SSPX. ..DID Benedict lift the so called excommunication?

[Carleendiane]

Did Benedict VI proclaim that the group is no longer is schism? Or rather....no longer considered excommunicated. Whether or not you believe they ever were in schism is not what I need to hear. Just want to clear up a point. Some say he did, some say he did not. But did he lift the excommunication? Personally, I consider the ABP a very holy man, but that does not answer my simple question. Or, maybe it's not so simple, huh?

[Michael Wilson]

Benedict VI who ruled the Church from Jan. 1, 973 to June 8, 974; did not lift the excos on the SSPX (so much for the ''wisenheimer" answer' ha!).
Pope Benedict XVI lifted the excommunications from the four bishops of the SSPX that were Consecrated by Msgr. Lefebvre. The SSPX was never excommunicated.

[Prayerful]

Benedict VI who ruled the Church from Jan. 1, 973 to June 8, 974; did not lift the excos on the SSPX (so much for the ''wisenheimer" answer' ha!).
Pope Benedict XVI lifted the excommunications from the four bishops of the SSPX that were Consecrated by Msgr. Lefebvre. The SSPX was never excommunicated.

Mgsr Lefebvre remained an excommunicate, however dubious that was. It would be a worthwhile gesture in the future to have that rescinded formally.

[Acolyte]

And after BXVI lifted the excommunications the wolves initiated their plan to force him to resign.
http://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/letters/2009/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20090310_remissione-scomunica.html

"Should not we, as good educators, also be capable of overlooking various faults and making every effort to open up broader vistas? And should we not admit that some unpleasant things have also emerged in Church circles? At times one gets the impression that our society needs to have at least one group to which no tolerance may be shown; which one can easily attack and hate. And should someone dare to approach them – in this case the Pope – he too loses any right to tolerance; he too can be treated hatefully, without misgiving or restraint."

[Heinrich]

Benedict VI who ruled the Church from Jan. 1, 973 to June 8, 974; did not lift the excos on the SSPX (so much for the ''wisenheimer" answer' ha!).
Pope Benedict XVI lifted the excommunications from the four bishops of the SSPX that were Consecrated by Msgr. Lefebvre. The SSPX was never excommunicated.

Benedict VI was German!

[VeraeFidei]

Did Benedict VI proclaim that the group is no longer is schism? Or rather....no longer considered excommunicated. Whether or not you believe they ever were in schism is not what I need to hear. Just want to clear up a point. Some say he did, some say he did not. But did he lift the excommunication? Personally, I consider the ABP a very holy man, but that does not answer my simple question. Or, maybe it's not so simple, huh?

Benedict XVI lifted the excommunications of the four living Bishops. He, however, did not lift the excommunications of the unnamed "those who formally adhere to the schism" who were excommunicated along with the six Bishops in 1988. One thinks that members of the SSPX-brothers, seminarians, priests-likely "formally adhere to the schism," and thus any aforementioned SSPX member NOT named Lefebvre, de Gallareta, Mallerais, Fellay, or Williamson were excommunicated that day and remain so, their validity notwithstanding.

[Michael Wilson]

Re. "Formally adhere to schism":
John Paul II stated "inter alia" of E.D.A. :

c) In the present circumstances I wish especially to make an appeal both solemn and heartfelt, paternal and fraternal, to all those who until now have been linked in various ways to the movement of Archbishop Lefebvre, that they may fulfil the grave duty of remaining united to the Vicar of Christ in the unity of the Catholic Church, and of ceasing their support in any way for that movement. Everyone should be aware that formal adherence to the schism is a grave offence against God and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the Church's law.8

The way I read this paragraph, is J.P. II threatening those who adhere formally to the SSPX and Msgr. Lefebvre with excommunication; no further excos were anounced by Rome, in spite of the fact that the superiors of the different districts and the heads of the SSPX seminaries all signed a letter in response, in which they declared their adherance to Msgr. Lefebvre and the four bishops as well as their rejection of Vatican II.

    Open Letter to Cardinal Gantin
    Prefect of the Congregation
    for Bishops

    Ecône, July 6, 1988

    Eminence,

    Gathered around our Superior General, the Superiors of the Districts, Seminaries and autonomous houses of the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X think it good to respectfully express to you the following reflections.

    You thought it good, by your letter of July 1st, to inform Their Excellencies Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer, and the four Bishops whom they consecrated on June 30, at Ecône, of the excommunication latæ sententiæ. We let you judge for yourself the value of such a declaration, coming from an authority who, in its exercise, breaks with all its predecessors down to Pope Pius XII, in worship, teaching and government of the Church.

    As for us, we are in full communion with all the Popes and Bishops before the Second Vatican Council, celebrating precisely the Mass which they codified and celebrated, teaching the Catechism which they drew up, standing up against the errors which they have many times condemned in their encyclicals and pastoral letters. We let you judge on which side the rupture is to be found. We are extremely saddened by the blindness of spirit and the hardening of heart of the Roman authorities.

    On the other hand, we have never wished to belong to this system which calls itself the Conciliar Church, and defines itself with the Novus Ordo Missæ, an ecumenism which leads to indifferentism and the laicization of all society. Yes, we have no part, nullam partem habemus, with the pantheon of the religions of Assisi; our own excommunication by a decree of Your Eminence or of another Roman Congregation would only be the irrefutable proof of this. We ask for nothing better than to be declared out of communion with this adulterous spirit which has been blowing in the Church for the last 25 years; we ask for nothing better than to be declared outside of this impious communion of the ungodly. We believe in the One God, Our Lord Jesus Christ, with the Father and the Holy Ghost, and we will always remain faithful to His unique Spouse, the One Holy Catholic Apostolic and Roman Church.

    To be publicly associated with this sanction which is inflicted upon the six Catholic Bishops, Defenders of the Faith in its integrity and wholeness, would be for us a mark of honor and a sign of orthodoxy before the faithful. They have indeed a strict right to know that the priests who serve them are not in communion with a counterfeit church, promoting evolution, pentecostalism and syncretism. In union with these faithful, we make ours the words of the Prophet: "Præparate corda vestra Domino et servite Illi soli: et liberabit vos de manibus inimicorum vestrorum. Convertimini ad Eum in toto corde vestro, et auferte deos alienos de medio vestri—Open your hearts to the Lord and serve Him only: and He will free you from the hands of your enemies. With all your heart return to Him, and take away from your midst any strange gods" (I Kings 7:3).

    Confident in the protection of Her who has crushed all the heresies in the world, we assure Your Eminence of our dedication to Him Who is the only Way of salvation.

    Fr. Franz Schmidberger, Superior General
    Fr. Paul Aulagnier, District Superior, France
    Fr. Franz-Josef Maessen, District Superior, Germany
    Fr. Edward Black, District Superior, Great Britain
    Fr. Anthony Esposito, District Superior of Italy
    Fr. François Laisney, District Superior, United States
    Fr. Jacques Emily, District Superior of Canada
    Fr. Jean Michel Faure, District Superior of Mexico
    Fr. Gerard Hogan, District Superior of Australasia
    Fr. Alain Lorans, Superior, Seminary of Ecône
    Fr. Jean Paul André, Superior, Seminary of France
    Fr. Paul Natterer, Superior, Seminary of Germany
    Fr. Andrès Morello, Superior, Seminary of Argentina
    Fr. William Welsh, Superior, Seminary of Australia
    Fr. Michel Simoulin, Rector, St. Pius X University
    Fr. Patrice Laroche, Vice-Rector, Seminary of Ecône
    Fr. Philippe François, Superior, Belgium
    Fr. Roland de Mérode, Superior, Netherlands
    Fr. Georg Pflüger, Superior, Austria
    Fr. Guillaume Devillers, Superior, Spain
    Fr. Philippe Pazat, Superior, Portugal
    Fr. Daniel Couture, Superior, Ireland
    Fr. Patrick Groche, Superior, Gabon
    Fr. Frank Peek, Superior, Southern Africa

    (Source: "Open Letter to Cardinal Gantin", in Archbishop Lefebvre and the Vatican, pp. 136-138; italics given; underlining added.)

[Sempronius]

Benedict VI who ruled the Church from Jan. 1, 973 to June 8, 974; did not lift the excos on the SSPX (so much for the ''wisenheimer" answer' ha!).
Pope Benedict XVI lifted the excommunications from the four bishops of the SSPX that were Consecrated by Msgr. Lefebvre. The SSPX was never excommunicated.

Mgsr Lefebvre remained an excommunicate, however dubious that was. It would be a worthwhile gesture in the future to have that rescinded formally.

Yes, isnt that a point that SSPX wants to solve with Rome?

[Prayerful]

Benedict VI who ruled the Church from Jan. 1, 973 to June 8, 974; did not lift the excos on the SSPX (so much for the ''wisenheimer" answer' ha!).
Pope Benedict XVI lifted the excommunications from the four bishops of the SSPX that were Consecrated by Msgr. Lefebvre. The SSPX was never excommunicated.

Mgsr Lefebvre remained an excommunicate, however dubious that was. It would be a worthwhile gesture in the future to have that rescinded formally.

Yes, isnt that a point that SSPX wants to solve with Rome?

One point at least, but making any deal with the lawless Francis (and his lawless friends like his ghostwriter 'Kissy' or whoever, who apparently banned any diocesan TLM in his diocese), no matter how good, would be unwise.

[Stefano]

Perhaps I can pose this question here. I often hear the "valid but not licit" point made in regards to the SSPX, even amongst Traditionalist Catholics. I certainly hedge my sympathies with them, but I cannot get past this:

"...the Society has no canonical status in the Church and its ministers cannot legitimately exercise any ministry."

http://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/apost_letters/documents/hf_ben-xvi_apl_20090702_ecclesiae-unitatem.html

How is one to reconcile this?

Pax Domini tecum,
Stefano

[Acolyte]

How can you reconcile it with the fact that Francis granted the SSPX permission to hear confessions ?

The SSPX are Catholics. I don't see how anyone can deny that.

Perhaps I can pose this question here. I often hear the "valid but not licit" point made in regards to the SSPX, even amongst Traditionalist Catholics. I certainly hedge my sympathies with them, but I cannot get past this:

"...the Society has no canonical status in the Church and its ministers cannot legitimately exercise any ministry."

http://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/apost_letters/documents/hf_ben-xvi_apl_20090702_ecclesiae-unitatem.html

How is one to reconcile this?

Pax Domini tecum,
Stefano

Sent from my LM-X210VPP using Tapatalk

[Prayerful]

Perhaps I can pose this question here. I often hear the "valid but not licit" point made in regards to the SSPX, even amongst Traditionalist Catholics. I certainly hedge my sympathies with them, but I cannot get past this:

"...the Society has no canonical status in the Church and its ministers cannot legitimately exercise any ministry."

http://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/apost_letters/documents/hf_ben-xvi_apl_20090702_ecclesiae-unitatem.html

How is one to reconcile this?

Pax Domini tecum,
Stefano

That quote is just outdated. Francis extended the 'Year of Mercy' faculties granted to SSPX priests for Confession indefinitely, and there is also awkward system in respect of wedding officiation, conceded a bit later too.

[Stefano]

Thank you for your responses, Acolyte and Prayerful.

I was most certainly not arguing that the SSPX are not Catholic. I want to hear from someone more knowledgeable than myself on this subject, as I am struggling to understand how the sacraments (outside of Confession, of course) are licit. Most of my experience in speaking to Priests (even FSSP and ICRSS ones) has been the "valid not licit" point that I previously mentioned, especially when it comes to Communion. I understand the validity of Confessions and that one can fulfill their Sunday obligation by attending mass at an SSPX parish. Being that the Eucharist is the centerpoint of the Mass itself, I refuse to believe that an entire group of Orthodox Catholics would be living in deception, and I am seeking some elucidation to help me bridge the mental gap.

[Acolyte]

While I cannot speak for our Father in Heaven, I find it hard to believe that he will hold it against anyone for choosing a non-diocesan Mass if they feel that is where they best nurture their faith.

Thank you for your responses, Acolyte and Prayerful.

I was most certainly not arguing that the SSPX are not Catholic. I want to hear from someone more knowledgeable than myself on this subject, as I am struggling to understand how the sacraments (outside of Confession, of course) are licit. Most of my experience in speaking to Priests (even FSSP and ICRSS ones) has been the "valid not licit" point that I previously mentioned, especially when it comes to Communion. I understand the validity of Confessions and that one can fulfill their Sunday obligation by attending mass at an SSPX parish. Being that the Eucharist is the centerpoint of the Mass itself, I refuse to believe that an entire group of Orthodox Catholics would be living in deception, and I am seeking some elucidation to help me bridge the mental gap.

Sent from my LM-X210VPP using Tapatalk