Christania Notes
The Recent Exchange Between Benns & Case

Dear Mrs. Benns & Mr. Case,
Please find my comments on your recent exchanges. My text is in blue.

Prakash J.M.
"J. Lawrence Case" wrote (#247):

Date:� Thu�Jul�3,�2003� 11:31 am
Subject:� Concerning a Pope, and Heresy

The Code of Canon Law (1917), canon 188 No. 4 speaks ONLY of renunciation of office for "publicly defecting from the Catholic faith" after holding the office. This canon gives 8 separate reasons how an office can be tacitly renounced, and #4 is one of them (#5, for instance, mentions a cleric contracting marriage).

The 35-or-so footnote references pertain to the whole canon 188 with its eight numbered reasons. The content of these 35 referenced documents are NOT part of Canon Law. What Canon Law says, it says. That was the intent.

What Canon Law says, it says. But you confuse the 1917 Code of Canon Law with Canon law as a whole, with Canon Law as a concept. They are not the same. The 1917 Code was merely a legislation of Canon Law, a part of Canon Law as a whole.

We had a revolution in 1958-1965. The Revolutionaries claimed to be making the entire Church and faith anew, reconstructing it once again from scratch, as it were. Therefore, for them, the old things are irrelevant, much as the Islamic principle of Jaziliya.

But that was never the case with the Catholic Church. Pope Benedict did not set out to nullify all previous legislations and to start afresh.

No pope ever obrogated, abrogated, nullified or cancelled Pope Paul IV's "Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio" (henceforth, CEAO).

Therefore, CEAO remains part of Canon Law.

But again, can we appeal from the 1917 Code to CEAO? That depends on whether we have a legitimate doubt.

Do we have legitimate doubt? Yes, we do. It may be that YOU do not have that doubt, because you choose to believe another way, but that does not mean that doubt does not exist.

The definition of doubt is not that the doubt is not justified until there has been a plebiscite and the majority has voted to legitimize that doubt as a doubt, so that it could be addressed.

However, to put things in perspective, I state the following:

Both Benns & Bawden in their book, and Fr. Francis Ricossa, a Guerardist like yourself, (in his long article on Roncalli, a translation of which is available online on the Our Lady of Fatima Church, Spring Hills, Florida site) have given clear and compelling evidence that Roncalli was a heretic prior to his election. Therefore, Canon 188.4 does NOT come into play. CEAO does.

Again, I do NOT need to have or demonstrate a doubt in order to invoke CEAO. I know that CEAO is in force and that is sufficient. I have provided my reasons before, and I do it here again, to show that it remains in force.

Lastly, given your position on the disciplinary legislation CEAO, I ask: what is your position towards Quo Primum? Certainly, both are in the same league, as disciplinary legislation. Was Quo Primum also superseded by the 1917 Code? How did it survive and remain in force?


The constitution "Cum Ex apostolatus" is just one of the 35 references, and is found listed in the middle of them all. In fact, another "Cum Ex Apostolatus" document is mentioned, as there was apparently one by that same title published eight years later by St. Pius V in 1567.

If Canon Law 1917 mentions something about never possessing the office due to heresy, then find it elsewhere, but this particular canon does not mention anything of the sort. Let us use proper references to support our contentions. Since I don't know all of Canon Law, it may possibly be found, but I am unaware where it would be.

Teresa, I see you are confusing the notions of "infallibility" and whether something is "divinely revealed/of faith". They are not the same thing. It is true that everything divinely revealed is "of faith" and "infallible", but it is NOT true that everything infallible is divinely revealed/of faith. You see, disciplines and precepts created by the Church (by Her power of binding/loosing) are not necessarily doctrinal, but they are nevertheless infallible. Infallible merely means it is not dangerous to Faith or Morals. For example, the Church created the impediment to a valid marriage by declaring that a marriage is null if a Catholic attempts to contract it with a person of a false religion. This is not a divinely revealed doctrine, but a discipline created by the Church that did not exist at one time. The discipline is not dangerous to Faith or Morals. It is infallible, but it is NOT divinely revealed. Disciplines are not considered "teachings". Doctrines are taught, and have always existed. Disciplines don't always exist.

Things like the Immaculate Conception, Papal Infallibility, and the Assumption were ALWAYS doctrines of the Catholic Church. They were already doctrines when they were taught with solemnity on their own particular occasions within the last two centuries. They were nothing new. Disciplines, however, can be new. Marriages nullified by choosing a non-Catholic spouse...did not always exist. To give another example of a precept - the Church mentions at the General Council of Florence that the matter for the sacrament of Holy Orders is the handing over of the chalice. Pope Pius XII declared that this was a precept and not of divine institution. One can change, the other cannot.

The above was enlightening and useful. Thanks.

You said, "Documents referring to the era intimate that during Pope Paul IV's pontificate, Morone also was actively campaigning for the papacy. This so shocked the pope that he boldly set down measures to prevent a catastrophe"

What you say here shows that this pope was creating something new that didn't exist before. That is a characteristic of discipline, not doctrine. Yes, "Cum Ex Apostolatus" is as infallible as all the Church's disciplines, but just because it is infallible does NOT mean it is doctrine, divinely revealed, or "of faith", as I mentioned above. A pope can "define" something to be held as a precept. Papal infallibility pertained to defining "doctrine".

Now on Infallibility...

You said, "For they come to us directly from the charism of the Holy Ghost enlightening the Vicar of Christ on earth,"

You are in error on this aspect of papal infallibility. The books say that papal infallibility is NOT enlightenment or inspiration. Infallibility is not a "charism" (as the Novus Ordo people like to say). It is of a negative character; a promise by the Holy Ghost to PREVENT error from accidentally being taught to the Church that is dangerous to Faith or Morals.

Thanks for pointing out the distinction. You are right about the gift being merely negative, which is what the Vatican Council (1870) taught. Evidently, we have picked up this "charism" thing from the Revolutionaries...

You also present a miserable case for the false claim that a pope cannot become a heretic and cease being pope. I have given quotes from many approved Catholic sources, which you are now implying are all wrong. Let me show you where you go wrong...

St. Robert Bellarmine said the "Fifth Opinion" was the true one, and backed unanimously by the Church Fathers and reason - that a pope can become a heretic and cease automatically to be pope. This cannot be denied. He based it directly on the teaching that heresy makes any Catholic lose the virtue of Faith and cease being Catholic.

"...nearly all sedevacantists....the clandestine enemies working against the papacy wish him to say. Those three words, "as a private individual/person," bring every teaching of St. Robert's into perspective."

I know of no sedevacantists who remove those three words. You are setting up a straw man sedevacantist and then labelling him an enemy of the papacy. That is serious.

Consider a man who is the "Bishop of Rome" and "pope". When he deliberately chooses heresy as a private person, the Catholic teaching is that he loses the divine virtue of Faith. The immediate result of this is that he ceases to be Catholic in the eyes of God. If he proceeds to act as a pope, his acts do not represent the Church and he is not protected by papal infallibility. He can thus appear to be a true pope and still fool the masses with his heresies.

This has NOTHING at all to do with what the Vatican Council in 1870 taught. The Council taught that a true pope cannot accidentally err in Faith or Morals when teaching solemnly. There is no conflict or contradiction, because if he ALREADY ceased to be pope & Catholic as a private person, his proceeding to act as a false pope does not at all involve papal infallibility.

Thus a pope CAN become a heretic and cease being pope. His manifestation merely tells us that he already ceased being pope as a private person. All the quotes I gave say the same. All the quotes are approved after the Council in 1870. It was at the time of the Council that all this was ironed out, and all the sources are in agreement to the fact that a pope CAN become a heretic and cease being pope.

You wrote, "Rev. S.B. Smith, also quoted in defense of this opinion, does not even treat the question seriously. After answering that two opinions exist on the matter (one that a pope is ipso facto deprived of the pontificate, the other that he is only removable,) Smith goes on to say: "The question is hypothetical rather than practical. For although according to the more probable opinion, a pope may fall into heresy and err in matters of faith, as a private person, yet it is also universally admitted that no pope ever did fall into heresy, even as a private doctor," ("Elements of Ecclesiastical Law," Vol. I)."

This book was scrutinized by the Holy Office for months before its Fifth Edition, and approved. Rev. Smith most certainly treats the question seriously. He mentions the fact that there are only two opinions and that they both agree that a declaration of fact is necessary. Here is the quote:

466. Q. Is a Pope who falls into heresy deprived, ipso facto, of the Pontificate?

�� A. - 1. There are two opinions: one holds that he is, by virtue of divine appointment, divested, ipso facto, of the Pontificate; the other, that he is, jure divino, only removable. Both opinions agree that he must at least be declared guilty of heresy by the Church - i.e., by an oecumenical council of the College of Cardinals.

You had promised me a quote from the Holy Office, from the 1880s. However, you did not provide it. The closest you have come to providing it is this from the Rev. S. B. Smith's Elements of Ecclesiastical Law.

As far as this thing is concerned, I have two comments:

1. I believe that the quote you give contains a typo. It should be "by an oecumenical council or the College of Cardinals", in my opinion. I do not buy your explanation of a Ecumenical Council composed solely of Cardinals. The College of Cardinals is by definition meant to be, from its very commencement, oecumenical. That is, its members were meant to be drawn from and represent the wider church. Therefore it is redundant to talk of an oecumenical College of Cardinals.

2. Smith gives us two opinions. And in the end, they are just that: Opinions. Therefore, this does not solve our problem. I can consider or disregard an opinion. An opinion is not something that can oblige me — compel me to follow one particular method or idea rather than another.

But that is not the end. Smith evidently did not foresee our present predicament, where we have no recourse to even the College of Cardinals or to an Ecumenical Council.


Also take note of another Catholic truth first - "a pope cannot be judged". This means that the TWO opinions mentioned above both believe that at the time of declaration, the man is already not a true pope, otherwise one of the opinions would be "judging the pope". The idea of "jure divino, only removable" does not entail believing he is still a true pope. It pertains to the material aspects of the office (Pontificate) that need to be dealt with canonically, for possession can exist without ownership. We all know a man can possess something without owning it.

Further reason - If you read this text book, it makes a clear distinction between a "condemnatory" judgment and a "declaratory" judgment in Canon Law, saying the latter is a merely declaring a fact that already occurred. The two opinions above agree that a "declaration" is what is needed, signifying they both believe the fact already occurred.

As I said before, the See is "impeded" until that declaration is made.

The concept of "hypothetical" means that it is possible in the future. Rev. Smith merely mentioned that it never happened in the past. It would not be in such a book if it were not serious. I own the 3 Volume set. Quite a thorough and serious work. They didn't make "Canon Law for Dummies" in the 19th century.

JLC

Here, again, are the quotes I previously gave on this matter:

"Now when [the Pope] is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church, and the Church must either deprive him, or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See." - St. Francis de Sales, "The Catholic Controversy"

"...a pope who is a manifest heretic by that fact ceases to be pope and head, just as he by that fact ceases to be a Christian and a member of the body of the Church; wherefore he can be judged and punished by the Church.� This is the judgement of all the early fathers, who teach that manifest� heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction." - St. Robert Bellarmine, "On the Roman Pontiff"

"If God permitted a pope to be notoriously heretical and contumacious, he would then cease to be pope, and the Apostolic Chair would be vacant." - St. Alphonsus de Liguori, "The Truths of the Faith"

A pope can only be deposed for heresy, expressed or implied, and then only by a general council. It is not strictly deposition, but a declaration of fact, since by his heresy he has already ceased to be head of the Church...� - A Catholic Dictionary, 1951. Pope, Deposition of a

No canonical provisions exist regulating the authority of the College of Cardinals sede Romana impedita, i.e., in case the pope became insane, or personally a heretic; in such cases it would be necessary to consult the dictates of right reason and the teachings of history. - Catholic Encyclopedia, 1913. [Vol. III. p.339]�Cardinal

The councils of Constance and Basle, and Gallican theologians, hold that a council may depose a pope...(2) ob fidem (on account of his faith or rather want of faith, i.e. heresy). In point of fact however, heresy is the only legitimate ground. For a heretical pope has ceased to be a member of the Church, and cannot, therefore, be its head. - Catholic Encyclopedia, 1913. [Vol. IV p.435] Councils

An heretical pope necessarily ceases to be head of the Church, for by his heresy he is no longer a member thereof: in the event of his still�claiming the Roman see a general council, improperly so-called because without the pope, could remove him. But this is not deposition, since by his own act he is no longer pope. - A Catholic Dictionary, 1951. Deposition

"J. Lawrence Case" wrote (#259):

Date:� Sun�Jul�6,�2003� 3:52 pm
Sub.:�Re: No, I don't "reason" like a Traditionalist!

This forum is for the Unity Dialogue Initiative, and if you don't want to have a discussion, you have no purpose on the forum. Either that, or the UDI has come to an end. Let Prax decide that.

Admittedly, at least from my viewpoint, this thing is not going anywhere. However, there is always hope, for this job needs to be done. I leave it to individuals to decide whether they want to continue. I think I will plod on, doing what needs to be done, in my belief, according to my understanding of God's Will...

You simply want to believe that yourself, David Bawden's Mom & Dad, and another befriended married couple, elected David as the true pope of the Catholic Church about 13 years ago.

It is pathetic.

You are working to defend a human faith.

Mr. Case, I find this insulting language unacceptable. If you have a problem with Mr. Bawden's election, I would prefer that you deal it out straightforward rather than attack it underhand, but ridiculing it without stating your reasons for rejecting it.

Your statement about 'defending a human faith' is nonsense. Bawden is not a heretical cult like Palmarianism or Colinism, manmade religions. The issue is not some human faith, a human devisement, but the Divine Faith, devised by Christ Jesus, Man and God. The issue is about the survivalibity of the Church and the perpetuation of the papacy. There can be legitimate differences of opinion, depending on one's ability to perceive the facts, but there is no ground for unfounded contempt and ridicule.


"Teresa Stanfill Benns" wrote (#262):

Date:� Mon�Jul�7,�2003� 11:32 am
Subject:� Give it up, JLC; the party's over

And by the way Prax, is there any written commandment in the UDI that states I must address members personally and not false principles themselves? And what about the rights of others to honesty and truth?

You have no obligation to address or reply to members personally in response to general posts not specifically addressed to one or more members but addressed to the list as a whole.

That is the general principle of civilized conduct, as far as I know it, and is therefore not specific to UDI or Christania.

It is possible that Mr. Case did not notice that this, and I am certain that he will not trouble you further if he finds that he has erred in doing so.

However, you should have not replied to Mr. Case's response when he first responded to your post, and should have pointed out that you had not addressed him and had no intention of addressing him and that you would prefer that he not address you.


"J. Lawrence Case" wrote (# 263):

Date:� Mon�Jul�7,�2003� 3:57 pm
Subject:� Re: The party begins

Nobody is obliged, also, to read a book they already perceive is erroneous.

Mr. Case, WHO have "already perceived" that Mrs. Benns' book is erroneous? For whom are you speaking, for yourself alone, or for a number of persons, necessarily members of Christania? Can you name them?

You are well enough in your right to refuse to read the book. Dialoging with Mrs. Benns and Pope Michael does not obligate you to read their opus. However, it makes sense to do so. I have the book with me, have read it at least four times, and I have not found heresy or error in it. There is, of course, a lot of personal opinions given, and the presentation could have been better and the book leaner. However, none of this interferes with the main purpose and negates Bawden's election.


All I said about the election is that it is pathetic. I said nothing about guilt, nor did I criticize the will behind it.

But the reasoning and argument the action is founded on itself is pathetic.

Can you specify why you believe that the election - and the reason and argument it is founded on - is "pathetic"?

Prakash Mascarenhas
Hosted by www.Geocities.ws

1