Excuse me Mr. X,
when I read the article from Fr. Scott, these two passages stuck out.
The Society’s bishops have their attachment to the Church through the Society of St. Pius X, a legitimately established community of which they are but auxiliary bishops, and through which they receive their entire authority to administer the sacraments of confirmation and holy orders.
and
There were many older priests who were unjustly stripped of their faculties, or declared suspended or even excommunicated. Such sentences, being manifestly unjust, were canonically null and void. Consequently, such traditional priests continued, rightly, their pastoral administration of the sacraments and the celebration of Mass. In justice they retained their incardination, whether it be in their diocese from which they had been unjustly excluded, or likewise in their religious community to whose rule they alone remained attached. In case of need the Church supplied jurisdiction and they administered the sacraments validly and licitly. However, most importantly the “independence” of such priests was purely apparent, due to the crisis of authority and their rejection by their own superiors. They remained attached for life to their diocese or religious community. However, most of these older priests have passed to their eternal reward, and few traditional priests remain in this situation.
Bishop Williamsson considers himself to be unjustly expelled from the SSPX as well as the NO. If he is correct, then would he not then retain the same essential faculties as any society bishop? If so, would that then cover the rest of the resistance priests and bishops who follow him?
Topic: Fr. Brendan King on Sr. Mary-Elizabeth's Departure from the SSPX Oblates (Read 5587 times)