1

You wrote in part: Why did they not contact any of the 9 Validly Ordained Priests that left SSPX and created CMRI and went unassociated (which has been good) Does he have some sort of problem with this group of Fine Catholic Priests like Father Sanborn (Bishop) and the others? They are valid priests and not heretics. Would they not have made a better Pope?

Dear Sir,

In answer to your question, I would like to ask you to read two articles by Bishop Sanborn. And then I would like to make some points, based upon these and the 1917 Code of Canon Law, which is currently in force, and was in force when all of “the nine” were ordained. Although the 1983 Code had been promulgated when three others were ordained, as sedevacantists, they rightfully reject the validity of Antipope John Paul II, and thus anything he promulgated.

First of all, as Bishop Sanborn notes, Archbishop Lefebvre was always una cumPaul VI, John Paul I and John Paul II. Therefore he ordained all his priests una cum these men. Thus all of these priests were una cum the Antipopes, at least at their ordination Mass. Therefore they are objectively schismatics, at least materially. As Saint Cyprian says: To adhere to a false Bishop of Rome is to be out of communion with the Church. Now Archbishop Lefebvre left the Catholic Church by signing heretical Vatican II documents. He remained outside by celebrating the Novus Ordo Missae and remaining una cum the heretical usurpers named above. As such he incurred all of the penalties for heresy and schism, including irregularity.

Irregularity is more than just a penalty, but a state. Canon 984: The following are irregular from defect: (5) Men who have incurred infamy of law. Canon 2314 provides infamy of law for heretics. Canon 985: The following are irregular from crime: (1) Apostates from the faith, heretics, schismatics; True, in both cases, one must be a formal heretic, but Canon 2200 provides: The evil will, spoken of in Canon 2199, means a deliberate will to violate a law, and presupposes on the part of the mind a knowledge of the law and on the part of the will freedom of action. Given the external violation of a law, the evil will is presumed in the external forum until the contrary is proved. Now heresy is reserved exclusively to the court of the Roman Pontiff, therefore only the Pope can pronounce that the irregularity and censures were not incurred in a given case.

This is where Traditionalists generally are lax, applying the circumstances and results of the deception of the elect, foretold in the Gospels. (Matthew 24:24) All of us at one time or another were at least material schismatics, and therefore barred from the reception and administration of the Sacraments until reconciled by the Church. Ironically the CMRI at one time attempted such reconciliation, although they have no jurisdiction, that is authority, from the Catholic Church to reconcile people with the Church. This is who Francis Schuckardt proceeded. He had a Catholic priest absolve the old-Catholic Bishop from his censures and attempt to reconcile him with the Church, then proceeded to receive ordination and consecration from him. There are many problems with this, but there is not space here to consider them all, although I will if you wish.

Let us return to the ordinations and consecrations by Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop Ngo-Dihn Thuc. First of all, both signed heretical documents at Vatican II, and therefore became heretics. It is my opinion that a Bishop cannot be a mere material

2

heretic in such serious matters, as they are the teaching church and such ignorance is inexcusable. I do not however, apply this to the Bishops validly consecrated by them, as they have no mission from the Catholic Church.

Canon 2372 provides: All persons who presume to receive orders from a prelate who has been excommunicated, suspended or interdicted by a declaratory or condemnatory sentence, or from a notorious apostate, heretic or schismatic automatically incur suspensions a divinis reserved to the Apostolic See. Any person who has been ordained in good faith by such men, forfeits the right to exercise the order thus received until he obtains dispensation from the prohibition. So, even if they were ordained and consecrated in good faith, because the minister is outside of the Catholic Church as Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop Ngo-Dihn Thuc were, they are suspended until the Apostolic See removes the suspension. This is the Pope.

Saint Thomas tells us in the Summa (III Q82 A7: Accordingly, such as, being within the Church, received the power of consecrating the Eucharist through being ordained to the priesthood, have such power rightly indeed; but they use it improperly if afterwards they be separated from the Church by heresy, schism or excommunication. Thus those ordained within the Church can be deprived of the right to legitimately celebrate Mass by excommunication. But such as are ordained while separated from the Church, have neither the power rightly, nor do they use it rightly.

It is my opinion, based upon Canon Law, that all of the Traditionalist priests and Bishops are ordained outside the Catholic Church, because many laws are violated in said ordinations and consecrations. I know they have constructed canonical theories why they are not illegitimately ordained, but this only demonstrates that they are in good faith, not that they are correct. In any case, Bishop Peter Martin Ngo-Dihn Thuc consecrated Bishops in 1981 in order to preserve apostolicity of Orders until a Pope could be elected, who could grant the necessary mission and jurisdiction, which is also essential to Apostolicity. Given his advanced age, one can make an argument for the three 1981 consecrations, but I don’t think for any of the subsequent consecrations. In any case, Bishops Ngo-Dihn, Carmona, Zamora, Bravo, Musey, Vezelis and other bishops and priests met in New Orleans in 1983 to discuss the election a Pope. In fact, I believe this was also discussed in May of 1982 in Dallas, Texas after Bishop Zamora presented the proof of the vacancy to the assembled bishops and priests.

In reading Bishop Sanborn’s articles, including the two I have mentioned, I find that he is realizing that he has not ordinary jurisdiction, which is required to ordain Catholic priests among other things. He rightly chastises the SSPX Bishops for assuming the regalia reserved exclusively to a diocesan Bishop in his own diocese, such as the use of the throne at Pontifical Mass. And in his own choir dress, he is pictured wearing the mantelletta rather than the rochet, which is reserved to diocesan bishops to wear within the territory of their diocese. The matelletta is worn by all titular bishops, as well as by diocesan bishops outside their dioceses, to show their lack of authority. The rochet is a sign of Episcopal authority as a diocesan Bishop, and is therefore reserved to the Pope, Cardinals and diocesan Bishops. In the latter case, they are restricted to its use in their own diocese.

This matter of jurisdiction is not a small one, and I wish to address it more fully. In the fall of 1977 I was in a discussion with several seminarians, including Frs. Joseph Collins and Eugene Berry, who are part of the nine. In this discussion Fr. Douglas

3

Laudeschlager tstated that due to the current crisis, SSPX priests receive jurisdiction to hear confessions by the fact of their ordination at priests, when Canon Law requires this to be conferred by the diocesan of the place where confessions are to be heard. Let us read from Exposition of Christian Doctrine, which I purchased from Bishop Sanborn’s publishing company, Catholic Restoration (Worship, volume 1, pages 387f): What is necessary for the valid (all emphasis mine) administration of the sacrament of penance? 1st, the power of orders; 2d, approbation; 3d, the power of jurisdiction. … What is jurisdiction? Jurisdiction in general is the power to govern subjects within determinate limits of space and time. …How is penitential jurisdiction divided? It is divided into ordinary and delegated jurisdiction. Ordinary jurisdiction is that attached to a function which carries with it the care of souls. Delegated jurisdiction is that which is received by commission from him whom has ordinary jurisdiction. To whom does ordinary jurisdiction belong? It belongs: 1st, to the Pope, over all the Church, in both the forum internum and the forum externum; 2d, to the bishop in both for a, but only over his diocese; 3d, to the pastor over his parish, but only in the forum internum. … If jurisdiction necessary in order to exercise the power to absolve? Yes; so the Council fo Trent declares: (Session 14, chapter 7): “As it is of the nature of judgment that the sentence be pronounced upon those persons who are subject ot the judgement, the Church has always been persuaded, and the Holy Synod confirms it as true, that absolution is null when given by a priest tone over whom he has neither ordinary nor subdelegated jurisdiction.” Therefore we must conclude that jurisdiction in the Sacrament of Penance is required for the valid absolution of sins by Divine Law. To deny this is to deny a doctrine of the Divine and Catholic Faith, which would therefore be to commit heresy.

Now the question arises, do Traditionalist priests have jurisdiction to validly absolve from sins. It is absolutely certain that they do not have ordinary jurisdiction, for they are not he Pope, nor a diocesan bishop nor a pastor. Any who claim the contrary, must demonstrate who they received this office. Diocesan bishops are appointed by the Pope and pastors by their diocesan bishop. Only two Bishops have claimed to be diocesan Bishops, namely Bishops Musey and Vezelis who usurped Papal authority by dividing the United States into two dioceses and claiming to be the diocesan bishops of their respective diocese, demanding all priests within their new dioceses to submit to them.

Canon 879 provides: For the valid hearing of confession, it is necessary that jurisdiction shall have been explicitly granted in writing or orally. Woywod comments (A Practical Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, volume 1, page 487): Explicit conferring of jurisdiction in writing or by word of mouth is required for the validity of delegated jurisdiction for the hearing of confessions. Tacit, presumed, interpretative, or any other kind of delegation which cannot be called explicit, is not considered valid.

No Traditionalist priest can demonstrate the act of granting of jurisdiction from the Pope or the diocesan bishop of the place where they are hearing confessions, for they have determined both offices to be vacant. Therefore they cannot validly absolve from sins with the sole exception of danger of death as provided for in Canon 882. They claim jurisdiction from epikeia, but such is interpretative and the canonist Woywod (among others) condemns such a claim as invalid in interpreting the Canon. This establishes a

4

probable opinion in regard to the invalidity of such absolution, and we must be certain of the opposite, that is that they certainly possess jurisdiction.

And this brings us to the core of the problem of Traditionalism. Traditionalism acts as if a Pope is unnecessary in this crisis, and yet doesn’t Bishop Sanborn state in his article: The identity of the Roman Pontiff has enormous dogmatic and moral effects. In the first place, our faith depends upon his teaching. We are obliged to give assent to the teaching of the Church. But the authority of this teaching comes from a single source, the authority of Saint Peter. Without this authority, there is no binding doctrine. No magisterium can take place, either solemn or ordinary.

Furthermore, our salvation depends on our submission to the Roman Pontiff. We go to hell if we are disobedient to him in a serious matter, or worse, if we are not submitted to him.

So how can anyone be so blasé about the identity of the Roman Pontiff, so as to say that it really does not matter, in the practical order, what you think about him? It is as if the Roman Pontiff were merely a decoration in the Catholic Church, something the Church could even dispense with, a purely accidental accessory, a bagatelle. It is as if you can conduct your own version of Roman Catholicism without the Roman Pontiff.

In the late 1980’s, when we were assembling the Papal Election, we attempted to contact many Traditionalist priests and Bishops and inform them that the only solution to the crisis in the Church is the election of a Pope, who can then set all else in order, grant mission and jurisdiction, legitimize ordinations, remove irregularities, etc. With a very few exceptions, no response was received from these men. As Pope, We invite these men to come into union with Us as true Pope, so that they can receive mission and jurisdiction from us to feed the flock of Jesus Christ.

Catechism of the Council of Trent, (McHugh and Callan, p. 104) -- "It is the unanimous teaching of the Fathers that this visible head is necessary to establish and preserve unity in the Church." St. Thomas of Aquinas -- "In order that the Church exist, there must be one person at the head of the whole Christian people." (Summa Contra Gentiles, Vol. IV, 76.) The offertory of the Mass for the Election of a Pope states: They shall not partake of holy things, until a priest shall arise for evidence and truth. This makes me question whether or not they celebrate this votive Mass, since they are convinced of the vacancy? True, under Canon Law they should not celebrate Mass, but since they do their choice of votive Masses should be in keeping with their beliefs.

Please pardon the length of this reply, but these are serious and important matters.

Yours in Christ the King for the Exaltation of the Catholic Church,

Michael, by the grace of God, Popehttp://www.oneholycatholicchurch.comhttp://www.popespeaks.vaticaninexile.comhttp://groups.google.com/group/one-holy-catholic-church?hl=en

Una Cum by Bishop Donald Sanbornhttp://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=46&catname=12Opinionism by Bishop Donald Sanbornhttp://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=87&catname=10