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

[Walking_Home]

That is the ONLY thing they have NOT done. They cut themselves off from the church in word and deed, and rather than present themselves for canonical trial to prove their innocence, went to the court of public opinion and rejected papal authority and mercy.

They are no more catholic than the Utrecht Union or the PNCC.

Hopefully, they will swallow their pride and cure that defect.

---

Aramis --maybe you should work a bit on your own pride. What ever happens is between the Pope and the SSPX .

 

[numealinesimpet]

That is the ONLY thing they have NOT done. They cut themselves off from the church in word and deed, and rather than present themselves for canonical trial to prove their innocence, went to the court of public opinion and rejected papal authority and mercy.

They are no more catholic than the Utrecht Union or the PNCC.

Hopefully, they will swallow their pride and cure that defect.

On the contrary, when Mgr Lefebvre applied for a canonical appeal - to which he had a right in Church Law - it was blocked by Cdl Villot, Cardinal Secretary of State - who had regularly leaked confidential material to the Media all through the sittings of Vatican II. At no time since the harassment began were the SSPX accorded due process of Law. All this is available in the Public Record. Bp Fellay is right not to rake over all that now, however. Let the unilateral, unconditional Lifting of the Excommunications speak for itself.

 

[Aramis]

On the contrary, when Mgr Lefebvre applied for a canonical appeal - to which he had a right in Church Law - it was blocked by Cdl Villot, Cardinal Secretary of State - who had regularly leaked confidential material to the Media all through the sittings of Vatican II. At no time since the harassment began were the SSPX accorded due process of Law. All this is available in the Public Record. Bp Fellay is right not to rake over all that now, however. Let the unilateral, unconditional Lifting of the Excommunications speak for itself.

It does. It says that the Pope is giving in in hopes of reunion to at least one of Fellay’s demands.

Until he is in FULL union with rome, he’s not Catholic any more than the bishops of the Union of Utrecht, or the Patriarch of Moscow.

 

[Dauphin]

Until he is in FULL union with rome, he’s not Catholic any more than the bishops of the Union of Utrecht, or the Patriarch of Moscow.

That’s deeply uncharitable and completely incorrect. These Bishops profess the Catholic faith and swear devotion to the Roman Pontiff. Being suspended from exercising priestly functions does not make one “non-Catholic”.

 

[numealinesimpet]

It does. It says that the Pope is giving in in hopes of reunion to at least one of Fellay’s demands.

Until he is in FULL union with rome, he’s not Catholic any more than the bishops of the Union of Utrecht, or the Patriarch of Moscow.

The SSPX are a Priestly Fraternity Without Vows, erected as of Pontifical Right. They are responsible directly to the Pope, not through diocesan bishops. They are not excommunicated, and have not denied one doctrine of the Faith. At no time have they denied the authority of the Pope. You will notice that the original excommunication was not issued by the pope (although he referred to it as a de facto thing in Ecclesia Dei without, however, issuing it himself) and, as I remember, it was issued in the newspaper without a protocol number. If no number was ever appended, it was never a legally-binding document - altho’ I am happy to be corrected on this point. The SSPX appeal to the Canons (1323, 1324 +1321) exempting them from all sanction was never refuted by the Vatican. Hence at no time did they reject the legitimate authority of the pope.
On the other hand, there are certain administrative matters that will need to be tidied up in the next few weeks. The Redemptorists of Papa Stronsay had to wait several weeks to get the paperwork tidied up. But it is now time to stop pretending that the SSPX are not Catholic, or members of the Catholic Church.

 

[anjoh66]

1. How can Bishop Williamson deny the existence of gas chambers? There were plenty of pictures of them.
2. Why are Bishop Fellay’s statement so “strange”? It seems like the right thing for him to say. Sort of nit-picking if you’re implying that he treats Swedes as some kind of superior race here.

And I’m not that full of knowledge that I can’t learn from these boards.

For you and all others who doesnt believe that he said there was no gas chambers i urge you to look at this clip published at this site.

blog.balder.org/?p=600

Its an actual clip from the program sent on swedish television

 

[anjoh66]

This has all the appearances of a bogus letter. HE Fellay would not address a letter “To Whom it May Concern.” Anyone who has taken the time to read the letters of Bishop Fellay will not recognize the above letter to be in his style. Also, it has not been published on the SSPX website.

Take a look at this letter and tell me if it is a bogus letter.

remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/2009-0123-bishop_fellay.htm

Maybe it is not published on the website but if it was a bogus letter, then they should refute the letter, shouldnt they?

 

[Catholic29]

---

The way I am understanding it --its the faith without the mis-interpretations that derived out of the “Spirit of Vat II”. I don’t know how healthy (orthodox) the Catholic Church is in Sweden. Maybe Bishop Falley knows something we don’t about the state of the Church in Sweden.

Well, the state of the Catholic Church in Sweden is next to non-existant. Although there are a minority of Catholics (under 5% of the population), it has by and large been a Lutheran country for most time since the Reformation much as the rest of Scandinavia. And in modern times a major shift toward secular humanism, atheism, agnosticism etc.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Sweden

 

[numealinesimpet]

This was posted.
I typed a reply before noticing the thread was locked, & now i can’t find the original posting. sorry I missed your name.
I have updated it slightly in line with last weekend’s news:

Re: Excommunication of the SSPX Bishops to be lifted!?!

Sorry but I’d appreciate a couple of people talking me through this a little, re my faith possibly being shaken if the excommunications are nullified. And I say this as someone who has a lot of sympathy for the SSPX.

I do appreciate what several have said in reponse so far, but can I point out the enormity of such a decision? Just off the top of my head,

1. It could make anti-Rome sentiment even worse among some SSPX affiliates, not to mention sedevacantists, because it’s authority could be seen as faulty, changeable etc
   num: It would depend on what is said, of course. But judicial decisions can be reviewed; it’s not at all the same thing as changing previously infallible dogma.
2. It could cause many of the worst elements among liberals etc to argue that it proves that being in Rome’s favour is not important (as many already believe)
   num: Well, it’s the simple truth that, in extreme cases, it may have to be put in second place - as happened with S. Athanasius, who was excommunicated at least 3 times. Yet now he is canonised, whereas Pope Liberius was the first pope NOT to be canonised.
3. It could cause many without strong faith in the Church or non-Catholics to question the authority of a Church that can so severely cut off and alienate some members for 20 years and then say that it had been wrong to do so in the first place
   num: It could. But it also proves, what has been said before, that the Catholic Church is the ONLY religion with an actual working mechanism for resolving disputes.
4. It may feed unbalanced views among some SSPX adherents that they alone hold all Catholic truth and that it is their God-given role to bring the Church back to truth. In some cases it would go so far as seemingly “proving” that the SSPX has been the only remaining “remnant” etc, who now have to win all other nominal Catholics to their “true faith”.
   num: Well, maybe some; but the real diehards, one suspects, will be cross that the excommunications are lifted at all. These are the ones with the much-quoted ‘schismatic’ mentality, not those who prayed the 1,703,000 Rosaries for this ‘lifting’ of the decree of excommunication.
5. It may undermine the wisdom, if not the authority, of John Paul II, who was in many ways very wise in the way he directed the Church.
   num: I pray for his soul. He made some awful prudential decisions (kissing the Koran etc), notwithstanding the good he did. In his favour, it was he who actually started the process of which the lifting of the excommunication is the latest step. this was, it is believed, in direct response to the “Pilgrimage of Tradition” during the Holy Year of 2000 that he had called. Thousands of trads, organised by the SSPX bishops, processed into S. Peter’s Square to the feet of the Holy Father, who was visibly impressed, ‘and all Rome with him’. It was then that he appointed Cdl Castrillón Hoyos to seek actively for a solution. Perhaps he had misunderstood the SSPX until then. Bp Fellay has said repeatedly, “Only the Holy Father can resolve this issue” - by which he means no only the SSPX but the general crisis in the Church. Sadly, Pope John Paul II did not live to see this step, but it is he who initiated the new process.

But, just so I don’t sound doom-and-gloomy, a “lifting” of the excommunications wouldn’t worry me much at all. I think Pope Benedict was planning to “lift” them from day one, which is fair enough after 20 years of hopefully effective discipline.
num: For my part, I believe it is correct in law that canons 1323, 1324 +1321 indemnified Mgr Lefebvre et al from censure, & it was wrong to have refused cognizance of this for 20 years. But i don’t mind that the Vatican merely “lifts” the Decree of excommunication, for this is still “without prejudice” as to its original validity. Bp Fellay would, I believe, be quite happy about that. The issues are much wider.

 

[Canto]

Excommunications repealed

From the sspx webiste is one of the books they are promoting…

Why the Traditional Mass? Why Not the New?
*Gives 62 reasons why Catholics cannot in conscience attend the Novus Ordo Missae. *

Their site also states…

It consequently cannot be denied that Vatican II attempts to constitute a new religion in radical rupture with all of Catholic Tradition and teaching, a new religion whose principal purpose is to exalt the natural dignity of the human person and to bring about a “religious” unity of mankind. However, the subtle cleverness of this operation must also be noted. It is the traditional hierarchical structure of the Church, its Mass, its devotions and prayers, its catechisms and teachings, and now even its Rosary that have all been infiltrated with the principles of the new religion. This new religion has been swallowed down unwittingly by many Catholics precisely because it hides, as a caricature, behind the outward appearance of Catholicism. The end result is a strange mixture of Catholicism and the new religion.

sspx.org/Catholic_FAQs/catholic_faqs__traditional.htm

They note too of the Novos Ordo…

The **defective theology **and meaning of the rites, eliminating as they do every reference to the principal propitiatory end of sacrifice, do not necessarily invalidate the Mass…

The changes in the words of the form in the Latin original, although **certainly illicit and unprecedented **in the history of the Church, do not alter the substance of its meaning, and consequently do not invalidate the Mass.

[Since when were the words of consecration spoken the way Christ said them illicit]

…is the fact that the intention of the Church of offering up **a true sacrifice **in propitiation for the sins of the living and the dead **has been obliterated **for 30 years…

However, even if we could be certain of the validity of the Novus Ordo Masses celebrated in today’s Conciliar churches, it does not follow that they are pleasing to God. Much to the contrary, they are objectively sacrilegious, even if those who assist at them are not aware of it. By such a statement, I do not mean that all those who celebrate or assist at the New Mass are necessarily in mortal sin, having done something directly insulting to Almighty God and to our Divine Savior…

However, regardless of the gravity of the sacrilege, **the New Mass still remains a sacrilege, and it is still in itself sinful. **Furthermore, it is never permitted to knowingly and willingly participate in an evil or sinful thing, even if it is only venially sinful.

…Consequently, it is not permissible for a traditional Catholic, who understands that the New Mass is insulting to Our Divine Savior, to assist at the New Mass, and this even if there is no danger of scandal to others or of the perversion of one’s own Faith (as in an older person, for example), and even if it is the only Mass available.

sspx.org/Catholic_FAQs/catholic_faqs__traditional.htm

Forgive me if I’m jumping the gun here but

From Eucharistic prayer III

…never cease to gather a people to yourself, so that from the rising of the sun to its setting a **pure sacrifice **may be offered to your name…we offer you in thanksgiving this holy and living sacrifice… Look, we pray, upon the **oblation of your Church **and, recognising the **sacrificial Victim **by whose death you willed to reconcile us to yourself, grant that we, who are nourished by the **Body and Blood **of your Son and filled with his Holy Spirit, may become to be one body and one spirit in Christ… May this Sacrifice of our reconciliation, we pray, O Lord, advance the peace and salvation of all the world.

 

[Dauphin]

Excommunications repealed

From the sspx webiste is one of the books they are promoting…

Why the Traditional Mass? Why Not the New?
Gives 62 reasons why Catholics cannot in conscience attend the Novus Ordo Missae.

Their site also states…

It consequently cannot be denied that Vatican II attempts to constitute a new religion in radical rupture with all of Catholic Tradition and teaching, a new religion whose principal purpose is to exalt the natural dignity of the human person and to bring about a “religious” unity of mankind. However, the subtle cleverness of this operation must also be noted. It is the traditional hierarchical structure of the Church, its Mass, its devotions and prayers, its catechisms and teachings, and now even its Rosary that have all been infiltrated with the principles of the new religion. This new religion has been swallowed down unwittingly by many Catholics precisely because it hides, as a caricature, behind the outward appearance of Catholicism. The end result is a strange mixture of Catholicism and the new religion.

sspx.org/Catholic_FAQs/catholic_faqs__traditional.htm

They note too of the Novos Ordo…

The **defective theology **and meaning of the rites, **eliminating as they do every **reference to the principal propitiatory end of sacrifice, do not necessarily invalidate the Mass…

The changes in the words of the form in the Latin original, although **certainly illicit and unprecedented **in the history of the Church, do not alter the substance of its meaning, and consequently do not invalidate the Mass.

[Since when were the words of consecration spoken the way Christ said them illicit]

…is the fact that the intention of the Church of offering up **a true sacrifice **in propitiation for the sins of the living and the dead **has been obliterated **for 30 years…

However, even if we could be certain of the validity of the Novus Ordo Masses celebrated in today’s Conciliar churches, it does not follow that they are pleasing to God. Much to the contrary, they are objectively sacrilegious, even if those who assist at them are not aware of it. By such a statement, I do not mean that all those who celebrate or assist at the New Mass are necessarily in mortal sin, having done something directly insulting to Almighty God and to our Divine Savior…

However, regardless of the gravity of the sacrilege, **the New Mass still remains a sacrilege, and it is still in itself sinful. **Furthermore, it is never permitted to knowingly and willingly participate in an evil or sinful thing, even if it is only venially sinful.

…Consequently, it is not permissible for a traditional Catholic, who understands that the New Mass is insulting to Our Divine Savior, to assist at the New Mass, and this even if there is no danger of scandal to others or of the perversion of one’s own Faith (as in an older person, for example), and even if it is the only Mass available.

sspx.org/Catholic_FAQs/catholic_faqs__traditional.htm

Forgive me if I’m jumping the gun here but

From Eucharistic prayer III

…never cease to gather a people to yourself, so that from the rising of the sun to its setting a **pure sacrifice **may be offered to your name…we offer you in thanksgiving this holy and living sacrifice… Look, we pray, upon the **oblation of your Church **and, recognising the **sacrificial Victim **by whose death you willed to reconcile us to yourself, grant that we, who are nourished by the **Body and Blood **of your Son and filled with his Holy Spirit, may become to be one body and one spirit in Christ… May this Sacrifice of our reconciliation, we pray, O Lord, advance the peace and salvation of all the world.

This really isn’t the place for this discussion. The repealing of the excommunications is the first step towards a reconciliation; doctrinal discussions will follow.

If you want to argue about the society’s positions, start a new thread.

 

[ProVobis]

It does. It says that the Pope is giving in in hopes of reunion to at least one of Fellay’s demands.

Until he is in FULL union with rome, he’s not Catholic any more than the bishops of the Union of Utrecht, or the Patriarch of Moscow.

Not in full union only in the sense that they don’t have FULL faculties of the priesthood. They are in FULL union as far as being members of the Roman Catholic Church as most of us are here.

 

[Canto]

This really isn’t the place for this discussion. The repealing of the excommunications is the first step towards a reconciliation; doctrinal discussions will follow.

If you want to argue about the society’s positions, start a new thread.

Thank you. Fair point. If the doctrinal discussions that follow are not fruitful I wonder what will then happen?

Will the Church continue to allow them to say that the “New Mass is insulting to Our Divine Savior?”

Hopefully things will all work their way out and harmony will be restored.

I love the Tridentine Mass But love (without banal pop hymns not in Vat II docs) and fully support the validity of the Novos Ordo as a true and valid sacrifice.

 

[ProVobis]

For you and all others who doesnt believe that he said there was no gas chambers i urge you to look at this clip published at this site.

blog.balder.org/?p=600

Its an actual clip from the program sent on swedish television

We all know that there were gas chambers and a halocaust. And your accusations notwithstanding, Bishop Williamson knows this too. It’s all about what the role was of those “gas chambers” and the number who were actually gassed to death that is in dispute not only by Bishop Williamson but a whole bunch of other historians. Bishop Fellay’s letter, at least to me, tries to distinguish between Bishop Williamson’s role as a historian vs that of his role as a legitimate bishop. How long are you going to continue to deny this?

 

[ProVobis]

From Eucharistic prayer III

Is this part of a new rite that the Council of Trent prohibited?

Boy, did you ever uncan a can of worms in trying to bring up something BEFORE the excommunications were lifted!!!

 

[Canto]

Is this part of a new rite that the Council of Trent prohibited?

It’s from the valid Novos Ordo Mass

French, Spanish etc speakers originally got a literal translation of the Latin but English speakers got a terrible translation. The version posted is from the retranslation coming to a Parish near you soon, as they say…

 

[ProVobis]

It’s from the valid Novos Ordo Mass

That should be NOVUS (as in new) not Novos. Pope Paul’s word not mine.

And good luck with those NOVUS translations.

 

[Dauphin]

It’s from the valid Novos Ordo Mass

French, Spanish etc speakers originally got a literal translation of the Latin but English speakers got a terrible translation. The version posted is from the retranslation coming to a Parish near you soon, as they say…

I have to say, that translation is a vast improvement. It has a much more solemn character, which is sorely needed in the Mass.

 

[Canto]

That should be NOVUS (as in new) not Novos. Pope Paul’s word not mine.

And good luck with those NOVUS translations.

Thanks.

Excuse my spelling

 

[anjoh66]

We all know that there were gas chambers and a halocaust. And your accusations notwithstanding, Bishop Williamson knows this too. It’s all about what the role was of those “gas chambers” and the number who were actually gassed to death that is in dispute not only by Bishop Williamson but a whole bunch of other historians. Bishop Fellay’s letter, at least to me, tries to distinguish between Bishop Williamson’s role as a historian vs that of his role as a legitimate bishop. How long are you going to continue to deny this?

He said, look at the clip and then u talk, NONE was killed in the gas chambers, NONE= NOBODY=NOT ONE

Do you understand clear english?
NONE