SSPX Deal: But Will the Fat Lady Sing? — article by Fr. Cekada
#6
Father,
I agree with some of the things you wrote, but this
Quote:Looming over this discussion, moreover, would be the principle laid down in Canon 1256 (1983 Code). This would give Benedict and his successors the trump card to control SSPX’s institutions, because it provides that property ownership is “under the supreme authority of the Roman Pontiff.”

So, if Bp. Fellay wanted to reignite his “We resist you to your face”/ Paul-reproving-Peter routine one day against Benedict XVI or his successors, he would wind up doing so from the sidewalk outside his former residence in Menzingen.
is pure nonsense, and you know it.

Canon 1256 does not have any effect in a worldly law anywhere on Earth other than the Vatican state. So if Bp Fellay one day wants to break with Rome again and keep his property, all that will happen is that he'll have to disobey Canon 1256, but that'll surely be one of the lesser Codes he'll be disobeying in this case. You didn't even mind getting excommunicated under the 1917 Code for suing Archbishop Lefebvre.
The pope can't send in the Swiss Guards to catch the property, and in the worldly law, the property belongs to the SSPX. So he couldn't do anything more than he could the first time the SSPX split off (according to your logic, the pope could have kept the property, because the SSPX was legitimately erected in 1970) or when the feminist nuns in the US split off.

So be honest, all you're trying to do is scare some donations away from the SSPX and into your own projects.
Reply


Messages In This Thread
Re: SSPX Deal: But Will the Fat Lady Sing? — article by Fr. Cekada - by Freudentaumel - 04-19-2012, 03:00 PM



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)