SSPX Bishop to Elevate Monastery?

[malphono]

They have female Dominicans

OK, got it. At least it puts to rest (for the moment, anyway) the matter of the traditional Dominican Rite.

and, evidently, male Benedictines in the US, alone. I don’t know about elsewhere.

These SSPX-affliate Benedictines do number priests, all ordained by SSPX bishops. The newsletter I have cited also congratulates newly-ordained Benedictine “Father Thomas Aquinas” on his ordination by Bishop DePurplebiretta.

Seems like an unusual name for a Benedictine, but I digress.

And it does look like Bishop DePurplebiretta really gets around, doesn’t it? (But I guess I digress again )

 

[JReducation]

To the OP – Are you sure that the monastery or abbey is being erected by a bishop of the SSPX? There are only four of them. A traditionalist bishop does not mean that he is SSPX. He may be a bishop with canonical standing.

If that were the case, the erection would be invalid for several reasons.

1. The bishops of the SSPX have no canonical standing in the Catholic Church.
2. Even bishops who have a cnaonical standing, must be Ordinaries to approve the erection of a religious house in the diocese. That rules out any bishop who is not the diocesan bishop.
3. A religious house can only be erected with the approval of the major superior. A bishop cannot erect a religious house without the approval of a major superior, that would be an abbot from an existing abbey.

Given that information, the lay faithful may organize in private associations, even monastic ones. You need not be a Benedictine, Carmelite or Franciscan, etc to start a private association under one of those schools of spirituality. You can even start a community. But you are not allowed to call yourself Catholic, even if everyone is Catholic. To call yourself Catholic, the bishop must acknowledge you as Catholic. This has to be put in writing.

A group may want to gather to live the Benedictine life. That’s allowed. They cannot call themselves a Catholic community or an abbey. They can call their house a monastery, because monasteries are just houses for monks and nuns. At some point, they must apply to the local bishop for canonical status.

Because Benedictine houses are autonomous or grouped into losely knit federations, you can have an autonomous house under the jurisdiction of the local bishop. But the local bishop must present the constitutions to the Sacred Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life for its approval. If it approves, the house would be of Diocesan Rigt. It would remain a monastery, not an abbey. However, once the bishop approves it, he cannot suppress it, even if it’s of Diocesan Right. Bishops have the authority to erect, but not to suppress religious and secular orders.

An abbey is a horse of a different color. It is of Pontifical Right. Those superiors have the same authority over their subjects as bishops do over the faithful, even though they are not bishops.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[StTommyMore]

I don’t know much about the SSPX and have never had a serious face to face discussion with a member or adherent.
SSPX Masses have for the most part only been available to me when traveling.
I know very little about Church politics and technicalities such as jurisdiction.

What I do know is that when I walk out of a SSPX chapel, I feel like I have been to a Catholic Mass.
When I walk out of Mass in my home parish, I feel like I am stepping out of an episode of Alice in Wonderland.

Our faith is not about feeling, it is about metaphysical reality.

 

[preV2tradcath]

Br. JR and everyone, it might be a SSPX bishop who is going to do that. I found this at the SSPX website: sspx.org/Vocations/benedictines_in_the_usa.htm It is one of the orders listed as affiliated with the Society.
sspx.org/vocations_index.htm

And thank you for all the information you provided Br. JR.

 

[JReducation]

Br. JR and everyone, it might be a SSPX bishop who is going to do that. I found this at the SSPX website: sspx.org/Vocations/benedictines_in_the_usa.htm It is one of the orders listed as affiliated with the Society.
sspx.org/vocations_index.htm

And thank you for all the information you provided Br. JR.

I read the links. Thanks

I cannot tell from the wording if they are sympathetic to the SSPX, which would not be against canon law or if they are founding under the jurisdiction of one of the bishops of the SSPX, which would be against canon law. The article refers to Fr. Thomas of the Traditional Benedictine Monastery in Brazil. But I don’t know anything about that monastery.

If the monastery is in full communion with Rome, then the local bishop can certainly welcome them to found in his diocese. If they are not in full communion with Rome, then they are acting on their own and the monastery would have no canonical status.

In the event that the monastery has no canonical status, this creates what I call a canonical glitch. Unless you have canonical status, you cannot have a valid novitiate. Without a valid novitiate you cannot have valid profession of vows. Only the Sacred Congregation can wave the requirement.

Even when Mother Teresa founded the Missionaries of Charity, she had to go through the local bishop. I’m not sure how that would work if the religious family of origin is viewed as illicit. But the website does not say how connected they are to the SSPX and it does not mention the bishop who is sponsoring them. You usually have a bishop who gives you at least the blessing to go ahead, even if he withholds sponsorship until he sees how things go. Most founders go through this. A bishop or a pope will tell them to give it a try, without committing to the project. This was the case with Mother Teresa and the different Franciscan communities. Plus they had the blessing of obedience from their superiors.

We’ll just have to wait and see what happens, won’t we.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Pregustator]

To the OP – Are you sure that the monastery or abbey is being erected by a bishop of the SSPX? There are only four of them. A traditionalist bishop does not mean that he is SSPX. He may be a bishop with canonical standing.

Yes. At the risk of having my post moderated, the name of the SSPX bishop in question is Alfonso de Galarreta (I expected that most readers familiar with the SSPX would have made the jump from “Alonzo dePurplebiretta”). He is one of the four consecrated by Marcel Lefebvre. He is the only one of the four SSPX bishops I have not met, in fact.

And it does look like Bishop DePurplebiretta really gets around, doesn’t it?

Since Bishop…“Dubya”, let’s call him…departed America’s shores, Msgr. DePurplebiretta seems to be covering alot of the territory that “Dubya” used to take.

As far as the SSPX-affliate Benedictines go, here are a few links:

sspx.org/vocations/benedictines_in_the_usa.htm

ourladyofguadalupemonastery.com/

The monastery’s website is not very sophisticated or extensive, as one will see, neither is it updated to include the newsletter that I refer to. The most recent newsletter featured on the website is from 2009, so the monk responsible for updating the website is slacking, apparently. I have attempted to locate online other materials concerning this “elevation” of the monastery by the SSPX bishop previously mentioned, but I can’t seem to find a thing.

 

[malphono]

Since Bishop…“Dubya”, let’s call him…departed America’s shores

What an apropos pseudonym.

As far as the SSPX-affliate Benedictines go, here are a few links:

sspx.org/vocations/benedictines_in_the_usa.htm

ourladyofguadalupemonastery.com/

The monastery’s website is not very sophisticated or extensive, as one will see, neither is it updated to include the newsletter that I refer to. The most recent newsletter featured on the website is from 2009, so the monk responsible for updating the website is slacking, apparently. I have attempted to locate online other materials concerning this “elevation” of the monastery by the SSPX bishop previously mentioned, but I can’t seem to find a thing.

I had a look at the first (the second is essentially useless) and even more interesting to me is the website of the foundation in France: bellaigue.com/HTML/originescommunaute.html

Taking the history of the this group of Benedictines, it appears that Bellaigue was a daughter-house of le Barroux. Perhaps I missed it, but I didn’t notice anything about it (Bellaigue) being an abbey or even a conventual priory. Since there doesn’t seem to be a canonically recognized abbot, I can only deduce that any attempt to raise its daughter-house in the US to even a conventual priory comes without the necessary approbation of the abbot.

From what I know of le Barroux, it’s about as orthodox as one can get. It seems that the origins of Bellaigue and its association with the SSPX are a result of the events of 1988, and from that, the idea of “parallel Church” seems to me to peek out from various corners.

 

[JReducation]

I read the sticky posted by the moderator. It does not say that we cannot mention the SSPX bishops by name. It says that we can’t badmouth them or the mainline Catholic bishops, etc, etc, etc. So here goes.

I hope that Bishop Glaretta (sp?) is not behind this. That can generate all kinds of complaints from the local bishop and from the Benedictines, just when things seem to be looking good. The dialogue between the SSPX and the Sacred Congregation for the Faith seems to be going nicely. Even those clergy and religious who disagree with the SSPX are no longer talking about them or even thinking about them, which is good. I have not heard any of them make any ugly comments about mainstream Catholicism, which is also good.

The last thing we need is for someone to do something that is illegal and the concerns willl start all over again, just when they’re dying down.

On the other hand, if it’s a private endeavor, let’s say a group of laymen who want to gather together to live the Benedictine life, I don’t think that’s illegal, as long as they do it independently of the SSPX bishops. People gather to form all kinds of communities and apostolates.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Aramis]

If the SSPX openly start acting as if they have the authority of an ordinary, then it’s further schismatic acts.

Everything to date seems to indicate they are headed the way of formalizing the schism.

If indeed they install this as a conventual abbey, they take one step further from Rome. They discredit themselves with their actions.

 

[ProVobis]

If the SSPX openly start acting as if they have the authority of an ordinary, then it’s further schismatic acts.

Well, we know that they are ordaining priests. That seems to be having no effect on the ongoing talks (but then the talks are supposed to be in private). Is this action worse?

 

[Aramis]

Well, we know that they are ordaining priests. That seems to be having no effect on the ongoing talks (but then the talks are supposed to be in private). Is this action worse?

yes. Ordaining priests without their proper ordinary’s permission is a relatively minor issue. It’s a no-no, but it’s not an excommunication offense.

creating/modifying/suppressing/elevating diocesan orders, that’s a diocesan ordinary’s right…

In the case of ordaining a priest, the bishop requires the man’s proper ordinary’s permission. This means he violates that bishop’s or abbot’s rights when he ordains one of their subjects without permission from them. But he isn’t acting as an ordinary by performing the ordination itself

In the case of creating, suppressing, modifying, elevating, etc, a specific religious order, the bishop is acting as an ordinary. He is either usurping the ordinary’s authority or establishing himself as head of a particular church without approval by Rome; both are excommunication offenses.

Further a religious house subject to an abbot must be granted that abbot’s permission to become independent of the abbot; a conventual monastery is independent of their former abbot (if there was one), and an abbey is identical to a conventual priory save for having an abbot.

 

[ProVobis]

From what I know of le Barroux, it’s about as orthodox as one can get. It seems that the origins of Bellaigue and its association with the SSPX are a result of the events of 1988, and from that, the idea of “parallel Church” seems to me to peek out from various corners.

Or maybe even before 1988??

 

[malphono]

Or maybe even before 1988??

Unless I seriously misread Bellaigue’s website, no.

 

[JReducation]

Well, we know that they are ordaining priests. That seems to be having no effect on the ongoing talks (but then the talks are supposed to be in private). Is this action worse?

Erecting a religious house is the jurisdiction of a major superior and the diocesan bishop, because it requires two persons with Ordinary Jurisdiction. Even a diocesan bishop does not have Ordinary Jurisdiction to erect a religious house without a major superior

Since the Benedictine Order is not a unified order like the Franciscans, Jesuits, Dominicans, etc, each house flows out of another house, the major superior would be the abbot who authorizes the foundation. However, the abbot cannot plant his men in a diocese without the canonical approval of the diocesan bishop, even an auxiliary cannot authorize it.

If a house is not canonically erected it invalidates the novitiate. Religious vows are a much more serious issue than ordination.

Ordination flows from apostolic succession. Therefore, any bishop who is validly ordained can ordain, even though it is illegal. Only those with religious succession from the founder in union with a bishop who must be the head of a local church (diocese) can erect a house or chapter for the order.

If the house or the community is new, the diocesan bishop can erect it as a house or institute of diocesan right, but he must get the blessing from the Sacred Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life.

Let’s wait and see what happens.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[ProVobis]

Erecting a religious house is the jurisdiction of a major superior and the diocesan bishop, because it requires two persons with Ordinary Jurisdiction. Even a diocesan bishop does not have Ordinary Jurisdiction to erect a religious house without a major superior

Since the Benedictine Order is not a unified order like the Franciscans, Jesuits, Dominicans, etc, each house flows out of another house, the major superior would be the abbot who authorizes the foundation. However, the abbot cannot plant his men in a diocese without the canonical approval of the diocesan bishop, even an auxiliary cannot authorize it.

If a house is not canonically erected it invalidates the novitiate. Religious vows are a much more serious issue than ordination.

Ordination flows from apostolic succession. Therefore, any bishop who is validly ordained can ordain, even though it is illegal. Only those with religious succession from the founder in union with a bishop who must be the head of a local church (diocese) can erect a house or chapter for the order.

If the house or the community is new, the diocesan bishop can erect it as a house or institute of diocesan right, but he must get the blessing from the Sacred Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life.

Let’s wait and see what happens.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

JR, I understand. I don’t have any personal stake here (including bitterness or love) but it is difficult to see how this was all set into motion only after the 1988 excommunications. The SSPX had been set up as a legitimate order in 1970 (albeit for only six years) so some groundwork for both religious and priestly would probably have had been laid out in all that time as well. Or so it seems.

On the other hand, since they were excommunicated in 1988, what did they really have to lose by erecting religious (and tertiary, for that matter) communities? They could have even consecrated many more bishops if they were truly pursuing the schismatic, or parallel church route, and they would have all been valid.

 

[malphono]

I don’t have any personal stake here (including bitterness or love) but it is difficult to see how this was all set into motion only after the 1988 excommunications. The SSPX had been set up as a legitimate order in 1970 (albeit for only six years) so some groundwork for both religious and priestly would probably have had been laid out in all that time as well. Or so it seems.

On the other hand, since they were excommunicated in 1988, what did they really have to lose by erecting religious (and tertiary, for that matter) communities? They could have even consecrated many more bishops if they were truly pursuing the schismatic, or parallel church route, and they would have all been valid.

I doubt it. When the SSPX was first set-up, it was as a congregation of Diocesan Right. The only “groundwork” that makes sense would have been for themselves as a congregation.

But have another look at this link and particularly this one too. I think you’ll see the timeline for these “Benedictines” is pretty clear.

 

[Pregustator]

Let’s wait and see what happens.

Mark October 23rd on your calendar. Here’s a verbatim replication of the invitation that was included with the newsletter:

---

PAX

You are cordially invited

to join us on

Saturday October 23, 2010

for the occasion of the

Canonical Erection of our Monastery

as a Conventual Priory

by His Excellency Bishop Alfonso de Galarreta

Pontifical Mass and Ceremony

At 9:30 am

followed by a banquet for all guests

Please send your R.S.V.P.

to the Monastery

without delay.

OUR LADY OF GUADELUPE MONASTERY
142 JOSEPH BLANE ROAD, SILVER CITY, NEW MEXICO 88061

TEL. 575-388-9279 . FAX. 575-534-4320

---

And the text of the passage pertaining to this event, by the superior of the monastery, a Father Cyprian:

Dear Friends and Benefactors,

THE HISTORY OF OUR MONASTIC FAMILY WILL SOON TURN A PAGE.

On Saturday October 23rd, which is the Benedictine feast day of Our Lady of Holy Hope, our little foundation will be given a higher status in the Church as His Excellency Bishop de Galarreta will raise it to a Conventual Priory. This will be one step from becoming an abbey.

After nineteen years of labor for the glory of God, may this momentous day also be the crown placed upon your generosity. The monastery has successfully traversed the period of trial and error, of wait and see, now to be officially confirmed as a true house of God where a community of 26 monks pray and labor in the Benedictine tradition of Ora et Labora.

If we have persevered through many hardships to arrive at this great moment, it is thanks to the perseverance of our friends and benefactors who have never failed to support us every step of the way.

Everyone is invited, and may your schedule allow for travel to New Mexico for this historic event. Please let us know if you are coming, so our brother cooks can treat you at the banquet which will follow the Pontifical Mass and ceremony.

With our utmost gratitude always,

Fr. Cyprian

Father Cyprian’s message appears on page 2 of the newsletter, beneath a photograph of the monastery’s “Brother Augustine” being ordained to the diaconate at St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary in Winona, MN, by Alfonso de Galarreta.

While I do not think it would be altogether precise to say that the SSPX, alone, forms a parallel church, it could be argued that the SSPX, together with these offshoots of religious orders and other organizations that are so closely affiliated with the SSPX, do indeed, disturbingly, form a sort of counter-Church–a small scale ape of the Roman Catholic Church–that refers only to itself in matters of government and discipline.

In Campos, Brazil, the late bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer, a close ally of Lefebvre who assisted at the 1988 consecration of “The Four”, succeeded in establishing a counter-diocese in Campos upon his retirement from the See of Campos. Upon his death, the bishops of the SSPX travelled to Campos to consecrate for this counter-diocese a new bishop to replace de Castro Mayer. They were aghast, of course, when this Campos group reconciled with Rome not long after.

I suppose my point is that, what with the SSPX having clearly established a history and tendency to not only disregard the lawful authorities of the Roman Catholic Church, but to go another step further and join hands with other kindred organizations to create what can only be described as counter-Church, or parallel Church, what meaning does the lifting of the excommunications of 1988 actually have?

It doesn’t seem to be especially significant for the SSPX, who are moving right along, unrepentant of their schismatic-like behaviour, just like nothing at all has changed. These groups, together with the SSPX, it seems to me, have actually succeeded in creating their very own Roman Catholic Church in which they make their own rules, free of a pope or a Holy See, or even of diocesan ordinaries. What, I wonder, is not schismatic about the Society of St. Pius X and its affiliate institutions?

I fear that the only thing that lifting the excommunications will do is give a green light to faithful Roman Catholics to start joining their counter-parishes and counter-monasteries and counter-dioceses and what have you. I wonder if Rome hasn’t made a mistake in attempting to draw the SSPX into the fold by lifting these excommunications. I am not speaking of individual traditionalists who adhere to the SSPX, mind you, but the institution, itself, and its leadership. It doesn’t seem that they actually have any desire to return to the fold. They seem to be of a mind that the Church ought to “return” to them.

 

[ProVobis]

There doesn’t seem to be any doubt that there are many who hope these SSPX negotiations/talks with the Vatican fail.

 

[crazzeto]

Sorry. I was not trying to be funny. I just cannot think of any better way to express how I feel, when leaving Mass.
The visual and auditory impact of Mass as currently offered at my parish (and so many others) is so different from the Mass I grew up with as to make it seem like I have no business being there.

I will never forget leaving Easter Mass some years ago to the tune of “Here comes Peter Cottontail” on the piano after listening to a rather nice Protestant Hymn recessional.
“Lord of the Dance” at the Offertory didn’t help either.
Oh, well.
At least the padre had faculties and was “in Communion” with the diocese.

It’s admirable that they put so much effort into maintaining the traditional Mass, but have you considered looking for a non-SSPX EF option? If traveling it might take a bit more time and research perhaps (verifying non-SSPX) but it might be worth it.

At least to my mind, I like to not play around with groups that flirth with schism. I don’t want to risk seperating with Holy Mother Church, to do so would directly violate everything I believe about Christ and his mission. I can only exhort others to also not flirt with such things.

 

[malphono]

I suppose my point is that, what with the SSPX having clearly established a history and tendency to not only disregard the lawful authorities of the Roman Catholic Church, but to go another step further and join hands with other kindred organizations to create what can only be described as counter-Church, or parallel Church, what meaning does the lifting of the excommunications of 1988 actually have?

…

I wonder if Rome hasn’t made a mistake in attempting to draw the SSPX into the fold by lifting these excommunications. I am not speaking of individual traditionalists who adhere to the SSPX, mind you, but the institution, itself, and its leadership. It doesn’t seem that they actually have any desire to return to the fold. They seem to be of a mind that the Church ought to “return” to them.

I don’t know that I’d go so far as to call it a “mistake,” at least not insofar as the SSPX itself (minus the “affiliated institutions”) is concerned. It’s simply a priestly fraternity and itself could be re-integrated with a minimum of hassle. But those “affiliates” present another matter, and one that is far less easily dealt with.

The very idea that a religious order such as is the topic of this thread could come under the umbrella (I will not use the term “omiphor” here) of the SSPX is kind of frightening. What can it mean other than that the SSPX claims “jurisdiction” and hence thinks that it is in the canonical right to sponsor (or “care for” or whatever euphemism one wants to use) such groups? As I said in an earlier post, the idea that they consider themselves a “parallel Church” keeps peeking out from a variety of corners.