Excommunication of the SSPX Bishops to be lifted!?!

[maurin]

I dont dislike them. I look at the facts, and they(lEFEBVRE)were clearly wrong. He shouldnt have disobeyed the Holy Father. Even if JPII wasnt the greatest Pope you still MUST be obedient in disciplinary matters. Lefebvre clearly was not, and these people are really crazy if they think Pope Benedict is going to lift the excommunications. NOT HAPPENING!!!

But you are disobedient to the Pope, whose name by the way is not JPII (requiescat in pacem), but Benedict XVI, who has written, 1 year and 2 months ago that the status of the SSPX is an internal matter of reconciliation within the Church.

Yet you unashamedly proclaim your disobedience to the Pope on the pages of this forum, over and over again ad nauseum.

“the light of the just shines gaily, but the lamp of the wicked goes out. The stupid man sows discord by his insolence, but with those who take counsel is wisdom.” Proverbs 13:9-10

 

[Christus_Rex_1]

Another report. Rocco, over at Whispers includes this information:

In his dispatch, Tornielli wrote that the pontiff is slated to use the "formula requested by [Bernard] Fellay" – Lefevbre’s successor at the Society’s helm, with whom the newly-elected Pope met in summer 2005. Rodari added that the decree is to come from the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts, signed by its president, Archbishop Francesco Coccopalmerio, at the Pope’s expressed behest

.

If true, we know what “formula” that will be - that the excommunication was null from day one.

Gen 3:15,

Yes, it is my understanding that Bishop Fellay did go to Rome to present the Pope with the bouquet of 1.7 Rosaries.

 

[Shlomey]

Pray for unity, but no reason to bash His Holiness Pope John Paul II.

As for the events, a friend of mine who worked at the Vatican (now deceased) told me two months ago about meetings between SSPX folks and the Pope Benedict XVI.

While I do think it is good for Catholics to stay true to tradition, we also have to acknowledge that tradition in certain fields have changed and the changes do not becessarily imply a “heresy” or an “error”.

We have to Mass forms now: both are legitimate.

 

[Rogerteder]

I have a question: If the Pope does lift the excommunications - or worse still, declare them null from the beginning - will you admit that you have been wrong, or will you simply stop posting here for a few weeks?

I’ll admit I am wrong. It isnt going to happen though.

 

[RyanML]

On a side note, does anyone here really thing that the SSPX leadership is willing to relinquish their authority and submit once again to Rome for instruction, assignment, being under a local ordinary, etc.?

It has always been my understanding that if the SSPX is fully regularized, it would be a personal prelature. They would be directly under the authority of the Pope rather than the local ordinary.

 

[latinmasslover]

Trust Me!!! Lefebvre Was Clearly Wrong!!! The Excommunications Will Not Be Lifted. Stop Giving Latria To A Disobedient French Archbishop!!!

Book It It Aint Gonna Happen!!

You are aware that excommunications are not infallible declarations, yes? Canon law permitted the actions of the good Archbishop. Perhaps if the revised Canon had been less ambiguous than the Council it followed, we wouldn’t be in this mess.

I’ll admit I am wrong. It isnt going to happen though.

Since when did the Pope declare you Prophet Rogerteder?

 

[Spirithound]

incurring an ipso facto excommunication, there are a lot of qualifications, and a lot of things that nullify it.

Is this the same as an excommunication latae sententiae?

 

[theistgal]

I have a question: If the Pope does lift the excommunications - or worse still, declare them null from the beginning - will you admit that you have been wrong, or will you simply stop posting here for a few weeks?

It wouldn’t bother me if he lifted them as a gesture of mercy and reconciliation.

But if the Pope “declares them null from the beginning”, it would severely shake my faith in the ordinary infallibility of the Magisterium.

 

[maurin]

It wouldn’t bother me if he lifted them as a gesture of mercy and reconciliation.

But if the Pope “declares them null from the beginning”, it would severely shake my faith in the ordinary infallibility of the Magisterium.

I guess, then, that you never considered the possibility that the knife could cut both ways.

We’ll pray for you if your worst fear comes true.

 

[Spirithound]

On a side note, does anyone here really thing that the SSPX leadership is willing to relinquish their authority and submit once again to Rome for instruction, assignment, being under a local ordinary, etc.?

I wonder about this too. The bishops are true bishops, so although they are members of the religious order FSSPX, they could legitimately be given dioceses, or perhaps be named auxiliary bishops.

Out of curiosity, when the excommunication is lifted (either now or someday) what happens to the SSPX Bishops that have overlapping areas to other Bishops?

It’s my understanding that as (previously?) assumed illicit bishops, they were never given dioceses by the Pope. The extent of their jurisdictional authority then would be to whether they were elected superiors of and SSPX provinces.

 

[BayernAnhaenger]

It wouldn’t bother me if he lifted them as a gesture of mercy and reconciliation.

But if the Pope “declares them null from the beginning”, it would severely shake my faith in the ordinary infallibility of the Magisterium.

Why would it do that?

Excommunications, as is oft forgot it seems, are much like a medicinal remedy to help bring a person out from error.

And, what if it is true that the excom’s were null from the beginning?

 

[Spirithound]

Interesting because there was always a part of me that wondered how a generation of heretical Priests (formed in corrupt Seminaries) and a Protestantized mass - with the wrong words of consecration (as Rome now admits) - would affect the faith of the average Catholic.

Rome has not admitted using the wrong words of consecration. That would be impossible, as sacrament forms fall under papal infallibility.

 

[Spirithound]

It wouldn’t bother me if he lifted them as a gesture of mercy and reconciliation.

But if the Pope “declares them null from the beginning”, it would severely shake my faith in the ordinary infallibility of the Magisterium.

I don’t think this could be an application of the ordinary infallibility of the Magesterium, since it is a discipline, not a teaching.

 

[palmas85]

Now you have crossed the line of civility into insult, judgement, slander and down right rudeness. I will not discuss the stupidity of your comments here as they are off topic, not that you care. Can’t miss an opportunity to bash Joun Paul the Great, heh? Well, it is this attitude of pride, that you know better than the Church, that will serve as a stumbling block to resolution with the SSPX.

You have a lot of nerve for a new member.

Actually he is not officially John Paul the Great just yet. I think the use of such superlatives to be just a tad premature.

I do agree with you though in that saying what he did the poster really crossed the line. Despite his faults the late Holy Father was a good holy man who did much good for the faith during a very very troubled time. I think he did what he truly thought was the right thing to do, even if some of his actions did indeed cause some degree of scandal and may have indeed caused harm to the Church at large.

 

[palmas85]

It wouldn’t bother me if he lifted them as a gesture of mercy and reconciliation.

But if the Pope “declares them null from the beginning”, it would severely shake my faith in the ordinary infallibility of the Magisterium.

Why so? It certainly would not be the first time that an excommunication has been declared null and void. And to put it bluntly, would you feel the same way if this lifting of an excommunication was on someone else other than who it is?

Just wondering.

 

[Rogerteder]

But you are disobedient to the Pope, whose name by the way is not JPII (requiescat in pacem), but Benedict XVI, who has written, 1 year and 2 months ago that the status of the SSPX is an internal matter of reconciliation within the Church.

Yet you unashamedly proclaim your disobedience to the Pope on the pages of this forum, over and over again ad nauseum.

“the light of the just shines gaily, but the lamp of the wicked goes out. The stupid man sows discord by his insolence, but with those who take counsel is wisdom.” Proverbs 13:9-10

How am i being disobedient? i said that i dont think the Pope should lift the excommunications, but if he did i would except it. I don’t believe it should or will happen. Lefebvre was clearly wrong, and Pope John Paul II’s decision stands until another Pope overturns it.

 

[maurin]

How am i being disobedient?

you haven’t been listening to what you’ve been saying? if so, then maybe you might consider stop talking.

i said that i dont think the Pope should lift the excommunications

no, you said that it will never happen and that we should [gasp] trust you, haven’t you been paying attention to yourself?

, but if he did i would except it.

oh good. I’m sure His Holiness will be relieved.

I don’t believe it should or will happen.

so you haven’t been listening to yourself.

Lefebvre was clearly wrong, and Pope John Paul II’s decision stands until another Pope overturns it.

nor have you been listening to His Holiness, the Pope, Benedict XVI.

double speak should be reserved for books in the orwellian tradition, rogerterder.

 

[franklinf]

Rome has not admitted using the wrong words of consecration. That would be impossible, as sacrament forms fall under papal infallibility.

I believe he is referring to the English translation of pro multis. Pro multis means “for many” yet was translated as “for all.”

 

[pnewton]

So, what about my comments was wrong?

As I said, I am not going to respond, as it is off topic. As one who read the rules **and **agreed to them and try to stay true to my word, I try not to pervert a thread on the lifting of excommunications to one on bashing the late pontiff.

But I understand that you are probably in a bad mood since your house of cards is collapsing around you, as the SSPX (who you have been taught to HATE) is being proven right again and again.

I not only do not hate them but have defended them on issues they are right on when others have pointed out untruths regarding them. I have no tolerance for spreading of hate and lies either way. I have consistently wanted the situarion to be regularized with the SSPX, although I do not give in to rumor. You would know this if you had been around longer, just as you would know this is not the first time this particular rumor has floated up. One should not rush to judgement, but at least you doing the same to me as you did the late pontiff will show to those here who know how untrue this complaint against me is that your thinking is serious flawed.

… you have publicly debased not only yourself, but the moral high road you believe you’re on.

It is truly how I felt, even more than how I thought. I do not understand in the least why you consider it debasing. However, it is posts like that which resulted in a ban on the topic of SSPX twice so far, and will do so again. This is after all a Catholic website.

I have no high road. If I did, it would only be my subjective opinion.

Actually he is not officially John Paul the Great just yet. I think the use of such superlatives to be just a tad premature.

Very true. Pope Benedict also used the term in his first address, but that was a unique occasion and I do not know that he has done so since. I will in the future always insert this only as my opinion.

 

[Joannm]

The rumors of the lifting of the excommunication was in this morning’s Whispers. Rocco usually is pretty accurate in his reporting so it looks like the rumors might be true. The exact details, concessions, and under whose authority the group will be governed or regulated are still under covers. Rocco seems to think it will be a personal prelature.