Jurisdiction in the Crisis and Use of Non-Authority
Jul 25, 2021 13:17:09 GMT -5
Voxxkowalski, RitaMarita, and 2 more like this
Post by Pacelli on Jul 25, 2021 13:17:09 GMT -5
The question keeps coming to me about certain traditional groups that are exercising jurisdiction over Catholics who attend their chapels.
In my opinion, many Catholics have forgotten their catechism. It is ONLY the Pope and the bishops in union with him, those who are rulers of a diocese, that may exercise jurisdiction and rule over the flock of Christ. The Pope rules the universal Church, while the bishops rule of each of their particular dioceses.
The crisis in the Church has not led us to a new Constitutional structure of the Church. The Church is the same Church that existed in 1950, 1850, and year 150. A man cannot on his own initiative establish a new office that designates to himself a flock, and then proceed to rule over those Catholics.
Who then are the Catholics that attend mass with any particular traditional group. They are Catholics that, according to the Code (1917) have domicile in any particular diocese that they reside. If there is no bishop, and this seems certain in the Latin rite, then they live in a diocese in a state of sedevacante, and await a future bishop who will be their lawful Shepherd. In the same manner, all Catholics, in all dioceses await our universal pastor, the Pope.
Tradionalist groups, bishops, and priests cannot create a new governing power within the Church. I keep reading and hearing stories about examples in which certain groups and priests have in fact unlawfully exercised jurisdiction over Catholics who attend their chapels. I will now get to some specifics. Keep in mind that these few examples are hardly exhaustive of the subject, but they are more relevant as these groups are fairly large and affect a great number of Catholics.
1. The Society of St. Pius V have made a policy that binds those who attend their chapel to agree with their private conclusion that Catholics who attend their chapels must not attend the masses of priests who descend from the line of Archbishop Thuc. They have many reasons for their position, and in this crisis, a Catholic can agree or disagree with them, but no one has the right to bind another Catholic on this matter.
Personally, I think the position of SSPV is incorrect. But, whether or not they are right or wrong is not at issue. The Catholic Church has not settled this matter. Until the Church settles this, each individual Catholic must on his own form moral certainty about this and all other issues.
The SSPV could tell the people at their chapels, "we have serious concerns about the validity of Thuc line masses, and we urge you to not attend them, until the Pope resolves the matter." But, that is not what they are doing. They are stating in essence, "We are commanding you on our own non-authority to not attend masses said by Thuc line priests, and if you do attend such masses, you will be denied holy communion by our priests, until you submit to our order."
2. Bishop Sanborn, and his group of priests, known as Catholic Restoration, along with Bishop Dolan and his group of priests, through the Saint Gertrude the Great chapel. These men have imposed a policy at their chapels that those who attend their chapels must obey their rule that Catholics cannot attend masses said "una cum," with the undeclared antipope.
One may ask, "under whose authority do these bishops and priests bind Catholics who attend their chapels to this rule?" The answer, their own non-authority. The Catholic Church has not bound you to their conclusion. The Pope has not bound you. A private individual who has no office in the Catholic Church is binding you.
I strongly disagree with this so called una cum idea. I would urge readers not familiar to go through the many resources in our library that debunk this error, linked HERE But, as is the case of the SSPV matter above, the same applies here. If these bishops and priests say, "we think that you should not attend masses of the SSPX and others "una cum" with the undeclared antipope, but we are not in any binding you to our view, which we will by the way submit in writing to the Holy See for review as soon as that is possible," then I would not have a problem with what they are saying, even though they are completely wrong in their ideas in this matter, in my opinion.
Catholics may agree or differ on non-essentials, and it is for out leader who is commissioned by God Himself, the Pope of Rome, to settle any disputes among us. Individual Catholics cannot create a new dispute and then pretend it is a settled matter and then proceed to bind other Catholics to this privately settled matter! These bishops and priests then proceed to use Our Lord Himself as leverage to force adherence to their privately settled policy. If any Catholic disobeys them on this, they will be denied Holy Communion!
Interestingly enough it was Fr. Cekada who penned a great explanation of a Catholic's right to receive Holy Communion, posted on this forum HERE Holy Communion cannot be used as a means of enforcing a private conclusion on this crisis or at issue in this crisis, or as a means of enforcing a conclusion on some disputed matter.
This leads me to one last point. When actions such as this are taken, the binding of consciences to unsettled matters, they are inherently schismatic. Only the lawful Pope and diocesan bishops may lead Catholics, gather and rule over the sheep, and anyone other than those commissioned by God who do this are acting as schismatics who usurp the powers of the lawful hierarchy. It is the exclusive power of the Popes, a power given them by Our Lord to bind and to loosen, to settle disputed matters, to teach and govern Christ's flock.
The policies of these groups are a minimum extremely dangerous as they are grounded in schism, rupturing the unity of the Church, which is already suffering greatly from this crisis. My hope is that these bishops and priests will abandon this misuse of their non-authority and return to the only sacerdotal role that they have in this crisis: answer the call of Catholics who request from them the sacraments.
I leave off with one final and relevant quote, from the famous 1983 Letter of the Nine priests to Archbishop Lefebvre, which was signed by then Fr. Donald Sanborn, Fr. Clarence Kelly, Fr. Daniel Dolan, among others that I believe expresses clearly the correct Catholic position in our crisis on the matter of authority and the unlawfulness of exercising one's non-authority,and the danger of schism "or worse" that may arise from such use of authority that one lacks:
In my opinion, many Catholics have forgotten their catechism. It is ONLY the Pope and the bishops in union with him, those who are rulers of a diocese, that may exercise jurisdiction and rule over the flock of Christ. The Pope rules the universal Church, while the bishops rule of each of their particular dioceses.
The crisis in the Church has not led us to a new Constitutional structure of the Church. The Church is the same Church that existed in 1950, 1850, and year 150. A man cannot on his own initiative establish a new office that designates to himself a flock, and then proceed to rule over those Catholics.
Who then are the Catholics that attend mass with any particular traditional group. They are Catholics that, according to the Code (1917) have domicile in any particular diocese that they reside. If there is no bishop, and this seems certain in the Latin rite, then they live in a diocese in a state of sedevacante, and await a future bishop who will be their lawful Shepherd. In the same manner, all Catholics, in all dioceses await our universal pastor, the Pope.
Tradionalist groups, bishops, and priests cannot create a new governing power within the Church. I keep reading and hearing stories about examples in which certain groups and priests have in fact unlawfully exercised jurisdiction over Catholics who attend their chapels. I will now get to some specifics. Keep in mind that these few examples are hardly exhaustive of the subject, but they are more relevant as these groups are fairly large and affect a great number of Catholics.
1. The Society of St. Pius V have made a policy that binds those who attend their chapel to agree with their private conclusion that Catholics who attend their chapels must not attend the masses of priests who descend from the line of Archbishop Thuc. They have many reasons for their position, and in this crisis, a Catholic can agree or disagree with them, but no one has the right to bind another Catholic on this matter.
Personally, I think the position of SSPV is incorrect. But, whether or not they are right or wrong is not at issue. The Catholic Church has not settled this matter. Until the Church settles this, each individual Catholic must on his own form moral certainty about this and all other issues.
The SSPV could tell the people at their chapels, "we have serious concerns about the validity of Thuc line masses, and we urge you to not attend them, until the Pope resolves the matter." But, that is not what they are doing. They are stating in essence, "We are commanding you on our own non-authority to not attend masses said by Thuc line priests, and if you do attend such masses, you will be denied holy communion by our priests, until you submit to our order."
2. Bishop Sanborn, and his group of priests, known as Catholic Restoration, along with Bishop Dolan and his group of priests, through the Saint Gertrude the Great chapel. These men have imposed a policy at their chapels that those who attend their chapels must obey their rule that Catholics cannot attend masses said "una cum," with the undeclared antipope.
One may ask, "under whose authority do these bishops and priests bind Catholics who attend their chapels to this rule?" The answer, their own non-authority. The Catholic Church has not bound you to their conclusion. The Pope has not bound you. A private individual who has no office in the Catholic Church is binding you.
I strongly disagree with this so called una cum idea. I would urge readers not familiar to go through the many resources in our library that debunk this error, linked HERE But, as is the case of the SSPV matter above, the same applies here. If these bishops and priests say, "we think that you should not attend masses of the SSPX and others "una cum" with the undeclared antipope, but we are not in any binding you to our view, which we will by the way submit in writing to the Holy See for review as soon as that is possible," then I would not have a problem with what they are saying, even though they are completely wrong in their ideas in this matter, in my opinion.
Catholics may agree or differ on non-essentials, and it is for out leader who is commissioned by God Himself, the Pope of Rome, to settle any disputes among us. Individual Catholics cannot create a new dispute and then pretend it is a settled matter and then proceed to bind other Catholics to this privately settled matter! These bishops and priests then proceed to use Our Lord Himself as leverage to force adherence to their privately settled policy. If any Catholic disobeys them on this, they will be denied Holy Communion!
Interestingly enough it was Fr. Cekada who penned a great explanation of a Catholic's right to receive Holy Communion, posted on this forum HERE Holy Communion cannot be used as a means of enforcing a private conclusion on this crisis or at issue in this crisis, or as a means of enforcing a conclusion on some disputed matter.
This leads me to one last point. When actions such as this are taken, the binding of consciences to unsettled matters, they are inherently schismatic. Only the lawful Pope and diocesan bishops may lead Catholics, gather and rule over the sheep, and anyone other than those commissioned by God who do this are acting as schismatics who usurp the powers of the lawful hierarchy. It is the exclusive power of the Popes, a power given them by Our Lord to bind and to loosen, to settle disputed matters, to teach and govern Christ's flock.
The policies of these groups are a minimum extremely dangerous as they are grounded in schism, rupturing the unity of the Church, which is already suffering greatly from this crisis. My hope is that these bishops and priests will abandon this misuse of their non-authority and return to the only sacerdotal role that they have in this crisis: answer the call of Catholics who request from them the sacraments.
I leave off with one final and relevant quote, from the famous 1983 Letter of the Nine priests to Archbishop Lefebvre, which was signed by then Fr. Donald Sanborn, Fr. Clarence Kelly, Fr. Daniel Dolan, among others that I believe expresses clearly the correct Catholic position in our crisis on the matter of authority and the unlawfulness of exercising one's non-authority,and the danger of schism "or worse" that may arise from such use of authority that one lacks:
5. Magisterial Authority
The present situation in the Church has generated many unprecedented problems of a theological and practical nature — for example the question of the in se validity or invalidity of the New Mass, as opposed to the question of the attendance at the New Mass. On the one hand, the definitive resolution of speculative theological questions must await the restoration of normalcy in the Church. On the other hand, we must apply Catholic moral and dogmatic principles to practical problems.
The Society must not presume to settle such speculative questions in an authoritative and definitive fashion, since it has absolutely no authority to do so. Any attempt by the Society to teach and impose its conclusions on matters of speculative theology as the only positions suitable for a Catholic to embrace is dangerous and opens the door to great evils - for it assumes a magisterial authority which belongs not to it but to the Church alone.
Now while in theory the Society may deny any claim to such teaching authority, in practice it has acted as though it did have such an authority. For it has proposed solutions to speculative theological questions and has threatened with expulsion or has actually expelled priests and seminarians who disagree with its teaching.
For example on Nov. 8, 1982 a young priest received the following ultimatum on the resolution of a matter of speculative theology:
If you remain with our Society, you have to gradually clarify your inner viewpoint and have to return to the attitude of the Priestly Society, which seems to us to be the only right one, under the given circumstances, as a talk with theologians this past weekend has shown me again. Think about it seriously, because with this decision your temporal and so much more your eternal welfare is at stake to the highest degree. I will continue to pray for you for divine enlightenment and humble submission.
Is this a threat of excommunication by a pope to a subject embracing heresy? Does not the prediction and threat of tem- poral and eternal ruination for a refusal to assent internally indi- cate the highest teaching and ruling authority?
But alas this is not a pope speaking. These are the words in- stead of Father Franz Schmidberger, himself a young priest ordained in 1975 by Your Grace who will succeed you as head of the Society, and who presumes to teach and threaten with such authority. This is inadmissible!
To act in such a way puts the Society in the dangerous position of assuming for itself rights and authority which belong to the Magisterium alone. It creates the potential for schism and worse. It is unacceptable from a Catholic point of view. The Catholic thing to do would be for the Society to refrain from attempting to bind the consciences of its members on speculative theological questions which are, in fact, open to discussion, and which can only be settled definitively by legitimate authority when the traditions have been restored. SOURCE
The present situation in the Church has generated many unprecedented problems of a theological and practical nature — for example the question of the in se validity or invalidity of the New Mass, as opposed to the question of the attendance at the New Mass. On the one hand, the definitive resolution of speculative theological questions must await the restoration of normalcy in the Church. On the other hand, we must apply Catholic moral and dogmatic principles to practical problems.
The Society must not presume to settle such speculative questions in an authoritative and definitive fashion, since it has absolutely no authority to do so. Any attempt by the Society to teach and impose its conclusions on matters of speculative theology as the only positions suitable for a Catholic to embrace is dangerous and opens the door to great evils - for it assumes a magisterial authority which belongs not to it but to the Church alone.
Now while in theory the Society may deny any claim to such teaching authority, in practice it has acted as though it did have such an authority. For it has proposed solutions to speculative theological questions and has threatened with expulsion or has actually expelled priests and seminarians who disagree with its teaching.
For example on Nov. 8, 1982 a young priest received the following ultimatum on the resolution of a matter of speculative theology:
If you remain with our Society, you have to gradually clarify your inner viewpoint and have to return to the attitude of the Priestly Society, which seems to us to be the only right one, under the given circumstances, as a talk with theologians this past weekend has shown me again. Think about it seriously, because with this decision your temporal and so much more your eternal welfare is at stake to the highest degree. I will continue to pray for you for divine enlightenment and humble submission.
Is this a threat of excommunication by a pope to a subject embracing heresy? Does not the prediction and threat of tem- poral and eternal ruination for a refusal to assent internally indi- cate the highest teaching and ruling authority?
But alas this is not a pope speaking. These are the words in- stead of Father Franz Schmidberger, himself a young priest ordained in 1975 by Your Grace who will succeed you as head of the Society, and who presumes to teach and threaten with such authority. This is inadmissible!
To act in such a way puts the Society in the dangerous position of assuming for itself rights and authority which belong to the Magisterium alone. It creates the potential for schism and worse. It is unacceptable from a Catholic point of view. The Catholic thing to do would be for the Society to refrain from attempting to bind the consciences of its members on speculative theological questions which are, in fact, open to discussion, and which can only be settled definitively by legitimate authority when the traditions have been restored. SOURCE