[As a preface, it is worth noting that there is a reason why Bishop Fellay desires to achieve full communion for his SSPX schism and have it reconciled with The One Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church; Bishop Fellay knows he is the head of an autonomous church, the reality of which existence is entirely incompatible with Catholic Tradition and his is an impossible task for his petit ecclesia is in the process of raising a third generation of youth taught to believe the modern Popes and modern magisterium teaches error and he has to convince those he taught that reconciling his schism with modernist masonic error-teaching Rome makes sense]
(originally posted at IANS Blog Friday,
January 24, 2014)
Mons.
Lefebvre's petit ecclesia exposed
We
at ABE Ministry used to have in our files many interesting items but
we somehow lost this item revealing the proof of Mons. Lefebvre's
petit ecclesia.
It
was made known to a not insignificant portion of the soi disant
traditionalist movement by the Abbe de Nantes in a few issues of
his Catholic
Counter-Reformation in the XXTh Century periodical.
This
particular bit of history is no longer to be found on what little
that remains of their online archives and ABE Ministry, after years
of googling, finally found at least this much of it at The
Traditional Catholic Faith Blog.
Well,
here it is, proof that Mons Lefebvre did establish his little church
and, of course, all of this was known to the Magisterium of his petit
ecclesia but they kept the truth from their duped followers because
had their followers been learnt this truth the collection plates
would have suddenly been empty.
Game
over.
However, The
Angelus has
dropped this truth down its memory hole and those who succor the SSPX
are still being played for suckers by the Magisterium of the Little
Church and so I have no false expectations that this post will in any
way make even a dent in their walls of denial which make up the
schismatic prison they willingly remain in and claim as a sanctuary.
But,
note well the lies.
When
they are caught red-handed, the haughty denials begin, followed by
the focus-shifting lies until, eventually (see SSPX Propaganda
Ministry Site), the schism tacitly admits the truth with their
self-serving claims of the Church supplying jurisdiction for their
tribunals...
So, here is the evidence, you be the judge:
THE
"CANONICAL" TRIBUNALS OF THE SSPX
Cover
page of the special edition of the review Sodalitium for January
2001, no 51, dedicated to the dossier on the “Canonical Commission
of the Society of Saint Pius X”. In the foreground: Mgr Tissier de
Mallerais, one of the four bishops consecrated by Mgr Lefebvre in
1988 and the president of this commission. In the background can be
made out his coat of arms, adorned with the lily of France and the
Sacred Heart. Superimposed: the seal of the Apostolic Tribunal of the
Roman Rota.
In
epigraph, a phrase which seems to fall from the lips of the young
bishop:«It is true
that our verdicts replace the verdicts of the Roman Rota»,as
simply as that!
Sodalitium
no 51, French edition, in pdf format
MGR
LEFEBVRE’S SECRET
An
atomic bomb has just gone off in our Catholic society, triggering a
seismic shock of incalculable magnitude, capable of disorienting
minds and disturbing souls well beyond the boundaries of our
traditionalism, even to shaking the pillars of Saint Peter’s. We
felt its first tremors when we read number 50 of Sodalitium,
June-July 2000. The editor announced that the Institute ofOur
Lady of Good Counsel was
putting together «not
without a profound sadness, a voluminous dossier on the “canonical
tribunals” of the Society of Saint Pius X.» What
was it about? The rest of the editorial was going to tell us:
Since
1991, from the lifetime of Mgr Lefebvre, the Society of Saint Pius X
has arrogated over its members (and potentially over all Catholics)
the “power to bind and to unbind”, usurping the exclusive powers
of the Holy See. A tribunal which sits in the General House of the
Society in Switzerland grants dispensations from marriage impediments
(which would render the union invalid), annuls marriages, grants
exemptions from religious vows, lifts ecclesiastical censures,
including excommunications (...). It does so in a wholly invalid
manner, thereby placing men’s souls in an inextricable situation:
the vows it unbinds are not unbound, the marriages it annuls are not
annulled, and those which are celebrated after its “declaration”
of nullity are invalid, as are those that have been celebrated with
its non-existent “dispensation”.
Not
without some cruelty the author describes this “tribunal” as an
“operetta-style Roman curia”, a “parallel Holy See”. The Abbé
Michel Simoulin, former Rector of the University Institute of Saint
Pius X in Paris, former Director of the Seminary at Econe, and
currently the Superior of the Italian District of the Saint Pius X
Society, attempted to deny this in his monthly newsletter Roma
felix for
November 2000:
Dear
faithful,
I
do not know what is going on, but for some time now a number of
friends of the Society have been asking me questions about the
so-called “tribunals” established by the Society to dissolve
marriages, religious vows, etc. It seems that certain people are
sowing doubts and ill-feeling by making out that the Society has
thereby usurped the powers of the Pope and the Roman Curia: which if
true would involve the Society declaring that it no longer believes
the Pope to possesses the primacy of jurisdiction,effectively
behaving as though the See were vacant.
And
yet, last 8 August in Saint Peter’s Basilica, Mgr Fellay forcefully
repeated his invitation to us to pray for the Vicar of Christ, the
successor of Peter. This pilgrimage was an open proclamation of our
fidelity to the See of Peter, and I do not see why anyone should
doubt this.
When
people speak about “tribunals” instituted by the Society, I am
sorry to have to say that these are the product of a somewhat
disordered imagination. Mgr Lefebvre had in fact asked for
commissions to be instituted, composed of learned priests and experts
in moral theology and canon law, in order to respond to requests made
by priests, religious and the faithful. Given that we often cannot
trust the answers given by the diocesans tribunals, everyone can now
submit their problems and their cases of conscience to these
commissions, whose members, once the case has been examined, give a
response which is nothing more than an opinion or a recommendation,
never a declaratory verdict having the force of law! The commissions
are in no way a permanent organisation; they simply meet from time to
time when requests are made by those who feel dissatisfied with the
responses given by the dioceses. That is all.
He
is wasting his breath! The dossier published in December in number 51
of Sodalitium leaves
none of this weak defence standing. It is divided into two parts, as
indicated in the editorial:
In
the first part certain internal documents of the Society of Saint
Pius X are published (documents which are therefore unavailable to
the public and even to the faithful of the Society);
these concern the creation, in 1991, of a canonical Commission
invested with vast powers of jurisdiction, the Canonical Commission
of Saint Charles Borromeo. To
replace the authority of the Pope and the Holy See, the Society has
instituted, as you will read, veritable ecclesiastical tribunals
authorised – by the very same authorities of the Society – to
grant dispensations, to annul marriages, etc.
The publication of these documents will perhaps be regarded as an
unacceptable indiscretion; however we felt authorised to disclose
them, firstly because the faithful have the right to know of the
existence of these tribunals to which they must have recourse and
which can judge them, and secondly because they will thus be in a
position to evaluate in all objectivity the reasoning behind them.
It
is therefore to these same authorities of the Society that we will
now hand over, by publishing for example what Mgr Tissier de
Mallerais wrote to defend and justify the existence of these
tribunals.
The
second part of this file consists of a critical study of these
documents.
The
author of the second part is Father Francesco Ricossa, the editor of
the review, well known to our readers and friends for the sincere
praise that his scholarly works appear to us to deserve, and also, it
should be said, for the sharp polemics that have taken place between
us (cf. English CRC no 269, Aug-Sept 1994; no 274, February-March
1995; no 309, May 1998, p. 32; no 310, June 1998, p. 27-30). Today,
once again, we will not be stinting in our praise for the work
carried out by Father Ricossa for this special edition, the
repercussions of which in every way will be considerable. It is a
bomb in the Roman Church. It cannot be handled without precautions.
That is why I could think of no better way of utilising this
immensely important document than that of reproducing it as exactly
as possible, despite omitting several passages, particularly the
“notes”, which will be of particular interest to specialists.
As
usual, we are given some rough treatment in this article: I am proud
of it. On the battlefield of the great controversy agitating our
Catholic world, this hostility is an expeditious way of confronting
the other part directly. What is at stake is the future of the
various schools of thought and of the great movements that will
result among the Catholic elites. Some of these have retained the
tradition of dogmas, rites and laws, while others invent novelties;
parties form, divide and multiply... all this for the praise of God’s
glory and the salvation of souls.
Should
one follow Mgr Lefebvre or take what appears to be the more secure
path, that of Roman discipline? Or perhaps other intermediate paths?
To clarify our religion, Father Ricossa arranges the combat of the
leaders on which our fate will depend. But how can we make a battle
of it when it is a question of recovering the holiness and unity of
our Catholic communion under the banner of the Immaculate and the
standard of Christ Our Lord, our universal Saviour and our King?
We
leave Don Ricossa to initiate us into the mysteries of this red-hot
dossier:
For
some time now we have been receiving a small Peruvian bulletin
entitled Resistencia catolica and edited by one of the
Saint Pius X Society faithful, Mr Julio Vargas Prada.
It
was with astonishment that we read in this bulletin (no 187, Nov-Dec
1999) a denunciation of the creation by the Society of Saint Pius X
of veritable canonical tribunals. The Peruvian Vargas Prada and the
Brazilian Orlando Fedeli, both of whom had at the time supported Mgr
Lefebvre in his decision to consecrate bishops, now see in these
tribunals, the existence of which they had discovered through an
allusion made in the Society’s Argentinian review Jesus Christus
(no 43, Jan-Feb 1996, p. 17), a concrete danger of schism.
It
was essential to check the veracity of the facts. We finally came
into possession of two documents of an exceptional
gravity: Ordinances concerning the powers and faculties enjoyed
by the members of the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X, dated
1997, and certain documents of the Society published in Cor unum, n.
61, October 1998, p. 33-46, which seek to justify these innovations .
– Cor
unum is the internal bulletin of the Society of Saint Pius X,
reserved only to its own members, and we have published these
documents without any authorisation to do so by the review. But it
appears to us to be a matter of duty to proceed with their
publication. According to the texts in question, the faithful of the
Society of Saint Pius X, religious and priests affiliated with it,
and potentially all Catholics, are “subject” to these tribunals
of which they have no knowledge and to their judges. These unwitting
subjects have the right to know about the existence of a tribunal of
this kind, about its judges and its doctrinal justifications: a
semi-secret tribunal is, in our opinion, incompatible with Catholic
morals, not to speak of natural morality.
THE
ORDINANCES
The
first document in question is a small volume of 79 pages entitled
“Ordinances concerning the powers and faculties enjoyed by the
members of the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X”, promulgated in
1997 by the Superior General of the Society, Mgr Bernard Fellay, to
replace a similar collection of “Ordinances” published on the
authority of Mgr Lefebvre in 1980.
This
imitation “Code of Canon Law” was accompanied by a letter written
by Mgr Fellay to the members of the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X,
and preceded by “preliminaries” which explain its principle and
basis.
Dear
colleagues,
Mgr
Lefebvre, considering the needs of our apostolate, so similar to
those of the missions in Africa, gave us in 1980 a collection of
faculties similar to those used for many decades in mission lands.
Over
the last fifteen years, certain circumstances have changed, as for
example the possibility of having a more frequent episcopal
visitation, or, on the contrary, the quasi-impossibility of having
recourse to Rome to obtain dispensations or equitable judgements on
marriage. Hence the justification for this renewed edition of the
Ordinances.
These
new ordinances come into effect on 18 May 1997, on the feast of
Pentecost.
Given
on the feast of the Presentation of Jesus in the Temple, 2 February
1997.
Bernard
Fellay, Superior General
PRELIMINARIES
OBJECT
OF THE LAW
– The
end and object of ecclesiastical laws, and a fortiori of powers and
faculties, is none other than what concerns the worship of God and
the salvation of souls (cf. Leo XIII, Encyclical Immortale Dei, cf.
Prümmer, vol. 1, n. 181).
– The
New Code of Canon Law promulgated on 25 January 1983, pervaded by
ecumenism and personalism, seriously sins against the very purpose of
the law. Therefore in principle we follow the Code of 1917 (with the
modifications subsequently introduced).
However,
in practice and on certain precise points, we can accept anything in
the New Code which corresponds to a homogeneous development, to a
better adaptation to circumstances, to a useful simplification.
Generally speaking we also accept that which we cannot refuse without
misaligning ourselves with the officially received legislation where
the validity of acts is concerned. And in this latter case, we
reinforce our discipline to bring it closer to that of the Code of
1917 (cf. Cor unum, n. 41, p. 11-13).
SUPPLIED
JURISDICTION
– Canon
law provides for certain cases where the Church makes up for the
priest’s lack of jurisdiction: “the Church supplies jurisdiction
not as a personal benefit, but for the bonum animarum commune [the
common good of souls]” (Cappello,
1, n. 252). The Church expressly supplies jurisdiction in three
cases: the danger of death (can. 882), common error (can. 209) and
positive probable doubt whether of law or of fact (can. 209) (cf.
Noldin, III, n. 346-347; Cappello, I, n. 254-258).
– Owing
to the fact that the hierarchy (cf. can. 108 § 3) has in large part
distanced itself from the Catholic faith, generally speaking the
faithful are unable to receive spiritual aid from it without
endangering their faith. There can be no doubt, therefore, that the
Church generously extends to the faithful what she grants in danger
of death and in other cases of emergency, and that for this reason,
owing to the analogia iuris [analogy
of law] (can. 20)
and the æquitas canonica [canonical
equity], she makes up
for the lack of jurisdiction of faithful priests (cf. can. 209,
2261...) when they are unjustly deprived of the jurisdiction they
would have in normal times either by right (e.g. novus ordo, can. 967
§ 2), or by delegation.
–
Characteristics
of this supplied jurisdiction.
(
1) It has more of a personal than a territorial character; (2) it is
not habitual but is exercised “per modum actus” [on
a temporary basis] (cf.
Cappello, I, n. 252); (3) it depends on the needs of the faithful,
taking into account the law of necessity (cf. Conférence aux Cercles
de la Tradition, Paris, 10 March 1991); but (4) it exists even in
cases where there is in fact no strict necessity; for there is a
presumption of common danger and therefore an analogy with can. 21,
permitted by can. 20, and as there will generally exist a probable
doubt regarding faith, jurisdiction will be supplied in accordance
with can. 209.
– Those
who possess supplied jurisdiction.
These
include all bishops and all priests faithful to tradition (even the
excommunicated, cf. can. 2261, when that term is used as an
argument “ad hominem”), for the licit or valid exercise
of acts of the episcopal or sacerdotal ministry.
– Hierarchy
in supplied jurisdiction.
Absolutely
speaking, with regard to the faithful, simple priests have no less
supplied power than a prior or district superior. But as a matter of
practicality, in order to preserve the hierarchical dimension that
belongs to the spirit of the Church and to assign more serious cases
to superior authority, certain powers are reserved to the higher
ranks as they are in the normal hierarchy, in accordance with the
following rules:
*
Priors and priests in charge of chapels are equivalent to private
priests, such as military chaplains.
*
District Superiors, seminaries and independent houses as well as the
Superior General and his assistants, although in theory they only
have jurisdiction over their subjects (priests, seminarians,
brothers, oblates and members of their household), are equivalent to
military Ordinaries, with regard to the faithful whose priests have
the care of souls (sic).
*
The bishops of the Society, though deprived of any territorial
jurisdiction, nevertheless possess the suppletory jurisdiction
necessary to exercise the powers attached to the episcopal order and
certain acts of ordinary episcopal jurisdiction.
CANONICAL
COMMISSION.
BISHOP
RESPONSIBLE FOR THOSE IN RELIGIOUS LIFE.
These
two authorities were created in 1991 to continue after his death the
office that Mgr Lefebvre had fulfilled in a suppletory manner in this
area from 1970 to 1991. It was Monseigneur who provided for and
specified the role of these authorities in his letter of 15 January
1991 to the Superior General:
[This
text will be found below.]
DELEGATED
POWERS AND FACULTIES.
–
Powers
previously delegated by the Holy See.
For
some time, and most recently in 1950 and 1960, the S. C. of
Propaganda have granted local ordinaries in mission lands
wide-ranging faculties called “decennial faculties”, in
particular the faculty of delegating several of their powers to
priests in their territory.
In
1961, Mgr Lefebvre, the then archbishop of Dakar, promoted the
application of these faculties in a small booklet which even then
bore the title “Ordinances, etc.” The text of the decennial
faculties of 1950 and their application can be found in the
book Vingt-cinq ans de pastorale missionaire by Father
Gréco (1958), prefaced by Monseigneur and specially recommended by
him.
On
30 November 1963, in his Apostolic Letter Pastorale munus, Pope Paul
VI granted somewhat similar faculties to all residential bishops.
– Mgr
Lefebvre, as the Bishop and Superior General of the Priestly Society
of Saint Pius X, although no longer a local Ordinary as he was in
Dakar, considered himself to possess a supplied jurisdiction
permitting him, in the interests of the faithful, to grant his
priests similar faculties. He promulgated these on 1 May 1980 in his
Ordinances for the use of the Society, following the formula
facultatum decennalium of 1960.
– The
present edition of the ordinances takes up the former text but
subdivides it in a more developed manner, taking into account the
existence of auxiliary bishops in the Society.
– There
have also been added powers and faculties relating to marriage
certificates (cf. Cor Unum, n. 42, p. 44-56), dispensations from
vows and the lifting of censures, along with useful precisions
regarding cases where there is a danger of death and cases of
emergency.
– The
faculties granted to priests are not only for priests who are members
of the Society, but for all priests who reside for a prolonged period
of time in our houses (...).
There
follow eight chapters dealing with fasting and abstinence, the
obligations of the clergy, certain particular obligations,
delegations of powers and indulgences, marriage impediments,
transgressions and sanctions. Father Ricossa omits the first four
chapters and passes straight on to what strictly concerns the most
alarming subject: «Chapter V. Marriage impediments. Powers of
dispensation in ordinary cases.» He publishes this chapter in its
entirety. It is a laborious mixture of the old and the new canon law,
the relative proportions of each being determined by «Mgr Lefebvre’s
experience». But by what authority do they do this? That is the
whole question.
Before
we go on to examine this matrimonial legislation, it is only too
apparent that these “Ordinances”, from their very first version
of 1980, constitute a usurpation of the powers of jurisdiction
reserved to the Pope. Father Ricossa’s demonstration of this is
inexorable: Mgr Lefebvre, being no longer a mission territory
“Ordinary” at the time, but a bishop without jurisdiction, that
is without any pastoral power over souls, could not possibly delegate
to anyone a power which he himself no longer possessed. Thus all
confirmations and marriages celebrated by priests of his Society
were, beyond a shadow of doubt, invalid!
And
what can we say of the bishops consecrated by Mgr Lefebvre in 1988
against the wishes of the Pope? They did not enjoy any power of
jurisdiction either. Nevertheless, they went ahead and usurped it by
invoking a “provision” of the Church in accordance with the maxim
“Ecclesia supplet” [the Church supplies], but extending it well
beyond the cases envisaged by canon law. Two documents, taken from
Cor unum, the internal bulletin of the Priestly Society of Saint Pius
X, no 61 (October 1998), reveal how Mgr Lefebvre and his successors
proceeded.
The
first document is a letter from Mgr Lefebvre, dated 15 January 1991,
to the Superior General of the time.
Econe,
15 January 1991.
Dear
Father Schmidberger,
Many
thanks for your good wishes and your prayers on the feast of Saint
Marcel […].
As
for the problem of the Commissions supplying to a certain extent for
the shortcomings of the Roman Congregations which are directed by
prelates imbued with the revolutionary principles of the Council, it
seems to me that we should start very modestly, acting on needs as
they arise, and that we should offer this institution as a service to
help priests in their ministry and to solve difficult cases for nuns,
or to provide authorisations that require a supplied episcopal power.
Rome
is not only failing in her duty, but is making judgements according
to false principles, as in the case of mixed marriages, marriage
annulments!…
For
the moment, I would advise that an initial, specifically canonical
Commission be set up with a president, ideally a bishop, two advisers
and a secretary. It could be named after a canonist saint: the
Commission of Saint Pius V, or Saint Bellarmine, or Saint Charles
Borromeo, and to it would be sent consultations and requests.
The
secretary will examine the cases, present them and submit them to the
judgement or at least the study of three judges, who will meet every
three months or more frequently at the request of the president and
study and answer the cases.
This
Commission will be appointed by the General Council, but it may call
upon a Dominican or a well known expert either in a permanent
capacity as a counsellor or on an occasional basis.
This
would be a first step and experience will show what is appropriate in
the future.
The
Commission would give an account of its work to the General Council
one or twice a year.
This
Commission should be announced in a letter communicated to all
priests of Tradition who remain Catholic and to all societies of
Tradition, both men and women.
THERE
IS NO OBJECTION TO THE FAITHFUL KNOWING OF THE EXISTENCE OF THIS
COMMISSION [my emphasis].
“As
long as the present Roman authorities are imbued with ecumenism and
modernism, as long as their decisions and the New Code of Canon Law
are influenced by these false principles, it will be necessary to
establish substitute authorities, faithfully keeping the Catholic
principles of Catholic Tradition and Catholic Law. This is the only
way of remaining faithful to Our Lord Jesus Christ, to the Apostles
and to the deposit of faith transmitted to their successors who
remained faithful until Vatican II.”
Some
examples of cases to be submitted:
–
mixed
marriages - dispensations
–
marriage
annulments
–
lifting
of excommunication in the external forum
*
for those who take part in abortion, either physically or legally
*
or for other reasons.
–
dispensations
from religious vows
–
authorisation
for exorcisms
–
consultations.
The
choice of the permanent secretary residing at the General House is
significant, even though he has no powers of decision.
Hoping
that I may still be of use to you in these responses, yours very
devotedly in Jesus and Mary.
Marcel
Lefebvre
The
second document allows us to see just how far, in only seven years,
things had progressed along the path opened up by Mgr Lefebvre. We
owe this text to the intervention of Mgr Tissier at a canonical
session held at Econe on 24 August 1998. It permits Father Ricossa to
accuse the Abbé Simoulin of lying in the editorial published in the
review Roma felix. In the passage that we quoted above, the Abbé
Simoulin denies:
1o
that the Society of Saint Pius X has set up “tribunals”;
2o
that the commissions instituted by the Society return “a
declaratory verdict having the force of law”. They are simply meant
to be consultative bodies which give “nothing more than an opinion
or a recommendation”;
3o
that these commissions have “thereby usurped the powers of the Pope
and the Roman Curia”.
«These
three denials are lies», affirms Father Ricossa. As proof of this,
we have the statements made by Mgr Tissier de Mallerais. What the
Abbé Simoulin calls «so-called tribunals» are the explicit object
of Mgr Tissier’s intervention on that same 24 August 1998. In fact
Mgr Tissier jumps straight into the question of their legitimacy and
status in relation to the ecclesiastical tribunals which he calls
“novus ordo” tribunals, “modernist” tribunals, “official”
tribunals.
LEGITIMACY
AND STATUS
OF
OUR MATRIMONIAL TRIBUNALS
Status
questionis ( (sic) [state
of the question]sic) [state of the question]
Annulments
granted by the “Novus Ordo” ecclesiastical tribunals
are often dubious. Do we have the right to make up for them by means
of tribunals operating from within the Priestly Society of Saint Pius
X?
Monsignor
Lefebvre had foreseen the creation of a Canonical Commission,
particularly to resolve matrimonial cases following a first judgement
given by the District Superior. The authority of our founder suffices
for us to accept these legal proceedings in the same way that we
accepted the episcopal consecrations of 1988.
But
that does not dispense us from attempting to provide a doctrinal
justification for the existence and operation of our matrimonial
tribunals.
We
will see that the main reason, as was the case with the episcopal
consecrations, is the case of necessity of the traditional faithful.
I.
THE NEW MATRIMONIAL LEGISLATION
1.
New definition of marriage:
a)
Object of matrimonial consent: This is no longer strictly defined as
“jus in corpus, perpetuum et exclusivum in ordine ad actus per se
aptos ad prolis generationem” [a
perpetual and exclusive right over the body ordered to acts which are
of themselves suitable for the procreation of children] (can.
1081 § 2), but vaguely described as “mutua traditio et acceptatio
viri et mulieris ad constituendum matrimonium” [a
mutual giving and accepting of man and woman for the purpose of
establishing a marriage](New
Code, can. 1057 § 2). The object of the consent is thus improperly
extended to aspects of marriage which, although integral to it, are
nonetheless secondary, namely the “totius vitae
consortium” [partnership
of their whole life] (New
Code, canon 1055).
b)
Inversion of the two ends of marriage. The Code of 1917 says: “finis
primarius, procreatio et educatio prolis; finis secundarius: mutuum
adjutorium et remedium concupiscentiae” [the
primary end is the procreation and raising of children; the secondary
end is mutual assistance and a remedy for concupiscence] (can.
1013, § 1). The New Code says: “...ad bonum conjugum atque prolis
generationem et educationem” [to
the well-being of the spouses and to the procreation and upbringing
of children] (can.
1055, § 1).
Consequently,
according to the new legislation, the community of life becomes a
part – indeed the principal part – of the object of matrimonial
consent, and with it the interpersonal relationship between the
spouses, that is their cohabitation, good understanding and mutual
development.
Now,
according to the traditional conception, all this lies outside the
object of the matrimonial contract, as Pius XII reaffirmed against
the innovators in 1944 by having inscribed in the Acta
Apostolicae Sedis a verdict of the Sacred Roman Rota [AAS 36
(1944), 172-200], which recalls the hierarchy of the two ends of
marriage and reminds us that “the sharing of domicile, bed and
board does not belong to the essence of marriage” even though it
pertains to the integrity of the conjugal life (cf. Les
Enseignements Pontificaux, Le mariage, Solesmes, Desclée, 1960,
appendix n. 24-29).
2.
New defects of consent render marriage invalid:
It
is obvious that if the “bonum conjugum” [the
well-being of the spouses] and
the “totius vitæ consortium” [partnership
of their whole life] form
part of the object of the matrimonial contract, then any defects
which, ab initio, render the common life of the spouses impossible –
and no longer solely the surrender of the jus ad corpus [right
to the body] –
will render the matrimonial contract null and void. Whence the
introduction in the new legislation of new impediments to the
marriage contract.
Of
course, the Church can always, by positive provisions, add new
impediments to marriage, but these should be 1o positive provisions
and not a change in the nature of things, and consequently of the
essence of marriage; 2o provisions which determine impediments with
such a degree of precision that it is easy to make judgements on
their presence without fear of abuse. However, that is certainly not
the case here; there has been a change in the essence of marriage and
the door lies open to every abuse, as we will see.
*
New Code, can. 1095, n. 2: “Sunt incapaces matrimonii
contrahendi: (...) 2° qui laborant gravi defectu discretionis
judicii circa jura et officia matrimonialia essentialia mutuo
tradenda et acceptanda” [The
following are incapable of contracting marriage: (...) 2o those who
suffer from a grave lack of discretionary judgement concerning the
essential matrimonial rights and obligations to be mutually given and
accepted].
Traditionally,
the only things that render marriage null on the level of the
understanding are:
Ignorance of
the fact that marriage is “a permanent partnership between a man
and a woman ordered to the procreation of children” (can. 1082 §
1); and such ignorance is not presumed after puberty.
Error concerning
“the unity or indissolubility or sacramental dignity of marriage”,
if such error determines the will (New Code, can. 1099, codifying
traditional jurisprudence).
That
summarises everything very clearly. But this “defectus
discretionis judicii” [lack
of discretionary judgement],
this immaturity of judgement, implies that personal fulfilment – or
rather interpersonal fulfilment – is an essential obligation of
marriage, whereas it is in fact something that lies outside the
traditional object of the matrimonial contract and concerns the
subjective aspect of the matrimonial bond. Admittedly, the growing
lack of maturity in young people often renders marriage unviable and
imprudent, but to establish an incapacity on the grounds of a lack of
maturity is to invoke a personalist, subjective conception of the
marriage contract and to open the door to abuses. Only a stricter
impediment of age would serve as an objective remedy…
*
New Code, can. 1095, n. 3: “sunt incapaces (...) 3o qui ob
causas naturæ psychicæ obligationes matrimonii essentiales assumere
non valent” [the
following are incapable (…) 3o those who, on account of causes of a
psychological nature, are unable to assume the essential obligations
of marriage].
Traditionally
the Church recognises only physical
inability: impotentia [impotence] (can.
1068 § 1) which makes it impossible to render the “jus in
corpus in ordine ad actus per se aptos...” [right
over the body ordered to acts which are of themselves
suitable…] (can.
1081 § 2). The only mental incapacity is amentia vel dementia
[amentia or dementia], which render the subject radically incapable
of contracting (cf. can. 1081 § 1 “inter personas jure
habiles” [between
legally fit parties]).
Certainly,
cases of mental unbalance due to the erosion of family life are
frequent today, and it is these that make permanent unions so
precarious. But who will determine what degree of unbalance makes
such a union radically impossible? John Paul II himself had to remind
canonists that such psychic disorders must be “a serious form of
anomaly which (...) must substantially undermine the capacity of
understanding and/or willing of the contracting party” (Address to
the Roman Rota, 5 February 1987, AAS 79 (1987), 1457).
Nevertheless,
in the way it is formulated, canon 1095, n. 3, leaves the door wide
open to abuses.
*
New Code, can. 1098 : “Qui matrimonium init deceptus dolo, ad
obtinendum consensum patrato, circa aliquam alterius partis
qualitatem, quæ suapte natura consortium vitæ conjugalis graviter
perturbare potest, invalide contrahit.” [A
person contracts invalidly who enters marriage inveigled by deceit
perpetrated in order to secure consent, concerning some quality of
the other party which of its very nature can seriously disrupt the
partnership of conjugal life.]
Before
the New Code, fraud was never admitted as matter for annulment; and
this was to protect the permanence of the marriage bond.
But
authors accept that the Church could introduce it (by a provision of
positive law). This would be less illegitimate where the fraud
jeopardizes the primary end of marriage e.g. fraud concerning
sterility of one of the spouses; and this is what the New Code
does: sterilitas, non dirimit, sed dolus circa
sterilitatem [sterility
does not invalidate, but fraud concerning sterility does] (cf.
can. 1084 § 3). But canon 1098 is much too broad: fraud concerning
drunkenness, drug addiction, nay even irascibility are supposedly
causes for annulment! We see here the conciliar personalist
inspiration of this new canon. And to reformulate it in a Catholic
sense is no business of ours.
3. Practical
consequences
a)
80% of annulments granted by novus ordo tribunals are granted in
virtue of canon 1095! and they are therefore invalid judgements since
they are based on a regulation that is incapable of regulating. Some
commentators even speak of “Catholic divorce”, so easy is it to
obtain such judgements.
b)
In cases where the grounds for annulments are serious but difficult
to prove, the tribunal opts for canon 1095 of the New Code as an easy
solution.
The
objection could be made: Yes, but since in fact the marriage in these
cases is actually invalid, why not take advantage of the verdict of
nullity even if it is not correct? To this we must answer: in order
to certify someone’s state of freedom (enabling them to remarry), a
valid judgement is necessary, not a private assessment supported by
an invalid judgement.
II
- SITUATION OF THE FAITHFUL
1. The
faithful do not have the right to go to novus ordo tribunals, for
that would be to run a great risk of receiving an invalid annulment,
of remarrying in good faith and living in sin, in canonical
concubinage!
2. They
may not, in an attempt to remarry, take it upon themselves to judge
the nullity of their own marriages, nor may they content themselves
with the private assessment of a priest friend: that would be to open
the door to subjectivism and disorder, exposing the marriage bond to
contempt and augmenting the evil.
3. They
have the right in justice to be sure of the validity of the
sacrament received a second time and therefore of the validity of the
declaration of nullity, and to be protected against personalist
errors which invalidate these verdicts. Who then will render them
justice?
4. Faithful
priests and bishops are duty bound to defend and protect the
marriage bond imperilled by the new legislation. How will they
fulfil this duty?
To
summarise: the faithful, not finding anyone to turn to, are in a
state of necessity, and faithful priests and bishops have a duty to
come to their aid.
In
this situation, the faithful bishops (Dom Licinio in Campos) and our
Canonical Commission founded according to the general principles of
law which govern the life of the Church, possess supplied powers to
judge matrimonial cases.
III
- DOCTRINAL BASIS OF OUR SUPPLETORY POWERS
1.
Can. 20 (New Code, can. 19): If a particular case is not expressly
provided for by law, it must be resolved by taking the norm “a
legibus latis in similibus; generalibus juris principiis cum
aequitate canonica servatis; jurisprudentia et praxi Curiae Romanae;
communi constantique doctorum sentential” [from
laws enacted in similar cases; from the general principles of law
observed with canonical equity; from the jurisprudence and practice
of the Roman Curia; and from the common and constant opinion of
learned authors]. (Wernz-Vidal: “jus
ergo suppletorium est jus applicandum in particularibus casibus, cum
circa illud non habeatur in codice prescriptum quod peculiari illi
casui sit applicandum”[therefore
a suppletory law is a law to be applied in particular cases, when the
rule to be applied in an extraordinary case is not found in the
law]. n. 180)
2.
Application - three things are involved:
a)
Parallel situations, i.e. the practice of the analogia
legalis [analogy
of law] (Wernz-Vidal
n. 181):
“per
quam juris dispositio pro aliis casibus applicatur simili de quo lex
non disponit” [through
which the provision of the law for other cases is applied in a
similar way to what the law does not provide for].
Here
the parallel situation is the case when it is impossible to have
recourse to the bishop to grant a dispensation for a diriment
impediment of ecclesiastical law: in the “danger of death”
or “quando omnia sunt parata ad nuptias” [when
everything is ready for the wedding],
the parish priest or confessor may grant a dispensation (can.
1044-1045). This means the Church gives them, by supply,
jurisdictionad casum [for
the particular case].
b)
jurisprudence of the Roman Curia: A response from the Commission for
the Interpretation of the Code, dated 29 July 1942 (AAS 34, 241),
allows the provision of can. 1045 to be extended to the case of
urgent necessity where there is “periculum in mora” [danger
in delay] (cf.
can. 81).
c)
epikeia and the opinion of doctors regarding canons 1043 sq., but
which also applies elsewhere:
Cappello,
Tractatus, De Sacramentis, III, n. 199: “Si finis legis cesset
contrarie pro communitate, i.e. si damnum commune inde sequatur, lex
non urget, quia merito censetur suspendi ex benigna mentis
legislatoris interpretatione.” [If
the end of the law would be detrimental to the community, i.e. if
damage to society would ensue from it, the law does not oblige,
because it is rightly thought to be suspended in accordance with a
benign interpretation of the mind of the legislator.])
Now, this is the case with the obligation to have recourse to
modernist tribunals. But though this obligation should cease, the
obligation to have recourse to some tribunal remains!
3. From
the conjunction of these elements, we conclude that our canonical
commission, in view of the current impossibility of having recourse
to the official tribunals, has the power to judge matrimonial
cases. (Were it not for the fact that the Holy See is as modernist as
the tribunals, one might say that it had given us this power as a
matter of canonical equity).
It
is even more serious to dispense from a diriment impediment (which
changes the condition of the person, making him capable rather than
incapable of contracting marriage ) than it is to declare a marriage
invalid (which does not change the condition of the person, but
merely notes a state of affairs that has existed ab initio); it is a
declarative power of jurisdiction only. So if supplied jurisdiction
gives us the power to grant dispensations, then a fortiori it must
also give us the power to judge.
4.
The institution of marriage tribunals within the sphere of Tradition
is especially justified by the fact:
a)
that their authority will be more easily accepted than that of
private opinion,
b)
that they will remove the necessity of nullifying doubtful or
contrary private opinions,
c)
that judges and legal proceedings are needed in order to proceed
prudently according to the spirit and letter of the law,
d)
that in the current situation of necessity, the individual priest
receives supplied jurisdiction for what a priest can normally do by
himself and not for what he cannot normally do. But judging
matrimonial cases is not normally done by a priest but by the bishop
or the authorities he has delegated.
In
all this the rule “as much as needed but no more” applies:
the Church supplies jurisdiction on behalf of the faithful inasmuch
as it is necessary and no more than is necessary.
IV.
EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT OF JUDGING MATRIMONIAL CASES
(by
our Canonical Commission and the priests designated by it)
As
we have said, our jurisdiction in these cases is a supplied
jurisdiction. Its properties are as follows:
1.
It is not habitual, but is only exercised ad casum per modum
actus [case
by case, on a temporary basis]. Consequently
we do not have standing tribunals, nor are their members appointed by
the Canonical Commission ad universas causas [for cases in general],
but rather ad hoc [for a particular case] every time; even though,
for reasons of practicality, the judges and the defenders of the bond
are always the same; for competent persons are needed.
2.
It is not territorial, but personal.
3.
It depends on the needs of the faithful, that is it lasts as long as
the state of common need lasts, even if per
impossibile [supposing
the impossible] an
official tribunal judging in accordance with traditional norms could
be found.
4. It
is a true jurisdiction and not an exemption from the law and
from the obligation imposed on the faithful to obtain a verdict.
Therefore, we have the power and the duty of handing down true
verdicts which have potestatem ligandi vet solvendi [the
power of binding and loosing]. Our
verdicts therefore have an obligatory character. The proximate reason
for this is that we must be able to tell the faithful what they must
observe, quod debent “servare”.
Our
verdicts are not mere private opinions, for such opinions are
insufficient where the common good is at stake; and the common good
is at stake in every case where the matrimonial bond is in dispute.
To resolve doubts, authority in the external forum is necessary.
5. This
jurisdiction does not usurp any of the powers the Pope has of divine
right.
It
is true that our verdicts of the third instance replace the verdicts
of the Roman Rota, which acts in the Pope’s name as a tribunal of
the third instance. But this is not a usurpation of the Pope’s
divinely endowed authority, for the reservation of this third
instance to the Pope is merely a matter of ecclesiastical law!
6.
Finally our verdicts, like all our acts of supplied jurisdiction, and
like the episcopal consecrations of 1988, 1991, etc., will
ultimately need to be confirmed by the Holy See.
PRACTICAL
RULES CONCERNING MARRIAGE ANNULMENTS
Pastoral
charity aims at the sanctification of souls: prima lex salus
animarum [the
salvation of souls is the highest law]; but
pastoral prudence does not impose unbearable burdens on souls. (cf.
Mt 23.4).
Consequently
the pastor seeks to put souls in a position of truth regarding God’s
laws and the validity of marriage, but he will sometimes prefer to
leave souls in good faith if they err in good faith about their
matrimonial situation, when it is to be feared that they would refuse
to regularise it and would thus live in bad faith.
On
the other hand marriage annulments given by official tribunals (which
may be called “novus ordo” verdicts) cannot be
considered either as ipso facto null and void or as valid
without examination. Whence ensue the following rules:
1.
A novus ordo verdict can neither be accepted nor rejected a
priori. Its validity depends on the criteria used. It must therefore
be examined in jure.
2.
The priest must never advise anyone to go to a novus ordo tribunal,
lest this give rise to an invalid declaration based in jure on
the erroneous or dubious criteria of the New Code.
3.
If the person has not remarried, but still has doubts over or
contests the validity of the first marriage or informs us that the
annulment case has been submitted to the novus ordo tribunal or that
the said tribunal has given an executory verdict of nullity, the
priest must warn him/her that novus ordo annulments are not
sufficient proof of nullity of marriage and that he/she cannot
remarry until they have submitted their case to the examination of
our Canonical Commission.
4.
If the person, after a novus ordo annulment, has already remarried,
the priest will leave him/her in good faith if he/she is in good
faith. To this end:
1o
he will never publicly speak of novus ordo annulments,
2o
he will never interrogate the faithful on this matter,
3o
if asked by a person who has only a negative doubt, the priest will
reassure him/her.
5.
If a remarried person has a positive doubt concerning a novus ordo
annulment, the priest must help him/her resolve the doubt. To this
end he will:
1o
warn the person of the possibility of an invalid novus ordo
annulment;
2o
explain that, for this reason and in accordance with our practice,
the case has to be presented to the Canonical Commission.
6.
In order to present cases for the examination of the canonical
office, the priest will:
1o
present a summary explanation of the case;
2o
communicate, where applicable, the novus ordo verdict or at least the
tribunal document that indicates the caput nullitatis [the
grounds of nullity];
3o
transmit the details of the case (and the final novus ordo verdict)
to the canonical office who will send the priest the questionnaire
that will be used to establish the introductory libellus of the case;
4o
but he will not take sides in the matter, either for or against.
7.
The case can only be introduced if the party concerned agrees to be
morally bound by the decision. That is why the priest will ask
him/her to swear to and sign the following promise:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I
the undersigned .................. at the time of submitting the case
of my marriage with .................. to the Canonical Commission of
the SSPX promise:
1o
(if such is the case) not to attempt any marriage or any civil union
before the definitive verdict.
2o
to conform myself to the verdict of the tribunal and consequently, if
it is negative, not to remarry, or (if such is the case) no longer to
consider my second partner as my spouse.
3o
not to approach an official ecclesiastical tribunal to have it
examine or judge my case.
All
this I promise and swear on the Holy Gospels upon which I set my
hand.
Dated
........................ At ........................
Signature
(delete
where not applicable)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8.
For as long as the tribunal designated by the Canonical Commission
has not returned an executory verdict of “declaration de
nullitate matrimonii” [declaration
of nullity of marriage], the
marriage contracted after a novus ordo annulment (if such be the
case) is presumed valid and, consequently, the spouses of the second
marriage may ask for and render their marital dues, and the
sacraments may not be refused them.
9.
But once the annulment proceedings have commenced in our tribunal,
then should the party involved, having been warned not to remarry
before our final verdict permits, remarry or contract a civil union,
the sacraments must be denied them and, depending on the judgement of
the superior who has convened the tribunal, the procedure may be
suspended.
One
has only to compare this text of Mgr Tissier with the editorial of
Abbé Simoulin cited above (p. 19) to see that the latter is not
telling the truth on any of the three points highlighted by Father
Ricossa: 1o on the existence of the “tribunals” instituted by the
Society of Saint Pius X, 2o on the nature of the responses given by
these tribunals, and 3o on the usurpation of power resulting from
them.
1o
«Every time the Abbé Simoulin speaks of the tribunals of the
Society to deny their existence», writes Father Ricossa, «he writes
“tribunals” with quotation marks, and he uses the adjective
“so-called” to characterise them as a figment of our
imagination.» However, Mgr Tissier «himself on at least twelve
occasions used the words tribunal and tribunals, without putting
quotation marks around them, in reference to the Commission which he
chairs and in opposition to the tribunals of John Paul II, which are
defined as “novus ordo” tribunals, “modernist” tribunals,
“official” tribunals.»
2o
As for maintaining that the canonical commissions of the Society
provide for cases submitted to them «nothing more than an opinion or
a recommendation, never a declaratory verdict having the force of
law», this is certainly not the language of a canon lawyer! As
Father Ricossa points out: «A verdict is never a law, but the
application of a law.» A detail in itself highly revealing of the
truly bizarre character of this improvised “magistrature”. And
yet the members of these commissions believe themselves to be
invested with «true jurisdiction», as can be seen in point IV 4 of
Mgr Tissier’s exposition. And as can be seen even more clearly in
the fact that the faithful of the Society who have recourse to the
Canonical Commission make a sworn “promise” in which they pledge
to conform “to the verdict of the tribunal”... of the
Society!
3o
From the first two points derives the third: there
can be no doubt that «the Society seeks to replace and supply “the
powers of the Pope and the Roman Curia”». Mgr
Lefebvre himself wrote in his letter of 15 January quoted above (p.
22) that the Commissions were to supply
«to a certain extent for the shortcomings of the Roman
Congregations». And
Mgr Tissier in his turn does not hesitate to declare: «It is true
that our verdicts of the third instance replace the verdicts of the
Roman Rota, which acts in the Pope’s name as a tribunal of the
third instance.»
So
true is this that the faithful of the Society undertake, by the
formulary reproduced in our inset (p. 25), not to approach «an
official ecclesiastical tribunal to have it examine or judge their
cases». To make such a pledge, observes Father Ricossa, «implies
the negation of the primacy of the Pope’s jurisdiction, which
belongs to him by divine right».
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SOCIETY
OF SAINT PIUS X ~ DISTRICT OF FRANCE
OFFICE
OF CANONICAL AFFAIRS
Abbé
Francis PIVERT
Le
Moulin de Pin
53290
Beaumont Pied de Boeuf
Telephone
43.98.74.63
Fax
43.98.70.38.
Our
ref: Marriage
Father
Priory
of
DISPENSATION
FROM MIXED RELIGION
Considering
the IMPEDIMENT of mixed religion,
Considering
that it is not possible to have recourse either to the local Ordinary
or to Rome,
Considering
that marriage cannot be deferred without great harm to the
contracting parties,
Considering
the canonical regulations indicated by Mgr Lefebvre in time of
crisis,
Considering
the guarantees provided by the bride and groom-to-be,
Considering
the serious reason invoked, namely
..........................................
...............................................................................................................
WE
Abbé Francis Pivert, the undersigned,
in
the name of District Superior and by delegation,
DISPENSE
............................................ and
............................................
from
the impediment indicated, in order that they may licitly contract
marriage according to the laws of the Church.
Ad
cautelam we also dispense them from the impediment of disparity of
religion.
Given
at ........................ on ........................
Seal
Signature of priest
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Translation
of a formulary for dispensation from the impediment of mixed
religion, granted by the Abbé Pivert who considers that «it is not
possible to have recourse either to the local Ordinary or to Rome».
Father
Ricossa concludes: «We are truly sorry to have had to demonstrate
that the assertions contained in Roma felix are untrue, especially as
the author of this editorial is a zealous priest. But he could not be
in ignorance of the true situation because, as
district superior, it is he who would have to be the judge in the
second instance of these tribunals whose existence he denies!»
«Pouring
oil on wounds works better than vinegar.» These are the words of
Saint Bernadette, based on her experience as a nurse... and as a
patient! The wound that John Paul II, from the very first days of his
reign, was confident of quickly curing, has only become more septic
in the Church’s side. A concern to restore rather than to vanquish
will lead us to an attentive study of the commentary given by Father
Ricossa, in the second part of number 51 of Sodalitium, concerning
the documents presented in the first part which we have just read:
the “ORDINANCES” promulgated initially by Mgr Lefebvre then by
Mgr Fellay, Mgr Lefebvre’s letter and Mgr Tissier’s exposition.
We
have long been deploring the frightful «mess» in which
traditionalism has become ensnared – divided, broken and on the
road to ruin for the last twenty-five years (What a mess! English CRC
no 76, July 1976; “Traditionalism” examined, “What a mess!”
English CRC no 310, June 1998, p. 27-30).
Far
from setting ourselves up as judges in our turn, we can only invite
all souls making
their way to God to
turn to the Immaculate, the Mother of every one of us, for ever!
(to
be continued)
Abbé
Georges de Nantes
