Skip to main content

Opinion of an FSSP Seminarian

Image
By
+
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

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

What is Tradition?

By
 + JMJ What Is Tradition? The basic premise, from my perspective, is that what was taught before cannot be contradicted by the 'present' magisterium, only deepened and expanded upon. I recall the Roman theologians called the SSPX protestants while the SSPX called them modernists.  I believe this was all surrounding the concept of Traditon. SSPX's Understanding of Tradition One accusation made against the SSPX is that they don't have a correct understanding of 'Tradition'.  This is how the SSPX understands Tradition: I finally profess that Tradition is not a dead memory, but the living transmission of the doctrine received from the Apostles. It remains living, in distinction to Revelation, which is closed. It is so both in the activity of the Magisterium of the Teaching Church and in the profession of Faith of the Church Taught, of which the sentire cum Ecclesia is the result of the teaching of the Magisterium. Tradition may be called ‘living’, not in the sense t...
Post a Comment
Read more

SSPX.ca: What is the position of the SSPX on Vatican II???

By
 + JMJ With all the mis-information about the SSPX rejecting the Second Vatican Council, I thought it would be useful to publish an article that focuses on the real issues that the SSPX has identified. Update: Why Did the SSPX Consecrate Bishops? ( Neither Schismatic, Nor Disobedient link ) In the linked document the SSPX outlined the key motivation and core issues with Vatican II and the post-conciliar magisterium (see above link for full document): 4. The Society Acted Precisely Because of the State of Necessity in Which the Faith Finds Itself  In the present situation of the Church, if the Society of Saint Pius X had not carried out the consecrations of July 1st, it would have found itself facing an inevitable alternative: either to disappear gradually, or to accept, at least in fact, the new liturgy as well as the false doctrines of Vatican II and the post-council. Without the consecrations of July 1st, the Fraternity would have found itself, in a few years, without bishop...
1 comment
Read more

Thoughts on: Finding Common Ground Between Rome and the SSPX

By
 + JMJ In the ramp up to the consecrations the noise floor in the intergnat grew to a constant din.  This was one of the few the peeped its signal over the noise. https://crisismagazine.com/opinion/finding-common-ground-between-rome-and-the-sspx The key issue is contained in this paragraph: In the lead-up to the planned July 1, 2026, episcopal consecrations,  the SSPX rejected Rome’s offer  of doctrinal dialogue on the grounds that “we both know in advance that we cannot agree doctrinally, particularly regarding the fundamental orientations adopted since the Second Vatican Council.” Fr. Pagliarani also said that his previous attempt at dialogue in 2019 was shut down by Rome because of an assumed irreconcilability. It seems that, from the Society’s perspective, and perhaps from Rome’s too, their positions are incompatible. If memory serves, Rome killed any opportunity for an open discussion by stating that Vatican II was not up for debate. So it was a still-birth and ...
Post a Comment
Read more

The News is an Addiction ...

By
 + JMJ People seem to be mesmerised by train wrecks.   They just can't turn away as the disaster creeps forward along train tracks towards the crossing where a car, truck, bus, trailer awaits its destruction. Trads have been watching the train wreck that is this crisis of the Catholic Church for decades. The trade war between the Canada and the US has reminded me that the news is addictive.   The first time I was addicted what from 2009 to  2014 when I was closely following the Rome / SSPX discussions.  I was at work watching a live-stream as Bishop Fellay disappeared into the Vatican. The lead-up to this moment had been intense as the 'resistance' got freaked out and the cultural cracks between doctrine and conspiracy theory widened. In the decade since then other things have emerged, wars, rumours of wars, conspiracies, celebrity Catholics etc. Now we have a new addiction and its name is Trump. Lately, no matter how much I try, I find myself wonderin...
Post a Comment
Read more

Thoughts on the Thoughts of a former SSPX priest

By
 + JMJ Well Gary Campbell, former SSPX Priest and now laicised has posted a new article on WherePeterIs. https://wherepeteris.com/thoughts-of-a-former-sspx-priest-on-the-july-1-consecrations/ These words stuck out: Heck, they have built a five-star hotel, wine bar, and Walmart on the opposite bank of the Rubicon! They are not in danger of entering a state of schism, for they are  already  in a state of schism. I believe he doth protest too much. All the actual facts indicate that the SSPX was not in a state of schism before July 1st and an examination of the decree of excommunication highlights the either ineptitude of those in charge or a desire to leave the barn door open. The chasm between an act of disobedience and act of schism remains just what is has always been - an inconvenient barrier that person(s) in Rome seek to bridge but appear incapable of succeeding. The SSPX re-stated that they recognize the Pope as the Vicar of Christ and feel obliged by conscience...
Post a Comment
Read more