The SSPX and True Catholicism

[Andreas_Hofer]

We also have “passive” and “active” schism and “mixed” schism as well. But if you look it up on New Advent, it’s very clear that not all disobedience is schismatic. Accompanying it must be the denial of the Divine right of the Pontiff to rule.

I thought I’d be nice and leave out passive schism, but I guess since you’ve brought it in you accept that the SSPX is in some sort of schism.

They call passive schism the condition of those whom the Church herself rejects from her bosom by excommunication, inasmuch as they undergo this separation whether they will or no, having deserved it. Hence, this article will deal directly only with active schism, which is schism properly so-called. It is nevertheless clear that so-called passive schism not only does not exclude the other, but often supposes it in fact and theory. newadvent.org/cathen/13529a.htm

And doesn’t anyone see something fishy about the supposed recognition of the pontiffs by the SSPX? It’s as if they are saying, “We don’t deny your divine right to rule, Your Holiness, we just deny that you have any power to penalize us for setting up a separate hierarchy that doesn’t obey you.”

 

[pnewton]

Disobedience does not constitute schism. A letter saying that the consecrations would be an act of schism is simply a bluff. This is why there are so many prelates and canon lawyers who disagree on this issue. JPII was wrong, plain and simple.

. How can you know that a letter is a bluff. A thousand canon lawyers do not make a pope. Again this is evidence of lip service to the pontiff while denying him authority of office. No one but the Church can define who is communion with her. This is an appeal to false authority only if one assumes the authority of the pope is false.

A soldier that chooses to disobey lawful orders and leaves the ranks is at best a deserter and at worst a traitor.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

I don’t think you understand what is meant by disciplinary infallibility.

From the CE.

*"…To claim that disciplinary infallibility consists in regulating, without possibility of error, the adaptation of a general law to its end, is equivalent to the assertion of a (quite unnecessary) positive infallibility, which the incessant abrogation of laws would belie and which would be to the Church a burden and a hindrance rather than an advantage, since it would suppose each law to be the best. Moreover, it would make the application of laws to their end the object of a positive judgment of the Church; this would not only be useless but would become a perpetual obstacle to disciplinary reform." *

Under normal circumstances a law regulating the consecration of bishops being reserved to the Holy See is quite appropriate. Unfortunately we are not in “normal circumstances”

The cases of LeFebvre and Card. Husar and any Chinese bishops that we don’t know about are exceptions that Canon Law takes into account.

A situation like Milingo consecrating married priests for the purpose of continuing a push for the agenda against celibacy is a different matter entirely. (with the possible exception that Milingo being a famous exorcist, is demonically possessed. This could be why the Vatican will not recognize the consecrations as valid)

I’m not sure your citation says what you think it means, either. All through the passage it makes reference to laws themselves, the application of which to their end is, I believe, meant to refer to their ability to accomplish their purpose. Basically, it says we have no reason to think our laws are ideally suited to bringing about their intended end. I think it’s referring much more to a sort of impeccability in lawmaking than in applying to specific circumstances, but even if it is referring to the judgment of specific cases, that’s not the argument I was trying to make.

What I was trying to say is a jurisprudential matter that may not bear out because of the differences between civil and canon law. Essentially, by making clear that in legally defining schism as refusal of submission (not denial of authority - note that the law and St. Thomas theological definition differ here) he intended to include ordaining bishops without papal mandate, John Paul II was defining the law, a second-order level of legislating, and not deciding whether or not the particular case of Abp. Lefebvre’s (future) ordinations was punishable under that law, an act of adjudication. That is why I invoked disciplinary infallibility, merely to show that it could not be immoral to require papal mandate since the law itself cannot bind individuals to immorality. A canonist is free to correct my belief that the lawmaker’s clarification of his own law authoritatively shapes the meaning of the law. Maybe he has to put it in the canon for it to count.

Remaining open to correction on the use of disciplinary infallibility in this particular case, then, I’d like to address your comparison of Abp. Lefebvre with Chinese bishops (I don’t know the specifics of Cdl. Husar’s case so can’t bring it in). I think you’re comparing apples to oranges. Knowing that necessity can create legitimate exceptions to the law, I think we can see why unknown Chinese bishops might be consecrated without breaking communion. The circumstances in those cases would be that the consecrator is physically or morally impeded from communicating with Rome in order to obtain permission but can assume the consent of the pontiff to ordinations needed to maintain the Church. There is no papal mandate, but there is reason to believe the conditions preventing the communications necessary for that mandate will persist too long (in some cases, like marriage, the law defines the period of time that can be considered too long).

In Abp. Lefebvre’s case, however, the circumstances were different. First, there was no shortage of bishops; the Abp. just didn’t consider his brothers in the episcopate good enough at their jobs. Second, there was ample opportunity to communicate with the Holy See, opportunity of which the SSPX availed itself. Third, instead of a mere lack of mandate there was a clear order from the pope not to ordain bishops until such time as the society was given canonical organization. (The protocol signed by Abp. Lefebvre agrees to let him carry out his planned priestly ordinations immediately but defers the ordination of a bishop until after the erection of a society of apostolic life. fssp.org/en/protoc5mai.htm)

So we can compare the situation of the Chinese with a potential lack of an episcopate, impossibility of communication with Rome, no wish expressed against ordinations, and reason to believe this condition would persist indefinitely to the situation of the SSPX surrounded by a plethora of bishops, easily able to communicate with Rome, a clear order not to ordain bishops at the time, and reason to believe this order would cease after the requisite canonical steps had been taken.

 

[sfp]

…The SSPX profess a loyalty to the Holy Father. They just refuse the New Mass, and consequently anything the Holy Father does in support of the New Mass…

And here lies the contradiction. :banghead:

No, it does not warrant the scorn and condemnation that is obviously dis-proportionate. However, the liturgy and the mass, among many other things, are DISCIPLINARY, not doctinal, and can change over time without discrediting anything regarding the faith.

Here’s what I believe the SSPX fails to see (based on your comment above, if that is what they truly believe)…
If the Holy Father and the magesterium feel guided by the Holy Spirit that it is appropriate and in the best interest of the faithful to allow mass to be said in the vernacular, for example, then we as Catholics MUST believe that this comes from God, because we believe that God gives the magesterium the AUTHORITY to make these decisions! It really is pretty simple.

It is completely contradictory to “reason” and “logic” to believe that the magesterium has apostolic succession and the protection of the H.S. from err in teaching the faith, but then to “reject” the magesterium’s authority to tell us what are acceptable DISCIPLINES in the Church.

This makes NO sense to me. Please enlighten me.

 

[djrakowski]

And here lies the contradiction. :banghead:

No, it does not warrant the scorn and condemnation that is obviously dis-proportionate. However, the liturgy and the mass, among many other things, are DISCIPLINARY, not doctinal, and can change over time without discrediting anything regarding the faith.

Here’s what I believe the SSPX fails to see (based on your comment above, if that is what they truly believe)…
If the Holy Father and the magesterium feel guided by the Holy Spirit that it is appropriate and in the best interest of the faithful to allow mass to be said in the vernacular, for example, then we as Catholics MUST believe that this comes from God, because we believe that God gives the magesterium the AUTHORITY to make these decisions! It really is pretty simple.

It is completely contradictory to “reason” and “logic” to believe that the magesterium has apostolic succession and the protection of the H.S. from err in teaching the faith, but then to “reject” the magesterium’s authority to tell us what are acceptable DISCIPLINES in the Church.

This makes NO sense to me. Please enlighten me.

:clapping:

I think you’ve done an excellent job of summing up the confusion many of us on the outside have regarding the SSPX and other hardcore traditionalist movements. I’m looking forward to the answer, as well.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

Here’s what I believe the SSPX fails to see (based on your comment above, if that is what they truly believe)…
If the Holy Father and the magesterium feel guided by the Holy Spirit that it is appropriate and in the best interest of the faithful to allow mass to be said in the vernacular, for example, then we as Catholics MUST believe that this comes from God, because we believe that God gives the magesterium the AUTHORITY to make these decisions! It really is pretty simple.

What traditionalists will be quick to point out, be they SSPX or FSSP or any other stripe, is that we do NOT in fact have to believe whatever discipline we have comes from God. Rather, we have to believe it is not contrary to faith or morals, even if it may not be precisely God’s ideal.

 

[GerardP]

Well if that isn’t begging the question, I don’t know what is…

At any rate, I am perfectly content to let the citation stand as is. The reader can decide whether or not it seems particularly close to the situation of Abp. Lefebvre and his confederates.

You must not understand that you’ve begged the question by using the citation. You’d have to prove that LeFebvre was schismatic in order to apply a definition that presupposes a schism.

This is the classic “poisoning of the well” that Cardinal Newman described when one of his opponents called him a liar without any support and every answer after that was practically “Well, that’s what a liar would say.”

 

[sfp]

What traditionalists will be quick to point out, be they SSPX or FSSP or any other stripe, is that we do NOT in fact have to believe whatever discipline we have comes from God. Rather, we have to believe it is not contrary to faith or morals, even if it may not be precisely God’s ideal.

Interesting. I’d be curious to know if this is, in fact, their stance. If so, I again say that it’s contrary to “logic.”

If they believe that the magesterium was not protected by the H.S. on disciplinary issues, then technically they believe that the magesterium “could have” made a mistake on many disciplinary changes…so why do they believe ANYTHING that the magesterium has taught over the centuries??

(Why do they believe that the mass setting that they celebrate is o.k., when we know for a fact that it is completely different from the disciplines of the first few centuries, for example.)

I mean, why pick out one particular century as their benchmark for liturgical disciplines? Or are they really that naive *(no offense intended) *to think that “their” disciplines and non-doctinal traditions existed from day one??

 

[GerardP]

I thought I’d be nice and leave out passive schism,but I guess since you’ve brought it in you accept that the SSPX is in some sort of schism.

Only if you accept the term “false accusation of schism.”

Your citation has an interesting caveat:

They call passive schism the condition of those whom the Church herself rejects from her bosom by excommunication, inasmuch as they undergo this separation whether they will or no,* having deserved it***.

Did you see those words? “Having deserved it.” Again we are back to a matter of objective justice. JPII on one hand tells LeFebvre there is no necessity, on the other hand, he says at the beginning of his pontificate and at the end of his pontificate that the Church is in trouble (ie. Silent Apostasy)

Anyone with eyes to see and the Catholic faith can see that a grave injustice was done to LeFebvre and the Popes did nothing to help him but instead helped the apostates that persecuted him.

And doesn’t anyone see something fishy about the supposed recognition of the pontiffs by the SSPX? It’s as if they are saying, “We don’t deny your divine right to rule, Your Holiness, we just deny that you have any power to penalize us for setting up a separate hierarchy that doesn’t obey you.”

How is that different from simply putting into actions the teachings of St. Robt. Bellarmine among others about the licitness of resisting a Pontiff who damages the faith?

Better yet, broaden out the question to establish our boundaries. At what point do you think it’s incumbent on the faithful to resist the Pope? Just how bad do you think a Pope can be? Draw that line carefully. Because where it’s drawn has to be backed by the Church’s teaching and everything imaginable on the one side is allowed.

 

[GerardP]

I’m not sure your citation says what you think it means, either. …specific cases, that’s not the argument I was trying to make.

Well then the argument that JPII’s judgement on canon law must be correct because he is the legislator falls flat. The law itself may be good Church common sense law but the application of those laws is completely fallible.

There is nothing preventing a Pope from abusing his own laws.

What I was trying to say is a jurisprudential matter that may not bear out because of the differences between civil and canon law. … and not deciding whether or not the particular case of Abp. Lefebvre’s (future) ordinations was punishable under that law, an act of adjudication.

The canon law has the ambiguity in it. “Submission” does not equate to “servility”. It doesn’t imply irresistibility.

That is why I invoked disciplinary infallibility, merely to show that it could not be immoral to require papal mandate since the law itself cannot bind individuals to immorality.

The law under normal circumstances is a good law for the regulation of the Church. But a law against trespassing isn’t there to prevent your neighbor from running across your lawn with a hose to put the fire out. We are in a state of emergency in the Church.

A canonist is free to correct my belief that the lawmaker’s clarification of his own law authoritatively shapes the meaning of the law. Maybe he has to put it in the canon for it to count.

In other words you are saying the Emperor’s new clothes look great even if he’s standing there naked?

Remaining open to correction on the use of disciplinary infallibility in this particular case, then, I’d like to address your comparison of Abp. Lefebvre with Chinese bishops (I don’t know the specifics of Cdl. Husar’s case so can’t bring it in). I think you’re comparing apples to oranges.

A Canon Lawyer and I discussed this. When I pointed out 100 bishops of the Chinese, who take an oath of loyalty to China against the Pope. No document was out in 24 hours stating they’ve excommunicated themselves, the Lawyer said JPII had to be careful because lives are threatened. (how he can read the Pope’s mind I didn’t know)

So, I asked if following that logic Archbishop LeFebvre could’ve avoided being a target by putting a gun to the heads of the bishops and threatening the Pope that he would kill them if he were censured in any way. The lack of answer that I recieved pointed highlighted that the meat of the matter was Church politics and not actually about standing up for Christ and His Church.

In Abp. Lefebvre’s case, however, the circumstances were different. First, there was no shortage of bishops; the Abp. just didn’t consider his brothers in the episcopate good enough at their jobs.

That is reasonable since any number of the “good ones” suggested that LeFebvre consecrate in secret on film and they would back him when the situation cleared.

Second, there was ample opportunity to communicate with the Holy See, opportunity of which the SSPX availed itself.

Here we run into the political machinery at the Vatican that was making every effort to thwart LeFebvre. 3 times LeFebvre postponed the consecrations at the request of Rome. He was convinced they were waiting for him to die.

Third, instead of a mere lack of mandate there was a clear order from the pope not to ordain bishops until such time as the society was given canonical organization. (The protocol signed by Abp. Lefebvre agrees to let him carry out his planned priestly ordinations immediately but defers the ordination of a bishop until after the erection of a society of apostolic life. fssp.org/en/protoc5mai.htm)

There was actually no promise of a bishop from the Holy Father. There was the suggestion to the Holy Father of a bishop. "…and canonical solution of reconciliation, we suggest to the Holy Father that he name a bishop "

So we can compare the situation of the Chinese with
a potential lack of an episcopate,

We have that here and now with the “silent apostasy” that JPII didn’t admit of until years later.

impossibility of communication with Rome,

We had and have that now with the bureaucracy that is now publicly fighting the Holy Father over the TLM. LeFebvre even stated that they have two different concepts of what words mean. He called it a 20 year dialogue with the deaf.

no wish expressed against ordinations, and reason to believe this condition would persist indefinitely

We have no idea how long this apostasy is going to last.

to the situation of the SSPX …

The situations are much more similar than you’d think.

reason to believe this order would cease after the requisite canonical steps had been taken.

That is debatable since Fr. Bisig was promised a bishop that has not yet arrived and protocol 1411 showed up soon after.

 

[GerardP]

. How can you know that a letter is a bluff. A thousand canon lawyers do not make a pope. Again this is evidence of lip service to the pontiff while denying him authority of office. No one but the Church can define who is communion with her. This is an appeal to false authority only if one assumes the authority of the pope is false.

A soldier that chooses to disobey lawful orders and leaves the ranks is at best a deserter and at worst a traitor.

I know the letter is a bluff because “schism” has a specific meaning and the circumstances didn’t warrant that word.

Canon Lawyers vs Popes is once again the argument to authority.

You are basically saying a Pope is irresistible, the Pope is impeccable and the Pope is immaculate.

If you don’t agree than you are saying the Pope is resistible is not impeccable and is not immaculate.

Lines have to be understood at where true obedience turns to false obedience and where resistance is obligatory for Catholics even if its against their superiors, like Paul and Peter at Antioch.

History and the teaching of the Church prove you wrong on all of those points.

The Pope is not “The Church” as Cardinal Ottaviani said when he described the Apostles running away at the Garden and hiding during the crucifixion, "That was the first act of collegiality by the bishops in union with the Pope. "

 

[djrakowski]

I know the letter is a bluff because “schism” has a specific meaning and the circumstances didn’t warrant that word.

Upon what basis do you make this statement? You know this letter is a bluff… based upon what objective evidence?

 

[GerardP]

Upon what basis do you make this statement? You know this letter is a bluff… based upon what objective evidence?

From Archbishop LeFebvre’s letter to the Holy Father on June 2, 1988:

*Being radically opposed to this destruction of our Faith and determined to remain within the traditional doctrine and discipline of the Church, especially as far as the formation of priests and the religious life is concerned, we find ourselves in the absolute necessity of having ecclesiastical authorities who embrace our concerns and will help us to protect ourselves against the spirit of Vatican II and the spirit of Assisi.

That is why we are asking for several bishops chosen from within Catholic Tradition, and for a majority of the members on the projected Roman Commission for Tradition, in order to protect ourselves against all compromise.

Given the refusal to consider our requests, and it being evident that the purpose of this reconciliation is not at all the same in the eyes of the Holy See as it is in our eyes, we believe it preferable to wait for times more propitious for the return of Rome to Tradition. That is why we shall give ourselves the means to carry on the work which Providence has entrusted to us, being assured by His Eminence Cardinal Ratzinger’s letter of May 30th that the episcopal consecration is not contrary to the will of the Holy See, since it was granted for August 15th.*

Taking that into account and comparing it with the Holy Father’s reply of June 9 you’ll see an interesting use of language:

“With a paternal heart, but with all the gravity required by the current circumstances, I urge you, Revered Brother, not to embark upon a course which, if persisted in, cannot but appear as a schismatic act whose inevitable theological and canonical consequences are well known to you. I earnestly invite you to return, in humility, **to full obedience **to the Vicar of Christ.”

Three things:

An urge is not a command.

An “appearance” is not necessarily the reality.

“Full” obedience is an undefined term vs. the Thomistic understanding of obedience used in Vatican I of “true obedience” which LeFebvre and JPII both knew.

From the wording the Holy Father used, it’s easy to tell that he knew that he didn’t stand on the moral high ground and he purposely avoided trying to invoke any sort of authority that would have been a sinful command. It would have moved the discussion out of the political realm and into the theological realm and LeFebvre would have won that argument hands down.

JPII admitted as much in the context of his statement about the silent apostasy in the Church.

B16 has admitted as much from his 2005 meditations on the Stations of the Cross.

They are parrotting the words of LeFebvre from years prior but in 1988 they weren’t admitting there were any problems.

 

[GerardP]

And here lies the contradiction. :banghead:

However, the liturgy and the mass, among many other things, are DISCIPLINARY, not doctinal, and can change over time without discrediting anything regarding the faith.

You have to be aware that there was a modernist liturgical movement pushing for reform in the Liturgy that was condemned continually by the pre-conciliar Popes. Read the condemnations of the Synod of Pistoia. All the way up to Mediator Dei of Pius XII. All of the innovations that were condemned as “rash, offensive to pious ears” and “suicidal” were suddenly allowed on “experimental bases” The Liturgy was thrown into the lab and Our Lord is abused as the consequence.

While the Holy Father is trying to figure out some way to reconcile Vatican II with the preconciliar Church, more and more souls are suffering and/or being lost.

Here’s what I believe the SSPX fails to see (based on your comment above, if that is what they truly believe)…
If the Holy Father and the magesterium feel guided by the Holy Spirit

Hold it right there. There is no new revelation. The Holy Spirit protects from error with a negative charism. If the Holy Father believes he is guided by the Holy Ghost to have a committee draw up a new liturgy, no one is bound to belief that he actually is being guided by the Holy Ghost.

that it is appropriate and in the best interest of the faithful to allow mass to be said in the vernacular, for example, then we as Catholics MUST believe that this comes from God, because we believe that God gives the magesterium the AUTHORITY to make these decisions! It really is pretty simple.

Here lies the contradiction. Going by that, every condemnation of vernacular Masses by the Popes either was guided by a contradictory God or by Popes that were not guided by the Holy Ghost and if they were not, how can we know that the modern Popes have been guided? One of these sets of Popes must be right and the other wrong. Paul VI and Pius XI agreed on issues of life. They obviously disagreed on issues of Liturgy. I side with Pius XII because he has tradition on his side. And he was prophetic in his evaluation of the consequences of radically changing the liturgy.

It is completely contradictory to “reason” and “logic” to believe that the magesterium has apostolic succession and the protection of the H.S. from err in teaching the faith, but then to “reject” the magesterium’s authority to tell us what are acceptable DISCIPLINES in the Church.

I don’t understand your use of the word “magisterium.” The Magisterium is something that is invoked by the heirarchy of the Church, The Pope in certain circumstances and the Pope with the Bishops in certain circumstances. It’s the episcopate that has apostolic succession and the heirarchy has both Apostolic Succession and the ability to invoke the Magisterium.

On the main thrust of your point: Protection from error is only on matters of faith and morals, disciplines (which are really policies of governance) are not protected. So, no traditionalist will argue against a Pope who binds a teaching to be held by all the faithful. Communion in the hand though, is a policy that Paul VI allowed against his better judgement. If it turns out its harmful to the faithful, then that discipline should be shelved. JPII was against communion in the hand but let it go. What was the real will of the Pontiffs? Who knows?

 

[GerardP]

If they believe that the magesterium was not protected by the H.S. on disciplinary issues, then technically they believe that the magesterium “could have” made a mistake on many disciplinary changes…so why do they believe ANYTHING that the magesterium has taught over the centuries??

The magisterium doesn’t “teach” the magisterium is the “authority” to teach. It is invoked by the heirarchy. Obviously not all issues in the Church were magisterial.
When the magisterium is invoked, traditionalists accept.

The problem is when policies are treated like magisterial teachings. When the prove to be failures many people who believe this are either forced to bend their minds to accept a contradiction or they fall into either sedevacantism or lose their faith entirely.

(Why do they believe that the mass setting that they celebrate is o.k., when we know for a fact that it is completely different from the disciplines of the first few centuries, for example.)

For the same reasons Pius XII among others condemned the return of earlier forms of the Liturgy. Read Mediator Dei. And I suggest you read Michael Davies wonderful booklet “A Short History of the Roman Mass” It might be online.

I mean, why pick out one particular century as their benchmark for liturgical disciplines? Or are they really that naive *(no offense intended) *to think that “their” disciplines and non-doctinal traditions existed from day one??

The answer to your second question is “no” The TLM developed over centuries. But the essentials of the TLM go back to the fourth century. On your first point, the issue is not that one particular century has been picked out. (For one thing it’s about 10 centuries of virtually the same identical Liturgy and the root rite is still encompassed in the Liturgy. )

An interesting point of Bishop Williamson was “If Rome had promulgated a new rite that was superior in all respects to the TLM, then no one would have a complaint.” But the Novus Ordo has so many deficiencies even in the Latin original that no one can honestly make that claim.

People as far and wide as the Holy Father, Klaus Gamber, Michael Davies, Fr. Joseph Fessio etc while they may not all be interested in a straightforward return to the TLM, (eg. Fr. Fessio and Gamber) they are all painfully aware of the substandard quality of the Novus Ordo when it comes to the proper expression of the Catholic Faith. Especially when it is judged against the TLM.

 

[pnewton]

You are basically saying a Pope is irresistible, the Pope is impeccable and the Pope is immaculate

No. You can add words all day long, but for the third time, I am saying the Pope has authority. He carries the keys. That means he is to be obeyed, unless there is a very clear moral reason not to, like an order for every Catholic to kill one Muslim. I can not imagine any thing that the SSPX stands for that rises to a level where a priest would break his vow of obedience and defy the authority of God on this earth, unless one denies that authority.

In my personal life, I obey lawful orders given by those in authority, whether I agree or not. I would never in defiant pride refuse to obey an order that did not involve criminal activity.

I hope we have no SSPX in the military. That would be a scary thought.

 

[sfp]

Here lies the contradiction. Going by that, every condemnation of vernacular Masses by the Popes either was guided by a contradictory God or by Popes that were not guided by the Holy Ghost and if they were not, how can we know that the modern Popes have been guided? One of these sets of Popes must be right and the other wrong…

First of all, I want to commend you for your responses. Even though I feel you are still missing the point, you have very good intentions and intelligent responses. Thank you for expressing your views that I would not have otherwise understood from SSPX.

Here’s where I feel you guys are missing it…
It seems as if you assume that because differing popes have different views on matters of discipline, that this somehow “negates” their credibility, and that it somehow suggests that “If one is right, then the other must have been wrong.”

No no no no!
:tsktsk:

On matters of discipline, NO POPE is right or wrong. Disciplines can change, neither is right or wrong, we MUST believe that due to the protection of the H.S., that the Popes will make decisions on disciplinary and liturgical issues WHEN SOCIETY IS READY. Just because it was not right AT THAT TIME during one Pope’s reign, doesn’t mean it’s not right for the next generation.

Look at it this way…
God did not always permit divorce, but because of the hardness of the Israelites’ hearts, he permitted it through Mosaic law. Once society was “ready,” Jesus let it be known that it was never so, and He corrected us all. Now, this was a MUCH more “serious” change than “whether or not you may receive the Eucharist in the hand or not,” but everyone knows from the Bible that this is what God allowed to happen…(but no one would suggest that somehow Moses “got it wrong!”) NO, they would say as it’s always been said…God reveals His plan to us according to His timetable only, and there is DEVELOPMENT in our understanding of this revelation (No new revelation…YES, we agree, but our “understanding” of His revelation develops over time.

So, if it’s not unreasonable for God to allow disciplinary changes within the Church without affecting the faith, then we MUST agree that if, for example, next year a new ecumenical council convenes, and they revert to receiving only on the tongue, then does this somehow “vindicate” the SSPX view?

NO, because Vatican II was not “wrong,” we know this from Matthews Gospel…"…and the gates of Hell SHALL NOT PREVAIL. Whatever YOU, (PETER) bind on earth, shall be bound in Heaven." This goes for ALL the Popes.

It just means that the H.S. guided them to do what was in the best interest of the faithful AT THAT TIME, with regards to DISCIPLINES. Now, if our current Pope decides to teach that Mary had other children, for example, THEN we can all start our new SSJPII

Just kidding…we know this won’t happen.

 

[GerardP]

No. You can add words all day long, but for the third time, I am saying the Pope has authority. He carries the keys. That means he is to be obeyed, unless there is a very clear moral reason not to, like an order for every Catholic to kill one Muslim.

I’m not adding words at all. I’m simply clarifying the only conclusion that I can make regarding what you are saying.
On your second point, no one denies the Pope has authority and the Keys. But what happens when he won’t exert authority or use the keys?

Pope St. Pius X provided the answer: “One of the primary obligations assigned by Christ to the office divinely committed to Us of feeding the Lord’s flock is that of guarding with the greatest vigilance the deposit of the faith delivered to the saints, rejecting the profane novelties of words and the gainsaying of knowledge falsely so called. There has never been a time when this watchfulness of the supreme pastor was not necessary to the Catholic body, for owing to the efforts of the enemy of the human race, there have never been lacking “men speaking perverse things,”[1] “vain talkers and seducers,”[2] “erring and driving into error.”[3] It must, however, be confessed that these latter days have witnessed a notable increase in the number of the enemies of the Cross of Christ, who, by arts entirely new and full of deceit, are striving to destroy the vital energy of the Church, and, as far as in them lies, utterly to subvert the very Kingdom of Christ. Wherefore We may no longer keep silence, lest We should seem to fail in Our most sacred duty, and lest the kindness that, in the hope of wiser counsels, We have hitherto shown them, should be set down to lack of diligence in the discharge of Our office.”

You must see that an obvious example of “kill every Muslim” is not going to be the only kind of order that is a grave offense against Catholic truth and Our Lord’s commandments.
“Surrender to the forces of modernism.” is every bit as bad as kill every Muslim. False ecumenism among other novelties and “arts entirely new and full of deceit”

I can not imagine any thing that the SSPX stands for that rises to a level where a priest would break his vow of obedience and defy the authority of God on this earth, unless one denies that authority.

The Assisi gatherings were a public breaking of the first commandment by the Holy Father. This was a scandal to numerous Catholics. Cardinal Oddi ran through the halls of the Vatican and shouted “Scandal!” The altar that the Buddha statue was placed on was shattered by an earthquake not too long after. What do you do when Peter is the cause of scandal? When Peter says, “No. I tell you I don’t know this man!” by his actions, what is done? You tell Peter he is wrong.

In my personal life, I obey lawful orders given by those in authority, whether I agree or not. I would never in defiant pride refuse to obey an order that did not involve criminal activity.

Interesting. So, are you saying if the lawful orders are sinful, you’d obey them rather than do what is right? As a druggist you’d hand out contraceptives rather than refuse or get a job that doesn’t compromise Catholic beliefs? Would that be defiant pride?

LeFebvre believed, and it has been born out that the Chuch is in a massive crisis of apostasy. He and others appealed to the Popes to do something about it. They didn’t. LeFebvre had a mission given to him that a Pope can’t just take away.
LeFebvre would have been culpable for following orders that were contrary to his mission.

I hope we have no SSPX in the military. That would be a scary thought

We do have SSPX in the U.S. military. And they serve admirably. An SSPX priest and brother drove 900 miles across Europe to hear an American soldiers confession before going off to Iraq.

 

[pnewton]

On your second point, no one denies the Pope has authority and the Keys. But what happens when he won’t exert authority or use the keys?

Then you follow anyway. That is the meaning of the word authority.

“Surrender to the forces of modernism.” is every bit as bad as kill every Muslim.

That would be right, if you are referring to humanism. When did a pope say that, or is this just an interpretation? As far as modernism, that word can have several meaning. I assume you are not averse to the internet or the information age. Globalization is an increasing challenge. Do you propose the church ignore all the changes in the world and procede as if it is the middle of the dark ages? Or should the Church respond to the challenges of this generation. No, I do not think disagreeing with the type of response to the modern era is grounds for desertion.

Interesting. So, are you saying if the lawful orders are sinful, you’d obey them rather than do what is right?

No. Which of the commandments did any pope order LeFebvre to violate?

LeFebrve believed, and it has been born out that the Chuch is in a massive crisis of apostasy

Then he was wrong. I look around at the church today. I see growth. I see a solid new Pope in Benedict. I see that homosexuals are now barred from seminaries and the old liberal guard dying off. I see no church dogma ever denied. I definietly do not see a repudiation of Christ.

Apostasy? That’s just nuts. Unless of course you’re going sedevacantist. Then it’s really nuts.

We do have SSPX in the U.S. military. And they serve admirably.

I guess I’m glad to hear that, although I wonder if thy are just as willing to cut and run and desert their country as they were their church.

 

[GerardP]

First of all, I want to commend you for your responses. Even though I feel you are still missing the point, you have very good intentions and intelligent responses. Thank you for expressing your views that I would not have otherwise understood from SSPX.

Thank you. Ditto. This is very enlightening for me as to where people are drawing their understandings of our faith.

Here’s where I feel you guys are missing it…
It seems as if you assume that because differing popes have different views on matters of discipline, that this somehow “negates” their credibility, and that it somehow suggests that “If one is right, then the other must have been wrong.”

No no no no!

Yes, Yes Yes! It’s very possible that one Pope who has the power of the keys wields it for the good of the Church and another cannot or will not do it. St. Pius X was a better Pope than Alexander VI. (and most other popes) When Pope Stephen invalidated all of the actions of Pope Formosus, Stephen was wrong. Plain and simple. And the subsequent Popes that overturned Stephen were right. And those that supported Stephen were wrong. Those were all disciplinary actions, some were right and some were wrong.

On matters of discipline, NO POPE is right or wrong. Disciplines can change, neither is right or wrong, we MUST believe that due to the protection of the H.S., that the Popes will make decisions on disciplinary and liturgical issues WHEN SOCIETY IS READY.

That is simply not true. You are essentially saying that the Pope has positive revelation given to him on how to conduct the affairs of the Church. The only Pope that had revelation given to him was St. Peter and even he stumbled several times. Antioch and at the Appian Way. Revelation closed with the death of St. John.

Just because it was not right AT THAT TIME during one Pope’s reign, doesn’t mean it’s not right for the next generation.

That proposition has been condemned by the Church. In the case of the TLM, it has been put forth by many of the bishops that the Liturgy is no longer relevant and is not right now. The Holy Father himself has reiterated that the TLM for example cannot be “not right” for anyone in the Catholic Faith.

Have you read Humani Generis and Mediator Dei of Pius XII? They are brilliant expositions of the distortions on the development of doctrine. Chesterton also made a few good comments on it. Something along the lines of, “development of doctrine is like a puppy that grows. It becomes more “doggy” it doesn’t get bigger and cross with a cat.”

Another point, “Doctrine” means “to teach” it isn’t the matter of revelation itself. Chesterton also pointed out that the efforts to teach the same thing with new words were really teaching new things with the old words. A very brilliant point on his part.