Letter From Archbishop of Davao Diocese to the SSPX

[jmj1984]

Go back and read Newman and stop pushing him as if he were the pope.

What is the point of this statement? I am reading Bl Cardinal Newman, that is how I came across this quote. And as for the latter of your statements I am referring to Authority, which is what one does in a discussion rather than make unsubstantiated statements. What do you even mean by ‘Pushing Newman’? If you mean that I am agreeing with him and quoting what he said then yes I am pushing Newman, if you mean that it is somehow wrong to reference the work of a respected and holy theologian I do not understand your point.

He would be embarrassed to see you using his work in this manner and in this case.

You don’t know this, I could equally claim that he would embarrassed to see people saying that it is only when the pope commands us to sin that we can disobey the pope. Both of our statements would be equally unprovable.

Neither the bishop nor the pope are promoting the destruction of the Church. Such a judgment is a subjective one. Newman would not support it. It has to be an objectively provable case.

Br Jr respectfully, that completely fails to address the point. I did not say that the bishop or the pope are promoting the destruction of the church, I did not even imply it. Completely aside from the fact that is one of around 6 scenarios he mentions, the fact is these are circumstances outwith direct commands to sin e.g murder, rape etc… where Bl Cardinal Newman believes that one can ignore or disobey the pope.
Your posts often appear to state that it is only if the Pope or a superior says ‘Go and rob X’ for example that we are allowed to disagree or perhaps if I am generous if a Pope or Superior were to say ‘Jesus is not God’. In short where it is clear and not contentious, Bl Cardinal Newman makes it clear that he does not agree with this view.

Read the red. They are in fact saying that you can disobey in cases of sin. They are saying that you have the moral duty to ask yourself if you’re being asked to sin. You have to read these statements in the context of their entire collection of writings, because this topic comes up again and in the context of their lives. Read what they wrote and watch how they lived it.

Br Jr, neither they nor Bl Cardinal Newman mentions ‘sin’ nor references it once. I have no need to look at the way the sources Bl Cardinal Newman references lived their lives because I trust his judgement on the matter and I know well how he lived his life and why he wrote this letter. The fact remains, unless you can show to the contrary, that Bl Cardinal Newman believes and supported with weighty authorities the idea that you could disobey the pope aside from clear commands to sin. The idea that a command that goes against the nature of the sacraments or holy scripture etc… is always going to be clear or uncontroversial simply cannot be supported by historical fact.

It is clear therefore from these quotes that there are limits within which the Papal operates regardless of the fact that he is 'the living law of the church’.

It may be that I don’t understand your views or more unlikely, that you haven’t expressed your views clearly but they have a far broader understanding of when it is lawful to disobey the pope, and by implication a superior, than merely when it is a ‘clear command to sin’.

Unless you can show that Cardinal Newman retracted his view or wrote something contradictory to the above that remains prima facie evidence for his view and by implication those sources he quotes.

As I made clear I am not addressing the situation at hand, but the abstract of whether it is merely in clear commands to sin that one may disobey the pope/ a superior.

No, because you have another Catholic alternative.

Cardianl Hoyos said this.

Where?

 

[louis91766]

No. Individual hierarchs have. The Church has never decreed any laws approving slavery. She has always made statements about the fair treatment of slaves. She has never made any laws legalizing torture either.

The original question was whether or not the Church had permitted slavery or torture.
According to the first Pope, St. Peter: 1Peter 2:18 “Slaves, be submissive to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and gentle, but also to those who are unreasonable.”
And did not the papal bull Ad extirpanda promulgated on May 15, 1252, by Pope Innocent IV, authorise the use of torture by for eliciting confessions from heretics?

 

[JReducation]

What is the point of this statement? I am reading Bl Cardinal Newman, that is how I came across this quote. And as for the latter of your statements I am referring to Authority, which is what one does in a discussion rather than make unsubstantiated statements. What do you even mean by ‘Pushing Newman’? If you mean that I am agreeing with him and quoting what he said then yes I am pushing Newman, if you mean that it is somehow wrong to reference the work of a respected and holy theologian I do not understand your point.

You don’t know this, I could equally claim that he would embarrassed to see people saying that it is only when the pope commands us to sin that we can disobey the pope. Both of our statements would be equally unprovable.

Br Jr respectfully, that completely fails to address the point. I did not say that the bishop or the pope are promoting the destruction of the church, I did not even imply it. Completely aside from the fact that is one of around 6 scenarios he mentions, the fact is these are circumstances outwith direct commands to sin e.g murder, rape etc… where Bl Cardinal Newman believes that one can ignore or disobey the pope.
Your posts often appear to state that it is only if the Pope or a superior says ‘Go and rob X’ for example that we are allowed to disagree or perhaps if I am generous if a Pope or Superior were to say ‘Jesus is not God’. In short where it is clear and not contentious, Bl Cardinal Newman makes it clear that he does not agree with this view.

Br Jr, neither they nor Bl Cardinal Newman mentions ‘sin’ nor references it once. I have no need to look at the way the sources Bl Cardinal Newman references lived their lives because I trust his judgement on the matter and I know well how he lived his life and why he wrote this letter. The fact remains, unless you can show to the contrary, that Bl Cardinal Newman believes and supported with weighty authorities the idea that you could disobey the pope aside from clear commands to sin. The idea that a command that goes against the nature of the sacraments or holy scripture etc… is always going to be clear or uncontroversial simply cannot be supported by historical fact.

It is clear therefore from these quotes that there are limits within which the Papal operates regardless of the fact that he is 'the living law of the church’.

It may be that I don’t understand your views or more unlikely, that you haven’t expressed your views clearly but they have a far broader understanding of when it is lawful to disobey the pope, and by implication a superior, than merely when it is a ‘clear command to sin’.

Unless you can show that Cardinal Newman retracted his view or wrote something contradictory to the above that remains prima facie evidence for his view and by implication those sources he quotes.

As I made clear I am not addressing the situation at hand, but the abstract of whether it is merely in clear commands to sin that one may disobey the pope/ a superior.

Where?

I believe that what you’re not seeing is that the things to which Newman refers are sinful.

Cardinal Hoyos said this in a letter that was published years ago. You’ll have to find it. I don’t know where it is.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[jmj1984]

I believe that what you’re not seeing is that the things to which Newman refers are sinful.

Br Jr

I agree but they are hardly direct or indisputable commands to sin, which means the boundaries of obedience are rather wider than you often seem to make it. People can disagree over what the creed actually means or holy scripture and the same with the other situations.

Further Newman makes some statements of his own 'I answer, that it is my rule, both to obey the one and to obey the other, but that there is no rule in this world without exceptions, and if either the Pope or the Queen demanded of me an “Absolute Obedience,” he or she would be transgressing the laws of human society. I give an absolute obedience to neither.

These appear to contradict what you say which seem to suggest that we owe the pope an absolute obedience.

Cardinal Hoyos said this in a letter that was published years ago. You’ll have to find it. I don’t know where it is.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

In the absence of verification I’ll go with what the verifiable sources I’ve seen said.

 

[JReducation]

The original question was whether or not the Church had permitted slavery or torture.
According to the first Pope, St. Peter: 1Peter 2:18 “Slaves, be submissive to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and gentle, but also to those who are unreasonable.”
And did not the papal bull Ad extirpanda promulgated on May 15, 1252, by Pope Innocent IV, authorise the use of torture by for eliciting confessions from heretics?

In the first case, Peter is not decreeing that there should be slavery. He’s writing to a social situation that exists. He writing to Christian masters and slaves. What he’s doing is outlining their moral duties to each other.

In the second, Pope Innocent acted alone. He did not speak for the Church. This was an apostolic letter, which is the meaning of Bull. He is authorizing what he believes is the greatest possible good under the circumstances. This is important. Sometimes, you cannot achieve the greatest good, so you go for that which is minimizes evil as much as possible.

We have to understand these men and women in the context of their time. We have to ask ourselves, what were they up against? Was this the greatest good that they could have done? However, we must answer these questions not from our hindsight, which is always 20/20, but from their field of vision, remembering what they saw. They cannot be held accountable for not seeing what we see.

In looking at Peter and Innocent, they didn’t see what we do. We have the benefit of historical distance.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

Br Jr

I agree but they are hardly direct or indisputable commands to sin, which means the boundaries of obedience are rather wider than you often seem to make it. People can disagree over what the creed actually means or holy scripture and the same with the other situations.

Further Newman makes some statements of his own 'I answer, that it is my rule, both to obey the one and to obey the other, but that there is no rule in this world without exceptions, and if either the Pope or the Queen demanded of me an “Absolute Obedience,” he or she would be transgressing the laws of human society. I give an absolute obedience to neither.

These appear to contradict what you say which seem to suggest that we owe the pope an absolute obedience.

I never used the term absolute obedience. I always said that you obey in all things but sin. That’s not absolute. Absolute means reckless obedience. Newman is not saying anything new here. This was taught from the early days of the Church. Obedience must always be loving. One obeys when called to love and disobey when called to do that which is not love. One also obeys out of love.

In the absence of verification I’ll go with what the verifiable sources I’ve seen said.

There is no absence of verification. Tell the truth. You don’t want to go looking for it. I told you the source. You can Google it.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[jwinch2]

Br Jr

I agree but they are hardly direct or indisputable commands to sin, which means the boundaries of obedience are rather wider than you often seem to make it. People can disagree over what the creed actually means or holy scripture and the same with the other situations.

Further Newman makes some statements of his own 'I answer, that it is my rule, both to obey the one and to obey the other, but that there is no rule in this world without exceptions, and if either the Pope or the Queen demanded of me an “Absolute Obedience,” he or she would be transgressing the laws of human society. I give an absolute obedience to neither.

These appear to contradict what you say which seem to suggest that we owe the pope an absolute obedience.

In the absence of verification I’ll go with what the verifiable sources I’ve seen said.

I would suggest caution in pulling quotes from Saints/Blesseds out of context and interpreting them. First of all, anytime something is taken out of context it is open to misinterpretation. I’m sure you are aware of that but it does bear mentioning nonetheless.

Secondly, even great saints have been incorrect and one should view their statements within the living tradition of the Church. For example, Saint Thomas Aquinas did not necessarily understand the immaculate conception in the way that we are to understand it now, neither did Saint Bonaventure. Yet, the tradition of the Church has declared this to be true and we are to believe it as Faithful Catholics. When you take a quote from someone such as Newman, it needs to be interpreted within the tradition of the Church and compared to other Saints, for example, Saint Francis talks about absolute obedience except if being commanded to sin.

I would suggest that Brother is probably interpreting Newman within the context of the greater body of his writings and the tradition of the Church at large.

 

[jmj1984]

I never used the term absolute obedience. I always said that you obey in all things but sin. That’s not absolute. Absolute means reckless obedience. Newman is not saying anything new here. This was taught from the early days of the Church. Obedience must always be loving. One obeys when called to love and disobey when called to do that which is not love. One also obeys out of love.

Br

In which case one can potentially disobey even when commanded to do something that is not clearly or irrefutably a sin.

As we’ve locked horns, if I may put it so crudely, on this matter before, I refer you to what you’ve said before

A religious never has the right to disobey, except when ordered to sin. If the superior, the general chapter or the Vatican said that you could not celebrate the EF, you have a moral duty to comply, because you’re not being asked to sin. The Church did not order these men to sin by taking away the EF and other traditional elements. I’m not saying that this was the wisest decision. That’s a whole other subject. I’m saying, this was not a command to commit a sin that is identified as such by the proper Church authority

A religious could perfectly well use the criteria Bl Cardinal Newman provided to justify his disobedience.

There is no absence of verification. Tell the truth. You don’t want to go looking for it. I told you the source. You can Google it.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Br

I can’t find even a reference to it, so I can’t verify it ergo I won’t follow it.

 

[JReducation]

Br

In which case one can potentially disobey even when commanded to do something that is not clearly or irrefutably a sin.

As we’ve locked horns, if I may put it so crudely, on this matter before, I refer you to what you’ve said before

A religious could perfectly well use the criteria Bl Cardinal Newman provided to justify his disobedience.

Br

I can’t find even a reference to it, so I can’t verify it ergo I won’t follow it.

When we quote theologians and scholars, we must quote them within the context of the whole of Christian tradition. This means that we look not only at was has been written, but also how it has been lived.

While we you’re quoting something from Newman, I’m pointing out that what Newman lists are clearly sins; therefore, he is consistent with Christian moral tradition. If you’re commanded to sin, you do not obey.

He is not saying that everyone has the right to do as he pleases. He’s not drawing a line in the sand and saying, “Well, the pope is the Vicar of Jesus Christ and the visible head of the Church, however, even though he’s the head of the Church, I can do things my way, if I disagree with a command.”

What Newman is saying is

a) The pope cannot command sin. If he does so, he will not be obeyed . . . should not be obeyed.

b) Not everything that the pope says is a command; therefore, you can use your judgment.

You must look at several points, if you’re going to be a good theologian and an ever better canonist.

What did Newman say? What did Newman do in his daily life? How he lived his obedience to the pope will tell you how he thought, better than what it says on paper. If we look at Newman’s life, he was always obedient, even when he was not pleased. There is no evidence of him ever disobeying. There is ample evidence of him doing things differently, when the pope or the bishop simply expressed an opinion or a preference, never when they made it a rule, law, policy or command. His life tells us that he understood the importance of obedience and he also understood that disobeying was something very serious and could only be done when one is absolutely certain that it is the greater good.

In Newman’s writings we read a great deal about the need to choose the greater good. We have to tie this in with his statements. You never obey a command to sin. You always choose the greater good.

Once you have understood this, then you have to apply the theologian or scholar to the situation on the table. In this case, there is a bishop exercising his canonical right to ask someone to leave his diocese. Newman’s response is to choose the greater good.

Violating someone’s right is never a good. The bishop has rights. He has the right to deny admission to any Catholic institute into his diocese. The faithful have a right to have the bishop meet their needs. The bishop is already working on doing this. One cannot argue that the needs of the people are being ignored. If we apply Newman’s principle, in a manner consistent with Benedict’s original theology of obedience, the answer is simple. The bishop is not asking the SSPX to do something sinful. The bishop is not ignoring the needs of his diocese. The bishop is admitting that they have problems, but they are working on them. None of these conditions fit Newman’s criteria for disobedience.

First, the bishop is not giving his opinion on the SSPX’s presence. He’s applying Canon Law.

Second, the bishop is not hurting his people. The SSPX cannot claim that they are there to protect the people from an abusive bishop, an assessment with which Newman would agree, if it were true.

I mentioned Benedict. Why? Because you can’t discuss obedience without Benedict. Benedict is the Church’s premier theologian on obedience. Everything that has ever been written about obedience is rooted in Benedict’s theology, which comes from the Gospels.

We have to take this entire tradition. We have to read these writings in light of what the Church had previously accepted as authoritative writing on this subject. Benedict’s writings on the matter, are protected by a papal bull, not Newman’s. However, there is no problem here, because Newman is saying the same thing that Benedict did. How do we know? We look at Newman’s life and how he practiced obedience. We find that he practiced it just a Benedict taught it.

Then we move forward to this case and we apply this whole tradition and we find that the bishop is right and justified and the response that he is receiving is outside of this tradition. The bishop has the right to be obeyed, because he is exercising his lawful authority, whereas the other party has no lawful authority in the matter. If we look at Newman, he never denies the right to exercise lawful authority nor does he encourage disobedience of lawful authority. He makes a separation between the preferences and opinions of the person in authority and the legal rights of the person in authority.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[louis91766]

In the first case, Peter is not decreeing that there should be slavery. He’s writing to a social situation that exists. He writing to Christian masters and slaves. What he’s doing is outlining their moral duties to each other.

In the second, Pope Innocent acted alone. He did not speak for the Church. This was an apostolic letter, which is the meaning of Bull. He is authorizing what he believes is the greatest possible good under the circumstances. This is important. Sometimes, you cannot achieve the greatest good, so you go for that which is minimizes evil as much as possible.

We have to understand these men and women in the context of their time. We have to ask ourselves, what were they up against? Was this the greatest good that they could have done? However, we must answer these questions not from our hindsight, which is always 20/20, but from their field of vision, remembering what they saw. They cannot be held accountable for not seeing what we see.

In looking at Peter and Innocent, they didn’t see what we do. We have the benefit of historical distance.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

I thought a Papal Bull was part of the ordinary Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church and as such it is authoritative and Catholics are bound to submit their intellect and will to the teaching of the Roman Pontiff.
BTW, do you consider it to be a sin to enslave someone or to torture a heretic to extract a confession such as was done in the Inquisition?

 

[JReducation]

I thought a Papal Bull was part of the ordinary Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church and as such it is authoritative and Catholics are bound to submit their intellect and will to the teaching of the Roman Pontiff.

A papal bull is an apostolic letter than binds the faithful to obedience. It need not be a statement about faith or morals. It may refer to something in faith or morals. Generally, they are directives.

For example, when a man is appointed bishop of a diocese, there has to be a papal bull from the pope to the episcopal commission of that country. Without the bull, the bishop cannot take possession of his diocese. As you can see from this example, the appointment of a new bishop is not a moral or doctrinal matter.

In Pope Innocent’s case, he issued a directive, which had to be followed. Here is where it gets tricky.

It is definitely immoral to torture someone. However, the question is, given the situation in which these men lived, did they really understand this as we do today? It seems very unlikely. If we look at the rest of their choices, they are not choices of evil men.

BTW, do you consider it to be a sin to enslave someone or to torture a heretic to extract a confession such as was done in the Inquisition?

I think both are a sin, but I know better than our ancestors did 500 years ago. Unlike Paul, I would never tell a woman to “shut up.”

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Melchior_1]

Again, none of this changes the fact that, even if they were “regularized”, as a Society of Apostolic Life they need permission from the Bishop to do their work. In writing. This whole thread is a moot point because of this. Regardless of who wrote what letter when and regardless of the SSPX’s canonical status, as a Society of Apostolic Life they need permission. There’s no exceptions for this.

Why would the Bishop authorize a group that gives so many problems, when he can authorize any number of other Societies instead?

 

[jwinch2]

Again, none of this changes the fact that, even if they were “regularized”, as a Society of Apostolic Life they need permission from the Bishop to do their work. In writing. This whole thread is a moot point because of this. Regardless of who wrote what letter when and regardless of the SSPX’s canonical status, as a Society of Apostolic Life they need permission. There’s no exceptions for this.

Why would the Bishop authorize a group that gives so many problems, when he can authorize any number of other Societies instead?

Absolutely…

 

[Midnight_Rider]

Again, none of this changes the fact that, even if they were “regularized”, as a Society of Apostolic Life they need permission from the Bishop to do their work. In writing. This whole thread is a moot point because of this. Regardless of who wrote what letter when and regardless of the SSPX’s canonical status, as a Society of Apostolic Life they need permission. There’s no exceptions for this.

Why would the Bishop authorize a group that gives so many problems, when he can authorize any number of other Societies instead?

Absolutely…

Exactly! If the local bishop tells the SSPX (or anyone else) they are not allowed, as this bishop has done, then that’s the end of the issue.

SSPX like to talk about obedience but talk is as far as it gets with them.

If we are not commanded to do something sinful…and we have not been, then that’s when we shut up and obey. That’s how it has always worked…even and especially pre Vatican II.

 

[JReducation]

Obedience is a very important point. Unless you’re a Jesuit community, Opus Dei or Eastern Catholic, you cannot setup shop in a Latin diocese without the bishop’s permission. This applies to religious, secular clergy and laymen.

The Jesuits get a pass, because they are sent by the pope. Opus Dei is in a similar situation, even though they are not consecrated men. They are a prelature that can expand where ever the pope grants them to do so. The Eastern Catholics have their own hierarchy. However, even these folks are very polite and inform the bishop that they’re coming to town.

There is a difference between the FSSP, SSPX and say Dominicans. FSSP and SSPX are secular men, not consecrated men. They don’t have the same rights. We have to take this into consideration. The Right of Exemption only applies to monks, friars, Jesuits, Secular Franciscans, Lay Dominicans, Secular Carmelites, Opus Dei, religious brothers and religious sisters of pontifical right. It does not apply to secular priests.

For example, the Dominicans need permission to enter the diocese, once they’re in, they cannot be asked to leave. The only thing that a bishop can do is to fire them from any diocesan ministries. He cannot close down any ministry that they own. If they own a chapel or a college and they start to teach heresy, the bishop is plum out of luck. He’s stuck with them in his diocese. They cannot be stopped or expelled from the diocese. He can prohibit their presence on any of his properties. He can’t prohibit their activity on their property.

Because the FSSP and the SSPX are secular men, they don’t have the Right of Exemption. They can be asked to leave a diocese by the diocesan bishop, after the SSPX are regularized.

If they become either an Ordinariate or a Prelature, then they are directly under the Holy Father, not the local bishop. The Holy Father or his vicar gets to decide where they can go.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Melchior_1]

The Right of Exemption only applies to monks, friars, Jesuits, Secular Franciscans, Lay Dominicans, Secular Carmelites, Opus Dei, religious brothers and religious sisters of pontifical right. It does not apply to secular priests.

(Unrelated note to this thread; I didn’t know that Lay Dominicans and Secular Franciscans fall under the Right of Exemption. That is useful information).

(EDIT: Then again, when you join you become a full member of the order, so I guess it makes sense that it extends to the Third Orders.

 

[JReducation]

(Unrelated note to this thread; I didn’t know that Lay Dominicans and Secular Franciscans fall under the Right of Exemption. That is useful information).

The Lay Dominicans are part of the Order of Preachers. The Secular Franciscans (SFO) not to be confused with OSF, are an autonomous order founded by St. Francis. The Order or Preachers and the Franciscan Orders are Orders of Pontifical Right.

The Council of Trent, wishing to protect these orders from control of the bishops and contamination from the laity, decreed that they were directly under the protection of the Pontiff. It decreed that the bishops had to provide for their spiritual welfare when in their dioceses and the laity had to provide for the financial needs of their apostolate, but neither the bishops nor the laity were to have any authority or voice in how they work, how they use their money and properties, or how they govern themselves. These areas are reserved to the Pontiff, hence the term, Pontifical Right. The right of exemption is given to the individual as well as to the community. The term, Pontifical Right means that the Pontiff reserves all the rights of control and accountability for himself.

This does not go over well among many American Catholics, because we’re not used to a system where we support something without accountability to us. In the case of communities of Pontifical Right, the local people support them, but they are accountable to the pope, not the local people or the local bishop, except when they administer missions and ministries for the local Church. In that case, they must account to the local Church.

The only communities of secular priests that have been given these same protections are the Maryknoll and the Vincentians, because of their contribution to the Church. In other words, they worked hard to earn this privilege. It took them many years to do so.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[TrueLight]

Obedience is a very important point. Unless you’re a Jesuit community, Opus Dei or Eastern Catholic, you cannot setup shop in a Latin diocese without the bishop’s permission. This applies to religious, secular clergy and laymen.

The Jesuits get a pass, because they are sent by the pope. Opus Dei is in a similar situation, even though they are not consecrated men. They are a prelature that can expand where ever the pope grants them to do so. The Eastern Catholics have their own hierarchy. However, even these folks are very polite and inform the bishop that they’re coming to town.

There is a difference between the FSSP, SSPX and say Dominicans. FSSP and SSPX are secular men, not consecrated men. They don’t have the same rights. We have to take this into consideration. The Right of Exemption only applies to monks, friars, Jesuits, Secular Franciscans, Lay Dominicans, Secular Carmelites, Opus Dei, religious brothers and religious sisters of pontifical right. It does not apply to secular priests.

For example, the Dominicans need permission to enter the diocese, once they’re in, they cannot be asked to leave. The only thing that a bishop can do is to fire them from any diocesan ministries. He cannot close down any ministry that they own. If they own a chapel or a college and they start to teach heresy, the bishop is plum out of luck. He’s stuck with them in his diocese. They cannot be stopped or expelled from the diocese. He can prohibit their presence on any of his properties. He can’t prohibit their activity on their property.

Because the FSSP and the SSPX are secular men, they don’t have the Right of Exemption. They can be asked to leave a diocese by the diocesan bishop, after the SSPX are regularized.

If they become either an Ordinariate or a Prelature, then they are directly under the Holy Father, not the local bishop. The Holy Father or his vicar gets to decide where they can go.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

I say, if the SSPX gets an Ordinariate or prelature, so should the FSSP!

 

[jmj1984]

He is not saying that everyone has the right to do as he pleases. He’s not drawing a line in the sand and saying, “Well, the pope is the Vicar of Jesus Christ and the visible head of the Church, however, even though he’s the head of the Church, I can do things my way, if I disagree with a command.”

What Newman is saying is

a) The pope cannot command sin. If he does so, he will not be obeyed . . . should not be obeyed.

b) Not everything that the pope says is a command; therefore, you can use your judgment.

You must look at several points, if you’re going to be a good theologian and an ever better canonist.

In Newman’s writings we read a great deal about the need to choose the greater good. We have to tie this in with his statements. You never obey a command to sin. You always choose the greater good.

Once you have understood this, then you have to apply the theologian or scholar to the situation on the table. In this case, there is a bishop exercising his canonical right to ask someone to leave his diocese. Newman’s response is to choose the greater good.

Violating someone’s right is never a good. The bishop has rights. He has the right to deny admission to any Catholic institute into his diocese. The faithful have a right to have the bishop meet their needs. The bishop is already working on doing this. One cannot argue that the needs of the people are being ignored. If we apply Newman’s principle, in a manner consistent with Benedict’s original theology of obedience, the answer is simple. The bishop is not asking the SSPX to do something sinful. The bishop is not ignoring the needs of his diocese. The bishop is admitting that they have problems, but they are working on them. None of these conditions fit Newman’s criteria for disobedience.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Br Jr

That implies that they are not two different schools of theology, The Church has numerous different theological schools, some of which come to different conclusions about matters and whilst we may personally may pick one over the other, that does not mean it is necessarily right. A good example of this would be the infamous conflict between the Society of Jesus and the Order of Preachers over pre-destination over the number of the saved which had to be settled by the Pope telling them to stop arguing with each other on pain of excommunication.

I never said Newman said ‘I can do things my way’ what I did say is that Bl Cardinal Newman:

1)Does not believe the Pope has an absolute right to command his obedience
2)Believes we must weigh reasons up before coming to a decision
3)Believes commands to sin may not always be clear and obvious

All this means that such decisions will often have a subjective nature. In other threads on the same matter you have often said 'This isn’t a command to sin recognised by the church authorities…’ That is clearly incompatible with Bl Cardinal Newman’s theology, his examples are to do with when Church authorities actually are the ones telling you to sin so there is no use in appealing to the very authorities that are asking you to sin.

I am merely pointing out that matters are not as clear cut as you seem to point out, for example when people raise the issue of those forbidden from celebrating the TLM or persecuted for doing so, you have often said this was not a sin or not a sin recognised by church authorities. That is not compatible with what Bl Cardinal Newman has said on the subject.

Another example would be

… It is contrary to the Rule of St. Francis for any son or daughter of St. Francis to be out of line with the pope. In his Testament, our Holy Father makes it very clear that the brethren, this includes the friars, nuns and secular, owe obedience to Brother Francis and his canonically elected successors. And he, Brother Francis, promises obedience to the pope.

Therefore, you and I have a moral obligation to follow our canonically elected Ministers in their submission to the pope and to his judgments. If the Minister fails to submit to the pope and to the local bishop and his judgments, the Minister is not to be followed.

As a Franciscan, you and I have a moral duty to think with the Church, this specifically means with the pope and his bishops.

Regardless of what we may think, we keep our opinions to ourselves and we obey Francis’ command to obey the Minister and follow the Minister’s allegiance to the pope, unless we have permission to express a dissenting opinion…

Now that is all very well and good and I am not certainly not condoning what the poster said but your reply lends itself to an almost absolute obedience, there is no qualification of it whatsoever.

Bl Cardinal Newman is clear, although it is very unlikely, the Pope can be mistake about these matters and so in some circumstances, though I do not say it is the case in this situation submission to the pope or the bishops is not enough, one can disobey them. This is extremely rare of course, I cannot think it has happened (as regards the pope) more than 5 or 6 times in the last 2000 years, disobeying the bishops would have happened perhaps a few dozen times in the last 2000 years. St Joan of Arc for example would have been justified and the same with St Athanasius.

 

[jmj1984]

I say, if the SSPX gets an Ordinariate or prelature, so should the FSSP!

Unlikely, perhaps if the SSPX refuses the FSSP will get one instead? But I hardly see the point of two Ordinariate’s doing the exact same thing, with the exact same objective.