Indefectibility and Una 

Cum
Obispo Donald Sanborn
A response to Father Ludger Grün. In my last newsletter [blog post version here], I
reviewed the motives and reasons why we must avoid the una cum Mass. In most cases
this applies to the traditional Masses offered by the SSPX, both mainstream and
“resistance.” A Father Grün of the SSPX made a response to my newsletter, and
consequently here I would like to make more clear just what our position is.

Father Grün’s main argument against what I said is to go to Canon 188 of the 1917
Code of Canon Law regarding the tacit renunciation from ecclesiastical office of those
who profess heresy. However, recourse to this canonical argument misses the entire
point of what I said, and does not apply in any case.

So I again provide a review of all the principles, this time in a step-by-step approach, so
that everyone can understand.

Point # 1. Our argument concerning the vacancy of the Roman See does not
concern the personal sin or crime of heresy in Bergoglio. There is no rule book, not
even Canon Law itself, which deals with the problem of the personal sin or crime of
heresy in a reigning pope. There is absolute silence about it from the legal point of view.
It clearly states in Canon Law that the pope is not subject to Canon Law, since he is the
legislator. It is a general principle that the legislator is not subject to his own laws. (This
does not mean that he can be a lawless person, since he is bound by divine law, natural
law, and the virtues of prudence and justice, whereby he must give good example to all).

There is a document published by Pope Paul IV in the sixteenth century dealing with the
problem of a heretical pope, but even concerning this there is controversy as to whether
it still applies, and about its true meaning.

The point is that there is nothing clear and certain about how to deal with the problem.
The early theologians said that a heretical pope would certainly lose office, but not until
he was declared a heretic. Later theologians argued that he would lose the office ipso
facto, that is, by the very fact of being a public heretic, without any need of declaration.
Both sides of this argument were aired in the discussion between Messrs. Siscoe and
Salza, on the one side, and Fr. Cekada on the other.

As I said, however, the personal heresy of Bergoglio is not the central problem.

Point # 2. Our argument concerning the vacancy of the Roman See centers on the
indefectibility of the Church, which is a dogmatic argument and not a canonical
argument. The doctrine of indefectibility is based on the words of Our Lord: “Behold I
am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.” (Matth. XXVIII: 20) It is
de fide that the Catholic Church must endure as an institution until the end of time, and
must remain essentially the same until the end of time. This means that it must have
perfect continuity of dogma and moral teaching, with no contradictions, perfect
continuity of worship, and perfect continuity of all of its essential disciplines. If
somehow this continuity were broken, it would not be the same religion, and it would be
in defection from what Christ intended it to be.

Christ also said to the Apostles: “He that heareth you, heareth Me; and he that
despiseth you, despiseth Me; and he that despiseth Me, despiseth Him that sent Me.”
(Luke X: 16) This means that we can confidently listen to the teaching of the hierarchy
as the teaching of Christ. What if they are not teaching infallibly? The answer is that
while the hierarchy, although not invoking its full power of teaching infallibly, is
nonetheless protected by Christ as Head of the Church from teaching any pernicious
doctrine. This means that it cannot teach anything which is contrary to Catholic doctrine
or morals, and which would be a sin to embrace. Likewise the Catholic hierarchy cannot
impose disciplines, whether liturgical or canonical, which would be pernicious, that is,
prescribing something evil, and sinful to observe.

In a word, the assistance of Christ to His Church is an essential characteristic of the

Catholic Church, since it is in this that the Catholic Church is distinguished from all
false religions. The very reason why we submit to the teaching authority of the Church
is that it is assisted by Christ. The same may be said for its disciplinary authority.

It means that every Catholic can, in perfect good conscience, assent to what is taught by
the hierarchy, and obey all of the disciplines and liturgy which it imposes or even
permits.

Consequently the Council of Trent condemns with anathema those who would say that
the rites of the Catholic Church are impious.

Point # 3. The central problem of Bergoglio and the Vatican II popes in general is
not that they are guilty of the personal sin or crime of heresy, but that they are
imposing a new and false religion upon Catholics.

The reason why traditionalists exist is not because they perceive that the pope is a
heretic, and must be resisted or denounced. They are traditionalists because they
cannot find the Catholic Faith in their parishes.

Vatican II was a revolution concocted by Modernist heretics, such as Rahner, Ratzinger,

Küng, Congar, and many others in which the Modernist dream of transforming
Catholicism was realized. Their express goal and purpose — together with all of the
enemies of the Catholic Church beginning with the eighteenth century — was not to tear
down the edifice of the Catholic Church, but to transform it from within, to make it a
dogma-less humanitarianism. For this reason, ecumenism was the principal doctrine
of the Council, together with religious liberty and the new ecclesiology. The traditional
teaching of the Church is that the Catholic Church, and it alone, is the one, true Church,
and outside of it there is no salvation. This means that there is no other religious entity
which has the means of salvation. It means that everything outside of the Catholic
Church is a false religion.

Vatican II changed this doctrine through the three errors which I mentioned: (1)
ecumenism; (2) religious liberty; (3) the new ecclesiology.
In summary, Vatican II required Catholics to abandon the notion of the Church’s being
the single source of salvation in the world, the single true Church. Other religions were
seen as having a “value in the order of salvation.” This was done in order to amalgamate
all religions one day into a dogma-less christianity, which would concern itself not with
doctrines, but with the betterment of humanity on a purely naturalistic level.

The teachings of Bergoglio fit into this pattern like hand in glove. He is a communist
who does not believe a speck of Catholic doctrine.

As a result of this new teaching, Catholic liturgy was changed, Catholic doctrines were
changed, and Catholic disciplines were changed, particularly in what regards
ecumenism.

Space does not permit me to elaborate on these points, but I think that our readers
sufficiently understand what I am saying, namely: Vatican II and its reforms
constitute a new and false religion, consisting of doctrines and practices which
have already been condemned by the Roman Catholic Church.

Point # 4. Proof of the foregoing is that all traditionalists (SSPX included) have
undertaken a systematic rejection of the doctrines, liturgical rites, and disciplines
of Vatican II and its subsequent reforms. In addition, they have acted toward the
Vatican II hierarchy (claiming to be Catholic) with defiance, as if it did not exist.

Any Catholic knows that such a rejection would not be justified in the eyes of God
unless it were a mortal sin against the Faith to accept the changes of Vatican II. For
such a conviction is our only justification before God our Judge when we die, namely
why we rejected the teachings, liturgy and disciplines of the apparent pope and Catholic
hierarchy. For it is to the pope that He says: “Thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will
build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee
the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall
be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed
also in heaven.” (Matth. XVI: 18-19) It is to all the Apostles that He says: “He that
heareth you, heareth Me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth Me; and he that
despiseth Me, despiseth Him that sent Me.” (Luke X: 16) “Behold I am with you all
days, even to the consummation of the world.” (Matth. XXVIII: 20)

Our only argument in defense of our defiance of this apparently Catholic hierarchy,
apparently empowered by God with full authority, is to assert that they were
commanding that we accept a defection from the Catholic Faith in the form of
universally promulgated doctrines, liturgy, and disciplines. If this is not true, then all
traditionalists will go to hell for grave disobedience to the Catholic hierarchy, indeed
schism, for having despised Him who sent them.

Point # 5. It is impossible, however, by the promises of Christ to His Church, that

the true Catholic hierarchy could lead the faithful into a defection from the Faith.

This conclusion flows from the doctrine of indefectibility and from the Scriptural
quotations from the very mouth of Our Lord Himself.
Point # 6. Therefore there are two logical possibilities: (1) the Novus Ordo
hierarchy is the true Catholic hierarchy, and consequently all of the doctrines and
reforms of Vatican II are in accordance with the Catholic Faith, and must be
obeyed; or (2) Vatican II and its reforms do in fact constitute a defection from the
Catholic Faith, and as a result it is impossible that what purports to be the true
Catholic hierarchy be in fact the true Catholic hierarchy.

There is no gray area between these two possibilities. For the promises of Christ are so
strong and so clear, that it is impossible to assert that a true Catholic hierarchy could
universally promulgate doctrines, liturgy, and disciplines which constitute a defection
from the Catholic Faith. To assert that this is a real possibility would be to deny
implicitly the de fide doctrine of indefectibility.

Point # 7. Consequently the traditionalist, who by his very actions declares that
Vatican II and its reforms are a defection from the Catholic Faith, is bound
logically to assert that the Novus Ordo hierarchy is not the true Catholic
hierarchy. If he does not assert this, he is implicitly declaring that the Catholic
Church has defected.

This is why we say it is impossible that Bergoglio be pope, and that it is not merely a
matter of opinion. It is a conclusion which is bound up with the Catholic Faith itself,
and is demanded by it. For if there is defection, it cannot be assigned to the divinely
assisted hierarchy. The defection must be found in the human beings, who, despite all
appearances and despite whatever appointments and elections they may have, have
proven themselves to be in some way defective and incapable of assuming the power to
teach, rule, and sanctify the Catholic Church. In other words, the Church cannot defect,
but the people in it can defect, and it is in these people that we must assign the cause of
defection.

Point # 8. Consequently every traditionalist is duty-bound, by a conclusion which

flows necessarily from the Catholic doctrine of indefectibility, to reject the Novus
Ordo hierarchy as being a false Catholic hierarchy, not endowed with the power to
teach, rule, and sanctify the Catholic Church.

Here I will not enter into the theories of how they are a false hierarchy. Some (as I do)
say that despite their absence of authority, they are nonetheless elected and appointed to
positions to which authority naturally pertains. Others say that they have neither the
authority nor the elections or appointments to be anything at all.

The essential point is this: That due to their lack of authority, they are not the true
Catholic hierarchy. Bergoglio is not a true pope, and the local bishop is not a true
diocesan bishop.

Point # 9. It is therefore necessary that the names of this false hierarchy not appear
in the Catholic Mass. For the mentioning of the names of a false hierarchy
objectively places the Mass outside of the Catholic Church.

The name of the pope and local bishop in the Canon of the Mass is a declaration by the
priest that these men constitute the hierarchy of the Catholic Church, namely the pope
as Vicar of Christ and Visible Head of the Catholic Church, and the local bishop as the
head of the diocese, appointed as such by the Roman Pontiff, and as having the power
from Christ to teach, rule, and sanctify the diocese over which he has been placed.

That these names should appear in a traditionalist Mass is, from what has been pointed
out, a declaration of allegiance to a false hierarchy. It is to assert implicitly that the
Catholic Church is capable of defection, and that the Catholic hierarchy can lead us to
hell by its universally promulgated doctrines, liturgy, and discipline. It also declares that
the una cum Mass is a schismatic Mass, since, if he is the pope, then the resistance to
him is schismatic and a mortal sin, and if he is not the pope, it is to offer the Mass in
union with a false hierarchy, which is objectively a mortal sin for the priest and all who
actively participate in it. (It would be very advisable to re-read Fr. Cekada’s The Grain
of Incense article, which gives ample evidence from Catholic theologians concerning
the una cum question).

Point # 10. To mention the name of Bergoglio and the local bishop in the Canon of
the traditional Mass requires the priest and those actively participating to embrace
the recognize and resist position, which denies the indefectibility of the Catholic
Church, and which is also schismatic.

If a traditional Mass is offered in union with “Francis, our pope, and so-and-so our
bishop,” but is at the same time a Mass unauthorized by Francis and the local bishop,
the priest and active participants are logically forced into saying that the universal
teachings and practices of the Catholic Church are false, evil, and pernicious. For why
would the priest be offering a non-authorized Mass, unless the teachings and practices,
universally promulgated by the Vatican II hierarchy and found in local parishes
everywhere, were false, evil, and pernicious? Why on earth would the faithful attend an
unauthorized Mass, unless their parish Mass were false, evil, and pernicious?

So the unauthorized una cum Mass — the SSPX Mass — logically demands that the
active participants adhere to recognize and resist, which is to say: “Bergoglio is our
pope, but his universally promulgated doctrines, liturgy, and disciplines are false evil
and pernicious.” To think such a thing is objectively heretical, because it denies the
indefectibility of the Church. And if Bergoglio is indeed the pope, recognize and resist
is clearly schismatic, as is evident from the statements of Pius IX and Pius XI.

Summary and conclusion. Our Lord established the hierarchy of the Catholic Church
as His personal representatives in leading His sheep to heaven. He assists this hierarchy
in such a way that they cannot give the sheep any doctrine, liturgy, or discipline which
would be sinful to accept or observe.

If, therefore, what purports to be the Catholic hierarchy is giving the sheep doctrines,
liturgy, and disciplines which are sinful to accept or observe (the very reason why we do
not go to our local parishes), then it is absolutely certain and necessary that, despite all
appearances, and despite any elections or appointments which the Novus Ordo
hierarchy may have, they lack the power to teach, rule, and sanctify the Catholic
Church. They are false popes and false diocesan bishops, and it is the duty of every
Catholic to denounce them as such and to openly reject them.

Furthermore, to recognize the Novus Ordo hierarchy as true popes and bishops, but at
the same time to repudiate as false and evil the doctrines and practices which they have
universally promulgated, is to deny the indefectibility of the Catholic Church, which is a
dogma of faith. It is to deny that the Catholic Church is the unique means of salvation;
instead it would be a means of damnation. But this is blasphemy against the promises of
Our Lord.

To name Bergoglio in the Mass is to hoist the flag of Modernism. It is to hoist the flag
of the worst enemies of the Catholic Church, as Saint Pius X called them. Indeed, the
SSPX sees as the solution to the Church’s problems the achievement of an accord with
the Modernists, whereby they can function side-by-side with the Modernist hierarchy.

The name of Bergoglio in the traditional Mass is a rope that ties our battle for the
preservation of the Faith to the precursors of the Antichrist.

The pope has a tremendous gravitational pull on all Catholics, for submission to the
Roman Pontiff is necessary for salvation. If you recognize Bergoglio as pope,
eventually you will be with him, and he with you, as sure as a rock will fall to the
ground if thrown into the air.