SSPX: UK District Superior says there will be no regularisation

[JReducation]

I have to disagree with you a little Brother. First, the SSPX is more headed by a council with Bishop Fellay as its representative. So it’s not all on his shoulders.

Secondly, I think you are being a little too dismissive about the laity. The Society is a very important part in many people’s lives. To many it’s the only Catholic culture they’ve ever known and to many more the Society is their local parish. It’s all tied up with them. So it’s perfectly understandable as to why many will have opinions and desires regarding these issues.

I understand the importance of the Society to many of the faithful, as are the Dominicans, Franciscans, Jesuits, FSSP, Maryknoll and other institutes to the faithful whom they serve. But the faithful have a canonical status in the Church, while the clergy and religious in the Society do not. Ultimately, the Superior General’s job is to do everything in his power to regularize the status of his brothers and sisters. The first duty of every Superior General is to those whom he governs, because he must give an account to God for them.

The Society has a council as do religious orders, religious congregations and other societies of apostolic life, but morally, the Superior General of any of these communities is the final word. Whatever they say, he must consider and pray over. But whose signature goes on the paper that accepts or declines? It is his. The Church will hold him responsible for those men and women, just at it holds the General Superior of the Franciscans, Carmelites, Jesuits, Dominicans, etc responsible for his brothers and sisters on those matters, which only he can decide.

We really need to step back and think less about us and more about this man and his brothers and sisters in the Society. We must pray that he does what is best for them.

I can’t recall his name right now, but the superior general of the Sons of the Most Holy Redeemer said this very well. When they finished talking, he explained how he was alone with a piece of paper and a pen. No one else was going to sign it, but him. He knew the consequences. If he signed, things would go east. If he declined they would go west. The affected parties were his brothers, not the people who attend mass in their chapels.

He said that he finally signed the agreements. It cost them. They were told to stop all ordinations and all professions of vows immediately until they received canonical approval. These came in stages. There was the waiting, first for one thing and then for the other. I believe they received permission to make vows, before they received permission to be ordained. I may have the order of events confused. In any case, they did not come together. There was a waiting period.

This waiting did not affect the lay faithful who were attached to them. It affected the men in formation who could not make vows or could not be ordained and had to obediently wait. This is not easy for a superior general. The faithful were still getting their daily mass and other sacraments, but the FSsR were not moving for a few months, maybe longer.

This is why my sympathies at this moment lay with the bishop. He has to face his brothers and sisters in the Society. He has to deal with the fallout. There is going to be fallout no matter what he decides.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[jmj1984]

I understand the importance of the Society to many of the faithful, as are the Dominicans, Franciscans, Jesuits, FSSP, Maryknoll and other institutes to the faithful whom they serve. But the faithful have a canonical status in the Church, while the clergy and religious in the Society do not. Ultimately, the Superior General’s job is to do everything in his power to regularize the status of his brothers and sisters. The first duty of every Superior General is to those whom he governs, because he must give an account to God for them.

The Society has a council as do religious orders, religious congregations and other societies of apostolic life, but morally, the Superior General of any of these communities is the final word. Whatever they say, he must consider and pray over. But whose signature goes on the paper that accepts or declines? It is his. The Church will hold him responsible for those men and women, just at it holds the General Superior of the Franciscans, Carmelites, Jesuits, Dominicans, etc responsible for his brothers and sisters on those matters, which only he can decide.

We really need to step back and think less about us and more about this man and his brothers and sisters in the Society. We must pray that he does what is best for them.

I can’t recall his name right now, but the superior general of the Sons of the Most Holy Redeemer said this very well. When they finished talking, he explained how he was alone with a piece of paper and a pen. No one else was going to sign it, but him. He knew the consequences. If he signed, things would go east. If he declined they would go west. The affected parties were his brothers, not the people who attend mass in their chapels.

He said that he finally signed the agreements. It cost them. They were told to stop all ordinations and all professions of vows immediately until they received canonical approval. These came in stages. There was the waiting, first for one thing and then for the other. I believe they received permission to make vows, before they received permission to be ordained. I may have the order of events confused. In any case, they did not come together. There was a waiting period.

This waiting did not affect the lay faithful who were attached to them. It affected the men in formation who could not make vows or could not be ordained and had to obediently wait. This is not easy for a superior general. The faithful were still getting their daily mass and other sacraments, but the FSsR were not moving for a few months, maybe longer.

This is why my sympathies at this moment lay with the bishop. He has to face his brothers and sisters in the Society. He has to deal with the fallout. There is going to be fallout no matter what he decides.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

If I may correct your Br JR, it DID affect the faithful as they could no longer ask the former transapline redemptorists to celebrate mass for them, which in some cases meant they no longer had any TLM mass at all. I know this because I’ve spoken to people affected.

Some who had purposely moved near the monks felt betrayed and so had to ask the SSPX to minister near them instead. There were severe pastoral effects.

 

[JReducation]

Nope, no paper versions of the newsletter around, ergo the UK District superior shouldnt have said anything and most probably knew what he was going to say would get pulled as the paper versions are normally available as soon as the electronic

Here is something that I don’t understand. Those of you who are connected to the SSPX can help me.

In most institutes, orders, congregations, societies and secular orders, the only person who can speak for the whole is the Major Superior, not the regional or the local superior. Let’s say that a Carmelite Provincial Prior spoke on something reserved to the General, he would be slammed, dunked and burried before he could say his name. They know this, so they don’t even dare speak for their general. The same is true for everyone else. There are some things that a local (house) superior can speak on, then there is the regional or provincial superior, and then there is what is reserved for the general superior and finally the highest ranking authority of any community, the general chapter. There is a hierarchy and certain things belong to different authorities in that hierarchy.

This is not the first time that I have seen statements by SSPX regional superiors or even some of the other bishops that are later retracted, pulled or just disappear. Here is my question.

How is this allowed to happen? The SSPX is not that large. Compared to Franciscans, Dominicans, Jesuits or Salesians, it’s microscopic. It should not be so hard for the regional superiors to know what the Superior General wants, does not want or what is reserved for him alone, especially in today’s age of rapid communication.

I guess my question is, is their infrastructure different from the rest of us?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[jmj1984]

Here is something that I don’t understand. Those of you who are connected to the SSPX can help me.

In most institutes, orders, congregations, societies and secular orders, the only person who can speak for the whole is the Major Superior, not the regional or the local superior. Let’s say that a Carmelite Provincial Prior spoke on something reserved to the General, he would be slammed, dunked and burried before he could say his name. They know this, so they don’t even dare speak for their general. The same is true for everyone else. There are some things that a local (house) superior can speak on, then there is the regional or provincial superior, and then there is what is reserved for the general superior and finally the highest ranking authority of any community, the general chapter. There is a hierarchy and certain things belong to different authorities in that hierarchy.

This is not the first time that I have seen statements by SSPX regional superiors or even some of the other bishops that are later retracted, pulled or just disappear. Here is my question.

How is this allowed to happen? The SSPX is not that large. Compared to Franciscans, Dominicans, Jesuits or Salesians, it’s microscopic. It should not be so hard for the regional superiors to know what the Superior General wants, does not want or what is reserved for him alone, especially in today’s age of rapid communication.

I guess my question is, is their infrastructure different from the rest of us?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

I think the answer has already been alluded to, the ‘conflict’ if we can call it that between Bp Williamson and Bp Fellay.

 

[TrueLight]

Any decision absolutely affects the faithful. I was speaking to someone who was in the early courtship phase with a Catholic women and when she found out he was SSPX, she asked her family about it and they said no, that is a bad group. They don’t follow the Pope. So she stopped seeing him.

Whether your priests have canonical status or not has got to affect you.

The other thing brother Jay is that times have changed. We have an Internet, which means there is a lot of transparency. So the laity are no longer the unlearned peasants.

 

[JReducation]

If I may correct your Br JR, it DID affect the faithful as they could no longer ask the former transapline redemptorists to celebrate mass for them, which in some cases meant they no longer had any TLM mass at all. I know this because I’ve spoken to people affected.

Some who had purposely moved near the monks felt betrayed and so had to ask the SSPX to minister near them instead. There were severe pastoral effects.

Thank you for that correction. I did not know this. However, the fact remained the same. The superior acted in what he felt was the best interest of his brothers. Whether we agree or disagree with his choice is not important. What is important is that his responsibility is first, second and third to this brothers. His soul will be judged on how he leads them. He has been handed an awesome responsibility.

It still does not change my sympathy. In the case of the FSsR, the laity had to find another place to attend the EF. But the greatest inconvenience was to the congregation. I can’t imagine the superior in that situation. He has to keep up the hope of these men. He has to govern them. He has to nurture them. That is a superior’s first duty. It was very hard for him. I remember a letter that he wrote on the matter asking other religious to pray for him.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[jmj1984]

Thank you for that correction. I did not know this. However, the fact remained the same. The superior acted in what he felt was the best interest of his brothers. Whether we agree or disagree with his choice is not important. What is important is that his responsibility is first, second and third to this brothers. His soul will be judged on how he leads them. He has been handed an awesome responsibility.

It still does not change my sympathy. In the case of the FSsR, the laity had to find another place to attend the EF. But the greatest inconvenience was to the congregation. I can’t imagine the superior in that situation. He has to keep up the hope of these men. He has to govern them. He has to nurture them. That is a superior’s first duty. It was very hard for him. I remember a letter that he wrote on the matter asking other religious to pray for him.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

I agree Br Jr, it cannot have been easy, especially as some left the community over the matter. Still with the SSPX, the matter is slightly different than from any ‘religious congregation’ (if I may use that as a broad group to cover order, societies of apostolic life etc…) they have willingly assumed a much larger responsibility to all the faithful and to catholic tradition and have been the ‘powerhouse’ behind the traditionalist movement since its inception. Therefore whilst yes Bp Fellay owes his duty first and foremost to members of the society he owes a great deal of responsibility to the laity as well.

Further one cannot deny he owed a repsonsibility to the laity that supported the community both financialy and with prayer as well as practically. Some had after all moved their families there solely because of the presence of the monks.

 

[JReducation]

I think the answer has already been alluded to, the ‘conflict’ if we can call it that between Bp Williamson and Bp Fellay.

You really think that’s the problem here?

Any decision absolutely affects the faithful. I was speaking to someone who was in the early courtship phase with a Catholic women and when she found out he was SSPX, she asked her family about it and they said no, that is a bad group. They don’t follow the Pope. So she stopped seeing him.

Whether your priests have canonical status or not has got to affect you.

The other thing brother Jay is that times have changed. We have an Internet, which means there is a lot of transparency. So the laity are no longer the unlearned peasants.

Whatever affects one organ affects the body. We know this. But the duty of a Superior General is not to the faithful. It is to his or her sons or daughters. That’s my point. He or she has an obligation to protect the community, to nurture the community, to govern the community and to find every possible means to resolve whatever problems exist between the community and the Holy See. Ultimately, he has the moral obligation to bring his community home. This is not easy. This is the part that people have to understand. These men, be it the superior of the SSPX, FSSP, FSsR, OSF, OP, O’Carm, etc, are charged with the care of their brothers and they are to set aside all other considerations and preferences and place the welfare of their borthers above all other considerations.

There is a fraternal relationship between the laity and the institute, but the superior is responsible for the institute, not the faithful outside of the institute. That’s the point. This is in canon law, theology and Catholic tradition.

This was what the superior of the FSsR realized. He knew that his decision was not going to be popular with the laity. I did not know that there was a halt in the celebration of the EF. I don’t know if he anticipated this or not. The fact is that he himself says that he made his decision thinking first about the good of his brothers, after hearing them in chapter.

I think that we have to allow Bishop Fellay to do the same. We need to give him the room to make his final choice giving priority to the clerics, brothers and sisters of the Society. He became responsible for them when he accepted election as Superior General.

Do you see my concern?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[TrueLight]

Do you see my concern?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Yes, I do, but who posted this unauthorized update first? Not the laity.

 

[JReducation]

Yes, I do, but who posted this unauthorized update first? Not the laity.

That was my other question about their infrastructure. But I didn’t really get an answer to it.

If a [insert community] provincial superior spoke for the general superior, he would end up on the carpet face down.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Planty_Pall]

Br. J.R.,

You say…

People seem to feel that this is about them, their preferences, and their opinions. Unless you’re an ordained member of the Society or a professed religious in the Society, this does not affect you.

It is not impossible that some of us are parents of children who currently are, or are preparing to be “an ordained member of the Society.” It might be pretty difficult to disassociate oneself from the situation in such an instance. Although such parties would not bear the larger burden of Bp. Fellay any longer, they might find themselves hoping and praying for the best outcome in a way that these internet opinionists who have never acquainted themselves with how all this came to be, and who have no grown loved ones involved, could possibly understand. Fathers will give an account for how they rear and direct their children, be they a superior or biological parent.

I am sure you will be sympathetic to what I have said above. I cannot say more. I just wish others could appreciate how it is possible that their flippant words are received as so many arrows and daggers in the hearts of those who may just love the current pope and eternal Rome too. Maybe I should just leave. Mr. Casey has suggested as much. I am able to discuss other matters related to Tradition without revealing my sympathies. It just seems I am always drawn in to these unedifying and discouraging discussions about the Society of St. Pius X. I know that I for one, would be delighted, and could more easily contribute on occasion here if discussion of the Society of St. Pius X should be suspended.

 

[JReducation]

Further one cannot deny he owed a repsonsibility to the laity that supported the community both financialy and with prayer as well as practically. Some had after all moved their families there solely because of the presence of the monks.

This is a little tricky. The FSsR is a religious community, not a society of apostolic life. The Council of Trent established The Rite of Exemption. The individual religious are exempt from the involvement of the local bishop and the local laity. The Right of Exemption led to canons that imposed on the laity the moral obligation to financially support the the apostolic work of the religious. It imposed on the bishops the duty to protect the religious, but it exempted the religious from being influenced by either bishop or laity and subjected religious only to the influence of the pope. This does not apply to communities of diocesan right or to cloistered nuns. They always answer to the local bishop.

I was a superior. You have to weigh your mission to the Church on the one hand and the rights of your brothers on the other. The superior who does not serve his brothers is not serving the Church.

This got many religious superiors into a lot of trouble. They made assignments and took on ministries and made choices based on the needs of the people, even when these were not in the best interest of the religious for whom they are responsible. Such decisions actually give the religious the right to disobey, because it is always a sin for the superior to place the needs of others over those of his brothers.

The role of the superior is to reconcile the two as far as is humanly possible, the law of the Church allows and the statutes of his community allow.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[giuseppeTO]

Here is something that I don’t understand. Those of you who are connected to the SSPX can help me.

In most institutes, orders, congregations, societies and secular orders, the only person who can speak for the whole is the Major Superior, not the regional or the local superior. Let’s say that a Carmelite Provincial Prior spoke on something reserved to the General, he would be slammed, dunked and burried before he could say his name. They know this, so they don’t even dare speak for their general. The same is true for everyone else. There are some things that a local (house) superior can speak on, then there is the regional or provincial superior, and then there is what is reserved for the general superior and finally the highest ranking authority of any community, the general chapter. There is a hierarchy and certain things belong to different authorities in that hierarchy.

This is not the first time that I have seen statements by SSPX regional superiors or even some of the other bishops that are later retracted, pulled or just disappear. Here is my question.

How is this allowed to happen? The SSPX is not that large. Compared to Franciscans, Dominicans, Jesuits or Salesians, it’s microscopic. It should not be so hard for the regional superiors to know what the Superior General wants, does not want or what is reserved for him alone, especially in today’s age of rapid communication.

I guess my question is, is their infrastructure different from the rest of us?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

All of the District Superiors publish a monthly pastoral newsletter. The article in question
was one of those. It was not intended to provide breaking news or to preempt an announcement by the Superior General. My reading of it through somewhat SSPX parochial eyes, was intended to communicate the fact that when the District Superiors met in Albano to discuss the Preamble and/or any other documents, they could not unanimously accept all of the Preamble. If, as I have heard the case to be, the SSPX has been given the opportunity to offer alterations to the text, then the UK Superior’s Letter merely states the obvious that there will not be a rapprochement until the Preamble can be agreed to and, in fact, that process is being worked by all parties. Due to the controversy and consternation (and possible misinterpretation) generated, the newsletter was pulled since the process is still proceeding.

 

[NewsTheMan]

I can’t recall his name right now, but the superior general of the Sons of the Most Holy Redeemer

Rev. Fr. Michael Mary

He said that he finally signed the agreements. It cost them. They were told to stop all ordinations and all professions of vows immediately until they received canonical approval. These came in stages. There was the waiting, first for one thing and then for the other. I believe they received permission to make vows, before they received permission to be ordained. I may have the order of events confused. In any case, they did not come together. There was a waiting period.

You got the order correct. They have been given permission, for a while now I believe, to make vows. As far as I am aware, still no canonical approval. Still waiting. I think it will come in the next 6 months. By that time I will (if it is God’s will) be a postulant so if you hear any news you’ll have to make the thread to announce the news! However, until then, this is the price they have paid (as well as a few of their Brothers leaving the community). Fr.Michael Mary, as well as all the other brothers, have remained unbelievably patient. It’s one of the things that has attracted me to them. A heroic display of patience and understanding. Obedience and a love of the Church. Even now, as we speak, there are horrible things said about them from… well, I am sure you can guess. Fr. Michael Mary updates the blog and gets quite a lot of negative comments from people who call him a betrayer of Tradition, etc. His responses are always in charity, and always with eyes set firmly on Jesus Christ. No servant is above the Master. The Sons are carrying their cross. Again, in my personal opinion, it is quite astounding the kind of virtue the FSsR have displayed, though I am naturally bias, but I do think it is obvious to anybody who has been following them.

Sorry, I couldn’t help myself, I don’t mean to derail the thread.

 

[jmj1984]

Rev. Fr. Michael Mary

You got the order correct. They have been given permission, for a while now I believe, to make vows. As far as I am aware, still no canonical approval. Still waiting. I think it will come in the next 6 months. By that time I will (if it is God’s will) be a postulant so if you hear any news you’ll have to make the thread to announce the news! However, until then, this is the price they have paid (as well as a few of their Brothers leaving the community). Fr.Michael Mary, as well as all the other brothers, have remained unbelievably patient. It’s one of the things that has attracted me to them. A heroic display of patience and understanding. Obedience and a love of the Church. Even now, as we speak, there are horrible things said about them from… well, I am sure you can guess. Fr. Michael Mary updates the blog and gets quite a lot of negative comments from people who call him a betrayer of Tradition, etc. His responses are always in charity, and always with eyes set firmly on Jesus Christ. No servant is above the Master. The Sons are carrying their cross. Again, in my personal opinion, it is quite astounding the kind of virtue the FSsR have displayed, though I am naturally bias, but I do think it is obvious to anybody who has been following them.

Sorry, I couldn’t help myself, I don’t mean to derail the thread.

With all due respect I don’t think he helps matters by going in the complete opposite direction and thereby provoking them, for example why have the last months posts been about Jews and anti-semitism? Why is that sort of stuff plastered all over their site? Nothings been in the headlines so far as I know, nor had the sspx or anyone said anything foolish etc…And to be honest if you’d moved your entire family and then it didnt work out the way you expectd you’d be pretty angry…

 

[jmj1984]

This is a little tricky. The FSsR is a religious community, not a society of apostolic life. The Council of Trent established The Rite of Exemption. The individual religious are exempt from the involvement of the local bishop and the local laity. The Right of Exemption led to canons that imposed on the laity the moral obligation to financially support the the apostolic work of the religious. It imposed on the bishops the duty to protect the religious, but it exempted the religious from being influenced by either bishop or laity and subjected religious only to the influence of the pope. This does not apply to communities of diocesan right or to cloistered nuns. They always answer to the local bishop.

I was a superior. You have to weigh your mission to the Church on the one hand and the rights of your brothers on the other. The superior who does not serve his brothers is not serving the Church.

This got many religious superiors into a lot of trouble. They made assignments and took on ministries and made choices based on the needs of the people, even when these were not in the best interest of the religious for whom they are responsible. Such decisions actually give the religious the right to disobey, because it is always a sin for the superior to place the needs of others over those of his brothers.

The role of the superior is to reconcile the two as far as is humanly possible, the law of the Church allows and the statutes of his community allow.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Thanks for the information Br Jr but that doesnt stop them having a moral duty to the people who helped sustain their community and who they knew moved their for it. My point is simply that the SSPX and societies like it are in a different situation to ordinary societies of apostolic life and religious orders etc… it is therefore not correct to apply the ‘ordinary’ rules to them. I have to say I’m quite surprised to see that you would say Religious can disobey their superiors if they are putting the needs of others above those of his brothers when you have argued vehemently against those who disobeyed their superiors over the issue of the Traditional Latin Sacaraments and new teachings in the church after Vatican II. This seems like a contradiction to me but maybe I just don’t understand

 

[JReducation]

Thanks for the information Br Jr but that doesnt stop them having a moral duty to the people who helped sustain their community and who they knew moved their for it.

The question here is, did the Sons ask people to come there or did these people come on their own? If they encouraged it, they have a duty to bring those people along with them. It does not mean that they not reconcile with the Holy See. It means that they help these folks do the same. If they did not encourage it, but it was simply a matter of choice, the moral duty is not present, though charity would tell you that you should try to help bring these folks along with you. You can’t force them, but you try.

My point is simply that the SSPX and societies like it are in a different situation to ordinary societies of apostolic life and religious orders etc… it is therefore not correct to apply the ‘ordinary’ rules to them.

This is the part that I’m not very clear on and why I’m asking the question about their infrastructure. Are they really outside of the norms established by the Sacred Congregation for Societies of Apostolic Life? Were they ever given a different set of norms by the Sacred Congregation? You have the Society of the Holy Cross (Opus Dei), they have norms just for them. But these were given to them by the Sacred Congregation. The Jesuits have norms just for them, also given by the Sacred Congregation. No institute, religious or secular can establish norms without the approval of either a diocesan bishop or the Sacred Congregation. Actually, there are only two kinds of institutes: Pontifical and Diocesan. The SSPX is not a diocesan association. We know that. Are they a pontifical one? If so, what are the norms approved by the Vatican? This does not seem to be very clear.

Until this is clear, it is safer to treat Bishop Fellay as one would any other Superior General and give him the same consideration and spiritual support as we would to any other Superior General.

I have to say I’m quite surprised to see that you would say Religious can disobey their superiors if they are putting the needs of others above those of his brothers when you have argued vehemently against those who disobeyed their superiors over the issue of the Traditional Latin Sacaraments and new teachings in the church after Vatican II. This seems like a contradiction to me but maybe I just don’t understand

It is not a contradiction. The superior has a moral duty to provide for the needs of his brothers. This is his first duty above all others. If the superior chooses anything that is a sin, his brothers have the right to disobey.

The brothers do not have the right to decide what is and what is not a sin. They must follow the moral teachings of the Church, the interpretation of those teachings by the reigning pope, and they must follow canon law and particular law (the rule and constitutions approved by the Holy See or the Diocesan Bishop). They take all of these things together.

If the superior chooses a path that is contrary to any of these, the brothers have a moral duty to dissent.

If the superior chooses a path that is legal and moral or neutral, even if it feels foolish, the religious has a grave duty to obey.

Basically, a superior has three choices:

1. Wrong choice:

• anything that has been deemed sinful by proper authority and moral law
• anything prohibitted by the Holy Father,
• Church authority such as one of the Sacred Congregations
• Canon Law,
• particular law (rule and constitution)
• the general chapter

The hierarchy of authority is in that order. There is one other, but it only applies to some communites: anything prohibitted by the founder. Not every community is bound to obey their founder. It all depends on whether the community is an order or a congregation. Orders must follow their founders. Congregations have a democratic system of government. They can overrule the founder in a general chapter.

1. Neutral Choice

anything that is morally neutral, even if it looks like a good idea or a bad idea

1. Right Choice: anything commanded by

• moral law
• Holy Father (other than sin)
• Canon Law
• particular law
• the general chapter
• when applicable, the founder

You never follow the superior down road number one. Other than that, you must always obey, unless you’re given a choice.

 

[JReducation]

Let me tell you, there are times when something may look as foolish as ice cream on a hot dog; later, you look back and you realize that the Holy Spirit was really leading. You know this, because you see the fruits of that choice.

Then there are times when something looks like the best thing since sliced bread. Later you look back and your realize that you have to retrace your steps and change direction. It was a horrible idea.

Those of us who belong to the old religious families know this all too well. We’ve been down both paths, the ones that we though were bad ideas and turned out to be the best thing and the ones that looked like the best idea and turned out to be a disaster.

However, it has been our experience, that when you submit to obedience, God will always bring you out of the storm. Even the superior must obey. His job is to obey the moral law, the Holy Father, canon law, the constitutions and the general chapter. If there is a conflict, he must always obey the highest of these. My experience has been that when there is a conflict, it’s usually not a real conflict as much as a superior who is confused and simply needs to step back, be alone, seek the guidance of the Holy See and then lead. Once he leads, if it’s not a sin, the community must follow. This was the case of the FSsR.

This is not easy stuff for anyone who is a superior. Your salvation depends on how well you have protected your brothers and how well you have obeyed. At the end of the day, when a general chapter elects a superior, it commands him to lead. However, he must always lead in communion with the Primacy of Peter. He serves the Church by fulfilling his duty to his brothers or sisters in the case of women superiors.

No matter how many benefactors Fr. Michael Mary had, the General Chapter of the FSsR elected him to lead the brothers. As a fraternity, part of their ministry is to bring their benefactors and friends along with them. St. Benedict and St. Augustine, who were the fathers of religious life in the Latin Church made this principle very clear. The superior acts in the best interest of the brethren and the community draws the faithful along. The faithful must never pull the community along. This would cause chaos. We have seen this in those communities who caved in to the culture around them. They’re falling apart.

I hope this helps.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[jmj1984]

The question here is, did the Sons ask people to come there or did these people come on their own? If they encouraged it, they have a duty to bring those people along with them. It does not mean that they not reconcile with the Holy See. It means that they help these folks do the same. If they did not encourage it, but it was simply a matter of choice, the moral duty is not present, though charity would tell you that you should try to help bring these folks along with you. You can’t force them, but you try.

Br Jr

I would not know, I haven’t asked them but my point stands, they do have to consider these people in their decision, they can’t simply think about themselves and their brothers. The laity must come into their calculations.

This is the part that I’m not very clear on and why I’m asking the question about their infrastructure. Are they really outside of the norms established by the Sacred Congregation for Societies of Apostolic Life? Were they ever given a different set of norms by the Sacred Congregation? You have the Society of the Holy Cross (Opus Dei), they have norms just for them. But these were given to them by the Sacred Congregation. The Jesuits have norms just for them, also given by the Sacred Congregation. No institute, religious or secular can establish norms without the approval of either a diocesan bishop or the Sacred Congregation. Actually, there are only two kinds of institutes: Pontifical and Diocesan. The SSPX is not a diocesan association. We know that. Are they a pontifical one? If so, what are the norms approved by the Vatican? This does not seem to be very clear.

Until this is clear, it is safer to treat Bishop Fellay as one would any other Superior General and give him the same consideration and spiritual support as we would to any other Superior General.

I’m not talking about structure, I’m talking about practical reality. The SSPX has held itself out as being the preserve of doctrinal ‘sanity’ in an ‘insane’ world, as preserving the truth and the most efficacious and correct sacraments. From their point of view then they have a duty to the laity to provide them with the truth and the sacraments it has and to as Archbishop Lefebvre said ‘pass on what I have received’. By its very nature it includes the laity as one of its primary considerations as its mission is to preach what it believes is the True Catholic Doctrine and the provide the True Catholic Sacraments to the laity and the whole world. This is without even getting into the issue of the enormous sacrifices SSPX devotees have had to be make because of the Societys unpopulaity and irregular status, sacrifices the society has instructed them, on pain of sin, to make. **Therefore the society owes a moral duty to its laity and from its point of view indeed the whole church to make the correct choice. **

It is not a contradiction. The superior has a moral duty to provide for the needs of his brothers. This is his first duty above all others. If the superior chooses anything that is a sin, his brothers have the right to disobey.

The brothers do not have the right to decide what is and what is not a sin. They must follow the moral teachings of the Church, the interpretation of those teachings by the reigning pope, and they must follow canon law and particular law (the rule and constitutions approved by the Holy See or the Diocesan Bishop). They take all of these things together.

If the superior chooses a path that is contrary to any of these, the brothers have a moral duty to dissent.

If the superior chooses a path that is legal and moral or neutral, even if it feels foolish, the religious has a grave duty to obey.

Basically, a superior has three choices:

1. Wrong choice:

• anything that has been deemed sinful by proper authority and moral law
• anything prohibitted by the Holy Father,
• Church authority such as one of the Sacred Congregations
• Canon Law,
• particular law (rule and constitution)
• the general chapter

The hierarchy of authority is in that order. There is one other, but it only applies to some communites: anything prohibitted by the founder. Not every community is bound to obey their founder. It all depends on whether the community is an order or a congregation. Orders must follow their founders. Congregations have a democratic system of government. They can overrule the founder in a general chapter.

1. Neutral Choice

anything that is morally neutral, even if it looks like a good idea or a bad idea

1. Right Choice: anything commanded by

• moral law
• Holy Father (other than sin)
• Canon Law
• particular law
• the general chapter
• when applicable, the founder

You never follow the superior down road number one. Other than that, you must always obey, unless you’re given a choice.

And yet people could and evidently did read this criteria and continue to celebrate the traditional latin sacraments and preach the traditional church teaching, yet on other threads you have stated that these people were in fact disobedient and their punishment was justified. My point is that is that people can apply these criteria and believe they have the right to disobey.

 

[JReducation]

And yet people could and evidently did read this criteria and continue to celebrate the traditional latin sacraments and preach the traditional church teaching, yet on other threads you have stated that these people were in fact disobedient and their punishment was justified. My point is that is that people can apply these criteria and believe they have the right to disobey.

A religious never has the right to disobey, except when ordered to sin. If the superior, the general chapter or the Vatican said that you could not celebrate the EF, you have a moral duty to comply, because you’re not being asked to sin. The Church did not order these men to sin by taking away the EF and other traditional elements. I’m not saying that this was the wisest decision. That’s a whole other subject. I’m saying, this was not a command to commit a sin that is identified as such by the proper Church authority.

Even after SP and UE, the Vatican maintains that regular priests can only celebrate the EF in public with the permission of the major superior according to their particular law. In the language of religious life, this means that the superior can grant the permission, if the constitutions allow him to do so, but he does not have to grant it. Obviously, if the constitutions do not allow the superior to grant permission to celebrate the EF, the regular priest may not celebrate it in public. As to whether he celebrates it in private that depends on the rules of his community. In the Franciscan family, no priest can celebrate private mass without the permission of the superior, be it OF or EF. Other religious families have the same law. I have to add a disclaimer here. Most religious superiors give their men carte blanche, except in houses where there is a conventual mass. Those are usually regulated by the local superior.

As to the duty of the FSSR to the faithful, the duty of the superior is to his brothers first. Once he decides what is best for his brothers, charity demands that he and his brothers do whatever they can do to bring the faithful along. However, he cannot refrain from making a choice, because the faithful may disapprove. At the end of the day, superiors make many choices and you can never please everyone. However, what is good for the community will eventually be good for the benefactors and friends of the community. It’s an overflow of grace.

As to the SSPX, I understand what you’re saying and it makes sense. They have put themselves or been put, I’m not sure, in a position where people look to them for guidance on many issues, almost as if they were a magisterium. This must be very frightening to the Superior General.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF