An Objection to Sedevacantism: Paul VI as 'Patriarch of the West'
Q. I
have seen you contend in an article that the obvious evil of the Novus Ordo on one hand, and the Church’s
infallibility in her universal disciplinary laws on the other, seen together,
point toward a juridical loss of office on the part of the Paul VI and his
successors. This, you say, proves the correctness of the sede vacante position.
However,
did not Paul VI issue the Novus Ordo
only in his capacity as Patriarch of the West (rather than as Supreme Pontiff),
and then only for the Latin Rite? Could one say, then, that the Novus Ordo would not be a truly universal law, and hence not protected by infallibility?
A. While yours is indeed an
intriguing question, the claim that a pope who promulgates liturgical
legislation for the Latin Rite acts solely in his capacity as Patriarch of the
West (rather than as Supreme Pontiff) appears to be entirely gratuitous. I
could find no dogmatic tract or commentary on the Code, at any rate, which
supported or even mentioned such a notion.
The
term “universal,” moreover, as applied to a church law, does not refer to the
“rite” where a law has force, but rather to the territory where it has force. A
standard pre-Vatican II commentary on the Code gives the following division for
law:
III. By reason of its extension [ambitus] into: a) universal, which applies in the whole Catholic world; b) particular which has force in a certain
limited territory only. (Wernz-Vidal, Ius
Canonicum 1:50.)
The
same commentary speaks of disciplinary laws which it terms “universal,” even
though Eastern Rites are automatically exempt from observing them:
Although Greek Catholics are indeed bound by definitions of Catholic
doctrine regarding faith and morals, they are nevertheless not bound by disciplinary
laws, even universal ones, unless
something is laid down for them [the Greeks], or express mention is made of
them, or unless the law for the matter regulated is implicitly extended to them
also. (1:148. My emphasis.)
Further,
in discussing the secondary object of the Church’s infallibility, the authors
treat liturgical laws for the Latin Rite as protected by infallibility, without
any further qualification.
It
would thus appear one could not “save” Paul VI by dismissing the errors and
evils of his Novus Ordo as some sort
of local aberration approved by him in his capacity as Patriarch of the West.
The
“Patriarch of the West” argument, moreover — like other arguments traditionalists
use in an attempt to defend Paul VI as a legitimate pope while simultaneously
denouncing his Mass — run up against the anathema decreed by the Council of
Trent:
If
anyone says that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs, which the
Catholic Church uses in the celebration of Masses, are incentives to impiety
rather than the services of piety: let him be anathema. (Denziger 954.)
He
who maintains that Paul VI and his successors were indeed true popes should not
dare to criticize the Novus Ordo — for the Catholic Church
through her head on earth does not institute ceremonies and outward signs for
celebrating Mass which are “incentives to impiety.” Indeed, the Church solemnly
anathematizes those who say otherwise.
But
as all traditional Catholics know, the Novus
Ordo is neither Catholic nor holy. Once someone arrives at this
point and acknowledges the obvious — that the Novus Ordo is an incentive to impiety on the grandest possible
scale — logic, and indeed Trent’s anathema, compel him to deny that those who
promulgated the liturgical changes possessed the authority of the Catholic
Church.
(Sacerdotium
14, Spring 1995).