SSPX Deal: But Will the Fat Lady Sing? — article by Fr. Cekada
#32
(04-19-2012, 10:36 PM)Stubborn Wrote:
(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!

Gerard, just what is your area of expertise as an attorney?
Reply


Messages In This Thread
Re: SSPX Deal: But Will the Fat Lady Sing? — article by Fr. Cekada - by OldMan - 04-20-2012, 09:38 AM



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)