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
(02-05-2012, 03:14 PM)cgraye Wrote: [ -> ]But we do not know what would have happened had that one group not existed.

Thank you for your replies to my questions.  It is interesting to me that you do not seem to follow Msgr. Ocariz's formula entirely.  I think that that is good, though.  Let's leave the good Spanish bishop alone for a while, and see where we stand relative to each other.
Based on your description of your understanding of the indefectability and permanence of the Church, I still think that approach to the SSPX is based on a preconception that the Church can not fall into a state of widespread error.  While I agree that Christ promised the Church would not be entirely effaced, and that as an entity, He would not totally abandon it, the Church can be wiped out in places, reduced to practical insignificance, replaced by new churches or beliefs.  We do not know the actual parameters of Christ's promise, therefore we must fight as though the life of the Church depended on it.  And in a sense it does, because traditionally, if the Church is reduced in scope, then souls are lost as a result. 
I remain confused as to the effect of a few scattered communities, like Solesmes, and the UK being permitted to say the old mass after V2.  The fact was that all over the Catholic world, people were deprived of the old mass and forced either to accept the new mass, go the the SSPX chapel, or leave, as you mentioned some in your family did (as did many in mine).  If one was without money to move to the UK or Belgium, one was out of luck.  Is it right to force a Catholic to attend a mass that is less good than the previous mass?  Is is right to force a Catholic to accept confusing teachings in the place of clear ones?  I think we agree the answer is no.  So, we repeat, what to do?
The answer must depend, under your framework and mine both, on what the Church hierarchy says it is doing.  In the 70s and 80s, the hierarchy continued to insist the new mass was better than the old, that the old had no place in the vast majority of Catholics' daily life, and that V2 was both new and binding on the conscience.  There was no accomodation being made.   
At this point, let's recap:  the mass that was offered to the vast majority is less good, and the teachings were less clear, and the hierarchy was not reversing these problems, the inevitable occurred and people left the Church. Traditionally, the Catholic understood the result of this to be the invetiable loss of souls.  That is what led the SSPX to consecrate bishops.  Under those circumstances, it is hard to see how that act was sinful.  You have objected on nthe basis that had the SSPX not diobeyed Pope JP II, something else might have happened.  But no one else but the SSPX was taking steps to protect the survival of traditional Catholic practice and belief.  To hold otherwise seems like saying that if  Reagan had not oppposed communism, someone else might have, like maybe Mitterand.  It is more likely that no one would have.  That's what the evidence shows.  The Church hierarchy has sought to increase the SSPX's culpability by denying the gravity of the crisis of praxis and doctrine in the modern Church.  This is why Nostrae AEtate is so important: it reverses the effect of apostasy within the Church.  By the way, I thought we were talking about people who left during the 60s-80s, since you mentioned your kinsmen. 
 
(02-03-2012, 01:32 PM)cgraye Wrote: [ -> ]Their interpretation of the previous magisterium is by definition a private judgment.  Only the magisterium authentically interprets the magisterium.


Then the truth is whatever the men who happen to comprise the Magisterium at any one time says it is. That is shaky ground to build your faith on my friend.
(02-05-2012, 11:08 AM)TrentCath Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-05-2012, 10:08 AM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-05-2012, 05:18 AM)TrentCath Wrote: [ -> ]That may of course be Jayne because you are the one often accused of blind obedience, which often turns out to be true.

I have never acted out of blind obedience.  How could you possibly make that judgement about another person?
Really? That would be mighty odd considering the number of posts where you demonstrate it...

All that I have demonstrated is that I come to different conclusions than you do about what is the right thing to do.  That does not make me mindless.  If anything, I have the opposite fault, in that I tend to over-think everything.

I am willing to acknowledge that people who disobey may be nevertheless acting in good conscience.  But you assume those who obey (where you think they should not) do so because they have not bothered to really think about it. 
(02-04-2012, 11:46 PM)INPEFESS Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-04-2012, 05:40 PM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]If a command is not clearly unlawful, the presumption is in favour of obedience.

As you know, JayneK, I don't have a horse in this particular race, but I would like to know whence you derive this teaching. The relevant theological principle in moral theology is "lex dubia non obligat." You can find commentary on this principle of moral theology here, and you can see how it has been used by the Church before here. Here is a relevant portion of the latter concerning internal argumentation for probalism:
Catholic Encyclopedia Wrote:According to the axiom: lex dubia non obligat, a doubtful law does not bind. But a law is doubtful when there is a solidly probable opinion against it. Hence it is lawful to follow a solidly probable opinion in favour of liberty (cf. Tanquerey, "Theologia Fundamentalis", n. 409).

I was writing about whether a command is clearly unlawful *in my own mind*.  I was talking about the nature of conscience.  If one has doubts about a course of action, then one cannot claim that one is following one's conscience.

Probabilism is a method of judging among conflicting learned authoritative opinions (as opposed to opinions in general, such as one finds on an Internet forum) and is not relevant to what I was talking about.

I know myself to have a nature that is disobedient, rebellious, proud and willful.  Due to my fallen state, I have the tendency to seek excuses for disobedience.  To compensate for this, I make obedience my default when I am unsure.  If I am to err I prefer to err on the side of obedience.
(02-05-2012, 05:41 PM)Silouan Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-03-2012, 01:32 PM)cgraye Wrote: [ -> ]Their interpretation of the previous magisterium is by definition a private judgment.  Only the magisterium authentically interprets the magisterium.


Then the truth is whatever the men who happen to comprise the Magisterium at any one time says it is. That is shaky ground to build your faith on my friend.

This is a point I've been trying to make recently.  Either the Catholic Faith is objective and knowable (as Pope Pius XI said it was) or it is not.  If it is not, then it becomes whatever the current Magisterium says that it is, which makes it subjective (because, apparently, past magisterial decisions are perpetually open to re-interpretation by the current Magisterium).
(02-05-2012, 06:33 PM)SouthpawLink Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-05-2012, 05:41 PM)Silouan Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-03-2012, 01:32 PM)cgraye Wrote: [ -> ]Their interpretation of the previous magisterium is by definition a private judgment.  Only the magisterium authentically interprets the magisterium.


Then the truth is whatever the men who happen to comprise the Magisterium at any one time says it is. That is shaky ground to build your faith on my friend.

This is a point I've been trying to make recently.  Either the Catholic Faith is objective and knowable (as Pope Pius XI said it was) or it is not.  If it is not, then it becomes whatever the current Magisterium says that it is, which makes it subjective (because, apparently, past magisterial decisions are perpetually open to re-interpretation by the current Magisterium).

Assuming that the Faith is "objective and knowable" and that the distinction between the objective and the subjective is quite as clear as you would like to make it, one has to ask how it is to be known. It seems like you are setting yourself up for rationalism here really. Religion is not merely a set of logical propositions to be deduced by an objective reason. 
(02-05-2012, 05:57 PM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-05-2012, 11:08 AM)TrentCath Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-05-2012, 10:08 AM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-05-2012, 05:18 AM)TrentCath Wrote: [ -> ]That may of course be Jayne because you are the one often accused of blind obedience, which often turns out to be true.

I have never acted out of blind obedience.  How could you possibly make that judgement about another person?
Really? That would be mighty odd considering the number of posts where you demonstrate it...



I am willing to acknowledge that people who disobey may be nevertheless acting in good conscience.  But you assume those who obey (where you think they should not) do so because they have not bothered to really think about it. 

No, but I do know that obedience can as often be the easy way out (these days) as disobedience can.
(02-05-2012, 06:50 PM)Crusading Philologist Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-05-2012, 06:33 PM)SouthpawLink Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-05-2012, 05:41 PM)Silouan Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-03-2012, 01:32 PM)cgraye Wrote: [ -> ]Their interpretation of the previous magisterium is by definition a private judgment.  Only the magisterium authentically interprets the magisterium.


Then the truth is whatever the men who happen to comprise the Magisterium at any one time says it is. That is shaky ground to build your faith on my friend.

This is a point I've been trying to make recently.  Either the Catholic Faith is objective and knowable (as Pope Pius XI said it was) or it is not.  If it is not, then it becomes whatever the current Magisterium says that it is, which makes it subjective (because, apparently, past magisterial decisions are perpetually open to re-interpretation by the current Magisterium).

Assuming that the Faith is "objective and knowable" and that the distinction between the objective and the subjective is quite as clear as you would like to make it, one has to ask how it is to be known. It seems like you are setting yourself up for rationalism here really. Religion is not merely a set of logical propositions to be deduced by an objective reason. 

First and foremost, there are the solemn creeds: the Apostles', Nicene, Athanasian and Tridentine.  Then there are decrees and canons of the ecumenical councils, and, what is most known to the laity, the generally approved catechisms* (Trent, St. Pius X, and the Baltimore).

The Catholic Faith is a set number of truths (Pius XI) which can be found in (and explicated from) divine revelation, either formally or virtually: "For the teaching authority of the Church, which in the divine wisdom was constituted on earth in order that revealed doctrines might remain intact for ever, and that they might be brought with ease and security to the knowledge of men ...   But in the use of this extraordinary teaching authority no newly invented matter is brought in, nor is anything new added to the number of those truths which are at least implicitly contained in the deposit of Revelation, divinely handed down to the Church" (Mortalium Animos, 9).


* Theology manuals are more-exhaustive explanations of the catechisms.
(02-05-2012, 05:57 PM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-05-2012, 11:08 AM)TrentCath Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-05-2012, 10:08 AM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-05-2012, 05:18 AM)TrentCath Wrote: [ -> ]That may of course be Jayne because you are the one often accused of blind obedience, which often turns out to be true.

I have never acted out of blind obedience.  How could you possibly make that judgement about another person?
Really? That would be mighty odd considering the number of posts where you demonstrate it...

All that I have demonstrated is that I come to different conclusions than you do about what is the right thing to do.  That does not make me mindless.  If anything, I have the opposite fault, in that I tend to over-think everything.

I am willing to acknowledge that people who disobey may be nevertheless acting in good conscience.  But you assume those who obey (where you think they should not) do so because they have not bothered to really think about it. 

One should also not assume that disobedience is born out of a "schismatic mentality." as some on here see the SSPX. Doctors  Of The Church teach us that if a lawful superior commands us to do that which is contrary to our Catholic Faith; we not only have a right to disobey, but a duty to do so
(02-05-2012, 08:26 PM)matthew_talbot Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-05-2012, 05:57 PM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-05-2012, 11:08 AM)TrentCath Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-05-2012, 10:08 AM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-05-2012, 05:18 AM)TrentCath Wrote: [ -> ]That may of course be Jayne because you are the one often accused of blind obedience, which often turns out to be true.

I have never acted out of blind obedience.  How could you possibly make that judgement about another person?
Really? That would be mighty odd considering the number of posts where you demonstrate it...

All that I have demonstrated is that I come to different conclusions than you do about what is the right thing to do.  That does not make me mindless.  If anything, I have the opposite fault, in that I tend to over-think everything.

I am willing to acknowledge that people who disobey may be nevertheless acting in good conscience.  But you assume those who obey (where you think they should not) do so because they have not bothered to really think about it. 

One should also not assume that disobedience is born out of a "schismatic mentality." as some on here see the SSPX. Doctors  Of The Church teach us that if a lawful superior commands us to do that which is contrary to our Catholic Faith; we not only have a right to disobey, but a duty to do so

A point that was aptly made by Bl Cardinal Newman, St Robert Bellarmine and Suarez.
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