Author Topic: Open Letter to Fr. Karl Stehlin, SSPX (Read 2765 times)

Ecclesia Militans · « **on:** April 14, 2014, 04:30:36 PM »

http://www.ecclesiamilitans.com/2014/04/14/open-letter-to-fr-karl-stehlin-sspx/

parentsfortruth · « **Reply #1 on:** April 14, 2014, 09:55:12 PM »

:applause:

peterp · « **Reply #2 on:** April 15, 2014, 09:43:36 AM »

We hold that no one should ever refuse the pope’s authority but that everyone should refuse the pope’s sinful commands. Therefore, we think you are wrong that anyone ever has a “duty to refuse the ordinary authority” of the pope. The opposite is true: we must always accept the pope’s authority, even when we cannot comply with sinful commands issued under color of that authority.

Further, you propose the erroneous novelty that the conciliar apostasy somehow “implies the duty to submit to the authority of extraordinary supplied jurisdiction”. In other words, you assert that the SSPX’s supplied jurisdiction gives the SSPX authority over the faithful to compel their obedience.

This is all nonsense, just like the last open letter to Fr. Themann, and demonstrates the author(s) simply don't have a clue of what they are writing about.

For an Order there is an authority that it must submit to. In the case of the Capuchins the head of the Order (the Minister General) is currently Brother Mauro Jöhri. This is the ordinary authority that Fr. Stehlin is writing about. To not have this submission to authority, this 'link' to the Church, the unity communion, necessarily means the Order would be cut-off from the Church: it would be schismatic.

Realizing that to safeguard the Faith they must refuse submission to the ordinary authority the Capuchins (and the other religious orders) look to another authority - a substitute Minister General, if you will - in the form of the SSPX to maintain this 'link' to the Church and authority; this is the extraordinary supplied jurisdiction that Fr. Stehlin is writing about.

Essentially, the Capuchins have volutarily submitted to the authority of the SSPX where one of it's members will act as Minister General. But this does not give them the right to meddle in the internal affairs of the Society or publicly criticize it's superior general/general council; it is both right and within the power of Bp. Fellay to rebuke both Fr. Jean and Father Guardian.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #3 on:** April 16, 2014, 04:44:03 AM »

.

Ecclesia Militans said:
http://www.ecclesiamilitans.com/2014/04/14/open-letter-to-fr-karl-stehlin-sspx/

This is 13 pages! Time for a break!

.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #4 on:** April 16, 2014, 01:30:26 PM »

.

The Recusant

..introduces the Letter (4-15-14) thusly..

When Fr. Jean, OFM Cap gave a resistance-leaning sermon* a few weeks ago, he received a rather silly (and not entirely honest) letter by Fr. Karl Stehlin, who ought to have known better. Fr. Stehlin's letter has been in our Reference Materials archive for a little while now (here).

We are now pleased to point you in the direction of an excellent reply written by the authors of the 'Open Letter to Fr. Themann'. The reply can be read on the site "Ecclesia Militans," here.

*{Fr. Jean's sermon regarding the importance of principles is found HERE. In it, he employs the word principle(s) 63 times. If our neo-Modernist ears had only not become deaf to the sound of the word, he wouldn't have to beat it in so redundantly. But as it is, 'thanks' in no small part to the Liberalization of language in this faithless and adulterous age (cf. Matt. xii. 39.45; xvi. 4; xxiii. 36; xxiv. 34), hearing it 63 times is somehow not overbearing, for those with ears to hear, anyway.}

.

peterp · « **Reply #5 on:** April 17, 2014, 09:49:45 AM »

Just to hammer the point home and show how lame this open letter is, it is worth reading the the conference by Bishop Bernard Tissier de Mallerais (1991):
http://archives.sspx.org/miscellaneous/supplied_jurisdiction/supplied_jurisdiction.htm

This has been the Society's position on Supplied Jurisdiction for at least 25 years. Further there is a similarity here with the Redemptorists. In 1991 the Society had created a Canonical Commission and a Bishop responsible for Religious: "These two functions were created in 1991 in order to be able to continue after the death of Archbishop Lefebvre that which he had accomplished in a suppletory manner from 1970 to 1991."

http://www.holycrossseminary.com/2008_August.htm

SUPPLIED JURISDICTION & RELIGIOUS LIFE

One of the most troubling aspects of this whole negotiation is the false reason that Father Sim gives, after the fact, for his decision to approach the Novus Ordo establishment. He claims that the Society of Saint Pius X, which has supplied jurisdiction for the administration of sacraments such as Matrimony and Penance, does not consider that it has supplied jurisdiction with respect to the Religious Life (Website, July 18). He then uses this as a justification for seeking jurisdiction from the post-conciliar church.

His claim is clearly and manifestly false, as anybody familiar with the workings of the Society of Saint Pius X since 1991 can verify. In normal times, it is the responsibility of the diocesan bishop to grant the initial approval to religious communities in his diocese, waiting for them to extend into several dioceses and be approved by Rome. While he was alive, Archbishop Lefebvre performed this function for the traditional religious communities, approving their statutes, correcting any abuses, acting as a point of reference for any disputes. This he did in virtue of supplied jurisdiction. On January 15, 1991, just two months before going to his eternal reward, he asked the Society’s bishops to keep up the same work of responsibility for the religious communities of Tradition, along with other functions of supplied jurisdiction.

“As long as the present Roman authorities are steeped in Ecuмenism and Modernism and seeing that all their decisions and the 1983 Code of Canon Law are influenced by these false principles, it will be necessary to form authorities of Supplied Jurisdiction, that will faithfully preserve the Catholic principles of Catholic Tradition and Catholic Canon Law. It is the only way of remaining faithful to our Lord Jesus Christ, to the Apostles, to the deposit of Faith that was handed down to their legitimate successors who remained faithful until Vatican II.

As regards the problem of Commissions, supplying in a certain measure for the failure on the part of Roman Congregations headed by prelates imbued with the revolutionary principles of the Council, it seems to me that they ought to have modest beginnings, in accordance with arising necessities, so that this institution can be of a help to priests in their ministry or to religious in cases that they have difficulty in resolving or in cases where Episcopal authorizations are required.”

There was no doubt in the mind of the Society of Saint Pius X as to the meaning of the Archbishop’s words, and so that very year were created the Canonical Commission and the Bishop responsible for Religious, as the official Regulations of the Society of Saint Pius X published in 1997 state: “These two functions were created in 1991 in order to be able to continue after the death of Archbishop Lefebvre that which he had accomplished in a suppletory manner from 1970 to 1991.”

In fact, the Society has never had a narrow view of supplied jurisdiction. It has always applied the Canon Law principles of the analogy of law (=using accepted principles of law in similar situations) and canonical equity (=what is rightly required for the salvation of souls, the highest law) to prove the existence of supplied jurisdiction in situations not specifically mentioned in the Code. For all that it has to do is to establish a positive and probable doubt in such situations, in which case the Church certainly does supply jurisdiction (Ib.). Thus the above mentioned docuмent states: “The bishops of the Society, devoid of all territorial jurisdiction, have, nevertheless, the necessary supplied jurisdiction to exercise the powers that are attached to the Episcopal office…” (Ib.)

Furthermore, Bishop Tissier de Mallerais clearly explained these principles in a lengthy conference given to traditional Catholic study groups in Paris on March 10, 1991, whilst the Archbishop was still alive:

“Normally jurisdiction is necessary for licitness, that is to say, in order that the act of the priest be licit or permissible. For example, to preach a priest must have a mandate, or, for a bishop to confirm in another diocese than his own, he must have a mandate from the diocesan bishop. In order to ordain priests a bishop must have a mandate from the diocesan bishop. In order to ordain priests a bishop must normally have jurisdiction and this is, of course, all the more so for the consecration of bishops…In an exceptional situation the Church supplies for this absence of jurisdiction on the part of the priest or even the bishop. And the more serious the crisis is, the more necessary it will be to fall back on this supplying of the Church on a higher level. This is what happened on June 30, 1988...You can easily see, my dear friends, that it is the case of necessity amongst the faithful which is responsible for the fact that traditional priests and bishops have a supplied jurisdiction with respect to your needs. This is not only so that they may validly hear confessions and validly assist at marriages, but also for all of the acts of their priestly or Episcopal ministry.”

This is a clear statement that supplied jurisdiction extends as far as the needs of the faithful. For priests and religious this need includes traditional bishops, who alone can approve statutes and foundations of religious coommunities and correct abuses. Like all traditional Catholics, the former Redemptorists have very frequently taken advantage of supplied jurisdiction for their own benefit, such as for Confirmations and the various Ordinations, as well as using it themselves in their pastoral work and missions. Their needs, like those of any religious community, include having a bishop responsible for religious, as the diocesan bishop normally is in his diocese. The Society has always provided for this need, through Archbishop Lefebvre until 1991, then Bishop Fellay until he was elected Superior General, and since 1994 through Bishop De Galarreta, who is the bishop responsible for the religious communities of Tradition. In the light of such clear teaching, it is hardly credible to hear Father Sim now claim that the Society “agreed that there was no supplied jurisdiction for religious superiors”, a claim, moreover, that Bishop Fellay explicitly and immediately denied.

This contention does, however, illustrate a very important point. If there were no extension of supplied jurisdiction to every aspect of the Church’s disciplinary and sacramental life, if the crisis in the Church did not impose upon Tradition the responsibility of organizing itself, and of providing for all the needs of the faithful, then we would all be forced to place ourselves under the modernists, just as the non-Redemptorists are now doing. It would be complete and utter capitulation. It would be the end of the traditional resistance, and ultimately of traditional doctrine, spirituality and of the Mass that only the Society’s firm position can guarantee. How we must thank God for Archbishop Lefebvre’s clarity of foresight, and breadth of understanding of the supernatural mystery of the Church, and of supplied jurisdiction, which has protected us from the paralysis of formalism and legalism into which the modernists are constantly striving to trap us.