Message from Cardinal Ratzinger in 1988

[TrentCath]

For that matter it is also worth pointing out that the Theology of St Thomas Aquinas was very much influenced by that of St Augustine and the two do not often contradict, so if one was trained in one method to an extent you would also be significantly trained up in the other method.

Respectfully I would point out that the main thrust of my response was simply explaining whether the council was binding and so on, not the issue of changes occuring after the council something which is indisputable. My main concern was and still is to present the other point of view as regards the council that is a middle way between those that was disposes of it altogether and those that see everything it said as binding and even infallible. That is the issue here and I would rather not get bogged down on minor issues such as the teaching of the method of St Thomas Aquinas, I merely used that as an example of the fact that Archbishop Lefebvre did not refuse to obey the council or refuse to accept it as a council.

 

[steve_b]

I’l give you an example. The Right of Exemption came from Trent. It is still in effect today. It was not an infallible statement, but it binds all bishops. It is a decree by Trent that certain religious: Jesuits, Franciscans, Dominicans, Carmelites, Benedictines and any other to whom the pope extends the privilege are not subordinate to the authority of any bishop. The bishop may not enter their houses withou their permission. He may not correct the or discipline them. He may not take their property. He must ensure that the faithful of his diocese support their apostolic works in his diocese. He may not suppress their presence in his diocese once permission has been given for them to establish a house there, even if it’s by a previous bishop.

This came out of Trent. It is still the norm. It is not an infallible statement. Any pope can retract it and throw it out.

Orders don’t have their own bishop over them?

 

[JReducation]

Orders don’t have their own bishop over them?

No we don’t. We have Major Superiors. They have the same authority as a bishop, but they are not bishops. They cannot perform any of the sacramental functions of a bishop, such as ordain or confirm. But they can grant faculties and retract them too. They can assign, investigate, penalize, reward, and govern their brothers according to the statutes of the community and the mind of the founder.

In most orders and congregations too, the Major Superior is in office for a limited number of years. In our community, he is elected for three years and can be re-elected for three more. Then he must step down and a new Major Superior is elected.

The local superiors, the superior of a house, do not have the same authority as the major superior, unless the major superior extends it to them. It’s called delegation.

One of the duties of a major superior is to decide whether or not Christ wants you to make vows. If the order has priests, the major superior decides whether or not you can be ordained. He may decide that you may not be ordained. In which case, you remain a member of the order until death, but are never a priest. His voice is the voice of Christ. This does not mean that the next Major Superior cannot change that. One superior can deny you permission to be ordained or to make vows and another one can allow it. Christ works on his own timetable, not ours.

As far as bishops are concerned, we work in a diocese, like any other person. We comply with diocesan policies and procedures like everyone else. The bishop cannot tell us what to do in our houses, what to wear, how to pray or when to pray. He cannot tell us whether to live in this house or that house. He may not even enter the religious house without permission of the Major Superior. He may not ordain a member of an order or of a congregtation without the permission of the superior. If he does, the ordination is illegal and the bishop and the new priest are suspended.

Religious cannot erect a house in any diocese without the permission of the local bishop. However, once that permission is granted, it can never be taken away by anyone except the pope. That’s called suppression. Bishops cannot suppress religious.

If the ministry belongs to the order and the order is exempt, the bishop’s policies do not apply. For example, this was the problem with Notre Dame. The bishop had no power over the university, because it is owned by a religious congregation of brothers who are exempt religious.

There is one card that a bishop can play. Only a bishop can call anything, Catholic. A bishop can declare that an institution run by religious is no longer Catholic. He cannot close it down, because it’s not his to close. He can take away the name Catholic. Canon Law is clear that no one can call anything Catholic without the permission of the local bishop.

Trent’s idea was to protect religious from the control of the laity and the bishops. There was a problem with the laity and bishops appointing superiors to religious houses who promoted their agenda. They also confiscated property that belonged to the religious community. They often refused to provide financial support to the apostolate of a religious community, if they didn’t like the religious. This exemption was instituted to put religious under the protection of the pope.

Bishops and lay people cannot interfere or have a voice in the decisions and affairs of a religious community. They cannot confiscate their property. They cannot discipline the religious. They cannot deny them financial support or the means to support themselves. They cannot decide who is assigned where and who holds what office in the religious community.

Once a religious community becomes a Pontifical Community, its members are untouchable by any bishop or lay person. The exemption is not for the community, but for the individual who belongs to a Community of Pontifical Right. It falls upon the bishop or the lay person to prove that the exemption does not apply. For example, if I work fo the Diocese of NY and the policy of that diocese is that I have to wear my habit, I cannot choose not to wear it. The exemption does not apply, because I’m an employee of the diocese and the diocese is not asking me to do something contrary to the laws of my community.

On the flip side, if the diocese says that I cannot wear my habit, then the exemption applies. The diocesan policies cannot prohibit what the laws of my community allow, which is a habit.

When religious go to work for a diocese, which is frequent, the rules are very clear between the bishop and the Major Superior. This way there is cooperation and fraternal charity between the bishop and the religious.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[steve_b]

No we don’t. We have Major Superiors. They have the same authority as a bishop, but they are not bishops. They cannot perform any of the sacramental functions of a bishop, such as ordain or confirm. But they can grant faculties and retract them too. They can assign, investigate, penalize, reward, and govern their brothers according to the statutes of the community and the mind of the founder.

In most orders and congregations too, the Major Superior is in office for a limited number of years. In our community, he is elected for three years and can be re-elected for three more. Then he must step down and a new Major Superior is elected.

The local superiors, the superior of a house, do not have the same authority as the major superior, unless the major superior extends it to them. It’s called delegation.

One of the duties of a major superior is to decide whether or not Christ wants you to make vows. If the order has priests, the major superior decides whether or not you can be ordained. He may decide that you may not be ordained. In which case, you remain a member of the order until death, but are never a priest. His voice is the voice of Christ. This does not mean that the next Major Superior cannot change that. One superior can deny you permission to be ordained or to make vows and another one can allow it. Christ works on his own timetable, not ours.

As far as bishops are concerned, we work in a diocese, like any other person. We comply with diocesan policies and procedures like everyone else. The bishop cannot tell us what to do in our houses, what to wear, how to pray or when to pray. He cannot tell us whether to live in this house or that house. He may not even enter the religious house without permission of the Major Superior. He may not ordain a member of an order or of a congregtation without the permission of the superior. If he does, the ordination is illegal and the bishop and the new priest are suspended.

Religious cannot erect a house in any diocese without the permission of the local bishop. However, once that permission is granted, it can never be taken away by anyone except the pope. That’s called suppression. Bishops cannot suppress religious.

If the ministry belongs to the order and the order is exempt, the bishop’s policies do not apply. For example, this was the problem with Notre Dame. The bishop had no power over the university, because it is owned by a religious congregation of brothers who are exempt religious.

There is one card that a bishop can play. Only a bishop can call anything, Catholic. A bishop can declare that an institution run by religious is no longer Catholic. He cannot close it down, because it’s not his to close. He can take away the name Catholic. Canon Law is clear that no one can call anything Catholic without the permission of the local bishop.

Trent’s idea was to protect religious from the control of the laity and the bishops. There was a problem with the laity and bishops appointing superiors to religious houses who promoted their agenda. They also confiscated property that belonged to the religious community. They often refused to provide financial support to the apostolate of a religious community, if they didn’t like the religious. This exemption was instituted to put religious under the protection of the pope.

Bishops and lay people cannot interfere or have a voice in the decisions and affairs of a religious community. They cannot confiscate their property. They cannot discipline the religious. They cannot deny them financial support or the means to support themselves. They cannot decide who is assigned where and who holds what office in the religious community.

Once a religious community becomes a Pontifical Community, its members are untouchable by any bishop or lay person. The exemption is not for the community, but for the individual who belongs to a Community of Pontifical Right. It falls upon the bishop or the lay person to prove that the exemption does not apply. For example, if I work fo the Diocese of NY and the policy of that diocese is that I have to wear my habit, I cannot choose not to wear it. The exemption does not apply, because I’m an employee of the diocese and the diocese is not asking me to do something contrary to the laws of my community.

On the flip side, if the diocese says that I cannot wear my habit, then the exemption applies. The diocesan policies cannot prohibit what the laws of my community allow, which is a habit.

When religious go to work for a diocese, which is frequent, the rules are very clear between the bishop and the Major Superior. This way there is cooperation and fraternal charity between the bishop and the religious.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

This was an eye opener for me.

 

[JReducation]

This was an eye opener for me.

I believe that most lay people are in the same situation as you are. At the time that Trent created the Law of Exemption, the laity was very involved in religious life. People who had money were often very controlling of the religious. They eventually had the power to appoint superiors and to have their relatives placed in positions of authority. The religious were often trapped, because their lands and buildings would be confiscated by the aristocracy, if they did not comply. Bishops were often accessories to these crimes against the religious. They too were often part of the aristocracy or they were under their thumb.

After Trent, the separation between the religious and the laity grew, since the lay person no longer had any power over the religious. Over the past several hundred years, people have forgotten about this law. However, the Church keeps it in place.

It actually has helped in a number of cases. There was a situation at Franciscan University where students and professors wanted to force the hand of the local superior to have the EF celebrated on campus. SP is very clear that priests who are religious must adhere to the laws of their religious institute. Franciscans are very clear that no one may celebrate any form of the mass other than the approved Franciscan form, unless the superior grants permission to do so.

In any case, these folks went to the superior. He offered to provide transportation from the university to a nearby parish that has an EF. The group found this unsatisfactory and went to the bishop. The bishop said that since the university is under the ownership of the Vatican and its administration is delegated to the friars, the local bishop has no authority. It’s as if the university were a foreign embassy where local authorities have no jurisdiction. It was not that the university is the property of the Vatican that was an issue, but that the friars are exempt religious and they are the lawful governors of the university until the Vatican decides otherwise. The bishop can’t even strip the university of its Catholic title, since he did not grant it. It was granted by the Holy See.

The focus group had to go back and negotiate with the Major Superior, who is over the local superior at the university. Eventually, the question was resolved. The Major Superior granted the permission to the ordained friars to celebrate the EF, provided that the other friars in the house did not oppose it. No one did oppose it. The agreement was reached and they have the EF for the students and faculty. I don’t know how often. I’m not up to speed on that.

The Law of Exemption came in handy. The bishop was able to bail out without being caught in the middle of a conflict between friars and school people. The friars at the local house on campus were able to hand over the whole thing to the Major Superior. They were no longer involved in the conflict and the Major Superior laid down the rules that both friars and lay people on the campus must follow or he pulls the plug on the EF, no questions asked. SP does not bind him to provide a priest for the EF. It only bind bishops, not religious superiors.

SP and UE are clear that a bishop has to help when people request it. Religious superiors do not have this obligation. The reason that they are left out is because of the Law of Exemption. If they were included in SP and UE, then they would have demands placed on them by laity or by bishops to do something that can be dangerous to the unity of their community. This way, the Major Superior is free to decide what is best for the unity of his community. Protecting that unity is his primary moral duty. He is elected to serve his brothers and to preserve his community. If he fails to do so, then the community suffers and so does the Church.

It’s very logical, actually.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF