SSPX 1988 Consecration video

[Resurrexit]

Ecclesia Dei makes references to the supposed excommunications. It does not do more than that. It does not say something like 'We hereby declare and decree that Bishops… are excommunicated."

But anyway, the 4 are excommunicated by their constant disobedient since

I repeat, I think the excommunications were dubious, and the Mass was not an outrageous blasphemy. I would much rather watch this than a clown mass.

Anyway…we are not here to debate the excommunication, we are here to debate what people think of the video/mass. Ham1, we know you think it’s awful. What do other people think?

 

[Caesar]

Personally, I dont know what to think of the SSPX Consecrations.

We can make the arguement that Archbishop Lefebrve believed that the consecrations were necessary, in which case he did not incurr automatic excommunication. At the same time I would like to mention that Pope John Paul II sent the Archbishop a personal letter a couple weeks before the consecrations warning him that if he proceeded without Papal approval he would be excommunicated. Futhermore, the excommunication of Lefebrve and the bishops he consecrated was declared the next day by Cardinal Bernardin Gantin.

But once again, we are getting off-topic here.

 

[Caesar]

By the way, it is Canon 1323 that is the key here.

The following are not subject to a penalty when they have violated a law or precept:

1/ a person who has not yet completed the sixteenth year of age;

2/ a person who without negligence was ignorant that he or she violated a law or precept; inadvertence and error are equivalent to ignorance;

3/ a person who acted due to physical force or a chance occurrence which the person could not foresee or, if foreseen, avoid;

4/ a person who acted coerced by grave fear, even if only relatively grave, or due to necessity or grave inconvenience unless the act is intrinsically evil or tends to the harm of souls;

5/ a person who acted with due moderation against an unjust aggressor for the sake of legitimate self defense or defense of another;

6/ a person who lacked the use of reason, without prejudice to the prescripts of cann. ⇒ 1324, §1, n. 2 and ⇒ 1325;

7/ a person who without negligence thought that one of the circumstances mentioned in nn. 4 or 5 was present.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Couldn’t have put it better myself!

But that’s not what you said.

 

[Unfinished]

youtube.com/watch?v=gAr0psfJGeg

Video of the controversial Episcopal Consecrations in 1988 at Econe.

Good watch.

I uh uh uh am torn.

Watching this direct act of disobedience made me sad, but it always makes me sad to know that this is not commonplace in the Church anymore. (Has a Bishop been consecrated in this manner in the last 40 years? Besides the SSPX of course)

 

[Caesar]

And the official excommunication of Lefebrve:

cin.org/users/james/files/l-excomm.htm

From the Office of the Congregation for Bishops, 1 July 1988.

Monsignor Marcel Lefebvre, Archbishop-Bishop Emeritus of Tulle, notwithstanding the formal canonical warning of 17 June last and the repeated appeals to desist from his intention, has performed a schismatical act by the episcopal consecration of four priests, without pontifical mandate and contrary to the will of the Supreme Pontiff, and has therefore incurred the penalty envisaged by Canon 1364, paragraph 1, and canon 1382 of the Code of Canon Law.

Having taken account of all the juridical effects, **I declare that the above-mentioned Monsignor Marcel Lefebvre, and Bernard Pellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta have incurred ipso facto excommunication latae sententiae reserved to the Apostolic See. **
Moreover, I declare that Monsignor Antonio de Castro Mayer, Bishop emeritus of Campos, since he took part directly in the liturgical celebration as co-consecrator and adhered publicly to the schismatical act, has incurred excommunication latae sententiae as envisaged by canon 1364, paragraph 1.

The priests and faithful are warned not to support the schism of Monsignor Lefebvre, otherwise they shall incur ipso facto the very grave penalty of excommunication.

From the Office of the Congregation for Bishops, 1 July 1988.

–BERNARDINUS Card. GANTIN
Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops

 

[Sola_Roma]

It’s kind of like watching adultery on film. People deliberately violating vows that they took before God because they “feel” like they are justified in doing so. It’s pathetic and sad. Especially when one considers the thousands of souls who have been led astray by these men. Thousands of souls who may never reach heaven because they died with their sins unforgiven.

I don’t support the SSPX. But I want to make two points.

1. The SSPX did this because they thought that those who were changing things were the ones who were deliberatly violating vows.
2. The SSPX’s laity are not in any extreme danger, for somone to commit a mortal sin they have to have compelte culpability, knowledge and gravity. It fails on all three accounts:
   (1) The laity of the SSPX do not see themselves in schism and do not commit shismatic acts but are rather in a state of imperfect communion. Wether or not thats the case, their moral conscience tells them they are not in any grave situation.
   (2) All of their previous religious instruction tells them that it is a horrible sin to modernize the church or change the way She thinks (which it is) and thusly they abstain from the N.O for fear of mortalling sinning. And so they are not fully culpable for this ‘schism’ because fear and hate of the N.O sometimes drives them there.

(3) On the side, the SSPX has all valid sacraments and so the loosing of mortal sins among the SSPX laity is available to them. Often times members of the SSPX go to N.O confessionals because the sacrament or their sspx priests are not available to them.

So I think that the Bishops who commited this “schismatic” act (I hate using that word, regardless of what the dear late Pontiff says) might be in danger the laity is not.

And just to add a personal touch, I often go to an SSPX confessional seeing that its very close to my house and I myself am one big lousy sinner.

It feels like de ja vu posting this, since I already had a conversation concerning it with almost all the traditionals on this thread lol.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

By the way, it is Canon 1323 that is the key here.

Still off topic, but If you’re going to offer ANY defense of the SSPX, you better be prepared to have others tear it down.

None of that applied to the Arch or the 4. He had been offered a deal (in the name of the Holy Father), had agreed to the deal, and then reneged on the deal. This implies careful forethought and deliberation, so negligence is out. Also, to engage in the schismatic act of consecration without recourse to the Holy See, does tend to the harm of souls (who might be lead astray), which would negate #6. HE WAS TOLD NOT TO DO IT. There was not reasonable assumption on his part that the priesthood or the Mass was endangered (plenty of other bishops were around who lived through the council, all he had to do was persuade them).

 

[Walking_Home]

I agree, completely. I think that objectively, Richard McBrien and Joan Chichester, lax and timid bishops who hid child molesters, heretical, ignorant or simply lazy priests, “Future Church,” etc. are doing FAR more harm to the Church than the SSPX. Lot’s and LOTS more. This isn’t about that, however, this is about historical facts, facts in evidence, if you will, and the authority of the Church. We shouldn’t stand by and allow what isn’t true to be stated as though it was.

---

That is what I was getting at. Almost daily we see what is being done to the Church—how many in communion—just thumb their nose—to Her authority. This is where we should be putting our effort—in rooting out the malignancy within the Church—and not into dumping on the SSPX at the drop of a hat.

 

[Caesar]

Still off topic, but If you’re going to offer ANY defense of the SSPX, you better be prepared to have others tear it down.

I’m not. If you look above you will see I even posted the official excommunication of Lefebrve and the SSPX bishops consecrated in 1988.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

And just to add a personal touch, I often go to an SSPX confessional seeing that its very close to my house and I myself am one big lousy sinner.

The SSPX do not possess faculties to hear confessions.

 

[Caesar]

The SSPX do not possess faculties to hear confessions.

Yeah, your right on that one…

If I am correct, the right of the priest to give absolutions comes to him from the Church through his Bishop. The SSPX are not subject to any bishops in full communion with Rome.

 

[Resurrexit]

I declare that the above-mentioned Monsignor Marcel Lefebvre, and Bernard Pellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta have incurred ipso facto excommunication latae sententiae reserved to the Apostolic See.

Well, maybe I was wrong (never known that to happen before).

On the other hand, it still only refers to the automatic excommunications. It doesn’t say ‘we hereby excommunicate Bishops…’.

PS. I think they probably were automatically excommunicated, but it is at least somewhat doubtful.

 

[Caesar]

Well, maybe I was wrong (never known that to happen before).

On the other hand, it still only refers to the automatic excommunications. It doesn’t say ‘we hereby excommunicate Bishops…’.

Take your medicine like the rest of us. A dose of humility may do you good

 

[Resurrexit]

Take your medicine like the rest of us. A dose of humility may do you good

Me sir? What does humility mean?

 

[Caesar]

Me sir? What does humility mean?

Sorry, I forgot I was speaking to His Holiness the Roman Pontiff- how else would you be infallible?

 

[Resurrexit]

Sorry, I forgot I was speaking to His Holiness the Roman Pontiff- how else would you be infallible?

Yes - prostrate yourself and kiss the holy shoe!

 

[Cristiano]

Not impressed at all by the movie. However, I loved the movie with the Mass commented by Bishop Sheen. It reminded me of when I was a young boy growing up in Rome. I am just afraid that I will push my son toward the FSSP instead of letting him grow up as an all american boy.

 

[Resurrexit]

I am just afraid that I will push my son toward the FSSP instead of letting him grow up as an all american boy.

Have no fear! The FSSP and ICRSS are very good.

 

[TradyDaddy]

I have a question. When the 5 SSPX Priests were accepted and given the new indult Order a few months ago, were they re-ordained, or conditionally re-ordained?