SSPX's defense of disobedience

fakename · #1 May 12, '12, 12:24 pm

Is the SSPX's defense of disobedience right or wrong?

Now it seems to be this: that a person can be "disobedient" (really obedient) just in the case when there is a plausible chance of Catholicism being watered down.

There was (and perhaps still is) a plausible chance of Catholicism being watered down so therefore establishing priests and bishops and such is okay even if Rome says no.

Right or Wrong?

I'll give you the primary source too since I want to do justice to the argument:

http://www.catholicapologetics.info/...nse/mdsspx.htm

**Friar David, O.Carm** · #2 May 12, '12, 12:50 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by fakename

Is the SSPX's defense of disobedience right or wrong?

Disobedience, by definition, is wrong, so how could it ever be right to be wrong?

The Church Teaches that no evil may be done, not even for a good outcome.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church;

1789 Some rules apply in every case:

- One may never do evil so that good may result from it;

- the Golden Rule: "Whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them."

- charity always proceeds by way of respect for one's neighbor and his conscience: "Thus sinning against your brethren and wounding their conscience . . . you sin against Christ." Therefore "it is right not to . . . do anything that makes your brother stumble."

1AugustSon7 · #3 May 12, '12, 12:51 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by fakename

Is the SSPX's defense of disobedience right or wrong?

Now it seems to be this: that a person can be "disobedient" (really obedient) just in the case when there is a plausible chance of Catholicism being watered down.

There was (and perhaps still is) a plausible chance of Catholicism being watered down so therefore establishing priests and bishops and such is okay even if Rome says no.

Right or Wrong?

I'll give you the primary source too since I want to do justice to the argument:

http://www.catholicapologetics.info/...nse/mdsspx.htm

One can disobey when ordered to sin, even if the Pope does it. One could also give lawful resistance, as it were, if say the Pope caught some mental bug or was briefly poisoned such that, for ex., he madly attacked you (physical force), just like anyone can defend themselves.

However, when the command is lawful and just, one cannot disobey.

Most theologians and commentators on canon law do say that one can resist or disobey the Pope if his commands are to the ruin or destruction of the Church; that is, if his commands would destroy or unjustly injure the Church. That is certainly more difficult waters because it would appear highly subjective. Theologians say that the Pope does not have the right or power to destroy the Church (obviously), because the Papacy is established for the Church; not the Church for the Papacy.

Such decisions, of course, should be considered by the Catholic prayerfully and with fear and trembling; otherwise, it could result easily in schism and potentially even heresy if, for ex., the grounds for the resistance/disobedience is illegitimate, as that would require an apologia, so to speak, that is contrary to Faith and, therefore, also contrary to Christian doctrine.

I believe it was Saint Augustine who said that there is no schism that does not finally produce some heresy to justify itself.

Pfaffenhoffen · #4 May 12, '12, 1:20 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by fakename

Is the SSPX's defense of disobedience right or wrong?

Now it seems to be this: that a person can be "disobedient" (really obedient) just in the case when there is a plausible chance of Catholicism being watered down.

There was (and perhaps still is) a plausible chance of Catholicism being watered down so therefore establishing priests and bishops and such is okay even if Rome says no.

Right or Wrong?

I'll give you the primary source too since I want to do justice to the argument:

http://www.catholicapologetics.info/...nse/mdsspx.htm

Watered down, what is that? With more water? And what is the contrary of watered down?
And can SSPX's members disobey SSPX and create a new church ABC?
And can ABC's members disobey ABC to create DEF?
And can DEF's members disobey DEF to create GHI?
and so on ... ?

fakename · #5 May 12, '12, 1:52 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1AugustSon7

One can disobey when ordered to sin, even if the Pope does it. One could also give lawful resistance, as it were, if say the Pope caught some mental bug or was briefly poisoned such that, for ex., he madly attacked you (physical force), just like anyone can defend themselves.

However, when the command is lawful and just, one cannot disobey.

Most theologians and commentators on canon law do say that one can resist or disobey the Pope if his commands are to the ruin or destruction of the Church; that is, if his commands would destroy or unjustly injure the Church. That is certainly more difficult waters because it would appear highly subjective. Theologians say that the Pope does not have the right or power to destroy the Church (obviously), because the Papacy is established for the Church; not the Church for the Papacy.

Such decisions, of course, should be considered by the Catholic prayerfully and with fear and trembling; otherwise, it could result easily in schism and potentially even heresy if, for ex., the grounds for the resistance/disobedience is illegitimate, as that would require an apologia, so to speak, that is contrary to Faith and, therefore, also contrary to Christian doctrine.

I believe it was Saint Augustine who said that there is no schism that does not finally produce some heresy to justify itself.

Is there any way around the subjectivity of the judgment you speak of?

Also, is it true that for all moral judgments, one should be obedient to the pope even if the pope (or rather the person acting as pope) was wrong or is true that one should prefer to be correct rather than to be obedient to the pope?

Andre1000 · #6 May 12, '12, 3:01 pm

There is no dogma that the Pope cannot sin or be heretic, so there could be times we have to say no! Sometime disobedience can be justified but it is important that it does not result in heresy or schism.

Under the line, if the SSPX has canonical status than their behaviour will be justified.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pfaffenhoffen

Watered down, what is that? With more water? And what is the contrary of watered down?
And can SSPX's members disobey SSPX and create a new church ABC?
And can ABC's members disobey ABC to create DEF?
And can DEF's members disobey DEF to create GHI?
and so on ... ?

The SSPX never created a new church or something like that.

Pfaffenhoffen · #7 May 13, '12, 1:10 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andre1000

There is no dogma that the Pope cannot sin or be heretic, so there could be times we have to say no! Sometime disobedience can be justified but it is important that it does not result in heresy or schism.

Under the line, if the SSPX has canonical status than their behaviour will be justified.

The SSPX never created a new church or something like that.

Well, you may say NO to the sins of the Pope, not the the dogma of the Pope. an heretic Pope? Never heard of it !!!! Could you give examples? Even if there are problems with the Pope, it is better to correct the Pope as did S. Theresa of Avila or get out and disobey?

I have serious doubts whether they do not want separation...The Pope has been infinitely patient to them.
I went to their site and all I saw were attacks to the Pope and His authority. that does not seem to me very Catholic...it seems heretical.
Obedience is a must. Christ obeyed till death in the cross.

Like · #8 May 13, '12, 2:06 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by fakename

Is the SSPX's defense of disobedience right or wrong?

Now it seems to be this: that a person can be "disobedient" (really obedient) just in the case when there is a plausible chance of Catholicism being watered down.

There was (and perhaps still is) a plausible chance of Catholicism being watered down so therefore establishing priests and bishops and such is okay even if Rome says no.

Right or Wrong?

I'll give you the primary source too since I want to do justice to the argument:

http://www.catholicapologetics.info/...nse/mdsspx.htm

WRONG!!!
The site doesn't even say who they are other than a Mario Derksen and who is he???

People as he do not do the SSPX any favors, especially right now!

Mike30 · #9 May 13, '12, 3:48 am

What in the world is the purpose of this thread

santoaugustine · #10 May 13, '12, 1:50 pm

Please give some examples of their attacks on the Pope--I frequent their website and I have not seen examples of the allegations you are levying against the SSPX. As a matter of fact, the first thing you see when you pull up their website is a Novena for the Pope and Bishop Fellay.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pfaffenhoffen

Well, you may say NO to the sins of the Pope, not the the dogma of the Pope. an heretic Pope? Never heard of it !!!! Could you give examples? Even if there are problems with the Pope, it is better to correct the Pope as did S. Theresa of Avila or get out and disobey?

I have serious doubts whether they do not want separation...The Pope has been infinitely patient to them.
I went to their site and all I saw were attacks to the Pope and His authority. that does not seem to me very Catholic...it seems heretical.
Obedience is a must. Christ obeyed till death in the cross.

**pnewton** · #11 May 13, '12, 4:46 pm

I will say "wrong" and side with Bl. John Paul, though I will not read the blog linked. I do not trust articles that use multiple font sizes, colors and styles. I have found a general correlation between the amount of font changes and the amount of fertilizer contained in websites.

The conditions of of the ordination do not rise to any level of emergent as I see it. The world was not about to end or the Church dissolve. The only reason I can see would be the age of the late Archbishop. God save me from every thinking I am so crucial that He can not work in my absence. Rather if the late Archbishop thought it crucial that he leave a legacy to continue his work, I do not see how that can possibly be seen as an emergncy unless one has a very high opinion of one's role.

santoaugustine · #12 May 13, '12, 6:08 pm

The Lord works in mysterious ways---a patient is cured of various ailments by God through a doctor--Of course, God could cure that person instantly if He chose too, but the ordinary means He chooses is through doctors and medicine---in this case, I feel like the late Archbishop is the means God chose to preserve the Traditional Latin Mass.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pnewton

I will say "wrong" and side with Bl. John Paul, though I will not read the blog linked. I do not trust articles that use multiple font sizes, colors and styles. I have found a general correlation between the amount of font changes and the amount of fertilizer contained in websites.

The conditions of of the ordination do not rise to any level of emergent as I see it. The world was not about to end or the Church dissolve. The only reason I can see would be the age of the late Archbishop. God save me from every thinking I am so crucial that He can not work in my absence. Rather if the late Archbishop thought it crucial that he leave a legacy to continue his work, I do not see how that can possibly be seen as an emergncy unless one has a very high opinion of one's role.

**pnewton** · #13 May 13, '12, 6:35 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by santoaugustine

I feel like the late Archbishop is the means God chose to preserve the Traditional Latin Mass.

One could also make an argument that God worked throught the Protestant Reformation to reform the Church, but this would not make Martin Luther a saint. God worked through Judas to bring about the sacrifice of Calvary, and whe know what Jesus said about that. I guess I consider the Tridentine Mass of value to the Church. While I may be wrong, and this is totally speculative, I just don't see God allowing it to pass, even if AB Lefebvre chose to die without his disobedient act.

fakename · #14 May 13, '12, 7:39 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by pnewton

I will say "wrong" and side with Bl. John Paul, though I will not read the blog linked. I do not trust articles that use multiple font sizes, colors and styles. I have found a general correlation between the amount of font changes and the amount of fertilizer contained in websites.

The conditions of of the ordination do not rise to any level of emergent as I see it. The world was not about to end or the Church dissolve. The only reason I can see would be the age of the late Archbishop. God save me from every thinking I am so crucial that He can not work in my absence. Rather if the late Archbishop thought it crucial that he leave a legacy to continue his work, I do not see how that can possibly be seen as an emergncy unless one has a very high opinion of one's role.

But you do not object to their principles? That is, if a pope was in fact a heretic or immediately dangerous or trying to destroy the Church, then you would agree that one would not follow what that pope would command?

I ask honestly because I have never heard of these rules before. If the Church faces an emergency situation, can a person take matters into their own hands even to the point of forgoing a papal command and etc?

**pnewton** · #15 May 13, '12, 7:53 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by fakename

But you do not object to their principles? That is, if a pope was in fact a heretic or immediately dangerous or trying to destroy the Church, then you would agree that one would not follow what that pope would command?

I ask honestly because I have never heard of these rules before. If the Church faces an emergency situation, can a person take matters into their own hands even to the point of forgoing a papal command and etc?

We might equally ask, "What if the Pope were an alien, or the Antichrist?" Extreme situations make bad analogies, but acceptable thought experiements.

Okay, let us say that the Pope ordered every Catholic to eat their own children. That would be a case of sin. No, we do not have to obey an order to commit sin. However, heresy is not so easy. First, this charge requires obstinance. Obstinance happens over time, which contravenes the concept of emergence. I would say one is required to obey and let God handle the man. "Trying to destroy the Church" is too vague to be of concrete value. This always means, "trying to destroy my image of the Church." If one truly believes this to be happening, it is he who is in danger of heresy, for this would make Jesus a liar.