Principle of Obedience - Applied to the SSPX

JMJ

I have synthesized St. Thomas' principle of obedience as follows:
The Catholic principle is laid out as follows:

The person issuing the command is in a position of authority over the inferior
The command is within the scope of the superior's authority
The command does not require the inferior to sin, either in the immediate or proximate case.
If the above conditions are met then the person has an obligation to obey. Disobedience in this case is sinful.

Now the question is how have the leaders of the SSPX applied this principle in key conditions?

Archbishop Lefebvre withdrawing his signature from the protocol of 1988
Archbishop Lefebvre disobeying the order from the Pope to not consecrate bishops
Bishop Fellay refusing to sign the pre-amble provided in 2012.

In this review, I will make the following assumptions:

Superiors: Pope St. John Paul II, Pope Benedict XVI and their delegates, respectively Cardinals Ratzinger and Levada
Command:

Accept a canonical regularization in which the Second Vatican Council and the Liturgical Reforms (ie primarily the New Mass) are accepted complete and entire.
To not perform episcopal consecrations without Pontifical Mandate

Perception of immediate sin is objective and that of proximate sin can be either objective or subjective in nature.
Acceptance of the following without reservation or exclusion constitutes a compromise that is at least proximately if not immediately sinful.

Second Vatican Council
Liturgical Reform issuing thereof

The Society of St. Pius X, in order to sustain its mission and for its protection required bishops selected from its members.

Case #1: Withdrawal of signature from protocol

While no compromise was required in the protocol (Archbishop Lefebvre stated that there was nothing wrong with it, otherwise he would not have signed it) shortly after the signing Cardinal Ratzinger mentioned having the New Mass said in St. Nicholas de Chardonnet ( Marcel Lefebvre- The Biography: page 554).

There were other issues, but here we have a proximate case of compromise listed above.

Case #2: Performance of episcopal consecrations without Pontifical Mandate counter to express command of Pope St. John Paul II

Given the circumstances within the Church, Archbishop Lefebvre was convinced that no Bishop would ordain the seminarians of the SSPX and that the SSPX needed to continue for the good of the Church.

Therefore, to not consecrate, in the face of the delays and requested compromises, would constitute a dereliction of duty on his part. Even contrary to the will of the Pope.

Therefore, we have a proximate occasion of sin.

Courtesy of SSPX Asia: Letter to Bishops

Case #3: Refusal to sign the preamble and accept a canonical regularization.

In the end, Cardinal Levada presented to Bishop Fellay a document that contain compromises on both the Second Vatican Council and the Liturgical Reform.

Conclusion

My conclusion is that in all three cases either an immediate or proximate occasion of compromise (sin) was present - at least in the minds of those making the decisions. Therefore, obedience to the command was not required as in all three cases some sort of compromise was required.

In the case of the consecrations, it was for the good of the Church to provide for the life of the SSPX.
In the case of the agreements, it is centred on the issues with the documents of the Second Vatican Council (Four Points) and the Liturgical Reform the pose a danger to the Faith due to their ambiguities and departures from Church Doctrine.

Given that the crisis is moving along at a steady march towards the October Synod - perhaps more clarity will be provided. I know that some "modern" Catholics are getting concerned, we must explain to them the doctrine of the Church concerning error, papal infallibility in order to bolster their faith.

P^3

Reference: Obedience Maligned and Misunderstood

Comments

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...

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...

If Pope Francis is bad - what about Pope St. John Paul II et al?

+ JMJ So here we are on the apparent cusp of yet another post conciliar Papal canonization. This time we have Pope's John-Paul I and Paul VI canonizations to 'look forward' to. This follows, obviously, on the heels of Pope St. John Paul II's canonization? So the first question that I usually encounter is: How is it possible, keeping in mind the doctrine on infallibility of canonizations (note doctrine not dogma), that Pope St. John Paul II is a Saint? First, what does it mean??? According to the doctrine of dogmatic facts - it is the universal opinion of Theologians that canonizations are infallible. It means that they enjoy the beatific vision. ... that's it. That is the doctrine and it is at the level of universal opinion of theologians. It is called a 'dogmatic fact'. That they made mistakes is obvious. That the miracles seem to not be very miraculous is also a bit of an issue. Here's something to consider: The rush that surrou...

Spiritual Journey Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre - Extracts

+ JMJ I have posted these two chapters to provide context for the quote of: It is, therefore, a strict duty for every priest wanting to remain Catholic to separate himself from this Conciliar Church for as long as it does not rediscover the Tradition of the Church and of the Catholic Faith. P^3 Courtesy of SSPX.ca Chapter II The Perfections of God We ought to remember during this entire contemplation of God that we must apply all that is said of God to Our Lord Jesus Christ, Who is God. We cannot separate Jesus Christ from God. We cannot separate the Christian religion from Jesus Christ, Who is God, and we must affirm and believe that only the Catholic religion is the Christian religion. These affirmations have, as a result, inescapable conclusions that no ecclesiastic authority can contest: outside of Jesus Christ and the Catholic religion, that is, outsi...

Dogmas of the Catholic Faith (de fide) - Expanded Listing: Answer for Reader

+ JMJ A reader asked the following question in the 2015 version of the article on the Dogmas of the Catholic Faith (link) : 117: "In the state of fallen nature it is morally impossible for man without Supernatural Revelation, to know easily, with absolute certainty and without admixture of error, all religious and moral truths of the natural order." Where can you find this in the documents of the Church? ( Link to comment ) Here's the reference from Ott: The citation that Ott provided was Denzinger 1786 and the source document is Dogmatic Consitution Concerning the Faith from the First Vatican Council (Papal Encyclicals - link) : Chapter 2 On Revelation, Article 3: It is indeed thanks to this divine revelation , that those matters concerning God, which are not of themselves beyond the scope of human reason, can, even in the present state of the human race, be known by everyone, without difficulty, with firm certitude and with no intermingling of error. Here's ...

Tradicat

Search This Blog