Truly a sad state of affairs

[commenter]

Actually, Timothysis, the SSPX was NOT born in disobedience.

If you do not know about the origin of the Society, then perhaps in charity you should refrain from making false statements about it that support a particular viewpoint.

Lots of Catholic groups were not born in disobedience, but disobedience is their current reality. If one says “I accept the Magisterium only when it speaks the truth”, they cease to benefit from the teaching ministry of the Catholic Church. In effect, the individual sets himself up as pope. Disobedience breeds more disobedience. The prochoice Catholics on the “Left”, or the ones on the Right, may look different but they are in the same place. They are both outside, part of the problem, not part of any solution.

Some writers and speakers say I don’t condone disrupting church services or I don’t belong to the SSPX, or I’m not sedevantist. But they have often led people 90% of the way to those positions. They promote conferences that appear to be sponsored by the Catholic Church in misleading prior advertising, but at the conference they attack the Catholic Church more than they attack anything else. Their websites are as hostile to the Catholic Church as anything in the secular or dissenting Leftist media.

Dissenters on the Right compete for attention. If one blog says “30% of priests are gay”, the next blogger has to say, “He’s wrong, it’s 50%!” If one group in Argentina flexes their muscles by disrupting an ecumenical service in a cathedral, a competing group somewhere else will have to do something more disruptive, flex bigger muscles, “We’re even edgier than they are, take THAT, Vatican!”

 

[Timothysis]

So was altar girls and COTH. Also, Anglicans were disobedient as well, do we give up on them?

It isn’t that the Church has given up on the sspx, it is that the sspx has given up on the Church. Any sspx member who says that Mass according to the Pauline Missal is “evil” and “displeasing to God” stands in opposition to the past 5 popes and the authority of the Church.

 

[Timothysis]

Actually, Timothysis, the SSPX was NOT born in disobedience.

If you do not know about the origin of the Society, then perhaps in charity you should refrain from making false statements about it that support a particular viewpoint.

The founder of the order and three bishops WERE excommunicated for disobedience. Whether they were born into or not is really a moot question since the excommunications lasted for 20 years AND that every single priest and bishop acts in disobedience to the pope, the Church and canon law by celebrating Mass illicitly, not to mention hearing confessions and officiating weddings.

There isn’t a differing viewpoint that I’ve yet to hear that can hold water.

 

[JReducation]

My apologies Brother, and thank you for this instruction.

No need to apologize. As I always tell our brothers in formation. "There is a difference between an offense and a misunderstanding."s

 

[JReducation]

I am very lost. How did we go from the fiasco in Buenos Aires to obedience?

 

[Mike30]

The founder of the order and three bishops WERE excommunicated for disobedience. Whether they were born into or not is really a moot question since the excommunications lasted for 20 years AND that every single priest and bishop acts in disobedience to the pope, the Church and canon law by celebrating Mass illicitly, not to mention hearing confessions and officiating weddings.

There isn’t a differing viewpoint that I’ve yet to hear that can hold water.

It isn’t a moot point at all. Your statement would lead an unknowing and uninformed person to the conclusion that the Society was in fact disobedient from the start, which it clearly was not, and the fact that it was disobedient from the start led directly to their current disobedience, and that no one should be surprised by it. What caused their disobedience has been analyzed and overanalyzed by numerous people. The point is that until that act of disobedience, they were not disobedient.

Besides that when you make a statement as you did, it should be correct.

Just an opinion.

 

[Timothysis]

The point is that until that act of disobedience, they were not disobedient.

It does stand to reason that one isn’t disobedient unless one acts disobedient.

I think that just about clears things up.

 

[Timothysis]

I am very lost. How did we go from the fiasco in Buenos Aires to obedience?

We took a left turn at Albuquerque!

 

[Mike30]

It does stand to reason that one isn’t disobedient unless one acts disobedient.

I think that just about clears things up.

No disagreement. Until their act of disobedience, they were in fact obedient.

 

[ProVobis]

The founder of the order and three bishops WERE excommunicated for disobedience.

For the record a total of six bishops were excommunicated in 1988. Disobedience is not specific enough. It was for consecrating four bishops without approval, though technically they did have permission to consecrate one.

Until their act of disobedience, they were in fact obedient.

The protocol with the archbishop signed would have lifted the suspensions of the priests and the AB. But the archbishop reneged on the agreement and to this day the priests are still suspended, have been since 1975.

 

[esieffe]

As Jews would openly deny the Trinity I can’t see why they should be involved in a service in a Catholic cathedral. I also can’t see why they would want to since they don’t believe Jesus Christ is the Messiah but I suppose that’s between them and God. The mere thought of something like this before Vatican II would have undoubtedly been called apostasy so it’s quite easy to see where the SSPX is coming from if you really think about it, not that I’d condone their actions.

Interfaith Dialogue promotes peace and understanding between religions and their followers. It is positive in nature. Often interfaith organizations allow different religions to work together during times of disaster to accomplish things they would not have been able to do otherwise.

 

[JReducation]

As Jews would openly deny the Trinity I can’t see why they should be involved in a service in a Catholic cathedral. I also can’t see why they would want to since they don’t believe Jesus Christ is the Messiah but I suppose that’s between them and God. The mere thought of something like this before Vatican II would have undoubtedly been called apostasy so it’s quite easy to see where the SSPX is coming from if you really think about it, not that I’d condone their actions.

That’s fine. You and I don’t have to see it. We just have to admit that a diocesan bishop is the Ordinary of his diocese and that he has the final word on how his cathedral is used. As long as he does not violate Canon Law, he is free to invite Jews to the cathedral for prayer.

In other words, not one is asking for our opinion. The Church hierarchy does not care what you and I think. It is concerned with the Code of Canon Law. The Archbishop of Buenos Aires did not violate the code.

Some may ask, where does the code give him permission to do such a thing?

That’s not the way Roman Law works. You cannot violate a non existent law. As long as there is no law that prohibits it, the bishop has the authority to do it and his word is final.

If you and I can say

“I disagree”

“But I agree that the bishop has the authority to do this”

Then we are still within the parameters that the Church sets for us.

It’s when we say that we disagree because the bishop is wrong, when there is no breach of law that we get into trouble. Because then we’re telling a non-truth.

The bishop is wrong according to our personal beliefs, not according to the law of the Church or the wishes of the Pontiff. Those supercede you and me.

Here is how I say it.

“I disagree with how the bishop did X [insert your x]. However, I also acknowledge that my position dissents from official Church law. I freely and deliberately choose to dissent. May God have mercy on my soul.”

This way, I’m not speaking as if I were another Magisterium and am admitting that it is I who do not wish to comply with the law.

 

[Jaberwocky]

That’s fine. You and I don’t have to see it. We just have to admit that a diocesan bishop is the Ordinary of his diocese and that he has the final word on how his cathedral is used. As long as he does not violate Canon Law, he is free to invite Jews to the cathedral for prayer.

In other words, not one is asking for our opinion. The Church hierarchy does not care what you and I think. It is concerned with the Code of Canon Law. The Archbishop of Buenos Aires did not violate the code.

Some may ask, where does the code give him permission to do such a thing?

That’s not the way Roman Law works. You cannot violate a non existent law. As long as there is no law that prohibits it, the bishop has the authority to do it and his word is final.

If you and I can say

“I disagree”

“But I agree that the bishop has the authority to do this”

Then we are still within the parameters that the Church sets for us.

It’s when we say that we disagree because the bishop is wrong, when there is no breach of law that we get into trouble. Because then we’re telling a non-truth.

The bishop is wrong according to our personal beliefs, not according to the law of the Church or the wishes of the Pontiff. Those supercede you and me.

Here is how I say it.

“I disagree with how the bishop did X [insert your x]. However, I also acknowledge that my position dissents from official Church law. I freely and deliberately choose to dissent. May God have mercy on my soul.”

This way, I’m not speaking as if I were another Magisterium and am admitting that it is I who do not wish to comply with the law.

Just a question that came to mind.

When we see a person act in some way, we can determine based on experience and reason what an action will result in. Some call it prudence, some others wisdom, street-smarts etc. But such a way of looking at things does exist and is natural for man.

This is also how people usually make decisions on matters that do not directly relate to a Canon Law, Moral Law or Law of faith.

Therefore, cannot one look at events like this and conclude objectively whether they are beneficial, appropriate, leads to confusion, causes sacrilege etc? Then one might look at the past and see that such inter-faith relations were always handled with much care. In fact, most people till Vatican II did not know such things were ever permitted.

So it does seem sure that there has always been a valid reason to object to such things. Therefore while a Bishop or priest might allow such things, wouldn’t the faithful still be able to judge them on the things they allow and conclude on their “wisdom”, “prudence”, or the “street smarts”? It seems to me that even if they do not state this outwardly out of respect for the clergy, their trust in them from that moment onward will be shattered.

Then they behave in such irrational ways as they did here. I think in the mind of the SSPX, the Church has been taken over by men who only know the doctrine but have no knowledge on how to practically promote it, safeguard it, or build a social environment where followers are able to follow it. For better or for worse, that is how they will feel and who can blame them when they react in such a manner?

 

[agnes_therese]

Then they behave in such irrational ways as they did here. I think in the mind of the SSPX, the Church has been taken over by men who only know the doctrine but have no knowledge on how to practically promote it, safeguard it, or build a social environment where followers are able to follow it. For better or for worse, that is how they will feel and who can blame them when they react in such a manner?

Actually, I think anyone can, indeed, blame them for reacting in such a manner. I disagree with them, for example, but I would never act like that at an SSPX chapel.

 

[Jaberwocky]

Actually, I think anyone can, indeed, blame them for reacting in such a manner. I disagree with them, for example, but I would never act like that at an SSPX chapel.

That is why you would be you, I would be me, and they would be someone else. Different people react in different ways.

I would not presume to know what it feels like for them to have lived through such conditions for a long time in their lives and even be belittled for it. We shouldn’t also forget that even Jesus cleansed the temple with a holy anger.

 

[agnes_therese]

That is why you would be you, I would be me, and they would be someone else. Different people react in different ways.

I would not presume to know what it feels like for them to have lived through such conditions for a long time in their lives and even be belittled for it. We shouldn’t also forget that even Jesus cleansed the temple with a holy anger.

Really, anyone could use that to justify disrupting anything they don’t agree with. And there go any civilized standards of behavior.

 

[Jaberwocky]

Really, anyone could use that to justify disrupting anything they don’t agree with. And there go any civilized standards of behavior.

I am not saying they were right. I am merely saying that its not absolutely obvious that what they attempted is wrong.

For an example, is there any doubt that those men and women who did this believed from the core of their heart that they were doing it for God? Obviously they know they are making a fool of themselves and if they lacked any belief in God or the Catholic faith, this is really not something anyone would want to do.

So what we can be sure of is that they honestly believed in what they did and also did so not for convenience or pleasure but a zeal to please God. They were following their conscience.

The matter is made more complicated in that what they believe and hold is actually something that might have been commendable and held as an example of Christian zeal 60 years ago. So it is not like they just imagined things up either. They were acting according to what was once held as the right thing to do. Such events were actually held at a certain time by the Church to be something that will eventually destroy the Catholic faith.

Therefore these men and women aren’t acting arbitrarily either.

Overall, I just think there is a serious crisis in the Church in that someone from just 60 years ago can have an entirely different understanding of how to live ones faith from what is taught today. That is what is causing these problems and tensions.

 

[felsguy]

That’s fine. You and I don’t have to see it. We just have to admit that a diocesan bishop is the Ordinary of his diocese and that he has the final word on how his cathedral is used. As long as he does not violate Canon Law, he is free to invite Jews to the cathedral for prayer.

In other words, not one is asking for our opinion. The Church hierarchy does not care what you and I think. It is concerned with the Code of Canon Law. The Archbishop of Buenos Aires did not violate the code.

Some may ask, where does the code give him permission to do such a thing?

That’s not the way Roman Law works. You cannot violate a non existent law. As long as there is no law that prohibits it, the bishop has the authority to do it and his word is final.

If you and I can say

“I disagree”

“But I agree that the bishop has the authority to do this”

Then we are still within the parameters that the Church sets for us.

It’s when we say that we disagree because the bishop is wrong, when there is no breach of law that we get into trouble. Because then we’re telling a non-truth.

The bishop is wrong according to our personal beliefs, not according to the law of the Church or the wishes of the Pontiff. Those supercede you and me.

Here is how I say it.

“I disagree with how the bishop did X [insert your x]. However, I also acknowledge that my position dissents from official Church law. I freely and deliberately choose to dissent. May God have mercy on my soul.”

This way, I’m not speaking as if I were another Magisterium and am admitting that it is I who do not wish to comply with the law.

So then you would disagree with the quotation that appears as my signature…Just teasing, Brother…I always enjoy your insightful posts.
.

 

[vsedriver]

I am not saying they were right. I am merely saying that its not absolutely obvious that what they attempted is wrong.

For an example, is there any doubt that those men and women who did this believed from the core of their heart that they were doing it for God? Obviously they know they are making a fool of themselves and if they lacked any belief in God or the Catholic faith, this is really not something anyone would want to do.

So what we can be sure of is that they honestly believed in what they did and also did so not for convenience or pleasure but a zeal to please God. They were following their conscience.

The matter is made more complicated in that what they believe and hold is actually something that might have been commendable and held as an example of Christian zeal 60 years ago. So it is not like they just imagined things up either. They were acting according to what was once held as the right thing to do. Such events were actually held at a certain time by the Church to be something that will eventually destroy the Catholic faith.

Therefore these men and women aren’t acting arbitrarily either.

Overall, I just think there is a serious crisis in the Church in that someone from just 60 years ago can have an entirely different understanding of how to live ones faith from what is taught today. That is what is causing these problems and tensions.

 

[vsedriver]

I am not saying they were right. I am merely saying that its not absolutely obvious that what they attempted is wrong.