Lefebvre Letter on how the New Bishop for Campos will receive jurisdiction (February 20, 1991)

 

Remarks Concerning a New Bishop to Succeed Bishop de Castro Mayer

  

20 February 1991 

Dear Reverend Father Rifan, 

In addition to what I suggested in my letter to Bishop de Castro Mayer, I am sending you the attached note, in an attempt to harmonize the arrival of the new bishop and the creation of the Association of the Holy Curé of Ars, as well as the necessity of the apostolate being organized around the bishop. 

All authority has obedience as its corollary! 

The authority of the bishop will help in the unity and effectiveness of the apostolate. 

It is after reading your statutes that I thought it useful to write this note in order to avoid any conflict between the Association and the episcopal authority, but on the contrary to help them to work harmoniously for the good of souls and of the Catholic Church. 

Please convey my affectionate remembrance to the dear Bishop de Castro Mayer and assure him of our prayers. 

Sincerely in Xto and Maria.

Marcel LEFEBVRE 

Concerning the Jurisdiction of the New Bishop

Precision seems to me very important in the solution of the problems of jurisdiction of the new bishop with respect to his priests and faithful. 

First of all, it must be noted that his situation is not exactly the same as that of Bishop de Castro Mayer. This latter is Bishop Emeritus of Campos, after having been its residential bishop. Hence, one could conclude that he kept, if not a juridical power, at least a moral power, which given the present circumstances, could justify a pastoral action with respect to his former priests and faithful. 

This is not the case with the new bishop, who has no other basis for jurisdiction than that which comes from the requests of the priests and the faithful to take care of their souls and those of their children, and who have asked him to accept the episcopacy so as to give them true Catholic priests and the grace of the Sacrament of Confirmation. Thus it is clear that the jurisdiction of the new bishop is not territorial but personal, as becomes also the jurisdiction of the priests.

Comment:  This distinction between personal and territorial jurisdiction is specious.  An episcopus vegans (wandering bishop), which is what Lefebvre is describing, does not have jurisdiction over persons simply because they "asked him to (illicitly) accept the episcopacy." The local ordinary (the residential bishops who was appointed to head the diocese by the pope) has personal jurisdiction over all those within the territorial limits of his diocese. The territorial jurisdiction is personal jurisdiction over those within the territory.  A vagus bishop (which is forbidden by the Council of Trent) does not have personal jurisdiction over anyone.

Inasmuch as the faithful request from the priests and the bishop the sacraments and the doctrine of the Faith, the priests and the bishop have the duty to watch over the good reception and good use of doctrine and the grace of the Sacrifice of the Mass and the Sacraments. The faithful cannot request the Sacraments and at the same time refuse the vigilant authority (et refuser l’autorité vigilante) of the priests and the bishop. 

In order to watch over the good order of the apostolate and its efficacy, the organization of the Society of the Holy Cure of Ars seems very appropriate and ought to reunite obligatorily all the priests who desire to continue the traditional apostolate. 

It would seem desirable that the bishop, once consecrated, be named president of the presbyteral council for life, in order that he might hold an authority, which is indispensable for the nomination of priests, for new foundations, for inter-parish activities, for the seminary and religious societies. 

Since the jurisdictional authority (L’autorité juridictionnelle) of the bishop does not come from a Roman nomination, but from the necessity of the salvation of souls, he will have to exercise it with a special delicacy and taking special account of his presbyteral council. 

Comment: The last part is interesting in light of one of Lefebvre's criticisms of collegiality, which is that it allegedly ties the has of the bishops by forcing them to consult their council of priests. "The pope feels that his hands are more or less tied by the synod; the bishop feels his hands tied by his council of priests; ... this is entirely contrary to the whole constitution of the Church established by our Lord Jesus Christ" (Lefebvre, That the Church May Endure, November, 1972).  Setting aside the fact that collegiality (as taught by Vatican II) only concerns the relation between the entire body of bishops and the pope, and hence has nothing to do with a bishops consulting his council of priest, it is interesting to note that, in Lefebvre's attempt to explain how a vagus bishop can receive authority without "Roman Nomination, he does precisely what he accuses collegiality of doing, namely, he ties the hand of the bishop by forcing him to take special account of his presbyterial council.

Moreover, the faithful and priests must acknowledge the grace of having a pastor, successor of the Apostles, and guardian of Tradition of the deposit of the Faith, of the eucharistic Sacrifice, of the Catholic priesthood and of the grace of the Sacraments, and they must consequently facilitate the exercise of his authority by a generous obedience. 

Since the jurisdiction of the bishop is not territorial but personal and has as its source the duty of the faithful to save their souls, if a group of faithful in the diocese calls upon the bishop to have a priest, this group gives by this very fact, authority to the bishop (ce groupe donne par le fait même, pouvoir à l’évêque) to watch over the transmission of the Faith and of grace in this group, by the intermediary of the priest that he sent. 

Comment: The idea that a group of faithful give authority to a bishop was condemned as a heresy by Pius VI in Auctorem Fidei (Aug. 28, 1794):

The proposition, which asserts "that power has been given by God to the Church, that it might be communicated to the pastors who are its ministers for the salvation of souls"; if thus understood that the power of ecclesiastical ministry and of rule is derived from the COMMUNITY of the faithful to the pastors,--heretical. (Denz. 1502.2).

That bishops receive their authority from the people is also qualified as heresy in the Catechism of Pope St. Pius X::

48 Question: Does the power possessed by the members of the Hierarchy come from the people?

 

Answer: The power possessed by the Hierarchy does not come from the people, and it would be heresy to say it did: it comes solely from God.

 

49 Question. To whom does the exercise of this power belong?

       Answer. The exercise of this power belongs solely to the Hierarchy, that is, to the Pope and         to the Bishops subordinate to him. (Catechism of Pope St. Pius X) 

Thus, so it seems to me, will be resolved in an order, which is in conformity to the spirit of the Church, the delicate problems which come from an episcopal consecration without the explicit mandate of Rome but with the implicit mandate of the Roman Church, Guardian of the Faith. The new bishop remains the ontological link with the Church, faithful to its Divine Spouse, Our Lord Jesus Christ.

Comment: Lefebvre, who was under a declared excommunication when he wrote this, did not have an explicit mandate or an implicit mandate from Roman Church to consecrate a bishop.  Moreover, a vagus bishops is not an ontological link to the Church. The ontological link to the Church is the residential bishop who was consecrated with a papal mandate and who was appointed to rule the diocese by the Pope,  

+ Marcel Lefebvre

February 20, 1991