The 1988 consecrations
The 1988 consecrations
A central controversy surrounding the SSPX concerns the consecration by Archbishop Lefebvre (and the Brazilian Bishop Antônio de Castro Mayer) of four SSPX priests as bishops in 1988, in violation of the orders of Pope John Paul II.
By 1987, Archbishop Lefebvre was 81. In Catholic doctrine, only a bishop can ordain men to the priesthood. At that point, if Lefebvre died, the SSPX would have become dependent upon non-SSPX bishops to ordain future priests - and Lefebvre did not regard them as properly reliable and orthodox. In June 1987, Lefebvre announced his intention to consecrate a successor to the episcopacy. He implied that he intended to do this with or without the approval of the Holy See.[5] Under canons 1013 and 1382 of the Catholic Code of Canon Law, the consecration of a bishop requires papal approval. Consecrating a bishop without papal approval was strongly condemned by Pope Pius XII, who described the sacramental activity of bishops who had been consecrated without such approval as "gravely illicit, that is, criminal and sacrilegious".[6] The Roman authorities were unhappy with Lefebvre's plan, but they began discussions with Lefebvre and the SSPX which led to the signing, on 5 May 1988, of a skeleton agreement between the Archbishop and Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and the future Pope Benedict XVI.
This "protocol"[7] is divided into in two parts. In the first part, which is of doctrinal character, Archbishop Lefebvre, in his own name and on behalf of the SSPX:
* promised fidelity to the Catholic Church and to the Pope
* accepted the doctrine contained in section 25 of the Second Vatican Council’s Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium on the Church’s magisterium
* pledged a completely non-polemical attitude of study and communication with the Holy See on the allegedly problematic aspects of the Second Vatican Council and the reforms that had followed it
* recognized the validity of the revised rites of Mass and of the other sacraments
* promised to respect the common discipline of the Church and her laws, making allowance for special provisions granted to the SSPX.
The second (legal) part of the document envisaged, apart from the canonical reconciliation of the persons concerned, that:
* the SSPX would become a Society of Apostolic Life with special exemption regarding public worship, care of souls and apostolic activity, in line with canons 679-683
* the SSPX would be granted the faculty to celebrate the "old" liturgical rites
* a special commission, including two members of the SSPX, would be set up to facilitate contacts and resolve problems and conflicts
* it would be proposed to the Pope that a member of the SSPX be consecrated as a bishop.
This document was to be submitted to the Pope for his approval. However, Archbishop Lefebvre quickly developed misgivings. The very next day, he declared he was obliged in conscience to proceed, with or without papal approval, to consecrate a bishop to succeed him on 30 June.
A further meeting took place in Rome on 24 May. Archbishop Lefebvre was now promised that the Pope would appoint a bishop from among the members of the SSPX, chosen according to the normal procedures, and that the consecration would take place on 15 August. In return, Lefebvre would have to request reconciliation with the Pope on the basis of the protocol of 5 May. Lefebvre, for his part, presented three written requests:
* the consecration must take place on 30 June
* not one, but three bishops, must be consecrated (a requirement that he had already mentioned)
* the majority of the members of the special commission must be from the SSPX
On Pope John Paul II's instructions, Cardinal Ratzinger replied to Archbishop Lefebvre on 30 May, insisting on observance of the agreement of 5 May, and adding that, if Lefebvre carried out unauthorized consecrations on 30 June, the promised authorization for the consecration of a bishop would not be granted.
On 3 June, Lefebvre wrote from Ecône, stating that he intended to proceed with the consecrations. On 9 June, the Pope replied to him with a personal letter, appealing to him not to proceed with a design that "would be seen as nothing other than a schismatic act, the theological and canonical consequences of which are known to you". Lefebvre did not reply, and the letter was made public on 16 June. For the first time, the Holy See stated publicly that Lefebvre was in danger of becoming a schismatic.
On 30 June 1988, Archbishop Lefebvre proceeded to consecrate four priests of the SSPX to the episcopacy: Frs. Richard Williamson, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Alfonso de Galarreta and Bernard Fellay. Mgr. Antônio de Castro Mayer, the retired Bishop of Campos, Brazil, assisted Lefebvre in the consecrations.
The day after the consecrations, the Congregation for Bishops issued a decree declaring that Archbishop Lefebvre had incurred automatic excommunication.[8] On the following day, 2 July, Pope John Paul II issued an apostolic letter known as Ecclesia Dei in which he condemned the Archbishop's action.[9] The Pope stated that, since schism is defined in the Code of Canon Law as "withdrawal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or from communion with the members of the Church subject to him" (canon 751),[10] the consecration "constitute[d] a schismatic act", and that, by virtue of canon 1382 of the Code,[11] it entailed automatic excommunication for all the bishops involved.
Lefebvre argued that the consecrations were necessary because the traditional form of the Catholic faith and sacraments would become extinct without Traditionalist bishops and priests to pass them down to the next generation. He called the consecrations "opération survie" - "Operation Survival". He cited in his defence canons 1323 and 1324 of the Code of Canon Law.[12] Canon 1323 provides that a canonical penalty is not binding when a person has acted "by reason of necessity or grave inconvenience, unless the act is intrinsically evil or tends to the harm of souls". Canon 1324 states that, if the act is intrinsically evil or tends to the harm of souls, the penalty must be diminished or replaced by a penance if the offence was committed by a person who was coerced by grave fear, even if only relative, or by reason of necessity or grave inconvenience. It also states that the penalty is to be reduced or replaced if the perpetrator erroneously, but culpably, thought that necessity or grave inconvenience existed (this would exclude, therefore, acts intrinsically evil or tending to the harm of souls). In all these circumstances, canon 1324 concludes, automatic penalties do not apply.
Other canonists counter this argument by quoting canon 1325 ("Ignorance which is crass or supine or affected can never be taken into account when applying the provisions of canons 1323 and 1224") and stating that, in view of the clear formal canonical warnings given to Lefebvre, he could not claim to benefit from what the previous canons stated about action taken in error.[13]
Some members and supporters of the SSPX resigned or disassociated themselves from the Society as a result of the consecrations. A number of them, with the approval of the Holy See, formed a separate society called the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter.
Source : wikipedia
A central controversy surrounding the SSPX concerns the consecration by Archbishop Lefebvre (and the Brazilian Bishop Antônio de Castro Mayer) of four SSPX priests as bishops in 1988, in violation of the orders of Pope John Paul II.
By 1987, Archbishop Lefebvre was 81. In Catholic doctrine, only a bishop can ordain men to the priesthood. At that point, if Lefebvre died, the SSPX would have become dependent upon non-SSPX bishops to ordain future priests - and Lefebvre did not regard them as properly reliable and orthodox. In June 1987, Lefebvre announced his intention to consecrate a successor to the episcopacy. He implied that he intended to do this with or without the approval of the Holy See.[5] Under canons 1013 and 1382 of the Catholic Code of Canon Law, the consecration of a bishop requires papal approval. Consecrating a bishop without papal approval was strongly condemned by Pope Pius XII, who described the sacramental activity of bishops who had been consecrated without such approval as "gravely illicit, that is, criminal and sacrilegious".[6] The Roman authorities were unhappy with Lefebvre's plan, but they began discussions with Lefebvre and the SSPX which led to the signing, on 5 May 1988, of a skeleton agreement between the Archbishop and Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and the future Pope Benedict XVI.
This "protocol"[7] is divided into in two parts. In the first part, which is of doctrinal character, Archbishop Lefebvre, in his own name and on behalf of the SSPX:
* promised fidelity to the Catholic Church and to the Pope
* accepted the doctrine contained in section 25 of the Second Vatican Council’s Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium on the Church’s magisterium
* pledged a completely non-polemical attitude of study and communication with the Holy See on the allegedly problematic aspects of the Second Vatican Council and the reforms that had followed it
* recognized the validity of the revised rites of Mass and of the other sacraments
* promised to respect the common discipline of the Church and her laws, making allowance for special provisions granted to the SSPX.
The second (legal) part of the document envisaged, apart from the canonical reconciliation of the persons concerned, that:
* the SSPX would become a Society of Apostolic Life with special exemption regarding public worship, care of souls and apostolic activity, in line with canons 679-683
* the SSPX would be granted the faculty to celebrate the "old" liturgical rites
* a special commission, including two members of the SSPX, would be set up to facilitate contacts and resolve problems and conflicts
* it would be proposed to the Pope that a member of the SSPX be consecrated as a bishop.
This document was to be submitted to the Pope for his approval. However, Archbishop Lefebvre quickly developed misgivings. The very next day, he declared he was obliged in conscience to proceed, with or without papal approval, to consecrate a bishop to succeed him on 30 June.
A further meeting took place in Rome on 24 May. Archbishop Lefebvre was now promised that the Pope would appoint a bishop from among the members of the SSPX, chosen according to the normal procedures, and that the consecration would take place on 15 August. In return, Lefebvre would have to request reconciliation with the Pope on the basis of the protocol of 5 May. Lefebvre, for his part, presented three written requests:
* the consecration must take place on 30 June
* not one, but three bishops, must be consecrated (a requirement that he had already mentioned)
* the majority of the members of the special commission must be from the SSPX
On Pope John Paul II's instructions, Cardinal Ratzinger replied to Archbishop Lefebvre on 30 May, insisting on observance of the agreement of 5 May, and adding that, if Lefebvre carried out unauthorized consecrations on 30 June, the promised authorization for the consecration of a bishop would not be granted.
On 3 June, Lefebvre wrote from Ecône, stating that he intended to proceed with the consecrations. On 9 June, the Pope replied to him with a personal letter, appealing to him not to proceed with a design that "would be seen as nothing other than a schismatic act, the theological and canonical consequences of which are known to you". Lefebvre did not reply, and the letter was made public on 16 June. For the first time, the Holy See stated publicly that Lefebvre was in danger of becoming a schismatic.
On 30 June 1988, Archbishop Lefebvre proceeded to consecrate four priests of the SSPX to the episcopacy: Frs. Richard Williamson, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Alfonso de Galarreta and Bernard Fellay. Mgr. Antônio de Castro Mayer, the retired Bishop of Campos, Brazil, assisted Lefebvre in the consecrations.
The day after the consecrations, the Congregation for Bishops issued a decree declaring that Archbishop Lefebvre had incurred automatic excommunication.[8] On the following day, 2 July, Pope John Paul II issued an apostolic letter known as Ecclesia Dei in which he condemned the Archbishop's action.[9] The Pope stated that, since schism is defined in the Code of Canon Law as "withdrawal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or from communion with the members of the Church subject to him" (canon 751),[10] the consecration "constitute[d] a schismatic act", and that, by virtue of canon 1382 of the Code,[11] it entailed automatic excommunication for all the bishops involved.
Lefebvre argued that the consecrations were necessary because the traditional form of the Catholic faith and sacraments would become extinct without Traditionalist bishops and priests to pass them down to the next generation. He called the consecrations "opération survie" - "Operation Survival". He cited in his defence canons 1323 and 1324 of the Code of Canon Law.[12] Canon 1323 provides that a canonical penalty is not binding when a person has acted "by reason of necessity or grave inconvenience, unless the act is intrinsically evil or tends to the harm of souls". Canon 1324 states that, if the act is intrinsically evil or tends to the harm of souls, the penalty must be diminished or replaced by a penance if the offence was committed by a person who was coerced by grave fear, even if only relative, or by reason of necessity or grave inconvenience. It also states that the penalty is to be reduced or replaced if the perpetrator erroneously, but culpably, thought that necessity or grave inconvenience existed (this would exclude, therefore, acts intrinsically evil or tending to the harm of souls). In all these circumstances, canon 1324 concludes, automatic penalties do not apply.
Other canonists counter this argument by quoting canon 1325 ("Ignorance which is crass or supine or affected can never be taken into account when applying the provisions of canons 1323 and 1224") and stating that, in view of the clear formal canonical warnings given to Lefebvre, he could not claim to benefit from what the previous canons stated about action taken in error.[13]
Some members and supporters of the SSPX resigned or disassociated themselves from the Society as a result of the consecrations. A number of them, with the approval of the Holy See, formed a separate society called the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter.
Source : wikipedia
Publicité