IS ONE A SCHISMATIC, WHEN IN OUR DAYS ONE CONSIDERS
THE CHAIR OF ST. PETER AS VACANT,
AND THE COUNCIL-POPES AS PRETENTION-POPES?
by
Rev. Father August Gross
(transl. by Gladys Resch; already printed in KYRIE ELEISON March / April 1983, pg. 2 ff)
The answers concerning the Council and the reforms after the Council, especially those concerned with the Liturgy, differ a lot. I am not concerned with those, who have enthusiastically accepted everything. It rather matters about discussions amongst those, who are recognised outwardly as holding on to the holy Roman Catholic Mass, and who refuse to use the N.O.M.
Amongst those the legitimacy of the Council- and Reform-Popes is vehemently discussed. The question is: are they, or are they not really Popes.
This dispute came to a head, when on November 8th, 1979, the Right Reverend Archbishop Lefèbvre put the compulsory demand to the members of his Fraternity to hold on to the legitimacy of these Popes under the cost of loosing the membership of the Fraternity. In fact, as everyone knows, several priests had to leave it for this reason.
The reasoning of Mgr. Lefèbvre is that it is being schismatic to accept the Chair of St. Peter as being vacant. (Vacation of the Papal See.)
This is his argument: "The sequence of ideas of those, who maintain that there is no Pope, would lead the Church into a hopeless situation." "This spirit is a schismatic spirit."
In front of me lies a photostat of a letter with a letterhead of the Fraternity in Germany. Preceding the signature is "i.A.": therefore, it seems to be an 'officious' comment, concerning an answer to a lay person, according to the official line of the Fraternity. There I read: "John Paul II is without doubt to be recognised as Pope by every Catholic, as long as there is no official judgement put against him. Our Fraternity insists emphatically on this simple truth against all theologically uneducated and half-educated fanatics and sectarians.
I beg you not to be disturbed in spite of the many groups which have been formed lately. We just hold firm to our holy faith and the traditional Liturgy and can be certain to contribute to the rehabilitation of holy Church." (NN, 4th July, 1982)
To contribute to the rehabilitation of the holy Church has also been the intention of other groups, existing prior to the appearence of the Fraternity in Germany. And they too are convinced that their intention is not only in a 'good' but also in an invincible 'erroneous' faith. With this I mean to say: The good intention and subjective certainty is not a theologically understandible argument.
According to this opinion of the Fraternity, the former sacristan of Herne tries, since several years, to 'draw away' the faithful, who attend Mass there, with the argument, that there they attend a Mass of schismatics. Notice: I do not claim that he has been commissioned by the Fraternity. But this will have to happen when the opinion of the schismatic mentality and the fact move the very "eager" Sedisvacantists. And perhaps it is not an exaggeration to mention that it is 'rather' unfriendly and unkind to call them theologically uneducated or half educated fanatics and sectarians.
Truly, it is about time to make some theological remarks concerning the argument regarding the Reform-Popes. This certainly must be allowed. Unless there exists in the opinion of the Archbishop a decision of the 'infaillible Magisterium'. But this can certainly not be his opinion or that of the Fraternity.
Even the respect due to him as bishop is not a hindrance to it; there have been many erring bishops. The fame too of having as sole bishop rejected the Council and the 'Liturgical Reform' for the sake of the true faith, does not forbid to have a different opinion concerning the Popes to-day. - On the contrary, as will be proved. - Even the fact, that he is a friendly and kind person does not prove the correctness of his view concerning the Pope. Where the bishop sees the faith endangered, he is of great severity, as he has proved actually in the case of Paul VI and now towards the Sedisvacantists.
Concerning the true faith, I am of the same severity and shall not even make the impression of a suggested compromise; not regarding the Council, its Popes and bishops or anyone.
As a matter of fact it concerns the right faith, and in this case the papacy. The sources of which I cite Mgr. Lefèbvre are: "Mitteilungsblatt der Priesterbruderschaft" (text: "MB") No. 15 and 45; "Satans Meisterstück (text: "SM") Ed. Saint-Gabriel, Martigny 1978; teaching documents of the Church by Denzinger-Schönmetzer, Herder, Freiburg 1965, and Neuner-Roos, Pustet, Regensburg 1975.
Mgr. himself produces theological arguments for his opinion, as mentioned above: "The train of thoughts of those, who claim that there exists no Pope at present, would lead the Church into a hopeless situation." "All this should incite us to pray and to keep up bravely the Tradition, but without letting ourselves, at the same time, be tempted to pretend that the Pope is no Pope." "This spirit" of those, who claim that there is no Pope at present, "is a schismatic spirit". (MB 15, pg. 6)
What is meant by a "schismatic spirit" and who is a "schismatic"? "Sectarians" are of course to a great extend schismatics and at the same time heretics! - The code of the Church declares: "If a baptised person - who retains the name of Christ - denies or doubts persistently one of the truths to be believed in God and the Catholic faith, he (she) is a heretic; if he (she) abandons totally the christian faith, he is an apostate (This is not meant in the modern, indifferentist meaning as it is used, since the Council in the 'Catholic Church' taken over by the heretics. No one would ever have imagined at the time of the codification if the Canon Law, that this meaning of the word would ever become commun in the speach of Popes, bishops and many people.)
If one finally refuses (the expression "persistently" - above - still being valid) to submit to the highest Pontifex or refuses to have community with those, who submit to him, one is a schismatic". (CIC, can. 1325 § 2) Ludwig Ott explains this in "Outline of the Catholic Dogmatics" as follows:
1) Unity of faith.
It consists in that all members of the Church stand inwardly firm to the submitted truths of faith, at least inclusively, and professes them openly - (unity of creed ...).
2) Unity of community.
It consists on one side in the submission of the members of the Church under the authority of the bishops and the Pope - (unity of government or hierarchical unity) on the other side in the connection of the members among themselves, forming a social unity by taking part in the same cult and in the same means of grace (unity of cult or liturgical unity).
The unity of faith as well as that of community is garanteed in the safest way by the primacy of the Pope, the highest teacher and shepherd of the Church. The unity of faith is being destroyed by the heresy, the unity of community by schism (a.a.O., pg. 35 etc). To avoid misunderstanding one has to add, that Ott understands it this way: For the heretics or schismatics their unity with the Church is destroyed accordingly, not the unity of the Church in hereself; because, then she would be destroyed in hereself and at all, what is impossible according to the affirmation of Christ: "The gates of hell will not prevail against it."
Now then: If Paul VI and John Paul II are truly Popes, the Sedisvacantists are naturally schismatics and even heretics. They would have given up the unity of the Creed, the government and the cult of the Church. This applies not less to Mgr. Lefèbvre. He too refuses to accept the Council in its teaching of ecumenism, collegialism and the freedom of faith and the reform of the Liturgy. The essential difference consists in that then the Sedisvacantists are 'objectively' schismatics, but not 'subjectively'. They refuse to offer those men the divine and ecclesiastical demanded obedience in faith, cult or government, because according to the true faith, they can only give it to those men, who are truly Popes. Or in the reverse case: the true faith in Jesus Christ, who does not change His teaching in the course of time, or let it be changed in the Church, includes for them the necessity to refuse the legitimacy of the Council-Popes.
As opposed to this Mgr. L. emphasizes since November 8th, 1979 that Paul VI and John Paul II are Popes. With this he breakes subjectively the unity of faith, cult and government with these Popes and the true Church. Because, where the Pope is, there is the Church. Who then has a "schismatic spirit"?
There is not enough space here to enter into the reason what could have brought Mgr. L. to persistently hold on to the idea that we have nowadays legitimate Popes. - This will have to be explained in a wider study, in which all arguments and questions will find their answer.
Mgr. L. tries to avoid the theological logical consistency of the above train of thoughts by a certain theory, "which is more complex, but also more realistic: it is the theory of a Paul VI, who is to a very great extent, a liberal". (SM, pg. 44) Not to understand this theory, proves one to be theologically uneducated or half educated and to be on one's mercy of the sectarian's fanaticism.
On this theory Mgr. L. means to settle the refusal and recognition of the Popes. The refusal: "St. Peter himself is the one, who - as follower of Peter (as Pope; notice of the translator) condemns... what is being demanded by the present Pope." (SM, pg. 18); "because it is impossible that Popes don't teach the same doctrine; it is impossible that the Popes revocate each other that they contradict each other." (ibid, pg. 11) "Jesus Christ cannot be divided. One cannot say: one obeys Jesus Christ of to-day, but not Jesus Christ of yesterday". (ibid, pg. 10) "One cannot possibly be outside the truth, when one continues what had been done for 2000 years, when one does not cease to believe what had been believed for 2000 years. This is absolutely impossible". (ibid, pg. 16 f.); "because the liberal and modernistic church, which is occupying the true, to silence forced Church, has no right to demand obedience, but rather have we to resist, because her orders and tendencies are not those of the Catholic Church. They destroy the Church. We may not co-operate with the destruction of the Church; we do not want to become Protestants." (ibid, pg. 28) "To retain the faith and the means which have sanctified souls and the Church for 2000 years ... is a criterion of the attachement to the Church ... Incidentally, it is just this criterion which decides also on the legitimacy of the succession of the See of Peter and the bishoprics". (ibid, pg. 29)
Is there any true Catholic, who will not agree with all this? That's why the Catholics were so relieved and happy when finally a bishop too agreed to the things they knew already, or - others - to the things they found out through him. The Sedisvacantists too agree with this. And would it not be the appropriate consequence to recognise that Paul VI was not truly a Pope? Often enough Mgr. L. says: "It is impossible that..."
But it is somehow different for Mgr. L. Already on February 27th, 1977 he gives it another interpretation: "Which attitude should we have towards Pope Paul VI? This attitude will differ according to how one defines Pope Paul VI; because our attitude towards the Pope as Pope and follower of Peter cannot change. Therefore the true question is: Was Pope Paul VI ever or is he still follower of St. Peter? If the answer is in the negative - Paul VI was never Pope, or is it not anymore - we must consider ourselves to be in a period of sedisvacancy, which would simplify the problem. This is being claimed by some theologians, by referring to Church-agreed declarations of previous theologians, who have thoroughly examined this problem of a heretic and schismatic Pope... It is not to be ruled that this hypothesis will one day be confirmed by the Church; because it has certain arguments on its side." (SM, pg. 43)
(Meanwhile Mgr. L. is convinced of the fact that this cannot be right anymore, but reveals a schismatic spirit.)
Mgr. L. also mentions as second hypothesis the possibility of Paul VI kept in custody and put under drugs, which he rejects as unacceptable. Mgr. L. continues: "Is there not more complex but also more realistic answer between the two hypothesis of a heretic Pope, who as such is no Pope anymore, and a Pope, who does not carry any responsibility, because he is being hindered to accomplish his office by the tyranny of his environment? It could be the answer of a Paul VI, who, to a high degree, is a liberal. The roots of his liberalism lead to Luther, Jean-Jaques Rousseau, Lamenais, but also to those he has known personally: Mare Sangnier, Fogazzaro, the 'bad Maritain', Teilhard de Chardin, La Pira etc." (SM, pg. 44)
"In this case our conclusion is as follows: we are with Pope Paul VI as follower of St. Peter, if he accomplishes his duties as follower of St. Peter; but we refuse to follow Pope Paul VI as follower of Luther, Rousseau, Lamenais etc. The official and permanent ministry of the Church makes it clear to us if Pope Paul acts one way or the other. We therefore consider all his endeavours, acts and punishments as null, which are supposed to oblige us to follow Paul VI as liberal and destroyer of our faith; but we accept all acts which are helpful to support our Catholic faith. If it should prove a contradiction to the promises of Our Lord Jesus Christ, that a Pope is basically liberal, one would have to follow the first hypothesis. But this does not seem evident." (SM, pg. 45 f.)
All this was primarily put as "Answer to several actual questions" to the Seminarians and later published offically in SM. A little more than six months later, he said in a sermon in Poitiers: "We obey all Popes of yesterday, therefore we also obey those of today"; "as we are faithful to all Popes and all Councils of yesterday, we are convinced to be faithful also to the Pope and the Council of today... As, once more: 'Jesus Christus heri, hodie et in saecula". (SM, pg. 11) Referring to the hypothesis of a liberal Pope, these strange sentences become understandible. This explains his saying: "But are we obliged to accept the errors because they come to us from the authority? Not more than we would have to obey parents who are blameworthy and demand of us to act as they do." (MB 45, pg. 10) This brings immediately 'a light' to most listeners. This is how the Apostles talked before the Council, which wanted to forbid them to proclaim Jesus as the Messias, and Son of God. (Acts 5,29)
But all this is terribly wrong. The Apostles contradicted the Council, which had no religious authority anymore: the old Covenant and its authorities no more existed. The veil of the Holiest was torn at the death of Jesus.
The authority of parents, educators, the government also comes from God, "of Whom every authority (paternitas, fatherhood) receives its name (which stands for the "essence", the "nature") (Eph. 3,15) But God has not given them the infaillibility for the practice of their authority.
Here we see that Mgr. Lefèbvre has put the wrong question. Instaed of asking for the "definition" of Paul VI (see above), he should have asked for the definition of the Pope's office. Then he would have realised that "the promise of Our Lord Jesus Christ" would be incompatible with a "liberal Pope". Because Jesus Christ has promised the following to Simon, the son of Jonas: Whatever you will bind one arth, will be bound in heaven. (Et quodcumque ligaveris) - Whatever you will loosen on earth, will also be loosened in heaven. (Et quodcumque solveris). This is Jesus Christ' definition of the Pope, such is the kind of power of administration of the one, who possesses the "keys of heaven". By this he is the "rock", on which the Church stands securely and invincible. (compare Mt. 7,24-27)
The Archbishop L. says rightly: "One cannot divide Jesus Christ." (SM, pg. 10) That should mean in one (Jesus Christ) Who, in His own life on earth and in all centuries of the Church teaches this through the Popes and Councils, and then, in our times teaches something opposite through the Popes and the Council. Can He contradict Himself in the same Pope? But it is also not possible to 'divide' a Pope as individual, as one whose acts in office are partly obliging and partly not obliging. Our Lord did not say: Some of the things you are binding will also be bound in heaven - which people will be able, through the official and permanent teaching of the Church, to decide for themselves, under the leadership of a bishop, whom I shall provide. - What is really permanent, is the strength of the previous decisions of the Church's ministry. Every ordinary faithful should know them to that extent, that he recognises the contradictions between the old true doctrine and the new one. Further, Our Lord did not say: some of what you are binding will not be bound in Heaven. It is not necessary to mention that the teaching of the Church concerning the Papacy is not different:
"We therefore teach and express: The Roman Church possesses, according to the instruction of the Lord, the priority of the orderly power over all other churches. (Here too we have to notice, that again the nowdays unfortunately used 'ecumenical language' is not meant. By "churches" we understand what could be called church-provinces.) This power of competence of the Roman Bishop, which really has episcopal character, is immediate. To this power shepherds and faithful of every rite and rang, separately as well as in their entity, are bound in duty to hierarchical submission and true obedience, not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in order and government to the Church, extended over the whole world. Thus keeping this unit with the Roman Bishop in the community and in profession of the same faith, the Church of Christ is one flock under one supreme shepherd. This is the teaching of the Catholic truth of which nobody can deviate without endangering his faith and his salvation (Vatican Council 1869/70, 4th session, 3rd Chapt.; D-S No. 445) "Therefore, who ever says that the Roman Bishop has only the office of supervision or administration and not the whole and supreme power of competence over the whole Church, - and actually not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in what concerns the order and government of the Church extended over the whole world -; or, who says, that he has only a larger part but not the fullness of this supreme power, or that this, his power, is not orderly and immediate over the total as well as the single Churches, as over (all) and the single shepherds and faithful, should be anathema." (Vat. Council, DS 3064)
One has to believe Mgr. Lefèbvre when he says that he is only concerned about the true faith and the salvation of souls, that he is not acting in a schismatic mentality. Obviously he has 'good faith' when he says: "As we are faithful to all Popes and Councils of yesterday..." Unfortunately he is deceiving himself and also his followers. All Popes and Councils mentioning the papacy teach unanismously: absolute obedience is due to the Pope.
It is really tragic. Just for the sake of having a Pope today, he invents a 'sort' of Pope, who does not exist in the revelation. He destroys the true conception of faith concerning the Office of a Pope; it is not true that it is the office of the rock because a, as legitimate Pope, accepted man, "leads since 15 years the presidency for the destruction of the Church"; therefore it is not true that his 'binding' and 'loosening' are a binding and loosening by God, because it is natural that one cannot follow an order of the supreme head to "dissolve" and "destroy" the Church. That is how the Papal office is being annihilated, accepting Paul VI (and John Paul II) as "legitimate" Pope. What remains is a figurehead. We are supposed to recognise a 'deputy Pope' for the infaillible true preaching of the Gospel and the Church discipline. But we are not prepared to accept this.
Jesus Christ said, that the authority of heaven guarantees all actions of Office of Peter and his followers. As He does not lie and also possesses the almightiness to keep His promise, the one - who is claiming to have the papal authority and "wants to destroy the Church" and intends to bring to power a "modernistic church", which is occupying the true, "silent made Church" - can unquestionably not be a real Pope. If he had taught a new doctrine, contradicting the old real one, pretending 'only' according to the ordinary ministry - but Mgr. L. knows by experience that one still insists on total submission - if he had also 'defined' it or somehow 'held out' (pertinaciter, CIC a.a.O.) and made known as his strong convinced 'faith' and retaining the name of Christian - even the name of 'Father' of all Christians - such a man in the robes of a Pope is a heretic, and as such in any case incapable to officiate. In reality the petition of the Our Father "Your Will be done on earth as it is in Heaven" finds its fulfilment in the papacy. The papacy is the 'navel string' by which the visible Church on earth is connected with God and receives her life to grow to the "fullnesse of Christ" in the "Magnificence of the Father". The Sedisvacantists are far away from having a "schismatic spirit" and to be "theologically uneducated or half educated fanatics and sectarian."
- If Paul VI had been a true, real Pope, all complaints against his Council and his reform would only be based on imaginations.
- If Paul VI and John Paul II are considered true Popes, one has to obey them, as one has to obey God.
It follows from the true Catholic doctrine, concerning the papacy: The resistance to a man, who seems to have the right to claim papal authority, is not a real but only an apparent disobedience if this man is not a real but an apparent Pope. Who ever considers such a long sedisvacancy impossible, because to his opinion "the Church would be lead into a hopless situation" (MB 15, pg. 6) should remember the situation in which Jesus said to Peter:
"Man of little faith, why have you doubted?" (Mt. 14,31) |
