Author Topic: ORDINARY JURISDICTION -- or the MERE pretense thereof? (Read 6412 times)

Neil Obstat · « **on:** April 14, 2014, 07:07:31 PM »

.

Aqui esta un problema muy interesante -- sorry.... Here's a very interesting problem, found on a foreign website that you need to be literate in a foreign language to read:

According to what principle can a prior or a superior telephone you to forbid you from inviting Bishop Williamson, or a priest who is not (or who is no longer) in the SSPX, to a gathering which will take place in your own home?

By what authority can they forbid you from calling on Bishop Williamson to give the sacrament of confirmation to your children?

By what right can they demand that an allied religious order exclude you from the Third Order?

Etcetera...

In order to answer these questions, we would like to return to an article which went too little noticed ("Bishop Fellay is the only boss...").

This article contains some valuable remarks. In it, the author points out a praxis which reveals an underlying theory that has only just begun to come out into the open.

The SSPX believes that it is, if not the Church, then at least the 'life boat,' and abusively behaves as if it had ordinary jurisdiction over the faithful, forgetting what it used to teach people: due to the current state of necessity, it only has supplied jurisdiction.

Any guesses what the website is called?

Hint: it's not DICI or Si si, no no.

.

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #1 on:** April 14, 2014, 07:12:06 PM »

I'm not sure what the third question means, but to the first two, Bishop Fellay has no jurisdiction so he could not forbid any laity to do any of those things. He could forbid other members of the Society and possibly TO members with his dominative power, though.

Sigismund · « **Reply #2 on:** April 14, 2014, 07:36:46 PM »

Under absolutely no authority at all. Lay people are not members of the SSPX unless they are part of the Third Order. If his Excellency is able to accept your invitation, I hope you have a lovely dinner.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #3 on:** April 14, 2014, 08:19:15 PM »

Quote from: Mithrandylan

I'm not sure what the third question means, but to the first two, Bishop Fellay has no jurisdiction so he could not forbid any laity to do any of those things. He could forbid other members of the Society and possibly TO members with his dominative power, though.

I'm pleased to see the CI members are not deluded. Thank you, Mithrandylan.

As for the "third question," I take it you mean this: "By what right can they demand that an allied religious order exclude you from the Third Order?"

I'm not sure, but I suspect they meant to say "their Third Order," as follows: By what right can the SSPX make a demand on an allied religious order for them to exclude you from their Third Order?

It is all under the question of Ordinary Jurisdiction, of which +F has NONE. This article and other events are going to prove my long-held hypothesis that the coveting of jurisdiction is +F's motivation in most everything he does, that he is greedy and he wants MORE power.

Here is more from the article on this:

A Supplied Jurisdiction...

The Compendium of Moral Theology of St. Alphonsus Ligouri says (T II, § 612, p. 362) :

"Penalties cannot be applied to non-believers, nor to persons over which one does not have jurisdiction."

(French: « La censure ne peut être portée contre les infidèles, ni contre les personnes sur lesquelles on n’a pas de juridiction ». (Fr. Joseph Frassinetti, prior of Sainte Sabine à Gênes, Tomes I & II translated into French by Fr. P. Fourez STL, 1889)

But we know that the conciliar church refuses any jurisdiction to the SSPX. Bishop Fellay's power of jurisdiction therefore does not come from the Vatican. Bishop Fellay and his priests do not exercise any "ordinary jurisdiction" but a "supplied jurisdiction" which is "an emergency jurisdiction given by the law to every bishop and every priest in case of necessity, for the common good, when he has not received from the authorities the necessary powers." ('Sel de a Terre' 87 pp.139-140)

"However, it must be borne in mind that an authority which is supplied does not have the same characteristics as authority which exists ordinarily in the Church. It is exercised case-by-case, and is thus not habitual: in other words the people who benefit from it can always withdraw from it, and the supplied authority has no power to make them return. It is dependent on the need of the faithful, given the state of crisis. To the extent that the faithful need these bishops or priests for the salvation of their souls, the Church creates this link of authority between them. All of that shows that supplied jurisdiction gives a limited authority which has to be exercised rather delicately. The jurisdictional authority of a bishop, coming not from a Roman nomination but from the necessity of the salvation of souls, must be exercised with an especial delicacy." (Archbishop Lefebvre, note of 20th Feb. 1990, quoted in 'Sel de la Terre.')

At the Mass in Lille, in 1976, Archbishop Lefebvre declared very clearly: "They say that I am the leader of Tradition. I am not the leader of anything at all." ["On dit que je suis le chef de file de la tradition. Je ne suis le chef de file de rien du tout." ] To think that his jurisdiction was ordinary when really it is only supplied jurisdiction would be: "...to found our apostolate on a false and illusory basis." (Extract from a letter of Abp. Lefebvre, quoted by Fr. Pivert in the book "Archbishop Lefebvre's Consecrations... a Schism?" Fideliter 1988, pp.55-60).

.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #4 on:** April 14, 2014, 08:23:53 PM »

.

Quote from: The article

According to what principle can a prior or a superior telephone you to forbid you from inviting Bishop Williamson, or a priest who is not (or who is no longer) in the SSPX, to a gathering which will take place in your own home?

Quote from: Sigismund

Under absolutely no authority at all. Lay people are not members of the SSPX unless they are part of the Third Order. If his Excellency is able to accept your invitation, I hope you have a lovely dinner.

:applause: :ready-to-eat: :applause:

.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #5 on:** April 15, 2014, 11:55:14 AM »

.

More from the article:

...Become A Perverse Domination [Beyond the Limits of Supplied Jurisdiction]

Today everything takes place as though the General House of the Society of St. Pius X feels it has to force all the faithful and religious communities of Tradition to align themselves with their [the Society leadership's] personal choices.

[But] The faithful [in fact,] have no obligation to approve of Bishop Fellay's quest for a personal prelature.

In England and Italy faithful were told (by telephone!) that, due to their being involved in running websites critical of the new direction of Bishop Fellay, they would be asked not to set foot in the chapels any longer...

Some religious asked a gentleman not to serve Mass any longer at the convent where he had always served the Mass: his crime was to have served the Mass of a 'resistance' priest.

The 2014 ORDO with it's list of Traditional Mass Centres shows that the Benedictine Monastery of Santa Cruz (Nova Friburgo, Brazil) has been deleted from the list. And yet since the Consecrations, the theological position of this monastery has not changed one bit. Where will such a tyranny end?

The good of souls is no longer the purpose of [the] authority [masquerading before us]. The SSPX has gone beyond the limits of supplied jurisdiction. It is usurping a role which it does not have, and this usurpation is not of the Church: it is sectarian.

.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #6 on:** April 15, 2014, 12:16:02 PM »

.

From the French website linked in the OP (Google translate product) :

Only master on board, Bishop FELLAY TENT TO PROHIBIT THE LAY SACREMENTS REFRACTORY

Antoine Marie Paganelli expressed today a serious problem plaguing within the SSPX: some lay people are deprived of confession and communion. A limit has been reached it? Nothing is advanced without proof. Céline Muhgot.

Only Master on board, Bishop Fellay tent
to ban sacraments lay refractory

PART ONE:

The jurisdiction of the SSPX's jurisdiction substitute.

[original -- input to Google Tran]:

SEUL MAÎTRE À BORD, Mgr FELLAY TENTE DE FAIRE INTERDIRE DE SACREMENTS LES LAÏCS RÉFRACTAIRES

Antoine Marie Paganelli nous fait part aujourd'hui d'un problème grave qui sévit au sein de la FSSPX : certains laïcs sont privés de confession et de communion. Une limite vient-elle d'être franchie ? Rien n'est avancé sans preuve. Céline Muhgot.

Seul Maître à bord, Mgr Fellay tente
de faire interdire de sacrements les laïcs réfractaires

PREMIERE PARTIE :

La juridiction de la FSSPX est une juridiction de suppléance.

Clemens Maria · « **Reply #7 on:** April 15, 2014, 12:20:19 PM »

Quote from: Mithrandylan

I'm not sure what the third question means, but to the first two, Bishop Fellay has no jurisdiction so he could not forbid any laity to do any of those things. He could forbid other members of the Society and possibly TO members with his dominative power, though.

Well, Bishop Fellay's Pope (Francis) has not explicitly forbidden him to do these things nor has he corrected him specifically on these points so I guess Bishop Fellay is free to continue this behavior. On the other hand, the laity's Pope (Francis) has not explicitly forbidden them these things nor has he corrected them specifically on these points so I guess they are free to continue these behaviors. Basically, everyone is free to do whatever they please so long as the Pope which they "recognize" doesn't discipline them. But if Bishop Fellay doesn't allow them to receive the sacraments, do you suppose they will appeal to Francis? I doubt it.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #8 on:** April 15, 2014, 12:22:07 PM »

.

I find it rather ironic that this personal quest of +F to achieve an accord with Rome -- and once that would be achieved he would THEN acquire jurisdiction -- is something that he has been trying to impose on the faithful, to the effect that many of them now believe as if it is some kind of dogma that a desire to be joined under Newroman authority is somehow definitive of what it means to be Catholic; but such imposition implies that he already has the jurisdiction to do so. He is effectively acting in advance as if he has already achieved his quest, and punishing anyone he can that dares to question his motives.

.

Clemens Maria · « **Reply #9 on:** April 15, 2014, 12:27:21 PM »

If you decide to become a traditionalist Catholic there isn't a single bishop on the face of the earth who will claim jurisdiction over you unless you also decide to recognize one of the traditionalist "popes". We are truly abandoned by the pastors.

peterp · « **Reply #10 on:** April 15, 2014, 12:53:34 PM »

Given that BP. Williamson heads (at least the symbolic head) a movement trying to destroy the Society, encouraging priests to leave, promoting rebellion etc., I think it right for a prior to telephone and forbid the reception of such person(s).

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!

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #11 on:** April 15, 2014, 01:38:56 PM »

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.

holysoulsacademy · « **Reply #12 on:** April 15, 2014, 04:23:58 PM »

Quote from: Clemens Maria

Quote from: Mithrandylan
I'm not sure what the third question means, but to the first two, Bishop Fellay has no jurisdiction so he could not forbid any laity to do any of those things. He could forbid other members of the Society and possibly TO members with his dominative power, though.

Well, Bishop Fellay's Pope (Francis) has not explicitly forbidden him to do these things nor has he corrected him specifically on these points so I guess Bishop Fellay is free to continue this behavior. On the other hand, the laity's Pope (Francis) has not explicitly forbidden them these things nor has he corrected them specifically on these points so I guess they are free to continue these behaviors. Basically, everyone is free to do whatever they please so long as the Pope which they "recognize" doesn't discipline them. But if Bishop Fellay doesn't allow them to receive the sacraments, do you suppose they will appeal to Francis? I doubt it.

To forbid SSPX priests and TO to communicate and/or attend anything Resistance is beyond the scope of his jurisdiction period.
More so the laity that attend their chapels.
The SSPX are at the service of the Catholic Church, and not Bp. Fellay.
It isn't the laity at the service of Bp. Fellay either.
Someone needs to remind Bp. Fellay of this, out of charity, as it seems he has forgotten and lost his way.

SSPX is not a religious order, the SSPX is a pious union and their obedience to Bp. Fellay and their Superiors is as for the common good of their order and it's Mission, which is for the preservation of the Catholic Priesthood.
Not tyrrany, which is how Bp. Fellay is now practicing, knowingly or not.
Therefore, logically, all obedience is at the service of their Mission and when it ceases to be that, all who stray are automatically outside of that Mission, thus obedience is not required to them.

Even the Third Order is not a Religious Order, as established in a previous thread.
For there to be a Third Order, there has to be a First and Second, am I correct?
Nevertheless their Mission is: "set up to secure for souls living in the world a school of sanctity."
Thus when Bp. Fellay or Fr. Purdy, or whomever is their current Superior, requires them to avoid good priests, traditional sacraments, that is no longer part of their Mission.
They have gone beyond the scope of their jurisdiction and are in fact running contrary to their Mission and are establishing evil precedents where they are basically calumniating against good priests and teaching the faithful to see evil in them (Resistance Priests).
I can attest to the aversion some of the laity are having to the Resistance Priests at the behest of NeoSSPX Priests.
It absolutely shocks me as you would think those attitudes be reserved for demons.
The revulsion they display is one I have not seen displayed even with regards to NO priests.

As for the laity, the jurisdiction Bp. Fellay has over them is none.
Absolutely none.
Jurisdiction is supposedly supplied at the behest of the faithful Catholic who approach him for the Sacraments and only in relation to the administration thereof, and even this I am having problems resolving myself with in light of the AFD.

holysoulsacademy · « **Reply #13 on:** April 15, 2014, 05:10:36 PM »

Quote from: peterp

Given that BP. Williamson heads (at least the symbolic head) a movement trying to destroy the Society, encouraging priests to leave, promoting rebellion etc., I think it right for a prior to telephone and forbid the reception of such person(s).

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!

Liar! Liar! Liar!

The Resistance is not trying to destroy the Society, it is staying true to Tradition.

They are not encouraging priests to leave, they are encouraging them to inquire and see for themselves the Doctrinal shift that has taken place in the SSPX, and then decide for themselves.

They are not promoting rebellion, merely reminding them of their Mission which is to preserve the Catholic Priesthood.

No prior, pastor, Bishop or even Pope has any right to forbid any Catholic to receive in his home good priests or Bishops.

Mithrandylan is correct, and I have said so myself before, the priest is at the service of the faithful and is here to provide us the Sacraments so we may attain Heaven. The faithful are not here to work for the priest.

You better have proof and names of those so called "scheming" to undermine the Society, otherwise take back what you said!

Sigismund · « **Reply #14 on:** April 15, 2014, 09:06:53 PM »

Quote from: Clemens Maria

Quote from: Mithrandylan
I'm not sure what the third question means, but to the first two, Bishop Fellay has no jurisdiction so he could not forbid any laity to do any of those things. He could forbid other members of the Society and possibly TO members with his dominative power, though.

Well, Bishop Fellay's Pope (Francis) has not explicitly forbidden him to do these things nor has he corrected him specifically on these points so I guess Bishop Fellay is free to continue this behavior. On the other hand, the laity's Pope (Francis) has not explicitly forbidden them these things nor has he corrected them specifically on these points so I guess they are free to continue these behaviors. Basically, everyone is free to do whatever they please so long as the Pope which they "recognize" doesn't discipline them. But if Bishop Fellay doesn't allow them to receive the sacraments, do you suppose they will appeal to Francis? I doubt it.

I expect Pope Francis would say that Bishop Fellay is a suspended bishop with nothing that resembles authority or jurisdiction in the Church, and that his decrees to anyone other than the members of his own Society who continue there voluntarily and who could leave under no pain of sin are ghosts to frighten children. And Pope Francis would be absolutely right.