FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Bp. Morerod on why heretics and schismatics can use his churchs but not sspx
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Quote: I notice that the publication of my January 20 Decree regarding the admission of other religions, confessions, or religious groups in the churches of my diocese has given rise to perplexities among some people, due to the prohibition regarding the Society of Saint Pius X (FSSPX [SSPX]). Other than responding individually, as I have done in the past few days, I [now] give a public explanation regarding the fact of the publication and one element of its content.

First of all, the Decree that I published was the result of a decision taken by the Conference of Swiss Bishops in September 2011, when I was not yet a part of it. It was, at the time, an updating of the norms of 1999 (that already forbade the use of churches by the SSPX). The text of the Decree was prepared, and its publication left up to the decision of each bishop of Territorial Abbot. It was published, for example, by the Diocese of Sion (along with the Territorial Abbey of St. Maurice) on January 10, 2012, and by the Diocese of Basel (along with [the Territorial Abbey of] St. Gall) on February 1, 2012: Basel and Sion are the dioceses in which the headquarters of the SSPX (Menzingen) and the seminary of Écône are locaed, and all French-speaking Switzerland is now covered by the same decree.

As for myself, considering that I took part in the dialogue with the SSPX, I did not wish to send a sign that might have suggested that I did not believe in this dialogue anymore, and I waited for over a year before publishing the decree. It seemed to me that the publication could wait, because the content of the decree corresponded, in any sense, to the practice of the diocese for years. If I have finally published the decree, this does not mean that I have lost all hope in the dialogue: if it should have a positive outcome, I would evidently be happy to change the norms corresponding to a situation that would have been changed. Nevertheless, several events have led me to consider the situation serious.

First of all, differently from the Orthodox or Protestants who can use the churches of the diocese under certain conditions and in case of need (for instance, because they do not have a nearby church, or due to works in their own church, this possibility often being reciprocal), the priests of the SSPX present themselves as Catholics.[*] The dialogue with the SSPX is not properly speaking "ecume nical", but an internal dialogue. What is, then, the situation of the SSPX priests in the Catholic Church?

On July 22, 1976, Abp. Lefebvre, founder of the SSPX, was suspended a divinis by Pope Paul VI: all public ministerial act was henceforth forbidden to him. To my knowledge, this measure has never been retracted, differently from the excommunication of the SSPX bishops. It was in this way that our Episcopal Conference understood what Pope Benedict XVI said on March 10, 2009, and that our decree mentions, that is, that the SSPX priests do not exercise a legitimate ministry in the Church.

They are, in fact, priests ordained in an illicit manner, and no Catholic priest whose ministry is illicit - whether or not he is a member of the SSPX - may celebrate in a Catholic church, unless, of course, he be reconciled with the Church.

The difficulty proper to these priests, compared to Orthodox priests or Protestant pastors, is that their ministry in fact contributes - perhaps not in their intent - to divide the Catholic Church from the inside. And it is precisely regarding this point that my anxiety has grown in the course of the past few months. I was already horrified that a bishop of the SSPX had published a book repeatedly accusing Pope Benedict XVI of being heretical (Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, L’étrange théologie de Benoît XVI, Avrillé, 2010). This could nonetheless be an isolated viewpoint that did not engage the Society as such, even if coming from one of its bishops. The same applies to the famous declarations of Bp. Williamson, which was confirmed by his exclusuon from the SSPX.

In the course of the past few months, the declarations of Bp. Bernard Fellay, Superior General of the SSPX, have sadly confirmed to my eyes the power of his Society to cause trouble within the Church, and to harm the reputation of the Church as seen from the outside.

I think, for instance, of the sermon pronounced on November 11, 2011, by Bp. Fellay in Paris. I take some points from it:

- Regarding the Vatican II Council - that affirms, certainly, that its teaching is in continuity with the traditional teaching of the Church and is part of it - Bp. Fellay declares: "this council is an agreed-upon decision to do something new. And this is not a matter of just any innovation, a superficial novelty, but rather a profound innovation that is in opposition to, in contradiction with what the Church had taught; indeed, the Church had even condemned it."

- Regarding the mass celebrated after the conciliar reform, Bp. Fellay affirms: "Finally one other condition,, which concerns the Mass this time. We must accept the validity of the new Mass, but not only its validity. We would have to accept also its liceity. ... [...] a black Mass could be valid. ... In citing this shocking example, you understand of course that that is not permitted, that is not licit because it is bad. “Licit” means permitted because it is good. ... Usually we do not even speak about liceity, we simply say about this Mass that it is bad. That is enough."

- Regarding the dialogue, he places it in these terms: "this is the situation. And this is why it is obvious that since June—we announced it at the ordination ceremony—matters have reached a roadblock. It is a return to ground zero. We are at exactly the same point as Archbishop Lefebvre in the years 1975, 1974." Following such an observation, my own scruples weaken...

I also think of the declarations of Bp. Fellay at New Hamburg, Canada, on December 28, 2012, presenting the Jews as "enemies of the Church". They are associated in this judgement to the Freemansons and the Modernists, described as active in Rome in order to prevent the reconciliation with the SSPX. This description of the Jews provoked a reaction of the Holy See spokesman, Fr. Federico Lombardi, on January 7, 2013, and a declaration of the Conference of the Bishops of Canada of January 18, 2013. These facts reduce the reassuring significance of the exclusion of Bp. Williamson. Among other reasons due to historical dramatical events that are well known, the Vatican II Council wished to present the religious dialogue with Judaism in positive and amicable terms, confirmed by the visits of Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI to the Great Synagogue of Rome. All declaration in a contrary sense by a Catholic Bishop or priest gravely harms the reputation of the Catholic Church, and this justifies the prohibition of speech in Catholic churches to a clergy that is likely to speak in such terms. These are the recent events that led me to leave the patient attitude which I had held since the beginning of my episcopate, since it was since the beginning that I had known the decree prepared by the Episcopal Conference. I repeat that if the attitude of the SSPX should evolve, I will be glad to recognize having been excessively pessimistic.


Fribourg, February 3, 2013
+ Charles Morerod
évêque de Lausanne, Genève et Fribourg


http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/

So in other words they can't use it because they present themselves as Catholics, that explains everything  LOL Honestly I don't know what is wrong with these bishops, do they not realise how absurd their reasoning is?
OK, so I garnered two main points from this.

First, the supposed reason:

Quote:The difficulty proper to these priests, compared to Orthodox priests or Protestant pastors, is that their ministry in fact contributes - perhaps not in their intent - to divide the Catholic Church from the inside.

However, this seems too utterly insane to be the real reason, especially since the Head of the CDF-- the man charged with maintaining doctrinal orthodoxy throughout the Church-- has apparently declared that Protestants and Orthodox ARE part of the visible Church.  And therefore, the real reason:

Quote:I also think of the declarations of Bp. Fellay at New Hamburg, Canada, on December 28, 2012, presenting the Jews as "enemies of the Church". They are associated in this judgement to the Freemansons and the Modernists, described as active in Rome in order to prevent the reconciliation with the SSPX. This description of the Jews provoked a reaction of the Holy See spokesman, Fr. Federico Lombardi, on January 7, 2013, and a declaration of the Conference of the Bishops of Canada of January 18, 2013. These facts reduce the reassuring significance of the exclusion of Bp. Williamson. Among other reasons due to historical dramatical events that are well known, the Vatican II Council wished to present the religious dialogue with Judaism in positive and amicable terms, confirmed by the visits of Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI to the Great Synagogue of Rome. All declaration in a contrary sense by a Catholic Bishop or priest gravely harms the reputation of the Catholic Church, and this justifies the prohibition of speech in Catholic churches to a clergy that is likely to speak in such terms.

I'm normally not a conspiracy theorist about the Conciliar Church and the Jews, but this just seems too blatant.
(02-04-2013, 09:16 PM)JuniorCouncilor Wrote: [ -> ]OK, so I garnered two main points from this.

First, the supposed reason:

Quote:The difficulty proper to these priests, compared to Orthodox priests or Protestant pastors, is that their ministry in fact contributes - perhaps not in their intent - to divide the Catholic Church from the inside.

However, this seems too utterly insane to be the real reason, especially since the Head of the CDF-- the man charged with maintaining doctrinal orthodoxy throughout the Church-- has apparently declared that Protestants and Orthodox ARE part of the visible Church.  And therefore, the real reason:

Quote:I also think of the declarations of Bp. Fellay at New Hamburg, Canada, on December 28, 2012, presenting the Jews as "enemies of the Church". They are associated in this judgement to the Freemansons and the Modernists, described as active in Rome in order to prevent the reconciliation with the SSPX. This description of the Jews provoked a reaction of the Holy See spokesman, Fr. Federico Lombardi, on January 7, 2013, and a declaration of the Conference of the Bishops of Canada of January 18, 2013. These facts reduce the reassuring significance of the exclusion of Bp. Williamson. Among other reasons due to historical dramatical events that are well known, the Vatican II Council wished to present the religious dialogue with Judaism in positive and amicable terms, confirmed by the visits of Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI to the Great Synagogue of Rome. All declaration in a contrary sense by a Catholic Bishop or priest gravely harms the reputation of the Catholic Church, and this justifies the prohibition of speech in Catholic churches to a clergy that is likely to speak in such terms.

I'm normally not a conspiracy theorist about the Conciliar Church and the Jews, but this just seems too blatant.

People bash the SSPX for talking about the jews, freemasons etc... several millenia of popes, theologians, saints etc... did this. I used to think it was all a bit  Crazy! but when popes are saying it themselves and recommending books that say the same, what can you do?
(02-04-2013, 09:20 PM)TrentCath Wrote: [ -> ]People bash the SSPX for talking about the jews, freemasons etc... several millenia of popes, theologians, saints etc... did this. I used to think it was all a bit  Crazy! but when popes are saying it themselves and recommending books that say the same, what can you do?

Pray
This makes me really sad. Not because they bar the Society, but because they let other religions "use" Catholic churches. I had no idea that sort of thing went on licitly anywhere.

sad(
(02-05-2013, 10:39 AM)Richard C Wrote: [ -> ]This makes me really sad. Not because they bar the Society, but because they let other religions "use" Catholic churches. I had no idea that sort of thing went on licitly anywhere.

sad(

You should have researched the society more, they have stacks of paper on this sort of nonsense.
Huh?
I thought that any validly ordained priest was supposed to be allowed access to a public church upon request. I mean, the Society uses a side altar in St. Peter's Basilica in Rome itself. You'd think if there was any place a ban on saying Mass would be strictly enforced, it would be there.
This is why this makes sense:

"The difficulty proper to these priests, compared to Orthodox priests or Protestant pastors, is that their ministry in fact contributes - perhaps not in their intent - to divide the Catholic Church from the inside."

There is a huge difference between non-Catholics groups and dissident internal Catholic groups.  Punitive laws (canon law) of the Church are directed toward Catholics....so this is consistent in that sense.



 
(02-05-2013, 12:00 PM)newschoolman Wrote: [ -> ]This is why this makes sense:

"The difficulty proper to these priests, compared to Orthodox priests or Protestant pastors, is that their ministry in fact contributes - perhaps not in their intent - to divide the Catholic Church from the inside."

There is a huge difference between non-Catholics groups and dissident internal Catholic groups.  Punitive laws (canon law) of the Church are directed toward Catholics....so this is consistent in that sense.



   

So the laws of man are above those of God?  Huh?

Also that's not strictly true, Canon law does legislate on heretics, schismatics etc.. at least it used to, but with the 'novel' new code who can tell  >sad
The fact is that the Holy See considers the SSPX as "internal" dissident Catholics.  In former times protestants would have fallen under that category -- but through the passage of time have eventually come to be considered "outside" and no longer posing a threat to internal unity.  This is all just common sense.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11