philothea Posted January 25, 2009 Posted January 25, 2009 [quote name='Tinkerlina' post='1760520' date='Jan 24 2009, 08:54 PM']But if the Church isn't in full communion with the Pope, wouldn't they be rejecting their office? -Katie[/quote] The sacrament of holy orders is a permanent thing, licit or not, excommunicated or not. The unique ability ordained bishops have is to confer holy orders on others. Priests can't do that. Once you have a bishop you have the power of a whole independent, self-sustaining branch of the Church. Which is why it's such a big deal to go ordaining bishops when you've been told not to, and why this whole schism started in the first place.
Tinkerlina Posted January 25, 2009 Posted January 25, 2009 [quote name='Roamin'Catholic' post='1760556' date='Jan 24 2009, 10:11 PM']As long as its only kind of offensive, I'm ok with it. [/quote] The Holocaust happened in very recent history. I can absolutely understand why Jewish people would be upset at the prospect of the Vatican "un" excommunicating the SSPX bishops given the fact that one of them denies the Holocaust. -Katie
Tinkerlina Posted January 25, 2009 Posted January 25, 2009 [quote name='philothea' post='1760560' date='Jan 24 2009, 10:13 PM']The sacrament of holy orders is a permanent thing, licit or not, excommunicated or not. The unique ability ordained bishops have is to confer holy orders on others. Priests can't do that. Once you have a bishop you have the power of a whole independent, self-sustaining branch of the Church. Which is why it's such a big deal to go ordaining bishops when you've been told not to, and why this whole schism started in the first place.[/quote] Thanks for the explanation. It's a confusing matter, to say the least. -Katie
Roamin'Catholic Posted January 25, 2009 Posted January 25, 2009 [quote name='Dave' post='1760552' date='Jan 24 2009, 10:09 PM']Since SSPX priests are suspended, the suspensions would have to be lifted before faculties could be granted.[/quote] I still wouldn't go to a SSPX mass yet; that won't be allowed until the "discussions/talks" that were mentioned in the decree take place between the Vatican and the SSPX establishing the SSPX's jurisdiction. Once this occurs then you could begin attending SSPX masses. But the question is interesting: what will the SSPX's jurisdiction be?? Will they be like the FSSP and have agreements with local bishops for the establishment and operation of chapels with Catholic diocese? Some have argued that the SSPX would be opposed to this as they would not want to be under the authority of a local "modernist" bishop. These folks have argued that the Vatican would establish the SSPX as "personal prelature" and the SSPX would essentially circumvent the local bishop and their "chain of command" would go directly to the Vatican. It will be interesting to see how this plays out. I figure the details will be worked out in the next 6-18 months. Until then, go to FSSP and Institute of Christ the King masses or if none are available, go to an ordinary form mass.
doe-jo Posted January 25, 2009 Posted January 25, 2009 [quote name='philothea' post='1760560' date='Jan 24 2009, 07:13 PM']The sacrament of holy orders is a permanent thing, licit or not, excommunicated or not. The unique ability ordained bishops have is to confer holy orders on others. Priests can't do that. Once you have a bishop you have the power of a whole independent, self-sustaining branch of the Church. Which is why it's such a big deal to go ordaining bishops when you've been told not to, and why this whole [b]schism[/b] started in the first place.[/quote] You mean excommunications? because the SSPX is not a schismatic group.
KnightofChrist Posted January 25, 2009 Posted January 25, 2009 "The bishops, priests and faithful of the Society of St Pius X are not schismatics. It is Archbishop Lefebrve who has undertaken an illicit episcopal consecration and therefore performed a schismatic act. It is for this reason that the Bishops consecrated by him have been suspended and excommunicated. The priests and faithful of the Society have not been excommunicated. They are not heretics." -Cardinal Castrillón
philothea Posted January 25, 2009 Posted January 25, 2009 [quote name='doe-jo' post='1760587' date='Jan 24 2009, 09:26 PM']You mean excommunications? because the SSPX is not a schismatic group.[/quote] The word has a non-technical meaning, which was how I was using it. "Split" would have worked too. When I get excited my vocabulary gets wacky. Obviously, technically schismatic groups have no interest in reconciling differences.
KnightofChrist Posted January 25, 2009 Posted January 25, 2009 (edited) [center][i]Alas, how sad it is that some are far more ready to judge (and criticize) priests than they are to pray for them.[/i] [url="http://www.ignatius.com/magazines/hprweb/morrow.htm"]The Danger of Criticizing Bishops and Priests[/url] By Thomas G. Morrow[/center] [quote name='Tinkerlina' post='1760494' date='Jan 24 2009, 09:29 PM']Still don't understand how it is possible to be an excommunicated bishop. In any case, I think that anyone, in any walk of life, who is a Holocaust denier and makes their views publically known, should not be surprised when criticism comes his/her way... -Katie[/quote] [quote name='HisChildForever' post='1760496' date='Jan 24 2009, 09:32 PM']So if one criticizes the individual they are automatically criticizing the office? You can still have respect for the office (i.e. the Presidency) without much appreciating the individual (i.e. the President).[/quote] Edited January 25, 2009 by KnightofChrist
Tinkerlina Posted January 25, 2009 Posted January 25, 2009 [quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1760613' date='Jan 24 2009, 10:43 PM'][center][i]Alas, how sad it is that some are far more ready to judge (and criticize) priests than they are to pray for them.[/i] [url="http://www.ignatius.com/magazines/hprweb/morrow.htm"]The Danger of Criticizing Bishops and Priests[/url] By Thomas G. Morrow[/center][/quote] I bet you were just looking for an excuse to use the word "alas" today, weren't you? -Katie
KnightofChrist Posted January 25, 2009 Posted January 25, 2009 (edited) Alas, that is a good word. But alas, I can not find where Fr. Morrow got that quote! Edited January 25, 2009 by KnightofChrist
Tinkerlina Posted January 25, 2009 Posted January 25, 2009 [quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1760627' date='Jan 24 2009, 10:55 PM']Alas, that is a good word. But alas, I can not find where Morrow got that quote![/quote] Not sure, I've heard it before. But there were many saints who criticized priests and bishops with regard to their personal behavior. It is sometimes warranted. -Katie
KnightofChrist Posted January 25, 2009 Posted January 25, 2009 Yes, sometimes it is, but the Saints only did so after deep prayer, and very likely much time privately trying to resolve the problem. Fr Morrow goes over that, still there is a great danger when doing so...
doe-jo Posted January 25, 2009 Posted January 25, 2009 [quote name='philothea' post='1760601' date='Jan 24 2009, 07:34 PM']The word has a non-technical meaning, which was how I was using it. "Split" would have worked too. [b]When I get excited my vocabulary gets wacky.[/b] Obviously, technically schismatic groups have no interest in reconciling differences.[/quote] Don't worry, Im the same
Tinkerlina Posted January 25, 2009 Posted January 25, 2009 (edited) [quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1760632' date='Jan 24 2009, 10:59 PM']Yes, sometimes it is, but the Saints only did so after deep prayer, and very likely much time privately trying to resolve the problem. Fr Morrow goes over that, still there is a great danger when doing so...[/quote] Well, there's no way I can privately contact that bishop anyway... and I think there is a possibility of a person who denies the Holocaust leading people astray, so naturally I would criticize that person.-Katie Edited January 25, 2009 by Tinkerlina
KnightofChrist Posted January 25, 2009 Posted January 25, 2009 [quote name='Tinkerlina' post='1760641' date='Jan 24 2009, 11:03 PM']Well, there's no way I can privately contact that bishop anyway...[/quote] Society of Saint Pius X Regina Coeli House 11485 N. Farley Road Platte City, MO 64079 816-753-0073 tel 816-753-3560 fax [quote name='Tinkerlina' post='1760641' date='Jan 24 2009, 11:03 PM']and I think there is a possibility of a person who denies the Holocaust leading people astray, so naturally I would criticize that person.-Katie[/quote] Still you must be very careful. Also, it is not as if the matter is not being dealt with privately and somewhat publicly (the link to the letter I posted early by Bishop Fellay) by both the Holy See and the other bishops of the SSPX. In the past when Saints would criticize it was often in the cases where no one else criticized the unjust actions.
Aloysius Posted January 25, 2009 Posted January 25, 2009 Bishop Williamson is of the odd opinion that a few hundred thousand Jews (rather than the generally stated 6 million) died in the Holocaust unjustly, though not in gas chambers but rather as a result of horrid mistreatment in concentration camps. He is no fan of the nazis. Now, he is dead wrong in my opinion; but in the interview he did indicate he did not wish to cause hurt to those whose relatives or they themselves were part of the holocaust; he admits bad things occurred under the Nazis, but for some reason he has found himself holding to the incorrect belief that the holocaust wasn't as big as it actually was; he cited someone who has studied the gas chambers and concluded that it would have been impossible to accomplish systematic gas chambering of so many in them... it's one of those seemingly reasonable "facts" like the laundry list of things that convince people 9/11 was a conspiracy and Bishop Williamson has fallen for it. why? it's not because he wants to see Jews killed and not because he approves of that; I believe his motive is more along the lines of not liking the business of the holocaust, how it fuels so much Jewish lobbyism throughout the world and puts them in a protective bubble that keeps anyone from being able to legitimately criticism anything Jewish without being labelled anti-semetic, being read a history lesson, and being compared to Hitler... that's the perception alot of people who disagree with, for instance, the existence of the Israeli state or this or that position of the ADL.... and that's why, in my judgement of Williamson after actually reading through much of his political/historical/theological beliefs as to why he was susceptible to fall for this belief that the holocaust had a lower number of deaths who were not systematically annihilated through gas chambers but rather killed by being put into horrid conditions in concentration camps. basically, he fell for it because he doesn't like the "Shoah business" or the "Holocaust industry" (terms coined by Norman G. Finkelstein, son of a Holocaust Survivor)... but the brush of "holocaust denyer" is way too broad; yes, he thinks the Nazi genocide was smaller than the accepted number and that it did not use the same means, but he's no neo-nazi out to see more Jews killed or something... contradictory historical opinions abound about tons of things; people have horribly false beliefs about the numbers involved in the Spanish Inquisition, many Turks deny the Armenian genocide, people wear t-shirts with the face of a mass-murderer (Che Guevera) and it's considered cool; it happens, people have many wrong ideas about this or that event in history; chances are you have a false understanding of something that occurred in history yourself and don't even know it (chances are, so do I); but anyone who took the time to listen to Williamson's talk about the gas chambers would hear that he really has great sympathy for those who went through concentration camps themselves or those who have relatives who went through concentration camps and/or died as a result of them... he just has a wrong historical opinion about the numbers and means by which the Nazis persecuted the Jews.
Apotheoun Posted January 25, 2009 Posted January 25, 2009 I'm not a big fan of the SSPX, but it is certainly good news that they are moving closer to accepting the authority of their Patriarch.
doe-jo Posted January 25, 2009 Posted January 25, 2009 He's fallible and I don't think this is a matter of Faith and Morals. It's history.
Tinkerlina Posted January 25, 2009 Posted January 25, 2009 [quote name='doe-jo' post='1760683' date='Jan 24 2009, 11:30 PM']He's fallible and I don't think this is a matter of Faith and Morals. It's history.[/quote] Yes, but I think that denying/minimizing a documented atrocity has moral implications. -Katie
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now