What, precisely, has been immorally commanded?

[Andreas_Hofer]

I know a thread like this could get heated, so I just want to state from the outset that I’m honestly looking for answers, so I feel I need the ask the question:

Those groups of traditionalists who find themselves justified in maintaining “imperfect communion” of various degrees with Rome seem to argue that they must do this because it would be sinful to obey what Roman authority, i.e. popes, have commanded. Now, I understand and grant the point that if a prelate, even the pope himself, commands something that is contrary to faith and morals he must be disobeyed. My question is, though, what has this pope, Benedict, or previous popes commanded that

1. is immoral and thus must be disobeyed and
2. has been placed as a condition of communion such that maintaining full communion with the Holy See is impossible while disobeying this order?

I feel the need to ask the question because I can’t think of what the answer might be. I recognize that many point to the crisis in today’s Church as the justifying factor, yet of all the silly and outright pernicious things that happen - even if you think the popes have been perpetrators of outright evil - I’m not sure what immoral thing has actually been mandated and I would like to know what it is supposed to be. That would make it much easier to assess the merits of the case for “imperfect communion.” Thanks to all for their answers, and please, PLEASE, let’s everyone be charitable in debating the proposals.

 

[mmurphy31]

I know a thread like this could get heated, so I just want to state from the outset that I’m honestly looking for answers, so I feel I need the ask the question:

Those groups of traditionalists who find themselves justified in maintaining “imperfect communion” of various degrees with Rome seem to argue that they must do this because it would be sinful to obey what Roman authority, i.e. popes, have commanded. Now, I understand and grant the point that if a prelate, even the pope himself, commands something that is contrary to faith and morals he must be disobeyed. My question is, though, what has this pope, Benedict, or previous popes commanded that

1. is immoral and thus must be disobeyed and
2. has been placed as a condition of communion such that maintaining full communion with the Holy See is impossible while disobeying this order?

I feel the need to ask the question because I can’t think of what the answer might be. I recognize that many point to the crisis in today’s Church as the justifying factor, yet of all the silly and outright pernicious things that happen - even if you think the popes have been perpetrators of outright evil - I’m not sure what immoral thing has actually been mandated and I would like to know what it is supposed to be. That would make it much easier to assess the merits of the case for “imperfect communion.” Thanks to all for their answers, and please, PLEASE, let’s everyone be charitable in debating the proposals.

 

[mmurphy31]

I am also searching for answers in this regard and only want the truth in charity. I am waiting to hear.
Michael

 

[Like]

I am also searching for answers in this regard and only want the truth in charity. I am waiting to hear.
Michael

OK, That makes at least 3 of us waiting for truth in charity

 

[thistle]

I know a thread like this could get heated, so I just want to state from the outset that I’m honestly looking for answers, so I feel I need the ask the question:

Those groups of traditionalists who find themselves justified in maintaining “imperfect communion” of various degrees with Rome seem to argue that they must do this because it would be sinful to obey what Roman authority, i.e. popes, have commanded. Now, I understand and grant the point that if a prelate, even the pope himself, commands something that is contrary to faith and morals he must be disobeyed. My question is, though, what has this pope, Benedict, or previous popes commanded that

1. is immoral and thus must be disobeyed and
2. has been placed as a condition of communion such that maintaining full communion with the Holy See is impossible while disobeying this order?

I feel the need to ask the question because I can’t think of what the answer might be. I recognize that many point to the crisis in today’s Church as the justifying factor, yet of all the silly and outright pernicious things that happen - even if you think the popes have been perpetrators of outright evil - I’m not sure what immoral thing has actually been mandated and I would like to know what it is supposed to be. That would make it much easier to assess the merits of the case for “imperfect communion.” Thanks to all for their answers, and please, PLEASE, let’s everyone be charitable in debating the proposals.

Nothing has been immorally commanded although some will say the new mass is one thing.

 

[Eilish_Maura]

For those waiting - I would not suggest holding one’s breathe!

On another thread we got someone claiming the OF was promoted among the faithful in such a way that it was accepted under ‘false pretenses’ and refuses to cough up meaningful information to back up such a claim.

 

[THurifer2]

Who’s worse SSPX or protestants?

 

[Brother_John]

Who’s worse SSPX or protestants?

SSPX. At least Protestants admit that they are NOT Catholic, and many of them wouldn’t be seen in a Catholic Church.

SSPX on the other hand, claim to be some sort of “super-Catholic”.

Just my opinion

:twocents:

 

[Sure]

Who’s worse SSPX or protestants?

That would be a good topic for a thread. Just not this one. The discussion here is what was immorally commanded by the Pope.

 

[Eilish_Maura]

That would be a good topic for a thread. Just not this one. The discussion here is what was immorally commanded by the Pope.

:clapping: :clapping: :clapping:

 

[Nino]

Well.those of us who were upset over Vat.11 and the changes made in the Mass etc have come full circle! We were afraid that the church would somehow push the notion that of the so called 'social gospel"…just open up a soup kitchen,pat the person on the head and you are superior to all others and that person will be saved! At my catholic (small C) high school where I taught for 30 years the Mercy order fell for the line and their order dried up!..I used to present a program called 'heart of a priest. by SJ John Houle…a courageous priest who was caught in china in the early 50s,tortured and ordered to leave…I used to present his film and deliver a talk to many holy name societies,Knights of Columbus etc…after Pius X12 died and meetings were held between the russians and the Vatican…my programs,delivered free of charge,dried up also…detente I think was the word…and so it has gone…no Pope can committ sin but be really just PC…even the holy father goes to confession…its the toughest job in the world…so many enemies…ps…Fr.Houle became the miracle needed for a certain french priest missionary to become a saint.and so I have letters with his signature on it…from a man who was cured …so if I get tossed from this site,I have lived and struggled for the church and in one letter to me Fr.Houle asked…'and where are the other nine?" where indeed…where indeed…ps the new saints name "St.Claude de.LaColombiere"and Fr.Houle suffered the same way…StClaude was beaten in England and ordered and warned never to return…and suffered chest pains the rest of his life…as did Fr.Houle…beaten in china etc…and to this day the same thugs who run china make life miserable for the underground church and now also for the Tibet people…how sad,and the world remains silent…gee when will those olympics start anyway…I hope they move those bodies out of the way before the torch arrives…all the best…

 

[bear06]

Again, Andreas questions was:

My question is, though, what has this pope, Benedict, or previous popes commanded that

1. is immoral and thus must be disobeyed and
2. has been placed as a condition of communion such that maintaining full communion with the Holy See is impossible while disobeying this order?

I asked a similar question a few years ago and the thread quickly died with no answers. I’ve found that the people like to throw out generalities but never want to actually make a list of facts as to why they believe what they do.

 

[GerardP]

My question is, though, what has this pope, Benedict, or previous popes commanded that

1. is immoral and thus must be disobeyed and
2. has been placed as a condition of communion such that maintaining full communion with the Holy See is impossible while disobeying this order?

That’s an interesting question. I’d like to know what has been disobeyed. (Besides the 1988 consecrations of archbishop LeFebvre–they would need to be explained by the answer to the question of the larger crisis in the Church)

Many posters like to run around screaming “they reject the teachings of Vatican II!!!” and yet, those rejected teachings are never fully explained. Most of the time, they are “the Spirit of Vatican II” yet the defenders of them don’t even know that.

For one: Ecumenism is a policy, not a teaching. And there is a false ecumenism and a true ecumenism. Which is which?

 

[GerardP]

The next question is, have the local ordinaries been faithful shepherds at all times? When the Pope tells you (by implication) to obey a bishop that is disobedient to the Pope, what are you supposed to do? What if the Pope never corrects a bishop that is in error or disobedient?

Pope Benedict recently stated in Summorum Pontificum that the TLM was never abrogated. Well, what caused the caused the de facto abrogation of the TLM?

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

That’s an interesting question. I’d like to know what has been disobeyed. (Besides the 1988 consecrations of archbishop LeFebvre–they would need to be explained by the answer to the question of the larger crisis in the Church)

Well, I’d like to keep things on a more general level, since the SSPX is not the only group out there, but in their particular case, every single priest of the SSPX violates his suspension a divinis every time he celebrates Mass.

I know, then, that they “challenge” their suspensions, but the question returns to: “what were you ordered to do that you could not morally do, thus necessitating doing something that would, in its substance, get you suspended.” Doing something to get yourself suspended does, after all, usually entail some sort of disobedience.

 

[bear06]

For one: Ecumenism is a policy, not a teaching. And there is a false ecumenism and a true ecumenism. Which is which?

Actually Unitatis Redintegratio would be a decree. Also, it’s important to notice the last line of it.

Each and all these matters which are set forth in this Decree have been favorably voted on by the Fathers of the Council. And We, by the apostolic authority given Us by Christ and in union with the Fathers, approve, decree and establish them in the Holy Spirit and command that they be promulgated for the glory of God.

Here’s what a decree is: newadvent.org/cathen/04670a.htm

And here is what promulgate means:

newadvent.org/cathen/12454b.htm

 

[Eilish_Maura]

The next question is, have the local ordinaries been faithful shepherds at all times? When the Pope tells you (by implication) to obey a bishop that is disobedient to the Pope, what are you supposed to do? What if the Pope never corrects a bishop that is in error or disobedient?

Pope Benedict recently stated in Summorum Pontificum that the TLM was never abrogated. Well, what caused the caused the de facto abrogation of the TLM?

Take it up with B16 and any others who were around during that time.

While SP says TLM was not abrogated he does not say replacing it with the OF was an inappropriate (or worse) action.

 

[GerardP]

Take it up with B16 and any others who were around during that time.

My what an intellectually incisive answer!

While SP says TLM was not abrogated he does not say replacing it with the OF was an inappropriate (or worse) action.

It also doesn’t give recommendations for making meatballs. What’s your point?

 

[GerardP]

Actually Unitatis Redintegratio would be a decree. Also, it’s important to notice the last line of it.

Okay… how is a decree a teaching in this case?

 

[GerardP]

I know, then, that they “challenge” their suspensions, but the question returns to: “what were you ordered to do that you could not morally do, thus necessitating doing something that would, in its substance, get you suspended.” Doing something to get yourself suspended does, after all, usually entail some sort of disobedience.

The answer is plainly: Doing what was done licitly for centuries as a means of sanctifying and saving souls. Living the Catholic life in its fullness.

The reality is, that there was an effort to bury every external sign and many doctrinal teachings that were uniquely Catholic.

To promote the Rosary and Devotions.

Eucharistic Processions

The use of Latin.

The use of a rite of Mass that was licit to use.

Promotion of disciplines that had been used before Vatican II and later loosened.

Teaching on the four last things.

There are many more… as you know.