The SSPX (without a flamewar)

  • Thread starter Thread starter Maximilian75
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Note that excommunication does not necessarily mean the person who is excommunicated is going to Hell. It just means that person cannot receive the sacraments.
 
She was making it sound as though the Early Church wasn’t as full of Love and Mercy as the modern Church.

YEEEEEE
 
That is a quote from a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia is not an authority within the Church.

At the same time I declare that, as of today’s date, the Decree issued at that time no longer has juridical effect.
 
Then how did Vatican 2 lift the excommunications of people who had been dead for 900 years?
 
I don’t know and won’t pretend to do so. I’m no expert on canon law, much less penial punishments. I trust, however, that if they were lifted as you say they are, the grounds they were lifted on were valid.

EDIT: Ah, I see now. From the article:
“The absolution which revokes excommunication is purely jurisdictional and has nothing sacramental about it. It reinstates the repentant sinner in the Church; restores the rights of which he had been deprived, beginning with participation in the sacraments; and for this very reason, it should precede sacramental absolution, which it thenceforth renders possible and efficacious.”
Click to expand...
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05678a.htm

My mistake. I assumed when it said absolution it meant in a sacramental sense.
 
Last edited:
Communion once a year? I don’t see how that squares with certain historical texts…what’s the source for that?
 
Last edited:
Ok, here you go.
"On behalf of the faculties expressly granted by the Holy Father Benedict XVI, in virtue of the current decree, I lift the censure of excommunication latae sententiae to Bishops Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta declared by this Congregation on July 1, 1988, while I declare null of juridical consequences, as of today, the decree released in the past.”

Four excommunications lifted, not five.

Is this a reputable enough resource?
 
Kei said:
Communion once a year? I don’t see how that squares with certain historical texts…what’s the source for that?
Click to expand...
The frequency of the faithful receiving Holy Communion has varied a lot over the centuries as well as over the continents.
 
Of the 4 men in the decree.
One must ask for an excommunication to be lifted. The Archbishop could not, and the decree does not state that it was lifted retroactively.
Don’t you think that detail would be included if it were true that Archbishop’s was lifted?
 
Yes, indeed, it would be a punishment for someone, say a soldier, to not be able to receive for an extended period of time, like x years.

But still, the whole Mass is based around the Eucharist, and that’s been pretty regularly practiced at least weekly. Not everyone could make it every week, but still
 
The decree that excommunicated the 4 Bishop’s was lifted. It says nothing about the society itself.
LeFerbvre’s excommunication was different and separate from the excommunication of the 4 Bishop’s as it was for very different reasons.
 
Then why did he null the entire decree and not specify that only these excommunications were lifted and the rest of the decree still stood?
 
If you believe that the current church is full of errors, why can’t you grasp that some errors may have been made in the past?
That makes zero sense,
And anyway, that’s not what I said.
I was illustrating that the “good old days” were hardly “good”.
Indeed, you as a layman would have zero opportunity to be so publicly critical of the church. You would be asked to sit down at minimum, and leave at worst.
 
Well by the time of Pope St Pius X frequent communion was encouraged and established. Daily communion became a practice of the church so before Vatican II this wasn’t an issue.

The truth of Vatican II is this:
  • The Council was not meant to be much different than Vatican I in tone. The original schemas should bare this out clearly. You can read them today if you want as they are available. They are scholaticly written, clear, concise and in perfect harmony with the tradition of the church. There was even a dogmatic condemnation of communism written already but got ditched at the last minute due to politics. These schemas were tossed out within the first 3-5 days of the council… a council which lasted about 3 years!
  • The remaining schemas were brought before the floor and tossed out by the Fathers who were lead and deceived by modernists into deciding the council agenda themselves. A false pretense and they aimed to deviate from those schemes which would stop their plan of changing church. Evidence of this is when the head of the CDF back then was pretty much laughed off stage by modernist bishops when his microphone was switched off by modernists and he thought he was being heard as he delivered his speech in defence of the original schemas. The modernists found it funny that a blind old man was being made a fool off. Once he realized his mic was off he walked off in embarrassment and the modernist bishops clapped him off. The most powerful man in the church after the pope was defeated. They had won and hijacked it. From that moment they had control over the council.
  • They completely overhauled the schemas and attempted to contradict them but the traditionalists/conservatives had a strong push back. This is evidenced in the sheer verbosity in the documents as they were written to appease two parties at polar ends of the scale. This is why you see the documents advocating two positions on one issue in many places. Sacrosanctum Concilium (the document on the liturgy) is an example of this. Concerning Latin; the modernists wanted to ditch it entirely and hence you see vernacular encouraged but it is checked by the traditionalist faction who got their few lines too where it says “Latin must be retained in the rites…”.
  • In the end the documents are the most verbose and ambiguous documents in church history purely on account that they were written to appease two factions.
Continued…
 
Last edited:
Continued…
  • The modernists, though, didn’t win the day at the council but won out in practice as they exploited ambiguities in the Vatican II documents. Examples are absolutely no latin in the liturgy, versus populum worship yet Vatican II nowhere calls for this and the GIRM is written with a presupposition of ad orientem worship. Gregorian chant is practically gone form all masses yet Vatican II calls for it to have “pride of place”. I can on and on…
  • Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre was a council father and signed all the documents of Vatican II. He became scandalized when he saw what was happening to the mass and the church in general which went over and above and in some cases against what Vatican II called for. He believed himself to be defending the true teaching of the church and understanding of Vatican II. We can criticise his method of dealing with this but we cannot call him proud. I think that is unfair. They have legitimate concerns that need to be addressed. Bishop Athanasius Schneider had a good interview on this. He sumemd it up as Vatican II needs a syllabus of errors to avoid anymore confusion around what it’s documents mean.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top