Have you see the media brochure released by the SSPX about the lifting of the excommunications?
Here are some lines, but you can see it yourself.
- Some facts about the 1988 excommunications
- In this new atmosphere, we have the firm hope to obtain soon the recognition of the rights of Catholic Tradition
- On June 30, 1988, he consecrates four SSPX priests as bishops to ensure the survival of Catholic Tradition. Contrary to canon law, he is subsequently declared to have excommunicated himself by this action. [No mention of the fact that he had met with Card. Ratzinger in 1988, signed an agreement, and then went back on it that same night. Instead, this is described as…]
- Discussions with a Modernist Rome having failed,
- On June 30, 1988, he consecrates four SSPX priests as bishops to ensure the survival of Catholic Tradition. Contrary to canon law, he is subsequently declared to have excommunicated himself by this action. [Contrary to Canon Law? They defy the Roman Pontiff’s wishes in this matter and they are in the right?]
- 2000 – to the present
The Superior General, Bishop Bernard Fellay, prudently maintains contacts with Rome while insisting on the doctrinal balance which Archbishop Lefebvre himself demonstrated.
- The Excommunications: Why They Never Existed [So… just what is their real attitude about the lifting of the excommunications? Is this just a matter of saying, for them, "we were right all along"? Is is any sense that there was a wrong involved? I would like to know more about the "study" done in the Vatican about lifting the censures.]
- 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? [What sort of attitude is this?]
[Here is the really interesting part….]
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.
This is an argument. I would like to know if this is what was determined in the study done by the Holy See before the Holy Father lifted the censures.
- Going on…
- Was the SSPX ever in a State of Schism?
- Disobedience does not amount to schism. [That’s something, at least.]
- THE 1974 DECLARATION OF ARCHBISHOP LEFEBVRE – Made on November 21, 1974