Seeking good defence of Church against SSPX accusations

[JReducation]

Hi JReducation. You make a lot of excellent points. Nevertheless, I think a good question has been raised by someone here (more than one person, iirc): what about those who don’t accept the “just obey” way of thinking?

These individuals need to look at the spiritual giants to learn how to obey, the meaning of obedience and to understand that legitimate authority does not have to be perfect or even right to be legitimate. Legitimate authority has rights.

I always think of parenting. Parents are not perfect. They make mistakes. The commandment does not say that we honor them only when they’re wise and holy. We may never obey a command to sin. There is a difference between a command to sin and speculation. I can speculate that if I do X it may lead to sin. It may or it may not. However, X is not a sin. Authority has commanded X. This is how these great men and women became spiritual giants and masters of the Christian life. They knew these differences and they trusted God.

It’s too easy to say that we want to be faithful to tradition and then say that we can disobey. The Christian tradition has always been about obedience. The great masters in that tradition have always obeyed, even when they had to obey some tough commands.

There is a wonderful story about St. Anthony of Padua and St. Francis of Assisi, which appears to be true. Anthony was an Augustinian Canon. He left them to join the Friars Minor. He was a theologian, a professsor, and an outstanding preacher. He had never met Francis. However, Francis knew about him.

Anthony joined the Friars in Portugal. He had the opportunity to meet Francis at the general chapter of the order. He was very excited. When he arrived in Assisi, Francis refused to meet him. Anthony was heartbroken. He truly wanted to meet this man who had inspired his life. He hovered around Francis, waiting to introduce himself. Francis saw him and turned his back on him.

When the chapter was over, everyone had an assignment, except Anthony. Francis had not only denied him the pleasure of an introduction, he had deliberately ignored him and not given him an assignment. Brother Anthony was sitting wondering what to do. Some brothers asked him if they could be of help. He explained that he had no place to go. They invited him to go with them to Padua. He went.

While in Padua, he preached and taught. Francis was keeping tabs on the young Brother Anthony. Even though Anthony thought that Brother Francis did not know of his existence or worse, that he had been ignored. Francis wrote a letter and commanded that Brother Anthony be ordained. This was not what Anthony wanted. He was a scholar, theologian, and preacher. He was happy. He did not wish to be a priest. He wanted to be what he was, a religious. He obeyed. Brother Anthony was ordained.

Later, he wrote to Brother Francis to ask for permission to teach theology to the brothers. Francis responded, “Dear Brother Anthony, my bishop, . . .” He granted the permission to teach theology to the brothers. The important note here is that he refers to Anthony as “his bishop” Anthony was never a bishop. Francis held him in such high esteem, becase of his obedience, his willingness to accept humility, to accept being ignored, to accept being left out in the cold when assignments were given, that he held him in a place of honor in his heart and mind.

True obedience is like the obedience of Anthony. It accepts humiliation, even when one does not deserve it. But Anthony accepted it, because Francis was the father of the fraternity. Anthony, being a scholar and a saint, realized that authority has rights, even when we disagree with the choices that authority makes.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[TrentCath]

I would tell them to read the following lives and times:

Francis of Assisi

Bonaventure

Dominic

Teresa of Avila

Ignatius of Loyola

John Vianney

Vincent de Paul

Mother Teresa

Padre Pio

Maximilian Kolbe

I would couch it like this. If you can show me that you can do better than these folks who lived in similar times of turmoil and change inside and around the Church, then I’ll follow you.

Not a single one of them ever made a comment about a pope, their bishop, their superior or the councils. St. Francis even banned Gregorian chant, communion rails, distinctions between ordained and non ordained friars, and founded the first real order for secular men and women to bridge the gap between the religious life and the secular life. He asked the pope to excommunicate his vicar general for disagreeing with him. The pope did it. No one claimed that the excommunication was invalid or unfair. The Vicar later recanted, agreed with Francis and eventually became the Minister General after Francis’ death. Francis was a lay friar and the vicar was a priest and theologian. Yet, the Church holds this man up as the most perfect Catholic, according to Pope Pius X, Pius XII called him the Mirror of Perfection. Pope Benedict said that he embodied the First Beatitude. And commanded the bishops of the Italian Conference of Bishops to read up on Francis and lean to obey as he did, without questions.

Mother Teresa lived long before Vatican II and long after Vatican II and she radiated the Gospel, the love of Christ and love for the Church without ever having to break obedience to the Church. Which of the SSPX clergy and members can stand next to her?

Teresa of Avila took the Carmelite Order back to its roots without ever denouncing the superiors of the order or the friars and sisters in the order. She was taken before the Inquisition and she did not refuse their authority. She simply answered their questions.

Padre Pio was told not to celebrate mass for the public or hear the confessions of the laity. His only answer was “Obedience, obedience, obedience.”

Dominic and Ignatius converted more heretics than any of the SSPX clergy. Both commanded their sons never to speak an uncharitable word or think an uncharitable thought about the heretics, never to engage in debates with them and to co-exist peacefully among them. They were to preach truth and practice kindness in thought, word and deed. Ignatius said that if you found a fault in another person, be kind to that person.

Francis defended the rights of the Muslims to live without being oppressed by Christians. Dominic defended the rights of the Jews to live in peace. Both won many allies among the Muslims and Jews. We have no idea how many souls they saved. But it may be quite a few. Their kindness and concern for the safety, physical welfare and human rights of the Muslims and Jews won them a place of respect among them.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

I’m sure the SSPX do read the lives of those saints, however I am not sure that the situations those saints were in and the situtation the church was in are at all similar.

Many people misunderstand and argue that the primary problem the SSPX has with the church or at least some of it post Vatican II is to do with '…banned Gregorian chant, communion rails, distinctions between ordained and non ordained friars…" as you put it. Rather the primary problem is doctrinal meltdown, they see the church as repeatedly denying and acting against De Fide Dogma’s with catastrophic consequences for the salvation of souls. As much can be seen by reading any of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre letters, it is therfore wrong to make a comparison between these many saints and the SSPX.

Rather one should use saints that lived in times of Doctrinal not just moral or canonical strife such as for example St Athanasius whose opposition to the heresy of almost the entire church earned him the name ‘Athanasius Contra Mundum’. It’s also worth pointing out that the Angelic Doctor in his great work the Summa spelled out the limits of obedience and the circumstances in which it was legitmate to criticise and correct your superiors. And of course there is the case where an unnamed Dominan Friar did not hesitate to correct the then Pope to his face when he said that the dead did not see the beatific vision until Judgement Day.

Obedience is legitimate but it has limit as the Angelic Doctor says when answering '*Are Subjects bound to obey their superiors in all things? He says "On like manner there are two reasons, for which a subject may not be bound to obey his superior in all things. First on account of the command of a higher power. For as a gloss says on Romans 13:2, “They that resist [Vulgate: ‘He that resisteth’] the power, resist the ordinance of God” (cf. St. Augustine, De Verb. Dom. viii). “If a commissioner issue an order, are you to comply, if it is contrary to the bidding of the proconsul? Again if the proconsul command one thing, and the emperor another, will you hesitate, to disregard the former and serve the latter? Therefore if the emperor commands one thing and God another, you must disregard the former and obey God.” *

It is all very well then to say that obedience is of key importance and show the many admirable and praiseworthy Saint’s that possessed it but it is not acceptable to say thereby that all saints and therefore all catholics should be silent and obey if a legitmate authority is doing something completely illegitmate and contrary to the will of God.

If The OP wants a balanced or at least more balanced more view of the SSPX, I would recommend, Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebvre written by Michael Davies (a man the Holy Father praised upon hearing of his death) and available for free here

 

[JReducation]

I’m sure the SSPX do read the lives of those saints, however I am not sure that the situations those saints were in and the situtation the church was in are at all similar.

Many people misunderstand and argue that the primary problem the SSPX has with the church or at least some of it post Vatican II is to do with '…banned Gregorian chant, communion rails, distinctions between ordained and non ordained friars…" as you put it. Rather the primary problem is doctrinal meltdown, they see the church as repeatedly denying and acting against De Fide Dogma’s with catastrophic consequences for the salvation of souls. As much can be seen by reading any of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre letters, it is therfore wrong to make a comparison between these many saints and the SSPX.

Rather one should use saints that lived in times of Doctrinal not just moral or canonical strife such as for example St Athanasius whose opposition to the heresy of almost the entire church earned him the name ‘Athanasius Contra Mundum’. It’s also worth pointing out that the Angelic Doctor in his great work the Summa spelled out the limits of obedience and the circumstances in which it was legitmate to criticise and correct your superiors. And of course there is the case where an unnamed Dominan Friar did not hesitate to correct the then Pope to his face when he said that the dead did not see the beatific vision until Judgement Day.

Obedience is legitimate but it has limit as the Angelic Doctor says when answering '*Are Subjects bound to obey their superiors in all things? He says "On like manner there are two reasons, for which a subject may not be bound to obey his superior in all things. First on account of the command of a higher power. For as a gloss says on Romans 13:2, “They that resist [Vulgate: ‘He that resisteth’] the power, resist the ordinance of God” (cf. St. Augustine, De Verb. Dom. viii). “If a commissioner issue an order, are you to comply, if it is contrary to the bidding of the proconsul? Again if the proconsul command one thing, and the emperor another, will you hesitate, to disregard the former and serve the latter? Therefore if the emperor commands one thing and God another, you must disregard the former and obey God.” *

It is all very well then to say that obedience is of key importance and show the many admirable and praiseworthy Saint’s that possessed it but it is not acceptable to say thereby that all saints and therefore all catholics should be silent and obey if a legitmate authority is doing something completely illegitmate and contrary to the will of God.

If The OP wants a balanced or at least more balanced more view of the SSPX, I would recommend, Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebvre written by Michael Davies (a man the Holy Father praised upon hearing of his death) and available for free here

The comparison with Athanasius is an invalid one. Athanasius was fighting heretics. Pope John XXIII, PaulVI, John Paul I, John Paul II and Benedict XVI are not heretics. Whatever, they approve is binding on the faithful.

St. Thomas is not God, nor is his position applicable here. St. Thomas builds on the theology of St. Benedict. Benedict was clear tha obedience to a higher authority must always be interpreted by the Church. Thomas does not deny this. You don’t bypass the papacy as if you had a hotline to God. Benedict, the Theologian for Obedience and Thomas would not support such an act. The other time when one must disobeyis when one is commanded to sin. The pope did not command the Archibshop to sin. He denied permission to ordain four bishop. It was the Archbishop who broke the rules, not the pope. The pope dismissed the Archbishop’s claim that there was a necessity. The pope has the power to dismiss this and any claim based on Canon Law, because Canon Law exists at his discretion and pleasure. He can change it, abolish it, annul it, and apply it anyway that he wishes and we have to live with it, because it’s his law.

You would do well to read the lives of these men and women. You will find that the Church was indeed struggling with moral and doctrinal concepts and orthodoxy on the inside.

The Apologia that you’re recommending is being used by some SSPXers as propaganda. It is unfair to suggest that.

As far as doctrine is concerned, this dialogue has been going on since last year. So far, the SSPX theologians have not managed to convince the Sacred Congregation for the Faith and Cardinal Levada that the Church is teaching heresy. As Catholics we have to place authority in its proper place. The Sacred Congregation trumps the theologians of the SSPX. If you’re claiming that it is made up of heretics and is blind to heresy, then we can discuss it. If you agree that the Congregation is made up of faithful theologians who have the blessing and support of the Holly Father, then there is nothing to discuss. The Congregation has not found the claims of the SSPX to be accurate and we’re bound to follow the Congregatioin, unless we know that it is heretical.

Along with the above, I stand by what I say. So far, what we have seen from those who are supportive of the SSPX is a lot of complaining and not much fruit. On the other hand, we had Bl. Mother Teresa who lived during the same yearrs as the SSPX and we see the fruits of great holiness.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[TrentCath]

The comparison with Athanasius is an invalid one. Athanasius was fighting heretics. Pope John XXIII, PaulVI, John Paul I, John Paul II and Benedict XVI are not heretics. No but its impossible to look at the events of the 60’s 70’s, 80’s 90’s and events today and say that they are not turning a blind eye and in some cases were plainly ignored by bishops who WERE teaching heresy Whatever, they approve is binding on the faithful.

St. Thomas is not God, I dont believe I said he was, I merely pointed out his rather respected teachings on the subject nor is his position applicable here. St. Thomas builds on the theology of St. Benedict. Benedict was clear tha obedience to a higher authority must always be interpreted by the Church. Thomas does not deny this. You don’t bypass the papacy as if you had a hotline to God. Benedict, the Theologian for Obedience and Thomas would not support such an act. **Thats your opinion, what we do know however is that St Thomas taught that obedience was not unlimited it has boundaries. Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre was obedient to Rome, obedient to the teachings of St Pius X, Pope Pius IX, Pope Pius VI, Pope Gregory XVI and Pope Pius XI to name but a few. What he was not obedient to was the heretical teachings or interpretations set forth by many in the curia and to which the Papacy have at times turned a blind eye or even actively supported. **

If however you wish to dismiss that argument you can look at that formulated by Blessed Cardinal Henry Newman, who in his letter to the duke of Norfolk refers to several weighty authorities that explain when it is legitmate to disobey the pope '…***In support of what I have been saying, I refer to one or two weighty authorities:—

Cardinal Turrecremata says, “Although it clearly follows from the circumstance that the Pope can err at times, and command things which must not be done, that we are not to be simply obedient to him in all things, that does not show that he must not be obeyed by all when his commands are good. To know in what cases he is to be obeyed and in what not … it is said in the Acts of the Apostles, ‘One ought to obey God rather than man:’ therefore, were the Pope to command anything against Holy Scripture, or the articles of faith, or the truth of the Sacraments, or the commands of the natural or divine law, he ought not to be obeyed, but in such commands is to be passed over (despiciendus).”—Summ. de Eccl., pp. 47, 48.

Bellarmine, speaking of resisting the Pope, says, {243} “In order to resist and defend oneself no authority is required … Therefore, as it is lawful to resist the Pope, if he assaulted a man’s person, so it is lawful to resist him, if he assaulted souls, or troubled the state (turbanti rempublicam), and much more if he strove to destroy the Church. It is lawful, I say, to resist him, by not doing what he commands, and hindering the execution of his will.”—De Rom. Pont., ii. 29.

Archbishop Kenrick says, “His power was given for edification, not for destruction. If he uses it from the love of domination (quod absit) scarcely will he meet with obedient populations.”—Theolog. Moral., t. i. p. 158…***’ You can find the letter in question here Now unless you are going to call Blessed Cardinal Henry Newman and all the authorities he listed as disobedient, wrong or heretical, I’m afraid your interpretation of Papal Supremacy and Infallibillity appears to be challenged…

You would do well to read the lives of these men and women. I have, it hasn’t changed my point of viewYou will find that the Church was indeed struggling with moral and doctrinal concepts and orthodoxy on the inside.

The Apologia that you’re recommending is being used by some SSPXers as propaganda. It is unfair to suggest that. Not particularly, you’re not going to get a ‘neutral’ view in this matter. Nor did I suggest that only that book be read, what I did suggest is that it should be one of the books that is read. It’s a balanced, well thought out and coherent book written by a fairly eminent author

I will make no comment on the ongoing negotations

Along with the above, I stand by what I say. So far, what we have seen from those who are supportive of the SSPX is a lot of complaining and not much fruit. **Because of course the very existence of the FSSP, the institute of christ the king the sovereign priest, the pope allowing any priest to say the TLM and proposing that all seminaries to teach the TLM have nothing to do with the SSPX… The simple fact is that if the Archbishop had not taken a stand none of these societies would exist as no one else cared about Tradition whatsoever and the TLM would certainly not exist today.**On the other hand, we had Bl. Mother Teresa who lived during the same yearrs as the SSPX and we see the fruits of great holiness.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[pnewton]

Other than addressing each topic one at a time, which you might search and find many of these already answered here, I would approach the tone of the book. If the quote you gave is an indication, then ask yourself this, does the book read more like the writings of the saints and the documents of the Church, or more like propaganda, or a Jack Chick tract? Does it engage in rhetoric and name-calling, or dialogue. There are those that love to use terms like “heretic”, “novus ordo” and “concilliar church” because controlling words makes controlling thought easier.

I would suggest that your spouse would do the same thing that she would do about any other issue: go to the Church. If are Catholic, then we should by nature trust the Catholic Church to be the bulwark of Truth that Scripture says she is. Read what the Church says and suggests about the SSPX. It is far more balance than this literature sounds.

At the end of the day, one has to answer the question of what one believes the Church of Jesus Christ is and where is its authority today. This was the critical question for me as a Protestant considering Catholicism. It remains a critical question at any juncture when it is the Church versus X.

 

[JReducation]

TrentCath:
The arguments that you have presented from previous writers speak to errors and even heresies that popes may embrace. You’re a hairline short of saying that the current popes if they have not taught heresy, they have embraced it and endorsed it.

This is the problem and the best reason why the laity should stay out of the SSPX’s affairs and refrain from commenting on the SSPX’s dealing with the Vatican. They would not make such a bold statement. It’s outright offensive to the popes.

In addition, there is not a tone of reconciliation or even any admission that the SSPX and the Archbishop could be wrong, in your post. The Church is wrong and the Archbishop and his followers are right.

Finally, you do not address the fact that the Church has not conceded to any point presented by the SSPX on the current talks. Does this make the Sacred Congregation of the Faith a defender or error and heresy?

This language that you’re using is the language of assault, not the language of submission to legitimate authority. The citations that you provided all speak to the illegitimate use of authority. Just as the pope should be disobeyed when he abuses authority and commands what is wrong, so should an Archbishop when he decides to ordain four bishops in defiance of a papal mandate not to do so. The pope did not order him to sin. He ordered him not to ordain. The same is true about these ordinations. No one has ordered the SSPX to sin. They have been ordered not to exercise ministry.

As to their fruits, the recovery of the EF, the FSSP and Christ the King are not fruits of the SSPX. The FSSP and Christ the King want nothing to do with the SSPX. The FSSP was founded with runaways from the SSPX. They only ran away when the Archbishop ordained four bishops contrary to the wishes of the pope.

Remember, that the whole issue of disobedience here centers on these ordinations. No one is arguing with the SSPX about the EF. They were not excommunicated because of thier postion on ecumenism or the documents of Vatican II. They were excommunicated for disobedience to a legitimate command. There is no defense for that, except the one that Bl. John Paul already dismissed as inadmissible. Pope Benedict has repeated that this defense is inadmissible. There is no justification for having ordained those bishops. There is no justification for ordaining priests when you are supposed to be suspended.

This is not a command to sin. This is a command to comply with the legitimate wishes of the Pontiff. None of the apologists who have written on obedience have ever denied the rights of the Pontiff. One would have to prove that the Pontiff did not have the right to oppose the ordinations of the four bishops and that he does not have the right to deny the current SSPX bishops the authority to ordain priess and does not have the right to deny these priests faculties. If one can prove this, then one can use the argument “the Church supplies”. Until that’s proven, the bishops have no jurisdiction to ordain and their men have no jurisdiction to absolve from sin.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF