eternal Rome vs. modernist Rome, official Church vs. Catholic Church -- those are theological innovations that can be found nowhere in any theological manual and are nothing more than DESCRIPTIONS (again, based in no theology) in order to describe the SSPX conflct / contradiction.
You can't concede the novelty of this crisis while at the same time refusing to admit that theological solutions, though tentative, can be in a sense "novel." Of course no manual covered this topic explicitly, but on the other hand, using sound principles of philosophy and theology all with an understanding of the "mystery" involved, one can adequately describe the situation.
"faith is greater than obedience" -- that expression does not apply to theological questions around the Church's disciplinary infallibility. There simply cannot be a conflict between obeying the Church's authoritative magisterium, accepting universally-imposed discipline (and other legislation) and "faith". We form our faith FROM the magisterium.
The phrase applies to situations where men in authority are harming the faith in some way. And I note that you misapply the notion of "disciplinary infallibility." It's best to be careful with that phrase lest you launch into absolute premises and become an SV. But to be brief, that kind of "infallibility" is a general and negative one that carries with it the same conditions of the infallible universal and ordinary magisterium. These notions necessarily include extension in time along with repetition. The non-authoritative novelties coming from Rome fail on both counts.
When asked how their Confessions can be valid, SSPX often cites "common error". "Common Error" however refers to material error on the part of the one going to confession with regard to whether the confessor has jurisdiction. So, for instance, if a priest from out of town just sits in a confessional in a Catholic Church, people start lining up and going to confession, that's common error. That principles simply does not refer to theological error / modernism in the Church.
This in itself is an unfounded, novel opinion, based upon arbitrary "boundaries" set down by yourself. "Common error" holds good in this situation and epikia suffices to supply the need. If you concede that God desires people to adhere to the traditional faith, then you must necessarily concede the giving away of the law, for we know that God would not constrain men to consort with the novus ordo, or allow lower laws to conflict with higher laws. This is a general principle which you must concede.
Matthew, I've READ the theology manuals, most of them in Latin, especially the De Ecclesia sections. They all speak of the disciplinary infallibility of the Church, that the Catholic Church CANNOT promulgate a rite of Mass to the entire Church that's harmful, cannot be attended in good conscience, and can be considered a "bastard rite". That would violate the Church's "holiness" and indefectibility.
You have to be careful with your terms, understanding abstract principles and then applying them to the concrete. You use words like "disciplinary infallibility" and imply it holds good in this instance which it does not. You imply that this opinion of the theologians is de fide. You use words like "promulgate" without verifying whether that holds in this instance, this holds with the words "entire Church." You haven't considered whether or not it's possible that men in authority can willfully deviate from the wisdom of the Church and the assistance of the Holy Ghost and as such neither have you considered what possible outcomes may occur. In short, you are craming this problem into your own small mind along with a long series of assumptions and then pretending that others are "doing bad theology."
Now, IF you say that the New Mass is harmful (as characterized above), then you MUST say that it has not issued from the Church's authority. As I said, you can try to argue that the Mass was not authoritatively imposed. But unfortunately the SSPX rarely makes these distinctions.
On the contrary, they make those distinctions all the time set forth in their formal writings.
They have set up a novel "two Churches co-existing" ecclesiology to explain this contradiction. And they have set up a false sensus Catholius in which it's OK to believe that the entire teaching Church can go off the deep end, that the pope can be ignored and just payed lip service to, and given some kind of honorable mention in the liturgy. That's contary to the Church's perennial magsterium.
This is bologna. It seems you are willing to concede something, only to rob others the use of it, as if to say, "You recognize the crisis, but I don't like the way you are acting, let me mock you with superficial quips." Why is it that you are holding this crisis against the SSPX? Is it their fault that this has happened? Is it their fault that you're doing violence to descriptions which are not meant to be taken in an absolute sense? What you are being is
reckless, this stems from
impatience.
Topic: Admonishment of CM (Read 35017 times)