Too many Sympathetic for SSPX

[mattkubes]

I never said it did. This is not a question of infallibility, but of respect and authority. We should at least acknowledge and respect the Holy Father’s opinions in the area of morals.

Honestly, it sounds more like you’re saying we ought to always agree with him. Would it really soften the proverbial blow for me to say “I respect and acknowledge his opinion, but he’s completely wrong on this one”? I don’t see the benefit of adding a flowery preface over plainly stating one’s opinions when there is no moral impediment to doing so.

Is it too much to ask that even traditionalists show Pope Benedict the respect due his office in their disagreement. If one thing I have noticed in the dialogue between the SSPX and the Vatican is that the Vatican has always been respectful and conciliatory, even in disagreement. The SSPX priests and bishops will often load their dialogue with rhetoric and emotional diatribe.

That may be your reading of it, but I know we’re free to disagree.

 

[JReducation]

Interesting parallel. But if you or your family member needed surgery, whom would you choose, the highly skilled surgeon, who was missing his license paperwork or the surgeon down the road who had 80% of his patients leave him and who was known to laugh and joke while doing his work and deliberately ignored the surgical procedures and standards set up in his profession?

I would find someone who is competent and legally authorized. Both of the above would be disqualified on my list.

Good point. I believe there is something in canon law about attending where it’s to your spiritual advantage.

It is true that the law says this. That’s why the Ecclesia Dei commission said that to attend a mass at an SSPX chapel because of one’s spiritual needs is legitimate. However, to embrace their schismatic thinking is not legitimate. An example of schismatic thinking would be saying that the legality of the mass is not important as long as it’s valid. When someone thinks that way, they are not thinking with the Church. The Church thinks that both are important. The sacrament has to be valid and licit.

So, what are the consequences for the Orthodox Churches for denying the Primacy of Peter?

There are none. Pope Paul VI lifted all of the excommunications and all of the anathemas. Pope John Paul II mandate Catholics to drop the rhetoric. Pope Benedict XVI has said that the Catholics and the Orthodox are the two lungs of the Church. Both Pope John Paul and Pope Benedict have invited to Orthodox to discuss a way of defining the Primacy of Peter in a way that is satisfies the belief of the Catholic Church and at the same time is not intrusive in the Orthodox, if they come into full communion, something like the Eastern Catholics have. Some of the Eastern Catholic Churches have agreements with Rome. They would come back into full communion with the papacy, but the papacy would respect their autonomy, their spirituality, their theology, culture, liturgy and customs. In other words, we would not Latinize them.

They have valid sacraments. They have licit sacraments. They have access to sanctifying grace. They have their own code of law. The Pope has no jurisdiction over them. Why do they need Peter? Why would they want Peter?

It’s not for what they will get out of it, but for the good of the Church. It was Christ’s wish that the Church be one.

And if there is no consequence, why should anyone who disagrees with the Pope (as the Orthodox most certainly do) want to remain in communion with him or regain communion with him?

This is a very different scenario. I’m assuming that you’re speaking about Catholics. If so, no Catholic may simply leave the Church without grave moral consequences.

What am I missing here?

I think you’re getting confused between the Church’s authority over Catholics and her authority over non-Catholics. The Church does not claim to have any authority over non-Catholics. Therefore, our laws do not apply to them. Catholic laws only apply to Catholics. The first generation of Orthodox Christians were Catholics who walked. The laws applied to them. Those who have inherited the Orthodox faith are not culpable of the schism. Therefore, there are no consequences for them. Their patriarchs agree that the same was true for the Catholics.

It’s a rather verbose group on both sides that is throwing a wrench into the wheels of unity. Such is not the desire of the popes and patriarchs.

Look at the example between Roman Catholic and Eastern Catholic. Both are Catholic. They are governed by two separate codes of law. There are points in which the laws overlap and there are some very distinct features, one is the whole issue of ordaining bishops. In the Latin Church you must have a papal mandate to ordain a bishop. In the Eastern Churches, the Patriarch authorizes the ordination and he informs the pope. He does not go to the pope for permission to ordain a bishop.

In the Latin Church, you must say the words of institution in order to consecrate. In one or two of the Eastern Churches, the anaphora does not include the words of institution, but consecration takes place validly and licitly.

Just as there are different codes of law for the Latin Church and the Eastern Churches, so too there are different codes of law for the Orthodox Churches.

It seems like schism is of little consequence in the long run.

• PAX

Schism is extremely serious, not because you can’t get the sacraments from an Orthodox priest. It’s more serious than that. It’s serious because it’s contrary to the will of Christ who prayed that we may all be one as He and the Father are one. What we’re presenting to the world is fractured image of the Church.

Our goal is not simply to gain sanctifying grace. It’s to die in a state of grace and to work for the unity that Christ wants.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[JReducation]

Which has always struck me as ridiculous since the Holocaust and its scope/scale are not tenets of the faith. An odd-duck position? Yes. But it had nothing to do with +Williamson’s excommunication.

Actually, the Holy Father himself said that had he known the night before of Bishop Williamson’s position, he would not have lifted his excommunication. The words he used were, “We would have separated him from the others.”

Then he went on to say, “I will not introduce an anti-Semite into polite society.”

He commanded the bishop to put distance between himself and his opinion on the Holocaust. He did so, because he has the right to do so, because he’s the pope.

This is not a new concept. Popes have excommunicated people because of political differences and the excommunications were held as valid, because the pope makes the laws that govern excommunication.

As to opinions, if you were a religious in my community, you would not express any opinion that the superior does not hold or that the superior does not want you to express in public. In other words, obedience requires that you comply with the superior’s wishes, not because he’s infallible or his opinions are infallible, no more than our parents are infallible. Obedience applies, because he is over you. You are his subordinate, just as you are your parent’s subordinate, your teacher’s, the policeman and the pope’s.

It’s an issue of the rights of authority. Authority has the right to command and as long as it does not command sin, the subordinate has a moral duty to obey.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[mattkubes]

It’s an issue of the rights of authority. Authority has the right to command and as long as it does not command sin, the subordinate has a moral duty to obey.

I have never denied that it is his right, and I apologize if I gave that impression, but I don’t how I am bound to agree with it (in this case, with a hypothetical course of action).

I know the situations are entirely different, but presumably the excommunication/banishments of St. Athanasius were valid. Yet I strongly disagree with these decisions. The principle seems the same - I’m disagreeing with the non-infallible ruling of a pope.

 

[JReducation]

I have never denied that it is his right, and I apologize if I gave that impression, but I don’t how I am bound to agree with it (in this case, with a hypothetical course of action).

I know the situations are entirely different, but presumably the excommunication/banishments of St. Athanasius were valid. Yet I strongly disagree with these decisions. The principle seems the same - I’m disagreeing with the non-infallible ruling of a pope.

I believe that what you’re saying is the same logic that we apply to our parents or any other legitimate authority. I can disagree with my mom, but I cannot challenge her authority and I cannot undermine her orders. I have to see that they are carried out.

If that’s what you’re saying about the pope in this particular case, I would agree that this is permissible to the layman or a secular clergyman. It is not permissible to a bishop or to a religious.

The rules that govern bishops and religious are slightly different. Authority can tell you what opinions you’re allowed to have, at least express in public. That’s the whole issue with the LCWR. The things that they have expressed or that they have allowed to be expressed in their name are not permissible. In any other setting, people would claim that such control is a violation of human rights, freedom of speech. In the case of bishop and a religious, we voluntarily surrender that right. Therefore, authority has the right to tell us to be quiet or to put distance between an opinion and us. This reminds me of a group of dissident priests and women religious in Ireland who are alleging that the Vatican is stifling their free speech. The logic is flawed. There is no such thing as free speech in the Church. It’s not a democracy.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[EcceAgnusDei]

Originally Posted by EcceAgnusDei
So, what are the consequences for the Orthodox Churches for denying the Primacy of Peter?

This literally blows my mind. It blows it to an extent that I simply cannot believe what you are saying. Are you really saying that there are NO consequences to not being in visible union with the Roman Catholic Church? That the doctrine of the Primacy of Peter is only a legal one? That if the SSPX were to simply deny that the Pope were the Vicar of Christ and the primary and supreme patriarch, then all would be just fine and dandy? Why are we ROMAN Catholics, then? What’s the point? If we want Christian unity, why don’t we all just become Orthodox?

This is a very different scenario. I’m assuming that you’re speaking about Catholics. If so, no Catholic may simply leave the Church without grave moral consequences.

So the laws of the Church of Christ are like laws of nations… if you are citizens, you are bound to them, if not, oh well, diplomatic immunity and all. Brother JR, in all serious I am asking you if you understand the implications of what you are promoting here: that it is OK not to be Catholic.

I think you’re getting confused between the Church’s authority over Catholics and her authority over non-Catholics. The Church does not claim to have any authority over non-Catholics. Therefore, our laws do not apply to them. Catholic laws only apply to Catholics. The first generation of Orthodox Christians were Catholics who walked. The laws applied to them. Those who have inherited the Orthodox faith are not culpable of the schism. Therefore, there are no consequences for them. Their patriarchs agree that the same was true for the Catholics.

We can then easily apply this to the SSPX. In the schola/choir of the SSPX chapel I attend, there are teenagers/early-twenty-somethings that have known nothing but the SSPX. Never been to the Novus Ordo, etc. These people are in the situation you describe. So it is fine for them to remain “outside” the Church?

It’s a rather verbose group on both sides that is throwing a wrench into the wheels of unity. Such is not the desire of the popes and patriarchs.

It seems that logic is throwing the wrench. How can the Pope be primary and supreme for only one group of Christians but not others? Doesn’t that contradict the entire meaning of primary and supreme? It’s like me saying, “I am the supreme leader of the world! But only if you live in my house…” That would be a contradiction on laughable levels.

Look at the example between Roman Catholic and Eastern Catholic. Both are Catholic. They are governed by two separate codes of law. There are points in which the laws overlap and there are some very distinct features, one is the whole issue of ordaining bishops. In the Latin Church you must have a papal mandate to ordain a bishop. In the Eastern Churches, the Patriarch authorizes the ordination and he informs the pope. He does not go to the pope for permission to ordain a bishop.

Yes, Roman Catholic and Eastern Catholic have separate codes of law. But BOTH groups affirm the primacy and supremacy of the Pope. Your analogy falls apart with the Orthodox, because though they are Eastern, they do not affirm the primacy and supremacy of the Pope. In fact, they actively deny it.

In the Latin Church, you must say the words of institution in order to consecrate. In one or two of the Eastern Churches, the anaphora does not include the words of institution, but consecration takes place validly and licitly.

This has nothing to do with whether or not the Pope is primary and supreme.

Just as there are different codes of law for the Latin Church and the Eastern Churches, so too there are different codes of law for the Orthodox Churches.

Again, nothing to do with whether or not the Pope is primary or supreme. See my comments above.

Schism is extremely serious, not because you can’t get the sacraments from an Orthodox priest. It’s more serious than that. It’s serious because it’s contrary to the will of Christ who prayed that we may all be one as He and the Father are one. What we’re presenting to the world is fractured image of the Church.

But you are saying that one can be perfectly saved through the sacraments and sanctifying grace of the Orthodox, yes? In your scenario, I imagine the Orthodox Bishop standing before Christ at judgement, and saying, “oops, I guess Peter was supreme” and Christ saying, “yup, but come on in anyway” and then the Bishop saying, “well, at least I didn’t have to follow that fallen Patriarch of the West and I still got saved!” Oh, Martin Luther would have loved this situation…

Our goal is not simply to gain sanctifying grace. It’s to die in a state of grace and to work for the unity that Christ wants.

I think it is VERY dangerous to separate sanctifying grace and the desires of Christ, as if one could have one without fulfilling the other.

• PAX

 

[Alfonsus]

Regarding SSPX and the Orthodox…

The core difference is this:
The Orthodox is outside the Catholic communion. They accept the primacy of Peter, but differ in what that primacy means, its scope, its boundaries, its responsibilities. They consistent with this and because of that separate themselves from Peter’s jurisdiction.
Because they are outside Peter’s jurisdiction, affirmed by Rome herself, their legal/illegal status from Catholic point of view is moot. But the legal/illegal status applied to any Catholic faithful approaching their ministry, for instance it is illegal for a Catholic priest to concelebrate.

You can say the same about the Old Catholics. Rome affirm them as separate entity outside Catholic communion. The Old Catholics break communion with Peter definitely and Rome affirmed this.

The problem with SSPX is that they irregular.
They declare that they are not separate jurisdiction outside the Catholic Church, they declare they are not sedevacantist, they declare themselves affirming the fullness of Peter primacy and declare themselves under that primacy. They will never accept any declaration from Rome saying “you are a separate jurisdiction outside the Catholic communion.”
To this Rome said, “blessed be God!”

Yet they act contrary to what they said. They ordains priests when the primacy said “no.” They claim jurisdiction where the primacy said “you have no ministry.” They feel free to create their own tribunal apart from the Ordinary jurisdiction. They erect houses and seminaries and chapels and reserved Blessed Sacraments within a Catholic Diocese without permission of the Diocese Ordinary. They served the faithful of that Diocese without having permission and jurisdiction.

The problem with SSPX is that they themselves claim they are Catholic and accept the primacy in its fullness. This makes them reside under the Catholic Church judgment regarding their licit/illicitness of ministry because they are within the Catholic Church jurisdiction and they themselves claimed this. Something that the Orthodox never claim for themselves.

Of course they can simply fix the legal/illegal situation by definitely severing their communion with the Catholic Church, creating a separate entity outside Peter’s primacy. When they do this, they will be in the same position where the Orthodox are and Rome will cease talking regarding licit/illicitness of their act. They will have full jurisdiction for their own. The problem with licit/illicitness will then only apply to Catholic faithful approaching their ministry.

Now, is it fine then, breaking with primacy of Peter?
From the Catholic point of view, it is not. It wounds the body of Christ, destroying its unity, weakening its witness to the world. Doctrinally speaking, it makes you imperfect as a Church since the fullness of Christ’s Church resides in the Catholic Church.

But, canonically speaking, the Catholic Church affirm it has no jurisdiction outside her boundaries. On the other side, anyone accepting the primacy meaning accepting its jurisdiction as it is.

 

[mattkubes]

So the laws of the Church of Christ are like laws of nations… if you are citizens, you are bound to them, if not, oh well, diplomatic immunity and all. Brother JR, in all serious I am asking you if you understand the implications of what you are promoting here: that it is OK not to be Catholic.

Which, of course, is specifically ruled out in the first line of the Athanasian Creed.

“Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic Faith. Which Faith except everyone do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.”

I’m sure this isn’t what Br JR was saying, but I’ll defer to his clarification.

 

[EcceAgnusDei]

Of course they can simply fix the legal/illegal situation by definitely severing their communion with the Catholic Church, creating a separate entity outside Peter’s primacy. When they do this, they will be in the same position where the Orthodox are and Rome will cease talking regarding licit/illicitness of their act. They will have full jurisdiction for their own. The problem with licit/illicitness will then only apply to Catholic faithful approaching their ministry.

So, what you are saying is that when one disagrees with the Pope, the best course of action is to sever communion with him. Then one can continue doing whatever one wants, the Pope cannot say or do anything about it, and in the end one is saved because one still has valid sacraments and, since communion has been severed with the Pope, those same sacraments are now licit as well.

Does anyone else see this as being absolutely ridiculous?

• PAX

 

[Alfonsus]

So, what you are saying is that when one disagrees with the Pope, the best course of action is to sever communion with him. Then one can continue doing whatever one wants, the Pope cannot say or do anything about it, and in the end one is saved because one still has valid sacraments and, since communion has been severed with the Pope, those same sacraments are now licit as well.

Does anyone else see this as being absolutely ridiculous?

• PAX

I did not say anything regarding saved/not-saved.
I only said thing regarding Church jurisdiction.

If you sever communion with the primacy, mutually, then yes you can do whatever you want. The Pope cannot say anything regarding what happened within your institution. His say will applied only to Catholic faithful, “you may not approach them.”

But regarding salvation, I believe she will said this, “I hope that we may meet again in heaven, by the mercy of God.”

But perhaps she will said the same to a person claiming obedience the primacy of Peter but continuously acts contrary to it or disregard it, of whatever stripes left, right, up, down, center, rear, front, middle…

If you have objection, the Church said you are free to address them to the Church. But until the Church give you a nod, you need to act within the boundaries of what the Church allows. That way, you are secure within the Church bossom. But creating a paralel jurisdiction and at the same time claiming you are under the Church jurisdiction, IMHO, is totally dishonest.

 

[Stylites]

I think it’s worth pointing out too that the son who left started on the road back after he realized that he had done wrong: “Father, I have sinned against Heaven and against You” (Lk 15:21). The son cannot come back and demand that the Father change things around or tell the brother that he needs to “be like I am now”. And it is absolutely the better and moral path that the brother never left at all.

Well said. It ought not take calling for a novena to repent of one’s sins and return, unless one thinks it was the father who was prodigal.

 

[EcceAgnusDei]

Well said. It ought not take calling for a novena to repent of one’s sins and return, unless one thinks it was the father who was prodigal.

Unless infallibility is in play, there is always the slight chance that the father is prodigal.

I think for both sides of the situation, St. Athanasius is an excellent example. Despite the rampant heresy in the heirarchy (90%+ were Arians), he held to the truth. He was excommunicated for it. Five times. But when he was recalled he came home. Every time. Five times. He knew that being in communion with the heirarchy was that important. But he also knew that he couldn’t alter the truth. What a hard road he must have tread – clearly an example of heroic virtue and clearly a saint.

As far as your disparaging of the SSPX’s call for a novena, I ask you to look closely at the intentions for that novena:

The intention of this novena will be that the Holy Ghost may give the graces of light and strength to the Holy Father, Benedict XVI, and to the Superior General of the Society, Bishop Fellay.

What can you possible object to in that?

• PAX

 

[Melchior_1]

Regarding everything else about the Orthodox Church, what Brother JR is saying comes not from him, but from Popes. He’s quoted several times the words of Popes on this issue. He mentioned that a Pope lifted the excommunications, that a Pope said “they are two lungs of the same Church”, or something like that.

Brother JR is following the Chair of Peter on this issue.

EDIT:

*In an address to the Eastern Orthodox Archbishop of Cyprus, Pope Benedict XVI invoked the language of Pope John Paul II and clearly refers to the Eastern Orthodox Church as one of the two lungs of the Church:

“Thank you, Your Beatitude, for this gesture of esteem and brotherly friendship. In you, I greet the Pastor of an ancient and illustrious Church, a shining tessera of that bright mosaic, the East, which, to use a favourite phrase of the Servant of God John Paul II of venerable memory, constitutes one of the two lungs with which the Church breathes.”*

 

[mattkubes]

The famous “lung” analogy came after Pope JPII made this comment describing the relationship between East and West: “bitter experience of this long period of separation”.

And of course he didn’t deny that one of those lungs may have a bad case of pneumonia.

 

[Alfonsus]

Unless infallibility is in play, there is always the slight chance that the father is prodigal.

I think for both sides of the situation, St. Athanasius is an excellent example. Despite the rampant heresy in the heirarchy (90%+ were Arians), he held to the truth. He was excommunicated for it. Five times. But when he was recalled he came home. Every time. Five times. He knew that being in communion with the heirarchy was that important. But he also knew that he couldn’t alter the truth. What a hard road he must have tread – clearly an example of heroic virtue and clearly a saint.

As far as your disparaging of the SSPX’s call for a novena, I ask you to look closely at the intentions for that novena:

What can you possible object to in that?

• PAX

Yes, but at the same time, Athanasius never broke with primacy of Peter or create a separate jurisdiction apart from the primacy.

Many saints were misunderstood, censured, excommunicated, received bad treatment, but they did not justified themselves by creating a separate jurisdiction. When they said they accept the primacy, they fight for justice within the Church boundary, within the Church jurisdiction, accepting primacy as it is. Their obedience is true.

 

[Melchior_1]

The famous “lung” analogy came after Pope JPII made this comment describing the relationship between East and West: “bitter experience of this long period of separation”.

And of course he didn’t deny that one of those lungs may have a bad case of pneumonia.

I’m not a doctor, but if you only have one lung and it has pneumonia, you’re still going to live, yes?

 

[mattkubes]

I’m not a doctor, but if you only have one lung and it has pneumonia, you’re still going to live, yes?

Ha well…it depends. It’s not something I’d want to experience. In fact I think that would be an express ticket to the ICU.

Wait, I think we broke the analogy.

 

[pnewton]

I think for both sides of the situation, St. Athanasius is an excellent example

I knew he would pop in sooner or later.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9273870&postcount=72

 

[newyorkcatholic]

I’m not a doctor, but if you only have one lung and it has pneumonia, you’re still going to live, yes?

If you have one lung with pneumonia and you don’t treat it, you will likely get sepsis and die.

 

[newyorkcatholic]

This has become an interesting thread. Comments I’d like to add:

-Regarding the Orthodox: I do see that canonically, the situation is different. They are not bound by Canon law. But it’s not an advantage. The SSPX are bound because they are Catholic, therefore any individual Catholic who goes to their chapels, and even their priests, have a tremendous advantage when it comes to salvation: because extra ecclesiam nulla salus, and it is because they are Catholics in communion with Peter that they are seen as abound to Canon Law. No one tells baptists to follow Canon Law.

However it seems very dangerous to me to emphasize this legal perspective at the expense of the larger issue, which should be referenced lest we forget: the Orthodox are in a dangerous position. They have held the faith (mostly) and the sacraments, but they are in schism (even though not all at personally guilty of the sin, which is a different thing). If anyone has a choice to become Catholic or Orthodox, they should choose Catholic, because it’s the true Church.

If you interpret John Paul II’s statements on two lungs as saying both are equal churches and the separation from Peter isn’t that important, you’d be interpreting him as a heretic and denying what the Church has always taught. Therefore in prudence and charity don’t interpret him that way.

As to jurisdiction: the Pope exercises a specific form of jurisdiction only over Catholics. But in general, I believe he does exercise jurisdiction over everyone alive today whether Catholic or not. It’s just a power he does not always exercise, or in the same way.

As to the full communion issue: Br JR, your post was helpful to understand what people mean by this, but I can’t see how this is actually a church teaching. It seems like a legal/practical idea that can be used, but to me just confuses the issue. It’s not an actual teaching of the Church deriving from the Apostles.

Same with this idea that EF vs OF is just preference, that the Church teaches we can’t think one is actually better than the other. I don’t buy it. The magisterium speaks about preference and emphasizes it, fine. But, the fact of two forms in one right comes from the promulgation of the NO about 40 yrs ago, and the legal idea of EF and OF was introduced in 2007. Clearly any statements about EF vs OF cannot be true Church teaching developed from what the Apostles handed down, since the Apostles never spoke of multiple forms.

Since all teaching develops from what the Apostles handed down, the Church teaching that can apply would be teaching that the Church cannot promulgate an invalid missal, or one with error, and so on. This comes from the Apostles, who handed down the teaching that the Church is indefectible. But indefectibility and infallibility do not imply that the Church hierarchy always do things the best way.