Bishop Fellay's (SSPX) response to reunification

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

From what I hear it is about Religous Liberty and Ecumenism.
That is very general, but I believe those are the main issues.

The Society [rightly] believes that error has no rights ie: false religions.
They should be tolerated for the civic good but that is all.

They believe [rightly] that true ecumenism is what Pius XI stated in “Mortalium Animos”, that all men must come into the Catholic Church to attain salvation, for outside of the spotless Bride of Christ no one can be saved.

We must teach all men in charity the truth because if we confirm them in their error it is false compassion/charity.

From what I heard this is it in a nutshell.

Don’t see much difference from my understanding of what the Church actually teaches on these matters except for the second one.

The Church [rightly] states that there is no salvation outside of the Church but God is merciful so we can not truly state that no one outside will not find salvation but if they do it is through Christ.

It is very hard for us as fallen beings to make definitive statements about God in this manner.

While the Church may definitively state that someone is in Heaven (through canonization) it will never state that someone is in Hell. For all we know Hell is empty and that is something that we should hope and pray for.

 

[Old_Salt]

This might help:

youtube.com/watch?v=GCf8C1Xcpds

 

[JReducation]

Br. JR, but what about papal decrees such as clearly and explicitly stated in Veterum Sapientia or Ecclesia Dei, which decreed that the 1962 Missal be made “wide and generous”? There were many bishops who openly opposed this decree.

These documents did not carry the weight of law. They were meant to clarify a false assumption, that being that the Tridentine form had been abrogated. They fraternally ask the bishops to make possible a wider availability of the EF of the mass. There was a deliberate reason why the Holy See did not write these documents as law.

First: You can’t order a bishop to provide the Extraordinary Form of the mass if his diocesan priests don’t want to celebrate it. Law can never order the unreasonable.

Second: Only secular priests that belong to dioceses can celebrate the Extraordinary Form without asking for permission. If you are a religious or a secular priest who belongs to a society of apostolic life, the documents are clear that you must look to the major superior and the laws that govern your community to see if you can celebrate the Tridentine Form in public or not. The permission was given for priests of religious orders to celebrate the Tridentine Form in private. However, there is a catch here. If you belong to a religious order, the superior of the house decides if and when you can celebrate mass. In essence all that the pope did was to say to priests who are religious, "when you have permission to celebrate mass in private, you may use the Tridentine Form; but you may never use the Tridentine form in public unless your superior grants permission. Superiors cannot grant that permission, if the Tridentine form is not allowed by the laws that govern the religious community or the society of apostolic life. Only the chapter can give the superior the authority to allow or prohibit what’s not already in Canon Law or in the constitutions.

As you can see, when you have so many exceptions, you cannot impose on the bishops such a command. You have to word it as a request. Bishops cannot force diocesan priests to celebrate the Tridentine mass and they certainly cannot dictate to religious superiors. Male religious superiors are of equal rank to a bishop. They are Ordinaries.

This allows the bishops room to decline, drag their feet, think about it and for some of them, finding a priest who meets the requirements is a real problem. I know one bishop who found a priest who knows Latin fluently. He asked him. The priest asked his superior and the superior said, “Only on special occasions.” I know another diocese that had no one step up to the plate and volunteer to celebrate it.

An order can only command that which is doable. These documents cannot make this a law, because it would be setting the bishops up for non-compliance. When people say that the bishops are disobeying the pope because they are not providing the EF, they are mistaken. The pope never ordered them to do so. He requested it. It is not disobedience. It’s not something that I would do, but it’s not disobedience. If the pope requested something from me, I’d try my best to make it happen and if I can’t make it happen, I would let him know that I tried. We have to be very careful to know what we’re talking about when we use canonical language. Disobedience is a very strong canonical term.

Can I say, respectfully, that I sigh a very long sigh internally at just seeing this thread every time I come onto the forums? I am so weary of all these arguments about and with the SSPX.

How about: “Holy Father, tell us what we should do, and we will immediately do it out of holy obedience?” It would be a very short and simple conversation.

May God have mercy on us all.

The Holy Father cannot do that, because it is not his place to micromanage the Church. That’s the reason that we have a Holy See. Below the Holy See, we have departments, committees, and below them we have dioceses and religious orders. The pyramid exists for a reason. It has existed since the time of the Apostles. It’s just bigger today, because the Church is spread farther.

Aside from the size of the Church, which does not allow the pope to micromanage it, there is a matter of priorities. Each papacy has its own priorities. For this papacy the priorities are the conversion of Europe, continuing dialogue with Muslims and Jews, theological development, and the abuse problem.

The pope is only one man. He already has his agenda set. When these things come up, they have to be handed over to the proper authorities to handle. It is frustrating to have to wait and see, but there is no way that we can expect the pope to deal with so many things.

He is still a priest. He has to stop to fulfill his priestly obligations, at least to pray his breviary. Generally, unless he’s traveling, his workday is about 6 hours. The rest of his time is spent attending to his priestly duties and to his research and writing.

We can’t ask him to micromanage. It’s not his place to do that. In order to do so, he would have to clone himself and burn himself out.

We have to be patient.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

This might help:

youtube.com/watch?v=GCf8C1Xcpds

This has nothing to do with the SSPX.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Old_Salt]

This has nothing to do with the SSPX.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

I was partly answering ByzCatholics statement
“While the Church may definitively state that someone is in Heaven (through canonization) it will never state that someone is in Hell. For all we know Hell is empty and that is something that we should hope and pray for.”

 

[Old_Salt]

These documents did not carry the weight of law. They were meant to clarify a false assumption, that being that the Tridentine form had been abrogated. They fraternally ask the bishops to make possible a wider availability of the EF of the mass. There was a deliberate reason why the Holy See did not write these documents as law.

First: You can’t order a bishop to provide the Extraordinary Form of the mass if his diocesan priests don’t want to celebrate it. Law can never order the unreasonable.

Second: Only secular priests that belong to dioceses can celebrate the Extraordinary Form without asking for permission. If you are a religious or a secular priest who belongs to a society of apostolic life, the documents are clear that you must look to the major superior and the laws that govern your community to see if you can celebrate the Tridentine Form in public or not. The permission was given for priests of religious orders to celebrate the Tridentine Form in private. However, there is a catch here. If you belong to a religious order, the superior of the house decides if and when you can celebrate mass. In essence all that the pope did was to say to priests who are religious, "when you have permission to celebrate mass in private, you may use the Tridentine Form; but you may never use the Tridentine form in public unless your superior grants permission. Superiors cannot grant that permission, if the Tridentine form is not allowed by the laws that govern the religious community or the society of apostolic life. Only the chapter can give the superior the authority to allow or prohibit what’s not already in Canon Law or in the constitutions.

As you can see, when you have so many exceptions, you cannot impose on the bishops such a command. You have to word it as a request. Bishops cannot force diocesan priests to celebrate the Tridentine mass and they certainly cannot dictate to religious superiors. Male religious superiors are of equal rank to a bishop. They are Ordinaries.

This allows the bishops room to decline, drag their feet, think about it and for some of them, finding a priest who meets the requirements is a real problem. I know one bishop who found a priest who knows Latin fluently. He asked him. The priest asked his superior and the superior said, “Only on special occasions.” I know another diocese that had no one step up to the plate and volunteer to celebrate it.

An order can only command that which is doable. These documents cannot make this a law, because it would be setting the bishops up for non-compliance. When people say that the bishops are disobeying the pope because they are not providing the EF, they are mistaken. The pope never ordered them to do so. He requested it. It is not disobedience. It’s not something that I would do, but it’s not disobedience. If the pope requested something from me, I’d try my best to make it happen and if I can’t make it happen, I would let him know that I tried. We have to be very careful to know what we’re talking about when we use canonical language. Disobedience is a very strong canonical term.

The Holy Father cannot do that, because it is not his place to micromanage the Church. That’s the reason that we have a Holy See. Below the Holy See, we have departments, committees, and below them we have dioceses and religious orders. The pyramid exists for a reason. It has existed since the time of the Apostles. It’s just bigger today, because the Church is spread farther.

Aside from the size of the Church, which does not allow the pope to micromanage it, there is a matter of priorities. Each papacy has its own priorities. For this papacy the priorities are the conversion of Europe, continuing dialogue with Muslims and Jews, theological development, and the abuse problem.

The pope is only one man. He already has his agenda set. When these things come up, they have to be handed over to the proper authorities to handle. It is frustrating to have to wait and see, but there is no way that we can expect the pope to deal with so many things.

He is still a priest. He has to stop to fulfill his priestly obligations, at least to pray his breviary. Generally, unless he’s traveling, his workday is about 6 hours. The rest of his time is spent attending to his priestly duties and to his research and writing.

We can’t ask him to micromanage. It’s not his place to do that. In order to do so, he would have to clone himself and burn himself out.

We have to be patient.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

The Holy Father unilaterally gave us “Summorum Pontificum”.
No one else was involved in issuing this.
Pope Benedict XVI also unilaterally lifted the excommunications of the FSSPX bishops.
No one else had the say so in this matter.

 

[JReducation]

The Holy Father unilaterally gave us “Summorum Pontificum”.
No one else was involved in issuing this.

No one has said anything different. That was not the question.

The question was about the bishops who appear to disobey. I explained that they are not disobeying, because these documents were not issued as law. The Holy Father could not issue them as law, because he cannot command the bishops to do what is impossible for them to do.

The bishops have no authority to command any diocesan priest to celebrate the EF.

The bishops have no authority to demand that a religious superior allow the EF in one of his parishes.

The pope told priests who are diocesan that they MAY celebrate the EF without permission. He did not say that they MUST do so.

He told priests who are religious that they have to get permission from their major superiors who must act according to the laws of their religious communities. If the laws of the religious community says that they may not celebrate the EF, the major superior cannot grant the permission.

In most cases, the constitutions do not say anything about the EF. But they do say that the major superior can unilaterally decides the liturgical life of the community. In those communities where the superior has the power to make unilateral decisions about the liturgical life of the men, he has the power to deny permission to celebrate the EF in the parishes under his care.

Because you cannot force a secular priest to celebrate the EF, nor can you force a religious superior to allow the EF, you cannot command bishops to make the EF available. The most you can do is to request that they do so. That’s what pope Benedict does in Summorum Pontificum. He makes a request of the bishops and puts Ecclesia Dei at their disposal if they need help.

That was the point.

Pope Benedict XVI also unilaterally lifted the excommunications of the FSSPX bishops.
No one else had the say so in this matter.

This was not part of the question. I will ask you this. How are you so sure that no one knew about this before the pope signed these papers?

Most popes consult with their prefects. The decision was his. That does not mean that he did not consult. His prefects did not seem surprised be either Summorum Pontificum or the lifting of the excommunications. Cardinal Arinze, who was in charge of Divine Worship and Cardinal Levada, who was in charge of the Congregation for the Faith, seemed to be very well informed when they were asked about these things.

Again, this was not the question. The question was whether or not the bishop who do not implement the EF are disobeying. The answer is that canonically, they are not, because they were not commanded to do so. They were encouraged and asked to do it.

I repeat. If the pope asked me to do something, he would never have to turn it into a command. But that’s me. I can only answer for me.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Mike30]

I will point out that this entire thread is based on what was apparently said at a homily. A homily. In fact, I have seen at least four different interpretations of what was said: and what was meant by it It was not an official announcement from either the Vatican or the Society. In fact, I don’t even know if the Vatican has responded officiallyto the Society or the Society to the Vatican on this matter, and I doubt anyone on this forum knows exatcly what is going on.

I know that there are those here who blindly support the SSPX in everything they do and make excuses for them extensively:tsktsk:, just the same as there are those who actively loathe and despise the SSPX and everything it stands for and will take any and all opportunities to bash it whenever they can:tsktsk:, both of whose opinions normally appear in these threads and have appeared on this one.

So why don’t we do the sensible, intelligent and charitable thing and drop this nonsence until we actually have something concrete that we can discuss:

 

[ConstantineTG]

I will point out that this entire thread is based on what was apparently said at a homily. A homily. In fact, I have seen at least four different interpretations of what was said: and what was meant by it It was not an official announcement from either the Vatican or the Society. In fact, I don’t even know if the Vatican has responded officiallyto the Society or the Society to the Vatican on this matter, and I doubt anyone on this forum knows exatcly what is going on.

I know that there are those here who blindly support the SSPX in everything they do and make excuses for them extensively:tsktsk:, just the same as there are those who actively loathe and despise the SSPX and everything it stands for and will take any and all opportunities to bash it whenever they can:tsktsk:, both of whose opinions normally appear in these threads and have appeared on this one.

So why don’t we do the sensible, intelligent and charitable thing and drop this nonsence until we actually have something concrete that we can discuss:

But making a statement during a homily is a public statement, is it not? If what is quoted is the actual statement made, hard to go back on that since it was given to a group of people.

 

[Mike30]

But making a statement during a homily is a public statement, is it not? If what is quoted is the actual statement made, hard to go back on that since it was given to a group of people.

I somehow doubt that the Archbishop would choose to make an official policy statement that would substantially affect relations between the Vatican and the Society at a homily. I mean come on. A homily? I don’t see it at all. I really don’t think that type of statement would carry a lot of weight, especially when apparently, nobody can agree on what exactly what he meant.

 

[JReducation]

I somehow doubt that the Archbishop would choose to make an official policy statement that would substantially affect relations between the Vatican and the Society at a homily. I mean come on. A homily? I don’t see it at all. I really don’t think that type of statement would carry a lot of weight, especially when apparently, nobody can agree on what exactly what he meant.

Two points of clarification, one is not too significant. His Excellency is not an archbisshop.

The second one is more important. Canonically, a homily is a formal statement. Anything that is said as part of a homily is considered formal. When the Bishop says, “They said X and we responded Y” it’s taken as a formal statement. The problem is not what he meant or did not mean. The meaning was to be interpreted by the receiver, who would have been Cardinal Levada.

The problem with the Bishop’s statement is that it has a bite to it. It’s the bite, more than the actual wording that endangers the dialogue.

Allow me to explain. Had he said that they disagreed or had not reached any kind of agreement, there would not be a peg for the Sacred Congregation to hang its hat. That would be simple fact.

However, to say in a homily, “They asked us if we would obey and we said no because you’re Modernists”. That is dangerous. The Cardinal can let it go, which I don’t believe he will, because it almost sounds like bragging. It comes across as though he is saying, “We can tell them off and get away with it.”

Here is where things get interesting. Bishop Fellay says that he’s with Rome. Cardinal Levada is the Prefect for the Sacred Congregation for the Faith and he is the man with whom Bishop Fellay must do business and the man whom he must convince.

If one is truly with Rome, one must then also accept the chain of command. Cardinal Levada outranks Bishop Fellay three times:

1. He is a Cardinal
2. He has a canonical place in the Church.
3. He is the Holy Father’s representative in these talks.

Therefore, if he is with Rome and the Cardinal calls him on the carpet for making such remarks “urbi et orbi”, he would have to take it and apologize. If he does not do so, then he has to explain how he can be with Rome and defy the man who just called him on the carpet for rudeness.

If you call someone a Modernist, either to his face or you say that you called him that to his face, you’re being rude. If you’re a bishop, you’re stepping down a notch. People expect you to maintain certain decorum, especially when speaking about your brother bishops, even if you’re involved in a major disagreement.

What is a one line statement, can become a major setback, if the Vatican takes it seriously, because it was said in a public forum. The Vatican has done everything possible not to make any comments or allow any leaks about these discussions.

I believe it was a strategic mistake to speak about the talks in a homily. It was just not the place to talk about these things, especially if you were going to bite back at the Vatican.

I believe that the talks will continue, but I also believe that a reprimand will be forthcoming. Even a suspended bishop can still be reprimanded. It happened to Bishop Williamson.

This can certainly lead to some negative reaction from the Vatican. I don’t believe it will be so negative as to throw them out the door and lock it. The SSPX leadership has said worse things. But there will be some disappointment. Even if they did not agree, it was generally believed that they were speaking to each other like gentlemen. That’s a start, isn’t it? The statement made in the homily did not sound like a conversation between gentlemen and scholars.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Melchior_1]

I will point out that this entire thread is based on what was apparently said at a homily. A homily.

There’s a lot of threads that show up on CAF about things that are said during homilies, with several people saying several negative things about them.

Between this and the statement someone else made earlier about how the SSPX could/should consecrate more Bishops, I’m seeing a bit of a double standard at play here.

 

[JReducation]

There’s a lot of threads that show up on CAF about things that are said during homilies, with several people saying several negative things about them.

Between this and the statement someone else made earlier about how the SSPX could/should consecrate more Bishops, I’m seeing a bit of a double standard at play here.

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

 

[Mike30]

Two points of clarification, one is not too significant. His Excellency is not an archbisshop.

The second one is more important. ** Canonically, a homily is a formal statement. Anything that is said as part of a homily is considered formal. ** When the Bishop says, “They said X and we responded Y” it’s taken as a formal statement. The problem is not what he meant or did not mean. The meaning was to be interpreted by the receiver, who would have been Cardinal Levada.

The problem with the Bishop’s statement is that it has a bite to it. It’s the bite, more than the actual wording that endangers the dialogue.

Allow me to explain. Had he said that they disagreed or had not reached any kind of agreement, there would not be a peg for the Sacred Congregation to hang its hat. That would be simple fact.

However, to say in a homily, “They asked us if we would obey and we said no because you’re Modernists”. That is dangerous. The Cardinal can let it go, which I don’t believe he will, because it almost sounds like bragging. It comes across as though he is saying, “We can tell them off and get away with it.”

Here is where things get interesting. Bishop Fellay says that he’s with Rome. Cardinal Levada is the Prefect for the Sacred Congregation for the Faith and he is the man with whom Bishop Fellay must do business and the man whom he must convince.

If one is truly with Rome, one must then also accept the chain of command. Cardinal Levada outranks Bishop Fellay three times:

1. He is a Cardinal
2. He has a canonical place in the Church.
3. He is the Holy Father’s representative in these talks.

Therefore, if he is with Rome and the Cardinal calls him on the carpet for making such remarks “urbi et orbi”, he would have to take it and apologize. If he does not do so, then he has to explain how he can be with Rome and defy the man who just called him on the carpet for rudeness.

If you call someone a Modernist, either to his face or you say that you called him that to his face, you’re being rude. If you’re a bishop, you’re stepping down a notch. People expect you to maintain certain decorum, especially when speaking about your brother bishops, even if you’re involved in a major disagreement.

What is a one line statement, can become a major setback, if the Vatican takes it seriously, because it was said in a public forum. The Vatican has done everything possible not to make any comments or allow any leaks about these discussions.

I believe it was a strategic mistake to speak about the talks in a homily. It was just not the place to talk about these things, especially if you were going to bite back at the Vatican.

I believe that the talks will continue, but I also believe that a reprimand will be forthcoming. Even a suspended bishop can still be reprimanded. It happened to Bishop Williamson.

This can certainly lead to some negative reaction from the Vatican. I don’t believe it will be so negative as to throw them out the door and lock it. The SSPX leadership has said worse things. But there will be some disappointment. Even if they did not agree, it was generally believed that they were speaking to each other like gentlemen. That’s a start, isn’t it? The statement made in the homily did not sound like a conversation between gentlemen and scholars.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Excuse me on the Archbishop statement I apologize.

However as to the homily being a formal canonical statement, I have to disagree. It may very well be a formal statement of the particular prelates personal opinion, but nothing more.

After the issuance of Humana Vitae it was common, exceedingly common, that Priests and Bishops during homilies would say that Catholics could ignore the encyclical in good conscience if they did not agree with it. In fact many religious went on record as saying the Holy Father was wrong to issue such a statement. Or what about the Priests that call for woman Priests?

Were their statements also a canonical formal statement or a statement of personal belief.? And I still think these threads are destructive, serve no valid purpose and should be prohibited.

 

[JReducation]

Excuse me on the Archbishop statement I apologize.

However as to the homily being a formal canonical statement, I have to disagree. It may very well be a formal statement of the particular prelates personal opinion, but nothing more.

After the issuance of Humana Vitae it was common, exceedingly common, that Priests and Bishops during homilies would say that Catholics could ignore the encyclical in good conscience if they did not agree with it. In fact many religious went on record as saying the Holy Father was wrong to issue such a statement. Or what about the Priests that call for woman Priests?

Were their statements also a canonical formal statement or a statement of personal belief.? And I still think these threads are destructive, serve no valid purpose and should be prohibited.

I addressed that question in a previous post. Someone asked me something similar. Those statements were equally egregious. The should never have been made at all, most especially from the pulpit.

Yes, the Church considers the homily of the mass a formal statement. The purpose of the homily is to break open the Word of God, not to spread dissent.

Whether it’s done by one group or by another, it’s still very wrong.

My statement is not an anti SSPX statement. My statement has to do with the fact that these comments did not belong in a homily, because they were rude. Just as the comments that some made about Humanae Vitae did not belong in a homily, because they were wrong and they misled people.

One error does not justify another. Both are errors.

There is one good thing that can be gained form these threads, if we are willing to be objective. That is that we can see where we need to work. It seems that we need to work on discretion. The world is quickly becoming very careless in how it speaks. We can’t do that. When we become careless in our speech, at the end of the day, the person whom we offend is the Lord himself when we offend the neighbor.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[ProVobis]

After the issuance of Humana Vitae it was common, exceedingly common, that Priests and Bishops during homilies would say that Catholics could ignore the encyclical in good conscience if they did not agree with it. In fact many religious went on record as saying the Holy Father was wrong to issue such a statement. Or what about the Priests that call for woman Priests?

Good point. This seems to be disobedience against a still higher power, not just an encyclical.

 

[JReducation]

Good point. This seems to be disobedience against a still higher power, not just an encyclical.

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

 

[Mike30]

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

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.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I somehow doubt that the Archbishop would choose to make an official policy statement that would substantially affect relations between the Vatican and the Society at a homily. I mean come on. A homily? I don’t see it at all. I really don’t think that type of statement would carry a lot of weight, especially when apparently, nobody can agree on what exactly what he meant.

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.

 

[pnewton]

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.

More to the point, it is up on an SSPX website and has proliferated to other places.