by Robert Sungenis

J. Lawrence Case: Mr. Sungenis, I have a few scattered comments on different things said within the recent dialogue about the SSPX.

You wrote: "God, of course, can overrule the pope in matters that are not infallible, such as disciplinary decisions."

Understanding the value of "disciplinary" matters is crucial to the issues concerning the SSPX. As has already been said, it is a solid fact that a perceived unjust excommunication must be obeyed IF the person giving the excommunication is recognized as a true authority. There was no "necessity", in the proper sense, for Abp. Lefebvre to consecrate bishops. To create a "necessity" it has to be one where there is a positive SIN involved in the alternative. And, I have never heard the SSPX defend the notion that to NOT perform the consecrations would be "a sin of omission". Sin is the ONLY necessity that could warrant it. They only point to a vague "necessity" to have more bishops with the true Faith for their own society. Their society is not the Church. A "necessity" for disobeying a rule, in its proper sense, is simply absent, IF they believe there is a true pope existing who is guided by the Holy Ghost. They are not cut of from the man they consider the Vicar of Christ Himself. Those, on the other hand, who have consecrated bishops behind the Iron Curtain, without papal approval, did so of a true necessity, because they were completely cut off from access to Rome and the Vicar, and had to take matters in their own hands to perpetuate the clergy there. The SSPX can access their pope any time they wish. A necessity that makes things "better", "more secure", "stronger", "safer", etc, are not the kind of "necessity" proper for the act of consecrating without permission. It shows a lack of trust in God for guiding His Church through a man they profess to be a true pope.

R. Sungenis: Agreed.

Case: But I digress. The excommunication pertaining to the SSPX is an individual act of discipline. However, disciplines that pertain to Canon Law and Liturgy are indeed infallible. St. Thomas, in his Summa Theologica, states, "it would be blasphemy to say that the Church does anything in vain". This also applies to those who say that the Church can do anything harmful in Her official liturgies or disciplines. Papal references say the same:

Pope Gregory XVI - "Moreover, do they not try to make the Church human by taking away from the infallible and divine authority, by which divine will it is governed? And does it not produce the same effect to think that the present discipline of the Church rests on failures, obscurities, and other inconveniences of this kind? And to feign that this discipline contains many things which are not useless but which are against the safety of the Catholic religion? Why is it that private individuals appropriate for themselves the right which is proper only for the pope?.........The Church is the pillar and foundation of truth?all of which truth is taught by the Holy Spirit. Should the church be able to order, yield to, or permit those things which tend toward the destruction of souls and the disgrace and detriment of the sacrament instituted by Christ?" (Quo Graviora, 1833)

Pope Pius VI - CONDEMNED: ''the Church, governed by the Holy Spirit, could impose a disciplinary law that would be not only useless and more burdensome for the faithful than Christian liberty allows, but also dangerous and harmful" (Auctorem Fidei, 1794)

The Council of Trent decreed: "If anyone says that the ceremonies, vestments and outward signs, which the Catholic Church uses in the celebration of Masses, are incentives to impiety rather than the services of piety: let him be anathema." (Sess. 22, canon 7)

R. Sungenis: I can't agree, totally. First, Vatican 1's teachings on infallibility are separated from the teachings on the pope's supreme juridical prerogatives. Vatican 1 simply does not state that juridical decisions are infallible. Second, Thomas' above statement does not teach that juridical decisions by the pope are infallible, but only that they are not in vain. There is a vast difference between those two words. Third, it is certainly true that the Church cannot do anything harmful in the areas of liturgy and discipline, but the application of that depends on what the Church understands as "harmful." Does "harmful" mean sinful, leading to sin, heretical, offensive to pious ears, suggestive, or any number of similar but diverse meanings?

The reason this distinction is important is that, it is a fact that the Church has left us with two masses, the Novus Ordo and the Tridentine. Although it could be said that, because they both come directly from the magisterium, neither of them are "harmful," still, the individual is left with the decision as to which mass he should attend. He cannot make the decision unless he contrasts and compares the merits and demerits of each mass, and the Church expects him to make that decision. In fact, according to the Vatican, each diocese in the world should be offering the Tridentine, thus, the decision of which mass to attend is not intended to be trivial. The Vatican also knows that if the individual chooses the Tridentine, he most likely will adopt the practices and lifestyle that goes along with the Tridentine (e.g., communion on the tongue, women wearing veils, learning Latin, etc, etc), and thus a whole Tridentine culture is permitted and promoted. Now, if the individual chooses the Tridentine over the Novus Ordo because he thinks the latter is inferior (albeit, not "harmful"), the Vatican must expect and accept that choice, since the Vatican knows that decisions are made based on the merits or demerits of the thing being evaluated.

Case: To profess that a man like John Paul II is a true pope, the SSPX (and everyone else adhering to JP2 as true pope) must not criticize the Novus Ordo Missae, the Canon Law of 1983, canonizations of Saints, etc. not even to say it was useless.IF JP2 is a true pope, then these are all only good, holy and useful things for the Church. [That the Tridentine rite has never been abrogated does not affect the truth of these things, and is completely beside the point.]

R. Sungenis: I can't agree here, totally. Again, the fact that we have two masses which requires us to make a critical judgment as to which one is better for us, would entail a "criticism" of one mass or the other. There is no escape from that fact. Moreover, we have the right, according to the 1983 code of Canon law, to voice our objections to the pastors and to all the Christian faithful of things we believe are harmful to the Church. This canonical allowance would entail the use of much critical thinking, and thus, may lead to criticism of Canon Law and canonizations. But "criticism" is not the issue; "disobeying" is the issue. Disobeying the 1983 Code of canon law, or saying that the 1917 code is still in force, or saying that the canonizations of JP2 are null and void, is not our prerogative. We can voice our objections, but we cannot disobey, unless a heresy or immorality was being forced upon us, but in that case, we have the promise from God that no heresy or immorality will ever be dogmatized by a pope.

Case: One cannot even say that Vatican II was "ambiguous" because it would violate the same basic principle, as expressed in Mortalium Animos in 1928: "The teaching authority of the Church in the divine wisdom was constituted on earth in order that the revealed doctrines might remain for ever intact and might be brought with EASE and SECURITY to the knowledge of men." (emphasis mine). Ambiguity is a failure, is dangerous, is not teaching with ease, nor security. Nor has any Council in history taught other than by bringing doctrine forth to the knowledge of men with ease and security. That is the divinely constituted character of a true Council....and pope, as we must remember, a Council only becomes "from the Church" when a pope at least nods his head to it, and not before.

R. Sungenis: Two things. First, what we often call "ambiguities" of Vatican II are really not ambiguities of Vatican II as much as they are a twisting of Vatican II's wording and format by certain individuals bent on making it agree with their particular theological persuasion. Vatican II contains mere words. It is human interpretation that turns those words into ideas and actions. If the interpretations of two parties differ, we may be tempted to explain the difference by saying that Vatican II, since it chose the essay format rather than clear and concise statements, is the cause.

Second, that being said, it is a fact that Paul VI was made aware of the European liberals' express intent to make some of the language of Vatican II ambiguous so that when the council was complete they would deliberately interpret these ambiguities in their own favor. This was made known to Paul VI during the deliberations on collegiality, toward the end of the council. (In fact, there were other issues, such as contraception, that Paul VI took off the table of Vatican II, since he was afraid how the bishops would handle it). Paul VI became aware of the liberals' plan when a note written by one of them stating their deceptive plan was intercepted by a conservative cardinal who brought the note to the pope. Most know the rest of the story. At this juncture, Paul VI "wept" at the fact that he had been deceived. Since this discovery was made late in the council, this meant that earlier parts of the council may have suffered the same machinations, that is, deliberately planted ambiguities. Since ambiguities are not errors, and, in a real sense, are only in the mind of the beholder, then Vatican II cannot be faulted with error.

Case: Compare what JP2 wrote in the very document that excommunicated Lefebvre in 1988: "the extent and depth of the teaching of the Second Vatican Council call for a renewed commitment to deeper study in order to reveal clearly the Council's continuity with Tradition, especially in points of doctrine which, perhaps because they are new, have not yet been well understood by some sections of the Church."

This is an admission by JP2 that Vatican II did not comply with the truth which Mortalium Animos stated about the divinely constituted office of teaching authority. And as we all know, points of doctrine can never be "new" in the Church.

R. Sungenis: Yes, I've written about this myself in my essay "When a Pope Errs." Although I agree that this wording is cause for alarm, and suggests that John Paul II is flirting with outright disobedience to the papal oath, still, the pope was clever here, because he did not say "because they are new" but "perhaps because they are new," leaving the impression that they may not be new, or that it depends on one's perspective whether they are new. Also, he did not say "especially in doctrine," but "especially in points of doctrine," which lessens the specificity and could mean something as innocuous as general summations or ideas about doctrine. This pope is very clever, or perhaps his editors are very clever. In any case, Mortalium Animos is not infallible and irreformable dogma, so there is room for John Paul II to skirt around it without being accused of denying a de fide teaching. These are instances in which Vatican 1's dogma of papal infallibility can hurt us as much as help us.

Case: Lastly....Interlocutor provided: "In the case of the Society of Saint Pius X, the Vatican never declared any priest or lay person to have become a schismatic."

Ecclesia Dei contains, "Everyone should be aware that formal adherence to the schism is a grave offense against God and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the Church's law. Everyone should be aware that formal adherence to the schism is a grave offense against God and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the Church's law"

It is not so much the actual deed of consecrating without permission, but the PURPOSE for which it was done. And that purpose is clear, as the SSPX verbally say JP2 is the Vicar of Christ but only treat him as the Schismatic Orthodox treat the Roman Pontiff - a bishop with "primacy of honor" but not with "primacy of jurisdiction". That is not unity. Actions speak louder than words. To be truthful, as the Catechism of the Council of Trent teaches, our actions must conform with our words. You can't say the Novus Ordo Missae is "poisonous" or otherwise defective while professing JP2 is a true pope. They simply are incompatible notions.

R. Sungenis: Yes, "poisonous" is a rather strong word, since it implies something evil or deadly. How they can believe that a mass which confects the Eucharist is "poisonous" is really incredible. Is Jesus Christ's presence, body, blood, soul and divinity ever "poisonous"?

Case: Everything falls into place were one to follow the course that Abp. Lefebvre once expressed was a possibility: "it is possible we may be obliged to believe [John Paul II] is not pope." The only alternative is to say Vatican II is not ambiguous, is true and holy, and that the Novus Ordo Mass is completely acceptable before God, as well as all other canonizations and official disciplinary laws. Otherwise what becomes of all the aforementioned quotes concerning liturgy and discipline?

R. Sungenis: But, of course, Lefebvre never accepted that option, even though he, and probably many other SSPXers have entertained it. Considering the abominations of Assisi, one would be remiss not to think there is a possibility that John Paul II is not the pope. I often laugh watching certain conservative supporters of John Paul II try to defend Assisi. I even had one apologist (Tim Staples), who is otherwise pretty astute, tell me that "it is legitimate to pray to false gods," until he later had to retract the statement after I kept badgering him about it. Cardinal Biffi made it known to the pope that he considered Assisi "the sin of apostasy" and "the gravest danger that Christianity faces" (Inside the Vatican, January 1966, p. 11), and that was before Biffi had the chance to see Assisi 2002 create the same abominations all over again.

I can put it to you this way: although I don't agree that John Paul II is an antipope, it is a fact that the Church, in the first fifteen hundred years of her existence, had about 40 or so antipopes, most of which physically sat on the chair of Peter, and some of which lasted for many years, so I don't outrightly dismiss the possibility that John Pau II, or any past or future pope, could be an antipope, but only that the evidence is not sufficient to make such a conclusion. (The curious thing is that we haven't had an antipope in the last 500 years, which makes me wonder about the nature of antipopery).

John Paul II is protected by the fact that he has never claimed that any of his personal actions or opinions are infallible and binding upon us. His encyclicals, while certainly commanding assent as Pius XII taught in Humani Generis, sometimes contain very troublesome statements, but since those individual troublesome statements are not infallible, he again is off the hook. Moreover, it was said to no person that, if that person did not go to Assisi and pray with pagans that it would be a sin, either spiritually or canonically. John Paul II has an uncanny way of making it appear he is not violating the faith (e.g., positing that a wall of separation between himself and the pagans during prayer is sufficient to offset accusations of syncretism), and he has an uncanny way of coming so close to making what appears to be heretical statements without actually declaring a formal heresy (e.g., his views on universal salvation and that hell could be empty) that I often wonder with whom, precisely, are we dealing. We've all heard of the eastern religion of Confuciansm. Well, today in the west we have the religion of Confusionism, and, unfortunately, it is residing right in the Catholic Church. God have mercy on us all.