What I am saying is how do they perform their duties, without permission of the Church. (The local Bishop, The Pope). This fact says their Eucharist is only legal and valid under the Bishop.
Judith,
Thank you for your question. This question has been asked and answered many times in the last 30+ years. Especially dating since the 1988 Consecrations of the Four Bishops by Archbishop Lefebvre.
Please consider the following with respect to the 'legality and validity' of the sacraments of the SSPX and by extension, the true resistance priests. It treats of this important subject matter in a simple-to-follow format. We hope it helps you and others to understand the theological foundations upon which the work of this important prelate is laid.
++++++++
SiSiNoNo
July 1999 No. 33
The 1988 Consecrations
This issue of the Angelus English-Language edition of
SISINONO begins a series of two studies - one theological and one canonical - regarding the "state of necessity" invoked by Archbishop Lefebvre to justify his consecration of four bishops on June 30, 1988.
These remarks are for those who admit the existence of an extraordinary crisis in the Church but do not know how to justify the extraordinary action of Archbishop Lefebvre on June 10, 1988 when, lacking permission from Pope John Paul II, he transmitted the power of episcopal orders to members of the Fraternity founded by him.
THEOLOGICAL STUDY – PART IArchbishop Lefebvre justified his act by appealing to the state of necessity .The force of this excusing cause was not undervalued by Vatican authorites, who did not contest it on the doctrinal level, but responded with an argument of fact, namely, that there was not a state of necessity,
1 knowing full well that, if it had been, the action of Archbishop Lefebvre would have been fully justified, even as much as it concerns the "no" of the Pope, according to Catholic doctrine on the state of necessity.
The strength of the justification adduced by Archbishop Lefebvre escapes, on the contrary, most people through the simple fact that Catholic doctrine on the state of necessity is little known. We will try to explain it. The principles we will use are found in any traditional treatises regarding moral law or canon law. It is an absurdity to admit an extraordinary crisis in the Church and, at the same time, to pretend to measure what has been done in such
extraordinary circumstances with the rule of norms valid in
ordinary circumstances. It is contrary to logic and to the doctrine of the Church. Law, in fact:
St. Thomas Aquinas reinforces this principle:
Therefore, in cases "that happen rarely" and in which "one happens to have to act outside the ordinary laws," "
it is necessary to judge on the basis of principles higher than the ordinary laws" (ST, II-II, Q.51, A.4). These "higher principles" are the "general principles of divine and even human law" (Suarez, De Legibus 1. VI c. VI n.5) which supply for the silence of positive law.
The Church is authorized to apply said principles when, because of cases not foreseen by the law, it defers to the general principles of law and to the common and constant judgment of the Doctors, which, precisely because common and constant, must be considered canonized by the Church.
3That having been set forth, we offer for the convenience of readers a summary of the arguments that we will treat here in succession.
I. DUTIES AND POWERS OF A BISHOP IN THE STATE OF NECESSITY
A. State of Necessity and Its Various DegreesThe state of necessity consists in "a threat to the spiritual goods of life, of liberty or other earthly goods."
4If the threat regards earthly goods, we have material necessity; if it regards spiritual goods, we have spiritual necessity, a necessity all the "more urgent than that material" to the extent that spiritual goods are more important than material goods.
5In reality various degrees of
spiritual necessity can be given, but theologians commonly distinguish five of them:
B. Today's State of Grave General Spiritual NecessityToday a state of grave general (or public) spiritual necessity exists because many Catholics are threatened in faith and morals by the public and undisputed spreading neo-modernsim or self-styled "new theology," already condemned by Pope Pius XII as the assembly of error which "threaten to destroy the foundations of the Catholic Faith,"
7 a revival of that modernism previously condemned by Pope St. Pius X as "the synthesis of all heresies."
8This public diffusion of errors and of heresies was dramatically denounced by Pope Paul VI who went so as to speak of the "auto-destruction" of the Church9 and the "smoke of Satan in the temple of God,”
10 and was admitted by Pope John Paul II at the beginning of his pontificate on the occasion of a Congress on missions people:
There is, therefore, a state of grave public or general necessity: grave, because faith and morals have been threatened; public or general, because these spirit goods, indispensable to salvation, have been threatened among
a large part of the Christian people. The situation has grown worse after 20 years of Pope John Paul II:
Under these "clouds," in this "storm," amidst these "doubts," souls nevertheless must direct their course to the harbor of eternal salvation in the brief time of trial allotted to them. Who can deny that today, generally, many souls live in a state of "grave spiritual necessity?"
1. 1st Principle: the Grave Necessity of Many Is Equated with the Grave Necessity of the IndividualIt is the common doctrine of theologians and canonists that the grave necessity of
many (either general or public) must be equated with the grave necessity of the
individual (P. Palazzini,
Dictionarium Morale et Canonicum, vol.1, p.571). This is a fundamental principle because it means that that which is lawful in the extreme necessity of the individual is lawful in the grave necessity of many. Theologians explain the reasons for this:
The common good must be considered in danger not only when 1) many effectively suffer harm, but also 2) when they
are able to suffer it. In the first application to our case, people lose the faith; in the second, they are able to lose it if, in fact, only one objective cause exists which renders this damage possible.
14 The spread of errors and heresies already condemned by the Church is sufficient for judging the danger to the common good. These expose the old generations to the loss of faith and deprive the new generations of the integral transmission of doctrine. Both old and young are robbed of the goods due to them by the hierarchy according to the norms of divine law, natural and positive, and also according to the norms of ecclesiastical law (
1917 Code of Canon Law, can. 682;
1983 Code of Canon Law, can. 213), doctrine, and the sacraments, the rites of which today have been left to "creativity," as denounced by Pope Pius XII:
This is enough to say that today not only do many souls live in the state of grave necessity. The "double end which the Church pursues: the good of the religious community and the eternal salvation [of souls]"
15 has been compromised and "the very sense and scope of the whole life of the Church [Pope Pius XII]"
16 and, hence, the common good, is at stake.
2. 2nd Principle: The Grave General Necessity Without Hope Of Help On the Part of Legitimate Pastors Imposes an Obligation of Assistance Upon ClericsWho is responsible for helping souls in the state of necessity? By way of justice (
ex officio) it belongs to the legitimate pastors, but if, for any reason, their help happens to be lacking, this duty falls, by way of charity
(ex caritate), up on anyone who has the possibility of offering help.
6 St. Alphonsus and Suarez observe that the power of order adds to the duty of charity a duty of state, that is, the duty of the sacerdotal state - instituted by Our Lord precisely for assisting the spiritual needs of souls.
17Note that the duty of charity imposed by the need of souls is a duty under pain of mortal sin. In fact, the greatest commandment, the commandment of charity, obliges coming to the aid of one's neighbor in necessity, especially spiritual, and demands it under pain of mortal sin in extreme or near-extreme necessity of the individual and in the grave necessity of many, which is equivalent to it.l8 Rev. Fr. E. Genicot, SJ., writes that:
This duty of charity in some cases can oblige also at the risk of one's own life, reputation, and goods. St. Alphonsus says that grave public or general spiritual necessity obliges in this way and that therefore:
Suarez is of the same mind:
At his time, Billuart writes:
3) 3rd Principle: The Obligation of Assistance Is Coextensive With the Power of Order (But Not of Jurisdiction). The Power of Jurisdiction Springs From the Necessity of the Faithful.In necessity one is bound to offer help, while it is needed, within the limits of one's possibilities, which, for a priest or bishop, means within the limits of their own power of Order. It is on account of this that in the extreme necessity of the individual and in the grave necessity of many, any priest is bound under pain of mortal sin to give sacramental absolution, even if deprived of jurisdiction.
6 St. Alphonsus writes that even:
In brief, as long as the extreme necessity of the individual or the grave necessity of many demands it, one can
lawfully, indeed, one must under pain of mortal sin do all that he is able to do
validly in virtue of the power of order. The necessary jurisdiction is acquired at the request of souls. The
1917 Code of Canon Law (can. 2261, §§2,3) states that the faithful can "on account of any just cause" demand the sacraments from an excommunicated priest [whom the Church has deprived of jurisdiction] and at that time the one excommunicated, so requested, can administer them. Fr. Hugueny, O.P. remarks that "the demand [of the faithful] gives to the excommunicated priest the power of administering the sacraments."30 This means that, in necessity, the exercise of the power of order to the full extent necessary is called into act not by the will of the hierarchical superior, but directly by the state of necessity. "The action otherwise prohibited...is rendered licit and permitted by the state of necessity. [
Catholic Encyclopedia, on "Necessity (State of)"].
In such extraordinary circumstances, the jurisdiction lacking is said to be supplied by the Church. The Council of Trent (Sess. XIV, c.7) [Denzinger, 903] assures us that it is contrary to the mind of the Church that souls be lost by reason of jurisdictional reservations or limitations:
And Pope Innocent XI, cutting off every argument on the subject, establishes definitively that in necessity the Church supplies jurisdiction lacking even to heretical, infamous, and excommunicated
vitandi priests.
32The thought and practice of the Church has as its principle that in necessity there is imposed, through natural and positive law, a grave duty of charity and that against the divine and natural law the Church does not have any power. In addition to St. Alphonsus already quoted above, Suarez writes, “Justice or charity command avoiding...harm to neighbor, and to this [divine] mandate human law cannot be reasonable opposed.
33 St. Thomas Aquinas says that "the disposition of human law cannot ever infringe upon the natural law and the law of God (
ST; ll-ll, Q.66, A.7).
This is valid above all for human ecclesiastical law which is meant to facilitate the exercise of charity, not obstruct it. Fr. Cappello writes that it is certain that the Church supplies jurisdiction in order to provide either for the extreme necessity of the individual or "for the public or general necessity of the faithful.
34 The reason, says St. Alphonsus, is that otherwise many souls would be lost and therefore it is reasonably presumed that the Church supplies jurisdiction.
35 In other words, as in material necessity things revert to their primary end, which is the benefit of all men in general, so in spiritual necessity the power of Order reverts to its primary end, which is that of providing for the necessity of all souls in general, and the limitation (or total deprivation) of jurisdiction arising from ecclesiastical laws vanishes.
36 St. Thomas Aquinas explains.
In virtue of the power of order, any priest has power indifferently over all [men] and for all sins. The fact that he is not able to absolve all from all sins depends on the jurisdiction imposed by the ecclesiastical law. But since necessity is not subject to law [
c. Consilium de Observ. Ieiun., De Reg. Iur. (V Decretal.) c.4], in case of necessity, he is not impeded by the discipline of the Church from being able to absolve even sacramentally provided that he has the power of order [Supplement, Q.8, A.6].
(Part II of this theological study of the 1988 Episcopal Consecrations will appear in the Sept. 1999
SiSiNoNo insert in
The Angelus.)
1.
Motu Proprio of July 2, 1988.
2.
Brisbois Apropos des lois purement penales in Nouvelle revue theologique, 65 (1938), p.1072
3.
V. can. 20 of the Pian-Benedictine Code and F. M. Cappello, S.J.,
Ius suppletorium in Summa iuris canonici, vol.I (Roma, 1961), p.79.
4. V.E. Eichmann-KI. Morsdor,
Trattato di diritto canonica, and G. May,
Legittima difesa, resistenza, necessita.
5. St. Thomas Aquinas,
Summa Theologica,
Suppl, Q.8 A.6; v., also P. Palazzini,
Dictionarium morale et canonicum, under the word, "
caritas” (
erga proximum)
6. See, for example, P. Palazzini,
Dictionarium morale et canonicum, under the word "
caritas”; Billuart,
De charitate, diss. IV, art.3; Genicot, S.J.,
Institutiones Theologiae moralis, vol.l, 217, A and B, etc.
7. Pope Pills XII,
Humani Generis, 1950 (Kansas City: Angelus Press).
8.
Motu proprio, Nov. 18, 1907.
9.
Discourse of Pope Paul VI at the Lombard Seminary in Rome, Dec. 7, 1968.
10.
Discourse of Pope Paul VI, June 30, 1972.
11.
L 'Osservatore Romano, Feb. 7, 1981.
12. V.E. Genicot, SJ.,
Institutiones Theologiae Moralis, vol. I, 217B; Billuart,
De caritate Diss., IV, art.3; St. Alphonsus,
Theologia Moralis, Book 3, n.27.
13. F. Saurez,
De charitate disput, IX, sect.lI, n.4.
14. V. Roberti-Palazzini,
Dizionario di teologia morale, ed. Studium, under the word, "supplied jurisdiction."
15. Naz,
Dict. Droit Canonique, under the word "canon law," col.1446.
16.
Discourse (in French) to the Second World Congress of the Apostolate of the Laity, Oct. 1957.
17. St. Alphonsus,
Theologia moralis, 16, tract 4, n.625, and,
Opere Morali, ed. Marietti (Torino, 1848), tract.XVI, cap.VI, nn.126-127.
18.
I Jn. 3:17;
S.T:, II-II, Q.32, A.I, and A.5, ad. 2; Q 71, A.I ; Billuart,
De caritate, dissert.IV , art.3.
19. E. Genicot, S.J.,
op.cit, vol.l, n217, B and C.
20.
Theologia moralis, 1.3, tract 3, n.27.
21. F. Suarez,
De charitate, disput.9, sect.lI, n.4.
22.
De caritate, D dissert.IV, art.3.
23. St. Jerome,
Adversus Luciferianos.
24. Romano Amerio,
Iota Unum (Kansas City: Angelus Press, 1996), p.2.
25. ibid.,p.716.
26. ibid.,pp.143ƒƒ.
27.
Il Sabato, July 30/Aug. 5, 1988.
28. Card.Joumet,
L'Eglise du Verbe lncame, vol.1.
29. St. Alphonsus,
Theologia Moralis, I, VI, tract 4,n.560.
30.
Somme Theologique, t. XIII, La Petence, p.420.
31. Suarez (
De poenitentia disp. XXVI, sect. IV n. 6), it is asked if this constant and common custom guarded by the Church may not be of Divine institution. In every case - they conclude - the Church would not be able to abolish it, because this would be to use power "not for building, but for destroying." (ibid.)
32. St. Alphonsus, De poenitentiae sacramento, tract XVI, ch.V, n.92.
33. F.Suarez,
De Legibus, 1,Vl,c.VIl,n.13.
34. F. M. Cappello, Summa Iuris Canonici, vol.I, p.258, n.258, §2; see also, P. Palazzini,
Dictionarium, at the word "
iurisdictio suppleta."
35. St. Alphonsus,
De poenitentiae sacramento, tract XCI, c.V,n.90.
36. St Thomas,
ST;II-II,Q.66,A.7;cƒlI-II,Q.32,A-7, ad.3.
37. V. P. Palazzini,
Dictionarium morale et canonicum at the word, "
iurisdictio suppleta."
38. F. M. Cappello, S.J.,
Summa iuris canonici, vol.I (Rome, 1961), p.252.
39. V. Manlio Simonetti,
La Crisi ariana nel IV secolo (Institutum Patristicum Augustinianum, Via S., Uffizio 25, Roma), 1975.
40.
Dictionarium morale et canonicum, at the word "
Episcopi"
41. ibid at the word "
iurisdictio."
42.
Catholic Encyclopedia, at the word, "
necessity (state of)."
43.
Du sacre episcopale contre la volonte du Pape, joint essay of the Fraternity of St. Peter.
44.
De poenitentiae sacramento, tract XVI, c.V, n.91.
45. Card. J oumet,
L'Eglise du Verbe lncarne, vol.I, p.528, note 2.
46. V. Salaverri,
De Ecclesia in summa Theologiae (BAC, Madrid).
47. Card.Journet,
op. cit., vol.lI, pp.656-657. Fr. Tito Centi, O.P., in note 1 to the
ST of St. Thomas, ed. Salani. II-II Q.39, A.4, he wirtes: "We have an indication in the fact that the Church does not demand a general confession of those schismatics who return to unity nor convalidation for their practicable matrimonial impediments."
48. V. P. Palazzini,
Dictionarium morale et canonicum, at the word, "
fontes iuris canonici”; Naz,
Dictionnaire Droit canonique, at the word “
droit canonique."
49. Naz, Ioc. cit
50. E. Genicot, S.J.,
Instititutiones theologiae moralis, vol.I, n.85.
51. V. P. Palazzini,
Dictionrium, cit at the word,
“mandatum apostlicum.”
52. L. Rodrigo,
Praelectiones theologico-morales comillenses, II, tract.,
De Legibus (Sal terrae, Santander, 1944), n.393, 2nd, p.294 (cit. in,
Aequitas canonica, of F.J. Urrutia, S.J.,
Periodica de re morali, canonica, liturgica, vol.73, p.46, note 21, Pontifical Gregorian University).
The 1988 Consecrations: Theological Study
Part I,
Part IICanonical Study
Part I,
Part II,
Part III,
Part IV,
Part V