Concerning an SSPX Dossier on Sedevacantism - Novus Ordo Watch

crime by which he had incurred excommunication. They might unwittingly carry out <strong>an</strong>
invalid election, in which case the "Pope" they elected would not be true Pope. The invalidity
of his acts would then be a kind of spiritual c<strong>an</strong>cer, quietly destroying the Church's vital
structures from within: the Bishops appointed by him would have no true right to govern
their respective dioceses; no laws he passed would be binding on the Church; <strong>an</strong>d in
particular, the Cardinals named by him would not be valid electors of a future Pope. How,
then, could a true Pope be restored, if at all? Who would be competent to decide? When the
fact of this hidden excommunication finally came to light, the resulting chaos would be
unimaginable. Nobody would know with certainty who, if <strong>an</strong>yone, still had <strong>an</strong>y real authority
in the Church, <strong>an</strong>d schism - perhaps a series of schisms - would seem almost inevitable. The
Church's law therefore foresees <strong>an</strong>d avoids the possibility of this catastrophic situation by
allowing that even a secret heretic or apostate, if elected as Pope, would ascend the Chair of
Peter with full juridical rights over the universal Church on earth“ Archbishop Lefebvre spoke
also about <strong>an</strong>other problem that may affect the value of the election of the recent Popes:
“Does not the exclusion of the cardinals of over eighty years of age, <strong>an</strong>d the secret meetings
which preceded <strong>an</strong>d prepared the last two Conclaves render them invalid? Invalid: no, that is
saying too much. Doubtful at the time: perhaps. But in <strong>an</strong>y case the subsequent un<strong>an</strong>imous
accept<strong>an</strong>ce of the election by the Cardinals <strong>an</strong>d the Rom<strong>an</strong> clergy suffices to validate it. That
is the teaching of the theologi<strong>an</strong>s.”
a) Note that Archbishop Lefebvre’s comment illustrates the proper Catholic attitude to the doctrine
of the theologi<strong>an</strong>s. We accept it. It is not optional; it is not to be quibbled about; we sit at their feet.
b) Fr. Boulet comments that Cum ex apostolatus “was merely disciplinary, <strong>an</strong>d not doctrinal.” But in
fact all discipline is doctrinal, insofar as it must be (at least) consistent with true doctrine. In this
case we have a papal document of very great weight (a bull) which expresses the doctrine of St.
Robert Bellarmine on the question of heretics claiming offices in the Church. It expresses in the
strongest possible l<strong>an</strong>guage the mind of the Church on this subject. If we accept the assertions of St.
Robert to the effect that his doctrine is the const<strong>an</strong>t tradition of Holy Church (<strong>an</strong>d why would
<strong>an</strong>ybody not accept those assertions of a Doctor of the Church, <strong>an</strong>d supported as they are by a forest
of quotes from the Fathers <strong>an</strong>d Popes?), then this papal bull is merely <strong>an</strong>other piece of evidence of
the mind of the Church on this point, entirely consistent with all that has preceded <strong>an</strong>d succeeded it.
And of course, if we look at the footnotes in the Code we find that the essential theme of this bull
was incorporated in the Code, in c<strong>an</strong>on 188,4.
c) There is no foundation whatsoever for the extraordinary comment that “the Church has judged
that it would be better for her to be validly governed by a heretic th<strong>an</strong> to be invalidly governed by
the same, with all of his acts void <strong>an</strong>d giving no power.” None at all. This notion is founded upon Fr.
Bri<strong>an</strong> Harrison’s complete ignor<strong>an</strong>ce of the doctrine of Bellarmine, which is the common doctrine of
the theologi<strong>an</strong>s.
50