While, as I think I and sitetest and bornacatholic have never denied, the pope (this one or any successor) may revise, reverse, lift or modify the punishments justly visited upon Lefebvre (query: How does one unexcommunicate those who die apparently unrepentant of their excommunicating offenses? One may have a grace of final repentance and so we cannot KNOW that anyone, even Judas, is in hell, although we are assured that many, unidentified to us, are in hell) and his co-conspirators in ecclesiastical grand theft, for any reason or none, the pope is the Supreme Legislator of Canon Law. The Americanism in these controversies would seem to be practiced by the schismatics who somehow feel that they may interpret (not unlike SCOTUS) Canon Law (as an Anglo-American style "Rule of Law") to bind the pope (indeed the very pope who promulgated the entire new code). Actually, possession of the keys means that what the pope binds on earth is bound in heaven and what the pope looses on earth is loosed in heaven. If he said (and he did) that they are excommunicated schismatics, they thereby became (objectively, subjectively or whatever), ummmm, excommunicated schismatics. The SSPX, its founder and its adherents appear to believe otherwise which is why they have found themselves justly anathematized until a pope says otherwise.
BTW, Marcel was not disobedient to the "request" of John Paul the Great but abusively disobedient of the ORDER of John Paul the Great (to which Marcel had apparently agreed in writing). Likewise, the consecrated fellow excommunicant priests intended by Marcel for consecration and consecrated by him, having received Marcel's little billet doux claiming the pope to be antichrist, should have suspected that being consecrated by Marcel was not a prudent spiritual move.
It would seem in order when considering Campos, The Institute of the Good Shepherd and FSSP (for that matter) the parable of the workers and the vineyard. Also, it goes without saying that each and every priest has taken a vow of obedience that seems necessarily to require submission to the doctrinal authority of the papacy.
I personally have no knowledge of anti-Semitic remarks by Fellay. I understand that SSPX's Williamson has denied the Holocaust and said a lot of other silly things. I don't admire him but I don't suggest that his ignorance of history constitutes heresy. It is his willing receipt of the proceeds of grand theft ecclesiastical that has put him and his fellow Marcellian illicit bishops in boiling water. In and of themselves, these curious views denying the Holocaust or being anti-Semitic (if indeed that is the case) are not the ecclesiastical problems. Many darned fools have been bishops remaining in communion with Rome and have submitted in all things to dogma nonetheless. Obedience to the pope is NOT optional, however, particularly in such matters as deciding who will be consecrated a bishop.
Also, the mere opinions of Canon Lawyers have no authority to trump the judgments of popes.
I also wish to observe that the direction in which the Wanderer is drifting is a severe disappointment. First, when I rashly considered becoming Eastern Orthodox in my own anger over the abuses often introduced into Novus Ordo Masses and my general lack of admiration for Paul VI, a good friend told me to subscribe to the Wanderer for one year and then decide. I did as he asked and, because of the Wanderer, I remained Catholic.
Nonetheless, no other respectable publication would be caught dead publishing Sobran. Buchanan opines not on theology but on his moonbat isolationist and border obsessive views. I voted for him at least twice and my shame over that knows few bounds. At least he is still prolife. Now, Tom Roeser is heaping praise upon the utterly discredited pre-Pearl Harbor isolationist paleo-ostriches. If I wanted to be instructed by paleowussies, I would subcribe to Buchanan's magazine or to Mother Jones or the Nation. Now, it begins to look like there was no cause for the Matt family to divide if the Wanderer is going to mimic the "Remnant" in support of the schismatics without any papal document as a reason. Also the late Brent Bozell's Triumph magazine became an embarrassment and failed when it went anti-American over war.
*The Angelus is his mouthpiece and it publicly published the "doctrine"the jews are cursed.P>
And the whole people answering, said: His blood be upon us and our children.
can have a Salvific Interpretation if one is not antisemitic.
Who DOESN'T want the Salvific Blood of Jesus upon the Jews or the pagans or anyone else?
By the Blood of Jesus coming upon Longinus, he was converted and saved.
AMEN. MAY THE BLOOD OF JESUS BE UPON THE JEWS AND THEIR CHILDREN
You coulk also arrange for a cup o'tea with Tom Fleming and discuss Montenegro :)
Thanks for your opinion. Nice blending of personal preferences, history and politics with your own particular worldview.
You and others are stuck in 1988. At no time have I ever defended deliberately disobeying the Pope and ordaining bishops against his express will.
However, since Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos, Cardinal Medina Estevez, and more recently, Archbishop Ranjith all seem to disagree with your assessment of things traditional and SSPX, I defer to understanding their recent corrections that "the SSPX is NOT a formal schism."
Of course, there interviews are not official Church discipline nor policy, and for that, I respectfully await some official action of Pope Benedict XVI, gloriously reigning.
The fact that many of the Americanist variety do not like Sobran (who is phenomenal in my opinion!) and Buchanan and yet praise the likes of Richard John Neuhaus and others, reveals more than many of us care to know.
Throwing the "anti-Semitic" label out there and seeing how many people it slanders is not very effective for those who would prefer people deal with issues.
Of course, the SSPX story I penned has nothing whatsoever to do with the issues that many of you here enjoy ranting about. You are all so much older and wiser than I am (obviously, our world views are different), but suffice to say that the generation before mine did not "hand on the Faith of our Fathers" in tact to us, as you received it from your Fathers; neither did you do much to stop the disintegration of the Church militant and the transformation of it into the "pilgrim Church"--or perhaps the Gypsy Church or the Church of the warm fuzzy pet doggie.