SSPX superior denies knowledge of a new Motu Propio

[JReducation]

Hi Like, it’s very simple. Bishop Williamson is brilliant in his sermons specifically focused on the Faith itself. But …

Yes, when Bishop Williamson turns his thoughts to the Holy See and VII, he does throw prudence out the door. He doesn’t care what anyone thinks. He is passionate. I’ve heard numerous SSPX laity express concerns over his style of ranting. (actually read their thoughts on forums)

Why does the SSPX tolerate it ? Money and unity. That simple. If the SSPX were to say “enough” and break ties with him, it would cause division within the Society. Benefactors galore would put their wallets back in their pockets. Many would not, but enough would.

I don’t know about the financial issue, since I do not know the financial arrangements of the SSPX, nor do I want to know. That’s confidential information.

However, I do believe that unity is certainly a real issue. The last thing that the SSPX needs is a schism, just as they are working to get the suspensions lifted and get canonical status.

I have never read the constitution of the Society. It would be interesting to see how they are structured. I realize that Bishop F. is the Superior General. Normally, you don’t have two persons of equal rank in a society. For example, in religius orders there are often men who are ordained bishops. These men are bound to their major superior in matters that pertain to the rule and consitution that governs their life, but not in matters that related to ministry. On the flip-side, the superior must provide for them if they become ill, disabled or simply retire.

But these bishops are free to exercise their episcopal ministry without the interference of the major superior. It is only when they retire that they return to their religious community and work in the ministry of the community under the supervision and authority of the superior. But in Bishop W’s case, he is working in a ministry that is proper to the SSPX. Bishops don’t usually work for their religious community.

It is very confusing for us who are religious to understand the chain of command here. How much freedom does Bishop W have or how much authority does Bishop F have over Bishop W? I know that they a secular priests; therefore, they do not make a vow of obedience as do religoius. But they surely make some kind of promise of obedience, like other secular priests. This may be sorted out if they become a prelature like the Opus Dei.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[At_Trent]

Respectfully and amicably:

If you can substantiate these last couple of sentences, please provide such. If this is speculation on your part, please label it so.

If it is speculation, I respectfully submit that it is uncalled for, and is unjust. If you can provide substantiation, I would be interested to see it.

maurin, yes, it is my opinion. I base it on the reaction of many when the Transalpine Redemptorists reconciled with Rome. imo, that reaction from the Society and some of the TR benefactors was uncalled for and unjust. The TR wasn’t under Econe’s jurisdiction. They didn’t need to get permission from the Society to reconcile. And, Fr Michael Mary’s decision caused division within the TR itself, did it not ?

I can see the same thing happening with the Society and it’s benefactors if an agreement is reached. While I don’t think they should reconcile at all costs, I feel that they should consider the fruits that will be be born out of an agreement. Reconciliation under a sympathetic Pope can be a good thing, and can done without “giving up the fight”.

Look at The New Liturgical Movement and other things going on today. It’s ok to be traditional and orthodox again. I pray the SSPX reconcile, roll up their sleeves and embrace those who will come running to their chapels.

But now we must ask ourselves if a glimmer of light has not begun to show through the clouds of confusion that for many years have darkened the sky of eternal Rome. For we now have a Pontiff, a successor of Peter, ready to allow us to adhere fully to this timeless tradition of the Church and its complete expression in Catholic life without apparent compromise. He seems ready to “let us do the experiment of Tradition” as Archbishop Lefebvre asked so many years ago…
papastronsay.blogspot.com/2008/04/immaculate-heart-of-marypray-for-us.html

Anthony Mazzone said it better than I ever could

In times of national crisis, the Russian intelligentsia will formally address this question to their countrymen.[1] Now I believe the time has come for traditionalist Catholics to do the same. With the issuance of Summorum Pontificum (SP) the strategic situation has shifted dramatically. That is, Pope Benedict XVI has done what we have long been asking the Supreme Pontiff to do: get us a first down then hand us the ball. I fully realize that this initial article will not satisfy everyone. The people who read The Remnant are not likely to be without strong opinions or shy in their expression, and Traditionalists in general are tough—pardon the expression—nuts. How else could they have survived forty years in the modernist desert? Despite scarcity and massive opposition, they somehow managed to retain access to the traditional sacraments and to catechize their children within a hostile secular and ecclesiastical culture. Such people are not now about to take marching orders from anyone.

I offer none. I am merely speaking from the perspective of a traditional Catholic who has seen too much foolishness and lamented too many wasted opportunities. At the same time I’m proud that the irregular army for tradition, once relegated to rear guard action in diocesan backwaters, is now recognized as a fighting force of some élan and power.

 

[At_Trent]

Respectfully and amicably:

If you can substantiate these last couple of sentences, please provide such. If this is speculation on your part, please label it so.

If it is speculation, I respectfully submit that it is uncalled for, and is unjust. If you can provide substantiation, I would be interested to see it.

maurin, yes, it is my opinion. I base it on the reaction of many when the Transalpine Redemptorists reconciled with Rome. imo, that reaction from the Society and some of the TR benefactors was uncalled for and unjust. The TR wasn’t under Econe’s jurisdiction. They didn’t need to get permission from the Society to reconcile. And, Fr Michael Mary’s decision caused division within the TR itself, did it not ?

I can see the same thing happening with the Society and it’s benefactors if an agreement is reached. While I don’t think they should reconcile at all costs, I feel that they should consider the fruits that will be be born out of an agreement. Reconciliation under a sympathetic Pope can be a good thing, and can done without “giving up the fight”.

Look at The New Liturgical Movement and other things going on today. It’s ok to be traditional and orthodox again. I pray the SSPX reconcile, roll up their sleeves and embrace those who will come running to their chapels.

But now we must ask ourselves if a glimmer of light has not begun to show through the clouds of confusion that for many years have darkened the sky of eternal Rome. For we now have a Pontiff, a successor of Peter, ready to allow us to adhere fully to this timeless tradition of the Church and its complete expression in Catholic life without apparent compromise. He seems ready to “let us do the experiment of Tradition” as Archbishop Lefebvre asked so many years ago…

papastronsay.blogspot.com/2008/04/immaculate-heart-of-marypray-for-us.html

Anthony Mazzone said it better than I ever could

…With the issuance of Summorum Pontificum (SP) the strategic situation has shifted dramatically. That is, Pope Benedict XVI has done what we have long been asking the Supreme Pontiff to do: get us a first down then hand us the ball.

I fully realize that this initial article will not satisfy everyone. The people who read The Remnant are not likely to be without strong opinions or shy in their expression, and Traditionalists in general are tough—pardon the expression—nuts. How else could they have survived forty years in the modernist desert? Despite scarcity and massive opposition, they somehow managed to retain access to the traditional sacraments and to catechize their children within a hostile secular and ecclesiastical culture. Such people are not now about to take marching orders from anyone.

I offer none. I am merely speaking from the perspective of a traditional Catholic who has seen too much foolishness and lamented too many wasted opportunities. At the same time I’m proud that the irregular army for tradition, once relegated to rear guard action in diocesan backwaters, is now recognized as a fighting force of some élan and power…
remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/archive-2008-0430-mazzone-what_is_to_be_done.htm

 

[JReducation]

maurin, yes, it is my opinion. I base it on the reaction of many when the Transalpine Redemptorists reconciled with Rome. imo, that reaction from the Society and some of the TR benefactors was uncalled for and unjust. The TR wasn’t under Econe’s jurisdiction. They didn’t need to get permission from the Society to reconcile. And, Fr Michael Mary’s decision caused division within the TR itself, did it not ?

I can see the same thing happening with the Society and it’s benefactors if an agreement is reached. While I don’t think they should reconcile at all costs, I feel that they should consider the fruits that will be be born out of an agreement. Reconciliation under a sympathetic Pope can be a good thing, and can done without “giving up the fight”.

Look at The New Liturgical Movement and other things going on today. It’s ok to be traditional and orthodox again. I pray the SSPX reconcile, roll up their sleeves and embrace those who will come running to their chapels.

Anthony Mazzone said it better than I ever could

I like everything above, but I have to take exception with one sentence. The rest is fine.

Such people are not now about to take marching orders from anyone.

There is a danger in this kind of statement. People can read into this a right to refuse authority. We know that this is not part of Church tradition. At some point, all of us have to yield to the authority of the Vicar of Christ, even in ordinary matters. It is very risky to assume that because we are being faithful to tradition, God is pleased with defiance.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[At_Trent]

I don’t know about the financial issue, since I do not know the financial arrangements of the SSPX, nor do I want to know. That’s confidential information.

However, I do believe that unity is certainly a real issue. The last thing that the SSPX needs is a schism, just as they are working to get the suspensions lifted and get canonical status.

I have never read the constitution of the Society. It would be interesting to see how they are structured. I realize that Bishop F. is the Superior General. Normally, you don’t have two persons of equal rank in a society. For example, in religius orders there are often men who are ordained bishops. These men are bound to their major superior in matters that pertain to the rule and consitution that governs their life, but not in matters that related to ministry. On the flip-side, the superior must provide for them if they become ill, disabled or simply retire.

But these bishops are free to exercise their episcopal ministry without the interference of the major superior. It is only when they retire that they return to their religious community and work in the ministry of the community under the supervision and authority of the superior. But in Bishop W’s case, he is working in a ministry that is proper to the SSPX. Bishops don’t usually work for their religious community.

It is very confusing for us who are religious to understand the chain of command here. How much freedom does Bishop W have or how much authority does Bishop F have over Bishop W? I know that they a secular priests; therefore, they do not make a vow of obedience as do religoius. But they surely make some kind of promise of obedience, like other secular priests. This may be sorted out if they become a prelature like the Opus Dei.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Well, they make do I suppose. I don’t know how they are structured either.

Bishop Fellay did relieve Bishop Williamson of his duties during the recent fiasco though. I don’t know how it will turn out, but I’d not like to be in Bishop Fellay’s shoes. Going by conversations on the SSPX friendly forums, it’s going to be tough to please everyone in the SSPX camp.

Let’s pray he pulls it off with minimal uproar.

 

[maurin]

Faith is a higher virtue than obedience (cf St Paul, 'if anyone teach a different Gospel…) in cases where teaching differs from the perrenial Teachings of the Church the Faithful are obliged to voice objection.

I cannot fathom any situation which would cause His Excellency Fellay to compromise the principles of the Society. In fact he has said that the current status is preferred. As some walked away from Christ never to return in the sixth chapter of the Gospel bof Saint John, some have walked away from the Society: some towards compromise, some toward the void of sedevacantism.

His Excellency is guided by the perrenial magisterium of the Church, and in turn by the Holy Ghost, not by benefactors.

 

[floresco]

Bishop Fellay did relieve Bishop Williamson of his duties during the recent fiasco though. I don’t know how it will turn out, but I’d not like to be in Bishop Fellay’s shoes.

I agree that Bishop Williamson has preached (and written) some brilliant things on the subject of the Faith, but currently seems to be increasing the burdens of Bishop Fellay. I’m sure they both need our prayers. I had barely heard of Bishop Fellay until the lifting of the excommunications. Since then I have grown in respect and admiration for him.

 

[JReducation]

Faith is a higher virtue than obedience (cf St Paul, 'if anyone teach a different Gospel…) in cases where teaching differs from the perrenial Teachings of the Church the Faithful are obliged to voice objection.

I cannot fathom any situation which would cause His Excellency Fellay to compromise the principles of the Society. In fact he has said that the current status is preferred. As some walked away from Christ never to return in the sixth chapter of the Gospel bof Saint John, some have walked away from the Society: some towards compromise, some toward the void of sedevacantism.

His Excellency is guided by the perrenial magisterium of the Church, and in turn by the Holy Ghost, not by benefactors.

But when you have a pope who claims to be guided by the Holy Spirit and a bishop, you go with the pope, because the promise was made to him, not to individual bishops. Also, current popes are as much a part of the Magisterium as was Pope Pius X. We go back to square one. The authority of the Vicar of Christ trumps that of any bishop in matters of faith, morals and discipline. It is the Vicar of Christ who has the power and the promise to correctly interpret the teaching of the Magisterium, not individual bishops.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[maurin]

Faith is a higher virtue than obedience. When the teachings of the perrenial magisterium are contradicted by a present one, such as religious liberty for example, a Catholic is obligated to note the difference, and is under no obligation to submit.

 

[Dee_Dee_King]

i think the problem of the post vatican ii church boils down to a stubborn refusal to acknowledge or take seriously the concupiscence of the flesh and the darkened intellect of man. vatican ii was all happy talk and no talk of our sinfulness and the universal christian call of repentance: prayer, alms giving and fasting.

this is why religious liberty is silly as it’s interpreted as absolute, like the absolute rejection of the death penalty and the imposition of vernacular as absolute… etc.

the only reason we allow religious freedom is because it would create more evil to try and stop it at this point, not because it’s a good thing that people worship false gods or prophets.

The authority of the Vicar of Christ trumps that of any bishop in matters of faith, morals and discipline. It is the Vicar of Christ who has the power and the promise to correctly interpret the teaching of the Magisterium, not individual bishops.

his authority is limited. he’s not above sacred tradition and bishops in union with him share in his infallibility. for instance, paul iv had no right to demolish the liturgy like he did. now we suffer because of it. the western church has exaggerated the pope’s charism into nearly impeccability. the pope shouldn’t treat the liturgy handed down to him as his to muck around with it as he sees fit.

 

[JReducation]

Faith is a higher virtue than obedience. When the teachings of the perrenial magisterium are contradicted by a present one, such as religious liberty for example, a Catholic is obligated to note the difference, and is under no obligation to submit.

That only applies if there is a conflict. But when the pope says that there is no conflict, then we have the duty to assent to his decree. Even when there is a conflict, one has to determine what the cause of the conflict is. There are times when something that applied at one time no longer applies or no longer works.

You have to be very careful to say that the “Catholic . . . is under no obligation to submit”, because you and I do not have the authority to tell Catholics that they are not under the obligation to submit in matters where the Church wants them to submit. One can make that judgment call for oneself, because ultimately we answer to God for our choices. When it comes to making a statement on a public forum, we have a moral duty to steer people to submit to the current pope. None of us can unilaterally decide that it’s ok for us to tell others that they don’t have to listen. That’s wrong. That is a case where the principle of assumed authority comes into the picture. We can never presume authority in areas where we do not have it, dispensing people from assenting is one of those areas. Only the Church can grant dispensations.

Even the great Doctors had their opinions. But their opinions were not authoritative until the Church said they were. We know that not everything they said was adopted by the Church. In fact, much of what they said was never adopted by the Church. It does not mean that these great doctors are wrong. It just means that the popes and councils did not see any reason to make law what they said. Then there were other things that they said that the Church has included in her teachings and her laws. Some of these laws apply to some people and some apply to everyone.

I have often found areas and statements that I’m not so sure are right, but I never dare tell that to anyone else. That’s between God, my conscience and the person in authority, if I can have that dialogue with them. That’s not always possible. I always tell people, “do whatever the pope says. Ultimately, if he misleads you, you’re not culpable.” I’m pretty sure that no pope intentionally misleads anyone.

I believe that we have taken this whole thing about leading souls to hell a little too far. First of all, no one can make us do anything that we don’t want to do. Second, obeying the Church is not a sin, even when the hierarchy may be wrong. It is not our responsibility to make sure that they are right on everything. It is our responsibility to make sure that we comply with whatever is not a sin. But the points under discussion here are not sins.

For example, if these discussions end up where the leadership of the Society yields to the Sacred Congregation of the Faith, I would not want to say to the membership of the Society that they don’t have to go with them. That would be promoting division. This is very possible. I don’t know any of the key players in this dialogue, on a personal level. But I have seen the dialogue between the Sons of the Holy Redeemer and the Institute of Christ the King and the Fraternal Society of St. Peter. They all agreed to follow certain points about which they had reservations, Nonetheless, they yielded for the sake of unity. Unity is a precious thing that we cannot discard when we have a chance to achieve it.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[maurin]

Faith is a higher virtue than obedience. When the perrenial magisterium of the Church is flagrantly contradicted by a current magisterium, a Catholic is obligated to note the difference and is under no obligation to submit. When two thousand years of teaching says one thing, and 40 years of teaching contradicts it, it is the virtue of Faith which is under attack. It is the virtue of obedience to the perrenial magisterium of the Church which causes a Catholic to protest.

One paragraph, no waiting.

 

[floresco]

Faith is a higher virtue than obedience. When the perrenial magisterium of the Church is flagrantly contradicted by a current magisterium, a Catholic is obligated to note the difference and is under no obligation to submit. When two thousand years of teaching says one thing, and 40 years of teaching contradicts it, it is the virtue of Faith which is under attack. It is the virtue of obedience to the perrenial magisterium of the Church which causes a Catholic to protest.

It is the virtue of humility to wonder if one properly understands both the perennial and current magisteria and is correctly determining that a contradiction exists.

 

[maurin]

I believe, floresco, that if one reads the syllabus of errors one will read the current statement on religious liberty is specifically condemned.

You speak of humility. I speak of hubris.

 

[ProVobis]

But I have seen the dialogue between the Sons of the Holy Redeemer and the Institute of Christ the King and the Fraternal Society of St. Peter. They all agreed to follow certain points about which they had reservations, Nonetheless, they yielded for the sake of unity. Unity is a precious thing that we cannot discard when we have a chance to achieve it.

JR, yes they agreed with the full blessings of the Pope but the big difference, of course, is that the SSPX, unlike the FSSP and ICR, have their own bishops. So the SSPX priest is currently in the state of limbo, so to speak, as far as obedience goes. I’m not saying all the priests because, let’s be realistic, there are few who will never succumb to Rome but the majority of them are probably betting on some fast (within a year or two) reconciliation. If they break now, of course, they would be disobeying their own bishops and will no doubt be ostracized later, so that puts them in a tough spot during the negotiations. And meanwhile they still have their congregations to satisfy spiritually. Just trying to look at it from their POV.

 

[maurin]

JR, yes they agreed with the full blessings of the Pope but the big difference, of course, is that the SSPX, unlike the FSSP and ICR, have their own bishops. So the SSPX priest is currently in the state of limbo, so to speak, as far as obedience goes. I’m not saying all the priests because, let’s be realistic, there are few who will never succumb to Rome but the majority of them are probably betting on some fast (within a year or two) reconciliation. If they break now, of course, they would be disobeying their own bishops and will no doubt be ostracized later, so that puts them in a tough spot during the negotiations. And meanwhile they still have their congregations to satisfy spiritually. Just trying to look at it from their POV.

The kind of unity that JR referred to in the part you quoted is not, in my opinion, unity at all. It is forced. It is not entirely forthright or entirely honest. The Church did not compromise with Arius. Augustine didn’t compromise with the Manichees. The Church won’t, in the end, compromise with the French Revolution.

 

[JReducation]

JR, yes they agreed with the full blessings of the Pope but the big difference, of course, is that the SSPX, unlike the FSSP and ICR, have their own bishops. So the SSPX priest is currently in the state of limbo, so to speak, as far as obedience goes. I’m not saying all the priests because, let’s be realistic, there are few who will never succumb to Rome but the majority of them are probably betting on some fast (within a year or two) reconciliation. If they break now, of course, they would be disobeying their own bishops and will no doubt be ostracized later, so that puts them in a tough spot during the negotiations. And meanwhile they still have their congregations to satisfy spiritually. Just trying to look at it from their POV.

I don’t want to see these men hurt either. I want them to come home, to have faculties and to have the same canonical status in the Church that I have. This requires compromise. In this situation, the Holy See has the final voice. If the SSPX rejects the Holy Sees final offer, whatever that may be, they will remain in limbo. Pope Benedict has already stated that they have no canonical place in the Church. Therefore, they cannot have faculties and they are suspended. This raises questions about the validity of absolution and marriages that they celebrate.

I have heard their argument about this point. But let’s face it, the pope is the one who ultimately writes canon law. If he says that the canonical argument for faculties does not apply to them, his word is binding. John Paul II made it very clear that “ecclesia suplet” is decided by the pope and that in this particular case, the Church could not supply, because the conditions were not met.

If we, the faithful, were to say that he is wrong in this too, then we must ask ourselves how far are we willing to strip the pope’s authority to defend our position?

This is not an easy situation for the Society. As much as I love the many clerics that I’ve met from the Society, I cannot unilaterally decide that they are right and the Pope is wrong. If the Pope says that they are wrong, I have no choice but to go with it.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[pnewton]

I believe, floresco, that if one reads the syllabus of errors one will read the current statement on religious liberty is specifically condemned.

You speak of humility. I speak of hubris.

Pride is not a virtue and humility is not a vice. Hubris exists only if one already assumes fault and is a circular accusation. The Holy Spirit has not chosen Fellay to lead the Catholic Church. He has chosen Pope Benedict XVI. I will stick with God’s choice. That is how I exercise Faith in God.

 

[pnewton]

going back to where? what do you mean by that? show me where the holy father said such a thing?

St. Thomas says that the death penalty is always an act of love for the souls of the condemned, because if he repents, has paid for his crime on earth, and if does not repent, suffer less in hell because he lived less time in sin. St. Thomas teaches that in the Summa Theologica II-IIae, Q. 25 a. 6, ad 2

What does any of this have to do with the death penalty. I think you have the wrong topic.

 

[ProVobis]

This raises questions about the validity of absolution and marriages that they celebrate.

I have heard their argument about this point. But let’s face it, the pope is the one who ultimately writes canon law. If he says that the canonical argument for faculties does not apply to them, his word is binding. John Paul II made it very clear that “ecclesia suplet” is decided by the pope and that in this particular case, the Church could not supply, because the conditions were not met.

And then you will still have to deal with the local bishop (or even synod) who may want to try to overturn the Pope’s decision in regards providing the necessary faculties to hear confession and preside over marriages within those dioceses. The language of this reconciliation will have to be very specific on this matter.