This is a good move on the bishop's part. He's continuing and even expanding the liturgies previously offered by the Transalpine Redemptorists, making clear that their sedevacantist ministry is by no means necessary (not that it would be even with no TLM, but still), and keeping the focus not on the liturgy, but on the real problem, which is their schismatic behavior and rejection of papal authority. As with the SSPX, I'm convinced that the primary issue with traditionalist splinter groups is not their liturgical attachments but their completely different and radical view of authority and ecclesiology, which is simply incompatible with orthodox Catholicism. Being Catholic doesn't mean you get to pick and choose doctrine, when to listen to the Pope, or who you think the Pope is. The cognitive dissonance required to think otherwise and still call yourself Catholic astounds me as much as, if not moreso, than the heterodox behavior of the German bishops.
While I 99% agree with you, I think the Church needs to be careful to not respond to SSPX et al. with ultramontanism. From my perspective, ultramontanism + questionable Vatican actions of the last 60 years is a fast track to splitting with the Church. On this front, I was encouraged by the Vatican's statement of faith for SSPX members to come back in that acknowledged elements of Vatican II are legitimately difficult to square with traditional Church teachings. I also liked how Magnifica Humanitas didn't lump the death penalty in with abortion. Because if we go down the road of accusing people of being Catholics for merely having the same opinion on the death penalty as every pope prior to Pope Francis, we're just needlessly dividing the church.
Agree 100% this is a wise and pastoral decision by the bishop. Even if no one takes him up on it "Woe is me if I do not preach the gospel".
I think you're being a bit simplistic on traditionalist splinter groups though. Ultimately you're right that it comes down to ecclesiology and at the very end to authority, but it often doesn't start there. A lot of people are attracted to the Good of the TLM. Most Catholics aren't all that intellectual - and that's perfectly fine actually. They experience their faith in a lived way and the intellectual stuff comes later or hardly at all. When the good is treated by those in authority as a bad, it can end up with people confusing the good and the bad.
At the end of the day, we all answer to God for ourselves, but those in authority will have to answer for how they led those placed in their care. Thus "Woe is me if I do not preach the gospel"
Yeah, there's a bit of a time dependency to it. If Catholics who are not intellectually inclined are left to find the TLM only among sedevacantists (as is probably the case in some areas) they are going to learn sedevacantist bumper sticker claims, alongside distrust of those who deny them the TLM and irrationally denigrate traditional practices. I suspect there are more people who would be most easily attracted by the rich devotional heritage of the Church, and transcendent worship, than by anything purely intellectual, and many leave (most often to Protestantism) because they do not get it.
St. Paul said he "became all things to all men, that he might save even a few." Obviously he wouldn't change the Gospel to trick someone into the Church, but what he could do within the integrity of the Faith, he did.
People do experience their faith in a lived way, but they also experience a lot of things in a lived way and have trouble distinguishing them. I suspect that Archbishop Lefebvre had trouble dissociating his extremely strong feelings about the French Revolution, and the course his country had taken, from his love of Christ, and really yearned for a Gallican 18th century church. I suspect a lot of SSPX members have similar political feelings that colour their approach to liturgy, in the same way that felt-banner boomers do.
We all have a duty to detach our feelings and lived experience from the actions of Christ in the liturgy. We need faith and reason and should pray that our pastors nurture both within us.
Since the juridical person was erected by the Bishop, does he have any right to depose the superior on consecration and elevate one of the two faithful priests mentioned in their place? If so, would they then have right to evict the new schismatics?
The bishop can suppress the organisation canonically but they did buy the island when with the Lefebvrists. Who the island is vested in I have no idea. No legal entity is registered at that address as far as I can see, and I doubt it was handed over to the diocese.
I've located the relevant charity. It has 1.6 million GBP in property. The island cost them 200k. One wonders what the other 1.4 million consists of...
Hopefully the three 'wayward' monks can form some sort of communal life on the mainland. The bishop seems sympathetic to their cause.
I noticed that the good bishop did not ask the Vatican for the expansion of the TLM in his diocese. Some bishops are using the excuse that they need permission to allow parishes to offer the TLM or to not restrict it, but I suspect Pope Leo XIV is taking a Pope John Paul II approach to this: the bishop can decide on his own what to do about TLM in his diocese.
Props to Bishop Gilbert for doing the right thing!
This is a good move on the bishop's part. He's continuing and even expanding the liturgies previously offered by the Transalpine Redemptorists, making clear that their sedevacantist ministry is by no means necessary (not that it would be even with no TLM, but still), and keeping the focus not on the liturgy, but on the real problem, which is their schismatic behavior and rejection of papal authority. As with the SSPX, I'm convinced that the primary issue with traditionalist splinter groups is not their liturgical attachments but their completely different and radical view of authority and ecclesiology, which is simply incompatible with orthodox Catholicism. Being Catholic doesn't mean you get to pick and choose doctrine, when to listen to the Pope, or who you think the Pope is. The cognitive dissonance required to think otherwise and still call yourself Catholic astounds me as much as, if not moreso, than the heterodox behavior of the German bishops.
While I 99% agree with you, I think the Church needs to be careful to not respond to SSPX et al. with ultramontanism. From my perspective, ultramontanism + questionable Vatican actions of the last 60 years is a fast track to splitting with the Church. On this front, I was encouraged by the Vatican's statement of faith for SSPX members to come back in that acknowledged elements of Vatican II are legitimately difficult to square with traditional Church teachings. I also liked how Magnifica Humanitas didn't lump the death penalty in with abortion. Because if we go down the road of accusing people of being Catholics for merely having the same opinion on the death penalty as every pope prior to Pope Francis, we're just needlessly dividing the church.
Agree 100% this is a wise and pastoral decision by the bishop. Even if no one takes him up on it "Woe is me if I do not preach the gospel".
I think you're being a bit simplistic on traditionalist splinter groups though. Ultimately you're right that it comes down to ecclesiology and at the very end to authority, but it often doesn't start there. A lot of people are attracted to the Good of the TLM. Most Catholics aren't all that intellectual - and that's perfectly fine actually. They experience their faith in a lived way and the intellectual stuff comes later or hardly at all. When the good is treated by those in authority as a bad, it can end up with people confusing the good and the bad.
At the end of the day, we all answer to God for ourselves, but those in authority will have to answer for how they led those placed in their care. Thus "Woe is me if I do not preach the gospel"
Yeah, there's a bit of a time dependency to it. If Catholics who are not intellectually inclined are left to find the TLM only among sedevacantists (as is probably the case in some areas) they are going to learn sedevacantist bumper sticker claims, alongside distrust of those who deny them the TLM and irrationally denigrate traditional practices. I suspect there are more people who would be most easily attracted by the rich devotional heritage of the Church, and transcendent worship, than by anything purely intellectual, and many leave (most often to Protestantism) because they do not get it.
St. Paul said he "became all things to all men, that he might save even a few." Obviously he wouldn't change the Gospel to trick someone into the Church, but what he could do within the integrity of the Faith, he did.
People do experience their faith in a lived way, but they also experience a lot of things in a lived way and have trouble distinguishing them. I suspect that Archbishop Lefebvre had trouble dissociating his extremely strong feelings about the French Revolution, and the course his country had taken, from his love of Christ, and really yearned for a Gallican 18th century church. I suspect a lot of SSPX members have similar political feelings that colour their approach to liturgy, in the same way that felt-banner boomers do.
We all have a duty to detach our feelings and lived experience from the actions of Christ in the liturgy. We need faith and reason and should pray that our pastors nurture both within us.
Seems like a sound pastoral response. Encouraging.
Since the juridical person was erected by the Bishop, does he have any right to depose the superior on consecration and elevate one of the two faithful priests mentioned in their place? If so, would they then have right to evict the new schismatics?
The bishop can suppress the organisation canonically but they did buy the island when with the Lefebvrists. Who the island is vested in I have no idea. No legal entity is registered at that address as far as I can see, and I doubt it was handed over to the diocese.
I've located the relevant charity. It has 1.6 million GBP in property. The island cost them 200k. One wonders what the other 1.4 million consists of...
Hopefully the three 'wayward' monks can form some sort of communal life on the mainland. The bishop seems sympathetic to their cause.
♫ This is how we do it ♫
Meanwhile, away from the Church fringes…
https://lettersfromleo.substack.com/p/never-be-normalized-us-bishops-rebuke-trumps-ice?r=wflz8&utm_medium=ios
I noticed that the good bishop did not ask the Vatican for the expansion of the TLM in his diocese. Some bishops are using the excuse that they need permission to allow parishes to offer the TLM or to not restrict it, but I suspect Pope Leo XIV is taking a Pope John Paul II approach to this: the bishop can decide on his own what to do about TLM in his diocese.