"STORM CLOUDS OVER THE WHOLE WORLD"
by
Eberhard Heller
(transl. by Gladys Resch)
These are seen by Mr. Walter L. Matt, U.S.A., the editor of the periodical THE REMNANT, in the consecration of bishops, administrated by Archbishop Ngo-dinh-Thuc and Mgr. Carmona, and he describes them to his readers in his periodical No.13 on 31st/7/1982. It is quite clear: one warns against "storm clouds over the whole world" (as Mr. Matt entitles his article, translated kindly for us by Mrs. Gladys Resch). We too would also do this. Our "storm clouds" are: arrogance, pride, maliciousness, cunningness, stupidity, laziness, cowardice, aspiration for power, hatred against God. They have practically overcast the whole world with raging darkness.
To make it clear beforehand: Mr. Matt's argument, based upon a letter of his like-minded Michael Davies of Great-Britain, is concerned at another level than the one of Mgr. Lefebvre, who actually always changes the levels. He has at least known once, that the so-called reforms are "a total overthrow of the traditional teaching of the Church, effected since the Council and by the Council." Up to now Mr. Matt does not know this. In his opinion everything on the whole still stands as it used to be, except for a few regrettable changes that he criticises. He writes: "As for the REMNANT I must again emphazise the fact that, although we have often been, and still are, severely critical of our bishops and somtimes even the Pope, for what appears to us as dangerous tendencies and faults in the day-to-day discharge of their high office, we nevertheless part company with those sedevacantists." In his view Wojtyla remains in fact "our holy Father, regardless of whether he, in our private judgement, is either good or bad." (N. B. It is exactly this private judgement that is not and never has been our problem a bad Pope is a scandal for the Church, which the faithful got to bear and tolerate in humility and patience. We are concerned about the clearing up the situation, whether the person Wojtyla, who occupies the Cathedra Petri, is at all a Pope, and if not, how he should be deposed.)
Going out from this basic point of view, namely that the structure of the Church is intact, one can understand Mr. Matt's warnings concerning the "storm clouds", supported by the following reflexions:
1. The bishops Guerard des Lauriers, Carmona, Zamora, Mgr. Musey as well - the others were still unknown to Mr. Matt - are being put on the same level as the Palmar bishops, for having been consecrated by the same consecrator, Archbishop Ngo-dinh-Thuc, who is supposed to have repented his consecrations in Palmar and has become reconciled with Rome.
2. By the consecrations, administered without papal mandat, the persons concerned have become schismatic. Mr. Matt: "Of course, such prelates and priests may be saying a valid Mass, but the teaching of the Church is that, anyone guilty of an external act of schism (...), is ipso facto excommunicated".
3. With the statement ("Declaratio"), ascertaining the vacancy of the Chair of Peter, "the Archbishop (Ngo-dinh-Thuc) has, in effect, deposed the Pope and established a church or sect of his own divisings".
4. "Nor is it all certain that the 'rash' of newly "consecrated bishops are validly consecrated, in as much as the Church has long required that three bishops act in unison to consecrate a new bishop." "God alone knows whether the aged Archbishop Thuc for all his good intentions, has actually succeeded in elevating any of these priests to the episcopacy."
5. Mgr. Lefebvre has never made himself guilty of excommunication. He also has "to my (that is Mr. Matt's) knowledge, never consecrated or sought to consecrate any of his priests as bishops."
All the other expositions of the extensive contribution are concerned with personal matters, which I do not have to enter into.
As a "sedevacantist" I shall try to enter reasonably into the above points:
To reproach 1: The indication should be sufficient that Mgr. Guerard des Lauriers, Mgr. Carmona, Mgr. Zamora and the other bishops have for Years been officially resisting the so-called 'reforms', have proved themselves and have publicly given their opinion in detail concerning the respective problems. I believe that there is no bishop, whon watches more eagerly as Mgr. Guerard des Lauriers, that on our side there should be no going beyond the boundaries of our competence. There is a second indication for our attentive readers: At the time, when the consecrations of Palmar de Troya had become officially known, there began a campaign, - for which at the beginning there was no immediate reason - supported by the Vatican and Econe, to ridicule the Palmarians. Of course, every reporter was keen to profit of this flourishing and insane madness. There is no campaign following the present consecrations, except the spiteful one of Pere Barbara, who does not even shrink from making fun of the limited material means of Mgr. Ngo-dinh-Thuc. The 'Vatican' would rather like to conceal them, because the consecrated bishops are not of the same sort as the Palmarians, and because the whole affair would indirectly not give a favorable light on the 'reformed' scenery. At least 'Rome' shows by this changed tactic that she does not put the new consecrations on the same level as those of the Palmarians.
To reproach 2: If - as Mr. Matt presumes - at the reforms of the second Vatican Council it would have only meant that they were bad, unsuitable reforms, and that Paul VI and his followers only bad Popes, then the consecrations should in fact not have taken place. (Compare CIC, can.953.) All persons involved would then have had to be rightly suspended of their office (compare CIC, can.2370). But in such case neither Mgr. Guerard des Lauriers and the other bishops would have presented themselves as candidates, nor would Archbishop Ngo-dinh-Thuc have offered to be the consecrator. But, as it is proved that the reforms consist of changes, which violate the Catholic dogma, and that Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II are heretics, who have held or still holds illegitimately the Chair of Peter, the reproach of the schism makes no sense. The problem still connected with the consecrations and which still got to be looked into, lies somewhere else. To repeat it once more: what matters is to secure the apostolic succession.
To reproach 3: I suppose that Mr. Matt will be prepared to withdraw this unfounded remark after reading the following passage with quiet consideration.
The "Declaratio" by Mgr. Ngo-dinh-Thuc concerning the vacation of the papal see and the apostasy of the main part of the clergy, the invalidity of the so-called 'N.O.M.' and the other offences of the faith and the sacrements, the offences of duty, has for the faith obligeing character. Mgr. Ngo-dinh-Thuc has composed the "Declaratio" as bishop of the true real Church. But the legal obligatory deposition of Wojtyla from the Cathedra Petri has to be effected by a Conventus, which ascertains that the occupant of the Chair of Peter has renounced the Catholic faith, respectively that he is a heretic. This Conventus would then have the duty to elect a new Pope. Now let us consider with Mr. Matt, that the "Declaratio" by Archbishop Ngo-dinh-Thuc would make the ascertainment of the Conventus concerning the vacancy of the Holy See superfluous, and John Paul II considered as removed from office, what would then result of it for the second part of Mr. Matt's statement? Would by this a new Church or sect be founded? If he would once ask himself whether all the congregations (convente), which, in the Middle Ages had to proclaim not only a few Popes (or 'Popes') as removed from office, and if at each time a new church or sect would had been founded, he would soon realise that he himself would have become only a member of one of these new churches, because the one, in the view of Mr. Matt, the Church of Christ, would then have died out long ago.
To reproach 4: The requirement, that three consecrators have to assist at a consecration of a bishop, is - as far as I know - an instruction dated from the 3rd or 4th century and it is of disciplinary nature. It is not affecting the validity of the consecration as such - because three consecrators cannot consecrate more validly than one! - but it is meant for safety of the intention of the administering bishops, the consecrators. And there is no doubt that Mgr. Ngo-dinh-Thuc wanted ta administer the consecration of bishops with the right intention, that means to do, what the Church, the true Church, does at a consecration of a bishop. It is absolutely insane to imagine, that in such a situation, where all depends of the existence or non-existence of the apostolic succession, the right intention of the administrator should be wanting!
To reproach 5: Here Mr. Matt has not really expressed a reproach, he only tried to excuse his like-minded Mgr. Lefebvre, while - for once - being on the same level! And I shall carry on argueing on the same level as Mr. Matt, to explain how his affirmations prove themselves to be entenable even from this point of view.
By the transgression of the consecration-rules, according to CIC, can.953, Mgr. Ngo-dinh-Thuc would have, under normal circumstances 'only' got himself suspended, can. 2370, as well as Mgr. Lefebvre, who, by disregarding the consecration interdicition of Paul VI, according to can.2372-2374 (all these cases would apply to Lefebvre's practice) would have, under normal conditions, got himself suspended "a divinis" (compare can. 2279 § 2, n. 2) by which - still considering Mr. Matt's level of argument - every exercise of his consecration power would have been forbidden. Mr. Matt should know that Mgr. Lefebvre does not take any notice of his suspension, and so in Mr. Matt's view, he has turned out to be a schismatic rebel. Such a schismatic activity is greatly sinful! By the fact that Lefebvre gives permission to his priests to confirm, a privilege that is normally only given as a special indult by the Apostolic See (compare CIC, can. 782 § 2) he even assumes for himself papal rights - without indicating the vacancy of the Cathedra Petri, or a unique state of emergency - all this should make the prelate, according to Mr. Matt's views, become as much of a schismatic "storm-cloud" as Mgr. Ngo-dinh-Thuc. And with this Mgr. Lefebvre would have got himself ipso facto excommunicated.
I wonder if the editor of the REMNANT, who says, that he has been a Catholic journalist for 45 years, is lacking of knowledge? Or does this gentleman weights like his other collegues with two kinds of measures, according to opportunities?
But it must probably be like this: on the one side the Archbishop Ngo-dinh-Thuc, producing the storm clouds, and on the opposite side the Monsignor from Econe, lately from Rickenbach, who strides for a reconciliation. Of course, one cannot forgive the Vietnamese Archbishop that he has broken Lefebvre's monopoly-claim of having the true faith (or 'faith').
Concerning the consecration of bishops, Lefebvre has at least threatened it several times for tactic reasons. As means of bringing pressure, he mentions the security of the apostolic succession. Nothing more! Please no excitement! And it applies also for Econe: business is business. Religion is only disturbing, it is for people in the bush (or for rice cultivators!).
However, such party-sharing, such 'lack of knowledge' are truly harmless in comparsion with Mgr. Lefebvre's own demagogical tricks, with which he would like to repudiate the so-called sedisvacants. In No. 45, pg. 9 of the "Mitteilungsblatt", the German publication of his pia unio, he writes: "Why do we therefore take scandal and say (not, should be the idea; remark of the publisher) like some people, according to the example of Arius: 'He is not a Pope'! as Arius said: 'He is not God, it is not true, our Lord cannot be God'." Lefebvre places the explanation that a Pope has become heretic and has therefore ipso facto lost his office, at the same level with the heresy of Arius! So, according to Lefebvre: such an ascertainment is ipso facto heretic. You poor Convente of the Middle Ages, you were all heretic! What Lefebvre intends to suggest to his readers is a deification of the person of the Pope! God is simply God, the person at the Cathedra Petri is not simply Pope! Please forgive my sarcasm: Lefebvre seems to want to persuade his - in any case very embarrassed - followers to see in the Pope only a person in a white soutane, who can do what he likes, who is more allmighty than God. One can really be glad that there is only one of this kind to walk around, otherwise there might be bad conflicts of competence.
Now, how then is the solution of Mr. Matt's problems? These have been written to him by an old priest-friend, and Mr. Matt too thinks they are possible: "It is not impossible that the multiplication of illicit bishops (...), which will now grow apace, may shake the Vatican finally (...), offering all tradition-minded Catholics terms, which they in good faith can fully accept." Alright, business remains business. We are not doing it!
As started at the beginning, the debats run on different levels and under different presuppositions, which I would like to illustrate at a day-to-day example: If one is of the opinion, which seems to be that of Mr. Matt, that a hair has fallen into the church-religious soup, one simply takes it out and carries on spooning it up. We have proved that the soup is poisened and have thrown it away. Mr. Matt blames us for wasting food. The man in the middle, the 'good' house-father Lefebvre, he however knows, or knew, that this soup is poisened, but orders his fellow-men to spoon it up. Otherwise watch out...! The outcome of this soup-cure has in the meantime become clear to everyone!
|
