Excommunications of SSPX Bishops lifted

[furay]

CONGREGATIO PRO EPISCOPIS

By way of a letter of December 15, 2008 addressed to His Eminence Cardinal Dario Castrillón Hoyos, President of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, Mons. Bernard Fellay, also in the name of the other three Bishops consecrated on June 30, 1988, requested anew the removal of the latae sententiae excommunication formally declared with the Decree of the Prefect of this Congregation on July 1, 1988. In the aforementioned letter, Mons. Fellay affirms, among other things: "We are always firmly determined in our will to remain Catholic and to place all our efforts at the service of the Church of Our Lord Jesus Christ, which is the Roman Catholic Church. We accept its teachings with filial animus. We believe firmly in the Primacy of Peter and in its prerogatives, and for this the current situation makes us suffer so much."

His Holiness Benedict XVI - paternally sensitive to the spiritual unease manifested by the interested party due to the sanction of excommunication and faithful 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 - decided to reconsider the canonical situation of Bishops Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson, and Alfonso de Galarreta, arisen with their episcopal consecration.

With this act, it is desires to consolidate the reciprocal relations of confidence and to intensify and grant stability to the relationship of the Fraternity of Saint Pius X with this Apostolic See. This gift of peace, at the end of the Christmas celebrations, wishes also to be a sign to promote unity in the charity of the universal Church and to try to end the scandal of division.

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.

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 date.


Rome, from the Congregation for Bishops, January 21, 2009.

Card. Giovanni Battista Re
Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops

This is HUGE. Laus Deo!!!!!

[One Bad Pig]

Why were they excommunicated?

[Adam]

Why were they excommunicated?

"Wow, "I thought, "he's never heard of Cardinal Lebebvre and his schism?"
Then I noticed that the late cardinal is never mentioned in this letter--no doubt by intention.
Thus the Holy See can hold to the wrongness of Lefebvre's consecration of four bishops for the SSPX in 1988, but reconcile with the bishops that the Vatican has always held hold valid orders, even though illicit orders. (Illicit because never approved by the Pope.)
Adam

[One Bad Pig]

No, I've never heard of it. My awareness of things Catholic in 1988 was nil. I *might* have known that John Paul II was pope.

[Darth Executor]

I read about this a few days ago. The (AP I think?) headline was something like "Pope to un-excommunicate holocaust denier".

[ChemMJW]

Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre was a French archbishop who rejected most of the reforms introduced at the Second Vatican Council. He went into formal schism with Rome by consecrating 4 bishops against the expressed wishes of the Holy Father. Since that time, the Vatican has been negotiating with Lefebvre's followers, formally known as the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX). Because Lefebvre himself was a validly consecrated bishop, the 4 bishops he consecrated are also perfectly valid, but illicit. Therefore, all priests ordained by the SSPX are also valid Catholic priests, but they exist outside the Church proper.

Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI have made it a personal priority to bring them back into the fold.

There have been some notable steps in recent years, but I am somewhat skeptical at this latest, spectacluar step by Benedict. Three of the 4 SSPX bishops seem to be making good-faith efforts to work out their legitimate points of contention, but the 4th, the English bishop Richard Williamson, has gone off the deep end, I fear. He is a validly consecrated bishop of the Church, but his personal views on the Holocaust are both appalling and laughable.

In principal, I welcome the efforts between the Vatican and the SSPX toward reunification, but I fear Pope Benedict XVI may have been too generous too soon with his latest step. Only God knows, but the rest of us will know shortly.

[One Bad Pig]

Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre was a French archbishop who rejected most of the reforms introduced at the Second Vatican Council. He went into formal schism with Rome by consecrating 4 bishops against the expressed wishes of the Holy Father. Since that time, the Vatican has been negotiating with Lefebvre's followers, formally known as the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX). Because Lefebvre himself was a validly consecrated bishop, the 4 bishops he consecrated are also perfectly valid, but illicit. Therefore, all priests ordained by the SSPX are also valid Catholic priests, but they exist outside the Church proper.

Interesting. That's a bit different than the Orthodox tradition, which requires at least two (generally three) bishops to ordain another bishop. Also, any act that causes schism invalidates that person's actions from that time forward, so the four consecrations and any following would have been invalid.

[Adam]

Interesting. That's a bit different than the Orthodox tradition, which requires at least two (generally three) bishops to ordain another bishop. Also, any act that causes schism invalidates that person's actions from that time forward, so the four consecrations and any following would have been invalid.

You're right in line with the Pope here, OBP.
Pope Benedict XVI merely rescinded henceforth the legal effect of the 1988 ex-communication of the four bishops consecrated at that time by Cardinal Lefebvre and another bishop with him (both deceased). This leaves unchanged that the Pope does not regard any of the four bishops as licitly bishops nor that any of their priests are licit. They can say Mass, but they have no faculties from a licit RC bishop to absolve penitents nor even to marry any man and woman who come to them for the sacrament.
I would guess Rome will come to terms with three of the four bishops to some sort of recognition of faculties, but will never accept the antisemitic Bishop Williamson in England. The lifting of the excommunication really undercuts Bp. Williamson, because now the other three more reasonable SSPX bishops have received some room to work with Rome instead of remaining in schism.'
That still leaves unaffected the bishop of the more reactionary Society of Saint Pius V (not X) that rejects all compromise--not to mention the even more disaffected sedevacantists who don't recognize Pope Benedict XVI (and didn't recognize John Paul II either, most of them not Paul Vi as well) and the yet more far-out adherents of various antipopes currently extant (most notably the Palmarian Catholic Church and also the Apostles of the Infinite Love of St. Jovite, Quebec, both of whom had or has its own Gregory (XVII) as antipope.
Adam
Edited to add: The Associated Press has a news release by Nicole Winfield published in two newspapers I get. The longer version has 15 paragraphs and about 18 column inches. Your own newspaper may shorten what it publishes. Inside the Vatican has the complete story, but you must be a subscriber, and I don't feel free to copy it in from the other website where I found copies of the Vatican letter and Bishop Fellay's initial request and his reply to the lifting of the edict. It's in the RC section of the website I won't name here (that I presume is the website that banned our founders).

[ChemMJW]

Interesting. That's a bit different than the Orthodox tradition, which requires at least two (generally three) bishops to ordain another bishop.

The Catholic understanding of the consecration of a Bishop is similar, I think, but not exactly as you have described for the Orthodox procedure. I simply did not go to the effort of typing the Catholic details earlier. At Catholic episcopal consecrations, three bishops usually lay hands on the bishop-elect. This is, however, simply a matter of practicality, as far as I know, the theory being that the chance of an invalid episcopal consecration is virtually nothing if three bishops all participate. It only takes one, however. It's not as if one bishop doesn't have enough "consecrating power," and only by combining his power with 2 other bishops can they get the whole thing to succeed.

Also, any act that causes schism invalidates that person's actions from that time forward, so the four consecrations and any following would have been invalid.

As far as I understand your post, the Orthodox idea is not compatible with Catholic thinking on this point. A priest or bishop is always capable of performing priestly or episcopal functions validly merely by virtue of his priestly ordination/episcopal consecration. I believe this would go back to the idea of "You are a priest forever unto the order of Melchizidek." Once the Holy Spirit has marked a person's soul with the priestly or episcopal character, that mark cannot be removed. That is why the SSPX sacraments are valid, but not licit. They are valid because they have received the sacrament of holy orders, but illicit because they are not exercising that sacramental authority in line with the structures of the Church as a whole. That is why the SSPX is an issue at all. From what you wrote, I take it that the Orthodox in this situation would simply write the SSPX off as irrelevant since they are schismatics, and therefore nothing they do has any validity, so why worry about them. Is that correct, that the Orthodox would simply consider them to be "playing Church" without any real spiritual efficacy? A very interesting idea.

[One Bad Pig]

The Catholic understanding of the consecration of a Bishop is similar, I think, but not exactly as you have described for the Orthodox procedure. I simply did not go to the effort of typing the Catholic details earlier. At Catholic episcopal consecrations, three bishops usually lay hands on the bishop-elect. This is, however, simply a matter of practicality, as far as I know, the theory being that the chance of an invalid episcopal consecration is virtually nothing if three bishops all participate. It only takes one, however. It's not as if one bishop doesn't have enough "consecrating power," and only by combining his power with 2 other bishops can they get the whole thing to succeed.

Yeah, the only reason the Orthodox use more than one bishop to consecrate another bishop is an effort to prevent a rogue bishop from consecrating other bishops who agree with him. IIRC the practice stems from the Christological debates of the 4th-5th centuries.

As far as I understand your post, the Orthodox idea is not compatible with Catholic thinking on this point. A priest or bishop is always capable of performing priestly or episcopal functions validly merely by virtue of his priestly ordination/episcopal consecration. I believe this would go back to the idea of "You are a priest forever unto the order of Melchizidek." Once the Holy Spirit has marked a person's soul with the priestly or episcopal character, that mark cannot be removed. That is why the SSPX sacraments are valid, but not licit. They are valid because they have received the sacrament of holy orders, but illicit because they are not exercising that sacramental authority in line with the structures of the Church as a whole. That is why the SSPX is an issue at all. From what you wrote, I take it that the Orthodox in this situation would simply write the SSPX off as irrelevant since they are schismatics, and therefore nothing they do has any validity, so why worry about them. Is that correct, that the Orthodox would simply consider them to be "playing Church" without any real spiritual efficacy? A very interesting idea.

Yes, that's how I understand it. It would take reunification to make their actions efficacious, and they would be retroactively validated by the reunification.

[Jawa Man]

Yeah, the only reason the Orthodox use more than one bishop to consecrate another bishop is an effort to prevent a rogue bishop from consecrating other bishops who agree with him. IIRC the practice stems from the Christological debates of the 4th-5th centuries.

I've wondered about this issue for a long time. Especially in light of the Syrian Jacobites, and if there were to be unity with them in the future, since their whole line of bishops came from basically one bishop - Jacobus.

Yes, that's how I understand it. It would take reunification to make their actions efficacious, and they would be retroactively validated by the reunification.

I don't think that is is retroactively validated; I think that it is just made proper. It's like having a car without an engine and then at reception into the Church, receiving an engine. I've also read that on OrthodoxAnswers that "valid", a word taken from St. Ignatius of Antioch, is a mistranslation of a word that is not necessarily legal, being better translated as "assured."