SSPX Info, updates and interviews

  • Thread starter Thread starter prettiefly
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I don’t think I made myself clear enough. The SSPX and Bishop Fellay don’t bother me. I respect Bishop Fellay very much, even when we disagree. As a society of apostolic life, I believe that the SSPX does exactly what it was founded to do.

I do believe that the audience on the blogs, in the media, and forums are not listening to either Bishop Fellay or to the Vatican. They’re looking for conspiracies, ghosts, and traps. They need to pay attention to what the Bishop has said three times this week. The Holy Father wants this now. He has also said that the Holy Father wants the good of the Society. So why keep looking for conspiracies or traps, when Bishop Felllay himself sees none? These folks are viewing the Church as their enemy. That’s what I’m talking about.

The article that was shared, was very suspicious of the video. As I said, the video was poorly edited. But when I read the write up that the same news service did from that interview, the write up is very objective. It simply reports where things are and it even has a few comments by the Bishop that were cut out of the video.

Judging the difference between the video and the written article by the same source, it looks like a job of poor video editing, not a deliberate attempt to slant the interview. That’s what I’m trying to point to.

As to the question about the excommunication of the bishops, this has been explained millions of times, even by Pope Benedict. They were excommunicated because of the ordination, not because they’re Traditionalists. To compare them with Hans Kung is not appropriate. Fr. Kung never consecrated anyone. His license to teach as a Catholic theologian was revoked and he obeyed. Canonically, there is nothing to fault him for. Making heretic statements does not constitute a heretic in Canon Law. One has to be put on trial and be convicted by a tribunal. There is no automatic excommunication for stating error. There is an automatic excommunication for consecrating bishops without permission. That is the difference. Both are unorthodox actions: teaching error or consecrating a bishop without permission. The latter carries an excommunication and the former requires a formal trial. That’s the difference.

But again, I’m not taking issue with Bishop Fellay or the Society at all. I take issue with the commentators. The Society has been rather quiet on this. They seem to be waiting to see what the Holy Father is going to say, as are most of us. The anticipation is killing us all, but that’s life. The Vatican does not move very quickly. 🤷

I hope this clarifies what I was trying to say.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV 🙂
 
Brooklyn said:
My example of Humanae Vitae didn’t help clarify it to you? The quote you provided partly explains what I was trying to say. I actually don’t understand what the rest is trying to say;

People have a responsibility to seek faith, accept it as God makes it available, and guard it once they have it. But Christian faith is not individualistic. One only has faith by sharing in the Church’s faith. Thus, fulfillment of the responsibility of faith requires giving the Church’s teaching the assent it deserves.

One should give** religious assent **to certain teachings of popes and bishops which are not infallibly proposed. The submission of religious assent is not obedience ****, **and it is reasonable. Not all papal and episcopal statements call for religious assent, but the limits on the responsibility to give religious assent are themselves limited in several ways. Deliberate refusal to give the assent **due is a grave matter, and sinful dissent–encouraging others to share in wrongful nonassent–is even more grave.

(Living the Christian Life, Germain Grisez, Prof. of Moral Theology)

The term “religious assent” was what I was trying to say.

The example of HV was a good one I thought.

The point being obedience by itself is not religious assent.

In the example of Humane Vitae – for authentic religious assent I am required to give an ‘*internal’ * submission of will and intellect to the the moral matter(s). My heart and mind orientated to the Church telling me the truth.

If in my mind, I disagree with the Magisterium of the Church that condemned abortion or sterilization (HV Unlawful Birth Control Methods) and I see it as an acceptable means in some cases yet begrudgingly obey not to have an abortion or not to sterilize myself. I cannot truthfully and objectively claim religious assent.

This topic may be another thread though? As interesting as this is to me - I don’t want to drift too far from the OT.
Click to expand...
 
Vatican finds Pius X Society’s response insufficient for unity

catholicnewsagency.com/news/vatican-finds-pius-x-societys-response-insufficient-for-unity/
Vatican City:
The Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has said that the theological position of the breakaway Society of St. Pius X is insufficient to restore full unity with the Church at present.

Pope Benedict XVI has reviewed a January 2012 letter from Bishop Bernard Fellay, superior general of the society. In that letter, the bishop responded to a doctrinal statement intended to be a basis for full reconciliation with Rome.

However, following the decision of the Pope, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has found that the position Bishop Fellay expressed is “not sufficient to overcome the doctrinal problems which lie at the foundation of the rift between the Holy See and the Society of St. Pius X,” a March 16 communiqué from the Holy See Press Office said.

The congregation is concerned to avoid “an ecclesial rupture of painful and incalculable consequences” and has invited Bishop Fellay to clarify his position “in order to be able to heal the existing rift, as is the desire of Pope Benedict XVI.”

Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre founded the Society of St. Pius X in 1970 in response to what he saw as errors that had arisen in the Church after the Second Vatican Council. The society broke from the Church in 1988 when its founder ordained four bishops against Pope John Paul II’s instructions, resulting in their excommunications.

Pope Benedict XVI lifted the excommunications in 2009 as a prelude to talks about reconciling the society with the Church. At the time he said that the society would have to show “true recognition of the Magisterium and the authority of the Pope and of the Second Vatican Council” to restore full communion.

Vatican officials said that the restoration of unity could come in the form of a personal prelature, a special Church jurisdiction without geographic boundaries.

In September 2011 Cardinal William Levada, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, presented Bishop Fellay with the doctrinal preamble, a statement of principles that outlines points of doctrine which the breakaway group needed to accept to restore communion.

In November 2011, Bishop Fellay said that the society cannot endorse the preamble. He said he particularly wanted to discuss what the Vatican meant when it said there is “leeway” for a “legitimate discussion” on the documents and legacy of the Second Vatican Council.
Click to expand...
 
Brooklyn said:
Exactly! 👍 I’m sure the Pope knows all of these 4 bishops personally and knows exactly what he is dealing with. There are no surprises here. I am sure that whatever decision is being made, the Holy Father is dealing with it in deep prayer, looking to our Lord for guidance to make the decision that will do the most good and least harm.
Click to expand...
I would not be to sure about that. He seemed quite surprised when informed of Williamson’s anti sematic positions.
 
jwinch2 said:
vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/homepage/inquiries-and-interviews/detail/articolo/15164/

Another article on the subject.

I am not sure why anyone is acting surprised that elements within SSPX are resisting the process of reunion with Rome. There has been wide acknowledgement here and elsewhere, that there would be factions within SSPX (clergy, religious, and laity alike) who would oppose such action and that there would likely be a split within the fraternity as a result. You are talking about people who, for decades, have defined their existence in a certain way, namely that they are the real Catholics and that Rome has lost her way, and now that is potentially being taken away from them. The coming months will be telling as to the stance taken by some of these detractors on both sides. Are they willing to swallow their pride and follow the lead of their superior and of Rome or, do they continue to think that they know better than everyone else? Time will tell.

I am also not sure why people are surprised that Bp. Fellay is speaking very carefully right now. D-Day has arrived in this process and he is not likely to say anything too direct at this point which could come back to bite him from either the dissidents within SSPX or those within the Vatican who might not be too keen on this process moving forward. He has to walk a tightrope, and even if things are successful, he will continue to have to do so for some time. This is not going to be an instantaneous process. Rather, it will be long and protracted with many details to be hashed out in the coming years. During that time, Fellay will likely be the master of speaking without really saying anything. There is too much at stake for him to do otherwise.
Click to expand...
Thanks!🙂
 
jwinch2 said:
vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/homepage/inquiries-and-interviews/detail/articolo/15164/

Another article on the subject.

I am not sure why anyone is acting surprised that elements within SSPX are resisting the process of reunion with Rome. There has been wide acknowledgement here and elsewhere, that there would be factions within SSPX (clergy, religious, and laity alike) who would oppose such action and that there would likely be a split within the fraternity as a result. You are talking about people who, for decades, have defined their existence in a certain way, namely that they are the real Catholics and that Rome has lost her way, and now that is potentially being taken away from them. The coming months will be telling as to the stance taken by some of these detractors on both sides. Are they willing to swallow their pride and follow the lead of their superior and of Rome or, do they continue to think that they know better than everyone else? Time will tell.

I am also not sure why people are surprised that Bp. Fellay is speaking very carefully right now. D-Day has arrived in this process and he is not likely to say anything too direct at this point which could come back to bite him from either the dissidents within SSPX or those within the Vatican who might not be too keen on this process moving forward. He has to walk a tightrope, and even if things are successful, he will continue to have to do so for some time. This is not going to be an instantaneous process. Rather, it will be long and protracted with many details to be hashed out in the coming years. During that time, Fellay will likely be the master of speaking without really saying anything. There is too much at stake for him to do otherwise.
Click to expand...
Thanks!🙂
 
If we pay close attention to the two reports and the events of the last few weeks with the letters, there is not much new here.

If I’m understanding Fr. Lombardi correctly he’s saying several things.
  1. Bishop Fellay’s response has been read by the dicastry and they have comments on it. He does not say whether the comments are favorable or not. We shouldn’t jump the gun. Of course they’re going to have comments. Why ask them to read the thing and not expect comments? Duhhhh.
  2. It’s up to the pope to decide what he does with those comments. We knew that too. He can sweep them under the rug, he can ask Bishop Fellay to respond to them or he can ask the dicastry to explain further. Which leads to Fr. Lombardi’s other point.
  3. This may take a little longer than people think. Of course. The dicastry does not have the authority to reopen a dialogue with the SSPX. Now, if the Holy Father wants some more answers from the SSPX, he has to get all of these people to arrange for more conversation. They probably had packed their bags and were ready to go home. If the pope tells them to unpack the bags and get Bishop Fellay to exaplain, A, B, or C, this means time.
  4. The reports say that they have to deal with the other bishops individually. That makes perfect sense. A bishop is not just part of a society or a religious order. He is also a successor of the Apostles. He must profess obedience to the pope. Bishop Fellay cannot make that profession for the other three. He can only speak for himself. He can speak for everyone, when he speaks for the Society, because he’s the superior general. However, he cannot make an oath of obedience for one who is his equal. They are equally bishops. He is not their ordinary. At this point, the SSPX does not yet have an ordinary.
  5. I’ve been telling many people all along and no one believed me that Bishop Williamson’s position on the Shoah was going to be a problem. Well, the Vatican has brought it up. The Holy Father had said that if he had known about this, he would not have lifted his excommunication. Many Trads have argued that this position has nothing to do with faith or morals and should not be a factor. From the pope’s point of view and by Bishop Williamson’s admission in his letter of apology, it throws a major monkey wrench in the Pope’s personal apostolate. You cannot do that to a pope and not expect questions and be required to promise to behave. It’s one thing if a bishop does something dumb that affect only his diocese and quite another if he does something that has the potential to sabotage the work of the pope. I’m not saying that he’s going to be excommunicated. I have no idea. If they brought this up, it means that they want some kind of assurance from him that he will stand with the Vatican on this question, once and for all.
  6. There is also the question of ordinary jurisdiction. Four bishops cannot have ordinary jurisdiction over the same body. Only one of them can. Three of them have to accept a titular see and may even have to accept a change in roles within the Society. I know that in religious orders, we have bishops, but they are required to do two things.
a. Profess fidelity and obedience to the pope, over and beyond the vow of obedience that every religious has.

b. They must give up their right to vote in the community and their right to hold office. They remain passive members of their religious communities until they retire from their episcopal sees. If the Church applies this same rule to the SSPX, three bishops will have no vote and cannot hold office. One will be the prelate and I’m not sure what the others would be. The infrastructure of a prelature is rather unique.

Would they accept that? Who knows until they’re asked.

There are many little details that are coming up that we may have to wait longer than anticipated.

Let’s keep praying and be patient.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV 🙂
 
If we pay close attention to the two reports and the events of the last few weeks with the letters, there is not much new here.

If I’m understanding Fr. Lombardi correctly he’s saying several things.
  1. Bishop Fellay’s response has been read by the dicastry and they have comments on it. He does not say whether the comments are favorable or not. We shouldn’t jump the gun. Of course they’re going to have comments. Why ask them to read the thing and not expect comments? Duhhhh.
  2. It’s up to the pope to decide what he does with those comments. We knew that too. He can sweep them under the rug, he can ask Bishop Fellay to respond to them or he can ask the dicastry to explain further. Which leads to Fr. Lombardi’s other point.
  3. This may take a little longer than people think. Of course. The dicastry does not have the authority to reopen a dialogue with the SSPX. Now, if the Holy Father wants some more answers from the SSPX, he has to get all of these people to arrange for more conversation. They probably had packed their bags and were ready to go home. If the pope tells them to unpack the bags and get Bishop Fellay to exaplain, A, B, or C, this means time.
  4. The reports say that they have to deal with the other bishops individually. That makes perfect sense. A bishop is not just part of a society or a religious order. He is also a successor of the Apostles. He must profess obedience to the pope. Bishop Fellay cannot make that profession for the other three. He can only speak for himself. He can speak for everyone, when he speaks for the Society, because he’s the superior general. However, he cannot make an oath of obedience for one who is his equal. They are equally bishops. He is not their ordinary. At this point, the SSPX does not yet have an ordinary.
  5. I’ve been telling many people all along and no one believed me that Bishop Williamson’s position on the Shoah was going to be a problem. Well, the Vatican has brought it up. The Holy Father had said that if he had known about this, he would not have lifted his excommunication. Many Trads have argued that this position has nothing to do with faith or morals and should not be a factor. From the pope’s point of view and by Bishop Williamson’s admission in his letter of apology, it throws a major monkey wrench in the Pope’s personal apostolate. You cannot do that to a pope and not expect questions and be required to promise to behave. It’s one thing if a bishop does something dumb that affect only his diocese and quite another if he does something that has the potential to sabotage the work of the pope. I’m not saying that he’s going to be excommunicated. I have no idea. If they brought this up, it means that they want some kind of assurance from him that he will stand with the Vatican on this question, once and for all.
  6. There is also the question of ordinary jurisdiction. Four bishops cannot have ordinary jurisdiction over the same body. Only one of them can. Three of them have to accept a titular see and may even have to accept a change in roles within the Society. I know that in religious orders, we have bishops, but they are required to do two things.
a. Profess fidelity and obedience to the pope, over and beyond the vow of obedience that every religious has.

b. They must give up their right to vote in the community and their right to hold office. They remain passive members of their religious communities until they retire from their episcopal sees. If the Church applies this same rule to the SSPX, three bishops will have no vote and cannot hold office. One will be the prelate and I’m not sure what the others would be. The infrastructure of a prelature is rather unique.

Would they accept that? Who knows until they’re asked.

There are many little details that are coming up that we may have to wait longer than anticipated.

Let’s keep praying and be patient.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV 🙂
 
If we pay close attention to the two reports and the events of the last few weeks with the letters, there is not much new here.

If I’m understanding Fr. Lombardi correctly he’s saying several things.
  1. Bishop Fellay’s response has been read by the dicastry and they have comments on it. He does not say whether the comments are favorable or not. We shouldn’t jump the gun. Of course they’re going to have comments. Why ask them to read the thing and not expect comments? Duhhhh.
  2. It’s up to the pope to decide what he does with those comments. We knew that too. He can sweep them under the rug, he can ask Bishop Fellay to respond to them or he can ask the dicastry to explain further. Which leads to Fr. Lombardi’s other point.
  3. This may take a little longer than people think. Of course. The dicastry does not have the authority to reopen a dialogue with the SSPX. Now, if the Holy Father wants some more answers from the SSPX, he has to get all of these people to arrange for more conversation. They probably had packed their bags and were ready to go home. If the pope tells them to unpack the bags and get Bishop Fellay to exaplain, A, B, or C, this means time.
  4. The reports say that they have to deal with the other bishops individually. That makes perfect sense. A bishop is not just part of a society or a religious order. He is also a successor of the Apostles. He must profess obedience to the pope. Bishop Fellay cannot make that profession for the other three. He can only speak for himself. He can speak for everyone, when he speaks for the Society, because he’s the superior general. However, he cannot make an oath of obedience for one who is his equal. They are equally bishops. He is not their ordinary. At this point, the SSPX does not yet have an ordinary.
  5. I’ve been telling many people all along and no one believed me that Bishop Williamson’s position on the Shoah was going to be a problem. Well, the Vatican has brought it up. The Holy Father had said that if he had known about this, he would not have lifted his excommunication. Many Trads have argued that this position has nothing to do with faith or morals and should not be a factor. From the pope’s point of view and by Bishop Williamson’s admission in his letter of apology, it throws a major monkey wrench in the Pope’s personal apostolate. You cannot do that to a pope and not expect questions and be required to promise to behave. It’s one thing if a bishop does something dumb that affect only his diocese and quite another if he does something that has the potential to sabotage the work of the pope. I’m not saying that he’s going to be excommunicated. I have no idea. If they brought this up, it means that they want some kind of assurance from him that he will stand with the Vatican on this question, once and for all.
  6. There is also the question of ordinary jurisdiction. Four bishops cannot have ordinary jurisdiction over the same body. Only one of them can. Three of them have to accept a titular see and may even have to accept a change in roles within the Society. I know that in religious orders, we have bishops, but they are required to do two things.
a. Profess fidelity and obedience to the pope, over and beyond the vow of obedience that every religious has.

b. They must give up their right to vote in the community and their right to hold office. They remain passive members of their religious communities until they retire from their episcopal sees. If the Church applies this same rule to the SSPX, three bishops will have no vote and cannot hold office. One will be the prelate and I’m not sure what the others would be. The infrastructure of a prelature is rather unique.

Would they accept that? Who knows until they’re asked.

There are many little details that are coming up that we may have to wait longer than anticipated.

Let’s keep praying and be patient.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV 🙂
 
If we pay close attention to the two reports and the events of the last few weeks with the letters, there is not much new here.

If I’m understanding Fr. Lombardi correctly he’s saying several things.
  1. Bishop Fellay’s response has been read by the dicastry and they have comments on it. He does not say whether the comments are favorable or not. We shouldn’t jump the gun. Of course they’re going to have comments. Why ask them to read the thing and not expect comments? Duhhhh.
  2. It’s up to the pope to decide what he does with those comments. We knew that too. He can sweep them under the rug, he can ask Bishop Fellay to respond to them or he can ask the dicastry to explain further. Which leads to Fr. Lombardi’s other point.
  3. This may take a little longer than people think. Of course. The dicastry does not have the authority to reopen a dialogue with the SSPX. Now, if the Holy Father wants some more answers from the SSPX, he has to get all of these people to arrange for more conversation. They probably had packed their bags and were ready to go home. If the pope tells them to unpack the bags and get Bishop Fellay to exaplain, A, B, or C, this means time.
  4. The reports say that they have to deal with the other bishops individually. That makes perfect sense. A bishop is not just part of a society or a religious order. He is also a successor of the Apostles. He must profess obedience to the pope. Bishop Fellay cannot make that profession for the other three. He can only speak for himself. He can speak for everyone, when he speaks for the Society, because he’s the superior general. However, he cannot make an oath of obedience for one who is his equal. They are equally bishops. He is not their ordinary. At this point, the SSPX does not yet have an ordinary.
  5. I’ve been telling many people all along and no one believed me that Bishop Williamson’s position on the Shoah was going to be a problem. Well, the Vatican has brought it up. The Holy Father had said that if he had known about this, he would not have lifted his excommunication. Many Trads have argued that this position has nothing to do with faith or morals and should not be a factor. From the pope’s point of view and by Bishop Williamson’s admission in his letter of apology, it throws a major monkey wrench in the Pope’s personal apostolate. You cannot do that to a pope and not expect questions and be required to promise to behave. It’s one thing if a bishop does something dumb that affect only his diocese and quite another if he does something that has the potential to sabotage the work of the pope. I’m not saying that he’s going to be excommunicated. I have no idea. If they brought this up, it means that they want some kind of assurance from him that he will stand with the Vatican on this question, once and for all.
  6. There is also the question of ordinary jurisdiction. Four bishops cannot have ordinary jurisdiction over the same body. Only one of them can. Three of them have to accept a titular see and may even have to accept a change in roles within the Society. I know that in religious orders, we have bishops, but they are required to do two things.
a. Profess fidelity and obedience to the pope, over and beyond the vow of obedience that every religious has.

b. They must give up their right to vote in the community and their right to hold office. They remain passive members of their religious communities until they retire from their episcopal sees. If the Church applies this same rule to the SSPX, three bishops will have no vote and cannot hold office. One will be the prelate and I’m not sure what the others would be. The infrastructure of a prelature is rather unique.

Would they accept that? Who knows until they’re asked.

There are many little details that are coming up that we may have to wait longer than anticipated.

Let’s keep praying and be patient.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV 🙂
 
If we pay close attention to the two reports and the events of the last few weeks with the letters, there is not much new here.

If I’m understanding Fr. Lombardi correctly he’s saying several things.
  1. Bishop Fellay’s response has been read by the dicastry and they have comments on it. He does not say whether the comments are favorable or not. We shouldn’t jump the gun. Of course they’re going to have comments. Why ask them to read the thing and not expect comments? Duhhhh.
  2. It’s up to the pope to decide what he does with those comments. We knew that too. He can sweep them under the rug, he can ask Bishop Fellay to respond to them or he can ask the dicastry to explain further. Which leads to Fr. Lombardi’s other point.
  3. This may take a little longer than people think. Of course. The dicastry does not have the authority to reopen a dialogue with the SSPX. Now, if the Holy Father wants some more answers from the SSPX, he has to get all of these people to arrange for more conversation. They probably had packed their bags and were ready to go home. If the pope tells them to unpack the bags and get Bishop Fellay to exaplain, A, B, or C, this means time.
  4. The reports say that they have to deal with the other bishops individually. That makes perfect sense. A bishop is not just part of a society or a religious order. He is also a successor of the Apostles. He must profess obedience to the pope. Bishop Fellay cannot make that profession for the other three. He can only speak for himself. He can speak for everyone, when he speaks for the Society, because he’s the superior general. However, he cannot make an oath of obedience for one who is his equal. They are equally bishops. He is not their ordinary. At this point, the SSPX does not yet have an ordinary.
  5. I’ve been telling many people all along and no one believed me that Bishop Williamson’s position on the Shoah was going to be a problem. Well, the Vatican has brought it up. The Holy Father had said that if he had known about this, he would not have lifted his excommunication. Many Trads have argued that this position has nothing to do with faith or morals and should not be a factor. From the pope’s point of view and by Bishop Williamson’s admission in his letter of apology, it throws a major monkey wrench in the Pope’s personal apostolate. You cannot do that to a pope and not expect questions and be required to promise to behave. It’s one thing if a bishop does something dumb that affect only his diocese and quite another if he does something that has the potential to sabotage the work of the pope. I’m not saying that he’s going to be excommunicated. I have no idea. If they brought this up, it means that they want some kind of assurance from him that he will stand with the Vatican on this question, once and for all.
  6. There is also the question of ordinary jurisdiction. Four bishops cannot have ordinary jurisdiction over the same body. Only one of them can. Three of them have to accept a titular see and may even have to accept a change in roles within the Society. I know that in religious orders, we have bishops, but they are required to do two things.
a. Profess fidelity and obedience to the pope, over and beyond the vow of obedience that every religious has.

b. They must give up their right to vote in the community and their right to hold office. They remain passive members of their religious communities until they retire from their episcopal sees. If the Church applies this same rule to the SSPX, three bishops will have no vote and cannot hold office. One will be the prelate and I’m not sure what the others would be. The infrastructure of a prelature is rather unique.

Would they accept that? Who knows until they’re asked.

There are many little details that are coming up that we may have to wait longer than anticipated.

Let’s keep praying and be patient.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV 🙂
 
JReducation said:
  1. I’ve been telling many people all along and no one believed me that Bishop Williamson’s position on the Shoah was going to be a problem. Well, the Vatican has brought it up. The Holy Father had said that if he had known about this, he would not have lifted his excommunication. Many Trads have argued that this position has nothing to do with faith or morals and should not be a factor. From the pope’s point of view and by Bishop Williamson’s admission in his letter of apology, it throws a major monkey wrench in the Pope’s personal apostolate. You cannot do that to a pope and not expect questions and be required to promise to behave. It’s one thing if a bishop does something dumb that affect only his diocese and quite another if he does something that has the potential to sabotage the work of the pope. I’m not saying that he’s going to be excommunicated. I have no idea. If they brought this up, it means that they want some kind of assurance from him that he will stand with the Vatican on this question, once and for all.
Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV 🙂
Click to expand...
Did Bishop Williamson deny the Holocaust happened? Or was he questioning the numbers?
 
JustaServant said:
Did Bishop Williamson deny the Holocaust happened? Or was he questioning the numbers?
Click to expand...
This is what Bishop Williamson said in the infamous interview on Swedish tv found here:

Talk turned to the Nazis. One sees in the film Williamson breathing in and then says he does not believe six million Jews to have been gassed.

To the surprised counter-question “Were there no gas chambers?” “I believe there were no gas chambers, yes”.

In the matter of the Holocaust, he associated himself with the “revisionists” who believe that “two to three hundred thousand Jews died in Nazi concentration camps. But none of them died as a result of gas in gas chambers”.

Bishop Williamson does not completely deny the Holocaust, but as you state, he claims that far less than 6 million Jews were killed and denies that any Jews were killed in gas chambers. If you wish to watch the whole interview, you can go here.
 
JReducation said:
Before going on to respond to Cristiano’s post, I’d like to clarify another post, that I can’t find now. Someone said "There is not such thing as partial communion. There is no basis in law."

The truth is that there is such a thing. This was proven by a joint commission of Franciscans, Dominicans and Jesuits during the Counter Reformation era when the question on the table was, “What is the different between the then heretical Protestants and the Eastern Orthodox?” The Dominicans, Franciscans and Jesuits responded, “Communion”. The Orthodox are in schism, but they have a communion in sacris; communion in Apostolic Succession and communion in most dogmas. Therefore, there are not in full communion, but they are in communion in very significant areas that cannot be denied.

This has never been a point of law until Pope Paul insisted that it be put into Canon Law. However, it was always taught in ecclesiology in every Franciscan, Dominican and Jesuit house of formation and those of most religious orders since the late 1600s.

Pope Paul VI popularized the term “imperfect communion” in the 1960s when he lifted the excommunication of the Orthodox and asked that they lift the excommunications of the Roman Catholics. Both sides agreed. While there is a schism between us, neither they nor us are schismatic. Our ancestors were, not us. We’re the heirs of the mess they created.

Yes, the SSPX is not in full communion with the Apostolic See. As long as the Apostolic See says that they are not, then they are not. It is the Apostolic See who decides who is and who is not in communion. There are no angels from heaven and no other forces on earth that have the power to define this.

This takes us back to the idea of the SSPX going into schism. They can teach traditional Catholic doctrine and do everything by the traditional books, but if the Holy Father says to them that they have to submit of be jettisoned from the Church, to refuse to submit is to go into schism. How and why? That’s the condition that the pope laid down, accept or I declare you in schism. The schism is valid, because the issue has come down to a power struggle. It’s not longer about tradition, but about who is in charge. And if they insist that they can be in charge of themselves, then they deny the authority of the Primacy. I believe that Bishop Fellay was told exactly this and that’s why he has said, “Rome will not tolerate this any longer,” and “The Pope wants it now.” I don’t think that he’s speculating. I believe that he quoting what he’s been told. “Make it happen or you’re no longer Catholic.” The Church can strip the name Catholic from any instititution and society. Once it says that the Society is no longer Catholic, then those who follow the Society are no longer Catholic. It’s a horrible mess.

I think it’s a very human response out of frustration. We all know that it’s not true. The best is for everyone to be on board. Sometimes, you get so tired of hearing the same whining and complaining that you just want these folks to go away. It’s just your emotions speaking, not reason.

Fraternally,

Br.JR, FFV 🙂
Click to expand...
Thank you!!!👍

:blessyou:
 
JReducation said:
If we pay close attention to the two reports and the events of the last few weeks with the letters, there is not much new here.

If I’m understanding Fr. Lombardi correctly he’s saying several things.
  1. Bishop Fellay’s response has been read by the dicastry and they have comments on it. He does not say whether the comments are favorable or not. We shouldn’t jump the gun. Of course they’re going to have comments. Why ask them to read the thing and not expect comments? Duhhhh.
  2. It’s up to the pope to decide what he does with those comments. We knew that too. He can sweep them under the rug, he can ask Bishop Fellay to respond to them or he can ask the dicastry to explain further. Which leads to Fr. Lombardi’s other point.
  3. This may take a little longer than people think. Of course. The dicastry does not have the authority to reopen a dialogue with the SSPX. Now, if the Holy Father wants some more answers from the SSPX, he has to get all of these people to arrange for more conversation. They probably had packed their bags and were ready to go home. If the pope tells them to unpack the bags and get Bishop Fellay to exaplain, A, B, or C, this means time.
  4. The reports say that they have to deal with the other bishops individually. That makes perfect sense. A bishop is not just part of a society or a religious order. He is also a successor of the Apostles. He must profess obedience to the pope. Bishop Fellay cannot make that profession for the other three. He can only speak for himself. He can speak for everyone, when he speaks for the Society, because he’s the superior general. However, he cannot make an oath of obedience for one who is his equal. They are equally bishops. He is not their ordinary. At this point, the SSPX does not yet have an ordinary.
  5. I’ve been telling many people all along and no one believed me that Bishop Williamson’s position on the Shoah was going to be a problem. Well, the Vatican has brought it up. The Holy Father had said that if he had known about this, he would not have lifted his excommunication. Many Trads have argued that this position has nothing to do with faith or morals and should not be a factor. From the pope’s point of view and by Bishop Williamson’s admission in his letter of apology, it throws a major monkey wrench in the Pope’s personal apostolate. You cannot do that to a pope and not expect questions and be required to promise to behave. It’s one thing if a bishop does something dumb that affect only his diocese and quite another if he does something that has the potential to sabotage the work of the pope. I’m not saying that he’s going to be excommunicated. I have no idea. If they brought this up, it means that they want some kind of assurance from him that he will stand with the Vatican on this question, once and for all.
  6. There is also the question of ordinary jurisdiction. Four bishops cannot have ordinary jurisdiction over the same body. Only one of them can. Three of them have to accept a titular see and may even have to accept a change in roles within the Society. I know that in religious orders, we have bishops, but they are required to do two things.
a. Profess fidelity and obedience to the pope, over and beyond the vow of obedience that every religious has.

b. They must give up their right to vote in the community and their right to hold office. They remain passive members of their religious communities until they retire from their episcopal sees. If the Church applies this same rule to the SSPX, three bishops will have no vote and cannot hold office. One will be the prelate and I’m not sure what the others would be. The infrastructure of a prelature is rather unique.

Would they accept that? Who knows until they’re asked.

There are many little details that are coming up that we may have to wait longer than anticipated.

Let’s keep praying and be patient.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV 🙂
Click to expand...
👍 Thank you!

:blessyou:
 
JReducation said:
This takes us back to the idea of the SSPX going into schism. They can teach traditional Catholic doctrine and do everything by the traditional books, but if the Holy Father says to them that they have to submit of be jettisoned from the Church, to refuse to submit is to go into schism. How and why? That’s the condition that the pope laid down, accept or I declare you in schism. The schism is valid, because the issue has come down to a power struggle. It’s not longer about tradition, but about who is in charge. And if they insist that they can be in charge of themselves, then they deny the authority of the Primacy. I believe that Bishop Fellay was told exactly this and that’s why he has said, “Rome will not tolerate this any longer,” and “The Pope wants it now.” I don’t think that he’s speculating. I believe that he quoting what he’s been told. “Make it happen or you’re no longer Catholic.” The Church can strip the name Catholic from any instititution and society. Once it says that the Society is no longer Catholic, then those who follow the Society are no longer Catholic. It’s a horrible mess.

Fraternally,

Br.JR, FFV 🙂
Click to expand...
This is a very important point. From a person who left the Church many years ago, became a Baptist, even preached in a pulpit, and then returned…the issue is one of authority.
For twenty some years the Society has been, at least to me a layman with no education in canonical law, in a kind Limbo. The liberals declare them not Catholic and many trads speak of “new Church” or Novus Ordo Church. It can’t continue that way and I think both Pope Benedict and Fellay know it. You’re either in or you are out, “choose now whom you will serve”. It doesn’t mean all the problems are instantly solved, but they can be better solved from within, not without.
When I returned to the Catholic Church I remember telling my wife "you know we are not trying to find the most ‘perfect, pure. church’ (a rationalization that led me to being Baptist). I said “in a way, we’re walking into a mess!!” 🙂
But isn’t that what God’s Church on earth is like? It’s not perfect, filled with perfect people.
But the Catholic Church at the same time is perfect because it is the Church Christ founded, not because everyone in it is a saint.
I can and have sympathized with the SSPX, at the same time I cringe when I hear the polarlizing langage coming from people in their chapels.
Were thier wrongs committed on both sides? Yes.
But lets let the Church do its job, instead of becoming “little popes” and deciding for ourselves.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top