Letter From Archbishop of Davao Diocese to the SSPX

[Alexander_Roman]

There are several problems with this post:

1)You appear to be judging the SSPX on the actions of one person, that’s neither charitable nor prudent
2)You essentially claim the SSPX are in Schism or Schismatic, something that Rome has made clear umpteen times is not true
3)You also appear to be ignorant of both what the SSPX actually believes, in which case you shouldn’t pass judgement on them being unclear etc…, and Canon law

Actually, you have no idea how much I do or don’t know about the SSPX, whether I was with them at one point or not, or anything else. It is you who are passiing your personal judgment on me - and forgive me if I do not submit to your fallible musings.

The sin of disobedience to the local Ordinary, which anyone commits when they don’t follow church law on the matter or else try to interpret church law on the matter (which the SSPX does at every turn - I’ve had occasion to come across them in other contexts) is just that. The rest is semantics and good-hearted semantics by Rome to try and entice the SSPX to become fully Catholic by submitting to Rome. Again, what does Rome have to do to get the SSPX to . . . reconcile fully (?) . . . and become an . . . integral (?) part of the Catholic Church.

If the SSPX believes Vatican II to be in error, let me repeat myself, when does the SSPX believe Christ and the Holy Spirit to have left the Catholic Church?

The historical issues you refer to, the bad times and the like, have NOTHING whatever to do with an Ecumenical Council.

You give a few nice tries to justify the SSPX position, but no dice.

I think the SSPX would be the first to decry the RC Church’s efforts to try and not use the “old” labels of “heretic” and “schismatic.”

The SSPX are great at going after others, myself included.

Criticism of it is not acceptable at any time, however, as it seems to be always right and even infallible.

It is not and you refuse to address the issue that the bishop has raised which is a legitimate one. Does the SSPX have the right to actively minister in a diocese without the permission of a bishop? If the SSPX cannot be given such permission because, in the words of the Pope himself, there is a doctrinal issue(s) involved and the SSPX can rectify that by submitting to Rome, but still refuses to - what would you call that? I am open to all sorts of politically correct language, so enlighten me.

Alex

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Just an RC problem? What about their support of the SSJK?

Amen! In the Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans, he wrote on Chapter 9:

It is well to reverence both God and the bishop. He who honours the bishop has been honoured by God; he who does anything without the knowledge of the bishop, does [in reality] serve the devil.

newadvent.org/fathers/0109.htm

That society you mention, revered sir, has no place in the EC jurisdiction either. It is directly opposed to the hierarchy of the UGCC and is actually against the Particularity of the UGCC, promoting instead a kind of Russophile Catholicism.

The UGCC regards them as being in schism. Again, Rome wants them to reconcile, but they won’t.

Rome brought in the Novus Ordo partly because it wanted to reconcile with the Protestants by adopting a “Protestant-style” liturgy and spirituality. That didn’t work.

Now Rome is bending over the other way to bring in the SSPX - that doesn’t seem to be working either.

Protestantism and the SSPX share one thing in common - they won’t budge until Rome comes over to their way of thinking, period.

Alex

 

[ConstantineTG]

That society you mention, revered sir, has no place in the EC jurisdiction either. It is directly opposed to the hierarchy of the UGCC and is actually against the Particularity of the UGCC, promoting instead a kind of Russophile Catholicism.

I know. My point was the SSPX is far reaching and not just a “Roman problem”. I mean, we don’t even know whats in the preamble, will the SSPX reject the SSJK? What about Bishop Williamson’s ordination of SSJK priests? Does he need to issue a letter of apology to the UGCC?

The UGCC regards them as being in schism. Again, Rome wants them to reconcile, but they won’t.

Rome brought in the Novus Ordo partly because it wanted to reconcile with the Protestants by adopting a “Protestant-style” liturgy and spirituality. That didn’t work.

Now Rome is bending over the other way to bring in the SSPX - that doesn’t seem to be working either.

Protestantism and the SSPX share one thing in common - they won’t budge until Rome comes over to their way of thinking, period.

Alex

Very true. I don’t know the situation of the SSPX in other areas, but this event in Davao shows clearly that they are not interested in any type of reconciliation. If reconciliation is at hand then why are they engaging an Archbishop? If this group is acting on their own, why isn’t their leadership condemning or correcting the group?

 

[louis91766]

 Archbishop of Davao wants it both ways. He wants to tell the sspx that it must have his permission to operate in his diocese, but yet feels that they are ouside the church. If this is true, then he has no right whatsoever in saying anything to the sspx. And as another member had stated does he send this type of letter to the Protestant leaders in his Archdiocese?

That raises the question as to whether the SSPX is outside the Roman Catholic Church or inside the Roman Catholic Church. Which is it? The Orthodox Church is imperfectly united to the Roman Catholic Church by virtue of its valid Sacraments and Apostolic succession, but the local Catholic bishop does not have any sayso over them.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Hi Alex,

Until the Holy See declares them to be in schism and not Catholics, I don’t see any need to do that. There are some very holy folks serving God the way they best know how.

I believe they make it quite clear exactly what they believe. If there is one thing they are, it is blunt.

This is interesting. I just read a book on the History of the Catholic Church and I was so disgusted/disheartened with all the chaos and nonsense that went on and still the Holy Spirit did not abandon the Church. But there were some rough periods.

I believe one can believe there are bad periods in the history of the Church and still not believe the Holy Spirit abandoned the Church.

You are saying that Rome has to declare them to be in schism and therefore not Catholics before we can say that they are in schism and not Catholics.

But if they were Catholics (meaning, in full communion with Rome) then why Pope Benedict’s statement about their inability to legitimately exercise ministry in the Catholic Church? Does not that affirm that their relationship with Rome, however you wish to define it, is irregular and therefore "damaged?|

Your point on the holiness of those attending their chapels etc. If I refuse to submit to my bishop and the Church hierarchy and attend their chapels in defiance of Church law - how really “holy” am I? Again, the SSPX would be the first to demand total obedience to Tradition etc. You seem to want to exempt the SSPX from that universal spiritual requirement and law.

Do you agree with the SSPX about what it says about Vatican II etc.?

In short, one can’t have it both ways. To want to is to evince a spirit that is, well, not good.

Given what the Holy Father has done to send welcoming bells to the SSPX, is not the SSPX guilty of gross self-will in refusing to submit to him?

Let’s just focus on this and not on what someone wrote in a book, or whether I’m informed or not or anything else.

Obedience to Rome is the key and a small child of six may walk up to you and demand it of us - if we refuse to agree with that small child, we truly are in schism, whether Rome issues a decree to that effect or not.

Sin is still sin, with or without a letter from Rome telling us it is.

Alex

 

[ProVobis]

The SSPX and the Catholic Church are at a crossroads. All Catholics should shun their chapels to let the SSPX know that the proverbial ball is in its court now and unless they show some goodwill on their end, they can go and form their own “church.”

You bring up some good points but let’s say they proceed with your proposal and consecrate 10,000 bishops, all with recognized Apostolic Succession, and then elect their own Pope? Can’t they then claim the Church in Rome is schismatic because the Church in Rome broke away from the (traditional) Church? Just asking.

 

[JReducation]

I think that there is a lot of misunderstanding and misinformation concerning the SSPX. As has been pointed out before, one is not ipso facto excommunicated by ordaining priest without a papal mandate. Canon law tells us that doing so, IS AN ACT OF DISOBEDIENCE, and therefore the maximum punishment was to be SUSPENSION.
Unfortunately, JP 2 wanted to make an example out of the Society and therefore went beyond canon law and declared the Bishops excommunicated.

Secondly, according to the canon law, it says that if there is a grave necessity that an Archbishop may consecrate bishops without papal mandate. The best example of this, is in China. Canon law further states that EVEN IF THERE IS NO ACTUAL GRAVE EMERGENCY, but if the Bishop truly felt that there indeed was, NO PENALTY IS TO BE ATTACHED!

 Archbishop of Davao wants it both ways. He wants to tell the sspx that it must have his permission to operate in his diocese, but yet feels that they are ouside the church. If this is true, then he has no right whatsoever in saying anything to the sspx. And as another member had stated does he send this type of letter to the Protestant leaders in his Archdiocese?

I believe that only if the sspx were in FULL communion, and not only partial communion then and only then would they have to have permission from him to be in “HIS” diocese.

                                        Pax Tecum, 

                                        James, SFO

PS The bible states: “By their fruits, you will know them.” In our local sspx society chapel. With about 300 parishioners, we have 4 men in the sspx seminary and have one young lady that is presently entering a traditional Dominican convent. How many Novus Ordo parishes can make this claim? I would suggest that most of the respondents should check out the sspx positions and also check canon law before simply reiterating the “party Line.”
Dominus vobiscum

There are several things here that need clarification.

First:

The excommunication was because Archbishop Lefebvre ordained bishops without a papal mandate, not deacons and priests. The law says that this is an automatic excommunication.

Second:

The law about emergency was invoked and Bl. John Paul II refused to hear the case or have it go to trial on the grounds that the law did not apply to Archbishop Lefebvre. As the supreme legislator, he has the right to make the ultimate judgment call and his call cannot be questioned. This is also in Canon Law. That’s the reason that the SSPX dropped the appeal and went on to request that the excommunication be lifted. Once the pope speaks on a matter of law, the case it closed. You can’t go further with that.

Three:

I noticed that you’re a Franciscan. It is contrary to the Rule of St. Francis for any son or daughter of St. Francis to be out of line with the pope. In his Testament, our Holy Father makes it very clear that the brethren, this includes the friars, nuns and secular, owe obedience to Brother Francis and his canonically elected successors. And he, Brother Francis, promises obedience to the pope.

Therefore, you and I have a moral obligation to follow our canonically elected Ministers in their submission to the pope and to his judgments. If the Minister fails to submit to the pope and to the local bishop and his judgments, the Minister is not to be followed.

In addition, Francis spells out in his rule that the brothers may not preach in any parish or diocese where they are not authorized to do so. This rule was put in place, because at the time, there were many independent groups going around ministering without the permission of the local bishop or local pastor. This rule as never been abrogated by the five Franciscan General Ministers or by the Church. Therefore, we continue to observe this rule as it was written and we do not condone anyone who acts contrary to it, since the reason that it was written, was because it was in keeping with the mind of the Church.

As a Franciscan, you and I have a moral duty to think with the Church, this specifically means with the pope and his bishops.

Regardless of what we may think, we keep our opinions to ourselves and we obey Francis’ command to obey the Minister and follow the Minister’s allegiance to the pope, unless we have permission to express a dissenting opinion, which is rarely given unless you’re in a classroom or some education setting where this is being discussed.

If you want to express this opinion, you would do well, not to sign yourself as SFO, because you do a great disservice to your brothers and sisters. It can be erroneously interpreted that the Franciscans are allowed to take a position that is in conflict with the mind of the pope. Such a position is never allowed to any Franciscan, secular, friar or nun.

We all have opinions, but we must always protect the good name of the Order and imitate our Holy Father Francis’ obedience and submission to Church authority.

I hope this helps.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[ConstantineTG]

You bring up some good points but let’s say they proceed with your proposal and consecrate 10,000 bishops, all with recognized Apostolic Succession, and then elect their own Pope? Can’t they then claim the Church in Rome is schismatic because the Church in Rome broke away from the (traditional) Church? Just asking.

They don’t need 10,000 bishops for that. Didn’t some Sedevacantist group elect their own Pope?

Even if they did, what now? Is their Pope the rightful Pope? Not just because you have your own Pope doesn’t mean you have THE POPE.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Br. JR and Dr. Alex on the same thread, I must be dreaming

 

[jmj1984]

Actually, you have no idea how much I do or don’t know about the SSPX, whether I was with them at one point or not, or anything else. It is you who are passiing your personal judgment on me - and forgive me if I do not submit to your fallible musings.

The sin of disobedience to the local Ordinary, which anyone commits when they don’t follow church law on the matter or else try to interpret church law on the matter (which the SSPX does at every turn - I’ve had occasion to come across them in other contexts) is just that. The rest is semantics and good-hearted semantics by Rome to try and entice the SSPX to become fully Catholic by submitting to Rome. Again, what does Rome have to do to get the SSPX to . . . reconcile fully (?) . . . and become an . . . integral (?) part of the Catholic Church.

If the SSPX believes Vatican II to be in error, let me repeat myself, when does the SSPX believe Christ and the Holy Spirit to have left the Catholic Church?

The historical issues you refer to, the bad times and the like, have NOTHING whatever to do with an Ecumenical Council.

You give a few nice tries to justify the SSPX position, but no dice.

I think the SSPX would be the first to decry the RC Church’s efforts to try and not use the “old” labels of “heretic” and “schismatic.”

The SSPX are great at going after others, myself included.

Criticism of it is not acceptable at any time, however, as it seems to be always right and even infallible.

It is not and you refuse to address the issue that the bishop has raised which is a legitimate one. Does the SSPX have the right to actively minister in a diocese without the permission of a bishop? If the SSPX cannot be given such permission because, in the words of the Pope himself, there is a doctrinal issue(s) involved and the SSPX can rectify that by submitting to Rome, but still refuses to - what would you call that? I am open to all sorts of politically correct language, so enlighten me.

Alex

Not quite sure how that was a reply to my post, seeing as it completely missed every point I made

As for defending the SSPX, yeah no, I merely pointed out that your post contained several things which are not true, the SSPX being in schism or schismatic etc…

As for going after you, are you saying that if I search the web there will be an SSPX post on you or are you talking about those who attend SSPX chapels or individual SSPX priests? There’s a world of difference.

A question such as ‘When does the SSPX believe the Holy Spirit left the church?’ can only result from ignorance of what the SSPX believes or a deliberate attempt to misrepresent their beliefs, which one is it?

The rest of your post seems to be a general criticism of any defence of the SSPX and therefore nothing to do with my post whatsoever.

Frankly it just seems like you have an axe to grind with the SSPX.

 

[ProVobis]

They don’t need 10,000 bishops for that.

I used that number because that would give them more bishops than the Church has right now. It seems to me that this whole thing is about numbers so that’s why I posed the question.

 

[TrueLight]

Let’s just focus on this and not on what someone wrote in a book

Alex

What do you mean by this?

 

[ProVobis]

Br. JR and Dr. Alex on the same thread, I must be dreaming

You forget us archlaypeople?

 

[ConstantineTG]

I used that number because that would give them more bishops than the Church has right now. It seems to me that this whole thing is about numbers so that’s why I posed the question.

Numbers? No, its about authority. The Archbishop of Davao is the rightful bishop of his territory. He is in full communion with the Pope. He has the authority in his assigned jurisdiction where the SSPX is. Its not about numbers.

There are Eastern Catholic Churches that are sui juris Churches even though they have no bishops (Russian Catholic). Yes they are a full Church. Numbers has nothing to do with it.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Not quite sure how that was a reply to my post, seeing as it completely missed every point I made

As for defending the SSPX, yeah no, I merely pointed out that your post contained several things which are not true, the SSPX being in schism or schismatic etc…

As for going after you, are you saying that if I search the web there will be an SSPX post on you or are you talking about those who attend SSPX chapels or individual SSPX priests? There’s a world of difference.

A question such as ‘When does the SSPX believe the Holy Spirit left the church?’ can only result from ignorance of what the SSPX believes or a deliberate attempt to misrepresent their beliefs, which one is it?

The rest of your post seems to be a general criticism of any defence of the SSPX and therefore nothing to do with my post whatsoever.

Frankly it just seems like you have an axe to grind with the SSPX.

Does one need a letter from Rome to be in schism? That is one question.

The “going after” refers to anyone who would dare criticize them.

If the SSPX does not accept Vatican II as legitimate, then how can it be said to believe the Holy Spirit is still with the Church? If the SSPX accepts Vatican II, then why the problem with them being in full communion with the Church. If I have misunderstood them, please show me where and I will . . . submit.

I’ve an axe to grind with anyone who says he or she is Catholic and refuses to submit to Rome on terms other than their own. I will argue that until the cows come home and you are free to dismiss me and that argument.

Alex

 

[Alexander_Roman]

What do you mean by this?

Someone mentioned they had read a book on Catholic church history and how bad things got at times.

That’s what I meant.

Alex

 

[Cristiano]

That raises the question as to whether the SSPX is outside the Roman Catholic Church or inside the Roman Catholic Church. Which is it? The Orthodox Church is imperfectly united to the Roman Catholic Church by virtue of its valid Sacraments and Apostolic succession, but the local Catholic bishop does not have any sayso over them.

There is not Orthodox Church but there are Orthodox Churches like we have Eastern Catholic Churches.The Orthodox Churches and the Eastern Catholic Churches are not part of the Latin Church; however, the SSPX by its own definition is not a suis juris Church but simply part of the Latin Church and so the laws of the Latin Church apply to the SSPX.

 

[jmj1984]

Does one need a letter from Rome to be in schism? That is one question.

The “going after” refers to anyone who would dare criticize them.

If the SSPX does not accept Vatican II as legitimate, then how can it be said to believe the Holy Spirit is still with the Church? If the SSPX accepts Vatican II, then why the problem with them being in full communion with the Church. If I have misunderstood them, please show me where and I will . . . submit.

I’ve an axe to grind with anyone who says he or she is Catholic and refuses to submit to Rome on terms other than their own. I will argue that until the cows come home and you are free to dismiss me and that argument.

Alex

In other words you just quoted my post for no reason at all

Your accusation about the SSPX is a sweeping statement with no substantiation, what does going after mean? Do they chase you in cars, do they insult you or do they simply tell you they think you’re wrong? Again who is ‘they’? Individual priests or those who attend SSPX chapels or the movement as a whole and everyone in it?

Your question about Rome is quite disingenuous, you suppose we are operating in some sort of Vacum, that Rome has said nothing about the matter and therefore was as faithful are free to make up our mind on the matter based on the facts and circumstances of the case. This is not true, Rome has spoken on the matter not once not twice but several times stating that the SSPX are not in schism and thus cannot be called schismatic.

 

[louis91766]

Do you agree with the SSPX about what it says about Vatican II etc.?

As far as agreeing with the SSPX on Vatican II etc., I would not agree with much of what the SSPX says on ecumenical relations with non-Catholics. I applaud the fact that the Catholic Church today is taking steps to improve relations with the non-Catholic communities. On the other hand, I would agree with the SSPX on the imprudence of granting easy marriage annulments. Although marriage annulments were not specifically mentioned in Vatican II, they would be included in the etc. part of what happened after Vatican II. Before Vatican II, people were granted marriage annulments only for extremely serious reasons, such as a spouse failing to reveal that he was already married to someone else, or impotence, and a few other serious reasons. However, after Vatican II, that was all changed in the USA, and people who were married for ten or twenty years and with children were granted annulments on soft and easy grounds which were never accepted before Vatican II. And in many cases, this question would never had come up except that one of the partners had been unfaithful to the marriage. So it is a serious question as to whether or not the Roman Catholic Church is upholding the teaching on the indissolubility of marriage today to the same extent that it did before Vatican II.

 

[louis91766]

If the SSPX does not accept Vatican II as legitimate, then how can it be said to believe the Holy Spirit is still with the Church?

The Holy Spirit might be working within the Catholic Church, but some people might not be listening. As I explained above, I believe that the huge increase in marriage annulments since Vatican II, indicates that there is a question about the integrity of the teaching on the indissolubility of marriage.