A look back at 1988 and 2009 - The Excommunications and their lifting.

A look back at 1988 and 2009 - The Excommunications and their lifting. - Part Deux

JMJ

As a follow up to this article, and just in case someone believes that the SSPX didn't realize that Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop de Castro Mayer were included in the lifting of the excommunication until much later - we have the following (Courtesy of the Remnant):

At the Angelus conference, Bishop Fellay also drew our attention to a related indication found in the wording of the Vatican decree nullifying the decree of SSPX excommunication. The final paragraphs of this decree reads:On the basis of the powers expressly granted to me by the Holy Father Benedict XVI, by virtue of the present Decree I remit the penalty of excommunication latae sententiae incurred by Bishops Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta, and declared by this Congregation on July 1988. At the same time I declare that, as of today's date, the Decree issued at that time no longer has juridical effect. (Emp. added)Bishop Fellay pointed out what should have been obvious to us all. Notwithstanding the fact that the first sentence mentions only four of the six bishops subject to the former decree, the final sentence clearly states that the former decree “no longer has juridical effect.” That means the former decree ceases to legally exist. If the decree claiming Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop de Castro Mayer are excommunicated latae sententiae has no juridical effect, the declaration with respect to them has been withdrawn as well. To avoid this obvious conclusion, the language needed merely to say “with respect to these four bishops only,” the former decree has no juridical effect; or “except as regards Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop de Castro Mayer” the former decree has no juridical effect. (October 20, 2010)

I'm not going to bother digging further because it is unnecessary.

The SSPX realized early on that the decree lifting the excommunication covered more than just the four living bishops.

To assert the contrary is to deny reality.

P^3

Comments

A Reply to Martin Blackshaw’s FLAWED Remnant article titled: FLAWED: SSPX Advice on Abortion-tainted Vaccines

+ JMJ An article has appeared in the Remnant (link to article) and I am afraid that there are a number of flaws in it that need to be addressed. The author, Martin Blackshaw, believes that both the Church and the SSPX are misapplying the principle of Moral Theology called 'Cooperation In Evil'. Unfortunately, Mr. Blackshaw rests most of his arguments on citing authors that support his position, without considering the possibility that they are wrong. This highlights a key factor in this crisis: ignorance of the faith and its application . I don't am not singling out Mr. Blackshaw for this criticism, I have observed that it applies to laity and religious, superior and subject a like. No one seems immune in this enduring crisis, myself included. I further believe that this ignorance is why so many Catholics, both traditional and non, rely on their gut feeling or "Catholic conscience" for charting their way through this crisis of the faith. While...

What Archbishop Lefebvre Said About the New Mass - SSPX.org

+ JMJ The New Mass is many things and one thing that it is is ambiguous. While there are a few Catholic elements in the Novus Ordo, but even those are lost in the morass of protestant simulation. It truly is a case of : P^3 Courtesy of SSPX.org: What Archbishop Lefebvre said about the New Mass

Rome,the SSPX and this time of Crisis - Updated

+ JMJ Obviously there's lots of events right now. First we have the April 1st - I almost thought it was April Fools - meeting between Pope Francis and Bishop Fellay. Nothing really news worthy as this is a natural progression as Rome appears to be considering fulfilling Archbishop Lefebvre's wish to 'accept us as we are'. Second we have the April 8th publication of what will be a verbose exhortation of the Synod of the Family. I'm willing to bet that the Pope will give with one hand (unilateral regularization of SSPX) and take with the other (ambiguous document that opens the flood gates of sin further). Much to pray for. P^3

Does the SSPX 'Reject the conclusions of the Second Vatican Council'? (Updated 2026-08-03)

+ JMJ Update: Dr. Lamont, in a Rorate article (link) , pointed out that : It is notable that the profession does not reject any text of the Second Vatican Council, but only states that the influence of the Council promoted deviations from the faith. Catholics may hold that the influence of an ecumenical council was noxious in some respects. It is only the authoritative teachings of a council that demand their assent; they do not have to approve of all the historical results that it led to. One may, for example, reasonably hold that the definitions of papal infallibility and universal jurisdiction of the First Vatican Council led to an exaggerated and harmful conception of papal power, while accepting the definitions themselves. Further what the SSPX actually wrote (link) : I acknowledge in particular that modern errors represent a dreadful threat to the whole of the Catholic order, and that their penetration into the life of the Church, under the influence of the Second Vatican ...

The Vatican and SSPX – An Organizational Culture Perspective

Introduction The recent and continuing interactions between the Vatican and the SSPX have been a great opportunity for prayer and reflection. The basis for the disagreement is theological and not liturgical. As noted by Dr. Lamont (2012), the SSPX theological position on the four key controversial aspects of the Second Vatican Council are base on prior theological work that resulted from relevant magisterial pronouncements. So it is difficult to understand the apparent rejection of the theological position of the SSPX.

Tradicat

Search This Blog