Bishop Fellay's (SSPX) response to reunification

[Luigi_Daniele]

They too were wrong. We can go back 2,000 years and make very long lists of acts of disobedience. One instance does not make the other acceptable or tolerable.

That’s why I was saying that I’ll go with the two great fathers of the Middle Ages, Francis and Dominic. What they introduced into the Church, along with a new form of religious life never seen before, was a renewal of obedience. And if we follow their history, they have been in the thick of many issues and have managed to keep their heads, face the issues and remain obedient.

I don’t this it’s a coincidence that they are the largest religious families in the Church, with lay and religious members. They bring to the table a shining example of obedience, fidelity and discipline in the face of problems. They have probably dismissed more people for disobedience than all of the other religious communities in the Church. They don’t tolerate it, even when the bishop dances with the devil and the pope sleeps with the King.

At the same time, they’re not so rigid that they are closed dialogue and joint discernment. But they have rules for that dialogue. There are things that you cannot say and ways to say the things that you may want to say. They also have very clear the chain of command. They frown on jumping rungs.

The few problem children that they have are marginalized so as not to contaminate the entire family. It’s like when mom sent you to your room so that the rest of the family could have some peace.

I look at these two fathers and what they introduced into the Church and I always say to people, “Follow their example. Those who have followed it have thrived for 800 years.” When one of them comes out and says something like you mentioned, it does not go unnoticed or unchallenged by their superiors. The fact that someone did something wrong or worse is never accepted as an explanation.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Exactly, brother! Francis could have easily gone the route of the many “poverty” movements then present. The “problem” for Francis was that Francis loved the Church, warts and all, because he realized that the only bodily vision of Jesus Christ on earth was (and is) in the Eucharist. No priest = no Eucharist = no bodily experience of Him. So Francis did what anyone who loves the Eucharist would do: he submitted to the authority of the Roman pontiff. It is why now, 800 years later, we all know Franciscans and who they are, while no one other than historians even remembers the name of the other movements.
The SSPX must submit to the office of Peter, or they too will become a historical footnote. Not saying that there aren’t good people, even many of them, in the SSPX. I am saying that they all need to read Church history, and return home.

 

[Lormar]

**I’m going to go on a limb here and take the position of our two Holy Fathers, Francis and Dominic.

No matter how sinful the pope and the bishops may be, no matter how heretical the clergy, not matter how desolute the laity, communion with this sinful Church is more desirable than excommunication.**

An ordination of more bishops would be the kiss of death. As I said in a previous post, it would be looked at as a deliberate premeditated act. Once you get the moral theologians into the mix, your ship is sunk.

What saved the SSPX and their adherent before was that the moral theologians stayed out of the fray. The whole thing was handled by Canon Lawyers. Canon Lawyers are not theologians. The theologians tell us what is right and wrong.

Based on that information, the Canon Lawyers advice the pope on what laws are needed.

However, if you go that route of planing something like this or encouraging something like this, there is no reputable moral theologian who will be able to extricate you. Everyone involved and their supporters will be guilty of grave sin and can be labeled schismatic.

There is a difference between a schismatic act and a schismatic Catholic. A schismatic act is serious, but in the end, it can also be looked at as something foolish that was not well thought out. With 20+ years of experience, there is no way of saying, “They didn’t think this through.” I’ve never seen a Perry Mason of Canon Law.

**Take the advice of Francis and Dominic. I’m speaking to those on this thread. If there is such talk, go with the Church. It’s better to be with a Church full of sinner than to place yourself outside of the Church.
**
Let’s just think that this will blow over and the talks will continue. We’ll just have to be more patient.

The good news is that the SSPX has very little to do with most of us. We all have things to do for God and man in our own backyards without having to focus too much on the SSPX’s problems.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Brother, I rarely read what you write. Your posts are almost always too long. However, I have been reading your posts on this thread.

This particular post says it all and nothing more needs to be added.

Stick with the Church.

You can’t lose.

And here’s a line from MacBeth that fits in nicely:

Often time to win us to our harm, the instruments of darkness tell us truths and win us with honest trifles to betray us in deepest consequence.

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

Brother, I rarely read what you write. Your posts are almost always too long. :

You just got a taste of what you’re missing

 

[Big_Feet]

You just got a taste of what you’re missing

You have got that right!!!

 

[Lormar]

If I may make several observations without throwing stones at the SSPX or His Excellency.

I’ve read all of these posts and no one here has mentioned a key player in all of this. Every time that the SSPX comes up he is left out of the loop, but he is the man holding the key. Allow me to be ambiguous for a minute. When Bl. John Paul was pope, who took care of the daily problems while Pope John Paul dealt with the big picture?

If you said, Cardinal Ratzinger, you get a prize. It is no secret that this whole dialogue was placed in the hands of three theologians: a Jesuit, a Dominican and a Holy Cross (Opus Dei) under the direction of the Prefect for the Sacred Congregation for the Faith, Cardinal Levada. Why are you people ignoring this man?

He is the one who gave the SSPX the Preamble. I bring up the Cardinal, because if the SSPX bishops get too mouthy, the Cardinal has the authority to slam and dunk them. The pope will back him up. He will report to the Pope his impressions and make his suggestions and they will carry a lot of weight.

This leads me to the second point about this sermon. His Excellency spends too much time criticizing the Holy See. At one point he actually says, “You’re Modernists”. Having had a father who was a career diplomat, I learned a few things. One of them was that you never get into name calling when you’re negotiating. Name calling can be the death knoll of a negotiation. My father always said that if you start name calling, you’re no longer trying to negotiate, you’re attacking. I’m not inside His Excellency’s head. I don’t know if this crossed his mind when he used this unfortunate wording.

My other point is related. When you take name calling out to the crowds, as the bishop has done, it amounts to swarming. Some of you have pointed the finger at priests, bishops and religious who are disobedient and even heretical. The truth is that this has happened. There is a difference here. They have not gotten into a confrontation with the Holy See itself. The Holy See can step back and allow the lower levels of authority to deal with the problem. When you get in the Holy See’s face and you call it “Modernist” and you say “No *” you’ve raised the bar. You’ve gone beyond heterodoxy, beyond disobedience, beyond whatever other rules other people have broken. You have elevated yourself to a position of “equals”. Equals get in each other’s face, though it’s not a pretty picture. When a subordinate acts and talks as if he’s a peer, it’s insubordination.

As much as many of us would like to know the answers to some questions that the SSPX is asking, see the Holy See make some changes here and there, most of us who are clergy and religious, would never have the audacity to speak to the Holy See as if we were equals calling it names and stating flatly that we will not obey, even if we’re angry as heck.

Some people may admire that as honesty. I fear that it’s defiance. Don’t get me wrong. Other people are defiant too; but they do their defying under the radar, like teenagers. When they get caught, there are consequences, but they may not be as harsh, because they did not push authority.

An observation in defense of the Holy See, especially Cardinal Levada and his staff, the SSPX has told us what it considers to be wrong with Rome. Some of it is clear, reasonable, unreasonable and some makes no sense. Regardless, they minced no words in chewing up Rome and spitting it out.

Meanwhile, Rome has acted like a lady. She has not said a single negative word about the SSPX. I don’t believe that it’s because the SSPX is so perfect, behaved so well during these discussion and impressed the Holy See so much that it left the Holy See in awe. If that were the case, the Holy See would have given the SSPX a welcome home party last September and not a Preamble.

Obviously, the Holy See has its own opinions about the SSPX, but it has not taken them to the public. In fairness, it behooves us to acknowledge the politeness and discretion of the Holy See in this matter. Maybe we should express some gratitude for its dignified behavior. The Vatican has been much more gracious than the SSPX.

I would have been very simple for the Bishop to state that unfortunately they had be unable to reach an agreement. He could have told the people that things are at a standstill or that he’s awaiting a response to his response. He could have even enumerated the points that they still want clarified. That would have been acceptable and informative.

He could have done that with the utmost dignity, appropriate for a bishop, without the attitude. What I found that appalling from a bishop at a pulpit. Even Father Kung, was the epitome of a gentleman when he met with the pope. His comments after the meeting were brief. He did speak on the disagreements, but did not express himself with an attitude as if he were the pope’s equal.

I’ll close by recalling the fist time that I met Cardinal Ratzinger. I had heard that this man was the “pope’s Rottweiler” I was shaking in my boots as I walked into his office. I left in a state of shock. The man was everything that was courteous and humble. I was the subordinate. He did not have to be so polite and charming to me. Had he been distant or aloof, I would have accepted it. I look at the marked difference in the behaviors and it frightens me. At the end of the day, the attitude can make or break any negotiation.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF *

Another good one.

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

Another good one.

They’re all like that

 

[choliks]

I’m going to go on a limb here and take the position of our two Holy Fathers, Francis and Dominic.

No matter how sinful the pope and the bishops may be, no matter how heretical the clergy, not matter how desolute the laity, communion with this sinful Church is more desirable than excommunication.

…

Take the advice of Francis and Dominic. I’m speaking to those on this thread. If there is such talk, go with the Church. It’s better to be with a Church full of sinner than to place yourself outside of the Church.

…

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

One can never go wrong with Sts. Francis and Dominic.

I’ll throw in another Saint who came after the two Holy Fathers and echoed the same sound advice:
St. Ignatius of Loyola:

That we may be altogether of the same mind and in conformity with the Church herself, if she shall have defined anything to be black which appears to our eyes to be white, we ought in like manner to pronounce it to be black. For we must undoubtingly believe, that the Spirit of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the Spirit of the Orthodox Church His Spouse, by which Spirit we are governed and directed to Salvation, is the same; …

 

[Lormar]

Originally Posted by St. Ignatius of Loyola
That we may be altogether of the same mind and in conformity with the Church herself, if she shall have defined anything to be black which appears to our eyes to be white, we ought in like manner to pronounce it to be black. For we must undoubtingly believe, that the Spirit of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the Spirit of the Orthodox Church His Spouse, by which Spirit we are governed and directed to Salvation, is the same; …

That says it all.

 

[ProVobis]

Any statement made in public is serious. If charges are brought up against him in the Vatican accusing him of schism, there can be witnesses to attest that he indeed said such statement. I will go an extra mile from what Bro. JR said. Homily or not, he made a public statement. Anything he said can and will be used against him in the court of (canon) law, so to speak. Its not like he made a passing comment to one person that was accidentally witnessed by someone else. There must be dozens, maybe even hundreds of people there.

Is Bishop Fellay on trial here or do we really want to know the status of SSPX’s acceptance into a canonical structure? It seems to me that BF can easily send someone else to report on this or say nothing but chose instead to carry the message himself. If things aren’t going so smoothly, I’d like to think they are as a result of the SSPX benefactors forcing his hands here and not what BF really wants to do. I know he has to take the ultimate responsibility but I’m at least willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. We only gain one bishop if the other bishops, priests, and benefactors don’t go along.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Is Bishop Fellay on trial here or do we really want to know the status of SSPX’s acceptance into a canonical structure?

Doesn’t his comments factor in into deciding that?

It seems to me that BF can easily send someone else to report on this or say nothing but chose instead to carry the message himself. If things aren’t going so smoothly, I’d like to think they are as a result of the SSPX benefactors forcing his hands here and not what BF really wants to do. I know he has to take the ultimate responsibility but I’m at least willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. We only gain one bishop if the other bishops, priests, and benefactors don’t go along.

On the other hand, does he really want to risk schism? Doesn’t this tell you how much he believes in the Papacy then? I mean, if he believes in the true value of the papacy, then he wouldn’t follow the rest of the SSPX into schism if that is what everyone else wants to do, I would think.

 

[tafan]

I have speculated before on this before, and now I will do so again. Besides the possible doctrinal issues between the Church and SSPX, I suspect that SSPX does not want a personal prelature, as it is currently defined in canon law.

A personal prelature seems to fit personally for them, but it has some drawbacks that I suspect they would not accept. A Personal Prelature gives them in effect a non-geographical Diocese. Members of the personal prelature are then members of both their territorial dicoese and the personal prelature.
More importantly, the head is a Bishop, and while the Vatican certainly will give Opus Dei and SSPX, under normal situations the right to select their own Prelate; it gives the Pope an easy way to “take control” if something goes awry. If we remember the 1980s, Blessed John Paul II attempted to do so with the Jesuits, to very mixed results. It is tough for the Pope to exert that level of control over a relitigous order.
But with a personal prelature, not so much the case. The Pope, rarely does, but canonically can remove a bishop.
And even if it the Vatican does not do that, after the death of a prelate, as with territorial diocese, it would be even easier for the Pope to dictate who the next leader was.

I do not believe Opus Dei fears this at all. But I suspect that it would be a huge fear for a group that has been schismatic, ie as a group affected greatly from the sin of pride.

 

[JReducation]

I understand what you are saying Brother but when a Priest or Bishop states something in a homily or anywhere else for that matter,that is totally against what the Church teaches how can it be considered a formal statement rather than just a personal feeling or belief. I am having trouble getting my mind around that.

I see where you’re coming from . . . I think. If I’m wrong, please correct me.

You’re using the word formal in the same place where you would use the word “official”. Am I right?

A formal statement is one that is to be taken seriously because of the office of the person or the situation in which the statement is made or both. If a statement is made during a holy, that’s a formal setting. Therefore the statement is formal, even if it’s heretical.

If the statement is made by a bishop in a letter, he holds a formal office, therefore his statement is formal, even though it may be his opinion.

Official means that the speaker represents authority.

When a deacon, priest or bishop gets up to deliver a homily, it’s always formal, because a homily is not stand p comedy. It’s a formal situation. However, it’s only official, if it is in agreement with the Church. There are two ways to be in agreement with the Church. One may speak in agreement with established dogma, morals and laws or one may deliver a message by a person in authority to send the message, like the letter that the people heard last week at the parishes. The bishops have the authority to send that message. That was both formal and official.

I hope this clarifies it.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

I have speculated before on this before, and now I will do so again. Besides the possible doctrinal issues between the Church and SSPX, I suspect that SSPX does not want a personal prelature, as it is currently defined in canon law.

A personal prelature seems to fit personally for them, but it has some drawbacks that I suspect they would not accept. A Personal Prelature gives them in effect a non-geographical Diocese. Members of the personal prelature are then members of both their territorial dicoese and the personal prelature.
More importantly, the head is a Bishop, and while the Vatican certainly will give Opus Dei and SSPX, under normal situations the right to select their own Prelate; it gives the Pope an easy way to “take control” if something goes awry. If we remember the 1980s, Blessed John Paul II attempted to do so with the Jesuits, to very mixed results. It is tough for the Pope to exert that level of control over a relitigous order.
But with a personal prelature, not so much the case. The Pope, rarely does, but canonically can remove a bishop.
And even if it the Vatican does not do that, after the death of a prelate, as with territorial diocese, it would be even easier for the Pope to dictate who the next leader was.

I do not believe Opus Dei fears this at all. But I suspect that it would be a huge fear for a group that has been schismatic, ie as a group affected greatly from the sin of pride.

I’m not a Canon Lawyer and what there is in Canon Law about prelatures is not the whole of it. The Church never puts all the eggs into Canon Law. That’s too risky. You place many rules in other documents, letters and institutes and you pull them out as you need them. Besides, imagine if Canon Law contained every rule in the Church. You need a library.

For that reason, when people post some canons on CAF I smile and say to myself: “I’ll bet you $5 that I can find 5 letters, 3 constitutions, 4 dispensations, 6 exemptions and 9 text messages that explain this canon very differently from what you think it says.” Canon Law is not written to say everything that is in the mind of the Church. Some canons are to be taken as they are written, but some are the product of a lot of other regulations, deliberations, and ideas. They also have exceptions for this situation and that group, etc.

I’m not going to pretend to know exactly how a prelature works. From what I have observed in Opus Dei, the prelate has to be approved by the pope. The prelate is really the vicar of the pope, not like a Diocesan Ordinary or a Religious Superior. These men are no one’s vicar. They govern in communion with the Church, but they have the right to speak on their own authority. Theoretically, a pope can reign in a prelate. I don’t think it has ever be done.

The lay members of a prelature remain incardinated into their home diocese. They can participate in the life of the Prelature, but they must also comply with diocesan policies. For example, if the diocese has a specified waiting period for marriage, you must comply with that or ask for a dispensation from the requirement; but the prelate cannot grant the dispensation. Only the Diocesan Bishop can do so, because it’s his policy.

I’ve seen the Opus Dei always coordinate with the bishop before moving into a diocese. They are even listed in the diocesan directory, along with other independent, but legitimate Catholic organizations. This is actually good for the, because there is question about their canonical status.

Like the religious, the priests of the prelature get their faculties from the local bishop. Here is where I don’t know the difference.

In a religious community of men the superior of the house can grant faculties to any priest, his own or a visiting priest, to hear the confessions of the people under his care. He does not need to go to the bishop. He is the Ordinary of his house Also, bishops and laity may not set foot in a religious house of men without asking for permission from the superior. Superiors can also suspend their own men, by taking away their faculties. Finally, the superior does not have to consult the bishop to transfer his men, but he must get the bishop’s approval to appoint one of his men the pastor of a parish. Only bishops can install pastors. The superior assigns the man and informs the bishop. The bishop has the right to reject the man. A new pastor would have to be found or a parish administrator would be named.

I don’t know if the Prelate has the same authority as a superior.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Mike30]

I see where you’re coming from . . . I think. If I’m wrong, please correct me.

You’re using the word formal in the same place where you would use the word “official”. Am I right?

A formal statement is one that is to be taken seriously because of the office of the person or the situation in which the statement is made or both. If a statement is made during a holy, that’s a formal setting. Therefore the statement is formal, even if it’s heretical.

If the statement is made by a bishop in a letter, he holds a formal office, therefore his statement is formal, even though it may be his opinion.

Official means that the speaker represents authority.

When a deacon, priest or bishop gets up to deliver a homily, it’s always formal, because a homily is not stand p comedy. It’s a formal situation. However, it’s only official, if it is in agreement with the Church. There are two ways to be in agreement with the Church. One may speak in agreement with established dogma, morals and laws or one may deliver a message by a person in authority to send the message, like the letter that the people heard last week at the parishes. The bishops have the authority to send that message. That was both formal and official.

I hope this clarifies it.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Thanks for the clarification Brother. If I understand you correctly then it is quite possible that in the homily given by the Bishop he was stating his own opinion and not the opinion and position of the Society as a whole.

 

[CatholicSensei]

I’m not a licensed psychiatrist, so I cannot make an official diagnosis, so I make the remark for the sake of rhetoric.

First of all, after reading this homily had my head spinning. :hypno: It seems rather schizophrenic. ‘Yes you are the Authority. No you’re not! Yes we agree. No we don’t! This is Tradition. No it’s not!’ :hypno: :takeoff:

It all seems like it comes down to the deadly sin of pride. :dts:

It’s a sad shame really.

 

[JReducation]

Thanks for the clarification Brother. If I understand you correctly then it is quite possible that in the homily given by the Bishop he was stating his own opinion and not the opinion and position of the Society as a whole.

I didn’t read it as his opinion, because he’s saying,

“They said X”

“We said Y”

That’s not an opinion. That’s a report.

For example, he said ,

• “They asked if we acknowledge their authority.”
• “We said, ‘Yes we do’.”
• "They said, ‘Will you obey?’ "
• "We said, ‘No, because you’re Modernists.’ "

It looks to me as if he’s giving a report on the exchange. Granted, it’s in bullet form. I’m sure that they didn’t just sit there and play 20 Questions. I hope they didn’t.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[ProVobis]

It all seems like it comes down to the deadly sin of pride. :dts:

It’s a sad shame really.

Personally I think this applies more to Catholics who chose not to worship God at all. There are far more of them than those who attend the FSSPX Masses.

 

[JReducation]

Personally I think this applies more to Catholics who chose not to worship God at all. There are far more of them than those who attend the FSSPX Masses.

We must always remember the wise words of Teresa of Avila to her nuns, “We have all betrayed Him. Why the competition?”

Fratenally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[hazcompat]

Obedience is a wonderful grace.

peace

 

[pnewton]

We must always remember the wise words of Teresa of Avila to her nuns, “We have all betrayed Him. Why the competition?”

It is because is is far easier to point out the sins of others than examine our own. Yet still, there is a place to exhort each other to grow in holiness and humility.