Post by Pacelli on May 12, 2018 12:30:17 GMT -5
(Disclaimer: although Fr. Barbara was a loyal and good priest, in my opinion, some of his ideas about the crisis were not accurate, and I will be posting some comments following the OP below. I post this tract anyway, as it shows the developing Catholic reaction to John Paul II in the 1980’s. It is clear that Catholics were divided and no one was consistently grasping how to react to the new reality of the Conciliar sect. Fr. Barbara was making a good attempt at trying to apply Catholic principles to the situation, and for that he is to be commended, even if he was mistaken on a few matters.)
FORTES IN FIDE
Published by the Union pour la Fidelite
des pretres, religieux et laics catholiques.
Director : Father Noel Barbara
Production and Management: B.P. 2824 37028 TOURS Cedex, FRANCE.
Commission paritaire N. 45 651.
*-----*-----*
BURNING QUESTIONS: STRAIGHT ANSWERS
1. IS THE CATHOLIC CHURCH HIERARCHICAL?
The Church of Jesus Christ is a hierarchical Church.
Composed of all the baptized, she is governed by a Sovereign
Pontiff, and an episcopate subordinated to him.
The Sovereign Pontiff, the Pope, is the Vicar of Christ on
earth. By virtue of this, he is the visible head of the
universal Church and the source of all authority. He alone was
designated by the Master as the foundation of His Church, to
him alone was confided the power to feed the whole flock, he
alone received in full the keys of the Kingdom. The pope
possesses this vicarial power over each and every one of the
faithful, but also over each bishop and over the assembly of
the bishops united in council.
The bishops also are the representatives of Christ. it is
in His name that they exercise their powers. But each of them
receives these powers directly from the Sovereign Pontiff, the
source of every mission in the Church, at the same time that
they receive from him that portion of the flock which is
entrusted to them.
Having received the right and the power to govern their
particular church directly from the pope, the bishops lose it
if they knowingly separate themselves from Peter. "By this
separation", says Pope Leo XIII, "they uproot themselves from
the foundation upon which the whole edifice must rest, and they
are thus placed outside the edifice itself". ("Satis
Cognitum", "Enseignements Pontificaux", Solesmes, "L'Eglise",
No. 602).
2. THE IMPORTANCE OF OBEDIENCE IN ACHIEVING SALVATION
The importance of obedience arises from the nature of the
Church herself. In fact, the word hierarchy necessarily
implies a superior and his subordinates.
As subordinates of the Sovereign Pontiff, the bishops owe
to him respect and obedience.
Entrusted as they are to the pope and to their bishop, the
faithful owe to them respect and obedience.
It is to the pope and the bishops, in the person of Peter
and the Apostles, that Our Lord said: "He that heareth you
heareth me: and he that despiseth you despiseth me" (Luke X,
16).
Through her Sovereign Pontiffs, the Church has never
neglected to remind us of the importance of this virtue in the
achievement of salvation. Here are a few recent texts.
"Obedience must be perfect, because it is exacted by the
faith itself, and it has this in common with faith, that it
cannot be partial. What is more, if it is not absolute and
perfect in all respects, it can remain an appearance of
obedience, but the reality of obedience is no longer there".
"When it is a matter of establishing the limits of
obedience, let no one imagine that submission to the authority
of sacred pastors and above all of the Roman Pontiff stops
short at matters concerning dogmas, whose obstinate rejection
must entail the crime of heresy. It is not even enough to give
a sincere and firm assent to the doctrines which, without
having been defined by a solemn judgement of the Church, have
nevertheless been proposed for our belief by her ordinary and
universal Magisterium, as being divinely revealed, and which
the Vatican Council has ordered to be believed of the Catholic
and divine faith. It is necessary, in addition, that
Christians should consider it their duty to allow themselves to
be ruled and governed by the authority and direction of the
bishops, and above all by those of the Apostolic See." (Leo
XIII, "Sapientiae Christianae")
"What good is it to recognize loudly the dogma of the
supremacy of the blessed Peter and of his successors? What good
is it to repeat so often these declarations of the Catholic
faith and of obedience to the Apostolic See, when these fine
words are contradicted by one's actions? Rather, is not
rebellion rendered more inexcusable by the fact that they
recognize that obedience is a duty?[1]
Furthermore, does the authority of the Apostolic See not
extend so far as to be able to punish them, including those
measures which we have had to take, or is it sufficient to be
in communion of faith with this See without the submission of
obedience, a thing which it is impossible to defend without
injury to the Catholic faith?" (Pius IX, "Quae in
Patriarchatu")
"It is a dogma that no one can be saved outside the
Catholic Church, if, knowingly, he shows himself rebellious to
the authority of the Roman Pontiff" ("Catechisme des families")
3. IN WHAT OTHER WAY IS OBEDIENCE IMPORTANT FOR OUR SALVATION?
Obedience also bears witness to the sincerity of our faith
and our charity.
"The first and the greatest criterion of the faith, the
supreme and unshakeable rule of orthodoxy is obedience to the
always living and infallible Magisterium of the Church,
established by Christ "columna et firmamentum veritatis, the
pillar and ground of the truth" (I Tim III, 15). These words
of St. Pius X to students on 10 May 1909 are no more than the
faithful echo of those of Jesus, who said: "Why call you me
Lord, Lord; and do not the things which I say?" (Luke VI, 46)
"Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into
the kingdom of heaven: but he that doth the will of my Father
who is in heaven" (Matt VII, 21 ) "He that hath my commandments
and keepeth them; he it is that loveth me" (John XIV, 21).
4. AT THE PRESENT TIME, HAVE THOSE WHO OCCUPY THE SEE OF PETER
SINCE PAUL VI TRULY MANIFESTED THEIR WILL TO SEE US ACCEPT THE
LITURGICAL REFORM AND THE CONCILIAR ORIENTATIONS?
Yes, and it is enough to listen to them loyally to be
convinced of it.
In the first place there is the Constitution "Missale
Romanum". By this document, Paul VI clearly manifests his
intentions on the subject of the obligation for all to adopt
the "novus ordo missae". He recalls first of all that St.
Pius V "promulgated a `princeps' edition of the Roman Missal"
adds: "We are not acting otherwise", and ends with this
injunction: "We wish that what We have established and
prescribed be held as firm and efficacious, now and in the
future, nonobstant, if that is necessary, the Apostolic
Constitutions and Ordinances given by our predecessors and all
the other prescriptions even worthy of special mention and
being able to derogate from the law.
"Given at Rome, at St Peter's, on the day of the Supper of
the Lord, 3rd April 1969, in the sixth year of Our pontificate.
Paul VI, Pope".
This official document for the universal Church, published
in the "Acta Apostolicae Sedis" (30 Apr 69, pp 217-222) - if
its author is pope - abrogates among other things the privilege
conceded by the Bull "Quo primum tempore" and obliges the
faithful to accept the new mass.
On 24th May 1976, in the course of the secret Consistory,
the same Paul VI twice named "Mgr. Marcel Lefebvre"; he
deplored "the fact (that this bishop) had placed himself
outside obedience to the successor of Peter and of communion
with him, and thus outside the Church", then he recalled that:
"The adoption of the new "Ordo Missae" is by no means left to
the free choice of priests or faithful. The instruction of
14th June 71 foresaw the celebration of mass according to the
old rite, with the permission of the Ordinary, solely for aged
or sick priests, who offer the holy sacrifice "sine populo".
"The new Ordo was promulgated to be substituted for the
former after ripe reflection, and following the requests of the
Council Vatican II. It was not otherwise that our Holy
Predecessor, Pius V, made the reformed missal obligatory under
his authority, following the Council of Trent.
"With the same supreme authority which comes to Us from
Christ, We require the same disposition to all the other
liturgical, disciplinary and pastoral reforms, ripened in these
last years in application of the conciliar decrees. No
initiative which seeks to oppose them can claim the prerogative
of rendering a service to the Church: in reality it does her
grave damage". (Paul VI, discourse to the secret Consistory,
24th May 1976, "Documentation catholique", No. 12, 20th June
1976, p. 557).
On 24th February 1980, in the encyclical "Dominicae
Cenae", John Paul II recalled the same obligation concerning
the adoption of the "novus ordo missae": "We shall continue to
devote a particular care to promoting and following the renewal
of the Church according to the doctrine of Vatican II, in the
spirit of an ever-living Tradition. To the substance of
Tradition, if it is properly understood, belongs also in fact a
correct interpretation of "the signs of the times", according
to which it is necessary to draw upon the rich treasure of the
Revelation "of the old and of the new". By acting in this
spirit, in conformity with this counsel of the Gospel, the
Council of Vatican II accomplished a providential work to renew
the face of the Church in the holy liturgy, by linking very
frequently to what is "old", to that which issues from the
Fathers and which is an expression of the faith and doctrine of
the Church, One for so many centuries.
"Above all I have it at heart to emphasize that the
problems of the liturgy, and In particular of the eucharistic
liturgy, cannot be an occasion of division for Catholics and of
menace for the unity of the Church.
...
"In the name of this truth and of this love, in the name
of Christ Himself crucified and of His Mother, I beg and pray
you to abandon all opposition and all division" (John Paul II,
Enc. "Dominicae Cenae", 24th February 1980).
It is thus obvious that anyone who honestly recognizes the
legitimacy of the postconciliar popes cannot hesitate to adopt
the "novus ordo missae". The refusal of the conciliar reform
is equivalent, to use the expression of the man who in their
eyes is the pope, to "placing themselves outside the obedience
of the successor to Peter and of communion with him, and thus
outside the Church".
5. ARE THESE DECLARATIONS, WHICH ARE NOT LINKED WITH ANY
PENALTIES, BINDING ON THE CONSCIENCES OF CATHOLICS?
Yes, if the author of these declarations is pope,
Catholics are bound in conscience to submit to them. In fact,
in order for the will of a legitimate pope to oblige Catholics
in conscience, it is necessary and sufficient, if he is within
his proper field - faith, morals or ecclesiastical discipline -
that his will should be clearly expressed. The form matters
little, since the pope is not bound by any particular juridical
form in order to manifest his will.
The Church has never taught that the orders of the pope
were not binding on the conscience of the faithful except when
linked with an anathema. That is a novelty invented by those
who wished to find an easy justification for their own
irrational disobedience.
This novelty has the constant practice of the Church
against it. Thus the greater part of her ordinances, whether
codified in Canon Law or scattered among the encyclicals and
other documents of her popes, are not as a rule linked to any
condemnation. For all that, Pius XII could not have been more
explicit on the submission which they require: "It must not be
thought", said he, "that what is proposed in the encyclical
letters does not of itself demand assent" ("Humani Generis",
12th August 1950).
In another connection, was the celebration of the feast of
the Sacred Heart of Jesus, for example, optional because Pius
IX did not link it with a condemnation? In the same way, who
can doubt that Pope Pius XI intended to be obeyed when, without
any threat, he ordered the celebration each year of the feast
of Christ the King and reminded his "Venerable Brothers": "This
will be your duty, this will be your role, to watch that this
feast be prepared for by instructions given in every parish"
("Quas Primas").
In conclusion, it must be asserted, yes, even when it is
not associated with any sanction, from the moment that it is
clearly expressed, the will of the pope is binding on the
conscience of every Catholic, that of the pastors and that of
the faithful.
6. WHAT ARE THE POST-CONCILIAR ORIENTATIONS DECIDED UPON BY
THE NEW PONTIFFS?
The post-conciliar reforms are these, among others:
Religious liberty, which is the charter of the new church.
"Liturgical reform", that of all the sacraments and more
especially that of the Mass (a new mass).
"The catechetical renewal" in which, said John Paul II,
"the Synod (of bishops held at Rome in October 1977) saw a
precious gift of the Holy Spirit to the Church of today, a gift
to which, everywhere in the world, the Christian communities at
every level respond with a generosity and an inventive devotion
which arouse admiration" (Apostolic Exhortation, "Catechesi
tradendae", 16th October 1979).
"Ecumenism", even in the sphere of catechism. Again it is
John Paul II who tells us: "In situations of religious
plurality, the Bishops are able to judge opportune or even
necessary certain experiences of `collaboration in the field of
catechesis between Catholics and other Christians', as a
complement to normal catechesis." ("Catechesi tradendae")
7. CAN WE RECOGNIZE THE OCCUPANT OF THE HOLY SEE AS THE
LEGITIMATE POPE AND DISOBEY HIM, IF ONLY BY REFUSING TO SUBMIT
TO HIS LITURGICAL AND DISCIPLINARY DECISIONS?
No. Even if in fact the occupant of the Holy See is not
legitimate, whoever recognizes him as pope is bound in
conscience to submit to all his decisions including liturgical
and disciplinary decisions. He who publicly and obstinately
scorns them commits the sin of schism, which consists in
obstinate insubordination to the Roman Pontiff. Thus the
Orthodox remain schismatic although, in fact, John Paul II, to
whom they refuse obedience, is not pope.
In order to understand that, it is enough to recall that
personal sins are always subjective since ultimately it is the
appreciation of the subject which binds the conscience. Thus a
man who is mistaken and who knowingly takes an object belonging
to him but which, through error, he believes to belong to
someone else, renders himself guilty before God of a sin of
theft. Conversely, the man who takes the goods of another in
the false but certain knowledge that the goods he is taking
belong to him, before God, in conscience, is guilty of no sin.
8. ARE THOSE BOUND TO OBEY THE POST-CONCILIAR POPES WHO ARE
DOUBTFUL OF THEIR LEGITIMACY, WHO CONSIDER THEM CERTAINLY BAD
POPES, BUT WHO ARE NOT FULLY PERSUADED OF THEIR FORFEITURE BY
REASON OF HERESY?
Undoubtedly yes, and for very simple reasons.
1. Because the bad pope, being still pope, for this
reason retains the right to be obeyed. To him applies the
order of the Master: "They have sitten on the chair of Moses.
All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe
and do; but according to their works do ye not. For they say,
and do not" (Matt XXIII, 2, 3).
2. Because the Law teaches that, in this case, "melior
est conditio possidentis". That is to say that so long as one
is not certain of the illegitimacy of the occupant of the Holy
See, one must consider him to be legitimate and obey all the
decisions which are within his jurisdiction, since in fact he
occupies (he possesses) the Holy See.
9. INTELLECTUALLY YOUR REASONING IS STRICT, BUT WHO GUARANTEES
THAT IN SPITE OF ALL YOU ARE NOT MISTAKEN? THINK OF THE
ANGELS; THEIR INTELLIGENCE IS FAR SUPERIOR TO OURS, YET THEY
WERE MISTAKEN. THE QUESTION OF THE POPE IS FAR TOO GRAVE FOR
US TO FOLLOW YOU.
How many times have we not heard this objection which
contains a glaring confusion and ill conceals a lack of faith.
Whatever the power of the angelic intelligence may be,
evil was not able to affect their reasoning since they did
none, it affected their choice. Before the will of God, which
showed itself to them in the obscurities of faith, some
unhesitatingly took sides with it in spite of the renunciation
which it required of them, while others, refusing to abase
themselves, preferred their own will to His.
Since our reasoning is strict, it is because it respects
all the laws of logic. Its conclusion is therefore certain and
truly gives the doctrine of the Church.
But if reasoning, of the natural order, gives us truly and
with certainty the doctrine of the Church, to accept that
doctrine is an act of the supernatural order since it consists
in making an act of faith. That requires grace on the part of
God and humility in the subject. That is why Jesus one day
said to His Father: "I confess to thee, O Father, Lord of
Heaven and earth, because Thou hast hidden these things from
the wise and prudent and hast revealed them to little ones"
(Luke X, 21).
The certitude which one has does not then proceed from
natural reasoning, which has only led up to the threshold of
the act of faith, it proceeds from faith itself, that is to say
from adherence to the word of God.
Furthermore, since our reasoning is strict, by adopting
its conclusion it is the infallible Church that we are
following. It is easily seen from this that since the question
of the pope is exceedingly serious, and a Catholic cannot
merely sit on the fence but must necessarily take sides, it is
incomparably safer for salvation to follow the doctrine of the
Church than to follow one's own judgement.
The judgement which makes for a refusal of our conclusion
in spite of the strictness of the argument proceeds from a more
or less conscious lack of faith. In fact, it is this
theological virtue which assures us that the pope cannot be
mistaken in an official document for the universal Church.
Now, Paul VI yesterday and John Paul II today being mistaken in
their "ex cathedra" teaching, it is again faith which assures
us that, despite appearances, by so doing Paul VI and John Paul
II have clearly shown that they were not and could not have
been popes.
We emphasize it: this assurance is given by faith alone,
in spite of appearances to the contrary (they occupy the Holy
See and are recognized by almost the whole Church) exactly as
in the Eucharist, where faith alone assures us that in spite of
appearances to the contrary, Christ is there, with His Body,
Blood, Soul and Divinity.
10. IN SPITE OF ALL, SINCE TO ERR IS HUMAN, IT IS SAFER OR
LESS GRAVE TO BE MISTAKEN IN FOLLOWING THE THEORY OF MGR.
LEFEBVRE THAN IN FOLLOWING THAT OF THE UNION.
Undeceive yourself; and first of all understand that one
must never act with a doubtful conscience. He who acts in
doubt assumes a responsibility before God, who will hold him
accountable for the evil which he foresaw before acting, even
if in fact what he believed to be evil was good.
Besides, supposing for the sake of argument that both are
mistaken, the engagement of conscience is not the same in each
case.
In the case where we are mistaken, that is to say in the
case where these post-conciliar popes whom we reject are truly
popes, God is our witness that we reject them because, after
study and reflection, they appear to us to be heretics. There
is thus no dogmatic error in that, simply an error of practical
judgement. In practice, in good faith, we have mistaken for
formal heretics popes who were not so. In this hypothesis, -
refer to the answer to our question No. 7 - our fault is only
material and God will not refuse to relent towards us, good
faith excusing the moral fault.
On the other hand, in the Lefebvrist theory, things go
very differently.
In the first place, this theory contains at least two
dogmatic errors: the refusal of the infallibility of the
universal ordinary Magisterium of the pope, and the right to
resist, publicly and obstinately, the disciplinary laws which a
legitimate pope issues for the universal Church.
What is more, those who propagate and those who follow
this theory commit not an error of practical judgment but a
theoretical error, in which good faith is hard pressed to
excuse the moral fault, since "no man is deemed to be ignorant
of the law". In fact, how could ignorance of this fundamental
Catholic doctrine excuse the moral fault before God of a bishop
- Doctor of the Faith - a priest or an instructed layman?
In conclusion, even for the timids provided that they have
enough common sense to be able to follow a reasoned argument,
it is in the doctrine recalled by the Union that it is easier
to form a certain conscience which protects them from the
divine condemnation.
11. IN THE FACE OF THE REFORMS DECIDED UPON BY THE CHURCH AND
PROMULGATED BY THE POPE, WHAT SHOULD BE THE ATTITUDE OF A
CATHOLIC WHO DOES NOT WISH TO COMPROMISE HIS SALVATION?
We give below Saint Ignatius de Loyola's answer:
"In order not to separate ourselves by the least thing
from the truth, we must always be disposed to believe that what
seems to us to be white is black, if the hierarchic Church so
decides". That is to say, for the question which concerns us
and always supposing that the hierarchs in place are
legitimate, in order to separate ourselves from the truth in
nothing, we must be disposed to believe that the liturgical
reform (new mass and new sacraments) and the conciliar
orientations (new catechisms, ecumenism and religious liberty)
which appear to us dangerous for the faith, are not so, since
the hierarchy has so decided. That must be the normal reaction
of a Catholic if, we say once again, this hierarchy is
legitimate.
The reason for this attitude is "that between Jesus Christ
our Lord, who is the Bridegroom and the Church who is His
Bride, there is only one same Spirit Who governs us and directs
us for the salvation of our souls, and that it is by the same
Spirit and the same Lord, who gave the ten commandments, that
the Holy Church, our Mother, is directed and governed"
("Spiritual Exercises" No. 365).
12. ARE WE BOUND TO OBEY THE POPE EVEN WHEN HE IS NOT IN
AGREEMENT WITH THE TRADITION OF THE CHURCH?
It is not Catholic to ask oneself such a question. In
fact, without Protestant private judgement, who can set himself
up as judge of the conformity or nonconformity of the teaching
of the pope with Tradition?
It is precisely in order that the faithful of His Church
should have the certainty of the perfect conformity of the
teaching of the pope with Tradition and the whole Deposit of
Faith that Christ granted to His Vicar the privilege of
infallibility. Being infallible, the pope not only cannot fail
to be in agreement with Tradition, but he is the living and
infallible organ of Tradition. To deny that is to deny a
dogma.
13. HAVE YOU NOT YOURSELF DECLARED IN THE PAST THAT ONE COULD
AND EVEN THAT ONE SOMETIMES OUGHT TO DISOBEY THE POPE WHEN HE
WAS NOT IN AGREEMENT WITH TRADITION?
Yes, in the early days of the resistance to the
authorities, like many others, we contented ourselves with
summary affirmations, so to speak, of "urgency", since these
problems were new and there was danger in delay. But having
always been in the habit of justifying our actions, we have
been led, in order to respond to certain objections which were
made to us by priests of traditional inclinations who were
opposed to the fall of Paul VI by reason of heresy and who had
accepted the new mass through obedience, we were led to review
the whole question of papal infallibility and that of obedience
to the pope apart from matters of faith. This study, in
pontifical documents and more particularly in the constitution
"Pastor aeternus" of the 1st Vatican Council led us to revise
our position on these points. We then explained ourselves in
the New Series of the review, particularly in No. 4, and have
made no mystery of our evolution. On papal infallibility and
on obedience, we have abandoned the opinions of theologians,
those of the great Doctors being no more than opinions, in
order to base ourselves henceforward, as we have said and
repeated, on the certain doctrine of the Magisterium itself.
Saint Augustine shows us the example of this necessary humility
in his "retractations" published towards the end of his life.
May our detractors if they do not want to be taxed with bad
faith do likewise.
14. THE THEORY OF THE HERETICAL POPE WHO "IPSO FACTO" LOSES
THE SOVEREIGN PONTIFICATE IS NO MORE THAN AN OPINION. IT IS NO
MORE BINDING ON THE CATHOLIC CONSCIENCE THAN THE OPPOSITE
OPINION. WHY DO YOU NOW CLAIM THAT IT IS A MATTER OF FAITH
BINDING ON EVERYONE?
In every aspect of daily life there are simple and obvious
things which pass by unobserved until the day when someone
draws our attention to them. We are then surprised that we
have not noticed them sooner. It was like that with this
matter of the faith.
The cause of this disregard is quite simple.
Every Catholic knows that the pope can fall into heresy
only as a private Doctor, never as the universal Doctor. If
this misfortune came to pass, what would happen?
Since the Church has not ruled upon it, the great Doctors
who concerned themselves with this hypothesis have given
different opinions. In particular, one is aware of Cajetan's
"the heretical pope must be deposed" and Saint Robert
Bellarmine's "the heretical pope is deposed by the very fact of
his heresy".
Taken by the idea that the pope could fall into heresy
only as a private Doctor, we had not noticed that it was not as
such that the popes of Vatican II taught error, but in the
exercise of their specific function, in their teaching "ex
cathedra".
This discovery clarified everything, and as in everyday
life, from the moment that we discerned the true problem, we
were astonished not to have seen it sooner and we could not
understand why those to whom we showed it persistently declined
to see it.
This discovery is the necessary consequence of a simple
argument. It is this.
The pope can fall into heresy only as a private Doctor.
After falling into heresy as a private Doctor, the pope can
manifest his error either in a private discourse or document,
or in a discourse or official document addressed to the
universal Church.
In the first case since, even in the manifestation of
error, he is acting as a private Doctor, it is always necessary
to assume the good faith of the Pontiff and to make to him the
customary representations. It is only if he persists in his
error after representations that he manifests, by his
obstinacy, that he is truly a formal heretic, and as such,
outside the Church.
But if the pope manifests his error by teaching it
officially to the universal Church, in a document or discourse
given as pope, "ex cathedra", then the question of his good
faith does not arise.
Let us not forget that to assume his good faith in this
case, is necessarily equivalent to doubting the fidelity of
Christ. Indeed, the Pope would be able to teach error in good
faith in exactly that act from which Christ had promised to
preserve him. Thus Christ would be responsible for the error
through failing to keep His promise of assistance. However,
this conclusion is absolutely impossible with regard to the
faith.
Thus it is the dogma of papal infallibility and not a
theological opinion which compels us to state that error in
teaching "ex cathedra" is not a matter of opinion but a matter
of faith.
Being a matter of faith, it cannot leave Catholics
unconcerned but necessarily involves them all, provided,
obviously, that they know their catechism and possess a minimum
of common sense.
In confirmation of all this, we recall the text of Saint
Alphonse Marie of Liguori: "It is beyond doubt that if a Pope
were to be declared a heretic, as would one who publicly
defined a doctrine opposed to the divine law, he could be not
deposed by the Council but declared to have forfeited the
papacy in his capacity of a heretic".
15. IN FACT, ARE THERE AT PRESENT NOVELTIES WHICH ARE BEING
TAUGHT BY THE OCCUPANT OF THE HOLY SEE AND WHICH THE FAITH
FORBIDS US TO ACCEPT?
Yes, there are at present novelties in the Church which
the faith forbids us to accept, all those which the
irreformable Magisterium of the Past has already condemned.
16. ARE YOU ABLE TO GIVE AN EXAMPLE?
Yes, the teaching of "Dignitatis Humanae". That is an
example which is both simple and conclusive. Until the eve of
Vatican II, religious liberty, that is to say the civil right
of every man to profess his religious faith, alone or in
association with others, in private or in public, was
considered a completely false doctrine, contrary to the
teaching of Holy Scripture, of the Church and of the Holy
Fathers; in a word, to use the expression of Gregory XVI, a
"delirium". The Church "reproved", "proscribed" and
"condemned" this doctrine. (Cf. "Quanta Cura" of Pius IX).
Since Paul VI, the Council Vatican II recognizes this same
right to religious liberty as "conforming to the divine
revelation" and "encourages" it, since it was "received from
Christ and the Apostles" and the Church had "over the course of
time, guarded and transmitted it". ("Dignitatis Humanae")
This teaching is new and the faith cannot accept it since
the infallible Church has already rejected it.
The same can be said of the new doctrines on ecumenism,
ecclesiology, etc.
17. WHAT MUST BE DONE IN THIS CASE?
In this case, only two solutions are possible: either to
deny the dogma of infallibility, which is impossible in regard
to the faith, or to reject the legitimacy of the man who
teaches error to the universal Church.
As we have explained above (Q. 14), the man who teaches
error "ex cathedra" manifests by that fact that he is not and
cannot be pope.
18. OUR LORD HAS FORBIDDEN US TO JUDGE. IN ACTING THUS, ARE
WE NOT SETTING OURSELVES UP AS THE JUDGES OF THE POPE?
What our Divine Master has forbidden us to judge are the
responsibilities of consciences. When it is a matter of
exterior acts and of doctrines being taught, not only has our
Divine Master never forbidden us to judge them but He has
commanded us to do so. Speaking of the false prophets of whom
He wished His disciples to beware, He said: "Wherefore by their
fruits you shall know them" (Matt VII, 16-20). If His
disciples must distinguish between the true and the false
pastors by their fruits, by their acts, it is clear proof that
Christ's disciples are to judge the fruits, the acts, in order
to distinguish between the pastors and the hirelings.
Thus in acting as we have said above, the faithful are not
judging the pope. They listen dutifully in order to accept his
teaching; but realizing that what is being taught is an error
previously condemned by the Church, they refuse it, and
following the order of the Apostle, not only do they not accept
the novelty but they go on to declare anathema the man who
announces it (Gal. I, 8, 9).
19. IN DRAWING THIS CONCLUSION, DOES IT NOT CONFLICT WITH THE
RULE OF ST. IGNATIUS QUOTED IN YOUR REPLY No. 9?
By no means. In fact, the rule of St. Ignatius concerns a
contradiction which might exist between what appears to us and
what the Church teaches us, that is to say between our
judgement and the Church's judgement. In the present case,
however, the contradiction exists not between what appears to
us but between what is the irreformable teaching of the Church
and a new teaching which they are attempting to give us in the
name of the Church.
20. WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF ONE DID NOT DARE TO GO SO FAR AS THIS
CONCLUSION?
If one dared not go so far as this conclusion, one would
be obliged to accept one of the following hypotheses:
To deny the evidence. That is absurd.
To deny the infallibility of the pope, since today's pope
teaches what yesterday's pope condemned. The faith cannot
accept that.
To admit that Jesus Christ has not kept His promise of
assistance, since His Vicar has fallen into error. That is a
blasphemy.
In each case it must be recognized that this Church which
was mistaken yesterday or today cannot be divine. Similarly,
this Jesus who guaranteed a Church like this for 20 centuries
cannot be God.
Common sense and the Catholic faith thus permit and even
compel us to draw one conclusion only: since the pope cannot
officially teach error to the universal Church, the author of
this erroneous teaching, despite appearances, cannot be pope.
21. THOSE WHO RECOGNIZE THE LEGITIMACY OF JOHN PAUL II AND
THOSE WHO DO NOT RECOGNIZE IT AGREE IN PRACTICE SINCE BOTH
REJECT THE NOVELTIES. CLEARLY THAT IS WHAT MATTERS.
No. What matters for a Catholic is not only to reject the
novelties. It is essential, particularly when the novelties
are imposed in the name of the Apostolic Authority, to justify
this rejection in relation to the faith. Indeed, those who are
unable to justify this rejection in relation to the Catholic
faith are acting without justification, which is immoral.
Besides, since they are in fact resisting him whom in
conscience they believe to be the legitimate pope, they are, in
the words of Pius IX, heretics or worthy of anathema ("Quae in
Patriarchatu"). It is necessary to be wilfully blind not to
acknowledge that the essence of Catholic resistance lies in
this.
In an appendix we show what repercussions this confusion
can have in the practical field, that of the marriages blessed
in our chapels and of assistance at the Masses of scandalous
priests. However, independently of the grave consequences, it
is easy to understand that, far from being sterile, discussions
concerning the justification for resistance to the novelties of
Vatican II and to the pontiffs who impose them are absolutely
essential and fundamental. Indeed, whoever refuses the
novelties without denouncing the imposture of him who imposes
them, more especially while recognizing his legitimacy, is in
fact resisting authority. Saint Paul states: "He that
resisteth the power resisteth the ordinance of God. And they
that resist purchase to themselves damnation". (Romans XIII,
2) A child who knows his catechism knows that one cannot be a
Catholic if one refuses to obey the pope.
On the other hand, whoever resists an impostor after
establishing his imposture, bears witness to the faith and
honours God.
Further, how can a Catholic not understand that the
legitimacy of the occupant of the Holy See cannot be a question
of opinion. It is a vital question concerning the faith. Who
would dare to make the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist
or only in the hosts which are there a question of opinion
which ought not to divide Christians? Why then should the
legitimacy of this pope, that is to say the reality of the
actual presence of the successor of Peter in his See, be only
an opinion?
22. CONCLUSION, THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE PRETENDED LEADERS.
The responsibility of Archbishop Lefebvre, of Dom Gerard
of Barroux or of Dom Augustin of Flavigny, of Abbe Coache of
Flavigny or of Pere Eugene of Villeurbanne, of Pere Andre of
Introibo and of all the priests of the Fraternity of St Pius X,
in the explosion of resistance to Vatican II and of the
involvement of all who followed them in immorality[2] is
undeniable and crushing. Undoubtedly the responsibility of
the bishop Lefebvre is by far the greatest, since in the final
count, it was he first of all who scandalized them by refusing
to confess the faith, whether it was when we questioned him in
private and in public, or when he was officially interrogated
by Cardinal Seper, representative of the man whose legitimacy
he recognized. Through the influence of his episcopacy he
involved in his own laxity and confusion all those who, in
fact, were more concerned with the cult of his person than that
of the Church, or who were more preoccupied with the success of
their works than with the triumph of the truth.
For the sake of one and all, we repeat, the Union for
Fidelity has no doctrine of its own. Its honour and its
strength are in adherence to the doctrine of the Church as
taught by the infallible Magisterium.
Whatever our detractors may say, our combat is not
situated on the level of opinion but on that of the faith,
since it is of faith that he cannot be pope who officially
teaches to the universal Church, as "a doctrine received from
Christ and the Apostles, guarded and transmitted by the Church
in the course of centuries", a doctrine which the irreformable
Magisterium of the Church has already judged and described as
"contrary to the teaching of Holy Scripture, of the Church and
of the Holy Fathers".
*-----*-----*
APPENDIX
THE EFFECT OF THIS CONFUSION ON THE VALIDITY OF MARRIAGES
CONTRACTED IN OUR CHAPELS AND ON ASSISTANCE AT MASSES
CELEBRATED BY SCANDALOUS PRIESTS.
a. Marriages
As we demonstrated in November 1977 (No. 51, p. 162),
couples can marry validly in the absence of the priest who has
jurisdiction to receive their consent, whenever recourse to
this priest constitutes a grave inconvenience (Code of Canon
Law, Can. 1098, 2). We suggested as a grave inconvenience the
acceptance of a mass which was not completely Catholic.
Those who recognize the legitimacy of the post-conciliar
popes cannot but know that these popes have clearly manifested
their will to see the faithful accept the new liturgy (read
again their declarations given earlier). How after this can
these Catholics, and above all these priests, justify the use
of Canon 1098 to dispense themselves from the presence of the
priest authorised by the bishop of the place who is in
communion of faith with the present occupant of the Holy See?
As for ourselves, since our conduct has always been in
harmony with Catholic principles, we have no doubt about the
validity of the marriages which we have blessed and which we
shall continue to bless under present conditions. In fact,
since 1976, we have proclaimed publicly, even in Rome itself,
the vacancy of the Holy See. For ourselves and for the couples
we have prepared, there was "a moral certainty of the absence
of the authorised witness".
Now, according to the text of the Code and according to a
reply of the C.I.C. (Commission for the interpretation of the
Code, 10th Nov 1925. A.A.S. t. XVIII, p. 583), the sole fact
of the absence of the parish priest or the impossibility of
going to find him is not sufficient to render legitimate a
marriage without a priest. It is also necessary that it can
prudently be foreseen that this state of things will endure for
the period of one month. And according to A. Cance, "following
the reply of the C.I.C., in addition to the fact of the absence
of the parish priest, it is necessary that moral certainty be
reached." He adds "a simple conjecture, not based upon
something serious, would not suffice to legitimize the
exception, and a marriage celebrated only before witnesses,
unless one had the moral certainty of the absence of the
competent priest during one month, must be held to be null and
afterwards revalidated, although, in fact, the qualified priest
had been absent during the required time, in spite of
well-founded expectations to the contrary" ("Le Code de Droit
Canonique", t. II, p. 492).
Since the accession of John Paul II and above all since
his adjuration of 24th February 1980, how can those who
recognize him as a legitimate pope arrive at this moral
certainty required by law to be able to invoke Canon 1098?
Indeed, the priest possessing the jurisdiction of his bishop,
who is in perfect communion with John Paul II, is there and the
mass which he offers them is that which their pope adjures them
to accept. By virtue of what Catholic principle, we repeat,
can couples justify the validity of the marriages they contract
without the authorization of the authorities whose legitimacy
they recognize, and how can the priests who bless these unions
justify their intervention?
Couples with little religious knowledge who come to be
married in our traditional chapels because they find in them
"the religion of always", when in their parishes, to their
Catholic instinct, there is another religion which they do not
want, these couples, although they do not know the expression,
have in fact the certainty of the absence of the authorized
witness required by the law. For this reason they contract a
valid marriage.
Other couples, more numerous than the last, know in a more
or less confused way that the presence of the authorized priest
is required by the Church for the validity of Catholic
marriages. However, they believe at the same time that they
can escape it because they attend our chapels. What are we to
think of their marriage? Could their ignorance dispense them
from the certitude required by the law and render valid the
marriage they have contracted thus?
The ignorance of these couples, we repeat, might bear only
on the necessity for them to arrive, before their marriage, at
the certainty required by the law. We shall examine two cases.
- 1st case: that of invincible ignorance. The couple are
persuaded, more or less confusedly, that the conciliar church
constitutes a new church to which they refuse to have recourse
for their marriage and go no further. This category has
similarities with the first. Like them, this couple arrive in
fact and without knowing much about it at the certitude
required by the law. The validity of their marriage in this
case seems not to be in doubt.
- 2nd case: That of vincible ignorance. The couple have
had the opportunity to clear up their doubts but have refused
or have neglected to do so, and thus have not arrived, before
marriage, at the certitude required by the law. They are thus
responsible for their ignorance.
Although by reason of the schism of the new church there
is at present no authorized witness, the marriage contracted by
this couple is nevertheless invalid and, in the words of the
C.I.C., must be revalidated.
We advise Catholics who have contracted marriage in
traditional chapels and who, after reading these rules, have
any doubt about its validity, to consult a priest of sound
doctrine and to consider with him in which category they were
situated at the time of their union.
As for the priests who bless these marriages, being unable
in any way to plead ignorance of the law, they should know that
they are gravely burdening their consciences:
1. If they assist without having the certitude required
by the law. (How could those have this certitude who in these
cases do not know how to justify their conduct?)
2. If, having the required certitude they do not impart
it to the couple, since it is they who are the ministers of the
sacrament.
3. If they refrain from stating clearly, at the beginning
of the ceremony, the reasons which justify their presence.
This is to avoid all possible scandal in their assistance.
b. Assistance at the Masses of scandalous priests
He is scandalous who by his words or by his example leads
his neighbour into sin. The gravity of the scandal increases
with the gravity of the sin to which it leads. Scandal in the
faith is among the gravest, incomparably graver for example
than that in morals.
Priests who recognize the legitimacy of the occupant of
the Holy See and who persist, some in refusing to him the right
to legislate in the liturgical field (for example by disputing
his right to abrogate the privilege of the Bull "Quo primum
tempore"), others refusing in this field the decisions which he
takes for the universal Church (the obstinate refusal of the
"novus ordo missae"), adopt, in the words of Pius IX ("Quae in
Patriarchatu") an attitude in the first case heretical and in
the second schismatic and worthy of anathema.
The behaviour of these priests involves the faithful in
heretico-schismatic practices. These priests are thus
scandalous, and for that reason the faithful ought neither to
assist at their Masses nor ask of them the sacraments except
when in danger of death.
In denouncing these priests as scandalous, we do not claim
for ourselves any jurisdiction. We simply manifest the
judgement which we must make on them: a moral judgement of the
same order as that which the faithful, who wish to preserve
their faith, owe it to themselves to make and have in fact made
on the novelties which have caused them to fly from their
parishes.
To conclude the whole, let us emphasize once more the
great responsibility of those who are content to act without
taking the trouble to justify their actions with regard to
Catholic doctrine. Truly, to make use of the words of Our
Lord, "They are blind and leaders of the blind" (Matt XV, 14).
WHAT ARE WE TO THINK OF THE BISHOPS CONSECRATED BY NGO DINH
THUC, CARMONA, VEZELIS, MUSEY ETC.?
A. A reminder of certain Catholic principles.
1. The vacancy of the Holy See in no way entails the
lapse of Canon Law, which always remains in force even when the
pope is physically or morally dead. Consequently, the
consecration of a bishop, tomorrow as today, and today as
yesterday, without a grave reason which permits at least the
presumption of authorization by the pope, entails "ipso facto"
(by the act itself) excommunication most particularly reserved
to the Holy See and a general suspension for the consecrating
bishop, the bishop consecrated and all the bishops and priests
assisting (Decree of the Holy Office, 9/4/51 and CIC 2279).
2. In the present situation of apparent widowhood of the
Church through the vacancy of the Holy See, one could consider
that Catholic bishops AFTER publicly stating, proclaiming and
justifying this vacancy, could with good cause presume the
authorization of the pope to come in order licitly to confer
the episcopal consecration on suitable subjects, with the
object of assuring the apostolic succession and of giving
Catholic bishops and priests to the faithful who would
otherwise be without them. This authorization of the pope to
come cannot be presumed, we repeat, except by someone who has
previously broken with the anti-pope occupying the Holy See,
and for explicitly Catholic motives and not in an attempt after
the act to cover some previous fault.
B. Who is Mgr. Pierre Martin Ngo Dinh Thuc?
He is the former Archbishop of Hue, Vietnam. He lives at
present in France (83000 Toulon) and is 86 years of age.
With the authorization of the conciliar bishop of Toulon,
Thuc had a confessional allotted to him in the conciliar
bishop's cathedral, and until the beginning of 1982, Thuc
served daily at the new masses celebrated in this same
cathedral. In 1976 Thuc requested Paul VI to lift the censures
he had incurred for illicit consecrations, and Paul VI lifted
them on 7th Sep 1976. Thuc thus clearly recognized the
legitimacy of the men of the new church and was in communion
with them. It was not until 25th February 1982, more than 9
months after the denunciation of the illicit and scandalous
consecrations which we are about to relate, that for his own
ends he separated himself from the new church by a public
declaration.
C. A scandalous bishop
By his flaunted contempt for the laws of the Church, his
simulated repentance followed by frequent lapses and his
compromises with a-Catholic sects, Pierre Martin NGO DINH THUC
is a scandalous bishop.
Before separating himself from the new church, thus while
still in communion of faith with its directors, without their
permission, he conferred episcopal consecration or the
Sacrament of Order on Clement, the false pope of Palmar de
Troya, in Spain, and on his companions, then on Arbinet,
Garcia, Laborie, on Fr. Guerard des Lauriers. O.P. (France), on
the abbes Moises Carmona and Adolfo Zamora (Mexico), on Miguet,
Meunier, Datessen (France) etc. With the exceptions of
Guerard, Carmona and Zamora, all the others are apostates from
the Catholic Church, which they left to found or to rejoin a
sect.
We emphasize that Thuc never concerned himself with
withdrawing those on whom he imposed hands from these sects.
He ordained priests or consecrated bishops in their respective
sects; so that now, by the recklessness of this old Catholic
bishop, these unfortunate heretico-schismatics in their sects
profane the holy Mass and all the sacraments which they
administer in a manner which is necessarily sacrilegious.
Episcopal consecrations conducted in these conditions
(without the authorization of the man he recognized as the
legitimate pope) have caused Thuc to incur the general
suspension and the excommunication mentioned above (A, I).
As we have said, after the consecrations at Palmar de
Troya, Thuc manifested his repentance to Paul VI.
Unfortunately, he began again soon afterwards. Similarly after
the ordinations of Garcia, Arbinet and the consecrations of
Guerard and the Mexicans, we reminded him in a warning letter
of the gravity of his behaviour. He thanked us in the presence
of a witness, but shortly afterwards began again. How sincere
was his repentance?
The relapse into profanation of the Sacrament of Order
(the latest consecration conferred in a sect was on 24 Sep
1982) and the lack of firmness in his promise not to lapse
again make it permissible to ask an essential question. Was
this old man, over 85 years of age, in possession of his
faculties, did he realize what he was doing in imposing his
hands so easily on no matter whom? Was he truly responsible
for his acts? There are only three possible answers to this
distressing question.
- No. Thuc was not in possession of all his faculties; he
was not responsible and did not incur the penalties provided by
the Law. But then the consecrations conferred are not valid,
since the consecrator was not in possession of his faculties
for the performance of a responsible act.
- Yes. The consecrator at these consecrations was in full
possession of his faculties. The consecrations are valid but
consecrator and consecrated have incurred all the penalties
provided by the Law and Thuc is truly a scandalous bishop.
- We do not know with certainty. Perhaps he was in
possession of his faculties, and perhaps he was not. That
would leave a doubt hovering over the censures incurred, but
also over the validity of all these ordinations.
D. Summing up
By virtue of the principles given by Boniface VIII, "He
certainly contradicts the law who adheres to the letter against
the intention of the legislator" since "necessity renders licit
what is illicit", could we not say that in the present state of
the Church, the necessity of having Catholic bishops and
priests justifies the consecrations conferred by Thuc?
It is true that in certain cases necessity renders licit
an action which is normally illicit, but it can do so only on
the formal condition that the illegality does not arise from an
impediment from which the Church never gives dispensation. The
Church has never permitted and never will permit anyone to go
and ask for the sacraments from a minister who is scandalous,
suspended, excommunicated and schismatic. That was the
condition of Thuc well before the consecration of Father
Guerard and the abbes Carmona and Zamora.
Consecrated by a scandalous, suspended, excommunicated and
schismatic bishop, Father Guerard and the abbes Carmona and
Zamora are themselves suspended and excommunicated. Also
excommunicated are all the priests who assisted at their
consecration. Furthermore, since these censures have not been
lifted, after one year they are in addition suspect of heresy
and schism.
That, unhappily, is also the case of the priests
consecrated by them, the abbe Bravo and Fathers Louis Vezelis
and George Musey.
If, in spite of the suspension and excommunication which
they have incurred "ipso facto", by the act of their
consecration, either of them exercises his priesthood, that
exercise (Mass and sacraments) is sacrilegious. Because of
this, the faithful cannot have recourse to their ministry
except in danger of death.
Father Noel BARBARA
ENDNOTES:
[1] "It would be contradictory to affirm devotion and sincerity
in obedience to the pope while persistently refusing as
dangerously doubtful from a theological point of view, the
"Ordo Missae" which the pope and the bishops with all the
priests use daily with piety and faith". (Letter dated 3rd
July 1982 from Cardinal Cassoria, Pro-Prefect of the
Congregation of the Sacraments, to the Rector of the Seminary
of Campos, Brazil. Although bereft of authority, the reply of
this prelate of the conciliar church echoes the true doctrine.)
[2] Every action is immoral, as we have just pointed out,
which has no justification in relation to the Catholic faith.
*-----*-----*
FATHER NOEL BARBARA
DIRECTOR, PRODUCTION AND MANAGEMENT
16 rue des OISEAUX, 37000 Tours, Cedex FRANCE
Phone Number 47,39,52,73
Note: Father Barbara can not speak, read or write English,
however there, is always someone in Tours who can translate
the English language for him, if you wish to write to him.
However his reply to you may be in the French language.
Checks for payment for the tape or the literature, in U.S.
dollars, should be made out to:
FORTES IN FIDE U.S.A
AND BE SENT TO THE U.S. agent:
William F. J. Christian Sr.
758 Lemay Ferry Rd.
St. Louis, MO 63125
for deposit in Father Barbara's bank account in the U.S.A.
If checks are sent directly to Father Barbara, make them out in
the same way, as they will be sent back to the U.S. agent for
deposit.
U.S. agent's phone number: (314) 631-0972
Printed in France
FORTES IN FIDE
Published by the Union pour la Fidelite
des pretres, religieux et laics catholiques.
Director : Father Noel Barbara
Production and Management: B.P. 2824 37028 TOURS Cedex, FRANCE.
Commission paritaire N. 45 651.
*-----*-----*
BURNING QUESTIONS: STRAIGHT ANSWERS
1. IS THE CATHOLIC CHURCH HIERARCHICAL?
The Church of Jesus Christ is a hierarchical Church.
Composed of all the baptized, she is governed by a Sovereign
Pontiff, and an episcopate subordinated to him.
The Sovereign Pontiff, the Pope, is the Vicar of Christ on
earth. By virtue of this, he is the visible head of the
universal Church and the source of all authority. He alone was
designated by the Master as the foundation of His Church, to
him alone was confided the power to feed the whole flock, he
alone received in full the keys of the Kingdom. The pope
possesses this vicarial power over each and every one of the
faithful, but also over each bishop and over the assembly of
the bishops united in council.
The bishops also are the representatives of Christ. it is
in His name that they exercise their powers. But each of them
receives these powers directly from the Sovereign Pontiff, the
source of every mission in the Church, at the same time that
they receive from him that portion of the flock which is
entrusted to them.
Having received the right and the power to govern their
particular church directly from the pope, the bishops lose it
if they knowingly separate themselves from Peter. "By this
separation", says Pope Leo XIII, "they uproot themselves from
the foundation upon which the whole edifice must rest, and they
are thus placed outside the edifice itself". ("Satis
Cognitum", "Enseignements Pontificaux", Solesmes, "L'Eglise",
No. 602).
2. THE IMPORTANCE OF OBEDIENCE IN ACHIEVING SALVATION
The importance of obedience arises from the nature of the
Church herself. In fact, the word hierarchy necessarily
implies a superior and his subordinates.
As subordinates of the Sovereign Pontiff, the bishops owe
to him respect and obedience.
Entrusted as they are to the pope and to their bishop, the
faithful owe to them respect and obedience.
It is to the pope and the bishops, in the person of Peter
and the Apostles, that Our Lord said: "He that heareth you
heareth me: and he that despiseth you despiseth me" (Luke X,
16).
Through her Sovereign Pontiffs, the Church has never
neglected to remind us of the importance of this virtue in the
achievement of salvation. Here are a few recent texts.
"Obedience must be perfect, because it is exacted by the
faith itself, and it has this in common with faith, that it
cannot be partial. What is more, if it is not absolute and
perfect in all respects, it can remain an appearance of
obedience, but the reality of obedience is no longer there".
"When it is a matter of establishing the limits of
obedience, let no one imagine that submission to the authority
of sacred pastors and above all of the Roman Pontiff stops
short at matters concerning dogmas, whose obstinate rejection
must entail the crime of heresy. It is not even enough to give
a sincere and firm assent to the doctrines which, without
having been defined by a solemn judgement of the Church, have
nevertheless been proposed for our belief by her ordinary and
universal Magisterium, as being divinely revealed, and which
the Vatican Council has ordered to be believed of the Catholic
and divine faith. It is necessary, in addition, that
Christians should consider it their duty to allow themselves to
be ruled and governed by the authority and direction of the
bishops, and above all by those of the Apostolic See." (Leo
XIII, "Sapientiae Christianae")
"What good is it to recognize loudly the dogma of the
supremacy of the blessed Peter and of his successors? What good
is it to repeat so often these declarations of the Catholic
faith and of obedience to the Apostolic See, when these fine
words are contradicted by one's actions? Rather, is not
rebellion rendered more inexcusable by the fact that they
recognize that obedience is a duty?[1]
Furthermore, does the authority of the Apostolic See not
extend so far as to be able to punish them, including those
measures which we have had to take, or is it sufficient to be
in communion of faith with this See without the submission of
obedience, a thing which it is impossible to defend without
injury to the Catholic faith?" (Pius IX, "Quae in
Patriarchatu")
"It is a dogma that no one can be saved outside the
Catholic Church, if, knowingly, he shows himself rebellious to
the authority of the Roman Pontiff" ("Catechisme des families")
3. IN WHAT OTHER WAY IS OBEDIENCE IMPORTANT FOR OUR SALVATION?
Obedience also bears witness to the sincerity of our faith
and our charity.
"The first and the greatest criterion of the faith, the
supreme and unshakeable rule of orthodoxy is obedience to the
always living and infallible Magisterium of the Church,
established by Christ "columna et firmamentum veritatis, the
pillar and ground of the truth" (I Tim III, 15). These words
of St. Pius X to students on 10 May 1909 are no more than the
faithful echo of those of Jesus, who said: "Why call you me
Lord, Lord; and do not the things which I say?" (Luke VI, 46)
"Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into
the kingdom of heaven: but he that doth the will of my Father
who is in heaven" (Matt VII, 21 ) "He that hath my commandments
and keepeth them; he it is that loveth me" (John XIV, 21).
4. AT THE PRESENT TIME, HAVE THOSE WHO OCCUPY THE SEE OF PETER
SINCE PAUL VI TRULY MANIFESTED THEIR WILL TO SEE US ACCEPT THE
LITURGICAL REFORM AND THE CONCILIAR ORIENTATIONS?
Yes, and it is enough to listen to them loyally to be
convinced of it.
In the first place there is the Constitution "Missale
Romanum". By this document, Paul VI clearly manifests his
intentions on the subject of the obligation for all to adopt
the "novus ordo missae". He recalls first of all that St.
Pius V "promulgated a `princeps' edition of the Roman Missal"
adds: "We are not acting otherwise", and ends with this
injunction: "We wish that what We have established and
prescribed be held as firm and efficacious, now and in the
future, nonobstant, if that is necessary, the Apostolic
Constitutions and Ordinances given by our predecessors and all
the other prescriptions even worthy of special mention and
being able to derogate from the law.
"Given at Rome, at St Peter's, on the day of the Supper of
the Lord, 3rd April 1969, in the sixth year of Our pontificate.
Paul VI, Pope".
This official document for the universal Church, published
in the "Acta Apostolicae Sedis" (30 Apr 69, pp 217-222) - if
its author is pope - abrogates among other things the privilege
conceded by the Bull "Quo primum tempore" and obliges the
faithful to accept the new mass.
On 24th May 1976, in the course of the secret Consistory,
the same Paul VI twice named "Mgr. Marcel Lefebvre"; he
deplored "the fact (that this bishop) had placed himself
outside obedience to the successor of Peter and of communion
with him, and thus outside the Church", then he recalled that:
"The adoption of the new "Ordo Missae" is by no means left to
the free choice of priests or faithful. The instruction of
14th June 71 foresaw the celebration of mass according to the
old rite, with the permission of the Ordinary, solely for aged
or sick priests, who offer the holy sacrifice "sine populo".
"The new Ordo was promulgated to be substituted for the
former after ripe reflection, and following the requests of the
Council Vatican II. It was not otherwise that our Holy
Predecessor, Pius V, made the reformed missal obligatory under
his authority, following the Council of Trent.
"With the same supreme authority which comes to Us from
Christ, We require the same disposition to all the other
liturgical, disciplinary and pastoral reforms, ripened in these
last years in application of the conciliar decrees. No
initiative which seeks to oppose them can claim the prerogative
of rendering a service to the Church: in reality it does her
grave damage". (Paul VI, discourse to the secret Consistory,
24th May 1976, "Documentation catholique", No. 12, 20th June
1976, p. 557).
On 24th February 1980, in the encyclical "Dominicae
Cenae", John Paul II recalled the same obligation concerning
the adoption of the "novus ordo missae": "We shall continue to
devote a particular care to promoting and following the renewal
of the Church according to the doctrine of Vatican II, in the
spirit of an ever-living Tradition. To the substance of
Tradition, if it is properly understood, belongs also in fact a
correct interpretation of "the signs of the times", according
to which it is necessary to draw upon the rich treasure of the
Revelation "of the old and of the new". By acting in this
spirit, in conformity with this counsel of the Gospel, the
Council of Vatican II accomplished a providential work to renew
the face of the Church in the holy liturgy, by linking very
frequently to what is "old", to that which issues from the
Fathers and which is an expression of the faith and doctrine of
the Church, One for so many centuries.
"Above all I have it at heart to emphasize that the
problems of the liturgy, and In particular of the eucharistic
liturgy, cannot be an occasion of division for Catholics and of
menace for the unity of the Church.
...
"In the name of this truth and of this love, in the name
of Christ Himself crucified and of His Mother, I beg and pray
you to abandon all opposition and all division" (John Paul II,
Enc. "Dominicae Cenae", 24th February 1980).
It is thus obvious that anyone who honestly recognizes the
legitimacy of the postconciliar popes cannot hesitate to adopt
the "novus ordo missae". The refusal of the conciliar reform
is equivalent, to use the expression of the man who in their
eyes is the pope, to "placing themselves outside the obedience
of the successor to Peter and of communion with him, and thus
outside the Church".
5. ARE THESE DECLARATIONS, WHICH ARE NOT LINKED WITH ANY
PENALTIES, BINDING ON THE CONSCIENCES OF CATHOLICS?
Yes, if the author of these declarations is pope,
Catholics are bound in conscience to submit to them. In fact,
in order for the will of a legitimate pope to oblige Catholics
in conscience, it is necessary and sufficient, if he is within
his proper field - faith, morals or ecclesiastical discipline -
that his will should be clearly expressed. The form matters
little, since the pope is not bound by any particular juridical
form in order to manifest his will.
The Church has never taught that the orders of the pope
were not binding on the conscience of the faithful except when
linked with an anathema. That is a novelty invented by those
who wished to find an easy justification for their own
irrational disobedience.
This novelty has the constant practice of the Church
against it. Thus the greater part of her ordinances, whether
codified in Canon Law or scattered among the encyclicals and
other documents of her popes, are not as a rule linked to any
condemnation. For all that, Pius XII could not have been more
explicit on the submission which they require: "It must not be
thought", said he, "that what is proposed in the encyclical
letters does not of itself demand assent" ("Humani Generis",
12th August 1950).
In another connection, was the celebration of the feast of
the Sacred Heart of Jesus, for example, optional because Pius
IX did not link it with a condemnation? In the same way, who
can doubt that Pope Pius XI intended to be obeyed when, without
any threat, he ordered the celebration each year of the feast
of Christ the King and reminded his "Venerable Brothers": "This
will be your duty, this will be your role, to watch that this
feast be prepared for by instructions given in every parish"
("Quas Primas").
In conclusion, it must be asserted, yes, even when it is
not associated with any sanction, from the moment that it is
clearly expressed, the will of the pope is binding on the
conscience of every Catholic, that of the pastors and that of
the faithful.
6. WHAT ARE THE POST-CONCILIAR ORIENTATIONS DECIDED UPON BY
THE NEW PONTIFFS?
The post-conciliar reforms are these, among others:
Religious liberty, which is the charter of the new church.
"Liturgical reform", that of all the sacraments and more
especially that of the Mass (a new mass).
"The catechetical renewal" in which, said John Paul II,
"the Synod (of bishops held at Rome in October 1977) saw a
precious gift of the Holy Spirit to the Church of today, a gift
to which, everywhere in the world, the Christian communities at
every level respond with a generosity and an inventive devotion
which arouse admiration" (Apostolic Exhortation, "Catechesi
tradendae", 16th October 1979).
"Ecumenism", even in the sphere of catechism. Again it is
John Paul II who tells us: "In situations of religious
plurality, the Bishops are able to judge opportune or even
necessary certain experiences of `collaboration in the field of
catechesis between Catholics and other Christians', as a
complement to normal catechesis." ("Catechesi tradendae")
7. CAN WE RECOGNIZE THE OCCUPANT OF THE HOLY SEE AS THE
LEGITIMATE POPE AND DISOBEY HIM, IF ONLY BY REFUSING TO SUBMIT
TO HIS LITURGICAL AND DISCIPLINARY DECISIONS?
No. Even if in fact the occupant of the Holy See is not
legitimate, whoever recognizes him as pope is bound in
conscience to submit to all his decisions including liturgical
and disciplinary decisions. He who publicly and obstinately
scorns them commits the sin of schism, which consists in
obstinate insubordination to the Roman Pontiff. Thus the
Orthodox remain schismatic although, in fact, John Paul II, to
whom they refuse obedience, is not pope.
In order to understand that, it is enough to recall that
personal sins are always subjective since ultimately it is the
appreciation of the subject which binds the conscience. Thus a
man who is mistaken and who knowingly takes an object belonging
to him but which, through error, he believes to belong to
someone else, renders himself guilty before God of a sin of
theft. Conversely, the man who takes the goods of another in
the false but certain knowledge that the goods he is taking
belong to him, before God, in conscience, is guilty of no sin.
8. ARE THOSE BOUND TO OBEY THE POST-CONCILIAR POPES WHO ARE
DOUBTFUL OF THEIR LEGITIMACY, WHO CONSIDER THEM CERTAINLY BAD
POPES, BUT WHO ARE NOT FULLY PERSUADED OF THEIR FORFEITURE BY
REASON OF HERESY?
Undoubtedly yes, and for very simple reasons.
1. Because the bad pope, being still pope, for this
reason retains the right to be obeyed. To him applies the
order of the Master: "They have sitten on the chair of Moses.
All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe
and do; but according to their works do ye not. For they say,
and do not" (Matt XXIII, 2, 3).
2. Because the Law teaches that, in this case, "melior
est conditio possidentis". That is to say that so long as one
is not certain of the illegitimacy of the occupant of the Holy
See, one must consider him to be legitimate and obey all the
decisions which are within his jurisdiction, since in fact he
occupies (he possesses) the Holy See.
9. INTELLECTUALLY YOUR REASONING IS STRICT, BUT WHO GUARANTEES
THAT IN SPITE OF ALL YOU ARE NOT MISTAKEN? THINK OF THE
ANGELS; THEIR INTELLIGENCE IS FAR SUPERIOR TO OURS, YET THEY
WERE MISTAKEN. THE QUESTION OF THE POPE IS FAR TOO GRAVE FOR
US TO FOLLOW YOU.
How many times have we not heard this objection which
contains a glaring confusion and ill conceals a lack of faith.
Whatever the power of the angelic intelligence may be,
evil was not able to affect their reasoning since they did
none, it affected their choice. Before the will of God, which
showed itself to them in the obscurities of faith, some
unhesitatingly took sides with it in spite of the renunciation
which it required of them, while others, refusing to abase
themselves, preferred their own will to His.
Since our reasoning is strict, it is because it respects
all the laws of logic. Its conclusion is therefore certain and
truly gives the doctrine of the Church.
But if reasoning, of the natural order, gives us truly and
with certainty the doctrine of the Church, to accept that
doctrine is an act of the supernatural order since it consists
in making an act of faith. That requires grace on the part of
God and humility in the subject. That is why Jesus one day
said to His Father: "I confess to thee, O Father, Lord of
Heaven and earth, because Thou hast hidden these things from
the wise and prudent and hast revealed them to little ones"
(Luke X, 21).
The certitude which one has does not then proceed from
natural reasoning, which has only led up to the threshold of
the act of faith, it proceeds from faith itself, that is to say
from adherence to the word of God.
Furthermore, since our reasoning is strict, by adopting
its conclusion it is the infallible Church that we are
following. It is easily seen from this that since the question
of the pope is exceedingly serious, and a Catholic cannot
merely sit on the fence but must necessarily take sides, it is
incomparably safer for salvation to follow the doctrine of the
Church than to follow one's own judgement.
The judgement which makes for a refusal of our conclusion
in spite of the strictness of the argument proceeds from a more
or less conscious lack of faith. In fact, it is this
theological virtue which assures us that the pope cannot be
mistaken in an official document for the universal Church.
Now, Paul VI yesterday and John Paul II today being mistaken in
their "ex cathedra" teaching, it is again faith which assures
us that, despite appearances, by so doing Paul VI and John Paul
II have clearly shown that they were not and could not have
been popes.
We emphasize it: this assurance is given by faith alone,
in spite of appearances to the contrary (they occupy the Holy
See and are recognized by almost the whole Church) exactly as
in the Eucharist, where faith alone assures us that in spite of
appearances to the contrary, Christ is there, with His Body,
Blood, Soul and Divinity.
10. IN SPITE OF ALL, SINCE TO ERR IS HUMAN, IT IS SAFER OR
LESS GRAVE TO BE MISTAKEN IN FOLLOWING THE THEORY OF MGR.
LEFEBVRE THAN IN FOLLOWING THAT OF THE UNION.
Undeceive yourself; and first of all understand that one
must never act with a doubtful conscience. He who acts in
doubt assumes a responsibility before God, who will hold him
accountable for the evil which he foresaw before acting, even
if in fact what he believed to be evil was good.
Besides, supposing for the sake of argument that both are
mistaken, the engagement of conscience is not the same in each
case.
In the case where we are mistaken, that is to say in the
case where these post-conciliar popes whom we reject are truly
popes, God is our witness that we reject them because, after
study and reflection, they appear to us to be heretics. There
is thus no dogmatic error in that, simply an error of practical
judgement. In practice, in good faith, we have mistaken for
formal heretics popes who were not so. In this hypothesis, -
refer to the answer to our question No. 7 - our fault is only
material and God will not refuse to relent towards us, good
faith excusing the moral fault.
On the other hand, in the Lefebvrist theory, things go
very differently.
In the first place, this theory contains at least two
dogmatic errors: the refusal of the infallibility of the
universal ordinary Magisterium of the pope, and the right to
resist, publicly and obstinately, the disciplinary laws which a
legitimate pope issues for the universal Church.
What is more, those who propagate and those who follow
this theory commit not an error of practical judgment but a
theoretical error, in which good faith is hard pressed to
excuse the moral fault, since "no man is deemed to be ignorant
of the law". In fact, how could ignorance of this fundamental
Catholic doctrine excuse the moral fault before God of a bishop
- Doctor of the Faith - a priest or an instructed layman?
In conclusion, even for the timids provided that they have
enough common sense to be able to follow a reasoned argument,
it is in the doctrine recalled by the Union that it is easier
to form a certain conscience which protects them from the
divine condemnation.
11. IN THE FACE OF THE REFORMS DECIDED UPON BY THE CHURCH AND
PROMULGATED BY THE POPE, WHAT SHOULD BE THE ATTITUDE OF A
CATHOLIC WHO DOES NOT WISH TO COMPROMISE HIS SALVATION?
We give below Saint Ignatius de Loyola's answer:
"In order not to separate ourselves by the least thing
from the truth, we must always be disposed to believe that what
seems to us to be white is black, if the hierarchic Church so
decides". That is to say, for the question which concerns us
and always supposing that the hierarchs in place are
legitimate, in order to separate ourselves from the truth in
nothing, we must be disposed to believe that the liturgical
reform (new mass and new sacraments) and the conciliar
orientations (new catechisms, ecumenism and religious liberty)
which appear to us dangerous for the faith, are not so, since
the hierarchy has so decided. That must be the normal reaction
of a Catholic if, we say once again, this hierarchy is
legitimate.
The reason for this attitude is "that between Jesus Christ
our Lord, who is the Bridegroom and the Church who is His
Bride, there is only one same Spirit Who governs us and directs
us for the salvation of our souls, and that it is by the same
Spirit and the same Lord, who gave the ten commandments, that
the Holy Church, our Mother, is directed and governed"
("Spiritual Exercises" No. 365).
12. ARE WE BOUND TO OBEY THE POPE EVEN WHEN HE IS NOT IN
AGREEMENT WITH THE TRADITION OF THE CHURCH?
It is not Catholic to ask oneself such a question. In
fact, without Protestant private judgement, who can set himself
up as judge of the conformity or nonconformity of the teaching
of the pope with Tradition?
It is precisely in order that the faithful of His Church
should have the certainty of the perfect conformity of the
teaching of the pope with Tradition and the whole Deposit of
Faith that Christ granted to His Vicar the privilege of
infallibility. Being infallible, the pope not only cannot fail
to be in agreement with Tradition, but he is the living and
infallible organ of Tradition. To deny that is to deny a
dogma.
13. HAVE YOU NOT YOURSELF DECLARED IN THE PAST THAT ONE COULD
AND EVEN THAT ONE SOMETIMES OUGHT TO DISOBEY THE POPE WHEN HE
WAS NOT IN AGREEMENT WITH TRADITION?
Yes, in the early days of the resistance to the
authorities, like many others, we contented ourselves with
summary affirmations, so to speak, of "urgency", since these
problems were new and there was danger in delay. But having
always been in the habit of justifying our actions, we have
been led, in order to respond to certain objections which were
made to us by priests of traditional inclinations who were
opposed to the fall of Paul VI by reason of heresy and who had
accepted the new mass through obedience, we were led to review
the whole question of papal infallibility and that of obedience
to the pope apart from matters of faith. This study, in
pontifical documents and more particularly in the constitution
"Pastor aeternus" of the 1st Vatican Council led us to revise
our position on these points. We then explained ourselves in
the New Series of the review, particularly in No. 4, and have
made no mystery of our evolution. On papal infallibility and
on obedience, we have abandoned the opinions of theologians,
those of the great Doctors being no more than opinions, in
order to base ourselves henceforward, as we have said and
repeated, on the certain doctrine of the Magisterium itself.
Saint Augustine shows us the example of this necessary humility
in his "retractations" published towards the end of his life.
May our detractors if they do not want to be taxed with bad
faith do likewise.
14. THE THEORY OF THE HERETICAL POPE WHO "IPSO FACTO" LOSES
THE SOVEREIGN PONTIFICATE IS NO MORE THAN AN OPINION. IT IS NO
MORE BINDING ON THE CATHOLIC CONSCIENCE THAN THE OPPOSITE
OPINION. WHY DO YOU NOW CLAIM THAT IT IS A MATTER OF FAITH
BINDING ON EVERYONE?
In every aspect of daily life there are simple and obvious
things which pass by unobserved until the day when someone
draws our attention to them. We are then surprised that we
have not noticed them sooner. It was like that with this
matter of the faith.
The cause of this disregard is quite simple.
Every Catholic knows that the pope can fall into heresy
only as a private Doctor, never as the universal Doctor. If
this misfortune came to pass, what would happen?
Since the Church has not ruled upon it, the great Doctors
who concerned themselves with this hypothesis have given
different opinions. In particular, one is aware of Cajetan's
"the heretical pope must be deposed" and Saint Robert
Bellarmine's "the heretical pope is deposed by the very fact of
his heresy".
Taken by the idea that the pope could fall into heresy
only as a private Doctor, we had not noticed that it was not as
such that the popes of Vatican II taught error, but in the
exercise of their specific function, in their teaching "ex
cathedra".
This discovery clarified everything, and as in everyday
life, from the moment that we discerned the true problem, we
were astonished not to have seen it sooner and we could not
understand why those to whom we showed it persistently declined
to see it.
This discovery is the necessary consequence of a simple
argument. It is this.
The pope can fall into heresy only as a private Doctor.
After falling into heresy as a private Doctor, the pope can
manifest his error either in a private discourse or document,
or in a discourse or official document addressed to the
universal Church.
In the first case since, even in the manifestation of
error, he is acting as a private Doctor, it is always necessary
to assume the good faith of the Pontiff and to make to him the
customary representations. It is only if he persists in his
error after representations that he manifests, by his
obstinacy, that he is truly a formal heretic, and as such,
outside the Church.
But if the pope manifests his error by teaching it
officially to the universal Church, in a document or discourse
given as pope, "ex cathedra", then the question of his good
faith does not arise.
Let us not forget that to assume his good faith in this
case, is necessarily equivalent to doubting the fidelity of
Christ. Indeed, the Pope would be able to teach error in good
faith in exactly that act from which Christ had promised to
preserve him. Thus Christ would be responsible for the error
through failing to keep His promise of assistance. However,
this conclusion is absolutely impossible with regard to the
faith.
Thus it is the dogma of papal infallibility and not a
theological opinion which compels us to state that error in
teaching "ex cathedra" is not a matter of opinion but a matter
of faith.
Being a matter of faith, it cannot leave Catholics
unconcerned but necessarily involves them all, provided,
obviously, that they know their catechism and possess a minimum
of common sense.
In confirmation of all this, we recall the text of Saint
Alphonse Marie of Liguori: "It is beyond doubt that if a Pope
were to be declared a heretic, as would one who publicly
defined a doctrine opposed to the divine law, he could be not
deposed by the Council but declared to have forfeited the
papacy in his capacity of a heretic".
15. IN FACT, ARE THERE AT PRESENT NOVELTIES WHICH ARE BEING
TAUGHT BY THE OCCUPANT OF THE HOLY SEE AND WHICH THE FAITH
FORBIDS US TO ACCEPT?
Yes, there are at present novelties in the Church which
the faith forbids us to accept, all those which the
irreformable Magisterium of the Past has already condemned.
16. ARE YOU ABLE TO GIVE AN EXAMPLE?
Yes, the teaching of "Dignitatis Humanae". That is an
example which is both simple and conclusive. Until the eve of
Vatican II, religious liberty, that is to say the civil right
of every man to profess his religious faith, alone or in
association with others, in private or in public, was
considered a completely false doctrine, contrary to the
teaching of Holy Scripture, of the Church and of the Holy
Fathers; in a word, to use the expression of Gregory XVI, a
"delirium". The Church "reproved", "proscribed" and
"condemned" this doctrine. (Cf. "Quanta Cura" of Pius IX).
Since Paul VI, the Council Vatican II recognizes this same
right to religious liberty as "conforming to the divine
revelation" and "encourages" it, since it was "received from
Christ and the Apostles" and the Church had "over the course of
time, guarded and transmitted it". ("Dignitatis Humanae")
This teaching is new and the faith cannot accept it since
the infallible Church has already rejected it.
The same can be said of the new doctrines on ecumenism,
ecclesiology, etc.
17. WHAT MUST BE DONE IN THIS CASE?
In this case, only two solutions are possible: either to
deny the dogma of infallibility, which is impossible in regard
to the faith, or to reject the legitimacy of the man who
teaches error to the universal Church.
As we have explained above (Q. 14), the man who teaches
error "ex cathedra" manifests by that fact that he is not and
cannot be pope.
18. OUR LORD HAS FORBIDDEN US TO JUDGE. IN ACTING THUS, ARE
WE NOT SETTING OURSELVES UP AS THE JUDGES OF THE POPE?
What our Divine Master has forbidden us to judge are the
responsibilities of consciences. When it is a matter of
exterior acts and of doctrines being taught, not only has our
Divine Master never forbidden us to judge them but He has
commanded us to do so. Speaking of the false prophets of whom
He wished His disciples to beware, He said: "Wherefore by their
fruits you shall know them" (Matt VII, 16-20). If His
disciples must distinguish between the true and the false
pastors by their fruits, by their acts, it is clear proof that
Christ's disciples are to judge the fruits, the acts, in order
to distinguish between the pastors and the hirelings.
Thus in acting as we have said above, the faithful are not
judging the pope. They listen dutifully in order to accept his
teaching; but realizing that what is being taught is an error
previously condemned by the Church, they refuse it, and
following the order of the Apostle, not only do they not accept
the novelty but they go on to declare anathema the man who
announces it (Gal. I, 8, 9).
19. IN DRAWING THIS CONCLUSION, DOES IT NOT CONFLICT WITH THE
RULE OF ST. IGNATIUS QUOTED IN YOUR REPLY No. 9?
By no means. In fact, the rule of St. Ignatius concerns a
contradiction which might exist between what appears to us and
what the Church teaches us, that is to say between our
judgement and the Church's judgement. In the present case,
however, the contradiction exists not between what appears to
us but between what is the irreformable teaching of the Church
and a new teaching which they are attempting to give us in the
name of the Church.
20. WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF ONE DID NOT DARE TO GO SO FAR AS THIS
CONCLUSION?
If one dared not go so far as this conclusion, one would
be obliged to accept one of the following hypotheses:
To deny the evidence. That is absurd.
To deny the infallibility of the pope, since today's pope
teaches what yesterday's pope condemned. The faith cannot
accept that.
To admit that Jesus Christ has not kept His promise of
assistance, since His Vicar has fallen into error. That is a
blasphemy.
In each case it must be recognized that this Church which
was mistaken yesterday or today cannot be divine. Similarly,
this Jesus who guaranteed a Church like this for 20 centuries
cannot be God.
Common sense and the Catholic faith thus permit and even
compel us to draw one conclusion only: since the pope cannot
officially teach error to the universal Church, the author of
this erroneous teaching, despite appearances, cannot be pope.
21. THOSE WHO RECOGNIZE THE LEGITIMACY OF JOHN PAUL II AND
THOSE WHO DO NOT RECOGNIZE IT AGREE IN PRACTICE SINCE BOTH
REJECT THE NOVELTIES. CLEARLY THAT IS WHAT MATTERS.
No. What matters for a Catholic is not only to reject the
novelties. It is essential, particularly when the novelties
are imposed in the name of the Apostolic Authority, to justify
this rejection in relation to the faith. Indeed, those who are
unable to justify this rejection in relation to the Catholic
faith are acting without justification, which is immoral.
Besides, since they are in fact resisting him whom in
conscience they believe to be the legitimate pope, they are, in
the words of Pius IX, heretics or worthy of anathema ("Quae in
Patriarchatu"). It is necessary to be wilfully blind not to
acknowledge that the essence of Catholic resistance lies in
this.
In an appendix we show what repercussions this confusion
can have in the practical field, that of the marriages blessed
in our chapels and of assistance at the Masses of scandalous
priests. However, independently of the grave consequences, it
is easy to understand that, far from being sterile, discussions
concerning the justification for resistance to the novelties of
Vatican II and to the pontiffs who impose them are absolutely
essential and fundamental. Indeed, whoever refuses the
novelties without denouncing the imposture of him who imposes
them, more especially while recognizing his legitimacy, is in
fact resisting authority. Saint Paul states: "He that
resisteth the power resisteth the ordinance of God. And they
that resist purchase to themselves damnation". (Romans XIII,
2) A child who knows his catechism knows that one cannot be a
Catholic if one refuses to obey the pope.
On the other hand, whoever resists an impostor after
establishing his imposture, bears witness to the faith and
honours God.
Further, how can a Catholic not understand that the
legitimacy of the occupant of the Holy See cannot be a question
of opinion. It is a vital question concerning the faith. Who
would dare to make the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist
or only in the hosts which are there a question of opinion
which ought not to divide Christians? Why then should the
legitimacy of this pope, that is to say the reality of the
actual presence of the successor of Peter in his See, be only
an opinion?
22. CONCLUSION, THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE PRETENDED LEADERS.
The responsibility of Archbishop Lefebvre, of Dom Gerard
of Barroux or of Dom Augustin of Flavigny, of Abbe Coache of
Flavigny or of Pere Eugene of Villeurbanne, of Pere Andre of
Introibo and of all the priests of the Fraternity of St Pius X,
in the explosion of resistance to Vatican II and of the
involvement of all who followed them in immorality[2] is
undeniable and crushing. Undoubtedly the responsibility of
the bishop Lefebvre is by far the greatest, since in the final
count, it was he first of all who scandalized them by refusing
to confess the faith, whether it was when we questioned him in
private and in public, or when he was officially interrogated
by Cardinal Seper, representative of the man whose legitimacy
he recognized. Through the influence of his episcopacy he
involved in his own laxity and confusion all those who, in
fact, were more concerned with the cult of his person than that
of the Church, or who were more preoccupied with the success of
their works than with the triumph of the truth.
For the sake of one and all, we repeat, the Union for
Fidelity has no doctrine of its own. Its honour and its
strength are in adherence to the doctrine of the Church as
taught by the infallible Magisterium.
Whatever our detractors may say, our combat is not
situated on the level of opinion but on that of the faith,
since it is of faith that he cannot be pope who officially
teaches to the universal Church, as "a doctrine received from
Christ and the Apostles, guarded and transmitted by the Church
in the course of centuries", a doctrine which the irreformable
Magisterium of the Church has already judged and described as
"contrary to the teaching of Holy Scripture, of the Church and
of the Holy Fathers".
*-----*-----*
APPENDIX
THE EFFECT OF THIS CONFUSION ON THE VALIDITY OF MARRIAGES
CONTRACTED IN OUR CHAPELS AND ON ASSISTANCE AT MASSES
CELEBRATED BY SCANDALOUS PRIESTS.
a. Marriages
As we demonstrated in November 1977 (No. 51, p. 162),
couples can marry validly in the absence of the priest who has
jurisdiction to receive their consent, whenever recourse to
this priest constitutes a grave inconvenience (Code of Canon
Law, Can. 1098, 2). We suggested as a grave inconvenience the
acceptance of a mass which was not completely Catholic.
Those who recognize the legitimacy of the post-conciliar
popes cannot but know that these popes have clearly manifested
their will to see the faithful accept the new liturgy (read
again their declarations given earlier). How after this can
these Catholics, and above all these priests, justify the use
of Canon 1098 to dispense themselves from the presence of the
priest authorised by the bishop of the place who is in
communion of faith with the present occupant of the Holy See?
As for ourselves, since our conduct has always been in
harmony with Catholic principles, we have no doubt about the
validity of the marriages which we have blessed and which we
shall continue to bless under present conditions. In fact,
since 1976, we have proclaimed publicly, even in Rome itself,
the vacancy of the Holy See. For ourselves and for the couples
we have prepared, there was "a moral certainty of the absence
of the authorised witness".
Now, according to the text of the Code and according to a
reply of the C.I.C. (Commission for the interpretation of the
Code, 10th Nov 1925. A.A.S. t. XVIII, p. 583), the sole fact
of the absence of the parish priest or the impossibility of
going to find him is not sufficient to render legitimate a
marriage without a priest. It is also necessary that it can
prudently be foreseen that this state of things will endure for
the period of one month. And according to A. Cance, "following
the reply of the C.I.C., in addition to the fact of the absence
of the parish priest, it is necessary that moral certainty be
reached." He adds "a simple conjecture, not based upon
something serious, would not suffice to legitimize the
exception, and a marriage celebrated only before witnesses,
unless one had the moral certainty of the absence of the
competent priest during one month, must be held to be null and
afterwards revalidated, although, in fact, the qualified priest
had been absent during the required time, in spite of
well-founded expectations to the contrary" ("Le Code de Droit
Canonique", t. II, p. 492).
Since the accession of John Paul II and above all since
his adjuration of 24th February 1980, how can those who
recognize him as a legitimate pope arrive at this moral
certainty required by law to be able to invoke Canon 1098?
Indeed, the priest possessing the jurisdiction of his bishop,
who is in perfect communion with John Paul II, is there and the
mass which he offers them is that which their pope adjures them
to accept. By virtue of what Catholic principle, we repeat,
can couples justify the validity of the marriages they contract
without the authorization of the authorities whose legitimacy
they recognize, and how can the priests who bless these unions
justify their intervention?
Couples with little religious knowledge who come to be
married in our traditional chapels because they find in them
"the religion of always", when in their parishes, to their
Catholic instinct, there is another religion which they do not
want, these couples, although they do not know the expression,
have in fact the certainty of the absence of the authorized
witness required by the law. For this reason they contract a
valid marriage.
Other couples, more numerous than the last, know in a more
or less confused way that the presence of the authorized priest
is required by the Church for the validity of Catholic
marriages. However, they believe at the same time that they
can escape it because they attend our chapels. What are we to
think of their marriage? Could their ignorance dispense them
from the certitude required by the law and render valid the
marriage they have contracted thus?
The ignorance of these couples, we repeat, might bear only
on the necessity for them to arrive, before their marriage, at
the certainty required by the law. We shall examine two cases.
- 1st case: that of invincible ignorance. The couple are
persuaded, more or less confusedly, that the conciliar church
constitutes a new church to which they refuse to have recourse
for their marriage and go no further. This category has
similarities with the first. Like them, this couple arrive in
fact and without knowing much about it at the certitude
required by the law. The validity of their marriage in this
case seems not to be in doubt.
- 2nd case: That of vincible ignorance. The couple have
had the opportunity to clear up their doubts but have refused
or have neglected to do so, and thus have not arrived, before
marriage, at the certitude required by the law. They are thus
responsible for their ignorance.
Although by reason of the schism of the new church there
is at present no authorized witness, the marriage contracted by
this couple is nevertheless invalid and, in the words of the
C.I.C., must be revalidated.
We advise Catholics who have contracted marriage in
traditional chapels and who, after reading these rules, have
any doubt about its validity, to consult a priest of sound
doctrine and to consider with him in which category they were
situated at the time of their union.
As for the priests who bless these marriages, being unable
in any way to plead ignorance of the law, they should know that
they are gravely burdening their consciences:
1. If they assist without having the certitude required
by the law. (How could those have this certitude who in these
cases do not know how to justify their conduct?)
2. If, having the required certitude they do not impart
it to the couple, since it is they who are the ministers of the
sacrament.
3. If they refrain from stating clearly, at the beginning
of the ceremony, the reasons which justify their presence.
This is to avoid all possible scandal in their assistance.
b. Assistance at the Masses of scandalous priests
He is scandalous who by his words or by his example leads
his neighbour into sin. The gravity of the scandal increases
with the gravity of the sin to which it leads. Scandal in the
faith is among the gravest, incomparably graver for example
than that in morals.
Priests who recognize the legitimacy of the occupant of
the Holy See and who persist, some in refusing to him the right
to legislate in the liturgical field (for example by disputing
his right to abrogate the privilege of the Bull "Quo primum
tempore"), others refusing in this field the decisions which he
takes for the universal Church (the obstinate refusal of the
"novus ordo missae"), adopt, in the words of Pius IX ("Quae in
Patriarchatu") an attitude in the first case heretical and in
the second schismatic and worthy of anathema.
The behaviour of these priests involves the faithful in
heretico-schismatic practices. These priests are thus
scandalous, and for that reason the faithful ought neither to
assist at their Masses nor ask of them the sacraments except
when in danger of death.
In denouncing these priests as scandalous, we do not claim
for ourselves any jurisdiction. We simply manifest the
judgement which we must make on them: a moral judgement of the
same order as that which the faithful, who wish to preserve
their faith, owe it to themselves to make and have in fact made
on the novelties which have caused them to fly from their
parishes.
To conclude the whole, let us emphasize once more the
great responsibility of those who are content to act without
taking the trouble to justify their actions with regard to
Catholic doctrine. Truly, to make use of the words of Our
Lord, "They are blind and leaders of the blind" (Matt XV, 14).
WHAT ARE WE TO THINK OF THE BISHOPS CONSECRATED BY NGO DINH
THUC, CARMONA, VEZELIS, MUSEY ETC.?
A. A reminder of certain Catholic principles.
1. The vacancy of the Holy See in no way entails the
lapse of Canon Law, which always remains in force even when the
pope is physically or morally dead. Consequently, the
consecration of a bishop, tomorrow as today, and today as
yesterday, without a grave reason which permits at least the
presumption of authorization by the pope, entails "ipso facto"
(by the act itself) excommunication most particularly reserved
to the Holy See and a general suspension for the consecrating
bishop, the bishop consecrated and all the bishops and priests
assisting (Decree of the Holy Office, 9/4/51 and CIC 2279).
2. In the present situation of apparent widowhood of the
Church through the vacancy of the Holy See, one could consider
that Catholic bishops AFTER publicly stating, proclaiming and
justifying this vacancy, could with good cause presume the
authorization of the pope to come in order licitly to confer
the episcopal consecration on suitable subjects, with the
object of assuring the apostolic succession and of giving
Catholic bishops and priests to the faithful who would
otherwise be without them. This authorization of the pope to
come cannot be presumed, we repeat, except by someone who has
previously broken with the anti-pope occupying the Holy See,
and for explicitly Catholic motives and not in an attempt after
the act to cover some previous fault.
B. Who is Mgr. Pierre Martin Ngo Dinh Thuc?
He is the former Archbishop of Hue, Vietnam. He lives at
present in France (83000 Toulon) and is 86 years of age.
With the authorization of the conciliar bishop of Toulon,
Thuc had a confessional allotted to him in the conciliar
bishop's cathedral, and until the beginning of 1982, Thuc
served daily at the new masses celebrated in this same
cathedral. In 1976 Thuc requested Paul VI to lift the censures
he had incurred for illicit consecrations, and Paul VI lifted
them on 7th Sep 1976. Thuc thus clearly recognized the
legitimacy of the men of the new church and was in communion
with them. It was not until 25th February 1982, more than 9
months after the denunciation of the illicit and scandalous
consecrations which we are about to relate, that for his own
ends he separated himself from the new church by a public
declaration.
C. A scandalous bishop
By his flaunted contempt for the laws of the Church, his
simulated repentance followed by frequent lapses and his
compromises with a-Catholic sects, Pierre Martin NGO DINH THUC
is a scandalous bishop.
Before separating himself from the new church, thus while
still in communion of faith with its directors, without their
permission, he conferred episcopal consecration or the
Sacrament of Order on Clement, the false pope of Palmar de
Troya, in Spain, and on his companions, then on Arbinet,
Garcia, Laborie, on Fr. Guerard des Lauriers. O.P. (France), on
the abbes Moises Carmona and Adolfo Zamora (Mexico), on Miguet,
Meunier, Datessen (France) etc. With the exceptions of
Guerard, Carmona and Zamora, all the others are apostates from
the Catholic Church, which they left to found or to rejoin a
sect.
We emphasize that Thuc never concerned himself with
withdrawing those on whom he imposed hands from these sects.
He ordained priests or consecrated bishops in their respective
sects; so that now, by the recklessness of this old Catholic
bishop, these unfortunate heretico-schismatics in their sects
profane the holy Mass and all the sacraments which they
administer in a manner which is necessarily sacrilegious.
Episcopal consecrations conducted in these conditions
(without the authorization of the man he recognized as the
legitimate pope) have caused Thuc to incur the general
suspension and the excommunication mentioned above (A, I).
As we have said, after the consecrations at Palmar de
Troya, Thuc manifested his repentance to Paul VI.
Unfortunately, he began again soon afterwards. Similarly after
the ordinations of Garcia, Arbinet and the consecrations of
Guerard and the Mexicans, we reminded him in a warning letter
of the gravity of his behaviour. He thanked us in the presence
of a witness, but shortly afterwards began again. How sincere
was his repentance?
The relapse into profanation of the Sacrament of Order
(the latest consecration conferred in a sect was on 24 Sep
1982) and the lack of firmness in his promise not to lapse
again make it permissible to ask an essential question. Was
this old man, over 85 years of age, in possession of his
faculties, did he realize what he was doing in imposing his
hands so easily on no matter whom? Was he truly responsible
for his acts? There are only three possible answers to this
distressing question.
- No. Thuc was not in possession of all his faculties; he
was not responsible and did not incur the penalties provided by
the Law. But then the consecrations conferred are not valid,
since the consecrator was not in possession of his faculties
for the performance of a responsible act.
- Yes. The consecrator at these consecrations was in full
possession of his faculties. The consecrations are valid but
consecrator and consecrated have incurred all the penalties
provided by the Law and Thuc is truly a scandalous bishop.
- We do not know with certainty. Perhaps he was in
possession of his faculties, and perhaps he was not. That
would leave a doubt hovering over the censures incurred, but
also over the validity of all these ordinations.
D. Summing up
By virtue of the principles given by Boniface VIII, "He
certainly contradicts the law who adheres to the letter against
the intention of the legislator" since "necessity renders licit
what is illicit", could we not say that in the present state of
the Church, the necessity of having Catholic bishops and
priests justifies the consecrations conferred by Thuc?
It is true that in certain cases necessity renders licit
an action which is normally illicit, but it can do so only on
the formal condition that the illegality does not arise from an
impediment from which the Church never gives dispensation. The
Church has never permitted and never will permit anyone to go
and ask for the sacraments from a minister who is scandalous,
suspended, excommunicated and schismatic. That was the
condition of Thuc well before the consecration of Father
Guerard and the abbes Carmona and Zamora.
Consecrated by a scandalous, suspended, excommunicated and
schismatic bishop, Father Guerard and the abbes Carmona and
Zamora are themselves suspended and excommunicated. Also
excommunicated are all the priests who assisted at their
consecration. Furthermore, since these censures have not been
lifted, after one year they are in addition suspect of heresy
and schism.
That, unhappily, is also the case of the priests
consecrated by them, the abbe Bravo and Fathers Louis Vezelis
and George Musey.
If, in spite of the suspension and excommunication which
they have incurred "ipso facto", by the act of their
consecration, either of them exercises his priesthood, that
exercise (Mass and sacraments) is sacrilegious. Because of
this, the faithful cannot have recourse to their ministry
except in danger of death.
Father Noel BARBARA
ENDNOTES:
[1] "It would be contradictory to affirm devotion and sincerity
in obedience to the pope while persistently refusing as
dangerously doubtful from a theological point of view, the
"Ordo Missae" which the pope and the bishops with all the
priests use daily with piety and faith". (Letter dated 3rd
July 1982 from Cardinal Cassoria, Pro-Prefect of the
Congregation of the Sacraments, to the Rector of the Seminary
of Campos, Brazil. Although bereft of authority, the reply of
this prelate of the conciliar church echoes the true doctrine.)
[2] Every action is immoral, as we have just pointed out,
which has no justification in relation to the Catholic faith.
*-----*-----*
FATHER NOEL BARBARA
DIRECTOR, PRODUCTION AND MANAGEMENT
16 rue des OISEAUX, 37000 Tours, Cedex FRANCE
Phone Number 47,39,52,73
Note: Father Barbara can not speak, read or write English,
however there, is always someone in Tours who can translate
the English language for him, if you wish to write to him.
However his reply to you may be in the French language.
Checks for payment for the tape or the literature, in U.S.
dollars, should be made out to:
FORTES IN FIDE U.S.A
AND BE SENT TO THE U.S. agent:
William F. J. Christian Sr.
758 Lemay Ferry Rd.
St. Louis, MO 63125
for deposit in Father Barbara's bank account in the U.S.A.
If checks are sent directly to Father Barbara, make them out in
the same way, as they will be sent back to the U.S. agent for
deposit.
U.S. agent's phone number: (314) 631-0972
Printed in France