What the lifting of the Excommunication really means

  • Thread starter Thread starter redrosetea
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

redrosetea

Guest
home.catholicweb.com/CathMessDavDio/index.cfm/NewsItem?partnerarticle=1&id=3888&From=Home

Bishop Williamson has not been granted regular status as a Catholic bishop. Like the other SSPX bishops he remains under suspension, without canonical status. In effect the Pope has recognized the traditionalist bishops as passengers on the Barque of Peter, not as active commissioned officers. The process of reconciling the SSPX with the Holy See is far from complete.

What has happened, then? Pope Benedict has made a bold move toward ending a split that began more than 20 years ago. At the same time, he has cleared the way for a debate on the most important theological issue facing the Christian world today. The outcome of that debate will have an importance that stretches far beyond the circles of Catholic traditionalism.
 
Personally I think all the Newsweek article did was pander to the left and express Wiegels personal opinion on the issue. And seriously, I equate people that use the term Lefebvrist with people that use the term Mohammaden. It’s clearly meant as an insult. If you ( general you) want to have a charitable discussion about a religious group it’s in your best interest to use the name they call themselves. For example Muslim not Mohammaden and SSPX/FSSPX or their formal name Fraternitas Sacerdotalis Sancti Pii X, not Lefebvrist :rolleyes:
 
I’ll go one step further with this question. And I think we’ll need a theologian rather than personal opinions here.

If a Pope, (in this case Pope Benedict), lifts the excommunication - how does one view all the priests who took their vows during the excommunication time period? All the years following the initial excommunication order of the SSPX, one would have to wonder about the validity of ordinations of priests under a previously-excommunicated bishop and the sacraments administered by these priests…Mind you - I’m not questioning their holiness or denying the Order of His Holiness - but I don’t understand if these priests were technically ordained, since whatever SSPX Cardinal or Bishop conferring the Orders was under excommunicated themselves. Remember Our Lord’s words to His Apostles - What you shall loose on earth, shall be loosed in Heaven. What you bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven. So, that would mean the original excommunication was valid? Then, how were the priests - priests?

Hope I’m asking this correctly. I don’t want to commit sin by doubting or offend anyone or start any debates here.
 
And seriously, I equate people that use the term Lefebvrist with people that use the term Mohammaden.
Like the Catholic Encyclopedia, which is linked to this site? It uses the term “mohammedan”, too.
 
Cluny said:
And seriously, I equate people that use the term Lefebvrist with people that use the term Mohammaden.
Like the Catholic Encyclopedia, which is linked to this site? It uses the term “mohammedan”, too.
Click to expand...
In the spirit of charity it’s good manners to refer to groups and people by the names they choose to for themselves. Regardless of the terms used 100 years ago.
 
Interesting that no one commented about the meat of the article but instead picked it apart because of a term that was used:confused:
 
ConservativeOne said:
I’ll go one step further with this question. And I think we’ll need a theologian rather than personal opinions here.

If a Pope, (in this case Pope Benedict), lifts the excommunication - how does one view all the priests who took their vows during the excommunication time period? All the years following the initial excommunication order of the SSPX, one would have to wonder about the validity of ordinations of priests under a previously-excommunicated bishop and the sacraments administered by these priests…Mind you - I’m not questioning their holiness or denying the Order of His Holiness - but I don’t understand if these priests were technically ordained, since whatever SSPX Cardinal or Bishop conferring the Orders was under excommunicated themselves. Remember Our Lord’s words to His Apostles - What you shall loose on earth, shall be loosed in Heaven. What you bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven. So, that would mean the original excommunication was valid? Then, how were the priests - priests?

Hope I’m asking this correctly. I don’t want to commit sin by doubting or offend anyone or start any debates here.
Click to expand...
One views them most likely from how one viewed them before, if one is only applying one’s own personal opinion on the matter. If the question is how are they viewed canonically, the answer is that they are viewed canonically just as they were before the excommunications were lifted: that is, on the wrong side of the tracks of Canon law. The bishops are not excommunicated any longer, but they most certainly are not thereby made to be regualrized; they do not have any canonical status as a duly appointed bishop would have. And the priests under them have not received valid permission as per Canon law to exercise their ministry.

The validity of their ordinations, assuming that correct form and matter was followed (unlike the Anglicans who changed the ceremony, thus not validly ordaining anyone) is not and has not been in question, just as the ordinations of Orthodox churches are generally not in question as to validity. The issue may not be validity but licitness.

The validity of sacraments they cnfect may be in question, for example, a priest must have been given authority to hear confessions by a duly appointed bishop; there is plenty of discussion of the issue elsewhere.
 
It will likely mean that some will enter into full communion with the Roman Pontiff, while a “remnant” of other SSPXer’s will likely not accept full communion with the Roman Pontiff. I pray that it is otherwise.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top