Sede Vacante!: Part Two: the Lumen Gentium Theory About Our Present Ecclesial Circumstance

By Griff Ruby

Many concerned Catholics today, seeing the ways and teachings of Jorge Mario Bergoglio (Pope Francis), are asking themselves, Can that man be a real Catholic pope? From the time of Paul VI, a small contingent of faithful Catholics known as sede vacantists have expressed the gravest doubts that he and each of his successors in turn since then were real popes of the Catholic Church. This minority view, long dismissed by most, now emerges into a wide public view as Jorge Bergoglio seems to go out of his way to puncture every expectation a Catholic should have for a Vicar of Christ. But this latest step in the deCatholicization of the church is merely the fullest flowering yet seen of an erroneous direction taken during the Second Vatican Council.

Those looking to find detailed lists of all the abominable acts and teachings of Jorge Bergoglio or his immediate few predecessors or justly deserved ecclesiastical anathemas heaped upon them will doubtless be disappointed. Rather, the severe theological implications of the Sede Vacante findings are explored and vindicated for the first time in a systematic and complete book form.

In this volume, a theory to account for the Sede Vacante findings is academically ventured, based on the theological findings presented in the previous volume and on events doctrinally predicted therein and herein documented.

• Language: English
• Publisher: iUniverse
• Release date: Jun 5, 2017
• ISBN: 9781532023798

Griff Ruby

Born 1958, Griff Ruby found the Faith without the luxury of a religious upbringing, and at a time when Catholicism itself had lost its identity. His writings reflect many years research into Christian history and theology and ecclesiology. Griff Ruby lives with his wife Juliet and son Martin on the Central California coast.

Book preview

Copyright © 2017 Griff Ruby.

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be used or reproduced by any means, graphic, electronic, or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, taping or by any information storage retrieval system without the written permission of the author except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles and reviews.

iUniverse

1663 Liberty Drive

Bloomington, IN 47403

www.iuniverse.com

1-800-Authors (1-800-288-4677)

Because of the dynamic nature of the Internet, any web addresses or links contained in this book may have changed since publication and may no longer be valid. The views expressed in this work are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher, and the publisher hereby disclaims any responsibility for them.

Any people depicted in stock imagery provided by Thinkstock are models, and such images are being used for illustrative purposes only.

Certain stock imagery © Thinkstock.

ISBN: 978-1-5320-2378-1 (sc)

ISBN: 978-1-5320-2379-8 (e)

iUniverse rev. date: 06/02/2017

Contents

Introduction The Academic Nature of This Theory

00   The Basic Problem that Faces Us

01   A Statement of the Basic Theory Itself

02   The Theory as applied to the Papacy

03   The Theory as applied to the Remainder of the Council

04   Episcopal Succession in Lumen Gentium

05   Episcopal Collegiality in Lumen Gentium

06   How the Theory Addresses the Questions from Part One

07   Considerations Questions and Objections to the Theory

a.   Is Lumen Gentium’s subsists in statement a heresy?

b.   What about other errors and heresies contained in Lumen Gentium?

c.   Does Lumen Gentium really intend to extend jurisdiction?

d.   Did Vatican II Happen All at Once?

e.   Would this mean that the true Church spawned a false church?

f.   Is This Theory a Novelty?

g.   What About Denials That Lumen Gentium Changed Anything?

08   Considerations for If the Theory Were Not True

a.   Example of an Adequate Theory

b.   Evangelical and Explanatory Value

c.   Acknowledgement by the Modernist Heretics of the True Situation

d.   Usefulness in Routing Novus Ordo Critics

e.   Usefulness for My Own Discoveries

f.   Unity of Traditional Catholics

g.   Careful Distinction Between Doctrinal Fact and Theory

09   In Summary: The Basic Claims of the Theory

10   Further Hypothetical Ideas Suggested by the Theory

a.   What is Rome? Geography?

b.   What is Rome? The Cardinals?

c.   What is Rome? Those with Immediate Access to the Popes?

d.   What about the Dioceses? How do they affect the Roman Diocese?

e.   What does the Merging of all Catholic Sees Mean, in Practice?

f.   Geographically Overlapping Jurisdictions Within the Church?

g.   Can the Church Really have so Redistributed Her Jurisdiction?

h.   Retirement versus Resignation

i.   The Fall of the Bishops

j.   The Canonical Structure of the Church as a Remnant

k.   A Review of the Remaining Eight Questions

11   Putting Together the Full Canonical Sequence

a.   Growing Liberalism and Modernism

b.   Papal Infallibility, but Roman Clergy grow lax

c.   Unqualified Papal Claimants Tax the Limits

d.   Lumen Gentium is Promulgated

e.   Bishops and Cardinals (mostly) desert the Church

f.   Faithful Bishops Continue the Church – Dragging Their Feet in Hope

g.   Faithful Bishops Continue the Church – Concerns Grow

h.   Faithful Bishops Continue the Church – Abp. Lefebvre Begins

i.   Faithful Bishops Continue the Church – Another Canonical Erection

j.   Faithful Bishops Continue the Church – Abp. Thục Acts First

k.   Faithful Bishops Continue the Church – Thục’s Reasons Were Right

l.   Faithful Bishops Continue the Church – Thục Searches for His Isaac

m.   Faithful Bishops Continue the Church – Sede Vacante Is Declared

n.   Faithful Bishops Continue the Church – A Diocesan Exaggeration

o.   Faithful Bishops Continue the Church – Lefebvre Acts Cautiously

p.   Catholics Learn About Their Ecclesial Circumstance

q.   A Conclave Is Organized and Carried Out

r.   Vital Precedents to Follow from All These Considerations

12   Conclusion – Last Questions and Closing Thoughts

Introduction

The Academic Nature of This Theory

M any attempts have been made in trying to explain and understand our present ecclesial circumstance. These attempts have included many far-flung alternate scenarios, many of which are contradictory to the others, and certainly therefore cannot all be true, including claims about the End of the World, conspiracies, impostor popes, secretive successions, recognize and resist, materialiter/formaliter, and absolute sedevacantism, and even the nonsensical attempt to try to reduce the whole cause for concern to merely the realm of (less-than-ideal) disciplines.

As it turns out, there is a great deal about this ecclesial circumstance which can be deduced from known historical facts coupled with known Catholic doctrines pertaining to the science of ecclesiology. In the previous Part (Part One), these deductions are carefully made and tracked, based solidly on Catholic teaching, as presented by Roman Theologians of the highest caliper (most notably Msgr. G. Van Noort, but several others are also referenced), teaching ex professo and at length the doctrines I consider most pertinent to understanding the specific nature of our present ecclesial circumstance, and the historical facts of our era. Part One assumes the historical facts to be known by the reader (taking them as prerequisite) and builds upon those historical facts with a careful and sound application of Catholic doctrines (documented therein) coupled with direct logical deductions made directly from the historical events and the Catholic doctrines as taught and understood by the Roman Theologians. This current Part in turn assumes the previous Part to be known by the reader (taking it as prerequisite) and builds upon the foundational facts proven therein in order to build a superstructure based on those facts, coupled with a Theory, devised by this author, to expand upon that which is known and verified in the previous part. No one should attempt a reading of this Part if they are not at least moderately conversant in the findings, methods, and documentary evidences presented in Part One. Whereas Part One is primarily scholastic and doctrinal in its approach, focusing on the known and documented teachings of the Church, showing them to hold as true today as in all other eras, this Part is primarily theoretical and speculative, in the strict sense intended by the Church whenever she speaks of any work of Her Theologians as being of Speculative Theology.

The findings of Part One are solidly and directly based upon known and long-published Catholic doctrinal facts, and must be regarded as possessing as a minimum throughout, a theological note of (at least) Proximate to Catholic doctrine, with some findings bearing doctrinal or even dogmatic weight. The Theory proposed in this next Part is ventured in a purely academic and scientific sense for consideration. Subject to further verification, refinement, or approval from the Church, the theological note of this Theory can at present only be described as being safe. This much can be reliably said, based on the fact that the Theory is fully in accord with all known and relevant theological and ecclesiological facts as documented in Part One. Furthermore, it requires nothing of Catholics anything they do not already do, nor imposes any obligations which Catholics have not already accepted and know they accept, as being Catholics. It is also safe because it eliminates entirely all the downsides resulting from the various other theories and hypotheses that have been proposed or advanced, which often lead either to heresy or else at least to an inextricable position. As it stands, it would be unsafe, perhaps even temerarious to reject this Theory without specific and sound reason, or else to adopt any of the alternatives to this Theory as are yet known at this time, owing to their possessing actual theological problems. The purpose of the Theory is to inform, explain, and clarify certain finer and subtler details regarding our present ecclesial circumstance, and to address, or even solve, as many loose ends as possible, of the sort of those that are left over from Part One. It also serves to demonstrate that the questions left dangling at the end of Part One can be satisfactorily answered in at least some manner, regardless of whether or not this is ever to be confirmed by the Church. Nevertheless, it remains for the Church to award it with any higher theological note as the Theory hopefully proves out to be true.

The reader must not be put off by such terms as theory and speculative as if what is proposed herein were merely some idle guess, cooked up in some moment’s imagination or train of thought, nor even the product of some ivory tower think tank or brainstorming session, and untested in any real forum. This Theory has been exposed to many and diverse repeated challenges, as any good theory should be, ever emerging only stronger and clearer and more thorough in its execution. Even this presentation is not intended to be considered utterly thorough in that further facts and findings of relevance continue to surface, which can further modify, clarify, demonstrate, or even challenge this Theory. The Theory is worth knowing and understanding, for there is much to recommend it. Even if it could one day be fully superseded by some other theory as may come to be developed by others in the ages to come, and thereby be proven incorrect, its value as a scientific theory will nevertheless remain quite clear in the case made for it to follow herein. Scientifically, it has a great deal to recommend it, and no substantial downside problems, such that once one can see the full grand sweep of it, one might wonder why I would not present it has having the same doctrinal/dogmatic force as the findings from Part One. Much of the objection some seem to have about this Theory stems, not from any actual deficiencies about it (for there are some limitations and these are honestly and in some detail discussed herein), but from psychological prejudices borne of anything from a failure to see the need for any theory at all, a preference for some other theories, however inadequate, to which some have committed themselves or found fashionable, an unwillingness to accept the responsibilities that this Theory places upon one, an unwillingness to allow any proclamation of any kind coming after the death of Pope Pius XII to have any doctrinal, legislative, or juridical weight or canonical force whatsoever, or perhaps even outright envy that one should have thought of all this themselves.

Theology is the queen of the sciences, and in that sense the science herein must follow scientific methodology: Facts are gathered (in this case, historical, doctrinal, or deductive) as has been done in Part One, as many as possible, but which pertain to the subject matter under scientific study. Then, one finds and/or composes various hypotheses, each being an attempt to explain these known facts. A hypothesis which fails to explain certain facts, or far worse still, predicts the opposite of what some facts come to show upon discovery, is at best very problematic and at worst to be outright rejected. Each relevant fact (if any) which is not consistent with the hypothesis must also be explained for the hypothesis to become ready for the next test, and lose its problematic status. If a hypothesis accounts readily for all the known facts, or at least enough of the known facts that whatever few facts it does not predict or agree with is (a) proportionately very small – less than five percent, let us say, and (b) explainable in some reasonable manner, it becomes ready for the next test.

The scientific attempt to theorize is actually a search for truth. We as rational human beings want to understand what is actually going on around us. A good theory, even if not perfect, can contribute substantially to that understanding; a bad theory (not really a valid theory at all, scientifically) will only confuse us, and may also prevent us from considering or exploring any better theory. When a hypothesis has been shown to be fully consistent, or at least reasonably reconcilable, with all the known relevant facts, only then can it be considered a theory at all, but at this point still merely an unverified theory. The chief means of verifying a theory is use of that theory to discover new facts, otherwise not anticipatable or at least unanticipated. And of course, these newly discovered facts, along with any other facts as may otherwise surface without the use of the theory, must also all be consistent with the theory insofar as it has relevance to them. A theory which meets those criteria is spoken of as being verified. A theory which anticipates no new facts, and to which no new facts can apply, not only remains unverified, but is also spoken of as being academically sterile, in that it tells us nothing new or useful. Surely if something is true, it should connect up to other things we know to be true, thus bringing in other facts, whether discovered by using the theory itself or else arising independently of it, by which it is tested. A theory which helps find new facts, and is consistent with the new facts, both those found through the theory itself as well as arising independently of it, is spoken of as being academically fertile, in that it tells us much that is new and/or useful, and enables us to go beyond the bare facts themselves as originally known, truly expanding our understanding of what is actually going on around us. A theory, once verified and shown to be academically fertile, nevertheless always remains a theory no matter how deeply or certainly proven, even as biologists still speak of cell theory (that cells are the basic units of structure and function in living organisms), or physicists and chemists still speak of atomic theory (that all material substances are composed of minute particles known as atoms).

0

The Basic Problem that Faces Us

T he doctrines, deductions, and findings garnered in Part One go a very long way towards explaining and documenting the overall scope and nature of our present ecclesial circumstance. There is enough in there to justify taking actions as needed to continue the Church, and to justify those actions already taken even in ignorance on the part of many of those taking them. Yet there are also questions that have arisen, many of which still remain to be solved. A comprehensive understanding of the deeper how’s and why’s of our present circumstance is therefore called for. This need, and the most central and vital of the outstanding questions from Part One, is to be addressed herein.

The essential and basic mystery of our present circumstance is the principle object of this study, both in the current Part as well as in the previous Part. The real problem comes down to that of authority, and first and foremost not that immediately practical question of who possesses it over whom today, specifically (pastoral authority), but that deeper kind of authority, that of revelation, theology, scholarship, and official magisterial and doctrinal decisions, by which we know, reliably and authoritatively, what is Catholic and what is not, and what remains legitimately open as varying schools of theological thought have held varying and rival opinions. Simple rightness itself can never be the source of this form of authority since it presumes that what is right is already known, rather it is the Apostolic authority of the Church which has determined what is right, and must continue to do so. As another writer once expressed, "In the Catholic church, authority is the guarantee of true doctrine, not the other way around. If the only indication that Vatican II was not an ecumenical council is that it erred, this makes doctrine the test of authority. This would mean the church is infallible except when she appears to teach error, but that doesn’t count as her teaching because it’s erroneous and she is infallible! To avoid this nonsensical idea of infallibility, it should be possible to see that the council was illegitimate before and independent of its heretical teaching."

The fact that the Vatican organization has failed to continue on as the Catholic Church is verified, first and foremost, through the observations of numerous individual Catholics who have seen so great and unmistakable of a defection. But could its doctrinal failure to uphold the Catholic Faith be the sole basis of considering it thus removed from any valid ecclesial role? If a pope could lose his office in the act of teaching false doctrine, then would that not make infallibility worthless? Is it not clear that the loss of authority on the part of the Vatican organization must be the result of some other event, antecedent to whatever first event it takes which absolutely and positively cannot have been performed by the real Catholic Church? If (for example) the Methodist church were to change some of its doctrines at some point, would it not still be the Methodist church? Yet how is it not the same with the Catholic Church? Up until Vatican II, we had no such doctrinal changes on the part of the Catholic Church to contend with, so the question was moot. But is the present day fallen Vatican organization merely the result of some decision to realize this heretofore moot scenario? Was such a decision ever really possible to Catholic leadership? And were that really possible to Catholic leadership, how would that escape completely undermining everything that the Church has ever taught: Today, the Three Persons of the Holy Trinity is taught; if tomorrow the Devil gets added as the Fourth Person of the Holy Trinity by Church authority, would that not therefore invalidate all older creeds and catechisms, or at least render them as obsolete as last year’s software updates?

Several of all the most immediately important loose ends from my First Part more or less amount to this great mystery pertaining to our present ecclesial circumstance, but could be summarized in the one question: How can we say that the ‘Vatican II church’ today is not the same society as the pre-Vatican II church? In Part One we demonstrated empirically the obvious and brute fact of their indeed having come to be two ontologically distinct and separate societies at work where before there was only one, and how realizing that fact solves a great many theological conundrums pertaining to this great mystery, but that the Vatican organization has somehow progressed from having been the one (true) society (Church) to now being the false one of two societies, only the other of which is the true Church.

We can even ascertain that the wholesale takeover of a given society, in such a manner as to leave it superficially intact, with nearly all the same officers in all the same office buildings and official relations to each other, will create an illusion of continuity which can take decades, or longer, to dispel. By the time most Englander’s came to realize that their (now Anglican) parishes and cathedrals and priests and bishops were really no longer any part of the true and Catholic Church, most of them didn’t care anymore, having lived so long in the material separation of schism leading into heresy. But how did this distinction, this separation, come about formally? Back then it was when and because each cleric was required to sign a document in which he accepts the King as his Pope, instead of the Pope in Rome. What happened this time around?

One approach which is not acceptable would be to reduce this whole question to merely one of the Sacred Mystery of the Church. Granted, the Church has many such Sacred Mysteries, the Mystery of the Trinity, the Mystery of the Incarnation (and there is also spoken of a Mystery of Iniquity), and yes, the Mystery of the Church, of how it is that a society comprised of us miserable sinners can be nevertheless perfect and holy. It is not fair or right to subsume this great mystery of how the Vatican II defection occurred into that grand and perennial Mystery of the Church, as that latter has been with us from the beginning and will remain with us clear to the end of time and on into eternity. But this current mystery, originating at a specific point in time, long after revelation has closed, must instead be a mystery which really can also be solved in time. How can men ever be certain that the course of action they have taken is the correct one without having understood what it is exactly that has happened, the whole overall big picture as well as the details, and therefore what remedies can be trusted?

Even if God should intervene in some dramatic manner to resolve this crisis, it is men, in fact everyone in the Church, who must recognize the Hand of God in that intervention, and accept it. And even in advance of any such intervention (if any should actually come, for it may not because God has already given the Church everything actually needed by the close of the Apostolic era, and even that ultimate End of Time could be much further off than expected by many), what ought we be found doing on that day of visitation? Or on our own personal day of visitation if that comes first? Therefore, one ought to not reject it as a vain thing to seek an explanation as to how it is that the Vatican II church today is not the same society as the pre-Vatican II church.

Relevant to that question, and drawing in a general way from Part One, I think I can identify about eight basic parameters for any proposed answer to this question. I cannot say that I have seen these criteria listed anywhere, and there certainly remains room for others to posit additional such parameters, or even exceptions to any of the parameters here listed, or additional alternative answers to those I know of or can think of. But these are drawn from a number of findings from Part One, principally (for example), some sort of visible ‘external action’ or ‘event’ is required in order to effect the removal of anyone from any office in the Church (D12F1), the circumstances in which this infallible ecclesiastical faith would be suspended must be marked with some visible ‘event’ or ‘external action’ (D13F3), and the bifurcation between the real Catholic Church and the present day Vatican organization had to have taken place through some visible event or external action prior to the defection of the latter, and by a means that did not constitute a defection of the real Catholic Church. (D21F40) The foregoing borrows somewhat from the derived list of ontological effects connected with a bifurcation between the Church and the Vatican apparatus as discussed in the Concluding Deductions of Part One, but here the emphasis is instead upon the visible nature and obvious characteristics of the relevant formal event (action or declaration). So, subject to such corrections as might reasonably be possible, the overall gist of these parameters for the answering scenario is one the value of which I expect to be self-evident to any truly devout and knowledgeable Catholic:

1) It has to be visible in nature, something officially done, not invisible, not merely some gradual defection (though gradual processes can be connected to it), because a purely invisible change would equal the visible Church itself simply defecting as far as anyone would ever be able to see,

2) It has to be some event, done at an identifiable point in time, by identifiable and known persons possessing sufficient authority, either an action or a declaration, because there is no interim state between being ontologically the Church itself, and not being ontologically the Church itself; it is or it isn’t, so the actual transition from one state to the other must be instantaneous, though gradual processes or other steps may lead up to it or follow from it,

3) The nature of it has to create or at least specify there being two or more separate societies, with two or more separate and parallel visible chains of command, because otherwise the Vatican apparatus just stops being the Church, with no visible indication that the real Church also continues along in parallel to the fallen Vatican apparatus,

4) Of the two or more societies, one must be clearly the Church while the other(s) would not be the Church itself, because a failure to be clear on this point would amount to splitting the Church itself into multiple societies, all independent of each other, yet all being each exclusively the Church, which is impossible,

5) Of the one society which is clearly identified as being the Church itself, its continuance must be in and of a nature detectible and structured by at least the bare minimums of doctrine, and modified possibly by the nature of the scenario, for example it must retain officials of at least some manner of authority, even if many usual standard canonical categories of authority (created by ecclesiastical law) may fall extinct or be done away with,

6) An overlap, at least of a temporary nature, must also be permitted or at least possible between the two societies, because in the earliest days virtually all Catholics were still also members of the Vatican apparatus, and afterwards also for some time, while the Church gradually recoalesced outside that organization some Catholics remained members while others left or were put out, all the time still visibly being Catholics in good standing,

7) The event (action or declaration) absolutely has to precede any other events (actions or declarations) which are, of themselves, indisputably beyond the pale for what is possible to the Church, though there are many historical precedents for many bad things which have happened within the Church, and many principles as might be gleaned from those historical events,

8) The event (action or declaration) needs to have actually happened, such that there is something of the sort to actually find in history, and the society thus sustained is discoverable and found, because otherwise all of this is mere hypothesis, a mere castle built in the air of idea upon idea upon idea, a deduction from these parameters that seems like it ought to be true, but would be as of yet unverified by any empirical observation.

One basic fact as established in Part One is that any theory about what happened with regards to the Church, in order to be credible, must not only account for or explain the failure of the Vatican apparatus to exhibit the characteristics of the Church (marks and other attributes), but also show where and how these marks and other attributes still exist, where the Church still exists, and how it got there, legally, canonically, and so forth. The fall of the Vatican apparatus must not be a mere cessation of authority—as if the Church just disappeared—but a division between authorities, true and false, of which the false rules the Vatican organization and the true continues on, in exile.

This principle is most easy to illustrate using a different theory (not mine as presented herein but one of the alternatives to be discussed in the Appendix of this Part), namely that of an alternate Papal succession, that is, alternate to that of Roncalli and Montini, etc. This would explain the fall of Paul VI as he, being actually an antipope, would not be infallible and in fact as prone to error and heresy as anyone else. But it would also explain the continuation of the Church, namely attached and in obedience to that true Papal succession on the part of he who was elected first (first white smoke) wherein all apostolicity and other marks and attributes of the Church would alone be found.

But this is no expounding of that theory (for reasons to be discussed in the Appendix) but rather merely the use of it for purely illustrative purposes. What I have here is another theory with the same crucial and foundational characteristics. One other point worth noting is that the loss of papal authority on the part of the Vatican organization’s leader and the loss of identity between the Vatican organization and the Church are two separate events, at least potentially taking place at different times. Some theorize that the Papacy may have been lost to the Vatican leadership as early as the election of Roncalli in 1958, and nothing here is meant to be considered as being opposed to such an opinion. (Neither does the Theory require any such previous loss of the papacy to the Vatican leadership.) But the loss of identity between the Vatican organization as a society and the Church as a society is generally conceded to have taken place somewhat later than that, at least during Vatican II or perhaps even after that, though certainly consummated by the time of the promulgation of the Novus Ordo Missae in 1969. It is with this latter loss of identity with which the Theory is principally concerned.

The alternate theory to be used here, for illustrative purposes, would be that of a hidden but real Papal succession, strictly alternative to the conventionally known succession of John XXIII, Paul VI, and etc., sometimes referred to as the Siri theory (actually hypothesis) since Cd. Siri is often thought to have been the first Pope of this succession, rumored to have taken the name of Gregory XVII. Despite some serious problems (to be discussed in the Appendix to this part as Scenario #4(a) along with twenty-two other scenarios as have been ventured), this alternate theory (hypothesis) meets most of a surprisingly long list of criteria which this study has brought forth. Let us look at how it looks in the light of the eight parameters listed just above:

1) Bifurcating event or action must be visible or documented: The election of a Pope, or even of an Antipope, is certainly a visible and official event. That first white smoke (which later turned black) as seen at each of the 1958 and 1963 conclaves, is certainly suggestive of such an election and a Pope thereby elected. Although only one man appeared at the balcony over St. Peter’s Square each time (the Antipope elected subsequent to the election of the true Pope), presumably a real Pope, concealed for reasons of extreme physical danger of some sort or some threat which they choose not to ignore (e.g. We have a 100 megaton hydrogen bomb planted right under your feet and we shall set it off if ever you let anyone know that Siri (or whoever) was elected Pope and accepted the office), such that only a small and rather secretive group would emerge as a kind of underground church, knowing who the true Pope is. As long as at least that much exists, the bare minimum for visibility may have been served (since those of the underground Church would at least know who their leaders are). Of course, belief in this as something visible only becomes obligatory on the Faithful once all is revealed, but as long as it at least really happened as such, such that there really is something that can be revealed some day, with all due and proper documentation, then the minimal criteria for this parameter could have been met.

2) Bifurcating event or action must be dateable: This would have happened at either the 1958 or the 1963 conclave (since similarly anomalous smoke signals happened at each), with the real papal election taking place on the day of the first white smoke which subsequently turned black, and the election of the antipope on the second day of white smoke which stayed white, after which the newly elected antipope appeared at the balcony over St. Peter’s Square.

3) Must specify that there are two or more parallel societies: Obviously, each of a Pope and an Antipope would be the leader of a respective chain of authority; each individual Catholic is visibly subject to either one or the other, but both simultaneously only insofar as they command the same exact thing. (A man could easily and quite painlessly serve two masters if only the two masters always wanted of him exactly the same thing at the same time, but how common is that and how long could it last?) During the first Great Western Schism, many bishops nominated by any one of them were accepted by all three, while all three simply claimed to be the Pope to which all bishops must submit.

4) Must specify which one of the societies is the Church: And the other is not. With a Pope already elected and having accepted the office, the election of another pope can only result in an antipope, hence the Pope elected at the time of the first white smoke is the true Pope (and the Church that obeys him the true Church), and the second man elected at the time of the second white smoke is only an antipope (and the Conciliar church he creates becomes a patently false church).

5) One society (the Church) must have continued legally and visibly: In the true Pope first elected, all true authority continues, unabated. Whatever cutbacks he may make in other, lesser, manner of prelates, owing to limited personnel, doesn’t matter so long as there remain bishops and laity subject to them.

6) Overlap between the two societies must exist, at least at outset: Now here, we have to borrow a little from history. During the First Great Western Schism, due to the generally prevailing Catholicism of the times, all three papal claimants remained sufficiently Catholic to be safely followed by true and actual Catholics. Though at least two of the three claimants absolutely had to be antipopes, their followers did not cease being Catholics for being (due to an innocent mistake on their part) not under the true Pope. So likewise, while the secretive and underground true Church is obviously the one which is truly Catholic, there could remain Catholics, for a time anyway, as followers of the false Pope, though today much harder if not impossible under the gravely anti-Catholic pressure of the world and an antipope chosen for his love of worldly things, of money, fame, and pleasures, and hatred of truth. While the discrepancy was as of yet still not so huge as it is today, the real Catholics were readily identifiable therein as the old-school folks, the foot-draggers who refused to get in step with the radical new programs. But over time these Catholics were either forced to relinquish their Catholicism or else their membership in the Vatican apparatus. If any real and actual Catholics remain within the Vatican apparatus today, they would have to be in and amongst the Indult/Motu crowds, or possibly some Alternate Rite(s), if any remain unaffected as of yet, or affected only harmlessly.

7) Bifurcation must precede any positively impossible actions or teachings: If actually occurring at the 1958 conclave, this would precede all that is even so much as suspicious, and if at the 1963 conclave, then only the odd career of John XXIII need be reconciled with what Catholic theology teaches about a Pope; his Vatican II session yielded no documents; his Pacem in Terris document errs only in the area of politics, not those areas of Faith or Morals, or else only affects Roncalli himself who promptly died thereafter.

8) Need for empirical evidence that it really happened and that the resulting societies can be found and identified: This of course is the one point at which the Siri theory breaks down, at least so far, since a continuing real papal succession has yet to be found. It would also have to reveal who it actually was (probably not Siri himself in any case), who knew of it at the time, and what manner of life that real Church had during those hidden years. They would also have to explain why and how they kept so secret and how that total secrecy on their part for over 50 years now is to be reconciled with the divine commission (for example, by secretly coordinating with our known and familiar traditional bishops). It just stretches my mind to the point of complete unbelief that such a true papal succession, with claims superior to those of the conventionally known Roncalli, Montini, etc., could have been so perfectly concealed for over 50 years without so much as a peep being heard from any of them, nor from anyone who actually knew them, nor any other effects of their supposed existence.

As one can see, that idea fits well enough with the first seven of the eight parameters, some quite well and others only more barely or questionably, but still perhaps acceptably. For parameters 3-5 and 7, this alternate theory is quite strong and direct. Parameter 6 is somewhat weaker but still acceptable; parameter 2 would go from being weak to being strong if a clear delineation could be obtained as to whether this scenario was born at the 1958 or the 1963 conclave. Parameter 1 presents a far greater challenge as it appears to constitute a complete abandonment of the divine commission, in effect leaving the evangelization of the world to a schismatic sect, and soon to be a heretical sect as well, a highly problematic proposition to say the least! But it is parameter 8 which kills this alternate theory, with the strange smoke signals explainable by other causes, and the startlingly total lack of any evidence whatsoever of the existence of such a secretive succession over all of these years since.

For completeness of this illustration, I offer the same for the Anglican schism:

1) Bifurcating event or action must be visible or documented: The visible nature of the schism was the signing of the Declaration of Royal Supremacy on the part of nearly all English clerics. Their signatures are affixed, and all duly witnessed by persons whose signatures are also affixed to said document. Even if not immediately obvious to the general public, these signed documents remain.

2) Bifurcating event or action must be dateable: The event was the signing of this document, which took place in November of 1534, with the particular dates of each cleric’s signature also affixed to the same.

3) Must specify that there are two or more parallel societies: A new chain of command, with King at the top instead of Pope, was expressly declared within the document; there were those who signed this, thus marking themselves as subject to the King (as Pope, that is, in all religious matters), and those (precious few) who refused to sign who thereby remained openly subject to the Pope in Rome. Those of the new Anglican church were content to leave the rest of the world subject to Rome as a parallel hierarchy. Whatever few clerics as refused to sign retained their true hierarchical status no matter how much they might have felt otherwise or been excluded by the Anglican schismatics.

4) Must specify which one of the societies is the Church: That which remained subject to the Pope in Rome remained the Church; that which substituted King for Pope ceased to be the Church; this did not result in some inner material schism between alternative Catholic chains of authority, but an external schism by which the English Church ceased to be any part of the Catholic Church.

5) One society (the Church) must have continued legally and visibly: The Catholic Church retained Her structure outside of England, fully intact including the Pope. Within England, the one faithful Catholic bishop (St. John Fisher) and whatever few faithful Catholic priests as could not hide underground were killed off, forcing the Church to send in new clerics from the outside. Fortunately, there remained a functioning Church outside from which such new clerics could come.

6) Overlap between the two societies must exist, at least at outset: The localized nature of the English schism renders unnecessary any overlap between the two separated churches, but even so there would have been that temporary period during which some clerics had signed while others yet to sign had not done so, and also, those ordinary Faithful, unaware of what had happened, or at least of its significance and relevance to their Church membership, and who remained in their (now Anglican) parish churches, could have been counted as Catholics until either a) their religion (faith, morals, liturgy) changes, or b) Rome issues a formal declaration ousting those who remain in such parishes.

7) Bifurcation must precede any positively impossible actions or teachings: While the controversy started by Luther and Calvin raged in the Continent, England remained largely unaffected, keeping the Faith, and only after the schism did their liturgy, catechisms, creed (Anglican 39 articles), and theology (Hooker instead of Aquinas) all get changed.

8) Need for empirical evidence that it really happened and that the resulting societies can be found and identified: It is a readily documented fact that both Catholic and Anglican churches continued to exist in parallel to each other ever since, and do so today. And today, the Anglican and Novus Ordo churches are so very much alike that the two could easily combine with virtually no adjustments needed on either side.

In this case, all eight parameters are fully met, thus explaining fully the fall of the Church of England into its errors and heresies, which we also note were all stunningly similar to Novus Ordo errors and heresies. After the more basic parts of this Theory are to be presented, I will review it in the light of these same eight parameters.

1

A Statement of the Basic Theory Itself

T he Theory I propose with this current work states that the promulgation of the Conciliar document Lumen Gentium on November 21, 1964, as the third document of the Vatican II Council, and the first from that year’s sessions, itself brought about the ontological distinction between the Vatican organization (as it has since gone on today into its present fallen and non-Catholic state) and the Mystical Body of Christ which is the real Catholic Church, a distinction which that document itself quite explicitly and unambiguously specified. There are any number of additional ramifications which follow from that fact itself, or from the manner of how that distinction is specified within the document itself, or from other declarations contained within that document, and from the overall historic and sequential context of the promulgation thereof, which also must be addressed here. Lumen Gentium is, therefore, the key to understanding what went wrong at Vatican II, such that so many other things could just go wrong with the Vatican apparatus and no Heavenly intervention occurs to prevent any of them.

The relevant clauses within which this new ontological distinction is first made (that we know of) occur within the middle third of paragraph 8, wherein it states:

This is the one Church of Christ which in the Creed is professed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic, which our Savior, after His Resurrection, commissioned Peter to shepherd, and him and the other apostles to extend and direct with authority, which He erected for all ages as the pillar and mainstay of the truth. This Church constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him, although many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure. These elements, as gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, are forces impelling toward catholic unity.

The This of the first and second sentences of this extract is a backward reference to the previous seven paragraphs of Lumen Gentium and the first third of paragraph 8, all of which carefully identify the phrase Church of Christ (as used in this portion) with the earthly portion of the Mystical Body of Christ, the real and visible Catholic Church, as known to all as such, headed in Rome ever since St. Peter moved his See from Antioch to Rome. Apart from some two instances (probably accidental, stemming from earlier drafts), the document entirely, even systematically, refrains from employing the phrase catholic Church to speak specifically and exclusively of this Church of Christ, the Mystical Body of Christ, which Catholic Dogma identifies specifically, and totally with the real Catholic Church, though the capitalized form Catholic Church does appear twice and is so used. Instead, beginning here, this document posits a new catholic Church, meaning as the immediate context makes clear, an organization comprised of the resources and hierarchical elements which, up until this new ontological distinction is being made therein, heretofore had always been equated with the Mystical Body of Christ, the real Catholic Church.

The remainder of this middle portion (second and third sentences) is what creates and governs, as an official, juridical, and legislative document, this new ontological status. Despite one small ambiguity perhaps stemming from the translation, the language used here is quite explicit and clear as to what it means, and in particular the fact that it implies (and was meant to imply) the exact ontological distinction which the Theory posits. Let us step carefully through the statements:

This Church

Which is to say, the Church which has been alone discussed in the document up until this point, namely the real Catholic Church, the Mystical Body of Christ, and which this document will again soon directly reference as being simply the Church of Christ.

constituted and organized in the world as a society,

The visibility of the real Catholic Church, this Church which is the Church of Christ and the Mystical Body of Christ, is here acknowledged as something which is distinct from the visibility of certain other visible structures which will soon be brought up. Of course, the real Catholic Church is visible, as that is one of the doctrines about the Church, which doctrine was explored in some depth in Part One. The real Catholic Church already has its own constitution, not so much contained in any single document as directly implied by Divine Revelation and also covered in many documents issued by the Church over the centuries to describe and define Her nature and structure, but separate and distinct from this new constitution which Lumen Gentium comprises.

subsists in

There was a lot of attention drawn to the surprise innovation of introducing this new word subsists to describe the nature of the Church’s existence, so much so in fact that relatively few persons seem to have noticed the second word of this crucial phrase, in. Subsists as a word, and particularly as employed in this context, is nothing other than a special mode of exists. One could replace subsists with exists without doing either doctrinal or grammatical violence to the text, but as a result it would grow silent on one rather subtle but valid point that subsists does render explicit. The difference between the two words is that subsists speaks of a kind of existence which cannot be done away with whereas exists makes no such claim, thus grammatically allowing that its existence may either be subject, or not, to historical circumstances. A given human secular nation exists until such time as it falls, becoming then only a memory, and with time, a mere historical footnote, or perhaps eventually forgotten entirely. But the Church always exists, and in a manner which intrinsically cannot be done away with, hence it is proper to say that the Church subsists. The use of this word, here or in any other context, is therefore merely a reference to the perduring nature of the Church.

It is the introduction of the preposition in which declares (mandates, sets up, or establishes, if not already previously so mandated, set up, or established) an innovative and new relationship between the This Church, that real Catholic Church, the Mystical Body of Christ, which does the subsisting, versus a newly-defined catholic Church about to be introduced (as the phrase is consistently used in the document) which is in turn passively subsisted in by the first. This dis-identification is so vast and significant that I will defer further discussion of it until after the remaining phrases of this relevant passage have been reviewed in detail here. Suffice to say at this point that here for the very first time ever are differentiated the Mystical Body of Christ, or Church of Christ, on the one hand, and a (new and distinct) catholic Church on the other.

the catholic Church,

As a result of the dis-identification made in the phrases leading up to this phrase, this mention here of a catholic Church is quite specifically and categorically not to be equated