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:

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]
if one inculpably thought there was a necessity, he would not incur the penalty (canon 1323, 70),
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>

"Theology of the Body" explained - a Traditional Catholic view - Rorate Caeli

+ JMJ In prep for yet another attack on Catholic Dogma, Doctrine and Morals, I'd like to point out an excellent article posted on Rorate earlier this year: "Theology of the Body" explained - a Traditional Catholic view - Rorate Caeli . To date my only real reaction the 'Theology of the Body' has been that what little I read doesn't 'feel right'. The more specific term for this sensation is Cognitive Dissonance or Cultural Dissonance. In short, what I read of the basic tenets of 'Theology of the Body' seemed to contradict I believed about the Catholic Church's teaching on the purpose of marriage. The explanations that I received from 'modern' Catholics, didn't do anything to allay my concerns. This article goes to the heart of why it didn't feel right.

Can Catholics Pray with Protestants??? Part 2

+ JMJ While I have explicit permission from the Canadian, US and FSSPX.News sites, as a follow-up to Part 1, I am going to post here an article on the FSSPX.UK website to provide a bona-fide resource for other Traditional Catholics looking for the truth as opposed to just belief on this topic. FSSPX.UK: Matters arising – May We Pray with Non-Catholics? P^3 Matters arising : May we pray with non-Catholics? Rev. Nicholas Mary, C.SS.R. Fr. Nicholas Mary answers topical questions in the light of moral theology and canon law. Public prayer As always, before we can answer a question adequately, terms must be defined and distinctions made. The general principle is clear, as Cardinal Newman writes: From time immemorial, from the earliest ages, members of the Church have been forbidden communicatio in sacris [i.e. participation in religious rites] with those who were external to it. This prohibition is not intended as the expression of any judgment on this...

Auctorem Fidei

Can the SSPX be right about the Novus Ordo? Revision: Feb 11, 2013 On another web forum, I was engaged in a rather heated discussion about the documents of Vatican II.

SSPX Confessions and Marriages

Courtesy of SSPX.org Valid: SSPX's confessions and marriages January 15, 2014 District of the US The SSPX's priests are often accused of not being able to validly hear confessions or perform marriages. But this false claim falls flat upon a close examination of Canon Law — particularly in light of the crisis in the Church. A frequent accusation made by opponents of the Society of St. Pius X is that the confessions and marriages undertaken in its chapels are invalid because its priests lack jurisdiction. This false assertion not only ignores the Church's jurisprudence on supplied jurisdiction , but more importantly, the reality that a state of necessity exists due to the post-conciliar crisis. On the canonical side of things, we re-present here the important and comprehensive 3-part study of Fr. Ramon Angles, The Validity of Confessions & Marriages in the Chapels of the Society of St. Pius X which in summary demonstrat...

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

+ 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

Tradicat

Search This Blog

A look back: Wasn't Archbishop Lefebvre Excommunicated?