Three points on the recent SSPX ordinations [Peters]

[JReducation]

S. Thomas Aquinas teaches that it is a sin against justice to comply with an unjust abuse of authority. This compliance is not ‘obedience’ but ‘conniving in the injustice’.

Your post implied that it is the lesser of two evils to obey when the Church is wrong. I am pointing out that this is an error. The statement “I was only obeying orders [authority]” will not wash at the Last Judgment. The details of the particular order that was unjustly obeyed have nothing to do with it, have they?

Again we have to be careful here with two points.

1. Not everything that St. Thomas wrote became part of Church teaching.
2. On this issue, the Church requires that one prove that there is an injustice. One cannot claim there is one without proof.

Aquinas was neither a pope, nor a major religiosu superior, nor a bishop. He was a friar and theologian. Though we have made good use of his theological writings and thought through the centuries and will continue to do so, we must be careful to ask what the Church has to say about what Thomas may have said.

Thomas also said many things that the Church and other theologians of his time refuted. His closest friend and his challenger was the other great doctor of the Church, Bonaventure.

When it comes to Aquinas, we must always check in with the Church. Most of the time, his work is accepted as is. But sometimes, the Church puts conditions on some of his statements. This is one of them.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Walking_Home]

When a person incurs excommunication it is because they have objectively committed a sin deserving of such a penalty. Excommunication is a penalty for a grave sin.

When the Holy Father said that Msgr Lefebvre (RIP) committed a schismatic act, such an act is objectively a sinful act.

No one with authority has said that the German bishops have commited an act that constitutes grave sin. There is the difference.

We do have to be careful here too. Objectively something is a sin, but subjectively the person may not be culpable. In the end, we are judged by our subjective culpability.

To be subjectively culpable, one has to meet three criteria.

1. The action must be grave.
2. The person must have full knowledge of the gravity.
3. The person must give full consent.

Full knowledge is not just having the information. The person must truly believe that the act is gravely sinful. It is not enough that someone else tells you so. If a peson firmly believes or has full knowledge as Ligouri says, then the person then faced with the third choice, to act or not. But if the person is not totally convinced or is unsure or even has reasons to believe that the action is not grave sin, and the person acts with an honest conscience, even if he is wrong, the culpability may be mitigated or there may be no culpability at all. Only God knows these tiny details about the individual conscience.

We can only judge actions, not souls. We judge actions according to law and the guidance of the Church.

Also, you ask the question about why I can’t impugn the German bishops. They are in full communion with the Church, until the Church says otherwise. It may be a sad thing to say, but there is the key difference between their status and that of Msgr. Lefebvre. Once a bishop is excommunicated, he has no authority and rule of obedience and fidelity does not apply to him. It is only binding when the bishop in question has a canonical status.

In order to subordinate ourselves to Msgr Lefebvre, we would have to ignore **St. Francis who commands obedience to his rule under pain of mortal sin, as is in his testament. ** He demands that we obey the bishops and the pope. But in other places he also remind us that the only legitimate authorities in the Church are those that are canonically established. This was done because there were many excommunicatd authorities in his time.

I hope this helps clarify what I mean.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

---

Did someone say rule-- Oh yea --this rule.

Post: 113
quote=JReducation

This is the point that I’m trying to drive home to both sides within the laity, because I see the laity up in arms about these issues.** If you visit a religious house, such as my friary, you don’t hear about the SSPX**. Our brothers are well aware of their existence and of their circumstances. I believe the difference is that we know that God and the Church are at work here. We also know our place.** And our place is not to push things faster than they should go or slow them down by planting more division than what is already growing among Catholics over this situation**.

 

[pnewton]

Your post implied that it is the lesser of two evils to obey when the Church is wrong. I am pointing out that this is an error.

No. I believe it is not evil at all. Obeying the Church when the Church is not asking us do do something sinful or contrary to God’s commandment is not evil at all.

 

[pnewton]

As far as I can see, the insubordinate and heretical comments of the German Bishops constitute material sin. I am puzzled why you can use this word against Mgr Lefebvre, but apparently not against the German Bishops.

That is not the topic. It has been pointed out that the the German Bishops have authority in the Church. None of the SSPX do. This is the difference as to how free one may be to speak against. This has already been said once.

 

[Walking_Home]

In order to subordinate ourselves to Msgr Lefebvre, we would have to ignore St. Francis who commands obedience to his rule under pain of mortal sin, as is in his testament. He demands that we obey the bishops and the pope. But in other places he also remind us that the only legitimate authorities in the Church are those that are canonically established. This was done because there were many excommunicatd authorities in his time.

I hope this helps clarify what I mean.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

---

Since you brought up St. Francis’s testament–JR—I did find the following passage quite interesting. Here is what St. Francis says about priests --he doesn’t even want to think about there being any sin in them — Now this obviously quite different from someone who not only is willing to think of the supposed “sin” of Bishops and priests --but also more than willing to continuously loudly proclaim the supposed “Sin(s)” of Bishops and priests.

Testament of St. Francis

fordham.edu/halsall/source/stfran-test.html

And the Lord gave me such faith in churches that I prayed simply, saying, "I adore you, Lord Jesus Christ, with all your churches throughout the world, and we bless you because you redeemed the world through your holy cross. Later God gave me and still gives me such faith in priests who live according to the form of the Holy Roman Church that even if they persecuted me I would still run back to them, because of their posit ion. And if I had all the wisdom of Solomon and came upon some poor little priests in their parishes, I would preach there only if they wished me to do so. And I want to fear, love and honor these and all others as my lords. And I do not even want to think about there being any sin in them, because I see the son of God in them and they are my lords. And I do this because in this world I physically see the most high Son of God only in his most holy body and blood, which they receive and they alone administer to others.

And I want this holy mystery to be honored above all things, venerated, and kept in costly containers. Whenever I find his holy names or words in improper places I pick them up and ask that they be collected and stored in a proper place. And we ought to honor and venerate all theologians and those who administer the holy divine word, for they administer to us spirit and life.

 

[JReducation]

---

Since you brought up St. Francis’s testament–JR—I did find the following passage quite interesting. Here is what St. Francis says about priests --he doesn’t even want to think about there being any sin in them — Now this obviously quite different from someone who not only is willing to think of the supposed “sin” of Bishops and priests --but also more than willing to continuously loudly proclaim the supposed “Sin(s)” of Bishops and priests.

Francis’ vicar, who was a priest, was excommunicated for disobeying him. Because once he disobeyed, he was no longer in communion with the Church. Once you’re not in full communion, the rule does not apply. Brother Elias also said that his faults were alleged. But Francis did not believe him, neither did the pope. So he was excommunicated.

As of this point, you and I have nothing else to say to each other. Because you are so obsessed that you keep missing the point that these rules only apply to priests in communion with Peter who have canonical status in the Church. I am not willing to repeat it over and over again.

This is not a healthy way to heal a problem. Pray for me and I will pray for you.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Walking_Home]

Francis’ vicar, who was a priest, was excommunicated for disobeying him. Because once he disobeyed, he was no longer in communion with the Church. Once you’re not in full communion, the rule does not apply. Brother Elias also said that his faults were alleged. But Francis did not believe him, neither did the pope. So he was excommunicated.

As of this point, you and I have nothing else to say to each other. Because you are so obsessed that you keep missing the point that these rules only apply to priests in communion with Peter who have canonical status in the Church. I am not willing to repeat it over and over again.

This is not a healthy way to heal a problem. Pray for me and I will pray for you.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

---

Maybe you missed the memo --the Society Bishops are not now “excommunicated”. And the priests were never excommunicated to begin with. So you see JR–with each passing day --you let more cats out of the bag.

Your brothers at the friary --would agree–this is not a healthy way to heal a problem–which is why they follow the rule and stay silent on matters concerning the Society and not cause further division.

 

[stevusmagnus]

JReducation,

Canon Law foresaw situations where there may be doubt and made allowances for that doubt. In cases of positive and probable doubt, jurisdiction is supplied so there is certainty. The Church does not want us to be in doubt in these situations so it provides. The idea of common error is not new and goes back to the old code.

A good read of this Canonical Study will demonstrate, using various quotes from Canonists, that the principle of common error clearly applies to the Society’s situation. Examples from the old code even read exactly like the situation in a Society Chapel for hearing confessions.

sspx.org/miscellaneous/validity_of_confessions_1.htm

The supreme law of the Church is salvation of souls and all Canons must be read with this in mind. Whether the priest has faculties matters more as to whether he is sinning by exercising forgiveness under the sacrament without permission. He needs to have good reason. But the validity of the sacrament is assured through the canons on common error and positive and probable doubt.

 

[JReducation]

JReducation,

Canon Law foresaw situations where there may be doubt and made allowances for that doubt. In cases of positive and probable doubt, jurisdiction is supplied so there is certainty. The Church does not want us to be in doubt in these situations so it provides. The idea of common error is not new and goes back to the old code.

A good read of this Canonical Study will demonstrate, using various quotes from Canonists, that the principle of common error clearly applies to the Society’s situation. Examples from the old code even read exactly like the situation in a Society Chapel for hearing confessions.

sspx.org/miscellaneous/validity_of_confessions_1.htm

The supreme law of the Church is salvation of souls and all Canons must be read with this in mind. Whether the priest has faculties matters more as to whether he is sinning by exercising forgiveness under the sacrament without permission. He needs to have good reason. But the validity of the sacrament is assured through the canons on common error and positive and probable doubt.

I understand the canons and I agree about the element of doubt. What always concerns me is when we use apologists in the place of theologians and canonists. The previous article that was offered was a dialogue between two apologists. They each had interesting opinions. But I would not subcribe to either, because neither is a theologian or a canonist.

As to the Society, I know there has always been the issue of doubt and that there is a reason why the sacrament of penance has not been specifically mentioned by the Commission or the Holy See, precisely because the doubt is there.

Let’s just hope and pray that this will all end soon.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[numealinesimpet]

When a person incurs excommunication it is because they have objectively committed a sin deserving of such a penalty. Excommunication is a penalty for a grave sin.

We’ve been through this one before, JR.
You can’t have it both ways. If an excommunication is an objective fact, then how could it be lifted considering that the SSPX has never budged an inch? Yet if it is a private initiative of the Pope (and therefore in a sense arbitrary - at least, an added sanction separate from the fact leading up to the excommunication) then it cannot be said to prove that the original sanction was valid or justified.

That is work still to be discussed – although those under a vow (which is highly meritorious in itself) not to ‘criticise’ any particular action, right or wrong, of a bishop (except Lefebvre, of course) may find themselves unable to participate fully.

 

[numealinesimpet]

I will repeat, if the bishop commits a sin and that sin is called such by the pope. The Rule also tells us to follow the pope.

In this case, Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI have called it a sin. It was they who said that the Archbishop violated canon law and incurred excommunication along with those who accepted to be consecrated bishops.

Whoa there, old chap. You are not ‘following’ them but ‘putting words in their mouths’, aren’t you? Can you point to a link on the web where either of these have said "Mgr Lefebvre has committed a sin”?

As far as I can see, the insubordinate and heretical comments of the German Bishops constitute material sin. I am puzzled why you can use this word against Mgr Lefebvre, but apparently not against the German Bishops.

 

[pnewton]

Whoa there, old chap. You are not ‘following’ them but ‘putting words in their mouths’, aren’t you? Can you point to a link on the web where either of these have said "Mgr Lefebvre has committed a sin”?
.

From the Vatican website:

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_commissions/ecclsdei/documents/hf_jp-ii_motu-proprio_02071988_ecclesia-dei_en.html

The particular circumstances, both objective and subjective in which Archbishop Lefebvre acted, provide everyone with an occasion for profound reflection and for a renewed pledge of fidelity to Christ and to his Church.
3. In itself, this act was one of disobedience to the Roman Pontiff in a very grave matter and of supreme importance for the unity of the church, such as is the ordination of bishops whereby the apostolic succession is sacramentally perpetuated. Hence such disobedience - which implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy - constitutes a schismatic act

 

[stevusmagnus]

This is the opinion of the letter, but it is simply not true in fact.

Canon Law puts the consecration of Bishops without Papal mandate under the heading of disobedience, not schism, which is an entirely different section.

 

[pnewton]

This is the opinion of the letter, but it is simply not true in fact.

I was answering the question above. If you want to disagree with what the Pope wrote, okay. You surely won’t be the first or last to dissent from an encyclical.

 

[stevusmagnus]

It is not a matter of “dissent”. It is a matter of looking at Canon Law, looking at the facts, and seeing that the act specified is not found under the heading of “schism” but of disobedience.

Last I checked Ecclesia Dei was not de fide teaching and therefore is capable of error especially in a statement simply using an adjective to describe an act. Perhaps in the Pope’s eyes the act itself was “schismatic” in some other use of the term, but certainly not in any Canon Law sense because we can all look at the Code ourselves and see it is not true.

 

[JReducation]

It is not a matter of “dissent”. It is a matter of looking at Canon Law, looking at the facts, and seeing that the act specified is not found under the heading of “schism” but of disobedience.

Last I checked Ecclesia Dei was not de fide teaching and therefore is capable of error especially in a statement simply using an adjective to describe an act. Perhaps in the Pope’s eyes the act itself was “schismatic” in some other use of the term, but certainly not in any Canon Law sense because we can all look at the Code ourselves and see it is not true.

The problem here is that the final authoritative interpretation of canon law belongs to the pope. So, we have a stalemate.

But the issue is deeper than that. The issue is how to reintegrate the SSPX so as not to hurt the lay people who subscribe to the Society’s position. The reason I put it this way is because it is realistic to believe that the Congregation for the Faith is going to yield on some points that the SSPX is making, but not on others. And on those which the SSPX disagrees, but will have to accept to full canonical status, people are going to be upset and confused.

The key question is how to help this population. They are the most important part of the equation. The bishops and the priests of the SSPX knew what they were in for when they joined the Society. But the average lay person in the pew is rarely caught in the middle of a debate within the Sacred Congregation of the Faith.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[redrosetea]

---

Maybe you missed the memo --the Society Bishops are not now “excommunicated”. And the priests were never excommunicated to begin with. So you see JR–with each passing day --you let more cats out of the bag.

Your brothers at the friary --would agree–this is not a healthy way to heal a problem–which is why they follow the rule and stay silent on matters concerning the Society and not cause further division.

Stop picking on JR…It makes you look like a bully…He is a Franciscan and can’t fight back…He has answered you in kindness and charity and you have taken every opportunity to be mean…Take off your boxing gloves…

 

[stevusmagnus]

Br. JR,

Cardinal Hoyos later repeatedly said that the SSPX was not in formal schism. This was said with full knowledge of the Ecclesia Dei letter. The letter was issued almost immediately after the consecrations. I do not think that the Vatican fully realized that ABL never gave his Bishops any jurisdiction, which would have indeed been a schismatic act. I think if they had waited they would have realized this, but they felt the situation called for immediate action.

At the present moment we know that the Society is not in schism.