Rorate Caeli

The Crisis of the Church is a Crisis of Bishops:
Bishop and President of Caritas-Latin America Surfin' Safari

Doctrinal preambles, declarations, professions of faith, discussions without end: it can be quite difficult for a Catholic bishop to prove that he is Catholic.

_______________________________________

Caritas in Rio

That is, not if he is the General Secretary of Caritas for Latin America and the Caribbean and President of Caritas Argentina, Bishop Fernando María Bargalló, of the Diocese of Merlo-Moreno, Argentina, responsible for the general administration of resources donated to the charitable activities of Caritas in a vast region filled with grave problems. He was recently seen in one of those endless useless meetings that characterize the post-Conciliar reality, with nothing to show for them - in this case, a meeting of the Latin-American and Caribbean Secretariat of Caritas Social Pastoral Ministry (Secretariado Latinoamericano y Caribeño de Pastoral Social Caritas - SELACC), preparing for some declaration on a current United Nations environmentalist meeting, in which the Caritas group is also present (image on the right, with Bishop Bargalló marked).

He was also recently in Mexico. Doing what? This is how he appeared today in several Argentine newspapers, joined by a representative of the fairer sex:

Caritas in Mexico - the only image that we could publish here [Source and images: several Argentine papers, including La Mañana of Neuquén and Diario Uno of Entre Ríos - thanks to Google News in Spanish.]

(The report in Argentine television is much worse, and what is worse still is that the snarky comments of the presenters are mostly correct - immodesty alert, contemporary seaside attire and amorous gestures in the images.)

_______________________________________

Fernando María Bargalló was named Auxiliary Bishop in 1994 by Pope John Paul II and named first Bishop of the newly-created Diocese of Merlo-Moreno, a diocese including over 700,000 nominal Catholics, most residing in the Greater Buenos Aires, in 1997, by the same Pontiff.

Coincidentally: the seminary of the Society of Saint Pius X (FSSPX / SSPX) in South America, Our Lady Coredemptrix, is located in La Reja, in the Moreno Municipality (Partido de Moreno, Province of Buenos Aires), Episcopal See of Bishop Bargalló's diocese.

[Tip: Reader]

70 comments:

Restituo said...

Based on the couple pics on this blog, it didn't seem too bad. BUT. I clicked the link to the TV report on YouTube. There are more pics there.

Unfortunately, pictures speak a thousand words. Being a Bishop, he should have known that the media would get a hold of those pics. Or, even worse, perhaps he doesn't care? Sad scandal..

Prof. Basto said...

The youtube video says it all.

Gravitas said...

He will remain, with his concubine, in "full communion" while the SSPX bishops stay "outside the Church." Ya, there's no crisis.

backtothefuture said...

Pray for his soul, and for all priest.

rodrigo said...

Sister? Mother? Aunt? Niece?

Sigh.

poeta said...

In 1994 he was named auxiliary Bishop... of Morón. Commentary seems superfluous.

sam said...

viva la el Segundo Concilio Vaticano!

larios777 said...

He even had the courage to say that the one in the pictures wasn't him!

La Paloma Alegre said...

So this is what "full communion" looks like. I knew it.

Pedro said...

Fully agree that the crisis of the Church is a crisis of Bishops. (Among other things). But.

We should - no, we must, give him benefit of the doubt. I know! It's quite easier (and for bad people like me, even dangerously satisfying) to assume the worst and count Bp. Bargalló among the Unworthy. But what if we're wrong? What if this is a stunt, someone who resembles him, a character assasination attempt...?

Let us be merciful. Let us say our Miserere and offer our 12 minutes of mortification for him. Please, we need to be as merciful, as righteous, as Christian as possible in these days. Tomorrow is feria quarta.

Brian said...

So if the SSPX priests of the Our Lady Coredemptrix seminary would only submit to this man, their absolution of sin in the confessional would then, and only then, become valid.

Something is wrong with this picture (as well as those pictures).

Adam P. said...

Too bad he's not wearing a scapular.

Manfred said...

Is there an educated Catholic anywhere in the world who is still inquiring about the causes of the Reformation? It is quite a while since we heard the call: Santo Subito!

MJ said...

Brian,
The 16th century reforms faced the same dilema when asked to submit to a papacy characterized by scandalous excesses, but we all know their obedience was God's will. For the SSPX to come back into full communion with Rome would probably be a martyrdom of obedience, but it would still the holiest and surest path.

Hughie said...

I would have to say that I am not convinced by looking closely at these two pictures that they ARE of the same man: based on shape of face and hair. But then I have not seen any of the others.

The Postmodernist said...

It is only right for bishops inside the heat of the 'new springtime' to take off their clothes. Sigh. While traditional prelates remain famished due to fasting and reparations - thickly clothed in this ecclesiastical winter. Bastogne '44 comes to mind.

P.K.T.P. said...

Of course, in the personal prelature structure cooked up by Levada and Pozzo, the S.S.P.X will not be able to expand its present apostolate in his diocese without his permission. Dear Bishop Fellay, remember to kneel down and kiss his ring when you beg him for permission to open a new chapel in his see.

P.K.T.P.

P.K.T.P. said...

His attire is disturbing but it's not much worse than the black business suits adopted by our bishops in the 1970s, making the whole lot of them look like Methodist funeral directors. Bring back the simar and crazy-glue it to their bodies.

P.K.T.P.

Vox Cantoris said...

It could be worse.

He could be with a man!

Gratias said...

Monsignor's girlfriend seems to be in perfect condition in the movie. Lucky guy. Caritas must have a very good racket going on.

There are no regular every-Sunday Latin Masses in the vast areas surrounding Buenos Aires, including Merlo.

Not so long ago, the Constitution in Argentina specified that the president had to be Catholic.

Viva el Concilio Vaticano Segundo y su Teologia de Liberacion tan divertida. Dale que va, todo es igual, nada es mejor.

Erik said...

Brian, let me ask you, would submission to Pope Alexander VI have been required of his diocesan priests for valid absolution? The answer is yes. The immorality of the Bishop in question, supposing it is absolutely true, doesn't change the fact that he is the legitimate ordinary holding a legitimate office granting necessary faculties. Yes, it is a scandal -- and it must be exposed; however, do not mock the office he holds, which is holy despite his personal immorality. His office is still valid. If it weren't then we'd all be Donatists and we known that Donatism is a heresy.

Rick DeLano said...

Yes, MJ. Perhaps he is a double, and the woman is really not involved with Caritas, and this matter can be exposed as the plot against the Church we all would wish to believe it is.

On the other hand, please don't ask me to bet on it.

A Canberra Observer said...

It was his sister, right?

No, of course not.

Words fail me.

John Fisher said...

Well at least it was a woman! lol
It was so lonely in the Vatican II Church!!! I was divorced from tradition and Lonely days lonely night how could I live without my woman and priestly identity, celebacy,and TLM...
I dreamt I was walking down a beach and I saw one set of footprints then two. I asked God what does that mean? He said two sets means you were walking next to your concubine. One she was carrying you! :)

OutsideObserver said...

"Brian,
The 16th century reforms faced the same dilema when asked to submit to a papacy characterized by scandalous excesses, but we all know their obedience was God's will."

The big difference was that the 16th-century papacy and hierarchy were not also characterized by doctrinal ambiguity. The Council of Trent was held under three popes (Paul III, Julius III and Pius IV) none of whom were shining examples of moral rectitude, but whose doctrine was Catholic beyond doubt.

JMJ Ora Pro Nobis said...

@PKTP, this is depressing but lets not turn into donatists or lutherans for that matter! Whether we like it or not the Bishop is a bishop and has the authority given him by God. Certainly I lament his behaviour, but we are not called to submit only to the 'perfect'. I would indeed prefer it if the SSPX only had to consult the bishops, but if they must ask for permission to expand so long as their existing apostolates are safe and any appeals are treated promptly and justly by Rome, so be it. We will have to make some compromise in the unessentials after all.

Brian said...

M.J. and Erik,
As for the boringly obvious corrections you provide to the blantant absurdity that I was commenting on . . . yawn.

P.K.T.P. said...

J.M.J.

Just a point of clarification. If the S.S.P.X were granted a particular church under Section 2 of Canon 372, the authority of the local bishops could vary depending on what sort it were granted. If it were granted a worldwide archdiocese or diocese, the new (Arch)bishop would not have to seek permission OR even inform the local bishop to implant an apostolate, since a 'ritual' diocese would be equivalent in law to a territorial one. If an Apostolic Administration were granted, it *MIGHT* be necessary for the new Apostolic Administrator to consult the local bishop in question, depending on whether or not this is required by any accompanying apostolic constitution or letter. This is because, under Canon 368, Apostolic Administrations, while, in a particular case, can be equivalent in law to a diocese, can also be restricted in specific ways.

What I am calling for is a full international diocese or archdiocese, not an apostolic administration (the Campos got the latter), so the new Archbishop would not even need to consult the local Marxist bishops.

Just a clarification. Not to re-open the discussion. Frankly, if, under a personal prelature that were granted, there be a requirement to seek permission from the local bishops, Bishop Fellay should forthwith refuse the offer and withdraw from all discussion under Rome changes her tune or removes the scarlet liberal from the C.D.F.

The problem is not so much the West. There are ways to get around the local bishops in the West. Without going into detail, keep in mind that existing 'groups' of laics under S.P. can appeal to the P.C.E.D., and that may mean sending in the S.S.P.X over the head of the local bishop, unless he provides his own diocesan Latin Mass. So this is not so much a worry in the few problem sees left in France, the U.S.A., Germany, Belgium, N.Z., Austria, &c. In those countries, support for our Mass is firm and organised.

But it is another matter entirely in the case of Latin America, Asia and Africa--and that is where our future must lie. 46% of faithful live in Latin America and there are only a handfull of Latin Masses for them. So the liberation theology bishops there can 'just say no' to the S.S.P.X., just as they have made damn sure that few approved Masses have been allowed: zero in all of Venezuela, one in Ecuador, one in Peru, zero in Bolivia, one in all of Central America, one in Cuba, zero in Uruguay (every Sunday), one in Paraguay, &c. As you can see, we are talking about the future here. Unlike NewMassm, the Mass of all time must HAVE a future.

P.K.T.P.

P.K.T.P. said...

J.M.J.

By the way, if the S.S.P.X had had to submit to the local De Roos and Daneeles and Mahonys over the last forty years, we wouldn't be having this conversation because there would be no approved traditionalist movement to speak of. The Catholic understanding of authority is not absolute at all, and there is such as thing as rightful disobedience: the Church has long affirmed it. As the Arian bishops. The S.S.P.X and Abp. Lefebvre saved the day. Without them and their rightful disobedience, we'd all be toast.

So this is not the time to surrender the very means by which the Society has thrived, even survived. This is the time to regularise it. The local bishops do not need to 'have their authority' because Vatican II itself, of all things, made room for personal or ritual dioceses which can have the same authority over their subjects as the local bishops have over theirs. Read the Vatican II document entitled Presbyterorum Ordinis. It's there in No. 10 of Section 3.

I would regard a requirement to 'consult' (as with Campos and the Anglican Use ordinariates) to be deficient but not completely unacceptable. But any requirement to get permission from the local bishops would be suicidal. It would be like handing over your gun to the enemy soldier so that he could blow your head clean off. And, trust me, these liberals only talk about love and peace. If they have another sort of piece, they open fire. I know about it. I come from De Roo's Diocese. I come from the trenches in the 1980s. I well remember how the Cardinal of Detroit, e.g., played every trick in the book to stop the T.L.M.: he even organised New Masses in Latin with fine music to lure away support.
P.K.T.P.

P.K.T.P. said...

I note that there have been no appointments at all now for three consecutive days, a sure sign that the Pope is busy with other matters. Of course, the other matter might not be the S.S.P.X business. It could be more Vatileaks, e.g.

P.K.T.P.

Picard said...

...and the crisis of bishops is a crisis of the Popes, of course (who appointed them or did not depose them).

Picard said...

MJ and Erik:

On the surface you are right of course.

Pure inmorality should not be and is not the real problem.

Of course you have to submit to/under immoral prelates.

But the point is that the modern crisis is one of faith - modernism is the catchment basin of all heresies, remember - and the bishops up till the Popes hold/held more or less heretical or erroneous or at least heretical-by-trend views.

And many of those modern bishops are very hostile against the TLM etc.

So here lies the problem of submission of course.

Smithbridge Wells said...

>>So if the SSPX priests of the Our Lady Coredemptrix seminary would only submit to this man, their absolution of sin in the confessional would then, and only then, become valid.
Something is wrong with this picture (as well as those pictures). <<

Yes, that is the case. St. Cyprian of Carthage resisted the Holy See on this point; Cyprian was wary of recognizing the validity of sacraments conferred or supplied by bishops who had apostasized during the Decian persecution before repenting. Ultimately, however, the Holy See won: The validity of a bishop's jurisdiction and sacramental acts are not dependent upon his worthiness as a bishop but upon the grace of the Holy Spirit that has been given him. It is obviously unjust that this man should be in authority, but this does not change the grace that has been given him. Therefore, yes, if the SSPX would submit even to this wretched man, then their jurisdiction in penance and marriage would be valid. May he swiftly be removed!

Hilltop said...

Dear New Catholic,
You may have already done this, so forgive me if my request is out of order...
Might you somehow foster a specific discussion of the structural differences, advantages and disadvantages of the various Canonical structures that may be available to the SSPX, eg Personal Prelature, Ordinariate, "worldwide archdiocese" ( I quote from the above discussion), etc.
There have been discussions of these matters, of course at RC but only as tangents of other matters.
Respectfully submitted,
Hilltop

Andrew said...

As one priest friend of mine said "at least she is a consenting adult female".

Its a sad state of affairs when these types of scandals cause an odd sense of relief because we all know it could be much, much worse.

JMJ Ora Pro Nobis said...

PKTP, I dont think you're getting what I'm saying:

A) some people on here are acting as if naughty bishops somehow lose their power and we should just ignore them. This is silly, even the SSPX tell a bishop when they are entering a diocese, I know this from a priest who did so even though it would have been MUCH easier for him not to do so. No matter how bad the bishop they still have authority, albeit they just ignore the sspx as its schismatic and the sspx mostly ignore them due to the state of necessity and their refusal to follow unjust commands.

B) yes the SSPX could be granted a structure completely free of the bishops control, would that be ideal? Possibly. But if they aren't and if they need ask permission for new foundations its not the end of the world. As long as they are treated differently as bishop fellay said they would be and Rome deals with matters promptly and justly, its an acceptable compromise. After all they would have a large amount of latitude in their particular law (see the opus dei statutes) and as long as the other modifications are made I.e the religious orders and others are include, the members of the prelature cease to be subject to the bishops jurisdiction, it would be a very generous and perfectly acceptable deal. At the end of the day PKTP there has to be some compromise, as long as its not essentials, that's fine. I most certainly do not agree that they should refuse anything except a Campos solution or ordinariate, they might be nice but they are NOT essential. The essentials could be fulfilled by a modified personal prelature and decent statutes. Archbishop Lefebvre accepted a worse deal in 1988 and implied in his writings he would accept a deal such as the one we are getting in order to 'bring the traditional faith and sacraments to millions'

C) earlier you said you were looking for a deal that would mean either no or as few people leaving the SSPX as possible. That's good, but those who would leave due to a prelature would probably leave no matter the agreement. The reality is that there has always been a hardcore wing of the society who are quasi schismatic and almost protestant in the way they act and their beliefs. A deal would cleanse the SSPX of these people, who often are the ones who embarass the society with their crazy views which they imprudently express.

D) let me be clear though, a deal which endangers existing centres or where Rome doesn't deal fairly with the SSPX or they cannot freely proclaim the faith would be unacceptable and I would most likely reject it.

Guy Fawkes said...

Is that comparable to a bishop assisting barefoot to the inauguration of a Mosque?

See Mgr. Lebrun of Saint-Etienne (France), 19.06.12, minute 1:31:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kYGRiSAqkxQ

See how the pic on the diocesan site has been conveniently cut:

http://catholique-saint-etienne.cef.fr/Mardi-19-juin-2012-inauguration-de.html

Enjoy the ode to religious freedom, where the bishop rejoices that the muslim faithful can render their cult according to their conscience, and feeling welcome in a country that (still?) has christian racines:

http://catholique-saint-etienne.cef.fr/IMG/pdf/discours_mosquee_2012_06_19_2_2_.pdf

Finally, what is ironic is that on the occasion the local muslim rioted in front of the mosque because a radical imam had been deported in the previous day (see the rest of the youtube video).

Tom S. said...

Just watched the video. Looks to me like the Bishop has got it going on! It would be only right for those of us commenting to give credit where it is due - His Excellencie's taste is pretty good!

All kidding aside I share in the relief that it wasn't another man. Or God forbid a child. Given the choice, I'll take this kind of thing over pederasty any day!

Adfero said...

I think we should all refrain from the "at least it wasn't a man/boy/etc" argument in this thread.

Yes, in the sad shape our Church is in after the Council, that is unfortunately a trad's second reaction after one of anger. However, no-trads also come to this blog seeking truth, and we don't want to leave them with the impression that we are condoning one sin over another.

Thanks, Adfero.

JMJ Ora Pro Nobis said...

Just to clarify I don't think the SSPX is schismatic, but most of the bishops do, one guesses.

J.C. said...

It might be more prudent to refrain from making the "at-least-it-wasn't-boys-or-men"-comment for a variety of reasons. That being said, in the objective hierarchy of sin, unnatural intrinsically evil sins such as homosexual acts, trump plain old natural fornication, even when it violates the priestly vows of celibacy. I don't think anyone on this forum is in danger of appearing to condone sexual sins of any sort, especially on the part of a bishop, but there's nothing theologically objectionable about expressing some relief that he is not engaging in intrinsically evil perversity.

Adfero said...

J.C., first of all, while one may be worse than the other, both land you in Hell.

Second, as I said, I know trads will get this. But there are others coming to this site that are not trads and could be led astray unintentionally.

Andrew said...

Its not about condoning this Bishop's actions because it is lesser than other possible infractions.

I made the comment because it shows what a sorry state the clergy is in when Catholics are relieved and maybe even happy for lesser scandals such a this than real virtue in the clergy. It is tempting to be relieved and say at least it wasn't....". That's how bad things have become.

Terry Nelson said...

WTH? That is so not his sister. c'mon!

Froben said...

There have been some dangerous passes in previous comments, so a reminder: let's not be Donatists.

P.K.T.P. said...

J.M.J.:

On (A), no, the S.S.P.X does not have a policy of consulting with or even informing the lcoal bishop when they open a new apostolate in his see. Some may have done so but there is no such policy and, certainly, they mostly don't do so.

This idea of yours that the local bishops must have exclusively immediate authority (apart from the Pope's direct immediate authority) is interesting but has zero standing in Catholic Canon law. For many centuries, there have been exemptions to the local bishops' authority. Because the S.S.P.X does not have one of these exemptions, its priest pray for the Pope and the local bishop at the Canon. But they do not respect a need to inform a local bishop of their coming because they claim to operate under supplied jurisdiction.

It is true that the Church exists in the dioceses, out of which the true Catholic Church proceeds, as it were (cf. Canon 368). But not all these dioceses need be territorial (Sect. 2 of Canon 372), and there are exempt territories also (e.g. territorial prelatures, which are set apart from dioceses, as also are abbacies nullius) and even places where there is no local territorial authority at all (e.g. Antarctic and, until recently, Afghanistan), but only the universal authority.

P.K.T.P.

P.K.T.P. said...

J.M.J.

On (B), you show us again that you do not understand the constitution of Holy Church. No, you are wrong about personal prelatures. These are 'cumulative structures' meaning that the lay members also remain subjects of the local bishops; in effect, the lay members are dually subjects of the personal prelate and of the local bishop. To be more precise, at law, they are members of the prelature but remain entirely the subjects of the local bishop.

On Apb. Lefebvre's Protocol of Agreement, it is true that he was willing to accept an agreement without knowing the details of the canonical provisions to be enacted. That does not mean that his decision on this was wise. He later admitted openly that he had been wrong to trust Rome on this. But he could not know in 1988 that the local bishops would, in numerous cases, directly oppose the measures taken by John Paul II and Benedict XVI to make available the Latin Mass. Ecclesia Dei, Summorum Pontificum and Universæ Ecclesiæ were all in his future when he acted.

Your call for a compromise seems to me to have no substance. It's not a compromise when one party hands over control to his worst enemy; and without expansion comes despair among supporters and then decline. In any regularisation, the S.S.P.X would be submitting entirely to the direct authority of the Pope. That will be difficult enough. But to submit aslo to the power of the local bishop to act with glee to obstruct the Society would be suicidal. The S.S.P.X would be no larger today than it was in its original four or six dioceses in 1975 unless it had had the freedom to go where it chooses. There can be no compromise on that.

The local bishops of Latin America, Africa and Asia, and of Eastern Europe, must not be given the opportunnity to do what their confreres would have done in the West if they'd had the chance. No way. This discussion should not even be taking place.

Also, I retract my agreement that a right to consultation should at least be deemed acceptable. It is not acceptable because the local bishop could use the right to impose endless delays. In an international structure, there must be freedom to send your men where circumstances best favour them, and delays can be deadly to that process: delay is deadlier than denial. It should be a full international (arch)diocese or nothing. Turn to the 1983 Code! this Code was a response to Vatican II! This new section in the Code is a response to Presbyterorum Ordinis! How can a liberal say no to Vatican II!

P.K.T.P.

P.K.T.P. said...

J.M.J.

Your point (C) is speculative and your point (D) is arbitrary. You wouldn't accept certain things offered by the Pope, so you do not think that the S.S.P.X has no justification. And yet you are willing to accept the one restriction which would prevent the Society from achieving the success it has had in the past. Totally inconsistent.

You don't seem to understand. Latin America, in particular, is the future. Put your own provincial interests aside. The Faith is almost dead in Europe, and America, while it does have a religious sense, is culturally Protestant. Nearly half of all faithful hale from Latin America, and growth is fast today not in the West but in India and some parts of Asia and Africa. The Society must have the freedom to go there, unobstructed by the remaining balloon-wiedling clowns who still control countless local dioceses.

P.K.T.P.

JMJ Ora Pro Nobis said...

PKPT, again you miss the point and end up going on a tangent, my point (a) is SOLELY that bishops do not somehow magically lose authority because they do bad things nor do we somehow magically become exempt from them because they're 'naughty'. Thats donatism plain and simple and many who outright oppose any deal or go over the top in their criticisms of the bishops come dangerously close to it. Your comments vis a vis dioceses, bishops etc.. therefore fall to be struck off as irrelevant.

As far as point B goes, Bishop Fellay has made it quite clear that the PP given to the SSPX would have ordinary and not cumulative jurisdiction. I for my part said that the PP would have to be modified to allow this, your complains about my not understanding of the structure of the church therefore, again, fall to be disregarded as irrelevant.

You again don't seem to be understanding the point, its becoming quite repetitive now, so let me clarify this for you:
a)if the local bishops are allowed to obstruct the SSPX as they do eclessia dei, SUCH AN AGREEMENT WOULD BE UNACCEPTABLE
b)If on the other hand Rome actually deals with appeals from these sorts of conflicts properly and NOT as it has done with Eclessia dei communities that is a completely different ball game. Bishop Fellay states this clearly and for my part I have repeated it several times. This tells me that you either you do not read or you do not care what either Bishop Fellay or I think. In the former case theres a serious problem with intelligent debate, in the latter a serious problem with pride.

c) have you read the SSPX newsletters from Africa and Asia? I doubt you have, if you did you'd know that some bishops in those regions have been very supportive, have even WELCOMED the SSPX despite all the nonsense surrounding them. The rest of your complaint about this goes back to your inability to accept that appeals would be dealt with differently by Rome. Let me be clear, IF THEY ARE NOT, THEN THE DEAL MUST BE REJECTED.

d)its also pretty obvious you havent read the Opus Dei statutes, it could be fairly easy to fiddle with them and have it established that once the sspx was established in a diocese, it could further expand without the permission of the bishop. Theres a somewhat lesser provision in their statutes that could be modified to allow this.

e) you do not understand either the thinking of the SSPX or Archbishop Lefebvre. You ask for much more than he ever did, as for him not knowing how the church would react to the freeing of the Latin mass. Do not be foolish, the Archbishop knew well how much the bishops would oppose the mass, he saw their opposition to limited indults and to the SSPX for exactly that reason. He also saw their opposition to the FSSP and so on. Despite all this he signed for an EVEN WORSE agreement than Bishop Fellay is considering. That tells you something doesn't it?

JMJ Ora Pro Nobis said...

f)'Endless delays', no, wait a while, then enter a diocese anyway or do what secular law does and impose a time limit on this to force a response.

g)The difference between you, I and the SSPX, is that you are OBSESSED and i do mean obsessed with structure. The reality is, that to a certain extent, the SSPX and I couldn't care less. The extremists in the society would refuse any agreement unless Rome converts and even the moderates insisted on doctrinal discussions. To a large extent, doctrine is the big issue not canonical structure. You don't seem to get this, all sorts of agrements with amazing structures were signed before and almost all of them have failed miserably. There has been compromise, acceptance of religious liberty, the new mass.. The monks of Le Barroux for example had it written in 'that you will not requires us to accept religious liberty, ecumenicism etc.. not to celebrate the new mass or stop our modernist preaching' A few years later they produced a nearly 3000 page long document trying to interpret V2 and religious liberty in the light of tradition and by 1995 the prior celebrated the new mass. Campos is another infamous example, the list goes on. Doctrine NOT canonical structure is the big issue. Thus I am a moderate on canonical structure, but strict on the doctrinal preamble.

h) 'provincial interests' Uh what? I have countless TLM's in london, so my provincial interest is about nil. I dispute that latin america is the future, its a dilipidated and failing church, I would point to Africa and Asia as the future, but really thats irrelevant. This all boils down to your refusal to accept what Bishop Fellay says on appeals to Rome. You, who don't see a problem in someone celebrating the NO mass (as you said about Bp Rifan), know better and act more in the interests of the society than its superior general of 18 years and bishop for much longer... Jog on.

i) as for C, uh no, its not speculative, its called doing ones research. They'd leave, don't you worry about it.

j)Do you even attend SSPX masses? go to them for confessions? Do you actually have a horse in this race?

JMJ Ora Pro Nobis said...

that should read 'anti modernist preaching...'

As I've said about 50000000000000000000000 times now PKTP, the personal prelature will not be like the ones Opus dei has. At the very least it will have to be changed to allow all the religious orders and congregations in it, this could NOT happen with Opus Dei. They will also have ordinary jurisdiction and not accumulative etc... So most of the disadvantages of a prelature would be removed, most of its advantages i.e flexible and detailed particular law, only answering to rome etc.. would remain.

But what use all this talk of an international diocse (as you've now changed your tune and decided campos wasn't enough), IT ISNT GETTING ONE, PERIOD! They're getting a modified personal prelature, so stop pining over your non existent international diocese. If they get some sort of mythical diocese thingy, then I won't complain, but its beyond unlikely, its in fact more likely 'Rome will convert' as the hardliners demand and then we'll all be happy.

P.K.T.P. said...

J.M.J.

You just don't get it. As both Bishop Fellay and Fr. Schmidberger have said, the structure is negotiable and will not be decided until the matter of recognition is finished. You don't seem to understand the distinction between a proposal and a conferral. The C.D.F. has only proposed a p.p. What will be conferred is not known by you or by me. It is arrogant for you to say that they will get this or that. You don't know what they will get.

Your point about Opus Dei fails entirely to take into account how the Church actually works. Rome might waive a restriction here or there to make a small change but it would be wildly out of character for Rome to make major changes both to Canon 294 and 297 just to suit you.

The problem with your analysis is that you will not pay any attention to the information others go to the trouble to furnish here. Is it pride?

Rome does not twist structures to the point of violating their established forms or definitions. She could do so but this is not her practice. In 1912, Pope St. Pius X created a new structure, the territorial ordinariate, and there are eight of them today. In 1986, John Paul II created the military ordinariate. There are about forty of them (I'm guessing) today. In 2009, Benedict XVI created the personal ordinariate. There are three of them today. In 1851, Bl. Pope Pius IX created a special priory nullius for the four chivalric orders of Spain: it exempted them from the local bishops. It survived until 1980. There are today about a dozen abbacies nullius, most of them in Italy, two in Switzerland. In 2002, John Paul II created the 'ritual' Apostolic Administration under Section 2 of Canon 372. He did this, J.M.J. because it fitted the situation. There is only one of them but it set a precedent. It was conferred because it fitted. How many times do I have to repeat that fact?

I haven't changed my tune on Campos. John Paul II decided to restrict it but the Code only made room for this; it did not require it. So the Campos structure could work too. I have retracted my recent statement that it would be all right if Bishop Fellay only had to inform the local bishop. More on that in my next posting.

Levada has made his proposal. It is designed to sink the S.S.P.X. You have decided that the game is up before the ball is in play. Others realise that the deal is not sealed until the parties have signed on the dotted line. When a company, in bargaining, makes an offer to a trades union, we don't consider that to be a settlement. That's why there's something called 'negotiation' between the two.

P.K.T.P.

P.K.T.P. said...

J.M.J.

I wonder whether or not to trust a single thing you write. For example, you claim that the S.S.P.X informs the local bishop every time it establishes an apostolate in his see. This is blatantly false. In fact, in several cases, the S.S.P.X had to buy a chapel through a third party because the local bishop went out of his way to stop them from coming in.

You want to talk doctrine. That would be appropriate, since then you really wouldn't know what you were talking about. We can't talk doctrine on this matter because we don't have copies of what Bishop Fellay has signed. Oh, let me guess, you have a secret copy.

Appeals to Rome? You must be joking. Are you completely out of the loop? Do you know how many petitions are currently outstanding for Latin Masses under "Summorum Pontificum". They are all before the P.C.E.D. and the P.C.E.D. has done almost NOTHING about them since 2008. That's four years and counting, almost as long as the Sons of the Holy Redeemer have waited for a canonical structure.

You just don't think rationally. Look, to have a practical and workable canonical arrangement, the bishop in charge must have the means to administer his church efficiently. He needs to send his men to where they are needed without endless discussions ensuing, like a Vatican II thinktank that talk-talk-talks forever and never resolves a thing. And, no, you can't just 'move in' if a clause in an apostolic constitution requires prior consultations. Nice try! You claim to be a S.S.P.X supporter. I wonder about that.

What you have to say about other structures failing is completely nonsensical. As far as I know, apart from the Campos, which works perfectly well, the others never asked for canonical protection in the first place. The F.S.S.P and I.C.R. never asked for it; nor did the I.B.P. The monks at Le Barroux never asked for an abbacy nullius, which they could have done. You don't know what you are blathering about.

P.K.T.P.

Joaquín said...

Bishop Bargalló has spoken:

He admits that the pictures are real, and that he is the one in those pictures. He said, however, that the girl who appears in those pictures is a very close friend of him, and that he knows this girl since they were kinds...

It was an act of imprudence, according to him, to have done such thing...

More here (in spanish):
http://youtu.be/dAUW5rbCWZg

JMJ Ora Pro Nobis said...

PKTP, your first post consists of an extremely long ad hominem and other random points, which are all very interesting but rather beside the point. A Personal Prelature is acceptable, even with modifications. You still have not addressed what Bishop Fellay has said, but instead drone on and on like a broken record player about the same things. Your comments are also rather ironic 'it would be wildly out of character...' yes and granting a universal diocese wouldn't eh? No, that would be totally normal, happens ALL the time, in fact they set one up just last week....

Your second post consists of another long ad hominem, mixed in with a fair amount of 'I the great PKTP...' You can't really engage in civil conversation can you? It is beyond stupid to claim that Le Barroux making an agreemnt only with the clause that they would be able to continue as before, not be silence etc.. is not 'a canonical protection' it may not be a canonical structure, but it is an agreement. I didnt even mention the IBP so you pulled that out of nowhere, and Campos, well oh dear. You just can't deal with that with you? The problem is you are obssessed with Canonical structure and Campos, its not even a mental obsession either, I'd venture its a spiritual one too. Campos is the classic case of canonical protections counting for very little, the cases of this are legion in the Church. And no matter how loudly you protest otherwise, it remains a fact that canonical protection in and of itself is largely ineffective.

Your comment vis a vis appeals to Rome reinforces my comments about your obsession problem. I say A, someone else says B, +Fellay says C, you on the other hand ignore everything and keep repeating ad absurdam D, over and over and over and over again. I do not know why you wasted your time complaining about appeals to eclessia dei. +Fellay has said any appeals from us would be dealt with differently. Do you call him a liar or an idiot?

Oh now I'm not a 'real supporter', oh please grow up PKTP you are not only getting tiresome, you are degenerating into childish nonsense. None of what you have said disproves that the SSPX tell a bishop they are in a diocese or coming to it, perhaps mine is an isolated case, but I doubt it.

Moi? A plant? Sorry I just fell off the chair in laughter, it appears you've degenerated into coming up with paranoid delusions. Who are you then? Should we take your name and address so we can check whether you're an sspxer? Whats the name of your sspx priest, I wanna call him, who knows MAYBE YOU'RE A PLANT!

Grow up PKTP, it seems that unable to deal with my argument you have to resort to ridicuous ad hominems. If you think I am bothering my SSPX affiliated or the prior at St Georges or edinburgh so that some nut can see whether I'm real or not, you are having a laugh. What do you want me to upload my SSPX parishioners certificate? I will pray for you, you are in need of such prayers.

JMJ Ora Pro Nobis said...

@Joaquin, well I will take the good bishops explanation then, unless we hear more it would be wrong to presume otherwise. Glad H.E realises it was imprudent

Adfero said...

Let's keep this discussion to His Excellency and his concubine

WMG said...

You can almost feel sorry for the poor bishop. He is just another unsuspecting, hapless victim of Asmodeus.

We are a Church without a mission. We hold endless conferences on "caritas"; meanwhile, we neglect the primary and most fundamental charity.

If we persist in sowing mediocrity (a la NFP), we will continue to reap corruption.

St. Raphael, pray for us.

Picard said...

Wow, great battle between PKTP and JMJ ;-)

To both: As I posted before, perhaps a p.p. is much worse even PKTP claimed so far.

Because, as reportet, the German bishops seem to plan to throw out all sspx of every German diocese should the sspx be errected as a p.p.

As it seems to me, under a p.p. they could do so in not recognizing them resp. not allowing them in their dioceses, in not giving consent to their work from beginning on!

P.K.T.P. said...

J.M.J.

Regarding your first paragraph, the point is quite the opposite from what you allege. Even Vatican II recommends the possibiltiy of "personal dioceses" (¶2, No. 10, Section 3, "Presbyterorum Ordinis"). This provison was then ratified by Paul VI, of all people, in 1966, in "Ecclesiæ Sanctæ". John Paul II made provision for it in §2 of Canon 372 of the 1983 Code of Canons and then actually applied it in 2002 in Brazil. So a precedent has been set, so it would be "totally normal", to use your excited expression. Section 2, by referring to "episcopal conferences", in the plural number, clearly makes it possible for the provision to be internationa. You have never denied this because you cannot deny it.

Your point about Le Barroux seems garbled. You merely claim that they have been illegally silenced. Is that a finding of the P.C.L.T.? No, it is nothing more than your opinion. Obviously, the most robust canonical protection possible will make the Society position strongest. In contrast, you think that it would be acceptable to make the S.S.P.X submit to a bureaucratic process every time it wants to implant a new apostolate in the territory of a diocese. That is absurd. You want us to trust a process of review done at Rome when the same body that has been charged with implementing "Summorum Pontificum" has done almost nothing to enable the petitions of the faithful. What we need, J.M.J., is not a bureaucratic process designed to slow down the S.S.P.X. Even to inform many of these bishops of a coming Society apostolate would only give them the time and opportunity they need to use their financial and social standing to frustrate and thwart the Society. Is this a good thing?

I am completely perplexed by your criticism of the Campos Apostolic Administration. It works perfectly well in the tiny territory to which it has been restriced. It was the decision of the Pope to confine it to that area, but he will not do that for a S.S.P.X that has apostolates in every corner of the earth. There is absolutely nothing in law that required Bishop Rifan to say the New Mass two or three times: he freely chose to do that so as to gain some ministry for his priests outside their territory. Irrelevant. What counts is the legal precedent that has been set.

You forget that the Society, in the past, has often had to buy churches through third parties (e.g. friendly Baptist ministers) because this is the only way to acquire a Catholic church in a hostile diocese. Faithful who are attached to the T.L.M. have a right to that attachment, according to John Paul II in "Ecclesia Dei". So they should have a right to be served without obstruction from the local bishops; a fortiori, they should have their own diocesan bishop, a personal bishop in what amounts to a personal diocese.

I question your loyalty to the movement because a real supporter of the Society would want it to have a free hand to serve faithful traditionalists. There is a structure, the universal personal diocese, which is sitting there in the Code just waiting to be used. Instead, you want to hobble the Society by making it a prey to its worst enemies. So I ask a fair queston: who are you? I have always been honest about my identity. I am Peter Karl T. Perkins, the M.C. at the diocesan-approved T.L.M. in Victoria, B.C. I have never supported the S.S.P.X but have always been a strong sympathiser, and I see this endeavour of the Holy Father as a means of advancing the ancient Latin Mass to the benefit of everyone in the Church, even the liberals. Now please put your own cards on the table. Also, are you new to this? I've been involved for some time, since the 1980s.

P.K.T.P.

JMJ Ora Pro Nobis said...

PKTP you are engaging in sophisms, it would not be normal, run of the mill, usual etc... It would be extraordinary, just because something is allowed by Canon law does not make it anymore unusual. It would be no more unusual for the pope to massively modify the PP than it would for him to create an international diocese for the SSPX.

It may well be that there are some weird rules in the states, but in Aberdeen at least the priest told the bishop, much to his ire one suspects.

If you are perplexed it is because you wish to be, canonical protection, which is what all your obsession about Campos, an international diocese etc... Is about has not and never will be enough. It is only part of the picture, the point is that all the groups that have reconciled with Rome have made unacceptable compromises, no matter their canonical structure or other protections. Therefore the SSPX must have more than an ideal structure and if this something else is sorted and it gets a 'worse' deal canonicaly that would be a better situation than Campos.
Your conclusion vis a vis john Paul II and eclessia dei, does not follow, not even remotely so there is little need to refute it.

Your loyalty questioning is idiotic, I like Bishop Fellay accept that to compromise on things that are not essential is not a stumbling block. Bishop Fellay clearly states that the SSPX would have real independence for its missions and yet that it would be a PP, you are thus wrong. For opening new ones it may well be that we would need to ask permission, Bishop Fellay again answers that dubium.

As for who I am or how long I've been involved both are quite irrelevant and blatant ad hominems. Suffice to say I attend an SSPX parish, help out in a mission of its and intend to spend quite a few weeks with the Dominicans in avrille, questioning my loyalty is therefore not only foolish but insulting. It boils down to a smear attempt on any and all who disagree with you.

JMJ Ora Pro Nobis said...

@Picard, that is what canon 297 would need to modified or clarified. So far as I can see the bishops can't boot out opus dei once its in, the canon merely presupposes permission, still there's nothing indicating the bishops would have to recognise existing works. Regardless +Fellay has assured us existing works will stay as they are, so we have nothing to fear.

JMJ Ora Pro Nobis said...

As it seems my earlier comments have been lost, what I will say PKTP is that I trust Bishop Fellay and I will wait and pray. PP would not be the end of the world, if modified, even if it would not necessarily be ideal.

And we know all existing chapels will be safeguarded so we have no need to worry about that.

Now I won't be making any further comments about PP's etc.. unless the post actually involves it.

JMJ Ora Pro Nobis said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Francisco said...

PLEASE SOMEBODY IN ROME TAKE CARE OF US IN ARGENTINA!! WE ARE ALSO CATHOLIC!! WE ALSO SUFFER!! PLEASE SEND US GOOD BISHOPS!!

Picard said...

JMJ"So far as I can see the bishops can't boot out opus dei once its in, the canon merely presupposes permission, still there's nothing indicating the bishops would have to recognise existing works."

- But that is exactly the problem:
legally the works of the sspx are all illegal, they do not exist legally. The must first be approved.

Well, I know the Pope can do nearly everything, but it is a real problem with that p.p.

Anonymous said...

Bargalló answers:

1. I am not the one on the photos.

2. Well, its me... but she is a childhood friend, and this is orquestated by some political enemy.

3. Well, really, I've an affair with her.

JMJ Ora Pro Nobis said...

You misunderstand Picard, Canon 297 is ambigous on this matter, it does not allow for bishops to boot out unauthorised works etc.. that is why it must be clarified. Regardless +Fellay has said all existing works will remain, so I'm sure this will be sorted out. Let us just pray, do penance and submit to Gods will.

JMJ Ora Pro Nobis said...

In reference to what was said earlier about Opus Dei see this from their 1950 statutes (any parts of which that are not revoked by their 1982 statutes remain in force) 'When members constitute a subordinate Center, this does not require the consent of the local Ordinary; they can live materially common family life only, not juridical family live, and they are able to freely exercise the apostolate proper of members of the Institute, not corporately, but in an individual and personal manner unless the permission of the local Ordinary is given to carry out apostolate otherwise'

Modified, this could easily allow the SSPX to expand in dioceses where they are refused to permission to do so, provided either that this is either said explicitly or is couched in ambigous enough terms. After all what can do the priests do if lay people just 'happen' to find out and attend their 'private' masses? It certainly wouldn't be as bad as the hotel rooms etc.. we sometimes use now. Where there is a will, there is a way.

Gratias said...

Bishop Bargalló's resignation was accepted by the Holy Father. Hopefully his successor will allow a Latin Mass in the greater Buenos Aires region, where it is currently forbidden.