Episcopal consecration of Mexican priests Moisés Carmona (left) and Adolfo Zamora (right) by the Archbishop of Hue, Pierre Martin Ngo Dinh Thuc (center).
By Fr. Hervé Belmont (1)
The magazine Sodalitium has published, penned by Fr. Francesco Ricossa (2), a lengthy refutation of our article “The Daughters of Lot” which appeared in issue no. 3 of Les Deux Étendards, an article in which we set forth our rejection of episcopal consecrations performed without an apostolic mandate, as well as the reasons for such a rejection.
Sodalitium’s critique is harsh. Our exposition on the nature of the episcopate is described there as marked by Gallicanism and stemming from the teachings of Vatican II. Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear! This is worth pausing to consider, all the more so because we are faced with a veritable paradox: we reject an autonomous episcopate, relying on a doctrine that, we are told, grants too much autonomy to the episcopate!
The crux of the matter is therefore the nature of the episcopate and its relationship to the hierarchical constitution of the Church.
Addressing these issues is a major challenge, for at least three reasons.
The first is a difference in the terminology used to describe the powers of the Church; the Magisterium (3), in accordance with the Holy Gospel, distinguishes three powers: teaching (or Magisterium), sanctification (or Order), and governance (or Jurisdiction); Canon Law, taking a practical approach, and following it, some theologians such as Journet, distinguish only two: Order and Jurisdiction (4). One must therefore always be careful regarding the meaning and scope of the terms used, especially when shifting from one to the other, lest one construct a poorly fitting puzzle. All the more so because, regardless of the terminology adopted, jurisdiction is understood analogously in the various fields where it applies.
The second is that the Church has a hierarchy, and that this single hierarchy is organized according to two distinct principles: order and jurisdiction.
The third difficulty stems from the fact that St. Thomas Aquinas did not write a work dealing specifically with the Church; one must therefore seek theological insight in other treatises, particularly in the treatise on the sacrament of Holy Orders.
These difficulties cause many theologians to gloss over the question of the episcopate, often addressing it only after jurisdiction has been received from the Supreme Pontiff, failing to distinguish clearly, in the dignity and powers of bishops, what derives from this jurisdiction and what derives from their episcopal consecration.
Both to correct a few inaccuracies or errors in wording of which we have been guilty (5) and to show that our exposition of the episcopate is entirely classical, Thomist, and indisputable, here are extensive excerpts from L’Église du Christ, son sacerdoce, son gouvernement [pp. 67–79], a study by Fr. Ch.-V. Héris, O.P., who—need we specify? —is neither Gallican nor conciliar, nor influenced by Fr. de Blignières, nor driven by passion or bitterness, nor particularly eager to harm or benefit anyone, but simply concerned with stating the facts.
“The priest, in fact, through this [priestly] character receives direct and immediate power over the true Body of Christ; he can consecrate the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Jesus, and offer them to God as a sacrifice, renewing the act of Calvary. This is his proper and principal office. From this power over the Body of Christ in the Eucharist derives the priest’s power of sanctification over the faithful through the other sacraments: for, being charged with the Eucharistic worship, it falls to him to prepare souls and make them worthy to participate in it. The sacraments are instituted precisely to prepare souls for the Eucharist; the priest may therefore administer these sacraments, with a view to leading souls to a closer union with Christ in the Eucharistic sacrifice and communion. There is the same order between the priest’s power over the true Body of Christ and his power over its mystical Body as there is between the Eucharist and the sacraments: the Eucharist is the end of the sacraments; the priest’s Eucharistic power is also the end and the raison d’être of his sacramental power. Therefore, this power is, properly speaking, not a power of governance but a power of sanctification of the mystical body, a power of priestly mediation.
“Hence, whenever sacraments, by their very nature, require—in order to be validly administered—not only a power of sanctification but a true power of governance, something other than the mere priestly character will be required to confer them. This is the case for the sacrament of Penance (6); it is what occurs in a much higher degree in the conferral of the sacraments of Holy Orders and Confirmation.
“We must not forget, in fact, that while sanctifying souls, the sacraments—through the three marks they produce—establish an organic religious community composed of ordinary members, authorized defenders, and, finally, priests. To constitute such a society and confer upon its members a dignity that distinguishes them from others, the priestly power of sanctification alone would not suffice: one must have direct power over the mystical body of Christ; one must be capable of governing and ruling it. Baptism, it is true, being addressed to people who are not yet part of the Church and are not subject to its authority, does not in itself require this power of governance to be administered: a simple priest can admit into the Church anyone who expresses the desire to do so. But as soon as a person, through the sacrament of Baptism, becomes part of the Christian community, he is immediately subject to those who have the authority to govern it. Consequently, when it comes to matters within the Christian worship itself—not merely sanctifying souls but raising them to a dignity that enables them to participate more intimately in the priesthood of Christ—the ordinary priest cannot effect this elevation on his own. He must be endowed with an authority that gives him direct and immediate power over the members of the Christian community. “Through Holy Orders and Confirmation,” writes “St. Thomas, the faithful are appointed to special offices: such an appointment ‘belongs properly to the head.’ That is why the conferral of these sacraments falls to ‘the bishop alone, who holds the office of prince in the Church’ (Summa Theologica, IIIa, q. 65, art. 3, sol. 2).
“Let us note that this is not merely a question of lawfulness: in this regard, every priest, in the administration of the sacraments, is subject to the authority of the Church. It is the very validity of the sacrament that is at stake: because of their special nature, which is to confer a certain excellence in the liturgical order, Confirmation and Holy Orders require, in order to be validly conferred, a power of governance that only the bishop possesses.
“Moreover, when it comes to the sacrament of Penance, what is strictly required is a power of jurisdiction that grants the right to make an authoritative judgment regarding the sinner and to absolve him. The case is entirely different for the sacraments of Holy Orders and Confirmation: the properly sacramental act that constitutes them confers not only grace, but also a certain delegation in the offices and duties of Christian worship. To be able to transmit such a deputation to the members of this worship, it does not seem sufficient, therefore, to possess power over the Eucharistic Body of Christ, nor the power of sanctification that derives from it and is conferred by the priestly character; it is not even sufficient to be invested with a more or less extensive jurisdiction, for the matter here is neither to judge nor to sanction. It is absolutely necessary to possess, within the liturgical order itself, a hierarchical power that authorizes the sacramental conferral upon the members of the mystical body of an office or function pertaining to Christian worship. This power is the properly episcopal power.
“Does this mean, however, that the episcopate should be regarded as a true sacrament, just as the priesthood and the other lower orders are? We know, in fact, that the sacrament of Holy Orders is divided into several orders, all united in a single whole by their connection to the Eucharistic liturgy, and by the fact that the lower orders are participations in the supreme order. Is not this supreme order precisely the episcopate? Many modern theologians, following Peter Soto, hold this view. This is not, however, the view of St. Thomas: according to our Doctor, the sacrament of Holy Orders has a direct and immediate relationship to the Eucharist; the powers it confers pertain primarily to the true Body of Christ offered on our altars; it is only by derivation that the sacrament of Holy Orders orders us to the mystical Body, with a view to preparing souls for divine worship. Now, with regard to the Eucharist, the bishop possesses no powers more extensive than those of the priest: like the priest, he consecrates and offers the divine victim and can do no more. The episcopate is therefore not, as one might suppose, the sacrament of Holy Orders in its highest degree.
“In turn, the episcopate invests the bishop with a dignity that directly ordains him to the governance of the mystical body. This dignity is a consecration, yet one that is entirely different from that conferred by the sacramental character. The character consecrates us immediately to God and unites us to Him so that we may take part in the acts of the Christian priesthood. The episcopate dedicates the bishop and consecrates him to the mystical body, which is indeed also something divine since it is connected to God through its head, that is, through Christ; but the bishop’s belonging to God is indirect, and it is first and foremost toward the mystical body that his consecration directs him. This consecration obviously gives him hierarchical power, a dignity of governance of the first order. “By his promotion to the episcopate,” writes St. Thomas, “the bishop receives a power that remains perpetually ‘in him.’ But one cannot say that this is a character: for, through episcopal power, “Man is not directly subject to God, but to the mystical body of Christ. This ‘power’ is nonetheless as indelible as a character, and it is conferred
through ‘consecration’ (S. Theol., supplem., q. 38, art. 2, sol. 2).”
“Through episcopal consecration, the bishop is thus truly established as the head of the mystical body and of the members of the Christian worship. And from that point on, he possesses the authority required to act upon these members and to appoint them to the official functions pertaining to worship. He may appoint the defenders of the religion of Christ; he may choose his ministers and priests. Undoubtedly, it is by virtue of his priestly character that he will consecrate them and sacramentally confer upon them the powers pertaining to their office; but first, that character must have been elevated in such a way that it becomes a character of head and prince of the Church. It is the episcopal consecration that brings about this elevation. Thus, the kingship of Christ elevates his priesthood to the point of enabling him to exercise its acts with perfect autonomy and mastery.
"[...] From everything we have said so far, it is easy to understand why the bishop’s power of governance is usually divided into the power of order and the power of jurisdiction. The power of order derives to the bishop both from his priestly character and from his episcopal consecration: it is a hierarchical power that establishes him as head of the Christian worship and grants him the right to govern the members of that faith sacramentally. It even extends, in a certain sense, to the Eucharist, in that it allows the bishop to consecrate objects related to the Eucharistic liturgy, such as chalices, altars, and churches. [...] Thus, St. Thomas has no difficulty in recognizing that the episcopate is truly an order, not in the sacramental sense of the word, but in the sense that the word signifies rank or hierarchical dignity.
"[...] It remains true, however, that the bishop’s jurisdiction—to which must be added his teaching authority—is entirely distinct from his power of ordination. Certainly, the latter, by conferring a royal dignity upon the bishop and making him a prince of the Church, creates in him a fundamental capacity to govern and teach the Christian people. But because this governance and this teaching have true value and real effectiveness only to the extent that bishops are united with the Supreme Pontiff, it is to the Pope, and to him alone, that it belongs to confer upon the bishop the power of jurisdiction. This power is not essentially dependent on hierarchical authority: the bishop possesses it as soon as he is appointed by the supreme authority to head a diocese and even before being consecrated; he loses it even after his consecration, as soon as he separates himself from the Roman Pontiff and falls into schism. For it is one thing to teach, to legislate, and to judge the Christian people; and it is another thing to have a say in the very constitution of the divine worship and in the essential functions of that worship. The first role falls under the power of jurisdiction given by Christ to Peter and the Apostles and transmitted, through authentic succession, to the Pope and the bishops. The second role calls upon a hierarchical power conferred by way of consecration and intimately linked to that other consecration which is the priestly character. The Pope and the bishops are not merely teachers, nor merely legislators or judges: they are also hierarchically and priestly consecrated. But while the Pope is superior to the bishops in terms of jurisdiction, he is their equal from the standpoint of hierarchical consecration; and while the Pope and the bishops surpass the ordinary priest both in jurisdiction and in hierarchical power, they are in no way above him with regard to the proper object of their priestly power, the Eucharistic consecration.”
This lengthy quotation clearly affirms the essentially hierarchical nature of episcopal power, as conferred by the consecration itself: it is a regency over the mystical body; it is a princely power. Jurisdiction is distinct from this, and can come only from the Pope, yet it is an intrinsic complement to it since it is necessary for the exercise of the bishop’s principal power, that power of regency. This call to jurisdiction inherent in the hierarchical dignity conferred by episcopal consecration is thus expressed by Abbé V.A. Berto (and it is difficult to be more Roman than he was!):
“Bishop and particular Church (7) are terms that are correlative everywhere and always. This is so true that to this day non-resident bishops receive the title of a suppressed see. This is so true that the Bishop of Bishops is himself the particular shepherd of the particular Church of Rome; the universal Church is not governed by a bishop without a diocese, but by the Bishop of Rome” (8).
What is clearly highlighted is that, in moving from the priesthood to the episcopate, one changes orders (moving from an order that is primarily sacramental to one that is primarily hierarchical); one changes one’s primary object (moving from the physical Body of Jesus Christ to his mystical Body); one changes one’s relationship to jurisdiction (from accidental—concerning the derivative exercise of priestly power—to essential—concerning the primary exercise of episcopal power). There is therefore a difference of nature, not of degree, between the priesthood and the episcopate—an unbridgeable chasm without an explicit mandate from the legitimate and supreme authority of the Holy Catholic Church. The depth of this chasm is also evident in the fact that the Church admits, and even organizes, substitutes for the exercise of priestly power, yet has never admitted a substitute regarding episcopal power proper.
Never. Not even in the case of St. Eusebius of Samosata, which is often cited. We deeply regret that Fr. Ricossa refers to this, because this story, along with a few others such as that of Honorius or the alleged fall of Pope Liberius, is part of an arsenal used by the enemies of Catholic doctrine (Gallicans, anti-Concordatairs, anti-infallibilist anti- s, etc.) recycled for use by the “traditionalists” for the past twenty or twenty-five years. It is deplorable to resort to such a repertoire of arguments—some used to undermine the infallibility or prerogatives of the Supreme Pontiff, others to attempt to justify disobedience, and still others to undermine the constitution of the Church.
Dom Guéranger had, in his time, refuted the calumnies against Liberius and the distorting exaggerations of Honorius’s fault (9). We do not recall him having discussed Saint Eusebius of Samosata, but this case is well presented and analyzed in two articles by Brother A.M. Lenoir, articles published in issues 22 and 23 of Sedes Sapientiæ (10). This study shows that Saint Eusebius was a faithful observer of canon law throughout his life, and that the attribution to him of episcopal consecrations performed on his own initiative rests on a single historical source—Theodoret of Cyr in the following century (the fifth)—whose interpretation is, moreover, difficult. This interpretation cannot be made in contradiction to his entire life and, in any case, cannot be the one relied upon to justify illegal consecrations.
We therefore fully maintain the judgment we expressed in the previous issue of Les Deux Étendards, both from a doctrinal and a prudential standpoint. We will not elaborate further, since we reproduce in the appendix the response we gave to a few people who asked us about the practical course of action to take.
Father Ricossa is surprised that we do not use the word “schism.” This is quite natural. Absent a declaration by the parties involved, in the silence of canon law, and given the clear intention of many not to separate from the Church, it would be up to the Authority—and the Authority alone— to decide and to draw the line. We have all suffered too much from an indiscriminate and exaggerated use of the accusation of schism for it to be up to us to consider such a label. This does not prevent us from thinking and affirming that an episcopal consecration without an apostolic mandate tends toward schism by its very nature: this is sufficient for us to reject it, to keep our distance, and to oppose it.
(1) Excerpted from issue 4 (June 1997) of the journal Les Deux Étendards, published by the association Grâce et Vérité, 27 Casquit, F - 33490 Saint-Maixant.
(2) “Digitus Dei non est hic,” supplement to No. 43. Sodalitium: Localita Carbignano 36. I - 10020 Verrua-Savoia (TO).
(3) Mystici Corporis, June 29, 1943, passim.
(4) Canons 196, 948.
(5) The main one is (at footnote 8 of The Daughters of Lot - Non Excidet), where we wrote: “The bishop [...] exercises a jurisdiction whose provisions and application belong to the Pope.” Our wording is incorrect; we should have written: “The bishop entails a jurisdiction, the existence, application, and determinations of which belong to the Pope.” We thank Father Ricossa for giving us the opportunity to make this correction.
(6) “As St. Thomas observes, the penitent faithful are themselves the matter of the sacrament of penance, and they cannot be subjected to a judgment; or, in other words, the form of this sacrament can be applied to the matter only through the competent jurisdiction. In this respect, absolution is in close and necessary dependence on the legitimate authority, which alone has the power in the Church to legislate and sanction the acts of the faithful. Yet absolution is not a mere declaratory sentence: it is a sacramental act that instrumentally confers grace and sanctifies the soul by justifying it from its faults. Viewed from this perspective, it pertains solely to the priestly character; jurisdiction is extrinsic to it, being merely an absolutely necessary condition. “All spiritual power is conferred with a certain consecration,” we read in St. Thomas. This is why the power of the keys is conferred with the sacrament of Holy Orders. But the exercise of “this power requires an appropriate subject, which is the Christian people subject to it by means of ‘jurisdiction.’ Thus, prior to jurisdiction, the priest has the power of the keys, but not the faculty to exercise ‘this power’” (S. Theol., Supplem., qu. 17, art. 2, sol. 2).” [Héris, op. cit., p. 64; the first underline is ours].
(7) That is, a (territorial) part of the Catholic Church, or a diocese.
(8) Pour la Sainte Église Romaine, Paris 1976, pp. 225–226. Written in 1954.
(9) See La monarchie pontificale, or even Défense de l'Église Romaine. [Added in November 2000: Upon verification, Dom Guéranger did not discuss Eusebius of Samosata. Abbé Ricossa announced in the following issue of Sodalitium (No. 44, July 1997, p. 31) that he would seek out an undeniable historical case of a consecration without a mandate subsequently approved by the Church... we are still waiting]
(10) Society of St. Thomas Aquinas. F - 53340 Chémeré-le-Roi.
_(cropped).jpg)
_(page_10_crop).jpg)
