You miss the entire point of the article. Actions speak louder than words. The article is demonstrating how the Holy See says one thing publicly for political/ prudential reasons and does another in private. The actions show one’s true belief. The public words are out of fear of the liberal Bishops who are legion.However, the Catholic Church has said at this time they have not canonical status. Until that changes, why would I believe the Remnant over the Church?
Rome and SSPX: Latest Revelations
Code:Due to space restraints, we will move into the final section of the talk that dealt with the Society’s present standing with Rome
Code:Bishop Fellay notes that there is a constant contradiction. We see that the Conciliar Popes recognize there is a crisis of Faith. Paul VI spoke of “the smoke of satan” in the Church, and John Paul II lamented the spreading of heresy. At the same time, these same Popes worsen the crisis by promoting the Council’s program.
Code:This contradiction also surfaces in the way Rome deals with the SSPX. Bishop Fellay said, “We see documents and statements such as ‘the Society does not exist’ or ‘their sacraments are invalid.’ At the same time, there is a practice in Rome by which they deal with the SSPX as being totally and completely Catholic.”
Code:For example, we consider the way Rome dealt with priests who left the SSPX and sought “regularization”.
Code:There is a principle of action in the Catholic Church that says if a Catholic receives ordination outside of the Church from a schismatic movement, (the Orthodox, etc.), he may come back into the Church, but may never exercise the sacramental power he has stolen from outside the Church. It is a general principle applied up to the present.
Code:But when SSPX priests, who are supposed to be schismatic, seek “regularization” from Rome, this is not the practice. They are recognized and are permitted to operate as priests.
Code:”If we really were schismatics,” says Bishop Fellay, “then Rome would have to prohibit the exercise of the priesthood. The very fact that Rome allows them to act as priests means that we are not schismatic, and that they really do not see us as schismatics. This has continuously been the policy of Rome.”
Code:This was even the case with a priest ordained by Bishop Rangal [from Campos] who had been consecrated by Bishops Tissier, Williamson and de Galareta. The Congregation of the Faith at the time insisted that the priest be treated the same as those of the SSPX, and allow him to act as a priest. “Once again,” says Bishop Fellay, “no schism”.
Code:Then there are painful cases that concern sins so severe they are penalized by excommunication reserved only to the Pope.
Code:SSPX priests who confront these cases in the confessional absolve the penitent from the sin, and from the excommunication. According to Church policy, the priest must then send the case to Rome to be examined, and the excommunication formally lifted. Bishop Fellay says, “Every time – absolutely every time – we have received an answer from Rome that the priest who took care of this confession did well, that it was perfectly in order, and it was both licit and valid.” Rome would then comment on the penance, whether it was sufficient or not enough.
Code:In other words, Rome does not say the confession was invalid. Rome accepts the validity of the SSPX confession.
Code:Bishop Fellay asks, “So why is it said that our confessions are invalid if this is the way Rome deals with us in the case of these most serious matters?”
Code:“You see this contradiction?” he says, “and we meet this kind of contradiction all the time.”
Code:Another example: during the great storm that erupted in January 2009 after the “excommunications” were “lifted”, the Vatican Secretary of State issued a decree stating that the Society of St. Pius X does not exist, that it is not Catholic, and that the SSPX must absolutely recognize Vatican II and all the teachings of the Popes since the Council.
Code:Later that year, two weeks before Easter, Bishop Fellay received an intervention from Rome. The German bishops were putting pressure on the Vatican, and were threatening to excommunicate the SSPX if they performed ordinations at their German seminary. In a gesture toward the Pope, Bishop Fellay moved the ordinations from Germany to Econe.
Code:While the Vatican was trying to stop the ordinations, a Cardinal told Bishop Fellay, “Just ask the Pope for permission and I can almost guarantee you will receive his permission, and untill Easter, the Society of St. Pius X will be recognized.”
Code:Bishop Fellay responded, “But wait a minute! What about that Decree from the Secretary of State” that claims the SSPX is not part of the Church and that it must accept the Council?
Code:The Cardinal responded, “That is only a political text. It is not even signed by the Secretary of State, and it is not what the Pope thinks.”
Code:This is the type of contradiction from Rome the SSPX constantly encounters.
Since this is documented so well I am sure someone here can link a mainstream source. I will wait for that link.There is no reason for Bishop Fellay to publicly lie. He has documents from them regarding the confessions. Rome could contradict this story officially at any time, but they have not.
Nice try, but no. Again, the 1988 decree did not excommunicate the six bishops. They were already excommunicated by their own schismatic actions. Therefore a declaration that the decree no longer has juridical effect cannot affect the status of the underlying excommunications. It was the Holy Father’s separate declaration expressly remitting the excommunications of the four named bishops that affected their status. Regrettably, the other two bishops died extra ecclesiam. I don’t know how to explain this any more simply.The “excommunications’” were remitted, not lifted, and for ALL 6 of the Bishops involved. not just the four surviving. See below…
I’ll wait for the link from a “mainstream” source where the Vatican denies what the Catholic Bishop said.Since this is documented so well I am sure someone here can link a mainstream source. I will wait for that link.
The 1988 decree did “excommunicate” the six bishops. Did you even read the original decree?Nice try, but no. Again, the 1988 decree did not excommunicate the six bishops. They were already excommunicated by their own schismatic actions. Therefore a declaration that the decree no longer has juridical effect cannot affect the status of the underlying excommunications. It was the Holy Father’s separate declaration expressly remitting the excommunications of the four named bishops that affected their status. Regrettably, the other two bishops died extra ecclesiam. I don’t know how to explain this any more simply.
This begs the question of the veracity of the article.You miss the entire point of the article. Actions speak louder than words. The article is demonstrating how the Holy See says one thing publicly for political/ prudential reasons and does another in private. The actions show one’s true belief. The public words are out of fear of the liberal Bishops who are legion.
Okay. Until something official comes up, then we will go with the last thing the Catholic Church said publicly about the SSPX. They have no canonical status.I’ll wait for the link from a “mainstream” source where the Vatican denies what the Catholic Bishop said.
There is no reason to question Bishop Fellay’s veracity. Are you publicly calling Bishop Fellay a liar? And what evidence do you have to support you in this?This begs the question of the veracity of the article.
Publicly that is the official line. Privately is another matter.Okay. Until something official comes up, then we will go with the last thing the Catholic Church said publicly about the SSPX. They have no canonical status.
No, it did not. Mark is correct. The excommunications were latae sententiae, specifically, as I noted earlier, for disobedience.The 1988 decree did “excommunicate” the six bishops.
That is also incorrect. Irrespective of Mgr Fellay’s reported claim, the excommunications were not lifted posthumously for Mgrs Lefebvre & Castro Mayer.The portion of the article I quoted spells it out. These “excommunications” cease to have any juridical effect both for the four living and two deceased bishops.
I did read it, and it says the opposite of what you think:The 1988 decree did “excommunicate” the six bishops. Did you even read the original decree?
The portion of the article I quoted spells it out. These “excommunications” cease to have any juridical effect both for the four living and two deceased bishops.
Wishing will not make it so, I’m afraid.Then these “excommunications” (all from the same act) were remitted and no longer have juridical effect.
Indeed…Wishing will not make it so, I’m afraid.
Since when is the Daily Telegraph the source of Revelation?After today’s little revelation on condoms, I am beginning to see the SSPX’s point.
It is also on CNN, will be in a book coming out soon, and Monday will be plastered all over the news.Since when is the Daily Telegraph the source of Revelation?
No, I did not, neither publicly or privately.There is no reason to question Bishop Fellay’s veracity. Are you publicly calling Bishop Fellay a liar? And what evidence do you have to support you in this?