W
WingsOfEagles
Guest
Thank you Br. JR, that is really helpful info (and thanks for the reading suggestions).
- Status
J
JReducation
Guest
One must be very careful with what one reads. Often the author of an article does not have all of the facts or does not understand the whole of it. This did not happen as it was reported.
How do I know? I’m the Superior General of the Franciscan Brothers of Life. I work as the Director of Project Joseph, the only diocesan wide ministry to men in crisis pregnancies and I have been dealing with grants since 1994.
Let’s take this in baby steps. The likelihood of there being a Non Government Organization that is a non-profit (NGO) that does not work with or is in contact with some pro-choice group or organization is slim to none. NGOs are not bound by moral guidelines. This is an unfortunate situation. This is the situation with CARE. CARE is not Catholic, but it does wonderful things for the poor.
Second, organizations such as my own community, or my Project Joseph respond to what is called RFP (Request For Proposal). This means that another agency or organization has money to give to charity and they put out a notice inviting people to submit a proposal. They put out the conditions for the proposal. Anyone can submit a proposal.
In this case, an RFP was put out. There were two conditions that had to be met.
- The money could not be used for abortion or contraception.
- The money could not be used to liberate funds for abortion or contraception.
First: When they decide to consider your proposal they ask you for a copy of your financial statement for the last year. They want to see if you truly don’t have money to build a sewer system, just an example. If you do have the funds to do it, then there is a chance that you will redirect one money to an immoral use in order to get the other. So, if your budget says that you have 5 million for birth control, but you don’t have five million to build a sewer, you don’t qualify. Because the donor would simply be liberating your 5 million.
Second: The beneficiary must provide a line item accounting of how the money is being used and who is the person responsible. Receipts must be kept and the donor has a right to audit you. They usually do at least once during the calendar year. I’ve gone through this many times. If you have cheated, you have to pay everything back or you will be sued. Such a law suit can close you down.
This is called Directed Giving. The money can only be used for one purpose, but you must prove that you have no other source of income to get the money. In this case, CARE past the test. They did not have 5 million in their budget for birth control and abortion. They were short 5 million.
What happens if an organization such as CARE accepts money from Planned Parenthood for their purposes?
Morally, the Church is no culpable. The Church did not donate the money and did not receive that money. That was a separate deal between CARE and PP that took place after the fact. It can even be that CARE had the money from Planned Parenthood. The fact that Planned Parenthood also does directed giving, means that CARE cannot use that money to build a sewer in a developing nation. We’re back to poor people without a sewer, not money and no one who can build it.
CARE can get the builders, but it needs the money . The Church has the money, but not the personnel to build the sewer. Again, the Church is not culpable of any sin. Because Planned Parenthood can give their money to whomever they want and they control how it’s used. We cannot tell Planned Parenthood that they cannot donate to the same charity that we donate. We cannot tell every charity to which we donate not to accept money from Planned Parenthood or a similar organization, because it’s not going to happen and in the end, the poor are being hurt.
We have no way of doing these projects. We have the funds, but not the human resource. What the Conference does is to check very carefully with the experts in Catholic ethics, before they make a donation to make sure that the Church is not directly contributing to something immoral.
In some way or another, we all remotely contribute to something immoral. We went to hold a big Respect Life meeting and were looking for venues. We needed a hotel, because we had over 200 people coming from out of town. Every major line of hotels contributes to Planned Parenthood. The same is true about most banks and major supermarkets and so forth. We were very frustrated, because whenever we asked the managers if they contributed to PP or to show us a list of their charities, there they were. Finding a place that did not contribute to PP was very very hard. For all I know, they could have contributed to human trafficking. I don’t know what every one of those organizations on those lists do. I look at some list like the United Way. There are names on there that I did not know existed and have no idea what they do.
The way to go is directed giving, which is the way that the bishops and religious orders are doing it now. This gives them control over their donations. However, the authors of many articles don’t always have this information at hand or it gets cut out in the editing room for whatever reason, even space on the paper. Whatever.
Even with all of this checking, there is never a 100% guarantee that your beneficiary is not going to pull something on you and you’re not going to know about it. You’re working with paper. They give you financial statements. You hope that they’re truthful and you assume that they are or the IRS will get them. Again, a reporter does not always have all the information or cannot always report all of it, because of editing policies.
My purpose is not to discourage you from attending the EF. Just make sure that it’s not in an SSPX chapel. Situation being what it is, it would not be a good idea for you to develop relationships with people there and then have to pull out if the Vatican pushes them away. If that happens, then Catholics will be told that they can no longer fulfill their Sunday obligation there, just as we cannot fulfill our Sunday obligation at an Orthodox mass, even though that one is both valid and licit.
But if your diocese has an EF or there is a community in communion with the Church that has an EF, by all means, use it if it meets your spiritual needs.
You’re most welcome
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
S
Stylites
Guest
Is there a link to the scandal being alluded to? Thanks.
J
JReducation
Guest
C
curlycool89
Guest
So they want to be judge, jury, and executioner.
I guess they don’t want to come in then. We can’t have any faction in the Church who demands the right to openly criticize other parts of the same Church based on their own interpretation of tradition. As has been said before, the Pope has even forbidden the Dominicans and Jesuits from calling each other out over the teachings on grace and they’re 2 of the biggest orders there are. There’s no way that they’d get a blank cheque to call out whatever they want.
J
JReducation
Guest
I agree with Curly. There would be bishops, superiors general and lay movements that would not stand for it and they would shoot back.
Unless they have some parameters in mind that are not mentioned in this letter. But as it stands, this calls for carte blanche. It throws out everything the Trent and Canon Law built up about exempt religious, the rights of bishops over their laity and diocesan clergy, the rights of the laity to be free of harassment, the rights of superiors to discipline at their discretion and Pontifical Right.
Also, the Church, like any other system has a chain of command and ranks. You can’t just jump over those without any authority to do so.
If the sentence limited itself to preaching truth and denouncing error, that would be perfectly acceptable. But when it says that they want the freedom to publicly correct and challenge the individuals or groups whom they see as being in error, this gives them jurisdiction over many people.
The idea of a prelature is that you have a diocese without boundaries for the purpose of an apostolate. However, you only have jurisdiction over those who are part of the prelature. At least that’s the existing model, Opus Dei.
The other model would be the ordinariate. An ordinariate is really a canonical jurisdiction with a specific population in mind, such as the Anglican Ordinariate. They have no authority over anyone who is not an Anglican Catholic, any more than the Archbishop of NY has authority over anyone in the Archdiocese of Boston.
You never see bishops or religious superiors crossing those boundaries to correct and denounce others by name, even when they know that the other is in error. They are not allowed to do that, because they have no jurisdiction. I know many laymen who assign themselves jurisdiction and do it, but they’re not supposed to do it either.
The question is, if they truly want this universal authority to call out anyone who is in error as they interpret it, then what’s the purpose of the other authority figures in each diocese, lay organization or religious institute?
In my opinion, they couldn’t have said something so broad. The person who wrote the letter must have left something out.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
C
curlycool89
Guest
I sincerely hope so.
If this was what the General Chapter decided, then the practical outcome is likely an indefinite suspension of reconciliation talks, isn’t it? Or at least until if/when another General Chapter changes this requirement for talks.
Again, I have to say that actions like this make me question the SSPX’s sincerity in these talks (outside of Bishop Fellay, who seems to be actually interested in making this happen, but let pragmatism get the best of him). It doesn’t sound like they want to have canonical recognition at all, hoping that they can stay in their ambiguous situation of having 1 foot in and 1 foot out (saying that they’re right and the Church is wrong), while the rest of us are getting fed up with the status quo. It looks like the Holy Father is feeling the same way with the appointment of Archbishop Müller.
J
JReducation
Guest
At this point, I don’t know what to think. I like Bishop Fellay very much. I believe in his sincerity. I am also disappointed in his leadership. In one of his letters to the other bishops he said that he was deliberately keeping them out of the loop to avoid a catastrophe. He was emphatic that this decision would be made by him.
I’m not familiar with the constitutions of the SSPX. I can only speak about the Catholic tradition. In the five Catholic rules: Benedictine, Carmelite, Augustinians, Franciscan and Trinitarian, the superior general does not have to consult with the general chapter. The role of the general chapter is to create legislation that is not already in the rule. Superiors General can issue commands, but they cannot create laws.
Moving the community into full communion with the Church is not legislation. It falls into the realm of leadership. Among Catholics, this would not be a point that would be taken up in a general chapter. This would be taken up at the general council. The superior has the moral duty to listen to his council. However, his council’s vote is only consultative. It carries no authority. His voice carries all of the authority.
To be a superior general requires a compassionate heart and a steel backbone. You will have to listen to your brothers’ pain when you make decisions that they don’t like. At the same time, you have to be strong enough to tell them when it’s time to stop crying and get moving At that point, you must turn off your feelings or you’ll be paralyzed.
I’m trying to say that there is a point in every major decision made by a superior general when he must be numb to the feelings of his brothers, if he’s going to lead them in the right direction. I believe that this is where Bishop Fellay may have caved. The anger, the vitriol, and the nastiness of some people, even lay people who have no rights in this conversation, seem to have moved Bishop Fellay to agree to this general chapter.
The Society was not due for a general chapter until 2018. This was an extraordinary chapter just for this Preamble. The cards were all in the superior’s hand and he gave them to the chapter. Now, he is bound to execute the decisions of the chapter, even if he finds it distasteful.
I find one of the sentences in the letter disturbing. There is sentence about the fact that they are united again. Internal unity of any institute is essential for the life of the institute. The role of every superior general is to protect the unity of the institute, but never at the risk of breaking with the Church. Any institute that is not in full communion with the Church cannot receive the graces necessary to survive in the long-run. The Holy Spirit does not operate that way. The fullness of grace comes through the fullness of communion.
I feel that they have achieved a truce among them, but have made little or no progress, IF THIS LETTER TRULY REPRESENTS WHAT THE CHAPTER SAID.
Let’s just hope that the writer is speaking in bullets and leaving out things, because they already know them.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
M
Moore11
Guest
Brother, You are seen as an authority in these matters by me and I’m sure others. It is very important that you are accurate.The Society was not due for a general chapter until 2018. This was an extraordinary chapter just for this Preamble. The cards were all in the superior’s hand and he gave them to the chapter. Now, he is bound to execute the decisions of the chapter, even if he finds it distasteful.
This general chapter was convened years ago. Not just for the preamble. I’m not sure where you got that idea.
Here.
sspx.org/SSPX_FAQs/sspx_2012_general_chapter.htm
J
JReducation
Guest
I had not seen this. I’ll tell you where I got that idea from. From the SSPX themselves. They announced that they were going to have a general chapter to discuss this. After the general chapter, the only thing they mentioned having discussed was this.
I know that for a long time they have been talking about the need to discuss their mission, future and address some issues in their statutes. But I had not heard about a date for a general chapter to discuss these things. They didn’t talk much about the chapter until the preamble came up.
In either case, be it a scheduled chapter or not, the superior general had the opportunity to sign the preamble before the chapter. Once the chapter begins, if someone wants to discuss it and someone seconds the suggestion, it gets discussed. From there anything can happen. They can simply discuss it by way of finding out from Bishop Fellay the status of things or they can discuss it and decide for themselves what they want Bishop Fellay to do next. The superior general does not trump the chapter. He has to obey.
His opportunity was before the chapter. If I’m not mistaken, he had this thing in his hands a month before the chapter or a few weeks more. As Archbishop DiNoia said, the important part was to get into the Church, even if you have disagreements. You can work on those later and some disagreements we can all live with. Bishop Fellay himself had said that there would never be a perfect situation. There never had been such a thing in the Church. In a rather strange way, DiNoia and Fellay seem to have been saying the same thing, but I guess not.
Again, I keep repeating myself like a broken record. We’re assuming that whoever wrote this letter is telling all. If there are pieces missing because he assumed the it was only going to be read by the SSPX and they knew the rest, those missing pieces can change the meanings of these statements. They may not be as bad as they sound.
We have to wait for the SSPX to send their conclusion to Rome and to hear what Rome says. The most important part is what Rome says, not what the SSPX says.
The SSPX can say that they need this and want that. If Rome says they can have 1/2 of what they want, that’s it. Take it or leave it. At some point, someone is going to get fed up. If it’s not the pope, it’s going to be the cardinals. The pope cannot afford to have the cardinals go off on him. That last time this happened to a pope, it was ugly. The cardinals got fed up with the pope’s style of management. It was not a moral issue or doctrinal issue. They agreed on that. They were tired that the pope kept dragging out the discussion. The finally said that they would not attend another discussion and they walk out on him… It happened to Nicholas IV. It was almost like a strike. There have been other times when the pope has pushed the cardinal’s patience. Pope Benedict is a smart man. He’s not going to drag this out until he burns out his people and frustrates them. That will only make things worse.
At some point, he’s going to have to cut it off. I’m wondering if that’s why he put Mueller in that spot. Mueller has a reputation for being a man who takes no prisoners. DiNoia is the peace keeper, but he’s also the 2nd in command.
I hope this comes to a finale soon.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
R
RPRPsych
Guest
What a wonderful post, especially for someone like me, who lives totally outside the world in which such debates occur. I was born well after Vatican II, and I’ve never known anything other than the “Ordinary Form”. My parents grew up during the transition period (my father knew the Traditional Mass from his childhood as an altar boy, and my mother lived through the transition), but they never had any particular hang-ups over the changes - I guess that’s because, in such matters, our country tends to permit a lot more variation.There was a soap opera, I believe it was General Hospital, that went on for 50 years or so. This one is going to outdo them. This reminds me. I have a former student who is an archivist at the Vatican. I wonder what those guys think of when they read this stuff. Obviously, I can’t ask him what he reads. I just want to know what kind of dreams you have when you go to bed at night.
Let’s look at the facts. They suspended one of their bishops for insubordination. They have had three big leaks in less than six months. Either they have a problem with obedience within their ranks or someone in authority is deliberately allow the leaks to gather public support. It’s like playing for the people in the stands. Either way, that’s not a good sign.
The Vatican is much larger corporation and we have not seen a single piece of paper about its talks with the SSPX or about the SSPX. Nothing has been leaked. There a greater risk at the Vatican. Classified information goes through many hands before it reaches its final destination. Everything that we know about these talks we know through leaks from the SSPX. The Vatican’s answers to questions have been very coy.
If one of these Dominican or Franciscan bishops is ever elected pope, groups to the extremes are going to be quite upset. The mendicants have a reputation for walking down the middle of the road and ignoring the extremes. Just look at the Dominican and Franciscan bishops that we have. They rarely express concern about anything outside of their order and their diocese. They run their dioceses as they would run their orders, which has been good for the dioceses. It’s a very fraternal style of government. Some people find it hard to get used to, because there a lot of consulting. That’s because we govern ourselves through consultation. By the time that you’re old enough to be a bishop, you’ve fallen into a pattern of leadership.
View attachment 14415
Here I am at about 6 or 8 months. Aren’t I cute?
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
But it’s extremely illuminating to have this entire debate explained with such clarity here. Thank you very much for taking the time to do this.
…
And, yes, that picture is extremely adorable, Brother. Did you, perchance, ever win a “Most Beautiful Baby” contest?
R
RogerDeCourcy
Guest
I think elements of the SSPX need to realise this:
Outside the Catholic Church, they are just another sect. They have to reconcile at some point or they will be less than nothing.
i.e. The only reason they have any power is that they claim to be ‘more Catholic Church’ than the current Catholic Church. They are significant only in relation to the Church.
Outside the Catholic Church, they are just another sect. They have to reconcile at some point or they will be less than nothing.
i.e. The only reason they have any power is that they claim to be ‘more Catholic Church’ than the current Catholic Church. They are significant only in relation to the Church.
O
otjm
Guest
From watching this over the last several years, and perhaps from being a tad bit of a cynic, I have had the feeling that Bishop Fellay has been playing a game of cat and mouse all along. I didn’t follow the calling of the chapter, but I was under the impression that it was done not by him or at his request, but rather by others. In any event, there has been enough time passed to obtain at least a Masters in Theology, if not to start serious work on a Ph.D. One would think that if the bishop, or he and his fellow bishops wanted to learn what the Church says about the continuity of doctrine from Vatican 2 backwards, or forwards through Vatican 2, that their objections could long ago have been laid to rest.At this point, I don’t know what to think. I like Bishop Fellay very much. I believe in his sincerity. I am also disappointed in his leadership. In one of his letters to the other bishops he said that he was deliberately keeping them out of the loop to avoid a catastrophe. He was emphatic that this decision would be made by him.
I’m not familiar with the constitutions of the SSPX. I can only speak about the Catholic tradition. In the five Catholic rules: Benedictine, Carmelite, Augustinians, Franciscan and Trinitarian, the superior general does not have to consult with the general chapter. The role of the general chapter is to create legislation that is not already in the rule. Superiors General can issue commands, but they cannot create laws.
Moving the community into full communion with the Church is not legislation. It falls into the realm of leadership. Among Catholics, this would not be a point that would be taken up in a general chapter. This would be taken up at the general council. The superior has the moral duty to listen to his council. However, his council’s vote is only consultative. It carries no authority. His voice carries all of the authority.
To be a superior general requires a compassionate heart and a steel backbone. You will have to listen to your brothers’ pain when you make decisions that they don’t like. At the same time, you have to be strong enough to tell them when it’s time to stop crying and get moving At that point, you must turn off your feelings or you’ll be paralyzed.
I’m trying to say that there is a point in every major decision made by a superior general when he must be numb to the feelings of his brothers, if he’s going to lead them in the right direction. I believe that this is where Bishop Fellay may have caved. The anger, the vitriol, and the nastiness of some people, even lay people who have no rights in this conversation, seem to have moved Bishop Fellay to agree to this general chapter.
The Society was not due for a general chapter until 2018. This was an extraordinary chapter just for this Preamble. The cards were all in the superior’s hand and he gave them to the chapter. Now, he is bound to execute the decisions of the chapter, even if he finds it distasteful.
I find one of the sentences in the letter disturbing. There is sentence about the fact that they are united again. Internal unity of any institute is essential for the life of the institute. The role of every superior general is to protect the unity of the institute, but never at the risk of breaking with the Church. Any institute that is not in full communion with the Church cannot receive the graces necessary to survive in the long-run. The Holy Spirit does not operate that way. The fullness of grace comes through the fullness of communion.
I feel that they have achieved a truce among them, but have made little or no progress, IF THIS LETTER TRULY REPRESENTS WHAT THE CHAPTER SAID.
Let’s just hope that the writer is speaking in bullets and leaving out things, because they already know them.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
J
JReducation
Guest
One of the other posters was very kind to put up a link to an SSPX announcement that I and many other people had never seen. Apparently, there was a plan to have an extraordinary chapter long before the Preamble question.
The issue remains the same. The superior general had the preamble in his hands before the chapter and he gave the impression that he was comfortable with it. Remember the letter of opposition that was leaked and then his letter of response that was also leaked. At that time, he gave the impression that this was going to be his decision along with the general council. By stalling, the chapter rolls around. This gives anyone the right to make a motion to discuss the Preamble and the chapter has a right to vote on it. Now it’s out of the superior general’s hands. Once the chapter decides, whatever it decides is law and the superior general must implement it.
What superiors general do, when they want something to happen, is to make a unilateral decision before a chapter. This binds the community under obedience to comply. The chapter can still bring it up, but something like this would have been very difficult to undo. By that time, the Society would have been under the authority of the Vatican. The chapter cannot trump the Vatican. Whatever is decided at a general chapter has to be approved by the Vatican.
This move was either clever or dumb. I’m not sure which. This chapter does not have to be ratified by the Vatican. The Society has no canonical place in the Church. The Vatican can certainly reject their request or as that they modify it.
Maybe things are not so bad. Maybe the actual minutes from the chapter include more details than this letter does and hopefully they’re very positive details. We’ll just have to wait and see.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
O
otjm
Guest
Exactly. And I may be too cynical; I am simply observing from the outside. I have no doubt whatsoever that had the bishop signed the preamble, there would have been a split, and perhaps only a minority or even only a slim minority followed him. And it appears that all is not cast in concrete yet.
Well, your analysis in the past, and in particular within this thread seems to be the most astute I have seen anywhere. All would do well to read what Archbishop DeNoia said in his interview - and read all of the interview, not just selections which fit one’s perspective. The shift from Cardinal Levada should send a clarion call that this is not going to go on ad infinitum, and the ground rules seem to be quite clear, especially with the comments by Archbiship DeNoia as to what is acceptable and what is not. He may say that he has a lot of catching-up to do, but he also seems to have the whole issue fairly clearly defined - Vatican 2 is doctrinal in that it is part of the ordinary Magisterium of the Church; it is not heretical, it must be accepted because it is part of the ordinary magisterial teaching authority of the Church, and we can certainly agree that some of its implementation may have been somewhere between wrong and very wrong, but the basic line has been drawn. I don’t see this going on for an exceedingly long time before Rome say “fish or cut bait”. Once that happens, it may be interesting to see what, if any fallout occurs within the SSPX. Some of it may be a surprise.This move was either clever or dumb. I’m not sure which. This chapter does not have to be ratified by the Vatican. The Society has no canonical place in the Church. The Vatican can certainly reject their request or as that they modify it.
Maybe things are not so bad. Maybe the actual minutes from the chapter include more details than this letter does and hopefully they’re very positive details. We’ll just have to wait and see.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
L
Lormar
Guest
How did he betray the Vatican? I do not mean this question as a challenge, but I am having a hard time understanding.To be honest, orthodoxy has different meanings for different people. For the Traditionalist Movement it means to teach, worship and exercise ministry as it has always been done.
Here is the glitch. That “as it has always been done” can be challenged by a lot of people. The truth is that there has never been a one size fits all in the Latin Church. That’s more common to the other 22 Catholic Churches, probably because they’re much smaller. Just think about the fact that we have five major schools of spirituality in the Latin Church. They have only one major school for the Eastern Churches. We have five major religious orders and all of our catechisms, liturgical books, vestments, forms of ministry, music, art and devotions have come from them. It is only now that secular priests are getting involved in this kind of stuff. Each of these religious orders expanded and they went through various reforms. As they did so, they made changes to many things, including the liturgy and the catechism.
Trent and St. Pius V tried to unify it all. In the end, neither were successful. Pope Pius was a Dominican. He was pressured by his Master General not to impose the Tridentine mass on the Dominicans. This opened the flood gates. Along came the Carmelites, Carthusians, Franciscans, Benedictines, Augustinians, and Jesuits with the same request and all were excused from using the Tridentine mass and from using the Catechism of Trent. The Dominicans and Jesuits produced their own, which did not agree in everything. After about 100 years of calling each other heretics, the pope threatened them, if they didn’t stop. They asked the pope to look a their work and tell them which was correct. The pope said that he would not become involved in the affairs of two of the three most powerful orders in the Church, unless one of them were teaching heresy, which was not the case. They simply disagreed on the definition of grace, but both definitions were acceptable. Since then, there have been many such situations in which popes have never really intervened. They don’t want to get involved.
The Modernist movement arouse in the late 19th century. It was bigger than religion. But many people reduced it to a conflict with Catholicism. Pope St. Pius X issued a strong condemnation against Modernism. Bl. John Paul retracted the oath against Modernism, because as he said, the oath is not a guarantee of fidelity. People make vows of chastity, celibacy and marriage too. That does not seem to stop those who are determined to get what they want.
The final straw between the SSPX and Rome was when Archbishop Lefebvre ordained four bishops without the pope’s permission, knowing that he would be excommunicated. The SSPX and their friends, even on this forum, argue that the excommunications were unfair and not valid. Cardinal Ratzinger and Pope John Paul both responded to this many years ago. The excommunications are valid, because the pope says they are valid. He can excommunicate for any reason he wants. In this case, the pope did not do the excommunicating, the law did. The SSPX and their lay friends argue that the bishop believed that there was a state of emergency. There is a canon that says that if you do something believing that it’s an emergency, even if you’re wrong, you cannot be excommunicated.
There is also the faith of the Church and the tradition that goes back to Boniface IV that says that the laws of the Church are subject to the pope. The pope is not subject to the laws. Pope John Paul responded by saying that he would not allow this law to be applied to the SSPX bishops. Cardinal Ratzinger added that this is the pope’s right and the case is closed. There is no appeal, because the pope has the divine authority to say what law applies to you and what does not.
The big deal was not about being traditionalist, but about illegal ordinations of bishops. Over the years, they have made many comments that have created many concerns. Some of their comments, make sense, when you take them in context. Out of context, they sound strange. Some of their comments are insubordinate, arrogant, and just plain defiant. This letter is a good example. They use the word “demand”.
No Catholic has the right to demand anything from the Church except the sacraments. That’s a divine right. They’re not demanding sacraments. There is arrogance there.
They use terms like the “errors of Vatican II”. The Church cannot teach error. If there are errors, they are in the interpretation of what Vatican II said or in the application, not in the Council documents. This sends off a signal of defiance. Here are four bishops, with very basic theological education, challenging the likes of Paul VI, John Paul II and Benedict XVI who could run laps around the four bishops of the SSPX, with their genius in law, theology and philosophy. These men are scholars. They understand their theology and they understand what they as popes can and cannot do. They also understand what their predecessors said and what binds them as what does not. For a bishop that was not even chosen by the pope and who is far less educated than the pope to tell the pope that this or that is in error, when the pope looks at it from every angle and does not see the error, it comes off as arrogant. Pope Benedict said that the SSPX is arrogant. These are not my words. He said this in a number of documents in the last three years. It’s a conflict that the pope has been trying to bend in order to resolve. But they SSPX now seems not so flexible.
Bishop Fellay betrayed the Vatican. This raises the questions in the mind of all of us who are in positions of authority. He was the one who was going to make the decision for the SSPX, because he is the superior general. When he gave the decision to the general chapter, he created an untenable situation. Whatever the general chapter decides, the superior general is bound to do.
The general chapter has decided that it cannot accept what Rome wants. Now, Bishop Fellay cannot legally come back and unilaterally accept in the name of the SSPX. He no longer has the authority to do so.
The Vatican and all of us had been told to butt out of this. This discussion was between a small group that consisted of Bishop Fellay and his theological advisers and Cardinal Levada and his theological advisers. All bishops, cardinals and religious superiors were to offer no (name removed by moderator)ut. This was going to be a unilateral decision between Pope Benedict and Bishop Fellay, after the dialogue between the two teams was over.
Suddenly, on the SSPX side, we have common priests voting on matters of theological and canonical importance, but on the Vatican side, no one is allowed a vote except the committee of cardinals and their vote is consultative, not legislative as is the vote of the chapter delegates of the SSPX. The cardinals can vote, but they cannot bind the pope. The chapter delegates can bind Bishop Fellay and every superior general for generations to come. That was not expected. He never said that a special general chapter would be called to decide. He had even sent a very strong letter to the community telling them that he and his council were in charge and this was going to be his decision and they were going to have to obey. In his letter he also said, “The pope wants this now and he will no longer wait.”
This turn of events raises more red flags for many people, about trust, obedience and even about the authority of the superior general. It’s a mess and we have to pray that the Holy Spirit turns on a light.
My hope is that this letter is the interpretation of the writer, not the actual statement of the general chapter. We’ll have to wait for the next installment.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
By the way, you had some head of hair when you were a youngster!!
J
JReducation
Guest
The expectation was that he would be the person making the decision along with his council. Do you remember when they leaked those letters that the other three bishops sent him? Then he responded with a letter that basically said, “This reaction is precisely why I’ve kept you out of the loop.”
He later did an interview, which was both in print and in film. The print version was better, because it was not edited for time. The two were by the same editor, but the film was edited for time. The comments were not as clear as in the printed version.
In the printed version, the message was that he and the council were comfortable with what they were receiving from the Vatican. When asked about the issues with certain documents, he said that there had been a misunderstanding all along on both parts, etc.
When asked about the prelature, he was very positive.
In his letter to this confreres he said, three times, “The pope has run out of patience and he wants this to happen now.”
All this time, the Vatican was saying nothing to the public, other than it was a good meeting and things are looking good. It was bishop Fellay making the comments and it was Bishop Fellay giving the Vatican and the rest of us the impression that this was going to be a done deal soon. After that, there would be the details to work out.
Canonically, a superior general can make such a unilateral decision. In other words, he had the power to decide to sign the Preamble. The Vatican was not requiring a consensus, just his signature. In fact, the Vatican had said that the other bishops would have to negotiate their own return individually. It looked like all the pieces were in place for Bishop Fellay to sign.
He was asked if there would be a break in the SSPX. He admitted that some would walk, but was not surprised at this, because it’s part of the process of reaching an agreement. Not everyone is going to be happy. When he spoke about, I wouldn’t say that his attitude was casual, but he was realistic.
He had time before the general chapter. He knew, as does any superior general, that at the general chapter the delegates may pose a topic for discussion and if it’s seconded, then the floor is open. He also knew that once the floor is open for discussion, the delegates can make motions and vote on them. Whatever the vote says, that’s what the superior general has to do. No superior general has authority over a chapter.
However, the superior general can make any decision that is not in the constitutions, because someone has to make it. That’s why he is given the vote of confidence when he is elected and that’s why he is given councilors, so that he came make tough decisions and not have to run and get everyone’s opinion on every issue.
This has been the way that Catholic orders of men have operated since St. Benedict organized the first religious houses. The voice of the superior is the voice of Christ, unless Christ has already spoken either through the Church or the constitutions.
In this case, there was nothing in the constitutions to stop bishop Fellay from signing the Preamble. Had there been, the bishops would not have written him a letter begging him not to sign it. The superiors of the districts could jointly write a letter pointing out that he was in violation of the constitutions. He was never told that he was in violation of any SSPX law. He was begged not to sign. He gave the impression that he was going to sign. The Vatican was getting ready for their re-entry. This was part of the plan of putting Archbishop DiNoia on the Ecclesia Dei Commission as VP. He is an expert on traditionalist groups.
Instead of signing, Bishop Fellay holds on to the unsigned document. The chapter began. Once the chapter began and the subject is on the table, the superior general can no longer pull back and say “I’ve got this covered.” He’s just another vote at the chapter.
That’s what many of us mean when we say that he betrayed the Vatican. He gave the impression that he was comfortable with the document and he gave the impression that he was in total control of the SSPX and that he was willing to bite the bullet, because that’s what a superior general is elected to do. Everyone kept looking at Bishop Fellay, no one at the Vatican was looking to a general chapter until the last few weeks when it was brought up.
This outcome could have been avoided if he had signed that piece of paper before the chapter. It could still have been brought up at the chapter, but by that time, the deal is done and the Vatican was not going to go back and start all over. The most that the chapter could have done would be to tell the superior general how they wanted him to govern the prelature, if the pope chose him as the prelate.
I feel sad, because I really like him. I’ll always say, he and I disagree on the number of points in a triangle. But I have always respected him for being kind, intelligent, honest, hard working, daring, and polite. This was not very polite or transparent. You don’t raise people’s hopes and then do something radically different. He should have said in advance that he would not sign the Preamble until it was decided at a chapter. The Preamble has been back and forth since before Christmas, I think. He had enough time to let the Vatican know that he had no intention of signing this without a consensus. No one knew this until the last few weeks.
Even Father Z, who is far more traditional that I am posted, “Please, SSPX, don’t blow this.”
I did, but I had a receding hairline. To this day, people think I’m losing my hair. I’m not. It’s just the way my hairline has always been. But I am cute as a button. I haven’t changed much, just a little grey and a few more pounds. LOLBy the way, you had some head of hair when you were a youngster!!
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
R
RogerDeCourcy
Guest
I wouldn’t put him down for this. The Church was founded by Christ but is staffed by men.
Therefore, politics exist.
I recall Christ really had to push the apostles to do His work, even after the Resurrection! And they knew Him personally!
One day, Churchmen will always and everywhere will work exclusively for the good the Church and the saving of souls, being inspired directly by the Holy Spirit.
Until then, politics!
R
RogerDeCourcy
Guest
I think what might work for the SSPX in the future would be to give the boot to members who focus mostly on ‘how the current Church has gone wrong’ rather than on ‘how can we save souls and keep the flame of orthodoxy alight’.
Like, if a priest is critiquing the Church every other sermon, that’s not a good sign. Or a bit too involved in Royalist or other mundane politics. That’s my 2 cents.
Then Bishop Fellay wouldn’t have to worry about herding cats, so to speak.
Like, if a priest is critiquing the Church every other sermon, that’s not a good sign. Or a bit too involved in Royalist or other mundane politics. That’s my 2 cents.
Then Bishop Fellay wouldn’t have to worry about herding cats, so to speak.
L
Lormar
Guest
Brother, thank you for the thorough explanation. I understand now. Perhaps something went on behind the scenes that we are no aware of. I hope so. I can’t see Bishop Fellay being deliberately deceptive.The expectation was that he would be the person making the decision along with his council. Do you remember when they leaked those letters that the other three bishops sent him? Then he responded with a letter that basically said, “This reaction is precisely why I’ve kept you out of the loop.”
He later did an interview, which was both in print and in film. The print version was better, because it was not edited for time. The two were by the same editor, but the film was edited for time. The comments were not as clear as in the printed version.
In the printed version, the message was that he and the council were comfortable with what they were receiving from the Vatican. When asked about the issues with certain documents, he said that there had been a misunderstanding all along on both parts, etc.
When asked about the prelature, he was very positive.
In his letter to this confreres he said, three times, “The pope has run out of patience and he wants this to happen now.”
All this time, the Vatican was saying nothing to the public, other than it was a good meeting and things are looking good. It was bishop Fellay making the comments and it was Bishop Fellay giving the Vatican and the rest of us the impression that this was going to be a done deal soon. After that, there would be the details to work out.
Canonically, a superior general can make such a unilateral decision. In other words, he had the power to decide to sign the Preamble. The Vatican was not requiring a consensus, just his signature. In fact, the Vatican had said that the other bishops would have to negotiate their own return individually. It looked like all the pieces were in place for Bishop Fellay to sign.
He was asked if there would be a break in the SSPX. He admitted that some would walk, but was not surprised at this, because it’s part of the process of reaching an agreement. Not everyone is going to be happy. When he spoke about, I wouldn’t say that his attitude was casual, but he was realistic.
He had time before the general chapter. He knew, as does any superior general, that at the general chapter the delegates may pose a topic for discussion and if it’s seconded, then the floor is open. He also knew that once the floor is open for discussion, the delegates can make motions and vote on them. Whatever the vote says, that’s what the superior general has to do. No superior general has authority over a chapter.
However, the superior general can make any decision that is not in the constitutions, because someone has to make it. That’s why he is given the vote of confidence when he is elected and that’s why he is given councilors, so that he came make tough decisions and not have to run and get everyone’s opinion on every issue.
This has been the way that Catholic orders of men have operated since St. Benedict organized the first religious houses. The voice of the superior is the voice of Christ, unless Christ has already spoken either through the Church or the constitutions.
In this case, there was nothing in the constitutions to stop bishop Fellay from signing the Preamble. Had there been, the bishops would not have written him a letter begging him not to sign it. The superiors of the districts could jointly write a letter pointing out that he was in violation of the constitutions. He was never told that he was in violation of any SSPX law. He was begged not to sign. He gave the impression that he was going to sign. The Vatican was getting ready for their re-entry. This was part of the plan of putting Archbishop DiNoia on the Ecclesia Dei Commission as VP. He is an expert on traditionalist groups.
Instead of signing, Bishop Fellay holds on to the unsigned document. The chapter began. Once the chapter began and the subject is on the table, the superior general can no longer pull back and say “I’ve got this covered.” He’s just another vote at the chapter.
That’s what many of us mean when we say that he betrayed the Vatican. He gave the impression that he was comfortable with the document and he gave the impression that he was in total control of the SSPX and that he was willing to bite the bullet, because that’s what a superior general is elected to do. Everyone kept looking at Bishop Fellay, no one at the Vatican was looking to a general chapter until the last few weeks when it was brought up.
This outcome could have been avoided if he had signed that piece of paper before the chapter. It could still have been brought up at the chapter, but by that time, the deal is done and the Vatican was not going to go back and start all over. The most that the chapter could have done would be to tell the superior general how they wanted him to govern the prelature, if the pope chose him as the prelate.
I feel sad, because I really like him. I’ll always say, he and I disagree on the number of points in a triangle. But I have always respected him for being kind, intelligent, honest, hard working, daring, and polite. This was not very polite or transparent. You don’t raise people’s hopes and then do something radically different. He should have said in advance that he would not sign the Preamble until it was decided at a chapter. The Preamble has been back and forth since before Christmas, I think. He had enough time to let the Vatican know that he had no intention of signing this without a consensus. No one knew this until the last few weeks.
Even Father Z, who is far more traditional that I am posted, “Please, SSPX, don’t blow this.”
I did, but I had a receding hairline. To this day, people think I’m losing my hair. I’m not. It’s just the way my hairline has always been. But I am cute as a button. I haven’t changed much, just a little grey and a few more pounds. LOL
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
- Status