Miles Christi #15: October/2017

Miles Christi #15: October/2017

[NB: Please see the clarification submitted by one of our readers regarding the application of Canon 2232/2264 at the conclusion of this article. -SP]

 

Miles Christi – XV – October 2017

Fr. Chazal, Building

Note: Thanks to the efforts of an anonymous contributor you can now also download this newsletter in pdf format.


Correctio “Filialis”?

(Another ReBurke?)

First, the good news; it is “De Haeresibus Propagatis”; it states that the present Pope is spreading grave heresies and connives with Martin Luther. As a consequence the notoriety of fact, that Francis is a heretic, will spread, and that’s good.

What took them so long is another question, but it comforts our prudential starting point, namely that Rome, the new Rome, has lost the faith.

The fact that the milieu from which this document emanates still has something to do with this heretical new Rome is another question; but there has to be some intellectual honesty out there; and if these gentleman continue to pull the threads they have just begun to pull, they will unearth the whole monster hidden in the sands of false and apparent Romanity and take the appropriate doctrinal and practical steps.

As for Francis; an increased dose of exposure will do him no harm; either that he may begin to realize the enormity of his crimes against the faith; or, which is more likely to happen, that his pertinacity in heresy may be planted clearly on the public forum of the Church. The rest is in the hands of God, yet, if God sees that churchmen have done their best to expose, and perhaps later arraign conciliar Popes, we can trust he will remove and replace them.San Carlos Chapel, Valencia, Bukidnon, Mindanao

The bad news: what we have here is still a far cry.

  • It omits the heresies of Vatican II, which are at the root of the heresies of Pope Francis. Like Cardinal Burke, whose signature is missing this time, most of the initiators of this text are Wojtylian conservatives. For them Vatican II is a given, but they think Francis is going too far; to whom Francis retorted at the Synod “God saves all, therefore everybody is in the state of Grace, therefore Communion should not be denied to divorce-remarried, since they are in the state of Grace and in a remoralization process looked after pastorally at the diocesan level”. I am summarizing a bit, but that’s the jist.
  • It fails to mention the other grave heresies of Francis: But where shall I start? Francis is not any kind of Modernist. His only dogma is that there is no dogma. That’s the problem of this “Correctio Fraterna”; it fails to realize that the mind of Francis is gone; Francis will never worry about the spreading of heresies, since for him man must choose his religion and live it to the full. The only way out is “Pascendi” of Pope Pius X; but that would mean that you would have to toss Vatican II and JPII out of the windows of the Church. Indeed, it does not intend to be exhaustive.
  • It relies on Vatican II, (aside for failing to attack it of course). Christian Lassalle puts it perfectly: “An antidote injected by an infected syringe”. The document uses “Lumen Gentium”, one of the worst documents, as a reference. Pope Francis could retaliate with “Unitatis Redintegratio” and say that Vatican II teaches that the Protestants are not the sole responsible of the breach, that they are saved, truly bear the name of Christians, hold the Bible in wonderful reverence and partake of the Eucharistic table. Francis can say: “If those heretics are okay, I am okay as well, heretic or not”. Anyways, Francis has already called conservatives Pelagians i.e. heretics. The heresy of conservatives is to lock themselves up in the dead mold of the past. Francis is a champion of “living tradition”… that very concept John Paul II, the darling of conservatives, upheld in his attempt to excommunicate Archbishop Lefebvre. The snake is biting its tail.San Carlos Chapel, Ground Plan

Bishop Fellay: “Who do you think he is fooling?”, you may say. 2017 is the very year he is enforcing the petitioning of dioceses worldwide, to obtain official delegation from the Novus Ordo, to celebrate marriages celebrated hitherto with supplied jurisdiction. Supplied jurisdiction was used, for long years, precisely to escape the fraudulent Novus Ordo notion of marriage, especially the Novus Ordo practice of annulments, which were de facto divorces. In his latest “Cor Unum”, Bishop Fellay writes that it is an error to say “We don’t need [diocesan] delegation for marriages” and “the acceptation of delegation for marriages means the acceptance of the novelties of Vatican II”.

Hence Bishop Fellay believes he is also fooling Novus Ordo diocesan chancellors (and chancelorettes) when he is going to ask them for marriage delegation. These officials are going to grant marriages according to the traditional rules of the Church while exteriorly not doing so; or they all understand we have our own rules for marriage,  diametrically opposed to theirs, but will turn a blind eye “because of the advances in favour of Tradition” (sic). Of course, weak couples, whose marriage turns difficult will never turn to the official church to get an annulment, based on the fact that their marriage was celebrated by the permission of the diocese. Moreover; we already have cases of dioceses enforcing their own “marriage preparations” on SSPX couples; and future spouses denied marriage for refusing the Novus Ordo delegation.
For SSPX priests, at least for some of them, it is a torment. Fr Morgan recently left the SSPX on that question, and joined the Resistance.

So, to ease the pill, Fr André, the canonical expert of the French district, has listed all the dioceses of France willing, unwilling, or semi-willing to grant delegations. He takes over all marriages and simply notifies the local priory that the marriage is clear in virtue of this or that jurisdiction. The canonical Frankenstein I was referring to before is alive and kicking. Hence to the question “Whom does he think he is fooling?” the reply is: “Everybody; the Pope, the dioceses, chancelors, chancelorettes, bride, groom, celebrants, parents, faithful and the other signatories of the Correctio Filialis”.

But, perhaps, he is not fooling us. It was a good try indeed, because the Fil Corr is very, very worried by the new concept of marriage.San Carlos, Front Elevation

The merit of the last Cor Unum is that Bishop Fellay states his position quite clearly: “We have never refused the principle to recognize the acts of the Pope when they are legitimate.”

“It is a fundamental error (Erreur de fond) to think there is nothing good to expect from the official Church, purely and simply identified with the conciliar or Modernist church.”

“We must maintain the principle that we receive from Catholic hierarchy and from the Pope in particular, but also from the Bishops, all the means of sanctification.” And then follows a long litany on the good aspects of the false restoration, Msgr. Pozzo, the Society of St Peter, etc.

[*]But is it true that we can receive the acts of jurisdiction of suspects of heresy? The answer is no; Canons 2232 and 2264: The heretic, or the excommunicated (latae sententiaé), who has not received a sentence, still enjoys a valid jurisdiction, yet he cannot exercise it licitely or lawfully. Hence on the field of pure validity, Bishop Fellay may be right, yet the law bars him from subjecting and using the jurisdiction of heretical subjects. It is just like the New Mass; valid, maybe, but definitely not licit.

Ordinary faithful have a tough time with the valid/licit binome, yet it is vital. We have no right, no permission to place ourselves under heretics, because the law of the Church is always for the protection of the faith. Arian Bishops were Arian in the time of St Athanasius, yet the Catholics fled them, before they were deposed. Faithful who counted for nothing the acts of Patriarch Nestorius were exonerated by Pope Celestine.San Carloc Chapel, Overview

Conversely, diocesan officialities count for nothing our marriages; since Bishop Fellay only half believes in the state of necessity, why should they believe in it at all?

Have they done a Novus Ordo “Sanatio in Radice” (healing in the root) of the thousands of SSPX marriages? No. Are they going to hold SSPX marriages performed still without their delegation as valid? Probably not, since it is the SSPX who has begun to go towards them, not the other way around. Are the SSPX rank and file not going to be troubled with questions of validity or licity, the conservatives attacking the suspicious Novus Ordo delegations, and the liberals doubting the validity of marriages without official delegation the same applies to the priests of the society.

And what about marriage cases? Is the SSPX still going to deal with them in first and second instance? Is the SSPX going to marry people who got an annulment in the diocese? I would love so much to bump into a SSPX priest to ask him candid questions, especially after our experiment in Lanvallay, where, about confession, three priests of the same priory gave opposite answers to the question “By what jurisdiction do you absolve sins today?”

Priest #1: “By our supplied jurisdiction”

Priest #2: “What, I will call my superiors and I will get back to you”. A few days later: “By delegation of Pope Francis”

Priest #3: “I am not going to reply to you because you are going to instrumentalize my answer”

Only Priest #1 got it right of course, but can he reply like that, since in his latest Cor Unum Bishop Fellay denies there is any doubt a heretical heirachy has jurisdiction, which doubt is precisely what enables us to avail ourselves of the supplied jurisdiction in Canon #209.

The confusion is such that SSPX confessionals should be provided with three lights; one green to indicate that your priest is using the good old supplied jurisdiction; one orange to signify he doesn’t know, does not want to know or does not want you to know; and one red, in conformity with the recent directives of Menzingen, to certify that his jurisdiction comes now from the diocese and Pope Francis. There might be the case of those who say they are using supplied jurisdiction by default, if the Novus Ordo denies it: that is what Fr André is doing with marriages, but the problem is that Canon 209 states there must be a doubt or common error, neither of them being the case, since the neo-SSPX protests the Novus Ordo have jurisdiction and know them without error since 2000, 2005, or at least 2012. Those who play with the switch like that should be spanked and stay orange.

It also would help to conduct a survey to find the green pasture and hunt the orangists and the reds. If the subject refuses to answer, just cross answers 2) and put his name.


Dear Father; since jurisdiction is necessary for the validity of some sacraments, and since I am allowed to know by what permission you exercise your ministry, the Church being a visible juridical society, may I ask you the following questions, dear Father _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
A. By what jurisdiction do you hear confessions?

  1. Supplied jurisdiction
  2. Don’t know, don’t want you to know
  3. Novus Ordo jurisdiction

B. By what jurisdiction do you confer marriages?

  1. Supplied jurisdiction
  2. Don’t know, don’t want you to know
  3. Official delegation of the diocese

C. Plenty of your confreres are answering differently; who is responsible for this mess?

  1. Menzingen
  2. I am too scared or confused to tell you
  3. Changing times in Rome

Connecting PathwayLocal News: One of the arguments of Bishop Fellay is that the Resistance is not in touch with the official church and stands in no chance to convert those whom they do not meet. Our new seminarian from Bicol begs to disagree. He was a Novus Ordo seminarian, and through the internet found the SSPX OLVC church in Manila, and was able to get an appointment with one of the priests, Fr Fortin, who invited him for dinner. Very nice.

Outisde Sacristry Cross SectionWhen Ferdinant came to start attacking the Novus Ordo Father just began to become silent, nodding his head, continuing to eat. Same silence at the mention of the 1988 and the corruption at the Vatican. It went on like that, no replies, no mention of the crisis of the Church, just encouragements to partake in the church activities, stressing he should learn more about traditional practicing… then they went to Compline, good bye.

Ferdinant went home and kept on looking, finding the bamboo seminary, the Ramses Sudiang Facebook website, YouTube, the Pfeifferial debates etc.

“They are like a chick who keeps on hiding under the shell; because they are afraid of hatching. It’s useless, because if you are in favour of tradition you should fight the conciliar church which is wrong and leading astray the faithful from the true worship.”

A bold attack against the Novus Ordo is out of question, the beauty and attractiveness of tradition is the strategy; perfectly illustrated by the many initiatives of Fr Stehlin, and this strange and interminable pilgrimage all over the country, with little results against the Novus Ordo. Did I say against? No! What the new line is against is to be against, even when asked to be so by someone, from the diocese, who is aware something is terribly wrong with the Novus Ordo.

The sense that the operation of error is bringing about the damnation of countless souls is gone, because gone is the urgency to rescue people from the Novus Ordo. The happy outcome of that liberalism is that we have one more seminarian, who, with the coming of Jeff from Leyte and the return of Brother Arsene OSB. from Santa Cruz, Brazil, brings our little skiff to eight passengers.

The bamboos are proving quite resilient, and for mysterious reasons the bukbuks have relented and are not boring any more. Perhaps the competition of the local teachers was too much, perhaps those little tropical wasps, perhaps the sugar in the bamboo has grown too stale. The rats are not much of a nuisance any more, hardly staying more than a day, and immediately supplementing the diet of empoy and pepita, dying by the dozen every month. Left overs go to our new recruits: ducks.

Four new rooms have been built under the roof of the upper building and we began to use them for the men’s retreat. Should more seminarians arrive, these rooms will buy us some time before the 7x7m tower arrives. Fr Valan says he is going to commence to send us seminarians and the results of Fr Picot’s boys camp are encouraging. In Camiguin Island, our chapel is ready for Bishop Zendejas’ consecration next June perhaps; because it is a solid building with a marble altar.

Two bamboo chapels should also spring in Maasin and Valencia, while other venues are still appropriate like in Hindang and Ormoc. In Cebu the congregation is growing with plenty of families with children, but we can’t find any land for a church.

New small groups have emerged in Manila, Leyte and Mindanao, but we cannot attend them properly until Fr Picot returns from his three months of rest.

In India, the Resistance has pretty much recuperated the SSPX crowd in Bombay proper. Bishop Zendejas is scheduled to visit India in January, and would like to see Australia, New Zealand, and Korea after Easter, then the Philippines later in the year.

He has plenty of people ready for him, proving his consecration last year does provide for a real state of necessity.

In Iesu et Maria,

Fr François Chazal

Fr. Chazal

_________________

[*]  QUOTE: “But is it true that we can receive the acts of jurisdiction of suspects of heresy? The answer is no; Canons 2232 and 2264: The heretic, or the excommunicated (latae sententiaé), who has not received a sentence, still enjoys a valid jurisdiction, yet he cannot exercise it licitely or lawfully. Hence on the field of pure validity, Bishop Fellay may be right, yet the law bars him from subjecting and using the jurisdiction of heretical subjects. It is just like the New Mass; valid, maybe, but definitely not licit.”

1) There is a clear contradiction in this quote: Fr. Chazal begins by talking about “suspects of heresy,” but then refers to “heretics or excommunicated”.

By citing canons 2232 and 2264, Fr. Chazal claims that Pope Francis is excommunicated latae sententiae for heresy, and not that he is only “suspected of heresy”:

Can 2232 §1. Poena latae sententiae, sive medicinalis sive vindicativa, delinquentem, qui delicti sibi sit conscius, ipso facto in utroque foro tenet; ante sententiam tamen declaratoriam a poena observanda delinquens excusatur quoties eam servare sine infamia nequit, et in foro externo ab eo eiusdem poenae observantiant exigere nemo potest, nisi delictum sit notorium, firmo praescripto can. 2223, §4.

  • 2. Sententia declaratoria poenam ad momentum commissi delicti retrotrahit.

Can 2264. Actus iurisdictionis tam fori externi quam fori interni positus ab excommunicato est illicitus; et, si lata fuerit sententia condemnatoria vel declaratoria, etiam invalidus, salvo praescripto can. 2261, §3; secus est validus, imo etiam licitus, si a fidelibus petitus sit ad normam mem. can. 2261, §2.

2) For someone to be excommunicated latae sententiae for heresy, he must have incurred formal heresy; material heresy is insufficient; but there is no evidence that Pope Francis is a formal heretic.

print