SSPX defenders would do well to read this explanation of the discussion in Gratian's Decretum. It's good news – if they're prepared to do what is necessary...
Although not exactly on point, I can well imagine articles ready to fly from Menzingen comparing their case with the invalid excommunication of St. Joan of Arc. Granted, in her case it was the local bishop and not the pope. Neither was he a heretic (so he actually could validly excommunicate, yet said excommunication was nevertheless invalid).
Therefore, to play devil’s advocate, what would the response be to the foreseeable SSPX response that “No, we do not need to acknowledge the pope is an excommunicated heretic in order to view our own excommunication as invalid: Just look at the case of St. Joan of Arc.”
It’s an interesting question. It would be interesting to hear the explanation as to why a positive and deliberately papal act of excommunication was actually invalid, without it falling into the argument that it was unjust. Do you have any ideas?
By contrast, consider this quick Perplexity summary of why St Joan's condemnation was deemed null:
Joan of Arc’s 1431 conviction was later declared null because the original trial was legally defective in several specific ways: the judge lacked proper jurisdiction, the proceedings were biased and malicious, the sentence was issued after Joan had appealed, the trial record was falsified, the accusations rested on unreliable suspicion, and the verdict was judged gravely unjust and erroneous.
More specifically, the 1456 nullification focused on these grounds:
Incompetence of the judges: Bishop Pierre Cauchon of Beauvais did not have proper authority over Joan in the way the trial was conducted.
Bias and bad faith: the court was found to have acted with obvious partiality against her.
Violation of appeal rights: she had challenged the court’s authority, yet the sentence went ahead anyway.
Falsification of the record: the acts of the trial were altered or handled improperly.
Weak evidentiary basis: the case relied on suspicions rather than solid proof.
Injustice in the sentence itself: the final judgment was deemed intolerably wrong in law and equity.
In short, the nullification was not mainly a theological reversal of her case; it was a finding that the original condemnation was procedurally and legally invalid.
My guess is that they’ll adduce some of the same objections against the validity of the excommunications as were provided in the excerpt you posted regarding the case of St. Joan of Arc (eg., gross injustice, etc.).
However, unlike the bishop in the case of St. Joan, they’ll not be able to argue Leo doesn’t have jurisdiction (unless they want to become sedes).
They will say the pope’s will cannot have any effect in necessity:
“6th Principle: It is the character of necessity to place the subject in the physical or moral impossibility of obeying
It is certain that God binds nobody in a state of necessity, but the human legislator "can say 'no' without reason and in violation of natural and eternal law"6 and therefore they can in fact forbid an action required by the state of necessity. But, since the pope's "No" is powerless to do away with the grave general necessity of souls and hence the associated duty sub gravito go to their help, the subject, especially if he is a bishop or priest, then finds himself in the moral and absolute impossibility of obeying, because he could not obey without himself sinning and harming others. Hence, it is the character of the state of necessity "to create a sort of impotency whereby it is impossible to do something commanded or not do some- thing forbidden."7
This is not, in fact, the case of authority not being bound to oblige because" summum ius summa iniuria," or one which issues an inopportune command lacking in prudence, but which nevertheless people could be bound to obey all the same in view of the common good. This is, on the other hand, the case of authority that cannot oblige, because its command is opposed to a precept of divine and natural law "more grave and obliging."8 In such a case to obey the law or the legislator would be "evil and a sin" (Suarez, De Legibus, L. VI, c. VII, n.8). St. Thomas calls obedience in such a case "evil" (SI; 11-11, Q120, A.1). Cajetan refers to it as a "vice" (Cajetan in 1.2, q.96, a.6). Hence, refusal to obey becomes a duty (i.e" inoboedientia debita).9
The reality of such a case is not that the subject is disobeying. It is better said that he is obeying a higher and more compelling command issuing from divine authority, which "commands us to regard higher interests."10 Human authority , in fact, "is neither the first nor the only rule of morality ."6 Earthly authority is a" norma normata, "that is to say, a rule itself regulated by divine law, and hence when human authority, "contrary to natural and eternal law,"6 says "No," then disobeying man in order to obey God becomes a duty."11
I’m not saying they’re right or wrong, just what they’ll say (because they already said it in 1988.
The doctrine of necessity is certainly correct. The only question is: Can this apply against a pope? They argue it can. It is for sedes to show why it can’t.
Your article is exceptionally detailed and full of practical, common sense conclusions such as, the heretic pope who places himself outside the Church has less ecclesial authority than the least, lay, baptised Catholic and even becomes his inferior. Life would be much less complicated for the SSPX if they eould just admitt the truth that Leo isn't Catholic and instesd of treating him like the "Holy Father" they should be admonishing him for his treachery instead of subjecting themselves to his judgements. In this case the ttuth would resolve many issues and set them free from this perennial abuse.
They are in a heap of problems. They have vilified and condemned the conclusion that the Modernist heretics are not Popes for so long that a large portion of their faithful, brainwashed to hate the very notion and flee from it as if it were the ultimate heresy and the end of the Church, might turn against them if they now adopt it, and leave the SSPX, along with those of their priests who are on the liberal side. So now they live in the land of absurdity, where they call the man who they actually see doesn't have the faith "Holy Father" and profess the greatest respect for him, while rejecting his judgments (they won't be subjecting themselves to his judgments), his doctrines and his laws, and operating as a completely independent body, with no possibility of recourse to any higher authority.
After all, what can be more absurd than putting your profession of faith in the hands of one who professes exactly the opposite doctrines, that you condemn in your profession, and asking him to receive it? Or writing a disgustingly deferential letter (because it is so deferential to a heretical destroyer of the Church) begging for his blessing and permission to proceed with the work of saving the Church's doctrine and liturgy that he and his co-conspirators are working so hard to annihilate?
Don't get me wrong - I support the SSPX consecrating new bishops, it is definitely necessary to provide sacraments to souls. They do a lot of good work and help souls. But though the actions of the SSPX are often (but definitely not always) good and praiseworthy, their principles with regard to the Papacy are a frightful mess.
They will not be excommunicated nor will they be schismatic, because Leo-Prevost is not the Pope, and the church of which he is the head is not the Catholic Church, but if the situation were otherwise, I do believe they would be schismatics (but they would not in fact behave in that way towards a true Pope). So it is supremely ironic that what is actually saving them from schism is the very conclusion that they most vehemently deny.
I do hope that those false excommunications cause a "reset" in the SSPX, as Abp. Viganò put it, and give them a push in the direction of the truth, which is to utterly reject not just the Conciliar Revolution, as they do (to their credit), but also to reject those who created and who sustain and continue that evil and heretical work, which is the Mystical Body of the Antichrist.
And, if any members of the SSPX are reading this, I warmly congratulate them on the "mark of honor and sign of orthodoxy" to be declared outside of the "impious communion of the ungodly", to quote the Letter of the District Superiors from July 6, 1988.
Here is something that’s very difficult in all of this. With prayer and study I have come to the conclusion that I cannot in any way be both a Catholic and a person who is in union with the Synodal Church. I can’t join my prayers to the prayers of the priest at Mass if in those prayers he proclaims union with heretics. Articles like these help to confirm the strength of the sedevacantist position as opposed to the SSPX which to me is full of contradictions.
I have one nephew connected to the SSPX - or whatever the proper wording is for a person who attends their chapels. I sent him this article and we got in a discussion where he decided I was making personal attacks. This nephew and I have been close but I feel very disconnected from him now. That leaves me with my own children who have no faith. I feel that I’ve lost any connection to anyone when it comes to my faith. Of course there are the other chapel members but I see them once a week and don’t live near any of them. Yet connection through the Communion of Saints is what we have and that is what will last into eternity - an eternity I want to share with my children and all of my loved ones. So for now I will continue to pray for the assistance of the Trinity and the Communion of Saints, especially the Blessed Mother and St. Joseph. But I will not consider this a topic I will discuss with anyone.
Although not exactly on point, I can well imagine articles ready to fly from Menzingen comparing their case with the invalid excommunication of St. Joan of Arc. Granted, in her case it was the local bishop and not the pope. Neither was he a heretic (so he actually could validly excommunicate, yet said excommunication was nevertheless invalid).
Therefore, to play devil’s advocate, what would the response be to the foreseeable SSPX response that “No, we do not need to acknowledge the pope is an excommunicated heretic in order to view our own excommunication as invalid: Just look at the case of St. Joan of Arc.”
It’s an interesting question. It would be interesting to hear the explanation as to why a positive and deliberately papal act of excommunication was actually invalid, without it falling into the argument that it was unjust. Do you have any ideas?
By contrast, consider this quick Perplexity summary of why St Joan's condemnation was deemed null:
Joan of Arc’s 1431 conviction was later declared null because the original trial was legally defective in several specific ways: the judge lacked proper jurisdiction, the proceedings were biased and malicious, the sentence was issued after Joan had appealed, the trial record was falsified, the accusations rested on unreliable suspicion, and the verdict was judged gravely unjust and erroneous.
More specifically, the 1456 nullification focused on these grounds:
Incompetence of the judges: Bishop Pierre Cauchon of Beauvais did not have proper authority over Joan in the way the trial was conducted.
Bias and bad faith: the court was found to have acted with obvious partiality against her.
Violation of appeal rights: she had challenged the court’s authority, yet the sentence went ahead anyway.
Falsification of the record: the acts of the trial were altered or handled improperly.
Weak evidentiary basis: the case relied on suspicions rather than solid proof.
Injustice in the sentence itself: the final judgment was deemed intolerably wrong in law and equity.
In short, the nullification was not mainly a theological reversal of her case; it was a finding that the original condemnation was procedurally and legally invalid.
My guess is that they’ll adduce some of the same objections against the validity of the excommunications as were provided in the excerpt you posted regarding the case of St. Joan of Arc (eg., gross injustice, etc.).
However, unlike the bishop in the case of St. Joan, they’ll not be able to argue Leo doesn’t have jurisdiction (unless they want to become sedes).
Can you really make those sorts of claims against the Pope, against whom there is no appeal?
I've updated it with a footnote about St Joan.
They will say the pope’s will cannot have any effect in necessity:
“6th Principle: It is the character of necessity to place the subject in the physical or moral impossibility of obeying
It is certain that God binds nobody in a state of necessity, but the human legislator "can say 'no' without reason and in violation of natural and eternal law"6 and therefore they can in fact forbid an action required by the state of necessity. But, since the pope's "No" is powerless to do away with the grave general necessity of souls and hence the associated duty sub gravito go to their help, the subject, especially if he is a bishop or priest, then finds himself in the moral and absolute impossibility of obeying, because he could not obey without himself sinning and harming others. Hence, it is the character of the state of necessity "to create a sort of impotency whereby it is impossible to do something commanded or not do some- thing forbidden."7
This is not, in fact, the case of authority not being bound to oblige because" summum ius summa iniuria," or one which issues an inopportune command lacking in prudence, but which nevertheless people could be bound to obey all the same in view of the common good. This is, on the other hand, the case of authority that cannot oblige, because its command is opposed to a precept of divine and natural law "more grave and obliging."8 In such a case to obey the law or the legislator would be "evil and a sin" (Suarez, De Legibus, L. VI, c. VII, n.8). St. Thomas calls obedience in such a case "evil" (SI; 11-11, Q120, A.1). Cajetan refers to it as a "vice" (Cajetan in 1.2, q.96, a.6). Hence, refusal to obey becomes a duty (i.e" inoboedientia debita).9
The reality of such a case is not that the subject is disobeying. It is better said that he is obeying a higher and more compelling command issuing from divine authority, which "commands us to regard higher interests."10 Human authority , in fact, "is neither the first nor the only rule of morality ."6 Earthly authority is a" norma normata, "that is to say, a rule itself regulated by divine law, and hence when human authority, "contrary to natural and eternal law,"6 says "No," then disobeying man in order to obey God becomes a duty."11
https://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/SiSiNoNo/1999_September/The_1988_Consecrations.htm
I’m not saying they’re right or wrong, just what they’ll say (because they already said it in 1988.
The doctrine of necessity is certainly correct. The only question is: Can this apply against a pope? They argue it can. It is for sedes to show why it can’t.
Your article is exceptionally detailed and full of practical, common sense conclusions such as, the heretic pope who places himself outside the Church has less ecclesial authority than the least, lay, baptised Catholic and even becomes his inferior. Life would be much less complicated for the SSPX if they eould just admitt the truth that Leo isn't Catholic and instesd of treating him like the "Holy Father" they should be admonishing him for his treachery instead of subjecting themselves to his judgements. In this case the ttuth would resolve many issues and set them free from this perennial abuse.
They are in a heap of problems. They have vilified and condemned the conclusion that the Modernist heretics are not Popes for so long that a large portion of their faithful, brainwashed to hate the very notion and flee from it as if it were the ultimate heresy and the end of the Church, might turn against them if they now adopt it, and leave the SSPX, along with those of their priests who are on the liberal side. So now they live in the land of absurdity, where they call the man who they actually see doesn't have the faith "Holy Father" and profess the greatest respect for him, while rejecting his judgments (they won't be subjecting themselves to his judgments), his doctrines and his laws, and operating as a completely independent body, with no possibility of recourse to any higher authority.
After all, what can be more absurd than putting your profession of faith in the hands of one who professes exactly the opposite doctrines, that you condemn in your profession, and asking him to receive it? Or writing a disgustingly deferential letter (because it is so deferential to a heretical destroyer of the Church) begging for his blessing and permission to proceed with the work of saving the Church's doctrine and liturgy that he and his co-conspirators are working so hard to annihilate?
Don't get me wrong - I support the SSPX consecrating new bishops, it is definitely necessary to provide sacraments to souls. They do a lot of good work and help souls. But though the actions of the SSPX are often (but definitely not always) good and praiseworthy, their principles with regard to the Papacy are a frightful mess.
They will not be excommunicated nor will they be schismatic, because Leo-Prevost is not the Pope, and the church of which he is the head is not the Catholic Church, but if the situation were otherwise, I do believe they would be schismatics (but they would not in fact behave in that way towards a true Pope). So it is supremely ironic that what is actually saving them from schism is the very conclusion that they most vehemently deny.
I do hope that those false excommunications cause a "reset" in the SSPX, as Abp. Viganò put it, and give them a push in the direction of the truth, which is to utterly reject not just the Conciliar Revolution, as they do (to their credit), but also to reject those who created and who sustain and continue that evil and heretical work, which is the Mystical Body of the Antichrist.
And, if any members of the SSPX are reading this, I warmly congratulate them on the "mark of honor and sign of orthodoxy" to be declared outside of the "impious communion of the ungodly", to quote the Letter of the District Superiors from July 6, 1988.
Thanks for this article Sean, really well written. I will be sharing it around. I'll need to come back to read the footnotes.
Here is something that’s very difficult in all of this. With prayer and study I have come to the conclusion that I cannot in any way be both a Catholic and a person who is in union with the Synodal Church. I can’t join my prayers to the prayers of the priest at Mass if in those prayers he proclaims union with heretics. Articles like these help to confirm the strength of the sedevacantist position as opposed to the SSPX which to me is full of contradictions.
I have one nephew connected to the SSPX - or whatever the proper wording is for a person who attends their chapels. I sent him this article and we got in a discussion where he decided I was making personal attacks. This nephew and I have been close but I feel very disconnected from him now. That leaves me with my own children who have no faith. I feel that I’ve lost any connection to anyone when it comes to my faith. Of course there are the other chapel members but I see them once a week and don’t live near any of them. Yet connection through the Communion of Saints is what we have and that is what will last into eternity - an eternity I want to share with my children and all of my loved ones. So for now I will continue to pray for the assistance of the Trinity and the Communion of Saints, especially the Blessed Mother and St. Joseph. But I will not consider this a topic I will discuss with anyone.
That’s a shame. The article itself isn’t intended as an attack on the SSPX.