SSPX : Pope May Offer the Society a Personal Ordinariate

[JReducation]

I am not sure which obligatory teaching of the Magisterium - which require the assent of the intellect and/or the assent of faith - you think I am disobeying. When the Magisterium does not oblige one or the other, one can scarcely be considered to be dissenting. By opposing these novelties, neither I or any other can be accused of failing in his duty as a Catholic. In fact, the path of dissent - or opposition - was chosen by many saints such as St. Orosius, St. Athanasius, St. Cyril, St. Agatho, St. Robert Bellarmine, and St. Pius X. I feel it is the duty of every Catholic to reprove Church authority when they might err, whether in word or by document that does not bind the consciences of Catholics.

The red is mine.

I believe this is where many Catholics and Protestants make a mistake. With all due respect. As a teacher of Catholic Spiritual Theology and a long long term student of the masters in Christian Spirituality, not a single one of them agree with the use of the word “every”.

The Masters were very careful in their teaching. Allow me to explain and offer one or two examples. They were serious about the obligation that every Christian has to obey and to submit to legitimate authority, even when authority was in error. The only excuse that they made for non-compliance was sin… Today, we’re trying to push the non-compliance to include that which is not sin and that which we speculate may lead to sin, but can’t really prove it. That’s a stretch that the Masters did not advocate.

They were also very clear about who ha sthe duty to correct whom. They did not espouse the “right of every Catholic” to correct those in authority. They espoused two things:

a) Every Catholic has the right and duty to correct those who are under his authority.

b) Every Catholic has the obligation to submit to authority. This includes, allowing authority to do the correcting. For example, I’m a Franciscan. If a Salesian does something wrong, I can offer fraternal correction to him. If he does not listen and continues, it is not my right to continue to correct him. I’m his brother, not his parent or his superior. It falls on his superior to correct him. I DO have the right to communicate the problem to his superior. Once I have done that, I have a moral duty to walk away and not make it my business any long. St. John of the Cross was very clear on this, because people were so busy correcting everyone that they gradually became busybodies.

The Masters were also very attentive to discretion. We fail in this too often. Just look at some posts on this board. People name other people and hang out their dirty laundry. The Masters believed that discretion was the sign of true charity. They did not advocate or defend public displays of other people’s faults. A good example of this was Catherine of Siena. Catherine had a very good relationship with the pope and the bishop. She spoke her mind in her letters. However, there are two important things about her that we must know.

a) No one ever knew that those letters existed until more than 100 years later when the Dominicans released them. Not all of them are public. The Dominicans still keep some in an archive, because they would ruin the good name of some people. It’s was Catherine’s wish to help, not to undermine or to ruin reputations.

b) Catherine’s disciples write that she blasted them out of the water every time they complained about the bishops or the pope. If they complained in public, she would physically punish them. I don’t advocate the physical punishment, but the point is that she was very clear to them that they were in no position to judge or correct those who were their superiors. In her own letters, she always closes them with the same phrase, “Your obedient daughter.”

 

[JReducation]

Ignatius of Loyola wrote many letters and the one thing that he always said in all of his letters was that he was willing to be quiet, if the other members of the Society of Jesus deemed him to be inappropriate or out of place in his corrections. He stated that he was willing to submit to the judgment of his brother Jesuits, even though he was the Superior General. We see recognition of a legitimate “pecking order” if you’ll pardon my expression.

Teresa of Avila denounced anyone who condemned another person as being less Catholic or less faithful. There is a wonderful story about her and a priest who lived in sin with a woman, probably a few men too. She would go to him for confession. One of her nuns told her about him and Teresa said, “I already know and you have no business repeating it. Another person’s sins are not for you to judge or for you to comment on. Do you have the power to condemn or absolve him? If not, then you have no legitimate claim to comment.” She continued to go to confession to this man. He was so moved by her that he tried to get her to be his spiritual director. She refused on the grounds that she was not an abbess. Later when she did become an abbess, she did a lot of spiritual direction with those who were connected to her abbey. Again, we see the importance of authority in the life of a spiritual giant and theologian.

Francis of Assisi anathematized anyone who took it upon himself to judge or condemn the clergy. He would later write to the laity of his time that they had a moral duty to avoid such behavior. He gave a very eloquent explanation as to why, which we won’t post here. But he too made it clear that correction is necessary and good; however, it must come from those who have the authority to correct. He would draw the analogy of parents and children. Young children do not have the authority to correct their parents, nor should they have it, because they abuse it.

Finally, there is the Master of Obedience himself, Benedict. The monks were not to concerned about the affairs outside of their cloister. He did not deny the need for correction of abuses. Later there would be several Benedictine reforms: Cluny, Camaldoli, Châteaux and La Trappe. All of these masters recognized the need for reform and for the elimination of sin and corruption in the Church. But to this day, all of them avoid even reading about it, never mind talking about it. They hold to Benedict’s teaching that the correction must come from the father, hence the concept of the Abbot. At every level of the Church there is a figure or body of authority to which complaints and concerns are presented and then left up to them to correct.

I believe that we (today) have lost that sense of rank and are making the mistake of becoming very much like Protestants, everyone knows what is right and everyone has the authority to denounce this and correct that one.

That’s not the way that the great Spiritual Masters spoke about correction. Correction has rules and structures that must be followed or it is not correction. As. St. Bonaventure once told the friars, when correction becomes everyone’s right, no one is obliged to obey.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

I never said you were. I am sorry if I gave that impression. I also do not think the position of the SSPX on ecumenism is outside of what is allowable in Church doctrine. I think the only error they have in this area is that they refuse to recognize that there is a range of acceptable belief and that others may legitimately disagree with them, but that is hardly a serious matter.

The problem that the SSPX of today has is not so much what they believe or teach. Though the Holy Father has repeatedly said that there are doctrinal matters in which they are out of communion. I’ve only read one in which he goes into detail and that is the primacy. Pope Benedict is very clear that you can’t just say that you accept the primacy of Peter. This statement has consequences. You have to submit to it, always understanding that no one may mandate sin. But Pope Benedict’s statements suggest that they have a narrow view of the Primacy. Their view is that unless it’s an infallible statement or one that agrees with statements by previous popes, then it’s not binding. He is insisting that everything that comes from the pope, when he speaks as pope is binding. The “bind”, for lack of a better word, may be at different levels. In some cases it’s merely a matter of following directions or orders and at the top of that pyramid there is the matter of dogma, with everything else in the middle.

I believe that the leadership of the SSPX does not agree on this point. My take is that they don’t agree with each other either. Bishop Felay seems much more open to accepting authority, because authority has its rights. While Bishop Williamson is much more Protestant on this. These were actually Pope Benedict’s words, not mine. He describes him a very difficult man who was never in the Church, but sort of came in through the back door, meaning the SSPX. Bishop Felay, on the other hand, was a Catholic before this whole tragedy happened. Anyone who wants to can read Light of the World. The Holy Father does not mince words when it comes to Bishop Williamson. He calls him a very difficult man and says “I would never introduce an anti-semite into polite company. Had we known [that he was an anti-semite] we would have separated him when we lifted the excommunication.” The parenthesis is mine.

When you have a leadership that is in disagreement from within, that was created out of an act of disobedience, that does not concur with the person in authority about the scope of that person’s authority, it makes it very difficult for the faithful who attend their chapels or go to their schools. On the one hand, what they hear is very good. On the other hand, their behavior toward the Vatican has been very condescending. Unfortunately, even some lay people who like them have become very condescending toward the Vatican and other Catholics. I saw a cartoon here the other day that was not funny at all. I’m not even going to describe it. Suffice it to say that it was very poor taste for a community of people who support the traditions of the Church. One of our most beloved traditions, if one could call it that, has always been our expressions of affection for the popes, papacy, and our pride in the Vatican. I’m not talking about Vatican City.

In my mind, this is a reform movement that may have to be contained until the founders have died. When they no longer have bishops, there won’t be the danger of schism. In addition, they will have a younger generation who will be one or two steps removed from all the stuff that happened in the past. That distance always seems to help. Look at the TAC.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[sidbrown]

He is insisting that everything that comes from the pope, when he speaks as pope is binding.

I am not sure that I would agree with that. Take for example, the statement of the Pope on the war in iraq. Did not both Popes oppose the war? “Nothing positive comes from Iraq, torn apart by continual slaughter as the civil population flees,” according to Pope Benedict. But then would it be a mortal sin for an American Catholic to serve as a soldier in iraq, going contrary to the wishes of the Pope?
Further, the Pope has called for an immediate end to hostilities in Libya. now would it be a mortal sin for a Catholic pilot acting under orders from his superior commander to bomb Libya which is against the wishes of the Pope? Or take for example, the position on capital punishment? Are Catholics obligated under pain of mortal sin to oppose capital punishment, since a Pope has expressed his opposition to it?
Is what the Popes have said on these wars, binding for American Catholics under pain of mortal sin?

 

[JReducation]

I am not sure that I would agree with that. Take for example, the statement of the Pope on the war in Iraq. Did not both Popes oppose the war? “Nothing positive comes from Iraq, torn apart by continual slaughter as the civil population flees,” according to Pope Benedict. But then would it be a mortal sin for an American Catholic to serve as a soldier in Iraq, going contrary to the wishes of the Pope?
Further, the Pope has called for an immediate end to hostilities in Libya. now would it be a mortal sin for a Catholic pilot acting under orders from his superior commander to bomb Libya which is against the wishes of the Pope? Or take for example, the position on capital punishment? Are Catholics obligated under pain of mortal sin to oppose capital punishment, since a Pope has expressed his opposition to it?
Is what the Popes have said on these wars, binding for American Catholics under pain of mortal sin?

That’s an excellent post and it deserves a well thought out response. I’ll try my best.

Let’s begin with the war.

The point was not Iraq, Iran, or Canada. The pope’s point was that a pre-emtive strike is immoral, because you’re assuming that you’re going to be attacked. The just war theology is clear that one has the right to defend oneself. However, one has to be under attack to defend oneself. If one is not under attack, then one can take other measure sto protect oneself from attack. Attacking first is not a moral option. This is not a rule for the USA, it’s for the world.

The Lybia issue is another moral problem. The Holy Father is commanding, more than insisting that hostilities must stop. This applies to all parties, not just the USA. Hostility is always immoral.

Capital punishment is not the opinion of one pope. Did you read my post on the matter? Check it out. The issue is not that Pope John Paul II was against it. The issue is bigger than that. It’s that the State has a moral obligation to stay within certain moral parameters. If you give the State Carte Blanche to execute, then you cannot complain when the Chinese execute political dissenters, when the Saudis execute homosexuals, when the other Araba nations execute converts. If you take the statement literally, it says that the state may execute a criminal. The problem is the every State has a list of behaviors and actions that it considers crimes deserving of death. The Church has a problem with that, because there are very few crimes that deserve execution. The Church also says that there are very few instances where the State has no other means to protect the innocent and the vulnerable. Who ever told you that this was some pope’s personal opinion misled you. This was a well-thought out statement based on reality. We live in a world where governments abuse power. We live in nations where the legal system is broken. Instead of fixing it, so that dangerous criminals are not on the street, we take the short-cut and execute. The problem is that if you have enough money you can hire the right lawyers and get off. When you have a legal system that is broken, a lawyer will always find a hole in the fence. In the end, justice is violated because only those who cannot afford the expensive defense end up on death roll. As you can see, there are different problems in different countries around the world that create opportunities for the State to abuse capital punishment. God gives the State rights. Peter is clear on that in his letter. But the State also has moral obligations. One of those is always to choose the greater good. The greater good is to preserve life until you can no longer do it.

The pope never said that Catholics in the armed forces commit mortal sin if they go to Lybia or Iraq. The sin falls on the shoulders of those who violated the moral law.

However, Catholics do have a moral obligation to refuse any order given by any commander that violates the rights of innocent people. If you know that there are innocent people in a location and you are ordered to destroy it, you have a moral duty to defend those people. This may mean that you point out what the commander may not know. If he knows, you may have to refuse. If there is the possibility of reporting the violation to a higher command, you have a moral obligation to do so.

This is not new. This is very old. I know that it was around in the 13th century, maybe earlier. You have to remember that Pope Benedict is an expert in Franciscan and Augustinian Theology, not that he is unfamiliar with Thomas Aquinas. He just prefers the Franciscan and Augustinian schools, which actuallly go well together.

In the 13th century, Francis of Assis prohibited all lay people from joining the army and swearibng allegience to any flag or nation. To drive the point even further, those laymen who joined the Secular Franciscan Order were placed under pain of mortal sin if they joined an army or bore arms. In a nutshell, this was due to the fact that the kingdoms of Europe were destroying each other, even placing brother against brother, which is contrary to scripture. Francis realized that the quest for peace is always the highest good. Knowledgeable of his theology, that we may never choose the lesser of two evils, because we’re still choosing evil. We must always choose the higher good. In this case, the higher good is to avoid war. Other than that, one can defend onself if under attack. But one does not attack first no matter what one fears, because one’s fears may not come true. I’m over simpligying it here, because this is a very long theological treatise that Duns Scotus wrote on the teaching and reasoning of St. Francis. My point is just to help you understand where Pope Benedict is grounded.

 

[JReducation]

This is not a position that he pulled out of his sleeve. It’s very old. Most lay people and diocesan priests do not know it, because very few formally study Augustinian and Franciscan theology. That area of theology is more commonly studied by members of religious orders. But Pope Benedict has spent his entire life working on both and working out of both schools. It’s been a long time since we had a Franciscan pope. Even though Pope Benedict is not a consecrated religious,he’s a diocesan priest. He has a very strong Franciscan-Augustinian formation. Now we, the faithful, are faced with a pope who comes from a different school of theology and spirituality. He’s not saying anything new. It sounds new to us, because he’s not using the language of Aquinas. He speaks like Augustine and Bonaventure.

Whether we like it or not, this is the pope that the Lord has given us and we’re bound to obey unless there is something immoral commanded.

There is nothing immoral in any of this. As to the degree of sin: mortal or venial, that is really going to depend on the degree of pride and arrogance that one puts into one’s disobedience. If I take the position that I’m right and he’s wrong, that’s an arrogant position. Arrogance is always sinful. If one comes at this from the angle of “I really don’t see what it is that I’m doing wrong,” that’s a very humble position. There is no culpability if one does not see what is wrong, without being arrogant.

More people sin against the pope and God by their arrogance than by the law or rule itself. Often, these statements are not made as condemnations of people, but of actions. But often, people act and speak as “I know better than the pope.” Well, I for one would never put my knowledge of the faith up against that of men like Pope Paul VI (Doctor of Law), Pope John Paul II (Doctor of Systematic Theology and Doctor of Philsophy), or Pope Benedict XVI (Doctor of Augustinian Theology and Doctor of Franciscan Theology).

Doctorates do not make you perfect. But they are not given to dummies either. And dummies are not elected popes these days. We have to stop and think. We have to ask ourselves, “Is there something that I’m not understanding? Obviously, this is a well educated man. This is a good man and we’re not on the same page. The problem is probably with me.”

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[ProVobis]

While Bishop Williamson is much more Protestant on this. These were actually Pope Benedict’s words, not mine.

Bishop W is a former Anglican, which may explain that train of thinking.

 

[JReducation]

Bishop W is a former Anglican, which may explain that train of thinking.

Thanks for sharing that detail. I didn’t know that Bishop W had not been a Catholic until I read Pope Benedict’s statement about him. He never mentions the Anglicans. He says it a little more diplomatically. If I remember correctly, he says, "Bishop W was never inside the Church . . . " You can see it in his interview. My impression is that the Holy Father is saying that Bishop W has to be understood in light of his background, which is different from those who come up through the Catholic ranks, such as Bishop F.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[ProVobis]

My impression is that the Holy Father is saying that Bishop W has to be understood in light of his background, which is different from those who come up through the Catholic ranks, such as Bishop F.

Precisely. Now I’m not as theologically astute as he is, but it seems Bishop F would have certainly known the pre-Vatican II’s concept of ecumenism, which is expressed in the Baltimore Catechism. In substance, this should be no different than the ecumenism codified by Vatican II but I could be wrong.

 

[JReducation]

Precisely. Now I’m not as theologically astute as he is, but it seems Bishop F would have certainly known the pre-Vatican II’s concept of ecumenism, which is expressed in the Baltimore Catechism. In substance, this should be no different than the ecumenism codified by Vatican II but I could be wrong.

I’m going to guess that Bishop Fellay has never seen a Baltimore Catechism. Remember, the Baltimore Catechism was promulgated by the Council of Baltimore, not by the Vatican. It was promulgated only for us in the USA. During my missionary years outside the USA, I found that my confrères from other countries had never even heard of it. It’s a household word for older American Catholics.

By the way, there is a new edition of the Baltimore Catechism, which is very good. It keeps the question and answer format. However, to each section, it adds the citations from the CCC, scripture, and documents that support the answers. The wording to the answers has changed some. It borrows from both the old format and the CCC.

Going back to the Baltimore Catechism, what many older Catholics do not know is that the Baltimore Catechism was a sore point between the Vatican, theologians from other nations and the US Bishops. It was intended to be a translation of Bellarmine’s catechism published in the 1500s. That’s what the Vatican approved in 1829. However, that’s not what happened. The Baltimore Catechism was not published until 1885 and it used Butler’s Catechism instead. This did not go over well with the Vatican, but in those days, the Vatican did not have as much control over dioceses as it does today and it was a policy of the Vatican not to interfere in the affairs of bishops.

The American bishops also wanted a catechism that spoke the language of the American people at the time. To make this happen, they took Butler’s work and edited it several times in different commissions. By 1960 we had the name “Baltimore Catechism”; however, we had more than one edition with differences in it. The BC served its purpose for a long time, because it provided a unified catechism for the USA and Canada. It was never the official Catholic catechism as the CCC is today. Rome approved it for use in the Province of North America, which no longer exists. By Vatican II it was clear that there was a need for a Catechism for the Catholic Church. There never had been one. We ended up with a plethora of books, most of them very poorly done.

Contrary to popular belief, the Catechisms of Pius X and Trent were never promulgated for universal usage. They were published, pure and simple. Those who wanted to do so, made use of them. No one ever said, “This is the official catechism of the Catholic Church and all other catechisms must use this as their reference.” This is what the CCC attempts to do.

Pope John Paul wrote “I, today order by virtue of my Apostolic Authority, [the CCC] is a statement of the Church’s faith and of catholic doctrine . . . I declare it to be the sure norm for teaching the faith” etc. “It is meant to encourage and assist in writing new local catechisms.”

The idea of a universal catechism that everyone must use as the point of reference is new. There were catechisms, not A CATHOLIC CATECHISM. Up until the publication of the CCC, the term “ecumenism” was understood very differently in different languages and cultures.

Whatever Bishop Fellay may have known or understood about ecumenism may be different from what we in the USA understood and what people in Australia understood and so forth, because we had many catechisms floating around trying to say the same thing. However, a lift is an elevator to a Briton and a ride to an American. A flat is a parcel to one person, an apartment to another and a geometric concept to a third. The term ecumenism was never used in Latin until the 20th century. Nonetheless, concept and practice have been around for centuries, long before the Protestant Reformation. It was first implemented by the Carmelites and the Franciscans in Palestine and Southern Spain. Who knows? It may have been elsewhere too.

In Palestine the Carmelites and Franciscans were mandated by Pope Honorius and their superiors to work and live peacefully with the Muslims and Jews, but not to proselytize to them. The brothers were to preach by their presence, not going out on a campaign. This is the law for both orders to this day. Preach through presence and convert through your prayers and penances. Other than that, you work cooperatively for the benefit of the poor. This dates back to 1209 with the Carmelites and 1224 with the Franciscans. It’s not a novelty. To ensure that no one interfered in this matter, the Holy See elevated the Franciscan Province of Jerusalem to the Franciscan Custody of the Holy Land. On interfaith matters, it answers to the Holy See. It is a custody jealously guarded by popes for almost 800 years. How much Bishops F and W know about this and how they understand this is anyone’s guess. I have heard (take this with a grain of salt) that Bishop W has no use for Franciscans, Carmelites and Jesuits, because they have challenged him on this issue. I have never read it or seen it. Don’t take it to the bank. There are people who don’t like him. However, His Excellency is also known to speak too quickly too. Who knows what the truth is?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[ProVobis]

I’m going to guess that Bishop Fellay has never seen a Baltimore Catechism. Remember, the Baltimore Catechism was promulgated by the Council of Baltimore, not by the Vatican. It was promulgated only for us in the USA. During my missionary years outside the USA, I found that my confrères from other countries had never even heard of it. It’s a household word for older American Catholics.

Then my presumption was wrong, though my first Catechism was bought in London back around 1955. But if it were only in effect in English-speaking countries, if that many, I could understand why the Vatican wasn’t too thrilled about it.

That said, see my post #79 for a commentary on the Catechism’s salvation topic.

 

[sidbrown]

That’s an excellent post and it deserves a well thought out response. I’ll try my best.

Let’s begin with the war.

The point was not Iraq, Iran, or Canada. The pope’s point was that a pre-emtive strike is immoral, because you’re assuming that you’re going to be attacked. The just war theology is clear that one has the right to defend oneself. However, one has to be under attack to defend oneself. If one is not under attack, then one can take other measure sto protect oneself from attack. Attacking first is not a moral option. This is not a rule for the USA, it’s for the world.

The Lybia issue is another moral problem. The Holy Father is commanding, more than insisting that hostilities must stop. This applies to all parties, not just the USA. Hostility is always immoral.

Capital punishment is not the opinion of one pope. Did you read my post on the matter? Check it out. The issue is not that Pope John Paul II was against it. The issue is bigger than that. It’s that the State has a moral obligation to stay within certain moral parameters. If you give the State Carte Blanche to execute, then you cannot complain when the Chinese execute political dissenters, when the Saudis execute homosexuals, when the other Araba nations execute converts. If you take the statement literally, it says that the state may execute a criminal. The problem is the every State has a list of behaviors and actions that it considers crimes deserving of death. The Church has a problem with that, because there are very few crimes that deserve execution. The Church also says that there are very few instances where the State has no other means to protect the innocent and the vulnerable. Who ever told you that this was some pope’s personal opinion misled you. This was a well-thought out statement based on reality. We live in a world where governments abuse power. We live in nations where the legal system is broken. Instead of fixing it, so that dangerous criminals are not on the street, we take the short-cut and execute. The problem is that if you have enough money you can hire the right lawyers and get off. When you have a legal system that is broken, a lawyer will always find a hole in the fence. In the end, justice is violated because only those who cannot afford the expensive defense end up on death roll. As you can see, there are different problems in different countries around the world that create opportunities for the State to abuse capital punishment. God gives the State rights. Peter is clear on that in his letter. But the State also has moral obligations. One of those is always to choose the greater good. The greater good is to preserve life until you can no longer do it.

The pope never said that Catholics in the armed forces commit mortal sin if they go to Lybia or Iraq. The sin falls on the shoulders of those who violated the moral law.

However, Catholics do have a moral obligation to refuse any order given by any commander that violates the rights of innocent people. If you know that there are innocent people in a location and you are ordered to destroy it, you have a moral duty to defend those people. This may mean that you point out what the commander may not know. If he knows, you may have to refuse. If there is the possibility of reporting the violation to a higher command, you have a moral obligation to do so.

This is not new. This is very old. I know that it was around in the 13th century, maybe earlier. You have to remember that Pope Benedict is an expert in Franciscan and Augustinian Theology, not that he is unfamiliar with Thomas Aquinas. He just prefers the Franciscan and Augustinian schools, which actuallly go well together.

In the 13th century, Francis of Assis prohibited all lay people from joining the army and swearibng allegience to any flag or nation. To drive the point even further, those laymen who joined the Secular Franciscan Order were placed under pain of mortal sin if they joined an army or bore arms. In a nutshell, this was due to the fact that the kingdoms of Europe were destroying each other, even placing brother against brother, which is contrary to scripture. Francis realized that the quest for peace is always the highest good. Knowledgeable of his theology, that we may never choose the lesser of two evils, because we’re still choosing evil. We must always choose the higher good. In this case, the higher good is to avoid war. Other than that, one can defend onself if under attack. But one does not attack first no matter what one fears, because one’s fears may not come true. I’m over simpligying it here, because this is a very long theological treatise that Duns Scotus wrote on the teaching and reasoning of St. Francis. My point is just to help you understand where Pope Benedict is grounded.

If something is binding upon a Catholic, how are you bound, if not under pain of sin?

 

[JReducation]

Then my presumption was wrong, though my first Catechism was bought in London back around 1955. But if it were only in effect in English-speaking countries, if that many, I could understand why the Vatican wasn’t too thrilled about it.

That said, see my post #79 for a commentary on the Catechism’s salvation topic.

It was promulgated for the American Province. In those days, that included Canada. Canada was part of the Commonwealth. I’m not surprised that it found its way to London back in 1955. It was very popular. It was helpful and portable.

I see your post on the salvation topic. My point was that what we read in the Baltimore Cathechism had its limitations too. We, older American Catholics, tend to refer back to the Baltimore Catechism thinking that it is accurate and complete. It did not teach falsehood on this matter or any matter. However, it often left out information, because it was not intended to be an explanation of all the details or all of the exceptions to every proposition. It was covering the highlights. Even the CCC covers the highlights. That’s why you need the compendium and you need to read the citations and references that it gives you.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[sidbrown]

That’s an excellent post and it deserves a well thought out response. I’ll try my best.

Let’s begin with the war.

The point was not Iraq, Iran, or Canada. The pope’s point was that a pre-emtive strike is immoral, because you’re assuming that you’re going to be attacked. The just war theology is clear that one has the right to defend oneself. However, one has to be under attack to defend oneself. If one is not under attack, then one can take other measure sto protect oneself from attack. Attacking first is not a moral option. This is not a rule for the USA, it’s for the world.

The Lybia issue is another moral problem. The Holy Father is commanding, more than insisting that hostilities must stop. This applies to all parties, not just the USA. Hostility is always immoral.

Capital punishment is not the opinion of one pope. Did you read my post on the matter? Check it out. The issue is not that Pope John Paul II was against it. The issue is bigger than that. It’s that the State has a moral obligation to stay within certain moral parameters. If you give the State Carte Blanche to execute, then you cannot complain when the Chinese execute political dissenters, when the Saudis execute homosexuals, when the other Araba nations execute converts. If you take the statement literally, it says that the state may execute a criminal. The problem is the every State has a list of behaviors and actions that it considers crimes deserving of death. The Church has a problem with that, because there are very few crimes that deserve execution. The Church also says that there are very few instances where the State has no other means to protect the innocent and the vulnerable. Who ever told you that this was some pope’s personal opinion misled you. This was a well-thought out statement based on reality. We live in a world where governments abuse power. We live in nations where the legal system is broken. Instead of fixing it, so that dangerous criminals are not on the street, we take the short-cut and execute. The problem is that if you have enough money you can hire the right lawyers and get off. When you have a legal system that is broken, a lawyer will always find a hole in the fence. In the end, justice is violated because only those who cannot afford the expensive defense end up on death roll. As you can see, there are different problems in different countries around the world that create opportunities for the State to abuse capital punishment. God gives the State rights. Peter is clear on that in his letter. But the State also has moral obligations. One of those is always to choose the greater good. The greater good is to preserve life until you can no longer do it.

The pope never said that Catholics in the armed forces commit mortal sin if they go to Lybia or Iraq. The sin falls on the shoulders of those who violated the moral law.

However, Catholics do have a moral obligation to refuse any order given by any commander that violates the rights of innocent people. If you know that there are innocent people in a location and you are ordered to destroy it, you have a moral duty to defend those people. This may mean that you point out what the commander may not know. If he knows, you may have to refuse. If there is the possibility of reporting the violation to a higher command, you have a moral obligation to do so.

This is not new. This is very old. I know that it was around in the 13th century, maybe earlier. You have to remember that Pope Benedict is an expert in Franciscan and Augustinian Theology, not that he is unfamiliar with Thomas Aquinas. He just prefers the Franciscan and Augustinian schools, which actuallly go well together.

In the 13th century, Francis of Assis prohibited all lay people from joining the army and swearibng allegience to any flag or nation. To drive the point even further, those laymen who joined the Secular Franciscan Order were placed under pain of mortal sin if they joined an army or bore arms. In a nutshell, this was due to the fact that the kingdoms of Europe were destroying each other, even placing brother against brother, which is contrary to scripture. Francis realized that the quest for peace is always the highest good. Knowledgeable of his theology, that we may never choose the lesser of two evils, because we’re still choosing evil. We must always choose the higher good. In this case, the higher good is to avoid war. Other than that, one can defend onself if under attack. But one does not attack first no matter what one fears, because one’s fears may not come true. I’m over simpligying it here, because this is a very long theological treatise that Duns Scotus wrote on the teaching and reasoning of St. Francis. My point is just to help you understand where Pope Benedict is grounded.

Concerning capital punishment:
According to an article in the Catholic
Encyclopedia, “The infliction of capital punishment is not contrary to the teaching of the Catholic Church, and the power of the State to visit upon culprits the penalty of death derives much authority from revelation and from the writings of theologians.” This article has Ecclesiastical approbation. Nihil Obstat. June 1, 1911. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York.

 

[Iotaunum]

I’m going to guess that Bishop Fellay has never seen a Baltimore Catechism. Remember, the Baltimore Catechism was promulgated by the Council of Baltimore, not by the Vatican. It was promulgated only for us in the USA. During my missionary years outside the USA, I found that my confrères from other countries had never even heard of it. It’s a household word for older American Catholics.

I can vouch for the fact that Bishop Fellay has seen a Baltimore Catechism since he mentions it in his talks and conferences and the SSPX use it everwhere for preparing candidates for questioning by the Bishop before they are Confirmed. I have witnessed this myself and have talked to many SSPX priests. The catechism isnt perfect but along with the Catechism of St Pius X and the Catechism of the council of Trent it is the most read catechism by traditional Catholics who attend SSPX Masses. It was well know here in Ireland and England as well before Vatican II.

Regarding obedience and the extent of Papal Authority, I think we will have to agree to disagree. I do not want to go off topic or derail the tread, Perhaps someone could start a thread to discuss this issue seperatly. You also mention that:* "The problem that the SSPX of today has is not so much what they believe or teach. Though the Holy Father has repeatedly said that there are doctrinal matters in which they are out of communion. I’ve only read one in which he goes into detail and that is the primacy."*

The SSPX are not out of communion with the Church in doctrinal Matters. Also, perhaps there is confusion about the beliefs of the SSPX regarding Papal Authority, The SSPX hold what the Church has always held in this regard. You claim of the SSPX that; "Their view is that unless it’s an infallible statement or one that agrees with statements by previous popes, then it’s not binding. " - You are mistaken or misinformed. The SSPX Bishops and priests have been clear that to simply hold that unless it’s an infallible statement then it’s not binding is to fall into the error of minimism, since the Pope’s teachings and ordinary magisterium are to be held as authoritative.This does not mean however that we are to follow the pope in error, heresy or anything which contradicts direcly previous infallible pronouncements. This is simply the teaching of the Church.

 

[JReducation]

If something is binding upon a Catholic, how are you bound, if not under pain of sin?

Obedience is always a requirement, whether it be to the Church, the State, your parents, your boss or any other legitimate authority. The Pope, bishops, pastors are legitimate authorities. The key word is legitimate. Authority has rights and duties. One of its duties is to refrain from leading you to sin. No one in authority has a right to ask you to sin, anything else goes. Think of parents. They’re not infallible or perfect. They have the right to command you to take out the garbage. That command is binding, because they are exercising a right and your have a duty to obey. Is the garbage a moral issue? Heck no. Is obedience a moral issue? Yes. Can your parents ask you to take out the garbage when it’s raining and you have a fever? No. That’s a violation of your rights. Authority cannot command you to sin, nor can it violate your God-given rights. Authority can take away any rights given by authority. A parent can authorize you to use the family car. Now you have a right to use it. That same parent can take it away. In this case, the parent is binding and unbinding.

If the pope says that you have to kneel in order to receive Holy Communion and you fail to do so, have you sinned? Yes. How so? Disobedience. You have not sinned against the Eucharist, because moral law does not say that one must kneel to receive the Eucharist. If that were true, Eastern Catholics would be frying in Hell. Standing when the pope says kneel, is a sin of disobedience to authority, not a sacrilege against the Blessed Sacrament. That’s why we can have laws that are binding in one Church and not in another. If you violate them, you’re not sinning against the thing in the law itself, your sinning against the Law-Giver.

When the Latin Church says that you fast and abstain on Ash Wed and Good Friday, no options and the Chaldean Church says that you abstain and fast during Lent, you’re bound to the legitimate authority over you. Roman Catholics observe Ash Wed and Good Fri. Chaldean Catholics observe the Great Fast. We’re one Church bound to her, but we are bound to what is meant for us. If you break the rule, you’re disobeying, you’re not doing something criminal by eating a hot dog. Eating a hot dog is a neutral act. Disobedience is not. Of course, eating today’s hotdogs may not be eating meat if you read the list of ingredients. But, that’s another story.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

I can vouch for the fact that Bishop Fellay has seen a Baltimore Catechism since he mentions it in his talks and conferences and the SSPX use it everwhere for preparing candidates for questioning by the Bishop before they are Confirmed. I have witnessed this myself and have talked to many SSPX priests. The catechism isnt perfect but along with the Catechism of St Pius X and the Catechism of the council of Trent it is the most read catechism by traditional Catholics who attend SSPX Masses. It was well know here in Ireland and England as well before Vatican II.

Regarding obedience and the extent of Papal Authority, I think we will have to agree to disagree. I do not want to go off topic or derail the tread, Perhaps someone could start a thread to discuss this issue seperatly. You also mention that:* "The problem that the SSPX of today has is not so much what they believe or teach. Though the Holy Father has repeatedly said that there are doctrinal matters in which they are out of communion. I’ve only read one in which he goes into detail and that is the primacy*."

The SSPX are not out of communion with the Church in doctrinal Matters. Also, perhaps there is confusion about the beliefs of the SSPX regarding Papal Authority, The SSPX hold what the Church has always held in this regard. You claim of the SSPX that; "Their view is that unless it’s an infallible statement or one that agrees with statements by previous popes, then it’s not binding. " - You are mistaken or misinformed. The SSPX Bishops and priests have been clear that to simply hold that unless it’s an infallible statement then it’s not binding is to fall into the error of minimism, since the Pope’s teachings and ordinary magisterium are to be held as authoritative.This does not mean however that we are to follow the pope in error, heresy or anything which contradicts direcly previous infallible pronouncements. This is simply the teaching of the Church.

I’m glad that Bishop Fellay has read the Baltimore Catechism.

Moving right alone, I’m also glad that we have not had any pope who has taught heresy in many centuries.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

Concerning capital punishment:
According to an article in the Catholic
Encyclopedia, “The infliction of capital punishment is not contrary to the teaching of the Catholic Church, and the power of the State to visit upon culprits the penalty of death derives much authority from revelation and from the writings of theologians.” This article has Ecclesiastical approbation. Nihil Obstat. June 1, 1911. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York.

No one has said anything to the contrary. Pay very close attention to what the Church is looking at and you’ll see the problem.

If you take that statement right out of the Catholic Encyclopedia and give it to the Chinese, the Saudi, the Iranians and many other people, they’ll throw back in your face a very important question.

“Why does the Catholic Church condemn them when they execute criminals such as: gay people, converts to Christianity, or political disidents?”

The world needs a clarification of that statement. That’s what Pope John Paul did. He clarified it by setting parameters. Otherwise, every government can declare whatever it wants as a crime and whomever it wants as a criminal or culprit and execute. That would be barbaric and chaotic. Revelation did not intend for man to be barbaric or for societies to live in fear of the State, because the State can excecute without restraints.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Warrenton]

I believe that we (today) have lost that sense of rank and are making the mistake of becoming very much like Protestants, everyone knows what is right and everyone has the authority to denounce this and correct that one.

This is certainly true.

All of you masters are to be commended for your scholarly debate! I have learned so much on this thread!

The irony about the discussion we are having is that we each desire to fix Brother JR’s observation, quoted above.

How best to do it?

Some say “Get behind the Novus Ordo and let go of the past.”

Others say “Abolish the Novus Ordo and let go of the present.”

And I think we should be frank (as all Franciscans are!): the question turns on the mass and traditional prayers, not Assisi, or any other fine points within the thousands of pages of Vatican 2, which are so many touchstones.

We’re Catholics. We know we’re going to be judged. Unlike many Christians, we have a picture in our mind what it is going to be like. Dies Irae.

Who among us, when the book of life is opened, plans to quote Lumen Gentium to our Lord as to why we disobeyed the pope?

Who, when asked why he drove so many loyal sons and daughters away is going to say, “Well, the document said I should only have a few statues in the church, so I threw the rest in the garbage.”

I am speaking of our “generation,” in the sense in which it appears in scripture,but when we look upon the glory of the martyrs, our shame at what we have done with our Church in our day will be too much to bear. Pray we are forgiven!

Our history guides us. The Church has tried separation, and with the Orthodox, we have failed for nigh on 1000 years.

The Church tried ignoring the problem of abuses, and it led to the Protestant Reformation.

That is why both sides have to keep working at total union. It can be done. Deus vult.

 

[Thomas_Casey]

Good discussions folks. However, you’re WAAAAAAAAY off topic.

I’m going to do something “novel”.

I’m going to stick my nose in here.

You have many wonderful sub-topics going and the level of respect between you is exemplary. As moderator, I would love to see these topics discussed, each in their own thread, WITH THE SAME RESPECT THAT YOU HAVE SHOWN FOR EACH OTHER THUS FAR.

Go for it.

Any questions, comments, concerns, feel free to PM me. I always answer.

Have a great day!

CLOSED