UPON THIS ROCK (No. 18)

I will get to my main subject presently, approaching it indirectly.  It seems useful to write something first about that which most directly concerns Catholics who have been resisting the Vatican II revolution, the Mass.  And since in this Letter my remarks are addressed mainly to those who think of themselves as, in some sense, Catholic traditionalists, to avoid confusion I will say here what I mean by that term.  By Traditionalists, capital T, I mean those Catholics who, in their concern about the destructive Vatican II reforms, look outside the Papacy for a Leader and Solution.

   It would be very foolish, indeed, to suppose that the plan for total destruction now evident is not to be applied against those who resist the evil reforms, and who set up for themselves substitute arrangements for Mass and Sacraments.  It will be through this demand, for Mass and Sacraments outside the law, that the Devil, always appearing as an angel of light, will approach these people.  He will send those who seem to give a guarantee of preservation of the Mass, valid Orders, etc.; and in this, of course, he lies.  Or, he might arrange to lure them into the counter church of Paul VI as a Traditionalist sect.  I have written of this before, but it bears repeating.  It is the final Great Deception for those who resist Vatican II.

   In one of my early papers, I expressed the opinion that it would be permissible to attend Mass at open-to-the-public Traditionalist chapels, but that these should be approached, if at all, with caution.  I was more definite in saying that chapel groups ought to stay clear of outside organizers.  I realized the danger of starting a schismatic chapel or movement regardless of original good intentions.  Of course, early during the Vatican II Mass changes, the thoughts of my wife and I, like these of many others, were of how we could satisfy our privilege and obligation to attend a certainly valid Mass somewhere.  In this first concern there was that which, if not restrained, would lead many in the name of Tradition into eventual rejection of the Church's authority.  We are now in the last and greatest phase of that Traditionalist rejection.  It is my concern that, by my writings, I might have contributed something toward this rejection of the Law; and it is this which impels me in conscience to write against the rebellious movement from Ecône, Switzerland.  The issue is all the more confused because it is a law-destroying false pope who seems to oppose Ecône's disregard of the Law.

   The cautious approval I expressed about Mass arrangements outside parish churches and other approved places of public worship was based on the following considerations:  1)  the right of a priest to continue to offer the Mass of Trent, as given in the Quo Primum decree of Pope Pius V;  2)  the precedent of house Masses in England, Ireland, and Mexico, and doubtless in other countries, in times of persecution by the civil authorities;  3)  the proposition that the obligation of the Faith is prior to that of obedience;  4)  the normal need we all have for the Sacraments.

   So far, so good; at least it looked good on paper, and we had the agreement of more than a few priests opposed to the corrupting changes in the Church.  Even so, I was never comfortable about this way of thinking, soundly based though it had once seemed to be.  But it was not until I turned my attention to a recent international movement to organize Traditionalist chapels that I saw clearly what now appears to be the truth -- that there is no essential difference between the larger public chapel and the small house chapel with some outside attendance, all being apart from any legitimate authority, all opening up Mass and Sacraments to many abuses, as I well know from numerous letters received.  If the Traditionalists are going to stand on the Law of Quo Primum, which they cite time and again, how can they justify setting aside other laws, such as the one which forbids the establishment for public worship any kind of chapel, large or small, without episcopal approval?  According to the 1912 Catholic Encyclopedia, under the article "Pope," "the Pope alone give to anyone the privilege of a private chapel where Mass may be said."

   According to a reliable source at hand, during the early centuries Mass was offered in the larger private houses, but the Church put an end to this practice because of abuses -- and what abuses and irregularities are to be expected now as compared to then!  Even so, abuses are not such an absolute thing and might with care be eliminated -- at least theoretically.  Practically, not, what with the present general low level of spirituality, the general confusion which prevails, the presence of Traditionalists who hold some heresy, and the unwillingness, at worst, the inability, at best, of Traditionalist priests to act as responsible pastors; and, sad to say, because some of these priests are Traditionalists for reasons not the best.  There is lacking not only authority, but also sanctity, of the kind the situation calls for.  I write this in nose sense of blame for anyone, or as following the Donatists in their false doctrine of necessary priestly perfection, which none of them ever came near to attaining, I'm sure.  I am concerned only with reality; actual conditions.  Saint Augustine imagined that, in the Latter Days, giants would arise to defend the Faith, which only shows how wrong even the great minds can be when exercising natural prediction.

   I have said that the fact of abuses is not such an absolute thing; but lack of legitimate authority is, and I thereby come to the main Traditionalist temptation, which is not only schism, but heresy, the belief that Mass and Sacraments can be had lawfully and priests be lawfully ordained outside the juridical order of the Papacy.  As I wrote in another paper, this is the heresy of Simon Magus.  It is not a sufficient answer to say that Paul 6 does not seem to be a true pope.  True pope or false, vacant Chair or not, the authority remains lacking for these attempts to set up substitute parishes, chapels, and seminaries.  The fact of a destroyer on the Papal Chair, and apparently apostate Bishops in seemingly all dioceses, does not give anyone the right to disregard the Church's laws or bend them to his own purpose.  This free interpretation of the Law, the putting of it aside as not now applicable, can serve to make any man -- Bishop, priest or layman -- a law to himself, and it opens a door for deliberate confusers and subversives.  I know that a few papers of mine contain sentences that might be taken as encouraging this kind of disregard of the Law.  I readily admit to some loose expressions and occasional unwise overemphasis in one way or another, and this disturbs me.  But if my papers are examined as a whole, and distinctions are noted with regard to the particular applications as I made them, I think unbiased readers will concede that I have not encouraged any freewheeling disregard of the Law on the presumption that a false pope and apostate Bishops can justify this.

   We have, on the one side, an uncatholic attitude of "the pope is the pope," blind obedience to Paul 6 as the way, the life, and the truth.  Against this attitude of the close followers of Paul 6 and the see-no-evil Moderates, are those of use who see the destructive reality of Montini's works and who speak of them plainly.  The Traditionalists have not closed their eyes but, noting Paul's words and works destructive of the Church, they say he has unpoped himself and lacks authority, and that they may therefore set up their own Traditionalist thing.  According to this way of thinking, we are to suppose that any Bishop is free to set up what amounts to his own Church.  Not much imagination is needed to see what this can lead to.  With regard to a current claimant of this pseudo-pope status, Marcel Lefebvre, his followers assure us that we need not be concerned about his good intentions:  "Have faith in Lefebvre" is their message.  But all the faith in the world will not make him Pope or do away with the Law.  As a non-residential Bishop, he hasn't an iota of authority over the least child in any diocese of the world.  They are fools who give their allegiance to a Bishop without jurisdiction, for the whole plan of Salvation is founded on Authority.  "Whatsoever thou shalt bind on Earth . . .  whose sins you shall forgive," etc.  No true Catholic ever questions this.  I myself have written that Paul 6 had unpoped himself; I said more -- that he had never assumed true papal authority, that he is Antichrist, but this is not to say or imply that there is no authority, that we are now free to do each his own thing.  This is a truth that can be obscured when a Bishop's miter and a whole barrage of words, including vague twists of Canon Law, enter the picture.

   To return to the question of the Mass in our time, the Church's official and public act of worship, until recently strictly governed as to manner of performance and place:  How can any layman or priest and group of laymen dare to set up a public chapel, large or small?  Let us examine here the four points, previously mentioned, of possible justification.  First, the right of priests as guaranteed by the Quo Primum decree of Pope Pius V.  Was this intended as an absolute right, regardless, say, of a Bishop's direct order to one of his priests to cease offering the Trent Mass?  Or did it only protect the priest in good conscience against orders to perform a heretical rite, such as the Novus Ordo Missae of Paul 6?  I am not suggesting an answer here, but only raise a question.  I would suppose priests have certain definite rights to offer Mass, which is what they were chiefly ordained to do.  Yet, there does exist such a thing as an obligation to obey lawful authorities in what is not unlawful.  An instance of this was the order of Paul 6 to close the seminary at Ecône, and to cease ordaining there.  I will get to the question of Pope Paul's authority or lack of it presently.

   Number two of my four justifications, the precedent of "underground" Masses in times of persecution in England, Mexico, etc.  Recall that this persecution was by civil authorities and that priests then were certainly acting under the authority of a true pope.  The Mass they performed was not forbidden, as the Trent rite is forbidden today.  Again, I am only presenting a possible difficulty, possibly pertinent distinctions; two different situations.  My main purpose in this is to make the average reader aware of the law and of our obligation to take due account of it.

   Number three, the truth that our obligation to keep the faith is prior to that of obedience.  This I do not see as applicable to the present Mass situation.  The Faith can be kept for a long time without the Mass; therefore, disobedience on this principle cannot be justified.

   Number four, the normal need for the Sacraments; their place in the divine scheme of salvation.  Here we are on more solid ground, again, theoretically.  The Council of Trent condemns those who say that the Sacraments are not necessary for salvation, but this is not to be understood in an absolute sense, but as against the teachings of the Reformers' doctrine of justification by faith alone.  But, however that doctrine may apply, and practically speaking, how can a few priests provide Mass and Sacraments for thousands of scattered faithful and may they do this in disregard of the Church's laws?  Those who are baptized and have received Communion* have received the necessary Sacraments.  Baptism and Matrimony are possible without a priest.  Anyone may baptize in an emergency, which would surely apply in times or places where a doubtfully valid rite is being used in the parishes.  Canon Law provides for marriage in cases of a certain time without a priest.

   Now, all the Traditionalists have heard about Canon 209 and the Church supplying jurisdiction.  They cite this frequently -- even those who have never read it -- against the Bishops, who are presumed to have lost all jurisdiction because of their apostasy.  Let us see what 209 does say.  From Woywod, Vol. 1, "JURISDICTION SUPPLIED BY THE CHURCH.  161.  The Church supplies jurisdiction both for the external and the internal forum:  (1) in common error;  (2) in a positive and probable doubt whether of fact or law (Canon 209).  Common error consists in the erroneous belief of all or nearly all of the people of a place, parish, community, that a man has jurisdiction.  The fact that the person knows that he has no jurisdiction, does not interfere with the validity of his acts if by common error he is believed to have jurisdiction."

   There follows, in that first section, from which I have just quoted, a few sentences of comment on the old Canon Law.  The latter half of Canon 209, section 162, deals with doubtful situations, and I shall quote it in full; but first, as to the abovementioned essential part.  The plain sense of "common error" or "erroneous belief" concerning jurisdiction, surely applies to the Bishops today, including Paul 6, whose jurisdiction nearly all baptized Catholics accept without question.  Here is St. Robert Bellarmine's doctrine made Canon Law, that a heretic retains jurisdiction until his heresy becomes notorious and he is deposed by lawful authority.  This law contradicts those who say that the Bishops have lost jurisdiction, and that, therefore, the Church will supply this authority to certain Traditionalist priests, most certainly to a Traditionalist Bishop if one comes along, acting on their own initiative.  Quite definitely, Canon 209 indicates the opposite, that the Bishops retain their authority.

   Certainly Canon 209 provides for jurisdiction in its more common application, to a Religious community where the jurisdiction of a superior is doubtful, and to a priest, "any validly ordained priest," for absolving from sins, censures, etc. in danger of death, and probably it may be applied by priests to less extreme or less urgent cases in our time when the proper form of the Sacrament of Penance is being generally corrupted.  But the plain sense of Canon 209 does not support the claims of those who are citing this law as justification for a general disregard of the Law.

   Section 162 on Jurisdiction Supplied by the Church reads as follows:  "The Church supplies jurisdiction in a positive and probable doubt.  Authors do not agree on the interpretation of the terms, 'negative' and 'positive' doubt.  Generally speaking, a negative doubt means that one has no reason to serve as a basis for deciding a question, and it is about equal to ignorance on that question.  A positive doubt means that one has a good reason for deciding a question one way, but that there is also a reason in favor of a contrary decision of the question.  For example, the reasons for and against the existence of jurisdiction in a certain case create a positive doubt; and, if the reasons on both sides are of such weight so as to create a bona fide doubt, the Church supplies the jurisdiction, even though the person did not possess it."

   So ends Canon Law 209.  I can see nothing in it to warrant a Traditionalist Movement with Mass and Sacraments, or the setting up of any kind of Sacraments-outside-the-law chapel or new Church, on the presumption that the works of Paul 6 have destroyed the true Church, now become a sect, as many Traditionalists are saying.  Paul 6 and his host of heretics are not the Church.  To imply that they are is to fall into Paul's own monstrous trap, in company with all those in the parishes that he has deceived.

   A priest writing in The Voice, 18 September 1976, has this to say:  "A few years ago, Cardinal Ottaviani said that any priest who continues to offer the Latin Tridentine Mass has faculties anywhere in the world.  Canon 682 affirms this."  Date, place and occasion of this supposed decree of Cardinal Ottaviani were not given; neither were the Cardinal's exact words.  Quite certainly Cardinal Ottaviani, wise and prudent head of the Holy Office under four popes, did not and could not give any such blanket authority to priests.  And even were we disposed to believe this story, the writer conveniently omitted to mention the last part of Canon 682, which he cites in support of his argument.  I give the whole law here:  "The laity has the right to receive from the Clergy the spiritual goods and especially the necessary means of salvation, according to the rules of ecclesiastical discipline (Canon 682)."  As I say, the latter part was omitted by the Voice writer.  Those who are going to speak about rights and obligations should quote the whole law, not just that part which they can use.

   I will not trouble the reader with other parts of Canon Law, which I have seen mentioned as supposedly opening a gate for Traditionalist free-wheelers.  Doubtless, those who are intent on that kind of thing will manage to discover, without help from me, other loopholes for their illicit operations.

   Long before this, I'm sure, the reader will have gotten the idea that I think we must all abide by the Law, not joining in with the followers of Paul 6 in rejecting it or changing it to suit one's own purpose.  After much observing of developments since Vatican II, I am convinced that the Law is for our protection, especially, against various charlatans who falsely come in the name of Orthodoxy and Tradition, always with a hand extended for large sums of money.  Incidentally, I have read recently that Cardinal Felice now has ready the Vatican II updated Code of Canon Law, ordered by "He who sits in the holy place, changing all laws."

   In more than one of my papers, I begged for a few Bishops to speak out against the destructive works of Vatican II and Paul 6.  Two kinds of response are possible to such a plea:

   1. From a Bishop who will speak out plainly against Paul 6 and his works, warning the faithful and demanding that Paul cease destroying the Church.

   2. From a Bishop who sets up his own organization, in effect his own Church, for dispensing the Sacraments.

   The first Bishop should be supported by good Catholics, but cautiously at first.  The second must be avoided like the plague.  He is schismatic and heretical, and this whether Paul 6 be a false pope, invalidly elected, or whatever.  Such a Bishop is, without question, doctrinally wrong, and he knows it.

   So, what of the papal authority today, of the divine promise, the Rock on which the Church was founded?  In other papers, I have tried honestly to deal with this question.  Unlike some Traditionalists who have simply declared Paul 6 a manifest heretic and, therefore, without authority, I have not set aside the doctrine of Christ's promise to remain with the Church he founded, a visible Church with a visible head, nor have I closed my eyes to what is of the greatest significance and concern for Catholics today, the destructive program of the present occupant of the papal Chair.  I shall here sum up my opinion of the matter as set down in other papers of mine.

   I have followed the doctrine of St. Robert Bellarmine, that Christ, the invisible Head of the Church, will supply or sustain the jurisdiction of a heretic pope, until such a pope's heresy becomes notorious and he is induced to remove himself from office.  Cardinal Montini was elected to the papal office according to long established procedure, and no Cardinal of the Conclave which elected Montini has protested his election as being invalid.  In any case, validly elected or not, according to canonical procedures, Montini occupies the papal Chair, and although having no intention to act as true Vicar of Christ, he is the visible head all the same -- visible head, although a corrupted head.  Embarking on a program manifestly destructive of the Church, Montini is unlike any other pope.  How does this fit into Catholic doctrine?  We have the definition of infallibility given at the First Vatican Council, a true doctrinal Council, and Montini has not taught error ex Cathedra; we have the Scriptural prediction of a Great Apostasy, and Pope St. Pius X's opinion that the Son of Perdition had already been born in 1903 -- the Antichrist, one totally, "perfectly" opposed to Christ, which only a pope can be, and the taking away of the Continual Sacrifice, which only a pope can do.  These things, I say, satisfy all the doctrinal requirements.  I have seen no other attempt to do this completely.

   In my booklet, Pope, Council and Chaos, I wrote that Christ, the invisible Head of the Church, honors the arrangements for electing a pope that He has approved through the centuries.  He has given this privilege and responsibility to the chief officers of the Church, the Cardinals.  Christ does not interfere with their choice, and if, in time, the College becomes composed of corrupt Cardinals, rejecting the divine aid, they will surely elect one of their own kind to the papal Chair.  Theoretically, any male baptized Catholic can be elected pope, but with good reason the office had become open only to Cardinals.  According to Canon Law, a known heretic, schismatic or simoniac would be ineligible.  (Note the words, "known" or "notorious," which legally amounts to proved as such.)  But, suppose such a one were elected, would his election be invalid?  Quite likely, but the man would nevertheless occupy the Chair of Peter and, as I have pointed out, according to certain theologians, he could exercise jurisdiction for the good of the Church, as already mentioned.  In other words, the evil election having been made, his jurisdiction would be sustained to the extent necessary for the maintenance of the juridical order within the Church, which is for the good of the faithful.  As I mention in another paper, this is not to deny the teaching of a well-known Bull of Pope Paul IV, but only to give its application, as taught by Cardinal Bellarmine.

   Here it might be well to consider the word "invalid," so frequently spoken by the Traditionalists and others, including myself, opposed to the evil works of Vatican II and Paul 6.  We speak of a Mass as invalid, meaning no Mass at all.  The same with regard to, say, ordinations.  By an invalid ordination, we mean that the sacramental action did not take place and the man is not made priest.  An invalid consecration of a priest leaves him a simple priest, not a bishop.  But a cardinal elected and crowned pope receives no such new character, no additional powers of the priesthood, but remains a bishop.  An invalidly consecrated "bishop" will not have the powers of a bishop to ordain; but an invalidly elected pope can carry on, set in motion, ratify, deputize, etc. the routine of the papal office.  What are we to think, for example, of the eight years or so that the antipope, Anacletus II, occupied the papal chair?  Did the Church stop dead, with all action from the papal chair then made null and void?  Whether or not set down then as Canon Law, the provisions of that law, for maintaining jurisdiction in cases of error or of doubt, certainly applied.

   In his article "Pope" in the 1912 Catholic Encyclopedia, Fr. George Hayward Joyce, S.J., M.A., points out that, according to Old Testament prophecy and His own words, our Lord had attributed the foundation of the Church to Himself, and that it is, in a secondary degree, that He assigned to Peter a prerogative which is His own.  So, despite Montini, the papal office remains:  Christ remains as invisible Head, as He promised, until the end of time.  "Outside the Church there is no salvation . . . on this Rock I will build My Church . . . the gates of Hell shall not prevail . . . Behold, I am with you all days."  It is impossible that the sins of any man, even the total heresy of a pope and a thousand bishops with him, can change one iota of this doctrine.  "Heaven and Earth shall pass away, but my words will not pass away."  There is no place in all this for a Traditionalist Sacramental Movement for the saving of the Church; no place for a separate function of the priestly office.  Young men who go into such a thing do so at the peril of their souls, likewise those who accept their ministrations.

   It has been the neatest of diabolic tricks to get both the blindly obedient followers of Paul 6 and the Traditionalists to equate Paul 6 with the papacy.  The first group does this by approving, or at least taking part in, the destructive program of Vatican II and Paul 6, erroneously taking it to be the Law.  The second group looks for a Solution and Leader outside the papacy, and sets aside such laws of the Church as are found to be opposed to Traditionalist initiatives.  One enterprising young Traditionalist priest comes up with "Necessity knows no law," grossly misrepresenting this from St. Thomas Aquinas, who applies it to a dying man's need for absolution.  This twist of St. Thomas's "Necessity knows no law" is in complete harmony with Montini's action in completely "revising" Canon Law.  The Traditionalists see themselves as the Church, with the law as an obstacle or advantage, depending upon the Traditionalist requirements of the day.  In a talk at Portland, Oregon, an Ecône priest repeated this idea, of Ecône as the Church, several times; it was the main thrust of his talk, full of questionable statements.  I give here these exact words of his, uttered in criticism of the cardinal in whose archdiocese the seminary at Armada, Michigan, is located:  "To attack us is to attack the Church."  By "us" he meant Archbishop Lefebvre and Ecône, as the manifest divinely chosen new instrument of salvation, obvious answer to Traditionalist prayers.  I marveled at the glib presumption of the young priest-speaker, but considered that he was only echoing headquarters.

   One gentleman has suggested that I wait and see concerning Lefebvre affair.  There is no need to see more.  Lefebvre had ordained outside the Church's jurisdiction, he has gone into numerous dioceses to confirm, a privilege only of cardinals, and he has his priests operating as a separate church in the United States and elsewhere, without jurisdiction.  He thereby has excommunicated himself, regardless of whether Paul 6 be validly elected or not, for it is the Church's own jurisdiction Lefebvre rejects, not merely (as Lefebvre obviously sees it) the orders of Paul 6.  Regardless of who occupies the papal Chair, and even if it be vacant, he who sets up a sacramental system on his own puts himself outside the Church.  That is where the Ecône supporters are putting themselves.

   The Great Temptation of the Traditionalists is nothing new.  It is the ancient, so frequently accepted work of revolt, of disregard for Authority, doing one's own thing, that Satan offered to Eve.  If those who resist the evil reforms of Vatican II and Paul 6 will not go to the Left, Satan, appearing at a late hour as an angel of light, will induce them to go with him to the Right.  The respectable Moderates, once so self-righteously "obedient" in their refusal to say a word against Paul 6, for the most part will join the late hour revolt.  This will be a consequence of their failure to oppose the Montinian revolt -- of their silence concerning the guilt of that evil revolutionist, Paul 6, of their resisting and covering up for so many years the known truth about Paul 6.

   I write for those who simply want to remain Catholic.  Why, then, do I not stay in the parish and oppose those who are forcing on us the iniquitous changes?  The principle of Vatican II "dialogue" is evil, meant to destroy the faith of those who take part in it, to raise doubts concerning every doctrine and practice, so I will have nothing to do with it.

   I might be asked how, considering my insistence on observing Canon Law, that I can justify my refusal to attend the Novus Ordo of Paul 6.  The very words Novus Ordo, a New Order of Worship, ought to be sufficient reply.  A Novus Ordo does not follow from unchanging doctrine and the basic laws of the Church; certainly this of Paul does not.

* [Communion is not necessary to salvation when not available - ED]