Where do we stand?
by
Eberhard Heller
transl. by Gladys Resch
"Credo... in unam, sanctam, catholicam et apostolicam Ecclesiam."
The precise question is: Where do we stand in our struggle within the
Church? It is not easily answered. The new pseudo-conservativism of the
so-called 'Reform-Church' (post-conciliar Church), which disposes of a
tremendous suggestibility by the personality of Wojtyla and the public
opinion supporting him, and the intended misleading tactic by Écône and
her clerical followers on one side, the ignorance of many faithful (but
also their naive selfish conception of salvation), and the inexcusable
holding back, respectively the refusal of the faithful clergy to
enlighten the spiritual darkness and to inform the faithful about the
true catastrophe, all these facts have contributed that our own
ecclesiastical situation presents herself as being difficult to be seen
through. Besides this the view where we stand is not being made clearer
by the different judgement and estimation of the consecra-tion of
bishops as from 1981. Some of them shout "schism, schism", the others
recognize all pro-blems as solved - Glory to God! - by the safeguard of
the apostolic succession. (This is supposed to go like this: one
chooses a bishop, who is asked to ordain to the priesthood pede stante
any brought along candidates, or even to consecrate them to bishops ...
likely on a base of a private undertaking or a good-will tour!) These
people's argument is in fact right, that the Church (with her
office-bearer was found as administrator of the means of salvation to
save souls, that is the hierarchy exists for the souls and not the
other way round: the souls for the hierarchy. (This should be
considered mainly by those amongst us, concerned about legality.) But
the delegation of Powers for the administration of means of salvation
was given by Christ to His Church - and not to innumerable sects. Both
got to be considered together, although in cases of conflicts, the
preference applies to the means of salvation.
Which are our possibilities now in view of the difficult and apparently
confused conditions, to account for our situation and to define our
point of view? Because nothing is more damaging in sorting out confused
circumstances, respectively serious problems, than a blind and
imprudent activity or uncontrolled defeatism and resignation.
One sometimes is surprised to realize how one can easily arrive to a
solu-tion of complicated problems by applying too simple and plain
methods. - I shall never forget how a professor of history of art
explained to us the Baroque style by the analysis of the typical
ornaments.
In the apostolic Creed we so often pray: "Credo ... in unam, sanctam,
catho-licam et apostolicam Ecclesiam." ("I believe ... in one, holy
catholic and apostolic Church".) I believe, as a convinced Catholic in
Christ's foundation of the Church, which should, as an institution,
guarantee our salvation. The signs "one", "holy", "catholic" and
"apostolic" define our faith in the Church. They will serve us as
criterium to find out, where we stand in the Church, and what got to be done.
The following sentences will first of all explain these
characteristics, to enalbe us afterwards to enlighten our situation.
These explanations can do it only in a short and sketched way. With
their help we only approach this subject to focus our view upon the
task which we are finally faced with.
I. Unity
The doctrine of the dogmatics (compare Bartmann, Bernhard: "Lehrbuch der Dogmatik", 2 volumes, Freiburg 1928) deals with
a) unity in faith
b) unity in cult and the sacraments,
c) unity of the ecclesiastical community in its hierarchical organisation.
The substance of faith is laid down by the ministry of the Church in
the Depositum fidei, which all faithful are obliged to believe in. The
visibility and the recognition of the unity of the Church show itself
most clearly by the public acknowledgement of the primacy of the Pope.
(See John 10, 16: "One flock, one shepherd"; Matth. 12, 25: "No kingdom
can be at war with itself without being laid waste"; St. Paul 1 Cor. 1,
10: ... use, all of you, the same language; you must be restored to
unity of mind and pur-pose, there must be no divisions among you"; Pius
IX's encyclical of September 6, 1864 - Dz. 1685-1687; Leo XIII in "De
unitate Ecclesiae" of June 29, 1896 - Dz. 1954-1962). The unity of the
ecclesiastical community and the unity in faith and the sacraments
necessitate one another: the unity of ecclesiastical community with its
hierarchy is the guarantor for the unity in faith. Reciprocally the
unity in faith and the sacra-ments is the chain, which holds together
the Church community in her unity.
Sins against unity of faith are heresy and apostasy; he, who acts
against the unity of the ecclesiastical community and renounces the
primacy of the Pope, is a schismatic.
II. Sanctity
Seen in the dogmatic view, sanctity means
a) an objective real holiness - in the institution of the Church;
b) a personal holiness - as a duty for all faithful.
The objective real holiness can be
1) passive: through sanctified consecration (church, altar, implements)
2) active: in so far as it can bring about personal holiness, (sacraments, doctrine)
Thus the whole institution of the Church by Christ is objectively holy
with all her establishments, because she is the "Church of God",
(compare e.g. Acts of the Apostles 20,28; 1 Cor. 1,2) The personal
holiness means the given-by the grace of baptism-revealed possibility
to attain perfection of one's own will in the following of Christ, in
the imitation, in the entering more deeply in His perfect good, and
holy Will, This effort of self-perfection is a constant duty for every
single person as well as for the community as a body. Therefore, to be
saved, it is not enough to withhold from committing sins, but we are
asked to follow actively the road that Christ has shown us. To abide in
the refusal to grow in personal holiness means to refuse the following
of Christ; it means clearly that such a person does not love God and is
not prepared to make sacrifices.
I may say it once more: This personal holiness is not just to be
understood individualistically, but it also applies to the community of
faithful as such, who should also show, through and in the love of
Christ, this union of love amongst each other. (This obligation is
being overlooked by many.)
III. Catholicity
It shows itself in
a) an inside,
b) an outside sign, (mark)
By the inside Catholicity is meant the universality of the Church as
institution of salvation in such a way, that faith and the religious
life (religio) should involve our whole reality. Faith and religious
life are the answer to all essential, most decisive questions, and they
open up the possibility for a perfect meaningful life. This inward
all-embracing life is such, that nobody has to be excluded from the
Church because of his descent, social environment etc. The inward
universality to entitle and to fulfil the claim for the revelation
therefore applies to all men and people, and is valid for all times
(without restriction).
The outward Catholicity means, that the Church, as an institution,
respectively as community of faith, extends and should extend to all
people and the whole world. This Catholicity naturally presupposes the unity
of the Church (in faith, sacraments and hierarchy.) As the outward
Catholicity is a duty, which the Church is supposed to fulfil during
the course of her history, ("Go out all over the world ...") it
suffices for the actual historic situation, that this end is
attainable, i.e. that the Church is intact in herself
as an institution of salvation. For this reason the Church must always
present herself, regarding her universality in space and time, in such
a way, that by this her strength and dignity, her possibility for
expansion and force of persuasion become visible and recognisable,
(virtual Catholicity). On this is based the missionary mandate of the
Church. And it is not enough to be only concerned about one's own
salvation, that one's endeavour consists only
to assure that one will go to heaven, but faith includes the
coresponsibility for one's fellow-men and neighbours. It is everybody's
duty, religious duty, to do its best to reveal also to others, and to
show them the way, to participate in the life of Jesus, respectively to
be prepared to lead them on this way.
IV. Apostolicity
It comprises:
a) the beginning, origin (apostolicitas originis);
b) the doctrine (apostolicitas doctrinae);
c) the succession (apostolicitas successionis).
The Church is apostolic in so far as she is built up on the foundation
by the Apostles, which she got directly from Christ, and in so far as
this foundation continues to exist in the successors of the Apostles
until the end of times.
Let us now apply the above mentioned criteria to the actual situation
of the 'Post-conciliar' Church on one side (a) and (b) to our own
ecclesiastical situation, the 'Pre-conciliar' Church.
I. Unity
a) The so-called Post-conciliar
Church has abandoned the unity of the faith by supporting publicly and
officially heretic views, (modernism, ecumenism, 'Mass' as meal etc. -
One may read through all publications of EINSICHT, which have
constantly proved the apostasy by documents.) One should just consider
the way how Wojtyla, as head of this 'Church', imagines the re-union
with the Orthodox: to avoid the difficulties of the dogma of the
infallibility of the Pope, the Orthodox would have no need to accept
it, only the roman 'Church' should by faith be under the obligation.
(This was mentioned at his visit to Turkey). So he wants to give up the
unity of faith for the unity of community! Which conception has this
man got of the Catholic dogma?! - Therefore a unity in cult and the
sacraments does neither exist for the Tradition of the Church nor
between the Orthodox and Roman rite. Every so-called 'office-bearer'
makes his own 'liturgy' - and Paul VI even rejoiced about it. (the well
known remark of the "multiplicity in the unity") On his trip to Africa
Wojtyla affirmed repeatedly, that he was not concerned about the
discipline concerning the liturgy, - where everyone could do as it
pleases him (even dance) - but about the unity of the 'ecclesiastical'
community. The new rites for the sacraments are falsified, so that, due
to those rites, a sacrament cannot have its effect anymore. The
hierarchy has, by the apostasy, ipso facto become illegitimate and has
lost its charge of office.
b) Our whole endeavour of
resistance against the 'Reformers' was primely concerned to save holy
Mass, to defend the true theology of the Mass and the conser-vation of
the whole contents of our faith, and therefore we maintained the unity
in matters of doctrine and in practice for the administering of the
sacraments for the Tradition in the Church, and also amongst the groups
of resistance. No changes were introduced in those groups, and nobody
would have been authorised to do so. But the unity of community of the
faithful under the hierarchical leadership is missing. A head, whom
Christ has chosen fur the leading of His Church, is still missing, so
too the necessary bishops and priests for certain areas. Therefore we
miss not only the representation for the unity of the ecclesiastical
community, but - what is even more serous - the juristical mandatory
for the still existing office-bearers, (bishops and priests) So, in
this time without a Pope, they can only fulfil their duty of priesterly
obligations by direct relation with the mandate of Christ. They can
only exercise this mandate legitimately, when they do it in
consideration with the will of the Church, - whose unity must be
intended in the hierarchical order with the papal primacy. (We still
expect the contribution by Mgr. Guérard des Lauriers O.P. concerning
the exact determination of the rights of bishops and priests in this
situation.)
Let us consider the acting of Écône under this ecclesiastical aspect:
They recognize a 'hierarchy', which has lost its legitimacy long ago.
By this they leave ipso facto the community of the true Church and have
become schismatics - this critic covers only one part of their error;
the more serious one is, that they subordinate themselves to the
deliberate destroyers of the Church, the anti-Christ, and this in clear
knowledge of the true intentions of these so-called 'Reformers'! By
trying at the same time to deny and to prevent the restitution - if
Écône had not existed the freemasons would have to invent them, as a
friend mentioned in this fight for the true Church - Écône proceeds in
the administration of the (true) sacraments without legitimate mandate.
Because it is only to His Church that Christ has given the power to act
in His mandate, i.e. - not considering the problem in connection with
the consecration of Mgr. Lefebvre by the freemason Liénart - the
Éconists fail to work for the unity of the Church. The faithful commit
a sin when they receive the sacraments adminstered by them, (in
exception of extremis.)
II. Sanctity
a) The 'Reform Church' has by
the falsification in matters of faith and sacraments, as well as by
this ipso facto completed repeal of the hierarchical insti-tution,
destroyed the objective true holiness. The self-sanctification of the
indivi-dual and the community of faith as such are widely lost, as this
de-mand has been given up in favour of a diffused appeal for humanism.
(The slogan of a 'clergyman': "people, remain as you are".) No one
mentions anymore the first commandment, the love of God.
b) We have retained in the
objective sphere the institution of the Church (as torso - see § 1
Unity), the doctrine, the sacraments with their sanctification.
Everyone, who has the sense of humility should strike his breast and
say: Mea culpa ..., when reminded of the duty to follow Christ, i.e.
the sanctification of one-self and the community for the personal moral
perfection. There is no more to be added!!!
III. Catholicity
a) When one favours the wrong
ecumenism as Montini did, as Wojtyla is doing, ("Redemptor hominis",
concelebration with Anglicans) (to create the world-unity-religion) one
gives up the claim to the universality of the Church. Thus, such a
'Church' becomes eo ipso only a party amongst others, which are
recognized as having the same rights, by which the claim of the Church
to be the only beatifying-one is being given up. As by this the true
Catholicity is missing, there can be no mandate for mission anymore.
b) By retaining God's revealed
doctrine, we have retained the inner Catholi-city. The apostasy of the
hierarchy, which has enticed and carried away the greater majority of
the faithful, in addition the betrayal of Lefebvre, who, under the mask
of Orthodoxy, follows the plan to connect naive, uninformed, confiding
faithful to the apostate Rome, and who has thinned out the rows of the
loyal people, have reduced greatly the flock of the faithful Catholics.
There are still small groups of professing communities or separate
groups in Europe, South and North America, Africa, India, Australia and
New Zealand, which belong to the Church of Christ and her institution,
(faith and sacraments). But as the hierarchical unity is missing, it is
impossible to represent visually the virtual Catholicity, i.e. the
greatness and strength of the Church ..., especially as some clergymen,
who have not become apostates, suppress cowardly their churchly
position and opportunity.
IV. Apostolicity
a) The 'Reform Church' can
certainly not call back in her mistaken views on the Apostles. When the
elderly bishops, who actually have still been consecrated validly, but
who follow the reform course, die, the apostolic succession comes to an
end, as the new rite for consecration of bishops is invalid (at least
greatly questionable).
b) With the confidence in the
assistance of God and thanks to the action of Mgr. Ngô-dinh-Thuc - if
it is in Gods plan of salvation - the endangered apostolic succession
could be saved. The apostolicity too, concerning the doctrine and the
origin were retained through the unmissleading holding on to the
Tradition.
May I add an explanation to the consecration of bishops. This problem
of permittance of the given consecrations (against CIC § 953) will also
in future be discussed by certain circles. One could also object that
the danger of breaking up the succession would not have occured as long
as there still were validly consecrated bishops in the 'reform-Church',
who would have been able to change their ways. Here are mentioned the
opportunists amongst the reform-bishops, for instance Mgr. Graber, Mgr.
Siri and others. We cannot exclude the possibility that a reform-bishop
(validly consecrated) comes back to the Church and repents. But even if
it should happen, there would in principal not be a difference
concerning the consecrations of bishops by Mgr. Ngô-dinh-Thuc, or one
concerning the restitution of the ecclesiastical hierarchy.
The opinion, that those validly consecrated bishops or cardinals
(consecrated by Pius XII), who reside in the 'reform-Church', would
retain their hierarchical position in office, when changing their ways,
is a mistake. At their return, which should be openly manifested (by a
abiuratio), they would not get back their office, lost by their
betrayal of faith. The problem of deposition and election of a Pope, as
well as the re-organisation of the hierarchy, would only have been
postponed. By it nothing could be won. The risk of retaining the
succession would unnecessarily have become greater and the faithful
would have had to do without the adminstering of the sacraments,
reserved for bishops. (Ordinations, and usually also confirmation.)
Summary
a) The 'reform-Church'
possesses neither the unity, nor the holiness and Catholicity and is
about to loose the apostolic succession: she is a pseudo-Church, simply
a sect, still with a strong organization, with enormous influence in
public life... and Lefebvre hangerson of pseudo-Orthodox. One should
think once more of what the people of Écône really want - apart from
their subjective intentions: submission under a sect and co-existence
of heresy, apostasy and true faith, with which they follow on this
level the same ecumenism which they reproach Montini and Wojtyla!!!
b) Where do we stand now? And
here we come back to our question. Apart from the desolate condition
concerning the own sanctification of the ecclesiastical communi-ty and
the diminishing outside Catholicity, the main problem in our present
situation remains the recovery of the Church unity as a hierarchical
structured community of faith. This means the realisation of the
following duties: deposition of the 'Papa haereticus', condemnation of
the heresies and the heretics, election of a Pope, reconstruction of
the hierarchy and self-claim of the Church as visible juristical
Church-community, which represents the greatness and dignity of the
divine revelation. Concerning the self-claim of those groups in the
religious underground as Church, one has to make a remark concerning
the pitious attitude especially of the traditional clerics: if you want
to know if a priest confesses the true faith, ask him at a suitable
occasion to write out a stamped wedding document and to marry two
people, or one tries to get a baptism certificate and baptism, - to be
read in this line: stamped document plus sacrament. The result
surprises only those who have not had the experience: usually you are
stranded for the stamp, and then the clergyman sends you to the
'reform-Church' for the reception of the possibly valid sacrament, to
the danger to commit a sacrilege, just because the 'reform-Church' has
still got the stamp.
One could object: as we have not, or only in a limited way the
hierarchical structure, the visibility and dignity (say: 'stamp'), we
can also in future do without it, as we have got the sacraments, the
faith and the succession. I want to give the answer: we may not do it.
Away from the fact that the outside Catholicity would disappear, Christ
has given over the means of salvation for adminstration to HIS CHURCH, who must do it in the way He has ordered it!!! And Christ has instituted HIS CHURCH as an institution of salvation
and not only as a professing congregation, which has the sign that all
have the same (theoretical) opinions, without really forming a life
companionship (as for instance, like the Protestants). And this
institution has been formed as a single one and not as a multiplicity
of sects, if one renounces the re-establishment of the Church as a
hierarchical constructed organism, one looses the power to administer
legitimately His means of salvation, the sacraments, and to receive
them validly, because the intentions are those of a sect. But there are
more very decisive points. It has been said at the beginning that the
unity of the ecclesiastical community with the Pope as her head, is the
guarantor for the unity in faith. Without highest clerical profession,
which is binding in its dogmatic decisions, the unity in faith is in
danger. There will probably arise new problems in future, which have to
be solved from the view of the faith. Who gives us an authorized answer
(from the viewpoint of Christ)? We shall probably be obliged to give an
answer, which we shall give from our conviction and for which we can
stand for. But we must still realize that this answer is unauthorized.
Without true authority there is a danger to slide into an unwilling
protestantism, which most people overlook.
A problem, where everyone feels clearly the missing of the hierarchy,
is the so often mentioned division and the fallen out amongst the true
traditional persons and groups. Apart from the hidden organizations,
which work either for the approachment to 'Rome' (for instance Lefebvre
and his organization) or the destruction of the groups of resistance -
with those, there can not be a unity! - and the many personal
differences and complaints inside and amongst the different groups, the
missing unity has its cause in the hierarchy with an obligatory
discipline, but which is not yet built up.
Our main aim for the future must therefore be the reestablishment of
the ecclesiastical unity with an intact hierarchy, which got to be
attained under the pastoral leadership of the bishops and priests. Then
there will be decided who is going to belong to the true Church,
according to whatever one is prepared to cooperate towards this unity,
respectively to its building up, which may also happen in stages. It is
not sufficient anymore to be against the 'NOM', against the occupant
Wojtyla and his followers or to be against the Lefebvre-programme of
coupling. It will be of a primary importance that we should - apart
from the profession to holy Mass - put ourselves under the obligation
to stand positively to the true faith and to the reestablishment of the
ecclesiastical unity.
Where do we stand? At the cross road between sectarism and true church.
(From EINSICHT XII/6, p. 194 ss, XIII/1, p. 53 ss (german) and Spezial-number july 1983, p. 2 ss. engl.) |
