It looks like this particular group isn’t cooperating with the bishop. Not only have they been coming out with public letters, they also were giving away their anti-OF propaganda, and it was just a couple of weeks after the events in the Vatican when they were given the offer for reconciliation.
Bro,
Yes, really. I don’t know where that reference even comes to it
Stop clutching at straws and changing the subject, you made an assertion, an assertion which is clearly false. You can disagree with the SSPX, say they are irregular, that they exercise no legitimate ministry etc… that is a reasonable point of view, I may disagree with it, but it is reasonable, publicising falsehoods is however not a reasonable point of view but a dogmatic and unreasonable point of view.And this is a surprise because?
Until things are sorted out they’re not going to co-operate with the bishop, for right or wrong. Of course they’re not a rogue group of the SSPX, but this story has two sides.Wow, you accuse the bishop of making stuff up, then you end your post by making your own stuff up.And this is a surprise because?
The bishop has made up an entire section of canon law, what is this ‘excommunicated by conscience’ no such thing exists, the bishop then goes to make assertions that they are still excommunicated, in the light of the fact the Vatican has never said or even hinted at this the bishop is simply wrong either by mistake, ignorance of canon law or other motives. Why does the bishop find it necessary to exaggerate matters in order to keep people away from the SSPX? Frankly the Bishop has strayed from merely keeping order in his diocese to institutionalised SSPX bashing. Why not stick to the facts? Why make up sections of canon law and imaginary excommunications?
Lastly it appears to be another case where people in a diocese only get the TLM in order to ‘get rid’ of the SSPX.
I was mistaken
The Bishop wasn’t speaking in a manner of Canon Law. If he was, he would have stated it clearly. He was merely explaining the irregular status of the SSPX, and that while they aren’t canonically excommunicated, they also are not in full union with the Church.I was mistaken
But do tell me when you find the Vatican saying the SSPX are still excommunicated or the term ‘excommunication in conscience’ in canon law
I’m afraid that’s not all the bishop was doing, he also stated that the SSPX were excommunicated in conscience, no such thing exists, further the SSPX are not still excommunicated. Therefore the Bishop should in the interests of honesty, explain this or retract that part of the statement.
What ‘falsehoods’ have I publicised?Yes, really. I don’t know where that reference even comes to it
Please explain to me how this is not schismatic.
I don’t have to. As a person making an assertion against what the Vatican has consistently stated, it is up to you to show that the Vatican has in fact changed its mind as regards the SSPX and regards them as being in schism. Until you do so, saying they are in a schism is a falsehood.
The Bishop wasn’t making a statement of fact in Canon Law. Being a Filipino myself, I will say that our use of the English language is a bit different from Americans even though it was Americans who taught us English in the first half of the 20th century. We’ve progressed since with our own colloquial use of the language, plus we tend to use English the same way we use our native language. The Bishop is speaking figuratively here, with the intention of using a strong word such as “excommunication” to emphasize that there is a separation. As I said in my last post, he isn’t meaning to say “excommunication” in a canonical sense. Don’t forget that while this is a public letter, this is meant for consumption by Filipinos. As Bro. JR pointed out, perhaps the command of English by the Archbishop is not as good. My opinion on the matter is that he’s just using English as Filipinos in the Philippines use it.
The bishop is a bishop, as such he would have had formation in canon law. The term was used in reference to the fact that the old excommunications against the bishops were now remitted, in that context it is pretty clear the Bishop is not merely meaning to say that the society is irregular. Besides your argument is illogical, if excommunicate merely means separation, what does a bishop say when he means actual excommunication and not separation?
And if we accept your meaning of the word, where does that lead us? 'Seperation/Separated in conscience’ that doesn’t even make sense.The bishop is using a simple term that most Filipinos are familiar with, to tell them they shouldn’t be going to a parish of priests with no canonical status in the Church.The bishop is a bishop, as such he would have had formation in canon law. The term was used in reference to the fact that the old excommunications against the bishops were now remitted, in that context it is pretty clear the Bishop is not merely meaning to say that the society is irregular. Besides your argument is illogical, if excommunicate merely means separation, what does a bishop say when he means actual excommunication and not separation?
No, its clear, the bishop is saying they are ‘excommunicated in conscience’, a statement which makes 2 claims, firstly that they are still excommunicated and secondly specifies the type of excommunication. As I and others have pointed out both these claims are false and as such should be withdrawn.
Br JrI 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
Except he’s already done that, there’s no need to use excommunication or ‘excommunicated in conscience’ in the letter.
I have not said they are in schism. You make a false accusation against me. What I did do was to post the CCC definition of schism and the Code of Canon Law. ‘latae sententiae excommunication’, as the Bishop says in his letter, “automatic excommunication does not need official Church declaration”.
Not only is it a reasonable point of view that the SSPX is irregular and has no legitimate ministry in the Church, it is also the view of the Church.Yes, really. I don’t know where that reference even comes to it
Catholic - the Catholic Church,