Bishop Excommunicated

So here’s a question: Isn’t this essentially the same situation as the SSPX bishops, only Bishop Yue doesn’t celebrate the Mass by the 1962 Rite?

About these ads

About catholicsensibility

Todd and his family live in Ames, Iowa. He serves a Catholic parish of both Iowa State students and town residents.
This entry was posted in Church News, Commentary. Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to Bishop Excommunicated

  1. Jen says:

    A part of me wonders just how voluntary it was, and the “allowed himself” bit sticks in my craw. Catholics don’t have it easy in that part of the world. Maybe he thought he could try to do some good?

  2. Tradical says:

    There is an essential difference. In the consecration of the 4 Bishops, Archbishop Lefebvre made it clear that he did not bestow an apostolic mission upon them.

    To do so would be an act of schism.

    The SSPX Bishops were consecrated in order to provide the two sacraments linked to the fullness of the priesthood.

    In the case of the Chinese Patriotic Association, it is a separate church under the authority of the Chinese Government. Very similar to the relationship between the Russian Government and the Orthodox.

  3. Liam says:

    Rome is most likely to release lightning bolts over sacramental issues, most especially simulated or invalid sacraments (which, when intentional, are acts of violence that breed confusion and division among the faithful) or sacraments that confer jurisdiction and the power to ordain (most especially the ordination of bishops), for the same reason.

  4. Tradical says:

    Quick Note: The consecration of a bishop does not confer jurisdiction.

    • Liam says:

      But the bishop may claim the power to ordain. That’s why it’s so sensitive for Rome.

      • Tradical says:

        The bishop doesn’t have to claim the power – he has it period. Whether he uses it licitly or not I think is beside the point.

        When you say ordain: Do you mean ordain priests or bishops?

        Back to the original topic: jurisdiction is related to an Apostolic Mission and this only comes from the Pope. If someone consecrates a bishop without a Pontifical Mandate AND gives him an Apostolic Mission (Jurisdiction over a territory) then it is a schism. This describes the situation of the CPA.

        If someone consecrates a bishop w/o mandate but does not give a ‘mission’ then it is an abuse of episcopal power.

        The issue in the case of the SSPX is, in my opinion, that the consecration of the four bishops allowed the SSPX to continue to be independent of the hierarchy in terms of the need for bishops for confirmation and more importantly ordination of priests.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s