FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: CDF rejects SSPX second response
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
(02-04-2012, 01:41 PM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-04-2012, 01:22 PM)TrentCath Wrote: [ -> ]Indeed mindless obedience is always to be praised  :eyeroll:

Praiseworthy obedience will always dismissed as mindless by some people.

Of course one can also say 'Praiseworthy dis-obedience will always be dismissed as wrong by some people'
(02-04-2012, 01:53 PM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-04-2012, 01:46 PM)SouthpawLink Wrote: [ -> ]
Meg Wrote:The pope truly wanted to give traditional Catholics a place in the Church.

The Church should be traditional in the first place, not divided up into groups such as, "modernists here, liberals there, and traditionalists over there."

You guys can go on and on about the Mass (which is truly an important issue), but the problem is more fundamental than that: it's about the Catholic Faith itself.  The hierarchy has perverted it, if not in theory (officially), then certainly in practice (e.g., ecumenical prayer gatherings, papal praise for heretics and for heretical sects).

There is nothing new about the hierarchy being imperfect in its practice of the Catholic Faith.
When have they ever made  drastic changes to the sacraments? Where is the infallible document that says this can be done? I have read from at least one theologian, maybe more, that the Pope should be resisted if this happens.
(02-04-2012, 02:33 PM)JMartyr Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-04-2012, 01:53 PM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-04-2012, 01:46 PM)SouthpawLink Wrote: [ -> ]
Meg Wrote:The pope truly wanted to give traditional Catholics a place in the Church.

The Church should be traditional in the first place, not divided up into groups such as, "modernists here, liberals there, and traditionalists over there."

You guys can go on and on about the Mass (which is truly an important issue), but the problem is more fundamental than that: it's about the Catholic Faith itself.  The hierarchy has perverted it, if not in theory (officially), then certainly in practice (e.g., ecumenical prayer gatherings, papal praise for heretics and for heretical sects).

There is nothing new about the hierarchy being imperfect in its practice of the Catholic Faith.
When have they ever made  drastic changes to the sacraments? Where is the infallible document that says this can be done? I have read from at least one theologian, maybe more, that the Pope should be resisted if this happens.

The short answer is that no such document exists and no one will ever produce one for that very reason.
(02-04-2012, 02:31 PM)TrentCath Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-04-2012, 01:41 PM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-04-2012, 01:22 PM)TrentCath Wrote: [ -> ]Indeed mindless obedience is always to be praised  :eyeroll:

Praiseworthy obedience will always dismissed as mindless by some people.

Of course one can also say 'Praiseworthy dis-obedience will always be dismissed as wrong by some people'

Obedience is right far more often than disobedience is.  Striving for obedience is the norm and disobedience is a rare exception under unusual circumstances.
(02-04-2012, 03:23 PM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-04-2012, 02:31 PM)TrentCath Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-04-2012, 01:41 PM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-04-2012, 01:22 PM)TrentCath Wrote: [ -> ]Indeed mindless obedience is always to be praised  :eyeroll:

Praiseworthy obedience will always dismissed as mindless by some people.

Of course one can also say 'Praiseworthy dis-obedience will always be dismissed as wrong by some people'

Obedience is right far more often than disobedience is.   Striving for obedience is the norm and disobedience is a rare exception under unusual circumstances.

I am sure you are not denying we are in unusual circumstances? In such circumstances where many bishops and priests have lost the faith and orthodox priests are persecuted, disobedience is at least as likely to be right as obedience.
(02-04-2012, 03:47 PM)TrentCath Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-04-2012, 03:23 PM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]Obedience is right far more often than disobedience is.   Striving for obedience is the norm and disobedience is a rare exception under unusual circumstances.

I am sure you are not denying we are in unusual circumstances? In such circumstances where many bishops and priests have lost the faith and orthodox priests are persecuted, disobedience is at least as likely to be right as obedience.

One is not obliged to obey an unlawful command.  If my bishop gives me a lawful command, I am obliged to obey even if I think he has lost the faith.  That orthodox priests are persecuted is not relevant to the question of obedience.  What is relevant is whether the one commanding me has the authority to do so and whether the command is lawful.

If I were told that I must never attend the TLM and could only attend the NO, I would probably question if it were a lawful command. 
(02-04-2012, 04:56 PM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-04-2012, 03:47 PM)TrentCath Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-04-2012, 03:23 PM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]Obedience is right far more often than disobedience is.   Striving for obedience is the norm and disobedience is a rare exception under unusual circumstances.

I am sure you are not denying we are in unusual circumstances? In such circumstances where many bishops and priests have lost the faith and orthodox priests are persecuted, disobedience is at least as likely to be right as obedience.

One is not obliged to obey an unlawful command.  If my bishop gives me a lawful command, I am obliged to obey even if I think he has lost the faith.  That orthodox priests are persecuted is not relevant to the question of obedience.  What is relevant is whether the one commanding me has the authority to do so and whether the command is lawful.

If I were told that I must never attend the TLM and could only attend the NO, I would probably question if it were a lawful command.   

It is very much to the point, the fact that they have lost the faith and orthodox priests are persecuted for being orthodox, on a widespread scale and shamelessly so, proves (aside from many other proofs that could be mentioned) that we are in unusual times. Your original point is that disobedience is an exception under unusual circumstances, well we are under unusual circumstances, and in these circumstances it is very probable that disobedience is at least as likely to be right as commonly as disobedience, it is therefore extremely imprudent to blindly obey orders. Blind obedience might be considered a virtue under certain circumstances but it most certainly is not in the situation we are in, we can no longer be sure that merely because a bishop or even the Pope says something it is right or true not even if it is not obviously wrong. In times such as these we must demonstrate a higher than usual level of prudence and a great deal of cautiousness and discernment in determining whether to obey or not, even a bishop who has lost the faith has the right to command you to do something within due limits, but such a bishop is far more likely to command you to do something wrong than a bishop who possesses the faith. It may now always be clear when a command is in fact unlawful, in fact many times it is not and so we must be careful.

Those who obey questionable commands out of a sense of false obedience and make no attempt to ascertain whether the commands are lawful or not are guilty of blind obedience and in times such as these endanger both themselves and others with their recklessness.

(02-04-2012, 01:38 PM)Warrenton Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-04-2012, 01:22 PM)TrentCath Wrote: [ -> ]Indeed mindless obedience is always to be praised  :eyeroll:

Trent, whenever I concede too much I know you'll be there to pull me back!   :blush:

As I have been trying to make clear, my problem is not so much with Chris as it is with what Msgr. Ocariz wrote.  Chris and Meg and Jayne at least admit that V2 either changed things, or was used to usher in changes. They disagree on the degree to which one was justified in resisting the changes, and perhaps on the significance of the changes.  Msgr. Ocariz does not admit anything changed, because he says the fact of magiterial action reconciles all apparrent change.  Ironically, the intertices between the present and the past, while illusory, defines the spatial limit of permissible dissent, but only until a specific magisterial act addresses it.  It's a mind bender.  I find it interesting that neither Chris, nor Jayne, nor anyone on CAF has yet taken up my repeated requests to defend Msgr. Ocariz's approach.  This is significant, since Msgr. Ocariz claims to be explicating the hermanuetic of continuity. 

Sorry about that.

Well to be honest I think Mgsr Ocariz's explanation is absurd.
(02-04-2012, 05:19 PM)TrentCath Wrote: [ -> ][quote='JayneK' pid='969140' dateline='1328389019']
[quote='TrentCath' pid='969123' dateline='1328384875']

It is very much to the point, the fact that they have lost the faith and orthodox priests are persecuted for being orthodox, on a widespread scale and shamelessly so, proves (aside from many other proofs that could be mentioned) that we are in unusual times. Your original point is that disobedience is an exception under unusual circumstances, well we are under unusual circumstances, and in these circumstances it is very probable that disobedience is at least as likely to be right as commonly as disobedience, it is therefore extremely imprudent to blindly obey orders. Blind obedience might be considered a virtue under certain circumstances but it most certainly is not in the situation we are in, we can no longer be sure that merely because a bishop or even the Pope says something it is right or true not even if it is not obviously wrong. In times such as these we must demonstrate a higher than usual level of prudence and a great deal of cautiousness and discernment in determining whether to obey or not, even a bishop who has lost the faith has the right to command you to do something within due limits, but such a bishop is far more likely to command you to do something wrong than a bishop who possesses the faith. It may now always be clear when a command is in fact unlawful, in fact many times it is not and so we must be careful.

Those who obey questionable commands out of a sense of false obedience and make no attempt to ascertain whether the commands are lawful or not are guilty of blind obedience and in times such as these endanger both themselves and others with their recklessness.

What I meant when I said that disobedience is right under unusual circumstances, is that being given an unlawful command is unusual.  I was assuming that you knew that only unlawful commands justify disobedience of legitimate authority.  Unusual circumstances do not in themselves justify disobedience.  If a command is not clearly unlawful, the presumption is in favour of obedience.

The natural human tendency is to disobey.  This is a consequence of the original sin - which was itself disobedience.  Our fallen nature leads us to constantly seek excuses for disobedience. One could always claim that the situation was unusual if we allowed that as a justification. While it is possible for disobedience to be licit, we must strictly limit the conditions under which we would disobey in order to counteract our sinful tendencies.  Disobedience is a far more common danger than mindless obedience, especially in this anti-authoritarian culture.
(02-04-2012, 05:40 PM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-04-2012, 05:19 PM)TrentCath Wrote: [ -> ][quote='JayneK' pid='969140' dateline='1328389019']
[quote='TrentCath' pid='969123' dateline='1328384875']

It is very much to the point, the fact that they have lost the faith and orthodox priests are persecuted for being orthodox, on a widespread scale and shamelessly so, proves (aside from many other proofs that could be mentioned) that we are in unusual times. Your original point is that disobedience is an exception under unusual circumstances, well we are under unusual circumstances, and in these circumstances it is very probable that disobedience is at least as likely to be right as commonly as disobedience, it is therefore extremely imprudent to blindly obey orders. Blind obedience might be considered a virtue under certain circumstances but it most certainly is not in the situation we are in, we can no longer be sure that merely because a bishop or even the Pope says something it is right or true not even if it is not obviously wrong. In times such as these we must demonstrate a higher than usual level of prudence and a great deal of cautiousness and discernment in determining whether to obey or not, even a bishop who has lost the faith has the right to command you to do something within due limits, but such a bishop is far more likely to command you to do something wrong than a bishop who possesses the faith. It may now always be clear when a command is in fact unlawful, in fact many times it is not and so we must be careful.

Those who obey questionable commands out of a sense of false obedience and make no attempt to ascertain whether the commands are lawful or not are guilty of blind obedience and in times such as these endanger both themselves and others with their recklessness.

What I meant when I said that disobedience is right under unusual circumstances, is that being given an unlawful command is unusual.  I was assuming that you knew that only unlawful commands justify disobedience of legitimate authority.  Unusual circumstances do not in themselves justify disobedience.  If a command is not clearly unlawful, the presumption is in favour of obedience.

The natural human tendency is to disobey.  This is a consequence of the original sin - which was itself disobedience.  Our fallen nature leads us to constantly seek excuses for disobedience. One could always claim that the situation was unusual if we allowed that as a justification. While it is possible for disobedience to be licit, we must strictly limit the conditions under which we would disobey in order to counteract our sinful tendencies.  Disobedience is a far more common danger than mindless obedience, especially in this anti-authoritarian culture.

Sadly being given an unlawful command is anything but unusual in today's Church vis a vis the new mass, ecumenicism, 'EMHC's', lay women and men reading in the mass, Communion in the hand, the list goes on and you can rest assured it is very long. Whilst disobedience may be a more common danger than blind obedience, among certain kinds of people vis a vis 'conservative catholics' and semi trads, blind obedience is a bigger issue.

And yes I am well aware than only an unlawful command justifies disobedience of legitimate authority, so I cannot see where you are going with that one  ???

What then do you advise priests to do who are told to allow Communion in the Hand or be disciplined? Or celebrate the new mass? Or not celebrate the Traditional Latin Mass? Or allow lay readers or EMHC's? Or to attend and promote ecumenical activities? The authority is certainly legitimate and on paper the commands can be lawful, but in reality they contradict divine law and so the commands are unlawful.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25