Letter From Archbishop of Davao Diocese to the SSPX

[JM3]

Because the SSPX priests preach awesome sermons?

How is disrespect to an Archbishop an awesome sermon?

How is passing out literature that attacks the Church an awesome sermon?

How is lack of charity an awesome sermon?

Do I have the right to enter your home and teach your children that you are wrong?

 

[ProVobis]

Why in the world would you think that might happen?

The way I see it, an EF-only parish doesn’t treat EFers as second-class citizens. The FSSPX also seem to be more strict about rules, mortal sin, and the rubrics of the Mass. Just my observations, though.

 

[TrueLight]

How is disrespect to an Archbishop an awesome sermon?

How is passing out literature that attacks the Church an awesome sermon?

How is lack of charity an awesome sermon?

Do I have the right to enter your home and teach your children that you are wrong?

I don’t even know why you’re responding to my statement. My statement was in response to why, someone would be concerned that once the SSPX is regularized, TLM folks might flock to them.

You cannot paint the SSPX with a wide brush. I don’t know what is going on in the Philippines except for what is posted here. I have not been a part of any discussions. Have you?

Are you stating that it is impossible for a priest of the SSPX to provide a great sermon? If so, what are you basing this on?

 

[JM3]

Are you stating that it is impossible for a priest of the SSPX to provide a great sermon? If so, what are you basing this on?

Nice try at deflecting. I stated nothing of the kind. My questions relate to the actions of the SSPX in this thread and in general. Actions are also a sermon, as you know from your study of St Francis.

So, again, even if invited by your children, do I have the right to come into your home and teach your children that you are wrong?

 

[TrueLight]

Nice try at deflecting. I stated nothing of the kind. My questions relate to the actions of the SSPX in this thread and in general. Actions are also a sermon, as you know from your study of St Francis.

So, again, even if invited by your children, do I have the right to come into your home and teach your children that you are wrong?

Actually, you are deflecting.

I’m glad to know you are noticing what I’m studying.

If you notice, I didn’t say anything else about the situation in the Philippines once Constantine posted because he had information I did not.

Again, I responded to the question by Guiseppe of why in the world Provobis would be concerned that TLM attenders would flock to the SSPX. I responded with good sermons, as a possible reason.

Yes, a sermon is more than what is preached at mass. One’s life should reflect one’s sermon, but I am responding to mass sermons, nothing else.

You are no doubt annoyed that some of us are sympathetic to the SSPX so you want me to get into a discussion with you about the wrongness or rightness of the situation.

I don’t know.

Is it wrong to meet in a space and have mass? I don’t see why it would be wrong.

Would it be wrong to go into a TLM and attempt to ‘steal’ away flock? I would say yes, but is that what is happening?

When I don’t know what I am talking about as Constantine pointed out, then I remain quiet.

But you forced me to respond.

 

[JM3]

uch: :nope:

 

[TrueLight]

uch: :nope:

LOL what???!!

 

[JM3]

LOL what???!!

That’s as close as I could get to my reaction of your post.

You missed the point. (palm to face - shake of head)

 

[TrueLight]

That’s as close as I could get to my reaction of your post.

You missed the point. (palm to face - shake of head)

Okay.

 

[JReducation]

I’m confused. How did this thread get into bad and good sermons. The bishop’s letter is not about the SSPX priests sermons being bad. If that was his concern, he could have probably sent a memo to many people. His concern is about preaching in his diocese without his permission.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[TrueLight]

Time for me to take a break from this thread.

You know…detachment.

 

[giuseppeTO]

This entire situation benefits nobody. The Archbishop clearly has the benefit of Canon Law on his side. The Society priests obviously know Canon Law so they either feel they have a moral obligation to disobey the law or they feel their actions are covered under some exception to canon law.

In either case, they know that the Archbishop will most likely not move to excommunicate them, assuming the canon they disobey carries such a penalty, because there is a very good chance that the excommunication would be vacated by the Vatican, as the history of this situation has proven in the past. An excommunication in this situation would open the floodgates and create a situation that neither the Vatican nor the Supreme Pontiff himself would want.

So, aside from excommunication, there is very little else the Archbishop can do to a priest who has no regular ministry in the church except perhaps to make life miserable for him.

None of this bodes well for an eventual regularization.

 

[JReducation]

This entire situation benefits nobody. The Archbishop clearly has the benefit of Canon Law on his side. The Society priests obviously know Canon Law so they either feel they have a moral obligation to disobey the law or they feel their actions are covered under some exception to canon law.

In either case, they know that the Archbishop will most likely not move to excommunicate them, assuming the canon they disobey carries such a penalty, because there is a very good chance that the excommunication would be vacated by the Vatican, as the history of this situation has proven in the past. An excommunication in this situation would open the floodgates and create a situation that neither the Vatican nor the Supreme Pontiff himself would want.

So, aside from excommunication, there is very little else the Archbishop can do to a priest who has no regular ministry in the church except perhaps to make life miserable for him.

None of this bodes well for an eventual regularization.

I haver never a law that says that functioning without permission is punishable by excommunication. There may be such a law. I have not see it.

A bishop can file a formal complaint with the major superior first. If he does not get satisfaction, then he can take it to the Vatican.

I don’t think that Bishop Fellay would pull his men out at the bishop’s request. Since the dialogue is at a very delicate stage, I doubt that the Vatican would act on the complaint right away. The greater good here is to bring the SSPX home.

My guess is that this will end with the bishop informing his people about the canonical status of the SSPX, discouraging them from lending the SSPX their support.

I believe that what other bishops have done is probably more effective. They simply do not say anything to anyone, since they know that they’re not going to get satisfaction from the SSPX. The next best thing is not to draw too much attention to them. People in most dioceses know little or nothing about them.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[giuseppeTO]

I haver never a law that says that functioning without permission is punishable by excommunication. There may be such a law. I have not see it.

A bishop can file a formal complaint with the major superior first. If he does not get satisfaction, then he can take it to the Vatican.

I don’t think that Bishop Fellay would pull his men out at the bishop’s request. Since the dialogue is at a very delicate stage, I doubt that the Vatican would act on the complaint right away. The greater good here is to bring the SSPX home.

My guess is that this will end with the bishop informing his people about the canonical status of the SSPX, discouraging them from lending the SSPX their support.

I believe that what other bishops have done is probably more effective. They simply do not say anything to anyone, since they know that they’re not going to get satisfaction from the SSPX. The next best thing is not to draw too much attention to them. People in most dioceses know little or nothing about them.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Those are pretty much my sentiments also. There is probably more interface with local bishops that happens than people are aware of. I know that every time a priest at our chapel performs a wedding, he asks for permission from our Bishop, who usually cordially responds with regrets. Also, whenever a new priest is assigned here in Syracuse, he arranges an introduction with the bishop who acknowledges the courtesy.

 

[jwinch2]

I believe that what other bishops have done is probably more effective. They simply do not say anything to anyone, since they know that they’re not going to get satisfaction from the SSPX. The next best thing is not to draw too much attention to them. People in most dioceses know little or nothing about them.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Brother,

My understanding of this situation is incomplete at best, but it seems that SSPX left the Archbishop little choice but to respond publicly by making their own public statements. At some point information must be provided to the faithful so that they can make an informed choice.

I am a bit jaded perhaps, but it seems that if Bishop Fellay was interested in reconciliation with the See of Peter than he would put things like this on hold for a time until some sort of official determination was made. By not doing so, it seems to me that he is attempting to drive the wedge deeper rather than take steps to remove it. To me, (and this is just my not so humble opinion) it would seem that even if SSPX does return to the fold, it would be possible that many Bishops would not grant them permission to operate based on their lack of respect for authority in situations such as this.

Perhaps I am misreading things…

 

[JM3]

I’m confused. How did this thread get into bad and good sermons. The bishop’s letter is not about the SSPX priests sermons being bad. If that was his concern, he could have probably sent a memo to many people. His concern is about preaching in his diocese without his permission.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

My questions in post #101 were not about good or bad sermons. The last question was an attempt (lame, maybe) to change the reasoning of those who think that the SSPX is not wrong in what they are doing by making it more personal.

For the record, I am not anti-SSPX, nor am I pro-SSPX. I wait for the decision of the Pope.

 

[JReducation]

Those are pretty much my sentiments also. There is probably more interface with local bishops that happens than people are aware of. I know that every time a priest at our chapel performs a wedding, he asks for permission from our Bishop, who usually cordially responds with regrets. Also, whenever a new priest is assigned here in Syracuse, he arranges an introduction with the bishop who acknowledges the courtesy.

I don’t see another way out of this impasse.

Brother,

My understanding of this situation is incomplete at best, but it seems that SSPX left the Archbishop little choice but to respond publicly by making their own public statements. At some point information must be provided to the faithful so that they can make an informed choice.

I am a bit jaded perhaps, but it seems that if Bishop Fellay was interested in reconciliation with the See of Peter than he would put things like this on hold for a time until some sort of official determination was made. By not doing so, it seems to me that he is attempting to drive the wedge deeper rather than take steps to remove it. To me, (and this is just my not so humble opinion) it would seem that even if SSPX does return to the fold, it would be possible that many Bishops would not grant them permission to operate based on their lack of respect for authority in situations such as this.

Perhaps I am misreading things…

From the little information that we have, it seems that these three or four SSPX priests made some very provocative moves, including passing out literature and expressing a condemnation of the Ordinary Form. and some other things.

As in every situation, when someone strikes at the Church directly in the public square, the bishop has the right to respond in the public square.

This reminds me of Iran-Contra. “How much did the President know and when did he know it?” How much did Bishop Fellay know about the behavior of his men and when did he know it? If he found out about it after the fact, the man can’t be blamed for turning the other way. If he was informed about it before it happened and did not stop it, these men could have interpreted this as consent. It may or may not be. Sometimes, things are said to people in authority such a way that one truly believes that the other person is not serious. I was an administrator for many years and I heard all kinds of silly plans that were never executed. I knew they would not be executed, because they were over the top. Then, one day, I saw someone do what I thought was just wishful thinking. I hard heard about it beforehand, but did not take it seriously thinking that the person had more common sense. This can certainly be the case with Bishop Fellay. I just don’t want to get into his head and say that he is being honest or sneaky here. I don’t really know how much he knew and when he knew it. It would be rude to point the finger at a bishop without having evidence and authority to do so.

The Archbishop’s letter never mentions Bishop Fellay. That’s also very telling. The usual procedure is that you go to the guilty party. Then you go to his superior. If the superior is complicit, then you go directly to him.

In any case, this does not make things easier for the SSPX in the Philippines. It’s a small episcopal conference. I’m sure that every bishop had heard about this. Which builds a stronger case for a prelature.

In a prelature, the local bishop does not interfere in its ministry and the prelature is not allowed to reach into the diocese either. For example, Opus Deiis free from the local bishops. However, where ever they go, they cannot go out to proselytize to the local diocese. They draw people in through other means that does not involve recruiting.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[jwinch2]

The Archbishop’s letter never mentions Bishop Fellay. That’s also very telling. The usual procedure is that you go to the guilty party. Then you go to his superior. If the superior is complicit, then you go directly to him.

Interesting…

Thanks for that.

 

[thistle]

I’m not saying this is the case but could anyone tell me if it is possible that excommunication or other punishments being meted out to the SSPX priests in the Philippines would be covered here:

USURPATION OF ECCLESIASTICAL OFFICES AND OFFENCES COMMITTED IN THEIR EXERCISE (Cann. 1378 - 1389)

Can. 1378 §1 A priest who acts against the prescription of Can. 977 incurs a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See.

§2 The following incur a latae sententiae interdict or, if a cleric, a latae sententiae suspension:

1° a person who, not being an ordained priest, attempts to celebrate Mass

2° a person who, apart from the case mentioned in §1, though unable to give valid sacramental absolution, attempts to do so, or hears a sacramental confession.

§3 In the cases mentioned in §2, other penalties, not excluding excommunication, can be added, according to the gravity of the offence.

Can. 1379 A person who, apart from the cases mentioned in Can. 1378, pretends to administer a sacrament, is to be punished with a just penalty.

Can. 1380 A person who through simony celebrates or receives a sacrament, is to be punished with an interdict or suspension.

**Can. 1381 §1 Anyone who usurps an ecclesiastical office is to be punished with a just penalty.
**

§2 The unlawful retention of an ecclesiastical office after being deprived of it, or ceasing from it, is equivalent to usurpation.

Can. 1382 Both the Bishop who, without a pontifical mandate, consecrates a person a Bishop, and the one who receives the consecration from him, incur a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See.

Can. 1383 A Bishop who, contrary to the provision of Can. 1015, ordained someone else’s subject without the lawful dimissorial letters, is prohibited from conferring orders for one year. The person who received the order is ipso facto suspended from the order received.

**Can. 1384 A person who, apart from the cases mentioned in cann. 1378 - 1383, unlawfully exercises the office of a priest or another sacred ministry, may be punished with a just penalty.
**

Can. 1385 A person who unlawfully traffics in Mass offerings is to be punished with a censure or other just penalty.

Can. 1386 A person who gives or promises something so that some one who exercises an office in the Church would unlawfully act or fail to act, is to be punished with a just penalty; likewise, the person who accepts such gifts or promises.

Can. 1387 A priest who in confession, or on the occasion or under the pretext of confession, solicits a penitent to commit a sin against the sixth commandment of the Decalogue, is to be punished, according to the gravity of the offence, with suspension, prohibitions and deprivations; in the more serious cases he is to be dismissed from the clerical state.

Can. 1388 §1 A confessor who directly violates the sacramental seal, incurs a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See; he who does so only indirectly is to be punished according to the gravity of the offence.

§2 Interpreters and the others mentioned in can. 983 §2, who violate the secret, are to be punished with a just penalty, not excluding excommunication.

Can. 1389 §1 A person who abuses ecclesiastical power or an office, is to be punished according to the gravity of the act or the omission, not excluding by deprivation of the office, unless a penalty for that abuse is already established by law or precept.

§2 A person who, through culpable negligence, unlawfully and with harm to another, performs or omits an act of ecclesiastical power or ministry or office, is to be punished with a just penalty.

 

[jmj1984]

I’m not saying this is the case but could anyone tell me if it is possible that excommunication or other punishments being meted out to the SSPX priests in the Philippines would be covered here:

USURPATION OF ECCLESIASTICAL OFFICES AND OFFENCES COMMITTED IN THEIR EXERCISE (Cann. 1378 - 1389)

Can. 1378 §1 A priest who acts against the prescription of Can. 977 incurs a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See.

§2 The following incur a latae sententiae interdict or, if a cleric, a latae sententiae suspension:

1° a person who, not being an ordained priest, attempts to celebrate Mass

2° a person who, apart from the case mentioned in §1, though unable to give valid sacramental absolution, attempts to do so, or hears a sacramental confession.

§3 In the cases mentioned in §2, other penalties, not excluding excommunication, can be added, according to the gravity of the offence.

Can. 1379 A person who, apart from the cases mentioned in Can. 1378, pretends to administer a sacrament, is to be punished with a just penalty.

Can. 1380 A person who through simony celebrates or receives a sacrament, is to be punished with an interdict or suspension.

**Can. 1381 §1 Anyone who usurps an ecclesiastical office is to be punished with a just penalty.
**

§2 The unlawful retention of an ecclesiastical office after being deprived of it, or ceasing from it, is equivalent to usurpation.

Can. 1382 Both the Bishop who, without a pontifical mandate, consecrates a person a Bishop, and the one who receives the consecration from him, incur a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See.

Can. 1383 A Bishop who, contrary to the provision of Can. 1015, ordained someone else’s subject without the lawful dimissorial letters, is prohibited from conferring orders for one year. The person who received the order is ipso facto suspended from the order received.

**Can. 1384 A person who, apart from the cases mentioned in cann. 1378 - 1383, unlawfully exercises the office of a priest or another sacred ministry, may be punished with a just penalty.
**

Can. 1385 A person who unlawfully traffics in Mass offerings is to be punished with a censure or other just penalty.

Can. 1386 A person who gives or promises something so that some one who exercises an office in the Church would unlawfully act or fail to act, is to be punished with a just penalty; likewise, the person who accepts such gifts or promises.

Can. 1387 A priest who in confession, or on the occasion or under the pretext of confession, solicits a penitent to commit a sin against the sixth commandment of the Decalogue, is to be punished, according to the gravity of the offence, with suspension, prohibitions and deprivations; in the more serious cases he is to be dismissed from the clerical state.

Can. 1388 §1 A confessor who directly violates the sacramental seal, incurs a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See; he who does so only indirectly is to be punished according to the gravity of the offence.

§2 Interpreters and the others mentioned in can. 983 §2, who violate the secret, are to be punished with a just penalty, not excluding excommunication.

Can. 1389 §1 A person who abuses ecclesiastical power or an office, is to be punished according to the gravity of the act or the omission, not excluding by deprivation of the office, unless a penalty for that abuse is already established by law or precept.

§2 A person who, through culpable negligence, unlawfully and with harm to another, performs or omits an act of ecclesiastical power or ministry or office, is to be punished with a just penalty.

All things are possible, but what has Rome said on the subject? It has never even raised the idea that the priests are excommunicated, therefore seeing as this subject has never been raised by Rome in over 20 years it is unlikely to be the case.

Can 1378- Applies if the person cannot give valid sacramental absolution, to answer whether this is true or not one must decided whether the SSPX can give valid absolution or not. That opens a whole can of worms with canonist’s disagreeing on whether they can or cannot do so.

Can 1381- I cannot see that they have ‘usurped’ an ecclesiastical position, they do not claim to be parish priests or a bishop of so and so diocese, so by definition they cannot have usurped anything.

Can 1384- Is probably the only canon which could without any debate apply to the situation, the issue then becomes whether they are acting unlawfully or not and what a ‘just penalty’ is? It is unlikely to be excommunication but something less serious.

That’s merely my thoughts on it from a legal point of view.