Would papal disciplinary actions towards SSPX fall under secondary or primary objects of infallibility?

[fakename]

If the SSPX excommunications and other scourges to that body were infallible, then were they classed under the primary or secondary objects of infallibility?

 

[MarkThompson]

Ecclesiastical disciplinary measures are not even the type of thing to which the concept of infallibility can be applied. There is no such thing as being “infallibly excommunicated.”

 

[PaulfromIowa]

Don’t obsess over the word infallibility. The popes’, and other bishops’, disciplinary actions are an essential part of their office. It has little to with infallibility, it is the fact that they have the apostolic authority and the responsibility to correct disobedience.

 

[Melchior_1]

Don’t obsess over the word infallibility. The popes’, and other bishops’, disciplinary actions are an essential part of their office. It has little to with infallibility, it is the fact that they have the apostolic authority and the responsibility to correct disobedience.

Paul sums it up quite well here.

 

[fakename]

Don’t obsess over the word infallibility. The popes’, and other bishops’, disciplinary actions are an essential part of their office. It has little to with infallibility, it is the fact that they have the apostolic authority and the responsibility to correct disobedience.

My question is horribly opaque now that I’ve read your response.

The substance of the question is not whether the excommunications were infallible but whether the charge of disobedience was.

Of course if either was infallibly true, then the other would be. So if one is infallibly true, then is the truth of the disobedience a primary object or secondary one?

 

[PaulfromIowa]

There is no question that the SSPX bishops were deliberately disobedient to the Pope in their episcopal consecration. They would argue that their disobedience was somehow justified.

 

[fakename]

There is no question that the SSPX bishops were deliberately disobedient to the Pope in their episcopal consecration. They would argue that their disobedience was somehow justified.

Is that a “yes it was infallible” or a no?

 

[Brendan_64]

My question is horribly opaque now that I’ve read your response.

The substance of the question is not whether the excommunications were infallible but whether the charge of disobedience was.

Of course if either was infallibly true, then the other would be. So if one is infallibly true, then is the truth of the disobedience a primary object or secondary one?

The SSPX were disobedient, of that there is no doubt. Lefebvre and the 4 priests who received episcopal orders from him quite clearly disobeyed Pope John Paul II’s instructions forbidding them from going ahead with this. There is no doubt that they were disobedient, no doubt whatsoever.

Pope John Paul II exercised his authority in excommunicating them, as was his right to do so.

Infallibility has nothing whatsoever to do with the matter.

 

[Lormar]

The SSPX were disobedient, of that there is no doubt. Lefebvre and the 4 priests who received episcopal orders from him quite clearly disobeyed Pope John Paul II’s instructions forbidding them from going ahead with this. There is no doubt that they were disobedient, no doubt whatsoever.

Pope John Paul II exercised his authority in excommunicating them, as was his right to do so.

Infallibility has nothing whatsoever to do with the matter.

They excommunicated themselves. The excommunication is ipso facto when anyone consecrates a bishop or bishops without a papal mandate. Pope John Paul II merely confirmed it. They would have still been excommunicated even if he hadn’t.

 

[Brendan_64]

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/motu_proprio/documents/hf_jp-ii_motu-proprio_02071988_ecclesia-dei_en.html

No doubt whatsoever about their disobedience.

 

[otjm]

Is that a “yes it was infallible” or a no?

It is the third option - “does not apply”.

Infallibility applies to stateme3nts about faith and morals. The excommunication was about neither; it was about discipline.

I am not a Canon lawyer, but I seem to recall that either the old code or the new one (or both) required the permission of the Pope to consecrate a bishop. Canon law is not “infallible” as it is subject to change (and I do not mean to imply that there may be some underlying infallible issues - again, no training). But the issue of requiring the permission of the Pope to consecrate a bishop is disciplinary and violating it is subject to being on the outside; whether looking in or looking elsewhere to be determined by the circumstances. It is a severe consequence over a matter serious enough to merit such a response.

 

[fakename]

It is the third option - “does not apply”.

Infallibility applies to stateme3nts about faith and morals. The excommunication was about neither; it was about discipline.

I am not a Canon lawyer, but I seem to recall that either the old code or the new one (or both) required the permission of the Pope to consecrate a bishop. Canon law is not “infallible” as it is subject to change (and I do not mean to imply that there may be some underlying infallible issues - again, no training). But the issue of requiring the permission of the Pope to consecrate a bishop is disciplinary and violating it is subject to being on the outside; whether looking in or looking elsewhere to be determined by the circumstances. It is a severe consequence over a matter serious enough to merit such a response.

Well, it could apply if the excommunication was a dogmatic fact. Is it? But what dogma could it defend?

 

[fakename]

Well, it could apply if the excommunication was a dogmatic fact. Is it? But what dogma could it defend?

Is it a dogmatic fact? Does not believing in the SSPX’s disobedience or believing in their obedience either in the first case, deny something in the Nicene Creed or in the second affirm it?

Perhaps it is the part about there being one Catholic Church?

 

[IesumPerMariam]

An excommunication is a matter of ecclesiastical discipline, not faith or morals. It is not within the realm of Papal Infallibility.

A few points:

1. The excommunication that Pope JPII indicated Abp Lefebvre and the four other SSPX bishops had incurred was latae sententiae, i.e. that excommunication would have existed whether Pope JPII publicly declared it (as he did in Ecclesia Dei) or not. So the excommunication did not “come from” the Supreme Pontiff, it came from Canon Law itself.
2. Only matters of faith and morals can be declared infallibly. This was dogmatically explained by the First Vatican Council:

Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, to the glory of God our savior, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion and for the salvation of the Christian people, with the approval of the Sacred Council, we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.

1. Since an infallible declaration is defined as “irreformable” (see above), the fact that Pope Benedict XVI lifted the excommunications in 2009 further proves that the excommunications could not possibly have been “infallible.” Discipline is always reformable (the purpose of such penalties is, indeed, medicinal, i.e. to relate to the affected person the gravity of their offense, in hope that they will repent), and thus never dogmatic nor infallible.

 

[Saints_Alive]

The way these posts are worded, it would lead those who do not know, that the SSPX bishops are still excommunicated. The excommunications were lifted by BXVI.

…Certainly, for some time now, and once again on this specific occasion, we have heard from some representatives of that community many unpleasant things – arrogance and presumptuousness, an obsession with one-sided positions, etc. Yet to tell the truth, I must add that I have also received a number of touching testimonials of gratitude which clearly showed an openness of heart. But should not the great Church also allow herself to be generous in the knowledge of her great breadth, in the knowledge of the promise made to her? Should not we, as good educators, also be capable of overlooking various faults and making every effort to open up broader vistas? And should we not admit that some unpleasant things have also emerged in Church circles? At times one gets the impression that our society needs to have at least one group to which no tolerance may be shown; which one can easily attack and hate. And should someone dare to approach them – in this case the Pope – he too loses any right to tolerance; he too can be treated hatefully, without misgiving or restraint…
vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/letters/2009/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20090310_remissione-scomunica_en.html
HIS HOLINESS POPE BENEDICT XVI
10 March 2009

 

[IesumPerMariam]

…Certainly, for some time now, and once again on this specific occasion, we have heard from some representatives of that community many unpleasant things – arrogance and presumptuousness, an obsession with one-sided positions, etc. Yet to tell the truth, I must add that I have also received a number of touching testimonials of gratitude which clearly showed an openness of heart. But should not the great Church also allow herself to be generous in the knowledge of her great breadth, in the knowledge of the promise made to her? Should not we, as good educators, also be capable of overlooking various faults and making every effort to open up broader vistas? And should we not admit that some unpleasant things have also emerged in Church circles? At times one gets the impression that our society needs to have at least one group to which no tolerance may be shown; which one can easily attack and hate. And should someone dare to approach them – in this case the Pope – he too loses any right to tolerance; he too can be treated hatefully, without misgiving or restraint…
vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/letters/2009/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20090310_remissione-scomunica_en.html
HIS HOLINESS POPE BENEDICT XVI
10 March 2009

Is this quote somehow relevant to the topic being discussed in the thread?

 

[IesumPerMariam]

Disregard my previous post. I see that Saints Alive has edited his post and it is now in proper context.

 

[10thCrusader]

The way these posts are worded, it would lead those who do not know, that the SSPX bishops are still excommunicated. The excommunications were lifted by BXVI.

…Certainly, for some time now, and once again on this specific occasion, we have heard from some representatives of that community many unpleasant things – arrogance and presumptuousness, an obsession with one-sided positions, etc. Yet to tell the truth, I must add that I have also received a number of touching testimonials of gratitude which clearly showed an openness of heart. But should not the great Church also allow herself to be generous in the knowledge of her great breadth, in the knowledge of the promise made to her? Should not we, as good educators, also be capable of overlooking various faults and making every effort to open up broader vistas? And should we not admit that some unpleasant things have also emerged in Church circles? At times one gets the impression that our society needs to have at least one group to which no tolerance may be shown; which one can easily attack and hate. And should someone dare to approach them – in this case the Pope – he too loses any right to tolerance; he too can be treated hatefully, without misgiving or restraint…
vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/letters/2009/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20090310_remissione-scomunica_en.html
HIS HOLINESS POPE BENEDICT XVI
10 March 2009

So if the excommunications were lifted by Benedict XVI, then the original act of the excommunications was not an infallible decree. Q.E.D.

 

[Brendan_64]

So if the excommunications were lifted by Benedict XVI, then the original act of the excommunications was not an infallible decree. Q.E.D.

Excommunication is not an infallible act, it never is. However the fact that it is not infallible does not in any way mean that the act was not reasonable, just, and completely warranted.

If a person is excommunicated, he is excommunicated, and that is that. And Pope John Paul II did not excommunicated Lefebvre and the others. They excommunicated themselves by going ahead and either consecrating or being consecrated, in direct disobedience to the orders of Pope John Paul II.

The SSPX acted in direct disobedience to the Pope by consecrating bishops, automatic excommunication was the inevitable consequence (and they all knew it). They excommunicated themselves.

The door has always been open to SSPX priests to come back to the Church, all they have to do is pick up the phone and make a call to the Roman Catholic bishop in their area. The Church will welcome them back with open arms. But what the Church can’t do is engage in a form of negotiation over our practices and over Vatican II, in order to entice SSPX priests back.

 

[fakename]

An excommunication is a matter of ecclesiastical discipline, not faith or morals. It is not within the realm of Papal Infallibility.

A few points:

1. The excommunication that Pope JPII indicated Abp Lefebvre and the four other SSPX bishops had incurred was latae sententiae, i.e. that excommunication would have existed whether Pope JPII publicly declared it (as he did in Ecclesia Dei) or not. So the excommunication did not “come from” the Supreme Pontiff, it came from Canon Law itself.
2. Only matters of faith and morals can be declared infallibly. This was dogmatically explained by the First Vatican Council:
3. Since an infallible declaration is defined as “irreformable” (see above), the fact that Pope Benedict XVI lifted the excommunications in 2009 further proves that the excommunications could not possibly have been “infallible.” Discipline is always reformable (the purpose of such penalties is, indeed, medicinal, i.e. to relate to the affected person the gravity of their offense, in hope that they will repent), and thus never dogmatic nor infallible.

But aren’t historical facts like “the SSPX really was disobedient” and “Jesus was born” the same RE: potential becoming dogmatic facts? I mean if they either support some morally important truth then they must be true themselves regardless of not being primarily moral facts.

Also, I’m asking about the fact of disobedience but not excommunication.

One question that would really get this out of the way is to distinguish whether the disobedience is, as a fact, theologically certain, or if the disobedience was definitively pronounced as an infallibly true fact. I’m sure the latter didn’t happen but what do others think?

I’m asking because, people seem to have some very dogmatic opinions on whether disobedience occurred or not and it seems that if it is not a matter of dogma then it is something which may be legitimately doubtful.