Opinion of an FSSP Seminarian

JMJ

Last week I had the opportunity to have a discussion with a 4th year FSSP seminarian.

It was an interesting discussion and after resolving some of the 'SSPX needs to come back into the Church' verbiage, we arrived at what I believe to be the heart of the matter: Is it a mortal sin (objectively) to consecrate a bishop without papal mandate?

Unfortunately, the event was winding down when we arrived at this important point.

Why is it important?

Because I believe it is the foundation of the assumptions that stand between the SSPX and the FSSP.

It is not a question of whether or not Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop Castro de Mayer subjectively incurred the penalties foreseen in the law.

It is a question of whether or not they were right to perform the consecrations at all.

So, is it a mortal sin to consecrate a Bishop without a Papal Mandate?

Just a quick flash back: A Papal Mandate is a formal authorization to consecrate a priest as bishop.

First the canon in question:

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.

Next the qualifier:

Can. 1323 The following are not subject to a penalty when they have violated a law or precept:
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; Source: Vatican Code of Canon Law

So, the action of consecration is, obviously, not intrinsically evil. In and of itself it is not a mortal sin to consecration a priest as bishop. Otherwise we'd be in a whole world of hurt.

In other words, if a person is in a state of necessity and they consecrate a bishop, then they don't incur the penalty and ... did not sin.

Now, objectively, is there a state of necessity in the Church?

Here's what was read in place of the Papal Mandate:

“Mandatum”

At the beginning of the rite of the consecration the following dialogue takes place between the consecrating bishops and the Archpriest who presents the bishops-elect for consecration:

–Do you have the Apostolic Mandate?
–We have it!
–Let it be read.
We have this Mandate from the Roman Church, always faithful to the Holy Tradition, which She has received from the Holy Apostles. This Holy Tradition is the Deposit of Faith which the Church orders us to faithfully transmit to all men for the salvation of their souls.
Since the Second Vatican Council until this day, the authorities of the Roman Church are animated by the spirit of modernism. They have acted contrary to the Holy Tradition, “they cannot bear sound doctrine, they turned their ears from the Truth and followed fables” as says St. Paul in his second Epistle to Timothy (4:3-5). This is why we reckon of no value all the penalties and all the censures inflicted by these authorities.
As for me, “I am offered up in sacrifice and the moment for my departure is arrived” (II Tim 4:6). I had the call of souls who ask for the Bread of Life, Who is Christ, to be broken for them. “I have pity upon the crowd” (Mk. 8:2). It is for me therefore a grave obligation to transmit the grace of my episcopacy to these dear priests here present, in order that in turn they may confer the grace of the priesthood on other numerous and holy clerics, instructed in the Holy Traditions of the Catholic Church
It is by this Mandate of the Holy Roman Catholic Church, semper fidelis (always faithful), then that we elect to the rank of Bishop in the Holy Roman Church the priests here present as auxiliaries of the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X:
Fr. Bernard Tissier de Mallerais
Fr. Richard Williamson
Fr. Alfonso de Galarreta
Fr. Bernard Fellay

First, are the statements factual (ie aligned with reality)?

At that time (1988) with the fever of Assisi, and the other issues that abound - I think it is reasonable to conclude that an objective state of necessity existed at that time.

Further, the knowledge of this was confirmed by the interactions with Rome . . .

Pope Benedict also acknowledged a state of necessity to Bishop Fellay.

I don't think it's got any better since then eh?

P^3

Hermeneutic of the Hermeneutic of Continuity - sspx.org

+ JMJ Since I'm looking at the 'four things', I thought this article would be good. Unfortunately, with the new SSPX.org website, I've been unable to locate the original article. This is a copy the I emailed to myself. This is an article that, I believe, was written in response to a conference given by Msgr. Pozzo. P^3

Rome,the SSPX and this time of Crisis - Updated

+ JMJ Obviously there's lots of events right now. First we have the April 1st - I almost thought it was April Fools - meeting between Pope Francis and Bishop Fellay. Nothing really news worthy as this is a natural progression as Rome appears to be considering fulfilling Archbishop Lefebvre's wish to 'accept us as we are'. Second we have the April 8th publication of what will be a verbose exhortation of the Synod of the Family. I'm willing to bet that the Pope will give with one hand (unilateral regularization of SSPX) and take with the other (ambiguous document that opens the flood gates of sin further). Much to pray for. P^3

SSPX and the Resistance - A Comparison Of Ecclesiology

Shining the light of Church Teaching on the doctrinal positions of the SSPX and the Resistance. Principles are guides used to aid in decision making. It stands to reason that bad principles will lead to bad decisions. The recent interactions between Rome and the SSPX has challenged a number of closely held cultural assumptions of people in both sides of the disagreement. This has resulted in cultural skirmishes in both Rome and the SSPX. Since it is the smaller of the two, the skirmishes have been more evident within the SSPX. The cultural fault-line that Bishop Fellay crossed appears to be linked to two points of Catholic Doctrine: Ecclesiology and Obedience. The cultural difference of view points is strong enough that it has resulted in the expulsion of a number of members. It should also be noted that some other priests expelled since the beginning of the latest interactions (starting in 2000) held the same view points and have joined with the l...

Validity of new rite of episcopal consecrations - Courtesy of SSPX.org

+ JMJ In the blogosphere there are number of responses to this crisis in the Catholic Church that lead to conclusions that run counter to Catholic Doctrine and Dogmas - if taken to their logical conclusion. The validity of the New Rite of Episcopal consecrations is one such hotspot within more extreme sections of the 'traditionalist' culture. Validity of new rite of episcopal consecrations Courtesy of SSPX.org Why the new rite of episcopal consecration is valid Introduction This comprehensive study was compiled to settle a debate that has been circulating in traditional Catholic circles. Some writers have examined the new rite of episcopal consecration and concluded that it must be invalid. Since this would cause manifest problems if it were true and due to the heightened awareness of such a theory, we present a study of this question concluding that it is valid. Following the Council, in 1968 a new rite for the ordination of bishops was promulg...

De Fide Teachings of the Catholic Church (Updated)

+ JMJ Update: I was reviewing Ott's work directly and noted that some of the Teachings are De Fide while others are different levels of authority (such as Sent Certa etc). So please refer to Ott for the actual classification). Posts Listing the Dogmas of the Catholic Church Dogmas of the Catholic Faith (de fide) - Expanded Listing: Answer for Reader (Oct 2022) Updated List of Teachings of the Catholic Church (Oct 2021) *** Dogmas of the Catholic Faith (Oct 2015) De Fide teaching of the Catholic Church (Apr 2013) *** Latest version

Tradicat

Search This Blog