"lifted" or "nullified"?

[UnusMilitum]

For somebody to have his excommunication “Lifted” it must mean that he was excommunicated and then turned around and admitted his error and wanted to come back to the church.

For an excommunication to be nullified, the person who declared the excommunication (or in the case of JPII saying they had incurred that penalty automatically), it would be up to that person (i.e. the pope) to admit that either he was wrong, or that the excommunication hadn’t in fact taken place, and would require NOTHING from the ones who were excommunicated, right?

I mean, why would HH Benedict ‘lift’ the excommunications if the SSPX bishops still cling to their exact position that they always have held? They’re no different today than they were for the last 20 years.

To me it sounds like the term ‘lifted’ would be the inaccurate one since the SSPX hasn’t admitted fault and yet the excommunications are gone (deo gratias). Can anybody comment/explain?

 

[BobCatholic]

This is equivalent to a commutation of a sentence. The sentence (excommunication) was recognized as legitimate, but the length was cut short.

 

[UnusMilitum]

Bob,

But why bring them back when they’re unchanged in their positions?

They were said to have excommunicated themselves, right? So even though they excommunicated themselves, how is it possible to lift a sentence which they brought down upon themselves?

Latae Sententiae means “by force of the law itself”, right? So wouldn’t the pope be doing an injustice by going counter to the law?

An example would be a woman who, knowing the Church’s stand, went ahead and had an abortion. Even though she has excommunicated herself, could the pope simply ‘recommunicate’ her without her even acknowledging her fault?

Do I even make any sense? I don’t know…

 

[Ahlman]

SSPX still claim that no excommunications took place. To me this sounds a bit like receiving absolution without having to confess your sins. But I guess that in order for the pope to get SSPX back into full communion, it was the only thing to do. At least now they will hopefully start to discuss the matters.

 

[Cluny]

The Holy See did all in its power.

Now the responsibility for the next step rests with SSPX.

One obstacle to full reconciliation has been removed.

 

[BobCatholic]

Bob,

But why bring them back when they’re unchanged in their positions?

They’re not back. They have to take steps to come back to full communion.

The Eastern Orthodox and the Catholic Church lifted their mutual excommunications, but the EO’s haven’t come back.

 

[PrayForMeStJude]

They’re not back. They have to take steps to come back to full communion.

The Eastern Orthodox and the Catholic Church lifted their mutual excommunications, but the EO’s haven’t come back.

That argument isn’t relevant at all. First of all, never has one church excommunicated the other. The excommunications were only against a very select few people in each Church. And the Latin excommunication against the Patriarch of Constantinople wasn’t even valid, since it was ‘proclaimed’ after the death of the pope. Which means the West NEVER excommunicated the East, or vice versa, as you claim.

 

[bkovacs]

Bob,

But why bring them back when they’re unchanged in their positions?

They were said to have excommunicated themselves, right? So even though they excommunicated themselves, how is it possible to lift a sentence which they brought down upon themselves?

Latae Sententiae means “by force of the law itself”, right? So wouldn’t the pope be doing an injustice by going counter to the law?

An example would be a woman who, knowing the Church’s stand, went ahead and had an abortion. Even though she has excommunicated herself, could the pope simply ‘recommunicate’ her without her even acknowledging her fault?

Do I even make any sense? I don’t know…

Why not?. Some of their positions are valid, when you look at history. Now is the time to rethink and gain back our Catholic identity. If the Orthodox. or Oriental Orthodox, were to come back, would you say the same?.

 

[bkovacs]

To many of us still have no way of practicing our worship according to the EF. So with the added unity of the SSPX. Then traditional Catholicism has grown.

 

[ProVobis]

I mean, why would HH Benedict ‘lift’ the excommunications if the SSPX bishops still cling to their exact position that they always have held? They’re no different today than they were for the last 20 years.

How do you know this?

Seems as if they had a strong argument for trying to preserve the Latin Mass back in 1988. Obviously there is no need for the same “necessity” today as any priest has the right to say the Latin Mass thanks to the 2007 S.P.

 

[UnusMilitum]

SSPX still claim that no excommunications took place. To me this sounds a bit like receiving absolution without having to confess your sins.

Exactly! So does Rome really mean to say that they agree with the SSPX, that they were never excommed? Wouldn’t Rome demand the SSPX recant if they had ever been wrong?

But I guess that in order for the pope to get SSPX back into full communion, it was the only thing to do.

Absolutely not! He could have left them there, or clarified their position officially (such as, either “internal” or “external”, “schism” or “no schism” since there was still disagreement among some!) without lifting excommunications.

At least now they will hopefully start to discuss the matters.

I hope you’re right. The SSPX are the ones who have wanted to ‘discuss the matters’ since even before '88, and hopefully Rome accedes.

 

[Spirithound]

Seems as if they had a strong argument for trying to preserve the Latin Mass back in 1988. Obviously there is no need for the same “necessity” today as any priest has the right to say the Latin Mass thanks to the 2007 S.P.

But the excommunications had nothing to do (directly) with the Latin Mass, but with illicit episcopal ordinations.

 

[UnusMilitum]

How do you know this?

I don’t ‘know’ it, but can you think of anything about their position that they have changed? I mean, they grumbled about ‘pro multis’ while the rest of the world said they were wrong, and were vindicated. Same thing about the supposed abrogation of the TLM. Now the excommunications…even though they don’t appear to have changed.

Obviously there is no need for the same “necessity” today as any priest has the right to say the Latin Mass thanks to the 2007 S.P.

Well, I don’t agree. There’s a big difference between a document (SP) and what is actually happening with that document. Clergy left and right are still trying to ignore it, and thus far, as I see it, have been pretty successful.

 

[ProVobis]

But the excommunications had nothing to do (directly) with the Latin Mass, but with illicit episcopal ordinations.

I think it had everything to do with the Latin Mass. Why else would the dying Archbishop feel the need to ordain other bishops to ordain priests to say it?

 

[ProVobis]

Well, I don’t agree. There’s a big difference between a document (SP) and what is actually happening with that document. Clergy left and right are still trying to ignore it, and thus far, as I see it, have been pretty successful.

Living in Chicagoland, I don’t see this kind of suppression. Of course, maybe the fact that the SSPX and several independent priests operate in the area has something to do with it? I’m beginning to feel that it does.

 

[Spirithound]

I think it had everything to do with the Latin Mass. Why else would the dying Archbishop feel the need to ordain other bishops to ordain priests to say it?

They weren’t excommunicated for their views on the Latin Mass. They were excommunicated for the illicit consecrations.

 

[nbjayme]

They were excommunicated because ordaining bishops without Papal consent was thought of “an act of schism”.

But this decree presupposes a desire for schism.

But such desire does not exists nor did SSPX want schism.

Cardinal Hoyos already expressed that it is an “internal matter” to the Church.

SSPX have the previous Pope up to the current Pope as legitimate Popes.

The ordination was made because Archbishop Lefebvre is getting older and for fear that nobody will continue on the ‘DEPOSIT OF FAITH’.

 

[ProVobis]

They weren’t excommunicated for their views on the Latin Mass. They were excommunicated for the illicit consecrations.

If you do some readings outside of Vatican documents, you’ll see that there were **many more ** other than the Pope who pressed on with these excommunications. (The Pope is not the only one who can excommunicate, by the way.) So many that Canon Law was ignored for any mitigating circumstances.