SSPX Update - Redux

[pnewton]

I woke up last night with an interesting thought playing through my head. Sometimes it seems my unconscious mind hits on things my thinking mind may not. Last Sunday, the second reading was from 1 Corinthains 13. Now I know that some think love is overblown in the Church today, even though it is the greatest eternal thing there is. But what struck me when I woke was nothing about this chapter, which I had to memorize as a kid, but rather its location. It is sandwich in between a section on the importance of different parts of the body and St. Paul’s instructions on liturgy. It seems almost out of place, yet we know what a brilliant mind Paul had. Did he not understand that much of our conflict was not so much a matter of differences of opinion, but rather a lack of love for each other? When I take all the points ever made by anyone in the SSPX and stack them all up, consider all the accusation made against them and compile them, how insignificant they seem in the the light of Faith, Hope and Charity. Of course the SSPX considers changes they made as critically important to the Church, but these will all pass away. Of course the Catholic Church can not allow certain actions to go unanswered, but these too will pass away.

I am glad Pope Benedict is wiser than I to see this long before and take steps to reconciling those excommunicated and proceding with dialogue. We should never dispair of a solution when we have that which is greater to unite us despite lesser issues.

 

[Mrs_Sally]

I woke up last night with an interesting thought playing through my head. Sometimes it seems my unconscious mind hits on things my thinking mind may not. Last Sunday, the second reading was from 1 Corinthains 13. Now I know that some think love is overblown in the Church today, even though it is the greatest eternal thing there is. But what struck me when I woke was nothing about this chapter, which I had to memorize as a kid, but rather its location. It is sandwich in between a section on the importance of different parts of the body and St. Paul’s instructions on liturgy. It seems almost out of place, yet we know what a brilliant mind Paul had. Did he not understand that much of our conflict was not so much a matter of differences of opinion, but rather a lack of love for each other? When I take all the points ever made by anyone in the SSPX and stack them all up, consider all the accusation made against them and compile them, how insignificant they seem in the the light of Faith, Hope and Charity. Of course the SSPX considers changes they made as critically important to the Church, but these will all pass away. Of course the Catholic Church can not allow certain actions to go unanswered, but these too will pass away.

I am glad Pope Benedict is wiser than I to see this long before and take steps to reconciling those excommunicated and proceding with dialogue. We should never dispair of a solution when we have that which is greater to unite us despite lesser issues.

A beautiful thought! Thanks for sharing that with us.

 

[Aramis]

I became Catholic in 2011 so forgive me if this is a dumb question.

I have no desire to go to an SSPX Church.

What I would like to know though is which sacraments in an SSPX Church are valid and which ones aren’t?

Would it be OK for me to attend an SSPX Church if i were on a journey and it was Sunday and it was the only Catholic Church in town?

Would if be OK for a Roman Catholic to be married in an SSPX Church?

Would it be OK to go to confession in an SSPX Church?

What about any of the rest of the sacraments?

Like I said I have no desire to go to one of their churches–just wanted to know which sacraments are valid or not or licit or not and which ones I could take or not and under what circumstances?

Licit: none - they’re suspended ad divinis, which means they are not to perform ANY priestly ministry! Any public exercise of priestly ministry is thus a sin of disobedience.

Valid: a bit more difficult…

Baptism - because anyone can validly baptize.
Eucharist - because they are validly ordained.*
Ordination - because their bishops are validly ordained.

Sometimes valid:
Confession - valid only if the person is in danger of death
Extreme Unction - valid only if the person is in danger of death.
Confirmation - valid only if the person is in danger of death and was just baptized

Invalid:
Marriage: improper forum for the marriage - Catholic marriages require the pastor(s) or bishop(s) of the couple to consent and a witness assigned by same (usually a priest or deacon).
Confirmation outside danger of death: only valid if delegated by the bishop-ordinary, or by a pastor at Easter Vigil. Such delegation may never be to a suspended priest. SSPX chaplains are not validly pastors, either.

*But since they are suspended, they sin in consecrating it. They might not be culpable for that sin, but they commit it none-the-less.

 

[Lormar]

The secret of a good ecclesiastical diplomat is that he has the skill to disagree without ever saying, “You’re wrong.” The ecclesiastical diplomat leaves anathemas and scolding to popes. His job is to deliver a message in a polite, rational, organized and clear manner.

Well, so much for me aspiring to be one. I don’t think I’ll be hired anytime in the foreseeable future.

 

[Tomdstone]

Marriage: improper forum for the marriage - Catholic marriages require the pastor(s) or bishop(s) of the couple to consent and a witness assigned by same (usually a priest or deacon).

I don’t think this is entirely accurate because I read somewhere that a Catholic and an Orthodox can marry in an Orthodox Chuch validly.

 

[JReducation]

Tombstone and Aramis are both right, but don’t know it. LOL

I’m not a Canon Lawer, nor do I play one on TV.

The issue of a Catholic marrying let’s say an Orthodox is one of disparity of cult. It’s a fancy term to mean, different religions. The Church has been known to give a dispensation to the Catholic party to marry in an Orthodox ceremony.

The difference between an Orthodox priest and and SSPX priest witnessing a marriage is more complex.

The Orthodox priest has the authorization of the Church to witness a marriage. His bishop takes care of that. The SSPX do not have the authorization of the Church. This is not a case where the Church supplies, because you don’t need faculties to witness a marriage. You need authorization. A layman can witness a marriage, if there are no deacons or priests, provided that the bishop has authorized it.

The Orthodox don’t need authorization from the Catholic Church. Their bishops are valid and licit. They can grant such authorization to their priests. SSPX bishops are valid, but illicit. They can’t authorize anything, until they get canonical permission to exercise the ministry.

It always goes back to who is and who is not bound by Canon Law. Only Latin Catholics are bound by these laws. Eastern Catholics have their own laws. Orthodox Christians have their own laws.

 

[Dee_S]

The Orthodox don’t need authorization from the Catholic Church. Their bishops are valid and licit. They can grant such authorization to their priests. SSPX bishops are valid, but illicit. They can’t authorize anything, until they get canonical permission to exercise the ministry.

:thankyou:It always boils down to permission. Holy Mother Church will always be in charge. I can’t help thinking of this situation now in terms of a family. In this case, the SSPX, who legitimately belong to the family, have rebelled against the parent on serious issues, and refuse to acknowledge the way that this parent chooses to deal with what are, essential, family problems.
"Moreover, you act as if you had a particular role in this regard. But the mission of discerning and remedying the abuses is first of all Ours; it is the mission of all the bishops who work together with Us. Indeed We do not cease to raise Our voice against these excesses"

No child can arrogate to themselves the authority of the parent, and if they openly defy or challenge them, will have restrictions and censures as a result. This can be paralleled by the suspensions resulting in a lack of canonical status at present, and prior to this, the excommunications when they ‘went too far’ and consecrated their own bishops, which enabled them to continue their lone mission in defiance of instructions from the ‘parent’.
"You do not manifest repentance, even for the cause of your suspension a divines. You do not explicitly express your acceptance if the authority of the Second Vatican Council and of the Holy See - and this constitutes the basis of the problem - and you continue in those personal works of yours which the legitimate authority has expressly ordered you to suspend."

Not only does the parent have to protect and defend their authority, but, they also have a duty to the common good, which is to protect others from the wayward ideas and behaviours of the rebel.
**“This is why, with the full consciousness of Our duties, We say to you, brother, that you are in error. And with the full ardor of Our fraternal love, as also with all the weight of Our authority as the successor of Peter, We invite you to retract, to correct yourself and to cease from inflicting wounds upon the church of Christ”
**
So, while that parent is not ejecting that errant child from the family home, they are insisting that the child conform to the family rules before they can enjoy all the privileges and rights of obedient family members. Hence, the SSPX are not in “full communion” with the Church.
***“Therefore, dear brother, do not delay any longer in considering before God, with the keenest religious attention, this solemn adjuration of the humble but legitimate successor of Peter. May you measure the gravity of the Hour and take the only decision that befits a son of the church. This is Our hope, this is Our prayer.” ***
**
**From the Vatican, October 11,1976
**PAULUS PP. VI **
jloughnan.tripod.com/pvi2lefebvre.htm
(Letter of Pope Paul VI to Archbishop Lefebvre 1976)

 

[numealinesimpet]

SimpleSoul, Here is my contribution to the question, ‘What’s this all about? In simple terms’, which you asked a few days ago.

The posters on this forum are normally very meticulous and thorough in backing up their statements. In this post, if people will be indulgent, I’ll just set down what I understand of the situation. Then we can get back to specific points. I hope I don’t misrepresent anybody.

Vatican II closed in 1965. There were changes in every aspect of Catholic life, including progressive changes to the Latin Mass about every 2 years from 1962 until the Novus Ordo Missae was imposed in 1969. Archbishop Lefebvre had retired as Superior of the Holy Ghost Fathers and was living in Rome.

Now there are two views about what happened next.

VIEWPOINT (1) Those who hold this perspective generally state that the situation is extremely simple and clear-cut: Mgr Lefebvre and the others were disobedient to the point of schism, and as a precondition to re-entering full communion they must be expected to submit unreservedly to the authority of the pope.

As far as I know, nobody who is informed will dispute the following facts:

Mgr Lefebvre refused to say the New Mass, founded a Priestly Fraternity and opened a seminary, which completely ignored the teachings of Vatican II. He was told to follow the new orientations. When he continued to refuse, he was rebuked, and then suspended, and then told to close his seminary. He continued to refuse. Matters simmered along until 1988 when he consecrated 4 bishops against the specific command of Pope John Paul II. The following day he was excommunicated, but continued to function as before. At this point about a dozen of his priests left the Fraternity (the SSPX), went to Rome, and asked to be given a canonical place in the Church that would be in good standing. The Fraternity of S. Peter (FSSP) was erected within a fortnight. The SSPX slowly but steadily increased in numbers, led by Mgr Lefebvre, and when he died the SSPX continued its work. At first none of the SSPX bishops were in charge but after some years Bp Fellay was elected superior General, a position he holds to the present day. Matters continued until 2000 AD when Pope John Paul gave Cdl Castrillon Hoyos the task of seeking a way to reconcile the SSPX with the Church. The SSPX have not yet accepted a formal structure within the Church. When Pope Benedict ascended the Chair of Peter he unexpectedly issued a decree permitting the celebration of the Traditional Latin Mass, which he styled The Extraordinary Form, as contrasted with the Novus Ordo as the Ordinary Form of the Latin Rite. Then a couple of years later he, again unexpectedly, rescinded the excommunications of the SSPX bishops, but to date the SSPX have not yet agreed with the Vatican on a ‘Canonical Structure’. Meanwhile the Vatican held talks with the SSPX, lasting several years, on the disagreements which the SSPX expressed with come aspects of the teachings of Vatican II. Matters continue in this situation. Recently one of the four SSPX bishops, Bp Williamson, was either expelled or resigned from the Fraternity, and is now a ‘vagus’ or prelate with no canonical place in the hierarchy, although he is still a validly-consecrated bishop.

I will now state, as simply and as concisely as possible, what I understand of the ‘trad’ position - although I do not claim any authority to speak for anybody else.

VIEWPOINT (2) Those who hold this perspective generally state that the present situation in the Church is the fruit of destructive processes that have being going on steadily since the breakup of Christendom with the Protestant Rebellion, and that the case of the SSPX cannot be seen in a vacuum. In a word, the crisis is being perpetuated in part by a confusion about the dogmas of the Faith, compounded by a misunderstanding of the scope, meaning and limits of Obedience. [cont’d]

 

[numealinesimpet]

[cont’d] The Faithful are being asked to abandon essential bastions of the Faith in the name of Obedience, a situation which cannot be permitted. In the last resort, one must say “I will serve God before men”. When Obedience is pitted against Faith, then Faith must prevail. Obedience is at the service of the Faith, not Faith at the service of Obedience. Many who support the stance of the SSPX further believe that the entire situation is intimately related to the Message of Fatima - something which is also being systematically distorted by powerful figures, but the truth of this too is emerging, especially in very recent years.

Those holding VIEWPOINT (2) state that the Church is enduring one of the most serious and dangerous crises the Church has ever had to pass through. In particular, the proponents of Modernism, - ‘the synthesis of all heresies’ - despite the most strenuous efforts of the popes since the eighteenth century, have succeeded in gaining high positions of power within the Church, and are now trying to obliterate the Faith which has been handed down from the Apostles. In particular, a version of Religious Liberty and Ecumenism which was repeatedly condemned in the strongest terms is now being promoted, not to say imposed. These forces are working to establish a man-centred religion instead of the God-centred religion that we have been given by Christ. In the face of this, the actions taken by Mgr Lefebvre & the others are fully justified within the Mind and Law of the Church: the sanctions imposed on the SSPX are null and void, in most cases being an escalation of an already untenable situation, being penalties for refusing to accept a sanction that was null and void in the first place; and that therefore the entire edifice of condemnation falls to the ground. This is not to justify each and every statement or action of the SSPX. Before the advent of the internet, it was next to impossible for the SSPX to have their case heard. They have been systematically excluded from official Catholic forums, while the secular press were either hostile or apathetic. Forces within the Church are extremely hostile to the vision of the Church espoused by the SSPX, and many senior prelates do not understand the real reasons for the SSPX’s actions, which are nothing other than the continued fight for the integrity of the Faith. There is a discernible pattern of statements and sanctions that have the appearance of authority, but on closer examination are nothing of the sort. For different reasons, the popes themselves have taken action against the SSPX, but these actions too are such that they must be resisted, in true obedience, for the sake of the Faith. Astonishing as this may seem to many faithful Catholics, the theology is well established and there are historical precedents. This viewpoint has scandalised many, but nevertheless has been persuasive enough that the SSPX has continued to grow year by year, steadily adding at least 20 priests annually to the Catholic Church, despite every sanction up to and including an alleged excommunication that has been attempted. The SSPX have strenuously denied that they are against the Pope or the Church, and believe that the Pope and the Church will realise that the SSPX are among the truest friends of the Papacy and the Church; and that the time will come when the Church will be asking for their help in the restoration of the Mystical Body. From the beginning, concerned seminarians and priests have been, like Nicodemus, visiting SSPX priories by night. This is done with discretion. The SSPX leadership do not see a formal, canonical reconciliation as the first priority; while there remain fundamental disagreements about Catholic dogma, any agreement is bound to unravel, sooner rather than later. That is why they have pressed, for decades, for a thorough consideration of the doctrinal issues in the Church since Vatican II.

From the beginning of the rift, the SSPX have been given quiet encouragement by many, not only laypeople but prelates up to the level of Cardinal; concrete actions have been taken by the mainstream Church that would be impossible if the SSPX were really excommunicated or in schism; and very recently, faced with the continuing decline in their dioceses, SSPX priests are being asked by diocesan bishops to take an active part in priestly formation.

This is, I believe, a summary of the Viewpoint of those who support the SSPX. In presenting it I am not denying the heroic work of those other souls who are working in The Lord’s vineyard and who cannot agree with the SSPX’s position.

Whole books have been written on this situation, both on the current crisis in the Church and on the SSPX in particular. I am trying, simplesoul, to gather some links that comment in more detail on each of the points raised above, but I think this is the best answer I can make to your question.

 

[simple_soul]

This is, I believe, a summary of the Viewpoint of those who support the SSPX. In presenting it I am not denying the heroic work of those other souls who are working in The Lord’s vineyard and who cannot agree with the SSPX’s position.

*Dear numealinesimpet,

While I appreciate that you took the time to respond to my question and while you have raised a few more questions with your response, I regrettably have to say that it did not answer my question. It is this question that I would like to remain focused on and hear/read your response to.*

You had stated that: "We are fortunate that Vatican I clarified for us the scope and also the limits of the pope. This providentially forestalled the error of placing obedience to the pope above the dictates of reason and justice."

My question that you said you would try to respond to was: “**How exactly did it clarify the scope and limits of the pope?” It being Vatican I. **

Maybe a better way of asking the question is how did Vatican I clarify the scope and limits of the Pope? Did it say we could and should use the dictates of reason and justice to start an out right rebellion against the Pope? Or did it instruct us to use the dictates of reason and justice to understand the Pope and what he is telling us so that we will grow in understanding and see weather or not what he is teaching us is sin our not?
Or did it define it in some other way?

 

[pnewton]

faced with the continuing decline in their dioceses, SSPX priests are being asked by diocesan bishops to take an active part in priestly formation…

In what “declining” diocese has the SSPX been given an active role in priestly formation? Can you show any diocesan link to such a policy?

 

[choliks]

Before anything else, I’d like to say that I really admire the ardent desire of the SSPX to preserve the faith.

However…

1. Our Catholic faith (and common sense) tells us to obey the rightful, just, and God-given authority of the Church.

And if indeed SSPX is to serve God before men, then why not make haste in reconciling with Holy Mother the Church, as she is inseparable from Christ? And we are not just obeying a mere man, we are obeying the office that was entrusted to Peter and his successors by Christ.

I attended today a seminar in our company entitled: “The God-centered Principles in Employee Discipline.” It was not surprising that the same principle also applied in the workplace.

1. If indeed the SSPX is out to preserve the faith against heresies, why not stay within the Church? If a thief or vandal has entered your home, How can you protect it from the porch or the yard? How can you help your brothers inside if you won’t join them?
2. If the SSPX insists on their position, wouldn’t that imply that either Christ’s promise was not true or the Holy Spirit is not capable of protecting the Church from error? If the Church was protected from error by the Holy Spirit for 2000 years, even with bad popes, then why stop now? These same questions were asked to the restorationists who claimed that the Church fell into apostasy after the last apostle died.

PS: The information you presented to Simple Soul is rather unbalanced, of course, favoring towards view #2. I was hoping you would present both viewpoints in a fair manner.

For that I will have the reconciliation included in my prayers.

 

[Dee_S]

The last four Popes & Church have constantly & continually made enormous efforts to reconcile the SSPX…since Archbishop Lefebvre’s suspension in 1976. It can never be laid at their door that they did not try hard enough, no matter what view# one uses.

The Motu Proprio Ecclesiae Unitatem of Pope Benedict XVI
2. In fidelity to this mandate, subsequent to the act of 30 June 1988 with which Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre illicitly conferred episcopal ordination upon four priests, on 2 July 1988 Pope John Paul II of venerable memory established the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei:“whose task it will be to collaborate with the Bishops, with the Departments of the Roman Curia and with the circles concerned, for the purpose of facilitating the full ecclesial communion of priests, seminarians, religious communities or individual religious until now linked in various ways to the Society founded by Archbishop Lefebvre, who may wish to remain united to the Successor of Peter in the Catholic Church, while preserving their spiritual and liturgical traditions, in the light of the Protocol signed on 5 May last by Cardinal Ratzinger and Archbishop Lefebvre” (John Paul II, Litterae Apostolicae Motu Proprio datae Ecclesia Dei [2 July 1988], n. 6: AAS80 [1988], 1498).

1. Along these lines, adhering faithfully to the same duty to serve the universal communion of the Church also in its visible manifestation and making every effort to ensure that all who truly desire unity have the possibility of remaining in it or of rediscovering it, with the Motu Proprio *Summorum Pontificum *I desired to extend and to update, by means of more precise and detailed norms, the general instructions already contained in the Motu Proprio *Ecclesia Dei *concerning the possibility of using the 1962 *Missale Romanum *(Benedict XVI, Litt. Ap. Moto Proprio datae *Summorum Pontificum *[7 July 2007]: AAS99 [2007], 777-781).
2. In the same spirit and with the same commitment to encouraging the resolution of all fractures and divisions in the Church and to healing a wound in the ecclesial fabric that was more and more painfully felt, I wished to remit the excommunication of the four Bishops illicitly ordained by Archbishop Lefebvre. With this decision I intended to remove an impediment that might have jeopardized the opening of a door to dialogue and thereby to invite the Bishops and the “Society of St Pius X” to rediscover the path to full communion with the Church. As I explained in my Letter to the Catholic Bishops of last 10 March, the remission of the excommunication was a measure taken in the context of ecclesiastical discipline to free the individuals from the burden of conscience constituted by the most serious of ecclesiastical penalties. However, the doctrinal questions obviously remain and until they are clarified the Society has no canonical status in the Church and its ministers cannot legitimately exercise any ministry.
3. Precisely because the problems that must now be addressed with the Society are essentially doctrinal in nature, I have decided 21 years after the Motu Proprio Ecclesia Dei and in conformity with what I had proposed (cf. *ibid., *art. 11 781) to rethink the structure of the Commission Ecclesia Dei, linking it closely to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
4. The Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Deiwill therefore have the following configuration:
   a) The President of the Commission is the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
   b) The Commission, with its own allocation of staff, is composed of the Secretary and officials.
   c) The task of the Cardinal President, assisted by the Secretary, is to refer the principal cases and doctrinal questions to the judgment of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith through its ordinary procedures, and to submit the results thereof to the superior dispositions of the Supreme Pontiff.
5. With this decision I have wished in particular to show fatherly solicitude to the “Society of St Pius X” in order that it rediscover full communion with the Church.
   I address to all a pressing invitation to pray the Lord tirelessly, through the intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary, “ut unum sint”.
   *Given in Rome, at St Peter’s, on 2 July 2009, the fifth year of Our Pontificate. *
   **BENEDICTUS PP. XVI
   **vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/apost_letters/documents/hf_ben-xvi_apl_20090702_ecclesiae-unitatem_en.html

 

[numealinesimpet]

In what “declining” diocese has the SSPX been given an active role in priestly formation? Can you show any diocesan link to such a policy?

Samoa & 3 European dioceses. I’ll give details as they become available. They are probably on the SSPX (Asia) web site.

 

[JustaServant]

I haven’t read the whole thread, but I do want to put my two cents in.
There are two sides to every story, and often times the truth is somewhere in between.
I was a kid when all the changes came. I saw what it did to my parents and many of their generation (WW2). Timing is everything, and in hindsight, many of the changes were not implimented in a proper way. In fact, it was a textbook example, IMHO, of how NOT to impliment change. I was there, and I saw what happened. They were told the Latin Mass was now “illegal” and if they went to a TLM, they were “no longer Catholic”.
Neither of which was true. But the damage was done. And neither side could claim the high ground in those days.
That’s one of the reasons I threw my hands in the air and left the Church for twenty years.
Would different groups have broken away anyway? Perhaps, but I have a feeling the length of the separation would not have been as long. Neither liberal nor trad really seem to understand the feelings of the generation these changes occured in.
IMO the chances for reunification would have been better back in the 1990s. The longer a group is independent, and stays cut off from the Church, the harder it is for reconciliation, almost like a divorce. This is a problem Protestant churches are very familiar with. When the Anglican communion reconciled with the CC, there were still break-away groups who will never return.
When the first generation of trads started to die off, the reasons for reconcliation became dimmer for the next generation.
My parents attented an independent church back in the 1970s that had the TLM, but I can guarentee they would have run fast and far from what passes as ‘Traditionalism’ today.
I believe they would have been quite happy with the changes Pope Benedict has made to the OF. They certainly would have been happy that the EF was available again.
So what’s the problem now? It seems to me, at this point, it’s about authority. Once authority is rejected, the battle can continue for centuries.
Take my word for it, as a former Baptist.
All that can be done now, is to pray for re-unification.

 

[JReducation]

** The Faithful are being asked to abandon essential bastions of the Faith in the name of Obedience, a situation which cannot be permitted. In the last resort, one must say “I will serve God before men”. When Obedience is pitted against Faith, then Faith must prevail. Obedience is at the service of the Faith, not Faith at the service of Obedience.**

This false dichotomy is a major contributor to the rift between the traditionalist and liberal movements and the Holy See.

Our faith is grounded on the obedience of Christ. Obedience and faith are inseparable. That’s one point.

Obedience to God cannot be abstract. It has to be through a concrete means. So Christ says to his apostles, “Whatever you bind shall be bound and whatever you unbind, shall be unbound.” God does not distance himself from the authority of the Church, especially the authority of Peter. To say that one has to obey God, even if it means that one must disobey man ignores an essential component of Christian Spirituality. That is that God is never separated from the humanity of the Church. Through the hypostatic union of the second person of the Trinity, humanity and divinity come together in Jesus Christ. One cannot blend the two, nor separate them. The Church, which is the Mystical Body of Christ, is both human and divine. Otherwise, it’s someone else’s body, not Christ’s.

Therefore, to deny obedience to the legitimate authority of the Church is to deny obedience to Christ. Further, it is to refuse to be as Christ was, obedient even unto death.

To refuse to be as Christ was, is willfulness, not faith. Christian faith grows out of the obedience of Christ, which corrected the disobedience of Adam.

As St. Benedict and St. Francis both told their brothers . . . there is no faith where there disobedience to Peter.

 

[Dee_S]

** The Faithful are being asked to abandon essential bastions of the Faith in the name of Obedience, a situation which cannot be permitted. In the last resort, one must say “I will serve God before men”. When Obedience is pitted against Faith, then Faith must prevail. Obedience is at the service of the Faith, not Faith at the service of Obedience.**

This false dichotomy is a major contributor to the rift between the traditionalist and liberal movements and the Holy See.

Our faith is grounded on the obedience of Christ. Obedience and faith are inseparable. That’s one point.

Obedience to God cannot be abstract. It has to be through a concrete means. So Christ says to his apostles, “Whatever you bind shall be bound and whatever you unbind, shall be unbound.” God does not distance himself from the authority of the Church, especially the authority of Peter. To say that one has to obey God, even if it means that one must disobey man ignores an essential component of Christian Spirituality. That is that God is never separated from the humanity of the Church. Through the hypostatic union of the second person of the Trinity, humanity and divinity come together in Jesus Christ. One cannot blend the two, nor separate them. The Church, which is the Mystical Body of Christ, is both human and divine. Otherwise, it’s someone else’s body, not Christ’s.

Therefore, to deny obedience to the legitimate authority of the Church is to deny obedience to Christ. Further, it is to refuse to be as Christ was, obedient even unto death.

To refuse to be as Christ was, is willfulness, not faith. Christian faith grows out of the obedience of Christ, which corrected the disobedience of Adam.

As St. Benedict and St. Francis both told their brothers . . . there is no faith where there disobedience to Peter.

:tiphat: Br JR - and if anyone thinks it’s just religious that are called to this level of obedience then have a *re-think *- see these extracts:

“Most people to whom I’ve mentioned the idea that we are called to be obedient to our bishops have reacted with incredulity: "You mean we’re supposed to jump if he says jump?!" Well, yes, if his command relates to something clearly within his jurisdiction, and if it does not go against God’s laws. According to canon law, Christ’s faithful, conscious of their own responsibility, are bound to show Christian obedience to what the sacred Pastors, who represent Christ, declare as teachers of the faith and prescribe as rulers of the Church (Canon 212, §1). ".…while many of us are quick to assert that our faith is important to us, we don’t fully grasp what “faith” means in the context of the Church. The * Catechism * pairs the words “faith” and “obedience” repeatedly…”

"What does it mean to give assent to Catholic teaching? Some clarification can be obtained from * Donum Veritatis, * which defines three levels of assent: When the Magisterium of the Church makes an infallible pronouncement and solemnly declares that a teaching is found in Revelation, the assent called for is that of ** theological faith. ** This kind of adherence is to be given even to the teaching of the ordinary and universal Magisterium when it proposes for belief a teaching of faith as divinely revealed.

When the Magisterium proposes “in a definitive way” truths concerning faith and morals, which, even if not divinely revealed, are nevertheless strictly and intimately connected with Revelation, these must be ** firmly accepted and held.
**
When the Magisterium, not intending to act “definitively,” teaches a doctrine to aid a better understanding of Revelation and make explicit its contents, or to recall how some teaching is in conformity with the truths of faith, or finally to guard against ideas that are incompatible with these truths,** the response called for is that of the** ** religious submission of will and intellect. ** This kind of response cannot be simply exterior or disciplinary but must be understood within the logic of faith and under the impulse of obedience to the faith * (DV, §23.
"Canon law reinforces the requirement for religious submission of intellect and will in these instances, noting that "Christ’s faithful are therefore to ensure that they avoid whatever does not accord with that doctrine" (Canon 752). And there are canonical definitions for the degree of dissent an individual might manifest: Heresy * is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; * apostasy * is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; * schism * is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with members of the Church subject to him (Canon 751). **“There is no escaping it: no matter what source we examine, whether canon law, the * Catechism of the Catholic Church * or various Church documents, we will find that the faithful are bound to accept and obey the teachings of the Church. No matter which current issue is being examined, we are under an obligation to have faith in our Tradition and in the Magisterium of the Church as well as in Scripture, and to exercise the obedience of faith.”
**catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=8063

 

[JReducation]

:tiphat: Br JR - and if anyone thinks it’s just religious that are called to this level of obedience then have a *re-think *- see these extracts:

“Most people to whom I’ve mentioned the idea that we are called to be obedient to our bishops have reacted with incredulity: "You mean we’re supposed to jump if he says jump?!" Well, yes, if his command relates to something clearly within his jurisdiction, and if it does not go against God’s laws. According to canon law, Christ’s faithful, conscious of their own responsibility, are bound to show Christian obedience to what the sacred Pastors, who represent Christ, declare as teachers of the faith and prescribe as rulers of the Church (Canon 212, §1). ".…while many of us are quick to assert that our faith is important to us, we don’t fully grasp what “faith” means in the context of the Church. The * Catechism * pairs the words “faith” and “obedience” repeatedly…”

"What does it mean to give assent to Catholic teaching? Some clarification can be obtained from * Donum Veritatis, * which defines three levels of assent: When the Magisterium of the Church makes an infallible pronouncement and solemnly declares that a teaching is found in Revelation, the assent called for is that of ** theological faith. ** This kind of adherence is to be given even to the teaching of the ordinary and universal Magisterium when it proposes for belief a teaching of faith as divinely revealed.

When the Magisterium proposes “in a definitive way” truths concerning faith and morals, which, even if not divinely revealed, are nevertheless strictly and intimately connected with Revelation, these must be ** firmly accepted and held.
**
When the Magisterium, not intending to act “definitively,” teaches a doctrine to aid a better understanding of Revelation and make explicit its contents, or to recall how some teaching is in conformity with the truths of faith, or finally to guard against ideas that are incompatible with these truths,** the response called for is that of the** ** religious submission of will and intellect. ** This kind of response cannot be simply exterior or disciplinary but must be understood within the logic of faith and under the impulse of obedience to the faith * (DV, §23.
"Canon law reinforces the requirement for religious submission of intellect and will in these instances, noting that "Christ’s faithful are therefore to ensure that they avoid whatever does not accord with that doctrine" (Canon 752). And there are canonical definitions for the degree of dissent an individual might manifest: Heresy * is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; * apostasy * is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; * schism * is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with members of the Church subject to him (Canon 751). **“There is no escaping it: no matter what source we examine, whether canon law, the * Catechism of the Catholic Church *** or various Church documents, we will find that the faithful are bound to accept and obey the teachings of the Church. No matter which current issue is being examined, we are under an obligation to have faith in our Tradition and in the Magisterium of the Church as well as in Scripture, and to exercise the obedience of faith.”
catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=8063

I agree with and believe everything that you have posted here. I appreciate your research; however, don’t you think that this may be a little too much for the average person in the pew?

It may be more information than the average person really want or needs. Suffice it to say that obedience and faith are inseparable in the life of the Christian, just as they were inseparable in the life of Christ.

If the vocation of the Christian is the perfection of love, then the Christian must obey legitimate commands from legitimate authority to do the contrary is not love.

In the case of the various traditionalist groups that are in conflict with Vatican II, this puts them in conflict with the Holy See. The Holy See is legitimate authority.

Something has to give in order to maintain the disobedience.

One proves that the command is contrary to Revelation or one proves that the person issuing the command does not have the legitimate right to give such a command.

So far, neither of these have been proven. The accusation of objective disobedience stands.

The same can be said of the extreme at the liberal side. They cannot prove that the Church’s position is illegitimate or that the pope is not the pope.

 

[Tomdstone]

** The Faithful are being asked to abandon essential bastions of the Faith in the name of Obedience, a situation which cannot be permitted. In the last resort, one must say “I will serve God before men”. When Obedience is pitted against Faith, then Faith must prevail. Obedience is at the service of the Faith, not Faith at the service of Obedience.**

This false dichotomy is a major contributor to the rift between the traditionalist and liberal movements and the Holy See.

Our faith is grounded on the obedience of Christ. Obedience and faith are inseparable. That’s one point.

Obedience to God cannot be abstract. It has to be through a concrete means. So Christ says to his apostles, “Whatever you bind shall be bound and whatever you unbind, shall be unbound.” God does not distance himself from the authority of the Church, especially the authority of Peter. To say that one has to obey God, even if it means that one must disobey man ignores an essential component of Christian Spirituality. That is that God is never separated from the humanity of the Church. Through the hypostatic union of the second person of the Trinity, humanity and divinity come together in Jesus Christ. One cannot blend the two, nor separate them. The Church, which is the Mystical Body of Christ, is both human and divine. Otherwise, it’s someone else’s body, not Christ’s.

Therefore, to deny obedience to the legitimate authority of the Church is to deny obedience to Christ. Further, it is to refuse to be as Christ was, obedient even unto death.

To refuse to be as Christ was, is willfulness, not faith. Christian faith grows out of the obedience of Christ, which corrected the disobedience of Adam.

As St. Benedict and St. Francis both told their brothers . . . there is no faith where there disobedience to Peter.

Would that mean that a Catholic is denying obedience to Christ if he were to express disagreement with a situation where a Pope kisses the Koran?

 

[choliks]

Would that mean that a Catholic is denying obedience to Christ if he were to express disagreement with a situation where a Pope kisses the Koran?

I don’t think the Pope was exercising his authority in that situation.