Those Who Reject the Popes and are out of The Church
The Holy Thursday (2th April 2015)
My dear brethren,
“Taking bread, he gave thanks, and brake; and gave to them, saying: This is my body, which is given for you. Do this for a commemoration of me. In like manner the chalice also, after he had supped, saying: This is the chalice, the new testament in my blood, which shall be shed for you. But yet behold, the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the table. And the Son of man indeed goeth, according to that which is determined: but yet, woe to that man by whom he shall be betrayed” (Lk. 22:19-22).
From this passage of St Luke, it is clear that Judas was still at table when our Lord Jesus Christ instituted the most Holy Eucharist… and he made a sacrilegious communion. St Matthew, followed by St Mark, mentions the announcement of Judas’ betrayal before the Institution of the Holy Eucharist; but this is easily explained by the fact that he often summarises and groups together events by themes rather than chronologically. Our Lord Jesus Christ, who knew all things as God, knew that there would be – sadly – many sacrilegious communions in the Church, even many unworthy priests and bishops (and some unworthy Popes).
Thus He did not prevent one of the Apostles to betray Him, as a type of all those future betrayals, and as a strong warning to them: “woe to that man by whom he shall be betrayed” (Lk. 22:22). May our Divine Saviour always help us not to betray Him! May the Virgin most faithful protect us! And the condition to obtain the grace of not betraying is humility, because “God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble” (Jac. 4:6).
What should be the attitude of the good members towards those traitors? Should the sheep leave the fold of the Lord because some wolves are infiltrated inside? (Mt. 7:15) Should the good grain leave the threshing floor because of the chaff? (Mt. 3:12) Should the good wheat leave the field because of the cockle in the midst of them? (Mt. 13:26 ) If it would, it would never be gathered in the barn of the Lord! On the contrary, he who leaves is by that very fact reckoned as chaff carried away by the wind! Should the good fish leave the net of the Lord because of the bad ones? (Mt. 13:47-48) It would never be gathered in the vessels of the Lord!
My dear brethren, throughout the history of the Church, the very presence of bad fish in the nets of the Lord, of chaff together with the good grain on the threshing-floor of the Lord, of cockle together with good grain in the field of the Lord, has been a great trial for many. And there were repeatedly found some people who refused communion with the wicked: they were Novatians, Donatists, Cathars, and later even Protestants attacked the Church on this point. But the Church always rejected this attitude, and they, by their refusal of patience, by their proud condemnation of those around them, practically casts themselves outside of the Church. And “outside the Church there is NO SALVATION.”
This is very important: no one can live of the Life of Christ except in the Church of Christ, which is the Catholic Church! No one can be animated by the Spirit of Christ except in the Body of Christ which is the Catholic Church! No one can be saved without charity, and therefore without the love of the Church and “bond of perfection”.
That bond with the Church is not a mere theoretical acknowledgement of the Pope, it is a very practical bond – it serves to nothing to claim to acknowledge a Pope if one refuses to communicate with Him, to be in a regular canonical situation with him. It belongs to the Catholic Faith that we “believe in the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church” which is the Roman Catholic Church, outside of which there is no salvation. PRACTICAL refusal of communion with the Pope and the members of the Church is a grave sin, and has always been denounced as a grave sin since the very beginning of the Church.
The right attitude is that taught by St Augustine: IN THE CHURCH Communion with the wicked does not harm the good so long as they do not consent with their wickedness. The reason is because in the Church communion is essentially communion with our Lord Jesus Christ: thus communion with the Pope, even if he is Alexander VI, or another scandalous one (even on matters of Faith as Honorius, or John XXII who denied beatific vision before the end of the world), such communion is not communion with his errors, but com¬munion with him as Vicar of Christ: this is the essential element. So no matter how bad a Pope is, so long as he is the legitimate Pope, communion with him is not a communion with his modernism, but communion with Christ. If one rejects any practical canonical submission to the Pope under the pretext that the Pope is modernist, one practically severs the bond with Christ – in spite of a mere theoretical recognition of him.
We see the principle of St Augustine in a very vivid way today, on Holy Thursday: our Lord Jesus Christ did not refuse the kiss of Judas! The church sings this in the responses of matins of these holy days. This is how patient one ought to be with an evil member of the Church! It is at the same time evident that our Lord Jesus Christ did not consent in the least to the wickedness of Judas. If an apostle would have left the college of the apostles because of the presence of Judas, he would have left our Lord Jesus Christ!
Therefore the position of the Society of St Pius X is the right one: we want proper canonical situation without doctrinal compromise – and we affirm that a proper canonical situation is NOT IN ITSELF a compromise, even if the Pope is modernist. This is the Doctrine of St Augustine; this is the doctrine of the Church, doctrine rightly put in practice.
But the attitude of those who refuse any contact with Rome as long as there are some modernists in Rome is not a Catholic attitude: it is a variation of the Donatists’ or Cathars’ attitude. This is an attitude that leads to errors on matters of Faith: it leads to a false notion of the Church, a Cathar notion of the Church, claiming that the Catholic Church is ONLY that healthy part of the visible Church . And this becomes very grievous when one acts upon such false principle, and starts consecrating bishops based on such false principle.
If one searches what reason is given by Bishop Williamson or Bishop Faure for last week’s consecration, disregarding the small things that they look at with a magnifying glass, one finds that their basic reason is in the accusation “that Menzingen is no longer in the truth” , and why is Menzingen no longer in the truth? Because we continue the efforts of Archbishop Lefebvre for a proper canonical situation while they claim that one should not nothing to do with Rome so long as it is occupied by modernists, and they refuse any such canonical regularisation so long as there is still modernism in Rome.
It is very clear that Archbishop Lefebvre did not wait for Rome to be free of modernism for discussing with them a practical canonical regularisation: for a whole year he discussed with the Roman authorities in order to obtain it, and he did so just after Assisi, which was a very big scandal. He said that he had gone somehow too far by signing the protocol of May 5th 1988, but he NEVER SAID that he was wrong to search for a practical canonical regularisation, never!
His repeated efforts throughout the history of the SSPX for this end are well known and documented. And he even said, after the Consecration, that he expected within a few years that such discussions would start again. Bishop Fellay cannot be accused of having gone too fast: the first offers were made in 2000; more than 14 years later, the SSPX has not yet received a proper regularisation. This delay is because we refuse any doctrinal compromise; it is the best proof that we have not compromised!
Given that the basic reason for last week’s episcopal consecration by bishop Williamson is false, then the act based on such empty foundation has no legitimacy, and therefore fully deserves the sanctions which the Canon Law rightly apply to such action. Because in the Church, episcopal consecrations are not a little thing! There are essential to the unity of the church. When Archbishop Lefebvre did it, he had a real cause, a proportionate cause, a just cause – and he did so while fully and practically recognising the Pope; when Bishop Williamson did not, he did not have a real cause, he did not have a proportionate cause, and did it with complete disregard for the Pope.
There are many other circumstances about these consecrations which I have developed in the “striking contrast” which you have probably read. But I wanted to treat here of the core of the problem. It is a dogma of faith that in the Church there is a mixture of good and evil people – and often within each member, each one of us, there is a mixture of good and evil. The separation of the one and the other is far from being always visible. It is at the same time a dogma of faith that there is no salvation outside of the Church. So we may not cut ourselves from the Church on the pretext of the evil ones in the Church.
Now this has consequences for you, my dear brethren. I know that some of you were still going to the resistance Mass until recently. There are some sins of the priests which one may be patient with, and which do not infect the faithful – private sins (though one is of course advised to avoid such priest!) But there are sins of the priests which forbid the faithful to participate with them: and such are the sins against the unity of the Church.
The reason is because the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist is the very sacrament of the unity of the Church. Celebrated by a priest who practically cut himself off the Church by joining a bishop who cut himself, the Holy Eucharist becomes a lie: it should be the sacrament of unity while it is done outside of that unity.
This is the teaching of St Thomas Aquinas. And therefore it is not lawful to the faithful to have any part with it. Don’t risk your salvation with them! Remember the Dogma: outside the Church there is no salvation! And the Dogma that the Church is not a church of cathars, of pure ones: it is the field of the Lord with cockle in the midst of the good wheat, with chaff with the good grain, it is the net of the Lord with good and bad fishes in it.
Their rebellion against the Society of St Pius X was bad enough – but one could be patient with that. But their rebellion against the Church, against the Communion with the Pope himself, is too much: one may no longer communicate with them. One would offend Christ, the Head of the Church, by supporting those who have left his fold. One may not have a foot in both camps: they are too far apart now.
My dear brethren, it is indeed a very sad thing to see priests who used to be our brothers, our friends, and who have gone so far. This is NOT what we were taught at the seminary with Archbishop Lefebvre. We ought to pray for them, that they may return. As St Paul says, “they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge” (Rom. 10:2), “for they stumbled at the stumbling-stone” (Rom. 9:32). Bad popes have really been for them a stumbling stone.
May the Blessed Virgin Mary obtain for them the grace to return, and for all of us the grace to remain faithful and to help us not to be deceived by them. Amen.
Fr. Laisney(sspxasia)
