Peter, Peter Repeaters

JMJ

It has now been over 35 years since the consecrations of the SSPX bishops. That event is definitely a lightning rod that repeatedly draws criticism.

Whether or not Archbishop Lefebvre was right in making the consecrations is, at this point in time, no longer the relevant question. The deed was done and, aside from the notable issues with ex-SSPX Bishop Williamson, it has borne the foreseen fruit.

The SSPX still exists.

Who would have foreseen a Pope Francis within a generation of the consecrations? But there we are, as Pope Francis continues to widen the gap between the Traditionalist and Liberal Catholics, we have to wonder what will come next. The answer is simple:

Only God knows!

What is really important is whether or not the act of consecrating a bishop in 1988 without Pontifical Mandate is a schismatic act?

Here are some points to consider ...

The canonical warning to Archbishop Lefebvre did not cite the canon's related to schism (link).

https://tradicat.blogspot.com/2015/07/a-look-back-cardinal-lara-and-sspx.html

The declaration of excommunication introduced the canon 1364 indicating that the Archbishop had committed a Schismatic Act. But as noted by Lara - the consecration of a bishop without Papal Mandate is NOT a schismatic act. Confusion reigns supreme then an now in the Vatican.
Even in Ecclesia Dei, Pope St. JP 2 stated:

Hence such disobedience - which implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy - constitutes a schismatic act.
Question: If the Pope considered the act of consecration to be a schismatic act, even after simply calling it an act of disobedience, why didn't they include the appropriate canon in the warning?
It also raises other questions, such as did the Pope change canon law at this point retroactively?
Another point to consider is that Archbishop Lefebvre made it clear that he was NOT creating a parallel Church - so the idea that the consecrations 'implied' a rejection of the Roman Primacy etc is not supported by the evidence.

The Excommunications (valid or not is another question for another generation) were 'lifted', so any argument about the SSPX being excommunicated etc is easily proven invalid.

https://tradicat.blogspot.com/2015/04/a-look-back-at-1988-and-2009.html

The CDF indicated to me that the state of the SSPX is 'not in full communion' (see link below) to which the Pete and Repeats seem to say "See, See right there that's code for schsim.". Sorry, if wishing it only made it so.

https://tradicat.blogspot.com/2017/10/is-sspx-in-schism.html

Then we have Pope Francis giving the SSPX world-wide jurisdiction (i.e. power) to hear confessions world wide.
Lastly, the Pope gave the Bishops the ability to provide jurisdiction to hear marriages.
Laity can fulfill their Sunday obligation by attending a Mass at the SSPX. Ergo attendance at such does not mean one is schismatic :-).

So, I expect "Where Peter Is ..." et al will continue repeating their perspective over and over again. Such is the problem with echo chambers.

P^3

References

https://tradicat.blogspot.com/2017/10/is-sspx-in-schism.html

https://tradicat.blogspot.com/2023/01/wars-rumours-of-wars-son-of-traditiones.html

Articles

Tradicat

Search This Blog