SSPX mass OK?

[numealinesimpet]

Reflections on “Emergency”.
This is in some ways a separate issue from the question of Jurisdiction and Faculties, but they are very closely linked.

A State of Emergency exists when a person is denied access to something which is essential to him, but which however he has has no hope of obtaining by ‘regular’ means. Our Lord quoted with approval the episode in Scripture where King David and his men entered the temple and ate the ‘Showbread’ that it is not lawful to eat, because they were in danger of fainting from hunger. The Law of self-preservation (the duty of care over Somebody Else’s property, with which they had been entrusted: i.e. their bodies – over-rode the Temple Law that the bread was reserved for Temple use).

Now the only way to get around Mgr Lefebvre’s justification of his consecrating bishops by invoking canons 1323, 1324 +1321, is to deny that there was a state of Emergency in 1988 [actually, the phrase is ‘Case of Necessity’ which is activated when there is a State of Emergency’]. In fact, even this action would not serve. It is not even germane to the issue whether or not there was an objective State of emergency. The canons specifically state that the person is exempt from censure even if he is wrong – even if he ought to have known better – and even if it is his own fault that he did not know better.

Some will argue that only the Pope can declare a State of Emergency. That is wrong on two counts.

[1] Each one of us individually might encounter a State of emergency. “I” as a layman and father cannot speak for the whole Church, but I can recognise it if my children are being denied a Catholic formation in my own town. If my attempts to provide for one are being blocked by the very members of the local Church, then I do not need to wait for the Pope to tell me so – I am entitled under Divine Law to make emergency arrangements. This is a dangerous line of action: of course it is. That is why it is an emergency.

[2] What if the Emergency embraces the Pope himself? Our Lord’s promise to Peter by no means excluded this as a possibility “But * after * you have turned, confirm thy bretheren”. The history of the Arian crisis shows that it has already happened at least once before. Athanasius (and Bp Eusebius) didn’t say (which on the face of it would have been a plausible response) “things are bad, but God is in charge: we will stay at home, obey the Pope and say our prayers” …. they went out and worked to restore the Faith, no matter who opposed them. When Athanasius was excommunicated, he simply ignored it and went on with his work. This example does not prove that Mgr Lefebvre was right in his own case, but it does prove that these things are possible, and are in line with established principles of the Catholic Church.

 

[numealinesimpet]

In regards to what Rome has instructed the SSPX to do: to stop celebrating the sacraments until in full visible union, to repent their disobedience, and to return to full visible union with Rome.

The SSPX deny that they are guilty of disobedience, nor that they have anything to repent of (except for maybe some indiscretions of phrasing in certain quoted remarks).

St. Thomas Aquinas, in "Summa Theologica" II-II-104, deals with the topic of Obedience in his usual exhaustive fashion.

The full text can be found on the web, e.g. at http://www.kensmen.com/catholic/summa22104.html
I have given below the main points, deleting some passages but adding nothing to his words. When St Thomas speaks of “subjects” and “superiors” he refers to anyone under authority, not only those in Religious Orders.

**Whether subjects are bound to obey their superiors in all things? **

Objection 1. It seems that subjects are bound to obey their superiors in all things. For the Apostle says (Col. 3:20): “Children, obey your parents in all things,” and farther on (Col. 3:22): “Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh.” Therefore in like manner other subjects are bound to obey their superiors in all things.

Objection 2. Further, superiors stand between God and their subjects… Therefore the commands of a superior must be esteemed the commands of God, …(1 Thess. 2:13): “When you had received of us the word of the hearing of God, you received it, not as the word of men, but, as it is indeed, the word of God.” Therefore as man is bound to obey God in all things, so is he bound to obey his superiors.

Objection 3. Further, just as religious in making their profession take vows of chastity and poverty, so do they also vow obedience. Now a religious is bound to observe chastity and poverty in all things. Therefore he is also bound to obey in all things.

But on the contrary, It is written (Acts 5:29): *“We ought to obey God rather than men.” *Now sometimes the things commanded by a superior are against God. Therefore superiors are not to be obeyed in all things.

I answer that … 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 Rm. 13:2, “They that resist [Vulg.: ‘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.”

Secondly, a subject is not bound to obey his superior if the latter command him to do something wherein he is not subject to him. For Seneca says (De Beneficiis iii): “It is wrong to suppose that slavery falls upon the whole man: for the better part of him is excepted.” His body is subjected and assigned to his master but his soul is his own. Consequently in matters touching the internal movement of the will man is not bound to obey his fellow-man, but God alone.
…
Servants are not bound to obey their masters, nor children their parents, in the question of contracting marriage or of remaining in the state of virginity or the like. But in matters concerning the disposal of actions and human affairs, a subject is bound to obey his superior within the sphere of his authority; for instance a soldier must obey his general in matters relating to war, a servant his master in matters touching the execution of the duties of his service, a son his father in matters relating to the conduct of his life and the care of the household; and so forth.

Reply to Objection 1. When the Apostle says “in all things,” he refers to matters within the sphere of a father’s or master’s authority.

Reply to Objection 2. Man is subject to God simply as regards all things, both internal and external, wherefore he is bound to obey Him in all things. On the other hand, inferiors are not subject to their superiors in all things, but only in certain things and in a particular way, in respect of which the superior stands between God and his subjects, whereas in respect of other matters the subject is immediately under God, by Whom he is taught either by the natural or by the written law.

Reply to Objection 3. Religious profess obedience as to the regular mode of life, in respect of which they are subject to their superiors: wherefore they are bound to obey in those matters only which may belong to the regular mode of life, and this obedience suffices for salvation. If they be willing to obey even in other matters, this will belong to the superabundance of perfection; provided, however, such things be not contrary to God or to the rule they profess, for obedience in this case would be unlawful.

Accordingly we may distinguish a threefold obedience;
one, sufficient for salvation, and consisting in obeying when one is bound to obey:
secondly, perfect obedience, which obeys in all things lawful:
thirdly, indiscreet obedience, which obeys even in matters unlawful.

Mgr Lefebvre & the SSPX clergy argue that to follow the letter of the instructions that emanated from the Vatican, both on the Liturgy in general and as regards their own Fraternity, would have constituted indiscreet obedience.

 

[numealinesimpet]

One of the reasons that **the SSPX parishes ** are so problematic is that only the local ordinary may create new parishes, but the SSPX have done so.

Can. 515 §1. A parish is a certain community of the Christian faithful stably constituted in a particular church, whose pastoral care is entrusted to a pastor (parochus) as its proper pastor (pastor) under the authority of the diocesan bishop

The SSPX Mass Centres were not set up as parishes, and the bishops were not set up as diocesan bishops. The SSPX project from the beginning has been an Emergency Measure.

The Mass Centres are there to provide for the religious needs of the Faithful which the bishop and parish clergy, for whatever reason, are not providing. When that omission is rectified, there will be no further need of the SSPX Mass centres.

The bishops were precisely consecrated ‘sine locus, pro tem’ – “without a ‘location’, for the duration [of the emergency]”. They have a roaming mission, plugging the breaches in the dam as best they can.

The SSPX bishops have always vowed that, the day the Vatican has definitively fought off the Modernist Heresy and resotred discipline, they will cast their mitres at the feet of the Holy Father of the day. Bp Fellay stated, “I will run!”

By the very definition you have offered, **aramis, ** the Mass centres are not parishes.

At every single Mass, at the Canon, the SSPX priests pray for ‘Our Father, Pope Benedict’ and for the Local Ordinary - the bishop of the diocese they are in – by name.

The fact that the Local Ordinary refuses to recognise them (while often tolerating other, more horrible sins in his diocesan clergy than belonging to the SSPX) is highly regrettable, but it is not under the control of the SSPX priest.

 

[numealinesimpet]

Further info. on a State of Emergency

29 August 2005, Pope Benedict XVI conceded to Bishop Bernard Fellay, superior general of the SSPX, that there could be a state of necessity for the Church in France and Germany. If the Holy Father had heard of the following, perhaps he would have added Ireland to the list:

In 2006, the Augustinian prior of Drogheda, Father Iggy O’Donovan, invited the local Church of Ireland pastor to concelebrate the Novus Ordo Mass on Easter Sunday *(The Irish Times, 18 April 2006). *

It appears that the Reverend Michael Graham was received with a prolonged applause by the large congregation when he appeared at the altar. Father Iggy explained that “the Christian Church of the future has to be one in which the different traditions are united in a shared service of the Risen Christ and in which we are enriched and not threatened by our differences.” The participation of Pastor Graham in the ceremony was not the one of a mere praying witness. In priestly vestments, he concelebrated the mass at the altar, “sharing in the consecration in all its fullness and raising the chalice.” A “wonderful occasion” in which for the first time “the Eucharist was concelebrated in Drogheda by a Catholic priest of the Anglican tradition in a Catholic church of the Roman tradition since the Reformation.”

Readers probably know that the Church of Ireland is a Reformed Protestant denomination, a self-governing part of the Anglican Communion, whose beliefs are contained in The Book of the Articles of Religion, commonly called*** the Thirty-nine Articles*** of the Protestant Synods of Dublin, held in 1634 and in 1870.

The beliefs of the Church of Ireland deny the dogma of transubstantiation and the Real Presence.* Article 28 declares that

“Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions. The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper, only after a heavenly and spiritual manner. And the means whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is Faith. The Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper was not by Christ’s ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped.”

This contradicts explicitly the Catholic doctrine on transubstantiation as defined forever in 1551 by the Council of Trent:

“By the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the Holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation” (Session XIII, chapter IV).

C.f. also the Encyclical Mysterium Fidei of Pope Paul VI, 3 September 1965, reiterating solemnly the same doctrine; and The Catechism of the Catholic Church of* 1992, articles 1373-1381.

Canon 908 forbids Catholic priests “to concelebrate the Eucharist with priests or ministers of Churches or ecclesial communities which do not have full communion with the Catholic Church.” And the Instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum of 24 March 2004 includes among the graviora delicta against the sanctity of the Most August Sacrifice “the concelebration of the Eucharistic Sacrifice with ministers of Ecclesial Communities that do not have the apostolic succession nor acknowledge the sacramental dignity of priestly Ordination.”

The Very Revd. Fr Anglés (Superior of the SSPX in Ireland) commented on this episode:

A state of necessity exists when by obeying a positive law, one risks losing a good or incurring an evil. The law forbids me to break into my neighbour’s house, but I will do it if I do not see old Mrs. O’Connell for two consecutive days and she does not answer the door nor the telephone. In fact, not to do so would constitute a fault on my part.

In the Church, as in civil society, it is conceivable that there arrive a state of necessity which cannot be surmounted by the observance of positive ecclesiastical law. Such a situation exists when the endurance, order, or activity of the Church are threatened or harmed in a considerable manner. This threat bears principally on the sacred doctrine, the liturgy, and the discipline, which are supernatural goods, essential to the salvation of souls.

A situation of deep crisis in the Church, when those goods were universally in danger, justified the episcopal consecrations performed on 30 June 1988 by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer. They invoked a state of necessity and then proceeded to do their duty as Catholic bishops.* They did not incur any censures because the Code of Canon Law promulgated in 1983 by Pope John Paul II specifies that one cannot be subject to canonical penalties if one violates a law or precept out of necessity (canon 1323, 4), even in the case of an erroneous judgment about the existence of a state of necessity, as long as the mistake is made in good faith (canon 1323, 7).

And just when many pious souls started to doubt that the state of necessity continues, in comes the ineffable Augustinian prior of Drogheda, Father Iggy O’Donovan, inviting the local Church of Ireland pastor to concelebrate the Novus Ordo Mass on Easter Sunday.

I have not heard that any action was taken against Fr Iggy.

 

[ProVobis]

It is not even germane to the issue whether or not there was an objective State of emergency. The canons specifically state that the person is exempt from censure even if he is wrong – even if he ought to have known better – and even if it is his own fault that he did not know better.

The Archbishop NEEDED to consecrate other bishops because he was the only TLM bishop and his health was deteriorating. He didn’t have much choice in order to preserve the Latin Mass and the old customs. (The FSSP came later.) Credence to this is also evidenced by the fact that the Archbishop died a few years later. Also there have been no new consecrations in 22 years, as the late Archbishop (along the late Cardinal Meyer) were the only ones to do so. And no new plans either, so the existing situation is only temporary. Without a full reconciliation where more TLM bishops are allowed to be consecrated, the Church-approved SSPX and customs would probably die.

A blessed New Decade to everyone.

 

[white_sheep]

The Archbishop NEEDED to consecrate other bishops because he was the only TLM bishop and his health was deteriorating. He didn’t have much choice in order to preserve the Latin Mass and the old customs. (The FSSP came later.) Credence to this is also evidenced by the fact that the Archbishop died a few years later. Also there have been no new consecrations in 22 years, as the late Archbishop (along the late Cardinal Meyer) were the only ones to do so. And no new plans either, so the existing situation is only temporary. Without a full reconciliation where more TLM bishops are allowed to be consecrated, the Church-approved SSPX and customs would probably die.

A blessed New Decade to everyone.

Yes, but he didn’t have to be disobedient about it. The pope was going to allow him to have a replacement bishop consecrated, but LeFebvre wanted it done like 2 weeks earlier and wanted more bishops consecrated than the pope had agreed to so he told Rome to take a leap. Not exactly as noble as they make it out to be.

And what’s with all this emergency nonsense? That argument holds about as much water as a water balloon on top of a porcupine.

 

[pnewton]

Again, there is no disobedience to repent of. If there were, we would never be privy to their confession anyway. Rather than debate the state of emergency that may or may not have existed, the Holy Father has rendered the discussion moot by lifting the excommunications. The status of the SSPX is still up in the air, but the excommunications and the inital cause for them is of no more importance than the number of angels that dance on the head of the pin. Let us all follow Pope Benedict’s example and move forward to a solution instead of continuing to try and fis blame.

 

[numealinesimpet]

Yes, but he didn’t have to be disobedient about it. The pope was going to allow him to have a replacement bishop consecrated, but Lefebvre wanted it done like 2 weeks earlier and wanted more bishops consecrated than the pope had agreed to

No, he was originally going to consecrate only one. His pleas had been ignored for years: he knew perfectly well they were just waiting for him to die – a solution the church had employed successfully for nigh on 2000 years. It was only when he called their bluff and made it clear he was going to go ahead with or without permission that they took any notice at all. He submitted suggested candidates from among the SSPX clergy (which was normal procedure) but right up to the bitter end they would not give him a name. The Vatican had repeatedly found a string of excuses for putting the whole proceedings off. He believed that those running this cat-and-mouse game (which was not the pope) would simply continue this. It would not be the first time that the Vatican would have organised an event, then cancelled it at the last moment. It is all in the record. Once he had made the decision, however, he wanted to make sure that there would be long-term stability, and so he decided to consecrate four. Bp de Castro Meyer of Brazil volunteered to concelebrate the consecration. “Bare is brotherless back”. Thus we had one diocesan bishop (de Castro Meyer) and one Missionary Bishop (Lefebvre) to “do what the Church does”.

**white sheep,**I treat the rest of your post with the contempt it deserves.

 

[numealinesimpet]

Again, there is no disobedience to repent of. If there were, we would never be privy to their confession anyway.

pnewton, sorry but I don’t quite get your point there. If the forbidding of the 1988 consecrations by Lefebvre was a legitimate use of authority, then he was guilty of disobedience in going ahead, and some formal retraction and Act of Repentance would have been in order. If, on the other hand, the forbidding was an abuse of authority, Lefebvre was not only permitted to ignore it, but under a moral obligation to do so, as otherwise he would be conniving in the injustice.

Rather than debate the state of emergency that may or may not have existed, the Holy Father has rendered the discussion moot by lifting the excommunications.

How so? The State of emergency was (and is) the rampant failure of discipline and apostacy within the church, not the alleged excommunications!

The status of the SSPX is still up in the air, but the excommunications [are] of no more importance than the number of angels that dance on the head of the pin.

That would be true if the suspensions had been simultaneously lifted, but they haven’t. Meanwhile, the SSPX are being asked to suspend operations indefinitely? That cannot be right, can it?

Let us all follow Pope Benedict’s example and move forward to a solution instead of continuing to try and fix blame.

I intend to do just that – by continuing to support the SSPX, while playing an active part in other aspects of the life of my parish and diocese. I would like to see others do the same.

and the intiial cause of them…

The question is whether the SSPX have jurisdiction. If there were no state of emergency, the “Default rules” would apply and the SSPX clergy would be bound under pain of mortal sin to endure their suspension until it was lifted. If, however, there really is a State of Emergency, then “The Church supplies”. In the Catholic theology of supplied jurisdiction, each individual time a layperson approaches a priest for Confession in the envisaged emergency situation, it is the layman himself who supplies the jurisdiction, on a one-by-one basis, to the priest, for the sake of the Salvation of souls.

That leaves the question of Faculties, which in a normal situation are supplied by the legitimate superior, and Ultimately the pope. Correct? Well actually no, not quite. The Pope is only the vicar of the head of the church, not the ultimate head. If there is a failure along the line on an essential matter, it is possible to move up the line. Would God be so incompetent as to allow supplied jurisdiction to the layman, and then deny the faculties to supply it to the pastor? That would be like producing a lovely mechanical instrument and then neglecting to supply the battery.

That, as I understand it, is the SSPX position, minus the legal jargon, and I for one accept it.

 

[ProVobis]

The pope was going to allow him to have a replacement bishop consecrated, but LeFebvre wanted it done like 2 weeks earlier and wanted more bishops consecrated than the pope had agreed to so he told Rome to take a leap.

Perhaps but in Lefebvre’s mind, they might have been dragging their feet a little. Don’t forget there was a lot of opposition to even one bishop being consecrated so it really couldn’t have been a matter of only two weeks. The opposition even tried to suppress the now-famous findings of the nine Cardinals as far as the status of the old Mass. This really angered the traditionalists. I know that doesn’t excuse him but it wasn’t exactly another women-should-now-be-priests issue. There was an important matter of preserving old customs which Canon Law defends.

 

[Aramis]

Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI have stated there was no emergency. Further, the penalty unther the 1917 canon law for ordinations without papal mandate was the same as the 1983 code: Excommunication of both consecrators and consecrated, lifting reserved unto the apostolic see, no matter why it was done.

Lefebvre knew this going in. It was not new; it was, in fact, the few exceptions (China and the Ukraine) show true emergency: in both, persecutions meant that getting permission case by case would result in the likely executions and martyrdom of the new bishops, possibly before even being ordained a bishop, and leave the faithful without bishops in the region. In both cases, new bishops, when consecrated under the blanket permissions, were not consecrating new bishops themselves except to preserve the presence of the church at all, and within guidelines set by rome. (The Ruthenians, for example, were permitted 3 auxiliaries, specifically because of the soviet persecution; martyrs, all, now.)

There is no comparison with the Traditionalists, who were neither a different rite, nor in an isolated geography; their society did not and does not need bishops of its own to function; their actions have caused great harm to the church overall by confusing many faithful, and by removing their voice from the presbyteral councils of the various dioceses where they would have been.

 

[numealinesimpet]

Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI have stated there was no emergency.

With respect;
(1) They most definitely did not ever say “there is no emergency.”
(2) If the house is on fire, and the master of the house denies it, that tells me something about the perceptions of the master of the house, and it does not excuse me from doing what I can to put out the fire.

Further, the penalty unther the 1917 canon law for ordinations without papal mandate was the same as the 1983 code: Excommunication of both consecrators and consecrated, lifting reserved unto the apostolic see, no matter why it was done.

Wrong again, I’m afraid. Under the 1917 code, Lefebvre could have been excommunicated for disobedience, but not for consecrating a bishop without Papal mandate. That was not introduced until the 1950s.

On 1st July 1988 Cardinal Gantin - not Pope John Paul - declared Mgr Lefebvre excommunicated under Canons 1382 & 1364 New Code of Canon Law, that forbid consecration of a bishop without papal mandate. This Canon was promulgated in the 1950s in response to the schismatic Chinese Patriotic Church (CPA), a stooge organisation established according to classic Marxist principles: these bishops declare publicly & loudly that The Party over-rides the pope. Strangely, however, none of the 150+ CPA bishops has ever been excommunicated since the Second Vatican Council. Why not? Why just Lefebvre, de Castro Meyer and the new bishops?

Before consecrating his bishops, Mgr Lefebvre gave a public sermon in June 1988 clearly explaining that he was invoking Canons 1321-4 of the New Code of Canon Law, which provide for emergency situations by indemnifying from any sanction if one genuinely believes an emergency has arisen. The emergency was the spreading of false doctrine, and the illegal attempt to suppress the traditional liturgical life when it had not been abrogated. Significantly the Vatican has never refuted this correct usage of Canon Law by Mgr Lefebvre.

The SSPX insist that this alleged excommunication by Cdl Gantin - which Pope John Paul referred to in Ecclesia Dei but never issued on his own authority - is not legally binding: you cannot invoke one law while ignoring another. That would be like prosecuting a motorist for parking on a yellow line, while ignoring that it was a Sunday afternoon (when the Yellow Line rule does not apply).

Lefebvre knew this going in. It was not new; it was, in fact, the few exceptions (China and the Ukraine) show true emergency: in both, persecutions meant that getting permission case by case would result in the likely executions and martyrdom of the new bishops, possibly before even being ordained a bishop, and leave the faithful without bishops in the region. In both cases, new bishops, when consecrated under the blanket permissions, were not consecrating new bishops themselves except to preserve the presence of the church at all, and within guidelines set by Rome.

Sorry, this is rubbish. The Chinese Patriotic Church declare repeatedly and explicitly that the Communist Party outranks the Pope. In true Marxist fashion, they later re-named the movement “The Chinese patriotic Association” without changing one iota of their tactics. They knew they could hide behind the name.

There is no comparison with the Traditionalists, who were neither a different rite,

That is not what Pope Paul VI said, however.

nor in an isolated geography; their society did not and does not need bishops of its own to function;

The case of the Fraternity of S. Peter proves the opposite. Mgr lefebvre predicted what would happen to them, and he was correct to the letter.
I might add that, in 1988, I disagreed with Mgr Lefebvre, but when i saw subsequent developments, notably with the FSSP, I said, “Lefebvre was right after all!”

their actions have caused great harm to the church overall by confusing many faithful,

…by telling the truth? For example, by insisting “The Traditional Liturgy was never abrogated?” (Thank you, Pope Benedict, for confirming this…the SSPX absorbed a huge amount of stick for insisting on precisely this over a period of 20 – 40 years)

and by removing their voice from the presbyteral councils of the various dioceses where they would have been.

I’m sorry, but that last comment would take a larger space than a single posting to reply to: don’t you know how these communal organisations actually work? This kind of argumentation is touchingly naive. A friend of mine from the Czech Republic, when confronted with this, responds, “Just like what the Communists say! ‘Join the Party and reform it from within!’” Pope Benedict, in Summorum Pontificum (the document releasing the Traditional Liturgy, and lifting the decree of excommunication of theSSPX) stated that the trads had proved their own worth. If they had stayed ‘within the system’, they would have been systematically outvoted – like everybody else.

 

[numealinesimpet]

Wrong again, I’m afraid. Under the 1917 code, Lefebvre could have been excommunicated for disobedience, but not for consecrating a bishop without Papal mandate.

There is another difference, which has been acknowledged by canonists of the highest standing. Under the Old Code, if an excommunication were issued, it was effective ‘without prejudice’ to a future appeal. (In other words, you were incontrovertably excommunicated until you either repented, or could prove that the decree was invalid). But under the New Code, because of the let-out clauses that depend on a state of mind, not on an external action, the accused can always claim that the excommunication was invalid – and the onus woud be on *the Vatican *to prove otherwise – actually, an impossile task.

If you want further info on this, just ask.

 

[pnewton]

Meanwhile, the SSPX are being asked to suspend operations indefinitely? That cannot be right, can it?

As it is the Church is the one doing the asking, I would think common sense would at least acknowledge the possiblity that the Church could be right. That is what Catholics do.

I am not going to get into the other issues at this date for the reason I stated. Rome has spoken.

 

[mick321]

YES
.
Next question
.

 

[numealinesimpet]

As it is the Church is the one doing the asking, I would think common sense would at least acknowledge the possiblity that the Church could be right. That is what Catholics do.

I am not going to get into the other issues at this date for the reason I stated. Rome has spoken.

As I said to aramis,, “normally” that position would be unassailable. Those who accepted the validity of the SSPX’s case up to now – which means a realisation that the Church has been paralysed in a severe crisis of Faith and discipline, such that the Pope has not, in fact, been in full control of events – are probably going to be patient. Having withdrawn the excommunications (which were always invalid), and considering that the SSPX are asking nothing but the clarification of documents that we have been asked to obey (surely not an unreasonable request) the lifting of the suspensions will be only a matter of time. On the other hand, the Vatican bureaucracy is such that ill-disposed persons along the line could hold up the process for a long time. If we get answers to the questions about the real status of those ambiguous statements in Vatican II, not to mention restored access to the traditional liturgy, it will be the SSPX that have been the leaders in the battle back to the Church’s own identity.

I mentioned the Cristeros recently. They were Catholics fighting a miltary battle against the Masonic revolution in Mexico. The Masons persuaded the Pope that they would offer the Cristeros a full truce and amnesty. The Pope asked the Cristeros to lay down their weapons. They did. The regime promptly rounded them up and slaughtered them. That was a spiritual as well as a physical battle. Common prudence would suggest the SSPX take note of the record of the Vatican in the past 4 decades, and not prematurely drop their hard-won spiritual weapons, that have always been used to preserve the Faith.

 

[pnewton]

I mentioned the Cristeros recently. They were Catholics fighting a miltary battle against the Masonic revolution in Mexico. The Masons persuaded the Pope that they would offer the Cristeros a full truce and amnesty. The Pope asked the Cristeros to lay down their weapons. They did. The regime promptly rounded them up and slaughtered them. That was a spiritual as well as a physical battle. Common prudence would suggest the SSPX take note of the record of the Vatican in the past 4 decades, and not prematurely drop their hard-won spiritual weapons, that have always been used to preserve the Faith.

I am familiar with the Cristeros. The fact that such a comparison can be used is a good argument for avoiding SSPX and any other group that considers itselof opposed to the Church. Those that stay with the Church do not have to worry about being on the opposite side of the Church and raising weapons against her.

 

[Layman]

Uh, wut?

I’m pretty sure there are people opposed to the SSPX in the Vatican. The SSPX have a case; anyone who’s been to N.O’s with all the modern trimmin’s and then gone to some Missa Cantatas knows that All Is Not Well in the Roman Catholic Church.

All they need to do is patiently persevere with stating the doctrines of the Church and then the waffle and disingenuousness that surrounds those who favour the Vatican-II-As-A-Year-Zero position will fade away like bad smell in due course.

Tick tock, tick tock.

 

[pnewton]

Uh, wut?

I’m pretty sure there are people opposed to the SSPX in the Vatican*.*

The fact that the excommunications have been lifted and that talks underway belies that this is a predominate position. In any case, comparing it to an armed conflict ( I note that the Catholic Churhc was cast in the role of the Masons, BTW) is telling. The Cristanos were lied to to entrap them in an ambush. It was more than just a laying down of arms. If some one believes that these talks are a disingenuous trap, then it is a much deeper problem within them.

 

[numealinesimpet]

I am familiar with the Cristeros. The fact that such a comparison can be used is a good argument for avoiding SSPX and any other group that considers itselof opposed to the Church. Those that stay with the Church do not have to worry about being on the opposite side of the Church and raising weapons against her.

My apologies for arguing by analogy. This is always dangerous, as it drags in extraneous matter that can then become the centre of the argument. By mentioning the Cristeros I meant to make the point that a Pope can make, and has made, disastrous mistakes in judgment.

The rule-of-thumb by which we simply follow whatever emanates from Rome, and tell ourselves we will thereby be safe and faithful sons of the Church, is an over-simplification that holds perhaps 90% of the time. But in times of crisis it is not sufficient, and it is not the true teaching of the Church, As Aquinas and others have reminded us. In the same way, the dashboard of a car does not always give us accurate information. (In European cars – I don’t know about the USA) – If the “oil light” goes on, it might mean that the oil level is low, but it also comes on if the motor is turning over too slowly. If I act on the assumption that the oil light ALWAYS means only that it needs a top-up, one day I will run too slowly with the oil fully topped up, and stall the car. Another argument by analogy, I’m afraid.
In times of deep crisis, we are not necessarily being the best friends of the Pope or the Church – which means of Christ – by indulging in “indiscreet obedience”.

On the topic of Masons
It is a known fact that the Masons have infiltrated the hierarchy. Dom Putti published a list of twelve Cardinals, with their Masonic pseudonyms and serial numbers, in the 70s.
See
fatimacrusader.com/cr92/cr92pg28

I [The Authorr] can tell you about Father Putti. Father Putti was the founder and editor of the magazine Si Si No No published in Rome, Italy.
In twelve different issues of this paper [in the 1970s] the headline would say, “Cardinal (and he named him) is a Mason.” His article started describing what Cardinal so-and-so had done, and then he ended the article by saying, “He is a Mason. He joined on such and such a date. His code number is such and such. His code name is such and such,” and he published it to the world. Now, when Father Putti was threatened indirectly by somebody in the Vatican in a public announcement in the press, Father Putti published the next day in a press release saying, “Up to now, I only released the facts. But if I’m suspended or excommunicated, I will publish the documents.” The very next day, a Vatican spokesman said, “There is no intention of suspending or excommunicating Father Putti.” That was the end of the discussion. The editor of the L’Osservatore Romano at the time said something against Father Putti’s reputation. He sued him in court and won, and the editor of the L’Osservatore Romano had to pay damages. Father Putti said these things in public and stood by them. He said, “Before I published them, I brought them to the Holy Office, I showed them the documents, as is my duty in Canon Law. They never said to me, ‘Don’t publish them’; and so I published them.”

I personally know Councillor Richard Greene, founder of the Irish political party Muintir na hEireann – although I am not a close acquaintance. He is a very active & prominent lay Catholic (not SSPX), who has personal dealings with all the Irish bishops. He told me in 1996 that there are those who make a special project of compiling dossiers on bishops & other key figures, detailing any indiscretions, especially financial, drink or sexual, and the target is then visited and told to Keep Quiet about certain matters [particularly relating to The Liberal Agenda & the wrecking of Christian Ireland – and yes, it does include actively supporting the Traditional Liturgy], or they will read about themselves in the paper. This rings true – to myself, at any rate – and the timing of certain ‘revelations’ is far too apt to be other than orchestrated.

pnewton writes,

being on the opposite side of the Church and raising weapons against her.

The SSPX are by no means outside the Church. Nor are they against the Church, although they do what they can against enemies of the Church who have inveigled themselves into positions within Her.

layman writes,

All [the SSPX] need to do is patiently persevere with stating the doctrines of the Church…

Exactly. Look closely and you will see that this is what they do (and I don’t claim they have never made one-off mistakes.) Merely by being themselves (that is, Catholics), refusing illegitimate demands to close down, they have achieved many great things for the Church, (which would need more than this posting to describe). If the Immemorial Liturgy was saved from extinction, and if the Vatican finally erases the disastrous ambiguities of Vatican II (which was still a legitimate Council, as the SSPX have always affirmed) then, on the human level, it is evident that it was the SSPX, acting as what Socrates called ‘the gadfly in the midst’ that, with the Grace of God, achieved these things.