Pope Lifts Excommunications of SSPX Bishops

[numealinesimpet]

Grave offense agaisnt God and penalty of excommunication sound pretty clear to me?

JPII chose to ignore the Canons which invoked immunity from censure. He could have changed Canon Law, but he did not do so. Even if he had done so, this would be Retrospective legislation, which in immoral and invalid. Schism is indeed a grave offence against God, but to repeat, a person is not in schism just because a pope thinks he is, for the reasons I have given.
The laypeople attending SSPX centres have not had their excommunications lifted because they were not excommunicated. neither were the bishops excommunicated by the pope, as is proven by the latest decree. They were declared excommunicated by Cdl Gantin in a manner that did not fulfil the requirements of Church Law. The Vatican can’t have it both ways. If they wish to discipline anyone for disobeying the Law, they must obey the Law themselves.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

JPII chose to ignore the Canons which invoked immunity from censure. He could have changed Canon Law, but he did not do so. Even if he had done so, this would be Retrospective legislation, which in immoral and invalid. Schism is indeed a grave offence against God, but to repeat, a person is not in schism just because a pope thinks he is, for the reasons I have given.
The laypeople attending SSPX centres have not had their excommunications lifted because they were not excommunicated. neither were the bishops excommunicated by the pope, as is proven by the latest decree. They were declared excommunicated by Cdl Gantin in a manner that did not fulfil the requirements of Church Law. The Vatican can’t have it both ways. If they wish to discipline anyone for disobeying the Law, they must obey the Law themselves.

Surely you must admit that it is a matter of judgement whether the immunity you see in canon law would apply to Lefebvre and the Bishops he consecrated. Given that it is a grey area requiring judgement, who would judge whether they were excommunicated, if not the pope?

 

[numealinesimpet]

Surely you must admit that it is a matter of judgement whether the immunity you see in canon law would apply to Lefebvre and the Bishops he consecrated. Given that it is a grey area requiring judgement, who would judge whether they were excommunicated, if not the pope?

The problem is that the canons we have discussed in this thread (1323, 1324 +1321) actually give force of law to subjective opinions, unlike the Code of 1917 - or indeed any well-crafted body of legislation. This makes the sanction of excommunication impossible to enforce unless the prosecutor can prove in a Court of Law that the accused did not really think he was acting in a State of Necessity. Reading these Canons will confirm this. It is not possible to simply ignore this and barge ahead with the penalty.
The 1988 Motu Proprio Ecclesia Dei is a classic case of the way the Vatican have done things since the 60s - departing from all previous practice & precedent. The Pope (JPII) did not lend his name to the excommunications, he merely referred to them as a fait accompli - as indeed does Benedict XVI’s Summorum Pontificum. This is actually a well-tried and tested way of appearing to say a thing while leaving open the option of standing back from it - which is what has happened now. The decree issued 2 weeks ago, on the other hand, explicitly invokes the authority of Pope Benedict XVI. In this the Church is returning to sane and workable practices. S. Robert Bellarmine wrote, "Let the legislator speak clearly if he wishes to be obeyed’.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

The problem is that the canons we have discussed in this thread (1323, 1324 +1321) actually give force of law to subjective opinions, unlike the Code of 1917 - or indeed any well-crafted body of legislation. This makes the sanction of excommunication impossible to enforce unless the prosecutor can prove in a Court of Law that the accused did not really think he was acting in a State of Necessity. Reading these Canons will confirm this. It is not possible to simply ignore this and barge ahead with the penalty.

Hmm… that’s a good point, they sure left a big loophole there.

 

[JReducation]

I’m still trying to understand why so many on CA want to prove these excommunications invalid, ilicit or non-binding. Is this really a matter for the laity or is it a matter for the Holy Father and the Sacred Congregations?

Does it really make a difference to the Holy See or the Sacred Congregations the opinions of people on CA? I don’t believe it does.

The fact that Pope Benedict lifted the excommunications implies that they were excommunicated. When an excommunication is invalid, there is nothing to lift. You simply declare it invalid. Such was the case with Joan of Arc and other modern excommunications.

We can argue that Archbishop Lefebvre acted to protect the Church. But there is a greater pastoral and theological question. Is this his role or the role of the papacy? Where do Catholic draw the line and say that bishops cannot act as if they had the authority of Peter?

This was the issue with these ordinations to the episcopal order. As it stands now, only Peter can authorize such ordinations. Whether the Pope himself signed the paper an excommunicated the Archbishop, may he rest in peace or another curia official did so, the fact remains the same. The Pope never revoked it or declared it invalid. It took a papal lifting of the excommunications to restore the bishops to communion with the Church.

At this juncture of history, it is of little importance to the laity whether they were excommunicated or appeared to be excommunicated. Obviously, they believed they were or they would not have petitioned Rome to have the penalty lifted. It was the SSPX bishops who put forth the request.

For those who follow the Lefebvre movement, what is important right now is to pay attention to the status of the SSPX within the Church. Its priests and bishops are still suspended and therefore cannot legally fulfill their priestly functions. In fact, they are in a greater state of danger now than before.

When the bishops were excommunicated they could have claimed that they did not fall under the jurisdiction of the Apostolic See. Now that they have accepted the Pope’s action, they have all but admitted that they were truly excommunicated. One can argue that it was fair or unfair; but it’s an academic exercise, because it’s over.

At this point the bishops must submit to the mandates of the Holy Father or face further sanctions against them. Once you accept the authority of another to bring you back into the fold, it stand to reason that you also accept his authority to govern you. You cannot assume to come back into the fold and design your own church.

While the Holy Father and the bishops of the world may agree with the SSPX bishops on some issues, they are not going to yield everything. The proposition is a 90-10, with the SSPX having to yield on 90% of the issues.

Let us remember that they will now have to dialogue with the Congregation for Bishops, not directly with the Holy Father. Rarely does the Holy Father get involved in a face to face confrontation of this kind. That’s why he has the Curia. It’s their job to fix this mess. The Curia is powerful and full of very intelligent men and women who will give the SSPX bishops a run for their money.

I am not anti any bishop. But I am all for prudence and reality checks. Prudence dictates that the laity step back and continue with their life of faith and let the Vatican deal with this, otherwise there will be many arguments, debates and even injuries among people who should not be involved in conflict with each other. This is not the way of the Gospel nor the way of peace, much less unity.

Reality indicates that we accept that the Curia is powerful, well trained in its job and will not welcome these men home without conditions, some of which they may not like.

The best we can do is to pray for charity and wisdom on both sides of the table. To bat this around so much is an exercise in mental fatigue, unless one really enjoys religioius politics as a sport. I don’t. I’ll just wait and see what the Observatore Romano reports as the process goes forward and pray for the wisdom of the Holy Spirit to be with both sides.

Fraternally,

JR

 

[bobzills]

The laypeople attending SSPX centres have not had their excommunications lifted because they were not excommunicated.

But what if they formally adhered to the SSPX?

 

[numealinesimpet]

But what if they formally adhered to the SSPX?

In such a grave matter as a threatened excommunication, the faithful are entitled to be told what constitutes ‘formal adhesion’. Also, many canonists of the first rank have taken the unusual step of publicly distancing themselves from the proposition that the episcopal ordinations were schismatic. See previous posting.

It is well to define this word. A schism is not a refusal to obey authority, but a denial that the visible, ostensive authority exists at all. If any archbishop had consecrated another bishop for a diocese that had a validly appointed bishop already incumbent, this would be a denial of the authority of the Church to apportion jurisdiction, and it would be schismatic [although St Eusebius did this during the Arian crisis … but let that rest for now]. Lefebvre declared that a state of emergency exists, and appointed emergency bishops pro tem, sine locus. This may or may not be justified, but it is not schismatic.

To quote the Catholic Encyclopaedia: “Not every disobedience is a schism; in order to possess this character it must include besides the transgression of the commands of superiors, denial of their Divine right to command.”

Not every act of disobedience is an act of schism; otherwise the two would be synonymous, which has never been the case in the Church. This is beside the point of how far obedience can reach. S. Thomas Aquinas in the Summa Theologica deals with this clearly and concisely. Archpb. Lefebvre said, in effect, “Holy Father, in this matter, you are going to snuff out the last living strand in the tradition of the Church of totally faithful bishops, unaffected by the Modernist error that your predecessor rightly called “The synthesis of all heresies”. In these circumstances, it will be the lesser of two evils for me to fulfil my sworn duty as a bishop and appoint my successors”. He did NOT add, “And therefore you are not my father”.
If the Australians will forgive my using a current example, if the father of a household in the State of Victoria gave his son a box of matches and said, “Burn those dead leaves on the bonfire, son”, the son would be justified in saying, “Father, that would burn the place down. I cannot comply”. Even if the father threw him out of the house, the son would still have been in the right. the son has not said, “I refuse … and therefore you are not my father”.

Since real schismatics are in a state of material mortal sin, the question is important. For a decade I have supported the SSPX. The last straw was the letter from an Irish bishop, Bp O’Sullivan of Kerry, in about 1993, refusing to implement Ecclesia Dei - a Motu Proprio & therefore carrying the Force of Law - & containing the word “must”. The Pope had told him he “must” be generous when his flock asked for the Old Mass, and he refused. He knew he was going to get away with it, and he did: because modern Rome teaches, but very seldom, in the present age, enforces its teachings.
Hence, it was clear to me, the SSPX are correct in diagnosing a state of emergency, & taking appropriate emergency measures, as envisaged in Canon Law.

 

[pnewton]

The 1988 Motu Proprio Ecclesia Dei is a classic case of the way the Vatican have done things since the 60s - departing from all previous practice & precedent.

Isn’t consecrating bishops in defiance of papal authority a departure from previous faith and practice prior to 1960? What would have been the response of St Pius X if a modernis bishop had consecrated bishops on his own for what he believed was a necessity?

 

[numealinesimpet]

Isn’t consecrating bishops in defiance of papal authority a departure from previous faith and practice prior to 1960? What would have been the response of St Pius X if a modernis bishop had consecrated bishops on his own for what he believed was a necessity?

During the Arian crisis, S. Eusebius went even further. Yet he was canonised. (See previous posting). So no, it is not a departure from precedent.

S. Pius X would no doubt have excommunicated the Modernist bishop for heresy and disobedience, but not for the consecration as such, as this was not an excommunicable offence at that time. These actions of the Modernist bishop would have been objective actions, incurring excommunication. He would have been free to appeal and plead his case of necessity. If he won his case, he would be released form the censure. If not, the excommunication would stand. But under the New Code, his belief of necessity is given the force of law in the strongest and plainest terms. It would have been up to a Canonical Tribnal to prove he did not, in fact, believe in the necessity. Short of a witnessed statement by him to that effect, how could it be done except by telepathy? That is the difference.

Pius X was one of the popes who had condemned Modernism in the strongest terms for over a century. Look at the documents of Vatican II and you will see statements, which we are invited to assent to, that were condemned practially word for word by these popes.

Therein lies the conundrum.

 

[numealinesimpet]

I’m still trying to understand why so many on CA want to prove these excommunications invalid, ilicit or non-binding. Is this really a matter for the laity or is it a matter for the Holy Father and the Sacred Congregations?

Does it really make a difference to the Holy See or the Sacred Congregations the opinions of people on CA? I don’t believe it does.

Fraternally,

JR

Thank you for the posting. At this point I will respond to just one point.
The Faithful in the modern age are frequently presented with a dilemma that was inconceivable as recently as 50 years ago. Each person, each head of a household, must make certain decisions. it will not avail him at the Last Judgment to say he was obeying his superiors. Those indicted at the Nuremberg Trials found this defence rightly rejected.
Consider the following case:

The Baseball Confirmation of Phoenix, Arizona, 1998

From TradWiki

The following true account is “compiled from various sources”. Let the reader be aware that some of these sources were Diocesan magazines up and down the USA, who reported the incident with approval.

In June 1998 the bishop in Phoenix, Arizona had all of that year’s candidates for confirmation come to the new baseball stadium to all be confirmed on the same day. He gave every priest in the diocese faculties to confirm during the “service.” He invited all attendees (including a special invitation to non-Catholics) to come to the ballpark wearing red shirts for the Holy Spirit. They then sang some stupid song to the Holy Spirit to the tune of “Take me out to the Ballpark,” an American folksong sung by Barney the dinosaur to name one advocate of the song. During the Mass, many people were seen eating hot dogs and popcorn. The candidates for confirmation poured out of the bleacher seats to any priest anywhere and were confirmed. How could anyone know who was eligible for confirmation or to receive the Eucharist?

After the “event,” two boxes arrived at the rectory of a local church to a truly devout priest. A delivery man plopped the boxes on the counter and said, “These are for you. They are the consecrated hosts that weren’t used at the ballpark.” He opened the boxes and to his horror he found two large food service containers, generally used to hold about 10 gallons of ice cream, filled with consecrated hosts. The second box didn’t even have these. It was lined with butcher paper and thousands of consecrated hosts were tossed into the box. He immediately took the boxes to the sacristy and started to reserve the Blessed Sacrament in every ciborium and chalice he could find. He then scoured each container and box for Crumbs to consume. He counted 5000 hosts.

It continues. The associate pastor decided that it wouldn’t be “proper” to store the hosts for too long, yet the parish could never distribute 5000. What to do? Without telling my priest friend, he began to fill the ciboriums that were being used in the offertory procession of the succeeding Novus Ordo Masses with already consecrated hosts. So during the next Mass the priest was consecrating previously consecrated hosts!

How did this bishop over-consecrate 5000 hosts? Or was it more? Did another parish receive a similar shipment? Who can imagine a more blatant or public statement that this bishop and whoever is under him does not believe in the Real Presence. He may speak the orthodox line when his back is to the wall, but in practice he preaches heresy. Catholics in his diocese are released from any obligation to obey him as these are most certainly, as canon law demands, times of crisis.

The faithful of Arizona have two choices in 1998. They can take their child to the SSPX chapel where he will be confirmed according to the rites of the Catholic Church, specifically and infallibly ‘canonised’ at the Council of Trent and by Pope S. Pius V in perpetuity. Or they can take them to the Ballpark.

Retrieved from “http://www.tradwiki.com/wiki/The_Baseball_Confirmation_of_Phoenix,_Arizona,_1998”

 

[pnewton]

During the Arian crisis, S. Eusebius went even further. Yet he was canonised. (See previous posting). So no, it is not a departure from precedent.

I was not referring to the fourth century when I asked what was the tradition prior to 1960, but more like the early twentieth and the nineteenth century. Was there a little more respect for the office of the Pope than AB Lefebvre showed? Wasn’t obedience traditional?

But thanks for the hit on a new law I am making up. I’m calling it Newton’s Corallary on Godwin’s Law. I will start a thread when I get time to develop it.

 

[numealinesimpet]

I was not referring to the fourth century when I asked what was the tradition prior to 1960, but more like the early twentieth and the nineteenth century.

The Church is universal, isn’t She? The fact is, we have not had such a crisis of Faith and Authority since the Arian Crisis.

Was there a little more respect for the office of the Pope than AB Lefebvre showed?

I don’t think Mgr Lefebvre ever showed disrespect for the office of the Pope. S. Paul 'withstood Peter to his face, because he was to be blamed. Now I really & truly don’t want to cast disrespect on deceased popes, but some of Pope John paul’s actions would have had the popes of the early 20th Century in absolute apoplexy. Kissing the Koran comes to mind. So does the Assisi Prayer Meeting - which the then Cdl Raztinger refused to attend.

Wasn’t obedience traditional?

It is centuries since a pope has ever forced his flock to choose between obedience to himself and to the Law of Christ. S. Thomas Aquinas is quite clear that to obey a superior when he is exceeding his authority, and transgressing a higher law, is not only not meritorious but the sin of conniving in the wrongdoing.

This is what Bp Fellay said in Nov 2007:
We see the organised dismantling of the Faith on every side, and we cannot but ask, “How can they do this? How could God possibly allow such a thing? why doesn’t He stop it?” Remember the Calming of the Storm, which was not a parable but an historical incident. The apostles were on the Sea of Galilee with Jesus. They were professionals. They knew their boat and they knew the weather on the lake. the storm came and they worked their hardest to keep the boat afloat. and meanwhile – Jesus was asleep! But mark well - Jesus as Man was asleep, but Jesus as God was in total control. Of the wind; of the boat; of the exact amount of water that entered the boat. and so, after the apostles had done their utmost, then the called upon Him, and he arose and calmed the tuult with a single word.

We learn from this that, despite all appearences, God is in control of His Church. If things become difficult for a while, God in His Wisdom will draw a Greater Good out of this crisis.

We cannot see in every detail how these two - Faith and Reality - fit together, yet our mind must hold to the Truth. It would be too easy simply to say: “The Pope says it; it must be Good.” And it would be too easy to say: “the Pope is supposed to be a saint – but he isn’t a saint! He can’t be the Pope!”

Cdl Castrillon Hoyos said two years ago: “Bp Fellay says the New Mass is Bad. it it is approved by the Pope! It is impossible that it be bad! it must be good!” Bp Fellay’s reply is: “Open your eyes! When Priests dress like clowns on the altar – it is Bad! When the Pope kisses the Koran – it is bad! When the Pope organises an Interfaith Prayer Meeting at Assisi – it is Bad!

But thanks for the hit on a new law I am making up. I’m calling it Newton’s Corallary on Godwin’s Law. I will start a thread when I get time to develop it.

Good luck. The Irish proverb is, “If you can’t do it today, do it tommorrow. and if you can’t do it tomorrow, you were never meant to do it at all”.

 

[pnewton]

Even if a few folks think these excommunications never existed, I am glad the Holy Father lifted them.

 

[pnewton]

Cdl Castrillon Hoyos said two years ago: “Bp Fellay says the New Mass is Bad. it it is approved by the Pope! It is impossible that it be bad! it must be good!” Bp Fellay’s reply is: “Open your eyes! When Priests dress like clowns on the altar – it is Bad! When the Pope kisses the Koran – it is bad! When the Pope organises an Interfaith Prayer Meeting at Assisi – it is Bad!

Bishop Fellay is wrong. There are easy answers as to why. If you want to start a whole new thread on this topic, perhaps that would be best. I think the next major sidetrack will close this one, unless that is your intention.

 

[zaphod119]

What about the concerns regarding Bishop Richard Williamson? He apparently has denied the Holocaust and said the gas chambers were a “myth”.

This is very VERY disconcerting to me.

timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article5567829.ece

~Liza

While his statement is disconcerting, it is not a matter of faith, morals, or doctrine. No matter how bizarre this statement, this has no bearing on the excommunication of the SSPX.

 

[bobzills]

While his statement is disconcerting, it is not a matter of faith, morals, or doctrine. No matter how bizarre this statement, this has no bearing on the excommunication of the SSPX.

But there are additional problems with Bishop Williamson, such as quoting from the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. I thought that anti-semitism was a matter of faith and morals for Catholics?

 

[pnewton]

I thought that anti-semitism was a matter of faith and morals for Catholics?

This begs the question and presupposes that Bishop Williamson is antisemetic.

 

[bobzills]

This begs the question and presupposes that Bishop Williamson is antisemetic.

Is it OK for a Catholic to quote approvingly from the Protocols of the Elders of Zion?

 

[pnewton]

Is it OK for a Catholic to quote approvingly from the Protocols of the Elders of Zion?

I did not say that. I just said that it does not have to equate to antisemetism.

 

[numealinesimpet]

Even if a few folks think these excommunications never existed, I am glad the Holy Father lifted them.

I am delighted. Bp Fellay & the SSPX could (in theory) have demanded a statement from the Vatican that the Excommunications were always null and void. If they had done so, they would have been waiting till the Last Day. Bp Fellay has been a wise negotiator, and Pope Benedict has been honourable - as well as courageous. I only defend the SSPX’s line on the excommunications now when it is insisted that the excommunications were valid, which is a different matter. In justice, I would prefer it if we all said, “Whatever happened in the past, they are not excommunicated now - (although they are still suspended)”. I think the latter will not take too long, especially now that the pope has affirmed that the Old Mass was never abrogated - so what was the suspension for in the first place? -** or the lifting of the suspensions wouldn’t have taken long if it hadn’t been for the “Bp Williamson Incident”. If people will say, "Well the SSPX were very bad and deserved excommunication, but they’re let off now’ I feel bound to point out that this has not been proved.