Some years ago, Bishop de Galarreta asked Dom Tomas Aquinas to step down as superior of Santa Cruz monastery in Brazil. Not long afterwards, Bishop Fellay asked him: "to call a meeting of the whole community and announce your resignation in front of them all." (Letter 12th January, 2010) By what right or law and with what jurisdiction can they do these sorts of things? So as to help "convince" him, Bishop de Galarreta promised Dom Tomas Aquinas that the US District would be sending no further vocations to Santa Cruz. To what purpose was pressure such as this being applied? The common good or the tactical removal of anyone who opposed an agreement with modernist Rome?
On 21st June 2012 Fr. Thouvenot (Secretary General of the SSPX, based in Menzingen) called the Dominican prior of Avrille to ask him: "Father, if we sign a deal with Rome, will you follow us?" The Prior said he was unaware of the doctrinal basis on which such an agreement with Rome would be founded. Fr. Thouvenot retorted: "As it happens, you don't know this text. I can't communicate it to you. It's a secret. You have to trust us." The prior asked for two days to reflect. The following morning, well before those two days were up, the Dominicans received a fax from Bishop Fellay letting them know of his refusal to ordain the three brothers from their community. Following this fax, Fr. Thouvenot wrote,
"I have informed Bishop Fellay of our conversation yesterday, but visibly the simple fact that you made the community listen to the delirious sermon of Fr. Koller, like the fact that you need more than 24 hours to answer a simple question about trust in authority, was enough to convince him that it would be best to defer the ordinations. This morning he sent you a fax to inform you of this. Hoping that you will be able to tighten thigns back up and re-establish a normal relation of harmonious collaboration, I assure you of my religious devotion."
"Over the years, Archbishop Lefebvre sought to discuss with Rome, all the way up to the Consecrations. [...] Archbishop had some more or less 'practical' declarations, such as saying 'Let us do the experiment of Tradition'. [...] Then he realised that he had gone too far, he said so, he recognised it. On 5th May  when he signed the protocol, he went too far because he had compromised on the question of doctrine. He had put the practical side of things first. ... In Fideliter no.66, of December 1988, it has written on the cover: 'A une reprise des colloques je poserai mes conditions' ("If talks are renewed, I will put conditions") That's what Archbishop Lefebvre said after the consecrations, that's what he held to until the day of his death, that's what he left us. ... For years and years this principle was held onto. ... Unfortunately, for a little while now, we can say since the end of the Roman discussions, so Autumn 2011, little by little we are forced to note that the authorities of the Society have abandoned this principle."
"You know that the Nuncio came to demmand that I not proceed withthe ordinations, so of course I said to him: 'You can't just do something like that a mere ten days before the ordinations, that's just not possible. I would say even humanly speaking. These young priests have been working for the last five years to prepare for their ordination, and ten days before the ordination, even though their parents are ready to come, even though the First Masses have been announced everywhere, at that moment I am asked not to do the ordinations. Ordinations which are legitimate. These seminarians who have done regular studies have a natural right to have the result of the preparations that they have made.' " (Cospec 32A)
The Compendium of Moral Theology of St. Alphonsus Ligouri says (T II, § 612, p. 362) :
"Penalties cannot be applied to non-believers, nor to persons over which one does not have jurisdiction."
(French: « La censure ne peut être portée contre les infidèles, ni contre les personnes sur lesquelles on n’a pas de juridiction ». (Fr. Joseph Frassinetti, prior of Sainte Sabine à Gênes, Tomes I & II translated into French by Fr. P. Fourez STL, 1889)
But we know that the conciliar church refuses any jurisdiction to the SSPX. Bishop Fellay's power of jurisdiction therefore does not come from the Vatican. Bishop Fellay and his priests do not exercise any "ordinary jurisdiction" but a "supplied jurisdiction" which is "an emergency jurisdiction given by the law to every bishop and every priest in case of necessity, for the common good, when he has not received from the authorities the necessary powers." ('Sel de a Terre' 87 pp.139-140)
"However, it must be borne in mind that an authority which is supplied does not have the same characteristics as authority which exists ordinarily in the Church. It is exercised case-by-case, and is thus not habitual: in other words the people who benefit from it can always withdraw from it, and the supplied authority has no power to make them return. It is dependent on the need of the faithful, given the state of crisis. To the extent that the faithful need these bishops or priests for the salvation of their souls, the Church creates this link of authority between them. All of that shows that supplied jurisdiction gives a limited authority which has to be exercised rather delicately. The jurisdictional authority of a bishop, coming not from a Roman nomination but from the necessity of the salvation of souls, must be exercised with an especial delicacy." (Archbishop Lefebvre, note of 20th Feb. 1990, quoted in 'Sel de la Terre.')
At the Mass in Lille, in 1976, Archbishop Lefebvre declared very clearly: "They say that I am the leader of Tradtion. I am not the leader of anything at all." ["On dit que je suis le chef de file de la tradition. Je ne suis le chef de file de rien du tout." ] To think that his jurisdiction was ordinary when really it is only supplied jurisdiction would be: "...to found our apostolate on a false and illusory basis." (Extract from a letter of Abp. Lefebvre, quoted by Fr. Pivert in the book "Archbishop Lefebvre's Consecrations... a Schism?" Fideliter 1988, pp.55-60).
"In controvertial questions, preachers and confessors must be on their guard to ensure that they define what is a sin, above all mortal sin, based on the authority of moral theologians or even based on what numerous theologians say; such a decision requires the universal consent of the authors. In the same way, a confessor could not, without it being an injustice, refuse absolution to a penitent who has decided to act contrary to an opinion supported by one or several theologians but contested by other Catholic theologians." (Frassinetti, Tome II, p.27)
"Since confessors have no authority to decide theological questions, I find along with De Lugo and other authors quoted by St. Alphonsus, that the penitent clearly has the right to put his opinion into practice, as long as this opinion is supported by good theologians and that as a result it has a solid probability, at least extrinsically; and that is so even if the penitent were the most ignorant man in the world and his opinion seemed absolutely false to his confessor." (Frassinetti, Tome II, note 141 of No.148)
Support Our Apostolate! Please consider making a small paypal donation to The Recusant.
"Viva Cristo Rey!"