What, precisely, has been immorally commanded?

[GerardP]

Great link, thanks!
It’s a shame that Lefevbre didn’t follow in Grossteste’s footsteps.

Sure he did, he put the salvation of souls at the forefront of his responsibility as a bishop. Don’t you mean it’s a shame that the Popes that LeFebvre was under didn’t follow in the footsteps of their predecessors by not standing in the way of building up the Church?

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.

Not quite. A bishop has a certain responsibility as a Catholic that is higher than a layman or even a priest. He is a successor to the Apostles just as much as the Pope (without of course being the Pope)

The actions and inactions of the post-conciliar Popes were not building up the Church. LeFebvre was building up the Church (and his legacy continues to this day) The command to not consecrate bishops was an unequitable treatment of the law. Had the Popes been building up the Church and defending the Deposit of Faith from the liberals. There is no doubt that LeFebvre would have been in the forefront at the Popes’ side.

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.

Then you obviously didn’t read the article. Grossteste said, “You cannot take action against me.”

In a letter to a papal legate written in about 1237 he warns:

But God forbid, **God forbid that this most Holy See and those who preside in it, who are commonly to be obeyed in all their commands, by commanding anything contrary to Christ’s precepts and will, should be the cause of a falling away. **God forbid that to any who are truly united to Christ, not willing to go in any way against His will, this See and those who preside in it should be a cause of falling away or apparent schism, by commanding such men to do what is opposed to Christ’s will.14

He would not have gone off and set up his own schismatic church.

Even if he didn’t do that. People of dishonest character would have just lied about him and said that he did. Just like LeFebvre. Schismatics don’t appeal to the Pope to enforce papal power for the building up of the Church. Schismatics don’t believe the Pope has that kind of power. LeFebvre, Schmidberger and Fellay all have pointed to the Pope as the solution to what troubles the Church on Earth.

 

[Sure]

Sure he did, he put the salvation of souls at the forefront of his responsibility as a bishop. Don’t you mean it’s a shame that the Popes that LeFebvre was under didn’t follow in the footsteps of their predecessors by not standing in the way of building up the Church?

Not quite. A bishop has a certain responsibility as a Catholic that is higher than a layman or even a priest. He is a successor to the Apostles just as much as the Pope (without of course being the Pope)

The actions and inactions of the post-conciliar Popes were not building up the Church. LeFebvre was building up the Church (and his legacy continues to this day) The command to not consecrate bishops was an unequitable treatment of the law. Had the Popes been building up the Church and defending the Deposit of Faith from the liberals. There is no doubt that LeFebvre would have been in the forefront at the Popes’ side.

Then you obviously didn’t read the article. Grossteste said, “You cannot take action against me.”

Even if he didn’t do that. People of dishonest character would have just lied about him and said that he did. Just like LeFebvre. Schismatics don’t appeal to the Pope to enforce papal power for the building up of the Church. Schismatics don’t believe the Pope has that kind of power. LeFebvre, Schmidberger and Fellay all have pointed to the Pope as the solution to what troubles the Church on Earth.

So, what was the command “contrary to Christ’s precepts and will” that Lefevbre resisted?

And how exactly is consecrating bishops resisting? I thought resisting was saying “no.”

 

[GerardP]

Had the Popes exhibited the vigor and spirit in the face of the crisis in the Church as Bishop Botean did in his analysis of the War in Iraq, LeFebvre (who also had that spirit and vigor in relation to the crisis in the Church) would never have been a problem.

CANTON, Mar 18, 03 (CWNews.com) – An American Catholic bishop has forbidden his flock from participating or cooperating in military action against Iraq, under pain of mortal sin.

Bishop John Michael Botean, the head of the Romanian Catholic eparchy (diocese) of St. George in Canton, Ohio-- which has jurisdiction over all Byzantine-rite Romanian Catholics living in the US-- invoked the full measure of his authority in a Lenten Letter to his people. The bishop declared with “moral certainty” that the proposed attack on Iraq “does not meet even the minimal standards of the Catholic just-war theory.”

…My love for you makes it a moral imperative that I not allow you, by my silence, to fall into grave evil and its incalculable temporal and eternal consequences.

Humanly speaking, I would much prefer to keep silent. It would be far, far easier for me and my family simply to let events unfold as they will, without commentary or warning on my part. But what kind of shepherd would I be if I, seeing the approach of the wolf, ran away from the sheep (cf. John 10:12-14)? My silence would be cowardly and, indeed, sinful. I believe that **Christ, whose flock you are, expects more than silence from me **on behalf of the souls committed to my protection and guidance.

Bishop Grossteste centuries ago, Bishop Botean just a few years ago and Archbishop LeFebvre decades ago all represent in their circumstances a true pastoral care and willingness to put themselves on the line for souls when push came to shove.

What does that say about the actions and inactions of the post-conciliar Popes when one applies the standards of Catholic behavior pronounced by Botean and Grossteste to them?

 

[bear06]

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’s not the “Vatican II” Church that allows the “clown masses”. It’s dissident bishops. BTW, the infamous “clown mass” was in my old parish (territorial that is). The reason you’ve seen the video is because us “Novus Ordo types” went and videotaped it and got word to the Vatican and the laity as to what was going on there. Thankfully, we, because of the videotaping, have not more clown masses or a bishop who would allow them.

 

[Sure]

Had the Popes exhibited the vigor and spirit in the face of the crisis in the Church as Bishop Botean did in his analysis of the War in Iraq, LeFebvre (who also had that spirit and vigor in relation to the crisis in the Church) would never have been a problem.

Bishop Grossteste centuries ago, Bishop Botean just a few years ago and Archbishop LeFebvre decades ago all represent in their circumstances a true pastoral care and willingness to put themselves on the line for souls when push came to shove.

What does that say about the actions and inactions of the post-conciliar Popes when one applies the standards of Catholic behavior pronounced by Botean and Grossteste to them?

Did Botean or Grossteste consecrate bishops without papal mandate?

What was the immoral command that Botean resisted?

What was the immoral command that Lefebvre resisted?

 

[bear06]

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

Sorry, this is just silly. I know the priest who did the infamous one seen by most on this forum. He doesn’t follow the teachings of the SSPX nor of the Holy See. He is a dissident who now, under our new bishop, has been very quiet as of late.

 

[GerardP]

So, what was the command “contrary to Christ’s precepts and will” that Lefevbre resisted?

“Don’t build up the Church, Let it continue collapsing like I am.” was the command.

And how exactly is consecrating bishops resisting? I thought resisting was saying “no.”

That’s a narrow view of resistance. Does resisting a rapist only include saying “no” ? Or does it involve, screaming for help, kicking, punching, scratching and running if necessary?

Does a war of self-defense against an invader involve only saying “no” or does it involve raising an army, building barricades and taking action to prevent those being resisted against from gaining any more advantage?

“In the case of practical, as distinguished from theoretical, authority, which refers, of course, to the ordinances of the Pope, the protection of the Holy Spirit is not promised in the same way. Ordinances can be unfortunate, ill-conceived, even disastrous, and there have been many such in the history of the Church. Here Roma locuta, causa finita does not hold. The faithful are not obliged to regard all ordinances as good and desirable. They can regret them and pray that they will be taken back; indeed, they can work, with all due respect for the pope, for their elimination.”–Dietrich Von Hildebrand “The Devastated Vineyard”

 

[bear06]

“Don’t build up the Church, Let it continue collapsing like I am.”

This is what’s called editorializing.

 

[GerardP]

Did Botean or Grossteste consecrate bishops without papal mandate?

Re: Botean, He explained the sinfulness of silence in allowing others to fall into error.

What was the immoral command that Botean resisted?

I don’t know of any immoral commands that Botean resisted.

What was the immoral command that Lefebvre resisted?

He unjustly commanded him to refrain from consecrating bishops that would preserve tradition in the Church. There is simply no reason for this use of papal power that worked to tear the Church down and not build it up.

Eventually in 2001-2002 JPII admitted the crisis in the Church that he denied in 1988. This was when he talked about the “silent apostasy” in the Church.

Seems he only wanted to silence traditionalists during his reign.
He certainly didn’t silence liberals or help conservatives.

Just thought I’d add this one since you didn’t:

What was the immoral command that Grossteste resisted?

Re: Grossteste: He refused to allow the Pope to appoint unworthy men to receive compensation (benefices) in his diocese.

There wasn’t even a crisis of faith in the Church and the Pope had every right legally to do what he was doing. But it was still immoral and Grossteste knew it and ultimately the Curia knew it and didn’t want to scandalize the faithful by sanctioning Grossteste.

That prudence and honesty was missing when it came to dealing with LeFebvre.

 

[GerardP]

This is what’s called editorializing.

No. It’s called paraphrasing. Paul VI described the Church as in a state of “auto-demolition”

What did he or JPII actually do to stop it?

Thank God that Pope Benedict got into office and is trying to apply the brakes to that out of control trainwreck in waiting.

 

[bear06]

No. It’s called paraphrasing. Paul VI described the Church as in a state of “auto-demolition”

What did he or JPII actually do to stop it?

Thank God that Pope Benedict got into office and is trying to apply the brakes to that out of control trainwreck in waiting.

Really? What’s your source that you’re editorializing. You want immediate gratification. That’s rarely happened in the Church.

 

[Sure]

“Don’t build up the Church, Let it continue collapsing like I am.” was the command.

Do you have a reference for when that command was issued? Thanks.

That’s a narrow view of resistance. Does resisting a rapist only include saying “no” ? Or does it involve, screaming for help, kicking, punching, scratching and running if necessary?

We’re not talking about rape.

Does a war of self-defense against an invader involve only saying “no” or does it involve raising an army, building barricades and taking action to prevent those being resisted against from gaining any more advantage?

Who was the enemy? What was the immoral command?

 

[GerardP]

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.

Must all acts be so clear cut? It’s funny how irreverent you become when referring to the body of a Pope being desecrated. “Some dead guy…”

Refraining from consecrating bishops isn’t.

Depends on the reasons for the order to refrain.

This is probably why there are zero reputable theologians and scholars who make such a case.

I think you are wrong on this assertion.

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.

Read… Please read what I wrote. I gave you an “if/then” scenario. There was no ad homimem, it’s just an effort to make you see your own exaggerations and myopic positions.

Happy Easter!

To you as well.

 

[Sure]

He unjustly commanded him to refrain from consecrating bishops that would preserve tradition in the Church. There is simply no reason for this use of papal power that worked to tear the Church down and not build it up.

Unjust in your opinion. Not in the eyes of the Church. Again, please provide a reference where the Pope issued a command to “tear the Church down”.

Eventually in 2001-2002 JPII admitted the crisis in the Church that he denied in 1988. This was when he talked about the “silent apostasy” in the Church.

What was the immoral command that Grossteste resisted?

Re: Grossteste: He refused to allow the Pope to appoint unworthy men to receive compensation (benefices) in his diocese.

There wasn’t even a crisis of faith in the Church and the Pope had every right legally to do what he was doing. But it was still immoral and Grossteste knew it and ultimately the Curia knew it and didn’t want to scandalize the faithful by sanctioning Grossteste.

That prudence and honesty was missing when it came to dealing with LeFebvre.

I didn’t add this one because I know what Grossteste did. It’s what Lefebvre should have done, but didn’t. Lefebvre went much much farther than Grossteste. He went beyond resistance and into disobedience and evil.

 

[bobzills]

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.

Like I said already, I was going by the declaration of Pope Felix III according to which an error not resisted, is an error approved.
I don;t see where the post-Vatican II Popes have strongly resisted the increase in marriage annulments nor have I seen the strong resistance to the clown Mass. Why have a clown at Mass, except to indicate that Catholicism is not to be taken seriously?

 

[bobzills]

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.

I would disagree and say that the consecrating of bishops was part of the resistance to the immoral developments that came into being after Vatican II. Further, there was no clown Mass before Vatican II, the clown Mass came into being right after the introduction of the New Mass, and there was little or no resistance offered to it, except from Archbishop Levebvre and his followers. And the clown is a personification of a living joke, a jokester.

 

[bobzills]

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.

That’s funny. After Vatican II we have seen, clown Masses, dancing girl Masses, monkey Masses, cowboy Masses, slide show Masses, rock Masses, Peter Paul and Mary Masses, mariachi band Masses, charismatic throw yourself on the floor Masses, folk music Masses, Halloween Masses with Eucharistic servers in Satanic costumes, Dorito chip Masses, etc. Has anyone been excommunicated for having such Masses since Vatican II, or was it just the people who wanted the TLM who were excommunicated?

 

[bobzills]

And how exactly is consecrating bishops resisting? I thought resisting was saying “no.”

In addition to just saying no, there are other ways of resisting the clown Mass and the degradation of the liturgy. For example, one can promote a more respectful Mass such as the TLM.

 

[bobzills]

It’s not the “Vatican II” Church that allows the “clown masses”. It’s dissident bishops. BTW, the infamous “clown mass” was in my old parish (territorial that is). The reason you’ve seen the video is because us “Novus Ordo types” went and videotaped it and got word to the Vatican and the laity as to what was going on there. Thankfully, we, because of the videotaping, have not more clown masses or a bishop who would allow them.

Was anyone who celebrated the clown MAss, the mariachi band Mass, the Halloween Mass, the monkey Mass, the folk Mass, the charismatic throw yourself on the floor MAss, the Peter Paul and Mary Mass, the cowboy Mass, the dancing girl Mass, etc., excommunicated, or was it only those who wanted the TLM who were excommunicated?

 

[Eilish_Maura]

Sorry, this is just silly. I know the priest who did the infamous one seen by most on this forum. He doesn’t follow the teachings of the SSPX nor of the Holy See. He is a dissident who now, under our new bishop, has been very quiet as of late.

Doesn’t mean he didn’t get it all started - planted the seed etc …