SSPX Bishops and territorial responsability?

[JReducation]

Originally Posted by Big_Feet

So, when the excommunications were lifted a couple of years ago, still no assignments were made? Would this be one way of disposing of the "irregularity" of these bishops and hence the society?

Originally Posted by giuseppeTO

Even after regularization, they will not have territorial responsibilities. In other words, they will not function as the ordinary of a diocese. The structure the Pope has likely chosen for them would not be a territorial structure, per se.

Actually, according to yesterday's announcement from the Vatican, they are not coming in together. If I'm understanding Fr. Lombardi correctly, each of the bishops will have to ask for regularization.

Bishop Fellay comes in with the society. The other three do not automatically come in. They have to request it. There seems to be a big "if" around Bishop Williamson. I didn't know this, but a comment from the Vatican press secretary implied that the Holy Father is still holding a grudge against him over the Jews and seems to be making this a condition for his return. He may have to promise to behave, besides the oath of fidelity to the Pontiff.

We're assuming that the prelate will be Bishop Fellay, but we're not sure yet. The Holy Father gets to pick the prelate.

Originally Posted by YoungTradCath

They have no ordinary jurisdiction. If--when--they are regularized, they will receive a titular diocese. They will have to. There are no regularized bishops who do not have at least a titular diocese.

YTC is right. The four of them would have a titular see, even the prelate. A personal prelature is not a diocese nor a religious order. Ordinaries are the diocesan bishop and male major superiors of religious.

The only SSPX bishop who has any real hierarchical authority is Bishop Fellay, the Superior General. The other three are technically just "bishop members" of the SSPX. They have considerable clout, but only Fellay has real power.

I think that's how it works.

That's how the Archbishop set it up, but because Bishop Fellay does not have canonical status, he is not what the law calls "a source of authority." A superior general has to be approved by someone above him. A community elects its superior, but someone with higher authority has to ratify the election. In cases of institutes of pontifical right, the Holy See is notified of the election and it alone can ratify it. If the institute is of diocesan right, the local bishop must ratify the election. Given Bishop Fellay's status at the time of election, there was no one to ratify it.

That's easy to fix if there is a regularization. The Holy See can ratify the election then and canonically recognize him as the superior general. What I don't know is if the same person can be both superior general and prelate. I don't remember how Opus Dei does it. I'll have to look it up. Opus Dei has a priestly society as well. It's pretty big too.

Fraternally,

Br.JR, FFV

[curlycool89]

Originally Posted by PacoG

That isn't that rare. The major Vatican dicasteries (i.e. The Secretariat of State, the CDF, the CDW, etc) are headed by a Bishop (the Prefect) with another Bishop answering to him (the Secretary).

But that's just a case of a bishop working for another bishop. The Secretary does not have to be obedient to the Prefect.

Originally Posted by ByzCath

Auxillary bishops are underthe direct authority of another bishop.

That I wasn't sure about so I didn't include that. My thinking was that it was more of a work relationship, that they are given certain authority in the bishop's diocese, but they are still, technically speaking, equals since they're both bishops.

I would imagine it would be distinct from a priest though, right? Can the ordinary bishop assign the auxiliary bishop duties? It's probably a moot question, since I don't imagine there'd be much conflict between an ordinary and an auxiliary.

[The Curt Jester]

Hopefully they'll give my diocese to the SSPX.

[JReducation]

Originally Posted by The Curt Jester

Hopefully they'll give my diocese to the SSPX.

You can't give a diocese to an institute. The bishop of a diocese can be a member of an institute, secular or religious, but he may not bring the practices and policies of his institute to the diocese. He is bound to observe them for himself, but cannot impose them on the diocese. That's why they don't give dioceses to institutes, because it's unfair to all of the other religious and secular clergy. They should not have to be subjected to the rules and customs of an institute to which they don't belong and which is foreign to them. It has the potential to create conflicts. You can't ask Salesians in your diocese to give up the Salesian way and adopt the SSPX way. They'll leave the diocese, as will every other religious order. You will then start losing diocesan priests. One of the attractions to the diocesan priesthood is the freedom from a shared charism. Each priest can find his own charism.

That would not work too well.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

[The Curt Jester]

Originally Posted by JReducation

You can't give a diocese to an institute. The bishop of a diocese can be a member of an institute, secular or religious, but he may not bring the practices and policies of his institute to the diocese. He is bound to observe them for himself, but cannot impose them on the diocese. That's why they don't give dioceses to institutes, because it's unfair to all of the other religious and secular clergy. They should not have to be subjected to the rules and customs of an institute to which they don't belong and which is foreign to them. It has the potential to create conflicts. You can't ask Salesians in your diocese to give up the Salesian way and adopt the SSPX way. They'll leave the diocese, as will every other religious order. You will then start losing diocesan priests. One of the attractions to the diocesan priesthood is the freedom from a shared charism. Each priest can find his own charism.

That would not work too well.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

I was kidding.

Still, I wouldn't mind a completely traditional diocese.

[JReducation]

Originally Posted by The Curt Jester

I was kidding.

Still, I wouldn't mind a completely traditional diocese.

That's where you run into problems in a diocese like Boston, let's say. Boston has five branches of Franciscans, Jesuits, Dominicans, Carmelites, Daughters of Charity, De La Salle Christian Brothers, Poor Clares, Trappists, and diocesan priests from Ireland, Italy, Portugal and the USA.

All of them have their customs and traditions. To be a traditional diocese in Boston, means that you have to do what the Cardinal does. He encourages each group to be who they are. This means that they are going to be very different from each other. They will pray differently, celebrate different forms of the mass, have different devotions, different forms of religious art and religious music and all of those are part of Catholic tradition.

If I'm not mistaken, the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Boston overlaps with one of the Eastern Catholic dioceses, which brings another bag of traditions in to the Catholic mix. Last I heard, the number of Eastern Catholics in that area is growing.

The tradition that the SSPX embraces is certainly very Catholic, but it's very secular Catholic. It's the core of Catholic tradition, but it has to allow the other Catholic traditions to grow form it. This means that there will be diversity, not uniformity.

The day that you get an SSPX, Dominican, Franciscan and a Salesian to celebrate mass the same way, I'll eat the cowl on my habit. I don't wear a hat.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

[The Curt Jester]

Originally Posted by JReducation

The day that you get an SSPX, Dominican, Franciscan and a Salesian to celebrate mass the same way, I'll eat the cowl on my habit. I don't wear a hat.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

I'd give a donation to see that.

[ProVobis]

Originally Posted by JReducation

I'll eat the cowl on my habit.

Br JR, I don't blame you. Now they have (Facebook) CEO's wearing hoodies to work.