What if all the other confessors in one's area say "oh that's not a sin anymore"?
I find that hard to believe. Even in Detroit where the crisis hit the hardest I can find a conservative priest that will absolute me of my sins. If he was the only priest I could go to for confession then I'd just tell him that I still believed it was a sin at the time, I believe all priests have to absolve you if you say that. If he won't absolve you then go to your bishop, if he doesn't do anything then write Rome.
Certainly we cannot chose our bishops. But we are only bound to obey the bishop in what is lawful and good.
Oddly enough I guess we can choose our bishop since we can move so easily today.
Quo primum aside, because that is a complicated discussion, and assuming you don't mean a new form of the Sacraments in the "form and matter" sense but rather the rite around the Sacrament, sure the Pope can make a new Missal and new rites around the Sacraments.
A change can either be lawful (the form of the Sacrament stays the same) or unlawful ("I baptize thee in the name of Yahweh"). It can be good or bad as well in its effects.
Yes, I mean the form but not the essential matter and form. Didn't Bl. Pius XII change the matter for holy Orders though? Adding the Chalice to it. As well there's no single form for Ordination between the East and West, so what then? I say as long as the form signifies the grace of the sacrament then yes even the essential form can change but not substantially. For example, the new missal still signifies the Body and Blood of our Lord for the remission of sins (possibly minus the English translation)
Let's take Communion under both Species. Is it lawful? Certainly. Is it good? I would argue not since one important reason Communion was restricted to the Host was to protect the Precious Blood from spilling.
If one believes that is the Blood of Christ, then I don't see how making Communion more "inclusive" and "Community Oriented" or whatever they were trying to accomplish with the Chalice is a good thing at the risk of the Precious Blood ending up on the floor.
I for one wish they'd bring holy Intinction back into Tridentine Masses for those who wish it. Rome has changed this discipline and made it lawful once again. The Hussite heresy is dead so why keep an outdated discipline?
As far as the New Missal as a whole goes, that's a whole discussion in itself, but I would argue there are things in there that aren't conducive to the faith or that further the Sanctity of the liturgy (e.g., the Sign of Peace).
If only they'd had put back the Kiss
I don't claim anything that you are asking about is unlawful, but I think a lot of it wasn't prudent, some of it is just bad, and a portion of it is malicious on the part of Bugnini et al. (e.g., turning the altar around).
But I find it hard to believe that it (the new missal alone) is bad since it was apparently promulgated by the Church through Paul VI. In my mind either he didn't promulgate it or it has to be good, or possibly he promulgated in such a way (non-universally) that it doesn't fall under the Church's indefectability in Her rites.
Well, they were declared excommunicated latae sententiae - they weren't formally excommunicated, so there is hope that if it were adjudicated they would be found not guilty.
That is why I said "declared" instead of "decreed".
We don't have to follow the SSPX - there are good indult priests and even good Novus Ordo priests. However, the SSPX were the ones willing to throw themselves in front of the V2 train when no one else was. The indult, the extraordinary form, etc., is all a direct result of the SSPX and other traditional Catholics risking themselves and not taking no for an answer. That includes Abp. Lefebvre and the other bishops.
Maybe, maybe not. We'll only know for sure in the next life.
BTW, just for clarity, the priests were not excommunicated - the excommunicaiton was only against the Abp. and the bishops.
They are in so far as they hold to the same supposed schism according to John Paul II.
I'll be able to show you that when you show me any Novus Ordo besides the ones on EWTN that follow the rubrics and Missal as promulgated by Rome. ;)
Look up Assumption Grotto Parish in Detroit, they offer the novus missale in Latin facing East on the High Altar (I believe they don't even use the second altar anymore). Also there's St. Joseph's downtown.
How can someone accept what most people can't understand and the bishops won't clarify (V2 documents)?
By reading it themselves and using their own reason to understand the thoughts they convey.
Congress can make bad laws that bad people can take advantage of. It's not a stretch of the imagination that Rome promulgated a bad Missal that people take advantage of and the V2 documents that people take advantage of.
It can be a stretch if the Church declared that it's against her nature to promulgate something evil.
What does Congress do to fix a bad law? Repeal it and possibly rewrite it. So should it go with the NOM and V2 in my opinion.
I was referring to altar girls, and there was a canon law against altar girls when they started using them.
That's is because you are assuming any disobedience means one is not subjugated. That's not the case.
Not at all. The Pontiffs also say obedience as well in other places, like Pope Pius XI in Mortalium Animos, "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."
. The only way we can reconcile this is if the Popes don't have the authority to do what they've done.
Many people believe Abp. Lefebvre disobeyed for a just reason. But even if one doesn't, it is a long way to go from "disobedient" to "denying the Pope's authority".
I'm one of those people. Also what about obeying
Besides, you are mixing situations. He bound the SSPX bishops because of the consecration of bishops, not because of disobedience.
The consecrations were an act of disobedience, no? If you read ED, that's what he said: 3. In itself this act was one of disobedience to the Roman pontiff in a very grave matter and of supreme importance for the unity of the Church, such as is the ordination of bishops whereby the apostolic succession is sacramentally perpetuated. Hence such disobedience--which implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy--constitutes a schismatic act.
[Code of Canon Law, 751.]