Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: Mama ChaCha on September 30, 2013, 09:46:12 AM
-
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 docuмentation 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!
-
Ecclesia Dei adflicta. The docuмent states that that the excommunication was a result of the act itself, latae sententiae.
-
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.
-
Excommunication is applicable only to individual people, not to religious orders, foundations, or organisations.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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."
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
So, prior to the new canon law, its legal?
-
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.
-
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."
-
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."
They ceased to be in good standing with the Catholci Church when they had the episcopal ordination without the papal mandate.
-
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."
They ceased to be in good standing with the Catholci Church when they had the episcopal ordination without the papal mandate.
Again, you fail to see that there were other problems with the "old catholic" church. There were. Go look it up. They denied certain tenants of the Faith.
Can you even name one thing that Archbishop Lefevbre denied that was a dogmatic part of the Faith? No, you can't. Because he didn't deny anything.
Having read about the history of the "old catholics," there were a multitude of problems, and the fact that they rejected papal authority entirely. They were considered "schismatic" at that time, but not in heresy. Denying the authority of the Pope was something that Archbishop Lefevbre NEVER ONCE DID.
You're comparing apples and oranges here, poche.
-
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."
They ceased to be in good standing with the Catholci Church when they had the episcopal ordination without the papal mandate.
Again, you fail to see that there were other problems with the "old catholic" church. There were. Go look it up. They denied certain tenants of the Faith.
Can you even name one thing that Archbishop Lefevbre denied that was a dogmatic part of the Faith? No, you can't. Because he didn't deny anything.
Having read about the history of the "old catholics," there were a multitude of problems, and the fact that they rejected papal authority entirely. They were considered "schismatic" at that time, but not in heresy. Denying the authority of the Pope was something that Archbishop Lefevbre NEVER ONCE DID.
You're comparing apples and oranges here, poche.
In their lierature they describe themselves as another type of Catholciism. There have been other illicit episcopal ordinations and in each instance prior to the code of 1983. And in each instance the Vatican responded with an excommunication for all the participants. The original question was how the Church regarded the episcopal ordinations without a papal mandate. That was the reason for their excommunication.
-
...There have been other illicit episcopal ordinations and in each instance prior to the code of 1983. And in each instance the Vatican responded with an excommunication for all the participants. The original question was how the Church regarded the episcopal ordinations without a papal mandate. That was the reason for their excommunication.
Specific examples, please. You can spare us the Chinese Patriotic Church, since that is anti-Catholic in it's essence and would always warrant excommunication of such regardless.
-
So apparently if one is not an explicit dogma denier episcopal consecration sans papal mandate is no biggie? Additionally, why is doing so under extenuating circuмstances (ie pope in exile, in secret under communist rule) used as justification for the present situation, ie when a sitting pope (believed to be so by the consecrator at any rate) freely commands an explicit "NO" to such wishes, as though the two were even remotely comparable?
-
So apparently if one is not an explicit dogma denier episcopal consecration sans papal mandate is no biggie? Additionally, why is doing so under extenuating circuмstances (ie pope in exile, in secret under communist rule) used as justification for the present situation, ie when a sitting pope (believed to be so by the consecrator at any rate) freely commands an explicit "NO" to such wishes, as though the two were even remotely comparable?
Why do you think John Paul II and his advisors were against Archbishop LeFebrvre consecrating a bishop?
There are 5,000 bishops in the world, so one going about in a pre-Vatican II fashion shouldn't be such a threat to the conciliar applecart.
So, there are 5,000 bishops.
Why did the novus ordo refuse to allow Archbishop LeFebrvre permission to consecrate a Bishop?
We'll put aside all the rampant abuses of the novus ordo and the changes to the canon law that now allow non-Catholics to receive communion. And we'll put aside Assisi where John Paul II prayed alongside and with heretics and others.
This question goes to Poche also.
Why did the novus ordo refuse to allow Archbishop LeFebrvre permission to consecrate a Bishop?
-
So apparently if one is not an explicit dogma denier episcopal consecration sans papal mandate is no biggie? Additionally, why is doing so under extenuating circuмstances (ie pope in exile, in secret under communist rule) used as justification for the present situation, ie when a sitting pope (believed to be so by the consecrator at any rate) freely commands an explicit "NO" to such wishes, as though the two were even remotely comparable?
Why do you think John Paul II and his advisors were against Archbishop LeFebrvre consecrating a bishop?
There are 5,000 bishops in the world, so one going about in a pre-Vatican II fashion shouldn't be such a threat to the conciliar applecart.
So, there are 5,000 bishops.
Why did the novus ordo refuse to allow Archbishop LeFebrvre permission to consecrate a Bishop?
We'll put aside all the rampant abuses of the novus ordo and the changes to the canon law that now allow non-Catholics to receive communion. And we'll put aside Assisi where John Paul II prayed alongside and with heretics and others.
This question goes to Poche also.
Why did the novus ordo refuse to allow Archbishop LeFebrvre permission to consecrate a Bishop?
Yes, I understand all of this, and I'm leaving the moral uprightness of Archbishop Lefebvre's particular situation aside for the moment; my issue is with those justifying the consecrating of a bishop without Rome's mandate (using irrelevant historical examples that certainly didn't include the Roman Pontiff's explicitly forbidding the act) isn't problematic in principle (just as long as one is not a heretic), which many have done in this thread.
-
So apparently if one is not an explicit dogma denier episcopal consecration sans papal mandate is no biggie? Additionally, why is doing so under extenuating circuмstances (ie pope in exile, in secret under communist rule) used as justification for the present situation, ie when a sitting pope (believed to be so by the consecrator at any rate) freely commands an explicit "NO" to such wishes, as though the two were even remotely comparable?
Why do you think John Paul II and his advisors were against Archbishop LeFebrvre consecrating a bishop?
There are 5,000 bishops in the world, so one going about in a pre-Vatican II fashion shouldn't be such a threat to the conciliar applecart.
So, there are 5,000 bishops.
Why did the novus ordo refuse to allow Archbishop LeFebrvre permission to consecrate a Bishop?
We'll put aside all the rampant abuses of the novus ordo and the changes to the canon law that now allow non-Catholics to receive communion. And we'll put aside Assisi where John Paul II prayed alongside and with heretics and others.
This question goes to Poche also.
Why did the novus ordo refuse to allow Archbishop LeFebrvre permission to consecrate a Bishop?
Yes, I understand all of this, and I'm leaving the moral uprightness of Archbishop Lefebvre's particular situation aside for the moment; my issue is with those justifying the consecrating of a bishop without Rome's mandate (using irrelevant historical examples that certainly didn't include the Roman Pontiff's explicitly forbidding the act) isn't problematic in principle (just as long as one is not a heretic), which many have done in this thread.
Comparing apples to oranges like poche did, I used as a simply an example, showing that people who were historically excommunicated for "not having a papal mandate," had other more grave issues, but NOT the Archbishop. The Archbishop had very good reason to do what he did without a papal mandate.
-
Yes, I understand all of this, and I'm leaving the moral uprightness of Archbishop Lefebvre's particular situation aside for the moment; my issue is with those justifying the consecrating of a bishop without Rome's mandate (using irrelevant historical examples that certainly didn't include the Roman Pontiff's explicitly forbidding the act) isn't problematic in principle (just as long as one is not a heretic), which many have done in this thread.
In the current situation you absolutely cannot take issue with justification of new consecrations, while at the same time "leaving the moral uprightness of Archbishop Lefebvre's particular situation aside for the moment". To attempt this is disingenuous to say the least.
-
Comparing apples to oranges like poche did, I used as a simply an example, showing that people who were historically excommunicated for "not having a papal mandate," had other more grave issues, but NOT the Archbishop. The Archbishop had very good reason to do what he did without a papal mandate.
Well I'm glad you agree that the comparisons are apples to oranges...
-
Yes, I understand all of this, and I'm leaving the moral uprightness of Archbishop Lefebvre's particular situation aside for the moment; my issue is with those justifying the consecrating of a bishop without Rome's mandate (using irrelevant historical examples that certainly didn't include the Roman Pontiff's explicitly forbidding the act) isn't problematic in principle (just as long as one is not a heretic), which many have done in this thread.
In the current situation you absolutely cannot take issue with justification of new consecrations, while at the same time "leaving the moral uprightness of Archbishop Lefebvre's particular situation aside for the moment". To attempt this is disingenuous to say the least.
I prefaced it that way simply to discuss the principles in general apart from Msgr. Lefebvre's concrete situation. To spin it by calling into question my intentions (by ascribing the most uncharitable interpretation at that Mr. (aptly named) Ultrarigorist) is merely a diversion "to say the least."
-
So apparently if one is not an explicit dogma denier episcopal consecration sans papal mandate is no biggie? Additionally, why is doing so under extenuating circuмstances (ie pope in exile, in secret under communist rule) used as justification for the present situation, ie when a sitting pope (believed to be so by the consecrator at any rate) freely commands an explicit "NO" to such wishes, as though the two were even remotely comparable?
Why do you think John Paul II and his advisors were against Archbishop LeFebrvre consecrating a bishop?
There are 5,000 bishops in the world, so one going about in a pre-Vatican II fashion shouldn't be such a threat to the conciliar applecart.
So, there are 5,000 bishops.
Why did the novus ordo refuse to allow Archbishop LeFebrvre permission to consecrate a Bishop?
We'll put aside all the rampant abuses of the novus ordo and the changes to the canon law that now allow non-Catholics to receive communion. And we'll put aside Assisi where John Paul II prayed alongside and with heretics and others.
This question goes to Poche also.
Why did the novus ordo refuse to allow Archbishop LeFebrvre permission to consecrate a Bishop?
Yes, I understand all of this, and I'm leaving the moral uprightness of Archbishop Lefebvre's particular situation aside for the moment; my issue is with those justifying the consecrating of a bishop without Rome's mandate (using irrelevant historical examples that certainly didn't include the Roman Pontiff's explicitly forbidding the act) isn't problematic in principle (just as long as one is not a heretic), which many have done in this thread.
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/On-the-Doctrine-of-Necessity
-
Yes, I understand all of this, and I'm leaving the moral uprightness of Archbishop Lefebvre's particular situation aside for the moment; my issue is with those justifying the consecrating of a bishop without Rome's mandate (using irrelevant historical examples that certainly didn't include the Roman Pontiff's explicitly forbidding the act) isn't problematic in principle (just as long as one is not a heretic), which many have done in this thread.
In the current situation you absolutely cannot take issue with justification of new consecrations, while at the same time "leaving the moral uprightness of Archbishop Lefebvre's particular situation aside for the moment". To attempt this is disingenuous to say the least.
I prefaced it that way simply to discuss the principles in general apart from Msgr. Lefebvre's concrete situation. To spin it by calling into question my intentions (by ascribing the most uncharitable interpretation at that Mr. (aptly named) Ultrarigorist) is merely a diversion "to say the least."
Same concrete situation, same principles, different year. Abp. L's successors need successors in turn. The "particular situation" has not changed, but if anything, ++L's decision has been ever more validated by roman antics since. Yet you accuse me of diversion?
-
So apparently if one is not an explicit dogma denier episcopal consecration sans papal mandate is no biggie? Additionally, why is doing so under extenuating circuмstances (ie pope in exile, in secret under communist rule) used as justification for the present situation, ie when a sitting pope (believed to be so by the consecrator at any rate) freely commands an explicit "NO" to such wishes, as though the two were even remotely comparable?
Why do you think John Paul II and his advisors were against Archbishop LeFebrvre consecrating a bishop?
There are 5,000 bishops in the world, so one going about in a pre-Vatican II fashion shouldn't be such a threat to the conciliar applecart.
So, there are 5,000 bishops.
Why did the novus ordo refuse to allow Archbishop LeFebrvre permission to consecrate a Bishop?
We'll put aside all the rampant abuses of the novus ordo and the changes to the canon law that now allow non-Catholics to receive communion. And we'll put aside Assisi where John Paul II prayed alongside and with heretics and others.
This question goes to Poche also.
Why did the novus ordo refuse to allow Archbishop LeFebrvre permission to consecrate a Bishop?
I do not know. That would have been between Archbishop Lefebvre and then Pope John Paul II.
-
Yes, I understand all of this, and I'm leaving the moral uprightness of Archbishop Lefebvre's particular situation aside for the moment; my issue is with those justifying the consecrating of a bishop without Rome's mandate (using irrelevant historical examples that certainly didn't include the Roman Pontiff's explicitly forbidding the act) isn't problematic in principle (just as long as one is not a heretic), which many have done in this thread.
In the current situation you absolutely cannot take issue with justification of new consecrations, while at the same time "leaving the moral uprightness of Archbishop Lefebvre's particular situation aside for the moment". To attempt this is disingenuous to say the least.
I prefaced it that way simply to discuss the principles in general apart from Msgr. Lefebvre's concrete situation. To spin it by calling into question my intentions (by ascribing the most uncharitable interpretation at that Mr. (aptly named) Ultrarigorist) is merely a diversion "to say the least."
Same concrete situation, same principles, different year. Abp. L's successors need successors in turn. The "particular situation" has not changed, but if anything, ++L's decision has been ever more validated by roman antics since. Yet you accuse me of diversion?
So would you assert that Abp. Thuc should have remained in "good standing" in 1976? This is also addressed to the claim that the 1917 Code (as opposed to JPII's '83 version) has no real qualm with consecrating bishops unlawfully. Diversion is significantly more benign than disingenuity.
-
Yes, I understand all of this, and I'm leaving the moral uprightness of Archbishop Lefebvre's particular situation aside for the moment; my issue is with those justifying the consecrating of a bishop without Rome's mandate (using irrelevant historical examples that certainly didn't include the Roman Pontiff's explicitly forbidding the act) isn't problematic in principle (just as long as one is not a heretic), which many have done in this thread.
In the current situation you absolutely cannot take issue with justification of new consecrations, while at the same time "leaving the moral uprightness of Archbishop Lefebvre's particular situation aside for the moment". To attempt this is disingenuous to say the least.
I prefaced it that way simply to discuss the principles in general apart from Msgr. Lefebvre's concrete situation. To spin it by calling into question my intentions (by ascribing the most uncharitable interpretation at that Mr. (aptly named) Ultrarigorist) is merely a diversion "to say the least."
Same concrete situation, same principles, different year. Abp. L's successors need successors in turn. The "particular situation" has not changed, but if anything, ++L's decision has been ever more validated by roman antics since. Yet you accuse me of diversion?
So would you assert that Abp. Thuc should have remained in "good standing" in 1976? This is also addressed to the claim that the 1917 Code (as opposed to JPII's '83 version) has no real qualm with consecrating bishops unlawfully. Diversion is significantly more benign than disingenuity.
Again, I have indulged in no diversion, nor really sure what your point is. But now let's learn what you think. Is +Williamson justified in consecrating successors proximately? Please answer with a direct yes or no in the first instance, and then follow with whatever explanations you wish to provide.
-
My point is that I find it rather strange that one feels that contravening a direct command of the Roman Pontiff is no biggie as long as one is not a "formal heretic" as has been argued in this thread. Even if such an act wasn't intrinsically schismatic, it (episcopal consecrations) still has grave repercussions vis-a-vis the unity of the Church. Hence why I'm far more sympathetic with Bishop de Castro Mayer who was proclaiming that "We do not have a pope!" to anyone who would listen on that fateful June afternoon in 1988, as he was taking the premises (Ecuмenical council promulgating errors, evil sacramental rites, defective Code of Canon Law) to their logical conclusion. This is why there always has been, and always will be a perpetual battle between the hard-liners vs the softies in the SSPX.
-
So...++Lefebvre consecrated bishops citing the necessity to maintain the faith according to V1?? So then, what's the pope's big beef then? Makes sense to me that he did what he had to do to protect the faith. The previous 50 years has been a pretty good proof that V2 is total garbage, so it would seem to me that any half believing pope would just let it slide in order to maintain at least some bastion of the true faith...