Letter From Archbishop of Davao Diocese to the SSPX

[Melchior_1]

The Lay Dominicans are part of the Order of Preachers. The Secular Franciscans (SFO) not to be confused with OSF, are an autonomous order founded by St. Francis. The Order or Preachers and the Franciscan Orders are Orders of Pontifical Right.

The Council of Trent, wishing to protect these orders from control of the bishops and contamination from the laity, decreed that they were directly under the protection of the Pontiff. It decreed that the bishops had to provide for their spiritual welfare when in their dioceses and the laity had to provide for the financial needs of their apostolate, but neither the bishops nor the laity were to have any authority or voice in how they work, how they use their money and properties, or how they govern themselves. These areas are reserved to the Pontiff, hence the term, Pontifical Right. The right of exemption is given to the individual as well as to the community. The term, Pontifical Right means that the Pontiff reserves all the rights of control and accountability for himself.

This does not go over well among many American Catholics, because we’re not used to a system where we support something without accountability to us. In the case of communities of Pontifical Right, the local people support them, but they are accountable to the pope, not the local people or the local bishop, except when they administer missions and ministries for the local Church. In that case, they must account to the local Church.

The only communities of secular priests that have been given these same protections are the Maryknoll and the Vincentians, because of their contribution to the Church. In other words, they worked hard to earn this privilege. It took them many years to do so.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Three last questions on this Brother, if you don’t mind

• Does the Right of Exemption apply to only the ordained who belong to the Lay Dominicans & Secular Franciscans?
• Can the same Exemption apply to the laity who join (ie; myself and jwinch?)
• How does this apply to secular Priests/Deacons who join either the Secular Franciscans or Lay Dominicans (for those wondering, as weird as it sounds there has been priests who have been members of the “Lay” Dominicans).

I say, if the SSPX gets an Ordinariate or prelature, so should the FSSP!

And if the FSSP gets one, ICK gets one! And if ICK gets one, the Companions of the Cross get one! See where this is going?

 

[TrueLight]

Three last questions on this Brother, if you don’t mind

• Does the Right of Exemption apply to only the ordained who belong to the Lay Dominicans & Secular Franciscans?
• Can the same Exemption apply to the laity who join (ie; myself and jwinch?)
• How does this apply to secular Priests/Deacons who join either the Secular Franciscans or Lay Dominicans (for those wondering, as weird as it sounds there has been priests who have been members of the “Lay” Dominicans).

And if the FSSP gets one, ICK gets one! And if ICK gets one, the Companions of the Cross get one! See where this is going?

 

[giuseppeTO]

Again, none of this changes the fact that, even if they were “regularized”, as a Society of Apostolic Life they need permission from the Bishop to do their work. In writing. This whole thread is a moot point because of this. Regardless of who wrote what letter when and regardless of the SSPX’s canonical status, as a Society of Apostolic Life they need permission. There’s no exceptions for this.

Why would the Bishop authorize a group that gives so many problems, when he can authorize any number of other Societies instead?

I would expect that part of the discussions centers on how the Society would be erected. A solution that would require the approval of the local ordinary to maintain one of the current missions would most likely not be an acceptable solution.

 

[Melchior_1]

I would expect that part of the discussions centers on how the Society would be erected. A solution that would require the approval of the local ordinary to maintain one of the current missions would most likely not be an acceptable solution.

That’s actually an excellent point. The easy part post-regularization would be saying “the Society needs permission from the local ordinary to enter their diocese”. This is a standard for most religious and all Societies of Apostolic Life.

The second part is a bit more awkward. The local ordinary needs to be able to approve the events that happen in his diocese, with the exceptions that Brother JR mentioned (the Jesuits, for example). Using the example found in the original post, saying that the mission could stay there would completely undermine and undercut the Bishop’s credibility and office, as the diocese had begun efforts to raise awareness of the Extraordinary Form and increase it’s availability.

It makes me uneasy if the SSPX gets special privileges based on everything that happened. What about all the other Societies and religious that plays by the rules? They don’t get fancy ordinates and different rules.

 

[JReducation]

I say, if the SSPX gets an Ordinariate or prelature, so should the FSSP!

That would be inappropriate, because there are many societies of apostolic life, not just these two. You have Vincentians, the Daughters of Charity, Maryknoll, Missionhurst, Schoenstattt, Institute of Christ the King, Society of Our Lady of the Trinity, Companions of the Cross and so forth.

It has always been understood that because these men and women are part of the secular state, they are governed by a superior who in turn works with the local diocesan bishop. Only religious are outside of the reach of bishops.

The Opus Dei were elevated to a Prelature because of the Holy Father’s personal interest in their work. The Society of Jesus (Jesuits) are a little different. They are not a society of apostolic life. They are a religious order in solemn vows, just like friars and monks. However, Ignatius wanted them to be dispensed of the obligations that came from solemn vows, but to retain the privileges and rights. The only way to do so was to put them directly under the pope. For this reason, they make a fourth vow, to go where the pope sends them. Generally, they do not ask to enter a diocese, they are sent by the pope. I say generally, because they have asked for permission to go into mission territories. But they always go with the blessing of the pope.

The societies of apostolic life are not religious. They do not enjoy the freedoms or rights of religious. They are free in that they do not belong to any particular diocese. However, when they are in a diocese, they abide by the bishop’s policies. Bishops work with their superiors to make sure that these things happen smoothly. So far, it as worked out very well. The difference between them and a religious community is that the bishop can ask them to leave his diocese. However, if they own property, they retain ownership. No bishop will confiscate it. That would not be fair.

Three last questions on this Brother, if you don’t mind

• Does the Right of Exemption apply to only the ordained who belong to the Lay Dominicans & Secular Franciscans?
• How does this apply to secular Priests/Deacons who join either the Secular Franciscans or Lay Dominicans (for those wondering, as weird as it sounds there has been priests who have been members of the “Lay” Dominicans).

For the secular orders, the right of exemption means that these orders can govern themselves without any interference from the bishop or the laity. They can establish ministries using their own funds under the authority of their governing bodies. This is tricky for the Dominicans and Franciscans. In both families, the founders always intended for their sons and daughters to work with the local bishop. You guys can’t ignore him just because the Council of Trent said that he can’t interfere. Your founder said that he can. Your founder trumps the council. You do vow obedience to the Council of Trent. In the case of Dominicans, you vow obedience to Augustine and to the statutes of the Dominican family. However, these orders cannot be suppressed by a bishop. If he wants them out of his diocese, he has to go through the major superior. If the major superior feels that there is no need to pull them, then the bishop must go to the Holy Father. It makes no difference whether the group is ordained or lay.

In the case of ordained deacons and priests who are also Lay Dominicans or Secular Franciscans, the statutes are very clear. They owe obedience to the bishop of the diocese in which they are incardinated. The orders make no attempt to interfere between the bishop and his clergy anymore that it would interfere between a husband and wife.

I would expect that part of the discussions centers on how the Society would be erected. A solution that would require the approval of the local ordinary to maintain one of the current missions would most likely not be an acceptable solution.

If the Society is erected as either a prelature or an ordinariate, then it goes wherever the pope says they can go. The local bishop has nothing to do with it, except that he must be informed. There is a little caveat here. Ordinariates and prelatures function like dioceses without boundaries. However, one diocese cannot attempt to steal people from the other diocese, even when they overlap. When the Opus Dei comes to town, it cannot attempt to draw people away from the local parishes to attend their chapels. The people must come to them freely. It’s like having an Eastern Catholic diocese and a Western diocese in the same area. They don’t try to take each other’s people. Both have a right to exist. One does not exist at the expense of the other.

They would be able to enter any city where the Vatican gives permission, without the permission of the bishop. But they would be expected not to proselytize to the local people. They can certainly advertise they presence and services. There’s nothing wrong with that, as long as it does not compete with the local diocese. For example, Opus Dei offers something that most diocese do not offer. There is no competition.

The Ordinariate is a new concept. The Ordinariate was offered to the Anglicans coming over. We’ll have to see what the scope and limits will be. My impression is that it’s very similar to a Prelature, except that it has its own bishop who is really the vicar of the pope. It is still not clear how much power this bishop will have.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[louis91766]

In the second, Pope Innocent acted alone. He did not speak for the Church. This was an apostolic letter, which is the meaning of Bull. He is authorizing what he believes is the greatest possible good under the circumstances. This is important. Sometimes, you cannot achieve the greatest good, so you go for that which is minimizes evil as much as possible.

It is not that easy to follow your reasoning on this point. First of all, I thought that the Roman Pontiff is the Supreme Head of the Roman Catholic Church and has universal jurisdiction over the Church. Secondly, the Pope has approved the use of torture to extract confessions from heretics and the Inquisition used this approval as justification to employ torture, in limited circumstances. So do we have a situation where the Pope has approved the use of torture, but the Catholic Church has not approved the use of torture? Why would not that set up an effective schism between the Pope and the Catholic Church, since the Pope is teaching one thing and the Catholic Church is teaching something else?

 

[TrueLight]

Ordinariates and prelatures function like dioceses without boundaries. Br. JR, OSF

As it is now, if the FSSP is not invited to come into diocese they can’t. (Like in any of the NYC boroughs for example ). Why should it be different for the SSPX?

 

[JReducation]

It is not that easy to follow your reasoning on this point. First of all, I thought that the Roman Pontiff is the Supreme Head of the Roman Catholic Church and has universal jurisdiction over the Church. Secondly, the Pope has approved the use of torture to extract confessions from heretics and the Inquisition used this approval as justification to employ torture, in limited circumstances. So do we have a situation where the Pope has approved the use of torture, but the Catholic Church has not approved the use of torture? Why would not that set up an effective schism between the Pope and the Catholic Church, since the Pope is teaching one thing and the Catholic Church is teaching something else?

LOL, I don’t blame you for finding it difficult to follow. I just reread what I wrote and realized that I was thinking very quickly, but did not write everything that was going through my head. That happens to me at times. I have a lot of ideas on a question, but the posting space does not allow for all of them. I try to pick and choose and don’t always choose the most clear ideas. I’m truly sorry for that. Let’s try again.

The pope is the supreme head of the Church. He can and does make laws for the Church. There have been times in history, where the popes have legalized something, but not for the entire Church nor for all time. That’s what I was thinking when I said that Innocent acted alone. In other words, this was not something that he legalized for the universal Church and for the future. It was a response to a very specific situation in which he felt that there were two choices:

a. Allow the heretics to undermine the Church and state.

b. Stop the heretics before they brought down not only the Church, but entire nations.

From his window, not our own in the 21st century, the word was in a state of war. Christian civilization was under threat, not only by Protestants, but also by Muslims. To collapse of Catholicism would also mean the collapse of Europe.

The greater good was to protect the Church and Europe.

Then there is the question of how to protect Church and Europe while minimizing harm and allowing for the greater amount of good. The situation looked as if a conflict was unavoidable. There would be a “world war” if something were not done.

Finally, from his point of view, the Church and Europe were under assault, which gives them the right to self-defense.

His conclusion was to allow torture, because there was going to be harm don, not matter which way things went. If the heretics and Muslims were left unchallenged, they would destroy the Christian world and many would suffer. If they were challenged, even if you had to torture to get information, less people would suffer and the Christian world would be saved.

He’s not in schism with the Church. What is happening is that he is not issuing a command for the universal Church or the future. It was for a very specific situation wherever it existed. If you look at the history and at his other statements outside of the Bull, he hoped and prayed that this would all come to an end there would no longer be a need for these measures. This tells us that he acted in good conscience, given the situation at the time and that he did apply good moral reasoning. Torture some and save the Church and Europe or do nothing and be conquered by the heretics and non-Christians alike.

Today, these measures are not necessary, because the states do not depend on the Church for their existence. They stand on their own power. That was not the case in those days. Therefore, Muslims moving into Europe are not a threat to the Church. They’re not going to exile Catholics or execute them as happened in the past. Civil authorities take care of protecting citizens from such assaults. Protestants moving into a town are not going to burn down the local cathedral or hand the mayor, because he’s Catholic.

When we look at this Bull, we see that it had a very specific scenario in mind, not the universal Church. it was not meant for the universal Church once the situation ceased to exist or the need for such methods ceased to exist, then the Bull becomes ineffective.

That’s why we say that the Church never legalized torture. It’s not part of our legal system and never was. This was a papal bull for a very specific scenario. Who knows if that scenario will repeat itself.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[giuseppeTO]

If the Society is erected as either a prelature or an ordinariate, then it goes wherever the pope says they can go. However, one diocese cannot attempt to steal people from the other diocese, even when they overlap. But they would be expected not to proselytize to the local people.

That shouldn’t be a problem. I have never known the SSPX to have a plan to actively recruit the faithful away from the diocese. Most new visitors come from the diocesan indult Mass. The case is usually that the diocesan indult is at such an inconvenient time and location that a family, who cannot attend the diocesan EF on a particular week will attend Mass at a Society chapel. Usually when that happens the family typically comes back.

Most chapels are concerned with the probable influx of parishioners that would come after a regularization. Our chapel is already overflowing at the two regular Sunday Masses. In Vienna, VA all three Masses are packed.

 

[JReducation]

As it is now, if the FSSP is not invited to come into diocese they can’t. (Like in any of the NYC boroughs for example ). Why should it be different for the SSPX?

This is what the Archbishop of Davao is saying. He’s telling them that because they are Catholic and because they claim to be inside the Church, they must follow the rules. Just as the FSSP does not enter a diocese unless they have permission to do so, the SSPX should abide by the same rules…

If they become a prelature or an ordinariate, the rules for them are different. Right now, they are not a prelature nor an ordinariate. They have to follow the rules that exist for all secular societies of apostolic life and for any priest entering a diocese.

That shouldn’t be a problem. I have never known the SSPX to have a plan to actively recruit the faithful away from the diocese. Most new visitors come from the diocesan indult Mass. The case is usually that the diocesan indult is at such an inconvenient time and location that a family, who cannot attend the diocesan EF on a particular week will attend Mass at a Society chapel. Usually when that happens the family typically comes back.

Most chapels are concerned with the probable influx of parishioners that would come after a regularization. Our chapel is already overflowing at the two regular Sunday Masses. In Vienna, VA all three Masses are packed.

That would not be competing. I don’t see that as a problem, if they are regularized and given an ordinariate.

I do believe that an ordinariate cannot ordain or marry people who are incardinated in another diocese. In other words, they follow the same rules that every diocese follows. If you live in NYC, you can’t be ordained for Denver, without the permission of the Archbishop of NYC. If your fiance lives in Boston and you live in Detroit, to get married in one diocese or the other, one of you will have to get permission. These are not difficult to get, if you have a reasonable explanation for the request. All of the men who are ordained for the FSSP had to get permission from their bishops to go outside of the diocese to be ordained. The bishops have no problems granting it.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[ConstantineTG]

No, because you have another Catholic alternative.

Bro. JR, can you clarify your earlier statement for me? You said that one may go to the SSPX if there is no other EF Mass available. That means there are other OF Masses, right? How is that different from an Eastern Catholic who has no other Eastern Rite Liturgy?

 

[TrueLight]

Bro. JR, can you clarify your earlier statement for me? You said that one may go to the SSPX if there is no other EF Mass available. That means there are other OF Masses, right? How is that different from an Eastern Catholic who has no other Eastern Rite Liturgy?

The SSPX are still Catholic. Even though the Orthodox consider themselves to be Catholic, they are not Catholic in the eyes of the Church.

 

[ConstantineTG]

The SSPX are still Catholic. Even though the Orthodox consider themselves to be Catholic, they are not Catholic in the eyes of the Church.

So can I go to a laicized priest who’s still Catholic and have him say Mass for me?

 

[TrueLight]

So can I go to a laicized priest who’s still Catholic and have him say Mass for me?

You know how I feel about the ambiguity. They’re in that “irregular” situation. A laicized priest, is…laicized.

 

[ConstantineTG]

You know how I feel about the ambiguity. They’re in that “irregular” situation. A laicized priest, is…laicized.

Irregular? The Pope was very clear they have no ministry in the Church. Similar to a laicized priest, unless you’re telling me that Holy Orders can be wiped away from a man.

 

[thistle]

Bro. JR, can you clarify your earlier statement for me? You said that one may go to the SSPX if there is no other EF Mass available. That means there are other OF Masses, right? How is that different from an Eastern Catholic who has no other Eastern Rite Liturgy?

I thought a person may go to an SSPX Mass only if there were no other EF or NO Masses available. The Sunday obligation is not just fulfilled by attending an EF Mass.
If a person lives in an area where there is available an NO Mass but no EF Mass except an SSPX one then the person must attend the NO Mass.

 

[JReducation]

You know how I feel about the ambiguity. They’re in that “irregular” situation. A laicized priest, is…laicized.

Bro. JR, can you clarify your earlier statement for me? You said that one may go to the SSPX if there is no other EF Mass available. That means there are other OF Masses, right? How is that different from an Eastern Catholic who has no other Eastern Rite Liturgy?

There was a letter with this very question to the Ecclesia Dei Commission. If I can find it, I’ll post it. The answer came back that the Latin Catholic faithful can fulfill their Sunday obligation at the SSPX chapel. What had to be understood is that this did not mean that they were encouraging it.

They laid down several conditions of charity that they have to observe. It is fair to give them a donation in the collection basket. If you’re there, you’re using their AC, electric and the priest does not say mass for free. He has to be paid as do the FSSP priests and any secular priests. The’re not monkeys. They don’t work for bananans.

The other rule was that you must avoid lending support to their situation and their actions. This would explain why attendance is discouraged. Some people who attend mass at the SSPX chapel seem to cheer them on everytime they make some over the top statement against the Vatican. These same people defend them against the Vatican. This is more than attending just to go to mass and leaving. This is becoming part of the cheering squad, which is not allowed.

The reason for allowing it is that there is no EF mass available + the OF mass is problematic. Cardinal Arinze, the Prefect for CDW made this very clear in a public statement.

In the case of the Eastern Catholics attending the Orthodox church, the issue is a little different. You’re stepping outside of the Catholic church. The SSPX are still Catholic. They’re just Catholics in trouble.

To clarify both of your points. The current status of the SSPX priests and that of a laicized priest is the same. The priesthood is like a birthmark. You cannot take it away. A deacon, priest or bishop NEVER becomes a layman no matter what happens. The Church can dismiss him from ministry. He can ask to leave and receive a dispensation. He can be put on suspension. The difference is that the laicized priest is given permission to live AS IF he were a layman. The suspended priest is not given that permission. To live as if you are a layman does not make you one.

The laicized priest is not bound to pray the LOTH, nor is he bound to celibacy. However, like the suspended priest, he does not have a canonical place in the Church and he remains a priest.

Even those priests who were charged with child sexual abuse remain priests. Their canonical status is the same as the priests of the SSPX. They have no canonical status in the Church. Some of them can never get it back, because they were dismissed. Others were never dismissed. They were suspended, because of legal questions. However, the suspension does not have to be lifted. He must pray the LOTH and he is bound to celibacy.

We don’t like to think of the SSPX priests as being in the same boat as a sexual abuser or one who has left the priesthood, but the fact is true. None of them have a canonical place, but all of them are valid priests who can celebrate any sacrament in the event of an emergency. As to who has a better chance of recovering his canonical status, obviously, the SSPX priests do.

Any SSPX priest can recover his canonical status tomorrow morning by walking into a bishop’s office and surrendering to a diocese. He signs a document where he breaks ties with the SSPX and he’s free of the suspension, just as the founders of the FSSP were. If you’re not in vows, you don’t need permission to leave. You can walk at any time, but you have to find a bishop to take you in or a religious superior.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

There was a letter with this very question to the Ecclesia Dei Commission. If I can find it, I’ll post it. The answer came back that the Latin Catholic faithful can fulfill their Sunday obligation at the SSPX chapel. What had to be understood is that this did not mean that they were encouraging it.

Actually the letter you are speaking about, if it is the one I am thinking of, was from the head of the Commission and not written as from the Commission.

Also it was a response to a specific question from an individual. That is the answer was addressed to a single person. It has been posted to the internet but the original letter asking the question is no where on the 'net.

An answer to a specific individual does not mean that the answer contained in it applies to everyone.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Bro. JR, can you clarify your earlier statement for me? You said that one may go to the SSPX if there is no other EF Mass available. That means there are other OF Masses, right? How is that different from an Eastern Catholic who has no other Eastern Rite Liturgy?

I believe that if there is no parish Church of your Church present then the Sunday “obligation” does not exist.

 

[JReducation]

I believe that if there is no parish Church of your Church present then the Sunday “obligation” does not exist.

I don’t know that the canons for the Oriental Churches say, but this is the law for the Latin Church.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF