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

[LilyM]

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:

But we’ve been :slapfight: for so long that it’s difficult to turn around on a dime and start :grouphug:

Nonetheless, praise God for this major step towards the unity Our Lord surely desires.

 

[JaMc]

With all the fuss about Williamson, I am surprised that nobody has mentioned that Abp. Lefebvre’s father did, himself, die in a German concentration camp:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcel_Lefebvre

The news reports out there are ridiculous - the Pope did not “re-instate a holocaust denier” - he re-instated a group of Bishops, one of whom made some very controversial remarks about the holocaust (and it looks like Williamson did not, in fact, deny it - just the numbers).

In any event, Williamson seems pretty “out there,” even by SSPX standards - from what I’ve read, he’s just one step short of being a sedevacantist. If (God willing) the SSPX is brought back into good standing, it would not surprise me if he split off and joined another schismatic group.

In short, the Pope was wise not to let one bad apple spoil the whole barrel.

 

[steve_green_2]

http://www.effedieffe.com/tasti/img/fraternita_b.XVI.jpg

A great pope and a future saint !!!

 

[alih]

i have just finished reading a report on this subject on the “traditio” website. it was reported that bishop fellay was accepting the “novus ordo” (new order) and many of his priests were not happy with that decision consequently they may be bolting sspx. one of those is bishop williamson. as it is said at the end of some of the soap operas, tune in tomorrow for the next episode. have a good year. (alih)

 

[jblake]

Christus_Rex;:

all but the first 7 councils.

They accept the first eight. Catholic Christianity rejected either the seventh or sixth Council.

jonathon

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

i have just finished reading a report on this subject on the “traditio” website. it was reported that bishop fellay was accepting the “novus ordo” (new order) and many of his priests were not happy with that decision consequently they may be bolting sspx. one of those is bishop williamson. as it is said at the end of some of the soap operas, tune in tomorrow for the next episode. have a good year. (alih)

For my money, though I don’t follow exceptionally close, it seems that the SSPX might already have reconciled if it weren’t for the majority trying to appease Williamson’s minority faction. Just as the pope was right not to let Bp. Williamson spoil it for everyone, perhaps the SSPX leadership should take their own sort of action with him so that he doesn’t spoil things for them (Bp. Fellay did try to do some damage control with the network that aired the most recent interview, but it seemed to blame the network just as much for asking Holocaust questions as it did distance itself from the bishop).

 

[pnewton]

… and many of his priests were not happy with that decision consequently they may be bolting sspx. one of those is bishop williamson.

It would not be the first split they have had. Such is the danger of such groups. It is why they need to be normalized in God’s time and under the standard disciplinary structure as all clergy. They could split and form their own group or join another, more radical faction. The best of all hopes would be that they decide to one and all to stay within the Church.

 

[bobzills]

Is it consistent for one Pope to declare the four bishops excommunicated, but for another Pope to declare that they are not excommunicated? I didn’t see where SSPX had changed any one of their positions in the slightest, or where the SSPX had offered any regrets for going against the wishes of the Pope in carrying out the four ordinations in 1988?
If one Pope says that the four bishops should be excommunicated, but another Pope says that they should not be excommunicated, can both Popes be right?

 

[pnewton]

Is it consistent for one Pope to declare the four bishops excommunicated, but for another Pope to declare that they are not excommunicated?

Absolutely. No Pope can bind the next on matters of discipline. Strange how things have reversed. In any case, the whole point of a disciplinary action like excommunication is eventual reconciliation. What has changed? Who knows. We have been told lately it is an internal matter.

Who here would like their Sacrament of Reconciliation to be a matter of public discussion?

 

[BobCatholic]

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.

Agreed.

I’m dropping discussion of SSPX stuff in this thread.

 

[Benno]

oh my goodness. I’m speechless… I’m going out to get a bottle of vino.

 

[bobzills]

Absolutely. No Pope can bind the next on matters of discipline. Strange how things have reversed. In any case, the whole point of a disciplinary action like excommunication is eventual reconciliation. What has changed? Who knows. We have been told lately it is an internal matter.

Who here would like their Sacrament of Reconciliation to be a matter of public discussion?

Disobedience to the Pope was a public act. Now you are saying that there is no need for a public expression of regret from the SSPX ?

 

[Aramis]

I see. What were the circumstances? Why were they lacking a papal mandate?

Lefebre’s mandate was for one bishop; he ordained 4. He was supposed to get permission for that one; he didn’t wait for that specific permission.

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?

One has always been able to seek the eucharist in an SSPX parish. Likewise, baptism can be validly done by anyone (they don’t even have to be christian; if they intend to perform a Christian baptism, and follow the trinitarian forumula with three pourings or immersions…).

However, marriage requires the consent from the pastor of one’s proper canonical parish*, and confession requires the priest’s ordinary’s explicit permission. Until the SSPX are regularized (either as a Sui Iuris church or as a personal prelature or 4 within the Roman Church Sui Iuris), their priests are not one’s canonical pastor, nor are their bishops ordinaries.

It’s not reunion, but it’s a huge step.

It puts them almost on par with the Eastern Orthodox. Whose Eucharist Rome will let you seek without fear of putting oneself into schism… (See Canon 844 of the 1983 CIC, as shown here in englih on the vatican website.)

and since it’s worth repeating… Fr. Z has a good Q&A up on this lifting of their excommunications: wdtprs.com/blog/2009/01/misconceptions-what-the-lifting-of-the-sspx-excoms-means-for-people/

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

Better go check canon law…

The church would never permit reception by catholics from institutionally heretical churches, nor permit members of institutionally heretical churches to receive our Eucharist.

It does permit Orthodox to receive, and permits Catholics to receive sacraments in the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Armenian Orthodox, and Assyrian Church of the East. Some of these will permit Catholics to receive.

I didn’t see where SSPX had changed any one of their positions in the slightest, or where the SSPX had offered any regrets for going against the wishes of the Pope in carrying out the four ordinations in 1988?

Considering there has been communication since that point between Msgr. Fellay and Pope Benedict, perhaps Fellay has changed positions, just not publicly announced them.

And the Moto Proprio DID change the Church’s official take on the TLM.

Disobedience to the Pope was a public act. Now you are saying that there is no need for a public expression of regret from the SSPX ?

Sadly, I don’t think the four SSPX bishops understand the implication of their ordinations… if they were not acting schismatically, nor disobediently, in accepting illicit ordination, then they are pleading ignorance of the laws of the Church, or of extenuating circumstances of being cut off from Rome already. Knowledge of canon law is prerequisite for ordination to the episcopacy. And since an episcopal ordination had been scheduled, clearly they were not cut off from Rome.​

*Which, unless you register in a personal prelature for which you qualify, is purely a matter of the correct territorial parish in which you live. Now, if that pastor gives permission, it is now possible for an SSPX priest to validly and licitly witness Catholic Marriages.

 

[pnewton]

Disobedience to the Pope was a public act. Now you are saying that there is no need for a public expression of regret from the SSPX ?

I believe our opinion is irrelevant in such matters. Rome has spoken. The matter will be treated internally. If the Holy Father wishes to make a statement personally or through official channels, he may do so. He is also free to keep the terms of this reconciliation to those only who are personally involved. Not everything has to take place in the public spotlight. Does this? I trust in the wisdom of Pope Benedict on the matter.

 

[bobzills]

Knowledge of canon law is prerequisite for ordination to the episcopacy. And since an episcopal ordination had been scheduled, clearly they were not cut off from Rome.

Since it is clear that they were not cut off from Rome, then why did the Vatican declare them to be excommunicated?

 

[thistle]

Good grief. Whatever they were they are no longer in effect. Get over it.

Your are back to attacking me after I responded nicely to your kind comments about me and my family in an earlier post. You seem to be having mood swings.

What is your problem with my question or do you simply want to sweep the issue under the carpet? Yes the bottom line is the same but some people were vehemently arguing the excommunications were invalid and so never happened. Its a legitimate topic for discussion and the issue was raised that excommunications cannot be lifted on something that did not happen. Now we know they were valid and correct.

 

[Christus_Rex_1]

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.

Bob, you do not know what you are talking about. The Poe is not infallible in all he does and says. I have a question for you. When Vatican I defined Papal Infallibility, what were the four condition it listed?

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)

Whatever their reason for denying the infallible dogma doesn’t matter. The fact is, it is a de fide teaching of the Council of Florence.

 

[santodomingo]

I agree with everyone who sees this as wonderful news, especially in this week when the Church is praying for unity amongst christians. I am also rejoicing. This is a huge step back towards Tradition and orthodoxy, which for too long were relegated to the margins of catholicism. The liberals will have to start thinking of founding a new church if they want to carry on denying catholic traditions and doctrine!

However, things are not sorted out yet. There is still a lot of negotiating to be done, and the SSPX is still not juridically restored to full communion with the Church.

This article explains it;
wdtprs.com/blog/2009/01/misconceptions-what-the-lifting-of-the-sspx-excoms-means-for-people/

God bless all you SSPX´ers, and I pray God will bring about the full restoration we all long for.

 

[laudamus_te]

i have just finished reading a report on this subject on the “traditio” website. it was reported that bishop fellay was accepting the “novus ordo” (new order) and many of his priests were not happy with that decision consequently they may be bolting sspx. one of those is bishop williamson. as it is said at the end of some of the soap operas, tune in tomorrow for the next episode. have a good year. (alih)

“Traditio” is a disreputable website, and should not be trusted or believed. See if you can find any information about it’s owner, “Fr.” Moderator and his credentials. You won’t.

 

[Christus_Rex_1]

“Traditio” is a disreputable website, and should not be trusted or believed. See if you can find any information about it’s owner, “Fr.” Moderator and his credentials. You won’t.

Your right “Fr. Moderator” has been saying this same thing for years - since at least 2001. He’s been saying it so long, and using such strong language, that his reputation is now tied into it actually coming to pass.