J
JoeBowen7
Guest
Where did Bishop Williamson say that Bishop Fellay was a “traitor”?
- Status
I
iloveangels
Guest
The Franciscan seminary? In Miami?Our own. Religious don’t usually send their theology students to diocesan seminaries. It confuses the students. It’s better to keep them apart. Because diocesan seminaries are controlled by the bishops. The program of studies and the environment is tailored to meet the needs of the dioceses. We want our men to fit into their religious communities.
Once upon a time I taught at the WTC, when I was in Washington. It’s a theologate for religious. Now it’s closing. I then went to teach for the Archdiocese of Guayaquil. Now I teach our own. I no longer have the health to carry a full load of classes at a big school. I doubt that I’ll be around to see the incoming students graduate.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
D
Dee_S
Guest
Bishop Williamson and others who resist what Bishop Fellay is trying to achieve, i.e. the regularization that will bring the SSPX back into full communion with the Church - are publicly maligning Bishop Fellay and are treating him as “a traitor to the cause”. Here are some links to videos on youtube:
“Bishop Fellay and his gang…good riddance to bad rubbish” says Bishop Williamson
youtube.com/watch?v=BIWQLT2URYQ&feature=relmfu
“Bishop Fellay is starting to weasel around” Bishop Williamson accuses Bishop Fellay of “weaselling around” on Religious Liberty
youtube.com/watch?v=ZT03TZeqkiY&feature=relmfu
“Get Rid of Bishop Fellay” Bishop Williamson calls for Bishop Fellay to be deposed at the General Chapter.
youtube.com/watch?v=zK7XAw0yQIU&feature=relmfu
J
JoeBowen7
Guest
Where did Bishop Williamson use the word “traitor”?
B
ByzCathCantor
Guest
That term has been applied to him by many in the blogosphere, but likely cannot be attributed to any verified, public statement of Bishop Williamson. That said, it’s “just a dream” of his that Bishop Fellay be removed from office.
D
Dee_S
Guest
Yes, that is so. Sorry, I’ll be more careful how I phrase things in the future. I would not like to give the wrong impression or not have my facts right. Here is what I said in my earlier post.
“He is of course being criticized severely by Bishop Williamson as being a traitor to the cause etc.”
Bishop Williamson is doing the SSPX a good deal of harm by his rebellious and disobedient behaviour.(This I can say, because Bishop Fellay has said it of him)
“The news of the exclusion of Bishop Williamson by the SSPX Superior General, Bishop Bernard Fellay, “due to his stand calling to rebellion and for continually repeated disobedience,” was first confirmed by another leaked letter sent by the General Secretary of the SSPX, Father Thouvenot, on June 25, 2012,… The ruling was questioned by Williamson himself, who appealed to the Chapter, whose members subsequently voted, in a secret ballot, to uphold the measure adopted by the Superior General.”
catholictruthscotland.com/blog/2012/07/sspx-general-chapter-major-changes-ahead/
I
Iotaunum
Guest
I have that book - it is very good. It does not claim however what you said it did; that communion was given in the hand for the first 400 years in the Church.
Dee S;9595009 said:
Well we “traditionalists” have problems with communion in the hand and tend to take St Thomas’ position on the matter. However, I was not adressing whether or not a Pope could permit this or whether the practice was in fact permitted, but I was merley refuting the notion, as I said before, that communion in the hand was widspread and in fact the status quo of the first 400 years while communion in on the tongue was a later development.
Yes, I know the quotes you are referring to and I have read others. This does not affect what I said before however. As well as Fortescue there are lots of other books one can consult. No one is denying that communion in the hand happened, but just that it was not the “norm” and that it certainly was not practiced the same way as it is now. Many more Church fathers could be cited for communion on the tongue than in the hand, and yet if read in context the communion in the hand, as I said beofre, was under different circumstances. Also, you mention that this is of concern to traditional Catholics - well yes, but equally concerning, speaking as a “traditionalist”, is the use of lay ministers to distribute it - something unknown in the early Church.
I have read many books on the Roman rite including Fortesue’s. My point was to refute the idea, as I said before, that somehow communion on the tongue was a later development and that communion in the hand was the norm. The writings of the Church fathers show otherwise.
J
JoeBowen7
Guest
There is an example where a poster here said that Bishop Fellay was being criticized severely by Bishop Williamson as being a traitor to the cause. I don’t see any direct quote from Bishop Williamson using the word traitor and applying it to Bishop Fellay.What ‘things’ were quoted out of context]
J
JReducation
Guest
The seminary in Miami belongs to the Archdiocese. I think that you may be thinking of St. John Vianney. That’s the diocesan minor seminary. We’re not in Miami. Even if we were, Miami does not have a house for the formation of religious men. Each community forms its own men.
The Oblates of Mary Immaculate (OMI) and ourselves were the only ones that had a theologate in Miami. I think that the OMIs now send their men to the Midwest. I could be mistaken on that. The other religious here send their men to their own houses of formation or to the universities. We do both. We send our guys to the university to get the degree and we complete their theology at our house of formation, because the university does not offer courses in Franciscan theology, Franciscan spirituality, Franciscan liturgy, Franciscan law, Franciscan Doctors, Franciscan history, Franciscan approach to the scriptures, Franciscan methods in pastoral care, St. Francis, St. Clare, St. Maximilian, St. Bonaventure or the EF. What we do is to have scholars come through and teach those at different times.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
I
iloveangels
Guest
According to the website and our previous conversations, it looks like the Brothers of Life are a private association of the faithful, known about by the local diocese, but not yet a public association of the faithful. Right?The seminary in Miami belongs to the Archdiocese. I think that you may be thinking of St. John Vianney. That’s the diocesan minor seminary. We’re not in Miami. Even if we were, Miami does not have a house for the formation of religious men. Each community forms its own men.
The Oblates of Mary Immaculate (OMI) and ourselves were the only ones that had a theologate in Miami. I think that the OMIs now send their men to the Midwest. I could be mistaken on that. The other religious here send their men to their own houses of formation or to the universities. We do both. We send our guys to the university to get the degree and we complete their theology at our house of formation, because the university does not offer courses in Franciscan theology, Franciscan spirituality, Franciscan liturgy, Franciscan law, Franciscan Doctors, Franciscan history, Franciscan approach to the scriptures, Franciscan methods in pastoral care, St. Francis, St. Clare, St. Maximilian, St. Bonaventure or the EF. What we do is to have scholars come through and teach those at different times.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
Edited to take out location.
M
Mrs_Sally
Guest
Perhaps you should take these sorts of questions to a PM. Curiosity may be OK with Br JR (or may not be), but it isn’t very polite to question people about their location in a public forum.
I
iloveangels
Guest
Okay, sorry, Mrs. Sally. I edited the location out.
D
Dee_S
Guest
I AM THE POSTER. PLEASE TAKE A LOOK AT MY ACTUAL WORDS AND YOU WILL SEE THAT I HAVE NOT MADE ANY DIRECT QUOTE FROM ANYWHERE.
"Take a look at this recent interview with Bishop Fellay where he admits that the SSPX are seeing the Council Document on Religious Liberty (Dignitatis Humanae) with a different understanding to that which was previously held.
youtube.com/watch?v=DdnJigNzTuY
“He is of course being criticized severely by Bishop Williamson as being a traitor to the cause etc.”
Bishop Williamson and others who resist what Bishop Fellay is trying to achieve, i.e. the regularization that will bring the SSPX back into full communion with the Church - are publicly maligning Bishop Fellay and are treating him as “a traitor to the cause”. Here are some links to videos on youtube:
“Bishop Fellay and his gang…good riddance to bad rubbish” says Bishop Williamson
youtube.com/watch?v=BIWQL…feature=relmfu
“Bishop Fellay is starting to weasel around” Bishop Williamson accuses Bishop Fellay of “weaselling around” on Religious Liberty
youtube.com/watch?v=ZT03T…feature=relmfu
“Get Rid of Bishop Fellay” Bishop Williamson calls for Bishop Fellay to be deposed at the General Chapter.
youtube.com/watch?v=zK7XA…feature=relmfu
A question of my own here - Why the semantics? if one can even call it that.
It would be best in future to politely ask for clarification, should my grammar prove an obstacle.
J
JReducation
Guest
That’s right. We’re in the Archdiocese, but not in Miami or anywhere near St. John Vianney, if that’s what you mean. We have the bishop’s blessing to exercise our ministry freely, to form our own men, to form our own communities, to receive men to formation and profession and to work in diocesan ministries as well as our own. We have every freedom that any other institute has, except that we do not leave the diocesan boundaries. Our canonical status is like that of the Franciscan Missionaries of the Eternal Word, except that they became a public association not long ago. I can’t recall the year. The next step is to become a diocesan congregation, which can take years, then a pontifical institute, another few years.
I’m not sure where you’re going with this. Do you feel a vocation to this way of life? I’d be happy to tell you more, if you’re interested in our community. There is also an older thread about us when were were given our autonomy. I don’t know where that is, but’s it’s someplace on CAF.
Just one question, are you male? We don’t have a female counterpart. I don’t see us having one either, because there are the Sisters of Life who do similar ministry, but they are more Augustinian in their spirituality.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
D
Dee_S
Guest
Sorry, but yes it does. He refers to it in several instances throughout the book and it was in practice for more than 400 years, closer to 700 years, so my memory was a bit faulty there I admit. I am re-quoting here for the information of other members on this thread.
"4. The Communion Act
…There are many witnesses that the Host was put in the hand of the Communicant.(1)
Women had to cover their hand with a white cloth.(2)
It seems that as early as the time of St Gregory I (590-604) it was sometimes put into the mouth, as now.(3)
For some time both ways must have gone on side by side. St Bede (d.735) mentions reception in the hand, (4)
the VIth Roman Ordo (IXth cent.) describes our way.(5)
Card. Bona thinks that the use of very thin altar bread had to do with the beginning of our manner of administration.(6)
(1)Tertullian de Idolol. 7 (P.L.i,669); St. Cyprian: de lapsis, 26 (P.L.IV,486); St. Augustine: Ctra ep. Parmen. ii,7,13 (P.L. xliii,58)
(2) Aug. Appendix, Sermo ccxxix,5 (P.L. xxxix,2168): the sermon is probably by St. Maaximus of Turin (V cent.). Council of Auxerre in 585 or 578, can. 36 (Hefele-Leclercq: Hist. de Conciles, iii, 220); can. 42 (ib.) call thi cloth the dominicale. See Corblet: *Hist…du Sacrement de l’Eucharistie *(Paris, 1885), ii, pp. 183-185.
(3) S. Greg: Dialog. iii, 3 (P.L. lxxvii,224).
(4) Hist. eccl. gentis angl. iv, 24 (P.L. xcv, 214).
(5) P.L. lxxviii, 994
.
(6) Rev.lit. ii,17, 7.
The following quote is taken from an article called The Red Herring of Communion on the Hand matt1618.freeyellow.com/communion.html and is very informative and claims to de-bunk and rectify the erroneous claims from both ends of the spectrum that feel strongly on this issue. The only caution is that the writer expresses strong emotions towards Traditionalists in regard to the attacks made on the authority of the Church and the faithful who choose to receive on the hand.
Communion by Hand — Early Patristic Evidences:
Self-styled ‘traditionalists’ are almost superstitious in their notions about what does and does not constitute reverence and what is and is not sacrilegious. They even go as far as to circulate misleading pamphlets claiming that communion in the hand was not an apostolic custom. This is probably because many groups favouring communion in the hand circulate misleading pamphlets claiming that it was universal in the early church to receive by hand. In short both the ‘traditionalist’ (who argues communion on the tongue) and the liberal (who argues for communion by hand) are both wrong in trying to retroject their views as some kind of “uniform norm” in the first millennium as in neither case was this so.
I do not feel strongly enough to continue any discussion on this topic, and am quite happy to follow what the Church teaches and allows.
I
Iotaunum
Guest
Yes, I know the book and I know the writings which refer to communion given in the hand. That was never in question. My point was, to quote what I wrote before; "The idea that communion in the hand was the norm, then slowly in the 9th or 10th century the practice of receiving in the mouth was gradually introduced is not true. Pope Saint Sixtus I (115-125 AD) said; "It is prohibited for the faithful to even touch the sacred vessels, or receive in the hand.” This was during this period where everyone was supposed to be getting communion in the hand. It is true Communion in the hand did happen sometimes, however if one reads the texts quoted from the Fathers in context they will see how it was tolerated in certain circumstances during the early persecution of the Church. For example when a hermit living in the wilderness has no priest he could administer it to himself, likewise laity under the persecution who took the sacraments in secret to their homes administered it themselves in a reverent manner."
It is all about context. I think it is rash to look at the quotes and take one position over the other. I think on the whole the early writings support communion on the tongue whereas it was also give in the hand during times of persecution, as St Cyril of Jerusalem says, if we take this letter as authentic. I think that the general view in the Church since the beginning was that there not be any unnecessary touching of the sacred Host - when in persecution and for the likes of hermits in the desert etc I think the Church responded by giving it sometimes in the hand.
I want to make it clear that I am not arguing that communion in the hand could not be or is not allowed by the Pope.
Me too. I think if we discussed this much more anyhow it would derail the thread.
J
Justin_Swanton
Guest
The article is interesting though the writer could have made his point just as well without the vitriol.
I think the point more often made in Traditional circles is not so much that the early Church didn’t have have Communion in the hand (no-one can plausibly maintain that) but that Communion in the tongue became the norm later on. Was this just one custom winning over another in a uniformity drive or was there some real merit of CITT compared to CITH? In any case CITH was acceptable for so long in the Latin Rite that one can criticise it in itself.
The ***real ***question is why it was reintroduced in the 1970’s. Going back to what the early Church did is not a reason. I’m not aware of any widespread demand for it at that time by the faithful: like so many changes after the Council, it was pushed by liturgists, many of them clergy.
The relevance of this to the SSPX (to respect the wishes of our moderator
) is that the Traditionalist objection to the reintroduction of CITH is that it represented a palpable step backwards in reverence towards the Blessed Sacrament. All the precautions taken over the Host in the EF demonstrated a meticulous respect for it that did not exist in the same degree in the first centuries (where faithful could keep Communion in their homes and take it themselves when they chose). The early Christians were not showing irreverence towards the Host by not taking the elaborate precautions over it their later brethren did, but for later brethren to revert to more relaxed earlier customs ***does ***demonstrate or cause a loss of reverence. Receiving Communion standing (customary in the early Church) as opposed to kneeling (sign of respect) had the same effect. Ditto for someone who is not a consecrated minister touching the Host.This is the SSPX position on the subject. I don’t say it’s mine though I think it plausible. It would have less weight today than it did forty years ago, as two generations have grown up with CITH and psychologically would be no less reverent than faithful who receive Communion on the tongue. It’s becoming a bit of a moot point.
D
Denise1957
Guest
In getting back to the subject of the SSPX, the issue of the signing of DH by Archbishop Lefebvre seems to be an important one, IMO. Because if the Archbishop signed the document, and all the others, could that be possibly interpreted as meaning that he thought that all of those documents could be interpreted in light of tradition? It seems important to me because the SSPX says that certain documents contain error. But if they contain error (which I don’t personally believe) then why would the Archbishop sign them?
J
Justin_Swanton
Guest
There are no authentic documents from the reign of Sixtus I - he is not cited in the authoritative Enchiridion Symbolorum, Definitionum et Declarationum (Denzinger-Schonmetzer).
The earliest mention of him is in the Liber Pontificalis, which most contemporary scholars attribute to 5th and 6th century authorship, with details of Popes’ reigns and their acts being added in the 6th century onwards. The Liber is not an official Church document and its accuracy in part has been questioned. The relevant passage runs as follows:
2 Hic constituit ut ministeria sacrata non tangerentur, nisi a ministris.
- He laid down that sacred vessels were to be touched only by ministers.
I
Iotaunum
Guest
That is interesting. I have read the quote in numerous works old and new. I will research this. However, not everything is contained in Denzinger, so one would not expect it to be contained there necessarily. I think it is a bit of a stretch to say that are no authentic documents from the reign of Sixtus I - I think all documents from Popes before the 6th century were considered dubious by some writers at some time. Whether or not this is accurate I will have to read more on the issue to find out. However, it does not affect my position which is based on an evaluation of all writings from the Church fathers on this issue in general. Interestingly however, it could be argued that if the Pope declared that the “sacred vessels” were to be touched only by the ministers then we could argue that this applies even more so to the sacred species contained therein which make these vessels so important.
Regards
- Status