P
pnewton
Guest
Correct, even without the scare quotes.
- Status
M
MarkThompson
Guest
No, only the excommunications of the four living bishops named in Benedict XVI’s decree were remitted. The other two bishops tragically died as excommunicates.
T
Timothysis
Guest
The lifting of the excommunications was for the four living bishops who were mentioned by name. I do not believe that it is possible to lift an excommunication against one who has already died.
It is also wrong to say that any of the excommunications were “null.” The proper thing to say is that the excommunications have been “lifted.” To say “null” would imply that they were never valid in the first place which is not the case.
A
Archie_Leech
Guest
Again…
C
Corki
Guest
Good question. The original press release from the Vatican, back in Jan, 2009 said:When did B16 ever state that JP2’s excommincations were invalid from the get-go? Please provide a source. I recall his lifting the excommunications on the four surviving bishops, nothing about JP2’s actions ever being invalid.
Revoking or lifting a sanction is not the same as nullifying the original.
T
Thomas_Casey
Guest
*]Stick to the subject on the subject line
*]Show all the proper respect when speaking about the clergy, either SSPX or maintream. Clergy is clergy
*]Do not speak about each other.
Thomas Casey
Moderator
A
ag_28
Guest
As requested, here the quoted text from the actual lifting of the “excommunications” of 1988.When did B16 ever state that JP2’s excommincations were invalid from the get-go? Please provide a source. I recall his lifting the excommunications on the four surviving bishops, nothing about JP2’s actions ever being invalid.
“On the basis of the powers expressly granted to me by the Holy Father Benedict XVI, by virtue of the present Decree I remit the penalty of excommunication latae sententiae incurred by Bishops Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta, and declared by this Congregation on July 1988. At the same time I declare that, as of today’s date, the Decree issued at that time no longer has juridical effect.”
Note the last line where it says “as of today’s date, the decree issued at that time no longer has juridical effect.”
Since the Holy Father has to contend with bishops who have threatened open rebellion if the Society is given an official status, he has to choose his words carefully, which he did, remarkably so, in such a manner as nullifying, not just lifting, the 1988 decree.
The decree at that time says that all 6 bishops incurred excommunication. He is in effect, saying that the decree no longer has juridical effect, making it retroactive back to 1988, because the original decree named all 6 bishops. He’s saying that the ENTIRE decree no longer has any effect. It’s quite clear that Benedict XVI has nullified John Paul II’s decree.
If I may, I will state my observations. The Society does not seem like the group with the schismatic spirit. I would think those who publicly threaten rebellion to the Holy Father if the SSPX is regularized, possess the spirit of schism. Who are the real adversaries here?
Who, friends, are really concerned about the unity of the church and salvation of souls?
What are we to make of St. Athanasius, who openly disobeyed and went into exile for the defense of the faith? Archbishop Lefebvre seems like the St. Athanasius of our times. Where would we be without him? Where would Tradition be?
“The letter of the law killeth, and the spirit quickeneth.”
If I were do disobey my father, for a legitimate reason, does that make me any less his son?
Regarding canon law, it seems that we’re leaving out the part where it states that if someone violates the law out of necessity, then he does not incur the penalty.
Furthermore, the holy Archbishop was defending the Deposit of Faith, and the most severe punishment was enacted upon him, that of excommunication! Does this make sense? While those who perpetrate liturgical abuses are rewarded, these men were cut off, like exiles, cut off from the very Church for which they have dedicated and would give their lives for! What’s wrong here? Why are we arguing about these things?
“The tree is known by its fruit.” The fruits of the Society are countless vocations, large families, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, and the Faith that was handed down from the apostles.
Instead of arguing about this, we should all be praying for our holy father as Our Lady requested, as well as praying for those priests, bishops, both SSPX and non, who maintain fidelity to Traditional doctrine, and who endure constant persecution so we can have the faith that Our Lord gave to us.
In Christ,
ag 28
A
anjoh66
Guest
As for the latest news about bishop Williamsons choice of lawyer it seems like he has arranged for his own ex-communication from SSPX, thereby the biggest obstacle for reconciliation with Rome would be gone and a reconciliation is most likely very close at hand.
rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2010/11/from-dici-superior-general-bishop.html
rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2010/11/from-dici-superior-general-bishop.html
A
Andreas_Hofer
Guest
The easiest answer to this whole theory of Bp. Fellay’s is that His Excellency is not the greatest canonist. JKirk has already pointed out the obvious weakness of his argument concerning faculties to absolve - the Holy See explicitly granted faculties to absolve in the cases mentioned, and no blanket grant of faculties to the whole Society in general is either implied or necessitated by this action. The pope is the supreme legislator, executive, and judge in the Church, and he, or those acting with his authority, can grant faculties to any priest he chooses in the respect he chooses. The same holds for the reconciliation of those whose orders were received irregularly. The pope needs to follow certain forms so that his decisions can be recognized as binding legal decisions, but provided he makes clear what he is intending to do, he can dispense from or change the law as he sees fit. So even were there to be a strict canonical impossibility of those receiving irregular orders exercising such orders once reconciled to the Church, the pope would be eminently capable of removing that obstacle without necessitating his recognition of canonical regularity for the ordaining prelate. These are really very elementary observations; you don’t need any canonical training to reason through them.
The same goes for the supposed nullity of the original excommunications. It’s simply unsupported in the text. If that is deemed a side issue I’ll stay away from it, but the principle stands that one of even God’s “limitations” is that he cannot make an event cease to have been. Similarly, it is not possible to say that a juridical act 1) had effect for two decades and 2) is now nullified from the beginning. The document is abundantly clear that the sanctions were in effect these many years, and they are now lifted as of the date given.
The same goes for the supposed nullity of the original excommunications. It’s simply unsupported in the text. If that is deemed a side issue I’ll stay away from it, but the principle stands that one of even God’s “limitations” is that he cannot make an event cease to have been. Similarly, it is not possible to say that a juridical act 1) had effect for two decades and 2) is now nullified from the beginning. The document is abundantly clear that the sanctions were in effect these many years, and they are now lifted as of the date given.
A
ag_28
Guest
Once again, salvation of souls is paramount to legal sanctions. If the letter of the law puts an obstacle the the law’s spirit, then it is a hindrance, not an aid.
This argument can go on forever with both sides having equally convincing arguments.
The saints were always persecuted unjustly. The only thing I have left to say is this:
Thank God for Archbishop Lefebvre and the Society of St. Pius X.
God’s ways are inscrutable. This issue will only be resolved by a future council.
This argument can go on forever with both sides having equally convincing arguments.
The saints were always persecuted unjustly. The only thing I have left to say is this:
Thank God for Archbishop Lefebvre and the Society of St. Pius X.
God’s ways are inscrutable. This issue will only be resolved by a future council.
M
MarkThompson
Guest
I read the martyrology every day, but I haven’t seen one saint yet who died extra ecclesiam and is honored and venerated for his schismatic acts. Maybe I missed one somewhere, who knows.
A
Aramis
Guest
But what he believes may not in fact be truth.
J
JReducation
Guest
I find a few things “technically” wrong with this report. I actually like Bishop Fellay as person, even though I disagree with him on the flavor of chocolate ice cream. I’ve met the man twice and he’s charming, warm, and sincere. I mention this, because I don’t want anyone to think that I have something against the man.
That being said there are a few technical (for lack of a better term) problems with this report.
First, Bishop Fellay would be the first to admit that he’s not a Canon Lawyer. He majored in Thomistic Theology, not Church Law. He has as much Canon Law under his belt as I do, the two-years that all of us are required to study. I have a problem believing that he is being correctly quoted or understood by the reporter when he discusses canon law. My other assumption is that he’s not talking as a Canon Lawyer, but as an amateur in Canon Law, as are most of us who went through advanced studies in theology. None of us would dare call ourselves Canonists. We can quote law. That does not mean that we can interpret it correctly and much less apply it correctly all the time. That’s why you have tribunals to do that and Canon Law societies. The people who write what Bishop Fellay allegedly says try to make him sound as if he were a perite in Canon Law, which he has never claimed to be. The fault may lay more with his fans, than with the man.
Second, no bishop with common sense would say that the Vatican is being duplicitous, saying one thing and doing another. That’s somethign that a rebel bishop would say, not one who is trying to reconcile with the Vatican. That’s like going through mediation with an estranged spouse and calling her a liar when she’s not looking, but telling the New York Times. That’s really swift thinking there. I don’t think that Bishop Fellay is unintelligent. This would be a diplomatic faux pas. He knows that it will get back to Cardinal Levada. Cardinal Levada holds the pope’s attention right now. He is the man sitting in the driver’s seat. Levada would not be very pleased if Bishop Fellay truly made these comments. My guess is that whatever he said is being spun. The man may not be a Canon Lawyer or a theologian, but he has proven himself to be a very good diplomat and an honest man.
Third, from the beginning of these talks, it was very clear that their content would be confidential and nothing official would be released until the fat lady sings. Again, I have a hard time believing that Bishop Fellay would be the source of a leak. He may have made some comments or even speculated on some points. That would be an unwise thing to do when reporters are listening. But a comment here and a speculation there does not make for the facts. They’re just that: comments and speculations. But they are being reported as facts. If the talks are confidential and all parties agreed to this, what does this say about Bishop Fellay? The other parties in this discussion have not said a single word and we know that there are several theologians and lawyers at this table. Why would Bishop Fellay be the one to break the silence? How does that help his credibility before the other people in this discussion? Again, I have doubts that he has said everything that is being said, exaclty the way that it’s being said. If he has, then he has dropped a notch in credibility. I hate to think that this is the case.
Finally, the Vatican does not make it a habit of granting status to a group in pectore unless their safety is in danger, which is not the case here.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
That being said there are a few technical (for lack of a better term) problems with this report.
First, Bishop Fellay would be the first to admit that he’s not a Canon Lawyer. He majored in Thomistic Theology, not Church Law. He has as much Canon Law under his belt as I do, the two-years that all of us are required to study. I have a problem believing that he is being correctly quoted or understood by the reporter when he discusses canon law. My other assumption is that he’s not talking as a Canon Lawyer, but as an amateur in Canon Law, as are most of us who went through advanced studies in theology. None of us would dare call ourselves Canonists. We can quote law. That does not mean that we can interpret it correctly and much less apply it correctly all the time. That’s why you have tribunals to do that and Canon Law societies. The people who write what Bishop Fellay allegedly says try to make him sound as if he were a perite in Canon Law, which he has never claimed to be. The fault may lay more with his fans, than with the man.
Second, no bishop with common sense would say that the Vatican is being duplicitous, saying one thing and doing another. That’s somethign that a rebel bishop would say, not one who is trying to reconcile with the Vatican. That’s like going through mediation with an estranged spouse and calling her a liar when she’s not looking, but telling the New York Times. That’s really swift thinking there. I don’t think that Bishop Fellay is unintelligent. This would be a diplomatic faux pas. He knows that it will get back to Cardinal Levada. Cardinal Levada holds the pope’s attention right now. He is the man sitting in the driver’s seat. Levada would not be very pleased if Bishop Fellay truly made these comments. My guess is that whatever he said is being spun. The man may not be a Canon Lawyer or a theologian, but he has proven himself to be a very good diplomat and an honest man.
Third, from the beginning of these talks, it was very clear that their content would be confidential and nothing official would be released until the fat lady sings. Again, I have a hard time believing that Bishop Fellay would be the source of a leak. He may have made some comments or even speculated on some points. That would be an unwise thing to do when reporters are listening. But a comment here and a speculation there does not make for the facts. They’re just that: comments and speculations. But they are being reported as facts. If the talks are confidential and all parties agreed to this, what does this say about Bishop Fellay? The other parties in this discussion have not said a single word and we know that there are several theologians and lawyers at this table. Why would Bishop Fellay be the one to break the silence? How does that help his credibility before the other people in this discussion? Again, I have doubts that he has said everything that is being said, exaclty the way that it’s being said. If he has, then he has dropped a notch in credibility. I hate to think that this is the case.
Finally, the Vatican does not make it a habit of granting status to a group in pectore unless their safety is in danger, which is not the case here.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
P
pnewton
Guest
As I said earlier, I never said AB Fellay was lying. AB Fellay was relaying information as he saw it. He applied a little interpretation. Subtlties tried to pass on more information. Note some of the wordings:
The answer His Excellency led us to see is that for political reasons, Benedict XVI feels that, given the situation in the Church today and the “wolves” within, that he cannot recognize the Society de jure.
How can you be legal for two weeks and then illegal again?” He shrugged his shoulders and said that this is what the Cardinal had said.
It was not during the prepared speech, but rather subsequent follow-up question at a later time that The Remnant put together this article. While none of us are omnisceint, my experience with news tells me that the only thing I believe about this article for sure is that AB Fellay spoke. The conclusions have little to do with the facts.
No, actions do not speak louder than words when it comes to the Catholic Church. If they did, The Church would have never lasted this long without sin and corruption being her hallmark instead of Truth.
A
ag_28
Guest
I would repectfully advise you to research just what elements constitute s schismatic act.
A
ag_28
Guest
What do you mean when you say “sin and corruption” being the Church’s hallmark?
Sorry, but actions do speak louder than words. I would say that what was done on Mount Calvary was an action that spoke louder than any word. Please clarify your statement.
J
JReducation
Guest
Answers like this make me wonder what the Bishop actually said and what the reporter is spinning. Every bishop knows that there are situations in which the Church does suspend sensures and penalties for a specific reason, even or even time. That does not mean an endorsement of an individual or a group. It’s done for the a greater good. Since most Catholic lay people do not know that this happens and it happens often, because the Church does not issue a newsletter saying what it’s doing such a thing, it leads people to confusion. I’ll give you a simple exmaple. Take solemn vows made by religious. You can get thre responses when you apply for a dispensation.
You can receive a permanet dispensation. In that case, you return to the lay state with all of the rights and duties of the laity.
You can receive a suspension of vows. In that case, you are still in vows, but you are not bound to them until such time as you can fulfill them. In the meantime, you have all the rights and privileges of the lay state, even marriage.
You can receive a leave an indult of exclaustration that allows you to live outside of your religious community for very specific reasons. You may even be allowed to exercise MOST of the rights and privileges of the laity, however, you remain in vows and the vows are binding. Therefore, you are bound to live the religious life, outside of your community. This is usual for people who ask for a leave of absence.
One can ask, how can one legally bound by vows on Sunday, not on Monday through Friday and then on Saturday again. That’s because the Church can do this. She can grant permissions, faculties, suspensions, dispensations and other at any time for whatever reason she sess fit.
Every bishop would know this.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
M
MarkThompson
Guest
Consider it done. The Popes have ruled what he did to be an act of schism, and I entirely agree. Even if I didn’t agree, the Pope is the supreme judge of ecclesiastical law, and all the sophistry and loophole-grabbing in the world won’t change that.
In principio erat verbum . . . .
P
pnewton
Guest
Okay, does the Catholic Church support pedophilia? What are you going to believe, actions or words. Did the Catholic Church in the middle ages support adultery and fornication? Do we judge by what the Church teaches or what the clergy does?
The Catholic Church is authoritative. She is infallible. She is not indefectible. The mistake of Martin Luther was to think that “actions speak louder that words,” choosing to look at the sin of the clergy, rather than at the promises of Christ concerning His Bride.
Does this clarify what I meant and why I reject the premise that actions speak louder than words? I mean not insult to the Church. Rather I want to focus on that which is guided by the Holy Spirit and that which is not.
A
ag_28
Guest
Once again, we are seeing a lot of “sophistry and loophole grabbing,” as you put it, on the side of those who oppose the Society. You obviously don’t realize that a consecration of a bishop without papal mandate does not in itself constitute a schismatic act. the consecrator would have to go a step further and set up a parallel hierarchy to the Church. If you’d be so kind as to prove that the Archbishop attempted to confer jurisdiction on the bishops, as well as give them a specific ecclesiastical territory to govern, I’d be most appreciative.Consider it done. The Popes have ruled what he did to be an act of schism, and I entirely agree. Even if I didn’t agree, the Pope is the supreme judge of ecclesiastical law, and all the sophistry and loophole-grabbing in the world won’t change that.
In principio erat verbum . . . .
The pope is indeed the supreme judge, but his power was not given him to use against Tradition.
- Status