Bishop Williamson to be expelled from SSPX?

[Melchior_1]

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.

The language the Holy Father is using effectively has rendered them as a Society of Apostolic Life. This is not a case of “would like to treat them”, they are being treated as one. Just as Brother JR knows about the structure of the religious, I’ve spent the better part of ten and a half years being involved with a Society of Apostolic Life, including their foundation as a group of Pontifical Right. Even when I join a Secular Order, I will continue to work with them and be involved with their community.

As I mentioned before, they never finished the process, in part because His Grace bypassed a part of the chain. After the probationary period was granted, he sought to bypass setting up a Society of Diocesan Right, and sought to go straight to Pontifical. This was denied, and eventually His Grace launched an appeal and lost.

Since then, the criteria for forming a Society of Apostolic Life has changed. As Brother mentioned, Pious Unions are not longer an option on the table. So the nature of the SSPX itself needed to change, as their designation no longer exists. As a result, Rome will treat them either as a loose group of individuals, or more as an existing Society.

Ironically, His Grace got what he wanted; they effectively short-circuited their way into becoming bound by the Canons for a Society of Apostolic Life, and bypassed the requirement to start on a Diocesan level.

Anyway, based on the above, the Pope determines which Canons are applicable. This is one of the reasons we’re in this mess in the first place; the SSPX disagree with the Pope on if a couple of Laws were applicable, however the Pope is the final judge. He is Peter, and he has the keys. If the Pope and his delegated representatives are dealing with this as if the SSPX is a Society of Apostolic Life, and if they are being treated and governed as one, that should give a clear picture of which Laws are applicable.

 

[i_am_a_Catholic]

The language the Holy Father is using effectively has rendered them as a Society of Apostolic Life. This is not a case of “would like to treat them”, they are being treated as one. Just as Brother JR knows about the structure of the religious, I’ve spent the better part of ten and a half years being involved with a Society of Apostolic Life, including their foundation as a group of Pontifical Right. Even when I join a Secular Order, I will continue to work with them and be involved with their community.

As I mentioned before, they never finished the process, in part because His Grace bypassed a part of the chain. After the probationary period was granted, he sought to bypass setting up a Society of Diocesan Right, and sought to go straight to Pontifical. This was denied, and eventually His Grace launched an appeal and lost.

Since then, the criteria for forming a Society of Apostolic Life has changed. As Brother mentioned, Pious Unions are not longer an option on the table. So the nature of the SSPX itself needed to change, as their designation no longer exists. As a result, Rome will treat them either as a loose group of individuals, or more as an existing Society.

Ironically, His Grace got what he wanted; they effectively short-circuited their way into becoming bound by the Canons for a Society of Apostolic Life, and bypassed the requirement to start on a Diocesan level.

Anyway, based on the above, the Pope determines which Canons are applicable. This is one of the reasons we’re in this mess in the first place; the SSPX disagree with the Pope on if a couple of Laws were applicable, however the Pope is the final judge. He is Peter, and he has the keys. If the Pope and his delegated representatives are dealing with this as if the SSPX is a Society of Apostolic Life, and if they are being treated and governed as one, that should give a clear picture of which Laws are applicable.

I do understand their history. But I still see the legal grounds for objecting against the SSPX action of revoking SSPX membership from Bishop Williamson as shaky at best.

If I want to rejoin Rome, and a member of my group does not like that, I think I am well within my rights at that point to consider him as having a different opinion than the groups. So for all purposes, he is not SSPX.

For Rome to claim that “No, you must keep him as SSPX” doesn’t make sense. The man clearly does not agree with the what the SSPX in general seem to stand for as determined by its authorities.

To me, this is like asking a group where one person is saying “I don’t want to join” to still include that individual. The most logical question I would raise then is why? He/she simply does not agree with what we stand for or has differing views. I might also question whether Rome is honest then because they want to keep a person who disagrees with uniting in the first place.

 

[Melchior_1]

I do understand their history. But I still see the legal grounds for objecting against the SSPX action of revoking SSPX membership from Bishop Williamson as shaky at best.

If I want to rejoin Rome, and a member of my group does not like that, I think I am well within my rights at that point to consider him as having a different opinion than the groups. So for all purposes, he is not SSPX.

For Rome to claim that “No, you must keep him as SSPX” doesn’t make sense. The man clearly does not agree with the what the SSPX in general seem to stand for as determined by its authorities.

To me, this is like asking a group where one person is saying “I don’t want to join” to still include that individual. The most logical question I would raise then is why? He/she simply does not agree with what we stand for or has differing views. I might also question whether Rome is honest then because they want to keep a person who disagrees with uniting in the first place.

I can sum this up like so; the legal rights they have are given to them by the Successor of Peter. If they have any legal rights, it is only because he who holds the keys gives them said rights. If they have no rights, likewise.

Remember, he has the power to bind on Earth as it is in Heaven. If Benedict and his friends act and say things which imply or state that the SSPX is bound by the law, then they are bound by the law. If they say and/or act that they are bound by the laws that Brother JR quoted before, if Rome says that they are bound to what Society of Apostolic Lifes are, they are bound by this. If there’s an issue with this, people need to take it up with St. Matthew and Jesus Christ.

In the case of His Grace Williamson, the Holy See likely wants to see how the SSPX will govern. They are acting like a Society of Apostolic Life, and also like a Prelature. If the SSPX wants to have this set up, they need to show they can deal with things as such a group would. Without faculties or having a valid ministry, they don’t have the teeth to do this.

Again, this is based off of being bound by the man who has the keys.

I understand what you’re getting at, however from a governance and canon law perspective what you’re saying isn’t applicable due to the nature of the situation.

 

[Moore11]

Back when things looked promising the Vatican was saying that each Bishop would be handled separately. How does that figure into the scheme of things. If the SSPX jettisoned what has really changed? The Vatican is still looking at each Bishop separately anyway.

 

[Melchior_1]

Back when things looked promising the Vatican was saying that each Bishop would be handled separately. How does that figure into the scheme of things. If the SSPX jettisoned what has really changed? The Vatican is still looking at each Bishop separately anyway.

The difference is that, again, in a fight with Canon Law the Pope wins.

His Grace Fellay and the Society can’t, the Pope can.

The other angle to look at is this; if they are “just a group”, His Grace Fellay and His Grace Williamson hold the same office. They both do not have an ordinary. One does not summarily tell a Bishop to get lost, unless you have the keys to do so. Only someone’s ordinary, or proper jurisdiction, can tell someone to leave. That includes priests, I may add.

In this case, if the SSPX is not a Society of Apostolic Life, the members of the SSPX cannot force someone to leave. They have no ordinary in this case to speak of, which they should as they are ordained men.

Remember, too, that a secular priest needs to be incarnadined into a Diocese. Once that happens, the Bishop then acts as his ordinary unless they are a member of an Order or Society. Even then with a Society Apostolic Life, the Bishop still has a measure of power of sorts (especially if it is one of Diocesan Right).

The SSPX is not incarnadined anywhere. Using the logic that Canon Law doe snot apply to them, then they are all equals, and no one can force them to leave where they are as it pertains to the organization.

 

[JReducation]

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.

There is an entire section in the Code of Canon Law that speaks to this. The problem is that you can’t equate something like the Legion of Mary with SSPX. The Legion of Mary does not require a profession. The SSPX does and the Church acknowledges that profession as binding public commitment. Therefore, every law that applies to professiions, be they religious orders, congregations, secular orders, secular institutes and societies of apostolic life are going to apply to the SSPX.

An institute can make laws that determine who gets in and. how. That’s called Proper Law. Once the person has made a permanent commitment to the institute, be it by vows or some other form of profession, the institute cannot unilaterally dismiss him. We saw that in the canons that I posted above. Bishop Williamson was legally professed into the SSPX.

Now, the SSPX has two options. It can follow the canonical procedure for dismissal or it can dismiss without the process. If it chooses to do this, it puts itself on the spot, because of what I have mentioned many times. They would be acting as if they were outside the law. If they are outside the law, why even bother asking for a remission of the excommunication?

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.

See the above.

Technically speaking, even Pope Benedict is not part of the SSPX membership

Pope Benedict does not belong to any institute. The last pope who belonged to an institute was Pope John Paul II who was a perpetually professed OCDS

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.

If anyone applies for admission, even the pope, the major superior has the authority to deny admission. Admission is one thing, dismissal is another.

How the group chooses to band together over this is really not Rome’s concern.

Because that issue is settled in Rome’s mind. Rome does not see the SSPX as a group. That’s why I said, that you must look at this through the eyes of a major superior. A major superior looks at several elements: Canon Law, the constitutions of the institute, legal tradition, and the actions of the Holy See.

If the Holy See treats a community as a Catholic institute and gives it all of the attention normally reserved for a Catholic institute, then we can safely assume that the Holy See sees it as such. Therefore, we cannot see it any other way, because we do not create policies and procedures.

If I want to rejoin Rome, and a member of my group does not like that, I think I am well within my rights at that point to consider him as having a different opinion than the groups. So for all purposes, he is not SSPX.

That is not allowed. The individual would have to make a free choice to leave. I cannot dismiss him. As long as he does not put it in writing, he remains a member of the institute. This has come up in other communities that have had renegade members. They remain members until they ask to be dismissed or until the canonical process dismisses them. They may be out there living in sin with 10 wives, four husbands and peddling kool-aid.

For Rome to claim that “No, you must keep him as SSPX” doesn’t make sense. The man clearly does not agree with the what the SSPX in general seem to stand for as determined by its authorities.

I might also question whether Rome is honest then because they want to keep a person who disagrees with uniting in the first place.

It’s a matter of justice. Once you make perpetual profession, you owe it to the institute and to the Church to fulfill that commitment until such time as you are legally released.

Back when things looked promising the Vatican was saying that each Bishop would be handled separately. How does that figure into the scheme of things. If the SSPX jettisoned what has really changed? The Vatican is still looking at each Bishop separately anyway.

This is still the case. Each bishop retains membership in the SSPX, but he remains suspended until he agrees to the pope’s terms, before the pope returns him to active ministry. Think of it like being sent to your room. You’re still part of your family, but you can’t come to dinner until you do your homework or whatever Mom said you have to do. If you do not meet her requirements, you’re going to be very hungry. If a bishop does not meet the pope’s requirements, he will not get jurisdiction or faculties.

If the bishop fails to agree, he remains suspended. Objectively, each time that he celebrates the sacraments, he commits a grave sin.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[Melchior_1]

There is an entire section in the Code of Canon Law that speaks to this. The problem is that you can’t equate something like the Legion of Mary with SSPX. The Legion of Mary does not require a profession. The SSPX does and the Church acknowledges that profession as binding public commitment. Therefore, every law that applies to professiions, be they religious orders, congregations, secular orders, secular institutes and societies of apostolic life are going to apply to the SSPX.

Useful information here! I was not aware of this, but it does tie into what I was saying about how Rome is effectively treating them as a Society of Apostolic Life.

 

[i_am_a_Catholic]

There is an entire section in the Code of Canon Law that speaks to this. The problem is that you can’t equate something like the Legion of Mary with SSPX. The Legion of Mary does not require a profession. The SSPX does and the Church acknowledges that profession as binding public commitment. Therefore, every law that applies to professiions, be they religious orders, congregations, secular orders, secular institutes and societies of apostolic life are going to apply to the SSPX.

An institute can make laws that determine who gets in and. how. That’s called Proper Law. Once the person has made a permanent commitment to the institute, be it by vows or some other form of profession, the institute cannot unilaterally dismiss him. We saw that in the canons that I posted above. Bishop Williamson was legally professed into the SSPX.

Now, the SSPX has two options. It can follow the canonical procedure for dismissal or it can dismiss without the process. If it chooses to do this, it puts itself on the spot, because of what I have mentioned many times. They would be acting as if they were outside the law. If they are outside the law, why even bother asking for a remission of the excommunication?

I once again understand what you say here but think about this legally.

1. What is the CURRENT status of SSPX?
   A: Unclear. The desire is for it to be integrated as a Society for Apostolic life. But that is a future desire, not present.
2. So you agree that the current status of SSPX does not need to consent to canonical laws on membership?
   A: No they must, because they call themselves Catholic.
3. But their status is Unclear. They are Catholic but it is not clear if they are an instituition or another legion of Mary.

Do you see what I am getting at?

You want to apply the law on a potential of what SSPX might turn out to be (or perhaps even on what it used to be). But as it stands, SSPX is a group of people who have separated from the Church. It does not make sense to speak of them as anything other than that. Once their status is clearly defined, then we can talk about Canon law in terms of membership. But till then, only Canons that apply to them would be the common canons that apply to any person.

So my point here is that to enforce LEGAL rules on membership, one has to first define the status of SSPX clearly. Now Pope Benedict or many others might have made hints as to WHAT they want to define SSPX as. But law does not apply that way. Either the status is clearly defined and granted or the law simply does not apply as it would to an institution.

Pope Benedict does not belong to any institute. The last pope who belonged to an institute was Pope John Paul II who was a perpetually professed OCDS

I was creating an example. It was not meant to reflect that actual status of the current Pope.

If anyone applies for admission, even the pope, the major superior has the authority to deny admission. Admission is one thing, dismissal is another.

My sole argument here is that you cannot make such a claim till you have a proper definition of SSPX that is legally binding. Has the church produced such a document?

If she hasn’t, no matter how we feel about the situation, the law simply cannot be applied. So SSPX can allow or dismiss as they please.

**Because that issue is settled in Rome’s mind. ** Rome does not see the SSPX as a group. That’s why I said, that you must look at this through the eyes of a major superior. A major superior looks at several elements: Canon Law, the constitutions of the institute, legal tradition, and the actions of the Holy See.

To be settled in Rome’s mind is not a legally binding status though. Safe assumptions are also not legally binding on the status/nature of an institute.

It’s a matter of justice. Once you make perpetual profession, you owe it to the institute and to the Church to fulfill that commitment until such time as you are legally released.

It is also injustice to desire something from an organization which has not been defined by Rome in any legally binding way. I cannot sue a family as a co-operation for breaking co-operate rules if there is no legal document that defines/raises the family to the level of a co-operation.

Same with SSPX. Rome might like to think of SSPX as something for their discussions and possible future method of integration. But since these thoughts are not legally binding of themselves, the SSPX as it stands now is simply a group.

 

[JReducation]

So my point here is that to enforce LEGAL rules on membership, one has to first define the status of SSPX clearly. Now Pope Benedict or many others might have made hints as to WHAT they want to define SSPX as. But law does not apply that way. Either the status is clearly defined and granted or the law simply does not apply as it would to an institution.
.

A pope is not bound by that. Once the pope recognized and received Bishop Fellay under the title of Superior General of the SSPX and granted him the authority to speak for the entire Society, he de facto grants the society the status of an institute and they are bound by the statutes that govern institutes.

Were they undefined, then Bishop Fellay would not be the canonical superior general, in which case, he cannot represent them.

For example, when we were in the process of separating from the larger Franciscan community, we were undefined. It was a group of us who really founded the Franciscans of Life. However, the Holy See and the Archdiocese called me in. I attended all the meetings. I signed all of the documents. I signed off on the final draft of the constitution as superior general. After it was all said and done, the canonical title was given in writing retroactively.

When it comes to institutes, the Church has a great deal of flexibility on how she deals with them. As long as either the pope approves or the Sacred Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life, everything goes. The law does not bind the papacy or the curia. It only binds you and me. If the papacy and the curia want to work around it, they can do so without having to define anything. They simply ignore the law.

For that reason, major superiors pay more attention to the actions of the Holy See or the local bishop, than to the law. The actions tell you how they see you.

From that point forward, you can argue that you’re not what they think you are, if you want to do so. The Holy Father and the CDF (curia) have been dealing with the SSPX as an institute of apostolic life, even though they have never said so in writing. Their actions say so. The SSPX has never questioned it. They have followed the Vatican’s lead. Bishop Fellay and his council have all the authority to decide for almost 1,000 people whether they will reconcile with Rome or not. The Vatican is not interested in talking to the 500 priests, the seminarians, the brothers, the sisters, the tertiaries or the religious communities attached to the SSPX. Nor does the Vatican care what they think on this matter. The only opinion that matters to the Vatican is that Bishop Fellay.

If there is dissent, once he makes he choice, one way or another, then he has to deal with it according to Proper Law and Canon Law. That’s what major superiors do. We take the bullet.

You’re trying to come at this as if it were civil law. It’s not civil law. It does not work the same as civil law. The pope and the Sacred Congregations can ignore the law completely,which is what they’ve done thus far in their negotiations with the SSPX.

If they were going to be truly legalistic, the SSPX would first have to be recognized as an association of the faithful. It’s constitutions would have to be recognized as valid in order to recognize the superior general as a validly elected superior general.

The pope and the CDF jumped all of this. They acknowledge Bishop Fellay as superior general. One would ask, superior general of what? Superior general of an institute de facto recognized by the pope. There are two ways to be recognized, de jure and de factor. The first is according to the law. This has not happened, as you rightly point out. The second is according to the facts. This has happened. The Church treats and deals with Bishop Fellay as it does with any other superior.

Fraternally,

Br.JR, FFV

 

[Melchior_1]

To be settled in Rome’s mind is not a legally binding status though. Safe assumptions are also not legally binding on the status/nature of an institute.

When things are settled in Rome’s mind, they can become legally binding. Holding onto the keys will do that. If the Church treats them as a Society of Apostolic Life, then that is defacto what they are, and the Laws that bind such groups are applicable to the SSPX.

But since these thoughts are not legally binding of themselves, the SSPX as it stands now is simply a group.

I covered this in an earlier post on this thread. Brother JR just went into more details about it.

 

[JReducation]

When things are settled in Rome’s mind, they can become legally binding. Holding onto the keys will do that. If the Church treats them as a Society of Apostolic Life, then that is defacto what they are, and the Laws that bind such groups are applicable to the SSPX.

I covered this in an earlier post on this thread. Brother JR just went into more details about it.

We’re going in circles here and it’s not really the concern of the SSPX or Bishop Williamson right now. Their concern is their relationship.

Whether they resolve their differences according to Canon Law or outside of the law, the fact is that it is a major issue for them, even if they don’t come home today. It’s also a major issue for the Church. We can’t have free floating bishops. A bishop must be incardinated. A free floating bishop can create a schism. We have enough of these little schismatic groups around. We don’t need a high profile one.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[Lormar]

We can’t have free floating bishops. A bishop must be incardinated. A free floating bishop can create a schism. We have enough of these little schismatic groups around. We don’t need a high profile one.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

Do you know that there are somewhere between ten and fifteen sedevacantist bishops floating around the United States? I have their names written down somewhere but I can’t put my hands on the paper at the moment which is why I cannot give you an exact number.

I just found the paper - it is 15, and that includes “Pope Michael”.

 

[1AugustSon7]

How can one be “scholarly” while denying a part of history?

By being, for example, a biblical scholar or a physicist and not being a scholar of the holocaust

EDIT: ADDED: Sorry, didn’t mean to interrupt. This is very interesting reading.

 

[JReducation]

Do you know that there are somewhere between ten and fifteen sedevacantist bishops floating around the United States? I have their names written down somewhere but I can’t put my hands on the paper at the moment which is why I cannot give you an exact number.

I just found the paper - it is 15, and that includes “Pope Michael”.

I don’t know the exact number, but I know that there are several. Some are not well wrapped.

Fraternally,

Br.JR, FFV

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

By being, for example, a biblical scholar or a physicist and not being a scholar of the holocaust

EDIT: ADDED: Sorry, didn’t mean to interrupt. This is very interesting reading.

Yet he makes claims about the holocaust so he must feel that he is a scholar of it.

 

[flameburns623]

How is Pope Michael, btw–not to derail the thread. Isn’t this the troubled soul who, so far as anyone knows, not only is NOT CATHOLIC, but has no known formal affilliation with ANY Christian denomination? All that aside: There are some other groups extant internationally. If an SSPX schism would find a way to conjoin itself to one or more of those groups, I suppose they could survive. Thankfully, even Bp. Williamson, whose Eleison Comments I read regularly and whom I like for the way he articulates things, even Williamson seems unwilling to treat sedevacantism as a viable option.

 

[TimothyH]

I don’t know the exact number, but I know that there are several. Some are not well wrapped.

Fraternally,

Br.JR, FFV

Oh, you brought back memories of my father who used to use that phrase.

-Tim-

 

[1AugustSon7]

Yet he makes claims about the holocaust so he must feel that he is a scholar of it.

I didn’t know it was required we be a scholar in something before giving our assessment or opinion of it? Was it rash on his part? Yes, certainly. Was his controversial opinion only highlighted when there existed a promising prospect of a SSPX-Rome reunion? Yes, it was.

 

[Boulder257]

I didn’t know it was required we be a scholar in something before giving our assessment or opinion of it? Was it rash on his part? Yes, certainly. Was his controversial opinion only highlighted when there existed a promising prospect of a SSPX-Rome reunion? Yes, it was.

II understand your point, but when you are a “Bishop” responsible for the shepherding of your flock, I think you are held to a higher standard. Certainly he knows this or else he would not have felt the need to share his opinion. The authority of his office requires this of him.

 

[1AugustSon7]

I understand your point, but when you are a “Bishop” responsible for the shepherding of your flock, I think you are held to a higher standard. Certainly he knows this or else he would not have felt the need to share his opinion. The authority of his office requires this of him.

No argument - and no reason to [put] bishop in quotations.

[Edit: Added.]