Posted on 05/28/2004 12:38:05 AM PDT by ultima ratio
True Papal Authority and the Necessity of Keeping the Faith Alive
I am now continuing to answer objections that can be or have been brought up against my theses in installments 1-5, which exonerate Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and Bishops Antonio de Castro Mayer, Richard Williamson, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Alfonso de Galarreta, and Bernard Fellay from the charges of excommunication and schism due to the illicit episcopal consecrations of June 30, 1988. In installment 6, I answered 3 possible objections. This is where I'm picking up now.
Objection 4: The First Vatican Council teaches: ". . . the judgment of the Apostolic See, whose authority is not surpassed, is to be disclaimed by no one, nor is anyone permitted to pass judgment on its judgment. . . ." (Denzinger 1830). Therefore, since the Pope said Lefebvre and the other five bishops are excommunicated and in schism, they are indeed excommunicated and in schism.
Answer: It would be scary if one could be schismatic and excommunicated at the mere wish of the Pope. But thankfully, whether or not one is schismatic depends upon whether one had committed a schismatic offense, and not whether the Pope has said one is a schismatic. This is likewise true of excommunication. Whether I am excommunicated latae sententiae depends on whether I have committed an offense that incurs such an excommunication. Whether I am excommunicated ferendae sententiae depends upon whether such an excommunication has been pronounced against me by the lawful authority, and whether it is justly inflicted upon me. Here we recall the words of the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia: "Excommunication is said to be unjust when, though valid, it is wrongfully applied to a person really innocent but believed to be guilty. Here, of course, it is not a question of excommunication latæ sententiæ and in foro interno, but only of one imposed or declared by judicial sentence [i.e. ferendae sententiae]. It is admitted by all that a null excommunication produces no effect whatever, and may be ignored without sin." In other words, though technically "valid," an unjust excommunication may be ignored without sin because it does not bind.
The reason for this is that the Pope (or other lawful superior) does not have the ability to make someone an excommunicate or a schismatic. The person must be really guilty of an excommunicable or schismatic offense. And this is only determined by objective reality, i.e. by the facts. The Pope cannot change the past. If I have not done anything that deserves a ferendae sententiae excommunication, then even if he should excommunicate me ferendae sententiae, I know it is not binding and can rest easily, knowing that I am still a member of the Church. What, then, of the Vatican I decree quoted above? The only way I can make sense of it is by understanding it to mean that the Pope has the last word on doctrinal, disciplinary, and canonical matters. He cannot be overruled by anyone, even a council (as the Eastern Schismatic heretics believe). That means that he is the highest legal authority. However, this does not imply in any way that his judgment is always correct or that it is always binding, no matter how unjust, unfair, or perverse it might be.
Let me illustrate this by means of an analogy. The analogy I am going to use is not perfect, but I think it will suffice to get my point across. Think of the U.S. Supreme Court. Imagine you're accused of murder, even though you're innocent. Let's say things have gotten really twisted, and despite your innocence, the prosecution has made a case that really makes you look guilty, and the Supreme Court - the highest legal authority in the United States judicial system - is convinced by the prosecution and condemns you to death, declaring you guilty of murder. Now, the Supreme Court is the court of last resort. This means that whatever the Supreme Court decides, goes. There's nothing you can do about it. If the Supreme Court says you're guilty, you're going to prison! Even if you didn't do what you're accused of and are totally innocent. It doesn't matter. You can't overrule the Supreme Court. You can prove outside of the court to the public that you're innocent, but the Supreme Court has made its judgment, and that's it.
So here's the rub: even though you're innocent, you're guilty "legally." As far as legality is concerned, you're "guilty"! But does that mean you really are guilty? Of course not! The Supreme Court's decision didn't make you guilty of murder. It merely said you were, but if it isn't true, you're not guilty. It's as simple as that. Analogously, if you have not committed a schismatic offense, then you're not guilty of schism, even though the highest authority in the Church - the Pope - says otherwise! And if your actions, per Church law, have not made you incur latae sententiae excommunication, then you are not latae sententiae excommunicated, even though the Pope might say otherwise.
To sum up, then, the only way I can make sense of the Vatican I decree quoted above is by saying that it refers to the Pope's legal authority, an authority which there is no higher authority on earth to appeal to. You cannot bindingly disclaim his judgment - only God, the Pope in question himself, or a future Pope can do that. Nothing Archbishop Lefebvre or the SSPX or I may say can overrule the Pope's judgment in any legally binding way. But we nevertheless can, and must, prove it to be mistaken.
I would hope that after the evidence so far presented, even a skeptic would have to agree that at the very least, it is doubtful whether Lefebvre committed a schismatic act and/or incurred excommunication. But this already would be enough to exonerate him, as Canon 14 says: "Laws, even invalidating and incapacitating ones, do not oblige when there is a doubt of law. . . ."
Objection 5: : The Pope is the authentic and final interpreter of Canon Law. If the Pope says that the canons which exonerate Lefebvre (e.g. Canons 1323, 4°, 7°; 1324, §3; §1, 8°) don't apply, then they don't apply, and you can't use them in Lefebvre's defense.
Answer: The Pope can change certain things in Canon Law, of course, but he can't change the rules in the middle of the game. If Lefebvre relied on several canons to exonerate him, then the Pope can't say afterwards that they didn't apply and then make his decision binding retroactively (in fact, the 1983 Code says: "A law comes into being when it is promulgated" [Canon 7]). If he could do that, then we might as well not have a Code of Canon Law. Then we might as well be totally at the mercy of the Pope, no matter what, in an absolute way. But that would be idolatry, as it would be worship of the Pope. Only God may and must be obeyed absolutely and unconditionally.
Now, notice that I said the Pope can change "certain" things in Canon Law. He cannot change everything but only some things. Canon Law is the Law of the Church, and many decrees in it are grounded in Divine and Eternal Law, in dogma, in doctrine, and in perennial practice. Therefore, some things simply cannot change. The Code is not arbitrary. It is not a manifesto of what the current Supreme Pontiff likes. That would be horrendous. Therefore, for instance, the Pope could never allow desecration of the Blessed Sacrament, idolatry, blasphemy, or apostasy. No Code of Canon Law could possibly declare in any binding manner that people who deliberately and freely desecrate the Eucharist, worship false gods, blaspheme the name of God, etc., incur no guilt or punishment. No Code could decree that, because these things are diametrically opposed to the Divine Law. They are unchangeable. Likewise, even God Himself could never command, tolerate, or approve of idolatry, for instance. He couldn't do it because He would be contradicting Himself, and that is impossible. So, not everything in Canon Law is merely disciplinary. Some of it is rooted in Divine Law, in dogma, in doctrine, etc.
Now, the main point here to remember is that even though the Pope may say that the canons which exonerate Lefebvre are now no longer in force (though he does not claim that, to my knowledge; we're arguing on a hypothetical level), they certainly were in force on the day of the consecrations, June 30, 1988. And that's all that matters.
Objection 6: The Pope has said that the "state of necessity" that Archbishop Lefebvre claimed to rest his case on does not exist. Now, the Pope is the Supreme Legislator, and thus if he says there is no state of necessity, then there is no state of necessity. Therefore, Lefebvre can't appeal to a state of necessity.
Answer: Several things here. First, precisely what constitutes a state of necessity is not defined in the Code of Canon Law. The relevant canon in fact says: "No one is liable to a penalty who, when violating a law or precept: acted under the compulsion of grave fear, even if only relative, or by reason of necessity or grave inconvenience, unless, however, the act is intrinsically evil or tends to be harmful to souls" (Canon 1324, 4°). When we speak of the "state of necessity" (sometimes called "state of emergency"), we mean that Lefebvre acted "by reason of necessity or grave inconvenience." Now, it is clear that the Pope and other prelates in the Vatican believe that there was no necessity to ordain those bishops, nor would it have been gravely inconvenient for anyone if these bishops had not been ordained, so they think.
However, the very fact that these prelates in the Vatican, incl. the Pope, did not recognize the state of necessity is a great part of the state of necessity and makes the state even worse, i.e. more necessary, and made it even more urgent that these bishops be ordained. Why? Because since at least 1969, to my knowledge, not a single real (=traditional) Catholic was granted permission to be ordained a bishop. Every candidate who was granted permission to become a bishop was a modernist to some extent. They all had to accept Vatican II in total, they all had to accept the New Mass, and they all had to accept the New Religion. But this means that since 1969, not a single Catholic was ordained a bishop. So that means that the only bishops between 1969 and 1988 (when Lefebvre consecrated against the will of the Pope) were modernists, the greatest enemies of the Church. That's almost 20 years. Now, does this not constitute a state of necessity as far as ordaining Catholic bishops is concerned? If the Pope only allows modernists as bishops and no more Catholics, and there are no signs of this changing any time soon after almost 20 years, is it not entirely urgent for the salvation of souls and the tranquility of ecclesiastical order that real Catholics be ordained bishops?
Anyone who is a Catholic would have to agree that yes, there is such a necessity. But the Pope didn't think so. But far from proving that therefore there is no state of necessity, this made the state of necessity even more acute! Not only did the Pope not allow any Catholic bishops to be ordained for 20 years, he also didn't think that that was in any way a problem! Folks, if this does not constitute a state of necessity, then what does? If this does not qualify for a state of necessity exception as far as Canon Law is concerned, then we really have no such state of necessity exception, do we?
Let's face it. John Paul II does not think like a Catholic. It is no wonder that he would consider the ordination of four Catholic bishops to be a danger, yet not blink at the ordinations of exclusively modernist candidates for 20 years! Who can possibly fault Archbishop Lefebvre for doing what he did! He had to do it for the good of the Church and the salvation of souls.
Objection 7: It is never necessary to ordain bishops against the will of the Roman Pontiff.
Answer: That's exactly what the Pontifical Commission for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts said in response to the "state of necessity" argument the SSPX has made. But while the PCILT is authoritative, let's examine what they have actually said. Their claim that it is never necessary to ordain bishops against the will of the Roman Pontiff is simply gratuitous. There is no basis for making such an entirely unjustified assertion. I suppose they just made it up. I can give several scenarios which would easily refute their silly claim. For instance, imagine that a Pope becomes mentally ill. Imagine he has Alzheimer's Disease and is therefore incapacitated to make sober judgments. Imagine that he forbids any and all consecration of bishops henceforth. Let's say that over the years the situation becomes so seriously critical that in order not to endanger the salvation of souls and the continuity of the Church, bishops simply must be ordained. But the Pope remains stubborn because of his disease. This would be a perfect example in which it would be certainly necessary to defy the will of the Pope and go ahead and ordain bishops anyway.
Or imagine a situation in which we simply have a wicked Pope who positively wishes to destroy the Church and therefore forbids anyone from consecrating bishops - from now until forever. Again, the Pope's command must be resisted and bishops must be ordained when the necessity arises.
When the PCILT, therefore, says that it's never necessary to consecrate bishops against the Pope's wishes, they are not only wrong, they also give the Pope more authority than he has - and that is very dangerous - inasmuch as they make the Pope's will absolute. But the Pope, despite his high and noble office, is only a man, and there is no guarantee that he will act in accordance with the will of God unless he speaks ex cathedra on faith and morals, which is almost never.
More objections and replies in the next installment.
Mario Derksen
Ping
In many cases, the indult Mass is said in a Novus Ordo church, where particles of the Blessed Sacrament (if the masses there are indeed valid) are scattered all over the place due to Communion in the hand. The "altar" may just be a table, and the priest may be forced to use hosts for Communion that have previously been "consecrated" at a Novus Ordo mass.
Apparently the Novus Ordo isn't a real Mass, now?
Another important criticism I received concerns the question of the possible invalidity of the declaration of excommunication issued by the Congregation for Bishops. A couple of well-versed canonists pointed out something crucial which I neglected to include in my thesis, and which probably led to an incorrect inference on the part of many readers: once the competent authority in the Church, in this case the Congregation for Bishops, has publicly declared a latae sententiae (automatic) penalty to have been incurred, the persons named in that declaration are bound to submit to the public effects of the penalty.They are not free to simply ignore the penalty, alleging reasons why it does not apply to them. They may be sincerely convinced that the penalty was not incurred automatically. They may be convinced that the declaration was invalid. They may even be able to prove their case. But they cannot simply assert this, and then act as though there had been no declaration of excommunication. They must prove their case in an administrative recourse. If they choose not to lodge a recourse, then the matter rests as established by the competent Church authority. They are excommunicated.
This presumption in favor of the validity of administrative and judicial acts of Church authority exists in order to guarantee the good order of the society which is the Church. The four bishops consecrated by Archbishop Lefebvre are and must be considered as excommunicated until such time as Church authority withdraws the declaration of excommunication. (Fr. Gerald Murray, Summer 1996 Letter to The Latin Mass)
Since Fr. Murray has a J.C.L. in Canon Law, I'll take his judgment over Derksen, whom I note doesn't even attempt to cite the approved authors to support his thesis that judgments of the Pope may be freely ignored. Nor does Bl. Pius IX leave any room for considering the Pontiff's judgment on schism mistaken:
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 ... Most men feel that the Church's supreme head and shepherd should decide who are Catholics and who are not. (Quartus Supra §9, 15)
Objection 5
The Pope can change certain things in Canon Law, of course, but he can't change the rules in the middle of the game. If Lefebvre relied on several canons to exonerate him, then the Pope can't say afterwards that they didn't apply and then make his decision binding retroactively (in fact, the 1983 Code says: "A law comes into being when it is promulgated" [Canon 7]). If he could do that, then we might as well not have a Code of Canon Law.
The Pope warned Abp. Lefebvre in a letter before the consecrations (as well as the formal Canonical Warning), so Derkson's criticism doesn't apply:
With a paternal heart, but with all the gravity required by the current circumstances, I urge you, Revered Brother, not to embark upon a course which, if persisted in, cannot but appear as a schismatic act whose inevitable theological and canonical consequences are well known to you. I earnestly invite you to return, in humility, to full obedience to the Vicar of Christ.
Objection 7
Derksen doesn't provide any support for his assertions. What is gratuitously asserted may be gratuitously denied and I do so.
The general argument he makes seems to be that when the good of the Church is believed to require it, it is licit and right to disobey the commands of the Supreme Pontiff. However, this appears directly contrary to Bl. Pius IX's teaching in Quanta Cura:
Nor can we pass over in silence the audacity of those who, not enduring sound doctrine, contend that "without sin and without any sacrifice of the Catholic profession assent and obedience may be refused to those judgments and decrees of the Apostolic See, whose object is declared to concern the Church's general good and her rights and discipline, so only it does not touch the dogmata of faith and morals." But no one can be found not clearly and distinctly to see and understand how grievously this is opposed to the Catholic dogma of the full power given from God by Christ our Lord Himself to the Roman Pontiff of feeding, ruling and guiding the Universal Church.
Derksen's theories concerning the right response to an "evil Pope" are in fact totally opposed to Bl. Pius IX's teaching here.
Why not stick with Bl. Pius IX's clear teaching in Quartus Supra?
For any man to be able to prove his Catholic faith and affirm that he is truly a Catholic, he must be able to convince the Apostolic See of this. For this See is predominant and with it the faithful of the whole Church should agree ...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 ...
Most men feel that the Church's supreme head and shepherd should decide who are Catholics and who are not.
Apologists like you--who support every abomination, who endorse the new religion, who pretend to be truly Catholic while turning your backs on two thousand years of the Catholic Church--are welcome to your propaganda, including this citation of Murray who did an about-face when under pressure. But facts are facts. If the objective reality is that if there has been no culpability, there can be no penalty. Nobody from SSPX is in schism because nobody has denied the Pope's authority. If the Pope thinks this because of his modernist sympathies and his own obvious rejection of Catholic Tradition, that is his problem, not theirs. And it is your problem as well.
bump for later.
Derksen is only implying that many Novus Ordo Masses are not valid because they do not meet the standards for valid matter--which even Rome has warned about. This is not true of all N.O. Masses--but has become increasingly true in America where hosts have been improperly confected in many parishes, using invalid ingredients.
None of the Pope's prior warnings mattered if they did nothing whatsoever to remove the state of necessity. As Derksen has pointed out, since the Pope had not allowed the consecration of a single traditional bishop in twenty years, that made the situation for the survival of Catholic tradition and the Catholic faith itself even more dire from the Archbishop's perspective. Warnings did nothing to change this. They only made much more evident the Pope's own hostility towards Catholic Tradition, increasing the Archbishop's very justifiable fears for the Church and the faith itself.
As for this statement of yours that "The general argument he makes seems to be that when the good of the Church is believed to require it, it is licit and right to disobey the commands of the Supreme Pontiff,"--this is absolutely correct. If the good of the Catholic Church requires it, and if the Pope will not do what is for the good of the Catholic Church and will not properly exercise his office for the good of souls by protecting Catholic Tradition, it is absolutely imperative that he be disobeyed. Bad popes who oppose Tradition should certainly be disobeyed. I have no problem at all with that.
You say, "Since Fr. Murray has a J.C.L. in Canon Law, I'll take his judgment over Derksen, whom I note doesn't even attempt to cite the approved authors to support his thesis that judgments of the Pope may be freely ignored."
But Fr. Murray got his license in Canon Law precisely by studying Archbishop's Lefebvre's consecrations and arguing that the SSPX was, in fact, not in schism. He later changed his view under pressure.
Nobody would argue that the Society has the kind of political clout as the Pope and his many minions who can twist the arms of men like Murray so that they do an about-face publicly--or else.
Proof?
Following the publication of my interview and excerpts from my thesis in The Latin Mass, I have rethought and changed some of my conclusions, and I stated those emendations in a letter to be published in the Summer 1996 issue of the same magazine. I enclose a copy of that letter for your interest. (June 14, 1996 Letter to Fr. Peter Scott)
You need to better appreciate how Rome operates. How many men do you suppose do a complete about-face on their in-depth theses for the licentiate, the fruit of long deliberative thought? I have never heard of a single case. Clearly somebody got to Fr. Murray after the publication of his findings. Not that it matters. The SSPX is still innocent, no matter what he or anybody else says. The Society is innocent because it acted honorably to defend the traditional faith.
Since the state of necessity was non-existent, it couldn't be removed. There is never a state of necessity to commit a schismatic act, such as the consecration of a bishop against the clearly expressed will of the Supreme Pontiff. The simple fact is that the Pope clearly taught in his Apostolic Letter "Ecclesia Dei" that:
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.
Quite simply, even if this teaching is wrong it is not permitted to publicly oppose this act of the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff:
When the grounds are clear and cogent, when they are shared by a number of serious and loyal theologians, then it is permitted to differ from the decree or at least to withdraw one's agreement for the present time. But it is not permissible, out of respect for the holy power of the Apostolic See, to take a public position against it; rather, one should undertake a respectful silence, or the difficulty may be presented to the Apostolic See. (F. Gallati, "Wenn die Papste Sprechen", Vienna: 1960, p. 175)
This is the unanimous teaching of the pre-conciliar approved authors, from which it is not permitted to differ:
But, since it is a matter of that subjection by which in conscience all those Catholics are bound who work in the speculative sciences, in order that they may bring new advantage to the Church by their writings, on that account, then, the men of that same convention should realize that it is not sufficient for learned Catholics to accept and revere the aforesaid dogmas of the Church, but that it is also necessary to subject themselves to the decisions pertaining to doctrine which are issued by the Pontifical Congregations, and also to those forms of doctrine which are held by the common and constant consent of Catholics as theological truths and conclusions, so certain that opinions opposed to these same forms of doctrine, although they cannot be called heretical, nevertheless deserve some theological censure. (Bl. Pius IX, Tuas Libenter)
As Derksen has pointed out, since the Pope had not allowed the consecration of a single traditional bishop in twenty years, that made the situation for the survival of Catholic tradition and the Catholic faith itself even more dire from the Archbishop's perspective.
It is only in your quite incorrect opinion that Catholic bishops were not being consecrated. Is this bishop non-Catholic?
Bishop John Adel Elya, Bishop of Newton (Melkite)
Bishop John Elya Answers
I have no problem at all with that.
But Bl. Pius IX does.
Nor can we pass over in silence the audacity of those who, not enduring sound doctrine, contend that "without sin and without any sacrifice of the Catholic profession assent and obedience may be refused to those judgments and decrees of the Apostolic See, whose object is declared to concern the Church's general good and her rights and discipline, so only it does not touch the dogmata of faith and morals." But no one can be found not clearly and distinctly to see and understand how grievously this is opposed to the Catholic dogma of the full power given from God by Christ our Lord Himself to the Roman Pontiff of feeding, ruling and guiding the Universal Church.
The state of necessity would not be recognized by the Pope--since he himself had deepened it by his heterodoxy and hostility to Catholic Tradition. Even if the Archbishop was wrong, he was clearly inculpable since he sincerely believed he was right--that the Church was in jeopardy. But objectively--to anybody honest, unlike yourself who will make inane excuses for any violence done against the faith--there was an objective state of crisis. Even Paul VI recognized this, calling it an auto-demolition. It should not be surprising this Pope couldn't see it and still can't see it--since he supported the revolution and still supports it.
Very interesting, thanks for posting.
SSPX is still in schism. The named bishops are excommunicates and no rationalizations by their fellow schismatics or by Mario Derksen or by SSPX in house propaganda organs or other enemies of Church and papacy and, of course, enemies of JP II who excommunicated the illicit consecrator along with the illicit consecratees.
May the next pope be a young and vigorous and orthodox pope who deals with this impudence once and for all. May SSPX serve its one and only purpose as an ecclesiastically expunged example to those who would falsely claim Catholicism while promoting anarchy in the ranks.
The pope remains the authority on these matters and he owes you no explanation whatsoever. You owe him obedience and your moral submission.
Nonsense. You can't be schismatic just because the Pope thinks so. The Pope doesn't have a crystal ball to look into somebody's soul--even if he thinks he does. Nor can you.
As for the next pope, whether he's young or not, or truly Catholic or not, is beside the point. No pope can make someone guilty who is not guilty. The fact that you think this can happen is irrational.
Sure he owes me explanations--as he owes all other Catholics. He's a man, not a god--and as an authority he is obliged to rule rationally. That means explaining oddities of behavior which are contrary to faith--like kissing Korans and praying with witchdoctors. And yes, I owe him obedience--but not blind obedience. Blind obedience is a sin, not a virtue.
"May the next pope be a young and vigorous and orthodox pope who deals with this impudence once and for all."
How, pray tell? --By calling the Society "schismatic" and saying it is "excommunicated"?
Been there, done that.
Fact is, the Pope miscalculated--badly. He flung the charges, but couldn't back them up with facts. So the Society is flourishing--because thoughtful Catholics understand it is truly within the Church, despite Rome's smear tactics and attempts to marginalize it. What the Pope did, in fact, was free it to sound the clarion against the revolution.
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.