Excommunicated bishop Fellay renews attacks on Christ's vicar

[PrayforMallory]

Canon law defines the term “heretic” and it says that it does not apply to those who are born in other faiths. That’s the point that I’m making.

It applies to Catholics, just as was posted above in the list of defintions that someone posted from the EWTN website.

The same with apostolic succession. No one says that the Churches with apostolic succession cannot make mistakes. The Roman Catholic Church has too.

What is said is that they are no longer excommunicated or anathemized and we are not longer excommunicated by them either.

Remember, they have always had validly ordained bishops too. Their bishops also had the power to excommunicate us and did so.

Just as some of our bishops have excommunicated. It’s not only the Holy See who can excommunicate. A bishop can do so too. I can’t remember the name of the group. I believe it’s A Call to Action or some such name. It’s a very liberal Catholic group that one of the Midwestern bishops excommunicated.

Just as our bishops can excommunicate, so can and did the Eastern Patriarchs excommunicate us.

All of those mutual excommunications and anathemas are now lifted. The logic behind lifting them included several ideas.

1. We are sister Churches, part of the saem Mystical Body
2. We want to return to union with each other.
3. The excommunications were due to mistakes of hermaneutics on both parts. Neither side really understood what the other side was trying to say.
4. Pope Benedict’s desire to put the past behind us, including all of the things that were said to each other or about each other by popes and patriarchs.
5. The Pope’s desire to fulfill the will of Christ, to bring all into union as Christ and the Father are united…
6. Our circumstances today are not the same as 1,000 years ago. There is no disobedience on either side, such is not the case with the SSPX. Those who disobeyed are still around. In the case of the Orthodox, those who disobeyed and excommunicated the Western Catholics are no longer around. Those who are around today, want to work toward unity. While Bishop Fellay continues to find fault rather than look for opportunities for unity.

In conscience, it is very difficult for any faithful Catholic to lend support to Bishop Fellay, because he’s not looking for union with the Vicar of Christ. He finds fault at every turn. Last year when the Motu Proprio was issued he said that he was waiting to see what else Rome was going to offer the SSPX. Read his comments in the interview that’s listed on CAF’s main page. He is waiting for Rome to offer him something. But he is not offering Rome anything but criticism.

Where is the desire for unity in this manner of acting and speaking?

JR

His criticisms have lessened in intensity.

We don’t know what all is going on with the SSPX and the Vatican, what all the terms of these near-agreements are and everything.

For all we know, Fellay could be gradually trying to inch the SSPX toward full union, while having to appease his more-hardened followers at the same time.

Also, they could be working out technicalities (like the SSPX being guaranteed not to lose their chapels to anti-SP Bishops, etc.

Time will tell, but the dialogue is becoming more amicable bit by bit, at least.

I hope they will lift Lefebvre’s excommunication in any case, because I want to be able to admire the man without apology.

I guess that’s because of the romantic nature of the whole controversy. I mean, if Lefebvre is a saint, he is a* huge *saint.

If the SSPX is even only partially right, then the whole story is one of the most dramatic stories in the history of the Church.

 

[pnewton]

Yes, the rejection of established religion is part and parcel of liberalism.

I did not ask for a regurgitation of the same opinion. I asked what dicitionary your definition came from. You stated this was the definition of liberalism and those holding Fellay’s statements a fact. Apparently the idea of where the subjective ends and the objective begins is difficult for those that support the SSPX. Perhaps this explains their errant logic.

Or maybe, since 2+2 is easy, they are better oriented toward math than English.

 

[pnewton]

Is this really a Trad Cath forum?

Its possible to be a heretic and a schismatic

Dr. Peter Kreeft said one of the the strangest twists of irony was when Feeney, in holding to a his strict interpretation that none can be saved outside of being a member in communion with the visible Catholic Church ended up outside of the Catholic Church due to his heresy. Has history repeated itself in Fellay and LeFebvre? I do not think so, but the danger still exists.

 

[catharina]

Canon law defines the term “heretic” and it says that it does not apply to those who are born in other faiths. That’s the point that I’m making.

It applies to Catholics, just as was posted above in the list of defintions that someone posted from the EWTN website.​

1. We are sister Churches, part of the saem Mystical Body

---

In conscience, it is very difficult for any faithful Catholic to lend support to Bishop Fellay, because he’s not looking for union with the Vicar of Christ. He finds fault at every turn. Last year when the Motu Proprio was issued he said that he was waiting to see what else Rome was going to offer the SSPX. Read his comments in the interview that’s listed on CAF’s main page. He is waiting for Rome to offer him something. But he is not offering Rome anything but criticism.

Where is the desire for unity in this manner of acting and speaking?

JR

Hi JR. Because you mentioned that often misunderstood notion of “sister churches” you won’t mind if I add this footnote to that. From the Vatican, June 30, 2000, CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH

"NOTE ON THE EXPRESSION «SISTER CHURCHES»

…

II. Directives on the use of the expression

1. The historical references presented in the preceding paragraphs illustrate the significance which the expression sister Churches has assumed in the ecumenical dialogue. This makes the correct theological use of the term even more important.
2. In fact, in the proper sense, sister Churches are exclusively particular Churches (or groupings of particular Churches; for example, the Patriarchates or Metropolitan provinces) among themselves.[7] It must always be clear, when the expression sister Churches is used in this proper sense, that the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Universal Church is not sister but mother of all the particular Churches.[8]
3. One may also speak of sister Churches, in a proper sense, in reference to particular Catholic and non-catholic Churches; thus the particular Church of Rome can also be called the sister of all other particular Churches. However, as recalled above, one cannot properly say that the Catholic Church is the sister of a particular Church or group of Churches. This is not merely a question of terminology, but above all of respecting a basic truth of the Catholic faith: that of the unicity of the Church of Jesus Christ. In fact, there is but a single Church,[9] and therefore the plural term Churches can refer only to particular Churches.

…"

209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:JtmFVogFQZ0J:www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000630_chiese-sorelle_en.html+pope+john+paul+ii,+sister+churches,+mother+church&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us&ie=UTF-8

I know that you know all of this; I’m adding it for the benefit of all posters.

 

[Jeanette_L]

Hi JR. Because you mentioned that often misunderstood notion of “sister churches” you won’t mind if I add this footnote to that. From the Vatican, June 30, 2000, CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH

"NOTE ON THE EXPRESSION «SISTER CHURCHES»

…

II. Directives on the use of the expression

1. The historical references presented in the preceding paragraphs illustrate the significance which the expression sister Churches has assumed in the ecumenical dialogue. This makes the correct theological use of the term even more important.
2. In fact, in the proper sense, sister Churches are exclusively particular Churches (or groupings of particular Churches; for example, the Patriarchates or Metropolitan provinces) among themselves.[7] It must always be clear, when the expression sister Churches is used in this proper sense, that the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Universal Church is not sister but mother of all the particular Churches.[8]
3. One may also speak of sister Churches, in a proper sense, in reference to particular Catholic and non-catholic Churches; thus the particular Church of Rome can also be called the sister of all other particular Churches. However, as recalled above, one cannot properly say that the Catholic Church is the sister of a particular Church or group of Churches. This is not merely a question of terminology, but above all of respecting a basic truth of the Catholic faith: that of the unicity of the Church of Jesus Christ. In fact, there is but a single Church,[9] and therefore the plural term Churches can refer only to particular Churches.

…"

209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:JtmFVogFQZ0J:www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000630_chiese-sorelle_en.html+pope+john+paul+ii,+sister+churches,+mother+church&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us&ie=UTF-8

I know that you know all of this; I’m adding it for the benefit of all posters.

And for those of us who enjoy watching the debate, we thank you.

 

[catharina]

And for those of us who enjoy watching the debate, we thank you.

Good morning, Jeanette, and yes, me too.

I’ve pretty much become an observer of this thread -
so I don’t develop ulcers or have a stroke.
Always glad when JR has stepped in!

 

[Jeanette_L]

Good morning, Jeanette, and yes, me too.

I’ve pretty much become an observer of this thread -
so I don’t develop ulcers or have a stroke.
Always glad when JR has stepped in!

Or at the very least fall into a dead faint from disbelief! Ditto on your sentiments.

 

[Dauphin]

I did not ask for a regurgitation of the same opinion. I asked what dicitionary your definition came from. You stated this was the definition of liberalism and those holding Fellay’s statements a fact. Apparently the idea of where the subjective ends and the objective begins is difficult for those that support the SSPX. Perhaps this explains their errant logic.

Or maybe, since 2+2 is easy, they are better oriented toward math than English.

I don’t support the SSPX.

The fact that liberalism rejects established religion is commonly known. I have no interest in searching through dictionaries to confirm this for you. For anyone who understands the basics of liberalism, it’s really quite obviously incompatible with a state religion.

If you’re still confused about what liberalism is, you’d be better off searching through an encyclopedia - a dictionary might only contain a cursory explanation. Good luck in your studies.

 

[catharina]

The following post is lifted entirely from another thread. It was posted today and seems quite relevant to this thread:

"I’ve taken this from a daily meditation I receive from Women of Grace via email, and posted it here. It seems to be appropriate in addressing some of the heartbreaking attitudes we see all too often in our Catholic world, whether here on the forums or in our parishes.

June 6, 2008 
Obedience

"For those who have become lazy in fulfilling the commandments and desire to banish murky obscurity, there is no better or more efficient cure than complete obedience in everything, with faith and without argument."
St. Gregory of Sinai

For Reflection:

How does obedience "banish murky obscurity?" To what extent do I obey the commandments of God and the teachings of the Church with faith and without argument? (Is there an area where I disagree with the Church and obstinately stand in rebellion, driven by my own understanding and arguments?) Am I willing to be "cured?" 

~~~~~~~~~

Just something to think about, whether we find ourselves to the left or to the right, or just struggling to stay the course down the straight and narrow. 

God bless"

 

[Genesis315]

1. We are sister Churches, part of the saem Mystical Body

This is not true.

You are using the phrase “sister churches” improperly, see this notification from the CDF (it’s a good read that explains the relationship of the Catholic Church with the various particualr Orthodox Churches:

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000630_chiese-sorelle_en.html

The Second Vatican Council also says the same here:

1. The Holy Catholic Church, which is the Mystical Body of Christ, is made up of the faithful who are organically united in the Holy Spirit by the same faith, the same sacraments and the same government and who, combining together into various groups which are held together by a hierarchy, form separate Churches or Rites. Between these there exists an admirable bond of union, such that the variety within the Church in no way harms its unity; rather it manifests it, for it is the mind of the Catholic Church that each individual Church or Rite should retain its traditions whole and entire and likewise that it should adapt its way of life to the different needs of time and place.(2)
2. These individual Churches, whether of the East or the West, although they differ somewhat among themselves in rite (to use the current phrase), that is, in liturgy, ecclesiastical discipline, and spiritual heritage, are, nevertheless, each as much as the others, entrusted to the pastoral government of the Roman Pontiff, the divinely appointed successor of St. Peter in primacy over the universal Church. They are consequently of equal dignity, so that none of them is superior to the others as regards rite and they enjoy the same rights and are under the same obligations, also in respect of preaching the Gospel to the whole world (cf. Mark 16, 15) under the guidance of the Roman Pontiff.

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19641121_orientalium-ecclesiarum_en.html

If you read the rest of the decree, it becomes even more clear that the Orthodox Churches are not considered part of the Mystical Body of Christ. They are separated and not in full communion with us.

 

[catharina]

This is not true.

You are using the phrase “sister churches” improperly, see this notification from the CDF (it’s a good read that explains the relationship of the Catholic Church with the various particualr Orthodox Churches:

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000630_chiese-sorelle_en.html

The Second Vatican Council also says the same here:

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19641121_orientalium-ecclesiarum_en.html

If you read the rest of the decree, it becomes even more clear that the Orthodox Churches are not considered part of the Mystical Body of Christ. They are separated and not in full communion with us.

Read Post # 141.

 

[pnewton]

I have no interest in searching through dictionaries to confirm this for you. For anyone who understands the basics of liberalism, it’s really quite obviously incompatible with a state religion.

That is because your definition is not actually a definition, but an opinion. Your* initial* definition of liberalism is in no dictionary. However, what you have said above is not what you initially said. “Is incompatiable with” is not equivalent with “is the definition of.”

 

[pnewton]

If you’re still confused about what liberalism is, you’d be better off searching through an encyclopedia - a dictionary might only contain a cursory explanation. Good luck in your studies.

I am well aware of at least three meanings, thank you, and in known of them is Fellay even remotely on target with Pope Benedict, at least in my opinion.

 

[Dauphin]

That is because your definition is not actually a definition, but an opinion. Your* initial* definition of liberalism is in no dictionary. However, what you have said above is not what you initially said. “Is incompatiable with” is not equivalent with “is the definition of.”

Obviously, the definition is much broader than the simple rejection of established religion.