Episcopal consecrations of 1988 by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Écône, Switzerland, 1988.
By Fr. Hervé Belmont (1)
The crisis from which the Holy Catholic Church is mysteriously afflicted continues unabated, and from a human perspective, there seems to be no end in sight. Many believe that resorting to episcopal consecrations [performed without any apostolic mandate] is the only solution to survive until order is restored, and that this solution is blessed by God, notwithstanding the law or constitution of the Roman Church. They have long since taken action, to the point that there are now many “illegal” bishops, of all kinds and from all walks of life. Everyone can find one that suits them.
This episcopal approach, on the contrary, seems to us to be doctrinally untenable and, from a prudential standpoint, fraught with grave danger. This is what we wish to express in this statement. We resign ourselves to speaking of this again because it is with great sadness that we see the proponents of this path gaining ground by gradually presenting Catholics with a fait accompli (which is not a very evangelical way of proceeding), sometimes with utter disregard for dignity (do we not see one of these bishops promoting himself as one would a brand of laundry detergent? ... Bishop So-and-so washes whiter?). Furthermore, we fear that this issue may become, on the one hand, a getaway from Catholic doctrine and practice, and on the other hand, a bone of contention with Catholics who are otherwise good friends, for whom we have esteem and gratitude. This opinion has no other ambition than to enlighten them by placing the issue under the one true light: that of holy doctrine.
This opinion carries no authority because of its author, who is but a poor sinner. Its only authority lies in the arguments it presents. But let us take heed: these arguments are grave; they are rooted in the enduring doctrine of the Church and in more than fifteen years of reflection. This stability is by no means proof of truth, but in a universe of opinions that fluctuate with the years and interests (2), it might constitute a reason to pay heed. Let us be mindful once again of the gravity of the consequences of an attitude in which the eternal salvation of all is at stake.
Since we do not have the time to compose a comprehensive treatise on the subject, we will proceed in the form of a retrospective, presenting texts spanning some fifteen years, supplementing them with doctrinal commentary and answers to a few difficulties, and drawing a conclusion from the whole. The kind reader will kindly excuse the somewhat personal tone of the whole, but we have not known how to avoid it.
Retrospective
The first opportunity to reflect specifically on the nature of the episcopate in relation to the crisis in the Church was provided by a curious document, the first encroachment on episcopal authority and the first tentative step toward consecrations: in an ordinance dated May 1, 1980, Archbishop Lefebvre granted the priests of the Society of Saint Pius X literally exorbitant “powers,” extending even to the authority to administer the sacrament of Confirmation or to dispense impediments to marriage. Such powers were undoubtedly null and void, but they showed just how far Catholics were willing to go, without much reflection, to accept anything that provided them with sacramental comfort. We thus had the opportunity to begin studying the nature of episcopal powers and the relationship between the order and jurisdiction. This study appeared in No. 6 of the Cahiers de Cassiciacum (3).
On May 7, 1981 (at roughly the same time and under the same circumstances as two Mexican priests, Fathers Carmona and Zamora), Fr. Guérard des Lauriers, O.P., was secretly consecrated a bishop by Monsignor Ngo Dinh Thuc, the former Archbishop of Hué. As soon as this news reached them (the following January), Frs. Georges Vinson and Louis-Marie de Blignières, and Frs. Jacques-Marie Seuillot, Philippe Guépin, Bernard Lucien, and Hervé Belmont issued a statement reaffirming their adherence to the “Cassiciacum thesis” on the formal vacancy of the Apostolic See, asserting their total disagreement with this consecration for theological reasons and canonical, also affirming that they did not believe there was a schism or excommunication. It read, in particular:
“Under these circumstances, we do not see how the conferral of the episcopate upon the Reverend Father Guérard des Lauriers can be justified from a theological standpoint. We therefore cannot endorse it in any way. We deplore it because of the imminent danger to which the hierarchical order of the Church is exposed, and we condemn it as much as is in our power. We therefore disapprove of any possible exercise of his episcopal power (4).”
This placed the issue in the proper perspective, that of the constitution of the Church and the nature of the episcopate.
The years pass. Reflection progresses, as does study.
Bishop de Castro-Mayer, who has resigned as Bishop of Campos, is reluctant to ordain priests without a diocese. A theological note we drafted in 1985 (or 1984?) at his request and to convince him that these ordinations would be legitimate in the present situation briefly addresses the essential distinction to be made between the priest and the bishop from the perspective of their relationship to the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ, which is the Church. It is this argument that will be developed in a short study written in 1986, in response to a frequently asked question: if it can be legitimate to ordain priests illegally, why could one not consecrate bishops?
Here is the gist of it.
“I. Dogmatic Premise.
a] Holy Orders is a sacrament and a single sacrament (Council of Trent, D. 959).
b] In this sacrament, there are seven orders (D. 958).
c] It is by God’s own disposition (divina ordinatione) that there exists in the Church a hierarchy composed of bishops, priests, and ministers (D. 966).
d] The bishop is superior to the priest; he possesses the power to confirm and ordain, and this power is not shared with priests (D. 967).
e] The latter, like clerics of a lower order, have no authority over these functions: quarum functionum potestatem reliqui inferioris ordinis nullam habent (D. 960).
f] Bishops were established by the Holy Spirit to govern the Church of God: regere Ecclesiam Dei (Acts 10:28).
“II. The Teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas.
a] The sacrament of Holy Orders is essentially ordered toward the Holy Eucharist (Summa Theologica, suppl. QXXXVII, aa. 2 and 4); now, with regard to the Holy Eucharist, the power of the bishop is not distinct from that of the priest; and therefore, insofar as Holy Orders is a sacrament, the episcopate is
not an order (suppl. QXL, a. 5).
b] Insofar as Holy Orders is an office pertaining to certain sacred functions, the episcopate is an order, since the bishop possesses a power over hierarchical acts pertaining to the Mystical Body that is superior to that of the priest (suppl. QXL, a. 5).
St. Thomas confirms this doctrine in his Opuscule XVIII, ch. 24: “For the bishop holds a rank in relation to the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Church... but as regards the true Body of Christ, he holds no rank above the priest”; the bishop holds a rank in relation to the Mystical Body of Christ,
which is the Church... as regards the physical Body of Christ, the bishop has no order above the priest (in Billuart, Cursus theologiæ, de sacramento ordinis, ch. X, d. IV, a 2, ad 4um).
c] The episcopate is a state of active perfection, such that bishops are not perfecti (perfect ones) like religious, but perfectores (those who perfect or are perfecting) (Summa Theologica, IIa IIae Q. CLXXXIV, a. 7).
“III. Theological Explanations.
The episcopate can be considered in two ways:
– either adequately, in accordance with all the power it essentially entails—the power to consecrate, absolve, ordain, confirm, and govern; in this sense, the episcopate is a true sacrament; it is the fullness of the priesthood;
– either inadequately, in terms of what it adds to the simple priesthood: the power to govern, ordain, and confirm; in this sense, the episcopate is not a sacrament, but an intrinsic complement to the sacrament of Holy Orders: episcopal consecration does not essentially alter the priestly character but extends it to new effects (cf. Billuart, loc. cit.; Garrigou-Lagrange, de Ordine [in de Eucharistia], a. 1).
Having made this distinction, let us compare the presbyterate (or simple priesthood) to the episcopate, which is often misunderstood.
The simple priest is first and foremost ordained to the physical Body of our Lord Jesus Christ—the Holy Eucharist—and it is by virtue of this ordination that he possesses a certain power over the Mystical Body (to absolve sins, gerere personam Ecclesiæ).
The bishop, insofar as he is distinct from the priest, is first and foremost ordained to the Mystical Body—regere personam Ecclesiæ—and it is by virtue of this ordination that he possesses a power of a higher order than that of the priest, higher not in an intensive sense (for there is nothing greater than celebrating the Holy Mass) but in an extensive sense (extended to new effects).
This easily explains how the Supreme Pontiff, who has no direct power over sacramental characters, can grant a simple priest the power to confirm (cf. Code of Canon Law, 782 § 2) or to confer certain orders (Code 951), even though the priest himself has no such power (nullam potestatem, D. 960).
The Supreme Pontiff possesses the fullness of power in the Church (Papa in Ecclesia habet plenitudinem potestatis, St. Thomas Aquinas, IIIa, Q. LXXII, a. 11). On a transitional and provisional basis, he may involve a priest in this governance of the Mystical Body, which is proper to bishops, and, by virtue of this ordination into the Mystical Body, grant him certain episcopal powers, that is, adapt his priestly power to new effects.
There is in the Church a single priesthood, which comprises two distinct degrees, not according to the power of order proper—for then there would be two specifically distinct priesthoods—but according to their relationship to the Mystical Body (with consequences regarding the power of order).
The character of the sacrament of Holy Orders is a participation in the priestly power of Christ. Episcopal consecration, on the other hand, causes the chosen one to participate in the royal power of Christ: it is by virtue of this royal power that his priestly power is, not increased, but extended to new effects, in areas where the bishop acts as head of the ecclesiastical order.
Priestly ordination, being strictly sacramental in nature, does not in and of itself confer any jurisdiction, although it does qualify one for it (there are priests ordained solely for the celebration of Mass). Episcopal consecration, because it confers upon the Mystical Body the power of Christ’s rule (in a manner subordinate to the power of the Pope), creates a requirement for jurisdiction (all bishops are at least in partibus).
“IV. Consequences.
One cannot therefore make the following argument:
Since it is lawful, in the Church’s present situation, to ordain priests without incardination and without letters of dismissal, it may be lawful to consecrate a bishop without an apostolic mandate; this is merely a further step in the application of the same rule, which certainly requires a more serious reason, but which falls under the same principle.
Because the situation of the Church is one of the absence of Authority, and to the extent that this situation is recognized as such—as the witness of faith demands—it is indeed true that it is lawful to ordain priests in this manner, for the sake of the good of the Church, which requires the conferral of the
sacraments as long as its unity is not endangered. But one cannot reason in this way regarding the episcopate for three reasons:
1. There is not a difference of degree but of nature between the “unmediated” transmission of the priesthood and that of the episcopate; indeed, the “unmediated” nature of these transmissions lies in their relationship to the Mystical Body, and it is precisely this very relationship that is essentially distinct in the priesthood and the episcopate.
2.Unlike the presbyterate, the episcopate is transmissible; it thus easily becomes the source, first of isolation and disinterest in the good of the Church, and then of a rupture with it. This is all the more “natural” that the bishop is by nature a leader, a hierarch.
3.One cannot conceive of a “diminished episcopate” that would be legitimate to transmit because it would include only the powers of the sacramental order (confirmation, ordination, etc.) but would be deprived of its “royal” relationship to the Mystical Body. Such a notion is a square circle, for it is precisely this relationship that constitutes the episcopate (inadequately considered) and is the foundation of all the powers proper to the bishop. And thus, a consecration without an apostolic mandate would be the usurpation of a princely hierarchical function within the Church.
“V. Conclusion.
We have shown that the priesthood is essentially sacramental in nature, whereas the episcopate is essentially hierarchical in nature. It is here, we believe, that the solution to the question of an episcopal consecration outside canonical norms lies. No substitution is possible in this area, for everything here is in essential dependence on the Authority, which no one can assume for himself.
Since the ordinary priesthood is essentially sacramental, its transmission naturally tends toward the permanence of the sacramental order within the Church. However, this sacramental order depends on Authority only in its exercise and organization; it is therefore not impossible to envisage a substitution in the present situation.
On the other hand, the episcopate is essentially hierarchical, and its transmission therefore naturally tends toward the establishment of the ecclesiastical hierarchy. Since the hierarchical order is essentially
dependent on Authority, no substitution is possible.
Ultimately, what is at stake is the very nature of the Church, which is threatened by the plan for a consecration without a mandate; such a consecration, in effect, amounts to a practical denial of its divinely established hierarchical structure.
On June 30, 1988, Archbishop Lefebvre, in turn, consecrated four bishops. He did so publicly, while insisting that he fully recognized the authority of John Paul II. This was a complete contradiction, and it is entirely understandable that many of the faithful were confused by these consecrations. In a note published on this occasion, our concern, however, is not to cry wolf, but to show that the rupture everyone proclaims is not in Archbishop Lefebvre’s act, but that it “lies, therefore, at the level of authority. Paul VI, and John Paul II, who took up and confirmed his work, have broken with the office they are called to exercise and are deprived of the special assistance promised by Jesus Christ to Saint Peter and his successors” (5).
In September 1991, the legitimate anxiety we feel regarding the situation of the Holy Church led us to write a short study entitled Angor Ecclesiæ. In listing the errors that are ravaging even those who profess to defend the Holy Church (religious liberty, the return of Gallicanism, or the presence of Gnosticism), we devoted a paragraph to episcopal inflation. This proliferation of bishops is an unmistakable sign of the weakening of the sense of the Church; we cited a study that estimated their number at one thousand (!) and stated that a nominal list contains more than five hundred (6). We concluded by saying:
“Can we recognize the one, holy Church in this self-attribution of functions that can exist only in essential dependence on Authority, in this multiplication of groups that aspire only to their sacramental and ecclesial autonomy? How can we distinguish who is attached to the Catholic Church and who is no longer?”
Finally, in July 1994, in Reflections on the Situation of the Church, an overview of what we believe is required by the faith and its witness in the present situation, we devote two paragraphs to the
question at hand. Here are those two paragraphs, which are framed more specifically from the perspective of prudence:
“The episcopal path.”
The consideration of Apostolicity, which clearly appears to be the key to a judgment grounded in faith regarding the situation of the Holy Church, also leads us to exercise the utmost caution with regard to episcopal consecrations performed without an apostolic mandate. Many Catholics see them as the only solution to which one must resign oneself in order to have access to the authentic sacraments of the Church.
Certainly, we fully recognize that the need for the sacraments is pressing and that this is an urgent problem to which we are by no means indifferent; yet we see just as clearly that the unity of the Holy Church must not be compromised, we view with concern the very real dangers of embarking on a path whose outcome is unknown and which, it is to be feared, may lead its followers much further than they would wish; we see that there is a great risk here of completely losing the sense of the Church and its hierarchy, a sense that is already severely undermined by all sorts of theories that are “in vogue” and that are ravaging Catholic minds.
Finally, we do not see how such a recourse to illegal consecrations can be justified in light of Catholic theology. It seems to us that the nature of the episcopate—which is essentially hierarchical insofar as it is distinct from the simple priesthood—means that this can only be a usurpation of what belongs exclusively to the Supreme Pontiff. We do not claim to resolve the issue, but we have sufficient grounds here to cry wolf and remain cautious.
“The Two Lineages.”
Consideration of the specific circumstances under which these consecrations took place only serves to reinforce these reservations. Two episcopal lineages share (7) the support of Catholics.
The line stemming from Archbishop Lefebvre has in its favor its public nature, its unity, and its “serious” and limited character; but it was established in defiance of Catholic doctrine, and in fact since it was established with the recognition of John Paul II as Supreme Pontiff (while denying him the right and power to reserve episcopal appointments), and in the doctrine underlying the aberrant justifications accompanying the consecrations that gave rise to it.
The second line of succession stems from Bishop Ngo Dinh Thuc, the former Archbishop of Hué; here we find a proliferation of more or less clandestine consecrations, a mixture of Catholic branches and sects that are sometimes very difficult to distinguish because they are inextricably intertwined. The situation of the Catholic branches is much more coherent than that of the first line, and does not entail the same implicit rejection of Catholic doctrine; however, this proliferation and (quasi) clandestine nature of the consecrations, as well as a certain affinity with movements of dubious Catholicity or frankly sectarian in nature, compels us to reiterate the principled reservation we have expressed.
This reservation does not overlook the benefits brought by these consecrations, but it considers that the unity of the Church is a far greater, permanent, and inalienable good, and not merely a matter of circumstance.”
These are the main stages of this retrospective, stages that demonstrate the stability and independence of the position we are setting forth from any question of persons. At its core is the expression of a doctrinal impossibility rooted in the very nature of the episcopate.
Doctrinal Supplement
The episcopate is essentially hierarchical, as we have said, demonstrated, and reiterated. Through his episcopal consecration, the bishop becomes a member of the teaching Church; he shares in the governance of the Mystical Body; and he exercises (8) a jurisdiction whose definition and application belong to the Pope.
It should be added that the reverse is also true: ecclesiastical jurisdiction is essentially episcopal; the hierarchy of the Church is a hierarchy of bishops. Far be it from us to preach any kind of episcopalism: the Pope has the fullness of power in the Church—he is not a bishop among others, a primus inter pares—he has the primacy of jurisdiction; he is the source of all ecclesiastical jurisdiction. But precisely because he is the Bishop of Rome, the bishop of the Mother and Teacher Church, the bishop of bishops (Feed my sheep, said Our Lord to Saint Peter), the Pope is sovereign, endowed with personal infallibility and the supreme authority of the Church. The Pope, moreover, who exercises immediate jurisdiction over all the faithful, is the shepherd of every Catholic (Feed my sheep). The Vatican Council, when describing this jurisdiction of the Pope, states that it is an episcopal jurisdiction:
“We therefore teach and declare that the Roman Church, by divine institution, holds the primacy of ordinary power over all other churches, and that this power of jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff—a power of jurisdiction that is truly episcopal—is immediate... jurisdictionis potestatem, quæ vere episcopalis est, immediatam esse” Pastor Aeternus, D. 1827, July 18, 1870.
There is therefore equivalence (mutual implication) between the episcopate and jurisdiction. To attain the episcopate outside the jurisdiction of the Church is therefore an attack, not merely on the legislation of the Church (9), but on the very constitution of the Church: this is therefore never admissible. Epikia can never be exercised against the nature of things: this is true throughout the natural order, but even more so with regard to the supernatural nature of the Church.
Whether one likes it or not, an episcopal consecration is therefore the establishment of a hierarchy; and if this consecration is not performed by pontifical order, it constitutes the creation of a new hierarchy, distinct from that of the Catholic Church. The unmistakable sign of this is also that these ordinations without a mandate disrupt the entire life of the Church and overturn the practice she derives from her divine constitution. Thus:
- One chooses to be a bishop; one is not chosen;
- One chooses to affiliate oneself with a particular bishop; one does not receive him from the Church.
Questions
1.But didn’t you do the same thing? It was you who chose to be ordained by Archbishop Lefebvre! It’s easy to talk now that you’re a priest!
That is true. Archbishop Lefebvre was not a bishop whom the Church had given us [in the sense of jurisdiction]—and that is the sad consequence of the present crisis. But Archbishop Lefebvre was a bishop whom the Church had given to herself [and thus indirectly to us]. But here lies the problem: we
now find ourselves faced with bishops whom the Church has not given to us, and whom she has not even given to herself. On what grounds could we—and, even more so, should we—recognize them and align ourselves with them by invoking their episcopate?
Being a priest is an immense grace, but it is by no means a right. One must not, therefore, desire to be a priest at any cost. One cannot desire to be a priest in defiance of the constitution of the Holy Church; this constitutes a grave disorder, which cannot be God’s will. If a vocation is genuine, it is certain that Our Lord will bring it to fruition (when He wills), and it is even more certain that He does not want it to come to fruition haphazardly, in defiance of the nature of the Holy Church. More generally, in times of turmoil and confusion, it is foolish to base one’s conduct on one’s own desires or one’s own vision of the future: this is a sure path to delusion and self-deception. One must base one’s conduct on the doctrine, principles, and practice of the Church. Even if one feels as though one is treading water, one leads neither oneself nor those who trust us astray.
2.Where is the prudential aspect you mentioned?
The prudential aspect has been mentioned here and there in the texts we cited above; it is obvious to anyone who opens their eyes, and moreover an inevitable consequence of the theological aspect.
First of all, we could say that we are against consecrations without an apostolic mandate because we are not in favor of them: in a matter so grave, whose consequences can be incalculable both in terms of disastrous effects and in terms of duration [are there not schismatic hierarchies that have lasted for fifteen centuries?], a well-founded and solid certainty would be required to set aside the law of the Church—to which the most severe of excommunications is attached, and which structures its hierarchical and sacramental life. Yet we do not possess this certainty; quite the contrary.
Furthermore, the proliferation of consecrations, the resulting spirit of anarchy, the difficulty in discerning who is Catholic and who is not, the loss of concern for the universal Church, and the strange doctrines circulating to justify these consecrations—all of this can fill the mind with anxiety and distress: this is not Catholic, it is not justifiable, it is the fruit of a false doctrine regarding the unity of the Church and the episcopate; it is a fall into a temptation disguised as good, which secretly flatters the anarchist and presumptuous spirit we have carried within us since original sin.
In October 1992, Father Zins published a special issue of his journal Sub tuum præsidium devoted to what he “kindly” refers to as the collusion between the “Guérard-Thucists” and sects. This issue is a jumble that is hard to make sense of; but even if one takes a balanced view, even if one disregards the hasty generalizations and biases it might display, the fact remains that one cannot help but be deeply shocked, even panicked, by this more or less underground world of consecrations and massacres (a). What undeniable and scandalous facts, what spiritual and human catastrophes, what a dubious world filled with turmoil! Is this the Church?
3. Is there really no one of integrity among those who have embraced or resigned themselves to the episcopal path?
Of course there is! But it is a flawed perspective to discuss the virtue of this or that person—not to mention the risk of making false or subjective judgments. For a person’s virtue, however great it may be, does not make the principles they profess or apply true. That virtue may temporarily offset the perverse effects of false principles, but in the long run—whether in the person themselves or in their successors or disciples— those false principles eventually bear fruit, and sometimes all the more violently because they were long held in check by the personal qualities of the one who professes them. A man’s virtue may create a favorable impression, but it never exempts us from examining what he professes from the standpoint of truth—that is, from the standpoint of the faith, doctrine, and practice of the Church; this is what we have endeavored to do, setting aside questions of personality.
4. What do you suggest we do?
Nothing! What the Good Lord asks of us is, first and foremost, to be faithful, whatever the cost: “Let men regard us as ministers of Jesus Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God. Now, what is required of stewards is that each one be found faithful” (10). We have no alternative but the faith that teaches us that Our Lord Himself ensures the permanence of His Church: our primary concern must be to remain in this Church, without compromising its unity and our salvation through acts that undermine its constitution, by bearing witness to the faith and sanctifying ourselves in the place that God has assigned to us.
In this regard, one often hears the objection: if there had been no consecrations, there would be no more sacraments... One might just as plausibly argue that if there had been no consecrations, God Himself would have provided for them by putting an end to the crisis in the Church. Are we to say that if there had been no consecrations, the crisis of the Church would be over? Why not? This shows, in any case, that one is taking the wrong perspective. We do not reason with “ifs” but with the principles of the Church.
Conclusion
We like to believe that we have succeeded in demonstrating the [doctrinal] impossibility and the [prudential] gravity of episcopal consecrations without an apostolic mandate. It will therefore be understood that, in conclusion, we affirm that we wish to have no part, either direct or indirect, in what we consider to be an attack on the constitution of the Church and a perilous path. Under no circumstances do we wish to give the impression that we approve of it. Supposing we are mistaken (which seems impossible to us in this instance, for God does not act against His Church, nor does He overrule Her), we will at least have played the role of the grumpy old man who prevented two or three reckless souls from going too fast or too far.
Ultimately, the story of these women is similar to that of Lot’s daughters (11). These unfortunate women, distraught by the deluge of fire that destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah and by the death of their mother, who was turned into a pillar of salt, believing that they and their father were the only survivors of the human race, felt justified in committing the most monstrous acts: they twice got their father drunk in order to ensure they would have children without his knowledge—for he would never have consented to these abominable acts of incest. Thus, were born the Moabites and the Ammonites, who became terrible enemies of the people of Israel. These two daughters could not invoke the excuse of necessity, because no necessity ever justifies violating natural law, and moreover, they were the victims of an illusion: the world continued to exist outside of them.
In the same way, there is always a delusion and a great danger in believing that we are the only ones, and that nothing good, nothing true, nothing authentic exists outside of ourselves and our friends. We fear that the consecrations' supporters have allowed themselves to be hypnotized by a necessity that they wrongly invoke as justifying acts that the Church can only condemn. We must truly intoxicate the doctrine Catholic teaching on the constitution of the Church to persuade it that ordinations without an apostolic mandate are legitimate. Let us hope that this does not give rise to new generations of Moabites and Ammonites.
Digitus Dei non est hic.
Footnotes:
(1) Excerpted from issue 3 (February 1997) of the journal Les Deux Étendards, published by the association Grâce et Vérité, 3, avenue de la Sérénité, F - 33490 Saint-Maixant.
(2) Here are two examples, among many others, of these fluctuations. Four months before being consecrated a bishop, Fr. Guérard des Lauriers rejected any notion of consecration— in reference to Fr. Barbara, who was said to wish to be consecrated—by quoting St. Paul: “Let each one walk in the state in which he was called” (1 Cor. 7:17) [available on Cassetiacum No. 1]. On April 11, 1987, Archbishop Lefebvre declared in Nantes: “If I consecrated a bishop without the indispensable authorization of the pope, I would be a schismatic” [Monde-et-Vie, May 15, 1987]. And yet, on June 30, 1988, Archbishop Lefebvre consecrated four bishops on his own authority, explaining that this was not schismatic.
(3) Still available, along with previous issues and the Cassetiacum mentioned in note 2 above, from the Association Saint-Herménégilde, Prieuré La Croix-Saint-Joseph, 1110 chemin du Puits du Plan, F-06370 Mouans-Sartoux.
(4) The text of this declaration was published by the journal Itinéraires [No. 261, March 1982] and provoked an unprecedentedly violent reaction from Father Barbara, who distributed a leaflet “Death of a union, birth of a sect?” which he had distributed manu militari: in it, he cried out against schism and scandal. Question (with a [sad] smile): fifteen years later, who still holds the same convictions? Who still honors his signature?
(5) This note was published in the journal Didasco.
(6) Bernard Vignot, Les Églises parallèles, Cerf-Fides 1991, pp. 110–111.
(7) We would have been better off writing: “Two episcopal lineages are open to the votes of Catholics,” for there are many who, quite rightly, reject the very principle of these consecrations.
(8) When this article was published in Les Deux Étendards No. 4, we had written: “exercises” instead of “entails.” We subsequently corrected this error (see 5 of An Unbridgeable Chasm - Non Excidet). [Note from November 2000]
(9) It may sometimes be permissible to set aside a positive law, but under very specific conditions: that it be effectively a positive law (for one can never contravene natural law), that the case in which one finds oneself has not been foreseen by the legislator, that recourse to Authority be impossible, that the good to be obtained or the evil to be avoided be proportionate to the gravity of the law, that there be no scandal to one’s neighbor. It is the virtue of epikia, the subjective aspect of justice, that then comes into play [Cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, IIa IIæ, Q. CXX].
(a) This is a pun in French: "sacres et massacres" - Note by Non Excidet.
(10) 1 Cor. 4:1.
(11) Abraham’s nephew. Genesis 19:30–38.
_(page_10_crop).jpg)
