Would papal disciplinary actions towards SSPX fall under secondary or primary objects of infallibility?

[Mrs_Sally]

people seem to have some very dogmatic opinions on whether disobedience occurred or not

Those people seem to have very confused opinion.

Bishops are under the authority of the Pope. Archbishop Lefebvre asked for permission, was told “not now” and went ahead with the consecrations anyway.

That is objectively disobedient. And since he was running a seminary, he had no excuse that he may have misunderstood or didn’t know what the punishment for disobedience was.

Further, the Pope - who is the only authority on this - said that no “state of emergency” existed.

So they were excommunicated correctly.

The fact that later the Pope said this punishment is not bringing about conversion and repentance (which is the purpose of excommunication) and so he determined to try a different process, does not mean that the original excommunications were “wrong” or “mistaken”. It means that the SSPX have hardened their hearts against the Church.

It is interesting to me that since these excommunications were not effectual (different than being wrong), one could argue that there is no point in excommunicating the many politicians, theologians, etc that appear on people’s “excommunicate next” lists. Apparently excommunications are just not what they used to be.

 

[IesumPerMariam]

But aren’t historical facts like “the SSPX really was disobedient” and “Jesus was born” the same RE: potential becoming dogmatic facts? I mean if they either support some morally important truth then they must be true themselves regardless of not being primarily moral facts.

An historic fact that doesn’t pertain to matters of faith or morals would never become a “dogmatic fact.” Dogma can only relate to faith and morals.

The direction this is going, it is going to turn into an existentialist (or solipsist) debate, methinks… I am currently typing this response on my computer, but is it a “dogmatic fact” that I am typing this response on my computer? No. So how do I know I am really typing? Infallibly defined facts are always reality, but the vast majority of reality is not “dogmatic.”

One question that would really get this out of the way is to distinguish whether the disobedience is, as a fact, theologically certain, or if the disobedience was definitively pronounced as an infallibly true fact. I’m sure the latter didn’t happen but what do others think?

I’m not sure what you mean by “theologically certain disobedience.” Obedience and disobedience are acts of discipline, not of theology.

I’m asking because, people seem to have some very dogmatic opinions on whether disobedience occurred or not and it seems that if it is not a matter of dogma then it is something which may be legitimately doubtful.

I don’t think there are very many – if any – people who argue that the Econe consecrations were not disobedient. The argument that some people propose is that the act of disobedience was warranted due to grave, extraordinary circumstances.

 

[otjm]

Is it a dogmatic fact? Does not believing in the SSPX’s disobedience or believing in their obedience either in the first case, deny something in the Nicene Creed or in the second affirm it?

Perhaps it is the part about there being one Catholic Church?

Nothing dogmatic.

“Thou shalt not ordain an individual to the order of bishop unless I approve” is a rule; it has nothing to do with belief. It has to do with act. The act, specifically, being the ordination without permission.

 

[fakename]

An historic fact that doesn’t pertain to matters of faith or morals would never become a “dogmatic fact.” Dogma can only relate to faith and morals.

The direction this is going, it is going to turn into an existentialist (or solipsist) debate, methinks… I am currently typing this response on my computer, but is it a “dogmatic fact” that I am typing this response on my computer? No. So how do I know I am really typing? Infallibly defined facts are always reality, but the vast majority of reality is not “dogmatic.”

I’m not sure what you mean by “theologically certain disobedience.” Obedience and disobedience are acts of discipline, not of theology.

Well the whole point of my question was to ask if the facts of the SSPX etc. were related to any dogma. If they are not then say it.

Second, theologically certain things are things which are infallibly true but not because they were defined by some authority to teach but because they were deduced by a true argument. So I was wondering if “the SSPX was disobedient” is some theologically certain conclusion of some argument. I don’t think theologically certain things have to be about theology proper by the way.

 

[ProVobis]

1. The excommunication that Pope JPII indicated Abp Lefebvre and the four other SSPX bishops had incurred was latae sententiae, i.e. that excommunication would have existed whether Pope JPII publicly declared it (as he did in Ecclesia Dei) or not.

On a technical point, I would question one of the bishops consecrated, however, since Rome did approve one of them.

In any case the AB reneged on the agreement, but I don’t know if this per se is subject to canonical penalties.

 

[otjm]

I’m not sure what you mean by “theologically certain disobedience.” Obedience and disobedience are acts of discipline, not of theology.

However, an act of disobedience may also a sin; but it is a sin against obedience which is owed.

 

[IesumPerMariam]

Well the whole point of my question was to ask if the facts of the SSPX etc. were related to any dogma. If they are not then say it.

In terms of the modern-day reconciliation efforts, it depends on who you ask. Some claim that the primary differences are indeed over theological issues, others claim that the primary differences are simply over obedience. The excommunications in 1988 were about nothing more than ecclesiastical discipline and obedience.

I don’t think theologically certain things have to be about theology proper by the way.

Theo – Θεος = God.
Logos – λογος = study, knowledge, wisdom, etc.

For something to be “theologically certain” it would have to pertain to the study of God in some way. The Econe consecrations were not about the study of theology; they were about internal disciplines within the Church Militant.

 

[fakename]

In terms of the modern-day reconciliation efforts, it depends on who you ask. Some claim that the primary differences are indeed over theological issues, others claim that the primary differences are simply over obedience. The excommunications in 1988 were about nothing more than ecclesiastical discipline and obedience.

Theo – Θεος = God.
Logos – λογος = study, knowledge, wisdom, etc.

For something to be “theologically certain” it would have to pertain to the study of God in some way. The Econe consecrations were not about the study of theology; they were about internal disciplines within the Church Militant.

So some would say that the SSPX’s decisions somehow denies an infallible (primarily or secondarily, directly or indirectly) piece of the faith?

“Yet it is generally held, and may be said to be theologically certain, (a) that what are technically described as “theological conclusions,” i.e. inferences deduced from two premises, one of which is revealed and the other verified by reason, fall under the scope of the Church’s infallible authority.” -Catholic Encyclopedia.

So the conclusion therein described is not connected with the study of God, and yet it is called “theologically certain”. So why couldn’t the Econe decisions fall under the same?

 

[IesumPerMariam]

So some would say that the SSPX’s decisions somehow denies an infallible (primarily or secondarily, directly or indirectly) piece of the faith?

Not necessarily. Theological differences does not necessarily equate to denying infallibly professed Truths. It is possible to disagree on theological matters which have not been dogmatically defined one way or the other without falling into heresy. For example, it is possible to debate the role of the Blessed Virgin as “Co-Redemptrix” since the Deposit of Faith has never confirmed nor denied this; it is not possible to debate her Assumption into Heaven, since it was infallibly affirmed ex cathedra by Pope Pius XII.

“Yet it is generally held, and may be said to be theologically certain, (a) that what are technically described as “theological conclusions,” i.e. inferences deduced from two premises, one of which is revealed and the other verified by reason, fall under the scope of the Church’s infallible authority.” -Catholic Encyclopedia.

So the conclusion therein described is not connected with the study of God, and yet it is called “theologically certain”. So why couldn’t the Econe decisions fall under the same?

“Theological conclusions… deduced from two premises, one of which is revealed and the other verified by reason” implies that the matter at hand is a matter of theology, i.e. of the study of God. This quote is referencing something known by a revealed Truth, (e.g. Sacred Scripture or an infallibly declared dogma of the Church pronounced by an Ecumenical Council, or ex cathedra by a Pope).

An excommunication is not a revealed Truth. It is a disciplinary matter of internal governance within the Church Militant. Revealed Truth is something that God has willed to make known to us about Himself, not legal matters amongst men.