Principles - Catholic and Otherwise

JMJ

Everyone follows some collection of core principles. They are the guides we rely upon in making our various decisions the lead us into various directions.

Good principles lead to good directions. Bad principles have the opposite effect.

30 Years ago, Archbishop Lefebvre made a decision, guided by his principles, to consecrate 4 priests as bishops. Auxiliary Bishops with no jurisdiction ordained simply to provide priests for the life of the SSPX and sacraments for the faithful who seek out the SSPX as a place of refuge in this crisis.

I think that I have happened upon two of the Archbishop's core principles.

The Salvation of Souls is the supreme law of the Church (canon 1752).
The ends do not justify the means.

Let's take a look at how this played out.

The Archbishop learned of the crisis in the seminaries as neo-modernism exploded from the shadows. It took some convincing by seminarians, but he eventually determined that it was the right decision to act to help these seminarians become good priests. Yet, he proceeded within the law of the Church taking the means available to do so.

Following these principles can be hard because, as those of us with experience know, these principles didn't just belong to the Archbishop.

They are Catholic principles.

When you follow Catholic Principles the World, Flesh and Devil will confront you. That is what happened once they authorities within (and without) the Catholic Church realised the direction in which the Archbishop was heading. The Archbishop was not heading in the liberal direction set out in ambiguous terms by the Second Vatican Council. He simply continued to follow the direction of the Church.

This led to a significant amount of conflict as these principles will lead to conflict with whomever is not abiding by them.

There is no other way.

The simple act of the seminarians asking the Archbishop for help to be real Catholic priests set off a chain of events that (to name a few) led to the:

Formation of the SSPX
Conflict with the authorities of the Catholic Church (Popes et al)
Indult of 1982
Consecrations of 1988
Formation of FSSP et al
Summorum Pontificum
Universae Ecclesiae
Lifting of the 'excommunications'
Granting the SSPX of universal jurisdiction to hear confessions
Constrained jursidiction for receiving the vows of married couples

We already know that the Archbishop was justified (following the Catholic principle of obedience - ie St. Thomas) in consecrating the four bishops to carry on the work of the FSSPX. The authority in the Church (even Pope St. John Paul II - canonized by Pope Francis ... just saying) was not acting in a manner that would enable the salvation of souls.

I know that this is hard for a number of faither ntCatholics to grasp, but punishing the good and rewarding the wicked is not the way to save souls. That was exactly what has been happening in the intervening decades even by the Popes. Pope Francis just does it more openly - the latest is enabling the sacrilege of giving the Blessed Sacrament to protestants.

So back to the second principle and thinking about item 4 on the above abbreviated timeline.

Did the Archbishop employ bad means to work for the salvation of souls?

Was he disobedient from St. Thomas' perspective? I think not. If an authority commands something that is sinful - and there is a sin of omission of a good that one ought to do, then there is an obligation to obey a higher law - the Salvation of Souls.

What about the consecration without Papal authorization?

Well we know that it isn't intrinsically evil because up to Pius XII making it a law there was no law and under Pius XII it was only a suspension. The punishment of excommunication was added later.

So it comes down to the law, whether or not it was bad means.

Was there really a state of necessity in 1988? Yes.
Is there really a state of necessity in 2018? YES

That leads us back to canon 1752 and the fact that at least someone was had the intestinal fortitude to follow Catholic Principles.

... and that really is the rest of the story.

P^3

Fr. Most on the Dubia of Archbishop Lefebvre

+ JMJ While the focus has been on the Dubia of the Cardinals for the last few months, there is another set of Dubia that should foremost in our minds: The of Archbishop Lefebvre. Before I transcribe the Dubia, I'd like to provide a critique of a criticism of the Dubia submitted by Archbishop Lefebvre. P^3 Source: EWTN

Sedevacantism and Heresy

+ JMJ I've observed three core reactions during this crisis of the Catholic Church. The Pope can't be wrong, therefore this is the New Springtime The Pope is infallible in certain conditions and there is a problem with many things that have been said, done and written, during and after the Second Vatican Council (even in the Council doc). The Pope can't be wrong, this stuff is wrong, therefore he isn't Pope. Of course there are a spectrum of responses in between, but these are the key elements. The 1st group holds the words of the Pope et al as impeccable. Here, let me get you a Koran to kiss... The 3rd group holds that they've all been heretics and lost their office. There is also a spectrum within this group. One answer is that they are very poor judges of heresy. The link below provides some reasoned thought that, I'm happy to say, is completely consistent with Church Teaching. Canon law blog: Its not impossible just very diff...

What does it mean "I'm a Traditional Catholic"?

+ JMJ I was visiting with a friend the other day when he said: "I'm a traditionalist". This surprised me because, while I could imagine him saying he was a "conservative or faithful Catholic", I didn't really think that the "traditionalist" label would stick. This got me to to thinking about what it means, or should mean when a person shakes you hand and says: "Hi, I'm a Traditional Catholic".

Rome and SSPX - Version 2026 Part 2

+ JMJ Part 2 Detailed Synopsis and Timeline (ChatGPT) At this point, I took the shortcut of uploading all of my previous links and the latest SSPX and Rome links to ChatGPT. This way we’ll see how ChatGPT interprets the world as presented on the internet. P^3 Briefing Memo Subject: Rome–SSPX Relations and Planned Episcopal Consecrations (July 1, 2026) Prepared for: Ecclesial / Academic / Media Briefing Date: February 2026 Issue Overview The Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) has announced its intention to consecrate new bishops on July 1, 2026 , potentially without a papal mandate . The Holy See has acknowledged ongoing talks with the SSPX and stated its desire to avoid rupture, but has not granted approval nor outlined canonical consequences. The situation revives unresolved tensions dating to 1988 and raises questions about schism, authority, and doctrinal continuity. Background Founded in 1970 by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, the SSPX seeks to preserve pre-Vat...

Schism

There is some question as to whether the Pope can be in actual schism as per the Cardinal Torquemada: Citing the doctrine of Pope Innocent III, Torquemada further teaches: "Thus it is that Pope Innocent III states [De Consuetudine] that, it is necessary to obey the Pope in all things as long as he, himself, does not go against the universal customs of the Church, but should he go against the universal customs of the Church, 'he need not be followed' . . . " [Cited from A Theological Vindication of Roman Catholic Traditionalism, Father Paul Kramer, B.Ph., S.T.D., M. Div. (2nd edition, St. Francis Press, India) p. 29. The full quotation from Cardinal Torquemada reads, "By disobedience, the Pope can separate himself from Christ despite the fact that he is head of the Church, for above all, the unity of the Church is dependent on its relationship with Christ. The Pope can separate himself from Christ either by disobeying the law of Christ, or by commanding som...

Tradicat

Search This Blog