Only an Ecumenical Council

[prodromos]

Gray Mouser:

Heh, heh. Perhaps it’s just that the Catholic Church takes episcopal collegiality seriously and so has the bishops gather in union with the head of their college to deal with problems and the governance of the Church.

The first councils were called primarily to defend the faith once handed down by the Apostles against heresy. SInce the bishops were already assembled they dealt with other issues as well, but that is not why they were called in the first place. If the Lateran councils were not called primarily to deal with heresy then I would hesitate to put them at the same rank as the Seven Ecumenical Councils.

John.

 

[Gray_Mouser]

prodromos:

The first councils were called primarily to defend the faith once handed down by the Apostles against heresy. SInce the bishops were already assembled they dealt with other issues as well, but that is not why they were called in the first place.

Perhaps not, however, my original comment was to go to the matter of collegiallity, which can be exercised in regards to dealing with heresy or with matters of discipline.

If the Lateran councils were not called primarily to deal with heresy then I would hesitate to put them at the same rank as the Seven Ecumenical Councils.

John.

Well, if you want to come up with a sub-division of Ecumenical Councils that’s your business. This is not to deny that the first seven councils have a special place in Christianity, as they are accepted by Catholics and Orthodox alike. But they aren’t “more infallible” or “more authoritative” than later Ecumenical Councils. A local council would be, but that’s because they are, well, local and not binding on the entire Church.

Gray Mouser

 

[DominvsVobiscvm]

Actually, it is my understanding that even some local councils received dogmatic (if not exactly) Ecumenical status by their subsequent ratification by the Pope. The Council of Orange comes to mind, which condemned Pelagianism.

I believe the Catholic Encyclopedia concurs with this, though I’ll have to see.

And BTW, I know that at least one of the Seven first Councils did not define new dogmas, but dealt with disciplinary matters, like condemning the writings of some heretics.

 

[Deacon_Ed]

Albert and Others:

Albert does raise a good question that needs to be considered. What if there is doubt about the disciplines and teachings the Church puts forth? How are we to resolve those doubts? Here is an excerpt from a book entitled C*hristian Moral Principles *by Germaine Grisez:

1. Doubts of conscience which arise because of uncertainty about relevant norms are of two kinds: (1) whether a norm exists; (2) whether a norm which comes to mind is true and adequate to the proposal about which one is deliberating.
2. Supposing the norm, if any, is a rule of positive law, whether it exists is a question of fact, and whether it is relevant to the proposal under consideration is a question of legal interpretation. These questions should be distinguished from whether a law is morally defective and whether it is applicable. The latter are not under consideration here. (Questions of applicability were treated in 11-E.)
3. Every system of positive law provides some way of determining whether rules of law exist and are relevant to one’s actions. These means take priority in settling such questions. When the procedures provided by law do not settle questions about the existence and relevance of rules of law, one may follow the axiom which allows liberty. One’s moral duty is to obey laws, not anything and everything which might be a law; thus, a rule of law which is doubtful does not bind one to obedience.
4. When, however, there is a preponderance of expert opinion that a norm exists and is relevant, the rule of law is not truly doubtful. Rather, it is probable. The contrary opinion, even if held by some who are competent, is not truly probable, only plausible but improbable. The reason is that the questions at issue are suited to expert observation and interpretation. In such matters, the nonexpert should accept as correct the preponderance of competent opinion.
5. If the norm in question is not a rule of law but a specific moral norm, doubt can arise for a Catholic only in the absence of clear Church teaching on the matter under consideration. If, lacking clear Church teaching, there is a consensus of theologians, one should be guided by it, for when theologians agree their reflection very likely articulates true moral norms in the light of faith. If, however, faithful theologians disagree, one reasonably disregards all theological opinions, for as a body they provide no ground for assuming that one or another of the disagreeing opinions is true.
6. Lacking both clear Church teaching and a consensus of theologians, Catholics doubtful about the truth and adequacy of a moral norm should ask themselves whether or not they would have any responsibility to do the act if it is permissible. If the answer is no, an upright person will instead choose to do something which is certainly good.
7. But if the answer is yes (one should do the act if it is permissible), then one should accept the judgment–it is permissible or it is not permissible–which seems more likely true. Those unable to make a judgment for themselves should act on the advice of others whom they trust: children on the judgment of their parents, simple souls on the judgment of their confessors, and so forth.

As can clearly be seen, what the Chuch puts forth cannot allow for doubt since the Church, as the arbiter of God’s laws, resolves all doubt.

Deacon Ed

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Albert,

The SSPX position is in accord with what Marcel Lefebvre wrote:

“The Novus Ordo Missae, even when said with piety and respect for the liturgical rules, … bears within it a poison harmful to the faith*”* (An Open Letter to Confused Catholics, p. 29, sspx.org/SSPX_FAQs/q5_novusordo.htm)

Yet in the 18th century, Pius VI condemned the Jansenist proposition that ecclesiastical discipline such as approved Catholic liturgy can be “harmful” to the faithful.

Pius VI’s condemnes this proposition by asserting:

"[Jansenism] includes and submits to a prescribed examination even the discipline established and approved by the Church**, as if the Church which is ruled by the Spirit of God could have established discipline which is not only useless and burdensome for Christian liberty to endure, but which is even dangerous and harmful** and leading to superstition and materialism,–false, rash, scandalous, dangerous, offensive to pious ears, injurious to the Church and to the Spirit of God by whom it is guided, at least erroneous.

(Pius VI, Auctorem Fidei, 78 (1794), cited in Denzinger, The Sources of Catholic Dogma, translated by Roy F. Deferari from the 13th ed. Of Henry Denzinger’s Enchiridion Symbolorum, 1954, Loreto Publications, 2nd printing, 2004, pg. 393)]

Catholic tradition since the 18th century has upheld this condemnation. (cf. Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos, 9, AD 1832; Gregory XVI, Quo Graviora, 4-5, AD 1833; Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, 66, AD 1943). Yet, the SSPX assert the Pauline Rite Liturgy is a “danger to our faith” and like Marcel Lefebvre assert a condemned Jansenist all over again.

You want to be truly obedient to traditional Catholic doctrine, then you ought to also condemn the Jansenist propositions of the SSPX, as was condemned a long time ago by Pius VI.

 

[DominvsVobiscvm]

The Jansenists, BTW, were the “traditionalists” of their own day. They cited Father upon Father, tradition upon tradition, in order to support their many heresies.

There really is nothing new under the sun . . .

 

[albert_cipriani]

Deacon Ed:

So, I guess we get down to the expression “true obedience.” This is, of course, in opposition to “false obedience” in which one pays lip service to the teaching of the Church while doing whatever one wishes.

You’ve described hypocricy, not false obedience. Paying lip service to the Church while actively contradicting it is two-faced doubledealing Pharisiacal disobedience, not false obedience. False obedience is firstly obedience. Secondly, it is false because the source of the authority one is obeying is man and not God. This distinction is even made in scripture.

Nope, no room to weasle out here.

Whose weaseling? This is the thrid time I have explicated the term for you.

Full and true obedience means submitting oneself to God thorugh the Church He established.

If it were this simple, we’d all be Arians. 80% of the bishops with some complicity from the Pope took over all the Churches and for several generations taught that the Son was inferior to the Father. Were it not for Saint Athanasius who was excommunicated 5 times and hunted down like a common criminal for 17 years, were it not for “disobedient” Catholics who supported him and a handful of the faithful bishops and celebrated Mass in the fields, your “true obedience” would have allowed heresy to triumph.

We don’t get to judge the Church, to decide what we will follow or what we will reject.

And neither does the Church. Churchmen can no more decide to ban the immemorial Mass than I can. They cannot undo what has been done. Our only choice is which side to be on, the side that is illegally attempting to obliterate the Tridentine Mass or the side that clings to that Mass as our immemorial right – not privlege, not exception to the rule – that it is. – Sincerely, Albert Cipriani the Traditional Catholic
http://www.geocities.com/albert_cipriani/index.html
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ReligiousPhilosophy/

 

[Deacon_Ed]

albert cipriani:

You’ve described hypocricy, not false obedience. Paying lip service to the Church while actively contradicting it is two-faced doubledealing Pharisiacal disobedience, not false obedience. False obedience is firstly obedience. Secondly, it is false because the source of the authority one is obeying is man and not God. This distinction is even made in scripture.

Yes, false obedience is hypocritical. Since the church *is *the source of these orders failing to obey them is sinful.

And neither does the Church. Churchmen can no more decide to ban the immemorial Mass than I can. They cannot undo what has been done. Our only choice is which side to be on, the side that is illegally attempting to obliterate the Tridentine Mass or the side that clings to that Mass as our immemorial right – not privlege, not exception to the rule – that it is. – Sincerely, Albert Cipriani the Traditional Catholic

Well, Pope Pius XII would take exception to you since he said the authority to regulate the Liturgy belongs to the Church.

Pope Pius XI writes:

Since the Church has received from her founder, Christ, the duty of guarding the holiness of divine worship, surely it is part of the same, of course after preserving the substance of the sacrifice and the sacraments, to prescribe the following: ceremonies, rites, formulas, prayers, chant— by which that august and public ministry is best controlled, whose special name is Liturgy, as if an exceedingly sacred action. And the liturgy is an undoubtedly sacred thing; for, through it we are brought to God and are joined with Him; we bear witness to our faith, and we are obligated to it by a most serious duty because of the benefits and helps received, of which we are always in need. Hence a kind of intimate relationship between dogma and sacred liturgy, and likewise between Christian worship and the sanctification of the people. Therefore, Celestine I proposed and expressed a canon of faith in the venerated formulas of the Liturgy: “Let the law of supplication establish the law of believing. For when the leaders of holy peoples administer legislation enjoined upon themselves they plead the cause of the human race before divine Clemency, and they beg and pray while the entire Church sighs with them”

Since the form of the Mass is a discipline, it can be changed (and has been, even after *Quo Primum *which is nothing more than a disciplinary document implementing the Roman Missal. And, of course, there is no such thing as an “immemorial Mass.” The word “immemorial” means “reaching beyond memory” – and the Church can clearly remember before the Mass of Pius V – we even have documents which tell us of such Masses.

Deacon Ed

 

[albert_cipriani]

Dear Deacon Ed,
Thank you for your well-reasoned post.
Deacon Ed:

Well, Pope Pius XII would take exception to you since he said the authority to regulate the Liturgy belongs to the Church.

Of course I agree with every word of Pope Pius XII which you cited. The Church has every right and even an obligation to regulate all her sacraments.

Our point of contention arises over the definition of what constitutes a regulation as distinct from a replacement. The Tridentine Mass (falsely so-called) is at least a 6th Century Mass. The regulations of that Mass in the intervening 1400 years was no more than a phrase here and there. In stark contrast, the Mass of Pope Paul VI deleted or replaced approximately 80% of that Traditional Mass.

If only 20% of your face remained the same after I “regulated” it, would you consider it a regulation or a replacement? I don’t think anyone really thinks the New Mass is a regulation of the Old Mass. No matter where one stands on the issue, all should agree that it is a new rite and not a regulation of an old rite.

And, of course, there is no such thing as an “immemorial Mass.” The word “immemorial” means “reaching beyond memory” – and the Church can clearly remember before the Mass of Pius V – we even have documents which tell us of such Masses.

The phrase “immemorial” is used by the Church in reference to customs. Immemorial customs have canonical status. Yes the Traditional Mass is a discipline. It is also a sacrament and most definitely an immemorial custom. It’s origin clearly is beyond the written memory of the Church which extends only back to the 6th century. The fact that the Church “can clearly remember” other liturgical rites in addition to it does not take away from the fact that the origin of the Tridentine Mass is immemorial.

Proof of the Apostolic origin of the Tridentine Mass as an immemorial custom is evident in the words of the consecration. The priest says, “taking also into His holy and venerable hands THIS goodly chalice .” What could that mean but that the first Masses involved the apostles using the very cup our Lord used at His Last Supper, what’s come to be called the Holy Grail. – Sincerely, Albert Cipriani the Traditional Catholic

http://www.geocities.com/albert_cipriani/index.html
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ReligiousPhilosophy/

 

[Deacon_Ed]

albert cipriani:

Dear Deacon Ed,
Thank you for your well-reasoned post.

You’re welcome.

Of course I agree with every word of Pope Pius XII which you cited. The Church has every right and even an obligation to regulate all her sacraments.

I cited Pius XI, but Pius XII made the same claim, “only more so” in that he made the same points only stronger.

Our point of contention arises over the definition of what constitutes a regulation as distinct from a replacement. The Tridentine Mass (falsely so-called) is at least a 6th Century Mass. The regulations of that Mass in the intervening 1400 years was no more than a phrase here and there. In stark contrast, the Mass of Pope Paul VI deleted or replaced approximately 80% of that Traditional Mass.

If only 20% of your face remained the same after I “regulated” it, would you consider it a regulation or a replacement? I don’t think anyone really thinks the New Mass is a regulation of the Old Mass. No matter where one stands on the issue, all should agree that it is a new rite and not a regulation of an old rite.

A “regulation” is a directive, usually disciplinary, that controls how something is done. Since the Mass of Paul VI regulates how the Mass is celebrated, it is a regulation and, therefore, qualifies under the descriptions that both Pius XI and Pius XII gave.

The phrase “immemorial” is used by the Church in reference to customs. Immemorial customs have canonical status. Yes the Traditional Mass is a discipline. It is also a sacrament and most definitely an immemorial custom. It’s origin clearly is beyond the written memory of the Church which extends only back to the 6th century. The fact that the Church “can clearly remember” other liturgical rites in addition to it does not take away from the fact that the origin of the Tridentine Mass is immemorial.

Well, the roots of the Mass go back to the time after the Christians were tossed out of the Temple and synagogues. It was at that time that the overarching structure of a Liturgy of the Word and a Liturgy of the Eucharist (although those terms are anachronistic) were pulled together. The Liturgy of the Word derives from the scripture readings in the Temple and the Eucharist from the agape meal that was celebrated by the early Christian communities. This basic form is found in all Catholic and Orthodox Liturgies! However, beyond that, the specifics seem to indicate that the Canon of the Mass (the anaphora to use the correct term) derives from the 3rd or 4th century. Changes to the remainder of the Mass continued up to and after the Council of Trent.

Proof of the Apostolic origin of the Tridentine Mass as an immemorial custom is evident in the words of the consecration. The priest says, “taking also into His holy and venerable hands THIS goodly chalice .” What could that mean but that the first Masses involved the apostles using the very cup our Lord used at His Last Supper, what’s come to be called the Holy Grail. – Sincerely, Albert Cipriani the Traditional Catholic

It could, and does, mean the chalice that the priest is using. It does not mean “the very cup our Lord used” since that would indicate the Liturgy (the term “Mass” doesn’t come along until the shift from Greek to Latin, and even then probably not until the 7th century at the earliest) could only be celebrated in one place at a time. Nope, that interpretation clearly fails.

On a different note: I understand you raise goats. Is that correct? Perhaps a PM for this might be in order.

Deacon Ed

 

[DominvsVobiscvm]

I will only note that Albert’s citation of the Arian crisis is completely and absolutely false.

It’s a known fact that the Popes were just about the only bishops, other than Saint Athanasius, who were orthodox in this matter.

The burden is on Albert to give documentaion of the fact that there were "disobedienct Catholics who remained orthodox by disobeying the Pope.

I challenge him to name one.

The Byzantine Emperor is not the Pope . . .

 

[itsjustdave1988]

St. Thomas Aquinas states that whether words are added to or subtracted from the sacramental form will not effect the validity of the sacrament unless …

1. the intention of the minister is altered such that “he seems not to intend to do what the Church does” (ST, III, 60, 8), or …
2. “the change of words destroys the essential sense of the words” (ibid).

Consequently, St. Thomas concludes “Words belong to a sacramental form by reason of the sense signified by them. Consequently any addition or suppression of words which does not add to or take from the essential sense, does not destroy the essence of the sacrament” (ibid).

The words of consecration within the Pauline Rite Liturgy do not add to or take away the essential sense of the words of consecration. The Eucharist, therefore, is valid.

 

[albert_cipriani]

Deacon Ed:

A “regulation” is a directive, usually disciplinary, that controls how something is done. Since the Mass of Paul VI regulates how the Mass is celebrated, it is a regulation and, therefore, qualifies under the descriptions that both Pius XI and Pius XII gave.

Dear Deacon Ed,
You’re substituting a lawyerly conclusion for the philosophical conclusion that is required. Yes, a regulation “is usually disciplinary.” That begs the question of whether the “regulation” involving the wholesale disembowelment of the Tradtiional Mass and replacement thereof with a liturgy written by a disgraced and exiled bishop (Annibale Bugnini) constitutes something more than a regulation. On this question your silence is deafening.

In reference to my contention that the Traditional Mass makes reference to the Holy Grail when it states that our Lord took “THIS goodly chalice” you wrote:

It could, and does, mean the chalice that the priest is using. It does not mean “the very cup our Lord used” since that would indicate the Liturgy (the term “Mass” doesn’t come along until the shift from Greek to Latin, and even then probably not until the 7th century at the earliest) could only be celebrated in one place at a time. Nope, that interpretation clearly fails.

I don’t follow you at all here. The issue is the use of the article “THIS” not that the use of that word would restrict the celebration of the Mass to use of the Holy Grail. My contention is that the Apostles celebrated the very first Masses with our Lords’ Last Supper cup, hence the use of the article “this.” Priests thereafter used those Apostolic words (now scratched in the New Mass), not daring to change this Apostolic Tradition even tho they, of course, in reference to a multiplicity of new cups. – Sincerely, Albert Cipriani the Traditional Catholic

 

[Deacon_Ed]

albert cipriani:

Dear Deacon Ed,
You’re substituting a lawyerly conclusion for the philosophical conclusion that is required. Yes, a regulation “is usually disciplinary.” That begs the question of whether the “regulation” involving the wholesale disembowelment of the Tradtiional Mass and replacement thereof with a liturgy written by a disgraced and exiled bishop (Annibale Bugnini) constitutes something more than a regulation. On this question your silence is deafening.Hmmm…I never saw anything that constituted “disgraced” – although he certainly was transferred. Many members of the various dicastories in Rome have been transferred. And, yes, since the regulation of discipline is a juridic matter I must approach it from that standpoint. If we were speaking of theology then a philosophical approach could be taken. The only place philosophy has in this question would revolve around the authority to make such a change, and you have already agreed that there is a right to regulate the liturgy that belongs to the Pope and, by his authority, certain congregations in Rome.

The issue is the use of the article “THIS” not that the use of that word would restrict the celebration of the Mass to use of the Holy Grail. My contention is that the Apostles celebrated the very first Masses with our Lords’ Last Supper cup, hence the use of the article “this.” Priests thereafter used those Apostolic words (now scratched in the New Mass), not daring to change this Apostolic Tradition even tho they, of course, in reference to a multiplicity of new cups. – Sincerely, Albert Cipriani the Traditional Catholic

There is no historical evidence to support your claim that the article “this” referred to a specific cup. In fact, these words are not found in the earliest Eucharist Prayers at all! They do not appear until the formation of the Roman Canon in Latin. No extant Greek texts contain this term. It’s not found in the Byzantine texts of the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom nor that of St. Basil. It is not found in the Syriac texts which are probably older than the Byzantine texts (Syriac is a form of aramaic). Therefore, to assert that the Apostles used them is to assert that which cannot be proven and which is most unlikely. Further, to assert that the Apostles used the same cup Jesus used is equally unlikely since they scattered following the arrest of Jesus in the garden. While the cup may have been preserved (and history abounds with tales and legends of the Hoy Grail), it is most unlikely that it was used again for the “breaking of the bread.”

My point, which remains valid, is that the “breaking of the bread” was celebrated by the Apostles in many different locations, and so not more than one Apostle could have had the cup at any time.

Still, your argument seems spurious since it depends on the “willing suspension of disbelief” – and this term is normally assocated with fiction, not factual reporting.

Deacon Ed

 

[albert_cipriani]

itsjustdave1988:

The SSPX position is in accord with what Marcel Lefebvre wrote:The Novus Ordo Missae, even when said with piety and respect for the liturgical rules, … bears within it a poison harmful to the faith*"* An Open Letter to Confused Catholics, p. 29]

Yet in the 18th century, Pius VI condemned the Jansenist proposition that ecclesiastical discipline such as approved Catholic liturgy can be “harmful” to the faithful.

Pius VI’s condemnes this proposition by asserting:
"[Jansenism] includes and submits to a prescribed examination even the discipline established and approved by the Church**, as if the Church which is ruled by the Spirit of God could have established discipline which is not only useless and burdensome for Christian liberty to endure, but which is even dangerous and harmful** and leading to superstition and materialism,–false, rash, scandalous, dangerous, offensive to pious ears, injurious to the Church and to the Spirit of God by whom it is guided, at least erroneous. " [Pius VI, *Auctorem Fidei

, 78 (1794)]

Catholic tradition since the 18th century has upheld this condemnation. (cf. Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos, 9, AD 1832; Gregory XVI, Quo Graviora, 4-5, AD 1833; Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, 66, AD 1943). Yet, the SSPX assert the Pauline Rite Liturgy is a “danger to our faith” and like Marcel Lefebvre assert a condemned Jansenist all over again. Dear Dave,
Thanks for your well-supported argument against the SSPX “position.” SSPX bishops and priests will be the first to tell you that they are not the legitimate authoritative voice of the Church and that Lefebvre was not their pope. Ergo, this SSPX “position” is actually a red herring. It is not my position even tho I held my nose while attending the Novus Ordo Mass for 20 years.

As a Traditionalist, I accept ALL of the magisterium’s moral and dogmatic teachings but not all of her pastoral practices (what Pope Pius VI refers to as “disciplines” in his day which would be better termed “laxities” in our day). There is no heresy in this position of mine. For my contrary opinion to rise to the level of heresy it would have to involve a rejection or doubt of some de fide Church moral or dogma.

Note that Pope Pius VI’s condemnation of us who reject Church practices only carries the censure of erroneous. In the hierarchy of theological censure, the censure of an erroneous opinion is three orders of magnitude removed from heresy. It is neither proximate to heresy nor savoring of heresy.

Were I to embrace a single heresy, I would ipso facto cease to be a Catholic. But I can hold an arguably erroneous opinion and still remain a Catholic in good standing with my Church, notwithstanding all the accusations to the contrary of being a Protestant, schismatic, excommunicated heretic and other ad hominems. – Sincerely, Albert Cipriani the Traditional Catholic.

 

[Deacon_Ed]

Albert,

You write:

As a Traditionalist, I accept ALL of the magisterium’s moral and dogmatic teachings but not all of her pastoral practices (what Pope Pius VI refers to as “disciplines” in his day which would be better termed “laxities” in our day). There is no heresy in this position of mine. For my contrary opinion to rise to the level of heresy it would have to involve a rejection or doubt of some de fide Church moral or dogma.

I’m not sure if you’re aware of this or not, but the claim you make here is virtually identical to the defense that Sen. Kerry makes in his rejection of Catholic teaching. As I have pointed out, the First Vatican Council rejects your claim when it says that you *must *accept not only the teachings on doctrine and dogma, but also on discipline:

Furthermore We teach and declare that the Roman Church, bu the disposition of the Lord, hols the sovereignty of ordinary power over all others, and that this power of jurisdiction on the part of the Roman Pontiff, which is truly episcopal, is immediate; and with respect to this the pastors and the faithful of whatever rite and dignity, both as separate individuals and all together, are bound by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, not only in things which pertain to faith and morals, *but also in those which pertain to the discipline and government of the Church *[which is] spread over the whole world, so that the Church of Christ, protected not only by the Roman Pontiff, but by the unity of communion as well as the profession of the same faith is one flock under the one hightest shepherd. This is the doctrine of Catholic truth from which no one can deviate and keep his faith and salvation.(Denziger 1827)

I fail to see how you can assert your position in light of this teaching. Now, I know you claim that this amounts to slavery (and false obedience), but the Church has also addressed what constitutes true obedience:

In order that, for the future, every occasion of error may be prevented, and that all sons of the Catholic Church may learn to listen to the Church herself, not in silence only (for, “even the wicked are silent in darkness” [1 Samuel 2:9]), but with an interior obedience, which is the true obedience of an orthodox man,… (Denzinger 1350)

True obedience is, therefore, an interior obedience to all that the Church teaches and commands, not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in matters of discipline. Therefore, one cannot be Catholic and reject the disciplines of the Church. That’s an oxymoron.

In fact, the Council of Vienne condemned a position very similar to yours:

That those who are in the aforementioned degree of perfection and in that spirit of liberty are not subject to human obedience, nor are they bound to any precepts of the Church, because (as they assert) "where the spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty [2 Cor. 3:17]. (Denzinger 473)

Now, the Church does permit disobedience under one condition, and one condition only:

That is the one reason for men not obeying, if something is demanded of them which is openly at odds with natural and divine law; for it is equally wrong to order and to do anything in which the law of nature or the will of God is violated. If, then, it ever happens to anyone to be forced to choose one or the other, namely, to ignore the orders either of God or of princes, obedience must be rendered to Jesus Christ who orders, “the things that are Caesar’s, to Caesar; the things that are God’s to God” [cf. Matt. 22:21], and according to the example of the apostles the reply should be made courageously: “We ought to obey God, rather than man” [Acts 5:29]… (Denzinger 1857)

Note, however, that this applies to secular authority and not to the authority of the Church!

Deacon Ed

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Albert,

You are correct. You can be an erroneous Catholics, an obstinantly sinful Catholic, a disobedient Catholic, without being heretical Catholics. But as I said earlier, there’s a place in hell for bad Catholics just as there’s a place in hell for schismatics, heretics, and infidels who willingly and knowingly disobey the Vicar of Christ.

Your dissenting argument is also used by Fr. Philip S. Kaufman in his book *Why You Can Disagree-- And Remain a Faithful Catholic. *Ironically, he uses your argument to advocate artificial birth control, among other impious practices.

This is why I see the SSPX and other like-minded disobedient Catholics as nothing more than the opposite side of the same dissenting coin as the modernist Catholics you rail against. You share the same sin: disobedience. You share the same quibbling argument when presenting your case, that is, probabilism and doubt. Strangely ironic.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Deacon Ed,

Well put! It reminds me of something St. Catherine, Doctor of the Catholic Church wrote that seems to me to be more the position of anyone calling themselves “traditional” …

St. Catherine:

“He left you this sweet key of obedience; for as you know He left His vicar, the Christ, on earth, whom you are all obliged to obey until death, and whoever is outside His obedience is in a state of damnation” (Dialogue, Treatise on Obedience)

But even more revealing of what true obedience is, St. Catherine asserts:

"He is insane who rises or acts contrary to this Vicar who holds the keys of the blood of Christ crucified. Even if he was a demon incarnate, I should not raise my head against him, but always grovel and ask for the blood out of mercy. And don’t pay attention to what the demon proposes to you and you propose under the color of virtue, that is to say to want to do justice against evil pastors regarding their fault. Don’t trust the demon: don’t try to do justice about what does not concern you. God wants neither you nor anyone else to set themselves up as a righter of the wrongs of His ministers. He reserves judgment to Himself, and He reserves it to His Vicar; and if the Vicar does not do justice, we should wait for the punishment and correction on the part of the sovereign judge, God Eternal." (Letters, Vol. I. Letter No. 28).

 

[deogratias]

This is why I see the SSPX and other like-minded disobedient Catholics as nothing more than the opposite side of the same dissenting coin as the modernist Catholics you rail against. You share the same sin: disobedience. You share the same quibbling argument when presenting your case, that is, probabilism and doubt. Strangely ironic

A good friend of mine, a Priest, often says, “one can fall into the ditch on eithier side of the road” - One difference I see between the modernists and the SSPX - the SSPX would have the faithful and the Modernists all believe that it is they who are in the ditch. But both extremists have the free will to crawl out of the ditch and get back on the trail again if they would so choose.

 

[Deacon_Ed]

Dave,

That second citation from St. Catherine is right on the money. She certainly addressed the sitation and put it in its proper perspective. The interesting thing is, the SSPX and its followers will frequently refer to St. Catherine whom they claim corrected the pope. She didn’t – she simply told him to return to Rome where he belonged.

Deacon Ed