Can one be traditional and not support the SSPX?

[petrelton]

Despite the increasing, err,  rambunctiousness of this thread, I found it to be of interest in that I may soon, God willing, move to a city that offers the TLM, both of the SSPX and, well, of the non-SSPX variety. (As it is now, I bear-to-suffer through a Novus Ordo Mass.) I have, of late, been considering whether I will attend the SSPX chapel, so, of course, I am intensely interested in the juridical standing of the SSPX.

Can one be a traditional Catholic and not support the SSPX? I would say "yes," but to echo another poster (forgive me--I will rely more on content here than names),  should not all tradition-minded Catholics be thankful toward/for the SSPX? I cannot see how we should not...

A number of times on this thread (though, it might have been from only one poster) I read that what Archbishop Lefebvre did in 1988 was a sinful action. I think this should be the focus that this debate (ahem--not Catholic row) should take.

First of all, electing bishops without papal mandate is not an intrinsically evil act. In fact, such was often the case during the Middle Ages, according to Dr. Ludwig Ott in his Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma. It was made an ex-communicable offence only under Pope Pius XII, primarily to prevent the communist Catholic Church (sic) from ordaining bishops who would be little more than puppets (Muppets?) for Marxism.

This is beside the point. The Pope made it an ex-communicable offence. End of story. The Pope forbade the 1988 ordinations end of story. A direct disobedience and defiance of the Pope is a schismatic and intrinsically evil act. If anyone argues any different then they are simply wrong-headed.

Second, according to canon 2205 (2) of the 1917 Code of Canon Law and canon 1323 No. 4 of the 1983 version, a person does not incur any sort of penalty who breaks the (canon) law if that person "has acted forced by a serious fear, even if it were only relatively, or compelled by necessity, or to avoid serious a serious inconvenience, except however if the act is intrinsically evil or if it causes harm to souls..."  Therefore, according to this, if a "state of necessity" is present, then a corresponding "law of necessity" is also present. Thus, any person who materially violates canon law under these conditions does not incur a penalty (moral or legal).

In other words, if the following conditions are present, a law of necessity can be invoked:

The point of this law is to excuse extraordinary situations which are not perceived by the canon law which may necessitate a breach of the letter of the canon law in order to fulfil the spirit of the law. This cannot apply in this case because the Pope is a higher authority in judging circumstances which may or may not require a breach of the letter of the canon law. The Pope was fully aware of all the circumstances of the 1988 consecrations at Econe and specifically forbade him to concecrate. Therefore as the Pope is the supreme adjudicator of canon law there are absolutely no grounds for direct disobedience in the canon law.

1). A state of necessity must truly be present,
2). One must have attempted to remedy it through ordinary means,
3). The act taken must not be "intrinsically evil,"
4). In breaking the canon law, one must keep to the limits proper to the state of necessity,
5). One should assume that in "normal times" (orthodox times), church authority would have given its assent.

Again the Pope was aware of all of these factors and commanded the Archbishop not to consecrate. Therefore the Pope did not consider that a state of necessity existed. The deliberate disobedience of the Pope was  therefore intrinsically evil even if invalid consecrations of bishops might in other circumstances be judged not to be intrinsically evil.

If one is going to question the juridical status of the SSPX, then one would probably have the best luck with points one and two--maybe.

Three, if the SSPX does not have an irregular juridical status, then why not attend their chapels as opposed to, say, FSSP churches (provided we live in a city that gives us such options)? Well, according to Archbishop Lefebvre in his The Mass of All Time, the FSSP priests must "sign a profession of faith in which the spirit of the Council must be accepted." Yet, is not the spirit of Vatican II what traditional Catholics ostensibly oppose? Also, this reduces the TLM to a sentimental holdover performed by Latin lovers, rather than the Mass for all times that it truly is.

How do you make this leap of logic. It is possible to love the pearl of great price as the Mass of all times whilst at the same time accepting the Vatican 2 council. How is this merely sentimentality in the FSSP?

Just to make clear, I do not attend an SSPX chapel (though, I find myself an apologist for them!). I am still considering these matters for myself. I would appreciate any and all helpful and civil feedback, even if it is to poke holes in my logic. As I believe that my eternal soul may well indeed depend upon this matter, please assist me.
 

It is not just the validity of the consecrations which is at question. It is the schismatic mentality of the SSPX. The rejection of a council of the church, the rejection of many parts of the catechism, the setting up of sacraments in opposition to the local ordinary. The SSPX started as a mass centre for the faithful to experience the Latin Mass. It has developed into a new church with its own bishops, priests, seminaries, and schools.
The whole thing is an unmitigated disaster and is a long way removed from what ABL would have intended when he first started out at Econe. I certainly agree that your eternal soul rests on it. Therefore I urge you to follow the advice of the Pontifical Commission of Ecclesia Dei and do not habitually attend SSPX chapels lest you absord their schismatic mentality. The PCED specifically stated that their confessions and weddings are INVALID. Get that INVALID. Its just not worth the risk. Maybe if you dig hard enough in canon law you might find a loophole, but that is not how catholics think. We want certainly VALID sacraments. not INVALID ones not maybe's?

[franklinf]

Yeah, I wonder why the SSPX celebrates Mass at Lourdes and in Vatican City (and on a regular basis now) when they don't have jurisdiction. Weird isn't it?

Also, Campos / Papa Stronsay - what did the Vatican do in regards to their marriages / confessions?

[Underdog]

Despite the increasing, err,  rambunctiousness of this thread, I found it to be of interest in that I may soon, God willing, move to a city that offers the TLM, both of the SSPX and, well, of the non-SSPX variety. (As it is now, I bear-to-suffer through a Novus Ordo Mass.) I have, of late, been considering whether I will attend the SSPX chapel, so, of course, I am intensely interested in the juridical standing of the SSPX.

Can one be a traditional Catholic and not support the SSPX? I would say "yes," but to echo another poster (forgive me--I will rely more on content here than names),  should not all tradition-minded Catholics be thankful toward/for the SSPX? I cannot see how we should not...

A number of times on this thread (though, it might have been from only one poster) I read that what Archbishop Lefebvre did in 1988 was a sinful action. I think this should be the focus that this debate (ahem--not Catholic row) should take.

First of all, electing bishops without papal mandate is not an intrinsically evil act. In fact, such was often the case during the Middle Ages, according to Dr. Ludwig Ott in his Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma. It was made an ex-communicable offence only under Pope Pius XII, primarily to prevent the communist Catholic Church (sic) from ordaining bishops who would be little more than puppets (Muppets?) for Marxism.

This is beside the point. The Pope made it an ex-communicable offence. End of story. The Pope forbade the 1988 ordinations end of story. A direct disobedience and defiance of the Pope is a schismatic and intrinsically evil act. If anyone argues any different then they are simply wrong-headed.

Second, according to canon 2205 (2) of the 1917 Code of Canon Law and canon 1323 No. 4 of the 1983 version, a person does not incur any sort of penalty who breaks the (canon) law if that person "has acted forced by a serious fear, even if it were only relatively, or compelled by necessity, or to avoid serious a serious inconvenience, except however if the act is intrinsically evil or if it causes harm to souls..."  Therefore, according to this, if a "state of necessity" is present, then a corresponding "law of necessity" is also present. Thus, any person who materially violates canon law under these conditions does not incur a penalty (moral or legal).

In other words, if the following conditions are present, a law of necessity can be invoked:

The point of this law is to excuse extraordinary situations which are not perceived by the canon law which may necessitate a breach of the letter of the canon law in order to fulfil the spirit of the law. This cannot apply in this case because the Pope is a higher authority in judging circumstances which may or may not require a breach of the letter of the canon law. The Pope was fully aware of all the circumstances of the 1988 consecrations at Econe and specifically forbade him to concecrate. Therefore as the Pope is the supreme adjudicator of canon law there are absolutely no grounds for direct disobedience in the canon law.

1). A state of necessity must truly be present,
2). One must have attempted to remedy it through ordinary means,
3). The act taken must not be "intrinsically evil,"
4). In breaking the canon law, one must keep to the limits proper to the state of necessity,
5). One should assume that in "normal times" (orthodox times), church authority would have given its assent.

Again the Pope was aware of all of these factors and commanded the Archbishop not to consecrate. Therefore the Pope did not consider that a state of necessity existed. The deliberate disobedience of the Pope was  therefore intrinsically evil even if invalid consecrations of bishops might in other circumstances be judged not to be intrinsically evil.

If one is going to question the juridical status of the SSPX, then one would probably have the best luck with points one and two--maybe.

Three, if the SSPX does not have an irregular juridical status, then why not attend their chapels as opposed to, say, FSSP churches (provided we live in a city that gives us such options)? Well, according to Archbishop Lefebvre in his The Mass of All Time, the FSSP priests must "sign a profession of faith in which the spirit of the Council must be accepted." Yet, is not the spirit of Vatican II what traditional Catholics ostensibly oppose? Also, this reduces the TLM to a sentimental holdover performed by Latin lovers, rather than the Mass for all times that it truly is.

How do you make this leap of logic. It is possible to love the pearl of great price as the Mass of all times whilst at the same time accepting the Vatican 2 council. How is this merely sentimentality in the FSSP?

Just to make clear, I do not attend an SSPX chapel (though, I find myself an apologist for them!). I am still considering these matters for myself. I would appreciate any and all helpful and civil feedback, even if it is to poke holes in my logic. As I believe that my eternal soul may well indeed depend upon this matter, please assist me.
 

It is not just the validity of the consecrations which is at question. It is the schismatic mentality of the SSPX. The rejection of a council of the church, the rejection of many parts of the catechism, the setting up of sacraments in opposition to the local ordinary. The SSPX started as a mass centre for the faithful to experience the Latin Mass. It has developed into a new church with its own bishops, priests, seminaries, and schools.
The whole thing is an unmitigated disaster and is a long way removed from what ABL would have intended when he first started out at Econe. I certainly agree that your eternal soul rests on it. Therefore I urge you to follow the advice of the Pontifical Commission of Ecclesia Dei and do not habitually attend SSPX chapels lest you absord their schismatic mentality. The PCED specifically stated that their confessions and weddings are INVALID. Get that INVALID. Its just not worth the risk. Maybe if you dig hard enough in canon law you might find a loophole, but that is not how catholics think. We want certainly VALID sacraments. not INVALID ones not maybe's?

No offense, Petrelton, but your arguments smack of legalism.  How could it not matter what the reason for Pope Pius XII's law change was?

[Oldavid]

A direct disobedience and defiance of the Pope is a schismatic and intrinsically evil act. If anyone argues any different then they are simply wrong-headed.

And what about when there have been multiple "popes"  and they amused themselves by condemning and excommunicating oneanother? There are qualifications to papal infallibility.

[Baskerville]

A direct disobedience and defiance of the Pope is a schismatic and intrinsically evil act. If anyone argues any different then they are simply wrong-headed.

And what about when there have been multiple "popes"  and they amused themselves by condemning and excommunicating oneanother? There are qualifications to papal infallibility.

ENOUGH!!! stop with the logic Pissinontrads is back. Let him rant its always good for a belly laugh.

[Amusing_Myself_to_Death]

petrelton,

With all goodwill, I appreciate your detailed responses. If I am wrong, then I want to know it--simple as that. This being said, however, I still have a few reserverations. As I mentioned, I want this to be helpful and civil, so I will try to maintain the standards that I have set for myself.

First, you claim that the first portion of my response was beside the point. Very well. What I wanted to make clear was that electing bishops without papal mandate qua electing bishops without papal mandate is not intrinsically evil. If something is intrinsically evil, then it is by its essence evil, such as idolatry, adultery, murder, etc. That fact that electing bishops without papal mandate is now an ex-communicable offence is merely an accidental quality, not an essential one. Perhaps most readers know this; I just wanted to make this clear.

Second, you state, "The point of this law is to excuse extraordinary situations which are not perceived by the canon law which may necessitate a breach of the letter of the canon law in order to fulfil the spirit of the law. This cannot apply in this case because the Pope is a higher authority in judging circumstances which may or may not require a breach of the letter of the canon law." Well, then, when does this law (state of necessity requires a law of necessity) apply? By that I mean the following: Unless the sedevacantists are correct and the Chair of Peter is currently empty or the Pope has died and we are awaiting the election of a new Pope, then--presumably--a breach in the letter of canon law will always go against the judgment of the Pope (unless the Holy Father leads the breach). If the law becomes void through merely contradicting the judgment of the Holy Father, the law would then effectually be pointless, would it not?

Third, obviously Pope John Paul the Second did not consider it to be a state of emergency, but what if he were wrong? After all, papal infallibility applies to ex cathedra statements about faith and morals. Outside this, cannot the Pope be wrong (even in an official manner?), as long as he is not issuing dogmatic statements? Also, is disobedience to the Pope an intrinsically evil act? The Pope as a man in need of salvation like everyone of us may, at times, sin and be prone to error. If a Pope were to desire something sinful, would it be sinful not to comply? No, in fact, we would be commanded by God not to comply. Therefore, disobedience to the Pope is not intrinsically evil; it is only evil if certain qualifications are present. Whether these qualification were present in Archbishop Lefevbre's act of election is the point under consideration.

Fourth, here's how I leapt in my logic: If FSSP priests must sign a profession of faith stating that they accept the spirit of Vatican II, a pastoral (read: nonbinding) council that would put the TLM, the pearl of great price as you have said, on equal footing with the Novus Ordo Mass, then what is their (FSSP priests) argument as to why they should offer the TLM as opposed to the Novus Ordo Mass? Because it is better, more theologically sound, and a greater defense against invalid consecrations? No, because the spirit of V II would not allow for that. Rather, the preference becomes one of sentiment, rooted in personal disposition and not the truth.

Fifth, you mention "schismatic mentality." Is this the same thing as schism? Let's be careful of equivocation. Besides, how many acts of material obedience make a schism? Schism involves not recognizing the authority of the Pope to command; with disobedience, one recognizes his authority to command but disobeys regardless. As a parallel, a son who disobeys his father still recognizes his father as father.

Six, I would say that it is the validity of the consecrations of the SSPX bishops is of prime importance. Going back to the Canon laws that I cited in my previous post, if the conditions listed  were present, then ABL was not injured by the excommunication because the material violation of the law was rendered non-imputable. And still recognizing the authority of the Pope, he was not in schism nor are his followers, provided they do not desire schism.

Finally, just because the whole SSPX affair ended far removed from ABL might have originally intended does not mean anything in regard to the rightness or wrongness of where it is now. As you urged me to follow the advice of the  Pontifical Commission of Ecclesia Dei, I wonder is it just that--advice? Perhaps more ambiguous, non-dogmatic statements from a pastoral, post-conciliar Church? Please, don't think that I take any of this lightly. If I am wrong, then--I pray to God, let me know. Who knows? I may never attend an SSPX chapel, but I'll need to see more than I have.

[Oldavid]

Well put!
Papolatry doesn't equal Catholicism.

[petrelton]

No offense, Petrelton, but your arguments smack of legalism.  How could it not matter what the reason for Pope Pius XII's law change was?

Please!!!  The reason is because he is the Pope. It might be a matter of interest why he made a law but the far more important point is that we obey the command of the Pope. Are you going to subject the Pope to your canon law validity ten point check before you obey him? Of course not. Therefore the reason for the Popes change of the law to forbid bishop consecrations without papal approval is of secondary importance to the requirement that we obey the law of the Pope.

[devotedknuckles]

LOL
Pissontrads
LOL
I likke that better then pisseltron

[Scipio_a]

far more important point is that we obey the command of the Pope. Are you going to subject the Pope to your canon law validity ten point check before you obey him? Of course not. Therefore the reason for the Popes change of the law to forbid bishop consecrations without papal approval is of secondary importance to the requirement that we obey the law of the Pope.

You are laughable...A guy gives you a "command" and you hope to...smart....NOT!
Anything the Pope does has to be in conformity with the Church and the eternal magisterium...when he or anyone else attempts to use their authority to against the source, or reason for the given authority...not only can you not do as told...it is your DUTY NOT to do as told.


the wording ain't so hot but this is shift #3...and I still make more sense than protty the mindless follower.


How many times does the mindless jackboot have to be told that B16 said that the SSPX is not schismatic....why does he have to be told is more to the point...

[petrelton]

petrelton,

With all goodwill, I appreciate your detailed responses. If I am wrong, then I want to know it--simple as that. This being said, however, I still have a few reserverations. As I mentioned, I want this to be helpful and civil, so I will try to maintain the standards that I have set for myself.

First, you claim that the first portion of my response was beside the point. Very well. What I wanted to make clear was that electing bishops without papal mandate qua electing bishops without papal mandate is not intrinsically evil. If something is intrinsically evil, then it is by its essence evil, such as idolatry, adultery, murder, etc. That fact that electing bishops without papal mandate is now an ex-communicable offence is merely an accidental quality, not an essential one. Perhaps most readers know this; I just wanted to make this clear.

Yes but you have ignored my point. It is not the election of bishops without mandate which is intrinsically evil it is the willful and direct disobedience of the command from the Pope which is intrinsically evil. You are mixing the issues.

Second, you state, "The point of this law is to excuse extraordinary situations which are not perceived by the canon law which may necessitate a breach of the letter of the canon law in order to fulfil the spirit of the law. This cannot apply in this case because the Pope is a higher authority in judging circumstances which may or may not require a breach of the letter of the canon law." Well, then, when does this law (state of necessity requires a law of necessity) apply? By that I mean the following: Unless the sedevacantists are correct and the Chair of Peter is currently empty or the Pope has died and we are awaiting the election of a new Pope, then--presumably--a breach in the letter of canon law will always go against the judgment of the Pope (unless the Holy Father leads the breach). If the law becomes void through merely contradicting the judgment of the Holy Father, the law would then effectually be pointless, would it not?

sedevacantist arguments are not permissable here and rightly so because they are heretical. We must continue this debate on the assumption that the chair of Peter is occupied by Benedict XVIth who is the legally elected pope. The fact that Benedict XVI and before him JP2 were legally elected popes makes them the final arbiters of the canon law. If they produce a false judgement we have no recourse except to God. As the Pope exceeds the authority of the college of bishops it is definitely the case that he exceeds the authority of plebs like us. The law of necessity does not apply in circumstances where the Pope is readily at hand and available to adjudicate. It applies in situations where bishops in far off lands without communication to the Holy See may be forced to contravene the letter of canon law in order to fulfill a higher spiritual law. This situation did not apply to ABL because JP2 was readily accessible to ABL and in fact gave a direct command to ABL which he ignored. Such a transgression is way beyond canon law. As for your claim that the law is pointless if it is contradicted by the judgement of the Holy Father this point is truly ludicrous as there is no higher authority on earth than the Pope. If the Pope does not uphold the laws of the church then God help us all. We must assume, and I have no reason to doubt, that the Pope has always upheld canon law and I have no doubt that he has done so with constant liaison with the canon lawyers in the Vatican.

Third, obviously Pope John Paul the Second did not consider it to be a state of emergency, but what if he were wrong? After all, papal infallibility applies to ex cathedra statements about faith and morals. Outside this, cannot the Pope be wrong (even in an official manner?), as long as he is not issuing dogmatic statements? Also, is disobedience to the Pope an intrinsically evil act?

This comment does not deserve to be dignified with an answer. Disobedience to the Pope is intrinsically evil full stop. I am not talking about ridiculous scenarios like the Pope commands you to go and murder your mother. I am talking about the Pope acting in his domain as shepherd of the church and commander of the faithful. If the Pope does not have the right to allow or forbid the ordination of bishops then what power does he have? He becomes a useless figurehead. Is that what you want for a Pope?

If the Pope is not obeyed then what is the point of having a Pope. If we only obey him when we perceive that we have no excuse not to then again, why bother even having a pope. The whole point of having a Pope is that we obey him when we would rather not have to obey him. One of the unfortunate side effects of the the 1854 infallibility pronouncement is that it gave citizens of the church the false notion that the Pope was likely in error unless he is speaking ex cathedra on matters of faith and morals. I reject this interpretation of the doctrine. I contest that the Pope is almost always certainly correct when he speaks on all matters whatever they relate to. The Pope is not just an individual like your or I. He has the backing of his sacred offices which are powerful spiritual forces in this world of darkness. These sacred offices advise him on matters of vast scope throughout his kingdom of the church. Look how the traditionalists wail because the Pope gave up his crown. And yet when the Pope exercises his authority against them they wail all the louder. Also the Pope is the vicar of Christ who leads the church from earth as Christ leads the church from heaven. Does Christ make mistakes? What if Christ is wrong? you might be inclined to ask.

The Pope as a man in need of salvation like everyone of us may, at times, sin and be prone to error. If a Pope were to desire something sinful, would it be sinful not to comply? No, in fact, we would be commanded by God not to comply. Therefore, disobedience to the Pope is not intrinsically evil; it is only evil if certain qualifications are present. Whether these qualification were present in Archbishop Lefevbre's act of election is the point under consideration.

Rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft. You don't know what you are saying. You read your scripture. When, show me even once where disobedience of a higher authority was sanctioned. I can only think of one and that was the rebellion of the Maccabees. However that was a rebellion against an illegitimate authority. However our Popes are legitimately elected. Those who argue that they were falsely elected are relying on hearsay and conspiracy theories. The Siri theory is a dead duck and has been for a decade. Therefore our Popes are legitimate, therefore they must be obeyed. If we go down the road of deciding for ourselves whether or not we obey the legitimate authority then we might as well change our name to Luther.

Fourth, here's how I leapt in my logic: If FSSP priests must sign a profession of faith stating that they accept the spirit of Vatican II, a pastoral (read: nonbinding) council that would put the TLM, the pearl of great price as you have said, on equal footing with the Novus Ordo Mass, then what is their (FSSP priests) argument as to why they should offer the TLM as opposed to the Novus Ordo Mass? Because it is better, more theologically sound, and a greater defense against invalid consecrations? No, because the spirit of V II would not allow for that. Rather, the preference becomes one of sentiment, rooted in personal disposition and not the truth.

Your leap of logic is actually a collapse of logic. You seem to reason that the only reasons for celebrating the TLM is as a denial of the "spirit of vatican" whatever that is or for sentimental "bells and smells" reasons. Don't you think that it is possible to see the noble intent and absolute correctness of the Vatican 2 council and all of its initiatives was thwarted by the liturgical commission that derived the NO mass? In fact if you read Sacrosanctum Concilium from V2 you will find that quite clearly that the liturgical commission exceeded its mandate in a number or areas, and not so much the liturgical commission but rather the bishops of various regions in the world who used the occasion of the new mass as an opportunity to slot in their own modernist agendas and implement a whole range of innovations never intended by either Sacrosanctum Concilium or the liturgical commission. It is therefore very important that we correctly identify the bad guy. The SSPV,XYZ have done inestimable damage to the church by hammering at V2 when V2 was never the bad guy to begin with. To repair the church we need to correct the liturgy and implement the original intentions of V2 which as I described in a previous post is actually closer to what we have today with the way we currently practice the Latin mass than what we have with the NO.

Fifth, you mention "schismatic mentality." Is this the same thing as schism? Let's be careful of equivocation. Besides, how many acts of material obedience make a schism? Schism involves not recognizing the authority of the Pope to command; with disobedience, one recognizes his authority to command but disobeys regardless. As a parallel, a son who disobeys his father still recognizes his father as father.

Strange comment. This is like saying "Is going right up to the very edge of the cliff and looking down the same thing as falling off the cliff?" One leads to the other does it not. This is the exact nature of the warning from the PCED. Although the SSPX is not formally in schism it nevertheless is in grave danger of being so because of the schismatic mentality of many of its members. Also your father/son analogy is erroneus. The scripture clearly states that the son who obeyed his father is justified and the one who disobeyed his father was not. Here it is outlined in Matt 21:28
"But what think ye? A certain man had two sons; and he came to the first, and said, Son, go work to day in my vineyard. 29 He answered and said, I will not: but afterward he repented, and went. 30 And he came to the second, and said likewise. And he answered and said, I go, sir: and went not. 31 Whether of them twain did the will of his father? They say unto him, The first. Jesus saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That the publicans and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you. 32 For John came unto you in the way of righteousness, and ye believed him not: but the publicans and the harlots believed him: and ye, when ye had seen it, repented not afterward, that ye might believe him."

This parable should fill us with trembling when we deign to deny the will of the Holy Father. You seem to think that acknowledgement of fatherhood justifies rather than obedience of fatherhood. Where did you get that idea?

Six, I would say that it is the validity of the consecrations of the SSPX bishops is of prime importance. Going back to the Canon laws that I cited in my previous post, if the conditions listed  were present, then ABL was not injured by the excommunication because the material violation of the law was rendered non-imputable. And still recognizing the authority of the Pope, he was not in schism nor are his followers, provided they do not desire schism.

Finally, just because the whole SSPX affair ended far removed from ABL might have originally intended does not mean anything in regard to the rightness or wrongness of where it is now. As you urged me to follow the advice of the  Pontifical Commission of Ecclesia Dei, I wonder is it just that--advice? Perhaps more ambiguous, non-dogmatic statements from a pastoral, post-conciliar Church? Please, don't think that I take any of this lightly. If I am wrong, then--I pray to God, let me know. Who knows? I may never attend an SSPX chapel, but I'll need to see more than I have.

Well I certainly don't want to belittle your struggle. I went down that path myself. For about 3 weeks I was a sedevacantist and was thinking of paying for a sedevacantist priest to fly to my region to give me confession. So I realise that these are not easy issues. The difference is that you have me to explain these things to you whereas I had nobody. Also you really need to learn to recognise gobbledegook. This " then ABL was not injured by the excommunication because the material violation of the law was rendered non-imputable." is gobbledegook. It means nothing. It does not explain why violation of the law is not imputable. To be quite frank, if I was the pope I would injure the SSPX into next week and make plain that they are schismatic with invalid sacraments for the sake of the faithful who by some sad misfortune find themselves worshipping there. But then I am not the Pope and he no doubt has a higher purpose than I can conceive.
Speaking as one who has attended an SSPX chapel I can give you some insight. It certainly was a lovely service, the chapel was very sacred, the music was excellent, but the homily was anti-V2. in fact I have been to two SSPX services both of which hammered V2 in the homily. When I say anti-V2, read anti-establishment, read schismatic. That's what it is all about. Using V2 as the scapegoat to justify the SSPX separation.

[devotedknuckles]

No pissontrads ur all backwards here.
Again its not catholic to blindly obey. Its not catholic to worship at non catholic masses.
As for whichcraft uim glad u braught that up because bugnini being a mason certainly was in contact with wichcraft as masons are satanic. So the question is as it always has been will u blindly follow and worhip at a protsestant bastard mass wipped together by a mason or will u worship at a catholic mass? U have drum beat your answer here and I'm not trying tp cpnvinve u. U will continue to drumbeat ur protestant bastard all u want. Very similer tp a spoiled child for u claim to worship at thw tlm yet piss on those responsible for the survoival of it.
Keep drumming. Keep pissing. I'm sure ur cpnfident with ur kombyays and women servers and disco electro consecratipons. After all u must obey.
Me? Well if my father told me to put a loaded gun to myhead and squeese the triger I'd respectfull decline even though I ordered to obey my father.
U?
Well we all know what ur on about
Sip

[Scipio_a]

And don't forget all the money he gets to pay for sex crimes!!!

Worrying if his kid's gonna be next...yeah that's worth it.

[IrishCowboy]

 

sedevacantist arguments are not permissable here and rightly so because they are heretical. We must continue this debate on the assumption that the chair of Peter is occupied by Benedict XVIth who is the legally elected pope. The fact that Benedict XVI and before him JP2 were legally elected popes makes them the final arbiters of the canon law. If they produce a false judgement we have no recourse except to God. As the Pope exceeds the authority of the college of bishops it is definitely the case that he exceeds the authority of plebs like us. The law of necessity does not apply in circumstances where the Pope is readily at hand and available to adjudicate. It applies in situations where bishops in far off lands without communication to the Holy See may be forced to contravene the letter of canon law in order to fulfill a higher spiritual law. This situation did not apply to ABL because JP2 was readily accessible to ABL and in fact gave a direct command to ABL which he ignored. Such a transgression is way beyond canon law. As for your claim that the law is pointless if it is contradicted by the judgement of the Holy Father this point is truly ludicrous as there is no higher authority on earth than the Pope. If the Pope does not uphold the laws of the church then God help us all. We must assume, and I have no reason to doubt, that the Pope has always upheld canon law and I have no doubt that he has done so with constant liaison with the canon lawyers in the Vatican.

He wasn't making a sedevecantist argument and you know it.  Stop it with the smoke-screens.  He was using the fact that the sedevacantist's aren't right to prove his point, but, of course, you chose to ignore it and muddy the waters.  The Pope may be the final arbiter of canon law, but who made you it's primary interpreter?  Pretty haughty of you to come on here and give the actual interpretation of all these ambiguous, confusing canon law provisions.  I suppose we should be grateful, though....

This comment does not deserve to be dignified with an answer. Disobedience to the Pope is intrinsically evil full stop. I am not talking about ridiculous scenarios like the Pope commands you to go and murder your mother. I am talking about the Pope acting in his domain as shepherd of the church and commander of the faithful. If the Pope does not have the right to allow or forbid the ordination of bishops then what power does he have? He becomes a useless figurehead. Is that what you want for a Pope?

If the Pope is not obeyed then what is the point of having a Pope. If we only obey him when we perceive that we have no excuse not to then again, why bother even having a pope. The whole point of having a Pope is that we obey him when we would rather not have to obey him. One of the unfortunate side effects of the the 1854 infallibility pronouncement is that it gave citizens of the church the false notion that the Pope was likely in error unless he is speaking ex cathedra on matters of faith and morals. I reject this interpretation of the doctrine. I contest that the Pope is almost always certainly correct when he speaks on all matters whatever they relate to. The Pope is not just an individual like your or I. He has the backing of his sacred offices which are powerful spiritual forces in this world of darkness. These sacred offices advise him on matters of vast scope throughout his kingdom of the church. Look how the traditionalists wail because the Pope gave up his crown. And yet when the Pope exercises his authority against them they wail all the louder. Also the Pope is the vicar of Christ who leads the church from earth as Christ leads the church from heaven. Does Christ make mistakes? What if Christ is wrong? you might be inclined to ask.

No one on this forum that I know of (and certainly not on this thread) has ever conjectured that the Pope was likely in error unless he speaks ex cathedra.  That's truly ridiculous.  When the Pope speaks out about other things that aren't controversial and in doubt, no one feels the need to mention anything, that's why the only time you hear them is when they have a beef with something he said.  Regardless, no one here thinks the Pope is almost always wrong unless divinely inspired to open his mouth.  Your hyperbole discredits your already weak arguments.  As for believing he's almost always right about everything -- this is practically the textbook definition of "pope-worship."  Yes, I'm using a word that doesn't have a textbook definition, but you get the point.  The Pope is not Christ, he's the vicar of Christ.  He can make mistakes.  He has a personal confessor.  Why should he?  Because he can sin, too.  It's not just to keep him in the state of grace by making his mandatory once-a-year confession.

Rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft. You don't know what you are saying. You read your scripture. When, show me even once where disobedience of a higher authority was sanctioned. I can only think of one and that was the rebellion of the Maccabees. However that was a rebellion against an illegitimate authority. However our Popes are legitimately elected. Those who argue that they were falsely elected are relying on hearsay and conspiracy theories. The Siri theory is a dead duck and has been for a decade. Therefore our Popes are legitimate, therefore they must be obeyed. If we go down the road of deciding for ourselves whether or not we obey the legitimate authority then we might as well change our name to Luther.

Witchcraft, are you serious?  Now rejecting modern changes to the Mass of all time and doing exactly (and only) what it takes to preserve the Mass of all time is on par with witchcraft?  How are we supposed to take your arguments seriously?  You're talking like a protestant now (as if it were the first time...).  Asking for proof by thumping the Bible!  As you well know, the Bible, while essential to Catholicism, is not sufficient.  Again, no one is saying the Pope is not the Pope, so stop it already.  And it is you who should call yourself Luther for blindly following leadership that attempts to protestantize the Church (note: I did not say the Pope, I said Church leaders).

Your leap of logic is actually a collapse of logic. You seem to reason that the only reasons for celebrating the TLM is as a denial of the "spirit of vatican" whatever that is or for sentimental "bells and smells" reasons. Don't you think that it is possible to see the noble intent and absolute correctness of the Vatican 2 council and all of its initiatives was thwarted by the liturgical commission that derived the NO mass? In fact if you read Sacrosanctum Concilium from V2 you will find that quite clearly that the liturgical commission exceeded its mandate in a number or areas, and not so much the liturgical commission but rather the bishops of various regions in the world who used the occasion of the new mass as an opportunity to slot in their own modernist agendas and implement a whole range of innovations never intended by either Sacrosanctum Concilium or the liturgical commission. It is therefore very important that we correctly identify the bad guy. The SSPV,XYZ have done inestimable damage to the church by hammering at V2 when V2 was never the bad guy to begin with. To repair the church we need to correct the liturgy and implement the original intentions of V2 which as I described in a previous post is actually closer to what we have today with the way we currently practice the Latin mass than what we have with the NO.

Thank you for clearing up what was in the minds and hearts of all those responsible for everything to come out of V2.

Well I certainly don't want to belittle your struggle. I went down that path myself. For about 3 weeks I was a sedevacantist and was thinking of paying for a sedevacantist priest to fly to my region to give me confession. So I realise that these are not easy issues. The difference is that you have me to explain these things to you whereas I had nobody. Also you really need to learn to recognise gobbledegook. This " then ABL was not injured by the excommunication because the material violation of the law was rendered non-imputable." is gobbledegook. It means nothing. It does not explain why violation of the law is not imputable. To be quite frank, if I was the pope I would injure the SSPX into next week and make plain that they are schismatic with invalid sacraments for the sake of the faithful who by some sad misfortune find themselves worshipping there. But then I am not the Pope and he no doubt has a higher purpose than I can conceive.
Speaking as one who has attended an SSPX chapel I can give you some insight. It certainly was a lovely service, the chapel was very sacred, the music was excellent, but the homily was anti-V2. in fact I have been to two SSPX services both of which hammered V2 in the homily. When I say anti-V2, read anti-establishment, read schismatic. That's what it is all about. Using V2 as the scapegoat to justify the SSPX separation.

Will you stop implying that he is struggling with sedevacantism?  You're not explaining anything.  You're just spewing a bunch of gobbledygook.  You've not proven anything.  You've just delivered a bunch of long-winded, big-worded, high-and-mighty nonsense!  The SSPXYZ, as you disrespectfully call it, has not done irreparable damage to the Church.  It has, in fact, preserved the Mass for ungrateful slammers like you.  You, and those who preach what you preach, are the ones doing (potentially) irreparable damage to people's souls.

[Amusing_Myself_to_Death]

+1, Irish Cowboy, for your response! You gave petrelton my response for me. 

petrelton,

Obviously, we disagree. Once again, I appreciate the detailed response, but, like Irish Cowboy pointed out, I think you misunderstood me in a few places.

First, I was NOT putting forth a sedevacantist argument. I will assume the best and assume that you misunderstood me--not intentionally misrepresented me. I want nothing to do with such people who, unlike the SSPX (as I am starting to believe), are in true schism with the Church. Once again, my point was that unless the sedevacantists are correct (and they are not!), then materially violating canon law will more than likely always go against the judgment of the current Pope. Yet, canon law presents a theoretical situation in which such a violation--if not outright justified--will not incur penalty.  However, if, as you seem to argue, any objection to the judgment of the Pope is ipso facto sinful and occurs a penalty, then I don't see what is the purpose of having a canon law in which "a state of necessity requires a law of necessity."

Second, I agree that the Pope, all things being equal, is a better, holier, wiser person than either you or I. Anything a Pope has to say, I will carefully consider on the basis of his position as the Vicar of Christ. This being said, though, to state that "the Pope is almost always certainly correct when he speaks on all matters (faith and morals) whatever they relate to" comes close to attributing impeccability to everything he says. Ultimately, what subjects do not, at some point, eventually work their way back to faith and morals? All of creation is God's, so then all things point back to Him, if you trace them far enough. Then, if this is true, given what you have said, the Pope would be correct in everything he said (except when he was positing his personal preferences for ice cream or coffee, for example). Quite frankly, this is not Catholicism, this is uncritical servility.

Third, yes, yes, rebellion is the sin of withcraft. Thank you for the exegesis. My point is not to tout rebellion for the sake of rebellion (as in, I'm bored this Friday--what should I do? I'll defy the Holy Father!). Somehow I doubt ABL viewed it this way either (not saying that this is what you are implying--just to make this clear). Sheer rebellion is not the issue; rather, it is how one should act when one truly believes that legitimately elected authority (to repeat: I'm not a sedevacantist!  ) goes against the sacred deposit of faith it has been elected to secure. ABL went so far as to state that he believed that JPII and church leaders of goodwill would in normal circumstances have agreed with his decision. Is this presumption of goodwill rebellion?

Fourth,for a comment that does not deserve to be dignified with an answer, you sure gave it quite an answer. Once again, I maintain that disobedience to the Holy Father is not intrinsically evil, but evil if certain qualifications are present (and probably in most cases such qualifications are present). You claim that I use hyperbole; well, in some circles, this is called using counter examples. Counter examples show us that unqualified, general statements are risky, to say the least. If one example can be given where a person would be justified in disobeying the Holy Father, then disobeying the Holy Father is not intrinsically evil. This being said, however, I am not advocating disobedience to the Holy Father--to make clear. Yet, to bring a possible counter example, would you have obeyed JPII if he had commanded you to kiss the Koran and pray with witch doctors from Africa? Let's be honest. And, if you did obey, on what basis would you be justified?

Finally, and I am stopping here, you mention that a schismatic mentality leads to schism. Okay, I grant you this. But, I believe the point of the discussion is whether or not SSPX possesses a schismatic mentality-- and not assuming that they do. Just because a person has problems with Vatican II (a pastoral council and, therefore, nonbinding), does not make one schismatic. Difficult? Maybe. Pugnacious. Probably. Schismatic? I don't think so. Tell me, when did the acceptance of the spirit of Vatican II (side note: how does one accept a spirit without corresponding propositional content?) become the conditio sine qua non for being a faithful Catholic?

I'm not going to respond to every point, for I think that what I have said is sufficient for the day. By the way, I hope that you have a good one.

Pax,
Joshua (Amusing_Myself_to_Death)