TradCat Resist and the Lifting of the Excomms

+

JMJ

Tradcatresist (TCR) popped up in my regular search with an article that at first I didn't understand what was the issue, but on further reading ... I think I have hit uponsomething that is bugging TCR.

This paragraph (original french follows) offended TCR:

"It was in his capacity as Prefect of Bishops that Cardinal Re signed the decree dated January 21, 2009 lifting the unjust excommunications brought against the founder of the Society of Saint Pius X, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre (1905-1991) and the four bishops crowned by him, without forgetting Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer, co-consecrator of the episcopal coronations of June 30, 1988.”

https://fsspx.news/fr/le-sacre-college-nouveau-doyen-54990

Here's the french version:

C’est en sa qualité de préfet des évêques que le cardinal Re avait signé le décret daté du 21 janvier 2009 levant les injustes excommunications qui avaient été portées contre le fondateur de la Fraternité Saint-Pie X, Mgr Marcel Lefebvre (1905-1991) et les quatre évêques sacrés par lui, sans oublier Mgr Antonio de Castro Mayer, évêque co-consécrateur des sacres épiscopaux du 30 juin 1988.

By the way, this is a repeat of a statement  made by Bishop Fellay in 2010 and published by The Remnant (link: Tradicat 2015 A look back at Excommunications link: Remnant 2010 Actions Speak Louder Than Words).

Bishop Fellay pointed out what should have been obvious to us all.  Notwithstanding the fact that the first sentence mentions only four of the six bishops subject to the former decree, the final sentence clearly states that the former decree “no longer has juridical effect.”  That means the former decree ceases to legally exist. If the decree claiming Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop de Castro Mayer are excommunicated latae sententiae has no juridical effect, the declaration with respect to them has been withdrawn as well.  To avoid this obvious conclusion, the language needed merely to say “with respect to these four bishops only,” the former decree has no juridical effect; or “except as regards Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop de Castro Mayer” the former decree has no juridical effect. (October 20, 2010)

After a quick search I wasn't able to find this in the official responses to the lifting of the excomms (see notes at end of article).  Also, I pointed out last year in Tradicat 2019: Did Rome Believe that the Bishops of the SSPX incurred the penalty of excommunication?:

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

It appears that TCR believes that the orange highlighted sentence somehow represents an abandonment of ++Lefebvre to facilitate the discussions with Rome.  This caused TCR to take the initiative to write to Cardinal Battista Re.

Here's Cardinal Re's response:

... At that time, Their Excellencies Archbishop Marcel Lefebve and Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer were deceased and were therefore no longer subject to human justice but rather to divine justice. For this reason, they were not mentioned in the Decree...

In other words, the decree no longer applied to nor was in effect for them (see my comment above from last year).

 

TCR then concludes:

It is thus undeniably clear that, according to modernist Rome, ++Lefebvre and +de Castro Mayer died excommunicates.[Claim A]

Had the SSPX not capitulated in demanding a declaration of nullity from Rome, rather than settling for a "lifting" of the bogus "excommunications," the world would not erroneously believe that ++Lefebvre was justly and validly excommunicated. [Claim B]

But by capitulating on that demand, the impression is given that the SSPX accepts that the sanctions were valid, and is grateful for them having been lifted (and in turn, it passes that false impression along to the faithful).[Claim C]

This is a betrayal of Tradition. [Claim D]

So ... I'm really trying to figure out why TCR is so concerned with what Rome thinks [Claim A].  I mean, we're not the thought police, we can't make them think what we want them to think. They are humans and have free-will. So it seems a little irrational to think that Rome would not believe Rome's story. From their perspective, the excommunications were legal and promulgated.

I find Claim B equally puzzling. Why does TCR care what the world thinks?  Is public opinion that important?  I guess perhaps he (or she) has a keen sense of Human Respect. :

 

Now I concede that the pre-requisites for starting the doctrinal discussions did appear to go through some change between 2001 and as early (to date) as 2004.  I'm not certain how that could be seen as a capitulation as I would expect that would result in a quid-pro-quo.

2001

• that the Tridentine Mass be granted to all priests of the entire world
• that the censures against the Bishops be declared null.

• Claim B: The SSPX capitulated in "demanding a declaration of nullity" and  the world believes the excommunications were just and valid.
• The first part assumes that there was a capitulation. Ultimately, we don't know about the negotiations between Rome and the SSPX so I would simply rest on the fact that Bishop Williamson was ok with the way the excomms were lifted etc.  After all, he was there wasn't he?
  
• The second part of the claim is irrelevant at this time because the fact is that the decree no longer has juridical effect.

Claim C is a non-sequitor. That the SSPX (including the Arch-Resistor Bishop Williamson) accepted and was grateful for the lifting of the excommunication does not mean that it was valid - in the effective - beyond being a declared excommunication.

 Claim D is equally strange, how is accepting an act of the Vicar of Christ in this manner a 'betrayal of Tradition'? Really weird, it is not a dogma or teaching of the Catholic Church that the excommunications were valid etc. Nothing about the mass or doctrine involved.  This statement is simply hyperbole or hyper-ventilating ... I can tell which.

 P^3

References:

• http://tradicat.blogspot.com/2019/08/a-look-back-pre-conditions-for.html
• http://tradicat.blogspot.com/2019/08/a-look-back-lifting-of-excommunications.html
• http://tradicat.blogspot.com/2015/04/a-look-back-at-1988-and-2009.html
• http://tradicat.blogspot.com/2015/04/a-look-back-at-1988-and-2009_19.html
• http://tradicat.blogspot.com/2017/08/a-look-back-where-do-we-stand-interview.html#more