MGR LEFEBVRE’S SECRET
(continued)

 

CONTENTS

 
 
     The second part of the Sodalitium dossier is a commentary by Father Francesco Ricossa of the documents published in the first part (Resurrection, no 2, February 2001, p. 18-26). His introduction straightway reveals his vigorous standpoint:

     What the Society of Saint Pius X is attempting to address in these documents [herein collected] is a very real problem; but, as we will see, the proposed solution is worse than the difficulty they wanted to remedy.

     The “problem” is as follows: how to «EXERCISE THE MINISTRY WITHOUT HAVING JURISDICTION».

     This is the same “problem” that Messrs Coache, Barbara, Guérard des Lauriers, a lay theologian and three Mexican priests came to put to the Abbé de Nantes on 21 July 1969. The reply of the theologian of the Catholic Counter-Reformation was completely unambiguous: no jurisdiction, no ministry… But they did not want to hear this, having already decided to perform baptisms and hear confessions by virtue of powers directly received from Christ.

     «And what about the sacrament of marriage? our Father then asked them… He was answered by an embarrassed silence, which was finally broken by the Abbé Coache, a Doctor of Canon Law:

     – That is true. It presents a difficulty because of the social consequences (sic!). We will have to look into that.

     They left extremely angry, but determined to carry on regardless. Father Ricossa describes their escapades:



BRIEF HISTORY OF THE DIFFICULTIES AND PROPOSED SOLUTIONS

     The drama we are living through began with Vatican II, when the doctrine of the Catholic Church was abandoned – on several points – in favour of new doctrine. Disciplinary reforms followed, implementing the principles of Vatican II: we recall in particular the liturgical reform along with its high point, the promulgation of a new Missal in 1969, and the canonical reform, realised in the New Code of 1983.

     Let us observe that the reform of Canon Law, although less spectacular than that of the Mass, was nevertheless presented as having an irreversible character.


THE QUESTION OF AUTHORITY

     Very soon, the opponents of Vatican II found themselves confronting important theoretical and practical problems. On one hand, the rejection of a Council and its reforms raises the problem of the legitimacy of the Authority which willed this Council and its reforms. This is the problem of Authority or – as some describe it – of the Pope. As a corollary to this, there is the more practical problem of the obedience that every Catholic owes to the hierarchy and particularly to the Pope.

     To the best of my knowledge, the Abbé de Nantes was the first to raise this question, back in 1967. He did this for a very simple reason: at that time he was the only declared opponent of the Council and its reforms. That is why he raised the question «OF THE POPE» in the CRC no 3 (French edition), December 1967, pages 7 and 8. Quoting Cardinal Journet, he put three questions which he answered in accordance with the unanimous and constant Tradition of the Church:

1. Do the faithful have the right to contest the validity of a papal election?

     No, because «when the universal Church peacefully accepts a newly appointed Pope and effectively unites herself to him as to a Head who should be obeyed, this is an act in which the Church engages her destiny. It is therefore an act which is of itself infallible, and it is immediately recognisable as such… The acceptance of the Church may either operate negatively, when the election is not immediately contested…», which was the case with the election of Paul VI: no one contested his election at the time. «Consequently, no one today has the right to contest or to call into doubt the certain validity of the election of H.H. Paul VI, even if it may appear to be most unfortunate or tainted by intrigue and regrettable preoccupations.»

2. Do the faithful have the right to accuse a Pope of heresy and schism?

     Yes, assuredly, since «it would appear to be possible for a Pope to fall into heresy or schism, for the most terrible misfortune of the Church.»

3. May the faithful then consider the Pope fallen from office or demand his deposition?

     This is the most difficult question, the most hotly debated. «According to the most reliable opinion, a heretical or schismatic Pope, or one who is the prisoner of an occult power, does not for all that forfeit his Supreme Power except in the wake of a declarative action by the Church concluding in his manifest incapacity or rather his spiritual death. Such an action, should it prove just and necessary, would prevail over every other consideration and constitute the highest form of charity, for the Fish – ICTUS – would rot from the Head downwards if the Supreme Office were not removed from a man already dead.»

     It is remarkable to see a reference from the pen of the Abbé de Nantes to one of the corpses shown to Lucy, Francisco and Jacinta in the Third Secret of Fatima on 13 July 1917…

     The conclusion drawn by our Father from his preliminary study was as follows: «No one today, therefore, has the right to contest the supreme authority of H.H. Pope Paul VI», and this suffices to expose the following aberration of Father Ricossa:

     Our position is as follows: Paul VI and John Paul II do not enjoy divinely assisted Papal Authority (they are not formally popes). And as regards the matter of obedience, the problem does not arise because one is only obliged to obey legitimate authority.

     Straightaway, we are a thousand light years away from our Catholic Counter-Reformation.

     In his Letter to my friends no 212 of 15 September 1965, the Abbé de Nantes dealt in advance with the question OF THE AUTHORITY OF THE COUNCIL: «In order that I may practise a proper degree of filial submission, neither more nor less, I therefore inquire into the exact nature of the divine authority of the twenty-first Ecumenical Council. I began this attentive study on the evening of 11 October 1962, when it was announced that this Council was to be different from the twenty preceding it and of such an astonishing novelty that it would be like a new Pentecost for the world and the beginning of a new Reign. With the utmost faith and reverence I lay these conclusions before the divine authority of the Apostolic See, to which I have sworn my obedience once and for all. May it be pleased to give its sovereign judgement on this matter.»

     We will return to this magisterial study. But for now let us simply bear in mind that his «conclusions» still today await a reply from Apostolic Authority. Whereas Father Ricossa, for his part, has already pronounced his verdict, motu proprio, thereby elevating himself to the level of the Supreme Tribunal! Just listen to him:

     On the other hand, Mgr Lefebvre and his Society recognise the legitimacy of those who promulgated the Council and its subsequent reforms (“bad Pope, but Pope”), and that is why they were quickly forced to rationalise their habitual disobedience to the Pope regarding both the acceptance of his teaching and questions of a disciplinary nature. The practical rule adopted was therefore: “We accept those novelties that have an inherent correspondence with Tradition and the Faith. But we do not feel bound to obey novelties that go against Tradition and menace our Faith.” I recall this principle because it will be applied in the present case by Mgr Lefebvre’s successors, particularly in the question of how the New Code of Canon Law is to be received.

     For Father Ricossa, nothing existed before the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X, which apparently pre-existed from the very beginning in the person of Mgr Lefebvre. Such a view is explained by the fact that he himself was born of this Society, having been ordained in 1982… by Mgr Lefebvre!

     But it is essential to go back further, otherwise we will understand nothing of the genesis of the “schism” of both one group and the other.

     Mgr Lefebvre had been Archbishop of Dakar and the Apostolic Delegate for the whole of French-speaking Africa. We have already been able to measure the importance of this fact in the genesis of the 1980 “Ordinances” (Resurrection no 2, p. 20-21). Elected Superior General of the Holy Ghost Fathers in July 1962, he took his place alongside the defenders of Catholic faith and law at the Council, even to appearing the ringleader of the traditionalist minority. He fought every inch of the way but, in the end, he caved in and signed the Declaration Dignitatis humanae, on Religious Liberty, and the Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et spes, on the Church in the Modern World.

     So, right from the start, not only did Mgr Lefebvre «recognise the legitimacy of those who promulgated the Council», but he was also one of those who actually promulgated it! He did not even figure among the thirty who said no right to the bitter end by refusing to sign. Nevertheless, he supported the Abbé de Nantes’ opposition, at least in his private correspondence: «The evil lies above all in Rome, he wrote to him, and with the Pope.» (25 September 1967)

     He even informed our Father where his duty lay when he was summoned to appear before the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in July 1968, advising him to refuse to retract his dogmatic, moral and pastoral criticisms of the “cult of man”, ecumenical “dialogue” and the “reform of the Church”, all advocated by Paul VI: «You cannot. You do not have the right… We ourselves wrote to the Holy Father in his time: the cause of all the ill lies in the Acts of the Council. Be firm in the truth.» (French CRC no 24, p. 6)

     On 28 September 1968, Mgr Lefebvre resigned his position as Superior General of the Order of the Holy Ghost Fathers. Thereupon began a new phase: the traditionalist bishop entered into rebellion against the new Ordo Missae promulgated by Pope Paul VI on 6 April 1969, all the while declaring his submission to the same Pope Paul VI. In October he received ten seminarians at Fribourg. On 1 November 1970, he founded the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X, established as a society of diocesan right for a period of six years, ad experimentum, and opened a seminary at Econe in the neighbouring diocese of Sion.

     To make this foundation known, Mgr Lefebvre then began to multiply conferences throughout France, publicly disowning the Abbé de Nantes who was at that time compiling his Book of Accusation against Paul VI and preparing to take it to the Holy See: «A son does not criticise his Father», he said.


THE QUESTION OF JURISDICTION

     The other problem – which is of direct interest to us – is that of the jurisdiction necessary to exercise the priestly ministry. By law and divine institution there exist in the Church two powers, that of order and that of jurisdiction. “Ecclesiastical power is divided into the power of order and the power of jurisdiction. The power of order is immediately ordered to the sanctification of souls through the offering of the Sacrifice of the Mass and the administration of the sacraments. The power of jurisdiction is itself immediately ordered to the government of the faithful in view of eternal life. It is exercised either through the authorised teaching of revealed truths (sacred magisterium), or through the promulgation of laws (legislative power), through authentic judgments in cases arising between subjects (judicial power), or through the application of penal sanctions against those who transgress the laws (coercitive power).

     These two powers (and their relative hierarchies) “are truly distinct” but “closely associated by a mutual relationship”. “They differ in their origins, for order is conferred with the appropriate sacrament, whereas jurisdiction is given by canonical mission. They also differ in their tenure, for the valid exercise of order, in the majority of cases, cannot be rescinded, whereas jurisdiction can be revoked. However, they stand in mutual relation to one another, for jurisdiction presupposes order and, vice versa, the exercise of order is regulated by jurisdiction.

     These definitions usefully recalled here by Father Ricossa are taken from a dogmatic dictionary of theology published at Rome in 1943. No difficulty here.

     The publication of the New Missal (1969) presented the opponents of Vatican II with their first practical difficulty: should one continue and everywhere organise – using the “old” liturgical books – the exercise of the power of order (Mass, sacraments…) even though not enjoying the power of jurisdiction; or should one abstain from acts of the ministry if deprived of the canonical mission that comes from the “hierarchy”. In practice (and not without frequently bending the rules) the Abbé de Nantes was alone in opting for the second approach; everyone else took the first.

     I recalled earlier on the circumstances in which the Abbé de Nantes separated from «all the others». Father Ricossa’s parenthesis is murderous. We must therefore take a journey back in time to understand how the Abbé de Nantes effectively found himself «alone» in choosing the way of the Counter-Reform but Catholic, the Catholic way but of the Counter-Reform, the «via media» between two abysses, steering well clear of any kind of «bending of the rules» that could make him fall, him and all those who followed him, into either heresy or schism.

     For the Abbé de Nantes, «the question of jurisdiction» was far more important than that of the publication of the New Missal (1969): when the Council closed on 8 December 1965, he pronounced a firm and decisive «Non possumus» against the conciliar novelties which are wholly irreconcilable with the Catholic faith.

     Threatened with interdict by Mgr Le Couëdic, Bishop of Troyes, he appealed to Rome to obtain a doctrinal judgement from the Sovereign Pontiff. To this end he addressed to Cardinal Ottaviani, the Pro-Prefect of the Holy Office, the letter that was to open the process of the examination of his works. Mgr Le Couëdic regarded this letter as insulting and refused to transfer the dossier to Rome. The Abbé de Nantes therefore decided to send it himself to its august addressee and to publish the LETTER TO CARDINAL OTTAVIANI in his Letters to my friends. This act of disobedience earned him the punishment of being suspended a divinis in the diocese of Troyes on 25 August 1966. Despite such an evident act of injustice, he submitted to this sanction to avoid giving the least appearance of dissidence, an atrocious crime which has always filled him with horror.

     Eventually, his process commenced in the court of Rome. The Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith summoned the Abbé de Nantes on two occasions, in April and July 1968. The only objections it retained against him were those of «irreverence» and «disobedience», and, for this reason, he was asked to sign a general retractation of his criticisms of Pope Paul VI and Vatican II, and to subscribe to an unlimited submission to his bishop and the French episcopate!

     He refused to sign this exorbitant text on 6 July 1968 and again on 23 May 1969. Finally, in response to an ultimatum from Cardinal Seper, he replied with a “PROFESSION OF CATHOLIC FAITH” in which he affirmed his readiness to obey the Vicar of Christ and the bishops, the successors of the Apostles, according to the just limits fixed by Law. But Rome took no account of this…

     Next August 25, the Abbé de Nantes will have persevered in his act of obedience for thirty-five years, scrupulously submitting himself to the unjust suspension which has deprived him of the plenitude of his priestly powers within the diocese of Troyes. What kind of “rule bending” did Father Ricossa have in mind in his homicidal allusion? Was it the celebration of the Mass at Maison Saint-Joseph?

     For more than two years the Abbé de Nantes ceased to celebrate Mass in the diocese of Troyes. Every day, we would go as a community to Mass in the parish church. Not without some astonishment at being forced to do so:

     «Upheld without limits», remarked our Father in a Letter to friends and benefactors in October 1968, «this sanction constitutes a kind of blackmail to crush our souls and to defame us before the faithful. How is it to be explained that we can be given Holy Communion every morning at the village Mass and yet that I am barred from saying Mass? Are we worthy or unworthy? There is no need to attempt an explanation. The situation is one of pure violence, reflecting solely on the College who prolong it interminably for want of courage and honesty.»

     Protracted in an irregular manner, this suspension was transmuted into a vindictive penalty for perpetuity, without any reason to justify it. Therefore, in the autumn of 68, acting on the advice of Fathers Raymond Dulac and Victor Berto, as well as Canon de Rodat, a canon lawyer in the Archdiocese of Paris, the Abbé de Nantes took the decision to celebrate Mass at Maison Saint-Joseph for the good of the community. «The Abbé de Nantes should treat as invalid the arbitrary act which seeks to forbid him to celebrate Mass, said the Abbé Berto. He should disregard it without giving rise to public scandal, discreetly.»

     Which is what he did: on 8 December 1968, on the feast of the Immaculate Conception, he started to celebrate Mass at Maison Saint-Joseph. But as regards the other sacraments, he continued, and still continues today, to submit to a sanction imposed by virtue of a regulation which in 1983 disappeared from the New Code of Canon Law! That is his logic: the logic of obedience, antithetical to any kind of dissidence. We are going to see that this was not the logic of Mgr Lefebvre or of Father Ricossa… or of Rome herself!

 
THE POSITION OF THE FRATERNITY FROM 1975-1976 TO 1980.
CRITIQUE OF THIS POSITION.

     Econe may not have had a problem between 1970 and 1974, the period in which the Fraternity of Saint Pius X was canonically approved, but with the suppression of the Fraternity on 6 May 1975, the refusal to grant the dimissorial letters required to ordain seminarians (27 October 1975), and the suspension of Mgr Lefebvre’s authorisation to confer Holy Orders (12 June 1976), the problem appeared in the most dramatic fashion: from 1976, priests ordained in the Fraternity would automatically be suspended a divinis (forbidden to celebrate Mass and to administer the sacraments), exactly as their founder had been (22 July 1976).

     Before he started to say Mass again at Maison Saint-Joseph, the Abbé de Nantes had consulted Mgr Lefebvre. The latter had advised him to think nothing of it because, as he said, the Pope was very sick: he would soon die. This thought never left Mgr Lefebvre. To a large extent it explains his behaviour. Already on 27 June 1965, at Paray-le-Monial, during the ceremonies for the bicentenary of the establishment of the Feast of the Sacred Heart, we had been told by Mgr Lefebvre: «Your Father is wrong to criticise Paul VI. The Pope may die at any moment. It is nothing for God to make a man die.»

     Ten years later, not only was Pope Paul VI still alive, but he had decided to close down the seminary at Econe.

     Once the decision had been taken to administer the sacraments without the requisite jurisdiction – and this included the ordinations of 29 June 1976 – a new difficulty had to be faced: in this situation, although certain sacraments can always be validly administered by virtue of the power of Order which cannot be lost, other sacraments (Penance and Marriage) strictly required, on pain of being administered invalidly, the jurisdiction that was lacking. If for the sacrament of marriage the solution is relatively easy (canon 1098 provides, in certain cases, for the canonical form to be dispensed with), the sacrament of penance presented and presents far greater difficulties: the need for the confessor to have jurisdiction over the penitent is in fact required by the very nature of the sacrament as instituted by Christ and therefore does not come solely under ecclesiastical law (Council of Florence, DS 1323; Council of Trent, DS 1686; Pius VI, Auctorem fidei, DS 2637; Saint Thomas, Suppl. q. 8, a. 4.).

     Admittedly the law provides for cases in which the Church supplies the missing jurisdiction of the priest (“Ecclesia supplet”): in cases of danger of death for example, any priest may validly grant absolution (can. 882), just as he may do, according to the prescription of canon 209, in cases of positive and probable doubt (about his possessing or not possessing jurisdiction) or indeed of common error (the penitents erroneously believe that the priest has jurisdiction). However, it was obvious that the canons invoked were insufficient to justify the practice of habitually and constantly hearing confessions without jurisdiction, which is why Mgr Lefebvre extended the case of the danger of the penitent’s physical death – provided for by the Code – to that of the danger of spiritual death, a case which applies to all Catholics given the Church’s current situation.

     Was not this to reason “as if” one no longer recognised the legitimacy of the hierarchy and the validity of the new sacraments? And indeed Mgr Lefebvre did hesitate – during the summer of 76 – over the legitimacy of Paul VI; but having been received in an audience (11 September), he opted for his legitimacy, a decision which became official with the famous declaration of 8 November 1979 entitled “Mgr Lefebvre’s position on the New Mass and the Pope” (Cor unum, n. 4, p. 1-9), a declaration which itself took shape in the climate following the audience granted by John Paul II to Mgr Lefebvre on 18 November 1978. This position (a theoretical recognition of the legitimacy of Paul VI and John Paul II, but a practice which suggested this recognition did not exist) became one of the weak points of his movement. Let us see how Cardinal Seper, delegated by Paul VI and John Paul II at that time to investigate the traditionalist cause, set out the problem:

     “And your ‘praxis’, objected Cardinal Seper to Mgr Lefebvre in his letter of 28 January 1978, does not correct things. Indeed, you ordain priests against the formal will of the Pope and without the ‘litteræ dimissoriæ’ required by Canon Law; you send priests ordained by you to your priories where they exercise their ministry without the authorisation of the local Ordinary; you make speeches calculated to spread your ideas in dioceses whose bishops withhold their consent; with the priests you have ordained and who in fact answer only to you, you have started to form, whether you intend it or not, a group that is on the way to becoming a dissident ecclesial community. In this regard one must point to the astonishing statement you made (press conference of 15 September 1976, published in Itinéraires, December 1976, p. 126-127) concerning the administration of the sacrament of penance by priests whom you have unlawfully ordained and who are not provided with the faculty of hearing confessions. You considered that these priests had a jurisdiction provided by canon law for cases of necessity: ‘I think, you said, that the situation we find ourselves in is not one of physical circumstances but one of extraordinary morals.’ Was not this to reason as if the legitimate hierarchy had ceased to exist in those regions where these priests worked?

     The Abbé de Nantes had pre-empted Cardinal Seper by one whole year in giving such a warning to his audience at the Mutualité in January 1977, and in explaining to the readers of the CRC, the following month, where the “praxis” of Mgr Lefebvre was heading. Having quoted the relevant page in Itinéraires, our Father commented:

     «Either there still exists on earth a visible, hierarchical, Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church, whose divine order is established and maintained in accordance with the rules of the Canon Law in force, in which case Mgr Lefebvre’s attempted justification is baseless: confessions and marriages without the ordinary powers of jurisdiction and, in the case of marriages without the parish priest’s personal delegation, are indisputably null and void in law.

     «Or else there is no longer a Pope in Rome, and no longer any bishops in our dioceses or anywhere else, other than Mgr Lefebvre alone. But in that case, why invoke Canon Law at all in such a shaky argument? If he is the sole successor of the Apostles today, then his authority alone must stand in the eyes of both men and God as the fount of law. Let him concede Powers to whom he will, wherever he wishes, as he sees fit throughout the whole world! But that is not his real thinking, as can be seen in the timid and hesitant justification we have just read, although it must be the thinking of a number of priests and faithful who follow him and who egg him on.

     «It is all extremely grave: for souls who receive absolutions that are invalid and who become acclimatised to this protestant subjectivism; for families that accept marriages which no ecclesiastical court would hesitate to declare null and void; for the undivided subsistence of Holy Church broken by this form of reasoning and behaviour which can only be called schismatic because that is exactly what it is and, sad to say, even more formally so than the latent schism of those who camp within the Church, taking advantage of the inertia and complicity of those in authority the better to destroy her.» (English CRC no 83, February 1977, p. 15-16).

     Mgr Lefebvre’s response, whilst wholly pertinent on doctrinal questions, was far from being so on questions that would logically have led him to denying the legitimacy of the “Pope” and the “bishops” de iure (and not simply de facto). Mgr Lefebvre had remained vague in his reply of 26 February 1978, so Cardinal Seper put the same question to him, in almost identical terms, on 16 March and then again – in a more verbose manner – in the interrogation of 11-12 January 1979.

     At the end of the interrogation, Seper came back to the following question: “Can a bishop, which is how he referred to Mgr Lefebvre’s position, judging in conscience that the Pope and the Episcopate no longer in the main exercise their authority, and seeking to ensure the faithful and exact transmission and maintenance of the Catholic faith, legitimately ordain priests without being a diocesan bishop, without having received dimissorial letters and against the formal and express prohibition of the Pope, and assign to these priests responsibility for the ecclesiastical ministry in their various dioceses (…). Does this thesis conform to the traditional doctrine of the Church by which you intend to abide?

     The reply was obviously no. Particularly as Mgr Lefebvre himself, in a protest addressed to the Sovereign Pontiff on 18 October 1964, the eve of the third session of the Council, had refuted the theory of a power of universal jurisdiction deriving immediately from Christ, independently of the Roman Pontiff, by virtue of the sacrament of the episcopate (cf. English CRC no 202, August 1987, p. 28).

     Mgr Lefebvre’s reaction was immediate: “You are trying to trap me!” His more considered response was no better. At first it was pragmatism: “No. I have not acted on the basis of a principle like that. It was the facts, the circumstances I found myself in, that forced me to adopt certain positions.” Then it was an argument that condemned itself: “I think that history can provide examples of similar acts carried out, in certain circumstances, not ‘contra’ but ‘præter voluntatem Papæ’(but Mgr Lefebvre was in fact acting ‘against’ and not ‘beyond’ the will of the ‘Pope’).

     Finally came the definitive and logical surrender: “However, this question is too serious and too important for me to answer immediately. I therefore prefer to suspend my response.” The discussions at the “Holy Office” would remain at that point, and there was to be no further response...

     Father Ricossa explains this silence by the self-contradiction in which Mgr Lefebvre was locked, recognising the authority of the Pope without taking any account of it in practice. Undoubtedly this is the reason why, after having been ordained by Mgr Lefebvre in 1982, Father Ricossa left with three colleagues to found the Mater Boni Consilii Institute in 1985.

     Up until that moment the position of the Society of Saint Pius X had been contradictory – due to the position taken over the authority of the Pope – but had been limited to postulating a “supply” by the Church for the exclusive administration of the sacraments. In fact we ourselves for this same reason invoke a supply (not so much by the Church as by Christ, as we will see hereafter) for the licit and valid exercise of the power of order (and exclusively of the power of order). The correct position on the problem and the criticism to be applied to this first deviation of the Society is perfectly expressed by Father Belmont in the following passage published in the Cahiers de Cassiciacum:

     «We freely admit that in the situation of anarchy, in the proper sense of that term [here a note states: «i.e. when there is no longer a Head of the Church.»], in which we find ourselves, there is a divine supply on behalf of the faithful in matters that involve the Church’s power of sanctification. [New note to explain: «And therefore in that which involves the power of Order, and not of Jurisdiction in the external forum, for legislative and judicial powers.»]

     «But it would seem that three factors are necessary for the existence of such a supply (beyond those expressly provided for by the Law):

     « – a general need and not a particular case;

     « – the impossibility of having recourse to Authority. It is Authority that decides on the sacramental acts that we must accomplish; an accidental failure of Authority cannot give rise to a supply. If the failure is substantial and habitual, it is the very existence of Authority that is in question;

     « – a real foundation in him who must act by virtue of a supply. Such a foundation can only be the Character imprinted through the Sacrament of Order.

     «This is because the Catholic priest possesses that sacerdotal Character which Our Lord Jesus Christ and the Church supply for the functioning of that Character whose normal exercise has been prevented to the very great detriment of souls.

     «Excluded, therefore, are acts of pure jurisdiction (dispensations for marriage impediments, granting of indulgences) which are not a function of the sacramental Character, and any acts of which the priest is only the extraordinary minister (confirmation, giving minor orders).

     «In the case of the Sacrament of Penance, the supply does not provide jurisdiction, but Christ and the Church supply for the lack of jurisdiction in each individual act of absolution, because the priest, by virtue of his sacerdotal Character, is metaphysically ordered to grant such absolution. The jurisdiction normally needed does not give the priest the power to hear confessions, it simply gives him a subject on whom he may exercise his power».

     This position defended by Father Belmont in the last edition of Cahiers de Cassiciacum (1981) is also ours. It is quite distinct from that which absolutely denies the liceity of a private ministry of jurisdiction (Abbé de Nantes, certain sedevacantists...) as well as from that which regards as licit such a ministry “against” the very will of the “Pope”, the position in practice of the Society of Saint Pius X from 1976 to 1980.

     This second mention of the Abbé de Nantes is even, if possible, more perfidious than the first, associating him with «sedevacantists», i.e. with people who profess that the Holy See is vacant, people like Father Ricossa who put the Pope between quotation marks! And this at a time when amongst all these so-called “traditionalists” the Abbé de Nantes is the only one who persists in appealing to Pope John Paul II!

     But let us leave this, and continue our reading. Father Ricossa writes about his former patron with an unerring lucidity:


THE «ORDINANCES» OF 1980: FIRST USURPATION OF THE POWERS OF JURISDICTION RESERVED TO THE POPE.

     It is not by chance that I write: until 1980. For at this date occurred an event that considerably worsened the position of the Society of Saint Pius X, the event which elicited the article by Father Belmont quoted above. «In an act dated 1 May 1980, Mgr Lefebvre granted his priests a number of powers and facilities both canonical and liturgical. This is how he justified this delegation:

     «By virtue of the faculties granted to Ordinaries in the Apostolic Letter Pastorale Munus of 30 November 1963, faculties granted to all Bishops of the Missions and henceforth extended to the whole Church, we delegate the following powers...

     The reference is to the first edition of the “Ordinances concerning the powers and faculties of the members of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X”.

     [Here, Father Ricossa acknowledges in a footnote: «In 1980, we still belonged to the Society and we accepted, like everyone else in this Society, the small volume of the “Ordinances”...»]

     Leaving aside any consideration of the questions of the legitimacy of Paul VI (who promulgated the Apostolic Letter Pastorale Munus) and of the canonical existence of the Society of Saint Pius X, Father Belmont immediately noted two things:

     1o In 1980, Mgr Lefebvre was not an Ordinary, and even less a local Ordinary: the “faculties” eventually conceded by Paul VI to local Ordinaries were therefore not intended for him. The thing was obvious, and now – in the new 1997 edition of the “Ordinances” which we have published in part – Mgr Fellay himself candidly admits:

     «Mgr Lefebvre, as bishop and Superior General of the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X, although no longer a local Ordinary as he was in Dakar, considered [sic] that he enjoyed a supply which allowed him to grant his priests similar faculties on behalf of the faithful. He promulgated these in his Ordinances for the use of the Fraternity on 1 May 1980, following the formula facultatem decennalium of 1960.»

     The Fraternity has therefore changed its arguments: in 1980 Mgr Lefebvre, basing himself on an act of Paul VI, thought he was able to “delegate” faculties that belonged to him as an Ordinary. In 1997 Mgr Fellay states that these powers did not belong to Mgr Lefebvre as he was no longer an Ordinary, but that he had received them by “supply”.

     2o Of the fifty-one powers «delegated» by Mgr Lefebvre, thirty-six are not found in Pastorale Munus, four have been extended beyond what was conceded by Paul VI, and three were not capable of being delegated.

     Father Belmont concluded from this that «whatever view one takes of Paul VI’s authority, this delegation of powers to the priests of the Society of Saint Pius X is invalid and wholly without value. There can be no possible doubt about this. One cannot plead the fact that Mgr Lefebvre used the extensive powers he enjoyed as a missionary Bishop, for Mgr Lefebvre is no longer a Local Ordinary of the Missions, and even if he were, he would only be able to delegate within the geographical limits of his jurisdiction

     A priest of the Fraternity who had read Father Belmont’s observations before they were published, accepted that Mgr Lefebvre could not have delegated these powers qua Ordinary («that would be pushing it a little», he wrote), but by virtue of the “supply” of the Church.

     Father Belmont responded with the text that we have just quoted, stating that a supply by the «Church» (or in this case by Christ) outside of the cases provided for by the Law, is only conceivable for the power of Sanctification, and not for exercising the power of governing souls.

     On the basis of this principle, Father Belmont denounced in particular two faculties invalidly granted by Mgr Lefebvre to the Fraternity and his priests: the faculty to confirm and the faculty to dispense from marriage impediments. These faculties were upheld in the 1997 Ordinances and, in the matter of matrimonial dispensations, became the “basis” of a further development of the «powers» of the Fraternity: the power of canonical Tribunals to grant marriage annulments (cf. the document of Mgr Tissier which we published in this edition, taken from Cor unum, n. 61, III, 3, p. 42). We will come back to this “faculty”. Let us note however that already in 1980, the Society of Saint Pius X had assumed powers which are strictly jurisdictional, powers which are the privilege of the Pope and his delegates...

     This was the situation of the Fraternity – insofar as it concerns our study – from 1980 to 1988, the date on which Mgr Lefebvre – after the failure of his negotiations with the Vatican – consecrated four «auxiliary» bishops in company with Mgr de Castro Mayer.


THE CONSECRATIONS OF 1988. BISHOPS WITHOUT JURISDICTION?

     Planned from at least 1983 and announced in 1987, the episcopal consecrations, initially fixed in agreement with Ratzinger, finally took place in 1988 without Roman mandate. (During the ceremony, however, a grotesque “apostolic mandate” was read out, written not by the Pope, but by the Fraternity, in which it was alleged that a mandate of “the Roman Church” – in contrast to “the authorities of the Roman Church” – had been received for the consecrations).

     In a footnote, Father Ricossa recalls that «canon 953 (1013 of the New Code) prohibits episcopal consecrations without “papal” or “apostolic mandate”, i.e. without the authorisation of the Pope. The fact that the “apostolic mandate”, i.e. of the Pope, was written by Mgr Lefebvre says much about the practical identification made by the Fraternity between Mgr Lefebvre and the Pope... What a strange idea then the Fraternity must have of “the Roman Church” (which supposedly authorised these consecrations), a “Roman Church” that is apparently opposed to the “authorities of the Roman Church” (who forbade these same consecrations under pain of excommunication)!»

     By the Motu proprio ECCLESIA DEI ADFLICTA, John Paul II declared Mgr Lefebvre excommunicated and his movement schismatic. Mgr Lefebvre, on the other hand, continued to recognise the authority of John Paul II, which – in our opinion – makes the episcopal consecrations of 1988 illegitimate, since in that case they were accomplished not “præter” but “contra” the will of the “Pope” (not beyond, but against the will of the “Pope”), to repeat the previously quoted expression of Mgr Lefebvre.

     But to pursue the theme of our study, we must examine whether the consecrations of 1988 were carried out in accordance with the logic – albeit erroneous concerning the authority of John Paul II – of the first period of the Fraternity (1975-1980) or of the second (from 1980). In this way we will see whether Mgr Lefebvre assigned his “bishops” a supplied authority exclusively for the purpose of exercising the power of order for the sanctification of souls, or else whether he also assigned them an actual jurisdiction – albeit supplied – for the government of souls.

     For we must distinguish within the episcopate the power of order (which gives the bishop the power, for example, to ordain priests and to confirm) and the power of jurisdiction: the first derives from the rite of episcopal consecration, the second on the other hand comes from the Pope (normally through a papal mandate). Bishops consecrated without papal approval therefore possess the power of order but not that of jurisdiction. To consecrate bishops – in the present situation – is licit [sic! Father Ricossa should have written: is valid. Short of taking upon himself the role of legislator, he obviously cannot declare that episcopal consecrations censured by the Pope are licit!], provided that these bishops are not accredited with a power of jurisdiction which they can only receive from the Pope, but with a power of order only. This, briefly, is the line followed by Mgr M.-L. Guérard des Lauriers and by ourselves [sic] in his footsteps.

     And they believe themselves to be acting correctly! To denounce the actions of others in these circumstances, is this not the parable of the mote and the beam? But let us continue with our reading always so... instructive!

     Mgr Lefebvre himself seemed also to have adopted this position – at least initially: not only did he present the object of episcopal consecration as the power of order («The principal aim of this transmission is to impart the grace of sacerdotal order for the continuation of the true Sacrifice of the Holy Mass, and to impart the grace of the sacrament of Confirmation to children and to the faithful who ask you for it», he wrote in his LETTER «TO THE FUTURE BISHOPS» of 29 August 1987), but he explicitly ruled out for his bishops the power of jurisdiction: «If it were one day to prove necessary to consecrate bishops, he wrote on 27 April 1987, the only episcopal office they would have would be to exercise their power of order and they would not possess the power of jurisdiction, not having a canonical mission

     However, even before the episcopal consecrations took place, the theory of “supplied jurisdiction” had already started to be applied to this case as well, something that had previously been invoked solely for the administration of the sacraments. The bishops eventually consecrated by Mgr Lefebvre were supposed to enjoy a true jurisdiction, received not from the Pope but from the Church, which could act without (and even against) the Pope who is her visible head.

     In a very judicious note, Father Ricossa quotes the Abbé Pivert who writes, «The Church is not the Pope, and vice versa», and then he comments: «Of course, the Church is not the Pope, but the Pope is the visible Head of the Church! In particular, the Abbé Pivert, one of the members of the Canonical Commissions of the Fraternity, in his application of the canonical principle “Ecclesia supplet”, forgets that by “Ecclesia” is intended the Supreme Ecclesiastical Legislator, that is to say the Pope, who can grant jurisdiction “a jure”, i.e. by a decision inscribed in the law which he has promulgated. Consequently, the principle “Ecclesia supplet” cannot be invoked if there is no Pope or if the Pope explicitly refuses this supply. We will speak further about this.» End of note, resumption of the text:

     In a short study devoted to the future consecrations, a study approved by Mgr Lefebvre, the Abbé Pivert, one of the current members of the Canonical Commission, was already, without any basis, invoking canon 20 to justify the episcopal consecrations and the exercise by these bishops of a genuine jurisdiction (by supply).

     In this text by the Abbé Pivert (who is, without a shadow of a doubt, one of the “theologians” who inspired the Canonical Commissions) it is not clear whether the “Jurisdiction” claimed for the Lefebvrist bishops exists solely for the licit administration of the sacraments of Order and Confirmation, or whether on the other hand he was already theorising, in January 1988, that these bishops might have authority over the faithful. It is this second hypothesis that gradually became the position of the Fraternity and of Mgr Lefebvre himself, something we have already denounced in at least three articles in Sodalitium.

     Two letters from Mgr Lefebvre (4 December 1990 and 20 February 1991) regarding the episcopal consecration of Mgr Rangel made out that the future bishop would be Mgr de Castro Mayer’s effective successor as Bishop of Campos, inasmuch as he had been designated by faithful priests and by the people, over whom he had supposedly received a true jurisdiction. For his part, the Abbé Laguérie had no hesitation in regarding himself as parish priest of Saint-Nicolas-du-Chardonnet...

     It was in the speech on SUPPLIED JURISDICTION AND HIERARCHICAL MEANING which he gave to the Circles of Catholic Tradition in Paris on 10 March 1991 (when Mgr Lefebvre was still alive) that Mgr Tissier de Mallerais publicly expressed – for the first time I believe – the opinion of the Society of Saint Pius X on the question. This is how the lefebvrist bishop summarises the thesis he defends: “Your priests – for they are your priests – your bishops, your parishes of tradition, do not possess an ordinary authority, but an extraordinary authority, a supplied authority” which constitutes a hierarchy, itself also supplied, which he defines as “a hierarchy of Tradition”.

     The supplied jurisdiction that Mgr Tissier attributes to the hierarchy of the Fraternity – the hierarchy of Tradition – is not limited to making sacramental acts licit and valid: it extends to the power of providing authoritative teaching to the faithful who request their services. From there to creating actual Tribunals “of Tradition” is but a short step, and such a step had already been crossed, although no one seemed to realise it at the time, and by Mgr Lefebvre in person... The authentic documents of the Fraternity which we have published and which form the object of this commentary provide indisputable proof of what we have just written.

     What followed is an implacable reality, and it was motivated by a spirit far removed from that of the Catholic Counter-Reformation. We will see how the solemn warnings formulated by the Abbé de Nantes in 1970 were verified and justified in a most striking manner! I emphasise this incredible fact: the Abbé de Nantes, this written-off priest, this suspended priest, has for thirty years held his friends back from the slippery slope on which today those who refused to listen to him can clearly be seen to be sliding.

     Before reproducing the text of Father Ricossa without further interruptions, we should reread one of these warnings, a text now more than thirty years old, THIRTY YEARS! (inset below)
 

THE CHURCH AND THE CHURCH ALONE

BECAUSE it has been my role to foresee, sometimes two, three or five years ahead, the dangers mounting upon the Church’s horizon, I have recently had to warn you of a new danger resulting from the aggravation of the subversion and from the disgust felt by our better Catholics at the new clerical despotism – the danger of an integrist schism which I have referred to, on account of its as yet unperceived gravity, as Enemy number 1a.

    I am not going back on this. To this sickening rule of the modernist left-wing in the Church there cannot fail to follow the evil reaction of a schism of the right-wing which would vacate the place to heresy. This is precisely to enter into its designs and to serve its interests! Such a reaction, if unchecked, threatens to disperse all our forces into numerous chapels and sects, each cancelling out the other. But the essential evil of an integrist revolt is that it is a repudiation of the Roman Catholic Church and effectively cuts off from her, at the peril of their souls, those who succumb to it.

    I shall no doubt have to explain patiently and repeatedly to many of our friends the illicitness of such ruptures which pride themselves on defending the integrity of the faith, just as I had for a long time to denounce the papal and conciliar reformism as the ultimate cause of all our ills. Now, as then, many will lack the courage or the ability to understand just how well founded my warnings are. They will realise it too late when the full poison of their revolt will have made itself felt. But we must not allow ourselves to be put off by the defection or hostility of our blind friends. Our whole work is at stake here…

    This work is first and foremost “Catholic” and it will remain so. That is its generic denomination. To hold fast to the Church, to recognise her divinity in her present-day visible, historical and human reality, this daily becomes a more bold and beautiful act of faith. May God give us the grace for it! We believe that the Church is immortal and we wish to remain her obedient children. I hope with your support to act in such a manner that our supreme Pastor, Pope Paul VI, and our immediate Pastors the bishops, may come to recognise us as “full members” of the One Holy Church whose Guardians they are constituted.

    As well as being Catholic, living at the heart of today’s Church, this work is also Counter-Reformist. That is its specific difference. We are fighting in the service of God and of souls, in line with our faith and the supernatural charity we have been taught and given through the sacraments, against this Second Reformation which is worse than the first and entails the self-destruction of the Church and the loss of souls. This is a legitimate form of service that we are called upon to render in our parishes, our dioceses and our Christian lands. It may seem paradoxical to remain faithful to the Pope and the bishops whilst combating the very opinions and passions to which they appear most committed. But we claim to have both the right and the duty to do this. We will act in such a manner that our Pastors may understand and recognise that we have this freedom.

(G. DE NANTES, English CRC no 2, March 1970)

 
THE CANONICAL TRIBUNALS OF THE FRATERNITY CLAIM A TRUE POWER OF JURISDICTION OVER THE FAITHFUL.

     It is certainly not difficult to demonstrate this assertion, for the fact was freely admitted by Mgr Tissier de Mallerais himself: “It is a true jurisdiction and not an exemption from the law and from the obligation imposed on the faithful to obtain a verdict. Therefore, we have the power and the duty of handing down true verdicts which have potestatem ligandi vet solvendi (the power of binding and loosing). Our verdicts therefore have an obligatory character. Our verdicts are not mere private opinions, for there is a need for authority in the external forum.” (Cor unum, n. 61, IV, 4, p. 43; Resurrection no 2, p. 24).

     The Fraternity therefore attributes to itself the power of jurisdiction (even if it is only by supply), and more precisely the power of jurisdiction in the external forum, a power which has “public legal effects”. We recall that this jurisdiction “is immediately ordered to the governing of the faithful for the purpose of obtaining eternal life” and is not intended “to sanctify souls through the offering of the sacrifice of the Mass and the administration of the sacraments”, which is specific to the power of order. Jurisdiction thus defined “is exercised by the authorised teaching of revealed truths (sacred magisterium), by the promulgation of laws (legislative power), by authentic decisions in cases arising between subjects (judicial power), and by the application of penal sanctions against those who transgress the law (coercitive power). It is these three last functions which make the Church a perfect society (like the State).”

     By attributing to itself this power of jurisdiction, the Fraternity effectively arrogates to itself the power to govern the faithful (potestas regiminis), a power which is proper to the Church. It has made no bones about attributing to itself the various powers exercised by the aforesaid jurisdiction.


THE FRATERNITY ARROGATES THE POWER OF THE MAGISTERIUM PROPER TO ECCLESIASTICAL AUTHORITY.

     In the conference given at Paris in 1991 cited above, Mgr Tissier de Mallerais claimed for the priests and bishops of the Fraternity a supplied jurisdiction. Now he himself, by the power of jurisdiction, especially understands the power to teach:

     “As you no doubt know, the Church distinguishes between the power of order and the power of jurisdiction: GO INTO THE WHOLE WORLD AND PREACH THE GOSPEL, docete omnes gentes, TEACH ALL NATIONS – this is the power of jurisdiction. TEACH. Or again: TEACH THEM TO RESPECT ALL THAT I HAVE COMMANDED YOU, to keep the commandments of God: GOVERN THE FLOCK – this is the power of jurisdiction.” (1. c., p. 96-97)

     These words, taken in their obvious sense, signify that the Fraternity attributes to itself – albeit by “supply” – the power of teaching with authority which comes under the power of jurisdiction, and not just the function of exhorting people to do good which derives from the power of order. This interpretation is absolutely certain inasmuch as it concerns Mgr Lefebvre personally, for in an article published in 1989 in the review Fideliter (n. 72, p. 10) Mgr Bernard Tissier de Mallerais considers Mgr Lefebvre to be not only one voice of the magisterium but the very magisterium itself, forgetting that by ceasing to be a residential bishop Mgr Lefebvre was not even a member of the hierarchy of jurisdiction or a mouthpiece of the ecclesiastical magisterium.

     “What remains of the magisterium in the Church? wrote Mgr Tissier. It is a matter of faith that Our Lord endowed His Church with a living and perpetual Magisterium, that is to say a papal and episcopal voice which, in every era and at the present time, is the echo of divine revelation and the relay of tradition. Well, this magisterium, at least as regards the truths denied by the conciliar hierarchy, lies in Mgr Lefebvre in whom it can be found in a certain manner. He is the veritable echo of tradition, the faithful witness, the good shepherd whom simple sheep have been able to identify from the wolves in sheep’s clothing. Yes, the Church still has a living and perpetual magisterium and Mgr Lefebvre is its saviour. The indefectibility of the Church can be seen in the inflexibility of the Archbishop.

     If that is how things stand, where is one to look for the living and perpetual magisterium and the indefectibility of the Church now that Mgr Lefebvre has passed away? Among the bishops consecrated by him? This is what was maintained in the review Le Sel de la terre (n. 1, p. 39-50 and n. 3, p. 51-61) by a theologian of the Society of Saint Pius X, the Abbé Arnaud Sélégny, at the time a teacher at the Saint Curé d’Ars Seminary in Flavigny. We repeat what we have already published in Sodalitium on this subject (no 33, Oct 1993, p. 52). In our opinion, the Fraternity and its bishops have attributed to themselves characteristics that are proper to the Catholic Church alone and to bishops endowed with authority by the Pope. For Sélégny, the consecrations of 30 June 1988 are “proof of the indefectibility of the Church” (Le Sel de la terre, n. 1, p. 38), and what is more: “this demonstrates the necessity of the consecrations of 30 June 1988; for, in order to be able to speak of the indefectibility of the Church, there must, in all ages and at every moment of her history, exist a magisterium which preaches infallibly and likewise a body of the faithful who adhere to this teaching, irrespective of the precise number of these Bishops and lay faithful. Mgr Lefebvre could not but pass on to the Church the means of safeguarding her indefectibility. Tradidi quod et accepi: it is now up to us, under the direction of the magisterium, to guard this deposit.” (Le Sel de la terre, n. 3, p. 66)

     The teacher of the young seminarians of the Fraternity (!), the Abbé Sélégny, explicitly declares:

     a) that the Bishops of the Fraternity are alone in ensuring the indefectibility of the Church;

     b) that they are the only ones to exercise the infallible magisterium.

     These are absurd positions, as it is only through the Sovereign Pontiff that the power of the magisterium can be passed on to the Bishops. Now the Sovereign Pontiff has never granted such a power to those in the Fraternity.

     Mgr Lefebvre, as we have stated before, having relinquished the dioceses of Dakar and Tulle was no longer a mouthpiece of the ecclesiastical magisterium; nevertheless he had exercised this responsibility over many long years with Peter and under Peter. On the other hand, the bishops consecrated by him (like those consecrated by Mgr Thuc) have never received such an office from the Pope, and cannot in any way exercise, and never have exercised, the power of teaching in the Church as authentic doctors (and even less infallible ones!).

     We believe we have demonstrated the thesis of this chapter: “The Fraternity arrogates the power of the Magisterium proper to ecclesiastical authority.” We believe we have proved that this claim is unfounded. The problem of the indefectibility of the Church (and also in consequence that of the indefectibility of its power of magisterium) remains: it is a question of vital importance but it falls outside our study; in any case, the consecrations of 30 June 1988 are insufficient – to say the least – to ensure this necessary indefectibility.


THE FRATERNITY ARROGATES THE LEGISLATIVE POWER PROPER TO ECCLESIASTICAL AUTHORITY.

     To make laws is the prerogative of Authority. Now the Fraternity claims the right to legislate on ecclesiastical matters. It therefore claims ecclesiastical Authority.

     The minor premise of this argument is not difficult to prove.

     In the first place, it is an implicit consequence of the Fraternity’s claim to possess the power of jurisdiction in the external forum, as we have already demonstrated. Now this power also comprises the legislative power. Ergo.

     Then there are the facts. The Fraternity claims this power in at least two cases: in the creation of new canonical legislation and in the power to grant dispensations.

     Let us examine the first case. There was a time, and perhaps things are no different today, when candidates to priesthood in the Fraternity were to made to swear – among other things – to accept the position taken by their superiors vis-à-vis the New Code of Canon Law. Today these decisions have already been taken, as can be deduced from the Ordinances... of 1997, which apply to the Canon Law of the Church the lefebvrist principle of the “filter”, the “strainer” or the “sieve” already referred to, a principle previously applied to the magisterium and to matters of discipline: “We accept innovations that conform to Tradition and the Faith. We do not feel bound by obedience to innovations which go against Tradition and threaten our Faith.” In other words, the Fraternity authorities claim the power to choose (“heresy”, in Greek, rightly means “choice”) from the magisterium and the legislation of John Paul II what they regard as “traditional” and to discard the rest. This is how the Ordinances of 1997 (on page 4) apply the aforesaid principle to the New Code of Canon Law promulgated by John Paul II:

     “The New Code of Canon Law, promulgated on 25 January 1983, pervaded by ecumenism and personalism, seriously sins against the very purpose of the law… Therefore in principle we follow the Code of 1917 (with the modifications subsequently introduced). However, in practice and on certain precise points, we can accept anything in the New Code which corresponds to a homogeneous development, to a better adaptation to circumstances, to a useful simplification. Generally speaking we also accept that which we cannot refuse without misaligning ourselves with the officially received legislation where the validity of acts is concerned. And in this latter case, we reinforce our discipline to bring it closer to that of the Code of 1917 (cf. Cor unum, n. 41, p. 11-13).”

     Given that the Code of 1983 replaces that of 1917, how can two mutually exclusive legislations co-exist in the Church? If John Paul II is the Pope, the only legislation in force is that of 1983. If this is not the case, then the Code of 1983 does not exist, and the Code of 1917 stands. For the Society of Saint Pius X, on the other hand, two codes of laws are in force; both of them. Or rather: a third code is in force, whose author is neither Benedict XV (who promulgated that of 1917) nor John Paul II (author of that of 1983) but Mgr Fellay, the Superior General of the Fraternity, and his collaborators: a code composed “in principle” of the laws of 1917, and composed “in practice”, at least in certain cases, of the laws of 1983, but at all times a hybrid of these two legislations supplemented with innovations created ex novo by the Fraternity (for example, on page 57 of the Ordinances, the additions made to marriage impediments for mixed religion, which even includes, at least in practice, marriage to “conciliar Catholics”!). It therefore appears to me proven that the Fraternity, de facto if not de iure, has assumed legislative power, creating a new canonical legislation which is neither the preconciliar legislation nor the postconciliar legislation.

     But the Fraternity also claims legislative power in granting DISPENSATIONS from impediments, irregularities and vows, and it has done this since 1980.

     Now the power to grant dispensations from the law belongs to the exclusive competence of him who can make the law.

     But the Fraternity claims to be able to grant dispensations from the law.

     Therefore the Fraternity attributes to itself legislative power in the Church, which, in the final analysis, is the prerogative of Supreme Authority.

     The “major premise” of our argument is clearly expressed in canon 80:“A dispensation, in other words an exemption from the observance of a law in a special case, can be conceded by the legislator, his successor or superior, or by him to whom these have granted the faculty of granting dispensations.” The following canons (81-82-83) specify that the ordinary power of granting dispensations is the prerogative of the Pope for the general laws of the Church, and of the Ordinary (not the Priest) for particular laws.

     In particular, dispensations from marriage impediments fall within the jurisdiction of the Pope (canon 1040) through the intermediary of the Roman Congregations; dispensations from irregularities barring the reception of Holy Orders fall within the jurisdiction of the local Ordinary (can. 990), and dispensations from solemn vows remain reserved to the Pope (can. 1309). I must emphasise for the reader that, whatever be the case, the following general principle holds for all dispensations: a dispensation is always an act of jurisdiction – and consequently of authority – which comes under the competence of the legislator (or his delegate).

     The “minor premise” of our line of reasoning (the Fraternity claims the power to grant dispensations from the law) is incontestable, and has been abundantly demonstrated by the documents we have published. Attributed to the authorities of the Fraternity, in particular, are the power to grant dispensations from marriage impediments (Ordinances of 1980, p. 17-18, Ordinances of 1997, chap. V and VI, and p. 8: institution, since 1991, of the Canonical Commission), and from religious vows (in the Fraternity it is Mgr de Galarreta who is charged with this task, having jurisdiction not only over the members of Fraternity, but also over those from other religious societies who have recourse to it: Ordinances, p. 43-46; Cor unum, n. 61, p. 34).


THE FRATERNITY ARROGATES THE JUDICIAL POWER PROPER TO ECCLESIASTICAL AUTHORITY.

     In addition to the power to make laws, does not the Fraternity also assume the power to make judgements on the basis of these laws? The answer will be in the affirmative if we note the existence in the Fraternity of veritable Tribunals, of trials, judges and verdicts. Now the proof is very easy to provide: for, as we have seen, the Fraternity instituted Tribunals to “to rule on marriage annulments” “by means of diverse tribunals instituted ad casum” (Cor unum, I): the whole study by Mgr Tissier de Mallerais which we published aims to defend the “legitimacy of our matrimonial tribunals”. It might be objected that there is no question of providing genuine verdicts, but only recommendations or opinions expressed by theologians in the Fraternity to provide direction for the consciences of the faithful. But this is not the case. Mgr Tissier de Mallerais explicitly states that “we have the power and the duty of handing down true verdicts which have potestatem ligandi vet solvendi [the power of binding and loosing]. Our verdicts are not mere private opinions…

     Consequently, it is obvious and undeniable that the Fraternity lays claim to judicial power.


THE FRATERNITY ARROGATES THE POWER OF COERCION PROPER TO ECCLESIASTICAL AUTHORITY.

     This last thesis is a corollary of the preceding ones; for the Code of Canon Law states that “those who enjoy the power of making laws or imposing precepts can also add penalties to the law or the precept...” (can. 2220 § 1).Given that the Fraternity has laid claim to the legislative power, as we have seen, why should it not also enjoy coercitive power? Chapter VII of the Ordinances treats in fact of “offences and penalties”, and here it claims to follow the penalties established by the New Code. The Ordinances especially insist on the “power” attributed to priests of the Fraternity to lift penalties and censures (p. 71-75), offering us the truly paradoxical case of “excommunicated” priests lifting excommunications! Instead of sending the accused to the competent authorities such as the Sacred Penitentiary or the diocesan Bishop (we recall that the Fraternity recognises the authority of John Paul II), the “Ordinances” (p. 72) establish the general principle that one must have recourse to the authorities of the Fraternity, the Superior General or the President of the Canonical Commission, even for cases reserved to the Holy See!

     But the Fraternity not only envisages the possibility of its lifting censures and penalties, including those reserved to the Pope, it also envisages the possibility of inflicting its own penalties! “In addition to censures latæ sententiæ, there are also censures ferendæ sententiæ, vindictive penalties, and penal remedies and penances, which one may use to punish an offence.” (p. 68)

     To which authorities does this “one may” refer? To those of the Church or to those of the Fraternity? Clearly just as much to those of the Fraternity, as indicated a little further on with regard to the lifting of a penalty (p. 72): “A penalty inflicted by a superior is subject to the latter, but in the case of a novus ordo superior (there is evidently such a thing then as a ‘traditionalist’ superior, ed.), it can be submitted to a superior of equivalent rank in the Fraternity, the onus being on him to consult his novus ordo counterpart if he considers this useful. All other penalties may be submitted to the superior of the district in which the offence was perpetrated.


BY CLAIMING LEGISLATIVE, JUDICIAL AND COERCITIVE POWERS, INDEPENDENTLY OF ANY HIGHER AUTHORITY, THE FRATERNITY EFFECTIVELY MAKES ITSELF AN AUTONOMOUS CHURCH.

     We saw earlier how the Church possesses the three powers – legislative, judicial and coercitive – of a perfect society, a society in other words that is independent, in the pursuit of its objective, of any other society. Now the Fraternity effectively claims to possess these three powers (not to speak of the power of the magisterium). The Fraternity has therefore set itself up as a perfect society, an autonomous Church (even if it is only by way of substitution). And this is all the more certain in that the Fraternity, whilst recognising a higher authority, that of John Paul II, empties it of any significance or reality firstly by arrogating to itself the papal powers and secondly by forbidding its faithful from having recourse to the Pope.

     This despoliation of the Pope’s powers in favour of the authority of the Fraternity is a constant feature of the documents we are examining. Mgr Tissier himself admits, in connection with the Tribunals of the Fraternity: “It is true that our verdicts of the third instance replace the verdicts of the Roman Rota, which acts in the Pope’s name as a tribunal of the third instance.” Mgr Lefebvre himself assigned the Canonical Commissions of the Fraternity the task of “supplying to a certain extent for the shortcomings of the Roman Congregations.” Now the Roman Congregations, along with the Tribunals, constitute the Roman Curia (can. 242), and their acts are acts of the Holy See (can. 7 and 9). Consequently the claim made by the Fraternity and Mgr Lefebvre to stand in for the Roman Congregations is equivalent to their claiming to stand in for nothing less than the Holy See. 

     But not only does the Fraternity supplant the Holy See in this manner, it also forbids its faithful – under oath – from having recourse to it, even though, as we recall, it recognises its authority! For example, anyone who wishes to obtain a marriage annulment from the Fraternity must swear “not to approach an official ecclesiastical tribunal to have it examine or judge my case” (Cor unum, p. 45; Resurrection no 2, p. 25), for the principle is that the faithful “do not have the right to go to novus ordo tribunals” (Cor unum, II, 1, p. 40), “even if per impossible an official tribunal judging in accordance with traditional norms could be found” (Cor unum, IV, 3, p. 43).

     Now recourse to the Holy See is a right which every member of the faithful has ON ACCOUNT OF THE PRIMACY OF THE SOVEREIGN PONTIFF (can. 1569). To forbid this recourse is a practical negation of this primacy and a clear declaration of schism.

     Confirmation of what I have just demonstrated can be seen in the Fraternity’s establishment of a parallel hierarchy that replaces and supersedes the official hierarchy of the Church, even though Econe recognises it as the official hierarchy...


CONFIRMATION OF THE PRECEDING THESIS: THE FRATERNITY HAS EFFECTIVELY ESTABLISHED A PARALLEL HIERARCHY.

     The occupation of the parish church of Saint Nicolas-du-Chardonnet in Paris gave the members of the Fraternity an opportunity to assign the title of “parish priest” to the priest officiating in said church. The Abbé Laguérie took this claim so seriously that in a letter to the President of the Republic, Mitterrand, he addressed him as his parishioner!

     To be a parish priest involves rather more than simply occupying a parish church. This is something so obvious that it escapes no one. To be invested with such an office requires an appointment by the local bishop; the occupation of Saint Peter’s Basilica or the Lateran Basilica would not confer on the occupant the powers of the Vicar of Christ...

     But Mgr Lefebvre did not stop at Saint Nicolas’ in his drive to establish “true parishes”. On 27 October 1985, at Geneva, in the homily for the Mass of Christ the King, he pronounced these words: “I think that from now on we must regard our places of worship as true parishes. They are our parishes, where we baptise our children, where we take part in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, where children receive the true sacrament of Confirmation, where one can go to Confession. We must also receive all the other sacraments in our chapels, including the sacrament of marriage.” (Fideliter, no 49, January-February 1986, p. 20-21)

     Subsequently, following the episcopal consecrations, the idea of a “hierarchy of Tradition” gained ground, a hierarchy which was to stand in for, and actually supplant, the “official hierarchy”.

     On 10 March 1991, Mgr Tissier de Mallerais summarised this thesis thus: “Your priests – for they are your priests – your bishops, your parishes of tradition, do not possess an ordinary authority, but an extraordinary authority, a supplied authority.” (op. cit., p. 94) After having defined jurisdiction as “the power of the superior over his flock, of the shepherd over his sheep” (p. 96), Mgr Tissier allocated to the priests of the Fraternity a flock that would be confided to them by neither the bishops nor the Pope, but by the “Church”: “In a time of crisis, he said to his audience, it is clear that your priests cannot receive a flock from their superiors in the official Church, from the diocesan bishops or even from the Pope, because this is denied them. Therefore this authority over a flock will be given to them in another manner: by supply. It is the Church that has given your priests a power, like the power of the shepherd over his flock.” (p. 97)

     This text of Mgr Tissier already contains several contradictions. In the first place he sets the diocesan bishops and the Pope (that is to say the hierarchical Church) in opposition to the Church (as the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ): the Church is supposed to be able to concede what the Pope refuses. Then he appears to be in ignorance or denial of the fact that the one who grants supplied jurisdiction is in fact the Pope. Seeing that Mgr Tissier accepts that the Pope has refused jurisdiction to the priests of the Fraternity, we cannot see how this same Pope could at the same time concede it. Finally he makes out that supplied jurisdiction has the capacity to entrust the priest with a flock to be governed: which implies a plurality of persons entrusted to a pastor in a lasting manner. Now Mgr Tissier himself explains, a little later, that supplied jurisdiction is, on the contrary, exercised on behalf of private individuals on a case by case basis. How then can he speak of a flock?

     The ambiguity of Mgr Tissier de Mallerais’ thesis, as set out in 1991, can again be seen when he speaks – for the first time to my knowledge – about a “hierarchy of the Fraternity” or a “hierarchy of Tradition” (p. 106). This is not the hierarchy of the Church (p. 104) even though it “resembles it” (p. 105). The Fraternity, as we know, does not accept sedevacantism and regards itself as being continually in communion with the hierarchy of what it calls the “conciliar Church” or the “official Church”: the Pope and the diocesan bishops (p. 104). It flanks this hierarchy with a hierarchy “of supply”, the “hierarchy of Tradition”. But in reality the faithful are not allowed to address the “official” hierarchy, only the hierarchy of “Tradition”. Given the fact that “the hierarchy (cf. can. 108 § 3) has in large part distanced itself from the Catholic faith, generally speaking the faithful are unable to receive spiritual aid from it without endangering their faith” (Ordinances, p. 5; Resurrection no 2, p. 20). That is why, “even in cases where there is in fact no strict necessity” (ibid., p. 6), the faithful must have recourse to the “hierarchy of Tradition”, which in practice does not consist of all priests faithful to this tradition, but only of those in the Fraternity. And as the Fraternity already contains a structured hierarchy (simple priest, prior, district superior, superior general), the hierarchy of Tradition will be structured on the same model. “Absolutely speaking, with regard to the faithful, simple priests have no less supplied power than a prior or district superior. But as a matter of practicality, in order to preserve the hierarchical dimension that belongs to the spirit of the Church and to assign more serious cases to superior authority, certain powers are reserved to the higher ranks as they are in the normal hierarchy, in accordance with the following rules:

     Priors and priests in charge of chapels are equivalent to private priests, such as military chaplains (so it is not a matter of a genuinely supplied jurisdiction on a case by case basis, but of a personal prelature, which implies an ordinary jurisdiction, ed.).

     District superiors, seminaries and independent houses as well as the Superior General and his assistants, although in theory they only have jurisdiction over their subjects (priests, seminarians, brothers, oblates and members of their household), are equivalent to military Ordinaries, with regard to the faithful whose priests have the care of souls (sic). Same observation as before.

     The bishops of the Society, though deprived of any territorial jurisdiction, nevertheless possess the suppletory jurisdiction necessary to exercise the powers attached to the episcopal order AND CERTAIN ACTS OF ORDINARY EPISCOPAL JURISDICTION. Hence they claim jurisdiction not only for the sanctification of souls by means of the power of order, but also for the government of souls (Ordinances, p. 7).

     In addition to these parallel hierarchical structures, the Fraternity also created in 1991 the “Canonical Commission” and a “bishop responsible for those in religious life” “to continue after his death the office that Mgr Lefebvre had fulfilled in a suppletory manner in this area from 1970 to 1991” (Ordinances, p. 8), to make up for the shortcomings of the Roman Congregations (and here, in particular, the dispensations and verdicts of the tribunals of the Fraternity replace and usurp the powers of the Holy See, the Sacred Penitentiary, the Propaganda of the Faith, and the Congregations for Religious, for the Sacraments and for the Eastern Churches).

     The Fraternity has therefore created in fact, if not in right and principle, a stable hierarchical structure which, for the faithful, replaces the priest, the diocesan bishop and the Holy See (Congregations and Tribunals). The only thing missing in the Fraternity’s hierarchy is the Pope; but John Paul II – verbally acknowledged as Pope – can hardly be said to fulfil this function, for it is normally forbidden to have recourse to him.

     Finally let us note that the powers of this hierarchy “of tradition” are not only exercised over the members of the Fraternity and its faithful; they are also exercised over other “traditional” realities which exist outside the Fraternity. If a supplied jurisdiction as conceived by the Fraternity were to exist, it should logically involve – on the same basis – “all bishops and all priests faithful to tradition”, as the Ordinances recognise (p. 6). We cannot see therefore why everyone must submit to the Tribunals of the Fraternity but not to those which might be created – with the same authority – by other traditionalist Institutes, and, what is more, why “religious” who are outside the Fraternity should be subject, for the dispensation of vows for example, to the “bishop for religious” instituted by the Fraternity, while members of the Fraternity have to address themselves to the Superior General (Ordinances, p. 45). What justification is there, we wonder, for the bishop for religious, Mgr de Galarreta, having more powers than the Superior of the Dominicans in Avrillé or that of the Capuchins of Morgon, for example, to grant an “Indult of laicisation” to the Brothers of said monasteries (in reality none of them has the power to grant this indult). The only possible answer is that the Society of Saint Pius X, although denying it in word and principle, effectively considers its own internal hierarchy to be the true hierarchy of the Church.

     This is exactly what our Father foresaw in February 1977, in the English CRC no 83 referred to above, where he says of Mgr Lefebvre: «If he is the sole successor of the Apostles today, then his authority alone must stand in the eyes of both men and God as the fount of law

     Father Ricossa then examines one by one the arguments with which the Fraternity attempts to justify its usurpation of all the powers granted by Our Lord Jesus Christ to Peter and his successors.


THE FRATERNITY TRIES TO JUSTIFY ITS POSITION THROUGH THE AUTHORITY OF MGR LEFEBVRE, WRONGLY ASSUMING HIS INFALLIBILITY.

     We have seen how this institution by the Fraternity of a parallel hierarchy and of actual ecclesiastical tribunals are matters of an extreme gravity: some, with good reason, have spoken of schism.

     Here one would have expected names... Honesty would have obliged Father Ricossa to mention the Abbé de Nantes in the front rank (cf. the editorial referred to above, p. 18) And why not? What is the obstacle stopping Father Ricossa from recognising that the Abbé de Nantes has «with good reason spoken of schism», ever since 1970! The answer to this question can be discovered in a footnote wherein Father Ricossa states his full agreement with the judgement passed by the Ordinances on the New Code, «imbued with ecumenism and personalism», and then goes on to draw from this a «conclusion which, for him, is logical and inescapable: the total invalidity of the New Code and the absolutely certain observation that John Paul II does not possess divinely assisted authority (he is not Pope... formaliter)».

     So Father Ricossa has fallen from Charybdis into Scylla: having escaped from the schism of Lefebvre, he has toppled into that of Guérard. But let us leave this discussion for the moment, and follow Father Ricossa as he opens people’s eyes to the schism... of others! It is all of an unquestionable interest.

     Now, faced with such a grave question, what is the first argument put forth by Mgr Tissier de Mallerais in Cor unum to demonstrate the legitimacy of the Fraternity’s tribunals? “Monsignor Lefebvre, he writes, had foreseen the creation of a Canonical Commission, particularly to resolve matrimonial cases following a first judgement given by the district superior. The authority of our founder suffices for us to accept these legal proceedings in the same way that we have accepted the episcopal consecrations of 1988.” (Cor unum, p. 37, Status quæstionis)

Photo of a very young Mgr Marcel Lefebvre as a Holy Ghost Father, published in the parish newsletter “le Chardonnet” of April 1992, applying a liturgical anthem in honour of Saint Martin to him (cf. CRC May 1992)!

     It is indeed of an implacable logic. On 30 June 1988, Mgr Lefebvre had conferred episcopal consecration on four priests in his Fraternity, one of whom was Mgr Tissier. On the very next day, our Father wrote:

     «Mgr Lefebvre, or rather his four bishops of nowhere, having yet again claimed, at the very moment of their schismatic consecration, to be in communion with the Pope who has just excommunicated them, will be beset by the temptation – logical after all! – to proclaim that the Church of Rome has condemned herself in condemning them, and that John Paul II, in excommunicating them, has ipso facto excommunicated himself. And so they will have to hold a conclave among themselves in order to elect a successor worthy of the popes of Tradition, just as Mgr Lefebvre has, in their own persons, given the priests of Tradition bishops who are worthy to perpetuate them.» (English CRC no 211, June 1988, p. 2) If truth be told, this “conclave” was held the very same day of the consecrations; and Mgr Lefebvre was unanimously elected ipso facto by the four priests who had agreed to be consecrated bishops by him...

     This is not the first time that Mgr Tissier has made statements of this kind in connection with the episcopal consecrations. We have already stated in Sodalitium what one should think of these “candid admissions” by Mgr Tissier and other representatives of the Fraternity. They apply extreme restrictions to the Pope’s infallibility whilst placing no limits on that of Mgr Lefebvre. Thus Mgr Tissier, as we have already written, “substitutes a bishop for the Pope as the criterion of Catholicity. In this way Mgr Tissier completely revolutionizes the divine constitution of the Church, by opposing the charisma of a (presumed) sanctity to that of papal authority.” The text of Mgr Tissier that we are commenting on – contemporary with that which we denounced in its time: they are both from 1998 – confirms, alas, the “charismatic” drift of the Fraternity, but certainly does not provide an adequate argument for the legitimacy of its tribunals, regardless of the respect and esteem in which Mgr Lefebvre may be held.


THE FRATERNITY TRIES TO JUSTIFY ITS POSITION BY DENYING ANY USURPATION OF THE POPE’S POWER. IN REALITY IT IS OPPOSED TO THE POPE’S PRIMACY OF JURISDICTION.

     In his article published in Cor unum, Mgr Tissier attempts to justify the “legitimacy of our matrimonial tribunals”. How can one not be astonished at how few lines he devotes to this initial difficulty despite its apparent insurmountability: by acting in this way, is not the Fraternity usurping a power which belongs to the Pope by divine right? Mgr Tissier is content to answer: “It is true that our verdicts of the third instance replace the verdicts of the Roman Rota, which acts in the Pope’s name as a tribunal of the third instance. But this is not a usurpation of the Pope’s divinely endowed authority, for the reservation of this third instance to the Pope is merely a matter of ecclesiastical law!” (Cor unum, IV, 5, p. 43)

     The enthusiastic exclamation mark cannot disguise the weakness of this answer by the President of the Fraternity’s Canonical Commission. It may be true, historically, that it was only late in the day that the Holy See reserved to itself the final degree of judgement in matrimonial cases, and therefore as a matter of ecclesiastical right, just as it only gradually imposed the obligation to obtain a Roman mandate for episcopal consecrations; transeamus.

     The real point is rather the following: by laying claim to powers which are purely jurisdictional and lie outside the Pope’s control (and even in opposition to him, despite their admission of John Paul II’s legitimacy), is not the Fraternity violating the Pope’s primacy of jurisdiction which belongs to him by divine right? The response can only be in the affirmative.

     I first recall what was stated in canon 1569 § 1, which has stayed the same in the New Code (canon 1417 § 1). There it says:

     “By virtue of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff, any of the faithful may refer their case to the judgement of the Holy See, whether the case be contentious or penal, at any grade of judgement or at any stage of the suit, or they may introduce it directly before the same Holy See.” (cf. Vatican I, Dogmatic Constitution Pastor aeternus, Denz. Sch. 3063)

     Now, in matrimonial cases, since the Roman Rota’s judgements of the third instance (i.e. the judgements of the tribunal of the Holy See) have been superseded by the verdicts of the Fraternity’s tribunal, the faithful are prevented from referring their case to the judgement of the Holy See. For this reason the institution of tribunals by the Fraternity’s Canonical Commission to replace those of the Holy See represents an attack on the primacy of the Sovereign Pontiff.

     Now it is a matter of divine right that the primacy of jurisdiction belongs to the Sovereign Pontiff (Denz. Sch. 3059).


THE INSTITUTION OF TRIBUNALS IN THE FRATERNITY IS THEREFORE CONTRARY TO DIVINE LAW AND NOT JUST TO ECCLESIASTICAL LAW, AND THAT IS WHY IT CANNOT BE JUSTIFIED EVEN IN CASES OF NEED.

     It is possible to arrive at the same conclusion through an argument that is even more radical, i.e. by prescinding altogether from the question of an appeal to the Holy See. For the Fraternity could give up the idea of substituting itself for the Rota and content itself with standing in for the diocesan tribunals: could this be done without in fact denying the Sovereign Pontiff’s primacy of jurisdiction (whether the see is vacant or, with even more reason, occupied)? We think not.

     For, “the Roman Pontiff, the Successor of Saint Peter in the primacy, possesses not only a primacy of honour, but also a supreme and complete power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, both in matters of faith and morals as well as in those that affect discipline and Church government throughout the world. This power is truly episcopal, ordinary and immediate both for each and every one of the churches, as well as for every individual pastor and member of the faithful; it is a power that is independent of any kind of human authority.” (can. 218; cf. Vatican I, Dogmatic Constitution PASTOR ÆTERNUS, Denz. S. 3059-3064). Consequently, he is “Supreme Judge of the whole Catholic world” (can. 1597; cf. Denz. Sch. 3063).

     Now the fact is that the Fraternity’s judges claim to possess a jurisdiction – albeit one of supply – outside of and even in opposition to him who holds the full powers of jurisdiction over the Church. They make judgements in disregard of the supreme judge and, what is more, in opposition to his judgement. Consequently the Fraternity’s tribunals, its judges and verdicts, void the Pope’s primacy of jurisdiction of any real significance, reducing it to a matter of empty words.

     To explain this argument more clearly, I remark that if the diocesan or metropolitan bishops function as judges in the Church, it is because they have received from the Pope a diocese or archdiocese to be governed. To establish tribunals that replace the diocesan tribunals without authorization from the supreme judge, the Pope, is equivalent to attributing to oneself the authority of the diocesan bishop: “In the Church (and this is a dogma of faith) the Pope has the plenitude of jurisdiction: there is no jurisdiction other than his; any jurisdictional matter, whatever its level, is but a part of the whole which is exercised in his name and, in the final analysis, in the name of Jesus Christ who has given it (the jurisdiction) to him (the Pope); it (this part) must be exercised in harmony with the whole and in an established manner. It is from God that the Pope’s authority comes and, through him, the authority of the bishops and, through them, that of the judges; that is why in the final analysis all jurisdiction is papal.” (Orlando Fedeli)

     To use an analogy, it is in the name of public authority that the judge dispenses civil sentences. For a court to be administered by private citizens, either as individuals or in association, is something quite inconceivable and inadmissible. However, this is precisely how the Fraternity behaves in the Church, as Orlando Fedeli stresses:

     “Neither the Scriptures nor the Magisterium have ever taught that private persons may implement an ad hoc system of justice...”

     It is exactly as if a magistrate in Marseilles were to come, of his own authority, and pass judgements in Paris, alleging that the chief magistrate of the high court failed to come up to his standards or was issuing bad judgements. It is exorbitant or, to be more precise, aberrant, atypical.


ONE EXAMPLE. THE FRATERNITY TRIES TO JUSTIFY ITS POSITION BY DECLARING THAT JURISDICTION DOES NOT COME FROM THE POPE, BUT FROM EPISCOPAL CONSECRATION. PIUS XII REFUTES THIS ERROR.

     The Fraternity’s theologians might object to our arguments that, although the Pope enjoys the primacy of jurisdiction whi