Author Topic: Bp. Williamson should renounce removal of excommunication (Read 2168 times)

bowler · « **on:** February 26, 2013, 10:51:57 AM »

Moderator Note: This post is merely the musings of "bowler" -- His Excellency hasn't expressed the first shred of concern about excommunications from Modernist Rome.

This is how rumors get started.

As I understood it, Bishop Castro de Mayer was not excommunicated by Rome after his participating in the 1988 SSPX episcopal consecrations. It was only after he asked to be included with Abp. Lefebvre that he was excommunicated.

By the same token, I consider that the acceptance of the 2009 removal of the excommunications by the four bishops, while not asking for the removal of the excommunications of the Abp. & Bp. Castro de Mayer, was an ignoble, selfish act.

It is not too late to reject that cowardly act, and now ask that Abp. Lefebvre's and Bishop Castro de Mayer's excommunication be lifted, or else to excommunicate also the four bishops.

Bishop Williamson, rise to the occasion. None of the others will, unless you do it.

VinnyF · « **Reply #1 on:** February 26, 2013, 12:52:12 PM »

Quote from: bowler

As I understood it, Bishop Castro de Mayer was not excommunicated by Rome after his participating in the 1988 SSPX episcopal consecrations. It was only after he asked to be included with Abp. Lefebvre that he was excommunicated.

By the same token, I consider that the acceptance of the 2009 removal of the excommunications by the four bishops, while not asking for the removal of the excommunications of the Abp. & Bp. Castro de Mayer, was an ignoble, selfish act.

It is not too late to reject that cowardly act, and now ask that Abp. Lefebvre's and Bishop Castro de Mayer's excommunication be lifted, or else to excommunicate also the four bishops.

Bishop Williamson, rise to the occasion. None of the others will, unless you do it.

Neither was Archbishop Lefebvre excommunicated by Rome. It was clearly stated that the consecrating bishops and the consecrated bishops incurred latæ sententiæ (automatic by virtue of canon law). Even if excommunication did not end at death, his excommunication would have been lifted at the reception of Extreme Unction since it is a principle set forth in multiple canons of canon law that at the point of death all reservations cease and all necessary jurisdiction is supplied by the Church to the confessor. Therefore, a papal remission was not required to remove the encuмbrance of excommunication.

Also, and His Excellency certainly knows this, you cannot un-remove an excommunication. One can certainly be excommunicated for a new offense but not without committing another violation of law of which the particular consequence is excommunication.

That said, why does Bishop Williamson all of the sudden care what modernist Rome does or proclaims? Lets wait for the papacy of the heir to Pius XII and enjoy the Lefebvre canonization celebration. I can be spared more of this goofy and meaningless excommunication talk which is void of impact.

Matthew · « **Reply #2 on:** February 26, 2013, 01:14:01 PM »

Quote from: VinnyF

That said, why does Bishop Williamson all of the sudden care what modernist Rome does or proclaims? Lets wait for the papacy of the heir to Pius XII and enjoy the Lefebvre canonization celebration. I can be spared more of this goofy and meaningless excommunication talk which is void of impact.

Choose your words more carefully.

You make it sound like +W *does* care what Modernist Rome thinks or does. That is NOT true.

This whole post was a mere fantasy of Bowler, who apparently has LOTS of free time on his hands. Let's keep sight of that, shall we?

The biggest problem I had with Bowler's "brainstorm" is that the excommunications were only "automatically incurred" (of course, they weren't, but that's another story) and Rome simply made note of that fact.

VinnyF · « **Reply #3 on:** February 26, 2013, 04:09:48 PM »

Quote from: Matthew

Quote from: VinnyF

That said, why does Bishop Williamson all of the sudden care what modernist Rome does or proclaims? Lets wait for the papacy of the heir to Pius XII and enjoy the Lefebvre canonization celebration. I can be spared more of this goofy and meaningless excommunication talk which is void of impact.

Choose your words more carefully.

You make it sound like +W *does* care what Modernist Rome thinks or does. That is NOT true.

This whole post was a mere fantasy of Bowler, who apparently has LOTS of free time on his hands. Let's keep sight of that, shall we?

The biggest problem I had with Bowler's "brainstorm" is that the excommunications were only "automatically incurred" (of course, they weren't, but that's another story) and Rome simply made note of that fact.

You know what .. I assumed that Bowler was quoting Bishop Williamson's conference. After re-reading the original post, I see that this was just the OP talking.

My bad - I can't believe that +Williamson would care either about the Archbishop's meaningless excommunication or reinstating his own meaningless excommunication.

Thanks for pointing that out Matt.

-Vin

VinnyF · « **Reply #4 on:** February 26, 2013, 06:27:43 PM »

Quote from: Pablo

My wife's plan for World Peace:

Get two big guys, one from each country at war, and have them fight.

Whosever fighter beats the other, wins the war.

After we were married for a few years, in our quiet times, we would have a good laugh about her idea.

I never ridiculed her for thinking that way.

I just gently nudged her into thinking we should let the NFL Superbowl decide which country wins.

There are no stupid questions, only misguided answers.

*

Wait .. wasn't that the plot for an episode of Star Trek or Twilight Zone?

bowler · « **Reply #5 on:** February 26, 2013, 08:11:38 PM »

Quote from: Matthew

Quote from: VinnyF

That said, why does Bishop Williamson all of the sudden care what modernist Rome does or proclaims? Lets wait for the papacy of the heir to Pius XII and enjoy the Lefebvre canonization celebration. I can be spared more of this goofy and meaningless excommunication talk which is void of impact.

Choose your words more carefully.

You make it sound like +W *does* care what Modernist Rome thinks or does. That is NOT true.

This whole post was a mere fantasy of Bowler, who apparently has LOTS of free time on his hands. Let's keep sight of that, shall we?

The biggest problem I had with Bowler's "brainstorm" is that the excommunications were only "automatically incurred" (of course, they weren't, but that's another story) and Rome simply made note of that fact.

All four bishops should have said to the pope; "thank you for the kind gesture, however, we can't accept this lifting of the so-called "excommunications" without it included Abp. Lefebvre abd Bishop Castro de Mayer". It is that simple.

It was a cowardly act to not say anything and thus accept the removal of the false excommunications, without it including Abp. Lefebvre and Bishop Castro de Mayer. You can't have it both ways, either the excommunications were false and they don't care about them for themselves and Abp. Lefebvre and Bishop Castro de Mayer, and they declare such and reject the lifting of false excommunications. Or else the excomunications were not false and you only accept the lifting for all six bishops.

The way they did it was having their cake and eating too. They threw the Abp and Bishop Castro de Mayer under the bus to get their little gold star!
There is no honor in what they did.

Abp. Lefebvre and Bishop Castro de Mayer were accomplished respected men in the highest positions, and they gave that all up to jump in the mud all by themselves to do battle against EVERYONE. The four bishops abandoned them for the first morsal of legitimacy given to them.

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #6 on:** February 26, 2013, 09:02:56 PM »

Bishop Williamson was in a mess at the time following his remarks on the "h0Ɩ0cαųst", so he was probably too busy with that to get into any debate with Rome.

I assure you that +Williamson does not care if he is "excommunicated" by the conciliar church. I agree that the "excommunications" of Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop Castro de Mayer should be lifted, and I agree that Bishop Fellay, as Superior General of the Society, should have demanded them to be lifted. I don't think it's fair to blame +Williamson, though.

bowler · « **Reply #7 on:** February 26, 2013, 09:27:44 PM »

Quote from: ServusSpiritusSancti

Bishop Williamson was in a mess at the time following his remarks on the "h0Ɩ0cαųst", so he was probably too busy with that to get into any debate with Rome.

I assure you that +Williamson does not care if he is "excommunicated" by the conciliar church. I agree that the "excommunications" of Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop Castro de Mayer should be lifted, and I agree that Bishop Fellay, as Superior General of the Society, should have demanded them to be lifted. I don't think it's fair to blame +Williamson, though.

Quote

It is not too late to reject that cowardly act, and now ask that Abp. Lefebvre's and Bishop Castro de Mayer's excommunication be lifted, or else to excommunicate also the four bishops.

Bishop Williamson, rise to the occasion. None of the others will, unless you do it.

Quo Vadis Petre · « **Reply #8 on:** February 26, 2013, 11:55:39 PM »

Asking that +ABL's "excommunication" be lifted is acknowledging its validity. The SSPX had always wanted it to be declared null and void from its inception.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #9 on:** February 27, 2013, 01:59:44 AM »

Quote from: Quo Vadis Petre

Asking that +ABL's "excommunication" be lifted is acknowledging its validity. The SSPX had always wanted it to be declared null and void from its inception.

Yes, the common 'take' of everyone in the line of ABL (which is the true
Church) was that the so-called excoms must be anulled, that is, to
acknowledge that they never existed in the first place. But modernist Rome
would no more do that than they would acknowledge that Vat.II was run by
an unclean spirit. And as such, JPII's action of announcing the excoms was,
for a Pope, the kind of thing that could put him in hell forever. He obviously
didn't repent before he died, because he did not annul them! Well, that is,
at least as far as we know, he didn't. I guess it's possible that he repented
at the last moment, but his underlings, the Freemasons and Zionists who
stood guard over his failing body, would not have let that come to light.

Therefore, the unjust and invalid excoms are of no concern to the true
Church. And it is improper for laymen to demand that a true bishop take
any action on it, because the bishop is in a much better place to judge what
the right thing to do is. So I'm with Matthew on this one.

The interesting thing is, +Fellay went mute on this 'take' right about the
same time that he started to go silent on the negotiations and their
progress. It seems to me that must have been the time that he caved to
Rome's demand that he has to back off from the hard line if he wants to
have 'peace' with them. That was also the time when he stopped sending
out letters "To Friends and Benefactors."

And then, as Fr. Pfeiffer explains, the "mask came off" in May of 2012. He
says this in , in answer to a question from a lady,
asking him why he took so long to come out publicly with his Resistance
stand.

It's interesting, that at the time, his concern was whether he was taking
action too early. But he explains elsewhere that he did what he recognized
he had to do.

bowler · « **Reply #10 on:** February 27, 2013, 08:18:37 AM »

Quote from: Neil Obstat

Quote from: Quo Vadis Petre
Asking that +ABL's "excommunication" be lifted is acknowledging its validity. The SSPX had always wanted it to be declared null and void from its inception.

Yes, the common 'take' of everyone in the line of ABL (which is the true
Church) was that the so-called excoms must be anulled, that is, to
acknowledge that they never existed in the first place. ....

Therefore, the unjust and invalid excoms are of no concern to the true
Church. And it is improper for laymen to demand that a true bishop take
any action on it, because the bishop is in a much better place to judge what
the right thing to do is. So I'm with Matthew on this one.

The interesting thing is, +Fellay went mute on this 'take' right about the
same time that he started to go silent on the negotiations and their
progress. It seems to me that must have been the time that he caved to
Rome's demand ...

It looks to me like you contradict yourself when you wrote for "+Fellay went mute on this 'take' " , but then you say about Bishop Williamson that Bowler as a layman "it is improper for laymen to demand that a true bishop take any action on it, because the bishop is in a much better place to judge what the right thing to do is". Therefore you accuse Fellay of doing wrong by accepting the lifting of the excommunications without including ANY mention whatsoever one way or anotherof the Abp & Bp. CDM , but Bp. Williamson is not wrong by accepting the the same exact thing.

bowler · « **Reply #11 on:** February 27, 2013, 08:23:00 AM »

All four bishops should have said to the pope; "thank you for the kind gesture, however, we can't accept this lifting of the so-called "excommunications" without it included Abp. Lefebvre abd Bishop Castro de Mayer". It is that simple.

It was a cowardly act to not say anything and thus accept the removal of the false excommunications, without it including Abp. Lefebvre and Bishop Castro de Mayer. .

Abp. Lefebvre and Bishop Castro de Mayer were accomplished respected men in the highest positions, and they gave that all up to jump in the mud all by themselves to do battle against EVERYONE. The four bishops abandoned them for the first morsal of legitimacy given to them.

Mea Culpa · « **Reply #12 on:** February 27, 2013, 10:09:58 AM »

stgobnait · « **Reply #13 on:** February 27, 2013, 10:22:42 AM »

Slippery slope.....

Quo Vadis Petre · « **Reply #14 on:** March 01, 2013, 01:03:24 PM »

http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=23234&min=40&num=5

According to the Spanish blog, +Williamson never requested for the "lifting" of the excommunications and never signed such a letter.

Quote

Na recente entrevista aqui publicada, D. Richard Williamson afirma não ter tido conhecimento do pedido de “levantamento das excomunhões” e que não assinou tal carta.

http://spessantotomas.blogspot.com.br/2013/02/o-meu-testemunho-respeito-de-uma-carta.html