Author Topic: Bishop Fellay erected a Society? (Read 3050 times)

curioustrad · « **Reply #5 on:** June 09, 2014, 11:46:16 AM »

Quote from: Neil Obstat

.

There is a difference between the erection of the SSPX and the erection of these societies by +Fellay. The prelate from whom ABL acquired approval had jurisdiction. +F has no jurisdiction. Nor, as a bishop, is he properly the S.G. of the SSPX in the first place since ABL always wanted a PRIEST and not a BISHOP to be the Superior of the Society of St. Pius X.

.

Arguing within the letter of the law (as you do) the permission to function as SSPX ceased in 1976 without the Roman suppression - the approval was only for a 6 year experiment and the experiment ran out in 1976.

Arguing from the Salus animarum perspective - necessity trumps the law and the law says that itself.

As to the erection of societies - the Archbishop did that as well - think of the Sisters of the Society, the oblate Sisters, the Brothers, the Carmelites etc.

If you follow the "Law" position then the Archbishop only had permission for the SSPX. The SSPX ceased to exist in '76 but evidently it continues to this day.

poche · « **Reply #6 on:** June 09, 2014, 10:18:45 PM »

Quote from: Centroamerica

Quote from: poche
I thought Archbishop Lefebvre was the founder.
:scratchchin: :scratchchin: :scratchchin:

I don't know If you read it but the Society is used here in reference to the Society of St. Jospehat.

Weren't they associated with the Transalpine Redemptorists before their reconiliation with the Vatican?

poche · « **Reply #7 on:** June 09, 2014, 10:20:48 PM »

Quote from: Neil Obstat

.

There is a difference between the erection of the SSPX and the erection of these societies by +Fellay. The prelate from whom ABL acquired approval had jurisdiction. +F has no jurisdiction. Nor, as a bishop, is he properly the S.G. of the SSPX in the first place since ABL always wanted a PRIEST and not a BISHOP to be the Superior of the Society of St. Pius X.

.

This group is Byzantine rite.

Centroamerica · « **Reply #8 on:** June 10, 2014, 07:47:50 AM »

Quote from: poche

Quote from: Neil Obstat
.

There is a difference between the erection of the SSPX and the erection of these societies by +Fellay. The prelate from whom ABL acquired approval had jurisdiction. +F has no jurisdiction. Nor, as a bishop, is he properly the S.G. of the SSPX in the first place since ABL always wanted a PRIEST and not a BISHOP to be the Superior of the Society of St. Pius X.

.

This group is Byzantine rite.

Nevertheless, they were erected without canonical approval by Bishop Fellay, who has no ordinary jurisdiction in the Church. If there were no scruples in the Society about having done this then why all the scruples about forming a union amongst the resistance priests?

poche · « **Reply #9 on:** June 10, 2014, 10:57:28 PM »

Quote from: Centroamerica

Quote from: poche
Quote from: Neil Obstat
.

There is a difference between the erection of the SSPX and the erection of these societies by +Fellay. The prelate from whom ABL acquired approval had jurisdiction. +F has no jurisdiction. Nor, as a bishop, is he properly the S.G. of the SSPX in the first place since ABL always wanted a PRIEST and not a BISHOP to be the Superior of the Society of St. Pius X.

.

This group is Byzantine rite.

Nevertheless, they were erected without canonical approval by Bishop Fellay, who has no ordinary jurisdiction in the Church. If there were no scruples in the Society about having done this then why all the scruples about forming a union amongst the resistance priests?

As a Latin rite bishop wouldn't he ordinarily not have authority to erect an eastern rite community?