What, precisely, has been immorally commanded?

[SFD]

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,

This is ridiculous. He consecrated bishops for the SSPX. It was a minimalist action…consistent with his other actions. You say he should not have consecrated any bishops…then he was a “monumental moral failure” because he didn’t consecrate enough. The SSPX is not the Church and Archbishop Lefebvre was keenly aware of that.

SFD

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

Just taking a poll here: how many people thought I was looking for any example from the entire history of the Church of a pope issuing an immoral command, or how many people were pretty sure I was looking for something in the last 40 years?

And I am happy to not just say it was *possibly *immoral for Stephen to act in such a way; no, I will firmly assert that it was immoral. And that remains irrelevant. Furthermore, if you reread the post in which I referenced Davies’ book, I think you’ll find it hard to substantiate the charge that I refused to read it - I said one suspects it also won’t be objective either, i.e. any more objective than the false assertions of other SSPX apologists. That said, I hope the other posters will forgive me if amidst my full course load I don’t have extra time to read a full book just to post more on the thread.

I think at this point we’ve arrived at the realm of subjectivity. The truth is not democratic, and the law is not automatically just in every situation. In fact, there is no guarantee that in passing out sentences the pope or any of us will get things right. But that applies just as equally to Abp. Lefebvre, and it seems that the best we’re getting is “I think that despite all the presumptions of law and the values it is designed to protect, this illicit action is in fact justified in this instance.” But it’s an “I think,” and an “I think” with which even a part of his own society disagreed, let alone the vast majority of the Catholic world. That doesn’t mean the majority is right - it often means all the fools are on the same side - but it does mean that the subjective level at which the discussion has arrived is going to leave things at an impasse.

 

[Sure]

Andreas Hofer,

This is ridiculous. He consecrated bishops for the SSPX. It was a minimalist action…consistent with his other actions. You say he should not have consecrated any bishops…then he was a “monumental moral failure” because he didn’t consecrate enough. The SSPX is not the Church and Archbishop Lefebvre was keenly aware of that.

SFD

He does make a good point. Why was one not enough? And five too many? Why four? Or better yet, if he had so many bishops friendly to his cause, why didn’t he just ask them to consecrate his priests?

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

Andreas Hofer,

This is ridiculous. He consecrated bishops for the SSPX. It was a minimalist action…consistent with his other actions. You say he should not have consecrated any bishops…then he was a “monumental moral failure” because he didn’t consecrate enough. The SSPX is not the Church and Archbishop Lefebvre was keenly aware of that.

SFD

It was argumentum ad absurdum. Of course I don’t hold both that he should have consecrated none and also many more.

 

[SFD]

Just taking a poll here: how many people thought I was looking for any example from the entire history of the Church of a pope issuing an immoral command, or how many people were pretty sure I was looking for something in the last 40 years?

And I am happy to not just say it was *possibly *immoral for Stephen to act in such a way; no, I will firmly assert that it was immoral. And that remains irrelevant. Furthermore, if you reread the post in which I referenced Davies’ book, I think you’ll find it hard to substantiate the charge that I refused to read it - I said one suspects it also won’t be objective either, i.e. any more objective than the false assertions of other SSPX apologists. That said, I hope the other posters will forgive me if amidst my full course load I don’t have extra time to read a full book just to post more on the thread.

I think at this point we’ve arrived at the realm of subjectivity. The truth is not democratic, and the law is not automatically just in every situation. In fact, there is no guarantee that in passing out sentences the pope or any of us will get things right. But that applies just as equally to Abp. Lefebvre, and it seems that the best we’re getting is “I think that despite all the presumptions of law and the values it is designed to protect, this illicit action is in fact justified in this instance.” But it’s an “I think,” and an “I think” with which even a part of his own society disagreed, let alone the vast majority of the Catholic world. That doesn’t mean the majority is right - it often means all the fools are on the same side - but it does mean that the subjective level at which the discussion has arrived is going to leave things at an impasse.

Well, in my opinion the seemingly unending discussion of the moral and legal status of the actions taken against Archbishop Lefebvre is largely a waste of time. It is far more profitable to understand why he founded the SSPX and why there was resistance to the new Mass and new sacramental rites.

SFD

 

[SFD]

It was argumentum ad absurdum. Of course I don’t hold both that he should have consecrated none and also many more.

So why did you make it?

SFD

 

[SFD]

He does make a good point. Why was one not enough? And five too many? Why four?

That was not my point. How many is a moral judgment…can’t you see that?

Or better yet, if he had so many bishops friendly to his cause, why didn’t he just ask them to consecrate his priests?

Because they were his priests.

SFD

 

[CradleCath]

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

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

Pope Benedict has commanded NOTHING immoral. As for Eilish Maura’s accusation…it is, shall we say, confused. I really hate to get into this again but feel that I must say that traditionalists, like myself, believe that both the Novus Ordo Mass & the Traditional Latin Mass are valid & licit.

The argument that EM. presents in just incorrect. We were discussing Communion in the hand which was began in a FEW parishes in the US., before permission was given. Pope John XXIII issued an indult for the US. Bishops, giving them permission to distribute this way. Here is the “information to back up that claim”

catholic-pages.com/mass/inhand.asp

“The legal status of the two methods
It is the law of the universal Church in the Latin Rite (to which most of us belong) that we receive Communion in the traditional manner. To receive on the hand is only an “indult,” or concession that is in effect here and there. It does not exist in the greater part of the world. For example, for a while it was allowed in the Philippines, but then the bishops there changed their minds, and rescinded the permission.”

I suggest that Eilish Maura give us a link to those posts that claim that the Novus Ordo Mass was “accepted under false pretenses”. If she is not able to back up her claim???.."

 

[CradleCath]

My what an intellectually incisive answer!

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

:extrahappy:

 

[GerardP]

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

You’re confusing supplied jurisdiction with the territorial jurisdiction that bishops usually get. The bishops were never consecrated with the intent that they were anything beyond “emergency sacrament machines.”

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.

Hmmm…I wonder why Andreas disagrees with us then about reading it.

What analysis of the Apologia are you referring to?

 

[GerardP]

He does make a good point. Why was one not enough? And five too many? Why four?

Probably because four would be sufficient to fly around the world each year and provide the sacraments vs. burning out one man in the way LeFebvre had to travel.

Second, the ages of the bishops are staggered. LeFebvre was hoping the struggle would end within 5 years but the fact that Fellay was 30 years old at the time guaranteed that he would be the most experienced bishop, moreso than the majority of Vatican bishops by the time he is 70 or 80.

Third, LeFebvre was much more prudent than bishop Thuc who consecrated a number of bishops that were not unified in purpose.

Or better yet, if he had so many bishops friendly to his cause, why didn’t he just ask them to consecrate his priests?

Why subject them to Vatican pressures? It was obvious that a number of bishops were and are afraid of having the crosshairs on themselves.

 

[GerardP]

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

What specifically is “unCatholic” about my observation of the bishop’s words and actions?

I’m sure if a bishop is banking on his reputation as being the tough conservative, he sure hates it when people with a solid Catholic formation start pointing out the number of areas where he has been weak affects his pride.

I’d had higher hopes for Bruskewitz until I’d actually read some of his letters and watched him with my own eyes spin off into a rant against the SSPX on EWTN. He displayed a lack of charity that I’m sure Our Lord would not be pleased with and one that is not reflected in the behavior of either the leadership of the SSPX or the Vatican during these struggles.

In either case, he made it apparent that he only brought in the FSSP when the SSPX were asked to come in.

A little fact, the SSPX doesn’t come into an area unless a group of faithful ask them to.

That means that Bruskewitz was not providing a “wide and generous” application of the so-called Indult of JPII.

But hey, maybe Bruskewitz thought it was an immoral command. He’s better off attending non-Catholic installment ceremonies in the name of ecumenism and organizing 'polka masses" (Polka Music is so appropriate for the Sacrifice of Calvary.) I guess JPII never got around to excommunicating him. Or maybe there was a double standard.

 

[GerardP]

Just taking a poll here: how many people thought I was looking for any example from the entire history of the Church of a pope issuing an immoral command, or how many people were pretty sure I was looking for something in the last 40 years?

And I am happy to not just say it was *possibly *immoral for Stephen to act in such a way; no, I will firmly assert that it was immoral. And that remains irrelevant. Furthermore, if you reread the post in which I referenced Davies’ book, I think you’ll find it hard to substantiate the charge that I refused to read it - I said one suspects it also won’t be objective either, i.e. any more objective than the false assertions of other SSPX apologists. That said, I hope the other posters will forgive me if amidst my full course load I don’t have extra time to read a full book just to post more on the thread.

I think at this point we’ve arrived at the realm of subjectivity. The truth is not democratic, and the law is not automatically just in every situation. In fact, there is no guarantee that in passing out sentences the pope or any of us will get things right. But that applies just as equally to Abp. Lefebvre, and it seems that the best we’re getting is “I think that despite all the presumptions of law and the values it is designed to protect, this illicit action is in fact justified in this instance.” But it’s an “I think,” and an “I think” with which even a part of his own society disagreed, let alone the vast majority of the Catholic world. That doesn’t mean the majority is right - it often means all the fools are on the same side - but it does mean that the subjective level at which the discussion has arrived is going to leave things at an impasse.

In your original post, you asked how someone can arrive at a decision that will cause them to disobey a Pope and be justified in separating themselves from the Church.

How do you canonically or theologically or morally come to the conclusion that a justified disobedience separates a person from the Church?

 

[GerardP]

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.

It’s not drawing a logical conclusion from my statement. It’s being coy. Saying, “I don’t know of St. Thomas stating that not consecrating bishops is immoral.” is being coy.

St. Thomas defines principals that can be applied to circumstances. He didn’t write a “how to” guide for every specific contingency. To pretend that that is what he did is to treat him, and the subject with contempt.

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.

Great.

I agree (as I stated earlier, but I guess you missed it) that Pope Stephen may have given an immoral order.

Oh I Love it! He “may” have given an immoral order when he ordered the corpse of his predecessor to be dug up, put on trial, convicted, desecrated and invalidly overturned every papal action, ordination, consecration the man ever did!

That “MAY” have been immoral?

Yet there is no circumstance in which a bishop could consecrate other bishops against the will of the Pope which “May” be a case of jusified disobedience?

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.

You claim he was bound to obey. Based on what?

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?

Simple. It’s a tough pill to swallow but brace yourself. JPII was interested in leaving the traditions of the Church to die. He loved the modern and wanted to reshape the Church in his image as he envisioned the Council. He was not going to leave untouched any aspect of Catholicism that was pre-conciliar. He even made those absurd changes to the rosary that not only go against the teaching of previous Popes like Leo XIII, it goes directly against the teaching of Pope Paul VI who refused additional mysteries. (the “Hopeful” mysteries)

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???

Either mistaken, weak or malicious. But they certainly weren’t fair, just or logical. Or even following the documents of Vatican II which seemed to be their guiding light in everything.

Michael Davies once said that from what he saw, JPII considered his participation in the Council as something more important than his becoming Pope. (both were destructive if you ask me) But if you commented to him on what a beautiful day it was in regards to the weather, JPII would tell you it was the fruit of “Guadeum et Spes.”

 

[SFD]

What has been immorally commanded (or allowed)?

The reception of the Eucharist by non-Catholics.

1983 CIC 844:

§4 If there is a danger of death or if, in the judgement of the diocesan Bishop or of the Episcopal Conference, there is some other grave and pressing need, catholic ministers may lawfully administer these same sacraments to other christians not in full communion with the catholic Church, who cannot approach a minister of their own community and who spontaneously ask for them, provided that they demonstrate the catholic faith in respect of these sacraments and are properly disposed.

§5 In respect of the cases dealt with in §§2, 3 and 4, the diocesan Bishop or the Episcopal Conference is not to issue general norms except after consultation with the competent authority, at least at the local level, of the non catholic Church or community concerned.

Communicatio in sacris, i.e. active participation in non-Catholic religious functions, is on the whole unlawful, but it is not so intrinsically evil that, under given circumstances, it may not be excused. Thus friends and relatives may for good reasons accompany a funeral, be present at a marriage or a baptism, without causing scandal or lending support, to the non-Catholic rites, provided no active part be taken in them: their motive is friendship, or maybe courtesy, but it nowise implies approval of the rites. Non-Catholics are admitted to all Catholic services but not to the sacraments.

SFD

 

[Sure]

You claim he was bound to obey. Based on what?

Canon Law, Ad Apostolorum Principis, and official correspondence with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

What was his claim to disobey? His own (mis) application of St. Thomas Aquinas. That’s much spongier ground than the claim to obey.

And thank you for finally explaining where this is really coming from - a rather hare-brained conspiracy theory that John Paul II was (secretly) out to destroy all traditions of the Church, BWA-HAHAHAAAAAAA. This is where you set yourself apart from most traditionalists. Most traditionalists don’t believe that John Paul II was secretly trying to destroy the Church.

But then, why should I be surprised with all this coming from the guy who doesn’t believe in baptism of desire even though it’s been the teaching of the Church for hundreds of years and is affirmed by the SSPX, and even the sedevacantist SSPV. So, somehow you concoct a “necessity” to deny what the Church has taught for centuries, I guess I really shouldn’t be surprised when you can find a “necessity” for some guy to consecrate some bishops.

Happy Easter everyone!

 

[SFD]

Sure:

I guess I really shouldn’t be surprised when you can find a “necessity” for some guy to consecrate some bishops.

Sure,

“Some guy”??? Do you think that type of language is appropriate when speaking of an Archbishop?

Btw, GerardP’s mistaken position on BOB/BOD does not make everything he says wrong or irrelevant. I would argue that his mistaken position is simply due to the crisis itself.

SFD

 

[Sure]

Sure,

“Some guy”??? Do you think that type of language is appropriate when speaking of an Archbishop?

Btw, GerardP’s mistaken position on BOB/BOD does not make everything he says wrong or irrelevant. I would argue that his mistaken position is simply due to the crisis itself.

SFD

Sorry, I’ll change the post…it was meant to be conversational.

I think the position on BOD is relevant because if someone can depart with tradition and Church teaching on that, then it’s really not surprising that the same person can envision a necessity where canon law, Pope’s, and Pontifical Council’s see none.

 

[bear06]

You’re confusing supplied jurisdiction with the territorial jurisdiction that bishops usually get. The bishops were never consecrated with the intent that they were anything beyond “emergency sacrament machines.”

I’m not confusing. They claimed they had jursidiction. The Roman Pontiff, that Supreme Legislator guy, said they didn’t.

Hmmm…I wonder why Andreas disagrees with us then about reading it.

 

[GerardP]

I’m not confusing. They claimed they had jursidiction. The Roman Pontiff, that Supreme Legislator guy, said they didn’t.

Prove it.

Probably because he ddoesn’t have the time I had at the time. This is one of the reasons I won’t be re-reading it.

I seriously doubt you read it. And Andreas should not pretend to be able to pass judgment on something when he purposely avoids reading all sides of the issue.

In part, some of the ones I posted in this thread. I’m hurt you haven’t been reading my links.

I usually click on them. I don’t remember seeing a critique of Davies’ Apologia.

As far as Pope Stephen goes, his act was quite goofy. Better? If he hadn’t done something goofy (and I’m pretty sure you’d agree that they were) then his rulings wouldn’t have been overturned by the subsequent authority.

Still, goofy as he was, he didn’t do the damage to the Church that JPII and Paul VI did.

So you can stop the aghast demands. The office of the papacy is still revered and intact. It was kind of funny to be a “papolator in post”

Only once and you want me to stop? Do you know how many times I have to read the slogan slingers that somehow think that the more titles they attach to the Pope, the more they think they can win the argument?

and an enemy of the papacy in another.

I am never and have never been an enemy of the papacy.

It’s quite interested that you’ve never looked aghast when someone calls John Paull II a modernist.

That would be like someone claiming Pope Stephen was a repulsive character and it be interesting that someone didn’t look aghast at that.