SSPX's defense of disobedience

[fakename]

Is the SSPX’s defense of disobedience right or wrong?

Now it seems to be this: that a person can be “disobedient” (really obedient) just in the case when there is a plausible chance of Catholicism being watered down.

There was (and perhaps still is) a plausible chance of Catholicism being watered down so therefore establishing priests and bishops and such is okay even if Rome says no.

Right or Wrong?

I’ll give you the primary source too since I want to do justice to the argument:

catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/defense/mdsspx.htm

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Is the SSPX’s defense of disobedience right or wrong?

Disobedience, by definition, is wrong, so how could it ever be right to be wrong?

The Church Teaches that no evil may be done, not even for a good outcome.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church;

1789 Some rules apply in every case:

• One may never do evil so that good may result from it;
• the Golden Rule: “Whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them.”
• charity always proceeds by way of respect for one’s neighbor and his conscience: “Thus sinning against your brethren and wounding their conscience . . . you sin against Christ.” Therefore “it is right not to . . . do anything that makes your brother stumble.”

 

[1AugustSon7]

Is the SSPX’s defense of disobedience right or wrong?

Now it seems to be this: that a person can be “disobedient” (really obedient) just in the case when there is a plausible chance of Catholicism being watered down.

There was (and perhaps still is) a plausible chance of Catholicism being watered down so therefore establishing priests and bishops and such is okay even if Rome says no.

Right or Wrong?

I’ll give you the primary source too since I want to do justice to the argument:

catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/defense/mdsspx.htm

One can disobey when ordered to sin, even if the Pope does it. One could also give lawful resistance, as it were, if say the Pope caught some mental bug or was briefly poisoned such that, for ex., he madly attacked you (physical force), just like anyone can defend themselves.

However, when the command is lawful and just, one cannot disobey.

Most theologians and commentators on canon law do say that one can resist or disobey the Pope if his commands are to the ruin or destruction of the Church; that is, if his commands would destroy or unjustly injure the Church. That is certainly more difficult waters because it would appear highly subjective. Theologians say that the Pope does not have the right or power to destroy the Church (obviously), because the Papacy is established for the Church; not the Church for the Papacy.

Such decisions, of course, should be considered by the Catholic prayerfully and with fear and trembling; otherwise, it could result easily in schism and potentially even heresy if, for ex., the grounds for the resistance/disobedience is illegitimate, as that would require an apologia, so to speak, that is contrary to Faith and, therefore, also contrary to Christian doctrine.

I believe it was Saint Augustine who said that there is no schism that does not finally produce some heresy to justify itself.

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

Is the SSPX’s defense of disobedience right or wrong?

Now it seems to be this: that a person can be “disobedient” (really obedient) just in the case when there is a plausible chance of Catholicism being watered down.

There was (and perhaps still is) a plausible chance of Catholicism being watered down so therefore establishing priests and bishops and such is okay even if Rome says no.

Right or Wrong?

I’ll give you the primary source too since I want to do justice to the argument:

catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/defense/mdsspx.htm

Watered down, what is that? With more water? And what is the contrary of watered down?
And can SSPX’s members disobey SSPX and create a new church ABC?
And can ABC’s members disobey ABC to create DEF?
And can DEF’s members disobey DEF to create GHI?
and so on … ?

 

[fakename]

One can disobey when ordered to sin, even if the Pope does it. One could also give lawful resistance, as it were, if say the Pope caught some mental bug or was briefly poisoned such that, for ex., he madly attacked you (physical force), just like anyone can defend themselves.

However, when the command is lawful and just, one cannot disobey.

Most theologians and commentators on canon law do say that one can resist or disobey the Pope if his commands are to the ruin or destruction of the Church; that is, if his commands would destroy or unjustly injure the Church. That is certainly more difficult waters because it would appear highly subjective. Theologians say that the Pope does not have the right or power to destroy the Church (obviously), because the Papacy is established for the Church; not the Church for the Papacy.

Such decisions, of course, should be considered by the Catholic prayerfully and with fear and trembling; otherwise, it could result easily in schism and potentially even heresy if, for ex., the grounds for the resistance/disobedience is illegitimate, as that would require an apologia, so to speak, that is contrary to Faith and, therefore, also contrary to Christian doctrine.

I believe it was Saint Augustine who said that there is no schism that does not finally produce some heresy to justify itself.

Is there any way around the subjectivity of the judgment you speak of?

Also, is it true that for all moral judgments, one should be obedient to the pope even if the pope (or rather the person acting as pope) was wrong or is true that one should prefer to be correct rather than to be obedient to the pope?

 

[Andre1000]

There is no dogma that the Pope cannot sin or be heretic, so there could be times we have to say no! Sometime disobedience can be justified but it is important that it does not result in heresy or schism.

Under the line, if the SSPX has canonical status than their behaviour will be justified.

Watered down, what is that? With more water? And what is the contrary of watered down?
And can SSPX’s members disobey SSPX and create a new church ABC?
And can ABC’s members disobey ABC to create DEF?
And can DEF’s members disobey DEF to create GHI?
and so on … ?

The SSPX never created a new church or something like that.uch:

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

There is no dogma that the Pope cannot sin or be heretic, so there could be times we have to say no! Sometime disobedience can be justified but it is important that it does not result in heresy or schism.

Under the line, if the SSPX has canonical status than their behaviour will be justified.

The SSPX never created a new church or something like that.uch:

Well, you may say NO to the sins of the Pope, not the the dogma of the Pope. an heretic Pope? Never heard of it !!! Could you give examples? Even if there are problems with the Pope, it is better to correct the Pope as did S. Theresa of Avila or get out and disobey?

I have serious doubts whether they do not want separation…The Pope has been infinitely patient to them.
I went to their site and all I saw were attacks to the Pope and His authority. that does not seem to me very Catholic…it seems heretical.
Obedience is a must. Christ obeyed till death in the cross.

 

[Like]

Is the SSPX’s defense of disobedience right or wrong?

Now it seems to be this: that a person can be “disobedient” (really obedient) just in the case when there is a plausible chance of Catholicism being watered down.

There was (and perhaps still is) a plausible chance of Catholicism being watered down so therefore establishing priests and bishops and such is okay even if Rome says no.

Right or Wrong?

I’ll give you the primary source too since I want to do justice to the argument:

catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/defense/mdsspx.htm

WRONG!!!
The site doesn’t even say who they are other than a Mario Derksen and who is he???

People as he do not do the SSPX any favors, especially right now!

 

[Mike30]

What in the world is the purpose of this thread

 

[santoaugustine]

Please give some examples of their attacks on the Pope–I frequent their website and I have not seen examples of the allegations you are levying against the SSPX. As a matter of fact, the first thing you see when you pull up their website is a Novena for the Pope and Bishop Fellay.

Well, you may say NO to the sins of the Pope, not the the dogma of the Pope. an heretic Pope? Never heard of it !!! Could you give examples? Even if there are problems with the Pope, it is better to correct the Pope as did S. Theresa of Avila or get out and disobey?

I have serious doubts whether they do not want separation…The Pope has been infinitely patient to them.
I went to their site and all I saw were attacks to the Pope and His authority. that does not seem to me very Catholic…it seems heretical.
Obedience is a must. Christ obeyed till death in the cross.

 

[pnewton]

I will say “wrong” and side with Bl. John Paul, though I will not read the blog linked. I do not trust articles that use multiple font sizes, colors and styles. I have found a general correlation between the amount of font changes and the amount of fertilizer contained in websites.

The conditions of of the ordination do not rise to any level of emergent as I see it. The world was not about to end or the Church dissolve. The only reason I can see would be the age of the late Archbishop. God save me from every thinking I am so crucial that He can not work in my absence. Rather if the late Archbishop thought it crucial that he leave a legacy to continue his work, I do not see how that can possibly be seen as an emergncy unless one has a very high opinion of one’s role.

 

[santoaugustine]

The Lord works in mysterious ways—a patient is cured of various ailments by God through a doctor–Of course, God could cure that person instantly if He chose too, but the ordinary means He chooses is through doctors and medicine—in this case, I feel like the late Archbishop is the means God chose to preserve the Traditional Latin Mass.

I will say “wrong” and side with Bl. John Paul, though I will not read the blog linked. I do not trust articles that use multiple font sizes, colors and styles. I have found a general correlation between the amount of font changes and the amount of fertilizer contained in websites.

The conditions of of the ordination do not rise to any level of emergent as I see it. The world was not about to end or the Church dissolve. The only reason I can see would be the age of the late Archbishop. God save me from every thinking I am so crucial that He can not work in my absence. Rather if the late Archbishop thought it crucial that he leave a legacy to continue his work, I do not see how that can possibly be seen as an emergncy unless one has a very high opinion of one’s role.

 

[pnewton]

I feel like the late Archbishop is the means God chose to preserve the Traditional Latin Mass.

One could also make an argument that God worked throught the Protestant Reformation to reform the Church, but this would not make Martin Luther a saint. God worked through Judas to bring about the sacrifice of Calvary, and whe know what Jesus said about that. I guess I consider the Tridentine Mass of value to the Church. While I may be wrong, and this is totally speculative, I just don’t see God allowing it to pass, even if AB Lefebvre chose to die without his disobedient act.

 

[fakename]

I will say “wrong” and side with Bl. John Paul, though I will not read the blog linked. I do not trust articles that use multiple font sizes, colors and styles. I have found a general correlation between the amount of font changes and the amount of fertilizer contained in websites.

The conditions of of the ordination do not rise to any level of emergent as I see it. The world was not about to end or the Church dissolve. The only reason I can see would be the age of the late Archbishop. God save me from every thinking I am so crucial that He can not work in my absence. Rather if the late Archbishop thought it crucial that he leave a legacy to continue his work, I do not see how that can possibly be seen as an emergncy unless one has a very high opinion of one’s role.

But you do not object to their principles? That is, if a pope was in fact a heretic or immediately dangerous or trying to destroy the Church, then you would agree that one would not follow what that pope would command?

I ask honestly because I have never heard of these rules before. If the Church faces an emergency situation, can a person take matters into their own hands even to the point of forgoing a papal command and etc?

 

[pnewton]

But you do not object to their principles? That is, if a pope was in fact a heretic or immediately dangerous or trying to destroy the Church, then you would agree that one would not follow what that pope would command?

I ask honestly because I have never heard of these rules before. If the Church faces an emergency situation, can a person take matters into their own hands even to the point of forgoing a papal command and etc?

We might equally ask, “What if the Pope were an alien, or the Antichrist?” Extreme situations make bad analogies, but acceptable thought experiements.

Okay, let us say that the Pope ordered every Catholic to eat their own children. That would be a case of sin. No, we do not have to obey an order to commit sin. However, heresy is not so easy. First, this charge requires obstinance. Obstinance happens over time, which contravenes the concept of emergence. I would say one is required to obey and let God handle the man. “Trying to destroy the Church” is too vague to be of concrete value. This always means, “trying to destroy my image of the Church.” If one truly believes this to be happening, it is he who is in danger of heresy, for this would make Jesus a liar.

 

[ImmaculataFides]

**I will say “wrong” and side with Bl. John Paul, though I will not read the blog linked. I do not trust articles that use multiple font sizes, colors and styles. I have found a general correlation between the amount of font changes and the amount of fertilizer contained in websites. **

The conditions of of the ordination do not rise to any level of emergent as I see it. The world was not about to end or the Church dissolve. The only reason I can see would be the age of the late Archbishop. God save me from every thinking I am so crucial that He can not work in my absence. Rather if the late Archbishop thought it crucial that he leave a legacy to continue his work, I do not see how that can possibly be seen as an emergncy unless one has a very high opinion of one’s role.

I indeed found the bolded part funny. It reminds me of fundie websites.

Anyways, that website is credible. I personally vouch for it.

Have a read of this one, because its quoting a letter from Bp. Williamson himself:
catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/defense/sspx.htm

 

[pnewton]

I indeed found the bolded part funny. It reminds me of fundie websites.

Weird, isn’t it? Yes, that is one example. It does seem to hold.

 

[Like]

I indeed found the bolded part funny. It reminds me of fundie websites.

Anyways, that website is credible. I personally vouch for it.
And just who are you?

Have a read of this one, because its quoting a letter from Bp. Williamson himself:
catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/defense/sspx.htm

It’s the same site as before, you know, the one you personally vouch for?!?! No way to verify you or him!

 

[pnewton]

The site in question is critical of those that actually do have legitimate ministry in the Church and then defend a group that does not. Something is wrong to with this picture. Scan through some of the articles. I believe my mistrust is valid.

catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/currenterrors/index.htm

I searched the diocese of Sidney and do not find them listed as an approved apostolate, despite the fact they carry the name “Catholic”. For the life of me, I can find not one reason to trust them as legit. If they are operating without approval, then we should have nothing to do with them. Here is a list of approved apostolates in Sidney.

sydneycatholic.org/works/other_organisations_in_sydney.asp

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

Please give some examples of their attacks on the Pope–I frequent their website and I have not seen examples of the allegations you are levying against the SSPX. As a matter of fact, the first thing you see when you pull up their website is a Novena for the Pope and Bishop Fellay.

I saw the attacks in the website, some time ago and I cannot deny it.
Now, I see the prayers for the Pope. OK. I see it. I cannot deny it.

Now, I perused the site and saw the declaration of Archbishop Lefebvere, which I will quote below. The attack on Vatican II and all the reforms approved by the Pope is sweeping. I highlight his errors.

We hold fast, with all our heart and with all our soul, to Catholic Rome, Guardian of the Catholic faith and of the traditions necessary to preserve this faith, to Eternal Rome, Mistress of wisdom and truth.
**
We refuse, on the other hand, and have always refused to follow the Rome of neo-Modernist and neo-Protestant tendencies which were clearly evident in the Second Vatican Council **and, after the Council, in all the reforms which issued from it.

All these reforms, indeed, have contributed and are still contributing to the destruction of the Church, to the ruin of the priesthood,** to the abolition of the Sacrifice of the Mass and of the sacraments**, to the disappearance of religious life, to a naturalist and Teilhardian teaching in universities, seminaries and catechectics; a teaching derived from Liberalism and Protestantism, many times condemned by the solemn Magisterium of the Church.

No authority, not even the highest in the hierarchy, can force us to abandon or diminish our Catholic faith, so clearly expressed and professed by the Church’s Magisterium for nineteen centuries.

“But though we,” says St. Paul, “or an angel from heaven preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema” (Gal. 1:8).

Is it not this that the Holy Father is repeating to us today? And if we can discern a certain contradiction in his words and deeds, as well as in those of the dicasteries, well we choose what was always taught and we turn a deaf ear to the novelties destroying the Church.

It is impossible to modify profoundly the lex orandi without modifying the lex credendi. To the Novus Ordo Missae correspond a new catechism, a new priesthood, new seminaries, a charismatic Pentecostal Church —all things opposed to orthodoxy and the perennial teaching of the Church.