Breakthrough with Society of St. Pius X Near?
A few days ago, I told my good buddy and fellow Marine, MSgt. Cavey, that I was watching some potentially great news regarding the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) and Rome. However, I got busy with some on-going overseas work, the Marine Corps Birthday Ball, answering a certain “James” regarding reparations for crack addicts, etc. But the last thing I needed was for Cavey to hunt me down over here in Hong Kong, and open up a can of whoop-ass on me!!
If the attached story from “Cathoilic.Org” is true, then Part II of the SSPX’s request may soon be answered. (Earlier, in 2007, the Holy Father freed the “Mass of all Time” with his Motu Proprio.) The lifting of the excommunications would open the path for future doctrinal discussions between the Society and Rome regarding the Second Vatican Council.
For those of you unfamiliar with the SSPX, they are the reason that we still have tradition today. They are the reason we have all those Traditional Orders such as the FSSP, ICKSP, et al. Without the SSPX, the Motu Proprio would never have been signed, nor would the Indult have been a factor around the world since 1984. Tradition would have died, and with it, the True Mass.
I, for one, believe that a day will come when Archbishops Lefebvre will be lifted to the altar as the Saint he is!
Will the excommunications soon be lifted against the Bishops consecrated by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer?
WASHINGTON, DC (Catholic Online) - The World Wide Web was abuzz today; at least that part of the community concerned with the ongoing efforts to heal the rift between the Society of St. Pius X and the Holy See. The interest arose from a report in a Spanish Blog with reliable sources within the ongoing negotiations.
One of the most accurate Weblogs in the United States reporting on news and activities concerning this ongoing relationship is Rorate Caeli, http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/. Catholic Online presents their report, not knowing of its absolute accuracy, but out of a recognition of the interest among our readers concerning this move toward reconciliation and past experience with the accuracy of the sources:
Decree for the removal of excommunications on the Pope's desk?
From (the) Spanish blog La Cigüeña de la Torre: “On the Holy Father's bureau stands a prepared decree which will lift that of the excommunication of 1988, which applied to the consecrating [Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer] and consecrated bishops [Bishops Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Alfonso de Galarreta, and Richard Williamson]. I mean removing the decree, and not absolving of the excommunication. The thesis of the subjective element, extenuating or mitigating of fault, and, therefore, of the penalty, according to Canons 1323, 4 and 7, and 1324, 1, 8, and 3, has prevailed.”
The information sounds highly credible, it matches recent events (including the Rosary Crusade), and Spanish conservative Catholic lawyer Francisco José Fernández de la Cigoña usually only posts on future events (such as the nomination of Bishops) when he is truly certain of the matter. Nonetheless, even if the information is accurate, there is no way of knowing when the Holy Father will sign the document, or when it will be made public.
The referenced canons of the Code of Canon Law (CIC) are the following:
Can. 1323 The following are not subject to a penalty when they have violated a law or precept:
4/ a person who acted coerced by grave fear, even if only relatively grave, or due to necessity or grave inconvenience unless the act is intrinsically evil or tends to the harm of souls;
7/ a person who without negligence thought that one of the circumstances mentioned in nn. 4 or 5 was present.
Can. 1324 §1. The perpetrator of a violation is not exempt from a penalty, but the penalty established by law or precept must be tempered or a penance employed in its place if the delict was committed:
8/ by a person who thought in culpable error that one of the circumstances mentioned in can. 1323, nn. 4 or 5 was present;
§3. In the circumstances mentioned in §1, the accused is not bound by a latae sententiae penalty.