Author Topic: Bishop Fellay erected a Society? (Read 3073 times)

Centroamerica · « **Reply #10 on:** June 11, 2014, 10:16:22 AM »

Quote from: poche

Quote from: Centroamerica
Quote from: poche
Quote from: Neil Obstat
.

There is a difference between the erection of the SSPX and the erection of these societies by +Fellay. The prelate from whom ABL acquired approval had jurisdiction. +F has no jurisdiction. Nor, as a bishop, is he properly the S.G. of the SSPX in the first place since ABL always wanted a PRIEST and not a BISHOP to be the Superior of the Society of St. Pius X.

.

This group is Byzantine rite.

Nevertheless, they were erected without canonical approval by Bishop Fellay, who has no ordinary jurisdiction in the Church. If there were no scruples in the Society about having done this then why all the scruples about forming a union amongst the resistance priests?

As a Latin rite bishop wouldn't he ordinarily not have authority to erect an eastern rite community?

Whatever the case may be, he did it. One of the biggest topics in the resistance brought up by the faithful time and time again is the prospect of the establishment of a cohesive union or fraternity of priests. Time and time again it is explained away as not favorable as something which would be established non-canonically. Yet we have this which has happened without a single objection, which seems to suggest that perhaps it is not the establishment non-canonically necessarily but maybe also the grave risk of infiltration and other structural problems. In fact, due to the observation alone that every single structured entity has been corrupted and neutralized than it would only be reasonable to want to avoid this pattern. In Bishop Williamson's latest conference posted from the US he speaks about the benefits of choosing to remain only a loose association of independent priests with no official structure.

Sigismund · « **Reply #11 on:** June 11, 2014, 09:17:24 PM »

Quote from: poche

Quote from: Centroamerica
Quote from: poche
Quote from: Neil Obstat
.

There is a difference between the erection of the SSPX and the erection of these societies by +Fellay. The prelate from whom ABL acquired approval had jurisdiction. +F has no jurisdiction. Nor, as a bishop, is he properly the S.G. of the SSPX in the first place since ABL always wanted a PRIEST and not a BISHOP to be the Superior of the Society of St. Pius X.

.

This group is Byzantine rite.

Nevertheless, they were erected without canonical approval by Bishop Fellay, who has no ordinary jurisdiction in the Church. If there were no scruples in the Society about having done this then why all the scruples about forming a union amongst the resistance priests?

As a Latin rite bishop wouldn't he ordinarily not have authority to erect an eastern rite community?

He doesn't have the authority to erect anything at all. At most he can give his personal approval to some work.

poche · « **Reply #12 on:** June 13, 2014, 03:37:48 AM »

Quote from: Sigismund

Quote from: poche
Quote from: Centroamerica
Quote from: poche
Quote from: Neil Obstat
.

There is a difference between the erection of the SSPX and the erection of these societies by +Fellay. The prelate from whom ABL acquired approval had jurisdiction. +F has no jurisdiction. Nor, as a bishop, is he properly the S.G. of the SSPX in the first place since ABL always wanted a PRIEST and not a BISHOP to be the Superior of the Society of St. Pius X.

.

This group is Byzantine rite.

Nevertheless, they were erected without canonical approval by Bishop Fellay, who has no ordinary jurisdiction in the Church. If there were no scruples in the Society about having done this then why all the scruples about forming a union amongst the resistance priests?

As a Latin rite bishop wouldn't he ordinarily not have authority to erect an eastern rite community?

He doesn't have the authority to erect anything at all. At most he can give his personal approval to some work.

That is true. But even if he did have authority as a bishop of the Latin Rite he would need additional permission from the Vatican to intervene in the affairs of an eastern rite community.

Sigismund · « **Reply #13 on:** June 14, 2014, 07:48:19 PM »

True. And this permission would almost certainly not be forthcoming. Thankfully the days when arrogant Latin rite bishops who regard themselves as the "real" bishops in any interaction with us can simply dictate terms are gone.