The Crisis is so sad.

[Vincentius]

Lumen, Pope Pius XII's Ad Apostolorum Principis was addressed to the Chinese Church who did not bother to consult the Holy See regarding the consecration of bishops.  Theirs constitued an abuse. 

 

On the other hand, and moreover, there was no state of emergency in Pius XII's pontificate necessitating a recourse to the principle of epikeia or to an appeal for an extraordinary jurisdiction which the Church, not the pope, supplies in certain circumstances, for the sake of maintaining the purity of the faith.

 

I don't see an equitable purpose for the defense of a hierarchy that was essentially responsible for the dismantling and the destruction of the faith and of all things Catholic, replacing them with novelties -- new Mass, new Code, new Catechism, new theology, new teaching on salvation (or rather a lack of teaching on salvation) which departs from the mission given her by her Founder, Jesus Christ.  All this because of the mistaken notion that the Church must adapt to modernity and the world, or else, if not for the reason that newness and freshness bring a new vigor to evangelisation, which is being utilized to alienate rather than to cohere.   

 

One need not be a licentiate canonist to know that certain laws excuse or do not apply in certain circumstances. 

[Paul]

That might be true if we didn't have the Pope that wrote more then any other Pope giving an unorthodox explanation to VII. He certainly did not intend VII to be interpreted in the light of Tradition.  VII has some troubling spots, but it is a grain of sand compared to JPII's encyclicals and actions.  Leaving out the teachings of Paul VI and Benedict XVI (which also are important, of course, to understand VII), JPII alone makes it impossible to interpret VII in  light of tradition.

I'd say that we continue to interpet Vatican II in the light of tradition, rather than in the light of John Paul II. But there's a difference between this and things such as the 1983 Code, the excommunication of Archbishop Lefebvre, the new Mass, etc. We know what the Church teaches on certain issues, because we have 2000 years of teachings to back it up, and we can interpret JPII's writings in accordance with those teachings as far as possible, or, if he strays too far, then such novelties in doctrine are not binding. But in disciplinary matters, the Pope can, for the most part, do what he likes, unless such disciplines are sinful. We may disobey unjust laws, but we better really be sure that they're unjust, because the penalty here isn't jail, but hell. For those who do go to independent or SSPX chapels, I'm leaving the judgment of that to God, but for me, I'm still uncomfortable with it - after all, ubi Petrus, ibi Ecclesia.

[lumengentleman]

Canon law defends the Archbishop's actions as necessary, therefore, he DID NOT excommunicate himself!

 

And the supreme legislator and final authoritative interpreter of Canon Law said otherwise, therefore HE DID excommunicate himself.

 

Sorry, Campy, but the Pope has the last word on such matters, not a layman, a Canon Lawyer, a priest, a bishop, or even a cardinal.

[lumengentleman]

Lumen, Pope Pius XII's Ad Apostolorum Principis was addressed to the Chinese Church who did not bother to consult the Holy See regarding the consecration of bishops.  Theirs constitued an abuse. 

 

Vicentius, that's completely irrelevant; the Pope did not say that consecrating a bishop without papal permission was only a crime and a sacrilege if it was done by the Chinese Church; he said it constitutes a crime and a sacrilege, period.

 

Your argument is illogical; it's like saying that the Council of Trent condemned justification by faith alone, but since it was addressed to Protestants, therefore Catholics can believe it without penalty.

 

Consecrating a bishop without the Pope's permission is a crime and a sacrilege, whether it's done in China or Econe.

 

One need not be a licentiate canonist to know that certain laws excuse or do not apply in certain circumstances. 

 

And one need not be a licentiate canonist to know that the Pope has the final and authoritative ruling as to whether or not "certain laws excuse or do not apply" in particular circumstances, such as the Archbishop's circumstances. 

[Paul]

Very true, Rome did approve the Novus Ordo. That aside, what Rome approved was a Novus Ordo Missae that was in Latin, ad orientam, and which followed the rubrics and was presumed to be a reverent, orthodox service. The pope did not directly promulgate the ICEL translations, or tell the faithful that they must under pain of sin attend a service that savors of heterodoxy.

I have heard that the infallibility (and thus validity) extends only to the Latin, since that's what the Pope promulgates, but not to the vernacular translations, since those were only approved by the bishops' conferences. But I haven't seen a good argument on this (or, really, much of one at all), and the Sacramentary does bear approval from Rome.

 

Let us say that there was no official condemnation from Rome yet, it was, oh, 1520. The Mass is theoretically the TLM, but the local priests are infested with the Lutheran heresy, and they're arbitrarily changing a few rubrics here and there, but it's still pretty reverent. (As Lutheran services are today, I promise you that the LCMS "church" is more reverent than the local NO.) However, as said, a few rubrics are changed here and there, and the sermon has questionable things in it. Now, this is a danger to souls, because the people through these bad sermons are being fed stones instead of bread. Do they then have an obligation to attend this tainted Mass?

If the sermons are going to lead people into heresy, then that Mass might best be avoided. But that depends on the level of one's faith, and whether one need be concerned only with himself, or if he need to safeguard the faith of his children as well. One could attend Mass and pray the Rosary or other devotions during the sermon, tuning out the priest. Salus animarum summa lex, but before dispensing oneself from a grave obligation, one better be sure that it's really a danger to the soul and not just "something I don't like".

Very true, Paul. We are holy and obedient. We are to submit whenever it is not against the faith to do so, because the bishops and priests are our legitimate superiors. You've got an admiral, and he's given orders telling you to sail to Malta from Rome. Now, you and your compatriots, are just junior officers and crew, but your captain has other ideas, and tells you to sail to Majorca. Your obligation clearly lies with the Admiral, because He is a higher superior than the rebellious captain. In fact, you're under an obligation to resist the thieving captain, and if you don't, when the admiral comes with the rest of the fleet, and finds that you didn't do all in your power to resist the captain, he's not going to be pleased.  

We should not declare the pope a heretic, as it is not our place to do so. We can objectively condemn his actions, if it is warranted. (Assisi, for example, or Koran-kissing, or the Balamand agreement, or any number of other things.) However, we should always attempt to give the benefit of the doubt, where this is possible.

Yes, we obey God even when the Pope says otherwise, and we obey the Pope even when our bishop or pastor tells us differently. But neither has told us "thou shalt not attend the Novus Ordo". I agree it's most like okay for us to attend the SSPX Masses, but knowing that many of the priests are sedevacantists (and possibly even some of the bishops) worries me. When it becomes extra SSPX nulla salus, we've got a problem, and there are those who see people who attend the indult or the NO as not really Catholics.

[CampeadorShin]

I doubt a Pope in error is the final authority on Canon Law. 

Wait, where is that written?

[QuisUtDeus]

Canon law defends the Archbishop's actions as necessary, therefore, he DID NOT excommunicate himself!

 

And the supreme legislator and final authoritative interpreter of Canon Law said otherwise, therefore HE DID excommunicate himself.

 

Sorry, Campy, but the Pope has the last word on such matters, not a layman, a Canon Lawyer, a priest, a bishop, or even a cardinal.

But excommunication is not infallible as St. Joan of Arc clearly proves.  Further, legislation of Canon Law is not infallible.  A future Pope may let the ruling stand, lift it (as the excommunication of Orthodoxy was lifted), or declare it null and void.

 

In the case of Abp. Lefebvre, I find it clear that he did see a danger that he felt he had to act on.  Whether the danger was actually present or not is a matter for debate, and Pope JP2 felt it was not actually present.  I suggest as we move further into the post-Conciliar world, we see that it actually was present, but time will tell.  That does not necessarily mean he should have acted, but I am just saying the Abp. was correct in his assement of the situation.

 

When one reads his writings and looks at the situation in the Novus Ordo today, it is clear he was right at least about what would happen to the Church if it kept on that path.  His fear was palpable in the words he used, and he was consistent in expressing that fear.  At the very least, it wasn't a mere excuse of necessity but a real feeling and belief of necessity.

 

 

[lumengentleman]

But excommunication is not infallible as St. Joan of Arc clearly proves.  Further, legislation of Canon Law is not infallible.  A future Pope may let the ruling stand, lift it (as the excommunication of Orthodoxy was lifted), or declare it null and void.

 

I never said otherwise; we're dealing with Canon Law, not propositions that can either be "true" or "false," and so the question of infallibility doesn't even enter into it.  We're talking about jurisdiction and the law - there is no "true" or "false" here, only "guilty" or "not guilty."

 

The Supreme Legislator said "don't do this."  His subject said "I think I have to."  The Supreme Legislator said "no you don't, there is no warrant for this - if you do it, you'll be punished."  His subject said "I'm going to do it anyway."

 

What I'm getting at here is that these defenses of Lefebvre which rely on his subjective feelings ("he thought there was a state of necessity") do not take into account the fact that his subjective opinion was trumped by the Supreme Legislator's objective ruling. 

 

In order for the Law to have any meaning or purpose, it has to have a Legislator who has the power of interpretation - otherwise, it's all left up to our subjective feelings, and no one could ever be punished for anything ever again.  The only thing that keeps Canon 1323 from turning into a loophole wide enough to accommodate a Mack truck, and reducing the Church to a state of total anarchy, is the fact that the Supreme Legislator's objective ruling always trumps the subjective opinions of his inferiors.

 

Now, if Lefebvre had consecrated those bishops, and Rome didn't even hear about it until after the fact, we might have a real case where Canon 1323 would apply.  But since the Pope not only knew about it, but specifically warned Lefebvre not to do it, and spelled out what the penalty would be, Canon 1323 no longer applies.

 

As a father, I can completely relate to this.  It's one thing if my kids do something I don't want them to do, and they truly didn't know my "mind" on the matter, or even if they had a doubt; I would be upset that they didn't ask me first, but still, there would be some wiggle room there.  It's a completely different affair if they do something that I have specifically told them not to do, and they had better have the common sense not to plead ignorance after the fact, or they'll only be adding insult to injury.

 

This is so basic, I can't believe we're even disputing over it.  I tell my catechumens this all the time when they raise the question of the authority of conscience - "Isn't conscience supposed to be obeyed, shouldn't we always follow our conscience?"  The answer is always, "Yes, but you have a responsibility to make sure your conscience is properly formed by the Church."  That's the only way to keep relativism from ruling our lives; obey your conscience (subjective), but first make sure your conscience is well-formed by the Church (objective).

 

The same is no less true for Lefebvre.

[PinoyMonk]

I haven't read every word of this discussion, but I have this question to ask:
 
  Lumen, how is it that the Pope is 100% objective while Lefebvre is the subjective one?  I don't understand that...
 
 

[lumengentleman]

Lumen, how is it that the Pope is 100% objective while Lefebvre is the subjective one?  I don't understand that...

 

The Pope, as the Supreme Legislator, has the jurisdictional authority to render the final interpretation and application of Canon Law in any given circumstance.  His ruling is the objective one.  That's what it means for him to be the Supreme Legislator.

 

You can read all about it in Matthew 18:15-18; when a dispute arises, the Church has the final say - and of course, the Pope possesses that authority in its fullness.  If a man will not listen "even to the Church," well ... read v. 17.