www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Excommunication of SSPX Bishops are lifted

I'd like to make the following initial observations:


1) The decree simply lifts the censure of excommunication and deprives it of any effect as of January 21, 2009. There is silence on whether the original decree of excommunication imposed on July 1, 1988 was valid, and the decree seems to imply that yes, it was. Take note that the decree neither declares the excommunications null and void from the beginning, nor does it mention any posthumous rehabilitation of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer. Thus, the Pope has struck a middle course: lift the excommunications as desired by the SSPX, without declaring the excommunications to have been invalid from the beginning.

Had Pope Benedict XVI declared the excommunications invalid from the beginning, that would have been seen as a massive slap to the face of the late Pope John Paul II. Of course, he did not do that. I don't think he could have been expected to do that in the first place, whatever his actual opinions on the matter may have been.

2) The decree mentions that the Pope did this out of his "paternal sensitivity" to the pain suffered by the four bishops because of the excommunications, out of his desire for unity among the faithul, and in the hope that by thus lifting the burden of excommunication from the four bishops, the SSPX will be moved to reconcile with the Holy See. It is clear that the Pope is now extending the utmost mercy and clemency to the SSPX; I hope that the world's bishops will take note and follow suit. At the same time, I pray that the SSPX's hardliners will not abuse the Pope's amazing generosity.

3) The lifting of the excommunications on the SSPX bishops does not signify that the SSPX is back in full communion with the Holy See. This is clear from the wording of the decree:

"It is hoped that this step be followed by the prompt accomplishment of full communion with the Church of the entire Fraternity of Saint Pius X, thus testifying true fidelity and true recognition of the Magisterium and of the authority of the Pope with the proof of visible unity."


Basically, what the Pope is saying is: "Ok, SSPX bishops, I've removed your excommunications. It is now up to you to reconcile with the the Church". It will be interesting to see what the SSPX will now do. The ball is in their court now. So, the SSPX bishops are NOT YET bishops in good standing; but they are now Catholic bishops, that is for sure.

All these seem to imply that the suspension a divinis remains for all SSPX priests and bishops.


4) Interestingly, the Holy See is referring to:


"..trusting in the effort expressed by them in the aforementioned letter of not sparing any effort to deepen the necessary discussions with the Authority of the Holy See in the still open matters, so as to achieve shortly a full and satisfactory solution of the problem posed in the origin..."


This signifies that the Holy See is now willing to open talks with the SSPX to resolve the SSPX's difficulties with Vatican II, provided that these discussions will touch only on "still open matters." This refers to the SSPX's demand for "dialogue" on doctrinal matters with Rome.


The SSPX has always made clear that it will not reconcile with Rome unless Rome rejects Vatican II's "errors and ambiguities" . However, in the SSPX's response to this decree, Bishop Bernard Fellay has considerably toned down his position, simply stating that the SSPX has "some reservations" on Vatican II. I find this to be very hopeful.

The fact is that not only the SSPX, but many thoughtful non-Trad Catholics have long wrestled with the question of how to reconcile Vatican II and the post-1965 Magisterium with the pre-Vatican II Magisterium. Hermeneutic of continuity notwithstanding, it is still necessary to actually demonstrate this continuity -- with clarity and without ambiguity -- between Vatican II and what came before it, instead of merely making an act of faith that it is there. To this end, I think that all Catholics should eagerly await the dialogue between Rome and the SSPX. The decree refers to "still open matters", thus implying that at least some of the post-Conciliar changes on which SSPX wants to have a discussion are, indeed, open to reconsideration. However, the very wording of the decree also makes clear that Rome expects the SSPX to promptly come back to full communion.

Asianpilgrim,

By declaring the excommunications of 1988 to now be without any juridical effect, doesn't that mean that Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop de Castro Mayer have also had the excommunications lifted on them as well? There is some debate over at Rorate Caeli's comments page over whether excommunications cease at death or not.

Alexis

Excellent points and analysis. Indeed the Holy Father has now played his hand and upped the pot.

I would posit that something cannot be lifted that was invalid or not in force, thus Pope Benedict indeed quite explicitly verified the efficacy of the original excommunication simply by his act of lifting.

It is a sort of one-two punch ecclesiastically; Pope John Paul II did what was the canonical necessity for any bishop flagrantly violating the jurisdictional authority of Rome; the SSPX realizes itself the gravity of the situation, namely that the excommunications have force, otherwise they would not continue to ask that they be lifted; and now Pope Benedict gives them the choice - either the papal magnanimity for them to freely and quickly reconcile or hands them enough rope to complete the job of separation by their own volition.

It is clear from the June and previous negotiations that an outright rejection of Vatican II and the jurisdcitional authority of Rome will simply not be an option - otherwise this decree would have been much different in tone.

How the SSPX reconciles this will be interesting, and unfortunately not likely to bring agreement between the four bishops on how to accomplish these reconciliations. May the Holy Spirit guide all during these challenges.

The answer is no.

I quote from Rorate Caeli [rorate-caeli.blogspot.com]'s translation the Decree of the Congregation of Bishops:


This means that the excommunication of Bishops Fellay, Tissier de Mallerais, Williamson and de Galarreta was in effect from July 1, 1988, to January 21, 2009, but has now been lifted. Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop de Castro Mayer, having died in the meantime, have gone to answer to God for their actions, and are not mentioned at all.

Source:

Decree of the Congregation for Bishops [rorate-caeli.blogspot.com]

But the part I was referring to was the" ...while I declare DEPRIVED OF ANY JURIDICAL EFFECT...the Decree emanated at that time."

Alexis

ALEXIS:

You can't rehabilitate the dead--unless you're a Mormon.

If you go to your grave under excommunication, you are separated from the Church Militant and, some would argue, from the possibility of being part of the Church Triumphant, given the Lord's giving the Church the Power of the Keys. While some would argue that excommunication is simply an earthly matter of Church discipline, I've read arguments that make the case for it being something far more serious and having eternal consequences. This latter position doesn't seem to have much traction with modern Catholic thought as far as I'm able to find, but it has been expressed in the past and gives me pause when people take it lightly or treat it with an earthly legalistic attitude.

I wonder in this direction based on matter my bishop preached about at my son's confirmation many years ago. He said that Pope John Paul II had requested bishops warn parents who attempt to block religious vocations in thier children that he intended to block their entry into the Kingdom through his won authroity as keeper of the Keys. Now that hit many of us in the congregation rather hard. I, for one, hadn't heard of any tough statements like this since the end of the Vatican Council. But our bishop contineus to preach this sermon time and again. So I'm sitting here wondering. Jesus did say that what was bound on earth woudl be bound in Heaven.

In Christ,

BOB

It is important to understand that according to the Code of Canon Law of the Latin Church, no bishop can consecrate another bishop without a pontifical mandate.


Therefore, Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop de Castro Mayer, together with the four bishops they consecrated on June 30, 1988, were automatically (latae sententiae) and immediately excommunicated because of what they had done.

This automatic and immediate excommunication was confirmed the next day, July 1, by the Congregation of Bishops, and on July 2 by Pope John Paul II personally in his apostolic letter "Ecclesia Dei."

The fact that the excommunication is "reserved to the Apostolic See" means that it can only be lifted by mandate of the Pope. This is what has now happened.

An excommunication which is reserved to the Apostolic See can be lifted if the Pope judges that there are good reasons for doing so. In this case, the Pope has clearly judged that the situation has changed because of the letter sent by Bishop Fellay to Card. Castrillón Hoyos on December 15, 2008.

The "censure of latae sententiae excommunication declared by this Congregation on July 1, 1988" is "deprived of any juridical effect, from the present date." In other words, the excommunication was only "declared" on July 1, 1988. In fact it took effect immediately on June 30, 1988. Also, it is "deprived of any juridical effect, from the present date" (my italics), i.e. from January 21, 2009.

I understand this to mean that the excommunication was in full force from June 30, 1988, until January 21, 2009.

Finally, the decree of January 21, 2009, expresses the hope "that this step [the lifting of the excommunication] be followed by the prompt accomplishment of full communion with the Church of the entire Fraternity of Saint Pius X." In other words, the lifting of the excommunication does not mean that the SSPX and its four bishops are now in full communion with the Catholic Church, but it is a step in that direction.

Sources:

• Code of Canon Law. [vatican.va]
• John Paul II, apostolic letter "[i]Ecclesia Dei[/i]." [vatican.va]
• Decree of the Congregation of Bishops, January 21, 2009. [rorate-caeli.blogspot.com]

Latin Catholic,

Yes. I agree. Have we misunderstood each other? Do you think I disagree with you?

Alexis

I was under the impression that we disagreed, but it is quite possible that I have misunderstood you. Do you believe

(1) that the excommunication has been declared null and void, i.e. that it never was valid in the first place, or

(2) that the excommunication was valid, but has been lifted with effect from January 21, 2009?

I believe (2) is the correct interpretation. If that is your view too, then we agree and I apologize for misunderstanding you and for my tendency to pontificate at length about canon law etc.

I think from the Holy See's point of view, #2 is correct, and that the SSPX believes #1, of course. I really don't care which one is right or wrong now, since both parties agree as of today, the excommunications don't apply.

Is that good enough?

Alexis

The Holy See is right (of course)

But I agree the point is now moot and it is possible to move forward.

If you are interested in the history of the Lefebvrist schism, I would recommend the following rather extensive study by Father William Woestman OMI:

The Canonical History of the Lefebvrist Schism [web.archive.org]

Thank you for the link! I'll check it out.

Alexis

Fr. Zuhlsdorf over at his blog has put up a pretty good post about some common questions that may result from the lifting of these excommunications:

http://wdtprs.com/blog/2009/01/misconceptions-what-the-lifting-of-the-sspx-excoms-means-for-people/

Alexis

It would appear that this has no effect whatever on certain disruptive break-away groups in Ukraine who are interfering with the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church and who derive their ordinations from Lefebvrist sources.

Fr. Serge

Shlomo Lkhoolkhoon,

Bishop Richard Williamson, is a confirmed Holocaust denier. So we now have not only liberal Catholics up in arms, but also Jews.

My question is why did the Pope not just skip over "bishop" Richard? Is bringing him in worth the trouble he will cause the Church?

Fush BaShlomo Lkhoolkhoon,
Yuhannon