Author Topic: Disobedient Indultarian Ordained (Read 6506 times)

Matthew · « **Reply #10 on:** May 15, 2022, 02:25:57 PM »

Quote from: Shrewd Operator on May 15, 2022, 01:39:40 PM

Notice how they evoked the emergency powers to counter the cannons.

Sounds very war-like. Countering the cannons!

I think you mean canons...

SimpleMan · « **Reply #11 on:** May 15, 2022, 09:22:41 PM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson on May 15, 2022, 09:55:39 AM

The issue is that one bishop is ordaining priests to operate in another bishop’s diocese against his will (regardless of who’s diocese he’s incardinated into).

The way I was reading it ("reading into it" would probably be more like it), it looked like the priest would be subject to the ordaining bishop, would be incardinated to him, and would serve in his diocese instead of the one in which he was rejected.

What am I missing here?

Nadir · « **Reply #12 on:** May 16, 2022, 06:08:06 AM »

Communique
14.5.2022

In the course of a dialogue with our Bishop, Msgr Dominique Rey—a meeting had been arranged for ten days’ time and a telephone conversation was promised for this week—the Chancellor of our diocese has today sent out to clergy an inflammatory statement which is creating confusion, if not scandal, to which we must respond.

We wish to state at the outset that we have sought to avoid publicity and scandal and to act discretely and to have private conversations with our bishop in order to move forward with him. In the light of this the Chancellor’s statement—which contains canonical and factual inaccuracies and falsehoods, possibly due to a misreading of English texts—is precipitous and for that reason alone it is more than regrettable.

Our monastic community has been frustrated in recent years by our Bishop’s unwillingness or inability to proceed with the ordinations that it has long since needed, despite these having been recommended by no fewer than three monastic visitators, the most recent in December 2021, out of a so-called “prudence”—though it has become increasingly clear that this “prudence” is based on fear of repercussions, a fear increased by the Holy See’s recent visitation of the diocesan seminary. Bishop Rey has often confirmed that this “prudence” is not based on any substantial doubt about the idoneity of any candidate, the need of the monastery for ordinations, or about the good that they would bring.

We wish to say that we understand many of the pressures on Bishop Rey and that his judgement in these questions is not a positive will on his part to inflict suffering upon us, or a wish to act unjustly. Even if an injustice results from his feeling trapped and unable to proceed because of outside factors, his good will and paternity have been a blessing for which we thank Almighty God.

The measures enacted in the last year by the Holy See in respect of the usus antiquior, most particularly the December 2021 responses of Archbishop Roche, have exacerbated this situation. The blanket ban on ordinations has put us, our vocations and our candidates in an impossible position. The integrity of our observance, liturgical and monastic, is gravely compromised. That which one Successor of Peter assured us to be true is contradicted by another. The content of the vows we have taken before God has been radically altered. This situation is itself a scandal and is untenable.

In January Msgr Rey informed us that he could not proceed with the ordinations recommended in the Visitation report from last December. We consulted with friends, including respected senior prelates, regarding our seemingly impossible situation. In our conversations we stressed our respect for the Bishop and our understanding of his position, as well as our predicament. The Prior made a pilgrimage to pray at the tomb of St Peter on the feast of His Chair for unity in the Church. One senior prelate offered to confer ordinations if the Bishop Rey remained unable to do so. We were taken aback by this offer: no request for ordinations was made of anyone.

Our Prior met with Bishop Rey once again to see if there was any other way forward. But once again it was clear that he could not envisage ordaining our men. Our frustration at this situation has developed into a substantial and grave fear. What if the Holy See removes the Bishop? What if the Holy See suppresses us along with other traditional communities that are ‘only’ Associations of the Faithful? Without a priest we could not even hope to weather the storm whilst waiting for better days. What if the diocesan priests due to supply Mass here cannot come—we would be without Mass, as we have been previously.

We carried all of these concerns with us into the depths of Lent. We studied them and prayed much about them. We placed them under the patronage of our Holy Father Saint Benedict, on whose feast day we decided to accept the offer made to us by the senior prelate, regarding it as a call to Orders justly made by a faithful successor of the apostles in truly exceptional circuмstances.
We took this decision in good conscience before Almighty God, knowing that it would appear to involve material disobedience, but with the conviction that it was for the ultimate good of souls in a truly extraordinary situation in the life of the Church, fearing that if we did not accept this Providential opportunity our own vocations, and those of the young men who wish to come to us, would be jeopardised, if not lost. We have experienced a great peace in respect of this decision.

Therefore, in April, the aforementioned senior prelate in unimpeded communion with the Holy See ordained one of our men to the Subdiaconate and to the Diaconate on successive days, and ordained our Prior to the Priesthood according to the usus antiquior of the Roman rite in a discrete location not in France. No stipend was requested or offered, given or accepted, in respect of them. The ordinations were preceded by the necessary oaths and were been duly certified and witnessed. We will not reveal the name of the ordaining prelate.

The penalty incurred according to canon 1388 § 1—if it had in fact even been incurred, given the provisions of canon 1323—was remitted in accordance with canon 1355 § 2. [nb. numeration of the Code as of December 2021]

Upon our return we wrote to Bishop Rey to inform him and to ask to meet and consider how we are to move forward. We are resolved to remain faithful to our vows on our property in Brignoles no matter what transpires. That is our duty and our vocation before God. We have acted in good faith, even if because of necessity outside the canonical norms, and in spite of all we wish to remain in good relations and communion with our Bishop, his successors and the diocese.

We stated to Bishop Rey that if he judged that we must be publicly sanctioned, we will remain here and live our vows faithfully and wait for better times, much as did Dom Gerard when he was sanctioned in 1974 for having a bishop confer minor orders on the monks of his nascent monastery. Fifteen years later he was blessed as the first Abbot of Le Barroux.

For the sake of discretion, and to leave the Bishop free to decide how to proceed, we have kept the fact of the ordinations secret and have not exercised public ministry. But we have also said, in begging the bishop to avoid scandal, to provide priests for Mass. Before Almighty God we cannot allow the monastery to be deprived of Holy Mass or the sacraments again.

We have asked for and have received the promise of private conversations only to have them subsequently refused. We have received peremptory demands prepared by the Chancellor that strike a very different tone to the messages sent by the bishop. We have been told of unacceptable indiscretions in respect of us by the Chancellor. And finally we have received a “declaration” of a suspension of the orders received, which suspension has already been duly canonically remitted.

The Chancellor’s statement today, passed on to us third hand, contains matters that have not been communicated to us—as well as gross inaccuracies. We cannot think that Bishop Rey knowingly authorised these.
We remain hopeful that dialogue and reconciliation are possible. That is our fervent hope and prayer.

We apologise to any who may find this situation distressing, as indeed do we, and beg the understanding of all that before all else we must remain faithful to our vocation of a traditional Benedictine life of prayer and work, ratified and blessed by our Bishop in our foundational statutes and constitutions, and to our vows, taken before Almighty God according to them. We have lived thus for more than ten years now and pray to God we may do so for many more in fruitful communion with him.

It should be noted that any who may wish to use this as an occasion to make ad hominem attacks on any of the monks should know that on no occasion has the bishop had any cause to censure them in respect of faith or morals. In respect of the Prior, whom Bishop Rey invited to the diocese and incardinated in June 2009 following all due consultation and necessary processes, it is to be underlined that the bishop judged him idoneus to be superior of the monastery as recently as at the renewal of its statutes in January 2022. All other monks have been admitted and formed according to the correct processes—indeed stricter ones than those in place in other communities in the diocese.

We entrust the monastery and our vocations to the Blessed Virgin of Fatima, offering whatever sufferings we must endure for the reparation of our sins, for the liberty and unity of the Church, for our diocese and for Bishop Rey.

http://www.monasterebrignoles.org/news/statement-communique

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #13 on:** May 16, 2022, 06:41:12 AM »

Interesting that remission of the suspension is alleged under Can. 1355 (2). Never thought of that before.

Even more interesting would be the “senior prelate’s” account of why he felt justified in proceeding with the ordinations.

Zeusantony · « **Reply #14 on:** May 16, 2022, 09:09:14 AM »

There is I think the matter of this curious community under the prior Alcuin Reed who has got himself ordained a priest in dubious circuмstances The history of this man is well worth investigating. All of it rather strange. Where does his self-title of 'Dom' come from.

CathInfo.com

Author Topic: Disobedient Indultarian Ordained (Read 6506 times)

Matthew

Re: Disobedient Indultarian Ordained

SimpleMan

Re: Disobedient Indultarian Ordained

Nadir

Re: Disobedient Indultarian Ordained

SeanJohnson

Re: Disobedient Indultarian Ordained

Zeusantony

Re: Disobedient Indultarian Ordained