The Crisis is so sad.

[QuisUtDeus]

The supreme law of the Church is the salvation of souls.  Period. When the Church ceases in this mission she is no longer the true Church of Christ.  Therefore faithful Catholics need to find her.

 

You are correct: when the Church can no longer fullfill Her mission of teaching, governing, and sanctifying men, She is no longer the True Church.  Of course, it is also a dogma that She can never pass from being "the True Church" to being "not the True Church."  I don't like where your line of reasoning is leading ...

 

Go back to Baltimore.

 

Q. What do you mean by the indefectibility of the Church?
A. By the indefectibility of the Church I mean that the Church, as Christ founded it, will last till the end of time.

Q. In whom are these attributes [authority, infallibility, indefectibility] found in their fullness?
A. These attributes [authority, infallibility, indefectibility] are found in their fullness in the Pope, the visible head of the Church, whose infallible authority to teach bishops, priests, and people in matters of faith or morals will last to the end of the world.

Q. How is the Church apostolic?
A. The Church is apostolic because it was founded by Christ on His Apostles and is governed by their lawful successors, and because it has never ceased, and never will cease, to teach their doctrine.

 

Yes, but she remains the True Church even during interregnum.  Thus we have proof that even without the Throne of Peter being occupied, she remains the True Church.  It's not like Sacraments stop working during the Pope's funeral.

 

If the Pope goes into heresy, as the sedes claim many have, he ceases to be Pope.  That does not mean the Church ends.  The Church will not end because we will always have lawful successors to the Apostles - i.e., the Bishops who enjoy the fullness of Apostolic Succession.

 

There is nothing against dogma here.  Even the claim that a Pope can lose the Throne by entering into heresy is not against dogma.  If he is not visibly removed from the Throne, his successor upon his death or resignation would have the fullness of the papacy immediately upon election.

 

 

[CampeadorShin]

Lumen posted:

Quote:

Originally Posted by CampeadorShin
That's not my place to say, but perhaps a future council or a future Pope's.

 

Ah, but you do think it's your place to say, because no "future council" or "future Pope" has ruled against JP2's judgment in Lefebvre's case.

No, now you're putting words in my mouth.  No future council or Pope have ruled against JP2's judgement... YET!

If you really mean it when you say that it's "not my place to say," then you need to accept the Pope's decision.  Otherwise, what you really mean is, "I'm going to wait for a future Pope or future Council who agrees with me." 

Wrong again.  I'm not waiting to be agreed with.  I'm waiting for the bishops and cardinals of today to start agreeing with the Saints and teachings of the past.

By the way, that's exactly what Luther said when the Church ruled against him.

Martin Luther had NEW ideas that were heresy before he was even around, the SSPX is sticking to old ones that have never been condemned.

 

Quote:

What is worse, adding evil to evil, and on learning of the citation, [Luther] broke forth in a rash appeal to a future council. This to be sure was contrary to the constitution of Pius II and Julius II our predecessors that all appealing in this way are to be punished with the penalties of heretics. In vain does he implore the help of a council, since he openly admits that he does not believe in a council. (Leo X, Exsurge Domine)

The SSPX isn't appealing for new heretical ideas, they are appealing for a restoration of the Church AGAINST heresy.  The SSPX DOES believe in all Dogmatic councils, as they are binding on all Catholics.  They do believe in Vatican 2's repeating of past Dogmatic proclamations, but not the new and erronious ones that more closely resemble Protestantism and Luther's heresy.

[Vincentius]

 

The supreme law of the Church is the salvation of souls.  Period. When the Church ceases in this mission she is no longer the true Church of Christ.  Therefore faithful Catholics need to find her.

 

You are correct: when the Church can no longer fullfill Her mission of teaching, governing, and sanctifying men, She is no longer the True Church.  Of course, it is also a dogma that She can never pass from being "the True Church" to being "not the True Church."  I don't like where your line of reasoning is leading ...

 

Go back to Baltimore.

 

Q. What do you mean by the indefectibility of the Church?
A. By the indefectibility of the Church I mean that the Church, as Christ founded it, will last till the end of time.

Q. In whom are these attributes [authority, infallibility, indefectibility] found in their fullness?
A. These attributes [authority, infallibility, indefectibility] are found in their fullness in the Pope, the visible head of the Church, whose infallible authority to teach bishops, priests, and people in matters of faith or morals will last to the end of the world.

Q. How is the Church apostolic?
A. The Church is apostolic because it was founded by Christ on His Apostles and is governed by their lawful successors, and because it has never ceased, and never will cease, to teach their doctrine.

 

 

Lumen, your reasoning is not relative; you're going into subjectivism.  The Catholic Church is a divine institution which cannot defect.  However, her administration is relegated to fallible men, who are not immune to error or defection. 

 

The pope is guaranteed infallibility in the matters of faith and morals only.  When he fails in these, his authority no longer applies (to the aforementioned Baltimore answer).  This is where the Holy Ghost protects the Church.  The error that the pope makes in matters of faith and morals are made evident so that men of good will see it and act upon it.   

 

There is no guarantee that a modernist pope will not be elected to the Chair of St. Peter.  Although the election of the pope is under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, nevertheless, the men to whose responsibility lies the choosing of the pope are mere men, subject to passions, emotions, etc., and they may and can vote with their hearts and not their minds, meaning there is the possibility of the taint of political favors and desires and wishes.  The man elected pope is pope by the grace of God, and God accepts this man as His pope, warts and all.  We are not privvy to God's designs.  We cannot with finality say that because so-and-so was elected pope, he is possessed of the charism of indefectibility, and therefore all and sundry is kosher. 

[QuisUtDeus]

 

Canon Law is different than secular law.  What is in a man's heart is a valid defense in Canon Law.

 

Then I'll pose the question to you: how is Canon 1323 prevented from becoming a loophole which then cripples the law itself?  What mechanism exists to ensure that each individual Catholic can't just run off and do whatever he wants, as long as he feels there is a grave necessity to do so?

 

Why does such a mechanism have to exist?  Christ deals with it upon our death.

 

When we go to confession, the priest is not to absolve us if he doesn't believe us to be contrite.  However, there is no way to know for sure.  He gives us the absolution, but Christ knows exactly what is in our hearts and sends us the grace or not.  Similarly, in these matters, an assumption has to be made.

 

But, to answer you more directly, a trial would be held where they would try to ascertain the disposition.  Like in criminal law where murder (intent to kill) is different than manslaughter (not intent to kill).  Abp. Lefebrvre was denied such a trial.  AFAIK, he sent in stuff, but they didn't answer.

 

 

Right, but what I was saying is that if Rome hadn't known about it, a logical appeal could be made to the possibility that Lefebvre was acting in good faith - that is, if he hadn't been warned by Rome that his actions were not deemed necessary by the Supreme Pontiff.

 

I see where you are coming from, but all that means is the Pope was telling him up front what his decision was going to be should the Abp. take the actions he did.  It doesn't mean he can't 1) appeal on the basis of the Canon, and, 2) win the appeal.

 

In other words, he cannot have a trial until after the crime is committed.  Since the excommunicaiton was automatic, he still has had no trial.

 

The Pope could have easily allowed it to go to trial without his intervention and allowed the ecclesiastical court to decide.  An appeal can be made to any subsequent Pope.  Just as if I were on trial for murder and the judge died.  I would just be tried before a different judge.

 

Yes, but we are discussing Canon Law, not morality.

 

The two are not exclusive.  Breaking Canon Law involves a breach of morality; that's why something not considered a crime in civil law (such as missing Mass on Sunday), or even considered an objective evil (such as eating meat on a Friday) is still considered a moral wrong when it contravene's the Church's authority.

 

So, for example, under the 1917 code, a Catholic could not just simply excuse himself from the Friday abstinence and say, "well, my conscience permits this, so it doesn't apply to me."

 

Yes, but let's clarify how they are attached.

 

Breaking Canon Law de facto may involve a breach of morality.  If I do not know it is the law, I am still guilty and could be convicted.  Yet, I am not morally culpable.

 

If I break the law under an objective reason of necessity, I am neither legally nor morally culpable.

 

If I break the law consciously with no reason of necessity, I am both legally and morally culpable.

 

That leaves:  breaking the law consciously with a subjective reason of necessity.

 

We see our example of Christ in Scripture when He is healing on the Sabbath.  He is accused of breaking the law.  His response is, yeah, so what?  What's more important, healing someone or following a law?  You guys pull your animals out of ditches.

 

Let us remove the fact that He is the Son of God so no law is binding on Him, and rather use Him as the example of behavior.

 

One could argue that He could have put off healing until Sunday.  The guy probably wouldn't be dead in 24 hours.  So, objectively, He broke the law without what we would call objective necessity.

 

Subjectively, He obviously did it in good faith and the necessity was apparent to Him.  Whether it was a preaching necessity, etc., we don't know.

 

So, Canon Law serves the Church and is there to help save souls.  When charity or necessity requires it, we must break the Law.

 

The question of whether there really was charity or necessity can only be resolved, as best as humanly possible, via a hearing after the crime.  It can't be determined before because the act was not committed yet.

 

So, I guess what I am saying is that the Abp. deserves his day in court.

 

[kjvail]

If I had no option but to attend an NO mass I doubt I'd be Catholic.

This new religion doesn't meet the needs of the person - body and soul, its rationalized, watery sentimentality. For the "conservatives" it's little more than a political party - they reduce the faith to opposition to abortion, stem-cell research, gay marriage, etc.

Protestantism failed because it also does not meet the spiritual needs of the person, New Catholicism is failing because of the same reason. I've tried for 5 years to do what one poster suggested - to read the VII documents in light of tradition, I've tried to give a charitable interpretation of John Paul II, Paul VI and now Benedict XVI's words and actions and I can't do it. It just won't fit together.

a != ~a 

 

I can't suspend my reason like that, I've trained myself all my life to think analytically

 

If the words and actions of the above mentioned men were orthodox Catholic, then like Royal, I don't want to be in communion with that.

 

 

[Quo_Vadis_Petre]

Indeed, there is a big difference between Archbishop Lefebvre and Martin Luther. Luther agreed to be tried, but then rejected the results of the trial. Archbishop Lefebvre appealed to a canonical trial, to show the truth that he was truly excommunicated or not. But he never was answered to, or given any benefit of the doubt.

[Quo_Vadis_Petre]

From a Remnant article last year:

 

	"SSPX Not in Schism"
	Rome Has Spoken

Michael J. Matt

Editor, The Remnant

In its No. 9, 2005 issue, the highly respected 30 Days featured an interview with Cardinal Darío Castrillón Hoyos, President of the Ecclesia Dei Commission.  The interview dealt with relations between Rome and the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) as well as other related matters.  It can be found online at: http://www.30giorni.it/us/articolo_stampa.asp?id=9360 The interview is fast emerging as a major event since it contained several long-awaited admissions on the part of the Vatican with respect to the status of the late Archbishop Lefebvre’s priestly fraternity as well as the old Mass. The Remnant has often been accused of riding a “dangerous trajectory towards schism” for remaining friendly with the SSPX and defending them against the charge of schism.  Our contention since the early 1990s has been that, while the SSPX certainly has an irregular standing vis-à-vis the Vatican (resulting from an in-Church dispute over the disastrous Second Vatican Council and the New Mass), this does not rise to the level of formal schism. Happily, the President of the Ecclesia Dei Commission has made that contention official. The pertinent excerpt from 30Days speaks for itself: Your Eminence, what was the nature of the audience granted by the Pope to the Superior General of the Saint Pius X Fraternity? DARÍOCASTRILLÓN HOYOS: The audience is part of a process that began with a very important intervention by the then Cardinal Ratzinger, who signed a protocol of agreement with Monsignor Lefebvre before the latter decided to proceed to the episcopal consecrations of 1988. Monsignor Lefebvre did not back off… CASTRILLÓN HOYOS: Unfortunately Monsignor Lefebvre went ahead with the consecration and hence the situation of separation came about, even if it was not a formal schism. (Emphasis added) Just like that, a highly contentious issue that’s been dividing Catholics since 1988 was settled. And it’s impossible to believe that a man in the Cardinal’s elevated position, with his closely guarded reputation for discretion, could have acted in this regard without the Pope’s foreknowledge. But, there’s more.  We’ve all grown accustomed to the neo-Catholics charging all traditionalists with “closet sedevacantism”, especially the priests and bishops of the SSPX.  Cardinal Hoyos put the lie to that as well: After the audience [between SSPX head Bishop Bernard Fellay and Pope Benedict on August 29, 2005) an authoritative cardinal suggested that the Fraternity should recognize the legitimacy of the present Pontiff… CASTRILLÓN HOYOS: Unfortunately that is proof that within the Church, even at high levels, there is not always full knowledge of the Fraternity. The Fraternity has always recognized in John Paul II, and now in Benedict XVI, the legitimate successor of Saint Peter. That is not a problem. That then there are traditionalist groups that don’t recognize the last popes, the so-called “empty throne” people, is another question that doesn’t concern the Saint Pius X Fraternity. Next, the coup de grace.  His Eminence conceded a point that traditionalists have been contesting for 35 years—that the old Mass was abrogated and, as such,  requires a special permission or “indult” for use: It is known that the Saint Pius X Fraternity is asking the Holy See for a liberalization of the so-called Tridentine mass and a declaration affirming that this liturgy has never been abolished. CASTRILLÓN HOYOS: The mass of Saint Pius V has never been abolished… That is, Pope Paul VI never actually abrogated the Tridentine Mass!  It’s still there just as it always has been, and the “option” called the Novus Ordo Missae is just that—an option, which Catholics are free to reject. End of story! Traditionalists win!  We don’t pretend to know why Cardinal Castrillón elected to make these statements which are now part of the permanent record, but, clearly, the debate is over.  It is up to us now to try to use them to mend fences with those neo-Catholics whose polemic against traditionalism has just been totally annihilated. Perhaps this startling development will also lead to a ceasefire between traditional Catholics, allowing us to direct our ideological weaponry away from each other and toward the myriad enemies of the old Faith that need so desperately to be driven out of our Church.  Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos is to be credited and heartily thanked for his refreshingly honest clarifications.

[CampeadorShin]

Quo Vadis Petre posted:
Indeed, there is a big difference between Archbishop Lefebvre and Martin Luther. Luther agreed to be tried, but then rejected the results of the trial. Archbishop Lefebvre appealed to a canonical trial, to show the truth that he was truly excommunicated or not. But he never was answered to, or given any benefit of the doubt.

OOH!  Are the documents on the web to see?  

Gee, I wonder why they didn't bother to try the Archbishop? (sarcasm)

[MundaCorMeum]

 Likewise, don't diminish his intelligence and invent some horrible latent anguish on his part about the imminent destruction of the Faith.

Mike,

This is an unfair caricature of the actual arguments put forth for the state of necessity.  Nobody, except you, portrays it this way.  You are alo coming dangerously close to judging Archbishop Lefebvre's interior disposition.  It may be crystal clear to you that no state of necessity existed (which can be debated)  but you seem to have gone further and seem to know somehow that the Archbishop knew this and decided to be schismatic anyway.

 

Before we get into another round of "I said no such thing", "yes you did", "no I didn't" Let me just ask you up-front:

 

Do you believe that Archbishop Lefebvre knew that no state of necessity existed but consecrated the bishops anyway?

[MundaCorMeum]

You surely must have heard of the infamous medieval Masses in which priests, capitalizing on the congregants' ignorance of Latin, exchanged the words of Consecration for a Latin version of "Bread thou art and bread thou shalt remain."  That's a fine means of leading souls to hell, worse than anything I've ever heard of taking place at a Novus Ordo.  At least you can catch an audible vernacular abuse. 

 

No, I have never heard of this before you wrote it here.  Furthermore, while I believe that an individual heretic Priest may have doen something like this here and there, I do not believe your implication that this was a common or widespread practice. I think this is nothing more than an urban legend. 

 

In any case, your comparison does not hold.  Anyone who does know latin (and it really isn't that hard) would know immediately that that what the Priest said was wrong.  Even if a person doesn't know latin, it would be easy to catch something like this.  You really have a condescending attitude of the "medieval" person.  Do you honestly think that nobody woud say "Hey, I do not know what those words mean, but Father just said something different from what he has said every Sunday for the past ten years"

 

With the vernacular translations of the NO Missal on the other hand, nobody really knows do they?   The text is so confusing, deliberatly ambiguous and poorly translated, one really cant use the Missal as a sure guide o identify the Church's intent.