T
twiztedseraph
Guest
Thank you kind siblings in Christ for your replies. I was more worried however on the rebuttles said schismatics had on the very notion they were excommunicated. Thanks in advanced,
Seraph
Seraph
- Status
P
pnewton
Guest
This very question was addressed a (a year ago, I think) on the Ask an Apologist forum. The idea that the Pope is the one who decideds who is in communion with him and they posted the document that declared teh SSPX was not. It is a pretty clear cut arguement.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=38
U
USMC
Guest
I didn’t see the question. In what post did you originally ask that question?
The answer is that I am not a Sedevacantist.
I am a Catholic. I don’t need to be a member of any particular group. When did I say that Pope was wrong? What are you referring to?
I have no idea what that means. My quotes create a dichotomy between the Church and the magesterium? And my quotes are every bit as bad as the people who compare the Magisterium to the Pharisees? You will need to explain that to me.
Are you referring to my Papal Encyclical quotes? Those are part of the Church’s magisterium. How can a quote from the magisterium create a dichotomy with the Church? I will agree that the quotes create a dichotomy with many false teaching of churchmen today, but certainly not with the Church itslef.
If Athansaius were to quote Papal Encyclicals to refute the Arian heretics of his day would he have been creating a false dochotomy between the magisterium and the Church? Not at all; rather he would have been using the authority of the magisterium to refute those churchmen who were in error.
I have always wondered if the Arian heretics claimed “doctrinal developement” to justify their rejection of the Divinity of Jesus. “Yes, we used to think Jesus was God, but now the doctrine has developled and we know he is simply ‘God by adoption’, just like the rest of Christians”.
I did not want to get into a discussion of the excommunication of Archbishop Lefebvre, but if you insist, I will.
U
USMC
Guest
I am going to give my personal reasons for believing the archbishop did not incur the penalty of excommunication, but I am not going to argue about it.
The reason I am not going to argue my opinion, is because it is just that: my opinion. When we are dealing with a doctrinal matter, or a heresy, such as religious libery, I will argue, because my belief is not based merely on my personal opinion, but on the magisterial teachings of the Church. When we are dealing with false ecumenism, which has been condemned by the Church, but which, nevertheless, is practiced by much of the hierarchy today, I will argue. But when it is merely a matter of my opinion, I will only present the reasons for it, and leave it at that. That being said, here is the reason for my opinion:
The first thing to point out is that there are two kinds of excommunications. 1.) a person can automatically incur excommunication due to a particular action (sometime reserved to a declaration by the Holy See, sometime not); or 2.) the person can be excommunicated by the Pope for a specific action.
In other words, some actions in and of themselves bring the penalty of excommunication. However, the Pope also has the right to declare a person excommunicated, even if they have not violated one of the actions that automatically incur the penalty.
The excommunication of Archbishop Lefebvre was the first kind. John Paul II did not excommunicate him. What he did was to declare that the actions of the Archbishop resulted in his excommunication. There is a difference. The pope did not say “I hereby excommunicate Archbishop Lefebvre”. What he said was due to the actions of Archbishop Lefebvre, he has incurred the penalty of excommunication.
Now, according to canon law (1321.1) “no one is punished unless the external violation of the law or a precept committed by the person is seriously imputable to that person by reason of malice or culpability”
As this canon shows, and as will we see in a moment, there must be, not only an “external violation of the law”, but also serious subjective guilt. In other words, for a person to incur latae sentitiae excommunication, they must be subjectively guilty of a mortal sin.
Now, let’s review the canons that deal with this, and see what can diminish the subjective guilt of one who violates a law.
“Canon 1323: “The following are not subject to the penalties when they have violate a law or precept”.
1323.4: “a person who acted out of grave fear, even it only relatively grave, or out of necessity…”
So, according to canon law, a person who acted out of grave fear, or only relatively grave fear, or out of necessity, is not subject to penalties under canon law. There is no question that the reason the Archbishop took that actions he did is because he believed there was an “emergency situation” in the church, and felt it was necessary to preserve the true faith and true sacraments, which were, and are, under attack.
Archbishop Lefebvre: “We are not Schismatics and we do not want to found a new Church. Our attachment to the eternal Church is obvious. But today there is an emergency situation… What the Church has always condemned is now permitted; liberalism and communism [liberation theology] are acceptable; ecumenism is in the process of destroying our Faith”.
It is clear that he truly believed his actions were necessary and that he feared for the faith.
see next post
U
USMC
Guest
continuation…
But what if he was wrong. What if there was no actual emergency, and he was imagining a crisis where no crises existed? Firstly, that is obviously not the case. The situation in the Church is very serious, as anyone with eyes to see can see. It is similar to the days of St. Athanasius, only far, far worse. But, let’s say for the sake of argument that there is no crisis. That everything is really pretty normal, and that the Archbishop was over reacting to some relatively minor problems.
Well, according to canon law, even if he was wrong, he is still incurrs no penalty.
Canon 1323.7 says that a person who merely “believes” his actions are necessary, or who acts out of fear, incurrs to penalty: “a person who without any fault believed [subjectively] that the circumstances on nn 4 or 5 were verified.
Let’s review the canons together so we can see what it is saying:
“Canon 1323: “The following are not subject to the penalties when they have violated a law or precept”. … “a person who acted out of grave fear, even it only relatively grave, or out of necessity…” (1323.4) … “a person who without any fault believed that the circumstances on nn 4 or 5 were verified”. (1323.7)
According to canon law, for a penalty to be incurred, the person must be not only objectively guilty of violating the law, but subjectively guilty as well. So if the person merely believed (even if he was wrong) that his actions were necessary, he is not subjectively guilty. That is what it means.
Commenting of canon 1323.7 (quoted above), Oratorian canonist T.C.F. Glover say the following: “This [canon 1323.7) means, in moral theologians terms, subjective mortal sin.”
So, even if the Archbishop was wrong; if his fears were unfounded, and there was no real crisis that justified his actions, even then he is not guilty as long as he believed that his actions were necessary.
Having read many of the Archbishops writings, there’s no way I believe he was guilty of a subjective mortal sin. His writings are clear as to why he did what he did. He truly believed that the faith and sacraments were in danger, and that it was necessary to ordain Bishops so that they could ordain properly formed priest to administer the traditional sacraments. I personally agree with that. I believe that the faith is indeed in danger; I also believe that the sacraments are being tampered, which is resulting in some of them being invalid. Here are a few examples:
I’m sure you are aware of the cases of priests who now baptize “In the name of the parent, child, and holy life force”. And others who invalidly baptize “In the name of the Creator, Redeemer, and Sanctifying”. These are totally invalid baptisms. People come to these priests for baptism and leave un-baptized.
I remember hearing a story of a Catholic apologist who went on a speaking tour in Australia. He said that in three different cities he was approached after the talk with the exact same question. Three ladies came up to him (in three different cities) and said that there priest had been to “liturgical education” and that when they returned, they began to say “This *Represents My Body” at the consecration. They wanted to know if this invadlitated the Mass. Of course it does. Ther “mass” was not mass at all.
And I’m sure you are aware of the churches that now use invalid matter for communion, which completely invalidates the Mass. Rome issued a document back in 1979 to address this matter. Was the matter corrected? No, it has only gotten worse.
I remember listening to Mother Angelical one day. A person called in and said: “Mother, last Sunday at Mass the priest consecrated a cake. Was that valid? Mother Angelica said (with absolute disgust in her voice), “honey you got nothing”.
The Church is in a crisis. John Paul II took no affective actions while he was Pope and thus the problems only got worse. I am not allowed to subjectively judge the Pope for the way he governed, but no one can deny that he allowed the wolves to ravage the Church; and some of the worst wolves rose to high offices under the reign of John Paul II.
Archbishop Lefebvre (1977): “The Church is full of thieves, mercenaries and wolves. During the past 20 years, the Vatican has become friends with our enemies”
Extraordinary times such as these call for extraordinary actions. Thus, I think the Archbishop at least truly believed that what he did was necessary and justified; and if he did truly believe that, then he did not incur the penalty of excommunication.
That is my reason for believing what I do. As I said, I do not want to argue about it, because it is merely my opinion.
Now, how about giving me the definition of “the doctrine of ecumenism” that you spoke of?
But what if he was wrong. What if there was no actual emergency, and he was imagining a crisis where no crises existed? Firstly, that is obviously not the case. The situation in the Church is very serious, as anyone with eyes to see can see. It is similar to the days of St. Athanasius, only far, far worse. But, let’s say for the sake of argument that there is no crisis. That everything is really pretty normal, and that the Archbishop was over reacting to some relatively minor problems.
Well, according to canon law, even if he was wrong, he is still incurrs no penalty.
Canon 1323.7 says that a person who merely “believes” his actions are necessary, or who acts out of fear, incurrs to penalty: “a person who without any fault believed [subjectively] that the circumstances on nn 4 or 5 were verified.
Let’s review the canons together so we can see what it is saying:
“Canon 1323: “The following are not subject to the penalties when they have violated a law or precept”. … “a person who acted out of grave fear, even it only relatively grave, or out of necessity…” (1323.4) … “a person who without any fault believed that the circumstances on nn 4 or 5 were verified”. (1323.7)
According to canon law, for a penalty to be incurred, the person must be not only objectively guilty of violating the law, but subjectively guilty as well. So if the person merely believed (even if he was wrong) that his actions were necessary, he is not subjectively guilty. That is what it means.
Commenting of canon 1323.7 (quoted above), Oratorian canonist T.C.F. Glover say the following: “This [canon 1323.7) means, in moral theologians terms, subjective mortal sin.”
So, even if the Archbishop was wrong; if his fears were unfounded, and there was no real crisis that justified his actions, even then he is not guilty as long as he believed that his actions were necessary.
Having read many of the Archbishops writings, there’s no way I believe he was guilty of a subjective mortal sin. His writings are clear as to why he did what he did. He truly believed that the faith and sacraments were in danger, and that it was necessary to ordain Bishops so that they could ordain properly formed priest to administer the traditional sacraments. I personally agree with that. I believe that the faith is indeed in danger; I also believe that the sacraments are being tampered, which is resulting in some of them being invalid. Here are a few examples:
I’m sure you are aware of the cases of priests who now baptize “In the name of the parent, child, and holy life force”. And others who invalidly baptize “In the name of the Creator, Redeemer, and Sanctifying”. These are totally invalid baptisms. People come to these priests for baptism and leave un-baptized.
I remember hearing a story of a Catholic apologist who went on a speaking tour in Australia. He said that in three different cities he was approached after the talk with the exact same question. Three ladies came up to him (in three different cities) and said that there priest had been to “liturgical education” and that when they returned, they began to say “This *Represents My Body” at the consecration. They wanted to know if this invadlitated the Mass. Of course it does. Ther “mass” was not mass at all.
And I’m sure you are aware of the churches that now use invalid matter for communion, which completely invalidates the Mass. Rome issued a document back in 1979 to address this matter. Was the matter corrected? No, it has only gotten worse.
I remember listening to Mother Angelical one day. A person called in and said: “Mother, last Sunday at Mass the priest consecrated a cake. Was that valid? Mother Angelica said (with absolute disgust in her voice), “honey you got nothing”.
The Church is in a crisis. John Paul II took no affective actions while he was Pope and thus the problems only got worse. I am not allowed to subjectively judge the Pope for the way he governed, but no one can deny that he allowed the wolves to ravage the Church; and some of the worst wolves rose to high offices under the reign of John Paul II.
Archbishop Lefebvre (1977): “The Church is full of thieves, mercenaries and wolves. During the past 20 years, the Vatican has become friends with our enemies”
Extraordinary times such as these call for extraordinary actions. Thus, I think the Archbishop at least truly believed that what he did was necessary and justified; and if he did truly believe that, then he did not incur the penalty of excommunication.
That is my reason for believing what I do. As I said, I do not want to argue about it, because it is merely my opinion.
Now, how about giving me the definition of “the doctrine of ecumenism” that you spoke of?
S
Sean_O_L
Guest
USMC wrote:
The problem may be that the wrong question was asked; for only the bishops, priests and third-order lay persons are actually “members” of the SSPX. Those who attend SSPX ecclesiastical functions (the Mass, Confession, Marriage, etc.) are “adherents”. Some of the “adherents” may not be in a state of schism, but those who DO adhere to the SSPX’s position ARE schismatic and
excommunicated.
So, USMC may be asked
a) if he attends SSPX religious services;
b) if he refuses to attend liturgical functions provided in his local parish;
c) if he considers the normative liturgy of the Roman Rite - the liturgy of Pope Paul VI to be a true and proper Sacrifice, and a propitiary Sacrifice;
d) if he considers the so-called Novus Ordo Sacraments of, for example, Confirmation and Holy Orders to be valid and efficatious;
and, if he is NOT an adherent to the SSPX - then
a) to what ecclesial group does he adhere;
b) and how does he respond to b, c and d above?
It is well to remember that there are a couple of hundred ecclesial groups in the USA alone who carry in their name either “Roman Catholic” or “Catholic”, and who describe themselves as “Catholic”. Furthermore, whilst they DO acknowledge that “the Pope IS the Pope” - they are not in full communion with the Pope.
Which is, in all probabliity a skilful and correct answer.
The problem may be that the wrong question was asked; for only the bishops, priests and third-order lay persons are actually “members” of the SSPX. Those who attend SSPX ecclesiastical functions (the Mass, Confession, Marriage, etc.) are “adherents”. Some of the “adherents” may not be in a state of schism, but those who DO adhere to the SSPX’s position ARE schismatic and
excommunicated.
So, USMC may be asked
a) if he attends SSPX religious services;
b) if he refuses to attend liturgical functions provided in his local parish;
c) if he considers the normative liturgy of the Roman Rite - the liturgy of Pope Paul VI to be a true and proper Sacrifice, and a propitiary Sacrifice;
d) if he considers the so-called Novus Ordo Sacraments of, for example, Confirmation and Holy Orders to be valid and efficatious;
and, if he is NOT an adherent to the SSPX - then
a) to what ecclesial group does he adhere;
b) and how does he respond to b, c and d above?
It is well to remember that there are a couple of hundred ecclesial groups in the USA alone who carry in their name either “Roman Catholic” or “Catholic”, and who describe themselves as “Catholic”. Furthermore, whilst they DO acknowledge that “the Pope IS the Pope” - they are not in full communion with the Pope.
P
pnewton
Guest
Sean O L:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=2
(see rule 5 under Conduct)
Get ready for lots more “continued” posts.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=2
(see rule 5 under Conduct)
U
USMC
Guest
Sean O L:
But try asking most priests today if they believe the Mass is “a true and propititatory sacrifice” and see what kind of answers you get.
Sometimes I do, sometimes I attend an Indult. One of the reasons for my sometimes attending the SSPX is because on certain Sundays, at the Indult, a liberal preist gives the sermon. He spews for heresy from the pulpit, and I refuse to attend those Sundays, and place my faith in danger due to his errors.
No, as I said, I attend an Indult Mass.
Of course. Any valid Mass is a true and propitiatory sacrifice. however, not every Novus Ordo service is a valid Mass these days. (see my above post for examples).
But try asking most priests today if they believe the Mass is “a true and propititatory sacrifice” and see what kind of answers you get.
If the proper form matter and intent are used, yes they are valid.
No group. Just a normal Catholic who is trying to keep the faith during a very serious crisis.
F
Fortiterinre
Guest
Thank you, Sean OL and pnewton! Sorry I missed so much this weekend!
R
RobNY
Guest
Dearest USMC,
Your fire for the truth is amazing. I, however, find your reasoning to be incorrect here, exactly because you love the truth so much. You recognize what the liberal priest says is wrong, and you can easily identify where is diverts from Church teaching. Being as you seem to be so adept at defending yourself here, I can’t see that it would place your faith in danger. Quite honestly USMC, I have to admit I had a little chuckle thinking of some poor soul trying to peddle heresy to you, and summarily being shred to pieces. Rather, think of how it endangers the faith of those parishoners who don’t know better. Have you ever thought of confronting the priest about this? Or talking with other parishoners and educating them about his various fallings into heresy? Or if he is really preaching heresy from the pulpit, writing the bishop about it? (maybe even recording what he said, and providing direct evidence, i.e., from the CCC refuting it). (And maybe having multiple parishoners complain to the bishop.) Perhaps you could do a lot of good USMC. Yes, it may seem to be USMC contra mundum, but it may pay off in the long run, if you are thorough, and charitable and persistent.
Some people just don’t follow Catholic teaching because they don’t know what Catholic teaching is. Think of the good you can do.
Yes, I’m naive.
-Rob
M
Marian_Carroll
Guest
**In addition to the rules - it would be wise to review:
Helpful Hints for Posting
Guidelines on posting articles to Catholic Answer Forums**
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=72808
C
Catholic_Dude
Guest
USMC-
Anyway the whole joke of them not denying the authority of the pope shows just how far into people’s heads that Lefebvrist stuff has gotten. It is a clear denial of the authority of the pope, not to mention the shameful attacks against him and JP2.
The real disease is when people think themself as freedom fighters, taking the weight of the Church on their sholders, becoming the 13th Apostle (or 14th), hiding out in their basement preserving the truth for as long as needed…the Church doesnt need such thing.
It all comes down to the same dance. You guys dance and dance around what happened, you never really mention what he was exed for. What was he exed for? Ordaining successors in open defyance. Not to mention the successors will keep ordaining in defyance of the Church. To say its not an act of schism is covering your ears and eyes.
So you didnt read my link a few posts above where they trash our current pope? no shame or something? Dont tell us Ratzinger is liberal, if you read that link I posted you will see the most vilolent attacks on now Benedict XVI.
Anyway the whole joke of them not denying the authority of the pope shows just how far into people’s heads that Lefebvrist stuff has gotten. It is a clear denial of the authority of the pope, not to mention the shameful attacks against him and JP2.
Then your living in dream land. If Lefebvre didnt reconcile before or on his death bed he is in a state of grave sin and will go to hell. If you think the Church is going to turn around and say Lefebvre was a good guy and canonize him then your dreaming. The Church doesnt bow to anyone, and letting Lefebvre off the hook would only encourage future dissent.
The real disease is when people think themself as freedom fighters, taking the weight of the Church on their sholders, becoming the 13th Apostle (or 14th), hiding out in their basement preserving the truth for as long as needed…the Church doesnt need such thing.
D
DavidJoseph
Guest
Regarding religious liberty, USMC, you don’t seem to realize that the type of religious liberty that Vatican II talked about (which, btw, you ARE required to assent to under pain of mortal sin) is totally different from the kind of religious liberty that the Church has in the past condemned (and still does, btw). As Sean O L says (I hope he won’t mind me quoting from him), the latter has to do with MORAL religious freedom, while the former was against POLITICAL oppression.
The latter was against the Freemasonic liberal statements; the other against Communist dictatorships that ruled half of the world and many Catholic countries (Poland, Lithuania, Slovenia, etc), forcing their people to be godless by imposing atheism.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church illustrates this difference: 2108 *The right to religious liberty is neither a moral license to adhere to error, nor a supposed right to error, ( 37 Cf. Leo XIII, Libertas praestantissimum 18; Pius XII AAS 1953,799) but rather a natural right of the human person to civil liberty, i.e., immunity, within just limits, from external constraint in religious matters by political authorities. This natural right ought to be acknowledged in the juridical order of society in such a way that it constitutes a civil right ***(Pius XII, 6 December 1953).
2109 The right to religious liberty can of itself be neither unlimited nor limited only by a “public order” conceived in a positivist or naturalist manner (Cf. Pius VI, Quod aliquantum (1791) 10; Pius IX, Quanta cura 3). The “due limits” which are inherent in it must be determined for each social situation by political prudence, according to the requirements of the common good, and ratified by the civil authority in accordance with "legal principles which are in conformity with the objective moral order.” (cf Pío IX, enc. “Quanta cura”).
The latter was against the Freemasonic liberal statements; the other against Communist dictatorships that ruled half of the world and many Catholic countries (Poland, Lithuania, Slovenia, etc), forcing their people to be godless by imposing atheism.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church illustrates this difference: 2108 *The right to religious liberty is neither a moral license to adhere to error, nor a supposed right to error, ( 37 Cf. Leo XIII, Libertas praestantissimum 18; Pius XII AAS 1953,799) but rather a natural right of the human person to civil liberty, i.e., immunity, within just limits, from external constraint in religious matters by political authorities. This natural right ought to be acknowledged in the juridical order of society in such a way that it constitutes a civil right ***(Pius XII, 6 December 1953).
2109 The right to religious liberty can of itself be neither unlimited nor limited only by a “public order” conceived in a positivist or naturalist manner (Cf. Pius VI, Quod aliquantum (1791) 10; Pius IX, Quanta cura 3). The “due limits” which are inherent in it must be determined for each social situation by political prudence, according to the requirements of the common good, and ratified by the civil authority in accordance with "legal principles which are in conformity with the objective moral order.” (cf Pío IX, enc. “Quanta cura”).
D
DavidJoseph
Guest
Another thing (again, I get the following info from Sean O L – he’s a veritable gold mine; I hope he doesn’t mind me using his info) …
It is wrong to compare Archbishop Lefebvre to St. Athanasius. Most of St. Athanasius’ persecutors were themselves heretics, usurpers or intrusive emperors. One exception was, of course, Pope Liberius, who under duress condemned Athanasius in 357. By contrast Archbishop Lefebvre has defied legitimate holders of ecclesiastical office, including Popes Paul VI and John Paul II. It is beyond question that John Paul II is the legitimate successor of Peter and was not acting under duress when Archbishop Lefebvre manifestly violated the Holy Father’s express, personal command by ordaining four bishops without the required mandate of the Holy See in 1988. Whether the act constituted schism in the strict sense of the word does not change this, nor do the differing opinions proffered by learned canonists.
Now here’s something I’d like to add …
USMC, I don’t know for sure, but condoning Archbishop Lefebvre’s actions could very well be considered to be making oneself an accessory in his sin of schism. Two of the ways to make oneself an accessory is by praise or by defense of the evil done. For the good of your soul, think about that.
It is wrong to compare Archbishop Lefebvre to St. Athanasius. Most of St. Athanasius’ persecutors were themselves heretics, usurpers or intrusive emperors. One exception was, of course, Pope Liberius, who under duress condemned Athanasius in 357. By contrast Archbishop Lefebvre has defied legitimate holders of ecclesiastical office, including Popes Paul VI and John Paul II. It is beyond question that John Paul II is the legitimate successor of Peter and was not acting under duress when Archbishop Lefebvre manifestly violated the Holy Father’s express, personal command by ordaining four bishops without the required mandate of the Holy See in 1988. Whether the act constituted schism in the strict sense of the word does not change this, nor do the differing opinions proffered by learned canonists.
Now here’s something I’d like to add …
USMC, I don’t know for sure, but condoning Archbishop Lefebvre’s actions could very well be considered to be making oneself an accessory in his sin of schism. Two of the ways to make oneself an accessory is by praise or by defense of the evil done. For the good of your soul, think about that.
M
Melanie01
Guest
Which is what anyone attending an SPPX chapel will tell you.
U
USMC
Guest
Thank you for the compliment, but I also have my kids to worry about. They are the ones I am really concerned for, not myself. I began to write that in the original post, but ended up deleting it.
Oh yes. I have thought about it. That is a matter of prudence. You have to consider the days we are living in as well as the circumstances. Catholics are all over the board on doctrinal and moral issues today; and often times priests have been taught their false teachings in Seminary. Priests get confronted all the times from both sides (conservative and liberal). That does not mean they should not be confronted when they are in error, but you have to excercise prudence with that sitution, and know when to speak up and when not to.
Believe me, if a priest speaks heresy from the pulpit at an Indult Mass he will hear about it. Catholics who attend the Indult are usually solid in the faith, and pretty fervent. The priest I spoke of received many letters regarding his heresies from the parishioners at that Mass.
So far I have only been there for two sermons when he spoke heresy. I judged not to confront him those time, but if it happens again I may.
After his first heresy, there was such an uproar that another priest (who says our Indult Mass from time to time), sent out an e-mail that refuted the heresy spoken by the liberal priest. He did not name the liberal priest, but simply explained the Catholic doctrine as the Church teaches it.
Would the letter begin this way: “Dear Wolfe, one one your priest spoke heresy from the pulpit.” Knowing our Bishop, he probably agrees with him.
I agree with you that we should do what we can to correct the heresy and abuses that take place in the Church, and I do do that. But, many people mistakenly believe that we have some kind of obligation to attend a Church where abuses and heresy are standard operating procedure. That is false. Hers’s why.
continue
U
USMC
Guest
continue
Obedience is a very great virtue, correct? The reason obedience is such a good thing is because it keeps us from doing our own will. If we obey our superiors for the sake of God, then when we obey them we are actually obeying God Himself. Obedience is certainly the most safe course for this difficult life.
However, faith, since it is a supernatural virtue, is much greater than obedience. Obedience is a moral virtue. When we are dealing with moral virtues, we can deviate on either side: either we can fail to obey when we should, or we can deviate in the other direction by obeying when we should not. For example if a superior told us to sin, obviously we should not obey; and if we did, even though we were “obeying” we would still be guilty. Moral virtues are a balance point between the two extremes: they are not an absolute. We need to have a good understanding of this in the days in which we live.
Since Faith is a supernatural virtue, and since obedience is a lesser moral virtue, we should not obey if such obedience is a danger to our faith. That would be an excess in obedience. It would be, what is known as, false obedience
If we lose our faith, there is no hope of salvation (unless we later go it back). Faith is the foundation of the supernatural life. No faith, no grace. No grace, no salvation. Any obedience that endangers our faith is false obedience. We have absolutely no obligation to obey if that obedience will endanger our faith, or the faith of our children.
But many do not understand this. They are aware that obedience is a very great virtue, but they don’t understand that if obedience endangers our faith we should not obey. They falsely believe that they have an obligation to put up with the abuses and heresies at their local parish. I have heard many good conservative Catholics tell how they leave Church practically sick each Sunday due to what they witnessed. They may not realize it, but that is an occaision of sin against their faith. Think about how many Catholics have fallen away in recent years. They get sick of the non-sense at their local parish, gradually lose the faith, and end up falling away all together.
Attending a Mass that puts my children’s faith in danger is a sin on my part; possibly mortal, depending on the circumstances.
You can say what you want about the SSPX, but the Catholic Church is suffering a serious crisis of faith in our day, and the faith at the SSPX is very solid. In addition, the externals are perfect: great reverence at Mass; no talking at all before or after Mass; beautiful music, etc…
Even if the SSPX is in schism, attendance at their Mass durring days like ours, is justified. Canon law itself allows Catholic to attend a schismatic Church (such as the Orthodox church) in times of necessity.
I’ll have to respond to the other posts later.
Obedience is a very great virtue, correct? The reason obedience is such a good thing is because it keeps us from doing our own will. If we obey our superiors for the sake of God, then when we obey them we are actually obeying God Himself. Obedience is certainly the most safe course for this difficult life.
However, faith, since it is a supernatural virtue, is much greater than obedience. Obedience is a moral virtue. When we are dealing with moral virtues, we can deviate on either side: either we can fail to obey when we should, or we can deviate in the other direction by obeying when we should not. For example if a superior told us to sin, obviously we should not obey; and if we did, even though we were “obeying” we would still be guilty. Moral virtues are a balance point between the two extremes: they are not an absolute. We need to have a good understanding of this in the days in which we live.
Since Faith is a supernatural virtue, and since obedience is a lesser moral virtue, we should not obey if such obedience is a danger to our faith. That would be an excess in obedience. It would be, what is known as, false obedience
If we lose our faith, there is no hope of salvation (unless we later go it back). Faith is the foundation of the supernatural life. No faith, no grace. No grace, no salvation. Any obedience that endangers our faith is false obedience. We have absolutely no obligation to obey if that obedience will endanger our faith, or the faith of our children.
But many do not understand this. They are aware that obedience is a very great virtue, but they don’t understand that if obedience endangers our faith we should not obey. They falsely believe that they have an obligation to put up with the abuses and heresies at their local parish. I have heard many good conservative Catholics tell how they leave Church practically sick each Sunday due to what they witnessed. They may not realize it, but that is an occaision of sin against their faith. Think about how many Catholics have fallen away in recent years. They get sick of the non-sense at their local parish, gradually lose the faith, and end up falling away all together.
Attending a Mass that puts my children’s faith in danger is a sin on my part; possibly mortal, depending on the circumstances.
You can say what you want about the SSPX, but the Catholic Church is suffering a serious crisis of faith in our day, and the faith at the SSPX is very solid. In addition, the externals are perfect: great reverence at Mass; no talking at all before or after Mass; beautiful music, etc…
Even if the SSPX is in schism, attendance at their Mass durring days like ours, is justified. Canon law itself allows Catholic to attend a schismatic Church (such as the Orthodox church) in times of necessity.
I’ll have to respond to the other posts later.
U
USMC
Guest
Not so. MOST people who attend an SSPX Church will proudly tell you they are a member of the SSPX.
U
USMC
Guest
Thank you for the compliment, but I also have my kids to worry about. They are the ones I am really concerned for, not myself. I began to write that in the original post, but ended up deleting it.
Oh yes. I have thought about it. That is a matter of prudence. You have to consider the days we are living in as well as the circumstances. Catholics are all over the board on doctrinal and moral issues today; and often times priests have been taught their false teachings in Seminary. Priests get confronted all the times from both sides (conservative and liberal). That does not mean they should not be confronted when they are in error, but you have to excercise prudence with that sitution, and know when to speak up and when not to.
Believe me, if a priest speaks heresy from the pulpit at an Indult Mass he will hear about it. Catholics who attend the Indult are usually solid in the faith, and pretty fervent. The priest I spoke of received many letters regarding his heresies from the parishioners at that Mass.
So far I have only been there for two sermons when he spoke heresy. I judged not to confront him those time, but if it happens again I may.
After his first heresy, there was such an uproar that another priest (who says our Indult Mass from time to time), sent out an e-mail that refuted the heresy spoken by the liberal priest. He did not name the liberal priest, but simply explained the Catholic doctrine as the Church teaches it.
Would the letter begin this way: “Dear Wolfe, one one your priest spoke heresy from the pulpit.” Knowing our Bishop, he probably agrees with him.
I agree with you that we should do what we can to correct the heresy and abuses that take place in the Church, and I do do that. But, many people mistakenly believe that we have some kind of obligation to attend a Church where abuses and heresy are standard operating procedure. That is false. Hers’s why.
continue
T
twiztedseraph
Guest
I can agree with that.
- Status