19.09.2020
Головна » 2020 » Август » 20 » Attempts to Overthrow the Papacy
20:06
Attempts to Overthrow the Papacy

Attempts to Overthrow the Papacy

Self-appointed laymen-"canonists" should know that only the Pope is vested with the authority to pronounce a sentence on whether a bishop has jurisdiction or not, or whether the consecration was valid or not. Laymen don’t possess that kind of power.

All Catholic bishops and priests are obliged to recognize the supreme primacy of St. Peter’s successors, the Popes, and to administer the Sacraments only in unity with them, i.e. with the Holy See. All laymen also are obliged to recognize the supreme primacy of St. Peter’s successors as well.

Canon Law says that for lawful administration of the Sacraments, bishops and priests should possess jurisdiction. But Canon Law does not say that bishops and priests don’t possess jurisdiction during the vacancy of the Holy See.

Neither God's Law nor the Canon Law says that Catholic bishops and priests don’t have the legal right to dispense the Sacraments to the faithful during the vacancy of the Holy See. The Church being without a Pope for a long time does not equal disappearance.

In the physical absence of the successor of St. Peter, i.e. a Pope, the primacy of the Holy See continues, and all bishops and priests still have the legal right and duty to administer the Sacraments in unity with the Holy See.

Laymen have natural right and obligation to receive the Sacraments in unity with the Holy See as well. And that is because both God's Law and Canon Law were promulgated by the Lawgivers for the common good of all people.

However, despite the Divine Law, Canon Law and common sense, self-appointed lay experts - “hidden pope” propagators and “home aloners” - say that Traditional Catholic bishops don’t possess jurisdiction because all jurisdiction comes from the Pope.

The "hidden pope" propagators say that Traditional bishops should receive “jurisdiction” from a "hidden pope" who has been hiding somewhere from the Church for more than sixty years. Even though a privileged access to this so called "hidden pope" is granted exclusively to some of his lay propagators, however, all bishops are obliged under the severest penalty to receive “jurisdiction” from that “pope” – these propagators say.

If you will read Internet sites operating by "hidden pope" propagators attentively, you can see the way in which bishops must receive "jurisdiction" from a "hidden pope".

The first step - bishops must repent before two lay individuals, a "wizard of the emerald city" and its "witch". The second step - the "wizard" and "witch" will grant them a “recommendation” and a secret access to "hidden pope". The third step – the "hidden pope" will accept “penitent bishops” into the "true church" and after "re-ordination" or "re-consecration" he generously will grant them "jurisdiction".

However, it seems to be quite odd that the "hidden pope" (cowardly hiding himself from the Church) chooses a non-Catholic way of communicating to “Urbi et orbi” through a couple of laymen.

The Vatican II “canonists” say that all Traditional bishops must receive “jurisdiction” from the false pope (a layman) occupying the Vatican palace. These “canonists” say that Bp. Thuk conferred Episcopal consecrations without a mandate by the Vatican II “pope” and thus committed the sin of schism. They say the same thing about Abp. Lefebvre.

In turn, the “home aloners” say that there is no longer a Papacy, and propose their own conception of a “true church” - “It is absolutely impossible to have jurisdiction because of the absence of a Pope, so all bishops must stop offering Holy Mass and dispense all the Sacraments, and willfully to reduce themselves to a state of ordinary laymen”.

So you can see that each of these concepts actually is a proposal for the foundation of some kind of a Protestant church where the supreme authority and jurisdiction must belong to the laity.

A good answer to all these “canonists” could be found in the Fr. Anthony Cekada’s article "Traditional Priests, Legitimate Sacraments":

“God exercises the authority. Our delegated jurisdiction in the internal forum is “not an ecclesiastical power, but a divine power granted by authority proper to God Himself (who alone is able directly to touch the conscience and the bond of sin). It operates through the pope however as a minister and instrument of divinity, and therefore not by authority proper to the Church, but rather by God exercising His own authority.” (Merkelbach 3:569) and “Christ Himself commands His priests to dispense His sacraments to His flock. Since the pastors invested with jurisdiction for the cura animarum have all defected to the modernist religion, their obligation now devolves to us, the few faithful priests who remain. We confer Christ’s sacraments because He has made it our duty.”

I fully agree with Fr. Cekada’s arguments because they confirm the practice of the first twelve centuries of the Christianity. Rev. P. Chas Augustine explains in “A COMMENTARY ON THE NEW CODE OF CANON LAW” that up to the twelfth century the missio canonica was believed to be included in ordination. And that is quite a long period, i.e. more than half of the history of the Catholic Church. Therefore, we may reasonably presume that the same principle may work during modern times – a very long - period of the vacancy of the Holy See, lasting from October 1958 till now, in 2020.

In normal times, when the Holy See is occupied by a Pope, according to Canon Law the Church supplies jurisdiction so that the laity may receive the Sacraments even in a situation where questions about the jurisdiction of a priest arise: "To quiet consciences the Church, out of the fullness of her power, supplies the defective jurisdiction and renders valid acts which would otherwise be invalid.” (A COMMENTARY ON THE NEW CODE OF CANON LAW, By THE REV. P. CHAS. AUGUSTINE, O.S.B., D.D., Professor of Canon Law, VOLUME II, Can. 209, p. 191)

It would be logical to say that during the vacancy of the Holy See we have the right to apply this canon as well. Even though sixty two years after Pope Pius XII’s death Traditional Catholics don’t have dioceses, nevertheless; in fact, they (we) have parishes, chapels, seminaries, monasteries, schools, missions, etc.

The Catholic Church (not Vatican II “church”) has bishops, priests and faithful. Therefore, the Sacraments should be administered by bishops and priests and received by the faithful, because it is the Will of Jesus Christ. Our Lord Jesus Christ does not cease to be the Invisible Head of the Catholic Church - "All power is given to Me in heaven and in earth" (St. Matthew 28:18) - even during those times when His Vicar, the Visible Head of the Church Militant, is dead or resigned. At such times, all laity and clergy still belong to One Catholic Church under the supreme authority of the Invisible Head, Jesus Christ, and the Holy See, even though the St. Peter’s Throne has been vacant for a long time.

Self-appointed laymen-"canonists" should know that only the Pope is vested with the authority to pronounce a sentence on whether a bishop has jurisdiction or not, or whether the consecration was valid or not. Laymen don’t possess that kind of power.


Added on September 5th, 2020: The Council of Trent declared it as an article of faith that the people have no voice in the choice of ministers: bishops, priests, and of the other orders.


Added on September 5th, 2020:

“This canon (Can. 109 – my emphasis), the first clause of which is taken from the dogmatic canons of the Council of Trent (Conc. Trid., Sess. 23, can. 4, De Eccl. Hierarchia et Ordinatione) is directed against certain innovations which cropped out throughout the history of the Church, but were introduced especially by the so-called reformers of the sixteenth century. The "consent of the people" was the favorite cry of Arnold of Brescia and his followers, in the twelfth century. It was repeated by Wiclif and Huss, Calvin and Zwingli. Against these the Council of Trent declared it as an article of faith that the people have no voice in the choice of ministers. The consent of the civil power was favored by Luther, and partly also by Zwingli at the Council of Zurich. Both demands are excluded by the very organi zation of the Church and its nature as a societas inaequalis.” (A COMMENTARY ON THE NEW CODE OF CANON LAW, By THE REV. CHAS. AUGUSTINE, O.S.B., D.D., Professor of Canon Law, VOLUME II, Clergy and Hierarchy, B. HERDER BOOK CO. 17 SOUTH BROADWAY, ST. Louis, Mo. AND 68 GREAT RUSSELL ST. LONDON, W. C. 1918. NIHIL OBSTAT: Sti. Ludovici, die Sept. 7, 1918, F. G. Holweck, Censor Librorum, IMPRIMATUR: Sti. Ludovici, die Sept. 8, 1918, +Joannes J. Glennon, Archiepiscopus Sti. Ludovici, p. 47)

By publicly pronouncing sentences against the Traditional bishops (who recognize the Church as being in a very long period of the Vacancy of the Holy See) that these bishops administer all the Sacraments "invalidly” or “illicitly”, laymen thus are trying to vest themselves with the power which belongs exclusively to the Pope.

Nobody (no laymen) has a right to judge the bishops if they were consecrated by valid bishops who during the Consecrations used valid matter and pronounced the valid form of the Sacrament.

For example, the "hidden pope" propagators and "home aloners" publicly pronounce false sentences against Abp. Thuk and all the bishops consecrated by him without a papal mandate during the “reigning” of the false pope, John Paul II. These propagators bring similar false accusations against Cardinal Achille Lienart and Abp. Lefebvre as well.

Canon 953 says that Episcopal consecration is reserved to the Roman Pontiff, and no bishop is allowed to consecrate anyone unless he is certain of the papal mandate. Not having such a mandate a bishop-consecrator acts unlawfully, though validly. Fr. P. Chas. Augustine, O.S.B. explains that such a mandate is given orally when the consecration is performed in Rome, but if it takes place outside the City, an Apostolic letter is required.

However, it should be clarified that during the current period of the Vacancy of the Holy See, this canon cannot be applied, since there is no Roman Pontiff nor the Roman Court nor the Secretariate of State who have the right to issue mandatum consecrationis.

The “thesis” of an existence of a "hidden pope" (hiding himself from the Church for sixty-two years) who "possesses full jurisdiction over the whole Church" has no evidence other than the fantasies posted by a few laymen on the Internet. These laymen have no other more “important” occupation than publicly insulting traditional Bishops and priests who do not believe in an imaginary "hidden pope".

Therefore, under circumstances where a so-called "hidden pope" hides himself for sixty-two years, Traditional Bishops have the canonical right to use the principle of the epikeia consecrating other bishops and ordaining priests. The Traditional Bishops who confer Episcopal Consecrations for the preservation of the Catholic Priesthood have the right to presume that one day a true Roman Pontiff will recognize and ratify these Consecrations.

But again, no laymen have a right to judge the bishops since this right is reserved exclusively to the Pope.

The physical absence of the Roman Pontiff on the Papal Throne does not automatically block the administering of the Sacraments by bishops and priests, especially now, during a global apostasy when the Sacraments are so necessary.

Also, I would like to cite a few quotes from the book “THE POPE OF ROME AND THE POPES OF THE ORIENTAL ORTHODOX CHURCH” by Rev. Caesarius Tondini in which the Rev. Father says that in a case where a bishop illegally usurped jurisdiction, he should be recognized as a lawful possessor of such jurisdiction until a trial consented to by a Pope takes place. Fr. Tondini explains that “until the Pope consents to a new trial, the jurisdiction originally usurped has become, and remains, the only real and legitimate one”.

However, this is certainly not the case for Traditional Bishops during the current Vacancy of the Holy See, because on the one hand, there is no Pope, and on the other hand the bishops do not usurp neither judicial nor legislative nor coercive jurisdiction. The bishops only use the Power of Order and the principle of the equity(see PPS) for the supreme end of saving the Catholic Priesthood without which the laity cannot form the Church.

Nevertheless, I am quoting Fr. Tondini in order to emphasize that only the Pope has the right to judge bishops and that the role of the laity in it is the following - To pay respects, even to “bishops-usurpers”, and humbly await a sentence that belongs only to the Pope and not to the laity.

Also, it is important to note that by pronouncing condemning sentences instead of the Pope, "hidden pope" propagators and "home aloners" actually attempt to change the form of government of the Catholic Church and to transfer the supreme authority from the Roman Pontiff to lay persons. In other words they attempt to overthrow the Papacy.

Fr. Tondini says that such attempts are “considered by Catholics as sinful and senseless as attempts to change the form or matter of the Sacraments” and that the “very moment a man has made up his mind to overthrow the Papacy he has ceased to be a Catholic”.

Therefore, we have the right to conclude that it is precisely the "hidden pope" propagators and "home aloners" together with Vatican II false popes who are trying to overthrow the Papacy. In order to divert attention from their sinful actions, they are trying in an unfair manner to shift their own guilt onto the Traditional Catholic bishops and priests, who recognize the reality of the vacancy of the Holy See.

However, being perpetually God’s Institution the Papacy still exists despite all the revolutionary attempts by "hidden pope" propagators and "home aloners" to overthrow It. Also, despite all the false accusations by these people addressed to the Traditional bishops, the bishops are obliged to be courageous preserving the Catholic Priesthood through the Consecrations and Ordinations, thus preserving the Church and giving hope for eventually possible Conclave.

All the faithful, for their part, are obliged:

  • To assist at Holy Mass on Sundays and Holydays of obligation (or as often as possible);
  • To keep fast and abstain on the days appointed by the Church;
  • To confess sins at least once a year;
  • To receive Holy Communion at least once a year, during the Easter Time;
  • To contribute to the support of the Church;
  • To observe the laws of the Church concerning Matrimony (see PS)

Fr. Valerii

PS. It is known from the history of the Catholic Church that very often people ceased to be Catholics because they didn’t want to observe the laws of the Church concerning Matrimony, and as a result, they founded their own “churches” or joined “churches” already founded by other people like them. The most “famous” representatives of this "movement" were Martin Luther and Henry VIII, who brutally persecuted Catholic bishops, priests and faithful, and attempted to overthrow the Papacy. It seems that today's followers of Luther and Henry VIII are striving to imitate them with irrepressible persistence using all modern technological advances.

PPS. PPS. REV. P. CHAS. AUGUSTINE explains: "The word jurisdiction is derived from ius dicendi, which means the right of taking cognizance of a case and deciding it according to law or equity." (A COMMENTARY ON THE NEW CODE OF CANON LAW, By THE REV. P. CHAS. AUGUSTINE, O.S.B., D.D., Professor of Canon Law, VOLUME II, p. 171)

Here the quotations follow:

THE POPE OF ROME AND THE POPES OF THE ORIENTAL ORTHODOX CHURCH,
BY THE REV. CAESARIUS TONDINI:

Attempts to change the form of government of the Catholic Church, or to transfer the supreme authority from the Bishop of Rome to any other, are considered by Catholics just as sinful and senseless as attempts to change the form or matter of the sacraments; the very moment a man has made up his mind to overthrow the Papacy he has ceased to be a Catholic.

Further, in the Catholic Church alone can the jurisdiction of the bishops be effectually supported, the bishops themselves secured from becoming mere 'primi inter pares' among their clergy, and quarrels of jurisdiction between bishops, or between bishops and their clergy settled for ever. And why so? Because in the Catholic Church alone exists an authority which not only is entitled to exercise full jurisdiction over the universal Church, but, moreover, is itself the master and the source of ecclesiastical jurisdiction.

A jurisdiction not consented to by the Pope is no more jurisdiction, but usurpation, and any acts of such a jurisdiction are null and void before God as well as before men. In every question concerning ecclesiastical jurisdiction Catholics possess a sure standard and an infallible criterion for distinguishing the real and efficacious jurisdiction from the pretended and vain; namely, the conformity of the claims with the prescriptions of the Holy See. The Pope may pronounce a sentence depriving a bishop of a right of which the latter was the lawful possessor; the Pope may well be deceived as to the unjust claims of the pretender, he is even liable to indulge his personal inclinations and, in his sentence, to favour the usurper, but still from the very moment his sentence is made known to the claimants, the only lawful jurisdiction for them is that consented to by the Pope.

Until the Pope consents to a new trial, the jurisdiction originally usurped has become, and remains, the only real and legitimate one. (1)

A DICTIONARY OF CANON LAW
BY THE REV. P. TRUDEL:

“Jurisdiction in the external forum also holds for the internal (202, 1). The Church supplies jurisdiction for both forums (1) in common error, and (2) in a positive and probable doubt of fact as well as of law (209).” (2)

A COMMENTARY ON THE NEW CODE OF CANON LAW
By THE REV. P. CHAS. AUGUSTINE:

Can 953
Consecratio episcopalis reservatur Romano Pontifici ita ut nulli Episcopo liceat quemquam consecrare in Episcopum, nisi prius constet de pontificio mandate.


Episcopal consecration is reserved to the Roman Pontiff, and no bishop is allowed to consecrate anyone unless he is certain of the papal mandate.

The canon then states: "nisi prius constet de pontificio mandato." This mandate, as noted above, is given orally when the consecration is performed in Rome, but if it takes place outside the City, an Apostolic letter is required, which must be in the hands of the consecrator before he is allowed to perform the function. Without such a mandate he acts unlawfully, though validly. It is not sufficient that the letters be expedited in Rome and unofficial notice be sent of the fact. If, however, certain and authentic notice has been received that the letters have been expedited in Rome, the law is complied with. But an official or authentic notice can come only from the Roman Court. Thus any message, sent by the Secretariate of State by telephone, telegraph, or (we presume) wireless, to the effect that the Apostolic letters were expedited, would create a certainty. The mandatum consecrationis may be contained in the letters of promotion in the form of the clause: "ut electus a quocunque maluerit catholico antistie, gratiam et communionem Apostolicae Sedis habente consecrationis munus accipere valeat." When this clause does not occur in the letter of promotion, or when the letter contains a clause to the contrary, a special papal mandate is required for the consecration.

This law is technically perfect, as it has a penal sanction attached to it. Those who bestow or receive consecration without an Apostolic mandate incur suspension ipso facto, which lasts until the Apostolic See expressly dispenses therefrom. (3)

A COMMENTARY ON THE NEW CODE OF CANON LAW
Rev. P. Chas Augustine:

The “missio canonica” is necessary for all who are inferior to the Pope. For as the Lord sent his Apostles, so in turn they sent others to exercise their spiritual power with authority, and without such credentials no one has authority in the Church. Formerly (up to the twelfth century) the missio canonica was believed to be included in ordination, but now that absolute ordination is possible, a distinct missio canonica, by which jurisdiction is conferred, is always required. (4)

References:

(1) THE POPE OF ROME AND THE POPES OF THE ORIENTAL ORTHODOX CHURCH: AN ESSAY ON MONARCHY IN THE CHURCH, WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO RUSSIA, FROM ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS, RUSSIAN AND GREEK. BY THE REV. CAESARIUS TONDINI, BARNABITE. Second Edition, LONDON: R. WASHBOUEHE, 18 PATERNOSTER ROW. 1875. NlHIL OBSTAT: Thomas F. Knox, Cong. Orat., Censor deputatus. IMPRIMATUR: + HENRICUS EDUARDUS, Archiep. Westmonast. Die 5 Julii, 1871. p. 168-169

(2) A DICTIONARY OF CANON LAW, BY THE REV. P. TRUDEL, S.S., SECOND, REVISED EDITION B. HERDER BOOK CO. 17 SOUTH BROADWAY, ST. Louis, Mo. AND 68 GREAT RUSSELL ST., LONDON, W. C. 1920. NIHIL OBSTAT: F. G. Holweck, Censor Librorum, Sti. Ludovici, die 14. Oct. 1919., IMPRIMATUR: +Joannes J. Glennon, Archiepiscopus Sti. Ludovici, Sti. Ludovici, die 20. Oct. 1919, Printed in U. S. A. VAIL-BALLOU COMPANY BINGHANTON AND NEW YORK, p. 119

(3) A COMMENTARY ON THE NEW CODE OF CANON LAW, By THE REV. P. CHAS. AUGUSTINE, O.S.B., D.D., Professor of Canon Law, BOOK III, De Rebus, or Administrative Law, VOLUME IV, On the Sacraments (Except Matrimony) and Sacramental (Can. 726-1011, 1144-1153), B. HERDER BOOK CO. 17 SOUTH BROADWAY, ST. Louis, Mo. AND 68, GREAT RUSSELL ST., LONDON, W. C., 1920, CUM PERMISSU SUPERIORUM, NIHIL OBSTAT: Sti. Ludovici, die II. Martii, 1920, F. G. Holweck, Censor Librorum, IMPRIMATUR: Sti. Ludovici, die 12. Martii, 1920, +Joannes J. Glennon, Archiepiscopus, Sti. Ludovici. p. 414-416

(4) A COMMENTARY ON THE NEW CODE OF CANON LAW, By THE REV. P. CHAS. AUGUSTINE, O.S.B., D.D., Professor of Canon Law, VOLUME II , Clergy and Hierarchy, (Can. 109) B. HERDER BOOK CO. 17 SOUTH BROADWAY, ST. Louis, Mo. AND 68, GREAT RUSSELL ST., LONDON, W. C. 1918, CUM PERMISSU SUPERIORUM, NIHIL OBSTAT Sti. Ludovici, die Sept. 7, 1918 F. G. Holweck, Censor Librorum. IMPRIMATUR Sti. Ludovici, die Sept. 8, 1918 +Joannes J. Glennon, Archiepiscopus, Sti. Ludovici, p. 48
Категорія: Articles in English | Переглядів: 64 | Додав: