Author Topic: xSPX Properties will be given to "Francis" (Read 4921 times)

Incredulous · « **on:** May 01, 2016, 02:33:08 PM »

Lawrence J Myers
8 Hillcrest Street
Homebush NSW 2140
(H) 61+ 02 8756 5431
Mob. 0432 376 068
Email: lauriemyers86@gmail.com
1 May 2016

His Lordship Bishop Bernard Fellay
Superior General of the SSPX
Priorat Mariae Verkundigung
Schloss Schwandegg
MENZINGEN ZG CH-6313            URGENT
SWITZERLAND

Your Lordship,

I have written to you twice previously – once in 2012 and the second time in 2014. You did not reply to either letter. I don’t know if you ever read them.

I am writing this letter to you as a Solicitor of the Supreme Court of New South Wales having qualified to practise in that jurisdiction over twenty years ago, but I am not a Canon Lawyer.

CAVEAT: Please take the time to read this letter as the consequences of your failure to do so, or your failure to act, could be disastrous for the SSPX for you personally, and, most importantly for the Traditional Catholic Faithful.

This letter deals primarily with the following points:

•   Cl. 1273 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law;
•   The proposed Personal Prelature;
•   The Ecclesiastical Courts;
•   The inability of Civil Courts to intervene.

Cl. 1273 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law is the problem facing the SSPX. It states:

"By virtue of his primacy of governance, the Roman Pontiff is the supreme administrator and steward of all ecclesiastical goods."

You may think that you have protected the temporal possessions of the SSPX because, presumably, you have taken steps to ensure that all properties throughout the world are legally owned by the SSPX. Let’s face it, you saw what happened in the United States following the expulsion of the Nine from the SSPX in the USA in 1983 and you would not want to go down that path again.

Unlike the Law Firm that represented the SSPX at that time you may now even be advised by the Greatest Law Firm you think you could have employed. I will leave it to you to decide if your judgment is correct after you have read this letter.

As far as I am aware you do not have Legal qualifications nor do you have Canonical Law qualifications so you will have to rely on the judgments of others.

Leaving aside Divine Intervention, “What is the worst case scenario for the SSPX?”

Surely it would be this:

(a) if it should sign an Agreement with Rome and subsequently realise that it was a mistake to do so; and,
(b) on attempting to re-establish the status quo which existed prior to the Agreement, then finding out that all of its previously owned SSPX properties were now the property of the Pope.

The Pope’s Personal Prelature

Under Canon Law once you have signed an Agreement with Rome all of the properties of the SSPX will revert to the Pope. Canon 1273 says so. There is reference to Personal Prelatures under Canon Law clauses 294-297 but those clauses are silent as to ownership of property so the fate of those properties lie within the Mercy hands of the Pope – how comfortable are you that he will transfer the properties back to the SSPX in the event that a trial period proves unsatisfactory to the SSPX?

The Ecclesiastical Courts

You may think that you can appeal to the Ecclesiastical Courts and they will sort out the problem. How did Archbishop Lefebvre fare when he appealed to have his matter determined by the Ecclesiastical Courts? He did not even get a reply.

Even if by some Miracle you obtained a hearing in the Ecclesiastical Courts do you really imagine they will overturn a direction from the Pope? Perhaps you do really believe that this Pope is sincere and that he actually has Mercy hands?

The Pope will ensure that the Ecclesiastical Courts find that all properties previous belonging to the SSPX now belong to the Pope (holding those Properties for the Body of Christ, of course).

The Civil Courts

Aha! This is where you will feel sure that you can gain Justice, having already failed to obtain Mercy.

Please ask your lawyers to find an instance (a Precedent) where a Civil Court has overturned a Decision of an Ecclesiastical Court on a matter which is Internal to the Catholic Church.

In my opinion you and they will look in vain.

My research shows that the Legal Reality is that any disputes will be sorted out in Ecclesiastical Courts and that Civil Courts will not interfere with the decisions of Ecclesiastical Courts unless, of course, one of the parties is a person or body who is outside the Church. We both agree the SSPX was never outside the Church though the Bishops theoretically were for a short time. Technically speaking, the Excommunications of Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop de Castro Mayer still apply because Rome never lifted them. But we know that you never thought the Excommunications were valid because they were not permitted by Canon Law. Is the Pope bound to follow Canon Law? Who is going to over-rule a decision of the Pope? Certainly not an Ecclesiastical Court.

So what is the result of all of this? If you were to find in say six months or in one year or maybe even one week after signing an Agreement that you wanted to back out…you would back out leaving all of your properties behind.

Rome can take its time preparing the necessary paperwork to order the transfer of the ownership of the Properties in each country from the SSPX to the Pope or to the Church in Rome or to whomsoever the Pope wants to transfer the properties to because, once an Agreement is signed with Rome, the SSPX would legally no longer own them…certainly they would occupy them until they are evicted but evicted they will be, in time.

The Law in the USA and in other English Common Law countries

This is well set out in a paper entitled Courts and Canon Law by Marianne Perciaccante which can be found at http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1203&context=cjlpp which I recommend that you and advisers read carefully. Perhaps it is best summarised by quoting Justice Brennan in the case of Serbian Eastern Orthodox Diocese v Milivojevic 426 U.S. 696, 713 (1976) when he said:

“that courts cannot interfere with ecclesiastical law. Courts must accept the decision of a church’s highest judicatory.”

The above paper deals exclusively with the Law as it has been applied in English Common Law Courts (such as the USA which inherited the English Common Law system). This law applies in countries such as: US, UK, Australia, New Zealand and any of the UK’s former colonies.

The Law in Roman Civil Law countries

For countries where the Roman Civil Law system is followed I recommend the paper entitled Brief History of Imperial Roman Canon Law by Charles P Sherman which can be found at http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4045&context=californialawreview

Once again any Student of Law would conclude that the jurisdiction of Ecclesiastical Courts cannot be usurped by Civil Courts which follow the Roman Civil Law system such as Italy, France, Germany, Poland and the remaining EU countries.

The Spirit of 1988

Remember those heady days after 30 June 1988 when dozens of SSPX Hierarchy (including Rectors of Seminaries) pleaded with Rome to be excommunicated along with the 6 bishops excommunicated by Pope John Paul II. Nowadays I read that those same priests are terrified that Rome will excommunicate them all for being Schismatics if the SSPX don't sign an Agreement. No more offers of Voluntary Excommunication by any of the SSPX Hierarchy.

If the SSPX is so foolish as to sign an Agreement with Modernist Rome where it is likely to come unstuck you will find that the SSPX will, in time, lose all of its properties and the Hierarchy of the SSPX will implode and all of the priests will then have to make a decision:

(a) Do they continue to remain with Modernist Rome?; or
(b) Do they join The Resistance?

Call for Action

Please abandon this plan to sign an Agreement with Rome and have the good grace to invite the re-instatement of Bishop Williamson and the other priests expelled from the SSPX and quietly resign and join whichever religious order you choose as your position with the SSPX is untenable as you have brought it to the Brink of Destruction and it has only survived, so far, by an Act of Divine Providence.

Yours in Christ

Lawrence (aka Laurie) Myers
Christian Activist &
Solicitor of the Supreme Court of New South Wales

Centroamerica · « **Reply #1 on:** May 01, 2016, 05:57:43 PM »

A nice letter, but the problem is that they won't have to sign anything at all, so Bishop Fellay will likely ignore this letter.

Maria Auxiliadora · « **Reply #2 on:** May 01, 2016, 06:20:02 PM »

You are very naive. He ignores the letter because he "signed" before Argentina.

Guardian Angel · « **Reply #3 on:** May 01, 2016, 06:36:39 PM »

Quote from: Centroamerica

A nice letter, but the problem is that they won't have to sign anything at all, so Bishop Fellay will likely ignore this letter.

What do you mean? When the Prelature is erected, doesn't Bishop Fellay sign as its superior?

Incredulous · « **Reply #4 on:** May 01, 2016, 09:38:39 PM »

They are signing something, they vaguely called "prelature", which effectively means "behind closed doors"

I take it to mean that "Francis" could close and sell all the xSPX chapel properties from the moment the ink is dry on the executed docuмent.

I wonder if Bp. Fellay will be able to keep his sanity after it all comes unglued?

Matthew · « **Reply #5 on:** May 01, 2016, 09:47:04 PM »

Quote from: Incredulous

I wonder if Bp. Fellay will be able to keep his sanity after it all comes unglued?

Actually, the precedent doesn't look good for this either.

1) the prelate who sells out his organization to Modernist Rome often gets replaced -- though it may take a few years.

2) Judas didn't end well, after betraying Our Lord. He went insane with despair and hanged himself.

Wessex · « **Reply #6 on:** May 02, 2016, 02:30:08 AM »

I am sure Max Krah has covered all exits. The Society is very materialistic and would want sufficient autonomy to be able to hang onto what they consider valuable. It might even acquire some empty quality property from the mainstream and been keen to relinquish its portfolio of barns, lock-ups and taverns. Gosh, a new property empire is born!

Incredulous · « **Reply #7 on:** May 02, 2016, 06:45:57 AM »

Yeah, legal counsel, that's probably why Schmidbergy keeps Max Krah on the German District's academic payroll.

When their facade melts down, maybe the xSPX elite can hide from the faithful and find solace in a far-away, tropical monastery?

1st Mansion Tenant · « **Reply #8 on:** May 02, 2016, 11:01:24 AM »

Hey, Incred, is that a pic of the new seminary they've been passing the hat for?

BJ5 · « **Reply #9 on:** May 02, 2016, 11:24:41 AM »

This letter is a joke .. ask a REAL attorney. Perhaps that is how it is done in 'Homebush' but in the U.S. if an attorney shows up in court with an attempt to seize, say, St. Mary's College, which is titled in KS records to a legal corporation called "SSPX, St. Mary's, KS", and, as justification for the seizure, presents Canon XX.XX which states that he Pope owns all goods associated with the Catholic Church, the judge will chuckle, gavel the case dismissed, and move on to the next case.

Matthew · « **Reply #10 on:** May 02, 2016, 11:32:28 AM »

Quote from: BJ5

This letter is a joke .. ask a REAL attorney. Perhaps that is how it is done in 'Homebush' but in the U.S. if an attorney shows up in court with an attempt to seize, say, St. Mary's College, which is titled in KS records to a legal corporation called "SSPX, St. Mary's, KS", and, as justification for the seizure, presents Canon XX.XX which states that he Pope owns all goods associated with the Catholic Church, the judge will chuckle, gavel the case dismissed, and move on to the next case.

You are probably correct.

I don't know how well everyone here knows "Laurie Myers", but he is an interesting character to say the least.

He was heavily involved in MLM and sales for a while. He was spouting quotes from the famous Self Help books like "Think and Grow Rich", "How to Make Friends and Influence People", "Seven Habits of Highly Effective People" and other such classics. For example, anything negative he referred to as "stinkin' thinkin'"

I don't remember why I banned him from CathInfo (probably 7 or 8 years ago), but it might just be that he was too "alpha" to hold any position under #1 on a forum or group. Speaking of which...

More recently, he set up a Bishop Williamson Supporters group on Facebook (so he is the Admin). But each person who joins he tells them, "This is a Bishop Williamson group, not a Resistance group." He was *big* on putting a huge, clear distinction between the Resistance and Bishop Williamson (???) I guess a bunch of Pfeifferites had made his group a living hell at some point, and that probably turned him off. But still! Bishop Williamson is certainly Resistance -- it's hard to support one without supporting the other.

At any rate, he is quite keen on moderating posts any and every chance he gets -- he is a regular tyrant on that 260 member group of his.

It figures that he's "full of it" on this issue as well. I thought it was interesting if true, but it very well might be totally off base. I'm not a lawyer.

Raphaela · « **Reply #11 on:** May 02, 2016, 03:17:41 PM »

I've read that the property of religious orders (and other canonical organisations?), which close down, automatically becomes the property of the Pope. If they decided to become 'uncanonical' again, this might apply to them. Are there any canon lawyers around?

Archbishop Lefebvre was quoted, in about 1988 and afterwards, as warning the Society to keep possession of its property. Was this the reason why?

AlligatorDicax · « **Reply #12 on:** May 05, 2016, 10:21:52 AM »

Quote from: Lawrence J Myers (1 May 2016) via Incredulous (May 1, 2016, 3:33 pm)

Under Canon Law once you have signed an Agreement with Rome all of the properties of the SSPX will revert to the Pope. Canon 1273 says so.

It's difficult to believe that it would be correct to apply that canon, even in the modernist (1983?) Code of Canon Law, if an accurate translation of its official Latin text yields the English "revert". It's a word that reached modern English with little change from the classical Latin 3rd-conjugation verb "revert·o, -ere", having the meaning "to turn back" in both languages.

That's because it seems nonsensical to write that properties that the pope never possessed would "turn back" to him.

Besides, wouldn't that be seriously at odds with the "collegiality" now promoted by modernist Rome, especially by Bishop-of-Rome Francis né Jorge Bergoglio?

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #13 on:** May 05, 2016, 10:51:03 AM »

I would assume that most, if not all, of the sspx properties are setup under a holding company that owns them all. There is a local LLC in each state but these are owned by one US holding company, which is then part of an international holding company, which owns everything. This is how a global company like GE or UPS would be setup.

If so, (and I assume this is what that Max Krah guy has been working on, since he is an international business guy), then when the deal is made, the sspx would sign over ownership of the international company and *boom* they own everything, in every company. There's no need to go to a KS court and seize the property because the KS property's stock is already owned by the international company and they have legal control.

Also, we are all assuming that Fellay will only sign a doctrinal agreement. I'm sure there will be other financial, legal docs he must sign.

BJ5 · « **Reply #14 on:** May 05, 2016, 10:56:27 AM »

Quote from: Raphaela

I've read that the property of religious orders (and other canonical organisations?), which close down, automatically becomes the property of the Pope. If they decided to become 'uncanonical' again, this might apply to them. Are there any canon lawyers around?

Archbishop Lefebvre was quoted, in about 1988 and afterwards, as warning the Society to keep possession of its property. Was this the reason why?

No. You have to remember that Canon Law is not the basis of jurisdiction in U.S. Courts regardless of what Canon Law or the Bible or Sharia Law says. For the Diocese (or any higher ecclesial entity) to have a claim, the US legal docuмents would have to be altered to specifically give them some precedence in the titled corporation.

The Archbishop's warning was to prevent another court fight like the one with the SSPV (1983-85) where properties were titled to the individual pastors and not to the local/district SSPX corporate entity.