Posted on 01/30/2013 2:59:30 PM PST by NYer
“Which excommunication are you talking about? His first one, or the second?”
So you’re saying he was double excommunicated? Kind of like hanging a man a second time?
Tell me, please, when this second “excommunication” was incurred.
“Had they retained their orthodoxy they would be far stronger today. Insofar as they deviated from orthodoxy, they separated themselves from the faith.”
Unfortunately, by retaining their orthodoxy and attachment to the Faith, they were persecuted by modernist Popes.
Every so many years I have to re-read a summary of Dignitatis Humanae, and how it does or doesn't differ from earlier ideas about religious freedom from the time of Christendom (original meaning), but even then end up with a fairly hazy feeling about the whole thing.
At any rate, the expressed preference in Vatican II for Democratic Liberalism, knowing those two words are not used exactly as they typically would be on this forum, but kinda/sorta are, continues to make me uncomfortable.
Me, too.
There's some stuff in the Vatican II documents that I think is silly, including the opinion that "modern man" is somehow improved over the version we've always had. However, that is a statement of opinion, while the document of freedom of conscience is a statement of doctrine. If one believes the Council promulgated a doctrine - a statement on faith and morals, not pastoral practicalities - that is WRONG, that's a big problem.
I don't remember where I read that this was the sticking point for the SSPX, so I can't check it. I may be wrong.
On the doctrinal vs. pastoral thing, it has always seemed to me (my opinion, worth nothing), that papal quotes supporting "pastoral" run at about a 10:1 advantage over those leaning toward doctrinal, or worse, infallible (which the Magisterium generally is not).
But one particular quote from Pope Paul VI in 1977 -- promulgator of Vatican II, a year before his death -- stands out in my mind although not specifically addressing the D vs. P debate:
“The tail of the devil is functioning in the disintegration of the Catholic world. The darkness of Satan has entered and spread throughout the Catholic Church even to its summit. Apostasy, the loss of the faith, is spreading throughout the world and into the highest levels within the Church.”
If anyone reading can prove that this quote is not authentic I would be most appreciative to hear of it.
Meanwhile, glad my only pressing decision at the moment is regular vs. spicy.
LOL! I'm grateful to not be in charge of things, myself.
You don’t get to become a priest without the permission from the pope.
Fellay is in the exact same position he was as if Lefebvre didn’t exist. As well he should. He’s a layperson, no different than you or I.
He was warned for teaching EENS, which is contrary to Catholic doctrine. He was excommed along with Lefebvre when Lefebvre was excommed for raising Fellay to a bishop. Once that happened, and since that happened, Fellay has been a layperson.
Modernist philosophy teaches that you don’t have to follow Canon law unless it suits you - ergo Fellay is very much a product of his time.
“He was warned for teaching EENS, which is contrary to Catholic doctrine.”
EENS was Catholic doctrine for 1500 years until the Second Vatican Council.
Romans states otherwise. :)
Yes, the New Romans have spoken otherwise: New Mass, New Code of Canon Law, New Eucharistic prayers, New Bible, new forms of the Sacraments, etc.
“He was warned for teaching EENS, which is contrary to Catholic doctrine. He was excommed along with Lefebvre when Lefebvre was excommed for raising Fellay to a bishop.”
You stated Bishop Fellay was excommunicated twice. Again, when was the second excommunication?
“Their value increases in their fidelity to the Church and to Benedict XVI and diminishes in their infidelity to the oaths they once swore many years ago.”
Are you talking about the Oath Against Modernism that Popes John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI all swore to? The SSPX priest have never defied their oaths, unlike the above.
Lefebvre did not possess the canonical authority to ordain Fellay in the first place. Ergo, Fellay, (unlike one of his fellow bishops), must first obtain dispensation from the pope, (since he’s now engaged in schism), contrary to section 2 of the canon laws regarding ordination. An impediment which was not formerly present.
Again, it’s up to Fellay. He can choose to go on his own, but he won’t get to take SSPX with him, and he’s not going to get another opportunity like the one he has been provided by the Pope. End of the road. He either reconciles or leaves.
“Yes, the New Romans have spoken otherwise: New Mass, New Code of Canon Law, New Eucharistic prayers, New Bible, new forms of the Sacraments, etc.”
I meant Paul’s Epistle to the Romans. It’s quite clear that salvation can be found outside the Church by the invincibly ignorant. Ergo EENS is heresy.
“Ergo, Fellay, (unlike one of his fellow bishops), must first obtain dispensation from the pope, (since he’s now engaged in schism), contrary to section 2 of the canon laws regarding ordination.”
Why would Pope Benedict lift Bishop Fellay’s “excommunication” (first and only excommunication, by the way) if he considered Bishop Fellay to “engaged in schism”?
“Ergo EENS is heresy.”
And thus you condemn numerous holy Popes and saints as heretics. I’m amazed that you know better than those who have been raised to the holy altar.
Suit yourself. If your argument is from authority, St. Paul is greater than Fellay.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.