SSPX's defense of disobedience

  • Thread starter Thread starter fakename
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
One can be “disobedient” as long as one is not schismatic (denying the primacy of Peter) or heretical. When the Pope holds his Assisi meetings, which promote false ecumenism and waters down the necessity of the Catholic faith, a Catholic is right to oppose the Pope’s actions.

The Pope can be wrong in fallible matters, and in such cases, a Catholic has a moral obligation to oppose the Pope’s actions.

Similarly, St. Paul was correct to tell St. Peter to his face that he, St. Peter, was wrong about the Gentiles and the necessity of continued adherence to the Old Law.
 
An_N said:
The Pope can be wrong in fallible matters, and in such cases, a Catholic has a moral obligation to oppose the Pope’s actions.
Click to expand...
No one can be “fallible” in matters of prudence. It makes no sense.
 
Like said:
It’s the same site as before, you know, the one you personally vouch for?!?! No way to verify you or him!:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Yes, I can say that personally after relying on that site heavily for apologetics, it’s not some fundie website or run by sedevacantists.
 
ImmaculataFides said:
Yes, I can say that personally after relying on that site heavily for apologetics, it’s not some fundie website or run by sedevacantists.
Click to expand...
By apologetics you mean apologetics for the Society to try and justify their actions?
 
Mike30 said:
What in the world is the purpose of this thread
Click to expand...
Apparently it’s about discussing how far into the Spirit of Sin one can sink without really sinning, or whether Christ’s promise to His Church needs any assistance by resistance.
 
Stylites said:
Apparently it’s about discussing how far into the Spirit of Sin one can sink without really sinning, or whether Christ’s promise to His Church needs any assistance by resistance.
Click to expand...
Explain further?
 
Pfaffenhoffen said:
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.
Click to expand...
Apparently this is in contradiction to what he signed in 1988:
[Original: French]
Click to expand...
I. Text of the Doctrinal Declaration
Click to expand...
I, Marcel Lefebvre, Archbishop-Bishop emeritus of Tulle, as well as the members of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X founded by me:
Click to expand...
  1. Promise to be always faithful to the Catholic Church and the Roman Pontiff, her Supreme Pastor, Vicar of Christ, Successor of Blessed Peter in his primacy as Head of the Body of Bishops.
Click to expand...
  1. We declare our acceptance of the doctrine contained in number 25 of the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium of the Second Vatican Council on the ecclesial Magisterium and the adherence which is due to that magisterium.
Click to expand...
  1. With regard to certain points taught by the Second Vatican Council or concerning later reforms of the liturgy and law, and which seem to us able to be reconciled with the Tradition only with difficulty, we commit ourselves to have a positive attitude of study and of communication with the Holy See, avoiding all polemics.
Click to expand...
  1. We declare in addition to recognize the validity of the Sacrifice of the Mass and of the Sacraments celebrated with the intention of doing that which the Church does and according to the rites indicated in the typical editions of the Roman Missal and the Rituals of the Sacraments promulgated by Popes Paul VI and John Paul II.
Click to expand...
  1. Finally, we promise to respect the common discipline of the Church and ecclesiastical laws, especially those contained in the Code of Canon Law promulgated by Pope John Paul II, without prejudice to the special discipline granted to the Society by particular law.
Click to expand...
unavoce.org/resources/protocol-agreement-between-rome-and-saint-pius-x/
 
Pfaffenhoffen said:
an heretic Pope? Never heard of it !!! Could you give examples?
Click to expand...
Well, since you asked…

Pope Honorius I was anathematized by the Third Council of Constantinople for the heresy of Monothelitism. It was also upheld by Leo II.

Pope Formosus, although not accused of heresy, was declared by his successor Pope Steven VI as being unworthy of the Pontificate. He was later rehabilitated only to have the declaration reapplied by Pope Sergius III.
 
There’s been some bad Popes, yes. But it’s a large stretch to compare our last two to those reprobates.
 
pnewton said:
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.
Click to expand...
For clarity’s sake I wasn’t making an analogy, just testing a hypothetical conditional statement.

Now, is it true that “danger to the Church” requires the accuser to be a heretic? Firstly, the objection is founded on what appears at first to be a mere empirical fact (that an accuser would be a heretic) and not on some higher principle. For instance, it would be like an objection to the idea that x+1=3 on the grounds that x would never = 2 but not on the grounds that x could in principle = 2. So perhaps you could explain the validity of the principle from a less “incidental” or extrinsic POV?

But also, does affirming that “the Church could be destroyed” make one a heretic? Is it possible to say that the Church could be destroyed but that it wouldn’t in fact be destroyed? Or a better question, is the Church a divine and not a merely human institution? And if the former, then does that fact entail that it cannot be destroyed?
 
fakename said:
For clarity’s sake I wasn’t making an analogy, just testing a hypothetical conditional statement.

Now, is it true that “danger to the Church” requires the accuser to be a heretic? Firstly, the objection is founded on what appears at first to be a mere empirical fact (that an accuser would be a heretic) and not on some higher principle. For instance, it would be like an objection to the idea that x+1=3 on the grounds that x would never = 2 but not on the grounds that x could in principle = 2. So perhaps you could explain the validity of the principle from a less “incidental” or extrinsic POV?

But also, does affirming that “the Church could be destroyed” make one a heretic? Is it possible to say that the Church could be destroyed but that it wouldn’t in fact be destroyed? Or a better question, is the Church a divine and not a merely human institution? And if the former, then does that fact entail that it cannot be destroyed?
Click to expand...
Correction: I checked the handy Catholic Encyclopedia and from that it appears that the Church is essentially divine. And so I deduce that it will never corrupt.

Can one infer that from the divinity of the Church?
 
“Peter you are the Rock on which I will build My Church, and the gates of Hell shall not triumph over it.”
So, the Church cannot be destroyed.
 
ByzCath said:
Disobedience, by definition, is wrong, so how could it ever be right to be wrong?
Click to expand...
Disobedience is not always wrong. If you disobey a wrong order you’ve done right. Was St. Athanasius wrong in fighting Arianism?
 
fakename said:
For clarity’s sake I wasn’t making an analogy, just testing a hypothetical conditional statement.

Now, is it true that “danger to the Church” requires the accuser to be a heretic?
Click to expand...
No, but those are th two things you listed.
But also, does affirming that “the Church could be destroyed” make one a heretic?
Click to expand...
It did for Martin Luther. As to the rest of your post, I do not play “Coulda-woulda”, that is, engaging in hypotheticals that won’t happen is not something I engage in. I misunderstood your intent earlier. I thought we were dealing in reality, or I would not have responded.
 
WFS5801 said:
Disobedience is not always wrong. If you disobey a wrong order you’ve done right. Was St. Athanasius wrong in fighting Arianism?
Click to expand...
Did St. Athanasius go about his business questioning a valid ecumenical council, and calling the Pope and the hierarchy of the Church modernists and liberals? Did he continue to hear confessions and officiate weddings despite them (unless it was near-death) being invalid? Did he perform several illicit Masses? Did he receive a list of items which dwarf those of any recent (and most of the past) religious congregations and orders, and still walk away?

Did St. Athanasius consecrate FOUR Bishops when he probably could have gotten away with just one? Did he ordain several priests illicitly?

Did his actions result in what could end up being a partial schism?

I honestly want to know if he did any of the above. If he did some of those, then I’ll accept the comparison.
 
pnewton said:
No, but those are th two things you listed. It did for Martin Luther. As to the rest of your post, I do not play “Coulda-woulda”, that is, engaging in hypotheticals that won’t happen is not something I engage in. I misunderstood your intent earlier. I thought we were dealing in reality, or I would not have responded.
Click to expand...
Let me just get my questions answered:

The divinity of the Church implies its incorruptibility no?

Also, in my experience one only knows the meaning of a statement when one knows the thing’s meaning in every possible universe so that includes even hypothetical ones. And this is necessary because not every true statement is true in every universe -there are some statements that are only true in this universe and in no other (namely contingently true statements). So it should come as no surprise that I would inquire what the logical strength of your assertions are and this requires an inquiry into hypotheticals.

So allow me to be more concrete now that you know my purpose: (1) is it tautologically, or contingently true that he who accuses the Church of being close to being destroyed must be a heretic ? Obviously the statement itself is not a tautology, but rather some other truth may be tautologically true which makes this statement always true on the supposition of the tautological statement. (2) Is such a statement “the Church is a divine institution”? (3) This is kind of the same question but generalized: are your objections to the sspx’s theory of obedience based on contingent facts or rather is your contention that the sspx’s theory is itself a contradiction and false in every possible scenario/interpretation?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top