SSPX Deal: But Will the Fat Lady Sing? — article by Fr. Cekada
#51
(04-20-2012, 04:06 PM)FatherCekada Wrote: Don't make the fatal mistake of assuming a non-attorney is an ignorant amateur.

Father C:

Hopefully, I didn't make any fatal mistakes assuming anything.  All I stated was that your earlier comments were not accurate synopses of U.S. property law. 

They are not. 

And I demonstrated that by a real life example:  Saint Stanislaus Kostka parish in St. Louis.

Your statement:  "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."

There were at least two bishops who had authority to appoint pastors to that particular parish:  the ordinary of St. Louis and the Bishop of Rome.  However, neither one of them ended up owning that property. 

A court will not "automatically" award control of a property to anyone.  It must first discern the rightful owner, and that is determined by a properly recorded deed.

Once the named person/entity is determined, the question becomes:  Who exactly is that person/entity?  That's where some of your later comments come into play.

I will state in your defense that some of your later comments do contain accurate representations of law, but you make a lot of assumptions that may or may not play out.  If some of your assumptions are not correct, then the conclusions that you draw from those assumptions are not correct.

Of course, the SV position adds a can of worms to the mix because it does not recognize any of the Roman Rite bishops in the U.S.  According to you, there is not  one single Roman Rite bishop/ordinary in the U.S., which would have immense ramifications for property ownership if that were the case.
Reply
#52
Mother Angelica managed to keep EWTN out of hands of the bishops albeit indirectly.  She was respectful and obedient to their wishes but they couldn't influence anything on that network except through her until she put it in lay administrator's hands.  (of course that has its downside as well. ) 

Reply
#53
(04-22-2012, 12:52 AM)Gerard Wrote: Mother Angelica managed to keep EWTN out of hands of the bishops albeit indirectly.  She was respectful and obedient to their wishes but they couldn't influence anything on that network except through her until she put it in lay administrator's hands.  (of course that has its downside as well. ) 

A clever move, to be sure — but SSPX would not be able to pull something like this off without (1) changing all its corporate structures (in the U.S., at least), (2) turning the control of their properties over to lay administrators (which SSPX absolutely refuses to tolerate now, because the arrangement compromises the authority of the clergy), and in the process, (3) tipping the Vatican off as to what they were up to.

Even with EWTN, though, I suspect that its internal legal rules would ultimately allow the Vatican to step in an extreme case — if EWTN's lay administrators, say, converted to sedevacantism after reading just one of my articles, and decided to change the organization's name to SVTN. :)
Reply
#54
(04-19-2012, 10:55 PM)tmw89 Wrote: Looks like this is another thread to watch - to see if/how Fr. Cekada will address Gerard's arguments.

I don't think he can without breaking forum rules. Gerrard is debating for the SSPX against SVism, which is bait sedevacantists can't take on this forum (outside of the "cornfield") without breaking forum rules.
Reply
#55
DJR,

Thanks for your reply.

It occurs to me that I failed to make something sufficiently clear in my earlier response. I'm on the road, and I cannot  do so now.

But since I've gotten a lot of questions about the SSPX property issue, I'll clarify my response today or tomorrow, as soon as I get near a more usable keyboard.

Reply
#56
.
Reply
#57
(04-22-2012, 07:19 AM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(04-19-2012, 10:55 PM)tmw89 Wrote: Looks like this is another thread to watch - to see if/how Fr. Cekada will address Gerard's arguments.

I don't think he can without breaking forum rules. Gerrard is debating for the SSPX against SVism, which is bait sedevacantists can't take on this forum (outside of the "cornfield") without breaking forum rules.

A shame!

Then again - not to make FE sound like a Vietnam War movie, but - the Cornfield is only two clicks away from any given thread in the forum proper  :grin:

Reply
#58
(04-22-2012, 07:01 PM)tmw89 Wrote:
(04-22-2012, 07:19 AM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(04-19-2012, 10:55 PM)tmw89 Wrote: Looks like this is another thread to watch - to see if/how Fr. Cekada will address Gerard's arguments.

I don't think he can without breaking forum rules. Gerrard is debating for the SSPX against SVism, which is bait sedevacantists can't take on this forum (outside of the "cornfield") without breaking forum rules.

A shame!

Then again - not to make FE sound like a Vietnam War movie, but - the Cornfield is only two clicks away from any given thread in the forum proper  :grin:

I don't see how sedevacantism would stop Father from answering Gerard's post.  Father is saying If you believe Benedict XVI to be the pope then you do not "negotiate" with him.  He can defend that stance and even reply to Gerard without appealing to an SV thesis, because the topic itself pertains to how you treat a valid pope.
More Catholic Discussion: http://thetradforum.com/

Go thy ways, old Jack;
die when thou wilt, if manhood, good manhood, be
not forgot upon the face of the earth, then am I a
shotten herring. There live not three good men
unhanged in England; and one of them is fat and
grows old: God help the while! a bad world, I say.
I would I were a weaver; I could sing psalms or any
thing. A plague of all cowards, I say still.
Reply
#59
Quote:Even with EWTN, though, I suspect that its internal legal rules would ultimately allow the Vatican to step in an extreme case — if EWTN's lay administrators, say, converted to sedevacantism after reading just one of my articles, and decided to change the organization's name to SVTN.

:LOL:
Reply
#60
Quote:I don't see how sedevacantism would stop Father from answering Gerard's post.  Father is saying If you believe Benedict XVI to be the pope then you do not "negotiate" with him.  He can defend that stance and even reply to Gerard without appealing to an SV thesis, because the topic itself pertains to how you treat a valid pope.

Yeah, this is only a discussion of the proper relationship between a religious order and the Roman Pontiff, and if negotiations on doctrine, liturgy, discipline, and so on, is an acceptable position.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)