+
JMJ
Bishop Fellay gave a conference late last month and provided some more insight into the situation with Rome.
There are comments on Deus Ex Machina Blog and Hilary White has now entered the fray.
What is one Catholic to think about all these opinions?
What a Catholic is to think: With the Church!
What does the Church think about obedience? Virtue as it is?
If there is no proximate occasion of sin and the other conditions are met, then one cannot resist the command.
It is critical in this moment to do all we can to practice all the virtues and obedience is not the least.
True obedience that is!
Here's a map of the St. Thomas and St. Ignatius' thoughts on obedience.
One point where they are in clear agreement - if sin is required, obedience is not required.
P^3
Posted for Mark: It's Mark I do not want to form my own opinion from what Bishop Fellay has said in his conference, would you be able to offer any information on what Bishop Fellay meant by being offered "a new body" which he mentions in the first minutes of the 6th part? I have asked 3 faithful of the SSPX and they have not even heard of this conference, just thought maybe you are privy to the meaning. Thanks. God Bless.
ReplyDeleteAhh, Mark - I suspect that you have already formed your 'own opinion of what Bishop Felly has said ... by being offered a new body'.
ReplyDeleteFirst question: Why would I be privy to the thoughts of Bishop Fellay???
Second question :What would a person who is reasonably fluent in english and has an understanding of canonical language conclude?
Third question: Is the phrase "a new body" consistent with the establishment of a new canonical structure within the Church as the old one originally established was phased out decades ago???
Things to ponder...
P^3
Posted for Mark: Thanks for the response, I guess we will have to be patient and see exactly what he meant.
DeleteMark H
Posted for Idiotadoctus
ReplyDeletePart I
St. Ignatius also mentions in his rules for making any big decision: the beginning, the middle and the end of the proposed action all have to be good.
Beginning: We have official status. We aren't under the diocesan bishops. Rome admits that Vatican II is not infallible. They won't be able to backtrack on that admission. Good stuff.
Middle: We collect some Neo-conservatives who formerly were spooked by the bogeyman of "schism". That's good. Uh...but wait. A Neo-conservative is in reality a less liberal liberal than a Novus Ordoite. That means a big injection of liberalism into the SSPX -- most of it quite well meaning, I suppose, but liberalism is liberalism, and it does grave harm. And since 2012, a large number of the hardcore went with the Resistance, so they won't be around to counteract the liberal influx. And experience shows that in recent years, the SSPX seminaries have generally been turning out a more liberal-leaning type of priest too. Not good.
End: Francis and the Modernists, working from the get-go to drag the SSPX out of its integrist, triumphalist, "Neo-Pelagian" Traditionalism, into the New Church idea, have been constantly exerting pressure. The strain of pretending to be obedient, while in practice having to resist obeying in order to save the Faith and souls, begins to tell. The new liberal influences are aiding the pope's cause. The SSPX's roof finally caves in. What part of it will give way first? No one knows. But we can know it will cave somewhere. How so?
It's true, the principle must be respected: Rejecting a *lawful* order or wish of a lawful superior has no lawful excuse. If the SSPX is offered "recognition", and truly with no strings attached which require us to sin in any way, this would constitute a lawful order. Hence, *all other things being equal*, to reject it would be grave disobedience. (Rejection would still not include a rejection of the authority per se, and hence would not be schismatic.) But, all other things are NOT equal, because...
Posted for Idiotadoctus
ReplyDeletePart II
Another principle must be respected: Inferiors do not form superiors; it's the other way around (Arb. Lefebvre). To put it another way, a subject cannot in good conscience accept *in practice* to be under the rule of someone else *when they disagree in fundamental life principles*. In such case, there MUST be conflicts where the superior requests something that violates the conscience of the subject. No kind of prior deal-on-paper can prevent this, for it could always be abrograted by the superior -- if he truly is accepted *in practice* as the superior. (If he is accepted in theory only, it would be OK to make a deal -- except there would then be no point in making that deal, and worse, it would objectively be a fraud to do so.) Even if a paper deal could be perpetually binding under the present pope, which it can't, it would not bind a future pope. And if it could be binding on those things treated within it, it could not cover all things that could possibly be sources of conflict. Therefore, it cannot be said that a "recognition", of ANY kind, under the present circumstances, has no strings attached. Only one of two things can happen: a) The strain of trying to square a circle; to resist authorities who want us to compromise the Faith, while still pretending that we are obedient, will eventually lead us to actually compromise, and thus sin. b) Before this happens, the authorities will genuinely convert to a Catholic mindset. We are allowed to hope and pray that b) will occur, but we are NOT allowed to PRESUME that it will. ALL indications are that it won't, at least not under this pontificate. But if we cannot presume that b) will occur, we must presume that a) will occur.
So, the desire of Francis that we make a deal is NOT a lawful desire. Making a deal would be to place ourselves in grave temptations to compromise the Faith; in the near occasion of sinning against the Faith, and thus objectively would be a sin itself.
To make a deal is already a temptation, but it is a very subtle one -- and that's why it may well succeed.
I hold that these are facts, not speculations.
I conclude: The Archbishop was right. NO DEAL CAN BE MADE WITH ROME UNTIL ROME RETURNS TO THE FAITH.
Idiotadoctus
Hi Idiotadoctus,
DeleteA key question is whether or not the virtue of obedience vis-a-vis St. Thomas Aquinas applies. I know a number of people who say that it does not ...
1. Where would abandoning or re-imaging the Summa Theologica leave Traditional Catholics???
2. Is Pope Francis the Vicar of Christ???
3. If Pope Francis issues a command that meets the criteria set out by St. Thomas ... is it ok to commit a mortal sin by disobeying?
These are all questions that need answers that are consistent with Church Teaching.
Otherwise we are not worthy of the name of 'Traditional Catholic'.
P^3
Posted for Idiotadoctus
DeleteDear Tradical,
Good questions. As far as I can see...
Re/ 1: The 'No deal until Rome returns to the faith' position is perfectly consistent with St. Thomas' teaching on obedience, because although
Re/ 2: Pope Francis is the Vicar of Christ, nevertheless, in IIa, IIae, Q.104, a5, resp., St. Thomas says that a superior must be disobeyed if a higher superior commands otherwise. I think that's the case here. As I said, to make a deal is to enter into the near occasion of mortal sin against the Faith. God commands us to avoid sin, and the near occasion of sin, so to make a deal is to disobey God.
Re/ 3: The answer to this is contained in the answer to 2. It's never OK to commit any kind of sin -- which is precisely why we shouldn't make a deal; we would be sinning against obedience to God in favor of obedience to a man.
Now of course, that a deal would be a near occasion of mortal sin against the Faith is a prudential judgment on my part. That judgment flows from a "presumption" of the facts I mentioned: that Francis has shown loads of evidence that he is an enemy of Tradition, and has shown small or no evidence to the contrary, that there is acute danger of liberalizing influences in the SSPX, etc. Bp. Fellay clearly thinks otherwise (or has not considered these facts). If he is sincere, making a deal will not be sin for him, since sufficient knowledge would be lacking. That won't change the harm that will be done by such a mistake (unless some unforeseeable future event alters circumstances and changes the mistake into a lucky break). The fact that Francis wants to destroy Tradition is alone a sufficient reason for not placing ourselves under his influence. Unless Bp. Fellay can prove that it's true that Francis wants good for Tradition, a deal is a very, very bad idea. We all know he can't do that.
I do want to be worthy of the name 'Traditional Catholic' (actually, I'd prefer just 'practicing Catholic'). So I would appreciate it if someone could show me that I'm wrong in my thinking.
Idiotadoctus
Hi Idiotadoctus,
Delete"As I said, to make a deal is to enter into the near occasion of mortal sin against the Faith."
From my reading of St. Thomas we have to look at whether the order includes and immediate or proximate occasion of sin.
I hold it as obvious that an 'order' (tacit or explicit) to accept a no-compromise regularization that truly 'accepts us as we are' is not immediately sinful.
Following this it must be determined (as far as prudentially possible) whether or not the 'order' includes a proximate occasion of sin.
Obviously, anything that requires the SSPX to submit to the local ordinaries would constitute such a problem - as we have daily witness in the FSSP et al.
Having listened to a portion of the conference and read some transcripts what I find is that - everything indicates that the SSPX would be accepted 'as they are' - never say the new mass, accept V2 as Archbishop Lefebvre did (I know some readers will find this difficult to believe / understand), keep the Faith etc - even in contradiction to the statements of the Pope.
There is a caveat that we don't know all the details as does Bishop Fellay. This is a complex situation and the stakes are very high.
Refusing a legitimate (lawful) order from the Pope is a sin - so extreme prudence is required.
This is consistent with Bishop Fellay's statements - that the deal seems to grant all the assurances that they have asked. However, prudentially, he proceeds to check all the details.
We have a saying in engineering - the Devil's in the details.
Nothing could be more true in dealing with the Vatican.
However, as stated by Bishop Fellay, the CDF vote shows something is happening within the Church. Only one Cardinal voted to try to force the SSPX to accept V2 without its reservations and objections. The last time this question was discussed, it resulted in compromises being reinserted in the 'deal' offered in 2012.
So this is not a simple situation - this is a complex situation and ultimately Bishop Fellay will have to make a decision as to whether or not to summon a general chapter and present the information to the Chapter so they can make a good decision. If he does summon a chapter, we will know that he has concluded that there is neither immediate nor proximate sin involved in the command.
Here's what John Lamont had to say when Hilary White voiced her opinions:
Delete" ... The argument for accepting this offer is the following:
– All the previous traps offered to the Society have required some kind of concession; acceptance of all of Vatican II, acknowledgement of the legitimacy of the Novus Ordo, etc. No concession is demanded here.
– This fatally weakens the power of the Roman authorities to make unacceptable demands down the road. The basis of the original illegal suppression of the Society by Paul VI was the claim that its positions on Vatican II and the Novus Ordo were unacceptable. The mere fact of legitimising the Society without conditions destroys this basis permanently. There can no longer be any arguments presented as arguments of principle for requiring the Society to abandon its positions after such a regularisation.
– This weakening makes accepting such an offer a serious option even though it no doubt is intended as a trap of some kind.
– The ripple effect of such an action in the Church will make it much harder to spring the trap, because the legitimising of the position of the Society will destroy the whole neoconservative position and spread this position far beyond its borders. It will produce a spreading insurrection where the Roman authorities will have too many defeats and distractions to operate the subjection of the SSPX.
The crucial underlying factor is that the main enemy of tradition is not crass modernists of Francis’s stamp. but the neoconservatives. The latter believed in themselves as the true Catholics and were able to put this self-presentation as Catholics across effectively. Francis, Madariaga et hoc genus omne cannot do this convinclngly. ..."
Much to pray for.
P^3
From Mark H: Has John Lamont ever read this-
Deletehttp://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/fetzen-fliegen/item/2538-cardinal-muller-to-sspx-acceptance-of-vatican-ii-is-as-essential-as-accepting-resurrection
Thanks, God Bless
Mark H
Possibly - but the question I would ask is how is this relevant in the context of what Rome is offering the SSPX? Especially as this statement preceded the conference given by Bishop Fellay.
DeleteP^3
oops - I forgot to mention that the statement by Card. Mueller has also been superceded by subsequent statements by Archbihop Pozzo and (if Card. Mueller was the dissenting vote) the plenaria vote.
DeleteP^3
From Mark H:
DeleteThanks for your insight.
God Bless
Mark H
Posted for Mark: Starting at 5:28 fo part 6 of 6 Bishop Fellay says of the offer "you cannot imagine anything better..and such a thing that you cannot think that's a trap...it's not a trap....it's impossible to think that such a thing could be invented by enemies.. the enemies have many other ways to crush us down but not that"
ReplyDeleteThen right after that Bishop Fellay states " you may say well if that's the thing why don't you accept.....well I want to be sure that this is true I do not have the right to live in a dream...." ends 6:37.
Do you have any comments on such an apperant contradiction without using questions for a reply? This is your blog and you have invited anyone to make a comment. I have accepted your invitation to make a comment that this appears to be a contradiction and I ask kindly to please make a comment without questions. I am not demanding one just asking, you do not have to answer and I'll accept if you can only answer with questions. Thanks and God Bless.
Mark H
Hi Mark,
DeleteLet's answer the last item first. You started your comment stating that you did not want to 'form your own opinion'. My questions were designed to assist you in correctly forming an opinion. Find the answer to the questions and the opinion that coincides with reality will be self evident.
Now for the first question: "Do you have any comments on such an apparant contradictions with using question for a reply?"
I have thoughts on what I believe to be your question. But I am uncertain, so please make it clear how the two statements (taking the context of the talk) are in contradiction.
P^3
Posted for Mark: I'm pretty sure the way Bishop Fellay says this -""you cannot imagine anything better..and such a thing that you cannot think that's a trap...it's not a trap....it's impossible to think that such a thing could be invented by enemies.. the enemies have many other ways to crush us down but not that" means he is trying to say "take this new body being offered it is not a trap"
DeleteThen I'm pretty sure that the way Bishop Fellay says this -" you may say well if that's the thing why don't you accept.....well I want to be sure that this is true I do not have the right to live in a dream." He is trying to say that he himself is not sure if this is a trap. I hope this can help you understand my explanation and how it has made me ask you for a comment on it. Thanks, God Bless.
Mark H
Well I think he means what he says:
DeleteThat the structure offered is such that it seems impossible that it be a trap and that he is exploring the issues to verify that it is not a trap.
Your phrasing of 'He is trying to say that he himself is not sure if this is a trap' - contains a bias that is not present in the conference.
P^3