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

[laudamus_te]

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.

I actually think he doesn’t give a hang about his reputation. After all, he’s just a shadowy internet personality. I think it is quite obvious that his only motive is to divide and conquer the SSPX. He is a sede after all, and has had it out for the SSPX for years. He is a danger to unknowing and trustful souls who take what he says as being actually based on fact.

 

[Chatter163]

Fr. M has been around much longer than 2001, or the internet, for that matter.

 

[steve_green_2]

Fr. Moderator is a

https://www.reteez.com/images/Sourpuss2.jpg

 

[Leonius]

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 ?

Not if the Pope doesn’t say there is

It seems certain people in or attached to the SSPX are not the only ones who like to play Pope. If this was any other group people would be praising the Pope for his kindness, compassion and mercy, but apparently its not ok to be nice to the SSPX.

Here’s a novel idea how about we stick to doing what the laity are supposed to do and leave the Pope stuff up to the Pope, how does that sound, anyone?

 

[ProVobis]

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.

Judas didn’t split the Apostles. And there are many of them in the Church today.

 

[srp643]

Now that was a good post.

Thanks mate. Had an idea. I believe the Pope washes feet on Holy Thursday - I propose that these four bishops are first in line. It’s great to see our current Pontiff continuing to undo the mistakes of the past.

 

[srp643]

these men were disobedient. if we decry modern disobedience and abuse, then we must also decry the disobedience and abuse of ages past. they do not deserve an apology, they need to do the work to come into FULL union with the church.

I don’t see modern disobedience decried at all. Many bishops and cardinals are unequivocally and openly acting in direct defiance of the Pope and the Church’s teachings so why were these bishops singled out for adhering to Sacred Tradition as handed down to us by the apostles? What nonsense - I say promote these bishops immediately with a ticker tape parade around Rome. Let’s celebrate in a glorious fashion their adherence to the Faith under the worst of circumstances. They have followed Christ and therefore have become leaders of men. I’m not even sure the excommunications were valid to begin with but it’s about time the Church effectively admitted its grievous mistake. Now the excommunication pointer can be directed to the right places, Deo gratias.

 

[bobzills]

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?

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.

If so, then why is it that the Eastern Catholics say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father ?

 

[bobzills]

Not if the Pope doesn’t say there is

It seems certain people in or attached to the SSPX are not the only ones who like to play Pope. If this was any other group people would be praising the Pope for his kindness, compassion and mercy, but apparently its not ok to be nice to the SSPX.

Here’s a novel idea how about we stick to doing what the laity are supposed to do and leave the Pope stuff up to the Pope, how does that sound, anyone?

So we should be nice to everyone who is publicly disobedient to the Pope?

 

[Christus_Rex_1]

If so, then why is it that the Eastern Catholics say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father ?

No one denies that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father. What the Eastern Orthodox heretics deny is that he proceeds also from the son. That is what filioque means.

 

[laudamus_te]

So we should be nice to everyone who is publicly disobedient to the Pope?

We should be nice to everyone. Full stop.

 

[palmas85]

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.

No, not attacking you, just pointing out that the action is over, the excommunications are lifted, effective on a certain date and its over with, What utter difference does it make if they were ever valid or not? Obviously if the Church did it it was valid and now has been undone.

Thats all. There is no issue any longer, just people trying to push their own agenda,

 

[malphono]

No one denies that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father. What the Eastern Orthodox heretics deny is that he proceeds also from the son. That is what filioque means.

Correction: **the EO are not, and have never been, heretics. **

 

[palmas85]

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?

Excommunications have been reversed in the past, often as a matter of fact.

 

[Rush_Catholic]

Yea! Pope Benedict XVI in my opinion has been the best Pope in Vatican II!

 

[m134e5]

Hopefully this order, which has done much to keep the Traditional Latin Mass alive for the past 30+ years, will strengthen the Church and it’s members. I pray that it strengthens other Latin Mass communities, and helps them become everything they can and should be. I pray that it helps the Church as a whole (not just a few fringe groups- but for the everyday Catholic) experience a profound rebirth of authentic Catholic spirituality.

 

[Aramis]

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

Because, lacking evidence to the contrary, the presumption for one ordained illicitly is complicty and latae sentencae excommunication; since the act was public, the default was that public acknowlegement of the excommunication is normative.

The reversal of is is a fait accompli; we still don’t know the why. Perhaps they were misled by ABp. Lefebre. Perhaps they were ignorant of canon law. Perhaps HH. Benedict sees that they felt cut off. Perhaps Msgr. Fellay confessed it as a sin to HH. We simply do not yet know why.

Excommunication is not meant to be permanent. And it can be lifted posthumously (as was done with Galileo Galillei and St. Joan of Arc). That ABp. Lefebvre was not mentioned is intriguing; it may in fact be that he isn’t cleared… but we need our “German Shepherd” to clear up the details.

 

[Aramis]

If so, then why is it that the Eastern Catholics say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father ?

Because the wording of the filique when translated into in greek or slavonic would be heretical, while in latin it is not, and in english it’s vague.

Based upon what I’ve read in various places:
The verb procedit can be understood as “comes forth from” or “comes forth through”, but the greek verb “ekporousis” (used in the creed) is “Originates from”, so rather than being a single word addition, it would require an additional line added to the creed, using the verb “proenai”, which is almost exclusively “flows out through”, and therefore can’t be usd for the relationship of the father and the spirit, on the the son and the spirit.

 

[ProVobis]

Because the wording of the filique when translated into in greek or slavonic would be heretical, while in latin it is not, and in english it’s vague.

Based upon what I’ve read in various places:
The verb procedit can be understood as “comes forth from” or “comes forth through”, but the greek verb “ekporousis” (used in the creed) is “Originates from”, so rather than being a single word addition, it would require an additional line added to the creed, using the verb “proenai”, which is almost exclusively “flows out through”, and therefore can’t be usd for the relationship of the father and the spirit, on the the son and the spirit.

You just made a good case for keeping the Latin in the liturgy. Vatican II documents have it right.

 

[anjoh66]

This decisicion from the Vatican seems very strange. How is it possible to lift the ex communication of a person who is denying the holocaust.

This has created a harsh debate here in sweden, which after all is not a catholic country and it was FORBIDDEN to be catholic until they changed the law so late as 1954.

What the SSPX said is that they will now give the right catholic faith to Sweden.
What is the meaning of such a saying?
Does that mean that the church and our bishop is not giving the right faith?

This is very dividing, people here, catholics, now started to look at the pope as a person who has no knowledge at all how to communicate with the big crowd.
This is a very bad backwards goal.

And certainly it is not good neither for the echumenical work nor for the relations with the jews.
Jewish organisations will not sit still in peace for this desicion .