Vatican gives SSPX doctrinal statement to sign

[JReducation]

**Ignorance of the law is no excuse, then? ** That’s like in criminal law: the “long arm” of the law, I suppose. Enforcement would be the problem here if one isn’t a Catholic.

You have slow down here. You’re thinking like an American. To truly understand ecclesial law, moral and other, one has to think like a European, more specifically like a Greek philosopher. Our entire code of law uses Greek systems.

In our system of law their is objective and subjective culpability. If you have an abortion, but you have no knowledge that this is mortal sin, you are objectively culpable, but not subjectively culpable. Moral jugment of actions is always objective. Moral judgment of individual is always subjective. You are saved or damned based on subjective judgment, not objective. Using this system, ignorance is mitigates culpability.

Ignorance must be inderstood the way that the Greek philosophers understood it, not the way that we understand it. Ignorance does not mean that one has never heard the Truth. One may have heard it, read it, studied it and been slapped on the head with it and still be ignorant. The Dominicans, who are the experts on this matter, have demonstrated that a person can have all the information and still be unable to wrap his head around it, to use a modern term. In other words, a person can look at the entire package of Truth and still say, “Something is not right here.” If he is being honest, something is really making him very uncomfortable, to the point that he cannot embrace it, the he truly does not know the Truth. If an honest person were to know the truth, embracing it would be his only desire. Subjectively, this situation mitigates culpability. We’re not talking about a person who is being dishonest and conveniently laying aside the Truth to go his merry way.

It is very hard for human beings to know the heart and mind of the subject. Therefore, we refrain from passing judgment on the person’s culpability. Only God knows how honest a person is. We can only know a person objectively. We can see what he does or does not do and we can say that it is good or bad. We cannot say that the person is culpable. Even a spiritual director has a very hard time determining culpability. Those of us who do spiritual direction as a ministry try to get to know the person as much as possible, but we always leave that room for God to judge.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Warrenton]

Catholic bishops are governed by the canons of the Catholic Churches. The canons that govern the Latin Church say that you need a papal mandate.

When was this canon promulgated?

 

[JReducation]

When was this canon promulgated?

You’d have to go back and find out the first time that this was promulgated, but it is very clear in the Code of 1983. Even if that was the first time that it was promulgated, it is still the law and any ordination of a bishop without the mandate is illegal and incurs an automatic excommunication for the ordaining bishop and the priest who accepts to be ordained.

What we have to understand about Canon Law is that the pope is the Living Law of the Church. Therefore, he has the right and authority to bind the Church to the law and the power and authority to ignore the law, if he believes that it is necessary to do so and he may not be judged for this.

As St. Clement established and later popes stressed, the pope is the highest legal authority on earth. St. Boniface explains this in a rather interesting way. He said that Christ is the Law Giver and that the pope is the person in whom the law lives; therfore, only the pope can make law, interpret law, dispense from law and apply law, but not law can ever be applied to him, because we’re not talking about statutes here, we’re talking about something that is alive in this one person alone.

When we try to interpret law, we must always think with the Church. Since Canon Law is alive in the reigning pope, not the previous popes or the ones who are yet to come, then we must interpret law in a manner that is consistent with him who is The Living Law. It would make no sense to have The Living Law on one page and the rest of us on another page. That’s illogical. Approaching law separated from The Living Law lacks life. That which lacks life cannot lead to life.

When all is said and done, it makes no difference to the Church when the law was promulgated, but that it is in full force until it is changed.

If you watched the ordination of the new Franciscan bishop for Savannah, GA, there was a papal bull that was written by His Holiness, which had to be examined by a college of bishops to verify its authenticity and then the ordination can take place. Without that papal bull, an ordination is illegal. and there is no need for a decree of excommunication, because it’s built into the law. It’s automatic.

The only thing that can save you from an automatic excommunication is if you do not know that there is an excommunication attached to an action. Anyone who has been through four-years of seminary has studied at least four semesters of Canon Law. I did and Canon Law was not my major, but it’s a requirement for the degree.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

As St. Clement established and later popes stressed, the pope is the highest legal authority on earth. St. Boniface explains this in a rather interesting way. He said that Christ is the Law Giver and that the pope is the person in whom the law lives; therfore, only the pope can make law, interpret law, dispense from law and apply law, but not law can ever be applied to him, because we’re not talking about statutes here, we’re talking about something that is alive in this one person alone.

Okay, not secular statutory law, but Church law. That makes sense.

 

[louis91766]

As St. Clement established and later popes stressed, the pope is the highest legal authority on earth.

I am sorry to report that some non-Catholics dispute that and are trying to subpoena the pope to testify as to his responsibility in the handling and possible coverup of certain criminal activities.

 

[JReducation]

I am sorry to report that some non-Catholics dispute that and are trying to subpoena the pope to testify as to his responsibility in the handling and possible coverup of certain criminal activities.

This is a manipulation of civil law. It’s like going after the President of the USA, because of something that happened in one of the states or counties. What is unfortunate is that Catholics are failing to point out that this is legal engineering of civil law.

However, that’s a whole other area; though there are situations when civil law and canon law are in conflict. In those cases, canon law takes precedence. You may never violate the law of the Church to comply with the state. A good example is the illegal episcopal ordinations in China.

Since the first century of the Church, we have held the law of the Church above the law of the state, when there is a conflict. Unfortunately, more frequently, we’re finding ourselves in situations where there is a conflict between civil law and canon law. We have to pray that the number of these situations decrease.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[louis91766]

Since the first century of the Church, we have held the law of the Church above the law of the state, when there is a conflict.

it doesn’t seem like this is right especially if a Church official is violating civil law and the Church protects him from prosecution.

 

[JReducation]

it doesn’t seem like this is right especially if a Church official is violating civil law and the Church protects him from prosecution.

Let’s water this down a bit. Let’s look at the case of China. The state wants to regulate the ordination of bishops. The law of the Church says that no one may be ordained without a papal mandate. You have a conflict here. The law of the Church takes precedence.

Take the United States. Right now, there is a proposal on the table to mandate that insurance companies pay for contraception and abortion. The law of the Church says that we may never pay for such things. If the civil law is passed, there will be a conflict between civil law and canon law. Canon law takes precedence and Catholic employers must disobey the state and refuse to pay for such benefits.

Some lawyers want confessors to testify in the sexual abuse cases. The law of the Church says that the priest who hears the confession must grant absolution, unconditionally, if the person expresses contrition and he must never break the seal.

Those are some examples where you’re bound to the law of the Church, even if it violates civil law or a court order. In some places, priests have been arrested for refusing to break the seal of confession.

A Church official may never do harm and must always choose to do the greater good. The greater good is always to comply with the law of the Church. What is not allowed is for a person in authority to command sin. In that case, you have a duty to disobey. However, one must understand that the Church defines sin, not your or me. I can’t say that I’m going to disobey because I believe that this is sinful, when the Church is saying that it’s not sinful. I can’t overrule the Church. If something is defined as sin by the Magisterium, then I can take shelter under that umbrella and I can decline obedience.

Does that help?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[louis91766]

Let’s water this down a bit. Let’s look at the case of China. The state wants to regulate the ordination of bishops. The law of the Church says that no one may be ordained without a papal mandate. You have a conflict here. The law of the Church takes precedence.

Take the United States. Right now, there is a proposal on the table to mandate that insurance companies pay for contraception and abortion. The law of the Church says that we may never pay for such things. If the civil law is passed, there will be a conflict between civil law and canon law. Canon law takes precedence and Catholic employers must disobey the state and refuse to pay for such benefits.

Some lawyers want confessors to testify in the sexual abuse cases. The law of the Church says that the priest who hears the confession must grant absolution, unconditionally, if the person expresses contrition and he must never break the seal.

Those are some examples where you’re bound to the law of the Church, even if it violates civil law or a court order. In some places, priests have been arrested for refusing to break the seal of confession.

A Church official may never do harm and must always choose to do the greater good. The greater good is always to comply with the law of the Church. What is not allowed is for a person in authority to command sin. In that case, you have a duty to disobey. However, one must understand that the Church defines sin, not your or me. I can’t say that I’m going to disobey because I believe that this is sinful, when the Church is saying that it’s not sinful. I can’t overrule the Church. If something is defined as sin by the Magisterium, then I can take shelter under that umbrella and I can decline obedience.

Does that help?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

I agree with you on everything you mentioned. Where I would disagree is on the issue of crimes of clergy against children.

 

[JReducation]

I agree with you on everything you mentioned. Where I would disagree is on the issue of crimes of clergy against children.

What’s there to disagree with? There is no canon that grants anyone the right to violate children. The canons are very clear on what to do when this happens. The only thing conflict is the issue of confession. If a clergy confesses having abused a child, the confessor must absolve him and he may not report what he has heard. That’s reasonable. The sacrament takes precedence over eaverything else. You cannot violate the sacrament even to protect the innocent, nor can you deny absolution to one who asks for forgiveness and expresses contrition. You absolve and you forget everything you heard. The canon is designed to protect the seal of confession, not to protect the criminal.

The other canons are about procedures. They tell you what to do first, second and third. There is always going to be some disagreement between the canons and the state, because we don’t have a consistent civil law on this issue. Civil law on this issue varies from country to country, whereas Canon Law is universal. It tells you what to do and how to do it. Some legal systems don’t like the canonical process, but it is impossible for the Church to come up with a process that will satisfy every nation on earth.

The issue here is procedural. It has nothing to do with throwing children to the predators. There is no law that in the Church that allows for abuse.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Warrenton]

You’d have to go back and find out the first time that this was promulgated, but it is very clear in the Code of 1983. Even if that was the first time that it was promulgated, it is still the law and any ordination of a bishop without the mandate is illegal and incurs an automatic excommunication for the ordaining bishop and the priest who accepts to be ordained.

Thank you for the explanation and the citation. It gives me a place to start looking. Please understand that I was not questioning whether the law is binding, but was simply curious about when the law was formulated.

I recalled that in earelier times the pope did not explicitly approve the elevation of each new bishop in Christendom.

This led me to wonder why the practice was changed. Again, I am not debating the legality of the change. But whenever something changes, there is usually a reason.

If the law changed, it can change further. You remarked elsewhere that for the SSPX, the choices boil down to three: 1) prelature; 2) ordinariate; 3) something new. I thought that was a very clear, helpful way to analyze the issue.

I have mentioned in a number of places (sort of a running theme with me) that the SSPX exists in the larger context of pluralism within the Catholic Church. Because I am devoted to the old mass for reasons that transcend the intellectual arguments I usually advance, I sympathize deeply with the SSPX. However, their issue is part of a more important question. That question is how much pluralism, and how much dissent will be tolerated in the Church. How the Church answers the question affects how we relate to many others, like pentacostalists, the Orthodox, Protestants and Jews.

The Church has tried very hard for a very long time to gain her freedom. It must be very disappointing to the present Pope to see today’s unprecedented legal freedom for the institution go hand in hand with (almost) equally unprecedented apostasy and highly effective societal suppression of the faith. I speculate that this dilemma brings two things into conflict: one is the recognition that the Church needs to bring willing people of good will into the fold, the other is that in order to bring different sorts of people in, they have to be given “a seat at the table.” This seems to threaten the freedom that Rome has acheived. Basically, the issue calls for re-evaluating priorities.

This is as hard for a church as it is for a man.

 

[JReducation]

This is well thought out and I could write a thesis on this, but ecclessiology is not my field of exertise. I had four semesters of it in my M.Div and that was it. At the STD level, we never touched it. It’s a highly specialized field of study. I will print this and give it to a brother who is getting an STD in ecclessiology. He’s enjoy reading this and may even give me som feedback.

I recalled that in earelier times the pope did not explicitly approve the elevation of each new bishop in Christendom.

The Church has gone through her own evolution. To use Bl. John Henry Neman’s language, we cannot deny the development of Christian doctrine or as St. Bonaventure would say, God is not absent from history and Aquinas would add that He’s constantly creating.

I have mentioned in a number of places (sort of a running theme with me) that the SSPX exists in the larger context of pluralism within the Catholic Church.

There has always been a place for pluralism in the Church. That’s how we end up with 23 sui iuris Catholic Churches. The key is that these Churches are all subordinate to the Bishop of Rome, while maintaining their culture, laws, theology, customs and government.

That question is how much pluralism, and how much dissent will be tolerated in the Church.

Given that the Church is a benign dictatorship, the degree of pluralism and dissent tolerated is really up to the Pontiff. Catholics have no voice in the matter. We are still a clerical Church. Clericalism is not dead and it will never die. Otherwise, the Church collapses.

The Church has tried very hard for a very long time to gain her freedom. It must be very disappointing to the present Pope to see today’s unprecedented legal freedom for the institution go hand in hand with (almost) equally unprecedented apostasy and highly effective societal suppression of the faith.

I wouldn’t say that it’s disappointing. This is not new. We have always had apostasy and heresy. This is the part that always makes me smile when I read these threads. People often respond as if this was a new or as if this was the worse period in Church history. The truth is that there was no internet, no printing press, no TV. Apostasies and heresies came and went and people were none the wiser.

I speculate that this dilemma brings two things into conflict: one is the recognition that the Church needs to bring willing people of good will into the fold, the other is that in order to bring different sorts of people in, they have to be given “a seat at the table.”

This is the reason for a new apporach to dealing with non-Catholics. You want to bring these people of good will to the table. If you don’t bring them to the table, you have no chance in heck for unity. Pope Benedict said it best when he spoke on Protestantism. He said that Protestantism, like Eastern Orthodoxy is no longer the same as it was when it all started. It has an identity of its own and it is driven by many people of good will. We’re not talking about a bunch of heretic lunatics running around. The real heretics are Catholic, which makes sense, because if you’re not Catholic, you can’t be charged with heresy, since it’s a canonical term applicable only to those subject to Canon Law.

This seems to threaten the freedom that Rome has acheived. Basically, the issue calls for re-evaluating priorities.

I believe that the last four popes have pretty well defined the priorities for the Holy See. As I see it, the problem is the faithful. We want the Holy See to operate out of our priorities. The real struggle is the faithful vs the Holy See. This is not no win situation for the faithful. The Holy See can continue to exist, even if every Catholic outside of the Vatican walked. It would continue to be the Church, because that’s where Peter is. It does not work the other way around. The faithful can walk, but they cease to be the Catholic Church, which is the case in the East with the Orthodox. They are definitely Church, just not Catholic.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[louis91766]

What’s there to disagree with?

Covering up crimes against children and failure to report them.

 

[JReducation]

Covering up crimes against children and failure to report them.

OK, I ask the question again. Where in Canon Law does it say that these crimes must be covered up?

Canon Law lays out the steps for reporting these issues.

Canon Law lays out the penalties for abusers.

Canon Law lays out the trial process.

Canon Law protects the seal of confession.

With which of these do you disagree? I’m not understanding you or you’re not understanding Canon Law.

But to imply that the Church’s law protects abusers is a very big statement that borders and slander and calumny. Coming from someone with an ax to grind, I can understand. Coming from a Catholic to allege that there is such a law I cannot understand. So I assume that one of us is not understanding something here.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[louis91766]

OK, I ask the question again. Where in Canon Law does it say that these crimes must be covered up?

Canon Law lays out the steps for reporting these issues.

Canon Law lays out the penalties for abusers.

Canon Law lays out the trial process.

Canon Law protects the seal of confession.

With which of these do you disagree? I’m not understanding you or you’re not understanding Canon Law.

But to imply that the Church’s law protects abusers is a very big statement that borders and slander and calumny. Coming from someone with an ax to grind, I can understand. Coming from a Catholic to allege that there is such a law I cannot understand. So I assume that one of us is not understanding something here.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

the news reported that there have been coverups and that those clergy who did so had not been punished by the Church, except possibly for some small penalty which does not appear to be commensurate with the crime.

 

[JReducation]

the news reported that there have been coverups and that those clergy who did so had not been punished by the Church, except possibly for some small penalty which does not appear to be commensurate with the crime.

My friend, the news says a great many things. When you get to be as old as I am, you will come to understand that whenever the news reports on politics and Catholicism the report has three parts.

One part truth

There were people who appear to have covered things up. I say appear, because it’s looking more and more as if they panicked and made unwise choices, not that they were out to see children hurt. Some of these unwise choices was following bad advice from counselors and psychiatrists who thought that these individuals could be rehabilitated with a few therapy sessions. Another was to trust the promise made by these individuals to behave and never do this again. Another bad choice was to believe that Church would be crucified, if anyone find out, so they thought they could protect the Church. In fact, they did more harm.

One part misunderstanding

Reporters, even if they are Catholic, do not always understand theology and sacraments. You cannot undo an ordination or solemn vows. Once a man is ordained a deacon, priest or bishop, he is what he is forever. Once a brother makes solemn vows, he is what he is forever. To laicize simply means that you grant him permission to live AS IF HE WERE A LAYMAN. He will never become a layman. It’s impossible. Neither God nor the Church can undo what has been done. There are those who would like to see everyone of these individuals who were involved in alleged cover-ups defrocked. There is no such thing as defrocking. Defrocking is an ancient term for the days when priests were taken out, stripped of their vestments and whipped in public. Naked or dressed, they were still priests. Society has a fictitious and romantic notion of defrocking. You can be laicized, but the priest remains a priest. Simply put, you have prohibited his use of his priestly powers. Guess what . . . he can use them without the Church’s permission. Once a priest, always a priest. The only thing that he cannot do without the Chruch’s permission is to hear confessions and witness marriages. Everything else is illegal, but valid.

People don’t understand that when you dismiss someone or laicized someone, all you’re doing is taking your problem child and dumping him on someone else. You’re not protecting children. This priest is now free from Church authority to do whatever he wishes, until someone catches up with him. Canon Lawyers are arguing that dismissal is probably more flawed than helpful. It takes the individual out of the rectory and dumps him on society. How does that protect children? Reporters don’t understand that dismissal does not change a predator.

Dismissing the bishop or religious superior who transferred the person may or may not be fair. That’s why the Church has tribunals, commissions that do inquiries, and departments for these things. You have to prove that there was an immoral intent. Being foolish or incompetent can certainly do damage, but it’s not a sin. If you find that the bishop or the religious superior acted foolishly or was incompetent in handling a situation, you can’t penalize him as if he committed a sin. A sin is an intentional violation of the moral law.

The best that the Church can do when someone in a position of authority acts foolishly or is incompetent it to ask for his resignation and find another place to put him. The sacraments do not allow for the Church to take a bishop out of a diocese and not place him at another assignment. A bishop, even Judas, is still an apostle and has rights given to him by God. One of those rights is the spiritual and material protection of the Church. The Church can’t say to a bishop that he is on his own, because he mishandled a situation. If he intentionally commits a crime, he is punished. If he totally mismanages a situation, then he’s not a criminal. Christ does not judge people using the same ruler that we use. The people in the news don’t always understand these moral rules that have to be followed. They apply to everyone, not just bishops and religious superiors. We do not punish people for being dumb. You have to prove that they deliberately violated the law. Even then, you can only punish as far as the law of God will allow. Horsewhipping is not allowed.

One part agenda

We must never lose sight of the fact that when a Catholic is accused of a crime, it makes front page. However, when it turns out that he’s innocent, the papers don’t go back and reprint a correction.

When OJ was accused of murder, it made front page. When OJ was acquitted, it also made front page. When Fr. Jones is accused of abuse, it makes front page. When he’s acquitted, it never makes front page. Why not?

If Fr. Smith has gay sex with a teen, it makes front page. If that same teen has gay sex with his gym teacher, it does not make front page.

Let’s not forget that we dare not make such claims against Muslims. If the New York Times makes such a claim against an Iman, it may find a bomb in its garage the next morning. The NYT is safe with Catholics, because many Catholics will help put the bomb under the Vatican if they can do so. But Jews and Muslims will not put up with this type of agenda reporting. Unfortunately, we have too many Catholics who actually encourage anti-Catholic reporting. I have never understood how these folks say that they believe what the Church teaches and support hatred against those who do the teaching.

We really have to read the news with an understanding that there are three parts to every news report: truth, misunderstanding and agenda.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Warrenton]

I wouldn’t say that it’s disappointing. This is not new. We have always had apostasy and heresy. This is the part that always makes me smile when I read these threads. People often respond as if this was a new or as if this was the worse period in Church history. The truth is that there was no internet, no printing press, no TV. Apostasies and heresies came and went and people were none the wiser.

Thank you for a very informative post. I used the word “disappointing” because I had this in mind, taken from Ubicumque et Semper:

“We also sadly know of some areas,” Benedict frankly notes, “that have almost completely abandoned the Christian religion, where the light of the faith is entrusted to the witness of small communities: these lands, which need a renewed first proclamation of the Gospel, seem particularly resistant to many aspect of the Christian message.”thecatholicthing.org/columns/2010/on-re-evangelizing-europe.html

Therefore, I do think that the Pope finds the loss of faith in Christendom’s historic heart sad. Also, the fair inference to be drawn from the focus on “reforming the reform” is that there is at least some understanding that the freedom of the Church to govern her own affairs has coincided with the “abandoment of the Christian religion” that one sees in Western Europe and certain parts of the Americas.

Personally, I think the understanding is strong, but as you correctly state, we laymen can only speculate as to the mental state of bishops and chancellors who have not stated their thoughts “on the record.”

It is probably wise at this point to be equally clear what I am not here contending: I am not saying that Vatican 2 “caused” the falling away. Rather, I simply note that Vatican 2 was an expression of Church freedom and Vatican power, and that it coincided closely in time with the falling away of tens of millions of Catholics from the Church. I do not address matters of causation between one and the other.

It was in the context of possible “causation” issues that I interpreted your statement:

The Holy See can continue to exist, even if every Catholic outside of the Vatican walked. It would continue to be the Church, because that’s where Peter is. It does not work the other way around. The faithful can walk, but they cease to be the Catholic Church, which is the case in the East with the Orthodox. They are definitely Church, just not Catholic.

Frankly, the matter of causation is somewhat moot, so I will propose to leave it to another thread, dear as the topic is to many of us here! Perhaps I find the loss of faith more serious than you do; I am not sure: I view it as an illness of a person close to me, or a the plight of a condemned man: careless of his health or not, guilty or not, I will plead for the man’s life if I am able. Should the guilty rejoice in the condemnation of brother criminals?

The crisis is upon us, and demands a response. While the conceptual power of the papacy may be nearly unlimited - other than a heart, what gate can the keys of St. Peter not open? - the purpose of power is to grow the Church and save souls. The pope has the authority to grant concessions, make agreements, offer clemency, just as much as he has the power to excommunicate, to suppress, to interdict. Whether the Orthodox are Catholic, or whether the SSPX are Catholic, is a flexible idea that need not be judged from the single viewpoint of either the SSPX, the Patriarch of Constantinople, or even a pope.

The old French saying went “Even a cat can look at the king.” All Catholic faithful, indeed, all people, have the right to speak to the shepherd. Sheep (even lost ones) can be directed to a any given fold, but they still get to bleat!

 

[JReducation]

Thank you for a very informative post. I used the word “disappointing” because I had this in mind, taken from Ubicumque et Semper:

“We also sadly know of some areas,” Benedict frankly notes, “that have almost completely abandoned the Christian religion, where the light of the faith is entrusted to the witness of small communities: these lands, which need a renewed first proclamation of the Gospel, seem particularly resistant to many aspect of the Christian message.”thecatholicthing.org/columns/2010/on-re-evangelizing-europe.html

Therefore, I do think that the Pope finds the loss of faith in Christendom’s historic heart sad. Also, the fair inference to be drawn from the focus on “reforming the reform” is that there is at least some understanding that the freedom of the Church to govern her own affairs has coincided with the “abandoment of the Christian religion” that one sees in Western Europe and certain parts of the Americas.

Personally, I think the understanding is strong, but as you correctly state, we laymen can only speculate as to the mental state of bishops and chancellors who have not stated their thoughts “on the record.”

It is probably wise at this point to be equally clear what I am not here contending: I am not saying that Vatican 2 “caused” the falling away. Rather, I simply note that Vatican 2 was an expression of Church freedom and Vatican power, and that it coincided closely in time with the falling away of tens of millions of Catholics from the Church. I do not address matters of causation between one and the other.

It was in the context of possible “causation” issues that I interpreted your statement:

Frankly, the matter of causation is somewhat moot, so I will propose to leave it to another thread, dear as the topic is to many of us here! Perhaps I find the loss of faith more serious than you do; I am not sure: I view it as an illness of a person close to me, or a the plight of a condemned man: careless of his health or not, guilty or not, I will plead for the man’s life if I am able. Should the guilty rejoice in the condemnation of brother criminals?

The crisis is upon us, and demands a response. While the conceptual power of the papacy may be nearly unlimited - other than a heart, what gate can the keys of St. Peter not open? - the purpose of power is to grow the Church and save souls. The pope has the authority to grant concessions, make agreements, offer clemency, just as much as he has the power to excommunicate, to suppress, to interdict. Whether the Orthodox are Catholic, or whether the SSPX are Catholic, is a flexible idea that need not be judged from the single viewpoint of either the SSPX, the Patriarch of Constantinople, or even a pope.

The old French saying went “Even a cat can look at the king.” All Catholic faithful, indeed, all people, have the right to speak to the shepherd. Sheep (even lost ones) can be directed to a any given fold, but they still get to bleat!

I agree with you here. I will just add that the loss of faith is not something that I take lightly. My statement about people walking should have been clearer. That’s my fault.

Many of us, bishops, religious superiors, pastors, and others in authority are getting very tired of the number of lay people who threaten that the Church will collapse if they walk. The reason that they threaten to walk is because they disagree with this or that. It happens on both sides of the aisle, not just the Traditionalist side, trust me.

It’s getting so old, that many of us are simply saying, “I can’t stop you from walking. If you do, the Church will continue without you; but you will not be part of it. The choice is yours, you have to choose to be part of the Catholic Church or not.”

That’s where I was going with this. There are many lay people in this discussion that truly believe that if they and the SSPX walk, the Church will cease to exist forgetting that where Peter is, there is the Church.

We really need to focus more on finding solutions than on taking the high road. At the end of the day the pope calls the shots or whomever he delegates to do so, which is usually the Prefect for the Congregation for the Faith.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Warrenton]

That’s where I was going with this. There are many lay people in this discussion that truly believe that if they and the SSPX walk, the Church will cease to exist forgetting that where Peter is, there is the Church.

I could cut and paste this whole post and say I agree with every word you wrote!

From my perspective, the SSPX must not walk away both for their good and the good of their neighbors. Everytime someone leaves, it weakens the Church a little, I believe. It is a bit like skipping out before the mass is completed - the power of suggestion is strong.

The spiritual risk that anyone takes in leaving the Church is so large that is is frightening to contemplate. “Even the just tremble.”

I have faith that eventually this will get sorted out because the people involved are very intelligent and principled. The traditionalists I know really want union and are afraid of schism. I also think that I may live to see the closure of the Eastern schism, so perhaps I am simply misguided!

The present problem with people leaving the Church may well have the effect of bringing those who remain back into closer unity. There was a thread in the News forum about a perfectly fine old church being knocked down in France because, they say, no one is attending. I was put in mind of Christ’s words “If they do this thing in a green tree, what shall they do in the dry?”

The warnings are there, and should inspire us to band together. I think that is happening. How much better able shall we then be able to carry out the virtues of faith, love and charity.

 

[Ein_Sucher]

I, a boy of 14 am a member of the Society of Saint Pius X. The Second Vatican Council was not wholly rejected by our founder Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. If I am correct he refused to sign only two of the documents. One of which dealt with ECUMENISM. This document’s watering down of the most basic truth is indescribable. The truth that " Outside the Catholic Church there is NO salvation." The other problem with Vatican II was the reformation of the Divine Liturgy. The most perfect way of adoring God was turned into a slip-shot Protestant service. This was foretold in one of Our Lady’s apparitions as the “Suicide of the Liturgy.” If any of you wish to know more about the Society find your nearest SSPX chapel and speak to the PRIEST.
May Christ in His infinite mercy show His Truth unto you, Ein Sucher