SSPX Deal: But Will the Fat Lady Sing? — article by Fr. Cekada
(04-22-2012, 07:06 AM)FatherCekada Wrote: 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. :)

That would be quite possible. As my original post pointed out, the SV position (as understood in the current crisis) and the "conservative" position regarding the extent of protection the Holy Ghost gives to the Holy Father and his actions is the same. 

All that would be required would be to reaffirm the error in the premise and stress the actions and policies that are contrary to the faith.  The questioning of the validity of the premise is the area to avoid. 

The only drawback would be, that the neo-Catholic's faith is more dependent on their emotional state.  They have a lot of zeal and not enough critical thinking.

(04-22-2012, 07:06 PM)Mithrandylan Wrote: 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.

Okay, I must have misunderstood Gerard's post. I see what you're saying now and I agree.
Some years ago the well know Traditional Catholic writer, Patrick H. Omlor, described as "madness" the SSPX's belief that the " Novus Ordo is the naughty branch of the One True Church". What is happening now is only logical. The Fat Lady will surely sing insanely .....
I am merely curiously wondering in what sense or meaning is the  word "negotiate" used here.  There is a nuanced (subtle) distinction in the expression:  is it meant to convey, transmit, sign over, or to arrange for or bring about by discussion and settlement of terms?    Is it to "negotiate" when you ask Jesus to cure a relative who is suffering from a deadly disease and make a promise to Him that you will offer the next seven holy Communions and 30 rosaries in honor of His Sacred Heart?  Quid pro quo with Our Savior?  It's done all the time, but for good reasons.  When Christ sent His mother to convey His message for the Consecration of Russia and world peace will be achieved, isn't that "negotiating" with the pope or is it a command?  If Benedict is "not" the pope then you can't negotiate with him because he has no powers whatsoever regarding Church business.  If he is the pope, then he is in charged and it is church business as usual.

Actually, the Holy Ghost is still in charged as far as I can remember from the Scriptures.  The "negotiation" between the SSPX and the Pope will be resolved by Him, unless we have lost confidence that He is still the Paraclete and we go about our own mind electing and deposing popes as we desire and will.  Why don't we just go to the Cornfield and hash this out, instead of waiting for the song from the fat lady, who at the moment might be having an inflammation of the larynx.  And who knows when she'll her voice back?

Maybe this will clarify the question of why I think that, in the event of any SSPX deal, the Benedict XVI and his successors would have the ultimate authority over the SSPX property (in the U.S., at least)
(04-22-2012, 12:08 AM)DJR Wrote: 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.

This is correct.
(04-22-2012, 12:08 AM)DJR Wrote: 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.

The passage in bold is also the correct question.

Here, the issue I have raised turns on another question: Who controls the non-profit corporations (NPCs) that hold title to SSPX properties in the U.S.?

I think the answer is simple: the religious organization we all know as the Society of St. Pius X controls the NPCs. The religious organization exists also as a recognized civil entity in Switzerland, founded under the name of "Fraternity of the Apostles of Jesus and Mary, a.k.a. the Society of St. Pius X."

It controls the NPCs through corporate directors who obtain and retain their directorships "ex officio" —  solely in virtue of holding certain offices in the Society of St. Pius X.

Thus the Bylaws of any SSPX NPC holding title to an SSPX chapel property in the U.S. probably specify something like:
Quote:1. Appointment of Directors: The following shall ex officio serve as directors of this corporation:

• The Superior General of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX)
• The First Assistant of SSPX
• The Second Assistant of SSPX
• The Econome General of SSPX
• The US District Superior of SSPX
• The SSPX priest designated by SSPX as Pastor of the chapel.
•The layman designated by SSPX to serve as Lay Coordinator of the chapel

2. Term of Office The term of office for each Director of this corporation shall be coterminous with his holding the corresponding office in the SSPX that has designated under "Appointment of Directors."

Accordingly, since a pope would have the power to replace the Superior General of a religious institute at will (and indeed, all subordinate office-holders as well), Benedict XVI and his successors could remove Bp. Fellay and all the higher SSPX officials from their positions as office-holders in SSPX as a religious organization, and thus at the same time remove them as Directors of the civil corporations (NPCs) that hold title to SSPX properties in the U.S.

So, if SSPX were to be canonically integrated into the Conciliar Church, any future resistance to new Vatican demands or policy changes would ultimately be futile. SSPX Superiors would have to enforce the demands, or be removed from office, as Fr. Bissig FSSP was. And civll control of the corporations holding title to SSPX chapels and institutions would be vested in new and more pliant officials the Vatican would appoint

It would put those who resisted the modernist demands in the same place that faithful Catholics in the '60s found themselves: Out in the street.


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)