By Fr. Hervé Belmont.
Following the publication of the article “The Daughters of Lot” in Les Deux Étendards No. 3, we have been asked several times what attitude to adopt toward those priests who received the priesthood from the hands of an “illegal” bishop. May one attend the Holy Mass they celebrate?
The question arises, of course, only with regard to priests whose ordination is beyond doubt (1), who have the firm intention of belonging to the Catholic Church and have never left it, who profess the faith in its entirety and do not claim any jurisdiction whatsoever—in short, “serious” priests. It must be acknowledged that, due to the proliferation of bishops and the abundance of their descendants, it is very difficult to make sense of the situation; these priests, unable to claim ordination by a true bishop of the Church, offer, all things considered, no guarantee other than that of their personal qualities—which is fragile, and sometimes misleading.
Assuming, then, that all these conditions are met, the fact remains that these priests obtained their priesthood at the cost of actively adhering to a false principle regarding the jurisdiction and unity of the Church, and that their priesthood remains tainted by this—it will remain so until the Church has healed them of it. This false principle, this adherence to a false rule of the Church’s hierarchical unity, marks each of their acts, just as the una cum Johanne-Paulo marks every Mass that contains it. It is not by accident that we make this comparison, but rather because there is a genuine analogy, which logically emerges in the study of the behavior one must adopt. That is why we believe we can repeat here (with a slight correction without changing the meaning) what we wrote some time ago (2) regarding attendance at una cum Masses:
“The mention of the Supreme Pontiff in the Canon of the Mass is of particular significance, first of all because of the sanctity of this prayer, which is the most precious, the most solemn, and the most effective of the entire liturgy of the Church, of this prayer which is the heart of the mystery of faith. This reference directly concerns the catholicity of the Holy Sacrifice, of the celebrant, and of the assistants; it expresses the adherence that every Catholic must have to the Supreme Pontiff as the living rule of faith and as the holder of the fullness of the power of order in the Church; it actualizes (it makes real) our belonging to the Church and our submission to the Supreme Pontiff. This is how the Church has always understood it.
“Thus, it is quite certain that a faithful cannot offer any formal cooperation to the una cum Johanne-Paulo that a priest pronounces in the Canon of the Mass; it is impossible for him to unite himself to such an act,which is allegiance to a false rule of faith, which is sacramental dependence proclaimed toward one who is not the head of the true sacraments of the Church.
“Is it possible to attend the una cum Mass without offering this (morally speaking) impossible formal cooperation; in other words, is it possible to offer only a materially permissible cooperation?
“It seems to us that yes, under the following two conditions:
– to inwardly reject this una cum and to protest before God that one wishes to conform to all the requirements of the Catholic faith;
– have a serious (i.e., proportionate) reason for doing so. It is quite clear that fear of a longer commute or greater fatigue, a desire for more convenient hours, or the wish to avoid an unpleasant encounter cannot constitute a sufficient reason. On the other hand, the need to enroll one’s children in a school of sound moral character or to avoid exposing oneself to a dangerous deprivation of the sacraments may constitute such a serious reason.
“In short, attendance at Mass tainted by the una cum must not be voluntary: one must have no other choice. We may be criticized for not being strict enough on this point, but we fear incurring the rebuke Our Lord directed at the Pharisees: ‘They tie up heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they themselves are not willing to move them with a finger’ [Matt. 23:4].”
So here is our answer to the original question: NO, NO, NO, BUT. No, so as not to adhere to a principle that leads away from the unity of the Church; no, so as not to approve of what is not in accordance with Catholic doctrine on jurisdiction and the episcopate; no, so as not to go astray and to avoid encouraging anyone to stray onto a very perilous path—one that will become increasingly so; but, for serious reasons (3), “with reservation, nothing more,” to borrow the phrase Jean Madiran used at the time of the introduction of the new ordo missæ, pending a more thorough assessment.
To ensure that one does not stray from the Church, and to avoid the risk of going against her whenever it becomes necessary—due to the painful crisis she is undergoing—to make a decision that deviates from her ordinary law, one must adhere to this principle (which lies at the foundation of the “Cassiciacum Thesis”):
– affirm and do EVERYTHING required by faith and its witness, for faith is indivisible;
– affirm or do NOTHING other than what is required by faith, for one’s own judgment, which inevitably takes over, is blind; it is in no way a rule of action with regard to the Church; it leads to abandonment or adventurism, which has never produced anything but injustices and catastrophes.
Since the use of the episcopate without a mandate is not permissible under Catholic doctrine, it cannot be a requirement of the faith; this is why we believe that those who use, encourage, or endorse the “episcopal path” bear a very heavy responsibility. Faithful Catholics, however zealous and courageous they may be, are often already plagued by a neglect of the Church and her unity, by indifference to entire sections of her doctrine, and by a loss of the sense of her authority; they truly do not need to be led, however well-intentioned, into adherence to a pseudo-hierarchy. This is a great cause for sadness and concern.
Usquequo, Domine, usquequo? ... In te confido, non erubescam.
Footnotes:
(1) Judgment will become increasingly difficult; certainty—which already rests on a good measure of trust that is hard to place—will gradually fade away. This simple fact alone shows that the “episcopal path” is not the path to salvation, nor even the path to survival. In certain episcopal lineages, we are now in the third or fourth generation of consecrations, and the intermediaries—who sometimes came from who knows where—are disappearing one after another...
(2) Bulletin Notre-Dame de la Sainte-Espérance, No. 98, July 1994.
(3) If one were to compare the grounds for attending a Mass celebrated by a priest ordained by a bishop consecrated without an apostolic mandate with those for attending a Mass celebrated una cum Johanne-Paulo, the answer is rather unclear. Considering the nature of things, we would be more severe in the second case; considering the gravity of the consequences, we would be much more severe in the first case.
_(page_10_crop).jpg)
