Criticize Fellay and be DENIED communion??
#1
I just noticed this at Ignis Ardens from the now resigned admin :
"According to my understanding, Bishop Fellay has 'suggested' to our District Superior that anyone who dares criticize the public words and actions of +Fellay or Menzingen on internet forums such as Ignis Ardens (named specifically) and blogs should be denied Holy Communion by SSPX priests. He communicated that anyone owning or moderating forums where criticism takes place should be denied Holy Communion, and that anyone employed by SSPX who falls into these categories should also get sacked" http://z10.invisionfree.com/Ignis_Ardens...opic=11056

C.
Reply
#2
It looks like Bishop Fellay has gone crazy. He really needs our prayers.

Reply
#3
(10-20-2012, 01:11 AM)Petertherock Wrote: It looks like Bishop Fellay has gone crazy. He really needs our prayers.

Pray
Reply
#4
No one seems to have owned up to knowing for sure if it was indeed +
F that issued that alledged statement or even if it was, in fact, official or even from Menzingen.
Reply
#5
(10-20-2012, 02:09 AM)Oldavid Wrote: No one seems to have owned up to knowing for sure if it was indeed +
F that issued that alledged statement or even if it was, in fact, official or even from Menzingen.

Clare and Gregorio Sarto seem to think it's official even if not from +Fellay.
Reply
#6
Don't know if this is even official... but

In all honesty, I'm behind Fellay on this if it is. There is a lot of rumors and detraction/calumny going on some other forums against +Fellay, which is totally inappropriate.

If you were to do this to your superior in a religious order or monastery, you would be severely punished.

It would be one thing if +Fellay was telling everyone to go fornicate or sin in some way, but he has not.
Reply
#7
(10-20-2012, 02:21 AM)Atomagenesis Wrote: Don't know if this is even official... but

In all honesty, I'm behind Fellay on this if it is. There is a lot of rumors and detraction/calumny going on some other forums against +Fellay, which is totally inappropriate.

If you were to do this to your superior in a religious order or monastery, you would be severely punished.

It would be one thing if +Fellay was telling everyone to go fornicate or sin in some way, but he has not.

This is different from a religious community. Only those whom canon law etc. impedes must be given Holy Communion. There's no need for a "talk to Father" or a requirement to tow the party line. Catholics have a right to receive Our Lord unless excommunication, interdict etc. serve as obstacles, and far too often trad organizations think they know better.

If this isn't true, it will pass. If it unfortunately is, this is a mistake.
Reply
#8
(10-20-2012, 02:33 AM)Phillipus Iacobus Wrote: This is different from a religious community. Only those whom canon law etc. impedes must be given Holy Communion. There's no need for a "talk to Father" or a requirement to tow the party line. Catholics have a right to receive Our Lord unless excommunication, interdict etc. serve as obstacles, and far too often trad organizations think they know better.

If this isn't true, it will pass. If it unfortunately is, this is a mistake.

I believe you meant 'may be denied' rather than 'must be given' Communion in the above, but I agree with you. The Canons are very clear. Unless one is under penalty, excommunication, interdict, etc. any Catholic must be given Communion.

CIC, 1983 Wrote:Can.  912 Any baptized person not prohibited by law can and must be admitted to holy communion.
Reply
#9
Towards the end of his 2 hour Adelaide speech this past June, he basically said that the internet is awful. If he lived in Gutenberg's era, he would've said the printing press is awful!

Come on, Bp. Fellay, stop being so obscurantist! It's only hurting the SSPX's relations to its faithful.
Reply
#10
I've seen parishioners denied communion for all sorts of disagreements with SSPX priests.  I can think of at least 3 cases in UK and US where I can name the people and I've heard of others from SSPX and ex-SSPX laity.

This is par for the course.  Most long term SSPXers have seen this sort of control freakery happening before.  It gained momentum after Archbishop Lefebvre died.

The ironic thing in this case is that it is the "moderates" who are using these threats against the hard right.

Essentially what has happened in the SSPX since Lefebvre died is that successive diktats and mini-purges and denouncements over women wearing trousers and other such stuff has caused the moderates to find a TLM somewhere else.  Check out the faces of any FSSP mass in London or Sydney and I can show you a bunch of former SSPX laity making up a sizeable minority and sometimes a majority of the crowd at mass.

Naturally when many of the reasonable people have left the SSPX takes on a different character.  There are fewer dissenting voices.  Those who would stand up find they have no moral support.  The sycophantic types who are not kept busy with children and families form a cabal around the priest and get positions of influence by default.  We've seen this dynamic in the forums.  Fisheaters used to be more conservative and now it is more liberal.  Cathinfo has absorbed those "hard liners" who no longer felt useful here or were "scandalised".  People are forced to choose between the Judean Peoples' Front and the Peoples' Front of Judea.

I am not saying that the SSPX in all countries are as bad in this regard as others.  Much depends on the wisdom and maturity of the District Superior.  But it is a general trend.

As for criticism of the SSPX, or any other group of humans with human errors....get used to it.  Short of a total collapse of society it is not going away.

Good leaders listen to their critics, take what is good, reject what is bad and change accordingly.  Weak leaders threaten.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)