Well, the conclusion isn't based on something as trivial as a suspicious handshake.

You have to look at the theology of Father Ratzinger, when you understand it's not Christian, and you realize that Bishop Fellay surely knows it's not Christian, what sort of conclusion can a reasonable person draw?

True, but isn't displaying Masonic affiliation sort of an announcement to the world "Hey, I'm not Catholic"?    I know we get into questions of heresy and such, but could a Mason claim to hold Catholic beliefs and still be a Catholic in good standing?   My thoughts are that the Masonic association in and of itself is a disqualifier.

Hello Catherine, If one is a Mason they are ipso facto excommunicated in the Old Code of Canon Law(Personally) if they become declared to have incurred it by a superior they then lose their offices etc.

In the new code it is a mortal sin to be a mason but there is no ipso facto excommunication, the result is the same, they are condemned to hell and not removed from office until they are declared to have lost office, or they are deposed from same.

I hope this helps.

Quote from: LordPhan

Hello Catherine, If one is a Mason they are ipso facto excommunicated in the Old Code of Canon Law(Personally) if they become declared to have incurred it by a superior they then lose their offices etc.

In the new code it is a mortal sin to be a mason but there is no ipso facto excommunication, the result is the same, they are condemned to hell and not removed from office until they are declared to have lost office, or they are deposed from same.

I hope this helps.

Okay.  So they could legitmately hold office before an official declaration?  What is the proper attitude towards one who holds an office but hasn't been removed?

Someone sent me a message but I can't use the messaging system until I am an established member.  How long does that take?

Father Hesse Doctor of Theology and Doctor of Canon Law(RIP) once gave a talk where he quoted events from the first Vatican Council. He stated that there was a discussion after the doctrine of Papal Infallibility was defined where one person asked "What would happen if a future Pope were to teach heresy" Pope Pius IX answered "You just don't follow him"

Now before I end this general relatio, I should respond to the most grave objection which has been made from this podium, viz. that we wish to make the extreme opinion of a certain school of theology a dogma of Catholic faith. Indeed this is a very grave objection, and, when I heard it from the mouth of an outstanding and most esteemed speaker, I hung my head sadly and pondered well before speaking. Good God, have you so confused our minds and our tongues that we are misrepresented as promoting the elevation of the extreme opinion of a certain school to the dignity of dogma, and is Bellarmine brought forth as the author of the fourth proposition of the Declaration of the French Clergy?  For, if I may begin from the last point, what is the difference between the assertion which the reverend speaker attributes to Bellarmine, viz., “The Pontiff is not able to define anything infallibly without the other bishops and without the cooperation of the Church,” and that well-known 4th article which says: “in questions of faith the judgment of the supreme Pontiff is not irreformable unless the consent of the Church accrues to it”? In reality there is hardly to be found any difference unless someone wants to call the disagreement of the bishops the cooperation of the Church so that a dogmatic definition would be infallible, even though the bishops dissent, but as long as they had been consulted beforehand.  These things are said about the opinion of Bellarmine. As far as the doctrine set forth in the Draft goes, the Deputation is unjustly accused of wanting to raise an extreme opinion, viz., that of Albert Pighius, to the dignity of a dogma. For the opinion of Albert Pighius, which Bellarmine indeed calls pious and probable, was that the Pope, as an individual person or a private teacher, was able to err from a type of ignorance but was never able to fall into heresy or teach heresy. To say nothing of the other points, let me say that this is clear from the very words of Bellarmine, both in the citation made by the reverend speaker and also from Bellarmine himself who, in book 4, chapter VI, pronounces on the opinion of Pighius in the following words: “It can be believed probably and piously that the supreme Pontiff is not only not able to err as Pontiff but that even as a particular person he is not able to be heretical, by pertinaciously believing something contrary to the faith.” From this, it appears that the doctrine in the proposed chapter is not that of Albert Pighius or the extreme opinion of any school, but rather that it is one and the same which Bellarmine teaches in the place cited by the reverend speaker and which Bellarmine adduces in the fourth place and calls most certain and assured, or rather, correcting himself, the most common and certain opinion.

Basically you are never permitted to endanger your faith, so you do not listen to the current Popes. In their roles as private theologians they are teaching heresy. In my opinon look to the traditional Bishops such as +Williamson and +Tissier de Mallerias.