How many SSPX followers would change churches?

[GerardP]

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!

I made no serious charge. You accused me of calling the Pope a deliberate liar. He might have been but I’m open to him having been under an unknown pressure or not having had control of his faculties.

The evidence is the admitted “auto destruction” of the Church by Paul VI and the “liturgical ruins” expressed by Card. Ratzinger and scores of other devout Catholics both laiety and religious.

LeFebvre said there was a necessity. JPII didn’t. The facts and history have proven LeFebvre correct. JPII made the call and that call was a danger to the Church and rightfully should have been resisted.

JPII and the curia had been notorious for their ability to deny reality, from the so-called “fruits of Vatican II” to their inability to admit to and deal with criminal immorality among the clergy. Even extending to an unwillingness to admit the level of JPII’s physical decline.

I disagree that I’m out on a limb. This is simply a case of “the Emperor’s New Clothes” Church-style.

 

[bear06]

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

Somehow I think I’m about to hear an interpretation I have not heard before. Anyone want a pretzel?

Lefebvre might have also wanted to note this part of PA:

1. Since the Roman Pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole Church, we likewise teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful [52] , and that in all cases which fall under ecclesiastical jurisdiction recourse may be had to his judgment [53] . The sentence of the Apostolic See (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone, nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon[54]. And so they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman Pontiff.

 

[GerardP]

Just to be clear, Hell exists outside of time, or at least our earthly concept of it.

Hell may very well exist in time and inside the earth. The Church has never ruled specifically on this.

So, if a Pope later overturns the excommunication of Lefebvre (unlikely), it will mean he (hopefully) never went to hell.

Which would legally verify that the Pope was wrong to excommunicate him.

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.

This is a bit warped because Canon Law and Church teaching insist that the internal disposition must be manifest in order to determine schism. Disobedience alone is not schismatic.
That attitude that the Pope does not have the authority to rule must be present. LeFebvre never denied the authority of the Pope. He disobeyed the Pope because of the Pope’s refusal to consent to use his authority to help the Church and guard the deposit of faith.

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.

We’re back to the Umpire calling the home run a strike.

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?

You seem to think that “authentically” is some kind of guarantee for the truth. Just because a Pope authentically rules does not mean that he is correct or just or validly doing something.

Suspending reason in the name of servile attachment is not virtuous or indicative of the constant teaching of the faith.

It must be some emotional block or something. All of the fanatical Pope worship of the last two decades has compounded the error that was prevalent in the pre-Vatican II era. The Charismatics think the Holy Ghost is actually making procedural decisions and the post-reformation “pray, pay and obey” attitude is making a mockery of the common sense taught by the Church.

 

[GerardP]

Somehow I think I’m about to hear an interpretation I have not heard before. Anyone want a pretzel?

Why won’t you answer the question? Does PA demand true obedience or not?

Lefebvre might have also wanted to note this part of PA

1. Since the Roman Pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole Church, we likewise teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful [52] , and that in all cases which fall under ecclesiastical jurisdiction **recourse may be had to his judgment [53] . The sentence of the Apostolic See (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone, nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon[54]. And so they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council **as if this were an authority superior to the Roman Pontiff.

That doesn’t help your case. The SSPX and LeFebvre before them have appealed to the Popes to right this wrong. Bishop Fellay has asked Pope Benedict to lift (nullify) the excommunication declarations just as Card. Ratzinger overturned the excommunications of the Hawaii group.

That very request demonstrates the lack of Schism. The SSPX bishops admit they don’t have the power to change the ruling. They don’t appeal to the Orthodox bishops (who excommunicated Rome) to lift or nullify the rulings.

Appealling to a Pope to change his mind or overturn an injustice by a previous Pope or Popes is perfectly in line with the teaching of the Church as spelled out in PA.

 

[Sure]

Hell may very well exist in time and inside the earth. The Church has never ruled specifically on this.

Which would legally verify that the Pope was wrong to excommunicate him.

This is a bit warped because Canon Law and Church teaching insist that the internal disposition must be manifest in order to determine schism. Disobedience alone is not schismatic.
That attitude that the Pope does not have the authority to rule must be present. LeFebvre never denied the authority of the Pope. He disobeyed the Pope because of the Pope’s refusal to consent to use his authority to help the Church and guard the deposit of faith.

We’re back to the Umpire calling the home run a strike.

You seem to think that “authentically” is some kind of guarantee for the truth. Just because a Pope authentically rules does not mean that he is correct or just or validly doing something.

Suspending reason in the name of servile attachment is not virtuous or indicative of the constant teaching of the faith.

It must be some emotional block or something. All of the fanatical Pope worship of the last two decades has compounded the error that was prevalent in the pre-Vatican II era. The Charismatics think the Holy Ghost is actually making procedural decisions and the post-reformation “pray, pay and obey” attitude is making a mockery of the common sense taught by the Church.

Okay, so, just so I understand your position there would be absolutely NOTHING wrong with a woman NOT wearing a veil to Mass in say, 1972? After all her internal disposition would tell her that her act is necessary despite what Canon law demands, correct?

 

[bear06]

Why won’t you answer the question? Does PA demand true obedience or not?

That doesn’t help your case. The SSPX and LeFebvre before them have appealed to the Popes to right this wrong. Bishop Fellay has asked Pope Benedict to lift (nullify) the excommunication declarations just as Card. Ratzinger overturned the excommunications of the Hawaii group.

That very request demonstrates the lack of Schism. The SSPX bishops admit they don’t have the power to change the ruling. They don’t appeal to the Orthodox bishops (who excommunicated Rome) to lift or nullify the rulings.

Appealling to a Pope to change his mind or overturn an injustice by a previous Pope or Popes is perfectly in line with the teaching of the Church as spelled out in PA.

Actually, if you’ve read writings from various SSPX they don’t believe they are excommunicated and they only wish the official Church declaration to be overturned so the faithful have not misunderstandings about their status.

Yes, PA calls for true obedience. That said, SSPX doesn’t have the authority to make their own definition of it. How many other schismatics have tried to do the same thing. They must be obedient to the truth, not their version of it. They can’t even be truly obedient to that one document because they imply their own interpretations of it.

 

[GerardP]

Okay, so, just so I understand your position there would be absolutely NOTHING wrong with a woman NOT wearing a veil to Mass in say, 1972? After all her internal disposition would tell her that her act is necessary despite what Canon law demands, correct?

This is the old “stepping over bodies” to get to Church scenario.

It would depend on why she has disobeyed the law. If she used her veil as a tourniquet for someone who was bleeding in the street on her way to Church. There were no other headcoverings available. Do you think it would be an injustice if the pastor of said Church told her, “There was no need for a tourniquet. You have to get out.” ?

 

[GerardP]

Actually, if you’ve read writings from various SSPX they don’t believe they are excommunicated and they only wish the official Church declaration to be overturned so the faithful have not misunderstandings about their status.:

Obviously the nullfication of the excommunications is a matter of human justice. Divinely speaking, it’s non-existent to LeFebvre and the SSPX.

Yes, PA calls for true obedience. That said, SSPX doesn’t have the authority to make their own definition of it.

What makes you think the SSPX makes their own definition of true obedience? Are you saying that St. Thomas Aquinas is SSPX?

How many other schismatics have tried to do the same thing.

This is poisoning the well. You pre-suppose they are schismatics and then apply “guilt by association” by assuming they must be guilty because guilty people claim they are innocent.

How many innocents have been unjustly persecuted? Or is that impossible because the Pope is perfect in all things?

They must be obedient to the truth, not their version of it.

So you are saying that no one can know the truth Right? Only the Pope. And the next Pope can change the truth. How is this not insanity?

They can’t even be truly obedient to that one document because they imply their own interpretations of it

Is that your interpretation of what they do or is that the true interpretation? Or is truth flexible? Your truth, my truth, the Pope’s truth, the Devil’s truth.

You’ve taken Catholicism and turned it into a Kantian nightmare.

 

[GerardP]

Actually, if you’ve read writings from various SSPX they don’t believe they are excommunicated and they only wish the official Church declaration to be overturned so the faithful have not misunderstandings about their status.

Yes, PA calls for true obedience. That said, SSPX doesn’t have the authority to make their own definition of it. How many other schismatics have tried to do the same thing. They must be obedient to the truth, not their version of it. They can’t even be truly obedient to that one document because they imply their own interpretations of it.

“After the Second Vatican Council, the impression arose that the pope really could do anything in liturgical matters, especially if he were acting on the mandate of an ecumenical council. Eventually, the idea of the givenness of the liturgy, the fact that one cannot do with it what one will, faded from the public consciousness of the West.* In fact, the First Vatican Council had in no way defined the pope as an absolute monarch.** On the contrary, it presented him as the guarantor of obedience to the revealed Word. The pope’s authority is bound to the Tradition of faith, and that also applies to the liturgy. It is not “manufactured” by the authorities. Even the pope can only be a humble servant of its lawful development and abiding integrity and identity*.”
–Josef Card. Ratzinger Spirit of the Liturgy.

 

[bear06]

Divinely speaking, it’s non-existent to LeFebvre and the SSPX.

Wow! You’ve apparently got some good connections to know the Divine!

What makes you think the SSPX makes their own definition of true obedience? Are you saying that St. Thomas Aquinas is SSPX?

 

[bear06]

“After the Second Vatican Council, the impression arose that the pope really could do anything in liturgical matters, especially if he were acting on the mandate of an ecumenical council. Eventually, the idea of the givenness of the liturgy, the fact that one cannot do with it what one will, faded from the public consciousness of the West. In fact, the First Vatican Council had in no way defined the pope as an absolute monarch.** On the contrary, it presented him as the guarantor of obedience to the revealed Word. The pope’s authority is bound to the Tradition of faith, and that also applies to the liturgy. It is not “manufactured” by the authorities. Even the pope can only be a humble servant of its lawful development and abiding integrity and identity.”
–Josef Card. Ratzinger Spirit of the Liturgy.

And this has what to do with my comments you quoted?

 

[GerardP]

**Originally Posted by bear06— **

Actually, if you’ve read writings from various SSPX they don’t believe they are excommunicated and they only wish the official Church declaration to be overturned so the faithful have not misunderstandings about their status.:

Gerard–

*Obviously the nullfication of the excommunications is a matter of human justice. Divinely speaking, it’s non-existent to LeFebvre and the SSPX. *

Wow! You’ve apparently got some good connections to know the Divine!

That connection is the Catholic Faith. That’s the only way to know the Divine. Getting past the quips, do you understand the Church’s teaching on Justice?

And do you agree or disagree that humans can positively determine validity in matters based on facts? Just as invalid Masses can be determined very easily when you look at the facts when Coffee and Donuts are used instead of bread and wine, you can look at a Motu Proprio of a Pope and see things that are factually wrong that lead to incorrect conclusions on the part of the Pope.

 

[bear06]

That connection is the Catholic Faith. That’s the only way to know the Divine. Getting past the quips, do you understand the Church’s teaching on Justice?

Yes, I do. Do you understand the Church’s teaching on authority, disciplines, canon law, obedience, etc.?

And do you agree or disagree that humans can positively determine validity in matters based on facts? Just as invalid Masses can be determined very easily when you look at the facts when Coffee and Donuts are used instead of bread and wine, you can look at a Motu Proprio of a Pope and see things that are factually wrong that lead to incorrect conclusions on the part of the Pope.

How about some concrete examples here. I’m sure I’ll disagree with your authority on the matter but let’s give it a try.

 

[GerardP]

Bear 06 wrote:

How many other schismatics have tried to do the same thing.

**Gerard wrote: **

*This is poisoning the well. You pre-suppose they are schismatics and then apply “guilt by association” by assuming they must be guilty because guilty people claim they are innocent. *

Bear 06 wrote:

I can’t even follow this it’s so confusing.

It’s not confusing at all. You just show that you are prejudiced against the SSPX. “other schismatics have tried to do the same thing” is like saying “all liars claim to be speaking the truth”. Where does that leave the honest people?

 

[GerardP]

*How many innocents have been unjustly persecuted? Or is that impossible because the Pope is perfect in all things? *Bear 06 wrote:

Relevance?

The SSPX are innocent of schism and unjustly persecuted. The question to you is: Is the Pope perfect in all things or is it possible that he could be objectively wrong, unjust or even corrupt in his rulings on juridical matters?

 

[GerardP]

**Gerard wrote: **

*So you are saying that no one can know the truth Right? Only the Pope. And the next Pope can change the truth. How is this not insanity? *

Bear 06 wrote:

No. Actually what I’m saying is that by your logic, nobody can ever be wrong.

No. That’s the opposite of what I’m saying. There are objective criteria for what constitutes a schism. The Pope is bound by the same faith and the same reality that the rest of us are bound by. If he does something objectively unjust, then obedience to injustice becomes sinful obedience. If the Pope wants to engage in non-sequiturs in order to rationalize an injustice, there is no reason to go along with it.

**Gerard wrote: **
*Is that your interpretation of what they do or is that the true interpretation? Or is truth flexible? Your truth, my truth, the Pope’s truth, the Devil’s truth. *

Bear 06 wrote:

This is pretty much what they do.

Can you cite something? The term “pretty much” doesn’t clarify anything.

 

[GerardP]

Yes, I do. Do you understand the Church’s teaching on authority, disciplines, canon law, obedience, etc.?

Yes I do. Does the Church not teach that there is perfect, true and false obedience? Don’t many of the great saints and teachers of the Church teach that Popes can err and can be rebuked if necessary?

How about some concrete examples here. I’m sure I’ll disagree with your authority on the matter but let’s give it a try.

What kind of examples do you want? From history or from events specific to the SSPX-era? I’m still trying to figure out if you’re willing to admit the possibility of it being morally permissible to defy a Pope. If we can’t agree on that, examples won’t matter much.

 

[bear06]

There are objective criteria for what constitutes a schism. The Pope is bound by the same faith and the same reality that the rest of us are bound by. If he does something objectively unjust, then obedience to injustice becomes sinful obedience. If the Pope wants to engage in non-sequiturs in order to rationalize an injustice, there is no reason to go along with it.

And you simply saying that the 4 bishops aren’t in schism and that they were unjustly treated is subjective, not objective. Believe it or not, JPII actually based Ecclesia Dei on canon law. Shockers of shockers - he even quoted it in Ecclesia Dei! Guess what else? He was also the authentic interpreter of said law. And again from PA:

1. Since the Roman Pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole Church, we likewise teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful [52] , and that in all cases which fall under ecclesiastical jurisdiction recourse may be had to his judgment [53] . The sentence of the Apostolic See (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone, nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon[54]. And so they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman Pontiff.

From Ecclesia Dei:

1. The root of this schismatic act can be discerned in an incomplete and contradictory notion of Tradition. Incomplete, because it does not take sufficiently into account the living character of Tradition, which, as the Second Vatican Council clearly taught, “comes from the apostles and progresses in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. There is a growth in insight into the realities and words that are being passed on. This comes about in various ways. It comes through the contemplation and study of believers who ponder these things in their hearts. It comes from the intimate sense of spiritual realities which they experience. And it comes from the preaching of those who have received, along with their right of succession in the episcopate, the sure charism of truth”.(5)

But especially contradictory is a notion of Tradition which opposes the universal Magisterium of the Church possessed by the Bishop of Rome and the Body of Bishops. It is impossible to remain faithful to the Tradition while breaking the ecclesial bond with him to whom, in the person of the Apostle Peter, Christ himself entrusted the ministry of unity in his Church.(6)

Some may think that the Holy Father will suddenly lift the excommunications and schismatic labels from the 4 bishops. I don’t predict that will happen until the SSPX actually embraces ALL of Tradition, not just the parts that suit them.

 

[GerardP]

**Originally Posted by GerardP **

“After the Second Vatican Council, the impression arose that the pope really could do anything in liturgical matters, especially if he were acting on the mandate of an ecumenical council. Eventually, the idea of the givenness of the liturgy, the fact that one cannot do with it what one will, faded from the public consciousness of the West. In fact, the First Vatican Council had in no way defined the pope as an absolute monarch. On the contrary, it presented him as the guarantor of obedience to the revealed Word. The pope’s authority is bound to the Tradition of faith, and that also applies to the liturgy. It is not “manufactured” by the authorities. Even the pope can only be a humble servant of its lawful development and abiding integrity and identity.”
–Josef Card. Ratzinger Spirit of the Liturgy.

And this has what to do with my comments you quoted?

Your comments indicate that you imbibe in the the impression that Card. Ratzinger said was erroneous. Your comments imply that the Pope is an absolute monarch who cannot be resisted.

Card. Ratzinger said that the Pope is the guarantor of obedience to the revealed Word. Not the guarantor of obedience to the occupant of the papal throne unconditionally.

The Pope’s authority is bound to Tradition. He cannot toss it aside or suppress it licitly. Any Pope who falters in his duties is to be resisted if there is a risk to the faith.

The situation provoked by the misdirection and indirection and inaction by Paul VI and JPII required LeFebvre to take action.

LeFebvre was the proximate cause of the TLM being celebrated in most locations that now enjoy it as well as the catalyst for the various orders of priests that say the TLM and teach traditional catechesis. It wasn’t supposed to be LeFebvre, it should have been the Popes. They dropped the ball and LeFebvre had to pick it up.

 

[GerardP]

And you simply saying that the 4 bishops aren’t in schism and that they were unjustly treated is subjective, not objective.

No. I’m saying that schism has objective criteria and part of that objective criteria is the denial of the authority of the Pope to rule.

Disobedience is not always a denial of authority. The fact that LeFebvre and the SSPX have always appealed to the Popes to clean up the mess in the Church is objective evidence that they believe the Pope is the one with the authority to do these things.

The Popes do not have the authority to tear down the Church though and the behavior and persecution of traditionalists is an objective attempt to smash the traditional teaching of the Church.

Believe it or not, JPII actually based Ecclesia Dei on canon law.

So? He ignored certain laws and made rulings based on half truths.

Shockers of shockers - he even quoted it in Ecclesia Dei!

That document is a mess as I’ll point out later.

Guess what else? He was also the authentic interpreter of said law.

Just what do you think that means? The Emperor is wearing no clothes and because he’s the authentic interpretor of the law that reality somehow changes to suit his whims?

Popes have made legal rulings that have turned out to be unjust and overturned by later Popes and later reversed and overturned again. Guess what that means? They were wrong. Multiple times.