Some Remarks concerning the Consecrations
by Mgr. Ngô-dinh-Thuc and Mgr. Carmona
by
Eberhard Heller
(transl. by Gladys Resch)
Several enquiries and objections concerning the consecrations administered last year by H.E. Mgr. Pierre Martin Ngô-dinh-Thuc and lately by H.E. Mgr. Moíses Carmona have prompted me to make some basic remarks concerning this and its early history. I have to go back into the past.
To be able to understand and value rightly what has happened last year in Toulon, this year in Mexico and the United States, and what moves the mind of many, it is important to draw up the pic-ture of the ecclesiastical and religious situation as it presented itself then, i.e. at the end of the 60th, beginning of the 70th:
1. a heretical (or apostate) 'Pope' at the Cathedra Petri;
2. the majority of the clerics also in apostasy or heresy;
3. a new, compulsory, invalid rite of the Mass;
4. invalid, or at least doubtful rites for the sacraments;
5. invalid, respectively doubtful rites of ordinations;
6. continual destruction of the dogmatically established doctrine of faith;
7. continual destruction or undermining of the catholic moral principles.
If, with the help of God, nothing would happen to her salvation, the revolution from above threatened to wipe out the Church of Christ:
a) without true faith there would be no mediation of salvation;
b) without sacraments no direct life, actual way to God;
c) without holy Sacrifice of the Mass no redemption and reconciliation, no direct real loving Union with God;
d) without hierarchy the Church would not anymore be an institution of the sacramental media-tion of salvation;
e) without valid sacraments of consecrations the apostolic succession would come to an end.
What would, under these conditions, be left over from the Church founded and entrusted by Christ, would be a 'Church' which would neither be one, holy, catholic nor apostolic. The result of it would be a most wicked sect.
As it was quite clear that this revolution came from above, that means from Paul VI, that therefore he expressively wanted the heretic changes in dogma and in the rites, the question arose at the same time whether he was a legitimate Pope. Two of the first people, who drew attention to this problem and who dealt with it objectively, were Rev. Father Dr. Joaquin Saenz y Arriaga / Mexico, and Mr. Hugo Maria Kellner Ph.D./ U.S.A. In the periodical EINSICHT this question has – alongside with the detailed in-quiry of the so-called N.O.M. by Mr. Franz Bader – been treated repeatedly by dif-ferent authors since the first publication in April 1971 (!).
While doing so the further thoughts were:
1. How can the Church be saved as an institution?
2. How can the holy Sacrifice of the Mass be preserved, as well as the other sacraments?
3. How can the proclamation of the true doctrine be guaranteed?
4. How can the apostolic succession be secured?
All these questions mentioned here were not only dealt with theoretically, but with very limited pos-sibilities we started to work effectively on their solution – and of course, we did so secretly. How should the Church have reacted in such a situation where such a crisis had been called for by the apostasy of her leader? Usually a Pope, who has become apostate, is called as removed from office by a Conventus, as happened frequently in the history of the Church. Because a heretical 'Pope' is like a contradiction in itself. He has ipso facto lost his office, and by this dismissed himself. ("Papa haereticus est depositus", words of St. Robert Bellarmin, the same Suarez.) As the Church is not only an immediate spontaneous religious communion, of which one excludes oneself when one does not live in the same faith, but a visible, juristic organized institution, a 'Papa' haereticus got to be proclaimed publicly deposed through the Church. ("Papa haereticus ... est deponendus", words of St. Kajetan and also John de St. Thomas.)
The statement by the Church that a Pope had become an heretic was usually put forward by the Con-ventus (called for by the emperor as Protector Ecclesiae) – as a rule it was the college of remaining orthodox cardinals. It pronounced him, as having himself dismissed and then proceeded to the elec-tion of a new Pope. The first duty of this Pope consisted in condemning the new heresies and the heretics.
It is the real mystery of evil in our time, that this chaotic condition, in which we are living, spiri-tually, has not come to an end, that most office-holder have become apostate, that such a Conventus was not formed, which would have had to fall into action. We are living since 1963, when Montini (Paul VI) occupied the Chair of Peter – the same as his followers – in a time without a Pope. The See is vacant. (One can still be of different opinion whether Montini was already an heretic on as-suming office, before it or after; this condition will not be affected by a possible change of the date of the vacation of the Papal See.)
In spite of the publication "Liber accusationis" by Abbe de Nantes against Paul VI and recently the "Declaratio" by H.E. Mgr. Ngô-dinh-Thuc, which proves this fact by documents, no efforts are made by the orthodox clergy to make an end to this state of affairs. Most of the traditionally disposed clergy and faithful deceive themselves by lying, not wanting to face the true dimension of the spiri-tual-religious catastrophe, in which we all live, and they let it all go on! The main blame of this mess falls on the european, traditional, respectively orthodox clergy, which has – apart from a few excep-tions – failed completely!!! This must be kept in mind. Everyone works for his own pocket, thinks of his pension; everywhere selfishness of the worst kind. One is too coward, too lazy, too much of a hypocrite, conceited, without generosity, without confidence in God, weak and vainglorious: no action without hundredfold security. When there is something that rises in me true bitterness, it is the thought of this tremendously disgraceful, tremendously sad, tremendously undignified, even infa-mous attitude of the so-called orthodox european clergy. I sometimes loose my self-control, when I got to listen how pious, how courageous such and such a priest is. The betrayal of the 'of-ficial Church' meets you again in a more sublime way on a higher level: the betrayal through laziness, through refusal, through doing nothing. And that is how the faith-ful loose the last bit of confidence.
In view of this nearly total failure of the clergy, especially the younger ones, who – knowing the situation very clearly – have consciously possibly wrecked the few good enterprises (because their personal interests were involved), so, consi-dering this failure, it was up to now not possible with the very few remaining willing helpers to foster this important task, namely to convey a Conventus.
Parallel to these efforts the endeavours went on since the beginning of the 70th to save the apostolic succession, without which the Church would be lost. First of all we approached Mgr. Lefebvre with our intention: asking him to consecrate a bishop in view of the urgency of the situation. (N.B. at that time we did not know of the problem concerning his own consecrations.) He reacted in a cynical way. Afterwards he was also asked about it by different people. In spite of his refusal to consecrate a bishop, Mgr. Lefebvre tried at a later date several times to use a pretended future consecration of a bishop as means to bring about pressure to 'Rome', to hasten his incorporation into the apostatic club. (N.B. I cannot imagine that a person, who is more or less theologically instructed (knowledge of the big catechism being sufficient), who is mainly religiously minded, should not be able to per-ceive that the position of Mgr. Lefebvre is untenable, because it is contradictory in itself. The Lefe-bvreists are either stupid or morally deficient, respectively really malicious. Shame on all those, who have knowingly cooperated with his game or still do!)
It would have been easy to assure the apostolic succession by bishops of the Old Roman Catholic Church, of which quite a number have offered their support. But these have (the validity of their own consecration taken for granted, which is not assured!) by their schismatic state no true autho-rization of exercise of office. Their sacraments may only be received in extremis, that is in danger of death.
When all this was discussed at length with H.E. Pierre Martin Ngô-dinh-Thuc, he agreed straight away, after the first interview, to consecrate bishops, as he also realized the threatening danger for the Church. That is how it came to the consecration of H.E. Mgr. Guérard des Lauriers, to the consecration to bishops of H.E. Mgr. Carmona and Mgr. Zamora. And to assure the succession H.E. Mgr. Carmona, assisted by H.E. Mgr. Zamora, consecrated this year the mexican and ame-rican priests, who had proved to be faithful to the resistance.
The first consecrations had to be administered and kept secret for the time being, for the same reason as Pius XII had episcopal consecrations administered in Russia secretly. One had to be careful as Mgr. Thuc was constantly watched. For all involved there was (and still is) a danger, and one was aware of it. In spite of it the secrecy was not kept out of fear – nobody was frightened! -, but to be at all able to administer the consecrations. Would it have been done publicly, the other side would have done everything to prevent the consecrations to take place. There were witnesses at the consecra-tions. And apart from this they are documented in detail, also with photographs. But after the conse-crations had been spitefully betrayed by Father Barbara/France, who wanted himself to be conse-crated a bishop, (and who did the same as Montini with the consecrated bishops in Russia), the fol-lowing consecrations were administered publicly.
Open or hidden concerns arise against them and against the personality of H.E. Mgr. Ngô-dinh-Thuc:
1. As Mgr. Thuc has consecrated the bishops of Palmar, he has disqualified him-self as consecrator – so one objection.
Answer: The, at the time consecrating bishop is bound to examine the candidates according to human knowledge. Mgr. Thuc has done this. He has consecrated the Palmarians, because he could have been of the opinion to render an important service to the Church. Afterwards, one always knows better. I have never met anyone, who afterwards would have blamed H.E. Card. Faulhaber for having consecrated Döpfner bishop, one of the great influencing moderators of the 2nd Vatican Council. Human knowledge does not exclude errors, as it was realized in Palmar and with Döpfner. And who has consecrated all the other apostate bishops? Should therefore Pius XII be blamed?
2. Mgr. Thuc has been chef of Palmar.
Answer: That he never was. Immediately after the consecrations they have separated themselves from him. They still owe him money, which he has advanced them, for trips!
3. The Consecrations were administered without papal authorization, against CIC, can. 953 to 955.
Answer: That is right, if one takes the juristic regulations purely formal. There has been a French group of a traditional character, which attacked Mgr. Thuc vehemently after it had become known, because of the unauthorized fact. (In the meantime, after having given it another thought, the re-proaches of this group changed into an earnest request for a legitimate Pope!) One must have, in this hopeless situation, some clear view on several fundamental points: a) We have no Pope, who could have given the authority to consecrate. If we had one, he would certainly not have been passed over, that is, one had never interfered in his rights of office, b) The consecrations were not intended to be to offend the canon law purposely, but to retain the apostolic succession. If a doctor is supposed to help a patient, it is often necessary to disregard the usual modesty, c) The highest law is the salvation of the souls. (Suprema lex salus animarum.) Without bishops, no priests (ordination); without priests, no sacraments. The divine law has, according to Mgr. Thuc, priority to the plain ecclesias-tical law, when this one goes against the first one, or is misusing it. And Mgr. Thuc says also that the apostle Paul has also consecrated bishops for the Church without the pre-knowledge of St. Peter. And it is on these considerations that H.E. Mgr. Pierre Martin Ngô-dinh-Thuc has acted! – If it is in God's plans of salvation, the true apostolic succession for the Roman Catholic Church has thus been saved. (To prevent a new schismatic break, the Mexican bishops demand of their new candidates the recognition of H.E. Mgr. Thuc as provisional superior.)
But there is still another problem to be considered, which is still not solved and had to be left un-solved, in spite of all that has been achieved so far, and which has possibly kept many faithful justly in a kind of reserve: which position and what rights have now Mgr. Thuc and the new consecrated bishops in the Church? This very important and serious question will be treated shortly by the former professor of theology at the Lateran-University, H.E. Mgr. Guérard des Lauriers, who has worked in a highly meritorious way for the resistance. We shall then publicize his contribution. – In case Mgr. should be prevented by some kind of reason to work out this contribution, we ourselves shall in any case take up this problem.
(from EINSICHT XII/3, pag. 101, 1982; reprinted: XIII/1, pag. 28, may 1983.)
|
