Will the Pope Have Any Other surprise Announcements Before He Resigns?

I’m just thinking out loud, but it seems no one was expecting Pope Benedict's sudden announcement and I was just wondering if he might spring any other surprises before he retires.
Now that his time on the seat is very limited, do you think it is likely he will do something that he may have, in the past, viewed as a long term goal?
I'm thinking along the lines, for example, of something regarding the SSPX, communion on the tongue, etc. etc.
Or do you think he will leave his unfulfilled hopes and wishes in the care of his successor?
I’m sure Pope Benedict will appreciate any suggestions as I heard he is a regular visitor to this site when he is in need of sound advice.

Thank you for the last link post, Simle Faith. Many times I enjoy reading the comments as much or more as the article itself. I particularly found much truth in the following:

Fr Martin Fox said...


I understand the frustration represented in the comparison, offered above, between Rome's approach to the SSPX and to theologians and prelates seemingly in communion whose teachings and behaviors are so offensive. Yes, I understand; but the comparison is badly flawed. It's emotional but not reasonable.

For one, the SSPX situation is about healing an actual breach. That is a worthy thing to do, of a different species from the task of disciplining people for heresy or bad conduct.

After reading about these things for so many years, I fear too many SSPX adherents and sympathizers lack the deep horror of schism that the Fathers of the Church have always stressed.

And if I am right about that, that is a cause for great alarm. It should set off alarm bells among all those SSPX sympathizers who protest they are utterly Catholic; because while I don't doubt your sincerity, becoming desensitized to schism is a dangerous thing.

(And please let's not get distracted by the old, SSPX isn't in schism red herring. I didn't make that assertion. I said something different.)

For another, while we can all only speculate--either generously or not--about the reasons Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict did not issue more smackdowns, it's not too hard to infer a very likely reason: they did not wish to provoke a deeper schism.

And to those who say, well, better the schism be out in the open than not, I say you're entitled to your opinion. But how curious that God hasn't seen fit to make you pope?

In other words, it's not self-evident that forcing the issue is better. Forcing battle lines to be drawn has some merit, but one consequence is that it becomes much harder to cross those battle lines.

And, again, the readiness (it seems to me) on some folks' part to have the pope sally forth, even if it provokes schism, reinforces my earlier point: some folks need to reflect on how the Fathers recoiled from schism.

Third, it strikes me as terribly ungenerous to take that pose. Because one way to understand the pope's attempts to reconcile the SSPX is to say, "I need your help; you can do more to help the Church being inside than out." In other words, if you want to see other heretics and scoundrels dealt with by Rome, returning to the fold would help Rome do that.

But no: the adherents to the SSPX say, no; we see the house is on fire; and we won't help you put it out. Instead, we'll wait till you do it, and get the rooms all repainted and pretty--and then we'll be glad to have you invite us to move back in.

Now, I realize there is a question of whether some in Rome sabotaged the attempt at reconciliation. That's a valid question. I'm curious about that. I wonder what Pope Benedict was thinking and doing in all that. I'll have to wait to find out.

My comments are simply responding to the protest offered several times, in this thread and elsewhere, about how unfair it is that Rome handles the SSPX one way, and she handles other problem children another way.

14 February, 2013 15:49

JMJ,

George

Those who entertain the notion that the SSPX are schismatic are themselves mistaken. I argued a while back with Mike that the excommunications of Archbishop Lefebvre and the other bishops were invalid and after reading the article below by John Salza, I believe I was correct.

Is the SSPX in Schism?
John Salza, J.D. v. Robert Moynihan, Ph.D

During the past year, I have been an unsolicited beneficiary of the many email communiques of Dr. baptism of blood Moynihan, Founder and Editor of Inside the Vatican magazine. Dr. Moynihan sends out regular emails explaining his personal views about current developments in the Church. In his recent Letter 21 entitled “Can the Lefebvrian Split Be Healed? On What Terms?,” Dr. Moynihan repeatedly states that the Society of St. Pius X is in schism. In attempting to provide an update on the talks between Rome and “the followers of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre” (which was actually no update at all because the talks are private and Moynihan admits he doesn’t know “what is going on”), he writes: “There has only been one official schism in the Roman Catholic Church since the Second Vatican Council. That occurred in 1988, when Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre consecrated four bishops against the express instructions of Pope John Paul II. That led to the excommunication of Lefebvre and those four bishops, and the schism of Lefebvre and his followers from Rome.

Now 23 years have passed…Pope Benedict XVI has made it clear that he would like to heal this schism during his pontificate” (emphasis added). As we will see, Dr. Moynihan not only does not know what is going on with the Society’s talks with the Holy See, he also does not understand that the bishops and priests of the SSPX are members of the Catholic Church. While the SSPX’s canonical status is irregular and thus their priests operate under supplied and not ordinary jurisdiction, the SSPX is not and never has been in schism (schismatics don’t have “irregular” canonical situations because they are not subject to the Church’s canon law at all). However, given the rash way in which the Holy See originallyhandled Archbishop Lefebvre’s 1988 episcopal consecrations, we can understand why ignorant Catholics would hold this erroneous opinion. Let’s take a brief look at the Church’s law and the facts of the case to provide some clarity to the question.

The day after Archbishop Lefebvre consecrated the four bishops, Cardinal Gantin (not Pope John Paul II) declared on July 1, 1988 that the Archbishop had excommunicated himself by consecrating bishops without pontifical mandate in violation of canon 1382, and also referred to the consecration as a schismatic act under canon 1364.1. Although Pope John Paul II acknowledged the Gantin decree in his Motu Proprio Ecclesia Dei Afflicta (July 2, 1988), his Motu Proprio was not a papal decree of schism or even an authentic interpretation of the canon law addressing schism. And it couldn’t have been, for under the pope’s 1983 Code of Canon law, illicitly consecrating a bishop is not a schismatic act. Needless to say, the pope’s punitive sanctions must be based on the current canon law of the Church as a matter of justice, upon which Catholics have a right to rely; otherwise, the punitive canons do not serve their purpose.

Therefore, under the laws of the Church, neither Archbishop Lefebvre nor the bishops he consecrated was guilty of schism. That is most likely why the Holy See gave Archbishop Lefebvre a canonical warning about excommunication and not schism before he consecrated the bishops. Dr. Moynihan should know the difference between disobedience and schism. A person’s disobedience of a papal command does not give rise to schism; the person must actually deny the pope’s authority to be guilty of the crime of schism, and this “refusal of submission” (under canon 751) must be interpreted in the strictest sense, in favor of the perpetrator. Even the liberal Fr. Yves Congar, in a staunch critique of Archbishop Lefebvre, correctly explains that schism involves the refusal to accept the existence of the legitimate authority of the pope and not the refusal to accept a decision of that legitimate authority. Of course, Archbishop Lefebvre never denied Pope John Paul II’s authority as the Vicar of Christ. In fact, he believed his actions to secure traditional priests were actually serving the pope and the Church at large. In fact, the Ecclesia Dei commission has made it clear that the SSPX is not in schism.

The commission declared that Catholics can fulfill their Sunday obligation by attending Masses offered by SSPX priests – and this was before the excommunications were lifted! (see letter from Monsignor Perl dated September 27, 2002). If the priests of the SSPX were in schism, the Ecclesia Dei commission would not allow Catholics to assist at their Masses, since in doing so they would be allowing Catholics to worship outside the Church (and thus permitting them to break the Third Commandment). This proves that SSPX bishops and priests are not in fact in schism (for example, Catholics could not fulfill their Sunday obligation by attending liturgies offered by the schismatic priests of the Eastern Orthodox sects). The same commission has said that, so long as Catholics attend SSPX chapels out of their devotion to the Traditional Latin Mass (and not because they want to separate themselves from the Roman Pontiff – of course they don’t!), such conduct is also not sinful.

The Holy See has stated that the SSPX situation is an internal matter of the Catholic Church and that the SSPX is not a counter-diocese or separate ecclesial structure. That the Church regards the SSPX situation as an “internal matter” also proves that SSPX bishops and priests are not in schism. Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos in five separate interviews has stated that the SSPX is not in formal schism (what Moynihan calls “official schism”), without any rebuke from the Holy See.

The case of the Hawaii six also bears this out. Those excommunications would not have been lifted if the six Catholics were attending Masses offered by schismatic priests. And for those who insist that the SSPX priests are “suspended” (even though the Holy See has never issued a decree of suspension against them!), they would be admitting that SSPX priests are still subject to the Church’s disciplinary laws. In such case, the SSPX priests cannot be schismatics who are outside the Church because, as previously stated, one cannot be outside the Church and still be subject to her canon law. This is a legal impossibility.

Pope Benedict XVI’s explanation in his Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum (2007) also clears the air that the SSPX is not in schism. Pope Benedict first explained that John Paul II’s 1988 Motu Proprio was issued to bring the SSPX into “full unity” with Rome - not to declare they completely severed their unity with Rome, which is the case with a schismatic. (We note that canon law recognizes no such principle as “partial unity” or “partial communion”; these terms are unique to the ecumenical double-speak of the conciliar Church. One is either a member of the Body of Christ or completely severed from the Body as is the case with a schismatic). But Pope Benedict says the positive reason for his Motu Proprio, which updates Ecclesia Dei, is to come to
“an interior reconciliation in the heart of the Church.” Note that the pope says this reconciliation – which is between the SSPX and Rome – is an “interior” one that is taking place “in the heart of the Church,” further demonstrating that the SSPX is inside the Church where the reconciliation is being pursued.

Pope Benedict has also made it clear that the SSPX is not in schism by vacating the
excommunications declared under his predecessor. Schismatics remain excommunicated from the Church until they retract their errors, but Pope Benedict required no such retraction from the SSPX before nullifying the bishops’ excommunications. This unprecedented action also indicates that the excommunications were not justified, and canon law supports that conclusion.

As further explained below, canon law operates to mitigate or eliminate canonical penalties under certain circumstances. For example, canon 1323.4 provides that one is not liable to a penalty who, when violating a law, “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.”

As applied here, Archbishop Lefebvre made it clear in his sermon on June 30, 1988 that he believed he was acting “due to necessity” in consecrating the bishops to retain the traditional priesthood and Holy Mass which was all but abandoned by the bishops at that time. The archbishop was concerned about the Modernism that had ravaged the Church (remember these consecrations took place shortly after the scandalous Assisi prayer meeting) and was genuinely worried that, without traditional bishops, he would have orphaned his seminarians. When one reads his sermon, it is clear that the last thing the archbishop wanted to do was separate himself from Eternal Rome. Of course, the act of consecrating a bishop is not intrinsically evil, nor is it harmful to souls (especially when Archbishop Lefebvre wasn’t purporting to grant the bishops jurisdiction or set up an ecclesial structure in opposition to the Church).
As we have said, the pope is the supreme legislator of the Church, and he obviously disagreed with Archbishop Lefebvre’s “case of necessity.” Nevertheless, canon law regards what is in the mind of the offender, not the pope. Canon 1323.7 says that no one is liable to a penalty who, when violating a law or precept, “without negligence thought that one of the circumstances mentioned (i.e., necessity) existed...” In other words, if Archbishop Lefebvre (not the pope) “thought, through no personal fault,” that a “reason of necessity” existed to consecrate the four bishops, then he would not incur excommunication under canon 1382. Can anyone credibly argue that Archbishop Lefebvre did not really think there was a “reason of necessity” or “grave inconvenience” which motivated his consecrations? I don’t think so.

Putting aside the issues of “traditionalism,” I think any honest Catholic would conclude that the archbishop truly believed, “through no personal fault,” that he had a case of necessity or grave inconvenience. But even if one wants to accuse the archbishop of being culpably erroneous in his assessments, canon 1324.1 says that the penalty is diminished for one who “thought in culpable error that one
of the circumstances [necessity] was present”. Under canon 1324.3, where the penalty is diminished, “the accused is not bound by a latae sententiae penalty.” Thus, even if Archbishop Lefebvre was culpably wrong in his assessments, canon 1324 would diminish his canonical penalty to something less than excommunication.

Archbishop Lefebvre knew canon law. He based his decision to consecrate the four bishops on this law providing for “reason of necessity” and “grave inconvenience.” If Catholics cannot rely upon canon law to govern their actions, then we have an absolute monarchy and not the Catholic Church. Dr. Moynihan reveals his ignorance of these legal issues and does a grave disservice to the Church in accusing his fellow Catholics of being in “official schism” (Is there “unofficial” schism? Perhaps like “partial” communion?). Such a dismissive approach to the Society is often an excuse for an unwillingness or inability to substantively address the legitimate doctrinal issues that have been raised by the SSPX and entertained by the Holy See. Instead of showing us how the council’s teachings on religious liberty and non-Catholic religions can be reconciled with the teachings of the pre-conciliar Magisterium, Dr. Moynihan would rather alienate the SSPX and any other Catholic who would dare question Vatican II.

Gratefully, this is not the attitude of Pope Benedict XVI, who not only acknowledges that the Society is inside the Church, but also recognizes with the Society that the Church has suffered an attack on her theology, liturgy and discipline since the council. It is high time that Dr. Moynihan and his cohorts recognize that the crisis in the Church is not about “schism” or “full communion,” but about the dogma of the Church. This is precisely what Our Lady of Fatima revealed. In the end, Our Lady’s Immaculate Heart will triumph, and the Church’s dogma will be
restored – without compromise.

columba wrote:Those who entertain the notion that the SSPX are schismatic are themselves mistaken. I argued a while back with Mike that the excommunications of Archbishop Lefebvre and the other bishops were invalid and after reading the article below by John Salza, I believe I was correct.

Is the SSPX in Schism?
John Salza, J.D. v. Robert Moynihan, Ph.D

Archbishop Lefebvre knew canon law. He based his decision to consecrate the four bishops on this law providing for “reason of necessity” and “grave inconvenience.”

We notice, Columba, that you do cannot resist attacking the old “red herring”, even after being warned against it:

(And please let's not get distracted by the old, SSPX isn't in schism red herring. I didn't make that assertion. I said something different.)

And, what he actually said was:

I fear too many SSPX adherents and sympathizers lack the deep horror of schism that the Fathers of the Church have always stressed.

And if I am right about that, that is a cause for great alarm. It should set off alarm bells among all those SSPX sympathizers who protest they are utterly Catholic; because while I don't doubt your sincerity, becoming desensitized to schism is a dangerous thing.

And, I believe he is absolutely correct.

As far as John Salza taking on the supreme authority of Pope JPII, there is nothing to debate; Salza is going to lose this “debate” every time. The Pope appealed to and then commanded that Ab Levebre not proceed in "a schismatic act" that would have grave "theological and canonical consequences". It was a schismatic act because Pope John Paul II said it was (in his apostolic letter Ecclesia Dei) by virtue of canon 1382 of the Code of Canon Law, thus, the bishops involved were automatically excommunicated.

All of this special pleading and canon lawyering is pointless, there is no higher authority in the interpretation of canon law then that of the Supreme Pontiff, against whose judgments there is NO appeal, especially in those cases of excommunication latae sententiae - reserved to the Holy See alone. The Pope’s decisions are final, and any “AB Lefebvre did not intend to perform a schismatic act” special pleading is all well and good, but it is irrelevant; let him explain it to God who holds the pope’s decision as final (even if Ab Lefebvre's heart is innocent before God), and there is NO recourse against the judgements reserved to the Roman Pontiff alone (against his Supreme Primacy of Jurisdiction).

Canon 16 §1: Laws are authentically interpreted by the legislator and by that person to whom the legislator entrusts the power of authentic interpretation.

Canon 16 §2: An authentic interpretation which is presented by way of a law has the same force as the law itself, and must be promulgated. If it simply declares the sense of words which are certain in themselves, it has retroactive force...

Canon 17: Ecclesiastical laws are to be understood according to the proper meaning of the words considered in their text and context. If the meaning remains doubtful or obscure, there must be recourse to parallel places, if there be any, to the purpose and circumstances of the law, and to the mind of the legislator.

Can. 333 §3 There is neither appeal not recourse against a judgement or a decree of the Roman Pontiff.

Canon 1404: The First See is judged by no one.

Canon 1629: "No appeal is possible against: 1° a judgment of the Supreme Pontiff himself, or a judgment of the Apostolic Signatura;"

Shall we draw you a bigger picture?

Any intentional act against the Supreme Primacy and authority of the Pope over Episcopal Consecrations are intrinsically evil, so whether AB Lefebvre intended a schismatic act or not is irrelevant to the objective evil of the act itself – he knew what he was doing, he knew the consequences, and suffered the same.

Get over it.

Archbishop Lefebvre knew canon law.

So did the Pope. Guess who wins?

MRyan wrote:
All of this special pleading and canon lawyering is pointless, there is no higher authority in the interpretation of canon law then that of the Supreme Pontiff, against whose judgments there is NO appeal, especially in those cases of excommunication latae sententiae - reserved to the Holy See alone. The Pope’s decisions are final, and any “AB Lefebvre did not intend to perform a schismatic act” special pleading is all well and good, but it is irrelevant; let him explain it to God who holds the pope’s decision as final (even if Ab Lefebvre's heart is innocent before God), and there is NO recourse against the judgements reserved to the Roman Pontiff alone (against his Supreme Primacy of Jurisdiction).

I think you'll find you are wrong on this point. As Salza points out, the very reason for the existence of canon law is for the assurance of justice for all members of the Church, justice being a primary concern and attribute of the Church. If the rule of law (in this case canon law) is forsaken in favor of an agenda against the accused party (when that party, by law, is to be given every benefit of doubt), and the same rule of law is not exercised against those who are most assuredly in breach of it, i.e; Archbishop Muller, then there is something unjust about the judge, and God does not look kindly on injustice and always takes the part of the abused over the abuser.

As Salza also points out, the fact that we now do know that the law was misapplied can be clearly seen by the lifting of the excommunications without any retraction on the part of the wrongly accused bishops. If His (archbishop Lefebvre's) action was schismatic, the other bishops would have been required to denounce the act before the sentance was revoked. They gave no such assurances that they themselves would not perform the same act as their founder if the need arose. The same misapplication of law was suffered by the Hawaii 6 and consequently declared illegal.

MRyan wrote:
Any intentional act against the Supreme Primacy and authority of the Pope over Episcopal Consecrations are intrinsically evil, so whether AB Lefebvre intended a schismatic act or not is irrelevant to the objective evil of the act itself – he knew what he was doing, he knew the consequences, and suffered the same.

Get over it.

The prohibiting of the consecration of bishops for the good of the Church was intrinsically evil. A state of emergency did exist and still does while the Church remains in a state of disarray. Yes, he suffered the consequences in this life but may well be already reaping the rewards in the next. Who's the winner?

Archbishop Lefebvre knew canon law.

So did the Pope. Guess who wins?

We'll know that on judgment day.

Alas, even The Water Cooler
Place for hanging out and just chatting........
has become a place for profound debate ,which can only be a good thing.

SSPX can yet prove to be a great and long time comming reason for heavenly joy as part of the cure in the crisis of faith. We must conyinue to pray that the rupture will be remedied according the will of God and help from the Holy Ghost.

I just listened to a few remarks that Our Pope made in addressing the priests of Rome today(mostly spontaneous) about his prayers and hopes for the fullfillment of what the Church fathers intended the results of VII to be which are yet not realized. Perhaps someone can post some of the speech with commentary. I still find it hard to believe how anyone could doubt that Our Holy Father is the succesor of St. Peter. The Pope said very recently that we are all sinners.

JMJ,

George

You're right George. This is the water cooler and I was merrily posting away forgetting where I was. Maybe we could take this discussion elsewhere if there's any further interest in it.

Looking at the title of this thread it may not have been the best forum for the initial topic.

SF, Watch where you're posting from now on. Don't have me go round there and kick your dog during lent.

Columba said:
"SF, Watch where you're posting from now on. Don't have me go round there and kick your dog during lent."

Columba, I should warn you, my dog is a German Shepherd, (just like our current Pope), both are loyal and faithful to their master and appear docile, but it's never a good idea to kick either of them.

Columba, I should warn you, my dog is a German Shepherd, (just like our current Pope), both are loyal and faithful to their master and appear docile, but it's never a good idea to kick either of them.

I know. I was already round there but he refused to bark... Said something about being retired from guard dog duties... Ruff Ruff.

No Columba, he's not yet retired, it's just that he doesn't usually bother too much about anyone just 'sitting on the fence', as he knows they only pose a danger to themself.
COLUMBA, SIT!, STAY!, there's-a-good-boy.

columba wrote:

MRyan wrote:
All of this special pleading and canon lawyering is pointless, there is no higher authority in the interpretation of canon law then that of the Supreme Pontiff, against whose judgments there is NO appeal, especially in those cases of excommunication latae sententiae - reserved to the Holy See alone. The Pope’s decisions are final, and any “AB Lefebvre did not intend to perform a schismatic act” special pleading is all well and good, but it is irrelevant; let him explain it to God who holds the pope’s decision as final (even if Ab Lefebvre's heart is innocent before God), and there is NO recourse against the judgements reserved to the Roman Pontiff alone (against his Supreme Primacy of Jurisdiction).

I think you'll find you are wrong on this point.

Not a chance. You mean there is a higher authority in the interpretation of canon law then that of the Supreme Pontiff? You mean against the Supreme Legislator’s judgments there is appeal, even in those cases of excommunication latae sententiae - reserved to the Holy See alone?

No, I am absolutely correct “on this point”. The Pontifical Commission for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts issued the following statement:

However, doubt cannot reasonably be cast upon the validity of the excommunication of the Bishops declared in the Motu Proprio [Ecclesia Dei] and the Decree [of excommunication against Lefebvre]. 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 1323-1324). 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.

Continuing:

columba wrote:
As Salza points out, the very reason for the existence of canon law is for the assurance of justice for all members of the Church, justice being a primary concern and attribute of the Church. If the rule of law (in this case canon law) is forsaken in favor of an agenda against the accused party (when that party, by law, is to be given every benefit of doubt), and the same rule of law is not exercised against those who are most assuredly in breach of it, i.e; Archbishop Muller, then there is something unjust about the judge, and God does not look kindly on injustice and always takes the part of the abused over the abuser.

In that case there is no such thing as an objective act of schism by refusing obedience to the express will of Roman Pontiff who alone is the foundation of both unities of faith and communion. All one has to do is claim some “emergency need” and suggest that the Pope is no longer the foundation of faith and communion and is intent on destroying the Church, and any objective act of schism can be justified, thereby suggesting that an errant faithless Church is better served by defying the very faithless and rudderless Rock and foundation of unity and communion – the faithless and Church-destroying Roman Pontiff. Yep, that’s some "emergency” all right.

After all, the Pope appeared to have lost his mind (gone AWOL) and was intent on destroying the Church; and thus, he could no longer be trusted with the Keys to govern as the foundation of faith and communion for the Universal Church. That’s the whole specious argument in a nutshell.

Your special pleading rashly assumes that “the rule of law [was] forsaken in favor of an agenda against the accused party” when such subjective accusations against the intentions and express will of the Roman Pontiff are entirely unfounded. Your special pleading also assumes that our Lord favors the “emergency need” of an objective act of schism over the judgment of His Supreme Legislator, the foundation of Catholic communion, against which there is “neither appeal not recourse”.

columba wrote: As Salza also points out, the fact that we now do know that the law was misapplied can be clearly seen by the lifting of the excommunications without any retraction on the part of the wrongly accused bishops. If His (archbishop Lefebvre's) action was schismatic, the other bishops would have been required to denounce the act before the sentance was revoked. They gave no such assurances that they themselves would not perform the same act as their founder if the need arose. The same misapplication of law was suffered by the Hawaii 6 and consequently declared illegal.

This is actually quite incredible, where the hand of mercy and conciliation is confused with the admission of malfeasance and injustice on the part of the Pope. The Church never considered Ab Lefebvre’s intention to be malicious, but that does not excuse his schismatic act or mitigate its intrinsic evil.

columba wrote:

MRyan wrote:
Any intentional act against the Supreme Primacy and authority of the Pope over Episcopal Consecrations is intrinsically evil, so whether AB Lefebvre intended a schismatic act or not is irrelevant to the objective evil of the act itself – he knew what he was doing, he knew the consequences, and suffered the same.

Get over it.

The prohibiting of the consecration of bishops for the good of the Church was intrinsically evil. A state of emergency did exist and still does while the Church remains in a state of disarray. Yes, he suffered the consequences in this life but may well be already reaping the rewards in the next. Who's the winner?

No, there is only one Supreme Pontiff who determines what is “good for the Church”, especially in matters involving his full and immediate Primacy of Jurisdiction over the universal Church, which includes his supreme authority over Episcopal consecrations. There is nothing “good” about breaking communion with the Roman Pontiff in an act of defiance and schism against his express will and against his supreme authority as the foundation of faith and communion.

columba wrote:

Mryan wrote:

columba wrote:

Archbishop Lefebvre knew canon law.

So did the Pope. Guess who wins?

We'll know that on judgment day.

Those who have judged against the pope’s judgment have already been judged, and need to repent.

Back to the original thread for a moment.
With only 2 weeks left to implement any changes, Pope Benedict has now appointed a German to head the Vatican Bank:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/16/world/europe/pope-names-von-freyberg-to-head-vatican-bank.html?_r=0

columba wrote:

The prohibiting of the consecration of bishops for the good of the Church was intrinsically evil. A state of emergency did exist and still does while the Church remains in a state of disarray.

The Roman Pontiff’s “prohibition” of an act of schism by a Bishop already suspended a divinis (expressly reserved to the pope) is seen by the resident fence-sitting sede as an intrinsically evil act; after all, Ab Lefebvre only broke off negotiations with Cardinal Ratzinger and retracted his signature from a protocol agreement regularizing the situation of the SSPX (that also provided for the consecration of a Bishop by a certain date) – “for the good of the Church”.

Ab Lefebvre had previously accused Pope Paul VI “of unintentionally collaborating with freemasonry in order to destroy the Church. It was also evident that Lefebvre would not submit to the authority of the Roman Pontiff.”

Here are additional details:

After intense negotiation, on May 5, 1988 Archbishop Lefebvre and Cardinal Ratzinger were able to sign a protocol agreement between the Holy See and the SSPX.(72) The protocol's main purpose was to regularize the SSPX as a clerical society of apostolic life of pontifical right, remove all censures against the clergy and laity within the Lefebvrite movement, and provide for their future pastoral care. Within the broad scope of the protocol, Lefebvre agreed to recognize the authenticity of the Second Vatican Council and the reformed Roman liturgy of Paul VI, while the groundwork was laid for the future of the tridentinist movement.

Besides the regularization of chapels affiliated with the SSPX and permission to continue using the liturgical missal of 1962, the Holy See agreed to name a candidate from among the ranks of the SSPX presbyters whom Archbishop Lefebvre would be permitted to consecrate to the episcopacy. The particular text within the protocol agreement translates as follows:

5.2 But, for practical and psychological reasons, the consecration of a member of the [SSPX] as a bishop seems useful. This is why, in the context of the doctrinal and canonical solution of reconciliation, we suggest to the Holy Father that he name a bishop chosen from among the members of the [SSPX], presented by Archbishop Lefebvre. In consequence of the principle indicated above (5.1), this bishop as a rule is not the Superior General of the Society.(73) But it seems opportune that he be a member of the Roman commission.(74)

In short, the new bishop would provide for the ordination of SSPX clergy and the confirmation of tridentinist laity according to the 1962 liturgical usage. Additionally, the Holy See agreed to establish a Roman commission composed of members named from both the Holy See and the SSPX, of which the SSPX bishop would be a member ex officio. The main purpose of the Roman Commission would be to resolve future questions arising between the Holy See and the SSPX.

Yet if the Holy See thought that most problems between the Church and the SSPX had been resolved, new problems began to surface almost immediately over the consecration of bishops. The Holy See had agreed to consecrate a bishop for the SSPX, fixing the date for August 15, 1988.(75) In a letter to Cardinal Ratzinger dated May 24, 1988, Lefebvre began to waiver from the protocol agreement, stating:

Upon reflection, it appears clear that the goal of these dialogues is to reabsorb us within the Conciliar Church, the only Church to which you make allusion during these meetings... Therefore, with much regret we feel obliged to ask that, before the date of June 1st, you indicated clearly to us what the intentions of the Holy See are on these two points: consecration of three bishops asked for June 30th, and a majority of members from Tradition in the Roman Commission... Without an answer to this request, I shall proceed with the publication of the names of the candidates to the episcopacy whom I will consecrate on June 30th with the collaboration of His Excellency Bishop de Castro Mayer.(76)

In effect, three main problems arise out of Lefebvre's letter. First, it would appear that Lefebvre and the SSPX had adopted an attitude of schism, in not wishing to be part of the "[Post-] Conciliar Church." In light of his suspicion, Lefebvre now requested that a majority of the members on the Roman Commission be named from his movement, rather than two of the five as outlined in the protocol agreement.(77) Perhaps some arrangement would have been possible with regards to the Roman Commission, however, it was Lefebvre's second demand which proved more problematical for the Holy See. No longer satisfied with a single bishop to be consecrated on August 15th of the same year, Lefebvre now threatened to proceed illicitly if Rome would not meet his demand of more bishops at a sooner date.

(http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=1392)

The schism and excommunications that followed are history.

But, according to columba, it was an act of pure intrinsic evil for the Roman Pontiff to have prohibited the consecrations of bishops against his express will, after all, the "[Post- Conciliar Church" is the very definition of intrinsic evil, and it would be a mortal sin for Ab Lefebvre to cooperate with and operate within an evil institution whose visible Vicar is intent upon destroying the true Church (however unintentional his motives may be).

Seriously, what’s wrong with a “schismatic act” when it breaks communion with a false schismatic Church? What, is the pope, the putative head of two Churches (one false, the other true), blind?

In the modern age of democracy, and seeing how the hierarchy tries to baptize it, why not let us all vote?

The “We Are Church” crowd would love nothing more.