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

[white_sheep]

off topic discussion

Could you please make a new thread or something?

 

[white_sheep]

Will these Bishops be assigned to a Diocese?

No.

Do they believe that Pope John Paul II is an anti-pope?

No.

What have they agreed to in their discussions with Pope Benedict?

There was a letter posted on the first page from +Fellay. The new round of discussion is yet to begin, as far as I know.

 

[preV2tradcath]

http://www.sspx.org/images/SSPX persons/the6bishops350x200_lr.jpg

Weeeeeeee’reeeeeeeeeeeeeee Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaccccccckk !

DEO GRATIAS!!!

 

[Chatter163]

Okay I’ve found it.

Its not clear, though, if its saying the excommunications were not valid and so never happened, or if they were valid and are now lifted.

Is the above a retraction for this?

We’ll believe it if or when it happens. We get such rumours every few months. How is it official? Has the Vatican actually publicly declared this and if so, where is the documentary evidence and I don’t mean a newspaper! Where can we find the decree referred to in Bishop Fellay’s letter?

 

[peary]

It’s about time…

 

[narrowpath]

Several posters have said that one should not go to an SSPX priest for confession, as the rules about SSPX concerning the laity have not yet changed. Can one reieve other sacraments, like the Eucharist at SSPX chapels?

 

[laudamus_te]

As far as the Pope or anyone else owing Lefebvre and the SSPX an apology and that they have now been proven right: Why should anyone apologize to them because **Lefebvre threw a childish tantrum **and tried to claim protection under canon 1323 saying that it was gravely necessary and inconvenient for him to wait 45 days to have his bishop consecrated with the full approval and authority of the Pope? Foolishness. This whole ordeal is simply because he acted like a child.

These are horrible words to use towards a good, and I will add saintly, dead archbishop.

20 years of this because, FOR ABSOLUTELY NO REASON, he decided to tell the Pope and the Church to shove off, that he’s going to do whatever he wants, whenever he wants.

He had a valid reason, and because you don’t understand that reason does not make it invalid.

I plan on going to mass there tomorrow, so don’t bother accusing me of being some liberal modernist heretic or anything.

The only thing I would accuse you of is being woefully ignorant of the facts - and of course you are alive to defend yourself, so feel free. May you receive many blessings from the Mass tomorrow.

 

[Dee_Dee_King]

i’m going to the sspx chapel with my family tomorrow. maybe B16 sees how much catholic culture is being destroyed and that there is no point to try and ‘embrace’ the modern world.

nobody in the west seems to care about the truth. all we are told is to not offend anyone. for me, the sspx is a good thing for the church. not saying that they are not a little misguided at times .

 

[Cider]

Amen! The tide in the Church has indeed changed. The restoration is underway. Thank God for Benedict XVI.

YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!

:extrahappy: :bounce: :extrahappy: :bounce: :extrahappy: :bounce: :extrahappy: :bounce:

It’s a wonderful day!

 

[white_sheep]

These are horrible words to use towards a good, and I will add saintly, dead archbishop.

He had a valid reason, and because you don’t understand that reason does not make it invalid.

The only thing I would accuse you of is being woefully ignorant of the facts - and of course you are alive to defend yourself, so feel free. May you receive many blessings from the Mass tomorrow.

You’re right, I should have been more charitable in my wording towards +Lefebvre. That doesn’t mean they are inaccurate.

I would like an explanation as to what valid reason he had for insisting that he go ahead with the ordination on June 30 instead of August 15. I’d love to hear an explanation. I’ve never seen one and really can’t think of any possible reason to knowingly and with foreknowledge of the repercussions continue with such an act instead of just waiting a few weeks.

 

[Danoli]

God bless pope Benedict, and grateful thanks to the intercession of the Blessed Virgin, the power of the Rosary is indisputable

 

[PaulJason]

Several posters have said that one should not go to an SSPX priest for confession, as the rules about SSPX concerning the laity have not yet changed. Can one reieve other sacraments, like the Eucharist at SSPX chapels?

Path,

I would suggest to you or anyone really to follow the lead of Fr. Z

Here’s a link…

MISCONCEPTIONS: What the lifting of the SSPX excom’s means for people

wdtprs.com/blog/2009/01/misconceptions-what-the-lifting-of-the-sspx-excoms-means-for-people/

 

[Chatter163]

You’re right, I should have been more charitable in my wording towards +Lefebvre. That doesn’t mean they are inaccurate.

I would like an explanation as to what valid reason he had for insisting that he go ahead with the ordination on June 30 instead of August 15. I’d love to hear an explanation. I’ve never seen one and really can’t think of any possible reason to knowingly and with foreknowledge of the repercussions continue with such an act instead of just waiting a few weeks.

Why do I get the impression that, given the petulant, histrionic tone of the above and similar posts, that there is** no** explanation that would be “accepted” by the OP? (And ironically, I have never been a supporter of Marcel Lefebvre or his society.)

Why are you ranting on and on about “just waiting a few weeks”? You sound very uninformed about the entire Econe affair. Abp. Lefebvre’s objection was not merely waiting six more weeks (where is that date coming from, anyway?), but over** who would choose his successor–**himself or the Holy See. He was worried that the Holy See would choose someone not commited to the beliefs and positions of the SSPX.

 

[malphono]

You’re right, I should have been more charitable in my wording towards +Lefebvre. That doesn’t mean they are inaccurate.

I would like an explanation as to what valid reason he had for insisting that he go ahead with the ordination on June 30 instead of August 15. I’d love to hear an explanation. I’ve never seen one and really can’t think of any possible reason to knowingly and with foreknowledge of the repercussions continue with such an act instead of just waiting a few weeks.

First off, as I’ve said in other threads, I am not, and never have been, a particular supporter of the SSPX. I consider them a religious congregation. Nothing more, nothing less, albeit, of course, that they are of “irregular” status at the present time.

Anyway, I’ll probably regret asking this, but what guarantee did the late Apb Marcel Lefebvre have that “approval” was coming in “45 days” (or “a few weeks” or however one puts it)? Was there something in writing from the then-Pontiff that 15AUG88 was “the day?”

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

First off, the lifting of the excommunications is wonderful news, and certainly a tremendous gesture on the part of Pope Benedict of his goodwill and desire for reconciliation. All parties to the painful division should see this as a positive development. That said, there remain some difficulties which ought to lead us to temper our enthusiasm with an awareness that this is not a reconciliation of the society with the Holy See.

Okay I’ve found it.

Its not clear, though, if its saying the excommunications were not valid and so never happened, or if they were valid and are now lifted.

From the language of the decree it seems sufficiently clear that the excommunications were indeed valid and have been lifted as of Jan. 21, 2009. This means that no one should be trumpeting the “vindication” of the bishops’ initial act or subsequent insistence on the invalidity of the excommunications. The decree, by its language, reaffirms that they have indeed been excommunicated these past twenty years but are now, thanks be to God, no longer so. Unlike the motu proprio which specifically granted a point to the SSPX that the EF had never been abrogated, this decree makes no such concessions.

I’m confused…I was reading somewhere that just because the decree has been lifted, it doesn’t mean that relations have been normalized? Forgive my teenage ignorance lol but I’m just slightly confused…

Either way, this is indeed a wonderful day!

The excommunications have been lifted, but we have no indications that the suspensions have been lifted, and are actually given to assume that these still remain. Why is that? For one, the suspensions precede the excommunications by a decade and were incurred for a different reason than the excommunications, and the reasons for the suspensions still remain (essentially, operating outside the canonical bounds of the Church). You will note that the bishops were not given any (titular) sees and thus continue to lack canonical status. Also, the decree makes no mention of the hundreds of priests of the SSPX who remain suspended. In short, the atmosphere has changed and the bishops of the SSPX are no longer excommunicated, but the imperfect communion of the society has not changed.

FROM DICI:
"In this new atmosphere, we have the firm hope to obtain soon the recognition of the rights of Catholic Tradition

Menzingen, January 24, 2009

+Bernard Fellay"

I think there is still some work before there is full normailzation.

Which does indeed mean there is still work to be done before full reconciliation of the whole society. The ball is now firmly in the SSPX’s court, since the pope has generously granted them both of their juridical conditions for return. That tells me that we need to be cautious, but if the society already has its demands it is going to remain harder and harder to put up with imperfect communion, and this will move toward reconciliation.

It’s a good day , but I’m a little sorry for the bishop of Stockholm who recently stated on national television that the SSPX’ers are excommunicated. I guess even bishops have to revise their opinions every now and then.

Well, if he made the statements before Jan. 21, he was correct. Only now that the facts have changed must he revised his opinion.

This is a good day for the Church.

But why was Archbishop Lefebvre not mentioned with the four ?

Was he excommunicated in the same decree now declared null ?

Abp. Lefebvre and his co-consecrator were not mentioned in the decree because he has not expressed sufficient will for reconciliation. That is, the decrees language affirms that all 6 bishops were excommunicated in 1988 and it lifts the excommunications of those 4 bishops now held to have showed sufficient good-will to be reconciled to that extent. Since bishops Lefebvre and de Castro Mayer died (at least outwardly and we might infer to the current mind of the Holy See) unrepentant, their censures were not lifted here.

Now, I know that this post might seem like a bit of a downer by focusing on the remaining negatives, but I felt it necessary to call back those who have made too-hasty assumptions about what this decree concretely changes (don’t run straight to an SSPX chapel simply because of this decree!). I myself am quite happy in the progress this exhibits, but we can’t pretend everything has been solved.

 

[white_sheep]

Why do I get the impression that, given the petulant, histrionic tone of the above and similar posts, that there is** no** explanation that would be “accepted” by the OP? (And ironically, I have never been a supporter of Marcel Lefebvre or his society.)

Why are you ranting on and on about “just waiting a few weeks”? You sound very uninformed about the entire Econe affair. Abp. Lefebvre’s objection was not merely waiting six more weeks (where is that date coming from, anyway?), but over** who would choose his successor–**himself or the Holy See. He was worried that the Holy See would choose someone not commited to the beliefs and positions of the SSPX.

Why bother accusing me of being curt and overly dramatic when you just said he had paranoid delusions? Ooops, was that histrionic enough? If he was concerned that maybe they would pull some liberal priest from San Francisco out of the woodwork and make him a bishop, why didn’t he wait and see? He could have made recommendations even, he obviously had people in mind and could have lobbied for their ordination. Why not simply ply his case? The Pope had already agreed to have 2 SSPX priests on the commission to decide who to ordain, is that not at least a little latitude? His three problems and my refutations:

• the episcopal ordination must take place on 30 June
  Why June 30? Why not Aug 15? What’s the point?

* not one, but three bishops, must be consecrated (a requirement that he had already mentioned)

He’s one bishop why should three replace him? Why not start with one and add another later? Take what you can get.

* the majority of the members of the special commission must be from the SSPX

I already pointed out reasons against this above. If the fear is that they will pick someone from outside the order, wait and see. If they do then go ahead and ordain your own guys, but don’t do it preemptively.

Here’s some info from wiki en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_of_St._Pius_X

A further meeting took place in Rome on 24 May. It is said that Lefebvre was promised that the Pope would appoint a bishop from among the members of the SSPX, chosen according to the normal procedures, and that episcopal ordination would take place on 15 August. In return, Lefebvre would have to request reconciliation with the Church on the basis of the protocol of 5 May. Lefebvre, for his part, presented three written requests:

* the episcopal ordination must take place on 30 June
* not one, but three bishops, must be consecrated (a requirement that he had already mentioned)
* the majority of the members of the special commission must be from the SSPX

On Pope John Paul II’s instructions, Cardinal Ratzinger replied to Lefebvre on 30 May, insisting on observance of the agreement of 5 May, and adding that, if Lefebvre carried out unauthorised consecrations on 30 June, the promised authorisation for the ordination to the episcopacy would not be granted.

On 3 June, Lefebvre wrote from Ecône, stating that he intended to proceed. On 9 June, the Pope replied with a personal letter, appealing to him not to proceed with a design that “would be seen as nothing other than a schismatic act, the theological and canonical consequences of which are known to you”. Lefebvre did not reply, and the letter was made public on 16 June. For the first time, the Holy See stated publicly that Lefebvre was in danger of being excommunicated.

On 30 June 1988, Archbishop Lefebvre proceeded to ordain to the episcopate four priests of the SSPX: Mgr. Antônio de Castro Mayer, the retired Bishop of Campos, Brazil, assisted in the ceremony.

 

[uther]

This is change I can believe in!

 

[Rogerteder]

Well, I was wrong. God Bless the Holy Father, and I hope this leads to a full reconciliation of the Society of St. Pius X, and Holy Mother Church. I didnt think the Holy father would lift the excommunications, but I am glad he did (seriously). Question: Are the Bishops still alive?

 

[white_sheep]

Anyway, I’ll probably regret asking this, but what guarantee did the late Apb Marcel Lefebvre have that “approval” was coming in “45 days” (or “a few weeks” or however one puts it)? Was there something in writing from the then-Pontiff that 15AUG88 was “the day?”

Yes, there was. It’s in the article I posted. On August 15, 1988 there was going to be a priest of the SSPX ordained as his successor.

 

[Milliardo]

Well, this is good news and all, but it still remains: what is the response of the SSPX (sorry, I have no time to read back 11 pages; I have to go to church in 10 minutes’ time)? That is the crucial part. As far as I can remember, Rome has tried to court the SSPX several times, and each time the society has given the same answer: thanks, but no thanks.