Pope Lifts Excommunications of SSPX Bishops

[pnewton]

In fact, “Abolishing the traditional Liturgy” is precisely what we were told (not officially by the pope, but by others) had happened - until Pope Benedict clarified it with his Motu Proprio. Come clean, now: were you told that the Old Latin Mass had been abolished? If so, did you believe it?

No, I was not told that. I have always been aware of the TLM, although I thought it was by indult. But then, there are many liturgies in the Catholic Church of which the Latin Rite is but one. Maybe Lefebvre had forgotten that when he saw an emergency that the Catholic Church did not.

I would like to point out that abolishing the Liturgy (as per Bellarmine does not equate to abolishing the Tridentine Latin Mass Liturgy. In this post, you changed the term of the previous post and inserted the word “traditional” into the list of Bellarmine.

 

[stuartsfeather]

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.

WOW! now you have hit on an original idea or wait a minute did’t Osama, Obama,OhhhMama! or somebody else say “let’s put the Big Guy’s advisors on trial” Yeah maybe you are just copy cattying. How you think that’s going to work for you?

St. Sebastian did it straight up. Stop the bum in the street and just call him what he is, then let them bring it on.

 

[Steadfast_love]

Benedict XVI has made several references to what he calls the Lefebvrist Movement. He does not impugne the SSPX. He impugnes Msgr. Lefebvre and the four bishops personally, not the Society. He has come out in defence of the priests, religious and laity in the Society.

Hope this helps clarify the pope’s understanding.

Fraternally,

JR

Thanks! That makes alot of sense. It sounds nearly identical to the Church’s stance on people like me and my wife who grew up Protestant – we were well meaning but mislead Christians.

 

[bobzills]

Indeed why should it matter if a bishop of the Catholic church is a bigot or a racist or an anti-Semite or even a criminal? Is hatred and prejudice against Jews not something the Catholic Church has taken a moral stand on? Did the formation of religious anti-Semitism have nothing to do with the Catholic Church?

It’s not like a priest holding the position of bishop actually represents or reflects on the Catholic church. It’s not like an adherent of the Catholic church would actually turn to a priest, much less a bishop, for moral guidance. It’s not like you compared the unspeakable horrible human tragedy of the Shoah to the score of a basketball game. It’s not like you claimed that an event which was witnessed by hundreds of thousands of people still alive today, whose camps with their gas chambers stand as a
eternal reminder, whose thousands of pictures and meters of film are an indelible witness, isn’t merely something about which “faithful Catholics (are) free to disagree”.

What is your op;inion of the book by Jean-Claude Pressac, called “Auschwitz: Technique and Operation of the Gas Chambers,” which claims to be a rebuttal of revisionist theories?

 

[chosen_people]

What is your op;inion of the book by Jean-Claude Pressac, called “Auschwitz: Technique and Operation of the Gas Chambers,” which claims to be a rebuttal of revisionist theories?

My whole point is as to the very fact of revisionist thinking of an act so well documented, with survivors still alive. Would someone have seriously put forward revisionist theories in May 1945, claiming that there was no Shoah, that Jews did not die in gas chambers?

Even more disturbing than the existence of revisionist theories is the motivation of those behind them. What is the basis, educationally or otherwise, for a Catholic Bishop connected with the SSPX, to suddenly call into question and formulate expert opinions on the Shoah?

The Holocaust was a unique event. Indeed groups of people have been murdered in the past due to a political or military conflict. Here there was no political conflict nor any military conflict.German Jews were loyal patriotic citizens of their country. They were highly productive citizens, doctors, lawyers, professors and scientists. They had fought in World War I and died beside their fellow Germans.

They were systematically rounded up and executed by Germany for the sole crime of being Jews. Unprovoked genocide.

The antisemite first seeks to deny the uniqueness of this genocide of the Jews. They claim every massacre in history as a ‘holocaust’. They deny that the holocaust was the systematic genocide of the Jewish people. They claim the holocaust wasn’t a final solution of the Jews but that Jews were just a part of the holocaust. A third of the Jewish people are exterminated in a final solution directed specifically against the Jews, and the antisemite says it isn’t the Jewish holocaust.

The antisemite despite every piece of evidence then goes on to belittle or deny that the Holocaust even took place. They claim that there was no decision for a final solution, that there were no concentration camps, or gas chambers or ovens and if these things did not exist then it naturally follows that six million Jews could not have been exterminated.

The antisemite then goes on to claim, whenever a Jew mentions the Holocaust, that the Jew is being manipulative, that he has made a cottage industry from the Holocaust, that the Jew has actually gained from the Holocaust, that the Jew should be ashamed, that the Jew should just shut up about the Holocaust, after all other people have died.

The antisemite denies the existence of the Holocaust and then yells at the Jews “back to the ovens”.

The antisemite justifies the Holocaust and his own attitudes against the Jews by claiming, falsely, that the Jews and Judaism have similar attitudes toward non Jews.

The antisemite says he can’t be antisemitic because Jews aren’t the only Semites.

The antisemite says the Jew can’t discuss the causes and attitudes that led to the Holocaust, the indifference and the actions that aided the Holocaust, because the Jew is just attacking and "bashing’ the other side.

Worst of all the antisemite is no longer in hiding, he no longer fears to raise his voice

 

[bobzills]

My whole point is as to the very fact of revisionist thinking of an act so well documented, with survivors still alive. Would someone have seriously put forward revisionist theories in May 1945, claiming that there was no Shoah, that Jews did not die in gas chambers?

Even more disturbing than the existence of revisionist theories is the motivation of those behind them. What is the basis, educationally or otherwise, for a Catholic Bishop connected with the SSPX, to suddenly call into question and formulate expert opinions on the Shoah?

The Holocaust was a unique event. Indeed groups of people have been murdered in the past due to a political or military conflict. Here there was no political conflict nor any military conflict.German Jews were loyal patriotic citizens of their country. They were highly productive citizens, doctors, lawyers, professors and scientists. They had fought in World War I and died beside their fellow Germans.

They were systematically rounded up and executed by Germany for the sole crime of being Jews. Unprovoked genocide.

The antisemite first seeks to deny the uniqueness of this genocide of the Jews. They claim every massacre in history as a ‘holocaust’. They deny that the holocaust was the systematic genocide of the Jewish people. They claim the holocaust wasn’t a final solution of the Jews but that Jews were just a part of the holocaust. A third of the Jewish people are exterminated in a final solution directed specifically against the Jews, and the antisemite says it isn’t the Jewish holocaust.

The antisemite despite every piece of evidence then goes on to belittle or deny that the Holocaust even took place. They claim that there was no decision for a final solution, that there were no concentration camps, or gas chambers or ovens and if these things did not exist then it naturally follows that six million Jews could not have been exterminated.

The antisemite then goes on to claim, whenever a Jew mentions the Holocaust, that the Jew is being manipulative, that he has made a cottage industry from the Holocaust, that the Jew has actually gained from the Holocaust, that the Jew should be ashamed, that the Jew should just shut up about the Holocaust, after all other people have died.

The antisemite denies the existence of the Holocaust and then yells at the Jews “back to the ovens”.

The antisemite justifies the Holocaust and his own attitudes against the Jews by claiming, falsely, that the Jews and Judaism have similar attitudes toward non Jews.

The antisemite says he can’t be antisemitic because Jews aren’t the only Semites.

The antisemite says the Jew can’t discuss the causes and attitudes that led to the Holocaust, the indifference and the actions that aided the Holocaust, because the Jew is just attacking and "bashing’ the other side.

Worst of all the antisemite is no longer in hiding, he no longer fears to raise his voice

But do you have an opinion on the book by Jean-Claude Pressac, called “Auschwitz: Technique and Operation of the Gas Chambers,” which claims to be a rebuttal of revisionist theories?

 

[numealinesimpet]

No, I was not told that. I have always been aware of the TLM, although I thought it was by indult. But then, there are many liturgies in the Catholic Church of which the Latin Rite is but one. Maybe Lefebvre had forgotten that when he saw an emergency that the Catholic Church did not.

I would like to point out that abolishing the Liturgy (as per Bellarmine) does not equate to abolishing the Tridentine Latin Mass Liturgy. In this post, you changed the term of the previous post and inserted the word “traditional” into the list of Bellarmine.

No, I was not told that. I have always been aware of the TLM, although I thought it was by indult.

You were one of the lucky ones, then. Before the indults, the 1984 one and Ecclesia Dei in 1988, it was ‘common knowledge’ in the parishes that the Old Latin Mass had been abolished. There were many up until very recently who still maintained that this was the case, having been told it by authority they trusted.

But then, there are many liturgies in the Catholic Church of which the Latin Rite is but one. Maybe Lefebvre had forgotten that when he saw an emergency that the Catholic Church did not.

No, he had not forgotten that. In one decade, more priests and religious had abandoned their vocations, both in raw figures and by percentage, than in the entire previous history of the Church, including the Protestant Rebellion. We have had clown Masses, nuns dancing as witches round the maypole, a torrent of homosexual and paedophile priests, an archbishop involved in satanism, invalid eucharists for a decade in a major arch diocese, known to the Vatican but nothing done, the infamous Baseball confirmation of Phoenix (which I think I posted on this thread before)…all of these abuses and hideous sacrileges went uncorrected. The one and only thing that received immediate sanction was an attempt to maintain the immemorial spiritual life of the Church.
I have nothing to say to those who do not see that the Church has been in an emergency situation in the 70s & onward, except that these will naturally not agree that Mgr Lefebvre was objectively justified in invoking the emergency clauses.

I would like to point out that abolishing the Liturgy (as per Bellarmine) does not equate to abolishing the Tridentine Latin Mass Liturgy.In this post, you changed the term of the previous post and inserted the word “traditional” into the list of Bellarmine.

Quite so, and I did not make the claim that these two were identical. Nor do I hold that the pope could, or should, have been deposed for this. The problem has been much more devious than a simple and straightforward declaration that the TLM (or any Liturgy) has been formally abolished. As for the Old Roman Rite (or its 1570 revision, the Tridentine Liturgy) the Vatican in the 70s characteristically tried to have it both ways. Those who lived through these decades will remember. One moment we were told that the 1969 Missal was just one in a long series of revisions, and therefore, what was all the fuss about? (answer: See the Ottaviani intervention) … the next, we were told that this was a whole new ecclesiology, a new direction, a break with the past. I pointed this out to our parish priest at the time, a Jesuit, and remined him that they cannot have it both ways. Although he fully promoted the Novus Ordo, he had no reply to this.

I followed ‘The Changes’ as they were called, ‘faithfully’ for 13 years. I logged it in my memory the day they went too far. Nothing was ever done straightforwardly, but always by some devious, not-quite-licit means. In the end I could find no credibility in them. The de facto (but not de jure) abolition of the Tridentine Rite was a case in point.

 

[numealinesimpet]

It has been asserted that the pope has the power to set aside particular precepts of Canon Law at his discretion. This is true. Ideally he would do this via Motu proprio, but things can be done quietly as well.
The difficulty with trying to apply this to the case of Mgr Lefebvre & the SSPX is that nothing ever was done by the Pope personally. Documents were issued by underlings, of which the legality was always highly questionable, if not completely untenable. The only exceptions I know of are Pope Benedict’s Motu Proprio abolishing the previous restrictions on the TLM & the decree lifting the excommunications of the four SSPX bishops. Look carefully at these documents. They are signed, and it is made explicit on whose authority, and by what document, the action was being taken. S. Robert Bellarmine wrote, ‘Let the legislator speak clearly if he wishes to be obeyed’. Now look at the various procedures and documents pertaining to the SSPX previously. The Decree of Excommunication of Lefebvre et al. by Cdl Gantin was via an article in a newspaper - l”Osservatore Romano. It was without a protocol number, which means it was not a legal document.
At no time did the Pope intervene and declare that he was not going to hear an appeal, nor did he state that he had decided to set aside canons 1321-4. The invalid decree was allowed to stand. No mention was made of the exculpatory canons; or else the presumption was made that there is no emergency in the Church. For decades, instead of tackling the real issues, the Vatican insisted on treating it as either a simple case of random disobedience, or that the trads are acting solely out of nostalgia. Naturally, no progress was made. The more the Vatican took this line, the more the trads were confirmed in their conviction that the Vatican was blind to the reality of the crisis in the church. Furthermore, the patent irregularities in the procedures against the SSPX diminshed their credibility, and only encouraged the trads in their belief that their stand was just.
Thank God for Pope Benedict, who has now moved firmly, on his own initiative, and not through a shadowy crowd of underlings. The doctrinal discussions on the real message of Vatican II, including the hard questions, will now, thanks to Pope Benedict, and after 45 years, be allowed to take place.

 

[numealinesimpet]

There has been too much imputing of motives and identification of personal vices in this debate over the past decades, despite Our Lord’s injunctions to the contrary. In the 50s & early 60s I lived for a while in a Neighbouring Country, English-speaking with a small Catholic minority. Catholics were regularly castigated for pride and arrogance when they insisted they were the One True Church. In vain did the Catholics reply that they were making an assertion of fact, not simply indulging in pride and arrogance. Naturally, the opponents had never even heard the Catholic side, let alone judged it fairly. Yet there was a steady flow into the Church of those who were impressed, who studied, and were converted. The number was climbing year by year. Along came Vatican II and the Catholics suddenly allowed themselves to be cowed by these tactics. The result? Plummeting conversions. The statistics are in the public forum.
Now I find the same charge being levelled against the trads, and Mgr Lefebvre and the SSPX in particular. In the Ireland of the 80s & 90s, it was the very same atmosphere, but this time, from mainstream Catholics against the trads (if I may be allowed the labels for the sake of argument). Déja vu.
In fairness, the opposite charge is often levelled, of cowardice or even deliberate intent to destroy, against those who have ‘gone along with the changes’ – even the most disastrous. Neither charge is fair. The present crisis is unprecedented – even granted that every century throws up a different Cross for the Mystical Body to shoulder. The arguments pro and con are plausible enough that it ill behooves any of us to impute malice, pride, or cowardice to those whose judgment has differed from our own. Yet our eternal destiny might hinge on our decision. Those who are in either camp for the wrong reasons will be judged severely by Our Lord. The trad viewpoint was excluded from the public forurm until the advent of the internet. Now at least it is no longer possible to plead ignorance. Meanwhile, dwelling on personal characteristics is a red herring.

 

[numealinesimpet]

Originally Posted by chosen people
Indeed why should it matter if a bishop of the Catholic church is a bigot or a racist or an anti-Semite or even a criminal? Is hatred and prejudice against Jews not something the Catholic Church has taken a moral stand on? Did the formation of religious anti-Semitism have nothing to do with the Catholic Church?

We did discuss, some months ago, the need to define ‘anti-semitism’ before throwing it around as a boo-word. Bp Williamson was imprudent, but by the definition posted on this forum he was not being ‘anti-semitic’.
St Paul warns in his Epistle that those who do not love the truth will be allowed by God to be deluded by snares of the devil.

 

[chosen_people]

We did discuss, some months ago, the need to define ‘anti-semitism’ before throwing it around as a boo-word. Bp Williamson was imprudent, but by the definition posted on this forum he was not being ‘anti-semitic’.
St Paul warns in his Epistle that those who do not love the truth will be allowed by God to be deluded by snares of the devil.

Indeed Bishop Williamson’s extensive interest in the Shoah, the denial of its existence in the past, the denial of ways in which the mass murder of Jews were carried out in gas chambers and the denial of the genocide of one half of European Jewry is apparently, according to you, not connected with his anti-Semitism but rather part of his duties with the SSPX or perhaps part of his advanced educational studies?

Now since were on the subject of the SSPX and your problem with the definition of anti-Semitism you might want to read Fr. Denis Fahey on Jewish naturalism. He too claimed not to be an anti-Semite and wished to redefine anti-Semitism. Then there’s Surgenis who claims not only that he is not an anti-Semite but that the Jews are the true anti-Semites because they killed Jesus and he was a Jew. Indeed anti-Semites, like the ones denying or trying to belittle the genocide of the Jews, are the only ones who don’t know or understand the meaning of anti-Semitism. They claim they are not anti-Jewish, merely seeking the truth or telling it like it is. To their way of thinking it’s not anti-Semitic to claim the Jews control everything since they actually do control everything. It’s not anti-Semitic to deny or belittle the extent of the Shoah - just trying to “examine the truth”. What they mean is that they are just trying to change the truth - just being their usual anti-Semitic selves when it comes to things concerning Jews. Too bad for them that every decent human being does not suffer from their problem of defining anti-Semitism.

What is truly abhorrent is that a person with the ideas of Williamson is to your way of thinking merely “imprudent” - apparently being a hateful person doesn’t make you a bad person as long as its about Jews. Oh wait - that’s anti-Semitism.

 

[numealinesimpet]

Thanks! That makes a lot of sense. It sounds nearly identical to the Church’s stance on people like me and my wife who grew up Protestant – we were well meaning but mislead Christians.

May I comment, ‘without prejudice’ to the specific case of Mgr Lefebvre?

Yes, the Church is our Mother. The decree of excommunication of the SSPX prelates never was directed at the laypeople, but at the bishops. Even granted we dispute whether the excommunications were tenable in the first place, the Pope through the Catholic Church does not excommunicate en masse. Each individual must be tried separately, given a chance to repent, then if pertinacity is proven, the decree can be issued - to that individual. This is not the common perception among those who have confidently stated that ‘those who attend the SSPX services are excommunicated’. As was pointed out, ‘excommunication is not a communicable disease’.

This was a live issue in Ireland, where such things are taken seriously. I never once heard a diocesan clergyman attempt to correct this error. Pope Benedict rescided the excommunications of the living bishops, not of the laypeople, because they were never excommunicated in the first place.

 

[numealinesimpet]

Indeed Bishop Williamson’s extensive interest in the Shoah, the denial of its existence in the past, the denial of ways in which the mass murder of Jews were carried out in gas chambers and the denial of the genocide of one half of European Jewry is apparently, according to you, not connected with his anti-Semitism but rather part of his duties with the SSPX or perhaps part of his advanced educational studies?

He said in his interview that he believed his sources were of integrity, and if they changed their viewpoint, he would follow their lead.

Now since were on the subject of the SSPX and your problem with the definition of anti-Semitism

I have no problem whatever with the definition that was put forward by another member of the forum. My problem was with those who refuse to say what they mean, then continue to throw words around. The ultimate problem with that is that they undercut their own position. Words lose their sting if they are used without content. I asked you for a definition & you refused to give one. Fine.

you might want to read Fr. Denis Fahey on Jewish naturalism. He too claimed not to be an anti-Semite and wished to redefine anti-Semitism. Then there’s Surgenis who claims not only that he is not an anti-Semite but that the Jews are the true anti-Semites because they killed Jesus and he was a Jew. Indeed anti-Semites, like the ones denying or trying to belittle the genocide of the Jews, are the only ones who don’t know or understand the meaning of anti-Semitism. They claim they are not anti-Jewish, merely seeking the truth or telling it like it is. To their way of thinking it’s not anti-Semitic to claim the Jews control everything since they actually do control everything. It’s not anti-Semitic to deny or belittle the extent of the Shoah - just trying to “examine the truth”. What they mean is that they are just trying to change the truth - just being their usual anti-Semitic selves when it comes to things concerning Jews. Too bad for them that every decent human being does not suffer from their problem of defining anti-Semitism.

What is truly abhorrent is that a person with the ideas of Williamson is to your way of thinking merely “imprudent” - apparently being a hateful person doesn’t make you a bad person as long as its about Jews. Oh wait - that’s anti-Semitism.

This attempted emotional blackmail may impress some, but it doesn’t impress me. When the Messiah came on the Earth He warned us against judging the heart of another. We are not allowed to hate individuals. I personally am open to being instructed about the history of World War II - which was much more of a spiritual conflict than the school textbooks will let on. I am not interested in assertions about ‘the secret thoughts of many hearts’ based on presuppositions such as you offer in this posting.

 

[pnewton]

I have nothing to say to those who do not see that the Church has been in an emergency situation in the 70s & onward, except that these will naturally not agree that Mgr Lefebvre was objectively justified in invoking the emergency clauses.

That is/was most of Catholicism, including the late John Paul II, whose opinion was the singularly and objectively most important. I think in light of his first-hand knowledge of evil he had a better historical perspective on what was and was not an emergency. At least the Holy Spirit did not ever lead some one like Lefebvre in charge of His Church. A panicky, Chicken Little would not make a good leader.

 

[bobzills]

Indeed Bishop Williamson’s extensive interest in the Shoah, the denial of its existence in the past, the denial of ways in which the mass murder of Jews were carried out in gas chambers and the denial of the genocide of one half of European Jewry is apparently, according to you, not connected with his anti-Semitism but rather part of his duties with the SSPX or perhaps part of his advanced educational studies?

Now since were on the subject of the SSPX and your problem with the definition of anti-Semitism you might want to read Fr. Denis Fahey on Jewish naturalism. He too claimed not to be an anti-Semite and wished to redefine anti-Semitism. Then there’s Surgenis who claims not only that he is not an anti-Semite but that the Jews are the true anti-Semites because they killed Jesus and he was a Jew. Indeed anti-Semites, like the ones denying or trying to belittle the genocide of the Jews, are the only ones who don’t know or understand the meaning of anti-Semitism. They claim they are not anti-Jewish, merely seeking the truth or telling it like it is. To their way of thinking it’s not anti-Semitic to claim the Jews control everything since they actually do control everything. It’s not anti-Semitic to deny or belittle the extent of the Shoah - just trying to “examine the truth”. What they mean is that they are just trying to change the truth - just being their usual anti-Semitic selves when it comes to things concerning Jews. Too bad for them that every decent human being does not suffer from their problem of defining anti-Semitism.

What is truly abhorrent is that a person with the ideas of Williamson is to your way of thinking merely “imprudent” - apparently being a hateful person doesn’t make you a bad person as long as its about Jews. Oh wait - that’s anti-Semitism.

I believe that you may be overreacting here :

1. It does not make you an anti-semite if you are interested in what happened in the camps during WWII… For example, would you call Jean-Claude Pressac an anti-semite? On the basis of the original historical evidence which he had read, he denied the existence of the gas chambers and “attempted to disprove what he considered historically inaccurate depictions of the concentration camps Auschwitz and Birkenau as extermination camps. Upon visiting Auschwitz, however, Pressac was able to view first-hand the extensive archive of construction documents which had survived due to being located in the construction office rather than the administrative offices. These convinced him that his former views were in error, an event he describes in the postface of Auschwitz: Technique and operation of the gas chambers, saying that he “nearly did away with myself one evening in October 1979 in the main camp, the Stammlager, overwhelmed by the evidence and by despair”” en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Claude_Pressac
   The first evidence that he had looked at convinced him that there were no gas chambers. I suppose that you would have said that he was an anit-semite then? But if so, why then did he go to the trouble of investigating further and writing a scholarly book on the techniques and operations of the gas chambers?
2. Catholics believe that their religion is the true religion, and of course Jews believe that theirs is the right one. Do you consider it to be anti-semitism for a Catholic to say that he thinks that the Jews are wrong? It is not anti-Catholicism for a Jew to say that he does not think that Jesus was the Messiah.

 

[numealinesimpet]

That is/was most of Catholicism, including the late John Paul II, whose opinion was the singularly and objectively most important. I think in light of his first-hand knowledge of evil he had a better historical perspective on what was and was not an emergency. At least the Holy Spirit did not ever lead some one like Lefebvre in charge of His Church. A panicky, Chicken Little would not make a good leader.

See my previous thread on gratuitous imputation of motives, pnewton. Also, that if anyone can contemplate the wreckage of the past decades and still deny that this is an emergency, I have nothing to say to them. But for other readers of this thread, note the following:–

Consider this:–
When you sign up for a
traditional rite confirmation you know exactly what you are getting. When
you sign up for a NO celebration you literally don’t know what to expect.

I received the following information from more than one source, some of
which applauded, in a diocesan magazine (I think it was Washington State) ,
the actions of the Bp of Phoenix, Arizona:

In June 1998 the bishop in Phoenix, Arizona had all of that year’s
candidates for confirmation come to the new baseball stadium and all be
confirmed on the same day. He gave every priest in the diocese faculties to
confirm during the “service.” He invited all attendees (including a special
invitation to non-Catholics) to come to the ballpark wearing red shirts for
the Holy Spirit. They then sang some stupid song to the Holy Spirit to the
tune of “Take me out to the Ballpark,” an American folksong sung by Barney
the dinosaur to name one advocate of the song. During the Mass, many people
were seen eating hot dogs and popcorn. The candidates for confirmation
poured out of the bleacher seats to any priest anywhere and were confirmed.
How could anyone know who was eligible for confirmation or to receive the
Eucharist?

After the “event,” two boxes arrived at the rectory of a local church to a
truly devout priest. A delivery man plopped the boxes on the counter and
said, “These are for you. They are the consecrated hosts that weren’t used
at the ballpark.” He opened the boxes and to his horror he found two large
food service containers, generally used to hold about 10 gallons of ice
cream, filled with consecrated hosts. The second box didn’t even have
these. It was lined with butcher paper and thousands of consecrated hosts
were tossed into the box. He immediately took the boxes to the sacristy and
started to reserve the Blessed Sacrament in every ciborium and chalice he
could find. He then scoured each container and box for Crumbs to consume.
He counted 5000 hosts.

It continues. The associate pastor decided that it wouldn’t be “proper” to
store the hosts for too long, yet the parish could never distribute 5000.
What to do? Without telling the other priest, he began to fill the
ciboriums that were being used in the offertory procession of the
succeeding Novus Ordo Masses with already consecrated hosts. So during the
next Mass the priest was consecrating previously consecrated hosts! This in
itself is a material sacrilege.

How did this bishop over-consecrate 5000 hosts? Or was it more? Did
another parish receive a similar shipment? Who can imagine a more blatant
or public statement that this bishop and whoever is under him does not
believe in the Real Presence. He may speak the orthodox line when his back
is to the wall, but in practice he preaches heresy. Catholics in his
diocese are released from any obligation to obey him as these are most
certainly, as canon law demands, times of crisis.

numealinesimpetar: To my knowledge the bishop was never disciplined or even publicly admonished for this circus.

So, the faithful in Arizona have two choices. They can take their child to
the SSPX chapel where he will be confirmed according to the rites of the
Catholic Church, specifically and infallibly ‘canonised’ at the Council of
Trent and by Pope s. Pius V in perpetuity. Or they can take them to the
Ballpark.​

What would you have done that June 1998?

 

[pnewton]

So, the faithful in Arizona have two choices.

The correct tense is they *had *two choices. Without a doubt, I would not remained a loyal son of the Church and not flirted with an organization led by excommunicated bishops conducting an illicit confirmation. There was also a third choice. One could have waited another year and stayed clear to the ballpark and still remained faithful to the Church.

 

[JReducation]

See my previous thread on gratuitous imputation of motives, pnewton. Also, that if anyone can contemplate the wreckage of the past decades and still deny that this is an emergency, I have nothing to say to them. But for other readers of this thread, note the following:–

Consider this:–
When you sign up for a
traditional rite confirmation you know exactly what you are getting. When
you sign up for a NO celebration you literally don’t know what to expect.

I received the following information from more than one source, some of
which applauded, in a diocesan magazine (I think it was Washington State) ,
the actions of the Bp of Phoenix, Arizona:

In June 1998 the bishop in Phoenix, Arizona had all of that year’s
candidates for confirmation come to the new baseball stadium and all be
confirmed on the same day. He gave every priest in the diocese faculties to
confirm during the “service.” He invited all attendees (including a special
invitation to non-Catholics) to come to the ballpark wearing red shirts for
the Holy Spirit. They then sang some stupid song to the Holy Spirit to the
tune of “Take me out to the Ballpark,” an American folksong sung by Barney
the dinosaur to name one advocate of the song. During the Mass, many people
were seen eating hot dogs and popcorn. The candidates for confirmation
poured out of the bleacher seats to any priest anywhere and were confirmed.
How could anyone know who was eligible for confirmation or to receive the
Eucharist?

After the “event,” two boxes arrived at the rectory of a local church to a
truly devout priest. A delivery man plopped the boxes on the counter and
said, “These are for you. They are the consecrated hosts that weren’t used
at the ballpark.” He opened the boxes and to his horror he found two large
food service containers, generally used to hold about 10 gallons of ice
cream, filled with consecrated hosts. The second box didn’t even have
these. It was lined with butcher paper and thousands of consecrated hosts
were tossed into the box. He immediately took the boxes to the sacristy and
started to reserve the Blessed Sacrament in every ciborium and chalice he
could find. He then scoured each container and box for Crumbs to consume.
He counted 5000 hosts.

It continues. The associate pastor decided that it wouldn’t be “proper” to
store the hosts for too long, yet the parish could never distribute 5000.
What to do? Without telling the other priest, he began to fill the
ciboriums that were being used in the offertory procession of the
succeeding Novus Ordo Masses with already consecrated hosts. So during the
next Mass the priest was consecrating previously consecrated hosts! This in
itself is a material sacrilege.

How did this bishop over-consecrate 5000 hosts? Or was it more? Did
another parish receive a similar shipment? Who can imagine a more blatant
or public statement that this bishop and whoever is under him does not
believe in the Real Presence. He may speak the orthodox line when his back
is to the wall, but in practice he preaches heresy. Catholics in his
diocese are released from any obligation to obey him as these are most
certainly, as canon law demands, times of crisis.

numealinesimpetar: To my knowledge the bishop was never disciplined or even publicly admonished for this circus.

The issue in this story is the consecrated hosts. Where is the problem with the confirmation?

The bishop can authorize any priest to confirm. I guess you have never lived in a mission country. Priests confirm all the time.

At the Easter Vigil, it is the main celebrant who confirms, not the bishop.

The only question that I see here about the confirmation is whether or not the candidates were ready for confirmation; however, that does not make the sacrament illicit or invalid. The readiness has to do with the catechesis and whether the candidate is baptized. You don’t even have to have received first communion before you’re confirmed. This is a practice in the Latin Rite, not a universal practice of the Church. In the Eastern Rite you are baptized and confirmed as an infant and in some rites you receive first communion as an infant as well. It all takes place in one liturgy celebrated by the pastor.

There is not dogma being violated int he report that you have posted. What was violated was the Eucharist, not the Confirmation.

As you well know, the SSPX bishops still do not have episcopal faculties. Therefore, they should not be celebrating any sacrament. The SSPX priests are still suspended. They should not be celebrating any sacrament or preaching either.

Where is the so called obedience or submmission to the Church?

By the way, excommunication does nott mean that one is punished because one is stubborn after being reprimanded. It means that one has committed an act that has placed one outside of the physical Church. The lifting of the excommunication is as Pope Benedict said in his letter, “an act of compassion on the part of the Pope.” Or are you denying the validity of Pope Benedict’s words when he says that he lifted the excommunication out of compassion? Are you calling him a liar?

Fraternally,

JR

 

[bobzills]

The issue in this story is the consecrated hosts. Where is the problem with the confirmation?

The bishop can authorize any priest to confirm. I guess you have never lived in a mission country. Priests confirm all the time.

At the Easter Vigil, it is the main celebrant who confirms, not the bishop.

The only question that I see here about the confirmation is whether or not the candidates were ready for confirmation; however, that does not make the sacrament illicit or invalid. The readiness has to do with the catechesis and whether the candidate is baptized. You don’t even have to have received first communion before you’re confirmed. This is a practice in the Latin Rite, not a universal practice of the Church. In the Eastern Rite you are baptized and confirmed as an infant and in some rites you receive first communion as an infant as well. It all takes place in one liturgy celebrated by the pastor.

There is not dogma being violated int he report that you have posted. What was violated was the Eucharist, not the Confirmation.

As you well know, the SSPX bishops still do not have episcopal faculties. Therefore, they should not be celebrating any sacrament. The SSPX priests are still suspended. They should not be celebrating any sacrament or preaching either.

Where is the so called obedience or submmission to the Church?

By the way, excommunication does nott mean that one is punished because one is stubborn after being reprimanded. It means that one has committed an act that has placed one outside of the physical Church. The lifting of the excommunication is as Pope Benedict said in his letter, “an act of compassion on the part of the Pope.” Or are you denying the validity of Pope Benedict’s words when he says that he lifted the excommunication out of compassion? Are you calling him a liar?

Fraternally,

JR

Your argument is ridiculous. The SSPX does not accept the validity of the excommunications, but does appreaciate the efforts of the present Pope to restore the unity in the Church. This has nothing to do with name calling. Your argument is not proven by questioning whether the other side is name calling when it is not.

 

[pnewton]

Your argument is ridiculous.

That is a matter of opinion, or more accurately, insult.

The SSPX’s opinion of the excommunications is not relevant to their objective canonical status. Their continual resistance to abide by Church law and continue with illicit, and in some cases invalid, Sacraments says a lot about where they still stand. They may say they support the Pope, but words are cheap, actions more revealing.