On June 9, 1988, Pope John Paul II replied to Lefebvre's letter of June 2, exhorting him not to proceed with the illicit consecration of bishops, and reiterating the position of the Holy See as follows:
In the letter you sent me you appear to reject all that was agreed on in the previous conversations, since you clearly manifest your intention to "provide the means yourself to continue your work," particularly by proceeding shortly and without apostolic mandate to one or several episcopal ordinations, and this in flagrant contradiction not only with the norms of Canon Law, but also with the Protocol signed on May 5th and the directions relevant to this problem contained in the letter which Cardinal Ratzinger wrote to you on my instructions on May 30th.(82)
From the above letter Archbishop Lefebvre was clearly forewarned by the Holy Father that he lacked the necessary pontifical mandate to proceed with his episcopal consecrations, and in so doing he would violate both the norms of canon law as well as the Protocol agreement. Furthermore, the Holy Father confirmed that his mind in this matter had been clearly stated by Cardinal Ratzinger in his letter of May 30th.
This would not deter Lefebvre from proceeding with his press conference on June 15, 1988, in order to publicly announce the names of the four candidates he intended to consecrate to episcopacy on June 30, 1988. Having been forewarned by both Cardinal Ratzinger and the Holy Father that the mandate necessary to proceed with the episcopal consecrations was lacking, and in light of this press conference announcing the four candidates, on behalf of the Congregation for Bishops Cardinal Gantin issued the following monition on June 17, 1988:
Since on June 15th, 1988 you stated that you intended to ordain four priests to the episcopate without having obtained the mandate of the Supreme Pontiff as required by canon 1013 of the Code of Canon Law, I myself convey to you this public canonical warning, confirming that if you should carry out your intention as stated above, you yourself and also the bishops ordained by you shall incur ipso facto excommunication latae sententiae reserved to the Apostolic See in accordance with canon 1382.
The latter part of the monition simply reiterates what is legislated in c. 1382, in that without a pontifical mandate one who consecrates a bishop, as well as those who receive consecration, are automatically excommunicated by the law itself. Having incurred such an excommunication, it can only be lifted by the Apostolic See. However, the monition from the Congregation for Bishops did not deter Lefebvre, and on June 30, 1988, he followed through with his threat and consecrated four candidates from the SSPX to the episcopacy without papal mandate. A serious act of disobedience and violation of ecclesiastical law, Lefebvre had now consummated the growing SSPX schism from Rome, automatically incurring excommunication.
Subsequently, the automatic excommunication against Lefebvre was declared by Cardinal Gantin in a decree from the Congregation for Bishops dated July 1, 1988, the day after the illicit consecrations. Acting in his official capacity on behalf of the pope, Cardinal Gantin solemnly declares:
Monsignor Marcel Lefebvre, Archbishop-Bishop Emeritus of Tulle, notwithstanding the formal canonical warning of 17 June last and the repeated appeals to desist from his intention, has performed a schismatic 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... Having taken account of all the juridical effects, I declare that the above-mentioned Archbishop Lefebvre, and Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta have incurred ipso facto excommunication latae sententiae reserved to the Apostolic See.
As is clearly visible from the decree of the Congregation for Bishops, having consecrated bishops without a valid pontifical mandate and against express wishes of the Holy See, Lefebvre automatically incurred excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See. Yet against this decree, Lefebvre's apologists would argue "that the above decree is not the sentence of a judge, but rather a declaration that Canons 1364 and 1382 apply."(85) That the excommunication is latae sententiae rather than ferendae sententiae is completely irrelevant in establishing the validity of Lefebvre's excommunication. As c. 331 states, "by virtue of his office, [the Roman Pontiff] has supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in the Church, and he can always freely exercise this power." With regards to c. 1382, the Roman Pontiff has utilized his supreme legislative power to establish by law a latae sententiae excommunication for those who consecrate a bishop without papal mandate. In accordance with c. 17, such an ecclesiastical law must be understood according to the mind of the legislator, and in accordance with c. 16 §1, such a law is authentically interpreted by the legislator.
In the case of Archbishop Lefebvre, both the legislator's mind and interpretation regarding c. 1382 were clearly and personally communicated to Lefebvre by the Supreme Legislator previous to Lefebvre's violation of c. 1382. Furthermore, by the very fact Lefebvre proceeded publicly in his act of disobedience means his violation of c. 1013 was external, and hence c. 1321 §3 presumes his imputability in consecrating bishops without papal mandate. Therefore, neither his actions nor his imputability need be established in a judicial process.
With regards to the penalties imposed by c. 1364 §1, this norm establishes that "a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication, without prejudice to the provision of can. 194 §1, n. 2; a cleric, moreover, may be punished with the penalties mentioned in can. 1336 §1, nn. 1, 2 and 3." As far as the penalties outlined in c. 1336, these are additional expiatory penalties that may be imposed, and thus are not directly applicable to the present controversy as neither Lefebvre nor the bishops illicitly consecrated have seriously attempted to reconcile their schism. Therefore, c. 1336 will not be addressed in the present study. On the other hand, c. 194 §1, 2o provides that "one who has publicly defected from the Catholic faith or from communion with the Church" is "removed from ecclesiastical office by virtue of the law itself." However, c. 194 §2 legislates that the "removal mentioned in [c. 194 §1] nn. 2 and 3 can be insisted upon only if it is established by declaration of the competent authority."
As the penalties mentioned in c. 1364 §1 apply to Lefebvre, he incurred an additional latae sententiae excommunication for the offense of schism. C. 751 defines schism as "the withdrawal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or from communion with the members of the Church subject to him." Lefebvre's act of consecrating bishops without papal mandate was a refusal of submission to the express will of the Supreme Pontiff. As the penalty for schism was declared by the competent authority in the form of the Holy See, by virtue of the law itself Lefebvre was automatically removed from all ecclesiastical office.(86)
Against the declaration of schism, however, Lefebvre's followers have argued that his consecration of bishops without papal mandate was not an act of withdrawal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or from the communion with the Church, but merely an act of disobedience. In citing one canonical study, Lefebvre's followers maintain that "schism, defined in Canon 751, means refusal of subjection to the Supreme Pontiff or refusal of communion with other members of the Church. A mere act of disobedience to a superior does not imply denial that the superior holds office or has authority."(87)
The above argument fails to take into account four variables relevant to Lefebvre's consecration of bishops against the express will of the Supreme Pontiff. First, c. 751 does not specify that one must deny the superior's possession of authority to incur schism, but rather that one must refuse to submit to this authority. Secondly, the superior to whom Lefebvre refused submission was the Supreme Pontiff who possesses full ordinary power and universal jurisdiction. Thirdly, the consecration of bishops against the express will of the Supreme Pontiff is no mere act of disobedience, but an act which carries by virtue of the law the penalty of latae sententiae excommunication -- penalties which, when Lefebvre made public his intention to consecrate bishops without papal mandate, were reiterated to him personally by no less than the Supreme Pontiff and two Cardinal Prefects of curial congregations. Finally, in light of Lefebvre's express intention in consecrating bishops without papal mandate, that of providing for the continuation of the SSPX until Rome adopts his position, Lefebvre was not carrying out an isolated act of disobedience, but rather he intended to perpetuate a situation of disobedience for a prolonged period of time. Hence, in light of the above variables, Lefebvre's act of consecrating bishops without papal mandate cannot reasonably be dismissed as a simple act of disobedience to a superior.
Therefore, an objective canonical analysis of Lefebvre's situation illustrates that he incurred a latae sententiae excommunication by virtue of the law both for the act of consecrating bishops without papal mandate, and for carrying out this act against the express will of the Supreme Pontiff as an act of schism. Thus the canonical arguments proposed by the Lefebvrite movement against the validity of the excommunications cannot be sustained in light of the Church's canonical jurisprudence.
*The lying sspx and its lying liars defending the sspx lies will try and lie the obvious doesn't mean what it means.
That is the traditional praxis of schismatics
Re: post #110 I didn't bother to read it. Just a glance showed me it was more junk whether from Stephen Ho or Pete Vere.
First, c. 751 does not specify that one must deny the superior's possession of authority to incur schism, but rather that one must refuse to submit to this authority.
From the definition of schism on New Advent:
Schism, therefore, is usually mixed, in which case, considered from a moral standpoint, its perversity is chiefly due to the heresy which forms part of it. In its other aspect and as being purely schism it is contrary to charity and obedience; to the former, because it severs the ties of fraternal charity, to the latter, because the schismatic rebels against the Divinely constituted hierarchy. However, not every disobedience is a schism; in order to possess this character IT MUST INCLUDE besides the transgression of the commands of superiors, denial of their Divine right to command.
Secondly, the superior to whom Lefebvre refused submission was the Supreme Pontiff who possesses full ordinary power and universal jurisdiction.
So? If any Pope is sinfully negligent, it is the duty of Catholics to resist him. Pulling rank doesn't help the writer's case.
Thirdly, the consecration of bishops against the express will of the Supreme Pontiff is no mere act of disobedience, but an act which carries by virtue of the law the penalty of latae sententiae excommunication -- penalties which, when Lefebvre made public his intention to consecrate bishops without papal mandate, were reiterated to him personally by no less than the Supreme Pontiff and two Cardinal Prefects of curial congregations.
Again, So what? It doesn't matter "who" said to stop. The objective facts of the Church Crisis override all else. The Salvation of Souls is the highest law of the Church. Any Pope who interferes with it, will either have to adhere to it or get mowed down due to the promise of Christ.
Finally, in light of Lefebvre's express intention in consecrating bishops without papal mandate, that of providing for the continuation of the SSPX until Rome adopts his position, Lefebvre was not carrying out an isolated act of disobedience, but rather he intended to perpetuate a situation of disobedience for a prolonged period of time.
First the consecrations were to preserve tradition and the Catholic Faith, not necessarily the SSPX. Campos is evidence of that. So this moron doesn't know what he's talking about. Second, it wasn't LeFebvre's position that Rome had to adopt. It's Rome's true position that Rome must be forced to adopt. LeFebvre was in the right position in 1940 and he never moved. What was right in 1940 was right in 1988. The only thing that moved was the darkness over the minds of the Curia.
Hence, in light of the above variables, Lefebvre's act of consecrating bishops without papal mandate cannot reasonably be dismissed as a simple act of disobedience to a superior.
Nope. Wrong again. Next? You know, if one of these one-trick ponies would realize that they will always fail when they try to pull the wool over the eyes of Catholics because they always at some point will misrepresent the position of tradition, LeFebvre and the SSPX. What makes this so easy is the fact that they will inevitably do this with either a contextually robbed quotation from the past or a "little white lie" about the facts of the situation they describe. The only way to avoid this achilles heel would be to tell the truth, but then...well, they defeat their own argument. It has such a parallel with Protestantism. Just look for the error, it's always there.