Servants of the Holy Family

[Hunter53]

First, Genuine Catholic, Servants of the Holy Family is not outside the church. RJ, just because the local Bishop ignores their needs does not place them outside. They have documentation from Rome and a Cardinal assigned to their order. I have been going to their mass for 33 years and the Latin mass is not something we as Catholics have to ask permission for. Here is a part taken from the Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent.
Moreover, the same sacred and holy Synod,–considering that no small utility may accrue to the Church of God, if it be made known which out of all the Latin editions, now in circulation, of the sacred books, is to be held as authentic,–ordains and declares, that the said old and vulgate edition, which, by the lengthened usage of so many years, has been approved of in the Church, be, in public lectures, disputations, sermons and expositions, held as authentic; and that no one is to dare, or presume to reject it under any pretext whatever.
Remember your faith, We are the one true church because We have the four marks of the church, One, Holy, Catholic and Universal. Because of the Novus Ordo we are no longer Universal. As far as obeying the Bishop, remember the Arian Heresy when a large percentage of Bishops fell. This was also another time in church history when lay people were allowed to receive communion in their hands. Christ said " Feed My Sheep" to his first Priests, not let them feed themselves.
Also why are all of the people who have taken sides with Servant of the Holy Family been banned on this forum?

 

[JReducation]

First, Genuine Catholic, Servants of the Holy Family is not outside the church. RJ, just because the local Bishop ignores their needs does not place them outside. They have documentation from Rome and a Cardinal assigned to their order. I have been going to their mass for 33 years and the Latin mass is not something we as Catholics have to ask permission for. Here is a part taken from the Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent.
Moreover, the same sacred and holy Synod,–considering that no small utility may accrue to the Church of God, if it be made known which out of all the Latin editions, now in circulation, of the sacred books, is to be held as authentic,–ordains and declares, that the said old and vulgate edition, which, by the lengthened usage of so many years, has been approved of in the Church, be, in public lectures, disputations, sermons and expositions, held as authentic; and that no one is to dare, or presume to reject it under any pretext whatever.
Remember your faith, We are the one true church because We have the four marks of the church, One, Holy, Catholic and Universal. Because of the Novus Ordo we are no longer Universal. As far as obeying the Bishop, remember the Arian Heresy when a large percentage of Bishops fell. This was also another time in church history when lay people were allowed to receive communion in their hands. Christ said " Feed My Sheep" to his first Priests, not let them feed themselves.
Also why are all of the people who have taken sides with Servant of the Holy Family been banned on this forum?

I’m a little confused. How does the Ordinary Form of the mass make us less universal? If it’s because of the language, it does not follow. The universal Church has never had one single language. We’ve had five languages for five rites and 22 Catholic Churches all united under one pope.

In fact, the Roman Church is not the only one to allow the use of modern languages. The Maronite Church, whose official language is Aramaic, has passed a ruling that modern languages may be used if the congregation does not understand Aramaic or Arabic, which is there other official language, because they use the Chaldean Rite…

As the Oriental Patriarchs have said not too long ago, “The Universality of the Church is expressed her unity in doctrine and diversity in rituals and cultures. It is this diversity that proves that all are called to be of one mind and one heart under one truth, while each retains what is part of his heritage and culture.”

They were just on EWTN this weekend speaking about these changes in the use of language and other changes in their disciplines. But they still remain Catholic, but not Roman and do not want to be confused with Romans, but welcome Romans as we welcome them.

So, with all of this diversity, which has been proper to the universal Church since its foundation, I don’t see how the Ordinary Form takes away from it. It may create differences among the Romans, but not among Catholics. Not all Catholics are Romans. Even among the Romans, there has always been diversity in the celebration of the mass.

The thing was that in the past, most people did ont pick up on it, because they did not speak Latin. I’ll give you an example. On Saturday we celebrated the mass of a Franciscan saint. The priest who celebrated it is not a Franciscan. He’s diocesan. It was celebrated in a diocesan parish. Normally, diocesan parishes follow the liturgical calendar and rubrics of the Roman Catholic Church. But as a special favor to the Franciscans, the priest agreed to celebrat the mass according to the Franciscan calendar, the Franciscan missal, the Franciscan lectionary and the Franciscan rubrics.

In the past, no one would have been the wiser, except when they saw the friars standing around the altar. But that would have been strange to see, but nothing to write home about. Today, because everyone speaks English, the congregation was totally lost. They knew that the prayers that the priest was saying were not in their missalettes, neither were the readins and neither was the canon of the mass. In our canon we have saints that are not mentioned in the Roman canon and we eliminate some saints that are in the Roman canon.

This is not new. This is 800 years old. It only looks new, because now you can understand English and you can say, “Where is here?” or “Where did he get that reading from?” or “Where is that prayer?”

When we say the same mass in Latin, for example at the friary at EWTN, no one notices the different prayers or pays much attention to the different readings or the different color vestments. Because most of the people don’t understand Latin. They answer the prayers as it is written in the book, but they don’t really know that the words are not the same as the mass up the street, because they come from the Franciscan missal. If you don’t speak the language, you don’t recognize the changes.

But the point is that the differences and diversity have always existed in one form or another. If not a difference in language, there were differences in readings, calendars, feast days, little details in the mass or differences even in the architecture of the churches due to many reasons.

What preserves the unity is the doctrine, which is the same for every Catholic, Roman and Orientals. By the way, there are many more oriental Churches than there are Western Churches, even though they have smaller congregations thanks to Communism and to the Othodox schism of 1,000 years ago.

Do not despair into thinking that we have lost the oneness, we have not.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[ProVobis]

We have the four marks of the church, One, Holy, Catholic and Universal. Because of the Novus Ordo we are no longer Universal.

I think you meant One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. (Catholic does mean Universal.)

The Novus Ordo or parts of it can be said in Latin so there is some continuity and “universality” there.

 

[Hunter53]

Yes, I got in a hurry with the marks of the church and I do know that their were other times that the church has had mass in different languages. When I first found this forum, I was shocked at how many people would gossip about a group of Priests for three years and never contact the Priests once. One person here said that they must be outside the church because they have nothing about the pope on their website. I went to the Benedictine website and also found nothing about the pope. If anyone here really wants to find the answer to this then they should come to their mass and ask them yourself. If you do, you will see the mass done with more care and devotion than you have probably seen in 50 years. In 33 years I have never heard them blast the Pope or a Bishop in their sermon.

 

[JReducation]

Just an aside here on the issue of language. Latin is not the universal language of the Church. Herein lies a problem. Many people confuse the language of the universal Church and the universal language of the Church. The Church does not have a universal language. It never has. As I posted above, the Cathalic Church is really 22 Churches united under one Pontiff. But each Church is very autonomous. Each one has its own language, music, art, rituals, rules, history, and so forth. Latin became the language of the Roman Church for the obvious reason. It’s the Church of Rome. Latin was the language of Rome and all of its territories. As the Roman Empire fell, the Latin language also collapsed. The only ones who preserved it were the clerics and religious. That’s how it went from being the language of the Empire to being the language of the Roman Catholic Church, but never of the entire Catholic Church.

As to the use of the Ordinary Form or the New Order, it is only divisive because people use it to divide, not because in itself it is divisive. The liturgy of the mass is holy in any form. Unfortunately, we have started to use the liturgy as the weapon of choice to clobber anyone who does not think as we think. That’s wrong on many grounds. The liturgy should not be used as a weapon and it should not be tinkered with as if it were a Broadway play either. It is what it is. Both forms must be celebrated as they were intended to be celebrated. That being said, the Tridentine mass that we celibrate today has undergone some changes from the Tridentine mass that came out of the Council of Trent. Don’t fool yourselves. To say that it is identical is not true. That’s why the Motu Proprio specifically mentions the mass of 1963 or 62. I’ll have to look it up. Heck, you look it up. LOL Changes were made to it at that time. They were not very noticeable.

As far as the Servants of the Holy Family and their mass is concerned. There are two things that must be kept in mind.

First, the mass is valid as long as it is celebrated by a validly ordained priest. Whether they have permission or not, I don’t know. The fact that they don’t mention the pope does not prove that they do not have permission. Our website does not mention the Holy Father either. Do Franciscans obey the Holy Father? You bet! It’s in our rule. Therefore, we always refer people back to St. Francis. You’ll see his name all over any Franciscan site. Because it’s a given that if you obey Francis you will obey the Gospel and the Church, because that’s what Francis commanded.

Second, I have no idea as to whether they are an approved religious community, society of apostolic life, secular institute, secular order or priestly fraternity. Those are the only options in the Church. However, there is a point in canon law that says that the faithful may form private associations. This includes religious communities that never get Church approval, because they do not ask for it or because they ask and are put on hold. If you are told no, then you have to disband. If you are put on hold, you do not have to disband. If you never ask, you cannot be put on hold. Get the picture. However, there is also a law that if you form a religious community that does not have the approval of the local bishop, then you may not call yourself Catholic. What is done is that you can say something like, “we’re a community of Catholic men.” That would be true. If you’re baptized and in good standing with the Church, you are Catholic men. You cannot say, “We’re a Catholic community.” Only a bishop can call a community Catholic. This is done through a decree of praise, whereby the local bishop elevates the community from a private association to a public association.

What I’m trying to say is that the Servants may well be a private association of Catholic priests. As long as they have the permission of the local bishop they may celebrate the sacraments in his diocese, even if they are a private association. The bishop can grant permission.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Annie2186]

When I first found this forum, I was shocked at how many people would gossip about a group of Priests for three years and never contact the Priests once.

Hi Hunter53 - I am assuming I must know you if you have been going to Servants for 33 years

Ok, first off, this thread gives me heartburn…but I must be subscribed to it, because it always sends me email messages when someone responds!

Secondly - I would just like to remind people that useless gossip and tarnishing the name of another is a SIN.
So, those of you who said downright negative (and most of the time unfounded) statements about a group of PRIESTS…shame on you!!

Oh, but its the TRUTH you say?
Guess what - STILL a sin to say ANYTHING deflamatory (truth or lies) about someone else.

JR - you are DEFINITELY one to reply to this thread all.the.time. I am sure you know what you are talking about - but you have stated again and again you don’t know the details of SHF.
Now you are just sounding like a broken record

I think we can ALL agree that ANYONE who has an interest in SHF should either:

1. Go to mass there and ask the priests (I would suggest asking in a non-judgemental way) for yourself.
2. Call the priests of SHF and ask them yourself.

(For those of you who don’t have an interest in SHF, refer to above, and stop gossiping about a group of PRIESTS…and you call yourselves Catholic )

I mean, really people? Are you going to get your answers from RANDOM and ANONYMOUS internet people?

 

[MarkThompson]

Secondly - I would just like to remind people that useless gossip and tarnishing the name of another is a SIN.
So, those of you who said downright negative (and most of the time unfounded) statements about a group of PRIESTS…shame on you!!

Forming a schismatic sect and saying Mass without priestly faculties is also a “SIN.”

The same, I’m afraid to say, goes for adhering to such a group and failing to obey your bishop, who wrote, “I entreat you to separate yourself from the Servants of the Holy Family and return to full communion with the Roman Catholic Church.” What on earth could induce someone to adhere to this sect is beyond me. Please, join the Catholic Church.

 

[smithm29]

Why is this even a question for anyone? On their own website they have a list of foreign bishops who flew in to confirm parishioners and ordain priests and hint at “difficulties” with the bishop that should have authority over them.

Also, a quick search on the internet will show that any time they pop up on a discussion board, members of the group register with that forum and tell people they don’t know what they’re talking about, shouldn’t discuss their canonical status, have no right to ask questions, etc- very similarly to what has happened in this thread. Even other admittedly schismatic groups ( martinoftours.net/ ) refuse affiliation with them.

 

[JReducation]

JR - you are DEFINITELY one to reply to this thread all.the.time. I am sure you know what you are talking about - but you have stated again and again you don’t know the details of SHF.
Now you are just sounding like a broken record

The subscript is mine. See, this is one example of discontinuity. In my very traditional upbringing, which was Jewish as I’m a convert (40 years ago), I was brought up to speak to Rabbis in a very traditional manner. That meant that I would never make a flippant statement to a Rabbi. One thing that I learned from our older friars was never to make flip remarks to religious, clerics, rabbis, pastors or other spiritual leaders. If we want tradition, then we must be consistent. It’s not just in the rituals. It’s also in how we speak to people.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Annie2186]

(For those of you who don’t have an interest in SHF, refer to above, and stop gossiping about a group of PRIESTS…and you call yourselves Catholic )

Oh, but its the TRUTH you say?
Guess what - STILL a sin to say ANYTHING deflamatory (truth or lies) about someone else.

 

[smithm29]

During the Nicene Council, Saint Nicholas became so agitated at Arius’ heresy that he went forward and smacked him in the face. The bishops went into an uproar and brought him (Nicholas) to Constantine for punishment. Constantine wisely stayed out of it, declaring it a disciplinary matter for the bishops. The council fathers stripped Nicholas and threw him in jail for striking another bishop.

While in jail, Our Lord appeared to Nicholas, clothed him, and gave him the Gospel to read. He was freed the next day and Arius (and his heresy) was denounced.

It is the responsibility of every Catholic to pronounce the truth- in this case, the truth is that these associations of priests and nuns are not united with the universal church. The truth should always be pronounced with as much charity as possible, but it can not be muzzled.

 

[Annie2186]

During the Nicene Council, Saint Nicholas became so agitated at Arius’ heresy that he went forward and smacked him in the face. The bishops went into an uproar and brought him (Nicholas) to Constantine for punishment. Constantine wisely stayed out of it, declaring it a disciplinary matter for the bishops. The council fathers stripped Nicholas and threw him in jail for striking another bishop.

While in jail, Our Lord appeared to Nicholas, clothed him, and gave him the Gospel to read. He was freed the next day and Arius (and his heresy) was denounced.

It is the responsibility of every Catholic to pronounce the truth- in this case, the truth is that these associations of priests and nuns are not united with the universal church. The truth should always be pronounced with as much charity as possible, but it can not be muzzled.

Well then, I hope you are as comfortable in your convictions as SAINT Nicholas was…
No one else has to answer to God for the words you say (online or anywhere else) about his priests but you.

I am sure (or at least hope) you have the right intentions - I just hope you have the knowledge to back up your words.

I, personally, would never bad mouth ANYONE.

I might bad mouth general beliefs etc, but NEVER anyone in particular…just in case.

But that is just me.

 

[malphono]

It is the responsibility of every Catholic to pronounce the truth- in this case, the truth is that these associations of priests and nuns are not united with the universal church. The truth should always be pronounced with as much charity as possible, but it can not be muzzled.

Of course that’s correct, but I have a feeling that it falls on deaf ears.

At the risk of repeating what I said in another thread in this forum, arguing with sedes is pointless. It’s the same as arguing with the JH door-knocker people: no matter what position you take, no matter how solid it may be, they won’t listen. What they will do, however, is constantly repeat … and repeat and repeat ad nauseam … the same, stale, tired, arguments in an increasingly frenzied and shrill way, which brings to mind the sound of the now-infamous vuvuzela. But I’d much rather listen to the vuvuzela: it has a lot more to say.

 

[Annie2186]

Of course that’s correct, but I have a feeling that it falls on deaf ears.

At the risk of repeating what I said in another thread in this forum, arguing with sedes is pointless. It’s the same as arguing with the JH door-knocker people: no matter what position you take, no matter how solid it may be, they won’t listen. What they will do, however, is constantly repeat … and repeat and repeat ad nauseam … the same, stale, tired, arguments in an increasingly frenzied and shrill way, which brings to mind the sound of the now-infamous vuvuzela. But I’d much rather listen to the vuvuzela: it has a lot more to say.

ummmm - talk about falling on deaf ears, I am NOT a sede! I completely do NOT agree that the Chair of Peter is vacant.

Are the Servants of the Holy Family sede’s?

Well, when a friend of mine became a sede (the first time I had even HEARD of such a thing and I have been going to SHF my WHOLE life) I asked my priests for arguments AGAINST being a sede…and they gave me some really good advice (AGAINST being a sede).

So yeah, you people REALLY know what you are talking about…done ALL your research before badmouthing priests…yep…

 

[Annie2186]

Of course that’s correct, but I have a feeling that it falls on deaf ears.

At the risk of repeating what I said in another thread in this forum, arguing with sedes is pointless. It’s the same as arguing with the JH door-knocker people: no matter what position you take, no matter how solid it may be, they won’t listen. What they will do, however, is constantly repeat … and repeat and repeat ad nauseam … the same, stale, tired, arguments in an increasingly frenzied and shrill way, which brings to mind the sound of the now-infamous vuvuzela. But I’d much rather listen to the vuvuzela: it has a lot more to say.

I do have to agree with you though…trying to get through to a sede is pointless I figure praying for them is a better, less headache inducing, way to go

 

[Hunter53]

Of course that’s correct, but I have a feeling that it falls on deaf ears.

At the risk of repeating what I said in another thread in this forum, arguing with sedes is pointless. It’s the same as arguing with the JH door-knocker people: no matter what position you take, no matter how solid it may be, they won’t listen. What they will do, however, is constantly repeat … and repeat and repeat ad nauseam … the same, stale, tired, arguments in an increasingly frenzied and shrill way, which brings to mind the sound of the now-infamous vuvuzela. But I’d much rather listen to the vuvuzela: it has a lot more to say.

You have no idea what you are talking about. Have you ever listened to who’s name they recite at the canon of the Mass. You do know about the canon of the Mass right? We are not sedes, when the SSPX became sedes, we were told by our Priests that we were no long allowed to attend the PiusX Mass. Our Priests are connected to Rome even if this Bishop denies it. RJ, you said in an earlier post that because they have no mention of the pope in their website that people should be cautious. Later you said that your website also doesn’t mention the pope, maybe you should review before posting. About the Latin, Mass, this is how I feel.

A common language is source of unity - With the spread of the Church into different cultures using different languages, a common language for the Catholic liturgy provided a common connection between Catholics. This universality allowed any Catholic to walk into any church in any country and assist in the same sacrifice offered in a familiar language. Not only does this provide a geographic connection, but a temporal one as well. One can be assured he is hearing the same prayers and sacramental formulas that touched the ears of thousands of saints throughout the history of the Church. Latin is a dead language - Far from being a detriment, the use of a language not part of a particular vernacular serves two very important functions. First, because the language is not being used, it is not developing. Unlike English or Spanish, Latin words cannot take on different meanings over time or across different cultures. This ensures the doctrinal truth and accuracy of the liturgical elements. The second advantage is by using an ancient language not commonly heard, the faithful are provided with an enhanced sense of the sacred. Young and old alike know when they’re attending a Mass held in Latin, it is not a commonplace experience and is quite accurately, not of this world.

 

[Hunter53]

Here is another little bit about the Latin Mass from the Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent.
Moreover, the same sacred and holy Synod,–considering that no small utility may accrue to the Church of God, if it be made known which out of all the Latin editions, now in circulation, of the sacred books, is to be held as authentic,–ordains and declares, that the said old and vulgate edition, which, by the lengthened usage of so many years, has been approved of in the Church, be, in public lectures, disputations, sermons and expositions, held as authentic; and that no one is to dare, or presume to reject it under any pretext whatever.
Read very carefully, no one is to dare, and this is from the early saints of the Church. You all talk about obedience, obey this then.

 

[JReducation]

OK, Hunter, wait a minute. You’re stating some truths, but you’re also making some mistakes.

First, the SSPX was never sedevacantist. It was in schism. There is a difference.

Second, I’m not sure if you’re aware or if you’re just not addressing the fact that there are 22 Catholic Churches that make up the one universal Church and that the Roman Church is one out of those.

Third, the decree on Latin is only for the Roman Church, not for the entire Catholic Church. Therefore, Latin is not the universal language of the Church. You can and always will be able to walk into many Catholic Churches and hear Aramaic, Arabic, Russian, Greek, Farsi and verying forms of other Eastern and Mediterranean languages. These languages are not dead. They are still in use and are still evovling. The idea that Latin is better because it is not changing, is not believed by the Catholic Church. Otherwise, she would make Latin the universal language. She has not done so.

Fourth, the decree of the Council of Trent was about the language. It commanded that it not be rejected. Vatican II did not reject Latin for use in the Roman Church. It clearly said that it remains the official language of the Roman Church. What it said was the the liturgy could be celebrated in the local language. The reason that this could be said without compromising what Trent said is because it was not a rejection of Latin and there is a precedent in the Catholic Church. The other Churches that make up the Catholic Church use local languages in their liturgies. Many religious orders also used local languages in their liturgical celebrations, long before Trent and long after Trent.

Since there had alwasy been exceptions, it was believed that this exception was precedented, which is historically accurate.

The idea that I can walk into a church anywhere in the world and hear the same words in the same language only applies if I go into churches within my own Church. I’ll post an example for the readers. In large religious orders such as Jesuits, Franciscans, and Benedictines, not everyone is Roman Catholic. We have Chaldeans, Melchites, Ukranian, Greeks, Syriac and others. When you travel from one house to another, you have to pray in those languages. I don’t speak any of them. I’m lucky I can speak English. LOL.

But in a community, such as mine, which has 1.7 million brothers and sisters in 114 countries, we do not have a 100% Roman Catholic order. However, we are all Franciscans and all of us are Catholic and all of us are under the same Pontiff and in full union with Rome. But we are not members of the same local Church. We are members of the same universal Catholic Church.

If you turn on EWTN, Fr. Mitch Pacwa, SJ is a member of two Churches, Maronite and Roman. They are not rites. They are sui juris Churches, meaning that they are autonomous. They are led by a Patriarch. The Patriarch is in communion with the Holy Father.

Let’s be careful not to imply or suggest that there ever was only one Catholic language. There never was. There was one language for the Roman Church and even that, was only adhered to by about 95% of the Roman Church. I’ll grant you, 95% is a good number.

I believe that people can get caught up in nostalgia to the poiint of forgetting the fact. Tradition is beautifu, don’t get me wrong. But it is important to get it right.

Back to the Holy Fammily community. If the local bishop says that they are not in communion with him, then their communion with the Holy Father is non-existent. Canonically, the only way that you can have communion with the Holy Father is through the local bishop. There is only one other way, if you are either a member of a religious order of Pontifical Right. Even then, the law says that religious orders must have the permission of the local bishop to function in his diocese. What he cannot do is discipline them. They are not under his authority. But he has to give them permission to erect their houses in his diocese.

If the bishop did not give the Holy Family community permission to erect houses in his diocese, then they are illicit and forfeit their communion with the Holy See. That’s the law. The question that no one seems to answer is did they get permission or not from the local bishop?

It does not matter that they got a statement of praise from the Vatican itself. The Vatican cannot grant faculties in any diocese. It does not have the jurisdiction to do so. Only the local bishop can do that. Nor can the Vatican give any religious order permission to erect a houe in any diocese. Only the local bishop can do that.

If they Holy Family community his a private association, they have a right to be so. But they cannot call themselves Catholic. Only the bishop can call you “Catholic.” The individual is a Catholic, not the association. It would be a private association for Catholics and not a Catholic association of the faithful. That’s the difference.

This causes a canonical problem. Deacons, priests and bishops must be under the jurisdiction of either a bishop or the superior of a religious order with Pontifical or Diocesan Rights. We’re back to square one. They have priests. Who granted them faculties?

This is not about whether they believe or not in the pope or whether they celebrate the liturgy perfectly or not. This is more serious than all of that. It’s about succession. A deacon, priest or bishop must be in a line of succession. That line is preserved through communion with the local bishop with only one exception, Opus Dei.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Annie2186]

If the bishop did not give the Holy Family community permission to erect houses in his diocese, then they are illicit and forfeit their communion with the Holy See. That’s the law. The question that no one seems to answer is did they get permission or not from the local bishop?

It does not matter that they got a statement of praise from the Vatican itself. The Vatican cannot grant faculties in any diocese. It does not have the jurisdiction to do so. Only the local bishop can do that. Nor can the Vatican give any religious order permission to erect a houe in any diocese. Only the local bishop can do that.

If they Holy Family community his a private association, they have a right to be so. But they cannot call themselves Catholic. Only the bishop can call you “Catholic.” The individual is a Catholic, not the association. It would be a private association for Catholics and not a Catholic association of the faithful. That’s the difference.

This causes a canonical problem. Deacons, priests and bishops must be under the jurisdiction of either a bishop or the superior of a religious order with Pontifical or Diocesan Rights. We’re back to square one. They have priests. Who granted them faculties?

This is not about whether they believe or not in the pope or whether they celebrate the liturgy perfectly or not. This is more serious than all of that. It’s about succession. A deacon, priest or bishop must be in a line of succession. That line is preserved through communion with the local bishop with only one exception, Opus Dei.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Are you saying that a LOCAL BISHOP has more say than the Vatican or the POPE themselves? hmmmmm - that makes no sense to me, please elaborate further.

 

[JReducation]

Are you saying that a LOCAL BISHOP has more say than the Vatican or the POPE themselves? hmmmmm - that makes no sense to me, please elaborate further.

It has been the tradition of the Church since the time of the Apostles to this day, that the local bishop grants faculties, erects religious houses, erects both public and private associations in his diocese. The law of the Church has been that the Vatican, including the pope, does not interfere or overrule a local bishop.

Why not? The local bishop is the apostolic head of the diocese, not the pope. The local bishop runs the local Church (diocese) in communion with the pope. The order of hierarchy cannot be disrupted.

I’ll give you a good example. Take the sex abuse scandals. The popes did not intervene directly inside the dioceses. That is the rightful place and jurisdiction of the local bishop. The pope can call a bishop to task and this has been done for many reasons. But it is the bishop who must deal with what is within his diocese, not the pope. Those within the diocese must deal with the bishop, not with the pope. The only society that is exempt from this is Opus Dei. As we shall see below, only what is reserved for the pope either by his decree or by law, is not under the bishop.

In this case, if the pope were to give the Holy Family community license to erect in someone’s diocese, then he is riding over the local bishop, which has never been done in the Church’s 2,000 year history. The pope must first erect them as a Personal Prelature to do this. Thus far, there is only one such prelature in the Church.

In the Roman Church, faculties are granted by the Diocesan Bishop. In the other Catholic Churches faculties are granted by the Metropolitan Eparchs.

The code of canon law of 1983 for the Roman Church only, says

Can. 381 §1. A diocesan bishop in the diocese entrusted to him has all ordinary, proper, and immediate power which is required for the exercise of his pastoral function except for cases which the law or a decree of the Supreme Pontiff reserves to the supreme authority or to another ecclesiastical authority.

The only power that the bishop does not have is that power that the law does not give him or that power which the pope reserves for himself. Granting faculties is not reserved for the pope. Erecting houses in dioceses is not reserved for the pope, suppressing is. But you cannot suppress what has not been canonically erected. Allowing a group to enter a diocese is an erection reserved for the Diocesan Bishop, not for the Pope. Denying it is also reserved for the Diocesan Bishop, not for the Pope. No one may erect a house, chapel, oratory, parish or other public place of worship or public association without the consent of the bishop.

Since none of these things are reserved for the pope by either canon law, sacred tradition or the pope himself, then the local bishop is the highest ranking authority in the diocese in these matters. Thoes who are not in communion with him in these particular matters are not in communion withe the Holy Father. The communion has to be through the bishop, not over the bishop’s head.

The only time that one can go over a bishop’s head is when the bishop orders you to sin. If the bishop forbids something or orders something that is not a sin, even if it can lead a person to a sin, then one is bound to give the bishop the benefit of the doubt and follow. This has been the tradition of the Church long established back in the times of the Church Fathers and still binding today until the law is changed.

Those of you who attend the Holy Family community have to find out if they are licensed to be in the diocese by the Diocesan Bishop. What they say is not authoritative. Only what the bishop says is authoritative.

Franciscans, Jesuits, and Dominicans, in that order, are the three largest religious families in the Church. We cannot go into any diocese, serve any Catholic (unless they are dying) without a license from the local bishop.

There is one interesing detail in the law. Once he gives us license to erect in his diocese, he cannot ask us to leave, he cannot interfere, he cannot order us to do or not do. Only the pope can do that. The three orders are exempt religious orders. This means that once erected, they are exempt from the reach of the bishops and the laity. They are totally encased in the protection of the pope.

But you should find out if this community has permission to be in this diocese. If they are there contrary to the bishop’s wishes, then they are in serious moral trouble. If they did not have priests, they would not need the bishop’s permission, except to call themselves Catholic. You always need the bishop’s permission for that.

For your peace of mind, check it out. You should be able to go up to the pastor and ask, “Is your community canonically erected in this diocese? Do you have faculties from the Diocesan bishop? If not, from whom?”

Something that just came to my mind. In many dioceses, the Vicar General is authorized to grant faculties, except to pastors. A pastor must always get his faculties from the bishop.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF