What, precisely, has been immorally commanded?

[GerardP]

Does he repeat these since becoming Pope?

He’s obviously going to be more muted in his approach so as not to scandalize the ignorant faithful.

But he’s essentially saying the same thing. From the explanatory note accompanying Summorum Pontificum.

“This occurred above all because in many places celebrations were not faithful to the prescriptions of the new Missal, but the latter actually was understood as authorizing or even requiring creativity, which frequently led to deformations of the liturgy which were hard to bear. I am speaking from experience, since I too lived through that period with all its hopes and its confusion. And I have seen how arbitrary deformations of the liturgy caused deep pain to individuals totally rooted in the faith of the Church.”

What is he doing making the missal ‘responsible’ for all wrongs in the Church the OF if he believed anything like that today?

He’s obviously doing something and it’s very much in line with his previous statements. “liturgical ruins” were his words.

Did he/does he define exactly what is meant by those phrases and how they are measured objectively?

"The Liturgical Movement had in fact been attempting to overcome this reductionism, the product of an abstract sacramental theology, and to teach us to understand the Liturgy as a living network of tradition which had taken concrete form, which cannot be torn apart into little pieces, but has to be seen and experienced as a living whole. Anyone like myself, who was moved by this perception in the time of the Liturgical Movement on the eve of the Second Vatican Council, can only stand, deeply sorrowing, before the ruins of the very things they were concerned for."

For all you or I know he regrets using those terms.

He can always retract them. But he did say them. It’s only wishful thinking on your part that he regrets them now. Especially in light of his actions.

Don’t get me wrong. I still believe he is trying to save a hopeless cause, but he’s honest in his evaluations of what was hoped for and what resulted.

 

[GerardP]

And, then we see technique number 2: “Post 6 times in a row with lots of information, re-hashing, self-references, and attempts to divert the original topic of the thread.”

It’s like they have a playbook on avoiding the tough questions.

You seem to have a real problem with honesty. If you seriously think I’ve spent this time directly answering questions, supplying answers and pointing out flaws in the premises that Andreas put forth as part of his question in order to “divert” the topic, you can’t be playing with a full deck or an honest mind.

The only questions that haven’t been answered are the ones I’ve posed.

 

[GerardP]

Well, you missed something. ** Nobody actually mentioned Lefebvre **although this does have to do with the fact that the “we can’t obey and immoral, sinful or contrary to Tradition command” that is usually given by SSPX supporters. I’m also not sure how Roe vs. Wade fits in because it had nothing to do with a pope commanding and immoral act. Here’s the original query yet again.

Are you serious? “Nobody mentioned LeFebvre?” You’re the one who obviously missed something.

 

[bear06]

It would be difficult for a supporter of the SSPX to respond to the thread because of the use of the word “immoral”.
Please provide a link to an official SSPX use of the word “immoral”. It may exist but I haven’t seen it.

That’s why I also added sinful and contrary to Tradition to help you out in this little venture.
And Gerard, read the original post. Not one mention of the SSPX. I don’t even care, really, what the SSPX says on the subject. I care what the people on these forums think and particularly the SSPX supporters who so often use the "we can’t obey a immoral, contrary to Tradition or sinful command. I actually agree with all of that. That said, I want to see the list of commands that the last two Roman Pontiffs and/or VII gave that were so contrary to Tradition that must disobey them. If there are none, fine. Just say it. If there are some, why can’t someone make a nice tidy list without going off on tangents?

 

[bear06]

By the by, Gerard, you were the one who first mentioned Lefebvre and kept mentioning him. It wasn’t in the original post at all. The question Andreas posed was to the people on the forums. You were the tangential person who brought him up.

 

[GerardP]

And Gerard, read the original post. Not one mention of the SSPX.

I’ve answered the original post several times on this thread. Line by line. I pointed out in my first post that LeFebvre was the prime example of someone being commanded to do something that was immoral. I’ve also posted the reasoning of St. Thomas Aquinas to explain the reasons why such disobedience is moral.

I’ve cited an example from history with the immoral command of Pope Stephen VI requiring the body of Pope Formosus to be exhumed, desecrated and put on trial.

You want another one from history? The attempts by several Popes to abolish the Ambrosian Rite. They were all unsuccessful because of the justified disobedience of the faithful and the clergy of Milan.

I don’t even care, really, what the SSPX says on the subject.

What does whether you care or not have to do with the truth?

I care what the people on these forums think and particularly the SSPX supporters who so often use the "we can’t obey a immoral, contrary to Tradition or sinful command.

Can you find some of these people? I’m one. I’ve posted what one of the immoral direct commands was. I’ve even pointed out that the Pope’s lack of command in regards to disobedient bishops puts the faithful in an untenable position. When the Pope or his offices tells the faithful to obey the disobedient bishop (ie. one who forbade the Traditional Latin Mass), there’s an “Alphonse and Gaston” scenario at work.

Otherwise, you can’t come up with a real reason for why the SSPX was suppressed for giving the faithful what had been illegally denied to them by the lawful bishops.

I actually agree with all of that. That said, I want to see the list of commands that the last two Roman Pontiffs and/or VII gave that were so contrary to Tradition that must disobey them.

Would you consider the “loosening” power of the Pope a command? The “binding” power of the Pope would seem to be an exercise of his commanding power. So, I would posit that his “loosening” power would also be an exercise of his command.

If there are none, fine. Just say it. If there are some, why can’t someone make a nice tidy list without going off on tangents?

Tangents? I haven’t gone off on tangents. I’ve directly answered the questions and delved into the questions themselves in order to clarify what is meant.

"tangents’ is another one of those vague terms like “those groups” that have yet to be named and the unnamed canon law that prevents Andreas from applying St. Thomas’ criteria for resistance to a law to the case of LeFebvre.

 

[GerardP]

By the by, Gerard, you were the one who first mentioned Lefebvre and kept mentioning him. It wasn’t in the original post at all. The question Andreas posed was to the people on the forums. You were the tangential person who brought him up.

I know I was the first one who brought him up. The point is, LeFebvre is not a tangent. To say that LeFebvre is not an example of someone refusing to obey an order that in those circumstances was harmful to the common good is silly.

I’ve asked several times who “those groups” are that are mentioned in the original post.

So far, nothing as far as a response. I’m beginning to think they are a figment of the posters who are virulently anti-traditional.

Andreas wants to keep things general when I mention specifics. When I mention general things, Andreas accuses me of being vague.

I’ve answered virtually everything on this thread and so far, virtually no one has tackled any of my questions or disputed the truth of what I’ve stated.

(Sure likes to taunt but doesn’t really contribute anything in the way of substance on this thread.)

Andreas asked for one example. I’ve provided multiple examples of people both individually and corporately who morally resisted orders from Popes. I’ve also shown how history bears witness to an example of an objectively immoral set of orders of at least one Pope. “Guided by the Holy Spirit, the Vicar of Christ, the Supreme Pontiff, the Patriarch of the West” ordered his predecessor dug up, desecrated his body, falsely accused and convicted him posthumously and had him desecrated again by the public.

Andreas’ question has been answered several times now.

Any counterarguments have been rebutted and his premises have been questioned and so far, he refuses to answer them.

If he wants any more specificity, he’s going to have to be more precise in his statements. Tell us who “those groups” are. And since he admits that he agrees with St. Thomas how someone can justifiably disobey and simultaneously separate himself from the Church.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

I just spent a good half-hour replying to various posts only to have them stolen away from me by the site when I submitted the reply. Unfortunately, that means re-doing things will have to wait until tomorrow. To see if we can get there with less effort on my part, though, here’s what I would like to do:

1. Narrow the focus to Abp. Lefebvre in particular, since that is where things are going anyway.
2. Since GerardP wants to focus on the consecrations, could I get an explanation of why it was immoral to *not *ordain bishops (as in, not just “lots of bishops were doing bad things” but “factor X plus factor Y plays into this moral category by which we can analyze the situation”).

 

[GerardP]

Here’s yet another example from history of a bishop defying an immoral command from a Pope courtesy of Michael Davies’ research.

sspxasia.com/Documents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Apologia/Vol_one/Appendix_II_Part_I.htm

Bishop Robert Grossteste:

"No faithful subject of the Holy See, no man who is not cut away by schism from the Body of Christ and the same Holy See, can submit to mandates, precepts, or any other demonstrations of this kind, no, not even if the authors were the most high body of angels. He must needs repudiate them and rebel against them with all his strength. Because of the obedience by which I am bound, and of my love of my union with the Holy See in the Body of Christ, **as an obedient son I disobey, I contradict, I rebel. You cannot take action against me, for my every word and act is not rebellion but the filial honor due by God’s command to father and mother. **As I have said, the Apostolic See in its holiness cannot destroy, it can only build. This is what the plentitude of power means; it can do all things to edification. But these so-called provisions do not build up, they destroy. They cannot be the works of the blessed Apostolic See, for “flesh and blood,” which do not possess the Kingdom of God “hath revealed them,” not "our Father which is in heaven.“27”

 

[bobzills]

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

1. is immoral and thus must be disobeyed…
   .

I can’t think of a direct immoral command, but if we rely on the statement of Pope Felix III who declared:“An error which is not resisted is approved…”, then I can think of several problematical developments which have been approved in the sense that they have not been strongly resisted. Here are a few:

1. The failure to resist the clown Mass. Clowns are examples of living jesters or jokesters. Why have a clown Mass except to indicate that the whole Catholic liturgy is a big joke? Is this the correct atttitude to take toward Catholicism and its liturgy?
2. The failure to resist the error in the translation of pro multis as for all, which hints at the error of apokatastasis.
3. The failure to resist the degradation of Catholic colleges in the USA.
4. The failure to resist the easy marriage annulment mentality as we see it in the Catholic Church in the USA. As Father Dohery has quoted a Tribunal official as saying:
   “There is no marriage which, given a little time for investigation, we cannot declare invalid.”
   If there is no Catholic marriage that cannot be declared invalid, they who out there is really married?
   And more.

 

[I_Believe]

Is the concept of an immoral command that confusing for you? One is morally justified in disobeying an immoral command. So, what was that command?

What was the immoral command that Lefevbre was obliged to disobey? The introduction of the new Mass can’t be it, because Lefevbre was not involved in the introduction. So, he was not asked in that regard to do anything immoral (or anything at all for that matter).

Ok, home from work.

Is it possible there was an immoral * reponse* to a papal “command” ? (Do Popes officially "command " things anyway ?)

John XXIII, during the council, wrote this…

" Responsibility for enforcement

1. Bishops and superiors-general of religious orders shall take pains to ensure that in their seminaries and in their schools where adolescents are trained for the priesthood,** all shall studiously observe the Apostolic See’s decision in this matter and obey these Our prescriptions most carefully.**
2. In the exercise of their paternal care they **shall be on their guard lest anyone under their jurisdiction, eager for revolutionary changes, writes against the use of Latin in the teaching of the higher sacred studies or in the Liturgy, or through prejudice makes light of the Holy See’s will in this regard or interprets it falsely. **

Looks to me like someone picked up a ball and ran with it.

John XXIII didn’t even want to hear these kind of changes discussed. keyword: Revolutionary.

Now I know my connection here sounds off the wall. I’ve never seen anyone use the Apostolic Constitution Veterum Sapientia
On the Promotion of the Study of Latin used to argue against the introduction of venacular in the Liturgy. But it’s right there in the Holy Father’s own words. Revolutionary changes were not what he had in mind when he called the Council.

I guess I’m saying that once one knows the rules of the realm, he knows there are things you just don’t do.

But that’s all water under the bridge now. The priests now have a choice. TLM or NO. (Thank you Papa) The seminary numbers will tell the story. They will be the real indicators. Those discerning the priesthood will know they have a choice.

It’s all up to the priests. The average Catholic will remain unaware of the issue until the priests make them aware that they have a choice as well.

Heh, I could be reading it wrong

Take care friend, I’m out of here for the next three days.
A Blessed Easter to all.

 

[Sure]

Ok, home from work.

Is it possible there was an immoral * reponse* to a papal “command” ? (Do Popes officially "command " things anyway ?)

John XXIII, during the council, wrote this…

" Responsibility for enforcement

1. Bishops and superiors-general of religious orders shall take pains to ensure that in their seminaries and in their schools where adolescents are trained for the priesthood,** all shall studiously observe the Apostolic See’s decision in this matter and obey these Our prescriptions most carefully.**
2. In the exercise of their paternal care they **shall be on their guard lest anyone under their jurisdiction, eager for revolutionary changes, writes against the use of Latin in the teaching of the higher sacred studies or in the Liturgy, or through prejudice makes light of the Holy See’s will in this regard or interprets it falsely. **

Looks to me like someone picked up a ball and ran with it.

John XXIII didn’t even want to hear these kind of changes discussed. keyword: Revolutionary.

Now I know my connection here sounds off the wall. I’ve never seen anyone use the Apostolic Constitution Veterum Sapientia
On the Promotion of the Study of Latin used to argue against the introduction of venacular in the Liturgy. But it’s right there in the Holy Father’s own words. Revolutionary changes were not what he had in mind when he called the Council.

I guess I’m saying that once one knows the rules of the realm, he knows there are things you just don’t do.

But that’s all water under the bridge now. The priests now have a choice. TLM or NO. (Thank you Papa) The seminary numbers will tell the story. They will be the real indicators. Those discerning the priesthood will know they have a choice.

It’s all up to the priests. The average Catholic will remain unaware of the issue until the priests make them aware that they have a choice as well.

Heh, I could be reading it wrong

Take care friend, I’m out of here for the next three days.
A Blessed Easter to all.

A blessed Easter to you and your family as well!

Obviously, what we’re getting at in this thread is what is the immoral order that Lefevbre resisted. Is it immoral to refrain from consectrating bishops without papal mandate? I’d so no, especially since Pius XII specifically made such an action an excommunicable offense. If anything Lefevbre should have known that there was nothing immoral about NOT consecrating.

Gerard…

Yes a man can resist the Pope when he gives an immoral order, like speak for a dressed up dead guy in a trial. That’s a clear cut immoral act. Refraining from consecrating bishops isn’t. This is probably why there are zero reputable theologians and scholars who make such a case. But then again, I don’t believe Lefevbre or the SSPX even existed because you have yet to prove that in any of your posts.

Oh yeah, your last remarks saying I “have a problem with honesty” or “you can’t be playing with a full deck” are inappropriate ad hominem attacks and against forum rules.

Happy Easter!

Hey look…A Koran!!!

 

[Sure]

I can’t think of a direct immoral command, but if we rely on the statement of Pope Felix III who declared:“An error which is not resisted is approved…”, then I can think of several problematical developments which have been approved in the sense that they have not been strongly resisted. Here are a few:

1. The failure to resist the clown Mass. Clowns are examples of living jesters or jokesters. Why have a clown Mass except to indicate that the whole Catholic liturgy is a big joke? Is this the correct atttitude to take toward Catholicism and its liturgy?

Was Lefevbre asked to say a clown Mass? Or give his approval of one?

1. The failure to resist the error in the translation of pro multis as for all, which hints at the error of apokatastasis.

Was Lefevbre asked to acknowledge the translation in any way beyond it’s validity (which the SSPX acknowledges anyway)?

1. The failure to resist the degradation of Catholic colleges in the USA.

Was Lefevbre asked to degrade the Catholic Colleges in the US?

1. The failure to resist the easy marriage annulment mentality as we see it in the Catholic Church in the USA. As Father Dohery has quoted a Tribunal official as saying:
   “There is no marriage which, given a little time for investigation, we cannot declare invalid.”
   If there is no Catholic marriage that cannot be declared invalid, they who out there is really married?
   And more.

Was Lefevbre asked to participate in annulments that were in error? (comically ironic since Lefevbre’s henchmen started granting annulments without authority after Lefevbre died…Lefevbre would never stand for it!)

Guess what…the answer is NO to all the above. The things you mentioned would be immoral commands that could be resisted. But, none of these requests were made of him at all.

The funny thing is that even if ONE of these requests had been made he could have resisted and said, “Sorry, but No.” Instead his most peculiar response was instead, “Sorry, but No… Hey I’m gonna make some new bishops!!!”

How on earth does resistance include “consecrating bishops”??? I thought one could resist by merely saying NO and refusing to commit the immoral act. To use Gerard’s example of the trial of Formosus: should the deacon have 1. refused to participate in the immoral command, or 2. refused to participate in the immoral command AND illegally consecrate some bishops???

Have a Blessed Triduum

 

[Sure]

Here’s yet another example from history of a bishop defying an immoral command from a Pope courtesy of Michael Davies’ research.

sspxasia.com/Documents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Apologia/Vol_one/Appendix_II_Part_I.htm

Bishop Robert Grossteste:

Great link, thanks!

It’s a shame that Lefevbre didn’t follow in Grossteste’s footsteps. Grossteste did the right thing. He refused to carry out an “immoral command.” He essentially said, “I’m sorry Holy Father, but this I cannot do.” Lefevbre, on the other hand, was not asked to carry out any immoral command.

I would also say that what Grossteste wrote leads me to believe that had he been sanctioned or excommunicated, he would have abided by the punishment and suffered in protest. He would not have gone off and set up his own schismatic church.

 

[bobzills]

How on earth does resistance include “consecrating bishops”???

It makes it possible for the laity to participate in a manner which does resist the problematic developments. I said that I was going on the declaration of Pope Felix III which said that an error which is not resisted is approved. Where did the post Vatican II Popes resist the clown Mass? What is implied by the appearance of clowns during the Catholic lirurgy, except that it is a joke and is not to be taken seriously. This was resisted by Archbishop Lefevbre when he consecrated the bishops and thereby made it possible for Catholics to attend the more respectful TLM.
Where have the post Vatican II popes resisted the attack on the indissolubility of marriage by the introduction of easy to get annulments?

 

[Eilish_Maura]

It makes it possible for the laity to participate in a manner which does resist the problematic developments. I said that I was going on the declaration of Pope Felix III which said that an error which is not resisted is approved. Where did the post Vatican II Popes resist the clown Mass? What is implied by the appearance of clowns during the Catholic lirurgy, except that it is a joke and is not to be taken seriously. This was resisted by Archbishop Lefevbre when he consecrated the bishops and thereby made it possible for Catholics to attend the more respectful TLM.
Where have the post Vatican II popes resisted the attack on the indissolubility of marriage by the introduction of easy to get annulments?

Maybe clown masses were an idea concocted by Lefevbre – if folks fell for it he could feel justified going into schism.

 

[bobzills]

Maybe clown masses were an idea concocted by Lefevbre – .

Quite the contrary was true. Archbishop Lefebvre promoted the TLM. He and his group of priests and laity resisted the New Mass and his priests will say only the TLM. Why does the post-Vatican II Church have the clown Mass except to indicate that the Catholic religion is something to joke about?

 

[Sure]

It makes it possible for the laity to participate in a manner which does resist the problematic developments. I said that I was going on the declaration of Pope Felix III which said that an error which is not resisted is approved. Where did the post Vatican II Popes resist the clown Mass? What is implied by the appearance of clowns during the Catholic lirurgy, except that it is a joke and is not to be taken seriously. This was resisted by Archbishop Lefevbre when he consecrated the bishops and thereby made it possible for Catholics to attend the more respectful TLM.
Where have the post Vatican II popes resisted the attack on the indissolubility of marriage by the introduction of easy to get annulments?

Where exactly is this Church teaching or document that instructs the faithful to have clown Masses? I must have missed it.

And resistance involves saying no to an immoral command (which did not occur in any of your examples anyway). Lefevbre was not being asked to say a clown Mass.

The question of annulments is a good one. You should start a thread on that. This thread already has a topic and it’s not annulments.

 

[Sure]

Quite the contrary was true. Archbishop Lefebvre promoted the TLM. He and his group of priests and laity resisted the New Mass and his priests will say only the TLM. Why does the post-Vatican II Church have the clown Mass except to indicate that the Catholic religion is something to joke about?

Clown Masses are as related to the Church post-Vatican II as the sexual abuse of young boys is related is related to the Church pre-Vatican II…which is to say of course, they are not related so stop trying to make a connection. There isn’t one.

As for your first part of your response. Yes, Lefevbre and his followers resisted which was fine…but consecrating bishops wasn’t a part of that resistance in any way.

 

[Aragorn1]

Quite the contrary was true. Archbishop Lefebvre promoted the TLM. He and his group of priests and laity resisted the New Mass and his priests will say only the TLM. Why does the post-Vatican II Church have the clown Mass except to indicate that the Catholic religion is something to joke about?

It seems to me the whole concept of the “clown mass” is a straw man. Where has “the post-Vatican II Church” (as you call it) approved “the clown mass” in any of her official documents? Is it allowed by the GIRM? The answers are Nowhere, and No. If and when such abuses happen (and they are so extremely rare as to be negligible), it’s important to keep in mind that these are abuses, and they are not approved by the Church. You’re trying to frame the discussion as a contrast between the reverent TLM and the “clownish Novus Ordo”. But the OF can be and often is celebrated reverently too. It’s a false dichotomy you’ve set up: there’s no reason why both forms cannot be celebrated reverently according to their respective rubrics.