By Fr. Hervé Belmont.
[…] This is the issue of vocation. A very delicate subject, since it touches on God’s plan for each of us, on the intimacy God wishes to establish with us, on the Church’s mediation, on the freedom of each person, and on the crisis of the Church.
To address this question fully, we would have to go back to the eternal vocation of the Son of God and then to the vocation of Our Lord and Our Lady in the mystery of the redemptive Incarnation, but that would take us far too far afield and beyond my expertise. I will therefore begin with the vocation of the Church. Prior to the destiny of each individual and the vocation of a few, there is the vocation of the Church. God’s plan is to establish for His only Son a Church that will be for Him a “plenitude,” a fullness, a radiance of glory, a heavenly society that will be for Him Body and Bride. It is in this election of the Church that the vocation of each of us has its source: God destines us to take a certain place in his Church—a place in terms of the degree of charity and glory, a place in terms of a particular office. Election to a particular degree of glory remains a mystery, a great mystery of God’s infinite Wisdom. Here too, I cannot venture to discuss it; my theology would quickly prove inadequate, and this is not strictly what is meant by vocation (1).
In the strictest sense, a vocation refers to a role within the Church, and it is in this context that Father Berto’s meditation should be understood: “There is, between Christ and the Church, a unity of life (as expressed by the concept of the Mystical Body) and a reciprocity of love (as expressed by the concept of the Mystical Marriage). These two great supernatural realities each find their expression in the two most essential institutions of the Church: the priesthood and sacred virginity. Through the priesthood, in fact, it is Our Lord who ceaselessly enlivens his Church, sustains within her, through the sacraments, the life of grace, and governance. Through sacred virginity, it is the Church who ceaselessly presents herself as Bride to Christ her Spouse and renews her fidelity and love to him (2).”
Everything is laid out in this admirable text: the origin and distinction of the two great vocations—the priestly vocation and the religious vocation—which are as inseparable from one another as the two aspects of the mystery of the Church that they embody. For when we speak of vocation, we must distinguish from the outset between the priestly vocation and the religious vocation, which have more differences than similarities.
To the first applies the word of Our Lord: “It was not you who chose me, but I who chose you” (Jn 15:16). This vocation is therefore a true call, but here again we must not be mistaken. The interior call—that is, the desire for the priesthood, the attraction to it—is merely preparatory to the one call that constitutes the priestly vocation: the call of the Church in the person of the legitimate bishop. This is what the Catechism of the Council of Trent teaches very clearly: “Vocari autem a Deo dicuntur qui a legitimis Ecclesiæ ministris vocantur - Those are said to be called by God who are called by the legitimate ministers of the Church” (de Ordine §1). Of course, the bishop calls only those who present themselves freely, who possess the required qualities and knowledge, and who have a right intention; but the vocation proper is given by the Bishop; it is the call he issues in the name of the Church.
To the religious vocation applies this other saying of Our Lord: “If you wish to be perfect, go, sell what you have, give it to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come and follow me” (Matt. 19:21). Here, the vocation lies in the will to perfection. This will, like any normal will, must proceed from the understanding of the intellect: “Qui potest capere capiat,” says Our Lord when speaking of perfect chastity for the Kingdom of God, “Let anyone who can understand, understand” (Matt. 19:12). This will must also be reasonable, stable, and upright; nevertheless, the religious vocation consists in the will.
We thus see the fundamental difference between the priestly vocation, where the Church herself calls in the name of Jesus Christ, and the religious vocation, where God gives the will to consecrate oneself to Him and where the Church merely organizes (by approving and supervising the religious orders) the lives of those who respond to the general call made by Our Lord.
A vocation—whether priestly or religious—does not consist in an inner attraction. Moreover, this attraction (which is a pre-vocation) is not primarily a sensory appeal; it can be an intellectual conviction despite a certain reluctance of the heart. It plays a role, but only a preparatory one. This pre-vocation is necessary, either because it leads to “eliciting” the Church’s call by presenting oneself for the priesthood, or because it will engage the will and firmly resolve it to devote itself entirely to Jesus Christ. Someone who has had this attraction (sensual or intellectual) and no longer has it has not “lost the vocation” (which he did not yet have); but he may be unfaithful to a grace of choice that Our Lord had reserved for him. This requires serious reflection.
In one’s vocation, the Holy Church is particularly present because it concerns each person’s place in the Church of Jesus Christ. Our Lord makes it especially clear to those for whom He reserves a special place in His Church that He is waiting for them; He calls them. This call from Our Lord finds its fulfillment either in the will He imparts or in the call of the Bishop. This fulfilled call is the vocation.
In what has come to be called the crisis of the Church, the problem of vocation, especially the priestly vocation, is much thornier, and it is worth saying a few words about it. Consecrating oneself to God and His Church can be virtuous and in accordance with God’s will only within sound doctrine, the true sacraments, and rightful membership in His Church; this is self-evident. But then, where should one turn?
– on the side of the “Saint Peters”? Alas, allegiance to John Paul II (a false rule of faith) leads to adherence to Vatican II, which destroys the intelligence of the faith and promotes grave errors condemned by the Church, such as religious liberty, and a false conception of the Incarnation and of the Church itself. Furthermore, acceptance of the new sacraments in principle legitimately casts doubt on the validity of certain priestly ordinations;
– on the “Saint Pius X” side? Alas, allegiance to John Paul II and the simultaneous rejection of the errors of Vatican II lead to the invention of heterodox doctrines that destroy the authority of the Magisterium of the Church and of the Supreme Pontiff. Moreover, it means embarking on the episcopal path, which will be discussed below;
– on the side of “the episcopal path”? Alas, consecrations without the mandate of the Supreme Pontiff are contrary to the very constitution of the Church:
“The Pope alone names bishops. This right belongs to him sovereignly, exclusively, and necessarily, by the very constitution of the Church and the nature of the hierarchy” (3). Bishops without a vocation cannot give what they do not have, and they ordain priests without a vocation; there is much to fear for the future...
The points outlined above are merely a hasty summary of doctrinal convictions that I would like to write in letters of blood, so important do they seem to me. Nothing lasting, fruitful, or beneficial for the glory of God will ever be achieved in opposition to Catholic doctrine or outside of it. We will no doubt have the opportunity to discuss this further.
The problem is serious, then, but not hopeless. It is still possible to devote oneself to God, even if this has become more difficult; there have never been so many reasons to dedicate oneself to Him—to console His heart, for the splendor of His Church so disfigured, for the self-sacrifice in the midst of a world of pleasure, for the radiance of Catholic doctrine at a time when it is denied, diminished, and scorned on all sides. As for the priesthood, it is possible to contemplate it or even prepare for it in the long term, with the firm resolve to desire or do nothing that is contrary to Catholic doctrine or the constitution of the Holy Church. God, who does not abandon His Church, will never abandon those who wish to work for her and dedicate themselves to her.
(1) God has a plan for each of us, which is the very reason for our creation, and that plan is to enable us to share in his glory. Because of this will, He has destined us to attain a certain degree of glory (or of charity, which amounts to the same thing) and has ordained the means necessary for this. Neither this degree of glory nor these means are known to us; or, more precisely, God reveals them to us only when He deems it appropriate. Certain means are, moreover, knowable by nature (time, place, and family of birth), but we do not always know how they will contribute to God’s work. Let us note in passing that since God’s will always prevails, if we stubbornly refuse to share in God’s glory, we will nevertheless share in it by manifesting his justice...
(2) Father V.A. Berto, Pour la Sainte Église Romaine, p. 166. This text is taken from a lecture given to the children of Our Lady of Joy, which is a true marvel.
(3) Dom Adrien Gréa, L'Église et sa divine constitution, Casterman 1965, p. 259. Just because Dom Gréa (founder of the Canons Regular of the Immaculate Conception in the last century) says it doesn’t make it true. But Dom Gréa sums up the Church’s theology and unfailing practice in a felicitous phrase. And besides, this will show you that I am not making it up for the sake of the argument... something so common these days.
_(page_10_crop).jpg)
