Catholics vs the SSPX

[GerardP]

I’d ask why while asking for one of the Swiss Guards issue machine pistols. But then, the Pope is my liege-lord, as well as head of the church. And I’d ask for the order in writing, signed and sealed.

And if the Pope refuses to answer you?

Plus, there is a difference between the common translation of the commandment and a proper exigesis of the greek and hebrew… it’s a prohibition on murder.

Not all killing of humans is murder.

Yes. I agree with you, just as obedience doesn’t mean servility.
Unfortunately you are missing the point of the question I asked.

 

[GerardP]

The question demonstrates the problem with your position. The underlying assumption behind this is that shooting someone is always a sin against the 5th Commandment.

I don’t think you’ve followed this thread. I’m saying that the Pope can give you an order to shoot someone. How do you distinguish between an order to kill for a valid reason or an order to murder as a sin?

It implicitly denies the role of authoratative interpretation of the 5th Commandent.

No. The analogy was presented to demonstrate the need for discernment in order to give true obedience in the service of God vs. false obedience which is sinful.

In 1095 the Pope did tell people to shoot someone. He interpretated the 5th Commandment to permit killing under the circumstances. We call this the Crusades.

That’s great but tangential. A Deacon was ordered to provide answers for the corpse of Pope Formosus. Was that Deacon morally obligated to obey Pope Stephen for his heinous request?

 

[GerardP]

I didn’t answer because it is a ridiculous question with an obvious answer.

It’s that obvious answer which provides the fallacy in your position.

It also has no bearing. If the Holy Father asked me to commit a mortal sin, I would not.

Why not?

This, however has nothing to do with the Holy Father saying to do something which does not violate the Ten Commandments.

Are you sure? LeFebvre very rightly argued that the Assisi scandal was a huge sin against the first commandment. The more Pope Benedict does to resolve the crisis, the more apparent it becomes that JPII and Paul VI were not interested in preserving and protecting the Church. LeFebvre was correct.

Being ordered to kill is not the same as being ordered not to ordain bishops unless one has reallllyyyy big ego and inflated sense of one’s place .

Just as being ordered to kill would depend on the circumstances. Being ordered not to consecrate bishops would depend as well. LeFebvre was interested in the salvation of souls and defending the Church. What was JPII"s reason for asking him, (he never actually ordered him) not to consecrate the bishops?

 

[Sure]

Gerard,

A couple of quick points:

1. The SSPX has set up a parallel structure opposed to Rome. They grant annulmenst despite not having the aurthority to do so. In effect, usurping the authority of Rome.
2. Your entire argument hinges upon the moral option to make a personal judgement that overrules the competant authorities in Rome and the Supreme Legislator. Even when those authorities have examined the issue and given a ruling. The problem with your position is that it can then be used by anyone at any time to claim that they are justified in refusing to obey the laws of the Church. If you want to live that way, good luck, but don’t be surprised when other groups apply the same logic.

Pope Pius XII said it best:

“[T]he pastors and the faithful of whatever rite and dignity, both individually and collectively, are bound by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, not only in matters which pertain to faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the Church spread throughout the whole world, in such a way that once the unity of communion and the profession of the same Faith has been preserved with the Roman Pontiff, there is one flock of the Church of Christ under one supreme shepherd. This is the teaching of the Catholic truth from which no one can depart without loss of faith and salvation…no one can lawfully confer episcopal consecration unless he has received the mandate of the Apostolic See.”

 

[pnewton]

Are you sure? LeFebvre very rightly argued that the Assisi scandal was a huge sin against the first commandment. The more Pope Benedict does to resolve the crisis, the more apparent it becomes that JPII and Paul VI were not interested in preserving and protecting the Church. LeFebvre was correct.

This would only be a valid comparison if LeFebrve was ordered to participate in idolatry, not refrain from consecrating bishops. JPII did preserve the Church, evidenced by the fact that we are in fact here. I notice you are posting here with us and we are not posting on an SSPX site. Still needing to find converts amoung the faithful? The Church is still alive. LeFebrve’s opinion of JPII’s motive and ability have been proven to be ill-founded, as is yours.

 

[bear06]

I’m not admitting anything. I’m stating what the SSPX states. They have supplied jurisdiction.

So, in other words, you are saying that they have supplied jurisdiction when the Church has clarified that they do not (save in danger of death). How do you figure that supplied jurisdiction is needed in any other case than death? Are you saying that someone can’t reach a non-suspended priest for confession, marriage or annullments? Sorry, in the cases of marriages and confessions, the Church has spoken. They do not have supplied jurisdiction and for them or you to say otherwise is usurping authority that you do no have.

Sure it does. There are multiple articles on the SSPX sites to explain this.

 

[GerardP]

Gerard,

A couple of quick points:

1. The SSPX has set up a parallel structure opposed to Rome. They grant annulmenst despite not having the aurthority to do so. In effect, usurping the authority of Rome.

1. Your entire argument hinges upon the moral option to make a personal judgement that overrules the competant authorities in Rome and the Supreme Legislator.

My argument is based on right reason and the magisterial teaching of the Church. The Church does not teach blind obedience or servility.

Even when those authorities have examined the issue and given a ruling.

Yes. And when the ruling provides further proof of the initial problem, that doesn’t remove the moral obigation to resist error.

The problem with your position is that it can then be used by anyone at any time to claim that they are justified in refusing to obey the laws of the Church.

Turn that around. Your position can be used by tyrannical leaders to turn obedience to Church leaders into disobedience to God.

You don’t acknowledge a moral rule that actually binds and emcompasses the heirarchy as well as the common folk.

If you want to live that way, good luck, but don’t be surprised when other groups apply the same logic.

It depends on the circumstances of the application. Some will use right reason and moral arguments others will use it as an excuse. Just as Church men will use obligations for obedience for unworthy purposes.

Pope Pius XII said it best:

You’ll notice that Pius XII said “true” obedience.

I don’t understand the blind spot that many conservatives have regarding this aspect of Catholic teaching.

 

[GerardP]

This would only be a valid comparison if LeFebrve was ordered to participate in idolatry, not refrain from consecrating bishops.

Again, you avoid the real question. Which is why when theological dissent and liturgical abuse would JPII and Paul VI insistently abuse papal authority to beat down the most celebrated missionary bishop of the 20th century for not participating in the “auto-demolition” of the Church?

The order to refrain was essentially an order to stop defending the Church. No Pope can morally or legitimately make such an order.

JPII did preserve the Church, evidenced by the fact that we are in fact here.

What makes you think that has anything to do with JPII? Christ didn’t promise that the Pope would be the instrument for the indefectibility of the Church. If anything the Church survived despite JPII’s bad governance.

I notice you are posting here with us and we are not posting on an SSPX site.

What site are you referring to?

Still needing to find converts amoung the faithful?

Nope. Just clearing up misconceptions among confused Catholics who don’t know enough about their faith or the real issues at stake in the Church.

The Church is still alive. LeFebrve’s opinion of JPII’s motive and ability have been proven to be ill-founded, as is yours.

There is a better case for rebuking the actions of the late Pope than there is the for reactions of LeFebvre. Had the Pope done his job, God would not have had to raise the archbishop from retirement to preserve His Church.

I think we can both agree though that there is a good reason for hope with Pope Benedict’s actions. Pray, pray, pray!

 

[cam100]

I’m saying that the Pope can give you an order to shoot someone. How do you distinguish between an order to kill for a valid reason or an order to murder as a sin?

This would partly depend on the role of the Pope in giving the order to shoot someone. If he was speaking to me privately, and I had reason to believe that the shooting was not justified, I would resist.

If, however, the Pope was speaking as the head of the Church and declared to the world that the 5th commandment was to be interpreted to permit or require the shooting in a particular situation, I would comply. I would be even more inclined to comply if Catholic writers had illustrated how the Pope’s logic could be supported by scripture and tradition.

Why? Because the Pope’s authority to interpret scripture and tradition is much greater than mine. Even when not speaking infallibly, the official declarations of the Pope hold much more authority than my own interpretations.

A Deacon was ordered to provide answers for the corpse of Pope Formosus. Was that Deacon morally obligated to obey Pope Stephen for his heinous request?

You like to bring up this example, and I’ve addressed it before. Since I know very little about the orders given by Pope Stephen and how they were perceived by the deacon, I can’t very well make a judgement. To make your point, it would be better for you to speak in terms of principles or well-documented examples.

 

[Sure]

You’ll notice that Pius XII said “true” obedience.

I don’t understand the blind spot that many conservatives have regarding this aspect of Catholic teaching.

There is no moral evil in “not consecrating” bishops. It is not an act of true obedience in any way.

 

[pnewton]

Had the Pope done his job, God would not have had to raise the archbishop from retirement to preserve His Church.

So God is responsible? Wouldn’t it been more logical to make the man pope? I know that the Cardinals that elect the Holy Father all have free will, but to assume that most fight against the Holy Spirit is pessimistic. The simpler solution to the conflict ist there was only one man who acted counter to the Holy Spirit out of ego. Occams Razor.

 

[pnewton]

What makes you think that has anything to do with JPII? Christ didn’t promise that the Pope would be the instrument for the indefectibility of the Church. If anything the Church survived despite JPII’s bad governance.

Talk about opinions not based in fact! Somehow the Church seems to doing fine, no thanks to whose who like rats who jumping ship pull a Maritn Luther and leave rather than continuing the struggle. Maybe that’s the difference between acting out of conviction and acting out of pride.

 

[GerardP]

There is no moral evil in “not consecrating” bishops. It is not an act of true obedience in any way.

That’s incorrect. Having the power to do a good and withholding that power in order to not prevent evil is cooperating in that evil.

It’s called being an accessory to another’s sin.

There are nine forms of it.

1. By counsel.
2. By command.
3. By consent.
4. By provocation.
5. By praise or flattery.
6. By concealment.
7. By partaking.
8. By silence.
9. By defense of the ill done.

 

[GerardP]

So God is responsible? Wouldn’t it been more logical to make the man pope?

That could be why Cardinal Siri was rumored to have been elected so many times. He was obviously the better man. It’s a shame he refused.

But God doesn’t make men Popes. His permissive will allows men to be Popes. That’s why we only have 3 men who have been canonized in the last 1000 years.

I know that the Cardinals that elect the Holy Father all have free will, but to assume that most fight against the Holy Spirit is pessimistic.

The Holy Ghost doesn’t force Himself on anyone. That’s why He’s been revealed in the form of a dove. They are not persistent in sticking around. You can shew them away very easily.

The simpler solution to the conflict ist there was only one man who acted counter to the Holy Spirit out of ego. Occams Razor.

Unfortunately, the conflict wasn’t that simple. The simple solution was for JPII to let LeFebvre produce good, strong traditional priests. He let liberals have there way with the Church for his entire reign. What was so dangerous about priests who teach and live according to the old ways?

We should compare who was “acting counter to the Holy Ghost” by asking if kissing the Koran, allowing liturgical and doctrinal abuse, promoting indifferentism and syncretism and whole litany of other tragic occurances was the will of the Holy Ghost.

 

[GerardP]

Talk about opinions not based in fact! Somehow the Church seems to doing fine, no thanks to whose who like rats who jumping ship pull a Maritn Luther and leave rather than continuing the struggle. Maybe that’s the difference between acting out of conviction and acting out of pride.

The Church is doing fine? If that were true, you wouldn’t be sayin that there was “a struggle.” It was only in the last year or two of JPII’s reign where he admitted the plainly obvious existence of what he called “the silent apostasy.”

It cracks me up that you make the Luther comparison as well when JPII ran around commenting on how wonderful Luther was.

LeFebvre never left the Church, no one reasonable who actually reads his writings and studies the case can come to that conclusion.

JPII might as well have accused him of being 9 feet tall, Chinese instead of French and having been the King of Ireland in the 1950’s.

 

[GerardP]

This would partly depend on the role of the Pope in giving the order to shoot someone. If he was speaking to me privately, and I had reason to believe that the shooting was not justified, I would resist.

If, however, the Pope was speaking as the head of the Church and declared to the world that the 5th commandment was to be interpreted to permit or require the shooting in a particular situation, I would comply. I would be even more inclined to comply if Catholic writers had illustrated how the Pope’s logic could be supported by scripture and tradition.

Let’s say that none of that happens. He doesn’t qualify it. He just tells you what to do. You certainly aren’t capable of forcing the Pope to jump through your hoops to justify his orders.

Why? Because the Pope’s authority to interpret scripture and tradition is much greater than mine. Even when not speaking infallibly, the official declarations of the Pope hold much more authority than my own interpretations.

But what do you do when he’s obviously wrong?

You like to bring up this example, and I’ve addressed it before. Since I know very little about the orders given by Pope Stephen and how they were perceived by the deacon, I can’t very well make a judgement.

Can you think of a scenario where providing answers on behalf of a corpse in an obvious sham trial is morally good?

To make your point, it would be better for you to speak in terms of principles or well-documented examples.

Fine. At what point is the Pope irresistible? Remember, anything you draw that line in front of is resistible and anything you draw that line behind is irresistible.

 

[GerardP]

So, in other words, you are saying that they have supplied jurisdiction when the Church has clarified that they do not (save in danger of death).

I don’t know of any statement from the Holy See declaring that the SSPX is wrong on this. Also why would it be permissible to attend an SSPX chapel otherwise? Marriages in SSPX chapels have been instructed to be accepted and recorded by the dioceses when submitted I believe as well.

How do you figure that supplied jurisdiction is needed in any other case than death?

Practical necessity and spiritual benefit.

Are you saying that someone can’t reach a non-suspended priest for confession, marriage or annullments?

I have yet to meet a priest who is not a “traditionalist” who isn’t messed up in some way. Either pastorally or theologically.

Sorry, in the cases of marriages and confessions, the Church has spoken. They do not have supplied jurisdiction and for them or you to say otherwise is usurping authority that you do no have.

I think you are the usurping authority here. You aren’t qualified to rule on the application of Canon law in judgement of the SSPX.
Even the SSPX appeals to the Holy See for validation of their positions. The fact that the Holy See hasn’t specifically ruled on these cases is indicative of it’s not being so clear cut.

Again, they are usurping authority that they don’t have.

No. They are acting out of necessity.

How is this any different than a protestant?

All Protestants are heretics. SSPX are not.

The Church has spoken and they reject it - plain and simple.

The Church hasn’t said anything plain and simple in 40 years except for JPII’s declaration of the impossibility of women being ordained.

Just because they insist that they have jurisdiction doesn’t mean they do.

They don’t insist they have jurisdiction. They only have supplied jurisdiction because of the requests of the faithful.

The SSPX has been supressed since 1975.

Why was that? Because they believed in the bodily resurrection of Christ?

They do not have jurisdiction for marriages, annullments or confessions (save for death on this one).

I disagree. Where is the error in their argument on this? I’d be really curious to see where you think they are in error.

 

[GerardP]

We’ve been throught his before. If you simply reduce the teachings you don’t like to “policies” then you can have any Church you want.

And if you pretend that teachings can be “developed” till they don’t mean the same thing, you can finesse the meaning into anything you want.

The teachings on the extent and nature of Christ’s atonement are not “policies.”

Ecumenism is a bad policy. It’s not a teaching.

This is from the “Dogmatic Constitution on the Church” - Lumen Gentium:

Okay. Let’s look at it.

Quote:
16. Finally, those who have not yet received the Gospel are related in various ways to the people of God

.

What does “related in various ways” mean? Heretics, infidels, pagans, schismatics are all “relationships.”

(18*) In the first place we must recall the people to whom the testament and the promises were given and from whom Christ was born according to the flesh.(125) On account of their fathers this people remains most dear to God, for God does not repent of the gifts He makes nor of the calls He issues

.

Yes. He’s calling them to convert to Catholicism.

(126); But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator.

The “plan.” As if it hasn’t been revealed. The “plan” is: become a Catholic. But non-Catholics (and most Catholics wouldn’t catch that)

In the first place amongst these there are the Mohamedans, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind.

Do they believe that God is Jesus? No. Is there any other name that will save them? No. Notice also, they** “profess”** to hold the faith of Abraham. Do they? No. The document doesn’t tell us that their profession is correct.

Nor is God far distant from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God, for it is He who gives to all men life and breath and all things,

That doesn’t mean they are saved or that they even exist.

(127) and as Saviour wills that all men be saved.

Wills, not guarantees. He also wills that all be converted to His Church.

(128) Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.(19*)

“attain to salvation” Yeah. When they become Catholic or those who don’t have the capacity to know the faith are Baptized as Catholics.

Nor does Divine Providence deny **the helps necessary for salvation *to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life. Whatever good or truth is found amongst them is looked upon by the Church as a preparation for the Gospel.(20)

Preparation to become Catholic. All are given sufficient grace.

She knows that it is given by Him who enlightens all men so that they may finally have life. But often men, deceived by the Evil One, have become vain in their reasonings and have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, serving the creature rather than the Creator.(129)

That’s not salvific.

Or some there are who, living and dying in this world without God, are exposed to final despair.

That doesn’t save either.

Wherefore to promote the glory of God and procure the salvation of all of these, and mindful of the command of the Lord, “Preach the Gospel to every creature”,(130) the Church fosters the missions with care and attention.

For what purpose? To convert to Catholicism! The only means of salvation. The rest of “the helps” are secondary means to salvation as a Catholic.

I know you will say that the despite being called “Dogmatic” and despite being approved by an Ecumenical Council (on a vote of 2,151 to 5 or 99.8%) you will say this is neither dogmatic or the teachings of the Church.

No. It is simply a badly worded, half baked expression of Catholic Doctrine. With a lot of language in it that can be used by liberals to teach an incorrect understanding of the faith, promote indifferentism and syncretism.

It undefines more than it defines.

 

[GerardP]

But the Pope calls this teaching authoritative, and refers to the VII documents as the proper compass to approach the third millenium. You can continue to pretend that this is not the teaching of the Church, but that won’t make it true

.

What does he mean by “authoritative”? It just means it’s legal.

It doesn’t mean it’s better than pre-conciliar formulations and it doesn’t say it’s not worse.

Anyway, that’s a prudential judgement by the Pope. Who gives a rat’s tail about “the Millenium” anyway? That’s an arbitrary calendar reference not a doctrinal or moral reference.

And “compass” is analagous to “policy” as well.

 

[cam100]

cam100;3021335:

… Because the Pope’s authority to interpret scripture and tradition is much greater than mine. Even when not speaking infallibly, the official declarations of the Pope hold much more authority than my own interpretations.

But what do you do when he’s obviously wrong?

I think your question illustrates a key point. The fact is, I might THINK the Pope is “obviously” wrong, but how would I KNOW? Many people have THOUGHT the Pope was was “obviously” wrong. But “obvious” is a subjective quality and disobedience of a magestarial teaching would place the burden of proof on the dissenter. At the time of the First Vatican Council, there were people who thought the Pope was “obviously” wrong. Some submitted in obedience and professed to believe the declarations of the Pope even though they didn’t understand. Others claimed to follow their “conscience” and resist the “innovations”, as they called them. They were became known as the Old Catholics because they claimed to be preserving the “old” (or traditional) Catholic faith.

Fine. At what point is the Pope irresistible? Remember, anything you draw that line in front of is resistible and anything you draw that line behind is irresistible.

As I mentioned earlier, this would partly depend on the type of authority being invoked in a particular situation. There is not a single answer for all situations. We could discuss a particular sistuation about which ample infomation is available. There are also a number of principles involved. We could discuss individual principles, although a lot of this has already been discussed in this lengthy thread.