Why doesn't the FSSP have a Bishop?

[basinite]

I was wondering why the FSSP doesn’t have a Bishop? Weren’t they promised one by Rome years ago?

How would having their own bishop(s) be advantageous to the society?

Would this allow the society to establish parishes without the approval of the local diocesan bishop?

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I was wondering why the FSSP doesn’t have a Bishop? Weren’t they promised one by Rome years ago?

How would having their own bishop(s) be advantageous to the society?

Would this allow the society to establish parishes without the approval of the local diocesan bishop?

Why do none of the other societies or congregations not have bishops? Why do the religious orders not have bishops?

The answer is that a bishop is not necessary. A bishop is for a diocese these groups are not limited to a diocese.

Their superiors act as ordinaries and they ask bishops to ordain their men, the bishop gets no say in who gets ordained only if he will do it or not, if he refuses the superior is free to approach any other bishop.

 

[Patrick_Joshua]

Why do none of the other societies or congregations not have bishops? Why do the religious orders not have bishops?

The answer is that a bishop is not necessary. A bishop is for a diocese these groups are not limited to a diocese.

Their superiors act as ordinaries and they ask bishops to ordain their men, the bishop gets no say in who gets ordained only if he will do it or not, if he refuses the superior is free to approach any other bishop.

Why, is a bishop only for a diocese and not religious orders in around the bishops area aswell?

 

[basinite]

Why do none of the other societies or congregations not have bishops? Why do the religious orders not have bishops?

The answer is that a bishop is not necessary. A bishop is for a diocese these groups are not limited to a diocese.

Their superiors act as ordinaries and they ask bishops to ordain their men, the bishop gets no say in who gets ordained only if he will do it or not, if he refuses the superior is free to approach any other bishop.

If only dioceses get bishops then why was Rome offering to give the SSPX bishops back in the day before Archbishop Lavebvre (I know I spelled his name wrong) got impatient and ordained his own?

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Why, is a bishop only for a diocese and not religious orders in around the bishops area aswell?

Bishops are the head of a particular church which is based in the diocese. Religious orders/communities do not require this.

That is except for Opus Dei which is a personal preleature which is sort of like a floating diocese.

Another issue is that our leadership within religious orders/communities are elected. In my order, the Order of Carmelites, we elect a new prior provincial (heads a province) every three years and no prior provinical may serve more than 6 consecutive years, and the whole Order elects a new prior general (superior of the whole order) every 6 years and he may not serve more than 12 consecutive years. So how would bishops work within this frame work? They really are not needed. We use diocesen bishops for our ordinations.

 

[numealinesimpet]

I was wondering why the FSSP doesn’t have a Bishop? Weren’t they promised one by Rome years ago?..

I was at the meeting of the Latin Mass Society in 1988 when Fr Emerson, one of the founders of the FSSP, explained about this, and the general situation of the SSPX & FSSP. In a nutshell, twelve SSPX priests considered they were unable to follow Mgr Lefebvre & Archbp. de Castro Mayer in their ordination of the four bishops. They simply went to Rome and metaphorically cast themselves at the feet of the Holy Father. In exceedingly quick time (for the Vatican) the new Fraternity was set up, pretty much along the lines that had been offered to the SSPX and rejected by them. But without a bishop. Fr Emerson was quite explicit about this: the Vatican did not give them a bishop in the package because they did not wish a re-run of the Lefebvre/SSPX scenario. Fr Emerson made it sound very simple and shipshape: diocesan bishops were to be asked (i.e. told) to “incardinate” (i.e. enrol in their diocese) any FSSP priest who requested it, under the terms of the FSSP constitution which categorically stated that the FSSP priests would never be required to offer Holy Mass according to the 1969 (Novus Ordo) Missal. If the bishop refused to co-operate, the priest would phone the Ecclesia Dei Commission in Rome and the bishop would be contacted by them and told to do so. It all sounded too good to be true…

 

[malphono]

If only dioceses get bishops then why was Rome offering to give the SSPX bishops back in the day before Archbishop Lavebvre (I know I spelled his name wrong) got impatient and ordained his own?

If I recall correctly, it was supposed to have been one bishop, with right of succession to Mgr Lefebvre as head of the “priestly fraternity” (SSPX).

 

[numealinesimpet]

If I recall correctly, it was supposed to have been one bishop, with right of succession to Mgr Lefebvre as head of the “priestly fraternity” (SSPX).

That is my own recollection, which is supported by the record.
Unfortunately, this promise was not backed up with a short list of Vatican-nominated candidates, and whatever date Mgr Lefebvre suggested, the Vatican produced a reason to put it off. For years, the Vatican had failed to address the issues that Mgr Lefebvre, the SSPX and others were continually raising, and Mgr Lefebvre came to believe that they were simply waiting for him to die without a successor. He felt his own old age catching up on him, and eventually stated that he would consecrate a bishop with or without the Vatican’s intervention, invoking canons 1321, 1323 & 1324 of the New Code of Canon Law. It was only when it became clear that he was really going to do this that the Vatican made any concrete moves, and even then, Mgr Lefebvre believed that they were still only continuing the game of waiting for him to die of old age. In the event, knowing that there would be a furore, he apparently considered “as well be hanged for a sheep as a lamb” and consecrated four bishops, to place the apostolic succession of the SSPX beyond all reasonable jeopardy. The rights and wrongs of this have been discussed endlessly, including on several threads of this forum; but I believe that the points I place here are accurate. Obviously, nobody can read his mind, but these are the things that were said and done.

 

[ProVobis]

If I recall correctly, it was supposed to have been one bishop, with right of succession to Mgr Lefebvre as head of the “priestly fraternity” (SSPX).

Here is the signed protocol with comments by Fr. Z.

wdtprs.com/blog/2006/07/may-1988-the-protocol-of-accord-lefebvre-ratzinger/

 

[numealinesimpet]

Here is the signed protocol with comments by Fr. Z.

wdtprs.com/blog/2006/07/may-1988-the-protocol-of-accord-lefebvre-ratzinger/

Thanks for the link, ProVobis. The comment that follows the Document of Accord is very much to the point:

Responses to May 1988: The Protocol of Accord – Lefebvre & Ratzinger

  Andrew says:
  14 July 2006 at 5:23 pm

  It caught my attention that in I. 5. it is stated;

  “Last, we promise to respect the common discipline of the Church and the ecclesiastical laws, particularly those contained in the Code of Canon Law promulgated by Pope John Paul II, except for the special discipline conceded to the fraternity by particular law.”

  I can’t help but being somewhat surprised, as I read this. For instance, I read in Can. 249 (of the same Code promulgated by Pope John Paul II) the following:

  “The Charter of Priestly Formation is to provide that the students are not only taught their native language accurately, but are also well versed in Latin, etc.” Who abides by that Canon? What priests are well-versed in Latin?

  So I ask myself: is anyone else asked to promise such respect for the common discipline of the Church contained in the CCL? Fair is fair. While others get away with just about anything, this group is asked to promise to adhere to the Canon Law? Why not ask everyone to adhere to the ecclesiastical discipline?

  I am not saying this to challenge others about things I know not enough about. I am a simple layman. But since I have been subjected for so long to so much, I am speaking out on my behalf, so to speak. I am fed up with

[num: here **Andrew lists some of the flagrant and rampant abuses that he has witnessed, concluding with …]

… and clergy making statements in support of female ordination, etc., etc…

  How about getting those guys to sign some promises to respect the common discipline?

This was the problem all the time: one law for the traditionalists, and another for the, shall we say, innovators. Hard as it is to say, there was nothing less than a Credibility Gap. S. Thomas Aquinas wrote, “In cases of doubt, take the safer course”. “Normally” this would be, to follow the dictates of one’s superior(s). But 1988 was not “Normal times”. I do agree this was a very difficult decision, and I personally did not agree with Mgr Lefebvre in 1988, but subsequent events in the church and the world eventually caused me to revise my opinion. There was nothing so obvious as an openly declared heresy within the Church, but there was very definitely a breakdown in discipline. I believe the SSPX were farsighted in holding fast.

 

[ProVobis]

This was the problem all the time: one law for the traditionalists, and another for the, shall we say, innovators.

And the interesting thing about Canon 249 is that the Vatican can easily remove or change it. But they have held steadfast with it, never abrogated Veterum Sapientia, have witnessed the unintended divisive effects of the vernacular Mass, yet no one has been reprimanded to my knowledge.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

I was wondering why the FSSP doesn’t have a Bishop? Weren’t they promised one by Rome years ago?

How would having their own bishop(s) be advantageous to the society?

Would this allow the society to establish parishes without the approval of the local diocesan bishop?

The long and short have already been addressed, but to recap:

1. A religious order really only needs bishops for ordinations; of course, there are other things, such as erecting and dedicating houses and places of worship, etc., but one would assume that a local ordinary to whom it would fall to erect a house, would also be willing to make it canonically functional by blessing its chapel, etc.
2. The traditionalists orders, nonetheless, do offer a slight exception to this rule because they request their rites in a form the vast majority of bishops have long been unwilling, if even able, to use. The SSPX was isolated (and deserved its own hefty share of the blame) from the bulk of the European episcopate, and thus couldn’t find bishops willing to ordain and incardinate the clerics they trained. Furthermore, one can’t live a complete life by the traditional books without bishops willing to confer confirmation in the old rite, making traditionalists further dependent - here for the sake of those to whom they minister - upon bishops.
3. When the FSSP came under the protection of Ecclesia Dei, however, they essentially had a guarantee that a bishop would ordain their clerics. That same protection, as well as the erection of Bp. Rifan’s personal apostolic administration in Brazil, meant that confirmations would be difficult to schedule but with the help of the Catholic equivalent of “flying bishops” would be possible. With the greater acceptance of traditionalist orders over the subsequent decades, more and more diocesan bishops have come on board in terms of willingness to ordain and confirm in the traditional rites, meaning that the “necessity” (and I use that term loosely) of bishops at the time of the SSPX episcopal consecrations no longer exists. The needs are filled, even if still more laboriously than if all bishops were willing to use both forms.

 

[numealinesimpet]

The long and short have already been addressed, but to recap:

1. A religious order really only needs bishops for ordinations; of course, there are other things, such as erecting and dedicating houses and places of worship, etc., but one would assume that a local ordinary to whom it would fall to erect a house, would also be willing to make it canonically functional by blessing its chapel, etc.

Yes, the SSPX are “a priestly fraternity without vows”. Their aim is simply to become more holy priests. The fact that no other group took the same route they did, is not their responsibility. In fact, their first superior after Mgr Lefebvre himself was Fr Schmitberger, even though there were by then four bishops in the Fraternity. The only reason Bp Fellay is currently in charge is that he is the best man for the job at present.

1. The traditionalists orders, nonetheless, do offer a slight exception to this rule because they request their rites in a form the vast majority of bishops have long been unwilling, if even able, to use. The SSPX was isolated (and deserved its own hefty share of the blame) from the bulk of the European episcopate,

Point of Order! That does not correspond to my own experience of the SSPX, who gave invaluable help to my dear wife & me when nobody else would support our efforts to raise a Catholic family … would you care to give a few examples to back up your statement?

and thus couldn’t find bishops willing to ordain and incardinate the clerics they trained. Furthermore, one can’t live a complete life by the traditional books without bishops willing to confer confirmation in the old rite, making traditionalists further dependent - here for the sake of those to whom they minister - upon bishops.

1. When the FSSP came under the protection of Ecclesia Dei, however, they essentially had a guarantee that a bishop would ordain their clerics. … And this guarantee was immediately reneged upon. I did smell a rat when Fr Emerson left the FSSP after less than two years. What happened was that he applied for incardination to his “Local Ordinary” (Diocesan Bishop); the bishop refused; Fr Emerson appealed to Rome, and despite their former promises they were either unwilling or unable to get the bishop to follow their recommendations. Fr Emerson made a Formal appeal which occupied several years.
   Another former SSPX priest joined the FSSP and went to Paris under Cdl Lustiger, and was accepted. Then Cdl Lustiger insisted the priest concelebrate with him in the 1969 (Novus Ordo) Rite. The priest reminded the Cdl of the “cast iron assurance” that the FSSP would never have to offer Mass in the Novus Ordo Rite. Cdl Lustiger insisted. The priest had a nervous breakdown.

That same protection, as well as the erection of Bp. Rifan’s personal apostolic administration in Brazil, meant that confirmations would be difficult to schedule but with the help of the Catholic equivalent of “flying bishops” would be possible. With the greater acceptance of traditionalist orders over the subsequent decades, more and more diocesan bishops have come on board in terms of willingness to ordain and confirm in the traditional rites, meaning that the “necessity” (and I use that term loosely) of bishops at the time of the SSPX episcopal consecrations no longer exists. The needs are filled, even if still more laboriously than if all bishops were willing to use both forms.

“One swallow doth not make a Summer”. I personally know of very significant difficulties currently ongoing. Certain bishops are very clearly simply hoping that Pope Benedict will die, and that the whole question of the Traditional Liturgy will die with him. And they are not being forced to implement the Holy Father’s mandate. All this gives as much ammunition as the hardline trads could ever wish. My own opinion is that the State of Emergency most assuredly still exists.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

Point of Order! That does not correspond to my own experience of the SSPX, who gave invaluable help to my dear wife & me when nobody else would support our efforts to raise a Catholic family … would you care to give a few examples to back up your statement? . . . ]

“One swallow doth not make a Summer”. I personally know of very significant difficulties currently ongoing. Certain bishops are very clearly simply hoping that Pope Benedict will die, and that the whole question of the Traditional Liturgy will die with him. And they are not being forced to implement the Holy Father’s mandate. All this gives as much ammunition as the hardline trads could ever wish. My own opinion is that the State of Emergency most assuredly still exists.

When the SSPX was first established, they were working with a number of bishops who were indeed incardinating the clerics trained at their seminary. But they supplied ammunition to the apostolic visitators, and their defiant attitude in the ensuing imbroglio alienated the bishops who had been working with them. They were indeed persecuted by enemies of tradition in the dioceses and in the Roman bureaucracy, who deserve their own hefty share of the blame for the fiasco - one can’t underscore that enough - but the SSPX was no meek victim. Abp. Lefebvre was, to put it mildly, never a diplomat. This is the picture I received from Michael Davies’ biography, and that work is typically at pains to show the society and its leader in a good light.

My post was not, however, meant to be a commentary on the SSPX; rather, it was meant to show that while the SSPX may indeed have had a certain need for bishops at the time of the illicit consecrations, the FSSP inhabits a different world and has no exigent need of the same. The problems you cite at the time of their foundation may indeed have occurred. But fast forward to the present. My own FSSP chaplain was ordained by our (then) local ordinary in his own cathedral, and that same ordinary administered confirmation in the extraordinary form to the youth of our chaplaincy. A half dozen or so more bishops like him can be found in the United States, and at least another half dozen in Europe, etc. That is an admittedly paltry figure, but if the argument is that we “need” bishops assigned to our traditional societies of apostolic life in order to administer necessary rites, you will find that worldwide there are far more than the four bishops with which the SSPX has contented itself these past two decades. To flip it on its head, if 4 bishops are enough to supply the needs of SSPX adherents worldwide, then the United States has an overabundance of bishops doing the same. It’s an embarassment of riches. Many, many Catholics still go without traditional rites by which they wish they could worship the Almighty, but one or a handful of bishops attached the to FSSP would not significantly alter that fact.

 

[JReducation]

I think that the thread is getting off topic and becoming an apologia for the SSPX. The question about the FSSP was very clearly answered by Brother David.

A Society of Apostolic LIfe runs very similarly to a religious congregation or to a religious order, even though it is neither. Please stop referring to the FSSP and the SSPX as “the order”. They are not orders. They are societies or associations. They have a different canonical status and very different vocations from that of consecrated religious. However, their organization is very similar to that of consecrated religious, because Msr. Lefebvre himself was a religious. He gave the SSPX the format that he knew, which was the format of the Divine Word Missionaries. Their government is similar to that of religiuos, without the rights and duties of religious.

Since their government is similar and they are the parent society to the FSSP, by extension, the FSSP also has a government that is similar to that of the Divine Word Missionaries, who are truly consecrated religious. Though they too are not an order. They are a congregation.

So let’s look at how religious congregations are governed and we’ll understand how the FSSP is governed. Religious congregations are governed by a major superior that they elect for a specific period. That varies from one to the other. It’s usually 3-5 years and the person can be re-elected, but may not serve more than two consecutive terms.

The major superior need not be a bisop. Heck,he need not be a priest. By law, he must be a member of the congregation who has made perpetual vows. If the congregation is a clerical congregation, then the major superior must be a deacon or a priest, because it must be governed by a cleric. Since the FSSP follows the model of the Divine Word Missionaries, then it must be governed by a deacon or a priest. It can be either, because both are clerics.

Who ever governs has Ordinary Authority. This means, that whether he is a lay brother, deacon or priest, he has the Authority of a bishop. He can erect houses. He can grant faculties to his subordinates. He can suspend his subordiantes. He can can close houses. He decides who will or will not be ordained. He approves the elections of those superiors beneath him. It’s called ratifying. He precides at all chapters, general and regional. He governs according the the statutes of the community.

Since the FSSP and the SSPX are not consecrated religious, they do not make vows of obedience. They promise to obey the local bishop. Therefore, they must become incardinated into the local diocese. This is where they differ from a religious community. Religious do not promise obedience to any bishop. In fact, religious do not make a promise of obedience. We make a vow of obedience, big big difference. We obey the founder, the rule, the constitution, the major superior, the local superior and the brethren when they speak in a chapter, in that order. FSSP and SSPX do not have that hierarchy of obedience or that commitment. They are seculars. They obey the statutes of their society and the local bishop.

Since they are a Society of Apostolic Life, they have certain exemptions. The local bishop cannot interfere in their internal affairs. Their internal affairs are governed by their statutes, not the local bishop. Therefore, the local bishop does not decide who gets ordained. That decision is made according to their statutes.

I have never read the statutes of the FSSP or the SSPX. Therefore, I have no idea how a man applies for ordination and who approves. But it is not the local bishop. The major superior writes a letter requesting that the bishop ordain his subordinate. He cannot force the bishop to ordain him. The bishop can decline. But the major superior can find another bishop. The ordination is valid, as long as it’s done by a validly ordained bishop. It is legal or licit, as long as the man has the superior’s permission to be ordained and the bishop has the superior’s permission to do the ordaining. This is very important. Even if the bishop is in good standing with the Church, if the superior does not grant the permission the ordination is ilicit. The superior’s authority trumps that of the bishop, even if the superior is not a bishop. That’s part of being an Ordinary.

The FSSP, does not need its own bishop, because its superior can do anything that a bishop can do, except ordain. On the flip side, the bishop cannot legally ordain without the superior’s permission. STALEMATE!

For example, Mother Angelica can stop any priest from saying mass at her monastery. She is the boss. She is the major superior. The priest who celebrates the mass at her monastery does not out rank her. You see, you don’t have to be a bishop to have authority, whether you’re an order, congregation or society.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Aramis]

I was wondering why the FSSP doesn’t have a Bishop? Weren’t they promised one by Rome years ago?

How would having their own bishop(s) be advantageous to the society?

Would this allow the society to establish parishes without the approval of the local diocesan bishop?

The FSSP don’t need any. Their seminaries are well cared for by the local bishops where they are located. And being papal right now, their superior general is an ordinary, and while he may not ordain, he can give permission to any bishop to perform those ordinations they have need to be done. And if the local bishop-ordinary won’t, any willing bishop can be borrowed to do so.

The few societies that do have bishops may utilize them to perform ordinations ordered by the ordinary in charge of that society.

One should note, however, that the superior-general of a society is not an ordinary until confirmed by Rome in his position as superior-general…

 

[laszlo]

Unfortunately, this promise was not backed up with a short list of Vatican-nominated candidates, and whatever date Mgr Lefebvre suggested, the Vatican produced a reason to put it off…

In my recollection that time Cardinal Ratzinger clearly stated that the process (to provide personal prelature to the SSPX independent from the diocesan bishops), is difficult, and will take minimum one year. In response Archbishop Lefevbre asked for few days, few weeks, few months and Cardinal Ratzinger kept the term minimum one year.

This is the same as above, but different aspect.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

I think that the thread is getting off topic and becoming an apologia for the SSPX. The question about the FSSP was very clearly answered by Brother David.
…]
He gave the SSPX the format that he knew, which was the format of the Divine Word Missionaries. [CSSp., actually]
…]
Who ever governs has Ordinary Authority. This means, that whether he is a lay brother, deacon or priest, he has the Authority of a bishop. He can erect houses. He can grant faculties to his subordinates. He can suspend his subordiantes. He can can close houses. He decides who will or will not be ordained. He approves the elections of those superiors beneath him. It’s called ratifying. He precides at all chapters, general and regional. He governs according the the statutes of the community.I have never read the statutes of the FSSP or the SSPX. Therefore, I have no idea how a man applies for ordination and who approves. But it is not the local bishop. The major superior writes a letter requesting that the bishop ordain his subordinate. He cannot force the bishop to ordain him. The bishop can decline. But the major superior can find another bishop. . . . ] The FSSP, does not need its own bishop, because its superior can do anything that a bishop can do, except ordain.

Br. JR - the note about “orders,” speaking loosely (and I believe I have been consistent in referring to the FSSP and SSPX as societies when speaking in the particular) requiring bishops for the erection of houses was not meant to indicate that religious superiors are simply incapable of erecting houses, but that a bishop is indeed necessary because the local ordinary’s written consent is required for a religious superior to erect a house for his community within a particular territory. Outside of the territories governed by monasteries nullius diocoesis, this will require the involvement of a bishop. But that is a rather minor point.

The substantial point is when you imply that the situation of the SSPX is largely irrelevant to the question of whether having their own bishops would be beneficial to the FSSP. The historical situation of their parent society, though, provides a prime example of circumstances in which it would most definitely be of benefit to the FSSP to have its own bishops, an arrangement unnecessary to a religious order/society/congregation under the vast majority of circumstances. You state that, should a bishop refuse to ordain clerics of a society, “the major superior can find another bishop.” But the early days of the SSPX/FSSP were times in which that statement was largely false. For all practical purposes, no one aside from Abp. Lefebvre would ordain traditionalist clerics, so if that situation were to have persisted, it would indeed have been advantageous to the FSSP to enjoy the privilege of bishops attached to itself. A clerical society cannot live without ordinations, and given the rare but certainly conceivable situation that no outside bishop could be found to provide those, a bishop of its own would be the society’s only hope of a future.

 

[Aramis]

A diocesan right society requires the diocesan bishop-ordinary’s permission to perform ordinations.

The SSPX never got their personal prelature status; the FSSP did. The SSPX lack an Ordinary; the FSSP have one by virtue of their personal prelature status making their superior general an ordinary (but not a bishop). The FSSP can go bishop shopping…

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Br. JR - the note about “orders,” speaking loosely (and I believe I have been consistent in referring to the FSSP and SSPX as societies when speaking in the particular) requiring bishops for the erection of houses was not meant to indicate that religious superiors are simply incapable of erecting houses, but that a bishop is indeed necessary because the local ordinary’s written consent is required for a religious superior to erect a house for his community within a particular territory. Outside of the territories governed by monasteries nullius diocoesis, this will require the involvement of a bishop. But that is a rather minor point.

Actually I think the bishop’s approval is only necessary if the house to be erected within his diocese will have a public ministry. If the house will not have a public ministry I do not think the bishop can stop it.