- Exkommunizierte allegedly - the general-upper the priest brother shank pc. Pius X. received the youngest Motu Proprio nevertheless one week before the publication. With an interesting accompanying letter.

(, Ecône kreuz.net) on Tuesday bishop Bernard Fellay of the lefebvristischen US monthly newspaper granted `Remnant' an interview. Mons. Fellay is the general-upper the priest brother shank pc. Pius X. the bishop spoke about the Motu Proprio `Summorum Pontificum'.

He welcomed the appearance of the papal letter as „a very important historical event “in church history and in nachkonziliaren history.

The bishop appreciated „the courageous “and „large “act of the Pope. That is a first step, but not the end of the church crisis.

One cannot expect that the things became suddenly perfect. At the same time is important it to see, how the document is in the future used.

Bishop Fellay rates the Begleitbrief of the Pope to the bishops as product of the used, kurialen foam language.

But it considers a statement particularly interesting. The Pope calls the reconciliation in the church as reason for the publication of the Motu Proprio. Mons. Fellay: „That means that we are not outside of the church. “

Mons believes nevertheless. Fellay not that the letter shows altogether the thoughts of the Pope. The text is political „“.

The place, where the holy father calls „the acknowledgment of the value and the holyness in of the rite in his renewed form “, is more than unfortunate for bishop Fellay: „It plays both sides against each other. “

The modern bishops would use this point, in order to dismantle the Motu Proprio.

Cancelling of the Exkommunikationen?
In the interview bishop Fellay explained also that the Vatikan against the four bishops of the Piusbruderschaft considered the cancelling of the Exkommunikation less difficult than the release of the old persons fair.

That communicated the Präfekt of the papal commission `Ecclesia to it Dei', Dario cardinal Castrillon Hoyos, personally in a Begleitbrief - together with the Motu the Proprio one week before its publication with Mons. Fellay arrived.

This letter was the first contact between the cardinal and bishop Fellay since 15 November 2005.

Sentinel: @Benedikt

I followed the illogical remarks of my Vorposter with my remarks only and tried these into a language to translate, which understands everyone!

Naturally it is clear me that one does not become the Häretiker, because one did not stop another Häretiker!

All the much more intelligently than you you should hold me then nevertheless.

It concerned to me here the linguistic-material derivative of this expression one my Vorposter, which referred exactly to this small detail.

That not like that to be can, was before already clear me. But why then you're welcome stated that Paul VI. was a Häretiker, if he represented nevertheless no erring teachings (not even of bishop LeFebvre)?

Can you explain this at least logically, or how its Vorposter saves itself with this topic equally into illogical Ausflüchte, so that I can present afterwards again only `falsche' the derivative, like probably me because of the truth is been?

Benedikt: @ Sentinel

Going by an erring teacher, since it recognized the Häresie the brother shank and did not express not the Häretikerbann over it!

That is a renewed proof that you understand about these things as well as nothing.

1. Paul VI. condemned the way of the FSSPX very probably, i.e. in the document „Cum Te “, with which he justified the dissolution of the FSSPX opposite Lefebvre.

2. One does not become Häretiker, because one did not recognize the Häresie of another. Look up these whole terms rather times in a technical book.

Sentinel: @Benedikt

Going by an erring teacher, since it recognized the Häresie the brother shank and did not express not the Häretikerbann over it!

Ironically however a Häretiker cannot express this spell over another Häretiker. Otherwise it would have also done to Pope Paul VI.!

Is somehow logical, if one leads oneself times more exactly and more dezierter the Geschwurbel of our dear Rudolfus to mind. Then one comes automatically on this conclusion.

Whether it a fallacy is to me that property so far yet did not answer. And I translated its Geschwurbel only into normal German and inquired with the nuclear statement.

Benedikt: @ Sentinel

Gradually becomes embarrassing for it, because they attack the wrong one again and again. Concentrate please on better goals, which spread also this imbecility here, with which I only inquire myself, how some statements meant or is to be understood!

Do not evade nevertheless. They stated down, Paul VI. was in the case of the FSSPX an erring teacher.

Kasperschüler †: @sentinel

The quoted sentences (instead of „KKK 94 “it must by the way be called „KKK 836 “, sorry!) are to be understood as „häretisch “in the broader sense, similarly as also in „the Syllabus “about Pius IXTH and in „Lamentabili “about Pius X. the condemned doctrines in paraphrasierender form being represented, i.e. necessarily literally shown to be often not have. The sense content, and/or the intention, which is throughout met with these formulations, is crucial. „Schisma “means splitting off from the true, catholic and apostolischen church. It is consequence of Häresie or Apostasie (denial of Christ as true God and Welterlöser, denial of the catholic church as the alone blessed-making), not however substitute (replacement) of it!

… should it each individual statement in a separate comment more exactly explain. Broadly and in detail, so that it also everyone in such a way understands, how they meant it.
But on the one hand the place is missing, on the other hand has I neither the time nor the money to unfold in detail all this. In the assortment of the catholic publishing house Anton Schmid (pro fide catholica) in addition, enough good literature is to be found to Durach, in which exactly this is done!

Beyond the works, already indicated, in particular the following are recommended:

1. Johannes Rothkranz, the council explanation over the Relgionsfreiheit (edited version: Caution! Wolves in the sheep fur)

2. ders., 44 mistakes over the Judentum

3. [left] Helmut Friedlmayer, the erring teachings in the new Weltkatechismus [left] http://… ww.verlag anton schmid.de/… es/irrle_kat.htm [lin…

Sentinel: more @Kasperschüler

Surely,

that this häretische statements are?

I tend rather to see these as Schismen. Although some it is quite compatible with the catholic teachings this is not called that they represent Häretiken.

If you are understood thus correctly - and here not when provocateur for some persons to be valid to want, they should explain agent more exactly each individual statement in a separate comment. Broadly and in detail, so that it also everyone in such a way understands, how they meant it.