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