Pushed to the SSPX

[EnchantedEve]

I believer the point regarding the SSPX is very simple. But on CAF, we tend to make the simple complicated and over simplify that complex. The SSPX, to the best of my knowledge, has never taught heresty. That’s a point in their favor. They also have four bishops, which to the Apostolic See is the greatest concern.

If the SSPX were celebrating mass in grass skirts, but had no bishops, the Apostolic See would deligate the problem to someone at the local level and wash their hands of it. But when there are bishops involved, the Apostolic See cannot send it downstairs to another department. Only the Apostolic See has authority over bishops. That’s first.

Second, the Church is more concerned about bishops on the loose, than liturgical abuse. Bishops on the loose are a threat to Church unity. Therefore, See must reign them in, either through disciplinary actions or through persuasion.

Finally, what the Church is asking of the SSPX is no different than what it asks of every Catholic:

1. Accept the decrees of Vatican II as authoritative and as they are.
2. Accept the authority of the pope to say this about the decrees and let it go at that
3. Stop making negative remarks about the liturgy and the actions of the popes or stop their people from making these comment.
4. Make no more remarks about the Shoah and tow the line that Benedict has set down, 6 million Jews did die in concentration camps, end of story.
5. Accept the decree on Religious Freedom and on Ecumenism and try to understand what the Church is saying in it, rather than toss it out.
6. Stop ordaining people without permission to do so.

These are rules that are handed down to every diocese and religious community. The SSPX stands out, because they have four bishops. Four bishops are enough to start your own church, which would be schismatic, but rightfully, apostolic. And there does not seem to be any reservation in the minds of these bishops as to whether they would ordain another bishop, if they thought that they needed to replace one of the existing bishops. If you don’t have a promise that there will never again be an ordination of another SSPX bishop, this poses a major problem for the Apostolic, not so much for the lay person in the pews or the local dioceses.

In summary, I think that the biggest and single most issue is the possibility that they would ordain another bishop, without permission. They have never said that they will never do that gain. That’s the biggest doctrinal point between them and the Apostolic See.

So now, the Apostolic See hands over the case to the Holy See and says, “Fix this.” But they are not asking the Holy See to change the teachings of Vatican II or the rules of the post Vatican II Church. They are asking the Holy See to get a statement of submission to the Apostolic See, not just a statement that says they believe that Benedict is pope, but if we need to we will ordain another bishop. That’s scary stuff.

For the good of the Society and the good of the Church, we must pray that as these four bishops get older, they will never think of ordaining another bishop without the pope’s authorizsation to do so. That would mean another excommunication and another 20 years or so of bad blood among Catholics.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Brother, my friend, what are you talking about? The SSPX bishops have already consecrated at least one bishop, Bishop Licinio Rangel for Campos, Brazil.

Also, are you really saying that Rome has the power to decree what we can believe regarding history? Is this not beyond Rome’s grasp of authority?

 

[Lycorth]

Since it seems that the SSPX is moving towards becoming a personal prelature, similar to Opus Dei, this is a joyous thing. If full reconciliation with the Church occurs, there will be nothing to stop the voice of tradition from really reaching out to people and bringing back all the sacred jots and tittles that made traditional Catholicism so beautiful and so reverent.

In the meantime, I will keep on trying to bring traditional reverences into current life as much as I can, and pray for a full reconciliation.

 

[JReducation]

Brother, my friend, what are you talking about? The SSPX bishops have already consecrated at least one bishop, Bishop Licinio Rangel for Campos, Brazil.

Also, are you really saying that Rome has the power to decree what we can believe regarding history? Is this not beyond Rome’s grasp of authority?

Religious in vows and clergy are bound to obey in all matters, even those that are not doctrinal or moral. I’ll give you another example, that is not contraversial today. Religious and clergy were threatened with dismissal and even excommunication if they subscribed to the works of Copernicus and Galileo.

Some founders even wrote into their rules that you must obey the superior, even when he is in error, unless he orders you to sin. This gets a little tricky. The Holy Father is the Major Superior of all diocesan priests, secular clergy such as the SSPX, and religious belonging the institutes of Pontifical Right.

If your rule says that you must obey, even when the superior is in error, then when the Pope says that you must put distance between you and a particular opinion, you must obey, even if you believe that he is in error.

Obedience is very tricky, because it has nothing to do with faith and morals. It has to do with apostolic authority. Peter has full authority over those who make vows of obedience. He cannot be disobeyed, except when he asks you to sin. Peter has apostolic athority and those in vows of obedience must submit to the authority of the Apostle Peter in all things, not just faith and morals.

What has happened with certain people in societies, congregations, orders and associations that have either vowed or promised obedience is that they have misread the teachings on conscience and have used their misunderstanding about conscience as a justification to take opposing positions to those of Church authorities.

In closing, yes the Church can tell her priests and religious what to say or not say regarding history. The Church can say “Think it, but don’t say it.” That quote is mine, by the way. I’ve never heard the Church say that. LOL But some orders that you get boil down to that.

Sometimes, the restrictions are what I call limited, meaning that there are restrictions placed on where you can say something or to whom you can say it. In those cases, you’re not told never to say something, but to be cautious as to how you say it, where you say it and who hears you, because it can do more harm than good or it can even lead to sin.

Some things are not a sin, but they can lead to sin. We have to keep that in miind too. The Church has the right to say that some thought or idea has not positive attribute, even though it’s not a sin; therefore, it cannot be said or cannot be executed.

The response of clergy and religious must be obedience out of love. This kind of obedience is an act of charity.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[EnchantedEve]

Religious in vows and clergy are bound to obey in all matters, even those that are not doctrinal or moral. I’ll give you another example, that is not contraversial today. Religious and clergy were threatened with dismissal and even excommunication if they subscribed to the works of Copernicus and Galileo.

Some founders even wrote into their rules that you must obey the superior, even when he is in error, unless he orders you to sin. This gets a little tricky. The Holy Father is the Major Superior of all diocesan priests, secular clergy such as the SSPX, and religious belonging the institutes of Pontifical Right.

If your rule says that you must obey, even when the superior is in error, then when the Pope says that you must put distance between you and a particular opinion, you must obey, even if you believe that he is in error.

Obedience is very tricky, because it has nothing to do with faith and morals. It has to do with apostolic authority. Peter has full authority over those who make vows of obedience. He cannot be disobeyed, except when he asks you to sin. Peter has apostolic athority and those in vows of obedience must submit to the authority of the Apostle Peter in all things, not just faith and morals.

What has happened with certain people in societies, congregations, orders and associations that have either vowed or promised obedience is that they have misread the teachings on conscience and have used their misunderstanding about conscience as a justification to take opposing positions to those of Church authorities.

In closing, yes the Church can tell her priests and religious what to say or not say regarding history. The Church can say “Think it, but don’t say it.” That quote is mine, by the way. I’ve never heard the Church say that. LOL But some orders that you get boil down to that.

Sometimes, the restrictions are what I call limited, meaning that there are restrictions placed on where you can say something or to whom you can say it. In those cases, you’re not told never to say something, but to be cautious as to how you say it, where you say it and who hears you, because it can do more harm than good or it can even lead to sin.

Some things are not a sin, but they can lead to sin. We have to keep that in miind too. The Church has the right to say that some thought or idea has not positive attribute, even though it’s not a sin; therefore, it cannot be said or cannot be executed.

The response of clergy and religious must be obedience out of love. This kind of obedience is an act of charity.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Ah, but you wrote that the Holy Father was asking of the SSPX what he asks of every Catholic, not those under binding of vows. That is where I make my point. But yes, the authority over religious is much, much different then over the Church as a whole. In this, you are correct, sir.

 

[JReducation]

Ah, but you wrote that the Holy Father was asking of the SSPX what he asks of every Catholic, not those under binding of vows. That is where I make my point. But yes, the authority over religious is much, much different then over the Church as a whole. In this, you are correct, sir.

You don’t have to call me sir. You can call me Brother or JR. The Holy Father has sent a very clear message that the position expressed by Bishop Williamson is wrong. Why else would he say that the bishop must put distance between him and that position? He is exercising his apostolic authority, which is the authority to govern the faithful even in temporal matters. The difference between you and me is that you are not bound to obey by a vow, you are bound to obey by apostolic tradition. I am bound to obey by both, vow and tradition.

I will grant you this, which I did not clearly explain in my previous post. You, I’m assuming that most readers are lay people, have the right to opinions. We, clergy, religious men, religious women and secular orders, do not have that right. There are certain opinions that we may not hold. Even if we believe them, we are wrong. Even if we are right and the person in authority is wrong, we are still wrong. This is the gift that you give to God when you vow obedience. You surrender not only your will, but also your freedom.

If you stop and think about it, it is a beautiful gift and one that brings much peace when you live by it.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[ravenonthecross]

we are obedient to Christ when we obey His priests and the Church… the SSPX is disobedient and so is not pleasing to God, not matter how much more reverent they are than the NO Masses. If you want to attend an EF Mass, what about the FSSP? they are fully accepted by the Church.

our job as Catholics is to follow the bishops. My bishop told everyone to receive in the hand for now… (because of swine flu)
and though I prefer receiving on the tongue, I’m obeying until he says otherwise.

This is what the Saints did.

God bless

Actually considering that Communion on the tongue is the universal norm and law of the Roman rite Church: your bishop has NO authority to suspend reception of communion on the tongue. Considering Communion in the hand is by INDULT, he can suspend that, but he hasn’t the authority to suspend communion-on-the-tongue.

 

[ibkc]

You don’t have to call me sir. You can call me Brother or JR. The Holy Father has sent a very clear message that the position expressed by Bishop Williamson is wrong. Why else would he say that the bishop must put distance between him and that position? He is exercising his apostolic authority, which is the authority to govern the faithful even in temporal matters.

Since Bp. Williamson and the SSPX have not publicly expressed opposition to this papal “gag order” (my term), this whole discussion is moot. The talks between the Holy See and the SSPX do not concern Bp. Williamson’s eccentric views of history nor does the SSPX’s potential regularization hinge on it.

 

[numealinesimpet]

I believe the point regarding the SSPX is very simple. But on CAF, we tend to make the simple complicated and over simplify that complex. The SSPX, to the best of my knowledge, has never taught heresty. That’s a point in their favor. They also have four bishops, which to the Apostolic See is the greatest concern.

If the SSPX were celebrating mass in grass skirts, but had no bishops, the Apostolic See would deligate the problem to someone at the local level and wash their hands of it. But when there are bishops involved, the Apostolic See cannot send it downstairs to another department. Only the Apostolic See has authority over bishops.

…Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Good morning, JR. I always find your posts very thoughtful and informative. You have taught me many things about the history of the Liturgy. I didn’t know much about Cluniac Liturgy, for instance. Perhaps we could have a thread about that.
We have not always agreed about the SSPX.

Can I respond to just one or two points from your last post?

Second, the Church is more concerned about bishops on the loose, than liturgical abuse. Bishops on the loose are a threat to Church unity. Therefore, See must reign them in, either through disciplinary actions or through persuasion.

I agree. Fr Malachi Martin puts it very cruelly in one of his articles. (For the record, I don’t agree with a lot of what else he he says. On the other hand, he was intimately involved with many Vatican affairs) … As we probably know, very extensive dossiers of outrageous abuses have been sent to the Vatican over the past decades, to be completely buried. Malachi Martin comments, “They are delighted to get these. It shows them that the petitioners still accept that they are in control. But Lefebvre ordained four bishops”. That did indeed strike at the heart of their power structure. Please note that Lefebvre & de Castro Meyer appointed them ‘pro tem, sine locus’ – 'for the duration [of the crisis], without a ‘location’. They did not usurp any existing diocese or function (laypeople are often surprised how many bishops are employed in Vatican administration, without an actual working diocese. This does make sense: there are certain things that only a bishop can do). But the SSPX were*** added to the structure as supernumeraries*** who could carry out emergency tasks: notably supplying the religious needs of the laypeople when the Local Ordinary was – for whatever reason – refusing, or failing, or unable, to do so. A defective decree of excommunication was issued in an irregular manner within 48 hours by Cdl Gantin. This point has been discussed often before: there are discussions about this on the SSPX website, tradwiki and elsewhere. I personally have come to believe that they were justified in this action within Canon Law. I disagreed at the time, but I thought that subsequent events proved their wisdom in the concrete circumstances.

what the Church is asking of the SSPX is no different than what it asks of every Catholic:

1. Accept the decrees of Vatican II as authoritative and as they are.

But the Second Vatican Council didn’t actually mandate anything. It defined no doctrine, forbade no practice, issued no anathema, and actually said in so many words that its decrees were not infallible. This has been discussed on CAF before: I can provide links if this would help. People were continually being asked to “accept Vatican II” without being told what that actually meant. That is why the Vatican, sooner or later, has to clarify this matter. We have to thank the SSPX for being the ones who are actually sitting down with them to get it done.

 

[numealinesimpet]

\ Whoa. Only when he is doing what Christ would have done, not when he is doing what Christ would not have done, yet using His Name.\

And, of course, you are in an EXCELLENT position to decide absolutely and infallibly what Christ would have done, are you not?

Thank you, **ravenonthecross ** (posting #543) for pointing out the fallacy in this kind of comment.

 

[JReducation]

Good morning, JR. I always find your posts very thoughtful and informative. You have taught me many things about the history of the Liturgy. I didn’t know much about Cluniac Liturgy, for instance. Perhaps we could have a thread about that.
We have not always agreed about the SSPX.

Can I respond to just one or two points from your last post?
I agree. Fr Malachi Martin puts it very cruelly in one of his articles. (For the record, I don’t agree with a lot of what else he he says. On the other hand, he was intimately involved with many Vatican affairs) … As we probably know, very extensive dossiers of outrageous abuses have been sent to the Vatican over the past decades, to be completely buried. Malachi Martin comments, “They are delighted to get these. It shows them that the petitioners still accept that they are in control. But Lefebvre ordained four bishops”. That did indeed strike at the heart of their power structure. Please note that Lefebvre & de Castro Meyer appointed them ‘pro tem, sine locus’ – 'for the duration [of the crisis], without a ‘location’. They did not usurp any existing diocese or function (laypeople are often surprised how many bishops are employed in Vatican administration, without an actual working diocese. This does make sense: there are certain things that only a bishop can do). But the SSPX were*** added to the structure as supernumeraries*** who could carry out emergency tasks: notably supplying the religious needs of the laypeople when the Local Ordinary was – for whatever reason – refusing, or failing, or unable, to do so. A defective decree of excommunication was issued in an irregular manner within 48 hours by Cdl Gantin. This point has been discussed often before: there are discussions about this on the SSPX website, tradwiki and elsewhere. I personally have come to believe that they were justified in this action within Canon Law. I disagreed at the time, but I thought that subsequent events proved their wisdom in the concrete circumstances.
But the Second Vatican Council didn’t actually mandate anything. It defined no doctrine, forbade no practice, issued no anathema, and actually said in so many words that its decrees were not infallible. This has been discussed on CAF before: I can provide links if this would help. People were continually being asked to “accept Vatican II” without being told what that actually meant. That is why the Vatican, sooner or later, has to clarify this matter. We have to thank the SSPX for being the ones who are actually sitting down with them to get it done.

I have to go to bed, because I have to get up in an 90 min for morning prayer. But the point with the Vatican II decrees that many people fail to understand is that the Church is not only about faith and morals, she is also about pastoral care and temporal affairs. She does speak authoritatively in these fields. When Benedict XVI says that they must accept Vatican II’s authority, that’s what he’s referring to. Vatican II had the authority to write the decree on Religoius Freedom, which has been a thorn on the side of many. It had the authority to make the statements that it made about other faiths, another thorn on the side of many people.

The Church does not only have authority when speaking on dogmas and morals. She has expansive authority given to her by Christ on all matters concerning humanity, even economic mattters. We see this in the early Church all the way through the Renaissance. The Church was very involved in science, culture, art, politics, economics, civil law, resolution of conflicts, education, healthcare and so forth. She was not just a kindly old lady. She acted with authority and power.

I believe, that too many people would like to scale down the power of the Church to faith and morals. If something is not about faith and morals, it’s not infallible; therefore, we can question and reject it. But that’s not the way the Church was set up. From the days of Abraham, the faith led dictated the lives of the people of God. It it was always the voice of authority. The Jews, the early Christians, the monks in the monasteries, the Dessert Fathers, the Early Fathers of the Church and others never stopped to sort out what was infallible from what was pastoral, temporal and other. This was the Church doing the talking and that’s all that matted to them. In our effort to recover our roots, we must recover this reverence and respect for the Church’s authority to make statements about herself and the world, which is what she did during Vatican II, and we owe it to her to accept that she has the authority to make these statements.

If there are people out there who do not understand what was said or meant, they deserve an explanation. This is justice. I for one have never had problems understanding the Council Documents. I found them very user friendly. Maybe it’s me. I come from another pespective, one of Mystical Theology and Franciscan tradition. We tend to look at what the spiritual message is and what is the rule of life that is being proposed or spoken about. Yes, there are times when you have to go back and reread something. You find that you have to read something else to understand, because so many of these documents were based on discussions and other writings. But if we take the time to look for them, we will find that the final documents are pretty simplistic, actually.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[surritter]

But the Second Vatican Council didn’t actually mandate anything. It defined no doctrine, forbade no practice, issued no anathema, and actually said in so many words that its decrees were not infallible.

If that were so, then why did Abp. Lefebvre refuse to sign all of the Vatican II documents?

 

[pnewton]

If that were so, then why did Abp. Lefebvre refuse to sign all of the Vatican II documents?

Probably because two of the documents,Lumen Gentium and Dei Verbum, are listed as dogmatic constitutions, the opinions of the SSPX notwithstanding. Personally, I am too simple to understand how a dogmatic statement can not be dogma, or how one can quote Church Councils for the last 1800 years as authoritative, except one.

Maybe its like a Mullugan in golf and every Catholic gets to pick one that we do not like and toss it out.

 

[ProVobis]

If that were so, then why did Abp. Lefebvre refuse to sign all of the Vatican II documents?

I was unaware of this. As all were required to sign off on the documents whether they had voted for them or against them, I’d be curious as to which ones the Archbishop refused to sign.

 

[JReducation]

I believe thar the problem that many Catholics are having with the authority of Vatican II is not just the documents themselves. I believe that Archbishop Lefebvre made a statement when he refused to sign. He understood what many Catholic lay people don’t understand or want to see changed.

A Council or even an individual pope does not have to issue doctrines, dogmas, anathemas to have the full force of apostolic authority. By the mere fact that they (the Council Fathers) have been vested with the authority to make pastoral statements, make statements about pastoral issues, world affairs, religious life, relations with other faiths, etc etc, the Council has the full force of Apostolic authority.

Therefore the Council is binding on all Catholics, not because it is infallible, but because it comes from those who have the authority to govern. We often forget that the Church’s power exceeds faith and morals. The Church has temporal powers over the faithful. Whether the faithful want to accept that or not, it’s a reality.

There is wonderful Dominican friar on EWTN, Fr. Brian Mullady who was speaking about this last night. He was explaining how the Catholic Church is not a democracy and neither the clery, religiuos or laity have the freedom to disregard and disobey what comes from the pope or from his delegates. We are bound to him. This goes back to the early Church when the Apostles managed all the temporal affairs of the community, not only the spiritual needs. Prior to that is goes back to Jesus who fed the hungry and healed the sick. Prior to that, the Patriarchs were fathers to the tribes of Israel. They did not only speak about faith and morals, but about everything that was involved in being a Jew. Father was making the point that most of us who have studied theology formally have found. The Church never abdicated her teporal authority over us.

The fact that she has let us slide on certain things and has asked us to take care of certain things, does not mean that we can always do so. The Church can pull that away at any time that she so feels like it and on any issue, not just faith and morals. She can demand that Catholics accept that the writings of Vatican II have the full force of authority, which is what Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI are trying to say when they require that one accept the authority of Vatican II. So, when Vatican II said that we must put aside all the ill feelings between Catholics and non Catholics and begin again, that is what they expect us to do and that is not up for discussion. It need not be an infallible statement to carry the full weight of authority.

I find that I can understand the authority of Vatican II better whenI think about it as a collection of executive orders and judicial commentaries. The Church is executor, legislator and jurist. Therefore, she can make comments on her own laws and traditions. She is also an executor, she can hand down exesutive deciions on what she wants done or what she wants stopped. She is jurist, she can change rules and laws. The only authority that the Church does not have is to teach new dogmas. But she can change how we explain the dogmas that we have. She can edit the explanations of the past or even push them aside and write new ones, as long as she does not do away with the dogma itself.

Archbishop Lefebvre knew that the Church had this power. Thus, whatever he refused to sign was his way of saying that he would not submit to this authority for whatever reasons he felt were appropriate. Unfortuantely, where he gets into trouble as many of us do, is that we cannot set ourselves up as the sole defenders of the faith. We are a Church. Therefore, we must defend the faith in union with the Church’s highest authority, not in conflict with it. I don’t want to “stick it to him.” This is a very human reaction.

I sometimes feel that without realizing it, the good Archbishop was also sucked into the modern mindset that we are all some kind of authority or that the hierarchy and papacy can be challenged when not speaking infallibly on faith and morals. The Church has never said that. The old custom remains in place. Peter has spoken. You can only question Peter until Peter says that the conversation is over. This certainly seems to be the goal of these talks with the Congregation on the Faith. At some point Cardinal Levada will say, “Court is ajourned.” When he says that, whatever you agree on, you must comply with and whatever you disagree on you still must comply with. Peter has spoken. Remember, he speaks in the name of Peter.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[ibkc]

I sometimes feel that without realizing it, the good Archbishop was also sucked into the modern mindset that we are all some kind of authority or that the hierarchy and papacy can be challenged when not speaking infallibly on faith and morals. The Church has never said that. The old custom remains in place. Peter has spoken. You can only question Peter until Peter says that the conversation is over. This certainly seems to be the goal of these talks with the Congregation on the Faith. At some point Cardinal Levada will say, “Court is ajourned.” When he says that, whatever you agree on, you must comply with and whatever you disagree on you still must comply with. Peter has spoken. Remember, he speaks in the name of Peter.

The voice of Peter would not contradict past Church teachings, which I believe is the larger point here.

 

[surritter]

The voice of Peter would not contradict past Church teachings, which I believe is the larger point here.

Recall that Church teachings on faith and morals cannot change, but the teachings on disciplinary matters (i.e., the format of the Holy Mass) can change.

 

[ibkc]

Recall that Church teachings on faith and morals cannot change, but the teachings on disciplinary matters (i.e., the format of the Holy Mass) can change.

I understand that. I am simply pointing out the from the POV of the SSPX, things aren’t as simple as all that.

 

[JReducation]

The voice of Peter would not contradict past Church teachings, which I believe is the larger point here.

The voice of Peter has never done that. If that were true, then the Chair of Peter is empty. Peter cannot contradict Church teachings. But, he has the authority to restate them in any way that he wants, to interpret them, to explain them and to sort through them and to decided which are binding and which are not. However, only Peter has that authority.

If we said that the current popse contradicted Church teachings in areas where they have no authority to do so, then we are saying that they are not valid popes. Only a sedevacantist would say that.

Either they are valid popes, with all the authority that comes with the papacy or they are not. We have to accept the promise of Christ that he will not let Peter err. Therefore, when Peter speaks in a manner that may sound to contradict previous Church teaching, either we’re not understanding or the teaching was not binding and he has the auhority to change it.

At some point we have ot accept that we do not have neither the authority of a pope, nor the knowledge that a pope has of Church teaching. This is part of trusting our popes. If we have a trust issue with our current popes, then it’s our issue, not their own. We need to work through that in a prayerful way. We cannot ask the popes to make themselves worthy of our trust. or to speak to us in a manner than we can trust. They aren not at our reach.

I am reminded of something that my novice master quoted for us from the writings of St. Clare. “We are no body. We have no dignity except that of a child of God, but not the dignity of authority. To assume that we have such a dignity is a sin against pride. We were not called to be authorities, but to be subservient. Only when man is subservient to the Church does he rise in Christ’s estimation.”

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[ibkc]

Look, JR, all this is going around in circles, and you’re restating a straw man argument over and over. The SSPX recognizes the authority of Peter, so to keep asserting that they have to accept Peter’s authority is a moot point. However, they realize that the Church is run by men on a day-to-day basis and things can and do go wrong, sometimes terribly wrong. Apparently the Holy Father believes they may have some legitimate complaints, or else these talks would not be happening and the excommunications would still stand.

 

[EnchantedEve]

You don’t have to call me sir. You can call me Brother or JR. The Holy Father has sent a very clear message that the position expressed by Bishop Williamson is wrong. Why else would he say that the bishop must put distance between him and that position? He is exercising his apostolic authority, which is the authority to govern the faithful even in temporal matters. The difference between you and me is that you are not bound to obey by a vow, you are bound to obey by apostolic tradition. I am bound to obey by both, vow and tradition.

I will grant you this, which I did not clearly explain in my previous post. You, I’m assuming that most readers are lay people, have the right to opinions. We, clergy, religious men, religious women and secular orders, do not have that right. There are certain opinions that we may not hold. Even if we believe them, we are wrong. Even if we are right and the person in authority is wrong, we are still wrong. This is the gift that you give to God when you vow obedience. You surrender not only your will, but also your freedom.

If you stop and think about it, it is a beautiful gift and one that brings much peace when you live by it.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

I agree 100%