Traditional Orders' Ordaining Bishops?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Geremia
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
JReducation said:
Brother David is correct. FSSP is a society of apostolic life. They are in a group of societies including:

Maryknoll (men only, the women are consecrated religious, but not the men)
SOLT (Fr. Corapi’s community)
Missionhurst
Holy Cross (Opus Dei)
Daughters of Charity (can’t have bishops there)
Schoenstatt Sisters (can’t have bishop there)
ICRSS
De La Salle Christian Brothers (can’t have bishops there either)

All of these are societies of secular men, women or both that come together for the sake of a particular apostolate and have some kind of bond that unites them as a community, without being consecrated religious, but independent of the diocese. Bishops are intended to run Churches. A society is not a Church. Every bishop is the head of a Church, even if it’s a dead Church. We call these titular bishops.

The idea of a bishop at the head of society was something that Archbishop Lefebvre created. But it was not his intention to do so. Originally, all he wanted to do was to run a seminary for traditional seminarians. The SSPX exploded out of there. I’m not even sure how Rome even allowed him to be the superior of a society. My only guess is that it may have been allowed because he was a retired religious.

If a bishop is a religious, when he retires, he is free to return to his community. Since he was available to do the job and the Congregation of the Spiritans, which was his religious community had no objections, they probably figured it was OK to let him be the superior of the new society. I don’t know the details of how he got past the canonical requirements that a society be governed by one of its own.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV 🙂
Click to expand...
Dear Brother JR,

Thank you for your post & help!👍 I always learn so much from you!👍

:blessyou:

PAX
 
Geremia said:
That would violate the physical law of conservation of mass… Are you a plant that gets most of its mass from the carbon in the air? ☘️ :confused: 🙂
Click to expand...
Yeah! Tell that to my body. Please! :bighanky:

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV 🙂
 
Geremia said:
That would violate the physical law of conservation of mass… Are you a plant that gets most of its mass from the carbon in the air? ☘️ :confused: 🙂
Click to expand...
No violation of physics here, fasting does not eliminate liquids intake and during a short period of drastic changes in diet you can have a lot of chemical imbalances, and probably you could end up retaining a lot of water. For example people with diabetes and taking some medications can be more sensitive to water retention.
 
Cristiano said:
No violation of physics here, fasting does not eliminate liquids intake and during a short period of drastic changes in diet you can have a lot of chemical imbalances, and probably you could end up retaining a lot of water. For example people with diabetes and taking some medications can be more sensitive to water retention.
Click to expand...
Cristiano is right. I’m diabetic.

Fraternally,

Br.JR, FFV 🙂
 
wasserfall said:
Please elaborate here Brother JR.

I don’t agree with this statement as it seems to contradict the nature of the state of mortal sin as opposed to the state of grace, so I’d like to hear what you mean by it.

p.s. The paragraph in which this statement was embedded seemed very traditional and correct. Just this statement stood out to me,
Click to expand...
You have to remember that we do not loose all the graces from God when we commit mortal sin. If that were true we would not be able to repent and go to confession. With mortal sin we loose the sanctifying grace.
I think that there might be a problem with how we look at old catechism books when discussing about sanctifying grace and God’s presence in us. The problem is that they were simple explanations for the educations of the masses and they made statements of “what is”. However, a statement of “what is” cannot be turned automatically in a “what is not” statement.
 
Cristiano said:
You have to remember that we do not loose all the graces from God when we commit mortal sin. If that were true we would not be able to repent and go to confession. With mortal sin we loose the sanctifying grace.
I think that there might be a problem with how we look at old catechism books when discussing about sanctifying grace and God’s presence in us. The problem is that they were simple explanations for the educations of the masses and they made statements of “what is”. However, a statement of “what is” cannot be turned automatically in a “what is not” statement.
Click to expand...
I’m quite clear on the difference between actual graces and sanctifying grace.
God’s life within us is sanctifying grace, not actual grace.

I did not say that we lose all graces when we commit mortal sin, but rather we lose sanctifying grace and thus we enter into a state of sin, in which God’s life is not in us.

Actual graces of repentance are gifts of God to us to enable us to return to a state of (sanctifying) grace, but the fact that we are not fully abandoned by God does not mean that we have God’s presence in us.
 
wasserfall said:
…I did not say that we lose all graces when we commit mortal sin, but rather we lose sanctifying grace and thus we enter into a state of sin, in which God’s life is not in us…
Click to expand...
I was sure that you knew the definition of sanctifying grace, I was not trying to lecture you on the basics, I was simply using the explanation to make my point. My point is that saying that we do not have access to God’s grace is different than saying God is not in us. We are dead to God because we choose so but God is not dead to/in us.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top