Letter From Archbishop of Davao Diocese to the SSPX

[JReducation]

Oh I’m entirely aware of that, my point was simply that regardless of your view on the SSPX, one doesn’t need to invent fictitious punishments and sanctions in order to condemn them

The Archbishop did not invent anything. I’ve already explained this at least three time. The term excommunication of conscience is a very valid term, even though it’s not use as much today.

Why do you keep insisting that he’s pulling something out of his sleeve, just because you didn’t know this term existed?

Not everything is in Canon Law. There are other sources of law in the Church and there are many terms that are not frequently used or have been replaced by newer terms.

To the priests who were receiving the letter, if they are good at Latin and Church procedures, they would have understood the term and how it is used.

Back down here and leave this bishop be. He has a right to call any Catholic on the carpet who invades his diocese. Just because one is Catholic does not give one the right to setup shop in any diocese, unless you choose not to call your shop “Catholic”. This memo or letter would have been sent to anyone else coming into a diocese without permission.

Would you have been this upset if it had been sent to the Missionaries of Charity had they come in and opened houses for the poor without the bishop’s permission?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[jmj1984]

Actually, you can. Bl. John Paul declared that you could. He did so, so that he could apply it to Archbishop Lefebvre. He wrote a Motu Proprio on Bishop Lefebvre and declares him schismatic, but stops at declaring the SSPX as being in schism.

It’s a very complicated case. I think that we often forget to look for those little statements that Bl. John Paul and Pope Benedict have made that are very telling. It is very obvious that neither of them haver endearing feelings for this whole mess and for the key players.

Bl. John Paul even went as far as asking Catholics to withdraw from the SSPX. chapels.

matt1618.freeyellow.com/schism.html

It’s a very complex situation. But if we observe the language of the Vatican, the term schismatic is applied all the way through the Holy Father’s statement. As the Living Law of the Church, he can redefine and apply as he sees fit any word or term in Canon Law.

We don’t have to like it. We just have to accep it.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Br Jr

I am not even going to get into the theological problems with defining the pope as the living law of the church who can do whatever he wants, suffice to say you subscribe to one theological camp regarding that view and I subscribe to another, that propounded by St Robert Bellarmine and Bl Cardinal Newman.

As for the issue of schism and schismatic, Bl John Paul II used the term ‘schismatic acts’ in his official statement on the issue, not schism as such nor has the Vatican or Pope Benedict XVI used it since. Barring any new statement from the issue its clear the SSPX is not in schism and Rome has stated that.

renewamerica.com/columns/mershon/070410

 

[ConstantineTG]

That’s good but how many of these bishops do you suppose were around in 1988 when the Pope himself decreed that the 1962 Missal be made “wide and generous”? Or how many would admit that the TLM had never been abrogated? Methinks if there were any such bishops back then, then the Archbishop couldn’t in good conscience have been able to apply his “necessity” rationale for consecrating four bishops to perpetuate the Usus Antiquior in the first place.

Sorry, I’m not getting what you are trying to say here. What does 1988 have to do with today? These events are recent, and regardless if the Latin Mass Society has been there for 1 year or 20 years, fact is it was there prior to the arrival of the SSPX. Given that the SSPX’s mission is to promote the TLM, why do it in a diocese that is already doing it? As I said, there are tons of dioceses in the Philippines where we have more “modern” (as you guys want to term it) bishops. Why set up shop in a diocese where there is a healthy Latin Mass group?

 

[jmj1984]

The Archbishop did not invent anything. I’ve already explained this at least three time. The term excommunication of conscience is a very valid term, even though it’s not use as much today.

Why do you keep insisting that he’s pulling something out of his sleeve, just because you didn’t know this term existed?

Not everything is in Canon Law. There are other sources of law in the Church and there are many terms that are not frequently used or have been replaced by newer terms.

To the priests who were receiving the letter, if they are good at Latin and Church procedures, they would have understood the term and how it is used.

Back down here and leave this bishop be. He has a right to call any Catholic on the carpet who invades his diocese. Just because one is Catholic does not give one the right to setup shop in any diocese, unless you choose not to call your shop “Catholic”. This memo or letter would have been sent to anyone else coming into a diocese without permission.

Would you have been this upset if it had been sent to the Missionaries of Charity had they come in and opened houses for the poor without the bishop’s permission?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Br Jr

I didn’t say the Bishop couldn’t be angry at them or write letters against them,I just said writing letters saying they were ‘excommunicated in conscience’ wasn’t acceptable. I’m sorry but the bishops letter tends towards the interpretation that he was using it in a canonical way, the term doesn’t exists canonically so why use it? You tell me that it’s used theologically, that its equivalent to dissent, but that isn’t the context the terms being used in.

On this point I wonder why you did not explain to others 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 which 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.

It couldn’t be clearer that the bishop is using it in a canonical way, as for ‘leaving the bishop be’, am I attacking the bishop or insulting him? No I am criticising him for misusing terms that is all.

As for your latter comment, I fail to see the point of it, if I had even been made aware of the issue (which is unlikely) I would be annoyed, perhaps not equally but still annoyed.

 

[JReducation]

Br Jr

I didn’t say the Bishop couldn’t be angry at them or write letters against them,I just said writing letters saying they were ‘excommunicated in conscience’ wasn’t acceptable. I’m sorry but the bishops letter tends towards the interpretation that he was using it in a canonical way, the term doesn’t exists canonically so why use it? You tell me that it’s used theologically, that its equivalent to dissent, but that isn’t the context the terms being used in.

On this point I wonder why you did not explain to others 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 which 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.

It couldn’t be clearer that the bishop is using it in a canonical way, as for ‘leaving the bishop be’, am I attacking the bishop or insulting him? No I am criticising him for misusing terms that is all.

As for your latter comment, I fail to see the point of it, if I had even been made aware of the issue (which is unlikely) I would be annoyed, perhaps not equally but still annoyed.

I believe that what we have to understand here is that even if a term or expression is a theological one, pastoral one, or philosophical one, the bishop can use it to make a canonical decision, which is what he’s doing.

There is a canonical flavor here. The flavor is not in the term, but in the bishop’s action. The bishop is exercising his canonical right and authority. He is explaining why. In it is in this explanation that he throws in the sentence about excommunication in conscience. He could have said that they were dissenters or that they were not in communion with the Church on doctrinal issues. That would have been spelling it out and maybe, that would have made more sense for the person who never heard this term before. But he didn’t. He used an old term, for which we have newer language. But the reality described by the term is not different from when the term was more commonly used.

As to your other point about the pope not being the Living Law of the Church and not being able to change Canon Law at his discretion, you have misunderstood what St. Robert and Bl. John Newman were saying.

This belief goes back to St. Boniface.

It is true that the disciplinary and legislative power of the popes has not always, in the course of centuries, been exercised in the same manner and to the same extent, but in proportion as the administration became centralized, their direct intervention in legislation became more and more marked; and so the sovereign pontiff is the most fruitful source of canon law; he can abrogate the laws made by his predecessors or by Ecumenical councils; he can legislate for the whole church or for a part thereof, a country or a given body of individuals; if he is morally bound to take advice and to follow the dictates of prudence, he is not legally obliged to obtain the consent of any other person or persons, or to observe any particular form; his power is limited only by Divine law, natural and positive, dogmatic and moral. Furthermore, he is, so to say, the living law, for he is considered as having all law in the treasury of his heart (“in scrinio pectoris”; Boniface VIII.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[jmj1984]

Just to clarify, I did not mean to imply that the bishop was dishonest or to attack or insult him, if I have done so, I retract such comments immediately and apologise for making them. Further I apologise for making them in the first place

 

[jmj1984]

I believe that what we have to understand here is that even if a term or expression is a theological one, pastoral one, or philosophical one, the bishop can use it to make a canonical decision, which is what he’s doing.

There is a canonical flavor here. The flavor is not in the term, but in the bishop’s action. The bishop is exercising his canonical right and authority. He is explaining why. In it is in this explanation that he throws in the sentence about excommunication in conscience. He could have said that they were dissenters or that they were not in communion with the Church on doctrinal issues. That would have been spelling it out and maybe, that would have made more sense for the person who never heard this term before. But he didn’t. He used an old term, for which we have newer language. But the reality described by the term is not different from when the term was more commonly used.

As to your other point about the pope not being the Living Law of the Church and not being able to change Canon Law at his discretion, you have misunderstood what St. Robert and Bl. John Newman were saying.

This belief goes back to St. Boniface.

**It is true that the disciplinary and legislative power of the popes has not always, in the course of centuries, been exercised in the same manner and to the same extent, but in proportion as the administration became centralized, their direct intervention in legislation became more and more marked; and so the sovereign pontiff is the most fruitful source of canon law; he can abrogate the laws made by his predecessors or by Ecumenical councils; he can legislate for the whole church or for a part thereof, a country or a given body of individuals; if he is morally bound to take advice and to follow the dictates of prudence, he is not legally obliged to obtain the consent of any other person or persons, or to observe any particular form; his power is limited only by Divine law, natural and positive, dogmatic and moral. Furthermore, he is, so to say, the living law, for he is considered as having all law in the treasury of his heart **(“in scrinio pectoris”; Boniface VIII.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Br Jr

In the interests of not derailing the thread, I will simply say I disagree, you are of course more likely to be right than me being more educated and a Franciscan, but nevertheless I cannot change my opinion. I do not mean to be arrogant or come across this and if I have done so I apologise but I cannot however change my opinion.

 

[ProVobis]

Why set up shop in a diocese where there is a healthy Latin Mass group?

Fair point. But I live in a relatively rich EF area and there is a balcony-filled crowd attending the FSSPX chapel every week, at least it was the last time I was there. I suppose they have their reasons for doing so.

My only concern is that if there is full reconciliation, then the other EF’s in the area will be losing some of their attendance to the FSSPX.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Fair point. But I live in a relatively rich EF area and there is a balcony-filled crowd attending the FSSPX chapel every week, at least it was the last time I was there. I suppose they have their reasons for doing so.

My only concern is that if there is full reconciliation, then the other EF’s in the area will be losing some of their attendance to the FSSPX.

To be honest, I’m a little suspicious by this move. I mean, they can cover their eyes, turn around three times, and point at any direction and they will be pointing at a diocese in the Philippines where the bishop has no plans of implementing a TLM. If they are really honest about their desire to spread the use of the TLM, then they will set up shop in one of those number of diocese rather than this one. And if you read the letters of the Bishop, that is one of his main concerns, that they are coming in to take away his rightful flock. And for what purpose? I don’t know why some would even question the Bishop in this case, he has a legitimate gripe against the SSPX here regardless of the language he uses in his letters.

 

[JReducation]

To be honest, I’m a little suspicious by this move. I mean, they can cover their eyes, turn around three times, and point at any direction and they will be pointing at a diocese in the Philippines where the bishop has no plans of implementing a TLM. If they are really honest about their desire to spread the use of the TLM, then they will set up shop in one of those number of diocese rather than this one. And if you read the letters of the Bishop, that is one of his main concerns, that they are coming in to take away his rightful flock. And for what purpose? I don’t know why some would even question the Bishop in this case, he has a legitimate gripe against the SSPX here regardless of the language he uses in his letters.

You make a good point. However, even if the bishop were not moving on providing an EF mass, the law remains the same. If you’re a Catholic organization, you cannot enter a diocese without the permission of the diocesan bishop.

We may not like this rule, because we’re thinking of the benefits of the EF. But you can’t do something wrong in order to achieve a good. I know that the Society is present in other dioceses. If the bishop does not call them on it, then it’s not their problem to worry about. It is his job to monitor who comes into his diocese. When the bishop calls you on it, you owe to him to respect his authority even if you disagree.

This is not just a rule for the SSPX. This law exists for religious orders, religious congregations, secular orders, secular institutes, societies of apostolic life, public associations of the faithful and any Catholic institution. If everyone else has to abide by this law, then so should the SSPX. From where I’m looking at this, this is the issue here. The bishop is saying that they do not have permission to be in his diocese and that he can’t grant them the permission. So he’s asking them to stop their activity in his diocese. This is a legitimate request.

The bishop also has the right to tell his people that they are not legal in his diocese and to discourage his people from seeking out their services, just as he would if they were Dominicans who were there illegally.

I believe this is more of a frustrating situation than one to be angry about. It’s frustrating that the bishop cannot grant them permission to be in his diocese. That’s not the bishop’s fault. Those are the rules from the Holy Father himself. This highlights even more the need to resolve the SSPX issue quickly.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

Br Jr

In the interests of not derailing the thread, I will simply say I disagree, you are of course more likely to be right than me being more educated and a Franciscan, but nevertheless I cannot change my opinion. I do not mean to be arrogant or come across this and if I have done so I apologise but I cannot however change my opinion.

My friend, don’t take it up with me. Take it up with Pope Boniface. I’m only quoting what the man setup as the rule. No pope has ever turned it around, regardless of what any doctor has said.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Melchior_1]

But you can’t do something wrong in order to achieve a good.

Which is exactly how we got into this whole SSPX debacle in the first place.

 

[jmj1984]

My friend, don’t take it up with me. Take it up with Pope Boniface. I’m only quoting what the man setup as the rule. No pope has ever turned it around, regardless of what any doctor has said.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Br Jr

That may very well be, but I’ll agree with St Robert Bellarmine (who to my knowledge was never corrected by St Pius V or any pope for his views) and Bl Cardinal Henry Newman (whose views have likewise never been corrected) and their explicit language on the limitations of papal power and by definition also episcopal power. It may well be that the Pope is the living law of the church but that power is exercised within set limits, it is an unlimited power to do whatsoever he wishes.

You of course disagree with me and you may well be right, but I am not going to change my view until someone can find some authority (in another thread) that papal power is actually unlimited in every circumstance.

 

[giuseppeTO]

Fair point. But I live in a relatively rich EF area and there is a balcony-filled crowd attending the FSSPX chapel every week, at least it was the last time I was there. I suppose they have their reasons for doing so.

My only concern is that if there is full reconciliation, then the other EF’s in the area will be losing some of their attendance to the FSSPX.

Perhaps someone who knows the history in this diocese can give us the chronology of the Latin Mass in this diocese. The SSPX does not have a marketing committee that looks for thriving Latin Mass communities and then decides to fund a mission to that area to steal away the faithful. I’m not even sure what rewards the SSPX could offer to steal someone away?

The way it typically works is that a group of faithful make a request for the Society to say Mass in a location, pay to transport the priest there, and provide the venue for the Mass.

It happened in reverse in my diocese. The bishop refused to provide the TLM on a regular basis. The faithful petitioned the SSPX and acquired a church to hold the Mass. The diocese subsequently granted the Latin Mass in a church directly across the street. After two years, most of those who attended the indult moved to the SSPX chapel and the church with the indult closed. Since I know those who “crossed the street” I can give you the most common reasons … but that would be for another thread.

But it would be interesting to hear (first hand) the history of the TLM in the Philippines. I personally know two of the priests in the Philippines (Frs Joseph and Timothy Pfeiffer) and they are evangelizers. I am sure they are on the streets pounding the pavement, especially among the poorest, and attempting to get fallen away and/or non-Catholics back into the church. That may be an aggravating factor for the Archbishop.

 

[giuseppeTO]

My only concern is that if there is full reconciliation, then the other EF’s in the area will be losing some of their attendance to the FSSPX.

Why in the world would you think that might happen?

 

[TrueLight]

Perhaps someone who knows the history in this diocese can give us the chronology of the Latin Mass in this diocese. The SSPX does not have a marketing committee that looks for thriving Latin Mass communities and then decides to fund a mission to that area to steal away the faithful. I’m not even sure what rewards the SSPX

Constantine, do you have more information about the chronology of the letters?

 

[jmj1984]

I made a typo on my post, I meant to say ‘It is not an unlimited power to do whatsoever he wishes’

 

[TrueLight]

Why in the world would you think that might happen?

Because the SSPX priests preach awesome sermons?

 

[giuseppeTO]

Constantine, do you have more information about the chronology of the letters?

TL,

It is not so much the chronology of the letters but rather the history of the TLM allowed by this diocese vs the SSPX presence.

 

[giuseppeTO]

Because the SSPX priests preach awesome sermons?

I’ll PM you a link…