CDF rejects SSPX second response
(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.
Reply


Messages In This Thread
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by Dmorgan - 02-01-2012, 09:21 PM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by Aragon - 02-02-2012, 05:48 PM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by Josué - 02-03-2012, 01:24 AM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by cgraye - 02-03-2012, 01:11 PM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by cgraye - 02-03-2012, 01:32 PM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by cgraye - 02-03-2012, 03:46 PM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by cgraye - 02-03-2012, 04:40 PM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by Dmorgan - 02-03-2012, 05:12 PM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by FHM310 - 02-03-2012, 05:12 PM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by Nic - 02-03-2012, 05:18 PM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by cgraye - 02-03-2012, 05:32 PM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by cgraye - 02-03-2012, 06:38 PM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by JayneK - 02-03-2012, 07:45 PM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by cgraye - 02-03-2012, 07:53 PM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by cgraye - 02-03-2012, 07:57 PM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by cgraye - 02-03-2012, 08:12 PM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by cgraye - 02-03-2012, 08:16 PM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by Dmorgan - 02-03-2012, 09:48 PM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by Justin - 02-03-2012, 09:58 PM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by cgraye - 02-03-2012, 10:13 PM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by cgraye - 02-03-2012, 10:47 PM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by JayneK - 02-03-2012, 11:31 PM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by JayneK - 02-04-2012, 12:16 AM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by cgraye - 02-04-2012, 12:34 AM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by JayneK - 02-04-2012, 12:39 AM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by Aragon - 02-04-2012, 12:40 AM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by Tapatio - 02-04-2012, 12:50 AM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by cgraye - 02-04-2012, 12:51 AM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by cgraye - 02-04-2012, 01:02 AM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by Aragon - 02-04-2012, 01:14 AM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by Dmorgan - 02-04-2012, 09:33 AM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by JayneK - 02-04-2012, 09:40 AM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by cgraye - 02-04-2012, 12:32 PM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by Meg - 02-04-2012, 01:00 PM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by Meg - 02-04-2012, 01:30 PM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by JayneK - 02-04-2012, 01:41 PM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by JayneK - 02-04-2012, 01:53 PM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by Graham - 02-04-2012, 02:22 PM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by Justin - 02-04-2012, 02:33 PM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by JayneK - 02-04-2012, 03:23 PM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by JayneK - 02-04-2012, 04:56 PM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by JayneK - 02-04-2012, 05:40 PM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by JayneK - 02-04-2012, 06:46 PM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by JayneK - 02-04-2012, 07:37 PM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by JayneK - 02-04-2012, 08:54 PM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by JayneK - 02-05-2012, 10:08 AM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by cgraye - 02-05-2012, 03:14 PM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by Silouan - 02-05-2012, 05:41 PM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by JayneK - 02-05-2012, 05:57 PM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by JayneK - 02-05-2012, 06:19 PM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by Silouan - 02-05-2012, 11:11 PM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by cgraye - 02-06-2012, 12:13 PM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by Tapatio - 02-06-2012, 02:53 PM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by JayneK - 02-06-2012, 03:07 PM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by Tapatio - 02-06-2012, 09:47 PM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by Doce Me - 02-06-2012, 11:55 PM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by Tapatio - 02-07-2012, 12:49 AM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by cgraye - 02-07-2012, 11:20 AM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by Tapatio - 02-09-2012, 03:41 AM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by Tapatio - 02-12-2012, 02:58 PM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by JayneK - 02-12-2012, 07:39 PM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by Tapatio - 02-12-2012, 11:06 PM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by JayneK - 02-13-2012, 08:30 AM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by Tapatio - 02-16-2012, 03:24 AM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by Tapatio - 02-16-2012, 04:18 AM



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)