.png)
June 30, 1994
Abbé Emmanuel BERGER
My dear fellow priests,
My departure will have surprised you, certainly hurt you and perhaps even scandalized you.
At the request of Fr. Aulagnier, and in the spirit of charity, I have preferred so far to maintain the greatest discretion hoping until the end not to have to leave.
That is why, in complete friendship, I would now like to give you some news, along with the reasons for my decision. For a good year, I reflected with an open heart and, I believe, with honesty, and imparted certain doubts to my Superiors.
On the question of the consecrations.
Aware of the inadequacy of my answers to the questions of several of the faithful, I wanted to go over the question again — a question that is not self-evident, as everyone agrees — from an historical, canonical and theological point of view.
In particular, I re-read certain texts of Pius IX, Leo XIII and Pius XII (quoted at the end of this letter).
I then informed the Superior General of certain objections, and he sent me Fr. Mura’s thesis, which appeared in “Le Sel de la Terre”.
Not only did this work fail to convince me in favour of the consecrations, but it convinced me of the opposite.
In his work, Fr. Mura begins by repeating all the arguments from Tradition, from the Fathers and from Councils against such consecrations, and he then states that if the Pope forbade the consecrations it is because he was not opposed to them; in other words, if the Pope is “against”, it is because he is “for”. It is idle to appeal to the (debatable) notion of a “Pope who is occupied and therefore incapable of making a decision in the matter”, or the distinction between the first and the second intention. It defies common sense! Especially when it is known that on more than one occasion the Pope has rejected this explanation.
I then received this implausible argument from Bishop Tissier (Letter of Sept. 25, 93) : “Our position does not seem clear to you; but it is the Archbishop (Lefebvre) who had the grace of state to take the decision over the Consecrations, and who had the light to take it; as for us, ours is simply the grace to follow, and that is sufficient: let us walk in the faith; if it is not the divine faith, it is still the spirit of faith, which comes from the divine faith...”
We have often been warned against blind obedience with regard to the Pope. Are we supposed to have it now with regard to Archbishop Lefebvre? At the Judgment, God will not ask me whether I have “followed”, but whether I have done my duty.
In any case, Bishop Tissier’s argument is anything but an argument.
It is the exact opposite even: it is an admission of the lack of argument. It depends on trust, but trust is not a theological argument. We are not far from the religious sentiment dear to the modernists and the charismatics.
As for telling me “let us walk in faith” with regard to what is no more than blind obedience to a historically contingent decision, that simply poses the question of the nature and the object of faith.
I therefore asked Bishop Tissier for clarification, and he answered me in these terms: “I accepted the consecrations 10% for speculative reasons which I expounded to my parishioners in these terms: 1) Pope occupied and therefore incapable of making a valid decision in the matter; 2) implicit will of the Pope in favour of the consecrations, seeing that it is a case of necessity and in view of the finality of his responsibility; 3) exception made by God to his positive divine law — an apparent exception — as He does for the natural law in certain cases; 4) divine inspiration given to the Archbishop (Lefebvre). Fr. Mura develops the first two reasons; one can object to his reasoning, and he would be able to retort, and so on... And for 90%, I accepted the Consecration out of confidence in Archbishop Lefebvre, and that is sufficient.
“If Archbishop Lefebvre consecrates bishops, the theologians of the 21st century will find the justification... Melius est judicium sapientis (Marcelli) quam millium insipientium!” (letter Of June 7, 94)
On the one hand, these thousand insipientes would need to be found.. On the other, if there has been divine inspiration or an exception willed by God, it is subject to the same rules as any apparition or charism and must be authenticated by the Church’s legitimate authority; in any case, we are entitled to have some public and unquestionable public sign. Failing which, we can but hold to the general law of the Church.
Having received the same non-argument twice, I came to the conclusion that that was the only answer one of our bishops could give to enlighten a fellow priest’s questions.
In conscience, I cannot accept these arguments without losing faith in the Church and in the Pope.
That is an objective reason for leaving a Fraternity that has become subjectivist.
“Autocephalous”, as Fr. Aulagnier told us at a recollection given at Saint-Nicholas on 22 March before Fr. Schmidberger who also remarked that we lacked visible and external union with Rome.
On the problem of mission and the question of our jurisdiction.
The thesis accepted as authoritative in the Society is Bishop Tissier’s, expressed in his Paris conference of March 1991: on the one hand, he rests his argument on the case of necessity; on the other hand, on the needs of the faithful who turn to us. It is a supplied jurisdiction, or in the end, it is the faithful’s request which gives us jurisdiction, case by case.
In the two busy years I spent working at Saint Malo, this thesis had given me strength; but during the last two years of semi-vacation, which I have just spent at Lourdes, it became a veritable snare.
By definition, it makes any outside apostolic work impossible if people do not ask us for our ministry. Furthermore, it is embarrassing for its democratic side: I find it difficult to reconcile this position with the hierarchical structure of the Church, where the apostolate is necessarily based on the mission which can only come from above.
It has been written that I have deserted my post and abandoned the flock. But, on the one hand, it was not “my” flock; it had been entrusted to me by superiors to whom this flock did not belong. On the other hand, I had the conviction and the feeling not so much of deserting but rather of leaving a cozy nest where we “feel comfortable”, as Fr. Aulagnier so often says, to rejoin the fight where it is actually is, on the ground, in Rome, with the bishops, in the parishes, etc. That is where our true post is.
“Quomodo praedicantur nisi mittantur?” One can some times deploy great zeal in the apostolate, but is it not a question of “magni passus extra viam”? And let us be realistic: if, as Fr. Celier writes (L’Eglise déchirée, p. 48), “freedom to preach and to distribute the sacraments is for the Fraternity of the of Saint Peter strictly reduced to well defined groups of the faithful, in the Society of Saint Pius X, apart from big centres like Saint Nicholas or in Gabon, it is worse still! Who among us has not experienced how marginalized we are?
Let us not imagine that we are in the fullness of life and on the way to bringing Rome to its knees through weight of numbers. That we shall be the ones in future who will lay down the conditions for fresh discussions! Without taking into account that it is unrealistic on our part always to speak of “Rome” as though it were a homogeneous block. Generalizing the adversary as “the modernists” or “The Conciliar Church” is also excessive. It is a mental fiction and Manichaean logic to think: we are the good ones and they are the bad ones.
“Qui se existimat stare, videat ne cadat”. let us be realistic, with that realism which is called humility! At Lourdes, I was able to see the extremes of richness and wretchedness among the clergy and the faithful. And it was a total, but reassuring discovery. We are no better than the others; we are not privileged with holiness, far from it!
For marriages, we take our stand on the canon law which dispenses with the canonical form if no priest can be found within a month.
It has always seemed obvious to me that we are supposed to look for a priest within that month. For my part, I have always been able to find one. But I know many of my fellow priests who think that they are dispensed from looking. But how can we not reflect before the several marriages at Saint Nicholas that have subsequently been annulled for lack of jurisdiction.
Similarly the fact of having set up a parallel office for questions of marriage is very grave in my opinion. Does not the Society thereby set itself up as a parallel Church? “Autocephalous”?
Are the “needs” of the faithful and “cases of necessity” not unduly generalized?
The motives for our apostolate (cases of necessity and needs of the faithful) are, after all, the same as those claimed by the recent and openly schismatic Neue Katholische Kirche of Austria... an uneasy bedfellow!
“Haec oportet facere, et illa non omittere”. It is right not to accept modernism and the erroneous conception of religious liberty; it is also right to keep to the Mass of Saint Pius V, but we must also keep faith in the Church and in the Pope, with the visible and concrete obedience that follows therefrom. It is not because the Pope sometimes scandalizes us, as at Assisi, that we on our side can play fast and loose with canon law. There is enough disorder in the Church as it is without adding to it!
On the notion of Tradition.
Allow me to think that there is in the Society’s words and writings a real and profound ambiguity over this question.
If we considered the recent book by Fr. Celier, we could ask: is Tradition…
-the treasury of liturgical customs accumulated and purified during the course of the centuries? Or
-a “really traditional bishop” (p. 53) But how do you define such a bishop, other than one having been appointed by Rome? For if there is one point which is part of Tradition, and of revealed Tradition, it is the bishops’ visible dependence with regard to Peter!
Or
-“works” (schools, pilgrimages, etc.), of necessity fragile and ephemeral (p. 23, 46).
Or
-a community: to give life to the Tradition. (p. 23) .
Or
-the “decor”: the red cassock, the lace alb, the two tunics, the ring, the crozier, even the prelate’s face, every thing about it is perfect, everything about it is traditional (p.115)
But never is Tradition defined as a given fact, on a par with Sacred Scripture. In this case, moreover, is it possible to say that the Pope is failing in Tradition without denying his infallibility and the efficacy of Christ’s prayer for Saint Peter?
Sola Scriptura. The Protestants, the Jehovah’s Witnesses, the Mormons and others all make the Bible say conflicting things. It is easy to demonstrate to them that, as a consequence, Sacred Scripture is not sufficient by itself and that it calls for a Magisterium, an authentic interpreter.
Does not the same have to be said for revealed Tradition? Sola Traditio? Everyone lays claim to it to condemn the other. So it is not sufficient by itself; it demands a Magisterium, an authentic interpreter. And this Magisterium is not ourselves, but the Pope.
In short, although I hardly remember these words of John Paul II in the Motu Proprio of July 2, 88, Fr. Celier was right to remind us of them, and I totally agree with them:
“At the root of this schismatic act lies an incomplete and contradictory notion of Tradition” (p. 30) “... a false concept of Tradition” (p. 85)
Concerning the Society’s total silence about the very positive things that have come from Rome lately.
Why have we had no echo, for example of:
-the Pope’s discourse on television (it “inculcates moral relativism and religious skepticism; the best thing to do with it is to switch it off!” ).
-the Directory to priests, forcefully and clearly reaffirming the distinction between the priesthood of the simple baptized and the ministerial priesthood, and recalling so many counsels with the same fervor as in the letters of Saint Pius X and Pius XII on the priesthood.
-And why hardly any echo of the document concerning the ordination of women — a document that is difficult to deny as coming under the ex cathedra Magisterium.
On the contrary, there has been a manifest desire to draw the attention of priests and of faithful to the negative points: “He who would drown his dog accuses it of rabies”... We are often told to pray for the Pope, and we protest our submission to eternal Rome, etc., but in reality these assertions only serve to keep a closer eye on the Pope, to criticize him systematically, like the hunter lying in wait for the wolf to emerge from the woods. “Let us be careful to show up not only the lights but also the eventual shadows” (Cor unum 47, p. 5)
Such an attitude is psychologically indispensable to justify the Society’s positions. For the ultimate justification of the consecrations, the major argument on which the Society’s whole attitude rests, is to insist that everything is going badly outside the Society and that sound doctrine has everywhere disappeared, except in the Society.
You will no doubt tell me: you cannot accept everything that comes from Rome. “Bonum ex integra causa, malum ex quocumque defectu.”
Indeed, but let us begin by sweeping in front of our own front door. The first remark to make is that if we scrutinize the writings of the Holy Father, picking out only the negative, we can at least be allowed the same attitude with regard to our fellow priests and even superiors.
On the ends of marriage.
They harp on about the inversion advocated by Vatican II. But here is the text from the Council: “By their very nature, the institution of matrimony itself and conjugal love are ordained for the procreation and education of children... and so a man and woman render mutual help and service to each other...” (GS 48) “Marriage and conjugal love are by their nature ordained toward the begetting and educating of children...” (GS 50, 1) “Marriage to be sure is not instituted solely for procreation. It demands that the mutual love of the spouses, too, be embodied in a rightly ordered manner.” (GS 50, 3)
And here is the text from the Catechism of the Council of Trent (Marriage nº 3), repeated by Pius XI (Casti connubii nº 22) : “The primary motive (causa) determining a man to marry is the natural instinct which inclines two beings to unite in the hope of mutual support... The second motive is the desire to have children...”
If there is any inversion of the ends of marriage, it is rather to the honor of Vatican II. Let us be honest with the texts, and not make them say the opposite of what they actually say, a priori, in order to justify our own theses or positions.
On the notion of infallibility.
More and more we hear in our ranks this thesis that the Pope is only infallible when he speaks ex cathedra. The faithful assert this and so do the seminarians, who say that they learned it at the seminary (?)
Now, it is a matter of faith that the Magisterium of the Church, and therefore of the Pope, is infallible and that it is composed of both the ordinary and extraordinary Magisterium.
So why reduce the authority of the ordinary Magisterium to a simple “grand authority”? (Cor unum 47, p. 31)
On the relationship between authority and faith.
How far can one say: “it is not authority that holds first place in the Church but really the faith”? That statement seems dangerous to me. Who is going to tell me, a poor sinner of the taught Church, where the faith is if not the teaching Church, in the person of Peter: “I have prayed that your faith fail not.”
Is there not a danger of subjectivism in firstly making one’s own idea of the faith: “such is the true faith, such is the teaching of the popes and of preceding councils, such is the Tradition”, to go on to conclude: “such a one is indeed pope”, because he adheres to my idea of the faith. Is that not free judgment? Is not the Church’s approach the other way round: “ubi Petrus, ibi Ecclesia”? In practice we are confronted with two “infallibilities”. That of the Pope’s ordinary Magisterium, and that of the superiors.
Why trust the authority even of a superior general rather than that of the Holy Father? Through constantly criticizing authority at its different levels, schools, State, priests, bishops, Pope, do we not end by destroying in the heart of the faithful, and especially of the children, the very principle of authority?
A certain lack of information: Fr. Celier’s book “ L’Eglise déchirée “ as well as his open letter published in Fideliter no. 96, can be taken as a veritable apology for the Fraternity of Saint Peter. It shows, in fact, how the Fraternity of Saint Peter encounters many difficulties, yet still manages to assert itself and remain faithful to the Mass of Saint Pius V (whatever calumny to the contrary...) In the book, which is recommended as perfectly documented and drawn from impeccable sources, there are several pages which are a tissue of gratuitous, incomplete and vague statements. On page 43, for example: “according to serious information, the Fraternity of Saint Peter proceeded some time ago to the election of a new Superior General”. This is called a General Chapter, which can be pinned down in time and space, and not just “some time ago” or “according to serious information”!
A disturbing party spirit: A seminarian of the Society wrote to me recently assuring me of his prayers for the ordination of my brother Michael, adding: “whatever you do, don’t repeat it, for I would risk a lot of trouble for having written this simple phrase”. So one is not free at Flavigny or at Ecône to pray for confreres of other Congregations?
“Are you completely free? Are you not subject to some influence? Is passion not involved somewhere in your thoughts?” Fr. Aulagnier wrote to me on 8 February.
I think I can calmly answer that it is without passion that I reached these considerations and conclusions. Knowing myself to be easily emotional, I wanted “to let time take its course”; and do not think that I reached such grave decisions lightly.
In 1988, I leaned on this phrase of my great grandfather the venerable Admiral de Penfentenyo: “In a storm, a sailor does not change captain.” There was a storm then, and I did not want to take a decision in such a context. Since then, things have calmed down and become clear, especially at Lourdes, where I had the time to re-read the texts.
The profound influence was
1) the non-replies to my questions, particularly the non-arguments of Bishop Tissier: “Archbishop Lefebvre had the grace to decide; ours is the grace to follow, and that should be enough.” Truly, the day when I received that letter, something was broken; I no longer felt part of the same family. But I wanted time for study and prayer.
2) a re-reading of the papal documents, especially those of Pius IX and of Leo XIII (added below). If we take our stand on the previous Magisterium to criticize the Declaration on religious liberty, it is necessary, in all honesty, to not evade this same previous Magisterium on the question of the consecrations.
3) and finally, the grace of Lourdes: “At Lourdes, one finds an increase not only of love and devotion towards the Mother of God, but even of veneration and of submission with regard to the Vicar of Christ” (Saint Pius X, Dec. 23, 1908). At Lourdes, one sees the Church, in all her richness, her wretchedness (for there are many excesses there) and her diversity. But with love and compassion. Here “deeds speak louder than words”.
Conclusions / decisions.
-The terminus a quo (where I am leaving from) became inevitable: I left my dear Society, not without apprehension; but it had become a duty of conscience. For a reason of faith.
I felt that my faith in the Church was being profoundly changed, and I was finding it increasingly difficult to sing with honesty “Credo in unam, sanctam, catholicam et apostolicam Ecclesiam” or to explain to children the catechism chapter on the Church and the Pope.
I want to maintain faith in Peter, despite his misfortunes, basing myself on Christ’s efficacious prayer: “I have prayed for you, that your faith fail not”, and on the Church’s teaching concerning the “duty of hierarchical subordination and of true obedience, to submit, not only in things concerning faith and morals, but also in those things pertaining to the Church’s discipline and government.” (Pius IX, Pastor Aeternus, D694).
-The terminus ad quem (where I am going to) is still less clear. But God will show me the path to follow.
Scio cui credidi, et certus sum quia potens est depositum meum servare.
I first went to Rome to regularize the canonical situation with the Ecclesia Dei Commission. The only text I was made to sign was the one also signed by Archbishop Lefebvre: the preamble of 5 May 1988 (Cor unum nº 30, p. 30 and 31).
I then celebrated Holy Mass in Saint Peter’s basilica over the tomb of Saint Leo the Great.
And now I do not intend to plunge headlong into this or that community.
I need to step back and visit various communities faithful to the Mass of Saint Pius V (essentially the Institute of Christ the King and the Fraternity of Saint Peter), if only to get to know them from the inside, and “de visu”. For I have noticed how for some years stories have been made up about Barroux or the Fraternity of Saint Peter, for example (is it not opportune to note that the seminarian who left Saint Peter’s, and who was the main author of the famous report which caused such a stir against the said Fraternity last autumn, had to be dismissed from Flavigny last Easter...)
At any rate, I know that I can count on the prayers of all of you that God’s will be clearly made known.
Did we not say on 28 June: “Praesta quaesumus Domine ut nullis nos permittas perturbationibus concuti, quos in apostolica confessionis petra solidasti.”?
You will accuse me of treachery. Maybe. You will say what you like. I would simply answer in the words of Saint Bernadette, who became very dear to me in those two years at Lourdes: “To allow myself to be calumniated, despised, rejected and torn. Ah! how I would glorify God!”
“My desires are that there should be no memory of me other than to despise, humiliate and abuse me, since, in effect, nothing more than that is due to me.” (Intimate notes, 1873)
You will perhaps ask me why I did not wait for the General Chapter.
I absolutely side with no one’s problems, neither out of discouragement nor bitterness. The marks of sympathy received from several of you during these last weeks testify to that.
But it is almost a year that I put fundamental questions to the Superiors — questions which the Superiors themselves said were legitimate.
The only fundamental response I received was a non-response: “Archbishop Lefebvre made the choice, we have only to follow, and that should be sufficient.” This absence of any doctrinal response made my departure inevitable . I do not want to war against you. I judge no one, but, in conscience, I judge myself before God. However, “iterum et iterum”, I put the question, hoping that my gesture will echo among my confreres and superiors more than my questions.
Either one must not ask or put questions; but it is all too much like the Jehovah’s Witnesses and other sects.
Or else there is a coherent doctrinal answer, and I shall immediately rejoin the Society. For it is the family in which I grew up and which I love, with all my confreres with whom I spent twenty years.
Or else there is no answer, as unfortunately seems apparent, and in the course of the General Chapter, for which I shall make the novena and fast as requested, the consequences will have to be drawn with a truly supernatural faith in the efficacy of Christ’s words and in the Pope’s mission, which is an object of faith just as is the Trinity or the Real Presence.
Very dear confreres, again I express my priestly friendship and union of prayer.
Our Lady of Lourdes. Pray for us all, poor sinners.
Abbé Emmanuel Berger
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Some papal documents.
[Dossier appended by Abbé Berger to his circular letter, in support of his conclusions.]
On the infallibility of the Pope.
Pius IX, Apostolic Constitution “Pastor Aeternus” (July 18, 1870): “All the venerable Fathers have embraced and all holy orthodox doctors have venerated and followed their apostolic doctrine knowing full well that this See of Peter remains ever free from all blemish of error, in accordance with this promise of the Lord our Saviour to the Prince of his disciples: “I have prayed for you, that your faith fail not; and you, when you are converted, confirm your brethren.”
Supreme judge.
Pius IX “Pastor Aeternus”: “And since, by divine right of the apostolic primacy, the Roman Pontiff is in charge of the universal Church, We further teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful, and that the faithful may have recourse to his judgment in all cases within his ecclesiastical competence; that the judgment of the apostolic See, above which there is no authority, can be reformed by no one and that no one is permitted to judge its judgement.”
Extent of obedience to the Pope.
Pius IX “Pastor Aeternus”: “We teach and declare that the Roman Church, by divine institution, has principality of ordinary power over all other Churches, and that this truly episcopal power of jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff is immediate; that pastors and members of the faithful, each and everyone, whatever their rite or rank, are subject to him by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, not only in things concerning faith and morals, but also in those things pertaining to the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world, in such wise that, maintaining unity of communion in or profession of the one faith with the Roman Pontiff, the Church of Christ is one single flock under one single supreme Pastor. Such is the teaching of Catholic truth, from which no one may depart without losing the faith and salvation.”
Submission is necessary for Salvation.
Pius XII to the Archbishop of Boston: “Those who expose themselves to the grave danger of opposing the Church must seriously reflect that once “Rome has spoken”, they may not disregard it even for reasons of good faith. Their bond with the Church and their duty of obedience are certainly stricter than they are for those who adhere to the Church “only by an unconscious desire”. They should understand that they are children of the Church, lovingly nourished by th milk of doctrine and the sacraments, and hence, having heard the voice of their Mother, they cannot be excused of culpable ignorance. They should therefore understand that the following principle applies to them without restriction: “Submission to the Catholic Church and to the Sovereign Pontiff is necessary for salvation.”
Communion with Rome – Schism – Unjust declaration of Excommunication.
Pius IX, “Quartus supra” (Jan. 6, 1873): “The Catholic Church has always regarded as schismatic those who stubbornly resist her legitimate prelates, and especially the supreme Pastor, refusing to carry out their orders and even recognize their authority. It is as contrary to the divine constitution of the Church as to the perpetual and constant Tradition, for anyone to prove the catholicity of his faith and truly call himself Catholic when he fails in obedience to the Apostolic See... he who abandons the Chair of Peter, on which the Church is founded, falsely persuades himself that he is in the Church, since he who raises a chair against the Chair of Peter is already a sinner and schismatic.
All these declarations are so weighty that the conclusion must be that anyone who has been declared schismatic by the Roman Pontiff must wholly cease usurping the name of Catholic as long as he fails to recognize and expressly revere his full authority.
But as the neo-schismatics can gain no advantage... they excuse themselves saying that the sentence of schism and of excommunication against them... was unjust and, consequently, invalid. They have even gone so far as to say that they could not submit to the sentence for fear that the faithful, deprived of their ministry, might embrace the cause of the heretics. But these are arguments of a new kind, totally unheard of and unknown to the Fathers of the Church.”
Pius IX. “Quae in Patriarchatu” (Sept. 1, 1876): “What is the point of loudly recognizing the dogma of the supremacy of Peter and of his successors? What is the point of repeated declarations of Catholic faith and of obedience to the Apostolic See, when these fine words are belied in act? Is not rebellion made more inexcusable by the fact of recognizing obedience as a duty? Furthermore, does not the authority of the Holy See extend to the measures we have had to take in sanctioning them? Or is it enough to be in communion of faith with this See, without submission and obedience — something which cannot he maintained without attacking the Catholic faith?... It is a question of recognizing the authority of the Holy See, not only with regard to faith, but even with regard to discipline. He who denies this is heretical; he who recognizes this and stubbornly refuses to obey is worthy of anathema. Let those, therefore, who have strayed from the right path, envisaging things differently, hasten to return to the right way. Faith without charity is of no use.”
Faith avails nothing without Charity.
Leo XIII, Eximia nos Laetitia, to the Bishop of Poitiers, (July 19, 1893): “Those men... separated from the most holy communion of the Catholic world. Let them not rely on the honesty of their morals, nor on their fidelity to discipline, nor on their zeal in maintaining the doctrine and stability of religion —does not Saint Paul say that all this counts for nothing without charity? ... Do not be deceived, my brothers; if anyone follows the authors of schism, he is not an heir to the Kingdom of God.
For that same reason, they can promise none of the graces and fruits of the perpetual sacrifice and of the sacraments when administered with sacrilege, even though valid and serving in some way the form and appearance of piety, as Saint Paul says (2 Tim 3:5) and of which Saint Augustine speaks at length (Serm 71 on Matt 32) : “The form of the branch may be visible, even outside the vine, but the invisible life of the root can only be preserved in union with the stock. That is why the bodily sacraments kept and advocated by some outside Christ’s unity, can only retain the appearance of piety. But the invisible and spiritual virtue of true piety cannot abide there any more than feeling can remain in an amputated member.” But since they no longer have even a single priest who adheres to their tenets, they cannot even boast of this appearance of piety. They no longer have the sacraments, with the exception of baptism, which they confer, so it is said, without ceremonies on children; a fruitful baptism for the latter, provided that once the age of reason is reached they do not embrace the schism; but deadly for those who administer it, for in conferring it they willfully act in schism.
Legitimacy of the Episcopacy
Leo XIII, Etsi multa: The very first elements of Catholic doctrine teach that no one can be considered a legitimate bishop if be is not united by the communion of faith and charity with the Rock on which the Church of Christ is built, if he does not adhere to the Supreme Pastor to whom are confided all the sheep… whoever separates himself from this See becomes a stranger to the Christian religion, since he ceases to be part of its structure.
Further Considerations on Authority
St Leo the Great (2nd sermon on the anniversary of his election to the Sovereign Pontificate): In my humble person, it is Peter who is considered, it is Peter who is honoured, Peter in whom continues the solicitude of all pastors, with the care of all the sheep that are confided to them, and to whom dignity is not lacking, even in the case of an unworthy successor.
Leo XIII, Est sane molestum: If by chance there should be in the ranks of the episcopate a bishop not sufficiently mindful of his dignity and apparently unfaithful to one of his sacred obligations, in spite of this he would lose nothing of his power, and, so long as he remained in communion with the Roman Pontiff, it would certainly not be permitted to anyone to relax in any detail the respect and obedience which are due his authority. On the other hand, to scrutinize the actions of a bishop, to criticize them, does not belong to individual Catholics, but concerns only those who, in the sacred hierarchy, have a superior power; above all, it concerns the Supreme Pontiff, for it is to him that Christ confided the care of feeding not only all the lambs, but even the sheep. At the same time, when the faithful have grave cause for complaint, they are allowed to put the whole matter before the Roman Pontiff, provided always that, safeguarding prudence and the moderation counseled by concern for the common good, they do not give vent to outcries and recriminations which contribute rather to the rise of divisions and ill-feeling, or certainly increase them.
Comments