You wrote in part: Why did they not contact any of the 9 Validly Ordained Priests

that left SSPX and created CMRI and went unassociated (which has been good) Does he
have some sort of problem with this group of Fine Catholic Priests like Father Sanborn
(Bishop) and the others? They are valid priests and not heretics. Would they not have
made a better Pope?

Dear Sir,

In answer to your question, I would like to ask you to read two articles by Bishop
Sanborn. And then I would like to make some points, based upon these and the 1917
Code of Canon Law, which is currently in force, and was in force when all of “the nine”
were ordained. Although the 1983 Code had been promulgated when three others were
ordained, as sedevacantists, they rightfully reject the validity of Antipope John Paul II,
and thus anything he promulgated.
First of all, as Bishop Sanborn notes, Archbishop Lefebvre was always una cum
Paul VI, John Paul I and John Paul II. Therefore he ordained all his priests una cum these
men. Thus all of these priests were una cum the Antipopes, at least at their ordination
Mass. Therefore they are objectively schismatics, at least materially. As Saint Cyprian
says: To adhere to a false Bishop of Rome is to be out of communion with the Church.
Now Archbishop Lefebvre left the Catholic Church by signing heretical Vatican II
documents. He remained outside by celebrating the Novus Ordo Missae and remaining
una cum the heretical usurpers named above. As such he incurred all of the penalties for
heresy and schism, including irregularity.
Irregularity is more than just a penalty, but a state. Canon 984: The following are
irregular from defect: (5) Men who have incurred infamy of law. Canon 2314 provides
infamy of law for heretics. Canon 985: The following are irregular from crime: (1)
Apostates from the faith, heretics, schismatics; True, in both cases, one must be a formal
heretic, but Canon 2200 provides: The evil will, spoken of in Canon 2199, means a
deliberate will to violate a law, and presupposes on the part of the mind a knowledge of
the law and on the part of the will freedom of action. Given the external violation of a
law, the evil will is presumed in the external forum until the contrary is proved. Now
heresy is reserved exclusively to the court of the Roman Pontiff, therefore only the Pope
can pronounce that the irregularity and censures were not incurred in a given case.
This is where Traditionalists generally are lax, applying the circumstances and
results of the deception of the elect, foretold in the Gospels. (Matthew 24:24) All of us
at one time or another were at least material schismatics, and therefore barred from the
reception and administration of the Sacraments until reconciled by the Church. Ironically
the CMRI at one time attempted such reconciliation, although they have no jurisdiction,
that is authority, from the Catholic Church to reconcile people with the Church. This is
who Francis Schuckardt proceeded. He had a Catholic priest absolve the old-Catholic
Bishop from his censures and attempt to reconcile him with the Church, then proceeded
to receive ordination and consecration from him. There are many problems with this, but
there is not space here to consider them all, although I will if you wish.
Let us return to the ordinations and consecrations by Archbishop Lefebvre and
Bishop Ngo-Dihn Thuc. First of all, both signed heretical documents at Vatican II, and
therefore became heretics. It is my opinion that a Bishop cannot be a mere material

1
heretic in such serious matters, as they are the teaching church and such ignorance is
inexcusable. I do not however, apply this to the Bishops validly consecrated by them, as
they have no mission from the Catholic Church.
Canon 2372 provides: All persons who presume to receive orders from a prelate
who has been excommunicated, suspended or interdicted by a declaratory or
condemnatory sentence, or from a notorious apostate, heretic or schismatic
automatically incur suspensions a divinis reserved to the Apostolic See. Any person who
has been ordained in good faith by such men, forfeits the right to exercise the order thus
received until he obtains dispensation from the prohibition. So, even if they were
ordained and consecrated in good faith, because the minister is outside of the Catholic
Church as Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop Ngo-Dihn Thuc were, they are suspended
until the Apostolic See removes the suspension. This is the Pope.
Saint Thomas tells us in the Summa (III Q82 A7: Accordingly, such as, being
within the Church, received the power of consecrating the Eucharist through being
ordained to the priesthood, have such power rightly indeed; but they use it improperly if
afterwards they be separated from the Church by heresy, schism or excommunication.
Thus those ordained within the Church can be deprived of the right to legitimately
celebrate Mass by excommunication. But such as are ordained while separated from the
Church, have neither the power rightly, nor do they use it rightly.
It is my opinion, based upon Canon Law, that all of the Traditionalist priests and
Bishops are ordained outside the Catholic Church, because many laws are violated in said
ordinations and consecrations. I know they have constructed canonical theories why they
are not illegitimately ordained, but this only demonstrates that they are in good faith, not
that they are correct. In any case, Bishop Peter Martin Ngo-Dihn Thuc consecrated
Bishops in 1981 in order to preserve apostolicity of Orders until a Pope could be elected,
who could grant the necessary mission and jurisdiction, which is also essential to
Apostolicity. Given his advanced age, one can make an argument for the three 1981
consecrations, but I don’t think for any of the subsequent consecrations. In any case,
Bishops Ngo-Dihn, Carmona, Zamora, Bravo, Musey, Vezelis and other bishops and
priests met in New Orleans in 1983 to discuss the election a Pope. In fact, I believe this
was also discussed in May of 1982 in Dallas, Texas after Bishop Zamora presented the
proof of the vacancy to the assembled bishops and priests.
In reading Bishop Sanborn’s articles, including the two I have mentioned, I find
that he is realizing that he has not ordinary jurisdiction, which is required to ordain
Catholic priests among other things. He rightly chastises the SSPX Bishops for assuming
the regalia reserved exclusively to a diocesan Bishop in his own diocese, such as the use
of the throne at Pontifical Mass. And in his own choir dress, he is pictured wearing the
mantelletta rather than the rochet, which is reserved to diocesan bishops to wear within
the territory of their diocese. The matelletta is worn by all titular bishops, as well as by
diocesan bishops outside their dioceses, to show their lack of authority. The rochet is a
sign of Episcopal authority as a diocesan Bishop, and is therefore reserved to the Pope,
Cardinals and diocesan Bishops. In the latter case, they are restricted to its use in their
own diocese.
This matter of jurisdiction is not a small one, and I wish to address it more fully.
In the fall of 1977 I was in a discussion with several seminarians, including Frs. Joseph
Collins and Eugene Berry, who are part of the nine. In this discussion Fr. Douglas

2
Laudeschlager tstated that due to the current crisis, SSPX priests receive jurisdiction to
hear confessions by the fact of their ordination at priests, when Canon Law requires this
to be conferred by the diocesan of the place where confessions are to be heard. Let us
read from Exposition of Christian Doctrine, which I purchased from Bishop Sanborn’s
publishing company, Catholic Restoration (Worship, volume 1, pages 387f): What is
necessary for the valid (all emphasis mine) administration of the sacrament of penance?
1st, the power of orders; 2d, approbation; 3d, the power of jurisdiction. … What is
jurisdiction? Jurisdiction in general is the power to govern subjects within determinate
limits of space and time. …How is penitential jurisdiction divided? It is divided into
ordinary and delegated jurisdiction. Ordinary jurisdiction is that attached to a function
which carries with it the care of souls. Delegated jurisdiction is that which is received by
commission from him whom has ordinary jurisdiction. To whom does ordinary
jurisdiction belong? It belongs: 1st, to the Pope, over all the Church, in both the forum
internum and the forum externum; 2d, to the bishop in both for a, but only over his
diocese; 3d, to the pastor over his parish, but only in the forum internum. … If
jurisdiction necessary in order to exercise the power to absolve? Yes; so the Council fo
Trent declares: (Session 14, chapter 7): “As it is of the nature of judgment that the
sentence be pronounced upon those persons who are subject ot the judgement, the
Church has always been persuaded, and the Holy Synod confirms it as true, that
absolution is null when given by a priest tone over whom he has neither ordinary nor
subdelegated jurisdiction.” Therefore we must conclude that jurisdiction in the
Sacrament of Penance is required for the valid absolution of sins by Divine Law. To
deny this is to deny a doctrine of the Divine and Catholic Faith, which would therefore be
to commit heresy.
Now the question arises, do Traditionalist priests have jurisdiction to validly
absolve from sins. It is absolutely certain that they do not have ordinary jurisdiction, for
they are not he Pope, nor a diocesan bishop nor a pastor. Any who claim the contrary,
must demonstrate who they received this office. Diocesan bishops are appointed by the
Pope and pastors by their diocesan bishop. Only two Bishops have claimed to be
diocesan Bishops, namely Bishops Musey and Vezelis who usurped Papal authority by
dividing the United States into two dioceses and claiming to be the diocesan bishops of
their respective diocese, demanding all priests within their new dioceses to submit to
them.
Canon 879 provides: For the valid hearing of confession, it is necessary that
jurisdiction shall have been explicitly granted in writing or orally. Woywod comments
(A Practical Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, volume 1, page 487): Explicit
conferring of jurisdiction in writing or by word of mouth is required for the validity of
delegated jurisdiction for the hearing of confessions. Tacit, presumed, interpretative, or
any other kind of delegation which cannot be called explicit, is not considered valid.
No Traditionalist priest can demonstrate the act of granting of jurisdiction from
the Pope or the diocesan bishop of the place where they are hearing confessions, for they
have determined both offices to be vacant. Therefore they cannot validly absolve from
sins with the sole exception of danger of death as provided for in Canon 882. They claim
jurisdiction from epikeia, but such is interpretative and the canonist Woywod (among
others) condemns such a claim as invalid in interpreting the Canon. This establishes a

3
probable opinion in regard to the invalidity of such absolution, and we must be certain of
the opposite, that is that they certainly possess jurisdiction.
And this brings us to the core of the problem of Traditionalism. Traditionalism
acts as if a Pope is unnecessary in this crisis, and yet doesn’t Bishop Sanborn state in his
article: The identity of the Roman Pontiff has enormous dogmatic and moral effects. In
the first place, our faith depends upon his teaching. We are obliged to give assent to the
teaching of the Church. But the authority of this teaching comes from a single source, the
authority of Saint Peter. Without this authority, there is no binding doctrine. No
magisterium can take place, either solemn or ordinary.
Furthermore, our salvation depends on our submission to the Roman Pontiff.
We go to hell if we are disobedient to him in a serious matter, or worse, if we are not
submitted to him.
So how can anyone be so blasé about the identity of the Roman Pontiff, so as
to say that it really does not matter, in the practical order, what you think about him? It
is as if the Roman Pontiff were merely a decoration in the Catholic Church, something
the Church could even dispense with, a purely accidental accessory, a bagatelle. It is as
if you can conduct your own version of Roman Catholicism without the Roman Pontiff.
In the late 1980’s, when we were assembling the Papal Election, we attempted to
contact many Traditionalist priests and Bishops and inform them that the only solution to
the crisis in the Church is the election of a Pope, who can then set all else in order, grant
mission and jurisdiction, legitimize ordinations, remove irregularities, etc. With a very
few exceptions, no response was received from these men. As Pope, We invite these men
to come into union with Us as true Pope, so that they can receive mission and jurisdiction
from us to feed the flock of Jesus Christ.
Catechism of the Council of Trent, (McHugh and Callan, p. 104) -- "It is the
unanimous teaching of the Fathers that this visible head is necessary to establish and
preserve unity in the Church." St. Thomas of Aquinas -- "In order that the Church exist,
there must be one person at the head of the whole Christian people." (Summa Contra
Gentiles, Vol. IV, 76.) The offertory of the Mass for the Election of a Pope states: They
shall not partake of holy things, until a priest shall arise for evidence and truth. This
makes me question whether or not they celebrate this votive Mass, since they are
convinced of the vacancy? True, under Canon Law they should not celebrate Mass, but
since they do their choice of votive Masses should be in keeping with their beliefs.
Please pardon the length of this reply, but these are serious and important matters.

Yours in Christ the King for the Exaltation of the Catholic Church,

Michael, by the grace of God, Pope

http://www.oneholycatholicchurch.com
http://www.popespeaks.vaticaninexile.com
http://groups.google.com/group/one-holy-catholic-church?hl=en

Una Cum by Bishop Donald Sanborn

http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=46&catname=12
Opinionism by Bishop Donald Sanborn
http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=87&catname=10