Pope Lifts Excommunications of SSPX Bishops

  • Thread starter Thread starter Wolseley
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
individual said:
Not even a single person is going to convert to Catholicism because of this.
Click to expand...
As a non-Catholic, what qualifies you to make this judgement?
There may not be many converts, but there will be a lot of re-verts.

There are a lot of people who have a) joined schismatic Traditionalist groups, b) joined schismatic Eastern Churches or c) stopped going to Church altogether because they find Vatican II confusing to their faith and they find the New Mass irreverent.
Not even a single person is going to have stronger faith Catholicism because of this.
Click to expand...
That is definitely untrue. I can give you at least one: me.

I’ve never completely bought into the arguments of the SSPX, but I sympathize with many of their concerns and questions regarding the interpretation and aftermath of Vatican II, as does the Holy Father. To the minds of most “moderate” and “liberal” Catholics, if you even ask such questions, that makes you a “schismatic,” and the Holy Father is making a definitive statement in that regard.

Also, this shows a very “numbers-based” view of the Church. I love Mother Angelica’s story about the secular network executive who asked her what ratings she gets, and she said, “I don’t know.”
He said, “You don’t know?? How can you not know? In this business, ratings are the Gospel!”
And Mother said, “No. That’s your problem. If only one soul is saved by watching my network, the whole thing is worth it.”

If this saves even one soul, it is worth it.

And, gee, isn’t it directed at saving the souls of the bishops themselves??

And what better form of ecumenism to reach out to people who basically are Catholic and just have some theological differences with the Church?

People are basically arguing that these four bishops, 500 priests and the many laity who attend their churches should be “left out in the cold” and sent to Hell as ScapeGoats for the very ecumenical movement that drove those 4 bishops, 500 priests and thousands of laity out of the Church in the first place.
 
PNEUMA said:
support anti-semitism ? What anti-semitism ?

Please explain.

🙂
Click to expand...
Well if you look at the previous posting there have been lies spread for many decades that Pius XII was an anti-semitic and had not spoken up during WWII against the Nazis.

There was even a book written called Hitler’s Pope. It hurts and saddens me to think that any Jew would believe this because it totally untrue. In fact Rabbi David G Dalin has written a book “The Myth of Hitler’s Pope” where he disproves this terrible lie. Here is what Michael Medved had to say about the book “A courageous, impassioned and desperately needed book that restores essential balance to the ongoing discussion of one of the most reviled figures in recent religious history” In fact Rabbi Dalin together with another author have recently published another book called “The Icon of Evil” where it is exposed that Hitler’s favourite “clergy” was in fact the Mufti of Jerusalem. The book is illustrated with pictures of the Mufti and Hitler and it is evident without saying a single word what this evil man is all about. I have ordered the book as I believe that History must record the truth and set the record straight.

The Catholic Church would never support anti-semitism.

🙂
 
individual said:
Richard Williamson is anti semitic that believe in the protocol of the elder of Zion as well as other crazy thing.

By endorsing him the Catholic church endorsing anti semitism.
Click to expand...
Absolutely - I coudn’t agree with you more.

However, I trust the Catholic Church and the Pope and believe there must be some explanation. I too am looking for more details on this story.

🙂
 
I missed this the first time around:
JReducation said:
To be in schism is to be juridically separated from the Church of Rome as are the Orthodox. It does not deny their Apostolic succession. It simple states that despite their apostolic succession, they are not in communion with Peter either in part or as a whole.
Click to expand...
I know what “schism” means.

I meant I don’t know what it means to “be separated from the Church” but not in “schism,” which means “separated from the Church.”
This is not always the case.
Click to expand...
OK. I thought it was, because in the cases of some priests like Fr. James Haley, the bishops said “Don’t act as a priest or you will be excommunicated.”
The bottom line for full communion with the Church is always whether or not the group agrees to follow the Pope’s interpretations of the events and the documents of Vatican II and what came later, rather than their own interpretation. . . . We take everything that the Pope says or we leave it.
Click to expand...
Not exactly. There are many areas where the Church provides room for disagreement. Indeed, most of the areas the SSPX has problems with, Cardinal Ratzinger expressed problems with, too–and they cite him quite often in their sources.

It is also important not to confuse the SSPX with far more RadTrad groups.

“Fr. Z.” on “What Does the Prayer Really Say?” has a great explanation of this. For example, when the excommunication of Fr. Feeney was lifted in the early 1970s, he was not required to renounce his extreme interpretation of extra Ecclesiam Nulla sanctam.

And, to borrow from what the RadTrads point out, John Paul II and Benedict XVI are both great admirers of Hans Urs von Balthasar, who preached universalism as a possibility that we are unaware of, even though previous Popes have condemned universalism as heresy.

The point is that there is room in the Church for Feeney and von Balthasar alike, so long as certain technicalities are acknowledged by both. Feeney believed that literal baptism was necessary but that, if anyone had sufficient “desire” to be baptised, God would not allow that person to die without a baptism provided. He used the example of two times in his own ministry when he providentially happened on dying non-Catholics who asked him to baptize them.

OTOH, von Balthasar entertained the possibility that, at the end of time, everyone might be released from Hell–even though that direct contradicts Scripture–but as long as he ecknowledges the necessity of the Church as the ordinary means of salvation.

One thing taht the Church, especially sine Vatican II, has been very wise about is not getting too definitive on matters that we really can’t know.

Like, with the question of the “filioque” (which was actually settled sevearl Councils ago and is only brought up by extremists of both sides to aggravate the schism): we ultimately cannot know what goes on inside the Blessed Trinity. So, we shouldn’t be excommunicating each other over whether the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son or just the Father. We really can’t know.

What’s important is that the Three Persons are coequal and consubstantial. Any further attempt to define their exact relationship–so long as it does not violate those principles–is fair game.
 
VATICAN CITY (Reuters) – Pope Benedict’s rehabilitation of four traditionalist bishops may heal one festering Catholic wound at the expense of opening a wider one with Jews because one of the prelates is a Holocaust denier.

The four bishops re-admitted to the Church over the weekend lead the far-right Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX), which has about 600,000 members and rejects modernizations of Roman Catholic worship and doctrine.

One of the four, the British-born Richard Williamson, has made statements denying the full extent of the Nazi Holocaust of European Jews, as accepted by mainstream historians.

In comments to Swedish television broadcast on Wednesday and widely available on the Internet, Williamson said “I believe there were no gas chambers” and only up to 300,000 Jews perished in Nazi concentration camps, instead of 6 million.

“I believe that the historical evidence is hugely against 6 million having been deliberately gassed in gas chambers as a deliberate policy of Adolf Hitler,” he said.

While lifting excommunications that had barred them from the Roman Catholic Church left many internal questions open, there was no doubt it has provoked what some are calling the biggest setback in Catholic-Jewish relations in half a century.

Story continued here
 
PetoVeritas said:
VATICAN CITY (Reuters) – Pope Benedict’s rehabilitation of four traditionalist bishops may heal one festering Catholic wound at the expense of opening a wider one with Jews because one of the prelates is a Holocaust denier.

The four bishops re-admitted to the Church over the weekend lead the far-right Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX), which has about 600,000 members and rejects modernizations of Roman Catholic worship and doctrine.

One of the four, the British-born Richard Williamson, has made statements denying the full extent of the Nazi Holocaust of European Jews, as accepted by mainstream historians.

In comments to Swedish television broadcast on Wednesday and widely available on the Internet, Williamson said “I believe there were no gas chambers” and only up to 300,000 Jews perished in Nazi concentration camps, instead of 6 million.

“I believe that the historical evidence is hugely against 6 million having been deliberately gassed in gas chambers as a deliberate policy of Adolf Hitler,” he said.

While lifting excommunications that had barred them from the Roman Catholic Church left many internal questions open, there was no doubt it has provoked what some are calling the biggest setback in Catholic-Jewish relations in half a century.

Story continued here
Click to expand...
I wonder if this is why the Rabbis boycotted the pope’s “Celebration of Judaism” last week… did they know this was coming?
 
When people express their gratitude towards this gesture of return, supporters and friends of SSPX frequently praise the devotion, holiness, and commitment of their clergy and congregations. I’m sure they’re all wonderful people.

But the question involved, and which seems to be constantly elided both in formal and informal discussions, is that this group has conducted an oppositional campaign against Vatican II for several decades. Peruse some of their books sometime. Something like Angelus Press may indeed provided nice Latin prayerbooks, or pop up encyclopedias with lavish illustrations of angels. But dig a bit deeper and you will find some mean-spirited attacks on all the popes after Pius X. Indeed, much of their ‘arguments’ amount to little more than rants and conspiracy theories, as to how Vatican II was infiltrated by Protestant agents, and other such nonsense. Have you seen the slander against JPII that’s in some of their magazines? Whatever pious signs and gestures go along with their tirades, there is a fundamental intent to discredit and insult the teachings of the last fifty years.

Fr Serpa even commented on this today – about the arrogance of insubordination. And even in this forum – one does not have to look far before an SSPX supporter calls the novus ordo a heresy, or how American Catholicism has been so corrupt as to reach the edge of the non-legitimate. As much as the nostalgic appeal must hold to many, let’s be very careful about the kind of authoritarian measures their bishops have taken in positioning themselves as the true holders of tradition.

As for “Bishop” Williamson’s anti-semitism, of course it displays a shocking kind of historical ignorance. That members of this forum cited Zundel’s website in defence of Holocaust denial is about the most depressing thing I have seen on Catholic.com.

For those who are not put off by the defamation of millions of war dead, would you be offended by the fact that he has repeatedly called 9/11 an inside job, a product of Neocon Americans? Does that manage to bother you?

I understand why people want to welcome SSPX back onboard – but I’m curious to see if they’re willing to concede the kinds of anti-Papal (especially against JPII) rhetoric with which they’ve won their fan base.
 
🤷
GodsGadfly said:
So, we shouldn’t be excommunicating each other over whether the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son or just the Father. We really can’t know.
Click to expand...
Are you then saying that it was wrong for the Roman Catholic Church to excommunicate the Eastern Orthodox Patriarch in 1054, citing the omission of the filioque from the creed?
 
Google the phrases “bishop williamson” and “9/11” and you quickly find disconcerting evidence that this individual considers the Bush government as having been complicit in (if not the actual culprits for) the terrorist attacks on the Twin Towers.

B16 is carrying on a deliberate strategy of appeasing nostalgia-mavens in the Church, many of whom have no reading ability in Latin but like the sound of it, who care more for the aesthetics of faith than the practical obedience it requires. Vatican II was not optional; its pronouncements were not a round-table discussion. As long SSPX spokespeople continue to mount campaigns of rebellion, including suggestions that John Paul II had a cohort of Protestant theologians shaping his encyclicals, then I cannot see what place they can take in the vital life of a collective church.

Moderators – I am offended by your deletion of my posts. Kindly PM me with the reasons or rules that I am somehow breaking, that I might not make the same problems for you in the future.
 
I’m saying that the issue was settled in 1274, and Byzantine Catholics are not required to use the filioque in the Creed (some traditionalists who experiment with the Byzantine Church take offense at this.

And the two interpretations of the Creed date all the way back to Arianism. The Eastern and Western Fathers developed their own responses to Arianism (which said that the Son proceeded from the Father and the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Son).

The Western Fathers said that the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father and the Son, establishing the understanding of the Trinity that we modern Latins take for granted.

The Eastern Fathers felt this sounded too much like Arianism, so they emphasized the procession from the Father.

It was just accepted as annother difference in theological interpretation between the East and the West, like the difference in marital theology or the different beliefs regarding whether St. Joseph was a widower or perpetually chaste (though, due to Papal primacy, the Western interpretations always kind of had “preference”).

The difference was around for 500 years before it was made an issue in 867. Now, it must be understood that the various stages of disagreement and agreement between Rome and Constantinople had to do with the extant Roman Empire in Constantinople: were the Patriarch and the Emperor getting along? Were either or both parties friendly to Rome? Which one was considered the “head” of the Byzantine Church at the time?

So the schism “officially” happened in 1054, citing the filioque. The sacking of Constantinople in 1204 (instigated by a pro-Roman prince who claimed to be the rightful heir to the imperium and enlisted Western aid against the “usurpurs”) increased popular hatred of the West in the East. The matter was actually resolved at the Second Council of Lyon in 1274, when the Two Lungs of the Church officially reunited, but the Orthodox as a whole rejected the council.
The same happened again with the Council of FLorence in 1439.

So, this historical lesson shows several things:
  1. As Pope John XXIII put it, “In necessary things unity; in uncertain things liberty; in all things charity.” There have been many cases where diverse theological views have been accepted in the history of the Church.
  2. The excommunications may be lifted, and the “people at the top” can even reach agreement and officially end the schism. But if enough of the laity, priests and bishops still retain their animosity, the schism could continue.
See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East-West_Schism
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filioque_clause#History_of_the_insertion_in_the_Nicene_Creed
 
tanelkis said:
That members of this forum cited Zundel’s website in defence of Holocaust denial is about the most depressing thing I have seen on Catholic.com.
Click to expand...
I agree. It is very hard to understand why people who claim to love Christ and the Church would even bother to hold such a position.
 
Holocaust denial is not excommunicable and has nothing to do with reasons for the excommunication that was lifted.

BTW, the Pope hasn’t “reinstated” the bishops. The decree says nothing about suspension and bishops ordained without papal approval are suspended from their orders. This wasn’t addressed.

BTW2, Luther’s excommunication has been lifted too. Doesn’t mean has was right on things.
 
chevalier said:
Holocaust denial is not excommunicable and has nothing to do with reasons for the excommunication that was lifted.
Click to expand...
Bishop Williamson’s denial of the holocaust is just part of his own ignorance of history. It has nothing to do with faith and morals or any Church discipline.
BTW, the Pope hasn’t “reinstated” the bishops.
Click to expand...
They cannot be reinstated, because they were never licitly ordained. They have to be incardinated now. This can take one of two forms. They can be given their own prelature or they can be asked to recant their position on the liturgy, Vatican II, ecumenism and some of the other issues that they have so they can be assigned to a diocese. It is most likely that they will get a prelature. That’s my guess.
The decree says nothing about suspension and bishops ordained without papal approval are suspended from their orders. This wasn’t addressed.
Click to expand...
If you’re speaking of the decree lifting the excommunication, those things don’t have to be mentioned. Those are the reasons that they were excommunicated. All that the decree has to affirm is that the excommunication is lifted. Here is a point of law. The excommunications are lifted. The Church is not recanting. There is a difference between lifting an excommunication and saying that it was not valid, as was the case with Joan of Arc.

As to the suspensions, that would not be part of the decree. Suspension is a different penalty. Any priest can be re-communicated and remain suspended until further notice. There has been no public statement about the suspension. We don’t know if the bishops remain suspended or not. The SSPX priests remain suspended.
BTW2, Luther’s excommunication has been lifted too. Doesn’t mean has was right on things.
Click to expand...
Luther’s excommunication has never been lifted. Luther was excommunicated for heresy. To have the excommunication lifted, it would have to be proven that he was not a heretic. Look at St. Joan of Arc. She was excommunicated by the local bishop as a heretic. But when Rome heard the case, years later, there was no proof that she was a heretic. The Pope declared the excommunication invalid. He never lifted it.

Unless one can prove that Luther was not a heretic, the excommunication stands. However, the Lutherans are not excommunicated. They were born into the Lutheran reform… They did not apostatize from the Church; therefore, they are not heretics.

Fraternally,

JR 🙂
 
GodsGadfly said:
So, we shouldn’t be excommunicating each other over whether the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son or just the Father. We really can’t know…
Click to expand...
GodsGadfly said:
So the schism “officially” happened in 1054, citing the filioque.
Click to expand...
So since we should not be excommunicating each other over the filioque, what conclusion can be drawn from the fact that in 1054 the Roman Church did excommunicate the Orthodox Patriarch over the filioque?
 
I went through and read a collection of this mans letters.

sspx.ca/Documents/Bishop-Williamson/index.htm

I thought religious liberty was a teaching of the church. Well apparently he does not believe in it and considers it a sin that has been exported and supported by the pope (John Paul II). So even if the church does not believe in religious liberty being part of faith and morals, he denies the infallibility of the pope. Another part I have missed is where they apologized and denounced there positions as bishops? Did he stop calling himself a bishop or acting like one. Do you not have to reconcile with the church, denounce what you did wrong before being forgiven or is that not even necessary now?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top