Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: donkath on June 13, 2013, 06:02:24 AM
-
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.
-
Once again, we see the myth that "parishioners" are "members" of the SSPX! Not only do the bishops have no "authority" as Fr. O. says, but neither has Bp. Fellay any authority over "the man in the pew." Unlike a priest, an oblate, or third order, we have not made a promise, much less a vow of obedience to the Superior General. If priests have taken to denying the sacraments or banning their parishioners, the sin is laid to the priest's charge.
-
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 Jew 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.
-
The Church of Bishop Fellay is becoming more desperate.Laughable really.They are a cult.
-
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 Jew 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
-
They all make accusations...
"..I can point to serious disobediences in grave matter, dishonest manipulation of truths, grossly disrespectful behavior, 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?
But much like those who made the same accusations against ABL, they never give any examples of where they err on doctrine. "Disobedient! Disobedient! is all they yell! But who are they disobedient to? +Fellay, or Church doctirne?
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 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.
-
These priests make it up as they go along; one can only assume their flocks have bad memories or are new generations imbibing new justifications. They think one way of bringing down Bp. Williamson is to review the role and importance of the Society's bishops and infer they are a fading resource when it comes to the future. In other words, cut loose from the Society, Bp. W has even less standing and the resisting priests have none at all.
But this is familiar stuff. Only the SSPX has special licence to disobey Rome!!!!!!!
-
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!
-
But this is familiar stuff. Only the SSPX has special licence to disobey Rome!!!!!!!
Yes, very true. And to some posters on IA the only "rebels" are the Resistance priests!
-
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?
-
These priests make it up as they go along; one can only assume their flocks have bad memories or are new generations imbibing new justifications. They think one way of bringing down Bp. Williamson is to review the role and importance of the Society's bishops and infer they are a fading resource when it comes to the future. In other words, cut loose from the Society, Bp. W has even less standing and the resisting priests have none at all.
But this is familiar stuff. Only the SSPX has special licence to disobey Rome!!!!!!!
Yes, and they think that they are the only ones who have "supplied jurisdiction" in the crisis of the Church.
As they have demonstrated LEGALLY, the SSPX has in FACT and OFFICIALLY accepted, and submitted to Vatican II in that 2012 Doctrinal Declaration; therefore, they have VOLUNTARILY, OFFICIALLY, and LEGALLY lost the Supplied jurisdiction in origin from their Official statements that the new mass is "legitimate", etc. and need to Officially and LEGALLY OBEY the conciliar Pope and the local Bishop. Stop being hypocritical.
Fr. Ockerse says that it is a matter of "obedience", then he needs to get off of his soap box and read the new SSPX "policies" of abandonment his Superiors have espoused, and OBEY the new decrees. Or, join the Catholic Resistance!
It is that simple!
-
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.
-
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?
10th June,2013
-
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?
-
These priests make it up as they go along; one can only assume their flocks have bad memories or are new generations imbibing new justifications. They think one way of bringing down Bp. Williamson is to review the role and importance of the Society's bishops and infer they are a fading resource when it comes to the future. In other words, cut loose from the Society, Bp. W has even less standing and the resisting priests have none at all.
But this is familiar stuff. Only the SSPX has special licence to disobey Rome!!!!!!!
This is great. Only the ExSPX has a special license to disobey Rome, but
now the Menzingen-denizens are EAGER TO GIVE THAT UP by making a
'deal' with modernist Rome by which they'll come under the power of
said Rome -- and then bye-bye special license!!!!
-
So much for moving to Rocky Mountain House (if I was able) :facepalm:
Alberta....one of many liturgical potholes on the Road of Traditional Liturgy
-
I, like Donkath, received this by email this morning. As I read the letter, for some reason, I was thinking of Monty Python.
Then I went to the Google swill pool to find out who is this Fr Francis Ockerse and found this post.
Every SSPX article I tried "The page could not be found". Really truth IS stranger than fiction!
-
I, like Donkath, received this by email this morning. As I read the letter, for some reason, I was thinking of Monty Python.
Then I went to the Google swill pool to find out who is this Fr Francis Ockerse and found this post.
Every SSPX article I tried "The page could not be found". Really truth IS stranger than fiction!
That is exactly what happened to me when I tried to find it on SSPX website.
-
A friend who is trying to be fair quoted that middle section of Fr. Ockerse's letter
in reply to my OP analysis. The part that says,
"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 episcopacy (conferring confirmations and ordaining priests) except under orders from the Superior General.
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."
My friend then quotes a lengthy statement by Fr. Scott wherein he (the friend) highlights the following as if to prove a case against the argument I raised. But which, in fact, supports it. I was somewhat bemused as I wrote the following reply:
Fr. Scott writes:
"Unable to confer upon his priests the power of jurisdiction, Archbishop Lefebvre was nevertheless able to confer the fullness of the power of Holy Orders so that they could fulfill an Episcopal ministry, "to give Confirmation to your children, and to be able to confer ordinations in our various seminaries." These are the two airsacraments that the four bishops have constantly administered ever since, thus guaranteeing the continuing of the work of Tradition, of the Society of Saint Pius X, and insuring that it would never be watered down, absorbed by or taken over by the modernist infiltration in the Church. "
This is exactly what was quoted in my email to you (friend) from the answer to Question 9 that I sent you . Because Archbishop Lefebvre, was 'excommunicated', he no longer received Ordinary jurisdiction, which only comes through the Pope. But he knew he could draw on Extraordinary jurisdiction which is supplied in times of crisis. He ordained priests for the exact reason stated above in his statement. He was unable to confer upon them the 'type' of jurisdiction that comes from the Pope himself.
Father Ockerse is contradicting what is said in the SSPX Q/A' itself. He indicates the SG is NOW receiving the jurisdiction which flows from the Pope which is Ordinary jurisdiction. When and how did that happen? That is only possible if the SG has submitted to conciliar Rome and the present Pope - with the result that the extraordinary type is no longer necessary. But we, the laity have not submitted to conciliar Rome. We are not members of the SSPX, only the priests are members. Archbishop LeFebvre, Bishops Williamson et al, priests ordained by ABL received jurisdiction through the Extraordinary means provided by the Church. In other words, it was supplied during times of crisis. ABL taught that from the beginning. It was how he countered Rome's unjust excommunication of him and convinced the laity that they should have no fear regarding the power of priests, ordained by him, to offer Mass and the Sacraments. Finally, why are the laity not informed that they, through Bishop Fellay, are now fully recognised by Rome since he is now fully exhonerated/pardoned/forgiven and receives Ordinary jurisdiction. Suddenly, without warning, the priests who believed ABL, whether expelled or not, have unceremoniously dismissed, or linked up without their personal consent or knowledge to conciliar Rome?
I repeat from Q9: The priests of the SSPX do not have jurisdiction this way (Ordinary).
What I saw as I wrote these words is that BF must already have a defacto-cuм-private agreement with Rome. I arrived at this conclusion by using common-sense. But whenever I post my conclusions, I am constantly confronted with questions that demand specific quotes that frame those conclusions.