Skip to main content

Principles and the SSPX Part 3

+
JMJ

What if a perfect no compromise agreement is still a trap?

I have had arguments with 'resistors' who believe that my understanding of St. Thomas' teaching on obedience would lead to subservient obedience.

I still don't understand the rationale that leads from what St. Thomas taught to their conclusion.

One aspect that is true is that trust is not part of St. Thomas' doctrine (see True Obedience: Mark of a Faithful Catholic).

I believe that is because trust is subjective and if we relied upon our feelings towards our superior, then you undermine authority to its core.

How?

By making the individual the one who judges whether or not they 'feel' (trust) like obeying at that moment.  There is no respect for the authority of the superior, but respect for the feelings of the inferior.

This, my friends, is liberalism.

Now, it is possible that Rome could capitulate as I noted earlier in part 2, with the intention of trapping the sspx.

If the SSPX is faced with the choice or obeying a legitimate command or sinning, the choice is obvious, they would have to submit and trust in God to protect them from the machinations of the evil.

That is the Catholic way!

God knows the future and the hearts of men.  As Archbishop Lefebvre  used to say: I follow providence, I do not precede it.

The position(s) of the 'resistance'


Looking at the positions of the various priests who have left or been expelled from the SSPX (Bishop Williamson et al included) because of the relations with Rome.  There are some key facts to review to assess and arrive at a judgement of their positions:

  1. We are now in the 18th year of the 'sell-out' and the various predictions of a sell-out have come and gone.  Like the Jehovah witnesses before them, they have given up predicting a sell-out and have simply started pointing to things to say that the sell-out has already happened.
  2. They all disobeyed legitimate commands. This is especially evident in Bishop Williamson's case when he went on his confirmation trip to South America.  This violated the rules of the SSPX and was inexcusable.  Why? Because an SSPX bishop was scheduled to perform confirmations a short time later.
  3. The rationales provided for their various 'resistance' is unprincipled in that they all deviate on some major facet from Principles, Doctrine or Dogmas.  Scary but true if you read some of their writings or have to patience to listen to some of their 'youtubes'.  
Recently, the SSPX republished the Christian Warfare booklet and the 'resistance' noted that there was a change:

In the examination of conscience the original edition found:
Have you attended and actively participated in the "New Mass"? Have you received Holy Communion in the hand?
In the new edition we have:
Have you received Holy Communion in the hand knowing that it leads to Sacrilege and loss of faith in the Real Presence? Have you attended and actively participated in non-Catholic religious services?
The 'resistor' goes on to write:
Ask yourself, why is attending and actively participating in the "New Mass" no longer mentioned as being sinful? Could it be that speaking the truth is no longer compatible with being accepted "as we are" ? Is the SSPX slowly preparing minds for downplaying the evil of the "New Mass", or even worse, for accepting it as the "ordinary form" of the True Mass, an option, a preference?
As the answers provided (in purple) are simply suppositions with no support, I'm happy to answer the question from a principles perspective.

First, a doctrinal point that provides the background for this topic, the doctrine of indefectibility.
The Church is indefectible, that is, she remains and will remain the Institution of Salvation, founded by Christ, until the end of the world. (Sent. certa.) (Ott, 1954)
As I wrote in 2013:
 Having reviewed the above, particularly Dr. Ott's statement on the essential immutability of the liturgy, the logical conclusion is that the Infallibility of the Church extends to the liturgy.

This would be a correct conclusion and is the consensus amongst theologians.  However, it would be a mistake to assumed a positive infallible action within the discipline of the liturgy as firstly there are multiple liturgies (rites) within the Church. Secondly because the liturgies have experienced development.
Then in support of my thesis - I cited the following:
As to moral precepts or laws as distinct from moral doctrine, infallibility goes no farther than to protect the Church against passing universal laws which in principle would be immoral. It would be out of place to speak of infallibility in connection with the opportuneness or the administration of necessarily changing disciplinary laws although, of course, Catholics believe that the Church receives appropriate Divine guidance in this and in similar matters where practical spiritual wisdom is required. (Toner, 1910)
So while the New Mass (as promulgated) was obviously inopportune, following the doctrine of indefectibility, the New Mass (as promulgated) is not in and of itself immoral.  Therefore, attending such a liturgy is not ipso facto sinful.

Likewise, the expansion of the section on  communion in the hand also makes sense. Because an indult has been provided, it is not per-se sinful to receive Holy Communion in the hand - as long as one complies with all the requirements of the indult.

So, it makes sense that it be amended, even if it offends the sensitivities of the 'resistance'.

Of course they won't hear of this reasoning because it doesn't fit with their 'worldview' ... which is too bad because at least I can hold to this position without compromising principles, doctrines or dogmas.

P^3


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

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

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

De Veritate - St. Thomas Aquinas - What is necessary to believe explicitly?

I was recently introduced to a work of St. Thomas De Veritate ( Source ) in the course of an argument concerning the minimum content of explicit faith.  When I submitted the following quote as proof: Theological faith, that is, a supernatural faith in Revelation, is necessary, and this is an effect of grace (D 1789); nemini unquam sine ilIa contigit iustificatio (D 1793). As far as the content of this faith is concerned, according to Hebr. 11, 6, at least the existence of God and retribution in the other world must be firmly held, necessitate medii (by the necessity of means) with explicit faith. In regard to the Trinity and the Incarnation, implicit faith suffices. The supernatural faith necessary for justification is attained when God grants to the unbeliever by internal inspiration or external teaching a knowledge of the truths of Revelation, and actual grace to make the supernatural act of faith. Cf. De verite 14, I I.Ott - Fundamentals of Dogma p241 In response my opponent wrot

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

Gary Campbell - Former SSPX Priest

 + JMJ I've come across Gary Campbell's articles on Where Peter Is and noticed that he seems to have very strong biases, assumptions and reactions to anything that runs against these. Driven by curiosity I have found a copy of his letter to Bishop Fellay explaining his reasons for leaving the SSPX only five years after his ordination in Winona. I was surprised to learn that I was present for his ordination. Given this, I was interested in reviewing his letter to Bishop Fellay. There will be two versions in this post. The unblocked and blocked letter. The unblocked is, obviously the full letter. The block, meaning unnecessary text will be blocked out, is a technique I use to remove ancillary text while focusing on key phrases. After completing my read, I believe that the root of much of what caused the issues with Fr. Campbell could be the seeds of the 'resistance' that, when the same perceptions were challenged by continued negotiations with Rome resulted in the necessa