Bishop Fellay's (SSPX) response to reunification

  • Thread starter Thread starter TrueLight
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
JReducation said:
I’ll close by recalling the fist time that I met Cardinal Ratzinger. I had heard that this man was the “pope’s Rottweiler” I was shaking in my boots as I walked into his office. I left in a state of shock. The man was everything that was courteous and humble. I was the subordinate. He did not have to be so polite and charming to me. Had he been distant or aloof, I would have accepted it. I look at the marked difference in the behaviors and it frightens me. At the end of the day, the attitude can make or break any negotiation.
Click to expand...
What caused you to be in his office? Did they pull you up about Saint Dominic, Our Lady and the rosary :D?

😉
 
I just looked at the news section on the sspx site and don’t see anything about saying no. Can you pm the link to me?
 
Laudate_Dominum said:
What caused you to be in his office? Did they pull you up about Saint Dominic, Our Lady and the rosary :D?

😉
Click to expand...
Nah, nothing that exciting, smarty pants. Had the Prefect for the Sacred Congregation of the Faith wanted to debate this point, he could have taken it up with Fr. Jordan Aumann, OP, who was the Director of the Department of Spiritual Theology at the Angelicum, just down the street or with the Dominican Friars who teach this position at the Angelicum, which is their premier university and one of the best schools of theology in the world.

I was there for something much less exciting. I worked for a cardinal and I was on an errand.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
Fellay is a complete heretic, hes an apostate Jewish Freemason.
 
MODERATOR NOTICE

There are to be no offensive comments about any member of the clergy. This includes the clerics of the SSPX.
 
Thomas_Casey said:
MODERATOR NOTICE

There are to be no offensive comments about any member of the clergy. This includes the clerics of the SSPX.
Click to expand...
Comforting to see this reminder. I was beginning to think there was a double standard.
 
TrueLight said:
I don’t know if I am allowed to link to the SSPX website, so I am linking to Father Z’s blog which has the Sermon by Bishop Fellay, saying no to Rome.

May God intervene in this situation.
Click to expand...
Nothing is changed. 2012 is no different than 1988 except the new bishops are 24 years closer to consecrating more bishops as SSPX vocations continue to grow. The ceremonies on Feb. 2 were beautiful. Bp. Fellay said nothing that anyone who is informed about the Society didn’t know. The Society isn’t biting on some Henry Clay plan where one side compromises and then the other side compromises. The Society has a position. It is clearly outlined. If Rome wants the Society, the Society is waiting. If Rome doesn’t want the Society, the Society is still waiting. Maybe it will take 500 years and many dozens more bishops?

If you don’t agree with the Society’s position on obedience to Rome, I don’t see why you are praying for reconciliation. The Society is not coming hat in hand saying it is sorry. The Society believes it is right.
 
Timothysis said:
**The question now is how many here will continue to support a group who refuses to be reconciled with the Holy See? **
As Constantine said, is this the action that could cause them to be officially declared out of communion (i.e. schism) with the Church? Will any here continue to defend their actions and/or their position if such happens?
Click to expand...
Why would SSPX supporters not continue to support the SSPX? Nothing will have changed from the present situation.

A lot here have argued that if reconciliation does not occur the only alternative is to place them in schism.

Well, I agree with Br JR that this will not happen, but my reasons are a lot more simple. How can our Holy Father justify placing anyone in schism for the crime of being Catholic?
 
Dragonslayer said:
Well, I agree with Br JR that this will not happen, but my reasons are a lot more simple. How can our Holy Father justify placing anyone in schism for the crime of being Catholic?
Click to expand...
If there are any more episcopal consecrations, that will be “justification” enough, I would think. The SSPX does not exactly have a lot of time on its side; the four bishops won’t live forever.
 
ProVobis said:
If there are any more episcopal consecrations, that will be “justification” enough, I would think. The SSPX does not exactly have a lot of time on its side; the four bishops won’t live forever.
Click to expand...
In canon law, does consecrating Bishops without permission incur schism? I was under the impression that it does not and that that was why they were never actually in schism in the first place…
 
James924 said:
In canon law, does consecrating Bishops without permission incur excommunication? I was under the impression that it does not and that that was why they were never actually in schism in the first place…
Click to expand...
Yes, it incurs an excommunication but I don’t think an excommunication constitutes an automatic schism. Does canon law even define a schism?
 
James924 said:
In canon law, does consecrating Bishops without permission incur excommunication? I was under the impression that it does not and that that was why they were never actually in schism in the first place…
Click to expand...
Here is the actual Canon from the Code of Canon Law.
Can. 1382 Both the Bishop who, without a pontifical mandate, consecrates a person a Bishop, and the one who receives the consecration from him, incur a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See.

An excommunication does not automatically mean schism. Blessed Pope John Paul II said that the act was schismatic but that they were not in schism.

But they were all excommunicated which is why Pope Benedict removed the excommunication from the 4 living bishops. The excommunication can not be lifted from the dead.
 
ProVobis said:
Yes, it incurs an excommunication but I don’t think an excommunication constitutes an automatic schism. Does canon law even define a schism?
Click to expand...
Sorry, I misspoke, I meant “does it incur schism”. 🙂
 
Dragonslayer said:
Why would SSPX supporters not continue to support the SSPX?
Click to expand...
Why? Why would anyone support a group that stands in opposition to the Holy See? Why would anyone support a group who refuses to submit to the Holy Father?
Dragonslayer said:
How can our Holy Father justify placing anyone in schism for the crime of being Catholic?
Click to expand...
There is far more to their “crime” than simply being Catholic. If they do refuse reconciliation, then I don’t see how the Holy Father will have any other choice.
 
ByzCath said:
Here is the actual Canon from the Code of Canon Law.
Can. 1382 Both the Bishop who, without a pontifical mandate, consecrates a person a Bishop, and the one who receives the consecration from him, incur a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See.

An excommunication does not automatically mean schism. Blessed Pope John Paul II said that the act was schismatic but that they were not in schism.

But they were all excommunicated which is why Pope Benedict removed the excommunication from the 4 living bishops. The excommunication can not be lifted from the dead.
Click to expand...
Sorry, meant “does it incur schism”. Edited
 
Timothysis said:
Why? Why would anyone support a group that stands in opposition to the Holy See? Why would anyone support a group who refuses to submit to the Holy Father?

There is far more to their “crime” than simply being Catholic. If they do refuse reconciliation, then I don’t see how the Holy Father will have any other choice.
Click to expand...
Would they not, instead, simply continue to be in a state of canonical irregularity.

Under what part of canon law, for what crime, would they be prosecuted for schism?
 
ProVobis said:
schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him." [Code of Canon Law c.751]

http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/heresy_schism_apostasy.htm
Click to expand...
So, in other words, unless they do something different from what they are doing now, then they will indeed not be in schism (otherwise they would be now). Is that correct? Accepting the preamble cannot, I don’t think, constitute a violation of that canon.

They would continue in a state of canonical irregularity. Does that sound right?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top