By Fr. Hervé Belmont
[…] For, after all, we must not turn a blind eye: we are faced with a question that challenges the Catholic faith and the theological virtue of faith within each of us. This question may not be the most urgent in practical terms, but it is impossible not to be confronted with it one day, since the Supreme Pontiff is the living rule of the Catholic faith and it is necessary to obey him in order to belong to the Holy Church. We have forgotten these last two points all too much, even though they belong to the permanent, certain, and time and again taught doctrine of the Church.
If one recognizes the apostolic authority of John Paul II, the dilemma is inescapable:
– either one adheres to his teaching and governance, as one must do for a Pope; one then professes doctrines that have been solemnly condemned by the Church, accepts the liturgical and sacramental reform tainted by Protestantism, and embraces the fruits of Vatican II…;
– or one rejects errors and reforms, but one can do so only at the cost of denying Catholic doctrine regarding the authority and infallibility of the Supreme Pontiff and the Church.
There is no third way; the two I have just outlined both lead to errors—perhaps different in nature, but equally grave, and equally condemned by the certain, infallible, and permanent Magisterium of the Holy Roman Catholic Church. The Catholic faith and the certain doctrine of the Church therefore lead to the denial of John Paul II’s authority, to the assertion that he is deprived of that special assistance from Jesus Christ which constitutes the specific authority of the Pope.
This denial is not a personal judgment (which would be illegitimate) but is due to an impossibility of exercising the virtue of faith toward him and under his influence.
You may notice that this is in no way a judgment on the person of John Paul II, but simply a matter of the impossibility, within the very practice of the faith, of recognizing his authority. For my part, I will leave it at that; I do not wish to go beyond what faith obliges me to do (for I believe it is “theologically” impossible to go further, but that is another story). This is why I hold to the “Cassissiacum (sic) thesis,” which, while recognizing the papal election of John Paul II and the continuity of the apostolic succession he ensures (he is pope materialiter), establishes that he is deprived of pontifical authority (he is not Pope formaliter), and concludes that the witness of faith obliges one to refrain from any act that would constitute a recognition of this authority (primarily, one cannot, in the Canon of the Mass, pledge allegiance to him by proclaiming that the Catholic Church is una cum Johanne Paulo).
Furthermore, because of my determination to adhere strictly to what the Catholic faith requires, and to do or approve nothing that is contrary to it, I am firmly opposed to any episcopal consecration performed without an apostolic mandate: such a consecration appears to me to be irremediably contrary to the hierarchical constitution of the Holy Catholic Church.
Please forgive me for having gone on at some length in this note and for having given it a personal touch. I believe, however, that it is necessary to make one more serious clarification regarding the importance I attach to what I have just stated.
With God’s grace and despite all my shortcomings, I strive not to take a personal stance, but to adhere as closely as possible to Catholic doctrine in its entirety, relying on established facts and deliberately rejecting rumors and personal attacks. The result, it seems to me, falls within the scope of the Catholic faith, and any other position appears to me, on one point or another, incompatible with the faith as the Church teaches, understands, and practices it. This position is therefore for me an imperative rule of conduct, ever-present and enlightening, for all my conduct and for everything that takes place under my responsibility. BUT this conviction cannot exert influence beyond that, except through the arguments it provides and the coherence it demonstrates; it cannot in any way substitute for the authority of the Magisterium and the Church’s governance and therefore does not permit me to judge and condemn those who differ in opinion. The fact of holding no particular authority does not, however, exempt one from the duty to denounce error and evil: it is a matter of zeal for the glory of God and of charity toward one’s neighbor—indeed, of justice when silence would appear to be an approval. He who sees the danger and remains silent when he could point it out without causing greater harm is a dog of the most despicable kind: a mute dog.
Veni, Domine Jesu!
Auxilium Christianorum, sanctissima Virgo Maria, ora pro nobis!
_(page_10_crop).jpg)
