Skip to main content

Did Rome believe that the Bishops of the SSPX incurred the penalty of excommunication? - Updated

+
JMJ


See Update below ...

A reader asked me the following question:
Hi P^3
Help me straighten out a friend, can you please get me the Vatican documentation saying that the Bishops were not guilty of excommunication, my friend thinks the Vatican still considered all guilty but removed the excommunication of the 4 Bishops as a sign of good will. Thanks
A.S.
 I think your friend is materially correct - here's the section of the letter the remits the excommunication:
On the basis of the powers expressly granted to me by the Holy Father Benedict XVI, by virtue of the present Decree I remit the penalty of excommunication latae sententiae incurred by Bishops Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta, and declared by this Congregation on 1 July 1988. At the same time I declare that, as of today's date, the Decree issued at that time no longer has juridical effect.
So, as far as Rome was concerned, the six bishops did incur (guilty is a different issue) the penalty - latae sententiae - meaning as per the law, so your friend from this perspective is correct. But there are a few academic wrinkles.

The decree included:
a schismatical act by the episcopal consecration of four priests, without pontifical mandate and contrary to the will of the Supreme Pontiff, and has therefore incurred the penalty envisaged by Canon 1364, paragraph 1, and canon 1382 of the Code of Canon Law.
The problem is that they slipped in Canon 1364, which was not included in the canonical warning and ... isn't in the same section as canon 1382.  Fundamentally, consecration without Papal Mandate isn't a schismatic act, so Canon 1364 doesn't stick on that part.  So half of the decree was flawed right out of the gate because even the Pope doesn't get to change a law after the fact.

... if  "according to the law" the decree rests on the performance of a schismatic act ... well then the entire decree is flawed ... and if in error never had any teeth.

With regards to Canon 1382, the question, because it is 'according to the law' without any trial and evidence being provided etc ... did they incur it according to the law in reality? This is where there is an ambiguity, because according to canon law a strong case has been made that the full sentence should have been reduced - - - if incurred at all, because the new code of canon law is a lot more lenient.  For example, if Archbishop Lefebvre believed there to be a state of necessity, then he didn't incur the penalty ... and neither did the others.


This is where, I believe, that at a later time there will be a fulsome investigation on the original (now defunct) decree.

Last tidbit, while not naming ++L and +CdM, the entire decree was remit, so all six excommunications are 'lifted' and ... from another perspecive, once one dies, excommunications are null because the dead pass beyond the juridical power of the Church Militant. 


P^3

References:
A look back at 1988 and 2009 - The Excommunications and their lifting.
A look back at 1988 and 2009 - The Excommunications and their lifting. - Part Deux 
A Look Back - Cardinal Lara and the SSPX


Update to Aug21 post :

I have a handy link on Tradicat that searches for news of the SSPX within the last 24hrs. Today I saw a Cathinfo poster with the pseudonym of 'Eyeball'  took umbrage with this post and provided his opinion. I thought I would respond to his thoughts because it contains sentiments that I've encountered in other 'resistors'.
This pro SSPX "yup we can be under modernist authority" 
The reality is that we are "under modernist authority" because Pope Francis is the Vicar of Christ and he is manifestly a modernist or something worse. Although I would be hard pressed to name something worse than a modernist in charge of the Catholic Church.  If there's any confusion about where is the Catholic Church (which there is amongst many 'resistors') see this article: Where is the Catholic Church?

BlogSpot was asked by someone to show documentation about the Lifting of the excommunications....
Here's the question and my direct response to the question:

Hi P^3
Help me straighten out a friend, can you please get me the Vatican documentation saying that the Bishops were not guilty of excommunication, my friend thinks the Vatican still considered all guilty but removed the excommunication of the 4 Bishops as a sign of good will. Thanks
A.S.
 I think your friend is materially correct - here's the section of the letter that remits the excommunication:
On the basis of the powers expressly granted to me by the Holy Father Benedict XVI, by virtue of the present Decree I remit the penalty of excommunication latae sententiae incurred by Bishops Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta, and declared by this Congregation on 1 July 1988. At the same time I declare that, as of today's date, the Decree issued at that time no longer has juridical effect.
 Notice that his friend asserts that the "Vatican still considered all guilty". So without giving background, I answered the question directly.  It is clear from the decree lifting the excommunication that the Vatican considered them 'guilty' as having incurred the excommunication.

Then 'Eyeball' launches into a criticism of the reality and my exposition of such:
Tradicat (TC) could not even say right off the bat "sorry no, there is no such thing".
I don't think 'Eyeball' took the time to fully understand the question, the request (red) was for documentation to dispel the belief (purple) of his friend. I went straight for the core issue in purple.
TC switches the angle with the title (see BlogSpot link below) what TC should have said is I can get you documentation of Rome saying " An episcopal ordination lacking a pontifical mandate raises the danger of a schism, since it jeopardizes the unity of the College of Bishops with the Pope.Consequently the Church must react by employing her most severe punishment – excommunication – with the aim of calling those thus punished to repent and to return to unity. Twenty years after the ordinations, this goal has sadly not yet been attained. The remission of the excommunication has the same aim as that of the punishment: namely, to invite the four Bishops once more to return." B16. 
Then he goes on to say:
Now that is the truth why they were lifted and not declared null and void.
As Americans are fond of saying: "Well Duh".

Interestingly, 'Eyeball' missed something here in the B16 departed from what PSJP2 said via Cardinal Gantin:
Monsignor Marcel Lefebvre, Archbishop-Bishop Emeritus of Tulle, notwithstanding the formal canonical warning of 17 June last (note 1) and the repeated appeals to desist from his intention, has performed a schismatical act by the episcopal consecration of four priests, without pontifical mandate (note 2)  and contrary to the will of the Supreme Pontiff, and has therefore incurred the penalty envisaged by Canon 1364,(note 3) paragraph 1, and canon 1382 of the Code of Canon Law.
 Let's break this down:
  1. The formal canonical warning did not cite canon 1364, which is the canon for schism.
  2. Pope St. John Paul II (← this will cause a number of 'resistors' to freak) is stating that it is a schismatic act to consecrate without Paypal (oops Papal) mandate.
  3. Confirmation is provided by introducing canon 1364 which describes the punishment for schism. (further reading)
Now let's compare it with the key point made by B16 in his letter to the bishops:
An episcopal ordination lacking a pontifical mandate raises the danger of a schism (full text here)
See the change - an episcopal ordination only raises 'the danger of a schism' and is not a schismatic act. I have to thank 'Eyeball' for bringing this passage to my attention as it shows a key concession on the part of the Vatican.
 ...trusting in their commitment, expressed in the aforementioned letter, to spare no effort in exploring as yet unresolved questions through requisite discussions with the authorities of the Holy See ...
The above paragraph is a reference to the doctrinal discussions ... a pre-condition of which was the lifting of the excommunication.

In his fervor 'Eyeball' appears to have missed the comment section:



TC states that according to the decree (Lifting) the excommunications of Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop De Castro Mayer were lifted as well... TC actually believes they true excommunications.

I didn't know that 'Eyeball' had the gift of reading hearts (sarcasm).  He obviously doesn't know what I believe as this is his own assertion.

So ... here's what I believe: Legally the excommunication was "applied" by the law because a papal mandate for the consecrations was not obtained, so following the fact that the consecration took place in that situation objectively the penalty was incurred.  Subjectively (see this link) the excommunications didn't take effect because - according to the law - they didn't apply.

'Eyeball' thanks for reading.

P^3

Reference: Wikipedia Latae_sententiae


Comments

  1. Hi P^3
    So Rome lifts the excommunications, but wasn't that because they (Rome) realized they (Rome) were wrong, I'm sort of not getting this....
    A.S.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Short answer: Correct, taken literally Rome lifted the excommunications because they were:
      a. pre-condition to doctrinal discussions.
      b. asked to by the at that time four bishops.

      Not because they (Rome) thought they were wrong.

      P^3

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

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...

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

The Curious Case of Steve Skojec and the Dangers of Deep Diving into the Crisis Sub-Titled: The Failings of Others

 + JMJ It's been a while now since Steve Skojec sold 1P5 and abandoned the Catholic Faith. I've been a 'Trad' since 1982 and in those 40+ years I seen this death-spiral before with a similar end point. It seems that anyone who jumps into the fray unprepared for the enormous task of righting wrongs will, eventually, become discouraged by not the task but the people who surround them.   I remember when Skojec complained of the treatment his family received from a traditional priest.  This seems to have been the start of the end for him. So what can we learn from the likes of Steve Skojec, Michael Voris (maybe?), Louie Verrecchio, Gerry Matatix and other celebrity Catholics? Probably quite a lot about what not to do. First, don't burn out on the crisis?  When you burn out, on work or anything else, little things assume a more greater importance than they are due.   This is one of my 'canary in the coal mine' signals that I've been stretching myself too th...

Church Militant TV and the SSPX - Again

+ JMJ The old narrative used to be that the SSPX was 'schismatic' and 'excommunicated'. Now the excommunication has been lifted for a number of years and the only ones who think it still has effect are the 'resistors'. That leaves the other opponents of the SSPX with the label 'schismatic'. Make it clear, the conservative Catholics have issues with the SSPX probably because they violate some of their assumptions about the Faith and this crisis of the Church. Church Militant TV is one of these the exists along the Catholic thought spectrum. They like the Traditional Mass but must ensure that they don't get tarred with the same 'schismatic' brush that the liberals use against the SSPX.  So what do they do, they use the same brush against the SSPX. The funny thing is that even when the Church does speak, they don't want to listen and persist in calling the SSPX 'schismatic'. Here's a transcript of the latest s...

The Position of the SSPX on Canonizations by the Saint Factory

+ JMJ I have sometimes been criticized for including 'St' as a title for Pope John Paul II et al. I've given my reasons here  in a discussion with Alex Long. The question is one of prudence in discussions with ntCatholics and in some cases with tCatholics. In discussions with:  ntCatholics, I will use the title in order to continue the discussion and help them arrive at a realistic understanding of the crisis of the Church. tCatholics, I will use the title in order to broaden their perspective on the doctrine of dogmatic facts. This broader perspective is, in my opinion, essential maintaining a realistic understanding of the crisis of the Church. So from a doctrinal position, I have written the article Dogmatic Fact of Fancy  and includes a reference on canonizations. Now, I know the position of the SSPX is that the canonizations are doubtful (see references below) and I also know of at least one non-SSPX theologian who agrees with the level of doubt du...