Talk:Écône consecrations

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Broken links[edit]

Links to two sources are broken. These are #26 and #27. The fragment: "In line with general canonical opinion,[26] the Holy See holds that Archbishop Lefebvre committed a schismatic act,[27] but not that he created a schismatic Church." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A210:9B43:3A00:54C7:985C:F57A:BE96 (talk) 09:25, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of Lifting Needed[edit]

We need to include criticism from reliable sources in the Lifting of excommunications section. --Loremaster (talk) 17:48, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From the Wikipedia:Criticism sections page:

--Loremaster (talk) 17:49, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We are off to a good start but we need more criticisms. --Loremaster (talk) 22:59, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I finally found the time to add the criticism I wanted. --Loremaster (talk) 23:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The same one[edit]

Funny that "Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger sent the following telegram" and "Pope Benedict XVI had lifted the excommunications of four bishops" are the same person. Shouldn't the article mention this? Debresser (talk) 20:45, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. --Loremaster (talk) 20:48, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It does here: "Archbishop Lefebvre and the Holy See engaged in dialogue, and, on 5 May 1988, Lefebvre and Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (the future Pope Benedict XVI) signed the text of an agreement..." Afalbrig (talk) 16:19, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

unclear[edit]

It remains unclear to me why the pope failed to approve these ordinations in the first place and why the bishop thought is so important to proceed. -ErinHowarth (talk) 08:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, does this mean that the four SSPX bishops are officially RC bishops now, or do they have the same position as they did before they got ordained? Afalbrig (talk) 16:19, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Only the excommunication has been lifted. They were illicit but valid bishops before and they still are. JASpencer (talk) 23:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to be thick, but how can they be both illicit and valid at the same time? -ErinHowarth (talk) 08:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By canon law... The canon law makes a difference between licitness and validity, and, as always, the main reason is the "salus animarum qui est suprema lex". For example, if a priest reading a Holy Mass leaves out the Readings, the Our Father and the Lamb of God, writes his own orations, but lets the Eucharistic Prayer in, the Mass is valid but illicit for the sake of the souls attending, who are most of the time non-perit of canon law. Same case, if a priest guilty of a mortal sin celebrates without necessity. Therefrom, the sense of this distinguation is clear. If a bishop ordains priests or deacons, this is an integral part of his episcopal authority and is therefore valid, even if he breaks Church discipline what leads to illicity (and, by positive law, automatic suspense) -- as is the case with the non-episcopal ordinations of the SSPX. If a bishop ordains a bishop without the approval of the Pope, this does touch not only discipline but also the theologian rights of the Primate and the unity of the Church and of the Episcopal Collegium, but nevertheless, canon law states that a bishop can validly do this, though by positive law, all participants receive automatic excommunication even if no schism has incurred in the strict sense. The official position most held in this case seems to be (?) that the crime of schism in the strict sense has not incurred, though schismatic acts and possibly the sin of schism, and though the faithful of the SSPX may in some cases be in personal schism and automatic excommunication (not relieved by the Remission Act 2009) if the believe that the SSPX is the only Church, or if they are sedisvacantist.
As to the questions above: It was not for no reason that the SSPX lost their Church approval (in 1976) -- they claimed that the Mass in the Use of 1970 could possibly be invalid even if celebrated strictly according to the Missal, for example. And they claimed a necessity of the Church for being un-modern and provocative in cases where there was no necessity: e. g. they claimed that the Roman-Catholic Church is the only true Church and religion (which is correct, though in terms of Vatican II, you would precise the Catholic Church is the only Church in the wholeness of truth, while other Churches, ecclesiastical communities, free Christians, Jews, and other, in this order, contain less truth and contain some errors) and that therefore the dialogue of the Catholic Church with the other Churches, ecclesiastical communities, the Jews, the other religions and the Humanists is contrary to faith (which is wrong and simply stupid). They thought that the only attitude towards these is mission and forgot also how practical a mission could still be if one does not take the objects of mission seriously. And so on. Later on, they even started to think that the texts (not the so-called "spirit of Vatican II" of some progressive Catholics, which is admittedly non-Catholic in some cases) of Vatican II themselves be contrary to faith, which is, if not heresy, then at least non-heretical insubedience to a official doctrin of the Church -- a crime against can. 1371. They also broke formal discipline by ignoring that, losing their official recognition, they could no longer incardinate clerics, leading to automatic suspense for all their members from 1978 on. If you add that even rightful monastic orders and apostolic societies are not granted bishops normally, it is clear that the Pope was not eager to grant them one.
As to the question why the bishop thought it is so important to proceed when the bishop had already been granted in spite of all this, I'm sure the late Pope John Paul II. and the then-Cardinal Ratzinger did not know really either and would have very much liked to. --84.154.89.240 (talk) 10:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did hear it said from a pulpit that, despite the lifting of said excommunications, the Society is not in good standing with Rome, and its priests, including those 4 bishops, are considered as suspended from functions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.82 (talk) 16:31, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What about the Allegations of Anti-Semitism of the individuals Involved?[edit]

"The historical evidence is hugely against 6 million Jews having been deliberately gassed in gas chambers as a deliberate policy of Adolf Hitler. I believe there were no gas chambers..." - Bishop Richard Williamson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.106.199.162 (talk) 11:12, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It should be and has been included as criticism in the article. --Loremaster (talk) 15:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

reserved[edit]

The following is unclear: "violation of this rule has since 1951 entailed automatic (latae sententiae) excommunication reserved to the Holy See both for the consecrator and for the recipient of the consecration" What does it mean for the excommunication to be both automatic and reserved? -ErinHowarth (talk) 20:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What makes this news[edit]

I find it rather odd that the controversy of this event is simply given a two-sentence explanation at the VERY end of the article:

The controversy is not grounded in the lack of papal consent for the original decision, but because the bishops were anti-Semitic and defied the rules of the Church (as far as I know). If the bishops were simply tossed for some irrelevant reason, or something stupid and then reinstated, nobody would have cared, at least, not to this same degree.

I ask that we encooperate the anti-semitic aspect, and not dump it at the bottom of the page. Wikifan12345 (talk) 19:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Wikifan12345 that a mention of the controversy shoud be incorporated in the lead section of the article. --Loremaster (talk) 20:13, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree; although, I don't think the original consecrations had anything to do with anti-Semitism. I think the original break had a lot more to do with ecumenism; however, the current controversy regarding the lifting of the excommunications seems to be all about anti-Semitism.-ErinHowarth (talk) 23:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, there is more to the controversy than simply anti-Semitism. There is also the issue of whether the lifting, which appeals only to Catholic Traditionalists, is a sign that the Catholic Church under Pope Benedict XVI is becoming more conservative rather than progressive... --Loremaster (talk) 23:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying everything is about anti-Semitism, but all the reports I've read excluding wiki are centered on the fact that the bishops being reinstated were anti-Semitic, and as a response Israel severed ties with the Vatican. Either way, it's a major part of the story, and should be recognized accordingly...IMO. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is. I've expanded the lead section of the article in order to explain the controversy comprehensively. --Loremaster (talk) 23:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This miniature ecumenism also links to the wooing of the high Anglicans and the orthodox. By bringing in the sacramentally conservative SSPX they are giving a very clear message that there will not be a watering down of Byzantine or Anglican style liturgies to suit a Vatican II agenda, one of the bigger obstacles to closer co-operation in the Eastern churches and conversions of Anglicans opposed to women priests. JASpencer (talk) 23:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting! --Loremaster (talk) 23:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But the controversy is still only mentioned to its full extent at the END of the article. It should be en-cooperated in the intro of the article, not the concluding paragraphs. This story is making headlines all over the World, even those where Catholic hierarchy isn't a crucial part of society, like in the Middle East, United States, and Asia. Why? Because the controversy is largely generated by the Bishop's anti-Semitism, not because the pope wasn't involved in the original dispute. Even now the Pope is trying to separate himself from the issue in regards to Jewish complaints: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7855816.stm And that info is at the INTRO, not the end. If we're going to synthesize news, dropping one of the most important aspects at the BOTTOM of the article is utterly ridiculous. There is a wealth of information to support a heavy cleaning. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:33, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read the current version of the lead section of the article? --Loremaster (talk) 00:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, it wasn't there before I responded. Anyways, it's definitely not enough. The anti-Semitism is the biggest source of complaint (and therefore controversy), and even the Pope himself offered a lengthy opinion on that central issue. This needs to be seen throughout the article, and a 4-sentence intro is certainly not enough. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:15, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I like the new lead section very much. I think it does a fine job summarizing the issues at hand. Although it doesn't not say why Lefebvre ordained the bishops without consent or why the pope failed to give his consent in the first place. The third paragraph, which explains the lifting of the excommunications and the controversy surrounding them, seems very gentle in its language. For example: "The remarks of Bishop Williamson on a number of subjects, particularly on the subject of the Nazi persecution of the Jews, has led to the accusation that he is a Holocaust denier." He is a Holocaust denier, isn't he? Is that fact really in dispute? -ErinHowarth (talk) 08:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you that we should clarify the Lefebvre and pope issue so feel free to do so. As for the language of the article being too gentle, you should know that we need to write this article from a neutral point of view. As for whether or not Williamson is a Holocaust denier, we should mindful of not making statements that could led to Wikipedia being accused of defamation. --Loremaster (talk) 13:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone who openly declares that there were no gas chambers in Auschwitz, or that they were not used for a genocide on the Jews -- and that he hase done so has not been denied by anybody -- commits the crime against § 130 III German Penal Code which is called Holocaust denial. And as the interview in question was on German soil, Richard Williamson is subject to German penal justice in this case. --84.154.89.240 (talk) 10:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not disputing that but stating that he has been accused of being a Holocaust denier is more than enough. --Loremaster (talk) 13:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seperate article for recent events[edit]

This article seems to be getting confused between the events of 1988 and the lifting of the excommunications. Is it time to seperate out the articles? JASpencer (talk) 23:36, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would be opposed to such a seperation. We simply need to work harder on writing the article in such a way that the subject is less confusing.
Oh well, I should have been paying more attention. The seperate article is at Remission of the Ecône Excommunications JASpencer (talk) 23:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That changes everything. I've expanded that article with reactions. However, one could legitimately suggest that these two arcticles should be merged. --Loremaster (talk) 00:27, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I support the merge idea. Remission of the excommunication doesn't need an article all to itself, separate from the article on how the excommunication arose. Soidi (talk) 15:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I added a merge tag to the Remission of the Ecône Excommunications article. --Loremaster (talk) 17:41, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

dailycatholic[edit]

I removed the following as a WP:BLP with this edit, I highlighted the problems I see with this content:

the canonist Count Neri Capponi,[1] Fr. Gerald Murray of the Catholic University of America,[2] Fr. Patrick Valdini of the Catholic Institute in Paris,[3] and Karl-Theodor Geringer and Rudolf Kaschewski of the University of Munich have taken this position. Murray and Prof. Geringer have since stated that their views have been misrepresented; it is not clear whether this is true of the other authorities.

References

  1. ^ Count Neri Capponi: "[T]his act [of episcopal consecration on June 30, 1988] was not, per se, schismatic" (Latin Mass Magazine, May/June 1993). Cited in The Illicit Episcopal Consecrations of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre by Mario Derksen
  2. ^ Fr. Murray: "[C]anonically speaking, he [Archbshop Lefebvre] [i]s not guilty of a schismatic act punishable by canon law" (Fr. Murray may have changed his view with regards to this conclusion; I do not have access to the Summer 1996 issue of the Latin Mass and am therefore unable to verify if he has or not). Cited in The Illicit Episcopal Consecrations of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre by Mario Derksen
  3. ^ Fr. Valdini: "It is not the consecration of a bishop which creates the schism. What makes the schism is to give the bishop an apostolic mission" (Question de Droit ou de confiance, L'Homme Nouveau, Feb.17, 1988). Of course, Archbishop Lefebvre never gave any of his 4 bishops an apostolic mission. Cited in The Illicit Episcopal Consecrations of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre by Mario Derksen at DailyCatholic.org

The source for all three quotes is:

  • Derksen, Mario (August 2003). "Admissions of acceptance". dailycatholic.org. Kimberling City, MO. Archived from the original on 2003-08-03. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)  This tertiary source reuses information from other sources without citing them in detail.

The author of that page states that "if you are internet-savvy, you may already have come upon people like Shawn McElhinney, Pete Vere, and others, who are trying to dismantle these quotes by 'showing their context'." So he is saying these quotes may have a different meaning with more context. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 01:12, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, Dailycatholic is a WP:BLOG and not a WP:RS. Veverve (talk) 06:50, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Ecône consecrations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:51, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Ecône consecrations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:02, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Declaration of the Nullity of the Ecône Schism" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

The redirect Declaration of the Nullity of the Ecône Schism has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 4 § Declaration of the Nullity of the Ecône Schism until a consensus is reached. Veverve (talk) 06:49, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Écône_consecrations&oldid=1201716218"