Pope gives poor sinners a second chance

[Patroklos]

The compromise was that the bishops accept papal authority, and that the pope agrees that traditional Mass is also ok.

The traditional Catholic mass has been authorized for years now, it has nothing to do with this decision.

In order to illustrate how conservative, backwards those bishops are, and how ass-kissing - or is it conservative himself - pope Nazinger is, it was reminded that one of the four even denied the existence of gas chambers.

Which is again completely irrelevant. Did JP2 excommunicate or otherwise deny church recogniton of holocaust denyers? How about Nazis? How about rapists and murders.

Oh and Nazinger, how classy of you

Nazinger had the opportunity - or should I say a good excuse - to behave morally and keep them (or at least one of them) outside the church, but no.

No he did not, doctine was followed to the tee. There was no reason to uphold the excommunication once the members in question submited to the authority of the church.

Do we refuse to overturn wrongful murder convictions just because the guy is also a rapist? Of course not.

Was the church violating their own rule?
Well depends.

No it does not, the answer is unequivcably NO.

Does the church have anything to do with morality? If yes, then I think they indeed violated some moral rule. In the best case, they at least behave f*ing hypocritically.

1.) That is not the proper use of the word hypocrit.
2.) Again, just because you are not excommunicated does not mean every single belief you have or action you do is sanctioned by the church. Again, are murders/rapists/whatever excommunicated? No, that final judgement is left up to the arbiters of the afterlife.
3.) You will be a hypocrite, properly used, if you answer any of the questions asked above honestly.

Now some people may argue that religion has very few to do with morality. Well, in that case, you are right: they are not violating their own rule, just bending them a little.

They are not bending them at all. Feel free to quote the exact doctrine not being followed.

[Ben Kenobi]

Mgr Lefebvre was a [ultra]conservative catholic who did not accept the [librul] reforms of Vatican II. He performed the Mass in latin, like in good ol' catholic tradition.

He also denied the authority of the Pope, which made him essentially a protestant, no different from say the Calvinists.

In his opposition to the pope, he went as far as ordinating bishops himself. This is indeed a violation of RCC's rules, as it is something only the pope can do.

Exactly so. This is why they were out of communion. You cannot appoint bishops without the approval of the pope.

That was the step too far. Those four bishops were not only not recognized as such, but were even excommunicated by JP2. The ordinary followers were not excomunicated, but told they were somewhat mislead.

Actually, that's not quite true.

Once the bishops were excommunicated, that meant that they could not perform any of the sacraments, reconciliation, baptism, marriage or the holy eucharist. So Catholics who did attend without the knowledge that it was an SSPX parish, were not receiving the sacraments.

The problem for european catholic church is that those conservative catholics are the only one that are growing (at least in Belgium). The RCC is shrinking in numbers, except in those ultra-conservative communities.

I'm not sure how it works in Europe, but here it's a mixed bag. In English Canada, the Catholic church is growing, mostly because we are much smaller then in Quebec.

The new pope seems so willing to get them back that he is ready to close his eyes on the bishop ordination.

Not quite, it's basically reconciliation. The existing SSPX bishops agree to accept the authority of the pope, (ie, they won't ordain anyone without prior permission), in exchange they are brought back fully into the Catholic church.

The interesting thing is because the excommunication is lifted, the bishops do not have to be ordained. The process is retroactive, essentially the pope is saying that they were ordained by a licit bishop in the first place.

that the pope agrees that traditional Mass is also ok.

Patroklos is right about this one, Papa Ratzi already issued a document quite some time ago saying that each individual priest could celebrate a tridentine mass if he wished, without having to get permission from the bishops.

In order to illustrate how conservative, backwards those bishops are, and how ass-kissing - or is it conservative himself - pope Nazinger is, it was reminded that one of the four even denied the existence of gas chambers.

That fellow is dead and will have to answer to Christ at his judgement.

Nazinger had the opportunity - or should I say a good excuse - to behave morally and keep them (or at least one of them) outside the church, but no.

He's dead, Jim.

The question is: is he so desperate, or doesn't he see a problem here? Is he conservative himself, or is he playing real politik?

It's simply the reconciliation of schismatics, and a very good move, IMHO. I'd love to see others brought back into the fold, particularly the traditional anglicans. That would be a stunner!

Many of us think he has no problem with that, because he is himself not so far from those stinking ideas and that the RCC is heading backward.

Backwards is a matter of perspective. If you are going the wrong way, then 'looking forward' isn't progressive.

And the next question is: what is the next move? Complete abolition of Vatican II?

Why would I want the demolition of Vatican II? I've quoted from Lumen Gentium many times.

Was the church violating their own rule?

What rule? If the SSPX folks are willing to accept the authority of the Pope, then I don't see the issue at all.

Well depends. Does the church have anything to do with morality? If yes, then I think they indeed violated some moral rule. In the best case, they at least behave f*ing hypocritically.

You are confusing church membership with salvation. There are many who are inside who will be outside, and many who are outside who are inside. Lifting the excommunication of the entire SSPX heirarchy says nothing about the individual worshippers or priests.

[Q Classic]

I can't say I'm a fan of the SSPX. And from a purely PR standpoint, this is pretty much a disaster.

It's in line with what Pope Benedict 16 has been doing, though, and he's of a rather traditionalist bent, so.

[Ben Kenobi]

And from a purely PR standpoint, this is pretty much a disaster.

How so?

It's being hailed as a coup.

When has the media ever accurately reported anything that the Catholic church does? A bishop could invent the cure for cancer, and the article would say:

"Bishop withholds cure from the poor," or something to that effect.

[Q Classic]

As a positive coup? And there's some sort of media conspiracy here?

They're just pointing out that one of the bishops being welcomed back into communion with the church has:
--denied the Holocaust (I might be completely wrong about this, but I have a feeling this may not be as much of a gas at Jewish meetings)
--stated that all Jews are complicit in Christ's death (Well, some Jewish comedians kill with jokes about that...)
--suggested that a woman's place is in the home and has rather anti-egalitarian, anti-feminist ideals (Again, I might be completely wrong about this, but I don't think that plays well with, y'know, most women.)
--has been rather hostile to gays (I might be completely wrong about this too--maybe most gays really like being **** on by religious figures, and not in the coprophilic sense. But, then, it's par for the course in terms of rhetoric, so.)

How are those positive? I mean, yes, for your weird, archtraditionalist leanings, yes, I suppose it's great. Not so much for most everyone else, and isn't that who you're trying to reach with PR?

Wait, never mind. I forget that you don't actually live in reality.

[Ben Kenobi]

A coup by those who are inside the church, yes.

The media is just the same as this article.

They're just pointing out that one of the bishops being welcomed back into communion with the church has:
--denied the Holocaust (I might be completely wrong about this, but I have a feeling this may not be as much of a gas at Jewish meetings)
--stated that all Jews are complicit in Christ's death (Well, some Jewish comedians kill with jokes about that...)

Again, he's also dead. I don't see why the media sees any benefit in flogging a dead horse.

--suggested that a woman's place is in the home and has rather anti-egalitarian, anti-feminist ideals (Again, I might be completely wrong about this, but I don't think that plays well with, y'know, most women.)

Feminism isn't good for families. I don't see that as a shocker.

--has been rather hostile to gays (I might be completely wrong about this too--maybe most gays really like being **** on by religious figures, and not in the coprophilic sense. But, then, it's par for the course in terms of rhetoric, so.)

Again, this would be a reason to bring him back in rather then exclude him. It just reinforces to me that the media sees this as a repudiation of their perception of Vatican II and of their own values.

If there was any merit at all to the anti-semitic comments, there wouldn't be comments condemning these bishops for teaching church doctrine. That the comments criticise existing chruch doctrine, it makes it seem like they have their own agenda to mould the church in their own image.

[Q Classic]

One of the guys who's said it is very much still alive, a Briton by the name of Richard Williamson.

This Bishop Williamson is supposed to have written:

So the second political lie is that the present threat of a severe economic crash was not planned. The foolishness of a people (not only in the USA) believing in a free lunch, or loving a party and wanting the party to go on for ever, has been skillfully exploited to create either the threat or the reality (it little matters which) of a severe crash, to drive the nations into a Third World War. Well over a century ago Judeo-Masonry is known to have been envisaging three World Wars to achieve its unified global domination.

By lies, Judeo-Masonry brought about the first two World Wars. To get Americans to enter the First World War, President Woodrow Wilson told them that it would be the "war to end all wars." In fact, WWI established the Masonic League of Nations in Geneva and the Communist Revolution in Russia, and crushed numerous Christian monarchies, in particular the Catholic Austro-Hungarian Empire. And the Masonic Treaty of Versailles ending WWI deliberately paved the way for WWII, of which President F.D. Roosevelt promised it would "make the world safe for democracy." In fact, WWII established the Masonic United Nations, hugely promoted socialism in the USA and in the Western "democracies," and crushed the Eastern "democracies" under Communism.

As far as the Anti-Semitic comments, I have a hard time believing that comments on Judeo-Masonic involvement leading to the two world wars and planning a third are part of the the Catechism. I should know, I still have it, and I thumbed through the index. I didn't find anything about "Judeo-Masonic" anything.

As far as converting Jews:

The American Conference of Bishops has issued a declaration of policy that no attempt should be made any longer to convert Jews to Catholicism, because they have a still valid Covenant of their own with Almighty God!

Unless Benedict XVI is purporting to roll the policy by the ACB back...

Feminism isn't good for families. I don't see that as a shocker.

I won't bother to argue with you on this, or the comment immediately following since you're incapable of actually debating.

[Elok]

A coup by those who are inside the church, yes.

The media is just the same as this article.

Again, he's also dead. I don't see why the media sees any benefit in flogging a dead horse.

While I don't see the big fuss either, this is a pretty silly thing to say. Jeffrey Dahmer is dead too, but if you tried to sum him up as only "filled with love for his fellow man," plenty of people would object. Reagan is dead, too; would you say it mattered if some people referred to him as an incompetent tool used by the military?

Feminism isn't good for families. I don't see that as a shocker.

...Like Q, I'm not even going to get into this.

Again, this would be a reason to bring him back in rather then exclude him. It just reinforces to me that the media sees this as a repudiation of their perception of Vatican II and of their own values.

It's not like hating the gays is anything new for the RCC, so yeah, pretty much.

If there was any merit at all to the anti-semitic comments, there wouldn't be comments condemning these bishops for teaching church doctrine. That the comments criticise existing chruch doctrine, it makes it seem like they have their own agenda to mould the church in their own image.

? That doesn't follow, or at least doesn't seem to (not very clearly written).

[Ben Kenobi]

As far as the Anti-Semitic comments, I have a hard time believing that comments on Judeo-Masonic involvement leading to the two world wars and planning a third are part of the the Catechism. I should know, I still have it, and I thumbed through the index. I didn't find anything about "Judeo-Masonic" anything.

Neither is Feminism for that matter. I'd be more then willing to excommunicate all the illuminati conspiracy theorists, if I could get rid of all the feminists too.

What do you say? Fair deal?

Unless Benedict XVI is purporting to roll the policy by the ACB back...

It would be a good thing. Conversion of Jews isn't contrary to the Catechism, which explicitly states that the fullness of Christ is in his Church. That doesn't deny the truth that they still have an exclusive convenant with God, which is still in effect. My own view is that I wouldn't try to convert an Orthodox Jew, but the rest are fair game.

[Ben Kenobi]

Jeffrey Dahmer is dead too, but if you tried to sum him up as only "filled with love for his fellow man," plenty of people would object. Reagan is dead, too; would you say it mattered if some people referred to him as an incompetent tool used by the military?

Two things here.

1. Excommunication is different from being in good standing with the church. Having unconfessed sins puts you in an in-between state, where you are not in good standing, but not excommunicated either. This is how someone can be reconciled to the church (in the sense that they are no longer excommunicated), yet not necessarily a member in good standing.

Hence the comment about the rapist getting off the murder charge, being a perfect analogy to this situation.

2. The state of the followers of SSPX is decided by the state of the bishops. If the bishops are reconciled, then so are their congregations. That's the other half, which is entirely unaffected by whatever ramblings the one bishop has had against Jews. You cannot hold the followers responsible for the sayings of the leader.

I'd like to see the media report the far ranging consequences of this decision for the SSPX congregations, in that they are now in communion.

What I'd really like to see is a similar announcement with all of Orthodoxy! That would be huge.

[Elok]

Yeah, just as soon as you recant all those centuries of heresies and restore the Papacy to its proper level of influence, we'll be right with you.

[Ben Kenobi]

NEVAAAR!

Pope A-number one.

[Q Classic]

Neither is Feminism for that matter. I'd be more then willing to excommunicate all the illuminati conspiracy theorists, if I could get rid of all the feminists too.

What do you say? Fair deal?

Huh? You're not even making sense here. I never claimed Feminism was part of the catechism.

I'm saying that you're trying to whitewash Williamson's comments as somehow not being anti-Semitic, and being aggressively against Jews is part of the Catechism. I was pointing out that Williamson's statements go far and above what the Church teaches, and can be considered anti-Semitic.

[Ben Kenobi]

I'm saying that you're trying to whitewash Williamson's comments as somehow not being anti-Semitic, and being aggressively against Jews is part of the Catechism.

Hardly. I explicitly said precisely the opposite.

Did you miss what I said about Orthodox Jews? Does that sound anti-semitic in any way shape or form?

I was pointing out that Williamson's statements go far and above what the Church teaches, and can be considered anti-Semitic.

True, but irrelevant to the topic at hand no matter what the media claims. They were excommunicated for rejecting papal authority. They are reconciled because they accepted papal authority.

[Ben Kenobi]

I'm saying that you're trying to whitewash Williamson's comments as somehow not being anti-Semitic, and being aggressively against Jews is part of the Catechism.

Hardly. I explicitly said precisely the opposite.

Did you miss what I said about Orthodox Jews? Does that sound anti-semitic in any way shape or form?

I was pointing out that Williamson's statements go far and above what the Church teaches, and can be considered anti-Semitic.

True, but irrelevant to the topic at hand no matter what the media claims. They were excommunicated for rejecting papal authority. They are reconciled because they accepted papal authority.