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 which is why
all must be subject to him, it is possible to receive jurisdiction
without going through the Pope. This is what is maintained for
example by the Abbé François Pivert, the inspirational force behind the
Canonical Commission and one of its three members (along with Mgr
Tissier and the Abbé Laroche). He
writes: “Rather than saying that in the Church every power derives
from the Pope, it would be truer to say that, in the Church, ever
power must be submitted to the Pope.” The author of this assertion
does not seem, at least in this article, to realise exactly what he
is writing, nor does he appear to justify his position. I shall
limit myself to proving its falsehood.
The
Fathers of the Council of Trent had lengthy discussions about
whether the bishop’s power of jurisdiction came to him directly
from God (by episcopal consecration) or through the Pope.
In
the first case, the Abbé Pivert would be right in holding that the power of jurisdiction in the
Church does not derive from the Pope, even though it must be subject to him. In the second case, on the
other hand,
he would be wrong.
I have already dealt
at some length with this question in
my answer to the Abbé Belmont; I therefore refer the reader to this.
Father
Ricossa here refers to number 44 of the review Sodalitium, available
from the Centro Librario Sodalitium, Verrua Savoia. It will be sent
free to anyone who asks for it at the following address:
Istituto Mater Boni Consilii. – Località Carbignano, 36 10020
VERRUA SAVOIA (TO).
For those who will content themselves with this
study, two quotations will suffice, one in favour of the Abbé
Pivert’s thesis, the other against. In favour, and in keeping with
the Gallicans of every kind, we have the teaching of Vatican II (Lumen
gentium, no 21): “Episcopal consecration confers, together
with the office of sanctifying, the duty also of teaching and
ruling, which, however, of their very nature can be exercised only
in hierarchical communion with the head and members of the college.” (cf. also can. 375 § 2 of the New Code)
Therefore, despite the Pope’s primacy, the
power of jurisdiction does not derive from him apparently, exactly
as the Abbé Pivert maintains!
But against his position (and that of Vatican
II) there exist numerous texts of the ordinary magisterium. I will
quote but one of these, the Encylical AD APOSTOLORUM PRINICIPIS of
Pope Pius XII (29 June 1958):
“For jurisdiction passes to bishops only
through the Roman Pontiff as We stated in Our Encyclical MYSTICI
CORPORIS: Each bishop, as far as his own diocese is concerned, feeds
and governs, like a true shepherd and in the name of Christ, the
flock entrusted to him. Yet in exercising this office the bishops
are not altogether independent but are subordinate to the lawful authority of the Roman Pontiff, and
although they enjoy an ordinary power of jurisdiction, this power is
directly communicated to them through the Supreme Pontiff. We referred to
this teaching in the Encyclical Letter addressed to you, AD
SINARUM GENTEM: The power of jurisdiction which is directly
conferred by divine right on the Supreme Pontiff comes to bishops by
that same right, but only through the successor of Saint Peter…”
Last January we recalled how Pope Pius XII, as
a response to the institution of an “autonomous Church” in
China, decreed ipso facto excommunication for all bishops, whatever
their rite or nationality, who had not been appointed or confirmed
by the Apostolic See, as well as for any bishop involved in their
consecration (Resurrection no 1, January 2001, p. 9). The reference
is well-judged and very telling! The schism of Mgr Lefebvre and
that of the “official” and “patriotic” Chinese Church are
like brothers…
Consequently the Pope not only possesses the
primacy of jurisdiction in the sense that none can exercise
jurisdiction without his consent, but he also possesses the primacy
of jurisdiction in the sense that every power of jurisdiction
derives from him. For the Pope (setting aside any question of John
Paul II’s legitimacy) has never giver jurisdiction to the bishops
consecrated by Mgr Lefebvre, and as the jurisdiction enjoyed by a
Bishop can only come through the Pope, it follows that these Bishops
have no jurisdiction, and the Canonical Commission of the Society of
Saint Pius X even less so.
Therefore, to lay claim to a jurisdiction –
as does the Canonical Commission in question – is equivalent to
denying the Primacy and accomplishing a schismatic act.
ANOTHER
EXAMPLE. THE FRATERNITY TRIES TO JUSTIFY ITS POSITION BY DECLARING
THAT JURISDICTION DOES NOT COME FROM THE POPE, BUT FROM THE CHURCH,
BY MEANS OF SUPPLY. REFUTATION OF THIS THESIS.
We
have shown that “the Roman Pontiff is the source of every power
and jurisdiction in the Church”. But are there not any exceptions
to this rule to be found in the doctrine of supplied jurisdiction?
Any jurisdiction – ordinary or delegated – comes from the Roman
Pontiff of course; but not supplied jurisdiction which comes from
the Church: Ecclesia supplet! And it is precisely to supplied
jurisdiction that the Fraternity refers to justify the power of
jurisdiction it attributes to itself.
We
have seen within what limits and in what sense one can appeal to
supplied jurisdiction in the Church’s current situation by
republishing an excellent article by the Abbé Belmont. In can. 209 (New
Code, can. 144), the Code explicitly provides for supplied
jurisdiction in cases where common error and positive doubt are
probable, and to these one can add the case of the danger of death
(can. 882; New Code, can. 976).
“Thus,
in the whole Code of Canonical Law, there are only two canons which deal with supplied
jurisdiction”, as one of the Fraternity’s
priests admits; “supplied jurisdiction places us in a very unusual
situation: the priest from whom the layman seeks help does not enjoy
ordinary jurisdiction (for ourselves, there is no positive or
probable doubt about the existence of this jurisdiction, ed.).
However, the sacramental act is still licit, either because the
layman does not know the situation of the minister (this is common
error) or because he has an urgent and pressing need of the
sacrament (this is the danger of death).” The admission that
common error cannot normally be invoked (“those who call on us are
usually aware that the bishops have refused us any power”) means
that only the danger of death remains.
But
traditionalist priests do not limit their ministry to recovery rooms!
Therefore, as we have seen, Mgr Lefebvre invoked the
danger of spiritual death in which all the faithful find themselves
as a result of modernism. That the current situation justifies
priestly ministry without jurisdiction is something we are in
perfect agreement on…
Not
us! We are in complete disagreement. One cannot answer heresy with
schism! The Abbé de Nantes has constantly preached this truth for
more than thirty years, in the wilderness:
«We must stay put, resigned to being punished, to suffering and
to obeying whatever is not forbidden or intolerable, as martyrs for
Catholic Unity and Charity... We must reject everything that is
commanded for the purpose of subversion and not let ourselves be
penalised without protesting. But never, never ever, will we contest
the unique inviolable power of jurisdiction that belongs to the Pope
and to the bishops united to him. Even though they behave unjustly,
it is they who are the Catholic hierarchy, not ourselves. One cannot
save the Church by building on other foundations.» (French CRC no
25, October 1969, p. 12)
But Mgr Marcel Lefebvre was more anxious to save “his work” than
to save the Church. And Father Ricossa is the same...
… but to attempt to
legitimise such a
ministry by referring to canon law, either by extending the logic of
canon 882 to cover the danger of spiritual death of by invoking
canon 20, appears to us absolutely unfounded!
And then, what is one to say when supplied
jurisdiction is invoked not to render sacramental acts licit (or
even valid) but to replace the legislative or judicial power of the
Church, considered untrustworthy?
Rightly does Fedeli object:
“If one were to systematically apply the logic lying behind the creation of
the commissions, in practice not a single
function of Church government would remain that is still legitimate and
has no need of being substituted; even the Church herself would have
to be replaced. How far can one go?”; “if this (the state of
necessity experienced by the faithful) gives us the right to set
ourselves up as alternative judges and assume a suppletory
authority, I cannot see why we should not also, and with far greater
reason, assume all the organs of government, especially liturgical
and doctrinal ones, as in this case both necessity and the right to
reliable teaching include not only those with matrimonial problems but the whole
Church and all mankind, since these have the
right
to know true Catholic doctrine, a doctrine which is not professed by
this authority despite the fact that we continue to recognise it. Annulments
(of
marriage) are only part of the problem. A large number
of legal rights affecting a great many people need to be protected
from error, not only personalist errors, but errors in all domains;
but from there to believing oneself invested with judicial power to
fill and solve this real vacuum” is a far cry!
But
this criticism of the possibility of applying supplied jurisdiction
to legitimise the Fraternity’s
Canonical Commission can be maintained by a more radical argument.
For what in fact is the true meaning of the term Ecclesia supplet, the Church
supplies?
Here
is how Mgr Tissier de Mallerais explains this legal adage in his
conference of 10 March 1991: “It is a matter of supplying for the
priest’s or bishop’s lack of jurisdiction, Ecclesia supplet.
IT WILL NOT BE THE POPE OR THE DIOCESAN HIERARCHY WHO WILL PROVIDE US WITH A
FLOCK, IT WILL BE THE CHURCH, Our Lord Jesus Christ, as head of His
Mystical Body who will sanction, who will in short declare a
situation of necessity to exist among the faithful.”
And he goes on: “It is a situation
where the Church will directly confer
jurisdiction on the priest, without passing through the various
degrees of the hierarchy; the Mystical Body of Our Lord,
Our Lord Himself as Head of His Church will give jurisdiction
to priests in particular cases”; and having quoted the three cases
provided for by the Code (common error, positive doubt and danger of
death), the Fraternity’s bishop continues:
“In
this case, the Church opens wide the doors of her mercy and grants
jurisdiction to the priest. This is done by the Church herself,
without passing through the hierarchy [!].”
According
to the President of the Canonical Commission, the “Church”
which, in certain particular cases, grants jurisdiction to priests
who lack it, is completely distinct from the Hierarchy
as such, and must be identified with both the Mystical Body of
Christ (Our Lord united to all the faithful) and Christ, the Head of
the Church. This interpretation of the term “Church” employed
by the Code of Canon Law is completely false.
On
the subject of supplied jurisdiction, Cardinal Staffa, for
example, writes in the Enciclopedia Cattolica: “CANON 209 ELIMINATES ANY
UNCERTAINTY (on the possibility of supply), BY DECLARING THAT
THE
CHURCH (THAT IS TO SAY THE SUPREME LEGISLATOR) SUPPLIES JURISDICTION
IN BOTH THE EXTERNAL FORUM AS WELL AS THE INTERNAL FORUM: A) IN THE
CASE OF COMMON ERROR; B) IN THE CASE OF POSITIVE AND PROBABLE DOUBT
BOTH DE IURE AND DE FACTO.”
Cardinal
Palazzini expresses himself no differently: supplied jurisdiction,
he writes, “IS THE JURISDICTION POSSESSED NOT BY ASSUMING AN
OFFICE, NOR IS IT CONFERRED BY THE DELEGATION OF A SUPERIOR, BUT IT
IS GIVEN BY THE LAW ITSELF, THAT IS BY THE CHURCH AND, THROUGH HER,
BY THE SUPREME ECCLESIASTICAL LEGISLATOR AT THE VERY MOMENT THAT IT
IS
EXERCISED (ad modum actus) FOR THE GOOD OF SOULS WHO WOULD
OTHERWISE, WITHOUT ANY FAULT ON THEIR PART, SUFFER HARM.”
Thus
when the Code attributes jurisdiction in abstracto (in the abstract)
to the Church in concreto (concretely), it attributes it to the
supreme ecclesiastical Legislator, i.e. to the Pope. And this is
only logical, seeing that the provisions of the Code (at least those
relating to ecclesiastical law) have no value unless they are duly
promulgated by the Supreme Legislator, the Pope! The supplied
jurisdiction of which the Code speaks consequently has nothing to do
with the “supply” imagined and described by Mgr Tissier de
Mallerais, who makes out that its characteristic is to operate “without passing through the
hierarchy”, and therefore without passing through
the Pope either.
The
reason why Mgr Tissier persists in wanting to deny that the Pope is
the source of the supplied jurisdiction claimed by the Fraternity is
obvious: it is because John Paul II, recognised by Econe as the Pope, refuses them any kind of jurisdiction, as Mgr Tissier himself
admits. If, therefore, it is the Pope who grants supplied
jurisdiction, even though he should do this through the law he has himself promulgated, one obviously cannot claim that John Paul
II has granted the Society of Saint Pius X, personally
excommunicated by him, powers so exorbitant that he has explicitly
refused them in other respects. So here again stand refuted the
claims made by the Fraternity: the priests of Fraternity do not
enjoy the supplied jurisdiction attributed
to them by Mgr Tissier de Mallerais and the Abbé Pivert.
At this point,
Father Ricossa writes in a footnote: «The reader might be wondering
what is our own position on this subject. For, it is not only the
priests of the Society of Saint Pius X who are deprived of all
ordinary and delegated jurisdiction, but also all those who are
opposed to Vatican II.»
It
is worth pointing out that it is not his opposition to Vatican II
that has earned Father Ricossa his loss of jurisdiction. As he
himself explained earlier, from 1976 onwards priests ordained in the
Fraternity were suspended a divinis, as was Mgr Lefebvre who
ordained them. Father Ricossa, ordained within the Fraternity in
1982, was therefore suspended... from the very first day of his
priesthood! Not because of some unspecified “opposition to Vatican
II” – seeing that Mgr Lefebvre had signed all the Acts of the
Council (English CRC no 264, Jan 1994, p. 23 ff) – but by an act
of unjustified disobedience to a Pope whom Mgr Lefebvre declared
“liberal” in opposition to the Abbé de Nantes who described him as
a heretic, a schismatic and an apostate!
Under
the title «STRIKE THE HEAD!» the Abbé de Nantes recapitulated, in
February 1975, «the great design» put into effect by Pope
Paul VI in the first ten years of the post-Council: «To form,
throughout the world, with the assistance of all “men of good will” whatever
be their religion, a great Movement for the Spiritual
Animation of Universal Democracy, a MASDU».
Faced
with this immense apostasy, our Father concluded: «It needs a
Bishop – one who is himself a successor of the Apostles, a member
of the teaching Church, a colleague of the Bishop of Rome and
ordained like him to the Common Good of the Church – to break his
communion with Him for as long as he fails to prove his fidelity to
the responsibilities of his Supreme Pontificate.» (French CRC no
89, p. 2)
Mgr
Lefebvre, summoned by Cardinals Garrone and Tabera to disown the Abbé
de Nantes, replied to him in an open letter published in the review
Itinéraires on 19 March: «Know that if a bishop breaks with Rome,
it will not be me [...] With Pope Paul VI, we denounce neo-modernism,
the self-destruction of the Church, the smoke of Satan in the
Church.» With Pope Paul VI? Then, why disobey him one year
later by ordaining priests against his formal wishes?
In
July 1975, the Abbé de Nantes wrote: «I wait in prayer and
indignation for one Bishop, just one, to break his communion with
this communist Pope, this freemason Pope, this modernist Pope,
thereby forcing him at last to open the trial for his own infamy.»
(French CRC no 94, p. 2)
We
are still waiting, and Father Guérard des Lauriers, followed by
Father Ricossa, himself a dissident of the lefebvrist dissidence,
hardly correspond to this expectation! «If we are not even able to
invoke
the supplied jurisdiction that comes from the Pope, how can we
defend the liceity of our ministry?» continues Father Ricossa. In
no way! replies the Abbé de Nantes. But the ex-lefebvrist
does not listen to him. He has found something better: not that
Father Guérard des Lauriers has the power to make licit what is
not, but he eliminates the essence of the problem by claiming –
according to his disciple Father Ricossa’s summarisation of his
position – that «the
Apostolic See is formally (but not materially) vacant».
This
is obviously the “perfect” solution: «The fact that the See is
formally vacant, continues Father Ricossa, means that since in
practice
there is no Pope to function as the source of ecclesiastical
jurisdiction (and the same goes for the rest of the hierarchy, who
enjoy ordinary or delegated jurisdiction), there is no one in
the Church today who possesses any kind of jurisdiction, be it
ordinary, delegated or supplied by law. And this is true not only
for those who adhere to Vatican II, but also for those who oppose
it.»
In
other words, the whole ecclesiastical hierarchy has vanished. To
evade this conclusion which would be an admission of apostasy,
Father Ricossa, following the line taken by Father Guérard des
Lauriers, writes: «The power of order (for the glory of God with
the offering of the Sacrifice, and for the salvation
of souls with the administration of the sacraments, evangelisation,
etc.) cannot and must not disappear; it can therefore be licitly
exercised even by priests who lack the power of jurisdiction, in
accordance with the (traditional) rites of the Church. To deny this
last point would involve denying the continuity of the Church as
Christ willed it.» So there we see ourselves excommunicated by
Father Ricossa, we and «the adherents of Vatican II» all lumped together! But if
anyone is in error in this matter, it is quite
clearly him!
And
what is more, without intending it, he is even going to prove this
himself. Let us continue our reading.
ONE
LAST POSSIBILITY: COULD JURISDICTION COME FROM THE FAITHFUL?
If
the jurisdiction claimed by the Fraternity does not come from above
(Christ, Church, Pope), one could hypothesise that it draws its
origin from below, i.e. from the faithful. The Fraternity may not
affirm this explicitly, but there is no shortage of infelicitous
phrases to support such an interpretation, as a priest from this
same Fraternity candidly acknowledges:
“In
his circular letter of 30 June 1994, the Abbé Berger correctly put
his finger on the impossibility of such a hypothesis:
“The
thesis that holds sway in the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X
is that expressed by Mgr Tissier in his conference at Paris in March
1991... Ultimately supplied jurisdiction derives from the requests
of the faithful, on a case by case basis... The democratic nature of such a
thesis is very awkward, and I fail to see how it can be reconciled
with the hierarchical structure of the Church, where the apostolate
is necessarily based on a mission that can only come from above.”
This
reminder is far from vain. It is obvious that supplied jurisdiction
does not draw its origin from the faithful. In the talk referred to
by our former colleague (otherwise known as the Abbé Berger, who
left the Society of Saint Pius X and accepted Vatican II, ed.), Mgr
Tissier de Mallerais therefore used inappropriate expressions when
he stated: “It is a jurisdiction which essentially depends on the
faithful and not on the priest”, and “one can say
that you give the priest the necessary jurisdiction.”
Sodalitium
(no 26, December 1991) had itself already denounced these
“inappropriate expressions” in an article (which I have
previously referred
to) with the significant title: “The authority of the bishop: is
it mediated through the Pope or through the faithful?” It seems
opportune to reproduce part of this article as it reports
expressions used Mgr Lefebvre that are even more inappropriate than
those used by Mgr Tissier: “When in June 1988 Mgr Lefebvre
consecrated four bishops without Roman mandate, he violated the first
condition of liceity by declaring that John Paul II is not truly
Pope, but not the second: he did not attribute ordinary jurisdiction
to his Bishops.
“However
three of Mgr Lefebvre’s posthumous documents published in
Fideliter (no 82, July-August 1991, p. 13-17) have left us
astonished and dismayed.
“We
refer to a letter addressed to Mgr Castro Mayer on 4 December 1990,
and another to Father Rifan on 20 February 1991, along with a Note
regarding the new bishop, the future successor of Mgr de Castro
Mayer.
“There Mgr Lefebvre specifies the powers to be enjoyed by the
future consecrand (Mgr Licinio Rangel, consecrated in Campos on 28 July 1991).
“This is what Archbishop Lefebvre writes:
... THE CASE OF THE DIOCESE OF CAMPOS IS
SIMPLER, BECAUSE HERE THE MAJORITY OF DIOCESAN PRIESTS AND FAITHFUL,
ACTING ON THE ADVICE OF THE PREVIOUS BISHOP, DESIGNATED HIS SUCCESSOR
AND ASKED OTHER CATHOLIC BISHOPS TO CONSECRATE HIM... THIS WAS THE MANNER
IN WHICH EPISCOPAL SUCCESSION OPERATED IN THE FIRST CENTURIES,
IN UNION WITH ROME AS WE OURSELVES ARE, IN UNION WITH CATHOLIC
ROME BUT NOT WITH MODERNIST ROME.
“It is all well and good that people and
clergy should designate the bishop, but do they also give him
authority and jurisdiction?
“We became a little suspicious:
IT IS THE CLERGY AND THE FAITHFUL OF CAMPOS WHO
ARE GIVING THEMSELVES A SUCCESSOR OF THE APOSTLES, A ROMAN CATHOLIC
BISHOP, SINCE THEY ARE NO LONGER ABLE TO OBTAIN ONE FROM MODERNIST
ROME.
“However, there is already in Campos a
bishop nominated by the Pope and enthroned, at the time, by Mgr de
Castro Mayer. Is this new SUCCESSOR OF THE APOSTLES only
receiving
the power of order (to ordain priests, to confirm, etc.) or is he
also receiving the power of jurisdiction? The power of order is given
by Bishops: what then do THE CLERGY AND THE FAITHFUL of Campos
give? Authority?
“Well yes, authority. Mgr Lefebvre speaks of
EPISCOPAL AUTHORITY. The new bishop is not a residential Bishop but
has a jurisdiction which comes... from the clergy and from the
faithful: HE HAS NO OTHER TITLE TO JURISDICTION [so he does
have one title
then! ed.] THAN THAT WHICH COMES FROM THE CALL OF THE PRIESTS AND
THE FAITHFUL... WHO HAVE ASKED HIM TO ACCEPT THE EPISCOPACY.
Does this refer to this
a simple de facto authority, a simple power of administering the
sacraments and guiding souls, something already included in the power of
order? We may well doubt this given the fact that Mgr Lefebvre
insists on speaking of A JURISDICTIONAL AUTHORITY OF THE BISHOP
WHICH COMES TO HIM NOT BY NOMINATION FROM ROME, BUT FROM THE
NECESSITY OF SAVING SOULS. THE FAITHFUL AND PRIESTS SHOULD HELP THIS
SUCCESSOR OF THE APOSTLES EXERCISE HIS AUTHORITY BY SHOWING HIM A
GENEROUS OBEDIENCE.
“We now come to a more explicit affirmation:
SINCE THE JURISDICTION OF THE BISHOP IS NOT TERRITORIAL BUT PERSONAL
AND HAS AS ITS SOURCE THE DUTY OF SAVING THE SOULS OF THE FAITHFUL,
SHOULD A GROUP OF THE FAITHFUL IN THE NEIGHBOURING DIOCESES CALL UPON
THE BISHOP TO GIVE THEM A PRIEST, THIS GROUP WOULD BY THAT VERY FACT GIVE
THE BISHOP THE POWER OF WATCHING OVER THE TRANSMISSION OF FAITH
AND GRACE IN THIS GROUP THROUGH THE INTERMEDIARY OF THE PRIEST HE
SENDS.
“A group of the faithful, therefore,
apparently gives
power, authority and jurisdiction to the Bishop. Making a
distinction between territorial and personal jurisdiction does not
in any way change the gravity of such an affirmation: a military
Ordinary, for example, (that is to say a bishop having personal
jurisdiction over all the military personnel of a nation), and a
residential bishop with jurisdiction over the residents of a diocese
are no different in respect of the jurisdiction they have received
from the Pope.
To this thesis (jurisdiction comes from the
people) I can only answer using an argument I used nine years ago:
“No one can give what he does not have: if the people (or the
Church distinct from the Pope) give power, then this can only be
because the people or the Church have authority. This of course is
the Jansenist thesis maintained at the Synod of Pistoia, a thesis
that holds that power is given by God to the Church (or community of
the faithful) whence it is given to the Pastors who are the
ministers of the Church for the salvation of souls. This thesis was
condemned as heretical by Pius VI (DS 2603).”
The solution “jurisdiction through the
faithful” thus turns out to be even worse than the previous
solutions; I do not believe that it is genuinely maintained by the
Fraternity: what is written in this section should be enough to
deter anyone from following this dangerous road.
Let us pursue our analysis of the position
taken by Sodalitium regarding the consequences of the initiatives
undertaken by the Society of Saint Pius X. They are incalculable, as
much in the internal forum as in the external forum, i.e. as much
for the spiritual life of each soul involved as for their situation
within the Catholic Church.
PRACTICAL CONSEQUENCES: MANY OF THE LAYPEOPLE WHO SUPPORT THE
FRATERNITY WILL LIVE IN CONTINUAL UNCERTAINTY OVER THE
STATE OF THEIR SOULS.
What we have written up to this point already
amply suffices to justify the thesis of this section: many of the
faithful attached to the Fraternity will live in continual
uncertainty about the state – and the salvation – of their souls. For as we have demonstrated, the Fraternity has already
structured itself – and continues to structure itself ever more
determinedly –
as an
independent Church which must supply for and supplant the
“official” Church (nevertheless recognised as the authentic Catholic
Church). In the conscience of the faithful who are rightly proud of defending the dogma
“outside the Church no salvation”, the fear of
belonging to a schismatic structure can only cause continual
turmoil. And in fact, certain people, scandalised at discovering the
existence of these Tribunals, which if not secret are at least
secretive, have withdrawn their trust from the Fraternity to follow,
alas, those “authorities” which are faithful to Vatican II. The
problem of conscience posed to Mgr Lefebvre’s faithful by this
development of the Fraternity’s position is aggravated by the fact
that the confusion derives not so much from purely abstract
doctrines – perhaps beyond the powers of comprehension of the
faithful but nevertheless without practical consequences – but from a
standpoint which has implications for the very validity of the
sacraments.
If, for example, a simple priest of Fraternity
administers Confirmation basing himself on the “powers” granted by the
“Ordinances”, is the sacrament valid? The confirmee and
his family may legitimately wonder. There is more. Take a monk, a nun
or a subdeacon who have been “laicised” and released from their
vows by a “decree” of the Fraternity’s bishop for religious or
by Mgr Fellay: have they truly been released from their vows before
God? Does the Lord bless their ensuing marriage or is it a sacrilegious concubinage? But the
gravest and certainly
the most relevant issue today concerns the marriage annulments
“decreed” by the Canonical Commission of the Society of Saint
Pius X...
This, we admit, is an extremely grave pastoral
problem which by no means leaves us indifferent and whose solution
is difficult if not impossible. The criticisms formulated by Mgr
Tissier de Mallerais against the new theological and canonical
principles which gained ground after Vatican II are also ours and we share them
fully. Our theological position only makes worse, if such be possible, the
consequences deduced by Mgr Tissier from his analysis (cf. the whole
of the first chapter of the study published in Cor unum) of the new
“personalist” matrimonial doctrine condemned under Pius XII and
now become the “official” doctrine under John Paul II.
According to Mgr Tissier, who recognises John
Paul II, the verdicts of the latter’s Tribunals “cannot be
considered either as ipso facto null or as valid
without examination”, and on a practical level the faithful are
prevented from “going to novus ordo tribunals, lest this result
in an invalid declaration” (Cor unum, cit. p. 44, practical rules
1 and 2). For us [remember this is Sodalitium speaking] who do not
recognise the authority of John Paul II, the impossibility of
resorting to his tribunals is not only a practical matter, it is
also a question of principle: not only is it certain that their
verdicts are null, but any recourse to these tribunals
would involve de facto recognition of the authority in question, a
recognition that in the light of the faith we regard as
inadmissible.
Here, we must reproduce a note in which Father
Ricossa quotes the Abbé Belmont to explain his own position:
«John Paul II, wrote the Abbé Belmont in
1990, “having failed to break with the state of schism” inaugurated
by Paul VI, “remains deprived of pontifical authority.”» Deprived by whom? By the Abbé
Belmont... although the whole world recognises this pontifical authority, having
also recognised that of Paul VI in his lifetime. By what “authority” therefore does the Abbé Belmont
“deprive” John Paul II of his pontifical authority?
Ricossa continues with his quotation
from Belmont: «Consequently,
our witness to the faith requires that we avoid any act that implies recognition of his authority, e.g.
referring to him in the Canon
of the Mass or in liturgical prayers for the Sovereign Pontiff,
benefiting from his laws or recognising them as having legal
validity, having recourse to the tribunals of the Curia, etc.»
One could not conceive of acts more formally
schismatic. But Father Ricossa embraces it all eagerly: «We are in
complete agreement with this position.»
We are now going to see the consequences
of this:
We are very much aware of the
grave
pastoral difficulties in which our position will involve the
faithful whose marriages are either known or suspected to be invalid, and
who do not have the means of proving this in law. However, the solution
adopted by the Society of Saint Pius X to obviate this grave
inconvenience seems to us absolutely unfounded and illusory, as we will
show.
What we have just stated may seem harsh to the
reader: but the following quotations will help him to accept the sad
reality, for, without realising it, the authorities of the
Fraternity themselves confirm our conclusion.
For Mgr Tissier de Mallerais
believes he can
prove the liceity of his tribunals from the laity’s right to know
with certainty whether their own marriages have been validly
celebrated: the faithful, he writes, “have the right in justice to
be sure of the validity of the sacrament received a second time and
therefore of the validity of the declaration of nullity (...).
THEREFORE (...), in this situation, faithful bishops (Dom Licinio at
Campos) and our own Canonical Commission (...) possess supplied
powers allowing us to judge matrimonial cases.” (Cor unum, cit.
II, 4, p. 41)
If these words have a meaning, then the verdicts of
the “traditionalist tribunals” are valid BECAUSE THIS IS
THE ONLY WAY for the faithful to have certainty about the nullity of
their first marriage. But Mgr Tissier contradicts himself on this
matter by stripping the verdicts in question of any kind of certitude,
thereby making the faithful already filled with doubts fall
back into the greatest anguish and perplexity over the state of
their souls: “Finally”, writes the President of the
Canonical Commission, “OUR VERDICTS, like all our acts of
suppletory jurisdiction and like the episcopal consecrations
themselves in 1988, 1991, etc., WILL ULTIMATELY NEED TO BE CONFIRMED
BY THE HOLY SEE” (Cor unum, IV, 6, p. 43).
In a footnote, Father Ricossa justly remarks
that «the two cases – episcopal consecrations and tribunal
verdicts – cannot be treated on the same level». This distinction
seems to escape Mgr Tissier. If the consecrations were one day to be
confirmed by the Holy See, the effect of this would not be to render
them valid. There is no doubt that they are already are valid by virtue of the power of order that Mgr Lefebvre most
certainly possessed. On the other hand, «if the Holy See were to
refuse to confirm the verdicts of the Fraternity’s tribunals (and we
really cannot see how it could confirm them), then any marriages
contracted on the basis of these verdicts would have been totally
invalid right from the start, and the putative spouses would
suddenly discover that they are cohabitees».
If in the future the Holy See does not
confirm
the Fraternity’s verdicts, what will happen? Every one of these
verdicts will have to be considered null and void, and that
from the start. Since the first marriage still remains valid,
any
wedding subsequently celebrated will have been null and void right from
the very beginning! Now given that this hypothesis cannot be excluded
since even Mgr Tissier himself envisages such a possibility, one
may deduce that hitherto none of the faithful who have
received a marriage annulment from the Fraternity’s tribunals can
be sure – as the Fraternity itself admits – whether this
annulment is valid or not. They cannot be sure, therefore, whether it
is the first or the second marriage that is valid, whether the
person with whom they are living is their legitimate spouse or their
lover, and whether they are in good standing with God.
There is more. Seeing that Mgr Tissier himself
maintains that if jurisdiction is accorded the Fraternity’s
tribunals it is because they alone give the faithful the certainty
to which they are entitled, and having noted that Mgr Tissier also
admits that there can be no certainty until the Holy See returns its
own judgement, we must deduce that the Fraternity’s
tribunals have no jurisdiction whatsoever and that their verdicts
are not only doubtful but totally invalid. Therefore, those members
of the faithful who have contracted a new marriage relying on the
validity of these verdicts are in fact living as cohabitees and not
as legitimate spouses.
PRACTICAL CONSEQUENCES: WHAT IS THE DUTY OF THE FAITHFUL AND
THE MEMBERS OF THE FRATERNITY? AN APPEAL BY SODALITIUM FOR
UNITY IN THE TRUTH.
The grave conclusion of the preceding chapter
as well as of this whole study should present our readers, the
faithful or members of the Fraternity, with a further problem of
conscience: can I still support the Society of Saint Pius X if it
continues to set itself up as an independent Church and if it has
gone so far as to dispense to its faithful sacraments (like
marriage) which may be invalid and therefore sacrilegious? Can the
faithful still confidently follow guides who err in such a
serious manner? Can priests, even though they disagree with their own
superiors, have any part (be it only through their silence) in
a doctrine and praxis that have such wide-ranging implications?
If the members of the Mater Boni Consilii
Institute left the Society of Saint Pius X in 1985, it is because
they considered that it was no longer possible to support Mgr
Lefebvre’s work. This decision seemed valid to us at the time and
still does [remember that it is Sodalitium which is making this
indictment], regardless of the issues treated of in this dossier.
But the creation of the “Canonical Commission
of Saint Charles Borromeo” in 1991 is something so serious that
this problem has to be addressed in its own right, even by those who
did not consider it appropriate to follow us in 1985. And indeed
many priests have abandoned the Society of Saint Pius X, if for no
other reason than their unwillingness to condone the de facto schism
brought about by the creation of this Commission, the true embryo of
a new Church. We know, it is true, that many of the faithful are
unaware of the institution or the nature of these tribunals; that
many priests and members of the Fraternity do not agree with their
institution; that in practice, in certain districts possibly including Italy, these “tribunals” are ignored and remain
inoperative. Nevertheless, the fact remains that these tribunals,
and the teaching used to justify them, do not represent the personal
initiative and the private opinion of a few individual members of
the Fraternity, but are respectively an organ (the nature and
existence of which is unknown to the public) and an official point
of doctrine in the Fraternity.
It seems right to conclude, therefore, that
there is an objective obligation of conscience to withdraw support
from the Society of Saint Pius X, at least for those who have kept
abreast of this sorry affair (with due regard to the good faith of
individuals which is
known to God alone). Nonetheless, might not there be a way of avoiding
a conclusion so harsh, a conclusion that seems to fail to take into
account the undeniable good of said Fraternity, which has
gathered together the quasi totality of Catholics remaining faithful
to Tradition,...
Why «quasi totality»? Undoubtedly because
Father Ricossa counts the members of his Institute among the «Catholics
remaining faithful
to Tradition», even though they have
separated from «said Fraternity».
In any case, it is clear that, in his eyes, the
Catholics of the Counter-Reformation are not included.
… giving them a
presence everywhere throughout the
world? So must we really abandon the Fraternity to its destiny?
It seems to me that, in order to be able to
continue to support the Society of Saint Pius X on account of the
good that it can still do in the future, it is necessary to obtain
from its leaders a fundamental review of its doctrinal position. In
other words, the Society of Saint Pius X must first
re-examine and review its position regarding supplied jurisdiction and –
after a serious examination of the question – agree to suppress its Canonical Commission of Saint Charles Borromeo, or at least to
change it from an ecclesiastical tribunal into a simple consultative body on
moral and canonical questions. It must also to revise the
“Ordinances” of 1980 (and of 1997). But it would be illusory to
correct the erroneous effects without at the same time re-examining
the cause of these effects. The long historical introduction that we
presented before we went on to examine the teachings disseminated throughout the Society of Saint Pius X since 1991,
explained how the Fraternity’s position on the problem of
jurisdiction has evolved and was intended to help the reader understand how the deviations
currently encountered in said Fraternity have their roots
in the position taken by Mgr Lefebvre from at least 1979 regarding the “problem of
authority” (or “of the Pope”). It is only
by taking a clear
and theologically correct position correct on the authority of the
Council, Paul VI and John Paul II, that we will be able to address the
particular issues confronting faithful Catholics in the current
crisis.
Now at last we are getting there... Forty years
after the opening of the Second Vatican Council, it is considered
time to adopt “a clear and theologically correct position” on
its authority! But it is never too late to set the record
straight... Let us see
what this amounts to.
Mgr Lefebvre, it is true, had always rejected
the sedevacantist solution, and of course we cannot defend the fact
that in this rejection was also included a rejection of the thesis
of Cassiciacum developed by Father Guérard des Lauriers OP,
that most prestigious theologian who took
up the defence of Catholic Tradition right from the beginning.
For Father Ricossa the phrase «right from the
beginning» means from 1969, as we saw earlier (p. 11), in other
words four years after the Council ended! As for the epithet
«prestigious»,
this is a matter of personal appreciation; we leave the
responsibility for this judgement to Father Ricossa, not without
recalling that some time ago he criticised us for «the
“personality cult” that pervades every page written by the Abbé’s
disciples» (Sodalitium, May 1998, quoted in the English CRC
no 309,
May 1998, p. 32). So we are quits!
The marginalisation, then the
“diabolisation”, and finally the obliteration of the very memory
of Father Guérard des Lauriers, the author of the “SHORT
CRITICAL EXAMINATION OF THE NOVUS ORDO MISSÆ” attributed to
its signatories, Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci, deprived Mgr Lefebvre
and his Fraternity of a sure authoritative guide for the doctrinal
and theological choices that were inevitably going to have to be made.
Alas, the position of the Father Guérard was
rejected practically without examination. It was equated with the
total sedevacantism from which Father Guérard, on the contrary,
has
always distinguished himself.
Attention! We are now at a meeting of the ways. The elder brothers can still hear the sincere compliments
addressed by our Father to Father Guérard des Lauriers on that
famous evening of 21 July 1969 while he was serving soup to him in
our refectory after having said the Benedicamus Domino! that is
permission to speak. And there was no shortage of conversation!
«Ah! Reverend Father, we have read your study
on the New Mass. It is not signed, but we recognised your style. It
is certainly remarkable... However, it lacks a conclusion.
– It speaks for itself, retorted the
Dominican, the New Mass is invalid.
– But, Reverend Father, the Pope cannot
promulgate an invalid Mass!
– There isn’t a Pope any longer!
– How do you arrive at such a conclusion?
– Without inference, replied Father Guérard,
without inference!
He meant that it was self-evident: the New Mass
was invalid, the hierarchy had vanished. No more Pope! No more
bishops! «Without inference!» without the need to prove it by
reasoning. It is the same kind of “self-evident truth” which
inspires Father Ricossa – as we have observed on several occasions
– accompanied by a total contempt for the judgement of the rest of
the Church spread throughout the world.
Some of the reasons for which the Fraternity
and Mgr Lefebvre rejected sedevacantism, exactly match our own
position: for example the absence of proof concerning the formal
heresy of John Paul II...
Really? Then, what is the justification for
Father Ricossa declaring John Paul II deprived of papal authority?
The Abbé de Nantes has provided superabundant «proof» of the
heresy of John Paul II in his Liber accusationis. What is lacking is
not proof, it is the verdict of the court judging the case.
… the impracticability of the classical
arguments concerning both the hypothesis of an heretical Pope and the
Bull of Paul IV to prove that the Holy See is vacant,…
Using the term “impracticability”, Father
Ricossa casually rules on a question – as though it spoke for
itself – which had already formed the entire object of the debate
between the Abbé de Nantes and Father Guérard on 21 July 1969.
Even if it were admitted that the Pope had fallen
from office due to the fact that he had promulgated a heretical and
invalid Mass, it would still be necessary for the whole Church to
acknowledge and recognise this: «If you are alone in proclaiming
this, it does not count!» our Father said to Father Guérard des
Lauriers.
That evening, Bellarmine’s thesis on the case
of an heretical Pope was discussed as well as the thesis of Cajetan.
Taking his stand on the latter, our Father firmly concluded: «A
judgement by the Church is needed if Pope Paul VI is to be deposed.»
It was at this point that the Abbé Coache burst into laughter: «Are
you still harping on about that! To expect the official Church to
pass a judgement deposing the Pope is simply ridiculous. It could
never happen!»
Here already we see decreed as «impracticable
the classical arguments concerning the hypothesis of an heretical
Pope».
Ever since then, the Abbé de Nantes has been
the only one to formulate this «hypothesis», initially as a «theoretical
possibility», then as a «practical possibility», all the while
following «classical authors» to use his own expressions (cf.
French CRC no 69, June 1973, p. 7). Although he does not say so, it
is clearly him that Father Ricossa is attacking here, something on
which he agrees with Mgr Lefebvre.
… the necessity of
having continuity
in the Church, in the
hierarchy and the conclave voters (cardinals), the rejection of
“conclaves” convened by private individuals...
For Father Ricossa, the «continuity of the
Church» passes through the Society of Saint Pius X «which gathers
together the quasi totality of Catholics remaining faithful to
Tradition». Even supposing this were so, quid «of the hierarchy and the conclave
voters»?
The question is not merely academic. It is in
fact eminently practical: quid of the conclave which elected Pope
Albino Luciani? Does Father Ricossa consider that John Paul I was
himself «deprived of papal authority» during the thirty-three days
of his reign? Yes or no? If no, the whole “Cassiciacum
Thesis”
breaks down. If yes, for what reason? What wrong did he commit? «No
one disputes that everything was holy during those thirty-three
days; an edifying and consoling period, so pleasant to
meditate on today», wrote the Abbé de Nantes, confessing that he
himself was surprised:
«And in the first place because we had never
imagined that there could still exist among the Princes of the
Church men of such quality, of such holiness. I wrote in my
“Funeral oration for Paul VI” (English CRC no 101, August 1978),
and I regret it, that I held all the cardinals of this Conclave
responsible, by their active complicity or cowardice, for the
degradation of the Church under the reign of Paul VI, the most
destructive reign, the most auto-destructive reign of our whole
history. How could they have accepted everything, how could they
have said nothing?
«The elevation of Cardinal Luciani to the
pontificate with a very large majority (but not unanimity) as we
know, showed that he and others (many others) had taken as their
ultimate rule an extreme filial obedience, pushing into the
background everything else which they considered to lie outside
their competence. So there was this silent majority who perhaps
struggled in secret, who suffered, prayed, and practised patience,
but who one day would elect from among themselves the best and the
most saintly Pontiff. Today the lesson I draw from this is
firstly that we can never have too much confidence in Holy Church,
and secondly that we must generously reconcile ourselves with all
those who loved H.H. John Paul I and who rejoiced in his accession.»
That was written twenty-two years ago (English CRC no 103, October
1978)!
Afterwards we somewhat forgot the
lesson, as
everything had recommenced as before, with John Paul II. But now the
Third Secret of Fatima has again turned our eyes and our hearts
towards «a Bishop dressed in White», seen on 13 July
1917 by the three children of Fatima who had «the impression that it was the Holy Father».
It was Albino Luciani, the admirable Shepherd, passing «in
an immense light which is God».
On the other hand, the
Cassiciacum Thesis
shares the essential positions of sedevacantism: John Paul II cannot
enjoy pontifical authority; he is not divinely assisted; one cannot
be in communion with him (or with the others in the Canon of the
Mass); the problem of obedience and of the infallibility of the Pope
does not occur in his case (truths of faith both vigorously defended
in the Thesis and generally also by sedevacantism, in contrast to
the Fraternity). If we have embraced the Thesis, it is not because
it is more convenient or because it might be a point of union for
all anti-modernists; it is simply because it is true.
However, it appears to
us that this thesis has often
been regarded as a factor of division (we stand accused of
“sedevacantism” by the followers of Mgr Lefebvre and of
“lefebvrism” by the “sedevacantists”!) whereas on the
contrary, as certain rare observers have remarked, it could become a
powerful factor of unity between us, putting an end to the
interminable and dangerous divisions which benefit only our enemies
and weaken our forces by scandalising the faithful.
A footnote, the last one (no 61), names the
«rare observers» in question: «two sedevacantists who have taken up the
Cassiciacum Thesis, Mgr McKenna and Father Barbara».
“Sedevacantists” regard the Pope as deposed simply on account of
his
heresy.
The “Cassiciacum Thesis” regards the
current Pope as occupying the Holy See materialiter, but not
formaliter. To both types of sedevacantist our Father repeats: «Whatever
personal faults, crimes or abuses, whatever schismatic acts and
heretical teachings those in authority may be guilty of in our
eyes,
none of us is competent of his own initiative and by his own
personal decision to declare any member of the hierarchy deprived of
his office and stripped of his powers.
«Even were we to see far worse – and what we
see already is scarcely tolerable –, we should still remain in a state of
submission to the Pastors of the Church, but in rebellion against
their rebellion, in opposition to their schism and heresy. We must
always remember that the risen Jesus Christ is the sovereign Lord
and Master of His Church and that He Himself knows what is to be
done in such cases, without us being so audacious as to claim to
substitute ourselves for His justice and His judgement.
«What makes the conduct of the integrist
pastors so blameworthy is that they have assumed jurisdiction over
the people, according to their whim, as if Christ had charged them to do so.» (English CRC
no 143, February 1982, p. 14)
But Ricossa is unconcerned and continues his
propaganda:
We therefore invite
the best qualified and best
intentioned people from the two sides (sedevacantists and disciples
of Mgr Lefebvre) to seriously consider the so-called Cassiciacum
Thesis.
According to him, «it is the unique, the only
position – uncompromising but balanced – to take account of both
the
incredible situation in which we live and at the
dogmas of the faith (infallibility, primacy, indefectibility,
apostolicity, etc.) in which we must believe if we are to remain Catholic.
Father Ricossa does not actually say this, but
throughout his study he reveals that he holds his own judgement to
be infallible,
and it alone. We must therefore quote the Abbé de Nantes again: in
this ultimate combat undertaken by Satan against the Mother of God,
in Rome itself, on 11 October 1962, Her feast day, the Abbé de
Nantes alone has showed himself ROMAN, as Father Berto told him
himself three weeks before he died: «Monsieur l’abbé, you are
Roman! I can’t get over the fact that you didn’t do your studies
in Rome. When I read your writings – and you know with what
attention I have been reading them for the last ten years – I have
the feeling that you sucked the milk of holy doctrine on the knees
of Alma Mater, Ecclesia Sancta Romana!» Father Barbara, who
was present at this scene, protested that he himself was also
“Roman”: «No! no! Monsieur de Nantes is Roman in an exceptional
way quite unlike ourselves. We are disciples of Cardinal Billot,
Father Floch and those admirable men who made us what we are,
indefectibly attached to the Roman See.»
In the French CRC no 69,
The Pope on trial? of
June 1973, our Father establishes the principle and the theological
and canonical basis of the accusation brought by him against Paul VI and
consigned to a book which was handed to the Holy See on the previous 10 April
by sixty delegates of the Catholic Counter-Reformation. One might
think this twenty-eight year old text had been specially written for today!
«The Church in her unanimous belief is
infallible», he affirms. Not Ricossa, McKenna, Pivert or Tissier,
but the Church, the Church alone: «By virtue of her dignity as
Spouse of Christ, the Church participates in His infallible
knowledge of the Truth.»
And what is “the Church”? The Society of
Saint Pius X? The Istituto Mater Boni Consilii? Those who hold such
beliefs repeat the error of the Donatists who reduced the Catholic Church to
their local African synods in the times of Saint Augustine: «What
all the faithful unanimously believe to be divine revelation is
infallibly true. Why? Because if the whole Church, even for a single
instance in her history, were to fall into error in her entirety, be
it only on a single point of dogma or morality, the gates of Hell
would have prevailed against the promises of Christ.
«For example, the
Church has always, in her totality, believed in the perpetual
Virginity of Mary. This is therefore an infallible truth of
Revelation. Today the Dutch contest it [we are in 1973; since then,
the Dutch heresy has grown and been embellished; cf.
Resurrection no 2, February 2001, p. 13 ] on the pretext that it has
never been precisely defined by the Magisterium and imposed as a
dogma for all to believe. Bad reasoning! There is no need to define
what has always been taught and believed by all, because this common
and ordinary faith can be nothing other than the infallible truth of Revelation.»
It is not by chance
that the Blessed Virgin, Our Lady, is here invoked as the
guarantor of our Catholic faith. In this way we are
informed that we must turn towards Her, the Immaculate. There is no
infallibility of Pope or Council except in this dependence, as in
the first days of the Church when Mary was enthroned like a Queen
among the Apostles (Ac 1.14). So true is it that «You alone, O Mother!
will vanquish heresies throughout the world.»
(to be continued)
Brother Bruno Bonnet-Eymard
|