SSPX vs. Diocesan Priest: Baptism and a Larger Issue

[SouthpawLink]

Interestingly, I just read an article over at traditionalmass.org on this very issue (the SSPX 's position regarding the crisis).  On the one hand, I do think they have a reasonable position (with theological support*), but on the other hand, it makes sense to ask, "How can you be united to the See of Peter and yet disregard most of what she says?"  I myself don't have an answer to the question, but I'm sure Our Lord doesn't want us to be lukewarm, even though I'd rather bury my head in the sand... 

* I won't go into detail in order to avoid breaking forum rules, but I will say it involves clerics maintaining their jurisdiction.

O Lord, save us, we are perishing! 

[QuisUtDeus]

on the other hand, it makes sense to ask, "How can you be united to the See of Peter and yet disregard most of what she says?" 

That's a fair question assuming "she" is the Pope and NO bishops.  The answer goes to whether their theological arguments are valid.

Disregarding the possibility of sede vacante for the moment (and by forum rules) the answer as far as discipline / liturgy / etc. goes is: only obey lawful orders where lawful includes not being detrimental to the Church or the salvation of souls.

Doctrinal things are more complicated, obviously, and goes more to the root of the sedevacantist / sedeprivationist proposition.  A lot of it has to do with if one sees the V2 documents and later statements as ambiguous and quasi-heretical or outright heretical, and if they are supposed to be pastoral or dogmatic.

Fr. C has a fair criticism in that the SSPX doesn't currently have a clear explanation like either the Neo-Catholics on the one hand (he is Pope, do all he says and enjoy the springtime pretending the nutty stuff doesn't exist) or the sedevacantists on the other (he is not the Pope, do not obey him, obey the last 1900+ years of tradition and teaching), and that the SSPX (and I and others) do in fact sift.  It seems to me all of that is fair and true.

But because it is not clear now doesn't mean it won't be, nor does it mean a theologically sound explanation doesn't exist.  Nor is sifting a necessarily untenable position depending on what is being sifted and how.  Maybe Fr. C would agree with these possibilities that some explanation possibly exists in the ether, but his point is: what's the explanation of the SSPX?

A fair question that the SSPX will need to eventually answer in detail.   It has given answers in some ways, the ones I've seen have been mainly by anecdote (e.g., An Open Letter to Confused Catholics), but they may have given hardcore theological ones that I've missed.

But, I will point something out with your original question:

"How can you be united to the See of Peter and yet disregard most of what she says?"

That's exactly what sedevacantists do as well.  They are united to the eternal See of Peter, but not to the man who we non-sedes call Pope Benedict.  And, further, the question could be asked of NO priests and bishops who ignore the GIRM, the Pope's motu on the TLM, etc.  And it could be asked of reform-of-the-reformers as well.

So, the SSPX clearly doesn't have the market cornered on disobedience.  You can't swing a thurible without hitting it these days.  It's one of the hallmarks of the crisis.  The one thing the sedes have is a clear justification for it: if a man is not Pope, it's not disobedience per se.  My objection is OK, sure, but disobedience is not always wrong.

[Stubborn]

Fr. C has a fair criticism in that the SSPX doesn't currently have a clear explanation like either the Neo-Catholics on the one hand (he is Pope, do all he says and enjoy the springtime pretending the nutty stuff doesn't exist) or the sedevacantists on the other (he is not the Pope, do not obey him, obey the last 1900+ years of tradition and teaching), and that the SSPX (and I and others) do in fact sift.  It seems to me all of that is fair and true.

The position of SSPX has pretty much always been to obey Rome in whatever can be obeyed. That the Pope, like any father can be bad, but that does not mean he is no longer your father is what I just heard in one of their sermons a few Sundays ago.

SSPX actually does have clear explanations, but not necessarily satisfactory to everyone or everything it seems. At times they may be hesitant to "proclaim" certain things - as they should be -  because some of those things are matters not normally answered outside the authority of Rome - yet when backed against the wall, they do a pretty good job overall IMO.

I make no excuses for the SSPX, I do recognize what good they have done, continue to do - and for their continuing efforts these days trying to get Rome to see the error of Her ways. Error is error regardless who commits it. Yet unlike those who completely blow off the entire establishment as non existent, at least the SSPX, still connects themselves to where the Church, corrupt though it is, is.
 

[Exilenomore]

The problem with the 'father can be bad' argument is that tradition teaches that the difference between heresy and other crimes is that heresy alters the status of a christian. One must be in the Church in order to hold office in her. Fatherhood of a spiritual nature is different from natural fatherhood. When our natural father dies, we do not elect another biological father either.

[QuisUtDeus]

The problem with the 'father can be bad' argument is that tradition teaches that the difference between heresy and other crimes is that heresy alters the status of a christian. One must be in the Church in order to hold office in her.

Sure.  That goes to how one sees the father being bad.  Not everyone agrees the Popes have been guilty of heresy even if they think they have been bad Popes.  And, to be clear, we cannot debate whether or not they entered heresy on this forum; we will have to leave it as a statement of fact that those are the different positions.

Fatherhood of a spiritual nature is different from natural fatherhood. When our natural father dies, we do not elect another biological father either.

Well, obviously.  It is a metaphor and no metaphor is 100% perfect.  The relevance here is not biological fatherhood, but the office of fatherhood.  In the office of fatherhood, we can receive another father  - a foster or step father - if our biological one dies.  In that way, the metaphor still holds.

[SouthpawLink]

Quis,
Good analysis (your earlier response to me).

"Doctrinal things are more complicated."  You can say that again! 

That is the most central issue to me, and really, the Holy Mass is tied up in there as well (objections to the NO are doctrinal in nature).  I haven't been doing much sifting (with the Vatican II and post-Vatican II documents), as I've been busy trying to get a more complete and accurate understanding of the Faith as it was before Vatican II.

Even when I do get around to studying the Council and the post-conciliar Magisterium, I already foresee difficulties because I'm convinced that the Church has done away with Scholastic terminology (not entirely, of course) in favor of theological pluralism, and that makes it harder to compare and contrast it with a Magisterium that heavily relied on such terminology (I do believe I've already seen some contradictions in curial documents, but that's for another thread).  On top of that is the pastoral/dogmatic issue, as you pointed out.

As for a position, I find INPEFESS' statement (from another thread) comforting: "The SSPV does not promote sedeprivationism or sedevacantism, but they realize that these are complex theological matters that can't be--and aren't supposed to be--deciphered by ordinary lay persons. It is our virtue--specifically our faith--being tested here, not our theological savvy."

-- The smart thing to do would be to concentrate on living a holy life: daily prayer, lectio divina, frequent reception of the sacraments, and performing the works of mercy; leave the weightier matters (the ones we cannot control) up to God.

Regarding disobedience, I know we should not obey sinful commands or compromise the Faith (and we have Pope Leo XIII to back us up here), but 50 years seems like a long time and for some it may cause doubt (e.g., "Am I in the wrong?!").  Thank God we have the Web where we can look up old encyclicals and buy reprinted copies of Denzinger and the Roman and Baltimore catechisms.

Thank you again for your insight.

[FatherCekada]

The problem with the 'father can be bad' argument is that tradition teaches that the difference between heresy and other crimes is that heresy alters the status of a christian. One must be in the Church in order to hold office in her.

Sure.  That goes to how one sees the father being bad.  Not everyone agrees the Popes have been guilty of heresy even if they think they have been bad Popes.  And, to be clear, we cannot debate whether or not they entered heresy on this forum; we will have to leave it as a statement of fact that those are the different positions.

Fatherhood of a spiritual nature is different from natural fatherhood. When our natural father dies, we do not elect another biological father either.

Well, obviously.  It is a metaphor and no metaphor is 100% perfect.  The relevance here is not biological fatherhood, but the office of fatherhood.  In the office of fatherhood, we can receive another father  - a foster or step father - if our biological one dies.  In that way, the metaphor still holds.

The "Pope as Bad Dad" analogy pops up in a lot of defenses of the SSPX/recognize-and-resist position, and even if one wishes to set aside the question of cessation of pontifical power through heresy, the comparison nevertheless fails on other essential points.

On one hand, the power of the father of a family is dominative power, merely private and exercised principally through particular COMMANDS issued to individual subjects.

The power of the Roman Pontiff over the Church and its members, on the other hand, is jurisdictional power, public power, and is exercised principally through the promulgation of universal LAWS and their application to his subjects throughout the world. Such laws, as we never tire of repeating, are secondary objects of the Church's infallibility, and cannot therefore contain anything evil or harmful to Catholic doctrine.

It is laws like these — not simply bad commands issued by someone enjoying only private dominative authority — that that SSPX and others like it defy and resist. And indeed, not merely defy and resist, but also condemn as evil or harmful to Catholic doctrine.

A pope, like the father of a family, can indeed issue an evil command to a subject. What he cannot do is issue is an evil universal law.

So it is time, I think, to drop the Bad Dad argument.

[JMartyr]

The problem with the 'father can be bad' argument is that tradition teaches that the difference between heresy and other crimes is that heresy alters the status of a christian. One must be in the Church in order to hold office in her.

Sure.  That goes to how one sees the father being bad.  Not everyone agrees the Popes have been guilty of heresy even if they think they have been bad Popes.  And, to be clear, we cannot debate whether or not they entered heresy on this forum; we will have to leave it as a statement of fact that those are the different positions.

Fatherhood of a spiritual nature is different from natural fatherhood. When our natural father dies, we do not elect another biological father either.

Well, obviously.  It is a metaphor and no metaphor is 100% perfect.  The relevance here is not biological fatherhood, but the office of fatherhood.  In the office of fatherhood, we can receive another father  - a foster or step father - if our biological one dies.  In that way, the metaphor still holds.

The "Pope as Bad Dad" analogy pops up in a lot of defenses of the SSPX/recognize-and-resist position, and even if one wishes to set aside the question of cessation of pontifical power through heresy, the comparison nevertheless fails on other essential points.

On one hand, the power of the father of a family is dominative power, merely private and exercised principally through particular COMMANDS issued to individual subjects.

The power of the Roman Pontiff over the Church and its members, on the other hand, is jurisdictional power, public power, and is exercised principally through the promulgation of universal LAWS and their application to his subjects throughout the world. Such laws, as we never tire of repeating, are secondary objects of the Church's infallibility, and cannot therefore contain anything evil or harmful to Catholic doctrine.

It is laws like these — not simply bad commands issued by someone enjoying only private dominative authority — that that SSPX and others like it defy and resist. And indeed, not merely defy and resist, but also condemn as evil or harmful to Catholic doctrine.

A pope, like the father of a family, can indeed issue an evil command to a subject. What he cannot do is issue is an evil universal law.

So it is time, I think, to drop the Bad Dad argument.

What about the unclear promulgation of the NO?

[FatherCekada]

What about the unclear promulgation of the NO?

A good question, and a common one.

Traditionalists in the early 1970s formulated the theory that Paul VI did not promulgate the Novus Ordo correctly. It was viewed as a way getting around the accusation that trads were defying the authority of the pope.

In the late 1990s, SSPX was still pushing this theory in a rather drawn-out written debate they had with Michael Davies in The Remnant.

In 2000, I researched the matter myself and wrote a fairly lengthy article, "Did Paul VI Illegally Promulgate the Novus Ordo," My conclusion was:

"if you insist that Paul VI was indeed a true pope possessing plenary legislative powers as the Vicar of Christ, you must also accept the following as the unavoidable consequences of his exercise of papal authority: (1)The New Mass was legally promulgated. (2) The New Mass is obligatory."

You can find the article here:

http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=19&catname=8

I think that, like the Bad Dad and the Quo Primum argument, the "illegal promulgation" argument is so shaky that should be dropped once and for all.

[JMartyr]

What about the unclear promulgation of the NO?

A good question, and a common one.

Traditionalists in the early 1970s formulated the theory that Paul VI did not promulgate the Novus Ordo correctly. It was viewed as a way getting around the accusation that trads were defying the authority of the pope.

In the late 1990s, SSPX was still pushing this theory in a rather drawn-out written debate they had with Michael Davies in The Remnant.

In 2000, I researched the matter myself and wrote a fairly lengthy article, "Did Paul VI Illegally Promulgate the Novus Ordo," My conclusion was:

"if you insist that Paul VI was indeed a true pope possessing plenary legislative powers as the Vicar of Christ, you must also accept the following as the unavoidable consequences of his exercise of papal authority: (1)The New Mass was legally promulgated. (2) The New Mass is obligatory."

You can find the article here:

http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=19&catname=8

I think that, like the Bad Dad and the Quo Primum argument, the "illegal promulgation" argument is so shaky that should be dropped once and for all.

What if Pope Paul VI acted outside of his authority by promulgating the new missal?  What I mean is it not the duty of the Pope to  safeguard the liturgy and not make a new one? Popes  do not invent liturgies. They never have.