How long can the Holy See be vacant? Fr Louis Coache (and context)
What can the concept of a 'moral person' do to shed light on the question of an extended vacancy?
What can the concept of a ‘moral person’ do to shed light on the question of an extended vacancy?
Editor’s Notes
One of the chief arguments against the conclusion that the Holy See has been vacant since at least 1965 is that it is impossible for a vacancy to last so long.
Many have addressed this issue already: we have done so here:
However, the text which follows considers the issue from a different perspective – that of Canon Law.
The text is by the early French traditionalist pioneer, Abbé Louis Coache (1920–94) – and in it, he addresses the principles of moral persons and their perpetuity, and applies them to the topic at hand.
Who was Fr Coache?
Fr Coache was ordained in 1943, and received a doctorate in Canon Law. From 1955, he was already active in fighting against the progressive currents, and sent an open letter of alarm to his diocesan confrères in 1964. In 1966, he wrote an article critiquing “The New Religion”, which resulted in the contempt of his bishop, and the condemnation of the review which published it.
In 1968, he invited his bishop to preside over a Corpus Christi procession. This gave rise to conflict, and this ended in the bishop ordering him to cease all writings and publications, and cancel his procession. In response, Fr Coache appealed to the Vatican, which eventually ruled against him in 1975. Fr Coache left his parish and retreated to his property of Maison Lacordaire in Flavigny, which later became a seminary of the Society of St Pius X (for first year seminarians).
In the interim, Fr Coache had founded the monthly bulletin Combat de la Foi, and he collaborated, for a time, with Fr Noël Barbara. These two men were among the four signatories of the Open Letter and Profession (along with Fr Peter Morgan and Mgr François Ducaud-Bourget) which was published in the first English edition of Fr Baraba’s Fortes in Fide journal. He was also involved in significant events in the 1970s, including the seizure of the church of S. Nicolas-du-Chardonnet in Paris.
We find these details, along with other praise of Fr Coache, in the February 2008 issue of Cor Unum, an internal bulletin of the SSPX.
What this bulletin does not mention is Fr Coache’s views on the legitimacy of the post-conciliar claimants to the papacy. Don Francesco Ricossa IMBC’s response to an extended critique of “sedevacantism” in La Tradizione Cattolica (later published by Angelus Press as Sedevacantism: A False Solution to a Real Problem), includes a brief history demonstrating how quickly Catholics concluded that Paul VI was not a true Pope.
Fr Ricossa notes that Fr Coache had already concluded that the Holy See was vacant in 1969,1 and describes him in the following terms:
“Abbé Coache is a case (and not the only one), of a “sedevacantist” (in private) always faithful to Archbishop Lefebvre.”
Abbé Henri Mouraux is another notable example.
Other texts which mention and commemorate the priest (as well as of Fr Mouraux) do not mention this matter.2 We must also acknowledge that Fr Coache’s views were unclear, and that Fr Barbara later castigated him for not holding that the See is vacant. However, the very fact that this matter is not mentioned emphasises the esteem in which he is held by non-“sedevacantists”, even today.
The text itself
The WM Review generally does not get into matters of Canon Law. However, the text which we are reproducing here attracted our interest through a French-language video published by Abbé Damien Dutertre RCI, in response to criticisms by Abbé Jean-Michel Gleize SSPX. Fr Dutertre presents part of the text as an argument ad hominem, against Fr Gleize’s claim that it is “formal heresy” to conclude that the Holy See could be vacant for sixty years.
The ad hominem aspect of the argument is not, of course, meant in the sense of an insult to Fr Gleize, but rather in the sense of pointing to the witness of a man who is held in high esteem by him.
Fr Dutertre gave the follwoing context to his presentation of the text:
Abbé Gleize perhaps also knows another important declaration by Abbé Coache. Abbé Coache was one of the first pioneers, we coud say, of the resistance to Vatican II, to the new Mass, and so forth. Abbé Gleize knows Abbé Coache very well, I am sure of it.
Abbé Coache was a canonist, who therefore knew canon law well. And he was asked precisely the question of the permanence of the Holy See in time of vacancy: whether, according to him, there would have been a time limit; whether there would have been, let us say, a certain number of years that one could not exceed in the vacancy of the see.
So in fact, he makes the distinction – to give a little context – between a moral person of ecclesiastical law, which has been instituted by the Church, for example a parish, and a moral person of divine right, and this is the case of the Church and this is the case of the papacy.
In short, Fr Coache argues that the Apostolic See, as a moral person of divine right, remains perpetually in existence even when it is vacant. It is not, he argues, subject to the time limit of 100 years in Can. 102, because of this divine right. There would seem to be, by Fr Coache's reckoning, no limit on the length of such a vacancy. (One presumes, however, that such a conclusion could only be considered on the basis that the Church always retains the power to elect a new Pope, as the theologians teach.)
Even if Fr Coache is wrong about his point of perpetuity, we might add that Fr Coache could make an argument on the same principles so as to conclude that it could remain vacant for that time period.
Even during such a vacancy, he argues, “the authority of Peter endures in all that authentically expresses it (in the past and the present)” – and as examples, he points to the acts of the magisterium, as well as the other institutions of the Holy See. Through our submission to these various “expressions”, we remain subject to the authority of the Holy See and united to it.
A further question which this topic raises is whether and how these principles apply to the episcopate, which is not directly mentioned in the relevant canons – although Bouscaren et al. hold “churches” in the relevant canon to mean “particular churches”. If Fr Coache's principles hold for the Holy See, what implications would they have for the diocesan sees which are not of divine right? Would it mean that they could indeed all be without legitimate occupants, within the time limits specified? What are the implications of their material occupation by those without authority? But this important topic is outside the scope of these notes.
Following his presentation of the text, Fr Dutertre concludes:
Now, Abbé Gleize may not share what Abbé Coache says, but here again I cite Abbé Coache as an argument ad hominem, that is to say, in response to what Abbé Gleize says. Abbé Coache, then, who had studied canon law, is not at all as categorical on the question as Abbé Gleize is.
He is far from saying that it is a formal heresy to consider that the Apostolic See could be vacant for more than 60 years. So, according to Abbé Coache, it is entirely possible. And I do not think that Abbé Gleize will accuse Abbé Coache of formal heresy.
Fr Dutertre kindly provided me with a scan of the text in question, which we reproduce below in translation.
Following the text, we are also providing the context of a limited survey of pre-conciliar canonists who address the canons in question.
S.D.Wr.
From
The Powers of the Priest: A Short Essay
Abbé Louis Coache
Supplement to no. 27 of Forts dans la foi, 3 September 1972, pp. 26–28.
Translated by The WM Review, with some headings and line breaks added for ease of reading.
Consequence of This Theological Doctrine
The acknowledgement of the error, the defection (or, as the case may be, the non-legitimacy) of the supreme head of the Church does not suffice to constitute schism. To recognise the failure of a Pope, to refuse to obey him on the point where he fails, does not constitute schism either, since what is required for schism is a rupture with the unity of the true Church.
The Modernists will object: “The Church is where the legitimate pastors are.” The objection is easy to refute: the Church is the authentic Church from which they derive their legitimacy. She is not to be found in the error or the heresy that these pastors may spread, however legitimate they be!
A material or formal disobedience, even a grave one, does not in itself suffice to constitute schism, since what is required for that is an obstinate revolt against the Sovereign Pontiff insofar as he embodies the unity of the Church through his doctrinal and moral teaching, or teaching in conformity with Tradition.
A Difficulty
If it is evident that one can remain attached to the unity of the Church — and therefore within the Church — in the case of a serious disagreement with the Pope or of a refusal of obedience, then how is it to be explained, theologically and canonically, that one can, in the same circumstances, still claim to be attached to the Holy See and, by that very fact, remain truly attached to it?
Here is the solution:
The Holy See — or Apostolic See — is a moral person of divine law (Can. 100). It is therefore an institution willed in itself by Our Lord.
This moral person is distinct from the Catholic Church. It is also distinct, in se, from the person of the Pope, although often, in praxis, the two are identified, since the Pope embodies the Holy See — e.g. Can. 61 or 2317 —; but Can. 7 specifies clearly that the name “Holy See” encompasses the organs of the government of the Church.
The Apostolic See, distinct from the universal Church and juridically distinct from the person of the Pope, represents the permanence of Roman pontifical Authority. It is “the permanence of the central authority in the Church, whatever changes may occur in the persons who exercise it. Authority, indeed, is attached to the OFFICE, not to the individuality of the office-holder. Whence it follows that sovereign authority is attached to the pontifical dignity and outlives the disappearance of the persons who are invested with it. This is what Jean d’André noted: ‘Tenens papatum vel dignitatem est corruptibilis, papatus tamen dignitas vel imperium semper est,’ that is, ‘he who holds the papacy is corruptible [i.e. subject to decay], but the dignity and authority of the papacy endure always.’” (Dictionnaire de droit canonique, VII, col. 837–838, R. Naz.)
Thus the Holy See is a (moral) person of divine institution: autonomous, independent, permanent, and infallible. It is the permanence of the authority of the Roman Church — sovereign authority over the universal Church.
Let us be clear: the Holy See is embodied (in practice and at its summit) by the Sovereign Pontiff who, normally, in his physical person, is superior to it. One may appeal from the Holy See (the Roman Congregations) to the person of the Pope; the reverse is not admissible. On the other hand, the Holy See — by reason of the very tradition made concrete through the succession of Popes — appears as the guarantor of the orthodoxy of the Church of Rome, of the diocese of Rome, and therefore of its Head. If the latter departs from this tradition, the Holy See “judges” him — not as an authority, but as expressing the intangible truth assured by the previous Popes.
A moral person of ecclesiastical law is perpetual by nature (can. 102), meaning that it cannot disappear except by the explicit and legitimate will of the competent authority; it even possesses a survival of one hundred years if it ceases de facto to be in exercise.
[Note: That is to say, if it ceases in fact for ninety-nine years, its rights endure in its members, its goods, and its capacities; it can therefore be revived without the superior authority opposing it a priori.]
A moral person of divine law cannot die; the Church can therefore remain for a very long time without a Pope — the Holy See is always alive with the permanence of papal authority. To be less abstract and more easily understood by the reader, let us say that the authority of Peter endures in all that authentically expresses it (in the past and the present), through the Documents of Holy Church, her tradition, through the Roman Congregations, the College of Cardinals…
The Pope, for his part — also of divine law — can die (264 of them have died!) or die morally (resignation, madness, heresy). The authority of the Holy See does not die.
The Roman Pontiff, incarnating the Holy See with his monarchical, discretionary,* personal, universal, and immediate power, is bound, like every head of a moral person, by the “statutes” of that person — in casu, divine Law and the Faith; he is limited by them; if he departs from them, he fails in his office.
[Note: “Discretionary” is a juridical term denoting the initiative of government… and not its caprice!]
One can therefore be separated from the physical person without being separated from the moral person (on 9 October 1958, we were separated from the person of Pope Pius XII, but we remained united to the Holy See). Let us understand well: “separated from the physical person” because that person fails, or disappears physically or canonically. But if one separates oneself by rebellion, by a wilful breach, from the physical person who is still united to the Church insofar as he embodies unity, on a question of Faith or Morals, then in that case there is necessarily separation from the moral person and therefore from the whole Church. There is [in that case,] schism.
What follows, for WM+ members, are excerpts from the following canonical commentaries, which deal with the points discussed by Fr Coache:
Woywood
Bouscaren & Ellis
Wernz & Vidal
Dom Charles Augustine
The WM Review is free for readers. This is because we believe these ideas must reach as many people as possible.
However, we also provide WM+ articles – additional material for those who choose to support this work financially.
This helps us continue producing serious Catholic research, while ensuring that the main body of material remains accessible for all.
If you want to ensure that this continues, join WM+ today.
(Clergy and seminarians can contact us for free membership.)