Letter From Archbishop of Davao Diocese to the SSPX

[AgnusDie]

Open Letter from Archbishop Capalla The Mindanao Daily Mirror, Saturday, November 12, 2011
.by Ednard Kim La Rosa on Saturday, November 12, 2011 at 2:24am.

FR. FRANCOIS LAISNEY

Priests of the Society of Saint Pius X

9 Carpio Subdivision​

Buhangin Road, Davao City
Philippines

Dear Father Laisney:

As the Archbishop of Davao and duly appointed shepherd of the Catholic faith of this local church I would like to remind you again of a basic and fundamental principle from the Code of Canon Law . This principle must regulate and guide our priestly ministry.

I am Writing this reminder as from a friend and gentleman to another. This reminder is also directed to your Society here in Davao City and through you to some of our people who have innocently sought your ministerial services.

This fundamental principle is the authentic right and authority to minister here. If you think are validly ordained priest you have this right undoubtedly. But without genuine authorization or approval from me as Archbishop and Local Ordinary, you cannot, and are not allowed, to exercise that right within my jurisdiction and territory. You do not have the canonical faculty or permit which can only be given in writing by me.

I assume that you know very well that priests not canonically incardinated in our Diocese must have required written faculty to minister here. You also very well know that even transient priests, who are not irregular, need to present a celebret or certification from their own bishop or superior when they come here to preside in liturgical celebration or administer the Sacraments. This you do not Have. And even if you ask I cannot grant it because you do not have canonical status.

The reason for this has already been given and explained by our Holy Father, pope Benedict XVI in his Papal Letter on the Society of Saint pius X dated 12 March 2009. In reference to this point he clearly stated:

“The fact that the Society of Saint Pius X does not possess a canonical status in the Church is not, in the end, based on disciplinary but on doctrinal reasons. As long as the Society does not have a canonical status inside the Church, its ministers do not exercise legitimate ministry in the Church.”

It is very clear that you cannot exercise legitimately your priestly right to minister our Church territory or Diocese. And the reason-which you perhaps you failed to explain that there are two types of excommunication: ipso facto or automatic (latae sententiae) and sub judice or under investigation (ferendae sententiae). Of course I can understand why you could not and did not explain that because of automatic excommunication does not need official Church declaration you still remain excommunicated in conscience because of doctrinal error. This is the reason why you and your Society do not have canonical Status.

To push argument further, especially for the benefit of the lay people, this point means that you and your Society are not in the approved list of recognized ministers and society within the Church. No amount of reasoning, like the perceived necessity, the appeal to the people, the “salvation of souls”, the Good Samaritan Metaphor can confer ordinary jurisdiction or grant authorization to you except the local bishop. And you cannot apply one canonical provision and violate another in your argumentation.

Please Pardon me for saying that the logical consequence of the above points I presented is that as illegitimate ministers you are intruding without permission into our communities and misleading our people. As official shepherd of the flock I cannot help saying that you are trespassing our private domain, sneaking into our fold and snatching away like wolves in sheep’s clothing our innocent sheep. (Mt 7:15)

As chief shepherd of the local flock I am aware of my own short comings and limitation and those of my clergy, religious and lay faithful. Yes, there are lapses and questionable practices and behavior in the liturgical, pastoral and moral lives in our communities. We are not ignoring them. They make us humble before God’s mercy and forgiveness, and encourage us to struggle for authenticity and credibility. Our archdiocesan Liturgical Center under Fr. Joel Caasi will in due time prepare our people to celebrate the Missa extraordiaria in Latin with propriety and dignity when needed.

I have to say this as spiritual leader and ultimately responsible to God and the pope for the welfare of the flock entrusted to me. I am sorry I don’t enjoy and relish this public exchange of open letters which you provoked. But I am sure our people- priests, religious, laity especially the Latin Mass Society- will respond to your misleading statements in due time and in the appropriate manner.

With every good wish and prayer, I remain;

Your friend and brother in Christ,

(sgd.) Fernando R. Capalla

Archbishop of Davao City
Philippines
.

 

[jmj1984]

Open Letter from Archbishop Capalla The Mindanao Daily Mirror, Saturday, November 12, 2011
.by Ednard Kim La Rosa on Saturday, November 12, 2011 at 2:24am.

FR. FRANCOIS LAISNEY

Priests of the Society of Saint Pius X

9 Carpio Subdivision​

Buhangin Road, Davao City
Philippines

Dear Father Laisney:

As the Archbishop of Davao and duly appointed shepherd of the Catholic faith of this local church I would like to remind you again of a basic and fundamental principle from the Code of Canon Law . This principle must regulate and guide our priestly ministry.

I am Writing this reminder as from a friend and gentleman to another. This reminder is also directed to your Society here in Davao City and through you to some of our people who have innocently sought your ministerial services.

This fundamental principle is the authentic right and authority to minister here. If you think are validly ordained priest you have this right undoubtedly. But without genuine authorization or approval from me as Archbishop and Local Ordinary, you cannot, and are not allowed, to exercise that right within my jurisdiction and territory. You do not have the canonical faculty or permit which can only be given in writing by me.

I assume that you know very well that priests not canonically incardinated in our Diocese must have required written faculty to minister here. You also very well know that even transient priests, who are not irregular, need to present a celebret or certification from their own bishop or superior when they come here to preside in liturgical celebration or administer the Sacraments. This you do not Have. And even if you ask I cannot grant it because you do not have canonical status.

The reason for this has already been given and explained by our Holy Father, pope Benedict XVI in his Papal Letter on the Society of Saint pius X dated 12 March 2009. In reference to this point he clearly stated:

“The fact that the Society of Saint Pius X does not possess a canonical status in the Church is not, in the end, based on disciplinary but on doctrinal reasons. As long as the Society does not have a canonical status inside the Church, its ministers do not exercise legitimate ministry in the Church.”

It is very clear that you cannot exercise legitimately your priestly right to minister our Church territory or Diocese. And the reason-which you perhaps you failed to explain that there are two types of excommunication: ipso facto or automatic (latae sententiae) and sub judice or under investigation (ferendae sententiae). Of course I can understand why you could not and did not explain that because of automatic excommunication does not need official Church declaration you still remain excommunicated in conscience because of doctrinal error. This is the reason why you and your Society do not have canonical Status.

To push argument further, especially for the benefit of the lay people, this point means that you and your Society are not in the approved list of recognized ministers and society within the Church. No amount of reasoning, like the perceived necessity, the appeal to the people, the “salvation of souls”, the Good Samaritan Metaphor can confer ordinary jurisdiction or grant authorization to you except the local bishop. And you cannot apply one canonical provision and violate another in your argumentation.

Please Pardon me for saying that the logical consequence of the above points I presented is that as illegitimate ministers you are intruding without permission into our communities and misleading our people. As official shepherd of the flock I cannot help saying that you are trespassing our private domain, sneaking into our fold and snatching away like wolves in sheep’s clothing our innocent sheep. (Mt 7:15)

As chief shepherd of the local flock I am aware of my own short comings and limitation and those of my clergy, religious and lay faithful. Yes, there are lapses and questionable practices and behavior in the liturgical, pastoral and moral lives in our communities. We are not ignoring them. They make us humble before God’s mercy and forgiveness, and encourage us to struggle for authenticity and credibility. Our archdiocesan Liturgical Center under Fr. Joel Caasi will in due time prepare our people to celebrate the Missa extraordiaria in Latin with propriety and dignity when needed.

I have to say this as spiritual leader and ultimately responsible to God and the pope for the welfare of the flock entrusted to me. I am sorry I don’t enjoy and relish this public exchange of open letters which you provoked. But I am sure our people- priests, religious, laity especially the Latin Mass Society- will respond to your misleading statements in due time and in the appropriate manner.

With every good wish and prayer, I remain;

Your friend and brother in Christ,

(sgd.) Fernando R. Capalla

Archbishop of Davao City
Philippines
.

I can’t say I understand what the point of this letter was. It isn’t going to convince the SSPX, it’s unlikely to dissuade anyone attending their chapels and its unlikely to dissuade anyone who was considering attending their chapels. The fact that his Lordship appears to have taken upon himself to declare that the society is excommunicated due to doctrinal error is also somewhat bizarre. To my knowledge not even Pope Paul VI accused the society of being excommunicated due to doctrinal error and no pope or Vatican official has ever mentioned it. It would appear that as regards that form of excommunication his Lordship is either simply wrong or confused.

 

[JM3]

Hopefully, this letter will be read at all Masses within the archdiocese.

 

[ProVobis]

It seems like a redundant point.

 

[jmj1984]

Hopefully, this letter will be read at all Masses within the archdiocese.

It probably will be, though frankly that’s not a good thing, because the letter contains a glaring error. The bishop states that the Society are still excommunicated, for doctrinal reasons, sadly this is a falsehood, no pope nor Vatican authority has ever stated this, so where the bishop is getting that from I don’t know

As for the rest of it, as Pro Vobis says, it appears to be a redundant point.

 

[JM3]

It probably will be, though frankly that’s not a good thing, because the letter contains a glaring error. The bishop states that the Society are still excommunicated, for doctrinal reasons, sadly this is a falsehood, no pope nor Vatican authority has ever stated this, so where the bishop is getting that from I don’t know

As for the rest of it, as Pro Vobis says, it appears to be a redundant point.

What the Pope has said.

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/apost_letters/documents/hf_ben-xvi_apl_20090702_ecclesiae-unitatem_en.html

1. In the same spirit and with the same commitment to encouraging the resolution of all fractures and divisions in the Church and to healing a wound in the ecclesial fabric that was more and more painfully felt, I wished to remit the excommunication of the four Bishops illicitly ordained by Archbishop Lefebvre. With this decision I intended to remove an impediment that might have jeopardized the opening of a door to dialogue and thereby to invite the Bishops and the “Society of St Pius X” to rediscover the path to full communion with the Church. As I explained in my Letter to the Catholic Bishops of last 10 March, the remission of the excommunication was a measure taken in the context of ecclesiastical discipline to free the individuals from the burden of conscience constituted by the most serious of ecclesiastical penalties. However, the doctrinal questions obviously remain and until they are clarified the Society has no canonical status in the Church and its ministers cannot legitimately exercise any ministry.

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/letters/2009/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20090310_remissione-scomunica_en.html

Here I return to the distinction between individuals and institutions. The remission of the excommunication was a measure taken in the field of ecclesiastical discipline: the individuals were freed from the burden of conscience constituted by the most serious of ecclesiastical penalties. This disciplinary level needs to be distinguished from the doctrinal level. The fact that the Society of Saint Pius X does not possess a canonical status in the Church is not, in the end, based on disciplinary but on doctrinal reasons. As long as the Society does not have a canonical status in the Church, its ministers do not exercise legitimate ministries in the Church. There needs to be a distinction, then, between the disciplinary level, which deals with individuals as such, and the doctrinal level, at which ministry and institution are involved. In order to make this clear once again: until the doctrinal questions are clarified, the Society has no canonical status in the Church, and its ministers – even though they have been freed of the ecclesiastical penalty – do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church.

 

[Warrenton]

Open Letter from Archbishop Capalla… As official shepherd of the flock I cannot help saying that you are trespassing our private domain, sneaking into our fold and snatching away like wolves in sheep’s clothing our innocent sheep. (Mt 7:15).

I wonder if his Grace sends a similar letter to every imam and Protestant who sets up shop in his diocese.

 

[jmj1984]

What the Pope has said.

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/apost_letters/documents/hf_ben-xvi_apl_20090702_ecclesiae-unitatem_en.html

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/letters/2009/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20090310_remissione-scomunica_en.html

I’ve read both of them, several times, you’ll note theres no reference to them being excommunicated for doctrinal reasons

 

[JM3]

I’ve read both of them, several times, you’ll note theres no reference to them being excommunicated for doctrinal reasons

You should also notice that it was lifted for 4 Bishops and not to the Society.

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/letters/2009/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20090310_remissione-scomunica_en.html

In order to make this clear once again: until the doctrinal questions are clarified, the Society has no canonical status in the Church, and its ministers – even though they have been freed of the ecclesiastical penalty – do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church.

newadvent.org/cathen/05678a.htm

Excommunication (Latin ex, out of, and communio or communicatio, communion — exclusion from the communion)

Excommunication, however, is clearly distinguished from these penalties in that it is the privation of all rights resulting from the social status of the Christian as such. The excommunicated person, it is true, does not cease to be a Christian, since his baptism can never be effaced; he can, however, be considered as an exile from Christian society and as non-existent, for a time at least, in the sight of ecclesiastical authority. But such exile can have an end (and the Church desires it), as soon as the offender has given suitable satisfaction. Meanwhile, his status before the Church is that of a stranger. He may not participate in public worship nor receive the Body of Christ or any of the sacraments. Moreover, if he be a cleric, he is forbidden to administer a sacred rite or to exercise an act of spiritual authority.

Who can be excommunicated?

Moreover, the Church excommunicates not only those who abandon the true faith to embrace schism or heresy, but likewise the members of heretical and schismatic communities who have been born therein. As to the latter, however, it is not question of personal excommunication; the censure overtakes them in their corporate capacity, as members of a community in revolt against the true Church of Jesus Christ.

So, explain to me how they can have ‘no canonical status’ and still be in ‘communion’.

 

[Etamin]

This sort of letter is unfortunately what will start happening more and more, as SSPX continues to obstruct and pros-pone full unification with the one holy Catholic Church.

I will continue to pray for them. They do have some good charisms, but they must be obedient to See of Peter, if they wish to continue part of the Church. Their division from Christ’s own church, would result in their break from the Truth, Jesus, and their ultimate demise. God have mercy on all of us.

 

[ANNE_2]

The Bishop of each Diocese is in charge of his own Diocese and everything “Catholic” within his Diocese. His job is to - Save Souls, teach and protect his flock from error.
Until and unless SSPX can prove to him that they are duly ordained Priests, they may not say Mass and call it “Catholic” within his Diocese.

This quote from Pope Benedict says it all.
" The reason for this has already been given and explained by our Holy Father, pope Benedict XVI in his Papal Letter on the Society of Saint pius X dated 12 March 2009. In reference to this point he clearly stated:
“The fact that the Society of Saint Pius X does not possess a canonical status in the Church is not, in the end, based on disciplinary but on doctrinal reasons.
As long as the Society does not have a canonical status inside the Church, its ministers do not exercise legitimate ministry in the Church.”

 

[jmj1984]

You should also notice that it was lifted for 4 Bishops and not to the Society.

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/letters/2009/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20090310_remissione-scomunica_en.html

newadvent.org/cathen/05678a.htm

So, explain to me how they can have ‘no canonical status’ and still be in ‘communion’.

Primarily because the society was never excommunicated in the first place, only the bishops. If you’ll remember, you are trying to defend the view that they are excommunicated, not that they have ‘no canonical status’, so either prove that or retract your assertion. And no the two are not synonomous as anyone with knowledge of canon law or catholic theology would tell you.

 

[ANNE_2]

Primarily because the society was never excommunicated in the first place, only the bishops. If you’ll remember, you are trying to defend the view that they are excommunicated, not that they have ‘no canonical status’, so either prove that or retract your assertion. And no the two are not synonomous as anyone with knowledge of canon law or catholic theology would tell you.

Yes they were. Pope Benedict has lifted the excommunciation on the Bishops - while talks are going on.
Since the Bishops of SSPX were ecommunicated, they did not have the authority to Ordain men as Catholic Priests. This issue is being handled at the Vatican level.

Here is the link from the Vatican web site.
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cbishops/documents/rc_con_cbishops_doc_20090121_remissione-scomunica_en.html

It is very important that we do not confuse the SSPX (- SOCIETY of ST PIUS X) with FSSP (- Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter).
FSSP are Roman Catholic Priests who’s mission is the formation and sanctification of priests in the traditional liturgy (extraordinary form) and secondly the pastoral deployment of priests in the service of the Church. The FSSP was approved by Pope John Paul II.

 

[Speedypizza]

I wonder if his Grace sends a similar letter to every imam and Protestant who sets up shop in his diocese.

Without saying much about the SSPX, as I am not sure what their issue is with the Church, but they do LOOK like very good, holy Catholics. However I don’t think a letter like this is needed for Muslims or protestants, as they are not acting like or looking like Catholics. IF the SSPX is wrong (not sure on that) then they are misleading the faithful.

Pax

 

[Denise1957]

Primarily because the society was never excommunicated in the first place, only the bishops. If you’ll remember, you are trying to defend the view that they are excommunicated, not that they have ‘no canonical status’, so either prove that or retract your assertion. And no the two are not synonomous as anyone with knowledge of canon law or catholic theology would tell you.

Pope John Paul ll upheld the excomms. The consecrations of bishops without a papal mandate is an automatic excommunicable offense. And not only did the Archbishop ordain the four without a papal mandate, he also went against the expressed wishes of the Pope in regards the consecrations. Another issue was that the SSPX was already suppressed, and therefore the archbishop wasn’t supposed to consecrate anyone anyway. There were just a lot of issues. Not that there weren’t HUGE problems in the Church - there certainly were. But as I have heard one traditionalist say: the consecrations were the wrong solution to a very real problem.

Here’s a link to the to Pope John Paul ll Eccesia Dei letter dated July 2, 1988
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/motu_proprio/documents/hf_jp-ii_motu-proprio_02071988_ecclesia-dei_en.html

 

[jmj1984]

Yes they were. Pope Benedict has lifted the excommunciation on the Bishops - while talks are going on.
Since the Bishops of SSPX were ecommunicated, they did not have the authority to Ordain men as Catholic Priests. This issue is being handled at the Vatican level.

Here is the link from the Vatican web site.
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cbishops/documents/rc_con_cbishops_doc_20090121_remissione-scomunica_en.html

It is very important that we do not confuse the SSPX (- SOCIETY of ST PIUS X) with FSSP (- Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter).
FSSP are Roman Catholic Priests who’s mission is the formation and sanctification of priests in the traditional liturgy (extraordinary form) and secondly the pastoral deployment of priests in the service of the Church. The FSSP was approved by Pope John Paul II.

Who said I was confused?

If you read the material, you’d know the bishops not the society as a whole were excommunicated, they merely remain -in the eyes of Rome- irregular

 

[jmj1984]

Pope John Paul ll upheld the excomms. The consecrations of bishops without a papal mandate is an automatic excommunicable offense. And not only did the Archbishop ordain the four without a papal mandate, he also went against the expressed wishes of the Pope in regards the consecrations. Another issue was that the SSPX was already suppressed, and therefore the archbishop wasn’t supposed to consecrate anyone anyway. There were just a lot of issues. Not that there weren’t HUGE problems in the Church - there certainly were. But as I have heard one traditionalist say: the consecrations were the wrong solution to a very real problem.

Here’s a link to the to Pope John Paul ll Eccesia Dei letter dated July 2, 1988
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/motu_proprio/documents/hf_jp-ii_motu-proprio_02071988_ecclesia-dei_en.html

I’m sorry how is this relevant? The bishops were the only ones who were declared excommunicated, not the society as a whole, they were merely declared irregular.

 

[Denise1957]

I’m sorry how is this relevant? The bishops were the only ones who were declared excommunicated, not the society as a whole, they were merely declared irregular.

Sorry, I’m guilty of not reading your post thoroughly enough. I thought you meant something else.

 

[TrueLight]

So is this what’s going to start happening now? Are these open letters going to keep coming out sort of like a pile on, just to ensure that the SSPX shuns reconciliation?

 

[JM3]

So is this what’s going to start happening now? Are these open letters going to keep coming out sort of like a pile on, just to ensure that the SSPX shuns reconciliation?

Those who wanted to be reconciled.

ewtn.com/expert/answers/sspx_fssp.htm

some number of seminarians at Ecône and priests of the SSPX, not wanted to go into schism, sought an agreement with Rome, which concluded with the founding of the Priestly (Sacerdotal) Fraternity of St. Peter (FSSP).

Some others.

ewtn.com/vnews/getstory.asp?number=76383

“The split continues,” said Archbishop Andre Vingt-Trois of Paris in his February 27 statement. He warned the faithful that the priests who now serve at the church of St. Nicolas du Chardonnet are not recognized by the Parish archdiocese or any other jurisdiction of the Catholic Church.

In 1977, members of the SSPX entered the parish church in the Latin quarter of Paris, ousted the pastor, and began an occupation that continues to this day. French courts have ruled on several occasions that the occupation is illegal, but declined to expel the traditionalists for fear of creating a greater disturbance.

To those who wish to be reconsiled, the Church waits with open arms. To those who do not is this sentence from Protocol 122/49 - “Let them understand that to them the following principle applies without restriction: Submission to the Catholic Church and to the Sovereign Pontiff is necessary for salvation.”