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, 09:05 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-05-2012, 03:39 PM)City Smurf Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-04-2012, 07:56 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: [ -> ]Are you serious?

Manifest heretics are no longer members of the Church ipso facto, without need for any declaratory sentence, and therefore cannot hold offices or jurisdiction in her, much less demand our obedience. It would be absurd to imply otherwise.

Could you please provide a Magisterial document saying that we do not owe lawful obedience to lawful superiors regardless of their state in relation to the Church?  That is, please provide a Magisterial document stating that manifest heretics lose their authority to command obedience in lawful things.

No, actually, please provide at least three Magisterial documents attesting to this.

I already responded to this by quoting St. Robert Bellarmine's work.

Heretics are cut off from the Church and cannot possess jurisdiction in a body to which they no longer belong to.

Are you suggesting that merely because bishops or priests may or may not hold the faith we should disobey them even if they give lawful commands? That is rather than saying we disobey because the command is unlawful we disobey them because they no longer possess legitimate authority due to their heresy?
(02-06-2012, 05:14 AM)TrentCath Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-05-2012, 09:05 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-05-2012, 03:39 PM)City Smurf Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-04-2012, 07:56 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: [ -> ]Are you serious?

Manifest heretics are no longer members of the Church ipso facto, without need for any declaratory sentence, and therefore cannot hold offices or jurisdiction in her, much less demand our obedience. It would be absurd to imply otherwise.

Could you please provide a Magisterial document saying that we do not owe lawful obedience to lawful superiors regardless of their state in relation to the Church?  That is, please provide a Magisterial document stating that manifest heretics lose their authority to command obedience in lawful things.

No, actually, please provide at least three Magisterial documents attesting to this.

I already responded to this by quoting St. Robert Bellarmine's work.

Heretics are cut off from the Church and cannot possess jurisdiction in a body to which they no longer belong to.

Are you suggesting that merely because bishops or priests may or may not hold the faith we should disobey them even if they give lawful commands? That is rather than saying we disobey because the command is unlawful we disobey them because they no longer possess legitimate authority due to their heresy?

Yes, that is what St. Robert Bellarmine, basing his teaching on the teachings and practice of the Church fathers, is saying. Heretics are, by definition, excluded from the Body of Christ per divine law. This is confirmed in the 1917 Code of Canon Law. Hence, they cannot possibly execute authority in an institution of which they are not even members.
Catholic Encyclopedia: Heresy; Distinctions Wrote:Heresy differs from apostasy. The apostate a fide abandons wholly the faith of Christ either by embracing Judaism, Islamism, Paganism, or simply by falling into naturalism and complete neglect of religion; the heretic always retains faith in Christ. Heresy also differs from schism. Schismatics, says St. Thomas, in the strict sense, are they who of their own will and intention separate themselves from the unity of the Church. The unity of the Church consists in the connection of its members with each other and of all the members with the head. Now this head is Christ whose representative in the Church is the supreme pontiff. And therefore the name of schismatics is given to those who will not submit to the supreme pontiff nor communicate with the members of the Church subject to him. Since the definition of Papal Infallibility, schism usually implies the heresy of denying this dogma. Heresy is opposed to faith; schism to charity; so that, although all heretics are schismatics because loss of faith involves separation from the Church, not all schismatics are necessarily heretics, since a man may, from anger, pride, ambition, or the like, sever himself from the communion of the Church and yet believe all the Church proposes for our belief (II-II, Q. xxix, a. 1). Such a one, however, would be more properly called rebellious than heretical.

As it applies to clerics:
Catholic Encyclopedia: Heresy; Church legislation on heresy, no. 5 Wrote:Heretical clerics and all who receive, defend, or favour them are ipso facto deprived of their benefices, offices, and ecclesiastical jurisdiction. The pope himself, if notoriously guilty of heresy, would cease to be pope because he would cease to be a member of the Church.

Besides what Vetus Ordo already quoted from St. Cardinal Bellarmine (and besides what has been quoted concerning the Pio-Benedictine Code of Canon Law (cf. cc. 188.4, 192.1), here these should be considered carefully:
St. Francis de Sales Wrote:"Thus we do not say that the Pope cannot err in his private opinions, as did John XXII.; or be altogether a heretic, as perhaps Honorius was. Now when he is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church...

F. X. Wernz, P. Vidal (1943) Wrote:“Through notorious and openly revealed heresy, the Roman Pontiff, should he fall into heresy, by that very fact is deemed to be deprived of the power of jurisdiction even before any declaratory judgment of the Church…”

Ius Canonicum. Rome: Gregorian 1943. 2:453.

St. Antoninus (1459) Wrote:"In the case in which the pope would become a heretic, he would find himself, by that fact alone and without any other sentence, separated from the Church. A head separated from a body cannot, as long as it remains separated, be head of the same body from which it was cut off. A pope who would be separated from the Church by heresy, therefore, would by that very fact itself cease to be head of the Church. He could not be a heretic and remain pope, because, since he is outside of the Church, he cannot possess the keys of the Church."

Summa Theologica, cited in Actes de Vatican I. V. Frond pub.

Remember, Peter received the Keys of the Kingdom as a consequence of his profession of faith; it wasn't the other way around: he didn't profess his faith because he had received the Keys of the Kingdom. Faith is necessary to command obedience in the Church.
(02-06-2012, 06:35 AM)INPEFESS Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-06-2012, 05:14 AM)TrentCath Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-05-2012, 09:05 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-05-2012, 03:39 PM)City Smurf Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-04-2012, 07:56 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: [ -> ]Are you serious?

Manifest heretics are no longer members of the Church ipso facto, without need for any declaratory sentence, and therefore cannot hold offices or jurisdiction in her, much less demand our obedience. It would be absurd to imply otherwise.

Could you please provide a Magisterial document saying that we do not owe lawful obedience to lawful superiors regardless of their state in relation to the Church?  That is, please provide a Magisterial document stating that manifest heretics lose their authority to command obedience in lawful things.

No, actually, please provide at least three Magisterial documents attesting to this.

I already responded to this by quoting St. Robert Bellarmine's work.

Heretics are cut off from the Church and cannot possess jurisdiction in a body to which they no longer belong to.

Are you suggesting that merely because bishops or priests may or may not hold the faith we should disobey them even if they give lawful commands? That is rather than saying we disobey because the command is unlawful we disobey them because they no longer possess legitimate authority due to their heresy?

Yes, that is what St. Robert Bellarmine, basing his teaching on the teachings and practice of the Church fathers, is saying. Heretics are, by definition, excluded from the Body of Christ per divine law. This is confirmed in the 1917 Code of Canon Law. Hence, they cannot possibly execute authority in an institution of which they are not even members.
Catholic Encyclopedia: Heresy; Distinctions Wrote:Heresy differs from apostasy. The apostate a fide abandons wholly the faith of Christ either by embracing Judaism, Islamism, Paganism, or simply by falling into naturalism and complete neglect of religion; the heretic always retains faith in Christ. Heresy also differs from schism. Schismatics, says St. Thomas, in the strict sense, are they who of their own will and intention separate themselves from the unity of the Church. The unity of the Church consists in the connection of its members with each other and of all the members with the head. Now this head is Christ whose representative in the Church is the supreme pontiff. And therefore the name of schismatics is given to those who will not submit to the supreme pontiff nor communicate with the members of the Church subject to him. Since the definition of Papal Infallibility, schism usually implies the heresy of denying this dogma. Heresy is opposed to faith; schism to charity; so that, although all heretics are schismatics because loss of faith involves separation from the Church, not all schismatics are necessarily heretics, since a man may, from anger, pride, ambition, or the like, sever himself from the communion of the Church and yet believe all the Church proposes for our belief (II-II, Q. xxix, a. 1). Such a one, however, would be more properly called rebellious than heretical.

As it applies to clerics:
Catholic Encyclopedia: Heresy; Church legislation on heresy, no. 5 Wrote:Heretical clerics and all who receive, defend, or favour them are ipso facto deprived of their benefices, offices, and ecclesiastical jurisdiction. The pope himself, if notoriously guilty of heresy, would cease to be pope because he would cease to be a member of the Church.

Besides what Vetus Ordo already quoted from St. Cardinal Bellarmine (and besides what has been quoted concerning the Pio-Benedictine Code of Canon Law (cf. cc. 188.4, 192.1), here these should be considered carefully:
St. Francis de Sales Wrote:"Thus we do not say that the Pope cannot err in his private opinions, as did John XXII.; or be altogether a heretic, as perhaps Honorius was. Now when he is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church...

F. X. Wernz, P. Vidal (1943) Wrote:“Through notorious and openly revealed heresy, the Roman Pontiff, should he fall into heresy, by that very fact is deemed to be deprived of the power of jurisdiction even before any declaratory judgment of the Church…”

Ius Canonicum. Rome: Gregorian 1943. 2:453.

St. Antoninus (1459) Wrote:"In the case in which the pope would become a heretic, he would find himself, by that fact alone and without any other sentence, separated from the Church. A head separated from a body cannot, as long as it remains separated, be head of the same body from which it was cut off. A pope who would be separated from the Church by heresy, therefore, would by that very fact itself cease to be head of the Church. He could not be a heretic and remain pope, because, since he is outside of the Church, he cannot possess the keys of the Church."

Summa Theologica, cited in Actes de Vatican I. V. Frond pub.

Remember, Peter received the Keys of the Kingdom as a consequence of his profession of faith; it wasn't the other way around: he didn't profess his faith because he had received the Keys of the Kingdom. Faith is necessary to command obedience in the Church.

This document mastefully rebuts these ideas http://www.sspx.ca/Communicantes/Dec2004...Vacant.htm

Notice in particular
Quote: For that survey, I will follow the study of Arnaldo Xavier de Silveira in his book ‘La Nouvelle Messe de Paul VI: Qu'en penser’ (or: LNM)3. After explaining how the New Mass departs from the traditional teaching of the Church, this author makes an in-depth study of the theological hypothesis of a heretical pope. Such study was highly praised by Archbishop Lefebvre, as "the very objective study of Xavier de Silveira". To my knowledge, this is the most complete and most clear study on that topic.  Such study was originally published as a series of articles in the magazine Catolicismo, from Brazil, from 1969 till 1971. That publication was under the care of the TFP4 (Tradition, Family, Property) movement. A French translation was eventually published in 1975. Then, the TFP forbade any other publication or translation of that book. The fact that LNM made a survey of 136 authors who speak about the possibility of a heretical pope, joined with the fine theological sense of Xavier de Silveira makes his book most highly valuable.

Opinions Reported in LNM


Their Rank According to St. Robert Bellarmine


Main Defenders

1. The pope can never fall into heresy


1st Opinion according to St. Robert Bellarmine


Pighi, Suarez St. Robert Bellarmine Matthaeucci, Bouix, Billot

2. Theologically one cannot exclude the hypothesis of a heretical pope (see below)
 

2.1. On account of his heresy, the pope would never lose his pontificate


3rd Opinion acc. to St. Robert Bellarmine


Bouix

2.2. The heretical pope would lose his pontificate (see below)
 

2.2.1. The loss of the pontificate would happen the minute the pope falls into an internal heresy, and before it becomes public


2nd Opinion acc. to St. Robert Bellarmine


Torquemada

2.2.2. He would lose the pontificate when his heresy becomes manifest


5th Opinion acc. to St. Robert Bellarmine


St. Robert Bellarmine Billot, Cano

2.2.3. He would lose his pontificate only upon a declaration of heresy made by a council, or by cardinals or by group of bishops
 

2.2.3.1. Such declaration would act really as a deposition
 

Such opinion is condemned by the Church as heretical

2.2.3.2. Such declaration would not be a deposition but a merely act to report the loss of the pontificate by a heretic


4th Opinion acc. to St. Robert Bellarmine


Cajetan, Suarez


The explanation of the opinions is as follows
Quote: 1st Opinion: "God would never allow a pope to fall into heresy" The defenders of such opinion argue that Our Lord would never allow a pope to fall into heresy.  For Cardinal Billot, the hypothetical possibility of a pope falling into heresy would never come to reality, according to the promise of Our Lord: "And the Lord said: Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren." (Luke XXII, 31-32). For Billot, this promise should apply not only to St. Peter, but also to all his successors, as it was always understood by Tradition. Against that opinion, we have the case of Pope Honorius (625-638), who was condemned in 680, by the 3rd Council of Constantinople on account of his letters to Patriarch Sergius, which favored the Monothelite heresy5. Let me quote from that Council: "Having found that (Honorius' letters) are in complete disagreement with the apostolic dogmas and the definitions of the holy councils, and of all the approved Fathers; and that, on the contrary, they lead to the false doctrines of the heretics, we absolutely reject and condemn them as being poisonous to the souls… We also state that Honorius, formerly pope of the elder Rome, had been also rejected from the God's Holy Catholic Church and is being anathemized, on account of the writings he sent to Sergius, where he adopted his ideas in everything, and reaffirmed his impious principles." Let us note that such condemnation happened 42 years after the death of Honorius. Also, no matter what kind of judgment can be passed on Pope Honorius, it is a matter of fact that we have an official pontifical document which admits that a pope could possibly fall into heresy.  Such document is from Pope Adrian II, more than 200 years after the death of Honorius: "After his death, Honorius was anathemized by the Eastern Church; but we should not forget that he was accused of heresy, the only crime that would make lawful the resistance of inferiors to the orders of their superiors, and the refusal of their malicious doctrines." As we see, St. Robert Bellarmine's 1st Opinion has reasons in favor and against it. Thus we can say that this 1st opinion is only probable.

2nd Opinion: "As he falls into heresy, even only internal, the Pope would ipso facto lose his pontificate". Such opinion is now abandoned by theologians. Because the Church is Visible, it is necessary that its government be visible, and not depends on internal acts.

3rd Opinion: "Even if he falls into notorious heresy, the pope will never lose his pontificate." Xavier de Silveira comments: "among the 136 authors we have consulted (for the book LNM), Bouix is the only one to defend such opinion"6 We could say like St. Robert Bellarmine that such opinion is very improbable, because it goes against the unanimous consent of the Tradition of the Church.

4th Opinion: "The heretical pope would lose effectively his pontificate only upon an official declaration of heresy." It is clear that such declaration cannot be judicial one, for the pope doesn't have any superior on earth, capable to judge him. It would be only a non-judicial act by which Jesus-Christ would Himself dismiss the pope. Even though such opinion is defended by serious theologians, like Cajetan and Suarez, it is not admitted by St. Robert Bellarmine. I can see two dangers that can rise from such opinion - to fall into the heresy of Conciliarism, which was condemned by the Church - or at least, to fall into subjectivism. What can tell us, for sure, that a declaration of heresy coming from a group of bishops is not an attempt to make an act of deposition?

5th Opinion: "If he was to fall into a manifest heresy, the pope would ipso facto lose his pontificate". Some authors say that the pope would lose his pontificate ipso facto at the very moment when his heresy becomes external; some others maintain that the heretical pope would lose his pontificate only when his heresy becomes notorious and publicly spread. Among the 5 opinions studied by St. Robert Bellarmine, this 5,th opinion appears to be the most probable. 


Some more interesting points are made here
Quote: 3.2. Incompatibility between heresy and ecclesiastical jurisdiction: Both Holy Scripture and Tradition teach clearly that there is a deep incompatibility in radice (in the root) between the condition of a heretic and the possession of an ecclesiastical jurisdiction, because a heretic ceases to be a member of the Church. However, such incompatibility is not absolute, that is why theologians are using the term in radice (in the root).  In the same manner as a plant can still stay green for a while after it had been rooted up, likewise, jurisdiction could be maintained, in a precarious manner though, even after the Churchman had fallen into heresy (cf. Suarez). Theologians are basing their argumentation mostly on Canon Law, Can. 2314: "All apostates from the Christian faith and each and every heretic and schismatic incur the excommunication ipso facto.  Unless they respect warnings, they are deprived of benefice, dignity, pension office … and if clerics, with the warning being repeated, they are deposed." Then, Can. 2264 declares unlawful, but not automatically invalid, the acts of jurisdiction coming from someone who has been excommunicated: "An act of jurisdiction carried out by an excommunicated person, whether in the internal or the external forum, is illicit; and if a condemnatory or declaratory sentence has been pronounced, it is also invalid, without prejudice to c. 2261, §3; otherwise it is valid." Thus the heretical cleric does not lose automatically his functions, but he has to be deposed by the lawful authority.  From this, we can conclude that heresy, even external, does not automatically eliminate jurisdiction. Against it, it may be argued from Canon 188 # 4: "Any office becomes vacant upon the fact and without declaration by tacit resignation recognized by the law itself if a cleric: 4. Publicly defects from the Catholic faith." Sedevacantists are using this canon as a weighty proof of their thesis, however, such canon cannot be considered as a final proof that a heretical pope had lost his office. One has to remember that the pope is always above the dispositions of the positive law, as the one of Can. 188. Such argument would be final only if it was being proved that the canonical disposition of Can. 188 belongs to the divine-positive law of the Church. One would have also to prove that this divine-positive law applies properly to the specific case of the pope. But, it is precisely on that matter that the greatest theologians have been in disagreement for centuries.

3.3. Jurisdiction of the heretic: Being cut off at the root, the jurisdiction of the heretic does not disappear automatically, but it will remains as much and as long as it is maintained by a superior authority. This will happen if the pope maintains the jurisdiction of a heretical bishop who has not yet been punished according to Canons 2264 and 2314.  But, what happens if the pope himself falls into heresy? Who has the power to maintain him in his jurisdiction? It is not the Church, or even a group of bishops, for the pope is always superior to the Church, and he is not bound by ecclesiastical law. According to LNM 7, Christ Himself could maintain, at least for a while, the jurisdiction of a heretical pope. What would be the reason that would justify maintaining the jurisdiction of a heretical pope? Theologians have considered different answers to that question. The most serious answer to that key question is to say that Christ would maintain the jurisdiction of a heretical pope as long as his heresy is not notorious enough and widely publicized. Meanwhile, all the acts of jurisdiction of such a heretical pope would be valid and, if he were to proclaim a dogmatic definition, such definition would likewise be valid. In such case, the Holy Ghost would speak through the mouth of that pope, like He spoke through the mouth of Balaam's ass (Numbers XXII, 28-30). Such conclusion of Xavier de Silveira is perfectly consistent with the thought of St. Robert Bellarmine. The famous Dominican Father Garrigou-Lagrange8 reaches the same conclusion. Basing his reasoning on Billuart, he explains in his treatise De Verbo Incarnato (p. 232) that a heretical pope, while no longer a member of the Church, can still be her head. For, what is impossible in the case of a physical head is possible (albeit abnormal) for a secondary moral head. The reason is that, whereas a physical head cannot influence the members without receiving the vital influx of the soul, a moral head, as is the Roman Pontiff, can exercise jurisdiction over the Church even if he does not receive from the soul of the Church any influx of interior faith or charity. In short, the pope is constituted a member of the Church by his personal faith, which he can lose, but he is head of the visible Church by the jurisdiction and authority which he received, and these can coexist with his own heresy.

3.4. Public and Notorious heresy: It is to be understood according to the Canon Law principles. A Public crime, according to the law of the Church is not necessarily something which is done in the open and witnessed by Television cameras, as most people think. Let me quote the famous canonist Bouscaren: "Classification as to Publicity. A crime is: 1. Public, if it is already commonly known or the circumstances are such as to lead to the conclusion that it can and will easily become so; [...] 'Commonly known' (divulgatum) means known to the greater part of the inhabitants of a place or the members of a community; but this is not to be taken mathematically, but in prudent moral estimation. A crime may remain occult though known to a number of persons who are likely to keep it quiet, whereas it may be public though known to only a few who are sure to divulge it."9 As the pope is the Universal pastor of the entire Church, how can we apply such principles to the case of his heresy?  According to the canonists, for an act of heresy by a pope to be Public, the knowledge of it would either have to be already widely spread amongst the faithful of the universal Church, being known to most of them, or at least such as that it will be in practice impossible to stop it from becoming so known and it certainly will. Such heresy would have to be widely publicized, as well as Notorious - in order to be Public in canonical terms. For a pope's heresy to be Notorious, not only would the heretical act have to be widely known of, as we have seen, but it would also have to be an act whose criminality had been legally recognized.  In other words, for the criminality of a pope's heresy to be legally recognized, such that his heresy would be canonically Notorious, not only would a knowledge of his heresy have to have spread widely through the Church, as we have seen above, but it would also have to have been widely recognized as a morally imputable crime.

3.5. Notoriety of law and notoriety of fact:

1. Notoriety of law: A crime becomes Notorious with a notoriety in law only when a judicial sentence has been rendered by a competent judge - but the pope has no superiors and no one has juridical competence to judge him: "The first See can be judged by no one."10 - Hence any heretical act of John-Paul II cannot be Notorious with a notoriety of law.

2. Notoriety of fact: Can we say the same thing about the notoriety in fact of the pope's heresy? For it to be so, it would have to be widely recognized as both heretical and morally imputable - as Pertinacious (persistent and determined to the point of stubbornness). That is to say that it must be not only materially notorious, the heretical act being widely known, but also formally notorious, the act being widely recognized as a morally imputable crime of formal heresy. We may see this from the comments of the canonists: "An offense is Notorious by notoriety of fact, if it is publicly known and committed under such circumstances that it cannot be concealed by any subterfuge, nor excused by any excuse admitted in law, i.e., both the fact of the offense and the imputability or criminal liability must be publicly known."11 So a papal act of heresy would be notorious in fact only if both the act were "publicly known" - and the "imputability or criminal liability" were "publicly known". There is no competent judge who could rule of a pope that guilt was involved, and so the guilt could be Notorious only by being widely publicly known - it would have to be widely known that the act was morally imputable. And it would be necessary that it could not be excused by an appeal to an "accident", some sort of "self-defense", or some other legally admissible excuse; it would also be necessary that "no subterfuge" could possibly conceal it. 

I was questioning whether this could be applied to bishops not the pope, regardless applying it to bishops (who have jurisdiction) it is clear that the idea that a heretic loses jurisdiction merely because we believe him to be one or because we believe him to be 'a public and notorious' heretic does not mean he loses jurisdiction, further even if he was he may not lose jurisdiction until deposed by the Church. What this means quite simply is that the idea that heretics lose jurisdiction (prior to being deposed by the Church) is a theological opinon not a teaching of the Church and thus it is extremely imprudent to refuse the lawful commands of a superior based on a theological position which is not either 'common teaching' or 'very probable' but merely 'acceptable'
(02-05-2012, 06:19 PM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]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.

There is a lot of common sense in this, Jayne.  For myself, while I sympathize greatly with SSPX, I do not consider myself sufficiently spiritually well formed to join them.  I cannot be certain that I would be joining them entirely in good faith.  However, because there are no chapels near me, the question is somewhat academic.  It would be more pressing if there were no TLM offered nearby and there were an SSPX chapel.  The same problem would  arise in a slightly different context if there were an Orthodox church nearby, no diocesan TLM, and no SSPX.  If anything, this thread shows the morass that departing the traditional path has led to. 
(02-05-2012, 05:12 PM)Warrenton Wrote: [ -> ]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.

That depends on how you define "widespread error".  I would certainly consider the Arian heresy a case of widespread error.

Quote:Is it right to force a Catholic to attend a mass that is less good than the previous mass?

I would say that it is the prerogative of those with the authority to do so to impose any valid and good liturgical rite on a Church.  I would also say that it would be a mistake to replace a liturgy with a less good liturgy.

Quote: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?

What do we mean by accept?  Does accepting imply some difference in belief or action?  The fact that the teachings are confusing or vague means it is rather difficult to say what it is they call us to believe or do.  Confusing or unhelpful teachings are problematic simply in that they are confusing or unhelpful.  We can accept them as they are, but without additional interpretation and clarification, they have little practical effect.  In the case of the Vatican II documents, I think everyone is in agreement that they did not define nor purport to define any new doctrines.  And we also know that teachings of the Church cannot be changed, only clarified, specified, applied to new situations, etc.  How the Vatican II documents might have done this is not clear because the documents themselves are often not clear.  I think it's fairly clear that these documents can be understood in the light of what came before, otherwise Archbishop Lefebre would not have signed off on them.  It was only in retrospect, when those who clearly WERE trying to insert new and changed beliefs into the Catholic faith attempted to use this vagueness to their advantage (and indeed were apparently responsible for it in the first place), that that was really called into question.

Quote: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.

It was sinful because it's against the law to consecrate bishops without papal approval, and it's made worse when the pope specifically commands you not to do it.  There are no extenuating circumstances; this isn't a one-shot deal where following the letter of the law was contrary to its spirit.  Here their actions have continuing divisive consequences throughout the Church, and that situation itself creates doubt and confusion - which is what they were trying to fix in the first place.  And have they solved anything anyway?  They may have bishops and priests, but they have no jurisdiction, no faculties.  OK, so you say those legal points can be forgotten in this case because it's a crisis.  Even if that's true (which is another discussion entirely), the result is that the rule of law breaks down further.  So anyone can break the law if it's justified?  Maybe, but who decides if it's justified?  It always comes down to personal judgment.  And the result of that is going to be everything splintering and breaking down, because everyone has different opinions.  That judgment must be reserved to those with the ecclesiastical authority to make it.  It's the only way to preserve unity.  And you might argue that that puts us all at the mercy of the judgment of people who can err.  And thing is...yes it does.  But there are limits as to how far they can err and how much damage they can do - limits that God guarantees for us.  They can give us something less good, but they cannot give us something evil.  That is why the Church is not in the same danger as a civil body of having a leader that dooms it through bad decisions - because God is with the Church and will make sure of it.  He promised.  There is only so much we can do - sometimes we just have to be patient and leave it in God's hands.  And that is why I say, even if God has used the SSPX as his instrument to keep his promise in this case, he didn't need them.  Because he promised, and no matter what anyone does, he can and will keep his promises.
(02-06-2012, 05:14 AM)TrentCath Wrote: [ -> ]Are you suggesting that merely because bishops or priests may or may not hold the faith we should disobey them even if they give lawful commands? That is rather than saying we disobey because the command is unlawful we disobey them because they no longer possess legitimate authority due to their heresy?

If a given bishop or priest is shown to be a manifest heretic, that is, if it's externally visible that he is a heretic by his words and deeds, then he has ipso facto excommunicated himself from the Church and therefore lost all jurisdiction. He cannot possess jurisdiction nor hold office in a body he no longer belongs to.

Of course, we're speaking of manifest heretics, not secret heretics. Those are presumed to be orthodox and thus owed obedience because we can't read people's hearts.
(02-06-2012, 12:49 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-06-2012, 05:14 AM)TrentCath Wrote: [ -> ]Are you suggesting that merely because bishops or priests may or may not hold the faith we should disobey them even if they give lawful commands? That is rather than saying we disobey because the command is unlawful we disobey them because they no longer possess legitimate authority due to their heresy?

If a given bishop or priest is shown to be a manifest heretic, that is, if it's externally visible that he is a heretic by his words and deeds, then he has ipso facto excommunicated himself from the Church and therefore lost all jurisdiction. He cannot possess jurisdiction nor hold office in a body he no longer belongs to.

Of course, we're speaking of manifest heretics, not secret heretics. Those are presumed to be orthodox and thus owed obedience because we can't read people's hearts.

Thanks for the clarification.

By manifest are you using the term as the article defines it or as it is normally used I.e not the special meaning given to it by Canon law?

The article makes the point that something might be obvious and open and still not meet the requirements of canon law and theology.

Regardless of which term you are using it, your repeated statements that 'a heretic can no longer possess jurisdiction in a body he no longer belongs to' ignores the opinion of theologians of weight who do not believe this is the case and others who further believe Christ himself or a higher power can supply jurisdiction. In this case therefore until deposed a heretic very much would have jurisdiction.
(02-06-2012, 10:58 AM)Warrenton Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-05-2012, 06:19 PM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]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.

There is a lot of common sense in this, Jayne.  For myself, while I sympathize greatly with SSPX, I do not consider myself sufficiently spiritually well formed to join them.  I cannot be certain that I would be joining them entirely in good faith.  However, because there are no chapels near me, the question is somewhat academic.  It would be more pressing if there were no TLM offered nearby and there were an SSPX chapel.  The same problem would  arise in a slightly different context if there were an Orthodox church nearby, no diocesan TLM, and no SSPX.  If anything, this thread shows the morass that departing the traditional path has led to. 
As an aside:
A layman cannot be come a member of the SSPX.
Belonging to the Society is relegated to only clerics [and maybe 3rd Order Franciscans]
(02-06-2012, 02:48 PM)Old Salt Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-06-2012, 10:58 AM)Warrenton Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-05-2012, 06:19 PM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]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.

There is a lot of common sense in this, Jayne.  For myself, while I sympathize greatly with SSPX, I do not consider myself sufficiently spiritually well formed to join them.  I cannot be certain that I would be joining them entirely in good faith.  However, because there are no chapels near me, the question is somewhat academic.  It would be more pressing if there were no TLM offered nearby and there were an SSPX chapel.  The same problem would  arise in a slightly different context if there were an Orthodox church nearby, no diocesan TLM, and no SSPX.  If anything, this thread shows the morass that departing the traditional path has led to. 
As an aside:
A layman cannot be come a member of the SSPX.
Belonging to the Society is relegated to only clerics [and maybe 3rd Order Franciscans]
Umm..
There is the FSSPX Third order. (And it is not limited to Franciscans) It's for the laity.
There are 2 Third order FSSPX members at the chapel where we attend.
Here is the link for information about membership.
http://www.sspx.org/third_order.htm


And here are the rules.
http://www.sspx.org/Third_Order/third_order_rule.pdf
(02-06-2012, 10:58 AM)Warrenton Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-05-2012, 06:19 PM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]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.

There is a lot of common sense in this, Jayne.  For myself, while I sympathize greatly with SSPX, I do not consider myself sufficiently spiritually well formed to join them.  I cannot be certain that I would be joining them entirely in good faith.  However, because there are no chapels near me, the question is somewhat academic.  It would be more pressing if there were no TLM offered nearby and there were an SSPX chapel.  The same problem would  arise in a slightly different context if there were an Orthodox church nearby, no diocesan TLM, and no SSPX.  If anything, this thread shows the morass that departing the traditional path has led to. 

Usually, the only weekday TLM available to me is at an SSPX chapel.  While I do not agree with everything the SSPX teaches, I attend this Mass with a clear conscience and the knowledge of my spiritual director.
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