Now it appears that they got excommunicated by JP II because the leader of this little breakaway sect made the other four bishops without authorization. I carte nothing about who is a bishop and who isn’t, but the same church debating whether those supporting abortion rights for women should be allowed to take communion appears to think that Holocaust denial is just dandy. A hearty fuck you to His Holeiness. (As in Hole in the Head).
And I was thinking DerTrihs was too extreme.
I don’t think holocaust denial is a direct violation of church doctrine. That doesn’t mean the church is cool with holocaust denial but it’s not something that will keep you from taking the sacraments.
True, but this guy was already excommunicated for other reasons, and is being let back in. None of them accept Vatican II, or in any way have recanted the actions that caused JP II to kick them out.
Just to clear some things up, Williamson is still suspended a divinis under Canon Law 1333 (paragraph 1). This means he has no church authority or jurisdiction of any kind, and he cannot participate in mass. All the Pope did was lift the latae sententiae incurred inter alia for receiving episcopal orders without papal permission.
Saying that the Pope has “reinstated” Williamson is like saying that a parole board has overturned a court verdict. You should have this thread closed before Der Trihs or someone of his ilk seizes upon it to spout bullshit and spread ignorance.
It was my understanding that Cardinal Lefebvre would have been gone anyway, even without consecrating the bishops, on account of his refusal to accept the outcomes of Vatican II.
Was I mistaken in that? tomndebb, a little help?
I’ll take a stab at defending Pope Benny here. All he did was lift excommunication. He did not support Holocaust denial in any way, and I doubt that the RCC would do any such thing. I do think that the RCC should condemn Holocaust denial in an appropriate way, but not in the same breath.
Excommunication can be lifted, and in fact must be lifted, if the excommunicant repents for the sins that they were excommunicated for. Excommunication is not dished out for just being an extreme asshole and having a fantasy version of history. Bizarre and damaging views of history are not sins.
On edit: Liberal makes clearer that this has only to do with the guy’s status as a rank and file member of the Church, it does not affect his authority to conduct official duties. It affects his ability to get in line and receive communion with the approval and blessing of the Church.
IANA RC
I read a newspaper story on this online last night, and one of the salient points was that in speaking of the four men who were being welcomed back into the communion, the Pope (or his spokesman, I can’t remember which) referred to them as “bishops” leading to some ambiguity over the question of whether the Church will consider them bishops.
I’ll go see if I can find the story I read.
Yeah, I read it in the NY Times
And in my post above, please scratch “Cardinal Lefebvre” in favor of “Archbishop Lefebvre.” My apologies.
Your Times article really isn’t clear about that. Check out this article and the subsequent notes and amendments (especially the first response). It also seems to jibe with Wiki’s update. Just saying is all.
Well, it wouldn’t be the first time a major newspaper (even the Grey Lady) got a fact wrong in early reporting, so I’ll defer to Liberal’s more recent source.
I pay about as much attention to the pope as I do to any random ayatollah. If the man really gave a flying shit about the people in his church, he would reverse his stance on birth control.
In keeping with that philosophy, now apparently an obscure point of church rules matters more than preaching of hateful lies. Harm done? Oh well, as long as no church rules are broken. I truly believe the church’s top priority is to avoid making all those priests get a job.
You have absolutely no authority to make Archbishop Lefebvre a Cardinal.
You are so lucky you took back the statement and apologized before I reported your post to the Pope.
What the fuck was the point of this cheap shot?
Ummm, to be a cheap shot? I’ll go out on a limb and guess that Liberal doesn’t like Der Trihs and thinks that he spouts bullshit and spreads ignorance.
He has a tendency to post rants against me in threads I post in; it seems he’s progressed to pre-emptive ranting.
According to canon law, they are bishops. Their ordination was valid (i.e., it still had the effect of elevating them to bishophood), but illicit (i.e., it was done without permission). According to Catholic doctrine, anyone suitably empowered can speak the magic words to elevate someone to the priesthood; whether or not they should do so in a particular situation is another matter.
Hey, Der Trihs, stop spouting ignorant bullshit!
I gotta go with Jaglavak, on this one.
Everytime I flick onto CNN.com or something and I see a headline which starts, “The Pope Declares …” or “The Pope Says …” or “The Pope Does Any Fucking Thing …” my first thought is … who gives a shit what the pope says?
Yes, I know, Catholics care. But when someone from a completely different club pipes up to say, “Hey now, there, Pope-a-rooni … we don’t appreciate the fact that you’re going to let someone chew on a wafer again”. What fucking difference does it make?
It’s like complaining to the Ayotollah Whoevers-in-charge that Achmed gets to come to afternoon prayers again after claiming the Archbishop of Cantebury plays with dolls. Who cares what these poeple think? For fucks sake, by this rationale, as an atheist I could host a press-conference every hour on the hour complaining about the shit that the Pope says that doesn’t jibe with me.
Is it really earth-shattering news that one more holocaust denier gets go to church again?
shrugs
How many divisions does the Pope have?
The same as the amount of scabs that the dog cather in Peoria has on his ass.
What the fuck are you talking about?