Posted on 07/15/2004 6:17:56 PM PDT by AskStPhilomena
Yes.
This is a main point of contention between the PCED and the FSSP - whether the Novus Ordo is an inferior, or merely an equal preference to which they do not avail themselves. The former is the common belief of the FSSP founders (including Fr. Bisig) and many existing members today. The latter is the attitude the Vatican wishes to cultivate within the order. Whatever Fr. Devillers believes on this count, he is careful to defend the legitimacy and validity of the Novus Ordo, and speaks the same language as the Vatican and most bishops on such matters (the Latin Mass is one of many diverse and equal rites, etc.).
From this standpoint, I think the fear that the SSPX will not be able to be critical of the reforms once they return to Rome, has some basis in fact. As in the secular world, those who promote tolerance and diversity change their tune when it comes to tolerating those they deem not tolerant enough to that same diversity.
DECREE OF EXCOMMUNICATION
From the Office of the Congregation for Bishops, 1 July 1988
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 Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, and Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta have incurred ipso facto excommunication latae sententiae reserved to the Apostolic See.
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 sentientae as envisaged by Canon 1364, paragraph 1.
The priests and faithful are warned not to support the schism of Archbishop 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
No. I do not agree these are binding canons if the individual is innocent. The declarations then would be nullities without real effect and may be ignored without sin.
No one denies that the Pope said what he said and can force the issue legally. But, that said, it can't make the declaration morally effective. In fact, the so-called excommunication mentioned in the motu proprio is strictly pro forma and may be ignored without sin--and is. It has absolutely no moral force. Believe me, SSPX priests don't lose sleep over worrying about this. They KNOW the so-called excommunication is a nullity.
It is similar to a married person getting an annulment legally, but having no just grounds for it. The annulment is recognized, but it has no moral effect. In fact, such a person would still be married in the eyes of Heaven.
And by the way, stop shouting. It doesn't make you right.
Gantin is a peer, another bishop. He has no standing to excommunicate an archbishop. Your posting this proves nothing.
They argue that the sentence of schism and excommunication pronounced against them by the Archbishop of Tyana, the Apostolic Delegate in Constantinople, was unjust, and consequently void of strength and influence ... These novel arguments were wholly unknown and unheard of by the ancient Fathers of the Church ... The Jansenist heretics dared to teach such doctrines as that an excommunication pronounced by a lawful prelate could be ignored on a pretext of injustice. Each person should perform, as they said, his own particular duty despite an excommunication. Our predecessor of happy memory Clement XI in his constitution Unigenitus against the errors of Quesnell forbade and condemned statements of this kind. (Bl. Pius IX, Quartus Supra)
Your posting this proves something - your ignorance of the structure of the Church.
According to ultima, Roman Congregations have no authority. What an amazing new discovery - a novelty in the true sense of the word.
In exercising supreme, full, and immediate power in the universal Church, the Roman pontiff makes use of the departments of the Roman Curia which, therefore, perform their duties in his name and with his authority for the good of the churches and in the service of the sacred pastors. (Vatican II, Christus Dominus 9)
And if the Council won't do:
They argue that the sentence of schism and excommunication pronounced against them by the Archbishop of Tyana, the Apostolic Delegate in Constantinople, was unjust, and consequently void of strength and influence. (Bl. Pius IX, Quartus Supra)
According to ultima, the "neo-schismatics" were right and Bl. Pius IX wrong - the excommunication by the "peer" of the schismatics - the Archbishop of Tyana - was in fact "unjust, and consequently void of strength and influence".
Traditional theology disagrees, as the Catholic Encyclopedia recognizes. Even an unjust declaration of excommunication must be obeyed.
Believe me, SSPX priests don't lose sleep over worrying about this. They KNOW the so-called excommunication is a nullity.
Believe me, Dr. Martin Luther didn't worry about Exsurge Domine either. He knew the "so-called excommunication" was a nullity.
The bottom line is this:
"Can. 1321 §1 No one can be punished for the commission of an external violation of a law or precept unless it is gravely imputable by reason of malice or of culpability."
This important canon is based on Divine Law which states the innocent must not be punished. The defense of Catholic Tradition was an act of sanctity and was not culpable. It was certainly not an act of malice.
The Roman Curia is the ensemble of the dicasteries and bodies that assist the Pope in the exercise of his supreme pastoral office for the good and in service of the Church throughout the world and of the particular Churches, assisting in the maintenance of the unity of the Faith and the communion of the People of God and in the promotion of the proper mission of the Church in the world.
There are a number of departments of the Roman Curia, each with their own responsibilities and competencies. The most important parts of the Curia are the Secretariat of State and the various Congregations. Then, there are Pontifical Councils and Pontifical Commissions.
Apart from the formal structures of the Roman Curia, the Pope may convoke an extraordinary consistory of the College of Cardinals to consider special difficulties or questions. In this way, they can advise him as a body, not just the Cardinals who advise the Holy Father as part of the Roman Curia itself, but all the Cardinals from around the world. The Pope has done this on a number of occasions during his pontificate. This is quite a novelty and was not done often during the pontificates of any of his modern predecessors.
In particular, the Pope has established a "Commission of Cardinals for the study of the organizational and economic problems of the Holy See" which meets regularly to assist the Holy Father with the economic management of the Vatican. The Holy Father established this commission early in his pontificate to help turn around a growing deficit in the Vatican's books that he inherited from his predecessors.
The Congregation for Bishops is responsible for the delineation, division, establishment and merging of Dioceses, for the consideration of candidates to be appointed to Dioceses and the recommendation of candidates to the Holy Father. It is also responsible in a more general sense for assisting the Bishops in their governance of their own Dioceses. It receives their quinquennial reports and organizes their visits "ad limina Apostolorum".
Actually, you are the one mistaken. Gantin's statement was not a decree of excommunication, but a warning that a latae sententiae offense was pending. So your analogy is false.
Yes, it was.
Having taken account of all the juridical effects, I declare that the above-mentioned Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, and Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta have incurred ipso facto excommunication latae sententiae reserved to the Apostolic See.
And what does the Catholic Encyclopedia say?
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.
Recall the difference: "imposed" is ferendae sententiæ, "declared" is latae sententiæ. So, let us say that Cardinal Gantin declared by judicial sentence an unjust excommunication. What are the effects?
But a case of unjust excommunication brings out in a much more general way the possibility of conflict between the forum internum and the forum externum, between legal justice and the real facts ... Innocent III ... concludes that the chain by which the sinner is bound in the sight of God is loosed by remission of the fault committed, whereas that which binds him in the sight of the Church is severed only by removal of the sentence ... while seeking to prove his innocence, the censured person is meanwhile bound to obey legitimate authority and to behave as one under the ban of excommunication, until he is rehabilitated or absolved.
Msgr. Lefebvre and his four bishops are bound in the sight of the Church, per the Declaration and "Ecclesia Dei". Period.
Luther didn't defend Catholic Tradition, he was a revolutionary--like the Pontiff. The Archbishop drew the line in the sand--this is Catholic Tradition. If you, the Roman Pontiff, oppose it, however much I may revere your office, I am obliged to resist you and defend the faith. I cannot be complicit in establishing a new religion.
Perfect definition of the USCCB. Thank-you.
I did not read the Gantin statement thoroughly. I mistook it for his earlier one of JUNE 17, 1988, which was a warning. But even if it declared a latae sententiae excommunication had occurred, this is merely ex post facto. The statement itself says something has already transpired. It is not Gantin imposing anything officially, nor could he. He is doing what the Pope did with the motu proprio--commenting on an event.
He was defending Scripture - isn't that traditional enough?
Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason — I do not accept the authority of the popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other — my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and will not recant anything for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. God help me. Amen.
Christ . . . is the Master of my doctrine . . . it is not mine, but His own pure Gospel. (Against the Falsely So-Called Spiritual Estate of the Pope and Bishops, July 1522)
For inasmuch as I know for certain that I am right, I will be judge above you and above all the angels, as St. Paul says, that whoever does not accept my doctrine cannot be saved. For it is the doctrine of God, and not my doctrine. (Against the Falsely So-Called Spiritual Estate of the Pope and Bishops, July 1522)
ultima, it was an official judicial declaration. Look at the Encyclopedia article you cited before:
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.
The difference is obvious - a latae sententiae excommunication is not imposed, but rather declared to have occured. And indeed:
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.
The excommunication was declared and therefore it is binding in the eyes of the Church - and must be obeyed, even if incorrect.
"Traditional theology disagrees, as the Catholic Encyclopedia recognizes. Even an unjust declaration of excommunication must be obeyed."
Not if the life of the Church is at stake. All your arguments lose force against this enormity. What's going on is a modernist crisis without precedence. You are using legalisms that can't apply in such an emergency.
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.