|
|
QUESTION 11
Wasn't ARCHBISHOP LEFEBVRE excommunicated for
consecrating bishops unlawfully? |
|
| JUNE 29, 1987 Archbishop
Marcel Lefebvre, experiencing failing health, aware of his
episcopal duty to pass on the Catholic Faith
and seeing no other way of assuring the continued ordination of truly Catholic
priests, decided to consecrate bishops and announced that, if necessary, he will
do so even without the pope’s permission. |
 |
|
Above:
"Operation
Survival" on June 30th 1988. From left to right:
Bishops de Galleretta, Tissier de Mallerais, de Castro
Mayer, Archbishop Lefebvre, and Bishops Williamson and Fellay |
|
|
|
| |
|
 |
|
The
four new bishops after receiving their crosiers and being
enthroned |
|
|
JUNE 17, 1988
Cardinal Gantin, Prefect of the
Congregation for Bishops, officially warned the
Archbishop that, in virtue of canon 1382 (1983 Code
of Canon Law), he and the bishops
consecrated by him would be excommunicated for
proceeding without pontifical mandate and thereby
infringing the laws of sacred discipline. |
|
|
|
JUNE 30, 1988 Archbishop Lefebvre, together with
Bishop de Castro
Mayer, consecrated four bishops.
JULY 1, 1988
Cardinal Gantin declared the threatened excommunication (according to canon 1382) to have been incurred. He also called the consecrations a schismatic act and declared the corresponding excommunication (canon 1364 §1), as well as threatening anyone supporting the consecrations with excommunication because of
“schism".
JULY 2, 1988
In Ecclesia Dei Afflicta, the
pope repeated Cardinal Gantin’s
accusation of schismatic mentality and threatened generalized excommunications (cf.
QUESTION
12).
Now, the excommunication warned of on June 17, for abuse of episcopal powers (canon 1382), was not incurred because: |
 |
|
Bishop de
Castro Mayer
gives a brief sermon during
which he declares that his
participation in the ceremonies
serves as a profession of Faith. |
|
|
|
-
A person who violates a law out of necessity* is not subject to a penalty
(1983 Code of Canon Law, canon 1323, §4), even if there is no state of
necessity1:
-
if one inculpably thought there was, he would not incur the penalty
(canon 1323, 70),
-
and if one culpably thought there was, he would still incur no automatic
penalties2 (canon 1324, §3; §1, 80).
|
FOOTNOTES
FOR ITEM 1
*
("The
state of necessity, as it is explained by jurists, is a state in which the
necessary goods for natural or supernatural life are so threatened that
one is morally compelled to break the law in order to save them."
(Is Tradition Excommunicated? p. 26 [APPENDIX
II])
1
And yet objectively there is. (Cf. Is Tradition
Excommunicated?
pp.27-36 [APPENDIX II])
2
Excommunication for unlawful consecrations (canon 1382) or schism
(canon 1364) are of this kind. |
-
No penalty is ever incurred without committing a subjective mortal sin (canons 1321 §1, 1323 70). Now, Archbishop Lefebvre made it amply clear that he was bound in conscience to do what he could do to continue the Catholic priesthood and that he was obeying God in going ahead with the
consecrations (Cf. the
Sermon of June 30,
1988, and Archbishop
Lefebvre and the Vatican, p. 136 [APPENDIX
II]). Hence, even if he had been wrong, there would be no subjective sin.
-
Most importantly, positive law is at the service of the natural and eternal law and ecclesiastical law is at that of the divine law
(PRINCIPLE
8). No “authority,” [PRINCIPLE
9] can force a bishop to compromise in his teaching of Catholic faith or administering of Catholic sacraments. No “law,” can force him to cooperate in the destruction of the Church. With Rome giving no guarantee of preserving Catholic Tradition, Archbishop Lefebvre had to do what he could with his God-given episcopal powers to guarantee its preservation.
This was his duty as a bishop.
-
The Church’s approving the SSPX
(QUESTION
2) allow it what it needs for its
own preservation. This includes the service of bishops who will guarantee to
maintain Catholic tradition.
|
|
MORE
ARTICLES RELATED TO THIS TOPIC |
|
THE
1988 CONSECRATIONS: A Theological Study; Parts I - III
Taken from the July & September 1999 editions of SI
SI NO NO
THE 1988 CONSECRATIONS: A Canonical Study: Parts I - III
Taken from the November 1999, January
2000, & March 2000 editions of SI SI NO NO
A CANONICAL STUDY
German canonist Fr. Rudolph Kaschewsky briefly explains in this July
1988 article how the 1988
Consecrations did not incur excommunication, nor were they a schismatic
act
FR. SCHMIDBERGER'S CONFERENCE ON THE SSPX'S NEGOTIATIONS WITH ROME
Given on
February 22, 2001 in Kansas City, MO
ROME, SSPX, CAMPOS,
ASSISI, ETC.
A conference given by Bishop Fellay in Kansas City, MO on March 5,
2002 |
SSPX UPDATE
A two-part conference given by Bishop Fellay conference given on
December 19, 2002 In Kansas City, MO. The first part deals
with the SSPX and Rome, while the second deals with the SSPX's
overseas missionary work
ONE YEAR AFTER THE CONSECRATIONS
An interview made by Fideliter
with Archbishop Lefebvre about the state of the SSPX, the Church
and Catholic Tradition one year after the 1988 Consecrations
TWO YEARS AFTER THE CONSECRATIONS
A conference given by Archbishop Lefebvre on September 6, 1990 to his
priests in Econe, Switzerland that brilliantly summarizes the reasons
for the Society's position and the status of Catholic Tradition in light
of the 1988 Consecrations
JUNE 1988 LETTER TO
POPE JOHN PAUL II FROM THE SUPERIORS OF THE SSPX
Summarizes the causes of the
failure of the 1987-88 discussions with Rome and that the papal
mandate for consecrating a bishop was implicitly given |
|
|
|
| |
|
