Skip to main content

First they meddled with the FSSP, then the FFI, now they have set their sights on the SOM

Image
By
+
JMJ

Modernists are meddlers.

We've witnessed what happens if there is not a strong authority to keep them in check:
  1. Second Vatican Council
  2. Novus Ordo Missae
  3. Code of Canon law
  4. etc, etc, etc.
If a modernist doesn't like how things are going in their situation, they appeal to a higher authority.  If the authority is sympathetic (or just pathetic) they will get their way.

This is the way of things and also highlights why it is critical that the SSPX have a strong authority in its leader and unwavering support from the Pope.

Otherwise we would see history repeat itself:

FSSP 2000:
  1. Whiners want to say the New Mass
  2. Rome intervenes
  3. Whiners leave

FFI 2013:
  1. Whiners complain about the decision to have the conventual mass changed to the Tridentine Mas
  2. Rome intervenes
  3. Whiners leave
SOM 2016:
  1. Whiner complains that he was unjustly expelled
  2. Rome intervenes
  3. Whiner(s) leave <prediction>
In their wake, the whiner leave orders that are radically changed if not decimated.

At least it appears that the SOM is not about to be meddled with.



P^3






Source: Order of Malta: Statement of the Grand Magistry

Statement of the Grand Magistry

Rome, 10/01/2017 


The Grand Magistry of the Sovereign Order of Malta, in response to the activities being carried out by a Group appointed by the Secretary of State of the Vatican, considers it appropriate to reiterate that the replacement of the former Grand Chancellor was an internal act of the government of the Order.
Thus, considering the legal irrelevance of this Group and of its findings relating to the legal structure of the Order of Malta, the Order has decided that it should not cooperate with it. This is to protect its sovereignty against initiatives which claim to be directed at objectively (and, therefore – quite apart from its intentions – reveals it to be legally irrelevant) questioning or even limiting said Sovereignty.
Article 4 paragraph 6 of the Constitutional Charter is clear when it states that “the religious nature of the Order does not prejudice the exercise of sovereign prerogatives pertaining to the Order in so far as it is recognised by States as a subject of international law” and Article 4 paragraph 5 reiterates that “the Order has diplomatic representation to the Holy See, according to the norms of international law.”
The confirmation of such status under international law is also attested to in the Annuario Pontificio of the Holy See, where the Order is mentioned only once and not amongst the religious orders, but rather amongst the States with Embassies accredited the Holy See.
The different ranks of the members of the Order belonging to different classes should be noted, and therefore also the hierarchical relationships that exist between those members and their superiors. The Second Class, to which the former Grand Chancellor belonged, is for members of the Order ‘in Obedience’ who make the Promise according to Article 9 paragraph 2 of the Constitutional Charter (see also Article 8 paragraph 1 b) of the Constitutional Charter). This Promise has nothing to do with the Vow of Obedience taken by the Knights of Justice, who belong to the First Class. Therefore the Knights of Justice “are religious in all respects” (Article 9 paragraph 1 of the Constitutional Charter), whilst they are not ‘Knights in Obedience’.
In addition, according to Article 4 paragraph 2, the Constitutional Charter states that members of the Second Class who have taken the Promise of Obedience are only subordinate to their superiors within the Order.
In the light of these fundamental legal regulations, it is clear that, in strictly legal terms, a refusal to a command ‘in Obedience’ does not justify in any way the involvement of ‘religious superiors’, all the more so as they do not all belong to the Order.
Such involvement, in addition to being legally impossible, is also superfluous in terms of protecting members of the Order: from the time that the members of the Second and Third Class who wish to appeal against disciplinary measures they consider too harsh, can dispute these before the Magistral Courts, as provided for by Article 129 of the Constitutional Code.
Failure to cooperate with the aforementioned Group has therefore strictly legal grounds, thus it is not and cannot in any way be considered as a lack of respect towards the Group, nor towards His Eminence Secretary of State.
The position of the Grand Magistry is that the depositions that individual members consider that they could make to the Group cannot, in their terms and judgments, be in contradiction, directly or indirectly, with the decision of the Grand Master and the Sovereign Council concerning the replacement of the Grand Chancellor.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Comparision of the Tridentine, Cranmer and Novus Ordo Masses

By
+ JMJ I downloaded the comparison that was linked in the previous article on the mass (here) . ... a very good reference! P^3 From: Whispers of Restoration (available at this link) . CHARTING LITURGICAL CHANGE Comparing the 1962 Ordinary of the Roman Mass to changes made during the Anglican Schism; Compared in turn to changes adopted in the creation of Pope Paul VI’s Mass in 1969 The chart on the reverse is a concise comparison of certain ritual differences between three historical rites for the celebration of the Catholic Mass Vetus Ordo: “Old Order,” the Roman Rite of Mass as contained in the 1962 Missal, often referred to as the “Traditional Latin Mass.”The Ordinary of this Mass is that of Pope St. Pius V (1570) following the Council of Trent (1545-63), hence the occasional moniker “Tridentine Mass.” However, Trent only consolidated and codified the Roman Rite already in use at that time; its essential form dates to Pope St. Gregory the Great (+604), in whose time the R...
Post a Comment
Read more

SSPX and the Resistance - A Comparison Of Ecclesiology

By
Shining the light of Church Teaching on the doctrinal positions of the SSPX and the Resistance. Principles are guides used to aid in decision making.  It stands to reason that bad principles will lead to bad decisions. The recent interactions between Rome and the SSPX has challenged a number of closely held cultural assumptions of people in both sides of the disagreement. This has resulted in cultural skirmishes in both Rome and the SSPX. Since it is the smaller of the two, the skirmishes have been more evident within the SSPX.  The cultural fault-line that Bishop Fellay crossed appears to be linked to two points of Catholic Doctrine: Ecclesiology and Obedience.  The cultural difference of view points is strong enough that it has resulted in the expulsion of a number of members.  It should also be noted that some other priests expelled since the beginning of the latest interactions (starting in 2000) held the same view points and have joined with the l...
8 comments
Read more

If Pope Francis is bad - what about Pope St. John Paul II et al?

By
+ JMJ So here we are on the apparent cusp of yet another post conciliar Papal canonization. This time we have Pope's John-Paul I and Paul VI canonizations to 'look forward' to. This follows, obviously, on the heels of Pope St. John Paul II's canonization? So the first question that I usually encounter is: How is it possible, keeping in mind the doctrine on infallibility of canonizations (note doctrine not dogma), that Pope St. John Paul II is a Saint? First, what does it mean???  According to the doctrine of dogmatic facts - it is the universal opinion of Theologians that canonizations are infallible.  It means that they enjoy the beatific vision.  ... that's it.  That is the doctrine and it is at the level of universal opinion of theologians.  It is called a 'dogmatic fact'. That they made mistakes is obvious.  That the miracles seem to not be very miraculous is also a bit of an issue. Here's something to consider: The rush that surrou...
16 comments
Read more

Spiritual Journey Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre - Extracts

By
+ JMJ I have posted these two chapters to provide context for the quote of: It is, therefore, a strict duty for every priest wanting to remain Catholic to separate himself from this Conciliar Church for as long as it does not rediscover the Tradition of the Church and of the Catholic Faith. P^3 Courtesy of SSPX.ca Chapter II The Perfections of God We ought to remember during this entire contemplation of God that we must apply all that is said of God to Our Lord Jesus Christ, Who is God. We cannot separate Jesus Christ from God. We cannot separate the Christian religion from Jesus Christ, Who is God, and we must affirm and believe that only the Catholic religion is the Christian religion. These affirmations have, as a result, inescapable conclusions that no ecclesiastic authority can contest: outside of Jesus Christ and the Catholic religion, that is, outsi...
Post a Comment
Read more

Dogmas of the Catholic Faith (de fide) - Expanded Listing: Answer for Reader

By
 + JMJ  A reader asked the following question in the 2015 version of the article on the Dogmas of the Catholic Faith (link) : 117: "In the state of fallen nature it is morally impossible for man without Supernatural Revelation, to know easily, with absolute certainty and without admixture of error, all religious and moral truths of the natural order." Where can you find this in the documents of the Church? ( Link to comment )  Here's the reference from Ott: The citation that Ott provided was Denzinger 1786 and the source document is Dogmatic Consitution Concerning the Faith from the First Vatican Council (Papal Encyclicals - link) : Chapter 2 On Revelation, Article 3: It is indeed thanks to this divine revelation , that those matters concerning God, which are not of themselves beyond the scope of human reason, can, even in the present state of the human race, be known by everyone, without difficulty, with firm certitude and with no intermingling of error. Here's ...
Post a Comment
Read more