La libertad religiosa

I. La oposición del Vaticano II y de la doctrina anterior a propósito de la libertad religiosa. 

II. La consecuencia teologal de esta oposición. 

III. Las consecuencias teológicas de la libertad religiosa.

I

La oposición más evidente entre la enseñanza de Vaticano II y la doctrina anteriormente enseñada por la Iglesia católica concierne a la libertad religiosa. Más precisamente, se trata de la existencia de un derecho a la libertad religiosa en el fuero externo y público, la existencia de un derecho a profesar públicamente la religión de su elección.

Se trata, por tanto, del derecho civil en materia religiosa.

La religión católica romana es la única religión verdadera; debido a su misión divina, tiene un derecho imprescriptible a la libertad civil para todo lo que concierne a esta misión. El punto, pues, donde existe la oposición es la libertad del ejercicio público de las falsas religiones y de los falsos cultos.

Por tanto, se debe eliminar lo que no está en cuestión:

• la libertad del acto de fe;
• el deber de buscar la verdad religiosa y de adherirse a ella;
• la obligación que emana de la conciencia errónea;
• la libertad de la Iglesia católica;
• el eventual deber del Estado de tolerar en ciertos casos los falsos cultos para evitar males mayores (deber que de ningún modo fundamenta un derecho correlativo en los súbditos).

Tampoco se trata, en este primer punto, de explicar o de justificar la enseñanza de Pío IX; se trata simplemente de constatar y recibir las condenas que él pronuncia, condenas de falsos principios sociales considerados en sí mismos, independientemente de su contexto filosófico (racionalismo, naturalismo) o histórico (individualismo).

Se trata de constatar que Dignitatis humanæ enseña como un derecho natural lo que Quanta Cura condena por derivar de un principio contrario a la Revelación divina: lo cual es estrictamente incompatible.

Finalmente, antes de manifestar esta oposición, creo útil precisar que una cosa es no ver el vínculo, la continuidad o la coherencia entre dos enseñanzas, y otra cosa es ver una incompatibilidad radical entre ellas.

En el primer caso, si se trata de enseñanzas que corresponden a la fe, se aplica el Credo ut intellegam. En el segundo caso, es imposible para la inteligencia humana, con la mejor buena voluntad del mundo, adherirse verdadera y simultáneamente a dos proposiciones contradictorias o contrarias.

Última precisión. Es necesario recibir los textos del Magisterio según su sentido obvio, que a veces puede ser técnico o difícil, y no según sentidos «traídos por los pelos» para hacerlos compatibles con otros.

Si se necesita una obra de 300 páginas para estirar un texto en un sentido, estirar el otro en el sentido opuesto, y encontrar casos particulares para afirmar solemnemente que hay identidad, continuidad y compatibilidad, cuando los sentidos primeros y claros se niegan a estas contorsiones, es porque hay un grave problema en el cual la fe (que se ejerce mediante la inteligencia natural) no es satisfecha.

Para borrar la oposición, no se puede, por tanto, recurrir a razonamientos de este tipo: «Señor Gendarme, le he hecho venir para presentar una denuncia contra mi vecino que se entrega a atentados contra el pudor: ¡nunca cierra la ventana de su cuarto de baño! 

—¡Ah, bueno! ¡Pero esa ventana no se ve desde su casa! 

—¡Sí, sí! Tome esta tabla de planchar, apóyela por un lado bajo la mesa y saque el otro extremo por la ventana. Sobre la mesa, coloque diez grandes diccionarios para hacer contrapeso. Al final de la tabla, en el exterior, coloque este taburete, súbase a él, inclínese hacia adelante sujetándose del canalón, y notará que se puede vislumbrar que su ventana está abierta. Verá que yo tenía razón. ¡Es insoportable!».

1. LOS TEXTOS

a) QUANTA CURA

«Además, contra la doctrina de la Sagrada Escritura, de la Iglesia y de los santos Padres, afirman sin vacilación que: 

«la mejor condición de la sociedad es aquella en la que no se reconoce al poder el deber de reprimir mediante penas legales las violaciones de la ley católica, a no ser en la medida en que la tranquilidad pública lo exija. [A] 

«En consecuencia de esta idea absolutamente falsa del gobierno de las sociedades, no temen sostener esta opinión errónea, funesta al máximo para la Iglesia católica y la salvación de las almas, que Nuestro Predecesor Gregorio XVI, de feliz memoria, calificaba de 'delirio':

«"La libertad de conciencia y de cultos es un derecho propio de cada hombre; [B] 

«este derecho debe ser proclamado y garantizado por la ley en toda sociedad bien organizada". [C]»

Llamo [A], [B] y [C] a tres proposiciones condenadas. He aquí el texto en latín: 

[A] Optimam esse conditionem societatis, in qua imperio non agnoscitur officium coercendi sancitis pœnis violatores catholicæ religionis, nisi quatenus pax publica postulet. 

[B] Libertatem conscientiæ et cultuum esse proprium cujuscumque hominis jus... 

[C] quod lege proclamari et asseri debet in omni recte constituta societate.

La proposición [A] es condenada por sí misma y declarada absolutamente (omnino) falsa: no es, por tanto, debido al naturalismo o al individualismo de quienes la profesaban en 1864 por lo que es reprobada; lo mismo ocurre con las proposiciones [B] y [C], calificadas conjuntamente como opinión errónea.

b) DIGNITATIS HUMANÆ

He aquí el § 2: 

«El Concilio Vaticano declara que la persona humana tiene derecho a la libertad religiosa [B'].

«Esta libertad consiste en que todos los hombres deben estar inmunes de coacción tanto por parte de personas particulares como de grupos sociales y de cualquier potestad humana, de tal manera que, 

«en materia religiosa, ni se obligue a nadie a obrar contra su conciencia, ni se le impida que actúe, dentro de los límites debidos, conforme a su conciencia, en privado y en público, solo o asociado con otros [A']. 

«Declara, además, que el derecho a la libertad religiosa tiene su fundamento en la dignidad misma de la persona humana, tal como la han dado a conocer la palabra de Dios y la misma razón. 

«Este derecho de la persona humana a la libertad religiosa en el ordenamiento jurídico de la sociedad debe ser reconocido de tal manera que constituya un derecho civil [C'].»

He llamado [B'], [A'] y [C'] a tres principios presentados como universales, independientes de las circunstancias, puesto que están fundados en la naturaleza misma del hombre bajo el aspecto de su dignidad. En la proposición [A'], lo que está en juego es: «impedido de actuar... en público...». 

[A'] Ita quidem ut in re religiosa neque aliquis cogatur ad agendum contra suam conscientiam neque impediatur, quominus juxta suam conscientiam agat privatim et publice, vel solus vel aliis consociatus, intra debitos limites. 

[B'] Hæc Vaticana synodus declarat personam humanam jus habere ad libertatem religiosam.

[C'] Hoc jus personæ humanæ ad libertatem religiosam in juridica societatis ordinatione ita est agnoscendum, ut jus civile evadat.

El contenido de los límites debidos de [A'] se da en el § 7: se trata de las exigencias de la paz y de la moralidad públicas. Esto coincide con la tranquilidad pública de la que hace mención Quanta Cura, pero, de todas formas, esto corresponde a la aplicación del derecho, el cual es afirmado por sí mismo.

2. LA OPOSICIÓN

Por una parte, las proposiciones [B] y [C] condenadas por Quanta Cura son equivalentes a las proposiciones [B'] y [C'] enseñadas por Dignitatis Humanæ.

Por otra parte, la proposición [A] condenada por Quanta Cura está necesariamente implicada por la proposición [A'] enseñada por Vaticano II: y, por tanto, la condena de [A] arrastra la de [A'].

Repito que se trata de la libertad religiosa en el fuero externo público: ¿es o no un derecho natural? ¿Debe este derecho ser legalmente reconocido en la sociedad civil?

El encadenamiento entre [A'] y [A] se establece así: Si en materia religiosa nadie debe ser impedido de actuar en público según su conciencia (dentro de los límites debidos) [A'], entonces el poder público no debe reprimir mediante penas legales a los violadores de la ley católica (a no ser en la medida en que la tranquilidad pública lo exija).

De ello se sigue que la condición de la sociedad donde no se reconoce al poder la carga de reprimir mediante penas legales a los violadores de la ley católica (a no ser...) es mejor que la condición de la sociedad donde se reconoce al poder tal carga, lo que equivale a decir que la mejor condición de la sociedad es aquella en la que no se reconoce al poder la carga de reprimir mediante la sanción de penas a los violadores de la ley católica (a no ser...) [A].

Por lo demás, está muy claro que si la libertad religiosa es un derecho natural, ¡la mejor condición de la sociedad es aquella en la que no se reconoce al poder la carga de violar ese derecho natural!

Por tanto, [A'] arrastra necesariamente a [A], y la condena de [A] arrastra la de [A'].

Quanta Cura y Dignitatis Humanæ son radicalmente incompatibles.

II

La contradicción, prácticamente palabra por palabra, está, pues, comprobada. Pío IX condena lo que Vaticano II enseña. El problema es, por tanto, grave, y aparece netamente más grave si se considera que nos encontramos ante dos casos de infalibilidad...

1. Quanta Cura ES UN ACTO PONTIFICIO ex cathedra

Basta leer la conclusión del documento para que esto sea plenamente evidente: «Acordándonos de Nuestro ministerio apostólico (...) reprobamos, proscribimos y condenamos con Nuestra autoridad apostólica todas y cada una de las perversas opiniones y doctrinas recordadas al principio de Nuestra carta; y queremos y mandamos que todos los hijos de la Iglesia católica las tengan absolutamente por reprobadas, proscritas y condenadas» [Denzinger 1699].

El Papa Pío IX habló infaliblemente cada vez que en la encíclica condenó errores concernientes a la fe o a las costumbres; es entonces infaliblemente como esos errores fueron y permanecen condenados. Y este es el caso de la libertad religiosa.

2. Dignitatis Humanæ ES UN ACTO CONCILIAR INFALIBLE

En efecto, el decreto afirma tres veces que la libertad religiosa está fundada en la Revelación divina, porque se deriva de la dignidad del hombre tal como Dios la ha revelado: 

§ 2: «Declara, además, que el derecho a la libertad religiosa tiene su fundamento en la dignidad de la persona humana, tal como la han dado a conocer la Palabra de Dios y la misma razón». 

§ 9: «Esta doctrina de la libertad tiene sus raíces en la Revelación divina, lo cual, para los cristianos, es un título más para serle santamente fieles». 

§ 12: «La Iglesia, por consiguiente, fiel a la verdad del Evangelio, sigue el camino que siguieron Cristo y los Apóstoles cuando reconoce el principio de la libertad religiosa como conforme a la dignidad del hombre y a la Revelación divina, y fomenta una tal libertad».

3. IMPOSIBILIDAD DE UN DOBLE ACTO DE FE

Si nos quedamos ahí, nos encontramos ante una imposibilidad: habría que creer por fe divina y católica y simultáneamente dos proposiciones que no pueden ser verdaderas al mismo tiempo: la libertad religiosa (la libertad civil en materia religiosa) es contraria a la Revelación divina; la libertad religiosa es conforme a la Revelación divina y fundada en ella.

Es, por tanto, imposible creer que Pío IX es Papa y que Vaticano II es un concilio ecuménico. Es o lo uno o lo otro.

Y no es una libre elección que se deje a la apreciación del fiel: es la fe misma, la fe católica ejercida, la que debe indicar, sin duda ni ambigüedad, a qué parte rendir la adhesión necesaria y a qué parte, el rechazo necesario.

4. CONVERGENCIA Y ANTERIORIDAD

La fe católica nos hace adherirnos imperativamente a la proposición: Pío IX es Papa, Vaticano II es un falso concilio y la libertad religiosa es un falso derecho. Y esto por dos razones:

• por una razón material y secundaria: la libertad religiosa ha sido condenada muchas veces; esta condena expresa, por tanto, la doctrina perenne de la Iglesia;
• por una razón formal y principal, la anterioridad, vitalmente integrada en el acto de fe. No hay que olvidar tener en cuenta que en la tierra la Iglesia católica vive en el tiempo; esto es esencial para su carácter de Iglesia militante.

Cuando Dignitatis Humanæ enseña que la libertad religiosa está fundada en la revelación divina, esta declaración conciliar se dirige a almas que, debido a Quanta Cura y a la enseñanza y práctica seculares de la Iglesia, ya creen en la fe que dicha libertad religiosa es contraria a la Revelación divina.

La fe teologal prohíbe al creyante (que se adhiere anterior y tranquilamente a Quanta Cura) poner en duda la fe. Y así, con la llegada de Dignitatis Humanæ, solo hay tres soluciones posibles: ausencia de contradicción, ausencia de necesidad de adherirse, ausencia de autoridad.

Por tanto, tras haber verificado que efectivamente hay contradicción según el sentido obvio de los textos, tras haber constatado que Dignitatis Humanæ impera una adhesión de fe, el creyante debe necesariamente rechazar su adhesión al texto de Dignitatis Humanæ y a la autoridad que se lo enseña.

Es, pues, la fe católica la que impide considerar a Vaticano II como un verdadero concilio, y por tanto considerar a Pablo VI (de quien Vaticano II extrae toda su autoridad) como un verdadero Papa.

III

Brevemente, enumeremos las consecuencias de la enseñanza de Vaticano II, no desde el punto de vista de la contradicción, sino desde el punto de vista de su contenido.

1. La libertad religiosa no es el indiferentismo, pero inexorablemente conduce a él. Dignitatis humanæ enseña que la libertad religiosa es un derecho, y un derecho que debe tener cabida en todas las legislaciones. Pero para los cristianos ordinarios (y todos lo somos), para los pobres, para los ut in pluribus (la mayoría), lo que es legal es moral o llega a serlo muy pronto (los promotores del «matrimonio civil» contaban con ello, y lo lograron). Y así, si todas las religiones deben ser legalmente dejadas libres, es porque están moralmente permitidas, se dicen espontáneamente, o poco a poco, los pobres. Vaticano II no enseña el indiferentismo, pero su libertad religiosa a él conduce los espíritus tan ciertamente como cualquier discurso. Y quizás de manera más duradera, por estar moldeada en el orden legislativo.
2. El derecho afirmado por Dignitatis humanæ puede parecer periférico a la doctrina católica, pero contiene en germen la destrucción de todo el orden moral. Porque afirmar que un derecho (es decir, lo que es justo: jus est justum) puede tener un objeto malo (una falsa religión), es la negación misma del derecho. Nos enfrentamos, para empezar, a un derecho civil; pero se pasará muy pronto al derecho moral. Es bien sabido que cuando se quiere introducir un falso principio, se hace en un ámbito periférico, o mal conocido, o de escasa importancia. Una vez que se ha hecho aceptar, ya no queda sino esperar...
3. Hay en el fondo de la libertad religiosa un cambio de la concepción de la naturaleza humana. Lo que constituye la motivación profunda de Dignitatis humanæ, lo que domina en los debates que la prepararon, lo que subyace en el texto entero, es que la libertad es el primer atributo del hombre, su característica esencial, el fundamento de todos sus derechos, el criterio último del bien y del mal sociales. Si los términos de la declaración no son tan explícitos, es, sin embargo, en la perspectiva de la libertad, y de la libertad reivindicada, donde ella se sitúa desde el principio, incluso antes de evocar a Dios y la necesidad de buscarle y servirle. Este desplazamiento y esta hipertrofia de la libertad que, de modo natural de los actos humanos, es promovida al rango de divinidad oculta en el hombre, no son expresados por Dignitatis humanæ sino en el orden social. Pero como la vida en sociedad es la perfección natural de la vida humana, es, por tanto, la naturaleza misma la que se concibe como primordialmente finalizada por la libertad. Es el personalismo llevado a su punto de ebullición, es la reedición in causa del non serviam.
4. Hay una consecuencia inmediata de la afirmación del falso derecho a la libertad civil en materia religiosa que concierne a la concepción del bien común de la sociedad. Este ya no incluirá en sus elementos constitutivos la posesión común y pacífica de la verdadera religión. Esta desnaturalización proviene de una especie de necesidad y la manifiesta: ya que el bien común ya no es considerado como el impulso común, la ayuda mutua necesaria, para el conocimiento de la verdad y la realización del bien, sino como una armonización de las libertades individuales.
5. Desde ese momento, el reinado social de Jesucristo ya no está orgánicamente ligado al bien común sino que aparece como un elemento advenedizo «pegado», opcional, anticuado, heterogéneo a la marcha de la humanidad hacia la libertad, ligado a las circunstancias, a lo sumo individual, folclórico. Debe dejar su lugar al reinado del hombre... ¡bonita perspectiva!

Regresar a la página principal del Testamento del P. Hervé Belmont.

Mists of "Revelationism" and the light of Faith

Saint Thérèse de Lisieux

Itinéraires n° 181 (March 1974), pp. 177-187

By Roger Thomas CALMEL, O.P.

I call "revelationism" an inordinate reliance on private revelations; a reliance that is not sufficiently enlightened and corrected by reason and faith. Experience shows that Christians afflicted with either "apparitionism" or "revelationism" are difficult people to cure. I would at least hope that their illness is not too contagious, which is why I am writing this note.

To be sure, I do not reproach these brothers in the faith for believing in the marvelous of a private order, nor for its indispensable role in the Church, but rather for practically placing it above Scripture and Tradition; furthermore, for equating the most diverse marvelous events; and finally, for allowing their inner life to be thrown off track by the marvelous, instead of placing it under the domain of the theological virtues, which are the true center of all life in Christ.

Thus, one finds certain Christians who grant exactly the same credit to childish and bizarre revelations, supposedly received by privileged souls, as they do to the messages of Lourdes, which are so limpid, so sober, and so consonant with Catholic dogma. And what can be said of those Christians who, relying on the visions of these famous privileged souls, know much more about the Passion of our Lord than the evangelists themselves. An author not long ago overwhelmed us with devotional tracts about the secret sorrows of Our Lord. These tracts indicate a troubled, unhealthy, and, frankly, unhinged imagination in the visionary, who, moreover, is impossible to identify.

Yet, the same author is now beginning to distribute a copious compilation that is presented to us alternately as an "encyclopedia of Christian prophetism" and as "the book of the century". "Hurry," says the six-page advertising flyer, "hurry to order it from Saint-Germain-en-Laye, France." Hurry all the more because it is five minutes to midnight. It is Five Minutes to Midnight—such is the title of the prophetic and encyclopedic work that announces to us that "Paris will soon burn like Sodom and Gomorrah, that three days of darkness will end the announced calamities, and that, after catastrophes of all kinds, only a quarter of humanity will remain, and perhaps even less".

These punishments are by no means impossible, but one would like prophets or prophetesses to produce sufficient credentials to grant them credence. To accredit their own message, saints as eminent as Joan or Bernadette did not dispense themselves from doing so. Furthermore, is it quite appropriate to mix commercial interests and religious sentiment in a prospectus; to appeal to the fear of God while simultaneously deploying the tricks of advertising, for you are told flat out that this book is "the book of the century... one needs to have it on hand at all times... it exerts a calming influence on the reader"? All of this does not seem very serious.

But combating the merchants of revelations hardly attracts me. Discarding spoiled food is not enough to nourish souls. Let us rather seek the life-giving nourishment of the Divine Scriptures. And since the revelationists speak to us so much about the Lord's judgments on human history, let us recall the teachings of Revelation as reported to us by the inspired texts. Let us also recall, on the same subject, the solid doctrine of the Fathers and Doctors. We believe in the return of the Lord: "Credo... in unum Dominum Jesum Christum... et iterum, venturus est cum gloria judicare vivos et mortuos, cujus regni non erit finis."

However, we are not fixated on the day and the hour, for it is not within the Lord's mission to make them known to us (Matt. xxiv, 36). We know that not only will there come, at the end, a supreme antichrist, but also that, throughout the course of history, there will be prefigurations of the antichrist. Not only will there be the final general apostasy predicted in the Second Epistle to the Thessalonians (II Thess. ii, 3-12), but beforehand, we will experience prefigurations of the apostasy. Not only at the very end of ends will faith be almost extinguished and charity alive only among a small number—so much will coldness and selfishness have spread death into the souls of men; not only, therefore, at the end of history will humanity be almost entirely without faith and without love, but there will also be, during the course of history, prefigurations of this darkening and this sort of extinction of spiritual life. We, Christians, have always known, in particular the apostle Saint John and since Saint Augustine, that a final antichrist would come but that he had precursors since apostolic times (I Jn. ii, 18). We know that the Apocalypse is not an anticipated chronology but a theology of history in the form of symbols that repeat, recapitulate, and mutually clarify one another. We know that chapter xxiv of Saint Matthew, and chapters xvii (latter part) and xxi of Saint Luke do not concern exclusively two generations: the generation contemporary with the first coming of the Lord, which saw the ruin of the temple, and the final generation, which will see the glorious return of Jesus Christ; but these chapters are also addressed, in many respects, to the generations situated between the two. The Lord deemed worthy of His infallible teaching, regarding the judgments He passes on the unfolding of history, the numerous intermediate generations which were to be, by far, those that would count the most faithful, those that would form the most important part of His Church.

There is one sign of the end that will have no prior repetition: that is the conversion of the Jewish people as a people. But as for this very sign, no one is in a position to say exactly where it should be placed before the end of the world. For the other signs—apostasy, antichrist, expansion of the Gospel, spiritual death, wars, and cataclysms—we know that even if they develop according to a sort of linear progress, they also proceed by cyclical repetitions. Toward which of these repetitions we are marching, God only knows.

Therefore, to the intermediate generations between the one that witnessed the ruin of Jerusalem and the one that will see the end of the world, the Lord gave a double revelation: at the same time that He announced the overflows of iniquity and prodigious punishments, He guaranteed us the permanence of the sources of courage and consolation. Whatever the historical refinements of iniquity may be, these days of trial, however dangerous they may be, will be shortened for the sake of the elect (Matt. xxiv, 22); secondly, no one will be able to snatch the sheep from the hand of the Good Shepherd (Jn. x, 28-29); thirdly, Redemption will never cease to be near, and we must lift up our heads, levate capita vestra (Lk. xxi, 28), toward Him whose Heart is open for us (Jn. xix, 37); fourthly, the Holy Spirit will not cease to bear witness to Christ (Jn. xvi, 1-15), even when the apostasy seems to submerge everything.

To sum it all up, the gates of hell shall not prevail against the Church (Matt. xvi, 18), against Peter, and against the faith; against the Mass (1) and against the sacraments, even when the man of lawlessness sits in the holy place (II Thess. ii, 4 and Matt. xxiv, 15). There is, therefore, a double revelation regarding divine judgments and punishments. These contrasting aspects must not be isolated and separated. When private revelations concern the interventions of divine justice, they must fit faithfully into this perspective of canonical revelation.

Yet, this is not what is found in the various publications of the revelationists. These writings have just what is needed to panic and terrorize souls. Not only do they claim to pinpoint the day and the hour of where we stand in the preparations and prefigurations of the end—which already shows no lack of audacity —but in their simplistic eagerness to predict the day and the hour, they accustom those who listen to them to live in the irrational, preferring unverified rumors over the light of common sense and wisely conducted reflection. They have no true, realistic concern for specifying the remedies that it is always in our power to apply, whatever state we may be in regarding the repetition of the end.

Furthermore, they are much more preoccupied with curiously seeking what span of time separates us from the end than with strengthening themselves in faith—faith in the grace of redemption, which is always sufficient regardless of the remoteness or proximity of the Parousia. "It is five minutes to midnight," the manufacturers of prophetic encyclopedias tell us ; but they will not know how to tell us this: whether it is five minutes to midnight or half past ten, it is, in any case, the hour to do what lies within us to attend a good Mass with the proper dispositions ; it is the hour to meditate upon and recite the Rosary ; it is the hour to serve our neighbor without complicity in their weaknesses and without irritation at their miseries ; it is the hour to make exceptional sacrifices to preserve children from corruption and to ensure the existence of true Christian schools ; it is the hour, finally, for clerics to live even more according to the dignity of their state and to deepen their ecclesiastical sciences, instead of wasting their time deciphering the nonsense with which the indiscreet publicity of apparitionists of every stripe submerges us.

We obviously do not reject private prophecies on the pretext that they announce divine punishments: plague and fire, war and famine, and catastrophes of all kinds. We reject them all the less under such a pretext because fearsome predictions are an integral part of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Our merciful Savior gave Himself as king and as judge ; judge not only at the end of the world, but also judge over the course of history. Ipsius sunt tempora et sæcula (2). The predictions about the ruin of Jerusalem, the terrible end of the world, and the persecutions of Christians cannot be removed from the Gospels and the Epistles. On several occasions, Jesus spoke as a prophet of doom. But He is a prophet of doom within a Gospel climate, and that is what changes everything, making His prophecy a nourishment for living by divine grace, a source of inner peace and beatitude. Beati qui lugent quoniam ipsi consolabuntur (3).

Thus, we will take care not to despise private prophecies when they are prophecies of doom, and precisely for that reason ; but we demand two things: first, sufficient credentials to accept that the messenger or visionary speaks to us from God, in God's name, and not from their own making ; which presupposes this second condition, that their prophecy aligns with that path of peace, conversion, and supernatural equilibrium which is the path of the Gospel. In a word, that private prophecies, even comminatory ones, maintain themselves at that level of elevation, sobriety, and purity which belongs to the Gospel.

The Great Monarch and the Great Pope: this is one of the chapters of the famous encyclopedia. That is all very fine, but in any case, if the Lord, in His mercy, wishes once again to give France a leader who is wise and holy, docile to the See of Peter but free from papism—if the Lord deigns to grant our country this quite extraordinary mercy—well, a preparation is indispensable. Yet this preparation will not happen if too many Christians allow themselves to be carried away by the epidemic of revelationism.

It can be good to sometimes recall "the prophecy of Saint Pius X" (4):

"What shall I say now to you, sons of France, who groan under the weight of persecution? The people that made an alliance with God at the baptismal fonts of Reims will repent and return to its first vocation... Faults will not go unpunished, but she will never perish, the daughter of so many merits, so many sighs, and so many tears. A day will come, and we hope it is not far off, when France, like Saul on the road to Damascus, will be enveloped in a heavenly light and will hear a Voice repeating to her: 'My daughter, why do you persecute Me?' And upon her reply: 'Who are You, Lord?' the Voice will answer: 'I am Jesus whom you persecute. It is hard for you to kick against the goad, because, in your obstinacy, you ruin yourself.' And she, trembling and astonished, will say: 'Lord, what do You want me to do?' And He: 'Arise, wash away the stains that have disfigured you, awaken in your bosom the dormant sentiments and the pact of our alliance, and go, eldest Daughter of the Church, predestined nation, vessel of election, go carry as in the past My name before all the peoples and all the kings of the earth.'"

The recall of such a prophecy can be useful. Still, it would need to be done with logic and honesty, for it is as dishonest as it is illogical to hold out hope for God's mercy regarding the future of the nation while failing to do the little that lies within us in the present hour.

The present hour is one where, the celebration of the Mass being terribly threatened, it is all the more necessary to maintain it, and thus to say it and attend it with the required dispositions. It is the hour when, the true catechism being difficult to ensure, there is all the more reason to get to work on it. It is the hour when family legislation (if one can call it that) is becoming criminal and monstrous; we must therefore fight it with all our strength. It is the hour when the innovations of Paul VI are struck with the most legitimate suspicion, as proven by the overwhelming list compiled by the Libellus of Abbé de Nantes ; let us therefore have the courage to see that, by the novelties of that particular pontiff, we are not bound. It is the hour when bishops, molded and maneuvered by collegiality, attempt to enforce a religious syncretism that is simultaneously Masonic, Communist, and Christian ; we do not have to follow such bishops. It is the hour, finally, when we must bear witness to the faith of all time with dispositions of fortitude and humility that must be constantly renewed, for our witness is not in the face of a violent persecution—which would accelerate and simplify many things—but in the face of a Modernist revolution inspired by the demons of the worst entanglements.

Such is the present hour. Yet this diagnosis, incomplete though it may be, is not the one we find in the confused and irrational chatter of the revelationists ; it is the diagnosis we make by using the reason God has given us, illuminated by the lights of faith and theological reflection. It is therefore in the present hour, such as it is, that we must sanctify ourselves and bear witness ; and all the more so since we ask God that, for the years to come, the prophecy of Saint Pius X may be realized in some way. The current period, as much as and more than previous periods, requires of the Christian a spiritual attitude of lucidity, realism, faith, charity, and hope. Yet it is not these reasonable and theological attitudes that the producers and retailers of revelationist papers foster in souls of good will.

The revelationists dun our ears with nebulous, feverish, sentimental messages, but they do not truly attach themselves to the messages of holiness from the most authoritative mystics: the author of the Imitation, Saint John of the Cross, the little Thérèse... Of private prophecy within the Church, they seem to know only one aspect: the announcement of divine punishments. Yet there are other aspects—not opposed to the first, undoubtedly, but far superior: these are charisms of a doctrinal order, such as the teaching of wisdom, the sermo scientiæ, which is granted to some great saints for the edification of souls. This sermo sapientiæ is not, properly speaking, a charism granted to women (5); one must say, however, that a message like that of the little Thérèse's way of childhood derives from a true charism. It restricts far too much the favors that the Spirit of Christ grants to the Church to see charisms only in the comminatory messages given in apparitions, even if the message is orthodox and the seer worthy of credit.

One of the gravest flaws of the revelationists is this: they have not seriously meditated on the life and death of the saints who were most deeply engaged in private prophecy, apparitions, the marvelous, and miracles: a Joan of Arc, a Margaret Mary, a Catherine Labouré, a Bernadette, the children of Fatima. In the life and death of these authentic privileged souls, there was nothing, but what was simple, calm, and limpid; neither panic nor exaltation. Their message was the least twisted imaginable, the least complicated. For this message they were ready to give their lives, and indeed, Saint Joan of Arc was a martyr. However, it was not in the isolated and, as it were, exorbitant marvelous that Joan and the others had situated and fixed their souls; it was like all Christians, like all saints, in faith, hope, and charity.

They held to their message only because it formed part of the exceptional duty that God commanded them to fulfill, just as He commands an ordinary duty to most people; an ordinary duty that must be fulfilled with perfect love. These messengers held to their message solely because this primary fidelity was for them the condition for living the theological virtues and the gifts of the Holy Spirit; therein lay the soul of their spiritual life. Their life is no more conceivable without the intervention of the marvelous than without fidelity to bearing witness to this marvelous, but the soul of their life is charity, not the marvelous. The marvelous—revelations and prophecies—of which they were the faithful messengers, is indispensable to the existence and holiness of the Church, and to the conversion and survival of France. The mystical body cannot do without graces gratis datae here below. But it is grace gratum faciens—the grace of virtues and gifts—which is its living soul.

Joan, Margaret Mary, Catherine Labouré, Bernadette, the children of Fatima—these messengers of the most exceptional marvelous—never ceased, while communicating and defending their message, to strengthen themselves in sanctifying grace, in the most humble and realistic love. One understands then how their message, not only by the equilibrium of its content but by the manner of its transmission, was not panicking but pacifying, both for their neighbor and for themselves.

The Church does not reject, cannot reject, the marvelous, revelations, and miracles; but the Church places theological life and holiness above them, without comparison. Faithful to this doctrine, taking great care not to dismiss on principle the manifestations of the marvelous, but without being foolishly credulous or vainly panicked, having put private revelations that deserve trust (notably private revelations of universal scope) in their proper place, we will use them to the best advantage in the light of faith—faith which is active through charity (Gal. v, 6).

To live uprightly in the Church, it is not enough for the Christian to say to himself: the teaching of the hierarchical magisterium is sufficient; if there is anything else, I do not want to know about it. For the magisterium itself is obliged to know that there is something else; not indeed another teaching than that of which the hierarchy has the deposit and vigilant custody, but other miraculous voices of faithful messengers, who have the mission to speak in order to draw attention to this very teaching dispensed by the magisterium. There is no other magisterium than that of the hierarchy—an inspired magisterium that would be superior to it and before which the first would have to lower its flag; but there are other messengers than those of the hierarchy—inspired, miraculous messengers whom the hierarchical dignitaries must accept to hear, even though it belongs to the hierarchy to conclude and decide. The Catholic notion of the Church certainly does not exclude charisms (6), but it subordinates them to the hierarchy. It does not exclude private revelations; it merely demands that they not be private illusions, and furthermore, that these revelations be in agreement with Revelation.

At no time in the history of the Church has the voice of the true hierarchy—not the insinuations of the Modernist hierarchy, thus at no time has the true hierarchy, guaranteed in an ordinary and official capacity by the charism of truth (Saint Irenaeus)—pretended to stifle inspired and miraculous voices. For these voices, if they come from God, far from contradicting Revelation, repeat it, make it understood, persuading hearts with a more penetrating accent and, as it were, in a tone more suited to new situations.

Thus, the words of the hierarchical magisterium on the Sacred Heart of Jesus were not changed by the private revelations of Saint Margaret Mary, but, after those revelations, the same words were spoken with more vehemence and echoed with greater enthusiasm. In 1854, the great voice of the Roman Pontiff had resounded in the infallible definition of the Immaculate Conception, but this voice only set the crowds in motion and mobilized nations for prayer and penance following the appearances of the Immaculate to Saint Bernadette. One could make similar observations regarding devotion to the Rosary and consecration to the Immaculate Heart of Mary: without the inspired voice of the seers of Fatima, the voice of the ordinary magisterium would not have imposed itself so deeply upon Christian souls.

And what can be said of comminatory private revelations? The warnings of the twenty-fourth chapter of Saint Matthew are always there, and the Church always makes them heard on the last Sunday after Pentecost; only a liturgy of Modernist inspiration and fabrication attempts to make them forgotten. Therefore, the Church always causes the oracles of the twenty-fourth chapter of Saint Matthew to resound in the ears of the faithful ; but for these warnings to be taken seriously by so many modern Christians who turn in circles in their sins—with a daze as thick as that of Noah's contemporaries on the very eve of the deluge—to awaken the sleepers, it is necessary that, according to historical circumstances, the teaching of the hierarchical magisterium on divine judgments be not modified, not bent in a millenarian direction, but faithfully echoed by messengers charged with transmitting comminatory revelations.

We only ask of these messengers that they present themselves with sufficient guarantees, just as we expect of the message that it be consonant with the Gospel.

All this is to say that private revelations and, generally speaking, all charisms have a place in the life of the Church—a role that is not negligible, not supererogatory, but necessary. They must therefore be put in their proper place: subordinating them to the authority of the true magisterium (entirely different from the false Modernist magisterium), placing them within the line of divine Revelation, and letting ourselves be awakened, touched, converted, and edified by the miraculous accent with which they repeat to us the words of eternal life.

Footnotes:

Note: We believe that these footnotes were added by Fr. Hervé Belmont - Non Excidet.

(1) On this specific subject (permanence of the Mass), see Malvenda, O.P., in the Dissertation on the Antichrist, no. 22, which follows the Second Epistle to the Thessalonians in the Bible de Vence, Vol. 16, Paris 1773. The so-called Bible de Vence adapts and completes the Bible of Dom Calmet.

(2) Blessing of the Paschal Candle during the Easter Vigil.

(3) Note ad 2 in IIa-IIae, quest. 174, art. 6: "God is more inclined to avert the scourges with which He threatens us than to withdraw the benefits He promises us."

(4) Consistory of November 29, 1911. [Editor's Note (Quicumque): Father Calmel rightly writes "the prophecy of Saint Pius X" in quotation marks, as it would be somewhat abusive to affirm that Saint Pius X prophesied. Saint Pius X is expressing a wish here, a desire of his paternal heart, and for this, he borrows this text from one of his masters: Cardinal Pie. For this "prophetic" text is in reality a citation from the funeral oration of General de Lamoricière pronounced by Msgr. Pie on December 5, 1865 (Œuvres, V, 506-507). As a simple priest in 1846, he had already manifested this hope of conversion (Œuvres sacerdotales, 332-333). On September 28, 1879, in his discourse upon taking possession of the presbyteral title of N.-D. de la Victoire, Cardinal Pie expressed himself in the exact same terms (Œuvres, X, 63-64)].

(5) See on this subject the IIa-IIae, in the treatise on states (as it is called), question 177. — The end of the IIa-IIae actually contains three major treatises: that of the states of perfection, which concludes everything, comes after the treatise on charisms (graces gratis data) and forms of life (active or contemplative).

(6) Reread Rom. xii, I Cor. xii, Eph. iv, I Thess. v, 16-22.

Una nueva divinidad: la necesidad

Salomón sacrificando a los ídolos por Jacques Stella (1647).

Habría que estar sordo y ciego para ignorar la existencia de una campaña activa —hecha de escritos y de videos ampliamente difundidos— destinada a justificar las consagraciones episcopales que la Fraternidad San Pío X se apresta a perpetrar, o mejor dicho, a perpetuar. 

La palabra, que regresa en cada frase o en cada fase de la exposición, suena como una palabra mágica ante la cual toda inteligencia debe inclinarse y dejar de funcionar: la necesidad. Como esta palabra es objeto de fervientes incantaciones (favorecidas por lo difuso de sus contornos), y como la ley divina mejor establecida debe ceder ante su presencia, se puede con pleno derecho calificar aquello que esta palabra designa como una divinidad, uno de esos ídolos a los que el propio Salomón, a pesar de su profunda sabiduría inicial, terminó por rendir un culto mortífero.

Un listillo ha querido mimar a esta divinidad, calificándola de "estado de necesidad no desmentido". Tal vez ha querido dar consistencia a lo que ella carece cruelmente; tal vez ha querido extraviar al observador casual para cegarlo mejor. Sea como fuere, ante la ausencia de mención de alguna fuente de la cual pudiera provenir una impugnación, este calificativo no es más que un paño caliente.

Antes de abordar la naturaleza y las consecuencias de la necesidad, es saludable remitirse a la Sagrada Escritura, al único pasaje (que yo sepa) donde se relata cómo la necesidad, sirviendo de pretexto para la usurpación de un oficio divino, es una calamidad. Se trata del pecado de Saúl y de su subsecuente caída.

I Reg. xiii, 5-14 Los filisteos se juntaron también para pelear contra Israel; tenían treinta mil carros, seis mil caballos y una cantidad de soldados de a pie tan numerosa como la arena que está a la orilla del mar. Y vinieron a acampar en Micmas, al oriente de Bet-avén. Los israelitas, viendo que estaban en un aprieto (porque el pueblo estaba todo abatido), fueron a esconderse en las cavernas, en los lugares más secretos, en las rocas, en las grutas y en las cisternas. Los otros hebreos pasaron el Jordán y vinieron a la tierra de Gad y de Galaad. Saúl estaba todavía en Gilgal; pero todo el pueblo que lo seguía estaba lleno de terror. Esperó siete días, según el tiempo que Samuel había señalado. Sin embargo, Samuel no venía a Gilgal; y poco a poco todo el pueblo abandonaba al rey.

Saúl dijo entonces: "Traedme el holocausto y los sacrificios pacíficos". Y ofreció el holocausto. Cuando terminaba de ofrecer el holocausto, llegó Samuel. Y Saúl salió a su encuentro para saludarle. Samuel de dijo: "¿Qué has hecho?" Saúl le respondió: "Viendo que el pueblo me dejaba uno tras otro, que tú no habías venido en el día que habías dicho, y que los filisteos se habían juntado en Micmas, me dije a mí mismo: Los filisteos van a venir a atacarme a Gilgal, y yo no he aplacado aún al Señor. Viéndome, pues, obligado por esta necesidad, ofrecí el holocausto".

Samuel dijo a Saúl: "Stulte egisti," has actuado locamente, y no has observado las órdenes que el Señor tu Dios te había dado. Si no hubieras cometido esta falta, el Señor habría afianzado ahora para siempre tu reino sobre Israel; pero tu reino no subsistirá en el futuro. El Señor se ha buscado un hombre según su corazón, y le ha mandado ser el jefe de su pueblo, porque tú no has observado lo que Él te ordenó.

La caída de Saúl fue espantosa. Él, que había comenzado como un joven dotado de todas las cualidades y elegido por Dios para reinar con esplendor sobre Israel, terminó su vida con un verdadero suicidio en forma de eutanasia reclamada y exigida.

Se dice necesario aquello que no puede no ser. Necesario se opone entonces a contingente, que designa aquello que puede (o habría podido) no ser.

Solo Dios es absolutamente necesario, necesario en Sí mismo: Dios no puede no existir (lo que la razón puede demostrar); no puede no ser trino, un solo Dios en tres personas (lo que la razón no puede conocer ni demostrar, y que no nos es conocido sino por la Revelación divina y la fe). Esta necesidad absoluta de Dios es una necessitas in substantia.

Las otras necesidades son necesidades relativas:

• O bien para ser tal cosa: necessitas ad substantiam. Así, para ser un triángulo, es necesario que una figura geométrica tenga tres lados y no más.

• O bien para alcanzar tal fin: necessitas ad finem. Así, para ir al Cielo, es necesario estar en estado de gracia en el instante de la muerte.

Cuando se habla de una acción humana, se distingue en la práctica la necesidad de coacción —necessitas coactionis— y la necesidad de fin —necessitas finis (v. g. Ia-IIae, q. i, a. 6, ad 3).

La necesidad no podría por sí misma justificar la transgresión de una ley divina: no solo la de una ley inscrita en la naturaleza de las cosas (natural o sobrenatural), sino también la de una ley simplemente positiva, dependiente de la sola voluntad de Dios, y por tanto contingente. De ello da testimonio la asombrosa historia de Uza (II Reg. vi, 5-8):

Mientras tanto, David y todo Israel bailaban ante el Señor con toda clase de instrumentos de música: arpas, liras, panderos, sistros y címbalos. Pero cuando llegaron a la era de Nacón, Uza extendió la mano hacia el arca de Dios y la sostuvo, porque los bueyes tropezaban y la habían hecho inclinar. Entonces la ira del Señor se encendió contra Uza, y lo hirió de muerte allí mismo a causa de su osadía; y Uza cayó muerto en el sitio, delante del arca de Dios. David se entristeció de que el Señor hubiera herido a Uza; y aquel lugar fue llamado: la Herida de Uza, nombre que conserva todavía hoy.

Una analogía es invocada aquí o allá a título de argumento, la cual es, sin embargo, inepta para conducir a una conclusión: Cuando los bomberos intervienen para apagar un incendio o salvar heridos, pueden eximirse de las normas de prioridad y de los límites de velocidad: la necesidad los dispensa de ello. "Ipsa necessitas dispensationem habet annexam", añaden algunos pasándose por listos citando a Santo Tomás de Aquino (Ia-IIae, q. xcvi, a. 6), no obstante omitiendo cuidadosamente precisar que el artículo citado trata de la ley humana, y que no se puede, por tanto, aplicarse a la ley divina. Y aun así, no toda ley humana admite la dispensa: los bomberos no pueden meterse en la autopista en sentido contrario.

Pero, más aún que de necesidad, se nos habla de "estado de necesidad", sin definirlo con precisión alguna. Esta noción es mucho más maleable que la de necesidad a secas, y poco apta para ocupar un lugar en un razonamiento riguroso: de ahí su éxito.

Ciertamente, no se puede negar que hay una necesidad flagrante en los miembros de la Santa Iglesia en materia de conocimiento de la santa doctrina y en materia de acceso a los sacramentos. No se puede negar que hay urgencia porque la vida es corta y las almas, al tiempo que avanzan hacia la eternidad, deben cada día perseverar y crecer en la gracia de Dios. Este estado de necesidad que se invoca está, por tanto, hecho de necesidad y de urgencia.

Pero por apremiante que sea, no puede hacer que se ignoren o se desprecien necesidades más verdaderas y urgencias más fundamentales. Lo más necesario para cada hombre que vive en este mundo es pertenecer a la Santa Iglesia Católica, porque no hay salvación fuera de ella. El pertenecer a ella, y la fidelidad que ello debe suscitar, exige no restar nada a la integridad de la fe y no atentar en nada contra la unidad de esta Iglesia.

La Iglesia Católica, Cuerpo Místico de Jesucristo, recibió y recibe en cada instante de su fundador una constitución inmutable, colocada por encima de las leyes, algunas de las cuales (únicamente las leyes positivas) están sin embargo influenciadas en su aplicación por la contingencia en la que transcurre su vida. 

Jesucristo reclama para Sí mismo esta Constitución: "Tú eres Pedro y sobre esta piedra edificaré Mi Iglesia"; la reclama como inmutable e indefectible: "Y las puertas del Infierno no prevalecerán contra ella"; la reclama como siendo Su obra de cada instante: "He aquí que Yo estoy con vosotros todos los días"; la reclama como fundada sobre Pedro, único soporte del orden jerárquico que es el cumplimiento de su unidad a través de todos los tiempos y en el instante presente.

La intangibilidad de la Constitución de la Santa Iglesia es una enseñanza recurrente —puesto que es capital— del magisterio pontificio. Respetarla es necesario, imperativo y saludable. Cada uno debe regular su vida según esta Constitución de la Iglesia que no está en el poder de ningún hombre cambiar (León XIII, Sapientiae christianae, 10 de enero de 1890).

"Lo que exponen las encíclicas de los Pontífices Romanos sobre el carácter y la Constitución de la Iglesia es, de manera habitual y deliberada, descuidado por algunos con el fin muy preciso de hacer prevalecer una noción vaga que nos dicen extraída de los antiguos Padres y sobre todo de los griegos. A decir de ellos, los Pontífices, en efecto, jamás tendrían la intención de pronunciarse sobre las cuestiones debatidas entre teólogos; por lo tanto, se impone a todos el deber de regresar a las fuentes primitivas y también de explicar las constituciones y decretos más recientes del magisterio según los textos de los antiguos" (Pío XII, Humani generis, 12 de agosto de 1950).

"También descartarán esta manera peligrosa de expresarse que daría lugar a opiniones erróneas y a esperanzas falaces que nunca podrán realizarse, diciendo por ejemplo que la enseñanza de los soberanos Pontífices, en las encíclicas sobre el retorno de los disidentes a la Iglesia, sobre la Constitución de la Iglesia, sobre el Cuerpo Místico de Cristo, no debe ser tan tomada en consideración puesto que no todo es de fe —o lo que es peor aún— que en las materias dogmáticas, incluso la Iglesia Católica no posee la plenitud de Cristo, sino que puede ser perfeccionada por las otras iglesias. (...)

La doctrina católica debe, por consiguiente, ser propuesta y expuesta total e íntegramente; no hay que pasar bajo silencio o velar con términos ambiguos lo que la verdad católica enseña sobre la verdadera naturaleza y las etapas de la justificación, sobre la Constitución de la Iglesia, sobre la primacía de jurisdicción del Pontífice Romano, sobre la única verdadera unión por el retorno de los cristianos a la única verdadera Iglesia de Cristo. Se les podrá sin duda decir que al regresar a la Iglesia no perderán nada del bien que, por la gracia de Dios, se ha realizado en ellos hasta el presente, pero que por su retorno este bien será solamente completado y llevado a su perfección. Se evitará, sin embargo, hablar sobre este punto de una manera tal que, al regresar a la Iglesia, imaginen aportar a esta un elemento esencial que le habría faltado hasta aquí. Hay que decirles estas cosas claramente y sin ambigüedad, primero porque buscan la verdad, y luego porque fuera de la verdad nunca podrá haber una unión verdadera" (Instrucción del Santo Oficio [Pío XII], 20 de diciembre de 1949).

Ninguna circunstancia, ningún estado de necesidad puede prevalecer contra esta Constitución propiamente divina. Y como, según enseña el Papa León XIII, "el orden episcopal forma parte necesariamente de la constitución íntima de la Iglesia" (Satis cognitum, 29 de junio de 1896, § 25), toda usurpación de una consagración episcopal es "un atentado contra la unidad de la Iglesia" (cf. Pío XII, Ad Apostolorum Principis, 29 de junio de 1958, § 25). Dicho de otro modo, en el principio mismo y cualesquiera que sean las circunstancias, la ausencia de mandato produce en la Iglesia los mismos efectos que el cisma.

A menos que se profese implícitamente que la necesidad es una especie de divinidad, y que el estado de necesidad que de ella emana suplanta la Constitución de la Iglesia Católica y amordaza a Jesucristo, el Verbo Eterno de Dios, nada justifica la usurpación del episcopado.

Y por lo demás, al alegar un estado de necesidad para recurrir a obispos cuyo episcopado es cismático, ¿qué se procura en definitiva?

¿La perennidad de la Iglesia? Semejante obra está totalmente fuera del alcance de los hombres; es una obra propiamente divina prometida por Jesús Cristo y divinamente garantizada. En la vida cristiana, esta es la cosa por la que menos debemos preocuparnos.

¿El bien de las almas? Hay ahí una buena dosis de ilusión. "Es evidente", dice Pío XII, "que no se provee en absoluto a las necesidades espirituales de los fieles violando las leyes de la Iglesia" (Ad Apostolorum Principis, 29 de junio de 1958, § 31).

¿Una ilusión cuyos efectos desastrosos terminarán por dominar? Esto es de temer encarecidamente, aunque sea porque se vería uno en la necesidad de consentir una ocultación o una distorsión de todo un sector de la doctrina de la fe.

Junio de 2026. Suplemento al n.° 434 del boletín Notre-Dame de la Sainte-Espérance.

3, allée de la Solitude, 33490 Saint-Maixant.

Redacción: P. Hervé Belmont

(Este trabajo ha sido traducido del francés original y publicado con el generoso permiso de su autor, el Padre Hervé Belmont. - Nota de Non Excidet)

A new divinity: Necessity

Salomon making sacrifice to idols by Jacques Stella (1647).

One would have to be deaf and blind to ignore the existence of an active campaign—composed of widely distributed writings and videos—intended to justify the episcopal consecrations that the Society of Saint Pius X is preparing to perpetrate, or rather, to perpetuate. 

The word, which recurs in every sentence or at every phase of the presentation, sounds like a magic word before which all intelligence must bow and cease to function: necessity. As this word is the object of fervent incantations (favored by the blurriness of its outlines), and as the most established divine law must yield in its presence, one can rightfully qualify what the word designates as a divinity, one of those idols to which Solomon himself, despite his profound initial wisdom, ended up paying a deadly cult.

A clever individual wanted to pamper this divinity, qualifying it as an "uncontradicted state of necessity." Perhaps he wanted to give substance to something that cruelly lacked it; perhaps he wants to mislead the bystander to better blind them. Still, in the absence of any mention of a source where a contradiction could come from, this qualifier is nothing but a fig leaf.

Before looking into the nature and consequences of necessity, it is salutary to refer to Holy Scripture, in the only passage (to my knowledge) where it recounts how necessity, serving as a pretext for the usurpation of a divine office, is a calamity. It concerns the sin of Saul and his consequent downfall.

I Reg. xiii, 5-14 The Philistins assembled also to fight against Israel; they had thirty thousand chariots, six thousand horses, and a multitude of foot soldiers as numerous as the sand on the seashore. And they came up and encamped at Michmash, east of Bethaven. The Israelites, seeing that they were in a strait (for the people were distressed), went to hide in caves, in secret places, in rocks, in tombs, and in cisterns. The other Hebrews crossed the Jordan, and came to the land of Gad and Gilead. Saul was still at Gilgal; but all the people who followed him were in terror. He waited seven days, according to the time set by Samuel. However, Samuel did not come to Gilgal; and little by little, the people were slipping away from the king.

Saul therefore said: "Bring me the burnt offering and the peace offerings." And he offered the burnt offering. As he was finishing offering the burnt offering, Samuel arrived. And Saul went out to meet him to greet him. Samuel said to him: "What have you done?" Saul replied: "Seeing that the people were leaving me one after another, that you had not come on the day you said, and that the Philistines were assembled at Michmash, I said to myself: The Philistines are going to come down and attack me at Gilgal, and I have not yet appeased the Lord. Being therefore constrained by this necessity, I offered the burnt offering."

Samuel said to Saul: "Stulte egisti," you have acted foolishly, and you have not observed the commandments that the Lord your God had given you. If you had not committed this fault, the Lord would have now established your reign over Israel forever; but your reign shall not continue hereafter. The Lord has sought out a man after his own heart, and he has commanded him to be leader of his people, because you have not observed what he commanded you.

The downfall of Saul was terrifying. He, who had begun as a young man endowed with all qualities and chosen by God to reign with brilliance over Israel, ended his life in a true suicide in the form of a requested and demanded euthanasia.

What is said to be necessary is that which cannot not be. Necessary is therefore opposed to contingent, which designates that which can (or could have) not be.

God alone is absolutely necessary, necessary in Himself: God cannot not exist (which reason can demonstrate); He cannot not be Triune, one single God in three persons (which reason can neither know nor demonstrate, and which is known to us only through divine Revelation and faith). This absolute necessity of God is a necessity in substantia.

Other necessities are relative necessities:

• Either to be such a thing: necessity ad substantiam. Thus, to be a triangle, it is necessary for a geometric figure to have three sides and no more.

• Or to reach such an end: necessity ad finem. Thus, to go to Heaven, it is necessary to be in a state of grace at the moment of death.

When speaking of human action, a distinction is made in practice between the necessity of constraint—necessitas coactionis—and the necessity of end—necessitas finis (cf. Ia-IIae, q. i, a. 6, ad 3).

Necessity cannot by itself justify the transgression of a divine law: not only that of a law inscribed in the nature of things (natural or supernatural), but also that of a simply positive law, dependent solely on the will of God, and therefore contingent. Witness the astonishing story of Uzzah (II Reg. vi, 5-8):

However, David and all Israel played before the Lord on all kinds of musical instruments: the harp, the lyre, the tambourine, the sistrums, and the cymbals. But when they came to the threshing floor of Nachon, Uzzah reached out his hand to the ark of God, and took hold of it, because the oxen stumbled and made it tilt. Then the anger of the Lord was kindled against Uzzah, and He struck him dead there because of his rashness; and Uzzah died there beside the ark of God. David was afflicted because the Lord had struck Uzzah; and that place was called: the Breach of Uzzah, a name it keeps to this day.

An analogy is invoked here or there as an argument, which is, however, unfit to draw a conclusion: When firefighters intervene to put out a fire or save the injured, they can free themselves from priority rules and speed limits: necessity dispenses them from them. "Ipsa necessitas dispensationem habet annexam," it is added to sound learned, quoting Saint Thomas Aquinas (Ia-IIae, q. xcvi, a. 6), while carefully omitting to specify that the cited article deals with human law, and that it cannot therefore be applied to divine law. And even then, not every human law tolerates a dispensation; firefighters cannot drive down the highway in the wrong direction.

But even more than necessity, we are told of a "state of necessity," without it being defined with any precision. This notion is much more malleable than that of necessity plain and simple, and poorly suited to take a place in a rigorous reasoning in its stead.

Certainly, one cannot deny that there is a gaping need among the members of the Holy Church regarding knowledge of holy doctrine and regarding access to the sacraments. One cannot deny that there is an urgency because life is short and souls, while advancing toward eternity, must every day persevere and grow in the grace of God. This state of necessity that is invoked is therefore made of need and urgency.

But as pressing as it may be, it cannot cause one to ignore or despise truer needs and more fundamental urgencies. The most necessary thing for every man living in this world is to belong to the Holy Catholic Church, for there is no salvation outside of her. This belonging, and the fidelity it must inspire, requires that nothing be subtracted from the integrity of the faith and that no attempt be made against the unity of this Church.

The Catholic Church, the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ, received and receives at every moment from its founder an immutable constitution, placed above laws, some of which (solely among positive laws) are nonetheless influenced in their application by the contingency in which its life moves. Jesus Christ claims this Constitution for Himself: "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build My Church"; He claims it as immutable and indefectible: "And the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it"; He claims it as being His work at every instant: "Behold, I am with you always, even to the end of the age"; He claims it as being founded on Peter, the sole support of the hierarchical order which is the fulfillment of its unity across all times and in the present moment.

The intangibility of the Constitution of the Holy Church is a recurrent teaching—because it is paramount—of the pontifical magisterium. Respecting it is necessary, imperative, and salutary. Everyone must regulate their life according to this Constitution of the Church, which is in the power of no man to change (Leo XIII, Sapientiae christianae, January 10, 1890).

What the encyclicals of the Roman Pontiffs expose regarding the character and the Constitution of the Church is, habitually and deliberately, neglected by some with the very precise goal of making a vague notion prevail, which they tell us is drawn from the ancient Fathers and especially from the Greeks.

"To hear them, the Pontiffs, in fact, would never intend to pronounce on questions debated among theologians; thus the duty arises for all to return to the primitive sources and also to explain the more recent constitutions and decrees of the magisterium according to the texts of the ancients" (Pius XII, Humani generis, August 12, 1950).

"They will also dismiss this dangerous manner of expressing themselves which would give rise to erroneous opinions and fallacious hopes that can never be realized, by saying, for example, that the teaching of the Supreme Pontiffs, in the encyclicals on the return of dissidents to the Church, on the Constitution of the Church, on the Mystical Body of Christ, must not be taken so much into consideration since not everything is of faith—or what is even worse—that in dogmatic matters, even the Catholic Church does not possess the fullness of Christ, but that she can be perfected by the other churches.

Catholic doctrine must consequently be proposed and exposed totally and integrally; one must not pass over in silence or veil in ambiguous terms what Catholic truth teaches about the true nature and stages of justification, about the Constitution of the Church, about the primacy of jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff, about the only true union through the return of Christians to the one true Church of Christ. They can certainly be told that by returning to the Church they will lose nothing of the good which, by the grace of God, is realized in them until now, but that by their return this good will only be completed and brought to its perfection. One will however avoid speaking on this point in such a way that, by returning to the Church, they imagine they are bringing to it an essential element that it would have lacked until now. These things must be told to them clearly and without ambiguity, first because they seek the truth, and secondly because outside of the truth there can never be a true union" (Instruction of the Holy Office [Pius XII], December 20, 1949).

No circumstance, no state of necessity can prevail against this properly divine Constitution. And since, as Pope Leo XIII teaches, "the episcopal order necessarily belongs to the intimate constitution of the Church" (Satis cognitum, June 29, 1896, § 25), any usurpation of an episcopal consecration is "an attack against the unity of the Church" (cf. Pius XII, Ad Apostolorum Principis, June 29, 1958, § 25). In other words, in the very principle and whatever the circumstances, the absence of a mandate produces the same effects in the Church as schism.

Unless one implicitly professes that necessity is a kind of divinity, and that the state of necessity emanating from it supplants the Constitution of the Catholic Church and gags Jesus Christ, the Eternal Word of God, nothing justifies the usurpation of the episcopate.

And besides, by alleging a state of necessity to resort to bishops whose episcopate is schismatic, what does one ultimately procure?

The perpetuity of the Church? Such a work is totally beyond the reach of men; it is a properly divine work promised by Jesus Christ and divinely guaranteed. In the Christian life, it is the thing about which one should worry the least.

The good of souls? There is a good deal of illusion there. "It is obvious," says Pius XII, "that the spiritual needs of the faithful are not provided for at all by violating the laws of the Church" (Ad Apostolorum Principis, June 29, 1958, § 31).

An illusion whose disastrous effects will end up dominating? It is greatly to be feared, if only because one puts oneself in the necessity of consenting to an occultation or a distortion of a whole section of the doctrine of faith.

June 2026.

Supplement to No. 434 of the bulletin Notre-Dame de la Sainte-Espérance.

3, allée de la Solitude, 33490 Saint-Maixant.

Editorial staff: Abbé Hervé Belmont

(This work has been translated from the original French version and published with permission kindly granted by its author, Fr. Hervé Belmont - Non Excidet's note)

The stake of the "una cum"

By Fr. Hervé Belmont

1

IN THE CANON of the Holy Mass, at the first prayer Te Igitur, the celebrating priest, speaking of the Sacrifice whose offering is underway, pronounces the following words:

in primis, quæ tibi offérimus pro Ecclésia tua sancta cathólica: quam pacificáre, custodíre, adunáre et régere dignéris toto orbe terrárum: una cum fámulo tuo Papa nostro N. et Antístite nostro N. et ómnibus orthodóxis...

The letter N. signifies nomen and therefore indicates that it must be replaced by the name of the Sovereign Pontiff, and then by that of the diocesan bishop (1):

The Ritus servandus in celebratione Missæ placed at the beginning of the Roman Missal specifies (VIII, 2): «Ubi dicit: una cum fámulo tuo Papa nostro N., exprimit nomen Papæ: Sede autem vacante verba prædicta omittuntur.»

In the event of a vacancy of the Holy See, the preceding words (which are, obviously, the six words that the Ritus servandus has printed in red) must be omitted: part of these removed words is therefore the phrase una cum. This means that una cum relates solely to the name of the Pope, and does not refer to the local bishop, nor possibly to the King, nor to the others (bishops) of sound doctrine and Catholic unity.

There is nothing surprising about this, since it is the Church militant in all its extension that is in question in this place (...cathólica... toto orbe terrárum...).

UNA CUM, therefore, means una cum the Sovereign Pontiff.

2

SINCE ANTIQUITY, the mention of the Pope in the diptychs has been considered as pertaining to the unity of the Church and conditioning membership in the Church; we are in the theological order here (and not merely moral or, even less, administrative). This mention is not a simple prayer intention; it entails an allegiance and a certain cooperation on the part of those attending.

When, in the year 449, the Patriarch of Alexandria Dioscorus dared to suppress the name of Pope Saint Leo from the diptychs of the Mass, his audacity provoked general reprobation.

Nicephorus relates that in the 5th century, the Patriarch of Constantinople Acacius (†489) excluded the name of Pope Felix II (†492) from the diptychs. Immediately, the Emperor Constantine Pogonatus addressed the Pope to explain the resistance he had offered to this instigator of schism. Later, when the Patriarch of Constantinople Photius caused the dissension of the Greek Church (858), the names of the Popes were erased from the schismatic liturgy.

In the West, the Council of Vaison (529), assembled by Saint Caesarius of Arles, prescribed that the name of the Pope presiding over the Apostolic See be cited at Mass: «Et hoc nobis justum visum est ut nomen domini Papæ quicumque Sedi apostolicæ præfuerit in nostris ecclesiis recitetur» (canon 4). And it seemed just to us that the name of the Lord Pope, whoever shall be at the head of the apostolic see, be recited in our churches.

Pope Pelagius II (579-590) teaches that omitting the name of the Pope in the Canon of the Mass amounts to separating oneself from the universal Church.

There is therefore no doubt: this is a grave matter with consequences of importance that cannot be brushed aside with a wave of the hand.

3

FOR THE CELEBRATING PRIEST, the una cum Papa nostro is the edification and the expression of communion with the Sovereign Pontiff. And it is not a matter of just any communion, but of the deepest communion.

Here is the teaching of Pope Benedict XIV:

"The commemoration of the Roman Pontiff during the Mass, as well as the prayers made for him during the Sacrifice, are in testimony and in reality a certain sign by which one declares to recognize this same Pontiff as Head of the Church, Vicar of Jesus Christ, and successor of Saint Peter; thus is made a profession of mind and heart firmly adhering to Catholic unity; as Christian Lupus also rightly indicates, writing on the Councils (volume IV, Brussels edition, p. 422): This commemoration is the highest and most honored form of communion" — Letter Ex quo primum tempore, March 1, 1756, § 12. Benedicti Papæ XIV Bullarium, Malines 1827, volume IV, vol. II, p. 299.

This efficient declaration of communion is not made for the benefit of just any member of the Church; it is addressed to the one recognized as the Sovereign Pontiff holding the place of Jesus Christ, as the living rule of faith, as the holder of sovereign and immediate jurisdiction over each Catholic, as the reference for the unity of the Church. It is therefore a communion of allegiance and subordination: a communion of intelligence and purpose.

4

FOR THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, the expression una cum receives a new gravity. This is because, as it has been well noted, these two words and what they command (the mention of the Pope) relate directly to the Holy Church. It is she who, in the sacrifice, is united to the one named. Now, the Church is doubly involved in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass:

A. She is involved as beneficiary

This is what the prayer of the Te Igitur expresses. The Mass vivifies the Church: it pacifies, guards, unifies, and leads her; the Mass does all this so that the Church may be one, and because the Church is one with the Sovereign Pontiff named here; the Mass does it in its union and through its union with the visible head of the Church, vicar of Jesus Christ and sovereign of its members.

The unity of the Church is the proper and primary end of the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist. This is the teaching of Saint Thomas Aquinas: "The grace produced by this sacrament is the unity of the Mystical Body, without which there can be no salvation" [Summa Theologiae, III, q. LXXIII, a. 3].

This is also the doctrine of the Council of Trent:

"[In instituting the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist, Jesus Christ] wished it to be the pledge of our future glory and eternal happiness, and at the same time a symbol of that unique Body of which He is Himself the head and to which He wished us, as His members, to be attached by the closest bonds of faith, hope, and charity, so that we might all profess the same thing and that there be no schisms among us" (Session XIII, De Eucharistia, c. 2, Denzinger 875).

B. She is involved as the one offering

The presence and primacy of the Church as beneficiary of the offering of the Mass have a scope expounded to us by Saint Thomas Aquinas (Summa Theologiae, III, q. XLVIII, a. 3) by adopting a text from Saint Augustine:

"The sole, unique, and true mediator [Jesus Christ] who reconciles us with God through the sacrifice of peace had to remain one with Him to whom He offered this sacrifice, make those for whom He offered it one in Himself (unum in se faceret pro quibus offerebat), be the one and the same who offered, and what He offered."

Those for whom Jesus Christ offers His Sacrifice, benefiting from the sanctifying virtue of the sacrifice, are made one with the sacrificer in the very act of the offering. That is why the Council of Trent affirms that it is the Church that offers the Holy Mass: "God, Our Lord [...] instituted a new Passover where He Himself would be immolated by the Church, through the priests (ab Ecclesia, per sacerdotes) under visible signs" (Sess. XXII, c. 1).

Not only is the Pope associated as head with the being of the Church, but he is also associated with the end of the sacrifice (which is the unity of the Church) and also with the very offering of the sacrifice, which is offered by the Church, says the Council of Trent. It is difficult to make that more intimate, more engaging.

5

THE CANON OF THE MASS is immaculate: such is the teaching of the Council of Trent in its XXII session, reinforced by a canon rejecting those who profess the contrary.

"The Catholic Church instituted, many centuries ago, the holy Canon, so pure from all error that there is nothing in it which does not greatly breathe holiness and piety and raise to God the minds of those who offer it" — Denzinger 942.

"If anyone says that the Canon of the Mass contains errors and that it must be abrogated: let him be anathema" — Denzinger 953.

To mix the name of Jorge-Bergoglio-Francis-I into it, is this not to belie in a solemn act this solemn teaching of the Council of Trent?

Does the heir and aggravator of Vatican II, assuming and extending the vast destruction of the theological faith accomplished there, have his place at the heart of the Mysterium fidei?

Is it possible to pledge allegiance to him in an active manner that participates in sacramental efficacy—when it proves necessary to withdraw from his jurisdiction (from his government) if one wishes to preserve the faith and save one's soul?

Does not the name of a prophet of ecumenism, who favors dissensions in the faith and aims to dissolve the unity of the Church, defile so holy an action whose end is precisely the unity of the Church?

Can he who is mired in a "sacramental system" inspired by Protestantism, whose crown jewel (!) is the "Mass of Luther", be named as the head and identifier of the Catholic Church which offers the Sacrifice of Jesus Christ?

To pose these questions is to answer them. If, as we have seen, it is difficult to make anything more intimate and engaging than the union of the Church and the Pope in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, it would be difficult to make anything more impious and outrageous for the Church of Jesus Christ than to name a false pope, a false rule of faith, and, what is worse, the rule of a false faith.

Note well that there is no question here of the knowledge, virtue, or zeal of the one who occupies the Apostolic See. If grave deficiencies in these matters have harmful consequences for the good of the Church, they are by no means incompatible either with apostolic authority or with mention in the Canon of the Mass.

We find ourselves, since the disastrous proclamations and reforms of Vatican II, in the presence of fundamental, official, permanent deficiencies: they concern the rule of faith, the sacramental order, the offering of the Sacrifice, the unity of the Church. They concern simultaneously the Mass and the Church, which, Saint Thomas Aquinas teaches, is constituted by faith and the sacraments of faith (III, q. LIV, a. 2, ad 3).

It is therefore not out of a light heart nor in a spirit of opposition to the unity of the Church that one refuses to name Jorge-Bergoglio-Francis-I at the Te Igitur: it is in testimony to the Catholic faith, it is by reason of a requirement of the doctrine and unity of the Church. For to name him there necessarily implies—under pain of denying the most certain doctrine—receiving his teaching without fiction, submitting to his government without evasion, giving and receiving the sacraments under his aegis... but then one falls into other errors, separating oneself from the unity of the Church by another path.

6

FOR THE ATTENDING FAITHFUL, the problem also arises. They are members of the Church, baptized and confirmed, deputed to offer with the priest by virtue of their sacramental character, which is "a participation in the priesthood of Christ, derived from Christ Himself" (Saint Thomas, Summa Theologiae, III, q. LXIII, a. 5, c). Already Saint Peter said: "You are a chosen race, a royal priesthood" (I Pet. II, 9).

The priest alone offers sacramentally, but the faithful unite themselves to Jesus Christ in this same sacrifice, to offer the sacrifice of the Church.

"This oblation which comes from the consecration is a certain affirmation (testificatio) that the whole Church consents (consentiat), agrees in the oblation made by Christ, and that she offers it together with Him" — Saint Robert Bellarmine, De Missa, II, c. 4, cited by Pius XII, Mediator Dei, November 20, 1947.

Although the faithful do not themselves pronounce this una cum so wounding to the holiness of the Mass, they are nevertheless associated with it. By their presence, by their action, they bring a cooperation to the meum ac vestrum sacrificium that the priest celebrates at the altar. To discern the morality of this presence, one must refer to the principles governing cooperation in evil.

All formal cooperation is to be rejected without hesitation. He who deliberately chooses to attend an una cum Mass formally cooperates in the grave distortion it entails with regard to the holiness of the Mass, with regard to the unity of the faith and of the Church. And one chooses every time one could do otherwise, even if it required a notable effort (distance, schedule, etc.).

It is also impossible to provide immediate material cooperation, such as performing the office of deacon or subdeacon.

Proximate or remote material cooperation is also forbidden, unless one has a grave reason to override it: unless, therefore, one cannot do otherwise. This grave reason must be proportionate; scandal must be prevented, and one must fight the bad effects within oneself, for one must not deceive oneself: even indirect and detested allegiance to Francis Bergoglio, to which one becomes accustomed, leaves deep traces in the soul and in the integrity of the Catholic faith, despite oneself. Furthermore, if one ever attends a "distorted" Mass, one must interiorly protest against the distortion to avoid formal cooperation.

The more proximate and habitual the cooperation, the graver the reason must be. There may be differences of assessment in this matter, and each person must decide before God for himself and for those for whom he bears responsibility, with great purity of intention and enlightened faith.

The more cooperation risks being proximate and habitual, the more one must seek to escape it. The more cooperation is proximate and habitual, the more one must detest it interiorly, and on occasion bear exterior witness to this disagreement. The more cooperation is proximate and habitual, the more one must then do everything possible not to get used to it (for habit modifies judgment), and the more one must instruct oneself so as not to be carried away into the false doctrines underlying the una cum Francisco.

7

THE STAKE OF THE una cum also consist in this: the mention of Francis Bergoglio in the Canon of the Holy Mass is an evil, but it is far from being the only existing or possible evil; one has not resolved everything once it has been omitted. It would be a grave illusion to imagine that from then on one could exempt oneself from the observation of justice and charity toward one's neighbor, from prudence and firmness in the accomplishment of good, from the fight against sin and against the occasion of sin.

It would be, again and always, a mortal illusion to believe oneself dispensed from the love of truth; from the study of Catholic doctrine in all its fullness; from the acquisition and maintenance of the natural rectitude of the intellect, of the soundness of judgment; from duties toward the common good of the city and the different societies to which one belongs.

Worse still would be to find in the refusal of the una cum a pretext for resorting directly or indirectly to episcopal consecrations without an apostolic mandate, or to what flows from them: this would be claiming to fight evil with evil, it would be wishing to avoid a deep wound to the unity of the Church by resorting to an assault against the unity of the Church (and, in this case, by an action more abundantly and more directly condemned by the divine authority of the Holy Church).

Let us leave to Jesus Christ what is the object of a solemn promise on His part, and which is therefore of His exclusive competence: the perpetuation of His Church militant until His return in glory. In the meantime, "Let men so account of us as of the ministers of Christ, and the dispensers of the mysteries of God. Here now it is required among the dispensers, that a man be found faithful" I Cor. IV, 1-2.

Footnote:

(1) The object of the present study is limited to the mention of the Sovereign Pontiff in the Canon of the Mass. It must nevertheless be noted in passing that the bishop named in the Canon can only be the Ordinary of the place: even religious exempt from his jurisdiction are bound to it. To imagine that one can name a bishop who has no regular jurisdiction in the place where one celebrates, a bishop of convenience, denotes some ignorance of what the Church is.

(This work has been translated from the original French version and published with permission kindly granted by its author, Fr. Hervé Belmont - Non Excidet's note)