Saturday, April 28, 2007

Mr. Terence Fulham objects...

Mr. Terence Fulham, known by his followers as "Bishop" Fulham, has left a comment at this Blog objecting to my use of the word schismatic to describe him and his church which is located in Spring Hill, Florida. Mr. Fulham wrote in part: "The determination 'schismatic' is to be made by somebody in possession of canonical authority."

Mr. Fulham's understanding of Church teaching and Canon Law is, to put it charitably, less than adequate. In the words of Dr. Germain Grisez, Ph.D, one of the finest moral theologians of our time who serves as the Rev. Harry J. Flynn Professor of Christian Ethics at Mount Saint Mary's College in Emmitsburg, Maryland:

"A schismatic intentionally rebels against hierarchical authority which he or she knows to be legitimately exercised. Instead of acting obediently as parts of the one body, schismatic individuals and groups act as if they were autonomous wholes, independent of the whole which is the Catholic Church; they commit the sin of schism by carrying disobedience so far that they purposely separate themselves from the Church's unity, which is realized by the submission of Jesus' members to him and by their communion with one another. Since the pope is Jesus' vicar, Catholics who separate themselves from him divide themselves from Jesus and thus divide the Church. Schismatics refuse to be subject to the pope, either directly or by rejecting communion with those loyal to him. Thus, 'Schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him'*...While schismatics often are also heretics, it is possible to be in schism over matters of law and policy without rejecting any truth of faith."

* Canon 751 of the Code of Canon Law provides that a schismatic incurs automatic excommunication.

Dr. Grisez also notes that: "Among those who recently have been or appeared to be in schism" are the "Patriotic Association of Chinese Catholics, Marcel Lefebvre and his followers, the so-called Popular Church in Nicaragua, various groups (some reactionary and some revolutionary) which set themselves up as worshiping communities in defiance of their Bishops, and the many families and individuals who reject papal authority and leave the Church. John Paul II, Letter to the Bishops of Nicaragua, AAS 74 (1982) 1108-13, OR, 6 Sept. 1982, 6-7, points out that the so-called Popular Church leads to the autonomy of the basic communities from the Church's legitimate pastors and teachers."

As this article from the online encyclopedia Wikipedia makes clear: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terence_Fulham, Terence Fulham is still in an irregular situation (especially given his episcopal consecration).." The article also notes that Terence Fulham's episcopal consecration is "without a papal mandate" and that "He is a bishop consecrated by a converted bishop from the Carlos Duarte Costa line." And who was Carlos Duarte Costa? Another article at Wikipedia explains: "Most Reverend Carlos Duarte Costa (declared Saint Carlos of Brazil by the Brazilian Catholic Apostolic Church) (1888-1961) was a bishop of the Roman Catholic Church. After many years of struggle with Rome he was eventually excommunicated by Pope Pius XII, and went on to establish the Catholic Apostolic Church of Brazil."

There you have it. Terence Fulham is not a Bishop of the Roman Catholic Church. His episcopal consecration is without a papal mandate. He attempts to justify the schismatic act of his "episcopal consecration" by "appealing to the 'emergency and crisis situation' he says the Roman Catholic Church is in presently" (Wikipedia article).

His attitude is that of "Brother" Francis of the Saint Benedict Center, who wrote these words roughly two years ago:

"Since the death of Father Feeney, we have never had a cleric as a religious member of the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, circumstances in the Church [read their own disobedience to Church teaching and authority] making it virtually impossible to attain that goal. Regardless of this, it was the intention of our Founder to have priests in our First Order, and we have never abandoned that desire...Years of searching for priests to assist us have turned up no long-term solution.... The demands of serving our community call for a priest convinced of our position and goals. Otherwise, longevity is not likely. The most obvious question is how will it be done? We have long prayed for this goal, and sought to achieve it through proper canonical channels. Knowing how saturated the hierarchy is with modernism - from Rome on down - we have concluded that passage through these channels is impossible without compromising our Crusade. We are forced to take extraordinary measures to procure ordination. To be precise, we would be seeking ordination without dimissorial letters, the canonical permission granted by a diocesan bishop or other prelate for a man to be ordained. Is this action justified? In a word: Yes..."

Such an attitude is deeply disturbing. But comes as no great surprise. Disobedience to the Church is, for some, a way of life.

4 comments:

Stephen said...

Since this Bishop Carlos Costa was excommunicated from the Church by Pope Pius XII and went on to start his own "church," he had NO AUTHORITY WHATSOEVER to consecrate anyone to the Episcopate.

This Fulham is a fraud. He is a bishop only in his mind. Without a papal mandate, he is only a layman playing at being a bishop.

Carrie said...

Just like Andre Marie from Richmond, is playing at being a priest.

ROSANO said...

Mr. Fulham is a valid but illegally bishop.
He is schismatic but his consecration is valid because there is a catholic lineage. A heretic bishop is excommunicatec from the Church but he remains the power that was concede by the Church, but he has not authorization to do it.

sedevacantist priest said...

rosano

you search more on the lineage of this man. He is no a bishop because the person who allegedly consecration him is not a catholic ,he is an independent old catholic

Site Meter