Do we have any Italian speakers in the house?


Papa Francesco vieta di dire messa ai preti lefebvriani
I seguaci dell'ultra tradizionalista vescovo francese, già scomunicato, ora sono nel mirino di Bergoglio. Che attraverso uno dei suoi fedelissimi ha vietato loro di celebrare messa e amministrare i sacramenti. E chi li segue rischia la scomunica

DI ORAZIO LA ROCCA
27 ottobre 2014

Papa Francesco vieta di dire messa ai preti lefebvriani

Nuove “bastonate” di papa Francesco, il pastore della misericordia e del perdono, ma non solo. Dopo le severe botte inferte ai preti pedofili, ora ad essere stati presi di mira – sebbene con indirette metaforiche bastonature - sono i sacerdoti lefebvriani ai quali uno dei vescovi più vicini e più ascoltati da Bergoglio, monsignor Marcello Semeraro, ha vietato di celebrare Messe e impartire sacramenti (battesimi, prime comunioni, cresime, matrimoni...) come se fossero incardinati nella Chiesa cattolica universale. Analogo veto è stato imposto ai fedeli cattolici che, magari in buona fede, assistono alle celebrazioni e ricevono i sacramenti dagli stessi sacerdoti lefebvriani, correndo il rischio – ammonisce il presule – di trovarsi automaticamente nella situazione di scomunicati.

Il fermo altolà è stato formulato con la pubblicazione di un decreto ad hoc (Notificazione) firmato da monsignor Semeraro, noto teologo esperto in ecclesialogia, vescovo di Albano (una delle diocesi suburbicarie romane), presidente della Nuova Editoriale Italiana, la società editrice del quotidiano cattolico Avvenire, ma principalmente segretario della commissione cardinalizia C9 istituita dal pontefice col compito di studiare tempi e modi per ridare agli organismi della Chiesa cattolica, a partire dalla Curia vaticana, una impostazione strutturale ed organizzativa più in sintonia con le esigenze pastorali dell'attuale società.

Monsignor Semeraro ha inviato la sua Notificazione alla Fraternità S.Pio X che ha sede proprio nella sua diocesi di Albano, l' istituzione tradizionalista lefebvriana più importante del nostro Paese fondata negli anni Settanta dal vescovo ribelle Marcel Lefebvre, prima sospeso a divinis per aver disatteso al rinnovamento conciliare (sfidò pubblicamente il Vaticano celebrando la Messa in latino quando era proibito) e poi scomunicato alla fine degli anni 80 insieme ad altri 4 vescovi da lui illecitamente consacrati senza l'assenso del Papa.

Quella stessa Fraternità balzata lo scorso anno all'attenzione delle cronache giornalistiche per aver celebrato, tra le proteste di migliaia di cittadini, i funerali al nαzιsta Erich Priebke, uno dei responsabili dell'eccidio delle Fosse Ardeatine. Un gesto letto come una nuova sfida alle autorità ecclesiastiche cattoliche in quanto il Vicariato di Roma – con l'assenso della Curia vaticana – vietò le celebrazioni funebri dell'ex gerarca nαzιsta, essendo morto senza un pur minimo ripensamento sull'eccidio delle Fosse Ardeatine.

Nella Notificazione – pubblicata sul quotidiano cattolico Avvenire – Semeraro spiega di intervenire per “le numerose richieste di chiarimento circa la celebrazione dei sacramenti presso la Fraternità S.Pio X” che “non è una istituzione (né parrocchia, né associazione, né movimento) della Chiesa cattolica”. Anche se – puntualizza il vescovo – Benedetto XVI, “accogliendo benignamente le richieste del priore generale della Fraternità”, il 21 gennaio 2009 ha revocato le scomuniche ai quattro vescovi lefebvriani, specificando però nella lettera ai vescovi del giugno 2009 che la stessa Fraternità “non ha alcuno stato canonico nella Chiesa e i suoi ministri, anche se sono stati liberati dalla punizione ecclesiastica, non esercitano in modo legittimo alcun ministero nella Chiesa”. Disposizioni evidentemente disattese dai lefebvriani – circa 15 mila seguaci in Italia - che hanno continuato a celebrare e impartire sacramenti come se fossero organismi incardinati nell'ordinamento ecclesiale riconosciuto dalla Cei (Conferenza episcopale italiana).

Da qui il fermo divieto di Semeraro nel quale il vescovo ricorda ai fedeli cattolici che “non possono partecipare alla Messa, né richiedere e ricevere sacramenti dalla e nella Fraternità”. Pena, scomunica automatica. E che “spiace” che le prime vittime di una tale situazione siano quei bambini e giovani (ma anche neonati) che potrebbero ricevere sacramenti illegittimi (battesimi, prime comunioni e Cresime) “in contrasto” con gli orientamenti pastorali della Chiesa cattolica italiana.

E' bene, dunque, che i sacerdoti lefebvriani non continuino a presentarsi in pubblico come membri del clero della Chiesa italiana – fa capire il segretario della Commissione cardinalizia C9 -, assumendo ruoli ed atteggiamenti illeciti che alla lunga potranno compromettere le già difficili trattative in corso tra il Vaticano e i capi della Fraternità per il ripristino di eventuali futuri rapporti sul piano ecclesiale e in totale obbedienza al Papa.  

http://espresso.repubblica.it/attualita/2014/10/27/news/papa-francesco-vieta-di-dire-messa-ai-preti-lefebvriani-1.185655

+AMDG+

Well, now Bp. Fellay will have to reconcile with Rome OR ELSE! It is just the charitable thing to do for the sake of the faithful. Are you all really buying this performance extraordinaire?  Will the SSPX stand their ground?

Do we have any Italian speakers in the house?

Here's my translation of the important passage:


Semeraro is a close collaborator to Bergoglio, and he sent his letter to the SSPX.

Here are some interesting quotes contra the SSPX and most especially the resistance which prides itself in recognizing the Holy See and at the same time be proud of their excommunication. Once again, I emphasize they are proud of it DESPITE recognizing them as lawful, licit authorities. These denzinger dogmatic decrees are earth shattering to that position. I post them since the original post of Geremia goes over the particular topic of excommunication so I thought it would be good to go over some basic ecclesiological principles. This is even worse by those who hold that the new Rites are invalid, and hold that position, because Trent very clearly teaches and anathematizes against those who hold that the approved Rites of the Church are incentives to impiety.

The recent mass (see here) Christ the King feast that was celebrated by the SSPX in that Cathedral owned by the Conciliar Church, shows the sort of path and errors that it leads to. For why would you want to celebrate in the Churches of schismatics, who as their own founder would say, that those who in so far as they participate in that schismatic church, are outside of the Church. Ergo, they stand self-condemned those who further the destruction of the Church. Now Destruction of the Church can be done in several ways, similar to how we can participate in the sin of someone else in nine different ways. The worst way in my opinion, is through deception. For conservatives are able to detect explicit denials of the faith, but to pretend to be orthodox, while being a ravenous wolf is the worst of all combinations.

Commentary in color:

Council of Constance, 1414-1418 209
13. Those who cease to preach or to hear the word of God because of 593
the excommunication of men, are themselves excommunicated, and in the
judgment of God they will be considered traitors of Christ. Condemned

610 30. The excommunication of the pope or of any prelate whatsoever
is not to be feared, because it is the censure of the Antichrist.
Council of Constance, 1414-1418 213 Condemned. This is of course something that was claimed by +Lefebvre as he called Wojtyla an anti-Christ and decried his excommunication as such. Now someone might claim I am taking out of context, this is not true. The men who were originally anathematized with this censure, recognized the authority of the Church, its just they accused the Church as capable of erring. Does this line of reasoning sound familiar?

17. Priests of Christ, living according to His law and having a knowl- 643
edge of Scripture and a desire to instruct the people, ought to preach
without the impediment of a pretended excommunication. But if the
pope or some other prelate orders a priest so disposed not to preach, the
subject is not obliged to obey.  Condemned

18. Anyone who approaches the priesthood receives the duty of a 644
preacher by command, and that command he must execute, without the
impediment of a pretended excommunication. Condemned

646 20. If the pope is wicked and especially if he is foreknown, than as
Judas, the Apostle, he is of the devil, a thief, and a son of perdition, and
he is not the head of the holy militant Church, since he is not a member
of it. Condemned. This one is interesting because it refutes the position that the resistance attempts to argue that we somehow argue, that these popes are just bad, or wicked popes. As can be seen, this shows clearly that there is a difference between heresy, and peccability. The condemned proposition is that the peccability of the Pope somehow affects his membership in the Church. This one is not directly, but implicitly connected to the R&R position.

764 24. Christians must be taught to cherish excommunications rather than
to fear them. Condemned. The Resistance boldly makes these sorts of claims for the excommunications of the lawful and licit authorities in the Church. They are of course null and void, since we already know they have 0 authority over us, because by their acts, words and deeds show to be apostates.

768 28. If the pope with a great part of the Church thought so and so,
he would not err; still it is not a sin or heresy to think the contrary,
especially in a matter not necessary for salvation, until one alternative is
condemned and another approved by a general Council. Condemned. This is I think out of all the given quotes, is the most damning. For this is the root tenet of the resistance position to lawful authority, and the Roman Pontiff. It looks like if this was word for word, a +Williamson comment.

Contra Waldensians: 434 Because some indeed "under the pretext of piety, denying his power"(according to what the Apostle says) [II Tim. 3:5], assume to themselves the authority of preaching, when the same Apostle says: "How . . . shall they preach, unless they are sent?" [Rom. 10:15], let all who, being
prohibited or not sent, without having received authority from the
Apostolic See, or from the Catholic bishop of the place, shall presume
publicly or privately to usurp the duty of preaching 2 be marked by the
bond of excommunication; and unless they recover their senses, the
sooner the better, let them be punished with another fitting penalty. Condemned. This is why its important to recognize the difference, that we cannot argue that they are authorities, for once we do we fall under the anathemas of the Church on the said propositions. Epikea cannot apply if you have lawful authorities whereby they will give you the licitness to operate, as is the Society of Saint Vincent Ferrer, also FSSP, Redemptorist, Campos etc... However, the traditionalist intuitively understands that we cannnot under any circuмstance put ourselves under them because indeed these men are false shepherds and because of that we refuse to submit to unlawful heretical superiors.

Europe first, while they subdue the US?

Rorate has a translation of Francis's advisor Semararo's letter:

    Suburbicarian Diocese of Albano

    NOTIFICATION TO PASTORS [PARISH PRIESTS]
    ON THE "SOCIETY OF SAINT PIUS X"



    In the past few weeks, requests of clarification have reached the Diocesan Chancery regarding the celebration of Sacraments at the "Society of Saint Pius X" of Albano Laziale.

    Regarding it, it is right and proper to point out that the above-mentioned "Society" is not an institution (neither parish, nor association) of the Catholic Church.

    This applies even after the decree of the Congregation for Bishops of January 21, 2009, by which the Holy Father Benedict XVI, reaching out in good will in response to reiterated requests by the Superior General of the Society of Saint Pius X, revoked the excommunication in which the four Prelated had incurred since June 30, 1988.

    This was highlighted by Benedict XVI with his Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church of March 10, 2009: "the Society has no canonical status in the Church, and its ministers – even though they have been freed of the ecclesiastical penalty – do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church." (in AAS CI [2009], n. 4, p. 272). The same Benedict XVI, in the following Letter m. p. Ecclesiae Unitatem, of July 2, 2009, added: "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." (in AAS CI [2009], p. 710-711).

    As a consequence of the above, it is right and proper to restate what had been formulated in the Pastoral Note on the Society of Saint Pius X of [former bishop of Albano] Dante Bernini, in which it can be read:

    The Catholic faithful cannot participate at Mass, neither request and/or receive Sacraments from or in the Society. Acting otherwise would mean to break communion with the Catholic Church.

    Therefore, any Catholic faithful who requests and receives Sacraments in the Society of Saint Pius X, will place himself de facto in the condition of no longer being in communion with the Catholic Church. A readmission to the Catholic Church must be preceded by an adequate personal path of reconciliation, according to the ecclesiastical discipline established by the Bishop.

    It is sincerely saddening that such options [measures], particularly when in reference to the Christian Initiation of Children and Adolescents, be in constrast with the pastoral orientations of the Italian Church and, consequently, with the choices of the Diocese of Albano, where formative paths for the growth and maturation of the life of faith are favored.

    To the Parish priests, the duty of providing adequate information to the faithful.

    From the Albano Chancery, October 14, 2014, Prot. 235/14.


    + Marcello Semeraro, Bishop.

Is this Bishop Semeraro or Pope Francis?