Author Topic: papal bull of excommunication???  (Read 3180 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Mama ChaCha

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 389
  • Reputation: +209/-14
  • Gender: Female
papal bull of excommunication???
« on: September 30, 2013, 09:46:12 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I'm looking for it, but I can't find it.
    When was sspx officially excommunicated and on what grounds?
    The reason I ask is because from what I understand, nothing was done that warranted excommunication. (Maybe I'm missing it??)
    I cannot find any documentation that officially puts sspx no longer in communion with Rome. I can find a suspension for 1988, which was to last until 1989, but nothing else.

    The only reference to schism is a comment made by JPII calling the consecration if bishops a scismatic act, so I went to see if it was true, but it is not true. It is an offense, but not one that calls for excommunication.

    So I ask...was SSPX ever NOT incommunion???

    I'm looking for actual declarations of excommunication.
    Thanks!
    Matthew 6:34
    " Be not therefore solicitous for to morrow; for the morrow will be solicitous for itself. Sufficient for the day is the evil thereof."

    Offline Histrionics

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 73
    • Reputation: +73/-0
    • Gender: Male
    papal bull of excommunication???
    « Reply #1 on: September 30, 2013, 09:52:06 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Ecclesia Dei adflicta.  The document states that that the excommunication was a result of the act itself, latae sententiae.


    Offline Mama ChaCha

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 389
    • Reputation: +209/-14
    • Gender: Female
    papal bull of excommunication???
    « Reply #2 on: September 30, 2013, 01:00:23 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • This helped a little to understand the Vatican's perspective.
    However, it does not explain why the suspension was not given, since that us what is codified by canon law. God forgive me if I am incorrect, but it looks to me as though the holy see quite overstepped its boundaries.
    I do not understand how it could be said to be an act of schism if the appropriate penance for this specific act has already been addressed.

    I am concerned about enjoining myself to any movement that is truly in schism, but for my life, I cannot find any ill intention on the part of Archbp Lefebvre. He is very clear that he did what he did to secure tradition. I may be wrong, but it is my belief that Archbp Lefebvre did nothing schismatic and is not at fault, and the Holy See needs to admit that.
    Matthew 6:34
    " Be not therefore solicitous for to morrow; for the morrow will be solicitous for itself. Sufficient for the day is the evil thereof."

    Offline Frances

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2660
    • Reputation: +2239/-17
    • Gender: Female
    papal bull of excommunication???
    « Reply #3 on: September 30, 2013, 04:20:54 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Excommunication is applicable only to individual people, not to religious orders, foundations, or organisations.  
     St. Francis Xavier threw a Crucifix into the sea, at once calming the waves.  Upon reaching the shore, the Crucifix was returned to him by a crab with a curious cross pattern on its shell.  

    Offline Capt McQuigg

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4665
    • Reputation: +2620/-9
    • Gender: Male
    papal bull of excommunication???
    « Reply #4 on: September 30, 2013, 04:29:55 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • There are five thousand bishops in the conciliar world and the novus ordites didn't want Archbishop LeFebrvre to consecrate one (1)?  

    Other than the planned destruction of the remnants of the Pre-Vatican II Catholic Church, I can't think of any other reason.  


    Offline Histrionics

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 73
    • Reputation: +73/-0
    • Gender: Male
    papal bull of excommunication???
    « Reply #5 on: September 30, 2013, 06:11:00 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Mama ChaCha
    This helped a little to understand the Vatican's perspective.
    However, it does not explain why the suspension was not given, since that us what is codified by canon law. God forgive me if I am incorrect, but it looks to me as though the holy see quite overstepped its boundaries.


    How so?

    Offline Histrionics

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 73
    • Reputation: +73/-0
    • Gender: Male
    papal bull of excommunication???
    « Reply #6 on: September 30, 2013, 06:15:29 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Frances
    Excommunication is applicable only to individual people, not to religious orders, foundations, or organisations.  


    Though of course said motu proprio included the vague, "Everyone should be aware that formal adherence to the schism is a grave offence against God and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the Church's law."

    Offline Johnnier

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 99
    • Reputation: +0/-1
    papal bull of excommunication???
    « Reply #7 on: September 30, 2013, 09:26:53 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • When I was looking for some info on this issue not long ago, I came across the following page which gave some helpful information:

    http://www.catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/defense/index.htm



    Offline hugeman

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 342
    • Reputation: +669/-1
    • Gender: Male
      • h
    papal bull of excommunication???
    « Reply #8 on: September 30, 2013, 10:08:51 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Mama ChaCha

    I am concerned about enjoining myself to any movement that is truly in schism, but for my life, I cannot find any ill intention on the part of Archbp Lefebvre. He is very clear that he did what he did to secure tradition. I may be wrong, but it is my belief that Archbp Lefebvre did nothing schismatic and is not at fault, and the Holy See needs to admit that.


    Are you concerned with being separated from the perverts and heretics in  control
    in Rome, or you concerned with being separated from the Roman Catholic Church? The answer may seem obvious-- but it may not be. If you want to be in union with the modernists (aka heretics, aka conciliarists, aka new churchers) in Rome, then , join up with the SSPX, for they are decidedly headed in that direction. They have already professed agreement with  95 % of the Vatican Council; they have already agreed with the notions of Religious Liberty, with Collegiality; they have already accepted the legitimacy of the Novus Ordo mess, they have already stated they accept all the heretical teachings of Paul VI, John Paul, Ratzinger, and now, Bergoglio.

        If , however, you want to be in union with eternal Rome, the Rome of the Holy Catholic Church, and the Rome of the Holy Catholic faith; in union with the two thousand years of Catholic Church teaching, and, of course, in union with Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, then you have to stay away from the SSPX. You can find Masses celebrated throughout the country by brave (former) SSPX priests,
    like Fathers Hewko and Pfeiffer ( who have been unjustly kicked out), which maintain the true Mass. There are also a number of other priests throughout the country who offer the true Mass. ( CMRI priests, SSPV priests, priests associated with Bishop Sanborn, Bishop Neville, Bishop McKenna, Bishop Morello, etc).

        There is no reason for you to be concerned for your faith if you stick with these priests following true Catholic doctrine. If you stay with the SSPX, headed by Bp. Fellay, which used to follow Archbishop Lefebvre, then you have to be concerned for your faith.

    Online poche

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 14891
    • Reputation: +686/-2494
    • Gender: Male
    papal bull of excommunication???
    « Reply #9 on: September 30, 2013, 11:51:07 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • This is from the code of canon law;
    Can. 1382 A bishop who consecrates some one a bishop without a pontifical mandate and the person who receives the consecration from him incur a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See.


    Offline Mama ChaCha

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 389
    • Reputation: +209/-14
    • Gender: Female
    papal bull of excommunication???
    « Reply #10 on: October 01, 2013, 12:19:19 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: hugeman
    Quote from: Mama ChaCha

    I am concerned about enjoining myself to any movement that is truly in schism, but for my life, I cannot find any ill intention on the part of Archbp Lefebvre. He is very clear that he did what he did to secure tradition. I may be wrong, but it is my belief that Archbp Lefebvre did nothing schismatic and is not at fault, and the Holy See needs to admit that.


    Are you concerned with being separated from the perverts and heretics in  control
    in Rome, or you concerned with being separated from the Roman Catholic Church? The answer may seem obvious-- but it may not be. If you want to be in union with the modernists (aka heretics, aka conciliarists, aka new churchers) in Rome, then , join up with the SSPX, for they are decidedly headed in that direction. They have already professed agreement with  95 % of the Vatican Council; they have already agreed with the notions of Religious Liberty, with Collegiality; they have already accepted the legitimacy of the Novus Ordo mess, they have already stated they accept all the heretical teachings of Paul VI, John Paul, Ratzinger, and now, Bergoglio.

        If , however, you want to be in union with eternal Rome, the Rome of the Holy Catholic Church, and the Rome of the Holy Catholic faith; in union with the two thousand years of Catholic Church teaching, and, of course, in union with Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, then you have to stay away from the SSPX. You can find Masses celebrated throughout the country by brave (former) SSPX priests,
    like Fathers Hewko and Pfeiffer ( who have been unjustly kicked out), which maintain the true Mass. There are also a number of other priests throughout the country who offer the true Mass. ( CMRI priests, SSPV priests, priests associated with Bishop Sanborn, Bishop Neville, Bishop McKenna, Bishop Morello, etc).

        There is no reason for you to be concerned for your faith if you stick with these priests following true Catholic doctrine. If you stay with the SSPX, headed by Bp. Fellay, which used to follow Archbishop Lefebvre, then you have to be concerned for your faith.


    I don't really consider Rome or the Vatican to be the church. I think if it more as the church office complex.
    I may be wrong, but to me, the faith is the church. It is my understanding that this is why the church can never be destroyed. It can suffer serious blows to morale, sure. But you're never going to get to a point where there is no valid, believing priest, the resistance has shown us that fact rather plainly. They are willing to risk everything to hold to the faith over an above obedience to questionable authorities. My own faith has been wrought by fire like so many others, so I don't let anyone lead me down unrighteous paths, hence my meticulous questions and wishing to be absolutely clear on everything.
    It is my understanding that the post V2 church is in schism for its various heresies, not the least of which is inverting the focus of the faith to man.
     If that's the case, then they could hurl excommunications left, right and sideways and it doesn't mean a thing because they're schismatic. If I were to be excommunicated from the post V2 concilliar church, I honestly wouldn't care any more than if I had been excommunicated from a Methodist church, or any other protestant denomination, because to my mind they're the same.
    Matthew 6:34
    " Be not therefore solicitous for to morrow; for the morrow will be solicitous for itself. Sufficient for the day is the evil thereof."


    Offline parentsfortruth

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3821
    • Reputation: +2659/-3
    • Gender: Female
    papal bull of excommunication???
    « Reply #11 on: October 01, 2013, 03:20:07 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: poche
    This is from the code of canon law;
    Can. 1382 A bishop who consecrates some one a bishop without a pontifical mandate and the person who receives the consecration from him incur a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See.



    This is from the 1982 "Code of Canon Law."

    There is no such thing stated in the 1917 code.
    Matthew 5:37

    But let your speech be yea, yea: no, no: and that which is over and above these, is of evil.

    My Avatar is Fr. Hector Bolduc. He was a faithful parish priest in De Pere, WI,

    Offline Mama ChaCha

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 389
    • Reputation: +209/-14
    • Gender: Female
    papal bull of excommunication???
    « Reply #12 on: October 01, 2013, 09:01:47 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • So, prior to the new canon law, its legal?
    Matthew 6:34
    " Be not therefore solicitous for to morrow; for the morrow will be solicitous for itself. Sufficient for the day is the evil thereof."

    Online poche

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 14891
    • Reputation: +686/-2494
    • Gender: Male
    papal bull of excommunication???
    « Reply #13 on: October 01, 2013, 10:31:04 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Mama ChaCha
    So, prior to the new canon law, its legal?

    No, for example when in 1718 a bishop of Utrecht was ordained without a papal mandate both the consecrating bishop and the bishop being consecrated were excommunicated.  

    Offline parentsfortruth

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3821
    • Reputation: +2659/-3
    • Gender: Female
    papal bull of excommunication???
    « Reply #14 on: October 02, 2013, 12:39:50 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: poche
    Quote from: Mama ChaCha
    So, prior to the new canon law, its legal?

    No, for example when in 1718 a bishop of Utrecht was ordained without a papal mandate both the consecrating bishop and the bishop being consecrated were excommunicated.  


    Pretty sure you're talking about a suspect heretic, but not a bishop in good standing with the Church like Archbishop Lefevbre was. If you're talking about the "Old catholic" stuff, then clearly, there were OTHER problems, not just the fact that a bishop was made without "a papal mandate."
    Matthew 5:37

    But let your speech be yea, yea: no, no: and that which is over and above these, is of evil.

    My Avatar is Fr. Hector Bolduc. He was a faithful parish priest in De Pere, WI,

     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16