Author Topic: ORDINARY JURISDICTION -- or the MERE pretense thereof? (Read 10352 times)

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #25 on:** April 16, 2014, 05:23:22 PM »

Quote from: stgobnait

i would have loved to have known fr bolduc. i am glad to hear stories of him, good and faithful servant....

There could be a whole forum for members to post stories. Fr. Bolduc traveled far and wide over America and Europe, and perhaps further. He was a personal associate of ABL, and one of the first priests ordained by him. It seems to me they must have been of one mind.

When I heard him give a sermon one day, I was embarrassed because the tears wouldn't stop streaming down my cheeks. He saw that happening because he was only 15 feet away from me. I tried to hide it but it was no use. His words were to me like words from heaven.

He purchased the property at St. Mary's Kansas, and that's a curious story. It had been a Catholic church but the local diocese wanted to abandon it because it was too expensive to refurbish into a Newchurch-type building (it was too traditional in style). But they wanted to get some money out of it. They refused, however, to sell to anyone who might restore it as a Traditional Catholic church, because they were trying to crush and condemn Traditional Catholicism. Then along came a protestant buyer who said he believed it would not be too expensive for him to make the changes he needed to impose for his satisfaction. So the Catholic bishop sold to him. That was without him knowing that the protestant had already made a deal with Fr. Bolduc to turn it around immediately to him. The whole thing went through the same escrow, so those fees were not doubled, and it was practically as though Fr. got the deal he was looking for even though the bishop didn't want it to happen. These kinds of things are fairly common in real estate transactions, because the seller has no power to demand that a buyer does or does not do something with the property, unless it has to do with city or state zoning requirements.

When Fr. Bolduc first said Mass in the 'new' church, he was alone. Then one person showed up, and then another, and so forth. Over time the congregation grew, not unlike the story of the Cure d'Ars in France, the Patron Saint of Parish Priests.

I think Fr. Hector Bolduc should be the Patron of the Resistance movement. I don't think that ABL would mind. We don't have to say, "patron saint," but just "Patron." You know, like the brand of tequila (you wouldn't say that tequila is 'saintly', would you?). They're both going to have to wait about the same number of years for canonization.

You can even get it with a green ribbon, in honor of Irish Mexicans (and there's a LOT of those in Mexico!).

.

inprincipio · « **Reply #26 on:** April 16, 2014, 08:22:24 PM »

Now that the SSPX has St. Michael's, PFT, about 10 others and myself are doing what we know Father Bolduc would want us to do, stay away from the SSPX and start over. They may have the church, but we have the faith. That is something BF + company cannot take away.

Thank you Father Bolduc. You HAVE taught us well.

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #27 on:** April 16, 2014, 10:48:04 PM »

Quote from: peterp

Quote from: Mithrandylan
PeterP

The sacraments are the RIGHT of the Catholic faithful. Not a privilege for those who agree with the dispensers of them. This a fundamental principle of sacramental theology and your disregard of it explains how you could bring yourself to hold such an offensive position.

I have disregarded nothing. I wrote that I think a prior had a right to telephone and forbid the inviting of such people and that those scheming to undermine the Society while receiving the sacraments from them were hypocrites.

These are two separate issues. A prior does not have a right to do this. He simply has no authority to forbid such a thing. He may suggest A, B or C but even at that he could not attach any sort of consequence to a certain course of action taken by the recipient of his advice.

But as far as the sacraments are concerned, you said:

"On the one hand you turn up wanting to avail youself of the sacaraments from the Society, presenting yourselves as little angels at the altar rails and all the while behind the scenes, scheming to undermine the same Society which provides you with the sacraments. What hypocrites!"

Implicit and unspoken in this statement is that Catholics have some sort of duty to agree with the traditional Clergy on a given disputed issue in order to "purely" receive the sacraments from them; the converse being that by disagreeing with the clergy on a given disputed issue, the faithful is hypocritical in their reception of the sacraments.

But this is not true. If you believed that the faithful have a right to the sacraments, the idea of receiving them from a minister they disagree with, even strongly, would not at all seem hypocritical.

peterp · « **Reply #28 on:** April 17, 2014, 12:23:29 PM »

Quote from: Clemens Maria

Quote from: peterp
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?

Clemens Maria, I think it is interesting to note that this conference was given during the lifetime of Abp. Lefebvre and was no doubt prepare months before it was given. It is highly likely that Bp. Tissier de Mallerais discussed the subject with the archbishop, and given the latter's remark "Your chapels are your parishes, consider your priories and your chapels as your parishes, that is where you are. Do not return to your former parishes, which have fallen into the hands of the modernists." and the functions he performed for the traditional religious communities (e.g. approving their statutes), I think we can say they both were in agreement. Add to this that Bp. Tissier de Mallerais conference has been referenced many times and The Angelus press have released it in booklet form, we can safely say that this summary on supplied jurisdiction was archbishop's position and certainly the society's for at least 25 years (probably longer).

With regards to Canon Law, there is doctorate dissertation on Supplied Jurisdiction According to Canon 209 (Fr. Miaskiewicz, J.C.L.). If you google it you'll find it as a PDF on an SV website.

Jurisdiction may be of the external or of the internal forum and applies to all kinds of jurisdictional activity not just confession:

"It is quite evident that when authors expound the suppletory principle of canon 209 they almost invariably treat it with reference to the sacrament of penance. While it is perfectly true that the penitential forum offers an excellent field for the exemplification of this doctrine, and while it may be admitted that in this forum perhaps the most frequent use of this canon is apt to be made by the average priest in the course of his ministry, still there is a definite danger that some may, on that very account, more or less identify the doctrine of the supplying of jurisdiction with the penitential tribunal and thereby fail to realize that canon 209 has a much broader field of operation and application. As a matter of fact, it applies to all kinds of jurisdictional activity. It applies equally to the power to absolve from censures, to grant indulgences, to dispense from matrimonial impediments, to direct a judicial process, etc."

An interesting example is given (as we can see parallels with a Society church):

"... supposing that X is falsely, but commonly, regarded to be pastor of parish Y, one concludes that all parochial jurisdictional activity of X is valid because of the operation of the suppletory principle. For, when the people erroneously consider X as legitimate pastor, there is an implicit, if not an explicit, judgment on their part that X, in view of his title as pastor, can perform all properly parochial functions. In such a frame of mind any of these people might approach the pastor for his ministration to them in their individual needs. Because the people are in a probable common error about a fact the Church supplies all the jurisdiction necessary to validate X’s parochial activity."

Also, there is this article on Supplied jurisdiction and the religious life:
http://www.holycrossseminary.com/2008_August.htm

"... 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."

peterp · « **Reply #29 on:** April 17, 2014, 01:15:53 PM »

Quote from: Mithrandylan

Quote from: peterp
Quote from: Mithrandylan
PeterP

The sacraments are the RIGHT of the Catholic faithful. Not a privilege for those who agree with the dispensers of them. This a fundamental principle of sacramental theology and your disregard of it explains how you could bring yourself to hold such an offensive position.

I have disregarded nothing. I wrote that I think a prior had a right to telephone and forbid the inviting of such people and that those scheming to undermine the Society while receiving the sacraments from them were hypocrites.

These are two separate issues. A prior does not have a right to do this. He simply has no authority to forbid such a thing. He may suggest A, B or C but even at that he could not attach any sort of consequence to a certain course of action taken by the recipient of his advice.

But as far as the sacraments are concerned, you said:

"On the one hand you turn up wanting to avail youself of the sacaraments from the Society, presenting yourselves as little angels at the altar rails and all the while behind the scenes, scheming to undermine the same Society which provides you with the sacraments. What hypocrites!"

Implicit and unspoken in this statement is that Catholics have some sort of duty to agree with the traditional Clergy on a given disputed issue in order to "purely" receive the sacraments from them; the converse being that by disagreeing with the clergy on a given disputed issue, the faithful is hypocritical in their reception of the sacraments.

But this is not true. If you believed that the faithful have a right to the sacraments, the idea of receiving them from a minister they disagree with, even strongly, would not at all seem hypocritical.

No Mithrandylan, it is the same issue, you're merely trying to (i) down play it to just a mere disagreement (it is alot more than that), (ii) justify your slurs of 'disregard of sacramental theology' and 'offensive position' though claims of an implicit/unspoken statement.

It is the active participation in a movement with aim of undermining the very priestly society to which the prior belongs, yet you still want to receive the sacraments from him. This is hypocrisy. Yes, the prior does not have a right to forbid the inviting of such people who continue to attack the society with intention of wanting its break up. The ultimate solution is, of course, to ban such troublemakers from stepping foot in to the church, if the warnings are not heeded.