CATHOLIC RESISTANCE AGAINST MODERNISM AND
THE QUESTION OF EPISCOPAL POWER IN THE CHURCH
by
Alvaro Ramirez Arandigoyen
(extract from: FIDELIDAD A LA SANTA IGLESIA Nr.XVIII, Aug. 1983;
transl. by G. Resch)
Buenos Aires, 30th of April, 1983
His Excellency
Mgr. Moisés Carmona
Iglesia de la Divina Providencia
ACAPULCO / Gro. - MEXICO
Your Excellency,
(...) Following the above-mentioned, I am getting now to another subject, of a strict doctrinal character, which should for once be duly clarified.
Before I wrote to you, my interest, concerning this question, induced me to a correspondance with Mgr. Guerard des Lauriers and other important persons of the Catholic Resistance. The answers I received contained reflections, enlightening several of my questions, but I must still say, that they scarcely touch the essential complex of questions of the episcopal powers and their importance in the framework of the Church.
The matter is the following: the opinion of certain cercles of Resistance is that the administered consecrations by Mgr. Ngo-dinh-Thuc are schismatic, because they are not performed according to the valid ecclesiastical rules, e.g. the dispositions of the affirmed Canon Law by Benedict XV. It requires for the election of a bishop the appointment by the Roman Pontiff, and lays down the measure, if the rules are not being followed (We assume, that the new Canon Law, decreed by counter-Pope John Paul II, is not being considered here.)
To be able to give an answer to the question, there should - to my opinion - be three points to be clarified:
1. the nature of jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff;
2. the nature of the episcopal power in the Church;
3. the attitude, as it is required in the religious position in the world.
Each one of these three points will be explained in succession, as, in my opinion, the Catholic centres of Resistance should work on more considered and thorough studies, as it is of importance that these matters should be reflected in depth and be taken up seriously.
Notice, that in several oriental Churches, united with Rome, the nomination of the bishop is done by the Patriarch and not by the Roman Pontiff, or by one or the other. But, on the other hand, the election of the Bishop of Rome does not depend on the Bishop of Rome, i.e. that a Pope cannot nominate his follower while he is alive.
1. THE NATURE OF POWER OF JURISDICTION OF THE ROMAN POPE
In the Catholic Church we must distinguish two kinds of power or authority: potestas ordinis (power to consecrate) and potestas jurisdictionis (power of jurisdiction). The power of consecration entitles to the celebration of the Holy Mysteries, to administer the sacraments, which conforms to the priesthood,- and in an absolute fullness to the bishops.
The power of jurisdiction is the power to govern the Church (to define judgment), whilst the Bishop of Rome is entitled to the universal right of judgement, the local right of judgement belongs to the bishops - in union with the Roman Pontiff.
The power of consecration follows unchangeable divine laws. But the power of jurisdiction follows human laws; in conscience they oblige under sin, but they are changeable, according to the decisions of the Church.
The Council of Trent teaches that the power of consecration is given by the sacrament of- consecration by means of a specific rythe, and the power of jurisdiction by authorisation of the Roman Pontiff. According to the Roman Pontifical, the candidate, questioned by the bishop, has to answer the consecrating bishop if the required Apostolic mandate is at hand.
In view of these considerations we must realise that the primacy of the Pope - the Bishop of Rome - who possesses the universal power of jurisdiction as well as the infallibility, is a privilege, which, by tradition, is being recognised and defined for the Bishop of Rome as follower of St. Peter and the Vicar of Christ. But in the strict sacramental sense of the Church, as administrator of the Holy Mysteries, the Bishop of Rome possesses no greater power of office than the other bishops, as followers of the Apostles.
Concerning the procedures of the election, they have changed during the course of time, as the (purely) ecclesiastical human and changeable laws were altered too. The finally codified form of the election by St. Pius X was the result of a long development, of which, at the beginning, it was up to the people and the clergy (of Rome) to elect their bishop. We must also remember the role that worldly authorities played on such occasions. That is how, for instance, it was due to the right of veto of the emperor of the Holy Roman Empire, which was used for the last time in 1903, that the emperor Franz Joseph - using this right - prevented the freemason Rampolla, already elected by the bishops, to take the Chair of St. Peter.
It is therefore clear that the Bishop of Rome is entitled to the universal jurisdiction for the election of all bishops of the local jurisdiction. But this election is in no way essential for the episcopal power of consecration in the sacramental sense. Meanwhile the bishop, who consecrates new bishops without required apostolic mandate, commits an illegal act of consecration, illegal consecrations and an extremely grave sin, which, by canonical right, is punished with excommunication. But this illegality does not affect in any way the internal value and the sacramental validity, as the bishop has the distinguishing feature of a sacramental authority of power, a mysterious, all valid and absolute power, which is neither less than the one belonging to the Bishop of Rome, it does not proceed from him, nor can it be essentially been brought about through him.
2. THE NATURE OF THE EPISCOPAL POWER IN THE CHURCH
It has now become clear that the episcopal consecration in the Church contains the absolute fullness and absolute perfection of the power of consecration. It follows therefore that the conflicts, concerning the carried out episcopal consecrations by Mgr. Ngo-dinh-Thuc can refer only to the question of legality. According to the same teaching, no one can be mistaken that the sacraments, administered by Mgr. Ngo-dinh-Thuc are valid, that means, that the newly consecrated bishops have received, through the appropriate rythe the fullness of the priesterhood, which have elevated them to the rang of followers of the Apostles. It is perforce so, as the power of consecration as such does not depend on the power of jurisdiction. What is of interest here is only the fact to find out if the carried out consecrations of Mgr. Thuc are illegal, (and in this case they are schismatic, because there were no canonical mandates) or if they are still legal considering the present situation in the Church. We have to proceed from the basic assumption that the Chair of St. Peter is jurisdically vacant, in fact occupied by a number of anti-'Popes', who support the heresy of the Second Vatican Council. It is understandible that those, who do not accept this basic assumption, consider the consecrations of Mgr. Thuc as schismatic, because, in their opinion, there existe a Pope, whose universal jurisdiction has not been respected.
The clarification of this conflict is of the greatest importance concerning those, who consider the Chair of St. Peter to be vacant, but still think that the consecrations of Mgr. Thuc are schismatic, because there was no mandate of a Pope. They think that nothing can be done concerning the consecrations of bishops as long as there is no Pope.
It is important to have a solution concerning the dispute, because we all know that the Holy See is not only vacant just now - because of the death of a Pope or another accidental circumstance - but because we stand in a very specific situation, in which the vacancy arises out of the heresy and there is no sensible reason to suppose, that the historical facts would soon and easily solve themselves.
Except for the fact of the concrete consecrations by Mgr. Ngo-dinh-Thuc and by the disturbances which they brought about, it is absolutely essential to ascertain the following doctrinairy question: Is it permissible in a situation like ours that a Catholic bishop consecrates by circumvention of the canonical regulations?
I think that in a way the catechism gives us already the answer. We all know that in a situation of difficult and urgent need a sacrament can be administered without consideration of the normal circumstances of laid down rules. The spirit and the grace give right to exist to the law and not the other way round. This is a profound evangelic principle and constitutes one of the most important criterious between Christianity and Judaism. I only mention some of the more important facts, which belong to the elementary teaching:
- In a case of serious danger of death baptism can be administered by every man, or if not available, by a woman, as long as the substantial ritual form is being used. (Pouring out water on the head of the person to be baptised, pronouncing at the same time the words: "I baptise you in the name of the Father, and the Son and the Holy Ghost.") And this is fully valid and in no way illegal.
- Also any priest can and must - in danger of death - absolve from sin and administer Extreme Unction, even if he does not possess the canonical right for the normal case, even if he is transferred back to laity or has been excommunicated by the Church; because his priesterly power is eternal and inviolable and does not depend on the humanecclesiastical laws, which govern the Church. In this sense the administration of these sacraments are not forbidden but rather commanded.
- A similar criterion is valid for marriage in those cases, in which it is not possible for an outstanding long time to visit a priest. Under this condition, and considering the fact, that in this sacrament the administers are identical with those who are to be married, the will of marriage can be accepted as legal, because union in marriage and the procreation in the world are of divine order, and cannot be abolished by the unenforceability of ecclesiastical laws of human nature. Here too it is the clear case of not being illicit.
IF THE SHEEP FALLS INTO THE WELL ON A SUNDAY, YOU MUST RESCUE IT. BECAUSE THE HUMAN BEING DOES NOT EXIST FOR THE LAW, BUT THE LAW FOR THE HUMAN BEING!
The same applies to the sacrament of consecration. All traditionalists accept without hesitation that Mgr. Lefèbvre took the opportunity and decided to ordain priests without having the papal licence to act this way; because, facing the modernistic crisis and the complete failure of the hierarchy, there arose the necessity which demands the continuation of the Catholic priesthood.
Why shouldn't the same arguments apply at the same time - and even with greater impetuosity - where the episcopate is concerned? Here the necessity is extremly more grave and not to be ignored, as it is the survival of the Church herself which is involved. If the transmission of the episcopal dignity comes to an end, i.e. the apostolichierarchical system ends, the life of the Church on earth finishes.
The argumentation: wait and pray, God will 'save' His Church as by a miracle, seems to us, and this must be clearly stated, pharisaical, messianic and judaistic. Apart from this, it is a strange way of the tradition, as according to the Catholic faith, the tradition assures the continuation of the Church. The true miracle of this time lies in the sacrament, that imparts the divine grace. This is the case at the fullness of the priesthood and the apostolic succession.
What matters in the first place, is to get the clear knowledge about the true nature of the episcopal power in the Church. Our Lord Jesus Christ established His monarchic constituted Church with Peter as the Head. But the power of St. Peter consists in governing the universal Church (potestas iurisdictionis) and in the papal infallibility. One may in no way confuse the fullness of power of St. Peter with a kind of sacred power of a higher nature as the one of the bishops, who perpetuate the apostolic tradition, which means the Church herself. The Pope is therefore, in the strict sacramental sense another bishop, just the Bishop of Rome, endowed in his office of bishop with the privilege of the universal jurisdiction and the doctrinarian infallibility, if ex cathedra he makes decisions concerning matters of faith and morals. This is how things have to be looked at.
The denial or depreciation of these truths derives from the extentions of the popery in the last ecclesiastical centuries, which go back to the heretic doctrines of the Jew Lainez (superior of the Jesuits) at the Council of Trent, where the Pope is supposed to be everything in the Church and represents inclusively the Church. Though the Council of Trent did not accept these errors, they have still developed gradually in the course of the last centuries and become the source of the feebleminded mentality of some 'traditionalists ', who sift the mosquito and let pass the camel.
What then are the bishops in the Church? The answer is given again by the catechism. But many do not see clear. The bishops are the successors of the Apostles. Their existence is determined by the apostolic nature of the Church, and they are part of her existence. It is of this apostolic nature, transmitted through the episcopal consecration, that depends the survival of the Church, of a Church, who is in her profoundest sense a sacrament. This means, that the Church is the true divine presence in the world, the presence of the divine grace, which she bestows through the sacraments.
These subjects must be thoroughly studied and appropriately considered by the Catholic resistance, where it is of importance to fight against the modernistic heresy, and also because of the possible intention of attacking it in its whole dimensions. To this also belongs the false papolatristic traditionalism.
3. THE ATTITUDE TO BE TAKEN IN THE ACTUAL RELIGIOUS POSITION IN THE WORLD
Admitted the fact that the present situation of the Church is, as we have introductory explained it in our quoted manifestation, with a vacant Holy See, occupied with a number of anti-'Popes' and an universal episcopate in heretic unity with the Second Vatican Council - what actually means that these bishop thrones are also vacant -, we believe that then, in a few years, the Roman, hierarchical and visible Church will have disappeared on earth, swalloped up by the heresy.
This danger can and must be avoided by a full exertion of the potestas ordinis by the Catholic bishops, who are in the world as long as they live in it. If this is what obviously and in principle Mgr. Ngo-dinh-Thuc is supposed to have done, there should never be an argument concerning this fact under the point of view of the Catholic faith.
We do not know if Mgr. Ngo-dinh-Thuc is such a 'saint' as Mgr. Lefèbvre. We also ignore if the movement, caused by the consecrations administred by him, will branch off in new extravagant ways or in sectarian hallucinations, as happened in Palmar. I for myself hope and trust that it will not happen and base my trust on the development, as You, Excellency (Carmona), show forth by your personal engagement.
In any way it cannot be doubtful for anyone that a Catholic bishop has to make use of his power of office in the present situation. Growth and decadence of the ecclesiastical life in the world are both related to the light and the darkness of the apostolic light.
One is very much mistaken, if one wants to narrow the subject on holiness in the sense of a subjective, ethic attitude in the sense of 'devotio moderna'. What is of interest above this, is the objective holiness of the Church, which communicates itself only in a sacramental way by means of the fully exercised episcopal powers.
A curve of the Church's decadence of the latest centuries proves that it always occurs when the bishops cease to execise their power of authority. The holy episcopal powers, received from the Apostles and carried on through tradition, are of divine right. And here we ask the question which forces itself to be solved, regarding the Roman and Apostolic Church in our historical hour of the present crisis and worldwide apostasy: there is no doubt, that the Roman Pontiff, bishop of Rome, is competent - through holy tradition - to appoint the bishops sees according to his own right of universal jurisdiction. This is undisputable and must not be violated.
But: Do the bishops, as successors of the Apostles, loose their episcopal power to resume the continuation of the Church in the case of a longer vacancy of the Holy See? Do they loose the potestas generandi (the power of spiritual creation, of spiritual testimony; note of the editor) to found new local parishes, a power, possessed by the Apostles, which they applied in fullness in the old Church. Was this an outstanding power, belonging to the Apostles and only to them, and only under the reservation of the primate of St. Peter, and which later on died out? (In this case the bishops would be a kind of reduced successors of the Apostles. Would then the Jew Lainez not be right?)
The potestas ordinis as well as the potestas generandi are of divine right. And in a normal government of the Church, as we knew it up to Pius XII, all this is orderly settled, harmonised and controlled by the Canon Law, even if without doubt, the bishops of those times, as heirs of the modern revolution and as a modern people, had lost nearly totally the deep realisation of the apostolic nature of their status. This also explains the sad role, played by the so-called 'traditional' bishops at the Second Vatican Council: Obsessed by papism, they took refuge under the leadership of the anti-'Pope' Montini, who promised them deceitfully to save the true doctrine at the right moment. The result was, that the bishops - successors of the Apostles - did not exercise their power and threw the Church into the darkness of the modern heresy.
It is an elementary truth, which cannot be proclaimed loud enough, that the holy, catholic, visible and hierarchical Church is not founded solely on Peter, but Peter and the Apostles, united in the community of faith in Jesus Christ. According to the divine right it is therefore a duty in conscience for a bishop, who has still remained faithful in the world, under the threat of loosing his salvation, to exercise his apostolic powers without restrainment, fully und wholly, so to contine the Church of Christ.
The bishop, who acts this way, as well as the new bishops, consecrated by him, would certainly not be authorised to elect the Bishop of Rome, because this right belongs to the local church in Rome, which ist, today illegally usurped by a heresy. They also are not authorised to occupy the usurped bishoprics held by the heretics of the whole world, but in agreement with tradition, they may found new churches and provide them with the necessary powers of office.*)
Further they can, in agreement with the clear catholic and orthodox tradition, meet for synods or local councils to condemn heresies and to govern the Church the way the Apostles used to do - until such time that the See of Peter has been reconquered for the true Church. Nothing is in the way to elect also a patriarch.
What these bishops should not do, under any circumstances, is to elect a new Pope, also not to found any kind of sect and also not to adopt an universal jurisdiction by founding a modern religious order, which would not be in accordance with the apostolic intention, (as Lefèbvre does).
What they should do, is just this: to act the way the Apostles did - and nothing else.
Your Excellency (Carmona) , with these short comments I allow myself to give you an idea to ponder about - to the well-being of the faith and the holy Church. The tradition of the Church is very rich in institutions, laws and customs, which can be restored to life nowadays with full legitimacy in this age of the catacombe, to which we are condemned. It is important to respect right into the last consequences the unchangeable divine right, and also to understand to adjust and to actualise appropriately the ecclesiastical-human right, so that it may be put into the service of the faith.
Nowadays - as ever - we are more convinced that the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church. Even if she is reduced to a minimum of her visibility, her presence in the world will still remain until the end of time.
If we do not doubt this and follow humbly the principles of tradition, free from sectarianism, messianism, and a mania of miracles, the grace of the Holiest will inflame in us the Living Spirit through His Son Jesus Christ, and the Church will never come to an end.
May the Holy Mather of God, Mary - Queen of Heaven and also our Sovereign - pray for us that our faith may not falter.
I ask for your prayer
In Jesus and Mary
(sig.:) Alvaro Ramirez Arandigoyen
Adress:
Editionis Fidelidad, Casilla de Correo 4224 C Central,
1000 - Buenos Aires, Argentine.
*) Note of the editor:
Here it has been tried for the first time to define the duties, powers and rights of the bishops, consecrated by Mgr. Ngo-dinh-Thuc. This subject will also occupy us in future. It will be brought forword in controversy, to be able to pick out the sound arguments. In the meantime Mgr. M.L. Guérard des Lauriers has published an explanation, which refers also to this subject and its first part has been published already in the SAKA-INFORMATIONS of January 1984, the second part has now followed in the February-issue. We shall also try to find authors, who can give us an information about the election of a Pope as such, about its possible realisation under today's circumstances. Then the suggestions made by Mr. Ramirez would have to be reconsidered. |
