SSPX communique to Rome

[JReducation]

I’ve got to admit, I’m not quite seeing it either. I mean, I understand that the parent must explain the laws of the Church as they actually exist, and not distort them. Obviously it would be wrong for a parent to teach their child that it is immoral to receive in the hand or that the Church doesn’t allow such a thing. What I don’t quite understand is why the parent doesn’t have the authority to say, "While the Church allows both of these things, I am putting you under obedience, as my child who must obey and respect me, to receive via hand/tongue (whichever the parent chooses). Isn’t it true that a child is supposed to obey their parents unless their parents are telling them to sin? I mean, isn’t that the way authority works? I think Moore11’s idea to start a new thread is a good one, because this isn’t quite on topic, but it is an interesting question.

Parents cannot put a child under obedience in an area where they have no authority. That would be the kind of thing that I can do to my brothers. But I have the authority to do so. They vowed to obey the superior until death. As long as the superior does not command sin, he can command anything that the constitutions allow or that the constitutions do not mention.

In the case of the parent, he can’t put the child under obedience, because the child has not made a vow of obedience. He cannot command that the child not make use of a right, because none of us can command that others not make use of their rights.

The case of religious does not apply here. We, religious, abdicate our rights to different degrees depending on the community that you enter. You have the right abdicate. No one has the right to take your rights away.

Bishop Williamson has never retracted his unacceptable position on the Holocaust and has had to remain ‘underground’ due to a gag order by Bishop Fellay, who also removed him from his episcopal duties until he did so.

In defiance of this, Bishop Williamson continued sending out his Eleison Comments in secret to those lay SSPX parishioners who receive & promote them to others, against the express wishes of the Superior General.

This is going to be very problematic with two Germans at the helm of the Church.

Secondly, as to the meeting in Albano, I can only invite you to attend insofar as you stop publishing Eleison Comments. You have already been given the reason several times, as you have been given the order to stop. You considered that for the sake of the preaching and defence of the Faith you needed pay no attention, on the pretext that nobody had the right to stop a bishop from fulfilling his duty to preach and defend the Faith. But such preaching and defence of the Faith are inserted in concrete circumstances which may well call for superiors to intervene. Besides, no other bishop of the SSPX publishes a circular letter and considers himself thereby hindered from expressing himself.

From my knowledge of laws regarding the rights of superiors and the duties of subjects, they are both partially right.

Every subject is bound to obey his superior according to the terms in the constitution of the institute, according to the terms in Canon Law, which are few, and according to the mind of the founder, if he left a rule of life behind. I give this point to Bishop Fellay.

Every bishop has the right to exercise his ministry without the interference of his superior. He is bound to his superior and to his community in matters pertaining to his way of life. His relationship with the institute is not severed when he is ordained a bishop. However, the institute, cannot impose rules on him that interfere with his episcopal ministry. If a bishop’s activity does harm to the Church, the Sacred Congregation for Bishops must deal with it or the Sacred Congregation for the Defense of the Faith.

Here is where things get very muddy. Both men are suspended. Neither have a right to exercise their ministry.

Moreover the consequences of your attitude are harmful to the SSPX: you ooze distrust towards SSPX headquarters and the Superior General. You cannot help yourself communicating this feeling to those around you. No revolution could do a better job of undermining authority… and this you do in the name of a supposed

possible betrayal on the part of the Superior General… That is very serious.

Especially when a certain number of indications show that your action is not confined to theory:

1 To an Argentinian priest from the Novus Ordo who asks for your advice, you recommend that he should not join the SSPX.

2 To an American layman you write that the apostasy of the mainstream Church is farther advanced than that of the SSPX. How can you write such things, false and unjust, against the Society of which you are still a member?

It’s OK to say this about the Church, but not about the Society. This is a problem.

It’s OK for them to accept an illegal ordination that created them bishops in the name of a greater good, but now one of them cannot do his own thing, as they did in the past, in the name of some greater good. Another problem.

The problem is that it’s calling for fidelity to the SSPX, not to the Church.

3 In such a grave moment as the confrontation now taking place between ourselves and the Holy See, the outcome of which will be decisive for our own future and not without consequences for the entire Church, I ask you then, once more, to remain silent until further orders. If you were to refuse to heed this directive, it would mean both your not being invited to the Albano meeting and the starting of the canonical procedure leading to exclusion from the SSPX. So I await your reply.

Something is wrong here. How can the Vatican dismiss a bishop from the SSPX when the Vatican never authorized his ordination in the first place and he remains without a canonical place in the Church. I need a Canon Lawyer to explain if this is even possible.

A split is sure to take place at the time of the SSPX reply to Rome. IMO it will separate the wheat from the chaff.

We’re not sure if they are coming back. The gossip from the general chapter seems to indicate that they are not. The interview with Archbishop DiNoia, who is the expert on traditionalists is very clear that the points on Vatican II that the SSPX wants are not up for negotiation and that these are the pope’s orders, not his own.

Exactly. Having reread Dignitatis Humanae it is clear to me that it is reconcilable with previous teaching on the subject, nonetheless one has to sit down and do the reconciling as certain things - like the fact that proponents of false religions do not have the right to promote their errors amongst Catholics - are not immediately obvious from a first reading. We are going to need authoritative clarifications of these texts, just as the Extra Ecclesia nulla salus needed clarification.** One good thing the SSPX is bringing to the party is the impetus for these clarifications**.

I wouldn’t place so much hope on the SSPX to accomplish what more than one million Franciscans, Salesians, Augustinians, Dominicans, Opus Dei, Jesuits and diocesan clergy have not be able to get from the Holy See.

There is an innocence on the part of many Trads on these boards about the infrastructure of the Vatican, the role of the major religious orders of men, the diocesan bishops and a prelature.

If the SSPX comes in as a prelature and the the prelature is like the Opus Dei, which is the only prelature that we have, the SSPX will not be very visible. A prelature is free to exercise its apostolate anywhere in the world, to build seminaries and train its priests, to serve its faithful and to have it’s own programs and services.

A prelature cannot interfere in the affairs of the universal church. It is not a religious order. It’s like a diocese without boundaries. Religious orders have jurisdiction where ever they have a house. Those that are of solemn vows have a special place in the infrastructure of the Church.

The priests of the new prelature will be members of the Society of St. Pius X, which is a society of apostolic life. Its apostolate will be defined by its constitution. The work and structure of the prelature will be defined by another set of statutes. In essence, the society of priests will be part of larger organism. Right now, they are the organism. If they are given a prelature, they are being given a borderless diocese to administer, to free reign all over the Church, because they are not in solemn vows.

Very few people are allowed to make solemn vows:

Benedictines
Cistercians
Carthusians
Augustinians
Carmelites
Dominicans
Franciscans
Jesuits

Only the men and cloistered nuns make solemn vows. Sisters do not. These are the only orders that have the kind of influence of which you speak and which you hope the SSPX can exert. The SSPX won’t have it, because it’s mission and situation will be different from these orders.

These orders have not exerted this kind of influence, to ask for an “authoritative” translation or interpretation, because the Dominicans already said that none is necessary. The Dominican friars have produced very good work on these documents. i would strongly suggest reading the talks and writings of Father Brian Mullady, OP and Father Vincent Serpa, OP. Theology of the Church by Fr. Brian answers these questions very well. Fr. Vincent also has a very good explanation on the EWTN site.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[Moore11]

Parents cannot put a child under obedience in an area where they have no authority. That would be the kind of thing that I can do to my brothers. But I have the authority to do so. They vowed to obey the superior until death. As long as the superior does not command sin, he can command anything that the constitutions allow or that the constitutions do not mention.

In the case of the parent, he can’t put the child under obedience, because the child has not made a vow of obedience. He cannot command that the child not make use of a right, because none of us can command that others not make use of their rights.

Br. JR, FFV

Brother, you are just wrong here. You are right that there is no “VOW” but there is an ENTIRE COMMANDMENT. I look forward to your reply on the other thread reguarding.
vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a4.htm

up to and including

2216 Filial respect is shown by true docility and obedience. "My son, keep your father’s commandment, and forsake not your mother’s teaching. . . . When you walk, they will lead you; when you lie down, they will watch over you; and when you awake, they will talk with you."20 "A wise son hears his father’s instruction, but a scoffer does not listen to rebuke."21

 

[Melchior_1]

Brother, you are just wrong here. You are right that there is no “VOW” but there is an ENTIRE COMMANDMENT. I look forward to your reply on the other thread reguarding.
vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a4.htm

up to and including

I have it on good authority that “YOU ARE WRONG!” is a highly effective way of having people change their minds and agree with you.

(Actually, I think it works the same as sarcasm. Oops).

The quote you provide regarding obedience could also be applied to the Mother Church, and our Holy Father. If the Mother Church says something is lawful, then it is lawful.

Further, obedience to parents begins to take on a different dynamic once kids move out of the house. You can’t forbid your son or daughter from marrying someone when they move out, you can’t even forbid them from what hairstyle they decide. You can only pray and offer guidance and suggestions. What are you going to do, try to discipline your 26 year old son because he’s growing a mullet?

In this sense, the Church views the age of seven as the Age of Reason, just like how civil law has an Age of Majority. Once they hit the age of seven, they effectively “move out of your house” as it pertains to Canon Law.

 

[JReducation]

Brother, you are just wrong here. You are right that there is no “VOW” but there is an ENTIRE COMMANDMENT. I look forward to your reply on the other thread reguarding.
vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a4.htm

up to and including

I realize that you have already announced to the world that I’m a moron, but humor me for a moment. The document that you cited has a part that applies to parents as well. By the way, it has much more to say about children’s obligations toward parents than the one citations.

2214 The divine fatherhood is the source of human fatherhood; [God does not teach guide in conflict with his Church]

The duties of parents

2221 "The role of parents in education is of such importance that it is almost impossible to provide an adequate substitute."29 The right and the duty of parents to educate their children are primordial and inalienable.30

2222 Parents must regard their children as children of God and respect them as human persons. Showing themselves obedient to the will of the Father in heaven, they educate their children to fulfill God’s law.

2228 Parents’ respect and affection are expressed by the care and attention they devote to bringing up their young children and providing for their physical and spiritual needs. As the children grow up, the same respect and devotion lead parents to educate them in the right use of their reason and freedom.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[Dee_S]

Every subject is bound to obey his superior according to the terms in the constitution of the institute, according to the terms in Canon Law, which are few, and according to the mind of the founder, if he left a rule of life behind. I give this point to Bishop Fellay.

Here is where things get very muddy. ** Both men are suspended**. Neither have a right to exercise their ministry.
**The problem is that it’s calling for fidelity to the SSPX, not to the Church. **
Br. JR, FFV

That is a very interesting remark Br JR:tiphat: The current attitude of Bishop Williamson towards Bishop Fellay and the majority of Superiors who voted against him being included in their recent General Chapter to decide on being regularized by the Church is borne out by his continued ‘rebellion and disobedience’.

The following extracts from The SSPX, Jews & Authority (October 21,2011) raises questions that are relevant - perhaps well into the future even if reconciliation with Rome is achieved.
“Williamson now apparently holds no jurisdiction over souls in the SSPX at all. So it is really not fair for Jewish leaders to attempt to deny doctrinal reconciliation between the Church and the SSPX based on Richard Williamson’s remarks.”

"…there is a point of doctrinal interest here. The SSPX wisely holds that its bishops and priests should preach and speak publicly about faith and morals, keeping their private opinions on other matters to themselves, and Bishop Fellay has invoked this prudential point against Bishop Williamson.

But Bishop Williamson actually appears to hold the collective guilt of the Jewish people for Deicide as a matter of doctrine, in open contradiction to Catholic teaching…a cause of internal doctrinal concern…it is exactly questions of this kind—where some or even many in the SSPX actually hold positions contrary to the Catholic Faith"

“Worse still, …SSPX-related blogs …you will find a strong sentiment that the fault is not with Williamson but with Fellay; that it is only Fellay’s desire for reunion with Rome which has caused him to turn against the prophetic voice of Williamson;”

We’re not sure if they are coming back. The gossip from the general chapter seems to indicate that they are not. The interview with Archbishop DiNoia, who is the expert on traditionalists is very clear that the points on Vatican II that the SSPX wants are not up for negotiation and that these are the pope’s orders, not his own.Br. JR, FFV

"…the common tendency of Protestants to simply separate themselves from whatever church they find themselves disagreeing with and start another one which will now represent true Christianity… is equally applicable to those… who also claim to preserve the true Faith against Rome. On both sides, it is always the “necessity” defense that is invoked, and on the basis of private judgement.

“Preaching and defence of the Faith are inserted in concrete circumstances which may well call for superiors to intervene.” In reality, a necessity defense is certainly possible against the leaders of the Society of Saint Pius X. But no matter how much the practice of the Catholic Faith may suffer in various places around the world, it is theoretically impossible to invoke the necessity defense in doctrinal matters against the actual Magisterium of the Church of Rome. The SSPX is at a crossroads; it must beware of being hoist with its own petard."
catholicculture.org/commentary/otc.cfm?id=880

It’s OK for them to accept an illegal ordination that created them bishops in the name of a greater good, but now one of them cannot do his own thing, as they did in the past, in the name of some greater good. Another problem.Br. JR, FFV

Fr Z’s (Feb 2011) raises some hair-raising food for thought!:whackadoo:

“The SSPX bishops are out their doing there own thing, and in that sense they are independent.”

“They were consecrated – most say “ordained” today – with the Catholic rite for bishops, by a validly consecrated Catholic bishop. They incurred an excommunication when they were consecrated, but they were validly consecrated as Catholic bishops. They are Catholic bishops who ar not in union with the See of Peter in a manifest way, however. They are oddities in that they do not have sees, dioceses, even titular, much less residential. In that sense they are independent.”

“The SSPX bishops are, perhaps you can argue, more post-Vatican II bishops than they are pre-Vatican II bishops. They are acting in a way that would have been* unthinkable* before the Council.”

“The SSPX bishops are working not as priests with jurisdiction given though a canonical mandate from the Holy Father. They are acting as bishops in their own right, standing apart, doing bishop things without a mission entrusted to them. They are, moreover, anomalous in the sense that they don’t at the moment have dioceses, even titular.”

“This is very radical indeed. The Church hasn’t seen this before. Bishops – free standing – without dioceses – but who are still Catholic bishops? It’s all very avant-garde.”

“It doesn’t make theological or canonical sense, in any* traditional* way of thinking about bishops and how they fit into Christ’s plan for the Church. This requires a radical new theological vision. A new ecclesiological perspective. Something more progressive than what the Council Fathers foresaw.”

“Are the SSPX in fact a fruit of the teaching of the Second Vatican Council about bishops - not in the sense of being against the Council, but actually being more radical than the Council?”

“Are they changing our theology about bishops? Pushing ecclesiology onto a whole new playing field? Taking notions about bishops farther than the Council Fathers even wanted to go?”

“The SSPX bishops may in a way be rather like Fr. Kung. Fr. Kung thought the Council was not nearly radical enough in changing the out-dated structures and hierarchy and the Church’s ossified theology”:frighten:.
wdtprs.com/blog/2011/02/a-clarification-about-my-statements-concerning-sspx-bishops/

 

[TrueLight]

" A parent cannot prohibit what the Church allows, even if you’re speaking about a minor. If that minor is a baptized Catholic, he has rights under the law. One of those rights is to take advantage of what the Church allows. To prohibit one’s child from receiving in the hand is as wrong as trying to prohibit anyone else. One is placing oneself as an equal to the hierarchy. " Br JR

It is true, believe it or not. No parent has the right to interfere or influence a child in the spiritual domain (I can’t think of a better word right now), for the reason that even though they are a child under the law… under the Law of God once a person has achieved the age of reason they are considered spiritually and morally as an individual, whose conscience and religious obligation cannot be dictated to.

Take an obvious example - the Sacrament of Reconciliation - where no parent has any rights at all! Neither do they have the right to say when the child should or should not receive Communion. Neither can they say how they should receive, be it in the hand, on the tongue or taking the Precious Blood.

Yes, they must obey their parents in all that is not sin, but are not bound to adopt their spiritual preferences .:getholy:

Does that mean after 7 a child can choose not to go to Mass?

 

[Melchior_1]

Does that mean after 7 a child can choose not to go to Mass?

No, because Mass is an obligation. Church Law says that Catholics must go to Mass on Sunday. How one receives, depending on location, is enshrined in Law with a couple of different options. Whatever options are listed as valid are available.

Technically, the Law doesn’t even force people to receive the Eucharist every Sunday (such as if you’re under mortal sin). So in that sense, a seven year old could abstain from receiving the Eucharist and the parent can’t force them, but the parent can “force” the child to go to Mass as the Law of the Church says it’s a day of obligation.

If Holy **Mother **Church says get yeeself to Mass, get yeeself to Mass.

EDIT: TL, you deleted your post!

 

[Dee_S]

All of the parenting posts are now here

Hi, sorry I will not reply here as the discussion about the authority of the parent vs that of the Church now has it’s own thread, so click on the link above to join in

 

[Justin_Swanton]

I wouldn’t place so much hope on the SSPX to accomplish what more than one million Franciscans, Salesians, Augustinians, Dominicans, Opus Dei, Jesuits and diocesan clergy have not be able to get from the Holy See.

Actually I wasn’t thinking of a juridical intervention by the SSPX with the Holy See. I appreciate that should the Society become a Prelature then any formal petitions by them would carry less weight with Rome than, say, something from the Dominicans.

By ‘impetus’ I had something more like osmosis in mind. One needs to point out here that things don’t work in the Church at large in quite the same way they do in a religious order. For example, suppose a brother had a problem with the way Divine Office was celebrated in his monastery (a purely arbitrary example), what could he do? He could approach his superior with his problem. If the superior chose to do nothing about it he could contact the relevant Roman Congregation. At the limit he could quit his order. One thing he could ***not ***do is post notes on the monastery noticeboard saying that the way Office is celebrated is a disgrace and something must be done about it. His vow of obedience obliges him to go through the regular channels; he cannot start blowing the whistle in his own order.

Outside a religious order things work differently. A layman is free to found a magazine or ezine that publicizes and examines contemporary issues in the Church, without needing permission from his bishop. So long as he doesn’t go against Church teaching and doesn’t calumniate members of the hierarchy (or otherwise sin against justice or charity) he will not fall under Church censure; within these parameters he is free to write what he pleases. The layman of course is also free to post a petition to Rome asking for official clarifications of Dignitatis Humanae, with about as much hope of success as an elephant has of paragliding.

What a layman can do the SSPX can also do.

The point is that issues which may not have been properly examined before are now given a public airing, which may lead to a better or at least more widespread discussion of the issues raised. That may eventually lead to Rome doing something if she perceives there is a sufficient need.

Having said all that, there is a good deal the SSPX will learn itself from the process. Communication is two-way traffic. :nunchuk::knight2:

 

[JReducation]

Actually I wasn’t thinking of a juridical intervention by the SSPX with the Holy See. I appreciate that should the Society become a Prelature then any formal petitions by them would carry less weight with Rome than, say, something from the Dominicans.

By ‘impetus’ I had something more like osmosis in mind. One needs to point out here that things don’t work in the Church at large in quite the same way they do in a religious order. For example, suppose a brother had a problem with the way Divine Office was celebrated in his monastery (a purely arbitrary example), what could he do? He could approach his superior with his problem. If the superior chose to do nothing about it he could contact the relevant Roman Congregation. At the limit he could quit his order. One thing he could ***not ***do is post notes on the monastery noticeboard saying that the way Office is celebrated is a disgrace and something must be done about it. His vow of obedience obliges him to go through the regular channels; he cannot start blowing the whistle in his own order.

Outside a religious order things work differently. A layman is free to found a magazine or ezine that publicizes and examines contemporary issues in the Church, without needing permission from his bishop. So long as he doesn’t go against Church teaching and doesn’t calumniate members of the hierarchy (or otherwise sin against justice or charity) he will not fall under Church censure; within these parameters he is free to write what he pleases. The layman of course is also free to post a petition to Rome asking for official clarifications of Dignitatis Humanae, with about as much hope of success as an elephant has of paragliding.

What a layman can do the SSPX can also do.

The point is that issues which may not have been properly examined before are now given a public airing, which may lead to a better or at least more widespread discussion of the issues raised. That may eventually lead to Rome doing something if she perceives there is a sufficient need.

Having said all that, there is a good deal the SSPX will learn itself from the process. Communication is two-way traffic. :nunchuk::knight2:

This is well stated. I would add one clarification. My suspicion is that if the SSPX comes back home, the priests will come in as Society of Apostolic Life. If they do so, then they can’t do the same as laymen. The don’t have the same freedoms under the law.

Societies of Apostolic Life are governed by the same laws that govern religious orders and religious congregations. The difference is that a society of apostolic life need not be religious. It can be secular. Maryknoll, comes to mind and FSSP. They are secular, but they are governed by the same laws. The don’t have the same privileges nor any of the spiritual benefits of consecrated life, but all of the rules and regulations except for the vows. If they don’t make vows, they must have some other form of commitment to the society, which binds them to the superior and to the constitutions of the society. That means that they can’t go around expressing their opinion about everything in Church in an unchecked manner.

It was to this that Bishop Fellay was referring when he says that Bishop Williamson is expressing opinions and has ideas that he has no permission to express. Only diocesan priests have that kind of freedom. They can say anything they want and they are virtually untouchable, look at Fr. Kung. The requirement for them is that they obey the bishop. That only applies to administrative matters. The bishop cannot regulate what they say or to whom they say it. He cannot regulate what they think. A superior, be he that of a society, an order or a congregation has that kind of power.

In this regard, Bishop Fellay acted as any superior would, which is to say that you cannot think that way. The way that you think is harmful to my plans for the community. If the person perseveres, the next step is for the superior to put him on timeout of some kind. Then he has to put it in writing. Then he asks the Vatican to get this person out. In Bishop Wiliamson’s case it would mean that he would be stripped of the clerical state. His faculties are suspended in definitely. He would only be allowed to set foot in a Catholic Church to hear mass and go to confession. He cannot volunteer for anything in any parish, not even teach CCD. He cannot ask for forgiveness and return. The Church denies the return. She’ll grant the absolution, but not the return. If he attempts to celebrate the sacraments, he is excommunicated and can be declared a schismatic.

Here is where I need a Canon Lawyer. I don’t know if a superior who has no canonical status can make such a request to the Vatican. As you have pointed out so well, the SSPX bishops have redefined the episcopacy in a way that no council could have imagined. But they have also redefined the role and rights of superiors general. Under normal circumstances, the election of a superior general must be ratified by Church authority. Bishop Fellay’s election was not ratified, since they were excommunicated when he was elected. Another question to a canon lawyer is whether Bishop Fellay is a legal superior general? I don’t know the answer. All of this is new.

Either the SSPX is going to be restructured in some way or canon law will have to be altered to accommodate them as happened with the Jesuits and later with Opus Dei.

Interesting stuff.

Fraternally,

Br.JR, FFV

 

[Justin_Swanton]

If they don’t make vows, they must have some other form of commitment to the society, which binds them to the superior and to the constitutions of the society. That means that they can’t go around expressing their opinion about everything in Church in an unchecked manner.

It was to this that Bishop Fellay was referring when he says that Bishop Williamson is expressing opinions and has ideas that he has no permission to express. Only diocesan priests have that kind of freedom. They can say anything they want and they are virtually untouchable, look at Fr. Kung. The requirement for them is that they obey the bishop. That only applies to administrative matters. The bishop cannot regulate what they say or to whom they say it. He cannot regulate what they think. A superior, be he that of a society, an order or a congregation has that kind of power.

Interesting. That does put Bishop Williamson in context. Playing someone’s advocate , I would counter that the SSPX invokes the principle extraordinary jurisdiction for the management of its own affairs, as it does for the administering of the sacraments, i.e. that there is an extraordinary need for its ministrations, to which the Church supplies jurisdiction, and hence, for the sake of order, the Church supplies the same kind of jurisdiction to its internal governance.

Bishop Williamson could counter that the dangers Bishop Fellay is about to subject the SSPX to in a deal with Rome nullifies his recourse to supplied jurisdiction by the Church, and hence he loses the authority to act in the capacity of Superior General and hence Bishop Williamson no longer has the obligation of submitting to him.

To that Bishop Fellay could counter that at present the SSPX is still doing its job and so the supplied jurisdiction principle holds and he must be obeyed as Superior General. And so it could go on.

The point you make that priests of the SSPX in a regularised situation would need to submit to the norms of their superiors in what they write or say in public is, of course, quite true.

Here is where I need a Canon Lawyer. I don’t know if a superior who has no canonical status can make such a request to the Vatican. As you have pointed out so well, the SSPX bishops have redefined the episcopacy in a way that no council could have imagined.

Not me! That was Dee S quote Fr Z’s Blog.

But they have also redefined the role and rights of superiors general. Under normal circumstances, the election of a superior general must be ratified by Church authority. Bishop Fellay’s election was not ratified, since they were excommunicated when he was elected. Another question to a canon lawyer is whether Bishop Fellay is a legal superior general? I don’t know the answer. All of this is new.

Either the SSPX is going to be restructured in some way or canon law will have to be altered to accommodate them as happened with the Jesuits and later with Opus Dei.

Personally I don’t think they intend to redefine anything. At present the SSPX acts, or attempts to act, like a normal priestly Fraternity because that is what it was originally set up to be. This is creating problems as the supplied jurisdiction argument does not really cover every aspect of its life (who, for example, decides when supplied jurisdiction can be invoked and when it can’t?). Once its status in the Church is regularised then everything will slip back into its original place.

 

[Dee_S]

On a musical note,…:harp: In true theatrical style Bishop Williamson sings the** wrong** tune of the background music being played during the CNS exclusive interview with Bishop Fellay. He mockingly claims it to be the music of Albinoni (an Italian Baroque composer who produced an enormous amount of operas). *“See, that, that - the tone is set with Albinoni and the cows.” *he exclaims.

He also ridicules the cow shown standing in the beautiful pastures surrounding the SSPX headquarters in Menzingen by making cow noises “moo” “moo”, which appear to greatly amuse him, as can be viewed on the following video clip:

Bishop Williamson: “Fellay is starting to weasel around.”
youtube.com/watch?v=ZT03TZeqkiY&feature=channel&list=UL

The** actual** music used is the Canon in D by Pachelbel (a German Baroque composer of a large amount of very popular sacred and secular music) and the cow looks harmless enough as can be seen on this video clip:

Traditional leader talks about his movement
youtube.com/watch?v=DdnJigNzTuY

A ‘Freudian Slip’ of sorts I’m sure. Perhaps he is a bit ‘off’ Germans these day:takethat:

 

[RogerDeCourcy]

At a time of such delicate negotiations the decent thing is not to criticise the captain before his men. No canon law needed.

I can see Bp Williamson splitting off from the SSPX to form his own small group. After that, scandal and obscurity. It’s happened before. And given his behaviour, it would be good thing for the SSPX and the wider church.

 

[Dee_S]

At a time of such delicate negotiations the decent thing is not to criticise the captain before his men. No canon law needed.

I can see Bp Williamson splitting off from the SSPX to form his own small group. After that, scandal and obscurity. It’s happened before. And given his behaviour, it would be good thing for the SSPX and the wider church.

:thumbsup:nicely put.
Bishop Williamson reminds me of the main character in Justin Swanton’s historical novel, Centurion’s Daughter that I recently read.imsorry:sorry Justin, but I just have to say it) In the story, Taranculus is a former Centurion, who is fixated with the glories of the pagan (traditional?) past, and who is determined to ‘save’ the last province of Rome from falling to the Franks. Convinced that an already outmoded ideal must be restored, even though the Governor and the majority of the Romans of the time had moved-on and had forsaken the pagan way for Christianity.

(Not that I’m saying here that BW is a pagan, not at all, just the parallel between his fighting to hold on to an ideal which belongs in the past or better still, really has no place in the Catholic world.:nope

This is best expressed in the words of Pope Benedict XVI which gives much food for thought in this ‘time of delicate negotiations’.

“The Church’s magisterial authority cannot be frozen back in time in 1962 – the Fraternity (SSPX) should get this clear. But those who put themselves across as great defenders of the Council should recall that the Second Vatican Council encapsulates the Church’s entire doctrinal history. Whoever wants to obey the Council must accept the faith professed over the centuries and cannot sever the roots which give the tree life."

***LETTER OF HIS HOLINESS POPE BENEDICT XVI

TO THE BISHOPS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
CONCERNING THE REMISSION OF THE EXCOMMUNICATION
OF THE FOUR BISHOPS CONSECRATED BY ARCHBISHOP LEFEBVRE***
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/letters/2009/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20090310_remissione-scomunica_en.html

The fall of the Roman Empire, in this little-known battle made way for the King of the Franks, Clovis who went on to unite all of Gaul, get baptized thanks to his wife St Clothilde and become the first king of Western Christendom. From a small acorn…big things grow.:bible1:

 

[RogerDeCourcy]

*{Well, I wouldn’t go that far. The SSPX have a case. The changes since the 1940’s, look insane compared to what was normal, previously. Then we find out about things like Cranmer’s Mass. All I can remember of the 70’s was a chasing after The Youth and a desire to be trendy and the Charismatic ‘Renewal’, which led to some odd behaviour.

Now I find a lot of this ‘new’, ‘progressive’ stuff is simply copied from protestants. It echoes a crriticism of the Second vatican Council I read that the charge towards modernity was led by bishops operating in primiarily protestant countries. It’s very annoying.}*

My point is that what Bp Williamson seems to be doing is just wrong from a political point of view. He’s underming his general to his troops at the crucial juncture of their campaign. He’s just one man in a small Society which is being tested severely. He should be quiet.

 

[Denise1957]

Interesting. That does put Bishop Williamson in context. Playing someone’s advocate , I would counter that the SSPX invokes the principle extraordinary jurisdiction for the management of its own affairs, as it does for the administering of the sacraments, i.e. that there is an extraordinary need for its ministrations, to which the Church supplies jurisdiction, and hence, for the sake of order, the Church supplies the same kind of jurisdiction to its internal governance.

Bishop Williamson could counter that the dangers Bishop Fellay is about to subject the SSPX to in a deal with Rome nullifies his recourse to supplied jurisdiction by the Church, and hence he loses the authority to act in the capacity of Superior General and hence Bishop Williamson no longer has the obligation of submitting to him.

To that Bishop Fellay could counter that at present the SSPX is still doing its job and so the supplied jurisdiction principle holds and he must be obeyed as Superior General. And so it could go on.

The point you make that priests of the SSPX in a regularised situation would need to submit to the norms of their superiors in what they write or say in public is, of course, quite true.

Not me! That was Dee S quote Fr Z’s Blog.

Personally I don’t think they intend to redefine anything. At present the SSPX acts, or attempts to act, like a normal priestly Fraternity because that is what it was originally set up to be. This is creating problems as the supplied jurisdiction argument does not really cover every aspect of its life (who, for example, decides when supplied jurisdiction can be invoked and when it can’t?). Once its status in the Church is regularised then everything will slip back into its original place.

Regarding the SSPX invoking the principle of extraordinary jurisdiction for the management of their own affairs, as is mentioned above, there’s a question I have about this, and I don’t know if anyone here can answer it. Here it is: who is it, exactly, who is given the authority by the Church to decide that there really is a neccesity for supplied extraordinay jurisdiction? Traditionally, has a fraternity of priests been allowed, by the Church, to declare a need for this, all of their own, without the approval of the Church or heirarchy? I don’t want to take the discussion off-track, but this is something I’ve been wondering about for awhile.

 

[Justin_Swanton]

:thumbsup:nicely put.
Bishop Williamson reminds me of the main character in Justin Swanton’s historical novel, Centurion’s Daughter that I recently read.imsorry:sorry Justin, but I just have to say it)

Oh, I don’t mind a bit of free publicity .

In the story, Taranculus is a former Centurion, who is fixated with the glories of the pagan (traditional?) past, and who is determined to ‘save’ the last province of Rome from falling to the Franks. Convinced that an already outmoded ideal must be restored, even though the Governor and the majority of the Romans of the time had moved-on and had forsaken the pagan way for Christianity.

(Not that I’m saying here that BW is a pagan, not at all, just the parallel between his fighting to hold on to an ideal which belongs in the past or better still, really has no place in the Catholic world.:nope

Tarunculus has a better modern lookalike in Eugene Terreblanche, leader of the Afrikaner AWB resistance movement that pushed for an independent Volkstaat in the eastern Transvaal in the 1990’s. I did not think of Bishop Williamson when creating Tarunculus - not sure if there is that much resemblance between them. But let the reader judge!

 

[Justin_Swanton]

Regarding the SSPX invoking the principle of extraordinary jurisdiction for the management of their own affairs, as is mentioned above, there’s a question I have about this, and I don’t know if anyone here can answer it. Here it is: who is it, exactly, who is given the authority by the Church to decide that there really is a neccesity for supplied extraordinay jurisdiction? Traditionally, has a fraternity of priests been allowed, by the Church, to declare a need for this, all of their own, without the approval of the Church or heirarchy? I don’t want to take the discussion off-track, but this is something I’ve been wondering about for awhile.

Extraordinary or supplied jurisdiction is an accepted canonical concept and exists for situations where a priest or bishop who does not have normal jurisdiction to confer a sacrament may, in particular cases of grave need, administer the sacrament with the necessary jurisdiction supplied by the Church, as an application of the canonical principle Prima lex salus animarum - The first law is the salvation of souls.

A particular case of this would be a laicised priest who comes across a Catholic critically injured in a car accident. He may and must hear the Catholic’s confession if there is danger of death.

Another case would be in the former Soviet Union, where bishops secretly consecrated priests as other bishops without permission from the Holy See, that permission being impossible to obtain as there was no means of communicating with Rome.

In these cases there is no need for someone with authority to decide whether the priest or bishop in question has supplied jurisdiction: the situation itself makes clear that he does.

The SSPX argues that the situation in parishes after the Council was such that many Catholics were seriously troubled in their Faith and looked elsewhere for their spiritual needs to be met. Traditionalist priests, some of them in the Society, met those needs in a way that the parishes did not, and hence were able to invoke the principle of supplied jurisdiction to meet a clear and grave need.

Opponents of the SSPX argue that the situation was not nearly that bad, and that the Catholics that went to the SSPX and other Traditionalist priests did so for insufficient reasons: sentimental attachment to the past, aversion for pulpit politics, etc. With a little more goodwill they would have realised that the essential was still intact.

My opinion? I’m listening…

 

[pnewton]

Extraordinary or supplied jurisdiction is an accepted canonical concept and exists for situations where a priest or bishop who does not have normal jurisdiction to confer a sacrament may, in particular cases of grave need, administer the sacrament with the necessary jurisdiction supplied by the Church, as an application of the canonical principle Prima lex salus animarum - The first law is the salvation of souls.

Supplied jurisdiction was never meant to be a long term condition. I have heard canon lawyers both ways, with the only ones that buy this argument being the SSPX proponents, in other words, a small minority. From a logical standpoint, if a confessor with proper jurisdiction exists, how does one argue that an emergency exists? A Catholic would not have to like a priests, liturgy, politics, theology, etc. to receive absolution, so where is the danger? Unless one goes so far as to deny the validity of the Catholic sacrament, which would truly be a schismatic mindset, then there is clearly no emergency.

What I do not understand is why any Catholic would role the dice and gamble on validity of SSPX confession, against the odds, when their soul, their salvation is at sake. It is far better to accept the Church’s postition that these priest have no canonical ministry within the Church.

 

[GloriaMaria]

Hello. I have never posted before on this forum, actually this thread has been the first one I have read here. On Trad forums, this site is spoken of less than favorably and so I have kept away.

I am overwhelmed by the charity with which the good Franciscan Brother is speaking about the entire situation regarding the SSPX. I have learned so very much, and many of my previously held assertions are certainly being disturbed. But obviously, this is the work of the Holy Ghost.

Thank you, Brother, for taking the time to educate on an internet forum. I feel like my eyes have been opened, and I have 9 people to direct spiritually in my home.

Please continue to post as you have time. God Bless You.

G.Maria