Tridentine SA: LETTER ON REMISSION OF EXCOMMUNICATION LEFEBVRE BISHOPS

(Tridentine South Africa)

Article by Marc Aupiais

As Predicted, by Rorate Caeli, the Papacy has announced Benedict XVI's intentions, and feelings on the Williamson issue.

Here is the release:

LETTER ON REMISSION OF EXCOMMUNICATION LEFEBVRE BISHOPS

VATICAN CITY, 12 MAR 2009 (VIS) - Made public today was the Letter of His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI to the bishops of the Catholic Church concerning the remission of the excommunication of the four bishops consecrated by Archbishop Lefebvre.

  

The Letter is dated 10 March and has been published in English, French, Spanish, Italian, German and Portuguese. The complete text of the English-language version is given below:

  

"Dear brothers in the episcopal ministry.

 VATICAN CITY, 12 MAR 2009 (VIS) - Made public today was the Letter of His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI to the bishops of the Catholic Church concerning the remission of the excommunication of the four bishops consecrated by Archbishop Lefebvre.

The Letter is dated 10 March and has been published in English, French, Spanish, Italian, German and Portuguese. The complete text of the English-language version is given below:

"Dear brothers in the episcopal ministry.

"The remission of the excommunication of the four Bishops consecrated in 1988 by Archbishop Lefebvre without a mandate of the Holy See has for many reasons caused, both within and beyond the Catholic Church, a discussion more heated than any we have seen for a long time. Many bishops felt perplexed by an event which came about unexpectedly and was difficult to view positively in the light of the issues and tasks facing the Church today. Even though many bishops and members of the faithful were disposed in principle to take a positive view of the Pope's concern for reconciliation, the question remained whether such a gesture was fitting in view of the genuinely urgent demands of the life of faith in our time. Some groups, on the other hand, openly accused the Pope of wanting to turn back the clock to before the Council: as a result, an avalanche of protests was unleashed, whose bitterness laid bare wounds deeper than those of the present moment. I therefore feel obliged to offer you, dear brothers, a word of clarification, which ought to help you understand the concerns which led me and the competent offices of the Holy See to take this step. In this way I hope to contribute to peace in the Church.

"An unforeseen mishap for me was the fact that the Williamson case came on top of the remission of the excommunication. The discreet gesture of mercy towards four bishops ordained validly but not legitimately suddenly appeared as something completely different: as the repudiation of reconciliation between Christians and Jews, and thus as the reversal of what the Council had laid down in this regard to guide the Church's path. A gesture of reconciliation with an ecclesial group engaged in a process of separation thus turned into its very antithesis: an apparent step backwards with regard to all the steps of reconciliation between Christians and Jews taken since the Council - steps which my own work as a theologian had sought from the beginning to take part in and support. That this overlapping of two opposed processes took place and momentarily upset peace between Christians and Jews, as well as peace within the Church, is something which I can only deeply deplore. I have been told that consulting the information available on the internet would have made it possible to perceive the problem early on. I have learned the lesson that in the future in the Holy See we will have to pay greater attention to that source of news. I was saddened by the fact that even Catholics who, after all, might have had a better knowledge of the situation, thought they had to attack me with open hostility. Precisely for this reason I thank all the more our Jewish friends, who quickly helped to clear up the misunderstanding and to restore the atmosphere of friendship and trust which - as in the days of Pope John Paul II - has also existed throughout my pontificate and, thank God, continues to exist.

"Another mistake, which I deeply regret, is the fact that the extent and limits of the provision of 21 January 2009 were not clearly and adequately explained at the moment of its publication. The excommunication affects individuals, not institutions. An episcopal ordination lacking a pontifical mandate raises the danger of a schism, since it jeopardises the unity of the College of Bishops with the Pope. Consequently the Church must react by employing her most severe punishment - excommunication - with the aim of calling those thus punished to repent and to return to unity. Twenty years after the ordinations, this goal has sadly not yet been attained. The remission of the excommunication has the same aim as that of the punishment: namely, to invite the four bishops once more to return. This gesture was possible once the interested parties had expressed their recognition in principle of the Pope and his authority as Pastor, albeit with some reservations in the area of obedience to his doctrinal authority and to the authority of the Council. Here I return to the distinction between individuals and institutions. The remission of the excommunication was a measure taken in the field of ecclesiastical discipline: the individuals were freed from the burden of conscience constituted by the most serious of ecclesiastical penalties. This disciplinary level needs to be distinguished from the doctrinal level. The fact that the Society of Saint Pius X does not possess a canonical status in the Church is not, in the end, based on disciplinary but on doctrinal reasons. As long as the society does not have a canonical status in the Church, its ministers do not exercise legitimate ministries in the Church. There needs to be a distinction, then, between the disciplinary level, which deals with individuals as such, and the doctrinal level, at which ministry and institution are involved. In order to make this clear once again: until the doctrinal questions are clarified, the society has no canonical status in the Church, and its ministers - even though they have been freed of the ecclesiastical penalty - do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church.

"In light of this situation, it is my intention henceforth to join the Pontifical Commission 'Ecclesia Dei' - the body which has been competent since 1988 for those communities and persons who, coming from the Society of Saint Pius X or from similar groups, wish to return to full communion with the Pope - to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. This will make it clear that the problems now to be addressed are essentially doctrinal in nature and concern primarily the acceptance of the Vatican Council II and the post-conciliar Magisterium of the Popes. The collegial bodies with which the congregation studies questions which arise (especially the ordinary Wednesday meeting of cardinals and the annual or biennial plenary session) ensure the involvement of the prefects of the different Roman congregations and representatives from the world's bishops in the process of decision-making. The Church's teaching authority cannot be frozen in the year 1962 - this must be quite clear to the Society. But some of those who put themselves forward as great defenders of the Council also need to be reminded that Vatican II embraces the entire doctrinal history of the Church. Anyone who wishes to be obedient to the Council has to accept the faith professed over the centuries, and cannot sever the roots from which the tree draws its life.

"I hope, dear brothers, that this serves to clarify the positive significance and also the limits of the provision of 21 January 2009. But the question still remains: Was this measure needed? Was it really a priority? Aren't other things perhaps more important? Of course there are more important and urgent matters. I believe that I set forth clearly the priorities of my pontificate in the addresses which I gave at its beginning. Everything that I said then continues unchanged as my plan of action. The first priority for the Successor of Peter was laid down by the Lord in the Upper Room in the clearest of terms: 'You ... strengthen your brothers'. Peter himself formulated this priority anew in his first Letter: 'Always be prepared to make a defence to anyone who calls you to account for the hope that is in you'. In our days, when in vast areas of the world the faith is in danger of dying out like a flame which no longer has fuel, the overriding priority is to make God present in this world and to show men and women the way to God. Not just any god, but the God Who spoke on Sinai; to that God Whose face we recognise in a love which presses 'to the end' - in Jesus Christ, crucified and risen. The real problem at this moment of our history is that God is disappearing from the human horizon, and, with the dimming of the light which comes from God, humanity is losing its bearings, with increasingly evident destructive effects.

"Leading men and women to God, to the God Who speaks in the Bible: this is the supreme and fundamental priority of the Church and of the Successor of Peter at the present time. A logical consequence of this is that we must have at heart the unity of all believers. Their disunity, their disagreement among themselves, calls into question the credibility of their talk of God. Hence the effort to promote a common witness by Christians to their faith - ecumenism - is part of the supreme priority. Added to this is the need for all those who believe in God to join in seeking peace, to attempt to draw closer to one another, and to journey together, even with their differing images of God, towards the source of Light - this is inter-religious dialogue. Whoever proclaims that God is Love 'to the end' has to bear witness to love: in loving devotion to the suffering, in the rejection of hatred and enmity - this is the social dimension of the Christian faith, of which I spoke in the Encyclical 'Deus caritas est'.

"So if the arduous task of working for faith, hope and love in the world is presently (and, in various ways, always) the Church's real priority, then part of this is also made up of acts of reconciliation, small and not so small. That the quiet gesture of extending a hand gave rise to a huge uproar, and thus became exactly the opposite of a gesture of reconciliation, is a fact which we must accept. But I ask now: Was it, and is it, truly wrong in this case to meet half-way the brother who 'has something against you' and to seek reconciliation? Should not civil society also try to forestall forms of extremism and to incorporate their eventual adherents - to the extent possible - in the great currents shaping social life, and thus avoid their being segregated, with all its consequences? Can it be completely mistaken to work to break down obstinacy and narrowness, and to make space for what is positive and retrievable for the whole? I myself saw, in the years after 1988, how the return of communities which had been separated from Rome changed their interior attitudes; I saw how returning to the bigger and broader Church enabled them to move beyond one-sided positions and broke down rigidity so that positive energies could emerge for the whole. Can we be totally indifferent about a community which has 491 priests, 215 seminarians, 6 seminaries, 88 schools, 2 university-level institutes, 117 religious brothers, 164 religious sisters and thousands of lay faithful? Should we casually let them drift farther from the Church? I think for example of the 491 priests. We cannot know how mixed their motives may be. All the same, I do not think that they would have chosen the priesthood if, alongside various distorted and unhealthy elements, they did not have a love for Christ and a desire to proclaim Him and, with Him, the living God. Can we simply exclude them, as representatives of a radical fringe, from our pursuit of reconciliation and unity? What would then become of them?

"Certainly, for some time now, and once again on this specific occasion, we have heard from some representatives of that community many unpleasant things - arrogance and presumptuousness, an obsession with one-sided positions, etc. Yet to tell the truth, I must add that I have also received a number of touching testimonials of gratitude which clearly showed an openness of heart. But should not the great Church also allow herself to be generous in the knowledge of her great breadth, in the knowledge of the promise made to her? Should not we, as good educators, also be capable of overlooking various faults and making every effort to open up broader vistas? And should we not admit that some unpleasant things have also emerged in Church circles? At times one gets the impression that our society needs to have at least one group to which no tolerance may be shown; which one can easily attack and hate. And should someone dare to approach them - in this case the Pope - he too loses any right to tolerance; he too can be treated hatefully, without misgiving or restraint.

"Dear Brothers, during the days when I first had the idea of writing this letter, by chance, during a visit to the Roman Seminary, I had to interpret and comment on Galatians 5:13-15. I was surprised at the directness with which that passage speaks to us about the present moment: 'Do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love be servants of one another. For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: You shall love your neighbour as yourself. But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another'. I am always tempted to see these words as another of the rhetorical excesses which we occasionally find in St. Paul. To some extent that may also be the case. But sad to say, this 'biting and devouring' also exists in the Church today, as expression of a poorly understood freedom. Should we be surprised that we too are no better than the Galatians? That at the very least we are threatened by the same temptations? That we must always learn anew the proper use of freedom? And that we must always learn anew the supreme priority, which is love? The day I spoke about this at the Major Seminary, the feast of Our Lady of Trust was being celebrated in Rome. And so it is: Mary teaches us trust. She leads us to her Son, in Whom all of us can put our trust. He will be our guide - even in turbulent times. And so I would like to offer heartfelt thanks to all the many bishops who have lately offered me touching tokens of trust and affection, and above all assured me of their prayers. My thanks also go to all the faithful who in these days have given me testimony of their constant fidelity to the Successor of St. Peter. May the Lord protect all of us and guide our steps along the way of peace. This is the prayer that rises up instinctively from my heart at the beginning of this Lent, a liturgical season particularly suited to interior purification, one which invites all of us to look with renewed hope to the light which awaits us at Easter

"With a special Apostolic Blessing, I remain Yours in the Lord".

BXVI-LETTER/EXCOMMUNICATION BISHOPS/... VIS 090312 (2540)

SSPX sidelines Holocaust Deniers

(Altered Persuasion ; c.f. Rorate Calei (Catholic; Independent; Traditional) 09 / 02 / 2009; 08 / 02 / 2009; Zenit News Service (Catholic; Independent; American): Italian edition 08 / 02 / 2009; BBC World News (Secular; British; Governmental) 22 / 11 / 2005)

Article by Marc Aupiais

Rorate Caeli: one of the most efficient sources on the SSPX schismatic / suspended movement: is reporting firm actions by the society against an SSPX/FSSPX Bishop, who denied the extent of the holocaust. Bishop Williamson, having been illicitly ordained as a bishop, a man who along with his companions in the "Society of st. Pius X", is still suspended under canon law: has been removed from his noted post of director: at an SSPX seminary: "La Reja"; something which was apparently done for the "Good" (extrapolation by us: "not want to hurt the society", would be a better translation) of the society, an action reportedly accepted by Williamson as necessary. Meanwhile, a Zenit Report, in Italian: on Sunday: covered the expulsion of a: Father Don Floriano Abrahamowicz, from the society.

While Zenit sees this (the expulsion of a: Father Don Floriano Abrahamowicz, from the society) to possibly be linked to other events: as a rebuke of his shared views: with Williamson on the Holocaust: not killing 6 million Jews: at least one source within SSPX parishioners' ranks: is claiming: that the man in question was expelled: not for his view on the Jews and concentration camps, but alleges that he was expelled for a separate matter involving suspicions of the man: involving sedevacanism. Sedevacanism, the view that the See of Peter (Papacy) is "vacant": is denounced by mainstream catholicism: and is something that the SSPX, not only does not officially believe: but rather: officially apposes, as wrong.

The SSPX claimed that the second decision: while "painful" (possible English translation): was necessary to prevent the image of the SSPX, from being "distorted" (another possible translation).

Meanwhile: the Vatican and the German Chancellor: Angela Merkel, a member of the "Christian Democratic Union" (CDU) Party: which traditionally was lead by Catholics, and, in contrast to that previous norm: Protestant in her system of belief: have (The Vatican and German Chancellor) reportedly had a cordial telephone conversation. Allegations against Benedict XVI's name: by the German Chancellor: Angela Merkel; that he had not strongly enough rebuked Bishop Williamson: were followed by a Vatican statement: that Bishop Williamson would not have his current suspension of powers: lifted unless he publicly altered his views on the Holocaust. The conversation reportedly involved mutual discussion on the importants of seeing the Holocaust as a warning. Both apparently hold the same view of the Holocaust. The Vatican's press office: has reportedly noted that benedict XVI: allegedly had no knowledge of the statements of SSPX Bishop Williamson: at the time he lifted the man's excommunication: in order to pass an impasse in negotiations with the "Society" (SSPX).

Catholics are discouraged from attending SSPX masses. Sedivacanism, also mentioned: can be consiodered an act of Schism: while disagreeing with the Papacy: the Society, still claims to serve the papacy, and church.

SSPX Bishops re-"communicated"

(Tridentine South Africa)

Article by Marc Aupiais

In a seemingly politically motivated move: Benedict XVI; has lifted automatic excommunications, incurred under canon law: by four SSPX bishops, who: on being consecrated, committed what was then termed and largely perceived to be: an act of schism. While the excommunications no longer carry weight: this probably is not a precident for reintroducing others who incur the excommunication: rather: it seems to be a pre-condition for begining dialogue for the complete reunification of the Society, and the Catholic Church. It does not seem that all issues have been resolved overnight. This may be a start, but many things are still vague and unclear.

It was not because of the excommunications alone: that Catholics have been discoraged from attending society masses, and whether or not the SSPX priests will now be allowed by the Vatican to perform mass ligitimately, or if their actions are still considered illigitimate, is not something we can comment on. This is not the end of the issue, but the beginning of it.

We have asked for ecclesiastical assistence in covering this issue, so as to give a fuller view: whether by direct statements being quoted, or by indirectly quoting sources: so as to give an inside perspective. We hope to gain such.

As for the mean-time: it is still important that the valid tridentine mass be pursued in the mainstream church, within diocesan structures. Many SSPX priests' sermons might still carry certain bias, as with parishioners there.

Doubt still hangs over the organization, and until talks are entered into, in a meaningful manner, and a comprehensive clarification, and negotiation take place: there will still be a cloud over the society. When comprehensive regulations for this situation come to be meted out: perhaps, a clear answer can be made.

Pursuing the unquestionably valid Summorum Pontificum instituted Tridentine (Latin) Mass, within normal church hierarchical structures, remains not ony the clear, and legally sure way to proceed, but also means enjoyment of something special, within, without risking accepting some controversial, if not radical views, and without taking a political stand.

Until the situation becomes less vague: the isolation of the "Society" in the mainstream will likely continue. Negotiations have not happened adequately yet; so as to actually physically and properly reincorperate the controversial Swiss based "Society "of" Pius X", in a proper, and civilized, complete manner: nor is it clear that this shall ever occur, nor if the society will ever manage to regain credibility, and fulfill a beneficial function in the mainstream of the church. So far, ecumenism with SSPX has been at great cost to Catholic-Judaic relations, and the controversial views of the organization, and a particular member of it: could cause further issues.

For now: the best thing to do: is stop, and wait.

It is very dangerous to see this in more than its ecumenical (political) light so far, and it is still advisable to avoid SSPX masses, for those in the mainstream: until such time as more information is given; and it is likely important to wait for negotiations, and meetings: before determining if any headway has been made between the Vatican, and their biggest "irregular" canonical apponent. Whether this is the Vatican calling an SSPX bluff, or if it is genuinely the offering of a palm leaf: it certainly is political. Benedict XVI, is famed for his "Ecumenical" abilities. Hopefully, it may someday yield the fruit of curing the chasm between SSPX and mainstream laity and pastors, and others.

The meaning and ramifications of this ecclesiastical move are unclear. Benedict XVI's representation, seems clear that this has nothing to do with SSPX views on the world. The SSPX bishops were excommunicated for being consecrated, not for their views. The lifting of such excommunication: therefore says nothing of the validity of their views.

It is a political (Ecumenical) move: it is still unclear what status the SSPX churches have in this situation: and whether or not this will mean the lifting of the censure on the SSPX priests: which bans them from "ligitimately" offering the mass.

SSPX Masses have been considered Valid (The priests are considered to truly perform the Eucharistic Sacrifice, in the sense normal priests do), but illegitimate (illegal), it is not immediately clear if warnings against attending their masses, will be lifted, now that the first real move to dialogue has been made.

The Ball is in the SSPX's court. We hopefully may follow this story further.

Abortion- and our crisis- how many Catholic bishops are automatically excommunicated- we need to admit this and replace them!

(Journey in a Broken World)

Article by Marc Aupiais

Recently a close friend of mine mentioned he had joined the SSPX. We always talk about coming out of the closet, it is something gay people did (My friend is perfectly strait)- probably with bad connotations, but I don't think this friend was coming out of the closet, he had been wrestling with it for a while now, and it seems he finally gave in. The Latin was important to him, and there have been monkey games in South Africa- he traveled all the way to Pretoria for a final meeting on setting up the Tridentine rite here, and the priest suddenly withdrew- probably under the influence of South Africa's more liberal bishops, or possibly for personal reasons. In essence, I think my friend had had enough. He is right, to a degree at least, but not to the extent of his choice- I personally see- Vatican Two allowed for some use of English- but for a Latin Norm, and for the use of English which is by churches to be supplemented in every mass by some Latin. In other words, I do not disagree that many leaders of the church are not applying the actual recommendations in this section, of Vatican II.

The problem in his stance also lies in canon 1372 of Canon Law- in that if we appeal to a council of the church in opposition of an act of the pope- we are to be punished with a censure- that is to say- that while I for instance believe that Latin may have huge benefit, should I say the Vernacular is not valid- and quote a council to do so- I am in fact violating Canon law.

Jesus said- it is impossible for any person to convert, but that what is impossible is not impossible to God. This is to say that if we focus so much on livening up the mass, or making it understandable- we lose the battle, because we are trying to save the world on human, not divine resources. In my archdiocese- 9 out of ten catholics do not attend mass on Sunday, and the Protestant population is probably worse off. We have a serious issue, and instead of going back to God's recommendations at the Holy Council- we are trying our own human ways to save our church, this said- the stance of the current church is valid, and what I say is not in opposition to the union of bishops- in that Latin is of benefit, but also we must remember Canon 1372. The church is a sacrament, through which all sacraments are gained. The Sacrament is the name given to the Roman Empire's military pledge of allegiance, it is a word which appears in the Bible, when Saint Peter (I Peter chapter 3 verse 21) says that it is not the water of baptism, but the Sacrament of a good conscience to God which saves us. Basically- the Sacrament is the pledge- the acting which happens in two plains, our plain where actions happen, and the spiritual, where God accompanies these loyal actions with grace. At the heart of Sacramental Theology, Catholic Theology- is the idea that obedience gets grace- and only obedience and faith can save us.

The problem my friend has yet to address- and the argument above is mine, not his- is that the SSPX are in an irregular canonical position- because their bishops broke canon law, and were automatically excommunicated. I myself believe that no small amount of disobedience can save- I believe in subsidarity- that we obey God in obedience to the church, but where God demands we act against it so be it- but God placed the liturgy in the hands of the papacy.

He appointed the bishops to safeguard the church, even if they disobey him. Saint Peter certainly did, when he chose to sit with the Jews apart from the gentiles for the sake of their cause. God himself would one day reduce utterly the amount of Jewish converts- and Saint Peter was not aiding the cause of the church- in fact, Saint Paul heavily rebukes him. He says- you hypocrite. Saint Paul knew that the essence of the gospel was at stake, and attacked Saint Peter's actions, actions which were not infallible, but human, and popes are human, even as at certain times they yield to the divine by asking to be clear of moral and doctrinal error in their words.

What Saint Paul did not do is join an irregularly positioned order of the church, no- he challenged the first Pope as a hypocrite- and worked to change things from within, but he did not join any odd group within.

Now, saying this- I must approach another issue- EWTN notes it softly on their website, but I note it as loudly as possible. Those who support abortion- through action, or silence, who vote for a party which does or is likely to support abortion, who allow this plague strength in our nations and cultures, in any way as to allow even one additional abortion- are excommunicated from the Catholic church.

Recently, when a bishop stood against abortion and the Democrats, who in 1992 caused the current financial crises, a group of nuns wrote the papers, apposing the bishop- in support of Obama. These nuns, in this action are no longer Catholics- they excommunicated themselves. The Canadian bishops who participated in a pro-abortion, pro-homosexuality march, the Catholic Women's league in Canada's leadership who did, and the bishops who did not appose this stance in Canada- are also automatically excommunicated under canon law, and so are many bishops, and media persons in South Africa, and America and Australia and around the world. It is not simply a fight for the culture of life- any Catholic who aids and abets the cause of abortion- is excommunicated.

The Bishops of SSPX, are also excommunicated by an automatic excommunication- via the appointing of bishops against the express objections of the Holy See. Summorum Pontificum, was actually initially the brain-child of Pope John Paul the Second, not Benedict XVI. The act of schism by the bishops of the SSPX, was it seems unnecessary. In fact, it could be why we face so much opposition today in the church to the Latin Mass, asked for by Vatican II, and Trent, and used for all ages until now, and by Pope Benedict XVI, when he says mass.

We however have a dual problem, the church has been wise in noting that the SSPX bishops are excommunicated, they have been unwise in not replacing also- the bishops who are excommunicated on the other fringe- for support of the intrinsic evil of abortion. It is no wonder these bishops and priests also push for gay marriage, and women priests. They have already been cut from the vine of the Catholic church- they no longer are Catholic bishops, but simple administrators, who need to be replaced, because they have left the flock via excommunication. Perhaps the crisis with vocations- and the opposition to the Latin Liturgy of the ages- and the open opposition by many to our Pope, Holy Father- Benedict XVI- lies in the fact that these bishops, priests, nuns, monks and others, including laymen- now operate from outside the church. These people who have given up their lives for Christ and service to the church- are no longer of her flock, and those not of the flock are not worth listening to on matters of doctrine and morals, for Catholics.

Our salvation, and the salvation of the church- lies non in schism, for the bible directly says "Schisms are evil" (Paul writing to the Corinthians), but rather- it must come through obedience, through obeying the letter of Canon Law- as many Charismatics, Traditionalist, and Liberals- have forfeited, for the sake of evangelization- also forfeiting from God- the grace needed and vital to carry this out.

Let us follow the example of Josemaria Escriva', let us be utterly Orthodox, but do it within Canon law, and within the church, but also- our leaders need to clarify and replace those bishops who have either supported one extreme or the other. Those outside the church must no longer pretend to govern her provinces. The sees of those who have supported abortion, and not returned to the church, are empty. This said, just like with SSPX, one is not excommunicated by attending mass in a diocese where the bishop should be replaced. This also said- we are discouraged from attending SSPX masses, this is considered an occasion to sin, and occasions to sin we promise to avoid every confession. Yes, if our life is at risk we may attend it, but not simply to get our daily Latin. The same applies to these excommunicated priests and bishops- we are not lifted of our Sunday obligation, but we should attend masses where the priest is against abortion, and the church, is in fact obligated by morals and conscience, I truly believe that they should take the same steps against these bishops and priests as they did against the SSPX. They need to replace them, and inform them and the world, that these people no longer represent the Catholic church, and full the empty sees, whether by repentance on the part of these bishops, or by replacing them. Something needs to be done, for the salvation of souls.

We have enough Orthodox bishops to survive, and perhaps this small loss in numbers- will bring much in ways of salvation. Once again we need to trust God, and admit to ourselves, and the world- the Truth, about what is and isn't true, and what is and isn't Catholic. What I love about Catholicism, is that I doubt these excommunicated people get any reprieve in obeying every other regulation of the church. Even in mortal sin, every small evil we do- allows for more evil in our self, and world. Let us obey our bishops, and love them for who they represent.

Surely- God created a church for a reason- we may appeal for changes- but we must never despise, nor lead others to despise the authority of our valid bishops, and our pope.