My emails contained a copy of a letter written by Fr. F. Ockerse addressed to his parishioners. It began as follows:-

"It is with a certain sadness that I learnt that some of you have been caught up in the effervescence of the revolt against the legitimate superiors of SSPX spearheaded by Bp. Williamson."

Then a paragraph was devoted to a passage from St. Francis de Sales' work Chapter XXIII 'Introduction to the devout Life.' introduced with the words:

It is needful to put away all inclination for Useless and Dangerous Things

A long paragraph follows quoting the Saint and ending with the words:

Therefore, dear child, I would have you cleanse your heart from all such tastes, remembering that while the acts themselves are not necessarily incompatible with a devout life, all delight in them must be harmful

.
 
After quoting  several passages Fr.O asks: "And what is the will of the Father? ..Can anyone honestly find the will of God the Father in all the disobedience, calumnies, deceits and half truths brandished by the members of 'the resistance'?   I do not call it the resist-ance (which sounds very much like protest-ants) but rather a revolt, like the 'non serviam' tantrum of old, against the Holy Will of God as expressed by the legitimate superiors given to us by God's providence......

"Do not forget that when Archbishop LeFebvre consecrated the 4 SSPX bishops he made it clear that they have no jurisdiction what so ever as only the pope could delegate them any 'word of the law' (jurisdiction).  If they claimed any jurisdiction, the excommunication would have been valid according to Canon Law
(cjc.1382).   They were entirely under the authority of the Superior General and they could not exercise those things pertaining to their espiscopacy (conferring confirmations and ordaining priests) except under orders from the Superior General.
[...] At present the only bishop that has any jurisdiction is B.Fellay, and that not because he is bishop, but because he is legitimate Superior General of the SSPX, a society with legitimately set up constitutions and therefore a living branch of the only true Church of Christ.

Another long passage follows saying ABL set it up that way...then all about the vine and the branches...

Fr. O continues: At the moment Bp. Williamson and all the other priests of the revolt have no legitimate jurisdictional attachment to the vine not having any attachment to a legitimate superior incardinating or ingrafting them into the vine of the Church  They therefore are but a parallel church no different to any Protestant sect but just with a Traditional Catholic Flavour.[/color]

..and so it goes on for four full pages.

What I want to know is how does the above statement regarding jurisdiction fit into this official statement made by the SSPX in its book entitled:

MOST  ASKED  QUESTIONS  about the SOCIETY  OF  SAINT  PIUS  X

Most asked questions about  the power of Orders, that of  Society of Saint Pius X

QUESTION  9

Do Traditional Priests have jurisdiction?

In virtue of his ordination, a priest can bless all things and even consecrate bread and win in such wise that they become the very Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ.  But whenever in his ministry he has to deal authoritatively with people, he needs over and above the power of Orders , that of Jurisdiction, which empowers him to judge and rule his flock.  Jurisdiction is, moreover, necessary for the validity itself of the sacraments of penance and matrimony.

Now, the sacraments were given by Our Lord as the ordinary and principal means of salvation and sanctification.   The Church therefore, whose supreme law is the salvation of souls (1983 Code of Canon Law, canon 1752) wants the ready availability of these sacraments, and especially penance (canon 968).  The Church wants priests (canon 1026) and empowers them liberally to hear confessions (canon 976..2).   This jurisdiction to hear confessions is to be revoked only for a grave reason (canon 974..1).

Jurisdiction is ordinarily given by mandate from the Pope or diocesan Bishop, or perhaps delegated by the parish priest.   The priests of the SSPX do not have jurisdiction in this way.   Extraordinarily, however, the Church supplies jurisdiction without passing by (being passed by)  the constituted authorities.  

[......]

Therefore, the Church, wanting the ready availability of penance, extraordinarily supplies jurisdiction in view of the needs of her children, and it is granted all the more liberally the greater the need.

Now, the nature of the present crisis in the Church is such that the faithful can on good grounds feel it a moral impossibility to approach priests having ordinary jurisdiction .   And so, whenever the faithful need the graces of penance and want to receive them from priests whose judgment and advice they can trust,
THEY  CAN  DO  SO, (Emphasis in original text.) even if the priests do not have ordinaryily have jurisdictional.   Even a suspended priest can do this for the faithful who ask: “for any just cause whatsoever” (canon 1335).   This is even more the case if a faithful Catholic can foresee his being deprived of the true sacrament of penance from priests with ordinary jurisdiction until he dies.   Only God know when this crisis will end.

[....]

Even if one were to consider the above arguments as only probable, then jurisdiction would still be certainly supplied by the church (canon 144).
And so we must answer affirmatively, Traditional priests do have a jurisdiction that is neither territorial nor personal but supplied in view of the needs of the faithful.[/I]

........................................................................................................................

Finally, I would be grateful if anyone would point me to a quote from ABL dealing with this matter of jurisdiction.  I found it strange that when I went in search of the Church's official teaching, three SSPX websites came up.  I clicked them on one after the other but on the SSPX website, each time, a notice came up to say page
could not be found.  I think it was the newly branded site.

Father Ockerse comments further on the behaviour of the resistance:

[...]"All that 'the revolt' have is the ephemeral and etherial' protocol' of guidelines for a possible future agreement feverishly to point their devious fingers to.   It may be of interest to you that a lot of the ideas of even the wording of the 'protocol' were very much the same as contained in the 1988 protocol of May 5th signed by the Archbishop himself whilst trying to get Rome to give him permission to consecrate bishops for the SSPX.  (cf. Fr. Laisney's open letter to Bp. Williamson).

[...]

"..I can point to serious disobediences in grave matter, dishonest manipulation of truths, grossly disrespectful behaviour, amongst other things by nearly all of the members of the revolt from Bp. Williamson through each Sancho Panza of what can be truly called 'the Don Quixote Gang'.  With incredible cowardice some of these revolted(revolting?) priests sent anonymous, unsigned and incognito letters of subversion to their fellow priests who could not answer them or even politely tell them where they could put their seditious stuff[....]Since when has the Catholic Church been safe in the hands of rebellious rabble?

[...]

"If you feed your intellect at the Google swill pool can you honestly be surprised that your mind gets sick?  

[...] "

The sections that have been left out refer to a false and calumnious accusation that Bp. Fellay has a Freemason and a Jєω of the B'nai Brith as an accountant!  etc. etc.

Father concludes with:  "Be assured of my humble prayers for you all."


I find all the above accusations as being a general judgement tarring anyone and everyone with the same brush who disagrees with B.Fellay's approacahes to Rome.   The laity, to whom this letter is addressed, are individuals who have become convinced in their own right that their voices should be heard in a peaceful dialogue with B. Fellay.   But any brave layperson who as attempted to do so is immediately punished.  Each one deserves the respect due to him/her/them ..not this sermonising to a captive audience who are under no vow of obedience.

Having said the above, Father Ockerse still has to give an explanation of the contradiction evident in his explanation of 'jurisdiction' which explanation is erroneous. He is taking advantage of his listeners' trust and ignorance of Canon law to make a false statement.   None of this diminishes my respect for him as a good priest just like the expelled priests are good priests.

Indeed yes.   The priests who were expelled, Bishop Williamson and a few laymen/women are all that is left to fight for the survival of the Church founded by Christ.

One more point, how old is Fr O ???  Is he old enough to remember the FIERY sermons the SSPX priests use to give against Vatican II, modernist bishops, and the "Conciliar Church" (and this term was used to describe the entire modernist institution, not an attitude within the institution)?

Those of us old enough, remember this SSPX.  We remember the FIGHT.  We remember the WAR.  This new generation of SSPX has abandoned this fight.  They have been lulled to complacency....SAD!

When was this letter by Fr. O written? Is this the same priest that is stationed in Langley BC? The priest that was sent to replace the famous Father Giroaurd?

He talks about the Vine, but this is NOT the 1970's where ABL knew there were still nobel chruchmen who would approve his SSPX without demanding confirmation to Vatican II. He even left his French home to find such a churchman.  This is 2013 and no such churchmen exist.  If the "rebel" priests 0f the Resistance could find such a churchman, they surely would.  They do not seek to seperate themselves from the vine as Luther or Calvin did, they simply seek to "Hand down what they recieved".  Oh if+Fellay and Fr. O would only do the same...

Indeed.

Archbishop Lefebvre didn't set out to disobey or be a rebel, let alone found a new "sect". He only wanted to be a Catholic, for crying out loud!

It's the NewChurch that abandoned the Catholic Faith, and THEY will have to answer to God for what harm they have done to souls including all the confusion and collateral damage that has come to pass because of the movement known as "Traditional Catholic".

Everything from the Bishop Schuckardt scandal all the way down to Bishop Slupski's ill-advised ordinations (and/or consecrations) are ALL partly to blame on those who introduced Modernism into the Church and tended it. Yes, even the cases of physical abuse, psychological abuse, manipulation, abuse of authority, including every evil that has occurred in Trad chapels in the Midwest (particularly Ohio), is partly the fault of the Modernists who caused the Crisis in the Church in the first place.

Not only the souls that left the Catholic Church because of the Novus Ordo, but also those souls who stopped in at Tradition for a while, but were scandalized away for whatever reason. All the children who left the Faith or went astray because their chapel was too "cult-like" or small, etc. Who will be held to account for all this, ultimately?

Heck, even all the sins of anger and sins against charity committed every week on Trad Catholic fora -- as confused but well-meaning Catholics fiercely debate topics such as Sedevacantism, the SSPX, EENS, NFP, Fatima, jurisdiction, modesty, etc.

None of this would have happened without the Modernist infiltration of the Church.

Anyhow, those in the Resistance have no intention whatsoever of opposing true Catholic doctrine in any way. On the contrary, we insist on preserving it intact and having no truck with Modernism.

Matthew:

Anyhow, those in the Resistance have no intention whatsoever of opposing true Catholic doctrine in any way. On the contrary, we insist on preserving it intact and having no truck with Modernism.

Yes Matthew, a ragged army no doubt...but one at the service of truth.
Recall many instances in the Old Testament, particularly the one where the Israelite army, which needed every man, was ordered by its commander to go to the river and drink.  As each soldier drank...some lapped it up with their tongues.  Those who did not drink this way comprised the remnant army chosen to fight the powerful enemy.

This way God reduced his army to ensure the Israelites could not claim that their own prowess was the cause of the victory won.   It was God, and  God alone who used their weakness to prove victory was won by His power.  It has always been his way, hasn't it - to use the weak for the purpose of His glory?