The Recusant

An unofficial SSPX newsletter, fighting a guerilla war for the soul of Tradition!

Long Live Emperor Nullaparte!

“Deliver us from evil,” our Lord has us saying so often, and so as to avoid a greater cascade of evils, we’re keeping the Pope, without having any part in his actions:

1.    To keep our visibility, which is essential in the apostolate to express Catholic unity, because the Church is a visible society, in the world, thanks to a visible head in Rome;
2.    To keep the principle of authority, in other words, to conserve pontifical authority for the day when it will be restored, even if there is a certain eclipse at the moment.
3.    Negatively, because it is a question which is beyond us, about which authors are divided, which does not bring any incontestable resolution for everyone; and which will thus be resolved only at the end of the crisis.
4.    Because this option is supported by the sensus Catholicus of the faithful, who ask us not to follow it.

(I will only touch on the question of the loss of office of a heretical Pope, which is the crux of sedevacantism.)

Everything, including the study done by the Dominicans (if one removes the sacramental, but I see that in the last issue of Sel de la Terre they have made some progress on this question) seems to indicate that if a heretical Pope were to lose office, it would only be hypothetically. It is not seemly for a Pope to be a heretic, so some say that, by divine right, he falls ipso facto...

But they never affirm this hypothesis as certain, only probable, which means that the contrary can be proved.
On the other hand, this hypothesis doesn’t get us anywhere, because even in divine right God declares what He decides to do, as in the case of Heli; or he doesn’t declare it, as in the case of the High Priests from AD 33 to 70. It is up to Him. If we are evil, He tolerates evil leaders, for the time necessary.

For Caiaphas, it’s wrong to attack Fr. Pfeiffer. Caiaphas is worse than everything and as he is of lower authority than a Pope, while being the Sovereign Pontiff of the Mosaic religion, we see that it would have been easier to remove him (even if nothing is difficult for God).

But we see that God does not remove him, and what is more, confirms his successors too so that they persecute the Church and fight against the truth, as St. Augustine says: God leaves the impious who have no intention of changing, for the required time, so as to try the just. De iure, Caiaphas is kaput. De facto, he has a role to play in the pssion of Christ... Absolutely similar to Pope Francis.

All the way along we see that Christ does not touch anything of the hierarchical order, but attacks very, very clearly the problem which rots the Mosaic religion. We must follow this example. After Pentecost, the Apostles never bothered with getting rid of the gangsters in power.

No, the argument of Caiaphas is very strong; taken directly from Scripture; and the patristic commentaries must be excellent on this subject.

We men are always eager to do battle, and we wish that God would act like us, quickly, just like that: good riddance! For God, what counts is the revelation of the goodness or malice of hearts, and for that there’s nothing like unfaithful superiors for ensuring that everyone has to show his cards.

Once it is done, the Caiaphases get themselves thrown in the bin by God who intervenes suddenly, and they also risk the other great bin which is eternal hell.
The problem with sedevacantists is their obtuse side and their militant bitterness. They don’t want to listen. They come out with their chosen authors, particularly Bellarmine, and refuse to give attention to the differing theological opinions or theological qualifications of Cajetan, John of Thomas, Billot, Suarez, Builluart, Garrigou-Lagrange (de Verbo Incarnato, p232)...

They dishonestly pass off the probable judgements of the authors who go in their direction as absolutely certain conclusions, which I have been able to read directly in Tanquerey, Coronata, Prummer.

And even though Bellarmine says that Cajetan supports a conclusion which is opposed to his own, they say that Cajetan corroborates sedevacantism.

They knowingly neglect to admit that half (or less than half) of those who think that a heretical Pope would not be Pope, also think that it is an impossible hypothesis or only a hypothesis.

That’s exactly what Fr. Cekada does in his little work of 2006. It goes through and reviews all the favourable authors and it omits to tell us in what way they qualify their affirmations, and above all it omits any contrary opinions. Why such a need for a cover up? Because you need to prove that putting the name of a heretic in the canon of the Mass is a sacrilege or that something which is only an opinion is an absolutely irrefutable certainty for even the most average Catholic. That resisting such evidence is a mortal sin against the Faith... etc.

Let us take up Billuard again, quoted by the Dominicans: “According to the most common opinion, Christ, through a particular providence, for the common good and tranquillity of the Church, continues to give jurisdiction to a Pontiff, even one who is manifestly heretical, until he be declared a manifest heretic by the Church.” (de Fide, V,III,3,2)

The whole problem is there. Behind all this abundant reasoning all over the place, it has less to do with an act of reason than with emotions, based, as Fr. Cyprian (RIP) used to say, on the feeling of having been left orphans in the Faith by the cruel reigning authorities. Alas, yes, we have been left orphans, and some people take that very badly, which turns the debate to vinegar. We can understand them, but we need to know what to expect.

Contrary to the liberal penchant, there is something noble and sad in this refusal of a father, and that makes the debate so much the more difficult. They tell us: “Look what is going on in Rome! How is that possible?” How can one not agree about what is going on? Armed with this, they are carried away with this sadness, they allow themselves to be absorbed by it, alas. That’s why one might think that in spite of their voluminous reasoning there is this sadness and this pain which prevents them from seeing clearly. When all’s said and done we can’t condemn them, contrary to Cardinal Ratzinger who said that they needed to all be laicised, whereas he is really the one who ought to be, for having created so many orphans in the Faith.

Then there is the question “And then?” Prummer says. Nobody, he says, has any idea how to go about deposing him, or even how to declare him as such. (There is no way of proceeding because it is God who has to take charge, in my opinion).

The only one who goes into the details of what must be done after noting that the Pope is a heretic, is Billuard, but he somehow doesn’t seem to be in favour with the sedevacantists, because his thesis supports the idea that the Pope would stay Pope. In addition, sedevacantists often feel obliged to work behind the scenes, a bit like the Jansenists of yesteryear, and they sometimes use double talk. “I’m not a sedevacantist, but Francis is not the Pope” some of them say.

I have two bishops who were in my year at seminary, the good one is Bishop Fulham who had very strong sedevacantist sentiments. He was very honest and open about it and preferred to leave the seminary, become a priest with the sedevacantists, then he left sedevacantism the same way he entered it, loyally.

The other one is Bishop Neville who left in the year following his ordination, attached himself to Bishop Sanborn who consecrated him, only to leave him again a little while later. I think he ought to have been a little bit more open instead of letting himself profit from the excellent formation of the time then getting himself ordained before leaving us. We see here the necessity of an oath, by which I am still bound, because quo ad substantiam, nothing has changed since John-Paul II.

Nevertheless, if we are able to sit down together and go through the theological authorities calmly, I think that the sede hypothesis is respectable. There is an objective intrusion, a foreign body which has installed itself and which has no right to be there. Francis is a heretic, and because of his heresy, everything that he commands is subject to caution, even good things that he might do, in the sense that the modernists use good to accomplish even, as Archbishop Lefebvre says in his preface to “I Accuse the Council”.

The lame, wishy-washy refutations of sedevacantism haven’t stopped, liberals refuse even to qualify Pope Francis as a heretic for fear of the bogeyman, and the sedevacantist are put on the same level as schismatics whereas many of them save their souls. Their being mistaken is perfectly understandable, that’s why we see some of them who are more reasonable like the Bishop Pivarunas’s CMRI, Bishops Morello, McKenna or others... but not Sanborn, nor the conclavists. I don’t know where or at what stage Fr. Abrahamovicz is.

Which leads us to your burning question: In that case, what collaboration with the reasonable sedevacantists?
None. Just a cease-fire. We will take care of sedevacantists who call us, individually, but often this comes at the cost of difficulties. But as they are neither schismatics nor heretics, nor excommunicated (contrary to what is claimed by those who attack them in such a maladroit way), it is a duty for us on condition that they do not disturb minds. Bishop Fellay still tolerates certain non-una-cum priests in the Society, and at this level even supports the Resistance. Nonetheless, official collaboration with sedevacantism is impossible.     

Why? Because the positions are incompatible, unfortunately. Contra factum non fit argumentum, the facts on the ground show that a chapel ends up splitting when it has a significant number of sedevacantists within its ranks. At the start it’s “We’re being prudent and understanding!” but the project fails a little while later, for in the eyes of the sedevacantists at best we are liberals, illogical, lukewarm or timid or less. Some of them go further than that.

We are Nullapartists pure and simple, they are Nullapartists of the beyondist scomplicationist sort who go beyond the simple declaration “We have nothing to do with this new Rome,” to express a sentence of condemnation and demand, to varying degrees, adhesion to this condemnation.

I asked one of my faithful to put this question to Bishop Pivarunas. Would you accept a seminarian who still believes theat Francis is the Pope? His answer: “No, of course not!” It works the same the other way around.
We are keeping the Pope and we demand of our clergy a similar taking of position, under oath if necessary (cf. the oath which Archbishop Lefebvre made for this topic) for the reasons given above. That is much more prudent provided one does not try to ‘Catholicise’ the official church like Bishop Fellay. Nullaparte’s Waterloo was 14th July, 2012.

Events prove that our position has the inconvenience of exposing us to the Roman machinations, whereas the sedes are immune. The crisis of 2012 proves that now. We exaggerated our position, wrapped ourselves up in it securely and we trapped ourselves in it, neglecting to consider that because of the situation in the Church, all positions have their own pitfalls, our ones being smaller perhaps, but just as capable of killing.

We took a god beating because we indulged ourselves. Let us profit from this beating, because beatings of this nature are very educational. But I am not going to ask for another one by getting myself trapped in the swirling waters of sedevacantism. Normally a good beating is enough to resolve a problem.

It needs to be explained to some that the faithful are still in shock from the blood-bath of 2012. We can’t ask them to swallow lessons on sedevacantism, or to the effect that there is a certain liberty on this subject... with all the other worries which assail us. Common sense.

Amongst other things, we cannot present our position as a question of Faith, but as a simple application of nulla pars cum haereticis, a probabilior solution, just and prudent, in the words of Archbishop Lefebvre.

Otherwise we fall into the same trap as the Sanbornists and others, who have turned this tough question into a real religion and expend considerable energy on a thesis which doesn’t hold (Cassiciacum), rather like Fr. Basil of Le Barroux, with his 3,000 pages on religious liberty. Archbishop Lefebvre was always on his guard against exaggerating, and that only strengthened the power of his choice which is to leave the resolution of this problem to the competent authorities when they have refound and returned to Tradition.

The same way the Cekadians and Sanbornists refuse like donkeys (they remain extremely intelligent, but I am speaking here of their stubbornness, I can’t think of a better simile, sorry), I would say, to consider that some renowned theologians disagree with their position, we are tempted to rob ourselves by refusing to take the whole ensemble of theological authorities as our guide.

Let us not commit the same error by refusing a priori to consider the argument put forth by those authors who say that a heretical Pope loses his office ipso facto, by divine right (even if, invariably, they give this opinion sententia probabili). It is dangerous to lose the notion that the Church is horrified by a heretical Pope; that a heretical Pope is a delinquent in the Faith of the worst kind, a real mass-murderer of souls, as these numberless souls who fall into hell, and who can truly say “Bishop, it by you that I die” eternally, give witness. Horror of heresy, and of the heretic as the carrier, is an indispensable protection.

The same goes for Cum ex apostolatus. Why be afraid of looking at this document face to face, whereas it ought to be integrated into our doctrinal position? Like the Code of Canon Law (Canon 188.4), Cum Ex does not say how one goes about deposing the Pope, which is too difficult a question, even for Paul IV... who does not answer it; and we’re not going to be getting any help from the clergy of Rome... etc. The Pope is exempt from penal procedures, he is judged by no one. If he falls, it is by divine right.

Cum Ex was abrogated by Pius X in the constitution Vacante Sede Apostolica of 25th December, 1904, #29. But the dogmatic aspect of Cum Ex is unavoidable, and we must comply with it. It is not simply a question of good faith in our debate with the sedevacantist, it is a question of submission to the Magisterium, which asks us to keep our distance from heretics, something which Menzingrad is not doing, obviously.

Finally, we have to be prepared for the worst: they are going to demolish the papacy itself. The papers of the Alta Vendita date back two centuries. The Protocols speak of a Papacy emptied of all substance. The Revolution never stops. When the heel of the Blessed Virgin crushes its head it will stop; but not before. Francis began by renouncing the title of Pope, he multiplies his antics as much as he can. The Tiara bothered Benedict XVI. John-Paul II spoke clearly in 1995 or 1996 of the necessity of rethinking the petrine ministry and Paul VI did more of that sort of thing than all his successors. They no longer want a monarchical institution of the Church. It is still there, but its days are numbered. Once it has been liquidated beyond any possible doubt, what are we planning to do? It is prudent to prepare ourselves in advance, above all when the problem is at the gates. We’re going to be finding Pope-Presidents, democratically elected by a college enlarged to who knows how many Cardinals. I even think they will be inviting bishops to vote, or even non-Catholic “prelates”, the Anglicans for example. They are going to keep the superstar side of things, but continue to empty the papcy of its substance, everything will be clownified. They’ll develop collegiality and national churches, which will be increasingly dissenting or schismatic with regard to Rome, even ones which will soon be saturated with LGBT, because Rome will never be sufficiently left-wing for the Revolution.

I think we have to watch the sun setting. To the extent that, and as gradually as, they make it disappear, we recognise that disappearance. Thus to the question which is asked so often in the mouths of those who join us, “Are you with the man in white, over there in Rome?” we will reply “Yes, or at least what’s left of him.” “I wish there were more, because Catholic as I am I want to attach myself as much as possible to the visible unity. But over in Rome they’re busy shrinking everything, don’t you agree?” “We don’t like these attacks on the visible, hierarchical unity of the Church. We neither provoked them nor sought them, like the modernists and the sedevacantists. They come to us.”
Once the Papacy is totally demolished, which will not please God, we will prefer not to say: “You see! I was right!” We will lament, that is all, and we will continue our road with Eternal Rome.

“Deus qui diligis animas”

In Iesu et Maria

       Francois Chazal+