Excommunicated bishop Fellay renews attacks on Christ's vicar

[piouswoman]

Its not real helpful providing me to a link to a SSPX affiliated site.

The points you make (ironically again) are often the points liberal dissident Catholics use to justify their support of homosexuality and abortion.

I think I’ll stick to being faitful to Rome and not opting for neo protestantism.

And I take it you are a member of the SSPX although you declined to respond to my previous question

I’m not sure how I can see that your *personal *question to me is relevant to the discussion. I am a Traditional Roman Catholic, just as you are (I assume).

 

[piouswoman]

Atheist post here and link to other atheist. The same goes for many other non-Catholics. I have been frustrated because of the number of dissident traditionalists that are drawn to this topic and post in support of the SSPX, too. But on balance, I believe that the divisive nature of the SSPX, as well as the lack of humility, Phariseeism and general illogic of the whole situation comes through, too.

That’s funny, I think the same of all post modern Catholics today who display a misguided and incorrect grasp of their faith, and who seem always ready and willing to demean and mock Tradition and Traditional Catholics. This thread IS under the heading of Traditional Catholicism so I wonder why so many come here if they don’t like Tradition? I rarely if ever post under any other forum…so anyone who comes to insult and belittle would be the divisive ones.

 

[pnewton]

… there should be little doubt that his comments in opposing the Vicar of Christ are tied immutably to his own need for self-justification. That standard exists for all of his comments, both old and new.

Looking for new meaning in new comments is futile.

There is inherent in the character of a person a fatal flaw that can produce such comments like:

And now, we have a perfectly liberal Pope,… And this is true, this is true: he is perfectly liberal, perfectly contradictory.

…and then claim that his cadre believes such a one to be the true successor of Christ to whom he owes zero fealty. Indeed this is the “mystery, a true mystery.” One can not separate the man from his message, or the message from those buy into it.

 

[catharina]

There is inherent in the character of a person a fatal flaw that can produce such comments like:

…and then claim that his cadre believes such a one to be the true successor of Christ to whom he owes zero fealty. Indeed this is the “mystery, a true mystery.” One can not separate the man from his message, or the message from those buy into it.

Among the best reminders to all who love Tradition is this: we do NOT support the excommunicated in their rebellion. (It should not even have to be stated, IMO.)

God bless HMC and our Holy Father, Pope Bendict XVI.

 

[Our_Refuge]

=gdemetrios2000;3770425]three points
1- vatican 2 has a fundamental flaw, it doesnt co-incide with catholic dogmas which proceeds it,
the “council” rather attempts to use modernist heretics like cogar, balthasar, kung, rahner to speak of these innovations

There is nothing in the Vatican II documents that goes against Catholic dogma. Read the documents in the light of traditional teaching and you can get past the ambiguity. The language is different but the dogma is still there.

2- the SSPX isnt in schism and it is definitely not heretical
Lefevbre needed to consecrate bishops for one reason, that is to make sure his priests come from valid bishops- in the sense of there dogmatic purity, the novus ordo establish isn’t necesarily dogmatically pure.

The rite of Holy Orders is still valid and the Mass, while it contains dogmatic beliefs, it is not intended to be a dogmatic definition. It is a discipline.

3- Listen to the truth, alot of you Vatican 2 people and Liberal “Catholics” reject the truth when it is shown to you.

The Church is ONE_HOLY_AND_APOSTOLIC

The Church is the pillar and foundation of truth, that has not and cannot change.

 

[PetersKeys]

Attack? This is an attack:

catholiccitizens.org/press/contentview.asp?c=46479

And Hans Kung isn’t even excommunicated.

That is scary. Why isn’t he excommunicated yet? He supports so many things against the Church

 

[Spiller]

They are not heretics- in fact I’d warrant to say they are the most doctrinally orthodox group there is, for the most part.

At the same time, I lament the fact they did not submit to Rome in their decision making, and thus would never attend Mass at their chapels unless there was nothing else around. If one doesn’t submit to Papal authority I’m not interested.

There is a distinction between sspx clergy and laity. I think the Catholic Church treats their laity with an almost over abundance of charity. Clergy as viewed as heretical (not schismatic) or fully apostate – I forget which.

 

[piouswoman]

It is quite obvious in reading many of these anti-SSPX posts that opinions are given as though they were gospel, as though they were finite…rather it is plainly evident and has even been stated by some, that they have NOT familiarized themselves with the facts, they have NOT formed their opinions in a justifiable manner…There is no justice in forming conclusions without hearing the entire truth, all of the facts, and that means reading both sides, educating yourself to the facts and to the history.

It is the teaching of the Church that obedience is part of justice, one of the four cardinal virtues, which are in turn subordinate to the theological virtues of *faith, hope and charity. *

 

[catharina]

There is a distinction between sspx clergy and laity. I think the Catholic Church treats their laity with an almost over abundance of charity. Clergy as viewed as heretical (not schismatic) or fully apostate – I forget which.

This thread is about recent statements of an excommunicated bishop who leads the sspx. Despite his leadership the clergy-membership is NOT declared excommunicated or in schism. IMO. one might creatively state that perhaps their case is still “pending.” There are NO lay members of sspx; it is a society of priests. There are a number of lay supporters.

The bishops though are indeed still excommunicated so their views are irrelevant to Catholics.

 

[revelations]

All I know is that if this guy is excommunicated then I don’t want anything to do with it. Already for me, reading these comments, is upsetting enough.

Traditional catholicism is upholding the decrees of the Vatican because it is truly guided by the spirit of God. Whether one likes it or not, complete obedience is the sign of a “traditional” catholic, and anyone to disagree or question the strong position of an excommunication puts their catholic-ness into question.

And another thing: the mass. For gosh sakes people, let it go. Jesus is still present irregardless of the way the mass is performed, Jesus is still there. Whether there’s incense or not, whether the priest faces us or the altar, it doesn’t matter.

And finally, WRT fellay’s comments, just remember that as catholics we believe that the Holy Father’s selection was guided by the will of God, so for him to even question the “liberalism” shows his true character.

The will of God is unknown to men, for good reason. Perhaps it is time to usher in this “liberalism” to quash all this parisee-ism that is going on.

 

[Spiller]

It is quite obvious in reading many of these anti-SSPX posts that opinions are given as though they were gospel, as though they were finite…rather it is plainly evident and has even been stated by some, that they have NOT familiarized themselves with the facts, they have NOT formed their opinions in a justifiable manner…There is no justice in forming conclusions without hearing the entire truth, all of the facts, and that means reading both sides, educating yourself to the facts and to the history.

It is the teaching of the Church that obedience is part of justice, one of the four cardinal virtues, which are in turn subordinate to the theological virtues of *faith, hope and charity. *

Unless and until sspx clergy repent and return Home, thier status seems to be best defined by paragraphs 3 and 4 of Ecclesial Dei:

*3. In itself, this act was one of disobedience to the Roman Pontiff in a very grave matter and of supreme importance for the unity of the church, such as is the ordination of bishops whereby the apostolic succession is sacramentally perpetuated. Hence such disobedience - which implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy - constitutes a schismatic act. In performing such an act, notwithstanding the formal canonical warning sent to them by the Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops on 17 June last, **Mons. Lefebvre and the priests Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta, have incurred the grave penalty of excommunication envisaged by ecclesiastical law. **

1. The root of this schismatic act can be discerned in an incomplete and contradictory notion of Tradition. Incomplete, because it does not take sufficiently into account the living character of Tradition, which, as the Second Vatican Council clearly taught, “comes from the apostles and progresses in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. There is a growth in insight into the realities and words that are being passed on. This comes about in various ways. It comes through the contemplation and study of believers who ponder these things in their hearts. It comes from the intimate sense of spiritual realities which they experience. And it comes from the preaching of those who have received, along with their right of succession in the episcopate, the sure charism of truth”.

But especially contradictory is a notion of Tradition which opposes the universal Magisterium of the Church possessed by the Bishop of Rome and the Body of Bishops. It is impossible to remain faithful to the Tradition while breaking the ecclesial bond with him to whom, in the person of the Apostle Peter, Christ himself entrusted the ministry of unity in his Church. *

Ecclesia Dei is a lucid document. Simply put there is no way that that Lefebvre did not pass from this Earth in excommunication from the Church (unless he repented in private) and that Fellay will suffer the same fate unless he too repents…

 

[Spiller]

This thread is about recent statements of an excommunicated bishop who leads the sspx. Despite his leadership the clergy-membership is NOT declared excommunicated or in schism. IMO. one might creatively state that perhaps their case is still “pending.” There are NO lay members of sspx; it is a society of priests. There are a number of lay supporters.

The bishops though are indeed still excommunicated so their views are irrelevant to Catholics.

You’re mistaken…

 

[catharina]

Unless and until sspx clergy repent and return Home, thier status seems to be best defined by paragraphs 3 and 4 of Ecclesial Dei:

3. In itself, this act was one of disobedience to the Roman Pontiff in a very grave matter and of supreme importance for the unity of the church, such as is the ordination of bishops whereby the apostolic succession is sacramentally perpetuated. Hence such disobedience - which implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy - constitutes a schismatic act. In performing such an act, notwithstanding the formal canonical warning sent to them by the Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops on 17 June last, **Mons. Lefebvre and the priests Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta, have incurred the grave penalty of excommunication envisaged by ecclesiastical law. **

1. The root of this schismatic act can be discerned in an incomplete and contradictory notion of Tradition. Incomplete, because it does not take sufficiently into account the living character of Tradition, which, as the Second Vatican Council clearly taught, “comes from the apostles and progresses in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. There is a growth in insight into the realities and words that are being passed on. This comes about in various ways. It comes through the contemplation and study of believers who ponder these things in their hearts. It comes from the intimate sense of spiritual realities which they experience. And it comes from the preaching of those who have received, along with their right of succession in the episcopate, the sure charism of truth”.

But especially contradictory is a notion of Tradition which opposes the universal Magisterium of the Church possessed by the Bishop of Rome and the Body of Bishops. It is impossible to remain faithful to the Tradition while breaking the ecclesial bond with him to whom, in the person of the Apostle Peter, Christ himself entrusted the ministry of unity in his Church.

Ecclesia Dei is a lucid document. Simply put there is no way that that Lefebvre did not pass from this Earth in excommunication from the Church (unless he repented in private) and that Fellay will suffer the same fate unless he too repents…

I am REPEATING this for you again. Why I should have to do so, I don’t know, but you CAN"T draw you own conclusions re sspx clergy. YOU CAN NOT.

"This thread is about recent statements of an excommunicated bishop who leads the sspx. Despite his leadership the clergy-membership is NOT declared excommunicated or in schism. IMO. one might creatively state that perhaps their case is still "pending." There are NO lay members of sspx; it is a society of priests. There are a number of lay supporters. 

The bishops though are indeed still excommunicated so their views are irrelevant to Catholics."

The Church well recognizes that it will take prayer and TIME for sspx clergy (the priests) to make other arrangements for their lives and priestly vocations.

PLEASE do not continue to repeat the same falsehood that the sspx priests have been distanced by Rome. You own quote shows the penalty was/is applied to the bishops involved in the disobedience!

PLEASE - slow down and think!

PLEASE.

 

[catharina]

You’re mistaken…

Show me the source of YOUR conclusion.
HINT: you won’t find one because none exists.

 

[Spiller]

Show me the source of YOUR conclusion.
HINT: you won’t find one because none exists.

Read Ecclesia Dei…

Are sspx ministers even validly “ordained” given the status of their “ordinaries?”

 

[Spiller]

I am REPEATING this for you again. Why I should have to do so, I don’t know, but you CAN"T draw you own conclusions re sspx clergy. YOU CAN NOT.

"This thread is about recent statements of an excommunicated bishop who leads the sspx. Despite his leadership the clergy-membership is NOT declared excommunicated or in schism. IMO. one might creatively state that perhaps their case is still "pending." There are NO lay members of sspx; it is a society of priests. There are a number of lay supporters. 

**The bishops though are indeed still excommunicated so their views are irrelevant to Catholics."**

The Church well recognizes that it will take prayer and TIME for sspx clergy (the priests) to make other arrangements for their lives and priestly vocations.

PLEASE do not continue to repeat the same falsehood that the sspx priests have been distanced by Rome. You own quote shows the penalty was/is applied to the bishops involved in the disobedience!

PLEASE - slow down and think!

PLEASE.

I would concur

 

[catharina]

Read Ecclesia Dei…

I know Ecclesia Dei quite well.
Quote me LINES that support your error. You are in ERROR.

REMINDER:  your stated ERRORS:

"There is a distinction between sspx clergy and laity. I think the Catholic Church treats their laity with an almost over abundance of charity. Clergy as viewed as heretical (not schismatic) or fully apostate -- I forget which."

 

[catharina]

There is NO sspx laity. None.

Prove that the Church has declared sspx PRIESTS to be:heretics
apostates
excommunicated
schismatics
any of the above.

You are simply WRONG, clinging to error.

 

[Spiller]

I know Ecclesia Dei quite well.
Quote me LINES that support your error. You are in ERROR.

REMINDER:  your stated ERRORS:

"There is a distinction between sspx clergy and laity. I think the Catholic Church treats their laity with an almost over abundance of charity. Clergy as viewed as heretical (not schismatic) or fully apostate -- I forget which."

Your question has been asked and answered – and footnoted.

I am curious now. Given that the original sspx ministers were excommunicated, have they been able to validly ordain any new ministers?

 

[catharina]

Your question has been asked and answered – and footnoted.

I am curious now. Given that the original sspx ministers were excommunicated, have they been able to validly ordain any new ministers?

There is no question that I expect you to answer.

Four bishops were excommuincated.
Your choice of vocabulary (“ministers”) only adds to the confusion.
Maybe you’re not Catholic.
Now you asking about the bishops?

Your frame of reference is erroneous and off-kilter.
No sense in moving on 'til you acknowledge that.
For whatever reason, it seems you won’t.
See you some other time, maybe.

(I can’t exchange ideas with someone who clings to error as you do.)