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

"Theology of the Body" explained - a Traditional Catholic view - Rorate Caeli

+ JMJ In prep for yet another attack on Catholic Dogma, Doctrine and Morals, I'd like to point out an excellent article posted on Rorate earlier this year: "Theology of the Body" explained - a Traditional Catholic view - Rorate Caeli . To date my only real reaction the 'Theology of the Body' has been that what little I read doesn't 'feel right'. The more specific term for this sensation is Cognitive Dissonance or Cultural Dissonance. In short, what I read of the basic tenets of 'Theology of the Body' seemed to contradict I believed about the Catholic Church's teaching on the purpose of marriage. The explanations that I received from 'modern' Catholics, didn't do anything to allay my concerns. This article goes to the heart of why it didn't feel right.

Can Catholics Pray with Protestants??? Part 2

+ JMJ While I have explicit permission from the Canadian, US and FSSPX.News sites, as a follow-up to Part 1, I am going to post here an article on the FSSPX.UK website to provide a bona-fide resource for other Traditional Catholics looking for the truth as opposed to just belief on this topic. FSSPX.UK: Matters arising – May We Pray with Non-Catholics? P^3 Matters arising : May we pray with non-Catholics? Rev. Nicholas Mary, C.SS.R. Fr. Nicholas Mary answers topical questions in the light of moral theology and canon law. Public prayer As always, before we can answer a question adequately, terms must be defined and distinctions made. The general principle is clear, as Cardinal Newman writes: From time immemorial, from the earliest ages, members of the Church have been forbidden communicatio in sacris [i.e. participation in religious rites] with those who were external to it. This prohibition is not intended as the expression of any judgment on this...

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.

SSPX Confessions and Marriages

Courtesy of SSPX.org Valid: SSPX's confessions and marriages January 15, 2014 District of the US The SSPX's priests are often accused of not being able to validly hear confessions or perform marriages. But this false claim falls flat upon a close examination of Canon Law — particularly in light of the crisis in the Church. A frequent accusation made by opponents of the Society of St. Pius X is that the confessions and marriages undertaken in its chapels are invalid because its priests lack jurisdiction. This false assertion not only ignores the Church's jurisprudence on supplied jurisdiction , but more importantly, the reality that a state of necessity exists due to the post-conciliar crisis. On the canonical side of things, we re-present here the important and comprehensive 3-part study of Fr. Ramon Angles, The Validity of Confessions & Marriages in the Chapels of the Society of St. Pius X which in summary demonstrat...

SSPX and the Resistance - A Comparison Of Ecclesiology

Shining the light of Church Teaching on the doctrinal positions of the SSPX and the Resistance. Principles are guides used to aid in decision making. It stands to reason that bad principles will lead to bad decisions. The recent interactions between Rome and the SSPX has challenged a number of closely held cultural assumptions of people in both sides of the disagreement. This has resulted in cultural skirmishes in both Rome and the SSPX. Since it is the smaller of the two, the skirmishes have been more evident within the SSPX. The cultural fault-line that Bishop Fellay crossed appears to be linked to two points of Catholic Doctrine: Ecclesiology and Obedience. The cultural difference of view points is strong enough that it has resulted in the expulsion of a number of members. It should also be noted that some other priests expelled since the beginning of the latest interactions (starting in 2000) held the same view points and have joined with the l...

Tradicat

Search This Blog