What, precisely, has been immorally commanded?

[bear06]

In Hawaii, Bishop Ferrario of Honolulu decided to excommunicated, on May 1, 1991, some followers of the Society of Saint Pius X, for supporting the Society and attending its Masses. Rome declared that the decision “lacks foundation and hence validity.” Bishop Ferrario’s attempted excommunication of Society followers was overturned by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, on June 28, 1993. “From the examination o fthe case, conducted on the basis of the Law of the Church, it did not result that the facts referred to in the above-mentioned Decree, are formal schismatic acts in the strict sense, as they do not constitute the offense of schism; and therefore the Congregation holds that the Decree of May 1, 1991, lacks foundation and hence validity.” (Apostolic Nunciature, Washington, D.C.)

As for Hawaii, the canonist who defended the Hawaii six said that this ruling had nothing to do with the status of the SSPX.

Cardinal Ratzinger’s decision reversing the excommunication of six members of the faithful in Honolulu is used in an attempt to legitimatize the SSPX. As most of you know, the St. Joseph Foundation assisted in defending the “Hawaii Six” and I can say that the status of the Society was not at issue in that case. What was at issue was the conduct of the defendants which, while admittedly blameworthy in some respects, did not constitute schism. The records of the case show that the former Bishop of Honolulu, Most Rev. Joseph Ferrario, tried to use penal law to silence chose six Catholics who were calling the attention of the public to what they perceived as the bishop’s follies and misdeeds. Cardinal Ratzinger has never explicitly or implicitly approved of the actions of the SSPX.

ewtn.com/library/CANONLAW/BOTHWAYS.HTM

BTW, this article does also touch on Murray, Capponi, etc. and was, again, written by the Chuck Wilson.

Now I could also go onto Cassidy but almost all of the links cover him too and I’m tired. Always check the veracity of quotes given!

 

[GerardP]

What was the immoral command that Lefebvre had to disobey???

Still haven’t heard that yet.

Oh I get it now! No matter how many times this question gets answered you are going to pretend you didn’t read it. That kind of denial is “If I don’t act like I see it. It doesn’t exist.”

The second part of your deception is you’ll argue against the “immoral” aspect of the command.

The third part is, you’ll refuse to actually state that LeFebvre was disobedient to a moral command, because then, you’ll have to actually immorally defend an immoral command by pretending it’s moral. On a deeper level you know you’ll lose, so you’ll avoid it altogether.

This ties in perfectly as a mode of operations reflected in the utter dismissal an refusal to engage in the clear teachings of St. Thomas Aquinas approved by the highest office in the Church for centuries.

Now, if you want yet another immoral command to avoid discussing, LeFebvre was ordered to close the seminary in 1974 after a miscarriage of justice was carried out against him.

Again, as Michael Davies brings to light:

sspxasia.com/Documents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Apologia/Vol_one/Chapter_5.htm

As an exercise in public relations on behalf of Mgr. Lefebvre’s persecutors, the Cardinals’ letter is indeed a superb performance. The image it evokes is clear. It is of three very moderate, reasonable, and supremely charitable cardinals doing everything in their power to save a well-intentioned but hopelessly intransigent and unenlightened pre-Vatican II Archbishop from the tragic consequences of his own invincible folly. But he refused to be saved!

The crucial phrase in this letter reads as follows, and its significance could not possibly be overstressed:

…the Declaration stated explicitly what the Visitor to Ecône (Mgr. Descamps) had been unable to bring to light.

The Cardinals admit quite openly that the Apostolic Visitation had been unable to bring to light any excuse for closing the Seminary - and, as was stated earlier, it was clearly to find an excuse that the Visitors were sent in the first place. It will be necessary for the reader to pause for a few moments and consider the precise import of what the Cardinals are actually saying here if its full enormity is to be appreciated. When carefully analyzed the following conclusions are not simply obvious but inescapable.

1. The Visitors were sent to the Seminary to find a pretext for closing it but could not do so.

1. During their Visitation they made statements which outraged the Catholic sensibilities of the seminarians.

1. In order to insure that the scandal caused did not result in any seminarians confusing Rome itself with the persons of the Visitors representing it, Mgr. Lefebvre made his Declaration affirming his faith in the Eternal Rome.

1. This Declaration, provoked by the Visitors, is now to be used as the sole, I repeat, the sole justification for closing the Seminary in place of the evidence the Visitors could not find because it did not exist. This is the “Conciliar Church” with a vengeance!

In order to alienate traditionally-minded Catholics from Mgr. Lefebvre it was necessary to invoke papal authority for the action taken against him. But in their anxiety to involve the Pope the three Cardinals only succeed in contradicting themselves and adding to the confusion and legitimate suspicion surrounding the whole process against the Archbishop. Firstly, they claim that their unanimous conclusions (not decisions) and the complete dossier have been passed to the Pope so that he can “judge for himself.”

Secondly, they claim that “it is with the entire approval of His Holiness that we communicate the following decisions to you.” This makes it clear that the decisions are not those of the Pope; they are the decisions of an unspecified authority which the Pope is alleged to have approved. The obvious solution would be that the decisions are those of the three Cardinals themselves but this possibility is ruled out by an explicit statement referring to the third decision: "we are invited to notify it clearly.”

It will also be noted that the three decisions are included within quotation marks and so the cardinals are definitely communicating a decision of someone other than themselves who is not the Pope. Thus, the dubious legality of the procedure used against Mgr. Lefebvre is highlighted by the fact that he has been condemned by an anonymous judge.

 

[GerardP]

]Now, Gerard has offered some arguments and I would like to ask some follow-up questions.

Yes. Follow up questions are a good thing. Unfortunately, you don’t want to answer any follow up questions.

Your original question has been answered several times.

The examples of Bishop Grossteste, Archbishop LeFebvre, the Trial of Formosus.

You have yet to answer my questions about who exactly those “groups” are that you talk about.

You have yet to answer how disobeying an immoral command in theory can separate one from the Church.

You have yet to answer how canonically (ie. what law ) you are unable to discern the validity of LeFebvre’s disobedience to an immoral command on the grounds that you must by law presume that the Pope’s ruling must be correct and moral. And therefore can’t even investigate LeFebvre’s case with an objective eye.

Seriously Andreas, If you want a serious discussion you have to be willing to put some effort into validating your premises.

1. What precedents from jurisprudence or moral theology would you bring to bear to back up your assertion that the command not to consecrate was unjust?

The very example I brought up on this thread from St. Thomas.

After all, every single bishop in the world is under “standing orders” not to consecrate bishops without papal approval, seeing as how that is built into canon law.

Yes, in the Latin Church. Not the Eastern rites. Cardinal Husar was consecrated in Rome without a papal mandate and it was accepted.

So, we are not talking sacrilege on the part of LeFebvre. LeFebvre’s actions were for practical sacramental purposes.

So if the pope actually took the time to consider this particular situation and then decided to expressly forbid the consecration (thereby expressing his mind as to the existence of exigent circumstances and the necessity of the consecration), what principles might you advance as to why we should judge this unjust? (Once again, it’s not impossible that it be unjust, but we can’t rely on assertion, we need argument).

Then one has to look at the situation in the Church and see the obvious double standard. The fact that the Popes the curia could be so “by the book” (cough! cough!) regarding traditionalists and so lax with liberals and modernist heretics shows that the sympathies of the Vatican were with the heretics and not Catholics who simply wanted to retain their Catholic identity.

The Pope was ruling in a way designed to tear down the Church instead of building it up.

My bishop didn’t consecrate any bishops today, and I’m unaware of his having been negligent thereby. You have to understand that saying “Lots of prelates were sitting by while the Church self-destructed” is going to be pretty easily understood on this forum,

Your bishop didn’t consecrate any bishops “publicly” that you know of. What you don’t know is that there are not a few sympathetic bishops who have secretly been consecrated and walk around as priests in their ordinary lives. They hide vestments and chalices in the homes of laypeople and say the TLM and give sacraments all outside of the local persecuting jurisdictions.

Archbishop LeFebvre was encouraged by several other bishops to take this course, but he refused saying that, “Secrets were opportunities for the Devil.”

but the jump to “Therefore one particular bishop was morally compelled to consecrate who, when, and where he chose.”

See the above explanation. One particular bishop (actually two Castro de Mayer assisted) publicly made a public stand that demonstrated the severity of the crisis in the Church. The Vatican’s response and the obvious double standard validated LeFebvre’s position.

Could you give us the logical flow that fills in the space between those two sentences (and yes, feel free to modify the second one, although I do think that in light of the protocol signed by the bishop* that I am not greatly overstating the case).

I think it’s self evident to anyone who wants to look into the historical events.

But will you give us the logical flow that determines how someone can legitimately disobey an immoral order and simultaneously separate himself from the Church?

Why is it that resisting lax prelates, even a lax papacy, could only be done by consecrating bishops?

Because bishops are the ones that continue the struggle. Priests die out and Rome was willing to let old traditional priests die. And they were waiting for LeFebvre to die. He had been working within the rules while his adversaries changed and bent the rules not just to persecute him but what he represented. Catholicism.

continued…

 

[GerardP]

] For instance, when I think of what I, as a bishop, might be able to do to resist the inaction of other bishops, even the papacy, I think:

• I could say Mass reverently, preach courageously, and teach others to do so as well.

Done.

• If I could not do this in a formal setting for lack of approbation, I would be perfectly free to do this informally (in this case, I’m retired - I’ve got nothing else to do, anyway).

I suggest you actually read the history of LeFebvre. He had quietly retired.

• I could write books and have them published and distributed widely through the generous donations of faithful Catholics.

Done.

• I could humbly ask the Holy Father or my brother bishop to reconsider his course of action and, when my plans were frustrated, I could be incredibly polite in my request to try again or try a different path

Done.

(this strategy in lieu of the more combative, say, telling the pope he is enabling a Masonic overthrow of the Church and then demanding that I get my way).

That’s a very biased and skewed interpretation. LeFebvre was the one who was attacked. Don’t you know anything about this case?

• I could find ways to get seminarians through other bishops’ seminaries but all the while be secretly augmenting their education with real Catholic formation (say during some summers or by regular visits). Cunning as a serpent, innocent as a dove.

Those are the tactics of the modernist heretics. That is the strategy of Judas. “Secrets are the opportunities of the Devil.”

If I did all of those things, are you saying it would still be morally necessary for me to consecrate bishops against the express command of the Holy Father?

LeFebvre did all of those things. It was a “dialogue with the deaf” for 20 years. Go read the Apologia by Michael Davies that covers the a little more than the first half. It includes a lot more detail than the half-truths and purposeful omissions of the neo-conservative anti-traditionalists.

And the simple answer is, what would make consecrating bishops unnecessary? Answer: Having good bishops and priests. Question: Why did the Pope try to suppress the formation of good priests and why did he do nothing to discourage liberal priests, theologians, and why did he promote them to become bishops and Cardinals?

If so, could you give more detail as to why this would be the case?

If you are sincerely interested, start reading.

sspxasia.com/Documents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Apologia/index.htm

 

[GerardP]

• In May, IIRC, the Vatican agreed to chose a priest of the SSPX to consecrate as bishop on Aug. 15, 1988. In early June, Abp. Lefebvre demanded that he consecrate three priests of his own choosing on June 30. When the Vatican insisted on its original agreement with Abp. Lefebvre, he opted to proceed in consecrating four men of his own choosing on the date of his choosing.

Mario Derksen wrote a still valuable analysis of the situation.

After months of back-and-forth struggle, on May 5, 1988, Cardinal Ratzinger and Archbishop Lefebvre signed a protocol of agreement. The actual text of the agreement can be found at the Protocol Agreement. It was only a day after, however, that Lefebvre retracted his signature. Why? At a conference with his priests in Paris, France, he said why:

**After signing the Protocol, they wanted me to write a letter to the Pope, asking for the re-establishment of a normal situation for the Society, for the pontifical right, the suppression of the canonical penalties, exemptions, and privileges - so-called privileges - on the liturgy. Thus, I have signed, I have written that letter.

I signed it on Thursday; Feast of St. Pius V They did not know it was the Feast of St. Pius V because they have relocated his feast to another date…

Thus I have said, “We must know where to stand concerning June 30th, it’s coming soon.” So, with these thoughts, I did not sleep the whole night. I told myself, “They are going to get us.” Indeed, the Cardinal [Ratzinger] had made a few frightening reflections. “Well! There is only one Church …as we respect your feelings, you must also respect religious liberty, the New Mass, the sacraments. It is inconceivable that you turn the faithful away from these new sacraments, from the New Mass… For example, if there is an agreement, it is evident that in churches such as St. Nicolas du Chardonnet, Card. Lustiger shall ask that a New Mass be said there. This is the one Church, in it there is the Tradition that we shall grant you, but there are also the new rites that you must accept for the faithful of your parish who do not want Tradition.” I said, “Well! Go and tell that to our parishioners and see how they receive you!”

They call all this a “reconciliation.” This means that we accept what they do and they accept what we do. Thus, we have to align ourselves on Dom Augustin [Dom Augustin founded a traditional Benedictine monastery in the early 70’s. In 1985, after the Indult, he had secret meetings with the Vatican to make a special arrangement. The Vatican required: 1) the New Mass as the Community Mass, 2) the new Breviary, 3) new rites of Ordination, 4) unconditional submission to the local bishop, who even for a while forbade them to preach the Exercises of St. Ignatius, which had been the main apostolic work of his monastery - Ed.] and Fongombault [a conservative Benedictine monastery in France which took the New Mass in the mid-70’s under pressure from the local bishop - Ed.].

This is not possible. All this makes me hesitate. We asked the Cardinal when we would be able to consecrate a bishop. On the 30th of June? He said, “No, this is much too early. It takes time to make a bishop. In Germany it takes nine months to make a bishop.” When I told that to Card. Oddi, he said, “That must be a beautiful baby then!” I said, “Well, give us a date. Let’s be precise. The 15th of August?” “No, on August 15th there is no one in Rome. It is the holidays from July 15th to September 15th.” “What about November 1st?” “I can’t tell you.” “What about Christmas?” “I don’t know.”

I said to myself, “Finished. I have understood. They do not want to give us a bishop.” They put it on the paper because we were ready to quit the negotiations without it, but they will maneuver. They are convinced that when the Society is acknowledged we don’t need a bishop**.

 

[Sure]

Gerard,

I am not trying to be difficult in asking the question again. Is it fair to say then that the immoral command given to Lefebvre was “Do not consecrate more than one bishop.” It was this command that he felt true obedience bound him to disobey? Please help me clarify.

Also, you mention that Pope John Paul II’s interpretation is wrong because there is no way to verify that he is correct. But wouldn’t the same be said about Lefebvre? His claim of necessity due to grave fear must be objectively verified. And it would seem that the canonists of the Vatican who examined the claim have rejected it and said that no such necessity existed. Are we to disregard their analysis as well?

Since you don’t seem to understand my position, I’ll make it clear. I don’t think Lefebvre was given an immoral command. I don’t think refraining from consecrating bishops constitutes an immoral act as it does not violate any divine or ecclesiastical law. The Pope’s command to Lefebvre was reasonable and should have been obeyed.

I wonder what your stand would be if a “liberal” bishop declared grave necessity to ordain new bishops against the command of the Pope.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

LeFebvre did all of those things. It was a “dialogue with the deaf” for 20 years. Go read the Apologia by Michael Davies that covers the a little more than the first half. It includes a lot more detail than the half-truths and purposeful omissions of the neo-conservative anti-traditionalists.

Posting in the wake of refutations by the very authors misquoted in SSPX apologetics, bemoaning the purposeful omissions of the other side rings a bit hollow. One suspects that reading an Apologia for the society might also not provide a full, objective picture.

And the simple answer is, what would make consecrating bishops unnecessary? Answer: Having good bishops and priests. Question: Why did the Pope try to suppress the formation of good priests and why did he do nothing to discourage liberal priests, theologians, and why did he promote them to become bishops and Cardinals?

Well, it would seem, then, that Abp. Lefebvre was a monumental moral failure since there was a dire lack of good bishops and priests yet he consecrated only a handful of bishops. If there was a moral necessity to consecrate them until such time as we had good bishops and priests then he stopped far too soon.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

The examples of Bishop Grossteste, Archbishop LeFebvre, the Trial of Formosus.

You have yet to answer my questions about who exactly those “groups” are that you talk about.

You have yet to answer how disobeying an immoral command in theory can separate one from the Church.

You have yet to answer how canonically (ie. what law ) you are unable to discern the validity of LeFebvre’s disobedience to an immoral command on the grounds that you must by law presume that the Pope’s ruling must be correct and moral. And therefore can’t even investigate LeFebvre’s case with an objective eye.

Seriously now: I thought it was reasonably evident that the question about “what has a pope commanded” was referring to *during the time period of the SSPX, Transalpine Redemptorists, Campos/now-A.A. of St. John Vianney, modern independent priests, etc. *The OP granted the premise that immoral commands could be given and it would then be licit to disobey them, so Stephen v. Formosus didn’t contribute anything. It was distracting, hence I disregarded it in the hopes of concentrating on the strongly implicit real question of the thread.

Hopefully that list of groups above will flesh out the concepts of “those groups” for you. I started the thread without naming names because a) I was aware that the SSPX does not make up the entire irregular traditionalist universe and b) I didn’t think I would be able to create an exhaustive list, as I’m sure there are more discrete groups out there than I am aware of.

As I wrote in the post I lost and promised for later (which is now), the OP was a bit inaccurate because what I really meant to ask was more along the lines of “what do those groups think justified their actions (whatever they may be that have landed them where they are).” This does, indeed, presume that any excommunications or other censures are valid. You have accused me of illegitimately taking the starting point , in particular that the bishops of the SSPX are excommunicated, and have placed upon me the burden of proving this assumption before you would be willing to engage in the debate. My canonical point was that according to can. 1321:
§1. No one is punished unless the external violation of a law or precept, committed by the person, is gravely imputable by reason of malice or negligence.
§3. When an external violation has occurred, imputability is presumed unless it is otherwise apparent.
So the burden of proof does not lie upon me, but upon those who assert the violation was not imputable. I was following the presumption of the law (not to mention the authentic interpretation rendered by the competent dicastery). We throw into that the decision of the Holy Office in 1951 that a bishop consecrating without papal mandate is excommunicated "etsi metu gravi coacti " *(AAS,*43 [1951], p. 217-218.) - even when compelled by grave fear - and I have little need to justify taking the presumption of the law.

None of this, however, answers the question posed by the thread, which is why in my legendary “lost post” I, having answered your questions, suggested that we drop that line in favor of discussing the real topic: what made the SSPX and other similarly irregular gruops think they were justified in their disobedience (or to put it neutrally, in living in “imperfect communion”)?

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

Seriously Andreas, If you want a serious discussion you have to be willing to put some effort into validating your premises.

The very example I brought up on this thread from St. Thomas.

Yes, in the Latin Church. Not the Eastern rites. Cardinal Husar was consecrated in Rome without a papal mandate and it was accepted.

So, we are not talking sacrilege on the part of LeFebvre. LeFebvre’s actions were for practical sacramental purposes.

Then one has to look at the situation in the Church and see the obvious double standard. The fact that the Popes the curia could be so “by the book” (cough! cough!) regarding traditionalists and so lax with liberals and modernist heretics shows that the sympathies of the Vatican were with the heretics and not Catholics who simply wanted to retain their Catholic identity.

The Pope was ruling in a way designed to tear down the Church instead of building it up.
See the above explanation. One particular bishop (actually two Castro de Mayer assisted) publicly made a public stand that demonstrated the severity of the crisis in the Church. The Vatican’s response and the obvious double standard validated LeFebvre’s position.
Because bishops are the ones that continue the struggle. Priests die out and Rome was willing to let old traditional priests die. And they were waiting for LeFebvre to die. He had been working within the rules while his adversaries changed and bent the rules not just to persecute him but what he represented. Catholicism.

continued…

I just don’t remember St. Thomas saying it was immoral not to consecrate bishops. Since the law itself was not unjust (unless you’re going to dispute disciplinary infallibility), that means you’re instead arguing that a just law was harmful in this particular case. But you’ve yet to actually argue that point, instead telling us that it is manifest. Yet there are many people, including John Paul II, Cdl. Ratzinger, the PCILT, Bp. Bruskiewitz (no enemy of tradition) etc. who do not think that is manifest. That is why I’ve asked you to fill that in with an argument. You’ve said that the necessity to consecrate bishops stemmed from the fact that the Church needed bishops . . . but implicit in that seems to be an assertion that the only good bishops are those that only celebrate the TLM. I bring that up because it seems that there were good bishops consecrated in the last few decades who were not consecrated by irregular prelates but were in fact consecrated with papal mandate (Abp. Burke comes to mind - or is he also a devious anti-tradition neo-con?). Are you saying that there was moral certainty that every single bishop consecrated with papal mandate was going to be another Untener or Weakland? I bet, after all, that in all the world we could find four bishops consecrated in the eighties who are actually decent shepherds.

Can you see now why I don’t yet regard “general malfeasance” as an *argument *for the necessity of consecrating without papal mandate? Since that offense is something Pius XII said was never “automatically” inexcusable, so to speak, but was rather an offense reserved specialissimo modo to the Holy See, can you see why someone would want a little more explanation?

 

[GerardP]

Posting in the wake of refutations by the very authors misquoted in SSPX apologetics, bemoaning the purposeful omissions of the other side rings a bit hollow.

Since that topic has nothing to do with the discussion and “the order” in which I posted is not up to me, it anything rings hollow, it’s your ridicule. Start another thread on that topic if you want.

One suspects that reading an Apologia for the society might also not provide a full, objective picture.

How would one get a full objective perspective by avoiding reading an Apologia?

You see, no one suggested that you only read the Apologia.

You are simply full of excuses.

Well, it would seem, then, that Abp. Lefebvre was a monumental moral failure since there was a dire lack of good bishops and priests yet he consecrated only a handful of bishops. If there was a moral necessity to consecrate them until such time as we had good bishops and priests then he stopped far too soon.

Utter nonsense. My suspicions that you are being coy are confirmed.

Besides being an utterly stupid non-sequitur, it flies in the face of Christ’s appointment of only 12 Apostles for the entire world.

Also, it also shows more accurately that LeFebvre was most discerning about who he laid his hands on regarding consecration.

 

[GerardP]

The OP granted the premise that immoral commands could be given and it would then be licit to disobey them, so Stephen v. Formosus didn’t contribute anything.

Nonsense. It took your theoretical stipulation and demonstrated that it is a fact of history in the Church. The very fact that I have yet to have anyone actually concede the point that Pope Stephen was issuing immoral commands that were immoral to obey is evidence of it’s validity.

It was distracting, hence I disregarded it in the hopes of concentrating on the strongly implicit real question of the thread.

The strongly implicit real question of the thread? That’s a stretch. You won’t answer my direct questions on this thread and you expect others to answer questions you are only implying?

Hopefully that list of groups above will flesh out the concepts of “those groups” for you. I started the thread without naming names because

a) I was aware that the SSPX does not make up the entire irregular traditionalist universe and

b) I didn’t think I would be able to create an exhaustive list, as I’m sure there are more discrete groups out there than I am aware of.

So by not naming anyone, you hoped to get an answer to “precisely” what command had been disobeyed? Sorry, I don’t believe you.

That doesn’t mesh with your initial unwillingness to discuss LeFebvre and your efforts to “keep it at a general level.”

You want it “general” and when I post an answer to those general conditions in the Church, you accuse me of being “nice and vague.”

You are being a fraud in this pathetic backpedalling that you are doing now. It simply doesn’t fly.

 

[GerardP]

As I wrote in the post I lost and promised for later (which is now), the OP was a bit inaccurate because what I really meant to ask was more along the lines of “what do those groups think justified their actions (whatever they may be that have landed them where they are).”

And when I point to answers that are not cliches and platitudes, you make an excuse in order to avoid reading the Apologia writtten by Michael Davies. (who opposed LeFebvre’s actions but was equally dismayed with the reaction by the Vatican and personally believed the excommunications were “phoney.”)

This does, indeed, presume that any excommunications or other censures are valid. You have accused me of illegitimately taking the starting point, in particular that the bishops of the SSPX are excommunicated, and have placed upon me the burden of proving this assumption before you would be willing to engage in the debate.

No. Not at all. You are unwilling to investigate anything that may challenge the presumption that the Bishops were validly excommunicated.

You want to know “what it was they were thinking” yet you refuse to debate the antecedent circumstances leading up to the so-called “crime.”

You scoff at the idea of reading an Apologia for LeFebvre because it won’t be objective. Something can be objective and simultaneously be partial Davies actually states upfront that he believes LeFebvre was correct but nothing he wrote was untrue.

The scope of the Apologia is limited. It deals principally with the relations between the Archbishop and the Vatican. It does not deal with the activities of the Society of Saint Pius X in any individual country. I am certainly not committed to the view that every action and every opinion of the Archbishop, still less of every priest in the Society, #4, rue Garanciere, 75006, Paris, France is necessarily wise and prudent. I mention this because the reader who is not familiar with the “Econe affair” may consider that my attitude to the Archbishop and the Society is too uncritical and therefore unobjective. My book is objective but it is not impartial. It is objective because I have presented all the relevant documents both for and against Mgr. Lefebvre, something his opponents have never done. It is partial because I believe the evidence proves him to be right and I state this. However, the reader is quite at liberty to ignore my commentary and use the documentation to reach a different conclusion. Clearly, the value of the book derives from the documentation and not the commentary.

You are using a legalism to avoid finding the answer to the question you are looking for. I asked earlier if the “loosening power” of the papacy would be reasonably considered an exercise of his command. No answers again from anybody. I’ll ask you directly, do you believe the exercise of the Popes to “loosen” what was previously “bound” in the disciplines of the Church can be a moral or immoral action?

St. Pius X considered it so:

The office divinely committed to Us of feeding the Lord’s flock has especially this duty assigned to it by Christ, **namely, to guard with the greatest vigilance the deposit of the faith delivered to the saints, rejecting the profane novelties of words and oppositions of knowledge falsely so called. **There has never been a time when this watchfulness of the supreme pastor was not necessary to the Catholic body; for, owing to the efforts of the enemy of the human race, there have never been lacking “men speaking perverse things” (Acts xx. 30), “vain talkers and seducers” (Tit. i. 10), “erring and driving into error” (2 Tim. iii. 13). Still it must be confessed that the number of the enemies of the cross of Christ has in these last days increased exceedingly, who are striving, by arts, entirely new and full of subtlety, to destroy the vital energy of the Church, and, if they can, to overthrow utterly Christ’s kingdom itself. Wherefore We may no longer be silent, lest We should seem to fail in Our most sacred duty, and lest the kindness that, in the hope of wiser counsels, We have hitherto shown them, should be attributed to forgetfulness of Our office.

 

[GerardP]

My canonical point was that according to can. 1321:
§1. No one is punished unless the external violation of a law or precept, committed by the person, is gravely imputable by reason of malice or negligence.

This is akin to Jewish anti-Christians that contest that the gospels must be false because it would have been illegal for Jesus to have been tried by the Sanhedrin during the Passover. That’s not a guarantee, that’s a policy.

§3. When an external violation has occurred, imputability is presumed unless it is otherwise apparent.

What does “unless it is otherwise apparent” mean?

So the burden of proof does not lie upon me, but upon those who assert the violation was not imputable.

Then why do you refuse to read the Apologia? You are playing the “poisoned well” game here. You place the burden of proof on the SSPX in their case and then reject the attempts based on the a priori assumption that they are guilty. Just admit you are engaging in a Charade. You are defying all logic in your answers.

You’ve asked for a black Swan and then rejected all the Swans because they are black.

I was following the presumption of the law (not to mention the authentic interpretation rendered by the competent dicastery).

How about following the facts? The law obviously hasn’t answered your question or you would have never posted the original question.

 

[GerardP]

We throw into that the decision of the Holy Office in 1951 that a bishop consecrating without papal mandate is excommunicated "etsi metu gravi coacti " (AAS,43 [1951], p. 217-218.) - even when compelled by grave fear - and I have little need to justify taking the presumption of the law.

Yes you do. You are not a legislator (at least for the purposes of this conversation.) You are willfully hiding behind a legalism and then refusing to engage in an exploration of the circumstances in which the law is being used to tear down the Church instead of building it up. And as St. Thomas says, “necessity knows no law.” If Pius XII or men of his caliber had been Pope since his death, it is reasonable to assume the Crisis that compelled LeFebvre would never have occured. Funny how laws opposed to the Communist Chinese who stole jurisdiction are invoked against a man who claimed no jurisdiction and the Chinese have been rolling over the Popes for decades and the Popes have let them.

None of this, however, answers the question posed by the thread, which is why in my legendary “lost post” I, having answered your questions, suggested that we drop that line in favor of discussing the real topic: what made the SSPX and other similarly irregular gruops think they were justified in their disobedience (or to put it neutrally, in living in “imperfect communion”)?

I answered that. You said it was “nice and vague.” If you want details, read the Apologia for a precise analysis of the most famous of these cases.

You legendary lost post is more mythical. I’m sorry that I can’t accept your appeals to it. I have no evidence that you actually did answer anything.

 

[bear06]

Nonsense. It took your theoretical stipulation and demonstrated that it is a fact of history in the Church. The very fact that I have yet to have anyone actually concede the point that Pope Stephen was issuing immoral commands that were immoral to obey is evidence of it’s validity.

I believe, time and again, that we have stipulated what the saints themselves have said. If the pope commands something sinful we must not obey. That said, it’s silly to continually bring up Stephen and then not show the correlation between Stephen and the last two Roman Pontiffs. Where is the sin that they have told us to commit that we must disobey? Where was the sinful order that Pope John Paul II commanded of Lefebvre that he should have disobeyed.

The strongly implicit real question of the thread? That’s a stretch. You won’t answer my direct questions on this thread and you expect others to answer questions you are only implying?

 

[bear06]

You are not a legislator (at least for the purposes of this conversation.)

Holy hypocrisy, Batman! Did you get the funny white hat while I wasn’t looking?

Funny how laws opposed to the Communist Chinese who stole jurisdiction are invoked against a man who claimed no jurisdiction

Wait a minute. I thought he claimed emergency jurisdiction. He sure didn’t consecrate bishops under the jurisdiction of the Holy Father!

I answered that. You said it was “nice and vague.” If you want details, read the Apologia for a precise analysis of the most famous of these cases.

I did read it albeit it 8 years ago (I remember because I had just moved here) - all three volumes. I’m all for reading it (you can actually read it on-line now). That said, I’m also for reading analysis of it. It’s not always pretty. I’m also for reading the SSPX website along with reading counter opinions.

 

[GerardP]

I just don’t remember St. Thomas saying it was immoral not to consecrate bishops.

Coy. That is like saying St. Thomas never said it was immoral not to trespass. Yet if one appealed to the law against trespassing as a reason for why they didn’t try to help prevent a building from burning down. I don’t think St. Thomas’ principals would help them.

Article 6. Whether he who is under a law may act beside the letter of the law?

Hence the jurist says [Pandect. Justin. lib. i, ff., tit. 3, De Leg. et Senat.]: “By no reason of law, or favor of equity, is it allowable for us to interpret harshly, and render burdensome, those useful measures which have been enacted for the welfare of man.” Now it happens often that the observance of some point of law conduces to the common weal in the majority of instances, and yet, in some cases, is very hurtful. Since then the lawgiver cannot have in view every single case, he shapes the law according to what happens most frequently, by directing his attention to the common good. Wherefore if a case arise wherein the observance of that law would be hurtful to the general welfare, it should not be observed.

Since the law itself was not unjust (unless you’re going to dispute disciplinary infallibility), that means you’re instead arguing that a just law was harmful in this particular case. But you’ve yet to actually argue that point, instead telling us that it is manifest.

Well, I do dispute disciplinary infallibility as expressed on these forums for one thing. And I already pointed out that the lack of equitable distribution in the application of discipline in the Church is evidence of the problem. So, I have argued that point and answered it.

Yet there are many people, including John Paul II, Cdl. Ratzinger, the PCILT, Bp. Bruskiewitz (no enemy of tradition) etc. who do not think that is manifest.

JPII was a major part of the problem. Card. Ratzinger is/was half and half in his acknowledgement of the disaster yet his Quixotic attempts to vindicate the Council. I’m grateful for what he’s done as Pope thus far for tradition but he’s also done a number of actions to bow to the liberals. He’s a Hegelian in outlook and that’s a problem.

Bruskewitz, I find to be nothing more than moderate modernist. He’s engaged in some so-called ecumenical activities that would not be tolerated if the Church were not in a Crisis brought on by false ecumenism. Pentacostalism, polka masses and any other number of novelites are treated on an equal plain with a traditionally veneered segment of his flock.

geocities.com/militantis/bruskewitz.html

Bruskewitz on EWTN also admitted that he provided the TLM just to keep the SSPX away. He has a blistering and unCatholic hatred for the SSPX for their exposure of his failings.

 

[GerardP]

I believe, time and again, that we have stipulated what the saints themselves have said. If the pope commands something sinful we must not obey. That said, it’s silly to continually bring up Stephen and then not show the correlation between Stephen and the last two Roman Pontiffs.

I’ll bring it up time and time again, until the papolaters that pervert papal infallibility will stipulate not “IF” a Pope, but “when” Popes have commanded immoral things, the moral thing to do is disobey. There are too many people that believe it is impossible on this forum.

Where is the sin that they have told us to commit that we must disobey? Where was the sinful order that Pope John Paul II commanded of Lefebvre that he should have disobeyed.

“Don’t consecrate any bishops.” Where have you been on this thread?

Seriously, if you’d like to pose some questions then start a thread. I don’t know why the answer a question with a question tactic is repeatedly taken.

So you think. It’s called the Socratic method.

Well, I believe it was “immoral command”. And Andreas, I believe you since I’ve been trying to get that one answered for years.

You did get it answered you just don’t like the answer. “I don’t think it’s immoral to not consecrate bishops.” Pure legalism. You don’t think that any scenario could exist where a Pope prevents someone from doing the right thing. Based on what? Certainly not Catholicism.

The thing is, Lefebvre ain’t here and he’s not the one using the “immoral, against Tradition, sinful command” argument on these forums.

No. I’m personally sure he’s in Heaven and trying to help JPII get in.

The people who throw out this little catch phrase so often should be able to put out a nice little list in just a few sentences or bullet points but instead we get the avalanche tactic which is to just pile on a bunch of non-pertinate information and then we’re back to Pope Stephen and Formosus.

You don’t like catch phrases? Come on now. I would bet the majority of posters here who are anti-traditional think there entire catechesis was based on platitudes and catch phrases along with real maxims from the Church that they missapply on a regular basis. “Disobedience is disobedience” isn’t a catch phrase? “Roma Locuta Est” isn’t an abused maxim? Come on now.

Your accusation that I’ve posted non pertinant information is flatly a lie on your part.

Last time I checked, they weren’t on the forum either. Last time I answered the Stephen topic I said you were comparing apples to organges. We still have a fruit salad going. Pope Stephen was a goof who did give a sinful command and the deacon should have resisted. That’s far different situation from the last two Roman Pontiffs ruling on the disciplines of our Church. Where was the sinful commands there? Or anyone else by these two?

How dare you use such disrespectful language about a Vicar of Christ’s Church. “Selected by the Holy Spirit” the Patriarch of the West, the Supreme Pontiff. You dare to call him a goof?
That is pure contempt for Catholicism and the Papacy itself.
I demand you retract that disrespectful statement.

Actually Formosus and Stephen did far less damage to the Church than JPII and Paul VI.

Thou really doth protest too much.

“God hath given you one face, and you make yourself another. You jig, you amble, and you lisp; you nickname God’s creatures and make your wantonness your ignorance.”

 

[Indyann]

Bruskewitz on EWTN also admitted that he provided the TLM just to keep the SSPX away. He has a blistering and unCatholic hatred for the SSPX for their exposure of his failings.

I must have missed that. Thank you for your “unCatholic” opinion. I am sure The Lord is very pleased.

 

[Sure]

Okay Gerard, you have now accused people of being “coy” 3 times on this thread. It’s getting to be kind of a pattern. When someone draws your statements to a logical conclusion. You respond with “coy.” For the sake of a continuing discussion, perhaps you could drop that tactic.

I have stated as has Bear and others that I believe one has a moral obligation to disobey the Pope when he gives an immoral command. I agree (as I stated earlier, but I guess you missed it) that Pope Stephen may have given an immoral order. So, you can drop the whole “you’re a bunch of papalopolapaloloterers” bit. We’re not. We just don’t believe that “Don’t consecrate a bishop without my approval” constitutes an immoral command that Lefebvre was bound to disobey. That’s really the crux of the whole argument…How is “don’t consecrate a bishop without my approval” an immoral order that one is bound to disobey?

Pope John Paul II didn’t view it as immoral. Cardinal Ratzinger did not view it as immoral. The PCILT did not view it as immoral. Were all of them just mistaken???