Rome losing interest in reconciliation with SSPX?

DAILY NEWS BRIEF FROM CATHOLIC WORLD NEWS ^ | June 5, 2006

[NYer]

Jun. 05 (CWNews.com) - The Vatican has shown a declining interest in restoring normal ties with Lefebvrists, according to the head of the traditionalist Society of St. Pius X (SSPX).

Bishop Bernard Fellay, speaking to the French newspaper Le Figaro during an annual pilgrimage from Chartres to Paris, said that he thought "the enthusiasm for the reconciliation that the Pope wants has abated." He conceded, however, that Vatican officials might be waiting for the outcome of this summer's chapter general, at which the SSPX will elect its leader, before reviving active discussions.

Rumors about Vatican plans to regularize the status of the SSPX circulated freely earlier this year. The topic was reportedly on the agenda for the consistory of the College of Cardinals on March 24. But any plan for reconciliation will have to overcome considerable opposition, both within the Roman Curia and within the ranks of the traditionalist group.

In a homily preached to participants in the SSPX pilgrimage, Bishop Fellay illustrated the extent of Lefebvrist disaffection from Rome, saying that the modern Church leadership was engaged in "suicide" because Catholicism had renounced its missionary spirit.

[reductio]

"Dying "inside the Church" is no guarantee of salvation..."

I said "I agree. Of course not. In fact, to whom more is given, more will be expected."

To clarify further, actually, yes it is a guarantee of salvation. Here's what I mean... if one is a Catholic in the state of grace, then one will be saved when they die. But one may be a Catholic not in the state of grace, in which case, what you say is correct. I assumed you meant this latter situation of course, and I'm sure we are on the same page on this point.

[steadfastconservative]

Yes, when pigs fly, the excommunication will be rescinded.

[steadfastconservative]

Since Christ gave Peter and all succeeding popes the power to bind and to loose, John Paul II's excommunication of Lefebvre was valid and just. He, like Paul VI before him, had extended the hand of reconciliation to Marcel Lefebvre more than once, only to have that ingrateful schismatic slap his hand in return. John Paul II formally excommuncated Lefebvre and the four bishops with his decree "Ecclesia Dei." Lefebvre did not merely incur an automatic excommuncation as you claim (although he may have incurred it in addition to the formal excommunication!).

As to whether or not Lefebvre is in Hell, once again only God knows. Judgment is reserved to God and there may have been mitigating factors that spared Lefebvre from damnation. All I know is that Lefebvre refused to return to the Church right up to the end of his life.

[Slugworth]

Since Christ gave Peter and all succeeding popes the power to bind and to loose, John Paul II's excommunication of Lefebvre was valid and just.

As has been pointed out, there is historical precedent for decrees of excummunication being nullified. The power of the keys does not preclude the Pope from error in matters of discipline. The same power allows the possibility of JP2's sucessors modifying or nullifying something he did as it applies to disciplinary matters.

If the Pope witnessed a marriage, let's say, and it was later found that there was some defect that would be grounds for nullity, the marriage would still be null and void, regardless of who pronounced the couple married. It is, in fact, an error to believe that the Holy Ghost protects the Pope from error in everything that he says or does.

John Paul II formally excommuncated Lefebvre and the four bishops with his decree "Ecclesia Dei." Lefebvre did not merely incur an automatic excommuncation as you claim (although he may have incurred it in addition to the formal excommunication!).

What does the document say, exactly?

Hence such disobedience - which implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy - constitutes a schismatic act. In performing such an act, notwithstanding the formal canonical warning sent to them by the Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops on 17 June last, Mons. 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.

The law referenced, Canon 1382, states that a bishop who consecrates another without a Papal mandate incurs excommunication latae sententiae ("automatic"). The other type of excommunication, ferendae sententiae, is imposed by a superior. This, I presume, is the "formal" excommunication you claim JP2 imposed. Well, clearly, he didn't. He only confirms, rightly or wrongly, that latae sententiae excummunication had been incurred. Seems like I'm splitting hairs, I know, but it's an important distinction to make, as most I've met believe it happened the way you say it happened.

Further, Canon 1323.4 states that even where an offence carrying a penalty has been committed, the penalty is not incurred if the act was performed out of necessity unless it be something intrinsically evil or damaging to souls. This applies even if the state of necessity did not actually exist except in the mind of the person committing the act:

"If one inculpably thought there was [a state of nesessity], he would not incur the penalty." (Canon 1323, 70)

But wait. The Canon goes even further:

"If one culpably thought there was[a state of necessity], he would still incur no automatic penalties." (Canon 1324, §3; §1, 80).

In sum, then, even if Archbishop Lefebvre was knowingly in error thinking that a state of necessity existed, there's still no automatic penalty is incurred, and if that's true, the excommunications never happened.

There's more to the case of "that ungrateful schismatic" than most people realize.

[steadfastconservative]

You are hair-splitting at this point. The fact of the matter is that John Paul II excommunicated Lefebvre after the latter ordained four bishops in open defiance of the Pope's order not to do so.

I don't see how you can justify Lefebvre's illegal ordination of these men as a matter of "necessity" or of "incupable ignorance." He had been warned not to do what he did and he did it anyway.

Finally, although another pope could lift the excommunication, that does not mean that the excommunication is invalid or unjust--for example if these men repent of their sin. Indeed, unless these four schismatic bishops show some glimmer of repentance, which they have not done, it is doubtful that the excommunication will ever be lifted.

[Slugworth]

You are hair-splitting at this point.

I knew you were going to say that, that's why I said in post #84: "Seems like I'm splitting hairs, I know, but it's an important distinction to make, as most I've met believe it happened the way you say it happened."

The real hairsplitting here is to gleefully wrap one's self in one Canon perceived to consign the Archbishop to the fires of Gehenna, while completely ignoring the very next Canon, which does, in fact, exonerate him.

The fact of the matter is that John Paul II excommunicated Lefebvre after the latter ordained four bishops in open defiance of the Pope's order not to do so.

That's not a fact, just your version of an event based on your ignorant understanding of Canon law. The intentions; the mind and heart of an individual are subjective - known only to the individual and to God. The Canons are what they are. Even the supposed "decree" itself stated that the schismatic intent was "implied." Not evident. Not manifest. Not explicit. "Implied." Is it "valid and just" to charge someone with a crime based on the mindset implied by their actions? You're a "steadfast conservative," you tell me. The truth of the Archbishop's intentions is out there for anyone who really wants to know. He wrote and spoke about it publicly, over and over, often and at length, before and leading up to the consecrations.

I don't see how you can justify Lefebvre's illegal ordination of these men as a matter of "necessity" or of "incupable ignorance." He had been warned not to do what he did and he did it anyway.

Whether or not there was/is an actual state of necessity is actually completely irrelevant to this specific issue. If the Archbishop thought there was a state of necessity, regardless of whether he was correct or incorrect in thinking so, no penalty is incurred. So says Canon Law, in black and white. If no penalty is incurred, then there is no schism, and no excommunication.

Look, suppose you woke up one Sunday morning and felt like you were going to hurl, so you stayed home from Mass. As the morning went on, you felt better. You never did blow chunks and as time passed you realized that you could have made it to Mass if you had gone as you wanted to do. Have you sinned? Of course not. Why? Because you believed that you were going to honk and didn't want to do it in your own lap in the car or in front of a couple hundred people. You did not commit a sin, not even a venial sin. Why? Because you sincerely believed that you were too ill. In hindsight, you weren't actually too ill, but you thought you were. Even though you were wrong in your assessment of your health, no penalty is incurred.

Finally, although another pope could lift the excommunication, that does not mean that the excommunication is invalid or unjust

If another Pope nullified the excommunications, it would in fact mean that they were unjust and invalid. I'm not saying this is going to happen anytime soon, maybe never, but it could happen. That possibility was at least being considered by Rome based on the negotiation discussions which continued after the lifting of the decree was set forth by the SSPX as a prerequisite to continue discussions.

--for example if these men repent of their sin. Indeed, unless these four schismatic bishops show some glimmer of repentance, which they have not done, it is doubtful that the excommunication will ever be lifted.

If there's no schism, then there's no excommunication. If there's no excommuncation, then there's no sin. If there's no sin, there's no need for repentance.

[Ebenezer]

Humility does not appear to be one of the Lefebvrists' virtues. With these folks, you just can't win.

Remember that classic "Saturday Night Live" skit where William Shatner told a group of Trekkies to "get a life"? That is my cordial suggestion to the SSPX, to get a life...within the Barque of Peter.

[Ebenezer]

"In a homily preached to participants in the SSPX pilgrimage, Bishop Fellay illustrated the extent of Lefebvrist disaffection from Rome, saying that the modern Church leadership was engaged in 'suicide' because Catholicism had renounced its missionary spirit."

And then, the SSPX website claims that "[t]he Society of Saint Pius X professes filial devotion and loyalty to Pope Benedict XVI, the Successor of Saint Peter and the Vicar of Christ. The priests of the SSPX pray for the intentions of the Holy Father and the welfare of the local Ordinary at every Mass they celebrate."

Will the real SSPX still stand up?

[Ebenezer]

Right. I believe the Church is wasting time trying to reason with the SSPX. I would rather see her dedicate more time to confronting those who are trying to do damage from within.

[Ebenezer]

As I understand, the Orthodox acknowledge the Pope as the Patriarch of Rome (or Patriarch of the West) but do not recognize his jurisdiction over the Universal Church.

[Slugworth]

With these folks, you just can't win.

Ever stop to consider why not?

Remember that classic "Saturday Night Live" skit where William Shatner told a group of Trekkies to "get a life"? That is my cordial suggestion to the SSPX, to get a life...within the Barque of Peter.

I've offered a Canonically based, historically precedented perspective. You've offered accusation and insult, which doesn't serve to shore up your opposing view to anyone who might be reading.

[Slugworth]

Right. I believe the Church is wasting time trying to reason with the SSPX. I would rather see her dedicate more time to confronting those who are trying to do damage from within.

Like who?

[steadfastconservative]

What you are saying is that the individual's subjective state of mind is what determines whether or not he incurs the excommunication. Even though the Pope explicitly pronounced the penalty of excommunication upon Lefebvre, the latter's alleged belief that he was acting out of "necessity" nullifies the Pope's action. If this were true, then the Church could never excommunicate or punish anyone for doing anything because the individuals could always claim that they were acting out of "necessity." If a woman thinks that she has to have an abortion even though she knows it is wrong, then she could not be excommunicated. If a priest thinks that he has to violate the secrecy of the confessional, then he can't be punished. The Church could not excommunicate any heretic or schismatic, regardless of how much scandal that person caused.

Your logic and your understanding of canon law are seriously flawed.

[Slugworth]

What you are saying is that the individual's subjective state of mind is what determines whether or not he incurs the excommunication.

No, I'm saying the indidual's guilt or innocence determines whether the excummunication is incurred.

Even though the Pope explicitly pronounced the penalty of excommunication upon Lefebvre,

For the...what...3rd time?: He only confirmed, rightly or wrongly, that latae sententiae excommunication had been incurred. He didn't "pronounce" anything.

the latter's alleged belief that he was acting out of "necessity" nullifies the Pope's action. If this were true, then the Church could never excommunicate or punish anyone for doing anything because the individuals could always claim that they were acting out of "necessity." If a woman thinks that she has to have an abortion even though she knows it is wrong, then she could not be excommunicated. If a priest thinks that he has to violate the secrecy of the confessional, then he can't be punished. The Church could not excommunicate any heretic or schismatic, regardless of how much scandal that person caused.

Err, no. Canon 1324 stipulates that the state of necessity cannot be invoked if "the act is intrinsically evil or verges on harm to souls." There go your hypotheticals. Keep trying, though.

Your logic and your understanding of canon law are seriously flawed.

Let's hear your logical analysis of the situation based on your understanding of Canon Law.

[steadfastconservative]

Why bother? You have closed your mind to the plain meaning that is found in canon law. Schism is punishable by automatic excommunication. Somehow, in the parallel universe that you inhabit, automatic excommunication is not real even when it is expressly confirmed by a papal decree. Again, excommunication is pointless if it is nullified by the censured individual's subjective state of mind, something which cannot be determined. In that case, the Church has no right to exclude anyone from communion with her, if the individual can rationalize what he did. I didn't realize that the SSPXers were moral relativists. They apparently think that since Lefebvre acted sincerely, he could not have been guilty. Therefore, his excommunication was not real or valid or just. The problem is that no one can judge this man's subjective state of mind. We can only judge his act. And his act was immoral because he peformed it in defiant disobedience to the Pope. His act was a clear rejection of the authority of Church, an act of schism. No souls would have been lost if he had not ordained these four men. Lefebvre and the four bishops offended the unity of the Church and were rightly excommunicated. As long as Bishop Fellay and the other three schismatic bishops pretend that they were not excommunicated, there is no hope of the SSPX returning to the Church. And maybe that is for the best.

[Slugworth]

Why bother? You have closed your mind to the plain meaning that is found in canon law.

You have closed your mind to the fact that Canon Law itself allows for exceptions to penalties incurred for ostensibly violating it.

Schism is punishable by automatic excommunication.

True. "Implied" schismatic intent, however, is not.

Somehow, in the parallel universe that you inhabit, automatic excommunication is not real even when it is expressly confirmed by a papal decree.

Sure it is, provided there's a crime to match the punishment.

Again, excommunication is pointless if it is nullified by the censured individual's subjective state of mind, something which cannot be determined.

You seem to have no problem having determined it in the case of the Archbishop. That said; yes, intentions are important, just as in the civil law. The Archbishops intentions, as I've said in this thread, were made public, repeatedly, before the alleged "schismatic" act occurred.

In that case, the Church has no right to exclude anyone from communion with her, if the individual can rationalize what he did. I didn't realize that the SSPXers were moral relativists. They apparently think that since Lefebvre acted sincerely, he could not have been guilty.

It's not relativism, it's looking at the situation honestly, according to Canon Law, which you say condemns him simply because you refuse to acknowledge that Canon Law foresaw such situations and allowed for exceptions.

The problem is that no one can judge this man's subjective state of mind. We can only judge his act. And his act was immoral because he peformed it in defiant disobedience to the Pope. His act was a clear rejection of the authority of Church, an act of schism.

His act was not immoral, again, because of his intentions. It's a grave moral evil to take someone's life. A man who takes another's life defending his own life or that of another commits no sin at all, evevn though he objectively took a life. Had the same man been judged by your standards, he would have been locked up for life or executed, since those are the penalties for taking a life.

No souls would have been lost if he had not ordained these four men.

Who are you to say that souls have been lost as a result?

Lefebvre and the four bishops offended the unity of the Church and were rightly excommunicated. As long as Bishop Fellay and the other three schismatic bishops pretend that they were not excommunicated, there is no hope of the SSPX returning to the Church. And maybe that is for the best.

Seems to me that if you're so interested in the unity of the Church, you would not not think it was "for the best" for anyone to be outside of it.

[steadfastconservative]

It definitely benefits the Church to excude from communion those who offend her unity by denying her teachings or her authority. Lefebvre rejected the rightful authority of the pope to appoint bishops and the rightful authority of an ecumenical council to change the liturgy. Therefore, he deserved to be excommunicated.

The defenders of the SSPX are grasping at straws when they talk about what they thought Lefebvre believed instead of looking at what he actually did.

[Slugworth]

It definitely benefits the Church to excude from communion those who offend her unity by denying her teachings or her authority.

Have you read Ecclesia Dei in its entirety, or did you read it the way you read Canon Law? Read paragraph 6c:

"...respect must everywhere be shown for the feelings of all those who are attached to the Latin liturgical tradition,

That's me. Respect my feelings.

by a wide and generous application of the directives already issued some time ago by the Apostolic See for the use of the Roman Missal according to the typical edition of 1962."

The bishops have, in large part, defied this papal directive - to make the Tridentine Mass widely available. If they are in open defiance of the Pope, they are schismatic & excommunicated, by your own definition.

[steadfastconservative]

I've read Ecclesia Dei but I wonder if you have. Paragraph 3 is particularly important since it states specifically that Lefebvre and the four bishops committed a schismatic act. You stated earlier that the decree merely implied that their act was schismatic.

Although Par. 6 c does call for a wide and generous indult to be given to the older form of the rite, you cannot equate any bishop's failure to grant this indult with the defiant act of disobedience to the pope that Lefebvre committed. The earlier document that Ecclesia Dei references, "Quattuor abhinc annos" (Oct. 3, 1984), permits bishops to grant the indult to groups who request it but does not require them to do so. Ecclesia Dei is clearly exhorting bishops to be more generous in granting the indult but it is not requiring them to do so. It may be argued that a bishop who does not grant the indult is failing to abide by the spirit of these directives, but it cannot be argued that he is guilty of defying the pope's authority or that he has committed an act of schism.

Really, your arguments are absurd.

[Slugworth]

I've read Ecclesia Dei but I wonder if you have. Paragraph 3 is particularly important since it states specifically that Lefebvre and the four bishops committed a schismatic act. You stated earlier that the decree merely implied that their act was schismatic.

"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."

It says that an act of disobedience implies in practice a rejection of the Roman primacy, which is the definition of schism. Disobedience does not equal schism. If it did:

"moreover, respect must everywhere be shown for the feelings of all those who are attached to the Latin liturgical tradition, by a wide and generous application of the directives already issued some time ago by the Apostolic See for the use of the Roman Missal according to the typical edition of 1962."

Not "should," not "could" not "may," but "must".

Ecclesia Dei is clearly exhorting bishops to be more generous in granting the indult but it is not requiring them to do so.

How do you define "must"?

It may be argued that a bishop who does not grant the indult is failing to abide by the spirit of these directives, but it cannot be argued that he is guilty of defying the pope's authority or that he has committed an act of schism.

Then how do you argue that a bishop who does not say the new Mass is failing to abide by the so-called "spirit of Vatican II" (which, BTW, mentioned nothing about a new Mass) and deserves to be excommunicated for doing so...

"Lefebvre rejected...the rightful authority of an ecumenical council to change the liturgy.Therefore, he deserved to be excommunicated. "

...but Bishops who defy the Pope's authority in telling them they must allow the Tridentine Mass in a "wide and generous way" aren't in fact defying the Pope's authority, and don't deserve to be excommunicated?