Ultra-Romanism: Confusion Confounded!
See Page I | Page II | Page III | Page IV
Dear Chip, Rob & Mr. Case,
As I had said before, in reply to your (Chip's) email of 8th May, 2003, I had once before
gotten entagled in a discussion involving J.L. Case who actually runs the Catholic
Dispatch Internet Apostolate website. If I remember right, it was in an email
discussion involving some group moderated by Fr. Kevin Vaillancourt. I had been drawn in
because some unknown person (Gordon Bateman?) brought me into the circle of persons to whom
the list-emails were sent out.
At that time too, Case had advocated the same line that Rob puts out now. I broke off that
engagement because I did not want to add to the bitter quarrels and party feelings that
already rive the Catholic Resistance.
I have seen Rob's posts on TCC and esteem him as very good & intelligent.
I would describe Case's position as Ultra-Romanism.
I take Pastor Æternas, Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio, Canon Law, the history and
precedents of the Church, the teaching of the Church on the relevant matters, that is
mainly here the Election of the Popes, from the 1910 Catholic Encyclopedia, and I write to
reject the position outlined by Rob and by J.L. Case.
And so I write, and in so writing, I add to the fratricide already rampant in the
Resistance, riven into a hundred ideological factions at war with each other. And so
engrossed with each other that they spend more time fighting each other than fighting the
real enemy!
And in so writing, I am sure that I will have lost the friendship of Rob! Rob, who along
with John Hixson I esteem as the two most mature writers on the TCC list.
Here I was busy at my Unity Dialog
Initiative, trying to recruit a bunch of folk to run this thing, to get the Resistance
factions to sit down and talk and to trash out differences by investigating how they square
with Church teachings on the subject, etc., etc., and here I end up by aggravating feelings
and alienating people.
However, at the same time, I really don't know how I could have reacted differently.
So be it. The Will of God and of our Redeemer Christ Jesus be done. Amen.
In the letter Chip wrote me, was appended a post from Rob, wherein he says:
"If you remember from another one of my posts, the people of the
Novus Ordo are still technically Catholic as a whole. Bishop Karol Wojtyla cannot be pope
because he is a heretic, yet the whole Roman diocese looks to him as being pope. This means
this man has a bottlenecked election. The desire of the whole diocese to have him has pope
is, in reality, frustrated by his inability to be pope. So it is a standing election that
cannot be accepted. That is why if he were to convert, he would automatically become a true
pope. The acceptance of the will in the election of a pope is ALWAYS necessary and has
always been. Any pope must accept the election or reject it after the votes are in. It is
most often (even always?) accepted, that is why people don't think about this factor of
acceptance/rejection. The free-will is most important.
"Another fact of Church teaching.....a man is first and foremost elected as 'Bishop of
Rome,' and on becoming that Bishop he is the pope. Only the clergy and people of Rome can
elect their bishop. Nobody else in the world can. It is man-made Church law that the
Cardinals vote for the pope, but when all else fails, the clergy and people of Rome can
elect a man by "Acclamation". That is a legitimate election process by default. You can
look that word up in Catholic text books.
"We all know that a pope is ONLY protected by papal infallibility at the time of his ex
cathedra pronouncement and not before. If he deliberately becomes a heretic before, he
would cease to be Catholic and pope, and the only way we would know that it was deliberate
would either be his explicit admission of the fact, or else if he promoted heresy to the
universal Church. If the latter, we know he was not pope because the Holy Ghost protects
true popes from promoting heresy."
I am so amazed by the exact identity of thought between Rob and J.L. Case!!!
However, whatever the case may be, I would like to make a comment on the above citation
from Rob, respectfully, and absolutely refusing to get into any kind of argument on the
topic, for the same reason as I had stated to Case before...
Searching in my files for the correspondence with Case, I could find only the last,
farewell letter I had written (See below). Seems like I did not preserve the rest of the
correspondence.
At that time I thought that this new line or ideology being put out was a freak, one man
thing, and not important. And, as I have already said, I just did not want one more stupid
and fratricidial fight in the Resistance.
Acclamation
Acclamation, normally, is purely the praise and submission to a new pope upon his ascension
to the Papacy. Its primary meaning is that of making obseisance to the newly installed
pope.
At one time in history, it came to be understood that such an acclamation is a necessary
part of the process of installation, before the electee actually became pope. That thought
has evolved and no longer holds true.
However, in addition to this meaning, Acclamation has also a derived meaning.
The second, derived meaning is that of supplying legitimacy to a pope whose rights are
doubtful but who would otherwise be able to ascend to the Papacy and exercise it.
In the first case, Acclamation supplies nothing to the already legitimate pope, and his
legitimacy in no manner depends on it. So much so that, given a situation when Acclamation
is impossible or has bot been provided for, for whatever reason whatsoever, it would in no
way affect the legitimacy of the pope.
Catholic Law states that a legitimate pope fully and completely ascends to the Papacy when,
being elected, he assents to receive the Papacy. After this, an Acclamation is merely a
sort of Audience and an opportunity to his subjects to make their obeisance and submission
to him, and is not an essential act to install him in the Papacy.
But the derived Acclamation is not a real and single act of meeting with the people and
lower clergy, as such, but is defined as being the acceptance of an intruder over a period
of time, he being factually able to receive the Papacy but whose ascension to the Papacy is
under some kind of doubt or defect, such as fraud, defective election, etc. In such a case,
he is supplied from the time of his ascension or from the time when he took the Papacy,
there being no other or more legitimate claimant already existing.
For such Acclamation to be able to supply the Papacy to a claimant, the person must be a
Catholic capable of receiving the Papacy and exercising it unhindered, i.e., he must be
without any moral or legal impediment.
A non-Catholic, including a public and manifest heretic (as opposed to an occult heretic)
is incapable of receiving, under any condition, the papacy.
The election of a public and manifest heretic to the papacy is an act that is in itself
null and void, regardless of the knowledge or ignorance of this fact (of his public and
manifest heresy) to his would-be electors, and such an 'electee' is incapable, under any
circumstance whatsoever, of being supplied the papacy as a result of his purported
election.
Furthermore, if such an electee should sometime return to the true faith, it would not
legitimize his null and invalid election nor give him any kind of automatic right to claim
the papacy.
I see it is a serious possibility that in the absence of a legitimate pontiff, such a
returnee, intruding into the papacy, might be supplied by Acclamation. His right to be
supplied would then stand, not on his purported election which is null and void and is
absolutely incapable of being supplied, but on his intrusion into the Papacy after having
returned to the true faith.
1. I ask: What is the legal, Catholic law basis for the premise that members of an
obviously schismatic sect with its own ideology, government, etc., in sharp opposition to
that of the Catholic Church, are still Catholics? And if this is true, then, by extension,
all members of all and every schismatic sect that seceded from the Church down the
centuries, are still Catholics... This premise makes nonsense and shipwreck of Catholic
Law.
Some in the Resistance say that Carlos Duarte Costa, late bishop of Maura, was never
formally condemned by the official Church as a schismatic and heretic, despite his formally
erecting his own sect, the Catholic Apostolic Church of Brazil in 1945.
In like manner, while Feeney was formally excommunicated for disobedience, he was never
formally excommunicated for heresy, as far as I understand it, and thus also, those who
adhere to his ideology too are not excommunicated.
And, I am sure, the list can be extended.
By this reckoning, then, the Costaites and the Feeneyites, and all similar sects whose
members were never formally condemned and excommunicated by the Church precisely because
the Church considered it unnecessary, they having tacitly resigned and seceded from the
Church to erect themselves into schismatic bodies, are nevertheless, in the absence of a
formal excommunication, members of the Catholic Church!
Thus we make shipwreck of the faith!
2. "The whole Roman diocese looks up to Karol Jozef Wojtyla as
pope." And the whole of Constantinople looks to the Œcumenical Patriarch of the
Kakodoci as being the legitimate Patriarch of Constantinopolis. Yet, the Church never
bothered about that misbelief, and it created bishops in partibus for those sees...
Since when did we become bound or burdened with what schismatics and heretics believed or
did not believe?
Let us get this thing straight: From Catholic Law, while we can speculate that many people
went along with the Great Modernist Apostacy of 1958-1963 out of invincible ignorance, that
still does not excuse them in the external forum. Catholic Law sizes them as being, if not
proven heretics as the actual initiators of the Schism, Roncalli, Montini, etc., were, then
at the least, as proven schismatics.
And putting fond hopes and fonder speculations aside, we must realistically admit that most
if not all of these "innocent schismatics" actually assented and did not object and revolt
precisely because they entertained at least a minimum of culpable malicious love for the
evil that the Apostacy gave them - spiritual fornication and libertinism.
3. "This means this man has a bottlenecked election." Is that
supposed to be another way of putting the Sedeprivationist Thesis of Guerard des Lauriers?
I think Des Lauriers put it in a better manner - and yet, completely in vain. See my
definition of Sedeprivationism at UDI Dictionary.
4. "That is why if he were to convert, he would automatically become
a true pope." Catholic Theology and law says: NOT! A man who was a bishop or priest
and who falls into manifest and formal heresy or schism, thus losing his rights and
positions in the Church, and then returns, will NOT automatically recover his lost
position of Jurisdiction and Office. That remains so even if that Office is still vacant or
momentarily vacant in transition. To affirm otherwise is to make shipwreck of the Faith and
of the Laws of the Faith.
Such a revertee can be restored to his former rank and station only by a legitimate pope.
Now, because Wojtyla, or before him, Roncalli, Montini and Luciani, were non-Catholics,
their elections to the Papacy were and are absolutely null, void and meaningless, and they
had and have no claim whatsoever on the Papacy.
Therefore they not being legitimate popes, they cannot supply themselves this right,
whether to 'reclaim' a position to which they never had any right whatsoever, anymore than
you or me, (note: we have better standing to claim and to intrude ourselves into the Papacy
than any of these jokers have or had).
Therefore, being unable to supply themselves this right to 'reclaim,' which can be supplied
only by an undoubtably legitimate pope, they cannot receive or be supplied, the Papacy, as
a result of a non-existing right of return to a position to which they never ever had any
right or title to.
Of course, in the case of a Catholic who is antipope, if he succeeds in intruding, i.e.
seizing the papacy whether in the absence of a legitimate pope or if a legitimate pope
cedes his conquest thus tacitly resigning in his (the intruder's favour), and if he is
accepted for a reasonable time in the performance of the office, then he becomes
legitimized in the papacy. That is Catholic Law. And, it should be applicable, by
extension, to all bishoprics.
Too many times I have found people confusing this legal admission of an intruder to justify
the attempted intrusion of a non-Catholic. This law does NOT justify any such thing - It
legitimizes only a Catholic intruder, not a non-Catholic intruder. And Wojie is a
non-Catholic.
5. "Only the clergy and people of Rome can elect their bishop. Nobody
else in the world can. It is man-made Church law that the Cardinals vote for the pope, but
when all else fails, the clergy and people of Rome can elect a man by
Acclamation."
Our Lord Christ Jesus instituted the Papacy. And in so doing, He did not specify any
particular procedure (of electing the successors of Peter), leaving it to the Church to
work that out under His guidance and that of the Holy Ghost. And that the Church has always
done.
So, what is the actual, exact basis of the contention that "Only the clergy and people of
Rome can elect their bishop."? I cannot see it.
Church Law has progressively evolved on this subject. We now have legal elections by
Cardinal-Electors. But, according to Church teaching by reputed theologians teaching under
the supervision of the Church, and with works published with imprimaturs, and not by
unsupervised amateurs working out intellectual difficulties on the hoof, and inventing
completely new ideas without any basis in the preceding Catholic thought, the right of
election passes on from the Cardinal-Electors to the Canons of the Alternative Papal
Cathedral or Seat of St. John on the Lateran Hill, then on to the Clergy and Laity of Rome.
However, aside from them, and shortcircuiting them, the Church Universal has the right to
intervene and to act to supply itself its head.
We must not forget that while Rome supplies the World with the Universal Governor of the
Church, the Pope as Universal Governor of the Entire Church is more important than the Pope
as the Ordinary of Rome.
In the history of the Church, people had warmly held to the theory that only the Roman
Church had the right to find the next pope and that the Universal Church did not have the
right to intervene and to supply, and there were people who just as warmly held to the
contrary view, but the Church, as far as I know, never formally decided one way or the
other.
And the Church has progressively and systematically come to reduce the power and influence
of the Romans to elect the Pope and to universalize the process of electing the Pope, by
means of the College of Cardinal Electors and of the Conclave. That process of progressive
Church legislation betrays the true mind of the Church on this subject.
Yet, in Constance, as in the attempted Pisa before it, the Universal Church, and that
largely the initiative of the laity of the Universities, pushed and moved for an Ecumenical
Council to be summoned, to step in and resolve the problem. Constance successfully did
that.
If we must accept the Ultra-Romanist line, then we must necessarily reject the work of
Constance. The consequence of this rejection is that the line that commenced with Martin V
and coming down to Pius XII is illegitimate.
We must then look for our popes elsewhere.
A few years ago, I learnt that Pedro de Luna, the Avignonese (i.e., IInd Line) claimant
Benedict XIII survives till today in a Benedict XXX, though I could not find any further
information on him...
If we accept Ultra-Romanism, we must rally to this man as being the legitimate pope.
Or we must admit that our Lord has failed and that the line of Popes has ceased to be.
6. To the last paragraph of the above citation, I reply that it is obvious beyond any
doubt, and that is neither doubtful nor negotiable, that Wojtyla was a heretic from before
his purported, and null, void and meaningless, 'election'. This is the conclusion that the
faithful Catholic is obliged to make according to Catholic principles, or he departs from
the faith.
Please note that Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio categorically excludes every possibility
that is proposed by the Ultra-Romanist line.
To address the difficulties raised by Mr. Case in the exchange reproduced below:
I affirm, in accordance with the Vatican Council's Pastor Æternas, that the Church of
Rome is indefectible and is perfectly endowed with all that is necessary to ensure its
survival and thus also to supply the Church continually with the Popes. (See also My Confession of Romanism.
)
Nevertheless, in accordance with Constance and with the Church's teachings relating to
Constance, I affirm that the Church Universal is fully entitled to act, as it did at
Constance, by supplying itself with its head, and the Bishop of Rome, and that without
having to wait upon the Church of Rome or to consult with it.
I admit of NO contradiction between these positions.
Mr. Case says: "Some will just dismiss the people of Rome as heretics
and non-Catholics. The truth is, the people in Rome who are validly baptized and intend to
be Catholic, are so, because they have not yet been subject to an official, authoritative
and juridical condemnation of their ecumenical heresies, and as such cannot be considered
pertinacious nor juridically a sect."
I reply: Thereby you take two thousand years of Catholic doctrine and legislation on the
subject of heresy, schism and defection, etc., and you blithely and insouciantly toss it
into the garbage can, and substitute your Magisterium and Legislative Authority for that of
the Sempiternal Church.
Into the Garbage Can goes Canon 188.4, Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio, etc., etc. Bravo!
I affirm that the principle of Acclamation is not a necessity for a pope to be recognized
as pope, but merely is an alternative means, one to supply a Catholic who was or would have
been fraudulently elected, or an intruder, or over whose election and or ascension to the
Papacy there be shadowed under a cloud of doubt, with legitimacy.
I affirm that it was NOT necessary nor required or sought, and therefore not necessary even
today, that the Church of Rome should Acclaim or recognize Martin V as legitimate in order
for him to actually become legitimate, but that he became legitimate from the very moment
of his legitimate election by Constance, and so it is with all latter elections using that
precedent (of Constance.)
I affirm that the Church of Rome is NOT composed of or admits heretics, schismatics,
apostates and suchlike in its numbers but that it consists only and entirely of Catholic
Faithful. I affirm that while I do not see that Church of Rome today, in the situation of
the Great Modernist Apostacy, reposing my faith entirely, tranquilly and immoveably upon
the Council of the Vatican under H.H. Pope Pius IX of happy memory, as set out in Pastor
Æternas, I affirm that even though I do not see it, I believe that it exists and that
it has not and that it cannot defect but that it remains, hidden, in Rome, and shall be
revealed one day. I believe, not because I can see, but because God has told me, through
His Infallible Œcumenical Council of the Vatican, 1869-1870, and therefore I
impassively believe.
So help me God.
Yours in Christ Jesus,
Lucio Mascarenhas (formerly Prakash "Prax" Mascarenhas)
Dear Mr. Case,
After your reply, I do not know what I can say. Needless to say, I do not accept your
contentions.
Basically they boil down to:
1. ONLY the people of Rome can elect or supply the Pope. Obviously, then, Constance was
illegal, and its results are to be disregarded...
2. The heretic and schismatic Romans, are nevertheless 'Catholic' and any election to
succeed must be supported and recognized by them. If this is so, then we are fighting in
vain. After all, if you are correct and the schismatic among the Romans are nevertheless
Catholics, then we are in schism in rejecting John-Paul II. As such, we must hurry and
correct ourselves, acknowledge our errors and submit to 'John-Paul II' and acknowledge
Vatican II and the Novus Ordo, etc. as valid and lawful.
Oh, and by the way, people such as the Byzantine schismatics, the Anglicans, etc., are also
generally 'validly' baptized and consider themselves to be 'Catholics'...
Goodbye.
Lucio
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 21:42:07
To: Lucio Mascarenhas
From: J. Lawrence Case
Subject: Re: Council of Constance
CC: Gordon Bateman, Kevin Vaillancourt
Lucio,
You wrote, in part: "while the Church of Rome is perfectly endowed by God to survive all
ordeals and to provide the Universal Church its Popes, the Universal Church is not obliged
to wait upon it to supply..."
I don't know where you get this from. It sounds to me self-serving and wishful thinking. It
also seems strange for you to say in the first part that Rome is "perfectly" endowed by God
to survive all ordeals, but then immediately say that in THIS ordeal today, Rome will be
too late in doing it, so outside of Rome must take it into their own hands! That implies an
imperfection. So, is it perfectly endowed or not?
Aside from that, for the sake of argument I will grant you that people outside of Rome can
"initiate" the election of the Bishop of Rome. For the sake of argument I will grant that
these people will do it against the letter of the law, and even some amongst them doing
some intrinsically evil manipulations behind the scenes to get to that point. One thing is
necessary that was necessary and present even at the Council of Constance - regardless of
who, how, why, where things were initiated, the people of Rome MUST notoriously recognize
the final candidate as their Bishop.
Those who initiated Constance had a realistic hope, a moral certainty, that the people and
clergy of Rome would accept the outcome. The people recognized the initiators as "Catholic"
and as having ordinary authority as superiors in the clergy. Recognized reputations,
notorious claimants to the See willingly attending, and recognized holy men. There was
basically recognized "authority" and "orthodoxy" that made this moral certainty realistic.
The least common denominator for an election is the acclamation of the people in Rome.
The people of Rome, today, following the antipope John Paul II, have better feelings for
Buddhists than for "traditional" clergy. In fact, it can truthfully be said that they
generally look upon traditionalists worse than most any sect. And because they are filled
with the material heresies of Vatican II, the true doctrines that traditionalists hold is
therefore viewed as harmful, disobedient and heterodox. They recognize no authority in the
traditionalists either. There mind-frame is FAR from being inclined towards accepting a
papal election from initiators who are "traditionalists". In fact, it is poisoned to fail
from the start. There is in fact, a moral certainty that it will fail. In such a
circumstance it would be scandalous, imprudent and sinful, not to mention
counter-productive and a set-back for traditionalists the world over for such a thing to
take place. No traditionalist should be a part of that imprudent scandal of an election
without moral certainty.
Some will just dismiss the people of Rome as heretics and non-Catholics. The truth is, the
people in Rome who are validly baptized and intend to be Catholic, are so, because they
have not yet been subject to an official, authoritative and juridical condemnation of their
ecumenical heresies, and as such cannot be considered pertinacious nor juridically a sect.
They are certainly worthy of condemnation and treated morally as non-Catholics in respect
to infection by their errors, but their status nevertheless is "Catholic" and they are
under the jurisdiction of the Church.
J. Lawrence Case
P.S. The name "Lawrence" will be just fine.
From: Chip Prescott
To: Jesse Gomez
CC: Regitiger
Date:Thu, 08 May 2003 13:56:01
Subject:Some loose ends hopefully tied
[Text excised to remove matter not relevant to the subject of
Ultra-Romanism, and to reduce page weight.]
Include also latest part of very profound discussion on Traditional Catholics Club with the
very studied "Rob" who apparently runs the Catholic Dispatch website on a sedevacantist
matter. The ONLY reason, finally, to be fully "up" on this yahoogroup is to READ ROB.
Feast of the Apparition of St. Micheal the Archangel (apparition in Italy yr 492-Monte
Gargano)
In J.M.&J.
RGPII
From: Rob
Subject: Re: Sedevacante
Date: Wed, 07 May 2003 18:26:18
Dan, I was considering giving an answer, but I sort of felt that your question about being
on the right track was somewhat rhetorical, so I made it a lower priority.
Yes, you are on the right track. It seems that you are quickly getting a good grasp on the
situation considering how you formulated it in your own words as you did.
If you remember from another one of my posts, the people of the Novus Ordo are still
technically Catholic as a whole. Bishop Karol Wojtyla cannot be pope because he is a
heretic, yet the whole Roman diocese looks to him as being pope. This means this man has a
bottlenecked election. The desire of the whole diocese to have him has pope is, in reality,
frustrated by his inability to be pope. So it is a standing election that cannot be
accepted. That is why if he were to convert, he would automatically become a true pope. The
acceptance of the will in the election of a pope is ALWAYS necessary and has always been.
Any pope must accept the election or reject it after the votes are in. It is most often
(even always?) accepted, that is why people don't think about this factor of
acceptance/rejection. The free-will is most important.
Another fact of Church teaching.....a man is first and foremost elected as "Bishop of
Rome", and on becoming that Bishop he is the pope. Only the clergy and people of Rome can
elect their bishop. Nobody else in the world can. It is man-made Church law that the
Cardinals vote for the
pope, but when all else fails, the clergy and people of Rome can elect a man by
"Acclamation". That is a legitimate election process by default. You can look that word up
in Catholic text books.
Interesting that nobody seems to have a problem with a pope dying and ceasing to be pope, a
pope resigning and ceasing to be pope, or a pope going insane and ceasing to be pope. But
when you suggest that a pope can become a heretic and cease to be pope... it is one of the
scariest
things in the world! Why? We all know that a pope is ONLY protected by papal infallibility
at the time of his ex cathedra pronouncement and not before. If he deliberately becomes a
heretic before, he would cease to be Catholic and pope, and the only way we would know that
it was
deliberate would either be his explicit admission of the fact, or else if he promoted
heresy to the universal Church. If the latter, we know he was not pope because the Holy
Ghost protects true popes from promoting heresy.
Just some extra thoughts.
Rob