Ultra-Romanism: The Debate

Mainly - Lucio Mascarenhas & Mr. J. Lawrence Case of the Catholic Dispatch Internet Apostolate.

See Page I | Page II | Page III | Page IV
Date:Fri, 9 May 2003 18:14:13
From: Lucio Mascarenhas
To: Rob, J. L. Case, Chip Prescott
CC: Kevin Vaillancourt, Gordon Bateman
Subject:Ultra-Romanism

Dear Friends,

This is further to the letter I wrote yesterday. It can be seen here: http://www.geocities.com/prakashjm45/ultraromanism.html

I have found today a mailer-daemon reply from the email addresses of Rob & Mr. Case... Seems that messages above 1 kilobytes are rejected.

I have been thinking more about Ultra-Romanism and its similar Sedeprivationism.

An electee to the papacy is expected to assent or refuse the election. When he assents, he becomes pope.

Now, it becomes obvious that if a man refuses to assent within reasonable time, then he tacitly refuses the papacy. And therefore, efforts to find another candidate can resume, etc.

On the contrary, we have the case where there was a pretended election by heretics and schismatics, a heretic was elected and assented.

Des Lauriers, and Mr. Case after him, affirm that this heretic was validly elected but that he did not validly receive the papacy, because his assent was faulty and defective because of his heresy.

Such an idea is a pure and unadulterated fallacy.

But what is most important is that what these people (Des Lauriers, Case, etc.) seem to be saying is that they will willy-nilly force the papacy upon heretics, will force Catholics to accept these heretics as legitimate popes and exclude and frustrate any effort to obtain a true pope.

I find that attitude extraordinary. Very extraordinary.

Yours sincerely,

Lucio Mascarenhas
Date: Sat, 10 May 2003 20:04:16
To: Lucio Mascarenhas, Rob, Chip Prescott, Kevin Vaillancourt, Gordon Bateman, Pope Michael
From: J. Lawrence Case
Subject: Re: Ultra-Romanism

At 05:14 PM 5/10/2003 +0100, Lucio Mascarenhas wrote:

Dear Mr. Case,

Thank you for your letter. Actually, I have not preserved the mailer-daemon response: I deleted it to save on my inbox size. However, you can ascertain that this had indeed been sent out from the other recepients, from none of whom I received a Mailer-Daemon response.

I don't doubt you sent it to others; I am just looking for the auto-reply message you received in order to help troubleshoot any technical problem there may be.

When a man is elected, he is expected and required to assent in reasonable time. The Church has historically, in its legislations governing the election of the next pope, never permitted an electee to hold the Church hostage to his caprice by refusing to either assent or refuse the Papacy, but instructing the electors to disregard him after reasonable time, and to proceed to a further election.

I can perfectly accept this as the truth. It would seem common sense.

On the contrary, what we have is a group of heretics electing a heretic as 'pope', that electee assenting, according to their heretical understanding.

According to Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio, this has zero significance to us Catholics.

It has zero significance here anyway. Assuming CEAO were still in force, it pertains to the acceptance of the election, not to the portion which designates the candidate before the acceptance/rejection. It is that portion we are talking about here. We both already agree such a heretic cannot accept the designation. Again, we are only talking of the designation. And let us not forget, we are talking about the Bishop of ROME. That means that the electors must belong to the Roman diocese, and nowhere else.

By your viewpoint, we are to consider this foreign election as being of binding value upon us, and that, until this 'electee' returns to Catholicism, his assent is in a state of abeyance.

Thus, in your belief, this electee has validly received 'appointment' but has not validly assented and is therefore in a state of privation, but that nevertheless he binds upon us... in two senses: his 'election', despite CEAO instructing us to disregard this as meaningless and without any value, and secondly despite being by a foreign, non-Catholic body...

Since the "election" is comprised of both designation & acceptance, and the last part cannot be completed, I DO NOT consider the "election" of binding value because it is not completed. I DO NOT think that we must wait until he returns to Catholicism. I merely think he CAN return. But other things can happen that can solve the problem and stop the designation(s) from continuing.

I say "designation(s)" in the singular or plural with good reason. I previously thought it was one long standing designation, but your explanation about a "reasonable time" to accept makes such good sense. Therefore, it seems better to use it in the plural. But these designations would be repeatedly back-to-back with each period ending by that "reasonable time limit". As an analogy, let us say that Pope Pius VIII (to pick a pope at random) was designated by vote and he refrained too long such that his delay was determined by reasonable time to be that he rejected it. Then another vote would occur immediately and it is possible for the very same man to be designated again, and again. This could go on repeatedly until the man either accepts, or else there is a change in the will of the electors to designate someone else.

The same could happen with JP2. The designation is repeated over and over simply because all the people of Rome perpetually designate and recognize him to be a pope (vote by acclamation). If the "reasonable time" were even said to be 5 seconds, then fine....the designation still continues anew after that time limit, and repeats itself as in the analogy above. It is virtually one long acclamation.

There are 3 types of juridical judgments according to canon law. One exonerates, one condemns, and one declares a fact that already has occurred. With a pope and heresy, it is necessary for the Church to DECLARE the fact that has already occurred. It is like with a marriage annulment - a couple may be perfectly aware that they married invalidly but when it comes time to try to get it declared null by the Church, without any witnesses, the Church demands that they are NOT free to continue to CHOOSE a spouse even if they know in conscience it is invalid, and they MUST SEPARATE from living together. When the Church declares it null, it is basically saying, "You are allowed to date and choose a wife."

It is the same with JP2. In conscience we KNOW he is not a true pope and we can act in conscience upon that by SEPARATING from him. But we (the people in the Roman diocese only) may NOT continue to CHOOSE another pope until the Church declares the fact of the invalidity. You can see this in the words of the Saint & Doctor of the Church, St. Francis de Sales: "Now when [a 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, and must say as St. Peter did: Let another take his bishopric." Here we see that the man is "out of the Church" but the Church must declare the fact before anyone can "take his bishopric".

That is why the canon law reference work, "Elements of Ecclesiastical Law" (1887), which was scrutinized by the Holy See in its 5th addition, for months, and approved, states: "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 œcumenical council of the College of Cardinals." There were two opinions about what happens, but both opinions agree that a necessary part of the solution must be a declaration of fact. This is not a condemnatory judgment since it is well established in Church teaching that you cannot "judge a pope". Both opinions are agreeing that he is not a true pope BEFORE the fact is declared.

Lastly, when this declaration of fact is completed, and before the actual election, the status of the see, strictly speaking, then becomes "vacant". It is not truly vacant (sede vacante) until that declaration (or equivalent) is had because it is not a theological term but a legal term for a canonical status. Just like the aforementioned marriage is not truly considered null until the Church declares it, even though the couple knew personally that they were not married. This is why you can read in the Catholic Encyclopedia (1913): "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." Strictly speaking, the current status of the Roman see is a "sede impedita" because the repeated cycle of designations of the people of Rome & the lack of declaration of fact that JP2 is "out of the Church", puts the Holy See into an obstructed canonical state. Just like the married couple's impeded marital status (above) - knowing in conscience they are not married & having to live apart, YET not free to choose a spouse by dating.

JLC
From: Chip Prescott
To: Lucio Mascarenhas
CC: J.L. Case
Date: Sun, 11 May 2003 04:09:46
Subject: Amazing debate on the Papacy

Sender RPGII comment

Maskaren will doubtless post this second response by Case - the first being at his geocities.com/prakashjm45/ultraromanism.html - I send it along presently to those who received my noon 5_10 sending/comment on outset of this debate - AND TO OTHERS and ask discretion in that I am unfamiliar as to the privacy policies - though PM obviously will continue to post on the above - wherein I also answered to Prax that I do NOT accept such elections as "Pope Michael" David Brawden - who I see Case has included now in his sending - who I only recently discovered was being supported by Lucio...

I am, on one quick reading, quite in awe of Case's genius - viewing quickly also his public web debate with geocentrist Robert Sungenis -catholicintl.net- on geocentrism. I think it is a privilege to view this debate and think the Angelic Doctor would be/is pleased that it is taking place.

Robert Gerard Prescott