CathInfo.com

I suggest you read Bp. Tissier de Mallerais conference notes on the subject from 1991:

The General Extent of Supplied Jurisdiction
It is not only present for confessions, but also for the entire priestly ministry. There is no reason to limit it to confessions alone.


Error by Defect: "Our Priests do not have Jurisdiction. Therefore, we are Free!"
The error in the direction of too little would be to say that the traditional priests in our priories and in the convents have not received jurisdiction from the Pope or the bishop and have therefore no power over us. "What right have they to require something of us? We are indeed free! Let us stay free! We are free to place ourselves under their authority or not."

Such a mentality is also a danger which is opposed to the sense of the Church. This would be to take advantage of the crisis in the Church because of the appearance of freedom which it gives. It is especially dangerous for the lay apostolate where, it is true, there is a large part of freedom. For very often the tasks performed by lay people are not the specific tasks of a priest, such as, for example, to spread the Christian social order in the State. There is, therefore, a certain element of autonomy in the Catholic action of the laity. This is true. But it is not the sense of the Church to dispense oneself entirely from every link with the hierarchy. To say this on account of the crisis in the Church, because "the traditional clergy has no ordinary power over us" would be to really lack a sense of the Church. Let us therefore avoid these two snags of either going too far or not going far enough.


http://archives.sspx.org/miscellaneous/supplied_jurisdiction/supplied_jurisdiction.htm

Thanks for posting that peterp.

I'm afraid that Bishop Tissier is trying to bend the definition of supplied jurisdiction too much.  He wants to have the power/effect of ordinary jurisdiction without actually calling it ordinary jurisdiction because if they called it ordinary jurisdiction they would no longer be able to reconcile it with recognition of Pope Francis (the head of the Conciliar Sect).  But if he calls it supplied jurisdiction, I don't see how he can authoritatively bind the faithful.  That wouldn't be compatible with the definition of supplied jurisdiction that you will find in Canon Law textbooks.

It would be an interesting question to ask Bishop Tissier -- who exactly is bound to obey the commands of Bishop Fellay and the commands of individual SSPX clergy?  I will speculate and say that it would probably involve all those faithful who attach themselves to SSPX Masses.  Or something like that.  But how can they really be bound if they can attach and detach themselves at will?  What if one splits their time between the SSPX and some other group?  Who has jurisdiction then?

.


(P)arentsfortruth, the great Father Hector Bolduc taught you very well.  It grieves me that he never wrote a book.  He took a lot of wisdom to the grave with him, and may he rest in peace.  Fortunately, he passed the ball to Frs. Pfeiffer and Chazal before it was too late.  

The zeal and unrelenting energy of these two fighters was ignited by Fr. Bolduc, IN PERSONA CHRISTI.  Make NO MISTAKE about it!  In the old days they called this "APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION."

I cannot fathom the suffering he must have endured, after buying up properties with the Benzinger fortune of tens of millions of dollars that he inherited, but then, after turning over to the SSPX all that real estate (which now constitutes the majority of the American priories and chapels of the Society), only to be thrown out himself -- not unlike so many other good priests and one conspicuous bishop lately.  But to put icing on the cake, he never complained about it.  AFAIK he never uttered a word, but only said, "It was the result of a misunderstanding."  

I'm not even a member of the Society, but before they started this liberal rhetoric, I was a big fan. Nothing I do tries to undermine the SSPX per se, but [rather] their late liberal bent!

So you can talk all you want about people trying to "undermine" the NEW BENT of the society, but don't accuse ANY of us of trying to undermine the REAL message of Archbishop Lefevbre SANS the liberal bent.

Thank you for bringing focus to this rhetorical mudslinging.  Fr. Bolduc taught you well, and it shows.  God bless him, and God bless you, parentsfortruth.

Not one person here would like to see the SSPX crash and burn. They want to see the SSPX hold true to the message that Archbishop Lefevbre hoped would continue. Now, that's almost a lost cause INSIDE the SSPX since their language is that of someone betraying the Archbishop, instead of one espousing and carrying on what he said.

So well said, and I thank you very much.  Fr. Bolduc taught you well.  You highly deserve his portrait for your avatar.  It's so good to see there.  You're doing him an honor, parentsfortruth.

We could argue that all day, but you talk of "scheming" and this and that. Some people had an investment in the SSPX, and when they saw a replay of Vatican II ambiguity, they are trying desperately to hang onto that investment, by "scheming" to keep it on the right track.

Let's talk in the language of "you people," in other words, words that you might understand...

If a banker took an investment from you that you'd been adding money to, and entrusted him to watch over for 50 years, and after that long wanted to hand it over to thieves, masquerading as the heads of the group you're in, actually saying the exact opposite of what you're espousing, would you not try to do everything you could to stop him from doing that?

If you can't see the similarity there, I just don't know what to say to you. You're beyond the point of understanding with your absolute blind loyalty to an organization you can't see is already gone.

If Fr. Bolduc were still here he would have a word of encouragement for you, because it happened to him.  He had a fortune in real estate he had built up with his own, bare hands, from one or two faithful to over 200 in some cases.  And then the Society stepped in and ripped it off.  At the time, they seemed to be "traditional" so he didn't cry foul, but before he died, he could see the writing on the wall, so he called in Fr. Pfeiffer and Chazal to meet him while he was dying of lung cancer (never having been a smoker!) but nonetheless continuing to travel hundreds of miles a day and say Mass over a 5-state region in the upper midwest, in all manner of weather.  The day he died, he had said three Masses.  There is a recording of his last sermon online, and you can hear the pain in his breathing difficulty.  He literally died with his boots on, a dry martyr.  God rest his blessed soul.

It seems to me the Menzingen-denizens were just WAITING for him to die so they could go into high gear, because that's exactly what happened.  They made a fatal mistake of getting too close to 'popping the clutch' while he was still breathing, so he tipped off the reinforcements, none too soon.

I'll never forget the image I have of him emerging from the airport terminal's glass doors late at night, in a heavy fog.  He wore a black suit, and a dark fedora, carrying a medium-sized leather travel bag, which contained the barest essentials, including his Mass kit, usually.  These things really belong in a sanctuary, his second class relics!  It was like a scene from Casablanca, but with none of the salacious over-and-undertones.  It was silent, and the thick fog rolled around.  I'll never forget it.  It was so good to see him.  

And it's so good to see his wisdom lives on in his faithful.


.