Criticize Fellay and be DENIED communion??
#21
(10-20-2012, 04:35 AM)Oldavid Wrote: Mmmm.
But can anyone say for sure that it is an official edict of some sort from +F and not a Chinese whisper going around which is intended to make poor ole +Bernie look worse than he is?

To be honest this is much more likely or the whole issue has been overblown.
Reply
#22
(10-20-2012, 05:47 AM)Cetil Wrote: The later posts in that thread at IA are serious and looks and also curious to me.
Quote: (PATRICIUS @ Oct 19 2012, 11:55 PM)

Another important announcement:

I'm closing Ignis Ardens, permanently. None of this is good for my health ...
I'll give it a week or two, then it's curtains.

This is nothing to do with Menzingen or the District Superior. It's my decision, not theirs.

I'd like to thank members past and present for all their contributions.

PATRICIUS. "

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Ignis_Ardens/index.php?showtopic=11056&st=225

Clare admitted:
Clare Wrote:Yes, Fr Morgan did gently have a word with me a few weeks ago, to the effect of the info in Gregorio's post. 

Gregorio's post:
Gregorio Sarto Wrote:Oct 6 2012, 08:49 PM
Dear All,

I am sorry that it has come to this but here we are:

I am stepping down as moderator of Ignis Ardens, and I wish as many people as possible to know why.

The SSPX has been my spiritual home for the last 10 years - ever since I was old enough to make my own decision about where to attend Mass - and has exerted a positive influence for even longer in many ways. You all know what opinion and position I take regarding the future of the SSPX and the mooted deal with Rome. You also know (most of you, anyway) the regard in which I hold the current direction and leadership of the SSPX. And the marginally lower regard in which I hold those who shut their eyes and side with them, through motives of self-interest when they must surely know better.

I have been aware for some time of scandalous reports, filtering back from Asia and elsewhere, of layfolk being denied the sacraments, or threatened with as much, essentially for no greater crime than an "incorrect opinion" regarding Menzingen's politics and clever diplomatic games. More recently, my attention has been drawn to the possibility of an SSPX-wide policy to this effect.

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.

I reproduce below what I believe are the relevant canons regarding this, and I leave it to you to see the justice (or lack thereof) in this latest decision by Menzingen/Fellay.

Now, whilst this sort of thing might work in some places, in England the most highly critical of the Romeward, liberal drift of the SSPX are (in my humble opinion) those people who have given the most to the SSPX and who are its most selfless, loyal, devout and generous supporters. I of course do not include myself in that. For people who know me from Mass, I let you judge whether I have not attempted, over the years, to give of my time and very modest efforts in whatever small way possible. My point is that if +Fellay proceeds with forcibly silencing his critics, the people punished most will be those who least deserve it. In any case, in a sense this is all an academic question and does not matter: I personally have complete confidence in Fr. Morgan's integrity as a priest and a loyal son of Archbishop Lefebvre.

But whilst the faithful in the British Isles, Ireland and Scandinavia don't believe for a minute that such a monstrous abuse of ecclesiastical power and function would ever be carried out by our current priests, nevertheless, if Bishop Fellay demands that Ignis Ardens becomes unmoderated then so be it. Clare and I each have our families to think of, lives of our own, and we both have better things to do with our time. Clare of course can speak for herself, but if her thinking is anything like mine, Ignis Ardens may well find its members having to moderate themselves from now on. I am truly amazed that either of us should be threatened with excommunication, but I am not making this up. And whilst I would happily defy an unjust command from a Bishop to whom I have never sworn obedience, and whilst equally I do not believe for one instant that our excellent priests would ever be party to such a monstrous injustice, yet for the sake of Fr. Morgan and the other clergy I will not force the issue, and so I stand down as Moderator.

I make no secret of the fact that I pray for the SSPX and at the moment, specifically, for a speedy end to the Generalship of Bishop Fellay which, I believe, is doing great harm to the SSPX and consequently to Catholic Tradition, Almighty God's work upon earth. May God have Mercy on us all for our sins, and may His will be done.


---------------------------

1983 CODE OF CANON LAW

PARTICIPATION IN THE MOST HOLY EUCHARIST

Can. 912 Any baptized person not prohibited by law can and must be admitted to holy communion.

Can. 915 Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to Holy Communion.


USURPATION OF ECCLESIASTICAL FUNCTIONS AND DELICTS IN THEIR EXERCISE

Can. 1389 §1. A person who abuses an ecclesiastical power or function is to be punished according to the gravity of the act or omission, not excluding privation of office, unless a law or precept has already established the penalty for this abuse.

§2. A person who through culpable negligence illegitimately places or omits an act of ecclesiastical power, ministry, or function with harm to another is to be punished with a just penalty.

Quote:That's a shame, IA had some very interesting and unique posts, what's all this about a visionary though? And why close a forum over it?

Yes, it makes no sense to close the forum just because of that.  It's ridiculous. 


(10-20-2012, 11:30 AM)TrentCath Wrote:
(10-20-2012, 04:35 AM)Oldavid Wrote: Mmmm.
But can anyone say for sure that it is an official edict of some sort from +F and not a Chinese whisper going around which is intended to make poor ole +Bernie look worse than he is?

To be honest this is much more likely or the whole issue has been overblown.

To me, that seems much less likely.  Why would moderators resign, if they did not feel that the threat was real?  Clare admits Fr. Morgan had a word with her, "to the effect of the info in Gregorio's post."

Gregorio's post:
Quote: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.

So, are we to believe that either Clare and Gregorio are both liars, or misrepresenting things, or that Fr. Morgan is? 
Reply
#23
(10-20-2012, 10:22 AM)ggreg Wrote: I don't see how they are any more or less appaling than calling Williamson a holocaust denier. 

I've been pretty appalled by comments I've seen about Bishop Williamson too.  I feel pretty strongly about treating bishops with respect and am consistently distressed by the lack of it.  Even in cases dealing with heretical or putatively heretical bishops (which is not in question with the SSPX), I am bothered by disrespectful language.
Reply
#24
The fall of Ignis Ardens parallels that of Bishop Williamson.  The site a few years ago was on the eccentric side, favouring conspiracy theories and sympathetic to fascist politics.  But since then it has degenerated into the gathering place of rabid sedevacantists and loons with constant attacks on the SSPX leadership.    
Reply
#25
(10-20-2012, 11:58 AM)JayneK Wrote: I've been pretty appalled by comments I've seen about Bishop Williamson too.  I feel pretty strongly about treating bishops with respect and am consistently distressed by the lack of it.  Even in cases dealing with heretical or putatively heretical bishops (which is not in question with the SSPX), I am bothered by disrespectful language.

I can't believe I'm agreeing with Jayne for once  :LOL: I'm with you on respecting the bishops because of their office as bishops and what they mean for the church, even if they are not pinnacles of virtue. How much more so faithful traditional bishops?

I have to say some of the posts on CathInfo are extremely uncharitable towards +Fellay, which is why I stay away from the Rome-SSPX subsection, you don't have to agree with some of the things he does, but certainly there are some unnecessary name-calling and just outright detraction going on amongst some there. The SSPX priest I know specifically told me to stay away from that forum because of the extremists on there.

Even if we don't agree with our priests or bishops sometimes, they need to still be treated with a deep, loving respect. The saints are perfect examples of this. Even when priests or bishops treated them like absolutel trash and garbage, they were still angelic and charitable towards them. It's so easy to go off on a tirade on the internet, thinking that for some reason just because you're behind a keyboard and monitor that it's ok to detract against bishops, it is not.
Reply
#26
(10-20-2012, 11:31 AM)FHM310 Wrote:
(10-20-2012, 05:47 AM)Cetil Wrote: The later posts in that thread at IA are serious and looks and also curious to me.
Quote: (PATRICIUS @ Oct 19 2012, 11:55 PM)

Another important announcement:

I'm closing Ignis Ardens, permanently. None of this is good for my health ...
I'll give it a week or two, then it's curtains.

This is nothing to do with Menzingen or the District Superior. It's my decision, not theirs.

I'd like to thank members past and present for all their contributions.

PATRICIUS. "

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Ignis_Ardens/index.php?showtopic=11056&st=225

Clare admitted:
Clare Wrote:Yes, Fr Morgan did gently have a word with me a few weeks ago, to the effect of the info in Gregorio's post. 

Gregorio's post:
Gregorio Sarto Wrote:Oct 6 2012, 08:49 PM
Dear All,

I am sorry that it has come to this but here we are:

I am stepping down as moderator of Ignis Ardens, and I wish as many people as possible to know why.

The SSPX has been my spiritual home for the last 10 years - ever since I was old enough to make my own decision about where to attend Mass - and has exerted a positive influence for even longer in many ways. You all know what opinion and position I take regarding the future of the SSPX and the mooted deal with Rome. You also know (most of you, anyway) the regard in which I hold the current direction and leadership of the SSPX. And the marginally lower regard in which I hold those who shut their eyes and side with them, through motives of self-interest when they must surely know better.

I have been aware for some time of scandalous reports, filtering back from Asia and elsewhere, of layfolk being denied the sacraments, or threatened with as much, essentially for no greater crime than an "incorrect opinion" regarding Menzingen's politics and clever diplomatic games. More recently, my attention has been drawn to the possibility of an SSPX-wide policy to this effect.

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.

I reproduce below what I believe are the relevant canons regarding this, and I leave it to you to see the justice (or lack thereof) in this latest decision by Menzingen/Fellay.

Now, whilst this sort of thing might work in some places, in England the most highly critical of the Romeward, liberal drift of the SSPX are (in my humble opinion) those people who have given the most to the SSPX and who are its most selfless, loyal, devout and generous supporters. I of course do not include myself in that. For people who know me from Mass, I let you judge whether I have not attempted, over the years, to give of my time and very modest efforts in whatever small way possible. My point is that if +Fellay proceeds with forcibly silencing his critics, the people punished most will be those who least deserve it. In any case, in a sense this is all an academic question and does not matter: I personally have complete confidence in Fr. Morgan's integrity as a priest and a loyal son of Archbishop Lefebvre.

But whilst the faithful in the British Isles, Ireland and Scandinavia don't believe for a minute that such a monstrous abuse of ecclesiastical power and function would ever be carried out by our current priests, nevertheless, if Bishop Fellay demands that Ignis Ardens becomes unmoderated then so be it. Clare and I each have our families to think of, lives of our own, and we both have better things to do with our time. Clare of course can speak for herself, but if her thinking is anything like mine, Ignis Ardens may well find its members having to moderate themselves from now on. I am truly amazed that either of us should be threatened with excommunication, but I am not making this up. And whilst I would happily defy an unjust command from a Bishop to whom I have never sworn obedience, and whilst equally I do not believe for one instant that our excellent priests would ever be party to such a monstrous injustice, yet for the sake of Fr. Morgan and the other clergy I will not force the issue, and so I stand down as Moderator.

I make no secret of the fact that I pray for the SSPX and at the moment, specifically, for a speedy end to the Generalship of Bishop Fellay which, I believe, is doing great harm to the SSPX and consequently to Catholic Tradition, Almighty God's work upon earth. May God have Mercy on us all for our sins, and may His will be done.


---------------------------

1983 CODE OF CANON LAW

PARTICIPATION IN THE MOST HOLY EUCHARIST

Can. 912 Any baptized person not prohibited by law can and must be admitted to holy communion.

Can. 915 Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to Holy Communion.


USURPATION OF ECCLESIASTICAL FUNCTIONS AND DELICTS IN THEIR EXERCISE

Can. 1389 §1. A person who abuses an ecclesiastical power or function is to be punished according to the gravity of the act or omission, not excluding privation of office, unless a law or precept has already established the penalty for this abuse.

§2. A person who through culpable negligence illegitimately places or omits an act of ecclesiastical power, ministry, or function with harm to another is to be punished with a just penalty.

Quote:That's a shame, IA had some very interesting and unique posts, what's all this about a visionary though? And why close a forum over it?

Yes, it makes no sense to close the forum just because of that.  It's ridiculous. 


(10-20-2012, 11:30 AM)TrentCath Wrote:
(10-20-2012, 04:35 AM)Oldavid Wrote: Mmmm.
But can anyone say for sure that it is an official edict of some sort from +F and not a Chinese whisper going around which is intended to make poor ole +Bernie look worse than he is?

To be honest this is much more likely or the whole issue has been overblown.

To me, that seems much less likely.  Why would moderators resign, if they did not feel that the threat was real?  Clare admits Fr. Morgan had a word with her, "to the effect of the info in Gregorio's post."

Gregorio's post:
Quote: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.

So, are we to believe that either Clare and Gregorio are both liars, or misrepresenting things, or that Fr. Morgan is? 

I just can't see a bishop taking a forum like that so seriously, cathinfo well fair enough for some stuff on there things do need to be done.

Canonically no one seems to have brought up the fact that moral theology demands one deny communion to a public and unrepentent sinner, I guess some of the people on those forums might well fall into that category.
Reply
#27
It seems that some people on here are making the same mistake made in the case of the priest who refused communion to that practicing lesbian and got disciplined by his bishop for doing so, canon law isnt the be all and end all, there are other issues for example moral theology. And certainly it would be wrong for a priest to give a public and unrepentent sinner communion.
Reply
#28
(10-20-2012, 12:10 PM)TrentCath Wrote: Canonically no one seems to have brought up the fact that moral theology demands one deny communion to a public and unrepentent sinner, I guess some of the people on those forums might well fall into that category.

If we are talking about the sin of detraction, I could see making a case for it.
Reply
#29
(10-20-2012, 12:10 PM)TrentCath Wrote: I just can't see a bishop taking a forum like that so seriously, cathinfo well fair enough for some stuff on there things do need to be done.

Canonically no one seems to have brought up the fact that moral theology demands one deny communion to a public and unrepentent sinner, I guess some of the people on those forums might well fall into that category.

:O  So, to be a moderator of a forum is to be a public and unrepentant sinner
So, if someone on FE commits detraction, and Vox doesn't ban them or delete all comments, she is to be denied Communion? 

Quote:I just can't see a bishop taking a forum like that so seriously

Think again.
Reply
#30
(10-20-2012, 12:22 PM)FHM310 Wrote:
(10-20-2012, 12:10 PM)TrentCath Wrote: I just can't see a bishop taking a forum like that so seriously, cathinfo well fair enough for some stuff on there things do need to be done.

Canonically no one seems to have brought up the fact that moral theology demands one deny communion to a public and unrepentent sinner, I guess some of the people on those forums might well fall into that category.

:O  So, to be a moderator of a forum is to be a public and unrepentant sinner
So, if someone on FE commits detraction, and Vox doesn't ban them or delete all comments, she is to be denied Communion? 

If Vox were encouraging people to commit detraction here, she would bear culpability for the sin.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)