Posted on 08/29/2005 5:53:18 AM PDT by NYer
Pope Benedict XVI met with the head of the ultraconservative movement founded by the excommunicated Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre on Monday amid a renewed push to bring the "schismatic" group back into Rome's fold.
Vatican spokesman Joaquin Navarro-Valls said the meeting between the pope and Monsignor Bernard Fellay, secretary general of the Society of St. Pius X, was held "in a climate of love for the church and a desire to arrive at perfect communion."
"While knowing the difficulties, the desire to proceed by degrees and in reasonable time was shown," Navarro-Valls said in a statement.
Lefebvre founded the Switzerland-based society in 1969, which opposed the liberalizing reforms of the 1962-65 Second Vatican Council, particularly its call for Mass to be celebrated in local languages and not the traditional Latin.
He was excommunicated in 1988 after consecrating four bishops without Rome's consent. All four bishops, including Fellay, were also excommunicated.
Benedict, who also opposed what he considered excesses of Vatican II, had worked to head off the excommunication order, negotiating with the society to try to keep its members in the fold.
Just months before the excommunication order came down, Benedict, who was then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, signed a protocol with Lefebvre that had indicated reconciliation of the society with Rome was imminent. Lefebvre later rejected the accord.
With Benedict now pope, some have speculated that there might be a new push to bring the society back under Rome's wing.
Fellay, for example, welcomed Benedict's April 19 election, saying there was a "gleam of hope" that the new pope might find a way out of the "profound crisis" in which the Catholic Church currently finds itself.
Fellay has said he would ask Benedict at the audience, which he requested, to rescind the excommunication order and also allow Catholics to celebrate Mass in Latin without having to ask permission first.
Monday's meeting took place at the pope's summer residence in Castel Gandolfo, south of Rome. Cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyos, who heads a commission that was created after the 1988 excommunication to try to negotiate with the society, also attended, the Vatican statement said.
In a recent interview with the international Web site of the Society of St. Pius X, Fellay said a return to the Latin Mass would mark the start of a "change of atmosphere and spirit in the church," which he believes has been spoiled by the Vatican II reforms.
However, in his 1997 book "Salt of the Earth," Ratzinger said a return to the Latin Mass wouldn't resolve the church's problems, even though he supported its expanded use.
"I am of the opinion, to be sure, that the old rite should be granted much more generously to all those who desire it," he said.
"But a simple return to the old way would not, as I have said, be a solution. Our culture has changed so radically in the last 30 years that a liturgy celebrated exclusively in Latin would bring with it an experience of foreignness that many could not cope with," he said.
Some have pointed to the fact that several top cardinals celebrated traditional Masses and prayer services with young people taking part in the recent World Youth Day in Germany as evidence of the Vatican's continued outreach to Latin traditionalists.
However, another of Lefebvre's bishops, Bishop Richard Williamson, has warned against any reunion with Rome. In an Internet newsletter earlier this month that announced Monday's meeting, Williamson warned that the "resistance" movement would carry on without the society if it were to rejoin Rome.
The Rev. Thomas Reese, former editor of the Jesuit weekly magazine America, said the Vatican had "bent over backwards" in the past to try to reach out to the society, and that Benedict was likely to continue the policy since he helped form it as a cardinal.
"The problem is that these concessions have not been enough for the schismatics," Reese said in an e-mail. "They want the rest of the church to follow them in rejecting Vatican II, which they consider illegitimate."
The society claims about 450 priests, 180 seminarians and has a presence in 26 countries.
___
On the Web:
International site of the Society of St. Pius X: http://www.fsspx.org
U.S. site of the Society of St. Pius X: http://www.sspx.org
Vatican site: http://www.vatican.va
"Just curious, how can you say that he is in communion with Rome, when you know that he is excommunicated?"
Because he's not excommunicated. JPII could say that the sky is orange but that doesn't make it orange. "Implied schism" is one of the howlers of the nonsense that is the "Ecclesia Dei" document.
Just post the entire letters from your sources.
That's the funny part. Neos just like to post snippets.
And of course you won't find anything referring to the gas chambers quote. Since that is second hand hearsay put out by Williamsons detractors. Not that the Holocaust is the measure of someone's Catholicity.
Pointing out a logical fallacy is an insult? Man, the idolization of prelates has really gone too far.
Wow. Whoever wrote this screed is a first-class kook, as well as an obvious schismatic.
"Arab terrorists... are in turn mere instruments of God who uses them for the salvation of souls."
-- Richard Williamson, October 2001
"[T]here was not one Jew killed in the gas chambers. It was all lies, lies, lies. The Jews created the Holocaust so we would prostrate ourselves on our knees before them and approve of their new State of Israel...."
-- Richard Williamson, 1989
You did not answer my question. I repeat: How can you say that Bp. Williamson and Co. are not excommunicated? Are you going to contend that the excommunications are not valid?
Yes I am contending the excommunications were invalid. Not merely unjust but intrinsically invalid.
There is evidence, I repeat EVIDENCE, that the excommunications are valid. The paper exists. How can you deny the existence of a solid?
As I said in my first answer, "implied schism" was the word invention used by whoever actually wrote the Late Pontiff's motu proprio. There are more logical fallacies and false assumptions in that paper than should ever be in a document with a Pope's name on it. Excommunications are not infallible and they can be unjust and they can be invalid. Unjust excommunications should still be heeded and dealt with but an invalid excommunication should be ignored.
OK, I'll bite. In what context are these justified? Please provide the context, or correct the words and ideas which we have "misconstrued". "Arab terrorists... are in turn mere instruments of God who uses them for the salvation of souls." -- Richard Williamson, October 2001
Okay,
But little do they realize that they are in turn mere instruments of God who uses them for the salvation of souls.
For the last fourteen hundred years Mohammedans, whether Saracens or Arabs or Moors or Turks, have served God as a scourge to punish faithless Christians, or slack Christendom. When Catholics are fervent, God can grant them miraculous victories over the Mohammedans, as at the sea-battle of Lepanto in 1571. When Catholics are slack, God can allow the very survival of their nations to be threatened, as now, by birth-rates in Europe, by terrorism in the USA. When Spanish Catholics were slack in the 700’s, God allowed the Jews to betray Spain to the Arabs. When Spanish Catholics were truly Catholic, God granted them by 1492 to reconquer Spain from the Arabs, and then granted them to create a Catholic empire in the Americas. Either way, God writes straight with crooked lines for the salvation of souls.
The Jews are a similar case. As early as 200 the Church author Tertullian remarked that as Catholic faith goes up, so Jewish power goes down, while as Catholic faith goes down, so Jewish power goes up. In the Catholic Middle Ages the Jews were relatively impotent to harm Christendom, but as Catholics have grown over the centuries since then weaker and weaker in the faith, especially since Vatican II, so the Jews have come closer and closer to fulfilling their substitute-Messianic drive towards world dominion.
If we return for a moment to politics, the United States is now caught precisely between these two scourges of God. Unquestionably one main grievance of Arabs against the United States, provoking their terrorists to lash out as we have seen, is the United States’ one-sided favoring of Israel over the Arabs for the last forty years. But each time the United States attempts to act even-handedly towards the Arabs, Jewish power inside the United States - e.g. virtual control of finance and the media - blocks the attempt, and the United States returns to oppressing the Arabs.
This problem of the United States is politically insoluble, because it is a religious problem! The United States is caught between these two scourges of God, because it has turned away from God. God chastises those whom He loves (Heb. XII, 6), so that if God were not now chastising the United States, it would be the proof not that He loved, but that He did not love the United States! Let us be grateful that God is using Arab and Jew to chastise us! And let us therefore, with no thought of hating Arab or Jew, because they are NOT the real problem, turn to the real problem, which is the sins by which we offend God. Let us take the Ten Commandments in reverse order, culminating in the first.
10 By our materialism, the exciting of envy and love of money in all hearts. 9 By our internetted pornography, the rousing of mortally sinful desires of impurity on a global scale. 8 By our vile media, the lying and deceiving of north, south, east and west. 7 By our vicious financial system, the enriching of the hidden manipulators and the stripping the people of their land, inside and outside the United States. 6 By our national glorification of the “alternative life-style” (amongst multiple other crimes of impurity), our screaming to God for vengeance. 5 By our nationalized abortion, the slaughtering of innocents in life’s sanctuary, the mother’s womb. 4 By our incestuous individualism, the ruining of the family. 3 By our sport and supermarket Sundays, our scorning of the Sabbath. 2 By our Disneyland projection of God, our utter mockery of His holy name. And finally 1, worst of all, by our all-round liberalism, our setting up of man as God, our committing of total idolatry.
In truth, another main reason for the Arabs’ hatred of the United States and of everything represented by the World Trade Center, is that with all their false religion, Arabs still have enough sense of the dignity of human life to scorn and loathe the cheap food, music and clothing, the culture of materialism, that has been spread all over the world - from the United States. Does such a loathing of trash justify suicidal terrorism? No, but it goes some way to explaining it. Man does not live by bread alone, still less by McDonald’s, MTV and jeans.
But is the United States to blame for the rest of the world taking in its trash? Certainly not, and that is why God’s punishment has surely started, but will surely not finish, with the September 11 attack on the United States. Abortion, to take an obvious case, is a world-wide crime, and that is why, short of a miraculous turning around on the part of mankind, God will surely allow all men to carry out what will be His chastisement of them by their own third World War. Actually the crimes of mankind are so great that not even a third World War may be enough for His purposes, which is why He has warned us of even worse. Let me remind you of what His Mother told us on Fatima Day, October 13th, 1973, in Akita, in northern Japan, through a humble lay sister, in a locution officially approved by the competent Catholic diocesan authority:
“My dear daughter, listen well to what I have to say to you. You will inform your superior. (A short silence). As I told you, if men do not repent and better themselves, the Father will inflict a terrible punishment on all humanity. It will be a punishment greater than the Flood in Noah’s time, a punishment such as will never have been seen before. Fire will fall from the sky and will wipe out a great part of humanity, the good as well as the bad, sparing neither priests nor faithful. The survivors will find themselves so desolate that they will envy the dead. The only weapons which will remain for you will be the Rosary and the Sign left by my Son (It is not certain what that sign is). Each day recite the prayers of the Rosary. With the Rosary, pray for the pope, the bishops and the priests.
“The work of the Devil will seep into the Church in such a way that one will see cardinals oppose cardinals, bishops against other bishops. The priests who venerate me will be scorned and opposed by their fellow-priests… Churches and altars will be ransacked; the Church will be full of those who accept compromises and the Devil will press many priests and consecrated souls to leave the service of the Lord. The Devil will be especially merciless against souls consecrated to God. The thought of the loss of so many souls is the cause of my sadness (Her wooden statue in Akita wept real tears 101 times). If sins increase in number and gravity, there will be no longer pardon for them (no more access to the sacrament of Confession?). With courage speak to your superior. He will know how to encourage each one of you to pray and to perform works of reparation”.
Dear readers, let us take the destruction of the World Trade Center as a great sign from God. It is not merely a human affair. If God wishes to punish, no human system of counter-terrorism, however ingenious, will succeed. If God wishes to protect, no terrorist will succeed. Of Fr. Wickens' two Traditionalist parishioners who worked in the WTC, one ran down some 70 flights of stairs and escaped from the North Tower eight minutes before it collapsed, while the other did not go to work high up the South Tower that day, because he had a doctor’s appointment!
The 6,000 who died, as Our Lord says, were not specially guilty, but we must all do penance, or we will perish likewise (Lk XIII, 4,5). Modern cities are fragile, as the terrorists have shown. Life is always fragile. Any of us can die at any time. “The readiness is all”, the readiness of the state of grace to step into eternity. A great event like the fall of the WTC is a God-given warning. Let us pray steadily and constantly, and as Our Lady asked, perform above all our duty of state in reparation for the overwhelming sins of our poor, poor world.
Nor forget the Seminary in your prayers. Fourteen new seminarians for the moment, although some may not stay long. But that is still fourteen good hearts, ten of them from the United States. God bless America!
And may He bless you also, dear readers.
"[T]here was not one Jew killed in the gas chambers. It was all lies, lies, lies. The Jews created the Holocaust so we would prostrate ourselves on our knees before them and approve of their new State of Israel...." -- Richard Williamson, 1989
This is actually an unsubstantiated quote. It originates with Mazza and Sparkes I believe. There is no other context available for it. Actually, wouldn't it be a good thing if this quote turned out to be accurate in fact?
Hmmm. Let me see:
From the Office of the Congregation for Bishops, 1 July 1988.I think that if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quack likes a duck, it must be a duck!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 schismatical 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 Monsignor Marcel Lefebvre, and Bernard Pellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta have incurred ipso facto excommunication latae sententiae reserved to the Apostolic See.
Moreover, I declare that Monsignor Antonio de Castro Mayer, Bishop emeritus of Campos, since he took part directly in the liturgical celebration as co-consecrator and adhered publicly to the schismatical act, has incurred excommunication latae sententiae as envisaged by canon 1364, paragraph 1.
The priests and faithful are warned not to support the schism of Monsignor Lefebvre, otherwise they shall incur ipso facto the very grave penalty of excommunication.
From the Office of the Congregation for Bishops, 1 July 1988.
--BERNARDINUS Card. GANTIN
Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops
Bad news for you, Mr. P! The sky is orange. -Theo
Don't let them mislead you!
-Theo
First thing is: These actions don't happen in a vacuum and just because a Cardinal gives and erroneous opinion and the Pope buys it does not change the facts. The sky is still not orange.
Only a lunatic would believe the Church is not in a profound crisis that occurred due to the malfeasance of Paul VI and JPII. He was responsible for Card. Mahoney, the pedophiles and He did nothing.
Archbishop LeFebvre did something. He picked up the ball that the Pope threw to the ground and carried on. St.Paul was probably smiling in Heaven.
June 29,1987 Due to failing health and with no other way of ensuring the continuation of a traditionally Catholic priesthood, Archbishop Lefebvre announces that he will consecrate bishops, even if the Pope does not grant his approval.
June 17, 1988 Cardinal Bernard Gantin, Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops, officially warns the Archbishop that if he consecrates bishops, without first having received a pontifical mandate, then both he and the bishops consecrated would be excommunicated automatically in virtue of canon 1382 (1983 Code of Canon Law).
June 30, 1988 Archbishop Lefebvre, together with Bishop de Castro Mayer, consecrates four bishops.
July 1, 1988 Cardinal Gantin states that the threatened excommunication has been incurred. He adds that the consecrations were a schismatic act and threatens excommunication of anyone who supports them.
July 2, 1988 Pope John Paul II reiterates Cardinal Gantin`s accusation of schism and threatens general excommunications of its adherents.
Despite these accusations, the Archbishop, and consequently his followers, did not and do not incur the penalty of excommunication.
If a person violates a law out of necessity, even
if in fact there is no true state of necessity, he is not subject to penalty according to the following conditions(canon 1323, § 4).
a) If one inculpably thought there was one, he would not incur any penalty (canon 1324, 7°),
b) Even if one culpably thought there was one, he would still not incur any automatic penalties (canon 1324, §3; §1,8°), such as those threatened by Cardinal Gantin.
2) No action incurs a penalty unless it is knowingly and willfully a mortal sin (canons 1321, §1, 1323 7°). The Archbishop made it manifest that he was bound in conscience to preserve the traditional priesthood, which would be impossible if there were no one to succeed him (He died less than three years after the consecrations). Even if he had been wrong, there was no subjective sin on his part and therefore no penalty.
3) Ecclesiastical law is subordinate to divine law just as positive law is subordinate to the eternal law. The Pope or the Roman Curia have no more authority to demand that a bishop compromise his Faith than a father has to demand a sinful act from his child. Since `the way one prays is the way one believes’ (lex orandi, lex credendi), changing the Mass and the Sacraments can only result in a change of belief. An angel from heaven would not have the power to oblige the Archbishop to act contrary to the unchanging Faith (cf Gal I:8); on the contrary, as a pastor of souls, he was under grave obligation to defend it. It should be noted that in correspondence between Archbishop Lefebvre and the Vatican, the Archbishop continually emphasized the theological reasons that were motivating his actions. The Vatican, in turn, systematically ignored these arguments and instead demanded blind obedience.
In disobeying the Pope, did not the Archbishop and his Society by that very fact become schismatic?
Not at all. Schism denotes the refusal to recognize the Pope’s authority. But disobedience of a command does not mean that the authority of the one commanding is being denied. A simple example is that of a disobedient child. Although the child refuses to obey his parents, he is not denying that they are his parents.
Consecrating bishops without pontifical mandate would only have been a schismatic act, if, along with the full priestly powers of Holy Orders, the Archbishop had pretended to confer the power of jurisdiction, namely, the governing power over a particular flock.
As regards the standing of those faithful who attend the Mass and receive the Sacraments confected by Society priests, we refer them to a case in Hawaii in 1991. On May 1, Bishop Ferrario ‘excommunicated’ some faithful in his diocese for attending the Mass of a Society priest and receiving confirmation from a Society bishop. This decision was overturned by Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith:
From the examination of the case "…it did not result that the fact as referred to in the above-mentioned decree, are formal schismatic acts in the strict sense, as they do not constitute the offense of schism; and therfore the Congregation holds that the Decree of May 1, 1991, lacks foundation and hence validity" (June 28, 1993).
Your inability to provide specific URL's negates the truth of the comments you offer. Case closed.
Introduction to the Lefebvrist schism by James Akin On May 5, 1988, Msgr. Marcel Lefebvre, head of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX), signed a protocol of agreement with the Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, acting as the Vatican's representative in the matter. Msgr. Lefebvre, a Frenchman, was the Archbishop-Bishop Emeritus of Tulle and had founded the SSPX eighteen years earlier.
The purpose of the agreement was to bring the SSPX out of the disobedient state it had been in for some time with respect to the Church.
Wait a minute Tex! Why was LeFebvre in this position? Simply the Modernists who took the reins of power after the debacle that was Vatican II were systematically destroying the Catholic Church as it had been known. Anyone who denies this is living in a fairy tale land.
The protocol was also to lay the groundwork for the appointment of a new bishop to govern the SSPX after Lefebvre's death (an event which did not occur for several years).
LeFebvre had been dealing with the Vatican through normal channels and had been blocked by beuracracy for twenty years. All one has to do is actually read the documents and not Jimmy Akin's highly edited version of event. (Did you ever notice how Neos are so consistent in not referring to the other side's explanation but are content to "tell you" what it was? And LeFebrvre was already in his 80s the fact that he lived another few years was unknown to the Vatican.
In laying the groundwork for a new bishop, Lefebvre and Ratzinger noted that having a bishop as the head of such a society was neither necessary for its survival nor a normal occurrence:
LeFebvre disagreed with this.
"At the doctrinal level (ecclesiological), the guarantee of stability and maintenance of the life and activity of the society is assured by its erection as a society of apostolic life of pontifical right and approval of its statutes by the Holy Father. ... [A] bishop is not normally superior general of the society" (Ratzinger & Lefebvre, Protocol of Agreement 5:1-2). The Vatican was going out of its way to make a special condescension to the SSPX here, which Lefebvre and Ratzinger noted was in large measure for psychological reasons:
I think he means "concession" not "condescension". But it's interesting. The Vatican spent years attacking and trying to destroy LeFebvre because he put the lie to the illusion of Vatican II. Seminaries all over the world emptied out, leaving them dens of iniquity. Except for LeFebvre's. The French bishops particularly hated him for that.
"But, for practical and psychological reasons, the consecration of a bishop member of the society appears useful" (Ratzinger & Lefebvre, Protocol of Agreement 5:2).
At the time of this agreement, the Vatican promised Lefebvre that he would be able to ordain a new bishop to replace him in thirteen weeks time, on August 15, 1988, the delay being needed to review the credentials of different candidates proposed for the office.
Actually, the date was not agreed on until LeFebvre badgered then Cardinal Ratzinger to commit to a time. There is the famous quote from Cardinal Oddi to LeFebvre. When Card. Ratzinger told LeFebvre it would take nine months. Oddi said, "that's some baby!"
Unfortunately, on May 6, the day after he signed the protocol, Lefebvre welched on the agreement and backed out of the deal,
I see Akin decides to be objective here and ignore the fact that Card. Ratzinger surprised LeFebvre with a pre-written apology to the Holy Father which LeFebvre refused to sign.
choosing to remain in a state of direct disobedience
correction: true obedience and not compromise with the most destructive papacy in centuries if not all time.
and to further compound the disobedience by consecrating not one but four bishops (where one had always been more than sufficient before),
He should've consecrated 10.
against direct papal orders not to do so, and he announced he would do it in six weeks time, on June 30, 1988.
At least he was up front with his plans. Not so with the Curia. When the Pope is actively destroying the Church, he must be resisted.
On July 17, Cardinal Gantin, head of the College of Bishops, sent Lefebvre a formal canonical warning that if he went ahead with the planned episcopal consecrations, against the specific instructions of the pope, he would incur the grave penalty of excommunication under canon law (CIC 1364:1, 1382). In addition to the formal canonical warning, repeated informal appeals were made to Lefebvre to go with the original agreement, right up until the end.
It's interesting how LeFebvre was barred from seeing Paul VI and was treated shabbily for 20 years but when he actually threatened the plan of the modernists to let the traditionalists "die out" they suddenly tried to kiss up to him. It's also interesting how saying "only one Novus Ordo" would make everything right.
But when the appointed day came, Lefebvre made good on his threat
Thank God. At least two bishops did what they promised in the anti-modernist oath they took at ordination.
and, with Msgr. Antonio de Castro Mayer, Bishop emeritus of Campos, Brazil, he consecreated four priests of the SSPX as bishops.
Again, Thank God.
The next day, July 1, 1988, Cardinal Gantin issued a formal decree of excommunication announcing that Lefebvre, Castro Mayer, and the four priests had performed a schismatic act and excommunicated themselves in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Canon Law, which stipulates automatic excommunication for both schism and unauthorized episcopal consecration.
A very dubious application of Canon Law. The Catholic Court decision equivalent of Roe vs. Wade
Cardinal Gantin also warned that: "The priests and faithful are warned not to support the schism of Monsignor Lefebvre, otherwise they shall incur ipso facto the very grave penalty of excommunication" (Gantin, Decree of Excommunication).
Mario Derksen has already dealt with all of this:
Now, this is particularly amazing, as what I just quoted is the only reference to "schism" in the decree. The word simply pops up—without having been canonically substantiated. Cardinal Gantin says that Lefebvre and the other five bishops have excommunicated themselves—so far, one can follow, even though what he says is not true—, but then, all of a sudden, Gantin mentions the word schism in passing, as if it were clear that a schismatic offense had been committed. This could only be justified if everyone who is excommunicated is automatically also a schismatic, but this is not so. For instance, someone who is involved in an act of abortion is automatically excommunicated from the Church. He is not, however, thereby a schismatic, since, even though gravely evil, the offense is not directed against the unity of the Church.
An offense of schism is one in which the unity of the Church is hurt. Any act of schism carries with it an automatic excommunication: "An apostate from the faith, a heretic or a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication" (Canon 1364 §1). This would make little sense if an excommunicated person is a schismatic necessarily. On the other hand, a schismatic is necessarily excommunicated by virtue of his schism.
But in the case of Cardinal Gantin’s decree, it was argued that Lefebvre and the other bishops had committed an excommunicable offense and had therefore become schismatics. But the Code of Canon Law nowhere says that illicit consecration of bishops is a schismatic offense. In fact, since schism is defined by the same Code as "the withdrawal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or from communion with the members of the Church subject to him" (Canon 751), Lefebvre could only be accused of schism if he had by the consecrations started his own church and/or attempted to give jurisdiction to the bishops he consecrated. This would have been an act of withdrawing submission from Rome and of hurting the unity of the Church.
But he expressly did not do this! He only consecrated bishops in order to ensure the faithful would always have the sacraments and orthodox teachers who can ordain priests. His intention was only one of feeding the sheep, of making sure that the few faithful sheep would not be left only with wolves!
Fr. Franz Schmidberger, the former Superior General of the Society of St. Pius X, writes:
In his statement regarding the episcopal consecrations Archbishop Lefebvre declares that they were in no way carried out in a spirit of schism or breach with the Church but, on the contrary, intended to come to the help of a Church which finds itself in the most serious straits ever experienced in its long history. He adds, "We confirm our adherence and subjection to the Holy See and the Pope," and in a letter to the prospective bishops he implores them to remain attached to the See of Peter and the Roman Church, mother and mistress of all churches. [Schmidberger, The Episcopal Consecrations of 30 June 1988 (London: Society of St. Pius X, 1989), p. 40]
There is no question that Archbishop Lefebvre certainly did not intend to sever himself from communion with Rome. Now, the Pope’s motu proprio dated July 2, 1988, also repeats the accusation of schism:
"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 [Can. 751]." —Pope John Paul II, Ecclesia Dei, No. 3, 07/02/1988
The Pope is simply wrong in his suggestion that an act of disobedience such as consecrating bishops illicitly is necessarily an expression of a schismatic attitude. There is no reason whatsoever for John Paul II to believe that Archbishop Lefebvre rejects the Roman primacy. Lefebvre was an orthodox Catholic, and the Roman primacy is a dogma. If Lefebvre had really rejected the Roman primacy, he would not have given a hoot about Rome and the Pope’s opinion on anything he was doing. He would simply have consecrated bishops as he saw fit, entirely ignoring what the Vatican might say about the matter.
But the direct opposite was the case. Lefebvre had numerous dossiers sent to the Vatican that contained information about fitting candidates to be ordained to the episcopate, he went along with pretty much everything the Vatican asked of him, until he finally said, "No more. This cannot go on forever. They do not want to give me a bishop. I have to act. The faithful need really Catholic bishops. Time is running out. I will consecrate on June 30, 1988."
So, while some acts of disobedience are schismatic, to suggest that Lefebvre’s 1988 consecration of bishops is such a schismatic act is simply false. He acted out of grave necessity and inconvenience for the good of the Church and the salvation of souls. Granted, the Pope disagreed with Lefebvre, but the Pope does not, unfortunately, have the charism of infallibly discerning God’s will in every instance. The infallibility of the Pope has nothing to do with this, and so even the neo-catholic would have to admit that the Pope could be wrong in saying that Lefebvre’s consecrations were a schismatic act.
That the illicit consecration of bishops cannot be an intrinsically schismatic act can be demonstrated as follows. Under the 1917 Code of Canon Law, the punishment for illicitly consecrating bishops was not excommunication but mere suspension (this was changed to excommunication in 1951). However, if consecrating bishops without papal mandate were an inherently schismatic offense, then the 1917 Code would have had to require excommunication for this offense, because the very same Code teaches, as the 1983 Code does, that schismatics incur latae sententiae excommunication (Canon 2314 in the 1917 Code; Canon 1382 in the 1983 Code). Therefore, consecrating bishops without papal mandate is not an inherently schismatic offense. And therefore, Pope John Paul II’s claim that Archbishop Lefebvre’s disobedience in consecrating the bishops constitutes a schismatic act lacks foundation and hence validity.
Since Canon 751 of the 1983 Code defines schism as "the withdrawal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or from communion with the members of the Church subject to him," some object by saying that since Lefebvre disobeyed the Pope, he thereby withdrew submission. But this is not true. A withdrawal of submission means a denial of the superior’s authority to command. The Catholic Encyclopedia (!) teaches this manifestly: "[N]ot 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" [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13529a.htm]. Otherwise, every single act of disobedience, no matter how trifling, would be a schismatic act and put one outside of the Church—which is absurd.
Lefebvre did not deny that the Pope has the right to command bishops to refrain from ordaining bishops he has not approved of. The difference was only that in Lefebvre’s case, because of the gravity of the state of the Church and the horrendous loss of faith and true doctrine, he felt in conscience obliged to disobey this particular command, for the good of souls and the good of the Church! He knew, after all, that the men he was consecrating were God-fearing, holy men fit to be bishops. At least Pius XII had put enough trust into Archbishop Lefebvre’s ability to discern such (as mentioned earlier).
In any case, even if Lefebvre was wrong in his conviction about the state of the Church, as I mentioned previously, he still did not incur excommunication based on Canon 1323 7°! We have all bases covered. But of course Lefebvre was not wrong about the state of the Church. Now, some argue that if the Church is going to hell (humanly speaking, of course), that’s the Pope’s problem to deal with and Archbishop Lefebvre should not have taken it upon himself to try to right it. Well, here’s what Pope Pius XII taught about the matter in his encyclical Fidei Donum of April 21, 1957:
42. It is an undoubted fact that it was to Peter alone and to his successors, the Roman Pontiffs, that Jesus Christ entrusted the entirety of his flock: "Feed my lambs; feed my sheep" [John 21:16-18]. But even though each bishop is the pastor of that portion only of the Lord's flock entrusted to him, nevertheless as lawful successor of the Apostles by God's institution and commandment he is also responsible, together with all the other bishops, for the Apostolic task of the Church, according to the words of Christ to the Apostles: "As the Father has sent me, I also send you" [John 20:21]. [http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius12/P12FIDEI.HTM]
Yes, it was in fact the good archbishop’s responsibility to care for the flock if all the other shepherds have abandoned this sacred duty or even turned into wolves themselves.
But let’s return to the question of schism. Even some Vatican authorities admit that the consecrations of 1988 were not schismatic. For instance, in an October 7, 1988 article in the Italian paper La Repubblica, Cardinal Lara conceded that "the act of consecrating a bishop (without papal mandate) is not in itself a schismatic act" (quoted in Ferrara & Woods, The Great Façade, pp.257-58).
Likewise, when in 1994 Cardinal Cassidy, then head of the Pontifical Council for Christian Unity, was asked why the Church did not engage in ecumenical dialogue with the Society of St. Pius X, he made clear that the Pontifical Council for Christian Unity "is not concerned with the Society of St. Pius X. The situation of the members of this Society is an internal matter of the Catholic Church" (emphasis added; quoted in Ferrara & Woods, The Great Façade, p.259, n.304). He thereby admitted that the Society of St. Pius X (which Archbishop Lefebvre founded and the four bishops he ordained are part of) is part of the Catholic Church—and therefore, by definition, not schismatic.
As far as the grave evil of schism goes, St. Thomas Aquinas, the Universal Doctor of the Church, teaches:
[T]he sin of schism is one that is directly and essentially opposed to unity. For in the moral, as in the physical order, the species is not constituted by that which is accidental. Now, in the moral order, the essential is that which is intended, and that which results beside the intention, is, as it were, accidental. . . . [The] schismatic intends to sever himself from that unity which is the effect of charity. . . Accordingly schismatics properly so called are those who, wilfully and intentionally separate themselves from the unity of the Church. . . . [Summa Theologica, II-II, Q. 39, Art. 1; http://www.newadvent.org/summa/303901.htm]
There is no question that in order to be a schismatic, Lefebvre would have had to intend to deny the authority of the Pope to command. This he expressly did not do. If he had been a true schismatic, i.e., if he had willfully desired to separate himself from Rome and refuse to recognize the Pope’s authority, then he could easily have done so. Why, in fact, engage in the lengthy struggle with the Vatican? Why bother to write letters, send dossiers and more dossiers, travel here and there, meet with Cardinal Ratzinger, etc.? The archbishop’s patience with Rome’s modernists was truly heroic, but at one point it was simply necessary to act.
In any case, his long dealings with Rome are evidence enough that Lefebvre made every effort not to have to act against the Pope’s wishes. There was no intention whatsoever on his part to separate himself from the Church, nor did he ever deny the primacy of the Roman See—much less intentionally so. It is therefore false and slanderous to say that Archbishop Lefebvre committed a schismatic act or became a schismatic.
Before closing, I ought to mention one most curious thing. When Archbishop Lefebvre was sent the canonical warning by Cardinal Gantin on June 17, 1988, the warning did not include mention of schism anywhere. Here is what it said:
Since on 15 June 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. I therefore entreat and beseech you in the name of Jesus Christ to weigh carefully what you are about to undertake against the laws of sacred discipline, and the very grave consequences resulting therefrom for the communion of the Catholic Church, of which you are a bishop.
Why is no mention of schism made? This is a canonical warning, i.e. a warning of what will happen, what penalties will be incurred, based on canon law, if Archbishop Lefebvre follows through with the illicit consecrations. Why is it not mentioned that the offense would be a schismatic offense? Why does Cardinal Gantin not plead that Archbishop Lefebvre not become a schismatic? I find it most curious that no mention is made of schism, a gravely evil offense, on June 17, when less than two weeks later, on July 1, it is treated as manifestly obvious that the act the June 17 note warned about was in fact clearly schismatic.
Now, I could go into what I think are the real reasons behind Rome’s harsh crackdown on Archbishop Lefebvre and the conspicuous absence of the word "schism" in canonical warning. And I could talk about Rome’s behavior and attitude toward real schismatics, like the Communist Church in China and the Russian-Greek "Eastern Orthodox" Church to demonstrate a complete double-standard.
However, even though very revealing, mentioning these issues is not necessary as they have nothing to do with the reasons why the accusation of schism against Archbishop Lefebvre and the other bishops is entirely unwarranted, which was the aim of this article.
Let me point out, however, one particular way in which the illicit consecrations have harmed the Newchurch, besides the obvious fact that we now have traditionalist bishops who ordain real priests and teach sound doctrine. As Fr. Schmidberger states:
In principle the episcopal consecrations deal a fatal blow to the Pope’s current ecumenical programme, which is increasingly undermining the Church. How can the embrace he extends to all religions still appear credible when he tries to exclude six Catholic bishops from communion with the Church? . . . What credibility is to be ascribed to the Peace Congresses held jointly with the world’s major religions when a religious war has broken out in his own ranks? [Schmidberger, The Episcopal Consecrations, pp. 48-49]I
ndeed, though the state of the Church is bad enough today, it would probably be much worse if it had not been for the consecrations of June 30, 1988!
Let us always remember the reasons Archbishop Lefebvre saw no other way than to go ahead with the episcopal consecrations. Among others, the reasons were to ensure the preservation of the Catholic Faith, to guarantee really Catholic priests for the faithful, to guarantee really Catholic sacraments for the faithful, and in order to continue an orthodox voice of Catholic bishops in the midst of the modernist siege of the Church. All of these reasons are totally compatible with the Supreme Law of the Church, namely, the salvation of souls, as I discussed in the last installment.
So, Lefebvre’s "crime," for which he immediately earned Rome’s strictest condemnations, was making sure that what he had received and entrusted with teaching and transmitting would be perpetuated, that countless souls would not be poisoned by error but fortified by sound doctrine. In short, his "crime" was being a Catholic. Yes, that is a "crime" nowadays in the Newchurch, which instead prefers to "dialogue" with pro-abortion perverts in bishop’s costumes, expresses "respect" for Voodoo witchdoctors, and asks Protestant theologians for input on how the papacy could be reformed to be more acceptable to Protestants. Oh, how awful the times we live in! But this is the essence of the conciliar religion: everything goes, except the Old Faith.
What’s left for me to say? Merci Beaucoup, Archbishop Lefebvre! Thank you! Thank you!Thank you!
The following day, July 2, Pope John Paul II issued an apostolic letter in which he solemnly confirmed the excommunications and the existence of the schism.
He was plainly wrong.
Schism is defined in the Code of Canon Law in the following manner:
"[S]chism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him" (CIC 751) In his apostolic letter, the pope explained that the consecrations had been schismatic, not simply because they were unauthorized (i.e., without permission), but because they were directly disobedient (i.e., against an order) in a very grave matter to the Roman Pontiff: "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, Ecclesia Dei 3).
That of course is a papal non-sequitur.
As a result,
"In performing such an act, notwithstanding the formal canonical warning sent to them by the cardinal prefect of the Congregation for Bishops last June 17, Archbishop Lefebvre and the priests Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta have incurred the grave penalty of excommunication envisaged by ecclesiastical law" (ibid.). The Holy Father explained that the schismatic act of the Lefebvrists was based on a radical misunderstanding of the essence of Sacred Tradition:
But was the Holy Father correct in this? Answer: No. Jimmy Akin suffers from the delusion that the Holy Father is the most brilliant man in the world because he's Pope. And I don't believe he ever was a Catholic under another Pope.
"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 ... But especially contradictory is a notion of tradition which opposes the universal magisterium of the church possessed by the bishop of Rome and the body of bishops. It is impossible to remain faithful to the tradition while breaking the ecclesial bond with him to whom, in the person of the apostle Peter, Christ himself entrusted the ministry of unity in his church" (John Paul II, Ecclesia Dei 4).
Because of the danger the new schism posed to souls, the Pope issued a direct and solemn appeal to the faithful to stop any and all support for the SSPX: "In the present circumstances I wish especially to make an appeal both solemn and heartfelt, paternal and fraternal, to all those who until now have been linked in various ways to the movement of Archbishop Lefebvre, that they may fulfill the ... duty ... of ceasing their support in any way for that movement" (John Paul II, Ecclesia Dei 5:c). He also specifically warned against formally adhering to the Lefebvrist schism: "Everyone should be aware that formal adherence to the schism is a grave offense against God and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the Church's law" (ibid.).
Kissing the Koran isn't a grave offense against God? Assisi and Assisi II weren't grave offenses against God? Those abominable papal masses weren't grave offenses against God?
This is the Church's definitive statement on the subject of the status of Lefebvre and his organization.
So? That doesn't mean it's a matter of dogma. And it doesn't make it a fact.
As the promulgator and authentic interpreter of the 1983 Code of Canon Law, under which Lefebvre committed his crimes, the Code means what exactly the pope says it means.
Well, he had an "off day" or is Jimmy Akin making the case for papal impeccability?
This is especially so since "Laws are authentically interpreted by the legislator and by the one to whom the legislator has granted the power to interpret them authentically" (CIC 16:1).
"Authentic" but not infallible. And if it is grossly erroneous or immoral then there is no need to pay any attention to it. Pope Stephen digging up the body of Formosus and declaring his act invalid is an example of this.
John Paul II was the legislator at the time of the 1983 Code of Canon Law, meaning he is the most qualified to interpret it, not only because of his role as pope (which of itself gives him the right to determine its meaning), but also because it was by his authority it was originally promulgated. His interpretation of his Code is guaranteed to be accurate.
That simply does not make sense. He is not guaranteed to be accurate. He can be mistaken or dishonest in his interpretation or legislation.
But more fundamentally, the pope has the right to determine the meaning of the Code by virtue of his office as pope, and his rulings on canon law are decisive and unappealable.
Again, this is supposed to tell us something? They are not appealable to a higher authority but they are "re-appealable" to the same authority. Which is what Bishop Fellay just did with B16. If Fellay and the SSPX were truly schismatic. They would not appeal to his authority to overturn the erroneous declarations. You can't have it both ways Jimmy.
As the Code states, "There is neither appeal nor recourse against a decision or decree of the Roman Pontiff" (CIC 333:3). For all faithful, non-dissident Catholics, the pope's ruling definitively settles the matter.
Obviously not according to the new Pope who does not think the matter is settled.
Regrettably, Lefebvre died a number of years later in a state of canonical schism, and his organization continues to exist in a state of schism.
Canonical schism is dubious but factual schism is not even on the map. Jimmy should just stick to writing about Star Trek at this point.
I think that if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quack likes a duck, it must be a duck!
And if it kisses the Koran?
And if it allows the Buddha to sit on a Catholic Altar?
And if it allows the Blessed Mother to be blocked from her Son's house?
And if it treats the Catholic Church as one in a crowd of equal religions?
And if it gives heretics and criminals bishoprics and the red hat of the Cardinal and does nothing to punish them?
And if it allows liturgical abuse to commence without lifing a finger?
And if it kisses the ring of the heretical and schismatic "archbishop" of Canterbury?
And if it decides that the papacy can be "open to a new situation" but thankfully is removed by God from office before that horrible damage is done?
Bad news for you, Mr. P! The sky is orange. -Theo
If you think the sky is orange, then ice is hot, fire is cold and the Church has been in a "new Springtime" since Vatican II. Sheesh.
You're adherence to schism and devotion to anti-Semitism pre-negated any credibility you claimed.
And you ARE a major case.
In other words Robert, there will be no attempt to verify or justify the false accusations against bishop Williamson. The charges have been made and that should be enough.
Maybe you need to get with Fellay and give him the good news.
One condition of SSPX reconciliation, stated repeatedly, is that the excommunications be "lifted".
Clearly, invalid excommunications don't need to be "lifted".
You might like to bring this to the attention of the SSPX Superior and inform him that he's belaboring a nonexistent problem.
In much the same way that marriage sacraments are annulled. Marriages formally recognized by the Church, officially recorded and declared, are later judged and declared to have never been valid from day one and not worth the piece of paper the marriage certificate was printed on. Now until the decree on nullity is declared the marriage is recognized as valid by the Church, even though in reality, in regard to the spiritual effects, and in the eyes of God, it never had any validity.
In this way, Bishop Fellay is asking the pope to recognize and declare the reality that the "excommunications" were never valid.
In other words, the Pope goofed?
This is what SSPX means by "lifting" the excommunications? An admission from the Vatican that they were never valid?
I understand "lifting an excommunication" to be similar to absolution in confession. The penitent confesses his sin, expresses sorrow and is absolved.
You guys want it the other way around?
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.