Pope Lifts Excommunications of SSPX Bishops

  • Thread starter Thread starter Wolseley
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
bhktops said:
I am thinking on leaving the church if the pope would allow such monsters back into our church
Click to expand...
I am the first one to agree with you that Williamson’s comments were awful. (You can look back at my vehement anti-Williamson posts on this thread if you don’t believe me!!) And so I certainly understand your disappointment.

But I hope that you will not let this ruin your relationship with the Church, or with the Pope! Remember that the Pope has been dealing with this society for twenty years, ever since the excommunication (when he was still Cardinal Ratzinger). That is something the media has not at all realized. It is a very personal issue for him which predates the Holocaust denial by far. This is a question of the theology of a society of thousands of adherents, not just the views of one person. And as for that person, he is not getting a free ride. The Vatican has vociferously repudiated his comments, and even this is only the first stage…the SSPX still has to agree to a lot of things before they are fully rehabilitated.

But even more to the point, the Church does not rise and fall on a few papal decisions that we may or may not have made ourselves. If you want a bad pope, just look at the Borgias! And none of the Popes for the last five centuries have done anything nearly as shocking as what they did. If your faith in the Church stems from a love of Christ rather than a notion that nothing the Popes ever do will be uncontroversial, then hopefully it will be firm enough to see this through.

I am sure that the Pope will have much to teach all of us, especially those of us who have been quick to doubt his decision, before all this is through. In the meantime, don’t lose the faith! You can be intelligent and thoughtful and principled and denounce Williamson’s anti-Semitic comments and even struggle with an acceptance of the SSPX while still remaining a faithful Catholic…

Peace,
+AMDG+
 
bhktops said:
I am thinking on leaving the church if the pope would allow such monsters back into our church
Click to expand...
I find it suspicious that practically every member with only a few posts is supposedly shaken in their faith by the lifting of the excommunications.
 
I think that the Pope made a mistake and should have been better advised before he made the statement. Let’s hope there are opportunities in the near future Jewish relations with the Church to improve.
 
Polaris said:
So what is DIGNITATIS HUMANAE all about in your world?

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651207_dignitatis-humanae_en.html

I will post a paragraph.
  1. This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits.
The council further declares that the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person as this dignity is known through the revealed word of God and by reason itself.(2) This right of the human person to religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed and thus it is to become a civil right.

Is this a false teaching?
Click to expand...
This is the most problematic of all the statements in the documents of Vatican II because yes, it does directly contradict all previous teaching. The private forum is one thing. The Church has always taught that false religions might need to be tolerated in the public forum for the greater good of society (preventing possible civil disorder at heavy-handed suppression) but that those in error by no means have a right to practise their errors in the public forum: indeed, it may be injurious to the public good to allow certain flase religions any public manifestation at all.

Dignitatis Humanae is a document in which the modernist, secular position is presented as official Catholic doctrine. It is a statement of a position that had been strenuously rejected by the Church for centuries. This is one of the very points that the SSPX earnestly desire to discuss honestly and intelligently within the forum of the Catholic Church. That is why Bp Fellay had asked for the lifting of the Decree of Excommunication as a pre-requisite to rational debate.

The tactic of demonising the opposition instead of answering their objections, or else conceding them, has now failed.

It is only now that the real debate, P.G., can begin.
 
bhktops said:
I am thinking on leaving the church if the pope would allow such monsters back into our church
Click to expand...
What exactly did he do that made him a monster? It is not like he was a Nazi. He is just misguided on a point of history. Do you think no one who does poorly in history should be allowed in Church. No one in the Church or even the SSPX is supporting his view of history. It is a non-issue, theologically speaking.
 
bhktops said:
I am thinking on leaving the church if the pope would allow such monsters back into our church
Click to expand...
I am of the opinion that Bp. Williamson has some very extreme and even downright ugly notions, and depressingly, I note that his views seem to be accepted (if not endorsed) among those who attend SSPX chapels. But calling them all monsters? That’s well over the top. What evidence do you have to support the idea that the four bishops are monsters? I have read a fair amount of Bp. Fellay’s writings and while I do not agree with all of them, he seems like a good man who cares about the issues. Why do you call him a monster?
 
bhktops said:
I am thinking on leaving the church if the pope would allow such monsters back into our church
Click to expand...
Perhaps your faith isn’t really that strong - if something like this causes you to leave…

Then again - referring to Bishops as “monsters” may say more about whatever “faith” you have than any historical opinion Bp. Williamson holds.
 
rosetta_stone said:
I find it suspicious that practically every member with only a few posts is supposedly shaken in their faith by the lifting of the excommunications.
Click to expand...
Kinda’ makes you wonder…signs of a house divided…

I found this bit on NPR this morning.
One of the most critical voices is that of Swiss theologian Hans Kung.
Click to expand...
Kung was disciplined during the papacy of John Paul II.
Click to expand...
Kung says Pope Benedict is gradually sapping the essential substance out of the reforms of the Second Vatican Council.
Click to expand...
“He has an idea of the liturgy which is more similar to the liturgy of the Middle Ages, of the anti-Reformation time. He tries to interpret the council not forward, for having a popular liturgy, with new elements. He uses Vatican II just as a text to go backwards,” Kung says.
Click to expand...
This is not what Kung had expected when, a few months after Benedict became pope, he invited his old colleague to the papal summer residence. Their talks lasted four hours.
Click to expand...
But Kung says his hopes for change at the Vatican were dashed. This is a pope, Kung says, who has lost touch with his flock.
Click to expand...
“It’s just a Potemkin church, with a nice facade. But behind, there is a great deal of complaint that this pope has done nothing to help them in the parishes. We have less and less priests, every year we lose hundreds of priests, and I think the celibate clergy is just dying,” he says.
Click to expand...
 
Beautiful said:
Kinda’ makes you wonder…signs of a house divided…

I found this bit on NPR this morning.

It’s just a Potemkin church, with a nice facade. But behind, there is a great deal of complaint that this pope has done nothing to help them in the parishes. We have less and less priests, every year we lose hundreds of priests, and I think the celibate clergy is just dying,
Click to expand...
This has been going on long before Pope Benedict XVI became head of the Church.
 
lizaanne said:
What about the concerns regarding Bishop Richard Williamson? He apparently has denied the Holocaust and said the gas chambers were a “myth”.

This is very VERY disconcerting to me.

timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article5567829.ece

~Liza
Click to expand...
If your son goes his own way and then returns home to you, do you say he can’t come in because he denies the holocost. Being stupid is no reason to excommunicate someone or kick your child out of the house.

They requested reunion. The Pope was true to our Lord’s view of a Prodical son.
 
individual said:
As I non Catholic I must say the decision will mostly hurt the catholic church.

Not even a single person is going to convert to Catholicism because of this.

Not even a single person is going to have stronger faith Catholicism because of this.

But the image of the Catholic church will be greatly damaged.

by associate with him the Catholic church facto take credit over what he say.

And lets not forget that this guy said that the Vatican was controlled by Satan.
Click to expand...
If someone wants forgiveness and reconciliation with God how can the Pope stand in his way. The Faith does not belong to the Pope he is a steward of it. He must doe the right thing even if many will not understand. The truth in welcoming back those who want reconciliation is more important than the stupid people who would excommunicate themselves over it.
 
Adonis33 said:
This has been going on long before Pope Benedict XVI became head of the Church.
Click to expand...
Oh - I know. The writer of this article just lobbed that on the list of things Kung supposedly said. Kung never seems to tire out.
 
Steve40 said:
If your son goes his own way and then returns home to you, do you say he can’t come in because he denies the holocost. Being stupid is no reason to excommunicate someone or kick your child out of the house.

They requested reunion. The Pope was true to our Lord’s view of a Prodical son.
Click to expand...
I agree, in essence. That’s why it’s important, I think, to make a distinction: the bishops are no longer excommunicated, but they are not fully rehabilitated as bishops. Right? They can receive the Sacraments and everything – a fittingly graceful gesture on the part of the Holy Father, albeit one that any Catholic deserves.

But administering the Sacraments, and being a shepherd of and representative of the Church, is something completely different. In that case I don’t believe that paternal mercy suffices as an excuse…which is why I hope that there will be a lot more that happens (repudiations of Williamson’s comments, the bishops’ acceptance of Vatican II) before they are completely rehabilitated as bishops.

Just IMHO.

Peace,
+AMDG+
 
tuviskazinai said:
…which is why I hope that there will be a lot more that happens ( … the bishops’ acceptance of Vatican II) before they are completely rehabilitated as bishops.

Just IMHO.

Peace,
+AMDG+
Click to expand...
More than 25 years ago now, my (new) wife & I sat down with Flannery’s edition of the documents of Vatican II & a highlighter, just to find out what Vatican II actually said, so that we would know what we were being told to to accept. We were highly disconcerted, to say the least. A typical document will ramble on for pages, never once defining terms, never once quoting previous church documents (whereas the previous councils as a routine quote reams of documents from the present decades right back to the apostles) and then, usually, in the last paragraph, set down a loophole big enough to drive a horse and cart through - e.g. “But the Local Ordinary may make appropriate alternate arrangements for his special circumstances”. Sometimes, as in the Decree on Ecumenism (which never once defines ‘ecumenism’) the final paragraph actually contradicts the rest of the document. Don’t take my word for it. It’s all there in black and white. Years later, when the trouble with Mgr Lefebvre started, I took it for granted that he was just a disgruntled reactionary until I read Michael Davies’ ‘Apologia pro Marcel Lefebvre’ and other primary documents. Lefebvre was telling the simple truth all the way down the line, and the sanctions thrown at him are illegal within the church’s own framework of law. It was all an attempt at intimidation, a bluff that he called. naturally, Rome will never now just say ‘Hey! we were wrong!’ but the Vatican has actually backed itself into an untenable corner over the whole Trad issue, and the present Holy Father, to his great credit, considering how committed he is to ‘Vatican II’ (whatever that is - see above) is taking steps to rectify it. After so many decades, we have a glimmer of hope that the serious problems with Vatican II will at last be debated honestly.
 
I must interject that I find this issue/thread interesting and educating. For some time I have struggled with various recent events happening in the Church – trying to piece things together. For lack of an important piece in the puzzle I wasn’t seeing the whole picture. It appears that much negativity points back to Vatican II.
 
Steve40 said:
If someone wants forgiveness and reconciliation with God how can the Pope stand in his way. The Faith does not belong to the Pope he is a steward of it. He must doe the right thing even if many will not understand. The truth in welcoming back those who want reconciliation is more important than the stupid people who would excommunicate themselves over it.
Click to expand...
In the Traditional Catholic section some one posted the response of the society here in the United States. They start off saying that they are happy, but than go on to say that they were never excommunicated in the first place. There is no sadness or remorse on there part, they still deny the defiance of there action that got them excommunicated in the first place.🤷
 
numealinesimpet said:
More than 25 years ago now, my (new) wife & I sat down with Flannery’s edition of the documents of Vatican II & a highlighter, just to find out what Vatican II actually said, so that we would know what we were being told to to accept. We were highly disconcerted, to say the least. A typical document will ramble on for pages, never once defining terms, never once quoting previous church documents (whereas the previous councils as a routine quote reams of documents from the present decades right back to the apostles) and then, usually, in the last paragraph, set down a loophole big enough to drive a horse and cart through - e.g. “But the Local Ordinary may make appropriate alternate arrangements for his special circumstances”. Sometimes, as in the Decree on Ecumenism (which never once defines ‘ecumenism’) the final paragraph actually contradicts the rest of the document. Don’t take my word for it. It’s all there in black and white. Years later, when the trouble with Mgr Lefebvre started, I took it for granted that he was just a disgruntled reactionary until I read Michael Davies’ ‘Apologia pro Marcel Lefebvre’ and other primary documents. Lefebvre was telling the simple truth all the way down the line, and the sanctions thrown at him are illegal within the church’s own framework of law. It was all an attempt at intimidation, a bluff that he called. naturally, Rome will never now just say ‘Hey! we were wrong!’ but the Vatican has actually backed itself into an untenable corner over the whole Trad issue, and the present Holy Father, to his great credit, considering how committed he is to ‘Vatican II’ (whatever that is - see above) is taking steps to rectify it. After so many decades, we have a glimmer of hope that the serious problems with Vatican II will at last be debated honestly.
Click to expand...
Good post! I heartily concur. The Libs saw that V-II was a weak set of documents and ran with the ball.
 
Polaris said:
There is no sadness or remorse on there part, they still deny the defiance of there action that got them excommunicated in the first place.
Click to expand...
Excellent point. I used to beleive that we weren’t supposed to forgive those who didn’t want forgiveness. I have since come to realize that I was wrong and that we are to reach out in forgiveness even before the other person is sorry. We have the example of our saviour who “…commended his love towards us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.”

The Vatican has said repeatedly this is an internal matter. We are not meant to know the details.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top