http://www.romancatholicism.org
|
|
Texts Condemning Traditionalism Decree
“Dominus Marcellus Lefebvre,” Jul. 1, 1988 – Excommunicating Archbishop
Lefebvre Apostolic
Letter “Ecclesia Dei Afflicta,” Jul. 2, 1988 – Excommunicating Archbishop
Lefebvre and his Followers Decree
of Pontifical Council for the Interpretation
of Legal Texts,
Aug. 24, 1996 – On the
Excommunication for Schism which All the Adherents to the Movement of
Archbishop Lefebvre Incur Introductory notes Pope John Paul II
condemned modern Traditionalism in the Apostolic Letter Ecclesia Dei
Afflicta. The occasion was the consecration to the episcopate by
Archbishop Lefebvre in 1988 of four candidates whom the Vatican had not
approved, but more fundamental issues were involved. Lefebvre, like other
Traditionalists rejected the aggiornamento (updating of the Church)
declared by the Second Vatican Council (1962-5), which included the promotion
of pluralism, religious liberalism, ecumenism and interfaith dialogue. As with the earlier
condemnations of Jansenism and of Feeneyism, the Catholic Church has once
again contradicted its own earlier teaching. The heretical course has
continued and salvation now includes everyone universally in beatitude and
the Church is equally expansive with all of the various religions being
imperfect parts of the Church and, as such, sufficient means of salvation.
The Church now wants to convert no one and to settle down as just another
friendly religion among many others, co-operating with them in a shared
ministry of prayer and dialogue. Vatican II obviously broke with previous
magisterial teaching and did much to discredit the pretensions of the magisterium
as a whole. Some Traditionalists are now rightly found criticising
non-infallible documents from before Vatican II, such as the condemnations of
Feeneyism and Jansenism. John Paul admitted in
this document that the Church changed its teaching at Vatican II and he
called upon theologians to help the Vatican show continuity with past
teaching. For it is a blatant change of teaching and practice of world
historic proportions to first condemn religious liberty, burn heretics and
ban other religions for over one and a half thousand years prior to Vatican
II and then promote religious tolerance and liberty of conscience as an
inalienable right of man. John Paul criticised Traditionalists for not
accepting that the doctrine handed down can change upon the reflection of
men. This is quite unorthodox and would undermine the very concept of
orthodoxy itself. We shall exhibit the
unorthodoxy of Ecclesia Dei Afflicata by comparing statements from it
with statements from two past magisterial documents, that is, the text of the
First Vatican Council (1870) and the Oath Against Modernism (1910).
John Paul II – The Decree “Dominus Marcellus Lefebvre,” Jul.
1, 1988 – Excommunicating Archbishop Lefebvre 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 schismatical 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 Monsignor
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
sententiae as envisaged by canon 1364, paragraph 1. The priests and
faithful are warned not to support the schism of Monsignor Lefebvre,
otherwise they shall incur ipso facto the very grave penalty of
excommunication. + BERNARDINUS Card. GANTIN Prefect of the
Congregation for Bishops John Paul II – Apostolic Letter “Ecclesia Dei Afflicta,” Jul.
2, 1988 – Excommunicating Archbishop Lefebvre 2. This
affliction was particularly felt by the Successor Peter to whom in the first place
pertains the guardianship of the unity of the Church, (2) even
though the number of persons directly involved in these events might be few.
For 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. (3)
In performing such an act, notwithstanding the formal canonical
warning sent to them by the Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for
Bishops on 17 June last, Mons. 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. (4) 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”. (5) 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. (6) 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. a)
The outcome of the movement promoted by Mons. 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. (7) However, it is
necessary that all the Pastors and the 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 of unity in variety: of that blended “harmony” which
the earthly Church raises up to Heaven under the impulse of the Holy Spirit. b)
Moreover, I should like to remind theologians and other experts in the
ecclesiastical sciences that they should feel themselves 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. c)
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
fulfil 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 offence against God and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed
by the Church’s law. (8) 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: a)
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 Fraternity founded by Mons. Lefebvre, who may wish to remain
united to the Successor Peter in the Catholic Church, while preserving their
spiritual and liturgical traditions, in the light of the Protocol signed on 5
May last by Cardinal Ratzinger and Mons. Lefebvre; b)
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; c)
moreover, respect must everywhere be 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.
(9) 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 that 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. 2 July 1988, the tenth year of the pontificate. (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 Ćternus, cap. 3: DS 3060. (3) Cf. Code
of Canon Law, can. 751. (4) Cf. Code
of Canon Law, can. 1382. (5) Vatican
Council II. Const. Dei Verbum, n. 8. Cf. Vatican Council I, Const. Dei
Filius, cap. 4: DS 3020. (6) Cf. Mt.
16:18; Lk. 10:16; Vatican Council I, Const. Pastor Ćternus, cap. 3: DS
3060. (7) Cf. Code
of Canon Law, can. 386; Paul VI. Apost. 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. John Paul II – Decree of Pontifical
Council for the Interpretation of Legal Texts, Aug. 24, 1996 – On
the Excommunication for Schism which All the Adherents to the Movement of
Archbishop 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: 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), 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. On 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. |
|
