SSPX Deal: But Will the Fat Lady Sing? — article by Fr. Cekada
#31
Chuy,

You cannot post that article in this thread. Modify your post and remove it.
Reply
#32
(04-19-2012, 10:36 PM)Stubborn Wrote:
(04-19-2012, 10:33 PM)clarkaim Wrote:
(04-19-2012, 12:47 PM)Gerard Wrote: Very interesting, especially in regards to the ownership issues, but here's where my red flag went off.

Quote: "First, a real Catholic does not negotiate with the Roman Pontiff — he submits to the Roman Pontiff. It is an article of faith that this is necessary for salvation."

Abraham and Moses were both capable of negotiatin with God Himself. But the Pope is somehow above negotiation?   What about the Popes that have negotiated with Eastern rites that actually split off and returned? 

St. Celestine wasn't interested in negotiatin with Boniface at all. He just kept disobeying. 

To propose this as an absolute without pointing out the difference between proper and improper submission is simply a capitulation to the Protestant idea of the papacy. 

The Protestant misunderstand the Papacy and reject Catholicism.  The Neo-Catholics have the same misunderstanding and simply love it and reject common sense. 

The traditionalists that carry the same misconception simply reject the occupant of the Papal Throne in order to preserve the premise. 

But to paraphrase, real Catholics submit to the voice of Peter when he speaks with the voice of Peter and when he walks not uprightly or perverts the gospel, they resist him to the face. 
Last time I checked, St. Paul was a "real Catholic." 

Vatican I clearly had the qualifier in it's definition of papal supremacy that what was required was "true heirarchical obedience" not "absolute" obedience.  If it had said "absolute" either Catholicism would be false or Popes would be Immaculate and Impeccable outside of Infallibility as defined.

We have too many incidences in history where "submission" to a Pope was not the moral option whether it be the deacon providing answers for the trial of Formosus or the wife of the man that killed one of the Pope Johns.

If you follow the absolutist understanding it goes like this:

"He's Pope right or wrong and since he's Pope he can do no wrong and if you think he is wrong he's irresistible anyway"  But, if you have a shred of morality and intellect trying to wrap itself around an invalid absolute, you simply replace the subject matter.  "He's wrong so He can't be Pope so,because my understanding of the premise must be correct."

But, when a Pope behaves like an "Anti-Christ" or "Satan" in Peter's case,  well...the description fits.  Not because you can't get your way but because objectively the Pope is not impeccable in his functions as Pope and the description is apt. 

So, to call absurd LeFebvre's descriptions and dealiings with the mercurial Popes on a human level is demanding "SuperPope" where none exists.    It's reminiscent of Chesterton's criticism of G. Bernard Shaw in "Heretics"  In discussing Mankind he said Shaw  will never be satisified because the ideal he searches for has never existed and cannot exist.  Therefore he has no appreciation for what is and everything falls short. 

Hold Jesus to the same standard that you hold LeFebvre.  When the Pope said what he liked, "You are the rock."  When he said what he didn't like, "Get thee behind me Satan."    Was Jesus a case of  Praxis without Principles? 
Your agument gave me the "aha!" experience I've been looking for.  I was a "sortofa cantist" that could not quite commit to the sede position, as much sense as it makes.  Now I don't feel the need to go there.  That being said, in these days of confusiion I am NOT ready to boot those that are sede's out.  I also love Fr. Cekada and find him a voice of great clarity in a confusing world.  I believe "SV's" may be wrong on a point of fact, but they are not "heretics" for the most part and are fully catholic from what I can glean from 20 years of trying to figure this all out.  I will never compromise the faith to the extent I am able and always submit my ideas to the subjection of Holy Mother Church, but like I said, you argument was succinct and clear and solves the issue, at least for me and mine.  Thanks. 

Yeah, Gerard knows what he's talkin' about!

Gerard, just what is your area of expertise as an attorney?
Reply
#33
(04-20-2012, 09:31 AM)Crusader_Philly Wrote: Chuy,

You cannot post that article in this thread. Modify your post and remove it.

You're right, Phil. I decided to remove the article for the sake of not violating forum rules. While the quote I posted was not an explicit apology for Sedevacantism, it was indeed pointing towards it.

I humbly apologize.
Reply
#34
It's gonna be hard to refute Gerard's argument.  All points taken well defined.

clarkaim Wrote:Your agument gave me the "aha!" experience I've been looking for.  I was a "sortofa cantist" that could not quite commit to the sede position, as much sense as it makes.  Now I don't feel the need to go there.  That being said, in these days of confusiion I am NOT ready to boot those that are sede's out.  I also love Fr. Cekada and find him a voice of great clarity in a confusing world.  I believe "SV's" may be wrong on a point of fact, but they are not "heretics" for the most part and are fully catholic from what I can glean from 20 years of trying to figure this all out.  I will never compromise the faith to the extent I am able and always submit my ideas to the subjection of Holy Mother Church, but like I said, you argument was succinct and clear and solves the issue, at least for me and mine.  Thanks.
 

Just a nota bene:  heresy and schism are not synonymous.  Denial of a doctrine that must be believed with divine and catholic faith (say, the Papacy) could be either material or formal heresy, depending on the opinion proffered.  Schism is the willful separation from the unity of the Church.   "By false doctrines concerning God," declared St. Augustine, "heretics wound the faith; by sinful dissensions schismatics deviate from fraternal charity, although they believe what we believe.

By all the discussions here, I take note than most here see the Ark of Salvation (the Catholic Church) sinking because it is being steered by the wrong helmsman.  It seems those swimming alongside her have still a chance of salvation, unlike those in Noe's time, everybody drowned.

Reply
#35
(04-20-2012, 12:58 AM)Freudentaumel Wrote:
(04-19-2012, 05:05 PM)FatherCekada Wrote: Actually, as a result of the lawsuits with SSPX, I became very familiar with how the civil law treats church property ownership in the U.S.

For the Catholic Church, the legal principle courts apply is "deference to hierarchy." If someone who represents the hierarchy of the Catholic Church (a diocesan bishop appointed by the pope or the head of a Catholic religious order) says that, under Catholic canon law, Father Smith has the right to be Pastor of St. Mary's Church or Sister Caroline has the right to be Superior of St. Felicia's Convent, the court will automatically award control of St. Mary's to Fr. Smith and of St. Felicia's to Sr. Caroline.

So how did you end up with most of the SSPX's property in the U.S.? Why didn't the court respect "defence to hierarchy" and award the property either to Archbishop Lefebvre or the pope (depending on whom it would deem the proper hierarch)?

In the 70s and 80s Abp. Lefebvre's thoughts on how property should be held (lay, clerical, mixture thereove) were inconsistent and contradictory, and the SSPX Statutes had nothing at all to say on the question.

I discuss this in some detail on page 4 of this article:

http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/ar...febvre.pdf
(04-20-2012, 12:58 AM)Freudentaumel Wrote: And if there was a way around this principle for you back then, why can't the SSPX use it now?

As a result of their lawsuits with us, I have no doubt that the civil-legal documents for all SSPX corporations in the U.S. now explicitly incorporate "deference to hierarchy" principle.

This would vest the ultimate right to designate who sits on those corporations with the SSPX Superior General and officials of the SSPX General Council, because the Bylaws would typically state that directors of the civil corporation hold their positions "ex officio" from SSPX,  that is, automatically in virtue of being appointed to an office within the SSPX.

Under this arrangement, then, if Benedict or his successors were to remove an SSPX Superior General and appoint another (they did this with FSSP Superior General Fr. Bisig), the new Superior General automatically sits on the U.S. corporations and in the final analysis, controls them.
Reply
#36
clarkaim Wrote:I believe "SV's" may be wrong on a point of fact, but they are not "heretics" for the most part and are fully catholic from what I can glean from 20 years of trying to figure this all out.  I will never compromise the faith to the extent I am able and always submit my ideas to the subjection of Holy Mother Church, but like I said, you argument was succinct and clear and solves the issue, at least for me and mine.  Thanks.

This alone might make my day.
Reply
#37
Posting so that I can track this thread.

Poorly catechized converts like me learn so much when folks like Gerard, Fr. Cekada and others "exchange words".  FWIW from the cheap seats - thanks fellas!

Back to watching and learning...

:popcorn:
Reply
#38
(04-20-2012, 12:33 PM)FatherCekada Wrote:
(04-20-2012, 12:58 AM)Freudentaumel Wrote:
(04-19-2012, 05:05 PM)FatherCekada Wrote: Actually, as a result of the lawsuits with SSPX, I became very familiar with how the civil law treats church property ownership in the U.S.

For the Catholic Church, the legal principle courts apply is "deference to hierarchy." If someone who represents the hierarchy of the Catholic Church (a diocesan bishop appointed by the pope or the head of a Catholic religious order) says that, under Catholic canon law, Father Smith has the right to be Pastor of St. Mary's Church or Sister Caroline has the right to be Superior of St. Felicia's Convent, the court will automatically award control of St. Mary's to Fr. Smith and of St. Felicia's to Sr. Caroline.

So how did you end up with most of the SSPX's property in the U.S.? Why didn't the court respect "defence to hierarchy" and award the property either to Archbishop Lefebvre or the pope (depending on whom it would deem the proper hierarch)?

In the 70s and 80s Abp. Lefebvre's thoughts on how property should be held (lay, clerical, mixture thereove) were inconsistent and contradictory, and the SSPX Statutes had nothing at all to say on the question.

I discuss this in some detail on page 4 of this article:

http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/ar...febvre.pdf
(04-20-2012, 12:58 AM)Freudentaumel Wrote: And if there was a way around this principle for you back then, why can't the SSPX use it now?

As a result of their lawsuits with us, I have no doubt that the civil-legal documents for all SSPX corporations in the U.S. now explicitly incorporate "deference to hierarchy" principle.

This would vest the ultimate right to designate who sits on those corporations with the SSPX Superior General and officials of the SSPX General Council, because the Bylaws would typically state that directors of the civil corporation hold their positions "ex officio" from SSPX,  that is, automatically in virtue of being appointed to an office within the SSPX.

Under this arrangement, then, if Benedict or his successors were to remove an SSPX Superior General and appoint another (they did this with FSSP Superior General Fr. Bisig), the new Superior General automatically sits on the U.S. corporations and in the final analysis, controls them.
So you're telling me you could take away the SSPX's property, because back then it worked different. Because you took away their property, they changed the way they handle property. Because of that, the pope can now take away their property.
But now they can't change it back why exactly? Because another Fr. Cekada might come along and take it away again?
It seems the SSPX will be losing their property no matter what.

According to your logic the pope doesn't need an agreement with the SSPX in order to get the property. All he needs to do is this:
- Declare Invalid the 1975 suppression of the Society (the SSPX has been arguing this since then, so they couldn't even fight it in court).
- Thereby he automatically becomes supreme hierarch of the SSPX
- Install a person of his choice as superior general (who will be recognized by a court)
- Excommunicate all priests and bishops of the SSPX
- et voilà
Reply
#39
(04-20-2012, 01:08 PM)Freudentaumel Wrote: So you're telling me you could take away the SSPX's property, because back then it worked different. Because you took away their property, they changed the way they handle property. Because of that, the pope can now take away their property.
But now they can't change it back why exactly? Because another Fr. Cekada might come along and take it away again?
It seems the SSPX will be losing their property no matter what.

I'm trying very hard to believe that you are of good will, but you're making it difficult to do so.

Yes, the legal situation different then because Abp Lefevbre and SSPX HAD NO CONSISTENT POLICY ON PROPERTY OWNERSHIP WHEN I WAS IN SSPX.

When the break occurred, SSPX tried to argue the "deference to hierarchy" approach, but there was no specific language they could point to in either (a) SSPX's internal rules, or (b) any of the civil corporation documents that clearly established their claim. As a result, the litigation dragged on and SSPX had to fight an uphill battle against us.

To avoid a repeat of this, SSPX most probably incorporated the "deference to hierarchy" language in all their corporate documents.

And yes, this change would indeed allow Benedict XVI and his successors the ultimate say-so over who controls SSPX chapel, seminary, school, college and institutional properties, and thus also the activities that go on in them.

The second scenario you added to your post wouldn't stand what lawyers call "the red face test," and would be barred by various obscure legal principles (estoppel and laches, I think) that prevent someone from waiting too long to make a claim.

And hey — what's wrong with having another Fr. Cekada or two?
Reply
#40
(04-20-2012, 09:38 AM)OldMan Wrote: Gerard, just what is your area of expertise as an attorney?

I'm not an attorney.  DJR was the person stating he/she is an attorney.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)