Pushed to the SSPX

[pnewton]

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.

---

Fair enough. Here is the problem with what Lefebvre calls blind obedience. It assumes that one’s position is correct and the position of the Church and the one obeying is wrong. It assumes that the one obeying is doing so without reason, based on the fact that the person who is being called blind does not agree with the person accusing him of blind obedience. In short, it is nothing but an illogical begging of the question. It says, “I am right and if you agree with the Church contrary to me you are blind,” where blind means withoug thinking. That is why I find the use of this term, except as a very abstract concept, presumptious.

Now, when I read this:

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.

The vagueness of the references means, if one looks beyond Lefebvre’s spin, that the documents he refused to sign do **not **say that all religions are equal and there is not one true faith. He onlysees this as the influence behind it. People are not blind because they do not see Modernist and Mason under every rock. Most people only look at the documents themselves. It is those that are protected by the Holy Spirit’s guidance. In fact, if such influences existed, then we can see the protection God provides by the omission of these erroneous ideas.

Yet when asked, Lefebvre brought out what sure looks to me like a strawman. If the statements he made are not in the documents, but just influenced in or what he calls insinuated into them, then he side-stepped the question, choosing to focus on personalities, not the documents themselves.

Finally, I did not call names but only described the statement made. It is not insulting to say one finds such terminology instulting. If I called you blind, would you consider it a counterproductive insult?

It was Lefebvre who called names, if you re-check your post.

 

[pnewton]

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.

The only thing I see here of value is something that I would like to remind you. There is no need to presume. Have any of the Popes of the last century appeared to you in an apparition to let you know how they feel?

 

[pnewton]

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

I have never said it was. In area of sin one does not need to obey. In areas of consciencious disagreement, that too is allowed, with the caveat mentioned above.

 

[numealinesimpet]

I remember that case from Church History. In that case, there was more to it than what’s in your post.

True. there is a more detailed account in M. Davies’ “Apologia pro Marcel Lefebvre”, © Tan Books.

The Cardinals were able to prove that the candidate was truly unfit. That’s why the pope backed off.

I must beg to differ. It had already been pointed out to the pope in great detail. He tried to bully one of his bishops, and only backed down when faced with the indomitable firmness of Bp Grosseteste.

I must leave the rest of your posting for now, Brother. The ‘hierarchy of duties’ calls me to other things!
p.s. not meaning to be impertinent, but I hope you are getting some sleep!
“I arise in the middle of the night to praise God.” (Ps 118 {Vg}) But “I lay down to sleep, and I have slept” (Ps 3).
I must leave you in peace for a while…

 

[numealinesimpet]

The only thing I see here of value

I would always be interested in your reasons why the other comments are wrong or valueless.

… is something that I would like to remind you. There is no need to presume. Have any of the Popes of the last century appeared to you in an apparition to let you know how they feel?

I’m not sure what you are getting at here. I thought I was saying that one is not required to guess the popes’ motives. Have you have a problem with that statement?

When a pope kisses the Koran, and organises a prayer meeting in a consecrated church (Assisi) where they are encouraged to pray to their false gods – in one instance, actually removing the Blessed Sacrament from the tabernacle and replacing it with an image of Buddha – one can be charitable and say that the pope had the best motives. But objectively, it gave immense scandal. I don’t like to say it. It is still true.

 

[numealinesimpet]

The vagueness of the references means, if one looks beyond Lefebvre’s spin, that the documents he refused to sign do **not **say that all religions are equal and there is not one true faith. He onlysees this as the influence behind it. People are not blind because they do not see Modernist and Mason under every rock.

They are blind if they cannot see the almost word-for-word correspondence between propositions denounced by previous popes, and actual statements in the Vatican II documents. Whole books have been written about this. It’s no crackpot Reds-under-the-beds fantasy: the statements are there in black and white.

Most people only look at the documents themselves.

Do they also read the previous documents? All previous Church documents gave, as citations, every single quotation on the topic back to the Scriptures. Vatican II does not. Why not? Check what the previous documents actually say and it will be clear.

It is those that are protected by the Holy Spirit’s guidance. In fact, if such influences existed, then we can see the protection God provides by the omission of these erroneous ideas.

On this topic, I would agree that the Holy Spirit did protect the Church by preventing the bald statement of heresy under the seal of infallibility. But the documents are so ambiguously worded that they have given plenty of scope to those opposed to authentic Church teaching to clam their support. Examples of this have already been given in CAF.

As for Religious Freedom! It sounds very noble. And in one sense, – in our private souls – it is correct. But the popes from the very beginning insisted that, to apply it in the public forum is to state either that all religions are equally true, or else (which is the only logical conclusion) that none are true. Now Vatican II bent over backwards to support this secular error of Religious Freedom. The ‘schema’ or draft document that had actually been prepared for the council was headed ‘Religious Tolerance’. The two are superficially similar, but actually diametrically opposed. That is the crux of this matter.

Actually, Lefebvre signed many of the other documents only with many misgivings, but as they did not actually contradict established dogma, he signed them to affirm that they were valid documents of the Council.

But the Decree on Religious Liberty does state in so many words that there is a “right” to religious freedom “In the private AND public forum”. That “AND” does seem to constitute a direct heresy, and that is why he refused to sign it.

 

[EnchantedEve]

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

You will forgive me brother, but considering that I am not a religious, and I suspect neither are most of the forum members, my posts generally do not apply to religious, of whom I am not one and connot speak as one. This post was not different. I refer to the laity, not the religious, when I write of this.

I will also add disobedience can be an act of love, if done in fraternal and humble correction.

 

[EnchantedEve]

Fair enough. Here is the problem with what Lefebvre calls blind obedience. It assumes that one’s position is correct and the position of the Church and the one obeying is wrong. It assumes that the one obeying is doing so without reason, based on the fact that the person who is being called blind does not agree with the person accusing him of blind obedience. In short, it is nothing but an illogical begging of the question. It says, “I am right and if you agree with the Church contrary to me you are blind,” where blind means withoug thinking. That is why I find the use of this term, except as a very abstract concept, presumptious.

Now, when I read this:
The vagueness of the references means, if one looks beyond Lefebvre’s spin, that the documents he refused to sign do **not **say that all religions are equal and there is not one true faith. He onlysees this as the influence behind it. People are not blind because they do not see Modernist and Mason under every rock. Most people only look at the documents themselves. It is those that are protected by the Holy Spirit’s guidance. In fact, if such influences existed, then we can see the protection God provides by the omission of these erroneous ideas.

Yet when asked, Lefebvre brought out what sure looks to me like a strawman. If the statements he made are not in the documents, but just influenced in or what he calls insinuated into them, then he side-stepped the question, choosing to focus on personalities, not the documents themselves.

Finally, I did not call names but only described the statement made. It is not insulting to say one finds such terminology instulting. If I called you blind, would you consider it a counterproductive insult?

It was Lefebvre who called names, if you re-check your post.

I was not refering to you, pnewton, regarding black and white, only an overall tone I have detected in several posts on this forum.

Let us however, be very clear on terms here. Lefebvre did not have a problem with the Church. What errors did he teach? What heresies did he proclaim? Archbishop Lefebvre had trouble with the Roman Curia and the Holy Father, and these are NOT synonymous with the Church. We must be very careful when we begin to act as if the Vatican is the Catholic Church.

Archbishop Lefebvre was certainly not perfect, and he definitely had strong shortcomings. However, this does not prove him wrong.

 

[pnewton]

Archbishop Lefebvre had trouble with the Roman Curia and the Holy Father, and these are NOT synonymous with the Church. We must be very careful when we begin to act as if the Vatican is the Catholic Church.

You see a distinction I do not. I know that the literal meaning is not the same, but Lefebvre does not hold the keys of Peter

. . Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret. . . . If anyone disobey the things which have been said by him [God] through us *, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger.

Pope Clement I*

So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?"
St. Cyprian

Regardless of the terminology, it is the one who sits in the Chair of Peter, not the one who sat in the Chair of Peter that holds authority in the Catholic Church. If each one rejects this and clings to whatever bishop he most agrees with, as the SSPX does, what advantage does that have over the Orthodox? Or for that matter, what advantage is that over the Protestant who considers all or the Catholic Church to be a departure of the faith and rolls their concept of authority all the way back to the first century? You may see the distinction, but I do not. Once it is allowable to allow every Christian to accept for themselves and reject for themselves what they consider authoritative and what they do not, then each and ever Catholic may determine their own theology. The we find that being Catholic is no longer catholic.

I know the idea of humble obedience is contrary to the way modern man thinks, but it is the only thing that will assure unity within the Church.

 

[pnewton]

I would always be interested in your reasons why the other comments are wrong or valueless.

Because the dead are no longer among us on the Earth. We can not speak for what they would think.

 

[pnewton]

They are blind if they cannot see the almost word-for-word correspondence between propositions denounced by previous popes, and actual statements in the Vatican II documents.

You asked me to explain my language and my objection against the calling people blind because they do not agree with you and the late AB. It was **you **who asked. Your resonse is just to reiterate that they are???

Why do I not buy the SSPX line? I see little but illogic and circular thinking, like above. I see an inherent contradition.

 

[ServantofMary]

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.

You’re making the mistake of thinking that everything that a pope or a Church council says is infallible and binding on the faithful. Even the Theological Commission of the Vatican II Council stated (emphasize mine):

“In view of the conciliar practice and the pastoral purpose of the present Council, this sacred Synod defines matters of faith or morals as binding on the Church only when the Synod itself openly declares so.” (Walter M. Abbott, SJ, The Documents of Vatican II, p. 98)

Needless to say, the council never did that. Bishop Butler of England, a participate of Vatican II stated:

“Not all teachings emanating from a pope or Ecumenical Council are infallible. There is no single proposition of Vatican II – except where it is citing previous infallible definitions – which is in itself infallible.” (The Tablet 26,11,1967)

Bishop Thomas Morris, also a participate of Vatican II stated:

“I was relieved when we were told that this Council was not aiming at defining or giving final statements on doctrine, because a statement of doctrine has to be very carefully formulated and I would have regarded the Council documents as tentative and likely to be reformed.” (Catholic World News 1,22,1997)

 

[ServantofMary]

St. Vincent is not speaking about the pope and the bishops in union with the pope. He was speaking about groups that were splintering different directions away from the pope and the bishops.

I disagree. What St. Vincent is saying that if some new false teaching strives to poison even the whole Church, we ought to cling to what the Church has always taught.

 

[surritter]

I will also add disobedience can be an act of love, if done in fraternal and humble correction.

No, Eve, it is disobedience, and disrepect, to your Mother (unless commanded to do an objective sin). Read Br. JR’s posts from yesterday about our duty to obey – even as laity.

 

[JustaServant]

For me it is simply a question of obediance to those in authority. If it was good enourgh for Francis of Assisi under the reign of some pretty bad Popes, it should be good for us. I have yet to see the issue of obedience properly addressed. I love the EF, but I cannot bring myself to attend a Mass done by a suspended priest.
It is disturbing to me how close it comes to the kind of attitudes I heard in fundamentalism.
Truth is on the side of tradition.
BUT how one handles that truth is imperative.
1 Samuel 15:22 Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice

 

[ProVobis]

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.

Come home? With due respect, JR, this sounds very condescending. Maybe they want to feel like they are home.

As it’s been pointed out, trying to preserve old customs need not be attacked. It’s not only the Extraordinary Form that’s at issue here. Heck, we who live in major cities can easily go to a diocesan EF Mass. But we still have to abide by listening to people loitering in the aisles before, after, and during Mass. We still have to watch people not genuflecting when they pass the tabernacle in the same church. We have to see that table, watch altar girls, uncovered heads, communion in the hand, eucharistic ministers, etc. The old customs excluded these modern modes of worship in their churches and shrines and chapels. That’s what we’re talking about here. We’re not talking options to do this or that.

As also has been pointed out, Canon Law respects customs. Customs are indeed the best interpreters of the law, according to the **legitimate authorities **who wrote Canon Law. And let’s not cloud the issues by stating that the Pope now can change Canon Law any day he feels like it. While that may be true, the integrity of the Church Christ founded must be preserved and if it takes another St. Paul to do it, then maybe that’s what God intended.

 

[surritter]

Come home? With due respect, JR, this sounds very condescending. Maybe they want to feel like they are home.

It doesn’t matter what they “feel” like. They need to admit that “home” has changed appearances slightly, and it in no way means that the gates of Hell have prevailed. They need to acknowledge that home has the authority to adjust those matters which do not mar dogmas or doctrine.

 

[ProVobis]

In the Archbishop’s case, there was not this same activity of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit did not move Pope John Paul to approve the ordination of our bishops. The rule is very clear.

I just want to add here it was not Pope John Paul II so much whom the Archbishop had an issue with but his predecessor as well. After Vatican II, there were a number of bishops and Cardinals, most notably Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci and others, who expressed their opposition to the changes following Vatican II as well. In fact, they needed to correct Pope Paul’s new definition of the Mass, which was subsequently changed by the Pope.

But we’ll never know what was discussed behind closed doors, will we.

 

[ProVobis]

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?

Because they’re more of them than of the traditionalists?

But let’s give the Pope some credit. I haven’t heard the term AmChurch being used lately. And it looks like all the women “priests” have been cut off.

 

[jmcrae]

jR, ServantOfMary has a point. The ultimate obedience is to God. But all we’re given is Scripture and the Ten Commandments. (And tradition too, but let’s leave that aside for the time being.) So that begs the question, if we see a contradiction between what Scripture says and what the Church says, which one to follow? Example: women should be quiet in churches.

Well, nowadays, everyone is supposed to be quiet in church - the days of the homily being a public debate ended long ago. Today, even if we disagree with the content of the homily, even the men normally sit through it quietly, or else walk out, but no one interrupts to debate with the priest, any more.