Vatican orders bishop who denied Holocaust to recant if he is to take office as a prelate

  • Thread starter Thread starter gilliam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
kleary;
So absolutely wrong. You and the media, the German Bishops and all who are believing lifting the excommunications were wrong because of the “holocause denying bishop” need to be re-educated in the Catholic Faith.
Click to expand...
I never said that lifting the excommunications were about the Holocaust denying Bishop. I said that lifting the excommunications on SSPX Bishops was wrong, because they have not changed their position on Vatican II and the authority of the Pope. The SSPX members always had the option to return to the Catholic faith, but they chose not to take those steps, because they remain in their beliefs. The Pope lifting the excommunications, as one Cardinal has said, has created a canonical mess.
NO PERSON can be excomumunicated for this. Denying the holucaust has NOTHING TO DO with the Catholic Faith so lifting an excomunication does not depend on believing in the holocaust or not.
Click to expand...
I understand your confusion. No one said that the excommunication had anything to do with the Holocaust.
The liberals, pro gay and lesbian activists are having a field day with this one. The release of such information was even done by a pro-lesbian activist.
Click to expand...
Going off on tangents like this, blaming people for releasing the misinformation you have, is the problem, not anyone in this forum.

Much of the mainstream Catholic Church has a problem with it the Pope lifting the excommunication. Even George Weigel, has an article this week titled, "The Dangers of Premature Reconciliation, in which he addresses the fact that the SSPX Bishops still hold views opposing Vatican II and the authority of the Pope. The article isn’t available on the internet yet, but when it is, I’ll try to remember to post it.

SSPX held for a long time, that no pope after Pius X, was legitimately elected. My understanding is that through dialog during Pope John Paul II, they’ve changed their position on this somewhat, but still have problems with Pope John XXIII and Pope Paul VI.

Jim
 
JimR-OCDS said:
SSPX held for a long time, that no pope after Pius X, was legitimately elected. My understanding is that through dialog during Pope John Paul II, they’ve changed their position on this somewhat, but still have problems with Pope John XXIII and Pope Paul VI.

Jim
Click to expand...
Archbishop Lefebvre insisted that all members of the society accept all the recent Popes as legitimate. As a result, several priests broke off and formed the SSPV.

Please attempt to discover the actual positon of the society before spreading rumours and misinformation.
 
JimR-OCDS said:
I never said that lifting the excommunications were about the Holocaust denying Bishop. I said that lifting the excommunications on SSPX Bishops was wrong, because they have not changed their position on Vatican II and the authority of the Pope. The SSPX members always had the option to return to the Catholic faith, but they chose not to take those steps, because they remain in their beliefs. The Pope lifting the excommunications, as one Cardinal has said, has created a canonical mess.
Click to expand...
Could you tell me what these beliefs are which contradict the faith? Is it their opposition to religious liberty? If that’s the case, the Popes of the 19th century weren’t true Catholics either, including Pius IX, who very strongly condemned religious liberty in Quanta Cura.

The SSPX believe nothing which hasn’t been taught by the Magisterium. They will not be forced to abandon the traditional teaching, or be required to endorse the non-binding areas of the Second Vatican Council.
 
Dauphin said:
Archbishop Lefebvre insisted that all members of the society accept all the recent Popes as legitimate. As a result, several priests broke off and formed the SSPV.

Please attempt to discover the actual positon of the society before spreading rumours and misinformation.
Click to expand...
Lefebvre didn’t do that until later and not all the members obeyed.

I debated members of SSPX in the past. I know what they believe and as I stated, they changed their position as a result of dialog during Pope John Paul II’s papacy.
Theological positions
Click to expand...
Lefebvre was associated with the following positions:
Click to expand...
The rejection of ecumenism;[59]
The espousal of pragmatic religious tolerance instead of the principle of religious liberty;[60]
The rejection of collegiality within the Church;[61]
Opposition to the replacement of the Tridentine Mass with the Mass of Paul VI.[62]
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcel_Lefebvre#Theological_positions
Click to expand...
Jim
 
JimR-OCDS said:
Lefebvre didn’t do that until later and not all the members obeyed.

I debated members of SSPX in the past. I know what they believe and as I stated, they changed their position as a result of dialog during Pope John Paul II’s papacy.
Click to expand...
That’s not good enough. You have to provide some form of evidence that the Archbishop or other prominent members ot the SSPX expressed sedevacantist views, and that this was at some point the official position of the SSPX.
 
kleary said:
NO PERSON can be excomumunicated for this. Denying the holucaust has NOTHING TO DO with the Catholic Faith so lifting an excomunication does not depend on believing in the holocaust or not.
Click to expand...
It depends. Covering up murder could be considered cooperation with it. Cooperation with murder is a reason to be excommunicated.
 
Dauphin said:
Could you tell me what these beliefs are which contradict the faith? Is it their opposition to religious liberty? If that’s the case, the Popes of the 19th century weren’t true Catholics either, including Pius IX, who very strongly condemned religious liberty in Quanta Cura.
Click to expand...
It’s not heresy to deny something before it has been defined. Take the immaculate conception for example. Some saints denied it in the middle ages, before it was defined. It doesn’t make them a heretic. But today, it would make you a heretic to deny the immaculate conception. Because it is no longer an open question.
The same goes for those popes: they weren’t heretics, religious liberty hadn’t been defined yet.
 
D_M said:
Hi Valke,

Another query:

If a person denied that God existed is that less worse than denying the full extent of the Shoah?

Is the Shoah more sacred than God?
Click to expand...
It is not a question of sacredness. It is a question of motive. One can rationally deny the existence of God without bearing hatred to any people.

God Bless,
 
cassini said:
**There are those who have a slightly different interpretation of the situation. **It is believed by some that the Jews are now telling the Pope what to do. Worse, he is doing what the jews want him to do. They do not want tradition back into the Church. They want the crufixes removed when they visit Rome. They whinged in a similar fashion when the Pope restored the prayer for jewish conversion. So now the Pope is caught between his adherence to Vatican II ‘dialogue’ - which is pretend the jews do not need conversion for salvation, pretend they are a continuation of the Jews we once were before the new covenant and not what Christ called them, the sons of the Devil - and his move towards tradition now that he is pope. This chaos in a divided Rome is a punishment from God.
Click to expand...
The bold is mine. You are right. There are those with a different interpretation. But when the rubber hits the road the only interpretation on the issue that matters is that of Benedict XVI. He does not feel the way that these people say. And he demands that the Bishop be silenced and distance himself from this position.

It makes no difference whether the suggestion comes from the Jews or from the Roman Curia. In the end, when the Pope speaks to a bishop in such a forceful manner, what matters is that the bishop must obey. A bishop can only disobey if he is asked to do something that is sinful.

In this case, the Bishop is placing himself in a difficult position. The Holy Father does not have to grant him faculties. Even with the excommunication lifted, he cannot licitly and in some cases validly function as a Catholic bishop without them. If he attempts to do so, he will incur another excommunication. That is not good for him or for the people whom he is trying to serve.

If he wants to say that he submits in obedience to the Pope, then he will have to distance himself from this position and remain silent until the Pope is satisfied. Where the Pope gets his advice from does not come into play in the Pope’s authority over the Church.

The Tradition has never been that the authority of the papacy is only valid if the Pope avoids advice from those outside the Church. The only condition on his authority is that he defend truth. There is no question that Benedict XVI’s papacy has been a defense of truth from the first day of his election.

Therefore, the Bishop and those who have this conspiracy perspective really have to submit to the authority of the Holy Father, regardless. He is not asking that they renounce their faith. He is asking that they work with him for unity.

Fraternally,

JR 🙂
 
Neil_Anthony said:
It’s not heresy to deny something before it has been defined. Take the immaculate conception for example. Some saints denied it in the middle ages, before it was defined. It doesn’t make them a heretic. But today, it would make you a heretic to deny the immaculate conception. Because it is no longer an open question.
The same goes for those popes: they weren’t heretics, religious liberty hadn’t been defined yet.
Click to expand...
We’re not discussing the personal opinions of Catholics, here. We’re discussing the authentic teaching of the magisterium.

Religious liberty cannot be part of the Church’s faith. If it is, then the magisterium finds itself in a contradiction, since the Pope has formally condemned religious liberty, invoking his apostolic authority:

“Amidst, therefore, such great perversity of depraved opinions, we, well remembering our Apostolic Office, and very greatly solicitous for our most holy Religion, for sound doctrine and the salvation of souls which is intrusted to us by God, and (solicitous also) for the welfare of human society itself, have thought it right again to raise up our Apostolic voice. Therefore, by our Apostolic authority, we reprobate, proscribe, and condemn all the singular and evil opinions and doctrines severally mentioned in this letter, and will and command that they be thoroughly held by all children of the Catholic Church as reprobated, proscribed and condemned.” - Pope Pius IX, Quanta Cura

It cannot possibly be considered heretical to obey the magisterium. Since the Second Vatican Council said that only those things are binding which it explicitly declares to be binding, and this is clearly not the case with Dignitatis Humanae, it is entirely reasonable to assent to that which has been made binding (ie. Quanta Cura).

If people find some way to reconcile the documents in their own minds, that’s just grand for them, but don’t expect traditional Catholics to deny Quanta Cura just to assent to a later document which is not binding.
 
Dauphin said:
We’re not discussing the personal opinions of Catholics, here. We’re discussing the authentic teaching of the magisterium.

Religious liberty cannot be part of the Church’s faith. If it is, then the magisterium finds itself in a contradiction, since the Pope has formally condemned religious liberty, invoking his apostolic authority:

“Amidst, therefore, such great perversity of depraved opinions, we, well remembering our Apostolic Office, and very greatly solicitous for our most holy Religion, for sound doctrine and the salvation of souls which is intrusted to us by God, and (solicitous also) for the welfare of human society itself, have thought it right again to raise up our Apostolic voice. Therefore, by our Apostolic authority, we reprobate, proscribe, and condemn all the singular and evil opinions and doctrines severally mentioned in this letter, and will and command that they be thoroughly held by all children of the Catholic Church as reprobated, proscribed and condemned.” - Pope Pius IX, Quanta Cura

It cannot possibly be considered heretical to obey the magisterium. Since the Second Vatican Council said that only those things are binding which it explicitly declares to be binding, and this is clearly not the case with Dignitatis Humanae, it is entirely reasonable to assent to that which has been made binding (ie. Quanta Cura).

If people find some way to reconcile the documents in their own minds, that’s just grand for them, but don’t expect traditional Catholics to deny Quanta Cura just to assent to a later document which is not binding.
Click to expand...
I think the problem here is that some are interpreting Quanta Cura to be a dogma. It is not. It was a discipline imposed by the Holy Father’s apostolic authority. Therefore, since it is not a dogma, another Pope can use his apostolic authority to change the discipline.

Fraternally,

JR 🙂
 
JimR-OCDS said:
This only compounds the problem of the Pope lifting the excommunication in the first place.

I said before it was a mistake, this decision helps prove my case.

Jim
Click to expand...
Absolutely! Look what happend when Jesus accpeted Peter, Thomas and Paul back into the fold!!!
 
JReducation said:
I think the problem here is that some are interpreting Quanta Cura to be a dogma. It is not. It was a discipline imposed by the Holy Father’s apostolic authority. Therefore, since it is not a dogma, another Pope can use his apostolic authority to change the discipline.

Fraternally,

JR 🙂
Click to expand...
If it can change, then it isn’t a matter of faith. If this is in fact a matter of discipline, it is permissible to disagree with a disciplinary decision (but not to directly disobey). Either way, there is no basis for demanding that the SSPX accept religious liberty as if it’s some part of the faith.

Also, I’m not aware that another Pope has invoked his “Apostolic Authority” to embrace religious liberty. Dignitatis Humanae never declared itself to be binding, which was the Council’s own requirement to make a teaching binding.
 
estesbob said:
Absolutely! Look what happend when Jesus accpeted Peter, Thomas and Paul back into the fold!!!
Click to expand...
Peter, Thomas and Paul never left the fold in the first place. I don’t understand the analogy. :confused:

JR 🙂
 
JReducation said:
Peter, Thomas and Paul never left the fold in the first place. I don’t understand the analogy. :confused:

JR 🙂
Click to expand...
They all denied Christ-isnt that worse than denying the Holocaust?

Is believing in the Holocaust a requirement to be Catholic?
 
estesbob said:
They all denied Christ-isnt that worse than denying the Holocaust?

Is believing in the Holocaust a requirement to be Catholic?
Click to expand...
I’ve heard it said that the Holocaust has replaced Christ’s passion.

We’re all expected to shed tears of blood over the Holocaust, but public blasphemy and mockery of the Son of God is perfectly fine. People react today to holocaust denial the same way people of the middle ages reacted to blasphemy.

(Don’t get me wrong, the holocaust was terrible, but I think there is a point to this argument.)
 
JReducation said:
I think the problem here is that some are interpreting Quanta Cura to be a dogma. It is not. It was a discipline imposed by the Holy Father’s apostolic authority. Therefore, since it is not a dogma, another Pope can use his apostolic authority to change the discipline.

Fraternally,

JR 🙂
Click to expand...
Some Catholics claim it to be a binding dogma, whereas others say that it is disciplinary?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top