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. MoÃses 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 picture 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 mediation 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 different 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 possibilities 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 Conventus (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 election 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 assuming 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
spiritual-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 infamous 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
'official 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 perceive that the position of Mgr. Lefebvre is untenable, because it
is contradictory in itself. The Lefebvreists 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 authorization 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 american
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 consecrations. And apart from this they are
documented in detail, also with photographs. But after the
consecrations had been spitefully betrayed by Father Barbara/France,
who wanted himself to be consecrated a bishop, (and who did the same as
Montini with the consecrated bishops in Russia), the following
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 reproaches 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 unsolved, 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.)
|
