Bishop Williamson to be expelled from SSPX?

[JReducation]

Can. 1 The canons of this Code regard only the Latin Church.

We have already established that the SSPX is part of the Latin Church. Therefore, this code covers the SSPX as much as it covers the Dominicans, Franciscans or Maryknoll.

**Can. 694 §1. A member must be held as ipso facto dismissed from an institute who:

1/ has defected notoriously from the Catholic faith;

2/ has contracted marriage or attempted it, even only civilly.

§2. In these cases, after the proofs have been collected, the major superior with the council is to issue without any delay a declaration of fact so that the dismissal is established juridically.**

Not applicable here

**
Can. 696 §1. A member can also be dismissed for other causes provided that they are grave, external, imputable, and juridically proven such as: habitual neglect of the obligations of consecrated life; repeated violations of the sacred bonds; stubborn disobedience to the legitimate prescripts of superiors in a grave matter; grave scandal arising from the culpable behavior of the member; stubborn upholding or diffusion of doctrines condemned by the magisterium of the Church; public adherence to ideologies infected by materialism or atheism; the illegitimate absence mentioned in ⇒ can. 665, §2, lasting six months; other causes of similar gravity which the proper law of the institute may determine.**

The allegations must be juridically proven. This requires a hearing. A superior cannot make a unilateral decision.

**Can. 697 In the cases mentioned in ⇒ can. 696, if the major superior, after having heard the council, has decided that a process of dismissal must be begun:

1/ the major superior is to collect or complete the proofs;

2/ the major superior is to warn the member in writing or before two witnesses with an explicit threat of subsequent dismissal unless the member reforms, with the cause for dismissal clearly indicated and full opportunity for self-defense given to the member; if the warning occurs in vain, however, the superior is to proceed to another warning after an intervening space of at least fifteen days;

3/ if this warning also occurs in vain and the major superior with the council decides that incorrigibility is sufficiently evident and that the defenses of the member are insufficient, after fifteen days have elapsed from the last warning without effect, the major superior is to transmit to the supreme moderator all the acts, signed personally and by a notary, along with the signed responses of the member.**

The major superior has to comply with all of these steps, because the member has rights, even Bishop Williamson, despite that he’s a rather difficult man.

Can. 699 §1. The supreme moderator with the council, which must consist of at least four members for validity, is to proceed collegially to the accurate consideration of the proofs, arguments, and defenses; if it has been decided through secret ballot, the supreme moderator is to issue a decree of dismissal with the reasons in law and in fact expressed at least summarily for validity.

Even after there is a hearing and a vote, there is more.

**
Can. 700 A decree of dismissal does not have effect unless it has been confirmed by the Holy See**, to which the decree and all the acts must be transmitted; if it concerns an institute of diocesan right, confirmation belongs to the bishop of the diocese where the house to which the religious has been attached is situated. To be valid, however, the decree must indicate the right which the dismissed possesses to make recourse to the competent authority within ten days from receiving notification. The recourse has suspensive effect.

Even after the hearing and everything is signed, the Vatican must approve the dismissal. Even after the Vatican approves the dismissal, the individual has 10 days to appeal. Once he files an appeal, the dismissal is suspended, pending the outcome of the trial.

In the section on Societies of Apostolic Life, Canon Law says:

Can. 731 §1. Societies of apostolic life resemble institutes of consecrated life; their members, without religious vows, pursue the apostolic purpose proper to the society and, leading a life in common as brothers or sisters according to their proper manner of life, strive for the perfection of charity through the observance of the constitutions.

Can. 746 For the dismissal of a definitively incorporated member, ⇒ cann. 694-704 are to be observed with appropriate adaptations.

The SSPX asked to have the excommunications lifted, according to the law. To dismiss one of its members, and not follow the law is an inconsistency. They cannot pick and choose when they will or will not follow the law.

If they say that they are Catholic, they are bound to comply with the law.

If they choose not to follow the law, then they have no one to blame but themselves if there is a lack of trust on the part of those of us who are willing to believe that they want to be part of the Church, not above the Church.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[triumphguy]

Ka-ching!

 

[Melchior_1]

As always Brother, you have done us a service. Thank you for posting this information, as it isn’t just applicable for the SSPX but probably other groups as well.

 

[flameburns623]

I have come across speculation which suggests Williamson is in position to take not only priests but one or two SSPX bishops with him to establish an alternative organization. Further speculation is that if the new organization proceeded to ordain multiple new bishops and/or form bonds with other schismatic organizations, they might, in a decade or so, form a “college of bishops”, declare the reigning Pope invalid, and elect a traditionalist anti-Pope. I tend to wonder who has beedn putting what into their kool-aid, but such a direction, if taken, could be pretty horrific to contemplate.

 

[Moore11]

I have come across speculation which suggests Williamson is in position to take not only priests but one or two SSPX bishops with him to establish an alternative organization. Further speculation is that if the new organization proceeded to ordain multiple new bishops and/or form bonds with other schismatic organizations, they might, in a decade or so, form a “college of bishops”, declare the reigning Pope invalid, and elect a traditionalist anti-Pope. I tend to wonder who has beedn putting what into their kool-aid, but such a direction, if taken, could be pretty horrific to contemplate.

I dont think it is horrific at all. First off it is speculation. But if true may be a good thing.
It would clear the way for the “true” SSPX to come into full communion and would rid the society of it’s rowdiest problems. The defectors would become as obsolete as any fringe schismatic sede group and be rendered insignificant. Personally I think if that were the plan that Williamson and those involved would be greatly misjudging their influence and power. As it is I think they are a tad delusional if they think they can accomplish anything by moving further and further from Rome.
As a whole it would probably be a good thing at least from a USA perspective, the USA Bishop will follow Fellay.

 

[Boulder257]

The SSPX is not an actual third order, but an association of the lay faithful. This was created by Vatican II and ratified by Pope John Paul II in the Code of 1983. It never existed before. The SSPX is probably more Vatican II than are the Franciscans or Carmelites. Go figure.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

Hah, that’s really just too funny when you think about it!

 

[JReducation]

I have come across speculation which suggests Williamson is in position to take not only priests but one or two SSPX bishops with him to establish an alternative organization. Further speculation is that if the new organization proceeded to ordain multiple new bishops and/or form bonds with other schismatic organizations, they might, in a decade or so, form a “college of bishops”, declare the reigning Pope invalid, and elect a traditionalist anti-Pope. I tend to wonder who has beedn putting what into their kool-aid, but such a direction, if taken, could be pretty horrific to contemplate.

This would be tragic. I would create a schism, which no one wants.

I dont think it is horrific at all. First off it is speculation. But if true may be a good thing.
It would clear the way for the “true” SSPX to come into full communion and would rid the society of it’s rowdiest problems. The defectors would become as obsolete as any fringe schismatic sede group and be rendered insignificant. Personally I think if that were the plan that Williamson and those involved would be greatly misjudging their influence and power. As it is I think they are a tad delusional if they think they can accomplish anything by moving further and further from Rome.
As a whole it would probably be a good thing at least from a USA perspective, the USA Bishop will follow Fellay.

I truly hope that the SSPX plays this one by the books. If it does not do so, it will make a martyr out of Bishop Williamson. Martyrs are very powerful.

It will once again make a statement that says, “We are our own law, lawyers, and tribunal.” That places them further, not closer. Even if they were to be regularized, what bishop or religious superior would feel comfortable working with a group that sees itself outside the law?

Before anyone screams Jesuits, let’s remember that St. Ignatius negotiated all the exemptions for the Jesuits. They were to have all of the benefits and right of religious, but none of the obligations. They are actually within the law even when they act goofy.

The SSPX situation is not the same. We know that the Jesuits have different rights and privileges. But the SSPX does not, not yet.

Hah, that’s really just too funny when you think about it!

The SSPX is truly a very Vatican II and Pope John Paul organization. Note:

1. Prior to Vatican II there were no independent Societies of Apostolic Life. The closest thing were missionary association such as the Daughters of Charity and Maryknoll. Perfectae Caritatis called for a renewal of consecrated life. From this call were born secular institutes of consecrated life and societies of apostolic life.
2. The Code of 1917 said that any priest who belonged to an association of priests, was accountable to the local bishop. In 1983, Bl John Paul liberates the Societies of Apostolic Life by allowing them their own government. They have to coordinate with the bishops in all pastoral matters, but the bishops do not govern them in their internal affairs.
3. The Code of 1983, saw that so many lay people wanted to share the spirit of the newer communities. However, the only secular orders were attached to the mendicants. The Church had closed off the doors to new orders, secular or religious. Bl. John Paul creates a law that allows lay people to be associated with an institute, without being an actual order. The new associations can have as many or as few of the obligations of the secular orders as they want. Since they are not true orders, they are not bound by the traditions and forms of government of true orders.
4. After the break with the Vatican, the SSPX began to operate like a prelature. That was also an idea of John Paul II. He created the first prelature in 1983. Until then, Opus Dei had existed, but it was neither fish nor fowl. Now it had a structure, a mission, faithful who follow them and most importantly, they are autonomous of everyone except the pope. They only need to ask bishops for permission to enter their territory. That’s like saying that one has to ask for permission to go camping on your land. That’s common sense.
5. SSPX is the only society of priests that has a religious congregation of brothers. No other society ever had this until 1983. Secular priests were secular. Brothers were consecrated religious. They worked together, but there was a difference in their way of life and the brothers were formed by religious, not by secular priests. The SSPX priests form their brothers. This was Bl. John Paul’s idea. Those religious orders that have secular orders do not have this relationship. The religious and the secular are equally members of the same order and are equal in dignity, rights and duties, but the religious do not govern them or form them. They are autonomous. They share a common General Superior, except for the Franciscans. Secular Franciscans have their own general superior.
6. They have a blend between the religious and the secular. They are secular priests, but they live in priories. A priory is a house governed by a prior. A prior is a consecrated religious. They have the structure of a priory, but they have the rights of secular clergy. This blend is referred as the mixed life by Bl. John Paul in Vita Consecrata. The model came out of Vatican II when it sanctioned Secular Institutes, where the members live the religious life without the obligations of religious.

The SSPX is quite modern. If they reject Perfectae Caritatis, which is the decree from Vatican II that opened the door for different expressions of the Gospel Life, I’m not sure how they will justify their existence. and what they would call themselves. Maybe that’s the reason that Perfectae Caritatis is not on the list of documents that they reject.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[triumphguy]

Wow - very interesting info!

Complex - but interesting

 

[Mrs_Sally]

Ahhhh young grasshopper, someday the student will become the master, but not today.

So true!

 

[Mrs_Sally]

Finally caught up with all the posts. Thank you Br JR for all the information and explanations, it has helped me figure things out much better.

Flameburns, I can very easily see that scenario as one of several routes of speculation. I truly help that does not come to pass. It would be tragic for those people lead astray from the true Church in communion with Peter.

 

[i_am_a_Catholic]

I’ll start by pointing out that your comment that I’m mistaken is quite bold. You do realize that one does not tell a major superior that he does not know how to govern, much less how government of a community works. It’s considered disrespectful and presumptuous. Were I you, I would never say that to any major superior again. It’s not polite.

Brother, I did not mean it as an offense. I apologize if I came across as impolite. I am also not presuming because I do frankly think you are incorrect on this matter. I hope we can discuss matters as equals. The religious position of the individual should not matter in an academic discussion. What would matter are the facts and reasoning. So while I would treat you with utmost respect and never reproach you at church, I would be more than happy to engage in a healthy academic debate on a forum.

(We should also keep in mind that you yourself pointed out that your expertise was not Canon Law)

So now to the point. I think I see why we are talking past each other. You have considered the SSPX as a group wanting to come in to communion with the Church. Therefore you have assumed that the SSPX must adhere to Church canons.

I perfectly agree with that.

What you have however missed is that the entity “SSPX” is not defined in the Catholic Church. It is a group formed by those who did not agree with Church teaching/implementation etc.

So to explain with an example, lets say I formed a group tomorrow called the “Catholic John’s League”. As a Catholic, I am fully bound by Canon Law. BUT, I am free to choose how and who to give membership to.

So if I don’t like BR. JR to be in the group, I could simply say you are not in my group. There is no Church Canon that can reproach my actions. That is just how the law would work.

Going to the case of SSPX, it is simply a group that a set of Catholics formed. They defined the identity of that group. Certain priests and Bishops joined that group and were accepted. BUT, if the group decides that someone should be kicked out of the group, there is simply no canons to apply to such a case.

By saying that there are certain canons that should apply, we would have to raise every group within the Catholic Church to the level of an order. Therefore, for you to try and apply Canon law, the only way you would be able to do that is to raise SSPX to the level of a recognized Order of the Church which the church might not even do. At least as it stands now, it is not. It is simply a group of individuals that have banded together against what they claim to be “straying” of the Church. There are no canons for handing or revoking membership in such a group just like there are none for a pro-life group within the Church.

 

[i_am_a_Catholic]

No Canon Law is actually required for this. The SSPX is, as their adherents are quick to point out, at the very least in partial communion with Rome. Failure to be in communion with Rome is either due to schism or excommunication (either kind).

The SSPX are have communion with Rome, despite a couple schismatic acts and illicit and/or invalid activities. They have never been declared fully separated from the Church. They have this communion, but they had privileges and faculties taken away from them. Losing those doesn’t remove them from the Church, rather it removes them from ministry within the Church.

Because they still have this union, they are bound by Canon Law and all that entails.

I have explained my point better in my post to the brother above. I am not simply saying that SSPX are not bound by canon law. Rather, that there is no Canon law pertaining to the membership of individuals in a group such as SSPX.

 

[Melchior_1]

What you have however missed is that the entity “SSPX” is not defined in the Catholic Church. It is a group formed by those who did not agree with Church teaching/implementation etc.

Context is needed here. The SSPX began the process of becoming a Society of Apostolic Life, however they never reached the stage where they were recognized as such. They were not founded due to “disagreements” and the like, they were founded with a specific charism.

With the direction Rome is taking with this, they are treating them as if they are a Society of Apostolic Life. If they get treated as a Society of Apostolic Life regardless, and are bound by all the laws therein. All of the Canons which Brother JR provided are applicable, specifically if the Pope says so (he is the chief Judge of Canon Law).

If, as you say, they are an informal group, then they should not be welcome back as a group as they are an unofficial one. It should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. His Grace Fellay has zero authority at this point, and has no canonical legal standing to dismiss anyone from the organization. This would render His Grace not a Superior General at all.

Recall they had a Chapter Meeting, this is what a Society of Apostolic Life does. They handled it like a Society of Apostolic Life does, they act like how a Society of Apostolic Life does, they attempt to follow the regulations a Society of Apostolic Life (albeit poorly in some cases).

I’m not an expert like Brother JR by any means, but I do have firsthand knowledge of how a Society of Apostolic Life works. I personally knew the founder of one, I was there when they got their Pontifical Right, I have done work with both their priests and lay associations in the past. And now my parish is being run by them. Suffice to say, Rome is treating the SSPX like the are a Society of Apostolic Life. And if it quacks like a duck, swims like a duck, it’s probably a duck. Especially if Rome treats them as a duck.

Further; the consecrated religious who have moved to (and aligned with) the SSPX are bound by their original vows, and bound by the Canon Laws applicable to consecrated religious. Out of all the people caught up in this mess, they are probably in the most trouble.

 

[triumphguy]

I have explained my point better in my post to the brother above. I am not simply saying that SSPX are not bound by canon law. Rather, that there is no Canon law pertaining to the membership of individuals in a group such as SSPX.

You don’t seem to get it or you are missing the point deliberately…

 

[JReducation]

By saying that there are certain canons that should apply, we would have to raise every group within the Catholic Church to the level of an order. Therefore, for you to try and apply Canon law, the only way you would be able to do that is to raise SSPX to the level of a recognized Order of the Church which the church might not even do. At least as it stands now, it is not. It is simply a group of individuals that have banded together against what they claim to be “straying” of the Church. There are no canons for handing or revoking membership in such a group just like there are none for a pro-life group within the Church.

These passages were taken from Pope Benedict’s letter to the bishops after lifting the excommunications. I’ve inverted the order of the paragraphs. For the purpose of this discussion, this seemed more logical to me.

We must first look at history. The SSPX was erected as a Pious Union, before we had any other classifications other than orders and congregations. When the problems with Archbishop Lefebvre began, they lost their status as a Pious Union. However, that was going to be lost anyway, because Bl. John Paul did away with pious unions in 1983. There are only five orders in the Church, none of which is mentioned in Canon Law, because our laws precede Canon Law by more than 200 years, we follow what is called Proper Law. All that Canon Law offers us is a few guidelines here and there. The rest of the communities in the Church are: religious congregations, secular institutes, societies of apostolic life, public associations of the faithful and private associations of the faithful. All of them must have canonical recognition to exist. Otherwise, they are not Catholic, even if their members are Catholic. Remember the recent issue with Real Catholic TV.

In 1983, Pope John Paul, without making all institutes into religious orders, applies the same norms of government to all institutes. The difference between the institutes is in the vows, not the disciplines. I make solemn vows of chastity, poverty and obedience. I belong to an order. A Redemptorist makes vows of chastity, poverty and obedience, but he belongs to a congregation. My vows are recognized as solemn, the vows of the Redemptorist are viewed as simple. That’s a whole other thread. I just bring that up to show you that you can have multiple types of institutes governed by the same canons on issues of discipline. Internal issues are governed by the rule of life, if you’re an order. If you’re a congregation, you don’t have a rule of life. You have statutes.

Here is one of the concluding paragraphs in Pope Benedict’s letter to the bishops.

Can we be totally indifferent about a community which has 491 priests, 215 seminarians, 6 seminaries, 88 schools, 2 university-level institutes, 117 religious brothers, 164 religious sisters and thousands of lay faithful?

He’s speaking about them as a community (one body). He is acknowledging that they have a canonical identity. You cannot be a seminarian or a religious brother or sister unless the Church recognizes you as such. That’s in Canon Law. The fact that the pope acknowledges that they are seminarians, religious brothers and religious sisters, he is acknowledging that they have an identity in the Church. They are what we call a juridical person.

Should we casually let them drift farther from the Church? The Holy Father is asking a very pointed question. But he’s speaking about them as one body, not as a group of loosely associated Catholics who came together for the sake of an ideal.

** I think for example of the 491 priests. Can we simply exclude them, as representatives of a radical fringe, from our pursuit of reconciliation and unity? What would then become of them?**

The Holy Father uses the term “exclude”. You can’t talk about excluding someone, if they’re not included. They are obviously included among the ranks of Catholic priests.

Since they have canonically recognized seminarians, religious brothers, religious sisters and priests who are included among the Church’s count of priests, even though they have no canonical place, the term “canonical place” is being used to describe their disciplinary state, not their Catholicism. They are Catholics. They are being dealt with as a single body, not as individuals. They are being recognized as valid, even though illegal (illicit). The first, the fact that they are Catholic, obliges them to observe Canon Law.

Even you went out and started the Catholic Association of Ice Cream Vendors, the moment you put that word, Catholic, in front of your name or apply it to yourself, you are bound to Canon Law. In fact, you cannot call your association Catholic unless the Church allows it. The Church has never said that the SSPX is not Catholic or have no right to call themselves a Catholic association. They could no longer call themselves a pious union. But that term ceased to exist in 1983 and replaced by association.

Superiors look at the law, tradition and the language of the Holy See. Canon Law alone is not very useful.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[Mrs_Sally]

So to explain with an example, lets say I formed a group tomorrow called the “Catholic John’s League”. As a Catholic, I am fully bound by Canon Law. BUT, I am free to choose how and who to give membership to.

Actually, you wouldn’t be allowed to create a group called Catholic John’s League to begin with. Your local Ordinary would have to approve the use of “Catholic” in the name of your group. If he didn’t approve, you would be told to stop what you were doing, or make it clear that you weren’t a Catholic group.

The SSPX says they are a Catholic group, so they have to abide by Catholic rules. And really, they seem to want to for the most part.

 

[i_am_a_Catholic]

Actually, you wouldn’t be allowed to create a group called Catholic John’s League to begin with. Your local Ordinary would have to approve the use of “Catholic” in the name of your group. If he didn’t approve, you would be told to stop what you were doing, or make it clear that you weren’t a Catholic group.

The SSPX says they are a Catholic group, so they have to abide by Catholic rules. And really, they seem to want to for the most part.

I think you are missing the point still. The point is that even if I agree to follow the rules, there are simply NO rules regarding how I give membership. Do you see what I mean?

There are simply no canons in the church regarding MEMBERSHIP for church approved groups.

So a Catholic Pro-life group for an example can decide to kick out a member anyway they like while still remaining approved by the church.

 

[i_am_a_Catholic]

These passages were taken from Pope Benedict’s letter to the bishops after lifting the excommunications. I’ve inverted the order of the paragraphs. For the purpose of this discussion, this seemed more logical to me.

We must first look at history. The SSPX was erected as a Pious Union, before we had any other classifications other than orders and congregations. When the problems with Archbishop Lefebvre began, they lost their status as a Pious Union. However, that was going to be lost anyway, because Bl. John Paul did away with pious unions in 1983. There are only five orders in the Church, none of which is mentioned in Canon Law, because our laws precede Canon Law by more than 200 years, we follow what is called Proper Law. All that Canon Law offers us is a few guidelines here and there. The rest of the communities in the Church are: religious congregations, secular institutes, societies of apostolic life, public associations of the faithful and private associations of the faithful. All of them must have canonical recognition to exist. Otherwise, they are not Catholic, even if their members are Catholic. Remember the recent issue with Real Catholic TV.

In 1983, Pope John Paul, without making all institutes into religious orders, applies the same norms of government to all institutes. The difference between the institutes is in the vows, not the disciplines. I make solemn vows of chastity, poverty and obedience. I belong to an order. A Redemptorist makes vows of chastity, poverty and obedience, but he belongs to a congregation. My vows are recognized as solemn, the vows of the Redemptorist are viewed as simple. That’s a whole other thread. I just bring that up to show you that you can have multiple types of institutes governed by the same canons on issues of discipline. Internal issues are governed by the rule of life, if you’re an order. If you’re a congregation, you don’t have a rule of life. You have statutes.

Here is one of the concluding paragraphs in Pope Benedict’s letter to the bishops.

Can we be totally indifferent about a community which has 491 priests, 215 seminarians, 6 seminaries, 88 schools, 2 university-level institutes, 117 religious brothers, 164 religious sisters and thousands of lay faithful?

He’s speaking about them as a community (one body). He is acknowledging that they have a canonical identity. You cannot be a seminarian or a religious brother or sister unless the Church recognizes you as such. That’s in Canon Law. The fact that the pope acknowledges that they are seminarians, religious brothers and religious sisters, he is acknowledging that they have an identity in the Church. They are what we call a juridical person.

Should we casually let them drift farther from the Church? The Holy Father is asking a very pointed question. But he’s speaking about them as one body, not as a group of loosely associated Catholics who came together for the sake of an ideal.

** I think for example of the 491 priests. Can we simply exclude them, as representatives of a radical fringe, from our pursuit of reconciliation and unity? What would then become of them?**

The Holy Father uses the term “exclude”. You can’t talk about excluding someone, if they’re not included. They are obviously included among the ranks of Catholic priests.

Since they have canonically recognized seminarians, religious brothers, religious sisters and priests who are included among the Church’s count of priests, even though they have no canonical place, the term “canonical place” is being used to describe their disciplinary state, not their Catholicism. They are Catholics. They are being dealt with as a single body, not as individuals. They are being recognized as valid, even though illegal (illicit). The first, the fact that they are Catholic, obliges them to observe Canon Law.

Even you went out and started the Catholic Association of Ice Cream Vendors, the moment you put that word, Catholic, in front of your name or apply it to yourself, you are bound to Canon Law. In fact, you cannot call your association Catholic unless the Church allows it. The Church has never said that the SSPX is not Catholic or have no right to call themselves a Catholic association. They could no longer call themselves a pious union. But that term ceased to exist in 1983 and replaced by association.

Superiors look at the law, tradition and the language of the Holy See. Canon Law alone is not very useful.

But I still don’t see how this supports the view that SSPX cannot decided to revoke membership.

There are simply no canons regarding how an organization that calls itself “Catholic” should conduct itself within the Church. At least I am definitely unaware of it.

You are also using the term “exclude” as referring to removing Bishop Williamson from the Catholic Church. That is not the case. He will simply be removed from SSPX membership. Technically speaking, even Pope Benedict is not part of the SSPX membership and I am sure some in the SSPX would even see it as valid to revoke the membership of someone like Bl. JP II even he sought it.

So I am really not seeing the issue here. As far as Rome is concerned, the issue lies with disagreement on doctrine and policies of the church. How the group chooses to band together over this is really not Rome’s concern.

 

[i_am_a_Catholic]

Context is needed here. The SSPX began the process of becoming a Society of Apostolic Life, however they never reached the stage where they were recognized as such. They were not founded due to “disagreements” and the like, they were founded with a specific charism.

With the direction Rome is taking with this, they are treating them as if they are a Society of Apostolic Life. If they get treated as a Society of Apostolic Life regardless, and are bound by all the laws therein. All of the Canons which Brother JR provided are applicable, specifically if the Pope says so (he is the chief Judge of Canon Law).

If, as you say, they are an informal group, then they should not be welcome back as a group as they are an unofficial one. It should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. His Grace Fellay has zero authority at this point, and has no canonical legal standing to dismiss anyone from the organization. This would render His Grace not a Superior General at all.

Recall they had a Chapter Meeting, this is what a Society of Apostolic Life does. They handled it like a Society of Apostolic Life does, they act like how a Society of Apostolic Life does, they attempt to follow the regulations a Society of Apostolic Life (albeit poorly in some cases).

I’m not an expert like Brother JR by any means, but I do have firsthand knowledge of how a Society of Apostolic Life works. I personally knew the founder of one, I was there when they got their Pontifical Right, I have done work with both their priests and lay associations in the past. And now my parish is being run by them. Suffice to say, Rome is treating the SSPX like the are a Society of Apostolic Life. And if it quacks like a duck, swims like a duck, it’s probably a duck. Especially if Rome treats them as a duck.

Further; the consecrated religious who have moved to (and aligned with) the SSPX are bound by their original vows, and bound by the Canon Laws applicable to consecrated religious. Out of all the people caught up in this mess, they are probably in the most trouble.

I am not sure this is legally valid though. You cannot simply say that since Rome would like to treat SSPX as a Society of Apostolic life, it must act that way with the responsibilities that might come with such a definition.

The main reason why SSPX are separate is not because they want to be able to dismiss Bishop Williamson. The issue lies in their disagreement with doctrine/implementations of it. So as far as SSPX are concerned at this time, the only they need to worry about it that.

How they revoke or accept membership in their little group is up to them to decide.

I think I understand better what you are trying to say now but I don’t think it has any valid legal grounds.

 

[Mrs_Sally]

I think you are missing the point still. The point is that even if I agree to follow the rules, there are simply NO rules regarding how I give membership. Do you see what I mean?

There are simply no canons in the church regarding MEMBERSHIP for church approved groups.

So a Catholic Pro-life group for an example can decide to kick out a member anyway they like while still remaining approved by the church.

Certainly there are rules. You would create some membership criteria for your group, which the bishop would then approve (or not). Even a groups like Legion of Mary or Knights of Columbus have rules for who can be a member and how someone can quit or be removed from membership. Especially someone who may be causing the group grief.

If ordinary lay instituions like that (and LoM was founded by a lay person also) have rules for granting and revoking membership, how much more would a group of priests need to have rules for that.

The other thing to remember is that there are no “free-lance” priests or bishops. A priest/bishop needs to belong to either a diocese or some other religious institution. If priest A decides to quit his group, he cannot do so until he has been accepted by another group.

In any case, until we get more information about this particular situation, we just don’t know. It appears from the original article, that nothing is being done right away. I will continue to pray for full reconciliation for all the clergy/religious of the SSPX.

And then best case would be for B Williamson to retire quietly to that island in the middle of the North Sea dierctly afterward.