The Congregation for Bishops has declared, with the full authority of the Holy Father:
Based in the faculty expressly granted to me by the Holy Father Benedict XVI, in virtue of the present Decree, I remit to Bishops Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson, and Alfonso de Galarreta the censure of latae sententiae excommunication declared by this Congregation on July 1, 1988, while I declare deprived of any juridical effect, from the present date, the Decree emanated at that time. (Source)This is absolutely wonderful news! As I said I never thought this would happen. It is a positive step forward. However it is not the step forward. What is interesting to me, is that not a lot of people have thought this through. Lifting the excommunications is a gesture of good will, it does not change anything about the status of the society. This is not to say it wouldn't be a good thing.
With the excommunications being lifted, the status is returned to 1988 prior to the excommunications, where the priests of the society and the Bishops are officially suspended and operating without a canonical mandate. They will not suddenly "be in full communion" with the Church. That creates a problem. They will still be operating outside the local Bishop's jurisdiction. Unless Pope Benedict creates some kind of prelature or apostolic administration (as has been discussed in recent years), or if the society submits to the local bishops, which will not happen, that is not going to change. There might be cooperation with this or that society Church and a Bishop, in fact that has already happened in some places.
This of course does not mean that the gesture is worthless. It is one of Bishop Fellay's key points to continuing the dialogue, and it will show more than just good will on the part of the Holy Father. This is news everyone should be thankful for and we ought to sing Te Deums, because it is a step in the right direction. Believe it or not, that was the easiest part of the process. It only gets harder from here!
.jpg)
28 comments:
Note it is a revocation of the 1988 decree. Note where the coma is (also in the official Italian text). It doesn't mean that from today on the decree has no effect. It means that the decree never had any effect. It is "common error" as defined by Ulpian.
It would be nice to see a positive step forward from the four bishops of the SSPX. Not just a general letter from the Superior General but some actual positive comments from Bishop Williamson or Bishop Tissier de Mallerais. Of course, for that to happen, we'll probably need another 2 to 4 million rosaries offered.
Greg
Deo gratias!!! This is wonderful news!
I am sad to say that I may be wrong. At least there are many people claiming that this decree actually confirms that there was a schism for 21 years and the bishops were really excommunicated. The last sentence is ambiguous, though.
Also there's no rehabilitation of archbishop Lefebvre nor de Castro-Meyer.
So it is a generous act of mercy from the pope. Not an act of justice.
Which means that we're still very far from reconciliation...
Bp Richard Williamson has spoken in public endorsing the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and denying the Holocaust. More on the public reaction to this in my blog.
Bp Richard Williamson has spoken in public endorsing the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and denying the Holocaust.
This is true, and in my opinion shows that he is either nuts or of highly dubious judgment.
It is one thing to challenge the Jewish hold on the holocaust and point out the 12 million or so Christians that were murdered by the Nazis just for being Christians, such as all the priests, many Catholic intellectuals, and the Protestant Confessing Church, not to mention Catholics of Jewish descent such as St. Teresa Benedicta of the Cross (Edith Stein).
Moreover, there is nothing wrong in my opinion with suggesting that the 6 million number is inflated. But Williamson didn't do any of that, he is saying it never happened. What was Pope Pius XI and XII condemning in Germany? They weren't being terribly nice to Jews either! Moreover there is plenty of evidence at Auschwitz and Dachau of gas chambers, ovens, etc. The idea that it didn't happen is just nuts.
This is what worries me. I have known great priests of the Society, in fact I used to work at a Society school, but some of their priests have a lot of baggage, and I've met a few SSPX priests who bordered on sedevacantism. As I said, the lifting of the excommunications is the easy part. The road to full communion is difficult.
At least there are many people claiming that this decree actually confirms that there was a schism for 21 years and the bishops were really excommunicated. The last sentence is ambiguous, though.
Plus, I don't like the continued insistence that the excommunications were never valid in the first place, because it is Jansenistic. One of the condemned propositions of the Council of Pistoia (which I have often called the proto-novus ordo council) was the proposition that unjust excommunications can be ignored and have no effect. This was condemned by Pope Pius VI. It is one thing to say it was unjust for this reason and this reason, I tend to agree. But the Pope is the supreme legislator, it is one thing for him to go back and say yes, the excommunications might no have been valid, but it is quite another for the excommunicated to say they have no force. That is the resort of all the excommunicated throughout history, and an unfortunate association for a Society that truly is to thank for the current traditional movement. We wouldn't have the Traditional Mass today as it is without Archbishop Lefebvre, but the manner of protesting the excommunications was anti-traditional and modernistic.
I thought the Motu Propio was the easiest part of the process or condition to meet; this second step is doubly heartening.
Believe it or not, the Motu Proprio was a lot harder. As it was it got delayed and pushed back and obscured, and that fight is still going on.
The lifting of the excommunications is a flowering of the effect of Summorum Pontificum, and by and large the way for it was paved by it.
This is still my favorite piece on the SSPX.
Link:
http://www.crc-internet.org/apr1a.htm
From my perspective, it is possible Bishop Williamson may never enter into full communion, but I suspect Bishop Fellay will.
As I've said before, I predict the future battle within the Church will be between Charismatics and Traditionalists. With that in mind, I welcome the potential restoration of the SSPX.
Watching George Weigel and commenters at neo-con blogs squirm is most satisfying to an angry, mean-spirited Shea-sterotype like myself.
Always been caught in the middle, gone to FSSP or indult for the last decade, but never been completely happy with 'em. Good priests and all, but many tend to avoid the thorny traditionalist issues. I suppose some are afraid of ticking off their bishop, I don't know...
Always liked the direct, outspoken approach of the SSPX more. God rest the good Archbishop's soul, he was a great man, and I wish more of today's traditional priests had his courage and guts.
Ripperger is somewhat of an exception, though; he visited once and talked about VII and the charismatic BS. A refreshing change. Wish more were like him.
"But Williamson didn't do any of that, he is saying it [the holocuast] never happened."
Athanasius,
Wake up brother! Watch the video (on YouTube) of the Bishop Williamson interview. He does not deny that Jews were killed. He believes, he says based on available research, that the 6 million number is highly inflated and that Jews were not killed by gas chambers. You may disagree with him, but read the Lechter Report and conclude for yourself. I admire Bishop Williamson, and think his "secular" talk is actually very valuable since traditionalist Catholics are perhaps more liable to believe the conventional wisdom. Since hearing him talk about 9/11, and then researching it, I totally believe it was a false-flag attack. The truth will set you free, so bring it on. If the holocaust resulted in much less deaths then reported, perhaps it would not be such an effective weapon to use on people to guilt them into despising Pius XII, or releasing documents like Nostra Aetate, or cow-towing to various Jewish groups, etc. Beware, because is not the Antichrist going to dupe, if possible, even the elect? Do you think he'll stage false-flag terror to achieve his aims? Do you think he'll use secrecy and conspiracy to move against his enemies? Do you think he'll play friend to come in close and stab us? Etc. We need to be wise to the ways, ultimately, of the devil, who deceives to achieve evil. The truth will set us free. Bishop Williamson is a man for truth, and doesn't shy away from speaking about key issues of our time even when it isn't popular or conventional.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6C9BuXe2RM
With the excommunications being lifted there is now a definite time line established in order to get things resolved before all this happens again when, in the next 15-20 years, the SSPX Bishops need to consecrate more Bishops to ensure their future survival as the current four face old age and death.
I am guessing that there is a lot in the background which we don't know about, and that SSPX is close to full reconciliation. Also, I suspect that the Holy Father held back on the excommunications of Mgr Lefebvre and Castro-Meyer in case the plans went off the rails. SSPX are in trouble, as the HF has stolen their thunder and effectively ceded some of their points. More people will ask themselves if the separatism of the SSPX is truly justified under such a Pontiff. Finally, a reconciliation may well split the SSPX, even if the split is 90 in and 10 out. It is hard to see B. Williamson as anything but a maverick.
Watch the video (on YouTube) of the Bishop Williamson interview. He does not deny that Jews were killed. He believes, he says based on available research, that the 6 million number is highly inflated and that Jews were not killed by gas chambers.
Alright I'll watch the video and if it is as you say I'll gladly take it back.
Ripperger is somewhat of an exception, though; he visited once and talked about VII and the charismatic BS. A refreshing change. Wish more were like him.
He's the pastor here in Post Falls for the FSSP parish. We're truly blessed to have him. What I like most is he truly understands what Tradition is and what it is about and is happy to tell it like it is to trads too.
But the pope did not excommunicate the bishops! "Ecclesia Dei" just quotes the decree by cardinal Gantin. And it is erroneous quotation, because bishop de Castro-Meyer is missing.
There's a big difference between excommunicating somebody and declaring that somebody has committed something which made him excommunicated, as cardinal Gantin did declare. This was done without investigating archbishops Lefebvre line of defense.
Athanasius: have you see the bishop Williamson's video? He did not deny the holocaust. He just said that the number of killed Jews is inflated, and the objects considered to be gas chambers are too large and too untight to be gas chambers, so he believes that people were being killed not by poisonous gases.
And that opinions he took from some kind of report written by a gas chambers expert from the US, who built gas chambers used in the US for executions of convicts. Name of this man is mentioned in the interview. And the bishop said that if he will see as trustworthy report as the gas chambers experts' is, claiming the opposite, he will gladly change his opinion.
You can watch it on the Swedish TV original site:
http://svtplay.se/v/1413831/webbextra_langre_intervju_med_williamson
Okay, I just watched it twice, and here are my initial thoughts, I think I'll make a post on it.
1)Even if Williamson is right, there is a question of prudence not only considering this interview but also the book which it is quoted form. Williamson yes is not properly speaking denying the Holocaust, however, he is expressing a view which a)has zero bearing on faith and morals and b) is disputed (imo) by the evidence and researchers in this field.
So it is one thing for him to hold this opinion but quite another to talk about it on television and also write it in books when the greater good of the whole society is in question.
2) More importantly, there is tons of eye-witness testimony to gas chambers and documents from the early 40's. There are Nazi doctors and commandants that make off hand reference to it as if it were no big deal. This is not to say I know everything about it, I've only been to Dachau, not Auschwitz, but nevertheless, I have a hard time believing there were no gas chambers. I don't think Williamson has looked at all the evidence, or else he is just an imprudent contrarian. I can believe that not all 6 million Jews (presuming that number is accurate) died in gas chambers, and I can believe that it wasn't 6 million. But 300,000? It was more than that, as it was more than 6 million Christians killed by the Nazis.
On June 30, 1988, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer consecrated four SSPX priests to the episcopacy. Archbishop Lefebvre publicly stated clearly on several occasions that he undertook this act out of necessity due to the crisis in the Church.
On July 1st, the Vatican’s Congregation of Bishops announced that the act of consecrating a bishop without a papal mandate was a schismatic act and the six bishops had automatically incurred the penalty of excommunication. The canonical notice added that those supporting the consecrations were also threatened with excommunication because of the “schism.” On July 2, in Ecclesia Dei Afflicta, Pope John Paul II simply repeated the accusations of schism and excommunication citing Canon Law. But did a state of schism or the penalty of excommunication actually ever exist?
Canon Law Cited as the Instrument of Power
In both cases, canon law was cited as having ipso facto (on its own power) excommunicated the bishops, not the authority of the pope. So it is not accurate to say that “the pope excommunicated them” as he never used his solemn papal authority for this act (even this could be illegitimate, as was the famous case Pope Liberius’ illicit solemn excommunication of St. Athanasius). Canon Law then must be examined to determine if any penalties were ever incurred by the bishops, or the SSPX.
According to the 1983 edition of the Code of Canon Law:
1. A person who violates a law out of necessity is not subject to a penalty (Canon 1323 §4).
But even if no state of necessity existed:
• if one inculpably thought there was, he would not incur the penalty (Canon 1323 §7)
• and if one culpably thought there was, he would still incur no automatic penalties (canon 1324 §3; §1, 80).
2. No penalty is ever incurred without committing a subjective mortal sin (canons 1321 §1, 1323 §7).
Archbishop Lefebvre made it clear that it was his duty before God as a bishop to perform the episcopal consecrations to ensure the continuance of the Catholic priesthood. Even if he had been wrong, there would still have been no subjective sin.
Consequently, the accusations of excommunication were illegitimate and thereby always null and void.
(extract from SSPX Statement Regarding the Withdrawal of the Excommunications for the 1988 Episcopal Consecrations)
So it is not accurate to say that “the pope excommunicated them” as he never used his solemn papal authority for this act (even this could be illegitimate, as was the famous case Pope Liberius’ illicit solemn excommunication of St. Athanasius)
That is just semantics, the authority of the Pope promulgated the law by which the 6 bishops excommunicated themselves. Canon law is a text, it can not excommunicate anyone, rather, people's actions incur the penalties of the law.
Consequently, the accusations of excommunication were illegitimate and thereby always null and void.
The second thing is that you don't understand jurisdiction: excommunications are legitimate until determined otherwise by the supreme authority of the Church. It is fictitious to suggest that excommunications could be "illegitimate" because some canonists say so. Only the Pope can decide that. The Pope has supreme and universal jurisdiction, and if he determines the excommunication is valid (i.e. by confirming them) then they remain valid until the Pope or a future Pope determine otherwise.
Thirdly it is based on a subjective argument, whether Lefebvre was fearful or believed there was a necessity can not be determined by you, me, the band of mexican midgets or the SSPX, only by God and Lefebvre. Unless or until the supreme law giver (the Pope) should say yes, these excommunications weren't valid for reasons x,y, and z, the faithful must consider them valid. That is the power of the keys. So while I do hope such a declaration is made, namely that they were never valid, and that a declaration of retroactive lifting of the excommunications of Lefebvre and deMayer might be made, your reasoning is fallacious because that hasn't been done. The Pope has only with his authority withdrawn the excommunications. Until we get further information from the magisterium, it is both impious and modernist to question the excommunications.
Archbishop Lefebvre made it clear that it was his duty before God as a bishop to perform the episcopal consecrations to ensure the continuance of the Catholic priesthood.
If that is what Lefevbre intended then a)It is quasi-sedevacantist and proves he was in the wrong. If the Catholic priesthood could not be continued except by disobedience to the authority of the Church then the gates of hell would have triumphed, i.e. the Church is not true. The Pope is according to the teaching of the Council of Trent and Vatican I, the essential principle of the Church's unity, by whose power of jurisdiction the Church continues to be sanctified. If Peter is presiding over an invalid priesthood the Church can not be made holy.
Secondly, every act of episcopal consecration without at least an implicit permission or mandate from the Church's supreme apostolic authority is a would in the sacrament of Holy Orders and to the unity of the Church. That is entirely contrary to tradition.
Even if he had been wrong, there would still have been no subjective sin.
Sure, but that is neither here nor there. The SSPX Bishops were excommunicated, until (and hopefully) the Church's supreme authority says otherwise.
Anyway, I think the bishops' intention was to say that the whole holocaust-thing is exaggerated. There are many nations who suffered much more (like the Armenians), but don't claim to be unique in that suffering, neither do they permanently demand money for that or any form of censorship.
And maybe it's just because they still think they're "chosen people", uebermenschen worth more than other nations?
If the Catholic priesthood could not be continued except by disobedience to the authority of the Church then the gates of hell would have triumphed, i.e. the Church is not true.
Let's substitute "formation and teaching of priests" for "priesthood".
There were no bishops ready to give the sacrament to priests who want just to say traditional Mass, not to mention teaching the traditional doctrine. Archbishop Lefebvre had to do it. And I'm sure that someday some pope will adhere to msgr. Lefebvre's point of view.
St. Athanasius also consecrated bishops without papal mandate.
Archbishop Lefebvre santo subito!
There were no bishops ready to give the sacrament to priests who want just to say traditional Mass, not to mention teaching the traditional doctrine. Archbishop Lefebvre had to do it. And I'm sure that someday some pope will adhere to msgr. Lefebvre's point of view.
The problem with this is it simply isn't true. Lefebvre was promised a Bishop, and the priest was to be chosen from his society. Lefebvre didn't like the choice or that it was only one. In my opinion that hardly constitutes necessity, but I'm not the magisterium, I don't get to make that determination. Either way, he was promised a Bishop.
I had typed out a comment but upon publishing the browser threw an error -- so I'm not sure if my comment made it through to moderation or not, therefore, I'll type it out again. :)
You made a good point, Athanasius, by mentioning that we would do well to not fall into one of the condemned propositions of the Council of Pistoia; that is, if the Pope pronounces one excommunicated then we should not argue. However, if we use this logic, then we must also not argue against questionable things which came out of VII.
There is a difference between an invalid and an unjust excommunication, and it is not Jansenistic to believe that an excommunication is either invalid or unjust. Rather, this is a perfect example of history repeating itself: there have been numerous cases of Saints being wrongly excommunicated or wrongly examined by ecclesiastical courts (St. Athanasius, St. Joan of Arc, etc, and with these cases there were those laity who firmly believed in the Saints' innocence). Also keep in mind that this is not the first time a Bishop has consecrated Bishops without a Papal mandate.
New Advent says it more eloquently than I:
An excommunication is said to be null when it is invalid because of some intrinsic or essential defect, e.g. when the person inflicting it has no jurisdiction, when the motive of the excommunication is manifestly incorrect and inconsistent, or when the excommunication is essentially defective in form. 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. It is admitted by all that a null excommunication produces no effect whatever, and may be ignored without sin (cap. ii, de const., in VI). 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. In chapter xxviii, de sent. excomm. (Lib. V, tit. xxxix), Innocent III formally admits the possibility of this conflict. Some persons, he says, may be free in the eyes of God but bound in the eyes of the Church; vice versa, some may be free in the eyes of the Church but bound in the eyes of God: for God's judgment is based on the very truth itself, whereas that of the Church is based on arguments and presumptions which are sometimes erroneous. He 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. Consequently, a person unjustly excommunicated is in the same state as the justly excommunicated sinner who has repented and recovered the grace of God; he has not forfeited internal communion with the Church, and God can bestow upon him all necessary spiritual help. However, 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.
So the story is that while we are bound in action until the Pope lifts the excommunicatio, it is not wrong to believe an excommunication is unjust or invalid.
So the story is that while we are bound in action until the Pope lifts the excommunicatio, it is not wrong to believe an excommunication is unjust or invalid.
I don't have any problem with that, and if my thought hasn't been clear, because I've said it a few times, I would applaud an announcement from the Holy See that the excommunications have been invalid all this time. What I have a problem with is laity and amateur canonists claiming that in fact they are not valid, since only the Pope and those delegated by him explicitly have the authority to make such a determination.
Can't people be happy that they are lifted? Look at Bishop Fellay, he is not going on about how "oh, we were never excommunicated anyway", he is moving right along to the next step. That is where we need to be as we pray both for the Society and for the Church, in union with the will of our Blessed Saviour. The hubris needs to be discarded. If someone says "I think the Holy see should say they weren't valid" that is great, I say the same thing. It isn't beneficial for Tradition to have people determining for themselves as a fact things reserved to the judgment of the Magisterium. That is the essence of modernism.
Note: I've received all sorts of inane and dumb comments that don't address issues of Canon Law or what really happened in 1988. Such comments have and will be rejected.
Personally I think we should be joyful and pray for the juridical situation to be solved. I don't know about anyone else, but I'm glad the SSPX are back in the Church. But if people want to argue you need to stick to issues instead of calling me a modernist.
I absolutely and wholeheartedly agree with you, Athanasius -- it is pointless to further debate what really happened in 1988, because that discussion is now null and void. This is instead a time for grateful prayer and thanksgiving, for the excommunications against the four SSPX bishops have been lifted! Deo Gratias!
Let's move on and pray that Traditionalists around the world will finally join forces and unite to become one, for no longer do we need to defend ourselves and answer the question I've always disliked so much: "Where do your loyalties lie?"
Lefebvre was promised a Bishop, and the priest was to be chosen from his society. Lefebvre didn't like the choice or that it was only one.
And he was 83 years old, and Rome was delaying the moment of consecration. Bishop de Castro-Meyer wasn't a youngster too. Archbishop Lefebvre was afraid that Rome is just waiting for his death to solve the problem.
Post a Comment