Pushed to the SSPX

[surritter]

In another attempt to wrench this back on topic, I’ll take a point I made earlier, and re-word it as a question. If it is indeed as cut-and-dried as some of you are making it out to be: that one either obeys or does not obey: then why are these doctrinal talks going on? If it is egregiously disobedient to even question anything at all that is put forth by the Church, then why were the excommunications lifted? And more to the point, why aren’t the hordes of leftist public dissenters not excommunicated in the same humiliating way, but are instead allowed to keep spreading their poison ideas that are very clearly to the contrary of Church teaching?

Forgive my ignorance, but what are these “doctrinal talks”? Yes, the Vatican is dialoguing with the SSPX, but do they actually disagree on points of doctrine? I thought the talks were regarding matters of discipline and customs.

You’re right, the lefty dissenters should be excommunicated in many cases for the views they hold, but thankfully they aren’t ordaining bishops against the pope’s explicit orders.

 

[JReducation]

You have asked some good questons. I’ll try to answer from the little that I know abou this.

why are these doctrinal talks going on?

The Church, in her mercy tries every possible way to bring back those who have fallen away. These conversations are an act of mercy on the part of the Church. The Holy Father referred to the lifting of the excommunications as an act of mercy. The hope is that the Society will be reconciled to the Church.

If it is egregiously disobedient to even question anything at all that is put forth by the Church, then why were the excommunications lifted?

Again, Pope Benedict said that it was an act of mercy. It wasn’t the Church caving in. Excommunication serves two functions. It punishes the wrong doer and it serves to make the person rethink his/her position. In the case of the four bishops, it had the first effect. But it did not have the desired second effect, to bring them back. The Church is not in the business of losing her bishops. She is in the business of rescuing them when they make mistakes. If one thing does not work, she tries another. However, she does not have to do so.

And more to the point, why aren’t the hordes of leftist public dissenters not excommunicated in the same humiliating way, but are instead allowed to keep spreading their poison ideas that are very clearly to the contrary of Church teaching?

Actually, I saw somewhere that this is being discussed for those politicians who support abortion. However, the question remains, will it have the desired effect of making them change their mind? We’ll have to wait for the outcome of this deliberation.

I too have a question. Why do we seem to have a need to try to redeem Archbishop Lefebvre? The man passed away. There is nothing that can be done for him in this world.

As to the other bishops who were excommunicated, why are we still debating their case? The excommunications were lifted and it looks like they may get a Personal Prelature out of these discussions, if Cardinal Laveda is happy with the outcome. We have no idea what they have said or agreed to. Everything is being kept a secret.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

Forgive my ignorance, but what are these “doctrinal talks”? Yes, the Vatican is dialoguing with the SSPX, but do they actually disagree on points of doctrine? I thought the talks were regarding matters of discipline and customs.

.

Pope Benedict XVI said that they have some doctrinal points to discuss and to agree to before they are given a canonical status in the Church.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[ibkc]

Forgive my ignorance, but what are these “doctrinal talks”? Yes, the Vatican is dialoguing with the SSPX, but do they actually disagree on points of doctrine? I thought the talks were regarding matters of discipline and customs.

The Ecclesia Dei press release put out in October specifically referred to the talks as doctrinal and outlined what will be discussed:

In a cordial, respectful and constructive climate, the main doctrinal questions were identified. These will be studied in the course of discussions to be held over coming months, probably every two months. In particular, the questions due to be examined concern the concept of Tradition, the Missal of Paul VI, the interpretation of Vatican Council II in continuity with Catholic doctrinal Tradition, the themes of the unity of the Church and the Catholic principles of ecumenism, the relationship between Christianity and non-Christian religions, and religious freedom. The meeting also served to specify the method and organisation of the work.

You’re right, the lefty dissenters should be excommunicated in many cases for the views they hold, but thankfully they aren’t ordaining bishops against the pope’s explicit orders.

Well, I’m not referring to simply holding dissenting views; I’m talking about actions. Some of the very public scandalous disobedient actions committed by a few of these people gets very close to being worse than what Abp. Lefebevre did, IMO.

 

[ibkc]

I too have a question. Why do we seem to have a need to try to redeem Archbishop Lefebvre? The man passed away. There is nothing that can be done for him in this world.

I’m puzzled by this question. “Redeem” him? He and his followers have been viciously attacked for years, referred to as schismatic, yadda yadda yadda. The man was not evil. He did what he did out of a genuine belief that the situation was a dire emergency. He may have been mistaken: I don’t know. But I think some of us have come to appreciate the very great sacrifice he made and wish to help others to understand the situation. If you personally find that odd, so be it.

As to the other bishops who were excommunicated, why are we still debating their case? As to the other bishops who were excommunicated, why are we still debating their case? The excommunications were lifted and it looks like they may get a Personal Prelature out of these discussions, if Cardinal Laveda is happy with the outcome. We have no idea what they have said or agreed to. Everything is being kept a secret.

Br. JR, this is what I have been saying all along. Yes, we’re not privy to the talks, therefore we can’t make assumptions about them, and that (in my humble opinion) includes not assuming that the talks are all about sitting them down and telling them how it’s going to be. It may just be that the Holy Father and others might be sympathetic to at least some of their concerns. It may be that in the end, the SSPX has some valid points. Or it may not, and this might not work out at all. We don’t know and we can’t know until something is made public.

 

[JReducation]

I’m puzzled by this question. “Redeem” him? He and his followers have been viciously attacked for years, referred to as schismatic, yadda yadda yadda. The man was not evil. He did what he did out of a genuine belief that the situation was a dire emergency. He may have been mistaken: I don’t know. But I think some of us have come to appreciate the very great sacrifice he made and wish to help others to understand the situation. If you personally find that odd, so be it.
.

I don’t find it odd, I find is unnecessary. I do not deny for a moment that the man was convinced about his beliefs. Nor do I deny that he may have suffered fro them. I’m not him: therefore, I can only assume that he suffered.

But the fact remains the same. He disobeyed the Pope. There are many sympathizers who want to justify this in every possible way, even when the pope said that it was not justifiable. The point is, since we have two opinion here, 1) a pope who said that the disobedience was not justifiable and 2) sympathizers who want to believe that it was, we are not going to settle this at all. In the end, the pope’s opinion outweigh’s that of the Archbishop’s Lefebvre’s supporters, because he is the pope. Why not just let it die there? I mean, the pope said it was unjustifiable. OK, that’s the end of the discussion. I don’t understand what people hope to gain by bringing up Msgr Lefebvre in every discussion about the SSPX. It won’t do anything for the SSPX.

You say that the hope is to help others understand their suffering and sacrifice, but we must also remember the suffering and sacrifice that they caused the Church. Many of these people have been very mean to those who do not support them.

The best way to stop the nastiness going in both directions is to drop the topic. Focus on the present moment. I believe this is what the Holy Father is doing. I don’t see any signs from the Vatican that they want to talk about the Archbishop. They want to talk about reunification. Our conversations would be much more productive if we focussed on how we are going to help every Catholic accept the outcome of these talks.

I firmly believe that there are going to be some in the SSPX who are going to be unhappy and will not want to come home. They are not going to get everything they want. In every process, some concessions have to be made. There are those who want to make no concessions.

The most important discussion that the laity can have is to discuss the need to be ready to accept concessions, if we want everyone to come back and those who are in the mainstream to be welcoming too.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[numealinesimpet]

… the Archbishop did sign all the documents [of Vatican II].

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

Here is an important interview with Mgr Lefebvre, which can be found on the SSPX website
sspxasia.com/Documents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Interview_With_Archbishop_Lefebvre.htm

… I certainly had always heard that he had signed all the Vatican II documents except the two mentioned below. In the interview, he explains why he did not sign, and also has a comment on the much-discussed issue of obedience.

Pease note also that, in Europe, and in languages like French and Italian, “Liberalism” has a very definite meaning, more so than English, where it often means merely something like ‘a tolerant attitude’. “Liberalism” in French etc specifically refers to the philosophy of the 18th Century which declares as a fact that there is no eternal truth, that dogmas can and must change with time etc. The Catholic Church has opposed this trend in thought with all her power from the beginning, in encyclical after encyclical.

The Vatican II documents, as can be seen by anyone perusing them, contain statements proposed for our acceptance that are word-for-word with statements of Liberalism that the Church had always so bitterly opposed. This is what the trouble is about. Latin in the Liturgy is a long way down the line.

Note that this interview (given in 1978) was suppressed by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. This is the kind of reason I believe in the internet. On the other hand, now from an effective suppression of information we have an ‘information overload’. The following interview, on the SSPX’s own website, is I believe, reliable.

Editor’s Note:*
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre of France made headlines when he was excommunicated from the Roman Catholic Church by Pope John Paul II for consecrating bishops in contravention of orders from Rome. While much has been written about the controversial churchman, very little has been heard directly from him. As a consequence, many people are confused about what is involved in his so-called rebellion and what motivates him.
The following interview with the archbishop was to have been published in 1978 by a leading American Catholic publication. However, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops threatened the publication’s publisher with excommunication and decreed virtual extinction for the publication itself if the interview were run. In fact, the bishops ordered that no Catholic publication could run this interview with Archbishop Lefebvre.
An edited version of the interview was finally published in The Spotlight, a weekly newspaper in Washington, D.C., in its issue of July 18, 1988. The complete and unedited interview is transcribed below.
The Spotlight makes no case for or against the doctrinal positions of Archbishop Lefebvre. We printed the interview for we find his statements of 14 years ago, if read in the light of current events, to be extremely timely.
*

You have debated and taken part in the deliberations of the second council of the Vatican, have you not?
Yes.
**Did you not sign and agree to the resolutions of this council?
**No. First of all, I have not signed all the documents of Vatican II because of the last two acts. The first, concerned with “Religion and Freedom,” I have not signed. The other one, that of “The Church in the Modern World”, I also have not signed. This latter is in my opinion the most oriented toward modernism and liberalism.
**Are you on record for not only not signing the documents but also on record to publicly oppose them?
**Yes. In a book, which I have published in France, I accuse the council of error on these resolutions, and I have given all the documents by which I attack the position of the council - principally, the two resolutions concerning the issues of religion and freedom and "The Church in the Modern World.”
**Why were you against these decrees?
**Because these two resolutions are inspired by liberal ideology which former popes described to us-that is to say, a religious license as understood and promoted by the Freemasons, the humanists, the modernists and the liberals.
**Why do you object to them?
**This ideology says that all the cultures are equal; all the religions are equal, that there is not a one and only true faith. All this leads to the abuse and perversion of freedom of thought. All these perversions of freedom, which were condemned throughout the centuries by all the popes, have now been accepted by the council of Vatican II.

continued…

 

[numealinesimpet]

continued…

**Who placed these particular resolutions on the agenda?
**I believe there were a number of cardinals assisted by theological experts who were in agreement with liberal ideas.
**Who, for example?
**Cardinal (Augustine) Bea (a German Jesuit), Cardinal (Leo) Suenens (from Belgium), Cardinal (Joseph) Frings (from Germany), Cardinal (Franz) Koenig (from Austria). These personalities had already gathered and discussed these resolutions before the council and it was their precise aim to make a compromise with the secular world, to introduce Illuminist and modernist ideas in the church doctrines.
**Were there any American cardinals supporting these ideas and resolutions?
**I do not recall their names at present, but there were some. However, a leading force in favor of these resolutions was Father Murray.
**Are you referring to Father John Courtney Murray (an American Jesuit)?
**Yes.
**What part has he played?
**He has played a very active part during all the deliberations and drafting of these documents.
**Did you let the pope (Paul VI) know of your concern and disquiet regarding these resolutions?
**I have talked to the pope. I have talked to the council. I have made three public interventions, two of which I have filed with the secretariat. Therefore, there were five interventions against these resolutions of Vatican II.
In fact, the opposition led against these resolutions was such that the pope attempted to establish a commission with the aim of reconciling the opposing parties within the council. There were to be three members, of which I was one.
When the liberal cardinals learned that my name was on this commission, they went to see the holy father (the pope) and told him bluntly that they would not accept this commission and that they would not accept my presence on this commission. The pressure on the pope was such that he gave up the idea.
I have done everything I could to stop these resolutions which I judge contrary and destructive to the Catholic faith. The council was convened legitimately, but it was for the purpose of putting all these ideas through.
**Were there other cardinals supporting you?
**Yes. There was Cardinal (Ernesto) Ruffini (of Palermo), Cardinal (Giuseppe) Siri (of Genoa) and Cardinal (Antonio) Caggiano (of Buenos Aires).
**Were there any bishops supporting you?
**Yes. Many bishops supported my stand.
**How many bishops?
**There were in excess of 250 bishops. They had even formed themselves into a group for the purpose of defending the true Catholic faith.
**What happened to all of these supporters?
**Some are dead; some are dispersed throughout the world; many still support me in their hearts but are frightened to lose the position, which they feel may be useful at a later time.
**Is anybody supporting you today (1978)?
**Yes. For instance, Bishop Pintinello from Italy; Bishop Castro de Mayer from Brazil. Many other bishops and cardinals often contact me to express their support but wish at this date to remain anonymous.
**What about those bishops who are not liberals but still oppose and criticize you?
**Their opposition is based on an inaccurate understanding of obedience to the pope. It is, perhaps, a well-meant obedience, which could be traced to the ultramontane obedience of the last century, which in those days was good because the popes were good. However, today, it is a blind obedience, which has little to do with a practice and acceptance of true Catholic faith.

At this stage it is relevant to remind Catholics all over the world that obedience to the pope is not a primary virtue.
The hierarchy of virtues starts with the three theological virtues of faith, hope and charity followed by the four cardinal virtues of justice, temperance, prudence and fortitude. Obedience is a derivative of the cardinal virtue of justice. Therefore it is far from ranking first in the hierarchy of virtues.
Certain bishops do not wish to give the slightest impression that they are opposed to the holy father. I understand how they feel. It is evidently very unpleasant, if not very painful.
I certainly do not like to be in opposition to the holy father, but I have no choice considering what is coming to us from Rome at present, which is in opposition to the Catholic doctrine and is unacceptable to Catholics.

 

[pnewton]

Here is an important interview with Mgr Lefebvre, which can be found on the SSPX website

Why do you object to them?

The Vatican II document that he refused to sign said, “all the religions are equal, that there is not a one and only true faith”?

Where?

However, today, it is a blind obedience, which has little to do with a practice and acceptance of true Catholic faith.

So this is where the line about blind obedience came from. It is no less presumptious and insulting coming from and archbishop.

 

[numealinesimpet]

Editor’s Note:
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre of France made headlines when he was excommunicated from the Roman Catholic Church by Pope John Paul II for consecrating bishops in contravention of orders from Rome.

At the risk of being repetitive, please notice that this is an illustration of ‘the way things work’. I do not wish any disrespect to the Vatican in pointing out the way these things are done.

The Decree of Excommunication was not actually issued by Pope John Paul II, but by Cdl Gantin. The Pope did not forbid him to do this, but neither did he directly instruct or authorise him.

When it was widely reported that Mgr Lefebvre had been “excommunicated by the Pope” the Vatican did nothing to contradict it. But when the decree was lifted in Summorum Pontificum, it is not referred to as issuing from Pope John Paul II, but from the congregation headed by Cdl Gantin, which is strictly correct. Notice who issued the lifting of the decree of excommunication: he states very specifically that he is acting on the direction of Pope Benedict. That is where the buck stops. There is no double-talk
Can you see the difference?

 

[JReducation]

Their opposition is based on an inaccurate understanding of obedience to the pope. It is, perhaps, a well-meant obedience, which could be traced to the ultramontane obedience of the last century, which in those days was good because the popes were good

I have a problem with this statement too. Something is terribly wrong with this wording. I’m hoping that the problem is with the translation into English. It gives the impression that obedience to the pope is a relative choice. It gives the impression that in his eyes, today’s popes were not good popes. The popes of the Vatican II era and following were John XXIII, Paul VI and John Paul II. What’s not good about them? They were good holy men.

This kind of document or report should have been left back in the files. It only creates more problems rather than solve any.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

At the risk of being repetitive, please notice that this is an illustration of ‘the way things work’. I do not wish any disrespect to the Vatican in pointing out the way these things are done.

The Decree of Excommunication was not actually issued by Pope John Paul II, but by Cdl Gantin. The Pope did not forbid him to do this, but neither did he directly instruct or authorise him.

When it was widely reported that Mgr Lefebvre had been “excommunicated by the Pope” the Vatican did nothing to contradict it. But when the decree was lifted in Summorum Pontificum, it is not referred to as issuing from Pope John Paul II, but from the congregation headed by Cdl Gantin, which is strictly correct. Notice who issued the lifting of the decree of excommunication: he states very specifically that he is acting on the direction of Pope Benedict. That is where the buck stops. There is no double-talk
Can you see the difference?

A decree of excommunication by a congregation within the curia is considered a decree from the pope. The congregations are authorized to act in his name. As long as he does not retract what they do, then he is ultimately responsible. That is why the decree is correctly attributed to Pope John Paul II.

The same thing happens when a bishop excommunicates. He must send the report to the Vatican. If the excommunication is sustained by the Vatican, it is written up as decreed by the reigning pope and that’s the way it is archived. The Secretary for the Congregation actually signs the pope’s name on the decree and he signs the cover letter that goes with it.

This is not just for excommunication. I’ll give you another example. One of our brothers, in solemn vows, asked for a dispensation from vows. Only the pope can grant this. The petition is never sent to the pope or ever seen by the pope. The pope doesn’t even know it exists. The petition is sent to the Sacred Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life. They issue the decree of dispensation, if they believe that it is justified. But the law says that only a pope can dispense from solemn vows. So the Secretary is authorized to sign the pope’s name to the decree. When it comes back it comes back with the pope’s coat of arms and his name on the signature line and the secretary’s intials.

This is common practice. It keeps things moving quickly. Well, quickly is a relative term. As quickly as the Vatican moves. As long as the pope does not retract the decree, it is valid and binding and the pope is legally responsible.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[numealinesimpet]

The Vatican II document that he refused to sign said, “all the religions are equal, that there is not a one and only true faith”?

Where?

However, today, it is a blind obedience, which has little to do with a practice and acceptance of true Catholic faith.

Here is the relevant extract:

**Why do you object to them?
**This ideology says that all the cultures are equal; all the religions are equal, that there is not a one and only true faith. All this leads to the abuse and perversion of freedom of thought. All these perversions of freedom, which were condemned throughout the centuries by all the popes, have now been accepted by the council of Vatican II.

pnewton writes

The Vatican II document that he refused to sign said, “all the religions are equal, that there is not a one and only true faith”?

Where?

He didn’t say the document says it; he says that the ideology permeating the document holds this. The Vatican II documents are never – except perhaps in the document on religious freedom – so bold as to state Liberalist or Modernist teachings in a direct, dogmatic way, but it is insinuated and taken for granted throughout. This is in fullest line with the Modernist tradition, as the Popes had pointed out. See e.g.** Pascendi Dominici Gregis**. The most casual reading of the Vatican II documents side by side with those that came before, will show the glaring difference.

However, today, it is a blind obedience, which has little to do with a practice and acceptance of true Catholic faith.

**pnewton **writes,

So this is where the line about blind obedience came from.

Mgr Lefebvre used it, but he did not invent it. It means the same as what Aquinas calls ‘indolent obedience’. He reminds us that there are two ways to fail in true obedience: by defect (refusing to comply with a just command) and by excess (obeying even when the command is unjust, invalid or sinful).

It is no less presumptious and insulting coming from and archbishop.

I did think we’d got past the stage of replying to a factual statement by calling personal names. Lefebvre is applying Catholic principles to a very grave specific situation. If you think his application is wrong, please show us where.

---

 

[numealinesimpet]

Quote:
Their opposition is based on an inaccurate understanding of obedience to the pope. It is, perhaps, a well-meant obedience, which could be traced to the ultramontane obedience of the last century, which in those days was good because the popes were good

Granted that Mgr Lefebvre is now dead and cannot reply for himself (although he could have done so if the interview had not been suppressed) …
I do not believe Lefebvre was casting aspersions on the interior state of their souls. He meant (as I believe is clear from the context) that these popes taught the Faith clearly and unambiguously, and firmly disciplined those who flouted their authority and that of the Church.

Some of the actions of the Post Vatican II popes would have had ‘the popes of the last century’ reduced to apoplexy. There is no need to presume that the modern popes did not have sincere motives for the things they did, but the fact remains.

 

[numealinesimpet]

I have a problem with this statement too. Something is terribly wrong with this wording. I’m hoping that the problem is with the translation into English. It gives the impression that obedience to the pope is a relative choice.
…

Not that there is a choice. There is a hierarchy of principles and virtues, and if two things clash, ‘the lower must give way to the higher’. There are clear hypothetical cases where a pope could make an order that could not be obeyed.
There is also the famous case of Bp Grosseteste, who was ordered by the pope of the day to appoint an unworthy candidate to a high position in the hierarchy. Bp Grosseteste used every possible legal means to get around this, but he was progressively backed into a corner. When he had run out of ‘normal’ legal options, he then sent the pope this message: First he reiterated the problem with the unworthy candidate, then he stated, “…and therefore, as a loyal son of the Church I contradict, I disobey, I rebel. You cannot take action against me …” the pope was absolutely beside himself when he received this reply, but his cardinals reminded him that Bp Grosseteste was right. The candidate was never appointed.

This is an extreme case, but it illustrates the principle.

 

[JReducation]

Granted that Mgr Lefebvre is now dead and cannot reply for himself (although he could have done so if the interview had not been suppressed) …
I do not believe Lefebvre was casting aspersions on the interior state of their souls. He meant (as I believe is clear from the context) that these popes taught the Faith clearly and unambiguously, and firmly disciplined those who flouted their authority and that of the Church.

Some of the actions of the Post Vatican II popes would have had ‘the popes of the last century’ reduced to apoplexy. There is no need to presume that the modern popes did not have sincere motives for the things they did, but the fact remains.

Assuming that your understanding of his statement is on target, I’m going to humbly disagree with His Excellency. I say humbly, because he was a bishop and I’m a no body. But what we’re talking about here is different personalities and different styles in governing. Maybe the wording would have been better if it had not said that previous popes were good. He may have meant that they were tough. But his wording lends itself to people running wild and saying that the modern popes were wrong, bad, ineffective and all kinds of negative things. Sadly, these statements have been made gratuitously.

I will defer to your understanding of the man, as it appears that you have studied him. I have not. Ecclesiology is not my field. I’m a Mystical Theologian. I deal in matters of the soul, not the Church. I had ecclesiology in the seminary, like everyone else. But that’s only a one year course, not enough to make one an expert on the Church, just enough to give one an understanding of her nature, mission and structure.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

Not that there is a choice. There is a hierarchy of principles and virtues, and if two things clash, ‘the lower must give way to the higher’. There are clear hypothetical cases where a pope could make an order that could not be obeyed.
There is also the famous case of Bp Grosseteste, who was ordered by the pope of the day to appoint an unworthy candidate to a high position in the hierarchy. Bp Grosseteste used every possible legal means to get around this, but he was progressively backed into a corner. When he had run out of ‘normal’ legal options, he then sent the pope this message: First he reiterated the problem with the unworthy candidate, then he stated, “…and therefore, as a loyal son of the Church I contradict, I disobey, I rebel. You cannot take action against me …” the pope was absolutely beside himself when he received this reply, but his cardinals reminded him that Bp Grosseteste was right. The candidate was never appointed.

This is an extreme case, but it illustrates the principle.

I remember that case from Church History. In that case, there was more to it than what’s in your post. The Cardinals were able to prove that the candidate was truly unfit. That’s why the pope backed off.

In the Archbishop’s case, he was never able to prove that he was right in ordaining four men to the espicopal order. That’s what got him excommunicated. His other arguments were never punished. He was given permission to ordain one bishop. But he ordained four. He had been given permission to ordain deacons and priests without suspensions.

The hierarchy only applies when the pope or other superior orders something that is sinful or can knowingly lead to harm. There was nothing sinful about being told not to ordain these bishops and there is no way of proving that harm would come to the Church if only one bishop had been ordained to lead the Society.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[EnchantedEve]

Interesting. Yes, if the Church, as in the Holy Father or the Church in Council at Vatican II, did that, one should not follow. But then She wouldn’t be the Church then and Protestantism would be just as valid.

Another thing, if the problem was just the Church asking something to be believed, it would be a simple enough matter to obey in all things, but not believe until one has worked through this one point or that, even if it took one’s entire life.

Pardon me, but the Church and the Holy Father are not synonymous, as this statement appears to indicate. Peter may err, but the Church cannot. Peter is the head of the Church, and is the signo locis of the Church, but is not the Church still.

As I have indicated elsewhere, other councils have erred and they have since been rejected. Theoretically, the same could happen for Vatican II (though I doubt it).

The view that obedience is black and white, while compelling, just cannot stand to reason, nor should it.

 

[JReducation]

Pardon me, but the Church and the Holy Father are not synonymous, as this statement appears to indicate. Peter may err, but the Church cannot. Peter is the head of the Church, and is the signo locis of the Church, but is not the Church still.

As I have indicated elsewhere, other councils have erred and they have since been rejected. Theoretically, the same could happen for Vatican II (though I doubt it).

The view that obedience is black and white, while compelling, just cannot stand to reason, nor should it.

So what would you say to monks and friars who live by this kind of obedience? Would you tell them that they have been wrong for over 1,000 years?

Obedience is an act of love. Why is that so difficult to understand? Unless one has reason to believe that there is evil behind something that is commanded, why should one not obey out of love?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

We have lived by this rule for 800 years and have done much good for the Church and produced hundreds of saints too. Now you will tell us that we are wrong?

**The Lord says in the Gospel: he “that doth not renounce all that he possesseth cannot be” a "disciple " 3 and “he that will save his life, shall lose it.” 4 That man leaves all he possesses and loses his body and his soul who abandons himself wholly to obedience in the hands of his superior, and whatever he does and says—provided he himself knows that what he does is good and not contrary to his [the superior’s] will—is true obedience. And if at times a subject sees things which would be better or more useful to his soul than those which the superior commands him, let him sacrifice his will to God, let him strive to fulfil the work enjoined by the superior. This is true and charitable obedience which is pleasing to God and to one’s neighbor.

Rule of St. Francis: Admonition on Obedience**

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF