Skip to main content

A look back: Wasn't Archbishop Lefebvre Excommunicated?

Image
By
+
JMJ

Further to 'Eyeballs' thoughts (see this link) here's the SSPX perspective on the excommunications.

P^3


Courtesy of SSPX.org: FAQ: Wasn't Archbishop Lefebvre Excommunicated?


Wasn't Archbishop Lefebvre excommunicated?

FAQ #11

Confusion often arises about Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre's 1988 consecration of four bishops without papal permission, which action Pope John Paul II pointed out carried with it the latae sententiae (automatic) penalty of excommunication.
However, according to canon law, a person who believes, like Archbishop Lefebvre did, that there is a moral necessity to break a law (i.e., for the salvation of souls) would not incur any automatic penalties, even if that person were to be incorrect in that assessment.

June 29, 1987

Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, experiencing failing health, aware of his episcopal duty to pass on the Catholic Faith and seeing no other way of assuring the continued ordination of truly Catholic priests, decided to consecrate bishops and announced that, if necessary, he will do so even without the pope’s permission.

June 30, 1988, "Operation Survival".

Cardinal Gantin, Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops, officially warned the archbishop that, in virtue of canon 1382 (1983 Code of Canon Law), he and the bishops consecrated by him would be excommunicated for proceeding without pontifical mandate and thereby infringing the laws of sacred discipline.

June 30, 1988

Archbishop Lefebvre, together with Bishop de Castro Mayer, consecrated four bishops.

July 1, 1988

Cardinal Gantin declared the threatened excommunication (according to canon 1382) to have been incurred. He also called the consecrations a schismatic act and declared the corresponding excommunication (canon 1364 §1), as well as threatening anyone supporting the consecrations with excommunication because of “schism".

In Ecclesia Dei Afflicta, the pope repeated Cardinal Gantin’s accusation of schismatic mentality and threatened generalized excommunications (cf. question 12).
However, the excommunication warned of on June 17 for abuse of episcopal powers (canon 1382) was not incurred because:
  1. person who violates a law out of necessity* is not subject to a penalty (1983 Code of Canon Law, canon 1323, §4), even if there is no state of necessity:[1]
  2. if one inculpably thought there was a necessity, he would not incur the penalty (canon 1323, 70),
  3. and if one culpably thought there was a necessity, he would still incur no automatic penalties[2] (canon 1324, §3; §1, 80).
*The state of necessity, as it is explained by jurists, is a state in which the necessary goods for natural or supernatural life are so threatened that one is morally compelled to break the law in order to save them. (Is Tradition Excommunicated?, p. 26)

No penalty is ever incurred without committing a subjective mortal sin (canons 1321 §1, 1323 70). Archbishop Lefebvre made it clear that he felt bound in conscience to do what he could do to continue the Catholic priesthood and that he was obeying God in going ahead with the consecrations (Cf. the Sermon of June 30, 1988, and Archbishop Lefebvre and the Vatican, p. 136). Hence, even if he had been wrong, there would be no subjective sin.

Most importantly, positive law is at the service of the natural and eternal law and ecclesiastical law is at that of the divine law (principle 8)  No “authority,” [principle 9]  can force a bishop to compromise in his teaching of Catholic faith or administering of Catholic sacraments. No “law,” can force him to cooperate in the destruction of the Church. With Rome giving no guarantee of preserving Catholic Tradition, Archbishop Lefebvre had to do what he could with his God-given episcopal powers to guarantee its preservation. This was his duty as a bishop.

Finally, the Church’s approval of the SSPX (question 2)  allows it what it needs for its own preservation. This includes the service of bishops who will guarantee to maintain Catholic Tradition.
Pope Benedict withdraws1988 excommunications>

Get the book: Most Asked Questions about the SSPX>
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

SSPX and the Resistance - A Comparison Of Ecclesiology

By
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...
8 comments
Read more

Regarding Post: Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer no longer ... now Bishop Joseph Pfeiffer (Can't see this being a problem...)

By
 + JMJ   I've been watching the popularity of the post about Fr. Pfeiffer's attempted episcopal consecration and its continued top listing on the 'popular posts' list at the bottom of posts.  After some thought, I decided that I don't want to be responsible for anyone joining Fr. Pfeiffer's 'group', however unlikely that would be at this time. So I have reverted the article to the draft state. If anyone wants it reinstated, I would ask that they comment on this post with a rationale for reinstatement. P^3
Post a Comment
Read more

Schism

By
There is some question as to whether the Pope can be in actual schism as per the Cardinal Torquemada: Citing the doctrine of Pope Innocent III, Torquemada further teaches:  "Thus it is that Pope Innocent III states [De Consuetudine] that, it is necessary to obey the Pope in all things as long as he, himself, does not go against the universal customs of the Church, but should he go against the universal customs of the Church, 'he need not be followed' . . . " [Cited from A Theological Vindication of Roman Catholic Traditionalism, Father Paul Kramer, B.Ph., S.T.D., M. Div. (2nd edition, St. Francis Press, India) p. 29. The full quotation from Cardinal Torquemada reads, "By disobedience, the Pope can separate himself from Christ despite the fact that he is head of the Church, for above all, the unity of the Church is dependent on its relationship with Christ. The Pope can separate himself from Christ either by disobeying the law of Christ, or by commanding som...
Post a Comment
Read more

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

By
+ 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...
Post a Comment
Read more

The Episcopal Consecrations of 1988, 1991 and 2015 - Some Perspectives

By
+ JMJ In defense of the recent consecration of Fr. Faure by Bishop Williamson, some have argued that the 1991 consecration of Bishop Rangel (RIP) by the Bishops of the SSPX present an equivalent standard of action and principles.  From this they conclude that the SSPX's condemnation of Bishop Williamson's action is flawed as the principles of the 1991 consecration and that of 2015 are equivalent.
2 comments
Read more