Ultra-Romanism: The Debate; Page 4
See Page I | Page II | Page III | Page IV
J. Lawrence Case wrote:
P.M.: 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.
P.M.: 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:
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:
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."
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):
JLC
Dear Mr. Case:
Thank you for your reply. Please pardon the delay in my return, as I am busy with my planned 'Unity Dialog Initiative'
1. There is no reason to doubt whether CEAO is still in force. It is.
There is no evidence that it was annulled, abolished, superceded, abrogated, obrogated, etc. On the contrary, it is cited by the Code of Canon Law, 1917, and by the provisions of that Code itself, it is understood to be in force.
I doubt that this legislation can ever be annulled, etc., any more that Quo Primum can. Both stand in the same moral position - progress in legal evolution of the Church, under the guidance of the Holy Ghost, that is irreversible.
Certainly, CEAO's provisions are fundamental to Christianity. They were implicit until Pope Paul IV, and explicit since then. As such, it is absolutely irreversible.
2. I affirm that public and manifest heretics can make no designations whatsoever.
3. I affirm that the Antichurch or the sect of Roman Modernism is in juridicial separation from the Household of God, and has juridicially erected itself into a schismatic institution.
I affirm that there is no legal or moral requirement or obligation whatsoever on the part of the Catholic remnant to undertake any kind of juridical process in order to declare the secession and erection of the Roman Modernists as a distinct, schismatic sect foreign to the Community of the Faith.
This is because the heresies and acts of criminality perpetrated by the founders and by the followers of this sect have already been provided for by the Church in the past, and the result thereof also; and the result is that of an automatic, tacit secession from the Fellowship of the Saints and of erection into a foreign sect.
This is beyond dispute and argument and doubt.
But if this is doubtful, then we are wrong and schismatic in precipately and sovereignly withdrawing from Communion with these folks and with their un-pope, until the posited to-be formal declaration by Church authorities of this fact is accomplished.
As such, then, if this is true, we must repair this wrong and return to communion with these folks and their un-pope.
However, in actual fact, in CEAO and in other provisions, such as that made by St. Joseph Sarto (H.H. Pope Pius X of happy memory) in his legislations, etc., full and complete provisions have been made, and as a result, the necessary expulsions and DECLARATORY SENTENCES have already been provided for and made, so that we need not seek these anymore.
4. In the first page, in my arguments, I have already demolished the contention that the electors of the pope "must belong to the Roman diocese, and nowhere else".
5. Since we are wasting time about the word 'valid' being applied to the value, or lack of value, to us of the 'election' or 'acclamation/supply' of the Modernist heresiarchs as un-pope, I will specify that such is not only NOT valid, but that it has NO significance or value whatsoever or of any kind whatsoever to us.
6. Once again, I re-affirm that the return of the Modernist heresiarch to the Faith will not create in him any rights to the papacy, or any rights, whatsoever.
Let us understand this by analogy. The bishops of the Kakodoci or Byzantine schismatics, resulting out of Photius' and Michael Caerularius' schisms, have valid orders, but no jurisdiction whatsoever. Now, if one of them returns, even if that be the 'Œcumenical Patriarch' of Constantinopolis, he would NOT under any circumstance AUTOMATICALLY regain any standing or right in the Church, not even as the Patriarch of Constantinople.
He would have to be granted that right by his lawful superior, the Pope.
The same holds for the Modernist heresiarch.
But precisely, this is an absurdity. We must have a pope beforehand in order to legitimize a returning Wojtyla before he can actually gain any kinds of right to the papacy. And it is the height of absurdity that a pope will legitimize any such right - precisely because there cannot be two popes at any time!
Rome and Antirome
In the history of the Church and in the history of Israel, we see that within the same flesh-and-blood group of people, there are two distinct and opposite tendencies existing, each opposed to the other.
One belongs to or tends to God, the other to Satan.
Often, both tendencies are represented in one and the same person but at different times, when he/she had different orientations.
Take the classical denunciation of Israel made by the Protomartyr and itself borrowed from the Old Testament. Indeed, the Old Testament is rife with such statements of denunciations.
Another outstanding example is that of Saul/Paul. One and the same person with two different orientations - first, as Saul, the enemy of God; then, being converted, as Paul, the great champion of the Saints.
Just as with Israel according to the Flesh, so with Christian peoples.
At one time, France was the foremost defender of the faith, so much so that it was designated the Christian Judah. And yet, that same France, under a different orientation, became the greatest enemy of the Faith. That is Antifrance.
And, so with England, with Anti-England, in the persons of the 'Anglicans' obscuring the face of Catholic England.
In like manner, Rome too has been afflicted throughout history. Antirome has always resented the overthrow of Pagan Rome, the Antirome of the Caesars, and the Ascendancy of Saint Rome, of the Popes, and striven, intrigued, etc., to achieve the overthrow of Saint Rome and the Re-Establishment of Antirome.
The Roman Republic, 1848, was an expression of Antirome.
Today, Antirome has prevailed against Saint Rome and driven the latter underground. Yet, we are to hold, in accordance with the Ancient Faith, that Saint Rome can never die but will subsist.
Those Romans who stand by the Modernist robbers represent Antirome.
And they have no right or title to make any kind of election or to supply with legitimation their heresiarch in their pretensions to be the Popes.
And any such action by Antirome is of absolutely zero significance to us, anymore than that of the electors, such as they are, of the 'Œcumenical Patriarch' of the Kakodoci.
Lucio Mascarenhas, Bombay. India.