F
Faithdancer
Guest
Very well said, Roger. I pray that SSPX and the Magisterium reconcile, the sooner the better. The day SSPX is fully reconciled and ideally, becomes a personal Prelature within the Church, is the day I join SSPX.
- Status
P
pnewton
Guest
You have to be a priest to join.
1
1AugustSon7
Guest
He circulates a sort of newsletter that sometimes his subscribers will share parts of [or even the entirety] as, e.g., on SSPX forums. Bp. Williamson is certainly scholarly and without question spends a lot of time meditating upon and contemplating doctrine. It may be surprising to some that one gets the impression from his works of a very thoughtful and even gentle-hearted man. None of this should be interpreted as an endorsement of his position or the SSPX’s; notwithstanding, presenting him as a “loose canon” - for those familiar with his works - is somewhat comical. He seems slow to act because you get the impression from him that he does nothing without a very clear philosophical or doctrinal warrant before proceeding. This actually seems to annoy some of his own partisans who would perhaps desire him to act hastily or without clearly providing a sort of intellectual manifesto to justify his decision
And, of course, that’s just my opinion of him.
T
TrueLight
Guest
H
Hokomai
Guest
Yes, but do you have any examples of his ‘profound thoughts’?
J
JaMc
Guest
Were the procedures similar under the 1917 Code of Canon Law (which the SSPX would be more apt to follow)?With all due respect, is anyone here, beside myself a major superior? Is anyone here a Canon Lawyer (I’m not)?
There are some issues here.
First:
No member of a society of apostolic life, religious order, religious congregation or diocese can be dismissed without the written consent of the Holy See. That’s Canon Law.
Second:
To be dismissed, except for child sexual abuse, there must be a trial which can only be held by the Church, not the institute that is doing the dismissing. The proper superior begins the dismissal process by making the request and presenting the evidence against the accused. The accused has the right to appeal to the Holy See. Remember Fr. Corapi. The Holy See can hand down a ruling or can send the matter to the tribunal for a trial. It’s up to the Holy See. If the Holy see hands down a ruling, there is no appeal. If a tribunal hands down a ruling, either side can appeal to the next highest tribunal all the way up to the pope himself… No institute has the legal authority to put anyone on trial. A diocese can put its men on trial, because dioceses have tribunals recognized by the Church.
Third:
If the SSPX dismisses the bishop, without going through the proper canonical process, then it is acting outside of the law. This will only create more concerns with the curia. It begs the question on the part of every major superior, “Is the SSPX a law unto itself? Why can they do this, get away with it and the rest of us cannot do this?” I doubt that the Holy See will want to tackle that question. It’s better for the Holy See to let the SSPX do its thing and then declare it illegal.
Fourth:
The only response that the Holy See can give to the rest of the major superiors around the world is that the SSPX is not in full communion with the Church; therefore, the Church has no jurisdiction. This will only affirm what many SSPX supporters have been denying. Many SSPX supporters continue to say that the SSPX is in communion with the Church and that there is no such thing as partial communion or an imperfect communion. If it is truly in full communion with the Church, it must follow due process established by the Vatican and by Pope John Paul II, not by the SSPX. Pope John Paul II was the last pope to review the laws regarding dismissal when he abrogated the right of a sex abuser to a trial before dismissal and established that any bishop (for diocesan clergy) and any major superior (for religious) could initiate dismissal proceedings without a trial or even a preliminary hearing. However, neither the bishop nor the superior can dismiss. They suspend and do the paperwork. Only the Holy See can dismiss. Bishop Fellay cannot suspend Bishop Williamson, because both of them are already suspended. Bishop Fellay has not legal right to be functioning as a priest either, except to celebrate a mass in his room. The plot thickens.
Fifth:
That’s the law. The SSPX would have to act outside of the law. If it chooses to act within the law, I foresee that Bishop Williamson is not going anywhere, since the bishop is unlikely to cooperate with a Church tribunal. If he submits to a Church tribunal and the tribunal rules against him, the tribunal has the authority to place him somewhere. The tribunal cannot leave any ordained man (deacon, priest or bishop) or any religious in solemn vows out there on his or her own. The other option would be for the tribunal to dismiss him from the clerical state. He would then be mandated to live out the rest of his days as if he were a layman (laicization). He’ll never be a layman, but he will not have any of the rights, duties or benefits of being a cleric. I don’t foresee Bishop Williamson complying.
Maybe this is why the Italian report concludes by saying that there is no official comment from the SSPX generalate and if there were to be a dismissal, it’s not in the near future.
MY GUESS is that the SSPX will wait to be regularized and then throw the problem into the hands of the Holy See. From where I sit, it sounds like the most prudent thing to do. Bishop Fellay, as the superior general, has the authority to keep any of his men out of circulatioin. Whether the man complies or not is another question that none of us can answer.
The irony here is that one of the allegations against Bishop Williamson is that he administered Confirmation without Bishop Fellay’s permission. Legally, he does not need Bishop Fellay’s permission. He needs the permission of the bishop of the diocese where the confirmations took place.
The concern is misplaced. Bishop Fellay has no jurisdiction in any diocese on this planet. He cannot grant permission to confirm. He can only grant permission to travel for the purpose of confirming. From there, it’s up to the local bishop. Yet, why is this not a concern to anyone except the Church? Administering Confirmation without the permission of the diocesan bishop is a serious violation of Church law. Confirming without Bishop Fellay’s permission is a violation of the constitutions of the SSPX. The constitutions do not trump Canon Law unless the are 200 years old or more.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
J
JReducation
Guest
This is not a party line. This is a revealed truth. Peter has spoken. There is no requirement that Peter must speak on an infallible matter or even on a matter of faith or doctrine. Peter’s authority is universal. If Peter commands, he must be obeyed. He has the right to command anything he wants, but sin.
A religious, a deacon, priest and bishop have a promise or a vow to obey without reservations, except that which is contrary to the 10 Commandments. Even Bishop Fellay said so in one of his letters to the other bishops.
This command was not contrary to the Commandments. Here is where critical thinking enters the picture. I must ask myself, “Am I being asked to do something contrary to the law of God?” Whether I agree or disagree does not matter. What matters is God’s law, the authority of the person giving the command and my vow of obedience.
In our rule, St. Francis writes an admonition on perfect obedience. Perfect obedience is the obedience of Christ. Christ obeyed, even unto the cross. He submitted himself to Pilate, even though Pilate was wrong, because it was the will of His Father. The brother must imitate Christ’s obedience to the letter. Therefore, if the superior commands something that the brother believes is less good than what he has in mind, but it’s not a sin, the brother is bound to put aside his thoughts and preferences and comply. Such obedience if pleasing to God and man. The commandment binds us to love God above all things and man as we love ourselves. Obedience is an expression of love for God and man.
Obedience has nothing to do with logic and everything to do with love. One obeys as Christ obeyed, out of pure love. Thomas a Kempis says, in the Imitation of Christ, that anyone who obeys because it’s his job to obey, gains nothing. But everyone who obeys because he loves, gains eternity. He also said that obedience is not about ideas, opinions or wishes, but about detachment from self in order to become poorer.
St. Francis told Pope Innocent III that the cross was useless. However, the brothers would embrace obedience as Christ embraced the cross. Just as the Father transformed the useless cross into the means of redemption, He transforms what the world calls useless obedience into redemptive love.
The moment that you say that you’re Catholic, you are bound to Canon Law. You cannot use the term Catholic without the Church’s approval. The SSPX has the Church’s approval to call itself Catholic. It is not outside of the jurisdiction of Canon Law, unless it decides to place itself out there.
Actually, there is a canon that says that the faithful (including the SSPX) can organize themselves into organizations and societies, even those not formally acknowledged by the Church. There is a law that says that a deacon, priest, bishop or brother must be incardinated into a diocese or an institute, religious community or society of apostolic life. He cannot be a free agent. There is also a law that no society can dismiss without consent from Rome.
Because the SSPX is made up of Catholics and it identifies itself as Catholic, it is a legitimate group, even if it were a private association. Therefore, it is bound to Canon Law.
Then there is another issue, Williamson is a bishop, not a layman. Regardless of his insubordiation, and unfortunate comments, everyone, including the SSPX leadership, owes him the respect that is due to a bishop. Catholics do not throw bishops into the dumpster. They are the legitimate or illegitimate successors of the Apostles, but successors nonetheless… In the case of Bishop Williamson and the other SSPX bishops, think of them as four Ishmaels. Ishmael was illegitimate, but was still the son of Abraham. The bishops are still the successors of the Apostles, even though they are in a very strange situation. Therefore, they are Catholic. There is no such thing as a Catholic outside of the jurisdiction of Canon Law.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
J
JReducation
Guest
No they were not. But the Code of 1917 does not acknowlege the SSPX. Societies of Apostolic Life came into existence with Maryknoll. It was the first. Maryknoll was founded in 1911, before the Code of 1917. The Code of 1917,said that all such societies of priests were subject to the authority of the bishop of the diocese in which they serve.
In 1983, the new code of Canon Law gave societies of apostolic life the right to have their own government, independent of the local bishops. The new government is to follow that of religious congregations with the exception that its members must never be consecrated. They must remain secular men.
Even if the SSPX wanted to follow the Code of 1917, there is nothing to follow, since the code does not recognize its autonomy. The autonomy of the SSPX and other such societies was granted by Pope John Paul II at the suggestion of Perfectae Caritatis, promulgated by Vatican II. The SSPX is a Vatican II institute protected by the laws of Pope John Paul II. How’s that for irony?
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
I
i_am_a_Catholic
Guest
That is correct. BUT, you are complicating things here.
SSPX as it is now, is not within Vatican jurisdiction. It has members that belong to it but the Church has no say on how this membership is awarded or revoked. For all purposes, I don’t even see why the Church would care.
So while SSPX is not outside the jurisdiction of Canon law, the membership of the said organization is definitely outside the jurisdiction of Canon law. You cannot say a group is in schism and also say that they have to obey rules on how to determine who is part of the schism
It is a meaningless thing to do.
Once again, this is unnecessarily complicating the matters.
All you have to do is realize that the said group SSPX is not in communion with Rome. For Rome to talk about or enforce canons or any other kind of rules on how SSPX determines who is not in communion with Rome/who has membership of SSPX is legally meaningless.
As far as Rome is concerned, there is an organized group of individuals who are not in communion with Rome and holds that as one of their core values. There is no canon on how these sort of groups should determine membership whether they want to call themselves Catholic or Orthodox or whichever name they might prefer.
So as far as SSPX are concerned, they can get rid of Bishop Williamson or any other individual from the group they call SSPX. There is really no legal foundation for Rome or anyone else to oppose such a thing.
T
triumphguy
Guest
Hilarious!No they were not. But the Code of 1917 does not acknowlege the SSPX. Societies of Apostolic Life came into existence with Maryknoll. It was the first. Maryknoll was founded in 1911, before the Code of 1917. The Code of 1917,said that all such societies of priests were subject to the authority of the bishop of the diocese in which they serve.
In 1983, the new code of Canon Law gave societies of apostolic life the right to have their own government, independent of the local bishops. The new government is to follow that of religious congregations with the exception that its members must never be consecrated. They must remain secular men.
Even if the SSPX wanted to follow the Code of 1917, there is nothing to follow, since the code does not recognize its autonomy. The autonomy of the SSPX and other such societies was granted by Pope John Paul II at the suggestion of Perfectae Caritatis, promulgated by Vatican II. The SSPX is a Vatican II institute protected by the laws of Pope John Paul II. How’s that for irony?
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
T
triumphguy
Guest
Going round in circles now.That is correct. BUT, you are complicating things here.
SSPX as it is now, is not within Vatican jurisdiction. It has members that belong to it but the Church has no say on how this membership is awarded or revoked. For all purposes, I don’t even see why the Church would care.
So while SSPX is not outside the jurisdiction of Canon law, the membership of the said organization is definitely outside the jurisdiction of Canon law. You cannot say a group is in schism and also say that they have to obey rules on how to determine who is part of the schism
It is a meaningless thing to do.
Once again, this is unnecessarily complicating the matters.
All you have to do is realize that the said group SSPX is not in communion with Rome. For Rome to talk about or enforce canons or any other kind of rules on how SSPX determines who is not in communion with Rome/who has membership of SSPX is legally meaningless.
As far as Rome is concerned, there is an organized group of individuals who are not in communion with Rome and holds that as one of their core values. There is no canon on how these sort of groups should determine membership whether they want to call themselves Catholic or Orthodox or whichever name they might prefer.
So as far as SSPX are concerned, they can get rid of Bishop Williamson or any other individual from the group they call SSPX. There is really no legal foundation for Rome or anyone else to oppose such a thing.
I
i_am_a_Catholic
Guest
Well, the irony here is that SSPX need not follow any Canon law regarding how it awards its membership.
You cannot say that someone wants to breakaway from communion with Rome and then hand out terms for them to determine who is not in communion with Rome. That just does not make sense.
I
i_am_a_Catholic
Guest
I knowww. Its really a simply point yet we have to debate over it.
T
triumphguy
Guest
Look the SSPX could all decide to become Mormon if they choose. Or they could also decide to ordain women.
However… if they either
A. Want to remain in dialogue with THE Church then they need to abide by the norms, and rules.
Or
B. Want to look more Catholic than the Pope in order to start their own breakaway Church claiming a status which is a banned topic on here then they still need to abide by those same norms, canons, rules etc.
P
pnewton
Guest
They are not in schism.
R
ringil
Guest
I wonder how many years this thing is going to drag on. I thought this whole mess was nearly decided- SILLY ME!!
G
Gabriel_Serafin
Guest
From Pope John Paul II’s Motu Propio Ecclesia Dei:
*
"I wish especially to make an appeal both solemn and heartfelt, paternal and fraternal,** to all those who until now have been linked in various ways to the movement of Archbishop Lefebvre, that they may fulfill the grave duty of remaining united to the Vicar of Christ in the unity of the Catholic Church, and of ceasing their support in any way for that movement. *Everyone should be aware that formal adherence to the schism is a grave offence against God and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the Church’s law."
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
*
"I wish especially to make an appeal both solemn and heartfelt, paternal and fraternal,** to all those who until now have been linked in various ways to the movement of Archbishop Lefebvre, that they may fulfill the grave duty of remaining united to the Vicar of Christ in the unity of the Catholic Church, and of ceasing their support in any way for that movement. *Everyone should be aware that formal adherence to the schism is a grave offence against God and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the Church’s law."
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
J
JReducation
Guest
The SSPX has committed schismatic acts. However, it is not in schism. If it were in schism, Canon Law would not apply to them. Since they are part of the Catholic Church, Canon Law most certainly applies to them. There is a major difference between not having canonical status and not having canonical rights and duties.That is correct. BUT, you are complicating things here.
SSPX as it is now, is not within Vatican jurisdiction. It has members that belong to it but the Church has no say on how this membership is awarded or revoked. For all purposes, I don’t even see why the Church would care.
So while SSPX is not outside the jurisdiction of Canon law, the membership of the said organization is definitely outside the jurisdiction of Canon law. You cannot say a group is in schism and also say that they have to obey rules on how to determine who is part of the schism
Actually, this is not the case. The Vatican and the Sacred Congregation for Societies of Apostolic Life can demand that as a condition for regularization the SSPX comply with Canon Law. Some of the points in the Preamble, require that the SSPX submit to Canon Law. This was revealed by the SSPX, not the Vatican.
This is not the case. The clergy of the SSPX are suspended Catholic priests. They are truly Catholic. They are not Protestant, Schismatic or other. Therefore, everything that applies to a Catholic priest, applies to them. The religious of the SSPX are validly professed religious. For validity of profession, Canon Law must recognize the profession. The Church has recognized the profession of vows of religious associated with the SSPX. They do not have to renew their vows for regularization, nor do they have to redo their novitiate. If they were not recognized as valid Catholic religious, then they would have to spend a year in novitiate and make vows again upon regularization. However, that is not being required. Why not? Because the Church is applying Canon Law to the SSPX. To do so, she must admit that their novitiate and vows are valid. If that’s the case, then the SSPX is bound to Canon Law. They cannot reap the benefits of Canon Law and not have the obligations.
With all due respect, you have much to learn about the government of religious orders, religious congregations, secular orders and societies of apostolic life. Trust me, “I do this for a living.” I know the canons that govern this population so well that I can repeat them in my sleep. Knowledge of said canons is in my job description.
The SSPX may choose to act outside of the law and can do so, not because they have the right to do so, but because they have the freedom to sin.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
T
triumphguy
Guest
@ gabriel_serafin
In 2009 Pope Benedict lifted the excommunication.
In 2009 Pope Benedict lifted the excommunication.
J
JReducation
Guest
That’s right. And in the letter that went out to the world, he recognizes them as suspended priests. He also mentions their religious brothers and religious sisters.
If they were not under Canon Law, terms like suspension and religious would not apply to them. The Catholic Church has no authority to suspend a non Catholic priest. Nor does she have the authority to recognize the religious consecration of a non-Catholic religious.
As soon as you say, “I’m Catholic,” you subject yourself to Church law. You can’t say, “I’m Catholic, but Church law does not apply to me.” That would be very silly.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
- Status