Concerning an SSPX Dossier on Sedevacantism - Novus Ordo Watch

eference is given by Fr. Boulet. Now, my best guess as to the identity of this person is Bishop
Vincent Ferrer Gasser, who was Bishop of Brixen from 1856-79. He was also Relator of the Faith at
the Vatic<strong>an</strong> Council. Pope Pius IX would probably have written him letters, but no particular letter or
published source is provided. The content of the quote is less sc<strong>an</strong>dalous th<strong>an</strong> that of the first, but
still clearly erroneous.
9. Next we enter the thorny paths of heresy, membership in the Church, jurisdiction,
excommunication, c<strong>an</strong>on law, <strong>an</strong>d divine law. Fr. Boulet has not considered all of the things that
must be considered to treat this matter properly. Here is his text.
3.2. Incompatibility between heresy <strong>an</strong>d ecclesiastical jurisdiction: Both Holy Scripture <strong>an</strong>d
Tradition teach clearly that there is a deep incompatibility in radice (in the root) between the
condition of a heretic <strong>an</strong>d the possession of <strong>an</strong> ecclesiastical jurisdiction, because a heretic
ceases to be member of the Church. However, such incompatibility is not absolute, that is
why theologi<strong>an</strong>s are using the term in radice (in the root). In the same m<strong>an</strong>ner as a pl<strong>an</strong>t
c<strong>an</strong> still stay green for a while after it had been rooted up, likewise, jurisdiction could be
maintained, in a precarious m<strong>an</strong>ner though, even after the Churchm<strong>an</strong> had fallen into
heresy (cf. Suarez). Theologi<strong>an</strong>s are basing their argumentation mostly on C<strong>an</strong>on Law, C<strong>an</strong>.
2314: “All apostates from the Christi<strong>an</strong> faith <strong>an</strong>d each <strong>an</strong>d every heretic <strong>an</strong>d schismatic incur
the excommunication ipso facto. Unless they respect warnings, they are deprived of
benefice, dignity, pension office … <strong>an</strong>d if clerics, with the warning being repeated, they are
deposed.” Then, C<strong>an</strong>. 2264 declares unlawful, but not automatically invalid, the acts of
jurisdiction coming from someone who has been excommunicated: “An act of jurisdiction
carried out by <strong>an</strong> excommunicated person, whether in the internal or the external forum, is
illicit; <strong>an</strong>d if a condemnatory or declaratory sentence has been pronounced, it is also invalid,
without prejudice to c. 2261, §3; otherwise it is valid.” Thus the heretical cleric does not
lose automatically his functions, but he has to be deposed by the lawful authority. From
this, we c<strong>an</strong> conclude that heresy, even external, does not automatically eliminate
jurisdiction. Against it, it may be argued from C<strong>an</strong>on 188 # 4: “Any office becomes vac<strong>an</strong>t
upon the fact <strong>an</strong>d without declaration by tacit resignation recognized by the law itself if a
cleric: 4. publicly defects from the Catholic faith.” Sedevac<strong>an</strong>tists are using this c<strong>an</strong>on as a
weighty proof of their thesis, however, such c<strong>an</strong>on c<strong>an</strong>not be considered as a final proof that
a heretical Pope had lost his office. One has to remember that the Pope is always above the
dispositions of the positive law, as the one of C<strong>an</strong>. 188. Such argument would be final only if
it was being proved that the c<strong>an</strong>onical disposition of C<strong>an</strong>. 188 belongs to the divine-positive
law of the Church. One would have also to prove that this divine-positive law applies
properly to the specific case of the Pope. But, it is precisely on that matter that the greatest
theologi<strong>an</strong>s have been in disagreement for centuries.
Having admitted, following da Silveira, that there is a radical incompatibility between the status of
heretic <strong>an</strong>d the possession of habitual jurisdiction, Fr. Boulet makes the startling comment that
18