L
Lormar
Guest
Why do you make comments like that? This is not the first time you have made a post like this.
Who denied that the SSPX are valid priests and bishops?
What do traditional folks really think of BW's criticism of the SSPX?
- Status
Who denied that the SSPX are valid priests and bishops?
A
april32010
Guest
the mods have deleted the posts.
L
Lormar
Guest
Thank you, April, for telling me that.
G
GloriaMaria
Guest
Here’s a question that sounds cheeky, but I mean it sincerely. Is the same respect due to a Bishop who knowingly and publicly steals his Ordination from Holy Mother Church?
I don’t mean basic human dignity stuff, but the same kind of respect we would be expected to offer a Bishop who was ordained licitly?
I don’t mean basic human dignity stuff, but the same kind of respect we would be expected to offer a Bishop who was ordained licitly?
G
Gipper40
Guest
I was once interested in joining back in 72’. I had so many misgiving with the Church. I went to Ave Maria Chapel since 1970 with the Catholic Traditionalist Movement with Fr. Gomnar DePauw… I wrote to the Archbishop in Switz. There was a seminarian living in Flushing. He met me some time later. I was invited to meet Archbishop Lefebvre. I was worried about being excommacaited I have never gone to a Novus Order Mass since 1969. Maybe I made the wrong choice. I did not join. Archbishop Lefebver was a great man. I was worried what was to become of the Society when he was gone.I never thought the Church of Pope Paul VI Would tolerate this Order of Traditionalist in the future. For our Church was going down another path.
M
Mike30
Guest
Why do you think the moderators felt the need to post what they did if no one had crosed the line? Well? And yes, when people speak in highly disrespectful terms about the Priests and Bishops of the SSPX as some here sem to feel they can do with impunity, I will, out of simple fairness, say something. Not you, not me, nor anyone on this forum has the right to degrade and belittle by name any Priest, Bishop, Order, Society, Institute or any other validly ordained and or consecrated religious.
Speaking truthfully is one thing. having an obvious agenda is entirely different and from what I understand frowned upon in this forum.
M
Mike30
Guest
As I understand it, valid orders are valid orders. That is something that cannot be changed unless I am serously mistaken.
L
Lormar
Guest
First of all, watch your tone. I am not one of your little cronies.
Second, I have no idea what you are talking about. I understand that posts were pulled by the moderator. The only posts I have read in this thread are the ones that are here. I don’t see in any one of them this blatant disrespect you are speaking about.
Third, don’t lecture me about the SSPX. Unless you have walked a bit in someone else’s shoes, you have no idea what they went through being with them.
M
Mike30
Guest
First of all you watch your tone. That goes two ways. I am not one of your little cronies either.(Whatever you meant by that statement
Second, it was pretty obvious what I was responding to since I cut and pasted the mods announcement and included it in my post. Of course, I suppose you did not see that in your haste to attack.
Third, don’t lecture me. You no nothing at all about me. However, I am very aware of how you feel about SSPX. You have made that crystal clear to everyone here.
D
Dee_S
Guest
I know what you mean here, something I’ve thought about too. I cant imagine it being of the same kind
Yes they validly have received the sacrament consecrating them - and respect is due to that…but they are not bishops of the Catholic Church (as yet) so I would imagine that we are not bound to accord them respect at that level until they are in full communion.
**Firstly, in the strict sense of the word according to Archbishop Mueller, they are not considered ‘Catholic’ bishops - **as he said in this news interview on the SSPX.
Is it possible for reconciliation with Bishop Richard Williamson within the society?
“Williamson is a separate problem to this reconciliation process. It is simply unacceptable that a Christian or even more a bishop — ***of course he is not a Catholic bishop, as a bishop is only Catholic when he is in full communion with the Pope, the Successor of Peter, ***which Williamson is not — denies all that the Nazis had done against the Jewish people, their exterminations. How is it possible to be so cold-hearted about this? It is absolutely unacceptable, but this is a separate problem.
They [SSPX] need to accept the complete doctrine of the Catholic Church: the confession of faith, the Creed, and also accept the magisterium of the Pope as it is authentically interpreted. That is necessary. They also need to accept some forms of development in the liturgy. The Holy Father recognized the perennial validity of the extraordinary form of the liturgy, but they also must accept that the new ordinary form of the liturgy, developed after the Council, is valid and legitimate.”
Read more: ncregister.com/daily-news/archbishop-mueller-on-the-sspx-and-his-controversial-writings#ixzz2Sg89umVt
P
pnewton
Guest
No one can do this, as it is basically a personal re-writing of canon law which is not a matter of opinion. Right now, there is no anathema in the current code of canon law. I am sure Bishop Williamson knows this and was speaking poetically. Mores the pity.
D
Dee_S
Guest
Thanks for that very interesting info. Yes, I must agree that none of us ever thought the Church would “tolerate” this for as long as it has.
The answers lie in APOSTOLIC LETTER "MOTU PROPRIO"
ECCLESIAE UNITATEM
OF THE SUPREME PONTIFF BENEDICT XVI
CONCERNING THE PONTIFICAL COMMISSION ECCLESIA DEI
- The duty to safeguard the unity of the Church with concern to offer help to all in order to respond appropriately to this vocation and divine grace is incumbent in particular on the Successor of the Apostle Peter, who is the perpetual and visible principle and foundation of the unity both of the Bishops and of the faithful …
- In the same spirit and with the same commitment to*** encouraging the resolution of all fractures and divisions in the Church and to healing a wound in the ecclesial fabric that was more and more painfully felt, I wished to remit the excommunication of the four Bishops illicitly ordained by Archbishop Lefebvre. With this decision I intended to remove an impediment that might have jeopardized the opening of a door to dialogue and thereby to invite the Bishops and the “Society of St Pius X” to rediscover the path to full communion with the Church.*** As I explained in my Letter to the Catholic Bishops of last 10 March, the remission of the excommunication was a measure taken in the context of ecclesiastical discipline to free the individuals from the burden of conscience constituted by the most serious of ecclesiastical penalties. However, the doctrinal questions obviously remain and until they are clarified the Society has no canonical status in the Church and its ministers cannot legitimately exercise any ministry.
vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/apost_letters/documents/hf_ben-xvi_apl_20090702_ecclesiae-unitatem_en.html
B
Boy_Wonder
Guest
Bishop Williamson is a little off. He holds and all too often expresses very extreme and poorly reasoned opinions on a number of issues. I mean no disrespect, but his words and conduct over many years have provided ample proof that he has some major screws loose.
In my heart, I believe he truly feels he is serving God by advancing some of his more “unusual” theories. His intentions are good. Unfortunately, the results are often harmful and embarrassing.
Pray for him. Ignore what he says or take it with a HUGE grain of salt.
In my heart, I believe he truly feels he is serving God by advancing some of his more “unusual” theories. His intentions are good. Unfortunately, the results are often harmful and embarrassing.
Pray for him. Ignore what he says or take it with a HUGE grain of salt.
D
Dee_S
Guest
:wave:this is a very apt and charitable summary of him, which I think that even those who are personally attached to him will agree with.
I do think his intentions are good ones, just way off beam and tend towards the problematic.
I also think that the pressure he applied on Bishop Fellay last year (through ever possible means and media e.g. youtube), did much within the SSPX to cause Bishop Fellay’s proposal to reconcile with Rome to be rejected at their general council meeting in July 2012. As we know, much time has and is still being spent travelling the globe to their priories to consolidate and explain how* it was never their intention to do so.*
Sorry to say, but BW is in some people’s eyes, coming across as more stable, in that he has never wavered from “the cause” and was instrumental in doing something to avert the possibility of ‘betrayal’.
B
Boy_Wonder
Guest
It’s sad but inevitable that SSPX would run into a crisis of leadership. Any organization which defines itself by the issues on which it dissents, ends up splintering and fragmenting.
I had a great deal of admiration for Archbishop Lefevre but have not been wowed by those who followed him.
It’s often said that “by their fruits you shall know them”. What has been the fruit of 40+ years of rebellion? What good? Converts? Miracles? Institutions? Nope. Nothing.
Perhaps SSPX should do some serious and humble soul searching to see where they may have gone astray.
I had a great deal of admiration for Archbishop Lefevre but have not been wowed by those who followed him.
It’s often said that “by their fruits you shall know them”. What has been the fruit of 40+ years of rebellion? What good? Converts? Miracles? Institutions? Nope. Nothing.
Perhaps SSPX should do some serious and humble soul searching to see where they may have gone astray.
T
Tomdstone
Guest
I noticed that at the local SSPX, the families are very large. For example, there is one family with eight children, another with ten children, etc. But at the local Catholic Church most families are with two or three children. In fact, one of the ladies who is a helper at the Church has said that she had her tubes cut, because she doesn’t want any more children. So to say that the SSPX has done nothing at all of good, is not right. I see many SSPX people bringing many good and decent Catholic children into the world.
M
moon1234
Guest
A Catholic Bishop is a Catholic Bishop. Once ordained, that can NEVER be taken from them. They can be Excommunicated (which is a punishment, not a removal of being Catholic or a Bishop), Suspended (Not permitted to act as a Bishop, but they are still a Bishop and if they act as a bishop it is VALID, but Illicit (not lawful).
The analogy would be that I am no longer human if I act as an animal. If I bark like a dog, does that mean I am no longer human? If human laws say I can not father a child, and I impregnate a women, does that mean the women is no longer pregnant? The effects of an illegal act are still there.
In the case of the SSPX Bishops, they are NOT excommunicated any more. Meaning they are no longer under a canonical penalty. They are suspended, meaning they have no official permission to ACT as a Bishop. If they DO act as a Bishop, what they do is not invalid (assuming they do what the Church says and intend to do that action), but illicit.
Some acts REQUIRE them to have official standing, those acts they could NOT do while suspended and would be INVALID.
To refer to them as non-Catholic Bishop’s is an error.
This whole idea of being “in-communion” with the Church is muddy modernist thinking and it has no place in the Church, in my opinion. Would you refer to your children as “not in communion” with your family if they are being disobedient? I doubt it. Would you consider your child part of your family if they were born to you? If you got into a big fight with your child would you be able to unmake him part of your family?
See how silly this “in-communion” language sounds when you bring it into perspective. Once a priest or a Bishop is ordained, they ARE a Catholic Bishop for LIFE. Nothing can change that. It is an indelible mark. To somehow say a Catholic Bishop is not Catholic is like saying he is my son, but not part of my family. They may be disobedient, but that does not take away that indelible mark.
Respect for a Bishop or a Priest is due to all who have that mark on their soul. It is not the man that you respect, but that mark placed on the soul by God. You don’t have to agree or follow those things that a disobedient cleric says or does, but he should ALWAYS respected as one of God’s own.
The analogy would be that I am no longer human if I act as an animal. If I bark like a dog, does that mean I am no longer human? If human laws say I can not father a child, and I impregnate a women, does that mean the women is no longer pregnant? The effects of an illegal act are still there.
In the case of the SSPX Bishops, they are NOT excommunicated any more. Meaning they are no longer under a canonical penalty. They are suspended, meaning they have no official permission to ACT as a Bishop. If they DO act as a Bishop, what they do is not invalid (assuming they do what the Church says and intend to do that action), but illicit.
Some acts REQUIRE them to have official standing, those acts they could NOT do while suspended and would be INVALID.
To refer to them as non-Catholic Bishop’s is an error.
This whole idea of being “in-communion” with the Church is muddy modernist thinking and it has no place in the Church, in my opinion. Would you refer to your children as “not in communion” with your family if they are being disobedient? I doubt it. Would you consider your child part of your family if they were born to you? If you got into a big fight with your child would you be able to unmake him part of your family?
See how silly this “in-communion” language sounds when you bring it into perspective. Once a priest or a Bishop is ordained, they ARE a Catholic Bishop for LIFE. Nothing can change that. It is an indelible mark. To somehow say a Catholic Bishop is not Catholic is like saying he is my son, but not part of my family. They may be disobedient, but that does not take away that indelible mark.
Respect for a Bishop or a Priest is due to all who have that mark on their soul. It is not the man that you respect, but that mark placed on the soul by God. You don’t have to agree or follow those things that a disobedient cleric says or does, but he should ALWAYS respected as one of God’s own.
B
Boulder257
Guest
Or perhaps its a spurrious correlation.
T
Tomdstone
Guest
I agree. Bishop Fellay has been spending much time and effort to reconcile with Rome and to convince his people that this is the right path to take. But at the same time. BW has been openly and severely critical of those efforts. As a result of BW, there is now a fairly large group which has broken away from SSPX and is expressing unwillingness at any reconciliation until Rome agrees to go back to the preVatican II Catholic Church, which is not going to happen.
F
Filii_Dei
Guest
It is not the sacramental character that demands respect but the office. These bishops are in a state of irregularity as they have no see, but they are still considered canonically bishops in the eyes of the church. That is why they demand respect. On the other hand, a laicized priest may still be sacramentally a priest, but he is canonically a layperson, and should be treated like one.
- Status