SSPX Update - Redux

[numealinesimpet]

Pope John Paul II said “withdrawal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or from communion with the members of the Church subject to him” (canon 751), the consecration “constitute[d] a schismatic act”, and that, by virtue of canon 1382 of the Code, it entailed automatic excommunication for all the bishops involved.

Bl. John Paul did not own the definition of schism.

The action of Mgr Lefebvre and de Castro Meyer could be identified as disobedience (although that too is debatable) but was not schismatic under the Church’s customary definition. The bishops were meticulous in avoiding any usurpation of jurisdiction. To re-define words and then to use them in their new meanings is against natural justice - although it is not proven that Bl. John Paul II was aware of this, or even that he drafted the document himself. Indeed, only the very naive believe that more than a very small proportion of documents from very senior figures are actually composed by themselves - although they would be mortally imprudent not to read them and make such changes as they see fit.

The actual statement of excommunication
*was not signed by the pope or anyone specifically desigated by him, or holding an appropriate office of authority
*was not publised regularly but in a newspaper, ''l’Osservatore Romano", without a protocol number which is required for validity.
*Did not cite the canon covering schism.

S. Robert Bellarmine wrote “Let the legislator speak clearly if he wishes to be obeyed”.

It is very instructive to study closely the document “Ecclesia Dei Adflicta” signed by Bl. Pope John Paul, and the document lifting the decree of excommunication signed By Pope Benedict. As we say in school, ‘compare and contrast’.

There are precedents for a pope making an error (not concerning faith and morals to be binding on all the faithful) and being corrected. Very rare, Deo Gratias, but they are there. Hence they establish a precedent.

As I said, this does not prove that Mgr Lefebvre et al. were correct, but it proves that the case may not be dismissed out of hand.

 

[EphelDuath]

It doesn’t require a formal decree of excommunication because according to even the most audaciously liberal interpretation of canon law, the consecrations resulted in automatic self-excommunication.

 

[numealinesimpet]

It doesn’t require a formal decree of excommunication because according to even the most audaciously liberal interpretation of canon law, the consecrations resulted in automatic self-excommunication.

Not according to the New Code of Canon Law.

 

[Melchior_1]

Not according to the New Code of Canon Law.

I quoted the applicable Canon Law earlier, the one that came from the Successor of Peter.

 

[numealinesimpet]

The Old code of Canon Law had over 50 ‘delicts’ or offences that incurred excommunication. The list would be very instructive. Most publishers and Catholic Teaching Boards nowadays would have been excommunicated if the Old Code were still in effect. The list did not include ‘consecrating a bishop without papal mandate’.

The number in the New Code was reduced to 5.
The offence ‘consecrating a bishop without papal mandate’ was added to the list in the 1950s in response to the Marxist ploy of erecting in each occupied country a stooge ‘Patriotic Catholic Church’ under the iron thumb of The Party. There are at least 200 such ‘bishops’ in Communist China. They very explicitly declare that the Party overrides the Vatican. Now that is schism - in the full meaning of the word.

None of these bishops were told they were excommunicated under Pope Paul or Bl. Pope John Paul.

Delegates from the Vatican not only met such schismatic bishops, but concelebrated Masses with them. So were they excommunicated or not? If they were, was it not* ipso facto* an excommunicable offence to concelebrate Mass with them?

 

[Oneofthewomen]

Not according to the New Code of Canon Law.

And this is the thing I just do not understand?!

The SSPX’s biggest problem is with VII, and how things happened in the wake of the Council, yet they are clinging to a canon that did not exsist in 1962.

Will someone please explain this to me?

 

[numealinesimpet]

I quoted the applicable Canon Law earlier, the one that came from the Successor of Peter.

Canons 1321 - 4 came from the Successor of Peter.

 

[EphelDuath]

Delegates from the Vatican not only met such schismatic bishops, but concelebrated Masses with them. So were they excommunicated or not? If they were, was it not* ipso facto* an excommunicable offence to concelebrate Mass with them?

Which delegates? Which Patriotic ‘bishops’? May I see a source for this comment?

 

[Melchior_1]

Can. 1382 A bishop who consecrates some one a bishop without a pontifical mandate and the person who receives the consecration from him incur a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See.

If the Pope says “you broke this law”, you broke the law. The law is just, the punishment is just. They performed a schismatic act, and the Pope applied this law to them.

Rome has spoken, assent is required.

 

[Dee_S]

This relitigation of what has occurred by carefully parsing canons and context and all is interesting, but the verdict is in.

It can be said that all SSPX has done is legal and the Vatican is wrong, but, that is like saying Mr. Chief Justice Roberts got the Affordable Care Act ruling wrong. It’s an interesting discussion, but doesn’t change anything as there is no one to appeal to.

The Vatican is the final court, so if you say they got it wrong and you won’t abide by their ruling, you are distancing yourself from them and their authority. If one doesn’t accept their authority, why would one want to be under their jurisdiction?

true, true and true again

 

[PaulinVA]

May I offer an example. It is summer in Australia, and the countryside is tinder dry. A father says to his 15-year-old son (who is legally under his authority) “Take these matches and light a bonfire in the back garden”. The son says, “Father, that would be mortally imprudent. The whole countryside will go up in flames”. The father insists. The son replies, “Father, I will not”. Now, is it fair to accuse the son of saying “Father, I will not;* and therefore you are not my father?”* My understanding is that this is the predicament in which Mgr Lefebvre and de Castro Meyer found themselves. That is why it is not inappropriate to discuss the context of a refusal to comply with a command, even of a legitimate authority.

This is not the proper analogy. Try this

It is summer in France, and the countryside is tinder dry. A son takes some matches over to the family bonfire pit, and starts to stack up firewood to make a fire. The father looks outside, sees him, and opens a window and tells him not to light a fire.

The son says something about he really needs a fire, and if the father would just understand, he would see that a fire would be a good thing. The father responds that the son can not start a fire. The son goes ahead and starts the fire, knowing that his father told him not to, but the son thinks the father is wrong and isn’t fit to be a father. In fact, the father is one of the reasons he needs a bonfire.

The fire gets a little out of control, and sparks hop from place to place, starting little fires and burning little plots of ground here and there. The son invites friends over to see the great fire. Other sons see that one can have a bonfire even if their father tells then not to. Pretty soon, there are little bonfires everywhere, endangering the local inhabitants.

Finally, to put an end to, the father gives an ultimatum - either the son only builds bonfires when allowed or he leave home.

 

[Mrs_Sally]

Perhaps it would be a goodidea for us to take a breather on discussing old news until some new news happens.

In the meantime, I will continue to pray for reconcilliation for the priests of the SSPX, and a return to licit Masses and valid confessions for those laity who currently attend at SSPX (and “independent”) chapels.

 

[Dee_S]

… one argument used by the SSPX and those sympathetic to them why the decree of excommunication was always null and void… .
Sorry, but no amount of :juggle:can make the decree of excommunication null and void.

It is interesting that it was lifted by Pope Benedict without any conditions or discussions.

Not quite! In these extracts from this Motu Proprio, Pope Benedict XVI gives the real reasons why he decided to lift the excommunications

ECCLESIAE UNITATEM

....The supreme and fundamental priority of the Church in every epoch to lead humankind to the encounter with God must be encouraged by the commitment to achieve a witness of faith common to all Christians.

1. In fidelity to this mandate, subsequent to the act of 30 June 1988 with which Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre illicitly conferred episcopal ordination upon four priests, on 2 July 1988 Pope John Paul II of venerable memory established the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei:*…**.*****for the purpose of facilitating the full ecclesial communion **of priests, seminarians, religious communities or individual religious until now linked in various ways to the Society founded by Archbishop Lefebvre, who may wish to remain united to the Successor of Peter in the Catholic Church, while preserving their spiritual and liturgical traditions…
2. Along these lines, adhering faithfully to the same duty to serve the universal communion of the Church also in its visible manifestation and making every effort to ensure that all who truly desire unity have the possibility of remaining in it or of rediscovering it…

**4. In the same spirit and with the same commitment to encouraging the resolution of all fractures and divisions in the Church and to healing a wound in the ecclesial fabric that was more and more painfully felt, I wished to remit the excommunication of the four Bishops illicitly ordained by Archbishop Lefebvre. **

With this decision I intended to remove an impediment that might have jeopardized the opening of a door to dialogue and thereby to invite the Bishops and the “Society of St Pius X” to rediscover the path to full communion with the Church.

As I explained in my Letter to the Catholic Bishops of last 10 March, the remission of the excommunication was a measure taken in the context of ecclesiastical discipline to free the individuals from the burden of conscience constituted by the most serious of ecclesiastical penalties.

However, the doctrinal questions obviously remain and until they are clarified** the Society has no canonical status in the Church and its ministers cannot legitimately exercise any ministry.**

1. Precisely because the problems that must now be addressed with the Society are essentially doctrinal in nature, I have decided 21 years after the Motu Proprio Ecclesia Dei and in conformity with what I had proposed (cf. *ibid., *art. 11 781) to rethink the structure of the Commission Ecclesia Dei, linking it closely to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
2. The Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Deiwill therefore have the following configuration:
   c) The task of the Cardinal President, assisted by the Secretary, is to refer the principal cases and doctrinal questions to the judgment of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith through its ordinary procedures, **and to submit the results thereof to the superior dispositions of the Supreme Pontiff. **

**7. With this decision I have wished in particular to show fatherly solicitude to the “Society of St Pius X” in order that it rediscover full communion with the Church.
**vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/apost_letters/documents/hf_ben-xvi_apl_20090702_ecclesiae-unitatem_en.html

 

[Dee_S]

I think CAF first started turning the corner on this issue during the SSPX talks a year or so back. We had the chance to join together in prayer in one universal desire for reconcilliation regarldless of our position. We still can do this, you know. Diminished hope does not mean hope is lost.

***I address to all a pressing invitation to pray the Lord tirelessly, through the intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary, “ut unum sint”. ***

*Given in Rome, at St Peter’s, on 2 July 2009, the fifth year of Our Pontificate. *
BENEDICTUS PP. XVI

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/apost_letters/documents/hf_ben-xvi_apl_20090702_ecclesiae-unitatem_en.html

 

[Alfonsus]

The problem with appealing to canon law, is that the law itself put into its canon that authentic meaning and interpretation of the law is that of the legislator -as does the one to whom the same legislator has entrusted the power of authentically interpreting- (canon 16 of the 1983 code, canon 17 of the 1917 code).
So you cannot say the legislator is wrong and you are right if the legislator said you are the one wrong based on this and that canon that the legislator promulgated.
It is simply futile.

On the case of excommunication of Mgr. Levebre and the four bishops, Pope John Paul II gave the verdict via the letter Ecclesia Dei.
About the status of the SSPX bishops and clergy now, Pope Benedict verdict came trough Summorum Pontificium.

To argue otherwise is simply illogical. You can’t use the law to argue with the legislator when the law itself said you can’t.
Either you accept the law as it is or you remove yourself from the communion and establish separate law (which means full blown schism).

Yet the SSPX wanna stay within the communion, under the law, yet creating an imaginary higher tribunal above the legislator of the law when the law said can’t do…

 

[Lormar]

Can. 1382 A bishop who consecrates some one a bishop without a pontifical mandate and the person who receives the consecration from him incur a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See.

If the Pope says “you broke this law”, you broke the law. The law is just, the punishment is just. They performed a schismatic act, and the Pope applied this law to them.

Rome has spoken, assent is required.

That says it all.

 

[Dee_S]

The action of Mgr Lefebvre and de Castro Meyer could be identified as disobedience (although that too is debatable) but was not schismatic under the Church’s customary definition…

The actual statement of excommunication
*was not signed by the pope or anyone specifically desigated by him, or holding an appropriate office of authority
*was not publised regularly but in a newspaper, ''l’Osservatore Romano", without a protocol number which is required for validity.
*Did not cite the canon covering schism.

S. Robert Bellarmine wrote “Let the legislator speak clearly if he wishes to be obeyed”.

The legislator did speak clearly in order to be obeyed. Think it would be a good idea for those who believe to the contrary, to seek out the ‘truth’.

DECREE** OF EXCOMMUNICATION**
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 Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, and Bernard Fellay, 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 sentientae as envisaged by Canon 1364, paragraph 1.

The priests and faithful are warned not to support the schism of Archbishop 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
jloughnan.tripod.com/schmex2.htm

 

[Dee_S]

DECREE** OF EXCOMMUNICATION**
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. **

DELICTS AGAINST RELIGION AND THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH (Cann. 1364 - 1369)
Can. 1364 §1. Without prejudice to the prescript of ⇒ can. 194, §1, n. 2, an apostate from the faith, a heretic, or a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication; in addition, a cleric can be punished with the penalties mentioned in ⇒ can. 1336, §1, nn. 1, 2, and 3.

USURPATION OF ECCLESIASTICAL FUNCTIONS AND DELICTS IN THEIR EXERCISE (Cann. 1378 - 1389)
Can. 1382 A bishop who consecrates some one a bishop without a pontifical mandate and the person who receives the consecration from him incur a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See.

 

[Dee_S]

Of course I have children! I am Catholic and it isn’t like I live in Europe or anything.
4 Kids, 7, 5, 3, 1 month. I am a stay at home, homeschooling dad.
The future my friend is sitting next to me in the pew, sucking his thumb.

well done - what blessings!
http://viz.cwrl.utexas.edu/files/LinusSecurityBlanket.gif

 

[Dee_S]

The answer to that is to be found in the meanings of the words ‘disobedience’ and ‘schism’. I quote directly from The Catholic Encyclopaedia:

**A schism is not a refusal to obey authority, but a denial that the visible, ostensive authority exists. **

There can be cases where an act of disobedience to lawful authority can be objectively “the lesser of two evils”.

Perhaps in matters that don’t concern obedience owed to the Holy Father this is possible, but according to these references in The Catholic Encyclopedia- no justification seems to be admitted

…because the schismatic rebels against the Divinely constituted hierarchy. However, 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…** Anyone becomes a schismatic who, though desiring to remain a Christian, rebels against legitimate authority**, without going as far as the rejection of Christianity as a whole, which constitutes the crime of apostasy."

But the great African champion of ecclesiastical unity was St. Cyprian,.**.“This unity we bishops who govern in the Church should firmly uphold and defend, in order to show that the episcopate itself is one and undivided” (De ecclesiæ unit., v); “Know that the bishop is in the Church and the Church in the bishop, and that if anyone is not with the bishop he is not in the Church. . . . The Catholic Church is one, formed of the harmonious union of pastors who mutually support one another” **(Epist. lxxvi, 5). …

“Where Peter is,” concludes St. Ambrose, “there is the Church; where the Church is there is no death but eternal life” (In Ps., xl, 30).

(Ambrose, “Ep.”, xi, 4). “I who follow no guide save Christ am in communion with Your Holiness, that is with the chair of Peter. I know that on this rock the Church is built. Whosoever partakes of the Lamb outside this house commits a sacrilege. Whosoever does not gather with you, scatters: in other words whosoever is not with Christ is with Antichrist” (Jerome, “Epist.”, xv, 2).
**
“That is why obedience must be rendered to the presbyters who are in the Church, and who having succeeded the Apostles, together with the episcopal succession have received by the will of the Father a certain charisma of truth” **
newadvent.org/cathen/13529a.htm