Pope Has Responded to Bishop Fellay

  • Thread starter Thread starter giuseppeTO
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Given the nature of the SSPX, this prelature will probably work like the Military Ordinariate. The Miliatary Ordinariate is an Archdiocese. It can open chapels on any military base in the USA without the permission of the local bishop, because the base is not within the diocese. However, if the priests of the Military Ordinariate want to celebrate mass or hear confessions outside the base, they must get the permission from the local bishop. If the Military Ordinariate wants to open a chapel or other institution outside of a base, it must get the permission of the local bishop. There has to be a coordination. It is understood that families in the military belong to the Military Archdiocese. There is no need to get permission to serve them on any base. If the Military Archdiocese has permission to open a chapel off base, it is understood that those families can avail themselves of its services without further involvement of the local bishop.
Would people join the SSPX “Ordinariate”? What would be the “Bases” of the SSPX, their chapels already established?

The military actually has bases and staff, and therefor the Miltary Ordinariate has territory and members. I do not understand how this arrangement with the SSPX, who do not have bases and staff but only chapels and priests, would not be just a subchurch within the greater Church.

It’s a little confusing to me.

-Tim-
 
Nothing human is ever perfect. 🤷

Priests who operate chapels independent of the SSPX will be out of this loop. Bishop Fellay implied, they will not be part of the SSPX. We’re looking at the possibility of a much smaller SSPX.
Br JR, it may not be a net loss if they can pick up some of these independent chapels. I happen to live in an area where some of the SSPX are sympathetic to at least one of these priests, even to the point of writing to the bishop of the diocese in support. Should make things interesting going forward.
Some priests have already said that they will not cooperate with the prelature. The Vatican has already said that such an action will be interpreted as a rupture. Such a rupture means schism.
I thought a schism requires at least one dissenting bishop. I’m not saying there can’t be a rupture though.
 
Nothing human is ever perfect. 🤷

Priests who operate chapels independent of the SSPX will be out of this loop. Bishop Fellay implied, they will not be part of the SSPX. We’re looking at the possibility of a much smaller SSPX. Some priests have already said that they will not cooperate with the prelature. The Vatican has already said that such an action will be interpreted as a rupture. Such a rupture means schism.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV 🙂
But SSPX property belongs to Bishop Fellay though, correct? If those in SSPX owned chapels do not obey Bishop Fellay if this reconciliation happens, where would they go? Looks like the Diamond Brothers may need to make more room :rolleyes:
 
But SSPX property belongs to Bishop Fellay though, correct? If those in SSPX owned chapels do not obey Bishop Fellay if this reconciliation happens, where would they go? Looks like the Diamond Brothers may need to make more room :rolleyes:
Well there are three other SSPX bishops who have to come to Rome on their own, that is they are not covered by any reconciliation with the SSPX. So if one or more of them chose not to reconcile those chapels and priests who do not wish to return might still be able to have their own bishop.
 
Would people join the SSPX “Ordinariate”? What would be the “Bases” of the SSPX, their chapels already established?
There is not going to be an SSPX Ordinariate. An ordinariate is a diocese with all of the privileges, duties and rights of a diocese. A prelature does not have those. What Bishop Fellay is saying that the relationship between himself and the diocesan bishops would be like that of the bishop of an ordinariate. It’s a bishop to bishop dialogue.
The military actually has bases and staff, and therefor the Miltary Ordinariate has territory and members. I do not understand how this arrangement with the SSPX, who do not have bases and staff but only chapels and priests, would not be just a subchurch within the greater Church.
A prelature is simply a group that is a subgroup within the universal Church rather than the diocesan Church. The prelate and the people in the prelature are under the direct jurisdiction of the pope. He makes their rules, writes its constitutions, opens and suppresses without having to consult, and he can assign any bishop as prelate. It does not have to be Bishop Fellay. Bishop Fellay knows this. Bishop Fellay can be sent on mission to India and a bishop can be brought in from Timbuktu to run the SSPX, not that it’s going to happen, but it can. A prelate does not have a cathedra as does a bishop of an ordinariate. He is dependent on Peter’s Cathedra. That’s why it’s called “personal”. It’s referring to the person of the pope.

However, a prelature has something that an ordinariate does not have, which the SSPX values very much. It can open its own seminaries and train its own clergy. It can also have religious communities attached to it. Ordinariates cannot have this. For example, the Military Archdiocese is not allowed to have its own priests. It may not have a seminary. It may not ordain anyone, nor can it receive anyone’s vow to the religious life. All of its priests are on loan or rented from other dioceses and religious orders. They must return to their diocese of origin or to their order as soon as their bishop or superior command it. The US Core of Army chaplains has no authority over them. If a bishop wants to pull his man from the US Army and Uncle Sam gets upset, the Bishop’s response is, “Sue me.” In a prelature, the priests belong to the prelature, to a diocese.

As far as property, the Holy Father has to decide what property the SSPX can keep and what it has to surrender to him. The property is not surrendered to the local bishop. It’s a personal prelature of the Holy Father. Everything is surrendered to him. He distributes it as he sees fit.

It’s a little confusing to me.
Br JR, it may not be a net loss if they can pick up some of these independent chapels. I happen to live in an area where some of the SSPX are sympathetic to at least one of these priests, even to the point of writing to the bishop of the diocese in support. Should make things interesting going forward.
These priests will not be picked up unless they actually belong to the SSPX. The preamble only covers those who belong to the SSPX, except for the three bishops.
I thought a schism requires at least one dissenting bishop. I’m not saying there can’t be a rupture though.
No. Schism applies to anyone who publicly breaks with the Primacy of Peter.
But SSPX property belongs to Bishop Fellay though, correct?
It belongs to the Society as a corporation. But once they become canonically regular, like all institutes, their property belongs to the Church, even though their name is on the deed. In other words, they must do with the property whatever Rome decides, as must the rest of us.
If those in SSPX owned chapels do not obey Bishop Fellay if this reconciliation happens, where would they go? Looks like the Diamond Brothers may need to make more room :rolleyes:
Bishop Fellay was asked this question. He was rather vague and I don’t blame him. The answer is, “They have one foot here and one in hell.” That would be rude for a bishop to say so. They would not longer be Catholic, not matter how much they wanted to use the name Catholic. Now, they have to be careful. The Vatican has just filed for exclusive use of the name Catholic and only those who have permission of the Vatican can use it. They have already said that no independent ministries, not bloggers and no independent internet sites will be granted permission to use the name Catholic and legal action can be brought against them in an international court of law. To use the name Catholic, you must pass the litmus test that only a bishop who is an ordinary can give, not just any bishop.
Well there are three other SSPX bishops who have to come to Rome on their own, that is they are not covered by any reconciliation with the SSPX. So if one or more of them chose not to reconcile those chapels and priests who do not wish to return might still be able to have their own bishop.
They will be in the same place as were the first generation Orthodox and first generation Old Catholics. Excommunicated, declared anathema and in schism. Those lay people who follow will forfeit their right to receive the sacraments in a Catholic Church, since that right is only reserved for Catholics in good standing with the Church.
Removed the “m” from the link for those accessing from their desktop.

Ha, ha. They’re calling the SSPX “The Fraternity”.
That’s its proper canonical name. They are the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X. {FSSPX} Society is their canonical status, if and when they are readmitted into the Church. Right now, they cannot be called a society, because they have no status. Only the Sacred Congregation for Societies of Apostolic Life can give them the name “society”. To do that, they first have to be in full communion with the Church.

When the FFV came out of the Caps, we went for three years in limbo. We could not call ourselves Catholic. We could call ourselves Franciscan, but not Catholic Franciscans. We could not call ourselves an order. We were simple the Franciscans of Life. In March 2012, we were approved as Catholic and as a society. On Pentecost Sunday we were allowed to use both. Now I can say that I’m a Catholic religious. Before, I had to say, “I’m a religious who is a Catholic.” If I said that I was a Catholic religious or that we were a Catholic society, we would have been denied recognition. The Church is very tough on this.

Those heretical groups like Catholics for Choice are not supposed to call themselves Catholic, but they are so far out that they don’t care about authority or about violating the rights of the Church. They have their own agenda. They may soon find themselves in court, if the international community recognizes the Church’s proprietary right to the name Catholic.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV 🙂
 
I just had an afterthought. This would be a perfect scenario where “no salvation outside the Church” could be applied.

Those who choose to walk away have full knowledge of the need for the Catholic Church. There is no invincible ignorance that applies here.

Whereas, those born outside the Catholic Church are not expected to have the same degree of appreciation for the need for Catholicism. Even Archbishop Lefebvre said this in his work for the Confused Catholic. Actually, his statement on this point is very well written.

outsidethechurchnosalvation.blogspot.com/2009/07/archbishop-lefebvre-on-extra-ecclesiam.html

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV 🙂
 
The Vatican has just filed for exclusive use of the name Catholic and only those who have permission of the Vatican can use it. They have already said that no independent ministries, not bloggers and no independent internet sites will be granted permission to use the name Catholic and legal action can be brought against them in an international court of law. To use the name Catholic, you must pass the litmus test that only a bishop who is an ordinary can give, not just any bishop.
I don’t want to pull us off topic, but as far as the Vatican recently reserving a legal right this refers only to internet domain names, right? For example, no one could set up a www.whatever.catholic without Vatican permission, but they could set up/retain, for example, www.catholic.com and a name like “Catholic Answers”, right?
 
I don’t want to pull us off topic, but as far as the Vatican recently reserving a legal right this refers only to internet domain names, right? For example, no one could set up a www.whatever.catholic without Vatican permission, but they could set up/retain, for example, www.catholic.com and a name like “Catholic Answers”, right?
Yes to the first and no to the second. Yes, there is a legal petition to control “whatever.catholic”.

No, no one can use Catholir dot something without the permission of the bishop, nor can anyone call themselves Catholic without the legal right to do so.

Individual baptized Catholics who are not in schism remain Catholic, even excommunicated ones.

Institutions, groups, apostolates, and other bodies cannot call themselves Catholic, even if everyone is as Catholic ans as orthodox as St. Paul himself.

For example, my community came out of the larger Franciscans community. The CFR came out of the same larger Franciscan community as did other smaller Franciscan communities. We were allowed to use the name Franciscan, but not Catholic until the bishop gave us permission to do so. We would say that we were a Franciscan community of Catholic men. Never a Catholic Franciscan community as opposed to the Anglican Franciscans or the Lutheran Franciscans.

We were not recognized by the Church as being Catholic, even though we worked for an archdiocese. It took three years and many tests to prove that we were Catholic. We couldn’t even say it on our website or we could have been sued by the Catholic Church.

The three founders had made vows in the Church. Our vows were in effect. We were in good standing with the Church. We were on leave from our community to found a new community with the permission of the Holy See. We were welcome to the diocese by the local bishop. The Franciscan superiors governed us and we followed the Franciscan rule. But we were not Catholic.

The individuals were Catholic, not the community. We couldn’t be Catholic.com or Catholic Franciscans or Catholic Brothers. We were simply Franciscan of Life., just as our brothers up north were Franciscans of the Renewal.

There is an internal movement to restrict the use of the name Catholic. Only a bishop can give you permission to use it in his diocese.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top