Read the part in bold, especially. The author really makes an important point. There is irrefutable evidence that the SSPX is becoming sectarian, and abusing their "supplied jurisdiction" and becoming a bully of Tradition, imposing their petty will upon all and sundry.

Once again, this point ALONE justifies the complete entity knows as the "Resistance" -- including priests, faithful, new Mass centers, publications, websites, the whole nine yards...

From The Recusant:

Bp. Fellay: Jurisdiction & Abuses
Page 7
threatened with or actually denied the sacraments in France, England, Poland, Mexico,
Uraguay, Argentina, Italy, etc. In France, one prior thought it fine to say to his faithful: “If
I learn of people coming to Mass here who criticise the Society all week long, I won't hes-
itate to deny them the sacraments.”
For the same reason, in June 2012 the ordinations of the Capuchins and Dominicans were
cancelled. To a priest who asked the reason for this, Bishop Fellay replied: “I felt a lack of
personal trust from these communities... and ordaining a priest is such a serious thing that
I preferred to wait...” (9th November 2012, Paris) To appreciate just how grotesque and
monstrously arbitrary this answer is, the faithful need to know that the Capuchin deacons
were already on retreat with the deacons of the Society when they were told that they
would not be being ordained. Let us now compare this reaction of Bishop Fellay towards
allied religious communities with how Archbishop Lefebvre reacted to Roman pressure:
“You know that the Nuncio came to demmand that I not proceed with the ordinations, so
of course I said to him: 'You can't just do something like that a mere ten days before the
ordinations, that's just not possible. I would say even humanly speaking. These young
priests have been working for the last five years to prepare for their ordination, and ten
days before the ordination, even though their parents are ready to come, even though the
First Masses have been announced everywhere, at that moment I am asked not to do the
ordinations. Ordinations which are legitimate. These seminarians who have done regular
studies have a natural right to have the result of the preparations that they have made.’ ”
(Cospec 32A)
Did Bishop Fellay have a right, was it moral, for him to act thus? Are priests who deny the
sacraments to the faithful or who disturb their consciences right to do so?
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
www.TheRecusant.comBp. Fellay: Jurisdiction & Abuses
Page 8
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 Tradtion. 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 Archbishop
Lefebvre, quoted by Fr. Pivert in the book “Archbishop Lefebvre's Consecrations... a
Schism?” Fideliter 1988, pp.55-60).
...Become A Perverse Domination
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 them-
selves with their personal choices.
The faithful have no obligation to approve of Bishop Fellay's quest for a personal prel-
ature. In England and Italy faithful were told (by telephone!) that, due to their being in-
volved 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 authority. 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.
An Immoral Authority
The change of course, made obvious in 2012, has placed the Society outside the limits of
its legitimate power. The repressions, exclusions and sanctions that it throws out like
confetti are evidence of a serious moral drift, and attest to a despotic, self-validating
mentality, entirely devoid of charity. In France, at a work meeting at a priory, the prior
addressed a Knight of Our Lady, an 86 year-old gentleman, with the following words:
“Fuck off!”
The man’s crime: being against an agreement with Rome...
www.TheRecusant.comBp. Fellay: Jurisdiction & Abuses
Page 9
“In controversial questions, preachers and confessors must be on their guard to
ensure that they define what is a sin, above all mortal sin, based on the authority of
moral theologians or even based on what numerous theologians say; such a decision
requires the universal consent of the authors. In the same way, a confessor could not,
without it being an injustice, refuse absolution to a penitent who has decided to act
contrary to an opinion supported by one or several theologians but contested by other
Catholic theologians.” (Frassinetti, Tome II, p.27)
“Since confessors have no authority to decide theological questions, I find along with
De Lugo and other authors quoted by St. Alphonsus, that the penitent clearly has the
right to put his opinion into practice, as long as this opinion is supported by good
theologians and that as a result it has a solid probability, at least extrinsically; and
that is so even if the penitent were the most ignorant man in the world and his
opinion seemed absolutely false to his confessor.”
(Frassinetti, Tome II, note 141 of No.148)
And yet lots of priests publicly manifest a legitimate and well-argued theological point of
view which is different to that of Bishop Fellay: Bishop Williamson (former seminary
rector and former seminary teacher of Mr. Bernard Fellay), Frs. Chazal, Pfeiffer,
Girouard, Fr. Jean OFM Cap., Fr. Pierre-Marie OP...etc.
The claim that it is for the common good that anyone whose opinions are contrary to Men-
zingen is labelled as “subversive” has no value, since the true common good can never go
contrary to the moral law, and when someone is trying quietly to change the purpose of
an organisation, it just won’t do to call “subversive” all those who justifiably resist pre-
cisely that insidious subversion. In reality, the Society wants to expand its power. And for
that reason it no longer pays much attention to the characteristics of the
jurisdiction
which it has. It thinks it has the right to decide everything that goes on inside the little
world made up of the faithful and religious congregations allied to it. Handing on the
priesthood, preserving the Holy Mass and the True Faith, bringing the sacraments - these
are goals which are no longer sufficient for a certain small number in the SSPX. Those
people are dreaming of a sort of super-diocese benefitting from Papal protection...
Here is one last fact to help make it clear just how far the vertigo of domination can go.
On 13th November 2013, after returning from his engagement Bishop Fellay decided that
the five fully professed religious of the Dominican community of Avrillé who were living
outside of their community had to ‘regroup’ in a house, so as to become a ‘second branch’
in Steffeshausen. Bishop Fellay named Bishop de Galarreta superior of this house. Letters
written to Bishop Fellay and to Bishop de Galarreta asking them to show, “how such a
procedure can be said to be in conformity with Tradition, with the laws of the religious
and even with natural law” have remained unanswered.
The attitude of these two bishops differs from that of Archbishop Lefebvre. Fr. Schmid-
berger, in his letter of 27th May 1991 addressed to the religious of Tradition, recognised
that Archbishop Lefebvre “...was more of a Father, counsellor and friend than an authority
in the juridical sense,” and that people, “had recourse to Archbishop Lefebvre as to a
supplied authority.” In 1991 it was obvious that, "each community is absolutely free to
address themselves or not to [Bishop Fellay]. Neither he nor the Society have the slightest
www.TheRecusant.comPage 10
Bp. Fellay: Jurisdiction & Abuses
intention of meddling inside other communities in any way whatsoever. Also his actions
must always be seen as the exercise of an extraordinary jurisdiction and not ordinary...”
In 1981 Archbishop Lefebvre solemnly protested that he did not want to be “the Master
General” of the order. But in October 2012, at Bellaigue, Bishop de Galarreta told the
Superior of the Dominicans of Avrillé that he had to consider Bishop Fellay as taking the
place of the Master General of the [Dominican] Order.
Bishop Fellay and Bishop de Galarreta therefore think that they have the right to
intervene directly in the life of a religious community. They can take individual
members out of their community, giving them an exclaustration without time limit -
without needing to trouble themselves about Canon Law or the constitutions of the
institute - or authorise them to stay outside the convent and have their own apostolate,
without any control and without even letting their legitimate superiors know. They can
authorise them to found a “new branch.” They can, furthermore, maintain a secret
correspondence with individual religious and encourage them to provide secret reports of
what goes on inside, and encourage them to distrust their legitimate superiors.

I don't see it. To me the article accentuates on the abuse of authority of Bishop Fellay and the authorities of the Society. It does not focus on attacking the Society as a whole as becoming sectarian. I don't see that analysis as productive. For example, it was a priest at the Winona seminary that recommended me to the resistance priests in South America and another chapel priest that recommended the Eleison Comments to me. I don't see the blanket accusation of "sectarian attitudes" as a worthy accusation in this case.

This has already been rebutted in another thread. This nonsence only serves to demostrate, once again, that the author(s) of these types of article simply don't have a clue.

It would help if they first understood what jurisdiction is. And then ask themselves the question To which jurisdiction do you submit? If the answer is they reject the ordinary jurisdiction of their bishop and reject the society's supplied jurisdiction - viz. no jurisdiction - the result is to put oneself outside the authority of the Church; you're a schismatic.

SUPPLIED JURISDICTION & RELIGIOUS LIFE

One of the most troubling aspects of this whole negotiation [the Transalpine Redemptorists agreement with Rome] is the false reason that Father Sim gives, after the fact, for his decision to approach the Novus Ordo establishment. He claims that the Society of Saint Pius X, which has supplied jurisdiction for the administration of sacraments such as Matrimony and Penance, does not consider that it has supplied jurisdiction with respect to the Religious Life (Website, July 18). He then uses this as a justification for seeking jurisdiction from the post-conciliar church.

His claim is clearly and manifestly false, as anybody familiar with the workings of the Society of Saint Pius X since 1991 can verify. In normal times, it is the responsibility of the diocesan bishop to grant the initial approval to religious communities in his diocese, waiting for them to extend into several dioceses and be approved by Rome. While he was alive, Archbishop Lefebvre performed this function for the traditional religious communities, approving their statutes, correcting any abuses, acting as a point of reference for any disputes. This he did in virtue of supplied jurisdiction. On January 15, 1991, just two months before going to his eternal reward, he asked the Society’s bishops to keep up the same work of responsibility for the religious communities of Tradition, along with other functions of supplied jurisdiction.

    “As long as the present Roman authorities are steeped in Ecuмenism and Modernism and seeing that all their decisions and the 1983 Code of Canon Law are influenced by these false principles, it will be necessary to form authorities of Supplied Jurisdiction, that will faithfully preserve the Catholic principles of Catholic Tradition and Catholic Canon Law. It is the only way of remaining faithful to our Lord Jesus Christ, to the Apostles, to the deposit of Faith that was handed down to their legitimate successors who remained faithful until Vatican II.

    As regards the problem of Commissions, supplying in a certain measure for the failure on the part of Roman Congregations headed by prelates imbued with the revolutionary principles of the Council, it seems to me that they ought to have modest beginnings, in accordance with arising necessities, so that this institution can be of a help to priests in their ministry or to religious in cases that they have difficulty in resolving or in cases where Episcopal authorizations are required.”

There was no doubt in the mind of the Society of Saint Pius X as to the meaning of the Archbishop’s words, and so that very year were created the Canonical Commission and the Bishop responsible for Religious, as the official Regulations of the Society of Saint Pius X published in 1997 state: “These two functions were created in 1991 in order to be able to continue after the death of Archbishop Lefebvre that which he had accomplished in a suppletory manner from 1970 to 1991.”

In fact, 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. For all that it has to do is to establish a positive and probable doubt in such situations, in which case the Church certainly does supply jurisdiction (Ib.). Thus the above mentioned docuмent states: “The bishops of the Society, devoid of all territorial jurisdiction, have, nevertheless, the necessary supplied jurisdiction to exercise the powers that are attached to the Episcopal office…” (Ib.)

Furthermore, Bishop Tissier de Mallerais clearly explained these principles in a lengthy conference given to traditional Catholic study groups in Paris on March 10, 1991, whilst the Archbishop was still alive:

    “Normally jurisdiction is necessary for licitness, that is to say, in order that the act of the priest be licit or permissible. For example, to preach a priest must have a mandate, or, for a bishop to confirm in another diocese than his own, he must have a mandate from the diocesan bishop. In order to ordain priests a bishop must have a mandate from the diocesan bishop. In order to ordain priests a bishop must normally have jurisdiction and this is, of course, all the more so for the consecration of bishops…In an exceptional situation the Church supplies for this absence of jurisdiction on the part of the priest or even the bishop. And the more serious the crisis is, the more necessary it will be to fall back on this supplying of the Church on a higher level. This is what happened on June 30, 1988...You can easily see, my dear friends, that it is the case of necessity amongst the faithful which is responsible for the fact that traditional priests and bishops have a supplied jurisdiction with respect to your needs. This is not only so that they may validly hear confessions and validly assist at marriages, but also for all of the acts of their priestly or Episcopal ministry.”

This is a clear statement that supplied jurisdiction extends as far as the needs of the faithful. For priests and religious this need includes traditional bishops, who alone can approve statutes and foundations of religious coommunities and correct abuses. Like all traditional Catholics, the former Redemptorists have very frequently taken advantage of supplied jurisdiction for their own benefit, such as for Confirmations and the various Ordinations, as well as using it themselves in their pastoral work and missions. Their needs, like those of any religious community, include having a bishop responsible for religious, as the diocesan bishop normally is in his diocese. The Society has always provided for this need, through Archbishop Lefebvre until 1991, then Bishop Fellay until he was elected Superior General, and since 1994 through Bishop De Galarreta, who is the bishop responsible for the religious communities of Tradition. In the light of such clear teaching, it is hardly credible to hear Father Sim now claim that the Society “agreed that there was no supplied jurisdiction for religious superiors”, a claim, moreover, that Bishop Fellay explicitly and immediately denied.

This contention does, however, illustrate a very important point. If there were no extension of supplied jurisdiction to every aspect of the Church’s disciplinary and sacramental life, if the crisis in the Church did not impose upon Tradition the responsibility of organizing itself, and of providing for all the needs of the faithful, then we would all be forced to place ourselves under the modernists, just as the non-Redemptorists are now doing. It would be complete and utter capitulation. It would be the end of the traditional resistance, and ultimately of traditional doctrine, spirituality and of the Mass that only the Society’s firm position can guarantee. How we must thank God for Archbishop Lefebvre’s clarity of foresight, and breadth of understanding of the supernatural mystery of the Church, and of supplied jurisdiction, which has protected us from the paralysis of formalism and legalism into which the modernists are constantly striving to trap us.

http://www.holycrossseminary.com/2008_August.htm

Supplied jurisdiction & traditional priests
Bishop Bernard Tissier de Mallerais's notes from a conference given to the Catholic Study Groups in Paris, March 9-10, 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

But you don't understand. Bishop Fellay and those in power ARE the SSPX.

So when you decided to title this thread "Is the SSPX becoming schismatic?", you were actually meaning to say "Is Bishop Fellay becoming schismatic?"?

If this is the case I think you are not using clear reason, or at least not speaking clearly. That is, you are equating discrediting the institution or pious union of priest that form the SSPX (judging by the name of the title of the thread) with attacking Bishop Fellay.

I don't think it is very upstanding either for the resistance to use Fraternity of St. Peter arguments against the SSPX priests collectively and then attempt to minimize that to Bishop Fellay himself somehow. In fact, the title of the thread is so conspicuous, I would've expected it to be written by Pete Vere himself or one of his cohorts, assuming it is not........

and i wont jump while i have a trustworthy priest. but now we are told , fr mac donald is being transferred to a vacant attic in wimbeldon. :faint: