Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: Matthew on June 01, 2014, 06:59:25 PM
-
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.
-
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 Couvent de la Haye aux Bonshommes, the friary of the Dominicans Brothers of Avrille has also been removed from all the web site lists, especially the French District site La Porte Latine (http://laportelatine.org/ordres/ordlatin/religieux.php). All the sisters are still there as they have all (cloistered and teaching orders) placed themselves under Bishop Fellay through Bishop de Galarreta.
-
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.
-
The Couvent de la Haye aux Bonshommes, the friary of the Dominicans Brothers of Avrille has also been removed .... All the sisters are still there as they have all (cloistered and teaching orders) placed themselves under Bishop Fellay through Bishop de Galarreta.
Well it seems that thinking with one's belly is not restricted to the Third World!
-
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.
-
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.
But you don't understand. Bishop Fellay and those in power ARE the SSPX. They ARE the law, and that's not going to change.
I (as well as the Recusant -- please correct me if I'm wrong) am not implying that all priests and religious in the SSPX right now are bad. But 100% of them are on a sinking ship where loyalty to Bishop Fellay trumps loyalty to Tradition and the fight against Modernism -- or loyalty to the legacy of Archbishop Lefebvre. And for some in the SSPX, loyalty to the "Fuhrer" even trumps the laws of morality!
-
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 According to Canon 209
(Canon Law doctorate dissertation, Fr. Miaskiewicz, J.C.L.)
"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."
"... 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."
https://archive.org/details/Supplied_jurisdiction_Miaskiewic_canon_209
-
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
-
Can the Capuchin community explain why they do not submit to the jurisdiction of the head of their order, Minister General Brother Mauro Jöhri?
Likewise, can the Dominican community explain why they do not submit to the jurisdiction of the Master of the Order, Father Bruno Cadoré?
If they are refusing these authorities, then to which authority are they submitting to?
As Fr. Karl Stehlin SSPX, recently wrote:
"Another principle linked to the first is the principle of authority in se, which alone can save us from the Protestant free inquiry. All of Tradition holds together through this principle, without which everything would fall apart, for the duty to refuse the ordinary authority in order to safeguard the Faith implies the duty to submit to the authority of extraordinary supplied jurisdiction. Tradition has survived because Providence provided this supplied jurisdiction through the founding of the SSPX to which were attached friendly communities.
-
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........
-
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 religious had every right to censure the gentlemen for the active participation in a movement that has the aim of undermining the very priestly society to the religious belong.
Bp. Williamson wants to see the destruction of the society, replaced with:
a loose network of independent pockets of Catholic Resistance, gathered around the Mass, freely contacting one another, but with no structure of false obedience, which served to sink the mainstream Church in the 1960’s and is now sinking the Society of St. Pius X. (London, November 3, 2012)
The bishop and resistance priests are telling the faithful not to support the society or assist at their masses:
Bp. Williamson:
"Therefore just as the Archbishop ruled out attending Indult Masses, so now, as a general rule, attending SSPX Masses should be ruled out, ...
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Eleison-Comments-Horrible-Falls-III
Fr. Ortiz:
... it’s my duty as a priest to alert the faithful of the danger of going to these [SSPX] Masses, like any father warning his children of dissociating with those who represent a danger to their Faith.
http://www.ecclesiamilitans.com/2014/01/02/letter-from-fr-ortiz-december-31-2013/
Fr. Davi Hewko:
Objectively speaking, you should not go to the Society masses anymore.
http://www.ecclesiamilitans.com/2014/01/25/should-we-continue-to-attend-neo-sspx-masses-fr-david-hewko-answers/
Fr. Pfeiffer:
It is not correct for those who know the truth to continue to attend Society of St. Pius X mainstream Masses.
http://www.ecclesiamilitans.com/2014/01/03/priests-and-faithful-ought-not-to-support-the-neo-sspx-fr-joseph-pfeiffer/
Fr. Girouard:
... we have to get out of the Society. ... we have to get out of the official structure of the modern SSPX.
http://www.ecclesiamilitans.com/tag/neo-sspx/
So why was the gentleman at a society mass anyway, is he not following the advice of the resistance bishop and priests?
-
Once again, this point ALONE justifies the complete entity known as the "Resistance" -- including priests, faithful, new Mass centers, publications, websites, the whole nine yards...
Don't forget to mention BISHOPS!
-
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 religious had every right to censure the gentlemen for the active participation in a movement that has the aim of undermining the very priestly society to the religious belong.
Bp. Williamson wants to see the destruction of the society, replaced with:
a loose network of independent pockets of Catholic Resistance, gathered around the Mass, freely contacting one another, but with no structure of false obedience, which served to sink the mainstream Church in the 1960’s and is now sinking the Society of St. Pius X. (London, November 3, 2012)
The bishop and resistance priests are telling the faithful not to support the society or assist at their masses:
Bp. Williamson:
"Therefore just as the Archbishop ruled out attending Indult Masses, so now, as a general rule, attending SSPX Masses should be ruled out, ...
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Eleison-Comments-Horrible-Falls-III
Fr. Ortiz:
... it’s my duty as a priest to alert the faithful of the danger of going to these [SSPX] Masses, like any father warning his children of dissociating with those who represent a danger to their Faith.
http://www.ecclesiamilitans.com/2014/01/02/letter-from-fr-ortiz-december-31-2013/
Fr. Davi Hewko:
Objectively speaking, you should not go to the Society masses anymore.
http://www.ecclesiamilitans.com/2014/01/25/should-we-continue-to-attend-neo-sspx-masses-fr-david-hewko-answers/
Fr. Pfeiffer:
It is not correct for those who know the truth to continue to attend Society of St. Pius X mainstream Masses.
http://www.ecclesiamilitans.com/2014/01/03/priests-and-faithful-ought-not-to-support-the-neo-sspx-fr-joseph-pfeiffer/
Fr. Girouard:
... we have to get out of the Society. ... we have to get out of the official structure of the modern SSPX.
http://www.ecclesiamilitans.com/tag/neo-sspx/
So why was the gentleman at a society mass anyway, is he not following the advice of the resistance bishop and priests?
The answer is simple for some.
We need the Mass and the Sacraments.
And don't say "start a Resistance group and petition Fr. Pfeiffer" either, because that doesn't work. Father is too busy and is spread too thin already.
Unless you live next to a major airport hub or existing Resistance location, you can forget it.
And if your SSPX chapel is unchanged from 10 years ago, it's also difficult to get an active Resistance chapter off the ground. It's kind of like being a victim of your own success!
Even though I immediately started up a Resistance in my area (we even have a dedicated building and equipment!), we've only had 3 visits from a Resistance priest, the last of which was September 2013.
We need Mass more often than that.
The time is not now to totally abandon the SSPX, at least in my area. When the time is right, those with their eyes WIDE OPEN will know it.
If you stay at your SSPX chapel, you have to decide "Should I endure, or should I bail?"
I'm waiting for the "frog-boiling water" to rise above "cold water fresh from the tap" temperature before I bail. Long story short: there's nothing to ENDURE at my chapel right now. There's no slippery slope, because there's no slope or incline at all right now! Bishop Fellay's hand is just too remote to affect the day-to-day operations at my chapel.
If that changes, then I'll change my prudential response.
-
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:
-
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 religious had every right to censure the gentlemen for the active participation in a movement that has the aim of undermining the very priestly society to the religious belong.
Bp. Williamson wants to see the destruction of the society, replaced with:
a loose network of independent pockets of Catholic Resistance, gathered around the Mass, freely contacting one another, but with no structure of false obedience, which served to sink the mainstream Church in the 1960’s and is now sinking the Society of St. Pius X. (London, November 3, 2012)
The bishop and resistance priests are telling the faithful not to support the society or assist at their masses:
Bp. Williamson:
"Therefore just as the Archbishop ruled out attending Indult Masses, so now, as a general rule, attending SSPX Masses should be ruled out, ...
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Eleison-Comments-Horrible-Falls-III
Fr. Ortiz:
... it’s my duty as a priest to alert the faithful of the danger of going to these [SSPX] Masses, like any father warning his children of dissociating with those who represent a danger to their Faith.
http://www.ecclesiamilitans.com/2014/01/02/letter-from-fr-ortiz-december-31-2013/
Fr. Davi Hewko:
Objectively speaking, you should not go to the Society masses anymore.
http://www.ecclesiamilitans.com/2014/01/25/should-we-continue-to-attend-neo-sspx-masses-fr-david-hewko-answers/
Fr. Pfeiffer:
It is not correct for those who know the truth to continue to attend Society of St. Pius X mainstream Masses.
http://www.ecclesiamilitans.com/2014/01/03/priests-and-faithful-ought-not-to-support-the-neo-sspx-fr-joseph-pfeiffer/
Fr. Girouard:
... we have to get out of the Society. ... we have to get out of the official structure of the modern SSPX.
http://www.ecclesiamilitans.com/tag/neo-sspx/
So why was the gentleman at a society mass anyway, is he not following the advice of the resistance bishop and priests?
The answer is simple for some.
We need the Mass and the Sacraments.
And don't say "start a Resistance group and petition Fr. Pfeiffer" either, because that doesn't work. Father is too busy and is spread too thin already.
Unless you live next to a major airport hub or existing Resistance location, you can forget it.
And if your SSPX chapel is unchanged from 10 years ago, it's also difficult to get an active Resistance chapter off the ground. It's kind of like being a victim of your own success!
Even though I immediately started up a Resistance in my area (we even have a dedicated building and equipment!), we've only had 3 visits from a Resistance priest, the last of which was September 2013.
We need Mass more often than that.
The time is not now to totally abandon the SSPX, at least in my area. When the time is right, those with their eyes WIDE OPEN will know it.
If you stay at your SSPX chapel, you have to decide "Should I endure, or should I bail?"
Yes, my question was more to highlight the contradiction. I understand the reasons, and it is the correct course of action. To go months (may be a year) without the sacraments cannot be good for one's spiritual life nor for those one is responsible for. In which case that leads to the questions: Why can't the resistance bishop and priests understand this? Why are they saying leave the society which will invariably harm one's spiritual life? This is serious.
I'm waiting for the "frog-boiling water" to rise above "cold water fresh from the tap" temperature before I bail. Long story short: there's nothing to ENDURE at my chapel right now. There's no slippery slope, because there's no slope or incline at all right now! Bishop Fellay's hand is just too remote to affect the day-to-day operations at my chapel.
If that changes, then I'll change my prudential response.
I don't think there ever will be. The society will continue as she has always done: walking the thin line between the SVs on one side and the ED communities on the other.
-
The society will continue as she has always done: walking the thin line between the SVs on one side and the ED communities on the other.
Oh the naiveté! They now wish to be one of those ED communities.
-
Vinny, just go join the FSSP or the Indult and be done with it.
You don't like the classic SSPX position -- you want Modernist Rome's approval, as well as the approval of the pope who said, "There is no Catholic God".
-
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........
No, this is not about +Fellay personally. I'm only talking about those priests who have decided to change the SSPX fundamentally.
It's much more than one, but less than "all of them".
But any priests that aren't pro-Modernist-Rome are "quiet dissenters" at best, and can't control what the SSPX is becoming.
Yes, +Fellay is fully in control and in charge of the SSPX, in union with a huge number of his close associates and followers. These are the men in power, and they determine what the SSPX will be.
And yes, they are abusing their power as has been seen several times in the past few years. I'm not talking about kicking out one or two vocal critics (parishioners) who won't live in peace, either. (Plenty of people would be able to justify or at least understand that, even if they didn't personally approve of it)
What about the heavy-handed tactics with various religious houses? They are acting like schoolyard bullies. They are acting like cultists.
-
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.
Peter, one does not submit to supplied jurisdiction. I read all of the quotes you gave, and none of them are going to help you with your fundamental misunderstanding, which appears to be that supplied jurisdiction is a jurisdiction "had" or "possessed" habitually under an extraordinary instance (do clarify for me if that is what you think, as that's the best way I can think to summarize everything you've said here).
The SSPX does not "have" supplied jurisdiction. Each priest and bishop within the society has no jurisdiction at all (either taken individually or collectively) until and unless* they are about to put forth an act which requires it for validity, in which case if and only if certain conditions are met, that jurisdiction (which they don't have) will be supplied to them for the validity of the act and only for the validity of the act, i.e., the supply of jurisdiction ceases immediately upon the completion of the act. So, hopefully you see that "submitting" to the "supplied jurisdiction of the SSPX" is really a nonsensical statement.
*And even then, it's not even really right to say that the jurisdiction is "had," since this word implies possession.
-
Peter, one does not submit to supplied jurisdiction. I read all of the quotes you gave, and none of them are going to help you with your fundamental misunderstanding, which appears to be that supplied jurisdiction is a jurisdiction "had" or "possessed" habitually under an extraordinary instance (do clarify for me if that is what you think, as that's the best way I can think to summarize everything you've said here).
Mithrandylan, supplied jurisdiction IS ordinary jurisdiction; it is just given in an extraordinary manner (as mentioned by Fr. Stehlin). You need to go back to basics and understand what jurisdiction IS. No I don't think the society's jurisdiction is habitual and neither do they; it's at least implicit in the heading Error by Defect: "Our Priests do not have Jurisdiction. ..." of the quote from Bishop Bernard Tissier de Mallerais and explicit in the linked conference on SSPX.ORG, and Fr. Miaskiewicz says the same in his disseration.
The problem here is that (i) you do not understand what is jurisdiction and (ii) want to narrow the extent of the supplied principle.
The SSPX does not "have" supplied jurisdiction. Each priest and bishop within the society has no jurisdiction at all (either taken individually or collectively) until and unless* they are about to put forth an act which requires it for validity, in which case if and only if certain conditions are met, that jurisdiction (which they don't have) will be supplied to them for the validity of the act and only for the validity of the act, i.e., the supply of jurisdiction ceases immediately upon the completion of the act. So, hopefully you see that "submitting" to the "supplied jurisdiction of the SSPX" is really a nonsensical statement.
*And even then, it's not even really right to say that the jurisdiction is "had," since this word implies possession.
Mithrandylan, if you refuse to submit to jurisdiction you are outside the Church; you are rejecting her authority. Bp. Tissier de Mallerais warns of this mentality in the quote I gave. In the case of the religion communities they ought to submit to the jurisdiction of the Head of their Order, but they don't, they submit to the society's Bishop responsible for Religious. Similarly, the laiety ought to submit to the jurisdiction of their parish priest and diocean bishop (who, incidently, would concur with Bp. Williamson and the resistance priests and tell you not to attend the SSPX).
Now, the supplied principle has a very broader field of operation and application. If you refuse your local pastor and have a society priest as your 'parish priest' the Church will supply all the jurisdiction necessary to validate the society priest's parochial activity. Hence if you are treating a society church as your parish church then the society priest would have an authority over you just as a parish priest would - read the quote from Fr. Miaskiewicz. The same with the religious communities. They can withdraw anytime, but they would still have to submit to some jurisdiction - either the head of their order or 'find' another supplied jurisdiction (e.g. The Carmel of St. Joseph and Bp Williamson).
-
supplied jurisdiction IS ordinary jurisdiction
peterp, can you provide the source that says supplied jurisdiction is ordinary jurisdiction?
-
supplied jurisdiction IS ordinary jurisdiction
peterp, can you provide the source that says supplied jurisdiction is ordinary jurisdiction?
Yes,
"Supplied jurisdiction, then, is a jurisdiction, be it ordinary or delegated, which is bestowed in an extraordinary manner, without any formality, even perchance to people who are unfit and unworthy." (Fr. Miaskiewicz, p.27)
-
Peter, one does not submit to supplied jurisdiction. I read all of the quotes you gave, and none of them are going to help you with your fundamental misunderstanding, which appears to be that supplied jurisdiction is a jurisdiction "had" or "possessed" habitually under an extraordinary instance (do clarify for me if that is what you think, as that's the best way I can think to summarize everything you've said here).
Mithrandylan, supplied jurisdiction IS ordinary jurisdiction; it is just given in an extraordinary manner (as mentioned by Fr. Stehlin). You need to go back to basics and understand what jurisdiction IS. No I don't think the society's jurisdiction is habitual and neither do they; it's at least implicit in the heading Error by Defect: "Our Priests do not have Jurisdiction. ..." of the quote from Bishop Bernard Tissier de Mallerais and explicit in the linked conference on SSPX.ORG, and Fr. Miaskiewicz says the same in his disseration.
The problem here is that (i) you do not understand what is jurisdiction and (ii) want to narrow the extent of the supplied principle.
The SSPX does not "have" supplied jurisdiction. Each priest and bishop within the society has no jurisdiction at all (either taken individually or collectively) until and unless* they are about to put forth an act which requires it for validity, in which case if and only if certain conditions are met, that jurisdiction (which they don't have) will be supplied to them for the validity of the act and only for the validity of the act, i.e., the supply of jurisdiction ceases immediately upon the completion of the act. So, hopefully you see that "submitting" to the "supplied jurisdiction of the SSPX" is really a nonsensical statement.
*And even then, it's not even really right to say that the jurisdiction is "had," since this word implies possession.
Mithrandylan, if you refuse to submit to jurisdiction you are outside the Church; you are rejecting her authority. Bp. Tissier de Mallerais warns of this mentality in the quote I gave. In the case of the religion communities they ought to submit to the jurisdiction of the Head of their Order, but they don't, they submit to the society's Bishop responsible for Religious. Similarly, the laiety ought to submit to the jurisdiction of their parish priest and diocean bishop (who, incidently, would concur with Bp. Williamson and the resistance priests and tell you not to attend the SSPX).
Now, the supplied principle has a very broader field of operation and application. If you refuse your local pastor and have a society priest as your 'parish priest' the Church will supply all the jurisdiction necessary to validate the society priest's parochial activity. Hence if you are treating a society church as your parish church then the society priest would have an authority over you just as a parish priest would - read the quote from Fr. Miaskiewicz. The same with the religious communities. They can withdraw anytime, but they would still have to submit to some jurisdiction - either the head of their order or 'find' another supplied jurisdiction (e.g. The Carmel of St. Joseph and Bp Williamson).
Jurisdiction is the power to govern the faithful. It is required for the validity of certain acts, sacramental or otherwise. The SSPX has no jurisdiction. They are supplied it in certain sacramental instances for some reason or another, common error, positive and probable doubt of law or danger of death. They are not supplied it in order to govern the faithful as an ordinary does. And if there was no common error, doubt of law or danger of death they wouldn't be supplied it at all.
Good grief man, one does not get to "choose" his pastor. One either has a pastor or doesn't. Most of us don't-- and the SSPX priests certainly aren't pastors, neither are any traditional priests. Instead of reading Miaskiewicz's quote(s) I suggest you read his book. Your idea of "finding a jurisdiction to submit to" is just plain goofy, Peter.
-
Peter, one does not submit to supplied jurisdiction. I read all of the quotes you gave, and none of them are going to help you with your fundamental misunderstanding, which appears to be that supplied jurisdiction is a jurisdiction "had" or "possessed" habitually under an extraordinary instance (do clarify for me if that is what you think, as that's the best way I can think to summarize everything you've said here).
Mithrandylan, supplied jurisdiction IS ordinary jurisdiction; it is just given in an extraordinary manner (as mentioned by Fr. Stehlin). You need to go back to basics and understand what jurisdiction IS. No I don't think the society's jurisdiction is habitual and neither do they; it's at least implicit in the heading Error by Defect: "Our Priests do not have Jurisdiction. ..." of the quote from Bishop Bernard Tissier de Mallerais and explicit in the linked conference on SSPX.ORG, and Fr. Miaskiewicz says the same in his disseration.
The problem here is that (i) you do not understand what is jurisdiction and (ii) want to narrow the extent of the supplied principle.
The SSPX does not "have" supplied jurisdiction. Each priest and bishop within the society has no jurisdiction at all (either taken individually or collectively) until and unless* they are about to put forth an act which requires it for validity, in which case if and only if certain conditions are met, that jurisdiction (which they don't have) will be supplied to them for the validity of the act and only for the validity of the act, i.e., the supply of jurisdiction ceases immediately upon the completion of the act. So, hopefully you see that "submitting" to the "supplied jurisdiction of the SSPX" is really a nonsensical statement.
*And even then, it's not even really right to say that the jurisdiction is "had," since this word implies possession.
Mithrandylan, if you refuse to submit to jurisdiction you are outside the Church; you are rejecting her authority. Bp. Tissier de Mallerais warns of this mentality in the quote I gave. In the case of the religion communities they ought to submit to the jurisdiction of the Head of their Order, but they don't, they submit to the society's Bishop responsible for Religious. Similarly, the laiety ought to submit to the jurisdiction of their parish priest and diocean bishop (who, incidently, would concur with Bp. Williamson and the resistance priests and tell you not to attend the SSPX).
Now, the supplied principle has a very broader field of operation and application. If you refuse your local pastor and have a society priest as your 'parish priest' the Church will supply all the jurisdiction necessary to validate the society priest's parochial activity. Hence if you are treating a society church as your parish church then the society priest would have an authority over you just as a parish priest would - read the quote from Fr. Miaskiewicz. The same with the religious communities. They can withdraw anytime, but they would still have to submit to some jurisdiction - either the head of their order or 'find' another supplied jurisdiction (e.g. The Carmel of St. Joseph and Bp Williamson).
Jurisdiction is the power to govern the faithful.
Which means the faithful (and clergy) are subject to jurisdiction... which means what exactly? - this is what you cannot grasp.
One either has a pastor or doesn't. Most of us don't ...
THEN YOU HAVE LOST YOUR LINK TO THE HIERARCHY!
You just don't get it. Read Fr. Miaskiewicz:
"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."
Instead of reading Miaskiewicz's quote(s) I suggest you read his book. Your idea of "finding a jurisdiction to submit to" is just plain goofy, Peter.
I've read his dissertation, I suggest you do the same. BTW, I put find in quotes it should have been obvious what I meant. Stop being silly Mithrandylan.
-
Peter, one does not submit to supplied jurisdiction. I read all of the quotes you gave, and none of them are going to help you with your fundamental misunderstanding, which appears to be that supplied jurisdiction is a jurisdiction "had" or "possessed" habitually under an extraordinary instance (do clarify for me if that is what you think, as that's the best way I can think to summarize everything you've said here).
Mithrandylan, supplied jurisdiction IS ordinary jurisdiction; it is just given in an extraordinary manner (as mentioned by Fr. Stehlin). You need to go back to basics and understand what jurisdiction IS. No I don't think the society's jurisdiction is habitual and neither do they; it's at least implicit in the heading Error by Defect: "Our Priests do not have Jurisdiction. ..." of the quote from Bishop Bernard Tissier de Mallerais and explicit in the linked conference on SSPX.ORG, and Fr. Miaskiewicz says the same in his disseration.
The problem here is that (i) you do not understand what is jurisdiction and (ii) want to narrow the extent of the supplied principle.
The SSPX does not "have" supplied jurisdiction. Each priest and bishop within the society has no jurisdiction at all (either taken individually or collectively) until and unless* they are about to put forth an act which requires it for validity, in which case if and only if certain conditions are met, that jurisdiction (which they don't have) will be supplied to them for the validity of the act and only for the validity of the act, i.e., the supply of jurisdiction ceases immediately upon the completion of the act. So, hopefully you see that "submitting" to the "supplied jurisdiction of the SSPX" is really a nonsensical statement.
*And even then, it's not even really right to say that the jurisdiction is "had," since this word implies possession.
Mithrandylan, if you refuse to submit to jurisdiction you are outside the Church; you are rejecting her authority. Bp. Tissier de Mallerais warns of this mentality in the quote I gave. In the case of the religion communities they ought to submit to the jurisdiction of the Head of their Order, but they don't, they submit to the society's Bishop responsible for Religious. Similarly, the laiety ought to submit to the jurisdiction of their parish priest and diocean bishop (who, incidently, would concur with Bp. Williamson and the resistance priests and tell you not to attend the SSPX).
Now, the supplied principle has a very broader field of operation and application. If you refuse your local pastor and have a society priest as your 'parish priest' the Church will supply all the jurisdiction necessary to validate the society priest's parochial activity. Hence if you are treating a society church as your parish church then the society priest would have an authority over you just as a parish priest would - read the quote from Fr. Miaskiewicz. The same with the religious communities. They can withdraw anytime, but they would still have to submit to some jurisdiction - either the head of their order or 'find' another supplied jurisdiction (e.g. The Carmel of St. Joseph and Bp Williamson).
Jurisdiction is the power to govern the faithful.
Which means the faithful (and clergy) are subject to jurisdiction... which means what exactly? - this is what you cannot grasp.
One either has a pastor or doesn't. Most of us don't ...
THEN YOU HAVE LOST YOUR LINK TO THE HIERARCHY!
You just don't get it. Read Fr. Miaskiewicz:
"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."
Instead of reading Miaskiewicz's quote(s) I suggest you read his book. Your idea of "finding a jurisdiction to submit to" is just plain goofy, Peter.
I've read his dissertation, I suggest you do the same. BTW, I put find in quotes it should have been obvious what I meant. Stop being silly Mithrandylan.
To validate parochial activity. Yes, I know. Jurisdiction is supplied, given certain requisites, to validate otherwise invalid acts, like the absolution of a penitent by a priest who does not have jurisdiction to absolve him. It does not grant a man an office which he does not have, it supplies him the jurisdiction he would have if he had the office, but which he doesn't have because he doesn't hold the office (of pastor, or bishop or whatever else). And at that, the jurisdiction is supplied only for the acts which attract the supply of it, and the supply lasts only so long as it is required to ensure validity for them. Being a pastor is not an act, it is an office.
-
Peter, one does not submit to supplied jurisdiction. I read all of the quotes you gave, and none of them are going to help you with your fundamental misunderstanding, which appears to be that supplied jurisdiction is a jurisdiction "had" or "possessed" habitually under an extraordinary instance (do clarify for me if that is what you think, as that's the best way I can think to summarize everything you've said here).
Mithrandylan, supplied jurisdiction IS ordinary jurisdiction; it is just given in an extraordinary manner (as mentioned by Fr. Stehlin). You need to go back to basics and understand what jurisdiction IS. No I don't think the society's jurisdiction is habitual and neither do they; it's at least implicit in the heading Error by Defect: "Our Priests do not have Jurisdiction. ..." of the quote from Bishop Bernard Tissier de Mallerais and explicit in the linked conference on SSPX.ORG, and Fr. Miaskiewicz says the same in his disseration.
The problem here is that (i) you do not understand what is jurisdiction and (ii) want to narrow the extent of the supplied principle.
The SSPX does not "have" supplied jurisdiction. Each priest and bishop within the society has no jurisdiction at all (either taken individually or collectively) until and unless* they are about to put forth an act which requires it for validity, in which case if and only if certain conditions are met, that jurisdiction (which they don't have) will be supplied to them for the validity of the act and only for the validity of the act, i.e., the supply of jurisdiction ceases immediately upon the completion of the act. So, hopefully you see that "submitting" to the "supplied jurisdiction of the SSPX" is really a nonsensical statement.
*And even then, it's not even really right to say that the jurisdiction is "had," since this word implies possession.
Mithrandylan, if you refuse to submit to jurisdiction you are outside the Church; you are rejecting her authority. Bp. Tissier de Mallerais warns of this mentality in the quote I gave. In the case of the religion communities they ought to submit to the jurisdiction of the Head of their Order, but they don't, they submit to the society's Bishop responsible for Religious. Similarly, the laiety ought to submit to the jurisdiction of their parish priest and diocean bishop (who, incidently, would concur with Bp. Williamson and the resistance priests and tell you not to attend the SSPX).
Now, the supplied principle has a very broader field of operation and application. If you refuse your local pastor and have a society priest as your 'parish priest' the Church will supply all the jurisdiction necessary to validate the society priest's parochial activity. Hence if you are treating a society church as your parish church then the society priest would have an authority over you just as a parish priest would - read the quote from Fr. Miaskiewicz. The same with the religious communities. They can withdraw anytime, but they would still have to submit to some jurisdiction - either the head of their order or 'find' another supplied jurisdiction (e.g. The Carmel of St. Joseph and Bp Williamson).
Jurisdiction is the power to govern the faithful.
Which means the faithful (and clergy) are subject to jurisdiction... which means what exactly? - this is what you cannot grasp.
One either has a pastor or doesn't. Most of us don't ...
THEN YOU HAVE LOST YOUR LINK TO THE HIERARCHY!
You just don't get it. Read Fr. Miaskiewicz:
"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."
Instead of reading Miaskiewicz's quote(s) I suggest you read his book. Your idea of "finding a jurisdiction to submit to" is just plain goofy, Peter.
I've read his dissertation, I suggest you do the same. BTW, I put find in quotes it should have been obvious what I meant. Stop being silly Mithrandylan.
To validate parochial activity. Yes, I know.
No you don't know. I've written numerous times and you've failed to address it everytime: what it means to be subject to jurisdiction; the liaety are subject to the jurisdiction of their pastor, the pastor is subject to the jurisdiction of his bishop etc. - this is what you cannot comprehend, you think only in terms of a priest and the confessional.
You really do need to address your attachment to the hierarchy before we continue.
-
Peter, none of the traditional priests are pastors. I know a lot of them think they are, and play fast and loose with that term, but it's simply not true.
Miaskiewicz does not support this view-- no one does. A pastor must be approved by the local ordinary, and must be appointed by the local ordinary to the office of pastor. A priest in charge of a chapel which enjoys no approbation of the Church is not a pastor, and the building he says mass in is not a parish. His actions that require jurisdiction are invalid until and unless there is some condition present which attracts a supply of jurisdiction.
You are confusing the supply of jurisdiction for certain and specific acts under certain and specific conditions with being supplied an actual office with authority, it seems. This is truly bizarre!