Dionisius the Wise Man
An answer to the latest SSPX attack on Tradition, titled "Concerning a Sedevacantist Thesis."

Dionisius is a wise man. Whoever he is, he is evidently not foolish enough to admit that he wrote this vile and unworthy attack on those good Catholics who reject the pseudo-papacy of Karol Wojtyla - hence he uses a pseudonym. I refer of course to the latest in a series of untrue and theologically bankrupt attacks on so-called "sedevacantists". This one was (originally?) published in the Courier de Rome (which, in accordance with its name carries Modernism from "rome" to the Remnant Church) and then was reprinted in the SSPX-aligned Si Si, No No, and was most recently seen lurking in the pages of the Angelus. The SSPX seem to have found yet another feature of modern society with which to conform their behaviour - recycling.

It is a strange article in many ways, not least in the fact that it begins with a compliment : "Sedevacantists have always constituted a particularly distant group in the Catholic resistance to the error of modernism." If this means anything, it means that we are the most removed from Modernist influence and infection. One wishes the same could be said for Dionisius.

One of the typically Modernist/liberal infections suffered by our enemy Dionisius is his inability to argue facts and theology without inquiring constantly into the motives of his opponents. We simply have to ignore most of his ad hominem attacks or we will spend half our time pointing out how self-contradictory and uncharitable they are, not to mention wrong. Suffice to say that people tend to judge by their own standards. Perhaps it is not without significance that our opponent uses the word "sophism" no fewer than three times. A sophism, of course, is defined as "a false argument intended to deceive."

It should also be said at the outset that most of those who believe the See of Rome vacant do not subscribe to the Thesis of Cassiciacum, and would even agree with some of the points made against it by Dionisius. In fact, some "sedevacantists" have already made the same criticisms of that thesis in far simpler and more charitable language. For this reason it seems pointless to comment on the Thesis itself. Let those who believe in it defend it if they can. It should be emphasised that contrary to the impression implied by Dionisius there were many who rejected the pseudo-papacy of Wojtyla long before Guerard des Lauriers wrote the Thesis of Cassiciacum. In fact, some rejected Montini (Paul VI) as early as 1965, when he manifested his heresy and impiety publicly by approving the heresies of the anti-Council of the Vatican, and describing the United Nations Organisation as "the last hope of mankind."

We will confine the remainder of our comments to the points made by Dionisius which indicate either ignorance or rejection of Catholic doctrine, along with pointing out his self-contradictions. Let us set these comments within the context provided by our illustrious critic himself, who describes "sedevacantists" as 'mouthing their inanities before an amazed audience made up of unqualified lay people full of admiration in the presence of such a great display of "theological science."' Then, a little further on, he comments "Such erroneous teachings, forgivable to some extent for laymen, are completely inexcusable for priests, especially coming as they do from those pretending to be radar beacons of theology."

Dionisius speaks of "the bishop who has legitimately been designated to occupy the Chair of Peter in Rome and who has so been acknowledged by the entire visible Church." There are two things wrong with this statement. Firstly, when has an election conducted at least largely by non-Catholics ever been considered sufficient to validly designate a pope? Secondly, how can one define the "entire visible church" to include manifest heretics such as the American laity, over 70% of whom reject Transubstantiation, to name only one disqualification? This sort of non-definition hardly inspires confidence that we are reading the work of a "qualified" "priest" whose "theological science" really should "fill with admiration" we poor unqualified laymen. All of the members of the Catholic Church outwardly profess the true faith. This is the foundation of her perfect unity. All theologians teach this, as do Pope Leo XIII and Pope Pius XII. If Dionisius and his mates have a new definition of Holy Church, then they had better present it clearly so that Catholics can see that they are heretics, and thus have nothing to do with them.

Dionisius asks (and answers) "How is it possible for subjects to prove with moral certainty that their ruler, in his heart of hearts (i.e., within himself), actually hopes and wishes to cause and bring evil upon his subjects and that it is on account of this evil will that he promulgates such evil laws? It is not possible." Perhaps Dionisius should read Canon Law. Canon 2200, section 2, states: "When an external violation of the law has been committed, malice is presumed in the external forum until the contrary is proved." Who needs to "prove" that these men are formally guilty in the internal forum (i.e. before God)? Who ever said this was necessary? Not Canon Law, nor the doctors, popes, theologians, canonists, bishops, and other teachers of the Catholic Church, that's for sure. Which Church does Dionisius get his instruction from? As one example of the true teaching, let's consult the well-known canonists Bouscaren & Ellis: "1. The external forum is the forum of the Church's external government. Jurisdiction in the external forum: (a) concerns actions whereby the faithful are innocent or guilty in the eyes of the Church as members of the Church; and (b) it is exercised publicly, and has juridical effects.
"2. The internal forum is the forum of conscience. Jurisdiction in the internal forum: (a) concerns actions whereby the faithful are innocent or guilty before God; and (b) it is exercised privately, and has no juridical effects, unless these are specially provided for." (Canon Law, A Text and Commentary, 2^nd Ed. Bruce, Milwaukee, 1953, pp.133,134.)

In other words, not only has Dionisius got it completely wrong with respect to who has to do the proving, but he doesn't seem to know what needs to be proved! To repeat, what needs to be proved is the innocence of these manifest heretics, and they are the ones who need to prove it. Until then they are guilty in the external forum (the only one which has juridical effects, generally speaking) and have tacitly resigned their offices in accordance with Canon 188, which states : ""There are certain causes which effect the tacit resignation of an office, which resignation is accepted in advance by operation of law, and hence is effective without any declaration." Section 4 gives the following cause as one of these: "if he has publicly fallen away from the Catholic faith." Of course, these characters haven't even acknowledged the criticism of Catholics, unless you count excommunicating Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop de Castro Mayer for their "disobedience" in standing up for the truth. This latter action is about as good proof of pertinacity as one could hope for. They certainly haven't presented any proofs of their orthodoxy!

As Dionisius said: "Such erroneous teachings, forgivable to some extent for laymen, are completely inexcusable for priests, especially coming as they do from those pretending to be radar beacons of theology." Well, perhaps not quite "inexcusable" - after all, if Dionisius can spend four or five pages making excuses for obvious heretics like Karol Wojtyla and attacking Wojtyla's enemies so that Wojtyla doesn't have to waste time doing it, then it hardly seems fair to hold Dionisius to a stricter standard, does it?

Dionisius demonstrates that he has seen "Law & Order" but has not seen a Canon Law text by adducing the following example: "For example, someone is able to commit a murder, in front of many witnesses. Although the witnesses know that such a man is a murderer, nevertheless, before the law, he is held as innocent until he should be condemned by a court of law. In other words, in the eyes of society, he is not a murderer until he is convicted, even if it is absolutely certain to the witnesses that he is a murderer." The secular law employs the direct opposite of the principle employed by Canon Law, and our opponent is blissfully ignorant of it! "Amazing" is only one word which comes to mind.

Then Dionisius proves that he does know about presumption in Canon Law, no doubt because without it his own Lefrebvrite orders would be open to question. Funny how these men seem to have no trouble finding a supporting text when it suits them. He states: "Another example: in matrimony a spouse simulates consent. Before God and in reality, there is not a bond of matrimony in this case; but before the Church, the marriage is valid until it can be proven that the consent was simulated. If the priest should discover, by the confession of a spouse, that the consent was simulated, he must forbid the spouses the use of matrimony, because before God the bond does not exist, although before the Church the bond does exist until it shall be declared null by a legal declaration .. Because of this distinction between a real fact and a legal fact, the Church - and every society - is distinguished from a mere mob." Applying this principle (badly stated though it is) to our case (correctly), we see that Wojtyla having undoubtedly committed multiple crimes in the external forum, malice is presumed until the contrary is proved. Hence we have to behave as if Holy Church had already judged that Wojtyla was formally guilty, as he is by operation of law, unless and until the contrary is proved. Just like the Lefebvre orders, which are presumed valid, and the marriage given in the above example, which is also presumed valid. What do we say to one who can't consistently apply as simple principles as these? Let's not speak of "theological competence", but rather of sanity.

The entire priestly fraternity operates on this faulty thinking, as Dionisius admits as follows: "He remains pope before the public as long as he has not been proven pertinacious. This is why the priests of the Society of Saint Pius X include the name of the current pope when celebrating Holy Mass." There we have it. Their whole position is based on not reading the canons of Holy Church.

Dionisius then writes: "Pertinacity is determined by the public acknowledgement of the heresy by the legitimate authority. Is this possible in the case of the pope who has no superior here on earth? - Maybe, as in the case of his rejection from the communion by the moral unanimity of the episcopacy. This is what occurred at the Council of Constance (1414-1418)" which is simply untrue. Where he got this garbage is difficult to imagine, because the pope at the time resigned. That is why he ceased being pope, and the only people who would hold the principle espoused by Dionisius are heretics - that is, "conciliarists". Their heresy consisted in the false belief that a council is superior to a pope. The only other possible explanation for Dionisius's very strange thinking is that he believes in democracy in the Church - sort of like "if we think he's pope he is, and if we get sick of him he isn't." What happened to Dionisius's point that "One's own personal subjective convictions concerning the pope's writings have no social effects."? Does this principle only hold until everybody's "subjective convictions" are identical? This really is funny! But we should remember in this connection Bishop Williamson's public comments to the effect that one day (soon?) the Society of St. Pius X (of John XXIII, really) will conclude that the "pope" is not the pope and will in fact be, believe it or not, sedevacantist. Perhaps the good Bishop is simply waiting for everybody's "personal subjective convictions" to coincide? Hard to imagine this ever occurring while they put anti-"sede" rubbish like this in no less than two of their own journals, after it has already appeared in a third! It is going to be one heck of a back-flip. I hope they're wearing corsets.

Dionisius writes: "Sedevacantists are truly obsessed by the question of the papacy. One may well wonder if in many of them this is not due to some psychological trauma." Yes, like being Catholics? Is that a "psychological trauma"? One may well wonder how the SSPX can be so UN-obsessed with the papacy, and remain Catholics. He continues: "Their understandable ancestral veneration for the pope seems to unleash a veritable panic at the idea of contrasting their cherished, idealized image of the papacy with such popes as Paul VI and John Paul II." And yet it is the "sedevacantists" who have to point out that there are precedents in which popes were either deposed or threatened with same for manifest heresy. The SSPX and their fellow-travellers are the ones who "idealise" the papacy to the point of pretending the historical precedents don't exist. Reading this tripe is a "psychological trauma" in itself.

To complete this survey of our opponent's astonishing critique, let us once more cite his own words, applying them to him: "Their main characteristic is to be found in their manifest disregard of the Apostles' Creed in favor of their public support and adherence to a rather odd, to say the least, theological thesis." All one needs to add is that their "odd theological thesis" (that manifest heretics can hold authority in Holy Church) is only second in order of "oddness" to their "public support and adherence to a rather odd, to say the least," claimant to the papacy.

John Lane
Perth, Western Australia
November 22, 1998
Feast of St. Cecilia.

Home