SSPX Update - Redux

[Aramis]

Is he dead?

Neither Bishop Williamson nor Father Küng is dead. Yet. As far as I can tell, at least.

Both are, however, much out of the limelight, Fr. Küng’s license/faculty to teach theology is revoked by Rome. Bp. Williamson’s been expelled by the general council of the SSPX and he’s suspended ad divinis by Rome, and that suspension is unlikely to be lifted even if he returns to full visible union. He might, just might, get to serve some monastery as a chaplain should he return to visible union with Rome.

At the moment, he’s boderline vagante - answering to no one. And he’s threatened to ordain more bishops. I would not be at all surprised, if he can find a co-consecrator, if he were to ordain a member or two of the SSJK to the episcopacy.

 

[Lormar]

What is the SSJK?

 

[Boulder257]

At the moment, he’s boderline vagante - answering to no one. And he’s threatened to ordain more bishops. I would not be at all surprised, if he can find a co-consecrator, if he were to ordain a member or two of the SSJK to the episcopacy.

I have three questions:

1. Can BIshop Williamson ordain a successor Bishop or Bishops on his own?
2. Upon the ordination would all parties involved be automatically excommunicated?
3. Can those Bishops then ordain successors?

I know my questions may sound rather simple, but I am curious from the legal perspective what they can/cannot do and the repercussions associated. Most importantly, I am curious if and when it would stop, or if it could continue endlessly.

 

[Aramis]

The same can be said during several time periods within the history of the Church. During other times when people performed schismatic acts, the acts and those who performed them are typically looked down upon. However whenever the schismatic act benefits what people would like or if they are sympathetic, they tend to brush it off.

Given the choice between His Grace Lefebvre and Francis/Dominic (the Church on Earth wasn’t doing too hot at the time back then), who should we emulate and hold as the ideal for handling situations?

St. Francis and St Dominic. They obeyed. They wrote eloquent treatises on what was wrong, then quietly had them delivered to the authority who needed to hear them. A hundred years later and on, friars on loan to the inquisition rooted out Cathars and Waldensians. Their rules of strict obedience and rather brutal honesty make both Dominicans and Franciscans quite suited as inquisitors; their inculcation of a love of learning amongst their friars make the Dominicans conquisitor scientiam - seekers of knowledge - and often they sought out not just heresy, but also the causes of it. They also sought out other sources of knowledge and often preserved them.

The schismatic acts that have been worthy are few.

Schismatic acts following Ecumenical Councils have almost always lead to parallel churches.
Vatican I lead to the “Old Catholics”
Ephesus lead to the Assyrian Church.
Chalcedon lead to the Oriental Orthodox.

They’re on Pope #2 now. I doubt #3 is going to change his tune.

As do I, unless it is to a less tolerant state.

 

[Melchior_1]

I haven’t been- using redux in everyday conversation that is- but I’m definitely going to start. Are there adjectival and adverbial forms of the word? Would juvenile anatidaeans in the plural be redux?

I don’t think so. It’s a great word though, much better than some of the alternatives out there IMHO!

St. Francis and St Dominic. They obeyed. They wrote eloquent treatises on what was wrong, then quietly had them delivered to the authority who needed to hear them. A hundred years later and on, friars on loan to the inquisition rooted out Cathars and Waldensians. Their rules of strict obedience and rather brutal honesty make both Dominicans and Franciscans quite suited as inquisitors; their inculcation of a love of learning amongst their friars make the Dominicans conquisitor scientiam - seekers of knowledge - and often they sought out not just heresy, but also the causes of it. They also sought out other sources of knowledge and often preserved them.

This is exactly what I was getting at in the portion that you quoted.

 

[gentle_atheist]

I have three questions:

1. Can BIshop Williamson ordain a successor Bishop or Bishops on his own?
2. Upon the ordination would all parties involved be automatically excommunicated?
3. Can those Bishops then ordain successors?

1. Yes
2. Yes
3. Yes

 

[maltmom]

Did you ask her if she hates all Romans as well, since technically it was Roman soldiers who crucified Christ?

No, I became very uncharitable. I told her that she was crazy, that what she said was disgusting and to get away from me. Then I added something about hoping God would forgive her for her hate.

 

[Mike30]

I know. I was thinking of the past. There has been a strange hostility between Jewry and Catholicism from virtually the time of Christ until the present - in fact antisemitism extends well beyond Catholic circles. I’m wondering where it comes from (no good saying Hitler - *he *got it from somewhere).

The old Universal Prayers on Good Friday included a prayer for the conversion of the ‘perfidious Jews’. Bear in mind this prayer was said every Good Friday in every church right up to Vatican II. It doesn’t really answer to say that until then all Catholics were religious bigots. That’s a lot of Catholics!

It might just be circumstances of history. After the destruction of Jerusalem in AD70 Jews no longer had a homeland. Most of them subsequently found themselves living in Catholic states. This was a time where Church and State were not separated, which meant that the Jews represented a grain of sand in the gears. But there may have been more to it than that. I was wondering if there is anything in Judaism that represents an opposition to Catholicism, as there is in Islam.

Again, this make abstraction of individual Jews. I’ve known quite a few and found them very pleasant folks, not anti-Catholic at all. My favourite high school teacher was a Jew. One of my all-time favourite films is ‘The Pianist’.

Anti Judaism began very very early in the history of Christianity. Many scholars have theorized that it had to do with persecutions The theory is that the early Christians were a small sect that refused to worship the Roman Gods. The Jews also did not worship the Roman Gods yet were not persecuted for it. That was because they had an ancient tradition of not worshiping the Roman gods or any other gods except their own. The Romans respected that fact due to its antiquity. The Christians did not have that history. In order to gain legitimacy the early Christians often claimed thet the books of the Jewish Bible really pertained to them, the Christians, as the Jews had been led astray and broke the covenant almost as soon as they had received it, as evidenced by Moses smashing the tablets. They the Christians were the rightful heirs of the promises made to the Jews by God. The Jews had forfeited that right. So the Jewish was God was really the Christian God and not the other way around.

This attitude solidified into what could best be described as an active dislike, maybe even hatred for all things Jewish. There was a move in the early Church to lessen the culpability of the Romans in Jesus death and increase the culpability of the Jews. Some writings of the period went so far as to say that King Herod ordered the execution not Pilate. In fact, in the Ethioipic Orthodox Church, Pilate and his wife eventually became Saints and are still venerated as such. Go figure.

In any event anti Semitism was a fact of life for nearly 2,00 years in Christianity and still rears its ugly head on occasion.

 

[gentle_atheist]

They’re on Pope #2 now. I doubt #3 is going to change his tune.

Actually, Bishop Fellay thinks otherwise. About 1 hour and 9 minutes into his talk on Dec. 28 he said:

What I see is that those who are really sticking to the Council are those who made it, and those who implement it. That means the older generation – those who are in power now. But what I see, also, is that they are not followed. The younger generation, they don’t follow that way. Very interesting. I can understand that because they don’t have this, how do you say, affective relation. The Council, for the younger generation, is not their baby. The Council for them, it’s something which happened in the last millennium – so way in the past. What they see, what they experience, is a disaster situation of the Church, a ruin. And they’re not happy with that; they’re frustrated. And so they try to look for something. And when they see, when they hear, about tradition they are very interested. And I see this already now. I can really tell you, we have priests, in the modern, who really are serious, really serious, and who want, and who question the Council.

 

[Aramis]

I have three questions:

1. Can BIshop Williamson ordain a successor Bishop or Bishops on his own?
2. Upon the ordination would all parties involved be automatically excommunicated?
3. Can those Bishops then ordain successors?

I know my questions may sound rather simple, but I am curious from the legal perspective what they can/cannot do and the repercussions associated. Most importantly, I am curious if and when it would stop, or if it could continue endlessly.

**1. Can BIshop Williamson ordain a successor Bishop or Bishops on his own? **
Technically, yes, he could, but Tradition is that only a patriarch consecrates bishops without a co-consecrator. (That Cardinal Slippij had permission from Rome to do so for the UGCC was an admission of the desperate situation, not properly “promotion” to patriarch.) Even then, it’s almost never done outside of major persecutions.

This is part of why 3 bishops are the minimum for a viable independent church. You have to have two survivors to ordain the replacement when one dies.

On the other hand, he could borrow a UAOC, OCC, or some independent catholic bishop with valid succession to be his coconsecrator.

2. Upon the ordination would all parties involved be automatically excommunicated?

by the law itself would they be excommunicated. Rome would quite likely publicly ratify the excommunication publicly, especially if Bp. Williamson did so without another SSPX bishop.

3. Can those Bishops then ordain successors?

Yes.

Every bishop* has the “power” to ordain minor and major orders. They might not have permission to use that power. The use of two or more consecrators is both an assurance of validity (back when it was harder to ascertain the validity of one’s line of succession), and a sign of unity to the church (because it was typically a metropolitan as principle consecrator, and the metropolitan synod as co-consecrators).

*there is an exception in some of the Eastern Churches - the Chorbishop - but that’s a whole different can of worms, and they haven’t been used in the west since the 12th century. Worse, one Church sui iuris uses the term for certain mitered Archpriests as an honorific without ordination to the episcopate.

 

[gentle_atheist]

The old Universal Prayers on Good Friday included a prayer for the conversion of the ‘perfidious Jews’. Bear in mind this prayer was said every Good Friday in every church right up to Vatican II…I was wondering if there is anything in Judaism that represents an opposition to Catholicism, as there is in Islam.

Here’s an interesting article written by Allan Nadler. He is Professor of Religious Studies and Director of the Jewish Studies Program at Drew University. He is also an Orthodox Rabbi.

Do Jews Curse Christians?

 

[Dolezal]

I don’t know if this has been posted before, but here is a press release from the SSPX USA District dated January 5, 2013 regarding Bishop Fellay’s comments about Jews being enemies of the Church:

Sounds reasonable to me.

There is so much fear about being labeled anti-Semitic that Catholics cannot even pray for the conversion of the Jews anymore. The Good Friday prayer for the Jews is so ambiguous – praying for Jews to “more closely follow the covenant” – edited by moderator

I’m confused, the media headlines everywhere read: Bishop Fellay says “Jews are enemies of the Church”, but in that same sentence he also called Freemasons and modernists enemies of the Church. Is it worse to offend Jews?

 

[YoungTradCath]

I’m confused, the media headlines everywhere read: Bishop Fellay says “Jews are enemies of the Church”, but in that same sentence he also called Freemasons and modernists enemies of the Church. Is it worse to offend Jews?

Yes, I’d say so. Freemasons and Modernists are, indeed, enemies of the Church. Jews are not, they are simply people in need of the salvific powers of Christ, as are all non-Christians. I pray for the Jews to convert. There is nothing wrong with that whatsoever; it strikes me as being a supreme act of charity. Perhaps the Prayer for the Jews in the Good Friday liturgy is kind of wishy-washy, but I think it’s easy to get the gist of it.

 

[severus68]

And even if it said Judaism, it would still be reckless, irresponsible and disgusting.

The Catholic Church doesn’t play tit for tat. It doesn’t matter what someone says about us. What we say about them should always be the truth in love.

Absolutely!

 

[severus68]

It is not reasonable. The Jews are not enemies of the Church no matter how the word “Enemies” is defined. I know many Jews who are married to Catholics and who have become Catholics. I know many Jews - reformed, conservative and orthodox - and have sat up nights having conversations with them, and have never met one who is opposed to the Church’s mission to save souls.

Such a position is hardly reasonable. It doesn’t matter who the author of such a comment was referring to; ordinary Jews in the street or organizational leaders. Using the word “Jew” and the phrase “Enemies of the Church” in the same train of thought is wildly reckless, utterly irresponsible and show a complete lack of judgement. The press release is backpeddaling at best, and the twisting of scripture to do so shows how extremest and radical the position being defended really is.

One can pay lip service to praying for the conversion of Jews but statements like this work against their conversion, not for it. I’d rather have one faithful Jewish friend than ten Catholic friends who say such things.

-Tim-

YES!

 

[Dolezal]

Yes, I’d say so. Freemasons and Modernists are, indeed, enemies of the Church. Jews are not, they are simply people in need of the salvific powers of Christ, as are all non-Christians. I pray for the Jews to convert. There is nothing wrong with that whatsoever; it strikes me as being a supreme act of charity. Perhaps the Prayer for the Jews in the Good Friday liturgy is kind of wishy-washy, but I think it’s easy to get the gist of it.

So the media recognizes that Freemasons and modernists are enemies of the Church? Remember it is the secular media with those headlines.

If you want to generalize, then Rabbinic Jews are also enemies of the Church. In the Talmud for example, Onqelos son of Kalonikus raises the ghost of Jesus, and asks him, “what is your punishment? Jesus answers, I boil in feces.” A commentary adds, “See how much better is a Jewish sinner than a heathen prophet.” Seems pretty anti-Christian to me. But the fact is that as individuals, most Jews, Freemasons, and modernists, are not enemies of the Church. Many Freemasons, for example, are Catholic and not aware that the Church forbids membership of the lodge.

 

[YoungTradCath]

So the media recognizes that Freemasons and modernists are enemies of the Church? Remember it is the secular media with those headlines.

If you want to generalize, then Rabbinic Jews are also enemies of the Church. In the Talmud for example, Onqelos son of Kalonikus raises the ghost of Jesus, and asks him, “what is your punishment? Jesus answers, I boil in feces.” A commentary adds, “See how much better is a Jewish sinner than a heathen prophet.” Seems pretty anti-Christian to me. But the fact is that as individuals, most Jews, Freemasons, and modernists, are not enemies of the Church. Many Freemasons, for example, are Catholic and not aware that the Church forbids membership of the lodge.

Yikes! We better tell them.

 

[Dolezal]

Yikes! We better tell them.

Sadly the Church has kind of abandoned the topic of lodge membership. Interesting to note, John Salza (of scripturecatholic.com/) was “a 32nd degree Mason and Shriner, as well as a Blue lodge officer and Proficiency cardholder.”

(Sorry for going off-topic)

 

[severus68]

So the media recognizes that Freemasons and modernists are enemies of the Church? Remember it is the secular media with those headlines.

If you want to generalize, then Rabbinic Jews are also enemies of the Church. In the Talmud for example, Onqelos son of Kalonikus raises the ghost of Jesus, and asks him, “what is your punishment? Jesus answers, I boil in feces.” A commentary adds, “See how much better is a Jewish sinner than a heathen prophet.” Seems pretty anti-Christian to me. But the fact is that as individuals, most Jews, Freemasons, and modernists, are not enemies of the Church. Many Freemasons, for example, are Catholic and not aware that the Church forbids membership of the lodge.

You have ggod points. How many Jews persecute Christians/Catholics today? Israel does not. Most Catholics just practice and want to practice their religion in peace. They have no knowledge of the SSPX, have no interest in being mini/minor theologians delving into Vatican II and other Church documents, have no interest and have no need to point fingers and say who is wrong etc. Modernist is not a term most Catholics use or even know off. They are too busy worshiping God, living their lives and struggling with their problems.

 

[Julia_Mae]

1. Yes
2. Yes
3. Yes

No, no, no. Unless I misread Br JR’s posts in the first few pages of this thread. This is why there is a time element: because they will have no priests as they have no Bishops to ordain them. Perhaps Br JR will comment.