+
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.
"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.”
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Castro Mayer are excommunicated latae sententiae has no juridical effect, the declaration with respect to them has been withdrawn as well.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
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete(Edit to make something more clear) Why in the world aren't there more commenters on this blog? Maybe it's best that it stays that way, as often places without flamewars are preferable to ones with them. I don't know how you manage to go through and go on the places where the so-called "Resistance" posts, I think I would lose hope for humanity if I had to do that for long. When reason and charity is abandoned, all is lost. It's a difficult road to follow if you're a trad, but it has to be done. That's why seeing this logical thinking here is so refreshing. This blog is so reasonable and charitable, which is very rare to find where our passions are constantly being provoked by the hierarchy! Logic? Balanced thinking? Not resorting to conspiracy theories? Very refreshing!
ReplyDeleteYou've already done a lot of work on the 'Resistance' here but have you thought about potentially taking on or simply compiling your works to debunk one of their large documents that they distribute? The one I commonly see is "Catalog of Compromise, Change, and Contradiction in the SSPX" which I feel bad for even mentioning simply because much of it is uncharitable. The reason I say this is that to me it seems that the common tactic of the 'Resistance' is to overwhelm an already scandalized person with a lot of information, making them forget about all of their principles and abandon the cause completely which results in the typical person we all know about who is simply resentful, uncharitable and hopeless. Seeing the same principles you use throughout your articles applied to a major document like that would help these people realize that they need to stick to the principles of Catholicism and not fall to emotionalism.
Thanks again for this wonderful blog, keep up the great work.
Tradical
ReplyDeleteYou and Murrax are the epitome of the intellectual blindness of the lifting declaration and the the acceptance of it.
1. the excommunications were null and void, those who think they were real are modernists or blinded by modernism.
2. the lifting declaration stated the act was deserving of excommunication
3. to be thankful of the lifting is to show the world that the act performed by Archbishop Lefebvre was disobedience to the Pope and to God
take a look at your post " A Look Back: Remnant - Neo-Catholic Sour Grapes SSPX and the 'Full Communion' Canard"
C. Ferrara Quote first sentence "In my online article on the courageous decision of Pope Benedict XVI to annul the long-contested excommunications of the bishops of the Society of Saint Pius X "
apparently CF is a lawyer, how can he make such an awful mistake between annul and lift, hmmmmmmmmmmmmm strange!
MM