Letter From Archbishop of Davao Diocese to the SSPX

[ProVobis]

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?

TL, look at it this way. They wouldn’t be doing it if they felt the SSPX were an insignificant arm of the Catholic Church.

 

[archangel04]

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.

The society was never excommunicated! Only the Bishops were. The society is made up of priest not lay people. The excommunication of the four Bishops was lifted back in '09. Now the questions is how can the society as whole and a regular status within the Church. This is now up to the Bishops of the SSPX and the Vatican. Nothing we can do but pray.

 

[jmj1984]

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

No need to apologise, sorry if I was a little uncharitable

 

[Denise1957]

No need to apologise, sorry if I was a little uncharitable

No worries, jmj!

 

[Alfonsus]

For the faithful of the Diocese, this is a great clarification.
Let us put to rest the debate regarding excommunication.
What is put in this letter, and rightly in the Bishop authority, is that no priest may give service without permission and in communion with the local Ordinary.
You can’t come and built your houses, chapels, churches, without the Ordinary approval.

The bishop is doing his job, at least in this area.

 

[Timothysis]

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?

The Archbishop is alerting the society that HE is the authority and that any priest who exercises any Church ministry must have his permission according to Canon law. I don’t see where it is a piling on; in fact, I think the Archbishop is doing a very good thing by letting them know where the line is in the sand. He uses the analogy of sheep in wolves clothing which is spot on since the society is moving into diocesan territories and setting up chapels without the bishop’s permission. How can ANYONE criticize him for pointing out the obvious and asking them to cease and desist? If it was any other group than the sspx, more here would be cheering the bishop.

 

[TrueLight]

The Archbishop is alerting the society that HE is the authority and that any priest who exercises any Church ministry must have his permission according to Canon law. I don’t see where it is a piling on; in fact, I think the Archbishop is doing a very good thing by letting them know where the line is in the sand. He uses the analogy of sheep in wolves clothing which is spot on since the society is moving into diocesan territories and setting up chapels without the bishop’s permission. How can ANYONE criticize him for pointing out the obvious and asking them to cease and desist? If it was any other group than the sspx, more here would be cheering the bishop.

I’m curious as to why this letter had to be published now and what provoked it.

 

[ConstantineTG]

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?

You don’t even know what happened. The Archdiocese of Davao has a Latin Mass Society which promotes the TLM in the archdiocese. They also have regularly scheduled TLM. Now, to further promote the TLM, the Archdiocese of Davao held a Latin Mass Seminar for the faithful to educate them about the Latin Mass. Two priests from the local SSPX chapels promptly showed up uninvited and distributed pamphlets claiming the OF is invalid and the Church is questionable since Vatican II.

Now tell me who’s doing something to shun reconciliation.

 

[JReducation]

I think that those who are defending the SSPX here are missing a canonical point. No society of apostolic life, no association of the faithful, no religious order, no religious congregation, no lay organization using the name Catholic may setup house in a diocese without the permission of the diocesan bishop. The only exception to this law is Opus Dei. Even they are supposed to send an advanced notice to the local bishop before they arrive.

The bishop has the right to tell anyone who calls themselves Catholic that they may not be in his diocese unless he grants them permission to be there. What he is saying is that if you apply one canon law, you must also apply the other. The law has not changed. The Ordinary of the diocese is the only person who can allow anyone to use the name “Catholic” in his diocese.

When the SSPX call their chapels, schools, etc Catholic, they are in violation of canon law. You can’t do that without the authorization of the bishop. There is a difference between an institution that is Catholic and an institution that is run by Catholics. For example, something like CAF can only use the name Catholic, because the Archbishop of San Diego granted the permission.

In addition, the bishop is also reminding them of something that is also law. A priest cannot administer sacraments in a diocese without the permission of the bishop, unless the priest belongs to an exempt religious order and has the permission of his superior. The bishop refers to the letter from the superior. The superior of the SSPX does not have the canonical authority to write such a letter.

The bishop also points out that even if they ask him for permission to minister in his diocese, he cannot grant it, because there is a doctrinal separation between the SSPX and the Church. That term, doctrinal, is not one of his making. It came from Pope Benedict.

The excommunication to which he refers is a very ancient concept, which is different from what we know today, but is still a valid one. When there is a doctrinal break, there is an excommunication. It is not the same kind as a disciplinary one, as what happened when the Archbishop ordained the four bishops. In this context, the term is employed to mean “out of communion with”. We know that the SSPX is not in full communion with the Holy See. The bishop’s language may be a trifle archaic, but the concept is still in place in the Church. Pope Benedict refers to it himself when he refers to the matter of doctrine. He simply uses more modern language.

Reading this letter, my take is that the bishop is not a proficient writer of English. It is not suprising that he uses archaic language to refer to a very real and current situation, the fact that the Society as a whole is not in full communion with the Holy See.

These letters are going to keep coming from many bishops, until the Society does something to repair its situation. The fact is that these letters are not issued in a bubble. There are copies sent to the Holy See. If the bishop is in error, the Holy See will correct it. If the Holy See lets the letter stand, then we know that the bishop has the support of the Pope and Cardinal Levada.

We should not dismiss his right to write such a letter. This is the kind of letter that a bishop would send to Franciscans, Dominicans, Jesuits, Sisters of Charity or Legion of Mary if any of them enter his diocese without his permission. In my own diocese, these letters have been issued about a number of societies, religious communities and lay organizations. They are not unusual.

On the flip side, when an organization that calls itself Catholic asks for permission to enter a diocese, there is a letter of erection from the bishop. Every time that we enter a diocese with the intent to stay, we must get a letter of erection.

Then there are other letters that you must get from a bishop. I’m going to TX in January. To enter the diocese, I had to get a letter from my superior giving me permission to enter San Antonio. I had to send that letter to the bishop. He then wrote back a letter giving me permission to get off the plane. I’m only going to be there to deliver a talk and leave in two days time. If I were going to visit a relative or vacation, I would only need the letter from my superior granting me permission to travel. Because I’m going to speak to Catholics in that diocese, as a Catholic, I need the bishop’s permission months before arriving. I believe that we started this process in July for a two-hour talk in January.

This is not new to clergy or us who are religious. I’m surprised that they have not received similar letters from other bishops or they may have and we just don’t know about it. We don’t always have a need to know.

I just think that it’s sad that this situation exists at all.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[TrueLight]

You don’t even know what happened. The Archdiocese of Davao has a Latin Mass Society which promotes the TLM in the archdiocese. They also have regularly scheduled TLM. Now, to further promote the TLM, the Archdiocese of Davao held a Latin Mass Seminar for the faithful to educate them about the Latin Mass. Two priests from the local SSPX chapels promptly showed up uninvited and distributed pamphlets claiming the OF is invalid and the Church is questionable since Vatican II.

Now tell me who’s doing something to shun reconciliation.

Well thank you, Constantine for providing the background information.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Also the OP posted only the most recent of open letters between the SSPX chapel in Davao and the Archdiocese of Davao. This has been back and forth for a few months now. Both sides has posted open letters on local newspapers.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Here is the earlier open letter by the SSPX chapel in Davao, published on local newspaper SunStar Davao.

An Open letter to Archbishop Fernando Capalla and all Catholics of good will in Davao City

The Catholic Faith is founded on the very divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Word of God, Who came down on earth to save men from their sins and lead them to Heaven with Him. He entrusted His apostles and their successors not only the Truth He taught but also the example of holiness He gave them and the seven sacraments as means of grace. That most Holy Deposit has been handled down faithfully through the ages in and by the Catholic Church, and shines especially in her saints. As Pope Pius IX taught, the Holy Ghost has been promised to Peter and his successors not to teach new doctrine but to keep entirely and expose faithfully this deposit of faith; they unite themselves to the sacrifice of Our Lord Jesus Christ and are fed by His very Body and Blood to become one victim with him so as to be glorified with him.

To these treasures the Society of Saint Pius X has been faithful from the very beginning. It was founded perfectly canonically by the local bishop in 1970, and grew steadily ever since. But this fidelity to the Tradition of the Church did not please those who were intent in changing everything after the Second Vatican Council. Persecution came upon the Society of Saint Pius X, trying to force them to take up the novelties, especially the new mass. But is it not right of each priest and layman to remain faithful to what he received from the Church? Nay, it is his very duty! That fidelity to the Mass of all times has been vindicated by Pope Benedict XVI, when he declared in Summorum Pontificum that the Traditional Latin Mass was never abrogated: this implicitly means that those who tried to suppress it in the 1970’s were doing the wrong thing. Pope Benedict thus wrote: “What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of the sudden entirely forbidden or even considered as harmful. It behoves all of us to preserve the riches which have developed in the Church’s faith and prayer and to give them their proper place” This is what The Society of Saint Pius X has been doing all those years. When one says that the canonical situation of the Society of Saint Pius X is irregular, whose fault? Not the SSPX’s but it was the fault of those trying to suppress Tradition.

Now it is a fact in many places, these riches of the Tradition of the Church has been- abusively- forbidden priests were not allowed to offer the Traditional Latin Mass nor were the faithful allowed to assist. Many of these faithful had been wounded by the novelties, the scandals, - not only the moral scandals that have afflicted the Church after Vatican II, but the very scandals of novelties in the doctrine, priest s no longer believing in the necessity of the Catholic faith for Salvation, and even sometimes not believing in The Real Presence of Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament. The way they treat the Blessed Sacrament is often a scandal. Communion in hand has led many to lose faith in that Dogma. Local Levites passed by those souls wounded by these scandals and did not cared; local priests pass by and did not care; the society of Saint Pius X, like the Good Samaritan, came by and cared for these souls, healing them and teaching them the Faith of all times, giving them the sacraments of all times and the moral guidance of all times; that very same Faith, very same Sacraments, which you my Lord Bishop, received when you were a young boy.

Now what would you think of this local Levite and Priest turning around and telling the Good Samaritan, you can’t do this because you are a stranger and have no local jurisdiction? Is it not the model of the Good Samaritan that of Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself? Yes, these Good Samaritan have jurisdiction, not normal one, but the one given in this time of crisis of Faith by the very principles of the Canon law, the first which is: “the supreme law is the salvation of souls”.

Pope Benedict XVI, conscious of this crisis of the church, is currently working for restoring a proper canonical status to the SSPX: he has given the freedom to the Traditional Mass as we had asked: he has suppressed the “excommunication” of 1988 (which we always considered it invalid), in such a way that no one can say we are not in the Catholic Church; he has done the theological discussions we had asked and now offering a proper canonical status. It is certainly not time for bishops to go in the opposite direction.

Catholics may reach the Priests of the Society of Saint Pius X at (Removed for the good of the souls of the faithful of Davao).

For the Honor of God and in devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, a Rosary Crusade is being organized on October 7, 8 and 9 for three intentions: 1) to fulfill Our Lady’s request at Fatima to do reparation in honour of Her Immaculate heart2) to pray for Pope Benedict XVI to consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary and 3) to defeat the RH bill being debated in the Congress. For more information on the schedule and location phone Rosary Crusade secretary (Removed for the good of the souls of the faithful of Davao).

Fr. Francois Laisney, SSPX
Fr. Timothy Pfeiffer, SSPX
Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer, SSPX
Fr. Alexander Hora, SSPX

Sunstar Davao, October 2, 2011, Page 6

 

[ConstantineTG]

And here is an earlier circular from the Archbishop regarding the presence of the SSPX in his Archdiocese

ON THE SSPX PRESENCE IN THE ARCHDIOCESE OF DAVAO

Circular 19
Series of 2011
6 September 2011

To: ALL PRIESTS, RECTORS OF SEMINARIES, HEADS OF SCHOOLS AND RELIGIOUS COMMUNITIES, DIOCESAN AGENCY AND ACLAIM MEMBERS

FROM: ARCHBISHOP FERNANDO R. CAPALLA

RE: SOCIETY OF SAINT PIUS X, MINDANAO

You are hereby informed of the presence of three (3) priest from the Saint Pius X Society which has been organized by Archbishop Lefebvre. Because of his opposition to the Second Vatican Council, the society and its members has no canonical status in the Church. Our Holy Father in his Papal letter on Society of Pius X of 12 March 2009 said:

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.

For this reason, our Catholics- priest, religious and laity- are hereby advised not to participate in any ministry- liturgical celebrations, teaching and community- of the Society of Saint Pius X whose residence is situated in the Carpio Subdivision, Buhangin-Cabantian Road, Davao City. Though validly ordained, the priests do not have legal or canonical status in the Local Church.

Everyone is requested to pray that the Society would be reconciled in the Church in God’s own time.

Devotedly yours in Christ,

Fernando R. Capalla, D.D. (SGD)
Archbishop of Davao

 

[JReducation]

Here is the earlier open letter by the SSPX chapel in Davao, published on local newspaper SunStar Davao.

Not very diplomatic. You don’t do things this way. You deal with the bishop, but you don’t defy him and you must always acknowledge his authority.

This just gives the bishop the legal right to file a formal complaint with Cardinal Levada and Cardinal Burke. That would just throw a monkey wrench into the wheels of reconciliation.

What a mess.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[louis91766]

…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…

Does this mean that everyone in the SSPX is still excommunicated ?

 

[ConstantineTG]

Does this mean that everyone in the SSPX is still excommunicated ?

As the Pope has clearly said in the past, they do not have a ministry in the Church. It has nothing to do with excommunication. While not being excommunicated, they cannot practice their ministry licitly within the Church. Any priest doesn’t need to be excommunicated before their faculties are withdrawn.

 

[JM3]

Does this mean that everyone in the SSPX is still excommunicated ?

vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P7C.HTM

CCC

2089 Incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it. "Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him."11

Code of Canon Law

Can. 1364 §1. Without prejudice to the prescript of ⇒ can. 194, §1, n. 2, an apostate from the faith, a heretic, or a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication; in addition, a cleric can be punished with the penalties mentioned in ⇒ can. 1336, §1, nn. 1, 2, and 3.

 

[ProVobis]

Does this mean that everyone in the SSPX is still excommunicated ?

No.

The FSSPX priests have never been excommunicated, but have had no canonical standing from day one of their priesthood. Excommunicated were just the six bishops, of which two have died, but as has been reported, those excommunications were lifted a couple of years ago.

 

[jmj1984]

vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P7C.HTM

CCC

Code of Canon Law

So now we’ve got the old accusation of Scism, which has been refuted, Oh I don’t know, a hundred times, when will you people ever learn?

renewamerica.com/columns/mershon/070410

 

[jmj1984]

Not very diplomatic. You don’t do things this way. You deal with the bishop, but you don’t defy him and you must always acknowledge his authority.

This just gives the bishop the legal right to file a formal complaint with Cardinal Levada and Cardinal Burke. That would just throw a monkey wrench into the wheels of reconciliation.

What a mess.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Br Jr

I doubt it, if they are going to be reconciled this will be ignored, if not then it will be acted upon. Its well known this is the way the SSPX operates, they always tell the bishop that they are operating in his diocese and may accomodate his requests/commands.