The Problem with the ‘Home-Alone’ Position – Part I

The “home-alone” position holds that sedevacantist bishops and priests are illegitimate and unauthorized shepherds. The problem with this position is two-fold.

1. Only novus ordo heretics and a few sedevacantist laymen hold the position that the post-Vatican 2 sedevacantist bishops and priests are unauthorized and illegitimate clergy.

None of the sedevacantist clergy have taught or practiced it as home-aloners insist.

Theologians such as Bishop Guerard Des Lauriers (Pope Pius XII’s spiritual director who drafted the Assumption dogma), Fr. Stepanich, and Fr. Saenz Y Arriaga (Doctor of Theology, Canon law, and Philosophy) all believed and held that their actions were legit and consistent with Church teaching and canon law.

The Doctor of Canon Law, Fr. Gommar DePauw actually condemned the home-alone position as “sheer insanity” and said those who spread it are “dangerously ignorant of Canon Law.” [1]

To prefer our untrained opinion on the law against the universal position of all the last Catholic authorities who specialize in the field is not reasonable. In fact, it’s not Catholic.

2. The home-alone opinion held only by the heretics and laymen can’t be proved.

The Church has never addressed the possibilities and extraordinary circumstances we find ourselves today. The teaching on Episcopal consecrations needing the approval of the Apostolic See is an ecclesiastical discipline according to Pope Pius XII who said so in the very document that forbids consecrations without the approval of the Apostolic See. [2] That discipline is the law under ordinary times and circumstances, which no longer exists. Pope Pius XII was not addressing our times and circumstances. In fact, all the teachings from popes and theologians on consecrating bishops, jurisdictional issues, etc. do not address the extraordinary circumstances of the post-Vatican 2 Church.

However, Pope Pius XII does allude to a possible good reason to consecrate bishops without the approval of the Apostolic See. Writing about Communism and the Church in China, the pope says:

50. It is obvious that no thought is being taken of the spiritual good of the faithful if the Church’s laws are being violated, and further, there is no question of vacant sees, as they wish to argue in defense, but of episcopal sees whose legitimate rulers have been driven out or now languish in prison or are being obstructed in various ways from the free exercise of their power of jurisdiction. It must likewise be added that those clerics have been cast into prison, exiled, or removed by other means, whom the lawful ecclesiastical superiors had designated in accordance with canon law and the special powers received from the Apostolic See to act in their place in the government of the dioceses. [3]

If it were absolutely necessary to have the approval of the Apostolic See under all conditions, the question of vacant sees would be irrelevant. Yet, he mentions it as a false defense, because the sees are not vacant. This implies that real vacant sees in a Communist world (where communication with Rome could be impossible) is a legitimate reason for consecrating bishops without approval. It would then be a necessity that excuses from the law. 

All of the remaining faithful Catholic bishops and priests did what they believed was necessary. Bishops consecrated bishops, bishops ordained priests, and they continued on as best as possible to continue the mission of the Church.

Bishop Moises Carmona explained:

Pope Gregory IX left eleven rules and Boniface VIII eighty-eight for the true interpretation of the law. These rules, according to Canon 20, can supply the defect of the rule in a particular case, as in the case we presently find ourselves. Consequently, the fourth rule of Gregory IX expressly states: Propter necessitatem, illicitum efficitur licitum (Necessity makes licit what is illicit.)

The necessity of having Catholic bishops and priests and the lack of true sacraments can easily be seen; therefore, we were validly and licitly consecrated.

Rule 88 of Boniface VIII also expressly states Certum est quod is committit in legem qui legem verbum complectens contra legis nititur (It is certain that one sins against the rule who adheres to the letter and leaves aside the spirit.) Therefore, it is unjust to impute to the legislator a desire to greatly harm the Church during a vacancy of the Holy See by forbidding the ordination of bishops and priests and the administering of the sacraments to the faithful who ask for them. [4]

Bishop Carmona was a seminary professor. In 1991, he was tragically killed in an automobile accident. The October 2016 newsletter Adsum reported, “After a number of years, his body [Bp Carmona’s] was transferred to a crypt in a lower chapel below Divina Providencia Church. There are pictures of his body when laid in the crypt. His body showed no signs of decomposition and looked the same as his funeral.” [5]

It appears that God has performed the miracle of incorruptibility with Bp. Carmona as sign of his holiness, but also as testimony to sedevacantism and sedevacantist clergy.

The Great Western Schism was unprecedented in the 14^th century. It required a novel explanation to resolve the difficulty of having a materially divided church over who was the true pope if there was one at all. The doubtful pope theory was one such novel explanation and it was not commonly accepted at first.

So too, the post-Vatican 2 Church is unprecedented. The Church has literally gone into survival mode. Catholics have come up with new theories on how to make sense of the disaster. What we don’t want to do is force our opinions and make the Church essentially ineffective, which is contrary to the Will of Christ and the teaching of the First Vatican Council.

We are not theologians and canonists. Our opinions are just our opinions. We ought to defer to the authorities as it is the safer course.

 

Footnotes:

[1] Introibo Ad Altare Dei (introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com)

[2] AD APOSTOLORUM PRINCIPIS ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS XII ON COMMUNISM AND THE CHURCH IN CHINA (1958)

37. We have heard that many such elections have been held contrary to all right and law and that, in addition, certain ecclesiastics have rashly dared to receive episcopal consecration, despite the public and severe warning which this Apostolic See gave those involved.

Since, therefore, such serious offenses against the discipline and unity of the Church are being committed, We must in conscience warn all that this is completely at variance with the teachings and principles on which rests the right order of the society divinely instituted by Jesus Christ our Lord.

43. We are aware that those who thus belittle obedience in order to justify themselves with regard to those functions which they have unrighteously assumed, defend their position by recalling a usage which prevailed in ages past. Yet everyone sees that all ecclesiastical discipline is overthrown if it is in any way lawful for one to restore arrangements which are no longer valid because the supreme authority of the Church long ago decreed otherwise. In no sense do they excuse their way of acting by appealing to another custom, and they indisputably prove that they follow this line deliberately in order to escape from the discipline which now prevails and which they ought to be obeying.

44. We mean that discipline which has been established not only for China and the regions recently enlightened by the light of the Gospel, but for the whole Church, a discipline which takes its sanction from that universal and supreme power of caring for, ruling, and governing which our Lord granted to the successors in the office of St. Peter the Apostle.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Bishop Carmona’s Defense of His Acceptance of Episcopal Consecration – CMRI: Congregation of Mary Immaculate Queen

[5] https://www.cmri.org/adsum/adsum-2016-10.pdf

 

 

 

 

Read Full Post »

Bishop Moises Carmona’s Defense of His Episcopal Consecration

Bishops Zamora, Thuc, and Carmona

 

The Congregratio Mariae Reginae Immaculatae (CMRI) and Bishop Pivarunas published long ago Bishop Carmona’s Defense of his Episcopal Consecration. Bishop Carmona’s letter explains the legitimacy and validity of Episcopal Consecrations without a papal mandate. Bishop Carmona was once a seminary professor who with the help of Fr. Joaquin Saenz y Arriaga and Bishop Zamora formed the União Católica Trento. Bishop Carmona founded the major seminary of the Sacred Hearts of Jesus and Mary in Hermosillo, Sonora, Mexico owned by the Sociedad Sacerdotal Trento (the Priestly Society of Trent, which is now headed by Bishop Martin Davila Gandara.

Fr. Joaquín Sáenz y Arriaga was a Mexican theologian, who held doctorates in Sacred Theology, Philosophy, and Canon law. When Mexican Cardinal Miranda declared Fr. Sáenz y Arriaga excommunicated in 1972, Fr. Moisés Carmona wrote, “They excommunicated you for your fidelity to Christ, His teachings and His Church. Blessed excommunication! As long as it is for this reason, may all (such) excommunications come upon me!”

Bishop Moisés Carmona was killed in a car accident on All Saints Day, 1991. He had just Consecrated Mark Pivarunas a Bishop on Sept. 24th of that same year. See video [1] Five years later, Bishop Carmona’s body was transferred to a crypt in a lower chapel below Divina Providencia Church. There are pictures of his body when laid in the crypt. His body showed no signs of decomposition and looked the same as his funeral. [2]

Bishop Carmona’s letter: 

My dear and true friend,

In answering your letter of —, I ought to tell you the following.

It is clear that in normal circumstances, no bishop can consecrate licitly another bishop, but we are presently living in circumstances that are not at all normal, since they constitute a most unusual case for which nothing is clearly legislated. Three things characterize our present situation:
 
1) Since the death of Pius XII, we have had but imposters, which means that for over twenty years the Holy See has been vacant.

2) Almost the entire episcopacy has embarked upon a new religion, and has therefore apostasized from the true Faith, renouncing the eternal Church.

3) The true faithful hunger for the word of God that is no longer being preached to them, and they are asking of us the administration of the Catholic sacraments.

At first, we placed our hopes on Archbishop Lefebvre, in whom we saw a true Catholic bishop, a defender of the true Faith, with whom the legitimate apostolic succession would continue; but we have been deceived. Lefebvre has not been unaffected; we have felt betrayed seeing him making deals with the Vatican from where all the blows against the true Church have come.

Although men fail, God cannot fail, nor can He abandon His Church. It is for this reason that, providentially and in its proper time, the very illustrious and humble Archbishop of Hue, Vietnam, with his valiant declarations, has presented to all men the disastrous state in which the Church finds herself in God’s eyes. He declared the vacancy of the Holy See and the invalidity of the “New Mass,” binding himself as a Catholic archbishop to do for the Church all that he can and ought to do.

The episcopacy was offered to me. I had to think much about it before I could decide. In the end, I accepted it for the sole reason of assisting in the rescue and triumph of the Church.

On October 17, Father Zamora and I were consecrated by Archbishop Thuc in a virtual catacomb, with only two distinguished doctors as witnesses. Both of us were conscious of the furious storms of protest that would come, but the words of our Divine Master encouraged us: “You shall weep and lament, but the world shall rejoice; and you shall be sorrowful, but your sorrow shall be turned into joy” (John 16:20).

On our return to Mexico, the attacks began. Some said, without any foundation, that our consecrations were invalid because we were consecrated with the new rite; others, more serious, said that, based on Canons 953 and 2370, the consecrations were valid but illicit, and that consequently we were suspended. [Ed. note: Archbishop Thuc used the traditional rite of episcopal consecration — not the new rite — when he consecrated Bishop Carmona.]

As can be seen, our detractors were ignoring the axiom Qui cum regula ambulat, tuto ambulat — “He who walks with the rule, walks safely.” They should remember, if they had forgotten, that Pope Gregory IX left eleven rules and Boniface VIII eighty-eight for the true interpretation of the law. These rules, according to Canon 20, can supply the defect of the rule in a particular case, as in the case we presently find ourselves. Consequently, the fourth rule of Gregory IX expressly states: Propter necessitatem, illicitum efficitur licitum — “Necessity makes licit what is illicit.”

The necessity of having Catholic bishops and priests and the lack of true sacraments can easily be seen; therefore, we were validly and licitly consecrated.

Rule 88 of Boniface VIII also expressly states Certum est quod is committit in legem qui legem verbum complectens contra legis nititur — “It is certain that one sins against the rule who adheres to the letter and leaves aside the spirit.” Therefore, it is unjust to impute to the legislator a desire to greatly harm the Church during a vacancy of the Holy See by forbidding the ordination of bishops and priests and the administering of the sacraments to the faithful who ask for them.

Therefore, in accepting episcopal consecration from Archbishop Thuc, we have relied on these rules, conscious and certain that, given the circumstances in which we live, the consecrations are both valid and licit. We are also conscious and certain that we would have sinned, if by relying on the letter [of the law] we had rejected the consecrations, there being only one Catholic bishop who can now be found to transmit the episcopal succession.

[Brief paragraph that has little relevance omitted here.]

Please accept my most sincere affection. I beg God to continue to illuminate you so that you may continue in the battle, defending the rights of Christ and of His Church, now so shamelessly offended by those who have the duty of defending them, even if it be at the cost of their lives.

Sincerely yours,
Moises Carmona R.
May 18, 1982

* Archbishop Thuc used the traditional rite of episcopal consecration, not the new rite, when he consecrated Bishop Carmona. 

 

Footnote

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UmVSAXyPA7k

[2] The info comes from Adsum October 2016.

Read Full Post »

Fr. Joaquín Sáenz y Arriaga – Catholic Champion of the Late 20th Century

Fr. Joaquín Sáenz y Arriaga

Fr. Joaquín Sáenz y Arriaga in Mexico City, March 1966

Father Joaquín Sáenz y Arriaga (October 12, 1899 – April 28, 1976) was a Mexican theologian, who held doctorates in Sacred Theology, Philosophy, and Canon law.

He was one of the first Catholics to declare the Chair of Peter vacant. He led the fight against the anti-catholic reforms of the Second Vatican Council. In 1971, he published, “The New Montinian Church” which documents the modernist anti-Catholic teachings and practices of John XXIII and Paul VI.

Fr. Sáenz y Arriaga gathered other Mexican priests such as Frs. Moisés Carmona and Adolfo Zamora to join in the fight against the modernism of the Vatican 2 movement. Later, the two priests were consecrated bishops from Vietnamese Bishop Thuc.

Bishop Adolfo Zamora, Bishop Pierre Martin Ngô-dinh-Thuc, Bishop Moisés Carmona

In 1972, Mexican Cardinal Miranda declared Fr. Sáenz y Arriaga excommunicated. Fr. Moisés Carmona wrote, “They excommunicated you for your fidelity to Christ, His teachings and His Church. Blessed excommunication! As long as it is for this reason, may all (such) excommunications come upon me!”

Today, many Mexicans and Americans have faithfully remained loyal to the historic Catholic religion due largely to Fr. Sáenz y Arriaga. He was a courageous priest! He stood against the world as a humble faithful Catholic. Had there been a dozen more like him in the ranks of bishops, we may not be in the mess we’re in today.

I thank Almighty God for giving us this great champion of the Catholic faith!

Read Full Post »