Michael Fighting
"Michael…who standeth for…thy people," — Dan. 12:1-12
Universal obedience to and acceptance of a false pope
Pope Benedict XIV has decreed that during the Great Schism the line of Popes issuing from Rome was the true line. "Today, the darkness disappears. The legitimacy of Urban and his successors appears clear and evident in the light of day." (De Servorem Dei Beatificatione, L. I, Ch. ix, no. x) Pope Martin V also declared the Roman line to be the true line. Therefore no "gap" in the papal lineage ever really occurred. We alone are witnesses to that unprecedented 32-year interregnum. But what about those laity, then, who followed a false pope during the time of the Great Schism? Were they in material heresy or schism?
Pope Paul IV exempts the laity from the censure of heresy, apostasy or schism in following a false pope appearing to be true. Nearly all theologians who treat this subject agree that during the Western Schism the faithful were not even guilty of material schism, and this because they were at the mercy of their indecisive lay leaders and clerics who themselves may well have been heretics or schismatics. The Catholic Encyclopedia states: "Bishops, princes, theologians and canonists were in a state of perplexity from which they could not emerge in consequence of the conflicting, not disinterested and perhaps insincere testimony of the cardinals…The faithful…relied on their natural leaders, and these, not knowing exactly what to hold, followed their interests or passions and attached themselves to probabilities. [The schism]…lasted 40 years and tormented two generations of Christians; a schism [without]…schismatic intention, unless exception perhaps be made of some exalted persons who should have considered the interests of the Church before all else. Exception should also be made of some doctors of the period whose extraordinary opinions show what was the general disorder of minds during the schism…In behalf of the great majority of clergy and people must be pleaded the good faith which excludes all errors and the wellnigh impossibility for the simple faithful to reach the truth…Those concerned were ignorant or misled but not culpable…" Clearly those times were similar to our own.
Bp. D'ailly of Cambrai, himself a declared Gallican before this position was formally condemned by the Church told the Genoese: "I know no schismatics save those who stubbornly refuse to learn the truth; or who after discovering it, refuse to submit to it; or who still formally declare that they do not want to follow the movement for union. Schism and heresy as sins or vices, he adds in 1412 can only result from stubborn opposition to the unity of the Church or to an article of faith. Most modern doctors uphold the same ideas." (See Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. XIII, Schism) Walter Ullmann's evaluation of the Western Schism is even less enthusiastic. He sternly condemns those deviating from Canon Law and Church teaching, explaining that it was Conrad of Gelnhausen (a layman) who first appealed to epikeia as a solution to the schism. Ullmann says of epikeia: "From the point of view of positive canon law, [epikeia is] illegal." (The Origins of the Great Schism, 1948) This principle then, just as it is today, was used to justify everything proposed to end the crisis. "The appeal to epikeia was bound to fall on fertile soil. Nearly all supporters of a General Council referred to this panacea… Gerson made great use of this idea…In spite of some divergences, one element is common to all these proposals: the restriction of the Pope's plenitude of power and his subjugation to a body, be it the Sacred College of Cardinals or a General Council, which shall exercise control over his actions.
"But this trend of opinion was not only illegal; it was, above all, against a fundamental article of Faith…Measures palpably against law and dogma were thus propounded by canonists and theologians of the highest repute. Furthermore, not a single writing can be produced which would show that the illegal and anti-dogmatic character of these proposed measures was recognized. Anti-papalism became the watchword, defended by cardinals, theologians and canonists generally…The strength of this crisis can be measured by the absence in this literature of any contemporary recourse to the traditional dogma, which theologians and canonists of the highest repute openly flouted. More than that: the idea that the dogma of the Primacy of Peter was attacked in its most naked form failed to be recognized, since we cannot discover any theory of the time which attempts to reconcile these heretical ideas with the teaching of the Church." (Ibid)
Teresa Benns proposed a papal election in 1982 in a two-part article published in Sangre de Cristo Newsnotes (We Are the Church) In 1983, Benns again proposed the election in Francinta Messenger. Both publications enjoyed an international subscribers list. Several others independently suggested an election or imperfect council between 1982-1987. David Bawden's first draft of the article Jurisdiction During the Great Apostasy, on the necessity of jurisdiction for the licit celebration of Mass and valid absolution in the confessional was released in the spring of 1984. (A second draft was issued in November, 1985.) Later in 1984, another article by Britons Catholic Library, very much like Mr. Bawden's, supported all he had written and went into even greater detail on the subject. In 1988, the election series appeared in Francinta Messenger. In January 1990, the 491-page work Will the Catholic Church Survive…? was sent into 24 countries; excerpts from the book were printed in the German publication Einsicht, also a Belgium publication edited by Dr. Baisier. In 1991, Daniel Leonardi, who at one time had promoted an imperfect council to elect a Pope wrote that the Thuc bishops could not be used for Mass or Sacraments based on jurisdiction requirements in Canon Law. These articles and the book were circulated especially to Traditionalist clergy and leaders. What was the Traditionalist response?
As stated elsewhere, it was practically non-existent. This was at least partly due to the (deliberate) distraction created by Gary Giuffre's promotion of Cardinal Siri in 1987-88, shortly after the private circulation of the election series. From 1987 to May of 1990, despite the fact that Siri died in May 1989, the promoters of this theory continued their fruitless quest. The Siri thesis series featured by Dan Jones in Sangre de Cristo Newsnotes used research suggesting Siri's election in 1963. Once Will the Catholic Church Survive…? was released in January 1990, the date of Siri's election suddenly changed to 1958, because the book proved no valid election was possible in 1963. An article published in the February, 2006 issue of Inside the Vatican casts still greater doubt on the alleged 1958 date claimed by Sirianists. The Benns-Bawden book addressed the impossibility of the Siri theory based on Cum ex and Canon Law. Much more has been written on this topic since then, especially since its revival in 2005. What was said in the book, however, is still valid today, especially in light of the above: "The talents of those involved would be much better spent adhering to the laws, infallible teachings and practice of the Church rather than tracking down illusions. The enemy has succeeded time and time again in sidetracking those most necessary to the reconstruction of the Church by such bogus efforts, to the detriment of the individuals involved and the faithful who deserve…the truth."
Despite the truths found in Will the Catholic Church Survive…? and Siri's death in 1989, those chasing this fantasy and other elusive theories "followed their interests and passions," contenting themselves with "probabilities" a la the Catholic Encyclopedia account above on the Western Schism. If the 1990 book had been studied and discussed intelligently; if Traditionalists had "considered the interests of the Church before all else," the crisis would not exist today. Clearly Traditionalists stubbornly refused to learn the truth. When it was presented to them they refused to believe it; and in the end, rather than join the effort to elect a Pope, they indicated by their non-participation and lack of cooperation that they had no interest in effecting unity in the Church. This, then, as even d'Ailly observed is formal schism, and even more modern authors agree "Schism and heresy…can only result from stubborn opposition to the unity of the Church or an article of faith." In addition to their schism, what article of faith have Traditionalists denied?
As Ullmann pointed out, "The dogma of the Primacy of Peter was attacked in its most naked form." We today, living in the shadow of the only Vatican Council, have not the excuses of the clergy and laity living in the 1400s. Not only do we have the infallible definition of the infallibility and perpetuity of the papacy and the indefectiblity of the Church, we also have Cum ex tailor made for our situation, 150 years after the Western Schism was resolved. The condemnation of Gallicanism also has removed those teachings as an obstacle to resolution of this crisis. Moreover, 99 percent of today's population can read, and all the information necessary to arrive at certitude was available in 1990 in the Benns-Bawden book and other obtainable works. Even more information today can be downloaded from the Internet. Today's Catholics are more culpable by far than those during the Western Schism, something all today are eager to ignore. There is absolutely nothing that can possibly excuse them from failing to:
a) Understand and accept as de fide the nature of authority, infallibility and indefectibility, necessary for the existence of the four marks;
b) Accept also as de fide the necessity of a visible head for the Church's very existence, as taught by Pope Boniface VIII and Pope Pius XII, among others;
c) Abstain from Mass and Sacraments offensive and displeasing to God because those offering them do not possess jurisdiction as the Council of Trent commands;
d) Avail themselves of questionably valid and unquestionably illicit "priests;"
e) Realize that in the absence of any effort whatsoever to elect a Pope, despite the existence of those ready to assist in this effort and a work that facilitated the process of obtaining formal certitude, Traditionalists nevertheless have spurned the Primacy. They have consistently, stubbornly refused, for nearly 20 years now, to investigate the election or acceptance of a papal claimant whose claims have been featured in national news and on the Internet. By their very actions they have indicated their belief that subjection to the Supreme Pontiff is not necessary for salvation, and adhering to non-Catholic sects does not constitute apostasy, heresy and/or schism. This in violation of Can. 1325, which condemns as heretics those who offend by their "silence, subterfuge or manner of acting."
