Be good!

[qfnol31]

[quote]The third condition lies in the canonical right to communion with the Church. In virtue of its coercive power the Church has authority to excommunicate notorious sinners. [b]It may inflict this punishment not merely on the ground of heresy or schism, but for other grave offences.[/b] Thus St. Paul pronounces sentence of excommunication on the incestuous Corinthian (I Cor., v, 3). This penalty is no mere external severance from the rights of common worship. It is a severance from the body of Christ, undoing to this extent the work of baptism, and placing the excommunicated man in the condition of the" heathen and the publican". It casts him out of God's kingdom; and the Apostle speaks of it as "delivering him over to Satan" (I Cor., v, 5; I Tim., i, 20).[/quote]

Wow.

[Soldier4Him]

[therevolution]

yeah, but just recently they've turned into softies

[WCC_Catholic]

[quote name='therevolution' date='Dec 21 2004, 02:47 AM'] yeah, but just recently they've turned into softies [/quote]
yup

[qfnol31]

I dunno, our Pope has one of the most controversial excommunications ever.

[hyperdulia again]

Source? I cannot think of a sngle example of someone being formally excommunicated for being a notorous sinner. Not Louis XIV, or Louis XV, not Adolf Hiter, not Father Gheoghan, not two US Bishop's who shall remain nameless, not Sister Jeanette, not a single Mafioso, not J.Lo, not Christina Imahora, not Madonna, not Rosie O'Donnel, not Mr and Mrs Phil Donahue, not Tariq Aziz (Chaldean Catholic, Sadam's number 2), not the IRA, not Marc Antony (Mr J.Lo), not that guy who directed Dogma and clerks, not Michael Moore (who has admitted contracepting), not Mussolini, not Mme de Pompadour, etc.

[hyperdulia again]

not Andrew Sullivan

[qfnol31]

source: New Advent

Or do you mean the controversial one? That one is one that well over 1,000,000 Catholics do not like but for the sake of not arguing I shall have to leave out.

Edited December 21, 2004 by qfnol31

[hyperdulia again]

or Richard Burton (to time Mr Liz Taylor)

[hyperdulia again]

or spencer tracy

[hyperdulia again]

i could go on

[hyperdulia again]

Or do you mean the controversial one? That one is one that well over 1,000,000 Catholics do not like but for the sake of not arguing I shall have to leave out.

What is the controversial one? I'm sorry didn't see that you had responded.

[qfnol31]

Eh, hopefully no self-respecting Catholic would follow blatantly dissenting leaders...

[qfnol31]

[quote name='hyperdulia again' date='Dec 21 2004, 02:53 AM'] Or do you mean the controversial one? That one is one that well over 1,000,000 Catholics do not like but for the sake of not arguing I shall have to leave out.

What is the controversial one? I'm sorry didn't see that you had responded. [/quote]
A certain archbishop...

[hyperdulia again]

french name starting with an L.

[popestpiusx]

One should clarify. Your mysterious Archbishop was not excommunicated (as in, the penalty of excommunication was not imposed upon him by the Holy Father.) Rather, the Holy Father observed that the act of consecrating bishops without papal permission was a schismatic act and that he had latae sententiae excommunicated himself. (The Merits of that observation should probably not be discussed here. I'm not saying it has no merit, just that it is more nuanced than what I just described). The distinction is very important. In the first case, the Pope uses his juridical power to excommunicate someone. This one leaves less wiggle room. In the second case, the Pope simply observes publicly that a person has committed an excommunicateable offence and has thereby incurred that penalty by their own action. In this case there is more wiggle room because the Holy Father could simply have the wrong set of facts on which he is basing the observation. The individual would then need to head to Rome to sort out the details. This second case is not a formal canonical declaration. The first is. Neither is “infallible” in the strict sense of that word, nor are they irreformable. In other words, the next Pope could come out and declare the excommunication incurred by Lefebvre to be null, without their having been a change of any kind on the part of the SSPX. It’s not likely, but it could happen, and has happened a number of times in history.

Then there is the distinction between schism and excommunication, but I am not going into that right now.

As a side note, surely it is obvious that there is a serious bias against the "right" in the Church today, while the "left" runs almost unhindered. It seems that the worst crime one could commit in the Church today is to be a traditionalist.

[Apotheoun]

Here are the documents pertinent to the case mentioned above:

[quote name='Congregation for Bishops']DECREE OF EXCOMMUNICATION
From the Office of the Congregation for Bishops, 1 July 1988

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 scismatical 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 Archbishop 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 sentientae as envisaged by Canon 1364, paragraph 1.

The priests and faithful are warned not to support the schism of Archbishop Lefebvre, otherwise they shall incur ipso facto the very grave penalty of excommunication.

From the Office of the Congregation for Bishops, 1 July 1988.


BERNARDINUS Card. GANTIN
Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops[/quote]

And:

[quote name='Pope John Paul II']APOSTOLIC LETTER
"ECCLESIA DEI"
OF THE SUPREME PONTIFF
JOHN PAUL II
GIVEN MOTU PROPRIO

1. With great affliction the Church has learned of the unlawful episcopal ordination conferred on 30 June last by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, which has frustrated all the efforts made during the previous years to ensure the full communion with the Church of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X founded by the same Mons. Lefebvre. These efforts, especially intense during recent months, in which the Apostolic See has shown comprehension to the limits of the possible, were all to no avail.(1)

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.

Joannes Paulus PP. II


End Notes:

[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 Æternus, 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 Æternus, 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.[/quote]

[franciscanheart]

[popestpiusx]

Thank you Apotheoun.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='popestpiusx' date='Dec 21 2004, 10:00 AM'] Thank you Apotheoun. [/quote]
You're welcome.