Continued...
have no authority to settle such speculative questions of theology and law that have not been resolved by the Church.
authority to decide speculative questions of law and theology. Specifically, Fr.
Cekada, Bishop Sanborn and seven of their colleagues admitted that individual Catholics
You read that correctly.
In 1983, these nine priests (former members of the Society of St. Pius X) wrote a letter to Archbishop Lefebvre complaining that they were not permitted to question the validity of the New Mass and the new rite of ordination.
They complained that forbidding them to do so was infringing on their liberty since, as they said, these speculative questions of law had not been resolved by the Church (even though the new rite of ordination was approved by the Church!). Here is what these nine priests wrote in their 1983 letter: "The Society must not presume to settle such speculative questions [ validity of the New Mass] in an authoritative and definitive fashion, since it has absolutely no authority to do so. Any attempt by the Society to teach and impose its conclusions on matters of speculative theology as the only positions suitable for a Catholic to embrace is dangerous and opens the door to great evils, for it assumes a magisterial authority which belongs not to it but to the Church alone. Now, while in theory the Society may deny any claim to such teaching authority, in practice it has acted as though it did have such an authority."
3
At the end of the letter, these nine priests (who were soon to be expelled from the Society), added the following "resolution": "Respect for the magisterial authority of the Church as the sole arbiter of theological questions shall be enforced. Therefore, the Society shall faithfully adhere to the teachings of the Church, but shall never usurp that teaching authority by attempting to settle definitively questions of speculative theology."
4
Needless to say, as Sedevacantists, these priests are now guilty of doing today precisely what they complained about in 1983. They have admitted
3"Letterof‘theNine’toAbp.MarcelLefebvre,"(March 25, 1983; emphasis added), http:// www.traditional mass.org/articles/article.php?id=48& catname=12.
4 Ibid.
that no one has the right to treat such speculative questions (e.g., questions of law) as having been settled, before the Church itself has rendered a judgment, yet this is precisely what they themselves do when it comes to questions concerning how and when a Pope will lose his office for heresy.
They even admitted that attempting to definitively answering such questions by private judgment is a dangerous practice which opens the door to great evils, because it usurps the authority of the Church.
Think about this hypocrisy for a moment. According to the reasoning of the priests who signed this letter (most or all of whom are now Sedevacantists), the Society of St. Pius X is not permitted to insist on the validity of a Mass and a rite of ordination that was approved by the Catholic Church, yet Sedevacantists themselves (including Fr. Cekada who signed the letter) are permitted to settle speculative questions of theology and law regarding when and how a Pope loses his office for heresy, which the Church herself has not resolved! And the Sedevacantist priests now do so dogmatically by condemning those who are "in union" with the conciliar Popes, going so far as to claim that it is forbidden for anyone to attend a Mass in which the Pope’s name is mentioned in the canon!
Yet the admission by these nine Sedevacantist priests in their 1983 letter confirms what should be obvious – namely, that no lay person or cleric has the right to declare precisely how and when a heretical Pope loses his office (questions of law and speculative theology), simply because they certain theologians of their choice have provided an opinion which they believe supports their Sedevacantist position.
In our book, we also show that St.
Bellarmine himself (who they often quote in defense of their position) did not present his opinion concerning how a Pope loses his office as being certainly correct; nor did he claim that those who held opinions with which he disagreed were certainly wrong.
5
5 For example, in response to the Third Opinion (that a heretical Pope cannot lose his office), Bellarmine said it was only "highly improbable," not definitely wrong. In response to the Fourth opinion (that the Church itself plays a part in severing the bond uniting the man to the pontificate), Bellarmine simply said "to my judgment, this opinion cannot be held." Bellarmine went on to defend his own opinion (just as those who held the contrary opinions did), but he never claimed
Bellarmine knew full well that questions of law and speculative theology can only be settled by the Church (and, in True or False Pope?, we show how the Sedevacantists have completely misunderstood Bellarmine’s opinion).
Before the Church renders a judgment on such speculative questions, differing theological positions are nothing more than opinions, and therefore cannot be used as a certain premise to draw a certain conclusion, as the very theologians who held the opinions would readily concede. Because the Church has never settled the questions of how, when, or if a Pope would lose his office for heresy, no one can declare that a Pope has lost his office for heresy, since this conclusion rests on speculative questions which the Church has not yet settled.
Questions of Fact
Whether a Pope is a formal heretic falls into the category of a question of fact, which, like the questions of law, must be established by the Church, who alone has the competence to establish "facts" in the external, ecclesiastical forum. Believe it or not, this too has been admitted to by Sedevacantist clergy (when it is used to defend themselves).
The Sedevacantist Bishop Dan Dolan, for example, admitted that "questions of fact" can only be determined by the Church, not by individual priests, much less individual laymen.
6
Dolan made this admission a number of years ago when a group of priests, which included Fr. Clarence Kelly (who is now also a Sedevacantist bishop), accused Dolan of being invalidly ordained, alleging that his consecrating bishop used only one hand, instead of two. The accusing priests wrote Dolan a letter demanding that he immediately cease his priestly functions until the issue of his doubtful ordination was cleared up.
How did Fr. Dolan respond to these accusations? Did he concede that their private judgment of the facts sufficed, and immediately ceased functioning as a priest? Not quite. On the contrary, he replied with his own letter rightly declaring that Fr. Kelly had no authority to judge the facts and determine whether his priestly ordination was valid, since such a private judgment usurps the Church’s judgment, which alone is competent to decide such matters. You read that correctly. The Sedevacantist clergyman Dan Dolan admits that the Church alone is the competent judge concerning the facts and validity of his ordination, yet, at the same time, Dolan himself believes he possesses the authority to judge the facts and decide (by private judgment) whether the man, who was elected Pope according to the laws of the Church and who is recognized as Pope by the Church, is a true Pope. This is yet another example of the astounding hypocrisy and double standards we find in the Sedevacantist movement.
In the following reply from Dolan to Fr. Kelly, notice that Dolan argues that it is the Church, not Fr. Kelly, who investigates and decides the "facts" – which is precisely what we have been arguing for years in our refutations of Sedevacantism. Here is Dolan in his own words:
that his opinion is certainly correct.
6 Salza/Siscoe, "Sedevacantist Bishop Dan Dolan Says Only The Church Can Judge ‘The Question Of Fact’" (1/19/16), see: www.trueorfalsepope.com.
"The Church, not Father Kelly, investigates and decides the facts. Those impugning the validity of an ordination present their case to the Holy Office, which conducts an investigation, hears the evidence of all parties, examines the witnesses and establishes what the facts are. Let’s repeat that: the Holy Office investigates, weighs the evidence and establishes the facts. Nothing there or in Canon Law about Father Kelly investigating, weighing evidence and establishing facts. Nothing there or in Canon Law about a priest having to answer ‘evidence’ Father Kelly finds convincing. Ditto for the rest of the clergy who signed the letter to me."
7
(emphasis in original) Here we have a Sedevacantist cleric admitting that the determination of whether he is a true priest concerns questions of fact that must be established by "the Church" and not private judgment. Yet this is completely contrary to the practice of the Sedevacantists with respect to the "validity" of the Pope, which also concerns questions of fact (and law) that must be established, or "decided" by the Church, not private judgment. In both cases, "the Church, not Frs. Dolan, Kelly or Cekada, etc.
investigates and decides the facts," and then renders her legal decision based upon those facts.
8 We could not have
said it any better. This real life situation is helpful because it also illustrates the distinction between a question of fact (was Dolan ordained with one hand or two?) and a question of law (Is a one-handed ordination invalid?). Again, this is a distinction that Sedevacantists consistently overlook, as they try to make their position solely a "question of fact" (Is the Pope a heretic?), which they judge by their own private judgment.
Just as the question of whether Dolan was validly ordained concerns a "question of fact" that only the Church has the authority to judge, so too is the question of whether a Pope is a heretic a "question of fact" that the Church alone has the authority to judge. Certainly, individuals can have an opinion concerning the issue before it is judged by the Church (for example, many are of the opinion that Pope Francis is a heretic, and even publicly express their opinion), but such opinions do not constitute a fact in the ecclesiastical forum. And, as we saw earlier, even if the question of fact (e.g., is the Pope a heretic?) had been established by the Church, the question of law would also have to be decided by the Church first, before the Church could apply the fact to the applicable law.
In Part II we will see how the Church establishes the fact that the Pope is a heretic, and we will also consider the main opinions of theologians concerning how and when he would lose his office.
To Be Concluded Next Issue
7 Fr. Dolan’s reply to Fr. Kelly, October 5, 1990. http://www.scribd.com/doc/24604978 3/DOLAN-SREPLY.
8 We would also like to ask Fr. Dolan "what Holy Office" he is asking Fr. Kelly to petition, since both of them believe the post-conciliar Vatican hierarchy has completely defected from the Church, and thus there is no "Holy Office." Funny how Dolan would appeal to an authority that both he and Kelly reject. It is evidently quite convenient for Dolan to appeal to Church authority when it will help his case, but it is the same authority that he actually rejects (or claims to reject) in his daily life.
![[image]](images/image_20160415_23_0_large_gray.jpg)