Bp Williamson Expelled
#31
(10-16-2012, 01:04 AM)jovan66102 Wrote: This! Until this news is reported by a reputable source (unlike Novus Ordo Watch :eyeroll:), I'll take it with a saltshaker full of salt.
I think all this originates from Andrea Tornelli's Twitter comment 19 hours ago: "L’ultimatum di Fellay a Williamson http://2.andreatornielli.it/?p=5043 " :LOL:
Reply
#32
(10-16-2012, 01:04 AM)jovan66102 Wrote:
(10-16-2012, 12:03 AM)Poche Wrote: we don't know the whole story - just what others want you to hear. The best thing to do would be to pray about this entire situation
:pray: :pray:

This! Until this news is reported by a reputable source (unlike Novus Ordo Watch :eyeroll:), I'll take it with a saltshaker full of salt.

Total agreement with you on this, good buddy!
Reply
#33
(10-15-2012, 10:32 PM)Geremia Wrote: What does it even mean to be expelled from the SSPX? Bp. Fellay has no canonical backing to do so because the SSPX isn't even canonically recognized. In fact, he has no right to be superior.
Well, if you accept the strictly canonical interpretation, then you are correct. That strict interpretation also means that the SSPX bishops are not allowed to ordain anyone, that the SSPX priests are suspended and that their confessions and marriages are invalid.
If you accept the explanation of supplied jurisdiction because of a state of necessity, then you must also accept that Bishop Fellay can expel people, just like Archbishop Lefebvre did several times.

(10-15-2012, 10:32 PM)Geremia Wrote: Also, I seem to remember (I think it was in a CNS interview) that Bp. Fellay (or perhaps it was Bp. Tissier or a religion superior in another interview) said that the superior of the SSPX was only a temporary thing and that he is meant to be more of an equal.
This is not correct, and I do not think that Bishop Tissier said such a thing, because he, despite his strong differences with Bishop Fellay, has always been vocal about the fact that Archbishop Lefebvre wanted the Bishops not have any special authority, and must be obedient to the superior general.
In fact in the SSPX the superior general has a stronger position and more authority than in most other congregations of the Church, and this was by explicit design of Archbishop Lefebvre (election for 12 instead of the normal 6 years being just one example). Archbishop Lefebvre had stepped down as superior general of the Holy Ghost Fathers because he was unable to control the revolution within the Holy Ghost Fathers, and he explicitly designed the SSPX in such a way that this should not be possible. He called the superior general "the principle of unity" of the SSPX.
Reply
#34
(10-16-2012, 02:36 AM)Freudentaumel Wrote:
(10-15-2012, 10:32 PM)Geremia Wrote: What does it even mean to be expelled from the SSPX? Bp. Fellay has no canonical backing to do so because the SSPX isn't even canonically recognized. In fact, he has no right to be superior.
Well, if you accept the strictly canonical interpretation, then you are correct. That strict interpretation also means that the SSPX bishops are not allowed to ordain anyone, that the SSPX priests are suspended and that their confessions and marriages are invalid.
Well, this is why Rome is handling the bishops individually. I wonder if they would still handle Bp. Williamson as an individual, unrelated case if Bp. Fellay actually has expelled him.
(10-16-2012, 02:36 AM)Freudentaumel Wrote: If you accept the explanation of supplied jurisdiction because of a state of necessity, then you must also accept that Bishop Fellay can expel people, just like Archbishop Lefebvre did several times.
Did expelling them improve his relations with Rome? Is that one of the top reasons he expelled them?
(10-16-2012, 02:36 AM)Freudentaumel Wrote:
(10-15-2012, 10:32 PM)Geremia Wrote: Also, I seem to remember (I think it was in a CNS interview) that Bp. Fellay (or perhaps it was Bp. Tissier or a religion superior in another interview) said that the superior of the SSPX was only a temporary thing and that he is meant to be more of an equal.
This is not correct, and I do not think that Bishop Tissier said such a thing, because he, despite his strong differences with Bishop Fellay, has always been vocal about the fact that Archbishop Lefebvre wanted the Bishops not have any special authority, and must be obedient to the superior general.
In fact in the SSPX the superior general has a stronger position and more authority than in most other congregations of the Church, and this was by explicit design of Archbishop Lefebvre (election for 12 instead of the normal 6 years being just one example). Archbishop Lefebvre had stepped down as superior general of the Holy Ghost Fathers because he was unable to control the revolution within the Holy Ghost Fathers, and he explicitly designed the SSPX in such a way that this should not be possible. He called the superior general "the principle of unity" of the SSPX.
Interesting
I didn't know that.
Thanks
Reply
#35
(10-15-2012, 10:32 PM)Lateran15 Wrote:
(10-15-2012, 10:10 PM)OldMan Wrote: Does this mean that negotiations will be on again once Bp. Williamson is booted?

Based solely on my personal opinion and with no documentation what so ever ----- I would not been have surprised if the expulsion of the good Bishop Williamson was not a precondition with the Vatican.

Let us hope, pray, and pray some more that this is not the case.  Not only would it be despicable, it would ignite a s*@t-storm in traddom the likes of which we've never seen.
Reply
#36
(10-15-2012, 08:01 PM)Geremia Wrote:
Quote:Oct. 16 Update: IT’S OFFICIAL! BP. WILLIAMSON HAS BEEN EXPELLED!!!!!! I JUST GOT WORD OF IT THIS MORNING. NOT A THIRD WARNING, BUT AN EXPULSION! LET’S MOVE ON.
(source)

Would you please cite your source more specifically?  The site linked is in French, and I see nothing there with this information.

Then I'll move on.  I promise.

Update:  True Restoration, the blog of Stephen Heiner (Grima Wormtongue to Williamson's Saruman), says that the expulsion will happen officially on October 23rd.
Reply
#37
(10-16-2012, 07:05 PM)ImpyTerwilliger Wrote:
(10-15-2012, 08:01 PM)Geremia Wrote:
Quote:Oct. 16 Update: IT’S OFFICIAL! BP. WILLIAMSON HAS BEEN EXPELLED!!!!!! I JUST GOT WORD OF IT THIS MORNING. NOT A THIRD WARNING, BUT AN EXPULSION! LET’S MOVE ON.
(source)

Would you please cite your source more specifically?  The site linked is in French, and I see nothing there with this information.

Then I'll move on.  I promise.

Update:  True Restoration, the blog of Stephen Heiner (Grima Wormwood to Williamson's Saruman), says that the expulsion will happen officially on October 23rd.
Well, that cites this, which is dead. :(
Reply
#38
(10-16-2012, 07:05 PM)ImpyTerwilliger Wrote: ...the blog of Stephen Heiner (Grima Wormtongue to Williamson's Saruman)

:rofl:
Reply
#39
Is it true that only the Pope can technically expel bishops?

Also, here's the cached reference that was dead in my above source link. It's a pretty good Ignis Ardens forum thread.
Reply
#40
(10-18-2012, 02:41 AM)Geremia Wrote: Is it true that only the Pope can technically expel bishops?

Also, here's the cached reference that was dead in my above source link. It's a pretty good Ignis Ardens forum thread.

+Williamson has no See to be expelled from, as he has no Episcopal position, just the Order.  His only standing is as a priest of the Society, a position completely under the purview of the Superior-General.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)