Author Topic: What about Abp Lefebvre Bishop De Castro Mayers excommunication? (Read 1892 times)

Clint · « **on:** June 11, 2012, 12:45:55 PM »

What about Abp Lefebvre & Bishop De Castro Mayer's excommunications?

If the Menzingen office is so concerned about being faithful to Abp. Lefevbre, how come they don't get his excommunication declared null and void? If I were one of the Bishops, I would not accept the lifting of my excommunication, if Abp. L and Bishop Castro De Mayer's excommunication was not likewise lifted.

Accepting my "prize" while ignoring the other excommunications, looks like a cowardly self serving position, like walking over Abp. L & Bishop Castro De Mayer to get a tin medal from the pope.

Why no mention of this subject?

Instead of all this talk about being "faithfull the Archbishop", one should SHOW IT, by not accepting the removal of the excommunications, if the Abp. & Bishop Castro De Mayer are left out.

magdalena · « **Reply #1 on:** June 11, 2012, 07:13:55 PM »

Quote from: Clint

What about Abp Lefebvre & Bishop De Castro Mayer's excommunications?

If the Menzingen office is so concerned about being faithful to Abp. Lefevbre, how come they don't get his excommunication declared null and void? If I were one of the Bishops, I would not accept the lifting of my excommunication, if Abp. L and Bishop Castro De Mayer's excommunication was not likewise lifted.

Accepting my "prize" while ignoring the other excommunications, looks like a cowardly self serving position, like walking over Abp. L & Bishop Castro De Mayer to get a tin medal from the pope.

Why no mention of this subject?

Instead of all this talk about being "faithfull the Archbishop", one should SHOW IT, by not accepting the removal of the excommunications, if the Abp. & Bishop Castro De Mayer are left out.

What you say is true with regards to the wrong of having accepted the "lifting" of the "excommunications" of the four bishops, but not the two. However, since the excommunications were never recognized by the SSPX as being valid, they should never have requested, or accepted, the lifting of them in the first place. That may have been one of their big mistakes in all of this.

justso · « **Reply #2 on:** June 11, 2012, 08:20:25 PM »

Quote from: Clint

What about Abp Lefebvre & Bishop De Castro Mayer's excommunications?

What about them? They never existed. This used to be common, clear and well understood reality. Only after the "lifting" of the "excommunications" took place did the fuzzy thinking get introduced.

MichaelFullerSSPX · « **Reply #3 on:** June 11, 2012, 08:54:55 PM »

This is an extremely important part of the whole "deal" because if a deal is accepted before the excommunications are declared null everything is at risk including eventually the very printing of his books. The smart priests of the SSPX were onto the sellout years ago. The Lefebvre-Ratzinger protocol was accepted by Bishop Fellay by Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos and changed the position secretly. No longer were we asking for the nullification of the excommunications but Bishop Fellay started asking that they be "lifted" and accepted the Lefebvre-Ratzinger protocol. This is when the sell out was official and Rome knew it they just themselves were puzzled as to why?

Nishant · « **Reply #4 on:** June 12, 2012, 12:23:29 AM »

It wasn't Bishop Fellay alone that asked for the remitting of the excommunication. I think the reason is because even an excommunication unjustly pronounced must be later rescinded by the competent ecclesiastical authority. This is the teaching of St.Thomas Aquinas as well.

Also, some have maintained based on the wording of the docuмent issued then that this has already been done in the 2009 letter because it says the decree of July 1988 no longer has juridical effect.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #5 on:** June 12, 2012, 12:36:10 AM »

Does anyone think they wouldn't be said to be latae excommunicated again if more bishops were consecrated without permission?

If that's the case that they would, it would be evident that the "excommuniction" was not considered unjust by Rome.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #6 on:** June 12, 2012, 12:48:25 AM »

Quote from: Telesphorus

Does anyone think they wouldn't be said to be latae sententiae excommunicated

it's late.

Clint · « **Reply #7 on:** June 12, 2012, 09:31:25 AM »

Quote from: MichaelFullerSSPX

This is an extremely important part of the whole "deal" because if a deal is accepted before the excommunications are declared null everything is at risk including eventually the very printing of his books. The smart priests of the SSPX were onto the sellout years ago. The Lefebvre-Ratzinger protocol was accepted by Bishop Fellay by Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos and changed the position secretly. No longer were we asking for the nullification of the excommunications but Bishop Fellay started asking that they be "lifted" and accepted the Lefebvre-Ratzinger protocol. This is when the sell out was official and Rome knew it they just themselves were puzzled as to why?

VERY enlightening! Thanks for your contribution. This makes all sense, how could the Conciliarized SSPX be allowed to print the books of an excommunicated rebel like Abp. Lefevbre!

Clint · « **Reply #8 on:** June 12, 2012, 09:44:05 AM »

Quote from: Nishant2011

It wasn't Bishop Fellay alone that asked for the remitting of the excommunication. I think the reason is because even an excommunication unjustly pronounced must be later rescinded by the competent ecclesiastical authority. This is the teaching of St.Thomas Aquinas as well.

Also, some have maintained based on the wording of the docuмent issued then that this has already been done in the 2009 letter because it says the decree of July 1988 no longer has juridical effect.

This is a typical Vatican II progressivist tactic, not coming out and saying it clearly. We know they said it clearly with the four living SSPX bishops, that they are no longer excommunicated. We don't have the same with the Abp. L & Bp. DCMayer. Nothing happens by chance in politics, and the Conciliar Church is all about politics. We should never settle for "some have maintained". That's just a copout, and only leads to endless debate.

It's very simple: The excommunications of Abp. Lefevbre and Bishop Castro De Mayer have not been declared null and void, like the four living bishops, and no one in Menzingen SSPX hierarchy is mentioning it.

Clint · « **Reply #9 on:** June 12, 2012, 10:11:15 AM »

I show that I have received private messages, but I can't access them, it says:
"To use the private message system, you must be an established member".

So, how do I become an established member?

Please forward to moderator.

Ethelred · « **Reply #10 on:** June 12, 2012, 11:26:34 AM »

Well, one argument of the sellout camp on this topic is that New-Rome would not have to lift the "excommunications" of Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop Castro de Mayer anyway, because excommunications would cease (expire) with the dead of the excommunicated person.

One reply to that argument was, that when an excommunicated person dies, he would go to hell either way, so...
(I'm not sure however, if this really is the case.)

But since it's never been real excommunications, the best thing is to ignore any so called "excommunication" by the Newchurch (which is excommunicated herself, according to Archbishop Lefebvre), and also ignore any lifting of a so called "excommunication".

Alas, Menzingen forgot that. They forgot a lot of things, isn't it?

For sure I didn't sing an ordered Te Deum for the "lifting" of an non-existing "excommunication" back then. I rather started to smell that... Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.

And today we all smell it. Even across the ocean, isn't it, my US-American brothers in faith?