Newsletter#1
Sedevacantism
Refuted?
A Response By
Brother Peter Dimond, O.S.B.
Brian Harrison deals a deathblow to Sedevacantism?
Recently, a number of attacks have been made against the Sedevacantist position (the position that Antipope John
Paul II is not a real Pope) by numerous "traditional Catholic"
publications. In a recent article in This Rock magazine, Brian Harrison
attempted to refute Sedevacantism by asserting on the
authority of Pope Pius XII that a heretic would be elected the Pope validly.
The article was reproduced in large part in MANCIPIA (May, 2001), the
publication of the St. Benedict
Center in Richmond,
NH. Due to the fact that this
article seems to have given a lot of confidence to the defenders of Antipope
John Paul II, we felt that we needed to respond. The main point of Mr.
Harrison's article is a quotation from Pope Pius XII's
decree Vacantis Apostolicae
Sedis, Dec. 8, 1945, on the law governing
conclaves.
Pope Pius XII, Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, Dec. 8,
1945: "34. None of the Cardinals may in any way, or by pretext of any
excommunication, suspension, or interdict whatsoever, or of any other
ecclesiastical impediment, be excluded in the active and passive election of
the Supreme Pontiff. We hereby suspend such censures solely for the purposes of
the said election; at other times they are to remain in vigor' (AAS 38
[1946], p. 76)."
After quoting this portion of the decree in their May, 2001
MANCIPIA, the St. Benedict Center made the following comment: "Therefore,
even if John XXIII was a Mason (which he is accused of having been), and even
if John Paul II is a heretic for his various non-Catholic utterances on
everything from the present status of the Old Covenant to the possibility of
salvation in false religions, these bishops were still validly elected to the
Sovereign Pontificate."
Feeling confident that the decree of Pope Pius XII refutes Sedevacantism, the St.
Benedict Center
bluntly asserts that even if John Paul II is a heretic he would still have been
elected Pope validly. Unfortunately for them, however, such a statement is
absolutely untenable when one examines the decree of Pius XII more closely, in
addition to the other facts from the Magisterium.
Before addressing Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis of Pius
XII, we will repeat that it is impossible for a heretic to be a Pope. I repeat, a heretic cannot be a Pope. Again, I repeat, A HERETIC
CANNOT BE A POPE. This is an incontrovertible dogmatic fact, which is
rooted in the solemnly defined dogma that a heretic is not a member of the
Catholic Church.
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, "Cantate Domino," 1441, ex cathedra:
"The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all
those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also
Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share
in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for
the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end
of their lives" 1
Here we can see that all Catholics are bound under pain of
mortal sin to believe that a heretic is outside the Catholic Church. Here
are some other testimonies from the Magisterium which
affirm this fact.
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, "Cantate Domino," 1441:
"Therefore the Holy Roman Church condemns, reproves, anathematizes and declares
to be outside the Body of Christ, which is the Church, whoever holds
opposing or contrary views." 2
Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (# 23), June 29, 1943:
"For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own
nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy
or apostasy." 3
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9), June 29, 1896:
"The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the
unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside
Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in
the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium." 4
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9):
"No one who merely disbelieves in all (these heresies) can for that reason
regard himself as a Catholic or call himself one. For there may be or arise
some other heresies, which are not set out in this work of ours, and, if any
one holds to one single heresy he is not a Catholic." 5
Pope Innocent III, Eius exemplo, Dec. 18, 1208:
"By the heart we believe and by the mouth we confess the one Church,
not of heretics, but the Holy Roman, Catholic, and Apostolic Church
outside of which we believe that no one is saved." 6
This last solemn profession of faith by Pope Innocent III in Eius exemplo
demonstrates how foreign to Catholic belief - that is to say, how heretical - is the idea that a heretic can be inside the Church.
Nevertheless, this is exactly the idea proposed by the St.
Benedict Center and Brian Harrison. And since it is a dogma that a heretic
cannot be inside the Church, it is a dogmatic fact (a fact which
if it were not true would render a dogma false) that a heretic cannot be a
Pope, since a Pope is inside the Church.
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (#15), June 29, 1896: "
it is absurd to imagine that he who is outside can command
in the Church." 7
Therefore, it is most certain that a heretic cannot be a Pope,
because it is absurd to imagine that one who is outside can command in the
Church. Despite this, in the June, 2001 issue of The Angelus (the
publication of the Society of St. Pius X) it is argued that a heretic, while no
longer being a member of the Church, can be its head. 8
This shows what preposterous lengths some non-sedevacantists
will go to in order to defend Antipope John Paul II.
St. Antoninus, Summa Theologica: "In the case in which the Pope would
become a heretic, he would find himself, by that fact alone, separated from the
Church. A head separated from a body cannot, as long as it remains
separated, be head of the same body from which it was cut off. A pope who
would be separated from the Church by heresy, therefore, would by that very
fact itself cease to be head of the Church. He could not be a heretic and
remain pope, because, since he is outside the Church, he cannot possess the
keys of the Church." 9
If a heretic (one who denies the faith) could be the head
inside the Church, then the dogma that the Church is one in faith (as in
one, holy, Catholic and apostolic) would be false.
Pope Clement V, Council of Vienne,
Decree # 30, 1311-1312, ex cathedra:
"Since however there is for both regulars and seculars, for superiors and
subjects, for exempt and non-exempt, one universal Church, outside of
which there is no salvation, for all of whom there is one
Lord, one faith, and one baptism" 10
Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (# 22):
"Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have
been baptized and profess the true faith" 11
Pope Leo X, Fifth Lateran Council, Session 11, Dec. 19,
1516, ex cathedra:
"For, regulars and seculars, prelates and subjects, exempt and non-exempt,
belong to the one universal Church, outside of which no one at all is saved,
and they all have one Lord and one faith." 12
When examining these magisterial statements, it can easily be
seen just how heretical it is to assert that a heretic can be a Pope. What's
ironic about this is that the St.
Benedict Center
prides itself on championing the very Bull Cantate
Domino (cited on page 1) which defines that heretics are outside the
Church! The very bull they claim to champion condemns their heretical idea - that a heretic can be inside the Church!
What, then, does Pope Pius XII mean in Vacantis
Apostolicae Sedis? He
says: "None of the Cardinals may in any way, or by pretext of
any excommunication, suspension, or interdict whatsoever, or of any other
ecclesiastical impediment, be excluded in the active and passive election of
the Supreme Pontiff."
First off, one needs to understand that excommunication can be
incurred for many things. Historically, excommunications were distinguished
by the terms major and minor. Major excommunications were
incurred for heresy and schism (sins against the faith). Those who received
major excommunication for heresy were not members of the Church (as we have
just proven at length). Minor excommunication, however, did not remove one
from the Church, but forbade one to participate in the Church's sacramental
life. Pope Benedict XIV made note of the term major excommunication.
Pope Benedict XIV, Ex Quo Primum
(# 23), March 1, 1756:
"Moreover heretics and schismatics are
subject to the censure of major excommunication by the law of Can.
de Ligu. 23, quest. 5, and Can. Nulli,
5, dist. 19. But the sacred canons of the Church forbid public prayer
for the excommunicated as can be seen in chap. A nobis, 2, and chap. Sacris
on the sentence of excommunication. Though this does not forbid prayer
for their conversion, still such prayer must not take the form of
proclaiming their names in the solemn prayer during the sacrifice of the Mass." 13
Minor excommunication, on the other hand, was incurred for
things such as violating a secret of the Holy Office (AAS, 1-82;9-232), falsifying relics (c. 2326), violating a cloister
(c. 2342), dueling (c. 2351), etc. Such actions, though gravely sinful, did
not separate a person from the Church. And though the terms major and minor
excommunication are no longer used, it remains a fact that a person could
incur an excommunication (for something other than heresy) which would not
separate him from the Church, and he could incur an excommunication for
heresy which would separate him from the Church.
Therefore, a Cardinal who receives an excommunication for
heresy is no longer a Cardinal; because heretics are outside the
Catholic Church (de fide, Pope Eugene IV). But a Cardinal who receives
an excommunication for something else is still a Cardinal, though in a state of
grave sin. So when Pope Pius XII says that all Cardinals, whatever
excommunication they are under, can vote and be elected in a Papal conclave, this
only refers to Cardinals who have received an excommunication for something
other than heresy, since a Cardinal who has received an excommunication for
heresy is not a Cardinal at all. Simply, Pope Pius XII is not referring to
heretics, but Catholic Cardinals who are under excommunication.
One can easily detect, therefore, the grave mistake of Mr.
Harrison and the St. Benedict Center
in reading this decree of Pope Pius XII. Their mistake stemmed from their
failure to comprehend the dogmatic fact that a heretic is not a
Cardinal. Thus, they failed to realize that a declaration about Catholic
Cardinals under excommunication by Pius XII could not include heretics,
since a heretic is not a Catholic Cardinal.
It's also worth noting that in the same article by Mr.
Harrison (the majority of which is spent trying to assert that a heretic would
be elected and remain Pope validly) he contradicts himself by admitting that
canon 188.4 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law teaches that a cleric who publicly
defects from the faith would lose his office without declaration.
The whole thrust of his article - that no matter how bad a heretic one is he is
still the Pope - is contradicted by his own words in the self-same article. The
fact remains that the St. Benedict Center
and Mr. Harrison are heretics for denying the dogma defined by Pope Eugene IV -
that a heretic is not a member of the Church.
Catholic Treasures?
Catholic Treasures in California
recently produced a video entitled Sedevacantism,
a talk delivered by Charles Coulombe and Bill Biersach. Along the same lines as the St.
Benedict Center
(Richmond, NH) article, the video attempts to defend
that a heretic is a Pope. Biersach and Coulombe do not explicitly deny that Antipope John Paul II
is a heretic; they even seem to admit it by referring to such instances as when
Antipope John Paul II kissed the Koran (the Muslim holy book) and prayed for
the coming of the Messiah with the Jews in a synagogue in 1986. They also admit
that St. Robert Bellarmine taught that a Pope who
becomes a heretic loses his office ipso facto (by that very fact and
without further declaration).
St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, II, 30:
"A pope who is a manifest heretic automatically (per se) ceases
to be pope and head, just as he ceases automatically to be a Christian and
a member of the Church. Wherefore, he can be judged and punished by the Church.
This is the teaching of all the ancient Fathers who teach that manifest
heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction." 14
St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, II, 30:
"For, in the first place, it is proven with arguments from authority
and from reason that the manifest heretic is 'ipso facto' deposed. The
argument from authority is based on St. Paul (Titus 3:10), who orders that the
heretic be avoided after two warnings, that is, after showing himself to be manifestly
obstinate - which means before any excommunication or judicial sentence.
And this is what St. Jerome writes, adding that the other sinners are excluded
from the Church by sentence of excommunication, but the heretics exile
themselves and separate themselves by their own act from the body of
Christ." 15
St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, II, 30:
"This principle is most certain. The non-Christian cannot in any way be
Pope, as Cajetan himself admits (ib.
c. 26). The reason for this is that he cannot be head of what he is not a
member; now he who is not a Christian is not a member of the Church, and
a manifest heretic is not a Christian, as is clearly taught by St. Cyprian
(lib. 4, epist. 2), St. Athanasius
(Scr. 2 cont. Arian.), St. Augustine (lib. De great. Christ. Cap. 20), St. Jerome (contra Lucifer.) and others; therefore
the manifest heretic cannot be Pope." 16
But Biersach and Coulombe
defend their position in the video by asserting that the words of St. Robert
were only his opinion. Biersach challenges the Sedevacantists to produce a dogmatic statement which
corroborates the teaching of St. Robert Bellarmine.
Unfortunately for Mr. Biersach, he fails to realize
that St. Robert's teaching is rooted in the solemnly defined dogma that a
heretic is not a member of the Church, and therefore cannot be Pope. We have
quoted this dogma already in this article. Thus, the words of St. Robert Bellarmine are not an opinion but a dogmatic fact - a fact
inextricably bound up with dogma.
In the video, the two men also put forward the argument that if
John Paul II is not the Pope due to his being a heretic, then the first Pope,
St. Peter, was not the Pope either since he denied Christ three times. If they
had read the First Vatican Council carefully they would have discovered
that Vatican I defined as a dogma that St. Peter was not entrusted with the
supreme jurisdiction of the Church until after the Resurrection, by the words
in John 21:15 - "Feed my sheep, etc." (Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, Session 4, Chap. 1). 17
The words that Our Lord spoke to St. Peter in Matthew 16:18-19 were a promise
that He would build the Church upon Peter, and that He would give
him the keys to the kingdom, but these words did not give Peter the keys. So
when Peter denied Christ (which was an act of heresy) he was not yet the Pope.
When St. Peter finally became the Pope he was a Catholic who denied nothing. If
he had been the Pope and denied Christ he would have ceased to be the Pope.
We don't have time to refute all the errors of this video here,
but we will simply say that Bill Biersach, Charles Coulombe and Catholic Treasures are all guilty of denying
the same dogma: that a heretic is not a member of the Church.
The Remnant Speaks?
The Remnant, a "traditional Catholic"
publication from Minnesota,
has recently been carrying a discussion on Sedevacantism.
A recent interview between Michael Matt (the editor) and Atila
Sinke Guimaraes outlined The
Remnant's position against Sedevacantism. In
addition to being filled with errors, the interview alluded to someone from our
Monastery in a very negative way. The Remnant interview was probably
attempting to allude to Bro. Michael Dimond, but it failed because the
interview referred to a person who claims to have found 200 heresies in Vatican
II (which would be me) and 100 heresies in the writings of Antipope John Paul
II (which wasn't Bro. Michael either). Nonetheless, Michael Matt revealed in an
e-mail to Brian Harrison, which was forwarded to someone else and then to us,
that the interview was indeed referring to Bro. Michael Dimond. This
demonstrates how sloppy The Remnant interview was since Bro. Michael
wasn't the author of either of those works.
The Remnant (and some others involved in traditional
Catholicism), who find themselves unable to refute the facts we present, have
made it their hobby to attack the person of Bro. Michael with the most childish
tactics. This sloppy allusion to him in The Remnant demonstrates how
fixated they are on his person, rather than the facts presented by Most Holy
Family Monastery. I'm sure The Remnant felt that if they attributed the 202
Heresies of Vatican II sheet and the 101 Heresies of Antipope John Paul
II sheet to Bro. Michael (when he didn't author either one), they can
ignore them more easily by focusing on his person rather than the facts
presented in these sheets. In fact, in the same e-mail to Brian Harrison, Michael
Matt, speaking of Bro. Michael, stated: "He needs to be discredited."
(We have a copy of this e-mail.) Note that Matt doesn't say that Bro. Michael's
arguments need to be refuted, but that Bro. Michael needs to be discredited.
Michael Matt cannot refute our arguments - which are simply the facts of the Magisterium - so he must try unsuccessfully to discredit
the person.
I had a telephone conversation recently with Atila Sinke Guimaraes. In our conversation, I was surprised to learn that Mr. Guimaraes himself has doubts about Antipope John Paul II's validity as a Pope. He told me this himself. Surprised
by this, I asked why he does not communicate these doubts in his writings, and
he responded by saying that he does point this out in his writings! I
quickly answered by saying, never - to my knowledge - have you explicitly
stated that Antipope John Paul II is not or might not be a true Pope. He
responded with the words: "You must take into account the psychology of
the people." In Guimaraes' mind, providing some
evidence of how Antipope John Paul II has contradicted past Magisterial
teaching is showing the people that he is “doubtful” (whatever that
means) without saying so explicitly. This may be why his books - such as Quo
Vadis Petre? - so weakly denounce the blasphemies of Antipope John Paul II.
It is clear that Mr. Guimaraes is doing nothing but
bringing a watered-down message to his readers which he thinks will be more
acceptable. This is heretical, dishonest and quite despicable. Mr. Guimaraes may attempt to deny that he said this to me, and
if he does he is simply lying. In our conversation, I also quoted for him the
definition of the First Vatican Council:
Pope Pius IX, Vatican
Council I, Session 4, Chap. 4:
"And since the sentiment of Our Lord Jesus Christ cannot
be passed over when He says: 'Thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build
my Church' [Mt. 16:18], these words which were spoken are proven true by actual
results, since in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been
preserved untainted, and holy doctrine celebrated." 18
I asked Mr. Guimaraes if he could say
this ("in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been
preserved untainted and holy doctrine celebrated") about Antipope John
Paul II. He responded: "It is very difficult." Like Matt, Guimaraes has absolutely no response for solid Sedevacantist arguments when they are presented to him.
Like his counterparts at The Remnant he simply plans to ignore them.
Let's hope and pray that Guimaraes, The Remnant,
and the others we mentioned in this article, change their position
before it's too late. Let's pray that these people wake up and stand for the
truth before they are condemned to Hell forever. And let's hope that the
members of "the remnant" (that is, those who hold the entire Catholic
faith and reject Antipope John Paul II) finally get a chance to speak in The
Remnant.
Endnotes
1 Decrees
of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 1, p. 578; Denzinger
714.
2 Decrees of the
Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 1, p. 571; Denzinger
705.
3 The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 4
(1939-1958), p. 41.
4 The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 2
(1878-1903), p. 393.
5 The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 2
(1878-1903), p. 393.
7 The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 2
(1878-1903), p. 401.
8 The Angelus, "A little
Catechism on Sedevacantism," June, 2001, p. 21.
9 Cited in Actes
de Vatican I. V. Frond pub.
10 Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils,
Vol. 1, p. 386.
11 The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 4
(1939-1958), p. 41.
12 Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils,
Vol. 1, p. 646.
13 The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 1
(1740-1878), p. 84.
14 St.
Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice,
II, 30.
15 St.
Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice,
II, 30.
16 St.
Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice,
II, 30.
17 Denzinger
1822; Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 2, p. 812.
Most Holy Family
Monastery, 4425 Schneider Rd., Fillmore, NY 14735
(800)275-1126, (585)567-4433, www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com