|
|
      
|
|
|
| The Apostolic See Occupied |
| |
The Apostolic See 'Occupied',
or the Case of the Basis of Theology being Schizophrenic
- Comments on the “Papa materialiter, non formaliter”
of Most. Rev. Guerard des Laurier -
by
Eberhard Heller
translat. by Fr. Courtney Edward Krier
It is not what you think!
It will not produce another papal election.—Thank heaven they think
this, because we already have too many “Holy Fathers”: Bawden, Linus
II, Gregory (Palmar), etc.
On the other hand, it follows that John Paul II does occupy the
Apostolic See. Is this not what the Modernists claim? And
the Reformers, and Lefebrvists, and members of the Peter Fraternity
that the des Laurierists, who have established themselves in northern
Italy and the United States would want to hold the same opinion-an
opinion different than ours, sede vacantists? Simply put, this
idea is the result of a brief confrontation with those of a group of
ecclesiastics who may seem to piously and stubbornly hold a divergent
thesis of their old theology mentor, the “Papa materialiter, non
formaliter.” And we may leave it as such, except it errs further. This
group is virulent in demanding acceptance of this theory, a theory
constructed as the foundation for its adherents just as, if not more,
it were a part of the deposit of faith. It is the pillar of the group
surrounding Reverend Ricossa. Not less, it includes Bishop McKenna, who
required its adherence in the consecration on January 16 of Reverend
Stuyver of Belgian and his profession of adherence. That is to say, we
had a bishop of this thesis until recently, for now there was added a
second, the Rev. Sanborn from the United States. To consecrate a bishop
solely on the basis of what particular theory he holds is untheological
and unique in the history of the Church.
Introduction
On the 17th of December, 2001, I wrote to the Rev. Ricossa: “You are
seeking the consecration of the Rev. Stuyver because he defends the
“Papa materialiter, non formaliter” thesis of Des Laurier. This
is in opposition to the judgement and declaration of His Excellency,
Archbishop Ngô-dinh-Thuc, who made known in his public Declaratio of
1982 that the Roman See is vacant. Now you know that the author of this
thesis, Bishop Guérard des Laurier, revised his thesis more or less at
the end of his life (cf. Letter published in SAKA Information). Despite
this revision, you and your community persevere in insisting on
following this thesis without, I know, having a theological foundation.
In regards to the consecration of the Rev. Stuyver, which was done on
the request of Rev. Ricossa, an former Lefebvrist and against the
protests on many priests in France and Belgium, and against the desires
of several laity, who began a novena of prayers to stop the
consecration (because they new their priest was not fit for the office
of bishop), shows with what absolute obstinacy the members the
Community Mater boni concilii, Mother of Good Counsel (a name they
unjustly lay claim), in Verrua de Savoy, Italy, bear this dead
theological position. It may seem at first that Rev. Ricossa was
piously keeping to this idea, but since he daily collaborates with
priests holding the Sede Vacantist position, such as Bishop Dolan, Rev.
Barbara, and the Rev. Fr. Schoonbroodt, he distanced himself from this
thesis after receiving a sufficient explanation of why it is not
tenable and the sede vacantist position better explains the situation
of the Church today. This was not the case. Unfortunately, that
which was believed to be past, still continues - unfortunately!
Despite the many objections and refutations of the Thesis “Papa
materialiter, non formaliter”—I’m thinking especially the critic
written by Mira Davidoglou, living in France, in the magazine, La Voie,
as also the arguments published in Einsicht—the followers of Monsignor
Guérard des Laurier, especially Rev. Ricossa, have not sought to
participate in a confrontation. They continue accepting and
insisting on a position that is paralyzing all our efforts for a
restitution of the Church.
It follows that the Rev. Ricossa, in whom I view as the principle
person responsible, has not responded even now to my proposal to once
more examine the validity of the thesis “Papa materialiter, non
formaliter”, or to arrive at a common position, or separate because of
insurmountable theological differences. Because of this I find
myself having to present once more the arguments against this thesis
with the hope of cooperation for a definitive clarity that will provide
a resolution to this impor-tant problem.
We will follow this systematic exposition with a description of the
circumstances in which Guérard des Laurier was consecrated bishop in
1981.
What is meant by "Papa materialiter, non formaliter"
What is meant by Papa materialiter, non formaliter which Bishop Guérard
des Laurier tries to interpret the state of faith and church of John
Paul II. As Guérard des Laurier sees it, and it seems legitimate, John
Paul II occupies the papal throne but fails to protect the faith
committed to him.
According to the conception of des Laurier, as published in the Review,
Cassiciacum, Monsignor Wojtyla was legitimately elected pope, pars
minor y sanior, because about 10 cardinals created under Pius XII were
present: He is papa materialiter. But because he is a heretic, which a
pope cannot be, he is not a papa formaliter; that is to say, not
actually pope. Yet, it follows being papa materialiter, he is in a
certain manner potentially pope (papa potencial). If, as pastor and
supreme teacher he was to convert and proclaim orthodox doctrines in
questions of faith and morals, then John Paul II would be Pope
materialiter and also formaliter.
In SAKA-Information of January, 1984, Bishop Guérard des Laurier wrote:
“For the present, the Church is “occupied” and in a state of privation
(mise en état de privation). W. [Monsignor Wojtyla] was properly
elected (I hold it valid unless it can be proved otherwise) by a
conclave that con-sisted of ten true cardinals (at least they did not
protest against the election), then he occupied the possession of the
papal See. In this manner he is Pope materialiter (according to
external juridical circumstances). Yet there are other infringements to
obtaining the office, W. has continuously held heresy. It is evident
that W. inflicts a wound to the “common good” on the Church that now
holds these same errors. As such, based on natural law, metaphysical
and juridical, W. is incapable of exercising authority. Granted to
natural law, which ultimately comes directly from God Himself, W. has
no factual authority. He is not capable of being Papa formaliter (in
the true sense of interior). He can’t be obeyed because his
pseudo-decrees are null.” A note that this thesis, burdened with
pre-suppositions regarding the election of Wojtyla, can only be
presented as an hypothesis [as opposed to thesis].
This presentation is the same followed at the Instituto Mater Boni
Concilii, to which Ricossa be-longs: “Unfortunately everyone can
testify that the Church is passing through those tempests predicted by
our Lord, times worst than its 2000 year history. For the Institute
[Mater Boni Con-cilii], the origin of this crisis has its roots in
Vatican II. The teachings of Vatican II concerning collegiality of
bishops, religious liberty, ecumenism, and the membership of
non-Catholics to the Mystical Body of Christ - not just of Christian
Religions, but Judaism, - the relation of the Church with the modern
world, etc., are in contradiction to the magisterium of the Church, its
Popes and Ecumenical Councils. The Liturgical Reform, especially that
of Holy Mass and canonical law, which is injurious to souls, favors
protestant heresies and declares at times licit what, by divine law, is
illicit (e.g., Communion with heretics in sacred matters). All this has
not been able to enter the Catholic Church, guided as she is by the
Holy Ghost and a legitimate successor of Peter, gifted with the
charisma of infallibility. Faced with this crisis, a crisis without
precedent, which necessarily implies the approval of these documents
and its subsequent reforms by the conciliar hierarchy, the Institute
states that it will not accept these new doctrines that are contrary to
faith and morals, but rather incite the faithful to disobedience to the
legitimate authority of the Church. Because of this, the Instituto
follows the so-called Cassiacum thesis (named after the Theological
Review in which it first publicly appeared) that developed the
theological position of the Dominican, M.L.Guérard des Lauriers, a
member of the Lateran Pontifical University and from Saulchoir, France.
According to this thesis, Paul VI and his successors, although they
were canonically elected as Pontiffs, still do not possess pontifical
authority. In scholastic terms, accord with the distinction taught by
Cardinal Cajetan, distinguished commentator on St. Thomas in the
15-16th centuries, and commended by Saint Robert Bellarmine, these are
“popes” only materially, but not formally, since they cannot realize
the good of the Church by teaching heresy, nor are they able to receive
from Christ the authority to govern, to teach, and to sanctify the
Church, unless they retract their own errors.”
[You can communicate with the Instituto Mater Boni Concilii, Localitá
Carbignano 36, I – 10020 Verrua Savoia, tel.: 0161/839335; Fax:
0161/839334; E-mail: sodalitium@plion.it, web site: www.plion.it/sodali]
Despite the affirmation just furnished that Monsignor Wojtyla “could
propagate errors and doctrines”, Rev. Ricossa, who is the theological
head of the Institute, rejects the reproach that John Paul II is a
“formal” heretic, it could be undoubtedly said that Ricossa probably
thinks that Monsignor Wojtyla doesn’t understand what he says—he who is
presumed to be supreme teacher! This posture is too much to
except, especially when Ricossa left Econe after having made a
declaration (with three other priests—Munari, Nitoglia, and Murro)-that
condemned the errors of Econe concerning papal authority and the
teaching magisterium. (1)
If then it be that Wojtyla is Papa materialiter –despite the plain
heresy (an american author lists 101 heresies by John Paul II), and I
add: his apostasy - it cannot be said that the Chair of Peter is vacant
(for which the Institute Mater boni concilii places the shield of John
Paul II on its front web page); it is simply not active in as much as
fulfilling the role which one would expect. Because of this, Ricossa
and his followers—to repeat this phrase—“they are not able to stir up
the faithful by being called disobedient in the face of legitimate
authority of the church” (referring to Wojtyla).
The thesis Papa materialiter, non formaliter can be simply reduced to
the following: John Paul II was legitimately elected pope. He
habitually defends and holds to heresy. As such there is no need to
obey his heretical decrees. But if John Paul II begins to defend and
hold the doctrine of the Church, he would become Pope in its full
extension. It is just a matter of waiting for his conversion.
With this position we come upon these different questions:
1. Does it explain how the Church has developed up to now?
2. Was John Paul II really legitimately elected?
3. Can a heretic be or become a pope?
4. What are the consequences if they are separated from those trying to restore the Church.
1. A new theological creation
In the first case, the thesis, Papa materialiter, non formaliter, is at
best a plausible dream: A Pope, as supreme teacher of the Church, is
not able at the same time to be the proclaimer of heresies. Even
if, despite all he does, no one needs to obey until he returns to
orthodoxy.
In the course of many years I have experienced that the majority
of people have a problem of an heretical pope (papa haereticus). In the
eyes of most, the Pope is an unwavering bastion of faith, and it would
hard to successfully change their mind. I am not trying to be
moved by public opinion; opinion is what the modernists Catholics
depend on—you need only observe the favorable, yes enthusiastic,
adoration of Wojtyla, whose admirers include the liberal press
(2) - as also many traditional clerics and laity. Yet, is it not
true that Christ promised Peter: “Thou art Peter, the rock, and upon
this rock I will build my Church? (Mat. 16, 18). Besides, the Vatican
Council (I) proclaimed the infallibility of the Pope as a binding dogma:
“The Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, when, acting
in the office of shepherd and teacher of all Christians, he defines, by
virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, doctrine concerning faith or
morals to be held by the universal Church, possesses through the divine
assistance promised him in the person of St. Peter, the infallibility
with which the divine Redeemer willed His Church to be endowed in
defining doctrine concerning faith or morals; and that such definitions
of the Roman Pontiff are therefore irreformable because of their
nature, but not because of the agreement of the Church (D1839).
Simply stated, it cannot be said that a pope can be, or known to be, a
heretic. Therefore, when one does speak of Paul VI as a heretic and
schismatic, such as the Abbé de Nantes subtlely does in his Liber
accusationis or in the periodical CRC—they are speaking legally of how
a pope as pope can possibly be a heretic, or at least to support
theology by saying he is a heretic, but not formally. More
often they are seeking for reasons to prove Montini really never was a
pope. Dr. Gliwitzky formed this position with enough certitude by
writing: The resignation to the times that we are in fails to bring the
faith to mind and is the profound cause why we are in the crisis we are
in. It is why we must make every effort to orient ourselves, see the
signs, make our mind know when it is thinking and wishing, when it is
hoping and believing, and when it is understanding the truth.” (Dr.
Hans Gliwitzky, former president of the Freudeskreis, in EINSICHT, Year
1, Nr. 12, p. 37, article Garabandal)
It is in this manner that Father Guérard des Laurier took his position,
psychologically understandable, of forming a thesis. But does it
correspond to the teachings of the Church? Saint Pashasius writes
in the 9th century: He who seeks anything outside the church finds only
error; and he who does not accept Christ places himself outside the
truth.” (3) Naturally this is valid for the Pope: “In this way, a pope
who is able to separate himself from the head, that is, Christ, by
means of disobeying things of religion, which he ought to protect. A
pope as such, who desires to destroy the church, must be opposed by all
Christendom.” (4) And Suarez advises us, “A pope who holds erroneous
doctrines is no Pope; and if he errors, he does not error as pope,
since the Church cannot error: she can elect another (pope).” (5) In
Romani Pontificis in definiendo infallibilitas we read: “A Pope could
only error if he were outside the Church and God deprived him of his
office.” (6) - “For a pope cannot be a manifest heretic as such”: such
writes the judge of the Teacher of the Church, Saint Robert Bellarmine.
(7) And it is in this manner that Ricossa references Saint Robert
Bellarmine as support of the thesis of des Laurier incomprehensible,
because at no time is a distinc-tion made between a Papa formaliter and
a Pope materialiter. What is does include is that it excludes the
possibility that a pope can be a heretic (en De romano Pontifice).
If we were to compare the thesis of Des Laurier with these positions,
we are able to state quite frankly that they do not produce a division
between a Pope actual and a Pope potential. The heretic takes as a
consequence the immediate lost of his office. As demonstrated by the
theologian Myra Davidoglou, the thesis of Papa materialiter, non
formaliter is new: “Tous les papes que l’Eglise catholique a
connus depuis sa fondation sont papes formels; l’idée d’un pape
potentiel ayant droit a titres de Pontife romain et au Siége
apostolíque est une noveauté, en déuire de l’Escriture sainte ou de la
Tradition apostolíque, les deux seules sources de la Révélation divine,
ni même de l’historie de l’Eglise, la possibilité de l’existence d’un
tel pape. Sous ce rapport, nous avons donc affaire â une doctrine
purement humaine don’t nous bornerons.” (LA VOIE, 1991, Nr. 21, p. 2:
Analyse logique et theo-logique de la thêse dite de Cassiacum). “Every
pope that the Church has ever known since the foundation of the papacy
has been a formal pope. The thought of a potential pope with rights to
the apostolic See is a novelty in the sense that it can not be proved
by either Sacred Scripture or by apostolic Tradition, the two
sole sources of Divine Revelation, nor is it in the history of the
Church. With this knowledge it can be raised that the teaching is
a purely human one (that is to say, a personal opinion).” Myra
Davidoglou continues: Dira-t-on que celui a perdu la papauté n’en est
pas pour autant déchu? […] Et pourtant, c’est sur “l’apparaitre”, comme
il dit, que l’auteur va s’appuyer pour tenter d’établir l’occupation
non de fait (l’aquelle est évidente), mais de droit du siége de Pierre
par des hommes comme Montini…ou fait hors de l’Eglise, parce
qu’excommuniés et anathémisés par le Concile de Vatican (1870). (LA
VOIE, 1991, Nr. 21, p. 3). If the papacy has been lost, is it not that
it has been left? […] And undoubtedly the author [des Laurier] supports
this by showing there is no real possession of the papal throne (which
is evident), and even the right to occupy the Chair of Peter, as in the
case of Montini and Wojtyla, since as he indicates that they are
heretics, and in reality are outside the Church not only de jure, but
also de facto, because they were excommunicated and anathematized by
the Vatican Council (1870).
Although des Laurier does not deny the possibility of a sede vacante,
in his opinion this could only be if the papal election of Montini and
Wojtyla were invalid. This shall be shown.
The elderly professor of the Gregoriana, des Laurier, and his followers
did not understand that the accusation of heresy was not directed as
such to a pope, that is to say, that one could judge the pope as being
above the pope, since this is not permitted according to the maxim,
“the pope is unable to be judged by anyone” (because the pope is
himself the supreme judge. (8) This deals with confirmation of a
judgment in that it declares a person a heretic, and not why he left
being pope.
2. We will now tackle the question of whether Wojtyla was validly elected pope.
Let us suppose, adopting the position of Monsignor Guérard des Laurier,
that Monsignor Wojtyla had been elected by a “pars minor et sanior”:
then the election would have been valid if they had elected an orthodox
bishop. But the orthodoxy of Wojtyla was questioned before the election
with reason. I will not waste my time on enumerating the many heresies
known to all before he took office. I will only indicate one which
especially gave rise to the Reforms of the Council (different than
Cardinal Wischinky, who although did not openly resist, yet had the
merit to have reinforced through his intervention the anti-communist
attitude of the Poles). After the Bull of Paul IV, Cum ex apostolatus
officio (February 15, 1559), the prelates and bishops who before being
promoted deviated in the faith automatically lost their authority and
office. They no longer had the power to exercise their office. Next,
Paul IV confirmed all the sanctions that were applicable to heretics
and schismatics, (9) speaking decidedly upon the incapacity of heretics
to hold office:
"Let Us add that if at any time whatsoever, a bishop, even acting
as an Archbishop or Patriarch o Primate, or a Roman Church
Cardinal, even acting as a Legate, and also a Roman Pontiff prior to
his promotion or elevation to the cardinalate or pontificate had
deviated from the Catholic faith or fallen into some heresy or schism,
or had caused or originated it, his promotion or elevation, even if
resulting from the unanimous resolution by all the
Cardinals, should be null, invalid and with no effects; and
in no wise could such an elevation become valid through his
acceptance of office and his consecration nor through the
attendant possession or quasi-possession of government and
administration, nor even through the very Roman Pontiff's enthronement
or his veneration, nor through everybody's
obedience given to him, independently of the elapsed time, if
under the above hypotheses.Such elevation should not be deemed a
legitimate one even in regard to any of its por-tions...and every
pronouncement, fact, action and decision and their attending
consequences have no power whatever and do not give any validity
or right to anybody.
In addition, [By this Our Constitution which is to remain valid in
perpetuity, We also enact, determine, decree and define: that if ever
at any time it shall appear that any Bishop, even if he be
acting as an Archbishop, Patriarch or Primate; or any Cardinal of
the aforesaid Roman Church, or, as has already been mentioned,
any legate, or even the Roman Pontiff, prior to his
promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff has
deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy:
(i)
the promotion or elevation, even if it shall have been
uncontested and by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals,
shall be null, void and worthless;
(ii) it shall not be possible
for it to acquire validity (nor for it to be said that it has thus
acquired validity) through the acceptance of the office, of
consecration, of subsequent authority, nor through posession of
administration, nor through the putative enthronement of a Roman
Pontiff, or veneration, or obedience accorded to such by all, nor
through the lapse of any period of time in the foregoing situation;
(iii) it shall not be held as partially legitimate in any way;
(iv) to any so promoted to be
Bishops, or Archbishops, or Patriarchs, or Primates or elevated as
Cardinals, or as Roman Pontiff, no authority shall have been granted,
nor shall it be considered to have been granted either in the spiritual
or the temporal domain;
(v) each and all their
words, deeds, actions and enactments, howsoever made, and anything
whats-oever to which these may give rise, shall be without force and
shall grant no stability whatsoever nor any right to anyone;
(vi) those thus promoted
or elevated shall be deprived automatically, and without need for any
further declaration, of all dignity, position, honour, title,
authority, office and power, without any exception in respect of
those to which they may have been promoted or elevated before they
deviated from the Faith, became heretics, incurred schism,
or provoked or committed any or all of these." (Bull, Cum ex
apostolatus officio, Par. 6)
Thus, according to this Bull, it can not be admitted to suppose a “pars
minor et sanior”, that is to say, legitimate electors of a pope, since
they have equally lost their charge due to the fact of heresy.
(Regarding the heresy of the Italian bishops and cardinals, Monsignor
Guérard des Laurier maintained a very peculiar position, based on his
experience with these persons: On one occasion told Dr. Hiller and I
[Heller] that the Italian prelates, the greater part of which had been
his students when they were seminarians, were such fools they were
incapable of upholding heresy, because they didn’t know what it is.) We
do not find the application of these juridical infringements of
sanctions excluding of Cardinals from elections in the Code of Canon
Law, because these are not derelictions of rights, but derelictions of
faith.
One may argue anyway that John Paul II is a material heretic, but not a
formal heretic. That is, he believes a heresy but does not know it is a
heresy. But what does this clearly mean? The supreme teacher and pillar
of Catholic doctrine doesn’t know what he has to teach or preserve!
These are the theological back doors which people, such as Ricossa,
leave open by not drawing decisive conclusions. Such a concept is
excluded according to Canon 16, par. 2a of the CIC, according to which
the possessor of an office, especially one that involves the teaching
magisterium of the Church, is not worthy who does not know his
faith. Since Wojtyla was consecrated bishop under Pius XII, he
had to have given previous accreditation to his orthodoxy in a process
of information and definition (cf. CIC, Can. 330 and 331).
3. Can a heretic be pope, as succesor of S. Peter?
The question as to whether a heretic can be pope, the teachers of the
Church and theologians that have addressed this problem have responded
without doubt that it cannot happen, as we said before (Bellarmine,
Cayetano, Suárez).
Dr. Katzer, who is known in German circles to hold a posi-tion similar
to that of Father Sáenz y Arriaga in Mexico, has precisely addressed
this theme in the article, “The Apostolic See Is Vacant” (EINSICHT
VIII/5 Dec. 1978, p. 168 ff and reprinted in EINSICHT XXXII/1, p. 13
f). according to him, “the apostolic chair […] is vacant:
a) at the physical death of the Pope,
b) at the moral death of the Pope.
The Pope is morally dead when having manifestly sinned against the
doctrines of faith and morals. But the Apostolic See does not remain an
orphan, as Pope Pius VI emphasized in his well-known apostolic
constitution, Auctorem fidei. Just as important in our times is the
reference to Saint Peter Chrysoslogus (10): “Peter, living on his
throne and occupying the first place, offers the truths of faith to
those who ask.” Those who come merit an infallible and indefectible?
judge on the Apostolic See.
The decree of Bellarmine according to which Papa haereticus depositus
est - an heretic pope is deposed - a judgment of confirmation, is
fulfilled with the formula of Cayetan: deponendus est - he is to be
deposed - in the sense that this judgment confirms what they already
know, that is to say, that the respective person hold that to be
declared by the Church as deposed, because the Church is a visible and
juridcal community, that needs to be informed about the state of its
superior head. His Excellency, Monsignor Ngo-dinh-Thuc did exactly this
with his DECLARATIO of February 25, 1982. The DECLARATIO is certainly
not stating Sede Vacante for the first time and providing the necessary
consequences, but it is unique in the sense that an elder bearer of an
office, one of high rank and respect had asserted it with affirmatively
and had publicly proclaimed it. Even when it had not been emphasized
from the point of view “solo” “ex caritate”, that is to say, out of
concern for the well-being of the Church, nonetheless Monsignor
Ngo-dinh-Thuc as a bishop of the Roman Catholic Church expressed this
confirmation with a juridical binding for the faithful. The DECLARATIO
is a document by which we can assure in a juridical sense our
resistance to the other activities – and beyond the justification of a
personal point of view that the hierarchy has apostatized-. (11)
The thesis of des Lauriers that a Pope fallen into heresy (an American
author has made a list of the 101 heresies alone of John Paul II) warns
that a Pope legitimately elected- is a “material pope”, that is to say,
that he is still able to be so in potency, unequivocally remains
refuted. The papal ministry has exactly ended when the possessor of
that ministry falls into heresy. As it has already been de-monstrated,
the deception that he is not conscience of his heresy, that is to say,
that he is not a ‘formal heretic’ can not be applied. Why is this?
Because it can not be that he who in quality of successor as the
representative of Christ here on earth, having been installed as
teacher and supreme guardian of the integrity of the faith proclaim
simultaneously truth and error. The identity of the person of the Pope
can not be divided schizophrenically into “material” and on the other
hand “formal,” if this were the case he would not be in any condition
to preserve his identity as a person. This schizophrenic division of
the person would be at least in content, not only a contradiction but
an absurdity.
Someone who, as the Pope, claims infallibility in matters of faith and
morals, in the above mentioned boundaries personifies the truth qua
ministry; can not at the same time be the representative of error and
falsehood. In reference to this person respectively, would signify not
only that he validates contradiction, but that he introduces that
schizophrenia as a principle in theology. At the moment when John Paul
II shows that he is promoting error –as accentuated by Bishop Guerard
des Lauriers, and who holds habitually to heresy-, is no longer the
representative of infallible truth.
The thesis: “John Paul II is Pope when he proclaims something orthodox
and is not the Pope when he says something heretical”, signifies
that each believer must then judge for himself each time concerning the
orthodoxy or heresy of the pope. Given this situation, the doctrinal
authority of Rome would be transferred to each individual believer, and
no longer would the phrase be true that “Roma locuta, causa finite” (
Rome has spoken, the case is settled), but rather: Rome has spoken, so
let the debate begin amongst the faithful.
4. Waiting on convertion or looking to Samuel Becket
Under this supposition what aspect would the thesis of “Papa
materialiter, non formaliter”-signify for the restoration of the
Church? Since, as the “Papa materialiter”he continues being Pope -even
when promoting error and including apostasy- all he has to do is become
Pope “formaliter”, that is to say, that he is both “material Pope” and
“formal Pope”, when he holds anew the orthodox positions. The
supporters like Fr. Ricossa hope that John Paul II will convert.
Concerning the restoration of authority, the problem would have at
least been solved in the person of John Paul II. The other here-tical
and apostate bishops must analogously be treated as: “episcopus
materialiter, non formaliter” and even this would not solve the
problem. (But maybe the return of the “material pope” to orthodoxy
would implicitly include the “material bishops” as well.) Neither
des Lauriers nor Ricossa mention anything concerning the security of
jurisdiction or of the recuperation of jurisdiction of these mentioned
above. But what happens when John Paul II strongly mixes in his
decrees, orthodoxy with heresy-Wojtyla is a master of dialectics! Is he
pope materially and at the same time formaliter/ non formaliter? This
absurd game can be taken to the extremes.
This wait for the conversion of Bishop Wojtyla is compared to the ‘wait
of Godot’ which Samuel Becket describes in his work. In this play Godot
is waited for but never arrives, that is to say, a ‘wait’ that is
completely absurd. With these absurdities many theatrical works could
be produced (in order to represent the absurd), but none of these could
bring about the restoration of the Church. Didn’t Guerard des Lauriers
realize that the sin of apostasy is irreversible, that is to say, the
rejection of truth, of the living truth? Have his disciples forgotten
this amongst whom is found Bishop Sanborn in the United States?
In the meantime the faithful must continue to live their
religious-ecclesiastical life: criticizing what is able to be
criticized , to appeal to the “bishops” and to the “Holy Father”, not
‘obeying’ when the decrees contradict the faith. But if because of an
“excess of zeal” or lack of “patience” bishops are consecrated and
priests are ordained, then those are schismatic signs…maybe because
there is a lack of trust in divine providence?
To clarify with an example taken from the military, the consequences
which result from this position which for Ricossa and his community
Mater Boni Consilii seams more important than the catholic faith:
a general commits high treason and turns over his country to the enemy
along with the troops that the enemy rule unrestricted.
Conclusion
To conclude here are some indications about our current situation. If
one observes the attitude of the faithful, but especially of some
priests and bishops who pretend to work for the preservation of the
faith and for the restoration of the church, then unfortunately we must
verify everywhere sectarianism and apathy. The time following the
proclamation of the Declaratio was a trying one especially with the
death of Bishop Carmona in the early nineties who had started this work
for the re-unification of the faithful, and which Bishop Davila would
like to continue, since nothing is being done to restitute the Church
as an institution of salvation. In his visit last year Bishop Davila
has expressed the situation elegantly: “During the last twenty years,
we priests have only concerned ourselves with pastoral problems.”
But the pastoral work can only be fruitful if it is found within the
structure of the church, since the administration of the sacraments is
only legitimate if done with the intention of carrying them out as an
act of the church. It is to Her alone, the Church that Christ has
conferred the power of administering the sacraments. Everything else
would be pure sectarianism. That is why our main goal in all of this
should be to carry out this restoration. Christ founded the Church as
an institution of salva-tion - and not merely as a community of faith-
in order to guarantee the untainted teachings of the doctrines and the
means of grace. That is why the reconstruction of the church as an
institution of salvation is demanded of its Divine Founder. But here
results a dilemma. One the one hand there is the need for jurisdiction
from the church which is necessary for the accomplishment of these
things, but since the hierarchy has apostatized and the reconstruction
is necessary for the establishment of ecclesiastical authority, then a
solution must be found for this problem.
The mere insistence of this situation of urgency which is on a world
level does not justify certain actions taken by some clergy members,
nor does it define theologically the situation, but such an attitude
may lead to sectarianism, each and every time that one obtains what he
wants. No one would think of dressing in a soldier’s uniform and
presenting himself as a soldier of the German or Mexican army. What
kind of a solution would this be? Following this example, he would only
be a soldier if the army called him. Applying this to the Church, a
priest would only be a true priest if he is accredited by the authentic
Church.
Some object by saying there is no need of a strategy in order to
resolve these current problems. That it is sufficient to call this a
state of emergency. This idea is not only false but also very
dangerous. With this state of emergency it is sufficient to impede
certain consequences which may be produced in a set fashion: ‘I wish
for this not to be.’ But with this intention I do not express what I
intend to happen. For example, when I construct a dam in order to
impede the river which is close to overflowing onto the land, I have
not indicated what to do with the land. That is to say, I need a
positive plan on how to use the land and how I wish to cultivate it.
Let us return to our own ecclesiastical past: it was necessary to
consecrate bishops without papal mandate in order to save apostolic
succession just as Archbishop Ngo-dinh-Thuc did. But it would be a
grave error to suppose that in the future papal mandates should be
ignored, because the church is in danger. The call upon a state
of emergency must be attributed for the consequences for all sectarian
acts, including the inadmissible ordination of married priests. If you
look around, nothing has been accomplished justly by this state of
emergency which it was supposed to accomplish: the salvation of the
succession of the Church. We find ourselves in sectarianism which we
ourselves have caused and are responsible. I remind all of you the
motive for this paper: the scandalous Epis-copal consecrations which
McKenna established based on the Cassiacum thesis, a thesis which is
untenable as I have tried to demonstrate. What an abyss has been opened
here! We need proper concepts for the reconstruction of the Church, for
Her restoration as an institution of salvation:
- that they be theologically founded
- that they be connected to reality
- that they be proportionate in order to reconfigure them to these
realities, so that the Church may once more be the guardian of God’s
revelation and that the community be under a legitimately elected Pope.
* * *
Remarks:
1) The below signed, Rev. Franco Munari, Rev.
Francesco Ricossa, Rev. Curzio Nitoglia and Rev. Giuseppi Murro,
obedient to the doctrine of the Catholic Church, according to which it
is obligatory by necessity of a public retraction as consequence of
publishing of false doctrines concerning faith and morals, do declare
they publi-cly retract what they had taught or at least gave implicit
assent that was not in accord with truth during the time between
1982-1985, that is when they belonged to the Society of Pius X,
believing the following errors:
1. The Roman Pope is only to be attributed infallibility in ex cathedra decisions (that is to say, when he teaches dogmas).
2. The teaching magisterium of the Church is not habitually and universally infallible.
3. Vatican Council II could not be infallible as a pastoral council, only as dogmatic council.
4. It is permitted, and it happens habitually, to deny
obedience to teachings, whether doctrinal, moral, or liturgical, from
legitimate authority (pope and bishops), even if it is recognized that
this same authority attributes all authority by virtue of the divine
institution of the Church.
5. It is possible that legitimate universal authority of
the Church (the Roman Pontiff) may promulgate and ordain laws (rites of
Mass, sacraments, ecclesiastical canon law) that contains errors,
heresies, and other elements that are detrimental to the salvation of
souls.
6. It is possible for a true pope, a true representative
of Christ, to be at the same time a schismatic, apostate, and in
contradiction with tradition, and that their acts may be judged as
invalid.
The DECLARATION OF ERRORS which we have cited mortally
blaspheme the Catholic dogma of the divinely instituted Church, her
teaching Magisterium, the Infallibility of the Church and of the Roman
Pontiff. All those whom we have offended in these matters, the
said priests seek with this public retraction pardon and prayers, and
assure you with the help of God never to return into these same errors.
(Cited in KE Nr. 3/1996)
2) So f.ex. in SÜDDEUTSCHE ZEITUNG from 26.7.02: "Der 82-Jährige kann
den Kopf nicht mehr gerade halten, er nuschelt mut noch, Speichel rinnt
aus seinem Mund. Trotzdem ist. (...) Gegen den Rat seiner Ärzte hat er
die strapaziöse Reise (nach Toronto) angetreten, verlangt sich eine
ruinöse Energieleostung ab. Das steht nur durch, wer tief überzeugt
ist, in höherem Auftrag zu handeln, und kaum jemand dürfte fester als
Johannes Paul II. glauben, das Werkzeug Gottes zu sein: Gott hat ihn
ausersehen, die katholische Kirche ins 21. Jahrhundert zu führen, Maria
hat ihn die Kugel des Attentäters überleben lassen, nun muss er die ihm
auferlegte Krankheit tragen. 'Ein Mann der Schmerzen mit Krankheit
vertraut', heißt es im Buch Jesaia über den leidenden Gottesknecht, und
der leidgezeichnete Karol Wojtyla sieht sich offenbar als Spiegelbild:
Er muss seinen Weg gehen, bis zuletzt."
3) P.L. 120, Paschasius Radbertus, Liber de Corpore et Sanguine Domini, col. 1317.
4) Ad sacrosancta Concilia a Philippo Labbe et Gabriele Cossartio edita Apparatus alter, Venetiis 1728.
5) Defensio Fidei, lib.V. De antichristo, Tom. XX., Cap. XXI, 7.
6) Romani Pontificis in definiendo infallibilitas breviter demonstrata. Thyrsi Gonzales S.J. Parisli 1698.
7) Controversio de Romano Pontifice, lib. II. cap. XXX.
8) Cf. Paul IV, Cum ex apostol. officio par. 1: We have been
weighed upon by the thought that a matter of this kind is so grave and
so dangerous that the Roman Pontiff, who is the representative upon
earth of God and our Lord Jesus Christ, who holds the fullness of power
over peoples and kingdoms, who may judge all and be judged by none in
this world, may nonetheless be contradicted if he be found
to have deviated from the Faith.
9) Cum ex apostolatus officio par. 2: Anyone who, before this date,
shall have been detected or have confessed to have, or have
been convicted of having, deviated from the Catholic Faith, or fallen
into any heresy, or incurred schism, or provoked or committed
either of both of these; anyone who (which may God in His clemency and
goodness to all deign to avert) shall in the future so deviate, or fall
into heresy, or incur schism, or shall provoke or commit either or both
of these; Anyone who shall be detected or shall confess to have, or
shall be convicted of having, so deviated, fallen, incurred,
provoked or committed. These sanctions [mentioned], more-over,
shall be incurred by all members of these categories, of whatever
status, grade, order, condition and pre-eminence they may be, even if
they be endowed with the Episcopal, Archepiscopal, Patriarchal,
Primatial or some other greater Ecclesiastical dignity, or with the
honour of the Cardinalate and of the Universal Apostolic see by the
office of Legate, whether temporary or permanent.
10) P.L. 54, 743ff.
11) In order to compare this position to that of the Lefebvrists: they
also have the problem of no papal authority, since they also reject
many of the conclusions of Vatican II along with the reforms that it
introduced. But they do it for other reasons. They do not dispute that
a heretical pope ceases to be pope; but they do dispute whether
John Paul II has decidedly spread heresy, calling him only a liberal or
a modernist, and thus damaging the entire Church and going against it’s
decrees. With this “traditionalist” position, that is to say,
theologically inadequate, they move over a cap of ice which
argumentatively is very fine, the evidence being their negotiations
with Rome.
|
|
|
|
|
