M
maurin
Guest
Bishop Fellay is a Bishop of the Holy Roman Catholic Church. His Excellency Archbishop Lefebvre was an Archbishop.
Just for clarification.
Just for clarification.
- Status
J
JReducation
Guest
Not to get us completely off-track, but I believe that once you’re excommunicated you lose your title. In other words, you remain a bishop, but you are no longer an Archbishop or a Cardinal or an Ordinary.
The episcopal state is one of the orders in the Sacrament of Holy Orders. The rest are titles related to your position in the Church. When you are excommunicated, you lose your position; therefore, you lose the title that goes with the position. You cannot be an archbishop if you no longer have an archdiocese. In that case, Archbishop Lefebvre would be Bishop Lefebvre. All bishops have either an actual or a Titular See some are Bishop Emeritus. But when you’re excommunicated, you lose that See. You lose the title and privileges that came with that position.
I noticed that in speaking Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI refer to him as Lefebvre or Marciel Lefebvre, but not by the title bishop. My guess, only a guess, is that they do so to avoid using Bishop Lefebvre. People would notice the change from Archbishop to Bishop and there would be some hurt feelings. Neither of these men are out to hurt people.
As to the four SSPX bishops their proper title is Roman Catholic Bishops or Latin Catholic Bishops. Until their status is regularized, they do not use Bishop of the Roman Catholic Church.
For example, if a priest of the Archdiocese of NY is suspended, he is sitll a Catholic priest, but he is not a priest of the Catholic Church, because he does not have the right to function in that capacity until he is reinstated. The same applies to the four SSPX bishops.
It’s not a matter of law, it’s a matter of legal descriptions. The label describes your status in the Church. A Catholic priest is a priest who is a Catholic. However, it does not describe whether he is in good standing or not. A priest of the Catholic Church implies that he functions in the name of the Catholic Church. To do that, he must have canonical standing. This is what Pope Benedict is withholding from the SSPX clergy: deacons, priests and bishops.
Nonetheless, it is appropriate and polite to refer to them as Most Rev. Bernard Fellay, Bishop Fellay, or His Excellency. It is equally right and just to treat them with the respect that is proper for a deacon, priest or bishop.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
L
laszlo
Guest
The bishops of the Roman Catholic Church has double power:
- the sacramental power, what bishop Fellay received through his valid ordination
- the jurisdictional power what bishop Fellay does not have through his suspension
M
maurin
Guest
Laslo, please, I beg you. If what you say is true then the Priests he ordained, or those ordained by other SSpX Bishops, when leaving the Society and forming the FSSP, for example, wouldn’t be allowed to operate as Priests in the institutional Church. Try as you may, Rome treats the Society as within the Church.
And may God Bless the Bishops of the Society in the One Holy Catholic Church.
M
maurin
Guest
Brother JR,
Maybe you didn’t hear that the Pope lifted the excommunications and all their effects quite some time ago?
Maybe you didn’t hear that the Pope lifted the excommunications and all their effects quite some time ago?
J
JReducation
Guest
A validly ordained bishop, even an excommunicated one, can validly ordain. The ordination is ilicit (illegal), but valid. There is no problem there.
What Archbishop Lefebvre lost at his excommunication was his jurisdiction. He ceased to be an archbishop. Once you’re excommunicated, you have no jurisdiction.
I hope you’re being funny.
I completely understand that the excommunication of the four bishops was lifted. However, they remain suspended a divinis. Therefore, they have no canonical place in the Church. When you have no canonical place you cannot calll yourself a Bishop of the Roman Catholic Church, because you do not have the auhority to function on behalf of the Church. That’s what it means not to have a canonical place.
However, because they are Catholic bishops and are within the Church as of the lifiting of the excommunication, they are properly Catholic bishops.
There is a difference between being a Catholic bishop and a bishop who can function on behalf of the Church.
This is the part that Pope Benedict is withholding from all the clerics of the SSPX. He will not grant them faculties and lift the suspensions until the issues are resolved. Therefore, they cannot legitimately function on behalf of the Church except in matters of life and death.
That’s the difference between a Catholic bishop and a bishop of the Catholic Church. The latter can act on behalf of the Church, the former you don’t know. All you know is that he is inside the Church and is ordained.
See the difference?
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
I am not so sure that one loses their title.
For example. When the Eparchy of Newton (the US eparchy for the Melkites) became open they moved an existing Archbishop from Lebanon to it. He no longer had an archeparchy but he retained the title of Archbishop.
M
maurin
Guest
Yes, I was attempting humor. In no way did I mean to offend you, Br. JR. Please accept my sincere apology.A validly ordained bishop, even an excommunicated one, can validly ordain. The ordination is ilicit (illegal), but valid. There is no problem there.
What Archbishop Lefebvre lost at his excommunication was his jurisdiction. He ceased to be an archbishop. Once you’re excommunicated, you have no jurisdiction.
I hope you’re being funny.
I completely understand that the excommunication of the four bishops was lifted. However, they remain suspended a divinis. Therefore, they have no canonical place in the Church. When you have no canonical place you cannot calll yourself a Bishop of the Roman Catholic Church, because you do not have the auhority to function on behalf of the Church. That’s what it means not to have a canonical place.
However, because they are Catholic bishops and are within the Church as of the lifiting of the excommunication, they are properly Catholic bishops.
There is a difference between being a Catholic bishop and a bishop who can function on behalf of the Church.
This is the part that Pope Benedict is withholding from all the clerics of the SSPX. He will not grant them faculties and lift the suspensions until the issues are resolved. Therefore, they cannot legitimately function on behalf of the Church except in matters of life and death.
That’s the difference between a Catholic bishop and a bishop of the Catholic Church. The latter can act on behalf of the Church, the former you don’t know. All you know is that he is inside the Church and is ordained.
See the difference?
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
And no, I really do not see the difference. But you should know I have never received any awards or acclamations for any intellectual achievements or activities.
I apologise for my offense.
T
TMC
Guest
I hate to be a wet blanket, but nothing in this interview gives me any hope that the SSPX will be able to be fully reunited with the Church anytime soon. Bishop Fellay begins the interview by saying the Church’s goal is to convince SSPX to accept Vatican II, but that the SSPX’s goal is to convince the Church that Vatican II was wrong. He says, for example, that Vatican II created contradictions between what the Church now teaches and the Tradition of the Church. He says this in response to Question 1, and that stance is again reflected in his answers to Questions 6 and 7. In response to Question 29, he says that beatifying John Paul II is a “serious problem” because (according to him) John Paul II led the Church “in the wrong direction.” That does not sound like an organization that is prepared to truly accept the authority of the Magisterium - more like they are still hoping that the Church will conform to the SSPX, rather than vice versa.
Don’t get me wrong, the talks are a good thing and its good to see at least some people in that movement trying to reconcile with the Church, but (based on this interview, which is all I have to go on) it doesn’t seem like the SSPX leadership is any closer to coming home than they were a year ago.
Don’t get me wrong, the talks are a good thing and its good to see at least some people in that movement trying to reconcile with the Church, but (based on this interview, which is all I have to go on) it doesn’t seem like the SSPX leadership is any closer to coming home than they were a year ago.
M
maurin
Guest
It is interesting how two can be presented with the same starting point and reach absolutely different conclusions. The interview fills me with hope. For the Church, for the Society and for the Faithful. To borrow from the Cristeros: Viva Cristo Re!!
J
JReducation
Guest
He was not excommunicated. That’s like Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen. He was no longer an archbishop of an existing see. But he gets to keep the titular title.
When you’re excommunicated you lose your office. The title goes with the office. Do you see the difference? He remains a bishop. That cannot be taken away from him. One call call him either Bishop or Archbishop, canonically it won’t change his status. Only lifting the excommunication will change his status.
In this case, you cannot lift an excommunication of someone who has passed away. You would have to go backward and say that it was invalid. Once you pass away, you are no longer a member of the physical Church. What is there to lift? I’m not a Canon Lawyer. I’m going on my two-year course of canon law from theology, which as you know only scratches the surfface by giving you the logic to read the laws and a few commentaries on the more common cases.
This is is how I would answer the question about lifting an excommunication of a deceased person. A good example was Joan of Arc. Her excommunication was not lifted. It was declared invalid by the pope. There have been a few others. There is the Australian saint, Mary McCallop (sp?), though she was alive when the situation was resolved.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
T
Timothy17
Guest
From the Article :
I. Clearly we should not attend, say, a sedevacantist Mass or any Mass that disregards the liturgical rubrics or does injury to the Holy Mass, as to defile or otherwise risk scandalizing the faithful. Most lay faithful are not liturgical experts ; we are dependent upon those who are familiar with rubrics (i.e., the priests), etc., to counsel us in this regard. The Mass, properly celebrated, always edifies, as the Bishop says. It is our mana in the desert ; therefore, the Bishop’s admonishment that those who presently attend SSPX Masses consult with them before attending a Mass offered by others is quite prudent.
II. The Bishop by no means gives even the slightest indication that those who attend SSPX Masses are somehow not permitted to attend other EF Masses ; in fact, he is saying the opposite, and making it clear that attending any EF Mass (correctly celebrated) is always a very rich, spiritually edifying good.
Pax Christi,
Tim
This has raised some undue contention and criticism. Please consider the following :
I. Clearly we should not attend, say, a sedevacantist Mass or any Mass that disregards the liturgical rubrics or does injury to the Holy Mass, as to defile or otherwise risk scandalizing the faithful. Most lay faithful are not liturgical experts ; we are dependent upon those who are familiar with rubrics (i.e., the priests), etc., to counsel us in this regard. The Mass, properly celebrated, always edifies, as the Bishop says. It is our mana in the desert ; therefore, the Bishop’s admonishment that those who presently attend SSPX Masses consult with them before attending a Mass offered by others is quite prudent.
II. The Bishop by no means gives even the slightest indication that those who attend SSPX Masses are somehow not permitted to attend other EF Masses ; in fact, he is saying the opposite, and making it clear that attending any EF Mass (correctly celebrated) is always a very rich, spiritually edifying good.
Pax Christi,
Tim
J
JReducation
Guest
As usual, you’re an example of honesty. I thank you for the apology. I was unsure what to make of it.
As to what the difference is, let’s try it this way.
SCENARIO # 1: Catholic Bishop
Tells you several things:
he’s a Catholic
he’s a bishop
therefore, he is validly ordained
SCENARIO # 2: a Bishop of the Roman Catholic Church
Tells you several things:
- Everything in scenario # 1
- He has authority to speak for the Church
- He has authority to preside at liturgical functions in the name of the Church (such as profession of vows by a religious)
- He has the athority to govern in the name of the Church
- He has the authority to vote in the Conference of Bishops
- He must be allowed to celebrate mass in any Catholic Church
- He must be given faculties to hear confessions by the local bishop when he visits a diocese
- He can be authorized to represent the Catholic Church in legal matters such as the purchase and sale of property, etc.
- Therefore: he is a bishop, in good standing with the Church, sent to the people by the Church.
With the second scenario you have everything that’s in the first, plus you have the juridical authority that a bishop of the Catholic Church would automatically have.
As long as they are suspended, they cannot legally act on behalf of the Church It is illicit to do so and in some instances, it can be invalid, if faculties are required. This raises the whole question about marriages and absolution (excepting emergencies).
It is in everyone’s best interest to get the suspensions lifted. Once they are lifted, there are no more doubts about what is licit and what is valid, what can I pay attention to when Bishop Fellay speaks and what do I politely nod at, but not act on it, etc. The average person in the pew does not always know these fine lines. Some of them are very fine.
This is something that disappointed me about the article. The interviewer never asked about the suspensions, their effects and the effects of having them lifted. Either there is a Part II to the interview or the inteviewer was only asking the questions that made the SSPX look good. If it’s the latter, the interview is skewed.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
M
malphono
Guest
Which seems to be the same as in the case of Mgr Lefebvre. The formal 1988 decree did indeed refer to Mgr Lefebvre as “Archbishop-Bishop Emeritus of Tulle” which implies recognition of his status as Archbishop. Were he being stripped of the title, it could easily have been so stated in the decree.
I’m not a canon lawyer either (deo gratias) but I don’t see that it’s not possible to lift an excommunication posthumously. Since the Roman Pontiff is the ultimate legislator, he can essentially do what he sees fit.
I’m not sure that’s a good example. The big difference there is that the excommunication was invalid from the get-go. It was politically motivated, and Ste Jeanne was denied her right of appeal to the Holy Father before her summary execution and martyrdom.
M
maurin
Guest
I believe, though, that what needs to be emphasized from my initial post which brought us to this point is that the decree of the lifting of the 4 Bishops’ excommunication contained the line “and all of its effects.” Of course, I have not personally read the decree, but I value His Excellency as a most credible and reliable witness, if I may borrow a phrase from one of Msgr. Giussani’s books.As usual, you’re an example of honesty. I thank you for the apology. I was unsure what to make of it.
As to what the difference is, let’s try it this way.
SCENARIO # 1: Catholic Bishop
Tells you several things:
he’s a Catholic
he’s a bishop
therefore, he is validly ordained
SCENARIO # 2: a Bishop of the Roman Catholic Church
Tells you several things:
With the first scenario comes the sacramental character and the communion with the Church.
- Everything in scenario # 1
- He has authority to speak for the Church
- He has authority to preside at liturgical functions in the name of the Church (such as profession of vows by a religious)
- He has the athority to govern in the name of the Church
- He has the authority to vote in the Conference of Bishops
- He must be allowed to celebrate mass in any Catholic Church
- He must be given faculties to hear confessions by the local bishop when he visits a diocese
- He can be authorized to represent the Catholic Church in legal matters such as the purchase and sale of property, etc.
- Therefore: he is a bishop, in good standing with the Church, sent to the people by the Church.
With the second scenario you have everything that’s in the first, plus you have the juridical authority that a bishop of the Catholic Church would automatically have.
As long as they are suspended, they cannot legally act on behalf of the Church It is illicit to do so and in some instances, it can be invalid, if faculties are required. This raises the whole question about marriages and absolution (excepting emergencies).
It is in everyone’s best interest to get the suspensions lifted. Once they are lifted, there are no more doubts about what is licit and what is valid, what can I pay attention to when Bishop Fellay speaks and what do I politely nod at, but not act on it, etc. The average person in the pew does not always know these fine lines. Some of them are very fine.
This is something that disappointed me about the article. The interviewer never asked about the suspensions, their effects and the effects of having them lifted. Either there is a Part II to the interview or the inteviewer was only asking the questions that made the SSPX look good. If it’s the latter, the interview is skewed.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
L
laszlo
Guest
Here are the 2008 requirements for union with the SSPX
The term in the last condition is gone, but this excludes only the immediate reconciliation. The Essence is #3. Bishop Fellay seems to tend toward that.
newliturgicalmovement.org/2008/06/five-conditions-asked-of-sspx.html
The term in the last condition is gone, but this excludes only the immediate reconciliation. The Essence is #3. Bishop Fellay seems to tend toward that.
J
JReducation
Guest
The problem with this response, Tim, is a problem of authority. A Catholic is bound to attend a licit mass. To deliberately drive past a church that has a licit EF mass to attend the SSPX chapel, because the SSPX priest adviced you not to go to that particular mass is an act of disobedience on the part of the Catholic. The Catholic does not have the right to make that choice. It would be like attending an Orthodox mass when there is a Catholic mass available.
The rule is that you can attend mass at the SSPX chapels to fulfill your Sunday obligation. But the rule also says that this is permissible as long as it does not constitute any kind of fidelity or support for the SSPX. That has not changed even with the lifting of the excommunication of the bishops.
The point of authority is that the priest of the SSPX do not have authority to celebrate mass. Second, Catholics do not have the freedom to attend an ilicit mass when there is a licit one available. There is a disregard for ecclesial authority all over the place here.
. The priests of the Society of St. Pius X are validly ordained, but suspended, that is prohibited from exercising their priestly functions because they are not properly incardinated in a diocese or religious institute in full communion with the Holy See (cf. canon 265)
This is the crux of the matter. One has to ask, a legitimate question. Can one receive grace while at the same time deliberately disobeying the Pontiff? Attending an illicit mass when a licit one is available in the same form, is an act of disobedience. Disobedience with the Pontiff is what John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI keep saying that if one does it enough times, eventually one finds that he or she is no longer in communion with the Successor of Peter.
I believe that Bishop Fellay’s response is placing a great deal of emphasis on the graces received through the proper celebration of the EF, but hs is ignoring the graces that are impaired through deliberate disobedience to the Pontiff. It’s the old saying, you can’t do a wrong to achieve a good.
In the end, the Holy Mass is the same Holy Mass with the same graces in any form and in any rite. Pope Benedict made this very clear in SP. If this priest who celebrates the EF over there has a quirk that the SSPX priest may not have, it does not take away from the efficacy of the mass. He would have to celebrate an invalid mass to do that. I’m not advocating for quirks. I’m simply stating a fact. A quirk does not impair the grace of the Mass.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
J
JReducation
Guest
If you mean suspension by this phrase, this does not apply. A suspension a divinis is not an effect of excommunication. Observe that only the bishops were excommunicated. The deacons and priest of the SSPX were suspended and the suspensions have not been lifted.
Also, the Pope said, “they have no canonical status”. Once you lift the suspension, you are giving canonical status. To maintain one inside the Church, but at the same time deprive them of the authority to exercise their ministry, you take away canonical status. Therefore, the suspension remains in place.
I’m not blaming Bishop Fellay for not addressing it. He was never asked to address it. The interviewer should have asked the question, especially ask about the advantages to the faithful to have the suspensions lifted.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
T
Timothy17
Guest
Pardon me, but why would a SSPX priest tell a Catholic not to attend a licit EF Mass ? This seems very presumptuous on your part ; I’m sorry if my response was unclear, but the article clearly states that their desire is exaclty to ensure Catholics attend licit, valid EF Masses.
Again, the Bishop’s words are clear, he finds the proliferation of the EF a good thing, he only worries that they be properly celebrated (obviously, that would mean licit).
Oh, do please provide a link to “the rule” ! I would very, very much like to read the official document outlining the present situation regarding the SSPX and communion with Rome, and what Catholics are to think about it
Thanking you in advance,
Tim
M
maurin
Guest
No, Brother JR, I meant it in the mode in which we were discussing it. The suspensions are a different subject. Let us be clear, the Priests are suspended. I do not wish anyone to say I argue against it.If you mean suspension by this phrase, this does not apply. A suspension a divinis is not an effect of excommunication. Observe that only the bishops were excommunicated. The deacons and priest of the SSPX were suspended and the suspensions have not been lifted.
Also, the Pope said, “they have no canonical status”. Once you lift the suspension, you are giving canonical status. To maintain one inside the Church, but at the same time deprive them of the authority to exercise their ministry, you take away canonical status. Therefore, the suspension remains in place.
I’m not blaming Bishop Fellay for not addressing it. He was never asked to address it. The interviewer should have asked the question, especially ask about the advantages to the faithful to have the suspensions lifted.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
However, Rome certainly does NOT behave as if this is so. You say it yourself: one fulfills one’s obligtation at their Masses. One may even modestly contribute financially at such a Mass, according to Cardinal Castrillon.
Rome allows Priests of the Society who were Ordained by the Society’s Bishops to function as Priests when they enter Societies such as the FSSP. Rome accepts Society Priests’ absolution of serious sins such as abortion, whose absolution is reserved to the Pope, I belive?, when the Society submits the case to Rome.
Contradictions abound!
- Status