A Rebuttal to Mario Derksen's
"On the Status of John Paul II — Part I"
Mario's essay can be found here...
On the Status of John Paul II — Part 1 by Mario Derksen
Let me first begin my making clear my admiration of Mario Derksen's work and of him as a person. While we have never met, I consider Mario to be a good friend and a spiritual mentor. It is my hope and prayer that one day he, like me, will come to see the flaws of the sedevacantist position. That way, he and I can fight side by side together in the spiritual battle Satan has waged on the Church. While there is obviously much we agree on, the sedevacantist position he holds to (and which I previously held to) clearly presents a huge gap for us. According to his position, I am a member of the "Vatican II Church," or the "Novus Ordo Church," or whatever he prefers to call it. Essentially, I am in a whole new religion, separate from the Catholic Church founded by Christ. I know this because this is the logical mentality of sedevacantists. Since they do not profess John Paul II to be a pope, then that means he is the head of a body which is distinct from the Catholic Church.
In a phone conversation not too long ago, when I was beginning to doubt the sedevacantist thesis based on my studies of the words "heresy" and "infallibility," and realizing that the sedevacantist apologists I had previously looked up to (Fr. Dominic Radecki, Fr. Cekada, John Lane, John Daly, and selected writings from the infamous Dimond brothers) did not offer convincing evidence supporting their claim that the postconciliar popes had fallen into heresy and thus lost their authority, I told Mario that I felt his essay, "On the Status of John Paul II — Part I," was the strongest evidence I had read in support of the sedevacantist position (to be fair to Mario's actual position, he does not argue that the Chair of Peter is vacant per se, but rather just that John Paul II is not the true pope, which does not exclude the possibility of somebody else possibly being a true pope but possibly in hiding).
When I told Mario that I found flaws in the sedevacantist position, he and I spent about an hour discussing various things before he told me that his essay on his website (www.cathinsight.com), was still open to be refuted. No longer a sedevacantist, I feel that the challenge offered by Mario still awaits to be tackled. So that is what I am doing here. I am obviously not infallible, and so I am willing to be corrected on the arguments I will put forward. I look forward to comments and refutations on what I write. Again, I have the highest
respect for Mario. He is a very effective and gifted apologist, and I pray both of us will learn from this and always keep our love for God and desire for His truth as our primary motivation.
Quotes taken directly from Mario's essay will be prefaced with his initials, Mario Derksen. My responses will be preceded by Joseph Moreaux.
Mario Derksen: It is much more important to understand that he is not Pope [John Paul II] than to know why not. If the "that" can be known apart from the "why," we may even say that, ultimately, the "why" is of no great concern.
Joseph Moreaux: This is something I completely disagree with, and I have told Mario this in private. In my opinion, the "why" is extremely crucial. The reason is because, without the "why" established, then the sedevacantist position becomes reduced to mere possible speculation and interpretation. For example, someone may encounter what they think is a contradiction in post-conciliar and pre-conciliar teaching. Relying on their
own intelligence, they may erroneously conclude that their criticism is correct.
However, obviously, there are many other apologists and lay people, just as intelligent who have studied just as much on the given topic, who have come to a diametrically different
conclusion.
The apparent "contradictions" and "errors" could continue on with
numerous variables.
For example, related to sedevacantism, one could go on debating the "invalidity" of the Novus Ordo missae, the "heresies" of Vatican Council II, the "errors" of the postconciliar popes, the nature and extent of authority invested in the ordinary and extraordinary Magisterium, the proper interpretation of various canons contained with the 1983 Code of Canon Law, the extent and nature of heresy and at what point it literally separates one from the Church, the private judgment of who is and is not a heretic, etc.
I am not saying that discussion of these topics is irrelevant, but simply that without discerning the "why," many variables come into play, and thus the arguments that could be raised are near endless. One will always find an apparent "contradiction" or "error" that needs to be addressed, instead of dealing with the real topic at hand — evidence supporting the thesis that John Paul II lost his authority through formal heresy.
It is analogous to a Protestant who is content spending all their energy debating various topics within Catholicism (i.e., the Marian dogmas, transubstantiation, the Sacrifice of the Mass, the Sacraments, justification, etc.) all the while avoiding the all-important issue of authority, and the factual reasons supporting the notion that Jesus Christ founded a Church with St. Peter as its head, and that Peter's successors have continued to fill the office that Jesus gave to Peter.
In essence, they could care less about which church Jesus founded and the reasons that support this belief, but instead want to focus on everything else in their effort to disprove Catholicism.
Imagine a Protestant saying, "I see a contradiction between this papal teaching and that papal teaching, and so I know Catholicism is wrong."
As a Catholic apologist, of course I would want to answer the specific argument raised, but at the same time I would want to reinforce the reasons why we know that Jesus Christ did in fact start the Catholic Church.
A similar analogy could be made regarding an agnostic skeptic who believes he found a contradiction in Scripture.
I could answer the specific argument, but even more effective would be to show the reasons why we as Catholics know that Scripture is the inspired, inerrant Word of God. Why? Because once that is demonstrated and proven, all other variables and arguments fall into place.
The same for the Protestant. If he can be shown that Jesus Christ founded Catholicism, then all the other objections he had initially will fall into place, even if he does not know why at first.
The same can be applied to sedevacantists. They can spend their time arguing against specific "errors" or alleged "contradictions," and the arguments could go on ad infinitum, but unless they can explain the "why" behind their arguments, then all is reduced to ultimately speculation and possibilities.
This is why the "why" appealed to me so strongly.
Once I realized that sedevacantists generally have a very broad definition of heresy and that the evidence offered for Roncalli, Montini, and Wojtyla being heretics prior to their elections was somewhat weak, then I realized everything else did not seem as significant.
For example, as a sedevacantist who believed Roncalli and Montini were never true popes, I took Vatican II to be teaching outright heresy on a number of issues. And my reasoning for this was enforced by the fact that Roncalli and Montini were never true popes to begin with. I took the ambiguous statements of Vatican II and interpreted them to be errors because of my perception of the "popes" who legitimized the council.
But once I discovered the flaws of the sedevacantist position, I realized that Vatican II's ambiguous statements did not have to be taken in their liberal interpretation. One legitimately could see them in a traditional light, and in fact one would have to, since the Holy Ghost would not lead an ecumenical council (pastoral or not) to formally lead the Church into heresy.
Now, some reading this may think that I am just acting on blind faith. But that is not true. The fact is, one's perception of who is binding authority and who is not will inevitably change the way one views everything. I might find what I think are evident contradictions in Scripture, and I might study and study and come to the same conclusions. But as St. Augustine said to St. Jerome, "If I find an error in Scripture, either the translation is faulty, or I am just not understanding it correctly."
The reason St. Augustine could say this was because he had trust in the authority of the Church, the inspiration of Scripture, and God's promise to protect His Church. So, as a Catholic, I might run into a number of things I personally do not understand. And further study might not help matters either. But it is in the promise of Christ to protect His Church that keeps me firm.
So if Roncalli and Montini were not true popes, then Vatican II very well could have taught heresy.
If Wojtyla was not a true pope, then the 1983 Code could very well contain errors.
But if all were true popes, then that changes the whole picture.
Whether we understand it or not, with our limited knowledge, we have to accept that God is in control of things.
Thus, the dire importance of explaining the "why" before anything else.
And this all really begs the ultimate question — who has the authority to make the binding decision as to who is and is not a pope or antipope.
That is a separate issue, one which I had to really pray on and grasp with. But I will reiterate one more time: unless a Protestant can be shown that St. Peter was indeed the first Pope, then everything in Catholicism is up for debate.
Unless a sedevacantist can show why we should believe that the postconciliar popes were definite heretics separated from the Church prior to their elections (and also offer reasons why we should accept their conclusions as authoritative), then everything will always be up for debate.
Through this essay, I might prove to Mario that his conclusion regarding canon 844 is wrong. But even if I do, it ultimately won't budge him at all.
He will only have to grab onto any number of other possible "errors" in the postconciliar Church.
So I think the "why" is crucial to any dialogue centered around the possibility that John XXIII, Paul VI, or John Paul II should not be regarded as legitimate successors to St. Peter.
Mario Derksen:
Premise 1: The Catholic Church is infallible in her universal disciplinary laws.
Premise 2: The 1983 Code of Canon Law, published by John Paul II with the force of his supposed authority, contains universal disciplinary laws that are in and of themselves evil and harmful to souls.
Conclusion: John Paul II cannot have been the Pope at least from the moment he promulgated his 1983 Code of Canon Law (1/25/1983), as the indefectibility of the Catholic Church prevents any true Pope from authoritatively promulgating evil laws as contained in the 1983 Code.
Joseph Moreaux: This is the essence of Mario's reason for not believing John Paul II to be a true pope, and logically both premises form to their logical conclusion.
I completely and wholly agree with Premise 1, and thus will not even attempt to argue it.
It is a general consensus of theologians, as well as the clear teaching emanating from Auctorem Fidei of Pope Pius VI in 1794 that the Church is infallible in her universal disciplinary laws, meaning that she can never give a universal, disciplinary law that would be evil or harmful to souls.
As for Premise 2, I will attempt to argue that Mario is wrong in his interpretation of canon 844 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law, and thus his argument for Premise 2 falls short.
His conclusion offers a hint that Mario implicitly knows the importance of showing "why" John Paul II is not Pope instead of just showing that he is not.
The reason is because: if Mario is going to argue that John Paul II lost his pontificate the moment he promulgated this Code (because it allegedly contains an error), then he is arguing that Jesus did fail in His promise.
It would mean that here we had a validly elected Pope who immediately led the Church into error the moment he promulgated the Code, thus nullifying the promise of Christ.
I know this is not Mario's argument, as he states as such later in his essay.
So this brings me back to my initial remarks regarding the "why."
Obviously, he would have to believe that, prior to his election, John Paul II embraced manifest, formal heresy. Or if not him, then Paul VI or John XXIII.
When one asks for the evidence supporting this, then Mario will have to be more specific.
This is the inevitable problem I believe with any sedevacantist who attempts to prove their claim simply by picking out selective "errors."
And even if evidence was offered, the question of authority comes up.
Who has authority to make any binding judgment on a topic such as this?
Certainly not the laity.
Mario, and like-minded sedevacantists, obviously argue that they are not making any authoritative judgment but just pointing to facts. But the fact is, if we as lay people are going to begin calling a recognized Pope a heretic and antipope, and then write about this theory, teach it to others, and try to convince others to hold to it as well, then obviously we are making a judgment and attempting to bind others to it.
Mario Derksen:
Proof of Premise 2:... To prove this premise, it will suffice to cite even just one instance of an evil law. We shall consider Canon 844, par.3-4:
par.3 Catholic ministers may lawfully administer the sacraments of penance, the Eucharist and anointing of the sick to members of the eastern Churches not in full communion with the Catholic Church, if they spontaneously ask for them and are properly disposed.
The same applies to members of other Churches which the Apostolic See judges to be in the same position as the aforesaid eastern Churches so far as the sacraments are concerned.
Joseph Moreaux: Regarding this portion specifically, I do not see a direct error since the relation between the western and eastern Churches has always been one of different distinction when compared to the Church's relation to Protestants or other world religions. The reason is
because the Church has continued to recognize that the eastern Churches do still have valid sacraments. Because of this, and in the name of the "ecumenism" promoted by Vatican II and the postconcilar Popes (ecumenism not really be a clearly defined doctrine of the Church but instead a series of practices and aims which have largely proved unfruitful), the Church
obviously felt this was a way to better bridge the gap so to speak, since the sacraments offered are valid, as has always been recognized.
Of course, this law came from Vatican II's Orientalium Ecclesiarum, par. 27. It was all part of the new direction the Church wanted to take following Vatican II in regards to "ecumenism." It may not have been an overall good idea, but I do not see how the Pope and Magisterium did not have the authority to make such a decision regarding the eastern Churches. So I will leave this behind, and focus instead on par.4 of canon 844, which I think might be the more complicated part of this canon.
Mario Derksen:
par. 4: If there is a danger of death or if, in the judgment of the diocesan Bishop or of the Episcopal Conference, there is some other grave and pressing need, Catholic ministers may
lawfully administer these same sacraments to other Christians not in full communion with the Catholic Church, who cannot approach a minister of their own community and who spontaneously ask for them, provided that they demonstrate the Catholic faith in respect of these sacraments and are properly disposed.
Joseph Moreaux: Now, allow me to first offer my understanding of canon 844.4. Mario and I both conclude that the vague phrase, "other Christians," refers to Protestant Christians; the reason is that 844.3 already dealt with eastern Churches and other like-minded ones.
Thus, when 844.4 moves on and mentions "other Christians" in contrast to the Christians already stated in 844.3, the logical conclusion is that these "other Christians" are referring to Protestants, since I am not sure what other type of Christians there would be. However, it is admittedly hard to say since the phrase, "other
Christians," is rather vague to say the least.
But either way, Mario and I both agree that it refers probably to Protestants.
Now, 844.4, in my opinion, covers all its bases.
It states specifically that these "other Christians" must manifest Catholic faith in respect to "these sacraments," (penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick) and be
properly disposed.
In essence, if we think about this logically and consider what its words are actually saying, it would mean that the "other Christians" would rationally have to be converted to Catholicism. Since 844.4 makes mention of the Protestant being in danger of death or in some other grave or pressing need, it would mean that in such an extreme and exceptional case, the Protestant could receive the sacrament desired, provided he first essentially converted to the Catholic faith, which is entirely consistent with historic Church teaching.
Why do I say this?
Think about it.
They would have to demonstrate not just "faith," but specifically "Catholic faith," in respect of these sacraments.
Which sacraments? Most likely the ones mentioned in 844.3 (penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick). Since the faith required to receive these sacraments would have to be classified as Catholic faith, then that would mean the Protestant requesting these sacraments would have to
believe that the Eucharist is wholly and truly the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ; he would then have to believe that the priest confecting this sacrament had authority from God to confect it in the first place, thus affirming belief in the Catholic understanding of the holy ordained Priesthood. As an addition, since the theology of the Eucharist also includes in it the necessary belief that when confected it is a propiatory Sacrifice offered to God on behalf of sin that offends Him, the Protestant would have to believe that this was the nature and extent of the Atonement, and thus reject whatever concept of it he held as a Protestant.
So we can see that by affirming Catholic faith in this sacrament alone, the Protestant essentially would cease to be a Protestant properly speaking. He would be a Catholic. This also implies that the "other Christian" would believe the Church's interpretation of John
6, Matthew 26, 1 Corinthians 11, etc.
So this implies belief in the authoritative teaching office of the Church. He would also have to believe that the priest has the authority to hear sins and absolve them through the power of Christ. Again, no Protestant believes that Catholic priests have this authority. But since the
Protestant in question would have to manifest Catholic faith in respect to the sacrament of penance, he would no longer at this moment be properly classified a Protestant. He would be a baptized Christian who at this point believes in the Eucharist and all the theology behind it, the Church's authority to forgive sins, and all the while implicitly recognize the authoritative interpretations given by the Church on the biblical passages supporting these sacraments.
As well, canon 844.4 also notes that the "other Christian" would have to be "properly disposed," and Mario and I both agree that this refers to being in a state of grace.
Again, the only way one can be in a state of grace is to have received the sacrament of penance, and only Catholics receive this sacrament and belief in its power. I hope that all made sense. If seen this way, canon 844.4 is consistent with Catholic doctrine, although I will admit it is ambiguous, analogous to some of the teachings coming out of Vatican II.
Sadly, much of the postconciliar debacle has been shrouded in ambiguity. But ambiguity does not prove error; it affirms the possibility of truth if seen in a certain light.
Now, in objection 1 to this essay, Mario objects to my understanding of this passage. He first says that it doesn't matter how we interpret this canon, but whether the Novus Ordo Church interprets it this way. I agree, provided that the interpretation is authoritative.
Mario's proof comes from John Paul II's Directory for the Application of Principles and Norms on Ecumenism, no. 129, from 1993. There is no need to quote it.
The bottom line is, this directory is not infallible, binding law. It is simply John Paul II's directives for implementing his ecumenism, which itself is a word not defined by the Church. These directives are not binding on anybody and can lawfully be resisted if desired.
As well, according to canon 212 of the 1983 Code, we could lawfully offer our objections to such directives to the pastors of the faith, since this is not an area of dogmatic Catholic teaching, nor could it ever be since "ecumenism" is not a direct doctrine but rather a series of policies which defy precise definition, and policies are not objects of Catholic faith per se, as Ferrara and Woods argue so well in their book The Great Facade (pgs. 89-90, 189, 229). So this "interpretation" of canon 844.4 simply does not wash as an authoritative one of the Magisterium.
On top of that, the 1993 Directory simply restates what canon 844 said in par. 131 of the Directory. So my interpretation for canon 844 still holds.
Mario goes on to argue that if 844.4 is to be interpreted as to mean that Protestants must first become Catholics to receive these sacraments, then the entire purpose of this part of the canon would be nullified, since the reason it exists is to make an exception to the general law that is laid out in 844.1, which states that only Catholics may receive Catholic sacraments.
I do not believe this argument is valid since 844.4 is in fact dealing with an exception to 844.1, I agree. 844.1 specifically talks about general Catholics approaching the sacraments. 844.3 talks about the eastern Churches' approach to the sacraments, and 844.4 deals with the
Protestant approach and connection to the sacraments.
So I do not disagree that 844.4 is referring initially to Protestants when it says, "other Christians."
However, in relation to the sacraments, 844.4 I would argue proceeds to make an exception to them, again however, provided that before actually approaching the sacrament, they do make manifest distinctly Catholic faith in them. To me, there is no other logical way to understand that law but that they must believe everything I already outlined, which if these Protestants do (and again, only in danger of death or a grave necessity), then inevitably they will accept the sacraments as Catholics.
If a Protestant is in a horrible car accident, this law allows for a nearby Catholic priest to approach the Protestant and ask him if he wishes to receive the sacraments, since there may be no Protestant minister nearby.
If the Protestant says yes, he does wish to receive the sacraments, since he may be on his last limb of life, then I would argue he died a Catholic. Why? Because a Protestant already believes he is saved by his one-time act of faith, and thus future confessions would be unnecessary,
especially to a Catholic priest of all people. As well, a Protestant would not see any salvific reason to receive the Eucharist in his last moments, since to him it is only bread; nor would he need to receive Extreme Unction, since again, he believes his sins are already forgiven from his one-time act of faith. So for the Protestant in question to accept the priest's offer, he would in essence be admitting before the priest and God that his Protestant beliefs were wrong and that the sacraments were necessary for him.
I pray and hope that this rebuttal was clear in its precision and accuracy, and helped to clarify fallacies in this whole matter. Again, I do not claim to be infallible, nor to be the authority on this specific issue. I am open to comments and objections. But I do firmly believe in my heart that the objections and answers I offered make sense, and adequately answer the essay put forward by Mario Derksen as proof for believing John Paul II is not a true pope.
In addition, I would like to offer my own challenge of sorts. I would like for Mario, or any sedevacantist interested, to respond to the "why" of their position with a solid offense.
Give a clear example of a pre-election heresy that separated Roncalli, Montini, or Wojtyla from the Church.
Also, explain why this evident "heresy" largely went unnoticed by the Catholic world and Magisterium, and then explain why we as lay people have any authority at all to teach others that they should accept the sedevacantist conclusion as a matter of salvation.
May St. Joseph pray for us. Pope St. Pius X, pray for us. Pope St. Pius V, pray for us. Mary, Seat of Wisdom, pray for us. St. Michael the archangel, defend us in battle.
Sacred Heart of Jesus, have mercy on us.
God bless,
Joe Moreaux
| |
PUBLISHED on the Internet: ___________.
|
|
|
Joseph Moreaux's "Death Knell for Sedevacantism"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
P U R P O S E
Written with the purpose of educating people in matters concerning the Catholic Resistance to the Modernist Apostasy, and based on the principles elucidated by the Church, that the truth is never afraid, and that the Church is never afraid of the Truth, and on the principles elucidated by Frs. Rumble & Carty and by Fulton Sheen in his essay, "The Art of Controversy". — Benedicamus Deus, Lúcio.
|
Fair Use Notice
This web site may contain copyrighted material the use of which may not always have been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of political, human, religious, and social issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law.
For more information go to http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
Lúcio Mascarenhas
|