Why Didn’ You Wait for the

Traditional Bishops to Elect a

Pope?
On September 8, 1987 I received the letter that proved to me the necessity of
electing a Pope. However, this was not a new idea, but one that had been around since at
least themed 1970’s. There was talk around that time of holding an election and electing
Archbishop Lefebvre. In fact, when I was in the Houston area in May of 1976 for the
Confirmations, several priests came from Mexico to talk to Archbishop Lefebvre. The
rumor was that this was the purpose of their visit.
Later that same year Fr. Carl Pulvermacher OFM gave a sermon in Oklahoma
City at a weekday Mass about the vacancy of the Papacy. There was a long discussion
with the Aunts of one of the members of the Traditionalist group. In that discussion Fr.
Carl said that some day we would have to elect our own Pope.
When I arrived at Armada in 1978 I soon found that the staff, Fr. Sanborn 1 and
Fr. Cekada were practicing sede vacantists. 2 Paul VI was not mentioned in the preces
feriales at Vespers nor in the Litany of the Saints for the Major and Minor Litanies. That
Fall Fr. Dolan preached the retreat at Armada to begin the academic year. Silence was
observed rather well until the last full day, when he mentioned to vacancy of the Papacy.
Soon after this, John Paul II died. One day after Mass, Fr. Hodgson told me that he had
celebrated the votive Mass for the election of a Pope, although he was a sede occupantist.
At the time, of course, the world was sede vacantist, because this was the interregnum
between John Paul I and John Paul II the Great Deceiver. In any case, I thought about
this and thought that the logical position of a sede vacantist is that we should do as Fr.
Carl said and elect a Pope.
I resigned from the Society of Saint Pius X at Saint Marys, Kansas on March 5,
1981. By doing this, I knew I was cutting off all apparent route to ordination. But, I
knew that the way the SSPX operated was certainly not Catholic. I still believed God
was calling me to the priesthood and undertook to at least continue my studies until such
time as God would provide a Bishop to ordain me.
A year later I thought this day may have come. I heard a rumor that there were
other Bishops and that Fr. Dan Jones in Colorado had more information. So, I called Fr.
Jones who told me to call Fr. George Musey. When I called Fr. Musey, he informed me
he had just returned from Mexico and his consecration as Bishop. Bishop Musey invited
me to come to a Bishop’s meeting in Dallas, Texas in May.

1
I will use the position a man held at the time I am reporting on, although I know many have been
promoted to a higher Order.
2
The term had not yet been applied, but when it was applied shortly thereafter it was two words, although
it has been changed to one word in more recent presentations.

1
 The first morning of this meeting all present were in the meeting, Bishops, priests
and lay men. Bishop Zamora did most of the talking, speaking in Spanish which was
then translated by a Mexican layman who had come with them. The subject was the
vacancy. However, before we got to the meat of the subject Fr. Thomas Fouhy asked
Bishop Musey to exclude Neal Webster and myself as this conversation was for priests
and Bishops only. We both stayed through the closing Mass on Thursday.
Present at the meeting were Bishops Carmona, Zamora and Musey. Fr. Bravo
also from Mexico was present. Among the priests present were Frs. McKenna, J. Vida
Elmer, Fouhy, Dougherty, Vezelis and if I recall correctly Siebert. 3 Also present was an
old-Catholic Bishop Fr. Joseph Maria and the man he had ordained to the priesthood, Fr.
James DeKazel. There was an open discussion after the evening High Mass celebrated
by Bishop Carmona. Each American priest spoke for a moment. In listening to this and
hearing Fr. Vezelis speaks against sede vacantism, I found it strange when a few months
later he and Bishop Musey divided the United States into two dioceses and appointed
themselves Bishop of the two dioceses. If one thing was sure, it was that these Bishops
were sede vacantist. And this was confirmed when I saw a copy of Archbishop Ngo-
Dihn Thuc’s declaration and other documentation.
Soon after returning home rumors spread throughout the United States that
Archbishop Thuc 4 had consecrated Bishops in order to preserve the Apostolic
Succession until a Pope could be elected. Fr. Hector Bolduc SSPX sent around a circular
letter that came into my hands warning against the Thuc Bishops who were preparing to
elect their own Pope. Teresa Benns related to me later that she wrote We Are the Church
in 1982 in response to these rumors and to encourage the election of a Pope. 5
I should return to the events of the Spring of 1982. I talked to Bishop Musey the
day he returned from Mexico as a Bishop. He then went to a meeting after Easter hosted
by Fr. McKenna in Connecticut. I got the feeling in May that the priests were not happy.
Their intention at the Easter meeting was to select one of their number and send him to
Mexico to be consecrated Bishop. Bishop Musey ran down before Easter and because of
worsening political conditions in Mexico advised the Bishop that they should proceed to
consecrate him at once.
According to Wikipedia, there was another Bishop’s Meeting in Baton Rouge,
Louisiana in January of 1983 with Archbishop Thuc. I had heard of this meeting that the
plan to elect a Pope. The picture shows Archbishop Thuc along with Bishops Musey and
Vezelis. Frs. McKenna, Siebert, J. Vida Elmer and Peter Tran Van Khoat were also
present. From the Wikipedia caption I presume that Fr. Dekazel took the picture as he
also took pictures of Bishop Vezelis’s consecration the previous summer. As I recall
Bishops Carmona and possibly Zamora were also present to discuss the election of a
Pope. And yet, no Pope was ever elected!
1983 was to be an interesting year. Many of these events shaped my own
thinking and led me to look into matters quite seriously. When Bishops Musey and
3
In my old files I have a list of all the participants that was sent to me by a lay woman who helped organize
the whole meeting. This meeting was held at the airport hotel at Love Field in Dallas.
4
Although technically he should be called Archbishop Ngo-Dihn, since Thuc is actually his given name, I
will continue with the common usage. Also Bishop Thuc was invalidly appointed as Archbishop, but will
also continue with the common usage here as well.
5
This appeared in Fr. Dan Jones, Sangre de Cristo Newsnotes and I have a copy in my files. My mom met
Teresa in the summer of 1983 and I met her in person in the summer of 1985.

2
Vezelis set up their dioceses, most of the independent priests refused to submit to their
jurisdiction. Both Fr. McKenna and Fr. J. Vida Elmer wrote articles against this action,
circulating them throughout the country. Fr. Vida Elmer said he would submit to these
Bishops, when they could present one of two things, a Papal Mandate or true miracles.
Neither was ever forthcoming. After this Bishops Musey and Vezelis had a
disagreement, which caused them to split from each other, causing further scandal and
disunity. Archbishop Thuc moved to Rochester, New York to live with Bishop Vezelis
and then was kidnapped.
At the end of December I received Bishop Musey’s Sacred Heart Newsletter with
an Open Letter to Archbishop Lefebvre. This letter called for a Papal Election,
explaining briefly the fact that in times such as these the Church can proceed in an
extraordinary manner.
At the end of December of 1983 I wrote an open letter to my friends. I
commented on the actions of the Thuc Bishops. 6 What about Archbishop Ngo-Dihn
Thuc? He does not accept John Paul II as valid successor of S. Peter. On April 9, 1951
Pius XII Issued an excommunication most specially reserved to the Holy See for
consecrating bishops without the express permission of the Holy See. (Canon 2245 AAS
43-217) This law is to protect the faithful especially in communist countries from bad
bishops. It is also a strengthening of an old law which only called for suspension.
Maybe there is necessity, so this might not apply. However what can they legally do?
Not what Fathers Musey and Vezelis are. These two bishops are now claiming that they
control two dioceses in the US, which they created. According to Fr. J Vida Elmer, who
referred to 'Sede Vacante Apostolica', says that during a sede vacante no new
jurisdictions maybe set up. If this is so, then they are in violation of Church law.
Considering their insistence on the Sede Vacante theory is fact, and promulgating same;
they should either elect a pope, which they can't do, or repent. If we have no pope, where
will we get one? Someone show me from the history of the Church how this could be
accomplished.

On September 8, 1987 I received a letter, which quoted from the only Vatican
Council that Peter will have perpetual successors in the Papacy until the end of time. I
immediately knew that a Pope must somehow be elected. By the time Heidi Hagen
advised looking into the Thuc Bishops in regard to the Papal Election at least ten more
Bishops had been consecrated throughout the world. In spite of this each Bishop was
contacted in regard to the Papal Election, but only one ever responded, Bishop J. Vida
Elmer. He sent a nice letter along with his Monograph number 64 (see below). I replied
to him and asked him, which he had gotten, a papal mandate or true miracles. He never
replied. One Thuc priest, Fr. Lopez-Gaston did reply and almost came to the Papal
Election, but decided not to at the last moment. He was asked to contact the Bishop that
ordained him, Bishop Carmona. Many connected with the Thuc Bishops, were also
contacted, such as Fr. Daniel Jones, Fr. Peter Tran Van Khoat, Heidi Hagen, Elizabeth
Gerstner, Drs. Hiller and Heller of Einsicht, Andre Perlant Esquire and others. News of
the Papal Election was circulated to as many people as possible, such as Professor B. F.
Dryden, Fr. Malachi Martin, Daniel Leonardi, Fr. George Paront, Fr. Jan Sieradzan, and
many others throughout the world. Kenneth Mock became interested in 1989 and went to
6
http://www.vaticaninexile.com/2006rebuild/December83.html

3
Europe in the spring of 1990 to promote the Papal Election and visit many, including
Thuc line Bishops there. In fact, he came on July 15, 1990 to the place of the election
with Fr. Patrick Henry CMRI. They almost participated as well, but backed out at the
last moment.
Following the principle of Canon Law that whoever is present on the day of the
election votes, we proceeded on the morning of July 16, 1990 to elect a Pope. Under the
principle of silence gives consent, we presume the consent of the Thuc Bishops and all
those who never voiced dissent to us directly as required under Canon Law and the
principles of common decency. All were well aware of the movement to elect a Pope,
and by their silence we can presume consent.

Pope Michael,
May 19, 2009, Saint Celestine V

Letter of Fr. McKenna

October 8, 1982

Dear Fathers,

I have resolved my longstanding doubt concerning the Apostolic succession in the

new bishops - the doubt occasioned by St. Robert Bellarmine's proving the necessity of
papal appointment for its existence in a bishop. I could not see how epekeia itself could
satisfy for the want of papal appointment, though clearly it can for the lack of three co-
consecrators (the second element in Apostolic succession according to St. Robert's
teaching). If epekeia be tantamount to presumed permission, I could not understand how
one can very well - despite whatever extraordinary circumstances - presume an
appointment to an office! Permissions seemed one thing, appointments or missions
another.
But it now appears to me that a presumed appointment does not really or
materially differ from a canonical appointment. Appointment to the episcopacy on the
part of the pope amounts to permission, for consecration on the part of the one appointed.
Similarly the same Apostolic See's authorization or delegation for a bishop to consecrate
another seems necessarily, under another aspect, to be permission to do so. If, therefore,
epekeia amounts to presumed permission, then since the difference between presumed
and explicit appointment is only a logical and not a real distinction, the necessity of papal
appointment to the episcopacy seems to admit of epekeia after all. That is to say that the
conditions for epekeia otherwise being present, such appointment can be legitimately
presumed and, for being legitimate, carries with it Apostolic succession. Bellarmine's
teaching on Apostolic succession does not seem to preclude the possibility of epekeia as I
first believed.
What I originally said, then, about epekeia at the priests meetings sponsored by
the ORCM last Easter still holds good in my estimation in the consecrations by (or
stemming from Archbishop Thuc we have not schism but epekeia. And this being a
virtue, as St. Thomas shows, not to use it when called for is a sin - a mortal sin according
to one of the Thomistic commentators Francisco Vittorio. Does not the very fact that we

4
are otherwise in sight of the end of Apostolic succession no undoubtedly valid bishops
ordained under the new rites in years - itself constitute a sign that epekeia is possible and
called for in the ordaining of orthodox bishops with the traditional rite? Unless we
suppose that the world is to end (and the Church with it) with the death of the last pre-
Vatican II bishop, then how else are we to suppose the Church's indefectibility? The
Church, St. Robert says, cannot exist without bishops, but even if we suppose the epekeia
argument to be not conclusive but only "probable", as they say, it at least affords grounds
for the "probable doubt" in Canon 209, which itself occasions supplied jurisdiction. So
the new bishops otherwise being validly ordained, they thus seem to have at least
"supplied" jurisdiction from the Church and the Apostolic lineage or succession it
implies.
The only practical question I see is the limits of their jurisdiction. '.,without a (or
the) pope to determine the subjects of their jurisdiction, is anyone bound to consult or
obey them?' Not that I am suggesting they be ignored should not every good Catholic and
we Priests especially seek the security of obedience to a prelate? but the choice of a
bishop and one's subjection to him would seem to be voluntary. Maybe some of you have
some light or suggestions on the matter.
I am not presenting myself as a guide for fellow priests but only offering my own
opinions) for what it's worth. We so desperately need to communicate for the sake of
unity. Indeed my hope is that if I am mistaken in my reasoning, one of you may do me
the favor of setting me straight. Logic I can "live with" - only spare me vituperation:
Fraternally,
Robert McKenna, O.P.
P.S. Even supposing the falsity of what I have written above, the new bishops
cannot, without rash judgment, be accused of formal schism - no more than were the
Catholic bishops in the time of the Arian heresy, deceived by theological subtlety, guilty
of formal heresy, as Bellarmine notes. Consider them in error if you will, but mere
"material" schism has no excommunication attached to it. We should note too that what I
have said here concerning their legitimacy or Apostolic succession has nothing to do with
the other problem of the Sede vacante.

Emergency Jurisdiction
Monograph 64, March 19, 1983 7
EMERGENCY JURISDICTION
In connection with the controversy around the new bishops in the traditionalist
camp, the faithful are exposed to demands which are opposing each other.
a) One faction says: Away with Archbishop Ngo-dinh Thuc and his bishops!
They are excommunicated schismatics.
b) The new bishops, in turn, say to Catholics: If you do not submit yourselves to
us, the only "authentic bishops" in the United States, you will become excommunicated
schismatics.
This leaves not too much choice for the simple, good-hearted Catholics. Whether
you do it or not, somebody will "excommunicate" you. - Frightening isn't it? - No, it is

7
http://www.vaticaninexile.com/People/PopeMichael/emergencyjurisdictionjvidaelmer.html

5
not. - I want to reassure my readers: Don't let yourselves be intimidated by either of the
two demands.
I have already received a reaction to my monograph, No., 62, in a letter from the
spokesman of the new bishops. No arguments were in it, only the threat of
"excommunication" if I do not submit myself "to the unquestionable authority of the
Bishops". The priest writer also expressed his wish to me: "...cease distributing such
inaccurate and imprudent information as that contained in your latest monogram (sic)."
As a matter of fact, I intend to take a rest, but not before I put forward my
observations on the current controversy. The urgency of the matter prompts me to send
you these monographs in a shorter interval than usual. The answer for the above named
letter would make up another monograph. But I promised you that in this present writing
I'll deal with the

Problem of Jurisdiction.

Concerning the above mentioned threat, we will breathe a lot easier, if we

understand the role of jurisdiction in the life of the Church. - What is jurisdiction? - It is
part of the spiritual power that Christ has given to His Church. All spiritual power of the
Church comes from Christ. This divinely instituted power-structure has two distinctive
areas. One area is the power that a Catholic man acquires through the Sacrament of Holy
Orders,. which enables him to offer the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and administer the
sacraments. - The other area is the power (authority), which comes from an ecclesiastical
superior, and enables the ordained cleric to use the powers of Holy Orders licitly, and in
addition to that: to rule over that part of the Church (persons or territory) which is
designated to him by the superior.
When we talk about jurisdiction, we talk about the power of governing which
includes the legislative, administrative and judiciary powers. All these are exercised
according to the extent or limitations set by the superior who grants the jurisdiction.
The fulness of ecclesiastical jurisdiction rests in St. Peter and his legitimate
successors. The source of their jurisdiction are the words of Our Lord: "...whatever thou
shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever thou shalt loose on earth shall
be loosed in heaven" (Mt. 16,19). The jurisdiction of the true Pope has no other
restrictions than those imposed upon him by Christ.
The POWER OF HOLY ORDERS and the POWER OF JURISDICTION are two
distinct entities. One can exist without the other. The first one is immutable, irrevocable.
The second one can be modified, restricted, revoked. E.g., a newly ordained priest has
received the power to forgive sins, but without jurisdiction he cannot exercise it validly.
A priest can be consecrated to the bishopric validly without receiving any jurisdictional
power. In fact, there are many valid consecrations outside of the Church, too. However,
those outside clerics do not have ordinary jurisdiction from the Church.
Similar is the case with the "extra-canonical" consecrations which take place
within the Church. We call a consecration "extra-canonical" which is performed without
explicit papal designation. A validly consecrated bishop can validly consecrate other
bishops, even without papal permission. However, the consecrator bishop cannot grant
jurisdictional power to the new bishop, if the consecrator himself did not have it.

6
 This is the case with those bishops whose consecrations are stemming from
Archbishop Peter Martin Ngo-dinh Thuc. Although, the new bishops claim for
themselves the fulness of episcopal jurisdiction on the principle that: a) The Chair of St.
Peter is empty (sede vacante); b) Msgr. Thuc is alone among the bishops who did not lose
his jurisdiction; rather, his diocese has been extended to the whole world, and the new
bishops are his auxiliaries.
This, of course, is a gratuitous statement without any substantiation. It is evident
that the former Archbishop of Hue, Vietnam, lost his jurisdiction when he was replaced
by his successor, and he left his former diocese. Extending his jurisdiction to the whole
world, would need an explicit papal decision, that nobody can supply during "sede
vacante". Also, during "sede vacante" it is impossible to legally erect new dioceses. In
spite of this, the two American bishops of Msgr. Thuc declared that beside them no other
"authentic bishop" exists in the United States, therefore, it is reasonable if they divide the
country among themselves, and everybody in their territories who wish to remain
Catholic should subject himself to either of the two bishops. It seems that these two
bishops are not aware of the Apostolic Constitution "De Sede Apostolica Vacante" of St.
Pius X (Dec. 25, 1904), which forbids to make any significant changes during "sede
vacante".

Two Crops of Bishops.

Furthermore, their claim for universal ordinary jurisdiction can be challenged for
the following two reasons.
(1) There are other bishops, too, who received their consecrations (directly or
indirectly) from Msgr. Thuc. I can call these the bishops of the first crop, who came into
existence by Archbishop Thuc through the channel of Palmar de Troya starting with
January 1976. Some of these bishops, who did not follow Clemente Dominguez in his
self-appointed papacy, are living here in the United States a lowprofile life, - helping
traditional Catholics in a quiet way without declaring their jurisdiction over certain parts
of the United States, and without demanding from the faithful an absolute submission to
their "authority".
We can regard the new bishops of 1981 consecrations as the second crop from the
hands of Archbishop Thuc. However, I see no basic difference between the two series of
consecrations. Thus, either both crops have the ordinary, extended jurisdiction, or neither
of them does. If the first crop does not claim it for itself, - what would be the special
reason for the second crop to have it? Or if the bishops of the second crop claim it for
themselves, it should be attributed to the first crop, too, and the country to be divided
accordingly.
(2) The bishops of the second crop try to build their claim on Canon Law which
says that every priest should be incardinated in a diocese with its bishop, or in an exempt
religious order. - This is true.
But the same Canon Law says that before a validly consecrated bishop would take
over the government of his designated diocese, he should present his papal nomination
(Litteras Apostolicas) to the secretary of the Canons of the Cathedral Church (Cn. 334-
y3). - Of course, our new bishops could not do this. They conveniently disregarded the
above paragraph of Canon Law. They should not be surprised, in turn, if thinking

7
traditionalists also disregard their claim for universal, ordinary jurisdiction. In addition to
it, the initially granted trust and respect will be lost by these bishops if they try to
intimidate priests and people into submission with an unsubstantiated claim of authority.

"Game" of Intimidation for Authority.

With all this reasoning I do not want to claim that I am a professional theologian;
and I do not expect everybody to agree with me. I only ask the dissenters to put
arguments against my arguments. That way I could correct myself when I am wrong.
Vilification of one's opponent is not a substitute for scholastic arguments.
I write these lines to show the reason upon which my decision was built as not to
yield to the intimidation coming to me and to all other traditional Catholics from the new
(or old) bishops. To their demand for submission, I reply:
- This is not a poker game where one party - putting on the table some amount of
money - without showing his cards, can demand from the other party: "Match it, or
surrenders" In this game for authority (jurisdiction) I have the right to see the other
party's card before I surrender. St. John the Apostle cautioned us: "Beloved, do not
believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see if they are of God..." (I.Jn. 4, 1).
I am willing to submit myself to any Catholic bishop who would prove his
mission or claim with the APOSTOLIC LETTER of a genuine Pope.
Or if they cannot produce it, because - as they say - the Chair is empty, I would
give them another chance to gain my obedience, saying: - Please, show me a genuine
miracles
When MOSES was sent by God to Pharao to demand freedom for the Israelites,
God gave power to Moses to show genuine miracles and to tell short-term prophecies
concerning the dire consequences of unbelief and resistance to God's commands. If the
new bishops would send at least a few of the ten plagues of Egypt to the Vatican to evict
all the Freemasons from their offices; or they would send two angels to the Justices of the
Supreme Court to scourge then "without ceasing with many stripes" (II-Mach- 3, 26),
until they outlaw abortion in this country; or they could put a sinkhole under the
buildings and editors of pornographic magazines: I would promptly. submit myself to
their authority without demanding "LITTERAS APOSTOLICAS" of a genuine Pope.

EMERGENCY JURISDICTION

If these new bishops cannot show any proof of their ordinary jurisdiction, should
we regard their adventure into consecration as useless, and reject them altogether? - I
would not say that.
The fact is that their consecration were performed by a legitimate Catholic bishop,
therefore they can be accepted as validly consecrated bishops. Even if they don't have
ordinary jurisdiction, they are capable of receiving extraordinary or emergency
jurisdiction, in the view of the fact that the bishops of the Conciliar Church had lost their
jurisdiction altogether, consequently the Catholic faithful cannot get any spiritual help
from those heretical, or invalidly consecrated "bishops" of the Novus Ordo Church.
According to Canon Law, there are certain circumstances when validly ordained
clerics who - because of one reason or other - do not have ordinary jurisdiction, might

8
receive emergency ("ad hoc") jurisdiction. But this jurisdiction is not to exercise a power-
play over people and priests; or, as St. Peter put it: "...tend the flock of God which is
among you, serving not under constraint, but willingly, according to God; ...nor yet as
lording it over your charges..." (I.Pet. 5, 2-3).
This emergency jurisdiction is based upon the Code of Canon Law which was
promulgated by the Church in 1917. (Since the promulgation of the new Code of Canon
Law by the Conciliar Church, in Jan. 1983, we have to make a distinction between the
old and new Codes. Traditional Catholics should not bother themselves with the new
Code, because it was made by Freemasons for the Church ruled by the Freemasons.)
Canon # 209 supplies jurisdiction in cases of "...common error, or in positive and
probable doubt, whether of law or fact...". As we all know, the Conciliar Church is full of
errors, innovations of doubtful validity, and outright heresy. For such eventualities, the
wisdom of the Church secured jurisdiction for those clerics who want to serve the
Remnant Church in truth and tradition. All the traditionalist priests who separated
themselves from their Conciliar bishops are using this Canon as assurance for their
jurisdiction.
There are other Canons also which explicitly supply emergency jurisdiction to
clerics who otherwise do not have ordinary jurisdiction. Canon # 882 gives "ad hoc"
jurisdiction to any validly ordained priest to absolve a penitent who is in danger of death.
Still, another Canon of the Code allows us to draw interesting and most
significant conclusions in the time of today's general apostasy.
Canon # 2261 says in the first paragraph that an excommunicated cleric is
forbidden to administer any of the sacraments - with a notable exception. This exception
is explained in the second paragraph which gives the faithful a privilege. If they cannot
have the service of a regular Catholic priest, the faithful are allowed to ask for the
sacraments and sacramentals from an excommunicated cleric; and then,. that cleric is
empowered to administer the requested sacraments to the faithful.
It seems that this Canon, by the Providence of God, was written especially for our
post-Vatican time when Catholic priests and bishops are not available to most of the
people. If the Church - out of motherly love for the souls - gives "ad hoc" jurisdiction to
excommunicated clerics, much more this emergency jurisdiction is given to those clerics
who are not excommunicated, but because of their "extra-canonical" consecrations do not
have the ordinary jurisdiction.

It is the Choice of the Faithful

Here comes the interesting part of the story. The emergency jurisdiction is given
to these clerics only when the faithful are asking them for the sacraments. We should
keep in mind that it is not the people who grant this kind of jurisdiction. It is supplied by
the Church herself who is ever anxious to save human souls for heaven. However, the
actual granting by the Church is activated by the faithful requesting the services of these
clerics.
In practice it means that in our time when the diocesan bishops cannot be
regarded as Catholic bishops, I have the right to request any validly ordained priest or
bishop to administer the sacraments to me, or to my congregation. Upon my request they
will have the "ad hoc" jurisdiction to do that. (This is the justification for Abp Lefebvre's

9
going around the world without having ordinary jd.) If they are not requested, they don't
have jurisdiction to administer any sacraments. - This is a far cry from the self-assumed
authority and universal jurisdiction that the new bishops of Msgr. Thuc are claiming for
themselves.
Another consequence of this particular Canon (# 2261) is the right of the faithful
to choose one among the available clerics and ask him for his services.
Canon # 2261 does not give any foundation or right to these clerics to assign
territorial divisions for themselves.
I admit, these. are peculiar things; but we are living in a peculiar time which will
last until a legally elected Catholic Pope will be able to exercise his divinely
commissioned authority over the Church.
In conclusion, regarding the new bishops, I would say again: I do not challenge
the validity of their consecrations; only their ordinary jurisdiction. If the new bishops of
Msgr. Thuc want our submission, they have to show us either
A) a genuine papal document as the source of their authority, or
B) genuine miracles. - Either of them is acceptable.

Rev. J. Vida Elmer

Open Letter to Archbishop Lefebvre

Sacred Heart Newsletter, November 1983, Official Publication of the WESTERN
CATHOLIC DIOCESE of the U.S.A. under Bishop George Musey, pages 4 and 5: 8

Your Grace,

Four years ago, November 8, 1979, in an article entitles “The New Mass and The
Pope”, you went on record as opposed to those who contend that we have no true Pope on
the Throne of St. Peter – t h o s e w h o h a v e s i n c e c o m e t o b e s t igmatized as
“Sedevacantists”. Because of the prominence you enjoy among Traditional Catholic –
even though you have lately resigned your position as head of the Society of St. Pius X
and largely retired from the public scene – most of these, including priests, have take
your authority for this and parroted your reasoning. Today they are loathe to recognize
the Bishops consecrated by Archbishop Ngo-Dihn-Thuc, who hold with him that the
Popes of and since Vatican II are illegitimate.
“A good number of theologians,” you wrote, “teach that the Pope can be heretical
as a private doctor or theologian, but not as a teacher of the Universal Church.”
Reasoning that unless a Pope “willed to engage infallibility,” any doctrinal error he might
make would not be made in his capacity as a teacher of the Universal Church.
Do you mean to say that a Pope does not speak as Pope unless he speaks ex
Cathedra (“willing to engage infallibility”)? If so, then we must hold that papal Bulls,

8
http://www.vaticaninexile.com/History/Musey1983.html

10
Constitutions, Encyclicals, and other such lesser pronouncements are not really “papal”
documents, as they are commonly called, after all.
And why do you arbitrarily limit the field of discussion to whether a Pope can
become heretical, saying that he cannot be heretical as a teacher of the U niversal
Church? What of one who is found to have been heretical before his election? If perhaps
a Pope cannot become formally heretical, can a heretic be validly elected Pope? Why do
you take no account of the Constitution Cum Ex Apostolatus of Paul IV, which solemnly
declares invalid the elevation or election to office of even a (supposed) Pope who is
found to “have deviated (sic) from the Catholic faith” before-hand? You blithely ignore
the main authority for the stand of the Thuc Bishops.
You say that Paul VI “acted much more the Liberal than as a man attached to
heresy” and that “equivocations is the very mark of a Liberal”. But in matters of
orthodoxy is not ambiguity or equivocation equivalent to doubt? If so, what of the
maxim, Dubius in Fide haereticus? (Cf. Canon 1325). Are not Liberal Catholics at least
suspicious of heresy? Is not a Liberal Pope, on that score along, at best a doubtful Pope?
“The visibility of the Church,” you say, “is too necessary to its existence for it to
be possible that God would allow that visibility to disappear for decades”. Is your
implicit allowance for it disappearing at all tantamount to doubting the indefectibility of
the Catholic Church? If her existence as a visible society depends entirely on the Pope,
then how does it not follow that during the interregnum between the death and election of
a Pope the Church ceases to be visible? What matters the length of time?
“The reasoning of those who deny that we have a Pope,” you wrote, “purs the
Church in an inextricable situation. Who will tell us who the future Pope is to be? How,
as there are no (valid) Cardinals, is he to be chosen.”
By the Bishops of the Church, says St. Robert Bellarmine in his classic work DE
CONCILIIS ET ECCLESIA, I, c. 14. In the event of the papacy being vacant because of
heresy, it would be for them to convene, he says, in a General Council – though
“Imperfect” – for this sole purpose, namely to “supply the Church with a head.” Why do
you take no account of this great authority either?
You stress the necessity of a “firm maintenance of Ttadition rather than the
affirmation that the Pope is not the Pope”. Are the “sedevacantists” honestly claiming
that “the Pope is not the Pope”? Are not you the author of this Petitio Principii – this
logical “Begging the Question” – which makes fools rather of you and your followers?
Do you think we whom you oppose are so insane as to mouth contradictions? How can
anything not be what it essentially is? If the Pope is the Pope, then he very obviously
cannot not be the Pope at the same time. The question is whether this or that person is or
is not the Pope; whether the supposed Pope is actually, truly or legitimately Pope – either
any longer because of falling into public heresy after his otherwise valid election, or
never Pope to begin with for having previously “deviated from the Catholic faith”. But to
say or imply that the Pope is the Pope because he is the Pope (as you and yours do) is
logically ludicrous.
Unless Your Grace is prepared to publicly answer this letter to the point (ad rem),
exposing the fallacies in our own argumentation, then it is high time your authority be
discounted. Letter is unsigned
Since this publiation was run by Bishop George Musey, we can presume that
either he or his vicar general Fr. Thomas C. Fouhy wrote this letter.

11
 From 1992
CATHOLIC ALLIANCE REPORT

From July 20-23, 1992 five bishops of the THUC succession and two priests held
an informal meeting at the residence of Bishop Vida Elmer in Bethlehem, New York.
The purpose of the meeting was NOT as some traditionalists mistakenly
presumed or were afraid of, to elect a new pope, but to bring forth some kind of unity in
questions of faith and morals, and to discuss practical questions of governing the faithful
of the "remnant" (Rom. II, 5) Church. Unity is the mark of the true Church and the
attitude of the true disciples of Christ.
Experiencing the widespread individualism (i.e. lack of unity) among the majority
of the so-called traditionalist bishops, we, the bishops at the above mentioned meeting,
members of the Catholic Alliance, do not surrender our individual authority (unlike the
members of the so-called bishop conferences in the Conciliar Church) but wish too enjoy
the benefit of consultation, which will lead to and corroborate the unity in teaching and
governing the faithful of the "remnant" Church. "Where two or three are gathered
together for my sake, there I am in the midst of them" (Mt. 18,20).
As a result of the discussions we have come to an agreement on the following
subjects:
• CONSECRATION OF BISHOPS: We still wish to keep in effect (where it is
possible) the prescription of Canon Law (#954), which requires three bishops for a
consecration.
We disapprove the hasty, capricious consecrations (see: I Tim. 5,21) of new
bishops, which are executed without previous consultation and agreement with other
bishops. The spiritual harm (e.g. disrupting the necessary unity, ugly competition, etc.)
resulting from such actions speaks for itself that such a consecration is against the will of
Our Lord and that of His true Church.
• ORDINATIONS TO THE PRIESTHOOD: Candidates for the priesthood should
have sufficient knowledge and moral character necessary for priests.
We respect the rights of a bishop to select his candidate for ordination. However,
the bishop should keep in mind that NO PRIEST is better than A BAD ONE. We have
already enough scandals caused by unworthy priests.
We regard it as a matter of courtesy and as serving a useful purpose for the
bishops to notify each other of pending or executed ordinations.
The traditional law of the Church does not recognize "independent" (or vagrant)
priests.
Although, in the present sad condition of the "remnant" Church there are no
territorial dioceses for the traditional bishops and priests, still traditional priests should
select and join a traditional bishop in order to fulfill at least the spirit of divine law, which
requires priests to work under the authority of a bishop.

+ Bishop J. Vida Elmer, RIP.

12