SSPX Deal: But Will the Fat Lady Sing? — article by Fr. Cekada
#21
(04-19-2012, 10:33 PM)clarkaim Wrote:
(04-19-2012, 12:47 PM)Gerard Wrote: Very interesting, especially in regards to the ownership issues, but here's where my red flag went off.

Quote: "First, a real Catholic does not negotiate with the Roman Pontiff — he submits to the Roman Pontiff. It is an article of faith that this is necessary for salvation."

Abraham and Moses were both capable of negotiatin with God Himself. But the Pope is somehow above negotiation?   What about the Popes that have negotiated with Eastern rites that actually split off and returned? 

St. Celestine wasn't interested in negotiatin with Boniface at all. He just kept disobeying. 

To propose this as an absolute without pointing out the difference between proper and improper submission is simply a capitulation to the Protestant idea of the papacy. 

The Protestant misunderstand the Papacy and reject Catholicism.  The Neo-Catholics have the same misunderstanding and simply love it and reject common sense. 

The traditionalists that carry the same misconception simply reject the occupant of the Papal Throne in order to preserve the premise. 

But to paraphrase, real Catholics submit to the voice of Peter when he speaks with the voice of Peter and when he walks not uprightly or perverts the gospel, they resist him to the face. 
Last time I checked, St. Paul was a "real Catholic." 

Vatican I clearly had the qualifier in it's definition of papal supremacy that what was required was "true heirarchical obedience" not "absolute" obedience.  If it had said "absolute" either Catholicism would be false or Popes would be Immaculate and Impeccable outside of Infallibility as defined.

We have too many incidences in history where "submission" to a Pope was not the moral option whether it be the deacon providing answers for the trial of Formosus or the wife of the man that killed one of the Pope Johns.

If you follow the absolutist understanding it goes like this:

"He's Pope right or wrong and since he's Pope he can do no wrong and if you think he is wrong he's irresistible anyway"  But, if you have a shred of morality and intellect trying to wrap itself around an invalid absolute, you simply replace the subject matter.  "He's wrong so He can't be Pope so,because my understanding of the premise must be correct."

But, when a Pope behaves like an "Anti-Christ" or "Satan" in Peter's case,  well...the description fits.  Not because you can't get your way but because objectively the Pope is not impeccable in his functions as Pope and the description is apt. 

So, to call absurd LeFebvre's descriptions and dealiings with the mercurial Popes on a human level is demanding "SuperPope" where none exists.    It's reminiscent of Chesterton's criticism of G. Bernard Shaw in "Heretics"  In discussing Mankind he said Shaw  will never be satisified because the ideal he searches for has never existed and cannot exist.  Therefore he has no appreciation for what is and everything falls short. 

Hold Jesus to the same standard that you hold LeFebvre.  When the Pope said what he liked, "You are the rock."  When he said what he didn't like, "Get thee behind me Satan."    Was Jesus a case of  Praxis without Principles? 
Your agument gave me the "aha!" experience I've been looking for.  I was a "sortofa cantist" that could not quite commit to the sede position, as much sense as it makes.  Now I don't feel the need to go there.  That being said, in these days of confusiion I am NOT ready to boot those that are sede's out.  I also love Fr. Cekada and find him a voice of great clarity in a confusing world.  I believe "SV's" may be wrong on a point of fact, but they are not "heretics" for the most part and are fully catholic from what I can glean from 20 years of trying to figure this all out.  I will never compromise the faith to the extent I am able and always submit my ideas to the subjection of Holy Mother Church, but like I said, you argument was succinct and clear and solves the issue, at least for me and mine.  Thanks. 

Yeah, Gerard knows what he's talkin' about!
Reply
#22
(04-19-2012, 12:47 PM)Gerard Wrote: Very interesting, especially in regards to the ownership issues, but here's where my red flag went off.

Quote: "First, a real Catholic does not negotiate with the Roman Pontiff — he submits to the Roman Pontiff. It is an article of faith that this is necessary for salvation."

Abraham and Moses were both capable of negotiatin with God Himself. But the Pope is somehow above negotiation?   What about the Popes that have negotiated with Eastern rites that actually split off and returned? 

St. Celestine wasn't interested in negotiatin with Boniface at all. He just kept disobeying. 

To propose this as an absolute without pointing out the difference between proper and improper submission is simply a capitulation to the Protestant idea of the papacy. 

The Protestant misunderstand the Papacy and reject Catholicism.  The Neo-Catholics have the same misunderstanding and simply love it and reject common sense. 

The traditionalists that carry the same misconception simply reject the occupant of the Papal Throne in order to preserve the premise. 

But to paraphrase, real Catholics submit to the voice of Peter when he speaks with the voice of Peter and when he walks not uprightly or perverts the gospel, they resist him to the face. 
Last time I checked, St. Paul was a "real Catholic." 

Vatican I clearly had the qualifier in it's definition of papal supremacy that what was required was "true heirarchical obedience" not "absolute" obedience.  If it had said "absolute" either Catholicism would be false or Popes would be Immaculate and Impeccable outside of Infallibility as defined.

We have too many incidences in history where "submission" to a Pope was not the moral option whether it be the deacon providing answers for the trial of Formosus or the wife of the man that killed one of the Pope Johns.

If you follow the absolutist understanding it goes like this:

"He's Pope right or wrong and since he's Pope he can do no wrong and if you think he is wrong he's irresistible anyway"  But, if you have a shred of morality and intellect trying to wrap itself around an invalid absolute, you simply replace the subject matter.  "He's wrong so He can't be Pope so,because my understanding of the premise must be correct."

But, when a Pope behaves like an "Anti-Christ" or "Satan" in Peter's case,  well...the description fits.  Not because you can't get your way but because objectively the Pope is not impeccable in his functions as Pope and the description is apt. 

So, to call absurd LeFebvre's descriptions and dealiings with the mercurial Popes on a human level is demanding "SuperPope" where none exists.    It's reminiscent of Chesterton's criticism of G. Bernard Shaw in "Heretics"  In discussing Mankind he said Shaw  will never be satisified because the ideal he searches for has never existed and cannot exist.  Therefore he has no appreciation for what is and everything falls short. 

Hold Jesus to the same standard that you hold LeFebvre.  When the Pope said what he liked, "You are the rock."  When he said what he didn't like, "Get thee behind me Satan."    Was Jesus a case of  Praxis without Principles? 

This is simply brilliant.  Bravo.  :clap:
Reply
#23
Looks like this is another thread to watch - to see if/how Fr. Cekada will address Gerard's arguments.

Reply
#24
(04-19-2012, 10:55 PM)tmw89 Wrote: Looks like this is another thread to watch - to see if/how Fr. Cekada will address Gerard's arguments.

He has already address this. His response will be: do not confuse private orders from the pope with the universal laws of the Church or it's Ordinary Magisterium.
Reply
#25
Indeed. Some people seemingly cannot differentiate between the two. Sometimes in good faith, sometimes in denial.
Reply
#26
(04-19-2012, 05:05 PM)FatherCekada Wrote: Actually, as a result of the lawsuits with SSPX, I became very familiar with how the civil law treats church property ownership in the U.S.

For the Catholic Church, the legal principle courts apply is "deference to hierarchy." If someone who represents the hierarchy of the Catholic Church (a diocesan bishop appointed by the pope or the head of a Catholic religious order) says that, under Catholic canon law, Father Smith has the right to be Pastor of St. Mary's Church or Sister Caroline has the right to be Superior of St. Felicia's Convent, the court will automatically award control of St. Mary's to Fr. Smith and of St. Felicia's to Sr. Caroline.

The pope, of course, is the head of this hierarchy, and under canon law, he can remove diocesan bishops and superiors general and appoint replacements, so he has the last say-so over who controls properties. U.S. courts respect this.

This is not an accurate synopsis of property law in the U.S. 

Real property ownership is determined by the person/persons or entity/entities named on a properly recorded deed. 

A bishop that is not on a deed does not own the property listed thereon.  Thus, even though he has the right to appoint pastors, unless the bishop is on the deed to a church property, no court in this country would award control of the property to him in the event of a dispute among parties.

In Saint Louis, Cardinal Burke found that out the hard way in the Saint Stanislaus Kostka parish dispute.  There was no deference given to his authority, and the archdiocese has no control over that parish property.

Quote:So if Benedict XVI or one of his successors decided that the head of SSPX was insufficiently cooperative, he could remove him (as JP2 did with Fr. Bisig, the FSSP Superior General). All SSPX property would then automatically come under the control of whomever the Holy See appointed to be the new Superior General.  Bp. Fellay or lay people who disagreed with the decision and wanted to go their own way could not take the properties with them.

The bolded section is not accurate either.  If,say, Father Bisig were the owner, in his own name, of all the FSSP property here in the U.S., and the pope removed him from his office, the pope's action would have no effect on the fact that Father Bisig is the owner of the property, and there is no one that could take that property from Father Bisig unless, A, it's encumbered and he stops paying on the note; B, he owes taxes on it and he stops paying the taxes; C, eminent domain; D, somebody executes on the property in order to satisfy a judgment against Father Bisig.

There are many avenues the SSPX could use to protect real estate in the event of some type of default on the part of Vatican officials, with Possibility of Reverter coming quickly to mind.

I'm an attorney.
Reply
#27
(04-19-2012, 11:34 PM)Jesusbrea Wrote:
(04-19-2012, 10:55 PM)tmw89 Wrote: Looks like this is another thread to watch - to see if/how Fr. Cekada will address Gerard's arguments.

He has already address this. His response will be: do not confuse private orders from the pope with the universal laws of the Church or it's Ordinary Magisterium.

That simply doesn't hold.  You can't claim the absolutist position of resisting/negotiating with a Pope as contrary to submission and then claim the right to sift over and determine the level of authority required for submission to particular orders.  So, in order to keep the internal consistency of the initial premise, you have to deny the legitimacy of the Pope, or deny the testimony of reason and pretend that what is coming from the Pope is good even if it's bad.  The alternative position held by the SSPX is inconvenient simply because of the inconsistency and lack of trustworthiness of the Popes, so like dealing with any person who is inconsistent, some days they are good and others they are not so good. 

The orders of Pope Boniface to St. Celestine (former Pope) were no different than any orders given to LeFebvre, except LeFebvre's disobediences were actually involved in the carrying out of his duty as a bishop while Celestine's disobedience was based purely on his personal wishes.  And regarding the Deacon that was ordered to give answers for the corpse of Pope Formosus, that resulted in declarations of invalidity regarding the ordinations of Formosus and various other claims of invalidity.  All of which were overturned and then reversed and then overturned again by subsequent Popes.

Laws in the Latin Church only are hardly guaranteed purity by the Holy Ghost.  They are not universal since they don't bind the Eastern Churches.  And "private orders" are not exercises of "the teaching authority" (ie. magisterium) of the Church.  They are acts of governance and when they are not for the good of the Church, they are not laws but abuses of power.  But, in principle, the absolutist who insists on submission is not free to make those distinctions and act accordingly.

Reply
#28
(04-19-2012, 05:05 PM)FatherCekada Wrote: Actually, as a result of the lawsuits with SSPX, I became very familiar with how the civil law treats church property ownership in the U.S.

For the Catholic Church, the legal principle courts apply is "deference to hierarchy." If someone who represents the hierarchy of the Catholic Church (a diocesan bishop appointed by the pope or the head of a Catholic religious order) says that, under Catholic canon law, Father Smith has the right to be Pastor of St. Mary's Church or Sister Caroline has the right to be Superior of St. Felicia's Convent, the court will automatically award control of St. Mary's to Fr. Smith and of St. Felicia's to Sr. Caroline.
So how did you end up with most of the SSPX's property in the U.S.? Why didn't the court respect "defence to hierarchy" and award the property either to Archbishop Lefebvre or the pope (depending on whom it would deem the proper hierarch)?
And if there was a way around this principle for you back then, why can't the SSPX use it now?
Reply
#29
(04-20-2012, 12:31 AM)Gerard Wrote:
(04-19-2012, 11:34 PM)Jesusbrea Wrote:
(04-19-2012, 10:55 PM)tmw89 Wrote: Looks like this is another thread to watch - to see if/how Fr. Cekada will address Gerard's arguments.

He has already address this. His response will be: do not confuse private orders from the pope with the universal laws of the Church or it's Ordinary Magisterium.

That simply doesn't hold.  You can't claim the absolutist position of resisting/negotiating with a Pope as contrary to submission and then claim the right to sift over and determine the level of authority required for submission to particular orders.  So, in order to keep the internal consistency of the initial premise, you have to deny the legitimacy of the Pope, or deny the testimony of reason and pretend that what is coming from the Pope is good even if it's bad.  The alternative position held by the SSPX is inconvenient simply because of the inconsistency and lack of trustworthiness of the Popes, so like dealing with any person who is inconsistent, some days they are good and others they are not so good. 

The orders of Pope Boniface to St. Celestine (former Pope) were no different than any orders given to LeFebvre, except LeFebvre's disobediences were actually involved in the carrying out of his duty as a bishop while Celestine's disobedience was based purely on his personal wishes.   And regarding the Deacon that was ordered to give answers for the corpse of Pope Formosus, that resulted in declarations of invalidity regarding the ordinations of Formosus and various other claims of invalidity.  All of which were overturned and then reversed and then overturned again by subsequent Popes.

Laws in the Latin Church only are hardly guaranteed purity by the Holy Ghost.  They are not universal since they don't bind the Eastern Churches.   And "private orders" are not exercises of "the teaching authority" (ie. magisterium) of the Church.  They are acts of governance and when they are not for the good of the Church, they are not laws but abuses of power.  But, in principle, the absolutist who insists on submission is not free to make those distinctions and act accordingly.

Clearly in denial.

/sarcasm/
More Catholic Discussion: http://thetradforum.com/

Go thy ways, old Jack;
die when thou wilt, if manhood, good manhood, be
not forgot upon the face of the earth, then am I a
shotten herring. There live not three good men
unhanged in England; and one of them is fat and
grows old: God help the while! a bad world, I say.
I would I were a weaver; I could sing psalms or any
thing. A plague of all cowards, I say still.
Reply
#30
.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)