CathInfo.com

Drew,What you copied is really irrelevant and your assertions of me lying and your comments about Bp. Fellay are themselves calumnious.

What exactly are you claiming was "copied" in my last post?  Every source drawn from was attributed, but beyond the attributions, the composition was my own.  As to its relevancy if you did not see it then you did not understand the problem with your unjustifiable accusations against Neil Obstat.  

Next, exactly where did I call you a "liar" in my last post?  The word is not even used in my post.  And lastly, if you are accusing anyone of "calumny," which is a grave sin, you have to do two things: establish a lie and prove the lie is intentional for the purpose of damaging the reputation of another, neither of which you have done.   In fact, to charge someone with "calumny" without producing evidence of calumny is in fact a good example of what calumny is.

A bishop's flock has meaning; it denotes a territorial jurisdiction. That is why I qualified what I wrote with "If", "truly" viz. do you really understand what you are saying? Only a diocesan bishop has a flock. His auxiliaries do not, the Society bishops do not and Bp. Williamson does not. Indeed, both Bp. Tissier de Mallarias and Abp. Lefebvre have both made it clear that no jurisdiction was ever conferred and that any jurisdiction which does exist is only with the individual.

A bishop's flock includes a clerical-flock as well as a lay-flock. This obviously implies a hierarchy. Fr. Chazel has already hinted at this a priest is nothing without a bishop [or words to that effect] and it is clear that resistance priests do regard him as their head (even if only informally). Whereas the Society and Bp. Lefebvre always made clear that they were not establishing a parallel hierarchy. Indeed not only is, for example, Bp. Tissier de Mallarias subject to the authority of the US District Superior, but also the prior of the Chicago priory.

What your previous post indicated is that you have no idea about the moral or legal denotations and connotations of the word, schism.  You made the accusation, which is of grave matter, against Neil Obstat, that he was "schismatic."  I have assumed that you have acted out of ignorance, which does not excuse but only mitigates the fault.  But after my last post you can no longer claim ignorance as an excuse, therefore, the moral imputation is a much more serious matter.  If after reading my last post you can do one of two things.  Apologize to Neil Obstat and retract the accusation or prove it.

You are treating jurisdiction as if it is created by positive law.  IT is not.  Jurisdiction exists in God's Church because of the nature of the Church God created.  It follows from the attribute of Authority He has endowed His Church.  Positive law simply regulates how jurisdiction is normally exercised.  It does not create it nor does it destroy it.  IT is obvious that Archbishop Lefebvre did not legally establish "jurisdiction"  because he does not possess the competency to do so. But, that is in fact irrelevant except as it applies to Bishop Fellay.

Since Bishop Fellay is already exercising canonical "jurisdiction" upon members of the SSPX the obvious question should be, Who gave it to him and when did it happen?  Was it when he made the 1989 Profession of Faith and Oath of Fidelity?
 

Bp. Williamson has already stated "It seems that, today, God wants a loose network of independent pockets of Catholic Resistance, gathered around the Mass, freely contacting one another, but with no structure of false obedience, which served to sink the mainstream Church ..."; he is clearly telling everyone to abandon and refuse any link to the hierarchy. Presuming he believes what he says: there ought to be no hierarchy and I'll do my best to dismantle it.

I do not believe for one minute, anyone with a basic grounding - yes even a N.O. Grounding - in Catholicism cannot fail to smell the stench of protestantism in what Bp. Williamson has done and is doing.

So yes, if you all believe that Bp. Williamson has a flock, in the true sense, that is schismatic.

It is difficult to believe that you are serious in attempting to make this argument.  Nothing is properly defined, nothing affirmed is proven and, even if we were to make the assumption that your propositions are true, the conclusions do not necessarily follow.  The only conclusions that can be drawn from your argument are about you.  

Just because +Williamson does not assume jurisdiction does not prevent him from exercising it upon those who ask it from him.  Nor is failing to assume jurisdiction evidence of "protestantism" or desire to "dismantle" the hierarchy of the Church.  In any state of apostasy even within a restricted geographical area, the normal ordinary laws governing jurisdiction are not always applicable.   It does not follow that a specific violation of law that governs ordinary jurisdiction is evidence of schism. There are numerous historical examples that can be cited to prove this but reason alone should easily make the case.  Why do you suppose that a SSPX or Resistance priest can validly remit sins in the sacrament of Penance today?   The law of the Church requires jurisdiction for validity of the sacrament.  How then do you suppose that is jurisdiction applied?  Does the priest hearing a confession then become schismatic by doing so?  It is through the rights of the penitent that jurisdiction is supplied to the priest.

"Bishop Fellay has put the SSPX on the express train to Rome."
Calumny: You know Bp. Fellay has already stated there will be no agreement soon.

"For the sake of obtaining some limited form of ordinary jurisdiction that he covets"
Calumny: You know that This has never been the motive for discussion or seeking an agreement with Rome.

"accommodations of doctrine and worship to fit the "hermeneutic of continuity."  
Calumny: You know he has already reject HoC.

Charity, justice etc. I won't hold my breath waiting...

"Soon"?  It is immaterial if it occurs sooner or later, but that it will occur has already been determined.  What is material is that the theological objections that would prevent it have been removed.  They were removed a long time ago.  The entire secretive GREC discussions, which began in 1997, presuppose acceptance of the "hermeneutic of continuity."  Furthermore, the doctrinal discussions with Rome do so as well.  The evidence that proves this is that there was no demands from the SSPX for any dogmatic clarification of modern doctrinal teachings.  It never happened.  Romans are not dummies.  They would have never entered into discussions if that had any real concerns that +Fellay would actually appeal to dogma.  

Next time you see +Bishop Fellay ask him about the 1989 Profession of Faith and the Oath of Fidelity.   You should not be surprised to learn that he made it long ago.

Drew

Drew, rather than using the quote feature I'll just answer in bullet form as your reply in a number of places didn't make sense or follow.

1. I know you attributed what was copied, but the text copied is not relevant; this has nothing it do with an instance of disobedience.
 
2. You accused me of calumny (1st post) which you define as a lie for the intention of damaging the reputation of another (2nd post). Thus, you are calling me a liar and attributing intent (both of which are not true).

3. The ignorance here is on your part: i) Your last post was largely irrelevant and shows you have no grasp of the subject. This has nothing to do with disobedience; ii) You completely ignored my qualification - a true understanding of the term bishop's flock - since if Neil thinks as you do regarding the term, he too would be utterly clueless; iii) there was no intent to damage a reputation but rather it serve as a warning to him and others.

4. I'll repeat this "A bishop's flock has meaning; it denotes a territorial jurisdiction." It is a flock, both a clerical-flock and a lay-flock, within a territory over which a bishop has been bestowed the power to govern.  It is attached to an ecclesiastical office by law and is automatically acquired by one who acquires the office. To claim jurisdiction over all or part of another bishop's flock is an act of usurpation.

5. Let me explain jurisdiction to you: Jurisdiction is the power to govern the faithful and lead them to eternal life. This power was conferred by Christ on the Church. The pope draws on this power and confers a share of it upon the Church's clerics. It is the pope who confers 'supplied jurisdiction'. Only the baptized are subject to jurisdiction. It is necessary to acknowledge the authority of the Church and of those upon whom jurisdiction has been conferred. Those who reject the Church's jurisdiction are no longer members of the Church.

6. You seem incapable of distinguishing between flock and individual. The supplied jurisdiction of the Society bishops is exercised on a case by case over individuals in need, namely, confirmands, seminarians of the Society and affiliated communities) - that's all. Supplied jurisdiction is not possessed one moment before or after the action. Only an individual can make use of the benefit of supplied jurisdiction. Flock denotes an ordinary jurisdiction. Bp. Fellay's jurisdiction is obvious from his title.

7. To arbitrarily choose to place oneself under the jurisdiction of another (bishop) is to reject the Church's lawful authority, that is, one's local ordinary. To reject the Church's authority is to put oneself outside the Church. To claim "In any state of apostasy even within a restricted geographical area, the normal ordinary laws governing jurisdiction are not always applicable." demonstrates, at least, a schismatic attitude; it implies a rejection of Church authority.

8. Reposting your calumnies regarding Bp. Fellay below as you refused to answer them with recent interview responses:

"Bishop Fellay has put the SSPX on the express train to Rome.", "but that it will occur has already been determined."
Calumny: You know Bp. Fellay has already stated there will be no agreement soon. Now you assert that some form of agreement is already in place [I note that you added sooner or later to give you some more leeway]
“To imagine that some people continue to pretend we are decided [still] to get an Agreement with Rome. Poor people. I really challenge them to prove they mean. They pretend that I think something else from what I do. They are not in my head.”  (Bp. Fellay, Angelus Press Conference, Oct 2013)

"For the sake of obtaining some limited form of ordinary jurisdiction that he covets"
Calumny: You know that This has never been the motive for discussion or seeking an agreement with Rome.
Rome made a “non-official” approach to renew contact with us, but nothing more, and I have not asked for an audience as I did after Benedict XVI’s election. For me, things at present are very simple: we stay as we are. Some concluded from my close contact with Rome in 2012 that I regard the necessity of a canonical recognition as a supreme principle. Preserving the Faith and our traditional Catholic identity is essential and remains our first principle. (Le Rocher, April/May 2014)

"accommodations of doctrine and worship to fit the "hermeneutic of continuity."  
Calumny: You know he has already reject HoC.
That very day I told them, ‘this docuмent I cannot accept.’ I told them from the start in September the previous year that we cannot accept this ‘hermeneutic of continuity’ because it is not true, it is not real. It is against the reality. So we do not accept it. The Council is not in continuity with Tradition. It’s not. So when Pope Benedict requested that we accept that the Second Vatican Council is an integral part of Tradition, we say, ‘sorry, that’s not the reality, so we’re not going to sign it. We’re not going to recognize that’.” (Bp. Fellay, Angelus Press Conference, Oct 2013)
For Benedict XVI, Vatican Council II is part of Tradition. It is a total equivocacy. When Vatican II says the opposite of what was affirmed until then, there are no “hermeneutics of continuity” (Le Rocher, April/May 2014)

Drew, please don't waffle again it just looks like you are trying to avoid the obvious. Using you own criteria please prove and provided evidence for you claims and demonstrate Bp. Fellay was lying. Not hearsay, inuendo etc. Evidence. If you can't stop cowering behind waffle, man-up and retract your comments.

peterp,
It seems that you are engaging in an exercise of self abuse here. You are outclassed by the opponents whom you have chosen to debate.

This whole line of argument is itself, irrelevant, and the steadfast defense of Bishop Fellay is quite unconvincing.  The answer to all of your prosecutorial questions lie in the Doctrinal Declaration of 2012.
This modernist docuмent refutes Bishop Fellay's protestations of remaining the same, and holding the faith as the highest priority, as in it, he appears to accept much of Rome's modernist orientation.

In Bishop Fellay's own words, and signed by his own hand, and submitted to the Roman modernists.