Wednesday, September 18, 2013

Schismatic and Excommunicated

Schismatic and Excommunicated

ECCLESIASTICAL DOCUMENTS
on the SCHISM and EXCOMMUNICATION OF
Archbishop Marcel LEFEBVRE and the SOCIETY OF ST PIUS X
COMPLETE DOCUMENTS



Part 1


THE PROTOCOL OF AGREEMENT

Between the Holy See and Archbishop Lefebvre

Signed by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger,
Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre
on May 5, 1988

  1. Text of the Doctrinal Declaration I, Marcel Lefebvre, archbishop-bishop emeritus of Tulle, along with the members of the Priestly Society of St. Pius X, which I founded:

    1. We promise always to be faithful to the Catholic Church and to the Roman Pontiff, its supreme pastor, the vicar of Christ, successor of blessed Peter in his primacy and head of the body of bishops.

    2. We declare that we will accept the doctrine contained in No. 25 of the Second Vatican Council's dogmatic constitution, "Lumen Gentium" on the ecclesiastical magisterium and the adherence owed it.

    3. Regarding certain points taught by the Second Vatican Council or concerning subsequent reforms of the liturgy and law which appear difficult to reconcile with tradition, we commit ourselves to a positive attitude of study and of communication with the Apostolic See, avoiding all polemics.

    4. We declare moreover that we will recognize the validity of the sacrifice of the Mass and of the sacraments celebrated with the intention of doing what the Church does and according to the rites in the typical editions of the missal and rituals of the sacraments promulgated by Popes Paul VI and John Paul II.

    5. Last, we promise to respect the common discipline of the Church and the ecclesiastical laws, particularly those contained in the Code of Canon Law promulgated by Pope John Paul II, except for the special discipline conceded to the fraternity by particular law.
  2. JURIDICAL QUESTIONS Taking into consideration the fact that the Priestly Society of St. Pius X has been formed for 18 years as a society of common life - and based on a study of suggestions by Archbishop Lefebvre and the conclusions of the visit made by His Eminence Cardinal Gagnon - the most suitable canonical model is that of a society of apostolic life.

    1. Society of Apostolic Life.

      It is a canonically possible solution, with the advantage of the possibility of bringing laity into the clerical society of apostolic life (for example, coadjutor brothers).

      According to the Code of Canon Law promulgated in 1983, Canons 731-746, this society has full autonomy, can form its members, can incardinate priests and assures the common life of all its members.

      In its own statutes, with flexibility and creative possibility in the light of the known models of these societies of apostolic life, one anticipates a certain exemption in regard to diocesan bishops (cf. Canon 591) in what concerns public worship, the 'cura animarum' and other apostolic activities, taking into consideration Canons 679-683. As for jurisdiction regarding the faithful who seek out the priests of the society, it will be conferred on them by the local ordinaries or by the Apostolic See.

    2. Roman Commission.

      A commission to coordinate relations among the diverse dicasteries and the diocesan bishops as well as to resolve eventual problems and contentions will be established by the Holy See and given the necessary faculties to treat the above-indicated questions (for example, the establishment at the request of the faithful of a place of worship in a place where there is no house of the society, 'ad mentem,' Canon 383.2).

    3. Condition of People Linked to the Society.

      3.1 The members of the clerical society of apostolic life (priests and coadjutor lay brothers): They are governed by the statutes of the society of pontifical right.

      3.2 Men and women oblates, with or without private vows, and members of the Third Order linked to the society: They belong to an association of the faithful linked to the society in terms of Canon 303, and they collaborate with it.

      3.3 The sisters (that is, the congregation founded by Archbishop Lefebvre) who make public vows: They will constitute a true institute of consecrated life, with its own structure and autonomy, even if one foresees a certain link for the unity of spirituality with the superior of the society. This congregation - at least at the beginning - will be responsible to the Roman Commission instead of the Congregation for Religious.

      3.4 Members of communities living by the rule of diverse religious institutes (Carmelites, Benedictines, Dominicans, etc.) and morally linked with the society: It is fitting to accord them, case by case, a particular status regulating their relations with their respective order.

      3.5 Priests who as individuals are morally linked with the fraternity will receive a personal status, taking into account their aspirations, and, at the same time, the obligations resulting from their incardination. Other particular cases of this kind will be examined and resolved by the Roman commission.
In what concerns lay people who seek the pastoral help of the society's communities: They remain under the jurisdiction of the diocesan bishops but - notably for the liturgical rites of the society's communities - can look to these communities for the administration of the sacraments (for the sacraments of baptism, confirmation and marriage, notification of their own parish remains necessary; canons 878, 896, 1122). NOTE: There is reason to consider the particular complexity:

  1. Of the question of the reception by the laity of the sacraments of baptism, confirmation, marriage, in the communities of the society.

  2. Of the question of communities practicing - without being connected to them - the rule of this or that religious institute. It is for the Roman commission to resolve these items.

  3. Ordinations. For ordinations, it is necessary to distinguish two phases:
  1. 1 Immediately: For the ordinations planned shortly, Archbishop Lefebvre would be authorized to confer them or, if he couldn't, another bishop agreed to by him. 4.2 Once established, the society of apostolic life: 4.2.1 When possible, in the judgment of the Superior General, follows the normal procedure: remitting the dimissorial letters to a bishop who agrees to ordain members of the society. 4.2.2 Because of the particular situation of the fraternity (cf. infra): ordination by a bishop of the society who, among other tasks, would have that of proceeding with ordinations.

  2. Problem of a Bishop. 5.1 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. 5.2 But, for practical and psychological reasons, the consecration of a bishop member of the society appears useful. This is why, in the context of the doctrinal and canonical solution of the reconciliation, we will suggest to the Holy Father that he name a bishop chosen in the society, proposed by Archbishop Lefebvre. As a consequence of the principle indicated above (5.1), this bishop is not normally superior general of the society. But it would be good that he be a member of the Roman commission.

  3. 6. Particular Problems to Resolve by Decree or Declaration. -- Lifting the 'suspensio a divinis' of Archbishop Lefebvre and dispensing the irregularities incurred through ordinations. Anticipation of an "amnesty" and an agreement for the society's houses and places of worship erected -- or used -- until now without authorization by bishops.
Source: http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/l-protocol.htm

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 scismatical 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

("ipso facto" - by the fact or the act itself) Source: http://www.latin-mass.org/excommunication.html



Ecclesia Dei

His Holiness Pope John Paul II
Apostolic Letter
July 2, 1988 With great affliction the Church has learned of the unlawful episcopal ordination conferred on June 30 by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, which has frustrated all the efforts made during the previous years to ensure the full communion with the Church of the Priestly Society of St. Pius X founded by the same Archbishop Lefebvre. These efforts, especially intense during recent months, in which the Apostolic See has shown comprehension to the limits of the possible, were all to no avail. [Cf. Informatory note of June 16, 1988; L'Osservatore Romano, English ed., June 27, 1988, pp. 1-2.] 2. This affliction was particularly felt by the successor of Peter, to whom in the first place pertains the guardianship of the unity of the Church [Cf. Vatican Council I, "Pastor Aeternus," Ch. 3; Denzinger-Schonmetzer 3060], even though the number of persons directly involved in these events might be few, since every person is loved by God on his own account and has been redeemed by the blood of Christ shed on the cross for the salvation of all. The particular circumstances, both objective and subjective, in which Archbishop Lefebvre acted provide everyone with an occasion for profound reflection and for a renewed pledge of fidelity to Christ and to his Church. 3. 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. [Code of Canon Law, 751.] 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. [Cf. Code of Canon Law, 1382.] 4. 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, which, as the Second Vatican Council clearly taught, "comes from the apostles and progresses in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. There is a growth in insight into the realities and words that are being passed on. This comes about in various ways. It comes through the contemplation and study of believers, who ponder these things in their hearts. It comes from the intimate sense of spiritual realities which they experience. And it comes from the preaching of those who have received, along with their right of succession in the episcopate, the sure charism of truth." [Vatican Council II, "Dei Verbum," 8; cf. Vatican Council I, "Dei Filius," Ch. 4; DS 3020.] 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. [Cf. Mt. 16:18; Lk, 10:16; "Pastor Aeternus," Ch. 3; DS 3060.] 5. Faced with the situation that has arisen, I deem it my duty to inform all the Catholic faithful of some aspects which this sad event has highlighted.
  1. The outcome of the movement promoted by Archbishop Lefebvre can and must be, for all the Catholic faithful, a motive for sincere reflection concerning their own fidelity to the Church's tradition, authentically interpreted by the ecclesiastical magisterium, ordinary and extraordinary, especially in the ecumenical councils from Nicaea to Vatican II. From this reflection all should draw a renewed and efficacious conviction of the necessity of strengthening still more their fidelity by rejecting erroneous interpretations and arbitrary and unauthorized applications in matters of doctrine, liturgy and discipline. To the bishops especially it pertains, by reason of their pastoral mission, to exercise the important duty of a clear-sighted vigilance full of charity and firmness, so that this fidelity may be everywhere safeguarded. [Cf. Canon 386; Paul VI, "Quique Iam Anni," Dec. 8, 1970; "Acta Apostolicae Sedis" 63 (1971) pp. 97-106.] However, it is necessary that all the pastors and other faithful have a new awareness, not only of the lawfulness but also of the richness for the Church of a diversity of charisms, traditions of spirituality and apostolate, which also constitutes the beauty unity in variety: of that blended "harmony" which the earthly Church raises up to heaven under the impulse of the Holy Spirit.

  2. Moreover, I should like to remind theologians and other experts in the ecclesiastical sciences that they should feel called upon to answer in the present circumstances. Indeed, the extent and depth of the teaching of the Second Vatican Council call for a renewed commitment to deeper study in order to reveal clearly the council's continuity with tradition, especially in points of doctrine which, perhaps because they are new, have not yet been well understood by some sections of the Church.

  3. 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 grave duty of remaining united to the vicar of Christ in the unity of the Catholic Church and of ceasing their support in any way for that movement. 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. [Cf. Code of Canon Law, 1364.] To all those Catholic faithful who feel attached to some previous liturgical and disciplinary forms of the latin tradition, I wish to manifest my will to facilitate their ecclesial communion by means of the necessary measures to guarantee respect for their rightful aspirations. In this matter I ask for the support of the bishops and of all those engaged in the pastoral ministry in the Church.
6. Taking account of the importance and complexity of the problems referred to in this document, by virtue of my apostolic authority I decree the following:
  1. A commission is instituted whose task it will be to collaborate with the bishops, with the departments of the Roman Curia and with the circles concerned, for the purpose of facilitating full ecclesial communion of priests, seminarians, religious communities or individuals until now linked in various ways to the society founded by Archbishop Lefebvre who may wish to remain united to the successor of Peter in the Catholic Church while preserving their spiritual and liturgical traditions in the light of the protocol signed on last May 5 by Cardinal Ratzinger and Archbishop Lefebvre.

  2. This commission is composed of a cardinal-president and other members of the Roman Curia, in a number that will be deemed opportune according to circumstances.

  3. Moreover, respect must everywhere by 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. [Cf. Congregation for Divine Worship, "Quattuor Abhinc Annos," Oct. 3, 1984; AAS 76 (1984) pp. 1088-1089.]
7. As this year specially dedicated to the Blessed Virgin is now drawing to a close, I wish to exhort all to join in unceasing prayer, which the vicar of Christ, through the intercession of the mother of the Church, addresses to the Father in the very words of the Son: "That they all may be one!" Given at Rome, at St. Peter's, July 2, 1988, the 10th year of the pontificate. John Paul II

NOTES
  1. Cf. "Informatory Note" of 16 June 1988: L'Osservatore Romano, English edition, 27 June 1988, pp. 1-2.
  2. Cf. Vatican Council I, Const. Pastor Aeternus, cap. 3: DS 3060.
  3. Cf. Code of Canon Law, can. 751.
  4. Cf. Code of Canon Law, can. 1382.
  5. Cf. Vatican Council II, Const. Dei Verbum, n. 8. Cf. Vatican Council I, Const. Dei Filius, cap. 4: DS 3020.
  6. Cf. Mt. 16:18; Vatican Council I, Const. Pastor Aeternus, cap. 3: DS 3060. Vatican Council I, Const. De Filius, cap. 4: DS 3020.
  7. Cf. Cf. Code of Canon Law, can. 386; Paul VI, Apostol. Exhort. Quinque iam anni, 8 Dec. 1970: AAS 63 (1971), pp. 97-106.
  8. Cf. Code of Canon Law, can. 1364.
  9. Cf. Congregation for Divine Worship, Letter Quattuor abhinc annos, 3 Oct. 1984: AAS 76 (1984), pp. 1088-1089.
Source: http://www.newadvent.org/docs/jp02ed.htm



USA APOSTOLIC NUNCIATURE to Mrs. PATRICIA MORLEY

Apostolic Nunciature    3339 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W. 
United States of America Washington,               D.C. 20008-3687.
June 28, 1993 No. 10311

Ms. Patricia Morley
1206 Ulipii Street
Kailua, Oahu, HI 96863

Dear Ms Morley: Upon instructions of His Eminence, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Prefect, Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, I perform the duty to communicate the following reply which I just received from him regarding the recourse submitted first by you and then by four other persons against the Decree of declaration of schism given on May 1, 1991 by His Excellency, the Most Reverend Joseph A. Ferrario, Bishop of Honolulu.

    1. From the examination of the case, conducted on the basis of the Law of the Church, it did not result that the facts 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 therefore the Congregation holds that the Decree of may 1, 1991 lacks foundation and hence validity.

    2. At the same time the Congregation for the Doctrine of the faith holds that
  • - those same facts referred to in the Decree [of Excommunication] on the whole do not conform to the liturgical and canonical norms;
  • - the five petitioners with their behavior cause grave nuisance, putting in danger the common good of the local Church;
  • - and therefore the local Bishop can avail himself of Canon 1373 of the Code of Canon Law, imposing upon them the foreseen punishment of interdict or other penalties, either medicinal or expiatory.
    With kind regards and very best wishes, I am Sincerely in Christ, [Signature illegible] Apostolic Pro-Nuncio Source: "The ANGELUS," August 1993.



"ECCLESIA "DEI" Pontifical Commission's Msgr Camille Perl
Reply to Scott Windsor

PONTIFICIA COMMISSIO ECCLESIA DEI
N. 117/95
Rome, 29 September 1995
Mr. Scott M. Windsor, Sr.
P. O. Box 11502
Prescott, Arizona 86304-1502
U.S.A. Dear Mr. Windsor, Thank you for your letter of 4 September 1995 addressed to His Eminence Cardinal Ratzinger. It has been transmitted to this Pontifical Commission as dealing with matters related to our particular competence. We are aware of the lack of authorized celebrations of the Mass according to the 1962 Roman Missal in the Diocese of Phoenix and we can appreciate your desire to assist at the traditional Mass. We also recognize your earnest desire to remain in full communion with the Successor of Peter and the members of the Church subject to him, a desire which obviously prompted you to write this letter. In order to answer your questions we must explain the Church's present evaluation of the situation of the Society of St. Pius X. There is no doubt about the validity of the ordination of the priests of the Society of St. Pius X. They are, however, suspended "a divinis", that is prohibited by the Church from exercising their orders because of their illicit ordination. The Masses they celebrate are also valid, but it is considered morally illicit for the faithful to participate in these Masses unless they are physically or morally impeded from participating in a Mass celebrated by a Catholic priest in good standing (cf. Code of Canon Law, canon 844.2 ). The fact of not being able to assist at the celebration of the so-called "Tridentine" Mass is not considered a sufficient motive for attending such Masses. While it is true that the participation in the Mass and sacraments at the chapels of the Society of St. Pius X does not of itself constitute "formal adherence to the schism", such adherence can come about over a period of time as one slowly imbibes a mentality which separates itself from the magisterium of the Supreme Pontiff. Father Peter R. Scott, District Superior of the Society in the United States, has publicly stated that he deplores the "liberalism" of "those who refuse to condemn the New Mass as absolutely offensive to God, or the religious liberty and ecumenism of the postconcilliar church." With such an attitude the Society of St. Pius X is effectively tending to establish its own canons of orthodoxy and hence to separate itself from the magisterium of the Supreme Pontiff. According to canon 751 such "refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or the communion of the members of the Church subject to him" constitute schism. Hence we cannot encourage your participation in the Masses, the sacraments or other services conducted under the aegis of the Society of St. Pius X. The situation of at least one of the "independent" priests in the Diocese of Phoenix to whom you allude is somewhat different. He and the community which he serves have declared their desire to regularize their situation and have taken some initial steps to do so. Let us pray that this may soon be accomplished. Finally, we may say that "the Hawaiian case" resulted in a judgment that the former Bishop of Honolulu did not have grounds to excommunicate the persons involved, but this judgment does not confer the Church's approbation upon the Society of St. Pius X or those who frequent their chapels. With prayerful best wishes, I remain
Sincerely yours in Christ,
Msgr. Camille Perl
Secretary


Source 1: http://www.cpats.org/CPATSAnswerDirectory/Answers_to_Questions/2000AugTheStandingOfTheSSPX.cfm
Source 2: http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CEDSSPX.HTM

THE PONTIFICAL COUNCIL FOR THE INTERPRETATION OF LEGISLATIVE TEXTS
On The Excommunication of Followers of Archbishop Lefebvre

The Excommunication of Followers of Archbishop Lefebvre

Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts

Annexe to Prot.N. 5233/96
NOTE: On the excommunication for schism which the adherents to the movement of Bishop Marcel Lefebvre incur.
  1. From the Motu Proprio "Ecclesia dei" of 2nd July 1988 and from the Decree "Dominus Marcellus Lefebvre" of the Congregation for Bishops, of 1st July 1988, it appears above all that the schism of Monsignor Lefebvre was declared in immediate reaction to the episcopal ordinations conferred on 30th June 1988 without pontifical mandate (cf CIC, Can. 1382). All the same it also appears clear from the aforementioned documents that such a most grave act of disobedience formed the consummation of a progressive global situation of a schismatic character.
  2. In effect no. 4. of the Motu Proprio explains the nature of the "doctrinal root of this schismatic act," and no. 5. c) warns that a "formal adherence to the schism" (by which one must understand "the movement of Archbishop Lefebvre") would bring with it the excommunication established by the universal law of the Church (CIC, can. 1364 para.1). Also the decree of the Congregation for Bishops makes explicit reference to the "schismatic nature" of the aforesaid episcopal ordinations and mentions the most grave penalty of excommunication which adherence "to the schism of Monsignor Lefebvre" would bring with it.
  3. Unfortunately, the schismatic act which gave rise to the Motu Proprio and the Decree did no more than draw to a conclusion, in a particularly visible and unequivocal manner — with a most grave formal act of disobedience to the Roman Pontiff — a process of distancing from hierarchical communion. As long as there are no changes which may lead to the re-establishment of this necessary communion, the whole Lefebvrian movement is to be held schismatic, in view of the existence of a formal declaration by the Supreme Authority on this matter.
  4. One cannot furnish any judgement on the argumentation of Murray's thesis (see below) because it is not known, and the two articles which refer to it appear confused. However, doubt cannot reasonably be cast upon the validity of the excommunication of the Bishops declared in the Motu Proprio and the Decree. In particular it does not seem that one may be able to find, as far as the imputability of the penalty is concerned, any exempting or lessening circumstances. (cf CIC, can. 1323) As far as the state of necessity in which Mons. Lefebvre thought to find himself, one must keep before one that such a state must be verified objectively, and there is never a necessity to ordain Bishops contrary to the will of the Roman Pontiff, Head of the College of Bishops. This would, in fact, imply the possibility of "serving" the church by means of an attempt against its unity in an area connected with the very foundations of this unity.
  5. As the Motu Proprio declares in no. 5 c) the excommunication latae sententiae for schism regards those who "adhere formally" to the said schismatic movement. Even if the question of the exact import of the notion of "formal adherence to the schism" would be a matter for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, it seems to this pontifical Council that such formal adherence would have to imply two complementary elements:

    1. a) one of internal nature, consisting in a free and informed agreement with the substance of the schism, in other words, in the choice made in such a way of the followers of Archbishop Lefebvre which puts such an option above obedience to the Pope (at the root of this attitude there will usually be positions contrary to the magisterium of the Church),
    2. b) the other of an external character, consisting in the externalising of this option, the most manifest sign of which will be the exclusive participation in Lefebvrian "ecclesial" acts, without taking part in the acts of the Catholic Church (one is dealing however with a sign that is not univocal, since there is the possibility that a member of the faithful may take part in the liturgical functions of the followers of Lefebvre but without going along with their schismatic spirit).
  6. in the case of the Lefebvrian deacons and priests there seems no doubt that their ministerial activity in the ambit of the schismatic movement is a more than evident sign of the fact that the two requirements mentioned above (n.5) are met, and thus that there is a formal adherence.
  7. in the other hand, in the case of the rest of the faithful it is obvious that an occasional participation in liturgical acts or the activity of the Lefebvrian movement, done without making one's own the attitude of doctrinal and disciplinary disunion of such a movement, does not suffice for one to be able to speak of formal adherence to the movement. In pastoral practice the result can be that it is more difficult to judge their situation. One must take account above all of the person's intentions, and the putting into practice of this internal disposition. For this reason the various situations are going to be judged case by case, in the competent forums both internal and external.
  8. All the same, it will always be necessary to distinguish between the moral question on the existence or not of the sin of schism and the juridical-penal question on the existence of the delict of schism, and its consequent sanction. In this latter case the dispositions of Book V1 of the Code of Canon Law (including Cann.1323-1324) will be applied.
  9. It does not seem advisable to make more precise the requirements for the delict of schism (but one would need to ask the competent Dicastery, cf. Ap. Const. "Pastor Bonus", art 52). One might risk creating more problems by means of rigid norms of a penal kind which would not cover every case, leaving uncovered cases of substantial schism, or having regard to external behaviour which is not always subjectively schismatic.
  10. Always from the pastoral point of view it would also seem opportune to recommend once again to sacred pastors all the norms of the Motu Proprio "Ecclesia Dei" with which the solicitude of the Vicar of Christ encouraged to dialogue and has provided the supernatural and human means necessary to facilitate the return of the Lefebvrians to full ecclesial communion.
Vatican City, 24th August 1996.

Comment — Although dated August 1996, presumably its publication early in 1998 was in view, at least in part, of the forthcoming tenth anniversary of the Consecrations and the issuing of the Motu Proprio and Decree. While initiatives taken under their auspices have had a positive impact, with a number of new religious institutes, and flourishing vocations, now in full communion with the Holy See, and increasingly welcomed by diocesan bishops in some parts of the world, it is also true that there are many places where little attention has been given to its implementation. Moreover while the Lefebvrist movement has had some set backs, the number of adherents has not diminished significantly. A recent book to mark twenty five years of the Society of St Pius X in Britain (R.Warwick, The Living Flame, London 1997) indicates that there are some twenty Lefebvrist church buildings in Great Britain at present, with some 2000 regular worshippers. In the United States the situation is more extensive and much more varied, with many independent priests and chapels, as well as more extremely sedevacantist groups such as the Society of St Pius X (sic - Ed. note) and the Mount St Michael Community. The question of apostolic succession has also become more complex. The fissiparous nature of such groups means that not all their orders are derived from Archbishop Lefebvre. Some, having departed from the Society of St Pius X, have obtained orders or episcopal consecration from Archbishop Ngo Dinh Thuc, or his successors, Bishop Alfred Mendez (formerly of Arecibo), or from Old Catholic and similar sources. For details of the American scene one should consult M. Cuneo. The Smoke of Satan, New York 1997, a book which is informative if irritatingly discursive. Supporters of the Society of St Pius X frequently distribute leaflets containing highly selective or tendentious quotations. One, for example, claims that the Society is neither schismatic nor excommunicated. Generally the line of argument is that since Archbishop Lefebvre was not schismatic, he was not excommunicated, and a fortiori neither were any of his followers. The leaflet quotes Cardinal Castillo Lara to the effect that consecrating a bishop without the Pope's permission is not in itself a schismatic act. It continues that merely to consecrate bishops, without intending to set up an alternative hierarchy in the jurisdictional sense is not an act of schism. Several canonists are quoted as endorsing these views, Count Neri Capponi, an advocate accredited to the Signatura, Professor Geringer of Munich University, Fr. Patrick Valdini, Professor of Canon Law at the Catholic Institute of Paris, and Fr. Gerald Murray who presented his thesis on the subject at the Gregorian University. Reference is also made to the decision of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, dated 28th June 1993, that the excommunication imposed on followers of Archbishop Lefebvre on 1st May 1991 by Bishop Ferraio of Hawaii was invalid since there had been no schismatic acts in the strict sense. One cannot be certain as to the accuracy of such quotations, at least in terms of completeness. For example the decree mentioned added a rider that there were other grounds on which the Bishop could take action. I am not aware whether Fr.Murray's thesis has been published, but it would appear that the Council had been sent not the thesis but two articles published in the Fall issue of "Latin Mass" magazine. The first was an interview with Fr .Murray conducted by Roger McCaffrey (pp.50-55). The second was a summary of the thesis prepared by Steven Terenzio (pp.55-61). Murray's first line of argument appears to be that the lay followers of Society of St Pius X do not incur the excommunication, because only an external violation of a law or precept can be subject to a canonical penalty (art.cit. p.56), and there must be grave imputability. The warnings contained in the Motu Proprio give no specific indications as to what constitutes "adherence," making liability to penalty at least open to doubt. A second line of argument is that the Archbishop denied schism, and that simple disobedience does not constitute schism, only systematic and habitual refusal of dependence. A third line of argument is that an erroneous view that necessity justified his action would have made his action culpable, but removed canonical malice and therefore liability to excommunication (canon 1323 7o). His argument in effect is that the provisions of the 1983 Code are so exigent for imputability to be proved and a penalty incurred, that the Archbishop and his followers escape by virtue of the very postconciliar legislation they so oppose. "On the other hand, Canon 209 prescribes: 'Para. 1. Christ's faithful are bound to preserve their communion with the Church at all times, even in their external actions. Para.2 They are to carry out with great diligence their responsibilities towards both the universal Church and the particular Church to which by law they belong.' It is obvious that a lay person who exclusively frequents chapels directed by suspended priests of the Society of St Pius X, which operate without the permission of either the local or the universal Church, is not, in fact, at the very least, living in external communion with the Church. Thus we have the anomalous situation of a group of faithful who are in fact in some real way living apart from real communion with the Church, but who are almost certainly not subject to the canonical penalties intended to discourage and punish such behaviour." (cited from Terenzio, art. cit. p.61). The Note was clearly prepared as a reply to the arguments of this kind (cf. n.4). The suggestion that there might be any doubt cast upon the excommunication declared by the Congregation for Bishops in the case of the Archbishop and those he consecrated is given short shrift. It might be worth remembering that the penalty was raised to excommunication because of the creation of the Patriotic Catholic Association in China, and consecration of Bishops without a mandate. The 1917 Code (canon 2370) had provided only for suspension. Historically the situation had arisen in Latin America when difficult travel conditions had delayed the arrival of the mandate, and a planned consecration had gone ahead without it, but with no schismatic intent. Here the situation was quite different, and although the intention might not have been to set up an alternative jurisdiction, only to provide for the sacraments, de facto that is what was already happening. Moreover since the protocol originally signed by Archbishop Lefebvre actually provided for the consecration of one Bishop, necessity could hardly be argued. The Note then turns to those whose excommunication has not been declared; the clergy and faithful associated with the Society of St Pius X. The Council prescind from any decision that might be made by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, but sets out two general legal criteria that would be required for "formal adherence." The first is an internal criterion, one of intention. An external violation of a law cannot incur a penalty where there is inculpable ignorance, inadvertence or error with regard to violating the law (can. 1323 2°). Equally the penalty must be reduced where the person was unaware of the penalty, through no fault of their own, or lacked full imputability (can. 1324 9° & 10°). There is a requirement of schismatic intention, that is freely and consciously accepting the substance of the schism, that is putting one's personal choice above obedience to the Pope. Generally, this will be characterised by an habitual stance contrary to the Magisterium of the Church. The second criterion is external, the external effect given to this choice. The most obvious sign of this is to attend solely and exclusively those celebrations conducted by followers of Archbishop Lefebvre, and eschewing those of the mainstream Church, not only local Bishop and clergy, but, for example, those legitimately using the 1962 liturgical books, such as the Fraternity of St Peter. To a degree the Council is accepting the argumentation presented by Fr.Murray in that an external violation of the law is required not simply a supposed internal attitude of mind, and that more is required subjectively than attendance even habitually at Lefebvrist centres or celebrations. The latter is compatible with an internal disposition which still accepts the authority of the Pope. However, it parts company with him in that it argues that the disobedience involved in aligning oneself with the Lefebvrists itself implies a schismatic intention, even though one might not formally reject the authority of the Pope or local Bishop. Such a position is logically inconsistent, and one must ask what is the prevalent intention in a particular case. The Note points out that one must distinguish between the moral question of the sin of schism, and the legal question of a delict and its imputability. Once there has been an external violation, imputability is presumed until it appears otherwise (can. 1321 para 3). The onus is on the person to establish elements removing or reducing imputability. In the internal forum there is no such presumption. This means that in the case of lay people, their position will often be difficult to discern. In this situation one must have a mind to the liberty guaranteed by canon 18. In the case of clergy, their external involvement in the ministry in the ambit of the schismatic movement is itself sufficient evidence that both internal and external criteria for formal adherence have been fulfilled. However, such a censure is undeclared and therefore subject to the limits mentioned in canons 1331 and 1335. While the document speaks of Lefebvrists, it does not refer by name to the Society of St Pius X, and so the criteria should be applied also to other similar groups that are associated with the Archbishop's followers, religious communities, the dissident clergy of the Diocese of Campos in Brazil, but also others, such as those mentioned above, who hold similar positions, even though their hierarchs may not have been declared excommunicated. It does not apply to those who belong to groups whose position has been regularised by the Commission Ecclesia Dei, or established by the authority of the local Bishop of Scranton on 24th May 1998. The position of 'freelance' clerics, retired or otherwise released from their Diocese, but not subject to any other penalty, who are operating chapels without reference to the local Bishop, or in defiance of his known wishes would have to be judged on their individual merits. In some cases it may be the Bishop rather than the cleric who is not open to dialogue about regularising their situation in accordance with the provisions of the Motu Proprio. The same may be true for groups of lay people seeking spiritual provision in the form of chaplaincy, and who have availed of the services of a priest or bishop whose situation is irregular. While there might be a direct approach to the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, the latter is reluctant to force Bishops' hands and prefers to work by persuasion. 15th July 1998 Rev. Gordon F.Read Fr. Michael Brown, Assistant Judicial Vicar, Hexham & Newcastle Diocesan Tribunal Fr. Michael Brown was not one of the authors of the British Commentary on the text, rather he was the one who put it into e-text and sent it out to the other Traditional canonists on the net.) Source: http://www.petersnet.net/browse/1224.htm and
http://www.ourladyswarriors.org/dissent/eccldei.htm



Please continue to Part 2






Return to Summary of Ecclesiastical Documents on the SSPX Schism and Excommunication

Sean Ó Lachtnáin's Home Page




Posted by at
Labels:

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)