Author Topic: papal bull of excommunication??? (Read 4749 times)

ultrarigorist · « **Reply #30 on:** October 02, 2013, 10:45:53 PM »

Quote from: Histrionics

Quote from: ultrarigorist
Quote from: Histrionics
Quote from: ultrarigorist
Quote from: Histrionics

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.

Histrionics · « **Reply #31 on:** October 03, 2013, 01:43:11 PM »

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.

Mama ChaCha · « **Reply #32 on:** October 07, 2013, 04:15:03 AM »

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...

CathInfo.com

Author Topic: papal bull of excommunication??? (Read 4749 times)

ultrarigorist

papal bull of excommunication???

Histrionics

papal bull of excommunication???

Mama ChaCha

papal bull of excommunication???