Excuse me? Rome “attempted” to excommunicate the bishops? Pope John Paul II indeed excommunicated the six bishops involved in the illicit consecration of 1988 by Archbishop Lefebvre in his Motu Propio Ecclesia Dei. That is a fact!
If the excommunication was just an “attempt” by Rome, then why the need to remit it?
Necessity? What necessity? Pope John Paul the II had agreed to consecrate a bishop for the SSPX at a certain date. Archbishop Lefebvre decided to disobey the pope and consecrate not one but four bishops at an earlier date. Again, what “necessity”?
I have also read statements made by other SSPX bishops such as Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, who stated that Pope Benedict XVI “has professed heresies in the past! He…has never retracted his errors. When he was a theologian, he professed heresies, he published a book full of heresies.” And Bishop Richard Williamson, who stated that “[Pope Benedict XVI] past writings are full of Modernist errors. Now, Modernism is the synthesis of all heresies (Pascendi, Saint Pius X). So Ratzinger as a heretic goes far beyond Luther’s Protestant errors, as Bishop Tissier de Mallerais well said.” I also pray so that this attitude within the SSPX does not persist.
While unfortunately worded, when it was stated the Holy Father attempted to excommunicate the SSPX bishops, I believe he was simply trying to convey the SSPX view that the excommunications were unjustified and therefore invalid. This is not an unusual occurence. St. Athanasius was excommunicated unjustly, and his is not considered valid. For those who claim the parallel between St. Athanasius and Archbishop Lefebvre is slim, such as Fr. Z, this example is only to point out it is possible to be ujustly excommunicated. I will also point out parallels are a matter of perspective.
I observe that SSPX hardliners make the same point Ad Gentes is making with regard to the lifting of the excommunications. They feel that the acknowledgment by Superior General Bishop Fellay of this lifting is essentially a concession that the excommunications were valid. Since to this very day none have ever been given a formal canonical trial, I feel this is unfortunate, since such a trial would have been a great help in advancing a just and indisputable result.
On the matter of necessity, again, perspective is relative. When studied in detail, it was clear throughout the years that the Vatican has often had an inconsistant policy toward SSPX. Initially, Rome did not want to give Lefebvre a bishop at all, arguing for a local ordinary to do ordinations. Since this concerned Lefebvre, negotiations then reensued for selecting a bishop. More than once Rome either changed It’s mind or asked for more time. In Lefebvre’s view he was getting old and much of the SSPX leadership was nervous should he die without successor. The experience with SSPV had made them edgy, and the wanted to make sure any transition was smooth. Lefebvre felt further delays endangered his order and he acted because he felt his time was short. As it was he died only 2 years later. I could see where he might have that his actions were necessary, given his circumstances. His co-consecrator, Antonio de Castro Mayer, also died not shortly after.
While Ad Apostolurum Principis is an excellent resource in this matter, Lefebvre’s perceived necessity would have diminished its application, since, as St. Thomas points out “necessity knows no law.”
While two of the Constititions of Vatican II were called Dogmatic, in no part did they use solemn language indicating they were defining anything which bound the faithful. The words decree, declare, anathemize, proclaim, define or condemn were generally absent. This is further made uncertain by Blessed John XXIII’s statement that Vatican II would not define anything.
It may be fine to state that you hope certain “attitudes” disappear from the SSPX, however I believe this can only be said if one ignores their concerns. If Vatican II causes you no loss of sleep, the SSPX matter is tempest in a teapot. If you feel Vatican II is a real cause for concern both for the Faith and the Church, you will be more understanding of a very real fear.The fundamental difference is irreconcilable. Either the Council is orthodox, or it is not. It is not for us to decide in these forums if Vatican II is orthodox or nor, but to state that those who are concerned if it is are just wicked and obstinate, this is just villification and not an argument. Proclaiming over and over again that SSPX is schismatic and sinful will not make their concerns go away. When the concerns of Vatican II are resolved, then there will be peace. To say otherwise is to simply not acknowledge the reality of a problem which will not disappear, and our Faith will not be better for it. Our Faith is built on the dialogue of the saints throughout the centuries, and now is good time to practice this again. All prayers to everyone.
