SSPX : Pope May Offer the Society a Personal Ordinariate

[pnewton]

The current situation is riding heavily on the ecumenism (or inter-faith) “doctrine.” Or at least that’s the perception. It was never recognized as doctrine before, although ecumenism had been acknowledged to some extent even before Vatican II. I think even the most astute theologians are having problems here as the issue transcends all religions, not only Catholicism. The ironic part is that pushed to the limits, this new ecumenism/interfaith theology can blur the boundary between Christianity and non-Christianity beliefs, making the whole issue of the talks moot. Why make a distinction among denominations (and faiths) if everyone will be (or seem to be) in communion with the Pope anyway, for example? I hope that makes some sense. If not, I’ll leave the thread.

I am thinking that we are seeing in our times an interesting development of the doctrine of the Church. If there is any good coming out of this SSPX situation, perhaps it will be a better understanding of Church in the world. We have already had the Church draw the two boundries, Feeneyism on one side and indifferentism on the other. Perhaps in the next decade we will have this huge divergence narrowed and better understood. In the history of the Church, conflict has often been the impetus to better understanding. This is surely one of the most timely issues of this generation.

 

[sidbrown]

Rationalism and Indifferentism
[From the Allocution, “Singular) quadem,” Dec. 9, 1854]

So the teaching then has been changed from what was declared at the Council of Florence.

 

[Irish_Polock]

You define the issue as one against “our side.” Do you mean your side against the Holy See? If that is the case, then I don’t really care how “painful” it is for those of you who side against Christ’s Church. As I said before, I will take Christ’s Church, warts and all, over any other who works to accuse those in authority. Brother JR wrote an excellent post about obedience and I think that it certainly applies here. We obey our authorities in the same way that Jesus obeyed the Father.

11 And when Kephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face because he clearly was wrong. (Galatians 2:11)

This verse popped into my head as I read your above quoted post.

We are not bond to be obedient to these recent novelties, and we can indeed oppose these errors as St. Paul opposed the errors of St. Peter. I feel what you are saying above is that, whatever that Pope says or does in the exercise of his office is ipso facto incontestable by the Popes subjects. This is not the “traditional” or historical view the Church has had.

 

[ProVobis]

If we can understand something, then we can understand what is not that something. For example, if the bishop says: “you must be a Catholic to be saved,” and we understand what this means, then we also understand that a Muslim, or a Protestant, cannot be saved, because they are not Catholics.

We are not here talking about the exceptions of the theologians - we are talking about general rules.

Perhaps we can look (back) at the Baltimore Catechism on this. This seems to be in line with what was taught before Vatican II:

Concerning the Salvation of Non-Catholics
orginally published in 1891
by Rev. Thomas L. Kinkead
from Lesson 11: On the Church

• 1. Q. Are all bound to belong to the Church?

A. All are bound to belong to the Church, and he who knows the Church to be the true Church and remains out of it, cannot be saved.

Anyone who knows the Catholic religion to be the true religion and will not embrace it cannot enter into Heaven. If one not a Catholic doubts whether the church to which he belongs is the true Church, he must settle his doubt, seek the true Church, and enter it; for if he continues to live in doubt, he becomes like the one who knows the true Church and is deterred by worldly considerations from entering it.

In like manner one who, doubting, fears to examine the religion he professes lest he should discover its falsity and be convinced of the truth of the Catholic faith, cannot be saved.

Suppose, however, that there is a non-Catholic who firmly believes that the church to which he belongs is the true Church, and who has never—even in the past—had the slightest doubt of that fact—what will become of him?

If he was validly baptized and never committed a mortal sin, he will be saved; because, believing himself a member of the true Church, he was doing all he could to serve God according to his knowledge and the dictates of his conscience. But if ever he committed a mortal sin, his salvation would be very much more difficult. A mortal sin once committed remains on the soul till it is forgiven. Now, how could his mortal sin be forgiven? Not in the Sacrament of Penance, for the Protestant does not go to confession; and if he does, his minister—not being a true priest—has no power to forgive sins. Does he know that without confession it requires an act of perfect contrition to blot out mortal sin, and can he easily make such an act? What we call contrition is often only imperfect contrition—that is, sorrow for our sins because we fear their punishment in Hell or dread the loss of Heaven. If a Catholic—with all the instruction he has received about how to make an act of perfect contrition and all the practice he has had in making such acts—might find it difficult to make an act of perfect contrition after having committed a mortal sin, how much difficulty will not a Protestant have in making an act of perfect contrition, who does not know about this requirement and who has not been taught to make continued acts of perfect contrition all his life. It is to be feared either he would not know of this necessary means of regaining God’s friendship, or he would be unable to elicit the necessary act of perfect contrition, and thus the mortal sin would remain upon his soul and he would die an enemy of God.

If, then, we found a Protestant who never committed a mortal sin after Baptism, and who never had the slightest doubt about the truth of his religion, that person would be saved; because, being baptized, he is a member of the Church, and being free from mortal sin he is a friend of God and could not in justice be condemned to Hell. Such a person would attend Mass and receive the Sacraments if he knew the Catholic Church to be the only true Church.

I am giving you an example, however, that is rarely found, except in the case of infants or very small children baptized in Protestant sects. All infants rightly baptized by anyone are really children of the Church, no matter what religion their parents may profess. Indeed, all persons who are baptized are children of the Church; but those among them who deny its teaching, reject its Sacraments, and refuse to submit to its lawful pastors, are rebellious children known as heretics.

I said I gave you an example that can scarcely be found, namely, of a person not a Catholic, who really never doubted the truth of his religion, and who, moreover, never committed during his whole life a mortal sin. There are so few such persons that we can practically say for all those who are not visibly members of the Catholic Church, believing its doctrines, receiving its Sacraments, and being governed by its visible head, our Holy Father, the Pope, salvation is an extremely difficult matter.

I do not speak here of pagans who have never heard of Our Lord or His holy religion, but of those outside the Church who claim to be good Christians without being members of the Catholic Church.

catholicity.elcore.net/SalvationOfNonCatholicsInBaltimoreCatechism.html

 

[Timothysis]

We are not bond to be obedient to these recent novelties, and we can indeed oppose these errors as St. Paul opposed the errors of St. Peter. I feel what you are saying above is that, whatever that Pope says or does in the exercise of his office is ipso facto incontestable by the Popes subjects. This is not the “traditional” or historical view the Church has had.

The example of “traditional” values that I see here does not inspire me in the least. According to such values, the pope, bishops, religious, priests and even laity are subject to the determination of those who consider themselves the true source of authority of the Church. I wonder what Pope St. Pius X, that paragon of Traditionalism, would say to those who would judge his every utterance and action? Every age has had something that could be branded “recent novelties,” and yet the Church has persevered.

 

[JReducation]

I too agree to obedience to the Holy Father as far as the Church has infallibly declared the extent of his authority to be - however we know from theology, the doctors of the church, the saints and history itself that a Pope can err and teach error, and that error binds no one. That’s why we believe that we are observing True obedience to the Pope and the Church by holding fast to tradition and rejecting some novel teaching which has not been infallibly taught.

The bold is mine.

Francis never said that error binds. He did say that obedience binds, even when the person in authority is in eror. Therefore, he bound his sons and daughters, under pain of grave sin, to obey, even an authority that is in error.

He made a rather interesting distinction that may be helpful here. No one can command anyone to sin. That kind of command, we’re not bound to obey. However, he also said that the governed may not decide what is prudent or not, nor may the governed decide what may or may not lead to a loss of faith. It was the responsibility of the governed to remain faithful, regardless of the error of the person in authority. That’s why he also commands that the governed remain under the authority and always submissive to the person who governs and to comply, even if one believes that one is being asked to do something that is wrong. He made a very clear distinction between wrong and sin. Sin had to be identified by the Church. No one else has the authority to define what is or is not a sin. Likewise, the Church also has the authority to bind and unbind in many areas.

For example, when he founded his brothers, he did not like the form of the mass that was in use in his province. He went to Pope Innocent III and asked for a simpler form. Pope Innocent gave him another missal and breviary, different from what was in use. There is a long story that goes with that, which is not germain here. The point is that he was such an ecclesial man that there is much that we can learn from him. He understood the power of the Church to bind and unbind and the obligation of the faithful to adjust and to ask for permission, never to assume it.

He is not commanding obedience to error, but submission to authority, even if authority is in error. He uses logic, scripture and his own authority to bind his sons and daughters, to this day to unquestioning obedience. While it may seem outrageous to a son or daughter of St. Francis to be told by the bishop to stand on his head during mass, since the Church has never said that this is a sin, the Franciscan is bound to do it. He or she may question it, only if the bishop allows you to question it or encourages a dialogue on the matter. Otherwise, as St. Bonaventure said, “the case and our lips are both closed.” You’re going to find that this has been a practice of several million men and women over the past 800 years. Therefore, such a vision of the Church and ecclesial authority is not outside of tradition. It’s very well grounded in tradition.

You can only disobey, if you can prove that the command is sinful, not that it can lead to sin. That’s what Francis considered speculation and for which he made no room for in his rule or his preaching to the laity. What may happen does not have to happen, if everyone remains faithful to the Gospel. We have to assume some responsbility. It’s too easy to say that there was a loss of faith, because the Church did X and failed to do Y. Our faith is our treasure to protect. Along with Francis and Clare who lived in times worse than today, there have been many other men and women who have lived through tumultuous times in the history of the Church and rose above the crowd.

This is why I believe that either a personal ordinariate or a personal prelature (not the same thing) may be helpful in this case. It settles disputes and places the burden of preserving their faith squarely on the shoulders of those inside the jurisdiction and not on the universal Church.

It is the duty of the Universal Church to promote the faith and to protect it and this may just be a good way to do that.

 

[JReducation]

Regarding what you said above about collegialty: synods, bishops councils and parish councils, etc. Those are not new. The term is new, not the concept. They have existed for centuries. For a while they faded away among the secular clergy and the lay faithful in the Latin Church, but were preserved by friars and monks and continued in the Eastern Churches without damage to them.

There was a time when bishops were elected by the faithful. Later, it became that they were elected by the other bishops. The pope does not know every priest. The Metropolitan nominates a candidate. The other bishops vote. The name is given to the Holy See with the references and curriculum vitae. We never called this collegiality or whatever, but we did it.

We have always had provincial councils. The most famous one in the USA was the Council of Baltimore, which included all the secular priests in the country. There are many contraversies around it, because it excluded the religious, but tried to impose laws on the religious serving in the USA.

We have always had Chapters, among the secular clergy, among monks, friars, as well as male and female religious and secular orders. These Chapters have always been an exercise in collegiality. The participants vote and share in the decision making. The highest ranking authority has the right to abrogate it or to promulgate it.

In many areas, there were no diocesan priests. The only priests were either friars, monks or clerks regular. Those priests governed their parishes according to the mind and wishes of their religious community, not the Holy See. The code of 1983 took that autonomy away, based on the teachings of Vatican II. All parishes are under the authority of the diocesan bishop, even if the bishop lives five days away by mule, canoe and jetplane. Those religious who administer parishes need the permission of the bishop to extend their traditions to the parishes that they administer. This was reigning in, not loosening. The only right that the new code preserve is the right of the religious to refuse to serve in any ministry or under any bishop where their charism and traditions are violated or not welcome. This is a right that they have, not an obligation.

Prior to Vatican II, bishops reported to the pope in an erratic manner. Today, they have to go every so many years. Bishops could rule until they died. Today, they retire at a certain age. Diocesan bishops could not be transferred, because in most European countries the bishops were also the civil authority. Today, no bishop may hold a political office.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[pnewton]

11 And when Kephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face because he clearly was wrong. (Galatians 2:11)
This verse popped into my head as I read your above quoted post.

We are not bond to be obedient to these recent novelties, and we can indeed oppose these errors as St. Paul opposed the errors of St. Peter.

When you say “we”, I will have to bow out of that group. I am neither an apostle or saint. And by the way, there is a difference between opposing and disobeying.

 

[JReducation]

**1647 For, it must be held by faith that outside the Apostolic Roman
Church, no one can be saved; that this is the only ark of salvation;
that he who shall not have entered therein will perish in the flood;
but, on the other hand, it is necessary to hold for certain that they
who labor in ignorance of the true religion, if this ignorance is
invincible, are not stained by any guilt in this matter in the eyes of
God. **

It’s important to understand here that ignorance goes beyond

“I never heard that before.”

The Council Fathers of that time and the Holy Fathers of today, as well as many missionaries and scholars were very wise men and women. They understand that ignorance can mean

“He or she just doesn’t get it.”

It’s not that the person blows it off, because of some ill will or sinful reason. There are people who just don’t get it, because there are some points of doctrine and morality around which they cannot wrap their heads, to use a term from today’s language.

I was speaking to a Jewish relative just the other day and he loves everything that Pope Benedict has written about Jesus. We were discussing the Pope’s latest book. My cousin loves it. However, he just can’t see how belief in a Trinitarian God is not a sin against the One God. I’ve done everything but stand on my head to explain it.

Try as he might, the Trinity is one of the Catholic dogmas that he can’t reconcile with the moral law. Here you have a person who has difficulty, not out of vice or rebellion, but out of fear of committing a sin. Until he gets “it”, he can’t move.

Have you ever been talking to someone for hours only to realize that they did not understand a thing you said? If you’re a parent or are married, you may know what I mean. That’s a perfect example of invincible ignorance. The person is not refusing to understand, he just does not understand. You know he does not, because he just gives you that look or that argument that tells you, “He didn’t understand a thing I said.” If you’ve never met such a person, I can introduce you to a few.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Nicolasa77]

Thank you very much! I’ll give it a try.

Cheers

---

watch movies online free

 

[Irish_Polock]

When you say “we”, I will have to bow out of that group. I am neither an apostle or saint. And by the way, there is a difference between opposing and disobeying.

I was not implying that I or anyone reading my post was either a Apostle or a Saint.

Could you elaborate on what you mean exactly by “there is a difference between opposing and disobeying”, and whom might be disobeying what?

 

[JKirkLVNV]

11 And when Kephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face because he clearly was wrong. (Galatians 2:11)
This verse popped into my head as I read your above quoted post.

We are not bond to be obedient to these recent novelties, and we can indeed oppose these errors as St. Paul opposed the errors of St. Peter. I feel what you are saying above is that, whatever that Pope says or does in the exercise of his office is ipso facto incontestable by the Popes subjects. This is not the “traditional” or historical view the Church has had.

Would you please list the novelties which you feel you are free to oppose?

 

[Irish_Polock]

1647 For, it must be held by faith that outside the Apostolic Roman
Church, no one can be saved; that this is the only ark of salvation;
that he who shall not have entered therein will perish in the flood;
but, on the other hand, it is necessary to hold for certain that they
who labor in ignorance of the true religion, if this ignorance is
invincible, are not stained by any guilt in this matter in the eyes of
God.

It’s important to understand here that ignorance goes beyond

“I never heard that before.”

The Council Fathers of that time and the Holy Fathers of today, as well as many missionaries and scholars were very wise men and women. They understand that ignorance can mean

“He or she just doesn’t get it.”

It’s not that the person blows it off, because of some ill will or sinful reason. There are people who just don’t get it, because there are some points of doctrine and morality around which they cannot wrap their heads, to use a term from today’s language.

I was speaking to a Jewish relative just the other day and he loves everything that Pope Benedict has written about Jesus. We were discussing the Pope’s latest book. My cousin loves it. However, he just can’t see how belief in a Trinitarian God is not a sin against the One God. I’ve done everything but stand on my head to explain it.

Try as he might, the Trinity is one of the Catholic dogmas that he can’t reconcile with the moral law. Here you have a person who has difficulty, not out of vice or rebellion, but out of fear of committing a sin. Until he gets “it”, he can’t move.

Have you ever been talking to someone for hours only to realize that they did not understand a thing you said? If you’re a parent or are married, you may know what I mean. That’s a perfect example of invincible ignorance. The person is not refusing to understand, he just does not understand. You know he does not, because he just gives you that look or that argument that tells you, “He didn’t understand a thing I said.” If you’ve never met such a person, I can introduce you to a few.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Could you give me a example of someone who has “refused to understand” Brother?

 

[AndyP2010]

11 And when Kephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face because he clearly was wrong. (Galatians 2:11)

This verse popped into my head as I read your above quoted post.

We are not bond to be obedient to these recent novelties, and we can indeed oppose these errors as St. Paul opposed the errors of St. Peter. I feel what you are saying above is that, whatever that Pope says or does in the exercise of his office is ipso facto incontestable by the Popes subjects. This is not the “traditional” or historical view the Church has had.

Your taking the the quote out of context because what St. Paul is reminding St. Peter about, is that Peter is contradicting his (St Peter’s ) own teaching and that of the council of Jerusalem. Also St. Peter has not issued an order to St. Paul he is just exhibiting poor behavior.

And when Kephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face because he clearly was wrong.
12
For, until some people came from James, 12 he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to draw back and separated himself, because he was afraid of the circumcised.
13
And the rest of the Jews 13 (also) acted hypocritically along with him, with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy.
14
But when I saw that they were not on the right road in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Kephas in front of all, “If you, though a Jew, are living like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?” 14
15

 

[pnewton]

I was not implying that I or anyone reading my post was either a Apostle or a Saint.

Could you elaborate on what you mean exactly by “there is a difference between opposing and disobeying”, and whom might be disobeying what?

Okay. If the Secretary of Defense does not agree with the President, he may oppose his policies to his face, in the way St. Paul did to St. Peter. However, this is not the same thing as disobeying the president, but rather part of his job. People who may be disobeyed is anyone to whom we do not owe obedience.

 

[Planty_Pall]

Timothysis
I don’t really care how “painful” it is for those of you who side against Christ’s Church.

Planty Pall
I am sorry that you see it that way. I really don’t know what to say. If we don’t even like each other, what is the point of a discussion? You frustrate the desire in me to make some overture toward you. You really can’t have any idea what I believe and you don’t even care about my pain? Maybe its just this medium…I’ll bet we would be more friendly in person. Anyway…I think I’ll bow out of this conversation. Maybe we can have a more agreeable time on another subject sometime.

See you around.

Planty Pall

 

[Irish_Polock]

Okay. If the Secretary of Defense does not agree with the President, he may oppose his policies to his face, in the way St. Paul did to St. Peter. However, this is not the same thing as disobeying the president, but rather part of his job. People who may be disobeyed is anyone to whom we do not owe obedience.

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.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

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.

Where has the Church authority erred?

 

[JReducation]

Could you give me a example of someone who has “refused to understand” Brother?

I think that’s a fair request and question.

Have you ever tried to explain something (anything) to someone who cuts you off before you begin, because the person simply refuses to consider another point of view?

Sometimes, these folks are cutting you off, because of personal convictions, just as you may say to a Mormon or Jehovah’s Witness who visits you early Saturday morning, “Thank you but I’m Catholic.” or “Thank you, but I’m not interested.” You’re cutting off the conversation before it starts, because of your convictions. You’ve already heard what they have to say and you have your convictions, so why go there again? That can happen in an exchange between a Catholic and non-Catholic. That’s not malicious or sinful. The person has heard it and is not convinced. We have to allow grace to work on that person.

However, there are people who have an agenda and they don’t want you to speak, because it shatters their agenda. My community works exclusively with pro-life ministry. I was invited to speak at a medical school. When I arrived, the person in charge pulled me aside and asked me to explain the ethical position of the Church on a set of specific subjects. I looked at the list and abortion, euthanasia, infanticide and embryonic stem cell research were not on the list. When I pointed it out to my host, he said, “Those are very controversial subjects among our students. Therefore, we don’t bring them up in seminars or lectures.” I later found out that NOW and Planned Parenthood are close friends of this medical school and that the school does not want to upset them. That’s an agenda. It may not have been my host’s agenda. That’s not for me to judge. But obviously NOW and Planned Parenthood have an agenda and the school, for whatever reasons, has submitted to the agenda. The reasons had nothing to do with convictions and their conscience. He did not say that. The objection to the topics was because it was controversial. But in fact, it was controversial, because someone has an agenda to keep these discussions out of their medical school.

You may legitimately choose not to discuss a controversial subject, because people get out of control. The idea is to arrive at Truth, not to demolish each other in the process. When there is a danger that people will be deliberately offended, bullied, harassed and so forth, you may have to admit that this is not the right time or place for this discussion. You’re banning the behavior that people bring to the table, you’re not banning an inconvenient truth. It’s an unfortunate situation where the individuals don’t know how to behave, not where someone has an agenda and Christian morals or doctrine are very inconvenient truths.

The difficulty here is that sometimes it’s impossible to tell if the other person is being honest or not. We can only place them in Our Lady’s hands.

I hope this helps.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[pnewton]

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.

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.