How many SSPX followers would change churches?

[Sure]

Gerard P,

Wow. Sorry you’re in so deep. The fact remains that:

1. Canon law is binding on Catholics.
2. A motu proprio carries the force of Canon Law.
3. The Pope issued, as is his right, a Motu Proprio declaring the SSPX excommunicated/suspended. (Whether we think his reasoning or assessment was correct doesn’t really matter. It’s like when an umpire calls a strike - it’s a strike, even if you don’t think it is).
4. Since this Motu Proprio in no way contravenes Divine Law it must be followed. The SSPX is bound by this decision whether they agree with it or not.

That’s really all there is to say. Bringing up pedophiles and kissing korans and drunk father’s with car keys doesn’t change the issue.

EVEN if we all think he made an error in his judgement (I don’t think he did), he is still Pope and Canon Law still binds us. Period.

 

[Sure]

The highest law of the Church is the salvation of souls. Anything that was ever done by JPII with regards to the traditional teaching of the Church was done in reaction to the efforts of Marcel LeFebvre. Had JPII actually done something to clean things up, LeFebvre would never have been an issue.

JPII was unfortunately a very very inferior Pope despite the hoopla surrounding his personal charisma. He was not “Great” like Leo, Gregory and Nicholas and he left a wide swath of destruction that his successors will have to clean up.

Once again, none of what you wrote here is in any way related to the law of the Church or this discussion. It not relevant that you consider JPII to be “inferior”. Canon Law still binds all Catholics. The only way you can wiggle out is to say that he is not a valid Pope. If he is valid his motu proprio binds, if he is not, it does not. Your choice.

 

[GerardP]

**Sure wrote: **

Wow. Sorry you’re in so deep.

How is seeing things clearly being “in so deep”?

The fact remains that:

1. Canon law is binding on Catholics.

1. A motu proprio carries the force of Canon Law.

Canon law can be objectively wrong. It’s not infallible. It’s a perfectly rational system for normal times. It even addresses abnormal times. That doesn’t mean it’s perfect. There are times when lower laws have to be disobeyed for higher purposes. If your neighbors house is one fire and you are carrying a hose onto the lawn, you disobey the trespassing laws in order to save lives.
The law isn’t there to prevent your house from being saved from fire.

1. The Pope issued, as is his right, a Motu Proprio declaring the SSPX excommunicated/suspended. (Whether we think his reasoning or assessment was correct doesn’t really matter. It’s like when an umpire calls a strike - it’s a strike, even if you don’t think it is).

When the umpire calls “strike” and the ball has been hit by the batter and is sailing out of the ball park in an obvious home run. What do you call that?

1. Since this Motu Proprio in no way contravenes Divine Law it must be followed. The SSPX is bound by this decision whether they agree with it or not.

The Motu Proprio certainly does contravene Divine Law. The eighth commandment.

That’s really all there is to say. Bringing up pedophiles and kissing korans and drunk father’s with car keys doesn’t change the issue.

Then you need to find examples that provide consistent logic.
The issue is the truth. Nothing else. History, the facts and the constant teaching of the Church do not support your position for absolute obedience.

EVEN if we all think he made an error in his judgement (I don’t think he did), he is still Pope and Canon Law still binds us. Period.

That’s not the teaching of the Church. You are making a claim for papal irresistibility in all matters. You’re just falling to the opposite extreme of the liberals who think the Pope has no authority at all.

Vatican 1 demands “true” obedience. St. Thomas teaches exactly what “true” obedience is and contrasts it with “false” obedience.

Again, I’ll bring up the example of the trial of Pope Formosus. The Deacon that was forced by Pope Stephen to provide answers for the corpse of Formosus as it sat on trial had every right to refuse the orders of the Pope. (He didn’t as far as history tells us.) But the point remains, Popes can err gravely, abuse their authority and when their behavior has consequences to the salvation of souls, they are to be resisted.

Obedience to the highest law of the Church trumps the normal obedience to the Pope’s disciplinary regulations.

Turning the subordinate virtue of obedience into a law of absolute obedience is not Catholic.

Inventing a hyper-obedience and refusing to actually listen to the Church on these matters will not change the truth of it.

 

[Sure]

The Motu Proprio violated the 8th Commandment?

That’s a new one. So, are you claiming that the Pope LIED when he issued the Motu Proprio? That is quite a charge.

You’re right canon law is not infallible, but it’s still binding! Even if the law is later changed, when it is in force, we are bound to obey it.

And an umpire doesn’t call a ball that has been hit “a strike” so your “home run” response doesn’t make sense.

 

[GerardP]

Once again, none of what you wrote here is in any way related to the law of the Church or this discussion.

I believe I stated that the highest law of the Church is the salvation of souls.

It not relevant that you consider JPII to be “inferior”.

It is relevent in that there is a tendency to refuse to look at the facts of the case and assume that the late Pope is completely innocent and bears no responsibility for the situation that required LeFebvre to disobey him in order to obey the Catholic faith and his episcopal oath.

Canon Law still binds all Catholics.

Catholic teaching binds all Catholics more.

The only way you can wiggle out is to say that he is not a valid Pope.

No. Again, you have the sedevacantist/conservative stance that the Pope is irresistible in all matters. You have to deny history and Catholic teaching in order to make that stick.

If he is valid his motu proprio binds, if he is not, it does not. Your choice

He is a valid Pope. His judgement on the facts cited in the motu proprio (Ecclesia Dei) are objectively in error. So, his appeals to the faithful and conclusions are null. LeFebvre was not schismatic, so there is no worry about supporting his schism.

If a Motu Proprio said that LeFebvre had green skin and appealed to all the faithful to not look at his green skin it would have the same application.

 

[Sure]

He is a valid Pope. His judgement on the facts cited in the motu proprio (Ecclesia Dei) are objectively in error. So, his appeals to the faithful and conclusions are null. LeFebvre was not schismatic, so there is no worry about supporting his schism.

If a Motu Proprio said that LeFebvre had green skin and appealed to all the faithful to not look at his green skin it would have the same application.

Okay, I see where you’re missing it now. You claim that his judgement was in error, yet he is canonically the supreme judge in this matter. He viewed the evidence and made a decision. That decision is valid because he is the supreme judge according to the law. And it is binding because he is a valid Pope. There is no appeal or review available. It is the Pope’s legal decision to rule whether Lefebvre’s action was justified or was not. He ruled that it was not, therefore that is the case.

I’ll ignore the green skin comment because canon law does not say that the Pope is the Supreme Legislator of skin color as skin color is not contained in canon law. You should note that, unlike skin color, provisions for ordaining bishops are, in fact, contained in canon law.

 

[Sure]

**His judgement on the facts cited in the motu proprio (Ecclesia Dei) are objectively in error. **

According to whom? You? I must have missed the provision of canon law that allows any layperson to judge a motu proprio as objectively in error.

I must ask you, if a liberal bishop outright refuses to follow Pope Benedict’s Motu Proprio on the extraordinary liturgy because he sees it as “objectively in error” will you rush to his defense?

 

[GerardP]

The Motu Proprio violated the 8th Commandment?

That’s a new one. So, are you claiming that the Pope LIED when he issued the Motu Proprio? That is quite a charge.

He signed his name to a document that didn’t tell the truth about archbishop LeFebvre. It could have been due to weakness, error, insanity or a lie.

You’re right canon law is not infallible, but it’s still binding!

Is a lower law binding when a higher law demands action? Are you bound to stay off your neighbor’s lawn because of the trespassing laws when their house is on fire and you are capable of helping them?

Even if the law is later changed, when it is in force, we are bound to obey it.

Truth doesn’t change. Either LeFebvre was right in what he did or thought he was right in what he did and the excommunication was invalid. Or, LeFebvre was wrong and knew he was wrong and he’s burning in Hell. Popes don’t have the power to unjustly send someone to Hell to be later pulled out of Hell by another Pope.

If a Pope lifts the excommunications, then that says “JPII was wrong and I, Pope such and such am setting things right.”

And an umpire doesn’t call a ball that has been hit “a strike” so your “home run” response doesn’t make sense

But if the Holy Spirit is guiding the umpire, then there are two ways to look at it. Deny what your senses tell you is real or deny the umpire is the legitmate successor to the first umpire.

That is where we are at. And people are arguing that the umpire is irresistible and he’s made his call. The books say “strike” so it’s a strike" Despite the truth of the broken windshield in the parking lot.

None of that is Catholic.

When you stop looking at reality and justice with obedience as a subordinate virtue to it and instead resort to “blind” obedience over all, crazy things like that start to happen.

Anecdotally, I was reading Envoy’s boards the other day and some poor schmoe consistently makes the error that the Holy Ghost (Spirit) positively picks the Pope in the Conclaves. No one corrects the poor guy. He’s being set up for this insanity without a sure footing in the real Catholic teaching. “JPII and Benedict have been chosen by the Holy Spirit to be Peter’s successor” I know it sounds grand and all that. But it’s just not true. They are Peter’s successors but not positively chosen by the Holy Ghost.

 

[GerardP]

According to whom? You? I must have missed the provision of canon law that allows any layperson to judge a motu proprio as objectively in error.

Objectively means objective. According to whom is subjective. 2+2=4. Is that my judgement or is it a mathematical truth? If I say 2+2=5 does the truth change because I’m Pope?

I missed the provision of canon law that states that objective truth doesn’t exist and is not accessible to the faithful.

St. Paul said that St. Peter walked not uprightly with the Gospel at Antioch. Was that his opinion or was it the objective truth?

I must ask you, if a liberal bishop outright refuses to follow Pope Benedict’s Motu Proprio on the extraordinary liturgy because he sees it as “objectively in error” will you rush to his defense?

I would defend or not defend based on the facts. Not because he “sees it” as objectively in error but whether or not it is or is not objectively in error.

On the contrary side of things, I’m betting Roger Mahoney will amazingly quote the Motu Proprio and use whatever wiggle room he can to prevent any TLM’s in his diocese. No priest will be good enough in speaking Latin, no rubrics will be precise enough. And Rog will laugh merrily on his way obeying the letter of the law and thwarting the will of the Holy Father all the while in humble “obedience.”

 

[Sure]

He signed his name to a document that didn’t tell the truth about archbishop LeFebvre. It could have been due to weakness, error, insanity or a lie.

And the evidence for this very serious charge is what?

Lefebvre said there was “necessity”. The Pope said there wasn’t. It’s his call. If he says (with the force of canon law) there wasn’t “necessity”, then we are bound to follow that decision.

You’re way out on a limb here in a contorted effort to justify disobeying the law of the Church. Enjoy the intellectual schizophrenia!

 

[Walking_Home]

And the evidence for this very serious charge is what?

Lefebvre said there was “necessity”. The Pope said there wasn’t. It’s his call. If he says (with the force of canon law) there wasn’t “necessity”, then we are bound to follow that decision.

You’re way out on a limb here in a contorted effort to justify disobeying the law of the Church. Enjoy the intellectual schizophrenia!

---

Are you implying the Pope is infallible in each and every word and decision he makes.

 

[bear06]

---

Are you implying the Pope is infallible in each and every word and decision he makes.

Sigh! Read Pastor Aeternus. It outlines nicely where we owe the Pope our obedience and submission. If you want to think it’s simply in matters that are spoken ex cathedra than you’d be sadly mistaken. The suggestion that people are saying that we must eat the same cereal as the Pope is just a red herring.

The Pope is the arbiter of necessity.We’re not talking about someone who was deep in the jungle with no way of communicating with the Holy Father. We are talking about someone who had lengthy “negotiations” with the Vatican. They knew the mind of the Church on the matter and they contradicted it anyway.

 

[Walking_Home]

Sigh! Read Pastor Aeternus. It outlines nicely where we owe the Pope our obedience and submission. If you want to think it’s simply in matters that are spoken ex cathedra than you’d be sadly mistaken. The suggestion that people are saying that we must eat the same cereal as the Pope is just a red herring.

The Pope is the arbiter of necessity.We’re not talking about someone who was deep in the jungle with no way of communicating with the Holy Father. We are talking about someone who had lengthy “negotiations” with the Vatican. They knew the mind of the Church on the matter and they contradicted it anyway.

---

But neither you or I, know the mind of Arch. Lefebrve. What it was that led him to do what he did. I do not live in a fantasy–where we can blame the “shepards” if they steer us wrong.

 

[BobP123]

It outlines nicely where we owe the Pope our obedience and submission.

For example, Pope Paul’s Progressio Populorum or his Definition of the Mass? What about St. Peter’s heresy? We’d still be circumcising babies if it weren’t for St. Paul. The Archbishop couldn’t have been more disobedient or insubordinate than St. Paul.

 

[bear06]

---

But neither you or I, know the mind of Arch. Lefebrve. What it was that led him to do what he did. I do not live in a fantasy–where we can blame the “shepards” if they steer us wrong.

If I said “This is why I am doing X” don’t you think we know his mind? He was pretty honest with why he was doing what he was doing. And surely the Holy Father knew quite a bit more than we did on the matter.

Of course, that’s besides the point because we are not the ones capable of passing judgment on the matter. That would be the job of the Holy Father to pass some sort of censure, not ours.

That said, to use your line of thinking, there are a whole lot of people, liberal and conservative, that would have to be just peachy in your mind since we don’t know what was going on in there mind. I think, however, you realize that this isn’t the case but you refuse to apply it to Lefebvre.

Quite frankly, the only reason I would have for not following the Holy Father in an official teaching is if I knew he was telling me to sin. Other than that, what reason would I have? Are you saying he was doing this and that’s why we shouldn’t obey?

 

[bear06]

For example, Pope Paul’s Progressio Populorum or his Definition of the Mass? What about St. Peter’s heresy? We’d still be circumcising babies if it weren’t for St. Paul. The Archbishop couldn’t have been more disobedient or insubordinate than St. Paul.

Sigh! I really can’t help that YOUR interpretation of Progressio Populorum is in error. St. Peter’s “heresy” (where did you get that again?) was a private mistake. Nobody is saying that a Pope can’t make a PRIVATE error. I’m not really sure where you’re going with the circumcision thing

 

[Sure]

For example, Pope Paul’s Progressio Populorum or his Definition of the Mass? What about St. Peter’s heresy? We’d still be circumcising babies if it weren’t for St. Paul. The Archbishop couldn’t have been more disobedient or insubordinate than St. Paul.

I thought on other threads you had stated that yes, the bishops were excommunicated and priests suspended. So, now why this?

The fact is Lefebvre made a bone-head move and the Pope called him on it. Since the Pope is the arbiter and not Lefebvre or you or me, the decision stands.

I wonder, did Lefebvre ever make a serious and lawful appeal to the Vatican that Ecclesia Dei was unjust or did he realize he would be laughed at.

It’s funny how a whole bunch of you scream “CANON LAW, stupid!” when the discussion is about wearing veils in church in 1978, but when it comes to Lefebvre and his schismatic act you all say, “Well, umm, you know, canon law, well, ahh, necessity and umm, yeah, a higher law.” It makes me laugh every time.

 

[Walking_Home]

If I said “This is why I am doing X” don’t you think we know his mind? He was pretty honest with why he was doing what he was doing. And surely the Holy Father knew quite a bit more than we did on the matter.

Of course, that’s besides the point because we are not the ones capable of passing judgment on the matter. That would be the job of the Holy Father to pass some sort of censure, not ours.

That said, to use your line of thinking, there are a whole lot of people, liberal and conservative, that would have to be just peachy in your mind since we don’t know what was going on in there mind. I think, however, you realize that this isn’t the case but you refuse to apply it to Lefebvre.

Quite frankly, the only reason I would have for not following the Holy Father in an official teaching is if I knew he was telling me to sin. Other than that, what reason would I have? Are you saying he was doing this and that’s why we shouldn’t obey?

---

Actually no. If what they speak has no foundation–that can be reconciled with how the Church thought in Her history --I would not think they are “peachy”—but rather terribly misguided.

 

[Sure]

Popes don’t have the power to unjustly send someone to Hell to be later pulled out of Hell by another Pope.

Just to be clear, Hell exists outside of time, or at least our earthly concept of it. So, if a Pope later overturns the excommunication of Lefebvre (unlikely), it will mean he (hopefully) never went to hell.

Also, the test for whether what he did was wrong or not was not whether he “felt” it was wrong. It was whether he committed a schismatic act or not. His intention or knowledge is not relevent to his excommunication. What matters is his schismatic act and did he commit it. Well, obviously, he very publically did perform the consecrations.

And when we’re not sure whether an act is schismatic who do we go to??? That’s right, the Pope and he confirmed that it was. There really isn’t anything to debate here. Unless, of course you want to make the claim that Pope’s lack the authority to authentically interpret canon law in a Motu Proprio?

 

[GerardP]

Sigh! Read Pastor Aeternus. It outlines nicely where we owe the Pope our obedience and submission. If you want to think it’s simply in matters that are spoken ex cathedra than you’d be sadly mistaken. The suggestion that people are saying that we must eat the same cereal as the Pope is just a red herring.

The Pope is the arbiter of necessity.We’re not talking about someone who was deep in the jungle with no way of communicating with the Holy Father. We are talking about someone who had lengthy “negotiations” with the Vatican. They knew the mind of the Church on the matter and they contradicted it anyway.

Does Pastor Aeternus say “true” obedience or does it not?