Interview with Msgr. Guérard des Lauriers o.p.on the Thesis of Cassiciacuм
CURRICULUM VITAE
(Translated from the Italian using Google Translate)
Born in 1898 near Paris, Michel Guérard des Lauriers attends the institutes of secular teaching. He entered the Scuola Normale Superiore [founded at the same time as that of Pisa] in 1921, and passed the math competition exam in 1924.
He studied for two years in Rome, with Professor T. Levi-Civita, and prepares a thesis that he will support at the Sorbonne under the chairmanship of Professor Elie Cartan.
He joined the Order of Preachers in 1925, became a profession there in 1930, and was ordained a priest in 1931. Professor at the Dominican University of Saulchoir since 1933, he also teaches at the Pontifical University of Laterano starting in 1961. This Roman stay was the opportunity, for Father Guérard des Lauriers, to elaborate the doctrinal part and to collaborate in the original editorial staff [due to Cristina Guerrini] of the letter entitled: “Brief critical examination of the Novus ordo missae” (1), letter addressed to Paul VI on June 5, 1969 [Feast of Corpus Christi], by the Cardinals This step earned Father Guérard des Lauriers his leave from the Lateran in June 1970, at the same time as Rector Mons. Piolanti and about fifteen professors, all judged undesirable. Since then Father Guérard des Lauriers has lived ‘extra conventum, cuм permissu superiorum’.
II Father Guérard des Lauriers is the author of several works of theology and numerous articles concerning the philosophy of the sciences, the criticism of knowledge, spiritual theology. He is a member of the Pontifical Academy of St. Thomas Aquinas.
Father Guérard des Lauriers published, in 1978, and then in the “Cahiers de Cassiciacuм” (2), a thesis hitherto not refuted; this thesis consists in affirming the FORMAL holiday of the Apostolic See, certainly starting from December 7, 1965.
Father Guérard des Lauriers received the Eposcopal Consecration on May 7, 1981, from Mons. Pierre Martin Ngô-dinh-Thuc, former Archbishop of Hué: Valid consecration, according to the traditional rite fully observed; Lawful and legal consecration according to the power of Legato conferred by Pius XI to Mons. P.M. Ngô-dinh-Thuc, March 15, 1938 (3). Father Guérard died on February 27, 1988, and is buried in Raveau Cemetery.
Interview
Sir, this interview cannot answer all the questions we would like to ask you. Let us concentrate in a few lines the essential and burning lines we deal with. The Italian faithful will thus be able to understand who you are, what your ideas are about the crisis in the Church, how you have chosen to act, so as not to abandon the path of Truth and remain incessantly faithful to the Church, violently placed in a state of deprivation. Here are the questions:
1) Sodalithium: You have collaborated for a long time with the Fraternity of St. Pius X and you have been a professor in Econus until 1977. Because your collaboration with Mons. Lefebvre?
Mons. G.: I have collaborated with Monsignor Lefebvre since the beginning of his work. Freiburg and Ecône, at the end of 1970. On December 25, 1970, Monsignor Lefebvre celebrated the midnight MASS and pronounced the homily: he then returned, for the joy of all, to the INTEGRITY of the traditional rite. I celebrated the MASS of the day, I pronounced the homily of which I still have the pattern, and I warmly thanked Mons. Lefebvre. I remained a professor in Ecóne until September 1977: the date on which I preached the retreat for the return to the Seminary. I was discharged shortly after. I was even refused to be able to visit the Dominican Brothers that Mons. Lefebvre had accepted Ecône as students. Reason for this exclusion: I had expressed several times in ‘private circles’ [intra muros], and had made, during a public lecture, a perfectly clear allusion to the ‘thesis’ [2a].
2) Sodalithium: Then you have elaborated Your theological thesis on the fundamental points: the Council, the Magisterium, the Papacy. You can summarize us briefly:
- a) what your theological thesis consists of
- b) in what, especially, the doctrinal attitude of Mons. Lefebvre?
Mons. G.: [2a] The ‘thesis’ called ‘Cassiciacuм’ (exposed in the ‘Cahiers de Cassiciacuм’). (2)
[I.] The statement of the thesis of ‘Cassiciacuм’ [designated from now on with: ‘thesis C’].
- a) This thesis requires a metaphysical assumption that is essential to be explained. Each created entity is composed. If this entity is material [and not pure spirit], this composition is that of matter and the form is defined: ‘quo aliquid habet esse’: ‘what that this entity has to be’; so the soul is the form of the human compound. Matter, globally considered, is, in the body, what is distinct from the form and has the being by form: the subject matter is defined: ‘quod habet esse’: ‘what, in the concrete body, has the being’; thus the body united to the soul, in the human compound.
From this it appears that from the point of view of metaphysics, [which is that of being], matter is determined by form: there is from matter to form, an ontological relationship [on, ontos: the entity] that is from determined to determinant.
So that, if in the same concrete entity there are two ‘parts’ A and B, such that A is, from an ontological point of view, determined by B; and if you want to characterize this relationship THAT IS IN THE ENTITY between A and B, putting yourself from the POINT OF VIEW OF THE ENTITY, you must say this. To consider this MATERIALITER entity is to consider in this entity the ‘Part’ A. To consider this same FORMALITER entity is to consider in it the ‘part’ B. To consider such a human being MATERIALITER is to consider in him the body, and everything that has a relationship with the body. To consider this same human being FORMALITER, is to consider in him the soul, and everything that has a relationship with the soul.
Why introduce this distinction: MATERIALITER-FORMALITER which seems like an abstraction and a complication? If this is done, it is out of the concern of REALISM, because the speech is more in line with reality. In fact, what exists, is the WHOLE, the compound, is the man who is together body and soul. The soulless body is not even a human body; the separate human soul is not a person. If you want to grasp the body and soul as THEY ARE IN REALITY, you have to consider them in the whole; you have to consider: SUCH a human being according to his body, which is to consider it MATERIALITER [from the point of view of the “matter”]; and you have to consider SUCH a human being according to his soul, which is to consider it FORMALITER The distinction: MATERIALITER-FORMALITER, which is a question of ‘points of view’, therefore seems to be more abstract than the distinction: MATTER-FORM, which is a distinction of ‘seous things’. However, in reality, the distinction: MATERIALITER-FORMALITER better respects the concreteness of the institution, and the true nature of the ‘parts’ as they really are IN THE ENTITY and ONLY IN THE ENTITY.
From this MAXIMUM conformity to REALITY, it necessarily follows that the distinction MATERIALITER-FORMALITER has, ex if, an analog scope that cannot have the MATTER-FORM distinction: which concerns, not being as such, but only a particular category of bodies created.
- b) The relationship that exists between the physical person of the Pope and the papal charism, is clearly specified by means of the distinction: MATERIALITER-FORMALITER.
Let us explain this by considering a ‘concrete case’.
Cardinal E. PACELLI is the one elected of a valid Conclave, he is not yet Pope. However, unlike all the other Cardinals, Cardinal Pacelli, and he alone, is in ultimate disposal to become Pope: just as, over the course of a generation, the matter that is about to become that of the generated is in ultimate disposal to receive the form of this. It can therefore be said, by analogy, that the natural person elected by a supposedly valid Conclave is Pope MATERIALITER; and this IPSO FACTO: PROVIDED HOWEVER that the said natural person is not mortgaged by an obex that has remained hidden suspending the normal effect of the election in it.
Cardinal E. PACELLI accepts the election. He receives, in the very act of this acceptance, the Communication exercised by Christ in favor of Peter and Peter's successors [John XXI, 15-17]. Cardinal E. PACELLI is therefore constituted Vicar of Jesus Christ. And since it is very precisely in being Vicar of Jesus Christ that consists of the fact of being Pope, it is said that the same natural person, namely Cardinal E. PACELLI, who by virtue of the election was Pope only MATERIALITER, becomes Pope FORMALITER in the very act in which he accepts the election. In this second stage [FORMALITER], however, there is a conditio sine qua non: and this is exactly as in the first stage [MATERIALITER]. This condition is evident, and it is as follows: it is necessary that, at the very moment that Cardinal E. PACELLI affirms externally to accept the election, DO NOT PUT inwardly, in a hidden way, an obex that has prevented him from RECEIVING the Communication promised and exercised by Christ. If it had been further ascertained that such an obex had existed in the act of acceptance, Cardinal E. PACELLI would not have been Pope FORMALITER at any time.
The distinction FORMALITER-MATERIALITER understood as it has now been exposed, was used by San Roberto BELLARMINO. This distinction and the two sine qua non conditions that have been specified, are imposed on the other hand, for the metaphysics of ‘common sense’, and by virtue of the NATURAL LAW founded by this metaphysics, required by it: and, consequently, also subject to divine law, a fortiori to canon law and purely ecclesial law.
- g) The statement of the ‘thesis C’, in accordance with the FORMALITER-MATERIALITER distinction.
The ‘thesis C’ concerns the relationship dealt with in the previous paragraph [b]: the relationship between the natural person who ‘occupied’ at least apparently the episcopal seat of Rome, and the charism that is right to the Pope.
‘Thess C’ comprises two parts, in accordance with the two members of the key distinction [FORMALITER-MATERIALITER].
A] The ‘occupier’ of the Apostolic See [Cardinal Montini, at least after December 7, 1965, Mons. Luciani, Mons. Wojtyla] IS NOT POPE FORMALITER. It should not be designated by the name of Pope.
That is to say, the saying “occupant” IS NOT, in any of his acts, the Vicar of Jesus Christ. These acts, precisely because they claim to be acts of the Pope, as Pope, ARE NULL. There is nothing to disobey the ‘orders’ claimedly brought by Mons. Wojtyla as he would be Pope; since the Vicar of Jesus Christ is not in place; all the orders brought to this pseudo-title are VANE, NULL, without any scope in reality. YOU MUST, not disobey, but IGNORE.
B] The ‘occupier’ of the Apostolic See is HOWEVER ‘PAPA’ MATERIALITER. You can easily designate it by the name of ‘pope’: the quotation marks co-mean that it is not Pope.
That is to say, the ‘occupant’ occupies the See in an illegitimate and sacrilegial way [since he is not Pope, and he impersonates himself as such]; but he occupies it. Designating an authentic Pope requires canonically having, previously, verified and declared the royal holiday of the seat materially occupied.
C] In summary, you can say. At the latest from 7 December 1965, there is a FORMAL HOLIDAY of the Apostolic See, although this See has been and is ‘occupied’ materially by three people, all in a state of the Capital Schism.
[II.] The proof of the ‘thesis C’, in each of its two parts.
- a) The proof of part [A], that is: the ‘occupant’ of the Apostolic See IS NOT Pope FORMALITER. Since, as has been explained above [I b], the elected of a supposedly valid Conclave is constituted Pope FORMALITER in the very act of his acceptance, ONLY IF, in the very instant in which he publicly places this act, does not inwardly place another act, and is not inwardly in an occult state, which would prevent him from RECEIVING the Communication promised and exercised by
Since it is in fact in RECEIVING this Communication that one is in place Vicar of Christ, that is, Pope FORMALITER, voluntarily opposing this RECEPTION, is to make it voluntarily impossible for one to be Pope FORMALITER.
It must obviously, a priori, be assumed the loyalty of the person who accepts to be the one who is the one who is elected to a valid Conclave. However, Leo XIII expressly declared (‘Apostolicae Curae’, 13 IX 1896, D.S. 3318): ‘The Church must judge the intention as it is manifested externally’. Did the ‘occupant’ [the Apostolic See] really, by accepting the election of the Conclave, the intention to receive the Communication exercised by Christ? To answer this question it is necessary, according to Leo XIII, to consider the FACTS. If the ‘occupant’ had, in fact, the intention to receive the aforementioned communication, then he had TO LATER, HABITUALLY, comply with all the requirements of the said communication. If, on the contrary, it is ascertained that, CONTINUOUSLY AND SYSTEMATICALLY, the ‘occupant’ goes against the most fundamental needs that are inherent in the Communication exercised by Christ, IT MUST CONCLUDE, (with Leo XIII) that the ‘occupant’ did not actually intend to receive it, and that as a result he has never been [or ceased to be] Pope
Now, in the present case, the demands of the Communication exercised by Christ in favor of Peter and his successors are of two types. The ones are in the facts that are assumed to Communication; but they are in the context of the ontology: so that, although of a natural order, they are imperiously in need for Communication because they are immanent to it. The other needs are consequent to the Communication, and are of a supernatural ‘quoad substantiam’ order. We then examine these two types of needs, observing how the ‘occupant’ of the Apostolic See behaves towards each, respectively.
Jesus Christ, establishing His Church as a visible human society has ipso facto sanctioned, for this Church that is His, the norms that are immanent by nature, and therefore necessarily, to every Society of this type. Now, we limit ourselves here to remembering it, in every Company, the very existence of authority requires to be founded on the purpose of realizing the common good that is the purpose of the said Company. A physical or moral ‘person’ who, within a Company, would habitually and in many ways pursue the annihilation of the common good that is precisely to this Company, such a ‘person’ therefore cannot be the authority in that Company. The Church, born according to this law, “eam non minuit, sed sacravit: it did not diminish it but consecrated it” [as JESUS, born of MARY, has, in HER, consecrated the Virginity, and has not diminished it]. Now we observe that, for 25 years, with indirect but very effective and convergent processes, the ‘occupier’ of the Apostolic See pursues the degradation of what it should instead promote, that is, the ‘Good’ entrusted in its own to the Church by its divine Founder, particularly the PURE BLAST and the revealed Deposit. It follows that the ‘occupant’ of the Apostolic See cannot be, in the Church, the ‘Authority’. It is not Pope FORMALITER.
The Communication exercised by Christ in favor of His authentic Vicar also presents ‘prerogatives’ [and, seen from the outside, the needs] that are consequent to it. The main one is Infallibility. It is revealed that Infallibility involves two forms: the Solemn Extraordinary Magisterium [the Pope pronounces ‘ex cathedra’ (Immaculate Conception from Pius IX, Assumption from Pius XII)]; the universal ordinary Magisterium [a set of Bishops, dispersed or reunited, in communion with the Pope (Assumption, before the definition It is therefore impossible for the authentic Vicar of Jesus Christ, when he pronounces himself according to one or the other of these two forms, to affirm something that supports the opposition of contradiction with a doctrine already revealed. Now, on December 7, 1965, Cardinal Montini promulgated, committing at least [cf. (3)] the universal ordinary Magisterium, a proposition concerning ‘religious freedom’ which supports the opposition of contradiction with the doctrine infallibly defined by Pius IX in the encyclical “How much care” linked to the “Syllabus” [08 XII 1864]
It is therefore necessary to conclude, according to Leo XIII, that by doing this act, Cardinal Montini did not intend to receive the? Communication exercised by Jesus Christ, and he was no longer Pope FORMALITER.
Summarizing [a]. The Vicar of Jesus Christ cannot act, as such, but in accordance with the charism that comes from the Communication exercised in his favor by Jesus Christ. It can therefore act only in accordance with the fundamental natural norms sanctioned and assumed by Jesus Christ, and in accordance with the Truth already manifested by Jesus Christ. Any contradiction, observable and observed on one of these two points, proves, necessarily in retrospect, that the author of such a crime cannot be the Vicar of Jesus Christ.
- b) The proof of the part , that is: the ‘occupant’ the Apostolic See is ‘Pope’ Materialiter.
We have previously explained [I b] in what sense it is worth saying that the elect of a supposedly valid Conclave is, even before its acceptance, papa materialiter, provided, however: that, first, the Conclave is valid [how many “votes” have circulated, plausible if not founded, concerning the last three Conclavians... Tisserand, Siri...]; that Wojtyla belonged to an anti-Christian occult society before his election].
Now, the existence of a possible obex, discovered in retrospect, both in the ‘Conclave’ that he elects, and in the person so chosen, is not enough to infirm that he is, at least provisionally, “pope” Materialiter. Because a certain fact, but which is not of ontological order, cannot be immanent to the divine Norms themselves. Such a fact can therefore have no value and strength in the Church but by virtue of an order and a promulgation made by the authentic Authority of the Church. And, since such an Authority, currently, fails, no one is currently qualified, in the Church [we intend: the true Church; not as such the Church that presides over Mons. Wojtyla] to declare that after December 7, 1965, Cardinal Montini ceased to be a “pope” Materialiter.
The same observation applies to the ‘occupiers’ of the Apostolic See who have succeeded Cardinal Montini; this only to the extent that a ‘gerarchy’ that is only materialter can perpetuate itself. Such a perpetuation is not, ex if, impossible. However, it expressly requires episcopal enshrines that are certainly valid. And, since the new rite is doubtful, the ‘occupiers’ [of the Apostolic See] will soon be no more than ‘comparse’. Mons. Wojtyla is, in this regard and at the very least, an eminent forerunner.
How will the Apostolicism of the Church be saved in these conditions? As far as this mystery is concerned, which is currently veiling us with the ‘mystery of iniquity’, it must obviously be argued that the apostolic succession will be safeguarded, uninterrupted ‘until the end of the century’ [Matthew XXVIII, 20]. ‘visibility’ is not a note of the Church; it has suffered eclipses, since it is only the possibility of right, not always realized in fact [cf. the Great Schism] to observe Apostolisity. While Apostolic is a note, as permanent as the Church itself. It is therefore necessary to absolutely keep the norm, without which the apostolic succession would be objectively uninterrupted.
This rule, imperious and obvious, is as follows. The natural or moral person who has, in the Church, the quality to declare the total holiday of the Apostolic See is identical to the one who, in the Church, has the qualities to provide for the provision of the same Apostolic See.
Who currently declares: “Mons. Wojtyla is by no means pope [not even materialiter]”, he must: either convene the Conclave [!], or show the credentials that constitute it directly and immediately Bound of Our Lord Jesus Christ [!!].
These last observations sufficiently show that the objective scope of the question: ‘The occupant of the Apostolic See is, yes or no, ‘pope’ materialiter?’, is so out of our reach, that concretely and really, the answer to this question has almost no impact on the actually possible behavior of the faithful linked to Tradition.
[2b] In what above all the doctrinal attitude of Mons. Lefebvre?
The main viciousness of ‘Lefebvrism’ consists of a radical duplicity, which inoculates heres heresy.
[I.] ‘in verbis’. Doutuousness. ‘About each event, there are always two statements against each other, concerning relations with ‘Rome’: one for narrow circles [There is nothing to expect from Rome, Mons.’ Lefebvre is about to consecrate Bishops]: the other for the great hearers (Cresime, Ordinations) [“Everything is about to be fixed. Don't compromise everything. No episcopal Consecration”]. The last ‘number’ of this pantomime that has lasted for ten years took place on December 8, 1986. Mons. Lefebvre, in a letter opened to John Paul II, kept secret until the 8th December, and later kept silent, considers ‘that all the conciliar reforms and all the acts of Rome that are carried out in this impiety must be considered as null and void’. This statement, read on the morning of December 8 in the Priorati, withheld Seminarians who were determined not to renew their promises and therefore to leave the Fraternity. However, having given the Econians the delivery not to mention this letter, Mgr. Lefebvre continues to say that John Paul II is truly Pope. So, according to Mgr. Lefebvre, a person is the Authority, and yet the acts that this person places as it is the Authority, can be NULL, ‘must be considered null and void’. Mons. Lefebvre has such an extraordinary habitus of duplicity that it pushes him cynishly to the point of affirming the contradiction.
[II.] “in factis”. Deception and blasphemy. The practice of the Priorates teaches in fact, in practice although without saying it, that from an authentic ‘Authority’ [Mons. Wojtyla is truly ‘pope’, the Vicar of Jesus Christ is in place], a ‘missary’ proceeds so spoiled [the so-called new mass, ecuмenism ... Assisi and the rest ...] that Mons. Lefebvre refuses to comply with it.
This is equivalent, in acting, to a blasphemy against the sanctity of the Church. The MISSIO that really proceeds from the Church can only be holy.
[III.] “In verbis et factis”. Deception, spread of heresy. For at least ten years, it has been taught in Ecône, it has been repeated and imposed on the faithful of the Priory, and to the children [innocent and defenseless!] who attend the schools held by the Fraternity of St. Pius X, that the Magisterium is infallible ONLY if the Pope speaks ‘ex cathedra’. Which is equivalent to denying the infallibility of the universal ordinary magisterium, which, however, is affirmed by all Tradition, particularly by Vatican I. ‘Lefebvrismo’ therefore spreads ERESIA, in order to be able to proclaim that Mgr. Wojtyla is truly Pope, and thus be able to preserve the suffrage of the generous faithful who are put on the way to hell instead of declaring the Truth to them.
3) Sodalithium: It is said that, since Vatican II has not defined dogmas, the indisputable and on the other hand recognized presence of errors against the Faith in the conciliar texts, does not pose any problem as to the infallibility of the Church. Is all this true? And if it's not, how to judge such an assertion?
Mons. G.: The qualification of Vatican II [Cf. Cahiers de Cassiciacuм, N. 1 pp. 14-15; N. 6 pp. 13-81].
It was permissible for Vatican II not to define dogmas. But it is a mistake or a lie to assert, on the nature of Vatican II, counter-truths. An Ecuмenical Council co-covoked and approved by the Pope belongs at least and by definition to the Universal Ordinary Magisterium of the Church. In itself, that is, if things are in accordance with what nature demands, the docuмents that emanate from an assembly of this kind and that formally take up the light of the Faith [and this is the case in the definition of ‘religious freedom’] and that deal with a doctrine already infallibly promulgated, are ipso facto promulgated with the note of infallibility. The Vatican II could, strictly, assert itself ‘ordinary’: but it did not and could not do that a promulgation whose clauses canonically involve infallibility may not have to be infallible.
4) Sodalithium: What do you think, then, of Paul VI and John Paul II?
Mons. G.: God has judged. God will judge. As for us, we do not judge... at least of the intention.
These ‘fathers’ profess heresy and are at least affected by ‘Capital Schism’ [Cf. Cahiers de Cassiciacuм N. 34]. The best thing to do is, I think, not to consider them.
“Nec nominetur in vobis” [Efesini V, 3]. Sed tamen oremus pro eis [but nevertheless let's pray for them]: Miserere, de Profundis.
5) Sodalithium: What do you think of the traditional Masses celebrated by priests who, despite being critical of Rome, argue that John Paul II is truly Pope and appoint him in the Te igitur, during the Canon of Mass?
Mons. G.: Traditional Masses, celebrated with mention of John Paul II during the Te igitur.
The Priest who celebrates such a Mass pronounces the following words: “In primis quae Tibi offerimus pro Ecclesia Tua sancta catholica...: una cuм famulo tuo Papa nostro Johanne Paulo...”. These Masses are commonly referred to as: “MESSE UNA cuм”.
It is necessary, in this proclamation, to consider two things: on the one hand what is directly meaning to you; on the other, what is indirectly found there with meaning, because of the context.
[I.] What is directly meant by the formula: “a cuм”. The crime of sacrilege.
The general sense of supplication is determined by the words: ‘quae tibi offerimus pro...’. But, whatever this general sense, the phrase UNA cuм states that the Church [of Christ and God: “your”], holy and Catholic, is “a cuм” the servant of God who is our Pope John Paul II. The phrase UNA cuм therefore states that, mutually, Msgr. Wojtyla is ‘ONE, (together), WITH’ [is one thing with] the Church of Jesus Christ, holy and Catholic. Now, we have shown it [2a. g], this statement is a mistake. Because, since W. persists in uttering and promulgating heresy, he cannot be the Vicar of Jesus Christ; he cannot, as a “pope” as one should [your my Lord], be “one thing with” the Church of Jesus Christ. The one cuм therefore affirms, and proclaims, an error, concerning CONCRETELY the Faith.
Being so, it must be concluded that Mass ‘a cuм’ is ‘ex if’ objectively stained with sacrilege. The MASS, in fact, is the sacred action par excellence, since the Priest works ‘in Persona Christi’. And if this instrumental role eminently concerns the consecration act, it is equally carried out by derivation during what precedes and prepares this act, or immediately follows it. Now, everything that includes a sacred action must be pure, that is, in accordance with what nature demands of it. A proclamation that immediately specifies the concrete exercise of the Faith must always be TRUE, taking into account the Faith itself. It must be, on a second basis, if it is done during a sacred action. Therefore, if a proclamation that immediately specifies the concrete exercise of the Faith is made during a sacred action, and if it is erroneous, it constitutes IPSO FACTO AND OBJECTIVELY A CRIME, not only against the Faith but also against the sacred action. Such a proclamation is therefore stained [mortgaged] with a crime that is of the kind: ‘sacrilegio’: and this OBJECTIVELY AND INELUTTABLY, whatever the sin committed by the participants [cf. 6].
[II.] What is indirectly meaning by the formula ‘a cuм’. The crime of Capital Schism.
“Quae tibi offerimus pro...” This is an offer that is made IN FAVOUR OF. Here's what's meant directly. For this reason someone [especially Dom Gerard Calvet o.s.b.] demanded that the Te igitur be prayed for the Pope and for nothing WITH the Pope. This is a superficial view. In fact, it should be noted that in this first part of the Te igitur, the Pope is considered AS POPE, since, precisely, ‘a cuм Ecclesia’ is mentioned. (4)
On the other hand, the application of the fruit of the Mass [‘pro’], requested as random in favor of private persons in the two Memento, is requested in the Te igitur: IN EQUAL WAY, together [a cuм] in favor of the Church and the Pope, as FREE, of course, “ex part of Gods”, but as NECESSARY since CERTAIN “form
The following consequence is apparent from this last observation.
We remind you that the application of ‘the merit’ is not necessary [or: ‘de condigno’] that in two cases, that is: 1) This ‘application’ is made by Christ himself: He, and He alone, deserves, IN LAW, for others; 2) This ‘application’ is made to the person himself who acquires the merit: each one deserves ‘de con Therefore, since the application of the fruit of Mass is made of RIGHT to a moral person who constitute TOGETHER and equally [a cuм] the Church and the Pope, IT IS NECESSARY that this SAME moral person is at the principle of the Sacrifice of which she has the RIGHT to receive the fruit. D’Altronde, it is commonly stated that, if the Mass is primordially the Sacrifice of Christ, it is equally and jointly the Sacrifice of the Church [It is why, if the Priest offering the Sacrifice, AS TO THE EXERCISE OF THE ACT, operates in Persona Christi, without the mediation of the Church, however, AS TO THE SPECIFICATION OF For only the Church has divinely qualities to guarantee with certainty: the conformity with the Truth of the article it promulgates in the Name of Christ; the conformity with the Reality of the rite it prescribes in the Name of Christ. (The Priest who makes use of a rite takes ipso facto the intention of the authority that is responsible for this rite ... all the consequences can be seen!)].
And, in the Church in order, through the mediation exercised by the Hierarchy, it is the Pope in the final who confers the ‘mission’ to celebrate any Mass. The Pope is, in the Church, the ‘Somaly Pontiff’. And it is because the Church and the Pope together [a cuм] command in the militant Church the offering of the Sacrifice precisely to this Church, who have the RIGHT “in primis” to the fruit of this Sacrifice: in the ORDER CREATED, they are “in primis” as to the TERM [ie the application of the fruit], because THEY ARE “in primi
This is how you see what the real scope of the expression is: ‘a cuм’. It does not just mean that, by celebrating the sacrifice of Mass, we pray for the Church and for the Pope, as for [pro] such a private person or particular intention. ‘A cuм’ means, implicitly but NECESSARILY, that, by celebrating the Sacrifice of the Mass, it is celebrated IN UNION WITH and UNDER THE DEPENDENCE OF this moral person who are together [a cuм] the Church and the Pope: since this moral person has RIGHT in the first place to the fruit of sacrifice: RIGHT in primis that can only metaphorically found the fact
From all this derives the qualification that should be attributed to the traditional Mass ‘a cuм’.
Such a Mass is valid [assuming that the priest has been ordained validly!], because of the rite which, like the Deposition, remains divinely guaranteed by the Magisterium of the Church. But, whatever the celebrant wants it SUBJECTIVELY, the act he poses involves OBJECTIVELY AND INELUTABLY the affirmation of being in communion with [a cuм], and even under the DEPENDENCE [our pope] of a person in a state of capital schism. The act of such a celebration is therefore stained with a crime that is of the kind: ‘sm; this OBJECTIVELY AND INEVITABLY, whatever the sin committed by the participants: celebrant priest, faithful assistants. [cf. 6].
6) Sodalithium: Can you please specify the difficulties caused by assisting a traditional Mass celebrated ‘a cuм’?
Mons. G.: Difficulties caused by attending a traditional ‘a cuм’ Mass.
These difficulties result from what we have explained.
Obviously, it is necessary to leave aside the cases in which assistance to such a Mass is needed by an extrinsic reason [family reason, for example], being implied that the person who attends such a Mass will clearly and ostensibly show that he attends WITHOUT PARTICIPATING.
If the latter clause [MANFESTARY NOT PARTICIPATING] is not fulfilled, then, ex if, the mere fact of attending constitutes a participation, a security given to the celebration. And since this is OBJECTIVELY AND INEVITABLY mortgaged by the crime of sacrilege and the crime of schism, does it not follow that by participating in this celebration there is the guilt of these crimes?
The answer is, in LAW, yes. It follows that, BY RIGHT, the faithful attached to Tradition must not attend the traditional Mass a cuм. And this is taken into account: firstly of themselves, secondly of the Testimony they have to give to others.
This answer, OF LAW, yes, can practically be kept pending by two considerations. The first is of a general order, taking into account the rules of morality. A crime is not a sin if it is known as such. Ignorance excuses if it is candid; increases guilt if it is calculated, etc. ...A good number of faithful attached to Tradition understand neither the scope, nor, consequently, the gravity of the ‘a cuм’. WE NEED TO INSTRUCT THEM [cf. 10]. But until they understand you can't blame them for attending the traditional Mass a cuм ... GOD ONLY scrutinizes the kidneys and hearts ...
The second consideration that the rule of law [i.e.: not attending the ‘Messa una cuм’] can keep pending depends on the current situation. It can happen that the faithful have practically no other means of communicating than by attending a Mass a cuм. Now, if it is possible to live and progress in the state of grace without communicating, this deprivation should not be exempted from difficulties and sometimes from dangers. And as the Church has always admitted that in danger of death you can resort to a confessor even excommunicated, is it not convenient to resort to a Mass a cuм to participate in the Sacrifice and communicate to you? Pius XII reminded him with authority: in the militant Church, it is the salvation of souls that constitutes the purpose of the aims. Assistance to the ‘Messa una cuм’ can therefore be the subject of a ‘Cest of Conscience case’. Each case is a case: and it must be finally resolved by the conscience of the person concerned, but not without the advice and directives communicated by a Priest ‘not a cuм’. Neither univocal rigorism, which does not take into account the consciousness of each one; nor sentimental laxity: for example, a person who can communicate every fifteen days to a Mass “not a cuм”, has no reason and MUST THEREFORE NOT, in the interval, witness a “Messa a cuм”, even less communicate you (5).
7) Sodalithium: Monsignor, in 1981 you were consecrated Bishop by Monsignor Thuc. This Bishop has not always been clear in his acts. Following this Consecration you have been ‘communicated’ by Cardinal Ratzinger. What to think of all this?
Mons. G.: I received the Episcopal Consecration, on May 7, 1981, from Mons. Pierre Martin NGO DINH THUC.
I say that this Consecration is valid, legal as much as possible, perfectly lawful.
It is called ‘legal’, what is in accordance with the letter of the law. It is said to be ‘lawful’, which is in accordance with the purpose desired by the law. The virtue of epikeia, consists in neglecting the ‘letter’, if it turns out to be contrary to the ‘end’.
[I.] The Consecration is valid.
Expected that: 1) the traditional rite was fully observed [with the exception of the reading of the ‘Roman mandate’!] ; 2) Mons. Thuc and I had the intention of doing what the Church does.
[II.] Consecration is legal, as far as possible.
In fact, it should be known that, with a Brief dated March 5, 1938, Pius XI established Mons. Thuc as his Legate [“deputamus in Nostrum Legatum Petrum Martinum Ngò-Dhin-Thuc Episcopum titularem Saesinensem ad fines nobis notos, cuм omnibus necessariis facultatibus”].
Mons. Thuc therefore had the power to Consecrate Bishops, WITHOUT PRIOR submitting the case to the Holy See, and therefore without a ‘Roman mandate’. Mons. Thuc retained this SAME power, when Archbishop of Huè was established by Pius XII. This is proven by the fact that it was Mgr. Thuc, and not the Apostolic Administrator, who chose and consecrated all the Bishops of Vietnam between 1940 and 1950 [Mons. Thuc explained it to me, in aloud, and not without an insistent malice, the reason (hidden and true!). In this way the pensions, the expenses in case of illness, etc. of the aforementioned Bishops, all these burdens loomed on the faithful of Vietnam: while they would have to loom in ‘Rome’, if these same Bishops had been consecrated by the Apostolic Administrator]. What about this “funny” [!] ‘purposes’, it remains that with regard to the narrow point of view of the formal case, ‘Rome’, IN FACT, under Pius XII, confirmed Mgr. Thuc in his powers and prerogatives of Legato. Mons. Thuc was aware that he had preserved them, and orally made it part of it to more people: ‘when will these Docuмents be found after my death!’ But these Docuмents were not brought to light, and ‘updated’ that very late [they went through multiple and dangerous vicissitudes], so it was not possible to make use of them, as would have been appropriate. It is therefore with the greatest good faith and even in all candor, that Mgr. Thuc proceeded to do: Consecrations and Ordinations. He thought, rightly, that he canonically had the right: since this right had not been taken away from him.
The aforementioned Consecrations and Ordinations, made by Mons. Thuc, are they ‘legal’: that is, in accordance with the ‘letter’ of the law? For them to be perfectly, it would have been necessary that AFTER having made the act [not ‘before’, because Mons. Thuc had the power legally], Msgr. Thuc submitted the case to the Authority. But Mons. Thuc believed, like myself, that there is no more Authority: although, paradoxically and unfortunately, he held on us to remain equally in good relations with the ‘authority’. (6) [Read: Authority = the true Authority, of which there is currently ‘formal vacation’; ‘authority’ = PSEUDO-Authority that has been in the run since 7 December 1965]. From all this, two consequences:
From an OBJECTIVE point of view, that is to say, considering in itself the Consecrations and Ordinations made by Mons. Thuc, they are as ‘legal’ as you could [and that you can!]. Since, on the one hand, Msgr. Thuc had legally the power to perform them without the “Roman mandate”; and, on the other hand, it was and remains impossible to ‘deno’ these Consecrations and Ordinations to an Authority that, in the act and as such, does not exist. The ‘legality’ of the aforementioned Consecrations and Ordinations is, like EVERYTHING currently in the militant Church, IN A STATE OF DEPRIVATION, due to the ‘formal vacation’ of the Apostolic See.
From a SUBJECTIVE point of view, that is to say considering the aforementioned Consecrations and Ordinations as one of the behaviors of Mons. Thuc, he was forced to observe that they were for him the ‘sword of pain’ and the stone of scandal. They demanded that he break with ‘rome’, and he did it in words: but he wished, for the ‘reasons of the heart’, to have respects for ‘rome’, and was caught in the trap where he found death.
“Noli judicare si non vis errare”. What is it that this intimate agony and the Judgment of God remains, the fact remains that the Consecrations and Ordinations made by Msgr. Thuc have been as legal as you can by participating according to their nature in the state of deprivation that currently affects the entire militant Church, and distinctly each of its components... The Mystical Body Church, Bride of Christ, remaining a virgin, even on earth, of any deprivation.
[III.] Consecration is lawful.
To understand it well, it must be remembered that, in the militant Church considered as it is a human collective, EVERY PURELY ECCLESIASTICAL LAW [the holiday and the provision of the Apostolic See is part of this type of law], EVEN THOSE WHO CARRY A SENTENCE LATAE SENTIENTIAE, has no enforceability than by virtue of the Authority currently exercised. If it could be otherwise, if there could be purely ecclesiastical laws in the militant Church with enforceability independently of the Authority, it would be necessary that, at least for these laws, the Authority would receive its own mandate from the militant Church as the latter is a human collective. But this doctrine is explicitly condemned by Vatican I as erroneous [D.S. 3045]. Every purely ecclesiastical law is therefore, radically, a law of the Authority: which, by essence, is monarchical [monós archè].
It follows that any purely ecclesiastical law can be subjugated, and IS CURRENTLY SUBJECTED, to the very vicisitudes of human laws. On the one hand, the Authority can fail to force the law: and that is what happens, because of the formal holiday of the Apostolic See. On the other hand, it can happen, for accidens, that applying the letter of the law harms, instead of realizing it, for the purpose desired by the law. That's exactly what's happening now. The need for the ‘Roman mandate’, a need reinforced by Pius XII, as a condition of any episcopal Consecration, is ordered to better safeguard and affirm the monarchical character of the Authority, which is exercised on every Bishop, and on all the Bishops of Catholicity. Now, under Karol Wojtyla, a ‘consecration’ made with the ‘Roman mandate’ involves: that, in the first place, the ‘consecrated’ person [assuming it is!] it is ipso facto in a state of capital schism, as is W. himself: that, secondly, the ‘consecration’ made according to the new rite that is doubtful, is itself dubious, and must therefore be considered practically as invalid. The fidelity to the ‘Roman mandate’ therefore has as a consequence, in the short term, that W. will be the absolute monarch of a world assembly whose members will coat the episcopal insignia for the occasion, although they are not at all Bishops, nor consequently successors of the Apostles.
‘The letter kills, the Spirit vivifies’ [2 Cor III, 6; cf. Romans II, 27-29]. When the letter of the law [the prescription of the “Roman mandate”] has the effect of DESTROYING the end desired by the law [that is, unity, and therefore the very reality of the militant Church] then it is virtue, it is the virtue of EPIKEIA, not taking into account the letter of the law, in the narrow and only extent that this is necessary to continue Acts that are placed, out of necessity, against the letter of the law, with a view to ensuring the purpose desired by the law, such acts are called ‘letives’, although they are illegal. This doctrine has always been admitted by the Church.
We therefore affirm that the Consecrations conferred by Mgr. Thuc, legal as much as you could [II] since Mons. Thuc was exempted from the ‘Roman rule’, they were and remain PERFECTLY LECITE; although, as we have explained [II], their ‘legality’ remains mortgaged by the deprivation that currently affects the militant Church.
[IV.] The ‘cardinal’ Ratzinger notified me [via the Nuncio in Paris, and not the General of the Dominicans] that I had incurred the excommunication ‘latae sententiae’. He urged me to ‘re-go,’ promising me a good welcome!
– I did not reply to this message, for the following reasons:
“Ex parte objecti.” The judgment is, in itself, devoid of any basis: as has been stated above [II, III].
“Ex parte subjecti”: id est: Josephi Ratzinger, et “auctoritatis”. The only acts of ‘authority’ that may not be VANI are exclusively those ordered to what persists in the Church, materialiter, the hierarchy: MATERIALITER only, since [cf. 2a], the ‘authority’ has no power in the Church that ‘materialiter’ and not ‘formaliter’. Thus, for example, the act by which the ‘authority’ would recognize the value and ecclesial scope of the Consecrations conferred by Mons. Thuc: that act would be valid. While any act that is not expressly ordered to the permanence of the hierarchy [at least ‘materialiter’] is VANO.
One thing without foundation must not be taken into account, which is vain: it is the council of St. John (II John, 10-11 ).
– The message of the “cardinal” Ratzinger, amused me, and also rejoiced. Of all the Bishops who fully profess the Catholic Faith, I am the only one who is ‘decommunicated’ by the ‘rome’ of W. Being in no way in communion with that ‘rome’, I say thank you that it has, at least on one point, declared what the Truth is.
8) Sodalithium: In 1984 and 1986 you consecrated two Bishops, without the Rome Agreement. Why do you do this? Thinking you still have to consecrate Bishops and order priests?
Mons. G.: I consecrated two Bishops without a ‘Roman rule’: Mons. STORCK [30 IV 84]; Mons. MCKENNA [22 VIII 86].
[I.] It is necessary that the PURE OBULATION, the MUNDA OBLATEIO [Mal. I, 11].
Some attribute to me the intention of wanting to ‘save the Church’. On the contrary, I refuse to associate myself with those who profess this purpose ‘lively’. For GOD ALONE, JESUS ONLY (cf. 11 ) will save His Church in His Mother's Triumph. I am sure of this fact, it is not up to me to know the ‘how’.
However, I believe I have to sacrifice everything, do everything in my power, so that the OBLATIO MUNDA will endure on earth. The traditional Mass as celebrated by Monsignor Lefebvre and the priests ordained by Him, this Mass celebrated a cuм W. is, WHICH IS THE celebrant, OBJECTIVELY stained with a double impurity that belongs to the sacrilege and the capital schism [cf. 5]. The Mass perpetuated by the ‘Fraternity of St. Pius X’ is not, CANNOT BE, THE MUNDA OBLATE. This circuмstance of LAW is even more reinforced by the well aggravating circuмstance that follows: in view of [seeming] to justify their celebration a cuм W. the Econians do not hesitate to affirm and spread the error, that is to say that they corrupt the Faith of the faithful by inoculating their heresy (7).
If Monsignor Lefebvre had not desecrated the traditional Mass, demanding that a cuм Wojtyla be celebrated, I would not have thought either to receive, much less to confer the Episcopate.
MISEREOR SUPER SACRIFICIUM! This is the primordial reason, and self-depious for those who perceive it, for which I have agreed to receive and for which I propose to confer the Episcopate.
[II.] It is eminently convenient for the MISSIO established by Christ to last on earth [Matthew XXVIII, 18-20].
MISSIO certainly includes the offer of OBLATIO MUNDA: and this first of all. But it is broader: ‘Go, teach, baptized, educate’ It is entrusted to all the Apostles together, to each respectively. It is therefore really distinct from SESSIO, that is to say from the promised jurisdiction [Matthew XVI, 18-19], and then conferred [John XXI, 15-17] in plenary, to Peter alone; communicated to others for participation in Peter and therefore only in Peter's mediation. To the ‘faithful’ priests who contest, as if it were a ‘suspicious novelty’, the real distinction between MISSIO and SESSIO, I just ask a question. "You confess the faithful. You have received the power of it at the time of your priestly ordination. But this is, very precisely, the MISSIO, in the second of its functions [“baptized”, administered all the sacraments].
But, by whom, by which natural or moral person, do you keep those powers that, according to the Council of Trent, are required so that you can validly use the Power received at the time of your ordination? No, you do not have ‘these powers’, much less, if possible, if you are from Ecône, because then you officially acknowledge that you are ‘supesi a divinis’. You answer, “the Church is supplication.” But this ‘supplence’ is assured in the Church in order, by a purely ecclesiastical law: which, like all laws of this kind, is currently devoid of enforceability. There is, therefore, no ‘sufflence’.
The truth is that you can use power, without having the ‘powers’, because currently the Decree of Trent is devoid of enforceability. The Truth is, consequently, that you exercise MISSIO, although you are deprived of the participation normally requested from SESSIO ... for the reason that the whole militant Church is itself in this SAME state of deprivation (regarding the SESSIO) by which you are affected. MISSIO and SESSIO are therefore, within the militant Church, two truly distinct co-essential parts, of right inseparable, in fact currently dissociated: the SESSIO is kept pending by the formal holiday of the Apostolic See [cf. 1]; the MISSIO persists, as far as possible, in the priests and faithful who profess themselves attached to Tradition
Under these conditions, here is the alternative that the faithful attached to Tradition must decide:
- A) or do not continue the MISSIO. Since it, in a state of deprivation having been deserted by SESSIO, it is ipso facto avided, devoted to multiple dangers, starting with heresy and the schism. The only possible sacrament, and certainly valid, would be Baptism. It is enough for God to give the Faith and sanctifying grace.
This party is therefore not OF RIGHT impossible. That's what FAITHFUL RARES take.
- B) or continue the MISSIO. Because it is estimated that it is IN FACT impossible to preserve sanctifying grace, and even the Faith alone, without the sacraments.
In dubiis Libertas! You can choose: both A and B. But: 1) that each respects the choice of others; 2) that each strictly conforms to the internal, ontological requirement of his own choice.
I chose B. I deeply respect the people who have chosen A: may God help them. But I try again that some of these people criticize and judge with ‘obsession’, as if they were the Authority, the choice B that they are free not to do ... and even act IN FACT as if they had chosen B.
If we choose to continue the MISSION, so that the Faith and the LIFE are preserved for the greatest number, it is obviously necessary that there are Bishops. No Sacraments without Priesthood, nor Priesthood without Bishops (8).
MISEREOR SUPER TURBAM! This is the second reason why I have agreed to receive, and for which I propose to confer the Episcopate.
[III.] The rules that preside over these episcopal Consecrations without ‘Roman mandate’.
a.) The rules that derive from canon law, having taken place in the ‘Church in order’. Laws, even purely ecclesiastical, are the expression of Wisdom. They always retain managerial value even if, by accidens, they alienate their enforceable force. We must therefore ensure that no act is taken that would contravene the inspiring Wisdom of these laws. In this respect, the following should be clarified:
1) The consecrations conferred by Monsignor Thuc are lawful, and legal as far as possible.
The consecrations conferred by the Bishops consecrated by Monsignor Thuc are lawful, although illegal.
2) None of these consecrations, all lawful, conferred jurisdiction on the so consecrated Bishops. No Bishop can have jurisdiction except under the motive of the authentic Vicar of Jesus Christ. This is what Pius XII wanted to vigorously reaffirm, reinforcing the censorship brought against the consecrations without a Roman mandate. This is a reason to maintain the relative character of the jurisdiction that is inherent in the Episcopate.
3) The relations between the Bishops consecrated by Mons. Thuc are a good thing in itself. But it must, it must be clearly stated that a possible assembly of these bishops does not enjoy, as such, in the Church, any jurisdiction. It could play the role of a ferment. She would not be enabled to restore the Hierarchy.
b.) The rules dictated by the ep
Topic: Encyclopedia of the Cassiciacuм Thesis (Read 5473 times)