Prudence, the “auriga virtutum” (charioteer of virtues) in that it guides all the other cardinal virtues, enables us to choose the appropriate means to achieve our end: without prudence, the other virtues do not exist, nor can we attain even the most excellent end we set out to achieve.
Recently, those faithful to the Catholic Tradition have been presented, by various parties, with announcements that strike us as highly imprudent. These announcements are new, it is true, but ultimately they repeat situations we have seen before. Our Institute, having been asked by many of the faithful to give its opinion on the matter, can only reiterate what it has maintained from the outset—though this may not be known to all those who have only recently come to us.
We refer, on the one hand, to the announcement of new episcopal consecrations by the Society of St Pius X, without the so-called Roman mandate (from the Holy See), but rather in defiance of the explicit prohibition reiterated by those occupying the Apostolic See; and, on the other hand, to the various initiatives by sedevacantist bishops with a view to convening an “imperfect General Council” (imperfect in that it takes place in the absence of a Pope) with a view to the election – from their perspective – of a ‘Pope’. The first announcement also sets a date for this event: the four episcopal consecrations are due to take place on the 1st of July, whilst the second merely lays the groundwork for this “General Council” or “conclave”, whichever term one prefers.
Let us state straight away, for the sake of clarity, that the “Mater Boni Consilii” Institute is totally opposed to both initiatives, just as it has been in the past regarding similar initiatives (from the episcopal consecrations by Archbishop Lefebvre in 1988 – cf. statement of July 1988 – and those of Bishop Williamson – cf. press release of 20 March 2015 – on the one hand, as well as the various sedevacantist pseudo-conclaves, such as that held in Assisi in 1994, on the other).
The state of necessity in the Church’s current situation
Our Institute recognises the existence of a state of necessity in the Church’s current situation. At least since 7 December 1965, with the ‘promulgation’ of the acts of the Second Vatican Council, and subsequently with the reforms that followed (liturgical reform, new Code of Canon Law), the Apostolic See has been juridically occupied by a person (materialiter ‘pope’) who lacks the formal aspect of the Papacy, the “being with” on the part of Christ, and is therefore not Pope (formaliter). The Church is not in a state of order, but in a state of deprivation of Authority. In this context, the “Missio” entrusted by Christ to the Church must absolutely continue, in particular through the celebration of Holy Mass and the administration of the Sacraments, for the glory of God and the salvation of souls. For this reason, despite all the difficulties this may entail, we are not opposed to the consecration of bishops even without a Roman mandate (which is impossible to obtain in the absence of Authority); these are bishops who have no jurisdiction (which comes from the Pope) but only the fullness of the power of Holy Orders to administer the sacraments of Holy Orders and Confirmation.
If one follows the doctrine of the Society of St Pius X, does this state of necessity exist?
The Society of St Pius X answers in the affirmative. In reality, it is not clear how it can sustain this view. According to the Society of St Pius X (and this is a prerequisite for membership), all the Pontiffs who have occupied the See of Peter from the Council until now are legitimate Pontiffs, and the Mass and the sacraments administered according to the new rite are valid. It follows that:
the Church is still today governed by a legitimate successor of Peter, Vicar of Christ, endowed with the charism of infallibility, and with jurisdiction over all and every member of the faithful in matters of faith, morals and discipline;
that, in communion with him, some 5,000 bishops govern the various dioceses, being named as such by the priests of the Fraternity in the Canon of the Mass alongside ‘Pope’ Leo XIV; in the past, two bishops consecrated according to the new rite were welcomed as such to reside in the Fraternity’s houses;
that the rite of the Mass (even the Novus Ordo) celebrated throughout the world is valid, just as episcopal consecrations, priestly ordinations and sacramental absolution are valid: everywhere in the world, the Church is governed by her legitimate Shepherds and sanctified by valid sacraments;
the ‘Supreme Pontiff’ Benedict XVI has, moreover, lifted the excommunication imposed on the bishops consecrated by Archbishop Lefebvre, whilst ‘Pope’ Francis has granted the priests of the Fraternity the authority to hear confessions, to bless marriages, to have a court of first instance, very often to be welcomed into Catholic churches and even to receive some of them, thereby allowing them, in effect, to “experience Tradition” as they had requested;
that many Institutes which celebrate Mass using the traditional Missal have been canonically recognised by the Holy See, and their members are ordained by bishops recognised as having been validly ordained by the Fraternity as well, who could conceivably ordain priests of the Fraternity in the future, should the Fraternity so request;
that, finally, if the Fraternity were to wish to turn to bishops ordained solely according to the old rite for ordinations (and why on earth would it do so, if it considers ordination according to the new rite to be valid?) there are now countless bishops consecrated within the so-called Tradition (far too many, to tell the truth), some of whom—those consecrated by Bishop Williamson (who was himself consecrated within the Society by Archbishop Lefebvre)—share the Society’s positions on the legitimacy of Leo XIV and the validity of the new rites…
The Society of St Pius X proclaims that it is compelled by a “state of necessity” to consecrate four new bishops not only without the Roman mandate but even against the explicit will of the ‘Pope’, yet this necessity is solely that of the Society, and not, as they claim, that of the Church.
An act of a schismatic nature
In this context, the consecration of four new bishops without a Roman mandate by the Society of St Pius X is an act of a schismatic nature:
first and foremost, and objectively, because it was carried out in communion with Prevost-Leo XIV, thereby participating in his “capital schism” ;
secondly, and subjectively, as an act of grave disobedience—punishable by excommunication—towards the one whom they (albeit erroneously) recognise as the Vicar of Christ. The Superior General of the Society of St Pius X has asked Leo XIV and ‘Cardinal’ Fernandez, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (!!), for authorisation to consecrate the four bishops whose dossiers have been submitted: one cannot seek authorisation, thereby recognising the authority of the person from whom it is sought, if one then disregards his refusal.
The pseudo ‘imperfect general council’ advocated by certain ‘sedevacantist’ bishops
This, too, is nothing new. Even before the episcopal consecrations of Bishops Carmona and Zamora in October 1981, certain faithful, priests and later ‘sedevacantist’ bishops held, on the one hand, that the Apostolic See is (entirely) vacant—generally since 1958—and, on the other hand, that there was and remains a need to proceed with a papal election, a tendency commonly referred to as “conclavism”. More often than not, this proposal has remained purely theoretical, without being put into practice; however, on some occasions the intention has materialised in the election of antipopes: the most ‘serious’—though by no means the only—case was that of the aforementioned ‘conclave’ in Assisi, which in 1994 elected a claimant Lino II. We would not be discussing this topic were it not for the intense propaganda surrounding a new ‘conclave’ – or rather, in the absence of cardinals, an ‘imperfect general council’ – which would bring together the ‘sedevacantist’ Catholic bishops for this purpose (the election of a Pope).
As for us, we have never followed this path leading to schism (if not to ridicule), based on the principle that only he who has (juridically) the power to declare the See vacant can then provide for the provision (provisio) of that See. Now, only residential bishops and local ordinaries have the right to participate in the Council, whilst titular bishops have this right only if summoned by the Pope, as they lack jurisdiction. Bishops consecrated out of necessity due to the (formaliter) vacancy of the See are neither residential nor titular (who are consecrated on a Roman mandate) and therefore have no right whatsoever to declare the See legally vacant, to participate in a Council—even if it were ‘imperfect’ (not having been convened by the Pope)—let alone to elect a Supreme Pontiff. To this must be added that the status and number of electors must be certain, whereas these bishops, without any appointment by the Church’s Authority, may be consecrated by anyone without any criteria, nor can it be authoritatively discerned who has been lawfully consecrated and who has not. We therefore hope that plans for a ‘council’ will remain just that and not be put into practice; otherwise, we will obviously be unable to recognise any elected candidate as the true Pope, nor administer the sacraments to anyone who considers themselves to be in communion with him.
In conclusion
The rampant modernist heresy is not to be countered with imprudent schismatic solutions. The Institute adheres to the wise position set out in the so-called Cassiciacum Thesis by Monsignor Guérard des Lauriers, thereby avoiding both pitfalls.