Posted on 04/28/2004 2:25:44 PM PDT by gbcdoj
the whole Lefebvrian movement is to be held schismatic, in view of the existence of a formal declaration by the Supreme Authority on this matterThis seems to mean that the following would be applicable:
8. Since the Roman Pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole Church, we likewise teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful [52], and that in all cases which fall under ecclesiastical jurisdiction recourse may be had to his judgment [53]. The sentence of the Apostolic See (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone, nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon[54]. (Pastor Aeternus cap. 3 §8)
I am sure you've heard it all before :)
Fr. Gerald Murray who presented his thesis on the subject at the Gregorian University. ... I am not aware whether Fr.Murray's thesis has been published, but it would appear that the Council had been sent not the thesis but two articles published in the Fall issue of "Latin Mass" magazine. The first was an interview with Fr. Murray conducted by Roger McCaffrey (pp.50-55). The second was a summary of the thesis prepared by Steven Terenzio (pp.55-61).
Fr. Murray has since admitted to at least one serious flaw in the reasoning he employed in this thesis, and has requested that it not be reproduced, and that his name and work not be used to argue that the SSPX is not schismatic. The Latin Mass Magazine respects his request and has not issued reprints when they are requested.
There are two seperate functions and decrees: THE MANDATUM of episcopal consecration versus the CANONICAL APPOINTMENT of an Ordinary or head of a diocese. Please consider the many bishops who are consecrated as such and then serve as auxiliary bishops assisting an Ordinary, and hence only have titular sees.
Are the apostates falsely occupying the Vatican that imbecilic, devious and despicable, not to even consider the difference: OF COURSE!!!
"Decree concerning the Consecration of a Bishop without Canonical Appointment.[i.e APPOINTMENT AS ORDINARY OF A DIOCESE!!]
"The Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, in virtue of a special faculty established for it by the Supreme Pontiff, publishes the following Decree:"
"A Bishop, of whatever rite or dignity, who consecrates as a Bishop someone who is neither nominated by the Holy See nor expressly confirmed by that same See, and he who receives consecration, even if coerced by grave fear (c.229, §3, 3), incur ipso facto [automatically] excommunication most especially reserved to the Apostolic See."
"This Decree takes effect from the date of its promulgation."
2. The excommunication was only instituted in 1951, & referenced in an encyclical in 1958, by Pope Pius XII to deal with the puppet church and puppet ordinaries being set up in Communist China by Mao Tse Tung.
Ad Apostolorum Principis, His Holiness Pope Pius XII, Encyclical on Communism and the Church in China, June 29, 1958
"47. From what We have said, it follows that no authority whatsoever, save that which is proper to the Supreme Pastor, can render void the canonical appointment granted to any bishop; that no person or group, whether of priests or of laymen, can claim the right of nominating bishops; that no one can lawfully confer episcopal consecration unless he has received the mandate of the Apostolic See.[18]"
[18. Canon 953.]
"48. Consequently, if consecration of this kind is being done contrary to all right and law, and by this crime the unity of the Church is being seriously attacked, an excommunication reserved specialissimo modo to the Apostolic See has been established which is automatically incurred by the consecrator and by anyone who has received consecration irresponsibly conferred.[19]"
[19. Decree of Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, April 9, 1951: AAS 43 (1951) pp. 217-18.]
3. It has thus only been applied, incorrectly and unjustly, to those true Catholic bishops, consecrating and being consecrated, to preserve and continue the Roman Catholic Church, Her Faith, and Her Mass and to provide sacraments to the faithful. These bishops, even though they constitute the true Church, have not set up their own Sees, dioceses, or claim jurisdiction.
It has not been applied by the apostates falsely occupying the Vatican to any of those to whom it was intended to apply - the Commie Chinese puppet church. Instead it and they are embraced by the "Vatican" and its seminarians attend diocesan seminaries in the United States and function as priests under our domestic heresiarchs.
4. The mind and intent of the legislator, Pope Pius XII, as to the purpose of this law, has never once been considered or consulted. If so, and if it was needed at all, the princile of Epikeia would most readily apply as justification by the true bishops for the Church to continue, persevere and provide for the spiritual needs of Her sheep.
5. Abp. Lefebvre and the other bishops involved were never permitted their right to formal canonical proceedings when the notification of latae sententiae excommunication was made, which was absurd to even consider, in which they could cite in formal proceedings and according to canonical statutes the reasons for their actions.
6. No true, i.e "traditional" Catholic bishop was ever formally excommunicated by the "Vatican" apostates, let alone excommunicated as "vitandus". They merely stated that a latae sententiae excommunication had been incurred under the provisions of ecclesiastical statute.
7. As for Abp. Ngo Dinh Thuc, he had been granted an extraordinary mandate by Pope Pius XI, reiterated by Pope Pius XII, to consecrate and install whomever he chose to be elevated to the episcopacy. This was identical to that granted by Pope Pius XI to the Jesuit Fr. Hrbigny [sp] himself secretly consecrated , to consecrate and install bishops to serve the Church and Her faithful in the Soviet Union.
This was mandate bestowed upon Abp. Thuc was never rescinded and never even mentioned in the invalid declaration of latae sententiae excommunication leveled against him by the apostates falsely occupying the Vatican.
I am sick and tired of playing patty-cake with the "sesame street scholars" who can't even spell "K A T", yet solemnly decree that all must serve and obey satan if satan pretends to usurp authority and who also fail to grasp the concept of natural law, let alone DIVINE LAW, superceding any dictate of even a legitimate and valid prelate, let alone invalid heretical ones.
Have fun with 'em. If you want further references let me know.
Can. 1382 A bishop who consecrates some one a bishop without a pontifical mandate and the person who receives the consecration from him incur a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See.
47. From what We have said, it follows...that no one can lawfully confer episcopal consecration unless he has received the mandate of the Apostolic See. (Pius XII, Ad Apostolorum Principis)
3. It has thus only been applied, incorrectly and unjustly, to those true Catholic bishops, consecrating and being consecrated, to preserve and continue the Roman Catholic Church, Her Faith, and Her Mass and to provide sacraments to the faithful. These bishops, even though they constitute the true Church, have not set up their own Sees, dioceses, or claim jurisdiction.
Extra Societatem Sacerdotalis Sancti Pii X Nulla Salus? The Catholic Church teaches:
So the fathers of the fourth Council of Constantinople, following the footsteps of their predecessors, published this solemn profession of faith: "The first condition of salvation is to maintain the rule of the true faith. And since that saying of our lord Jesus Christ, You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,[55] cannot fail of its effect, the words spoken are confirmed by their consequences. For in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been preserved unblemished, and sacred doctrine been held in honor. Since it is our earnest desire to be in no way separated from this faith and doctrine, we hope that we may deserve to remain in that one communion which the Apostolic See preaches, for in it is the whole and true strength of the christian religion."[56] (Pastor Aeternus cap. 4 §2)
5. Abp. Lefebvre and the other bishops involved were never permitted their right to formal canonical proceedings when the notification of latae sententiae excommunication was made, which was absurd to even consider, in which they could cite in formal proceedings and according to canonical statutes the reasons for their actions.
A judgment of the Supreme Pontiff cannot be examined by any court.
6. No true, i.e "traditional" Catholic bishop was ever formally excommunicated by the "Vatican" apostates, let alone excommunicated as "vitandus". They merely stated that a latae sententiae excommunication had been incurred under the provisions of ecclesiastical statute.
A declaration that a latae sententiae excommunication has been incurred is a perfectly valid way of declaring penalties.
1983 Code: INVALID IN PART, INVALID IN ALL.
"Decree concerning the Consecration of a Bishop without Canonical Appointment.
"The Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, in virtue of a special faculty established for it by the Supreme Pontiff, publishes the following Decree: "A Bishop, of whatever rite or dignity, who consecrates as a Bishop someone who is neither nominated by the Holy See nor expressly confirmed by that same See, and he who receives consecration, even if coerced by grave fear (c.229, §3, 3), incur ipso facto [automatically] excommunication most especially reserved to the Apostolic See.
This Decree takes effect from the date of its promulgation.
9 April, 1951
You do realize that Viva Christo Rey's entire argument is based on the premise that Pope Bl. John XXIII (a strong supporter of Latin and traditional doctrine) was a notorious heretic and that Pope Paul VI, Pope John Paul I and the current Supreme Pontiff are false Popes?
3. Catholic ministers may licitly administer the sacraments of penance, Eucharist and anointing of the sick to members of the oriental churches which do not have full communion with the Catholic Church, if they ask on their own for the sacraments and are properly disposed. This holds also for members of other churches, which in the judgment of the Apostolic See are in the same condition as the oriental churches as far as these sacraments are concerned.
Now schism is grave matter, and thus those who are culpable of schism are not properly disposed. But those who are outside the Church because of invincible ignorance are, according to St. Pius X, "united to the soul of the Church":
If he is outside the Church through no fault of his, that is, if he is in good faith, and if he has received Baptism, or at least has the implicit desire of Baptism; and if, moreover, he sincerely seeks the truth and does God's will as best he can such a man is indeed separated from the body of the Church, but is united to the soul of the Church and consequently is on the way of salvation (St. Pius X Catechism)
Now if he is united to the soul of the Church, why is it heretical to give such a man the Sacraments?
They got Lefebre to agree to appointing only one bishop to carry on after him, then they jumped up and said, "Ha, ha, gotcha. We get to make the rules, and the rule is that we get to pick the bishop. Let's see, now, should it be Weakland, or Mahoney, or...wait, here's a guy who hates the Tridentine Mass, rejects the Resurrection, and rapes at least one altar boy every day. Perfect. Bye bye, SSPX."
That is absolutely not true!
They would accept Dom Gerard, Fr. Pozzetto, Fr. Laffargue. But our own candidates they would have put off, put off, put off. As for de Saventhem, he argues just like one of them! (Letter of Archbishop Lefebvre to the Four Bishops Elect, June 13, 1988)
Here is what Lefebvre called Dom Gerard in his letter of June 12, 1988:
The Traditional Benedictine Prior, Dom Gerard,
Fr. Pozzetto and Fr. Laffargue were both SSPX priests.
Lastly, I wish to express my gratitude for the intention that you manifested to take into account the particular situation of the Society, proposing to nominate a bishop chosen from its members, and especially in charge of providing for its special needs. Of course, I leave to Your Holiness the decision concerning the person to be chosen and the opportune moment. May I just express the wish that this be in the not too distant future? (Draft Letter of Archbishop Lefebvre to His Holiness John Paul II, On the Regularization of the Society of St. Pius X)
8. They are free from all blame who treat lightly the condemnations passed by the Sacred Congregation of the Index or by the Roman Congregations. (Lamentibili Sane)
Where is this "formal declaration" by the Pope?
In itself, this act was one of disobedience to the Roman Pontiff in a very grave matter and of supreme importance for the unity of the church, such as is the ordination of bishops whereby the apostolic succession is sacramentally perpetuated. Hence such disobedience - which implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy - constitutes a schismatic act. (John Paul II, Apostolic Letter "Ecclesia Dei")
4. The root of this schismatic act can be discerned in an incomplete and contradictory notion of Tradition. Incomplete, because it does not take sufficiently into account the living character of Tradition, which, as the Second Vatican Council clearly taught, "comes from the apostles and progresses in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. There is a growth in insight into the realities and words that are being passed on. This comes about in various ways. It comes through the contemplation and study of believers who ponder these things in their hearts. It comes from the intimate sense of spiritual realities which they experience. And it comes from the preaching of those who have received, along with their right of succession in the episcopate, the sure charism of truth". (ibid.)
Everyone should be aware that formal adherence to the schism is a grave offence against God and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the Church's law. (ibid.)
Here is what Blessed Pius IX said about schism:
All these traditions dictate that whoever the Roman Pontiff judges to be a schismatic for not expressly admitting and reverencing his power must stop calling himself Catholic. (Quartus Supra)
It never happened. He hid behind the latae sententiae assumption--though this depended entirely on the moral disposition of the Archbishop and not the Pope. And the reason he hid behind this technicality was because he could not risk exposure of his own motives. This would have certainly happened had he set up a papal tribunal which would have allowed Archbishop Lefebvre the right to defend himself. The Pontiff couldn't risk this because it would have exposed the Archbishop's innocence and the papal animus against Catholic Tradition.
Ridiculous. The Pope does not have an animus against Holy Tradition. Why else would he feel that there needs to be a continuity?
Indeed, the extent and depth of the teaching of the Second Vatican Council call for a renewed commitment to deeper study in order to reveal clearly the Council's continuity with Tradition, especially in points of doctrine which, perhaps because they are new, have not yet been well understood by some sections of the Church. (ibid.)
In other words, this whole article is the usual propaganda, using fancy expressions to disguise an absence of substance. It is laughable to suppose the Motu Proprio was this "formal declaration." There was nothing formal about it. Its proper subject was the Indult, not any supposed excommunication. Furthermore, this letter actually contradicts the Pope's own Canon Law which provided appropriate exceptions for disobedience (canons 1323 and 1324) which the Archbishop evoked. There was never any excommunication, in other words, whatever the Supreme Pontiff might have said in a letter.
The Pontificial Council, which is the authentic interpreter of Canon Law, says in the posted document that the exceptions did not apply.
Can. 16 §1 Laws are authentically interpreted by the legislator and by that person to whom the legislator entrusts the power of authentic interpretation.
§2 An authentic interpretation which is presented by way of a law has the same force as the law itself, and must be promulgated. If it simply declares the sense of words which are certain in themselves, it has retroactive force. If it restricts or extends the law or resolves a doubt, it is not retroactive.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.