Pushed to the SSPX

[EnchantedEve]

No, but there is a principle involved called obedience. Are you saying obedience to the See of Peter has no role in the life of a Catholic?

No, what I am saying is that, and I am sure you have read this in this thread, there are higher levels of obedience, a higher law, when discussing certain essential areas of Faith. I think you will grant private revelation is an area where Catholics really have not this ability. Those who favor the SSPX feel there are times when we should obey God rather than men, based on the precedence of the Church. Private revelation does not enjoy this kind of benefit under any circumstance.

 

[surritter]

There is some truth in that, Eve, but perhaps we differ on the borderlines for the different “levels” of obedience. Here’s a rough breakdown:

• Faith and morals – cannot change, therefore cannot dissent
• Matters of discipline (priestly celibacy, Latin-only liturgy) – can be changed, so they may be disagreed with, but if the Holy See decrees something about them, it must be obeyed
• Other matters of Church leadership – can be dissented from but must always respect the leaders

The problem is that many SSPX devotees place the format of the Mass in the first category, sometimes even quoting Pope St. Pius V as saying things like “forever” and “in perpetuity” regarding the Mass. (He did say those things, but those words do not have the exact connotation that SSPXers think.)

And particularly alarming is the notion by some that the Mass as promugated by Paul VI is not even valid. Post #808: “The prize, however, goes to the Vatican for realizing that some of the translations created some doubt as to the validity…”

Doubt in whose minds? It’s one thing to dislike the translations, but another to lose faith in the Holy Spirit’s guidance of our Church! The OF Mass is certainly valid.

So the points that traditionalists are making stem from my second category above. And again, it’s fine to disagree, but NOT fine to have a bishop thumb his nose at the Holy Father. The main problem with Abp. Lefebvre was not of substance, but disobedience. Of course, he is now deceased, so if the SSPX and its followers (since there are no “members”) accept all obligatory items (categories one and two above) then they should certainly be fully regularized.

 

[pnewton]

God bless you, you’ve articulated precisely what’s on my mind!

Thank you.

In regards to obedience, I would like to mention there is another thread on the topic where we have the opposite extreme dissenting from Church* moral* teaching using the arguement of following conscience over blind obedience.

 

[Shin]

Nope, if my point was merely to hate on the Orthodox, I wouldn’t have even bothered posting.

My point was that we have a serious educational problem within the Church if the average Catholic feels they can identify more with non-Catholics than with traditionalists.

Why the double standard? Why is the Orthodox Divine Liturgy a beautiful expression of the past while the SSPX Tridentine Mass is protestant and disobedient? Anyone want to take a shot?

It’s a good point, so good many people don’t want to go there. I hope it makes some think however, and think long and deeply.

 

[numealinesimpet]

There is some truth in that, Eve, but perhaps we differ on the borderlines for the different “levels” of obedience. Here’s a rough breakdown:

• Faith and morals – cannot change, therefore cannot dissent
• Matters of discipline (priestly celibacy, Latin-only liturgy) – can be changed, so they may be disagreed with, but if the Holy See decrees something about them, it must be obeyed

The point the SSPX make is that the change from the TLM to the Novus Ordo is not simply a disciplinary change, but that the NO does introduce a completely gratuitous danger to the Faith. This is discussed in more detail in the famous Ottaviani Intervention, sent in 1969 to Pope Paul VI. See

fisheaters.com/ottavianiintervention.html
:

the study shows quite clearly that the Novus Ordo
Missae–considering the new elements widely susceptible to widely
different interpretations which are implied or taken for
granted–represents, both as a whole and in its details, a striking
departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in
Session 22 of the Council of Trent. The “canons” of the rite
definitively fixed at that time erected an insurmountable barrier
against any heresy which might attack the integrity of the Mystery.

1. The pastoral reasons put forth to justify such a grave break, even
   if such reasons could still hold good in the face of doctrinal
   considerations, do not seem sufficient. The innovations in the Novus
   Ordo and the fact that all that is of perennial value finds only a minor
   place–if it subsists at all–could well turn into a certainty the
   suspicion, already prevalent, alas in many circles, that truths which
   have always been believed by the Christian people can be changed or
   ignored without infidelity to that sacred deposit of doctrine to which
   the Catholic faith is bound forever. The recent reforms have amply
   demonstrated that new changes in the liturgy could not be made without
   leading to complete bewilderment on the part of the faithful, who
   already show signs of restiveness and an indubitable lessening of their
   faith. Among the best of the clergy, the result is an agonizing crisis
   of conscience, numberless instances of which come to us daily.

When it was simply a matter of obedience to matters that do not affect the Faith – such as the 1962 revision of the TLM, which many regret, but which the schismatic sedevacantists completely reject (they are the ones who declare that Benedict & his immediate predecessors are not true popes – Lefebvre expelled the seminarians who obstinately clung to this view) … the 1962 revision of the TLM was accepted by the SSPX.
Mgr Lefebvre was not a private citizen. As a consecrated archbishop he was not free to fail to pass on the Faith. Yet he could see clearly where the current chaos was heading.

the result is an agonizing crisis of conscience.

• Other matters of Church leadership – can be dissented from but must always respect the leaders

The problem is that many SSPX devotees place the format of the Mass in the first category, sometimes even quoting Pope St. Pius V as saying things like “forever” and “in perpetuity” regarding the Mass. (He did say those things, but those words do not have the exact connotation that SSPXers think.)

This too has been discussed by canonists and theologians. It was licit for a new form of Mass to be added to the Church’s tradition, but not for the immemorial Rite to be deleted. This was definitely attempted. It was 40 years before a Pope told us clearly that this had not, in fact, happened.

And particularly alarming is the notion by some that the Mass as promugated by Paul VI is not even valid. Post #808: “The prize, however, goes to the Vatican for realizing that some of the translations created some doubt as to the validity…”

Doubt in whose minds? It’s one thing to dislike the translations, but another to lose faith in the Holy Spirit’s guidance of our Church! The OF Mass is certainly valid.

We need to be careful here. The “normative” text of the Mass (in Latin) and the vernacular translations are two different things. Not to mention the horrifying abuses, which we need not (I hope) rehearse here – but there actually could be a point where a sufficiently-mangled version is no longer valid. The SSPX have steadfastly refused to state that the Novus Ordo, celebrated in Latin according to the rubrics, is invalid.

 

[numealinesimpet]

Thank you.

In regards to obedience, I would like to mention there is another thread on the topic where we have the opposite extreme dissenting from Church* moral* teaching using the arguement of following conscience over blind obedience.

I don’t know what the Catholic Church will look like when this particular crisis has run its course. But each crisis in the history of the Church has taught lessons which have been added to the Church’s treasury of wisdom. The “Lefebvre Affair”, as it will perhaps be known to historians, is the story of the need to clarify the nature and limits of obedience. Because this has never before been tested to such an extent (with the possible exception of the Arian crisis), people of goodwill find themselves on opposite sides. I personally support the SSPX partly because I agree with the point that perfect obedience does not necessarily entail subjection to each and every mandate of lawful authority, even the pope. This crisis is ‘testing’ this proposition.
In the Late Middle Ages, theologians faced these (and other) matters quite coolly. They explored the possible situations that would have to lead to the impeachment of a reigning pope. Three things they advanced were:
Promulgating a known heresy
Excommunicating everybody in the Church
Abolishing the Liturgy

Centuries later, at Vatican I (19th century), when the definition of papal infallibility was being discussed, the Council Fathers who believed it inopportune to make such a formal definition argued that it would be misunderstood, and people would begin to attach an importance to the person of the pope that was beyond the actual teaching of the Church. In the 1920s & 1930s the theologian and Seminary professor Fr Floch would declare, “Mark my words. The next heresy will be an over-emphasis on the power of the Pope, and an illegitimate extension of his authority”.

 

[Shin]

Centuries later, at Vatican I (19th century), when the definition of papal infallibility was being discussed, the Council Fathers who believed it inopportune to make such a formal definition argued that it would be misunderstood, and people would begin to attach an importance to the person of the pope that was beyond the actual teaching of the Church. In the 1920s & 1930s the theologian and Seminary professor Fr Floch would declare, “Mark my words. The next heresy will be an over-emphasis on the power of the Pope, and an illegitimate extension of his authority”.

Yes, isn’t this just good spiritual sense and the way of things? The devil tries to spoil every good thing by extremes. If you have a virtue – he makes you overuse it and overextend it, always too far… or too little.

Temperance. God bless it.

 

[pnewton]

I don’t know what the Catholic Church will look like when this particular crisis has run its course. But each crisis in the history of the Church has taught lessons which have been added to the Church’s treasury of wisdom. The “Lefebvre Affair”, as it will perhaps be known to historians, is the story of the need to clarify the nature and limits of obedience.

I will not dominate this discussion by posting on this too much, but I would like to share what I believe was God’s epiphany to me on the subject. I was considering the actions of Abraham: the prototype of a man of faith, according to the book of Hebrews. When he took Isaac as a sacrifice, he did so in contradiction to all he knew of God. After all, making one’s child pass through the fire was the actions of a pagan, not a man of God. Yet in his faith, he drew no limits on his obedience to God. I guess I may well err in many things in this life. I am neither a great historian, a learned theologian or any one else that others would pay any attention to me.

Yet in this, I have decided that if I err it will be on the side of obedience, within the same limits of Abraham, that is to say, none. I do not know the course other will take, but as Joshua said, I know the course that me and my house will take.

I have no question in my mind as to the will of God for me in this matter.

 

[numealinesimpet]

… Yet in his faith, he drew no limits on his obedience to God.

S. Thomas Aquinas reminds us that there are times when we must say “I will obey God rather than man”. This applies even to the Pope, if he tries to exceed his authority. The Pope is the custodian of the Faith; it is not his to throw away. This is the dilemma that Mgr Lefebvre & others had to face.

 

[EnchantedEve]

There is some truth in that, Eve, but perhaps we differ on the borderlines for the different “levels” of obedience. Here’s a rough breakdown:

• Faith and morals – cannot change, therefore cannot dissent
• Matters of discipline (priestly celibacy, Latin-only liturgy) – can be changed, so they may be disagreed with, but if the Holy See decrees something about them, it must be obeyed
• Other matters of Church leadership – can be dissented from but must always respect the leaders

The problem is that many SSPX devotees place the format of the Mass in the first category, sometimes even quoting Pope St. Pius V as saying things like “forever” and “in perpetuity” regarding the Mass. (He did say those things, but those words do not have the exact connotation that SSPXers think.)

And particularly alarming is the notion by some that the Mass as promugated by Paul VI is not even valid. Post #808: “The prize, however, goes to the Vatican for realizing that some of the translations created some doubt as to the validity…”

Doubt in whose minds? It’s one thing to dislike the translations, but another to lose faith in the Holy Spirit’s guidance of our Church! The OF Mass is certainly valid.

So the points that traditionalists are making stem from my second category above. And again, it’s fine to disagree, but NOT fine to have a bishop thumb his nose at the Holy Father. The main problem with Abp. Lefebvre was not of substance, but disobedience. Of course, he is now deceased, so if the SSPX and its followers (since there are no “members”) accept all obligatory items (categories one and two above) then they should certainly be fully regularized.

I agree about the liturgy. Some traditionalists do seem to dogmatize it, to the extent that I read one traditional priest discourage faithful from even attending Eastern Rite liturgies!

The particulars of Archbishop Lefebvre’s actions are disputable, and always shall be. However, the fact remains that if he felt he had a foundation for his concerns, he would be justified in his actions, Again, obedience is the servant of Faith, not obedience. We cannot obey unto destruction, which it must be said many of the faithful would have been justified to feel in the years following Vatican II. Whether his specific actions were warranted is for another thread.

 

[ProVobis]

It was licit for a new form of Mass to be added to the Church’s tradition, but not for the immemorial Rite to be deleted. This was definitely attempted. It was 40 years before a Pope told us clearly that this had not, in fact, happened.

The immemorial Rite which was handed down over well over 1600 years was not deleted. Instead we saw a very broad and quick corrosion of the liturgy during and post-Vatican II. The Missal of 1965 already saw a stripped-down (and dumbed-down) version of TLM but that wasn’t enough. The situation became like a plane trying to correct itself after stalling. It wasn’t until the New Rite came and settled the liturgical chaos. For a while anyway.

Yet all this time 1962 Missal was hibernating and it probably would still be sleeping today if the progressives had left well enough alone with the 1969-70 Missal and retained some if not most of the customs, communion rails, COTT, etc. But the fact is they didn’t and some just saw too much increasing meddling in their spiritual lives. From early on there were groups and Cardinals which warned about the new direction of the Church and so far we’ve seen that they had been right all along.

Fortunately then-Cardinal Ratzinger was one of those Cardinals and we thank God for the fact that now he’s in a position to straighten some of this liturgical mess out. And he has come through brilliantly so far, but I don’t think there’s any dispute that we still have a long way to go.

While SSPX is not entirely sinless in the matter, had it not been for the progressives fighting and provoking them at every opportunity, this matter would have been resolved many years ago. I believe Cardinal Ratzinger and Archbishop Lefebrve bargained in good faith but too much meddling from the outside just made things tougher for everyone.

 

[ProVobis]

I agree about the liturgy. Some traditionalists do seem to dogmatize it, to the extent that I read one traditional priest discourage faithful from even attending Eastern Rite liturgies!

In pre-Vatican II days, most were discouraged from attending ANY church outside their parish boundaries. While it is true the Eastern Rites were taboo to some extent, nevertheless it is overdramatizing things to say it was prejudice on the part of the pre-Vatican II Church that they weren’t allowed to fluorish. After all, East is East and West is West and we enjoy our little comfort zones and always feel threatened by outsiders. Human nature.

 

[numealinesimpet]

In pre-Vatican II days, most were discouraged from attending ANY church outside their parish boundaries. While it is true the Eastern Rites were taboo to some extent, nevertheless it is overdramatizing things to say it was prejudice on the part of the pre-Vatican II Church that they weren’t allowed to fluorish. After all, East is East and West is West and we enjoy our little comfort zones and always feel threatened by outsiders. Human nature.

Not just that. Mother Church in her deep wisdom knows how deep-rooted culture is. there are wise reasons why we may not offhandedly try to participate, even in the Rite of the Universal Church, outside of our own culture. Forgive me, but American and some English readers, in a continent/nation with a pretty homogenous and ascendant culture, are found often not to realise these things until they live for a while in a really different culture. In Canon Law, it is strictly forbidden either to move outside your own rite, or to try to suppress an established Rite. These laws were enacted to prevent the (traditional) Roman Rite from overwhelming the others, as some zealous but indiscreet missionaries had attempted in the 17th – 19th centuries; but it had never crossed the darkest dreams of the legislators that soon it would be the Roman Rite itself that was to suffer attempted extermination.

 

[Lycorth]

S. Thomas Aquinas reminds us that there are times when we must say “I will obey God rather than man”. This applies even to the Pope, if he tries to exceed his authority. The Pope is the custodian of the Faith; it is not his to throw away. This is the dilemma that Mgr Lefebvre & others had to face.

Yes, and part of Abraham’s predicament was that he thought God wanted him to kill his son, which God of course didn’t want him to do.

A nearer parallel would be asking Catholics to give up all our traditional teachings, the traditions of the Church, which were handed down to us from God Himself, and instead embrace risky practices and dangerous novelties that threaten all the faithful and weaken the Church at a time where she cannot afford to be.

Why should the SSPX, or any traditionalist who eschews post-Vatican II novelties, be thought of as any less than Abraham? After all, are not those who hold fast to the traditions God Himself has authored via the Church those who stand in obedience?

 

[numealinesimpet]

Yes, and part of Abraham’s predicament was that he thought God wanted him to kill his son, which God of course didn’t want him to do.

A nearer parallel would be asking Catholics to give up all our traditional teachings, the traditions of the Church, which were handed down to us from God Himself, and instead embrace risky practices and dangerous novelties that threaten all the faithful and weaken the Church at a time where she cannot afford to be.

Why should the SSPX, or any traditionalist who eschews post-Vatican II novelties, be thought of as any less than Abraham? After all, are not those who hold fast to the traditions God Himself has authored via the Church those who stand in obedience?

Agreed. The Abraham question actually raises very deep theological issues. Firstly, remember he lived many full centuries before the Ten Commandments were given – to anyone. Abraham not only begot a child by a slave woman and then drove them into the desert, he asked to lie with a temple prostitute. Check your Bible! The Old Testament figures are our precursors, not our role-models.

The fact that God asked Abraham to sacrifice his own son is conclusive proof that God actually does have the right to ask this – because what is sinful to do is sinful to request – even if it is going to be rescinded later. Thus it is not morally intrinsically wrong for the true God to ask human sacrifice. Indeed, what he did was, not to ban it outright, but to allow it to be required of only one Father – Himself. After His own Beloved Son was sacrificed, none of us others need follow this perfect, eternal Sacrifice.

There is plenty for us to think of here.