”.In
his encyclical letter Satis cognitum of 28th June 1896, His Holiness
Pope Leo XIII also states that “the bishops possess an
authority that is proper to them, and they truly bear the name of
prelates of the people they govern. ”.Before presenting the Apostolic Succession of our Bishop more precisely, it is important to bring some essential theological considerations to this subject, by firstly insisting on a distinction between a “valid ordination” and a “licit ordination”. This is indeed very important insofar as Dom Charles-Rafaël Payeur was ordained in a dissident Church, separated from the Apostolic See of Rome. Now, in the eyes of the Roman Catholic Church, as in ours, being valid and being licit are two very different things. Indeed, to be validly consecrated, a bishop must receive the power of Order, and Catholic tradition establishes a clear distinction between this power, of divine institution, and the power of jurisdiction, of human institution. This distinction is therefore of the greatest importance if we wish to study the legitimacy of an Episcopate conferred outside the jurisdiction of the Roman Catholic Church, and confront it with the requirements made by this same Church.
For
this purpose, the tradition of the Catholic Church teaches us that the
power of Order comes directly from Christ, by the Apostolic Succession,
and that it is conferred upon the Bishop through his consecration. As
for the power of jurisdiction, it is conferred upon him with the
approval of the head of the Church, the Pope in the Roman Catholic
Church. Throughout its long history, the Roman Catholic Church (the
Patriarchate of Rome) has established a whole juridical hierarchy to
facilitate the government of an immense international Christian
community. It is in this way that the functions of Archbishop, Primate,
Apostolic Nuncio, Cardinal or Pope developed. However, we really need
to insist on the fact that the powers attached to these titles are only
of juridical order. All Bishops are equal from a priestly point of
view. Thus, the Pope, supreme head of the Roman Catholic Church holds
the plenitude of the power of Order (the fulness of the priesthood) as
Bishop of Rome in the same way as his brethren in the Episcopate.
However, as the Sovereign Pontiff, regularly elected, he moreover holds
the plenitude of juridical power. The Bishop, by his episcopal
consecration is therefore a vicar of Christ, and not a vicar or
delegate of the Sovereign Pontiff. Thus, Vatican II reminds us that
“through the imposition of hands and the words of
consecration, the grace of the Holy Spirit is conferred, and the sacred
character is imprinted in such a way as the bishops take, in an eminent
and visible way, the place of Christ Himself, Master, Pastor and
Pontiff, and act in His place. ”.In
his encyclical letter Satis cognitum of 28th June 1896, His Holiness
Pope Leo XIII also states that “the bishops possess an
authority that is proper to them, and they truly bear the name of
prelates of the people they govern. ”.
The two powers, priestly and juridical, are therefore distinct, even though they are most often held together by the bishop. It is however possible that one may exist without the other without the bishop being schismatic because of this. This is the case of a titular bishop (without a diocese), or a retired or deposed bishop. These, though they are endowed with the power of Order, indeed do not posses that of jurisdiction. This is also, of course, the case of a bishop consecrated on the fringe of the Roman Catholic Church, without the Holy Father’s authorisation, as was the case for Dom Charles-Rafaël Payeur. On the other hand, a Church can have a head who does not have the episcopal character: a capitular vicar, or a bishop who is appointed and takes possession of his See before having received consecration, for example. He then holds the power of jurisdiction without having the power of Order.
Thus, so that a validly baptised man, having already received a valid ordination to the diaconate and priesthood, may be rightfully considered as a bishop, the Church teaches us that his consecrator must hold a valid Apostolic Succession. This is to say that he must be attached to an uninterrupted lineage of bishops, able to prove that it goes back through the centuries to one of the twelve Apostles, and that the essential rites of episcopal consecration have been respected and accomplished with the intention of doing what the Church does. Moreover, the Roman Catholic Church promulgated other rules related to the transmission and reception of Holy Orders, but it is obvious that none of them can affect the validity of the Sacrament. They can, at most, affect the canonicity or liceity. For example, to be licit, the bishop must be consecrated according to canonical rules, prescribed by the Church that elected him to the episcopal charge. In the Roman Catholic Church, the consecration must be authorised by the Pope. The bishop must furthermore be subject to the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church and its Magisterium, fully recognising its authority. Also, a bishop can be valid, but illicit, if he holds the power of Order but the conditions of liceity are not respected.
If we
resume this first point, we notice that the Apostolic Succession
confers the powers and privileges given by Christ to His Apostles, and
by the twelve to their successors, to the bishops. From this, we may
conclude that “where there is the Bishop, there is the
Church”. Thus, Vatican II reminds us “that the
bishops, by divine institution, have occupied, in the succession, the
place of the Apostles as pastors of the Church; and that whoever hears
them hears Christ, whoever despises them despises Christ and He who
sent Christ. ”
Recognizing a clear distinction between the power of Order and the
power of jurisdiction, the Roman Catholic Church must obviously then
admit the possibility that the power of Order may be transmitted
outside its jurisdiction, outside the Pope’s approval.
Indeed, “the bishops hold their powers, rights, mission,
jurisdiction, not from the Pope but immediately from Jesus Christ. ”.
This is why the Church of Rome has always carefully established the
distinction between validity and liceity, and this goes for all the
western Apostolic Churches that are in this matter distinguished from
the Protestant denominations.
Indeed,
“the Church has always believed that the nature or essence of
the Sacrament of Order consists in the legitimate consecration of
sacred ministers, done by the bishop with the right matter and form.
Herbert Thorndik, an English author, proposes another system in his
Ecclesiastical Origins, where he claims that, in addition to the
exterior rite, the approval of the Church is necessary for the
ordination to be valid. However, this system, which was approved by
Father Courayer, is no less contrary to the nature of ordination and
the practice of the Church than favourable to the errors of the
Protestants concerning the Sacrament of Order. It is contrary to the
nature of ordination, since it makes the validity depend on the power
of jurisdiction, instead of depending only on the power of Order or
character. It is contrary to the practice of the Church, which has
never reiterated the ordinations conferred by heretics and schismatics,
such as the Arians, Novatians, Donatists, whilst they held no power of
jurisdiction. It is favourable to the errors of the Protestants
concerning the Sacrament of Order, which, according to them, is a
simple deputation of ministers done by the Church, by the assembly of
the people, to exercise
sacred functions.”.
Thus, by
virtue of the power of Order, the bishop may validly transmit the
priesthood, and this independently of the juridical approbation of the
Roman Catholic Church or any other jurisdiction. This is what we also
find explained in the Apologetic Dictionary of the Catholic Faith:
“ Today, all Catholics know that, to be able truly to make
Christian priests, by observing the fitting rite, it suffices truly to
possess the fulness of the priesthood – to be a bishop. The
exercise of the power of Order, in the collation of the priesthood as
any other sacramental act, could be illicit if the bishop goes against
a prohibition of the Church. It will not be invalid for this reason,
and thus the priesthood can exist and be perpetuated – as
Christ willed – outside the aegis of the Church, even in
schism or heresy. This is a truth, not precisely
de fide definita, but definable. The theologians say: proxima
fidei.” .
In his
History of the Protestant Reformation, J. M. Spalding wrote in the same
perspective: “ As the consecration has been duly accomplished
by bishops who without doubt themselves had the episcopal character,
even if it was uncanonical and illicit, it was certainly valid. Thus,
today, heretical and schismatic bishops, unless the consecration rites
have since been altered, are endowed with the episcopal
character… ”.
If a bishop can be deprived of his power of jurisdiction, as following
a suspension, interdiction or excommunication, he cannot be deprived of
his power of Order. This question was lengthily debated by theologians
to the point of becoming one of the great discussion that animated the
Church of the early centuries. Could a bishop who is declared heretical
or schismatic ordain validly and, thus, perpetuate the priesthood
outside the Church’s jurisdiction? On this question, the
Roman Catholic Church finally adopted a firm and categorical position:
the power of Order cannot be effaced, and is perfectly independent from
the power of jurisdiction.
We could
mention the position of Saint Augustine, Bishop of Hippo and an
uncontested Father of the Church, who declared: “ because of
the indelible character conferred upon him at his consecration, a
validly consecrated bishop, even one who is then excommunicated, or
simply separated from the Church, all the same conserves the power to
transmit Orders validly. Those who receive them can then in their turn
transmit them validly to others, in spite of their schism. ”.
The thesis of Saint Augustine can therefore be resumed thus:
“ once the powers of Order are given, they can never be
withdrawn.” .
It was later stated by Saint Thomas Aquinas, Doctor of the Church, in
his famous Summa Theologica. It was also taken up by the Council of
Trent, which solemnly reaffirmed the indelible character of the
spiritual powers transmitted by the Sacrament of Order, by condemning
the heresies of the Protestant Reformation. The canons of this holy
Council have thus confirmed the validity and perpetuity of the
priesthood throughout the Church’s history. Consequently,
heretical and schismatic bishops, or those simply deprived of their
power of jurisdiction, can validly consecrate by virtue of their power
of Order, even if they cannot do so licitly. It is also important to
state that the bishop, in the framework of his episcopal functions,
does not exercise the power of the Apostles by virtue of his own
personality, merits of human dignity, but as a minister consecrated by
Christ. Also, when a bishop who is excommunicated, under interdict or
even unworthy confers Order in the intention of doing what the Church
does, the one receiving it is validly ordained. This is the purest
doctrine of the Church. If it were otherwise, we could not be certain
of the validity of any ordination or episcopate. Indeed, who was more
unworthy than Pope Alexander VI? If the human weakness of the bishop,
his morality or theological opinions affected the power of Order and
thus altered the Apostolic powers, how could the work of the Church be
perpetuated?
This
being said, let us examine the precise case of Dom
Charles-Rafaël Payeur, whose consecration as a Catholic bishop
precisely took place outside the conditions for liceity of the Roma
Catholic Church. However, before approaching this subject more
precisely, we need to remember that our Bishop firstly received Orders
in a Belgian branch of the Gnostic Apostolic Church to which Bishop
Armand Toussaint
belonged, and then received them again within a dissident Catholic
Church of Brazil from the hand of its presiding Bishop
Dom Luis Fernando Castillo
Mendez .
We must therefore examine all this more closely. Whilst he
progressively left the world of theosophy and Heindelian Rosicrucianism
to approach the Christian faith, Dom Charles-Rafaël Payeur
indeed received Orders in a Gnostic type of Church. It was at the end
of an intensive period of philosophical and theological training that
he was finally elected Bishop on 26th August 1985, and his consecration
took place on 24th November of the same year. He had of course prior to
this received the Tonsure, all the Minor Orders (porter, lector,
exorcist and acolyte) and the Major Orders (subdiaconate, diaconate and
priesthood). He was consecrated in Brussels by Bishop Armand Toussaint,
one of the successors of Bishop
Joseph-René Vilatte
,
in the Syro-Jacobite succession of Antioch.
Now, the
validity of this Apostolic Succession has never been contested. Father
David Fleming, Consulter of the Holy Office and Definitor General of
the Order of Friars Minors, declared in 1895, eight years after the
consecration of Bishop Joseph-René Vilatte: “ The
Holy Office esteems that the ordinations of the Jansenists and the
Jacobites are valid. ”.. This being said, the rite of
consecration of the Gnostic Apostolic Church, very little different
from the traditional Roman Pontifical, was scrupulously observed during
the episcopal consecration of Dom Charles-Rafaël Payeur, a
consecration that was of course celebrated with the intention of doing
what the Church does. He therefore that day become a bishop in the
Syro-Jacobite Apostolic Succession as appears on the table
of Apostolic successions
of the Gnostic Apostolic Church. He then served the Church as his
consecrator asked him to do, but he very soon began to experience a
certain malaise coming to begin with from the promises he had made
during his consecration, promises
concerning
certain beliefs with which he was no longer in total
agreement. We should note that the members of this Church moreover
adhered most often to esoteric theses such as that of reincarnation or
pantheism, from which he disassociated himself more and more radically.
Certainly, the Gnostic Apostolic Church had already taken a great distance from many esoteric theses, particularly identifying Christ as a great initiated man rather than the Son of God. At the time of his episcopal consecration, Dom Charles-Rafaël Payeur even promised to combat this idea as it appeared clearly in the promises taken by all the Gnostic bishops at their consecration. This was not enough for a man who felt increasingly close to the Catholic tradition and faith. Also, Dom Charles-Rafaël Payeur felt increasingly ill at ease about some points of doctrine, but also about the rites of his Church that were a little different from the traditional Catholic rite. He therefore asked his consecrator permission to create the Priestly Fraternity of Saint John the Evangelist of traditional Catholic rite, which was immediately granted. However, this was still not enough, and he wished to take a real distance from the Gnostic Apostolic Church and certain points of its teaching to adhere fully to the Catholic dogmas. To do this, he asked permission from his bishop to seek out a Church that would be closer to his aspirations, and turned towards the Catholic Apostolic Church of Brazil, a dissident traditionalist Catholic Church.
He then had the honour of meeting, during an apostolic trip to New York, the Patriarch of the National Catholic Apostolic Churches, Dom Luis Fernando Castillo Mendez, who was then also the Presiding Bishop of the Catholic Apostolic Church of Brazil. He then explained his project, and the Patriarch was entirely open to support him, but did not recognise the validity of the ordinations he had received. Certainly, some theological positions adopted by the Gnostic Apostolic Church and which one could consider as heretical in no way affected the validity of the Orders received, as we have already affirmed by quoting Saint Augustine, but the problem of the validity of his episcopate was no less real. Indeed, the episcopal consecration conferred in the succession of Bishop Joseph-René Villate in which his consecration figured had for the most part been celebrated by episcopi vagantes who did not keep serious archives. The Apostolic Succession validly held by Bishop Joseph-René Villate has indeed been conferred since 1892 by a lineage of more or less independent bishops, whose charts of consecration were most frequently impossible to verify historically. It has even been proven that several persons, pretending to have received an episcopal consecration from one of the French episcopi vagantes, affirming that they held their validity from Bishop Joseph-René Villate, in fact held bogus consecration certificates forged after the death of the consecrator whose name appeared on the document. As no official archive existed, no certitude is possible.
Moreover, in the precise case of Dom Charles-Rafaël Payeur, Bishop Armand Toussaint had no official paper attesting his episcopal consecration. He indeed only had a letter from a bishop of the Gnostic Apostolic Church of France who vaguely remembered that his Belgian bishop had told him about his consecration. Added to this was his inability to prove, without the shadow of a doubt, that the rites of consecration used in the multiple transmissions of the episcopate in that lineage were in conformity, for the essential, to those of the Roman Pontifical. It was indeed difficult to prove that all the bishops of the lineage, before Dom Charles-Rafaël Payeur, had been consecrated with the Roman Pontifical. This condition was of great importance for him as for Dom Luis Fernando Castillo Mendez. This question was no simple point of detail. We thus know that King Edward VI introduced a new rite for conferring the Sacrament of Order to the ministers of the Church of England between 1550 and 1552. Now, because of the defects of this Edwardine Ordinal, and following a deep examination of its content and form, Pope Leo XIII declared in 1896: “ ... the conferring of ordinations according to the Anglican rites are absolutely null and utterly void. ”.
Never has Dom Charles-Rafaël Payeur, in spite of everything, questioned the validity of his consecration received five years before from the hands of Bishop Armand Toussaint. However, he judged, in agreement with the requirements of Dom Luis Fernando Castillo Mendez, that it was necessary to receive the diaconal and priestly ordinations, as well as episcopal consecration again in the Roman Catholic Apostolic Succession held by the Patriarch of the National Catholic Apostolic Churches. This was also a condition sine qua non for his entry into the communion of the National Catholic Apostolic Churches. In agreement with Bishop Armand Toussaint, he therefore made the serious decision t be reconsecrated to fulfil all the conditions necessary for a recognition of his validity by the strictest religious authorities, for the purpose of then being incardinated into a Catholic Church whose doctrinal orthodoxy was perfectly established, and whose apostolic succession was unquestionable.
Indeed,
Dom Luis Fernando Castillo Mendez is the direct successor of Dom
Carlos Duarte-Costa ,
a dissident Catholic bishop who founded the Catholic Apostolic Church
of Brazil following his expulsion from the Roman Catholic Church by
Pius XII in 1945. It is therefore for the reason of the absence of
unquestionable historical proof of the validity of the consecration
(which is the case, let us repeat it, of most of the episcopi vagantes
who minister in “Old Catholic” Churches of the
Vilatte succession) that Dom Charles-Rafaël Payeur was
re-consecrated a bishop, a gesture which would have been otherwise seen
as sacrilege. Indeed, Baptism, Confirmation and Order once received
cannot be reiterated without committing sacrilege. Dom
Charles-Rafaël Payeur and Dom Luis Fernando Castillo Mendez
who went ahead with his re-consecration are of course deeply opposed to
the practices existing in some “Old Catholic”
Churches that consist of re-consacrating a bishop several times to give
him, uselessly in all cases, more lines of succession.
 |
This
being said, provisions for the new episcopal consecration of Dom
Charles-Rafaël Payeur were established. Thus Dom Luis Fernando
Castillo Mendez came to consecrate him on 15th July 1990 in his
cathedral chapel of Stoke, after having re-ordained him to the
diaconate on 13th July and priest on 14th July. He was assisted for the
episcopal consecration, as the Roman Pontifical stipulates, by two
co-consecrators: Dom Olinto Pereira Pinto Filho, Bishop-Primate of the
Catholic Apostolic Church of Brazil and Dom Josivaldo Pereira de
Oliveira, Bishop of Fortaleza (Brazil). The attorney Ghislain Richer
was the legal witness as appears on the consecration
certificates
. The same day, he
authorized Dom Charles-Rafaël Payeur to found the Catholic
Apostolic Church of Quebec
in intercommunion with the Catholic Apostolic Church of Brazil, thus
introducing him into the communion of the National Catholic Apostolic
Churches, whose Patriarch he is. |
 |
It
is therefore now without any doubt that Dom Charles-Rafaël
Payeur validly holds the Episcopate, according to the definitions of
Catholic theology and giving the meaning given by the Roman Catholic
Church. The apostolic
succession
of his consecrator was very well documented historically. The rite used
had always been, since the schism of Dom Carlos Duarte-Costa, that of
the pre-conciliar Roman Pontifical, and with of course the intention of
doing as the Church does. The Catholic Apostolic Church of Brazil has
never had any distinct sacramental theology from that of the Roman
Catholic Church. We should note, moreover, that the new bishop, having
firstly submitted, according to the dispositions of the Roman
Pontifical, to a serious
canonical examination
in the presence of all his clergy, publicly certified, on this
occasion, his firm acceptance of the Catholic Faith in accordance with
the Constitutions of the religious order of which he was already the
Archbishop-Primate. |