Pushed to the SSPX

[EnchantedEve]

I have to go to bed, because I have to get up in an 90 min for morning prayer. But the point with the Vatican II decrees that many people fail to understand is that the Church is not only about faith and morals, she is also about pastoral care and temporal affairs. She does speak authoritatively in these fields. When Benedict XVI says that they must accept Vatican II’s authority, that’s what he’s referring to. Vatican II had the authority to write the decree on Religoius Freedom, which has been a thorn on the side of many. It had the authority to make the statements that it made about other faiths, another thorn on the side of many people.

The Church does not only have authority when speaking on dogmas and morals. She has expansive authority given to her by Christ on all matters concerning humanity, even economic mattters. We see this in the early Church all the way through the Renaissance. The Church was very involved in science, culture, art, politics, economics, civil law, resolution of conflicts, education, healthcare and so forth. She was not just a kindly old lady. She acted with authority and power.

I believe, that too many people would like to scale down the power of the Church to faith and morals. If something is not about faith and morals, it’s not infallible; therefore, we can question and reject it. But that’s not the way the Church was set up. From the days of Abraham, the faith led dictated the lives of the people of God. It it was always the voice of authority. The Jews, the early Christians, the monks in the monasteries, the Dessert Fathers, the Early Fathers of the Church and others never stopped to sort out what was infallible from what was pastoral, temporal and other. This was the Church doing the talking and that’s all that matted to them. In our effort to recover our roots, we must recover this reverence and respect for the Church’s authority to make statements about herself and the world, which is what she did during Vatican II, and we owe it to her to accept that she has the authority to make these statements.

If there are people out there who do not understand what was said or meant, they deserve an explanation. This is justice. I for one have never had problems understanding the Council Documents. I found them very user friendly. Maybe it’s me. I come from another pespective, one of Mystical Theology and Franciscan tradition. We tend to look at what the spiritual message is and what is the rule of life that is being proposed or spoken about. Yes, there are times when you have to go back and reread something. You find that you have to read something else to understand, because so many of these documents were based on discussions and other writings. But if we take the time to look for them, we will find that the final documents are pretty simplistic, actually.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

I agree, to a certain extent. Other than a couple of documents, Vatican II is fairly inocuous. There are even some parts regarding other creeds I find laudible, and Bishop Fellay has stated this himself, that they agree almost 90% with the council if not for a couple of documents. This may be why Bishop de Gallereta has said the talks are going so well. The “hardcore” of the SSPX may find this hard to swallow, but apparently not the leadership.

I must confess your views of the early to medieval Church’s authority, while laudable, are not entirely accurate. The Scholastic Movement, the School of Salamanca, the Physiocrats, the Guelfs, while certainly intra-Church, were independent movements of thought. People may have looked to the Church as a font of wisdom, but people were not afraid to also think for themselves within the context of the Church, even religious. The Church did also grant a freedom of thought, even to religious, so long as the view was not advocated with authority and did not challenge the teaching power of the Church. Much of the economic thought of the popes would be extremely harmful if implemented, and while they are within their rights to speak with authority, the fact that they can be very wrong cannot be ignored.

So I agree we must revere the Holy Father in all matters, even outside Faith and Morals. However, it also means we should still evaluate his teachings, humbly and with charity, and with an examining eye. We are all called to communion in Christ, and sometimes the laity know this better than even a pope. The Church has the authority to proclaim to judge and legislate on doctrine, it is true, but not erroneously. There are limits to what She can do even here.

I also happen to have a strong agreement with the Dessert Fathers.

 

[JReducation]

Look, JR, all this is going around in circles, and you’re restating a straw man argument over and over. The SSPX recognizes the authority of Peter, so to keep asserting that they have to accept Peter’s authority is a moot point. However, they realize that the Church is run by men on a day-to-day basis and things can and do go wrong, sometimes terribly wrong. Apparently the Holy Father believes they may have some legitimate complaints, or else these talks would not be happening and the excommunications would still stand.

No one has said that they do not recognize the authority Peter. However, it is not a moot point when the person who asserts the authority of Peter also says that Peter has made a mistake on matters of Church teaching. If something goes wrong, it is not because Peter made a mistake on a matter of doctrine or dogma. There are many reasons for things to go wrong. To insist, as was posted before, the a pope can teach against doctrine is absolutely wrong. He cannot. It is theologically impossible.

That being said, please watch your tone when you post to me. You are not my superior. You will either speak to me politely or I will see to it that you are consequence by CAF. The tone of the above post is rude. We do not speak to people as if they were our children. In fact, we do not speak to our children with that tone or attitude either. It is inappropriate. Please refrain from using it on me.

Accusing someone of appealing to “straw man” arguments is often found among those who are defensive of a topic or group and do not wish to engage in real dialogue and further learning. If you do not with to continue in the discussion, you need not do so. If feel that I have nothing that I can teach you, you need not read my posts either. But allow me the courtessy to express my points without being spoken to in a codescending manner and without calling my points “stawman.” Thank you.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

I agree, to a certain extent. Other than a couple of documents, Vatican II is fairly inocuous. There are even some parts regarding other creeds I find laudible, and Bishop Fellay has stated this himself, that they agree almost 90% with the council if not for a couple of documents. This may be why Bishop de Gallereta has said the talks are going so well. The “hardcore” of the SSPX may find this hard to swallow, but apparently not the leadership.

I must confess your views of the early to medieval Church’s authority, while laudable, are not entirely accurate. The Scholastic Movement, the School of Salamanca, the Physiocrats, the Guelfs, while certainly intra-Church, were independent movements of thought. People may have looked to the Church as a font of wisdom, but people were not afraid to also think for themselves within the context of the Church, even religious. The Church did also grant a freedom of thought, even to religious, so long as the view was not advocated with authority and did not challenge the teaching power of the Church. Much of the economic thought of the popes would be extremely harmful if implemented, and while they are within their rights to speak with authority, the fact that they can be very wrong cannot be ignored.

So I agree we must revere the Holy Father in all matters, even outside Faith and Morals. However, it also means we should still evaluate his teachings, humbly and with charity, and with an examining eye. We are all called to communion in Christ, and sometimes the laity know this better than even a pope. The Church has the authority to proclaim to judge and legislate on doctrine, it is true, but not erroneously. There are limits to what She can do even here.

I also happen to have a strong agreement with the Dessert Fathers.

I bolded the point that I was trying to make. Maybe you have made it more clearly than I could have done so. Today, after Vatican II, clerics and the monastic and mendicant orders have been told, in no uncertain terms, that we may never speak in any way that is considered authoritative or undermines what those above us have said, even if they are wrong. We can only quote what authority says. Anything else that we say is simply our opinion. It is up to the superior of the religious community to decide what he will allow his religious to think, feel or say. Every superior is different. Some have stricter rules than others. In some communities, you may never express an opinion unless it is asked for. In other communities, opnions can be expressed within identified contexts such as classrooms, community meetings, chapters, and among your brotehrs. In other communities the word is always “caution.” In the case of the diocesan clergy, it is up to the bishop to make those rules for his diocese and his clerics.

The bottom line is that only those who have been given free reign of thought can use it. Not all of us have that. It depends on our religious superior and the ministry in which we are engaged. For example, in my community we may never share any opinions with the laity unless they are opinions that promote and support what has been stated by those in authority: religious superiors, bishops and popes. This is to avoid lack of charity toward those in authority and to avoid confusing the laity with 20 opinions from 20 different brothers. I’m strictly speaking about opinions on statements made by those who are higher in dignity than we are. It does not apply to every detail.

You cite that sometimes the popes make statements that are mistaken regarding such things as economy. In my community, we are required to put distance between us and any belief that the Pope is wrong. Absolute fidelity is expected 100% of the time. This is not always easy. But it is a very worthy form of penance and a good practice in detachment. The rationale for this is that this accomplishes two things:

1. It makes us more like Jesus, who submitted to the Father in all things without murmuring.
2. It sets an example for the laity to follow. It’s a form of preaching on obedience and humility, without saying much.

Have popes made mistakes on temporal matters? Of course they have. Are we allowed to point those out? NEVER, unless we are asked to do so by someone in authority. It can lead to a suspension and other eclesial penalties, not to mention that Francis threatened his brothers under pain of mortal sin and eternal damnation of they did not submit to three authorities: pope, bishop and himself. Bonaventure reiterated it again when he became the General. The rule has never been changed. No pope has allowed it to be changed.

The only time that you can deviate from that is when you are asked do something that the Church has identified as a sin, not something that you believe to be a sin. It has to be identified by the Church. Otherwise, you may not deviate. So, we don’t argue with anything that the pope says or question it. We sit and wait for our next marching orders.

It has really helped. Today we are the largest religious family in the Church and we remain out of the conflicts that some people have with the authorities in the Church. Those among us who engage in such conflicts are quietly and charitably corrected by either their brothers or their superiors. Some people choose to leave, because they have problems with this. That’s OK too.

But, as I said above, it is a very peaceful and holy way of living. It allows you to focus on your life of prayer, the needs of your brothers, and your ministry. This detachment from these issues liberates you to become the person that you were meant to be and nurtures your spiritual life so that you may grow in charity.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[ProVobis]

Archbishop Lefebvre knew that the Church had this power. Thus, whatever he refused to sign was his way of saying that he would not submit to this authority for whatever reasons he felt were appropriate.

With all due respect, JR, this argument is somewhat circular. If you’re right, then the Archbishop himself (and many who agreed with him) were part of the very authority which he himself rejected. How can this be? A senator doesn’t reject the Senate simply because he voted against a bill.

You’re right that the authority doesn’t lie in the council as much in those who were asked to participate in it, including all the heretics and all the other (I don’t know what else to call them) wackos Pope John XXIII invited. Otherwise we’d be treating councils like ouija boards, which we know is superstition and blasphemous.

For what it’s worth, however, the fact is that the Archbishop did sign all the documents.

freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2163952/posts

 

[ProVobis]

Recall that Church teachings on faith and morals cannot change, but the teachings on disciplinary matters (i.e., the format of the Holy Mass) can change.

Disciplines are limited by Canon Law.

Can. 23 A custom introduced by a community of the faithful has the force of law only if it has been approved by the legislator, in accordance with the following canons.

Can. 24 §1 No custom which is contrary to divine law can acquire the force of law.

§2 A custom which is contrary to or apart from canon law, cannot acquire the force of law unless it is reasonable; a custom which is expressly reprobated in the law is not reasonable.

Can. 25 No custom acquires the force of law unless it has been observed, with the intention of introducing a law, by a community capable at least of receiving a law.

Can. 26 Unless it has been specifically approved by the competent legislator, a custom which is contrary to the canon law currently in force, or is apart from the canon law, acquires the force of law only when it has been lawfully observed for a period of thirty continuous and complete years. Only a centennial or immemorial custom can prevail over a canonical law which carries a clause forbidding future customs.

Can. 27 Custom is the best interpreter of laws.

Can. 28 Without prejudice to the provisions of can. 5, a custom, whether contrary to or apart from the law, is revoked by a contrary custom or law. But unless the law makes express mention of them, it does not revoke centennial or immemorial customs, nor does a universal law revoke particular customs.

 

[surritter]

For what it’s worth, however, the fact is that the Archbishop did sign all the documents.

I apologize if I perpetuated a myth. And in researching this topic just now, it seems that even that statement about whether he signed them can be interpreted different ways. Here’s one observation from an SSPX priest (Fr. Scott):

“He himself [Lefebvre] constantly and repeatedly stated that he signed all but two documents, but did not sign the two worst documents, namely those on Religious Liberty (Dignitatis Humanae) and the Church in the Modern World (Gaudium et spes). When it was pointed out that his signature was on these documents, he responded that what he signed was the list of the bishops present for the vote, but not the documents themselves.”

Others say that he signed them, but did not necessarily sign off on the interpretation of the documents.

You think this wouldn’t be something that can be argued about – either there’s a signature or not! Given the link (two posts up), I guess I believe that he signed them. But this is just another example of the confusion that reigns when some Catholics – even a bishop – choose to deviate from authority. Though we happen to be discussing the deviation on the right-hand side of the spectrum, it is more common on the left.

 

[simple_soul]

Dear Br Jr,

Where were you when I was growing up?

When I read words you have written, exspecially in this thread, I want to take you back in time and have you speak to a few people that I knew when I was a child.

I truly do believe that obedience is the key issue on many things. Please correct me if I am wrong but, I believe that having obedience fosters humility, and humility fights pride and pride is I believe our worst and strongest adversary. I do believe we have only the slightest clue as to how deeply pride is embedded in us. It goes to the deepest recesses of our very being. I heard somewhere that pride is the devil’s favorite sin. It can make the most noble and pure intentions be in vain.

The way I look at it is if we could show the same obedience and just learn to trust God’s Divinely inspired Word through His Church and Trust in It’s leadership and ponder the things we do not understand in our hearts like our Blessed Mother Mary did. I wonder if the Church would show a huge influx of members. Would that not be something to rejoice about?

Maybe I missed something somewhere and if I did please correct me, but this is how I see it.

Please keep me in your prayers,

---

 

[EnchantedEve]

I bolded the point that I was trying to make. Maybe you have made it more clearly than I could have done so. Today, after Vatican II, clerics and the monastic and mendicant orders have been told, in no uncertain terms, that we may never speak in any way that is considered authoritative or undermines what those above us have said, even if they are wrong. We can only quote what authority says. Anything else that we say is simply our opinion. It is up to the superior of the religious community to decide what he will allow his religious to think, feel or say. Every superior is different. Some have stricter rules than others. In some communities, you may never express an opinion unless it is asked for. In other communities, opnions can be expressed within identified contexts such as classrooms, community meetings, chapters, and among your brotehrs. In other communities the word is always “caution.” In the case of the diocesan clergy, it is up to the bishop to make those rules for his diocese and his clerics.

The bottom line is that only those who have been given free reign of thought can use it. Not all of us have that. It depends on our religious superior and the ministry in which we are engaged. For example, in my community we may never share any opinions with the laity unless they are opinions that promote and support what has been stated by those in authority: religious superiors, bishops and popes. This is to avoid lack of charity toward those in authority and to avoid confusing the laity with 20 opinions from 20 different brothers. I’m strictly speaking about opinions on statements made by those who are higher in dignity than we are. It does not apply to every detail.

You cite that sometimes the popes make statements that are mistaken regarding such things as economy. In my community, we are required to put distance between us and any belief that the Pope is wrong. Absolute fidelity is expected 100% of the time. This is not always easy. But it is a very worthy form of penance and a good practice in detachment. The rationale for this is that this accomplishes two things:

1. It makes us more like Jesus, who submitted to the Father in all things without murmuring.
2. It sets an example for the laity to follow. It’s a form of preaching on obedience and humility, without saying much.

Have popes made mistakes on temporal matters? Of course they have. Are we allowed to point those out? NEVER, unless we are asked to do so by someone in authority. It can lead to a suspension and other eclesial penalties, not to mention that Francis threatened his brothers under pain of mortal sin and eternal damnation of they did not submit to three authorities: pope, bishop and himself. Bonaventure reiterated it again when he became the General. The rule has never been changed. No pope has allowed it to be changed.

The only time that you can deviate from that is when you are asked do something that the Church has identified as a sin, not something that you believe to be a sin. It has to be identified by the Church. Otherwise, you may not deviate. So, we don’t argue with anything that the pope says or question it. We sit and wait for our next marching orders.

It has really helped. Today we are the largest religious family in the Church and we remain out of the conflicts that some people have with the authorities in the Church. Those among us who engage in such conflicts are quietly and charitably corrected by either their brothers or their superiors. Some people choose to leave, because they have problems with this. That’s OK too.

But, as I said above, it is a very peaceful and holy way of living. It allows you to focus on your life of prayer, the needs of your brothers, and your ministry. This detachment from these issues liberates you to become the person that you were meant to be and nurtures your spiritual life so that you may grow in charity.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

True enough, and the main reason I myself decided I could not live the religious life.

 

[JReducation]

With all due respect, JR, this argument is somewhat circular. If you’re right, then the Archbishop himself (and many who agreed with him) were part of the very authority which he himself rejected. How can this be?

You’re right about this being circular. The reason that I wrote it that way is that some members of the SSPX, here on CAF, say that he did not sign. On the other hand, if he did sign, then the circular argument does not even enter the picture.

You’re right that the authority doesn’t lie in the council as much in those who were asked to participate in it, including all the heretics and all the other (I don’t know what else to call them) wackos Pope John XXIII invited.

Maybe I said someting incorrectely. The authority lies in the Council, not in the participants. It is a council, in union with the pope, that has the authority. They can have circus clowns and dancing girls at the council. But if the Council votes on something and the pope approves, then it becomes the norm. That something need not be a doctrine. This is where some people get stuck. It can be a definition, a statement, a position on an issue, etc.

For example, if you look a the Council documents there were two dogmatic constitutions. Therefore, there was dogma rehashed, if you wil. There were documents on disciplines, such as the liturgy. There were theological documents such as the documents on the Eastern Churches, religious life and the apostolate of the laity. These were theological statements. In them, some of the old things were repeated and new statements were appended. There were documents on ecclessiology. These are not properly theological, but they carry a lot of weight, because they define the Church’s missioin and roots. Like this, there were several other documents.

When we say that it was a pastoral council, many people think that this is a form of “Council Lite”. But the truth is that is not the case. Pastoral Councils and pastoral decisions are binding on the faithful. If my bishop decides to move first communion to age 20, just an example, that is a pastoral decision, but it is binding on those of us who live in that diocese. The point is that pastoral decisions are authoritative.

Again, one can always argue that the statements are not clear. That’s a legitimate concern. The Church has the obligation to clarify them. We can argue that the statements are in conflict with what had been previously taught. The Church has an obligation to do one of two things: 1) rewrite the statement so that they coincide or 2) overrule what was said before. On many points, Popes Paul VI, John Paul II and Benedict XVI have overrruled previous teachings. They can legitimately do this. Popes are not bound by canon law, regardless of what canon law says. They are not bound by the teachings of other popes, unless the reigning pope believes the previous teaching to be infallible. If he does not believe it to be infallible, he can overrule it.

I understand that all of us would like to have things explained to us, especially when the popes make decisions or make statements that sound different. But the truth is that popes are absolute rulers. They really don’t owe anyone an explanation for anything that they decide. The faithful are bound to obey, with or without an explanation.

There is an interesting phenomenon in today’s Church. As democracy has progressed in Europe and the Americas, we tend to think of it as a given, meaning that we tend to think in democratic terms. Rulers are not absolutes who make absolute deciions and don’t give a darn about the opinions and likes of others. That kind of government has been flushed out of our brains. But the Church is not operating in that world. The Church still operates very much in the absolutist model. A pope, a bishop, an abbot or a major superior has every right to ignore the feelings and thoughts of the people beneath him without any moral obligation to them. His role is to lead, not to make people happy. This is hard for many people. Most of the time they explain themselves; but often they do not.

As far as Archbishop Lefebvre is concerned, by suggestion to Catholics is to mimic the pope. When I read what Pope Benedict writes he uses terms such as Lefebvrists or the Lefebvrist movement. When he wants to speak about the SSPX, he speaks about them, without mentioning the Archbishop. I truly believe that the fidelity that some people have to the archbishop may be more harmful to the Soceity than if it stood on its own merits without his name being brought up. Right now, he is a very contraversial figure in the Church. Maybe in the future, the feelings toward him by the Vatican will soften. If we want the Society and the Vatican to mend the fracture, it is better to focus on the Society and the Vatican.

I’ll tell you why. Other religious movements have great filial attachment to their founders: Benedict, Augustine, Francis, Dominic, Ignatius, Teresa and so forth. But these men and women also earned for themselves a place in the heart and mind of Church rulers. In reality, when I walk into a bishop’s office and mention Francis of Assisi, the reaciton is very warm. It would not be the same if I mentioned, Archbishop Lefebvre. Even if you’re bringing in the best thing since sliced bread, it is not going to be as well received.

Even with the SSPX, most bishops cringe at the name Williamson. But you mention Fellay and the reaction is different. You have to know how to live in the Church. That’s how I say it. It’s not a democracy. They like some things and don’t like others and they are very used to people being angry at them. They are not going to budge, because someone is upset. They are more likely to budge because someone is in need. This is just my advice. People can take it or leave it.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[pnewton]

Otherwise we’d be treating councils like ouija boards, which we know is superstition and blasphemous.

Ouija boards rely on spirits to guide them. The Church, in coucil, relies on the Holy Spirit to guide Her. There is nothing blasphemous about trusting in the guidance of the Holy Spirit. One person’s Faith is another’s superstition. For this, I can point at any Jack Chick track when he describes the presence of Jesus in the Holy Eucharist (Death Cookie comes to mind). I really do believe the Holy Spirit guides His Church. I really do believe that He speaks through the Church councils.

If Vatican II can be full of errors because it is lead by men, then every Church coucil can equally be in error. All involved men. I always find the rejection of one council and the acceptance of everything else rather un-catholic. We criticize, rightly so, cafeteria catholicism. It is to be avoided. (ProVobis, I do not refer to you, but to those who have marginalized Vatican II).

 

[JReducation]

Ouija boards rely on spirits to guide them. The Church, in coucil, relies on the Holy Spirit to guide Her. There is nothing blasphemous about trusting in the guidance of the Holy Spirit. One person’s Faith is another’s superstition. For this, I can point at any Jack Chick track when he describes the presence of Jesus in the Holy Eucharist (Death Cookie comes to mind). I really do believe the Holy Spirit guides His Church. I really do believe that He speaks through the Church councils.

If Vatican II can be full of errors because it is lead by men, then every Church coucil can equally be in error. All involved men. I always find the rejection of one council and the acceptance of everything else rather un-catholic. We criticize, rightly so, cafeteria catholicism. It is to be avoided. (ProVobis, I do not refer to you, but to those who have marginalized Vatican II).

What you have said is true. Let’s add to this that we have no need to be antagonistic, rude or quarrelsome toward anyone, especially not Church leaders. Satan loves battles. He is the father of antagonism, rudeness and quarrels. Even when you’re defending what you believe to be true, if you are rude, quarrelsome, or antagonistic, you have won the battle, but are risking losing the war for your immortal soul.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[ServantofMary]

When we say that it was a pastoral council, many people think that this is a form of “Council Lite”. But the truth is that is not the case. Pastoral Councils and pastoral decisions are binding on the faithful. If my bishop decides to move first communion to age 20, just an example, that is a pastoral decision, but it is binding on those of us who live in that diocese. The point is that pastoral decisions are authoritative.

But if a pastoral decision is contrary to a doctrine of the Church, or is harmful to the Faith, is a person obligated to obey it? Of course not.

 

[ProVobis]

As far as Archbishop Lefebvre is concerned, by suggestion to Catholics is to mimic the pope.

ANY bishop who takes any action against the Pope puts his flock, diocese, etc. in a tough position. There is the issue of loyalty to the bishop or cause which everyone seems to respect. Then there is the issue of defection that eventually may come to haunt you. There also is the issue whether you’re ready to let go of the old customs. And other issues. So which do you follow?

Fortunately for you and me, we did not have to make this decision. However those that had followed the SSPX had to make that decision for themselves. And not only for themselves but their offspring and anyone else they had influence on.

As I’ve mentioned before, I don’t consider myself a traditionalist. I do attend both the OF and EF and have political views that some may consider very wacko and inconsistent. But I do see a lot of injustice against those who want to do the right thing and live out their convictions. I guess I just root for the underdog; is it a sin to root for David against the Goliaths of the world?

To pnewton: It’s almost always okay to pray to the Holy Spirit for guidance. But there is never any guarantee that He will provide you that guidance. Or He may give you guidance in ways you didn’t expect. For example, he may give the council guidance in that nothing new is to be pronounced doctrinally. So there is that to keep in mind.

I apologize to you and the Holy Spirit if I implied that Vatican II was a giant ouija board.

 

[JReducation]

But if a pastoral decision is contrary to a doctrine of the Church, or is harmful to the Faith, is a person obligated to obey it? Of course not.

The answer is yes. Here is why. Only the Church has the authority to decide what is harmful to the faith, not the individual. Otherwise we would be like Protestants where everyone has their own link to the truth. We are a Petrine Church. Our faith rests on the faith of Peter. If the Council or the Pope make a pastoral decision, they are in authority to do so. And the only time when we can disobey is when we are asked to do something that the Church teaches is a sin, not something that we believe is a sin. Our conscience has to be molded to the teaching and leadership of the Church. In addition, the Church does not need to invoke infallibility to be protected from hurting the faith. Individual’s actions are one thing. The teaching authority of the papacy and the bishops in union with him are another. When the pope and the bishop speak in union, they are to be obeyed and we are to trust that they are not misled.

This is a very good question that you have raised, because this points to something that Pope Benedict said concerned him about today’s Catholics. He spoke about a parallel Magisterium. That is when I refuse to follow something because I believe that I know that it is wrong, even when the person telling me has the authority to make the pastoral decision and the right to expect my submission.

This is why men like St. Benedict, St. Augustine and St. Francis always insisted that you obey, even if you think that you know better. Francis explained that this kind of obedience is more pleasing to God and man, than being right. God does not care if you’re right. He cares that you are submissive. Benedict and Francis were so serious about this and wanted to protect their sons from falling into the sin of authoritarianism (believing that you have the authority to judge what your superiors are saying), Benedict and Francis were so convinced that this sin is so grave that they wrote into their rules that those who failed to obey silently, would forfeit their mortal souls. Francis went as far as writing a curse against those who failed to obey silently. They wanted to scare the pants of people, because people then made the mistake of which you speak. People beleived that they were smart enough and had enough knowledge of Christian doctrine to know what the Church should say or not say. To put a stop to this, they put the fear of God into people.

You know, I think of it this way. I can’t know more about Church doctrine than a council of bishoops and several popes. If they make changes, it must be OK to do so. They know what is in their power to change and what is not. These are neither dumb men nor evil men. Heck, John XXIII is a Blessed and John Paul II a Venerable. These men led holy lives. With time, I believe that even Paul VI will also be canonized.

My point is, trust the Council, trust the bishops united to the pope and trust the pope.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[pnewton]

But if a pastoral decision is contrary to a doctrine of the Church, or is harmful to the Faith, is a person obligated to obey it? Of course not.

By the very definition of pastoral, a decision can not be contrary to the faith. If it involves matters of faith, then it doctinal, not pastoral. As to be harmful, that is more often than not, a matter of opinion. As to obedience, the Catechism outlines the very narrow scope in which one is able to disobey on matters of conscience. In all cases, the person is obligated to study better the mind of the Church. Both common sense and humility would dictate in such matters the possibility that the individual is wrong and the Church is correct.

 

[ProVobis]

And the only time when we can disobey is when we are asked to do something that the Church teaches is a sin, not something that we believe is a sin. Our conscience has to be molded to the teaching and leadership of the Church. In addition, the Church does not need to invoke infallibility to be protected from hurting the faith.

If you’ve taken the vow of obedience, then this is true. However, there is the divine law of honoring your father and mother and your first obedience should be to them, I would think. They are responsible for you, your conscience, your friends, your debts, etc. until you reach some designated age.

 

[JReducation]

ANY bishop who takes any action against the Pope puts his flock, diocese, etc. in a tough position. There is the issue of loyalty to the bishop or cause which everyone seems to respect. Then there is the issue of defection that eventually may come to haunt you. There also is the issue whether you’re ready to let go of the old customs. And other issues. So which do you follow?

Fortunately for you and me, we did not have to make this decision. However those that had followed the SSPX had to make that decision for themselves. And not only for themselves but their offspring and anyone else they had influence on.

As I’ve mentioned before, I don’t consider myself a traditionalist. I do attend both the OF and EF and have political views that some may consider very wacko and inconsistent. But I do see a lot of injustice against those who want to do the right thing and live out their convictions. I guess I just root for the underdog; is it a sin to root for David against the Goliaths of the world?

To pnewton: It’s almost always okay to pray to the Holy Spirit for guidance. But there is never any guarantee that He will provide you that guidance. Or He may give you guidance in ways you didn’t expect. For example, he may give the council guidance in that nothing new is to be pronounced doctrinally. So there is that to keep in mind.

I apologize to you and the Holy Spirit if I implied that Vatican II was a giant ouija board.

We have to be very careful and very charitable here. I believe that the Holy Father said it very well in his letter concerning the lifting of the excommunication of the four bishops. You can’t take the SSPX and make it a whipping boy. That is uncharitable and useless too.

On the other hand, those who sympathize with the SSPX cannot decide for themselves what is doctrine and what is not. As I said above, we have to trust that the bishops, in union with the pope, know the difference between infallible doctrine and doctrinal teachings. They are not the same thing. Doctrine and dogma cannot be changed. How the Church teaches doctrine and dogma can be changed. That’s one.

Two, no pope can bind a future pope. Only dogma and doctrine can bind. If a pope says that something is X today and the next generation pope says that it is Y, they may both be right and usually are. They may not be speaking about eternal truths, even though we may believe these things to be eternal truths. A pope knows the difference between an eternal truth and theological position that may have been held for centuries, but it still remains a position and it is binding on all the faithful, except the pope. His power to bind and unbind authorizes him to change that position that was once binding or state a position that has never been binding and make it binding. It remains that way until it is changed again.

Is it a sin to root for David? If David is in conflict with the person in authority and the peson in authority has not committed any sin or taught error, then yes, it is a sin. Obedience, whether you are in vows or not, binds you to the person in authority, not to the underdog.

That’s why I explained before about monks and friars being good examples for the laity. We are trained to keep our mouth shut (my language). The rules of Benedict, Albert, Augustine and Francis call it silence. We are trained to observe silence when authority speaks. Whatever we believe is irrelevant, because we have no authority in the Church.

Finally, if you’re in a situation where the bishop is not observing silence, where he is espousing positions that are contrary to those that have been expressed by the pope, you must always submit to the higher authority. The only people who may never do this are religious in solemn vows. This is very interesting. Religious in solemn vows, must alwasy submit to the immediate authority, even when that authority is in conflict with the higher authority outside of his religious order. Notice, I said, outside of his religious order. The Pope is not a Dominican. Therefore, Dominicans must submit to the Prior first. By the way, very few religious make solemn vows. Most make simple vows. This would not apply to them. They have to submit to the pope over their superior. Those in solemn vows must submit to their superior (except when told to sin), even if the superior is saying black when the pope says white. You can appeal to a higher authority, but you must obey until you get an answer.

With the laity, it is very similar as religious in solemn vows. The laity is expected to obey the local bishop, even when he says X and the pope says Y. They have the right to present their concerns to the higher authority in the Church. But while they wait for an answer, they are bound to their bishop in all things but sin. Remember, we do not decide what is and is not sin. The Church decides that.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

If you’ve taken the vow of obedience, then this is true. However, there is the divine law of honoring your father and mother and your first obedience should be to them, I would think. They are responsible for you, your conscience, your friends, your debts, etc. until you reach some designated age.

That’s a different subject. But I’ll try my best to explain. Children are bound to obey their parents, except when the parents aks for something that is sinful. In that case, they are not bound, because the demand is unjust. The Church makes no rule about age. She bases her teaching on morals.

There is one demand that parents cannot make of their children, regardless of the age. This has to do with religious life, not the priesthood. That’s different. Parents must give their consent for a minor to enter the priesthood. But parents have no rights when it comes to religoius life. A person may enter religious life without parental consent as soon as it is legal for them to enter. The Church protects the rights of the child over the parents. The Divine Law favors the child in that case. When a person enters religious life he is consecrating himself to Christ. Therefore, he is fulfilling the first commandment, which trumps the fourth.

This does not apply to the priesthood, because priests are not consecrated persons. They consecrate, preach and bless, but are not consecrated themselves, unlless the priest joins a religious order. Then he becomes a consecrated person. If he remains a diocesan priest, he is a secular person.

I hope that helps.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[ServantofMary]

JR, Catholic obedience is not blind obedience. Even Saint Thomas taught: “It is written: ‘We ought to obey God rather than men.’ Now sometimes the things commanded by a superior are against God. Therefore, superiors are not to be obeyed in all things.” II-II; Q.104, a.5.

 

[pnewton]

JR, Catholic obedience is not blind obedience. Even Saint Thomas taught: “It is written: ‘We ought to obey God rather than men.’ Now sometimes the things commanded by a superior are against God. Therefore, superiors are not to be obeyed in all things.” II-II; Q.104, a.5.

That is why he mentioned obedience in all things except sin. This is often a red herring that is thrown out on this topic. The Catholic Church is not asking people to sin. So when we disobey, we are obeying neither God or Man.