin
5 subsinices,
since it reflects
the substantial identity of the Massof the
Roman nte, and net even a the authonty to abrogaked
recerved and approved mmmn;e it substantully Te
Mucals thet have been sssucd since Quo Prmum simply seled
:‘dd-\nl changes 1o the nie. while leaving the substantial identty »

In Que Prmum, Pope St Pius V promulgated the new Mussal uwg.

She full force of b papal authonity He wrote

ve d on d ap pe wr ed s of th e e Ot
So vs nmd bee meit e swci miration of the sacramens, may be dog ¢
—— 37 i.anc‘ d ©
ers h
ist- ethet mamrni-
ad‘ andm sheiehplfl
o4 m e, h
ooerm way '
or m be w ged TV
charfl
h& (
“

11 Comerl. Semion 7, Caman 13 (Warch 3, 1547)

”e
 Thetew ™ per 18
wwe specificatly command eaxch and
dennssor, and all other_persons or "Mnmm
FREE,

gty they may be, be they even cardinals of he Holy Reman

EEich 1o rend the Mass accoming 10 the ote and maneer g
o Herewth 1aid down by Us and, hercafter s duc -
Foplccly dscard alt othcr robnics asd nies of ether
Towever wicient. which they Nave cosomartly Folomwed
Futhermore, by these presents [this law] m virtue of Our Apoxstic
authonty, We grant 2nd concede m perpetuny that, for the chantng
Missa) 15
o reading of the Mass 1n any church whatsoever sy thig scrople
to be followod absolu tely, witheut of
consctence of feat of incurming any penahy, judgment, or
N

and may frecty and lawfully be used We likewise daclare and

TRARFFZIETa

erdain that no one whosoeveris foroed of coerce

e alterdthe
Missal, and that this present decument cannot be reveked or
wdificd, but remaun always vahd and retain it fulf force
1 18 Our will, therefore, and by the same sutharty, We decrse
at, afler We publish (his Constitutiand on the siiof enthe
Musal, the perests of the Roman Cuna are, afier shirty days, sbliged
12 chaornt read the Mass accerding 1o . 1o one whosoever1
pecmitted 10 alter this nobice of Our permussion, situtz, ordmance,
command, precept, grant, indult, declaration, will decree, and
Johibetion Would anyone, hewever, presume te comaut such an
L e should know that he will ncor the wrath of Alwmighty Ged
and o ihe Blcasod Aponti Peicrcs
and Paut™
“ssxsa

Not a New Mass

The Musal promulgated by Pope St. Pius V did not, as some

mtskenly believe, promulgate a new Mass. It merely unified the
clcbration of the Mass, 1n the Traditsonal form, by requinng all press
of the Roman Rite to celebrate Mass using the same misal - 2 wwwal
Wat had remained essentally unchanged for the previous ove
“-'-;n': years,and which extends bxklou\enudsxollheamlr
a9¢ from Which it developed orgarcally As many scholars such as
Igrann, Fortescue and Knowles have demonstrated, the Roman
Mamal by St Piss V, 1n 1570, was already compted i i
promulgated
Q“‘Hkalflwnmfi?npe&m(mwmmn)wls
1mually unchanged from the ime of Pope SI Gregory the Great in e
th and seventh century) For this reason, the Roman Miss (ihe

—_—
NP Pots V., Apassolic Covaiurion Que Promum Fompare. fuly H 157

7
 ) ~
Trwe o Falve Pope’ Clupy,

rudln-ull M.g).r- histoncally been referred to as the Dimay,

rocgy
rorgt, Fe Adruan Fortescue, wrote the follg
e omgated by St s V Nty
“Esscnually, the Musal of Pus V s the G
w"im AD 600), thal again 15 formed from
‘osk, which depends on the Leonne callection We fog
of cur Canwen a0 she treatise De Sacraments and allusiony1y
1 1n the IVith Cestury So eur Mass gocs back, withous essentia|
Eha 10 nge , t fint develo
the age when out of ped
the oldes:
Sl 1t s stll redolenn of that hurgy, of the days when Caesy
Pk the world and thought he could stamp out the Faith of Chng,1
han oor fathers met togethcr before dawn and 1ang & ywe
Chm thers 15 not n Chnstendom another e so vencrable a
ors

Did Paul V1 Abrogate Quo Prrmum?

£ s Canetitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Secresanctum Conciaw

(December4, 1963), the Second Vabean Council decreed « "refom”o
whe Roman Mussal What followed the council’s decree in the years w
ceme was a staggenng number of pronouncements, which gradualy
inwaduced changes into Catholic worship that broughi t more In lne
with the reforms ef the Protestant innovators ' The carliest chings

*In n mugraicunt Sesk. The Reform of the Roman Litrgy (1993) Mogr Klaus Comb:
mrwe “The Demasian-Gregarisn, Uty ramalned in use threughout the Rami
CMM-‘lhwmh_mmllhmuuhdflmM
1 wan the Misal of Pope Pras V [un the 16ah emntury| that has been disconsinund. Uls
the appaling charges we are cutrenitly witnessing, the changes mude i the Ras
Musal weer o puried of almost 1400 vears did et irvalve the rile Isell Rather et
‘were changes cancrrned eedy s sdditien and enrichment, et * The Eefor of I Ramst
Lty Ln Pricom ond Reckycmend (Feet Collorn, Coborade: Rommon: Cathlic Bowks L1
;mmh-fimqnmmw.nm Langmana, Groen &
r
4¢
X, b man Puut V1 appamind 0 e the Comeilium fo e implomcaiene
1&mu-nwmqy,wumwfiv:m-firfi""
Coshmic srayers s (1o the Cathic Largy everyibing which can be the shaier o4
bt Marh
oo The choebresvan,
out swparsied
Mot far19 1365 the V1,
. fur Paul
canfidantthatof Pope ean Guiten(L%
Frosesiani” (=
Ly b st Vatkcan [, sad “The nseriasof Pope Paul V1 witl regard
‘—'!dan.u--.-m».c.muwm“n.mw_
Umuld st amuide wi the Prosntard Utaegy There wie weith Pope Foul Y10
i i 0 T, . et 0 corec, u, et st o relas, whit o
40t kil e i the Sam arl, § nepast,to et the Cathak Mo

4
 A e —ve o

the Tradtional Mase,”? untl Paul V1 released i

Missale Remamum, on Apnl 3, 196,lowthemrg
Apestolic
e 1<
o the publication of the New M5 Fol
o Musstle Remanum the Congregation for Drvine Wership (et Pay]
e mulgated” the New Mass by issuing Celebratunis
Vflwfl‘zg‘, 1970 1 Other pronouncements from the c:::;::
- even one thal attempted to ban the old Masc by mng
o exiuave use of the New Missal ]
from the tme these pronounc
wereemen
wnleathed ts
on the
Church over four decades ago, Catholics were dided over thew
ng and level of authonty Specifically, the Liberal and Neo.
onservative Catholics argued that Paul V] legally abwegaied Que
sand that the old Mase was forbad raditional
den . en
Cathelics,
e ather hand, marntained that the old Mase was never jundically
dregated, ot was. the niew Missal ever undically promuigeted 2 2
bexding law In the mudst of thus confusian, the priests who continued
o 12y the old Mase and refused 10 say the New wese (and stl are)
persccbyuted thewr Liberal-munded counterp thew bwhops
art, and
ellow priests.
The postion of the Traditionalists with respect 10 the Old Mass was
sifcially (although not publicly) vindicated during the reign of john
umTERS

% the Clviniot mase.” (Aprapw, Diccsriver 19, 1993 srd again i Chrtan Ondr, Octaber
)
*For eumple the Conatlium {the Commitiee respeneivie foc Lhe keurgical *reforms™)
sansed inter Orcumenici in. 1964 (which made many changes o the srder of b Tradsimrul
Mass) Nuper Edibe s 1965 {whach intreduced Mass facing the prople} and Ty Abwac
s 01987 {hich indroduced tmarry addimeral charges 10 Lhe Mas). t should aos be
noted that Lhe Madernists efforts to pavr Ihe way foc the New Mass had alroody begun:
during the reign of Popr Mus XIL with the expernmental Eastet Vigil (1951, changes 1o
hhm.al(flh\‘a’,(cfl«hln‘mmd&umfl"flhtwfih
forHly Wk (1995) and vecal parucipatienof ihe faititul (19%)
of the Roman
# The Congregaion fav Divine Womhip issued the General lnsiruction
Mal o “GIRM, » Sew days ater (April . 1969)
A we will furher dmcom Laker iy (he chapwr becoume the New Mas was
provuigabed” by the Candinal Prefect o the Congrrgatn For Divne Worship tmal net
She Pope) 11 runt only falis te tevgger the infallibibty of the Church, Sut sew alss arpec &
®ecemartly redered nutt by s Gus Prravews, which wws prosadgaied by the Pope (& P
Y1 An infarier carvet aneal superiee’s Livw mmmmummm-:
:«Alymmkpxmmm.umm--lmm-ww
R5ex thr Netke Confrra Epmcoanem (Octobes 28, 19F4). 1t mmmt b poars that s

::'hfimmumwlMIW‘n_filflm-uflmhm_fl—h
Teulring publicatien i the At
4"
Trae o False Pope? o
Py
ppowied commumeion of Tune Cardinajgts
fl&;:u:-de the answers to two questons. o stugy g,
1 Did Paud VI or sy lawhul sulhority legally sy,
Tradwional Mass? e
2) Was any prest free 1o say the Old Mase withoy -
parmusson z
1n 8 1995 wserview, Cardinal Stcklet, who was one of th
Cardieals, explamed the findings of the Comimussionas well 1 e
other interesting, betund-the-scenes information about the sy The
followng w Waken from the interview first published in The Lany '™
Magezzne We quote the Cardinal at length
“Questiea Dl Pope Paul VI acwally forbid the Old Mass?

Cardins] Stickler: Popc John Paul acked 8 commussien of moe

sardwals m 1986 two questions Firstty dud PopehulVlrxmy
other commpeteat autbonty legally fartd the widespreat celebraton
of ibe Trdoatne Mass = the present day? No He asked Renelu
explictly "Dod Paul V) farbd the Old Mass”* He [Benell] never
snswered - never yes, never no Why? He couldn't say, *Yes.ke
forvade 2" He [Paul V11 couldo't forbud a Mass which was frem i
Y aad was the Mass of thousands of wnis ad
bepinning valel
fashful The dufficukty for hum (Paul V1] was he coyldn’t farbnd t.
ul a the same ume be wanted the new Mass 1o be said, o ke
sccepred. And 50 e could only say, *| want that the new M
should be sad” This was the answer sil the princes [Casdinals]
Jave 1o the question acked They sard the Holy Father wished that
all follow the new Mass.
v Tcan say s 1w
oac of the Lardinals Only one wsa against. Al the others were for
the fruc permussion that everyone could choose the old Maes Thit
wewer the Pope accepted. T think, bot again, when some bishop's
coulersaces becarme awarc of the danger of this permussion. ey
came o the Pope aad sé This absolutely should not b sliowed
bocarme & will be the eccasion, even the cawse, of coniroversy
@rweng the farkhful* And nfarmed of this argument, | think. 8¢
Popc sbained from wgaing this permisseon. Yei as for B¢

—_
Traptinat Kot Meper, bk, tchlr, Casarats, Ganitn, Inneceh Palassol

00
 kN P —~r=1

" gs Thereany wasprecstanolhct QUESLION, VeTy nicresing Caneany

- | can repon from my ewn expermuce -

10 gond standmg.from celcrang a Tm..'.:

* Nims span”” The.nune ardinals uhanmously seresd s b
Mfll&mmflm}%
pr ob ib it io n nd & tu nk the Po ge o We
u s efic al never
Be ean h
of fi ca t pr oh ib it io n ™17
It of the funding of the nine Cardinals, most brshaps
“z;f ‘of John Pl 1l continued to forbd the Od Macy (,..;.,d:,':':
TRz

alice or 1gnorance) and persecute the priests who contued o

te it Tradioral priests were even labeked schaomate fon
celebrating the Tridentine Mase, and forced %0 endure an umImaginable
s of conscrence.
‘But 1n 2007, to the shock and dismay of the Left (and, no dowb,
pany on the Sedevacantist Right), Pope Benedict XVT tseved the Moty
, Surmmorkm Ponhficum, which publicly declared what had besn
concluded by the commussion of mune Cardsnals twenty years eatlier
Contrary to what vartually all Catholics throughout the years had been
Ied o believe, Pope Benedict confirmed that the Old Mass had never
been puridically abrogated and, in indeed, was always permitted - ust
15the Traditional Catholics had always mawtained
In a statement that sent shockwaves throughout the Church, Pope
Tenedict declared

“1 would like 1o draw attention 1o the fact that this Missal [the
Trdional Mass) was uever jundically abvegaied wod
sanscquently.
in princrple, wag siways permitied "
Inremedying this grave injustice, the Pope sated the obvioss:
“What earlier generations held as secred, remams sacred and
oromt
for 1s too and
o even connidered harmiful “1*

For almoet forty years, the entire Catholic werld had been led 1o
bebeve that the Old Mass was abrogated by Pope Paul VL but ihis
—_—
Tor Lot M agazine, Summnes 199, p. 14
“m-mmunph:«'m-nn——»-om-d:
Tkt of e Apestelc Lotee ~hiot Tragee Doks” Sumarr ot 12|
et he Reian Liturgy Prime to e Retwrms of 1970, Guly 7, 2007 smphas
T cnphasi adden.
s01
 -
Trwe o Falee Pope’ > Chape,
never ”

eee i T
was entwely false The old Mass was
brogated, just as the New Maas was riever juridically prop,
ur ch to su ff er , an d wi at
th regard ‘:.lh: Whny
God wi l
fo l
pe s
rm it Hi s Ch
, m l e ‘ h\ d..d,&,dun.“dm Sti
Mmln {&hi
af ft
(
ic
m
t Ha My st ca l Bo dy , but never a1 or P
woch evile to the Church's
charism of mfallibilty e ".¥
vl concermng the Okd v2 New Mass s (and sl conmm,
e} & source of consternation smong the faithful, it can hardly COmpy
with other crises God hus willed ta persuch
mru t,we leyn
as what
Chapter8, when God permutted synods, called and overseen by ,o';
to iame erroncous decrees (e g, mistakenly declanng thy
ondinations performed by previous Popes were null and vou) ny
then be contradicied by other synods, also called and ovencenby
which decreed the exact contrary
Wile Tradstonalists had always maintained what Pope Benedy
XV Erully affirmed, the Liberals had coneistently argued that the O
Mas was qundally repealed and the New Mass was ridsaly
umposed Some Sedevacanhiats, such as Fr Cekada, iranucally jooed
fanks with their countierparts on the Left by arguing that the New Mu
was indeed the obligatory law of the land (no doubt becauitse heip
the Sedevacantist case} For example, in response 1o
by Fr Lawney, which clearly demonstrated that
abrogated the Traditional Mass (the same concluston reached by fe
Cardunals), Fr Cekada sided with the very Progresslves that he clur
o loathe
Bacause Misalc Romasiurt was an Apostolic Conehitution wsued by
the Pope humself (while subsequent pronourncements concering lhe
New Mass came from Vatican congregations and not the Pope), Fr
Cekada targried Missale Remanunt as the document he clamed vilaied
the Church's infallibiity (since he knows that 8 document wsuedby
semeone other than & Pope could not have done so) In his 2000 arkde,
tiled “Did Paul VI “Mllegally Promulgate’ the Novus Ordo? The Socety
Ol SL. P5us X and » papular Wadihionalist yth,”® Fr Cekada's arpws
that in Misasic Remartum, Paul V1 legally promulgated the New Mis.
impesed It upon the faithful as a unversally banding law, 14
abrogaied Que Primum in the process. Let's take 8 look at Fr Ceads
Arguments to deternune if he 1a belling the truth.

article phpTids13lecamnsme-8.
sy / ariclennsn
e srsdicmale
sz
 e ~wper 16
Paut VI's Missale Romanum
kada begans his artcle by providing the follownn
‘,”C‘,s,.m~ He wrote “Themap,mflpm“:
M’d. law to the commurnty by the lawmaker
o)
e aothanty. 20 thal_the wll of the lownaber 1o smpuns
7 o an become nown to s SuecksT Note har P paiait
ets alily promulgated Law or discpioe o Church
5 an obligation” on the faithful Fr Cekads affurmed
e wked bt case, dd Pau VI mares
o vl oo
o subpects an.obligation (i € the New Mase)?”
Fr Cekada then answers b own question by suying: “Paut V]
557

the obligation of a
akes it abundantly clear that us will 15 to impose
Jaw o s subgects ~ As evidence for hus assertion, Fr Cekada pornis to
e Conaitution’s mere announcenent of the new muasal, along with 15
wwoduction of three new canoné ("Euchanstic prayers”) and the
consecration formulae to be used m each of the new canars. Based
NFAEFEEILET

upon these changes, Fr Cekada concludes. “The New M 1

yromulgated, and the law 13 binding.*
Fr Cekada’s claim Is patently false As one can plainly see by
arcfully reacing the document, Missale Romanunt does not *tmpose an
obigation” upon the Church to use the New Mass, which w
oven accardingto Fr Cekada's owm defiritwom In fact, Miseale Romarrim
decrees natimg beyond what Fr Cekada actually pemis out in his
aile Paul VI decreed the opten of using three new Euchanstc
prayers, and he decreed that the same consecration formulse 1 ko be
wied 1n each of these prayers.2 That's it. As Fr Paul Kramer explains,
“ihe Constitution containa only two decrees. 1 We have decuded
1o add
ErRIrTAIRY

¥hree new canons #o the Euchaneic prayer and, 2 We have diructed

-
>Fr Celada siies M. Lotumller, Prowigwion of Lat: (Washinghon. CUA Pres 1947, p.4
ferpha sis
in erigi nal)
:":L_m-r—n mn——mmm“-;h:
-y e, shosdn, propoius, vris. o
(Rormac, pramcrpi
Petw St Frus V's s of shase terms s 2pplecd 1 W prommulgasn o the
een
Tndee Miswal 1x hbo ardl Paul VI's wae of these lerms a8 appied 19 anly eeviein
“onpencnts b in e rew wiesaal that e pbihed (crmecrasion fevawle, cners) R i
Rpomast 7t Ceiade
el these specific compunerie. that Faul V1 et forthitutinienMisalsavse Wae
PO oul trut she heading of Ve Apostelic Conm Romen Mial it
Fotmula (and e if o were 10 acguc
that the Carvaundn,
‘Mnmnaummw::uamn&m -n__—mmb:
iy Fe Coinda it 4 dacepire 4 was Pl V1 0 peseig 0 v
M 0.2 statws ¢ e at, o nenat, bave.
510
 ~
True or Falee Pope? Q‘hu

the Lo ientscal in each form of y

berd .
‘f.&' l,mfd lfik Pu.',‘f‘:::“n: h
um annources the sm
‘Missale Romariwc
M"_L"mmflmm amum mh

that all three use the same formulae for the c oy

anstitaton legulates neheng clse regarding the Mass Fr Pyyy Kn.T:
sstuiely observed
“The mer: publicomen o€ & tcw Missal docs not cffct g
af provieus legulation Tt 1350 such hung
umpiicd lepslaion, 11 must mot be forgotten pertams o g
very cssence of Law thal 1)l must be ProceptIve in is wording iy
1 gomg 1o makc serncihing obligatory. 2} i musst specify who ary
the abyects of the faw, and i st specify where and when the [y
aifl be m force, 3 the aw must be publicty promulgaied i e
manmer specifind by law, by the competent authonty %

Paul VI's Missale Remenumt did noh promulgate the New Myay
(the Nevus Orde Missac), a6 Fr Cekada would have his readers believe
In fact, even some af Fr Cekada's fellow Sedevacantists acknowiedye
. For example, commenting on the aforementioned artle by fr
Latsney (who demonstrated that the New Mass was not juridicaly
promulgated) and the article of Fr Cekada (who argued the contrary,
the Sedevacantst apologet, John Lane, wrote:
“These texts and commentary demonstrae perfictly clearly what
1 huve been seyng Byyl VI did pot make sny law pemmittiog. o
obliping anybody 10 ukc the new missal Fr Cekada cannot pomnt o
the roquisie lext - he mghhights the promulgation, and the
greceptive termmology, yet he signally fnls 1o pomt to the part thal
sy “Porsons X arc pocrcied or obliged 10 do Y %
While Paul VI's Musale Remsenum decrees the usage of three new
canons and requires that the same consecration formulae be used
each, 1t does not promulgate the New Missal, much fess umpose the
New Mass 2 2 universally binding law One could certalnly argue it
the words and ackors
of Paul VI gave the impression that
b wss
ngand imposing
Que Prmum
Mrogra the New Missal upon ¢
Church, but e did ot legally do se. ook

_—_—
$Tie Swkctde of Altreng W Church s Fach e Linergy, (Temryville: Convectont
T
o]
ey itn
o) p 1M
Hr L ported thess smmaasort o e welats a hiag:/ /o e
sedevaceib

504
 enoss - r—per 1§
;, Missele Romanum expresaes Paul VYs "kt
e Mase wonld be happly received by mm'{‘.,..h‘“‘“
MW, st was not!) Paul VI said “we hope (comfidmas) by
FFFTs

il be ceve
e sl ve by the ol
d a an inrarmas eg
m‘smmmmd whic affir the comm uniofty al , g,
h me on
i obmas) hese Ous dectees an prescrpions may pe
2e ective now and m the future * Far from “umposing” e ey
5. “obligation” or the Church a8 Fr Cekad contends, sty
Homarn does little more than express Paul VI's persoral seniaant
soeard the athful's reception of the New Mas and hm hope fer
yrter ruty 0 the Chorch
"as Fe Lamney cotr
note
ec d ntl
his artic
yle-
“Pope Paut VI dd not oblige e use of i Mas, bt omly
pornuiticd 1L
fosiion Missaleword Romonum He . mercly says ‘Ut be 1
confident that [his mussal] will be scceped-* There w no clear
ordet, command, of rECEpt Imposing it en any prest!”
Notwithstandirig the absence of legal language in Missele Romanu
[

prowuigating the New Mass, Fr Cekada clauns tha, as long as Paul VI

Tus will to impose the New Mass 2 an obligabon (as
pnately dicerned, of course, by Fr Cekada), ths suffioss 1 make the
publicakon of hw russal & uruversally bundng law, even though an
actual decree of promulgation does not exist (Cekada's theeey would
cenainly be news to any Pope) Based on thus, all Fr Cekada believes he
has 10 do 18 convince his readers that Paul VI destred 10 umpose the new
Protestant flavored Missal on the Catholic world (even if he didnt
actually do s0) and he can then assert that Paul VI violated the
Church's infalllbility, and therefore could not have been a true Fope
That 1: the typical kuind of argumentation one finds in Fr Cekadas
arkc)
We respond to Fr Cekada's theory of promulgason by the Pope’s
pesonl hopes arid wishee and ot the Church's offic! logiletree proces
% if Puul VI didn't know how to promulgatea lew) by quosngFr
Keamer, who said

“Netwilhsmnding the Pope's persoral wuhes and opsess

i kally caresied
xpressad in an umolficial aoa-tegal manser,

_—
Feny 14 the Nuvis Orde Miasas EAlT” Asgets (March 1997
505
 ‘
or False Pope?
Tre Chapiy

Roman Pernff did Wt knpece the new ntg of

im‘:f.:.kmmwmn:m"v My
decd, to the Church's urisprudence
comtman senee, the wil of the legslator s manifested .mry(:, ,‘,":L:
be swidly proemulgetes, and not by the private mkrpretanoe o -
Pope's non-legal and non-promulgated “hopes” and "wishes Infig
i Chusch ba stnt requirements for the Valid promulgaton of e
recndy o prevent the fathful from having o personally dscem
T fact, 8 or was the will of the legrslator The legista tioniy
tself
informe the subects of the legrslators will But for those, such o 1
Ceka who must
da, “prove” by any means postible that Paul VI wyg g
a irue Pope, they are forced 1o resort to such non-sensical argurni
make their case
Then , ineulting tone, Fr Cekada says the f
in hw typical
about Fr Laieney, whose article, a6 we have noted, simply poinied sl
thet the written legislabion did not impose the New Mass on the
Church {which Fr Cekada essentially concedes) In response, F;
Cekada wroke'

“Fasher Lusoncy’s approach 1o 8 pope’s laws, and that of tis

heory’s ather adhcrents w, w fact, ‘Canon-Law Protestantis’ —
miarprct aclected passages 36 ywu swe (i, and o pope 18 ever gomg
totcll you what they mean And if you don't find the magic formuis
Whal you have: decrded w *required” e compel your obedience, well,
100 bad fo the Vicar of Chers o carth ™
Thi is the land of rhetoric one continually finds i Fr Cekedas
wrinngs. The use of insuling and sarcastic verbiageo denigrate others
(hese, a fellow priest) enables him to mask his own intellectually
dehcient, conwaductory, and even absurd arguments. He cnticizes o
Lawney for nowng that Psul VI's wnitten legislation did riot promulgsie
the New Mass (an argument Cekada cannot obviously rebut). and lhen
claume, 1 resporse, that the mere wel of Paul VI (as o
:...., by Fr Cekada) muffices to promulgate & usuversally brding
w
MA- ::ve noked, even some of Fr Cekada's fellow Sedjv:"m:
- agpinet shis abeurd theory For exam example,
—_
St of Allrmp o Fth rm the Lburgy p 134 (emphasia sdded)
DU Fond V1 ey Prmlgac of St e X 4
he Roovim Onda?, The Socey
PoPule wadivnaiict
syt Frimary 2008

508
e ey 1o

wpr Cekada focuses solely on the fact hat Pyal vy

el This 13 mdecd meccsmmry B i b 2k sy
il scually
e
15 uelmmm-kcnhwlbleh-uu.,
aaywhere n this iext [Mussic Rommuom)"® -

Mt Lane 1s simply stating what should be obvieus

"::;mus s wall through legaslabon. toall. The
Sefore moving 07, We MUt CommMent on one more qxowscn
¢ Cebada sarticle Nea the beginsung, he wrote- from
“While many traditional Caiholics sdhcre o the poaston that
the New Muss was Il'l.l:plly promulgated, advecates are
wumeraus among the members and ;gporiers of Asckbishep
Marcel Lefebure’s Socicty of SL Pius X (SSPX). The thosey
seatly 1to what one can oaly term the Society’s JanscamtGallcan
[Noia Bene hereucal] concept of the papacy The pope u
“rocegaiacd.” But his laws and icachings et he ‘sited.’ Yeu get
a pope. but none
al the senumental beicfits of theoretically heviog
afthe practical inconvenences of actually obeymng him.™
In his typical bitter spirit, Fr Cekada engages in name-calling and
fdicste {even calling his opponenis herctics) for those who
acknowledge that Paul VI was a true Pope, yet resist his “legtation®
on the grounds of the endunng validity of Que Prmum, coupled with
Paul VI's non-binding “wish” that hus problemaic New Musal would
¥ “recerved” by the faithful But, in labeling “heretics” those who
wknewledge that Paul VI was a true Pope, while reswtng hu non-
Woding hturgical reforms, Fr Cekada indicts hemeeif
of the crume by hs
ownstandards since he himself does, with the bturgical reforms of Five
XIL precisety what he claims to be forbidden.

The Reforma of Pope Pius XII

Fr Cekada's nconsistency 1 revealed 1 his own reyection of the
lturgwcal reform of Pope Pius XIL, whom he recognizea sa truc Pope!
Thats rght, Fe Cekada does exactly what he ndicules at:s ,':, dowe
- ramely, “recogruzing” Pius XII as a valid Pope, while he “
even repcis hug liturgical legistaton.” He even clan that the 1955
_
',“"';;ulan—m-.u.umw/mwm
e
250P Cokada » arile: 1 efecing the P X1 Likrges Raores SugaTT Al
7 00) s “The P X1 Retorme, Moe o0 e Lol owin ™ fuly 11 2063
507
 ~
> Chapey,,
True ot Faloe Pope’

seforme of Pius X1l are “harmful* while Hmuly,

Wd,,m.‘ that it is imposwible for a true Pope to g1ve a harmyy it
iew How you mav be wondenng, does Fr Cekada ustfy m'g‘nl
Husant contradiction between hislawsteaching and his prexsy 1y Pl
cauming that the hiurgical of Pius X1t only jever,
me promulgated in explaining his posihon h.w,.:"““
A bumin ectlenastical W that was obligatory whey
proslgaiod can become hamaful (necrva) through u chunge af
cwcametances afice the pessage of tme this principle apghiy
ity o the 1955 reforme.”
You see, Fr Cebada cannot accuse Pius X1l of promiigyy ,
harnful urversal drscipli this 1 exacily wh
suncene, accuses fug
he at
VI of dewng. which he ciles a8 “proof” that he was not a true
Thus, to get around the obvious contradiction, Mr Cekada argues gy
Pius XII dsd not promulgate harmful laws Rather, argues Fr Celady
#e XII promulgated good laws that only becarme harmful of ¢ leiergy
(the next decade’) due to “a change of curcumstance” That & the
argument he's forced to use to justfy hia acions
Speciically, Fr Cekada convenently argues that Pius XII's change
o the Holy Week nites a0 1955, while not harmful i themselve,
warslocmed into harmful reforms with the benefit of "hindsight”
which tme he argues they "ceesed” 1o be law) He claims they brome
harméut in the Traditional rite when they were incorporated inta the
Notus Ordo Muscar
Thisis an ennrely fallacious argurment, since the 1955 reforms wer
made to the Traditional nte stself (not the Novus Ordo) and thus mustbe
fudged. = that context, on their own merits (or dements) Tha questwe
c Are the 1955 reforms of Pius XIi harmful to the Traditional rie &
net? Whether some of these changes were also incorporaled inio e
Newis Orde latet e irrelevant 1o that question If the 1955 reforms art
cereidered harmful in the Traditional Roman Rite, they would have
be concidered harmfu l of themselves, and therefore harmh!
1n and
‘when prowmigased by Pius XIi
To answes the question, bet us first take a brief look at the refom
of Holy Week thut were promulgated by Prus Xil m 1955 !
Umehwmmlnfflmemfum,Ir"::‘:’
femain conmatent with their views, they will likely be o7
coocude Yt rany o these veora were harmful o themsds AR
_
Reivaing
o] actthe Pros X1 Livrgical Kefarme “Tliegal™ hiwy/ [were tradibanaie?
pogid
 flwlfigdomflndlfllly(hnwu‘"flyw‘t&“
of ther introduction into the New Masg
e e ol these reforme have. absaliely 5’(:_’"‘""
TEE

Mo ion ol the Roman Rite, but e complese evepe,™ ™

B ample, the 1955 it lor Palm Sunday clmmate e -
Es

+ which had lor centunes included the Introit, Collact, 5,:?

e ey, Goepel, Preface and Serctus In the ltury reorne e
P\ priest blesces the palme i & "wble" and “fang.the
the,
o e and also chathe ntsfinal Collect acing the peopwits ie,
8 o the tabernacle The Prayers atthe Footof the Alar s te Lo
G”IwfltthmTz!“('i IIUmlr:::mmhmmhym
nscnpmrgwhle prest st listens {conrary 1 St P Vs
syuncton that the priest recites all Scnpture readings whwch & the
ancient practice ol the Roman Rike) Other clements such aa ,
the
knocking at the Church door, the altermating chows, and
TEFERE

cleof
menthe Passion
ts (anointing at Beth
setangan
of they,
guard at
\he fomb) were also elmunated [f these reforms were not harméul
when promulgated, when and how, exactly, did they beceme harmful
uec?If they are iot harmful under Pius X, when and why are they
jarmful under Paul VI?
Fer Maundy Thursday, the Creed and Last Gospel were
sinrinated, the Washing of the Feet was 1erted inko the actual nte of
XAE2R

e Masa, and the Collect which follows 1 recited by the priest facing
I people with hus back to the tabermacle For Good Frnday, the
mditoral ceremonwe for the Mass of the Prasanchfied ware
ebmnated There 15 1o solemn processson with the Blessed Sacrament
fovm the Altar ol Repose to the church proper The prest chants the
Selerin Orations from a book placed in the center of the alar, and the
A

peeple recite the Pater Noster aloud with the peiest - two novel reforme
hut have 10 foundation in the Iiturgical tradition of the Roaun Rk
T2z

I thise reforms (e g., suppofre

prayersss
, Creed,
io Gospet
nand
sher ceremoniesthe , pniest
o facing the people, i) have prsven
harful 1n the Nowus Ondo, then 1t is daficult 1o avoud the conciumon
eExs

1hat they are harmful 2 Memsaives. That conchusien, hewever, would

#reve ton muc forhFr Cekada’s argument because, umng hw own
cneitna, would “prove” that Pius XUl vielaed the ChurdVs
ucpirary infallinlity when he promulgsted these reforms.
AT=

he claima that these radical refacas only became harmbul ats

ore,
ker date
—_—
*Pope Puus xit Peomthe
ul Renega
wed Order huedHely ailied
Week m a decunn t
ie
',f;’,’;”""m-‘-u Noveriber 16, 1955}, poblshed B e Ak Apaiss Sels &

509
 , ~
Tree or Faloe Pope’ G,
revisiors 1o Holy Week were not the ongy -
The :-?mlv"‘ by Pius XII during hus revgn M,,Zdy",'""';hr
a Commussion an the liturgy (known ay g
Prus XIi approved
) that would begin drafting the reforms th b WH:.
ity approve durng the 1950s. For example, Fiug X1 gos
o expenmental Easer Vig 1 1951 which not only permyig
eicbrrtion of the Vigil on Ssturday might instead of early gt
o (contrary 8 longstanding. trachtion). but a0 dragee]
rubncs of the nte oty
In the revieed me, prayes for Blessing the Easter fie
seduced, 8 new ceremony for macribing the Paschal candie wy
ercated, the wiple candle used 10 bring the Easter fire into the chuyg,
was ehmunated, the novelty of the clengy and people carrying cangiy,
was introduced, the Prophecies were reduced from twelve to four iy
prest st and ekers to the readings, he blesces the baptismal vy
facing the people, the faithful vocally recite the Renewal of Bapumy
Vows i the vemacular, and the Last Gospel was abolished, srwy
other thungs.
Thuss, for the mest sslemn celebrationin the Church'a hiurgical yue
Prus XII abolwhed ancient prayers, elimunated parts of the Mus,
and dested
crented new nies, ntroduced the priest facing the people
reater phyacel parkcipation of the lanty, even including therr reciuim
of vocal prayers m she vemecular during the Mass' Such reforns
certanly did not develop orgarucally from the traditional Roman Rie,
nd muany of them can even be wraced 10 Protestant (Luther/Cramna)
influerces. Can you gues, dear reader, what Sedevacantrsts weud
have sid about these reforms had they originated with Paul Vi orjsin
Paul 7 Weuld they not have declared them evil in themsehmy
vielative of the Church's dwciplinary infallibility, and further “proc’”
$hat they were not true Popes?
In additon te the changes to Hofy Week, in 1955 Pius Xil s
promulgeted muny draskc changes o smphfy the rubrics and calnds
o she Traditional Mass® These Included demoting certan feas.
alieunating certein Collects and the Last Gospel, and suppressing
¥
Vegla and feurteen Octaves (the continuous commemoration of ¢
Church's sest mpertant feasie for a week followng, the actusl fost
seme of which were part of the Church’s liturgical calendar for vl
an instruction 8¢
e 2 thevaand yeans! Firully, Pius XII promulgated
-_
= The decee i calbed Donmeicer Kevarrcromi Vi iptiam, February 9, 9, 1951
o5t ik
wae poblibed ¥ »
ms‘ufl”" rp I-t29
cald Noni i Artae (March 23, 1955), which
eA S 8 (1990, pp 210224 b
510
 - T i

e which atso ntroduced + radical expscemon

waed Mtion the congregation® These changes would etof veal
g Yy
R participation for short responees (*Amen, £y
FETEEFLES

o -
o N er's resporses {"Demunie, nen sm dignue’
e (Glons, Credo, Peter Nover, o, m";};
““W"’ would even unclude the Laty recieng
the Prayars o1
o o the Alar, the ot Propers (ntrou. Geadual, e, Kyre,
gequences
andCommurson
Tracts, verselOf ertory, the Suscipuat peayer, Senctus, Agrus
ey and the
‘as we can see, Pope Puus XIi was responmble for some of e most
aatc changes 10 the Roman hiturgy m the Church's huory, a
REKTESFI

ot had resrained essenially unchanged for the previous 40 yeurs by

stue of Que Prmum For & fen year penod (148-1958), Bus Xit
yesulgated or allowed liturgical noveltis under she same ratensleof
fe conciliar revoluhonanes - for better “conformuty” 1o "ancent
] tradtions.” However, the truth is shat many of these
.whmfl,mmkldynhlm&mfihhqu
fsen Rike Thus, 1t 15 enturely far @ say that the bturpcal revaluwon
tegan during the reign of Prus Xil. The Modernusts who follewed han
simply finished what he atarted, and incorporated o the Nevus Orde
TrRazsEE.ES

wich of tohat Pies XiI had already approved for the Traditonal Roman
Rie.
Foc Fr Cekada to argue that these changes were not harmful under
#ws XI1, but only became harmful durmg the regn of Paul VI (which
hew he jushifies not using the revised missal of Pius XII) only reveels
hew barzen hus “harmeul in hundsight” theory iu. It 1s the proverbral
cwe of “having your cake and eating 1t too in Cekada's own words,
Pus XII's papacy 15 “recognized,” but hus hturgxal laws must be
“alted” Cekada gets “all the senhmental benefils of theecencally
Yaving a Pope (Pius XIT), but none of the practical inconverences of
actually obeying™ hus Iiturgical legislabon. Thus, Fr Cekada continues
e recognize Pius XIi as a true Pope, but reyectw his laws and says Mass
athus Sedevacanhist chapels according ko pre-1950 ubncs.
Fr Cekada also advances other non-sensacel argumants in addison
W b absurd “harmful
in hindsight” sheory For example, Cekada
/
S The decree 1s called De Mwas Sacra (Sepiessier 3, 19581, which ean publihed 18 the
e pmioicne Sedes 50 (1956) pp €043
Hugh of LicenN 18
v Sulza has condirmed weith o parubianar whe ssend v 5tCrkada
Sederacini pario in Salza 5 hewneiowt o Mitwnired ha sicbenis
g, 1950 rubrics when he says Masm af the shapl. And. 1 smotter
il

Pypecriey unqmu«u-nsn-u-m—-w-—"_m
lowed by Paul V1 n tnier sensacmics (1963). Thon, semeeding
Dolan acknaw edgrs snd follows a low oi 4 fakwe Pope:

sn
 N
True or Faler Pope’ ? Chapary,
s XIl's tungeal reforms were -
ceums ot B2 o thes “they o lon [5c] bund on ye, [P0
o dinon to beng, “harmfal i undsight,” Fr Cekada .&':w0
o P XIs Jogisaton “lacked one of the essentalqualgy
— sbtity or perpetty — and are therefore no fonge; Vindig+
Cebada even cites Bugnini (whom Cekada humsell deciares oyt
Freemascnt) 26 hus authonity for this argument, since Bugnin sy “:
‘are “a bruge between the old and the new * Celady’e
e “lack of stabiity” theory 15 just another (allacious argumeey3
jownty hw repecbon of Pius XII's reforms, while retaining the
‘sentimenial denefits” of recogmzing. the legtmacy of his pay
Firat, the legulabon of Puus X1, which radically traneformed g
Roman Rite, can be disregarded as “mere human ecclesiatical g+
then certanly the iturgscal legislation of the Sacred Congregation
fe
Divine Worshup under Paul VI, which was not promulgated by Pauty]
can aloe be disregarded as “mere human eccleslastical laws” that iy
net violate the Church's wnfallibility Second, Fr Cekada does el cie
sny authonty (there 15 none) for fus theory that certamn vally
promulgawed legslamon can be disregarded by provete fudgnen
because ooe persarally thinks the legwlanon “lacks stability * Thin,
the aforementioned legwlation of Pius XII did not “lack stabily
because moet of the legal changes were made & permanent pert of e
Tradstinal ries, isvespective of their incorpotation into the Novus Orie
yoars ister ®
Beng nesther able t prove his fallacious aseertions nor counier s
apponents’ arguments, Fr Cekada s ultmately forced to make excuss
for Pope P XII For example, in hus book Werk of Humarr Hands he
claims that Pius XII “sermed to lack the common sense necessary foc
malang seund prachcal judgments.”® After proclainung
on the same
page shat “Pive XII Lacked the practical sense to be a suffioeniy
ruthless exterminator” (of the Modernwis around him), Celais
concluces, agan en the same page “Thus lack of practical judgment |
Shunk, blinded Pive XII to the disconnect between the feachingo
Mokator Dy 20d the leturgacal changes he permutted to be introduced
during his revgn.®
—_
oy Parmansnt e ranen maruletnglyny arul ] o fumee R
et optional (unlcss and ....m
hor lepalaer] Inkerevii ..ug..'.....,m‘.,...
syyes mxmmmm
Shr Chamgrs leglaied be P, XI1 were accidenial ondy (and hence thev ahis et
amidartia ) b Nomse Orde rites) o0 aee submtantial changes t the rites (i i o
T e e St s bt the O1d arul Noew b, o lict fov both the O
cany
."‘“““Mqh-mm-o-a Press. 20103 ¥
Ohta Philathes

52
 e T aper 16

another ughly convenient argunient from

e ag to Fe Cekada the many subwaniee m;:
b anges that Fius Xl legslated 10 the Liurgy werp ers
o) 2l udgments” (which did not contain dockeral m')"“z
P"‘:;mgnurdm,whenhlnl 0 the Newe
;:fly Pavl V1. became evil doctrnal judgments that violased ':
s iallialty? AS we saw u the previous chaper, eéaliniy
iy extends 10 the doctnnal rudgment (not the pracucal podgmenty
contauned in & disciphnary law Further, if Fius XIf can be excused for
" practical sene” and * practical pudgment” i iurgxal
e achy can't Paul V1 be excused for the same reasor? Mn_u_'“,_l""
1 publacly lamented the effects
of the conc
reforms
rlua (atmost r
2l of
wiuch were not actually weued by hum), even declathat nngthe se
¥ Satan had unexpectedly entered the Temple of Ged4 Ceuld Fr
Cekada's selective indsctment of Paul V1, and hus acqut of ial
Pie X1,
wedrivenby hus Sedevacantist agenda?
Fr Cekada aiso pleads that the “Angelx: Paster™ was incked wnio
goculgating the 1955 turgwal changes by the Freemuon® and

2104 08 inkerview with the publication Petrus, Cardinal Vieglle Not wha swrved as
e Master of Liturgscal Ceremenies during the Portificate of Paul VI, revesed, for the
At une what Paul V] meant by the Lasreus phrase * the smakr of Slan has ettared the
Temgie ®tGed ™ In respanding e 2 quesken absut thes phrase. the Candinal and. “You
e Prirus have godsen a real scwep here becavne am i1 o ponten b rvvaal, for e
ot tone what Paul VT desired b dunsunce with dhat staicment. Here . Prpa
Mo, foe Salan, meant b include all ihase priests ur hishopn and candinale wha dide’)
rnder [propet] warship %0 the Lard Wy ceichratng badly (mal colbrande) Hely Mam
Mcumse of an errant intecpeetation o the unplementanen of the Secend Vasoen Coencl.
He solke of the smeke of Satan because he wusrtained that thewr priests wha rmed
Hely Mass inde dry siaw in the name of crestivity. in tubty were proarmed of the
Tainglery and the peide of the Evil One S, the sk of Salan was rsthing sty thia
e ity which weanied o distert the tradberal and rgeal canes of the
Ksdwritic ceresmany * (English iranslation by Fr Zuhisdert, svailable ot the webaddoos
g/ fwww wiliprs com/ bog/ 1008/ 05/ peirus-smamng-inberview with-cand-nev-paut-
Ymeke-alsatarvremark-concerned-
keeRY/ )
4 Abwvgh Bupind never admuiied 50 brang 2 Maser, i his sutobingrapls be sdwited
e il (cabing in she Wuod persen) ~Toward the teld ond of the murwmer 2 continal
*he was uecially ne enthustast far the biurgical rehom me of the pussence of 2
davmer ehich e had ween en (or boought W) the Pupe's desk ond whioh sl hat
Bugpuns was & Freemasen * (Anncake Bugairs, The Reform of dhe Lituy 1345-
175 (Coegrvilie Minnweseta The Liurpical Press. 1990 p 91 F Brun Harraan sese
cortuncd the crence o
e lenwiog abau the firding o Bugrin » beieane thel Vamsan
Hamaic afliatme: “1 kwow that there ¢ haghrariung, ofhoak, inchideeg 2t
:-'-mmumm«.m(wwmmwm
e 1 Feemasara (n hugh Vsscan pasiuons. { cokas sty own smesmesrs
= Taboe (it such idens (hethes trwe o L) do ot srgease soey <020
e cwcepuacy-thewids, () An wiematomly o chuheen o
PP ety has sl fobd me Sha e head s sl f he Sbesrey
513
. Toue o Falie Poye? Chupe
chivct of e New Mass, Annibale Bugnun: In his artice,
b -.:M's turgcal creaons were presenied 1o e s s
eemtal by the two schemung modernusts who booy
wil e
¢t
1
o Gestthe roym Vatican 1 “ In hus
Church atng,
the same theme- “But if you are a gravely il 79.yearq
TP wa bit redulous, and your trusted Jesurt confeasor bripg, y‘:
to ent
docum 1t wayeo)
approve, tellng you it 15 Just fine becaus
Together by Ihat smart, voung liturgist Father Bugmin, what g
grounds, Cekada conchy
Stces that you will sav 107”4 On these Laws
rradionatmts should rgnore turgical that were the diry
olmemwbodcscmyedllan'“
“Again, how conveyent for Fr Cekada to make excuses lor Pig
yet not perit anv excuses for Paul VI If Bugrin could have 1
Proe XIL, than why could he 1t have also fooled Paul VI? Since|
XII had alrewdy approved many of the changes that Bugrini sough
ntroduce mio the New Mass, why not excuse Paul VIon the grou
that he was simply continuing the work intiated by his vener
and relving on the same advisors that Prus XI1 himsell
susted with the work? Furthermore, it could be argued that Pau
was even less involved 1n the liturgical reforms than was Pius
having deleall gate d to congregation
the reforns and kv s
confeand s, that he had not read Missale
even admutting
rence R
efoce signung the document.
Moreover, while Pius XII may have been ill when he promlj.
Wa 1955 reforms, the does not prove they were nol vil
promal unkke the gat ed,
New Mass, which was not junde
promulgated by Paul VL Further, Pius X1l was not ill when
appowted the Pian Commission in 1948 and promulgated
experumental Easter Vigil in 1951, which redronlly changed the1
solewa of all the nies of the Church (abohshung ancient pr
introducing the priest facing the people and the faithful’s reciio
vocal prayers in the vermaculas) Again, what 18 conceded for Fiu

-
1t in u bre
trom the Reman priest who found
o evidarne agacet Bugnicu direcilyly trom
Teich Bugruns had inndvarieray et n ¢ Vaucan confererce roem sfiet 4 X7
Hamtan.
A0
A ruperee 6 Mcharl Duvies Aricle o Aoviball Bugrini” (177
5. 0u
| 2rchen | 9P aug 191 35 herd
©Po Repcring
the Pg XTI Lisurgical Keforme. tlegal .

S 7 Latmmey, "l the N Orao Mama Evit?* Thw Angias. March 1977
s
 hini
o iow Mass amd nflliity Craparte

ton, deception, lacking practical

od for Paul V1, as 2 m:o:.w,.,.“"f:m""’ — aleo be
this demonstrates that Fr Cekada is
:‘:‘;’:,Mw for rejectng Pius XIFs nm:"m;“
Okl while recopruzing hum as Pope, yet st the sume nas
daming that the harmful llh:fvfll reforema of Paul VI {meny ef which
were approved by Pius XII) “prove” that Paul VI was not a true Pope
e, Fr Cekiada claums, & Pope cannot gve “harmfut” dicy
) Thus, s is Fs Cekada, and not Traditional Cathelis, who has e
“frecrust/Gallscan concept of the papacy,” snce he not only ~wfu”
e turgscal Laws of the Popes he chooses 10 recognuae, but alns “afis”
e Papes themacives, tellmg ba followers fust who m a vald Pope and
whe is ot {no “siftmg” required for antipopes!) s qurte amaring
o Fr Cekcan adahold these posttions publicly with a siaight face,
Wt perhaps even more wncredble is haw many don't see (o don't wenf
jasee) the blatant contradictions in Fr Cakada’s pesition.

Manipulating the Text of Missale Romasum

Returning to the ttroduction of the Newxs Ords Misvac, many ware

fosied by the editonal deception that made its way o bhe vernacular
warslations of Paul VI's Missale Remanum This ancluded
both a gross
misearslation of one sentence, and the complete tabricaben of anesher
wheh did not appear in the onginal Latin For example,
in the ongrul
document, Paul V1 begine hus closng comnents as follows:
“Concenning sl that we have jus set forth reganding the new
Reman Missal, We are plessed here to wnd by dwng 3
conclunion (Latin "Ad exiremum ex lis quac hoctenus de neve
Mssali Romano exposuinus quiddem munc cogere ef efficere
Pplaces, j%
However, the Englsh verson blatenily misivansiates this senterce,
e mont dishone st
way, as follows:

“Ta conclusion, we wish te gave the force of jaw te sl tt we

Wave set forth cemcerning the new Roman Miseal
—_—
hall v A%e Apmiiiae Sedie, Ay 30, 19%4 vl 61, N & pp 2122 ge vewan
b e docurneva A 41 100 b &
,‘Llhmmu..u-\w.mmny,.—mh\'m‘
m'(;‘lvhnlm/pnl-v\/mlflmflfl_l‘——‘/m‘
1WA, recmaram
g bl
s
 False Pope?
Trorue
= Chapy

Yes, the artwans of the revolution translated sioPaul Vi 4y,

«yre are pleased here 10 end by drawng a conclu n” (the copy
mmlvl'shoptmdflp!ml:m for unity ...u.,w._.':]n.
e wish to give M force of oo to the nussal Hmfly_nh.:
musake Moreover, the English translation mcon tams the followyy
M:nmmnhomlwndmm mhm

“We acder that the prescriptions of this Consitution go g

effct Nove 30rn of Uue
ic yowr.rthe first Sunday of Advens
Needless to say, the mistranslation and addition of the foregg
texts, no doubt manufactured by conciliar revolutionaries within g
Vancan only underscores the reality that the official Latin vermo o
Mosaaie Rerawism does et * gave the lorce of 1aw” 10 the New Mass 1ap
it order “oeder” 1 to be obligatory for the faithful * Commentingg

i Kraaar nons thet this aditionu] claunc i included [n the veraien pobiihod ity
Acke Aponsohate S and Ums has baen alficlally incorperated inte Mursale Kowarun,
Howevar Fr Kramer skoa corre cly
nates that Pacl VIa statem“weent soda®
¢ promcrypese”) rebems ealy 08 the thvee fiew ~canena” and censecration sl (s v
e ducuperd belaw} Herce 1t inclusion deas et change the fact thal Misel Leves
dam et pundcalty promuigate the New Mass, mauch less Impese 1t w a urlvanl
inding lew bav the Church.
The tellewing 18 2 comparsmn between the sriginal Latin and the Engheh arwliew
with the sddeer (tahen fromn the Vatcan s webwie) Onguial Latin (oend for awi @
Englwh) “Concerning all that we have just ori forih regerding the new Kewan Miw,
We e plessed hare 1o end by drawing » conclusian [camect wansatian) o
provrulgeing the sificul edtion o the Koman Musal, Our predecesar 5t Pos ¥
rovcrard ¥ 2s an metvumacd of Wargical urity sl as & Wilnese be the puniy of fe
warship the Charch. Whi leavin, rwem 1 the new Misaal, scconding 18 the seder o e
Second Valican Council, for legiumate variatio rs , wehape {confime)
snd adaptations
mnnwmnumnwhwm.m -mmnmm
witness 4 and whuch affirms the cammen unity of sll Thus, in the el divertyo
Langrsopes, e unipue prayer will nue as an acceptable offering Is eur Fathat o hesen
wwnlmmmmnmymr -t
Our decrews and prescriptiens Wiy
caw a0 in the fubwrethewrrtwi
‘Ye wah (selume)
iacuve heta te thendin g, the i
exient necemary
Sosuttubers a0d ecdiarces meued by Our predecessons, and ather preciphont. &7
Shese deverving paricular mentien and deswgation *
Engish Daslours vt ervory "1 epclusion, we wish be give the force of lew W 4l 00
ok comsraing
aee b ediven
e ixtal e s Rowman Missal misivanalation] 1o "
of e Yrnan Mimal, Oue r
precdecesse St fusV. prosenied ko
iomrumert of Wburgcal orsty and s 8 winess be b purity of the worship e O “‘“‘
oy i raat i she e Mises, acrerding, b the wvder of the Secood Yol
Whh—--_u%mupmw‘:w
"
Py wile oo, e comamen itofy4 Ths, i 1be et siveraiy of Lngua ges, o0-40
Pk o s, r thewsh
o o Fubes b hve

516
 pp—
e NM3 474 17 Cropia16r
“:’:Su-hmandaddmomlodnmu”
!
«it would be possible (6 devote ag
conroversy surounding MR ({fissale kflMTL' A:::
e the text aflc PUbLIC -
ON ()1 (v oy
Topy of the fr officul cdton of the NeO vs et
rebed by i Vaticas Pess 1n 1969 whuch conane e o
Tt b 15 micrSng 10 noie et the Flamnery sallocues oy
Socuments contans & trslation made from thy sogaml veepe
hout the additions “
The lake Abbx George Nantes publ an artle
ishe » the Janed1970
st of The Gathotic Couner Reformatian. which addesd the outight
foud surrounding the publication of Missale Remenum He explaine he
nsxanelation {which was already present i the French version in
191) as well as the additional sentence that was discoversd by the
Satop of Nancy, Frarice = The following quetaion is diffcult eadmg,
bt due 1o its hustoncal value, and w0 dlusirate the deceptive means.
used to foist the New Mass on the Catholic world, we quoe the Abbe
itlength He begine
“1 hava hece under my eyes, the photecepscs kindly soppied to
» foond from tie Bishop's House s Nancy (Framcch and
guaranteed 10 conform 1o the ongnalsby Chanceller Dury, on
e date of 13* May. 1970, and under the scal of s bubeperc.
In this docurnent, Pope Paul V1 ciles his reformnof the Mass
wathin the continuity of the Iturgical restoration ef Pus XII and
presents the new Ordo a “revisson” sd a4 sanchment of the
Rorman Missal, and alse a8 ‘new amangement of cas and riee,

- -
e wrder that the prescripions of this Consirtwiion g0 inke offest Nevewber Mk
Wb year the firnt Sunday of Advent” | Adduton not in srginltext]
w:mmlmmmnmp-mufi--dw_
24 e fuure, natwibemrd 1o the eviern
ing,ecymary e operik cosbbobers
wlianees lmued by Our predecessars, and slher prosnphons, o Sse
neoeg prticular mention s derogatien. Given st Rome o.” o
wm. Ppe P s e Mo (s City Miso The Angele
ours fro. WIM;J“
L 3L
e mfl"'mkk\lml\wwwll’u\wmfi
Gt Sacrlege (Ractdoed, Kiinwia TAN Books and Publabers, . 1971t Wolen
Ton bt sirsady in 1971, e mimcrlaion was pessem o the Exyhc W 90 45
SOParre
s:."' s-ea-
wmp.u Vaude
.u_.-
(Fransel, s
. 3, Jorw:--'».
198 -uww'

5n7
True o False Pope”
-~Chapey
k3 ey tha dhey express maes clearly the boly thge g
ey sty™
The Abbe then notes the evil mfluence at work,
“The mayor snovation.’ scconding 10 hus expression, 1y
mgmcm(mrmmmm s:-u..:.',
whick are preseriod a8 ancicnt, though they arc in fact very
and thc medificanon of the formuin of Consecration iself on gy
prvext nf making e all eatical Jussimis The. e
E fider 10 left out and placed within the context of 3
‘sctlamation,” where 1 lescs 115 ongunal and full meanig The
regacuon represemts the work of very simister influcnces
The navations which are referred 10 as munor, are concemed
with swaplificaien, supprcsion, or restocanion of prayers and nte,
the changing round of the erder of readings, and the very
comdcrablie medifications ef the Iimrgical ealendar "%
From here, the Abbé points out the mientional fabrications
in the
document, which attempts to elevate Missale Romanunt to a bindiag
dacree:

“The Pope thes mukes ks concluding remarks — but hare we

o make 3 dwisction between the Latin text and its so-called
Freach wanslation {which s wkcitical with the English weanslaton]
on tie
of the original text prinicd
The Laus st the photecopy
Vatican postng press and dated Jumc, has two paragraphs here The
Ersach igxt. photecepsed from Documentation Catholique, i which
# is quoled s 3 wanslaion emanating from the Vatican Prew
Bureau,
sapk._1i dacs net cami in e Latn teat which aloss 1 U
athontaiive
gac
In the firm peragraph of thie conclussen of hns discourse, e
Haly Father expresses s hope that the new Muisal will be received
Sy oll 28 2 supn and unwrumentof untty ‘Confidm * It 1sucs
through
0 wibeand of act of violence — abuse No, | — that the "k
Deo ke iaaelaian, which | am now going1¢
1o you 'In ceaclusien, we wish 10 give the focce of bW 10
Fead ot
all that we have st focth concerming the ncw Roman Missal * That

_—
# The Cotitc Conarter Reburmntion @ the XXsh Contury Ne. S, Juns. ek
:"'m'- e Mo, Gder Maiomn S
- fomaph10 P
Parra-to- Vi, Fracct
-u"""-"fll Lamer S tn Watheer 3 The Grvot Sacrilege, pp 135137

sis !
 i Mas 8 s
Chapey)

whe Mnfimmmm“
M&mmm%
leascd bets lo snd by drawing a conclusion * And
1o e confidkence that all will find again -T:‘ufi:
otaal Gty mmhu_mim_m%
oy Having made such » good wart, and
%—._‘wwm
% photocepred ,
Houss, which [ have here under my ey un.-{-w:::.::
“We ondes that the Prescnptions of thi Comstiutien e mee effect
Nevembcr 30% of this year, the first Sumday of Advent Thu w e
caence of the text and \Lis 2 forgery
The last peragraph. if you read it s the third = the Fronch or
Tl [o¢ English] text, does indocd g1ve the umpressien af wihing
s 1mposc an obligation cven if e subject maker and the procue
exaent, of this obligation arc lefl ndetcrmunete This is whal says.
‘We wish that these our decrees and prescnptions may be firm and
6 in the effecuve now and 1 the future, sotwithsunding, te e exicat
pocessary, the apostohc constitutions and cedinences isucd by e
and other prescnptions, even these dosarving
portcular mention snd dero * Resd
ga the conten
1n ti on t of the
engusal Latrn text. that 18 10 say. freed from the encumbrance of te
twe forged texts preceding i, these sunple words canset bc pleccd
« companson with detailed instructions and concessiens, firm, and
REiEWS® 2F5

waca o last de nnty Here we bave a simplc ssiementof

10 perped
the wish esV1. a durcctive bereft af any mdecatoon tht would
of Panl
imply & snct ol and one which 15 not accompans any
bycd
thrw of sanct
etions The defimitc oblige haviagnte follew e
oftio
New Ondo, which 15 suppossdly cenmmed ac the Aposlic
Constiution sprnga thercfore from two semences, of which e
5 w a0 nventon pure and simple and the other one conleias 1
awfest mistranslaton of the suthentic text. The forged e waucd
¥y the “Press Burcau’ imposes an obligatien thet w a6 mucash
E 3 kiizx

a0y that the true fext imposcs notkung of e kid. That was the
thi10agbe proved! The Comstu Missakuu Komoonws.a
adhentc Latn text, docs nol ungoss. &1 obligaon. Pl Vi dess
However, » commu| nicat
recerved yestenday ion
e e Wk
that Msgr Prolley (the Biskop of Nancy), teeogh kmecif decorved
the first place. has mow been put on b guard. | have bere 1
second photocopy, handed out from [the] Wubops Howe o
anether member of the diocese, of the famous icxt of te Pope's
wept ik obiiges.the whols world 1o follow s mew Mass. Well ey
Yod more sensc thas e and, wih e Velp of pasc 3nd scuses,
ey heve prodoced & phetecepy. i beth Lam and reach. of
Troe o Foee Pope” Hapry,
Lo of these paragraphs alenc - mflm
G P We may well quote Ls Rocheloucauld when pg s
Bapocnsy 15 & complument paid By A1ce 1o vinuc
thet_hvpocrs . Here5
n L sindeeg!
e bihop of Nancy. hwving caught the ntentonsl desepygn,
responded by remeving the PATSgEaph COMAIRITG the misrangiueg
somcnce, a8 well a3 the emc sentence paragraph comainung yhe
fubescaied text, leavang only the final paragraph, which had nos beey
alhcred by the Vatscan “Press Burcau ™
To cenclude, the Abbé righily affirms the perpetual validiyy
Que Primum, which o Pope can abrogate fest he incur the wrath of Sy
Pever and Paul.
= Thete s notnng thal can validly sanul the Bull of Sy, Py
1, ndof
o takes the nuk, together with those who embrace his. reform,of
wcumng the writh of the Blessed Aposthes Peter and Paul, we st
hove 10 adema that be 1 not ebliging anyone to follew him mio this
el He docs ne mone than 10 express & simplc and indefinie nish,
Logether with the hope that all may find spontancously & commen
unty m the practce of the new reformed form of worship 'S
As we have demonetrated with the plain language of the offical
Lawn verson of Mussele Komanum, which was confirmed by Abbé
Nanws' interpretation and explanation, Paul VI neither abrogated the
Old Mase ror legslatively imposed The New Masa, This fact has been
resterated over the years by many scholars, and, as we have shown, ¥
even conceded by some of Ihe more honest Sedevacantists Fr Jane
Wathen (who was not 2 Sedevacantisl) affirmed the true meaningof
the “unedited” version of Missele Romenunm
= whea e (ex1 13 purged of its forge y and given ils comect
Wanslation, we find that the whole we-m'ryme document, and the
Ad of shelwhing the Mass nd of introducing s decepve
Sersblaace, rese on two words *conjidimus,” ‘we hope . "we W
‘we bave coafidence that,’ “we wish cic. and “volumus.’ ¥
Wk, "we deswe’, ‘we wauld e plosced, ctc Two words of such
thim-voucod wintfulness are mipposc o cffectively command, B4y,
ferc the whiele Latis Church 1o forsake tts most precious Tressre.
the m0m sscntial means for our safvamon, to completely oget
 et Chapter16

fifcen bundeod yeus of wadaon (fige

atvely), © IR the solewn prarulpabens, sdun
ynctions, Insiructions, and ansihemas of most of e s
o7 e Great Eisherman (o bury n sileace the s g
focomis nspured bY 1 1 the Sunis of the West, nd, wnhen
quesuon of hesitation, ta begin the performance of o
Lamposivon, whose rcal meaning and_ purpese have bacy
first saw ofthetheighmost
subject seseniful criciam and telling axacks. _u'h'n
t
of day This tuly & what our encrues may
descmbe86 ‘popery” 1n the authentic snce of the wend® As f e well
ehgson were nothng. more than the durb and sevie Rulfilmens of
{he Pope's mare wishes, totally unrclatod te mocaly, Revelsaon.
htory. lsw, or cven plain common sensei™=
The late Canon Gregory Hesse, who possessed
doctoral degrees in
yoth canon law and Thomistic theology, publicly held the same
- namely, that Paul VI did nothing more than publeh a
liurgscal book with the hope and wnsh that 1 would be recerved by the
khfu As we have seen, there was much inientional inckery and
deception Involved in spreading the New Mass throughout the
Western Kite {qust a5 there was in lhicitly suppressing the Old Maas),
Wt Paul VI did ot rmpose the New Mass on the Catholic world as &
anversal binding law, any more than he obliged all Cathelics te awend
Sunday Mass on Saturday evening (s practice, by the way, that was
ineoduced by Paus XIT) # Needless to say, Paul VI's mere “hoping”
and “wishing” that the New Missal would be received as a ugn of
unly in the Fath 15 not equivalent to Paul VI promulgating a
wiversally binding law
Further Deficiencies of Missale Romamem cf al
Let's close our analysis by addressing the last sentence in Missale
Kemariir In which Paul VT states.
“We decree that these Laws and prescrptrons |Ukc acw canoas
0d consecranon formulse] be firm and cffectve sow and 1 e
fonwe, notwithstanding, 1o the extenm neccsmary the apamebc
Cwneirtutions and ordinances issued by our prodecesers mnd olber

—_—
e, D Grt Secriee. . pp. I100.
. 5P I3 Apmstti ol c Chrtes Dosames Gy & 196%

st
 ——y
oc Falee Pope?
True Chaptry
mmh‘mu—uwwnmu..‘
-
Based upon this general reference to “apostolic constity
our Pvas Fi Cekada cheerfully and mumph;n"yh‘:;lh
Tt ol V1 repeated Que Primunt In Cekada's words *Thyy .
expressly abrogates Quo Primum” (emphasis w angunal) Fr Qh":‘
on of what Mussale Romenis actually decrees feads
agai, Yo e exroncous conclusion.
First, it should be noted that the Old Mass 15, ot faggy -
menenl custom o the Church. and immemorial customs can aly
be repealed by explirt mention in the new legislation. Canon 28 of
cument Code of Canon Law provides “Unless it makes expreg
menton of them, however,a law doesmmohcmm.,y,
fmmemonal custome, nor does a unversal law revoke parboyly
custows.™ As Fr Kramer correctly notes “No post-conciler papl
legulanon hae dared W presume to attempt the suppression of the
ven era
Rowan Mass, which 18 more than just an vnmenens
Rike ofble
custem but i the vmversal and perpetual custom of the Lam
Pamaechate, the suppression of which would be contrary to the
decime of the Fath.”* Far from abrogating the smmemorial mie o
Mass “by express mention,” Paul VI's Missele Romenurs even fads 1s
legally procnulgate theNew Mass as an alfernative o the Old Mass
‘Second, Paul VI's use of the ferm “derogation” 1a a dead giveawsy
te the lumited scope of Mrseale Romenum and the enduning applicaven
of Qw Pomum A derogation strikes down only those statutes of
previous Law that must be nullified to make room for the new law
(Having W acknowledge the meanung and significance of Lhus term ry
be why Fr Cekada, in hus article, tranalated the Latin derogstiens 4
“amerdment” and et “derogation.”) As applied here, because Myl
Rovmarium decreed only the use of three new ~Euchanstic prayers” ad
the consecraton focmulae to be used, it only deragated (wade 1
excepiion 1o) the prior legslation by allowing these new prescriptiont
& The Latin, whach Fr Cehads ote In s article, i “rom sbdantibus, quelonw 9 X
Comutitiown ¢t Ortinabonius Apmivics & Decessonius Nowiris ohts
rmcripbbes chowe et mentione f deagation digme 3
F1 Cokads ackually angues that thr Netiscation Canfervatia Epincapaicom of OIor
U774 which wan et e ar mpgied by e Pape, whech des ma s w0 Qo0 Pmel
W%m'n.m-—ummmumuw—e»“
e e immasoral coswen ol the Damasun/Gregarun/ Trideokne Mo
mhhmbuh&l!@m&h‘@immwwuufl".fi
g e e aaid prove b cose by using Mo Ko o (06
Qstier, wmwrd by the Pope and published
in the Ack)
The e of Alksng e b .T‘S..,., rgnarh
2
[P
 d Infeniienary
iM and 1 Cupers
, the prios leguslabion, mcluda,
I‘n;“«“g“_fm continues o have the rmx.(f": W opecially)
As By pay
e
fraperesplins
e key word 10 the List clause 1 *derwgatson” The
of Pl VI .smry-dawl-mmumhhmzu::
i wre sl o force () Missale Romaniom of Poal V1 sy
aegation of see O the POVIIORS Of Oue Primam whach reme s
e
Thod, not only did Paul VI's Missele Romanurs nt offcat
ponulgae the New Mass, but there 1s 70 furure papl egtano
P ish m the
ed s in obisganon
Acte Apostolice Sedss that “uipescs
P new mssal on the Church. According % Canon 9 ef the 1917 Code
{vheh was i force when the New Mass was séroduced). “Laws
wacied by the Holy See are promulgated by they publicaion ) vhe
offinal commentary Acte Aposiglioar Seds, unless m partcular cages
other mode of promulgation s prescbed.” Commenting ea tus
Fr Lawney wrote:
pont,

“A decroc of the Sacrad Congregation of Rss wnpecng e

New Mass 15 not in e Acte Apesiolicac Sedis. A dacrec
of e
Sacrad Congregavion of Riles (dated April6, 1963)%
w only a the
font of the firs edition of the Novis Ordo Mcssee saclf,
net w the
Acte Apostolicae Sedis, where f iust appouc |e fatcr odtions
of e
New Mass 1t 15 replaced by second decree (March 26, 1970) ealy
OB p. 134,Fr Kraer alas says: <11 4, thervhere. & siaconception o the iegaiadon
wwiasiog the New Mos imypencs 4 new nit ovt the Reoman Church in an sblngaasry
wrar Condinal Silvie Ouel 3 ierview in the Augrast 1995 soue of Valrwrs Ackuios
ko whers e . 1 st b s i e M of . eV bt o
olficialy abeoguied 11 i alow 4 Calee spurion hal eretaon tht M
Yommin sirwgates Que Primum acd therefore sléecively suppeesemn the wndiaianal the
:N-‘lu.nluus
te Carion 9. Fr Cekadda simply says: *This i ll hat the Code roguios and
i vapacne
#niis Jo ke hrwwn the will of the legwiater, the pupe * One wandecs how Fe
fu.hhnmm.m.m,.»um-um-nc&n-‘
¥4 ukdied with e publicanen of the New Moss (e the rmpired jridond
Fomuiguien by the Pope of 4 uriversally bonelicg Law published in the Acsl. Haneg,
ried ¥t “dhe eserceof procmuigetion”
o the lupuister
¢ il W Wo &
fi--uo.mr.m.a.m—wnwm'-'-'“':‘;
:."“-flbwnu-nnm.-mm.-l--___"
m ':{Di-nw-m;-(u-m,-,--fnm-u-n-
< et0 e decre Onie My s by e oo 5074
. i 6. 198 and sigmed by Cardinel Berne G, the Fract. The decree
o the Acke Apesioiuac
Sab.
523
True or False Ioe Pope! Pope? Q.hu

b o of e N Man. Thi second decres whch o

oo ordes— s e 14 10 he At Apasiolcae Sy T
ot s singl thologu alve who wouldPapesay ™ he s r sarcy
o w coverbyedthe mfallbty of the
As we mentioned at the beginning of the chapier, the Naqy,
1970 decree, Celebratoms Euclunshac, which “promulgated” e
Mase, was wiused by the Congregation for DIvine Worship, and o pe
Pope Moreover, this act of “promulgation” merely permi the gt
Mas, does ot impose the New Mass 25 binding legrslation upon g
wrch
o What all this demonstzates 3 that Paul VI did not uridicy,
promulgate the New Mass, much lese “impose It as an oblgauey
upon the Church as a uversally binding law Therefore, Paul Vi v
way violaied disipbnary wfalibility (n connection with e
and thesmuny
publicabon of the New Mass. While the New Mas
abuses It has spawhasned caused harm to the Body of ChrlsGodt,hu
willed 10 permut this without comprossusing the Church's infallibahty
 Chapter17

~ Canonizations of Saints
and Infallibility ~

anuary 25, 1963, Pope John Paul Tl weued the

c_f,,".u'w.. Dromus Perfechoms Magsir, which abrogatos Q‘M“
a norww for the beatification “and canorizamen pracass s
be educed new norms
stmngentjurud and procedure.’
ical methiod The new procese clmnsed
used by the Churck for centunes, s
Mllmmwmllimhmhm“
of theess
weun candidate The new process alo éelegaime the
ieermunation of the cause o the local buhop and nat the Pope, and
reduces the number of requisite muracles for santheod from feur s
weor less.2 The Catholic Historan, William Thomas Walsh, described
e gorous nature of the former process.
“No sécular court ywig a man for his life i merc thoreugh snd
scrupulous than the Congregation of Rites 1n seskmg to comblush
whether or not the servant of God practioed virues both theologscal
and cardinal, and (o a herowc degree I that % esublished, the
sivocate of the cause must nest prove thal hus preseace i Heaven
bas been indicated by at least two muracles, whike & cardinal whe i
an expert theologian does all e can (o discredst the cvidence -
hence s popular title of sshocarus diaboli or Denl's Advocate 1
the evidence survives every attcmpt (o destroy 1t after menths, yean
1d sometmes centunes
of dwcussion, be w then beaofied,
that u,
M s daclared o be blessed ™

the old process was abandoned in favor of an acaderuc

A3 hoted,
meibod The formal legal proceeding which included the defense
o hat e Holy See's prasedores fae Iatlication el carwcussin e motiers of
Oordh diciphne an ot degass, hence. the Pope s ot beurd by e procedures of e
A0 can change: thews at will. Pusd VI, fae exaapic mosbined B oproceinsms
V735 Apestiic Conattumon Regmmu Ecciamir Uhmcerne ol Augiot 1, 107 Ve Mot
T Sencats
Clarer o March 19 1960

M Thoras Wata, The Sainis 0 Actosn (N York: Hanover NI

1 oo
S44) Thasgh Wit died 1945, T St e Achm s ot bkt 1
25
 Trwe
o False Fope?

of the Faith was elimunated, and

she Promoter
W":wm ‘whose tak 15 o prepare a hmmmb‘":
candrdate, structured sumular to a doctnnal dissertation, based
documeniation provided 1o them by the local bishop The lad
wwwymwmuhmulmdmmm:':
candi
of thene
worthi ss date
‘The Promotofer the Fasth (aleo known a6 the Advocatus Dugy
“Drevil's Advocate™) has been replaced by the Prelate Theologian h,
fas an entirely different role Whle the job of the M"MM
was ko presant any evidence egenst the orthodoxy and the sancury
the candudate (esseniially acting a6 a prosecutor), the mam task of ye
Prelate Theoloigia smplny to choo se
the theol ogical consuliers ang
pres meetie
at theid ngs.
In his book Makmg Swnts Hew e Catholic Qhuircli Determmespy
Becomes ¢ Sant, Whe Deesert, and Why, noted Catholic Journale,
Kenneth L. Weedward, explained that the announced gouls of e
reform were “to make the canonizabon process himpler, faier,
chesper more ‘colle ulbmal’
andgaa tely more productive * He wantm
1o say- “At the core of the reform 1s a stnking paradigm shift no longer
would the Charch losk to the courtroom as it mode] for arriving at the
truth of 2 smnt's ife- instead, it would employ the academic model of
rwea writinghn
and rc gral dissertat
a docto He ion .”*
said the new
procese,
“puc e crtire esponsibility for gathening all the evidencein
suppoct of 8 cause s the hands of the local bishop 1natead of twe
camencal grocemses, e Ordmary and the Aposielic ab was
focmerly the case, there would onfy be onc, directly by the becal
Wehop Secend - ad far mece drsstic ~ 1t abolishod the entue seres
o lagal dulecics betwoss the defeasc Lawyers and the Promoter of
the Fark, Indosd, 30t wnly were the sdvocates stripped of thew
powers. 3o ware the Pracackac of the Fasth and bis tafY of iswyers.
Aftr scarty s comnes the function of the Devil's Advocate had
“ova clrmuatad"5
He contanued.

“In effoct. the raiter had roplaved both the Devil's Advocse
0d thc defamec lewyer He slene was responsibic for susblishing
—_—
‘W-Ov.‘.hfl;“.qi—
Seac o D o Wy (v York: Shaman Cat
m How e helic Owereh Drlermines Whe '
el S, tos p 91

52
 mmaatons o Setnr< ana inputeniry Coprer1y

yréor m iruc. and 1 was wp to he

o heroic
Paiancal cnsaltats 0 B s ok 8 pasan o Tnbmng s *
mination of the Devil's Advocale, whose
2}":',., Violations of the procedures w"fl'm
:'Mluon of any obrections rased against the orbodoxy or e
quxmcmd:dam, whs a drasec change In the ay;
ok by Prospero Lambertini {later Pope Benedscy ), 0: ':
Seutfcation and Canomzation of Semts, we read that she role of the
Devit s Advocate was considered so essentul that “ne. Sonporient act
or canoru
e process of bealifica tio n is valid unkes perwpad
zahion
e resence
“ l;:]gwm; the implantation of the new procedures,
pdwiduals whose causes would have likely been stopped in e
kacks by the former rigorous undscal method, have passed hreugh,
id 0 record time of the Devit
After the remo va s Advaca
l ie,
snections put forwardby members of the laty and huerarchy aike are
egulrly 1grored As one writer put it, “the challenges are neither
knowledged nor answered ** Questioruble maracles are accepied
wd mdividuals of highly questonable or postively doubtful
sihedoxy and sanctity have been beatified, and others canaruzed This
has caused concern amongst many fmthful Cathelics and, net

N
Cabeic Encyclapotue (1913) wel. 1,p 188
W tn the wadivenal process, the Devit's Advacole mibircid e detai of the
soindaie's lfe o xinee eigee and analyss. L the s of S& Fios X (e oo sared
Poe undes the el procera), n spic of the tharsugh Invesigauen, the Devis Advecsle
ol frd endy that e Fope srmked 8 cigarethe s dav arel sad Low Mas n Lot han 25
s burdly practices that weuid undermine bis nceriroverie arcar!
;mvzgm'm»mwmm&-u-m—.'mr-qh
g
"Fst exmmple ane of the allevged miracies snbuled Yo Mother Tarms » intcroion
*aa e cure of & tumwer in 8 women nanwed Menscs Bewa, n Scpember 1998 Ouplie
e ol & miracle hewever Besrs's awn dectocs inswied that the e M ety
Siacvion shoui it Wt was Inskesod the rrsult of sirung 3w T8 demps adbsted ovas
Swisd of nine menthe. Far caample Dr RK. Momahi seid “The smirceieus dm &
ol ruruerac and sheuld be cardemned by evmyon She had » medumaisd
‘st 1t e imdommen cnuse by tuberculo. The drugs she wa geen ety
icod e cytic mase anwl 1t dsappeared afier » vewr's wastmml” MO oy
Db sgeed that the cure was o wracle “Tha micace & ¢ boat” br il "k &
b thout noxhing, mwu.w.n-du,n-m-rmd——";';
Tavan ot Mothet Terese, say doctors,” by Duvid Or T Telegnph Ccubrt
E“"'DlYklh-nwmd-umml-M'WH"-m
Yot Tevsa, sheve s et be anv 1k of o mirace by hor Yot v 8
:""w.’ Atubercular weetmant and she was cured” ("Dece clssm promers
Taes iracte;” by M. Chihays, Redbill, Crwtwr 19,2008
L
 —p
Tru
or False
e Pope? hapery
has been used by Sedevacantists as “evidencer
opie Church has “defected,” due to an alleged mhm"*:
infallibahity
Contreversial Canonization
The proprety of many canon2ations have been questioned v g,
post conciliar ena, partcularly duning the reign of fohn Paul 1,
canoruaed more saints during his ponhficate than ail of [
combined, snce Pope Sixtus V created the Congregation
of Rites 1n 1588, Even in the eyes of many non-tracitional Catheles
John Paul [T's “sant factory” (s some have called 1t) has deprocuwg
Ihe cult of the buett and serich and the haor due them On of the
emo
controversal canonizations orchestrated by John Paul 1T was th o
Mogr Josernarus Escrivi de Balaguer (1902-1975), founder of Opus be,
Msgr Escrivi's canonizakon, which was declared by John Pau llen
October&, 2002, went through rapidly, in spite of the fact that fermw
members of Opus Der who personally krew Msgr, Escriva raised many
seveus obpecwons, which were completely ignored
Frasirated that thewr objections were not being, considered, in a s
difch effort these former Opus Del members wrot an Open
e Lettero
Pope John Paut Il 1n which they said “1t 1beca we belie
us that he
ve e
truth has been 1n large part hudden that we now give our testimany in
order toavoud a danger for the Fauth brought about by the uryustfable
reverence for the man that you have the intention of canonuzing soon
They went on 10 say thet the authors of their Open Letter included
“peo
whe have
pl intime
ately known Msgr Escriva and who can feskfy
t» his arrogance, to his evil character, to his improper secking of a ttle
(Marquue of Peralta), 1o hus dishonesty,! to his indifference towards
the poor, to hus love of luxury and ostentation, to his lack of
<compassion, and o his idolatrous devotion towards “Opus Der "%
Afier having potmed out that the process was uncanonical and
duhonest, the wrilers sad the canomzation “will stan the Church
facever 1t will ke away from the sarnts their special holincsa
1 wil
.
call into questian the credibitity of all the canonizations made during
your Papacy It will undermine the future authonty of the Papsy
Uniorkanately, the Open Letet was also ignored. Commenting on ¥
-
Tl Comr, Lompury Homse slze subed that ncrive waa a pblic far, by (AT
8 carsLow a0 well an. decrivi, people about s ethecH
i wa e“Dinst nd e devied .
Famiy N oyorwar, ond Cndusions The New Camnlsations. » G
gpanittors s of ames
aom sy Chepesy
Seott noted that “their supplication was net
" my'wkphccalamnydon&mhrqm-,, heard, and the
e Noodward, author of Ihe aboveced
bosk
anpations, Was also disturbed by the canaruzation of ey o
wl
c only far-minded conclussen | can
anbene o th posts o
el and mcevews s pous
elved in the process. 15 that Opu Do mbveried the canencamry
eocess 1 1 1 A0 beatiicd In # word, i was ascanda - oy
the conduct of the ibunals through the whling of the pesie t t
bagh handed treasment of the experts picked 10 judge the came,
That Newsweck caught Opus Der officials makmg clavme that wes
ot true 15 a roatter of record Escriva may have Seen s st — whe
am 1o Judge? but you could never tell from the way i case
was handled 1

The Canonizations of John XXHI and John Paut It

Two more canonizalions that have caused controversy are those of

ot XK1 and John Paul I, which occurred simultaneously on Apri
7 204 The canonlzalion ceremony was unique fer many reasons:
This was
the first time two Popes were carionized
in a sngle ceremony;
Ihefirst time two living Popes (one » “Pope Ementus™) were present at
Ihe ceremony (Frances and Benedict), the first time 3 Pape goi “fast
wked” (Sento Subnto) lo santhood under hu own carry.over
kgslation (John Pacl I1),'* and the first tume any Pope was canonized
snder the new procedures 1t was alsa the first tume am Pope was ever
used i the altars afler such s controversial pontificate (whuch gees for
Wik John XXIII and John Paul If) Prior to this double canonualion
ceremony, only one Pope, who reigned i the previous 400 years, had
In the prec
Wen canonized, and only four had been canoniaed
milenruum,
In May 2014, The Remnant newspaper published
an aracie watten
¥ Catholic apologrst John Salza e Quesmoring the Vet of be
-
"oty Croms Seminary Newsletter Nevemsber 1 002
8t Opus Dei? Lette o the Editer of Frt Thnge. Na 41, March (0P 29 -
&mummmmmunmuuw
1 erly o manth after b drash. The dusceean pevcems conciuded e in 28
T Toule anly tew mere yrars o rate feh Paul 1) 10 “berwrabe” The spesd ot 18
1 wae canenized afer mach & corworersl ponidbeae wh w39 13 2
Ty i it of the lemgliv pracem of pe-Vatican 1 commasion. Thems L200
e Futur, e rvamplc were caneviard 631 v sy thls urtndem
“W“Mmy—!m'mw

50
True o Raloe Pope? ey
o mons.”% [n the article, Salza questioned the wiigy
canonizabions of John XXIII and John Paul 11 (and Imp"d’fi;‘h‘
infalliburty), argumg that «f the canonizations did Nt meet the e
mements secording to the Church’s current legislation, they by
would not be ficit (and possibly not vatid), which may cast doul
e question of ther ety (assuming, of course that sty
preswpposes 8 rocess hat mieets the Church's legal norme cureny
’mgh‘.mimwmklhemwmm-mmmafly-nm.
pre-Vancan 1 law, and delegate the determination of the caute to e
local bwhop {not the Pope), the new legislation still requee
candidates writings to be free from doctrinal or moral error in orge
for the cause to proceed77 Specifically, the law provides that 4
published writings are to be “examined by theological censors * and s
“lhe writi ngs
have been found to contain nothing contrary to faith and
good morale,” then the bishop i 10 also examine the candidaies
unpublhed wtings, # well as all documents, which in any wiy
pertain 1o the cause The law then provides that “If the Bishop hu
prudently udged thet, on the basts of all that has been done 5o far, the
Cause can procesd,”™ he 15 to 50 proceed with an examinabon of
wimesees.
When iquines are complete, 4 report la prepared and the cae
tumed over 1o the Sacred Congregation for the Cause s
of the Seinks.
While in deference 10 hus authonty there la a presumphion thal the
buhop's assessment 1s correct, Salza noted that reason alone dwteie
the prasumption 15 rebuttable if there are notonous facks which
coniradxct hus conciusien. These are facts which the bishop would have
wsaly ducovered had he exercised reasonable care and “prudent
yudgment” as the Church's law requres.
In ight of the cusrent legislation, Salza went on to fiote thet fobn
XXIi and john Paul Il (as well a6 Escriva) have been accuse d
- by boih
sradibenaliets and “corservatives”- of having written and done g
in public thet both vielaied Church law and obyectively deviated from
_
* Selas. “Quimtorurg the Vaiuiy of the Canmrizatiere - Againet & Fact Theee o o
Mapumment.” The Revmant ewspaper May 3t 214
o s did s diclare Wit e was abrogating o evan deviating frow: fobn Pré
¥ bpelaton. Rathos Pope Franc. chese to act in accerdance with fabn Pl ¥4
mw«m*mdhmflu‘l“mflhhhflm
o ) atvnr.
 seversl of John Paul s aminpuene sog'®. *Mch
e tons of Cathol
" Sronevs
ic doctrine 2 Salza argued thay Y bliep yhe
forms by judged” this evidence un the obyectrve
&"My' for stopping the causes of m..m"w"""
10 the Holy See The one Bishopwho d WO Papes from
:;:‘: Board Fellay, who sad “we v.m..;":"l;“;:
o "2
Salza also noted the irany thet the navel prinaple of
.y]omxxlllmd]nhnl’lulll(whchw-md-hb:z
the investigation and judgment in the hands of the Tocal
’:‘mry alone), effectively operates
to remove any Msurance of liceity
und validity), not to mention infallimity. from theie ewn
“m,.nmmhb;ume”!hihopmhu.mfl..,m
proicted with the “divine aswstance” Chnst promises
siccessors of St Pm,mflndmmhdmnmlm:
fom error The samie, of course, can be said for the deciwons of the
Cardinal Prefect and hus asasstants i the Sacred Congregauon fer the
Caoses of Saints. The Pope, who is no longer the invesngator of a
cuse, bt rather an approver, sumply rubber stampe a completely
bl process (a process whose results are desermuned by the ishop
und approved by the Holy See, all before the final report reaches the
Fpe)
1 the Pope is simply approving the judgment resched by the lscal
bahop, it calls tnto question whether the declaration ef canonizaben i

Ve linegy
” (Al ~Vatcan
s Top Liturgcal Uberal Sipe Down.” Octebr 2. 307,
M/ /worw fmemyakin.com/
2007/ 10/ vatkcans-swp-h 1wl }
27t Sean Harrise (et consideredd & “Traditonabor”
of 8 Devif's Advocaieprinst}
It Prul ] and Aswio. Reecuons * whishwrvie an arace euled
was published by e
U Mo Mapecine In the arsici.Fr Harrison aegucs thad feha Pasl 8 proated i
::dmubynunmwmmm-m'nwnm-l:
Huruse Prainewatthy.” by his Interreligious actviies fe.g. Asia prayer mectings)
concioded that Jotn Patil 1 was ot ¢ o conveaasten bosaa b dopiered
;M-mmummmdmumwm‘
P
 —p
True or False Pope ? Chaperyy

s st of the Pope’s supteme Extraordinary Magisiengy,

pflnlmn;u\elocdadlmrymuven«lhepm-,d\ngu%z
acsurance of hoeity (and vabdity) of these canomizations (especuy
when formal obyections raised against the canonizations are reps, m{'
\groced)
Canonizatiens and Infallibility

Some of thee recen, questionable cancrizations have naturaly oy

people 1o ask f canoquzations are, wndeed, protected by the Churc,
infalliality, a6 many pre-Vatican Il theologuns held, since it is relatey
1o revesled tuth (although ndirectly) and an exercise of the Churchs
teaching, and not merely legislative, power The question then arises, if
the Church s fallibahty does extend to canonuzations, it due in pan,
or simply to the decree issued by the Pope? O
1o thejunidical process,
s it combnason of the two? If the procedures are an integral part of
the guarantee of infallibiity, what if the procedures are dispensed
with, 2 1 the case of John XXIII and others?® Another queshon s
what exactly does canoruzation guarantee? Does 1t provide wfallibe
certitude thet the person lived a hife of heroic virtue, or does fallibilty
wnly guarariee thet the person died in the state of grace and possesses
the Beaufic Vaswon, which could even be the case of one who lived s
scandalous bife, yet converted before death?
As we have seen, the Church has only defirutively declared that
wfallibuity embraces the prmary objects of infaliibility, which are the
fruths formally revesled by God in Scripture and Tradition, which
requure the aseent of fuith, We recall that the First Vatican Councl
daclared a Pope receives the “divine assistance” from the Holy Ghost
anly when he “defines a doctrnne concerming fmith or morals™®
Declanng somecne a saint, however, is a judgment of sanctity, strctly
spuaking, andd not & declaration an faith or morals about a docwne
which 15 contained In the Deposit of Farth. Since the Church has never
daclared that infallinisty extends to the secondary objects such as
canenization of sainis (which comes under the category of discipiinany
fack), we cannet anewer these questions with certainty We art

humssapramcriineW, March 19, 2014, ho/ /1 e chiems apess 1P

D8/ et AT 4oyl »
™ Faot Voto,Prtor Actarmam, 1670,
532
 s O] S s sy
Cropter17
1t to the opion of thealogiaria and hakorica
it ‘"Mguus I1n amving at an answer wdonts by
vacle on infallblity by the eminent theoiop
T o the 1913 Cutholic Encyclopedia, provides an ,mm': *)
T questions WE Guote him at length swce he se n::".:'
o e A luded to above, between the prmary ang
fi« S nfallllty, which we have also dcussed 1
hout this book He begans by saying, *In the Vatican
ey (whether o the Church at Lrge o ofthe popey e
olyn vegard to doctnines of falth or morals * and then goes on 1o add

“This, however. 15 clearly undersioed s be what

eall the dieect and primary object of wnfaltible suthanty 1t wae forof
the maintenance and interpretation and legitimate developrwar
Chnst 8 teaching that the Church was cndewed with th chanma.
Bt 1 this primary fanction 15 W be adequately and effocusely
discharged, 1t 15 clear that there must also be ndivect and.
awects to which infallibility extends, namey, doctrmes and ficss
which, alihough they cannol strictly speaking be said 10 be revesled.
are neverheless so intimately connected with revealed inshe that,
were oac free to deny the former, he would logically deny the lumer
and thae diceat the prmary purpose for which mealliblny wae
premiscd by Chnst to His Church ()
Cstholic theologns are agreed 1 recopmziog the gosers!
ponciple that has just becn stated. bul il canant be sad el Uy ars
sually uranunous tn regard o the conares anplicaoss of hw
ol Yeu it 1s generally held, ad may be sud 1o be
iheologically certan, (a) that whet are technically descibed s
“healogcal conclusions.’ 1e imferences doduced from twe
wremiscs, one of which 15 reveabed and the other verified by roasem.
ot under the scope of the Church s infalliblc suhonry (4} Itw alse
fencrally held, and nghtly. than questions of dogmatx fect, @
regard to which definite certainty s requued for the safe cuedy
d inierpretation of revealed tnuth, may be determuned infalibly by
We Church Such questions, fer examplc, woukd be whethr 3
S pope 13 legitimate, of & certain council wcunwaical, &
whether objective heresy or error s teught m & coriam book of atier
poblished document. 12 alse
() |1commonly.snd talay Ml
At Uhe Church 13 nfallible 1n the sanomzation of suoks, i = 18
8% Wbl canpnizaion uakes placs accvrding (o (b SKTMMNSR
Sk as b fofiowd sanes the ouh ceptury Mere besolicsion
Bowever as dustinguished from canonumbon, ® ot beid W be
wiulible, and
oe e
True of Falee Pope? upeyy,

e the )
poummbbenmd First, 1t 18 ot de fid(ol
D are prot ecie d by fal lin lty 1 s, af e, qua ph
“theclogrcally cevtain.” and according to some of the best p,wflm;

chantge
to ec
cartamiy subg e mess othat canonuzye ¢
Ttr note
i,l, Rew ‘one
ere comaracly coneulered ndallible when they takerunth plac s
te the solewn process that ies been followed since the u..,,,y~.‘:
whal U & canonization takes place according ¥pr & new proces, ang
what f the more lax requirem of en fniew
the ts ocare es sg
themaein
with, a6 in the case of John XXI11? Would the canonuzaton
shll be considered Infallible? Lastly, note thet with canomzation, ihe
only fect that is wfallibly deserrned “is that the sul of the canemzed
st deparied m the siate of grace and already enjoys the beatific vinen * |
is commonly bebeved that this 13 the only “fact” that canonizaten
guarentees.®
The Object of the Infallible Judgment

The 1913 Cathlic Encyclopodia article on beatification and

canarugaion, wnitken by Fr Beccan, agrees with the position of Rev
Torer n mamianing that the obect of the wnfallible judgment
& orly
whether the person 1 n Heaven, and ot thet the person lived a life o
heroic vatue® Fe Becean begine by addresaing this distnctien
{whether canonizakons confirm only that the person i in Heaven, o
alao that he Lived a life of herole virtue) This is hus reply”
“1 have never soem this question discussed, My ewm OpInION 13
that mothing cloc w defined than that the person canomaed 1s W
Iesven. The formala used 18 the act of canonization has nothmg
more thea this

-_—
5 Evmuiopule
ot (1913). v VIl p 799 (emphesie added)
7IW de mdets eot f e e Wtegor et s st alon pbe 4 6
i -
>&b rig Van O sles swid. “The canenizamen of sainie” is “the fioal pdgment
of e Courch s b smmgmed ke el i, and sy be e 41
vy
e
*‘dhwhwfi!‘—’w
s
 11 e s symensss
g 77 Coga 17
g honourof e dacree
and defime et
w""..em"mn-;mmmuumm::"_: ua
St memocy by desautly 50 piously celobraiedyealy ou
Syl Wsfest ¥
I,mq‘gnlono“lflmcvu:nemmnf.-,._-.“.
, sancuty
docs pot neccieanly umply
e exarcise
m, since one who had not hitherto m,.:m
would, by the one tansient heroic actn which he yacided up g
for Chrst,
1e seems have ustly deserved 10 be consudored 2 st Tha,
all the more certain 1 we refect that all te arguname
of icologians for pepel infalliblty un the canonizauen of same e
Msed o the fact that 00 such oocasont the popes believe and
siert that the deciaion wiick they poblick 16 whalibc (Pach,
. 1, 552) ™
Pract Dogm
Now, if the obyect of the wfallible judgment u aniy whether e
is in Heaven, no one can object that wfallility has beun
Twbied 0 the basts that this o that person has been canorezed, mce
even s hardened sinner is capable of performung “one ransant hersc
s of yelding up s life for Christ at the wwwent of desth, and
by obtain the Beatific Vision. And if anyone maintane ¥t
seoeone who lived a horrible life and only cenverted en thear
desthbed cannot be recognized by the Church as a saint, thev are gong
tobave 2 hard time explaining how St. Distas, the Good Thuef, was
nised 10 the altars.St Dismmas has been recognized as a sant by the
Church for centuries, he has churches named afier hum, appreved
to bum, and His fesst day on the uneverm] calendar is
payes directed
March 25,2
Degree of Certitude
Regarding the degree of certitude that canonuzamors are, 0 fact,
cwvered by the Church's wfallibihty, Ven Noort qualified 2 enly
berg the “common opiruon” - and this was before Vacan I, when the
e stringent junidical process for canonuzabons was sall beng
bhewed In fus dogmatic manual, st s Church, we read.
e
_—
UM htem beatum N Semchum ewe deversames ¢ foio rm
& Seke an s
hiogs
ke i it eeat A e it 9 ok 14
TSN ocwl debere
vl ool
My g ot 1008 ] carnuaed
13, va Ilp 47e go ururdstey o Foeeen 20
o ek,
Mty canerized samis pass duwugh the fess of Pugaiery

535
True or Falae Pope?

Asserion 5 The Churchs nfalli

omancanen of wenls
Cancarmtion (fermal) ® che final and definitive decreg
which the severergn pontfl declares that someons hag beey
adewticd 8 heaven and 1 1o be veneraied by cveryone al leay
nnallethe (aubfut are held 10 cons
e scthat dhe id n a sy
persoer
werofthy
public vencration I dffecs from palsficarion which w g
peovistonal rather han a definiuve decrec, by which veneranon ¢
ealy permuticd. oc st fosst 13 ot uaversally prescoibed Infalliniey
elasmed for canorzation only: a decrec of beatfication which gy
The eyes of e Church 1s a0t acfinnive, but may stll be rescinded,
= 10 be concered morally ceran wndeed, but not infallible Sull,
shere are some theologans who take a different view of e
maticr "%
We again nete that Van Noort only qualifies the infalhibilty of
cancnuzation as " the common opunion todey ~ Some Sedevacanhsis wil
Wy b0 present the proposition as bewng a de fide teachng of the Church
{whch would mean 1 would be “umpossible” for the Church to errn
the judgment) but that w clearly not the case Neither 15 it impossible
for the common opirwon to change For example, throughout e
Iwstocy of the Church (and certainly up to the eighteenth century), i
was the common opireon (and some may have even qualified it s &
fide) thet the Earth was the center of the umiverse.’ yet 1f you conll
the modem theological manuals 1n the first half of the twenweh
cmury, the common opinion 18 the contrary We also saw that, a5
Suarez Waght. it was the common opinion in fus day that a Pope weuld
only lose h effice after being declared a heretic by the proper
authorities, yet the Sedevacantists today not only explicnly repct te.
“common opinion,” but they base their entire case upon the preiust
Shat it was certanly wrong.

-—
= s Chee,
p 117
2 That t why swmw o the Charch s thewiogars sonching an beinegS
mm —m*m;wmwmfi wfl
e ignm] m wppot o e idliity of caranissmera, bt
-IM-.MM... ly terwed I light of the very different process fer ecansni
ope
o!
&
 ions o) SeEs s puseuny
omonit!
Common Opinion Today?

W could be argued {and some reputable

#OKIE. he “divine assistance” cp..-i::‘,,n_::‘;&’:fl“'(‘"
ed 1) would wippfyhu!hp!mhmm:
by Vatican
Jefin
ot Vacan T procedures for canoruza tion
Ths 1 becaue .s
the Page
B engaged 1 the 1nsestigatory process for which he would recy
dne assisiance from the Holy Ghost (asatstance which the pre.
Jawcan Il Popes presumably dud recetve becavse they were the ancs
cwaducting the nveshigation) »
Rather, 1n accordance with Vatican IT's new principieof .
e local brshiop and us assistants are resporsible for the invesaganen
o the cause, and they receive no wfallible assista nce
from the
Grost in carryng out such dubes. As John Paul s legulanon
provides, pursuant to “the desires of Our Brother Buhop whos,have
afen called for a simpler process [of canoauzation] In hight of the
dxtrie of the Second Vatican Council on collegiality, We also think
thal the Bishops themselves should be more closely associted with the
Hely See n dealing with the causes of sains **
And “more closely associated™ with the causes they certany are,
for the bishops effectively create the entire case for cancnization, to be
voted upon by the Congregation for the Causes of Saints, which acts n
inadvisory and consultative role to the bishope. As Pope John Paul Il's
egulstion explains, “It's |the Congregation for the Causes of Sainss)
15 to deal with those matters which pertain 10 the canonization of
sty
the Servan God by providing advice and guidelines o Bishope 11
of ts
the instruction of the causes,by stu thedyi ngand.
causes thoreughly
M'{;’bzmnnglhvok . -
p Giuseppe Sciacca, a dstinguished Canorust Adpnc
Srerelary of the Apostohc Stgnatura, was recently inkeTviewed b
Andrea Tomielli about the infalliality of cenonszations. The Bubey
by Noting that canonizations ~should not be conmdered infallitle

e Miance of e warde o conecaasien (e form), Sut depemedly = 1o

g
o of the quaidican
20 determma tion tihe ], whach
of the carsdviate
 —y
Teae or False Pope? Chapie |

to the sfalliihity criberia set out i the Firgy Vay

Coumal's dogmabc constitution ‘Pastor aeterrus ™ When M"?".'
,
he muid.
clanficaleon
what | am saymg, 15 that the proclamation of a person
samthoed 1 ot 3 Wuh of (i BocauSe 1 15 0t 0 dogmu
dcfinwon and 1 not directly of exphicatly linked to a truth of faith o
2 moral tnh contmned un the revelation, but s only wndweqly
Imked 10 this. |16 20 comcudence that nevher the Code of Canp
Law of 1817 sor the ose currently 10 (ofce, ot the Calechsry of
i Catobc Church present the Church's doctnne eegardjey
saanuations *?
The tshop was then asked to comment on the teaching of Prospery
Lambertns (ater Pope Benedict XIV), who sad the idea tha
cancruzabens are not ifallible “smells of heresy * The brshop rephed
by saying "His theory 15 not binding as it forms part of the work he
of hy
did as a great canonst [before being elected Pope, but as part
private studies. It has nothung o do with hus pontifical magstenum.”
The buhop was then asked "But there was a doctrinal text tsued by
for egati
the Congr on
the Dectine of the Fauth in May 1996 which ake
mentions infallibikity sn canomzations,” to which he replied

“It 1 patsntly clear that the purpose of the passage in question

w parcly lwrstrve aad 1 not mtended as 8 deGnioe. The
recarng argument sccerding te which the Church cannot teach o
sccept misakes 15 sunasically weak 1n this case But sayng that an
i s w0t nfallibic docs not Mean 10 say that the set 15 wroog o
docarving. Indeed, the mustake may have bocn made either rarely of
e )
diog *
After making several other commens suggesting
that
canenuzations are, 1n fact, ot protected by the Church’s Infallibiiy.
Tomulls ended by askung, “And yet foday, at the moment
of the
prociamsn
the Pope
on,says. decerm
¢ defim
um uswn other wards W
mus,”
decrwe and define It busicatly sounds llke a ‘defimition * Because ths
ferminology ceuid potenmally lead 1o the mustaken notion
—_
Tormiall, Votcan innidar, wwww velicaningider Jasampet
/wm-wu,..*/’f-"-m&..«-m- 1 W
Vs abded)
© M, fmphans addod)
 s of SAINS A ettty
st Clapr17
o tion is equivallent to defi ning a dogme, the § -—
=
“Ths e
why 1 sgree wilh some smpertacan
ppgest sCHINE astde the formula curreatly wed 1o defing he h‘:
of futh, proposing mstead & more surtable forrmule, declaram
oy declare ™Y
mmpwnsnwnaskndmmmhw
homas Aquinas (supposedly) bebeved the Churciy bfin'
cerded Yo canoniThe bishop
zat
m
ion respon
s. ded
“Of course. | am well aware of thet. Thormas Aqaass m e
el prestigious author SUPROFEIIE thas theery Bt 1 sheubeld
o he e of the concept of mfallibiity and of laguege eismngst1
1.8 context that m 5o far from thet of the I cory when e
Fit Vatcan Councl was hel, nsks bemg snachvenuc

concluding that the Church could not make

mustakes 0 fact, he clumed that ‘tknking teel fidgraent &
infallible, 15 holy* As ! samd before and | repest agam, the "Pastor
seternus’ rigorously defines and resn the comce
ct pt ofspapal
wfallibilty which could previously {befare bemg defincd, have
1lse [been considered 10] encompass and comain e b liksned te
the cancepts of "memmancy’ and ‘ndefectibility’ in relaten 10 We
Church Canomzation is hke 3 docwine which canmot be cantesicd
Jt which canpot be defined as o docwisc of fath o all Gkl
muLoccessaniy behieve 1n g "2

_
o
M (enphasis sdded). The bahep comecly wowd et % Thesw plaed
Sracihers betvesen, sers. of faith ard fudgmenis besed an hue ekaeet
Thoeus sa75 i i ceviain tht 1 e mmpumeibie fo the fndgprerd of e warvesal Church b0
70 e things that pactmin te the fuith that 8 the case of othar deruae Teparieg.
ekl acts, 20 whhen & in 2 quastion of passaamars o risms or seereihurg wmla. £
akiefor b pndgmenisof e el b v becan of o e T sttt of
lhhmh.hfli#ihflmnmmh”
~ %t Themas then sy, “Nemedbeion,
wee e botd
I Tree or Fatse Pope” Chapery
see
t ary quitm marsthat the distinguished Canonist ang
e cle
Secret of the Apostobc Segnatira 1s 1ot convineed that the Gl
‘Infallibility extends to canonizations, and he s not alone N
In & recent inferiew published i Catholic Family New, Prof
Roberide Matter explained that some of the best theologiin of .
quesion the infallibikty of canonizators. He sald Y

0 of
y ans. -tch;n afler Benediey
who expressed 11 moreover a3 a prvate doctor and
o o s o the -Rorean School” 5 i
et omiment repeesentative of this theological school, living unday,
& Msgr Brumers Gherardins And Msgr Gherardini expressed
the review Divinsies dirccted by him, all of s doubls on the
whllislty of canemzations | ksow i Rome distinguished
deologams 2ed canomss, disciples of another illustnow
represacnsofrve the Roman Scheol, Msgr Anioo Piolkan these
Ruber the same doubs as Msgr Gherandin They bold iy
camanetions do 2l lfil) the condivons Iavd down by Vatcag | g

Revehoon, bt osly s fact wdiectly connected with dogma

without being properly speaking 8 "dogmatic fact * The field af
faxh and morais w bread, becausc 1 contains all ef Chnstan
docime. spocubive and practical, human belief and action, but a
dutackon 1w mcessary A doginatic defimition can, never involve
the definition of anew doctrinc 1n the field of faith and morals The
Pope cam enly make explicit that which 13 implicit in fuh asd
wanke, 20d 14 harded down by the Tradition of the Church That
whuch the Popes define must be contained 1 the Scptures and 1a
Tradroen. and t 15 s which mesures the mfallibility of the sct
10t the case for canomzations
That 8 cortainly the doctrineof
Caneanabens ¥ set contained i the Codes of Canon Law of 1917
20d of 1983, nar the Catechums of the Catholic Chucch, o s
dou Refemag o ths subject, besides the aforementionedstudy of
Migr Ghocardmu, 4 an excelient arucle by José Antonio Urse
topomg se the M, arch 2014 sdition of the map! azine

—_
* “The Comrastiors’ CPN darviews P l faet,” c‘mw
P Apri 14,2015 tnmphasie added; “
540
 s of wartess v o spmessnessy
» co Crapo 17
o 5T
he nerviewes then asked what he Fought seot e
mh,p{alluhlflyo{t
s amnmmmmwd
. e must first dispel 2 semantic * nos
, faleliblesubyes wro ng
821,t K1o oth possibilsac t th et ne ce ms an ly dacesyes
ny of e In rIyugmu
. or never happencd St Thormse, balanced, m:m
o dgment, 15 10k fatible 10 the end He s gy commerry
eftnd the mtibility of the Church and be dacs vo ot
tetogically eascnable argument, en the comrary. He sy
b accepted n a broad sense, but adeuming the poutiiny o
xcepuons 1 agree with hum that the Church s 2 whake comnet o
s
anesizatian. w n_wsel accessanly wfallibic. The sssmt which
1 »
dng This means thet the member of the farthfut helicves bacause
e sccepts the prmciple that the Chuech dess net nermally err The
exception does not cancel out the rule *¢
He was then asked “Do you hold that canomizakons
st therr
hrllible character, following the changing of the canecuzakon
pesceduse, willed by John Paul 11 1 19837 He responded by sayig
Wt although he does not personally consider the weakness of the new
process b be decmsive, he noted that some have argued thes vary pmnt.
Hesaid

“Thi poution 18 suppected i the Courrier de Row, by a8

xcellens theologmn, Fr Jean-Michet Gletze Morvever, one of the
arguments, on which Fr Low n the artick: on Canonicakons In the
Enctclopedn Catiolsea (Catholic Encyclopedia), Bases b thess ou
wfallibliy, 18 the existence of& massive corsplex of UvesipaLions
wd findings, followed by two mirscles which peecede the
canonizaen There s no doubl that afier the reform of the
peocodurc willed by John Paul Il i 1963, thi peecess of
ocrtaining the truth has become much weaker and there has beea =
change of the very comcept of saactity ™

As we noted previously, during the old rigorous procedures, Van

Neort only qualified the mfallibility of cancruzakions s the comunon
—_—
Ml cmphas e adde. MateT's takement able e o
shat St. Thavsas it fl"
:r-.m.ng n-m: mimu -m -n m- fl- “m
D¢ hold Ihe indalliblity of canscizations o be o matr of drvse fath, ¥
T wih which do Mot sgreen.

s
- Trwe or Faloe Pope”
v ey,

of the above testimony, one 18 certain

m'm m " st the common opinion today, w’;v":n""""d N
M“._ngmmmonopmmmdav Mgy
Ove of the more penetratin
Wreatmentsgin modern e o
wass EVeR by theology professory o
of canonuzations
Muchel Gleze (mentioned by de Matter} in an article iiteg
“Beauficstion and Canonuzation Since Vatican 11 "% Fr Gleizey gy
which was published w the traditional periodical SiSiNGNo n end
2011, examunes the tradibonal pnnciples concerning beatificaions
canoruzawons, and the difficulies thal are rased under the ne,
leislation. After stanng that the nfallibiity of canonuzations i 2
comumon opaion according 0 the theology manuals issued afy
Vabican | (and before Vatican )% Fr Gleize rawses theee prncul
totherr nfallibiity under the new legislation (1) inadequa
of procedure, () collegiality and, (3) herox virtue
Regarding inadequacy of procedure, Fr Gleize first noted that ‘the
of wfalitihty does not dispense 1% holders of due
diligence.” He cated the First Vatican Council, which teaches that,

“The infaliibihry of the Roman PonufY 13 obtamed, not by way

of revelanon, aer by way of meperation, bul by way of divine
amomncc Thet 15 Why the pepe, In virtue of hus function, js heund
W cmpley the means rvquired 18 order lo clucidaie the tnih
»
Mg
recoursc
to Uy counseis, whea Chnss promused dsvine
msomuce 18 S Peier and (o his successors, this promse slsa
neluded the requinie and neccssary means s that the Ponuff coold
state b sudgrmans mfullibly.”

= g/ /s arg/ en/ eatviscanen-acd-canenizatien-vatcani-1

As buret addresaed
belew Fr Gleiar rwics thet Cajetan
(d 15M) and Augusior#
Amswms (4 1338) bebocr hian (whe beah thaught » heresical Fpe must be judped by
munch), dusued the iriaiy of canenirabor (afher St Themas had writien e0 e
for the Chusrch ta fudge the inlersl
Sotar) o the grousd shet, because U s ipaonible
h-.n.&-uu.-mmyc-m..n- mancuty Fr Dol OB &
Dmusican pras s 1 e a8 reinor fo the Congrrgation of the Cauas o Ser®
onde lohe Pal 1 lew hd Cojelars's opirinn and gublicly affirmed Lhe saric in 202 4
the e of Racrivd 2 canartestion)Jobn of S¢ Theoaae and Deminic Barew (we Mot
mlh““hmfl“@dwmhlmdfihlm'
4id Suares a the Canvalits o Sulatanca As et above wehile St Thomas !
{aue » Dmioican) dabanded the intalihlity of canemszaimens, he qualified b opiriot
1 e 9 “plowaly
we thust beievs
hichSO 2 materof Dtvine andwhich
btievad,~ e a leser
Cathaii
level of amen trom N
faish (swe Quadibel 1.610
g 74/ s g ooy acd-canamisatervoucar
542
 sants s inpanurry
gt Crapter 17
e Glese arged that the deo asmtence
the foepr = TP ¥
i under the new procedures. Linder
ved
Pt T e for the canomization “rehed upon m&m
%W...mexmnrmmmm“muk Prece
punal of the Ordinary acting 1n s own name* Place before
U6ber that depended exclustvely on the Haly s.,-.d:'_"m
by e
Mm,xcnvdmsmfllemwmflm,hm
iy See has been eliminated Furthermore, i the :—Vum "
aton, before the Pope signed the decree of canonzaton the Holy
beld three consecutive conaistmes. These have ke bony
Sasated 10 the new procedures According 1o the new nonre, fhe
senial part Of the 1nquiry 15 not made by the Holy See, but
w he local buhop. who does not possess the devns wcsiance progased
the Pope:
.r,adlmflullhwwmdummhm"n
before the twelfth century, in which the Jocal buhop mukes 2
wrote.
m,ulmi on the cause, which the Pope simply ceriiees.
“The legistation of the 12th century naceged beaficauons and
canontastions s two nom-infallible act % Thie s what kecps w
from simply assimilating the canonzzatwens proceedeg frem the
[oenciliae] reform (o the traditional &% of the cxaanduary
eaching authority of the Sovereign PomtifT, i e laer] ack the
1pe 5 saisfied with certifying, the act of a local Ordioary Th
constitutes & first reason warraniing o seriows dout thet the
condtians required fer the fallinlity of catemimions have byes
ey
in accordance with Vatican II's pnnciple of cellegualny, than, the
new norms leave 1t 1o the bishop %0 make a direct udgment on the
e, with the Pope only reserving the powet 1o confirs the bishop s
Jodgment. Accordingly, 1t can be saxd that these caronzalons are ne
Inger personally infallible and defirutive acts of the Pope (i, weed.
ey were before}, but rather acts of the Ordinary Magsterium whuch »
tinfalliblein self
After isting several other problematic aspects of the new procsss,
of canenuashers
heh casts further doubt upon the infallibiity
under the new legislaton,Fr Gletae alaw noles some of the
ent theologians who publicly question or evew dexy the ety of
TRy
i oo f Bemdict XIV Jm sttt O i St ot Comsti of
R LOh
X Na s
/w e srps ey an/ bear ot -
astion-and-canantmre
M3
 Trae or Falee Pope’
—~»
Chape)y

canonizabor, inciuding Fe Daniel Ols, who served as rey Wr“m

ongregaton for the Causes of Sunts under John Paul I Wree
Gleim
nce Vatesn T, some conctlar
- :”. ol posrten Some of ther theologuans have adepieq
have alleged llfliculhc:h."[
- nanre™ te call 0 question the infallimlty o
ors The oprnton defendod by Augustine of Ancona ang
[agamet the nfallibihty of canonizations} was. recenty
Car by Fr Damel O, OP. professor at the Ponuficaf
Universtty of the Angelicum and a reistor for the Congregation fo
the Cauces of Saiats 10 a study™ on the theological bans for e
culeosaf saunm. "
Notwithetanding tha efforts of many Sedevacantists to convincew
Wut it 1s "impossible” for tha Church o err in the canonization of 5
saint, the Church has mever declared that wnfollibality extends to
canonuzabons, and there are many reputable theologinne today whe
bebieve that canonizations are not {and never were) covered by
falibility In fact, not all Sedevacantists beheve wfallibility extendsi
the canomzations of sawnts. For example, Sedevacantist Richard lbranyi
‘wrote a lngthy tniernet piece htled “Canonizations are Not Infallibke”
n which be argues that canoruzations were not infallible even under
the old procedures.»
Torany says, “tha charem of papal infailibility npplies only ko
docwines on faith and morale that were revenled to the aposties
Consequently, Popes cannot infallibly define anythung at all that bas
been revealed since the death of tha last npostle” After quotngthe
pertinent section of Vatican |, he concludes “Thus every person that
died after the death of the last apostle 1 not subject matte r
for papsl
méalitnlity and hence cannot constitute an obyect of the Catholic filh
because the saintiness of that person could not have been revealed

e Bevesictre De- Vg
o acamplePairuk” Nepommn!
citon the Caran case of SL. Johnto conclu
o “John of ) bt whese seme hiseric al conrov ersy exisi. de 1
bulieve that we cas draw oo the sary o Jobs of Pomok the conclnsien that the POFE%
et wialible i the carwrdzation of sairt” (~The Renl Ditwerwions of Papal (nlshtil
Inailey- s Phiimaophical and Thaslogical Aspects. Acte of the Cellequism of W
Contey bu |1 umarsst Studin and of the lnatitwie for Philosophical
R Febeumey 512,197, pp 145-147) “
w2k ol kegis det e dn Sann AR. Vo Dele Stadeurs CongrTatoss
oooy / e
frrwn.
e b " D Teanariogbon-vaticanil-“-a,‘.-w'
-— *';“n-zh.-uwm—-/n—b/w/

s
 Satnit< ana ingitetiiry
gt f Chapser1y
BT s,thof That 13 one reason every heavenly a
the las apotle, no matier MP.;T':’“,,;'L“’"'
gty approved by thepope” "ot
nately, t h e reaso
muflwm" One thing he doesn'teed nung
t seemby My br ""“‘_‘m':'fi
e Vaca n t that the Pope w ifallie when e dege
1 taugh
does not mean ml-lmnhlydasmahnmuum.;
(oo 15 commonly boheved, and even el py cl
Stacansts. 28 they accuse the Popes of vioiting ducplewsy, e
doctrnal indallibility) % Vatican| purposely lef the wore cpen an
1 fact intended to addressed the matier dureng the Council, whu,
was unfortunately cut short by the Franco-Prussian war Based upon
e il aft preparcd for the council it el that edabry
Yo embrace some aspects of the faith commonly cawgonzed 5
ry objecw of infa
llibilty, although which ones and te what
ot remauns unclear 7
Conclusion

We conclude this chapter by noing that 1t m not owr mienien to

deny that canonizations are protected by the Church's infailibibty, nor
witour mtentron to defend the recent controvermal canonizations Our
pomnt 15 simply to demonstrate that these canouzatons cannet be
presenied as cerimn violations of the Church's infallibihity for the
fallwing reasons.
1} The Church herself has never defintively declared if infallinhity
exends to canorizations, which are a secondary obyct of

s
soe, un wdalibty
*ranyi's euty ressmnirg ichedes his clams thet a Pope, ar arymm
e e s o st ot o g oo o e
Wt Pope can [udge the triernal forwen, ac *she comdiian ol o ponen s sl when the
M0 s erigunal 3in ue wvecta] ain i resecieus” Seing ande ihe foct that iheve @ =
chlhing 2x “naterious” Criginal Sin {which i merly a dupemien te 20, sre ST -14.
24 2) Tewanyi » argument revesls the cormersiene of Sedevacaniim, which s e
221
el abilfy o uclge the internal fum sl shen ussher e by cisururg it “martl
O™ Diwed braihers gm0 the appemie cxirenc by schuallc cumng bt 2
hhhhmflmw:n(m)mwnh?.hfi
rquired by Velcon t m--::
fur 2 Pope bo speak infallibly a6 defed
:\-W-(mlyu.wmmm-mun
77t Vacan Iy condinen far infaloiiity Detven Iy thear Sesbevacnimt aguads bv
-"’-d-i Wit Fupes of an cost. he Demon beshrs e damega e Whng
Thems. e ssid et canertastions are medway beowom parelal
becs) and madiers of “fah” (primary object) Sor M /s e
1

iy erasery.comy cathalice burch/ arecatecioatons (alelibic/

545
 Falee Pope?
Teocwe Chapier1

t h e ar
r ee f
no to r
in cleud ed 1n the defirutigy,
fwitity, and
:‘u:mm.g ‘gwven al the FirstVatican Courcil. o

Even i canenuaation does provide 10 infall ible certtude th

s Heaven. one would have be able to demonaai e iy,
e candsdate was, m fuc5ot t, 0 Heaven 10 demonstrate
siolation of what the Church's process guaranteed to be true
3) Fially, if one holds 10 the position that only a petso n
who lived
lfe of herowc vistue can be rawed 1o the altars (whic 1s cergnly
h
ot the comaon opinion), he will have 1o explai hownSt Dismag,
who, according to Tradation, lived a horrible life until the houyof
s death (which even ucluded mocking Our Lord on the Crogy
before hus miraculous conversion),® has been recogmzed as a suint
by the uraversal Church (East and West) for centunies In fact, na
did St Drsmaas ot live a life of hermie virtue, but, according te
the book The Gowd Thicf, by Rev Schamitt, none of the Fathers of the
Church *recogniaed in hum one Laudable quality *«
I ght of the foregom 1 not poss
1t ng, ible
for Sedevacanb ets, or
anyone elae, Yo present the recent controversil canonizatiorss
“proof” thet the vamble Church has defacted, and violated the promue
of infallibality The problem with the syllogism is as follows. The mawr
precnuse (thet the Church is infallible in canoruzations), has ot bren
defirshvely taught by the Church (and may no longer even be the
common opiruon), the miser premuse {that a person recently canonized
1 1ot 1n Heaven) cannot be proved Therefore the conclusion {that the

Sallwing e lowr of Vatcan I, e Swien Belwps lovwred 2 Fastoral Instrucien whish

waid “The Pupe 0 indalible raiely smd cactuntady when. ss supreme dector of the Chusk,
e prarwumscs @ 2 motier of fuith or mavale & definition wiach has i b accepied snd
i o0 obiegatery ry all the (aithful. Agein It ln the revwlatu griew by God, he dpost
Jouss, which i the dwwuin prriecily \enced aut and exacily circumacribed, within wiich ¢
fatbe decrvams of she Pope ave sbie W exiend ihemaeioes and in regard o which the faith of
Whmh—n.mflpn-'(umum,asl.mm—
Goumcl 1849 1075, Lavdasr: Cotlin and Harvill Pross, 1962, first od. 1908, p. 64} 0
rpodar 10 the Redhaps’ Fastors) instructin, Do Cuthbert Buer relsies it Prs X
m‘*:"’::::fl“""‘((—l“hmmmumwd
D coune e e i - st o oty s et proec” s (- )
£ The Fothers of e Charsh ask. whot ware (he crimes of Diarmas? O 5t Eulet
Somues barm ol daving ilied e wm besther Otbuers repraach him with the et
T
g 8 irwa
— landabie l:w‘u-u.m—-n-
Thf ol 2W8
ir e roberyv of wrveer, and homicdeotNece
(Comanem, Otue B “:-“r

546
 Chapter 18

- The New Rite of Episcopal Consecration ~

have seen, Sedevacantists have historscall,

reonliar Popes and bishops have been pabix heeer e
e then election) and hence could not hold offce n the Chuser,
putthey onglnally maintained that they were, at leaat, validly orduned
habops. Over the past few decades, however, several Sedevacantss
Juve penned articles casting doubt upon the validity of the ordinationy,
s, approvedby Paul V1 in 1968, for both praests and bishope,
Thw argument 15 a different angle of attack agamet the Pope, as well
athe other bishops, since 1t maintauns that the post<oncaar herarchy,
dane
in thed
riew nites, are not even valid yrests and bshwps Follewing.
the lection of Pope BenedicXVt (wha, along with Pope Francw, was
nsecrated a bishop in the new rite), Sedevacantsts have used shas
argumenta3 fusther “proof” that Beneduct and Francis could not be
Ve Popes. For example, the Sedevacantist preacher, Gerry Mawtcs,
wrote “A man who 15 ot a validly ordained buhop cannot function as
e bushop of Rome.” and then added “But Joseph Ratznger is not a
widly ordaned bishop, having receved (in May 1977) the
demonstrably invalid episcopal ordination rite promulgated in June
1871 Mr Matatics then referenced what he calls & “devastating”
anicle by Fr Anthony Cekada, which he believes demonatrates the
validity of the new nte of episcopal consectation. We will anatyae Fr
Cekads’s article In depth in this chapter, suwce many well-mesning
pesple have evidently been persuaded by it.
While most Sedevacantists argue that the new rike of ordinakon fee
prts s only “doubtful” (this will be addressed i the next chapher),
mestof them firmly hold, along with Mr Matatc and sFr Cekada. that
te new rte for consecrating hishops ts “Absolubely Null and Utberly
Vo "2 Based upon thus claum, they argue that even if the new e of
Srdivation fora priest s stself valid, it doesn’t mater sincea pest can
#0ly be ordained by a bishop, and if the bishop was humeell invaisdly
m to ordain would net be valsd
he attempted
mied,lhem who

—
! Hawken,
Norri er 2, 1y Cemty M Malabcs & “Sedevacaniat”?,” . Grery Repbes (sighdy revioed
2007), Wtps7/ wovee gervym erg/auGRisLeti
rry See
cs Mok
""“hm«mnm-/byh Colmada that s wil crimge s s dus huphe
54
 —p
Tree oc Faiee Fope? Chapir
And if the Sedevacantists can't persuade
s,ey 1say fact,- douvali d, havet anot
theyamen her bt t at sloty naned 1wwaikeeg,
btil sacr s oo sacramen
ey oy ere doubt regarding the validity of the new r]:.{(“m""
‘means the buhop s ordimation must be Py
and
v conaequently the priests, ordamed by these ‘bshwp‘::‘ ust ehe

I = one of the morehhop tacteics used by Sedes

prexiv
,wlyudunn:dm mwmmdsnlwbr{ ean
vabi bty of the new), ordinations and Conaecrations :l:(ubmg,m‘ o0 e
g:,!w argumenm they are able to convince Mk( d., .
ww.mm;‘xarsrwuswm; other fan oo
persuaded by this argument, and umhk:&u: o oaveg ben
chapel, no ::r:u atiend Mass at all They cho;seh::l-s.::t;:m“
Sundays ra ’)dnn ‘“tend » “doubiéul” Mass” {and are knownsy
In ths chaper, we wall examine the ocop
stoe
c ngs demaa
deme r
netrrana thetbtn
aieeo obfoctivee do
theree 15 oo abje a3 tots
o ub
sprovedty e Chch 1968 By way ;t;kb:‘rl:““na:cd i
it ey fr the vy of # sacrament mdw:x;ltlm
flrece ', sacraments in which Chnst inshtuted the

oo orng the Churei's crawram

cxpl n l tees
smeenta wekilo gar
el coomp y, e rex-
Wofwh(hmhnw ::nma approved rites In the Church, the
mv-hdnyml o whh hae v been questioned. Finally, throughout s
Sedevacanmete (wach as Fre G Cekada) ) against the e
vali of da tynie,
new
thee e
g ot fi:-r, combined with the complexlty of

ey pons tat i b et T ofsome e

- Churhasch
* The the suthority to change the ords used)
prisly ordinaton and emp[::m‘wmmw)l

® There are
Tia
many different forms umed in the various approved
of s
the Mfimo{flmfivmdll
‘a‘ mdymh""‘
PL et Cheprer13
et for & form 10 be valid, it mut signiy e
le’f‘f:d In other wards, the ferm must convey what r:'::‘:
Sicrament 15 wiending t0 sccompleh e, ordamng » s o
bhop ot priest) Thsu&ekzymudg”.m_“';
new rile.
We wil demonstrate that the new ke of ep
consecration does sufficeently sigrufy the sacramental effact, In
fact, 4 case could be made that the new form e o
sgifies the sacramental effect than does e ol form of Ty
X1
» The new form of Paul V1 is actually not new at all It is taken
from the Apostolic Tradition
of St Hippolytus, which dates o
about the year 217, and some scholars even mamtain that it is
of spostolic ontgin. The form w also used 1n twe rikes of the East
{Coptc and Maronite) which have always been acceped by the
Church.

+ The new form of Paul V1 was approved by Cardsnal Optaviani,

who raied no concerns over its valility, Thu was oce year
before the Cardinal did rase concems over the new Mass,
which suggests that he would have objected to the new form as
well i he believed there were reasons o do so
* The obection
rased bysFr Cekada and other Sedevacanist
apologusts, aganst the validity of the new nie, are addressed
directly and refuted {noting also that some Sedevacantios
scrept the valdity of the new nies and rget the
argumenta
of Fr,tion
Cekada).

Moral Certitude

Sefore delving into the subject, we will begin by addresmng the

e of centtude that one can have regarding the vabduy of 3
ctamen
Some mistaken
t.ly believe that to particip
10 3 sscremen
ate t
st have absolute metmphysical certitude that a sacrament vaiid
e urther believe that f there s the shightest doub over the vy
e mmcrament, it means the sacrament s ~doubtiul” and baed upos
"8 doubtful sacrament s o scrame
250 et correct st e avosied
i nt, ”
F— fi
Trw
o False
e Pope? Chapter1
person can never have absclute metaphysical cernity
mem enmm 1t % inpostible
mmn 1o
muhknow. or exampie
mhm e ¢
ot consecraton (during the sient canon of the Trachtiong] e
vt carmot kinow fo suref the bread and wine used in the Mgy e
swiched out for mvalid matter without the priest knowing aboy; ®
There % o way 1o know with certainty that2 prest who gy
| absalution 1 the confessional was, i fact, validly ordamed 1 g,
pristhood There i afuays & certaun degree of doubt that canny jy
removed For th resson, the greatest degree of certitude we can hayg
about the validity of 4 given secrament 15 that of moral ceritude, ey
swolute metsphyscal certitude. Cardinal Bilot, when addrescing ay
obyection about & possible doubt over the validity of & sacramen
ended hus lengthy explanation by saying “Distinguish, thereiore
monal ceritude from that metaphysical certitude which 15 neyer
required in things periaining to human relations 2
St Robert Bellaraune, when responding to an obyection by the
Protestant heretic John Calvin, who mamtained that the uddey
inentbonof the runuster (which alfects vahidity) destroys certitude that
the sacrame nt wroe
is vahd, the following.
“1 roply, a man ough ol 1n ths world lo seckan wfallible
cctikde But 2 hunn and woral cettitude, in which 2 man may
propcrly ek, we have from the sacraments, cven 1f they depend
upon the miantion of mmothcr ™4
Fr Peter Scott elaboraled further on this point:

5L Rebent Bellamuae powits ot that we can never have 8

ceritode of Faith conceming the reception of a true sacrament,
3415 me-e0c can sec the intention of another Howev in er,
truth, we
can mever have wuch 3 certrtude concerning human evenis The
FEalen corirtude thal we can have % 2 moral certitude, which 1
-hn-h:, owtm thatde
we can kave about sy conungent, singula

The manualist Msgr jran Mane Hervé explained that mod

carkiude suifices 10 dwpel any reservasions over the reception
of 1
—_—
Biet, Ou“’“”4
The Sorrnamrui of iy Chwrche A Commeniary om thr Therd
‘"I Past of St i, v
Aeamie. D Sarermti, W1 clied i Misry of Chrsian Dectrone, vol. 8 by $657
mmvnn._nu‘-u-um
Angrios Quemibos and Arowers, Octwbet 2083

552
 e R B Crapier 15
wrote: “Concemning the validity of the sacramens
e e, which sufices (or acing prodendy wato
an "‘“5 "aroaeties of spint”
MK:'”“M an absolute certitude on & practical matier abowt whech
iy woral certtude s posaible. s the extorof Skeptcuen. The Camalic
e explains ths exror a6 follows:
Sk fuls to disingowk between practical
m,,‘:: wn.:rmlm« all reesonable grounds for M":
trelute vermnty which excludes all possible groumds for dovik.
The laier can be had oaly when evidence 1 complee, procf wholly
usic tn mathematics this 1s sometimes possible, thouph set
shways, bus in other matters “pracuical certainty” as a rule s alf we
canget And this s sufficiont, since ‘practical cernty” is certamty
o ressonable beings ™
Requining absolute metaphysical certitude over the validuty of the
sazaments 15 8 ecipe for disaster It wall quuckly lead bo scrupies of
cwnscrence and, o allowed (0 g0 to 1ts logacal conclusion, wil end with
e person beung, paralyzed with fear and/or avoidng the sacraments
Alogether (e g, “home-aloner” Sedevacantists), since one can never
remove all doubt Churist, of course, does not require from us the
impossible He asks only that we act reasonably and prudently, and it
iscertanly unrensonable 10 seek metaphysicat certainty over a matter in
whih only moral certitude is possible
The Four Causes

Tuming to the causes of the sacrament, a sacrament 1 & compeund

ol mater (matertal case) and form (formal ceuse) 1t % admirustered by a
maler (the efficient cause) who must have the inktion (finsl cause) of
dang what the Church of sacrament w dependent
does The validity
pon all four causes, in such& way that if a single one is lacking, the
sicrament will be rendeved invalid
Matter and Forn
The forus of the sacrament conests of the words that are spoken, the
:'fl-hdmm-m»m'ammmfwm
A conaists of the wards, =L baptize thee in the name of the Father,
—_—
" e, M Thevioxsac Opmatwar. vol iIL 1529
Cobc Excybpedt (19131, vel MLp 37
553
— Trwe o Falee Pope?
—y ey

Son, and of the Holy Ghost* The matier of ba,

:_":,."; o for the double consecration at Mass .,,";t":n
'Th--Myledv,'n:.md'Th--stalood, m“‘"fl\hm
wnto the Body and g
Toeed and wine, winch are tranaformed
omuwmxwwa&<hm)amswhnmm,h~:
i) AsS4 Augoetine sxd. “The word 1 10ined 10 the elervemy
theSacrament is made =*
With respectto the sacrament of Benarce, the form concss of g
Md;&dm(‘llfidwmmymulm'm)mmh
yny
however, dilfers from What of the others,
for thus <acrament,
seferred te s “quass-matter¥ Rather than being something alone jy
is tangeble the matter for Penance consisis of three park ooty
{sorrow for the wne committed), confession {to the priest), and
sahsfachen 1t These three acts of the penitent together constitule he
maticr for this sacrament.
The Form Determines the Matter

The form (the words) determunes

the matier In other words they
#lt us what the matier 13 mdended to signify For example,
the words
(form) “Take ye and eat, for this i My Body This i3 My Blood”e
detersrune that the bread and wine (matter) signify food for the s,
that is, the traneubstantiaked Body and Blood ol Christ The words
{form) “| baptiae thee * delermune Lhat the water (matier) signufies the
washing away of Onginal Sin. The imposition of hands 1s the matier for
several levels of Haly Orders. The words used (the form) determue
what the mpesieen of hands sigrufies - namely, the ordinaon ie the
ducenate, 1o the presthood, or 10 the bishapric Without the lom
(Words), the matter would lack Its sigrufication. The Catechiem of Tren

“Every Sacrament consists of two things “matter” which 1

alied the clemmt,and ‘form’ which 13 commonly called ihe
word s ecder to make the meaning of the nte that w beng
porformed casicr sl clearer, words had 10 be added to the maties
For all uigrs, words are evidently the mest sugnificant, and withesl
Soern what the matier of the sacrament dosignatcs al declarey
would e uterty shscure. Water, for example, has the quatay of
Smoling 1 well 2 af making clean, and may be symbolic of either
T
_—
s Tt 3 -
of the geridu
The s n-l—f
"—vlifl ety onniition, susdonsion, seu setatachee,
me, 1
l.-nlydh.n.s-
KNQ!‘L.‘
P9 Arva ases
Cowresh ” Den
o Porrne, 499..
Couneil of Trant, Dws-F%
854
 wmmr-/tfl"?‘“"""""""" Chapiar 13

sm, therefore, ualess the words wore sédod, # weuld et

L’,‘;,.”’wm meaning of the s:gn Win intended. When the m.:
are added, we immediately understand that the Sacrament possonses
\5d sigfics the poof
we ring "1
cleans
Signsficatio ex Adyunctis
We have seen how the matter 18 determuned by the formw. Now, the
,mmmuol-wpdww&.m-mmuwmwm
semeaes denve their Signification, 1n part, from the context m which
M’""‘”d The context of a sacramental form conessss of the words
‘M'“ymfl\llsurmm\d ||,Aswdlnll\emalmznmymgu
Thw deternunation by the ecclesial, histoncal and liturgical “context,”
whch helps Y0 give the form its inkended meantng w known as
iierwinatie ex adjunchis or sygmficatie ex sdjuncts Depending upon
which sicrament we are discussing, and upon which hustoncal ne in
e Catholic Church 18 under consideration, these surrounding words
ind prayers are sometimes nvecessary to confirm or clarify the meanung
of the words that constitute the form, just as the form reelf sigrifies (or
dewrmi matter) 2
thenes
Determination ex adjunchis is so umportant that # can even
invalidate a form which mught otherwise be valid in a different context
withetu nic Church. For example, Pope Leo XIII ackriowledged
Cathol
that the Anglican form for the ordination of a bushop mught be vad m
aCathobe rite, but n the Anglican ordinal it 15 invalid because the lexis
and ceremonies of Cathobic England had been deliberately deformed
by the innovators in such a way as ko eliminate all references b sinctly
sacerdotal power.
Substance and Accidents of Wonds

Doctnnal errors (in the mind of the miruster} do not uually

a sacrament, but the words themsel
Invafidate make up the
which ves,
form, must at least be generally intended 1o mean what the Church
wndersiands by the use of the words. Now, words have a subsiancr and
—_—
;:fi;anrm (Rockbard, Mineis: TAN Doale snd Pubbubums, b
PP 150-15)
e the s el s of the: sacrament e vo, the mmasent o preouned Jo
 .
Trwe o¢ Faloe Pope?
- Chapier

subetance s the mesmmng: the accidents are the

m“.f.. mearung If the words used {accidents) are .:,':,::"‘
ey & mearing (sbowence) different than what the cyu
understands by the same words, the sacrament will not be valig ’fl\:
by Mormony
of thus in baptwm administered
have an cample
Mormens use the correct words (accidents), since they baptize i e
Son and Holy Ghost, but when they USe the
name of the Father,
words, they mean something (substance) completely different
what the Charch understandsby the same word s ey
1 Therciore
though the correct words are used, the Church has declared that e
baptum admnmeered in the Mormon sect 15 invalid ¥

Manster and Intention

Secraments alao require & proper minister Some sacraments, wch

a5 Baptam and Holy Matnmony, can be validly admunistered by a by
perscm. The others require a validly ordamed priest (or bishop) 4
confect the sacramment Some sacraments (Penance and Matrimony) akse
requure bhat the sunister be invested with junisdiction by the Churct
(ordinary, or supplied based on necessity) for the sacrament to be
vald.
The minister (eficient cause) must also possess the intetton (final
cauae) 10 do what the Church does. The intention does not have to be
sctual, but only vrrtual An actual Intention is present when the intentisn
ol k& conacsously willed af the moment the act i< performed A vied
intenion w present due to & prior act of the will, which continursto
exint inpicitly until the act previously exphicitly willed is compleied
Fot cxample, if a priesi recties the words of consecration during the
Maes but. due te distraction or routine, does not coneciously wille
consecrate the elements af the mement he speaks the words, his vitual
Intenion (hu prior act of the will 1o performa valid consecrabin)
sulfices e bring about tranwubstantistion.
The Cathaiic Encyclopedin explains the difference between an actudl
Interwien; and a virtual inkention
_
" “The werks
ke FFatboe San and Hely Spick have for the Mermana &a mesung, Wt-
nmmr'/svvw f Consecratin
Cupper s
The virtual IREN
@ et INOn
2 prese act of the
. {vartus} brought about as an effact of2. f-n::.:‘_'
2 work for the stmnment nffiu“mmmm.-m
g 08 Vit 85 coniracied vk acial rtagen o o
e the clement of wil, but raher the sicauen of the machony
o that particularly of he reflex king ™5 -
M Herve explains that the & viriual inkenion suties for the
widity of 4 sacrament
“For the validity of& sacrament, i u nesassary that e sunmcr
Jave the mtention of doing what the Church docs, undesd, he o
have an intemal miention, which must alse be of lemt vemad
St Thomas refers to the virtual inteniion as a “hatual inkention,”
and notes that this suffices for the validity of & sarament The
Joliowing 15 taken from the Summe:
“‘Objection
3. Further & man's isieatien casnol beer on Lhet 1
which he docs not anend. Bul somctmes nnesicrs of the
sacruments do net sttend 10 what they say or de, theeugh thinking of
somcthing clse Therefore, i this reapect the sacrancat weuld be
ivalid through
want of alentien.
Reply te Ojection3. Although he who thmks of sesmethung
¢lse, has no actual mtenton, yet he has habrtual wiconen. which
suffices for the valudity of the sacramest. for waance, I, whea 3
pricst gocs to baptize someone he mtcads o do e hum wht e
during the cxercae of the
Church docs Wherefore 1f subsequently
%t his mind be distracted by otker matters, the sacrament s vald w
virtue of his onginul tatention. Nevertheics, e wanmer of &
et
sacrament should take great carc 10 have scoual mecaen But
7ol entirely 1n man’s power, because when & mam wishcs W be vary
tent on something, he begims uintenteually v thk of sther
me. ™%
things, according 1o Paalm 39 (5 My beart hath facsekan

The minister tust have the intention 0 de what the Church des,
WLt s 60t necesaary that he has the interinon 1o do what the Charch
itends, In other words, t 18 ot necessary that the munuster wwends the
mmulmn,wmmnmmwmmum
sccompluhes This e clear from the fact that even a pagan 1 abie 1

03 mphis e

557
=y
 —y
or Faloc Pope?
Tree Chapier;y

bapuze 1 a case of necessiteveny, if he doesry

:I:Zn nfuses fatth, hope chanty and sanctifying grace ml:'::'::
a woe operate.s Nesther does an explicitly heretica] docey,
concerrung the sacramental effect necessarily prevent the minigiey o
vahdly admunusse the sacram
rng ent.
‘Mt Protetant sects, for example, deny the doctrine of Ongyy
S yet the Church has never declared that this heresy nrrony
othet
sacrament of Raptism, themfy se of which
purpomgs m
s g e,
mwsq\mmd\hmfumd 1n fact, 1y
1872, the Holy Office responded 1o the follow ing question concernug,
bepasen pesformed by a Methodist minuster:
“| Whether bapum sdministerod by those [Methodisy
Iarsncs & doubtful on account of defect of ntention to do wha
Chret willed, 1 an express declaration was made by the minisier
Weforc he baptued [sayng that] that beptiom had 0o effect on the
ol
2 Whether baptiem 30 conferred 1 doubtful if the aforemd
declaraton was not expressly made immedutcly bafore the
cenfernng of baptisre. but hed often been asserted by the munmer
and the same docirine was openly preachod in that sect?
Reply to the firs queston m the negative, because despile the
ermor shout the effccts of baptism, the mtention of domg what the
Church docs o 5ot exchuded.
The iecond question provided for ia the smrwer to the fir."1*

Here we sae that even the public profession of the munusier that
apuoen has 1o effect of the soul, does not nullify the intention, even
the declaranon was made juet priot 1o performing the baptism.
When would a proper intention be lacking? An obvious example
weuld be the case 1 which a priest, dunng a Bible study, resd alowd
Jomu’ werde “Thus 1 my blood” from Scripture while he was drinkg
3 giam of wine In wuch a case, he would have no intention st al
(nerther ackual nee vistual) of consecrating the wine, and therefort
Sranvubstaniaton
would not occur Stmilarly,
a priest who was estg
breed at 2 restaucant and happened o vee the words “this is My 808"
W » senience, weuld obviously have 1o sntention to, and therefor®
weuld e, cansacrate the bewad,
Anothar obvieus defect of insention would be the explidt
Wueloken net o de what the Church does. Fope Alexander VIl

ot masting "oyt ek werkand.* The siicacy of the mcroemen s derived e £

Mte oee
s mmcramn
t and and
T ot3 frams e of theR
e or halinses
& e ew Rt of Eprecopar Lomscermuon "

mned the propostiion that “A Baptum » vai w

""Mwmnbsmawuy external rite and !mh:\m
TRER

'&'mmmm his heart resolves to himself et 1o miend what $he imerehy

-®
perly performe his prestly funcion
-vrl"’:m B tne Ciarch (using valid form and m)".""“
picnion i fo be presumed (again, absolute ceritode ® never
-5FEE

qured) ™ St Bellarmmune said “there = no cauee to doubt fhat the

pinuter has the ntention, unless he reveals its absence by some
extertor sign.”Z When 2 Catholic priest performa a Catholi: ceremony,
and externally admurusters the sacraments according to an approved
e of the Church, the sacraments are presumed valid (proper imenten
present) Doubts are raised only 1if he externally mansesis hus
::\‘tmflmlmdowhal the Church does.

The Minister for Holy Orders

Before ducussing the controversy surroundang the change m the

form for Holy Orders, which some Sedevacantists clam invalldaes the
new rite of episcopal consecration, we will coneder an interesting and
Itie kniown pornt about the mnuster for prusily ordiation - namely,
who possesses the power to ordain a man to the presthood. Many
bebeve 1t 15 certain that only & validly coneecrated buhop = capableof
ordalning a man to Holy Orders But the is not absolutely certam. kn
fact, a3 we will sce, there exiot four papal Bulls, weued by three
separate Popes, which empawer abbots, who were only priests (net
Icheps), o ordain their subjects b0 sacred orders. Two of these Bulls
explictly give the priest-abbol power to ordain owe men i the
priesiiood

Ordinary and Extraerdinary Minister of Ordinatien

The bishop alone is the erdinary mnister for the sacraments of
Confirmation and Ordination. A priest is cerianly an cxiraendiniary
Winuster for Confarmation, and, according to some theolegians, pasiby
anciir asr
unmter poestly ary
fordim ordmaen.
—
* Pope Abeander VUL, Decree of the Holy Ofice. Decmber 7 199, Emwn of e
Mane, 1318
™ The pramvinption ey be rebuttable by cvidence which s poatrvs, probsble desbl
aun True of False Pope”
~
Chapiry

Confirmaon, the 1917 Code of Canon Law sayy~

mg-':*mordinary munister
to whom has beention The extr,
of Confirma
a faculty granted by.’f;"m :
law o by 2 speaal sndult from the Holy See ™" In 1946, Pope py, 3
dewermuned that pash priests can confer Confirmation, ithwy
of er
Tecoving specal permusson, when thear Subyect in dang ey
In Tanquerey's A Manusl of Dogmatic Theology, ‘we read
follewing:

“The exiserdumary musisicr of Confirmation can be a sl

icx, copecualy delcgaicd by the Apostolic Sec Thie is certam
‘Frocn the Practce of the Roman Church - Many Roman Ponufy
ave grasted §,
s powcs 10 prcsis, thus. in the 6th Century
Gregory the Great, and later Nicholss . John XXIL Urban v,
IV. etc. froen the Code 782, the extraordinary minister 1g
ular
peicst (s whom etther by common nght of & partcindult of the
Hely See this faculty has been gramied Cardinals abbot or prelste
nullvun, vocar and prefect apostolic possess 1t In the docree *Spuniue
Sanct Munen’ conceming the sdnumistration of confimmation e
Wose who are 1 danger of death from senous llness *accordmg ko
e pomerat dukt of thc apostolic see” then, this laculty 18 given oy
W exiraendinacy munmiers 10 ernisnal pastors and to ather priess
who are oqual 10 them. "%
The 1917 Code of Canon Law also mentions the ordinary ad
exteaordinary
wenueter for Holy Orders.
“The erdmary musicr of sacred ondination 15 a consecraied
brmbey., thc catrsecdmary munmer s one who, though without the
opecapal character, has rece1ved cither by law of by & special duk
froom the Holy See power e confer some ordors “#
Nete that the extraordunary muruster for Holy Orders is one whe
does not possess “tha episcopal character” (Le., who 1s net a bishop).
While the typual commentanies usually dicate this as referring o
itior orders, there are four papal Bulle empowening abbots, who it
@nly priests, 10 ordain men to Holy Orders, and two specifically permit
-
2 Caen 731
2 ot XL, St St Mo, Sepiceiber 14, 1346 AXS,
38, 1946 ”1. 4%
oyA M ,f Ovgat oy. (New Yo Byrmen, Ovichs Co. 173
k51
(rmphoste adod. We do vate hawpve, tha the Code doos sty “#0%
Wk spaciying i i smrrivg vo thaae which lanprin on indelible chunet
%0
WP ew e s = Cuprer 1y

e o ordain
iace 1X.men# one
10 the pricstheod 7 Two of e Bulls were Stgned
by Fope Martin V. and one by
N 'mlrm:.
u reputable theologians have debated the exact mear
Wm.. permitting priests 40 ordam, smce 1t has .h..,,;,::
7 common opinion that priests cannot ordam men 1o Holy Orgers,
seid 41
nfact,Fr Tanquerey, who held to thus mare common oprmon,
" eritin that priests cannot be delegated as extraordinary mewsiers of
i episcopacy and of the priesthood, all egree om thns *»
1f 3 priest can indeed ordain (according ¥ the two papul Buti), the
quesion then becomes whether the prest w given the power at b
‘dimation {which s restricted by ecclesastical law), or whether
ardmation only makes him capable of recewing the power by virtwe of
spectatjurisdiction delegated by the Pope St Jerome held to the foroe
apuuon. He mamntaned that “at hus ordunationa priest recerves power
1o ordain whuch 15 immediately restricked by ecclemastical law *% Oxt
held the sarne opision He wrote: “the requante power of consacraen
[of ordawning a priest] 1s contained in the priestly power
of coneecrabion
1 polestas ligain’ For the valid exercise of 1t a special exercme of the
Tapal pawer 15, by Divine
or Church ordinance, necessary "3
Others argue that at ordination
the priest receives only the
1pacity, or status, enabling the Pope 1o grant him the power to ordain.
1 the former case, the power 1s actually recerved
at ordinakon and
nmediately suppressed by Church law In the latter case, the prest is

mcly Sacrar Relagromis, ad Apextolsmme Sodus Procubemtes,

Religwms, February 1 1400: and Apesielioar Sokis Provideni, Febeuary &, 1400
i ad Vas, Nevember 16, 1427
il April 8, 1489 Alt four of tha aferementionsd Bulke arv priske in 1L Lerewes,
+ nanenly Ondonis, secend edition (Reme Pontllicia Universite Gregerana, 13,
15153 (Apperwdix 1) 1n his popular ook Fundmmecials of Ciluln. Do, Laing
€4t concludes that “a simple pricst I an extrasrdanary dmpenem 8 the Ovdecs &
mite and Preshyterate fust 46 he 18 an evirsordioary dlsperwet of Confirmabon.
3110 roing that these papel decisions did nwt “boech inlalinity * 7. 493,
18 hia
bouk, Ondinahen 1 ¥he Prcsihond. Fe. Johey igh aloe avs Wi 1 sent cures’
¥ rica e able 1o ordain other pricsn when defeguind s du = by te Pore boet
U aheve-clied papsl Bulls Rirgh, Ordmeation so toe Prssnd {Londoo 2
§ Shood and ward, 1956) pp. 89 Bigh rther mingamand il Ve & 8 dutmcsd
1o the priest s “sintuan” Ja eradain (a pewer that 1 @1 erety) and the ool
et s (which comas ol from poindicon reied e e R W 7 1
l;‘m.;mmaww.flum—‘flm
P 363 (enphacie
scded)
:‘:mmmnnm‘pu
" Fundamemian
of Cedhtic Dvgme, 1 4S8
561
— True
o Fakee Pope?
—~Chapter3y
e of receiving the power; the power reudes with
fi:‘:::hm\fa‘nnponhpflfikmm'nncmm“u:h"‘
‘Those who hokd 10 the MOrE COMMON OPINION ((h
& prigt
at gy
oeda) have pesnied out some obvious problems with the Jrong
.“Pdg'hmm'nrymflullluupnulmh
edal e, then ypy
by eccesnic
at odnawen, which % fstnck
uflmhmmmwwmmbsmps.,m"yh
those Bishops who abandoned the Church, thus rendering ay
contmuaieon of priestly orders outede the Church imposcible? Ang
she pracst docs not possess this power, but only recerves it by gy
nsdaction debegeied by she Pope, the same imposaible conclusey
follows. such power % concomitant with jurisdicion, and therefare
could be withdr by the Pope
awn from any schusmatic o hersicy)
‘mshep, thus prevening the continuance of 2 schismatc/herena)
“lne” of succeseor buhops. Now, evidently the Church never behisved
the Pope could prevent 2 schismabx or heretical brshop from
2 priest. Thersfore, how can ane maintain that the power ¥ ordan is
or from
darived from funsdi ctiecclesias
on tical law?
We present thu little known material anecdotally, as a maer of
amerest and for 1ts histoncal value, noting that we are dealing here with
2 question that has not been defirutively resby olvthe Church.
ed In
‘spie of the exastenc of the papal
e Bulls, it 15 the more commopinion
on
twday ¥hat & smple priest cannet ordan 2 man o Holy Orders
{Archbubep Lafebvre held to this more common opiruon) If the
cammon opwnion m correct (and invalid ordinations were appraved fac
a wne by the Holy Sec), this histoncal precedent would further
underscore the strict hinsie of papal infalhibility, and what God can
allow Hse Chure ch suffer
We will now further cormider the matter and form of the
scramenis.

InSpecie and in Genere

Jasus Cheist inetitetnd all seven sacraments, but He only explicity
desermined the matter and form for the sacrament of Baptism and the
double coreccration during the Holy Mass For the other fie
sacrasnanis, Chriet left u 1o the Church 1o determine the matier oM

B Bagh, whe hatd o s tter i, wretr - shris srdinaiion priceis 3¢ e

"—-'*-dw-—nummn.:'ymmuwwm“‘
Dbl shine —b gver, povens 1@ ardain, bt the
tatue ia et idamical wi i she power44o
,___—"'lu;hn—n—-a_,—-n,-wmno.wi

562
 TNt
TT Clapir 18
theologrcal terminology, we say that Chrat
frm U4t 3nd the comsecration of the Fuchures ey P
o oy} and the form of the mhflfivzncnmqm..m(h:
Ao way) This explains why there w such » great difen
“'il"‘mmentsofHolyOIdrnmd fon m the
"m“slppmvtd nmdlhmmmomw
explans
setatuted
“Granting that Chnst tmmedi ately alt the
1 docs ok necessanly follow that He persosally detzramed i e
wcaile af the sacred ceremeny, prescobeg, meetcly -
relatisg 1o the mancy asd the form se e voed lumlfi::y(n.
foc immediatc institwion)
10 say Chriet detcrmised whet spocl
were 10 be conferred by means of exicrsal nies. for some
sscraments (¢ g. Baptism, the Euckanst) He determmned muutely
{un spece) the matter and formm for others He detarmuned ealy 1 8
gonorsl way (in genere) that there should be an cxiormal corvaneery,
by which special graces were te be confarred, loaving 1 the
Aponiles of 10 the Church the power 0 determene whaever He had
not determined, ¢g. to presenbe the matter and form of the
Sscraments of Confirmation and Holy Orders. { ) Th. can solve.
luscencal difficuitios relatng. procipally, se Conficmenen and Haly
Ondens.™%

Net only did Christ grant the Church the authorty¥ determune
“the matter and form for the Sacraments of Confirmation and Holy
Orders,” but the Church also possesses the authorty to alier the matier
40d form that she has established for the palukty of a sscrament. Thes
explauns the direct contradiction between the teachang of the Council of
Flarence (0 the Decree for #e Amemems) and that of Pius XTI (in
Sacrementum Ordinis), who overturned what the Counci of Florence
taught constitutes the matter for the valid conferral of the sacrament of
Hely Orders.
The Council of Florence taught that the pasmng of the i
msirimentorum (the chalice and patten) is part of the matir for Holy

“The sixth sacrament is that of Order; its matr 1 al by the

TVing
of which the Order 15 comferred.
thus
v with w
besad, The form of the prcsthood t a6 follows Recave powsr 0
Afler sacifi ce fic the: iiving and the duad. i the aamc
fw the Church
-
" Clai Exyeiope (19131, vad KL p. 208
— True or Falee Pore”
—— Chapieryy

the So n an d of e 11o ly Gh os t ** (C au ng y 3¢
ofthe Fathar @d of uncil
Flacence}™

In Apsinicac Curae, Pope Leo XIll noted that when the tra,
Iroiuments are omitiedto befrom the ordination rite, the auum
o s for the person conditionally re-ordained
A artclen the Catholc Encyciopedis - wrtten before Puus Xy,
- further explaims that the iradtho nstrumentorint ate requireg -
:‘r’:nfhmmlwfldym

“Ta underand clearly the extent 1o which the imposiion af

Wesds 1 crployed m the Church 3t present 1t will be necessary1
\acw 1t 1t sacramental o theologica t as1n i ceremen]
36 well
o Iturgical aspect, In the sacrament of Holy orders d enten
erther whelly ot 0 part. w110 the substance of the rite by which mew
af the higher prodes are cenferred Thus n the ordinaen of
deacons according te the Laun nite 1t 15 at feast partial matter of the
sacruncet; w ceaferrmg the poesthood there 13 a threcfald
mposshen, viz. {s) whes the ordumng prelate followed by the
pricss, lays hands on the head of the candidate mil dicens, (b) when
be s the press extend hands duning the prayer, ‘Oremus, fram
canasims,” and (C) wheo he wmposcs hands at giving power le
forgive sim, saying ‘Accipe Spintum Sanctum® The first and
second of these impositions, combined, constitute w the Lawn
Church purtial master
of the sscrament, the fradiiio instruncaienae
‘Dewng required far e sdequate of complete muter,
Io Light of these ieachings that the tradition of the nstruments are
past of the matter for ordinabon, conwlder the following from the
Sedevacantist Patnck Hensy Omior, who claims that the Church hasne
power 1o change, of even louch, the matter and form of any sacrament.
He wrale:

“In s Bull, Apastelicac Curse, Pope Leo X111 Iays down an

wpociant dotacten ‘1o the e for the perfomance
tsd
Mdwurication of sy sacrsncot a distinction 13 justly made
botwocn, 15 ‘ceremenal’ wad s ‘essential’ part, the iter being
weunlly called i‘mearwnd form * Thus, alththe ou gh
Churc h 18
facbdden © e, o cven souch. the matice_or_fom of @8
WTUTCH. She may indeed change or abolih or wiroduce
riee,em
something m e Noscas ia
o “cer emonl
ial’ parts, uscd M
*_—
D,
Lo KL Apoetone Curw. Nt 21 September 18, 109
* Cohbe Enpupot (1133wt V1L g 0
Sed
 el s = \napier 1g

runutration of the sscramemte, such 2

:’;,;,;5 Veors or air the achual words of he furm ey
-

o, notwthstanding the claim made by Mt Omlor that “the

charch 1S forbidden to change, or even touch, the matser
o form of any
gmment." Pope Prus XII teaches i Sacramentum Ordms o
Spotant privciple "Feclesiam qued statuet et mutere e
oulre - that which the Church has established she can aleo change and
Shogate " Then using the full farce of s authonty, he decreed that
the tradite mistrumentoruim whach the Council of Florence t2ught to be
‘e mater for the sacrament of Holy Orders, was o longer requwed a
\te matter for Holy Orders Pope Pius XII decreed
“Whereforc, sfter 1avoking the divene light. We of Ow Apestolic
Authonty and from certain knowlcege dactare, and u far as ruay b
wecessary decree and provide that the master, ol the saly metier,
of the Saeed Qcders of the Dinconate, the Priesihood, and the
Emscopacy 18 the imposiuon of hands, It follows as a
comequence thal We should declare, aad w onder 10 remeve all
controversy and 1o peeclude doubts
ef conscrence, We do by Our
Apastolic Authority declare, and if there was ever 2 lawkul
dispostion to the contrary We now decrer that a leas n S fuwre
\he traditio instrumentongn ts 0ot necessary for e valuinty of e
Sacred Onders of the Durconate, the Presthood, and the £pisconscy
() m the Episcopat Ordinabion or Consecration. thematter
« the
imanition of hands wiich 1s donc by the Bishop consecraiar "

Here we have a Pope explictly sivegatmg the teachmg of

ecumenical Council of the Church about what constitutes the matter for
2 sarament Thus, ether Mr Omlor’s cm that the Church i
foti to nd enor matter of any sacram
the form
alter dd ent
s falee, ot Pope
Pl XI did what the Church w forbadden to do. Whdooc h=
you thurk
torrect?
Pope Plus XII explaed his abilty fo chwhat an Councl of
thege
tGught about the matter of Holy Ordersby nosing that the
¥aditon of the Instruments had ot been insttuted as the matier of the
scrament by Christ Himself, but by the Charch Unlike Raptam and
Comandage ')
. *Has the Church the Right? * fsrst publiehed in Tie Vo, Wrangs
Joi. Octaber 1 1969 inchuded n T AoChareh The Collocied " mponts 1906

©Ph XN, Secramention Oneae, No. 4 Novemier 30, 1987

55
—-——j
Faloe Pope?
Troue ey

bl cansecraion at Mase, the form and matter for Hoj

eb naimute by Chnt m genere, and ot 1 ece O
were
med that even if the tradition of the mstruments XII
"
fuuflly(mlm!y)byflnwfllil\dmnmmonkq“mhm
et the Chrch ha the authority o change o abrogaie what s b
instituted. He wrote
“Even sccord mund of the Council of Florence wyelf
0 theing
the wadinie mstrumentorym 1 ot required for the substa nce ang
vahity of thu Sacram the will of Our Lord Jewms Chne,
by ent
ol I @ was st ome wme neccssacy, cven for validity by the
will and command of the Church. cyervang knows that te Chyecy
et peww o change and alwogaie what the herscl( py
"2
cxabluhed
Ore can enly mugine how Sedevacantists would have reacted ha
Paul V1 directly contradicted the Councl of Florence by claming tha
\he matter for the sacrament was different than what the ceuncl
wught After all, according 10 Mz Omlor, the Church has o power s
even touch the matter of the sacraments If the Sedevacantiste of our
day had been around in Prus XIT's day, no doubt some would have
declared Pius XTI 10 have violated the infallibtiity of the Church, by
definctively teachung the contrary of an ecumerucal council As they do
teday, the Sedevacantists would have no doubt cused confusion
among the faithful, s well as condemrung their opponents as public
‘heretics for remainung in uruon with “antipope” Pius X1
But,;n reabity, Prus XI1 did not violate the Church’s infallibrlity, oer
was there evan » contradichon between hus teaching and thet of the
Council of Florence since, contrary to the claim of Mr Omior, the
Church does indeed possess the authonty to alter some determunabon
of the matter and form for the sacraments, when much was insttuted by
the will and command of the Church, and not by Christ Himself
In light of what we have seen, one can essily spot the eror m 4
commen Sedevacantiel argument. The foliowing s the obyection snd

X1l
Sedevasmatiol Objection: |n Sacramentum Ordinis, Poge P Paul
#rv the e Buhopas. In the ew Rite of
form fox the ondiseBTtso
—_
x".::"_"“"""'ro«mmnrbymm mwmwn
mne g (bnt ncr) of the form was. iesiv sted Chais, the vlhyW0
p
e s) bo wm gt
{amdars ot et drermicd o e Church T i
4 (rmptani addnd}.
566
 e N RO 1 Choprar 13

one sngle word remarme, Everyh

Vi, oy Y batrck Honry Onier e - ""‘_
viiden 10 change. of cven lovch, e mama
e Theretore, Paul V1 5 o e cleaty mean ™ * 1
wer+ Though the meanmg of he form was mewtuied
Al words used to cxpress thal mcaning have baen <h:.c;::
Church, who possesss the 2uthonty 10 change what the harself sag
jshed The act that there 15 such 0 great ofermcn ey
;‘:m‘,"dwmdmgsofflwfmnfummmmh&h-
East and West) proves that all the words of
x(kt«mmd by the Church mrxmm-m:.::::
Canst, He did not require any particular wond m specie Tharsbore
e fact that Paul VI changed all the words of the form. whwch had
Wen snrcly determincd by the Church, docs aet w aod of roeil
avali dae it s internd
the sacrament ed One must conesder
10 confact
wheth er 18 resp
the meaning and ecte d,
that 1 » judgment for e
Charch
Here we see once again how a false premuse (the Church cannet
change what sha had determined in the matter and form of any
sacament), leads to a false and destructive conclusion (the conciliar
Church does not have valid priests) A small error i the beprrung6.8
g error 1n the end, and thus partwcular emmor has led many vulnerable
souls completely auy from the Church, where they o longer recerve the
sacraments {especully confession and Holy Cemmunion) because they
amoneously belleve there are no mare {sr very few) valid prese. They
wd by depriving themselves the onduiary mwans ol salvaon besed
upon ther own private judgment on a matter about which Chrwt gave
e hurch sleme tha muthonity $o judge and determine
The Limited Power of the Church
to Change the Matter and Form

While the Chusch does have the power to change the specific matter
and form of some sacraments (at least thet which was not given directly
¥ Chnst), the Councul of Trent teaches that the Church hus 0o power
™ chunge “the substance of the sacraments” - hat w, W change what
Chrat hay inatituted as sacramental signe. at least 1a gemere, and 6
"“Mwwumormmmmnmhm-m::
(matter and form) of some sacraments (v¢., Bapusnt P
Settle conaecration at Mase) were insbtuled by Chiast 0 gonwre 1 2
5 With respect to the others, Chrust lef # 1n the Church
mlhm.grnmwmmhhmm fiw

567
b
— Troe or Falee Fope”
— Chapter1y
hevself inwttuted, the Church has the authonty 1o ajper
Chnnh'i:limwd the words that contitute the approved lun.l{',}'
rmple.she hescl has the AULhOOIEY 0 CPange the ords ofth o
o 8 case change in the firmule previously cswblishad vy e
oareh docs o, o Heel, constute & chane In the substueof
erament Mchael Datacs elaborated on. this. pount in hus bogk 1
Orderof Meldhusedech
“The Councrl of Trom declarcs that the Church has always
posecssed the power - 1n the dispensation o admimistration of the
Sacraments « W dexerrune of 1o change these things which she
yodges 10 be more expedient for those recenving them of for the
veveresce due 1@ the Sacraments themeelves sccording 10 the
crcumennces of ume and place A excepuon is made with regard
10 the substance ofa Sacrament which the Church has no power to
therr substance retained
aler - sabva illorum subssemia. provided
D931
O queston immeduatcly anscs as o what belongs to the
sibomnce of 2 perticular Sacrament, and the answer will depend
upoa whether Ow Lond wnstituted 1t genencally (in genere) or
specifically (im specse). In the former case, He left it to the supeeme
‘actherty of His Church to decide the pasticular signs which should
supaily and effect the sacramental grace Where Christ msuluted s
Sacrament i sperie. m regards cither mattcr or form, the Church
Was e power 10 change them Our Lord chome water for the matter
‘of Baptiom and bread and wine for the matter of the Holy Eucharit,
mettung clsc can cver be adrrited () With regard to the form of 2
Sacrament, seme Catholics have muswkenly igentfied the form
sacll with 2 articular facrmla employed by the Church 1o cxpres
#.and have concludod that this formaule cannot be changed without
wwvaliduting the Sacramear Hence, they have fallen into 1be etror of
Welieving tat the Church has no pewer (0 make changes in the
masac 204 form of any Sacrament, having mrstakenly identificd the
@anct a0d form w coment wage with the substance of I
Sacraments shemactves, which Trent taught could not be changl
The view that the Church
can muke
no change in the matter and
form of any Sacrament u disoncally ndefensible “

_
e
es The Orderw~ f Metwedecss-m'.fi't‘“km(mhnfl/"“"‘
(1979) Appendn|
 e NowKieT¥ = Creprer iy

Inclogy of “matter” and "form" was

m?:y::ul Anstotle and his teachung of ).yh.,.o:",,:"m‘: o the
nysical treaises of Astotle were discovered i ey ny u::
map e early in the second mullenmum, ba
m the hght of drvme revelation, and the mempry
""'n,,.osy was used o more clearly express whe e of e Fau
peflected most brilliantly in the writinofgsSt.Thomas Aquimes)
The new terminology was also used 10 acticulte and bever
understand the apostolic docirine regarding the sacraments Whle
Aniti’s metaphysics was useful in providing addrmonal canty fer
Famnple, by explaining that the substence of the bread and wine
andergoes change at the consec
while ran
the aceudents
on, reswun the
same), 1t also caused some problems. For example, it resulied m some
people behieving that the Church 15 unable to change aysang in the
form and matter of certain sacraments.
In hus 1956 book, Ondimaion 1o the Presthosd, ¥e Jobe Bligh ..
explaned that this problem stemmed from the analogous e of the
sestné form and matter for the sacraments, as compared 1o the same
wrminclogy when used o describe the matter and form of Lving er
physical beings We will allow Fr Bligh 0 elaboratone thas pawnt:
“The afficial sdeption of the termavelexy of ‘masr” and ‘form
Nod the unformnate effect of encouraging iweoleg:ams 1 thmk thet
the exsential rites of every sacrament st be uachangeablc. In the
physical world wherever there 15 4 diiincuon of mancr and af
substantial form, there are distinct bodies s formt plug this morer
makes thus body, and that form plus that marier makes tiat body
Hence the terminology f mamer and form, borrowed frem
Ansiotle’s analysis of things 1 the physical world, suggesicd that2
change of the matier and form of the sacruments would mess the
niroduction of new sacraments — of sacramernts other than these
mtinied by Christ our Loré! Hence i was coachuded that the
Clurch has 1o power 1o altcr the rmatier and form of anv of the
wcraments This erroneous concluson led 19 grest difficulecs when
“"“mflmnng of eatly hturgical beoks made 1 merc and mere cload
These:
ho held that the matter and form of the sacraments
4 irsisbe
that the ipessan of kands has
Wevitably came 1o the conclusion
hays becn the maser of Orders.™
p— Trwe or Fatse Pope?
NChapter1y

What 1s bwnatable in the matter and form of the sacram wlm:

what Chhas rs tuied St Augustine gaves this principle
wstit
owtrved everywhere and from time smmemorial comes from
Hence, hmmammdsthedm m|mmqu';
o divinely nstimicd matir of
mposcs el 1t 19 mm
Smm‘fmvmwfl“y'flk(hn;edbth
Now the form (the wends accompanying the imposition of hand)
ot everywhere the same hence it 1s clearly a determnation by
Church, Yet 3 has atways and everywhere bren required that 1
asrrag o the words mgruty the “fullness of the pricsthood” for® te
the "second rank” for the priests. and a rank of “service for
\he dancons. That the institution wr genere
‘What is Required fora Valid Form

Eartior we saw that the form % what gives the precise meaning 1
the matier The words of the form deteroune what the matter is
make
te mgrufy Some Sedeva
wisnded the blanket claimsthe
cantsl
because the form for the new eptscopal consecration duffers from the
seaditional feewy, 1t has changed ~the substance of the sacrament * They
claun thet sy change in the words that make up the form 1 and of
twelf invalidates the sacrament (believing, as apparently Mr Omlor
did, thet the Church is unable f0 make any changes to the formula she
has esmbliched) These Sedevacantists err by strictly equating a change
0 what the Church had previously established as necessary to confect
asacrament with & change un the *substance” of a sacrament {which the
Church has no power to do) When the Council of Trent says the
Church cannet change “the substa nce it 1s referning
of the sacraments,”
Vo what Christ anstituted - thet is, the Sacramentes themselves, as well as
shat which, by dwine svdimance, i necessary ¥o confect the sacrament
Pope Five XII confirns the same when he says.
“For hese Sacramcat mtuted
s by Chost Owr Lord, the
Church 16 the coune of the cantunies never substituied other
Sactanant, aec could she do 50, siwce, a8 the Council of Treak
toachcs (Conc Trd, Sem Vil, cas. 1, De Sacram, in genere). e
3evem Sacrofam nc
e New at
Law s all mstmta
were d
by Jows
Chaut Our Lore, and the Church has o power over “Uh substan cs
Siabiaiad i e ke 26 sacramnc
vgr
rig al
_—
* Seremaies Orihats, No. £ Novewior30 1957
”
 e New
R Uhepier 13

tevacantists acknowledge that the

ety ws:dhlny.- the lormula.but clam that the curpeny 1%, 1%
suhor it of episcopal consecration does ot suuaty e rere,
»” s for a vald form. This a the postien of Fr "7"":
wly titled, Absolutely Null and
s, Vodw
e used. m the new e a:’:w:' Tr Cebada
‘;:'wh,. is necessary to sgmify the sacramental efec, nd ety
B ehanged “the subsiance of the sacrament@
Ft Cekada begins by asking: “What specifically are we losking for
s the new e of episcopal consecrabion? What must
o for confermng. Holy Orders expres? He then theprovides words o ¢
s
buvwm‘mfl'

“Pius XI1, m his Apostolic Constitution Sacramentum Onduis,

lsd down the general principle when be declared that for Holy
Orders these st ‘ynivocally sigmufy the sacramenia) cffuct - thet
w, the power of the Order a0d the grace of the Hely Ghost" New
¢ twe clements that it must wmivocally (1c., unmbrguensty)
express thc specific order being conferred (diaconste, pricsthoed o
episcopscy} and the grace of the Holy Ghost. So we mut therefore
ascertain whether the niew form 1 indced ‘Unvaca
m cxprasmag,
l™
these effocw.™*
Seiore we look specifically at the forun (the werds) of the new rite,
lefs address Fr. Cekada's understanding of the term “unvocal” Fr
Celada presupposes, In effect, that a univocal form excludes the
pexibihity of different mearungs i different contexts, and for hum,
wevacty is defined without regard 40 how the Church wedersiands the
words.3 We also note that Piue XII did not say the words of the form
Jave never been used in any other possible way in the huetory of
leology, the Church o the hiturgy Rather, the Pope sad that the
wards of the form do “univocally sigrfy the sacramenta effect” and
l
then added an important phrase (which Fr Cekada failed 1o incladel,
ramely, “which are accepted and used by the Clwarch ar thet seme
-
o
v
sLte phease Pope Lre X1t used i1 Apsviobme Covse Gepmmber 16 1785
n the chapter, in decl the Angli
ar can in
srbers invali
g
e b o epcepal cocsevnn g o b d. A s
h oy Christ” (Cebada, “ Abeotutely Null and Uy Vo™ March 2% %)
.':':’_‘-n-'mw.uey..mfiw'_-“'
one s =
7M.~ Abiuily Nl ek Uier Vod* Mach 25, 200 omphaspabied)
M Tty have acquired s theery rom e ot D Ras Commurizmaret0
&ul"":n-yu.mummmm-—4~“ -t

n
 —yp
G“Phu
True or Falee Pope”

Before fursher on the part thal Fr Cekada cony,

He wrote eruently
mafmmmomuxu
wbercfore, afier invokig theknedmi ne Tight, We of Oy
“Aubonty and from certain wledge declare thate
o the worde which determinc on ofelythithes matt
the effappectlics ati- nam pov er,
ey
wehich g the sacramental
whic
af Order and the grace of the Hoty Spint - and h d
are accepio
aad uscd by she Chureh op Uhat sensc ™
Sy saying the form unwvocally signufies the sacramental effects, ang
shen adding that the words are “accepted and used by the Charchi
hat sense” {that , as sigrafying the sacramental effects in & given
liturgacal context), does not exclude the possitahity thal some authars pr
of the Church have understood the words in a different sense
eanches
- thal , dufferent than how the Church understands the phrase in »
specic wturgeal context. In other words, the form univocally wgmfies
the sacramental effect beceuse of how the Church understands the werd,
and the unrsecty nceded for & secramental form does not depend upen ceriain
woris never hacang nveent emythurg else in 2000 yeurs
Earlier we saw that words possess a substance and accidents The
substarce i the meamng, and the accdents are the wonds used to
convey the meaning, We also saw, as in the case of Mormon baptism,
What the correct words {acdents) can be used in the admunistrabon of a
sacrament bt If the mearung intended (substance) s different than
whal the Church undersurds by the same words, the different
meaning will rende the sacrament invahid
Now, just because the Mormons understand the words “Psther,
Sen, e Haly Ghost” differently from how the Church understands
the words, that does not render the same words, when used by the
Church, e be equivocal {open to more than one mearung), as oppoeed
W univocal (having only one meaning) The reason i because the
univocal signafication of the words based, as we have said, on how e
Onrch indersiands them The phrase "Father, Son and Holy Ghost”
‘accepled and used by the Church” to refer only {umivocally) to the
Mhm-thme,mumufi.ogMgmmpuh
P"fls: ::ufmm meaning,
sayng & phrase is univocal “when accepted and used by the
Chuch™ in & particular serise, does nol exclude the possibility thet
mmdu,lwmmpk-MmmuevenCoptkchmmn
way have wed & word or phrase W mean something smilar bt
_
it
 e “owpler13
a different context Unfortunately, nesther
d"'e'"l;,ndny that a Sedevacantist Pnentj!ylh an ax :o‘;:,:‘
B because the word ould mean something dferes g
B ,,.:f.:Ln vendiers the form equivocal nd therefor pr gy
“'fl":‘m,d’,’:, ofthe form mean what the Church nkende
for ey
" ths mearung suffices to render the v,
Jes of how anyome else understands the words Tha sy
Jecome evident when we consider the actual words (form) that Phey
of Holy Orders, We will
Xl dectaredt to be “uruvocal” i the sacrament
N hat these words, when coneidered m and of themecivey,
aally qute equivocal
i the followng citation, Fr Cekada prevides ws with the forss of
#e traditional episcopal consecration nite under Pius XI, along with
s own unexplained and undocumented conclussons on why the ferss
» “unwvocal © He wrote

“Ia the same documens, having Lud dews 2 ponenal prmcie,

Pus Xil then declared that the following words, centasned i the
comsceratory Preface for the Rite of Episcopel Consecratien, were
the esscntnl sacramental form fec confernng the epuscopacy
*Cotmplete 1n thy prest the fullness of Thy muntry, and adormed
e cument of all glory, senctify hum with the dew of hesvealy
snointung* This form univocally sigmifies the scramewal cffack3
follons
(1) "The fullness of Thy ministry." *catmentof ll glacy” = pawarof
e Oréer of cpiscopacy
(2) The dew of heavealy anomtmg” = grace of the Hely Ghoat
The question 1s whether the new form does the same ™™

of Fr. Cekada's artide, you will

U you actually read tfus seckion
™whce that 1t readss just w it does above. We have outied noshing. Fr
Cekada begine and ends has “analysis” on the unsvocabty of the okd nie
recisely with the Last sentence above, and then jumps direckv xwo bt
inslys of the new urite in other words, he prosrdes ne commentary
dscumsing why the form of the old rite mwulym-fis'*“‘g:
Uy power and the sanct and ifyin gof the
meramentl grace
Mt (tat s, "the grace of the Holy Spant) Hi "y
elewents of the
s merely of putting equal signs afler the
wfl-nrdun;unmm.vom-nmml
—
e, Aomakty Nl and Unerly Vol March 25 308
73
 —yp
Trwe o Falee Pope” Chaper3y
I ekada, if's as sunple 26 this. the words “the fullness
k!'..c.a “samment of all glory” "*‘wwfluhhemdrr::“‘
rscapate,and the worda “the dew of heavenly anointing” w the gy
of lhe Holy Ghest. Period Finuto End of story
Now dear resder rase your hand if you belicve that the
‘ - dent of heavenly ancinting,” In and of themaelves, univocaly g
\he Haly Ghost. Can there be no other possible meamng for. hy,
! expression? Everyone who hears the phrase will immediately
! Yo 1t refers 1o the Holy Ghost, and nothing but tha Holy Ghas? Ty
Mmmkwmlmwmdsmn.m\dmlnwmnyuy It
refers to the Holy Ghost, what else?” You can even consult the massive,
pre-Vancan 0l Encundsen Liturgicum of Professor Polycarpus Rads,
053, and # doesn't sgree with Fr Cekada on the exact signification
of “heavenly anowbng” For the distnguished professor, the
“hesvenly anownung” sgnified durnsme cpiscapale, not grace, like it does
focFr Cekada.
Sumtarly, do the words “ralment of all glory” Immedustely bringto
mind the office of behop, and the office of bishop alone? Try askingthe
sane ken people and see if anyene getsst nght In fact, our Hunganan
Benedicine professor fals Fr Cekada's exam agun, he thought
“rasment of all glory” sgrufied the grace of the Holy Ghost, nel
epuscopat power of order, which 1s what it means to Fr Cekada Even
tha phrase “fuliness of Thy Minustry” does not exciude tha possibility
of arother nierpretation. In fact, this was even admutted by Fr
Cekada’s fellow Sedevacanbut, Richard Tbranyi, who said “The term
“fullness (perfecuon) of Thy wurustry’ could apply to any ministry I
does not speaifically say what munistey s being spoken of %
Brother Ansgar Santogross, OS B, a monk of Mount Angel Abbey,
who has taught at Mount Ange! Serunary for over a decade, wrote an
arscle crquing and refuting Fr Cekada's claim that the new riteof
episcepal corsecration 1 nvalid One of the points ha made
is that the
werd “muusiry” 1 2 genenc term whach, In and of tself, could mesn
marry Shings. In fact, a8 he notes, the word is used In the form of
seduniation to the duaconate He wroke

“Eves theugh & bwhep recerves the plom ofit

the sancti
ude fymg
Porvofer
the pricwbond, the facmula 1tself {of the traditional e

e pelay s 19 grotier sacreman s *

;‘_V'W:M o Paul VTs Disinished Ries® (fuly 204) hivy/ foroew bt
-mahih/ decumaste aties e / o20._po__stiue
pdl

4
 e ¢ eper18
stsay preshood bUt rather ‘mumsy. s penene
e o e non sanchiying (nonsprcsly) power of foirtend
e According 1 b 0w priciples, how dery 71 crpe
oe formla Pl of he Myet
sTven2 buhopand 0ot a1 archdeacon.
etymologically ance dmoesse
(dukonas—camwery,
tional WEHINGS SOMCTMeEs use ministerum 1n &
T prcsthood 25 when the fumou mewevs semeicench
s yomified 2 certain dewi of ondnsien carcmamas by e
Avcrviton thet 2 4cacOn 15 Consectaiad “nok for secmdemmen, pu
for mansterium %

He concludes by saying
“We see that Fr Cekads’s pacticular undersiandrng of wacvacey
of sacramenul significaion logically imples Mat 2 ol
specifed by Prus XIT docs not sugmify unvecally™
The reason the amirguous phrases above (“remnant of all glory.”
“dew of heavenly anowting* and “munsstry”) are sad ® wrevocally
aguly the sacramental effect is not because
the words themeelves can
have 1o other possible meanung, but because, & Pius X1l saud, "they are
accepied and used by the Churds n that sense.”
With the tesching of Pius XIi i mind, let un now tam w Fr
Cekada's main argument against the validity of the new nie of
episcopal consecration.
Governing Spirit (Spiritus principahs)
As we saw above in Sacramentum Ondms, u valid form for Holy
Orders must slgrufy two things. “the grace of the Holy Ghost” ad the
“powerof oeder * Fr Cekada's principe) argument comnes down te the
we of & mngle phrase in the new rite {“governng Spunt™). whuch he
climg. tsum« “unvocal* While he concedes mtmfi
wificently mention *the of the Holy Ghost™
fom sufficiently ugufmvu?p.mm “power of Onder” {slfice of
¥hop) 0 whuch the priest s being rawed. Following
w the form of the
"W ke a6 provided
by Fr. Cekada.
_—

T
.
g
-
L Sl B
Sle
Bt coen 200700 teotuse-artici
TR
o the Ity

575
 or False Pope?
Trwe Chaptey 1y

Pal V1 desigratcd the follewing passege in the Preface s i,

s form for the ossecr ah bishnap
of aio
Sa o pour out upon this chesen onc that power which 3
fron you, the_ gevemINg SpnL, WHOM YOU ZAYE 10 your beloveq
t,
Sem, Jems.Chne ur
' every place te be your temple for L
unceacng glory and prasse #f your name '
Fr Cekada then adds.

“The drspute oves the vatity of the new Rite of Eprscopal

ceatcesran
Coovec passage At first glance 1t does seem o
on this en
mention the Hely Ghost However,
the fullness of the
thet consututes. Wb cprscopacy — that the usditional
form so cloarty cxpresscd So, 15 this new form capable of
confcrring the epucepacy”™
The i the essence of Fr Cekad's argument He claima that the
phrase “governng Spnt (Spritus princpalis) does not univocally
sigrfy the office of bishop, and thercfore the rite approved by Paut VI
- Abwolutely Null and Utkerly Vord * Wrote Fr Cekada
“The form docs scerm te signify the grace of the Holy Ghost But
“poverming Spwnt™ Litheran, Methodist and Mormon bishops sl
govem. Can wuch & term univocally signify the power of Onder
owifured - e fullsess of the priesthood? The expression
peveming St - Spiritus principatis 1n Laun - 15 st the heart of
the duspuic ever the validity of e niew e, for 11t does not sigmfy
the fulncs of the prcsshoed tast constikies U cpicOpecy. the
sacramct s invalid "
A listle Laker hie even more insistent:

W cxpetomen governing Spiris 13 not umvocal - thal 15, 1t 5

ot s e at signifies only one thing the expression
smbipuows™ - capeblc of ugnifyng many diffcrens things and
Perions

-
" Atedatdy Sl s Uty Vod,” March 25, 20
-mie
il
 e Riie 7 1 Chapee13
r

see, Fr Cekada obrects 10 the vae

o the phrage-
A e, he 525, “Lutheran, Methodis, and Mo oy 5
! do ot have valid orders) also govern *
e o what the Ciurch means by the use of the srer
O Cekada's same reasonung, shouldi't the term ey
'h:':..,.d In the trachtonal, pre-1968 epsscopal ie of conaeemmy
o e conardered equivocal, since the Lutherars, Methodists ang
also use the term “ministry” as 2 refernng o a funetion
'd"“ ons by one who has not recerved Holy Orders 2 3 sacrammens
wih an dehble charac ter? Obviously, the anewer 1 o, and tha &
3 reaso
Jesie Fr Cekada’s nung s erroneous.
Irrelevant Distinction

Furthermore, Fr Cekada’s humself admits that the e proncyuiem

ok, hegemona} refers 10 the eprscopate He wrote
“Lann and Greek dictionanes render the adjecuve goveming
a, respectively, ‘Onginally cxuung, basic, pomary fion
mponence of esteem, chief befiding leading men or praces.”
10d afs leader, leading. govoremi
‘gusding * There
ng’ 1sa relsied
sown, hegemonia, which m genc
meansral
“authorty commsd
wd 10 a secondary sense means ‘wle, oflice of 3 sperar:
coiscont] ofa supenios of a convent
Now, you may be wondenng, if Pr Cekada concedes that
ymoper {or the Greek equivalent: hegemenu) refees specifically to the
#ice of the episcopate, how can he argue that the wend does not
#lfice ko confer the eprscopate on a candtdate? He does so by makng &
datinction between the power of orders and the power of junadiction,
nd then says the word principalem *does not connote the powerof
Order (potestas Ordimis), qust junsdiction (potestas urdictoms) "
Natce, he concedes that the pansdaction (governing) aspect of the eifice
#sgnufied, but claims the power of order, or office, liself 15 nat
Without even mentionung that the definision ciied by Fr Cekada
hmeel specificalty refers to the office of the eptscopecy (not smply
Ve function of the episcopacy), we noke that Fr Celada dossn Lale 3
"5l authority confirmng that the power of Order wnas be explly
Airified i the form. And there's a good resson for thel, e, =00
if what Fr Cekada sad were wrve, t would meun
o,
p— Y
F ‘ True or Falve Pope? Chapiey 1y

adisiona) form of ordsnewon

for priests (approved by Pius Xi)
ol be valld. He explais: e
were v apply the prncplc of unvocity of significa
» :e,:n-ml mrwmum with all the ngorula. b c:xl: ‘
dempads for a0 spucopa) ondunation ferrm one Would be forceq
Yo drun an absurd conchiuston that P1us XIE specificd a sacramenty)
ordination
prically must
form fo focmala which cannot be valid For if the
gy the pieritude of the power of orgey
o sancuficaisen que dwtmct from the power of junsdiction, s Fr
Ccisds requies. then the pricstly ordinauon formula wouls
wbhwhmmmmflwoflflwnfiu.mnk-
socerdotnom Bt such & ot the case w the wadiuonal pecsly
aiation formula.6
Pr Cekada ’s does ol suffice
clasm that “governing” since it saly
refers to episcopal jurssciction and not the power of the epucopacy s
enurely nevsensical. If the standard measung of the term * governing
snchudes eprscope! junsdscsien (as Cekada concedes), then obviously
connotes the epcopacal office and power, since by divine institutien,
epwcopal power of order 15 for the sprritual and huerarchucal pesfecting
of adioce its nature
at least by se,
We concede with Van Noort {aiting Zapalena) that under the o
code of Canon Law and an earlier tradition, a layman “appornied fw
Buhop) to a dwcese, but not yet consecrated, posswes
junsdiction “* This shows that junsdichon does not necessarlly
requxre epicopel consecraon. Howev er,
the granting of cpucopal
dunng a cwon
pansdi of which eu W
ceremwqy, the very purpos
consecraie a man $o the bashopric, s not equivalent to appowting 3
laymen as bhop of a diocese, beforehe undertakes such
a ceremany
Granting epucopal jursdicon dunng such a ceremony suffices
® Samtogrewsi, A Refutstion of Fr Cabads's "Proal of the Invalulity of the New
Eplovepe! Ordinotion Ridws, published #1 Roreie Caclr, February 2. 2007 hap//wew
Jrnuie—casii bogupet com/ 2017/ 02/ Seatire-srtcle
il
The gt teoloan Fr Loum Biler - e meadierri bt —swrose “[The fullicn f 86
Prstoes (e sarrokwn) b In noed of special grace which the umple
dam st e st on accwant of e douk o affice of rulng 1o whadh o 90
et by 1 wery et “De Emirme Socrwmrnt, v 2, 45 edlition, Roure, 1984 p H
(mphas sdded) Popei diplomats ok curial sibicials sbviecely mCEHV o
"“-'flmmm.m-‘,.w.u-flyw"«nfln"w
Semdamrial 1osoen' Chrie iowitued the eplacopate amser his Apasios, T
Al putechng of o ol unch (dimarse, whic euplawa why €veh o
bebore v margped
o *uhelar” Ser ovey which they could at Sesst 10 wheory
" Van Newn, Chraet » Chare, p 325,

7
 Jute of Eprecapal Consecration
N Chepter13
the sacramental effe
ct of ra the man ie the.
episcopal office o
e et

.
also note that the words R
which surround ot e
:‘Jr:‘ng Spint” make 1t Phesse.
clear that it 1 refernng
::lv gave to His 1o the :m
Apostles (the first bahops
) Heqe agan S-P::
parer

1f there were any doubt about what was meant

by the phrase
“goveming Spint.” the words that swrownd 1 - the spufate o
spcss - make it manfesily clear* The “goveming Spiric 1 the
sawe Spirit guven by Christ e the Apesties {the st Inshops) e rule and
gwvem
the Church In fact, one could argue that the form of the
wadswonal episcopal cansecration ke of Pius XII wa lss clear on this
pont Asserting that the new form (which asks God to give the prient
the governung Spinit of the Aposties) & equivocal, bul the #id form
{(whuch ssks God to fulfill in the pnest the completon of the
“Runustry”) 18 univocal, 15 ancther Sedevacantst case of peicer prncpy
(begging
the question)
As we've mentioned, the resson why there 1 such a difarence in
e forms used for prestly ordinabon
and eprscopal consecranon
#roughout the Church s because the exact words were not pven by
Chast Unlike the form used for Baptism and the double-consscrahen
1t Mass, Our Lord only instituted the other Sacraments m general, and
Wét1110 the Church to determune the words that make up the form.

—_—
e '::.mmmumms.—-nulw""—‘
x
'hmmmtfifim-wmnn—mm“
'ur‘ll-"lhlum'hymvl.blflrhwhil—l!_w“l::
i» el "the form” by Pius XIL even sheugh just 8 few dnn A
Al el ard ecessary for vaNelity The adumte for
iy ok I the s svmeems, but aioo e ward ‘High Prast” comsined it e
S peuye of irvesation.
Lad
P——fi
Truc ox False Pope? Chaptery
Sedevacantists’ Admissions |

Even some Sedevacantists have been forced to admyt

Spint” e 4 uravocal term that suffices for "“:m
1o an argument that was put forward by two Sfdrv-n.“z,
priests of whe Cangregeno Marue Reginac Immaculatee CMRYy,
Francisco and Doounic Radeckl, the Sedevacantist author Richarg
Toranyr wrote
“fThey have the audactty to sy that the “govemmng Spiny
mentened 10 the ferm of the New Rite 15 “obviously ot
sulficrens”a6 1 it does not refer to the Holy Ghost that 15
ot en the candidate In fact, the form of the New Rie
Slearly defines this “governing SPINE” as the same Spint of Jews
Chrx that wa also “grven 10 the boly apostles.” which 1 the
Tt e New R “So aow pou ot upon thrs chosenane
that pevwer which 1 from you, the governiag Sput whom you gave
1o your beleved Son. Jesus Chirat, the Spint given by him 1o the
beiy aposties * (Ordination of # Bishop. Prayer of Consccration
el 2,426.p 73
Could there be any clearct refercnce that this *govenmimg Spint®
o the Holy Ghaoet and that the New Rite asks for this to be poured
it on the candidste (sanctfy him) Yet, the Radecki brothers say
hec U words ‘gevering Spirit’ obviously docs [sic] ot indicate
the Haly Ghost. One must conclude that the Radecki brothers
obveunly have eyes that do not 3ec and ears thet do not hear tut
ey ore s
Even Mr Ibranyn & compelled 10 concede the obvious by noting
that the form apecifically stabes that the goverrung Spint w the same
Spant pven by Christ "ko the holy aposties ~ - that is, fhese closen
gwebhe ernGurch. Another Sedevacantst, who Fr Cekada quoted in
wne of s own articles, was forced w0 admit the same He did so by
peming e the siguificatie ex adyunchs, that 1s, the words and prayers
surrounding the form. In fact, it is evident that this Sedevacantist wat
4uped by hue ewn colleagues untl he actually cead the form of thene¥
rie which, 1n hus own words, was “esrth-shattering* In making this
confausion while respending o their errors, he wrote

_—
[ i, Valudty ol Paad VI Disioiehed Riley’ Quly 2004) huip //worw, b
10l s dammes s e . p. i
 e Lhapier 19

wmlcmmhrwmflam-mm.h‘_

el e of Lonsccration nself, v s ENTIRETY [——

aapunctis] clearly and urvocally denotes the grace of the.
:'"_mulhunuusmellflofmhlfimdhu
et of buhop 15 being confamad, with seme of he perncule
vers of bishops mentioned “Through the Spk whe rves e
e of high pricsthood grant him the power ot to.. ;::
d, 1® lnese
ministrles 85 you have decree every
Tatbority which 9 geve te your spestics.”
dowkt ac
“This. for me 15 carth shatiening There & absoluneicly
1o the imieation here: | agree Paul V1 shou ldn’
kave tbut
changed 1,
lic*»
I mean. LOOK It clearly spells out the role of a CathoBuhop
(emphasis1 ongmal)
s you have just seen, while some Sedevacantwss clamm the new
s o “absolutely null and utterly voud” others clam “there w
aisstutely no doubt™ about 1ts validity Such “docsinal” disagreements
within Sedevacantism are as stark as they are witlun Protestantism,
s they are based upon the same fundam
errer
ent of private
al
pdgand
men result in them holding diametrcally opposed
oftent,
posisons on major wsues (iike whether a rile m vaid oc not)
Testimony of Dom Botte

Dom Bernard Botte,a monk of Mont Gésar in Beigium, specialist in

Onantal languages and a member of the Conslium that prepared the
new Rite, explained the meaning
of “governing Spirit” m the epwcopal
rdmation of Hippolytus’ Apostohc Tradition, nonng why It was and
Weuld now be used for the consecration of a buhop Spealing of the
mlevelsolfloly Orders ~ namely, bishop. priest. and descan, he

“The three orders have a gift of e Foly Ghaet, bt 1 et e

wme for each For
. for the poest, who forme the buhep’s comall, &
5 the Spirstug conailic {thie Spint of couneel]. and far the dcacen, 8
# e Sprtuas 2¢ls ct sollcitudine [the Spant of el and sebcusde]
10 clear that these distunctions are made acconding 10 the foachess

—_—
%'5anvmundww"‘.fl
g, m‘: Seigal). hiwp./ /wwe.fathercokada.com
012/ 0
 Ty
pE—
Trwe or Falee Pope” Chapter 4 ‘

af oach mammter Mumm(llrlngmm“.

we have it, and from & member of the cor

T 'wew e, no les. 71t 18 clear,” says Botte, that n....“:
f’;,,,,, prencpas,” n and oftael, refers £ “the specifc funciong of
oy vahop (and whach cxrludes the functions of the mere priest g
dencen) Tt is not even necessary to fook to the sumounding words 1,
thetan
snders d Dom Botte continues
meaning
“The author begs vtk the typology of the O Testament,
God bas sever ket Hie people without & leader, nor His sanctuary
without
& mimmer; this 13 also true for the new Isracl, the Church
The Wwahap 18 both leadkr who must govern the agw people, and the
ugh pre of the new sanctuary which Tas becn extablishod w
every pisce The bnshop 15 the ruler of the Church, Hence the choige
of e (Greck] yonn hexemomicas [Laun. prigcipalit)
n The bet
tranelanoa im French would perhaps be the Spint of suthonty * Ry
whatover he tanslation adopied. e meaning [subsiance] soems
G- Ax excelient dermonstrauon af this was made 1n an arcle
by Fr J Lecuywr ‘Epwcopst & presbyiérm dans les deorits
@'Hippolytc de Reome.” Roch Sciemces Relig.. 41 (1953) 30-50 "7
So, wathout evan considering the sgmificehe ex adjunctis withan the
e prayer, i “seems certain,” according 1o one of the authors of the
e nle, that the governing Spirlt refers o the office of bishop This
waare What the phrase. n and of itself, uravocally mgrifies the
macramental offect when undersiond a6 the Church herself understands she
phrme (and sbviously without regard to how the term could be
inlerpreted
by a herctical sact)
Fr Cekada sheald have 10 probiem with our reliance upon one of
the papal advisers and drafiers of the new rite (Botte) to prove the
mearung of *governing Spirit.” After all, 1 Cekada also relies upon
the Interprevations of pepal censultants to discern the meaning of erme
sed in ovdination ferma. For example. fr Cekada appealed W the
@planstion
of Rev Francis Hurth {one of the drafter’s of Pius XII's
 Nows -
™ Uhwpier13

om Ordn) who explained what the waed -

%fl(dmlm:mm"n iy mane
Objection of Rama Cw-anmuny

The late Rama Coomaraswamy alc objected

g Spiit* In hus book The Dfshu:h-nof:gho,,rmflhm
e sowamy was o of the first Sedevacantit 1o pes ,:,'“', thon,
o that univocality 1 a sacramental form - e
iy
oty of different meamings ings inin different conteet
xm cxclude the
,guhrdefinmon), rather than how the term & “used (wm"h:h:‘ the
e Church (10 the words of Pius XII} n a given cmz:d M. z
\ement of Dr_Coomaraswanmy is another examy o svourd
1o which Sedevacantists are forced to ‘:k "mfl:
that the post-Vatican 1l Church has deieced. Lo o oy
st Coomaraswamy's efforts Let s ety
Coomaraswamy begins by il fo waralations
Jéchinivors of thee word ‘ 10v
» nm:rpdanhn(a6 “Spintus prcpis,”
“qeverting, Spint”), which he found by consultng several Lat
ixctoraries He then chooses the translation that best susts s purpose.
TheT irala shhe
mations on chose in the "overseer” (he evidently evidently didn'tdun'’ have Fr
he cho
cau's ries which at least provide the lerms “bubop”
rler” “episcopal”) Having boxed the reader o his wanslationof
mwk swamy notes that the Angl sectic conmdan
ers thakc
o ::m an "overseer” who does not have a hugher onwiogical
e a priest. Having already censidered the errom of Fr
Nfl:ngumts,munl\u-whtn thas gowg.
mumwc.. wamy refers to the Vindiawen of the Ball
ks e of Pope Leo X1 (the Bull that declared the Anglican
ratiora invalid) The Vindication states that the Anglicans
omeouuss unders
#roneo e iandin1t g (s{substance] ) of the werd “bish- op” " (accdens)
i r episcopal consecration. (As nowed above, the
thkmm undeuund.‘hlul»nbhnpsmd-
o & priest, but » only an “oversesr *) Lasiy, furough
"‘kwlrd:mby very twmted logic, Ceomaraswasry reasons e way
e by argunng that f the Church uses the word “prmcpeien”
b )Hllmlakdlnwolcmwmy’sdmwl
%'"whm;”:‘mull mean that she Catheic Crch ale saving the
igher than a priest (sn is mekesd only an “overscer

—_—
'S Cakady “The 1968 Rite of Epiasapal Coruuemiion. Sul Nl e Vol ‘e
i1
p— T
Trwe ot Falee Fope” Chaperyy
1,
I m argumeny ,’;’?
v e words. willaUnde Dr Coom
liow the ng wamy
headiarss Princusipale
“Spuntuno GV - W‘ulm
e wnites.
hat decs the woed prmcipalem mesn® Casscll s New Layn
Drcaonary wanclaxcs it 26 1) first in ume, original first 1
M:)n{nm;)o{md\nt;hum.lmm::,:'
Haper's Latin Dicuionary also translates W by the term “overseerby
‘New tus latter term 15 of great mterest because 1t 15 the one used
the Reformers to disort the true nature of & bishop As the
Vimdication of he Bull “Apostolicas curac™ poiis oyt
“The Fact that the Anglicane adéed the tenm “bishop’ 1o they
form dw ot make 1t valid because doctrnally they hold the bishop
w have no highcr state than that of the priet—indeed he 15 seenag
an ‘wversor’ roher than 2 eoc having the “fullness of the
pocstend "

Se, Coomaraswamy objects to the use of the term *goveming

Spint” (Spntum prnopalem) becavee one of fus dictionanes says the
Serm principalem meanis “overseer,” and the Anghcans understanding
of the term bushop s only one of an “overseer” who does not have the
fullness of the priesthood! And this i supposed to call Into question
the vaidity of a sacramental form approved by the Catholic Church,
who has the correct undersoftan din
the office g
of bushop!
Needless to say, if Coomaraswamy’s fallacious reasomng were
rwe, then ail of the Church’s inadihenal sacramental forms would be
waufficrent for validity because lerminology used In eacht of the forms
# the seven sacraments are surely misundersiood by one non-Catholk
sact or another(e g, the Mormon's understanding of the lerms "Father,
Son and Holy Ghost”) As previously explained, how a heretical sect
understands & wrm has no beanng whatsoever on the Churdi's
unders of the same
ndi term, nor
ng does It In any way affect the
validty of the Catholic rite (although st certainly bears upon the
valofidi tyic site)
the ne-Caswl
For example, the traditional Catholxc priestly ordination nie uses
the ez "prest” whuch is a ferm that the Anglicans understand in an
arroneows way (e g, nef one who offers sacrifice) Now, even though
the Anglcans’ erroneous understanding of “priest” w one of the
Twsens tlnilnl ordination rite is invalld, It is Irrclevant 1o the
Wanning. *ame berm as “accepted and used” the Catholic
Church. If shat were not the case, then the A:yglnclm’ false
-
of te ot Traiion,p 333,
" Comtiinnsmy T Diienian
584
 e e 18

af“pries” would invalidal the Charch's ragten

b ation Ard smoe thererroneove Undervecdmg
AT s hot ivalutate the Cathobe Chuarchs oSy o
eo for op
ordaining 8 priest, then obviously thewr msndersmndingof
n o way affectsthe validity ofthe Chuet eyb
e ration The absolute manuty of —
-V"".! approach - which looks 10 the ferm and waennon of
g’:‘k riee (ccordimg o thesr undersandg of the wonty
e the valudity of Catholi rites - should be evadent sou
New Rite Approved by Cardinal Ottaviani

& should aleo be pornted wtmhmmaw

meecrabion was not Just wnitten overmight a back reom at the
Varcan by Sugrunl and 8 few fellow ~brethen® The ordinanon rix
as prepaned by @ commutt of 40 prelates,
ee including many bisheps
i Cardirals. It was authored and approved by the Conakam, and
ten st for @ second ber approval %o the Cengreganon for the
Ductrmne of Faith, which was headed st the tune by Cardinal Alfredo
Oteviant, who was onie of the prelates most hated and feared by the
Mederrusts Ottaviany, who had served as head of the Holy Office
wder Pope Piua XII, approved the form conmining the words
‘pverning Spirit” without any reservations whatsoever And he
pproved the new nite of episcopal consecration only a shert ane
Wiore presenting Paul VI with the landmark Criticel
Study of she New
Miss which later came to be known as The Ottaosm Intervenion.
The very same Cardinal who boldly declared the new Mass 1o be
“1striking departure of the theology of the Mass ss formulated by the
Council of Trent* had no problem with the new form of consecraben
{vhch, a8 we will see tater, was not “new.” but dated buck io at least
e carly thurd century), nor dsd he obyect % the phrase “govemang
—_—
"1 Apetane Curae Lew Xt devlared
the Anglcan rde of Orers nell d vosd
h'umdhmurm-mwmmmnmr—m"*
oy G doan c sigeaty e geace of the sacrifing prewhond, nd when "W e
‘nu-—td.p&-r-m--uynvnw“"-‘:
Tt Further, Low XUI sai, the phrases “for the adics of prust” Yo enbinaser)
g o epncepal coneecraisen which they ltee acbed ane peesanly “wsromd
g dlfent o that which thev beat i the Catholk e ™ Nk tha the Ao
Moo ent meaning (nubwtane) for the seme wends (ccideasl, put B 0
Ve, (0 the waris “Father Sen and Hely Ghase " Lew Xill wat en % 30 (0
2w diferens undderuarling {wsbetance) which Anghcare bt i e
pE—
Ty
' Trwe or Faloe Pope? Chapter 1y
. Fe Cekads ad Dr Coomarasw,
Spunt, ';:“'An,_,.dy they imagine llmmelvesmrg b':"‘m:
nowledgeable on the subject than some of the Church's leadyn,
perts i the el at the time, who prepared the new e :
These men ncluded Fe 8 Klemheyer, then professo o1y,
r
seminary of Ancia-Chapelle, euthor of a thests on the ordination of e
b, d
priest i the Roman Rite Fr C. Vogel, professor at Strasbourg, who
taken the succession from Msgr Andneu for editing the Orgp,
Rormans and the Romanne-Germamc Pontifical, Fr_E. Lengeling, projegeey
of Liturgy st Munster-n-Westphalia (later Dean of the Faculty o
Theology). Fr P Jounel, professor
at the Superior Institute of Lturgya1
Parie, and Msgr ] Nabuco, Brazilan prelate and author of 2
Comwnerstary on the Roman Pontifical Surely, the quabfications of
shese wien overshadow those of Fr Cekada and Rama Coomaraswamy,
whe even depared from tradition by getting humself ordained to the
8.2 marnied man {and by a marned bishop, Lopez Gastony
1n hia book, The Refer m Anrubale Sugruni, who wasy
of the Liturgy,
member of the Consil discusses
ium, the resp received frem
theyonse
‘e Cangreganon for the Docwne of Faith (headed by Cardinal
Owavaani) after they compieted their review of the new nite He wroke:
“The completely positive answer from the Congregation far the
Decrme af the Fath was pacticularly pleasing and an occasien of
otk yoy wd surpeec. (...) Here 1 what the Congregaen sad
(Neveomber 3, 1967)
“Thew Eminences of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the
Falb carcfully exaruned the master at therr plenary session on
Wodnesday, Octaber 11, 1967, and came 10 the following decisions
The mew scherma s approved with the following quabifications
1 Number 83 10 the questions asked of the candudate for the
spwcopal affice. grestcr cmphaais should be put on faith and its
caneciestieus \nsmission, moreover, the candidate should be
expraccly wkod abowt h detersunabion 1o give ebedience 1o the
Romaa Poaisl
2 Nembec % Th Higolyius
toxt of duly sdapicd. i
ascpable
Regarding the spproach the mund of the cardinala 15 that
lamevstens should be dictaied by real need aod
marsduced wah a1l the procautions that $0 sacred and scrious3
e raques.
 g ——r

e changes lrted have becn made n the Orde, 0 4 hum

udicd by » jomnt commlice, 1n accordance with the
whe X o e Holy Father ™
cssion
ide the ammus that many Sedevacantss
P pproval of the new rte of epucopal tw:;lz:.;;
¥ taviai, and other princes of the Church and experls n e
o emental heologv. showld,in and of el semove for e,
::r"“""" doubt that form of the new nite 13 vahd 7

Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus

he new form of episcopal consecration was eanly appreved by
(udial Ottaviani and the other experts because it was taken from the
Apustolc Traseton af Hippolytus, which dates to at lenst the beginmng of
o tird century 1t 15 unclear who this Hippolytus actually was, and
e hstorical record says he could have been a martyred saint
nopzed by the Church,™ or an antipope (who may have been the
Aorementioned martyred saint, having converted), or another cleric of
known origmn (Hippolytus being a common name at the time), or
tenthe pen-name of an unknown authar
While the Catholic Encyclopedia takes the postion thet St
Hippolytus temporanly sparated from Rome and had humeelf elecked
wannpope after oppostng Pope Callistus,™ conseneus is growing that
Ve Apwsishc Tradition of Hippolytus is of Synan (or possibly Egyphian)
wgn, and very dissimilar to later Latin texts which we know
wpraied In Rome This would suggest that the Hippolytus of the
Awstelic Tradition was an Eastern rite Catholic and, hence. not the
snkpope who opposed Pope Callistus. However, if the Hippolytus of
e ancient rile wsa the antipope, he was given the grace to redeest
for the Faith But no
by dying In union with Rotme, as a martyr
Nrself
Hater who Hippolytus was, the consecration rike attnbuted to him
_
SlLo Rjormae fturgcn, 13481975 (Rorve CLV Edimord ibirgiche, 1963} . 912
b ko (e o, T Refom o Lty 940197 Colegevile
WL T
Ul Prem, 1990). p 712) This approkation
was conveyed w Ze. Dugrind o
Yorrier 8, 1947 The neification baars & protecel nurber (et S73/67), B o
;':m"'uhu-m.mpymmmmo-maw.c-—mfl
Tty e e * ot fne Rewernun.” il
o o0 rbearch rveaksthat Fr Cakada couid A oy voe baop i e
V"0 gl had o dentd abosst the vl goificaman of Toul T3 e o,
m.,:".f;fi:mam;m-summ-‘* iyt gl
Koman
woal prokiflc religious writer
E:""““"'"(v-lvn.puu

587
 Trwe
of False Fope? Chapteryy

d far and wide throughoutthe early Church and 18 theref

e witness 0 atheni traditon % Thus nte has also serveg :"fl:
hsb!wmlmnmifll(ma"nlwhmh mVeb.mm
as vahd by the Church.
o ki book, Orémation 1o the Pristhood, Fr Bligh explung
Fappetytus’ e of consectation 8 amongzt the oldest known t ey
and was itself based upon what was traditional at the time, and wiy
S Hippolytus believed to have been used by the Apostes themselye,
A decacie befoee the new rike was approved by Paul VL, Fr Bligh wroye
i anibee 10 umdersiand how the e of ondinanon has developed
1 the coure of the conmnics from s primutive simpliciy to ns
resest complenty, # 18 pecessary 1o have some wdea of the source.
\oks 11 which this process af development 1s disclosed to us { |
“The cartien of such csllcctions that has come down o us re the
Apowolic Trduion of Hwgolys. compiied at Rome by
Hppoly year A D 217
about the ns Fus wi
‘and sct out. as the tilc of bus work
wndicatcs, te descnbe nies which he believed 1o be of apostolk
ongm. & w safe 1o sssune Ut his text records hivrgical practice
» ! when
e was 2 young man The ongmal Greek of Hippolytus (Greek was
will the limrgical language of the Rorman Church) has not survived
except vt fragmcruaey portsens, K the work hiad a wide circulation
and % koewn t# us through Latin, Sshidic (Coptic), Bohanc
Anbrc and Fihiogc versions, which have been cdited with English
ramcioiena W recent hames. ™™

Dem Botte, cited eastier, who headed one of the two study groups
ot peepared the new nie of episcopal corwecration for Paul VI
explaned bow he came up with the idea of using the Hippolytus
kexty
s the form. He neies that he pondered the question. *Should we creste
2 new prayer from siart to funueh?,” and then answered

-
= Abker vaudying the hiswery f St Hippalyns, Fr Criuada did rt defand the noson Sl
e prraem .as FrtheCelads
e 10 i evcmcration
pemmpal
i s aricle agairnt the vaiidity of the oew e o
ankpmpe:whwke “The fomlt saport on Fastern livargos. ot
rworlyots
:mq Harsscna dev ane hundred page si identity UHppoiys
1 ieying
(o de the tame Hippolynn smencisted with on Esster computation Lable? The o8
e by 4 dokie? T one cepwted b0 b 2 native Raman? O the Egepdan o7
PP s amnusior? Ox the
lf-m
sed-pupe? The prestymnh
mmnm
s? Or o bihep? O
Hippalytuw
M-"Y "’l— we can mang® ¥
Ot s Cobada. " Abmoluiety Nl and Unrly Ved” March 2. 108
el Printomd M jamphons ,paddod)
 b amprer 1y

4 If incapable of tis It's wme that

Js‘mwm would be willing 1o akempt .,“:_;':‘*
ey have # specral chansm for corpoung (urgcal formie
o don t rust these amatcurs. Woulde't 1 be more rexenabiefo
,,k.larmuh n the Eastern ribex that could be adapied®
Ag
mation of the Lasiem ntes led ory atiewtion
10 a text 1 kaew
O the prayer n the Apostolic Tradiion of St Hippolyne,
‘The first time | proposed this 10 my collcagues,
they eokedat
e in disbelief They found Hippolytus formuls to be cxcelica,
oty duln ettese 1t had the slightest chance of bewng accepted
}If1 was paying attention to this text, it wasn't bacause | had just
finshed 8 entical ediion of 1, but becauee my study of the Easiern
stes madc me notice that the formula always survived uader mere
eived forms Thus in the Synan Rne e prayer for the
perrch’s ordination was none other than the awe M the
Tesamentum Domins, a teworking of the Aposolic Tradion {af
Hippolytus] The same 18 true for dhe Coptic Rute where the prayer
G the bishop’s ordimation 15 close 1o that of the Aposehe
Constrtutions, another reworking of Hippelyws' text. The essentual
sons of the Apostolic Tradition [of Hippelyws] can e found
evryhere"
He then added:
“1id provided the fathers with 2 synepac table of e &fforaat
scts wih 2 beief commentary The discucsion was Lvely, and 1
wdersand why What finally obtained a favorable veie was, §
bk Pere Lecuyer's miervention, He kad publubed m the
Houselle Revue Theologique 3 short articie showing how the ext
Eathers Duning the scssion, when it was urmc (o Vel oa thas ssuc,
b ade 2 ples which convinced thosc Who WorE wavernng.
Aflerwand, we wivited him 1o Jom our work group. ad be wis 3
reat belp 1o us by his theologrcal competence and knowkedge of
e Fathers
"
Fr. Cekada’s Smoke and Murrors
Confronted with the ancient and perhaps apostolsc pedigree
of e
Apostolic Teadition of Hippolytus which is used it esscntals in the
—_—
I Perve Mok, "W
- hy the New Nte of Episspal Casmeratio ¥ Vaa[
™Niy
ns
TIN50 de e Tere (Na. . Avoumes 3008 pp. 73130, it 200
bt ¥y the Amgriue Provs.
™ i addedy
p— gy
Teue o False Pope? Chapter1y
attempts (0 IMPUgN 1S StAURE With a num,
1 ".:',mnp first quesbons it legatimacy on the W:m:
e author cannot be dentified with certainty Of course, the abilyy 1y
Yoty wih ceranty the author of the Church's most ancrent
o w abeolutely wrelevant 10 the Church s determunaton of
form's sacramental vabidity Can Fr Cekada identify each and
Fon of the other approved forms of episcopal consecration (such
the cne appeoved by Pius XII7), or the original author of each ang
every peayer contained 10 the traditional Roman Missal that he day,
celebrates? (Was 1t Pope Damasus? Pope Gregory? St Peter or St Payl
A combinatron of shem?) Needle ssSt Pus V in Quo Primum dyg
10 say,
ot bese Iue codificanon of the Roman Mrssal upen the specific
Vennficatron of the authors of the rite Simply confurmung the various
ancient ospes and custems as conforung to and being denved from
Tradition was sufficent for the santly Pope
Next, Fr Cekada atiempts to cast doubt by raleing questions af
“Ongn” by asking: “Where did The Apostelic Traditien come from?
Some say Rome. others say Alexandra, Egypt More conjecture”
CorpWhat actu dufference
re?does 1t make where the ancent
aanuscript came from? The fact that the manuscnpt had such une
aruletien 1 the early Church {throughout the East and West), w
evidence of it cenformity %o tradition, and the inability to pinpoint it
enginal source (from which Hippolytus recesved it} serves as evdence
for 11 aposselac origin.
Fr Cekada then rainss questions about the “Age™
“How oid 4 1 "Usually’ dasad areund 215 AD, bt “the section
douling with erdematsen mey heve been reteuched by fourth-cewury
hands = wrder 1s bring 1 into Ine with current docwne ad
practice* Note *roiouched.” Morc schotarly conecture 15 needed 1o
il w8 winck parks of the documsant were retsuched "
Again, whether the Church can dentify the precise date of arigin
for a0 ancient focm irrelevant for determining sacramental validity
Dessi really matter 10 Fr Cekada whether Hippolytus’ rite datesto
the sacond, er third, or the fousth century? Why is the posaibality that
the form may (or may not) have boen edibed during the A D 3005©0
bring it ke conlormity with current doctrine and practice (s ff the
cument” deceine and practice in the 300s was somehow I
Soraadichen with the “previevs” doctrine and pracice of the At
_
o, Abatutty Nl e Uy Vekd,* Mareh 25, 106 ommphass i e}
 o
e
es) contidered a negatrve for Fr Cekads?
e various phrases from it are found n the !’Pfi:‘l;ywtu.
$etf 50 D ave retaimed a hierarchy gowng e 4 Coptc
mm*';’! " uniate” ian holic
Syn Cat and Copte Catholic Churche wope
(et clergy and bishops were not reorda makeed
1o in thew,
any other Cathol
::)‘ ,ldnit Fr Cekada and c e frd comfertoe
o tprove ctthe do t
o tefls andr ns ofe
pren large
century Church? What constitutes true “comjecture” 1 Fr
s inymabion that the unidentified authorshup, ongrn and age ot
thety
e Hippolytus rite 183 basis for questiorung the valiofdi 1%8

"Nu., Fr Cekada poses the question of “Manuscript Authority?”‘

onty
s rotes thet we don't have the onginals, but
s So what? We don’t have any of the onginal
o v cber Neshe do we e
4 the Damasian/Gregonan sacramentanies
the oo au
e
. In fact, the Cathoix
Charch does ot need the oniginals, because she has the authonity
and
sivine asmstance to recogruze & nite formed gradually aver times thet,
Inher udgment, 15 in conformity to apostolic Tradibor. Same answer
tnFr Cekada final questi
'son of “Liturgical Use™ Whethe the nterof
Hippolytus conforms exactly to what everyone elsc in Syna, Egypt or
Roe was doing in the time of the author is irrelevant, because in those
wotunes the rites were still in a atage of growsh, with local differences,
wnd even improvamation {perhaps by a saintly martyr) and condessor
Mabope, who are or at least presumed to be guided by the Holy Ghost
eewved in ordination. So much for Fr Cekada's atiempt to derugrate
¥ ancent nite That Fr Cekada raises these unanswerable quesions
(hich could not be answered for the form of any appreved nie) only
Teveals the weakness of hus own case
Comparisan of Rites
Returrung to the actual text of the Apostolic Tradson of Hippelytus
phrsec
74 oldest extant nite known ko exast - note that ittheusesMarotheaute
‘Betnung Spirit.* The phrase is also used in both and
rikes Of the East, which have alway s been by the
5—
u:'_x‘“.:""hckn-muum_nao.u---mrk-fl
 —y
Tre of False Fope” Chapteryy

The following i a companeon of the for m of 51 1,

o( hn lfl md al sm hn se dl he Mar oni te and c‘,x;v:-:
?t “fi nn
St Hppohaw re New pour forth on this chosen one thy
which 18 from Thee. the governmg Spuny {Seirisy
omcpais). whom Theu gavest 10 Thy belored Son Jesus Chary,
B om He gave 10 the holy Apoetes, who foundcd the Churchty
averss places o Thy means of sancufication. umto the glory and
eas
uncprasse say
of Thy name ™
Pl VI's new rate ~And niow, pour forth on this chosen one
that power which s from Thee, the governing Spin (S
principelss), whom Thou gavest 1o Thy heloved San Jesus Chaist,
whom He gave 10 the holy Apostles, who founded the Church i
every place a6 Thy sanctuary. unto the glory and unceasing prause
of Thy neme.%'
Morsnise Rte “Enhighten him and pour forth upon huw the
pace ané undeswading of Thy gevaming Souxt (Spirine
prxcipuli), wherm Thou kast bequeathed (o Thy Son, our Lord
Jesus Chrt, Who was given 1o Thy sants, O Faiher, Who knewest
tac hoarts of us ail, pour forth Thy virtue upon this Thy servast,
wheon Theu hast chosen (o B 2 patniarch, that he might shepherd
Thy holy, universa) flock "%
Copric Rite “Thou. again. now. pour forth the power of Thy
Leading Spim (Spiriecs s hegemonci), which Thou gavest to Thy
boly Aposties, n Thy neme_Restow, thercore, the same grce,
wpon Thy scrvast,N whom Theu hast chosen for the Eppiscopacy
¥l he might shepherd Thy holy flock. and that he might be for
Thee 2 mwsier abeve repeoach *%
Regarding the slight difference in wording between the Maronite
and Coptc rites, we note that the use of the term “spntus it
hegememict” (whach e trarmlated as *leading Spint”) 15 equivalent to the
Yerm "governin g Spint The difference is due o the translation from
Goeek, W Latu, b Englush%
-
s Fr Prevre-Mare,
* Cid Whmmuwmmuvu’
d
oty pubiiaied i St de e Teree (N, 54, Auosmn 2008, pp 72 179), wnaiaie100
gtk o pubiated by the Aupai P
- laid.
.
gS 8 s o the Lot " Spiitus prinapai” which el 98
.8 thr sk s gt Th Lk wanwlaien werd by Fr At
 ferew s

, the use of “overnu

Spmt”
ng in the comexy
O and patnarchal rshops 15 ot foreg o e Coee?
M";m sunce at least the late second century
(¢ it w g o
T‘“nanm,uDom Dotte noted, refers specifically 1o the
;fim,mmp, who 15 appounted (0 nule or *govem’ the Church, Tra
eis epscopal duty was affirmed by St Paul in he dikcourse3¢
whenhe declared “The Holy Ghost hath placed you buhops,
e the Church of God, which he hath purchased with hus wary
Nead” (Acts 2028)7 Civen the association m tradibon between
premung Sprt” and the order of bushops defined by » spricul
Seacter which of s nature disposes 10 the recepton of supreme
greeming power tn the Church™ - 1t 15 quite 2 streich 10 bebieve with
Fr Cekada M;"‘x‘m Cophe b;::‘p praysoveran ardinand “peur
the pawer of thy governing Spmt which thou gavest to
:’p:sfl!!' Nothing cpiscopal happens, mr-anlmumfya':z
Yelustarcel assocuations end conotations.
Necause most people naturally find this imph
clamed
of Fr
Cekads to be & stretch, they will understand why Fr Calderon calied
she “govenung Spint” passage the “form” in the Copbe nie, “form”
weaning “formal-effective sentence,” when the sacramental effect is
wtually accomplished (Fr Calderon’s analysu 1s below} There w
athing unusual here - with St Thomas, many theologune have said
that the form of consecration of the chalxce ts the whole sentenc“thuse&
e chulice of my blood of the new and eternal covenunt, the mystery of
i, even though they have also said that “th w the chaliceof
my blood” 15 effective

Mare (Spieitus. s egemenicr) i mare tham slmply & rarmlation from Greek bo Latn. it 5
#borewing of the Greek. ward in 2 Latiniawd spellng The same Greek word has W
Wnlited by others as “princpslon.” which wos theet wanslated as “gaverang” The
:'wfmku'dhfi-m
L8 deresting 1o ste shatin the read fwe verses, . Paad mys. 1 e that 40t my
depitre ravening welve will enter in ameng vei, fot sparing the fleck. And of yeur
#4m eives shll arise miem speaking, perverse things to drw awav duciples afer tha
17 2330, lieve St Pand propheiaes thet svil bishape wil siliwete the Ctuch and robe
semeng” gued bishops an lead the fashiul asiay (o prophecy builed oor bk
‘%mmlvm&mmu-m&dhmm"“““"
e SuprerneParit s and be » e ol sMy
secred over w bishope,
7”"wwumu:fimm;~muflnmmm-
:‘I‘-"Evrnwhn,mhmm-m-fl!—lwmm
-4 least et recvive. epiacopal conaecrasion as a comiiem br thee ZXTPUSTY
- keetlon s the possessien of parisdicrien U] TscTaN.
pE— gy
\ True we Faloe Pope? Chapiergy

Fr
Cekada attempts to muddy the waters by also argupn
e h: m&uflul prayer for nstalling a Pm.imu:;t:
,.",h,dy s bhop when appornied But this is irelevant to the
we have preven, namely that the term “govermung Spint” univocally
i ey
the ofice of bubep, wrespectiveof whether the man
Tapibes
mdnfl!mdhflnpmwhlw“ap.mmh_m
mfly,ahmrchh-nbeabfllw(hfllsn mdmmp_"
Archinshops).
Mere Smoke and Mirrors From Fr, Cekada

Faced with the Eastem mite forms, which refer to the epuscopate in
the same terme as the new form of Paui V1, Fr Cekada resorted to more
smake and onirrors to defend hus thesis. Afier mentioning the urelevant
fact thet the Coptic Catholcs (who are part of the Catholic Churd
sce
“defrom nd
monophy ka
sike herewcs,” Fr Cegoes on da
to compare
apples and ocanges, and then declares that the apples and orange
“carcot be equated * The “apple,” in this case, is the long Prefaofgethe
Coptic e (340 wonds), the "orange” 15 the short form of the new nie
(contasu ng Fr Cekada says that the Copmite
42 words) hic has *2
Preface of about 340 words long, in a Latin version The Pau l is
VI form
42 words long. The two forms, therefore, cannot be equated *
Now, why would Fr Cekada compare the entire “Preface” of the
of rm”
Coplic nte, with the shorter operative escential “fo the new rile,
il then reer 10 bot of them as the “form”?® Why didin't he compare the
Irelice of the Coptc nie to the Preface of the nie of Paul VI? That
would be an apples 1o appics comparison And if we were to compare
the Preface of both rites (applas and apples), what would we find? We
find that a muyority of the 340 words of the Caplic Preface alse appear
0 the Preface of the new nte of Paul VI, the preface which Faul VI
decared 10 br the form ef the sacrament, even though only one sectien
was declared necessar y
for validity
If you are worering
how Fr Cekada could jushfy companing
the
Bectacs of one nte with the forim of another, and then refer to them
both 46 the “form,” here is the answer- the sacramental theolagy of the
East w not 2 precee 2 thet of the West Becaus of lhis,ethe
Sheologuares of the East have not sought to determine what, exactly.
Comsti tum
the formal e words/sentence for cestain sacramenté
cffectroe
_—
e olrur
of Fr Caka dsFr Caldaren wre: “Fr Cekada conrls U
s aricle,
e 3010 L2l dow it —.-u ottt that the ooty of these 40 wards o5
h_’::'----m- n—.u-.vnmyuw-m‘
Comaoeaction. Replin b the Obpacions* Nevemaar 20h)
-
 et “iuprer 1§

they include the surreunding

prayers
Am:'m:oasnmflom-noumn.xn“h:v'r‘"":
what they tolic constitutions to the whelr
b P e form ™ In the nfe of ordination un the m"b::h»
e clanty m chstngrshng what prece words il
e tecav sentence. they will umsally (f not always) mciode e
as e the “form.” And. agao, Fine XU dud the same m
e Preface
"“'F,c,ha.u-e-m.slxko(pmhhm,,
seology as more smoke and mirrors to imply that the *formn” med in
bonew Rie 18 much shorter than the form of the Coptc nie What he
oot el hus readers s that the reason the “form” w shorer, &
s 1 1898 a Copic Catholic synod™ referred 10 the antre Preface
4t "form,” whereas Prus Xi1 and Paul V1, no doubt ivloenced by
the precision of Roman junisprudence, have applied ths same pracision.
o her sacramental theology m tdenbfyung what constituses the few
jomal effctve words vis-a-is the surrounding words. 1t 1 these
woods sl (rather than the entire Preface), the words whach Fus Xil
and Paui V1 declared essential and necessary for vaisdsty, that the West
‘waally calls the form
Commenting on Fr Cekada's sieight of hand tecac, Fr Caldersn
wiole

“fr. Cokada wkes 26 the “form’ the ciwe Copte prsface (m

rwinty, 2 angle sentence must be “formal-cfiactrve ), and, ol the
sume me, he demics that the conlext of the mew preface can take
sway the ambiguity of the *formal-effective” phrase of the new nie.
But one must choose 1 the context docs wet detcrame the
spuification of the form,
| . P
Rat of the new iz, if, on the conirary, the comiest determncs e
squuficaton, then 1t ts necessary 16 compare one compicts prefac
with the other complete preface 1Lfal
ss lac to ius
cormac.§
sumolste pesface, on_the ooe haad. with the ‘famal-<ficsats’
aakn on the ge
other ™%
Fr Cekada ustifies hus claum that the entwe Praéace of the Copic
e the form by citing Devunger's Ritus Oneniuin, whch asmfics
al%
form. B0t
e lengthy prefatory prayers as part of the sacrameni
¥ have explalnied, this ia not because the Church has €ver
-_—
*Qu
o eier
g. aTp
47e Crke
Suei
32 l Vol B 5
ada, . “Abaeletly ol Uiy

55
 ————
True or Falee Pope? Chapiey 15

she entire Preface conetitutes the "formal-cffective v,

:‘;md.‘ less precise sacramental theology of the Last Fy c,k:‘.'
hes hes et doctrine about the Coptic form namely that the Nl
form, of at east the passages wcluding the establishing of house, of
peayer and ordainang clergy. are necessary for valudty But the Chuyg
wh&mhuflllmysudllhml
B Cakderon elaborates on this Point by expliming, as we hyye
abeve, that such compilanons of works on the Eastern nies fe,
Denzinger, Cappello} reflect the sacramental theology of the East. by
Calderon says
“It 1 swceseary 30 bess 1 mind that Romen theotogy, tmbued
with 8 more reuanal and Jundical spint, has always sought 1o
specily what cwnsuties the “formal-cflicuve’ senience n s
Vanous censecratory prefaces, whereas Eastern theology docs not
sesk these spectfications That 1s why, for instance, the Romans
aranged the Euchansic consceration around the words of our Lord,
wherehy signaling thet it 15 thesc words that effect transubstaniuation,
whereas the Onentals did not proceed tn that manner, with the
consequence that fater they dud not know whether the consecration
eccurred that mement or during the emiclesis (the invocation of
the Hely Ghest] “*
Fr Calderwn
goes on te sey”
“1f Denemger prosens the compicic Eastern prefaces ¢ ‘forme,’
s because Eastern theology never determined with prociston what
sonmtutes, 1n each preface. the essenual proposition (the *formal-
effecuve ) that produces the secramental effect. According to St
Thomas Aguines teacking. i muk bc 3 aingle, simple sentence
(with 2 smgle wiject and a single predicate. which can have several
determining complements) that prwduces what it signifies ™7

InFr Cekada's follow up article “Still Null and Vord® (in whuch be
attempted to respond 10 the grave obyections to his first antice), be

@ ¢
3 Jln Delerne of the Valdiy of the Ric of Epiacopat Consecration Replies
Objasiorn” Nevember 100, st m,//.-.f'.':','.'_m.....,mwm
- ol Ampi—-umssn-n-‘u's,u.,,.
2oy " Al o happuns i every Inaguase
*‘mwfiwnmm;mmnwwm“‘
g ard
e powal ty to signity that oS
and rmor commonly
s 1 W werd wehuch stouid be aed for the sacramental sigribcalen
U85 7 od 2 As appled here. reisuve n she thee Major Onders (diacoraie,
w‘m»h—-ms‘mrw-m.‘nr o the eo

%
 News Rite of Epescopel Comsecration
™ Chepter 18
mply repeats the same argument, when he
e lormis consist of long Prefues (.b;,','.":n'f: Coptic ang
gEs

wel
y)” and then says “unlike the Roman Reg, . ®. ™%
vne ed.0 t
notx desthes
tgne
h ste
5 bd es c
thethe
aessuents
soc al e
ram vc
ena lr
eaoemlegon%g a™e
.ty
S

. not because the formal-fiectve wonds e fe, . %%

e estine Preface But because the books that e Copeset ToHE
&

Eastern ntes did not separate

the one
preiace, Fr Cokada conclues Wt the-sente nce form h-nufl“m
rie Pg o oor®
Casccratory Prayer 15 e sacramental form!™ We wendar whd:?:
Cekada really believes whheawrittes.
1t s smportant to understand Fr Cekada's error,
ko elements within the Coptic Preface er entire
Cm :n
{which he erroncously calms 15 the “lon") s ugue for ": : P:.y:
sl the o of the riew e, For example, n the seccnb e y
i “Copts
Foem” Cekada says.
*The Paul VI Conccratory Prayer coataus masy phvases fousd
0 the Cophic form 1t omite, hew eve
three phrases r,the Copix
farm that cnumethree rate specific saceamental powses eonsdernd
praper 10 the order of bishep alane 1 proic ciergy accorkngw
Has commandment for the pricsthood w ke scw hovessof
prayer and (o consecraic allars.” Thi omwsen i sgticant,
becavse the dispute over the valtty of he cumtnl aTamcun
form of Paul V1 revolves sround whether o adoyuaicly exproums
the power of the Order being coaferred — be. epwcopecy™
The error contamed in thes arpunaaion can hardly be
veremphasized First, the Coptc cfecie form does et contam these
additional phrases, they are ancillary tsthe form Fr Cekada refeesto
the Coptic "form" fout times m reference te these ancillary rl-v:
once Lt his sublstte, and three ames i three sencnces) bt hey 4ot
Part of the Coptic effectve form, unless you agree walh Fr c“‘“‘_hw
ml"‘hmalwmmhm%_w
e actually do something to the ecpeent o he sacramen PR L,
upon hum the governing Spint given W the Apesies
the Emren.
'Ilhumh.whykflh‘alfllfim"w“v:::‘hfl"-“
R tacr amen
forns” in Denzingestal
etal when ¥ Bmebls 0 oy b
16 which Fr Cekada was tespondey. 2
—
Trwe or Pulee Pope?
-Chapter1y

e 1968of raer , notand inclu phrase “to provide clergy, myyq

coneedecraethe altars,
rite does ” 1t docs refer 10
the canaey
s “this Thy servant, whom Thou has .chosen %
1o whoch necessanly sgrufies the “thiee specic satramen
B e office Furthesmore, it specifcally refers tothe oifice o
‘Prest, which 1 propes 1o the eprscopal order, fust like *orday,
::g. nd “consecatng Churches” 8 1. the COPtc conermuns
the Coptic rite and the new 1968
T mmary, the form of bothtive
i the single “formaleffec ”
sentence, namely, “pour
forth governing Spint whom He gave to the aposties louhe‘u.,y
of Thy name - And sunce Fr Cekada 1s persuaded by word counts, we
nete thet the Coptic form (the true form, not the entire Preface)
actually sherécr than the new form of Paul VI
Thus, when a true apples to apples companson is made between
the forms of the Coptxc and the new nite, any reasonable person wil
condlude that the longer form found 11 the new nite, 15 just as valid as
the shevier one found 1n the Coptic nite, the validity of which has never
been doub be
by the Churdch.
Cenclusion

From what we have seen, there is no reasonable doubt whatsoever

thet the new rite of epuscopal consecration, if followed according to the
form esablished by Paul VI, is valid The ancient form dales back e
the early centunesof the Church and may even be of apostolic ongin
The form served 2 Uhe bass for other approved forms in the Charch,
which even the Sedevacantists adnut And last, but certalnly not least,
Paul VT's new form was approved by some of the most leamed
wcramental theologune in the Church, including Cardinal Ottaveanl
whose achons demonstrate that he would have not been reluctanti
ismse the Pope a negative judgment regarding the new rite of episcopil
consecramon if he found it cbyectionable, just as he did with the New
Mass two years Later In light of all thus, we can have moral certitude
ot
She validity
of the new ke of epuscopal conecration. For ane 10
question s validity reveals efther » gross Ignorance of historical and
Mmmmdm,wl harmful Sedevacanit

-
100 o v s g od Epwarpetiom” {ermphasia added]
 Chapter19

~The New Rite of

Ordination for Priest
y~
In thie chapter, we will brvafly address the new
prcsts,also tmplemented by Paul Vi m 1968 .:.:""'"
e only difference between the form approved
found 1 the new ite of Paul VI x 2 sngle Lates wong, -

Form cppr
by ev
Pope ed
Phe X1 “Graen
we vesonc
,h
Almughty ‘Father, 18 these Thy scrvam, the diguay _P:
Prics thood mkwwuhml}zn&emlfil_m|l]
thcy may hold from Thee, O Ged, the affie of e soccad st
Thy service and by the cxample of e bebavior alTd s ater of
oly hving ™
{Latin De_quacsumun, onsnPaicr,
ipiot hoe on
familuss e
Presbyterti dignuaiem biveva in visceribs caram Spritum
sanctltatis UT acceptum &t Dews. secmerws
undmme s
sbimeant censuramquc merume cumpls vk comversatons
insinuent|

New Form approved by Peul Vi “Grant, we bosacch Thow

Almighty Father, 1 them Thy scrvass, the doguty of the
Priesthood, rencw within them the spint of helivesc. May they bokd
from Thee. the office of the sacoud ank w Thy sece 3ad by e
examplc of their behavier alford a pasern of holy kvmg. ™
[Latin Do quaesumus emmpotens Paber, it hoa famios ot
Presbyterti digniiciem inneva m viceribes conm Spirisam
sanctiiats occeprm & ¢ Dru.m-imm-—:‘-‘——'-r
morien cxemple
Censur amg b CHTCTSENS
ue

SPus XII SacnOnfma,

amen Nevewber
tum 10
*Latin at bty / fwarw papalencyica et/ Pus 2/ .A’"w‘.‘.-/-“*
* Taken from Daview, Michael. mm4md-=‘,.~mwfi
Pracihand Harrinan, New York Reatan Coibel basks.
0. The Farwn for the Ordirwimen of & Print. N -4
Vol Sam e acanais e
um.,,,_-,_,_;...u_'--m*_-m.._wfl‘"
W et OO gt <
hu.u\nydum-n—mu"l‘“"“_.wi*
Al the wesld aci the diference b st
»
 Ty
pE—
True or False Fope? Chapter 1y

Cleaty, there 1 o difference between the forms of Pius x|

hulvlmhfluun.mwmmn represented by a smslehhnw;:
and which occurs after the bishop asks God to grant the candidage the
g of the The dhfference 15 immaterial and thus gy
obile chang e i the invalid {or even of
new form 1n no way renders it ion
ble validity), by any stretch of the imaginat
The Dimond brothers, of course, disagree They claim that “jp,
of %0 that gives nse to a relaxation of the naming
of the
Sacramental effect (confernng the office of the second rank) fn oiher
erds, removing 'sa that presuppases an ordiation which has arendy
L pace, bt 15 e takong place & the words are bemg pronounced Since
the new rite purp the ts
1o beor Roman R, this remova of f‘ut’ (so thay)
renders the new nte of questwashle tahichty™* This “relaxation of
meanmg” theory s another example of the proverbial “grasping at
e the ‘part of both the old and new forms, the bishop 1mpases
his hands upon the candidate’s head and, while doing so, beseoches
Almyghty God to "grant” him "the office of priesthood ~ These words
(the form} detetnune the matter (imposition of hands) by urivocally
the sacramental effect (the grace of the office of pricsthood)
25 accepied and used by the Church in that sense Theroeo
“relaxahon of mearung” (whatever that means) because there is smply
10 other uwy ¥he Church understands the meaiing of the mather and form
o the sacrament (imposing, hands and beseeching God to conler the
pesthood) Thus, the form s uruvocal and the sacrament valid
Further moving # the sccond part of the form, omutting the
conjuncion “so that" (between the first clause which asks God fo
revew in the candidate “the spint of holiness” and the second clawse
which asks God 1o grant the candidate to hofd "the office of the second
ank”) i1 no way “relaxes” the sacramental sigrufication or undermines
the aacential seree of the words, for a couple of reasons First, because
the buhop has already besought God to grant the candidate “the
digr ut
of the prie yod” while imposing hands The matt
stho ander
form
of thie action urvocally sigraties the sacramental effect of Holy
Ordennt

-
*V;‘-'””IILIIS
Dimand, Michasl and Peier, The rwih Truih Abawt What Really N apprrvd
i the Church At
758 Thamuas wachon.
“New o clear @ arry salagganiia] part of the wacramental
fon b
n’p—‘hh_fld“imnmnl::w@udmwm"l‘“
h‘.'.-—--vu Wherelure Dudystas says (Lie Spor Sanct. W) I anyene atiempl 3
ik 3 w2y .0 i e of the worueaid rumes, Le of the Father Son =
Hely Ghos, o baplm wil b invadid Bt 1 that wehich f vt be it &
 e New Rt o] s o 1 sty

second, “l:cnlnse nlm;lalorms God 10 confer “the

7 pecond clause) ais0 univocally s
ok |de,||ly nflhep'“fdmsflqufiomm':-
s [ clausel 1n cther word, e Edidste et
ordwfl:';“’"p‘ the words “digmty of she "
e
rank” (which are both uravocal) and ot by e g Haly
s (st i U VOCAL 4 M e e "%
a well) This means the second clase
s st
e, a0 hence the CONPINCHOD "Vtw notbagar dqum::l
The validity of the ew form wie com paag yT %
sedevacantsl writer Richard lbranys who wrote eomades
il
“Some, using # semantc argument, say thet the
1 the Catholic Rite (°so tha they may o 'D-::fi‘n:nlhi;
New Rite, thus, the New Rite docs 0ot meniiono ingly tha Ged
g the candidate the power of thc pncaheed, and the makcs £
wvalid Yet, the New Rite, using differm wonds, cupesces
sume thing I both rites. Ged clearly prves e ponw 1o e
candidate Afer reading the fem of the New Rec, saly tose of
exweme bed-will would say that Ged w met mvek
io ad
gove e
eandudate the powee of the pricsthosd.
We quote Mr Ibrany: here because he achwwledges that he
humself had been deceived by Sedevacantut authors regandig the
and erdinaben. He
of the new nites for epucopal consecration
validity
adwits that he had fallen prey to their erronecus arguxents, and ermt
autnght lies, without taking the Wme b wvesagate
the facks far
%o rad e new
humself 1t wasn’t until he took the tume e lhalbe
discavered he had been duped. He publuly reiracied hu former
posltion by saving:

orginally taught tha Paul VI's New Rutes of Bapaum and Hol
Onders for making prests and bish arcep ey
valu
deubtfll dd
| wmie
what others had wnitien about it Whea | mmwm"n:
yacf, | discovered that many bl bod hosB L
myscl, rustd whal others sa. | m leumt SBEL Ty
w — — fl : o “
e m» e 49 e
m u m m m m
st. e
o ks e st o 1
e, cerainty alcn placy b the second RISl VIO bpdbip
*Valldty of Taul VEs Dimunished ois” Qubv 30U 2 00
/i coglioh dacurmants/ baske o/ b9_prsl 3L
0
 ——y
Falee Pope?
Trorue Chapter1y

whe n onc mve sug abe s the rs tea chi ngs .on thi s iop ic or thay,
ecause i it
onc dcovers Wt m
mwkmm
se, when they are
quoies ar ke U out of comext And thatworpeoves
ot wilh the evidonce they omitted them wrong,
tacy 1goore 11 as of 1t docs pOR cxist of mangle 1s e meanmg,
oty expoacs ther exreme bed will 10™ those of good wll, i3
svoac whe have eyes (8 so¢ and ears 1o hear
Attacking the “Intention” of the New Rite

Secause the new form 15 vrtually identical to the traditonal form

{and most Sedevacanhsts will thus acknowledge how silly it would be
W atack the nearly-dentical form), they are forced to attack the
validity of the sacrament by attacking the miention of the new nie
xtesd They do thus by redirecting our attention to the prayers and
cevemonies which surround the form {the sigmifioatie ex adpunctss), and
claien thet these elements tack what 1s required, thereby preventing the
sumsker from “downg what the Church does.” They justfy ther
powon by drawing attention e the papal Bull Apostalicse Cursc, weued
by Lee XIIL, ;n which he declared the Anglican episcopal consecration
0 be tvalid. Thev mamtain thel what was lacking in the Anglican
ceremony is also lacking in the ceremony approved by Paul VI And,so
they argue, because Leo XIll declared that this ceremonial deficiency in
the Anglican Rite renders null the intention to “do what the Church
docs,” the same changes in the rvie of Paul V] render 1t equally null
In ether words, they atiempt to argue thet 1f the notion
of the
sacrfical nature of the priesthood was removed from Paul VI's new
sike, and this owuesion invalidated the Angiican nte {even though Lee
XAl focused mainly on the invalidity of the Anglican form), then Paul
VI's ke should also be voud (thet 15, the absence of certain surrounding
language n Pau) Vs rite invalidates an otherwise valid form of
sedation) The angument may appeal to those who are looking for
excuses © repect the post-Vatican 11 Church, but it will not appeal to
#hose who are laarned 1n these matters
Firk, as we saw in Pius XII's Sacramentum Ordims, Christ gave the
Church the authority 10 determune the words of the form for the
-
s bo diocuum alf of the les and orreny
20, amplans adedod) I b s, Moty proceedcontio
et 7oek Sdaca nkon, pimail y v ed I e ook W Harped
ot Dy vt by twe sedevm can
pricvis the C M t
of tio RI. P Francie
Hq—mm“‘“_*”" ":.fifi- ——w -mnmmx
shout e n:m
BAC saniot
% Wi bound et e Sedeva e Wl priest caim
e
“«2
 PN RIS - "

1t of Holy Orders. Second., Pope Lao X1,

Saded that the Angiican. nte of ondination ':‘m.,c"
Jeoking to the form and not the surrounding ceremonses (g, rfimfim
wiunet) Pope Leo concluded that e form wa defactn. gy 1
in
eiect of mtention being cordenced by thdefe form,
ct Thog, the
mm'-,‘:,.\;;om ::Enuh:mmnmmwh,u/m‘“"
e already shown valid, and
ol ing the form. e secondacly, the prayes
To prove the pownt, Leo XUI m Apssteinmr Curae commence
wmubyloohnglufl!fonnolmmykznmmhw::
wit that the words “Recewve the Holy Ghost” In the Anghcan “form of
priestly ordmation cestainly do not in the least definniely expross the
tacred Order of Priesthood (sacer grace andtum
ef v det )
power, whch
ng of offthe
wchuefly the power ‘of consectatiand eni ngand
irue Body
Peod of the Lord'. 1n thet sacnfice whach s no ‘bare comumencranen
ofthe sacfice offered on the Crose.” Further addresserg the form of
\he Anglican ite (and ot the surroundng prayers), Pop ethe
Leo says
fct that the Anglicans Later added %0 the form the phrases “for the
work and office of priest” (for ordination) and “Wnehop” (for epwcopal
comsecration) “shows that the Anglicars thewaelves parcerved shat the
fint form was defective and inadequate
Continuing to focus on the form, Leo neted that thase adsaans
{*for the work and office of prest/buhop") “xiust be undersiood 17 8
serwe different to that which they bear in the Catholic rle,”12 because
the Anglcants do not beikeve in the sacendetiun in the Catholc serwe,
or that bishops have a higher status than priests. In fact, Leo XIll said
itis *vain® to plead for the validity of Anglican orders on the basis of
in “other prayers,” ust as we mamiain it % vain to plesd foc thein
invalidity of Paul VI's ordination rte on the basis of its other prayers
Yut rite, as we will further demone ! Thus,tra te.
Pope Leo's prmary
focus 2 0n the form of the e tself, and second y
anlnying
s accompa
Prayers and ceremonues (which should ko be the case when
enluating the validity of Paul Vi's new mie) Indeed, the form (the
Words or accidents) of the Anglican e does ot properly determe
the matier (the meaning or substarce), sunce the matier (which 15

—_—
T Apesiline Cisrse, No 28 of Neo.31
:m :-x(mphu-.unn
o. 3. e ity of
PoptLow I caid “In v o e b sy ste it 2
W"‘"Qi-nh-wmmmy«'ldnu-w {id. No. 2
“s
 False Pope?
Troree Chapie1y
r

hands) “by twelf signifies nothing defintte, and 15*qually

Confi rmation.”
:ud fol'!:;i‘ Old)flsbzni for (orm, he 1urms 10 the defeey
‘Afies Leo XKl establ ishes the defect in
in Interinon. The Pope says.
with the snherent defect of ‘form 18 jouned the defect of
15
“ucaieos® which i equaily essentual to the Sacrament

Pope Leo then explans that where the form (and/or matter) of 5
Catholic nte s changed. with the intentlon of introducing a new nte
which 1 not approved by the Church, there will also be a defectof
inkention. As appleed 1o the Anglican nite of ardination, not anly wag
the form not approved by the Church, but it is defective Furthermore,
he antrre rile has been divested of the Catholte understanding of the
which also evinces a defective untention Pope Leo notes
#hat " the whole Ordinal not only is there no clear mentiofonthe
sacnfice, of consecrason, of the priesthood (sacerdotuint), and of the
pow erirg and offering sacrifice but, s we have just stated,
of consecrat
every trace of these thungs which had been tn such prayers of the
Cathob rile as they had not entirely repcted, was deliberately
remoandved swuck out”1* As we will see, no such omissionsoccur in
the surrounding prayers of the new tite
Pope Leo concludes by reiterating the Church's sacramenta)
theslogy an form and inlention

“The Clurch daes net judge sbout the mind and intention. in se
for 3¢ 1115 somethung by s intemal nalure, But tn s fur as 1 15
manfested extemally she 15 boued 1o judge conceming it A person
who has corractly and serionsly used the requisiie matier and form
18 cffect and confer a secrament 13 presumed for that very reason to
have wtended 10 &0 what the Church does O this prnciple rests
the dectrine that a Sacrament 18 truly conferred by the mimistry of
one whe 1 hercic or uibeptuzed, provided the Catholic pie bs
Church end of miactng what the Church does. and what, by e
ameciiton of Chosl elongs w the nalure of the Sacramcal, then it
_cloar et vl caly u G neccusary iniention waning © UK

-
“hnd. Ne U
"l he 2
"N
e ~rprer 19

w7
Kong, the prayers surroundung the form (a
s e approsch of cur usua) suspas. ::;.T_:': form
e i their book The Truth about What Recly Fippena e ot
W'{a"”fi, after Vatcan 1, the Dimond brothers set thew
table W
pronding the followin lengihy quotes from Leo XI's Apesuin
Curas”
“pape Leo XIIL, Aposialicac Curme, Sepe. 13
1396 “For
0 put
,
sardc oiber reasons which show this 10 be weufficw
for se
rpose 1 the Anglican nite let this argameat suffice for -
from them has been dellberately cemeved whtevar sete forth
thedignits and nilice n the pricsthosd in the Cathel rite.lc
That
form consequently cannot be coasidercd apt or sufficers for the
sscrament which omuts what it cught essentially to sgmify*

Pope Low XIII, Apostoli Curae,

cacSept. 13 18% *Sa i comes
1o pass that, as the Sacr f am
Orders ea
asd thettroe
secerdatium [sacrificing priesthosd] nf Christ wore ntterly
climinated from the Anglican rite, and hewce the sacendosinm
[priesthond] & In & wise coaferred truhy asd valdly in the
Epucopal consecretion of the sene e, for e bke roasen,
therefore, the Episcopate can s no wie be wuly and valdly
confrted by 1. and this the more 50 because smeng the first dues
af e Episcopats is that af ordeniag mumssiers for e Holy
Euchandaret sacnifice *
Pope Leo X111, Apastolicae Curme, Scpt. 13, 1196 ‘Beng fully
coprizant of the necessary connection between firth and worki.
etueen ‘the lan of believing end the law of prveg.” wadct 2
#rctext of retuming 1o the prmitive form. they cormupied the
liturgical order 1n many ways ta surt the erroes of e refomers. Fer
this reasen In the whale Ordinal ast oty & there ne clear
rnth- of the sacrifice, nf consecration, -::" "“‘""‘m
sacrificing pricsthoed). hat, ac we have just every
A hese g which i beon e suc praver af b Cothle
THe 25 they had mot eatirely rejested, wm delibecately remesed
d struck, this way the -mwu-nfifi:
* calied - e Orilinal clearly masifoss Mecl Honoe, M
¥Einied 1 1t ongin 1 was whiolly imsufficicnt b osafer Ordén.
 Troe ar Falee Pope” Chapter19

mpcesibic of vt could become sufficieat

tha m the course
:‘m ‘,,,:; had wken place ' (crnphasis in ongenal)

ad
pravshes in
e quot gs, the Dimond brothe
aion on 1,
o rs
dln“zlfl!mwnkdhulvllumm !ddmmmm,d"‘
inkention of the
elemenw, which they claum renders the
n though, again, the
deficient, just a 1t does for the Anghcan rite (eve
Anglcan re s mvalid primanly due to defect tn form Unable toatiack
r's attention
the actual feem of the rite of Paul VL they divert the readelem
prob with the
10 the sgnaficatie ex adpunct by saymng “The biggest
is notti
new riie of ordina form, but the surrounding ceremones
theon
which have been removed,” and then write-

“An the Tradiwonal R, she bishop sddresecs the ordinands and

says For it 16 5 prieat's dhty to offcr sacnifice, 1o bless 1o lead, ts
pevech and te beptize * This admonttion hae boen abolished ( )
“Recerve the pawer (n offer sacnfice to God. and 10 cclebrate
Mass, both for she Irving and the dead, i the name of the Lord *
Th exceptionally important prayer has bocn abolishied In the New
Rie ()
In the Tradiwonal Rite, the new priests then concelebrate Mass
wih the Buhop. At the end, each new priest kneels before the
ubep whe iays both hands upon the hesd of each and sys
“Recewve the Holy Ghow. Whose sins you shall forgive they are
forgiven shem, 2ad whose sis you shail retain, they ae retsined.’
This ssrsmony and prayer has bous sbolmbred.™'*

Based upon their asserhon thet certain language was removed

from Paul VI's new nie, the Dimonds confidenly conclude “The New
Rite of Ordination specifically elimunated the sacrificing priesthood *#
As we will see, the Dimonds’ enhire case proves to be nothing less than
a blalant nusrepresentation of the content of the new nite (haven't we.
aeen Shus show before?)
Does the ate of Paul VI really “elimmnate the sacrificing
P""'Wflt’v“lll\eDlmnndchm?Doest!senewrilerelllyl!l'wve
menban of the priest forgiving sne? Did the new site truly “abolish”
shose prayers, or did 1t sunply replace them with others thet have the
same essential mwarang? Lets find out. The followng In taken directly
fmom the new rite of priestly ordination:
_—
Mishasl
i st Potar Dismamd, The T i abont Vbt Remily Happenal 1o e Caoisc Churdt

L
 TeNew ™= Chapter19
“This mun yous retative and fnend, i no
e of press. Consider cnfullym w 1o
mm-m“'
m th e Ch ut
¥t Wishops and 0chbe—moldHe cds called to shae 1 ke gy
Supreme and etcrnal Pricst. By conoscecbeLircnwiow of e e
’ P of the New Testament o preach he Gospal.ltbeise mage
ns
unan
¥
gy
"

“My son, you are now 10 be sdvanced e the ender of e

e Ywmufilwlymunw-ng"y“m,'
n the aume of Christ, the chief Teacher Your mmmxry wal
perfect the spirtual sacnfice of the fanhful
s w
Know whet you are domg sed e the
iysi
you er
celcby
raie In the memonal of the Lord's doath aad
resuerection, make every effort 10 the 1o 90 and 1o walk m the new
fe of Christ. When you kapiize, you will Ming mes and wemey
mte_the people of God In the sacrament of penance, you wall
f W
will
consple
sehievs g the sick You will celcbraic
the lnurgy snd
offer thanks and prusse 10 God throughout the day. praying et ouly
forthe people of God but for the whole waeld ™
To affirm the candidaie’s intent to carry on the irsdison of the
Grrch, the bishop during the Examunation asks.
~Afe you resolved to celebrate the mysienes of Cheet ankfully
wd religiouely for e
Blory of God and the sanctfication of Chowt's peephe”
To repeat a phrase we've used bufore, “there you have it” Here we
e ihatin the new nte, the prest # told 1o “celcbeate the liturgy, bove
4l the Lord's sacrifice”, he is told to unike huwelf 1o the “scfice
whech & offered saccamentally through your hands”, o m*:
Myveries of Chnst”, to “ba sns 10
" and to “forgive
Gt Yet Pee aid Mkt Do have drcved heaoches and
s been ge
Shens Into beleving that this tradivonal langua remeved

<
&
&
 gy
True oc False Pope? Chapter19

eom the new e’ Then, after shamelosly advaring this fasehong,

they wrote”
T, the following ed
by Pope
words deciar | co XI1I
o . of Paut VI Pope Lo XU 4poomres
Gowoc Sept 13 139 “Far thi reason in the whele Ordinal nac
anh s there an ciear mcation of the sacriflce, af cassechave railos,
#5 we just
of 1he sacerdetivrs [sscnficing presthood],
suied, every trace nf these 1hisgs, which had beew {o snch
peayers of the Cathlic rite s they had ant entirely rejected,
s deierately remeved and struck ant In this way the naive
character or spit a6 1t 15 called - of the Ordinal clearly mamfests
1
= rae New Rt fts thic descripion preciscly Could anyone
eyt fact” N, 10 60 50 one would have 10 bear false witnese
The New Rute of Ordination specsfically climinated the sacnficing
Th wtentien 1t manifests 15 therefore contrary to the
iswaftio n and cannot suffice for validiy"
the Church
By evaluating Dumonds” accusations 1n ligh! of the actual language
of the new nite ciwed above, the reader can surely discern who is guilty
of beaning “false witness.” It's Mike and Pete Dimond Had the
Dunond brothers actually Wken the ime 10 read the new nite, rather
than rely upon the wards of someone elsc (an approach that 1s all too
commen among Sedevacantwts), they would not have embarrassed
themeelves by publishing what they did in their book
Sedevacanhst Rama Coomaraswsmy made the same falie
allegation in hus book The Destruction nf the Christinn Trahiton He sald
“the prumary funcion of the priest i 1o offer the immalative sacnfice,”
and then added. “Nowhere in the new nite for ordaining priests 1s 1t
made clear that he is given the power to offer sacnfice "3
This same falsehood is repeated over agam by one Sedevacantiet
author after another Here
we see how the errors of the Sedevacantist
#ect can 50 quickly spresd One person makes a false statement,
and
dmbdrnllwsmdlnw-flwiukm‘menmwcmkwm
the most baslc facte {which is the medus aperand: ol those driven by an
agenda and not by the honest the search for trulh) As we saw carlier,
@ hu creddt, Mr Tbranyi did take tha time to investigate the claims of
hiebucrtSedevacarti nt colleagues And when he did 30 he meized that e had
decesd As noted, My ibranyi inilially made the mustake of
felying upon Infermation taken from a book published by the two
-
-c-” bt s 1t Really Hoppewad 0 e Cotic Chirch i Vatiaan i, pp. 116117
sy The ysivucivon of e Chrsetuan Tradvbion p 335
 mm

W,p,.&::nm CMRI sect. Afier raadin

the new grie
WL mself, lbrany wro!
ot oaly does the New Rac mentien 3 woe sacnfical
pricsis that offer sacbut nfialsece,
menisens 3
;":‘,,“'fi M;: blessI:S. guides, preaches, wd bapuzes Qe
w
wso prescnt the firm of the New Rite dishoncsly and "“P"m
"The words of the form have been essentially changed and do ot 1
e lcast defimiclycxpress v:ei-u“:l Order of the pricsthaod. or s
and power, which 18 chiefly the power of ‘consecramng and of
Frenat the troe Body and Blood of the Lond" The micatien of
conveyng the poweer of offering the Sacnfice of the Mass and of
he forgivencss of sins_ which are essental Lo the pricsihosd, is not
peescat.” As shown above, the fogm of the New Ruc ha ngg by
al pem
s servant of yours the dignity of the presthood* The Radecki
Wothers dishonestly said that the form af the New Rrie does "not m
the lcas” mention the *priesthood ™
They also decerve the reader when they say that the form of the
New Rite docs not mention ‘the power of consecranag and of
affermg the true Body and Blood of the Lond." er “The micaoon of
conveying the pawer of offenng the Sacnifice of the Mass and of
the forgaveness of suns.” Yet, the form of the Catholic Rt [mesnsg.
that of Pus X11] docs mot mention these erther To be consstent,
the
Radecki brothers would also have o invalidate the Catholic Rite {of
Pus XI1] for the same reasons. Just becavse these dogmes wre nat
mentioned i the form of either riic, docs mot mcan they are nec
meritioncd elsewhere n the nites, the ceremonta) parts, They are ™%
Agin, we commend Mr [branyr for hue honesty i publicly
mecting e previous error, which he embraced by relying upon
Sedevacantist priests with an agenda for his mformabon (always a
gave mistake), rather than looking ito the matter heeelf When
Teanyi took the ume 1o check the facts, he learned shat these pestt
84 use his words, “dishonestly” presenied the materal and
d::(‘:cd"him. e by e
rding the argumentsaganst the new nile presen!
Dinond brothers, bl here o pnoch more thatcold be <ad.we will
*ly address one more elleged “ooussion” whh they el
Wualidates the new rite They wrote
-_
» ———
H

Ram” @uly 300 b/

T “Valuity of Pusl VIFs Dt

£
"'/M;mzwmm
/wwm’nlfl
o
 ————y
Tewe or Fale Fope? Chaperyy
vl the Tradewass Rite, the bnshop the niomes the Vet Creatar
Sprrtus. Whike snointing cach prist, he says “Be pleased, Lond,ja
o cerue and ssocufy (hese hands by this anowting. and ey
Mewng. hal whaisoever (hey bess may be blessed, ang
whakocver they consecraie may be consecrated and sanciified v
\he name of Our Lond Jesus Chiist
and e prayer was 3o sspiuficanthatt It was cven mantionebyd
#43 ™7
Denor
Pros XJ1 in Meduat
Abotished? Just as Mr Torany: asked about the Radecks brother,
“one wonders what new nite the Dimond brothers are referning i * i,
\he squvakent prayer th the new nie (which takes place during the
anounting of hands), the Ven: Creator Sptritus 15 n fact sung, and “the
bshop recewves a linen gremial and anoints with chrism tha paimeof
e new priest a6 he kneels before ham * The bishap then says *The
Father anointed our Lord Jesus Christ through the power of the Holy
Spint. Mav Jesus preserve you to sanctify the Chnstian people and o
offer sacrifice to God *
S0, contrarv 1o the statlements given by the laymen from Filmare
New York, the new nte indeed contains an equivalent prayer to the
Holy Ghost. Even if one were to prefer or even hold that the former
prayer is superior 1o the one used in the new nite, this opiron would
have ne effect whatsoever on the validity of the rite itself In fact, whie
the Dimonds claim the prayer for the anointing of the priest’s hands
“was 30 sgruficant thal it was even mentoned by Puus X11,” the prager
1ous nwt part of the cerermemy for the first seves centuries of the Church! As
Fr Bugh nokes, "the earlier iturgical book containing an anowting of
she priest's hands w the so-called ‘Missal of the Franks, a Mass book
compiled for the Cathedral of Pontiers early in the eight century"
Later in the erghth century, “tha anomting [of the hards] at ordinations
was banned by an Edict of Charlemagne™ Why did Charlemagne ban
she anownting of the hands? Fr Bligh explains that ha did so because
“He 1mposed Lhe use of the Gregorian Sacramentary obtained from
Pope Hadnan. ThusSacramentary did ot contaun the ancinting “*
Thus, Peter and Michact Dimond’s public assertion that the change
1n the prayer of the new nie for the anointing of hands invalidates ot
even causes doubt about the priest’s ordination only demonstrates that
they dearly have not studied thia subect in any depth. OV
altematively,shey heve studied the subject in depth and have chosen o
_—
¥ Ty Trauth abwut Whhet
Crunnon o e P “Y;“:;fl-hauumntwmmll s

10
 Rite of Ordnation for Priests
e Chapter 19
blic) IF they had studsed the ancy
':fl’: ",,:.‘:."., bulk of the ceremony surroundg ,::‘x would
et only gradually developed over the Centuries, from on of 3
ty of the apostolic Bmes, 10 the complexty
of e gT
Tttr al. during the carly years of the Chan 1 oi™ 7
diration was quite short, and yet it was cbviously st sy,
the account of Paul and Bamabes® ordmabon, ge If you
fhaper
13, 1t appears to havemwdmmm.:\m
oy on of hands and a short prayes We read e
“Now there were i the church which whs ot Anech,
and doctors, amon; whom was Burmsbes, nd Simen Sed
.‘mzywmmlnulennlmhlntwfum;ulwm.-
sud to them Scparsic me Saul smd Bumebes, fur the work
wmmoln.veukmlhem'l\mh:y.i-.;—m.‘
imposicg their hands upon them, scic them swzy Se tary bemg
scnt by the Holy Ghost, weat 10 Scleucw. nd frvm themce
sailod 10 Cyprs Aruwbmnymuu-m-..:yy
peoached the word of God i the A
131-5)
According to what was recorded in Scpture, ks orduatien
ceremony was certainly not elaborate, and yet it was the approved
prmutive rite of the Church, and therefore sufficed b confer a valid
seduation/consecration upon Paul and Bamabes. in fact, when we
refer back to the oldest known ordanason ceremeny, which goes back
1o dhe rudst of the apostolic age, we leam that they were actually quike
ample and short. For example, foll
are the
ow entire
in rubecs
gand
payers for the ordination of a priest as found in The Staulss of the
Apousles, compiled by St. Hippelytus, which Schermann dates 18 the
A century%
*In the name of the Father snd of the Son and of e Hly Spwt,
one God This 1s the Smddos of the fathers, the Aposies, wheck
they ordered for the direction of the Churc ()
Statute 23 Concerning the ordination ef preshyter, If he bubop
dqnmmnmxnapvubym.hmfllhyhuuw‘hm‘
204 all the presbytors shall touch furm and shall pray styeg
MY
God, the Father of cur Lond aad our Sevieu loas Chest
down upon this thy servant, smd wnpert st hum the spat of g%
'lilhe.morholmnm-yu»k-m&vr-fl'
—_—
i3

Thasder, Fn Werbwrias dar s

21 Shermane, Kiche s S dor 5%
Mrurder,
(Mochen, Walhall Verag, 913
Ay,

:n
 ———
True or Felee Pope? Chapter1y

s
L o Tk
s thow Tookesdst upon thy chosen people ang
the Holy Spimt which theu granicdst 10 thy setvant and mimster
Moscs, w0 sow Lord, give with 10 ths thy servant theourgrace vouchsafed
Toum, bt thow fllet us thy woestup 0 heart, 1 glonfy
thce, through thy Son Jesus Chnst, and through who 10 thee be glory
and powes, 1o the Father and the Son the Holy Spini i the holy
Church new and ahways and for ever and everAmen He 1s wonhy of
"And all the peopic shall say Amen and
wn
Commenting on the above ancien! ordination site for priests, Fr
wid ~The whole ceremony would take only two or three
munutes.”* And notice what 1s missing from the above prayers there w
0 mentien of affening sacrifice and 6o ment io
of abso lvingnsuns
Now, since Michael and Peter Dimond pretend to be experts on
sacramenial theology, pethaps Shey should use their imagined
expertee 10 research and pass judgment on the ordination ceremony
performed by the Aposties ko see if it lacks the necessary prayers that
they erroclaim ne areou ng fromythe new nite of PaulVI Then
mussisl
they can inform us if the ordinations pesformed by the Aposiles were
alee nill and vord
Doubtful Dolan and More Hypocrisy
Before concluding this chapter, we would like o show haw
Sedevacantit biehop responded when a number of Sedevacantist
priess expressed doubt about his ordmnation to the priesthood The
main accuser, Fr Clarence Kelly (now also a Sedevacantwt bishop),
cialmed that Buhop Daniel Dolan's ordination to the priesthood wes
“doubtful” due 10 adefact in the matter (the ordaining bishop allegedly
only impesed one hand, watesd of two) Fr Kelly demanded that Fr
Dolan casse and desist sayng Mase and adrminsstenng the other
sacraments, unti he could clear up the doubt Thus 1s 4 helpful anslogy
Secause, Like the Sedevacantist thesis, 1t involves both a question of fsct
{Was Dolan ordained with one-hand or twa?) and a question of law (i
one-handed ordination valid?) Let us see how this Sedevacantst
rest-wumed-bishop responded 1o Fr Kelly's accusations. We will
ogn by reading
the letter Fr Keily sent to Fr. Dolan
_
This o+ @arsiater of the Eiwapc teat, taken from Hummer, Geaege,
The Staiues of ¢
{prain o« Comman Eoctostcs, (Luden, Wikiaws & Nergate, 1904) pp 127 14316 Fo
S= OtLok ot & v E. Moo, Dbdamcoha
Macaka Apucolore, Lg%, 75 108108

62
 -
Chuepter19
«Dear Fr Dolan

n the coursc of the rescarch which wag e

10 ordnations andl <piscopal consecrayon, g
was dy
|Wmnw d«:wnmmm.,.._:""_"“" .
opion of 0 SO, U G would vy gy ™ % )
Yacan for pudgment () b
e T
Simce your ordination was done with one
bt the one-handed ordistion ts cevtamly valyg
{

wcumimurxeyw-le-uhmlomp-y.‘ N
confessions and admumstening the sacrame o7 F-n-M: Unctien P
utl this preblem s resolved
Plesse umnunddmmmm-mm-m
0 the dictofatMora num
esl Theo
with the disputes which extst betweenand us,l
hus o
dbcg
kcly
y,ety
We further urge you diligently 10 research the poblam, andb
etus know any findunigs which shed light on this s, "
Yours i Chnst,

Fr Thomas P Zapp (sdmanistracor)

Rev DonaldJ Sanbom
Rev Clarence Kelly (Supenor)
Rev Thomas Mroczke
F Jenkine
¥t Martn Skierka. !
Fr Abem
Fr Paul Bamberger
Fr Joseph B Greenwell™s !

Needless 10 say, Fr Dolan was't toe happy with these press

Aueshoning his ordination. Dolan responded o Fr Kelly in 2 letier tat
chirges Kelly and the other accusers of being deven by personal
malice, and declares them guilty of a mortal sin for blackenng he
fane by daning to question hus ordination publicly But whats wost
elevan1o our
t duscussto s that
n Fr Dolan nghtly declar m h es
ket
that Fr. Kelly h.sno.uflwntymdmwmmr--apvfl‘u:
%ch & judgment usurps the Church's prerogative 1o Jdge an‘
e wheth er one validly holds office m the Churdh. Thats Rl
Sedevacantist clergyman Dan Dolan cormectly mamins hough
Church alane is the judge of whether ha % & true prist cven
—
e (0 Kely o Fr Do, Sopaber 21, UL s o]
b e
A 1950 Lot Dudrs i Ove Hamie - rrsson

= £
 ———y
Trwe
or Falee Pope? Chapier19

also behieves he can dge whether the Pope w a true po,

gyt
z’:.:g-vledhymy i difficult to tmagine. In Dotan's
to Frs,
word Kelly:
~“The Charch, wet Faiber Kelly, lmvestigates and decides the
fack Those impugning ke valudity of an ordmation present theyr
case to the Holy Office, which cosducis an investigation, hears the
evnbence of all partics, cxamines the wilcswes and ceiablishes what
the fack are Let’s repeat that the Hely Office 1avesngates, weighs
she evence and establishes the facts Not there
hin of i g Canon
Law about Father Kelh mvestugaung, weightag cvidence and
combtuhing fack. Nethg there of i Canon Law abou t
& prest
having 10 amewer ‘evidence’ Father Kells finds convincing Ditto
fo the rest sf the clergy who signed the lctier (0 me "% (emphass |
= engeal)
Here we have a Sedevacantist cleric declare that the determination
of wheiher he m a Wue priest is a question of fact that must be
dacided” by “the Church® and not private judgment, which i
complcicly cmtrary to hus Sedevacantist judgment of the “facts” that the
cancitar Popes are not true Popes. While the vahidity of Dolan's
scdinamon under the traditonal nite » a question of fact for the Church,
whether the conciliar Popes are heretics is also a question of fact for the
Church. Both quesions concern whether one validly holds office in the
Church (the office of priesthood and the papacy), of which the Church
aloneis the judge (as Dolan argues) In exther case, “the Chusch, not
Frs. Dolan, Kelly or Cekada, tnvestigates and decides the facw” and
shen renders her legal judgment based upon those facts
Thus, for those who wish o challerige the conciliar Popes’ claim to
the papal office (the Sedevacantiots), they have {o “present thewr case o
the Holy Office, which conducts an nvestigation, hears the evidenceof
all parties, examwnes the witneseas and establishes what the facts are
Continuing
with the words of Fr Dolan. “Let’s repeat that- the Hely
Offie investigates, weighs the evidence and establishes the facts.
Nethung
there or in Canon Law about Father Kelly [or By Sanborn, B¢
Puwrunas, Fr Cekads, Frs. Radecks, “Brs.” Dimend, Messrs. Lane, Daly
Ibvemye Matatics, Sperny, et al| investigating, welghing evidence and
astablistung facts. Nothung there or in Canon Law about a priest having
e anawes ‘enidence’ Father Kelly Jor any other Sedevacantist] finds
cenvincng ' 1 such prunciples of equity and faimess apply to a mere

—_ |
oty e Keby Outaber
S, 190 b e scried e dac/ 40OHTY
4
 L Chapser 19
much more do they a
ot M;mum,unkedmw the Vicar of Chew The
e would als0 ke 10 ask Fr Dolan “what Hety cypcer
ykng Fr Kelly o petition, sice both of them befieye hhfl
wocthat Vatican hierarchy has completely defected from the Q:u«
s there15 no "Holy Office ™ After al, when Fr Dojan o o
to Fr_ Kelly 1 1990, Cardunal Ratzmger was the P "’xh-
Ggregation fo the Doctrne of the Faith(the conclue oty the
wham both Dalan and Kelly held to be a "public hevetic™ (and
.L).
Lowr rejected as “antipope Benedict XVI” due ko hu “pubisc )
Dolan does not say M“w"h'mhypwmanynh.n.,,_d_’
e suggest an alternative venue for Fr Kelly o reseive the .
e cvent the Church has defected (query whether Dolan mu"’m
publicized & favorable judgment on his ordmation frem Ratzmger had
he received one) Funny how Dolan would appeal ke an authorty that
Joth he and Kelly reject 1t 1s evidently quite convensent
for Delan te
to Church authority when it wall help hus case.
but it s the same
auhority that he actually reyects (of claime %0 reject) m hw dailv life.
Thus, the Dolan case provides us with an example of
whizophrerua, which 18 part and parcel of the duesce al
Sedevacanbism.
Although Dolan attacked Kelly prmaniy on the ground shat he
ws usurping the Church's role 10 judge fack that determune who has
woeved vabd Holy Orders, Dolan's ordinaen aleo wwolves s
question of law — that 15, whether a one-handed ordinaton w vabd In
another example of Sedevacantist dupliaty, Delan accused Kelly of
basrg b conclusion (that # one-handed ordmation b the presbesd
#uwalid) upon his own private interpreiation of theolepian. ln fact
Dolan accuses Kelly of shady and even decepuve research wctics,
which we have proven 1o be the actual case with many Sedevacanhst
wilkers,
Fr Dolan took the time to research the ssurces that,
This is because
wxordingo Fr Kelly, teach l.hnlaurlwflldminhm-dwlfi:
Gunas what Fe Dolan discovered? He dicovered hat the souroes3%
we do niot teke up
Mt actually teach what Fr Kelly clumed While
uestion of wheiher the hnpndflunolwlehan‘mlfi(-h-flmlfl;‘
'wmomd(mm‘nmqmnbemdvdw*wm
P% e

o note that Fr. Dolan toned! o what

we findit interesting
recicly what we ourselves have fourdin wriwrg the bosk 4o U0
M Ibranyi also discovered), namety, that Sedvvn: “W"”‘_“I
and laity) consistently musquole their soures
Positions. Read carefully Fr Dolan's coicwmsof Fr Ket

s
 ————y
True or Falee Pope? Chapier1y
misrcpresond. whal YOUE SOURCES SAY \OU state thay
emmmm wnfin
dabions, and give page mmwm
references 10 mlym
two works | nm
looked up
o references. Netther writer - oo of whom [0 the priesihood .
s that ordinations 50 pecformed arc ‘dubious. This 1 another
example ofhow {ellipecs tn onginal)
You piay games with Canon Law 10 Suilly your vicume The
ever-lengtisanng 1ist of targets ~ St Cabun Thuc bishops Mr §
‘Michacl's, yours uly - all reccwve thes treaiment, and your method
1s wni large in your lssest lenicr o me When you wani to pain
somceric 2 2 publhc senner, excommunicated, doubtfully ordained
o 2 schwnutic, you find a sentonce of two i a book by a
heologuan or canoniel. You twist 15 mcaning, and strain 10 upply i
1 your vicun 3 actions. The, evem though 1t be the opinion of just
anc suther, you prescol ¥ 1n torms of "Canon Law requires,” or
“Menal theology says” You then proceed 1o condertin the vicum
eumght, o claum that there 15 a “doubt” pecsent which renders his
actiens mapect, of even better, smful “This doubt must e
rosived,” you then say. ‘and ull then. Father So-andso (or
wheever) raast be svended* From then on, discussion becomes 8
futile cxercuse 1n resolving Father Kelly s *doubls’ and answening
questons. 3l of them based on your
Aclty 5 er
Fath twisied
micrpresetion af onc et twa author's opintons, which inicrpretasion,
of courve you will never give up Your methods may mesmenze
you prcsts and etk bedazzie and Sully the laity (used a3 they arc
ta fotlowing). but I'i not fooled and you won't bully me "%
Can a better explanation be gven of the modus operamis of
Sedevacankess, who st in privase judgment over the validity of the
Church’s new niws? And by a Sedevacantist, to boot! While Dolan
rebuked Kelly for concluding that a one-handed ordination 1 Invald
based upon hue personal reading of theologiane, Dolan and hus
collsagues do exactly the same thing In thelr judgment of Ihe new rites
ol epiacopel censecraten and ordination. They personally mberpret
their theology manuals, and make judgments of law Ihat are reserved
for the Church. They “then proceed ta condemn the vactim outright”
het is, all thece who were consecrated and ordamed according to the
fiew sites (noting that the primary “victim” of the Sedevacantusts is the
Vicar of Jess Christ) As Dolan unwittingly makes quite clear, the
Cherch alone s the pudge of the proper matier and form of 3
ncraanent, and mot indsvidual Catholics.

—_—
.

16
 e of this book have leamed ..b‘:‘":'ys"rrn—. -
e rated that Sedevacanhist apologuts “find 5 g PV we
k by @ theologian or cananist” only o ..w:l:"‘"flwnm
it to apply 10 tHeIr VICU's actions”> We have m"u"':““t and
i their mistreatment of St Bellarmune, who sy ,h“‘!wd-
et 1pso facto deposed.” but at the same mm‘em
eponton of heretical prelates by private udgrmant
(b Sedemny
T fo understand the dubincton betwan par e
determination of the cnme and the speculative Quesion of when .
eretical Pope would lose his office after the Church's ..
Indeed., Sedevacantists will uee “the opwnson of
g, Bellarmune) and wrongly say it u the ndn.‘a':&::fi
noreever, while completely misrepresening she apmen! Thear “metbods”
ay "bedazzle and bully the Lanty” (who fll for ther norwenac), but
hey are ot going to fool and bully Fe Dolan, at lesst when be w the
ugetof such methods In this case, of course the Sedevacantx ek
were used agatnst & Sedevacantist, Fr Dolan, who spotied them at ence
ad pounted them out In other cases, however, Dolan wes the same
shameful and dishonest tactics on his own “victme.*
Finally, Fr Dolan proceeds to explain how predently ané
arcumspectly the Church herself proceeds when e validity of an
srimation 13 deemed obyechively doubtful Compare what Fr Deln
ays below with the scandalous and irresponeble stements of Fr
Cekada, who pubhcly declares the new nie o be mvalid, caung
utold scruples for many in the pews.
“Your scandal-mongering contravenes Cathelic pracwee. Whet
confronted with possible defects m the admanon of Holy
Orders, the Church protecied the devidual priest frors scandal md
e loss of his good name before clergy and lasy akke. Doubcful
onlinations were rectifind under the Secr
of theocy
Holy Office
{which bound under pam of excommunicotanen) cvan wadr,the
sl of confession In a case of the lawer, Vatcas officus
toncealed a doubifully ordaued prcst’s wicatty wet saly from L"
diocesian biskop, but also even from themsehes, -kyrm*‘._
e prcts 10 be ondained condnionslly e cenices. ™ e b
atus would be revealed 10 R0 onc and thet b peed weec
Peotected -
Thus the Church But imagine how such an unforume .
¥ould v fared under your sysem I pves st e £
whole new meaning Yuul‘--tmflhfl‘-_b.
eferences, demand *anewers” from the dessgasied cuprt.
¥

"7
p— —yp
Chapier
Tywe or Falee Pope”

e, 00 woo. thet yet ansther public denunciaton

it
oo erhceming should yyourcontdema nds £0 et
Yaur methods arc ulert emptible and unspeakably vy,
and you ae bhnd 1 the wiedom of the Church %
nends by saying: “In blackenung my name by attackin
o,d.,F.::,:' you O e & moral an. You, Fotber, and v,
cmireres. each owe me a relraction - Tol an apology - by ,
retr acto repair the damage you have
n.* He then saxd d “You must alsoosed
done se far ~* and adde “I have encl 3 simple refrachon ang
pledge for each of you to sign and retum 10 me “ As lar ax we know
Po retracton was forthcomung from either Fr Kelly o any of by
confreres,
see ng
lan't it interetosti how Fr Dolan responded when his fellow
Sedevacammts dared to queshon his ordination? Yel what Bishop
Dolan declares ko be “utierly contemphble and unspeakably evil”
when durected toward himeel, are the very same methods used to cast
doubt upon the new nies of ordination and consecration themselves,
even though they were fully approved by the Church. By doing so, are
these Sedevacantistsot casting suspic uponioelnof the priesis who
have been ordained since the new rile was introduced? 1f “blackening*
Dolan's name by “attackung [fus] ordination” is & mortal sin, how much
mere benious of a cume 1 1L 10 blacken the name of virtually every
#rest who has been evdained over nearly the pa50st years?
1sn't this, tn the words of Bishop Dolan, “scandal mongenng” of
the hughest degree, which blatantly “contravenes Catholic practce™? If
“the Church protects the indvidual prest from scandal and the loas of
his good naxe before clergy and laity alike™ when the vahdity ol his
ordinatien m challenged, how much more would Holy Mother Church
wuh 10 pretect from such scandal and loss the counti es
prie ss s
who
have been ordai intheed
new nie? And what of all the laity who are
now tormented by the doubt caused by the recklese assertions of Fr.
Cekada and those bke hum who many mieguided souls have
en toet
chosat
unfortun y?
trust
Bat, of course, by declaring that most of the Church's priests are
Tt true priests, Fr Celada does help to preserve the survval of s
own Likle sact, since the scandalized sheep who bhindly follow lum will

-
o
Mo
»nd
i
 e
Chapter19
el themselves to be trap
ped, \Magirung thay they
o foe valid sacramenis haye ehe
it's unlikely that Fr Cekada
o oater s deciarmg, iy wiy change
p Pierre-Marun Ngo
o Pt
binh
b POSINON YEars Later® Thue (d 1% g Cel
il the “ThUG ine” CONSecration when he decygng . recegneze,
recogrsing, 38 valic, Dolan's epofisecopaong, e g
;YW theu Sedevacantist co l | to rm e
mmumty gt gy Certrude

e wordsof Pope Leo X1, " Absc

lutely Nulland Uty yors™

—
M“m“.fimmml
e, whe wascocacmtd by B lflh‘"u
Mook i irors Achbaboy g Do M T o e ho et £
o LI cmmn o e ac abop o
.‘."-QHKNMHIMNWm I
'm'm‘mfi
‘ MW'.M".“
T Lg% Chbe that Archbiahep
Thu r's eplacopul camsecraens were
Pori'S o o ~
o hae p.//www
magar, Co
;-u.nq. -
ST
[

s
 Chapter 20

~We Recognize and Resi

st -

now reach the final argument put forward

w:‘\,mn does rot drectly mupport thor e m
used 1 an attempt to force Tradibonal Catholicsyo embrace u:
sedevacannist thesis They do this by clainung that it s absolutely
{whdden to TECORIZE 3 an as bewng Pope, yet resut hus commirg,
s eachun- gs even if the teaching happens 1o depart from what
Cwrch had consistently taught up to that hme
They mnast that 1t
jubndd t0 judg
ene the teaching of one Pope n light of the perenveal
teichung of fus predecessors, or the dogmatic decrees of ecume
nxcal
counclls They declare this to be “sifting the Magisterum.” With tha
apyroiwech,
see, once again, that an ercor in the beginrung an error
nheend
The Sedevacantist Bishop Donald Sanbo articulated the postion
1 be attacked Bishop Williameon for defending ihe stance taken by
Archinshop Lefebvre, which was one of,
“sccepting Novus Ordo popes, but at the same tme
of sfng
therr teachings and disciplines for what 1s Catholic, aad reyectmg
what 15 pen-Catholic He says that s de 50 ¥y one’s own pervomal
choice equivalent 3o hresy, bt # 1 not equivalent b beresy of
one makes the choice based on & two thousand year wadibon.™

Sishop Sanborn argues that this course of action 1s not perxutied.

Y, jdging the teaching of the conciliar Popes in kght of the teactung
# the previous Popes and councils ts exactly what dhe Sedevacamins
Bevucives do They use the same objective measure of Tradiaon 1o “sit”
{d reject the novel
) teachings of the Vancan i Popes. The enly
diference between the position of the Sedevacantists vie-bvie
Tdironal Catholics, 1 this respect. is that rather than sumply reecng
0y novel teaching that w contrary to Tradikon ms«devnn-:’v:‘“
Ar¥her by declanig that the Pope who gave or appoved e
eaching i 5ot a true Pope (and the Church of whach he % the head %
"0 the true Church) Thus, the position of he Sedevacantatos
OPposed to falthiul Catholics 8 sdenhoai, rght up 10 the final
_—
b, “Ranpomos o Biahap Willsm e S hod e Vasuncy
On am, of The Rt
e
= i S e Simmbisiuy et

21
JE—— ——y

Tree or False Pope? Chapter3

evacantisw, which, as we have shown
::'}.::mb{»::r hep ther exceeds ther authoriy and sepure
shem from the Church.
e we wil see 1n th chapter, resisting novel teachings of Pope,
3y
which depart from the concstent waching of the Church, 18 inelf
hl
mdmi\Tnd.lmllfindswppofimthewflhnpolqut
Seotogians and the teschings of the Popes, and there are many-
esul - including saints and future Popes
of the faithf
‘Justarica! exampl
”’gfl;.:uflsum for example, appealed to the decision of & former
Pope (Inewcent [) against the currently reigning Pope (Zosimus), when
the istier refused 1o recograe the previous condemnation of the heretxc
Pelaguus? Pope Zosimus essentually reapencd the door to the Pelapian
heresy, which had pust been defintively settled by hus predecessor , The
Fuanous saying “Remse leculs esi, cousa finita est” (Rome has spoken the
case is closed)’ comes from & sermon St Augustine gave against the
waverng of Pope Zommus m the face of heresy In other words, St
Auguskne publicly “resisied” the current Pope by appealing 1o the
teaching of a previous
:fn‘m duscussing Puorwnhnp of the Popes and theologians on
rswting conunands and seachungs of supeniors (including Popes), I
will be opportune 1o consider the virtue of obedierce (whuch, like
inéallibility, has been greatly susunderssood in the current crisis)

Obedience
In conmdenng the issue of obedsence, we should begin by notng
that obeciance should be directed prmanly to God, and only
secendarily 1o the laws and commands of men. In other words, when
we sbey a parscular isw enacted by man, we ought to obey it witha
wiew i obeying Ged. Pope Pius XI teaches thet 1t 18 unbecomung for
man. who have bren redeened by the blood of Christ, to obey man for
the stzof ment He wrote:
“Tt 1 o this reasen that St. Paul, while Widkiing wives revere
Chrmt 1 thew huaberds, and slaves respect Chriat 0 theis masien,
warm sthem o givc sbadwase 10 them Dot as mon, but as the
—_—
2 Cota: Encyrio(1913, padievei XV, p 764,
*SL Augrastuc did ot me the e2.0¢1 avprossbon. The phease 1 devi ved
fram the
‘Gt s soeraly ot sume s follewios
Mlewe] on she quaion have bowt s o she~Forapmotelic
sleay oo councis [Carhoge 814
sav [Ramne], and replics
m|mu--—b— v-m-—uwa-—-m,wn
 o B 0 o x

" mnB uc r(hrvsuforxlxsmmflmmm

serve ther Fellow-men “You are bougie q%

e th bond-slaves of men.™ e be gt
jow altbough our obecience should be direcied
,,.:z.,b t by
soughhsed God
e «(:I:b10 obey the ust comm of aniyt ds
s
ezmwflml s"‘mfilmns 10 the medum u,.'.y.
w would wi we were truly obeymg
e R eltwill? We show our obedience 1 Gy W :‘:.,m""‘
proceeding from Lawful auihonty, and God el op .
ose who fail 10.d0 50 will be condemnned ~Let every soulbe subect
ghet powers fot there 15 10 power but from God. and those g e
erdain of ed
God Therefore he that
, resi thesi
powe r,et
rasshey:
e odinan ofceGod_ And. they that reset, purchase 1 themastres
unnation” (Rom 131-2)
The Rational Mean Between Two Extremes

While we are bound to obey just laws of lawful authwrity, we e

1ot to obey thoughtlessly and without diecretion. We must recall that
there s a luerarchical order to the virtuex The lower virwues are
subordinate 1o, and meant to, serve the tugher The highest virtues are
the theological virtues (fasth, hope and chanty), which have Ged for
Velr object As St Thomas says, the theological virtue of “Charity wa
grester virtue than obedience * The cardinal vistues {prudence, pstxce,
foritude and temperance) fall beneath the theological virtues.
Obedience, which is a moral virtue, 15 subordinate ko (and pattof) the
cardinal vistu of Jushice
e As St Franc de Sales
issaxd “Obedianclse &
woral virtue which deperds upon pustice.”
Like all moral virtues, obedserice 1 a balance pownt - the rumel
L

mown’ - between excess and defect, and as such can be violated m exther
diechion - that 15, by disobeying a just command (defecth o by
#beying an unyust and sinful comanand (excess)

—_—
:n'vufi-):nuo.-mmumlufl
ST t0a3
& Frarcis de Sakes, The True Syl Cofrrenws o % Fraww & 2o Lomde:
P

x and Sme, 182). p 145 (ewvphais sdded).

P

:nfih-mrywdw-lm s s,
uhuunl—tz:_.au
—-*

True or False Pope? Chapher2

Just and Unjust Laws

Thowas explams that “Laws framed by man are ether yugy

S T Tt thev have the power of Binding n comun
from the sternal lw whence they are denved “ Regarding unyug
,e
he wrot
Inws
ws may be ot 1 twe ways st by bemg contrar1y
Ducsan good 35 when an authonty Wmposes on his subjects
Sordewsome laws, conducve, 1w 36 the common geod, but rather te
o swn cupidity 0 vanglory - o in respect of the author, as when
» e makes 2 law that gocs beyond the power committed to bum -
e 15 respact of the farm, 25 when burdens are imposed uscqually o
the camemunty., lthough with 2 view L# the common good The ke
a0e acts of violcnce rather than laws ()
Secondly, laws may ke unjust through bemng opposed 1o the
Drvine goad such are the laws of tyrants inducing 1o 1dolatry, of to
asything el coniary o the Drvane law and laws of this kind must
nowe be evscred, becaiuc, 2% siated I AcCts 5 29, ‘we ought to
whcy God rathe than man
The uryust laws that St Thomas refers b as “acts of violence, rather
than laws* da not bind 1n conecience, “except perhaps in order to avoud
wandal or duturbance™* The second category of unjust laws
mentioned by the Angelic Doctor - namely, those “contrary to the
Drvine law” - can never
be obeyed, but must be steadfastly resisted
When the command of one superior is contrary to the commandof
a higher authority, we muat resiat the former and obey tha latter In
#uch a case, Tesistance 0 a lower authority la not disobedience, but
rather shadience to the hughet suthority Pope Lea X111 said
“where the pewsr 18 commend wamting, or where & lew 15
wected conitary Le resson, or (0 the clemal law, of 1o some
ordmancs: of Ged. gbadirice
s ualawiyl, fest, whilc obeying man.
we bacorme disobed10ient
Ged "1¢
In another place. Leo Xilt explained that shose who refuse to obey
unyost laws canet be rightly accused of dsobedience

-
BTNy WL
Shnd
Poge Low It (ke fure 2, 1908 rmmphianie sdded).
4
 s prer3
one enly reason which men hisve fac not obey
',y::.s demanded of them which 1s openty 'm
e octhe divinc law for i 15 equally enawful T ;
. {thew subccis] 0 de anyving m which the o o
e o the will of God 15 violated. I, herefore, ¢ shoulq
T any one s compelled 1o prefer onc or the ethr, v
daregacd either the commands of God or those of uler. he s
shey Josus Chnt M—lmmmm
v . for, i
.rm|fl;uowosuimth:wllluld¢hmof(h:‘:yu
hemselves [the authontie s)
nor can their suthonty then be vald, wh
‘whe there 15 10 Justice, s null ™11
Ia hs classic book, H-dbwk:waiTh-b‘y,an‘)h Anton
Xach further explains.
*Unjust laws do not bind 1n coneci becauseenc
ey 'areeack
of violence rather than laws,” as St. Thomas says. la regar ta the
d
abeve, the following peinciples should be borse 1w mind 2} No snc:
s obliged 10 obey a precept which « w morally impossible foc hmm
whifll A law which runs countes 1o the meral law of novare,
et only does not oblige 1n consci
bt must
cac be e.
resued
pessvely Authority, be ot covil oecclesiastical, can never sblige
40 to commut cven a venual sin, for we rust obey God rather than
man Such has aiways besn the will and the teaching of the
Chareh. ™12

Now, just as it would be wrong to obey a sinful command, of a

cmmand that 1s morally “contrary to reason,” 50 oo s it wrong ko
shey a command that is repugnant to the Faith This w evident whan
we coneuder that the purpose of the lower virtues 1 te serve, net
mdermune, the higher Faith, being a theologacal vitue, should never
W putat nsk under the specious pretest of “obedience.”
Reaisting Unjuat Lawa and Commands
As we have seen, sapenors are not o be blindly sheyed i o8
Nogs St Thomas said ~It w written. “We sught o obey God radey
1" Now sometimes the things comman ded
by a superior are sgurst
_—
e Lew XIT Ot S, 1081 frmphiasis added
o mquw-wmmm.\wm"‘

s
P— —y
True or Febe Fope? Chapter3

ll things 13 He went
de.wlflmnbeobty!dma
asn
whylthe
on o exp i 50:
g siied above, he whe ebeys 13 moved at theof biddi ng of the
persen whe commands harm. By a GETUIS necessity Jusice, even
s 2 natural thing 15 moved through the power of its mover by o
sacural necessy That 8 nanural thing be not moved by us mover,
{ay bappen o sccemt of& hundeance ansing from the stcongey
'af seenc ather mover- thus wood s not bunm by fie if
sronger ferce of waser Intervenes.
ILngs First on account of
e command of a higher power For a a gloss says on Romans
132 "Ia commus1ssuc ionc r _are you to comply
an onder if 1t,
couwary se the ddung of the proconmil” Agan. if the proconsul
command cuc Lhmg, aed the emperos another, will you hesiute to
drsregand the former and serve the lanter” Therefore, 1f, e emperor
sommunds e tuag snd Ged another, you must disregard the
farandmne God
obev r
New, tha principle applics equally to a Pope, who # also a man.
Should a Pope command anything contrary to the natural or Diine
law, of to the common good (which must ulamately be ordered to the
salvabon of souls), he must not be obeyed, but resisied Suarez
confirmed
this, when he wrole:

“If fthe Pepe] pves an order conteary 1o good customs, he

sheuld set he obcysd. 1 he akempts 1o do somcthing, mamfexly
opposed 10 ustice and the cemmen good, st will he lici to resist
tum. 1f he stacks by farce, by force he can he repelled with&
modenition apprepriale te 2 st defense ™15
Juan Cardinal De Torquemada, O P (d 1468), who was selected to
Tepresent the King of Castile and tus celigious arder at the Counal of
Florence, explained how broadly a Pope could exceed his authorily, in
which case he must be rassied. He wrote:

“Akbough # clearly follews from the circumetsnces that the

amd cesnmand whings whih must not be donc.
et we are nat 10 i wply hedient 10 hum 1n ol things, that does
¢ shorw it he naust %0t be obeyed by all when his commands si¢
#ood To know 1w what caues b ke he obcyed and in what nol,
-
-S'-.‘u.uu.u

v D i (Pace, Vivan, 19903, val, X, p 321,

2
 P -

s the Acts of the APOSIes “One ought t ebey God rahr

" therefore, B"—"E-M_WMM
o _tbe_
of s
Gkr
,us ci
oyes
of g
Lo s
W@fl%
i to_be_obeyxd. but 1 such commands, be pamad sver
(dpicrendus)
da s clear that a Pope can excerd b awiborkty n
dmsm'swnnn oto-uymmnqhhmmhw“
ooy ,bu(ilsolhtp!rmnuldmplm.uwpdh
Church (“he truth of the Sacraments”) and even the dogmac of the
fath tself {"Scripture” and “the artiof
clfah
es") In saach
case,
feuemada’s solution 13 not that of the Sedevacantis, whch%
ciare the Pope & heretic who % 0 longer Pope Rather & = ,40
wogruze and resist the Pope, who "ought not to be obeyed *
Torquemada then went on to quoke Pope Innacent [1L, who said a
tope should not be obeyed if he goes agamet the universal cussoms of
e Church®
“Thus 1t 15 that Pope Innocent states (n Dc Conmuctdme) taat
W pecessary 10 obey & Pope in sl thiogs s leag as he docs aat
hmeeif o agarnet the umrversal custems of the Church, bet should
Be g0 against the unversal customs of the church, he sught 5ot 1
e oheyed 17

Here Pope Innocent 111, who, an we saw s Chapler §, lught thata

Tope can “wither away inito heresy,” surularly saches that the Pope
ann fact "go against the universal customs of the Church” and when
hedoes5, "he ought not to be obeyed™ (ot that “he must e deciared
deposed by prvate judgment™)
of fhse
Fr Nicholan Gruner (d 2015) had a great commund
#aaples In his article “The Fatiza Mesage and Probiem of Fale
%n,'umummmpb.m

“Now, since all authonty comes from Ged. we ebey mea

bocause - and onfy because - Sheir authonty ultumately 1 basod upon
God's authonity And this obedicnce, whese ¥ ducs Dol comtsvoss
God's v, 1 actanlly an act of justce of gring to smcibc. 2
Uomately ug God, what 3 due Bt God dos act gve asy mee
— -
m&.‘,‘““-""““""'"""',‘,,";"';’""" -
. of Noeflk (Landen.
BM Pichering, 175 Ormun Traion,P
x:"‘”‘“-&.«umc—-—m The Evatructn of the

<
PR— ——y
Troe or Faloe Fope? Chapier29
conyasd, ror anye the nghtne10 ebey »
e rvvenes. e conemands He bts grven us ncluding, the
ivé e Jaw of the Gospel. which 15 the_posiive luu o
B Kimg. Moreover, il suhonty on canh 1 limiod by
v decree. Mot cven the PopePope has unhmited suthorty And we
S e lanaion of e s wuthorty ¥y Reveluon,
Senpeure, Traditron, and the leachings of the suthenic
Magoerm, both Ordinary and Universal, a5 well a5 the
Eximordnery Magwseruum 1n s dogmat ic definttions* 18
Negative Commands
Now, just #6 1t % sometunes necessary o disobey s pesime
command {8 command 1o de something), 50 100 s 1t sometmes
necessary 1o disobey & Hegatwe command (a command nof to do
something) ™ This 1 the case when obedience 30 a negative command
would prevent & person from dong what yustice and charity demand
For example. if superior forbade an inferior from paying s bill that he
justicd
in e
ow r not make other arrangementsto
e {and 1f the supenodid
enmure the bill was paid), obedience to that command would be unust,
and therefore excesmve Ln this case, obedience would not be in accord
with justice srchanty ¥or ths reasPope on,St Greg Greatysaid
the or

“Know that evil ought never o be donc by way of obedience,

though semetimes something good, which 1 being done, ought 10
be diconheued sut of ebedscnce "
Notce St. Gregery dess et say that which is good ought alueys
be discontinued
out of obedience, but only semetimes, that is, when
it is
ot centrary
to justice to obey Thus also brings up the notion of “wlind ‘
shedience” which must be properly understood Blind obedience does
net imply that one must obey without discretion, nor that one must
#bey & commund he knows (o be sinful As Fope Benedict
XIV

™ Sar i/ [ wwe datenn vg/ ews{ nawrieves [ rewaviewsDS010 pdf {omphase it

) Nete that 57 hnfldnvdnlh&rfi/dw-cm'!‘mll(u\lhw'
:_-:-;:t-hy whe sald The pupe 1s nat an shwslute swtirch whese will Js v
Fuardion of the sutberoc Tradition, and tharviry the pramier gusranie o
© We say somekines becaver it 1o mever permissible: W act serarary fo the raturat of
Divine
i Lo althsgh 1 i sommetomas pormisutle 16 ast iy o human posive I
*Tradem,
Mo, 1210. V. o 8, !—:4 n Covmassonsswy, The Dastruchen of she Chrtion

o
peroe =y ay

sotion of blind cbedience is meant 1o

:;fi:fi"““ and self-wil), not the prudence of ':,",:r:"“ o
<A saperior 15 1oL 10 b obeyed when be commads
mm’,\yma.um 1aw 13 we resd Grawam nt:::
onk 1o obey fus sbbot wh:nhe:m-u.mym.,,m 1
e, sccording 10 the well-tnown leker of St Becrand & oo
sk Adam A blind obecicace excldes the prconc of es g
e prence of the spirs, 2 thawn ot leagth by Semer
sce man is by mature a rational being. he should not act
ratorally (contrary to hus nature) through a false notion of obedsence
In the famous twelith century Dialogue between & Clumac and &
Gutercun, we read thatirrabional service is not pleasing 4o God
“We must heed our superiers with complete sbedwace, even
Wough they lead 1mproper lives, o long as they rule over w and
matrct vs 10 accordance with the authority of divine law If,
bawever they are 50 completely perverted towards meral rum thet
they do not follow the authonty of divise Taw 18 raling over o
whjects, bt follow 1nstead thew ewn willful wapulecs aed fancies,
then et us, as scandalized and displeased subjects heedful of the:
dictat of divine
es law, flee from therm 2 we would frem blnd
losders, lest together with them we fall imte the mit of siernal
dunnation Trranonal service 15 not acceptable 1o God, a6 the
Apoutle tells us sn commanding “rescemable sarvice’ (Row.
1y

Obedience to a sinful command wll not excuse on udgment day

Inaletterto Pope Gregory XI, St Catherine
of Swena wroke:
“Alss, Alas, my most sweet Father thosc wha obev
jeuil
#astars) full inio disorder and iniquity Alss. | say thes wik serrew
How dangerous ts the consuming reed of seif-leve (om the port of 2
Pastor] not only because 1f destreys dus awa seul, dur abe bermse
itlends
30 man, others
to Hell 3

— e
Toukoe
o Beneic K1V, vol 1] (Lorlan: Thoreas R bardsn am S, 1653 P
. e sddedy chogan, Coerss
s of Prusening, Cietrcions ol Chunesn (Kalimsnos NEPE 0o
SLeww S Suinie Catherir di Sterne (1w s P Teqs.
at
DM o e it Trehim, 115 trmgiam sl
£
——_fi
Trwe o Faloe Pope? Chapter3

e sec later, was forces

who, 83 we will
saintly Bishop Grossetest
.;’:M.u.q-umwdoh?ope. wrote:
“These who preslc w thi tmost Hely See are most principal
meng mocats clethed with the person of Chn mdlhaefm'::
“ 1n them eapecially the works of Christ should thin,
o that there should b wothng contrary 16 Chost’s works 1n them
And foc the same reason, just as the Lord Jewss Chnst mus be
obcyed 1 all nags. 90 ales those who preswde 1n this sec, msofu a
shey are clothed with Chinst and are s such truly presiding, must be
ohcyed m all things. Bt 1f asyome of them (which God forbadt),
should put on the clothing of kingship and the flesh of the wortd o
anydung cloe cxcept Chns, and foc love of such things should
command saything contrary to Chnst's precepts and wil, aavane
Choe and froce Hos By which s the Chure. "
Epikeia
with the theme of lawful obedience to laws and
communds, 52 Thomas defines law a# an ordinance of reason, for the
comamon good, promulgated by one who has care of the community
(that s, ome i authonty}® The purposeof law is to guldeman in hus
actions, 5o that he will more easily attain the end for which he was
created. Due to the Fall, man's intellect has been darkened and hus wil)
weakened Consequently, man often errs 1n hus judgment (defect of the
intellect), and chooses what he ought not {defect of the wall)
The law 15 wnkended 10 serve as a remedy for these defects. The
letter of the law mdorme the intellect what should be done and what
should be svouded, while the sanctions help motivate the will to choose
corractly But, snce law u only 8 general ordinance which does not
foresee all pomible circumstances, it sometimes happens that a law,
§00¢ n rielf, becomes iurious, and therefore contrary to the
Inkention of the lawgiver In such arcumatances, as S¢. Thomas teaches.
“it s good (0 set snade the letter of the law and 1o follow the dictates of
Justice and the common good **
This excephon te the letier of the law s called qpukess, or “equity *
First proposed by Anetotle and further expounded by St Thomas,
-
S emerandum 30, ed. Gicker, pp 33363, clond I Toe Religwus Rele of The POpcy:
““"“““n*flhm—muymn:;mt—#
oo st e oo MadievalSosdis.
S 197, pp 168156 (amphasi sddec)
Ry 8

430
 e Recogmize ama ek v

1 15 & moral virtue and a subjective part of

:fl:’m townrd both posve and negatve hm: which can be
”‘: [
Ziefend the common good, the judgment of M"""hmn
pdwidualsFrOM OPPIESSIon by the abuse of power *» [y yes g :
poied, however, that one cannot appeal 1o eprkera to pusaty
e natural law, nor will evnunderm.nmm.'b“:‘d‘ml
1t 18 used only "“‘"MW"’"“"‘"’“MW':;“'
Hansary to the intentton of the law-gver % be
In short, epikeia 12 good old-fashuoned common senae (ngit
rewon) applied dunng extraordinary or unforeseen arcumstances [
s much needed vistue dunng the present cre in the Church, when the
lete of the r
law 15 50 often used by the wolves in shepherds” cothung to
the fasth. lnthecummxthunln*nn-dm
scruple when necessity req epikea bees
uir
thet applied As St Thewas
taught eight centuries ago: “Necesseta nen hwbet legem® (10 the wme of
pecessity there 15 1o law”) %
We have various examples of epikeia in the Scrptures. For
example, Our Lord violated the letter of the law when He healed s mun
{Mk. 31-6) and a woman (Lk. 13 14) on the Sabbath. And in the Gespel
ol St Matthew. Jesus defended the Aposties when, bewng hungry, they
violated the letter of the law by piclang com on the Sabbath. When the
Phansces, who were the legal posttivists of their day, obecied - “thy
daciples do thet which is not lawful to do on the Sabbath” - Our Lord
defended them by pointing to David who humself violated the leter of
ihe law out of necessity (Mt 12.1-4) Thus, cpikesa, which sets aide the
posttive law for the dictates of the common goed (and salvatien of
souls being the hughest good), was practiced and defended by Our
Lord Hamself.

IYSTONe 10 end2

o underuable
- g accrpuerce by ol
o Lt iy, e Hossm, Nt o Ut o DS
A

of Amaries Fros,
D C Cahein kineveraity
{Hbwrgton,
SHLymae
4t
—— gy
Traeor False Fope? Chapter2

A Pope Who Trys to Destrey the Church

\heologuirs have speculated about the hypothesis of
i 1o desteoy the Church They unanimonsly feach tht s
T octamon were o occus, the Pope would have 10 be steadactly
ed Captan, for example, while rightly defending the thess thay
1o one has authonty over a Pope, nevertheless explains that ne
authonty & nevded 10 resist an aggressor He said
“ARbough 1t % permusiblc for anyenc (o repcl force from
Jumeeifor his neghbor, with a foree according to the standard of
lasrcicns reaponse, neverthless, 1t 15 nol permussible for {jus]
snywnc 10 pustish Rum for resorung fo force Smilarly, although
amysc iy could kill 2 pope who amacked him, while defending
Jumeelf [froon the anmck]. nesertheless, n0 onc 15 permitted ta
porish a pope for hemmecide by the death penalty *
Then, applying this 10 2 Pape who would attempt o destroy the
Chuarch, he wrote
“Therc resit, 18 s face, & pope who 15 openly
you mustfre,
seanng the Church apart, for cxample, by refusing to confer
ecclesiasmcal benefices except for moriy. of in exchange foc
senvices acase of sunony, even committed by 2 pope. must be
denounecd “*
Cajetan's irwtructions reflect the common doctrine of the Church's
theologuans, who all beach that Catholics can lnufully resist an evil
Fope, who seeks 10 destroy the Church, without having to commut the
unlouzful act of "pudgment by usurpation.” that 1s, declaring the Fope is
nolonger the Pope
Dunng the same penod, another Donunican theologian, Sylvester
an evil Pope
O P (d 1523) also addreseed the necessity fo resist
Prieras,
muflwm the Church. He asked, “What should be done in
cases where the pope desieoys the Church byby his evil actions?” He

“He would seciemty un, he should nerther he permitted 1 pct

such Sashsen, tior should he he obeyed m what was cvil, but he
should be rosumted with a courteout reprelensron. Comtequently,if
 e Recogmize < o o

shed 10 gve eway the whole essure of

p":,:,:m.y of Saint Peter to his relatives, o ey T O the
of the fike. he should not be permiked to
it one would he obliged to resist him Lo Fshon,
wmmsmmmmiw
| 15 it to fusy The resul
1fthe Pope destroys the Church by his orders and ofactil beso1 thaee
reststed and the excoution of his mandaies prevented The ght of
iF 1o prelates’ sbuse of suthonty siems slse r,.:“
natural low{ )
Second proof of the thesis. By Notural Law 1t 1s hen tp ropel
wolence with violence Now shen, with such onders ad
dispensations the Pape exens violence, since he ac sgunt the
Law a5 we have proven Therefore, 1t 1 hew 10 rest him. Ag
wicone could have compctence 0 1wdge the Pogc e hyve
Vs [ N
Indecd, anyonc has the right to Tesist an unjust act, e key te peevent
wand o defend himself "%
After discussing at length the supreme authonty of the Pope, Van
Noert wrote

“Finally from the docwrine outhned abeve, s should wet loup

to the absurd conclusion that eil things are it te the pope, or thel
he may tum things topsy turvy m the Church st mere whim
Possession of power 13 one thing, 8 nghtful uee of power quite
snother The supreme ponti¥ has recerved his pewes for the rake of
building up the Church, not teanng it down It exercising hu
wpreme power he 15, by divine low, stnctly bound by the hm;]l
sutice cquity, snd prudence |t 13 possiblc, of course. 3 1
afon luver‘xcd by mmen, foc abuses 10 croep tn ad for akerratons
to occur»
In his classical work, Mora! wd Dogmahc Theogy (1859
Archbishop Francle Kenrick sald the Pope's “power was given for
edificetion, not for destruction,”and then added. “If he uss: It [as he

— Vs
de Foante
*Dulog Obots e Framewr
de - ocw
us Poper, ctted by Vitaia Franci wry-
Ve ilA iy ortvpintiaype ety
V48 Nuwrt, Cutsrs Comreh, p 20
&
——*

Troe oc Falee Pope? Chapier39

sught] from the loveof domumon (guad abst) scariciv will he meet ity
lations.”
*fi:‘ummmmm«m.mpammmnmm
pope who e poudige
but God In esponding
to several o N
’ mwm;;mummllssuwflwmlhef‘mfl
Bellarmene explans that & Pope who destroys the Church can 4y
pabici reasied but he cannot be Judgod, punshed or deposed g
such acrime He wrote.
“Arespond fiuly we authonty 15 roquired 1o resist an invader
and defond oncocll ather authonty 15 required 1o judge and
& Thercfore, just 8 1 would be lawful 0 resist & Ponalr
Tavadng & bedy, 30 1t 1s Jawful 10 resist hum wnvading souls or
dsnurbing & atc. v
pw ful i
camenynds, and by blocking b, Jesi he should carry out bus will,
soll 1t 15t lawfil o pudec or purish of even depose him, because
Sce Cagetan™ on this matter and
Jokn de Turecremans.

We nwte that the above atation from Bellarmine about not judgung
the Pope does not pertain to & Pope who s teaching heresy As we saw
in Chapters 8 and 9, Bellarmune clearly teaches, along with Cajetan and
athes, that a Counctl could in fact “pudge”a Pope who fell nto hersey
{who would then be deposed by God) ® Indeed, Bellarmine says that
“herway” 13 “the only reasen where It is lawful for Inferiors to juige
mupenors.*# and ths ls why be says “a heretical Pope can be
dged-«
Fermal and Materia] Separation
ummhmmuummmwmmmfld
Conwmntinople forbrds anyone o separate from thewr Patriarch, based
tpon the alleged knowledge of a crime, before the matter has been
-
* Thost Maral p o3158, cied i Newman, Jobet Herwy, A Letir Addresond 0 HGoe,T
ey
* Traclolo de muctarivte Payar 1t Concib,
SlaalShleh b ~z
:n.-.—h-w W2A S wvauh twanslaban: by Ryan Grant)
“bnfl-nom'hm;mu:nyymumw*‘"
\eppreprise [udgnord of the parsen o the Pepe, but rather the userially heeid!
sP W 2 3, amaon by Ry an Grand (emphase sdded)

©4
We Recogrres = Chapter29

asynod But It is mportant

16 make a dutincy
‘%b-yewflm 20 3 formal scparsto n A o Setwveen a
e subect reyected hus Lawful superior andt declared (hat the
ot’mo‘.h‘,m.umnnlyovtrhxm Am.lrn.lmm"m
2P ate authonty must be avoided for Teas necesatty Such3
ofons
wrarton 15 due 10 extTaORdinary Crcumetances, mch ag he need vt
ot oneself from danger A wike and -
ngpgnbefmmmabu!vehushnddhrnhykn'm:
e though the husband has authonty over them. Such » mawns;
separation does not require that the wife and children repect the
husband's authonity, as such, nor does it mean the wife has formaty
ted from the husband (e, by dworce)
Sumlarly, # person would be pustiied i seperatig from s pre
aceven the Pope he posed a physical threat. In ths case, a watenal
on would be jushfied a a matter of self-defense, according 1o
e natural law The same principle holds true f 8 prelate or Pope
poses 2 spiratual danger In such a case, 2 matenal separaton may not
sly be [ustified. but may be absolu necessary (sce
tel our spmtual
y
wefare is more important than our physical welfare) Such a materal
separation can occur without requinng formal separation, # in the
and the abusive husband
cowe of the wife
As applied here, 1o the extent that the Modernust prelates of our
day {including the Pope} have posed a apinihual danger to the faithiul
{eg, through ecumenism, liturgical abuses, novel doctrnes, ek),
Githolics are justified and, at tmes, even compelled fo mavnally
wparate from them to avoud the denger, while not rejecting thew
asthority On the other hand, Sedevahave can formaly
het separated
s
from the conctliar haerarchy {the Pope and bishops) because they de
ot recognize them as holding vahid offices in the Church, and thos
frect their authonity as such. Because their reyecmon of lawful authonty
#baed 11pon their own private judgment and not the pudgment of the
Church, Sedevacantists embrace schism and come under the ansshems
-

#the Fourth Counil of Constantmopie.

Resisting the Exercise of Autherity

¥

From what we have sce, t should be clear Gt refusg obedince

*a partcular command of a lawful superor, e aierpang 0 heder
A from harming the Church, does not requee that we Fot 200
$uhorly to rule an such. St. Thomas sakes the imporiant
"Menmunn...upmummumdhbmm'!‘"‘“
%,
P Ty
frwe or False Pepe? Chapter3

denying ".: ok the tofollowng

rule© In hia Commentery ot the Bog
about St Paul. who continued gy
G, . Peter aa Pope, yet -ramsted” hum 10 1us face St Thomes
nowed.
“[The Apontic oppescd Peter in the gxcrcise of authonty, net
s gutbon of ty
lug Therefore. from the foregong we have an
Cxampic for prclacs, an exampl of hurmibiy. that they not sdara
eorrecwens from thosc who are lowcr and subject to them, while
ects have an example of acal and frecdom, 50 they will not fear
t» comect thewr prelates, parucularly if thewr cnme 15 public and
danger 1o the multitude:
V-Fi'kl.:mm of the rebuke was not shight, but just and useful,
naomely 3 demger 1o Uk Gompel tesching () The manner of the
rebuke was fimong, 1 ¢, public and plain For this reason, St Paul
wriies ] spoke to Cephas,’ that w, Peter, ‘before cveryong,” since
the sumulaion practiced by SU Peter was fraught with danger 18
everyonc This 6 10 e understoed of public sins and not of privale
acs, 10 which the geoceduses af fratcmal chanty ought 1o be
shacrved "
Using this histoncal example, St. Thomas indicates that the
grounds for reswhing & Pope’s exercise of authonty must be to prevent
# danger
%0 the farth (“the danger
#o the Gospel teaching”), which is
necestanly harmful 10 souls. In such case, the Pope must not only be
rwmsted, but 1f the danger n a public mattes, he can and should be
rebuked, even publicly Commenting on the same event in the Swmms
Theologica, St. Thomas agaun noted Lhat the public rebuke of St Paul
was pustilied

Thus, SL Faul, who

wie
3 subgect of SL Peter,
And, as the Glossa
of St Augustine puts #t {Ad Galatas 2 14), *St. Peter himself gave
the cxamplc 1o these who govern 50 thet 1f semctimes they Sty
frerm the right way tacy will %0t rejact a correction as unworthy
€van f 8 o from thert subjccts, =4
_
© Thie dutratar, jm fact, 1 the hey dillararar betwoen Tradisienal Cathelis {whe
:l"""'::-'rd"-"rumhn--—.n.m—um.mh-mymhufi
2dbvan) ond -Sedevacarsms. .l‘(whe demy the Poper's sutherity
so rule)be) 1
“e
Cammemtory on 5¢ Poul'ss ke - e oo,2. 1114,
¥ ) omphasie
s es) )

3%
peees \rapter)
luatrious exegete, Comelius a Laprde, alay
“:;,,gmkc In hucmmhqm&hmkm:“
i Paul was pubIKc “1n Order hat he public scandy] comneg gL%o
ghthe removed by 2 public rebuke * Ther, 2 bde Luer headdz -
“For supeniors may in the Wnterests of wuth, e corre
e mferons Augustine (Ep xix ), Cypeun, 0:..,., " ;{
Thomas ay down this Proposition n msstasmmmg ale th Prer,
thesupenar, was cosrecied by s imfener The mfereace from whet
ey say 18 that Paul was aqual te the other Aposies, isnar o
Petcr, and hence they all were Peter's micriars, they were the haads
of the whole Church, and Peicr was the chuef Gregory (Hom 13
w Fzech } says “Pater kept silcnce, that the firs in dgruty mught he
fist n hunubty,” and Augustune says the same (Ep xix af
Hicron} “Peter gave (0 those whe should fallew huw a rave md
Woly example of humilicy under cormection by mfenocs, ac Pau) ded
of bold resistance in defense of truth to subondmmes agu thex
supenors, chanty being always preserved. ™%

It is not a coincidence that God wepired St. Paul o record this

event in Scnpture No doubt, God wanbed 1t bo be known that is B,
wd cven necessary, to publicly resist a Pope whese pubiic actions:
endantheger faith
Correcting one who errs is an act of chanty, provided, of course,
Ibe rules of charity be followed St Thomas explains that this act of
durity should also be extended o prelates. in hw Commenis on e
Sentences of Peter Lomsbheand,
wrote:
“Fraterna) cofrection, beiag @ spatusl alms. % a werk of
mercy But mercy 13 due wanly te the Prelatc sisce be rums the
wreatest danger Hence St Augu Regula a1, PL 32,
says in sune
1384) "Have pity not only oo yourselves, but on them as well.” tat
. on the Prelaics "among you whe rum 3 deager a6 high ac the
positien they occupy * Therefore, frascral cotrecnen cximds slos
o Prelates
Furthermore, Ecclus, 17 12, says that Ged 'gave 10 cvary e
afthem commandment concermng his neighbor " Now.a Prelue i
o neighbor Therefore, we must comect him whew be s
Some say that fraternal comectica does wet caiend fe the Prelat.
—— ——y
True or Falee Pope? Chapier29

-_m ,m‘ For this reason W precept of fratemal m...fl"‘“"“m

ammnumhnwmmmyhemb,m
subpects ™"
Bishep Robert Grosseteste
hy
One example of a prelate resisting a Pope in the exercised ofan the
authenty, widle continumng to recogniae him as Pope, ),1 foun
a dock or of
lfe of the saint ly Bish op Robe rt Gros sete ste (d 1253
theolegy at Oxford After reluctantly accepting the office of Bishop of
(o appoint the Pape's
Lincoln, Pope Inoocent 1V asked Grosseteste pries
. Frederck de Laragna (an abscntee t). o one of the
o hu diocese The appomtment would have enabled the
Pope's nephew to racewe an uncome from tus diocese while hving in
Reme Although Bishop Grosseteste was descnibed as “probably the
most ferve nt and thorough going papalistabusamo ng medieval Engleh
witters,”® seemng the command as a clear e of papal authority, he
ceplied a8 follows.
“1t s well knewn to your widons, that | am ready 10 obey
Aposolrcal comnuands with filsl affection, and with all devation
and reverence, but (0 these things which are opposed to Apostolical
cornrands m my zcal for the honour of my parent, | am also
opposcd. By Apomolical commands are meant those which are
agreesblc ta the teaching of the Apestics and of Christ Himeetf, the
Lord and Master of the Apostics, whose type and representation15
specully bome m the ecclesitierarchy mtical by the Pope The
leiter above mentioned 1 not conson ant sancaty,
with Aposiclical
but on the conrary ulerly at vanance and at discord with 1%

He then proceeded 10 argue, first, thatthetheChrparistnicanularrelicom mand

gon, and |
reuld detush and confuse the pucty of

I 2.2 en
5 2.rv ——
& 19ko
¥ 1V Somims ot i Jn Vermar's /evoart’s ““ Resishng, [
Wayws
E""‘"”“"“"‘( I;h-

, e Rebg ms Rae of Tis Papac y ity pnd Rt 11581300

¢ ot g Pecsmical Lot of MeciaeStudi slon, 1989, pp 141162
Server sen, Franc a Seym eur
ival Reber t Grome iele Bishop of Linca n, ¢ caniribuien
o o]1
Magmas, pristicnl and wislioc iuaiocy uf e Burtornit arnbury (Londen. Macklilan
318
Co. Linviod 109p ,

L)
 peme hepier2
1 5 et possible. thercfore. that the spone
s boen handed down from Chirsy Humaelt powr
sok for destruction can 1ssuc 3 pracept
s o the human cace as this, for 1o do w‘:...h;‘tmm"m o
{allng, off. & corruption and abuse of 1ts most holy sy spers.”
yoser No one who 15 subject and arhfl 10 he vag ‘g
pomaculale 3nd SIncere Gbodice can ohey cammandso
such 15 this even i € ema
from n
the hghe
sndiy o
ds but he must of necessity,
and with ki wheic
oeadict and rebel apaa them. -
Grosseteste wenl on ta say that [t 1s due 0 his sbedience1o
sod he fidelity to the Church and 10 the Apostolic See, that he refusged
3 sbey the commofan
the d
Pope He argued
that the
coatrary (0 the urity and sanctity of the Church, as well as the
vt and m;mdofsauls”tar;mdhlokmn;h’;:w o
wutd tend to the destruction, not the edificabon, of the Chwwch. He
wrole"
it out of filtef reverance and sbedsonce that | duebey, renet,
ad rchel To sum up the heluess of the Apomelic Sce can anly
tend 1o edification, and not 10 destrucuos, far the picnimude o m-
power cenmists in being able 10 do of] Uhgs e edificasen. These
previsions, however, as they are called, are et fior edificaben. but
within the e,
for mantfest destruction They are not, therefor pewse
See they owe their tapiration(@ flcsh and bioed”
of the Apostolic
which "shall not inhent the kingdom of God,” and aet (0 the Father
of our Lord Jesus Chnst who m in heaven.™

When Pope lanocent IV received Grosseteske’s rephelv,

became
furoHeus. a3)d “Who 15 thus raving old man, hus desf and foolsh
dviard, who In his audacity and tementy judges my actions”® But the
webis who were present (Cardinal Epdius and Giles de Torres,
Archbushop of Toledo) had the courage ¥ side with the Buhop. They
934, “We cannot condemn him. he = Cathot, yea and most holy,
e strcet n his relygeous observances than we are.and. indeed he
Wleved to have no equal [in sanctity],
o Ves. Thia st oflessFrance
a supenor ,of among
and
is known to the whole clergy “u"';“m,,,,m England..
4d our oppoaition to hum would be of no &
~whkhlu-byu.umpuluplmw‘m»“"

—_—_—
Ly
™ PP 031t

')
3y,
—— *

Trve o Falee Pope? Chapier33

— agamat us, for he is held
’P‘:’]’ the P\"":'n;" ;,...4 “‘: ::'l:{m champion of shce, 2 ,,:df: ;:
losophet. 2 preacher to the people and a persecy
deology in the schodls 8 BT, O Nt all of the thars ape>
gpeed and tock the Bishop's s, which 15 quite remariati;
Fove that they were i the presence of the Pope
The hesoman, France Sievenson, noted that Bishop Grosetest ;
Jetter to the Pope was not an attack on the authonty of the Pope, by
ity om an abuse of he exercuse of s authority. In hls own words
It will he ohscrved that the lewter w an atiack, ot upon the
ahory of the Papal See, to which. indeed, Grosseteste repeatedly
axpresses b devetion, but upon specific abuses and comuptions
connccted witk 1 agroe The Bishop’s desire 15 10 punfy and
srengthen the Church, by elimunating from 1t all causes of offense,
ané occamens for falling His method of controversy 1, t may
e o, the sme 26 11 was 1 the days when he resisted the King's
appotnimen of abbets 45 ncrant justices, be begins, that 1s 1o say,
by coamg the exset 1ext, 1 the one casc, of the royal mandate to the
Abbat of Esrmecy, and, 1 the other case, of the Pope’s letter to the
Anchdescon of Canterbury and Maser Ianocent, and from these
parkculas inetances he deduces, on the suength mumly of
argumests derved from Scripture, conclusions applicable, n the
former msance, o the geseral question of the nvasion of the
liberues of the Church by secular terference, and. in the isticr, to
the peneral question of the wee and abuse of Papai Provisions "
Here we have an example of a saintly prelate disobeying the unjust
comaund of 2 Fope What we can learm from this is that i our day,
when the Faith i beng undermuned continuously by prelates
(incleding the current Pope), the fasthful are certamnly jushfied
Twisting them in the exercise of their authonty without, however.
having e deny thewr authority to rule by declanng them deposed Our
Lerd Himwelf wamed us to beware of wolves in sheep's clothing.
telling us that “¥ the bund lead the blind, both will fall Into the pit”
{Mt 1514) And the biind guides he was refernng were the religious
lead of bers
day (Mt 231517, 23-24) But nerther Our Lord, nor even
the Aposties, deciared that the rellgious leaders had lost thetr office 1
fact, i the very same chapter of SL Matthew’s Gospel, in which Our
Lacd dclared the Pharisses 1o be hypocrites and blind guides (Mt
_
"
L pp 31112 fomphants added)
 Recogniae ana sesich
e Chapter2
1316), he acknowledged that they lawful, Ysmmfiao\.‘,.,um
(fiLBm)

Refusing Assent to Erronesns Teachings

We have sen that obedience s
e and negati
and tove
gener
)al laws does
_’;';,,a,..nd should uwuhm?wwfg“
and that TesISUng a person in the exercite of hig authonty ‘.:'dt
equure ur)m we reject hie authonty, as mich (e, by caimung he hag I:
husoffice)
But what about the requirement of giving rels
wchngs of prelates, even Popes, when such ":""lm o the
1o what the Church has conmstently teught?
fauhful to refuse 10 listen 10 such Papes, and s 101t ramst
MT.“"."_
thew neval
dctrnes,36 Fr Cekada and s Sedevacantt colleagues muggeat? We
bave seen that we can resist unpust laws and comemands, bt what
about resisting erroneous t-d-np’fiwmmpk,wmlhr-pem
to leach publicly that abortion s permismble Weuld Cathelics have an
obligabon to accept this teaclung, or would it be it 4@ reject 07 If 2
Pope were to make a public stabement (as did Pope Francs) suggesting
that the souls of the damned are annutulated {which would mean there
1510 hell), are Catholics simply required & abandon what the Church
has consistently taught about hell and embrace the novelty Wt i
contrary bo Tradition? Would that be reasonabe?® To ask the quavhon
toanewerit.
Nevertheless, Fr Cekada clayms that Cathol cancs
enly resist a
Pope’s evil contmands but not hus evil decirmes and isws. Ta that end,
Celada accuses Tradibonal Catholics of “wundlesly meyeimg”
uotation from Bellarmine, who sexd “1 say, # is lawful 10 resat hun
[ihe Pope], by not doing what he commands,™ $ jusiify the recegruze
and resist position. Fr Cekada claims we have failed to wnderstand the
e meaning of Bellarmuine’s quoke, which sancions resstuxce (0 evit

245 12 e frm the eaching of Popes nvacent Bamd Adean V.t s of

Fiooarion ac Johe XL, s omesich ey (et & e e
It declared 10 e herray) to the Church. We have also seen Gom Popes Tt eonid
20 el 6 S Thomsaa it heresy ("Uhe goins of hl') 6 the oy e JMe S0
ey the Church (wt which Chrin prevens Wewgh B 92 7
FIKbiy), Thus, we shoud not il 6 passte b & i P o0 S8 700,
ot e € i et rul v el e kg wpn the Courch (0 957 K00,
B rot prevadl’) anul our shiigeen to romc il W sught to oy S8 SR
0% e sl recograaing the Pope » sulhesty (b st o the Chal
O Romans Pomibtfr,
2. ch. 29
-
p—— T
e Fope’
ox Faloe
Tre Chapter3

b\nwlhwndm-smd hws(asunh-:hn.,m‘y
posttion))s gy
cimbon used to support the Recognize and Resist
his wrtingy
exadas focws on this sungle quotation from Bellarmune in teache
and wurrors. First, since Bellarmune s thyy
i more
idmual Catholics cannot depose heretical bishops (or declare them
which amounts 10 the same thing) and that a Pope can e
udged by the Church for heresy - two teachungs of Bellarmune that Fe
Cekada demies - Cekada s cleasly not the best person 10 explain the
“rue meaning” of Beilar munngs.
s teachi e
Second, s we will see below, Popes Adrian Il and Paul tes1y
resisted wh
best
‘teach that a Pope can and mu heen
“devia
from the fasth” ot 1 “accused of heresy Thus, the teaching that 1t 1
hcit o resst evil Popes is not limuted 1o their “evil commands” a
Cekada contends, but encompass papal departures from the
any es
Faith (we also saw Torquemada condonc reswhing & Pope who
contraducted “Scripture, the articles of faith, or the truth of the
Sacramens”) Thurd, while Bellarmune (in the quotation cited by
Cekada) wses the term “command” and not teaching, the distinction
wrelevant since some Machings are practicel truths, not just speculative
truthe. When it a question of # pracical truth, does Fr Cekada really
believe it is licit bw reset the teaching and command of a Popein
practicr, s kng 8 one accepts the teaching siwelf? For example, if &
Pope ware 1o teach that 1t is permissible for divorced and awilly
“remacried” Catholics %o receive Holy Commuruon, and then
commanded prests to distribute Communion to such people, would
Fr Cekada cfum tt s hait for a priest 1o resist the command, but not
hold da
bt 10 reject the teachung? O agatn, would Fr Ceka that it is
as ces
licit for sne 10 refuse to bke part in scumenical practi long a8
they accept the teaching of ecumenism (which is not at all clearly
defined), upon whach the practice 1 based? Such & nots on
is sbeur d and
conteary 1o the practice of the saints. |
History provides us with a claar example of prelates (including
theee saindks and a future Pope) remsting the teaching of # Pope which
had & pracsical appiication. And, i this case, the practical aspect {the
ip
discwas li
repect ed asne )"s declarati
being onl heresy
of forma ** The
Pope was Paschal Il and the lssue st hand wes lay Investtures (fe,
Wwho has the suthority 1o appoint the clergy - the Emperoor rthe
Church?) Pope Gregory VII, Paschat's immediate predecessor, had
-
* Sar - bur wwampie, Coboda, “The Sellarmine Resietwncs’ Quewr Aneshar Tradii! ionslls
Y My £/ srndibanalmasn g/ aricles aricle phyTid ~6Tbucrirame=14
;‘:;::'-' Lnee of o Poge, val. V! (Landbarsc K. Pal, Tronch, Trabner & Cn.

“2
 eR Chapter 29

lay investiture and excommunacated

;‘*"'":., ;allfl When Pape Gregory and :fl:"":"'“my
e Pachol I, uner dures, whuch ihe on W““m”m
ey ¥ (the previous Emperor’s son) senered et2-
o veshture This provoked the outrage of hoth 1
¥ty In fact, “Paschal was denounced by many g ¥ ,_‘“m“'“i
et“Three™ men who would later be canonized
(Bruno of
Grenoble, and Godirey of Amuena), a6 well a m‘:‘;fl
Calstus 1, all demanded that Pope Paschal renounce the sgreemens
They dudn't simply resist the practical ouatter, but resisied the
t tself Because they considered numun»mi..y
lored the Pope llullll\enf\uedbmhw'm
il be obliged 10 withdraw our allegaance from you.”® in the end, the
fope adoutted he was wrong. “§ confess that i faed,” declared the
pentant Pope, “and ask you 1o pray to God 10 pardon me*t in
wponse, St. Bruno said
“Go
be praised!
d For behold that 3 the Pope hussif, whe
condemoed this pretended priviiege (of wvasmure by the wmporal
pewer). which
here s tical"
Here we see faithful Catholics (Including saine and a future Pope)
mecing
a disciplinary teaching of& Pope (a teachin with a prackcal
g
as being heretical They did not accept the teaclung, as well
tpplication)
#resuted
the peactice
As we saw in Chapter 13, the reltgius amsent that 1 owed 10 non-
ihallible teachings of a Pope Is not an act of faith, but a lesser act of
thedience A with all acts of obedience, religious ament 15 not
uconditional, but permits of exceptions. And an excepton would
cetanly be warranted (here, a refusel of religious ament) i a non-
wallible teaching of a Pope were directly connary 1o an wfallible
*aching of one or more of his predecessors, or even i 2 ware at
Yariance with what the Church has consstently taught B
The anti-Modernest Jesut, Christian Pesch (d. 1925), whom we ve
Suted before, explains that the relygios asant owed 10 nom-nfallibe

—
S
::---y.mm4~n-t—1-—'m
"
L‘“""thh-mn-u.m——n—b"“""
1, L
vl Vg . 885,

w
 ——yp
Fowe or Faloe Pope? Chapter3

teachings of a Pope can e wathheld when & sufficient mottoe for doyy
arines:
o) e met aswcnt to the decrees of the Romen
congregetions. 2 long a6 1t does net become positively sure what
per se. do ot furmish an
ey bave erred. Stnce the Congrogatons,given
chcly ceriam angoment 1 fevor ofa doctnne. one may or
::‘-:-vm.mummrummnbecgradAnd thus, cither
1t will come s pass that such & doctnne will ually accepied
m the whoie Church, staming 1n this way the condiion of
‘falibty, or 1t will happen that the erroe 15 lttle by htlc detected
For suce the relipous assent referred (0 15 not based on &
mewmphysical cenmeaty, ut oaly 2 moral and gencral ase it does net
exclude ali susprcion of emor For this reason, a5 3000 45 thery
W ]
meverthcless, a6 long a6 such monves for doubt do not
15 sufficient to oblige one
arme. the authenty of the Congregatons
" st
W) volv
2 well 2 the decisiens of the other
weclesutical superiees who are not infallible ">

Franz Drekamp aleo explaine the! the ebedience (rehgrous assent of

wurd and wll) owed 0 the non-isdallible acte of the Popal Magisterum
Persus
of excephons.

“These aos-mfillibic acts of the Magisterum of the Reman

Poun(T do net obiige ose t belicve, and do not postulatc
aboluic and definiive subjection. But it wehooves one to adhere
wih 2 religious and ternal asset o wuch docisions, smce they
oot acts of the aupreme Magisicoum of the Church, and are
founded upon selid nasural and supernanural reasons. The obligation
1@ adhcre 1o them can only begin (o Lermnate 1n case, and this only
sccuns vary rarely, a man i % judge such 3 question. afler &
v
She CuvICCO hat 48 oeror bas bac atreduced o the decision.™
Merkelbach teaches the samme in his hi work, Summs
Theslogue Moraii: ghy respected
-
el 1, Pralloury; Horder & Horder,. 1099). pp- neas
Pach, Fradecions Degrastesr. val.
®sty
'quflm‘,ma..fimi -

"
 F——
e Chaper
~When the Church dacs 0ot teach wok hec
the docine Proposed 5 ok, such,unefurmai
£ per accidens, 10 8 hypowhtchhsehow ore .
very cacclul €xamination of the maer, 1tsere
sr ] ™ eaen,
o ronre sfars

ipiroal asseni ()™

Now, the Sedevacanbists themweives concede

“uffrcsent n“::n;es" and "grave reasons” 1o bekeve :;: e are
peen introduced INto” certaun Weachangs of the
wheh deviahe fr0m what the Church ha tradinonly worpe e
liberty, ecumenzsm, collegiality, etc.) Where sheir reschon differs Freme
the reaction of Tradibonal Catholscs (not ke mentson the sainis
of the
mm)unmtmeydm'tnmflyvuhmdw"mm
could eastly yustfy by the wrings of the Church's theologiara. Ne,
they g0 further by declanng, on their own authonty, that those whe
have “Introduced” these "errors” have lost their office, and then
separale from them As we've seen, th “jud, urpakien” is
Mbyflumhn&flnlkmdxmndhm:yym\dmmby
the Fourth Council of Constantinople, & we have scan In previens
chapters.
The duly o resist novel teachings and prachoes (even those of &
Pope) has been the conelnt teaching
of the Church's theologiare, and a
practice that has occurred throughout the Church's hustory each and
every lime & Pope has deviated from the Fath, he has been resisied) In
fact, St Bellarmune cites Drome bow . 10, M. 7, Gab 1) o show that
heretical bishops should not be Listened e by the people (they are
“ressted”) He also notes, however that according lo Wadien,
Heretical bishops can only be deposed v the proper authortses {they
are “recogruzed”) Thus shows that one can efuse ko luten to & heretacal
Mshop (and even explicitly reyect his erroncous leachungs) witheut,
however, having to mamntain that he has lost tws office In other werds,
Seliarmine tnatructs us to recegnrar and et heretcal prelates, and he
Wases hus instruc on tion
revealed truth.
Once again, as we saw wn Chapler 10, Betlarmine says:
Swtf can eormm
ully
“We must pewt owt, bemdcs, that the oy the rulcket
distinguish a true prop het (1ca cher ) frem a falac one,
we have laid dow n, but for all that, of the paster 3 4 Doy, they
—_— -
;M‘;t-iuw...m.,-u.-.vam-nm‘““"
)

oS
 ———
True or Falee Pope? Chapter9
pooc o and ot shoshar 0 b place [recogaiae] For Our
;::flnAm)umlyhymdmfibemummh not that they deposc theny
and
10 by the people resssi].
e lmiened
[racogauae] Asd 1t 1 cormm that the practice of the Church hey
always been that herencal brsheps be deposed by bishop’s ceuncils,
o by the Soverengn Pean(f "
ica|
1f a buhop s found teaching strange, novel, or apparently herst
doctrnes, he shauid not be lskened to. He should be ignored. Literung
10 uch 8 0ne % & danger ¥ one’s farth, and therefore an occasion of s,
Siewe we ave required 1o avoid occasions of sin, we are yustified 1n not
Baserung 4o bshope Wwho Wech errors, of even haresies. The same hoids
e for 8 Pope who deviates from the Faith, which % posstble as long
a8 he w nat defirang a doctrine ¥ be hald by the uruversal Church,
suce it % only hen that the chariem of infalliulity will prevent hum
from sming As we have seen, when not defining a doctrine, Popes can
taach, and indeed have taught, error In such cases, which have become
e commwn in the conciliar crisis, these Popes can and must be
reswted
In addshon % the theologians we have ated, we also have the
wthoof ria ty
papal Bull which explicitly teaches that a Pope who
deviales from the Fasth can be resisted The foll1sow n fromgthe
takein
Offius
Buil of Pasl IV, Cum Ex Aposiolat ce
“In sssovomg Owr duty and the suntion new prevaring, We
Wave boom wrighed upen by she thought that a maer of this kind u
s grave asd s0 dangerous [is e Faith) thet the Roman Pontiff,
Wha 1 thc reproveniative upon sacth of God and our God snd Lond
Jaous Chrim, who holds the fullness of power over peoples and
Kangdoms, who oty judge all asd be judged by none 1n this world,
oy soacthelen b conradiciod 1f be be found o have devisied
fwm e Fasth ™
Notice, Pope Paul IV does not say e former Pope (who lost hus office
due 1o heresy) can be contradicted if ha deviates from the Faith No, he
upon earth
s “the Roman Pontiff, who is the represent ative of God
norgthe
way lcs I ha be found to have deviated
be contradicied
from the Faith." The nomon that Catholics cannot recogmize and resst &
Fope who deviates from the Faith w entrely contrary to Tradition, nd
4 novelty of the Sedevacantists’ own making, just llke their novel
-—_
Momaivs Exbala, Lib Dy Clariccap.,7 (Opurn O, Paria Vives, 1079) pp €26
P Pt 1V, Com 1 Apaviintn Offci. Ny 13, 1509 {emphasi sdded).
e
 me ~raprer)

on that Catholics in the street can Ppublicly declare

I‘:"" office, smply because they persenelly betiew y?,::"" T
e idess are anyihing but Catholic heretc.
eedless t0.53y the “deviations” from the Faith
u‘]:,, "l exrors against the Fasth, and most tsp«u;?;l}:,::;m —
test deviations from the Faith, 11 (4 47
he wr ot e Po pe Ad ra n
L’i’;uu)fi this principle when
“We read that the Roman Pootilf hes alw
suthertty o pass judgment on the heade of all te Churches (1, the
urchs and tishops), but nowhere do we read the: he hae boam
e subject of Judgment by others 1t w wuc that Honorms way
gonhumously anathematssed by the Eastern churches, but o gt be
Yo o smind that be had been accused of Aeresy. he galy offengs
whih renders lawful the resigcence of wbondmuc o ther
spenars. and et resccuon of the IeT's pormicious wachmas.
Hewere
have a Pope who specifically uses the wend “rasnce”
in the context of opposing “heresy,” which means remstacce w not
limited to papal commands or even papal laws. Thes alse means
Traditional Catholics don’t merely rely upon the sngle quole from St
Tellarmune 1o support the recognize and reset poson a Fr Cekada
wygests, but rather the teaching of two Popes and numerous other
theologians, not to mention common senke - a natural virtue that &
lcking among the Sedevacantists
Primary and Secondary Rule of Faith
To furiher assist our understanding of why it % lawful and
ficessary (o resist papal errors and heresies agamst Church doctrine
ad morals, it is important o understand the propes dulnchen
between the rules of faith. St. Thomas explams why & w that we must
mwmmm.mumnumuywwhmb,
dutinguishing between the primary and the secondarv rule of fanh
ns by wm
a sisndard
The word rule (Latin, reguls, Greek. hmaw) mea
1s measure
g d The primary rule of faith w e Depomt of ¥ d
same thin
revelation contalned in Seripture and Tradstion) the secondary rule
Whmm.uunmwm.mmmw*m““‘“‘
—-—
2 Adran 1, atlec, U, ectn dn come VIIL et 7, coed by W, - Tl
e vl "
o4

G
UCLEN
Rame”
CQ, Do
Crega
1, -
ins
Ml
Iys Comehr
11
(Par.
e
Lescuse
s
y,
Hoa
1908
Qb
vl V. 7P
ber
wohinia added).
“
 ———yp
Trwe oc Falee Pope” Chapter29

jed Depoart. St. Thomas explains that if the secong,

I eT e primary rule, It 0ot 1 be foliowed Hesays > ¢
A man sheuld submt 10 the lower authonty in so far ay jhe
Jamar ewwerves the onber of the hugher suthonty If the tower
ety depart from the onder of the higweher ought , not 1o
sbmateit "

St Thomas also explaune how the fathful are able to discern suchs
devation. He notes that the hubtt of farth (the supemnatural virtye of
fasth) grves the faithful an mchnaton contrary o auch error Thy
explatrs
how thase with the faith are able to discer when 1 prelates
reachig errors (even i they don't kniow exactly how 1o refute them) 1t
2leo explains why “Catholics” on the Left (who have lost the Faith) are
blind to sech a reality [n his commentary
on the Senbences of
Peter Lombard, St Thomas wrote
“Because 2 man eupht 1o obey 8 lower power in those things
saly which are net apposed 10 the higher power; 50 even 2 man
wught 1s sdagt turmecil 10 the ruie i all things according 1o 11
mode, on the other hand, a man ought 10 adapt humsello the
sccondary rule i those things wioch are not at vanance with the
amary ruk because in those matters in which it 1s at vanance, i 13
mot a rulc On that sccount, gne 15 0l 0 give assent W the
wl 15 comtrry to the Guth since 1n s it iy
reaching of 3 aeclaie which
siscoodant
wyth the pomary ruls Nor through ignorance 15 a subject
cxcuscd from the whole since (he habnt of fmth causcs an
BChnakian
1o e Camiary, snce it Leaches necessanly of all thingy
el pertasn
10 salvabon."™

Tn another place, St Thomas aleo says “we belleve the successorsof

the aposties,” that is, the secondary rule, “enly m <o fir s they tell us
Shese ihings which the apesties and prophets have left i ther writiigs™™
which s the primary rule If the secondary rule (Pope. bishops
Magistenum) deviales from the primary rule (Deposit of Faith), the
secondary rule must ot be followed And if, during a time of crisé.
God perauts the secondary rule to obscure the primary rule through
ambiguous and/of contradictory teachings, prudence dictates that the
lowk
faithéul 10 the past, when the secondary rule taught the primary
-
IS UM Idy
Commnriie Surt P Lomibarde, Studie Domericans,
vat. 8, (Bslogric PDUL - Siinbori
20, p 198 (rasaloed by Ryw Grant),
"e 5% Thesss
stk Dr Vertiie
, 38 14,8
1 18 (omphass sdded) bty /e dbogrisey ot
 W e = Chapter

clanty It 15 tnteresting to note

’T',“': ;::;‘,,n and Our Tumes (1941), stated m:.cuho"’ s bowk
rought about due to the Magistenum uheutondu
y rule} f;
peschGod's w:m' (the prmary rue) = wfll_he
.
In Chapter 8, we consi the hutoncal example
who publicly professed an error (later condemaed ags m:ylr:\x:l'
to Tradstion This error was reslsted by large portion of the Chm:rh’:
even though the Pope attempied to impoa se it upon the Church (bu
without using s full authority) I the end, the Pope conc eded e ,,:
was wrong and renthe oemm uornonchusedeat dhibed Those whe
reswted lum were pmmmmmqu
were forced to renounce their error mvwh dda&thope
lcwrywummd\ersum,
ot with those who blindly fotlowed the teachung of the Pope The
matter was setled defirutively by John XXIl's immeduately successon,
who quickly condemned the teaching of John XXII as being heretcal.
This hust exaor
mplesc
provesal thet a Pope can e in beachi the ng
Faith,
and thet Catholcan icand
s must rewst such a Pope and fus errwiemas
iechngs, while contnuIng to recegrnze hem ae holding the papal office
Hold to Tradition

In St Paul's second letter 10 the Thessalonuns, he ducusses the

great apostasy that will precede the nse of the antchrst. He noks that
becaune men of that day wall lack leve for the wuth, God will punsh
them by sending them "the operation of error to believe lyng: That al
may be judged who have not believed the truth” (2Thess. 210) St. Paul
then gves the Thessaloru the antidote
ans 50 to speak, the will enable
them 10 avoid being led astray What is the anbdote”It i holdung fast
to Senpture and Tradition - that is, the Deposit of Fath (the promary
rule of Faith) He sald “therefore, brethren, stand fast. and hold te tha
traditions which you have learned, whether by word or by our eputle’
w1y
Notice that St Paul doesn't tell the faithful to hold fast 1o the
secondary tule, which could be corrupted by “the operabon ef emror
Nather, he tells them to hold to the pruruke, mar whichy they “have
leamed” from the Aposties and ther succesom, Wt 1, what has
siways been believed and taught by the Church. Indeed. Hdlns‘:
Tradition has been the antidole to all of the doctrinal
cnees
Church, and will surely be the solusen to the current co.
e — o
"eCullcton, The Prphets and Our Tows (Rechied, Rl TAN. Kooks 200
i p 0,
"
—— Twr
Trwe or False Pope? Chapter3

Mudmmmmd& Paul, St v,mmn{%

Later
wrote, four centuroes
iow in the Cathohie Church tiself weerelake the greates! carc ta
i thas winch has. bewn beiicved cverwh . althe wandys by ,a1l
That 1 wuly and properly ‘Catholic.” a8 15 shown by very foroe
and mesang of thc word, which comprebends foll cverything almost
Sarversally We shall hold 1o this mule 1f we ow unversaliy,
ssoqury and consent. We shall follow umversality i we
acknowlcdge that oac Faith 1o be true which the whole Chur ch
¢ world cenfesses, antiquity. If we In no wise depan.
from these mierpreheiwhi onchs 11 1 clear that our ancestors and
fathers proclaumed, consent, If in sntiquity 11self wa keep and follow
(he sefimimions and epirvens of ail, or cormnly nearly all, buhops
and docwees alike ™™
Then, he asked what Catholis should do if the entire Church was
nfected by # “novel contagion” - a condition thal accurately describes
the state of the post-Vatican [l Church. St Vincenl explained that if
such were 1o occur, the safe path 1 not to depose by private judgment
those sesponarble for the contagion, but rather 1o “cleave to antiquity”
(Tradivion) He wrote:
part of the
“What then will the Cathelic Chrwown €0, 1f 2 small
Church has cut 1clf off from the communion of the universal
Fath? The amewer 1 warc He will prefer the bealthiness af the
whele body 10 the morbed and ceerupt lib BuX what 1f some novel
contagion tres 10 nfact the whole Church, and not merely & tny
pact af1 Then he will ake care o cleave o antquny (tradiioo).
wiich can mever he led asray by any lying novelty =
Those who hold fast 10 antiquity, as teught by 5t Vincen! of Lenins,
will be praserved from “the operation of error,” even if 1t comes from
the bishops and the Pope himeelf They will know that Catholics can
recogruze them authority, while resisting them in the exercise of
authorty (Gal. 148-10) They will know that obedience to partcular
commands should be refused when the command ltself
1 sinful {Pope
Les X1, Bellarmune), or contrary k good customs (Suarez), and they
will ow il obedserce 10 general laws can be sl asde 10
exdraondinary circumetances (Epikew, Mi 1214, St Thomas) BY
o Commmomterse
nrd
s: of Vimasnt of Lerws, takas trom: Betrwan. 1, Dacumenotse
;fimo— (Ondord Lacder, Glasgww Onfacd UnivePress.rsity
1963, P
ol

50
 e Rerogmess= = Chapler

10 Tradition, they will also know thet a P

::,".'f. T, and cven teaches heresy, can be m:s,:':’a“""'
i Adrian VIl without having o declare that he has ceasad to be Pope
iean 1, Poul 1V} They il ko know that frmalysepaate rom
s patmarch based upon the alleged knowledg e pefone
of a erme
haser
pe utt been deaded by 2 Synod, w absolutely forbudden
Mcwml of Constantinople)
In order to maintain the straight and namrow path dunng the
pesent crits, and prevent betng toseed out of the Charch o the Reght
o Lelt, we simply need to follow the leachung
of St Paulby
fan and holding to Tradition (Xhess. 214) which, a St Vinomt of
Lenns said, “can neve be led astray by any lymg novelty * We are alio
eminded of the famous words of the great Dominican bishop and
sheologian
at the Council of Trent, Melchior Cane, who sad

“Peter has no need of our hies or flattery These whe bindly

and indiscriominately defend every decisien of the Supreme Peetlf
are the very ones who do most to undemune the suthonty of the
Haly Sec - they destroymstead of sirengthenung v foundstions.”™

Cotton, 19903 12
Quie in Wekgel, Goarge, Witnss be Fipe (New York Harpt
AR EE®
 Chapter21
~ The Bitter Fruits of Sedevacantis
m ~

We complete our study by examirung the unfortunage, by

ut weue from the tree of Sedevacansm. Our Lord ptwu::&:u:
pecrterio n we can judige a good Wee from an eviltre, s mpe
by which
Japhet from a false prophet I the Gospel of St Matthew, Our Lond
yamed us to beware of false prophets, who come 10 us under
sucepnve appearances (looking like sheep but are achually vicom
waives) He explaned that these will be known by ther frus
“Beware of falsc prophets, whe come (s you m the clothmg of
shecp, but inwardiy they are ravenig wolves. By ther fru yau
shail know them every good tree brngeth forth geed frust, and.
the evil tree bangeth forth cvil frut. A good Wee canaot bring fenk
evl frun, neither can an evil wee bong fortk good fruit.
Wherefore by thewr frutts you shall know them.” (ML 7 15-20)

The evil fruits of the Sedevacanhst tree are one of the clearest signs
of i dabolical character infighting, divieson, deception, detraction,
wondemnations, name-calling and other unchantable and even
nhumane behavior seem not to be the exception in Sedevacantimn, but
the rule In this final chapter, in light of Our Lord's dwecave, we
kelicve 1t 1s fmportant 1o examune some of these rotten fruts, by which
we“shall know” the false prophets of the Sedevacantst sect
Sedevacantists Admit of Their Own Evil Fruits

Rught off the bat, what » most tellig ts that Sedevaconhots

, intter
demselves admit that their movement 15 plagved bymdet} oand
frume. This fact s s0 pervasive that it % conceded
aboul even by the MT';JHKM““"‘- me-\PM‘:;
xent article appeared in the Sedevacantt publcaten Koy 7Y
= which the author, Sedevacantist Mano Derksen. avw':k el
Teaon some do ot embrace the Sedevacaniet penien X
Toten fruits found among its membeFers.
wrete”
n m gb a e t

£
n l k i E
“All 00 ofle we hear froc peep srwineg 2 b€SedeEvsE casl
Catholus thar what kecpe them frum beco
the problem of *drsumity” anong ews. From S

h -
7—*

e Pope”
or False
Tra Chapter 2

Mwfln‘-flm,-mmlfll problerns, t
the qucsnon of whether one may €Y< %61 &t fion Sedevacantis;
M-a,lkimmn:‘lmn‘flmwhodcmmopmug
popai clamants afier Pope P XI1 . leptmaie scem 100
mmcrous or tee dauateg For sany people’s comfact.”!
Derksen's explanation i that these divasions are due to tha fact
h.mqum-ww He said, “the absence of a Pope means that the
peinciple of unity i semporarily prevenied from bringing about the
ity of the flock on those matters about which we currently
Jegiumaiely dipute and dagree ° Derisen's explanabon, however,
dows not correspond to reality
First, s this book has demonsirated, it's not that we don’t havea
Pope, but rather that Lhe Sedevacanhsts sefuse to recogrze that there 15
4 Pope Second, the presence or absence of 1 Pope does ot eliminate
“those matters about which [they] currently legihmately dupute and
duagree.” because “those matiers® include precisely how and when a
Pope loses hw office for heresy As we saw i this book, the
Sedevacantss have very divisive opiruons on these matiers, and those
disagreements would exset isrespective of whether we have a Pope or
not
But as the Sedevacantiet, john Lane, noted in hus resporse to Mr
Derksen's artucle, Uhe problem1 not only one of disunity and nfighting
amongst various Sedevacantis factions, tbut true apzratual diserder in the
livas of those who embrace the poshion. Mr Lane wrate

“ posple whe pet wisrvsied 1 Sedecvacastism baceme

usstablc 1 Wil witual lives. coafised sbowt what matters and
what docsa’t, forget their swn smcorapetence 1 what arc often very
techacally chalcaguag arwes of lew and docanne, oficn destabiliae
@thars 10 (heir parwh, and very efien rmore brosdly disturb Uhe peace
of the panish. |'ve_obicrved al) of the wyaclf, s g0 often tat |
' Cagevnr£ Uy 's g ™
Jabe, Lane sdmits ha has ne answer for the spiritual disorders ha
Ards 15 these whe embeace Sedevacantism. He went on to say e
mgin e abe bo blame the drrimens o there being no Pope (since the
of unity), but he then noted that this argument
Pope 1 the principle
-
! Darkaen. Marie, “Whan
e s The Py-r-sy;:wkmr-pq.us-«vwmw "

by e atmetietaven
e | ewopic pop o iet=177) (omphasis sdded)
54
 yeer o -
™ Chapiee 71
sothing whatsoever sbout why
::Z;mmnml ;:’n mlnlu.: e e TT
Tormer Sedevacantst Laazlo Sexmrto s 0 e sy
uladies within the movement, which ..'1",,
member of the sect ”‘M“Mnm”m"mm-:
e 8 s1ghe SedeVacantnt who di o have peny o 2 4
1 myself had once boen a Sedevacantst On
| oneatly sec the great buitermess and fack .ffl,:',;m cn »
on my part | have
0 e

wcluded andd feforemos among them)LACanlts

1 would beet ete by,(et
Lavebe oyt s
the numerous downfalls - i scandelows fackmm - of b
Sedevacantists">
The obvious answer for these spntual diorders w shat
Sedevacantism 15 an evil tree, and beng an evil tree it na
produces evil frunts, just as Our Lord explaed The evil frum of
Sedevacantis m what one would expact o find After all, the
are exactly
members of the Sedevacantist sect have effrchvely embraced the
Protestant heresy of the invisible Church, both tn ther ermeneous belif
that the 311 of heresy severs one from the Church (thus rendening the
Church invissble) and that the Church is found i “the hearts sod
minds of truc bebevers” {agamn, rendening the Church mviible, with &
Pape and hierarchy that are nowhe to be re
found)
are among
Further, Sedeva can the most
tis ts of
fervent porsecuters
Christ and hue suffering Church, Many of these people spend sherr lrvas
ndicubing the Church and shuning the light ev all of ts wounds, not i
andet 10 expose the wounds S0 they can be dresed and hesied,1tbut% en
scder to discredst the Church and those who reman i .
surprise that those who spend ther lives attacking the Mysacal Body
of Chinst when it 13 suffering its greatest tnal, are permtted by Ged |:
fall into the gravest of spiritual disorders As SPaul savs. m:l:’ .
have recerved the rain of grace, yet © mmu:m
e “reprobate, and very near unto a cure, whose end u fo T
{Heh. 63) Let us niow look at some of these “thoms” and e’
the evil tree of Sedevacantism.

—
o (omphranis pded) . s
'Wmmm;m.mbm*——
gk, Ortber 1995 Grmphosis e
o .
IEE—————
Trwe or Falee Pope” Chapter21

Sedevacantiets Condemn Each Other

evacantiet sects are notonous for infightng, diision and
hisd S:dmcks laurched agamst ane another The Dimond brothers
o clau i be relgrous brothers ofthe Onder of St Benedic, bul are
ot ‘as such by a single Benedichine monastery in the world)
re notonous for thewr weulting, disparaging and abusive language,
nd often condemn therr fellow Sedevacanbists to elernal hell fire, as
well as those who follow them *
For example, they condemn the Sedevacantisl preacher, Gerry
Matats, for believing in the Church’s doctrine on Baptism of Desire,
‘Tum 40 be 2 “Christ-d ena
and a “heren c r” * On
of bad will
their website, they declare "Gerry Matatics is complelcly self-
condemned His hypocnsy Is mind-boggling and demoric Those who
support the heretc Gerry Matatics can expect to be damned "7
According b Pete and Mike Dimond, those who even “support” Mr
Matatics will bum 1 hell Evidently, the Dimond brothers’ false
prophecy thet John Paul 11 was “the final antichrist” has not siopped
them from continutng ko prophesy about the eternal fate of others
In responding to the allegations of the Dimond brothers, Mr
Matatics posted this on hus website:

“The Dwnond brothcrs, be 1t neicd, heve, ameng their other

darmenowablc crrens - sach 2 having declarcd John Paul 11 (while
he was il ahve) 1o be ‘the final Antichnat'(¥) - persisted, even
atcr | have cormectd thern, 1n Iibelously misreprescnting me as
havig “sald ct’ 10 those whe teach the hiberal view thet ene can be
saved in other religrens, which 15 # damasbke lie Their outrageous
and racrtally sinful calumny that | am 3 supposter of this heresy
Nevertheless rwmacas promuscally Gostwred 11 the *Bewsre (groups
and wdrvrdunls whe icach heresy)” section of their website ™
1tis nt st Gerry Matatics whom the Dimond brothers condemn
About e fellow Sedevacantut, John Lane, they publicly announce’
Lane not a Catholic, peried. Lane has 1o faith.. Lane 15 almost

+ The Db bestbrs have slee bevrsaccuaed o edbing out recorded materis] st hurle
Shair e, (rom the nusareus lelephone debates they froerd wiike engaging their
oppecunie bafate pastang e debate o Uiz webrite and clalming victery Peshapsit
1 why Wy dis ot angage i bve public, video-frcorded, unedited face-te-(ace debates
:r—-mh—.‘m-...w-qmwmm—
p fwww snetheiyamilyestaiory. 4o/ cothalicchurch/ gerrymatatics/
‘Mn/;:-m

56
 e rose ¢ sz
Chaper11
a8 Bergogho [Pope Francie]
::.'.‘; wicked apostate i p',‘,,h"""""“'""“m-.
sedevacantist, Tom Droleskey, as =2 ‘“’"""‘xm * e
awtrate and bad willed heretsc 5 About sponrs, e, 40 "
Daly, they 5av "Daly 13 truly a blinded hereic a fage o™ 140
wid heretic "1 They also declre
the Sodeoacrnpe, P30 ., 4 bod.
Steparich (RIF) Lo be “a complte heretic an shommpre 40
s faibless beretc " They descrbe b Anpuny c,:"",, -
complete heretic™3 and they do the same wih, Sear »a
Denald Sanbom and Robert McKenna' And al gt oo
forthenr fellow Sedevacantistst compleneninsre
About Gerry Matancs, Tom Droles
“iachonahsts” who believe in the o\meh:Mm:.?: o B
Desire, Peter Dimond wrote “That crowd = accuraely
dem!:::n
scum of the Earth They are sbomunable " Of course, f e Depuru:
brothers’ assessment were accurate, then that weuld ako make 5
Augustine, St Thomas Aquinas, St. Pius V, Urban V, Innocent V1, Lea
XI5t Phus X, Benedict XV, Pius XI, Pope Fius X1 and countiesssther
sants “the scum of the Earth as well Claaly, these are net o bty
frurts, but wicked and truly demoruc frums.
In an exchange with Catholc tradihionalist Ryan Grant whe i net
& Sedevacantist), the Dimond brothers, who could fot respond to the
et rebuttals that Mr Grant Jevied sganet ther wne
argumentation, decided 1o terminate the exchange with the fellewing
wodbye “I'm done fallang with you moromc, bind, bruk.
schismatic, heretical, modermust, neanderthal (aae ‘tradibanlsts, 304
y0u want dor't even post my reply, because thi the Lt emal that
send 1o you Dor't even bother in responding fo tius emal 1 went
keep wasting my time with ncanderthals bike you ** Thats benenng
Ms Grant with 2 whopping eight descriptive adgectives wn & single

e oo
Coblindunh/navec
comalyme
S WP/ forvrw mesihtviam y
s lane-lousi
whty mosthwlyfamaly
L‘“&v n:;f;m etholv amiymensaters o csbchach/ gy st/ Y
S it e bl famitvnemasiey s evblladbee d-srdevesy /49
com/
S0 itp 7/ vevew.masiholytamily stve
Joha,Du
mana y
bv 7y
:: ::;:%wwwmhlyflmi:vm:l/w: #v”
. wyew mestholylamitvmonssery asm/ e o Sonshb s
_:: mumw—vw
it
30w i/ wvew esthalyfamilymansste<ory

@
—*

True
o Faise Pope? Chaptee21

What bitter frunts from the Dimond brothers, who write such
o abrasive tvective against Catholics with apparently ng
e cedevacantie webete, Todey's Cattiic World, uses sumilar
abrassve language w its editonal approach In criticizing Traditional
s whis bave correely noted the defunct legal nature of Cum Ex
Apotsstus {which many Sedevacantists have also admited), the
websste responded as follows. :
“Very Uscfiul Jdwoas - The abootutcly anicliccrually duhonest
Plooss Opposition false traditionalit groups, such as the priesless
SSPX, Usa Vece, Joan Vemnan's “Caholic™ Famuly News,
Muchecl Mat’s (wuly lost) Remnant etc, by willfulty refusing o
acoept the Charch’s Ex Cadhedra (Infattible) teaching of Cum ex
Apestolans Officio which wmistakenly [sic} condoran imposters
ke Ratza.k2 Ani-Pope Benodict XVI ™17
mger
Here we have another barrage of disparaging adjectives in a single
sentence to marginalize, meult and detract from Traditional Catholics
What does ths sell you about the spiritual, much less Intellectual,
sandards of these Sedevacantists?
Peter Dunond referred to the Sedevacantist blogger, Steve Speray,
as *a heretic and a bar* He declared that Mr Speray’s writings are
“filled with blatant errors, omussions, outrageous lies, and false
anguments 1 could hierally write a book proving 1t “® Mr Speray
responded on hus webstie by saying, “The Dimonds are jealous because
shey're 1ot the only ones out there promoting Sedevacantism,”? and
accuses them of being “blinded with pride” and *antichnists of the
Fughest level *2
Sedevacantist Ruchard Tbranyi accuses fellow Sedevacanhist John
Lane of beang “foolish, duhonest, and deceptive * He says, My duty
2 Catholc obliges me 10 condemn you as a non-Cathalic heretc
#nd schematic. You, s, are an abomination in the eyes of God and are
under His severe wrath, along with anyone amocuted with you in
veligmus matters in anyway “¥ He then informs Mr Lane "All of your
wther specfic heresies that are condemned by the Catholic Church are
found en my website. § will net apend much time with you, as our
-
=Wy /e sodayrcathabervadtd e/e .
v
e/ e tevemaget 2y et prov.ovun X031 67128 ethar-poardionandslsiot
" hcary, Rishand, ” Mgt fohe Lane.” Dossarber 2009 ie
’h*/h—/mm-/w/nllmmm
 ey 1
d, ‘Do 1ot wast vour pearls 1o swine'
el "'M, Lane of taking Bellarmine mdmfi:mu)
:‘y"u something thal we ourselves have observad), ay et
use hum of twisting the Scriptures. “Johe, kke the #, further
are;” wrote Mz Tbrany, “you have quoted St. Robert
",d.gmhnvlhffmhnp"""“"‘w John, you
oqt ofm’.':
Holy
scnpture Iike a Protestant You twist it to susl your heresy sin
e and rebellion have [sic] blinded you, and thue caused yy:,".. ;.:
ommonsense you, John Lane, are not Catholic "%
And then e have the resparee of Peter Dimond o 2 fefiow
antist who criicuzes him for atiending Mase ot » Charch ur
union with Pope Franais In response, Dimond went on an absolute
wade He wrote
“You are ® wicked. lying herctic You are lur and » fraod,
Siop wasting our time you dupraceful herwic, hesded for
everlasting damnation un the Bowels of hell We are sick of you,
You lyng hypocnte phony Servast of sshn You know seivag
sbout the Cathohic farth, Don'l waste e ume symere, you
schismabic, clucicss, demonic, loscr hended for Hell. Ry the way,
you wouldn’l call me a susy ta iy face, you punk.. >

Clearly, none of this inflammatory chetor, quanreling, and

dusension is from God, but from the flesh, as St Fau! explains: “Now
We works of the flesh are manifest, which are enmuties, contentions,
emulstions, wrathe, quarrels, dissensions, sects revellings,
and mch
like. Of the which | foretell you, as I have foretold o you, that they who
dosuch things shall not obtamn the kingdom of God” (Gal. 513-21)
It is not only the individual Sedevacanksts who contnuously
atack one another The various Sedevacantut sects e sanctons and
reprmals agevnst therr own membershp for affilatng with the wrong
¥ranch of Sedevacantem. For example, the Sedevacaniet sect of the
Society of St Pus V or SSPV (founded
by priests who left the
SSP.X) has declared to thewr parshioners thal o they amist ai Mosscs
by the CMRI (another Sedevacanhst sect) they arc
ommittng mortal sin. The CMRL has returned the fovar, by
declanng that SSPV M-umwwflm:
As Supenec
their parishioners to disavow any affiliabon with them.
fi

True
or Faloe Pope? Chapter 21
. Clarence Kelly even Gined famulies 500 a year for
m;-enmud&wa'-nms« Gertrude the Great,
Then we have the Sedevacantist, Gerry Matatics, who publicly
shat the clergy of beth the SS.P V. and CMR.L (and all other
Sedevacanbat prests) are “unauthonzed shepherds.” whoge
sscraments cannot be recerved, while the Dunond brothers CM publicly
the SSPV
1 a heretic and that both and R]
sate that Matebcs
e herencal secis because they all hold to the Church s doctrine on
Baptism of Desire and mvincible ignorance Whew!
'All of thes birter nfighting and duwision 1 what occurred with
Luther and hus followers when they splt from the Church and began to
rely upon thew privake pudgment to decide matters of faith Luther
nehed
this, when
aboutla
humeelf comp wrote
“Neblamen, swwnemen, possant, ail classcs understand the
geii
Evanbotcr or SC Paul They arc now wisc and think
than ) usm
shemsctves meee lcamed than all the minisers.Z? This one will
wat hear of Baptumn, that enc denies the Sacraments, another puts a
wacid botwoen thi and the last day somc teach that Chnst 1 not
God. sem say thi, some wy thal there arc about as many sects
and croode e there srcheads NoYokel 1s 50 cude. but when b hss
drearne and fancic s, himself nsprred by the Holy Ghost
he thunks
and must be 3 propact® Theee 13 ne smearer but whenevehe r
has heard s scrmon e can resd & chapter 1n German, makes a doctor
af humcelf, and crowas his ass, convinciag hums thetée)f
he knows
everythag boner thas all who teach bm 3 When we have
Neard or learmed s fow things abeut Holy Scnpture, we think we src
already doctors and have swallowsd the Holy Ghow., feathers and
all® " How rasy doctors have | made by preachig and wriiing”
New they sy, ‘Be off with yeu Ge off with you. Go o the devil
Thus 1t must be When we preach they laugh when we got angry
and treaten them, they mack s, snap thews fingers a1 us and laugh
= thew slecves N
Finally, Luther prophesied how this confusion stemming from his
dectrine of private udgment would end

-
© Wakch XIV Liship 20
»r Weme WLb1 ity
»Wakh v 1682
* Wakch VA2
* Waleh Vi D10
"t
 ~eepero

“There will be the greateat confusen, Nebo

humself
to be led by another man'sdostrine or autheriy E“ lew
sall be hus.own rabbi hence the greatest scandais % orybedy
no surprise 1o see how the same root
- '::odmd the same bitter frum .u;.rn“: ,;’I'.."’ T,,,"'d:':"o;
igevacantsm individual Catholics i whe pew -+ -
peasans” - who ymagine themselves 10 be “more learoed than o i
unsters,” who have “dreams and fancies,” umagiung themaeives 1g
te“ispired by the Holy Ghost” and claum even 1o be s prophet fwe
il see lite Later how one of these Sedevacanie actually bekcums
be s one f the two Witnesses (prophets) spoken of in Apocslypse,
chapte
r 11} Of course, most of these individuals have been led mtay
Iy the “murusters” of the Sedevacantist sect (prests and bishops) who
Ikewlse imagine themselves to be more leaned that the Church's
greatest theologuans who addressed the queston of 3 heretal Pope
{not to mention the council Fathers of Constantinople IV) What 1s clear
for thowe with eyes to see is that this Protestantsm of pvate judgment
s produced the same rotten fruits wathin Sedevacanasheo
1 did
n
amang the unfortunate followerofs Martin Luther
Sedevacantists Condemn Other Sedevacanhsts
For Attending “Una Cum” Masses

Some Sedevacantists also condenn thewr fellow Sedevacanits for

ittending @ Mass in which the currently recogniaed Pope's name i
icluded in the canon (in other words, a true Catholic Maw)
Sedevacantists call such Masses “une cum” Masses, from the Lawn
Phrase prayed by the priest which mentions the name of the tegrung
Yope “yna qum famulo tuo Pepe nostro N (*wogether with Thy servant
N, our Pope”) These “comgpromusers” are declared to be “public
for worshipg i umn wikh 3
beretics™ by their fellow Sedevacantts
for hum dunng the
“heretic Pope,” stmply because the priest prays Lane
Maw Such compronusers would snclude John who assst who sests at
Masses of the 5.5.P X., and the Dumond brothers, at Exsiern
ke Masses in union with the *Vatican il Church.” .
We have seen that the Fourth Councl of Consntnoplew, whe
ondemned those who adhere t the Sedevacantzt thess. et & b2
irom
‘separates himsell communion with his own Fatrarch
r—*

Troe oc Falec Pepe? Chapern

by the Chusch. Sedevacantot shousld note well that thys

tion aleo logaatly extends o those who act upon theis
Seraraan by omithag therr bshop's rame from lturgcal ries,
g the Mase, before a udgment of the Church, which 13 exactly
he pracice of Sedevacantit chapes. The council clearly teaches that
“he must net refuse to nclude s patriarch’s name duning the divine
mysenes o offices” before a judgment by 2 icat svnod, lest he be
e tuded from all communion” [Le excommun ed] with the
Fr Cekada and Bishop Senbom are among the most public in
“detyng thi holy synod” (in the words of Constantinople IV),
declaring it forbidey“:’amd the Traditional Mass at a Chapelz
which the name of the Pope 15 meniioned 1n the canon (translation.
“you have ¥ asist and financially contnbute at our Masses, not theirs”)
Bishap Sarkom declares attendance at such a Mass to be “contrary to
the First Commandment” and even “an act of false worship”
“Ulumately,” wrote the Wishop, “It bods down to the principhe of
offening false worship o God, and an act of false worship “% One can
enly imagine how Sanbom browbeats hs flock with such nonsense
According 1o Senborn, Fr Cekada has wnitten the “definstive
article” on this weue ¥ in his article, Fr Cekada says those who
attended a Mass in which the name of Benedsct XV1 (the Pop at e
the
wme) w utkered, “parbapale i sin” “implialy profess a false
religion,” aze i “communon with heretics,” “condone a violation of
Chureh law,” commit “the sin of schusm,” and “offer an occasion for
the wn of scandal” That u quike a hefty st of sins, Cekada's st of sine
apphes squally 1o those who attend Masses offered by priesw s
of the
SSPX, and even independent priests, who publicly resist the modern
@rars and the new onentation of the Church.
Fr Cekada claims that Sedevacantists who have no olher Mass
avallabie, and therefore attend Mass celebrated by a non-Sedevacantist
prest (even theugh they interiorly object when the priest silently
names the Pope tn the canon) will dertee no sacramental grece, nor will
they Fulfil! their Sunday obligahon Where then to go? Ta his parish, St
Gert rude
the Great, ke
of course How does Cekada mathis clalm? He
says that refumng 1o sy the name of the Pope along with the priest
during the canon (even mn sllent, mental prayer) is a failure to “sctlvely

'i-hn‘mw-,v:/hu-ucmu-lumv:]u-u WM bap //www

2 Cahada. “The Goutn of I Sndorvavmrits amd Una Cun Masoss.” bitye/ /W
Vabine veg, mages/ril
artles Smdan.
ool IrCurh
“2
 hepler )
o Fr Ce
te” in the Mass Accordmg
:,,"k.':pm the defimmive artient |t oo
Pacipai to
~THE PREEST ot an wne cumCoulMass , of
dn t ».::."_' ‘::‘"Wh
uiters the objectionable phrase
to 1t simply “withhold hus consent’ frem taer :;:
Cano, but stll assist at the Mass othery 15¢ 1 onder to fulfl] hug
sbligation of obtain sacramental
Well no To Il your Suméty ebsgane
sscramental graces at Mass requires actne “.m -
participation This 15 an all or-nothing pregossen Y,
acuvely assist or you don’t % o et

Of course, the entire foundation of Fr Cekada's “defiretive article”

{which has led many souls 1o stop atten
Mass aliogeber)
ding is based
ypon the same erroneous prenuse that the concliar Popes’ “an of
heresy” (udged and declared by Fr Cekada) has severed them from
e Church Becauise of their *public sin.” Fr Cekad claums they s
are ne
loger membe of thers Church And, becau they are seno lenger
members of the Church, he explarns, they certa canniotmly
be namsed
the canon as Popes, even if this means we are sunply prayng for them
and not with them (since the prayers of the canon are only for the
nembers of the Church)
For example, Richard Ibranyi wrote the following publcly 10 Jobn
Lane, who attends a Mass in whch the Pope ts numed m the canen:
“You [John] are praying in communion with notoriows heretcs and
shismanics In this you are guilty of all thex crismes by way of
swciation Would you have us believe you can close your eyes and
sars when the “Te Igitur’ {one with John Paul 11 - una cux) w prayed
10d in 30 doing escape guilt? Would you have us pretend that Ged
does not see you?%
Aswemmhmumyw"m:
sxcraments altogether For example, we saw that in beu ol gong 0
Tradltional Mass and sacramental confession, Gerry Mamcs 37
B famuly
to stay at home on Sundavs (*home-sloners”) and follew B8'
s i prayer Matatics also cwdently believes he can %
will (he admits this n awtir
grace for acts of perfect contrition at
his mortal sins. While we do not accuse Mr
frgve
~— .
/!
m'wnm...u-mu::rmm-uw
'w-';“m-‘" m’wm e for ot debopt 54
Wb/ dacumene, refutsana; rimi/ re10_og Jotvtane Pl

“
e
Trae ot Falve Pape” Chapier 21

subjecive guiAl for hus extreme powitions (as he does with the conciliar
Fores), our Catholx hearts are moved for fus chuldren and all the other
t
Bctan of Sedevacantuee who are now being depri ved of the
gmmlm-yammhhmd evil fruit of the sect

False Mysticism and Cenclavism

ing, cross-condemnations and utter confusion among

5.432.'.':?’po":pa Tave led to the splintering of the movement wite
vanous ndividual sects just Iike un Protestantism) Some of these secis
bave gone on lo elect thewr ewn “Popes” (these Sedevacanbists ape
called “Conclavists”) Other sects have decrded to follow certain men
who clain 1o have been crowned the true Pope by Heaven itself These
phenomena further underscore the cultish nature of the movement
For example, Fr Michael Collin (d 1974) - an carly forerunner of
she Sedevacantiet movement - declared that he was mystically crowned
Pope by God the Father an Octeber 7, 1950, dunng the reign of Pus
XIL and teek the name Clement XV His successor was Gaston
Trembisy {d 19%8),a former Canadian politician and Mayor 11 Quebec,
who claimed that Jesus Himself named hum Pope on June 24, 1968 He
ook the rame Gregory XVII Clemente Dorunguez y Gomez (d 2005),
a Spaniard who was assocsated with the Palmar de Troya movement,
oo claimed that Chrat granked hum the pepacy on August6, 1978,
after the death of Faul VI. He also took the name Gregory XVII
Next, we have Amencan Remnaldus Michael Beryjaruns, who claime
1o have beon crowned the Popeby angels in 1983 and took the name
Gregory XIX. Francis Konrad Schuckardt (d 2006), an independent
American bishop, claitns 1o have received the papal tura from Our
Lady of Guadatupe during the reign of John Paul Il He tock the name
Hadrian VIl Fr Valenano Vestini, an Itahan priest of the Caphuchin
®rder, claus to have recewved the papacy from God 1n 1990 Then there
6 Chester Olazewsks of Penneylvanus, who claimed he was both Pope
{sppornied by Ged 1 1980} and savior of the world He took the name
Peter Il There i also the Frenchman and former auto mechanic
Maunce Archuert, who clams he was myshcally given the papacy in
19%5 by the Holy Ghost He also tok the name Peter Il There
are still
ther ankpepes who took the name Peter II, such as Feter Henry
Bubow ef Canada, Aune Baudet of Brussels, and Julius Tischler of
Germany Other mystical clarmanis include Htatian Gino Frediani
ourarusi, 73-1%4), Spanurds Manuel Alonso Commal (Peter
011) and Sergo Mara Ginés Jesus Hemdndez y Martinez
 ey XYDI s 2011, and Amencan
of Induanapolis (John Paul msm;;,s)“‘m Zion Vollball-
Othet antipopes elected by “Conclaves* incluge
iy a sond-up comedian from Croata, who wae “"“:'Flfl’b; «
ok the rame Krav (which was hus siage name), South ":
Vetos Von Penz, who was elected 1n 1994 by conclavutsm by
ok the name Linus U1 and, Timothy Blasio Ahtier (d 1998 whe i
dected 1 Afrca 1n 1991 We previously mentoned semmary s
Pavid Bawden of Kansas, who had his mom and dad elect ,,_,d:’,ok""
ichuet | on July 16, 1990 I 1996, Fr Lucuan Pulvermacher
(2, 2009 3
o priest, was elected by a larger *Conclave® of between 50 and
100 people, although most of them phaned in their votes 1o the wood
house 10 Montana where the votes were being tallied. He sook the
ame of Pius XIll On March 24, 2006, 2 group of irregulac
dected Argentine Oscar Michaellh (d. 2007)
as Les XIV He was
succeeded by Juan Bautista Bonett, who book the name Innocent XIV
and resigned 1n 2007, and was succeed by Aleandro Towds Goros,
who took the name Alexander IX Al kidding aexle, seme might be
wempted to call these the “bitter nuts” (rather than frue) of
Sedevacantism 7
The Sedevacantist author, Richard Tbranyt (who iraches that all the
Popes since 1130 AD have been antipopes) alio claims %o have
necesved dwine revelations. In fact, ha actually claume w be "one of the
winesses mentionied 1n the book of the Apocalypee, Chapler 11° He
sud ™I believe this to be true, based upon muny confurmanons irom.
God“* The self-proclaimed witness of the Apocalypse then declares
that those who refuse to associate with hum are “guilty of a slsm.
akin ko schism.*
“Those who do not wast 1o be amecisiad with me becauee [
Cim 10 be onc of the witnesses, W spuie of the fact ha | am
Cathohic n word and deed, are guilty of a mensl sus akin 1o
schism,~®

mo nd br ot he rs ha ve aa o cl um ed1o hoe
Although the Diich as thesr declaration thet John Paul ITwse e
Prophatic iuughts, {s se to as eo c e with Mr
, th ey re fu
bl antichy
e ri st ®) ey =
w / / m . . « a :.m—‘/n—:
:‘,‘ mere detall, sec the
d b
we
S
bs ib e m
o t b S P
o cosect.
A iiet
4 S acan
mpieSee sive htpe//www
5 st Bapec v em wikigedia org) wiky/ Conclaviom.

“5
I —————
Trwe or Falee Pope? Chapter21

Toca nyt is # for mer mem ber of the Dimond brothery

Interestingly, 4
monastery, but was kicked out of their compound for being 4out for beng
read that correctly Kicked
Gedevacantwt. You did not become 4
You see, Michael Dimond
Sedevacantsl!
Gedevacankst until a year afier Mr Tbrany’s evic tion Today, even
tst position with
though the Dmond brothers now share the Sedevascanand
hios Mr Toranys declares them to be “apostate heretics” He
wrele
“From whe tme | held the sedevacante postiion until my
o the monastery. | smuggled the scdevacante
teac out le hi ng
sthers madl Michacl caught some of these
by s
mailings fcfere they wost oot and removed the sodevacante
weckun them.
Frerm gs
A year or moe aftcr my departure, Michacl changed hus beliel
and held the sedevacanic possuon, but he never admitted that he had
expelied me foc the real feason mentioned in this fetier Smply put,
Michael was wrong and | was nght, as even now | am nght for
demauscing the Dimends as apostates and heretics, a6 15 evident for
ol of good Wl ta soc."®
These are the kands of evil fruits produced by the evil tree of
Sedevacantiem. From defusions and deceptions to divisions, detractien
and mutual condemnations, the Sedevacantist sect is a poisoned tree,
bringmng forth nothung but “thoma and briers whose end is o be
burnt” (Heb 68) From this we can see why Ihe Sedevacantisy, John
Lane sad shat “people who get interested in Sedevacantism become
unatable in their spintual hves, confused about what matters and what
deesn’t, forget thewr own incompetence in what are often very
technically challenging areas of law and doctrine, often destabilize
athers in thew parish, and very eften more broadly disturb the peace of
the pansh "% While Lane concedes that “Ihe sedevacantist solution is
wrong” ¥ there are no bishops
left with ordinary jurisdiction, he and
his colleagues should alse recognize that the *Sedevacantisl solution”
s from the devil and not Ged, based upon the rotien and wicked fruits
it bas produced.

* By Kodhard. ‘O RIML, Mareh, 2085

g /e s acimmee v viewtnpic phy e 20=1773
 Chapter21
The Art of Decept
andion Detracten
As we have obectively demonstrateq
sedevacantists alio engage m much e T e ook
s and talks n order 10 “prove” the = whm

research We do not mean to any that alf

engage in these cishonest tactics But 1t -nfw:tvm ::“‘""[
pubished Sedevacantuse - that i, thove whe pucpon o e
movement through their public writings - consusmtly behuve o w
hat completely undermine their own credibibty, nd W aes povacs
the diabolical spirit that permea tes
thewr sect.
For exarmple, 1 attemptng to “prove” his novel "okt o hervey
causes the loss of ecclesiastical office” thaory, we sew haw Fr Cekads
dehiberately quoted a sentence fragment from Carddanal Billot which
says a heretical Pope “is cast oulside the Body of the Church,” even
though the full quote reveals Bulot was refe1o rrin the crame (netgsin)
of “notorious heresy,” which Cekada must have known by having resd
the whale quole We aleo saw how Sedevacaniet Jerry Ming parrwied
Celada's argument verbatim in his own artxcle We saw how Cekada
sisularly omitted key wonds from hus oral recr
of iwbo
the Wemnz-Vidal
n
quolation on declaratory sentences, which shows the commentary s
referning to the declarationof the crame of heresy (whwch resdis i the
loss of office) and not a declaration of ulegthmacy (which cleers utic 4
an office that was already lost) Cekada has conmwiently vsed thus
techinique when quoting many other theologuns (Beste, Corsnte.
etc ) in hfinm-id-udv-&mlw'!
lragur, Vermeersch,
10 pull the wool over the eyes of his followers by arguing thet the “su’
of herety severs one from the Church, even though - when you look up
e actual quotations and context - al the theologiare e reerog t»
the crie of *notorious* and “openly divulged” heresy We aiso
bow Sedevacantiets’ often remove Bellrmune’s qualiication "_""Y
fodgment ~ from his quotation critming the Fourih Opurior
& 6%,
1t the appearance that Bellarmine’s subyective opuean 4 3
t s
We further saw how Fr c.mmflywm,,..
1ddressing the Churchy's prudential udgment of sl ST
from the material he cied, while sddrem est SUEETng
Lo
doctrinal judgment alone. o mahe it appeer

-
W
fi

Trae o Faloe Pape? Chapter

§ are miallible ® The Sedevacantist bishop, Mark .
Mms ":S'; same cishonest lactic 1 his own arhcle on
o fallibisty and in 0 doing didn't even unclude an ellipsis
Tnea tnghad been removed We alkosaw Fr Cekada's
that something
shevght of hand echruque used to fuekify his theory that the new rie of *
epracopal consecraton & wvalid when he compared apples ithe Coptic
Preface) and oranges (the form of Paul VI's new rite) and then argued
shat because the apples and aranges “are not equivalenl,” it confirms
#hat the new ke w mvahid.
We also saw how John Daly removed multiple references o the d
e wnversaiity throughout tume” (diachronic universahity) element of the "
nfallible Ordimary and Universal Magisterium, when he quoted from
Pus X's Tus Libenter No question be did this 10 juatify his novel n
theory that “universality 1n space” (synchronic umversality) was all .
that w required for miallibility of the OUM We atso saw how the ¢
Sedevacantt blogger, Steve Speray, farled lo verify Mr Daly's partial '
quote, and ended up parroting Daly’s error verbatim n his own «
internet acticle {very common amangst Sedevacantists) Of course, in i
all the artcles and blogs of these seif-promoting internet writers. L
(Cekada, Dolan, Sanborn, Lane, Daly, the Dimonds, Speray, Ibranys,
Droleskv, exc) one will never find a reference & the teachung of the
Fourth Counc of Conwlantinople, or Bellarmrune’s De Membris Ecclesue,
which exphatly condemmn the Sedevacantis! thesi.
We aléo learned how Sedevacantits make false allegations of '
wuuthenarty agast wntings which undermune their posibon. For t
example, we saw how John Lane falsely accused Fr Boulet of bewng 1
“decezved by fraudulent quotes which he has ctrelesely bited from
seme place unknown.” when Fr Boulet quoted Papa Adrian VI, who
Wught that many Popes were heretcs, including John XXII Lane made
I faloe allegaon becawse the quote represents & problem for his
novel theory that a heretic Pope automatically loses his office, even
while he & beng recognized by the Church as Popa In his typical

£ K dmbarvat o otimg s Br Cekada i an ableviated facaut shen wrising sbeut

Sedevacantiom fhe cun snd pasies partial quates, uses bullet peinis, cresies sammarics,
o), 4R o that the material laeks quite smple snd sieaiphiferward (ard hia readers
ot haer do 20y furthar week) But this apprsch dees not reflect the truie enmplelty
o the materal an this busk dememeiraies Cebada s style is abse much dilferent from the
Approssh e cand 0 bus ek Viok of Human Hands which in & thersughly researched
E
t
i
]i
i
'
§
i

¥
£

i
g
:
 ty and demeaning manner, Lane latet referred
s e quotation from Pope Adram asbewg -..,,,,\;:" wha've
vibout the slightest aflechion (or the moral taw
or oty g
Jatwe have provided (in Chapter
8) the ongmal Latin version of o
‘s quotation {fom Iwo Centuries before Mr Lane g Pepe
“pveed.” we vl see 1f e offer a public apoiogy 1o o Beuen
hecihers for hus public detrachon. We aiso saw fhow Lane s 204
et doubt upon the authenticity of Constantinople ['s ey
4 Pope Hononius, by implying that Pope St. Leo It didn't ndertand
decouncil that he humeelf rahfied - once again, bacawe 1t undermines
inSedevacantist thesss
It 1s unfortunate that Sedevacantuts
are atlowsd Ppblssh
mmmrwmmsuximumnmwu:k
ry
wallowed whole by their simple-minded flocks (ust ke theyy
enoneous theonies), without any chalienge, IqusTy or mvesegation.
For many Sedevacantists, of you can’t refule the argumenss of your
spponients, you must attempt ko destroy thewr creibniity, so shat your
ollowers won't take them senously. That w the smear Wchc of ol
ianeand many of his collesgues
Novel Theories and Contradictions
In our study, we also discovered how Sedevacanits are ofien
forced to create novel theories which have no bass in Charch teaching
W defend their thesis. Of course, the most novel theery of them all is
the Sedevacantist thesis itself, which % based wpon the errencous
Tohion that individual Catholics can depose rexgrang Popes {or daclare
tem deposed) and therebry separate from them by an act of private
kidgment. Once the separation occurs, they are then moved to invent
wher novel mdgmmtymmnmwymfinh
sayg that schism quickly lesds to heresy Just as Catheix rulh builds
4Pon truth, 50 too error breeds more error
We saw how Fr Cekada and others ciaun that the s of heresy (2
"“fflofdulmrflullmm)mmfimnl}nflodyollkmmh':
atter of the external forum) and how this faiee theery permesics
Pest of therr arguments. Unable to answer his orw;:m‘*‘"“"
{who have proven that the concilisr Popw have act dame
under hia "tlnofhfluy' theary).
we saw bow CetS8
ads
S0
acantisie have a “new” argument (that the “’";"h;n of herosr
""'bl\'nlruePopubeuuuMMm'm‘m_“ Yo Dok
Wfere their elections), even though ths ey, et
ore than a different application of the "old” anpunent
-
I
Trwe o Falee Pope? Chapter71

it ot tt y e T e
e pudgcanme
determ
nt
et
ine for themselve;
how Sedevacantists repeatedly confuse heresy with lessor theological
and igno
wcrors and “heretizng,” history where Popes (e g,
cases ire
P X} and sants (e.g. Bellarmne) remained In communion with
\hose clerics (eg. Amhbishop Darboy, Michel de Bay) who
1y profesecd herestes in public, i the absence of the
Church's definitive judgment of the individual
We saw how Sedevacantists presume the subjective element of
pertinacrty based solely upon what they persorally believe 1 a
materually heretcal stskement (the objechive element), when, in fact,
pertimacity w establihed for clerics through ecclemastical warmnings by
those in authonity, and not simply by private judgment We saw how
shey misunderstand thet the nture of heresy severs one from the Body
o the Church because st does not require an additwnal ecclesiastical
penalty 10 do 30, and not because the Church # precluded from making
the pudgment, which 1t must do tn the case of a cl(aen judgmcent thet
Sedevamake can by tis ts ” in the words
“usurpation, of St Thomas)
We alee saw how Bishop Sanbomn created the novel theory that
universat and peaceful accephanofcea Pope confirme only the validity
of hus electon, and not thet he has recerved papal jurisdichon, even
theugh pust the oppowtc w true universal and peaceful acceptance
guaranweice haves a vabd Pope, 10 whom Christ has directly gransed
funsdicion, evan if shere were defects in his election (thus, it does not
‘mmply guaranice that an elecion was valid)
We sew how Fr Cekada created has own bizarre “doctrine” about
wvecal sgruficanon for sacramental validity, arguing; thet the way in
which words are used i hetetical sects - and not the way in whichthe
Churcht uses and wderstands them - atfecw the validity of Catholc
sacraments. We sew how Cekada crested a theory thet a hiturgrcal law
promulgated by & Pope (re, Pius Xil) can be set aside by the private
judgment of individual Catholics f they personally believe the law
lacks “stability,” anct has bacome “harmful in hindsight * We also saw
how Celada claime that liturgical laws (of Paul V1) are legally
promulgatad by vire of one's private interpretation of the Pope's will
#lonc (has “hepas” and “wishes”), and not by the Church’s established
legat procems. We ssw how Cekada tried 0 use canon 151 to claim thet
when the sheologias use the term “declaration,” they are refernintog a
duclaraen of vacancy (of office) and ot the initul fact thet causes the
-
# Vg Darkwy avviinind ' hoid ha wrrer even aftar nring warned privaiel
atelyy Byby the
:’Lz:rr*fl'lflhhh-d--ymh—fly

0
 b 2]
cancy, even though IMMO;AI:!RMM
SHMH"‘MW

f We also saw how Steve Speray argued that 1 -

O (acing 1 perni Gt to ~prove: s oy xvm
Chuels disciplinary infallbilty We even saw Speray ciatms
doesn'tned o be a heretic tall 10 ose ot fox pecays
We saw how Lane engages in the fallacy of shufting the urden of
freoft hus “Bis
o3 hopup
i thepO
Woods”
rt theory We ans how Gerny
it preaches the novel doctthat rnGode will mput the sleg
eey
eresies of the conciliar Popes to the souls of those who die 1 uraen
with them (by “crediting to your account she faith of shese men”) We
ww how Lane, Cekada, the Dimond brothers and many other
Sedevacantists falsely claim that Bellarmune and Suarez held ditfersnt
yosinons on the question of a heretical Pope They then dengrate
Susrez and claim that Bellarmine’s apunion must prevail since he 15 a
Doctor of the Church — when, w fact, they have compiesely
nusunderstood Bellarmine's positon] We also saw how virtually al
Seevacantists subscribe 1n one way of anot 1o the
he errer
c of
Monolthuc Infallibility
We saw how John Daly created the theory that Vatcan 1l (which
defined o doctrines at all) should have been anfallible by virtue of the
Ondinary and Universal Magsterium, sumply because it was &
gpther ofngthe world's bishops with the Pope m hme,
netwithatanding the fact that the novofe
thei
coun
b cilewere
snot 1}
iefintely proposed as 2) divinely revealed trushs- two requiremans. ihat
nube
st met for infallibiity o apply to the OUM (and the
Exmaordinary Magssterium) In fact, Daly further pbed that ol the
of Vati
teic hu canng sld have been covered by the Churck's
[ shou
whillibity, even though not alf the leaofcevum
hensc
nalgcoun
sals
14 40 define dogres are proteced by infalibity, butouly the scrial
defintions themeelves, Daly's efforts atlempt to “redefioe
witlibilty of the OUM o mean anything dut w Wught som
dulinutively at & gven moment in time, rather than what
down through the ages.
A Sv.-dzvn:-nnszh concoct their novel theenes ":;"‘dh;
ble,wuko..wmmmusum::‘mm
them to directly contradict themeelves, even within rocle dauned
For example, we saw how Steve Speray in his ‘"“"‘:d,mma
Wata heretic Pope 13 automtically excommunscated
i

o
I— oy
Trwe or Faloe Pope? Chapter21
§1 o the 1917 Code and then, two pcr-l;":pl- ister, said Popes are not
14, §1 or anv canon
""’::':mmz:,: o Gregonus argued that the conaliar
Jowt shesr office iso facte, according to canon 188, §4, yet, in the same
" exd the Fope t5 ot subject ® canon law We also saw how
Gregorius claims the loss of papal office is solely a "question of fuct,
t isw" even though he also appeais to canon Taw and legal
arguments (pertaung % law) ® make hus case We saw how Fr
Cekada claime one cannot reject the hiurgical laws of a valid Pope (and
s he reyecis the. reforns of Paul V1), even though he humself reyects
the Titurgical reforms of Plus XIT and yet accepis lum as a valid Fope
{abeurdly claitming that Pius XIT's reforme beceme evil under Paul VI)
We saw how Fr Cekada and Bishop Sanbor concede that private
indsvrduals {even religrous socetiees Lke the S5 PX) cannot resolve
ulnsat
specquesko rvgy and Law, while they themselves
of theolo do
Juat the opposite in their dogmaic defense of the Sedevacantist thesis,
We also saw how Cekada falsely accuses Traditional Cathollcs of
having a heretical view of the papacy, while he (along with Matatics,
Senborn and others) essentally holds to the heresy of an invisible and
defectible Church, at lesst in practice, sice Cekada cannot tell us
where the Pepe and epwcopacy east 1oday, and claims that the visble
society morphed into a New Church.
We saw how Gerry Matatics accused Archbishop Lefebvee of being
“grossly liberal* and perhapa even a “heretic” for holding that non-
Catholics can be saved mr their false religions but no by t
them Yet, in
the same talk, Matetics admits that Nevus Orde Catholics can also be
taved mn shew seligson, even though Matatics holds the Novus Orde to
be a false religion. In fact, Behop Sanbom claime thet those in the
Newus Orde are “legally Catholics,” even though he also claims that
they (especially the Now:s Orde Popes) are not members of the Catholic
Church, but of a falee religion,# How the bishop can imagine that a
pensen can e a legal Catholic, yet not a member of the Church, »
anyenc's geess We also saw hew Matatics excused john XXI) from
bewg classified a8 & public heretic because he did not “impose” his
haresy upen the Church of ter
as a wat falth, and yet, at the same time,
he claise Paul Vi was a public heretic for ratifying Vatican i, even
Shough Paul Vi did not “smpose” the novelties of Vaticsn Il upon the
Chwd--nmolmmfimtzuwmunudmyumw
Chusch evar had women deacons. since, as he claims, it is againet

-_
4 Sembarn, sl O The Thols O Bhop Gurard Do Laurier,” fune 2, 2002
[
 - Cuprer 71

e I, * when, 1n lact, the Church dd have women serving 2

* for centuries
e saw how the Dimond brothers argued that
it was an “obvious heretic”} did not have ko bel:xwh (w,.‘:lflz
Church declared his heresy, while the conailiar Popes must be avouded
it & declaration of heresy from the Church, becayse they
“heretical antipopes” by their private judgment. The Dimond nw.:
contradict themselves when they cie Maguterial documan
sch s Mortaums Animos, which says * " this Apostohc See has nevey
lusubpthhkzpir\md\gw!aofi-\(ad\fln -
whie they themselves atiend Mase at an Eastern tve chorch n
communion with Pope Francis and the “Nowus Orde” which they
declare to bea non-Catholic religion. We alio saw how Dun
Delan argued that whether he % a true priest (vabidly ordaned)
» &
question of fact that must be reselved by the Ghurch, whule he holda a
(mpletely dilferent standard lor the Vicars of Chest (1e.. he treais the
qoestion
of fact about whether they are true Popes as 8 matter of
pvake udgment) We further saw how Sedevacaniwe accuse
Traditional Catholics of “sifting the Mapwtenum® by reading and
dgng the modern documents in the hght of Traditon, when they
themselves do tha exact same thing, although they go further by
“sfung Popes” as well Many other examples could be provided, but
the point has been made Sedevacantists are guilty of creating novel
and contradictory theones to defend what cannot be defended. An
artor in the beginaung
1 an error in the end
Sarcasm, Ridicule and Condemnations
Becausc the Sedevacantists have already condemoed the concilinr
Top es it should be no surpree that they ndicule and
a3 heretics,
powtion. Ths 1 anothar
condemn anyone who 15 an obstacie to thetrSetting
ey biter fruit of Sedevacantism. asde the xuny
cndemaations that Sedevacantes have publudv husled agac the
2uthars of this book and other traditional Cathole wriker, we saw hew
Sedevacantists also denigrate the Church s most reputable m‘z::
and accuse them of error and even heresy when thew writngs
iuv;:mhe&-dcvxmnsx thesis. Cekada dend
r example, we saw how Fr
e “lut mow lebarcs and wae theoforly theclogan 3 boid X &
“0ncil muast oversee the deposthion a hesetical Pope ngmw
flsehoods) We aaw how John Lane tat e
by L abcin
Fimt See is judged by no one™ was first ssued
o3
e @
e Pope?
or False
Tru Chapte21
r

it Suarez. even though the axiom dates back to the

:.",Tv“&?.:h".‘.’;‘w.s ted by Suarez humsell Mr Lane even went s
far a6 o sccusc Suarez of herosy mn believed Suarez5 opinion
he ce
veould requ ir
& “fud et” of # herehical Pope yet, as we <aw. Lane’s
gmen
Favorite theologian, Bellarmume, explicily taught that “a heretical Pope
a";’::::, Sedevacantists condemn more modern theologans as
well. For example, the Dimond brothers publicly cond emn Ronald
e,
Knox and Megr Van Noort as being heretics On thear websitthey
sav- “Heretxs such as Knox, Van Noort and the editors of hus work
were simply devoid of the Catholic and apostolic faith * They also
declare thet the 1849 Letter ol the Holy Office, Suprema Haec Sacre,
by Prus XII and condemned the erroofrs
which was approved the
Rarylu,nbemflmywmnr'&‘pmmhmm- is neither
authorrtative nor nfallible, but heretcal und false “% Why do they
nvfly
mn’kulikeMMDnm\dhavemhxedn
heresy that the Holy Office condemned 1n the letter This ahows that !
thev are not only separated frem the post-Vatican Il Church, but are !
separated doctrinally from the Church prior to Vatlcan Il as well And |
what % their basis for reecting this Magisterial teachung? Private
Judgement. of courae
They aleo declar e Fenton, one of the most anti-modernist
Megr
prioric
authors m Amer aan I, and who edited the Amerioan
to Vanc
Ecclewstical Rewiew for nearly 20 years, of being “a dogma denler” - |
that is, a heretic Pete Dimond says “Thus, Msgr Joseph Clifford ¢
he n’,
Fenton was not a‘wonderful theologia was a dogma denter and a !
dogma corrupter In fact, he is all the more dangerous because his '
heretxcal ideas are given the semblance of doctrinal fidehity *¢ They
even refer 10 Cardinal Ottaviani, who was in charge ol the Holy Office «
wnder Fius XII, as “the heretic Cardinal Ottaviaru “% Richard Ibranyi, ¥
however, takes the cake The self-proclaimed witness of the .
Apocalypse net only condemns all modern theologians as heretics and .
apostates, but aieo every single Pope sunce [nnocent 1l in 1130, and
every sngle Church theologun and canon lawyer since 1250 Toranyr’s
condemnabon, then, tncludes the Umiversal Doctor of the Church, St
Thomas Aquinas, and the rest of the Doclors who meet lbranyl's

# S bt/ o sl sy ooy s thbcchurch reveskiag heresies-n

f;":‘/*“—‘-‘hhnw/- VicTIq2FPaR.
il b munthelylandlymanastery cons/ cathuliochu ch/ megs-fentor-jecph-
* bosd
@ W e mavibalytamiiymensstery sees retihing NFP phyp .

74
e
 he Bl I — 2

e, including. the well-koown S5 Borwventue, Atbey

fon of the Cross, Robert Bellarmu, Francy de sepe 1y ¢ S0
Loguor, among others. Alphoree
ps What 15 most revealing x the
tation that the most published Sedevacanty sones ™™™
ndermine their opponents and h
B ity Fe Cekada 1 2 masier of thes et palaton and
pecause be s @ pricst, it miakes hus behuvsor all the mare unfers ,."‘. ,
or example, in Fesponding 1o an artcle writien by John Salzs, we e
ot Fr Celcad actually lowered humeelf ko make fun of etors o
sumarae by titling his internet article *Salza on Sedevacantism,
s.:
O Fare, displaying a picture of the sakca condim onsheent
web pa
ng
and referni {0 the author's arguments a *a dash of Sulza* Coparse
n such tacocs o keep hes readers sntermined whie
camoulaging the weakness of Iwe own case (here, his inabbty 1o rebut
Salza's argument that the cnime of heresy, ot the sin of heresy leads1o
the loss of ecclesiastical office) At a muru mu
one can onlym,
hope that
fe Cekada comes 1o reslize she dignity of the priesthood et he
publicly represents. and begine to act 1 a mamore nm er
worthy of such
atighaalling
Also, after Mr Salza gave an interv oniew
papal infallibli for tythe
Ve of Catholic Redwo on March 30, 2014, the Sedevacantwm st
NovusOrdoWatch (who, as we saw, masquerade behind phony pen-
names) revealed their own juvenility by publishungen article feigning a
rebubtal of Salza’s pressntation which they called *Comedy Hour with
John Salza,” and posted a graphic of Salza's face with a clewn's nose on
the webpage Catholic wriker Paul Folbrecht, offended by such chidsh
maultson a fellow Catholc (not ®0 mien tharkoamatenurch
xholarshup), wrote an extenave rebuttal to she NovueOrdoWakh
phce, revealing the muany errors, owamons snd misreprascnishionsit
contsine (and, like Salza's extenarve rebutial of “Gregorus™ at
NovusOrdoWakch, cutrently remauns unarswered).®
Fr Cekada also relessed & puvere video on Sedevacaniem colled
“StuInck a Rut” which he dresses up with humorous cancateres snd
cvmical satire o address the most serous snd weyghty topc of when
ad how the Vicar of Christ loses hus office for heresy Inmem
Celada superimposed the hewds of Chnstopher Ferrara. Sran
1o the SalzA a and Robert Speve upon the bodies o e sl
postolic Tribunal of the Roman Rotw, Vat
who icaare 0706 -
Pope Francis, and called the depiction the n Legal Dream
—_—
Sol b 7w soalboi
e/ e o oo
&5 e
P———
True ov Falee Pope? Chapter

Tessi® (these four men - three of whom are lawyers - have wtten
+ demonstratmg thata legal process s required by the Churclys
grestest theologuns to depose a heretcal Pope) Evidently, mnce
Cekads cannot rebut the argumenis of these four wrters (which
refiects the unanimous waching of the Church's theologians), he has
decided Yo make fun of them instead (which also apeaks 1o the low
intellectual sandards of Cekada's audtence} Such ad hommem attacks
are comemonly recognised as the effeminate response of those wha are
unable o offera cogent untellectual rebuttal $0 an argument
The Dumond brothers also have a common practice of publicly
condemnang Catholics who have ust departed thus Ife For example,
Jest after Michael Davaes went %0 hus eternal reward, the Dimond
Wrothers posted an arnce titled “Mschael Davies, defender of the Faith
o fatthiess heretc™” after which, needless 10 say, they concluded that
“Michael Davies was net & defender of the Faith, but a faithless
herenc”®
After the recent and shocking death of the Fanma priest, Fr
Nicholas Gruner, the Dimond brothers posted an article dtled ™'Fr.’
Nicholas Gruner Dres Of A Heart Attack -~ What Catholics Should
Think Of Him.” Thew article daims o give “the truth about *Fr*
Nicholas Gruner that you wor't hear almost anywhare else” (even
though nasther Pete nor Mike Dimond ever personally spoke with or
met Fr Gruner) They nevertheless declared him 1o be “an obstinate
heretac and & mayor false prophet.”%
They alao accused him of being “a major false teacher the Devil
wsed 10 decetve conservative-minded people” and “an instrument of
Satn who led many pecple t0 Hell * They conclutied by seying: “Since
he died a6 & heretic and & wicked man, o true Catholic can pray for
Gruner or say ‘Rest m Peace’ in his regard “ Such unthinkable cheap
shets (not %0 mention grevous hes) taken at the faithful departed,
aspecally a gentle priestly soul liks Fr Nicholas Gruner, startle the
Cmu:.rmn and only reveal the morbid state of the Dymonds’
own behavior makes that of the modemn pagars appear

-
&. ar./ 1 e ety lamymmatery ot Michac!_Davies_deierdes_oc_ hetenc ph
:’E-‘/‘";“
b/ masrhady
ety (sl ymetmastory sien cathaticchurchy f-nichelas-gru net-disse

76
m
 rmprer 21
Conclusion

fe believe 1t was important to comy

e evil frunts of Sedtvnnmp:‘:vo:’fi-:dd{,?“m
i Our Lord sa1d we “shall know” the false prophen sy )
of our day Our coverage of ths matenal, e
ed 10 characterize all Selevacantion as false prophe v bitier
e
souls. Assuredly,there are some Sedevacantisi who are n good faith,
fut have been caught in dusdw:mmmbddnml_d
she crasls 10 the Church, and the cultish and overbearing lechnaques of
e edevacaniust sect, it is understandable how the could happen,
Many Sedevacantists will be quick 10 respond by poming ot the
wé frutta of the postconciliar Church These authors, of course,
aknowledge that the Vatican Il revofubon withun the Church ha
ndeed produced some bad fruits This w ko be expected while the
Church suffers her Mystical Paseion As we've explaned, st as Christ
sffered in His Body at the hands of the Old Covenant leaders, 50 the
Mystical Body of Christ has been dsfigured at the hands of the
conciar Popes And fust as many loet faith in Christ dunng Ha
Passion (urable to see Hi Diviruty hudden berwath His wounds), se
Sedevacantists have lost faith wn the Church, with her divine nature
currently obscured by the waunds of her own Passson.
Rather than suffer with Christ and His Church, and work to ring
sbout the vestoranon of Tradiion, Sedevacantuts have deparied from
the Church, even beconung amongst the Church's most oulspoken
enemmes For therm, this 1s the easy way out: for no longer do they have
the difficulty of explaming the errors and ambrguities of the council. e
the abuses found in the New Mass, or the latest act of sacrilepous
worstup
at the Vatican Their simple solution is 10 sy the Fope i not
the Pope and the Church is not the Chirch.
But, as we explained in the Preface, their apparent difficulty is
comes from a e
bome from their false Major Premuse, that whatever
Fape must be truc and good, because
“the Pope i mialle ” As we've
sem, the Major Premise s faulty and incompliee, snce the fofeo
Walibie only when he meets some very speatic candivons. TS 7
does not meet these conditions, the Pope om allow e
e
True or False Fope? Chapter 21

emained withun the Church, sunce Sedevacanbists suffer dar

,,.mm“w duudr:' (whach they themwelves admut) which are dma’;
-Muwdfihmmmhm(mwmnunm
sworse
Stwe civa of being scparated from the Church, and
condibon ly
the ordinary means of grace) And these rotten fruits cannot be
%o they
attributed smpl sact atirachng unbalanced souls The authors.
of this book, along with many others, have personally witneseed
individuale (prests and laymen) who, after embracing the sect,
mmnwuknmfiqmflnmunnmwm
From kand and humble, they become Wtter, obnoxious and proud It
a strange phenamenon, but one thet seems consistent with what Martin o
Luther complained about in hus followers.
These disorders, combined with a lees of faith 1n the Church,
ultimaiely Soad 0 8 lows of hope and despair, which St Thomas says u
“the ongn of other ane” and “a most gnevous sin” In itself 4 Si
Thomas also says that “des parr
is born of sloth,” which explains why
those who are leoking for easy answers and for a simple solution to
expla in crisis often fall 1nto the error of Sedevacantiam%
the present
Indeed, lookang for & simple way to rationalize the current crisis, many
Sedevacantuts have actually despaired 1n the process, which is the
ssrsaquence of recting the Church of jesus Chrat. They fall o
despax by believing that the varible socsety of the Church has defected,
and seeing no way for the Church to get a new Pope, except through &
ention
divine intervfrom Heaven.
Unfortunat ely,ng majori
the overwhelmu ty who
of those go down
the road of Sedevacanhess do not return to the Church. While
Frotestart conversions 10 the Church happen daily (since most of these
pecple did not leave the Church, but grew up ina non-Catholic sect),
when s the Last time you heard of a Sedevacantist renouncing his error
and returr40ung
“the Vahcan {t Church™? It i much rarer .
As with
othar rekigious cults, mwmbers remain “stuck n the rut” (to use Fr
Cokada's kermunology) of Sedevacanmem, due o famuly relationships.
posc presewse. foar, indellectual pnde, mind control, thresls,
m“::"fl"'lplmudofimmhmm-whdumuflmllnnll
Those whe are partcularly hardened in their position are the
Sedevacan apaloguts, who have publcly sold sut for the position,
aad wewld “lose face” bafore the:s followers and benefactors f they
owrveried Thas is especially the case for those who make » hving by
fprometng Sedevacantwm, such as tha Dimond brothers, as well as Fr.
 2 and Bishop Liolan (no
10 mention
t all the
““ZM R1, and similar groups) Thie s yet md,:,'y:d fins‘:f'at
STWhile urch arch af after Vatcan ‘atcan 1 has produced
wl,uwynv.wmmmmpmmmmwmadn?ad:-;:
devl s0WSthe cockle mlnd(tn‘\laron(np!hewht,n\dyflm "
e and punty our aith, “suifers bow 1o grow unslthe hanvese: oy,
1230) The devil is the author of Sedevacantusm,for while Chrat vt
esesculs 1o remain in the Chuarch untl harvest, the devi) Jnds o
it of the battlefield of the Church, and inko hus kingdom of faie
and secunity. and, ultumalely, o spintual dworder and
suffermg, which explane why, to use the words of Jobn Lane,
“Sedevacantism s 50 often concommtant with sgratual maladses * These
sl have ot only lost fasth in the Church, bt 1 God Himeelf, whe
remains 1n charge of the Chusch, and whose ways are not owr ways.
Indeed, 38 Fe O'Relly remunded us, we are never 10 presume the lomits
«f what God wil to ls
perut Hus Church to suffer The prowu1senot
hat the Chusch will ot undergo tremendous tials, but rather that
“the gates of hell shall not prevail against it~
Like Our Lady and St fohn the Apostie, we must sind at the fot
o the cross of our suffening Church, and resit those who afflict her,
evenf it's the Pope; remembering that the Pope is not esus Chret, but
only His Vicarand, it 15 possible for ham to depart from Chist and lead
souls astray (a8 we asw, for example, wath John XX} when he does not
wod or loose As Catholics, we are able 10 discern tradibon from
rovelty, good from evi, light from darkness, wheat from cock- le all by
the light of faith. This w why St. Paut admonushed us 10 *hold fast 10
wadition” (ZThess 2.14), and why the Council of Trent sasd thet by the
dogmatic teachings of the Church, “all, making use of the rule of fanth.
with the assutanc of Chrst,
e may be able 10 recopr ore use
saaly the
Catholic truth in the midst of the darkness of so many emro s™
We conclude this book by rettourn what weing
ducused n
Chapter1, namely, u\-lfl!uphmha\lwfimme—lln“
¥¢ have no Pope, or tha the Church morphed e 2 New Church.
h"fl.fl!uphmfionufl!l(‘mdimmfl’mmu'.-
:fil BodyofO-flndonnderlfllm;::‘:‘mw‘
1. the Head of the Church - experenced it Lords
aasion, He warned his Apostles. “All vou shall p
his nigh. For Ilummlwmmuflwmt‘ :’lw
This prophecy
the flock shall be chaper(Mt.
aed” 26.31)
——
“Pope it 1V, o of Trwt, S, 13, G 4 oy o)
o
 Trae o False Pope? Chapter21
WI
hr—h\dchnuwusodmfl-\gmnmApmksu-mulva-
whom had pist witnesed tha Transfiguration - lost their fauh
e Toaa, L e Mysmeal Bady of Chisst 1 following Chay
\owowgh a similar Pason, 1t should be no_surprse that many b
scandahized souis are lomng their (aith m the Church, end ths for the e
e eston God has struck tha shepherds (especully the Vaucan Il
PFopes), and thus sany sheep of the flock (Sedevacanhists) have left the

m‘n-h—wldmrlmdmofllyumdfl!Apotflswlouhllh
n Chist, but ako resulted n fater heresies concerming the nature of
Christ. These heresies were borne from the erronecus notion that God
Incarnate could not suffer such things, just as the Sedevacantuts
ebeve it 1 “smpossible” for the Church bo suffer its Passion This error
resulied i two oppomie heresies. one whuch maintained that Chnst
was not God (Ananuem), the other which held that Chrst's human
rature, and therefore His human sufferings, were merely an illusion
{Docetisn) But the mystery of the divine suffering of Christ was real
Chnst, who suffered such things, was truly a Divine Person and He
possesced a real human nature Hw human nature (body and soul),
hyposmtcally umbed w0 the Word of God, truly suffered an
excracuting Pasmon and death On Calsary all appeared lost, but we
oew know that Our Lord’s Passion and death was followed by Hu
glonous resurrection, which resulted in a restoration of the spiritual
order
Not only w the Church today following our Lord through His
Passon, but o we conmder the mystery at a decper level, we can even
dmcern a mysiical desth taking place How can the Church experience
death? Death ocrurs when the body separates from tha soul Now, for
shose with eyas o see, it 13 clear that the Church is enduring precisely
this wystical form of death, as tha Body of the Church (the visible
social urut) i separabing from the Soul (the Holy Ghost) This occurs s
more and mere members of the visible Church lose their mterior virtue
of faith, thereby sevenng themwelves from the Soul of the Church But
oot as Our Lord'a body remamed the true Body of Christ -
hypostatically united to the Word of God - even after it experienced the
separshon frem His soul follewing His death on the Cross, 50 oo the
Church wday remaws the true Mystical Body of fesus Chnist, even as it
expenances the separaton of s body and soul dunng its mystical
Pascion. But this Passion and mystical death of tha Church wll be
feliowed by a resurra ction
of the Mystcal Body, whuch will restore the
temperal order {ust as the Pasion of Christ resiared the apiritual
was the motto
things in Christ” (whac
of all ration
ordar) This “resto h
wro
 htir Fr

1l fo ll aw th e papal Consecrahon of % oo 10 the

g Pws X} W , an d br in g ab ou t th e long-proph A
Mary
"“m.cuhk Heart of mend
T the meantime, let us fulfll God's will as we comamu
EPeE e care of His Most Somrowful Mother, by rem ng
the Left, nor 1o
His Ch ur ch , dev iat ing ner the r 1
:fi,fi Chist and
pe Roght
Co nq ue ro r of All Hev esi es, pra y for ua.
O Virgin Mary,
St Michael the Archangel, pray for wa.
Sts. Peter and Paul, pray for us.
6t Thomas Aquinas, pray fof vs.
St Robert Bellarmune, pray for us.
St Pive V, pray forus.
St Pius X, pray forus.

81
.l
L
 ] Appe
Theological Opinions on nd ix Chart -
Loss of Office for a Heretical Po
pe

$7A Treic 1 40 be aveided wier tw warmings” ([ Remas Ponitie, b 2. ch 2.

77t alie serws @ be the irue opinion. 1ot e [ieresic] Fope must he admonished. A
Derec after the firot and secend warning is aveided ™ {Dic Fake, dop. X, st VI n. 11}
1" Alter twe admenitians.” (De Comperatone Auct,, pp. 162 198)
+Altr the iret e sevend sserectian (Coems Thesloga, p. 133}
3The Church can fudge » heretical Pope - Third Opaien. (See De Ramans Frmigir, b 2.
ch.30) Proper authorisies must depase (See D Mewbra Ecviomse, pp 42-429)
+The Church "declares him a heretc ~ (Dc ik, Dup 18, Sect, . 18.p. 317
?The Clurch "judges s inceerigghle.” (D Crmpuratonr Awt, pp. IM-103)
1° with the Church a utherity - (Crvms Thwdogc p. 199
* Abheugh, Belarmine dess ot dicectly eddrws it i D Remanw Pouife johw of St
Thomas confirmed that he required a declarstion. and Suarcz and it was the “csswnen
*pinien” (1 his day Furshar, Cardinal joweret stted that Sellarmine and Suaras heid the
e opinien.
*The Charch “weuld daciare him a heretic e wouhd then pwe o and isamedhaialy
be deposed by Christ ™ (e Fle, Diap 10 Sect 6,5 1. p. 317
' fuled ki deserve expulsien aa incormgible ([ Comparatbme Axct.pp. 162165}
*The Joriif canvt be depoord arul looe the porificar ey if e condiness are 2
Sillled Shat the herveys bl s ey obr (declared " (Ourms TS,
1 nubermatically crases 1o be & memiber of the Clurch.” (D Remms Pt B4.52 W P
eve nec dis inl y de pa se d by Ch vi at * (D Ful , Dup 18 5ec
:l;; 1790 feck b s
1n e caae of hereny, the Church separaes e he Tope (D Compr AucL. P30
o payn sedtertl vl o g Vs dclrnions (Cims Tk L%
o mum..a-uwnmm-:h‘au—-m)m
" weuld be able o be purished ” (Dc Fide, Dl 10, Secté n. W R
ibesdielondides
 Blbliography of Selected References

nas,St. Thomas
Aquinas, — Sumima Theolegics - T raratated
by Fathers of the
Englsh Domsnican Province New York. Benziger Brothers, Enc. 1961
Aquinas, St. Thomas — Super Epesiolam ad Galates Lecturs - in
Epstolas's Pault Lectura Mariett, Taunini-Romae, Vo1, l1953
Augustine, St - City of God - Edmburgh T&T Clark, Vel I, 1008,
Augustine, Charles - A Commentary of Canon Low - Ve, VII bi. 4, &,
Lou. Herd Book er
Co, 1918
Ayrinhac, Henry - Penal Legislation m she New Code of Comen Lt - New
York, Cincinnat, Chicago: Benzinger 8ros., 1920
Ballerini, Pietro - De Potestale Eccleswstics Summerum Pentificum et
Cancilierum Generalum - 13t. ed. Rome, De Prop Fider, Rowae, 1850

Baltimere Catechom No 3, 3rd ed. - Colorado Sprngs, Colorada: The

Seraphum Company Inc , 1995
en the
Beal, John, Coriden, James, Green, Thomas - A New Commeniary
Code of Carion Law - New York. Paulist Press, 2000

Bellarmine, St Robert - De Eccless Mifibweise - Opera Omnua, Battezzati,

Medlolaru, Vol 11, 1858

St Robert - De Membrs Ecclemar - b

Tellarnure, I, De Clancas, Opera
ni
OmPasis, a,
Vivés, 1870,

Bellarmune,St Robert- De Romane Ponigficr - Opera Omma, Battezzak,

Mediolani, Vol 1, 1857

Berry, Sylvester ~ The Church of Chnst - Eugene, Oregon. wipt and

Stock Pubhshers, 2009, previously published by Mount Sat Mary's
Seminary, 1955
m
Vettenson, H -m-gnmm-mmfl
er
Glasgow Oxford UnivPre ss, si ty
2nd ed, 1963.

“s
I

Trwe or Faloc Pope?

Silot, Louis - De Ecclemae Sacramen-kts Typ Pont Inst Pa IX Romae,

om. L1914
Biiet, Louie - Trachtus de Ecclama Chinstt - Gregorna, Roma, 1921,
tom.L

wvodu slmdwwm
ufijm-muwm-&
195
Beuix, Dosinique - Tractatus de fure Liturgico - Rulfet, Parisits, 1873
Bouix, Dominique - Trackt d usPape - Laceétre, Pacious-Lugdury, tom.
L1868
Bruno ef Sigr, St. - Letter to Paschal 1l - PL 163, 43
Surme,| H, Izbla, Thomas - Cancilarem & Popelis - New York.
Camibeidge Univessity Proas, 1997
Butler, Cuthbert - The Vafian Council, 186%-1870 - London. Collin and
Harnll Press, 1%2.

Cabié. Robert - The Church at Prayers. The Sacraments, Vol Il-

Calleg Minnesota.evile,
Liturgical Press, 1906
Cajetan, Thotnas de Vio - Commentary on the “Surmma Theologice” 11 -
I - w Sench Thewae Aqunats (..) Opera Omna, editio leonina,
Pelygiows, Romae, 1895
Cajetan, Themas de Vie - De Comparsionc Aucloniiati Papeeet Concil,
Engluh Translation in Cencilieriwn & Papuitsm, by Bums & Izbicki, New
York, Cambridge University Press, 1997
Callan, Charles - Hlustrabons for Sermens and Instructions - New York.
Joseph Wagner, 1916
Caleciuorn of the Counscit of Trant - Rockiord, Nlinow. TAN Books and
Publish Inc,,
ers,1982,

Celachisn of the Counch of Tremt - South Bend, Induana. Manan

PquJhom,Thdeflnfi‘,l‘fli
 Sbkegraphy
Caxechtsm of S1 Pius X - Australia Instauratio Prow, 1993

Cattlic Encyclopedia - New York. Encyclopedia Prass, 1973,

Cekada, Anthony - Work of Human Hends - w,
Frulothea Press, 2010 et Chester, Ohuc:
Chapman, John - The Condemrishon of Pepe Homorta - Londo
Truth Society, 1907 “ Catrelic:
Cue of Canon Liw Latin-Engluh Edtion - Cavan Law
Amenica (1% edition), 1983 Sacety of
Coomaraswamy, Rama - The Destructen of she Corisan Tradshom -
Bloomungton, Indiana World Wasdom, Inc, 2006
Coronata, Mattheus Conte a - Inshtutenes Turw Canemicr, Rome:
Manett, 1950
Coronata, Mattheus Conte a - Tractatus Postumus (Litge, 1677), Tract I,
Chapter XXI, translated by Br Alexis Bugnolo
Correa de Oliveira, Plinio - Baldaaces ldssiogicn Inadvertida ¢ Drsiege -
Vera Cruz, Sao Paulo, 4th ed , 19%6

Council of Constantmople Ml (VI Ecumemctl) - Sewcn XII

Condennnation of the Monothelrias and of Pope Heowerus [ - Danz. -
Sch, 550-552.
Council of Florence (XVII Ecumemical) - Decveturs
pro Armerwe, Denz.-
Sch. 1310-1328
Council of Trent - SessiXXII
on Decrue on the Most Holy Sacnfice of the
Ma
- Denz.
sg - Sch 17381759
CDunfllfl]Trml-SeumnXXlfl Doctrine on the Sacrament of Orders -
Denz. - Sch, 17631778, Denz, - Ui 956a-%8
lnvocation. \:m
Coxnail of Trent - Session XXV. Decredreebreongesthe- Den
4nd Relics of the Satnt, and on Sac z. - Sch.
Denz - Umb.osd-98
i
P ————
True or Falve Pope?

Gewncl of Vakcan 1 -See: Vamcan Counal 1

Truth, a Sene< of Lenten
Gox, Thomus E. - The Piller and Groundandof At
Loc reCiwr
e ttheuTrue sch, lts Marks inbu tecagso ) §
- Chi
Hyland erd Cs., 1900
Culleten, Gerald - The Praphe Our Times - Rockford, llinois. TAN
andts
Bosks and PubluhInc, 1974
ers,

Davies, Michael - Apslogie Pre Marcel Lefebore - Kansas Caty, Missoun

Angelus Fres, 1999
Devies, Michacl - Pope Joiin’s Conncil - Kansas City, Missoun- Angelus
Press, 1992

Davies, Michael - Pope Prul’s New Mass - Kansas Clty, Missoun

Angelus Press 1980; sccond printing, 1998
De La Rocque, Patrick - Pope John Paul 11 Doubts About a Beehfication -
Kanses City, Missoun. Angelus Press, 2012
De Lugo, Francs - Trackatus de Euchareha, n Duputatne Scholssticee
et Mordles - Vives, Panisus,
tom 1V, 1869
De Sales, St Francs - The Calhwlic Controwersy - Charlote, Norsh
Carolina. TAN Books & Publishers,
Inc., 1986

De Sales, St Francs - The True Spintual Conferences

of 5t Franas
de Sales
- Landen. Rachardson end Son, 1862

Daor Newlyeds, Kanmas City, Missaun: Sarto Houee, 2001

Denzinger, Henry, Schoenmetzer, Adolf - Enchirudien Symbolorum -
Freiburg, Herder, 1965
Denzinger,
b Henry - The Seus e by Roy )
Gl Dogra -. Tranlaed
of Cathel;
Devine, Anthur - The Crond Explanad, an Expomiion of Cathohc Dectrine -
And ad, New York, Ciacinnat, Chicago I-nzm‘rr‘lfnn,lm
 Bibliography
mp, Franz, Hoffmann, Adolf M ~ Thesiegia
WW"‘M Pansus - Tomacr-Rom Dogmencar Meat
ae, Vol 1, 1933 vl 1. 1ocs v,
"4
d, Michael and Peter - The Trush Abgut Whaet
e Catholtc. Church After Vaticon 1f - New York. MR;"FH’:"W;ndn
ly Family
Monastery, 2007

Dupont, Yves - Catholic Prophecy The Coming Chaokaement - Roci

Larols Tan Books and Publishers, 1970, 1975 t ord,
Emerton, Ephraim - The Correspomdence Gregory VI -
Oxford Columbra University Press, 1932'.”\* VI New York.

fenton, Joseph - The Cathalic Ghurch am Sefvetin - New York: Seminary

Press, Round Tap, 2006
Foasler, foseph - The True and Felse infollisty of the Popes - New York.
The Catholic Publication Society, 1875
Fortescue, Adnan - The Greek Fathers, Thar Lives snd Writigs - Sen
Francisco Ignatius Press, 2007
Fortescue, Adrian - The Mass — A Shudy of e Roman Lowrgy - Londen:
Langmans, Green & Co., 1950
Gumber, Klaus - The Reform of the Roman Liturzy i Probierss and
Background - Fort Collins, Colorado Roman Catholx Books, 1993
1 On: Faukh - St
Gartigou-Lagrange, Regiruald - The Thuolegial Virtues
Lows & London. Herder Book Co, 1964, onginally publshed by
Torino, Haly Robert Berrut: & Co., 149
Gaudron, Matthias - The Cateckusm of the Cruns w the Church - Kaness
City, Missouri. Angelus Press, 2010
Gibson, Edmund- A Presersatroe Aganst Popery - Vol. L Loodon, 1738,
Gratian - Decretun - in Corpus urss Consvscs - Lesparg, 1673
Gury, Jean-Fierre - Compendum Thevlogue Mersis - Civil Catt.
. Marietti, Tauniny, tom. L 1066,
— eSe e g y ™
Trwe ax Faloe Pope?

Heenan. John - Cowncil and Clergy - London, G. Chapman, 1966

Hermare,R P Thwolegue Dogmance Inshtutwnes - Rome Pacis
Phlippi Cuggiar, 1857
Pagis, Pansus,
et he
rc
Hervé ] M - Marusle Theslogue Dogmaticec - Be
vl 1,19 vol.52 ,3
11, 195
Hugden, Rarld - Peychromscoe Ranaiph Higden Monach Cestrene - vols
5, London. Longman, 1865
Hormer, George, - The Shatues of she Apookies or Canencs Ecclemastics -
London. Wil&l gasm
Nora 1904
e,s
InnecentsI1i -
of Pope en
tonocsnt 1 - Betwarn God and Mt Serm
mt
America
of er
Catholic Univ Press,y2004

Iragu, Swapinve de - Mamuale Thevlogee Dogmaticac - Madnd Edsciones

Studium, 1959
- Expos m Epwet. ad Titum - c. 1L, v. 11 - PL 26, 59, apud
St.me,
Jero
gar
article
Con ,e ©
“Schism

John of St Thomas - Cwrsus Theslegicr -1l De Aucterriale Sumwm:

Pentifics, Dwp VI Art. 1L, 1663
Journet, Charles - The Gurch of the Word Incernate - London and New
York Sheed and Ward, 1955

Jurgens, William A - The Faith of the Early Fathers - vol. 2, Collegeville,

Minnesow: Liturgical Press, 1979,

of Alterng the Emth i she Laturgy - Terrywille,

Kramer, Paul - The Suicud
Connecticut The Misssonary Assaciation, 2006

:(:liLAmn-HMMD[MvnI Theology
- London B Herder Book Co,

Lapide, Comalive & - Canentars tn Scrphuram Secram - Vives.

Parssss, ine Max.. seaniss XV, 1877, od Gel , tom. XVI111, 1876

Laymansy, Paul - Thesiegie Moralis - Maldusa, Venetis, 1700

 Vibkograghy
chvre, Marcel — Open Leter o Coninag
e Angelus Pres, 1997 Cbls - Karmas i,
Lguor, St Alphonsus - The Hustery of Hereses, eng
vol T, Dublin Published by James Dutly, Wellmgaon Q": Nt -
Liguon, S Alponsus - Orvores Dogmatyu,
Soumquct - Parent.Desbarres, Pan, 1638 ¥ Vidal Delae.
Liguorl, St Alphonsus- Venta dells Fede- Opers de S Alfonms 14
u::m, Marsetti, Tonno, 1887, vol VIl “
Logan. Donald, Excemmsid un she c
England A Study 1n Legal Procedure From theiSecThruiea
r Artm i1o Mon
keral
Century- Ponbifical Institute of Medieval Studues, iee nth 1o the Scsgonthy
1968,
Lyorw, Daniel - Chrishmity snd Infallinlity - New York. Longians,
Green & Co, 1992.
MmmHom.Lmnfh?q«-laflmKhuLTmeh\n,h
Co, Itd, Vol. VIIL, 1962

Mansi, Giovannl - Sacrorum Conctlerum nece colieche ampirsewma -

Venice, 1771, vol 16, col 126

Mazzella,C - De Religwne et Eccless - Socth Editien, Prat: Goachetti, Bl

etsoc, 1905

Merkelbach, Benedict ~ Summa Theolegiar Moralss - Desclée, Pansus,

tom.[, 1931

McHugh, John, Callan, Charies - Meral Thesiagy - New York. | Wagner,

1958
Nau, Dom Paul - Pope or Church? The Infallihty of the Charck’s
Ordinary Magistenum - Kansas City, Missowrz: Angelus Press, 19%.
Newman, john Henry - A Letter Addressod ie His Grece, The Duke of
Norfo lk Pickerin
- London and Co. 1875,
g
vanun,]ohnmmy.,\ma/hmmmy.ufinm
and Co, 1983

"l
e .
True ot False Pope?

O Brian, Darcy - The Hudden Pape - New York. Daybreak Books, 1998
O"Connor, James - The Gt of Infoliality - San Francisco. Ignatius Press,
1.
O'Hare, Patrck - The Facts Abut Luther - New York, Cincnnan
Fredenck Pustet & Co, 1916.
ORerlly, Edmund - The Relations of the Churcht 10 Seciety - Thaologioel
Esneys - Londen. John Hodges, 1892
Parsorw, Reuben - Studies 1n Church Histery - VoL 1, Philadelphua John
Joseph McVey, 1900
Penido, M. Tewera-Lette - O Muskene dos Sacramenios - Vozes,
Petropols, 1961
Paach, Christian - Conpasdiums Theologuae Degmahione ~ Herder, Friburg!
Bnsgoviae, tomus 1, 1921
Pexch, Christun - Praclectiones Degmaticae - Herder, Friburg:
Brugovi se,
tomn L, 1898, torn. VI 1900, tom. IX, 1699
Pighs Albert - Huerarchiae Ecrlesastiose Asertie = bk, TV, ¢ Vill, Vol
CXXXI #, Cologne, 1538, apud Dublanchy, article “Infallibiiité du
Fape.” D T.C. vl 1715
Ratzinger, Joseph - Intreducton te Christiemty - San Francisco Ignatius
Prosa, 2004
Rflzmwm-hmafltsalfillflxw-&nanw

3 m‘ - Theologucal H Highlig
nu..;“;- hte1l -. New York.
of Vatioan

Ruey. Lawren - The Hustory

ce , Nature and Use of Epikesa 1n Morel Theology
~Washangion, D.C.. Cathelic Univermty of Amarica Prass, 1948
Reberts, Marshal
- Catecusm lof Pape St Prus X - Winchester, Virginia
St Michael Prass, 2010 " :
wr e
 Bibliography
Ryan, Chetstopher, The Kelifis Role of The Popacy. oy and ot
1150-1300 - Toronto, Ortario Canads Pontfica) toan, s
Studses, 1989 e of Medineval
ele, George, Palmanazar, George,
Bower, Archubal; Shelvocke,
George, Campbell, John, Swinton, John - A Unsersal £ histery From The
Earlrest Accounts To The Present Time, Vol XXV,
Rwington,$ Crowder, 1761 - London. Mile, ohn
Salaverri, Joachim - De Ecclesie Chnsty -
BAC, Matnti, vol 1,198 Sacrae Thesleguc Surma
Salza, John - A Catechism on Faitma - and the Related Criss in he Church -
North Peairte, Wisconsin. John Salza Productions, 2015
Salza, John - The Biblical Basis for the Papacy - Hunhngton, Indiana, Ove
Sunday Visttor, 2007
Salza, John - The Mystery of Predestination - Accerding e Scripture, the
Churcts anid St Thomas Aguinas - Charlotwe, North Carolins TAN Books
and Publishers, Inc , 2010

Schaff, Philip - A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the
Chmstian Church - Vol 1, New York. Charles Scribrer and Son's, 1907
Schmitt, Edm ], P - Dismas, The Goed Thief - 2+ ed., Cincinnati,
Ohio
Rosenthal & Co , 1892

Silveira, Arnaldo Vidigal Xavier da - Part U, Theologicel Hypethesis ofa

Heretic Pope - Translated by John Russell Spann, hitp //www
traditioninaction ors/Quullcm/WzbSo\nu!/l_flw-En‘lfll pdi.

Smith, Sebastian « Elements of Ecclesushont Lt - New York. Benzinger

Brothera, 1881
Solo, Domingo - Cammensonum Fratns Denuzic Seie Segobnenss () m
Quartum Sententiarum - Salmanticae, 1561

Speray, Steven - Papal Anomalies and Thew Implicehons - Second o

Versailles, Kentucky Confiteor, 3011
Straub, Antonius - De Ecclrsua Chrti - Pustet, Oeruponi, vel. I 1912

0
I
Trwe e Falee Pope?
Francis Seymour - Rebert Grosseieste, Bishoy of Lincein, o
S even o i elgos, poi miclectuelhusery of he Sarteent
asdcel
century- London. MacMil , Limuted, 1899
and Colan
Susarez, Prasiace - D Ceriete - Opers Omma, Vaves, Panisus, tom X1,
58

Suarez, Francuco - De Fide - Opers Omna, Vaves, Pansus, tom X1,

1858
Sylvain, Charles - The Life of Rev Fabher Hermann, In Rehgwn Augus tin-
Mare of the Mest Holy Secrament, Drscalced Carmehite - Paris, Oudin,
1983

Sylvis, Franciace - Commentanum in Tatam Ii-11 S Thomae Aguinats -

Verduasen, Antuerpuae, 1097
Tanquerey, Adolphe - A Muual of Degmatic Theology - Vol II, New
York, Teurnas, Pans, Rome- Desclee Company, 195%
of Canert Law - Edward N, Pesers, Curator,
The 1917 Pio-Benedictine Cade
San Francieco Ignabus Press, 2001
The Canens and Decraes of the Sacred Occumenical Council of Trent - Edited
and wansiated
by | Waterworth, Lendon. Dolman, 1848

The Compermen o she Calechuarn of the Cathelic Church - Smny Franciaco,

Cabifornua. [gnatnus Fres, 1995
The Papes Agemest Modkern Errers - 16 Papal Encycheals, Rockford,
Tilwwie: TAN Books ancl Publshe Inc.,
rs,1999
The Sewn Ecumenscsl Cowncils of the Oirch - Vol XIV, Henry Percival
&d., Oxford. James Parker and Company, 1900 !
Tierncy, Seun - The Cruws of Churdh and State - Eny ood Cliffs, New
Jorsey Prantice-Hall, 1964 s

Torquemnada, Juan de - Sums de Ecclosis - Tramezismus, Venetiis, 1561

Tzuqmmmmvammmmnflfim
u
 mnnrgrapry

sperville, Henry A Abndgment of the Chnistan Dactrine-

B Catholic Publishing House, 1833 NewYork.
der Veer, Peter - Comverston to Modernitws
The Glabel:
.
Voshan- ty London Routledge, 1996 faskon of
Van Noort, Gerard - Christ’s Church - Westmunsier, Maryland. Newmun
Press, 1961
yan Noort, Gerard AWSWM(K{M‘M-WM,M‘WW
Newman Press, 1961

Van Ott, Ludwig, - Fundementals of Catheiic Dogma - Fourth Edstion,

May 1960, Rockford, Ilinors. TAN Rooks and Publishers, 1974,
Vaquez, Gabriel - De Eucharistia - Commensarsorum ac Disyuiationum
Tertm Partem Sanct: Thomae Tontus Tartnus - Pillehote, Lugduru, 1620
Vation Councl 1 - Dogmaic Conetitution Der Fikus en the Catholic
Fauth - Denz.-Sch. 30003045
Vahen Council | - Dogmabc Conwbitukon
Pasier Ackrcs on the
Church - Denz.-Sch. 3050-3075,
Vaticon Council 1 - Decuments of Vatican I - edabed by Walter M. Abbot,
New York. American Press, 1966

- Dessain,
Vermeerach, Arthur; Creusen, los. - Eprieme funs Canemicz
Mechliniae-Romae, tom 1, 1949, tom 11, 1940, tom. 111, 1946

Vigue, Paul - Ecclesw - edited by Agran, Pans. Sloud et Gay, 1935.

Vincent of Lerina, St - The Commensiorium of Vincofen t, ken
Lerws
from Bettenson, Henry, Documents of the Chrstian Church - second
edition, Ordard, London, Glasgow. Oxford Uruversity Proms, 1963.
:'IMManae-onarmkv-m-MMC-
%0
Von Dolinger, Joharn Joseph tgnaz - The Pape and she Council =
London, Oxford, Cambridge Ravingtons. 1869
1

Trwe or Faloe Pope?

Von Hefele Charie- sA Huwhory of he Councils of she Church, from the

Origmal Documents - vol V, Edinburgh T&T Clark, 18%
Walsh, William Thomas - The Seis i Action - New York. Hanover,
191
Wathen, James- The Grest Sacrilege - Rocklord, tlimors: TAN Books and
Publishers, 1971

Wesgel, George - Witness i Hope - New York. Harper Collins, 1999

Weemz, F., Vidal, P - lus Cenemicum - Gregomana, Romae, torn. |, 1938,
tom.I, 1923
Wilhelm, Joseph, Scannell, Thomas - A Menua! of Catholic Theology - Vol
1, 3% od., New York, Cincunnaw, Chicago Benzinger Brothers, 1906
Wilks, GAF - The Poges. An Historioal Study from Linus to Prus IX -
London. France and John Rivington, St. Pauls Churchyard and
Waterloo Place, 1851

Woodward, Kenneth L - Making Sants. How the Catholic Church

Determunes Who Becomes & Sent, Whe Decon’t, and Why - New York.
‘Sinon and Schuster,
19%0

Waywod, Stanielaus - A Practical Commentary an shie Code

of Canen Law -
New York Joseph F Wagner, 1943
Zaccana, Franceso Antonio - De Usu Librorum Litkrgiosrum in Rebus
Theelogicw — 1 Theslegrac Cursus Completus, Migne, Parisus, tom. V.,
1060 cole. 207310
zalbe Vol - Thosogiac Mores Comperdrum - 2 vls, Matnih

Selected Articles by the Authers

Salza, john - “Can Vetcan II's Teaching on Religious

Liberty Be
n;;uu with Tradsion?” - The Remnant newspaper, Noverm ber 15,
 Biblegraphy
“John Salza vs Father Brian Harrwon on Rehgious [
Remnant newspaper, March 31, J010; Ap20,
ri 2010t, o e
May 15, 2010}
L% 2000d
Salza, John - “The Errors of Sedevacantism and Ecclomaet
The Remmant newspaper, June 2010 ! Law” -

“ohn Salza Responds 1o the Lies, E and HYmiy of

” / /www
- http
;devmllsl Peter Dimond
Salza, John - "Sedevacantiem
and the Sin of Presumption” - G,
Famuly News, Apnl 2011 nl
- Ca
w”
Saiza, John - “The Novus Ordo Mase and Divine La Wholic Family
News, November 2012.

Salza, John - “Freemasonry, Vabcan Il and 1% - Rome, May 13,

201, http //www pohnsalza.com.
Salza, John - ~Baptism of Desire: Fact or Fickion? - The Remnant
newspaper, July 2013
Satza, John - “The Implicat of the Nevs ions
Orde as & New Rie of
Mass - The Remnant
” newspaper, August 2013
“John Salza vs. Father Hamson on the New Mass™ - The Remwunt
newspaper, September 2013
Salza, John - *Pope Francie, Arch bish
Lefebvre op n”
and Sedevacantio
- Catholic Famnily News, February 2014
“John Salza vs Fr Brian Harrieon on the Canorzatio X001}
of John ns
and John Paul 11” - The Remnant newspaper, July 15, J04.

Salza, John - "Who i & Member of the Church?” - The Remnmt

fewspaper, Three-Part Feature, September-October, 2014,
Salza, john -'klmws«mummfimmk
Sedevacantist Thesis” - The Remmant newspaper, November 0.

“John Salza va. Noous Onde Apologmt en Religwas Libert” =

MIp / /www johnsalza
com, 3014
o
T ————Y

True or Faloe Pope? b

Salm, Jobn - “The Clier 3 Empty? Says Whe ? John Salza Responds o
oW
:/ /ww
hitpd
NovisO- r johnt
w a ealz c h,”
a com 2014

“John Salza Responds W Another Sedevacantist” hitp //www

Johneatzs.com, March 2015
Salza, Johnt - “The Concliar Church of Freea,masonry, ” Soctety of St
Bus X Semiary, Winona Minnesot March 25, 2015,
hitp //www johnealza com.
Salza, John - *Questionung the Validity of the Canonizations. Against a
Fact There is No Argument” - The Remnant newspaper, May 15, 2014

Salsa, John - “Apocalypee 12 and the Masoruc Infiltration of the

Qurch” Catholic Foaly News conference, May 30, 2015,
hitp//www johewalza.com.
Salza, Joh - “Sedevacantem and Fius XII's Liturgical Reforme” - The
Remnant newspapee, August 15 and 31, 2015,
Swcoe, Robert - “Modernwm, The Synthesis of all Heresies” - Catholic
‘Formily News, October
2012.
Swcoe Robert - “Who was Paul VI? A review of Msgr Villw's Paul V1
Beaufied?” - Cahaiic Family News, February 2013
Swcoe, Robert - “A Bwhop Dressed i Whik" - The Remnant
- Marchr”
newspape 2013,

Swcoe, Rebert - “Sedevacantem and the Manifest Heretic® (Parts |

through IV) - The Remmant newspaper, Apni - June 2013

Siecoe, Robert - “The Unholy Trinity of Modemn Errors Naturalsm,

Rationaliewn and Moderneeen™ - Cashelsc Fonuly News, june 2013

Stocoe, Rebert - “The Unholy Trnity and the New World Order” -
Catielic Femuly News, July 3m3
Siecoe, Rebart - “The History of Apostesy and the Third Secret of
Fotans” ~The Rowmarc ncwspaper, August 013,
 Wvlography
and iyIt Lieviahora®
sscor, Robert - Papal Infallibrb
S ewspaper, October 2013 ore” - The Rement
gucoe, Robert - 715 the Old Covenant stll Valyd> -
acwspaper - December 2013 47" - The Remnent

Siscoe, Robert - “Bellarnune and Suarez on The Question

Pope” - Catholc Famly News, Apri 2014, of s Heretat
siscoe, Robert - “Was Vancan Il Infalibe? Part I* - Cagrte
News, June 2014 Family
Siscoe, Robert - *Was Vatican 11 Infallble? Part [1* - Cathets
News, July 2014 e Fomly
Siscae, Robert - “In a Papal Diarchy, Which Half s Infallible™ - The
Remnant newspaper, July 2014
Sacoe, Robert - “Can the Church Depose & Heretical Fope? - The
Remnant newspaper, November 2014
Suscoe, Robert- “Can We Recogmze and Rest?” - Cathwiic Famly
News, January 2015
Siscoe, Robert - “Answermg & Sedevacaniist Critic” - The Rewwant
newspaper, March 2015
Sucoe, Robert - “Deposcng a Pope,” Part | ~ Cathoiic Family News, July
N5
Siacoe, Robert - “Deposing & Pope,” Part [1 - Cathwiic Famely News,
August 2015

Sefected Persens and Topics
Note- Due to the length of the
pook and the amount
matenial presented, the Index
includes entries only on mapr
topics / persons /canon laws/
Church documents that
relevant to the refutation of
Sedevacantism and
modern errors
A ~controversy surrounding,
Altar girls - see Non-Infallible
Disciplines
Antipapes
-modern, 7, 395, 664-665
Aquinas, St Thomas
-small error in principle, big
in error In conclusion, 3, 155,
224,567, 621,673
—error versus heresy, 230
~fraternal correction, 240-241,
262-263, 635636
-habit of faith, 112, 648
“invincible ignorance, 117, 142
-Judas as member of the
Church 105-107
-fudgment by usurpation, 295-
296,310,312, 377
+ustand unjust laws, 622626,
~mummum beliefs for
salvation, 112-115
-obedierce, 623626
-on Titus 3 10, 248
Augustine, St, 18, 25,49, 101
107, 226-227, 239, 263, 471, 552,
568 620,615
anuex o1
Ana n criem, 47, 52
of 5, T30,
s
are Bapwm of Desire, 119.137
other
Benedict XV, Pope, 5,12, 180,
5,317, 3009, 457, 501.502
Tesignation, 390-392
Bellarmine, St. Robert
:mfi separate from
e haps ate
O
~de Bay case, 170:173, 188,
43284, 328, 670
~declaratory senterce required
for heresy, 273.276
“faith ot necessary for
Church membersihip, 103-107,
w
~mansfest heresy and public
defection, 200204
-occult heretic is sill Pope,
=
“Pope can be pudged for
heresy, 273274, 300301
—same epinon as Suarez o
herescal Pope, 268-280, 332
357358
-warrungs/ Titus 3 10, 242-243
Berry, Fr Sylvester, 21,5, 28
29,30, 63, 66 54-85,90-92,133,
157, 380, 387-388, 409411, 413
463464, 492
Billot, Cardinal Lous, 39, 42-
0,54, 74, 102, 104 150154
-

True or False Pope?

220 236, 268, 291, 302-385,
421, ~error on resisting commands
550 but not teachings, 641-643
~error on supplied
Bulluart, Charles René, 104, 146 Jursdiction, 75-76
147 267,325 ~error on universal
disciplines, 459460
Boutx, Mane Dominique, 145, -on Une cum Masses, 661-664
148, 268, 333, 367-338 -pre-election heresy as new
argument, 369-377
C -repects Pius XII s hiturgical
reforme, S07 515
Capetan. Cardinal Thomas -rejects Prus X113 teaching on
~different opiruon than Juradiction, 7274
Suarez, %8-272, 276277 -shetorscal tactics, 152-153,
<perfectand imperfect 675676
councils, 339341 -ain of hersey theoty, 149-152,
~Pope can be deposed for the 37031 ¢
crume of heresy, 334-335
-same opruon as John of St. Church
‘Thomas on hereteal Pope, ~apostolicty, 5054
3346 -Body and Soul, 97-100,
~separating from & heretical 146149
Pope, 344-345 “bonds of unity, 89-98
warmings/Tite 3 10, 203-246 ~cannot elect and follow a
false Pope, 4244
Cano, Melchu
120, or,
145, 282, ~matenal divisions, 4647, 54-
- 57
~faith and Church
Canonizabion
of saunde membership, 103-107, 144-145
ew proces, 525-528 ndefectibulity, 29-31
-of John XXII and John Paul -egitimate apostolic
1, 529582 miccession, 6269
falliality
of, 532-545 -numerxcal oneness, 46, 58-59
-Passion of, 9, 16, 22-23, 38-39,
Cekada, Fr 677, 679630
-sdstorual decepleoss, 150-151, -visibality, 24-29
291, 6674668 -will never be reduced to a
~arror on new ne of epwcopel small number, 50
«consecranan, 571579, 509-
) Code of CanoLaw n (1917)
~crrec on prossalgakesof ~ca151, non289.293
New Mass, 502-507 ~ca 198 non
4 an public
 Index
gefection, 71, 229, 281, 283, Cw:rnfi'htflu,m
284-207,321322, 405
caron 2197 on public and ::;"1?'5 o;;’m 120421, 125
‘Sotorious heresy, 151, 231, . , 378, 395,
23,287 554555, 567 e
~canon 2220 on presumption
of malice, 167-168, 232 Council of Vatican |
canon 2223 on ecclesistical “Dex Filus, 176, 200, 435, 443
‘warnings, 164, 253254, 290, 444,447,451, 453
ns ~Pastor Arternus, 17.19, 197
~canon 2264 on heresy and 05, 221227, 4%, 53537
jurisdiction, 255 -perpetuat muccessors ko
~<canon 2314, warmungs before the papacy, 17-22
deprivation of office. 164, 240,
206207, 314315, 671672 Council of Vatican I
“bad runes, 1
Code of Canon Law (1983) -Digrutatis Humene, 428
canon 194 on public -snfallibality, 409414
defection, 287-208 novel machungs, 184
-only owed religious assent,
Communion in the Hand - see 430433
Non-Infallible Disciplines
Cum Ex Apoviolaius
Officae, 392-
Conclavistw, 7, 387, 664-665 407, 646, 658
Coomaraswarny, Rama, 35-36, D
583586, 608
Daly, John
Coronata, Mattheus Conte a, ~editorwal deception
on
193,269, 282, 337, 370, 373, 667 wniversality in fene, 449456,
s
Council of Nicea, 413, 489 -error on Vatican [ and assent
of farth, 411, 81
Council of Nucea 11, 214 ~error on Vabcan B s
Ordumary and Ursversal
Council of Constantinople 1lL, Magiskerium, 435449
4217, 362 —heretics shll membersof e
Church, 95-%4 o
Council of Conetantinople -proper canon
VL
211-212, 214-215, 251252, 301, 2200, 82, D133
%8307, 312, 326, 336, 372, 378, -proper explanaion of heresy.
34435, 648, 651 ”m
[
True or Falee Pope?
rash
-Sedevacariews’
judgments, 171173
Darboy, Archbiehop Georges,
166-169, 327, 670
Davies, Michael, 517, 568, 676
Erasans of Rotierdam, 169170,
18199
De Bay. Michel, 170-173, 138,
283,328,670
De Lugo, Cardnal
John, 245
Dianond, Michael and Peler
-attend non-Sedevacantist
parsh. 258260
~condemn departed
Catholics, 676
~condernn other
Sedevacantisis, 656-660
~condemn traditional
theolograne
and Church
teaching, 674-675
~conflate heresy and public
defection, 286-257
-require declaration of herasy
for Luther but not Pope, 259
20
-arer on Baphem
of Deswre,
126131
<error on wnlallibiityof
Vatican
I, 410411
~arror on legelation
for pre-
wlechen hereey, 376-377
~esvee on new form of prisstly
erdenaean, 600-601, 605-611
~error en Vatican[ and assant
of foith, 431433
Dolan, Bishop Dan
—celebrates Paul VI's Missae
cantate, 511
~hypocrisy on Church
authority and his ordination,
612619, 670
~Thuc line” bishop, 619
Ecumerusm, 1, 3, 180-181, 204,
439, 441 443, 446, 448, 456457,
478,635
Epckeia, 630632, 650
Error
ef Excess and Defact,4,
10,118,
227, 416417, 426, 432,
457
Excommurocation, 150, 156-
157,175, 243-244, 246, 252257,
262, 267-273, 287, 295, 303-305,
308, 312, 314
Fatima, 1, 50, 79-80, 83-84, 409,
680
Feeney, Fr Leonard/
Feeneyites,” 118,126, 129, 674
Fenton, Joseph Clifford, 98-100,
10, 105-106, 114-115, 158159,
424425, 432, 447, 675
Franca, Pope, 1, 56, 4041, 259,
282,317, 368, 390-392. 428, 471,
549, 641
conepiracy o elect, 390-391
~tus he been peacefully and
R,

universally accepted, 392
formosus, Pope, 221.222
G Home-Alomess, 77-73, 550, 663
Gamgou-Lagrange., Fr
Reginald, 135-136, 146, 178,
316318
Great Western Schusmn, 8, 46,
54,340, 348, 386-387, 392
Groaseteste, Bishop Robert,
30, 638-640
Heresy
-and junsdiction, 264-267
~crime of, 142, 149-151, 153
157, 161, 194, 228-250, 263-267
~formal heretuc, 104, 116, 141-
142,147,154, 161
~general, 141, 175-176
“hereticizing” 182-189
+how @ Pope falle from office
for, 42360
lesser errors, 177-181
~material heretic, 102-103, 140
-onatter and form, 141, 143,
29232
~occult, 145-148, 151, 158-159,
175, 230, 253-254, 260, 297
-pertinacity, 141-143, 159, 175,
188, 230-233, 234, 237-242,
245, 250, 263, 268, 276
316318, 327, 347
~Pape can be judged for, 191-
192, 264, 300-302, 333-337
-Pope can commit, 192-1%4
~public and notorious, 145,
index
150, 161, 173, 231
7,259, %7 .28
-suspaon of, 161165
Hononus, Pope, 193, 213.221,
27, 238, 301, 320, 33, 361362
Toranyr, Richard
<1917 Code of Canon Law 1s
evil, 462463
-admus he's confused about
the apphicable canon law,
m
~adrruts new nite of epucopal
consecration valid, 574,
5%0
~adamts John Paul {T did not
marufest pertinaaty, 317-318
~adsuts new rite of ordination
15 valid, 601-603, 608-609
~cails Bellarmine a heretx, 154
~calls Pus [X a herenc, 117-118
Clhwrch in heresy sunce the
years 1130/1250, 154155,
320,377-378
~clairms he’s one of the
witnessas 1n the Apocalypse,

True or False Pope?
Infaltibility
~conciliar, 409416
~dwaphnarv, 461470
general, 31
~“Monolrhuc,* 416421, 460,
478,481,671
~objects of, 201-202, 379-381,
U, 469475
Ordnary and Unsversal
409, 435446
-papal, 34, 196205, 224227
lanocent T, Pope, 123-124, 191-
195 198, 239, 263, 24, 33334,
561,651
Invinable ignerance, 102, 116-
18, 142
Inborvegrums , 386-387
2, 67,
I Hoas of faith no effect
John XOXI1, 193, 206-213
John XXIII, 1, 31, 36-37, 4142,
59, 68, 208, 372373, 432,479,
Jobhor Pautl 1t
P
b
same opinion, 273-274
Church must declare papal
heresy, 156-158, 240-243, 245-
249, 265, 273, 299, 336, 336,
345-346
—explanation of how heretical
Pope loses office, 351356,
358359
~opinion same as Cajetan,
345, 358.359
Journet, Cardinal Charles 58,
24277, 302, 352, 364, 385, 438,
467468, 470, 472474
Junsdiction
-general, 60-68
-bishops receive from Pope, 65
~ordinary will always exist, 66-
8
-supplied, 74-75
on, 144-
us
K
Kelly, Bishop Clarence, 8, §12-
616, 618, 660
Lane, John
-sccuses Suarez of heresy, 301
TTeT———
-admute Faul V1 did not
promulgaie New Mass, 504,
506-507
~sdmsis Sedevacaniism i
possibly wrong, 70
-sdmrte spiritusl disorders
within Sedevacantism, 210,
654655
-assumes pertinacity based
P ITIT
 Index
upon education, 316 256758
_atiends nor-Sedevacantist rru impose:
mustts
pansh, 661 tea Pope
-ad
chung 1o violate
Bishop in the Woods” wnfallibaty 208208
theory, 69-72.79 ‘;'.“‘F‘humpmm-.
doesrit need " Daddy” to
determine if prelate has lost ~lasm s Magisterium defected,
his office, 304, 306 3235, 68
.detraction aganst Fr Boulet,
195196, 216-218 6 brothers,
Church defected over hime, ~end tumes pro phecie§1-83
s,
3 on er
15 2 “home-al 7778, 663 ”
-error on Furst See Judged by ~error on new rite of epucopal
No One, 279-280 consecration ,
549
errors on Pope Hononus, or
on perpe
~err tual
ns221 ‘successors, 20-21
lowenng burden of proof for ~ervor on visimbofty
the
the crime of heresy, 235-237 Church, 32-35
~women deacors not possible
Lauriers, Guerard des for the true Church, 435492
-matersal/formai Pope, 6, 308,
383, 409 Moderrumn, 53-54, 56, 83, 184,
3,318
Lefebvre, Archbishop Marcel,
10-11, 323, 428430, S07, 562, N
21,672
Necesaty of Means and
Leo XIIl, Pape Precept. 131137
-Apostolicae Curne, 564-565,
583584, 602603, 605, 608 Nestonus, 250-253, 304-309, 312
~Satis Cogmitum, 22, 143, 160
New Mass
Liberius, Pope, 56-57, 213, 362- ~dsd st abrogate Que
365,677 Pramum, 496-500
~not promulgated by Paui VL
Liguori, 5t Alphonsus, 43, 113, 497504, 513521
121,169, 384, 675
New nite of epwcopal
c l’hfi'fl of
-Apostolim‘
Matatics, Gerry Hippolytus, S81-362, S86-5%,
~accusations agairst Roncaili, 11
—
True or False Pope?
2250
new form verses other nies,
M5
New rite of ordinabi1o on
the
—new form versus old form,
9 16,180, 187,428
~srdin ary
and extraon dinary
wilnster, 558562
Sedevacantet avack on
“intenton”of ke, 612-612
Non-Enéalkibie Drsiplmes
-alar s, 480425
~Commwarson n the hand, 459,
462,469, 483
Anurgy, 49349
-women deacons, 435492
[}
Omior, Patrick Henry, 564-570
Otiaviany, Cardina) Alfredo, 99,
551, 585-587
Paul VI
-Mossale Rowanun, 499, S02-
507, S14-521
-seid Vaiacan[ net imiailible,
26, 412
Pio, Pader (50, 48
Pima V, St.
“Queo Primum, 496-502, 504,
507, 511, 520, 522523,40
b
PusIX. B
-Darboy case, 166-169
~Quanie Conficiemur Moerore,
16117
P X, 5t
-Lementabli, 24,199
~Bascends Dememics Gregns, 10,
Pius XI
~Mertalrum Amimes, 106 179
190,428,673
~Lux Veritatis, 304, 306
Pius X11
~Mystcx Corpore, 2324, 65,
9, 9798, 100-101, 104-106,
108, 130, 157-160
-Humant Genens, 98, 108, 113,
130,424
-Husbands and Wives
Mirusters of the Sacrament,
19
<Sacramentum Ordints, 563,
565-569, 575, 583, 602
-Suprema Haec Sacra, 118-119,
128129, 454, 674
Pivarunas, Bishop Mark, 8 477-
479,482, 614, 619, 668
Q
Questions
of fact vs. law, 318-
3
Recogn andize
Resiot
~erroneots keachungs, 641-647
-unyust laws and commands,
 Index
624-630 Sanbor, Bushop,
.yirtue of abedience, 622-62¢ ~correct treatment of Cum £y
Apestelatus, 404405
Religious assent “e
“not uncondstional, 426430 o on ro infallibil
ribility,
ty, 4 418420,
Vahcan Il awed only, 430-432 “error on uruversal and
peaceful acceptance, 45, 33-
385,670
on “minng”
“hypocrey
Sacraments Magisterium, 621422, 673
“Church's power to change, -malerial Pope, 309312
567570 -Nowis Orde Catholics are
-t specie and in genere, 562- legal members
of the Church,
565 3,612
-matter and form, 553-555, ~Une cum Masees, 662
S70-572 ~vasibalsty
of she Charch, 32,
-miruster and intention, 556- %37
559
-moral certitude, 551-553 Sedevacantism
~erroneous Maor premume, 1-4
Sales, St Francis de, 193, 325, -malerial/formal Pope, 6. 383,
331,623,675 el
-ongin, 7
Salvation ~gemeral posibon, 243, 31
~No Selvation Outeide the -new Church after yoar 1958,
Church, 111139 2,9,31, 3637, 5940, 9.7, 8
~what 1s absolutely necessary Summary
of dwagreements,
1o attan, 112-119 7
Salza, John Separation
-versus Dimond brothers on ~formal va. materul, 634435
pre-election heresy, 376-377
~versus Fr Cekada on the Silveisa, Arnaldo da, 162 182-
cnime of Heresy, 152-183 183, 167, 268-269, 333, 416418,
-versus John Lane on Suarez 460
and heresy, 301-302
-versus NovusOrdoWaich on Suri Theory, 17, 4140,%82
questions of fact vs. law, 318-
37 Siscoe, Robert,
~canonizations of John XXII _proves John Lane's falsehood
and John Paul 1L, 234-235, ‘about Pope Adnan 195-1%
529532 -versus Sieve Spersy on
|

True or False Pope?

heresy and loss of elfice. 237 Torquemada, Cardinal Juan de,
2.372373 104,245, 368, 348, 626627, 642
—versus
Steve Speray on
Nestorus 290-251 v

Socaety of St. Fius X, 7678, 268, Una cum Masses, 378, 661-664
323:324, 410,507, 659 v
Speray, Steve,
~sccusesPope Stephen of Van Noort, 21, 25-27, 30, 4647,
being an antipope, 223-24 50-51, 59, 64, 66, 97, 100, 113,
~contradicts humself on canon 134, 159, 196, 201-203, 202-205,
B4, 314315 225, 261, 274, 381-382, 414415,
~copres John Daly's errer on 422423, 426, 440-441, 43445,
undversality in kme, 456457 447, 476477, 535-536, 541, 578,
~daclares shat Pope Honorms 633,674
Tost office and becamean
antipope, 320 Vatican 11 - See Counal of
~erroe on duciphnary Vatican [}
infallivility, 480482
~error on Nesterius, 251-252, w
304
-Pope doss not need 1o be a Warnings
heretic 10 lose his office for ~Bellarmune, 242-243, 246-248,
heresy, 23728 Cajetan, 243-244
~chantabie vs. junsdiction,
Suarez, Franciaco 261264
“msundersiood by -general, 163-165
Sedevacanusis, 273-279 ~from Church authanties
aith and Church (Titua 3 10), 248-250
mambership, 144145 John of St. Thomas, 243
udgment of heresy must
come from the Church, 269, Women Deacons - see Non-
296-29% infallible Discrplines
4ame opinien as Bellaraune
on herencal Pope, 268-230,
349, 357-358, 360-361

710