Skip to main content

Principles - Catholic and Otherwise

Image
By
+
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.
  1. The Salvation of Souls is the supreme law of the Church (canon 1752).
  2. 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:
  1. Formation of the SSPX
  2. Conflict with the authorities of the Catholic Church (Popes et al)
  3. Indult of 1982
  4. Consecrations of 1988
  5. Formation of FSSP et al
  6. Summorum Pontificum
  7. Universae Ecclesiae
  8. Lifting of the 'excommunications'
  9. Granting the SSPX of universal jurisdiction to hear confessions
  10. 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



Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Rome,the SSPX and this time of Crisis - Updated

By
+ JMJ Obviously there's lots of events right now. First we have the April 1st - I almost thought it was April Fools - meeting between Pope Francis and Bishop Fellay.  Nothing really news worthy as this is a natural progression as Rome appears to be considering fulfilling Archbishop Lefebvre's wish to 'accept us as we are'. Second we have the April 8th publication of what will be a verbose exhortation of the Synod of the Family. I'm willing to bet that the Pope will give with one hand (unilateral regularization of SSPX) and take with the other (ambiguous document that opens the flood gates of sin further). Much to pray for. P^3
30 comments
Read more

A Reply to Martin Blackshaw’s FLAWED Remnant article titled: FLAWED: SSPX Advice on Abortion-tainted Vaccines

By
 + JMJ    An article has appeared in the Remnant (link to article) and I am afraid that there are a number of flaws in it that need to be addressed. The author, Martin Blackshaw, believes that both the Church and the SSPX are misapplying the principle of Moral Theology called 'Cooperation In Evil'.  Unfortunately, Mr. Blackshaw rests most of his arguments on citing authors that support his position, without considering the possibility that they are wrong. This highlights a key factor in this crisis: ignorance of the faith and its application . I don't am not singling out Mr. Blackshaw for this criticism, I have observed that it applies to laity and religious, superior and subject a like.  No one seems immune in this enduring crisis, myself included.  I further believe that this ignorance is why so many Catholics, both traditional and non, rely on their gut feeling or "Catholic conscience" for charting their way through this crisis of the faith.  While...
25 comments
Read more

Rorate-Caeli URGENT: Pope tells Italian Bishops he plans to abolish the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum

By
 + JMJ  Now THIS is probably the most important news item in the last two years - yes I place this above the pandemic. I'm only surprised by how long it took for this to surface during this pontificate. I hope and pray that it is false or that if it comes to pass that somehow some good will arise out of the ashes of Summorum Pontificum. P^3  Courtesy of Rorate-Caeli URGENT: Pope tells Italian Bishops he plans to abolish the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum (Updated) Update (May 26): Rorate's additional sources in Rome have confirmed this Wednesday that Francis has indeed a text on Summorum Pontificum lined up, which has been developed for months, but what is not known at this point is if the text is just about a more limited take on the Summorum application questionnaire (first revealed by us in the spring of 2020) or about an overhaul of Summorum Pontificum in general: drafts could be dealing with both matters. It is also not impossible for a text to come ou...
9 comments
Read more

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

By
+ 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...
16 comments
Read more

The Vatican and SSPX – An Organizational Culture Perspective

By
Introduction The recent and continuing interactions between the Vatican and the SSPX have been a great opportunity for prayer and reflection.  The basis for the disagreement is theological and not liturgical. As noted by Dr. Lamont (2012), the SSPX theological position on the four key controversial aspects of the Second Vatican Council are base on prior theological work that resulted from relevant magisterial pronouncements.  So it is difficult to understand the apparent rejection of the theological position of the SSPX.
17 comments
Read more