SSPX Proselytism

[GerardP]

Disobedience is disobedience.

That is not Catholic teaching.

newadvent.org/summa/3104.htm#5

Article 5. Whether subjects are bound to obey their superiors in all things?

“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.”

M. Lefebvre’s actions come to mind.

*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. *

His defenders will tell you he had his reasons. Maybe yes, maybe no, but either way: NOT relevant and NOT good enough.

False. By stating that you are denying Catholic teaching.

When someone takes an action that has been pre-defined as a break with the Papacy and hence with the Church, then that someone is in error.

A Pope just can’t willy nilly defy reason and natural law and declare something a break with the papacy.

If a Pope says stopping arsonists from setting fires is a break with the papacy, do you obey? And how much validity does it have when you are standing there watching the Pope (figuratively speaking) setting a building on fire?

No. Your argument is completely illogical and irrational.

Obey what the Catholic Church teaches.

You’ve posted many times about your own stance as a “sede.” That’s your described stance. That does not excuse you or give you any opening to argue your mistaken views.

Then hold yourself to your own standards. Obey the Churches teaching or admit that you don’t hold it publicly.

As a child, sixty years ago, I learned as did all other Catholics in those times, that one remains faithful to the Church and to the chair of Peter. No allowance was given for “reasons” for any willful separation. It was ever thus.

Well, either you were deceived by your teachers or you believe St. Thomas Aquinas to be unCatholic in his teaching. Your prior formation is no excuse for your true disobedience to the real teaching of the Catholic Church.

Either accept the real teaching of the Church on true and false obedience or deny it.

Either refute St. Thomas and the Church or accept his teaching in true obedience to the Popes that have consistently praised his teaching.

 

[GerardP]

Regardless of one’s position on the SSPX, the moderator’s have stated the rules. Play by the rules, or take your ball and play elsewhere. I wonder how many of the SSPX ever gave to this ministry anyway. I for one would not support it if they became an SSPX recruiting ground.

Is this a veiled threat against Catholic Answers? If you can’t win your argument, threats and sanctions will be your next tool?

You’re terms are just vague enough to make even a fair shake for the SSPX according to Catholic teaching a “recruitment” ploy.

The inference drawn from your post suggests that maybe if supporters of women priests donated more money than you, they would get support from CA?

 

[latinmasslover]

While it is true that a Catholic who supports the SSPX and attends SSPX liturgies is still a Catholic, it is also true that John Paul II said to those Catholics:

For a Catholic to remind another Catholic of this provision of Ecclesia Dei and then to invite that Catholic to reconsider his support for the SSPX in light of that provision is not uncharitable. Of course, what does “cut both ways” is that such an invitation and appeal needs to be made with respect for legitimate freedom of conscience.

But they do more than remind, they practically damn us. I, and others, have gotten fierce in defending out views, the TLM, doctrine and holy discipline, but I have *rarely *seen TLMlovers condemn the *people *who didn’t see eye to eye; however, we’re often damned for not sharing a skewed interpretation of papal infallibility.

Could you possibly post a warning to those who damn the people, rather than only warning the SSPXers?

 

[jmcrae]

Is “disobedience” the only issue? What is behind this “disobedience”? Your post illustrates my point exactly.

SFD

The mistaking of the outward form for the thing itself. Somehow, the members of the SSPX have come under the impression that the Tridentine Mass is the Mass that Christ said in the Upper Room, and that changes in the form of the Mass are in some way forbidden. (They pull a lot of quotes out of context from the Council of Trent to support this idea.)

They say that because of the changes in the Mass that occurred after Vatican II, which were authorized by Pope Paul VI, that the Church is no longer Catholic, and that only those who do the Tridentine Mass are “authentic Catholics,” as though a particular form of the Mass were the defining characteristic of Catholicism.

Unity with the Pope is the defining characteristic of Catholicism, and we are united with him because he alone has been given the charism of infallibility.

 

[latinmasslover]

One more question: is it considered proselytizing to have as a signature: Pray for the canonization of Archbishop Lefebvre?

 

[jmcrae]

One more question: is it considered proselytizing to have as a signature: Pray for the canonization of Archbishop Lefebvre?

And while we’re at it, let’s pray for the canonization of John Calvin and Martin Luther. (After all, they didn’t mean to break with the Church!)

 

[latinmasslover]

The mistaking of the outward form for the thing itself. Somehow, the members of the SSPX have come under the impression that the Tridentine Mass is the Mass that Christ said in the Upper Room, and that changes in the form of the Mass are in some way forbidden. (They pull a lot of quotes out of context from the Council of Trent to support this idea.)

We don’t claim that changes are forbidden. Archbishop Lefebvre even said that some changes should take place. I think you’re confusing “SSPXers” with sedevacantists.

They say that because of the changes in the Mass that occurred after Vatican II, which were authorized by Pope Paul VI, that the Church is no longer Catholic, and that only those who do the Tridentine Mass are “authentic Catholics,” as though a particular form of the Mass were the defining characteristic of Catholicism.

We don’t say that either.

Unity with the Pope is the defining characteristic of Catholicism, and we are united with him because he alone has been given the charism of infallibility.

That’s opinion. The head pastor at my parish (in “union with Rome” and *very *anti-SSPX) says the defining characteristic of Catholicism is the [Holy] Eucharist.

This post is not said in condemnation.

 

[latinmasslover]

And while we’re at it, let’s pray for the canonization of John Calvin and Martin Luther. (After all, they didn’t mean to break with the Church!)

My question requires no response from you, thanks.

And check your history, they did intend to break with the Church; they hated the Catholic Church.

 

[catharina]

Yes of course disobedience and obedience is the only issue among many Catholics that have a recent formation especially as it applies to traditionalists. The false understanding that is prevalent is a source of influence and power over the ignorant.

Ignorance of what the Catholic Church teaches regarding obedience only goes so far before people are willfully culpable.

At some point soon, Catholic Answers must make an effort to give the correct “Catholic Answer” to what perfect, true and false obedience is.

To do otherwise would be manifestly, dishonest, uncharitable and indicative of true contempt for Catholicism.

To defend M. Lefebvre when the Church has condemned his actions is an action that would go against my extremely well-informed conscience. That others would place themselves into the category of “defenders of Lefebvre” is a matter for their consciences. What part of that don’t you understand, Sir? If anyone’s actions might be described as manifesting an apparently “true contempt for Catholicism”, then look no further than M. Lefebvre and his followers who seem to have brought a new reign of prideful disobedience into the Church.

 

[jmcrae]

My question requires no response from you, thanks.

And check your history, they did intend to break with the Church; they hated the Catholic Church.

Yes, but their defenders claim that it was all just a sad misunderstanding.

 

[jmcrae]

That’s opinion. The head pastor at my parish (in “union with Rome” and *very *anti-SSPX) says the defining characteristic of Catholicism is the [Holy] Eucharist.

That’s a good point; I stand corrected.

 

[latinmasslover]

Yes, but their defenders claim that it was all just a sad misunderstanding.

But does it really matter what the defenders say, when it contradicts what the defended said?

 

[jmcrae]

But does it really matter what the defenders say, when it contradicts what the defended said?

You’d think, eh?

It doesn’t seem to faze them, though.

 

[pnewton]

Is this a veiled threat against Catholic Answers? If you can’t win your argument, threats and sanctions will be your next tool?

You read way too much into what I said. Of course I am not threatening anyone, as if I would be a threat. However, I do not support spreading Mormonism. I do not support the spreading of Protestantism. I do not support the spreading of schism. I believe the administrators of this ministry have enough moral fiber not to be sold to the highest bidder. They surely must be prudent enough, though, to not deliberately alienate supporters by allowing this site to be used for purposes contrary to the Faith they profess. That is all I meant.

 

[Your_Abbott]

But they do more than remind, they practically damn us. I, and others, have gotten fierce in defending out views, the TLM, doctrine and holy discipline, but I have *rarely *seen TLMlovers condemn the *people *who didn’t see eye to eye; however, we’re often damned for not sharing a skewed interpretation of papal infallibility.

Could you possibly post a warning to those who damn the people, rather than only warning the SSPXers?

I think John Paul II adequately warned SSPX that there actions would bring serious penalties. It was not just once, but many times. SSPX was well aware that they were committing a crime, a schismatic act under Church Law that would have been dealt with severely.

The penalty was excommunication. This is a status which puts one outside the community of the Roman Catholic Church. And after private and public warnings the Archbishop went ahead with the consecrations.

In an extraordinary step the Holy Father himself penned Ecclesia Dei. This was in 1988. So, all acts of disobedience aside, the group has had ample opportunity to return to the Catholic Church. We are not children breaking some rule about curfew. What was done was a deliberate act against the Church, and the Holy Father’s authority.

SSPX has had further opportunities, probably more than we know to return. The Holy Father privately met with one of the schismatic bishops, which was an extraordinary act of humility on the part of the Pontiff. The TLM was expanded as a special favor to SSPX. Certainly it was for them, for there is no overwhelming demand within the Church for this ancient rite.

A year an a half has passed since that meeting. The Pontiff and the Church pray for these individuals. They prefer for their own reasons to remains outside the Mystical Body of Christ.

 

[Your_Abbott]

The mistaking of the outward form for the thing itself. Somehow, the members of the SSPX have come under the impression that the Tridentine Mass is the Mass that Christ said in the Upper Room, and that changes in the form of the Mass are in some way forbidden. (They pull a lot of quotes out of context from the Council of Trent to support this idea.)

They say that because of the changes in the Mass that occurred after Vatican II, which were authorized by Pope Paul VI, that the Church is no longer Catholic, and that only those who do the Tridentine Mass are “authentic Catholics,” as though a particular form of the Mass were the defining characteristic of Catholicism.

Unity with the Pope is the defining characteristic of Catholicism, and we are united with him because he alone has been given the charism of infallibility.

Let’s be serious. The TLM is a false issue. SSPX got back the TLM; they got back what they said they wanted.

They want exhonoration for their position, and that of the Archbishop, that the Church has been infiltrated by Modernists, and those embued with a ‘false ecumenism’. They want the Church to get down on her knees for them, and repudiate the Second Vatican Council. All this nonsense about Vatican 2 defining nothing, and that it was a pastoral council only is part of the plot. So when I hear that, my ears perk up - SSPX. Overt love of the TLM, which I am amazed at, since the Mass we have is the same as the TLM, which a few accidental differences - you know them.

They want honor for Archbishop Lefebrve, and move him in the process of canonization. Pray on, SSPX, it is not going to go in that direction. The Holy Father will not permit it. The Catholic faithful will not permit it. They will fall deeper into their schism, until, because they do not have the guidance of the Holy Spirit, they will fall into heresy.

 

[Your_Abbott]

You read way too much into what I said. Of course I am not threatening anyone, as if I would be a threat. However, I do not support spreading Mormonism. I do not support the spreading of Protestantism. I do not support the spreading of schism. I believe the administrators of this ministry have enough moral fiber not to be sold to the highest bidder. They surely must be prudent enough, though, to not deliberately alienate supporters by allowing this site to be used for purposes contrary to the Faith they profess. That is all I meant.

Catholic Forums has not gone far enough, if you ask me. They said no proseltization, which they can say about any outside group. An outright ban is more of what I would like.

 

[latinmasslover]

I think John Paul II adequately warned SSPX that there actions would bring serious penalties. It was not just once, but many times. SSPX was well aware that they were committing a crime, a schismatic act under Church Law that would have been dealt with severely.

The penalty was excommunication. This is a status which puts one outside the community of the Roman Catholic Church. And after private and public warnings the Archbishop went ahead with the consecrations.

In an extraordinary step the Holy Father himself penned Ecclesia Dei. This was in 1988. So, all acts of disobedience aside, the group has had ample opportunity to return to the Catholic Church. We are not children breaking some rule about curfew. What was done was a deliberate act against the Church, and the Holy Father’s authority.

SSPX has had further opportunities, probably more than we know to return. The Holy Father privately met with one of the schismatic bishops, which was an extraordinary act of humility on the part of the Pontiff. The TLM was expanded as a special favor to SSPX. Certainly it was for them, for there is no overwhelming demand within the Church for this ancient rite.

A year an a half has passed since that meeting. The Pontiff and the Church pray for these individuals. They prefer for their own reasons to remains outside the Mystical Body of Christ.

“I say to thee, Peter, the cock shall not crow this day, till thou thrice deniest that thou knowest me.” Gospel of St. Luke

“And He spoke the word openly. And Peter taking Him began to rebuke him. Who turning about and seeing his disciples, threatened Peter, saying: Go behind me, Satan, because thou savourest not the things that are of God but that are of men.” Gospel of St. Mark

“And He saith to Peter: What? Could you not watch one hour with Me?..The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.” Gospel of St. Matthew

“For this was I born,and for this came I into the world; that I should give testimony to the truth.” Gospel of St. John

Meaning? To obey/follow the example of a pope isn’t always pleasing to God or beneficial to the soul. The truth doesn’t change, and adhering to the truth is what counts in the eyes of God, hence He told us we’re to worship in spirit and truth.

 

[GerardP]

To defend M. Lefebvre when **the Church **has condemned his actions is an action that would go against my extremely well-informed conscience.

You are going to have to be more specific. What do you mean “the Church” condemned his actions? This is the fuzzy sort of sloganeering that tends to prevent the conversation from going forward.

As far as I know, it was the Pope that claimed that archbishop LeFebvre excommunicated himself and somehow that “implied” (when he meant infers) a schism.

You seem to be confusing the Pope with the Church. The maxim is “Where Peter is, there is the Church.” It’s not “Who Peter is, is the Church.”

If anyone’s actions might be described as manifesting an apparently “true contempt for Catholicism”, then look no further than M. Lefebvre and his followers who seem to have brought a new reign of prideful disobedience into the Church.

See, this is the kind of uncharitable groundless calumny based on an UN-Catholic understanding of obedience.

Tied into this is the unwillingness to honestly look at the errors of Pope John Paul II and the devastating effects of those errors on the Church organization and the flock that he was supposed to protect the deposit of faith for.

It’s not just the denial of Catholic teaching on the papacy and denial of Catholic teaching on obedience. One who deliberately refuses to acknowledge the clear teaching of the Catholic Church and consistently promotes a false alternative is displaying contempt for Catholicism.

 

[catharina]

“I say to thee, Peter, the cock shall not crow this day, till thou thrice deniest that thou knowest me.” Gospel of St. Luke

“And He spoke the word openly. And Peter taking Him began to rebuke him. Who turning about and seeing his disciples, threatened Peter, saying: Go behind me, Satan, because thou savourest not the things that are of God but that are of men.” Gospel of St. Mark

“And He saith to Peter: What? Could you not watch one hour with Me?..The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.” Gospel of St. Matthew

“For this was I born,and for this came I into the world; that I should give testimony to the truth.” Gospel of St. John

Meaning? To obey/follow the example of a pope isn’t always pleasing to God or beneficial to the soul. The truth doesn’t change, and adhering to the truth is what counts in the eyes of God, hence He told us we’re to worship in spirit and truth.

Far more meaningful is that at each juncture, Jesus corrected Peter, truly reflective of His promise: “Thou art Peter and upon this rock, I shall build my church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” It amazes me that some people are willing to diminish even Peter who was martyred as the first bishop of Rome in order to heap glory, not on Christ, but on a band of clerics who’ve been excommuinicated. It’s astonishing to me.