What, precisely, has been immorally commanded?

[Sure]

Well, it seems Andreas cannot receive an intelligent answer to his thread because someone here is refusing to acknowledge that Lefevbre committed a schismatic act and his organization is viewed in the eyes of the Church as a schismatic movement.

I can’t see that there is much to discuss when one side continues to proclaim that the Lefevbrists are not separated in any way from the Church. We can’t very well discuss their separation and reconciliation when you deny their legal status in the Church.

 

[ac_claire]

It seems now that you want to point to Abp. Lefebvre’s personal case as a justification for existing outside of communion with the Holy See, and for this point we’ll prescind from the question of who did the breaking. Do you wish to claim that the Abp.‘s situation justified his own lack of communion only, or does it also justify others’ lack of communion?
How then, precisely, does this serve to justify living outside of communion with Rome? It just seems odd, that is, that the pope’s refusal to let a retired archbishop run a seminary should have something to do with my communion with the pope. In other words, is there some sort of moral necessity that I belong to this particular archbishop’s society? Or are you really trying to point to something deeper, something along the lines of “doing things Rome’s way was a non-starter - either they would let us do it our way our we would have to accept not being in communion with the pope”?

Is anyone going to address this question re: the people who joined with Lefebvre and followed him out of full communion w/ the Church?

 

[GerardP]

Well, it seems Andreas cannot receive an intelligent answer to his thread because someone here is refusing to acknowledge that Lefevbre committed a schismatic act and his organization is viewed in the eyes of the Church as a schismatic movement.

Oh really? I challenge you then to demonstrate by syllogism how my answer was not intelligent. Of course we’ll have to define terms of what qualifies as “intelligent.”

It’s funny how when you can’t post anything constructive or add anything of value to the conversation, you come in and start throwing bombs. The last resort of the desperate.

I can’t see that there is much to discuss when one side continues to proclaim that the Lefevbrists are not separated in any way from the Church.

As I said, simply prove the premise on which the questions are based in sound theological and reasoned principals and we can move forward. I don’t see why I should accept an a priori assumption of separation on the part of LeFebvre when no one seems to be willing to deal with it objectively. Anything beyond “the Pope said it.” leaves most people who claim LeFebvre was separated/excommunicated are absolutely stumped.

At least Michael Davies (R.I.P.) had the moral and intellectual honesty to say exactly what he believed. He defended LeFebvre. He thought it was wrong for LeFebvre to go ahead with the consecrations and he simultaneously thought the excommunications were invalid and “phoney” in his words. He worked very hard as an interlocuter between Rome and the traditionalists in the Churchand I believe it was he who created the real bridge of communication that has opened the Holy Father’s heart to tend to the desperate needs of his flock as much as he can.

We can’t very well discuss their separation and reconciliation when you deny their legal status** in the Church**.

I don’t deny their legal status. I deny their excommunication and separation from the Holy Father. Again, prove the premise and we’ll go forward. Otherwise, you are just “poisoning the well” as Cardinal Newman described it in a debate.

…[W]hat I insist upon here…is this unmanly attempt of his, in his concluding pages, to cut the ground from under my feet;—to poison by anticipation the public mind against me, John Henry Newman, and to infuse into the imaginations of my readers, suspicion and mistrust of every thing that I may say in reply to him. This I call poisoning the wells.

“I am henceforth in doubt and fear,” he says, “as much as any honest man can be, concerning every word Dr. Newman may write. How can I tell that I shall not be the dupe of some cunning equivocation?” …

Well, I can only say, that, if his taunt is to take effect, I am but wasting my time in saying a word in answer to his foul calumnies… We all know how our imagination runs away with us, how suddenly and at what a pace;—the saying, “Caesar’s wife should not be suspected,” is an instance of what I mean. The habitual prejudice, the humour of the moment, is the turning-point which leads us to read a defence in a good sense or a bad. We interpret it by our antecedent impressions. The very same sentiments, according as our jealousy is or is not awake, or our aversion stimulated, are tokens of truth or of dissimulation and pretence. There is a story of a sane person being by mistake shut up in the wards of a Lunatic Asylum, and that, when he pleaded his cause to some strangers visiting the establishment, the only remark he elicited in answer was, “How naturally he talks! you would think he was in his senses.” Controversies should be decided by the reason; is it legitimate warfare to appeal to the misgivings of the public mind and to its dislikings? Any how, if Mr. Kingsley is able thus to practise upon my readers, the more I succeed, the less will be my success. … The more triumphant are my statements, the more certain will be my defeat.

 

[GerardP]

Is anyone going to address this question re: the people who joined with Lefebvre and followed him out of full communion w/ the Church?

What about the people that joined with Ronald Reagan and took a big space ship to Alpha Centauri?

Will we get any answers to that question as well?

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

Whoa! Read it again. I’m stating that the personal case of the archbishop is not one of existing outside of communion with the Holy See. The accusation that he is outside or anyone who supported him is false.

First you’d have to prove that there de facto was a breaking with communion.

Again. What lack of communion?

What justifies the accusation that one is living outside of communion with Rome?

It doesn’t. If the Pope’s refusal to take action against the liberal reformers/deformers after Vatican II caused another bishop to supply what he could during that time, it has nothing to do with communion. The whole “communion with the Pontiff” is a red-herring argument.

No. There is however a moral necessity that you deal with the subject matter honestly. Any attempts to reframe the argument to exclude any links in the “chain” that LeFebvre mentioned and history verifies would be immoral though.

Again, you engage in false premises and a false dichotomy.

“Rome’s way” was never clearly defined. It was simply a loosening of all the Church’s defenses from error and heresy. There was no protection by Rome from liberalism run amok. Rome’s way was inaction against the “auto-demolition” as Paul VI put it, of the Church. (Except when someone noticed and did something about it. Then, no censure was too great, no criticism too unreasonable, no injustice corrected.)

Is there some moral necessity that obliges someone to abandon what has never been outlawed in order to go along with and participate in what the Pope himself describes as the “auto-demolition” of the Church? If a Pope falters in his defense of the Deposit of Faith on a number of fronts, is it incumbant on all bishops to follow suit and falter on those same fronts?

As far as the “our way” argument goes. That was simply “the Church’s way” for century after century. Why was suddenly doing what was valuable in 1962,1862,1762,1662 and back further suddenly become an unlisted crime worth punishment and suppression while false ecumenism, experimentation with sacred things, heresy, heterodoxy were approved?

As far as your moral culpability goes, should you decide to imbibe in any of those errors on your own or with the implicit permission of the Pope or local ordinary, you will have lost your own communion in the Church and with the Pope whether you are formally told about it or not.

I don’t think we have to belabor the point of communion - whether or not Abp. Lefebvre wished to be and thought he was in communion with John Paul II, that pope declared a schism to exist and said it was possible for others to adhere to it; one can argue that the schism no longer exists, one can argue that the lack of communion was unjustly imposed, but there is no doubt whatsoever that John Paul II did not see himself in communion with Marcel Lefebvre.

But it seems that every time I ask for clarification on one point, you just throw up a different point. First you acted as if there were never any “disobedience,” as if that were some sort of trumped up idea. But then you provide a quote from the archbishop himself about a chain of orders (like “stop running your seminary,” “stop ordaining clerics,” “don’t ordain those bishops”) he “did not recognize” (and, hence, disobeyed).

In similar fashion, first you start out seeming to argue that, yes, there were particular things the bishop could not morally do, as if there were some sort of imposition, but then you revert to the line that, really, what some would call the “conciliar church” was simply doing nothing, which seems to be the opposite sort of argument.

Maybe it will all eventually come back to a question of “were the consecrations of Fellay et al. justified because of the general state of the Church?” but I have a hunch that that is simply too myopic. The SSPX were not the only ones who took a path of ignoring Roman discipline (censures, cease and desist orders, etc.), and some of the conditions they would have decried 20 years ago no longer exist. I also don’t yet see how a collection of unfortunate circumstances creates a logical flow to the “irregular” state of the SSPX and others like them.

 

[Sure]

Oh really? I challenge you then to demonstrate by syllogism how my answer was not intelligent. Of course we’ll have to define terms of what qualifies as “intelligent.”

It’s funny how when you can’t post anything constructive or add anything of value to the conversation, you come in and start throwing bombs. The last resort of the desperate.

As I said, simply prove the premise on which the questions are based in sound theological and reasoned principals and we can move forward. I don’t see why I should accept an a priori assumption of separation on the part of LeFebvre when no one seems to be willing to deal with it objectively. Anything beyond “the Pope said it.” leaves most people who claim LeFebvre was separated/excommunicated are absolutely stumped.

At least Michael Davies (R.I.P.) had the moral and intellectual honesty to say exactly what he believed. He defended LeFebvre. He thought it was wrong for LeFebvre to go ahead with the consecrations and he simultaneously thought the excommunications were invalid and “phoney” in his words. He worked very hard as an interlocuter between Rome and the traditionalists in the Churchand I believe it was he who created the real bridge of communication that has opened the Holy Father’s heart to tend to the desperate needs of his flock as much as he can.

I don’t deny their legal status. I deny their excommunication and separation from the Holy Father. Again, prove the premise and we’ll go forward. Otherwise, you are just “poisoning the well” as Cardinal Newman described it in a debate.

They were declared excommunicated in the motu proprio Ecclesia Dei. This was authoritatively confirmed again in 1996 by the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts.

That’s really all there is to say.

 

[bear06]

Well, it seems Andreas cannot receive an intelligent answer to his thread because someone here is refusing to acknowledge that Lefevbre committed a schismatic act and his organization is viewed in the eyes of the Church as a schismatic movement.

I can’t see that there is much to discuss when one side continues to proclaim that the Lefevbrists are not separated in any way from the Church. We can’t very well discuss their separation and reconciliation when you deny their legal status in the Church.

I think the word “precisely” might have been missed in the original post. We’ve all seen this before.

“We are allowed to disobey a command if the pope is commanding you to do something disobedient.”

“What exactly is the Pope commanding you to do that is disobedient?”

“Look! A bird.” (Actually it’s usually “Look! A Koran!”

 

[Like]

I think the word “precisely” might have been missed in the original post. We’ve all seen this before.

“We are allowed to disobey a command if the pope is commanding you to do something disobedient.”

“What exactly is the Pope commanding you to do that is disobedient?”

“Look! A bird.” (Actually it’s usually “Look! A Koran!”

Bear, you crack me up! However, it is the truth & nothin but the truth.
:shamrock2:

 

[Sure]

I think the word “precisely” might have been missed in the original post. We’ve all seen this before.

“We are allowed to disobey a command if the pope is commanding you to do something disobedient.”

“What exactly is the Pope commanding you to do that is disobedient?”

“Look! A bird.” (Actually it’s usually “Look! A Koran!”

Or…

“BugninikoranassisicrisismenshouldwearlacecranmertableImshockedthattheprotestantserviceresemblesthemasscommunioninthehandcatastrophecirclethewagonsthewanderertheremnantthesplintertheshredbugninihesinheretwicebecausehesthatbadandafreemasonwearadoilyonyourheadoryouareatramp”

And then of course the thread devolves into a chaotic series of posts and the original question is never answered…or maybe again, that’s their technique. After all, the devil’s crafty.

 

[bear06]

Or…

“BugninikoranassisicrisismenshouldwearlacecranmertableImshockedthattheprotestantserviceresemblesthemasscommunioninthehandcatastrophecirclethewagonsthewanderertheremnantthesplintertheshredbugninihesinheretwicebecausehesthatbadandafreemasonwearadoilyonyourheadoryouareatramp”

And then of course the thread devolves into a chaotic series of posts and the original question is never answered…or maybe again, that’s their technique. After all, the devil’s crafty.

Do you have that set to music? I wonder if Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious would work?

 

[GerardP]

They were declared excommunicated in the motu proprio Ecclesia Dei. This was authoritatively confirmed again in 1996 by the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts.

That’s really all there is to say.

Obviously. You can’t seem to bring your argument past the “appeal to authority” fallacy. Until we are both interested in the truth, we can’t go any further.

 

[Richie_Nelson]

Obviously. You can’t seem to bring your argument past the “appeal to authority” fallacy. Until we are both interested in the truth, we can’t go any further.

I have read many of your posts. I wonder, are you sspx or sedevacanist? It kinda seems like it reading your posts.

thanks, Richie

 

[Sure]

Obviously. You can’t seem to bring your argument past the “appeal to authority” fallacy. Until we are both interested in the truth, we can’t go any further.

Well, it would seem that in order to discuss what immoral command was disobeyed and justified a separation, we would have to start with the assumption that there is a separation - a fact that you seem to deny, while every rational person and the Church herself admit that there is a separation.

So, now appealing to the Church as an authority is a fallacy? Okay.

 

[GerardP]

Well, it would seem that in order to discuss what immoral command was disobeyed and justified a separation, we would have to start with the assumption that there is a separation - a fact that you seem to deny, while every rational person and the Church herself admit that there is a separation.

So, now appealing to the Church as an authority is a fallacy? Okay.

This little deceptive game of calling the Pope’s fallible judgment a statement of “the Church” is tiresome.

And appealing to the Church correctly is not a fallacy. Your mode of appeal to authority is a fallacy however:

From Wikipedia:

An appeal to authority or argument by authority is a type of argument in logic consisting on basing the truth value of an assertion on the authority, knowledge, or position of the person asserting it. It is also known as argument from authority, argumentum ad verecundiam (Latin: argument to respect) or ipse dixit (Latin: he himself said it). It is one method of obtaining propositional knowledge, but a fallacy in regard to logic, because the validity of a claim does not follow from the credibility of the source. The corresponding reverse case would be an ad hominem attack: to imply that the claim is false because the asserter lacks authority or is otherwise objectionable.

On the other hand, there is no fallacy involved in simply arguing that the assertion made by an authority is true, in contrast to claiming that the authority is infallible in principle and can hence be exempted from criticism: It can be true, the truth can merely not be proven, or made probable by attributing it to the authority, and the assumption that the assertion was true might be subject to criticism and turn out to have been wrong actually. If a criticism appears that contradicts the authority’s statement, then merely the fact that the statement originated from the authority is not an argument for ignoring the criticism.

 

[GerardP]

I have read many of your posts. I wonder, are you sspx or sedevacanist? It kinda seems like it reading your posts.

thanks, Richie

I’m Catholic first and foremost.

I do attend SSPX masses and will attend and support any diocesan TLMs. I go to confession with any valid priest I can find. Most of the time they are traditionally minded diocesan or religious. But I will go to SSPX priests also for confession if there is a need for the spiritual advantage since they are so good at giving spiritual advice in the confessional.

I’m not sedevacantist.

 

[Sure]

This little deceptive game of calling the Pope’s fallible judgment a statement of “the Church” is tiresome.

And appealing to the Church correctly is not a fallacy. Your mode of appeal to authority is a fallacy however:

From Wikipedia:

Statements issued motu proprio carry the force of canon law. They can properly be termed Church teaching (that is why we can call Summorum Ponitificum Church teaching). The interpretation of such statements by Pontifical Councils also carry significant weight and can also be properly termed Church teaching. I’m sorry you view that as a “deceptive” game.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

The Transalpine Redemptorists seem to acknowledge a lack of communion, seeing as how their superior sees “full and perfect union” with Rome something for which he is “working,” and also makes clear that “reunion” and “reconciliation” are the goals.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=224531

Obviously, he feels there are good reasons for being outside of “full and perfect union,” such that there must be a reunion. Those are the reasons I am trying to learn about. I can’t learn about them, though, if I’m told to ignore the fact that the there is a need for reunion.

Since the thread hasn’t really gone much of anywhere, though, perhaps I should ask: Is there anything beyond the same old arguments about whether or not it was necessary for Abp. Lefebvre to run an uncanonical society of apostolic life? If that’s all it’s going to come down to, I think we’ve probably had that conversation before.

 

[GerardP]

The Transalpine Redemptorists seem to acknowledge a lack of communion, seeing as how their superior sees “full and perfect union” with Rome something for which he is “working,” and also makes clear that “reunion” and “reconciliation” are the goals.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=224531

The monks know that they are irregular in their canonical status. You seem to bounce back and forth between canonical status and theological reality depending on how it suits your argument.

Fr. Michael’s choice of words is unfortunate because people tend to jump all over them when there is a chance to misconstrue them. Bishop Fellay has slipped up several times and so has Pope Benedict.

William if you are an SSPX supporter, and also one of our supporters, you will know that the goal of our work has been carried out with our eyes turned towards Rome, right? How many times has Bishop Fellay gone to Rome and talked with the Roman authorities? What is he aiming at? I imagine it is what you would say was in order “to rally to Rome.” That is the eventual destination of the SSPX. It is ours as well. That is why you support us. It is all a question of time; am I right? Because if I am wrong, and we are never supposed to come to the call of the colours, we are in grave error. **We are Catholics. We belong in humble submission to the Pope. All who wish to be saved must submit to the Roman Pontiff; that’s De Fide, right? **Your family should be very unhappy if, after years of support, this whole thing we call ‘tradition’ doesn’t end up in full and perfect union with the Roman Pontiff. That’s what I am working for. That is also what I hope and believe Bishop Fellay is working for; and it is all a question of time.

It is because we believe that Benedict XVI is the Pope, of course. He is the head of the Church. We are set upon working towards reunion. If we remain in an ‘imperfect communion’ we will eventually become a separate organisation altogether.

You’ll notice that Fr. M puts imperfect communion in quotes. That says something about his feelings about the reality I believe.

Obviously, he feels there are good reasons for being outside of “full and perfect union,” such that there must be a reunion. Those are the reasons I am trying to learn about. I can’t learn about them, though, if I’m told to ignore the fact that the there is a need for reunion.

Actually, at this point, l believe you are being coy. All of your questions have been answered and you’ve held yourself above answering any questions yourself. You seem to refuse to justify your assumptions.

You can read any number of explanations in a multitude of places that answer all of your questions. You can e-mail the Transalpine Redemptorists if you want. SSPX priests are always ready to answer questions.

What I find amazing is the absolute resistance towards looking at the root causes of the disagreements.

Since the thread hasn’t really gone much of anywhere, though, perhaps I should ask: Is there anything beyond the same old arguments about whether or not it was necessary for Abp. Lefebvre to run an uncanonical society of apostolic life? If that’s all it’s going to come down to, I think we’ve probably had that conversation before.

Wait. Why was LeFebvre’s society uncanonical? Wasn’t it established canonically?

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

The monks know that they are irregular in their canonical status. You seem to bounce back and forth between canonical status and theological reality depending on how it suits your argument.

Actually, at this point, l believe you are being coy. All of your questions have been answered and you’ve held yourself above answering any questions yourself. You seem to refuse to justify your assumptions.

You can read any number of explanations in a multitude of places that answer all of your questions. You can e-mail the Transalpine Redemptorists if you want. SSPX priests are always ready to answer questions.

What I find amazing is the absolute resistance towards looking at the root causes of the disagreements.

Wait. Why was LeFebvre’s society uncanonical? Wasn’t it established canonically?

They are only slip-ups if the canonical situation and theological reality are not, in this case, conjoined. As I happen not to believe that every act of the Holy See is presumed null and void until proven otherwise, but rather actually quite the reverse, I have been seeking to ascertain why someone would consider himself justified in living under such a reality. I have declined answering each and every question posed to me because I have been trying to maintain a reasonable level of adherence to the point of the thread. For instance “have the local ordinaries been faithful shepherds at all times” does not seem to make a positive case, therefore I ignored it. It’s a rabbit hole.

BTW - Abp. Lefebvre’s society was, indeed, canonically erected. That erection, however, was *ad experimentum *and was not renewed, not even by tacit approval, thus even if we disregard the canonical suppression in 1975 of what was actually erected as a pious union, his society became uncanonical de facto as of 1976.

 

[ac_claire]

What about the people that joined with Ronald Reagan and took a big space ship to Alpha Centauri?

Will we get any answers to that question as well?

My original question was sincere. I’m interested, that’s why I’m reading the tread.