Three points on the recent SSPX ordinations [Peters]

  • Thread starter Thread starter Catholic_Opinion
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Yes, I am. When I in my imperfection rail against a bishop because of something I see as damaging to the Church I let my emotions get the better of me. West Coast bishops often bring out my worst side. Even though I understand this principle (although I am not bound by rule as our brother here), I do not live up to the ideal I believe in.

I do not mean to teach and lecture. I just post.

However, were I desirious of teaching, I could always fall back on the axiom that those who can’t do, teach.
you can fall back on it, but you’d have even less credibility for admitting it.

Save us from your lectures, pnewton. Speak to us all as your equals, even though you have made it obvious you don’t view us all as so. Try peppering in phrases like, “it is my understanding that…” or “my opinion is…” or, “it’s possible I may be wrong, but I think…” And then providing us with just the name of the source for your reasons for thinking that way. Then a conversation is born.

I’m just saying.
 
Now you are playing with the holy rule and that is not allowed to anyone, lay or religioius. The Rule of St. Francis was approved by a papal bull and cannot be played with. It is a sacred document of the Church.

I believe that you understand full well what I am trying to explain.

Please do not play games with something that is holy and protected by the Church to this day and which you seem not to understand clearly. I don’t blame you for that. Religioius rules are not usual reading for most secular men and women, much less the constitutions that the popes give interpreting them. But every Catholic must show respect for those rules that have been approved by the Holy See and the Holy See’s interpretation of the same. Even if you’re not bound by the rule.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Now you say I am the one playing playing games with the rules of St. Francis. I will show who plays fast and loose with the rules and is a master at it. Below I’ve included your description of your fellow brothers at your friary. Your brothers know of the Society and their circumstances–yet you don’t hear about the Society. Your brothers stay silent on the matter of the Society. You say we --this being your brothers and include yourself) know God and the Church are at work and know your place. It is not your place (your brothers and you) etc…to plant division.

Let us look at the difference between you and your brothers at the friary. Your brothers live the rules of St. Francis–they stay silent on the matter of the Society and know their place. They do not push things in any way, do not cause division. Yet here you are JR—in this thread (and maybe others)—loudly proclaiming the supposed “errors”/“sins” of the Society Bishops and priests. Doing the exact opposite from your own fellow brothers.
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.
 

Now you say I am the one playing playing games with the rules of St. Francis. I will show who plays fast and loose with the rules and is a master at it. Below I’ve included your description of your fellow brothers at your friary. Your brothers know of the Society and their circumstances–yet you don’t hear about the Society. Your brothers stay silent on the matter of the Society. You say we --this being your brothers and include yourself) know God and the Church are at work and know your place. It is not your place (your brothers and you) etc…to plant division.

Let us look at the difference between you and your brothers at the friary. Your brothers live the rules of St. Francis–they stay silent on the matter of the Society and know their place. They do not push things in any way, do not cause division. Yet here you are JR—in this thread (and maybe others)—loudly proclaiming the supposed “errors”/“sins” of the Society Bishops and priests. Doing the exact opposite from your own fellow brothers.
You’re missing my point. I brought up the rule as a tool to help people deal with this issue in a peaceful manner. You are putting the rule and it followers on trial, mostly me.

The rule is very clear and its interpretations by different popes is very clear. The advise is good.
  1. You do not pass judgement on those who aree in authority, such as bishops and popes.
  2. You follow the guidance of the pope when there is a conflict and you wait for a resolution to take place at the appropriate levels.
  3. You may only say what the pope says and what those who have legitimate authority in the Church says. Do not use the statements of those who do not have authority in the Church, because you risk going by the wayside.
  4. You have an obligation to catechize the laity so that it may follow the pope in all things.
  5. You may never judge the soul of an individual, only the actions according to the norms set down by the Church, the pope, St. Francis and the chapter of the brothers.
If we follow this advise, we can discuss this in a peaceful way and look for a solution that is consistent with the wishes of the pope.

There is no division being spread by me or other Franciscans when we state what the Church has already stated. The division was caused by the illicit consecration of bishops. Whether the SSPX believes that the consecration was illicit or whether Msgr. Lefebvre incurred excommunication, we cannot support their belief, because the pope does not support it, our major superiors do not support it, our rule is very explicit on such actions, and the local bishops do not support it. Basically, if you have that many people who have canonical authority on one side of the issue, such as this and the SSPX on the other side, where do you expect any religioius community to stand?

We cannot stand on the side of the SSPX, when Rome does not. We are bound to Rome. Another thing, the fact is true. Most religious communities, the SSPX is not a topic of discussion. The belief is that Rome has spoken; therefore, there is nothing for us to say, other than repeat what Rome has already said. This is not a debate that’s on the table for opinions. There is very little that religious can say about it, unless they asked. We can continue to repeat what Rome has said and to defend what Rome says. That is our obedience.

You can’t ask someone to surrender their obedience or their allegiance to a group that has no canonical authority in the Church. That would be wrong. No one is allowed to choose that which is wrong. We must all remain in agreement with the pope.

Like I said, I put this out here as a piece of advise to the laity reading this. If you take objection with this advise, you can. But don’t put me or the rule on trial. The rule, as I said, has the power of several papal encyclicals behind it. You cannot put it on trial any more than you can any other encyclical. As Pope Honorius dictated, only popes can interpret it or change it. Not even Francis can do that. Once it was approved, it was out of his hands to make any changes to it or to interpret it in any way without the approval of the pope.

Today, this is what Popes John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI allow by way of interpretation and application, when it comes to those who have no canonical authority. This is not about the validity of their orders. The pope has been clear on that and we obey. If he says that they are valid bishops, then we treat them with the same faith as we do other bishops. If he says tha they have no authority in the Church, then we do not treat them as our superiors, as we would other bishops. We can’t.

The division is not caused by me or the rule. The division is caused by the situation.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
You’re missing my point. I brought up the rule as a tool to help people deal with this issue in a peaceful manner. You are putting the rule and it followers on trial, mostly me.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂

Really now --Missing the point --JR. Please—you placed yourself in a predicament. You showed to us your fellow Franciscan brothers–and you show yourself to us. The two --your brothers and yourself do not match.
 

Really now --Missing the point --JR. Please—you placed yourself in a predicament. You showed to us your fellow Franciscan brothers–and you show yourself to us. The two --your brothers and yourself do not match.
With what canonical authority do you make such a judgement?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
Really now --Missing the point --JR. Please—you placed yourself in a predicament. You showed to us your fellow Franciscan brothers–and you show yourself to us. The two --your brothers and yourself do not match.

Well --I am not surprised with your response–JR. When one finds that they have painted themselves into a corner–out come “legalities”. Your words–JR–it is your words that have placed you in the corner-- it is your words that place you in a predicament. It is your words–that show discrepancy–between your Franciscan brothers and yourself.
 
Perhaps we should start a new thread on JR and his Franciscan vows? Maybe we can get this on a SPLIT thread so we can continue to discuss this brother.
 
My only interest was in sharing some ideas that I thought would be helpful on this issue. It is not my idea or interest to discuss my vows or anyone else’s.

If this piece of information is not helpful to the posters here, then let’s let it go and move on with the dialogue.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
It goes very much against the grain for a Catholic to disagree openly with his superiors, yet the saints have insisted that this can be a solemn duty in certain situations (cf. Gal 2:11).

This is also asserted in the Vatican II documents somewhere (but I can’t find the reference – can anyone help?)

The Church is floundering in a maze of self-inflicted contradictions, not least because of futile attempts to change Church teachings that are unchangeable. The bishops and priests of the SSPX are making a courageous and principled stand, for which they are censured, whilst others find themselves attempting to defend the indefensible out of supposed loyalty. This is a position in which they should, we could argue, never have found themselves; yet it is the current reality, and we must respond to it appropriately.

Members of Religious congregations, under particular vows of obedience, are in a special situation. Their very vocation has disqualified them from certain actions in the Public forum which are nonetheless necessary at certain times. That is why it is not the case that we should all follow this specialised rule. At times a sin against justice is committed by silence. Religious are exempt because of their vow, which means that we others must bear this particular burden.

I have been particularly disappointed by the attempts to justify the vast ‘Open-Air Masses’ of the Post-Conciliar popes, even after it has been pointed out – and conceded – that at each of these events, the Holy Eucharist has been trampled into the dust. Now in earlier Church Law, the canonical penalty for a priest allowing a Host to fall on the ground was nine years penance. This shows how seriously the offence was taken. A little arithmetic would give ‘the person responsible’ many centures of Penance if that Rule were still in force. Everybody knows that the pre-conciliar popes would have viewed such goings-on with utter horror. It was the witnessing of such things that has impelled many into Sedevacantism. When Catholics continue to attempt to justify of these things, it merely confirms the Sedevacs in their convictions that the Catholic Church has lost its soul.

The reason the SSPX continues to ordain priests and brothers is to keep alive the Sensus Catholicus by forming seminarians in a way that had been discontinued in every other seminary of the world in the 1980s. If others, from whatever motives, choose to serve the Church by another path, that is not their responsibility. The SSPX are serving the Church well.
 
It goes very much against the grain for a Catholic to disagree openly with his superiors, yet the saints have insisted that this can be a solemn duty in certain situations (cf. Gal 2:11).

This is also asserted in the Vatican II documents somewhere (but I can’t find the reference – can anyone help?)

The Church is floundering in a maze of self-inflicted contradictions, not least because of futile attempts to change Church teachings that are unchangeable. The bishops and priests of the SSPX are making a courageous and principled stand, for which they are censured, whilst others find themselves attempting to defend the indefensible out of supposed loyalty. This is a position in which they should, we could argue, never have found themselves; yet it is the current reality, and we must respond to it appropriately.

Members of Religious congregations, under particular vows of obedience, are in a special situation. Their very vocation has disqualified them from certain actions in the Public forum which are nonetheless necessary at certain times. That is why it is not the case that we should all follow this specialised rule. At times a sin against justice is committed by silence. Religious are exempt because of their vow, which means that we others must bear this particular burden.

I have been particularly disappointed by the attempts to justify the vast ‘Open-Air Masses’ of the Post-Conciliar popes, even after it has been pointed out – and conceded – that at each of these events, the Holy Eucharist has been trampled into the dust. Now in earlier Church Law, the canonical penalty for a priest allowing a Host to fall on the ground was nine years penance. This shows how seriously the offence was taken. A little arithmetic would give ‘the person responsible’ many centures of Penance if that Rule were still in force. Everybody knows that the pre-conciliar popes would have viewed such goings-on with utter horror. It was the witnessing of such things that has impelled many into Sedevacantism. When Catholics continue to attempt to justify of these things, it merely confirms the Sedevacs in their convictions that the Catholic Church has lost its soul.

The reason the SSPX continues to ordain priests and brothers is to keep alive the Sensus Catholicus by forming seminarians in a way that had been discontinued in every other seminary of the world in the 1980s. If others, from whatever motives, choose to serve the Church by another path, that is not their responsibility. The SSPX are serving the Church well.
All of your points are well made and I agree with many of them. With some I have a different take, but that’s the way of dialogue. Is it not?

I appreciate your respect for religious in vows. I only offer certain thoughts from our rule as a help for those who can use it. It is obvious that it is not a tool that everyone can use to find peace of mind and the unity that they seek with God and man. But it has been a successful too for millions over 800 years.

Not only has the Franciscan rule been a very useful tool for many Catholics, but other rules too. I am reminded of the Carthusian monks and some of the branches of the Benedictine family such as: Trappists and Camaldolese. There is a beauty to their silence and their trust in God that can and should inspire many of us. These men and women have lived through many crises in the Church. The Benedictine traditions and the cenobitic tradition go back to the early Fathers of the Church. This is not the first time that they see crisis in the Church and disputes that go back and forth. But their faith in the Holy Spirit and their silence is an inspiration to me and to many people. Because it reminds us that God will work his wonders and God will protect the Church, but we must support the Church through prayer, penance, sacrifice and most of all brotherly love.

As the Holy Father’s newest encyclical says, “Truth, by enabling men and women to let go of their subjective opinions and impressions, allows them to move beyond cultural and historical limitations and to come together in the assessment of the value and substance of things” (Parr 4).

We must let go of our own opinions and impressions, if we are to achieve the unity that we all desire in this case. It is also interesting how he says that we must come together to assess the value and substance of things. There are certain things that are good, both on the side of tradition and on the Post Vatican II side, but they are not essential. We can put them aside and focus on that which has value and substance without which the Church cannot live and the faithful cannot move forward in their spiritual journey.

Sometimes subjective opinions get in the way. I believe that this is normal. We are human beings. We have feelings and opinions. The journey toward reunification is a kind of penance. The greatest act of penance for all of us is to brush aside our opinions and impressions. That’s what made me think of the monks and hermits. They are the most wonderful example of people who struggle to put aside their judgment to listen to that of the Church.

Oh well, just some thoughts . . .

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
In an earlier posting (sorry, JR, I can’t seem to track it down) the point was made that the SSPX, being outside the canonical structures, cannot back up their statements with authority.

But on the other hand, we read in the first paragraph of the Vatican II document Dignitatis Humanae,
“The truth cannot impose itself except by virtue of its own truth, as it makes its entrance into the mind at once quietly and with power.”

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651207_dignitatis-humanae_en.html

Our Lord Himself said to Pilate, “All who are of the Truth hear My Voice”.

The SSPX have spoken with the intrinsic authority of Truth itself, even when it was not welcome. This is why they continue to prosper, and why they will ultimately be vindicated.
 
The SSPX have spoken with the intrinsic authority of Truth itself, even when it was not welcome. This is why they continue to prosper, and why they will ultimately be vindicated.
The Mormons make the same claim about their book. It is because you just know it is. It is an undeniable, unassailable logic, but it is also a circle. Without getting into the reasons the SSPX is right or wrong, one can know that the consequences, if one defies the Church wrongly is much more dire than if one obeys the Chuch when the Church is in the wrong.
 
The Mormons make the same claim about their book. It is because you just know it is. It is an undeniable, unassailable logic, but it is also a circle. Without getting into the reasons the SSPX is right or wrong, one can know that the consequences, if one defies the Church wrongly is much more dire than if one obeys the Chuch when the Church is in the wrong.
This is why I was referring to some of the great reformers and founders in the history of the Church: Francis, Bruno, Bernard, Teresa of Avila, just to name a few. They completely agree with your statement.

They taught their followers and the laity of their time to obey, even if the Church was mistaken, as long as they were not asked to sin. They believed that obedience was more pleasing to God and man. They also believed and taught that no one outside of the legitimate authority in the Church could be absolutely certain that they were right, without the confirmation of the Church’s authority. In addition, they always taught that we must defer to the current authority as the proper and final interpreter of tradition.

Granted, these men and women present changes that were necessary. But they always submitted their will to the reigning pope. Often their proposals were very good, but they were turned down by the popes and they accepted that with much humility and prayer. Someone like Clare of Assisi who presented her reform of religious life to the pope was turned down for 40 years. She kept presenting the same idea again and again. She had the scripture on her side. She also had sacred tradition on her side. But she did not have three consecutive popes on her side. In the meantime, she lived by under their authority, even though she believed they were missing something. Well, after much prayer and dialogue with the Holy See, two days before her death her reform was approved by the Holy See.

Sometimes, we have to learn to persevere from within, rather than put ourselves outside of the physical church.

No one is questioning whether or not the SSPX undestands the truth, whether they are valid bishops and priests, or whether they are Catholic. At least I would not question that, becaue the Church has already spoken on those points. We follow what the Church has said.

The issue remains that even if they did have full possession of the truth, they remain without a canonical place in the Church. Unless the Church grants them a canonical place, they may not celebrate the sacraments licitly and may not celebrate marriage and penance validly. That is not up to the SSPX or any individual to decide that the law speaks in their favor. That is up to the Church to decide whether the law speaks in their favor. Currenlty, the Holy Father and the Sacred Congregations do not interpret the law in their favor.

What we have here is a situation where one side (SSPX) says that the law says this and this, we lean on that. Then we have the Holy Father and the Sacred Congregations who say that the law does not apply in this case.

For the common man in the pew, it is important to have some clarity. The best advice that anyone can give to the common man in the pew is to adhere to what the Holy Father and the Sacred Congregations say. Why? Because they are invested with legitimate authority. That is a point that the SSPX will not deny. We can see that in their desire to dialogue with the Holy Father and the Sacred Congregations. If they did not accept their legitimate authority, they would simply ignore their existence.

What we need to do is to pray for a resolution to the problem, not for the tirumph of the SSPX or the Holy Father. Prayer should not be partisan. It must be open to the will of God. We also need to pray for the man in the pew, that he will always be faithful to the authority of the Church. If he begins to follow every position that is posed by someone or a group who does not have authority, he will be spiritually split assunder. That’s not what we want for our people. That’s not fraternal or fair.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
Jurisdiction for Society confessions is supplied under the Canon Law principle of common error. The Vatican has, as of today, made no binding public decision as to the validity or invalidity of Society confessions. The clear reading of the Canons regarding common error give Society priests supplied jurisdiction for each confession individually.

John Salza, apologist and EWTN personality, explains this principle on his website:

scripturecatholic.xanga.com/703979099/10-do-sspx-priests-have-jurisdiction-to-hear-confessions/
 
… the consequences, if one defies the Church wrongly …
As you say, the whole point of this thread is to debate whether the actions of the SSPX are justifiable or not.
… is much more dire than if one obeys the Chuch when the Church is in the wrong.
No, you can’t say that. No-one has the Right to be Wrong. If one knows the Church is in the wrong, and one is not under a vow of obedience, then “I must obey God before Man”. This is a point that Mgr Lefebvre made often. At the Judgment we will not be excused by saying “I was only following orders”. I don’t want to offend, but that is what certain accused said at the Nuremberg trials.
 
Jurisdiction for Society confessions is supplied under the Canon Law principle of common error. The Vatican has, as of today, made no binding public decision as to the validity or invalidity of Society confessions. The clear reading of the Canons regarding common error give Society priests supplied jurisdiction for each confession individually.

John Salza, apologist and EWTN personality, explains this principle on his website:

scripturecatholic.xanga.com/703979099/10-do-sspx-priests-have-jurisdiction-to-hear-confessions/
We have to be careful not to present Salza’s position as an official Catholic position. He himself admits that this is his opinion based on his understanding of law. Akins also takes the opposite view, based on his understanding of the law.

The problem with the entire article is that neither men are theologians or canon lawyers. They are apologists. We should read what they have to say and think about it, but never take either position (in this case) as a theological teaching or a canonical teaching, simply because neither person in this dialogue is an authority on the subject of theology or canon law.

Neither Salza nor Akins are licensed Catholic theologians or Catholic canonists. That takes us back to doubt. When there is doubt, the best course of action and the best advise to those sitting in the pews is to go with the Church.

The Church has said, on several occasions, that the SSPX does not have jurisdiction or canonical status in the Church and cannot celebrate the sacraments or ministry licitly.

The best principle to apply here, for the sake of one’s salvation, never act when there is doubt.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
We are not incinerating people.

We are not talking about commiting *any *sin to remain obedient.
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?
 
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.
 
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.
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 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top