Principles - Catholic and Otherwise

JMJ

Everyone follows some collection of core principles. They are the guides we rely upon in making our various decisions the lead us into various directions.

Good principles lead to good directions. Bad principles have the opposite effect.

30 Years ago, Archbishop Lefebvre made a decision, guided by his principles, to consecrate 4 priests as bishops. Auxiliary Bishops with no jurisdiction ordained simply to provide priests for the life of the SSPX and sacraments for the faithful who seek out the SSPX as a place of refuge in this crisis.

I think that I have happened upon two of the Archbishop's core principles.

The Salvation of Souls is the supreme law of the Church (canon 1752).
The ends do not justify the means.

Let's take a look at how this played out.

The Archbishop learned of the crisis in the seminaries as neo-modernism exploded from the shadows. It took some convincing by seminarians, but he eventually determined that it was the right decision to act to help these seminarians become good priests. Yet, he proceeded within the law of the Church taking the means available to do so.

Following these principles can be hard because, as those of us with experience know, these principles didn't just belong to the Archbishop.

They are Catholic principles.

When you follow Catholic Principles the World, Flesh and Devil will confront you. That is what happened once they authorities within (and without) the Catholic Church realised the direction in which the Archbishop was heading. The Archbishop was not heading in the liberal direction set out in ambiguous terms by the Second Vatican Council. He simply continued to follow the direction of the Church.

This led to a significant amount of conflict as these principles will lead to conflict with whomever is not abiding by them.

There is no other way.

The simple act of the seminarians asking the Archbishop for help to be real Catholic priests set off a chain of events that (to name a few) led to the:

Formation of the SSPX
Conflict with the authorities of the Catholic Church (Popes et al)
Indult of 1982
Consecrations of 1988
Formation of FSSP et al
Summorum Pontificum
Universae Ecclesiae
Lifting of the 'excommunications'
Granting the SSPX of universal jurisdiction to hear confessions
Constrained jursidiction for receiving the vows of married couples

We already know that the Archbishop was justified (following the Catholic principle of obedience - ie St. Thomas) in consecrating the four bishops to carry on the work of the FSSPX. The authority in the Church (even Pope St. John Paul II - canonized by Pope Francis ... just saying) was not acting in a manner that would enable the salvation of souls.

I know that this is hard for a number of faither ntCatholics to grasp, but punishing the good and rewarding the wicked is not the way to save souls. That was exactly what has been happening in the intervening decades even by the Popes. Pope Francis just does it more openly - the latest is enabling the sacrilege of giving the Blessed Sacrament to protestants.

So back to the second principle and thinking about item 4 on the above abbreviated timeline.

Did the Archbishop employ bad means to work for the salvation of souls?

Was he disobedient from St. Thomas' perspective? I think not. If an authority commands something that is sinful - and there is a sin of omission of a good that one ought to do, then there is an obligation to obey a higher law - the Salvation of Souls.

What about the consecration without Papal authorization?

Well we know that it isn't intrinsically evil because up to Pius XII making it a law there was no law and under Pius XII it was only a suspension. The punishment of excommunication was added later.

So it comes down to the law, whether or not it was bad means.

Was there really a state of necessity in 1988? Yes.
Is there really a state of necessity in 2018? YES

That leads us back to canon 1752 and the fact that at least someone was had the intestinal fortitude to follow Catholic Principles.

... and that really is the rest of the story.

P^3

Auctorem Fidei

Can the SSPX be right about the Novus Ordo? Revision: Feb 11, 2013 On another web forum, I was engaged in a rather heated discussion about the documents of Vatican II.

Morning and Evening and other sundry Prayers

+ JMJ Along the theme of P^3 (Prayer, Penance, Patience), and for my own reference ... here is a collection of Morning and Evening prayers from the Ideal Daily Missal along with some additional prayers. In this crisis of the Church, I do not think it is possible to do too much prayer, penance and have patience. P^3

What the heck is a congregation of "Pontifical Right"

+ JMJ In a discussion with a friend the question occurred to me that I didn't actually know was is involved in being a religious order of 'pontifical right'. I had a vague notion that this meant they reported to Rome as opposed to the local diocese. I'm also aware that, according to the accounts I have heard, the Archbishop received 'praise' and the written direction to incardinate priests directly into the SSPX. This is interesting because it implies that the SSPX priests were no longer required to incardinate in the local diocese but in the SSPX. This is something that belongs to an order of 'pontifical right'. Anyway here's some definitions: Di diritto pontificio is the Italian term for “of pontifical right” . It is given to the ecclesiastical institutions (the religious and secular institutes, societies of apostolic life) either created by the Holy See or approved by it with the formal decree, known by its Latin name, Decretu

Is it sinful to attend the Novus Ordo (New Mass) - Is it Sinful to Not Attend the Novus Ordo on Sunday?

+ JMJ A non-SSPX Catholic is upset over the SSPX statements on not attending the Novus Ordo Missae. Ladies and gentlemen, what the SSPX, or at least its website editor, is advocating is a mortal sin against the Third Commandment. Unless the priest deviates from the language of the Sacramentary, the consecration, and thus the rest of Mass is to be considered valid. No one may elect not to attend Mass simply because abuses are occurring therein. Might I suggest that such absenteeism is its own abuse? The Third Commandment binds under mortal sin. Father So-And-So from the SSPX has no authority whatsoever to excuse attendance at Mass, be that Mass ever so unpalatable. Source:Restore DC Catholicism Well, this is interesting. First why does the SSPX issue this statement? Because it is sinful to put your faith in danger by attending a protestant service. It is likewise dangerous to put your faith in danger by attending a protestantized mass (ie the Novus Ordo Missae

Comparision of the Tridentine, Cranmer and Novus Ordo Masses

+ JMJ I downloaded the comparison that was linked in the previous article on the mass (here) . ... a very good reference! P^3 From: Whispers of Restoration (available at this link) . CHARTING LITURGICAL CHANGE Comparing the 1962 Ordinary of the Roman Mass to changes made during the Anglican Schism; Compared in turn to changes adopted in the creation of Pope Paul VI’s Mass in 1969 The chart on the reverse is a concise comparison of certain ritual differences between three historical rites for the celebration of the Catholic Mass Vetus Ordo: “Old Order,” the Roman Rite of Mass as contained in the 1962 Missal, often referred to as the “Traditional Latin Mass.”The Ordinary of this Mass is that of Pope St. Pius V (1570) following the Council of Trent (1545-63), hence the occasional moniker “Tridentine Mass.” However, Trent only consolidated and codified the Roman Rite already in use at that time; its essential form dates to Pope St. Gregory the Great (+604), in whose time the R

Tradicat

Search This Blog