Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: April 15 Deadline - Benedicts Plan for the Society  (Read 1544 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

April 15 Deadline - Benedicts Plan for the Society
« Reply #5 on: April 11, 2012, 09:21:39 AM »
Let nobody forget that right through the long duration of the talks with Rome, Bishop Bernard Fellay did not get any fact-finding/investigation done as to how Campos has fared, Tradition-wise, since it signed a deal with Rome. This is absolutely incredible! All one heard, now and again, few and far between mumbles from SSPX priests that things were not good at Campos, and the "reconciled" priests were not happy. If there is any truth at all in this, could it be that Bishop Fellay knows what is happening/has happened at Campos, but doesn't want to be negative?

As a side issue I ask, with all those Rosary Crusade tally forms, could there not have been a small questionnaire inserted so that the laity could say yes or no to a deal with Rome?

April 15 Deadline - Benedicts Plan for the Society
« Reply #6 on: April 11, 2012, 11:03:29 AM »
Its also noteworthy to point out, that whatever 'sacrifices' Rome has done up to this point, as read in the article, would not have been permitted if someone was not willing to accept such a sacrifice. That is, if BXVI has been "risking his reputation" this entire time, by whatever means, as a means to show his good faith to the Society this should be a red-flag indeed; it is reason enough to be cautious of regularizing with Rome.

Would not true 'good faith' and a pope who would be worth reconciling with have done the Motu Propio, the lifting of the excommunications, etc. on his own? Let us remember, it is not the traditionalists who have left Tradition, but the other way around. Should not the the unity between Society and Rome be a natural phenomenon; And its the fault of the Society leadership for permitting the appearance of dialogue which would indicate that 'that' is what it was after; that ordinary jurisdiction was its objective.  

If it can be proven that all the Society has wanted since its inception was to form priests in the traditional method, yet be able to continue living in a state of 'normality' with Rome, then there's nothing else to be said.

But this is not the case. If it were, ABL would never have gone so far as to danger himself with what he know would be an 'excommunication'. He consecrated four bishops, knowing full well what the reaction from Rome would be; lets not forget, this is a man who worked closely with these people before all of this happened. He knew how they worked, and he'd had enough of of the trampling on the Faith.

The point is, if he only wanted a traditional formation, with regularity with Rome being equally important, we wouldn't be in this mess in the first place. And it seems as if this is now the mentality of the superiors of the Society. That 'regularization' is what's most important, not the safety of the Priesthood and tradition from would-be destroyers, the modernists.

ABL allowed himself to separate from NewRome for a reason. Has that reason truly disappeared?


April 15 Deadline - Benedicts Plan for the Society
« Reply #7 on: April 11, 2012, 08:20:42 PM »
Quote from: stevusmagnus
Quote from: Seraphim
1) Neither Rome, nor Bishop Fellay, seems concerned with removing the unjust and invalid excommunication of Archbishop Lefebvre which justice demands.  Apparently Luther can be rehabilitated, but for Archbishop Lefebvre, anathema sit!


Seraphim,

Below is the quote from BF I was speaking of. Not sure I agree 100% w/ Bishop Fellay here. They probably didn't mention ABL and BdCM because they are deceased and the penalty of excommunication doesn't apply to the deceased. It would be nice if they were meant to be included though.

http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/2010-1031-mccall-fellay.htm

Quote
At the Angelus conference, Bishop Fellay also drew our attention to a related indication found in the wording of the Vatican decree nullifying the decree of SSPX excommunication. The final paragraphs of this decree reads:

On the basis of the powers expressly granted to me by the Holy Father Benedict XVI, by virtue of the present Decree I remit the penalty of excommunication latae sententiae incurred by Bishops Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta, and declared by this Congregation on July 1988. At the same time I declare that, as of today's date, the Decree issued at that time no longer has juridical effect. (Emp. added)

Bishop Fellay pointed out what should have been obvious to us all.  Notwithstanding the fact that the first sentence mentions only four of the six bishops subject to the former decree, the final sentence clearly states that the former decree “no longer has juridical effect.”  That means the former decree ceases to legally exist.

If the decree claiming Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop de Castro Mayer are excommunicated latae sententiae has no juridical effect, the declaration with respect to them has been withdrawn as well.  To avoid this obvious conclusion, the language needed merely to say “with respect to these four bishops only,” the former decree has no juridical effect; or “except as regards Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop de Castro Mayer” the former decree has no juridical effect.

I must admit that I felt rather stupid for not having noticed at the time what was clearly but subtly accomplished by this clever wording. The declared excommunication latae sententiae against Archbishop Lefebvre and his trusted ally in 1988 was removed without mentioning either of them by name.  To do so would likely have elicited another episcopal rebellion.


Not sure I buy this wishful thinking:

A declared censure applies to those explicitly named.

Does it not also stand to reason that the declaration lifting the censure also explicitly mention those who are no longer indicted under it?