SSPX Bishops and territorial responsability?

[Big_Feet]

Do the bishops of the SSPX have any territorial responsibility?
My understanding is that when a bishop is ordained, he is assigned to a territorial responsibility - be it his own diocese, i.e. Bishop Thomas Olmsted Diocese is Phoenix, AZ; as a bishop emeritus of a diocese, i.e. Bishop Thomas O’Brien is the Emeritus Bishop of Phoenix, AZ; or a Titular bishop of a now defunct diocese in order to serve in some other capacity, i.e. auxiliary bishop of a diocese, papal diplomat, or an official of the Roman Curia.

Do the bishops currently of the SSPX have these same type of “assignments” or responsibilities? Or have they not received such as they are still considered “irregular” or were they ever given these assignments by the society before the excommunications were lifted?

 

[wasserfall]

Do the bishops of the SSPX have any territorial responsibility?

No. The Pope excommunicated them instead of assigning them territorial sees, and the SSPX bishops themselves does not claim ordinary jurisdiction, and thus claim no sees.

 

[Big_Feet]

No. The Pope excommunicated them instead of assigning them territorial sees, and the SSPX bishops themselves does not claim ordinary jurisdiction, and thus claim no sees.

So, when the excommunications were lifted a couple of years ago, still no assignments were made? Would this be one way of disposing of the “irregularity” of these bishops and hence the society?

 

[ProVobis]

So, when the excommunications were lifted a couple of years ago, still no assignments were made? Would this be one way of disposing of the “irregularity” of these bishops and hence the society?

No ministry. No assignments.

 

[giuseppeTO]

Even after regularization, they will not have territorial responsibilities. In other words, they will not function as the ordinary of a diocese. The structure the Pope has likely chosen for them would not be a territorial structure, per se.

 

[Big_Feet]

Even after regularization, they will not have territorial responsibilities. In other words, they will not function as the ordinary of a diocese. The structure the Pope has likely chosen for them would not be a territorial structure, per se.

But, most bishops are given at least a titular diocese. Would this not even happen?
I am not sure I can name any regularized bishops who do not have at least this.

 

[giuseppeTO]

But, most bishops are given at least a titular diocese. Would this not even happen?
I am not sure I can name any regularized bishops who do not have at least this.

Smarter folks than I would have to answer this, but I thought that this only happened on the retirement of a Bishop.

 

[porthos11]

So, when the excommunications were lifted a couple of years ago, still no assignments were made? Would this be one way of disposing of the “irregularity” of these bishops and hence the society?

Nope. It just means they may now again approach the sacraments but they remain suspended a divinis, and therefore do not exercise any ministry in the Church.

 

[YoungTradCath]

But, most bishops are given at least a titular diocese. Would this not even happen?
I am not sure I can name any regularized bishops who do not have at least this.

They have no ordinary jurisdiction. If–when–they are regularized, they will receive a titular diocese. They will have to. There are no regularized bishops who do not have at least a titular diocese.

The SSPX bishops weren’t ordained to have geographical jurisdiction. They were ordained to be figureheads, and to administer Confirmation and Holy Orders (priest and deacon), and presumably if need be, to consecrate new bishops.

The only SSPX bishop who has any real hierarchical authority is Bishop Fellay, the Superior General. The other three are technically just “bishop members” of the SSPX. They have considerable clout, but only Fellay has real power.

I think that’s how it works.

 

[curlycool89]

They have no ordinary jurisdiction. If–when–they are regularized, they will receive a titular diocese.

That would be my guess, since all bishops need at least a titular diocese (even Bishop Fellay would need one).

Like I’ve said before, it’s an unusual situation. Societies or Orders or Congregations generally don’t have bishops as part of them (the exception being sometimes older retired bishops living out the rest of their lives in the order they began in), never mind as the head of them (there’s only a few I believe).

It will be interesting to see the dynamic if/when regularization happens. If we go by a normal society, then the 3 other bishops will be normal members along side the priests all under the authority of the Superior (Bishop Fellay). That would be very odd, a bishop under the direct authority of another bishop (who’s under the Pope).

 

[wasserfall]

It will be interesting to see the dynamic if/when regularization happens. If we go by a normal society, then the 3 other bishops will be normal members along side the priests all under the authority of the Superior (Bishop Fellay). That would be very odd, a bishop under the direct authority of another bishop (who’s under the Pope).

However, that is already the case in the SSPX.
In fact, for some years, Fr. Schmidberger was superior and all of the bishops answered to him.

 

[PacoG]

It will be interesting to see the dynamic if/when regularization happens. If we go by a normal society, then the 3 other bishops will be normal members along side the priests all under the authority of the Superior (Bishop Fellay). That would be very odd, a bishop under the direct authority of another bishop (who’s under the Pope).

That isn’t that rare. The major Vatican dicasteries (i.e. The Secretariat of State, the CDF, the CDW, etc) are headed by a Bishop (the Prefect) with another Bishop answering to him (the Secretary).

 

[AveMariaMag7]

When Archbishop Lefevre (sp?) ordained these 4 bishops, he did so without a mandate from Rome (Pope JP2). That was the reason they were excommunicated. It is an automatic excommunication. As excommunicated bishops, they were not and could not be given a diocese. Though the excommunication was lifted, they have not yet been regularized.
Once this happens they might or might not be given diocese or a special ordinariate (like a world-wide diocese) be created for them. It’s up to the Pope.

I may be wrong but that is the way I understand this to work from what I’ve read.

 

[YoungTradCath]

That would be my guess, since all bishops need at least a titular diocese (even Bishop Fellay would need one).

Like I’ve said before, it’s an unusual situation. Societies or Orders or Congregations generally don’t have bishops as part of them (the exception being sometimes older retired bishops living out the rest of their lives in the order they began in), never mind as the head of them (there’s only a few I believe).

It will be interesting to see the dynamic if/when regularization happens. If we go by a normal society, then the 3 other bishops will be normal members along side the priests all under the authority of the Superior (Bishop Fellay). That would be very odd, a bishop under the direct authority of another bishop (who’s under the Pope).

It is a bit funky, yes.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

That would be my guess, since all bishops need at least a titular diocese (even Bishop Fellay would need one).

Like I’ve said before, it’s an unusual situation. Societies or Orders or Congregations generally don’t have bishops as part of them (the exception being sometimes older retired bishops living out the rest of their lives in the order they began in), never mind as the head of them (there’s only a few I believe).

It will be interesting to see the dynamic if/when regularization happens. If we go by a normal society, then the 3 other bishops will be normal members along side the priests all under the authority of the Superior (Bishop Fellay). That would be very odd, a bishop under the direct authority of another bishop (who’s under the Pope).

Auxillary bishops are underthe direct authority of another bishop.

 

[JReducation]

So, when the excommunications were lifted a couple of years ago, still no assignments were made? Would this be one way of disposing of the “irregularity” of these bishops and hence the society?

Even after regularization, they will not have territorial responsibilities. In other words, they will not function as the ordinary of a diocese. The structure the Pope has likely chosen for them would not be a territorial structure, per se.

Actually, according to yesterday’s announcement from the Vatican, they are not coming in together. If I’m understanding Fr. Lombardi correctly, each of the bishops will have to ask for regularization.

Bishop Fellay comes in with the society. The other three do not automatically come in. They have to request it. There seems to be a big “if” around Bishop Williamson. I didn’t know this, but a comment from the Vatican press secretary implied that the Holy Father is still holding a grudge against him over the Jews and seems to be making this a condition for his return. He may have to promise to behave, besides the oath of fidelity to the Pontiff.

We’re assuming that the prelate will be Bishop Fellay, but we’re not sure yet. The Holy Father gets to pick the prelate.

They have no ordinary jurisdiction. If–when–they are regularized, they will receive a titular diocese. They will have to. There are no regularized bishops who do not have at least a titular diocese.

YTC is right. The four of them would have a titular see, even the prelate. A personal prelature is not a diocese nor a religious order. Ordinaries are the diocesan bishop and male major superiors of religious.

The only SSPX bishop who has any real hierarchical authority is Bishop Fellay, the Superior General. The other three are technically just “bishop members” of the SSPX. They have considerable clout, but only Fellay has real power.

I think that’s how it works.

That’s how the Archbishop set it up, but because Bishop Fellay does not have canonical status, he is not what the law calls “a source of authority.” A superior general has to be approved by someone above him. A community elects its superior, but someone with higher authority has to ratify the election. In cases of institutes of pontifical right, the Holy See is notified of the election and it alone can ratify it. If the institute is of diocesan right, the local bishop must ratify the election. Given Bishop Fellay’s status at the time of election, there was no one to ratify it.

That’s easy to fix if there is a regularization. The Holy See can ratify the election then and canonically recognize him as the superior general. What I don’t know is if the same person can be both superior general and prelate. I don’t remember how Opus Dei does it. I’ll have to look it up. Opus Dei has a priestly society as well. It’s pretty big too.

Fraternally,

Br.JR, FFV

 

[curlycool89]

That isn’t that rare. The major Vatican dicasteries (i.e. The Secretariat of State, the CDF, the CDW, etc) are headed by a Bishop (the Prefect) with another Bishop answering to him (the Secretary).

But that’s just a case of a bishop working for another bishop. The Secretary does not have to be obedient to the Prefect.

Auxillary bishops are underthe direct authority of another bishop.

That I wasn’t sure about so I didn’t include that. My thinking was that it was more of a work relationship, that they are given certain authority in the bishop’s diocese, but they are still, technically speaking, equals since they’re both bishops.

I would imagine it would be distinct from a priest though, right? Can the ordinary bishop assign the auxiliary bishop duties? It’s probably a moot question, since I don’t imagine there’d be much conflict between an ordinary and an auxiliary.

 

[The_Curt_Jester]

Hopefully they’ll give my diocese to the SSPX.

 

[JReducation]

Hopefully they’ll give my diocese to the SSPX.

You can’t give a diocese to an institute. The bishop of a diocese can be a member of an institute, secular or religious, but he may not bring the practices and policies of his institute to the diocese. He is bound to observe them for himself, but cannot impose them on the diocese. That’s why they don’t give dioceses to institutes, because it’s unfair to all of the other religious and secular clergy. They should not have to be subjected to the rules and customs of an institute to which they don’t belong and which is foreign to them. It has the potential to create conflicts. You can’t ask Salesians in your diocese to give up the Salesian way and adopt the SSPX way. They’ll leave the diocese, as will every other religious order. You will then start losing diocesan priests. One of the attractions to the diocesan priesthood is the freedom from a shared charism. Each priest can find his own charism.

That would not work too well.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[The_Curt_Jester]

You can’t give a diocese to an institute. The bishop of a diocese can be a member of an institute, secular or religious, but he may not bring the practices and policies of his institute to the diocese. He is bound to observe them for himself, but cannot impose them on the diocese. That’s why they don’t give dioceses to institutes, because it’s unfair to all of the other religious and secular clergy. They should not have to be subjected to the rules and customs of an institute to which they don’t belong and which is foreign to them. It has the potential to create conflicts. You can’t ask Salesians in your diocese to give up the Salesian way and adopt the SSPX way. They’ll leave the diocese, as will every other religious order. You will then start losing diocesan priests. One of the attractions to the diocesan priesthood is the freedom from a shared charism. Each priest can find his own charism.

That would not work too well.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

I was kidding.

Still, I wouldn’t mind a completely traditional diocese.