.

Your whole post is stellar, drew, but this part really gets me:

... 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

A superficial reader might complain that the "hermeneutic of continuity" didn't exist until 2010 (or whatever year it was), so how could GREC have presupposed any acceptance of something that wouldn't arrive for 10 more years?

This is where principles come into play.  The principle of the denial of the principle of non-contradiction is a matter of ancient history.  The Greek philosophers 400 years before Christ dealt with this obstacle and did so just fine.  That's because they could t-h-i-n-k.  

The problem with GREC is that it presumed to deny the principle of non-contradiction even before Benedict XVI attempted to legitimize such an act of intellectual insanity with his deviant and repulsive screed.  That GREC set foot into that same snake pit of ѕυιcιdє before the "hermeneutic of continuity" did is obviated by the egregiousness of the act itself, regardless of which one came first.  

Furthermore, readers ought to know that this infamous Oath of Fidelity (1989?) was a replacement for the Oath Against Modernism.  Needless to say, it covers none of the anti-Modernist promises of Sacrorum Antistitum.

So put that in your pipe and smoke it!   (Directed at flaming lowbrow liberals like petwerp, whose posts I can't be bothered to read anyway.)

.

.

Wait a minute................ I'm having déjà vu.............


The unclean spirit of Vat.II (a.k.a. the error of Russia) has spread into the XSPX.

.

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.

Oh, but, but, but, +F already said that it wasn't going to continue to work!  

 


.

Quote from: J.Paul

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.

Really? All I'm doing is para-phrasing Bp. Tissier de Mallarais, Fr. Miaskiewicz, the Catholic Encyclopedia, so it not really me who's being argued with. Irrelevant? Possibly, but only to a Sede Vacantist.

The 2012 Doctrinal Declaration is really no different from the the May 5th Protocol. There are some subtlties (e.g. legitimately promulgated) which opponents of any agreement (from both inside and outside of the Society) have sought to twist for their own ends, but they are essentially the same.

Bp. Fellay has already said that the docuмent needed to be read and understood within a certain context. It was, in the end, almost a political just as must as a doctrinal one:

The [April 15, 2012] text we presented to Rome was a very, shall we say, delicate text that was supposed to be understood correctly; it was supposed to be read with a big principle which was leading the whole thing. This big principle was no novelty in the Church: ‘The Holy Ghost has not been promised to Saint Peter and his Successor in such a way that through a new revelation the Pope would teach something new, but under his help, the Pope would saintly conserve and faithfully transmit the deposit of the Faith.’ It belongs to the definition of infallibility [from Vatican I]. That was the principle, the base of the whole docuмent, which excludes from the start any kind of novelty.

And so take any kind of sentences from the text without this principle is just to take sentences that have never been our thinking and our life. These phrases in themselves are ambiguous, so to take away the ambiguity we wanted to put [in] this principle [from Vatican I]. Unfortunately, maybe that was too subtle and that’s why we withdrew that text, because it was not clear enough as it was written. (Angelus Press Conference, Oct 2013)

I can understand you holding to the docuмent with your own spin, ignoring all the explanations and clarifications of the past two years, refusing to see it in its proper context, calling Bp. Fellay a liar etc. The 'modernist' accusation is just a ruse, a means to end. The real reason is: you don't want any agreement under any circuмstances, even a 'we accept you as you are' agreement. At least come out and admit it.

Yes, please!   A delicate docuмent indeed! When dealing with the doctrine of the Church and most especially, when discussing doctrine with modernists one does not deal in delicacies. One employs only unambiguous truths. There can never be an excuse for using imprecise or subtle terms which can imply anything other than the one true and unmovable truth.

This fellow, who is a Bishop of the Church, is all the more obliged to NOT have employed such deceptive means to the Romans. Did he think that they were to stupid to notice?  Did he think that we were all to stupid to notice?

He uses the time honored excuse of us not understanding his context whenever he makes a gaff or an unsound assertion. That ship both sailed and sank, years ago.

Starting this whole ruckus over Neil's casual reference to a flock, is indeed a foolish exercise. Of course Bishop Williamson does not have an official flock, and neither does Bishop Fellay. There is no reasoned point to be made from such gnat straining.

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).

For the record, you accused Neil Obstat of schism.  That accusation in itself is utterly false and I provided you with a detailed moral and legal exposition of the term.  The first post concluded that the act itself is grounds for calumny but left the door open that ignorance may have been a mitigating factor.  If your accusation was made from ignorance you should have apologized and retracted it.  You did not and therefore you are guilty of calumny because it is a lie and you now have no excuse for not knowing it.

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.

You have no understanding of the meaning of schism nor how jurisdiction operates outside of its ordinary application.  It is amazing how you can accuse another of "schism" and then say that an exposition of exactly what schism is, and is not, is "irrelevant and shows no grasp of the subject."  

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.

You are talking about ordinary jurisdiction.  So what?  If you have restricted yourself to obedience only to those exercising ordinary jurisdiction, then you have no right to receive any sacraments from Bishop Fellay who is consequently in schism for exercising jurisdiction in the sacraments of Penance and Marriage, as well as tribunals regarding the nullity of marriages, in "canonical tribunals" against member priests of the SSPX and his acts that presuppose jurisdiction over non-SSPX religious communities.  Are you now accusing Bishop Fellay of being in schism?

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.

The pope does not "confer 'supplied jurisdiction.'"  He confers ordinary jurisdiction according to legal norms.  I have already explained this question in a previous post.  Try to read it more carefully.  Since  you think the pope confers "supplied jurisdiction" please produce the docuмent in which Bishop Fellay was given "supplied jurisdiction."  

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.

Now you say that "the pope who confers 'supplied jurisdiction'" does so on a "case by case" basis "over individuals in need."  I suppose you have not thought about the paper work involved in this claim.  

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.

"Arbitrarily" is an adverb that describes an act that is determined by the free and independent will of the individual.  No Catholic has a right to act "arbitrarily"  with regard to the question of ordinary jurisdiction.  If you read again my first post on the subject of schism you will find nothing that suggests anything of the kind.   In fact, no one in this exchange has ever suggested that Catholics can act "arbitrarily" with regard to any moral act.  

About my "schismatic attitude," let's take an example of England during the 16th century.  It was a "state of apostasy in a restricted geographical area"  and the local ordinary was a party to the apostasy.  So, did St. Thomas More have a "schismatic attitude" when he refused to pray with his local ordinary before climbing the steps to his execution?  Or would it be proper to say that, "the normal ordinary laws governing jurisdiction are not always applicable"?  

"Attitudes" belong in the realm of psychology.  There is no canonical crime called "schismatic attitude."

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.

The metaphor of a "train" going to Rome is attributed to Fr. Alain-Marc Nély, the second assistant to Bishop Fellay, who is reported to have said, "The train is leaving for Rome, and those who want to get off will get off." Bishop Fellay has already removed any possible obstacles to his return to Rome and therefore the metaphor of a "train" that travels on a determined track and direction is most appropriate.  The only question is with regard to speed - sooner or later, it ends up at the station.  The "obstacles" have been so completely removed that there is no longer any grounds to argue that a "state of emergency" and therefore a "state of necessity" exists.  Those still following Bishop Fellay at this time can offer no moral justification for doing so.  

Is Bishop Fellay a liar or is eveybody else?  He overthrew the norms adopted by the General Chapter 2006 that there would be "no practical agreement without a doctrinal solution" and has followed his own prescription for that agreement in 2012 that he approved.  The General Chapter was not informed about GREC in 2006.  Since they established the norms that Bishop Fellay was obligated to follow, they necessarily possessed a right to know of this fact.  

In Bishop Fellay's reply written by Fr. Pfluger to the Letter from the Three Bishops he admits to acting in a secretive manner because of their "attitude" (perhaps, a "schismatic attitude"?) has kept the "Superior General from communicating and sharing with you these weighty matters." This is an open admission of duplicity which he apparently believes he is entitled to. If he has not revealed his intentions honestly to the "three bishops" or the General Chapter, why would think that he has leveled with anyone else, especially you?  Fr. Pfluger also says that the Society should proceed with a practical agreement because, "To require that we wait until everything is regulated before reaching what you call a practical agreement is not realistic. Seeing how things happen, it is likely that it will take decades for this crisis to come to an end."  The Letter even explains the reason for a practical agreement now: "Let us note in passing that it was not we who were looking for a practical agreement. That is untrue. We have not refused a priori to consider, as you ask, the Pope’s offer. For the common good of the Society, we would prefer by far the current solution of an intermediary status quo, but clearly, Rome is not going to tolerate it any longer."  Rome demands a "practical agreement" and Bishop Fellay agrees.  

The duplicity of Bishop Fellay is evident again in Cardinal Antonio Canizares Llovera's report that Bishop Fellay most favorably approved of a 'reverently' offered Novus Ordo and said that even Archbishop Lefebvre would not have opposed the Novus Ordo offered in such a manner.  Or Bishop Peter Elliott who said that Bishop Fellay and/or the priests in his presence told him that the "Tridentine Mass could be said or sung in the vernacular."  These reports were denied by Bishop Fellay.  Who is the liar?  

The Open Letter by the 37 priests from the French District docuмents numerous examples of duplicity of Bishop Fellay and his assistants.  Are these 37 priests lying or is Bishop Fellay?  The Carmelites in Germany have separated from the SSPX and accused Bishop Fellay of duplicity.  The Dominicans in France have done the same and published, for limited distribution, a history docuмenting this behavior.  Who is lying, Bishop Fellay or the Carmelites and the Dominicans?

The secretive GREC discussions presupposed the "hermeneutic continuity" and so did the "Doctrinal Discussions" with Rome.  Without the context of the "hermeneutic of continuity" they could not have taken place.  It is really immaterial anymore what Bishop Fellay has said; it is however most material what he has done.  By quoting Bishop Fellay's denial of his accepting the Hermeneutic of Continuity you are just providing more docuмentary proof that he is a liar.  If Bishop Fellay were interested in "preserving the Faith" as you claim, his doctrinal discussions would have ended with demands for dogmatic declarations and the publication of a syllabus of errors against the "hermeneutic of rupture"  that is the only Catholic answer to the demand for a practical agreement from Rome.  It never happened.  

Remember, it was the same Bishop Fellay who said he rejected the "hermeneutic of continuity" who also said, that Religious Liberty “is used in so many ways. And looking closer, I really have the impression that not many know what really the Council says about it. The Council is presenting a religious liberty which, in fact, is a very, very limited one: very limited!” (CNS interview, May 2012)  

When do think Bishop Fellay made the 1989 Profession of Faith and took the Oath of Fidelity?  Do you think he will lie about it if you ask him?  Or is he, what you would say, developing a "schismatic attitude"?

Drew  

Columba,

Clearly +Fellay intended to be ambiguous and that is the hallmark of a Modernist.

He has admitted to the deliberate obscuring of meanings in the docuмent, and to listen to him, he seems rather proud of his "erudite cleverness".

For the record, you accused Neil Obstat of schism.  That accusation in itself is utterly false and I provided you with a detailed moral and legal exposition of the term.  The first post concluded that the act itself is grounds for calumny but left the door open that ignorance may have been a mitigating factor.  If your accusation was made from ignorance you should have apologized and retracted it.  You did not and therefore you are guilty of calumny because it is a lie and you now have no excuse for not knowing it.

This is both false and calumny because you have deliberately ignore the qualifier (of which you have been told about repeatedly). You did not provided an exposition , it was an argumentation. The exposition appeared originally in The Remanant. It was not relevant (save the definition of schism) because the argumentation deals with disobedience not a rejection per se of authority. Your first posts left no door open as it stated, falsely "Your accusation of schism is both morally and legally repugnant. It is calumny ...". You also conclude that I know it to be a lie (which is clearly not the case) and that there is an intent to injure which is also not the case (as already explained to you). Simply Drew, you are a liar.

You have no understanding of the meaning of schism nor how jurisdiction operates outside of its ordinary application.  It is amazing how you can accuse another of "schism" and then say that an exposition of exactly what schism is, and is not, is "irrelevant and shows no grasp of the subject."

I notice you completely ignore the term bishop's flock. I didn't write the argumentation (that you wrongly label exposition) "shows no grasp of the subject" but it is YOU who has no grasp of the subject.

You are talking about ordinary jurisdiction.  So what?  If you have restricted yourself to obedience only to those exercising ordinary jurisdiction, then you have no right to receive any sacraments from Bishop Fellay who is consequently in schism for exercising jurisdiction in the sacraments of Penance and Marriage, as well as tribunals regarding the nullity of marriages, in "canonical tribunals" against member priests of the SSPX and his acts that presuppose jurisdiction over non-SSPX religious communities.  Are you now accusing Bishop Fellay of being in schism?

"So what?" - just about sums it up you don’t have a clue what you are writing about. I notice you didn't addess the term bishop’s flock again. And when you have J.Paul, who is hardly a “Felleyite”,  stating “Of course Bishop Williamson does not have an official flock…”  it becomes screaming obviously to everyone that you do not understand meaning of the terms used:
"... the Pope designates a flock for a bishop by giving him a diocese. Jurisdiction is the power which a superior has over his flock and which a pastor has over his sheep." (Bishop Tissier de Mallerais)
Bishop Tissier de Mallerais defines the limits of their jurisdiction to two groups - those seeking the sacrament of confirmation and holy orders - "Our jurisdiction is extraordinary and suppletory. It is not exercised over a determined territory, but case by case over the persons who are in need: confirmands, seminarians of the Society or candidates to the priesthood recommended by other traditional works."
Your logic and understanding of Bishop Fellay jurisdiction faulty. He has ordinary jurisdiction over members of the Society as the Superior General, and supplied jurisdiction in the sacraments of confirmation and holy orders, over religious communities etc.

The pope does not "confer 'supplied jurisdiction.'"  He confers ordinary jurisdiction according to legal norms.  I have already explained this question in a previous post.  Try to read it more carefully.  Since  you think the pope confers "supplied jurisdiction" please produce the docuмent in which Bishop Fellay was given "supplied jurisdiction.

The Roman Pontiff is the source of jurisdiction upon this earth, all power emanates from him:
"... the Church, or more properly the Supreme Pontiff, from whom all jurisdiction emanates and from whom all common law has its origin, supplies the necessary jurisdiction." (Miaskiewicz,  p.28)
"When the Church, or more specifically the Roman Pontiff, is said to supply jurisdiction in any case whatsoever, be it in common error or in doubt, it is readily understood that the Pope acts in virtue of the plenitude of the jurisdictional power Christ entrusted to his person." (ibid. p.197)
"If it is said that the Church supply, it has to be understood of the Superiors of the Church, or rather of her supreme prince the Roman Pontiff, whence proceedes all jurisdiction and from which comes the common law; it is supplied a iure that is, by common law or by the author of the common law." (Wernz-Vidal, Vol. II, num 379)
"In factual or legal common error and in positive and probable doubt of law or of fact, the Church supplies executive power of governance for both the external and internal forum." (Can. 144 §1)

Now you say that "the pope who confers 'supplied jurisdiction'"[1] does so on a "case by case"[2] basis "over individuals in need."[3]  I suppose you have not thought about the paper work involved in this.[4]

[1] As previously quoted: i) Miaskiewicz, p.28, p.197; ii) Wernz-Vidal, Vol. II, num 379; iii) Can. 144 §1;
[2] i) "Our jurisdiction is extraordinary and suppletory. It is not exercised over a determined territory, but case by case over the persons who are in need: confirmands, seminarians of the Society or candidates to the priesthood recommended by other traditional works." (Bp. Tissier de Mallerais Fideliter Interview, May/June 1998);
ii) "... every single time that this reputed bishop or pastor under the requisite conditions of canon 209 attempts the performance of a jurisdictional act, he receives the necessary jurisdiction in actu. Thus, he does not possess the jurisdiction one moment before nor a single moment after the performance of the action. It does not matter how many acts he performs. The jurisdiction is always supplied in the self-same manner: in actu." (Miaskiewicz, p. 290);
(iii) "The power is given not habitually but in actu: the agent does not possess the power before he uses it, nor does he retain it afterwards: he possesses it by delegation of the law ONLY AS LONG AS IT IS NECESSARY FOR THE VALID EXERCISE OF THE ACT." (The Validity of Confessions & Marriages in the chapels of the Society of St. Pius X, Fr. Angles);
[3] i) "... the individual is to make use of the benefit of canon 209 ..." (Miaskiewicz, p. 290);
(ii) "it is a personal and not a territorial jurisdiction. It is very important to understand this. Your priests have jurisdiction over your persons and not over a territory." (Bp. Tissier de Mallerais Fideliter Interview, May/June 1998);
[4] There's no paper work, it's just you simply do not understand jurisdiction. Seriously Drew, use the serach facility of CathInfo and you will see jurisdiction/supplied jurisdiction has been done to death. And there are some excellent references.  

"Arbitrarily" is an adverb that describes an act that is determined by the free and independent will of the individual.  No Catholic has a right to act "arbitrarily"  with regard to the question of ordinary jurisdiction.  If you read again my first post on the subject of schism you will find nothing that suggests anything of the kind.  In fact, no one in this exchange has ever suggested that Catholics can act "arbitrarily" with regard to any moral act.

Your "shepherd" is your local ordinary. To reject his authority is schismatic. You wrote: "If any faithful member ... wants to regard Bishop Williamson as their "shepherd," he is free to do so ...". No he isn't, it is "necessary to acknowledge the authority of the Church and of her appointed rulers. Those who reject the jurisdiction established by Christ are no longer members of His kingdom." (Members of the Church, Catholic Encyclopedia).

About my "schismatic attitude," let's take an example of England during the 16th century.  It was a "state of apostasy in a restricted geographical area"  and the local ordinary was a party to the apostasy.  So, did St. Thomas More have a "schismatic attitude" when he refused to pray with his local ordinary before climbing the steps to his execution?  Or would it be proper to say that, "the normal ordinary laws governing jurisdiction are not always applicable"?

We don't need a strawman example, you simply need to understand the difference between to deny and to not comply. To deny that laws apply is to reject the subject's jurisdiction (it is the subject's power to apply laws), where as to not comply with an exercise of the law is an act of disobedience against the subject.

"Attitudes" belong in the realm of psychology.  There is no canonical crime called "schismatic attitude."

I didn’t say there was, but this mentality leads to schism.