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

The Catholic Church and the Rule of Law- Part II: Dr. John Lamont

+ JMJ This is the second article from Dr. Lamont from his lecture given in May 2014. P^3 Source Part A: Society of St. Hugh of Cluny Source Part B: Society of St. Hugh of Cluny 8 May2014 The Catholic Church and the Rule of Law- Part II By John Lamont To understand how the Jesuit conception of obedience departed from earlier conceptions, it is helpful to compare it with the teaching of St. Thomas on obedience. The fundamental difference between the two is that St. Thomas considers the proper object of obedience to be the precept of the superior (2a2ae q. 104 a. 2 co., ad 3). Obedience that seeks to forestall the expressed will of the superior does not bear on what the superior wants or thinks in general, but only on what the superior intends to command. St. Ignatius’s lowest degree of obedience, which he does not consider to be virtuous, is thus what St. Thomas considers to be the only form of obedience. St. Thomas holds that St. Ignatius’s alleged higher forms of o...

Open Letter to Cardinal Gantin - July 6, 1988

There has been some discussion (read lots) about the term 'Conciliar Church'. I have posted this letter written by the Superior General and District Superiors of the SSPX after the 1988 Consecrations. Of particular interest is that the 'Conciliar Church' being referred to as a system. My paraphrase would be that the SSPX regards the 'conciliar Church' as an error within the Church. Source Open Letter to Cardinal Gantin Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops

Morning and Evening and other sundry Prayers

+ JMJ Along the theme of P^3 (Prayer, Penance, Patience), and for my own reference ... here is a collection of Morning and Evening prayers from the Ideal Daily Missal along with some additional prayers. In this crisis of the Church, I do not think it is possible to do too much prayer, penance and have patience. P^3

Rome and the SSPX - Version 2026 Part 6b: Principles and Rules for Surviving this Crisis of the Catholic Church (Principle 1)

+ JMJ Principle 1: Realize that something is amiss in the Catholic Church The world in which I had my Traditional Awakening, is one in which practically anything pre-Conciliar such as liturgy, doctrinc, and even dogmas are either suppressed, ignored or re-framed to be acceptable to the ‘world’. What is more, the people adhering to these pre-conciliar teachings and liturgy are persecuted by other members of the Catholic Church. The things that non-Trads say about Trads can be quite extreme. For example, accusations against Traditionalists include that they are: A revival of the Jansenists (link) , Schismatics, Heretics, Uncharitable, Lefebrists Radicals Integrists When one group of Catholics is persecuted by the others for simply wanting to live as Catholics before them did for generations … well something is wrong. Further, we need to realize that when what was previously condemned is now promoted and what was previously promoted as the trut...

How is the SSPX prepared to accept the Second Vatican Council??? - Reblogged and Updated.

+ JMJ The Archbishop remained steadfast. In the 1980s, in his correspondence with then-Cardinal Ratzinger, Archbishop Lefebvre stated his position that the criterion for interpreting Vatican II in light of Tradition comprises three elements: 1) He and the SSPX would accept anything in Vatican II that is clearly consistent with Tradition; 2) Any ambiguous texts of Vatican II must be interpreted strictly according to Tradition; according to the consistent teaching of the Church throughout the centuries. 3) Anything in the Council that cannot be interpreted according to Tradition should be revised. The Archbishop laid this out explicitly in his letters to Cardinal Ratzinger in 1982 and 1985. CF News: Rome-SSPX: Background to the Doctrinal Discussions CF News: The April 15 Deadline A few years ago Tony La Rosa (aka ecclesia militans a Toronto based 'resistor') had a difficult time accepting this approach to the council. He held that it must be completely tossed as...

Tradicat

Search This Blog