Satis Cognitum and the SSPX

Satis Cognitum and the SSPX - Part 2

JMJ

As noted earlier a branch of the 'resistance' referenced one of my articles (natually without directly responding to its contents) making the assertion that:

No Canonical Agreement Prior to a Doctrinal Resolution” Is a Catholic Principle...“a canonical recognition cannot be had if it is not based on the Catholic Faith”

In support of this assertion the author made a number of claims, one of which came from Satis Cognitum, a quotation from Archbishop Lefebvre and then his own reasoning.

In the final analysis the author concludes that because the principle 'No Canonical agreement ... etc' is the same as being Unity of Faith, and therefore without a Unity of Faith there cannot be a true order issued by the Pope as long as:

Any position of the Pope showing indifference or opposition towards this internal principle [Unity of Faith] makes his command, under the pretext that it is a matter of the unity of the Church, null and void because his command would not serve the purpose of achieving a true and authentic Catholic unity.

There are three problems with this reasoning.

Firstly, St.Thomas Aquinas' principle of obedience:

It is written (Acts 5:29): "We ought to obey God rather than men." Now sometimes the things commanded by a superior are against God. Therefore superiors are not to be obeyed in all things.

St. Thomas further notes that the scope of a superior's authority is not without limit. So, as long as the order of the superior does not go against God, and is within the superior's scope of authority, they are to be obeyed. In order to adhere to his own theory, the Ecclesia Militans (EM) author must abandon the principle of St. Thomas because the principle relies upon objective facts (the superior having authority, and the command not being against God.). Whereas EM's theory rests upon the subjective assessment of whether or not the Pope shows indifference or even opposition towards the Unity of Faith.

The second point is the internal "Unity of Faith" issue, which presupposes that Unity of Faith has been broken by the Pope. Perhaps the author meant that accepting a canonical solution that meets the criteria of St. Thomas somehow interferes with the Unity of Faith.

Either way the author is again in the weeds.

Let's establish a clear understanding of what constitutes Unity of Faith:

This consists in the fact that all members of the Church inwardly believe the truths of faith proposed by the teaching office of the Church, at least implicitly, and outwardly confess them. ... Unity of Faith leaves room for various opinions in those controversial questions which the Church has not finally decided. (Source-Ott)

The truths of faith proposed by the magisterium of the Church are those that the Church has finally decided, ie the de fide teachings of the Church.

Keeping in mind that none of the post conciliar Pontiffs have attempted to change a de fide teaching of the Church, the de fide teachings that require an internal assent of the Faith remains intact. It is this Unity of Faith that Traditional Catholics have with "Modern" Catholics who implicitly accept all that the Church Teaches.

Even those Catholics who have (based on external measures) probably lost the Faith, remain in a state of material heresy if they don't separate themselves from the Church and have not demonstrated pertinacity in the face of an authoritative remonstration. As Catholic material heretics, the Church regards them as still members of the Church as their material heresy is deemed temporary as their good-will is presumed.

The third problem is that the EM author asserts that Pope Benedict sought to order the SSPX to accept a Canonical Regularization "...under the pretext that it is a matter of the unity of the Church...".

The problem is that Church teaching is that the Unity of the Church is based upon both the Unity of Faith and the Unity of Government, and the Sin of Heresy breaks Unity of Faith and the Sin of Schism breaks the Unity of Government.

It is not merely a pretext, the argument put forward would serve just as easily for the Orthodox as it would for the 'resistance'. The authority of the Pope who states what must be believed (de fide) is what the Orthodox rejected when they reaffirmed their schism. In a same manner, the 'resistance' would deny the authority of the Pope and reject a 'canonical regularization' that met the conditions for obedience.

Beyond these initial thoughts, there are a number of other structural issues with the EM author's article, but this is sufficient for now.

Ultimately, the example of St. Athanasius repeatedly comes to my mind.

Following the author's reasoning St. Athanasius was wrong to return to his See when allowed to, and Archbishop Lefebvre was wrong to seek a no-compromise regularization for the SSPX.

There are number of other problems with the article, but there is no point in further untangling this gordian knot of assertions and twisted reasoning.

The Faith isn't that convoluted.

The first Mark of the Church is comprised of Unity of Faith and Unity of Government.

To keep the Faith and separate from the Communion of the Church by breaking from Unity of Government is Schism.

Christe Eleison

P^3

Prayer
Penance
Patience

Facts and Opinions - An Explanation

+ JMJ When a person's assumptions are events outside of their control they form an opinion and, in my experience, assert this opinion to be fact. So ... it is important to define some terms:

The Curious Case of Steve Skojec and the Dangers of Deep Diving into the Crisis Sub-Titled: The Failings of Others

+ JMJ It's been a while now since Steve Skojec sold 1P5 and abandoned the Catholic Faith. I've been a 'Trad' since 1982 and in those 40+ years I seen this death-spiral before with a similar end point. It seems that anyone who jumps into the fray unprepared for the enormous task of righting wrongs will, eventually, become discouraged by not the task but the people who surround them. I remember when Skojec complained of the treatment his family received from a traditional priest. This seems to have been the start of the end for him. So what can we learn from the likes of Steve Skojec, Michael Voris (maybe?), Louie Verrecchio, Gerry Matatix and other celebrity Catholics? Probably quite a lot about what not to do. First, don't burn out on the crisis? When you burn out, on work or anything else, little things assume a more greater importance than they are due. This is one of my 'canary in the coal mine' signals that I've been stretching myself too thin

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

Kuala Lumpur warns faithful about the SSPX

+ JMJ A couple of humorous perspectives: Chapel of the Sacred Heart of Jesus (SSPX), a chapel not recognized by the Archdiocese I guess they are no longer able to recognize what is authentically Catholic vs inculturated ... :-) The views of the SSPX also dissent from the teachings of the Second Vatican Council This is a little outdated ... I wish I knew what exactly they are talking about and how to square the circle with pre-conciliar Catholic Teaching. and they have serious questions about the order of mass promulgated by Pope St. Paul VI Darn tooting they are serious questions, I'm glad they have admitted that the questions posed by the SSPX are serious and meriting a serious answer. But we already know the answer to one of them: As for the use of the 1962 Missal as a Forma extraordinaria of the liturgy of the Mass, I would like to draw attention to the fact that this Missal was never juridically abrogated and, consequently, in principle, was always p

Tradicat

Search This Blog