Talks over with SSPX?

[Melchior_1]

It’s getting confusing here. Doesn’t “suspension” refer to the priest’s ministry and not his status within the Church? He can still call himself Catholic AFAIK.

The whole situation is messy. My use of the term “suspension” was more along the liens of having a lack of canonical authority, my apologies for the confusion.

His Grace Fellay may be the Superior General, but I’m not sure if he has the canonical rights at this point to act as a full one.

 

[JReducation]

Well, it looks like Bishop Williamson was removed from the SSPX.

Bishop Williamson Removed

I don’t think that the dismissal is a big surprise to anyone. Things have been difficult between Bishop Williamson and everyone else for several years now. What I found most interesting were the comments by the readers.

To begin, some of the language is almost Shakespearian: “Roaring lion” and “voice of thunder” or “The learned FSSPX shall find good things from this action and shall be blessed by their trust in the Lord.” There is more like that. When you speak in such romantic terms, you tend to think that way too. The essence is very simple and not so romantic.

Bishop Williamson put his superior’s back against the wall. Whether Bishop Williamson’s points are right or wrong is a non-issue. Whether you belong to an order, congregation or society of apostolic life, if there is a superior general, you do not put his back to the wall. It’s that simple. If someone did to me what Bishop Williamson did to Bishop Fellay I would be a tad upset as well.

Behind closed doors, you can disagree with your superior until you run out of breadth or he runs out of patience with you. But you never take your issues with your superior out to the general public. You don’t even mention them to your confreres or to your mother and father. It’s unheard of.

Fortunately for Bishop Williamson, the SSPX has no canonical place in the Church. Therefore, Bishop Fellay cannot request an excommunication. Any other superior general can make such a request. Before anyone jumps up and down, yes a superior general can request an excommunication on the grounds of insubordination, deliberate and premeditated disobedience or simply refusing to follow the mind of the superior. This has been done many times. Ask any Franciscan. I believe that the Franciscan family has broken the record on excommunications for breaking with the authority of the superior general, the founder or both.

As much as people want to say that Bishop Williamson is a real son of Archbishop Lefebvre, let’s look at what the law says. For a person to have jurisdiction over an institute that person must be canonically recognized by the competent authority, be it the local bishop or the Holy See. This is not the case with the SSPX. The rights and privileges accorded to the SSPX as a pious union ceased to exist in 1982. Therefore, the Archbishop was not its legitimate head, though he remains the founder.

This raises the question of Bishop Fellay. From the looks of it, it seems that the priests and brothers of the SSPX obey and cooperate out of goodwill, not legal or moral obligation since no bishop has recognized the SSPX as a real entity.

There is one saving grace in this, the fact that the Holy See has been dealing with the SSPX and with Bishop Fellay as it would deal with any other superior general and society of apostolic life. It would suggest that even though there is nothing in writing the supports that the SSPX is a legal institute or that Bishop Fellay is its legal head, the praxis supports it. That is to say, the fact that Rome has dealt with them as such, gives the impression that we can assume that Bishop Fellay is the legitimate superior general.

However, there is a very important question. What power does the superior general have? The Constitutions or the founder give the superior general his authority. Such authority ranges from very narrow, such as is the case with the Dominicans and the Jesuits, where government by consensus and dialogue is the mode to very extensive as is the case of Benedictines and Franciscans, where the superior general is one step shy of infallible. The superior general of the SSPX falls somewhere on this continuum. Unless one has access to the constitutions of the SSPX, one cannot say whether this dismissal is legal.

Let’s go both ways. Let’s go to the one end of the spectrum and say that the superior general must act with consensus. Who are the people involved in this decision? Go to the other end of the spectrum and say that the superior general has absolute authority. Canon Law says that even in that case, the superior must inform his council and you cannot dismiss a priest without laicization. Otherwise, you have a priest on the loose out there. Every priest must be incardinated into a diocese or an institute. If that’s not the case, then he must be laicized.

The real reaction to this news is not to expound on the glories of the roaring lion of truth or to implore the blessings of Providence, as if one were Thomas Jefferson. The real reaction should be a simple question, what’s Bishop Williamson’s status in the Church?

Forget the Shakespearian mumble jumble. We have a bishop that is not in full communion with the Church and is no longer welcome by his confreres in his fraternity. So where does this leave him? Unless one has the answer to this question, one cannot engage with him in any meaningful way other than being friendly and polite. You certainly can’t deal with him as would with a Cardinal Dolan or an Archbishop Chaput who have canonical status. Nor can you deal with him as you would with Bishop Victor Galeone who is now retired, but in good standing with the Church and incardinated in his diocese.

Sometimes, practical questions are better than piety or anger. They answers help you get a sense of direction.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[JReducation]

Actually I do not believe suspension of clerical status has anything to do with actual membership to a religious institute.

It does not. Your provincial superior can suspend any ordained friar. He is an Ordinary. The friar remains a Carmelite with all the rites and duties of a Carmelite. The priesthood is not essential to the religious life. People need to get this through their thick skulls. I don’t see what’s so hard about this concept. They are two different calls.

You are correct, Brother. The major superior can suspend. What he cannot do is dismiss anyone from the order. Only the Holy See can do that.

There are members of religious institutes that are in full communion with the Church that are under suspension but are still full members of their institute. One can not be removed from a religious institute without action from Rome (I believe).

This is correct. This is where people in the pews get all confused. The vows of a male religious trump everything in the books. If the male religious is a deacon, priest or bishop, his major superior can suspend him indefinitely. Yet, no major superior, no council and no general chapter can ever remove a male religious in solemn vows from the religious life. Only the Holy See can do this. To do so is an act of suppression. No one can suppress a male religious except the pope.

This is the big issue that some lay people have with the Jesuits. They want the Jesuit superiors to take each them out and torture them into orthodoxy. It cannot happen. They are male religious in solemn vows. They have the right of exemption. Even their own superiors cannot touch them. Only the pope can do. If he chooses to look the other way or if he chooses to tell the superior to find an alternative solution, that’s it. Nothing else can happen.

Religious in simple vows are different. If you belong to a community of simple vows, you do not have the right of exemption. In that case, the major superior, with the consent of his council may dismiss you. However, if you’re a priest, he must first secure you another religious community that will take you or a diocese. He cannot leave you adrift.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

What is very strange about this is the actual make up of the SSPX.

No other religious institute that I am aware of has bishops that are counted within it as active members.

My province within the Carmelites has a member who is a bishop in Peru. He comes to the provincial chapters but he does not have active or passive voice. That is he can not be elected to any office within the province (passive voice) nor does he get a vote at the chapter (active voice) while he is serving as bishop. When he retires he will regain these.

At least this is what he told me at the last provincial chapter while we sat together in the sequestered area for those without active voice (at the time I was simply professed).

How does the SSPX get to have bishops? Bishops are ordinaries unless they are auxiliary bishops. Bishops are equals. How can one bishop be over another?

This whole set up just confuses me.

 

[choliks]

What is very strange about this is the actual make up of the SSPX.

No other religious institute that I am aware of has bishops that are counted within it as active members.

My province within the Carmelites has a member who is a bishop in Peru. He comes to the provincial chapters but he does not have active or passive voice. That is he can not be elected to any office within the province (passive voice) nor does he get a vote at the chapter (active voice) while he is serving as bishop. When he retires he will regain these.

At least this is what he told me at the last provincial chapter while we sat together in the sequestered area for those without active voice (at the time I was simply professed).

How does the SSPX get to have bishops? Bishops are ordinaries unless they are auxiliary bishops. Bishops are equals. How can one bishop be over another?

This whole set up just confuses me.

In one of Br. JR’s earlier posts in another SSPX thread, I believe he mentioned ecclesiology as one of the issues with the organization.

 

[JReducation]

In one of Br. JR’s earlier posts in another SSPX thread, I believe he mentioned ecclesiology as one of the issues with the organization.

The SSPX has a remarkable ecclesiology, which many people have been trying to understand since these talks began a few years ago. As Friar David correctly said, bishops remain members of their institutes with all of the obligations, but none of the rights, other than the right to be rescued by their institute should they become too ill or too old and need care. This is the first remarkable issue, a society with bishops who are active within the society.

The SSPX’s counterparts are Maryknoll, Vincentians, Paulists, SOLTs, and all of the secular orders. They have bishops, but these bishops do not have any authority in their respective communities. They are at the service of the Holy Father until they retire. Some years ago, the superior general of the Capuchin Franciscans was elected bishop. He resigned his post as superior general. The Vicar General finished his term. Archbishop Lefebvre himself was a regular priest. Once he became a bishop, he no longer had an active or passive voice in his society. Even secular priests who become bishops lose their voices in their dioceses, unless they are assigned to their own diocese. They remain part of their diocese, even when they are given a see on the other side of the globe.

A prelature is different. The pelature is headed by a bishop appointed by the Holy Father as his vicar. The prelate doesn’t have a team of three or four bishops. There is no place in a canon law for a prelate with auxiliaries. The question remains, what is the relationship between the bishops of the SSPX? Are they auxiliaries to the superior general? If so, who determined this? If not, then what are they? They cannot be his equal, since you cannot have more than one head. If they are active members of the Society, they don’t have more or less of a voice than any other member who has made his perpetual commitment to the Society. In religious life, we refer to him as a cleric. But clerics have no special place in most communities, unless it was founded to be a clerical community. Then only a cleric can hold office, vote, hold certain posts and work in certain ministries, such as preaching.

That’s not too common today. Most communities that have both clerics and non-clerics also have equal rights, even in ministry. The only distinction is sacramental. My brother the cleric can celebrate mass and I cannot. When he’s not celebrating the sacraments, he goes through the day very anonymously as just one more brother. This is the part that’s confusing about the SSPX.

The SSPX has a general superior and his council. It has regional superiors, also known as provincial superiors. The other three bishops are not regional superiors, nor are they on the general council. Not only do they not have a canonical place in the Church, as decided by Pope Benedict, but they don’t seem to have a defined place in the Society.

Another remarkable thing happened. Bishop Williamson went somewhere to confirm. I can’t recall where to. The report was that Bishop Fellay was very upset because Bishop Williamson had confirmed without his express permission. As a religious, I can understand this. No priest who belongs to an institute, religious or secular, can go around administering sacraments without oversight. Up to there, we’re OK.

However, neither Bishop Fellay, nor his council, nor the members of the SSPX or the laity affiliated with the SSPX took note of the fact that the diocesan bishop was not consulted. At the end of the day, it is the diocesan bishop, not Bishop Fellay, who has jurisdiction over those to be confirmed in his diocese. No mention was made as to whether or not Bishop Williamson had permission from the diocesan bishop to confirm in his diocese. The concern was that he did not have Bishop Fellay’s permission. This is very irregular ecclesiology. It represents a very poor understanding of the Church. It places Bishop Fellay over the diocesan bishop. Neither the clergy nor the laity has the authority to make such a change in hierarchy.

As much as you may disagree with the diocesan bishop, he remains the diocesan bishop and only he has the right of jurisdiction, no other bishop can enter his diocese and administer sacraments without faculties from him, unless he’s the pope who enjoys universal jurisdiction.

This raises another question. Under what principle of ecclesiology does one bishop who is suspended without any canonical rights have the authority to begrudge another suspended bishop confirming without his permission, when the permission should have come from the diocesan bishop?

Unless you’re a prelature, you must submit to the jurisdiction of the diocesan bishop. A prelature is different. A prelature has jurisdiction over the faithful who approach it. I find it all very confusing.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[Moore11]

Brother, I seem to recall you discussing that the SSPX could not throw a member out.
That they had no standing to do it. Well, It has just happened. I am currious to your thoughts. I think it is along the lines of “they have no authority in the Church to do this” but they did.

So, Is Williamson Still SSPX because they have no status to provide him recourse as to the law? Or did they accomplish what you said they could not and actually expell one of their members?

 

[JReducation]

Brother, I seem to recall you discussing that the SSPX could not throw a member out.
That they had no standing to do it. Well, It has just happened. I am currious to your thoughts. I think it is along the lines of “they have no authority in the Church to do this” but they did.

So, Is Williamson Still SSPX because they have no status to provide him recourse as to the law? Or did they accomplish what you said they could not and actually expell one of their members?

I’m as curious to know the answer to that question as you are. As I said above, they operate out of a remarkable ecclesiology. Were I to do that to one of our brothers, I wouldn’t get away with it. It would be highly illegal. Once a person has made a perpetual commitment to an institute, you can’t just ask him to leave. There are processes that have to be followed. The person has the right to a hearing and if necessary a trial. Rome has to approve the dismissal.

My other guess is that because the SSPX does not have a canonical status in the Church, membership in the Society can be considered a private commitment. In that case, the canons that govern such institutes do not apply here. They guide themselves by their own regulations.

What the Society of St. Pius can and cannot do should not be very important to Catholics. There is something of greater value at risk here. We now have a rogue bishop out there who answers to no one. That’s very dangerous.

He’s a very popular individual. Many people who follow him are unaware of what’s at stake here or know it and do not care. This is a perfect recipe for schism. If Bishop Williamson decides to start his own movement and ordain a successor bishop, it’s game over for many people, not just for him.

I’ve just been praying that they get their heads on straight and fix this mess.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[Moore11]

I’m as curious to know the answer to that question as you are. As I said above, they operate out of a remarkable ecclesiology. Were I to do that to one of our brothers, I wouldn’t get away with it. It would be highly illegal. Once a person has made a perpetual commitment to an institute, you can’t just ask him to leave. There are processes that have to be followed. The person has the right to a hearing and if necessary a trial. Rome has to approve the dismissal.

My other guess is that because the SSPX does not have a canonical status in the Church, membership in the Society can be considered a private commitment. In that case, the canons that govern such institutes do not apply here. They guide themselves by their own regulations.

What the Society of St. Pius can and cannot do should not be very important to Catholics. There is something of greater value at risk here. We now have a rogue bishop out there who answers to no one. That’s very dangerous.

He’s a very popular individual. Many people who follow him are unaware of what’s at stake here or know it and do not care. This is a perfect recipe for schism. If Bishop Williamson decides to start his own movement and ordain a successor bishop, it’s game over for many people, not just for him.

I’ve just been praying that they get their heads on straight and fix this mess.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

Interesting. I think it is hopeful for the rest of the SSPX though.

When Fr corapi was dealt with did he have a trial and Rome approval?

I honestly dont have a clue how all of this works.

 

[poche]

public talks are over - Fellay left open the possibility of secret talks - however if they are talking they are keeping it a secret.

 

[JReducation]

Interesting. I think it is hopeful for the rest of the SSPX though.

I really don’t know about this. I wish he had remained with the SSPX. The idea of a rogue bishop out there does not sit well with most of us. As I mentioned above, it’s a recipe for a schism. Even if he had been asked to do a desk job at the SSPX, at least he would have been accountable to someone. On the flip side, it seems that his Excellency had lost all respect for Bishop Fellay and his council. The likelihood that he would accept a quiet assignment is not very likely.

It will help the SSPX in that with Bishop Williamson will also go the more extremist traditionalists, which have been very difficult to deal with. It will certainly do nothing for the good of the Church. As predicted when the Holy See first proposed a reconciliation to the SSPX, its hesitation or resistance to any reconciliation could cause a break that would do unspeakable damage and the fault would lay squarely on the shoulders of the SSPX leadership. It has come to pass as the Vatican predicted.

Had the SSPX accepted the preamble, it would be inside. This would give the SSPX certain leverage and it would also relieve the SSPX of the responsibility for Bishop Williamson and his flock. He would become the responsibility of the CDF. The SSPX leadership would not have to deal with the problem. The plan was to admit the SSPX with Bishop Fellay, not the other bishops. The other bishops would have been automatically cut off from the SSPX by the CDF. They would have to request reconciliation directly from the Holy Father.

The likelihood that the Holy Father would welcome Bishop Williamson is very small. The Holy Father has made it very public that he does not like Bishop Williamson, that he considers him to be an anti-Semite, that he would not introduce him into polite company, and that he does not consider Bishop Williamson as ever having lived in the larger Church. Since his conversion to Catholicism, his world was always the world of traditionalism. The Holy Father sees some serious difficulties with this bishop. It’s all in print in Light of the World. The Holy Father has not denied having said any of it.

His biggest obstacle to being a bishop in the Catholic Church are his views on Judaism. No one who holds such views on Judaism may be a bishop or a religious superior in the Catholic Church, East or West. It’s just not going to happen. He would have had to retract those views. That would be my guess. In any case, he would not have been Bishop Fellay’s problem. He would have been the Vatican’s problem.

When Fr corapi was dealt with did he have a trial and Rome approval?

I honestly dont have a clue how all of this works.

Father Corapi was never dismissed. He was suspended and ordered to report to the mother house of the Society. He could have had a hearing and a trial, had he chosen to go that route. It was he who said that he was leaving and that he would not submit to a hearing of any kind, because he didn’t believe that he could get an impartial hearing from the Church.

As far as everyone knows, he is still a member of the Society of Our Lady of the Most Holy Trinity (SOLT), but is AWOL. It is up to the superior to decide how long he allows a person to be AWOL before he files for dismissal. The rule of thumb is no more than five years. No one has heard that the superior began the dismissal process.

I wouldn’t wait five years. After six months, I would send the person a letter advising them of the situation and of my intention to begin a formal dismissal process. I would wait another 30 days and then begin. But that’s me. I don’t like open-ended chapters.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[Boulder257]

.

He’s a very popular individual. Many people who follow him are unaware of what’s at stake here or know it and do not care. This is a perfect recipe for schism. If Bishop Williamson decides to start his own movement and ordain a successor bishop, it’s game over for many people, not just for him.

I’ve just been praying that they get their heads on straight and fix this mess.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

Br. JR, I am pretty naive to the legal processes, procedures, etc. but find it incredibly worrisome that he could ordain a bishop of his volition. I don’t see this as a positive development at all. My question is, can he, completely of his own will, ordain another bishop without any need for other bishops to participate? What, if anything, can the Vatican do to stop this…or are they in the same position they were in with Bishop Fellay in that they can only condemn it, but not prevent it? Thanks for helping me to understand this. I just find the whole thing very unsettling and am very nervous.

Blessings.

 

[JReducation]

public talks are over - Fellay left open the possibility of secret talks - however if they are talking they are keeping it a secret.

I got the impression that Archbishop DiNoia was open to helping the SSPX find its way back home and that Archbishop Mueller was not opposed to him doing so, but the conditions remain the same: accept Vatican II, accept the CCC, and accept the terms of the prelature.

The talks would be to clarify their questions, not to yield more. Archbishop DiNoia himself said that there is only so much that the Church can compromise. He is also looking at Vatican II from the experience of the mendicants as he mentioned in one of his interviews.

For us (mendicants) Vatican II is not a problem. It has not had any negative impact on our lives or our mission. We’ve made the changes that Vatican II asked us to make and we moved on. We have not been involved with nor care to be involved with the complaints that everyone else has. Focusing on the mission of the Church, the mission that our founders gave to us and the demands that God places before us in the present moment, is enough on our plate. If Fr. Bozo celebrates a clown mass over there, that’s his problem, not our problem. We’re not attending that mass and he’s not one of us. Life is that simple. If someone believes that Vatican II opened the door for women priests, we don’t see it in the documents and we see Bl. John Paul’s statement on this to be very clear. Again, what these folks are saying about women priests is their fantasy, not our own. We just ignore it.

There is so much grace in the present moment that it’s a pity to waste it paying attention to what other people are doing. There are so many people who need our help and welcome our help, that it would be a waste of grace not focus on those who don’t want it.

This is where Archbishop DiNoia can help the SSPX. He can help them to develop a little of the mendicant approach to things. We don’t have to agree to be in the same Church. There can be two ways of expressing the same truth. Not everything that happens is our problem to resolve. We have to deal with what’s in front of us first. Given human nature, the world is always going to be in crisis. There is no need to panic. If we do what we should, we will overcome this crisis as well.

I believe that there is always the good will to give them some advice on how to deal with their situation. There will always be an attentive ear. Changing the Vatican’s position, I don’t think so. Bishop Fellay himself said that he had written to the Holy Father to ask him if the last changes in the Preamble were truly his own or those of Cardinal Levada. The Holy Father responded, in his own hand, he had made those last minute amendments.

Since it was the Holy Father who said that the Vatican II documents have to be accepted as error free, that the CCC is the official catechism of the Catholic Church, that the new code of Canon Law is in effect and that the Ordinary Form is licit, there is nothing for the CDF to negotiate here. My guess would be that the talks are more advisory, if they exist at all.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[JReducation]

Br. JR, I am pretty naive to the legal processes, procedures, etc. but find it incredibly worrisome that he could ordain a bishop of his volition. I don’t see this as a positive development at all. My question is, can he, completely of his own will, ordain another bishop without any need for other bishops to participate? What, if anything, can the Vatican do to stop this…or are they in the same position they were in with Bishop Fellay in that they can only condemn it, but not prevent it? Thanks for helping me to understand this. I just find the whole thing very unsettling and am very nervous.

Blessings.

Any bishop can ordain another bishop. This was Archbishop Lefebvre’s situation. There is nothing that the Vatican can do, short of arresting the man, before he goes through with the ordination.

If he chooses to ordain a successor, the ordination is valid, but illicit. He and the person he ordains are automatically excommunicated. In the Latin Church, no one can ordain a bishop without the mandate from the pope.

It only takes one bishop to impose hands for an ordination. The idea of co-consecrators is part of the pageantry of the rite, but not a requirement.

Yes, this is quite troublesome.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV