Pope Lifts Excommunications of SSPX Bishops

[TMC]

This thread has gone way off the track. I thought the idea was to see where the four SSPX bishops are going now and for Catholics and non Catholics to understand what the Church expects of the four bishops as well as what the Church has to say about their position on certain things.

There is no doubt that the Catholic Church finds Bishop Williamson’s statements about the Shoah irresponsible and incompatible with her beliefs. That should be the lead that the rest of the world should follow. Williamson’s statements are not representative of the official Catholic belief.

How did we get into discussing the internal conflicts of Israel with the Arab world around them?

I’m lost.

Fraternally,

JR

Let’s try to get back on track. What is the next step for the SSPX? The Vatican has said that there are two issues to be resolved before full the members of SSPX are in full communion, “the integration of the juridical structure of the Fraternity of St. Pius X in the Church” and "agreement in dogmatic and ecclesiological questions."

I get the second part, but what are we to make of the first. Is the thinking that SSPX will be a seperate group (whatever the correct term is) and not fall under the regional ordinaries? Would this be a good or bad thing? I think there would be some merit to allowing them to maintain their structure, but I suspect that one of two things would happen – either the group would die away and be absorbed into the the main body of the Church, or the group would drift off, potentially into another schism.

I have little experience with these kinds of seperate structures within the Church, anyone who does care to comment?

 

[Valke2]

This thread has gone way off the track. I thought the idea was to see where the four SSPX bishops are going now and for Catholics and non Catholics to understand what the Church expects of the four bishops as well as what the Church has to say about their position on certain things.

Yeah. You would think that the jewish controlled media would be better able to keep these threads on track

There is no doubt that the Catholic Church finds Bishop Williamson’s statements about the Shoah irresponsible and incompatible with her beliefs. That should be the lead that the rest of the world should follow. Williamson’s statements are not representative of the official Catholic belief.

I think we are all in agreement on that. I hope we are anyway.

 

[Valke2]

Let’s try to get back on track. What is the next step for the SSPX? The Vatican has said that there are two issues to be resolved before full the members of SSPX are in full communion, “the integration of the juridical structure of the Fraternity of St. Pius X in the Church” and "agreement in dogmatic and ecclesiological questions."

I get the second part, but what are we to make of the first. Is the thinking that SSPX will be a seperate group (whatever the correct term is) and not fall under the regional ordinaries? Would this be a good or bad thing? I think there would be some merit to allowing them to maintain their structure, but I suspect that one of two things would happen – either the group would die away and be absorbed into the the main body of the Church, or the group would drift off, potentially into another schism.

I have little experience with these kinds of seperate structures within the Church, anyone who does care to comment?

Please add these two follow up questions: How many members does the SSPX have? and are there any bishops in the SSPX that were not excommunicated?

 

[JReducation]

Let’s try to get back on track. What is the next step for the SSPX? The Vatican has said that there are two issues to be resolved before full the members of SSPX are in full communion, “the integration of the juridical structure of the Fraternity of St. Pius X in the Church” and "agreement in dogmatic and ecclesiological questions."

I get the second part, but what are we to make of the first. Is the thinking that SSPX will be a seperate group (whatever the correct term is) and not fall under the regional ordinaries? Would this be a good or bad thing? I think there would be some merit to allowing them to maintain their structure, but I suspect that one of two things would happen – either the group would die away and be absorbed into the the main body of the Church, or the group would drift off, potentially into another schism.

I have little experience with these kinds of seperate structures within the Church, anyone who does care to comment?

I don’t know if this offer is still on the table. But last summer the Vatican had offered them their own prelature, just like the Opus Dei have.

They can’t become an independent community, because they are secular priests, not religious. The Transalpine Redemptorists were a religious congregation. So they were received back into the Church as a religious congregation with a new name, The Sons of the Most Holy Redeemer. They are a traditional community (with a small t), but have their own major superior who answers to the Congregation for Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life, what used to be the Congregation for Religious and Secular Institutes.

This Congregation can take on the oversight of the SSPX as a society of Apostolic Life, but they SSPX would have to submit all of their constitutions, mission statement, financial records, and every decision to the Congregation for approval.

To become a prelature would mean that they answer directly to the Pope, with no intermediate Vatican body between them and the Pope. This is the arrangement that the Opus Dei has.

And as long as they are faithful to the Pope and obedient to the Pope it works. Check this out.

opusdei.us/

What the SSPX may find objectionable is that they would have to submit to the Pope’s interpretation and applications of Vatican II as part of the deal. It’s like having the Pope as your bishop. The bishops of the SSPX would still be bishops, but they would not have an Episcopal See (diocese). They would serve the SSPX, not the universal Church. They may not like that either.

If they become a Society of Apostolic Life, they still would not have dioceses, unless they let the SSPX run itself with its own superior and the bishops went on to work in a diocese. To work in a diocese, they would have to implement the OF and the EF. No diocese can limit itself to the EF form. I’m not sure that they would be too happy with this either. My understanding is that they want the OF gone. The Motu Proprio made it clear that as long as Benedict is pope, the mass of Paul VI is the ordinary form of the mass for the universal Church and that is not going to change, regardless of who put it together and how it was put together, he is convinced that it has its roots in the faith of the Church and it is holy.

You can’t argue with the Pope on liturgy, especially when he is one of the best theologians that the Church has today, even if he were not the Pope.

MY perception is not that the Pope wants the SSPX to disappear, but that he wants the bishops to come into full union with him and that means that they accept his application and understanding of Vatican II as a matter of obedience and that they go back to the membership and the laity in the SSPX and teach that. The EF is not a problem for Pope Benedict, as long as they do not attack the OF or want to replace it with the EF at the universal level.

Hopefully, the bishops of the SSPX will soften a little and join their brother bishops. The purpose of the dialogue is to better understand what they see as problematic and to see if the Church can meet them halfway without compromising on the message of Vatican II. I do believe that the Church is willing to reword some things for the sake of clarity. But she is not ready to throw out the Council’s wishes for the universal Church.

Fraternally,

JR

 

[JReducation]

Please add these two follow up questions: How many members does the SSPX have? and are there any bishops in the SSPX that were not excommunicated?

The SSPX says that they have about one million followers. I don’t know how they know this, because they have not produced any census. Maybe they have their own way of keeping track.

All of the bishops of the SSPX were excommunicated. They were excommunicated because you cannot accept the office of bishop without the permission of the Pope. This is what they did. They were excommunicated for disobedience, not heresy or a problem with dogma and moral teaching, just moral choices. Disobedience is a moral choice only allowed when you are asked to commit a sin. Saying “No thank you, I can’t become a bishop without permission” is not a sin. Therefore, they did disobey, because they should have declined the offer to be consecrated bishops. The Church did not need additional bishops in that manner.

It raised some sad questions too. I hated to see that happen. In the minds of some people, it raises the question as to whether these men who accepted to be consecrated bishops without permission to advantage of an opportunity to climb the hierarchical ladder. There is always the question, would these four have ever been consecrated bishops had they gone through the proper channels? We should never leave ourselves open for such speculation.

Fraternally,

JR

 

[bobzills]

That’s not entirely correct. It is a holocaust denial incident, not “miminization.”. The rest of the baseless rhetoric in your post has been and I am sure will be again, ablely addressed by Chosen People and others. I"m just too tired to keep responding to hate speech veiled as political discussion today.

I don’t quite understand this. I thought he admitted that a number were killed, but claimed a much smaller number than six million. Why would that not be a minimisation?

 

[bobzills]

Well we have gone from thousands of children killed in a few weeks to a thousand children killed in seven years and three months.

However even these figures are nonsense as you presume that these deaths are related to Israel combat actions as well as being accurate. Most of the websites your referenced are similar to giving facts and information about Jews from Jew watch or stormfront.

Any reference to Jews as Nazi’s or Gaza as a “concentration camp” is historically and factually incorrect as well an insult to all survivors of the Shoah and their families. The fact that it was made by a Catholic church official, who to the best of my knowledge has subsequently been rebuked by the Vatican for making this statement, is even more horrendous.

My statement is that Israel was not helping itself because of a response that was disproportionate.
eretzyisroel.org/~jkatz/mostly.html
normanfinkelstein.com/article.php?pg=11&ar=649
turkishweekly.net/news/62659/57-of-israeli-casualties-in-gaza-in-2009-were-children-428-dead-since-strikes-began.html

 

[Valke2]

I don’t quite understand this. I thought he admitted that a number were killed, but claimed a much smaller number than six million. Why would that not be a minimisation?

Because the Shoah is not just a matter of numbers. It is the intentional, bueracratic destruction of the Jewish people. Williamson said zero jews were murdered as part of a program to destroy them and that none were gassed.

 

[Layman]

1. I hope the SSPX are regularised soon. A personal prelature sounds good. They can ‘do their own thing’ without interference from local bishops, like religious orders(?)

Could be very handy for me when I’m in Ireland. A nearer source of a Latin Mass would be a great blessing. The nearest such Sunday Mass at the moment is 60 miles away.

1. If you want a quiet life, don’t march on Moscow or get involved in the Balkans or the Israeli question. The latter generates a lot of heat but not much light. 'Round and 'round it goes.

Western politicians have been trying to ‘solve’ this ‘problem’ for nearly as long as I’ve been alive.

 

[JReducation]

1. I hope the SSPX are regularised soon. A personal prelature sounds good. They can ‘do their own thing’ without interference from local bishops, like religious orders(?)

They would not be like a religious order. Religious orders are autonomous from the local bishop. A personal prelature, only the clergy is free from the local bishops for faculties. The laity is still subject to the local bishops for permissions to receive the sacraments. A prelature is not a diocese. They would be like the Opus Dei.

Every Catholic must have an Ordinary. The Ordinary of the laity is the local bishop of the diocese in which they reside or the diocese in which they were baptized. The bishops of the Society would not have ordinary powers. In a personal prelature, the Pope becomes the Ordinary. The clergy of the Society would be subject to him or his delegate. That’s the way it works with the Opus Dei.

The good thing about a prelature is that it’s like a diocese without boundaries. As long as the local bishop says that they can setup housekeeping in his diocese, they can come in and do their thing. This would be a good thing.

JR

 

[chosen_people]

My statement is that Israel was not helping itself because of a response that was disproportionate.
eretzyisroel.org/~jkatz/mostly.html
normanfinkelstein.com/article.php?pg=11&ar=649
turkishweekly.net/news/62659/57-of-israeli-casualties-in-gaza-in-2009-were-children-428-dead-since-strikes-began.html

Disregarding your extremist sources above I feel it incumbent to put to rest the claim of disproportionate response.

A disproportionate response under international law is, for example, when an act that is in the realm of being unfriendly as opposed to an act of war is not met with the usual accepted response but is responded to as if it was an act of more serious proportions. For instance, if one country recalls its ambassador for consultations, a response may be to similarly recall your ambassador. A disproportionate response would be to declare war.

In the case of the Gaza war, Israel was undergoing on a continual basis acts of belligerency and war through the firing of missiles on its civilian population over a continued period of some eight years. The proportionate response to belligerent acts of war is taking military measures of self defense for the purpose of ending those attacks. This was the act carried out by Israel and it cannot in any way be seen as disproportional on the basis of international law.

The other non legal meaning being propounded by certain extremist groups is that having gone to war you should carry out the war not to win an overwhelming victory but in symmetry and tandem with the successes of the other side. In other words, you are entitled to inflict only as many casualties on the other side as is relative to the losses you have incurred, you may blow up only as many bridges as may be seen in relation to the bridges of yours that have been blown up. There is no legal basis to this claim of “proportionality” in international law and with all due respect to the terror groups and their supporters, no intelligent logical basis to this claim.

 

[Valke2]

The only thing I would disagree with is your use of the term “with all due respect.”

 

[bobzills]

Disregarding your extremist sources above I feel it incumbent to put to rest the claim of disproportionate response.

A disproportionate response under international law is, for example, when an act that is in the realm of being unfriendly as opposed to an act of war is not met with the usual accepted response but is responded to as if it was an act of more serious proportions. For instance, if one country recalls its ambassador for consultations, a response may be to similarly recall your ambassador. A disproportionate response would be to declare war.

In the case of the Gaza war, Israel was undergoing on a continual basis acts of belligerency and war through the firing of missiles on its civilian population over a continued period of some eight years. The proportionate response to belligerent acts of war is taking military measures of self defense for the purpose of ending those attacks. This was the act carried out by Israel and it cannot in any way be seen as disproportional on the basis of international law.

The other non legal meaning being propounded by certain extremist groups is that having gone to war you should carry out the war not to win an overwhelming victory but in symmetry and tandem with the successes of the other side. In other words, you are entitled to inflict only as many casualties on the other side as is relative to the losses you have incurred, you may blow up only as many bridges as may be seen in relation to the bridges of yours that have been blown up. There is no legal basis to this claim of “proportionality” in international law and with all due respect to the terror groups and their supporters, no intelligent logical basis to this claim.

You mention here the period of eight years. According to the statistics I have seen, at least 6,348 Palestinians have been killed, compared to 1,072 Israelis
killed since September 29, 2000.
Now compare the number killed from December 27, 2008 to Feb. 5, 2009:
1440 Palesinians killed
10 Israelis killed
That seems disproportionate to me.
ifamericansknew.org/stats/deaths.html
Further, there have been complaints that Israel has been blocking access to much needed food and medical supplies.
ifamericansknew.org/stats/deaths.html

 

[numealinesimpet]

Because the Shoah is not just a matter of numbers. It is the intentional, bueracratic destruction of the Jewish people. Williamson said zero jews were murdered as part of a program to destroy them and that none were gassed.

For the record, these are the actual words of the interview:-

globalfire.tv/nj/09en/religion/church_for_revisionism.htm

Don’t get me wrong. I disagree, on the basis of evidence, and of personal contact, with Bp W’s contention that there were no gas chambers. But he did not say that " zero Jews were murdered as part of a program to destroy them ". And he states quite clearly that he believes his sources to be honest, and that he was prepared to alter his views if his sources reached different conclusions in the future. Were these statements deserving of the hounding he has since received?

 

[numealinesimpet]

The SSPX says that they have about one million followers. I don’t know how they know this, because they have not produced any census. Maybe they have their own way of keeping track.

All of the bishops of the SSPX were excommunicated. They were excommunicated because you cannot accept the office of bishop without the permission of the Pope. This is what they did. They were excommunicated for disobedience, not heresy or a problem with dogma and moral teaching, just moral choices. Disobedience is a moral choice only allowed when you are asked to commit a sin. Saying “No thank you, I can’t become a bishop without permission” is not a sin. Therefore, they did disobey, because they should have declined the offer to be consecrated bishops. The Church did not need additional bishops in that manner.

This would be an opportune moment to scotch, once and for all, some common false accusations against Archbp. Lefebvre: that he was excommunicated by Pope Paul II and is in schism, and secondly, that he declared the New Order of Mass to be invalid. This also is relevant to the matter under discussion.

On 1st July 1988 Cardinal Gantin - not Pope John Paul - declared Mgr Lefebvre excommunicated under Canons 1382 & 1364 New Code of Canon Law, that forbid consecration of a bishop without papal mandate. This Canon was promulgated in the 1950s in response to the schismatic Chinese Patriotic Church (CPA), a stooge organisation established according to classic Marxist principles: these bishops declare publicly & loudly that The Party over-rides the pope. Strangely, however, none of the 150+ CPA bishops since 1960 has ever been excommunicated. Before consecrating his bishops, Mgr Lefebvre gave a public sermon in June 1988 clearly explaining that he was invoking Canons 1321-4 of the New Code of Canon Law, which provide for emergency situations by indemnifying from any sanction if one genuinely believes an emergency has arisen. The emergency was the spreading of false doctrine, and the illegal attempt to suppress the traditional liturgical life when it had not been abrogated. Significantly the Vatican has never refuted this correct usage of Canon Law by Mgr Lefebvre.

The SSPX insist that this alleged excommunication by Cdl Gantin - which Pope John Paul referred to in Ecclesia Dei but never issued on his own authority - is not legally binding: you cannot invoke one law while ignoring another. That would be like prosecuting a motorist for parking on a yellow line [a No Parking Zone], while ignoring that it was a Sunday afternoon [when parking is allowed].

Further confirmation of this is provided by the lifting of the Decree of Excommunication. Think about this for a while. Not one retraction was requested from the SSPX before the Decree was lifted. Now, of course the Vatican will never say, “We were wrong, and took 20 years to admit it”, but one has to have committed an offence to be validly excommuncated, true? And therefore the offence must be retracted before the excommunication was lifted. But in this case nothing extra was required. The Holy Father referred to encouraging statements of loyalty made by the SSPX. This proves the point consistent with Church teaching: A specific refusal of compliance does not constitute a schism. This is stated quite explicitly in the Catholic Encyclopaedia. Schism is not the refusal of compliance, but the denial that the legislator has authority to require compliance at all. This, the SSPX have been scrupulous to insist, is against their position, and they have expelled members who have adhered to it…

Likewise, Mgr Lefebvre categorically refused to declare the 1969 (Novus Ordo) Missal invalid (which would mean that the priest was holding a piece of bread after the Consecration instead of the Body of Christ) and he disciplined those of his followers who made such judgments which, he insisted, can be made only by a Pope or an Ecumenical Council. What he did assert is that the New Mass glosses over many important truths of the Faith that are clearly stated in the Old Mass, and that it breeds a certain casual irreverence, dangerous to keeping the Faith. Unlike the CPA bishops, Mgr Lefebvre at no time rejected the authority of the Pope. He insisted that the widespread promotion of error and the de facto suppression of the Traditional Liturgy was illegal, and refused to comply. That is saying, “Father, in this case I cannot give in to your demand!” He did not add, “And therefore you are not my Father”. This was brilliantly demonstrated in the Holy Year of 2000, when thousands of “Traditional” religious and lay Catholics, organised by the SSPX, processed into S. Peter’s Square, to the feet of the Holy Father, who was visibly impressed, “and all Rome with him”. It was after this that Pope John Paul II began in earnest to find a way to normalise the position of the SSPX established by Mgr Lefebvre. They are among the Papacy’s most loyal supporters.

 

[JaMc]

Likewise, Mgr Lefebvre categorically refused to declare the 1969 (Novus Ordo) Missal invalid (which would mean that the priest was holding a piece of bread after the Consecration instead of the Body of Christ) and he disciplined those of his followers who made such judgments which, he insisted, can be made only by a Pope or an Ecumenical Council. What he did assert is that the New Mass glosses over many important truths of the Faith that are clearly stated in the Old Mass, and that it breeds a certain casual irreverence, dangerous to keeping the Faith.

The SSPX now seems to take a stronger stand against the new Mass: sspx.org/SSPX_FAQs/q5_novusordo.htm While they don’t outright say that it is invalid, they do say that it might be, and admonish their followers to avoid it. Also, one of their problems with the FSSP is that they

accept in particular, the lawfulness and doctrinal soundness of the Novus Ordo Missae and Vatican II.

sspx.org/SSPX_FAQs/q13_fraternity.htm So, while Abp. Lefevbre may very well have defended the validity of the N.O., his successors seem to take a different position.

 

[JReducation]

I find it difficult to understand why we want to defend that the excommunication of the SSPX bishops was invalid.

1. The pope does not have to issue a decree of excommunication. Excommunication can take place in two ways, by the act of a bishop or by violating a Church law that carries an automatic penalthy of excommunication. In the case of the SSPX bishops, the act carried an automatic penalty. The Sacred Congregation simply acknowledged the fact and Pope John Paul II and Benedict XVI upheld it.
2. There are presedents in the Church where excommunications have been declared invalid, case in point: Elias of Cortona and Joan of Arc.
3. When an excommunication is lifted it means that there was an excommunication in the first place. You cannot lift what does not exist. If it was invalid, then you cannot lift it; because there was no excommunication.
4. Excommunication is a penalty with the purpose of calling the individual back to the Church. Pope Benedict XVI clearly stated that the excommunication was lifted, because it did not have the desired effect. If he were in agreement with the SSPX bishops they would have faculties and have episcopal authority. The Holy Father has said that they are no longer excommunicated, but they do not have faculties to celebrate the sacraments or to exercise the episcopacy. They are bishops without sees and without authority until further notice. Their state is one of suspension.
5. As to Bishop Williamson, the Pope has demanded that he distance himself from his position on the Shoah. Bishop Williamson admits that his sources may be incorrect and that he will study the Shoah further. But the Holy Father has demanded that he simply distance himself from that position. He has made it very clear that such a position is inconsistent with the Catholic Church. The other bishops of the SSPX have also said that they do not support Bishop Williamson’s position on the Shoah. Bishop Feley (sp?) has said that Bishop Williamson cannot run the seminary. The situation with the Shoah is serious.
6. Bishop Williamson is not the only Catholic bishop who has been penalized for not supporting the Church’s stance on the Shoah. There are three other bishops whose powers have been suspended by order of the pope. In other words, the Shoah is not to be toyed with. Popes John XXIII, John Paul II and Benedict XVI all lived with the Shoah and saw its horrors. They have all strongly supported the Shoah as we understand it, that six million Jews were needlessly killed.

My advice to any Catholic is to keep their hands off and their mouth shut about the Shoah. There are some bishops and pastors who will punish those who stand up to the Holy Father’s position on it. In our diocese one priest has been suspended for this reason. He has been accussed of antisemiticsm and his case is pending review by the archbishop.

The Vatican is getting very tough on many questions. Right now, as many know, there are almost 70,000 American religious sisters under investigation for disagreements with the Vatican at various levels, from moral questions to sacramental questions. They are even being investigated for how they pray and why they have failed to attract vocations.

This is not the time to mess with the Vatican. It is only my opinion. But I believe that the Vatican is on the hunt for extremists in either direction. I say either direction, becaues Pope Benedict continues to insist that Vatican II must be obeyed and its authority recognized by all Catholics. He is not being very tolerant of extreme right or extreme left right now.

On the other hand, he does not want whipping boys made out of good people who are in the process of reforming their views and correcting previous actions. In several statements he has called for tolerance and patience.

Just some thoughts I wanted to share, nothing to take to the bank.

Fraternally,

JR

 

[Rupert_of_SSPX]

The same Canon Law which automated the excommunications also exonerates Archbishop Lefebvre and those he ordained. It states that ordinations without papal approval are possible in emergency. Lefebvre knew that his death was near and could no longer wait for approval. Coupled with the fact that niether Confession nor a re-affirmation of faith was requested by the Vatican for the so called lifting of the excommunications, I would say it is more than doubtful whether these excommunications ever existed.

Some have said on this forum, that Bishop Williamson’s position on the Holocaust is incompatible with the Church. This is obviously untrue as no part of the Holocaust is even close to dogmatic. I may not agree with his private opinions on the matter but they are entirely irrelevent to his position.

I wonder how much those who are fearful of the SSPX really know about us.

 

[pnewton]

The same Canon Law which automated the excommunications also exonerates Archbishop Lefebvre and those he ordained.

…in your opinion. Others differ. Since Pope Benedict has lifted these excommunications, it is now a moot question, as is the issue of why an AB considers his own death an occasion of an emergency in the Church.

 

[numealinesimpet]

…in your opinion. Others differ. Since Pope Benedict has lifted these excommunications, it is now a moot question…

I agree that the issue should now, in prudence, be allowed to rest in peace. This is what Bp Fellay always wanted. I only spring to the defence when somebody reoeats the unwarranted claim that the excommunications were, as a certain fact, valid from the beginning. This was by no means proven on appeal. Any time AB Lefebvre requested an appeal - which was his canonical right - it was denied.

the issue of why an AB considers his own death an occasion of an emergency in the Church.

It is because, even though many other bishops privately held his opinions, he & Archbp. de Castro Meyer were the only ones to translate this into action. No other bishop, dioscesan or missionary, stood firmly at that time against the Modernist tide. I would be glad to hear of any bishop or seminary that did otherwise. The emergency was not the death of an archbishop, but the failure of the Institutional Church to uphold the dogmas to which, however, the Catholic Church is mandatd to defend until the end of time. It was not the responsibility of these two clerics that the others Failed on their Watch. But it was their responsibility to uphold their own office of bishop. A bishop is not a private individual, and he will be held accountable at the Judgment if he has not worked to confirm and preach The Faith. None of these things are pleasant to contemplate, but they are the honest truth. Mgr Lefebvre & Meyer carried out their office, and are fully supported in their actions by Canon Law: which has never been refuted in honest, public forum, whatever the media insinuations and anonymous “Press Releases” from “Vatican Sources” might have claimed.