Removal Of Sspx Excommunications?

[Resurrexi]

New article by Andrea Tornielli in Friday's edition of Il Giornale: Saturday or, at most, next week; Fellay met Cañizares in Rome.

The removal of the excommunication, decided by Pope Ratzinger, will be published already Saturday, or at most next week, after the end of the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity. The four Bishops at this hour wait in silence ... .

The Superior-General of the Fraternity, Bishop Bernard Fellay, first signatory of the letter with which it was requested of the Pontiff to remove the excommunication, in the past few days was in Rome and also met Cardinal Antonio Cañizares, new Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship.

[url="http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2009/01/removal-of-excommunications-of-sspx_23.html"]http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2009/01/r...of-sspx_23.html[/url]

[MithLuin]

So, if the excommunications are removed, does that mean that they will recognize Pope Benedict XVI as pope?

Hopefully, this will be a step in healing divisions, but I do think that actual changes are necessary.

[KnightofChrist]

They recognized John Paul II as Pope, and the see Benedict XVI as Pope.

Prayers

[Resurrexi]

They've never failed to recognize Benedict XVI as Pope. It's the sedevacantists who believe taht.

[doe-jo]

They're not sedevacantists. Archibishop Lefebvre was excommunicated because he consecrated 4 bishops without Rome's permission. They're not a schismatic group. You can even fulfill your Sunday obligation by going to their masses although it is not advisable to receive communion.

They're really not as bad as everyone thinks. I mean, the Pope himself recognizes that, obviously, if he is considering or in talks about repealing the excommunications. If anything, "Lifeteen" is worse than these SSPX guys.

Edited January 24, 2009 by doe-jo

[Tinkerlina]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1759483' date='Jan 23 2009, 07:03 PM']They recognized John Paul II as Pope, and the see Benedict XVI as Pope.

Prayers[/quote]

I'm confused though because the SSPX website seems to say a lot of negative things about JPII on their website. I know that it's OK to criticize religious leaders on issues you disagree with to some extent, but they really seemed to dedicate a lot of time to pointing out his so called "faults" and even suggested that he was teaching things contrary to Catholic Doctrine, so I don't understand how you could recognize him as pope while stating that he is teaching something contrary to the Catholic Faith. -Katie

[Era Might]

Tinkerlina,

Last summer the Holy See was in communication with Bishop Fellay of the SSPX, and it was reported that the Holy See gave these general conditions for him to abide by (though I'm not sure if the letter from the Holy See was ever officially made public):

[quote]1. A commitment to a proportioned response to the generosity of the Pope.

2. A commitment to avoid any public speech which does not respect the person of the Holy Father and which can be negative for ecclesial charity.

3. A commitment to avoid the pretense of a Magisterium superior to the Holy Father and to not put forward the Fraternity [SSPX] in opposition to the Church.

4. A commitment to demonstrate the will to behave honestly in full ecclesial charity and in respect to the authority of the Vicar of Christ.

5. A commitment to respect the date – fixed at the end of the month of June – to respond positively. This will be a required and necessary condition for the immediate preparation for adhesion to have full communion.

(Source: These conditions were reported by Andrea Tornielli, and Tornielli's report was translated by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf)[/quote]
These conditions are the background for the current rumors about a possible reconciliation between the Holy See and the SSPX.

[Tinkerlina]

Thanks, Era Might-that clears up a lot of what I was wondering Katie

[Deeds]

The excommunications were removed. I hope this is the first step towards the SSPX being in full communion with the Church.

[url="http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/"]http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/[/url]

[Roamin'Catholic]

[quote name='Deeds' post='1760061' date='Jan 24 2009, 07:43 AM']The excommunications were removed. I hope this is the first step towards the SSPX being in full communion with the Church.

[url="http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/"]http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/[/url][/quote]

Decree of the Congregation for Bishops

CONGREGATIO PRO EPISCOPIS



By way of a letter of December 15, 2008 addressed to His Eminence Cardinal Dario Castrillón Hoyos, President of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, Mons. Bernard Fellay, also in the name of the other three Bishops consecrated on June 30, 1988, requested anew the removal of the latae sententiae excommunication formally declared with the Decree of the Prefect of this Congregation on July 1, 1988. In the aforementioned letter, Mons. Fellay affirms, among other things: "We are always firmly determined in our will to remain Catholic and to place all our efforts at the service of the Church of Our Lord Jesus Christ, which is the Roman Catholic Church. We accept its teachings with filial disposition. We believe firmly in the Primacy of Peter and in its prerogatives, and for this the current situation makes us suffer so much."

His Holiness Benedict XVI - paternally sensitive to the spiritual unease manifested by the interested party due to the sanction of excommunication and trusting in the effort expressed by them in the aforementioned letter of not sparing any effort to deepen the necessary discussions with the Authority of the Holy See in the still open matters, so as to achieve shortly a full and satisfactory solution of the problem posed in the origin - decided to reconsider the canonical situation of Bishops Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson, and Alfonso de Galarreta, arisen with their episcopal consecration.

With this act, it is desired to consolidate the reciprocal relations of confidence and to intensify and grant stability to the relationship of the Fraternity of Saint Pius X with this Apostolic See. This gift of peace, at the end of the Christmas celebrations, is also intended to be a sign to promote unity in the charity of the universal Church and to try to vanquish the scandal of division.

It is hoped that this step be followed by the prompt accomplishment of full communion with the Church of the entire Fraternity of Saint Pius X, thus testifying true fidelity and true recognition of the Magisterium and of the authority of the Pope with the proof of visible unity.

Based in the faculty expressly granted to me by the Holy Father Benedict XVI, in virtue of the present Decree, I remit of Bishops Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson, and Alfonso de Galarreta the censure of latae sententiae excommunication declared by this Congregation on July 1, 1988, while I declare deprived of any juridical effect, from the present date, the Decree emanated at that time.


Rome, from the Congregation for Bishops, January 21, 2009.



Card. Giovanni Battista Re
Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops

____________________
Press release

of the Superior General of the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X



The excommunication of the bishops consecrated by His Grace Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, on June 30, 1988, which had been declared by the Congregation for Bishops in a decree dated July 1, 1988, and which we had always contested, has been withdrawn by another decree mandated by Benedict XVI and issued by the same Congregation on January 21, 2009.

We express our filial gratitude to the Holy Father for this gesture which, beyond the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X, will benefit the whole Church. Our Society wishes to be always more able to help the pope to remedy the unprecedented crisis which presently shakes the Catholic world, and which Pope John Paul II had designated as a state of “silent apostasy.”

Besides our gratitude towards the Holy Father and towards all those who helped him to make this courageous act, we are pleased that the decree of January 21 considers as necessary “talks” with the Holy See, talks which will enable the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X to explain the fundamental doctrinal reasons which it believes to be at the origin of the present difficulties of the Church.

In this new atmosphere, we have the firm hope to obtain soon the recognition of the rights of Catholic Tradition.



Menzingen, January 24, 2009

+Bernard Fellay


[b]I've been a member of a church that has mass everyday in the extraordinary form. The chaplain is from the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter; so while I've been partial to that group of priests, I've always prayed for the restoration of Christian unity! I know the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) do great things around the world, especially in France. This is one the top ten 10 Catholic moments in my lifetime. All I can say is Deo Gratias!

I believe the "talks" that are mentioned in the above statement is referring to the next step in the process, (1. Summorum Pontificum, 2. Lifting of Excommunications, 3. Normalization) which will be to turn the SSPX into a "personal prelature" much like Opus Dei so their status in the Church will be fully normalized. Since it took about about 16 months in between step 1 (Summorum Pontificum) and step 2 (lifting of excommunications), I would imagine the next step would be accomplished in a similiar timeframe.

Thank you Pope Benedict! You are truely committed to liturgical reform and ending the modernist abuses and you are truely dedicated to Christian Unity![/b]

Edited January 24, 2009 by Roamin'Catholic

[kafka]

Hey guys and gals. Just some perspective:

First off, this is a mere media claim, claiming Pope Benedict will nullify their excommunication.

Even if Benedict XVI, did nullify it (which would never be promulgated through mere media speculation) still

they: (SSPX) are nevertheless still excommunicated IF they persist in heresy or schism.

I know those people. They must repent in their full beings, if they want to return to communion with the Church. In the end the Pope can only do so much. It is them that needs to change, in spite of everything which has happened over the past half century. For they (SSPX) are blinded, not us. And they would be more glorious if they repented. Yet they persist to not.

[kafka]

[quote name='kafka' post='1760076' date='Jan 24 2009, 07:36 AM']Yet they persist to not.[/quote]
And they do not. If only they knew the eschatological plan of Christ. Yet they do not and could not, since they have separated themselves from the vine. Most of them do not even seek truth anymore. No, not at all. Their version of the Faith is a fell and distorted version based on their own misunderstanding of what the Faith truly is. They do not even seek Truth anymore. Not at all.

They must repent, and seek a new understanding of the Faith, which in spite of all the difficulties since VII, has advanced, and is on the brink of advancing even more. It is not the fault of the Church that things have gone sour. And it is not some pseudo-conspiracy which has caused all of this. Look at the facts! In general, until the lay people are holy, the clergy will not be holy, since priests, bishops, even the Pope come from the laity. It all starts in the most basic societal structure, namely the family. And in general over the past century, father and mothers have not reared children in a truly holy way as in times past. Yet still in spite of this general trend, some of the greatest Saints, and greatest of all theologians, greatest of scholars, greatest of scientists, etc. have risen up in our times. It is a dichotomy, and the chasm will split and reunite in some profound ways in the upcoming future. For, we truly live in the greatest of all times, and God will not leave us orphans. He will take care of us, and change us.

Edited January 24, 2009 by kafka

[Roamin'Catholic]

[quote name='kafka' post='1760076' date='Jan 24 2009, 08:36 AM']Hey guys and gals. Just some perspective:

First off, this is a mere media claim, claiming Pope Benedict will nullify their excommunication.

Even if Benedict XVI, did nullify it (which would never be promulgated through mere media speculation) still

they: (SSPX) are nevertheless still excommunicated IF they persist in heresy or schism.

I know those people. They must repent in their full beings, if they want to return to communion with the Church. In the end the Pope can only do so much. It is them that needs to change, in spite of everything which has happened over the past half century. For they (SSPX) are blinded, not us. And they would be more glorious if they repented. Yet they persist to not.[/quote]

Get with the program- this isn't a "media claim" this actually happened this morning; didn't you read my post???
"Based in the faculty expressly granted to me by the Holy Father Benedict XVI, in virtue of the present Decree, I remit of Bishops Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson, and Alfonso de Galarreta the censure of latae sententiae excommunication declared by this Congregation on July 1, 1988, while I declare deprived of any juridical effect, from the present date, the Decree emanated at that time."

[MithLuin]

It doesn't get much more official than a press release from the vatican on their webpage .


[url="http://212.77.1.245/news_services/bulletin/news/23251.php?index=23251&po_date=24.01.2009&lang=en"]HERE[/url]

As a warning, it's in Italian, but if you compare this document to the one quoted above (in English), it should be clear that this is for real, not any matter of wishful thinking.

To reiterate, it is a step in restoring communion, but not an indication that it has been restored. Prayers are still needed, so hopefully we can be encouraged by this announcement and pray that it is an indication of things to come.

[ruso]

Don Francisco Jose Fernandez de la Cigoña, who was given the scoop on this news, many have echoed mentioning as a source of news, here's your opinion, which I agree 100%:

Translate for google(sorry ladys and mens),


There is an indisputable fact. The four bishops consecrated by Archbishop Lefebvre are no longer excommunicated. They are bishops of the Catholic Church, Apostolic and Roman. Although it was not declared at the moment, what is your munus Church.

That is largely true today. And also be reviewed, positively, placement and grateful that the Church has Monsignor Fellay. It augurs well that the very rapid integration of it and many who followed him in the communion of the Church. Without any reservation of those arriving and those who receive them. Or so it should be.

I will now state my opinion on what has happened. That is mine. I do not speak for the Church. But I want to talk to the Church. Therefore, if some of what I say does not agree with what the Church believes should be taken not to make it said and attributed to my ignorance and not my will.

The lifting of excomuniones is not an admission that did not exist but, for serious reasons, are left without effect. The Church has been enshrined excomulgando bishop and consecrated absence apostolic mandate. That happened with the ordinations of bishops to whom and why we came excommunication.

¿Acted badly Monsignor Lefebvre Bishop Castro Mayer and the four bishops consecrated? Objectively, yes. Subjectively, I think not. I have no doubt that all had a desire to serve Christ and the Church. Therefore, subjective well-acted and did not commit sin. I will exercise extreme caricature for everyone to understand. Someone thinks that by killing another makes a great blessing to the Church and that is the will of God. Not committed any sin to commit, because you need to be aware of doing something contrary to what God commanded. It may be a madman, a mistake but not a sinner. Although he then fall on the appropriate punishment for murder. Well, mutatis mutandis, all you want.

It is also understood that the excommunication relapse, they thought that was unfair because they were saving the Church to be precipitated into the abyss. Who think they and their followers. I never thought.

And before the chaos that occurred in the church, he said that until the Pope Paul VI that the smoke of Satan had entered into it, it is understandable that some thought, not me, that was what he had to do.

I also think that Monsignor Lefebvre provided a great service to the Church. God writes twisted right lines. Because your attitude, so radical, it opened the eyes of many, not follow him, began to consider that such chaos was suicidal and started the restoration. Initiated in recent times continued by Paul VI and John Paul II and Benedict XVI. I guess it would be heavy lifting of the excommunication.

Some commentators have said that have been void, and even someone said that they recognized almost all the charges. Neither were invalid, in which case it should not be lifted but declared invalid, or the majority of canonists argue that. Only they have done for the Fraternity of Saint Pius X and one very close. Which clearly justify their attitude.

All the nonsense that took place under the so-called "spirit" of the Council, dogmatic, moral, liturgical, canonical, reaffirmed the right of lefebvristas in their performance and led them, in addition to harsh statements. On the council, the Mass and the Pope. I regret that now, and some which are a blot on its history. And it is something serious responsibility of a leadership that can not believe the atrocities were convinced that they were told or encouraged. Thereby justifying their position with his faithful but induced serious errors.

Non-admission of the council, which they considered a betrayal of the Church, supported the rebellion but it is certainly unsustainable. Second Vatican Council is not dogmatic and pastoral, or slightly dogmatic, what you want, but it is one of the Ecumenical Catholic Church. And as such we must accept it. While we must accept it as is. The acceptance of the council does not, as some have claimed antilefebvristas, having all his words as dogma of faith. A Catholic may well think that this paragraph is not accurate. Or that its effects were contrary to those proposed. Or unnecessary. Holy See supports the constructive criticism of the Council.

Only a silly to believe that we must hold with Catholic faith as the Resurrection of Christ, "also new art forms suitable for our contemporaries as the nature of each nation or region, are recognized by the Church." You can be Catholic and absolutely believe that these new art forms have flooded feísmo our churches. And even ask to be removed from them.

These exaggerations have led some to deny the validity of the new church and even considered sacrilegious. I will not expand on it because I think one of cretinism think that is not worth it. I understand perfectly that I have considered that the old church proclaims more mystery, more pious, whatever you want. But the denial is true that the new renovation of the bloodless sacrifice of the Cross and that in it, just like in the old bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ, just seems to me asylum. Those who think better not come because they are irreconcilable with the Catholic faith.

He also spent many peoples in their criticism of the Pope, or heretic semihereje, inspired modernism, traitor to the deposit of faith. We can not surprising that many of those receiving such doctrines ended up in the sedevacantismo.

They are, however, very substantial, always in my view, denounce the different treatment they received in the Church who refused their dogmas and none but those who did not deny their bishops were excommunicated. For some if not all tolerances for the encouragement and the other as a rejection apestada.

Today is a joyous days because it may announce the full reintegration into the Church of some fervent believers who have maintained their faith in the midst of great difficulties. God does not want to frustrate what should succeed. We pray to God wholeheartedly. While I have no doubt that problems. The attitude that we have seen today Monsignor Fellay seems very positive. The Pope was unable to be more generous with them. Well, now depend on them to integrate fully into the Church of Christ, where they can live without any problems their tastes and their liturgical devotions, which can incorporate all those Catholics who want to continue his spirituality and his charisma, or mired in a separation of the short or long they will disappear.

Francisco Jose Fernandez de la Cigoña,

article in Spanish;

Hay un hecho indiscutible. Los cuatro obispos consagrados por monseñor Lefebvre ya no están excomulgados. Son obispos de la Iglesia católica, apostólica y romana. Aunque no se haya declarado, de momento, cual es su munus eclesial.

Esa es la gran verdad de hoy. Y también cabe reseñar, positivamente, el acogimiento agradecido y eclesial que ha hecho monseñor Fellay. Del que cabe augurar la muy pronta integración plena de él y de muchos de los que le seguían en la comunión de la Iglesia. Sin reserva alguna de los que llegan y de los que les reciben. O así debería ser.

Ahora voy a exponer mi opinión sobre lo que ha ocurrido. Que es mía. Por mí no habla la Iglesia. Pero yo quiero hablar con la Iglesia. Por tanto, si algo de lo que voy a decir no estuviera de acuerdo con lo que la Iglesia piensa debe tenerse desde ya mismo por no dicho y atribuirse a mi ignorancia y no a mi voluntad.

El levantamiento de las excomuniones no es un reconocimiento de que no existieron sino que, por motivos serios, se dejan sin efecto. La Iglesia ha venido excomulgando al obispo que consagra y a los consagrados si no existe mandato apostólico. Eso ocurrió con las ordenaciones episcopales a las que nos referimos y por eso llegó la excomunión.

¿Obraron mal monseñor Lefebvre, monseñor Castro Mayer y los cuatro obispos consagrados? Objetivamente, sí. Subjetivamente, pienso que no. No me cabe duda de que todos tenían cierta voluntad de servir a Cristo y a la Iglesia. Por tanto, subjetivamente obraron bien y no cometieron pecado alguno. Voy a extremar la caricatura para que todos la entiendan. Alguien piensa que asesinando a otro hace un gran bien a la Iglesia y que esa es la voluntad de Dios. No comete pecado alguno porque para cometerlo se necesita conciencia de estar haciendo algo contrario a lo que Dios manda. Podrá ser un loco, un equivocado, pero no un pecador. Aunque luego caiga sobre él la pena que corresponda por el asesinato. Pues, mutatis todos los mutandis que queráis.

Se entiende también que, recaída la excomunión, ellos pensaran que era injusta porque estaban salvando a la Iglesia que se precipitaba en el abismo. Que lo pensaran ellos y sus seguidores. Yo nunca lo pensé.

Y ante el desmadre que se produjo en la Iglesia, que hasta hizo decir al Papa Pablo VI que el humo de Satanás se había introducido en ella, es comprensible que algunos pensaran, no yo, que eso era lo que había que hacer.

Pienso también que monseñor Lefebvre prestó un gran servicio a la Iglesia. Dios escribe derecho con renglones torcidos. Porque su actitud, tan radical, abrió los ojos a muchos que, sin seguirle, empezaron a considerar que tal desmadre era suicida y comenzó la restauración. Iniciada en los últimos tiempos de Pablo VI y continuada por Juan Pablo II y Benedicto XVI. Supongo que ese servicio habrá pesado en el levantamiento de las excomuniones.

Algún comentarista ha dicho que han sido nulas, e incluso no faltó quien aseguró que así lo reconocían prácticamente todos los canonistas. Ni fueron nulas, pues en ese caso no habría que levantarlas sino declarar su nulidad, ni la mayoría de los canonistas sostienen eso. Sólo lo han hecho los de la Fraternidad de San Pío X y alguno muy próximo. Que evidentemente justificaban su actitud.

Todos los disparates que han tenido lugar al amparo del llamado "espíritu" del Concilio, dogmáticos, morales, litúrgicos, canónicos, reafirmaron a los lefebvristas en lo acertado de su actuación y les llevaron, además, a penosas declaraciones. Sobre el Concilio, la misa y el Papa. Que pienso ahora algunos lamentarán y que constituyen un borrón en su historia. Y en ello hay grave responsabilidad de unos dirigentes que no puedo creer estuvieran convencidos de las barbaridades que dijeron o alentaron se dijeran. Con ello justificaban su posición pero inducían a sus fieles a errores gravísimos.

La no admisión del Concilio, que consideraban una traición a la Iglesia, respaldaba ciertamente su rebeldía pero es insostenible. El segundo Concilio Vaticano será pastoral y no dogmático, o poco dogmático, lo que se quiera, pero es un Concilio Ecuménico de la Iglesia Católica. Y como tal hay que aceptarlo. Aunque hay que aceptarlo como se debe. La aceptación del Concilio no supone, como algunos antilefebvristas han pretendido, tener todas sus palabras como dogma de fe. Un católico puede perfectamente pensar que tal párrafo no es acertado. O que sus efectos fueron los contrarios a los que se proponían. O que sobraba. La misma Santa Sede admite la crítica constructiva del Concilio.

Sólo un mentecato puede creer que hay que sostener con fe católica, como la Resurrección de Cristo, que "también las nuevas formas artísticas que convienen a nuestros contemporáneos según la índole de cada nación o región, sean reconocidas por la Iglesia". Se puede ser absolutamente católico y pensar que esas nuevas formas artísticas han inundado de feísmo nuestras iglesias. E incluso pedir que sean eliminadas de ellas.

Esas exageraciones han llevado a algunos a negar la validez de la nueva misa e incluso a considerarla sacrílega. No me voy a extender en ello porque me parece de un cretinismo tal que creo no vale la pena. Entiendo perfectamente que haya quien considere que la misa antigua proclama mejor el misterio, es más piadosa, lo que se quiera. Pero el negar que la nueva es verdadera renovación incruenta del sacrificio de la Cruz y que en ella, exactamente igual que en la antigua, el pan y el vino se convierten en el Cuerpo y la Sangre de Cristo, sencillamente me parece de manicomio. Quienes así piensen mejor que no se acerquen porque son irreconciliables con la fe católica.

También se pasaron muchos pueblos en sus críticas al Papa, hereje o semihereje, contagiado de modernismo, traidor al depósito de la fe. No podemos extrañarnos que no pocos de los que recibían esas doctrinas acabaran en el sedevacantismo.

Son, en cambio, muy fundadas, siempre en mi opinión, las denucias del distinto trato que recibían en la Iglesia los que negaban sus dogmas y quienes no negaban ninguno aunque sus obispos estuvieran excomulgados. Para unos todas las tolerancias cuando no los alientos y para los otros un rechazo como apestados.

Hoy es un día alegre pues puede anunciar la plena reintegración en la Iglesia de unos fieles fervorosos que han mantenido su fe en medio de grandes dificultades. Dios quiera que no se frustre lo que debe llegar a buen fin. Se lo pido a Dios de todo corazón. Aunque no me extrañaría que surgieran problemas. La actitud que hemos conocido hoy de monseñor Fellay nos parece muy positiva. El Papa no ha podido estar más generoso con ellos. Pues de ellos depende ya el integrarse plenamente en la Iglesia de Cristo, en la que podrán vivir sin problema alguno sus gustos litúrgicos y sus devociones, en los que podrán incorporar a todos aquellos católicos que quieran seguir su espiritualidad y su carisma, o enfangarse en una separación que a la corta o a la larga les llevará a desaparecer.

[kafka]

[quote name='Roamin'Catholic' post='1760113' date='Jan 24 2009, 10:02 AM']Get with the program- this isn't a "media claim" this actually happened this morning; didn't you read my post???
"Based in the faculty expressly granted to me by the Holy Father Benedict XVI, in virtue of the present Decree, I remit of Bishops Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson, and Alfonso de Galarreta the censure of latae sententiae excommunication declared by this Congregation on July 1, 1988, while I declare deprived of any juridical effect, from the present date, the Decree emanated at that time."[/quote]
you are right. Yet I still hold by what I have said. They need to change.

[TotusTuusMaria]

[quote][b]I've been a member of a church that has mass everyday in the extraordinary form. The chaplain is from the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter; so while I've been partial to that group of priests, I've always prayed for the restoration of Christian unity! I know the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) do great things around the world, especially in France. This is one the top ten 10 Catholic moments in my lifetime. All I can say is Deo Gratias!

I believe the "talks" that are mentioned in the above statement is referring to the next step in the process, (1. Summorum Pontificum, 2. Lifting of Excommunications, 3. Normalization) which will be to turn the SSPX into a "personal prelature" much like Opus Dei so their status in the Church will be fully normalized. Since it took about about 16 months in between step 1 (Summorum Pontificum) and step 2 (lifting of excommunications), I would imagine the next step would be accomplished in a similiar timeframe.

Thank you Pope Benedict! You are truely committed to liturgical reform and ending the modernist abuses and you are truely dedicated to Christian Unity![/b][/quote]

Nicely said.

Edited January 25, 2009 by TotusTuusMaria

[TotusTuusMaria]

[quote name='HisChildForever' post='1758281' date='Jan 22 2009, 01:44 AM']They have some very bizarre beliefs concerning women.[/quote]

I know of girls that attend SSPX churches faithfully who have attended and attend college and university. I actually don't know of a woman who attends an SSPX church that hasn't or doesn't attend college or university. I do know of some women who are very traditional and who have chosen not to attend college or university, but they are very content and happy in their decision. They hardly see themselves as not having that choice or being held back from an education becaue of their sex. They are very intelligent young women. Overall, these are the opinions of one man. It is not an honest claim to say [i]"they"[/i] (those that identify themselves with being SSPX) have bizarre beliefs concerning women.

[quote][b] For indeed women's trousers, as worn today, short or long, modest or immodest, tight or loose, open or disguised (like the "culottes”), are an assault upon woman's womanhood and so they represent a deep-lying revolt against the order willed by God. [/b]

How can the Church leave this thinking alone if SSPX is brought back to full communion?[/quote]

This is an opinon. You hold that women can wear trousers. Neither opinion is the Church's opinion. The Church hasn't made an opinion on the matter. This is hardly a reason to not lift the excommunication. And, I know a number of young women who hold this same view on female modesty that attend the Ordinary Form faithfully. It is not a reason to excommunicate them or be wary of their faithfulness to the Church. Pope Benedict XVI is a wise and prayerful man, as I am sure you agree. He knows what he is doing.

And like I said, Overall, these are the opinions of one man. It is not an honest claim to say [i]"they"[/i] (those that identify themselves with being SSPX) have this belief concerning women. While all those who identify themselves with being SSPX that I know do hold this standard of modesty, we cannot say without knowing all the women whether every family who identifies with SSPX follow this standard.

[quote][b] Original sin, whereby Eve made Adam sin and not the other way round (I Tim II 14), entailed Eve's being punished, amongst other things, by the turning of her natural and painless subordination to Adam into a punishing domination of his over her, for she had shown by seducing him that she needed to be controlled... "thou shalt be under thy husband's power, and he shall have dominion over thee" (Genesis III, 16). Thenceforth with the transmission of original sin to all children of Adam passes to all daughters of Adam (except, of course, the Blessed Virgin Mary) this punitive subordination. [/b]

This is rather contrary to the Church, as [u]both[/u] Adam and Eve sinned (Eve sinned first, yes, but Adam sinned by not being present to protect her or guide her away from the fruit). Through this wrongful interpretation, SSPX has the opinion that a woman needs to be "controlled."[/quote]

You state that the above that is written is contrary to the Church and that both Adam and Eve have sinned. However, the above does not deny that [b]both[/b] Adam and Eve sinned. It says, [i]"whereby Eve made Adam sin."[/i] It admits that Adam sinned, unlike what you insinuate by making bold "both."

I am not aware of Adam's sin being that he did not protect and guide Eve away from the fruit. Where has the Church said this is Adam's primary sin or sin at all?

Adam sinned first and foremost by disobedience to God's commandment not because he wasn't there to protect and guide Eve. So says, St. Paul:

"For just as through the [i]disobedience[/i] of one person the many were made sinners, so through the obedience of one the many will be made righteous." Romans 5:19

And we cannot deny that Eve led Adam into sin. Genesis says so:

"The woman saw that the tree was good for food, pleasing to the eyes, and desirable for gaining wisdom. So she took some of its fruit and ate it; and she also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized that they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made loincloths for themselves." Genesis 3: 6-7

God then later asks Adam who told him he was naked and accuses him of eating of the tree. Adam replies that it was the woman and that she gave him the fruit of the tree. While we can all roll our eyes at Adam's blame game we still do not see God disputing what Adam says and calling him a liar as well. Instead God turns to Eve knowing full well what she did and says, "Why did you do this?"

"The man replied, 'The woman whom you put here with me--she gave me fruit from the tree, so I ate it.' The LORD God then asked the woman, 'Why did you do such a thing?' The woman answered, 'The serpent tricked me into it, so I ate it.'" Genesis 3: 12-13

In the end, the SSPX are not of the opinion that women need to be controlled. This claim is silly, however from what you believed to have been the views of all SSPX or even that one(which are not), no wonder you think so.

Overall, you have not quoted anything written on that website that should have held Pope Benedict back from lifting those bishops' excommunications nor from accepting the group into full communion with the Church, granted there is an agreement to the terms set earlier last year.

Edited January 25, 2009 by TotusTuusMaria

[TotusTuusMaria]

[quote name='HisChildForever' post='1758281' date='Jan 22 2009, 01:44 AM']Their reasons for holding this belief are pretty bizarre. Is believing that men should not attend college also perfectly acceptable?[/quote]

The human person should be allowed an education (CCC 1908). I cannot be taken as an absolute authority on this, but my thoughts are: If a Catholic wants to believe a man shouldn't attend college that is fine. There are other forms of education then college or university, and just because a Catholic believes a man or a female should not attend college that doesn't mean he believes they shouldn't be allowed to attend, if they so choose.

So, yes. If a person wants to believe men shouldn't attend college that is fine. They should be allowed too though, if they like. The person shouldn't force them from an education in that manner, if they so want, but that doesn't mean the Catholic has to agree with it or think it right they go to college to receive that education. I just think the Catholic must believe and allow for an education to be sought by every individual.

College is just one form of education though.

In the end though, I have never met a young woman who identified herself with being SSPX that was not allowed to go to college or even that did not go to college or was attending. Every girl I have met or known of that identified with SSPX attended or attends college or university. There are traditional girls that I know of who have chosen to stay home, but I don't know if they are apart of SSPX, but I am most certain that they do so because they want too. They all know they have a choice, and have made this very clear. They are proud of their decision to not attend and to receive an education in a different form through studying personally at home, missionary work, travel, etc.

[TotusTuusMaria]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1758322' date='Jan 22 2009, 02:14 AM']those are the opinions mostly of Bishop Williamson, the most polemical of the four bishops who often says things which are quite radical; in any event, those opinions are allowed for by the Church; Williamson there does not deny the sin of Adam but rather discusses the special way in which Eve sinned and tempted Adam into sin. I wouldn't agree with the way he words this, but he's not excluded from the Church for this opinion, nor should anyone get up in arms over the opinion; if you disagree, then disagree, there's no need to get angry about it.[/quote]