Appendix IV: Excerpt from a letter to a young man who has just entered the seminary (fall 1999).

The high priest Aaron (detail) by Juan de Juanes (c. 1550).

By Fr. Hervé Belmont

[…] I find myself wondering today, and I ask myself why what should deeply rejoice me instead saddens me.

Oh! Certainly, it is truly joyful to see a soul commit to the path of consecration to the Good Lord, and for that reason renounce the world where the constant temptation is to take part in the “race of the three concupiscences” that dominates and reigns almost universally. It is truly joyful to see a heavenly career—begun right here on earth—chosen over an earthly career that might have been brilliant. – And that doesn’t surprise me at all coming from XXX!

But then why, what exactly am I sorry about? It is the prospect of priestly ordination conferred by a bishop consecrated without an apostolic mandate. As you well know, I have said it time and again: my disagreement is total, and it is a disagreement based on what the Church teaches regarding her own constitution, and on what experience (sometimes sad experience) has shown me.

Today, I can only repeat the same points, “changing the tone” and highlighting the gravity of the matter from a different angle; but at its core, it is still about the constitution of the Holy Church and our dependence on it.

I do not wish to discuss, at least for now, the validity of orders within the various episcopal branches—although this question troubles me more and more: to believe in this validity, one must multiply acts of (human) faith as one moves further from the source, and as the seriousness and catholicity of intentions fade into the mist. No, even without that, the episcopal question—and everything that depends on it—is serious and troubling enough.

Speaking of the priesthood, St. Paul writes (Heb. 5:4): “No one takes this honor upon himself, except the one who is called by God, just as Aaron was.” With episcopal consecrations without apostolic mandate (CESMA for those in the know), no one is called anymore.

It is by nature, by divine institution, and by the constitution of the Church, that the Pope calls the bishops and that the bishops call the priests. But with the CESMA, this chain is broken; when bishops assume the episcopate for themselves (which is indeed what is happening, even if they “allow themselves to be chosen” by a bishop who lacks this authority), the priests are not legitimately called. In the crisis of the Church, however deep it may be assumed to be, it may well be permissible to bypass a legislation that delimits and organizes the transmission of the priesthood, but it is impossible for it to be permissible to go against the nature of things.

I would also add—though I do not currently have the opportunity to explore this issue in depth—that it seems to me that confirmations conferred by a CESMA bishop pose a similar problem. Indeed, this sacrament is at once a personal perfection and a function of the Church; and while it is supremely useful to each individual, it is necessary for the Church: the ecclesial aspect therefore has a primacy, at least in terms of necessity, in Confirmation. To draw a comparison, the sacrament gives the confirmed person weapons for battle and constitutes the Church’s army by enlisting them in the service of the faith and of Christianity: this is why it is an episcopal sacrament. But what could be more dangerous—to continue the comparison—than soldiers without an army? A CESMA bishop who is not called by the head of the Church has a radical incapacity (and not a surmountable legal incapacity) to constitute the Church’s army. These are questions that torment us as soon as we ask them seriously.

Here is another aspect of the situation that is just as serious, if not more so. We belong to the Holy Catholic Church, and this membership in a visible community must, by its very nature, be visible. Due to the crisis in the Church, this visibility of membership is no longer ensured by adherence to the living Magisterium, since that authority (which is still present) is no longer exercised; nor by submission to jurisdiction, since authority is failing. It is therefore up to the power of order to achieve and ensure this visibility. If this third path is removed, there is nothing left in this regard. Experience confirms this: in the teeming world of CESMAs, there is no longer any objective criterion of catholicity: each branch sets itself up “for the defense of the faith,” each branch is necessary “because it is the only serious one,” and no one recognizes themselves in these CESMA prelates who have sprung up from who knows where, appearing and disappearing. So, everyone constructs their own criterion: those they know and appreciate are the “only good ones” … Where is catholicity in all this? In what sense is the Church still visible in the (real) sense that its members visibly adhere to it, in an objectively observable way? I’m not expressing myself very well, but that is the reality.

I submit all this for your consideration, my dear XXX. And I find myself hoping even more fervently that the crisis in the Church will be resolved before something irreparable happens to you. Of course, there are other, more compelling reasons to hope for this, but here is one more.

[…]

Return to the main page of the Dossier on episcopal consecrations without Apostolic mandate by Fr. Hervé Belmont.