SSPX & OpusDei.

[DavidJoseph]

And if the Pope demanded congregations stand for the consecration of the Mass?

Why would he?

The Church never judged his case because they never game him a trial. They simply declared an excommunication took place automatically from the act. There was an obvious exception in Canon Law that was never addressed. In any case, this is all moot because the excommunications are remitted.

Whether or not the Church was right to deny him a trial is immaterial; canon law also states: – “There is neither appeal nor recourse against a decision or decree of the Roman Pontiff” (Canon 333, Section 3). And of course, obedience is paramount. Lefebvre still could have submitted to his sentence of excommunication up until or unless he got his day in court AND was exonerated. Of course, it would’ve been different had he been ordered to commit sin, but that wasn’t the case.

Of course he continued to administer the sacraments. That was the entire point of the Society, to preserve and perpetuate the Traditional Faith in a time of widespread, error, irreverence, and apostasy. St. Athanasius did the same, although he was excommunicated as well.

The differences between St. Athanasius and Archbishop Lefebvre are like night and day. I’ve been reading up on St. Athanasius, and I just now learned that for centuries scholars have debated the authenticity of the four letters of Pope Liberius condemning Athanasius during the Arian persecution of the fourth century. The predominant opinion today is that they are genuine. However that may be, their authenticity is irrelevant.

If the letters of condemnation are genuine, they were written under duress. Prior to his imprisonment, Liberius continually had defended Athanasius and the orthodox faith against the Arians. Many scholars believe the letters were in fact dictated by his captors in that they reverse almost word for word his previous letters of support for Athanasius. As for Athanasius continuing to function as a bishop despite his excommunication, including consecrating other bishops, I can’t find any evidence to say he did so. I heard from someone else that, after reading saint bios and Eastern sources, there’s no evidence that Athanasius did what some folks on here claim. And I’ve also consulted such sources and can’t find any such claims either.

Lefebvre, however, was not excommunicated by a decree of Pope John Paul II, but rather, he excommunicated himself.

Any sanction on the Society in '88 was illegitimate because the initial suspension in the 70’s without trial was illegitimate. Read your history about the original suspension. ABL would have gotten more due process in a communist show trial.

Illegitimate? Not at all. No trial? Makes no difference. Right or wrong, canon law says the following: “There is neither appeal nor recourse against a decision or decree of the Roman Pontiff” (Canon 333, Section 3).

Disobedience is not always to be condemned. St. Thomas more was “disobedient” as well.

Apples and oranges.

Oh really? Catholics once firmly believed the same thing about the Traditional Mass. But it happened.

Many Catholics wrongly believed the Traditional Mass was forbidden, yes. But the pope didn’t forbid its being said. So your hypothetical comparison to the pope forbidding Catholics to say the rosary falls flat.

 

[DavidJoseph]

they would have been forced to celebrate the new Mass. they refused to do so.

And how do you know that? Even if they were, how could that possibly take away from their saying the TLM? The Novus Ordo may have its deficiencies, but it’s still a legitimate rite of the Church which gives the same graces as any other rite of Mass, much like every approved sacramental rite of the Church. No Catholic may believe otherwise lest they place themselves outside the Church.

i find very interesting that many unorthodox groups are running free spreading their err inside the CC and are allowed to do so and remain in the CC. but SSPX refuses to celebrate the NO are not allowed to do so. The Holy Mass became a big problem for the Church of the those unholy groups who couldnt careless about the Church.

They’d most definitely be allowed to if they submitted to Rome!

 

[ProVobis]

Illegitimate? Not at all. No trial? Makes no difference. Right or wrong, canon law says the following: “There is neither appeal nor recourse against a decision or decree of the Roman Pontiff” (Canon 333, Section 3).

Then what good are all the other Canons of Canon Law? Contradictions aren’t binding, sorry.

 

[DavidJoseph]

Then what good are all the other Canons of Canon Law? Contradictions aren’t binding, sorry.

Then show me the contradiction in question.

 

[ProVobis]

Even if they were, how could that possibly take away from their saying the TLM?

Let’s not kid ourselves. They’d be forced to change their sermons about hell and mortal sin, allow communion in the hand, etc. There are enough troublemakers around to force those issues, believe me.

 

[ProVobis]

Then show me the contradiction in question.

Excuse me, didn’t you just show one?

 

[DavidJoseph]

Let’s not kid ourselves. They’d be forced to change their sermons about hell and mortal sin, allow communion in the hand, etc. There are enough troublemakers around to force those issues, believe me.

Sorry, I don’t buy it. If that were the case, troublemakers like the ones you describe would have already done so with the FSSP and ICRSS.

 

[DavidJoseph]

Excuse me, didn’t you just show one?

What contradiction did I show you? I quoted canon law where it says there’s no appeal or recourse against a decree or decision of the pope. What’s so contradictory about that?

 

[ProVobis]

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;

7° thought, through no personal fault, that some one of the circumstances existed which are mentioned in nn. 4 or 5.

So if canon 333 has the Pope as the final arbitrator, is he not contradicting his own allowance of the deed to be performed under these circumstances in the first place? Certainly there was a valid reason why canon 1323 was written, wasn’t there? I don’t think it takes a canon lawyer to understand it either.

Sounds like someone was throwing hissy fits at the Vatican.

 

[DavidJoseph]

So if canon 333 has the Pope as the final arbitrator, is he not contradicting his own allowance of the deed to be performed under these circumstances in the first place? Certainly there was a valid reason why canon 1323 was written, wasn’t there? I don’t think it takes a canon lawyer to understand it either.

Sounds like someone was throwing hissy fits at the Vatican.

John Paul II never made a decree of excommunication of Lefebvre; he merely said that His Excellency had excommunicated himself automatically. The decree here from which there’s no appeal, according to canon law, is the pope’s decision that Lefebvre did an objectively bad thing by disobeying. The fact that a penalty wouldn’t be attached if there were grave fear merely lessens or even removes personal culpability. It does NOT, however, make the action in question morally good.

 

[stevusmagnus]

Why would he?

You didn’t answer the question.

Whether or not the Church was right to deny him a trial is entirely material. The Church can’t arbitrarily sanction you for no reason. Canon law must be followed. The Pope is not a Stalin-esque dictator, he has to play by Canon Law. He can change Canon Law going forward but he can’t retroactively change Canon Law.

If you think Lefebvre was EVER going to get “his day in court” you don’t understand the situation. The Vatican simply ignored clear Canonical exemptions and said the act of consecrating without Papal mandate in and of itself caused the excommunication. It was an automatic censure that they “declared” it was not one they imposed. If they imposed it, he would be entitled to a trial. Rome wanted to avoid a trial like the plague. So they declared a censure that did not exist from the clear facts of the case. Obviously the necessity defense needed to be addressed in justice. It wasn’t.

You are missing the point of the Athanasius comparison. The point was that the true Catholic Bishop was stigmatized as heretical bishops were approved and allowed to conduct heretical masses and it was difficult to tell at the time who was right.

In practice the TLM was most certainly forbidden. Priests were suspended by their Bishops for saying it. Did the Popes overrule these suspensions? No. Pope Benedict in the SP finally came out and vindicated those priests saying that they had the right to say it all along. Yet, at the time, they were told they could not and were suspended for disobedience if they did.

It is incontrovertible that the TLM was suppressed outright from 1969 until the MP with only scant “permission” (that wasn’t even needed) granted in between.

So I will pose the question to you. If the Pope forbade you from saying your rosary and you refused, would you be justified or not?

 

[stevusmagnus]

From John Salza…

"John is a frequent guest and host on Catholic radio, appearing on such shows as Searching the Word, The Drew Mariani Show, Kresta in the Afternoon, Sacred Heart Radio and Catholic Answers Live. John has been a guest on the Eternal Word Television Network (EWTN) and also has a daily program on EWTN Radio called “Catholic Q&A.”

scripturecatholic.xanga.com/703979240/12-was-archbishop-lefebvre-excommunicated/

.** Was Archbishop Lefebvre excommunicated?**

…let’s look at the canonical issues regarding the excommunication of Archbishop Lefebvre and the four bishops (Williamson, de Galarreta,Tissier de Mallerais and Fellay). Lefebvre consecrated the bishops on June 30, 1988, and on July 1, 1988 Cardinal Gantin sent a decree of excommunication to Lefebvre and the other bishops. Lefebvre was accused of consecrating bishops without pontifical mandate in violation of canon 1382, as well as being a schismatic under canon 1364,1 – both of which impose a latae sententiae excommunication for those violations. This means the perpetrator excommunicates himself by virtue of the act; the Church does not excommunicate the offender. I have already addressed the schism issue in this Q&A section so I will focus here on the issue of excommunication.

It is true that Archbishop Lefebvre disobeyed Pope John Paul II by consecrating bishops without pontifical mandate in violation of canon 1382. It is also true that John Paul II said that the archbishop excommunicated himself. Because John Paul II was the supreme legislator of the Church, we must presume that his interpretation of the law was accurate and binding. However, that is not the end of the story. First, we know from history that a pope may abuse his authority in excommunicating a Catholic, for example, by making an error in judgment, as was the case with Pope Victor’s excommunication of the Asiatic churches, or being pressured or succumbing to weakness, as was the case of Pope Liberius’ wrongful excommunication of Athanasius, who became a great saint and doctor of the Church. This is not common, but it does happen. The pope’s authority must always be at the service of Tradition.

Second, canon law mitigates or eliminates canonical penalties under certain circumstances. For example, canon 1323,4 provides that one is not liable to a penalty who, when violating a law, “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.” As applied here, the Archbishop made it clear in his sermon on June 30, 1988 that he believed he was acting out of necessity in consecrating the bishops to retain the traditional priesthood and Mass which was all but abandoned by the bishops at that time. The archbishop was concerned about the Modernism that had ravaged the Church (remember these consecrations took place shortly after the scandalous Assisi prayer meeting) and was genuinely worried that, without traditional bishops, he would have orphaned his seminarians. When one reads his sermon, it is clear that the last thing the archbishop wanted to do was separate himself from Eternal Rome. Of course, the act of consecrating a bishop is not intrinsically evil, nor is it harmful to souls (especially when Lefebvre wasn’t purporting to grant the bishops jurisdiction or set up an ecclesial structure in opposition to the Church).

As we have said, the pope is the supreme legislator of the Church. We also conclude that the pope disagreed with Lefebvre about there being a “reason of necessity” to go forward with the consecrations. Those opposed to Lefebvre’s actions argue that the pope’s judgment that there was no necessity settles the matter. However, canon law regards what is in the mind of the offender, not the pope. Canon 1323,7 says that no one is liable to a penalty who, when violating a law or precept, “thought, through no person fault, that one of the circumstances mentioned (i.e., necessity) existed…” In other words, if Lefebvre (not the pope) “thought, through no personal fault,” that a “reason of necessity” existed to consecrate the four bishops, then he would not incur excommunication under canon 1382.

Can anyone credibly argue that Archbishop Lefebvre did not really think there was a “reason of necessity” or “grave inconvenience” which motivated his consecrations? I don’t think so. I think any honest Catholic would conclude that the archbishop truly believed, “through no personal fault,” that he had a case of necessity or grave inconvenience. But even if one wants to accuse the archbishop of being culpably erroneous in his assessments, canon 1324,1 says that the penalty is diminished for one who (8) “erroneously, but culpably, thought that one of the circumstances [necessity] existed,” and (3) where the penalty is diminished, “the offender is not bound by latae sententiae penalty.” Thus, even if the archbishop was culpably wrong in his assessments, canon 1324 would diminish his canonical penalty to something less than excommunication.

Thus, on a purely canonical basis, I don’t see how the excommunications stick. With this analysis, I mean no disrespect to Pope John Paul II. I am simply applying the law to the facts. Many reputable canon lawyers and theologians have reached this same conclusion. The canon law enacted by John Paul II looks to the mind of the perpetrator in determining whether a “reason of necessity” or “grave inconvenience” mitigates or eliminates a canonical penalty. Archbishop Lefebvre knew canon law. He based his decision to consecrate the four bishops on this law providing for “reason of necessity” and “grave inconvenience.” If Catholics cannot rely upon canon law to govern their actions, then we have an absolute monarchy and not the Catholic Church.

 

[ProVobis]

It does NOT, however, make the action in question morally good.

I’ll agree with you there. But the Canon Law is what it is. And there was a reason the “necessity” canon was written. Methinks the Pope was angry that the Archbishop beat the Vatican at their own game and he wouldn’t have any more of that. The Pope was, however, able to win the PR game at that time, I’ll grant him that much, but only because he had quite a number of bishops behind him. But numbers only write history books, they don’t trump the Truth.

 

[Tsuwano]

I’ll agree with you there. But the Canon Law is what it is. And there was a reason the “necessity” canon was written. Methinks the Pope was angry that the Archbishop beat the Vatican at their own game and he wouldn’t have any more of that. The Pope was, however, able to win the PR game at that time, I’ll grant him that much, but only because he had quite a number of bishops behind him. But numbers only write history books, they don’t trump the Truth.

I’ll stand by the truth represented by the Church and the Holy Father. After all, we have the promise of Christ himself that the Holy Spirit will remain with and guide the Church. We also have the Lord’s call to St. Peter asking him to lead his sheep. The Holy Father wears the ring of the fisherman, and no other. You may stand where you will.

 

[ProVobis]

I’ll stand by the truth represented by the Church and the Holy Father. After all, we have the promise of Christ himself that the Holy Spirit will remain with and guide the Church. We also have the Lord’s call to St. Peter asking him to lead his sheep. The Holy Father wears the ring of the fisherman, and no other. You may stand where you will.

I’m just saying the Pope is human and I recognize him as the Vicar of Christ on earth. For better or for worse, he is our spiritual leader. However, he can and does make mistakes, gets angry, gets sad, gets defensive when he’s threatened, and prays he gets to heaven just like you or me. To think otherwise you’re just worshipping the Pope and that is sinful as only God is to be worshipped.

 

[Onegin]

I’ll stand by the truth represented by the Church and the Holy Father. After all, we have the promise of Christ himself that the Holy Spirit will remain with and guide the Church. We also have the Lord’s call to St. Peter asking him to lead his sheep. The Holy Father wears the ring of the fisherman, and no other. You may stand where you will.

And, quite fortunately, we have the benefit of a whole history of Catholic tradition by which we can measure the actions of the Holy Father and thus prevent us from falling into the error of Papism.

 

[Tsuwano]

I’m just saying the Pope is human and I recognize him as the Vicar of Christ on earth. For better or for worse, he is our spiritual leader. However, he can and does make mistakes, gets angry, gets sad, gets defensive when he’s threatened, and prays he gets to heaven just like you or me. To think otherwise you’re just worshipping the Pope and that is sinful as only God is to be worshipped.

As you say, the Pope is certainly human and I’m glad you recognize him as the Vicar of Christ on earth. I agree with you that the Pope can and does make mistakes and experiences the whole range of emotions that other humans do. I do not worship the Pope. I do, however, worship the Holy Spirit, sent by the Father to guide the Church and keep her faithful to the message of Christ. I believe the Pope has been chosen and entrusted by the Holy Spirit to lead the Church together with those bishops in union with him. If all you are saying is that the Pope is human, then no harm is done. All Catholics would agree with that. But, if you are saying that the Pope is merely human and therefore his guidance of the Church is only political and we are not bound by obedience to what he and his bishops have promulgated in Council, then I am in disagreement with you. I do not think the Pope is less or more than human, but neither do I dismiss the role of the Holy Spirit in his ministry; the Holy Spirit which our Lord himself promised would remain with the Church and St. Peter until he comes again.

 

[Tsuwano]

And, quite fortunately, we have the benefit of a whole history of Catholic tradition by which we can measure the actions of the Holy Father and thus prevent us from falling into the error of Papism.

What is the error of Papism and who has fallen into it? Is it possible to separate Catholic tradition from the Papacy? What do you mean by Catholic tradition and who defines it? Is the Church and the Holy Father, united with the bishops of the Church, guided by the Holy Spirit or not?

 

[wisdomseeker]

And how do you know that? Even if they were, how could that possibly take away from their saying the TLM? The Novus Ordo may have its deficiencies, but it’s still a legitimate rite of the Church which gives the same graces as any other rite of Mass, much like every approved sacramental rite of the Church. No Catholic may believe otherwise lest they place themselves outside the Church.

They’d most definitely be allowed to if they submitted to Rome!

i think this is great explanation.

uvcr.catholicam.org/mp3s/FatherR_TraditionandLiturgy.mp3