T
Timothysis
Guest
Wrong. The Holy See declared that St. Joan’s excommunication was invalid from the beginning, a big difference from lifting it. The 1988 excommunications were indeed legitimate.
- Status
J
JReducation
Guest
An excommunication is like a bad tasting medicine. It’s intent is to cure a illness. In the case of the four SSPX bishops, it did not work. If you go to Light of the World, Pope Benedict explains this. He explains that the reason that he lifted the excommunications was because the SSPX bishops asked. Had they not asked, they would not have been lifted.
They did not work, in the sense that the target was Archbishop Lefebvre who died without asking for Pope John Paul’s forgiveness.
Archbishop Lefebvre’s claim was that he was covered by another law that says that this is permitted in case of emergency and fear. Bl. John Paul turned the tables on the Archbishop by responding that he would not allow this law to be applied to the Archbishop. The pope can do this. He is the Living Law of the Church. Therefore, he can decide when and where the law applies and to whom, regardless of what it says on paper. This is one good reason to check such big decisions with the pope first. He can pull the rug from under your feet and make it virtually impossible for your to have a legal defense. Even if there is a law on your side, the pope can deny you a trial. Without a trial, the verdict sticks. We must remember that the pope can excommunicate anyone he wishes, just because he doesn’t like the color of your toothbrush. Look at all the kings who were excommunicated because they did not support this or that political campaign. The did not violate law, morals or faith. By not supporting the pope, the pope could claim a break with the Primacy. This was the charge that Bl. John Paul made against Archbishop Lefebvre and the four bishops.
In this case, the argument would be that Bishop Williamson’s position sabotages the pope’s personal project. Long before he was pope, Cardinal Ratzinger was working very hard on the dialogue between Catholics, Muslims and Jews. Once he became pope, this project becomes a papal project. Any action that interferes with a papal project can be called a break with the Primacy.
No Catholic may ever deliberately sabotage an official mission of the Church, much less of the pope. You can disagree, but you cannot do or say anything that will throw a wrench into the wheels.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
They did not work, in the sense that the target was Archbishop Lefebvre who died without asking for Pope John Paul’s forgiveness.
As someone has already provided, the excommunications were lifted, not declared invalid.
No it does not. The decree was very careful to name those affected by the remission of the excommunications. Archbishop Lefebvre’s name was not on the document. The only way to rescind the Archbishop’s excommunication would be to prove that it was invalid, which is almost impossible to prove. The law does say that you cannot ordain a bishop without a papal mandate. There is no doubt that he broke the law. Therefore, Archbishop Lefebvre died outside of the Catholic Church, unless there was a last minute contrition which only his confessor would know. Obviously, he cannot tell us about it. Therefore, the Church will always treat him as one who died outside. The confessor can absolve in danger of death. But we don’t know what happened there. It’s not our business to know.
Archbishop Lefebvre’s claim was that he was covered by another law that says that this is permitted in case of emergency and fear. Bl. John Paul turned the tables on the Archbishop by responding that he would not allow this law to be applied to the Archbishop. The pope can do this. He is the Living Law of the Church. Therefore, he can decide when and where the law applies and to whom, regardless of what it says on paper. This is one good reason to check such big decisions with the pope first. He can pull the rug from under your feet and make it virtually impossible for your to have a legal defense. Even if there is a law on your side, the pope can deny you a trial. Without a trial, the verdict sticks. We must remember that the pope can excommunicate anyone he wishes, just because he doesn’t like the color of your toothbrush. Look at all the kings who were excommunicated because they did not support this or that political campaign. The did not violate law, morals or faith. By not supporting the pope, the pope could claim a break with the Primacy. This was the charge that Bl. John Paul made against Archbishop Lefebvre and the four bishops.
No. The decree ceases to have juridical effect from the present date. It’s not retroactive. It only applies to those mentioned in the decree. To cease to have juridical effect, means that it is rescinded, which is not the same as declared null and void. If it were null and void, it would have been from the date that it was issued, not from “the present date.” Something cannot be valid yesterday and invalid today, unless you first change the law, which is not the case here. The law was not changed.
Again, go to Light of the World. Pope Benedict said that had he known about the interview, he would have separated Bishop Williamson from the group and not have lifted the excommunication, because “I would never introduce an anti-Semite into polite society.” This is something that he has the right to do. He can expand an excommunication to include another violation of law, faith or morals. When the pope himself calls you an anti-Semite, that’s big. Popes don’t usually resort to labeling.
In this case, the argument would be that Bishop Williamson’s position sabotages the pope’s personal project. Long before he was pope, Cardinal Ratzinger was working very hard on the dialogue between Catholics, Muslims and Jews. Once he became pope, this project becomes a papal project. Any action that interferes with a papal project can be called a break with the Primacy.
No Catholic may ever deliberately sabotage an official mission of the Church, much less of the pope. You can disagree, but you cannot do or say anything that will throw a wrench into the wheels.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
L
louis91766
Guest
Here you say that the excommunications of SSPX were lifted, but according to an Archbishop in the Philippines: the SSPX “still remain excommunicated in conscience because of doctrinal error…”As someone has already provided, the excommunications were lifted, not declared invalid.
Open Letter from Archbishop Capalla The Mindanao Daily Mirror, Saturday, November 12, 2011
C
choliks
Guest
I guess you were not able to read what Bro. JR wrote in that thread. Here’s an excerpt from his post pertaining to your comment:
J
JReducation
Guest
Thank you. This is what is meant when we say an “excommunication in conscience”. I had not heard that term in a very long time. But it is a valid one. It can happen to anyone, who is not in communion with the Church on a doctrinal matter. Those it is usually applied to those who are out of communion on what the Holy See considered major doctrinal matters. For example, those persons who are pro-abortion are excommunicaed in conscience. They may not be excommunicated, because they have never procured, performed or fascilitated an abortion. They have broken communion with the Church on a matter that the Church considers to be very serious. It’s not like the bishop who may disagree on whether to give communion to someone or not to do so. The conflict there is not a doctrinal conflict but a disciplinary one. If the same bishop said that he believes that people have a right to choose abortion, that spills over into the area of doctrine. That’s an excommunication in conscience. Today we tend to use the word “dissent” more than excommunication in conscience. That’s why I said that the bishop’s language is a bit archaic, but the concept is still in place. He’s describing what we call doctrinal dissent, today.
If the Holy See deems this lack of communion to be serious enough, it can do what the Holy Father did, to state that the person has not canonical place in the Church. You’re not being punished, which ist he usual form of excommunication that we know, but you are considered unfit to take your place within the Catholic community until you come into communion with the doctrinal requirement.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
N
NiceMimi
Guest
Thanks for your wonderful sense of humor TrueLight!
God bless!
J
JReducation
Guest
No, no, no! Joan was never excommunicated. The local bishop imposed the excommunication. She was charged with heresy, witchcraft and a few other things.
However, the bishop did not count on one fact. Joan was a Secular Franciscan. At the time, the order had a great deal of power and resources. News traveled quickly back to Rome to the Generalate of the Secular Franciscan Order. They filed a complaint against the bishop.
The long and the short of it was that the bishop was unable to prove any of the charges. The excommunication was invalid. Unfortunately for poor Joan, by the time that everything was sorted out, she was dead. She was never excommunicated.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
M
malphono
Guest
Yes, I well know that Ste Jeanne d’Arc was falsely charged, yet, the “excommunication” (what is now, at least, called ferendae sententiae (and, considering that Canon Law had not yet been strictly codified, I really don’t know if the distinction between ferendae sententiae and latae sententiae even existed at the time) was pronounced. (The difference, of course, between Ste Jeanne’s case and the 1988 incident is that the latter is said to have been a case of excommunication latae sententiae.) I find it interesting that despite the fact that Rome was aware of the goings-on, and despite any involvement of the Franciscans, it took some 24 years after her execution for the record to be set straight. In any case, at the time la Demoiselle d"Orléans was executed, the “excommunication” was regarded as valid, else there would have been no need for a subsequent trial. I merely used the case as an example of posthumous rehabilitation.No, no, no! Joan was never excommunicated. The local bishop imposed the excommunication. She was charged with heresy, witchcraft and a few other things.
However, the bishop did not count on one fact. Joan was a Secular Franciscan. At the time, the order had a great deal of power and resources. News traveled quickly back to Rome to the Generalate of the Secular Franciscan Order. They filed a complaint against the bishop.
The long and the short of it was that the bishop was unable to prove any of the charges. The excommunication was invalid. Unfortunately for poor Joan, by the time that everything was sorted out, she was dead. She was never excommunicated.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
With usual 20-20 hindsight, I can see that I should have avoided this thread entirely. My bad.
J
JReducation
Guest
Actually, Canon Law was very much in place by that time. Canon Law has been revised many times since then, but that’s for law history.Yes, I well know that Ste Jeanne d’Arc was falsely charged, yet, the “excommunication” (what is now, at least, called ferendae sententiae (and, considering that Canon Law had not yet been strictly codified, I really don’t know if the distinction between ferendae sententiae and latae sententiae even existed at the time) was pronounced. (The difference, of course, between Ste Jeanne’s case and the 1988 incident is that the latter is said to have been a case of excommunication latae sententiae.) I find it interesting that despite the fact that Rome was aware of the goings-on, and despite any involvement of the Franciscans, it took some 24 years after her execution for the record to be set straight. In any case, at the time la Demoiselle d"Orléans was executed, the “excommunication” was regarded as valid, else there would have been no need for a subsequent trial. I merely used the case as an example of posthumous rehabilitation.
With usual 20-20 hindsight, I can see that I should have avoided this thread entirely. My bad.
The trial of St. Joan was not to lift the excommunication. It was to determine if it was valid. Once you determine that it’s invalid, there is nothing to lift.
It took 20+ years because of conditions of the time, not because it was valid. That’s why I always say, it was unfortunate that by the time they realize that this was an invalid excommunication, the poor girl was dead. This is not a posthumous rehabilitation. A rehabilitation meas to bring someone back into the fold. In Joan’s case, the decree was that she had never been out of the fold.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
L
louis91766
Guest
But is it not true that an excommunication is presumed to be valid until proven otherwise?Actually, Canon Law was very much in place by that time. Canon Law has been revised many times since then, but that’s for law history.
The trial of St. Joan was not to lift the excommunication. It was to determine if it was valid. Once you determine that it’s invalid, there is nothing to lift.
It took 20+ years because of conditions of the time, not because it was valid. That’s why I always say, it was unfortunate that by the time they realize that this was an invalid excommunication, the poor girl was dead. This is not a posthumous rehabilitation. A rehabilitation meas to bring someone back into the fold. In Joan’s case, the decree was that she had never been out of the fold.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
T
TheDoctor
Guest
See here:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=597891&highlight=lefebvre+a+saint&page=2
starting from Post 19. The short answer is “no”, he died excommunicated and what is done is done.
We can pray though for his soul as we pray for all souls.
J
JReducation
Guest
You always give the Church the benefit of the doubt until proven wrong. That was the case with Joan. Once it was proven wrong, there was nothing to rescind.
It’s like marriage. Once you prove that there was no bond, you don’t have to make any formal statement. You simply sign off on it and move on.
Whereas when you rescind, you are accepting that there was an excommunication and you are lifting it, which was the case with the four SSPX bishops and a few other people in history. In that case, you have to issue a decree of remission.
The decree is very clear. The effects of the excommunication cease to exist as of “this day” and only for those whose names are mentioned in the decree.
Unless something happened at the moment of death, such as a deathbed request for absolution and forgiveness for the disobedience, the bishop died excommunicated. We will never know for sure, because that’s between him and the person who heard his last confession.
I’m not a Canon Lawyer, so I can’t remember what the rule is for those who are excommunicated and are their deathbed. My guess is that given that there is no time to get the pope to grant the absolution, the confessor can do so. Why do I guess this? Because the Church is a merciful mother. An excommunication is not intended to boot you out the door. It’s really bitter medicine to make you well.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
M
Morgan_Hiver
Guest
Then what about the excommunications that were lifted for the Catholic and Orthodox churches?
N
Not_Sure_1
Guest
Richard Williamson, who publicly denies the holocast,
Do you have to bring that up?
Don’t slander a man for having unorthodox political or historical views.
Do you have to bring that up?
Don’t slander a man for having unorthodox political or historical views.
L
louis91766
Guest
Except for the bishops, was anyone else ever excommunicated? For example, the priests or the laypeople who adhere to the SSPX?
J
JReducation
Guest
The excommunications were mutual. The Orthodox excommunicated their Catholic counterparts and the Catholics excommunicated the Orthodox. These were valid excommunications. Excommunication is the natural consequence for schism. These excommunications were lifted, because the guilty parties have been dead for almost 1,000 years. To hold an excommunication over the heads of people who had no part of what happened and over whom you have no jurisdiction is silly.
Actually, we have to bite the bullet on that one. Pope Benedict publicly refers to him as an anti-Semite and publicly said that if he had known of his statements, he would not have lifted his excommunication. He would have separated him from the other bishops.
We have to maintain union with the Primacy and hold our breadth that the Pope’s anger with Bishop Williamson has blown over. I have not heard Pope Benedict say more about him. We don’t really know what’s going on there.
No one else was excommunicated for two reasons.
First:
The excommunication was for a very specific crime. The law for the Catholic Church is that Latin Bishops cannot ordain other bishops without a papal mandate. The penalty is an automatic excommunication for the bishop who does the ordaining and those who accept to be ordained. The laity, brothers, and priests did not do the ordaining.
Second:
The laity is not part of the SSPX. The SSPX is a society of apostolic life for priests. In later years they added brothers too. In any case, as you can see, since the layman is neither a priest nor a brother, he is not part of the SSPX, no matter how much people label themselves SSPX. It’s almost silly to do so. You can be a friend of the SSPX or a supporter of the SSPX, if you’re a layman. You cannot be a member of the SSPX.
In any case, the other members of the SSPX are not guilty of breaking any law that will get them excommunicated. The priests of the SSPX are guilty of ministering without permission. The penalty for this is an automatic suspension. They are also guilty of allowing an excommunicated bishop ordain them. This also carries a penalty of automatic suspension. They are guilty of following a bishop whom the pope says is out of communion with himself. That’s another automatic suspension.
A suspension does not mean the same as an excommunication. A suspension is given to any priest or religious who breaks the rules. It is a ruling against you that says that you may not minister until you get permission from the Church to do so. However, you can receive the sacraments. If you’re excommunicated, you’re not to receive the sacraments.
The Church can withhold the permission forever if she wants to do so. She has done so in some cases. All of the priests involved in sexual abuse have been dismissed from the clerical state. This means that they are suspended forever. They remain priests and Catholic. They can receive the sacraments like any other Catholic. You can’t take the stripes off a tiger after God gave them to him. Therefore, you cannot undo Baptism and Holy Orders. They can even hear your confession and absolve you if you have an emergency and there is no other priest around. However, they remain suspended for life.
The SSPX priest will remain suspended until their superior, Bishop Fellay, agrees to Rome’s terms for reconciliation or until they separate from the SSPX. So far, 13 communities have broken off from the SSPX and have sought and been granted full communion and full canonical status with the Church. They have grown impatient that the SSPX is taking too long to bring this to a close. By breaking off, they were able to deal with the pope directly, without waiting for the SSPX leadership. They agreed on certain things and are back in full swing within the Church.
That’s all there is to know right now. Until the SSPX responds to the preamble, everyone is on hold.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
J
Joe_5859
Guest
How exactly is that slander? It is a statement of fact: Williamson publicly denies the Holocaust. It would be slander if it were not true or if the poster went on to call him names.
D
Dan_Daly
Guest
Thank you as always for thoughtful comments brother.
I do have a question on the portion I quoted above. I want to be clear on what you mean when you say “these were valid excommunications”, since you were referring to the “mutual” excommunications of East and West. Are you including the excommunications OF memebers of the Western Church BY members of the Eastern Orthodox, when you say the excommunications were valid?
Pax Christi
J
JReducation
Guest
You know, that is one of those wonderful points of law that Church historians have a field day with. The Easterners were valid and legitimate bishops, therefore, successors of the Apostles. Canon Law was starting to take shape. It almost happened simultaneously. This does not mean that there were no laws. Both sides had lots of laws.
In those old laws, bishops did excommunicate, which is rare today. One of the reasons for a valid excommunication is schism.
Form the Catholic point of view those Christians who called themselves Orthodox broke off from us. From their point of view those Christians who called themselves Eastern Catholic broke off from them, so they were automatically excommunicated.
A thousand years have passed. Pope Paul VI, who was himself a Doctor of Canon Law, did not see the need to rehash who had the right to excommunicate whom. By the 20th century every Catholic and every Orthodox was a child of either the Catholic or the Orthodox Church. Neither one had an ax to grind with the other.
When he lifted the excommunications and anathemas against the Orthodox, they reciprocated by doing the same, lifting the excommunications and anathemas against the Western Church. The pope didn’t bother challenging this action on their part. To do so would have sent us back into another cold war between Catholic and Orthodox. The gesture toward reconciliation was far more important than the legality of it all.
As I started to say, it’s a point the Church historians and those who study Canon Law have a field day with. At this point, the Church doesn’t really care whether anyone believes the validity of the mutual excommunications or not, because it’s over. My tendency is to say that we did not break off from the Orthodox Christians and that the excommunication toward us was not valid, because we never committed the crime. There are historians who argue from the other side. Does it really change anything at this point?
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
N
Not_Sure_1
Guest
Sorry, not the perfect term, but I mean to say that denying the holocaust on its own does not make you an anti-semite. Does denying the armenian genocide mean you are anti-armenian? Some people have unorthodox beliefs, don’t you remember there are still those that believe the earth is flat?
Beliefs about history should not condemn you.
Historical revisionism and even denial is not sin.
- Status