+Fellay said in an interview with Angelus Magazine http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2013/06/for-record-sspx-superior-general-bp.html)

But we must distinguish two kinds of jurisdiction. There is a normal, ordinary jurisdiction of a Superior General over his members and there is ordinary episcopal jurisdiction. As bishops, we have no ordinary jurisdiction right now, but as Superior General, I do have the other kind. They are not the same.

I am confused. Anyone can tell me what is the difference between "normal and ordinary jurisdiction of a SG" and "ordinary episcopal jurisdiction"?

.


It seems to me that +F really covets the prospect of having ordinary
jurisdiction.  He came into the position of SG without having had any
experience whatsoever as a leader of any group.  He was not a pastor
who cared for souls, nor a missionary converting pagans or protestants,
nor an evangelist nor a regular confessor, nor prior in charge of other
priests.  He was not qualified for the job of SG.  All he had done was
bursar for ABL and the SSPX, and then was consecrated bishop, when
he gave confirmations, sermons and ordinations.  He was never even
head of a seminary like +W was for many years.  

Now, after 19 years playing with the power levers of the Society, he
has come to the point where he WANTS MORE POWER.  This is not
enough.  It's been fun, but it's not enough.  He wants more.  

So, seeing the opportunity to have ordinary jurisdiction (or so he
thinks!) by having the Society normalized, he basically puts his own
self-interests in front of the good of the Faithful and the priests of the
Society by pursuing normalization at all costs.  Then he lies about it.

So when +F says "normal and ordinary jurisdiction of an SG" don't
believe him.  It's probably a half-truth at best.  The SG has authority
over the Society priests because they GAVE it to him by way of making
a promise, and perhaps by signing a contract.  But he has no ordinary
jurisdiction over anyone or any thing.  And he has absolutely no
jurisdiction over the Faithful, since they have not promised him anything,
but he does have ownership of their chapel because he stole that,
basically, very deliberately and methodically, for 19 years.  

He has no jurisdiction over the Faithful but he does (as any priest does)
have supplied jurisdiction for giving necessary sacraments.  Even so, he
seems to enjoy making threats that he can take away the supplied
jurisdiction of other priests who do not do things the way he wants them
to.  This is borderline pathologically unwell.  

+Fellay said in an interview with Angelus Magazine http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2013/06/for-record-sspx-superior-general-bp.html)

Quote

But we must distinguish two kinds of jurisdiction. There is a normal, ordinary jurisdiction of a Superior General over his members and there is ordinary episcopal jurisdiction. As bishops, we have no ordinary jurisdiction right now, but as Superior General, I do have the other kind. They are not the same.

I am confused. Anyone can tell me what is the difference between "normal and ordinary jurisdiction of a SG" and "ordinary episcopal jurisdiction"?

The use of the term "jurisdiction" has had its run around over the years.  However, legalistically that above quote of Bishop Fellay is correct to say it that way.

It is easy to understand that all 4-Bishops do not have "ordinary episcopal jurisdiction".  ABL made sure that was understood.  It is the use of that word when Bishop Fellay is using it towards the role and function of the Superior General's office.  It is no different to use the same word, legally, when applied also to the religious office of a District Superior, and in the secular office of a Father of a Family, or a CEO of a company, etc

They all have "jurisdiction" that crosses over the many different heads and layers of "departments" to fulfill the common good of the whole.

Quote from: Machabees

They all have "jurisdiction" that crosses over the many different heads and layers of "departments" to fulfill the common good of the whole.

Yet it doesn't extend outside the organization?

Correct.

Bishop Tissier de Mallerais:

"Archbishop Lefebvre told us: "You are bishops for the Church, for the Society; you will give the sacrament of Confirmation and confer Holy Orders; you will preach the faith." That is all. He did not say, "I confer these powers to you"; he simply indicated to us what our role would be. The jurisdiction that he did not give us-which he could not give us-and which the pope refused to give us, has been supplied by the Church, who gives it to us because of the state of necessity of the faithful. It is a suppletory jurisdiction, of the same nature as that which is accorded to priests by Canon Law in other cases of necessity. An example would be the jurisdiction to administer the sacrament of confession validly in the case of common error or positive and probable doubt, of right or of fact, about the jurisdiction of a priest (canon 209). In such a case, the Church has the habit of supplying the jurisdiction that might be lacking to the  minister: "Ecclesia supplet."

http://www.the-pope.com/Tissier.html

In "A handbook explaining the positions of the SSPX on the Pope, the New Mass, and the new (1983) Code of Canon Law."  Question 9 (para 3) states:

"Jurisdiction is ordinarily given by mandate from the Pope or diocesan Bishop, or perhaps delegated by the parish priest.   The Priests of the Society of Saint Pius X do not have jurisdiction in this way (Ordinary*).
Extraordinarily, however, the Church supplies jurisdiction without passing by the constituted authorities.  This is foreseen in the 1983 Code of Canon Law...."

+Fellay said in an interview with Angelus Magazine http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2013/06/for-record-sspx-superior-general-bp.html)

Quote

But we must distinguish two kinds of jurisdiction. There is a normal, ordinary jurisdiction of a Superior General over his members and there is ordinary episcopal jurisdiction. As bishops, we have no ordinary jurisdiction right now, but as Superior General, I do have the other kind. They are not the same.

I am confused. Anyone can tell me what is the difference between "normal and ordinary jurisdiction of a SG" and "ordinary episcopal jurisdiction"?

Mgr. Fellay just tries to get the "disobedience" under control, by claiming that he has some kind of ordinary jurisdiction over the members of the SSPX. So "rebels" are revolting against the Church (and it's legitime authority, Mgr. Fellay) and reveal therefore their uncatholic attitude.

That's of course nonsense! (And he knows that. Proof below.)

The only jurisdiction the Superior General of the SSPX has is called: "potestas dominativa".

Superiores et Capitula, ad normam constitutionum et iuris communis, potestatem habent dominativam in subditos; in religione autem clericali exempta, habent iurisdictionem ecclesiasticam tam pro foro interno, quam pro externo.

Proof: The SSPX has always emphasized that their priests have no ordinary jurisdiction e.g. in administering the sacrament of penance. (They gain the necessary jurisdiction case by case as extraordinary jurisdiction.)
If the Superior General has ordinary jurisdiction, than he could conferre his priests the necessary jurisdiction for administering the sacraments...

Maybe Mgr. Fellay shoud study some canon law befor he ist talking about his power. The result will be that infact his power is "a very limited one"! (This phrase is from Mgr. Fellay's CNS interview about the councils teaching on religious liberty).