The Bishop's Weekly Column from the Parish Bulletin

OUR LADY OF FATIMA

CATHOLIC CHURCH

"Ask not what they say,
ask rather why they say it..."

December 20, 2008

UPDATE: AFTER THIS COLUMN WAS POSTED THE AUTHOR DISCUSSED IN THIS POST CONTACTED ME TO SET ME STRAIGHT. I MISTAKENLY IDENTIFIED A COMMENT THAT FOLLOWED HIS ARTICLE AS COMING FROM HIMSELF. THE REMARKS DISCUSSED BY MYSELF HEREIN WERE ACTUALLY FROM SOMEBODY ELSE ENTIRELY. THIS COLUMN HAS BEEN MODIFIED ACCORDINGLY. I OFFER A HEARTFELT APOLOGY FOR THE MISTAKE AND EMBARRASSMENT AND INDEED INJURY TO REPUTATION.

I was privately e-mailed about a week ago by the author of a blog over in England. Although I link to his site I visit his postings only rarely just to skim through and move on. These days I "surf" very little indeed. In any case I was alerted to a post about my recent opinings on the Pope and the continuing malaise within the Church. I responded that I would reply to his article over in this column when I had time.

In preparation for that reply, however, I went back to read the original post and then I read the (by then) 27 comments and replies which followed. The author UPDATE: NOT THE AUTHOR AT ALL himself had left a follow-up.

I can’t go into details, but his thesis is that the episcopacy, like all the sacraments, being a sort of tentacles-like extensions of the sacramentality of the Church itself, cannot exist as independent slot-machine products, unrelated to the sole context in which the sacraments are meaningful, that is without the context of the Church. Applied to the Bishop Carlos it is o.k. so long as there is a substantial community, a sort of defective part of the Church in which the persons consecrated by him can really be and are bishops, however schismatics; but if TF is merely to serve a few eccentrics, I don’t believe that he has really received the episcopacy. The Church would be extremely vulnerable if Christ, the Primary Minister of all sacraments, were to hand on his Prophethood, Kingship and Priesthood, in such an automatic way. I can't believe He would let Himself be open to such a manipulation.

Now even before I can reply to his original post we have to put the cart-before-the-horse and respond to his follow-up first.

To begin with, Vatican II introduced a sea-change in theology at all levels; sacramental theology was also impacted as well. In reference to the so-called "Thuc consecrations" I once saw a copy of a letter (I still possess a copy of the French original) from the bishop of Frejus-Toulon , (the locale in which Thuc lived for his most industrious series of episcopal consecrations in 1981). The diocesan bishop was responding to a question in regards to the validity of the consecrations (whether the men who received episcopal ordination where in fact bishops as far as Rome was concerned). In his reply the bishop gave three reasons why Rome refused to accept the validity:

1/ The presence of mental imbalance (which Rome ascertained after a required medical evaluation following the Palmar fiasco prior to lifting Thuc's first excommunication).

2/ The existence of force and fear for some of the consecrations which in a parallel and analogous case in marriage nullifies the consent of the contracting parties.

3/ Following the Second Vatican Council, episcopacy is to be seen in the context of the "College of Bishops" hence to receive episcopal ordination outside the context and apart from the college of bishops is to receive that order invalidly.

The bishop of Frejus-Toulon assures us in the same letter that he heard all of this directly by telephone with Cardinal Seper, the successor to Cardinal Ottaviani in the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and Cardinal Ratzinger's predecessor.

Now I know that this revelation will send all the usual sede crows up into the air since most (if not all) of their "clergy" have "orders" that come from Thuc but I am not concerned with that issue right now. What does interest me is the third reason given for the invalidity of the Thuc consecrations: receiving episcopal ordination outside the context of the episcopal college.

Well, clearly the idea that one is joining the "college of bishops" at episcopal ordination/consecration is a complete novelty - one "cooked up" by the Second Vatican Council. The Church has always maintained (in the East as well as in the West) that one consecrator is necessary for sacramental validity. Likewise, in the West, except for the Donatist heretics, sacramental validity has nothing to do with the moral probity of either the minister of the Sacrament or its recipient and everything to do with the work of the work (ex opere operato) as far as I recall from sacramental theology. Even your Baltimore Catechism student can tell you that the Sacraments happen just by a valid minister saying the right words and using the right elements (let's say water for baptism for example) and doing the right thing (e.g. pouring the water whilst saying the right words).

Now as to the vulnerability of a Christ administering Sacraments in an automatic way (i.e. to the "unworthy") - according to some authors Christ did so in a big way to Judas Iscariot by first of all making him a bishop at the Last Supper and by giving him Holy Communion prior to his betrayal of Our Lord ! What then the price of a vulnerable Christ ? What are we to say of every sacrilegious Holy Communion ? Of each unworthy confession ? Of each invalid marriage - annulments do happen don't they ? The validity of the reception of Holy Orders has nothing at all to do with the number of people to whom the candidate does already (or will) minister to, but on whether the ordaining minister is validly ordained, uses the correct ceremonial actions, says the right words and has the correct intention. Anything else just isn't Catholic theology ! So our would-be lay theologian again:

if TF is merely to serve a few eccentrics, I don’t believe that he has really received the episcopacy

I think a few of my "eccentrics" (for which read the word "parishioners") would take extreme exception to this characterization of their understanding of Catholicism, but in any case the personal belief of an armchair lay would-be "theologian" as to the validity of "my" episcopacy is neither here nor there in the final analysis ! UPDATE: ORGINAL SENTENCE REDACTED. Even a baptized baby boy could be validly ordained and consecrated and nobody would start asking where his flock is or questioning the validity of the Sacrament administered based on the number of people to whom "junior" would eventually minister as the case might be !

All that to deal with just an off hand comment ! What about the real purpose of this article ? Well the original post alleges (in a nutshell) that the reason I have become disgruntled with Pope Benedict XVI is that he acts exceedingly slowly and that because he hasn't moved fast enough in correcting the abuses within the Church I have become pessimistic and jaded in regards to this pontificate. UPDATE: THIS OVERSIMPLIFIES THE ORIGINAL POST. Nothing, in fact, could be further from the truth !

Archbishop Fulton Sheen was once giving a flight attendant instructions in the Catholic religion. He did this every time he took a flight and she was on the plane. Things were going along very well until he discussed the Catholic Church's opposition to abortion. That was it, all hell broke loose, she would never become a Catholic now ! Commenting on this unexpected reaction, Sheen said: "Ask not what they say but why they say it." The young lady in question had had an abortion and was guilt-ridden. He explained the matter to her (God forgives all ills) put her at her ease, and she later became a Catholic after all.

I have not become jaded with this pontificate because the Pope moves too slowly, I have been jaded for more than a couple of years because I have been reading some of this Pope's theological works and I have been deeply disturbed by what I have read. I am not going to get into a deep discussion at this point, but I will give you just this cryptic teaser: a modernist who wears burlap vestments I can handle, one who wears lace and fine silk and looks "traditional" is to my way way of thinking highly insidious and dangerous ! That many trads have allowed themselves to succumb to the appearance of Tradition with the current Sovereign Pontiff is deeply disturbing. That UPDATE: SOME TRADS (NOT THE AUTHOR HIMSELF WHOM I MISTAKENLY THOUGHT I WAS CRITIQUING) should now espouse the most liberal of theological positions means either they never fully understood the premises of the fight of traditionalists for their Faith or that they have also fallen for the externals of Tradition in Pope Benedict and none of its substance ! Kyrie eleison !

+TF