Author Topic: Bishop Fellay erected a Society? (Read 2297 times)

Centroamerica · « **on:** June 08, 2014, 03:01:36 PM »

I had read this article a week or so ago and recall that it states that Bishop Fellay erected a Society.

Would something like this be impossible for the resistance?

"It was then that Fr. Vasyl and six other priests–all parish priests–who wanted to join in the same fight came to ask Bishop Fellay to take them under his protection by erecting a Society according to the Ukrainian traditions, the Society of St. Josaphat of the Ukraine, which has its headquarters in Lviv. The foundation took place on September 28, 2000, and Fr. Vasyl was elected as first superior. Bishop Fellay erected the Society, as well as the Congregation of the Basilian Sisters of Divine Mercy, and he blessed the seminary on the occasion of a visit to the Ukraine in November of that same year. Eight seminarians immediately joined the Institute placed under the responsibility of our present Superior General."

http://www.angelusonline.org/index.php?section=articles&subsection=print_article&article_id=2699

poche · « **Reply #1 on:** June 08, 2014, 10:37:49 PM »

I thought Archbishop Lefebvre was the founder.
:scratchchin: :scratchchin: :scratchchin:

Centroamerica · « **Reply #2 on:** June 09, 2014, 08:40:27 AM »

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.

curioustrad · « **Reply #3 on:** June 09, 2014, 11:26:00 AM »

According to the linked article the group in question was accepted by Bishop Fellay under the SSPX wing in 2000. I recall that Bishop Williamson ordained a few priests for this group several years ago but skimming the article I only saw mention of Bishop Tissier de Mallerais (in addition to Bishop Fellay) ordaining priests for the group.

In reply to the initial question: Could something like this be done for the "resistance" ?

I think the first answer is "No". The resistance was in the SSPX and is hardly likely to be welcomed back by Bishop Fellay after all the polemics in the last few years.

The second answer has to be "Yes" if Bishop Williamson would lead the resistance and not claim he needs a "mission" from the Church when officially speaking Archbishop Lefebvre didn't have one since 1976 but that didn't stop him from operating the SSPX and functioning without a "mandate" in 1988.

Bishop Williamson's canonical position is every much the same as Bishop Fellay's vis-a-vis Rome but that doesn't stop Bishop Fellay from operating the SSPX without a Roman blessing so why should it stop Bishop Williamson ?

It was after all Bishop Tissier de Mallerais who wrote to Bishop Williamson telling him he wasn't consecrated a bishop to be a journalist.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #4 on:** June 09, 2014, 11:41:25 AM »

.

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.

.

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?

Centroamerica · « **Reply #10 on:** June 11, 2014, 10:16:22 AM »

Quote from: poche

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?

Whatever the case may be, he did it. One of the biggest topics in the resistance brought up by the faithful time and time again is the prospect of the establishment of a cohesive union or fraternity of priests. Time and time again it is explained away as not favorable as something which would be established non-canonically. Yet we have this which has happened without a single objection, which seems to suggest that perhaps it is not the establishment non-canonically necessarily but maybe also the grave risk of infiltration and other structural problems. In fact, due to the observation alone that every single structured entity has been corrupted and neutralized than it would only be reasonable to want to avoid this pattern. In Bishop Williamson's latest conference posted from the US he speaks about the benefits of choosing to remain only a loose association of independent priests with no official structure.

Sigismund · « **Reply #11 on:** June 11, 2014, 09:17:24 PM »

Quote from: poche

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?

He doesn't have the authority to erect anything at all. At most he can give his personal approval to some work.

poche · « **Reply #12 on:** June 13, 2014, 03:37:48 AM »

Quote from: Sigismund

Quote from: poche
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?

He doesn't have the authority to erect anything at all. At most he can give his personal approval to some work.

That is true. But even if he did have authority as a bishop of the Latin Rite he would need additional permission from the Vatican to intervene in the affairs of an eastern rite community.

Sigismund · « **Reply #13 on:** June 14, 2014, 07:48:19 PM »

True. And this permission would almost certainly not be forthcoming. Thankfully the days when arrogant Latin rite bishops who regard themselves as the "real" bishops in any interaction with us can simply dictate terms are gone.