Question for other Catholics who are "SSPX'ers"

[Marybonita]

I have several problems with the idea that the Popes have ordered us to attend the NO rite. No document can be produced which definitively states that all Catholics must attend the new rite - by any Pope. There are statements which say that the rite is approved but none that it is absolutely essential to remain a Catholic.

The second is the strong wording of Quo Primum which has a curse attached. A papal curse is powerful - as powerful as the curse attached to the writings of St. John warning against changing his words. Because of that curse I know as a Catholic that the traditional rite can never be abrogated. It gives one pause to think that a Pope has overridden it. But that's up to the judgement of God.

A third consideration is of course the fact that the authority of the Pope is limited. Not in a universal sense - even Communists are subject to the Pope just as they are to Jesus Christ. But in a dogmatic sense. The Popes must speak as one. If one contradicts the other we are cautioned to obey those words which are consistent with tradition. The reigns of the past several Popes have been...difficult because of contradictory teachings. Can one body have two heads with two mouths? It would be a monster.

The Holy Ghost protects the treasure of the Church through tradition and the Church's consistent adherence to it. Popes are elected. We can have good Popes or bad Popes. We get the government which we deserve.

I hope this helps.

~In JMJ

[neel]

What directives are you specifically referring to that the SSPX has disobeyed?  The only one I can think of is the obvious consecrations, but that kind of disobedience certainly doesn't sound like the "damnable" kind that Pope Boniface talked about.

[QuisUtDeus]

How about this: "Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors." (Pope Pius XI, Encyclical, Mortalium animos, January 6, 1928, The Papal Encyclicals, Claudia Carlen, I.H.M., McGrath Publishing Co., 1981, pp. 317, 318).

By that reasoning 90%+ (statistic out of my ear, but you get the point) of the Novus Ordo bishops are excommunicated.

[Bruno]

Again - "Obey" sure thing - in all that is not sinful. This is  really not that hard to understand.

Also  the debate as to what is "sinful" is not between Moderinsts and those  who are in or are served by the SSPX but between the Modernists and what The Church has always taught. The Church, being the "Pillar of Truth", cannot contradict Herself. Those within The Church that contradict what the Church has always taught, speak for themselves and not for the Church - they thereby abuse their Authority. In such cases, resistance can be and likely is an obligation.

[jovan66102]

How about this: "Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors." (Pope Pius XI, Encyclical, Mortalium animos, January 6, 1928, The Papal Encyclicals, Claudia Carlen, I.H.M., McGrath Publishing Co., 1981, pp. 317, 318).

By that reasoning 90%+ (statistic out of my ear, but you get the point) of the Novus Ordo bishops are excommunicated.

 

Bingo!

[Aviano]

How about this: "Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors." (Pope Pius XI, Encyclical, Mortalium animos, January 6, 1928, The Papal Encyclicals, Claudia Carlen, I.H.M., McGrath Publishing Co., 1981, pp. 317, 318).

By that reasoning 90%+ (statistic out of my ear, but you get the point) of the Novus Ordo bishops are excommunicated.

This sounds like the kind of argument my children would try to use when they were little and got in trouble.

I'd catch one of them doing something wrong, and the wrongdoer would always say "Well, so-and-so was doing this", as if by pointing out the transgressions of the sibling it would somehow excuse their own.

By establishing a church in a diocese without the permission of the local ordinary the SSPX is disobeying a legitimate successor of Peter. Pointing out the problems of others doesn't excuse or change that fact. That, at least to me personally, is kind of what the whole "SSPX problem" hinges upon.

[TradCathYouth]

Bruno pretty much said it all, so I won't add anything except my agreement.

I'll add my agreement as well.

[jovan66102]

How about this: "Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors." (Pope Pius XI, Encyclical, Mortalium animos, January 6, 1928, The Papal Encyclicals, Claudia Carlen, I.H.M., McGrath Publishing Co., 1981, pp. 317, 318).

By that reasoning 90%+ (statistic out of my ear, but you get the point) of the Novus Ordo bishops are excommunicated.

This sounds like the kind of argument my children would try to use when they were little and got in trouble.

I'd catch one of them doing something wrong, and the wrongdoer would always say "Well, so-and-so was doing this", as if by pointing out the transgressions of the sibling it would somehow excuse their own.

By establishing a church in a diocese without the permission of the local ordinary the SSPX is disobeying a legitimate successor of Peter. Pointing out the problems of others doesn't excuse or change that fact. That, at least to me personally, is kind of what the whole "SSPX problem" hinges upon.

 

Msgr Castro-Meyer may very well have been in schism but that doesn't excuse the blatant disobedience of the majority of NO Bishops.

[Aviano]

Msgr Castro-Meyer may very well have been in schism but that doesn't excuse the blatant disobedience of the majority of NO Bishops.

And that's exactly my point. The disobedience of one doesn't excuse another's disobedience or somehow make it "okay". Disobedience is disobedience.

It doesn't matter if you're choosing something different to be disobedient over.

[Marybonita]

Disobedience is disobedience.
For a mother an absolute statement such as that is problematic at least. For one child to disobey an order not to cross the road because they may be endangering their life to do so is different from another child who disobeyed an order not to disturb the baby but transgressed that order when the baby cried and no one responded because mom was out of earshot. He may well save the baby's life in that case.

Disobedience is not simple disobedience. It depends on the order and the gravity of the situation for obeying or disobeying. No order is absolute except that of Jesus Christ.

~In JMJ