I don’t know exactly why four, but supposedly the Archbishop feared he would die before the Vatican would approve bishops to ordain priests to say the Latin Mass. He claimed the Vatican was acting too slow to even give him one and he used the following canon to justify his actions:What I’m curious about is why Archbishop Levebre ordained the four bishops without Vatican approval. I suspect a hidden progressive agenda in the bureaucracy seeking to destroy the Usus Antiquior
Can. 1323 No one is liable to a penalty who, when violating a law or precept:
1° has not completed the sixteenth year of age;
2° was, without fault, ignorant of violating the law or precept; inadvertence and error are equivalent to ignorance
3° acted under physical force, or under the impetus of a chanceoccurrence which the person could not foresee or if foreseen could not avoid;
4° acted under the compulsion of grave fear, even if only relative, or by reason of necessity or grave inconvenience, unless, however, the act is intrinsically evil or tends to be harmful to souls;
5° acted, within the limits of due moderation, in lawful self‑defence or defence of another against an unjust aggressor;
6° lacked the use of reason, without prejudice to the provisions of cann. 1324, §1, n. 2 and 1325;
Afternotes: The Archbishop did die 3 years later. And, for what it’s worth, the SSPX have not consecrated any more bishops since 1988.7° thought, through no personal fault, that some one of the circumstances existed which are mentioned in nn. 4 or 5.
You are right. I stand corrected. The bishop and the priests had already been suspended by Paul VI.Not to quibble but the suspensions predate the consecrations by a decade and are the result of a lack of canonical structure.
Ockham, the most concise chronology that answers your question and gives the text of all of the communications and letters that passed between the Archbishop and the bureaucracy is in the book Archbishop Lefebvre and the Vatican.Thank you for the recap Aramis. I plan on getting into this subject deeper during my summer reading schedule. That is how I understand the chain of events too. What I’m curious about is why Archbishop Levebre ordained the four bishops without Vatican approval. I suspect a hidden progressive agenda in the bureaucracy seeking to destroy the Usus Antiquior
Well, actually, not by Paul VI either but by the new bishop of the incardinating diocese. Although I believe it was appealed to Paul VI without success.You are right. I stand corrected. The bishop and the priests had been suspended by Paul VI.
So it appears the bishop was already in slippery territory prior to his negotiations with the Vatican in 1988. More reason for the fear? Or perhaps he felt he had nothing to lose. Just speculating here.Well, actually, not by Paul VI either but by the new bishop of the incardinating diocese. Although I believe it was appealed to Paul VI without success.
I wouldn’t call it a slippery slope. If you read any of the Archbishop’s books in this period, he was very interested in a regularization of the order. His mind wasn’t set on putting distance between the SSPX and the Vatican. Rather, he was always interested in a solution. Up until the time just prior to the consecrations, he actually signed the Protocol which would have given the SSPX a canonical status. He reneged on his signature after sleeping on it. The one stipulation he could not finally agree to was that he must celebrate just one small Novus Ordo at the SSPX church in France.So it appears the bishop was already in slippery territory prior to his negotiations with the Vatican in 1988. More reason for the fear? Or perhaps he felt he had nothing to lose. Just speculating here.
I haven’t read the book but have there been any other attempts to lift the priestly suspensions? These threads seem to be so focused on the bishops themselves when they should be more concerned as to the priests involved, I would think. I assume they had originally been given the proper canonical status.I wouldn’t call it a slippery slope. If you read any of the Archbishop’s books in this period, he was very interested in a regularization of the order. His mind wasn’t set on putting distance between the SSPX and the Vatican. Rather, he was always interested in a solution. Up until the time just prior to the consecrations, he actually signed the Protocol which would have given the SSPX a canonical status.
Amen. This is not the behavior of a schismatic or a heretic.I wouldn’t call it a slippery slope. If you read any of the Archbishop’s books in this period, he was very interested in a regularization of the order. His mind wasn’t set on putting distance between the SSPX and the Vatican. Rather, he was always interested in a solution. Up until the time just prior to the consecrations, he actually signed the Protocol which would have given the SSPX a canonical status. He reneged on his signature after sleeping on it. The one stipulation he could not finally agree to was that he must celebrate just one small Novus Ordo at the SSPX church in France.
I believe, consistent with his wishes, Bishop Fellay is discussing these issues with the Vatican in order to effect a reconciliation. Fortunately, the Vatican has dropped the requirement to just say one Novus Ordo Mass and all will be forgiven. But as we know, the current discussions transcend just an agreement on the Mass - the Vatican already has a canonical structure in mind that would be acceptable to the Society.
The suspensions are due to the lack of a canonical structure. When a structure is in place, the suspensions will be voided.I haven’t read the book but have there been any other attempts to lift the priestly suspensions? These threads seem to be so focused on the bishops themselves when they should be more concerned as to the priests involved, I would think. I assume they had originally been given the proper canonical status.
Yes, harsh words for a troubling time and a struggle to retain the treasure of the Tridentine Mass from the illegal approbation which is still apparently being practiced by bishops worldwide in opposition to the wishes of the Pontiff. It is nothing less than a tragedy that retaining this Rite was at such a price. Without a doubt, very few priests would be offering the TLM, most likely underground, as the only indults provided since 1970 have been to counter the threat of schism.From Motu Proprio Ecclesia Dei
c) In the present circumstances I wish especially to make an appeal both solemn and heartfelt, paternal and fraternal, to all those who until now have been linked in various ways to the movement of Archbishop Lefebvre, that they may fulfil the grave duty of remaining united to the Vicar of Christ in the unity of the Catholic Church, and of ceasing their support in any way for that movement. Everyone should be aware that formal adherence to the schism is a grave offence against God and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the Church’s law.(8)vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/motu_proprio/documents/hf_jp-ii_motu-proprio_02071988_ecclesia-dei_en.html
1988 saw them removed from “Catholic”… JP II was pretty harsh about it.
Many members of the SSPX prior to that time were still canonically incardinated in various dioceses; the society did not and could not grant incardination.
It’s a complex issue, but the label “schismatic” was applied by HH JP II.
- Taking account of the importance and complexity of the problems referred to in this document, by virtue of my Apostolic Authority I decree the following:
a) a Commission is instituted whose task it will be to collaborate with the bishops, with the Departments of the Roman Curia and with the circles concerned, for the purpose of facilitating full ecclesial communion of priests, seminarians, religious communities or individuals until now linked in various ways to the Fraternity founded by Mons. Lefebvre, who may wish to remain united to the Successor Peter in the Catholic Church, while preserving their spiritual and liturgical traditions, in the light of the Protocol signed on 5 May last by Cardinal Ratzinger and Mons. Lefebvre;
b) this Commission is composed of a Cardinal President and other members of the Roman Curia, in a number that will be deemed opportune according to circumstances;
c) moreover, respect must everywhere be shown for the feelings of all those who are attached to the Latin liturgical tradition, by a** wide and generous application **of the directives already issued some time ago by the Apostolic See for the use of the Roman Missal according to the typical edition of 1962.
I really need help to understand the SSPX, their status & what they are doing to reconcile completely with the Catholic Church, Latin Rite. I know that Archbishop Lefebvre acted in direct disobedience to Pope John Paul II. I think I understand his need to “pass on” what he considered the true Church when he was aged & experiencing failing health. If it is true, that his own conscience told him to do so…according to Aquinas…he had to do it in order to save his soul. Still, he OPENLY defied the Pope, the Successor of the Apostle Peter.When an SSPX priest says Mass, he always prays for the Pope. The head of the SSPX recently sent out a letter to their supporters in defending the Pope from the recent media attacks. If you compare them to a really schismatic group the differences are obvious.
Yes, harsh words for a troubling time and a struggle to retain the treasure of the Tridentine Mass from the illegal approbation which is still apparently being practiced by bishops worldwide in opposition to the wishes of the Pontiff. It is nothing less than a tragedy that retaining this Rite was at such a price. Without a doubt, very few priests would be offering the TLM, most likely underground, as the only indults provided since 1970 have been to counter the threat of schism.
It appears that cooler heads have prevailed and we have a new pope to replace the old pope with a different agenda. Regarding those SSPX priests incardinated in 1988, to my knowledge there were none.
I think I understand his need to “pass on” what he considered the true Church when he was aged & experiencing failing health.
I KNOW all of these things…but I don’t understand. HELP??
I can’t help you understand better - sorry - but I do want to say this…I know that Pope Benedict has lifted the excommunications of the Bishops. I know that he wants reconciliation…I know that our Liberal Bishops don’t & are fighting it in ways that are wrong. I know that if the Pope doesn’t demand that the SSPX respect & agree to the validity of the Novus Ordo Mass, Benedict XVI is likely to have an even bigger schism on his hands.
There are also many faithful bishops and cardinals and priests and lay faithful who respect the traditional liturgy, and are troubled by the dissension of liberals and SSPX alike. Both sides are disobedience and dissenting and neither is acceptable.You know I find it ironic, there are Bishops, even Cardinals, worldwide that blatantly and continually ignore The Pope…no one seems to have a problem with that…however, they abhor Archbishop Lefebvre and The Society…who in my opinion are the pilllars of the Catholic faith and the only reason why the TLM exist today
…minus the importance of obedience to the Holy Father.Just one point…he didn’t pass on “what he considered the true Church”…he passed down what he was given…The true, authentic, Catholic faith…unadulterated and not watered down.
There were two things that made a big difference in my understanding of the SSPX. The first was attending and learning to love the Traditional Latin Mass. I have a visceral appreciation now of what was at stake. It looked like this Mass was being suppressed. I’m not sure what I would do in that situation. I cannot guarantee that I would be obedient to the Pope, important as this is to me.I KNOW all of these things…but I don’t understand. HELP??
If his conscience was telling him to do what he did, then he wasn’t acting from a properly-formed or correct conscience. THAT is what we have to follow – a correct, properly-formed conscience. We’re also to follow a conscience that is honestly mistaken. But the key word here is “honestly.” Someone who knows that the God and/or the Church forbids something but claims his/her conscience says it’s OK wouldn’t fit that description. It’s like those “Catholics” who practice contraception, support abortion, etc. who claim they can do such things because their conscience tells them they can.I really need help to understand the SSPX, their status & what they are doing to reconcile completely with the Catholic Church, Latin Rite. I know that Archbishop Lefebvre acted in direct disobedience to Pope John Paul II. I think I understand his need to “pass on” what he considered the true Church when he was aged & experiencing failing health. If it is true, that his own conscience told him to do so…according to Aquinas…he had to do it in order to save his soul. Still, he OPENLY defied the Pope, the Successor of the Apostle Peter.
Pope Benedict has basically acknowledged the possibility of a larger schism. He commented previously that in the future the Church may be much smaller but more faithful (or something to that effect). Jesus said those who aren’t for Him are against Him, and it’s time for the liberal bishops, laity, etc. to either repent or leave the Church – no in-between.I know that Pope Benedict has lifted the excommunications of the Bishops. I know that he wants reconciliation…I know that our Liberal Bishops don’t & are fighting it in ways that are wrong. I know that if the Pope doesn’t demand that the SSPX respect & agree to the validity of the Novus Ordo Mass, Benedict XVI is likely to have an even bigger schism on his hands.
…minus the importance of obedience to the Holy Father.