SSPX superior denies knowledge of a new Motu Propio

[JReducation]

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.

Once the agreement is reached, then the lawyers have to take over. What has to be decided is where to place the Society. The Holy Father cannot practically force bishops to grant faculties in their dioceses. He has the authority to do so, but it’s not practical to try to impose it, because there are many reasons for which a bishop can deny faculties and the Pope would have to create some rule that shields the Society from all of them. That would not be practical, simply because some may apply. A simple one is for a bishop to say that they are not welcome in his diocese. This happens with religious orders all the time, because the law of the Church is that once an institute is established in a diocese, no one can kick them out if they mess up. That is called suppression. Bishops do not have the authority to suppress. To protect bishops and institutes, the law allows the bishop to decline the offer from an institute that wants to enter his diocese.

This is where the prelature is a good idea. Prelatures do not need faculties from a bishop. They get them from the pope. How this would work for the Society is interesting. The only other prelature at this moment is Opus Dei. But Opus Dei has ony one bishop. I gues they can have four bishops, since the bishop at the head of a prelature is not its superior. He is the delegate of the Pontiff. The Pontiff is the superior. The four bishops could all be delegates. I won’t speculate on that, because I’m not a canon lawyer.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[At_Trent]

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

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

I agree, but in this context, I think Mr Mazzone was just asking his readers to bear with him.

 

[JReducation]

I agree, but in this context, I think Mr Mazzone was just asking his readers to bear with him.

Ahhhhhhhhhh, that makes sense. Thanks for clarifying that.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[ProVobis]

Once the agreement is reached, then the lawyers have to take over. What has to be decided is where to place the Society. The Holy Father cannot practically force bishops to grant faculties in their dioceses. He has the authority to do so, but it’s not practical to try to impose it, because there are many reasons for which a bishop can deny faculties and the Pope would have to create some rule that shields the Society from all of them. That would not be practical, simply because some may apply. A simple one is for a bishop to say that they are not welcome in his diocese.

So potentially you can have the situation where the SSPX is in full communion, yet be still denied full ministry in any diocese. Weird. Probably a lot worse for the faithful because they may not have any Latin Masses whereas now they have illicit Latin Masses where they could at least fulfill his/her Sunday obligation. Let’s hope that doesn’t happen.

 

[At_Trent]

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 understand the sentiment

“Not to oppose error is to approve it, and not to defend truth is to suppress it, and indeed to neglect to confound evil men, when we can do it, is no less a sin than to encourage them.”
Pope St. Felix III

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

As he well should be, but unity is the thing. Again, jmo, but Bishop Fellay has 3 sides to please. Rome, those who will follow him, and those who may break ties with the Society. Harder to please 3 than 2.

 

[JReducation]

I’ll begin with your last point first. Those of us who have responded to a call to either or both the priesthood and religious life are bound by that call to think of the good of the universal Church first, our community second and the local community of the faithful in that sequence. That’s the order of priorities.

Moving right along, the Society is a secular institute of apostolic life, also a clerical institute. Once this mess is cleared up, it will fall under the jurisdiction of the Sacred Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life. Although they are not consecrated men, they will fall under societies of apostolic life. Therefore, the same laws that apply to consecrated religious will apply to them. To enter a diocese we must first ask permission from the bishop of the diocese. We cannot set up shop in any diocese, even if it’s our own ministry with our money. The diocesan bishop is the only person who has the authority to approve, not even the Vatican can do this, except the pope. For practical reasons, he does not do this. They will have to ask the bishop of every diocese where they want to enter for the permission to do so.

Because they are not consecrated men, they will also have to do something else that consecrated men do not need to do. They will have to ask the diocesan bishop for faculties to hear confession, witness marriages, and preach in his diocese. Those priests who are consecrated men get their faculties from our superiors. Religious superiors have the same authority as bishops, because they are Ordinaries. They need not be priests to be superiors. They simply need to be in vows. The superiors of societies of apostolic life do not have the same authority as a diocesan bishop, because they are not Ordinaries, even if they are bishops. They cannot be Ordinaries, because they are not consecrated religious nor are they diocesan bishops. Those are the only ways that you can be an Ordinary. They will need the bishop’s permission to enter a diocese and get faculties to function. Once they are in, the bishop cannot dismiss them from his diocese. He can suspend them, unlike religious. Bishops can only prohibit religious from serving in diocesan ministries, but not suspend them. Only a religious superior can suspend a priest who is a consecrated religious.

Once they accept full communion with the Church, they must submit to the Sacred Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life. If they fail to comply with anything down the line, the Sacred Congregation does not need the pope’s permission to suspend them again and to retract their faculties. This rarely happens. The Congregation usually consults and tries to find solutions to problems. The men that lead it are very holy men. They are not out to slam people. Since the Society has bishops, those bishops will have to submit to the Sacred Congregation for Bishops as well.

Here is where it gets tricky. The bishops of the Society cannot take on a diocese, unless they agree to govern the diocese by the rules of the Holy See. In other words, they cannot rule the diocese by the rules of the Society. Here again we go back to the example of religious. Those bishops who are also religious may not submit their dioceses to the spirit and philosophy of their religious communities. The rule is that the bishop is the one who is a member of the Society. Therefore, he can apply the rules and demands of the Society to himself, but not to those under him. If that’s going to be a conflict, then he cannot be made the Ordinary diocesan bishop. He may be an auxiliary, because auxiliaries do not govern. They assist the bishop.

In my simple way of thinking, the best path would be a prelature. Again, I’m speaking from my experience with normal situations. This is not a normal situation. Therefore, it’s going to take many canon lawyers to come up with a working situation.

In conclusion, were I a layman, I certainly would want to attend a valid and licit mass, not one that is illegal. The current status of the priests of the Society is the same as that of priests who have committed crimes. That cannot be pleasant to the man in the pew. Regardless of what we say on the outside, the truth is that unless one is really hard of heart, one wants to do things legally. The celebration of the sacraments by the Society is illegal at this moment. Anyone who feels that this is OK and that they can live with this all their lives should examine his or her conscience regarding his fidelity to the Church, the Holy Father and his or her desire to be in full communion with the Universal Church. Full communion means that everything is above board, not just valid.

What a mess!

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[At_Trent]

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.

Yes, Bishop Fellay seems to have earned some respect from H.H. as well. I’d love to be a fly on the wall when they talk

 

[JReducation]

Yes, Bishop Fellay seems to have earned some respect from H.H. as well. I’d love to be a fly on the wall when they talk

Actually, they rarely talk. Bishop F. has been talking with the theological team and with Cardinal Levada of LA who is the current prefect for the Sacred Congregation of the Faith. The pope is being kept informed, but he does not engage in this process. From what I understand, Pope Benedict does not want to be part of the process. He has given Cardinal Levada his marching orders and told him the outcome that he wants. Cardinal L and Bishop F are in equally hot seats. They both have demanding masters to please.

My guess is that the Holy Father does not want to become directly involved with the SSPX, because he was involved with them in the past when the excommunications were issued and they had all those ugly bakc and forth things happening between the Society and the Holy See. He is not an objective figure. I’m just guessing here. I could be all wrong.

However, even if he has personal feelings about them, because of past history, ultimately, he makes the final call and everyone has to tow the line or heads will roll. I’m hoping that the line will be towed by the Society. Because my feeling is that the SSPX bishops will be pushed by the SSPX laity into schism. These four guys are getting older. The SSPX laity will want new bishops to replace them. If the SSPX bishops ordain another bishop without the pope’s approval, they will be exocmmunicated before the ceremony ends. I’m afraid that there is a rogue element within the SSPX laity.

Allow me to explain myself. As a group, the SSPX laitya re really good Catholics who want their EF mass and a few other things that the Church can provide. But there is a small, but vociforous group of faithful who don’t understand the seriousness of a schism and the danger to the soul. If they do understand, they simply do not care. They have lost all attachment to the Catholic Church. They are attached to Tradition, not to Catholicisim. They could care less if they became the Western version of the Orthodox Church. This little group is scary.

Whethere one is attached to the SSPX or not, we all have to beware of this little group. It can be toxic.

How do we get ourselves into these messes?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[At_Trent]

Actually, they rarely talk. Bishop F. has been talking with the theological team and with Cardinal Levada of LA who is the current prefect for the Sacred Congregation of the Faith. The pope is being kept informed, but he does not engage in this process. From what I understand, Pope Benedict does not want to be part of the process. He has given Cardinal Levada his marching orders and told him the outcome that he wants. Cardinal L and Bishop F are in equally hot seats. They both have demanding masters to please.

My guess is that the Holy Father does not want to become directly involved with the SSPX, because he was involved with them in the past when the excommunications were issued and they had all those ugly bakc and forth things happening between the Society and the Holy See. He is not an objective figure. I’m just guessing here. I could be all wrong.

However, even if he has personal feelings about them, because of past history, ultimately, he makes the final call and everyone has to tow the line or heads will roll. I’m hoping that the line will be towed by the Society. Because my feeling is that the SSPX bishops will be pushed by the SSPX laity into schism. These four guys are getting older. The SSPX laity will want new bishops to replace them. If the SSPX bishops ordain another bishop without the pope’s approval, they will be exocmmunicated before the ceremony ends. I’m afraid that there is a rogue element within the SSPX laity.

Allow me to explain myself. As a group, the SSPX laitya re really good Catholics who want their EF mass and a few other things that the Church can provide. But there is a small, but vociforous group of faithful who don’t understand the seriousness of a schism and the danger to the soul. If they do understand, they simply do not care. They have lost all attachment to the Catholic Church. They are attached to Tradition, not to Catholicisim. They could care less if they became the Western version of the Orthodox Church. This little group is scary.

Whethere one is attached to the SSPX or not, we all have to beware of this little group. It can be toxic.

How do we get ourselves into these messes?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

You were tired when you wrote that lol, Just guessing.

Rarely doesn’t mean never, and doesn’t mean they won’t in the future.

If you are talking about closet sedes or similar in the little group you speak of, there is nothing to fear at all imo. Good riddance if they jump ship and take their money with them. It’s dirty anyway.

I don’t think H.E. Fellay would take heed to any threat of losing a major benefactor once an agreement the SSPX is willing to accept presents itself. I think he’s a better man than that. He’s in the soul saving biz, not soul selling.

 

[maurin]

I understand the sentiment

“Not to oppose error is to approve it, and not to defend truth is to suppress it, and indeed to neglect to confound evil men, when we can do it, is no less a sin than to encourage them.”
Pope St. Felix III

As he well should be, but unity is the thing. Again, jmo, but Bishop Fellay has 3 sides to please. Rome, those who will follow him, and those who may break ties with the Society. Harder to please 3 than 2.

You are correct. His Excellency has 3 people to please: The Father, The Son and the Holy Ghost, as it was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be, world without end, amen.

 

[maurin]

I’m just guessing here. I could be all wrong.

However, even if he has personal feelings about them, because of past history, ultimately, he makes the final call and everyone has to tow the line or heads will roll. I’m hoping that They are attached to Tradition, not to Catholicisim. They could care less if they became the Western version of the Orthodox Church. This little group is scary.

Whethere one is attached to the SSPX or not, we all have to beware of this little group. It can be toxic.

How do we get ourselves into these messes?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

I honestly believe you’re guessing. I believe that most of what you say is all wrong, in regards to the Society.

I believer that the group to be wary of, the group which is most toxic, is the group unattached to Tradition, because those unattached to Tradition, are not really Catholic at all, but crypto protestants.

How did we get ourselves in these messes? In the early 1960’s a Pope gathered a Council…

 

[ProVobis]

The Holy Spirit has not chosen Fellay to lead …

Apostolic Succession is still Apostolic Succession.

 

[JReducation]

Apostolic Succession is still Apostolic Succession.

Apostolic Succession is something that all bishops enjoy, including those of the Orthodox Churches, even though they are in schism and their fathers were schismatics. That’s why Apostolic Succession is not a guarrantee that the Holy Spirit is talking through a bishop.

We have to be careful not to hang our hat on this peg. Otherwise we would have to accept everything that any bishop from any Church says. The Polish National Church and its bishops have Apostolic Succession. The Orthodox have Apostolic Succession. The National Catholic Church of Brazil has Apostolic Succession. The Old Catholics have Apostolic Succession.

What all of them loack is the Petrine Sucession. Only the pope himself has that. He is the only one who is directly selected by the Holy Spirit to lead the Church, not the bishops. The bishops lead when they are in full communion with Peter. This was repeated for us at Vatican II from earlier statements made by previous councils. Separate from Peter, they do not benefit from the Petrine Succession.

That’s why the worse or most simple-minded bishop in the world continues to enjoy canonical status, as long as he is in communion with Peter. He may make mistakes and mistakes he makes. But he has canonical authority in the Church: to govern, to teach, to sanctify, to bless and so forth. He receives canonical authority from Peter, not independent of Peter. What he receives through the Apostolic Succession is the sacramental power of Holy Orders. You don’t have to be in communion wth Peter to get that. To receive the power that comes from the sacrament you have to be in communion with the Apostles, through Apostolic Succession.

I can see how this becomes confusing. They are two different situations. Apostolic Succession is one thing, the Petrine Succession is another. The Orthodox bishops all receive their sucession from the Apostles who founded their respective Churches. But they do not have the link to Peter. Therefore, we as Catholics must revere them as bishops, just as we do our Catholic bishops. But we do not submit to their authority, because they have no authority in the Church. In other words, they have no canonical place until full union is established with Peter.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[pnewton]

Apostolic Succession is still Apostolic Succession.

Catholics do not believe that apostolic succession means the Holy Father is merely a first among his peers. Therefore, I did not address Apostolic succesion, but rather Petrine Succession.

 

[ProVobis]

Catholics do not believe that apostolic succession means the Holy Father is merely a first among his peers. Therefore, I did not address Apostolic succesion, but rather Petrine Succession.

Hmmm. Maybe I’m nitpicking about the English language again but is this the right way to call it? I do believe in the Papacy but unlike Apostolic Succession, the Pope doesn’t select his successor. And there are time gaps between Popes. Maybe Petrine Primacy to distinguish it from Apostolic Succession? JR?

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Hmmm. Maybe I’m nitpicking about the English language again but is this the right way to call it? I do believe in the Papacy but unlike Apostolic Succession, the Pope doesn’t select his successor. And there are time gaps between Popes. Maybe Petrine Primacy to distinguish it from Apostolic Succession? JR?

No bishop selects his successor.

 

[ProVobis]

No bishop selects his successor.

Bad English terminology on my part. A bishop consecrates his successor, or rather two consecrating bishops consecrate their successor(s).

 

[JReducation]

Though “Petrine Succession” is an uncommon term, it can be used to narrow down that one means the lineage of the papacy. Normally, we go way out in saying the same thing, such as when the Holy Father invokes the authority that was given to Peter and handed down to his successors and eventually to him. For example, Pope John Paul II worded it this way in Evangelium Vitae

"Therefore, by the authority which Christ conferred upon Peter and his Successors, . . . declare . . . " then he goes on to declare that abortion is always immoral.

He is describing the very concept that the term Petrine Succession tries to summarize in two words. He is invoking his authority as successor of Peter, not as successor of the entire Apostolic College. No bishop can invoke that authority, except a pope. We have to be very judicious when ascribing authority to bishops.

They do have authority, make no mistake about it. But their authority is restricted in that they cannot teach authoritatively without being in communion with Peter. When they teach, they can only teach what Peter believes, because the Church is built upon the confession of Peter, with whom the other Apostles were in communion [obviously, Peter with them too].

While bishops, including Bishop F. shares the faith of the Apostles, none of them are independent of Peter. To claim to have authority independent of Peter or equal to Peter is problematic at the very least and heresy at best. We have to be careful that we do not put words into the mouth of the bishops of the SSPX. I doubt very much that they are trying to claim such authority for themselves.

They are arguing some points that they find problematic, but I have never heard them ascribe to themselves the kind of authority that many lay people want to attribute to them. I feel badly for them, because people often attribute things to them that they never said or meanings that are contrary to their thinking.

I’m not part of the SSPX, so I cannot clabe accused of any bias in their favor. I’m only trying to be fair to them. Like every human being, they too deserve fairness and they deserve to be correctly. They have made their share of mistakes, yes. But they are not saying what some posters are trying to attribute to them, such as having some kind of inspiration from the Holy Spirit that the pope does not have. They have never made such a mistaken statement.

If we want to be holy, let us treat others with holiness.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[maurin]

JR,

Leaving our differences aside for the moment, I am grateful to you for your post above, espcially the antepenulttimate and penultimate paragraphs. Well said.

I am not analogizing here, but I spend some time each and every day praying/reflecting upon bthat beautiful Icon of Sts Peter and Paul embracing.

 

[JReducation]

JR,

Leaving our differences aside for the moment, I am grateful to you for your post above, espcially the antepenulttimate and penultimate paragraphs. Well said.

I am not analogizing here, but I spend some time each and every day praying/reflecting upon bthat beautiful Icon of Sts Peter and Paul embracing.

Our Holy Father Francis always commanded his brothers and anyone who listened to him to treat religious and clerics with respect regardless of whatever faults we may perceive in them. The clerics are the ones who bring to us the only visible and tangible access to Christ through the Most Holy Eucharist and they alone have the power to forgive sins.

The religious, sister or brother, are the spiritual backbone of the Church, who despite their failings, God has called to live in intimate communion with him for the salvation of souls. Their lives of prayer, penance and service to the Church have sustained the Church since her foundation and have nurtured her soul. Collectively, they have given to the Church innumerable number of saints to teach us the path to holiness.

No matter what their sins may be, clerics and religious remain the only visible sign of the Kingdom of God on earth. Therefore, it behooves the rest of us to show the proper reverence toward those whom God has called into intimate communion with him, either through Holy Orders or the vowed life. We do this, not so much out of human respect, but out of respect for the one who has done the calling who is the Most Holy Spirit himself. Just as it offends a parent to diminish his child in any way, it offends God to diminish those whom he has called to intimacy with him in Holy Orders or religious life. While it is true that God calls all men to be holy and to be in communion with him, even during his earthly life, Jesus called 12 out of the masses, to be his apostles and later he called others to the consecrated life beginning with the Desert Fathers and Mothers. Even the Gospels speak to us of the Beloved Disciple who was singled out for no apparent reason, but was loved more by Christ than the other disciples.

In as much as I am able to do so, I believe that since the ordination of the clerics in the SSPX is valid, even if it is illicit, they are part of this select group of men and women whom God has destined for some purpose that may be unknown to us, just as the selection of the Apostle John was unknown to the other Apostles. Since they are valid priests, regardless of their canonical status, respect commands that we treat them with fairness and speak about them in the same manner.

I would be disobedient and failing in charity and justice to attribute to them what is not true. I would also be equally uncharitable to the rest of the clergy and religious to set the members of the Society above them. All are called and none is worthy. If we’re going looking for faults, we can find them in any place and any person.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF