It's Official: Pope Repeals Excommunications of SSPX Bishops!

[Leonius]

Question with the repeal of the excommunications of these bishops what does this mean? Do they remain bishops ? If so how so ? What are their Sees ? According to the church councils a bishop must have a dioceses to be a bishop. even if it is only a titular dioceses.

And what about the actions that these men did as bishops when they were not in communion with the Holy See ? Are they valid?
For example one of these men concecrated another man as bishop, is this ordination valid ? If this is the case what about Bishop Cox who in turned ordained Sinaed O’Connor a priest.

I think as traditionalist we should return to the old tradition of the people of the diocese giving assent to a person becoming bishop.

Just wondering,

Br Mark, OSB

I don’t know about all your other questions but women cannot be ordained, it is no more possible than a priest ordaining a apple or a pear.

 

[Extempore]

Excomunications cannot be lifted post mortem… heck they don’t even exist post mortem. This process can educate you. I must say that following this matter opens the door into a very interesting way that the Church works. I have no doubt that our great Pope would not have lifted these if there were not some sort of “normalization” plans in discussion. I would think that realatively speaking they will be reinstated rather quickly, because contrary to what spin is mostly throw around here I believe they want to be in communion with Rome.

Excommunications cease at death. I am confident that Our Lord vindicated Archbishop Lefebvre at that time.

But I agree, I believe that the SSPX very much wants to be in full communion with Rome, just so long as this does not mean they will have to compromise Tradition in the process.

 

[Chatter163]

The bishops were all young at the time of their consecration, so all are alive and well, none older than his sixties. Bishop Fellay, the superior general, is only fifty years old.

 

[ProVobis]

Question with the repeal of the excommunications of these bishops what does this mean? Do they remain bishops ? If so how so ? What are their Sees ? According to the church councils a bishop must have a dioceses to be a bishop. even if it is only a titular dioceses.

And what about the actions that these men did as bishops when they were not in communion with the Holy See ? Are they valid?
For example one of these men concecrated another man as bishop, is this ordination valid ? If this is the case what about Bishop Cox who in turned ordained Sinaed O’Connor a priest.

I think as traditionalist we should return to the old tradition of the people of the diocese giving assent to a person becoming bishop.

Just wondering,

Br Mark, OSB

I could be wrong but my take is that they are just like the rest of the bishops; however their territories and powers have yet to be established. (In fact there could be no more ordinations until further notice.) The status of the suspended Society priests and the status of those who attend SSPX Masses have not changed, but they were never excommunicated anyway. Nevertheless, first things first and I’m sure the rest of the processing will go smoothly after this first step. If nothing else, it has to be a less hostile relationship with Rome. The bishops asked that the excommunications to be lifted; the Pope believed they were sincere and granted it. This may be the best Pope ever.

 

[BobCatholic]

The excommunication has been lifted, so now the SSPX are in the exact same boat as the Eastern Orthodox (who also had their excommunications lifted years ago)

The Pope has taken two strong steps toward them, for reconciliation. Let’s see what steps the SSPX take toward the Pope, for reconciliation.

Or will Fellay drop the ball?

I don’t know. I won’t speculate.

 

[Dauphin]

The excommunication has been lifted, so now the SSPX are in the exact same boat as the Eastern Orthodox (who also had their excommunications lifted years ago)

That’s totally absurd. The Eastern Orthodox are heretics and schismatics. The SSPX is neither.

 

[BobCatholic]

That’s totally absurd. The Eastern Orthodox are heretics and schismatics. The SSPX is neither.

What heresy do the EO’s have? If you’re talking about not recognizing the Pope’s authority insofar as he disagrees with them then I can easily quote someone famous:

We are not against the pope insofar as he represents all the values of the Apostolic See which are unchanging, of the See of Peter, but we are against the pope insofar as he is a modernist

as defined by the someone famous. Same thing: don’t recognize the Pope insofar as he disagrees with them.

 

[Dauphin]

What heresy do the EO’s have? If you’re talking about not recognizing the Pope’s authority insofar as he disagrees with them then I can easily quote someone famous:

Not this discussion again!

It seems every week I get into a discussion here with someone telling me that the EO accept Papal Infallibility, the Immaculate Conception, the Filioque, and all other dogmatic teachings of the Church.

What can I say? Even if the Eastern Orthodox deny it, people always invent some reason to think that they really accept them “deep down” and they just don’t know it. It seems that ecumenical relations with the Orthodox is an area totally impervious to reason.

 

[kleary]

The liberals must be going nuts!

Pope Benedict is a brave man indeed for what he has done.

Ken

 

[BobCatholic]

It seems that ecumenical relations with the Orthodox is an area totally impervious to reason.

Depends, I’ve seen some reasonable EO’s, and some who are off the deep end.

Same thing with the SSPX. I’ve seen some of them say things that are outlandish.

My statement was not meant to offend. Both EO and SSPX stand for their own positions, and both may not budge unless the Pope budges first. Well, we see some budging on the Pope’s part. Let’s see what the SSPX does next.

 

[UnusMilitum]

Let’s see what the SSPX does next.

Probably pray a couple million rosaries and send it to the holy father with a thank you note.

 

[Christus_Rex_1]

What heresy do the EO’s have? If you’re talking about not recognizing the Pope’s authority insofar as he disagrees with them then I can easily quote someone famous:

They reject the Papal Primacy (that the Pope is the head of the Church); they reject Papal infallibility, purgatory, the filioque as defined at the Council of Forence, and all but the first 7 councils.

They don’t just disobey the Pope on certain points, like almost all of the US Bishops do, they actually reject the teaching that he is the head of the Church.

They are heretics and schismatics in every sense of the word.

 

[steve_green_2]

Ever notice how HIS EXCELLENCY BISHOP FELLAY resembles Gene Hackman?



http://www.dougshaw.com/essays/hackman2.gif

 

[maurin]

The liberals must be going nuts!

Ken

good call. case and point:

What heresy do the EO’s have? If you’re talking about not recognizing the Pope’s authority insofar as he disagrees with them then I can easily quote someone famous:

as defined by the someone famous. Same thing: don’t recognize the Pope insofar as he disagrees with them.

habemus papem

 

[BobCatholic]

They reject the Papal Primacy (that the Pope is the head of the Church);

As did the SSPX by defying him.

they reject Papal infallibility,

I guess you didn’t read that quote from that famous person He seems to think the Pope is infallible unless the Pope doesn’t think so.

purgatory,

Orthodoxwiki seems to back you up on this, but I remember reading something about a purgatory-like state.

the filioque as defined at the Council of Forence,

The EO’s deny the Pope has the authority to modify a creed done at an ecumenical council - many have no problem with the Filioque, just adding it to the Creed by one Patriarch’s fiat (the Pope’s)

and all but the first 7 councils.

Only because some broke off after the 7th council.

They are heretics and schismatics in every sense of the word.

But their excommunications have been lifted. Nothing changed there, so what changed here with the SSPX?

 

[maurin]

The liberals must be going nuts!

Ken

nuttier and nuttier, actually:

As did the SSPX by defying him.

I guess you didn’t read that quote from that famous person He seems to think the Pope is infallible unless the Pope doesn’t think so.

Orthodoxwiki seems to back you up on this, but I remember reading something about a purgatory-like state.

The EO’s deny the Pope has the authority to modify a creed done at an ecumenical council - many have no problem with the Filioque, just adding it to the Creed by one Patriarch’s fiat (the Pope’s)

Only because some broke off after the 7th council.

But their excommunications have been lifted. Nothing changed there, so what changed here with the SSPX?

 

[pnewton]

Not this discussion again!

Dauphin is right. This is neither the time or place for re-hashing of past disagreements. Today is a day for rejoicing in the reunion of these four men and hope for the future. Any sort of “but” is only going go come across as sour grapes.

 

[jakobsprenger]

Dauphin is right. This is neither the time or place for re-hashing of past disagreements. Today is a day for rejoicing in the reunion of these four men and hope for the future. Any sort of “but” is only going go come across as sour grapes.

Beat me to it; how about we on this forum start showing some BXVI-like behaviour and start reconciling, or at least reaching out…:slapfight:

 

[steve_green_2]

Hey hun, be sure you and Susie wear your veils to HIGH MASS tomorrow !!!

God, what a great day !!!

 

[pnewton]

Beat me to it;

I have never typed those words before:“Dauphin is right”

Seriously, not only do we have, and have always had much more in common than differences, we should always “esteem the other more than ourselves.” Non-traditionalists should be rejoicing as much or more than Traditionalists, non-SSPX more than SSPX. It is what family does. We forget sometimes that we are not a social club or a political party, but rather different parts of the same body of Christ.