DECLARAT ION
OF MGR. M.L. GUÉRARD DES LAURIERS
transl. by Gladys Resch
I am grateful to the SAKA-editor for the kindness to publish the following explanation, which are actually side-notes to a colloquium, but they concern the heart of the Church.
Having mentioned this, I have to establish the fact that for several years already Mgr. Lefèbvre, despite my repeated protests, continues to bring me in connection either with R.P. Barbara as 'sedisvacantist' or with Palmar de Troya as 'schismatic'. This way Mgr. Lefèbvre incites the confusion, which gives him the appearance to be right, but he evades an honnest discussion. He pretends to act this way so not to disturb the consciences. But he just confuses them greatly in questions concerning the salvation and therefore it is impossible not to protest. For the time being I contend myself to evoque the standing out points of a study, which I shall publish presently.
The Church is the living on Jesus Christ. (Jesus Christ communiqué) This communication contains two organic united aspects, which are divinely revealed. The one part, the MISSIO: ("Go, teach, baptise, educate..." - Matth. XXVIII, 18-20) "To the end of times", this means for the militant Church: the catechesis, sacraments, the leading (of souls). The other part, is the SESSIO (office holding): "You, who have followed Me shall be judges over the twelve tribes of Israel." (Matth. IXX, 28) Here is, even in the militant Church, the hierarchy installed, which manifests and realises the Catholicity.
The distinction and unity between MISSIO an SESSIO are so much part of the Church, that they are also confirmed by the Canonical Right, in general as well as in particular.
Concerning the power of consecration, the holy hierarchy consists, by divine institution, of bishops, priests, deacons; concerning the jurisdiction, it consists of the highest pontificate and the subordinate episcopate... (canon 108,3). Therefore: the holy hierarchy, the one and only one, has two fundamental conceps (rationes): the power of consecration (ratio ordinis), deriving from the MISSIO, and the power of jurisdiction (ratio jurisdictionis), deriving from the SESSIO.
If one considers the hierarchy in each particular stage, for instance the parish duties of a parish priest, there is everything that is usually to be found in the hierarchy: the duality of the aspects and the unity between the aspects. This parish priest receives from Christ, through the bishop, who "installs" him priest of this parish: order (munus) and office (officium); can. 147, 150, 151.
By the officium which creates the relation, this parish priest is assigned in Christ to the flock, to which he is (in unity with Christ, the Pope, the bishop), by reason of the power of consecration (ratione ordinis), established as shepherd; by the office (officium), this parish priest takes part in the Church in the order of mission (MISSIO), which is an integrated part of the Church.
By the order (munus), belonging to this person, this parish priest is being integrated at the same time (simultaneously with a unity of disposition), through Christ, the Pope, the bishop, into the ecclesiastical hierarchy, (ratione jurisdictione); by the order the parish priest takes part in the SESSIO, which is the integrated part of the Church.
The office is founded and measured by the mandate (munus), as the relation by its foundation. But this same analogy (of the relation) shows that the munus and the officium are really different from each other, even to such an extent that they can occasionally be apart. If, for instance, the parish priest contracts a civil marriage, his officium becomes without declaration ipso facto vacant by tacit renounciation (can.188,5). This means, that, without any canonical procedure, the parishoners may not recognise this 'civil married' priest as their parish priest. He has for himself rendered void the office to which he was installed. But he still possesses "illegally" the munus (and also the officium; can.151) until a canonical process, in which the Church judges in the name of Christ, withdraws it from him. The munus is therefore very different from the officium, as it can - under some circumstances - be separated from the officium.
The SESSIO and the MISSIO, being different from each other, but organicly linked, were at first promised (Matth. XVI,18-19) and than assigned to Peter alone (John XXI,15-19). But everything concerning the MISSIO was also assigned to the Twelve (or Ten) other Apostles, at the same time as to Peter, and in strict parity with Peter: Eucharist (Marc. XIV, 22-24); power to absolve (Matth. XVII,18; John XX,22-23). And the solemn promise: "And behold, I am with you until the end of the world" (Matth. XXVIII,20) concerns mainly the MISSIO, entrusted to the Apostles equally.
The history proves that the first Pope did not enjoy exclusively the privilege of an indulgent steadfastness: "when thou hast come back to me, it is for thee to be the support of thy brethren".(Luc. 22,32) With certaintly the mandate for the mission is founded and measured in the SESSIO; but in the militant Church, where "everything should serve to the salvation of souls"(Pius XII,3rd June,1956), the sessio exists for the MISSIO; the SESSIO alone accomplishes the unity, which, inchoatively, but in the real sense belongs already to the MISSIO, in Catholicity. This is how it must be understood for the militant Church.
At the time being, the militant Church is "occupied" and still in a state of privation. W. (mgr. K. Wojtyla), lawfully elected, (I admit this until the contrary has been proved) by a conclave consisting of about ten authentic cardinals (who have not protested), therefore occupies the Chair of Peter; he therefore ist "pope materialiter" (according to exterior legal concitions.) To those, who declare the Chair of Peter vacant, I point out that the Church is a wisely established society; physical and moral persons, who are able to declare the vacancy, have the right ipso facto to establish the "provisio" ot the authority. May P.Barbara and Mme de Boismenu convoke "a" conclave; then they will not be taken seriously anymore. Among other violations of his duties, W. supports habitually the heresy. It is obvious that W. is constantly detrimental to the "common good", which actually should be fostered by such an authority in the human community, "the militant Church". THEREFORE, IN FORCE OF THE NATURAL RIGHT, W. is metaphysically and juristically NOT able to exercise the authority. He is and cannot "formaliter" be Pope (in the true inner meaning). One does not have to obey him, because his pseudo-orders ar NULL. The Canon 118 and even less the penalty laws, being ecclesiastical laws, apply to the Pope, as they get their executive power from him. (1) (But one cans say, referring to Canon 118, that W. is, by his attitude, "ipso facto, sine ulla declaratione", deprived of the "officium"; he is deprived of the officium, which normally belongs to the Bishop of Rome, in spite of being still "illegally" in possession of the munus.) The SESSIO is therefore shaken at the top; and the shock propagates from the base to the whole building. I have kept letters written by Mgr. Lefèbvre in 1976, in which he agreed to the same things in equivalent expressions.
The three positions with which we are confronted have all one thing in common: not wanting to take notice of the real distinction between matter and form in an accidental entirety, here the supreme pontificate; and they also ignore completely the analoguous character of the distinction materialiter, formaliter. Some even go as far as to pretend that there is never matter without form, mixing up the substantial entirety with the accidental entirety and the first matter with the second matter. This metaphysical ignorance leads the "Conciliars" to overlook the facts to such an extent, that they consider the mission mandate as completed; others think they have the rigth to make a Pope, and Mgr. Lefèbvre is trying to unite the irreconcilables.
These facts established, let us show these points of views schematically. The first option is the one of Mgr. Lefèbvre in 1983. It consists at least in the following: on the one side to affirm that the SESSIO is intact (W. is "Pope", fully, truly; "bad Pope", but "Pope"); on the other side in the recognition that the MISSIO, in its essential concerns, referring as such mainly to the pope, for instance the infallibility, is so seriously corrupted, that one cannot conform to it. (Mgr. Lefèbvre holds still to the Mass).
This attitude implies - we hope unconsciously - a blasphemy against the unity and the holiness of the Church. The Church is at the same time Missio and Sessio, in an organic unity. It is impossible that a basicly corrupted "Missio" proceeds normally from an authentic Sessio. This error takes another form in the praxis of the priories: absolute silence concerning the question of the Pope; anathema to the one; who would dare to raise this question in the chapel of a priory of St. Pius X. But the "verbal" fidelity to a mannequin Pope does not confer the Catholicity to an enterprise, which muzzles the people and shows by this that it is actually a real sect, which serves the father of the lie.
The other options have at least the merit to avoid the incoherency of the Lefèbvrism. They have both one view in common: to an authentic Sessio should correspond a good and even holy Missio. The Council-followers (Vatican II) are jubilant over W. and sing of a new Pentecost. They will soon end their song. The faithful, who are really attached to the Tradition, in which the instinct of the true holy faith rejects the new "Missio", similarly to the conscience contradicting evil ("murmurat malo"), these faithful reject the "W.-Sessio". There are numerous and subtile modalities. Everyone knows, at least in France, that one should not confuse the radical-Socialists with the social Radicalists. The strength lies therefore in the simplification.
As the militant Church, can only renew herself from the inside, the following question arises, due to the commotion of the Sessio: What is left from this SESSIO in the actual "official Church"? Our dear "faithful" bishops Mgr. Thuc, Mgr. Lefèbvre, Mgr. de Castro Mayer... have all (!) resigned; if one wanted ot, a few things could be mentioned regarding this. It is a fact, hard and inevitable. By resigning they have accepted as authority a Montini or W., who are both affected wiht a captl schism.
Did it happen out of weariness or because they were foiled? In any case they have lost all authority and they do not take more part of the SESSIO than I (Guérard des Lauriers) and others. Of course they may sound the tocsin of their so glorious episcopal resistance. They are confined to the porch of their cathedrals like the humbly role of the famous "Quasimodo". May God listen to them! "Epheta, open yourself up" (Marc 7,34)
May God begin to sound the melody of the so well prepared text of P. De Blignières in the ears of a residing bishop, who may be unfree, old-fashioned or retarded! P. de Blignières has sufficiently considered that such a bishop, in his moral behaviour, has done nothing, which his - if also only tacit - consent to the W. Sessio would have made become sinful. There ist still hope! And in spite of this feeble ray of hope it is in no way permitted, not even under the item of a simple eventuality, to establish a pseudo-hierarchy with bishops, who do not possess the ordinary jurisdiction, even if these bishops have a certain actual jurisdiction - permodum actus - based on the mission mandate, to administer every sacrament validly to each faithful.
(In this connection Mgr. Guérard des Lauriers mentions the apprehension that there might be some attempts to establish a pseudo-hierarchy. He rejects angrily that Mgr. Lefèbvre imputes to him to have something to do with it.)
He (Mgr. Lefèbvre) as well as the others have an obsession concerning the Sessio. He clings to the apronstrings of a heretic... if only he "sits"... and the other, to be able to refer to someone, who "sits", It is the same error, propagated in a dangerous way by a tempting thought of security. To all this NO! The Sessio (the office holding) cannot be reestablislied in the Church by persons, who are themselves deprived of it (i.e. the Sessio). this is the safe principle, which ought to be applied at any cost. God will interverne. Concerning this, one has to wait, "in silentio et spe"... (Isaias 30,15); "let us hope against all hope" (Rom.4,18).
The obsession of the SESSIO surprises also all those, who hubly put her hope in God, who alone can restore this Sessio, in a waiting attitude without relation to the Missio. The Missio is the direct instrument for the salvation of souls. The question concerning her is simple if one wants to put it clearly. Due to the disruption of the Sessio, the Missio cannot have the Catholicity which she should have (the dreadful tragedy of the Liturgy: one should be able to say at the TE IGITUR: "una cum W...", and it is impossible to say so). Meanwhile the Missio has a proper unity; "There ist only one Body and only one Spirit ... There is only one Lord, only one faith, only one Baptism" (Eph. IV 4,5) The Missio is one because each component is one [teach, baptise, educate (in Spirit)]: dominating the diversity belonging to place and time. It is true, that this unity proper to the Missio is, without the Sessio, dubious and incomplete: in that sense that it is sometimes difficult not to stray away if the security of the infallible Magisterium is missing. "Difficult" for human beings and actually unimportant, if God makes it possible and secures it even in Himself.
The dilemna, concerning the Missio, is therefore the following:
A. EITHER to continue the Missio (Catechesis, Sacraments, education); in spite of being inevitably in a aposition of loss concerning the Catholicity, looked at in reality and objectively: and to continue the Missio, bishops are needed; these bishops can only be consecrated without reference to the Authority, which - inreality - does not exist. The consecration of these bishops is valid; it is not illicit because the canons 953 etc., like all ecclesiastical laws, have only executive power through the reigning Pope. And at the time of W. there is no Pope and there is none reigning. These bishops (I at least) submit in advance to the judgement of the Pope, if God will give a Pope to the Church while they (I) are alive.
B. OR; admit that the Missio must, at least provisionally cease, because it is practically impossible for her to be what she should be. In this perspective one could at the most practice the catechesis, which would become gradually poorer by possible infiltration of errors.
I have decided for myself the alternative A. I have no authority to impose this choice to anyone. I respect deeply and very sincerely those, who choose B ... if there are any.
But I denounce before God and before the Church the abominable scandal which is caused by the attitude of indifference and inconsequence.
You, Mgr. Lefèbvre, have begun to continue the Missio. I have helped you as much as I could. But now you secure yourself and you intend to secure the poor faithful, whom you deceive, by clinging them with you to a doll, and just THIS hinders you to consecrate bishops, and this condemns you to give up the Missio, to betray - if you wanted or not - all those you have seduced. After you, nor more Missio, after you the deluge. You do YOUR work, not God's work.
And you, P. de Blignières and others, who refuse to recognise the consecrations of P. Guérard des Lauriers and others, apparently out of ecclesiastical purism, you must choose B. Close your chapel; then one will take your fears seriously. Carry on with the missio, where you are, as long as you endure it, refusing that others take care of things happening outside you, and this means in principle: doing your own work, rather than that of God.
signed M.L. Guérard des Lauriers.
***
Notes
(1) Neither Canon 118 and even less the decisions of the penal law refer as ecclesiastical laws to the Pope, as they receive their executive power from him.
Canon 1556 certifies that the purely ecclesiastical laws, (not the divine laws) do not concern the Pope: "Prima sedes a nemine judicatur"("The papal See, i.e. this Sessio, which is the principle of each Session in the militant Church cannont be judged by anyone). The Pope has to agree to the divine laws and cannot give in one jot. If he acts contrary to it, the possible occupant of the Chair of Peter can "formaliter" be no Pope.
The sentence "Prima sedes a nenime judicatur" has to be understood in this logical subdivision:
1) Major presmise: No one can be "subjected to himself", in that sense that he could be judged by himself "from the outside".
2) Minor premise: every purely ecclesiastical law gets its legal validity from the present reigning Pope.
3) Conclusion: Therefore, if the Pope would be subjected to those laws, he would judge himself. AND THIS IS IMPOSSIBLE.
Regarding the minor premise - every purely ecclesiastical law (be it "ferendae sententiae" or even "latae sententiae") gets its legal validity from the present reigning Pope - the following comment has to be brought up.
If the canonical right, concerning purely ecclesiastical laws, would be obligeing by itself, in absence of the Pope or without the will of a doubtful Pope, it would mean, that this canonical right does not find its actual legitimacy and legal force in the authority of the one, who promulgates and applies it, but in the Church. This way Peter becomes nothing but a simple servant, who has been mandated by the Church to apply the law. Such a conception is heretic, and has been explicitly and literally rejected by the Irst Vatican Council in the Constitution PASTOR AETERNUS (Chapt. 1, Denzinger-Schönmetzer 3054): "To this apparent teaching contained in Holy Scripture contradicts plainly the pernicious opinion of those, who pretend that the Primate of Peter has not been transferred immediately and directly to Peter but to the Church, and through her to him, as the servant of the Church."
The idol of a "Canonical Right from former times" has to be rejected. It is quite impossible to raise purely ecclesiastical regulations to divine laws and to condemn those, who are of another opinion. Let us remember the word of Pius XII: "The aim of the Canonical law is not to be found in itself. It is aiming at a higher end. Like every thing in the Church it serves to the salvation of souls and the apostolate. It serves to open and to even up the way to the hearts of men, the way that leads to the truth and the grace of Jesus Christ." (Pius XII. June 3rd, 1956 to professors and students at the university of Vienna).
If the letter of a canonical law, actually without legal validity, apparently forbids to continue the mission mandate (MISSIO), which is the vital element of the good, which was given to the militant Church by her Head, "the letter of the law does not oblige in conscience." (unde tales leges iniustae per contrarietatem at bonum humanum non bligant in foro conscientiae. S. thomas, summa theol. I-II q. 95 a 4) "To obey the letter of the law under such circumstances is bad; it is 'the bad thing'; the good action consists in neglecting the letter of the law and to follow what is requested for justice and the common service." ("In his ergo et similibus casibus malum est sequi legem positam; bonum autem est; praetermissis verbis legis, sequi it quod poscit justitiae ratio et communis utilitas." S. Thomas, Summa theol. II-II q l20 a, I: Is Epiky a vertu?
These principles show clearly that the consecrations of bishops by P. Guérard des Lauriers and others, which were administrated and received with the unmistakable intention to continue the Mission mandate (MISSIO and especially the oblatio pura, the pure Sacrifice) are not unlawful, even contradicting the letter of the law.
Referring to Canon 118 one can say, that W. - by his own attitude - has deprived himself of the officium (the office) "ipso facto, sine ulla declaratione". He is deprived of the officium to which normally the Bishop of Rome is entitled to, in spite of possessing the mandate (munus) in an illegitimate way.
Remark of the editor: We don't agree with all ideas of this author. As soon as possible we will try to give an answer on the question which are discussed in the article of Mgr. Guérard des Lauriers. |
