Discussion on Church Excommunication Decree

So, Cardinal Fernandez, in this document, while excommunicating the six bishops by name,

the 700 priests, he also seeks to excommunicate, but he does so in the note, as you mentioned.

All these canon lawyers I'm reading say, because this decree lacks penal form, that excommunication

doesn't extend to the 700 priests.

Is that what you're saying as well?

Well, yeah, what I'm saying is that the priests are labeled as schismatics in the explanatory note,

which means they committed some act that's schismatic in the eyes of the Holy See.

The bishops' schismatic act was to ordain or get ordained as bishops.

That's quite clear.

That's a public fact that's verifiable.

The Holy See did not declare in the decree any of the priests to have committed a schismatic act.

But on the other hand, in the explanatory note, they say they're schismatics.

So all you can do is presume that the Holy See is saying your act of schism was remaining

in the society, which has committed a schismatic act in that two of its bishops ordained four

of its priests as bishops.

But that has to be specified, because when there's a penalty that's going to be given,

there has to be an instance where you say, well, before this moment, I didn't have the penalty.

Now I have it because I did a certain act.

Yeah.

But Father, there's another point here, and I've gotten a lot of emails about this over

the last few days.

The question is, the document claims in the explanatory note that if you receive the sacrament

of marriage or confession from an SSPX priest, that that's invalid.

But wait a minute.

Pope Francis said that SSPX priests could perform marriages and confessions with no restrictions.

He lifted...

There are restrictions on that, and this note doesn't have the power or force, I am told,

to abrogate that papal order, right?

Yeah.

Well, let's look at that.

The reason the confessions of the priests of St. Pius X during the reign of Francis,

they got faculties to hear confessions given by Pope Francis, and it was formalized in

a decree or a document from the pope.

An act of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in an explanatory note cannot

undo what Pope Francis did, so they missed the boat on that.

They have to get Pope Leo to issue a decree revoking what Pope Francis did.

As regards marriages, Pope Francis gave priests the permission to seek delegation from a parish

or a bishop in a diocese to be able to witness marriages.

They don't have that power apart from a relationship with the local diocese.

Again, that is a papal decree issued by Pope Francis.

That cannot be undone in this case.

Now, they also, you should say, canon law allows any priest to validly absolve a sinner

in danger of death.

They never refer to that in this decree, and that was a mistake.

The common doctrine in canon law is that if a priest is asked to hear a confession

of a penitent who thinks the priest has jurisdiction, that the church grants jurisdiction to hear

that confession.

The reason, of course, is you don't want to deprive the faithful in the state of mortal

sin of the solace of receiving pardon in the sacrament.

So, again, this is very poorly done because you have to deal with the law as the law is

written, not as you wish it was written.

I understand the mind of Cardinal Fernandez, which I'm sure reflects the mind of Pope Leo,

which is to establish a serious breach in the unity of the church has happened and it

has consequences, but those consequences only come into effect when you actually make it

happen by legally recognizable decrees.

There's a reason for that.

I can't read the mind of the Pope, therefore I shouldn't be publicly penalized based on

what someone tells me the mind of the Pope is.

It has to be laid out in a legally recognizable form.