Author Topic: Interpreting the words of Abp Lefebvre (Read 4467 times)

Klaus · « **Reply #15 on:** May 22, 2012, 08:02:30 PM »

Quote from: Seraphim

Quote from: Klaus
Could you flesh out the syllogism there? Think you might be missing a premiss or ten.

Klaus-

I must say, I enjoy the sarcasm.

No doubt we will not see eye to eye in whatever threads we encounter eachother, but your wit is enjoyable, even when directed against me.

:tv-disturbed:

Thanks, but I will try to be nice! :dancing-banana:

Telesphorus · « **Reply #16 on:** May 22, 2012, 08:09:45 PM »

Quote from: Klaus

The difference is that Bp Fellay was alive in 2009, and Abp Lefebvre was not. Excommunications are medicinal penalties which only apply to the living.

So you believe the excommunications were valid? Yes or no?

Quote

Note that all four bishops had their excommunications lifted, not just +Fellay.

It could not have been done otherwise. There was no difference in the cases of the four bishops, and there was no "repentance" - at least not officially.

We really have no idea what Bishop Fellay has promised.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #17 on:** May 22, 2012, 08:21:58 PM »

Quote from: Klaus

Quote from: Seraphim
Quote from: Klaus
Could you flesh out the syllogism there? Think you might be missing a premiss or ten.

Klaus-

I must say, I enjoy the sarcasm.

No doubt we will not see eye to eye in whatever threads we encounter eachother, but your wit is enjoyable, even when directed against me.

:tv-disturbed:

Thanks, but I will try to be nice! :dancing-banana:

Mind if I ask if you are a priest?

Kelley · « **Reply #18 on:** May 22, 2012, 08:40:22 PM »

Quote

The author, Fr. Gregoire Celier, is a priest of the Society of St. Pius X. Ordained in 1986, he is the author of many books and over 500 articles.

Here is some background on Fr Celier...

1.) GREC, whose purpose "inconspicuous but not secret" is the reconciliation of the SSPX and Rome

2.) Fr. Celier is the priest who authored the scandalous book Benoît XVI et les traditionalistes.

3.) Fr. Gregoire Celier's disturbing book, Benoît XVI et les Traditionalistes was edited and had its introduction written by a Jean-Luc Maxence who is a contributor to the official journal of the Grand Orient of France, La Chaine d'Union and an author of other masonic works and almost certainly a mason himself

Quote from: Maurice Pinay

Fr. Gregoire Célier is (was) reportedly also on Bp. Fellay's commission for the "discussions" with Rome ...

And while Bp. Williamson remains essentially gagged and bound for the "crime" of "h0Ɩ0cαųst denial" and is smeared worldwide for "neonαzι" associations, it appears that Fr. Gregoire Celier has received no correction or censure for his masonic associations and is (was) still involved with the "dialogue" with Rome.

There's a certain policy and direction implied in all of this which is very disturbing.

Klaus · « **Reply #19 on:** May 22, 2012, 08:47:37 PM »

Quote from: Seraphim

Quote from: Klaus
Quote from: Seraphim
Quote from: Klaus
Could you flesh out the syllogism there? Think you might be missing a premiss or ten.

Klaus-

I must say, I enjoy the sarcasm.

No doubt we will not see eye to eye in whatever threads we encounter eachother, but your wit is enjoyable, even when directed against me.

:tv-disturbed:

Thanks, but I will try to be nice! :dancing-banana:

Mind if I ask if you are a priest?

Not at all! I'm not.

Kelley · « **Reply #20 on:** May 22, 2012, 08:58:52 PM »

Quote from: Kelley

Quote
The author, Fr. Gregoire Celier, is a priest of the Society of St. Pius X. Ordained in 1986, he is the author of many books and over 500 articles.

Here is some background on Fr Celier...

1.) GREC, whose purpose "inconspicuous but not secret" is the reconciliation of the SSPX and Rome

2.) Fr. Celier is the priest who authored the scandalous book Benoît XVI et les traditionalistes.

3.) Fr. Gregoire Celier's disturbing book, Benoît XVI et les Traditionalistes was edited and had its introduction written by a Jean-Luc Maxence who is a contributor to the official journal of the Grand Orient of France, La Chaine d'Union and an author of other masonic works and almost certainly a mason himself

Quote from: Maurice Pinay
Fr. Gregoire Célier is (was) reportedly also on Bp. Fellay's commission for the "discussions" with Rome ...

And while Bp. Williamson remains essentially gagged and bound for the "crime" of "h0Ɩ0cαųst denial" and is smeared worldwide for "neonαzι" associations, it appears that Fr. Gregoire Celier has received no correction or censure for his masonic associations and is (was) still involved with the "dialogue" with Rome.

There's a certain policy and direction implied in all of this which is very disturbing.

http://cathinfo-warning-pornography!/Ignis_Ardens/index.php?showtopic=9541&st=0&#last

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #21 on:** May 23, 2012, 07:47:46 PM »

I think Rome may have figured out that, so long as Bishop Fellay does not call off discussions, they can just let things linger, and watch the SSPX come apart at the seams.

And since Bishop Fellay has shown no proclivity toward ending contacts/discussions.......

Kelley · « **Reply #22 on:** May 23, 2012, 08:26:07 PM »

Quote from: Seraphim

[...] And since Bishop Fellay has shown no proclivity toward ending contacts/discussions.......

Quote from: Bp Williamson to Fr Grosso

It is my opinion that regrettably few priests of the Fraternity understand the gravity of the current situation, both in the world and in the Fraternity.
As you suggest, they are comfortable and somewhat blind.

To those few priests who do understand... There's the lingering question:

Should an agreement remain in limbo...
After learning the true disposition of your Superior General, how can you place any real confidence & trust in his leadership/motives?...
Or, does everyone just ignore the white elephant in the room?

Either way, the Society is significantly altered, no?

AJNC · « **Reply #23 on:** May 23, 2012, 10:45:52 PM »

.....What I’ve never made public until today, because circuмstances now make the revelation relevant, is that Bishop Tissier used the word “heretic” five times during the interview to describe Benedict XVI. I worked all night to transcribe the audio and the next day Bishop Tissier sent back his revision of my transcription. Among minor corrections to text and and clarification of an exact quote in a 1960s era book by the then-Fr. Joseph Ratzinger, he had mandated that everywhere he had said “heretic” that the text was to be changed to “professed heresies” (It was a good thing that I kept this signed docuмent as well, as the District Superior of the United States at the time, Fr. John Fullerton, was upset that I had not “run the interview” by the District Office. Foolishly believing that a bishop outranked the District Superior, I remember sending a copy of the signed fax to Fr. Fullerton via Fr. Kenneth Novak, after which time Fr. Fullerton could no longer be upset with me.

from Stephen Heiner's
Rediscovering my Catholic birthright: How I found the Traditional Mass

www.truerestoration.blogspot.com
Monday, May 21, 2012

brainglitch · « **Reply #24 on:** May 23, 2012, 11:15:20 PM »

Quote

The question is, why were the declaration of excommunication not nullified for all the Bishops? Why was the excommunication not declared null and void. Instead the "penalty" was lifted.

There was no penalty since it was a legitimate act.

Now we have to ask why did Archbishop Lefebvre die in the position he was in, and why does Bishop Fellay have the "penalty" revoked?

What is the difference between them?

The difference is really obvious.

It has to do with the different attitudes the two men have towards the Roman apostasy. One denounces it, the other does not.

Sigh.....excommunication is automatically lifted at the time of death. Obviously, in the case of both +Lefebvre and +de Castro Mayer, the same rules apply.

Quote

As the baptized cease, at death, to belong to the Church Militant, the dead cannot be excommunicated.

-----1917 Catholic Encyclopedia

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05678a.htm

There was no point to lifting the excommunication because it was no longer in force.

Now it would be nice if +Lefebvre and +de Castro Mayer were canonized, and that the excommunications were simply declared invalid, but but that is a different story....

Archbishop Lefebvre, ora pro nobis!

Telesphorus · « **Reply #25 on:** May 23, 2012, 11:24:21 PM »

Quote from: brainglitch

There was no point to lifting the excommunication because it was no longer in force.

There was no point in "lifting" an invalid excommunication.

Quote

Now it would be nice if +Lefebvre and +de Castro Mayer were canonized, and that the excommunications were simply declared invalid, but but that is a different story....

That's the question, why weren't the excommunications declared invalid?