Author Topic: End to the State of Necessity (Read 2151 times)

Centroamerica · « **Reply #15 on:** **Yesterday** at 10:49:58 AM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on Yesterday at 10:07:31 AM

Wrong. Per canon law, a necessity can be related to a variety of circuмstances and there is a LOT of leeway. Necessity is not based on some kind of "universal" catastrophe. Your argument fails.

I hate the modern sspx, but the fact remains, that for Traditional catholics in the latin church, the crisis remains. Ergo, the necessity remains.

I've never heard ANYONE make the argument that the ENTIRE church was corrupted. Only that the latin church was corrupted, by V2.

No, the distinction is related to the salvation of souls. If I, as an american, can ONLY get valid sacraments, in america, by going to a non-V2, Traditional, chapel, then i'll do it. That's the necessity. It doesn't help me that some Byzantine church 5,000 miles away, across multiple continents, still has the faith.

Canon law is clear that a necessity can be localized, or generally local, or even for an entire country. There are multiple canons which address this.

You’re still asserting something that is factually false, and that matters for the canon-law argument.

If I, as an American, can only get valid traditional sacraments in America by going to a pre-V2 church
“If I, as an American, can ONLY get valid sacraments in America by going to a non-V2 traditional chapel…”

That premise is simply untrue.

The Latin Rite is not “the Church in America.” The Catholic Church in America includes Byzantine, Ukrainian, Melkite, Maronite, Ruthenian, Chaldean, Syro-Malabar, Syro-Malankara, Armenian, and Coptic Catholic parishes, many of which:

preserved orthodox theology
preserved apostolic worship
never reconstructed their liturgy
never internalized Vatican II’s contested errors into prayer

These parishes exist in the United States, not “5,000 miles away.”

So the claim “I can only receive valid sacraments at SSPX-type chapels” is not a statement of necessity — it’s a statement of self-imposed restriction.

Canon law does not recognize chosen exclusion as necessity.

Once you admit that valid sacraments, orthodox worship, and apostolic life exist within the Church and within the same country, the necessity argument changes category. It can no longer justify:

permanent extraordinary jurisdiction
parallel hierarchies
unauthorized episcopal acts
an open-ended emergency ecclesiology

At most, it justifies temporary refuge based on conscience — not the normalization of exception.

And this brings us back to the core issue:
The crisis in the Latin Rite was real.
But the Church in America never disappeared.

Necessity explains why people fled burning buildings.
It does not justify pretending the entire city no longer exists.

That’s the distinction your argument refuses to face.

TomGubbinsKimmage · « **Reply #16 on:** **Yesterday** at 11:11:46 AM »

Quote from: Centroamerica on Yesterday at 10:46:34 AM

You’re conflating juridical alignment with doctrinal reception, and those are not the same thing — especially in the East.

“They aligned themselves with Vatican II” is a statement about canonical communion, not about what became believed. In Eastern Christianity, belief is not primarily transmitted by conciliar texts or episcopal press releases. It is transmitted by worship. That’s not a modern theory; it’s patristic Christianity.

If the Eastern Catholic Churches had truly received Vatican II’s contested errors as faith, you would see them expressed where Eastern theology actually lives:

in the Divine Liturgy
in the Creed as prayed
in sacramental language
in ascetical and catechetical formation

You don’t.

There is no liturgical profession of religious liberty as a right to error.
There is no prayer that relativizes Christ’s unique mediation.
There is no worship that treats false religions as salvific paths.

So the claim that “they all aligned themselves with Vatican II, therefore necessity exists” skips the essential question: aligned how?

A state of necessity does not arise because bishops signed docuмents. It arises only if the Faith as believed and lived disappears from the Church’s ordinary life. That never happened in the East — which is precisely why the Faith never vanished as such.

As for the “schismatic Kool-Aid” remark: pointing out that the Church preserved orthodox worship and belief within her visible structure is not schism. It’s the opposite. Schism begins when emergency measures are treated as normal and permanent, even after it’s clear the Church herself never ceased to exist.

You can maintain a critique of Vatican II without claiming that the Church’s life collapsed everywhere. Once you drop that collapse premise, an indefinite state of necessity stops being defensible.

That’s the point being made — nothing more.

There's nothing more annnoying them western latin rite people who have fallen in love with the east and think they can just invent their own moral theology.

I'm not conflating anything. You're not an intelligent person, posting on the internet, with zero humility. What a surprise.

What I said has nothing to do with east or west. Spirituality or charisms. Nothing.

It is a moral question of submission to conciliar authorities. Archbishop Lefevre was very clear about this after the consecrations. Which is why many easterns followed him.

You can waffle away all you want about the "spwituality" of the East. But it won't change moral law. It is above all Canon law and spirituality.

Centroamerica · « **Reply #17 on:** **Yesterday** at 11:14:20 AM »

Quote from: SkidRowCatholic on Yesterday at 09:55:23 AM

Do you believe that Vatican II is heretical? There is surely a large subset of R&R that don't think it is... just ambiguous, misleading, wordy, etc.

If you don't think Vatican II is actual heresy - then maybe your OP has some traction...

But,

If you do believe it is heretical (actually heretical like THIS), then simply by accepting it (even with ZERO practical implementation/change) the Eastern Catholics would have wedded themselves to heresy.

"He who does not call others back from error when he can, demonstrates that he himself is in error. "

It’s very difficult for Latin Catholics to understand this, and it has been repeated here many times though ignored:

The manner of receiving Faith in the East is through Liturgical prayer. Lex orandi, lex credendi est. Vatican 2 has not been received by the Church because of this ancient rule of Faith.

If the East had “received” Vatican 2, it would be universal. The Catholics of the Eastern rite do not pray religious liberty into their creeds any more than they pray the Filioque in their creeds. They look at Vatican 2 exactly in the same way as they look at the Filioque. “Has it been received by the Church?” “Is the universal Church praying that doctrine?”

This is the hidden jewel of the crisis that most Latins have not yet discovered because it takes years to learn the East through it’s Liturgies and prayer life, which is it’s catechetical life.

Centroamerica · « **Reply #18 on:** **Yesterday** at 11:22:08 AM »

Quote from: TomGubbinsKimmage on Yesterday at 09:54:24 AM

I'm not talking about the society of St. Josephat.

you need to keep up.

I'm talking about resistance Ukrainian Catholics separate to the Society of St. Josephat.

That distinction doesn’t help you.

Whether it’s the Society of St. Josaphat or so-called “independent resistance” Ukrainian groups, the problem is the same: Latin crisis theology being smuggled into the Byzantine Rite under a different badge.

If you think the “resistance” groups are somehow immune to this, then name the concrete differences:

What rubrics do they follow?
What ascetical and catechetical tradition forms them?
What prevents the same Latinizations from appearing once the SSPX logic is imported?

Because in practice, these groups replicate the same emergency ecclesiology, the same Western framing of doctrine, and the same impulse to ‘correct’ the East by Latin standards—just without admitting it.

If your argument is simply “they’re not St. Josaphat, therefore it’s different,” that’s not theology; that’s branding.

The Byzantine Rite doesn’t care which resistance label you wear.
It cares whether you let it remain Byzantine.

SkidRowCatholic · « **Reply #19 on:** **Yesterday** at 11:40:39 AM »

Quote from: Centroamerica on Yesterday at 11:14:20 AM

The manner of receiving Faith in the East is through Liturgical prayer. Lex orandi, lex credendi est. Vatican 2 has not been received by the Church because of this ancient rule of Faith.

One can have an Orthodox liturgy that is brimming with truly Catholic theology and all the bells, whistles, smells, capes, copes, lace, candles, etc., in the grandest spectacle this side of heaven...

But,

If at any time...

Such a one accepted heresy - EVEN if it was just in passing - i.e., signing their name to heretical docuмents is a public statement - without a public repudiation of the error, then they show themselves to be a slave to the same error.

Offering just ONE grain of incense to false gods constitutes apostasy. I think we can say that Vatican II offers much more than a single grain...

By their silence, the Easterners show they are embroiled in the same errors, thus the quotation,

*"He who does not call others back from error when he can, demonstrates that he himself is in error. " (*attributed to Pope Leo I )

Quote from: Centroamerica on Yesterday at 10:46:34 AM

You can maintain a critique of Vatican II without claiming that the Church’s life collapsed everywhere. Once you drop that collapse premise, an indefinite state of necessity stops being defensible.

That’s the point being made — nothing more.

So, you can see why I asked my question about Vatican II being heretical or not...

The level of the critique is essential to your argument.

If the level of the critique is anything along the lines of the Pope leading the whole council into heresy - then your whole point is defunct.

Because the Church’s life is rooted in the spiritual, it is possible to maintain an outward semblance of normalcy in the temporal order even while, spiritually, the rite itself has been emptied of its meaning.

Your position seems to share this in common with the Latin rite Indulters, IMO.

The ICKSP is a perfect example of this, all the lace, smells, bells, "signs of life", vocations, etc. But there... lurking in the corner of every ICKSP parish sanctuary is the demon of indifference and compromise with error.
The same demons all the Eastern Catholics also implicitly (or in some cases perhaps explicitly) accept by acknowledging the legitimacy of Vatican II and not speaking out against its errors/heresies.

Centroamerica · « **Reply #20 on:** **Yesterday** at 11:57:50 AM »

Quote from: SkidRowCatholic on Yesterday at 11:40:39 AM

One can have an Orthodox liturgy that is brimming with truly Catholic theology and all the bells, whistles, smells, capes, copes, lace, candles, etc., in the grandest spectacle this side of heaven...

But,

If at any time...

Such a one accepted heresy - EVEN if it was just in passing - i.e., signing their name to heretical docuмents is a public statement - without a public repudiation of the error, then they show themselves to be a slave to the same error.

Offering just ONE grain of incense to false gods constitutes apostasy. I think we can say that Vatican II offers much more than a single grain...

By their silence, the Easterners show they are embroiled in the same errors, thus the quotation,

*"He who does not call others back from error when he can, demonstrates that he himself is in error. " (*attributed to Pope Leo I )

So, you can see why I asked my question about Vatican II being heretical or not...

The level of the critique is essential to your argument.

If the level of the critique is anything along the lines of the Pope leading the whole council into heresy - then your whole point is defunct.

Because the Church’s life is rooted in the spiritual, it is possible to maintain an outward semblance of normalcy in the temporal order even while, spiritually, the rite itself has been emptied of its meaning.

Your position seems to share this in common with the Latin rite Indulters, IMO.

The ICKSP is a perfect example of this, all the lace, smells, bells, "signs of life", vocations, etc. But there... lurking in the corner of every ICKSP parish sanctuary is the demon of indifference and compromise with error.
The same demons all the Eastern Catholics also implicitly (or in some cases perhaps explicitly) accept by acknowledging the legitimacy of Vatican II and not speaking out against its errors/heresies.

Then your principle still destroys your own position.

If signing Vatican II docuмents = formal acceptance of heresy, then that rule applies universally. You don’t get to selectively enforce it.

Because Archbishop Lefebvre signed the Vatican II docuмents. That is a historical fact. He later critiqued them, qualified them, and eventually judged certain texts harmful — but he did sign them.

So either:

Signing does not, by itself, constitute formal heresy
or
Lefebvre himself committed the same “incense to idols” act you’re accusing Eastern Catholics of.

You can’t escape that dilemma.

Now, here’s where your argument really collapses:

In the East, doctrine is not received by signatures or silence — it is received by worship. The Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church did not:

alter its Creed
insert Vatican II theology into the Divine Liturgy
change sacramental theology
reframe salvation, ecclesiology, or Christology in prayer

So even on your own terms, there is no formal act of heresy unless those errors are believed and professed — which, in the East, happens liturgically.

Calling Eastern Catholics heretics because they signed docuмents — while excusing Lefebvre for doing the same — isn’t theology. It’s selective moral reasoning.

If your rule condemns everyone except the people you already agree with, it isn’t a rule.
It’s a slogan.

SkidRowCatholic · « **Reply #21 on:** **Yesterday** at 12:20:45 PM »

Quote from: Centroamerica on Yesterday at 11:57:50 AM

Then your principle still destroys your own position.

If signing Vatican II docuмents = formal acceptance of heresy, then that rule applies universally. You don’t get to selectively enforce it.

Because Archbishop Lefebvre signed the Vatican II docuмents. That is a historical fact. He later critiqued them, qualified them, and eventually judged certain texts harmful — but he did sign them.

Yes he signed them.

Yes they were heretical.

My position is (and has been for a long time) that +Archbishop Lefebvre definitely had material heresies, and while I consider his signing of the docuмents to be a formal act of heresy in itself, I also see in his subsequent actions a desire to atone for that moment of weakness by speaking out and denouncing said error and heresy - something the Easterners never did...

Now, what this means for +Lefebvre's subsequent spiritual offspring and other acts as a bishop, is another matter...

I am not detecting any of the "selective moral reasoning" in the above.

I am not really clear then on how "my principle still destroys my own position."? Perhaps you thought I held him in higher esteem or did not know he signed the docuмents...

My position in regards to your OP claim is this, He who does not call others back from error when he can, demonstrates that he himself is in error."

The Easterners are all guilty of this - remaining silent - amidst the heresy and error.

They don't get to have their pretty liturgy and pretend the abomination of desolation isn't standing in the holy place. I mean, they can pretend if they choose to, but it changes nothing of the fact that they are aligned with the Vatican II Church agenda and explicitly accept all that is contained in the docuмents of the council.

Remember that the charge +Vigano was hit with was "schism for not accepting Vatican II". So if the Easterners did NOT accept Vatican II we would certainly have heard about many other excommunications such as +Vigano's from the Eastern clergy as well.

This we do not see. We do not see it simply because it is a fact that they all accepted Vatican II, they still accept it, and they have always accepted it. This may not be expressed in their liturgy (just like the ICKSP), but it is acknowledged as a fact by all sane people.

If the Eastern Catholic churches rejected Vatican II - were was all the commotion this dissent caused? They accepted it. They get to partake of it's sins all the same.

TomGubbinsKimmage · « **Reply #22 on:** **Yesterday** at 12:31:54 PM »

The faith is superior to all law and liturgy.
Our position of emergency jurisdiction is based on that.

Lefebvre did not sign DH.

Centroamerica · « **Reply #23 on:** **Yesterday** at 12:44:39 PM »

Quote from: SkidRowCatholic on Yesterday at 12:20:45 PM

Yes he signed them.

Yes they were heretical.

My position is (and has been for a long time) that +Archbishop Lefebvre definitely had material heresies, and while I consider his signing of the docuмents to be a formal act of heresy in itself, I also see in his subsequent actions a desire to atone for that moment of weakness by speaking out and denouncing said error and heresy - something the Easterners never did...

Now, what this means for +Lefebvre's subsequent spiritual offspring and other acts as a bishop, is another matter...

I am not detecting any of the "selective moral reasoning" in the above.

I am not really clear then on how "my principle still destroys my own position."? Perhaps you thought I held him in higher esteem or did not know he signed the docuмents...

My position in regards to your OP claim is this, He who does not call others back from error when he can, demonstrates that he himself is in error."

The Easterners are all guilty of this - remaining silent - amidst the heresy and error.

They don't get to have their pretty liturgy and pretend the abomination of desolation isn't standing in the holy place. I mean, they can pretend if they choose to, but it changes nothing of the fact that they are aligned with the Vatican II Church agenda and explicitly accept all that is contained in the docuмents of the council.

Remember that the charge +Vigano was hit with was "schism for not accepting Vatican II". So if the Easterners did NOT accept Vatican II we would certainly have heard about many other excommunications such as +Vigano's from the Eastern clergy as well.

This we do not see. We do not see it simply because it is a fact that they all accepted Vatican II, they still accept it, and they have always accepted it. This may not be expressed in their liturgy (just like the ICKSP), but it is acknowledged as a fact by all sane people.

If the Eastern Catholic churches rejected Vatican II - were was all the commotion this dissent caused? They accepted it. They get to partake of it's sins all the same.

Tom, that’s not a safe claim to make as a “fact.”

Multiple independent sources report that Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre did sign Dignitatis humanae after voting against it (non placet) in the final vote — i.e., opposed it, then still added his signature to the promulgated text.

Yes, SSPX-adjacent apologias sometimes assert the opposite — e.g., claiming he “refused to sign.”
But that’s precisely why you don’t get to just declare it as settled: you need to produce the primary evidence for “he did not sign,” not repeat an internal talking point.

And even if you try to retreat to “he voted against it,” that doesn’t rescue your argument. Voting non placet is one question; signing the promulgated docuмent is another — and the dispute here is about the signature.

So pick one, clearly:

If your standard is “signature = formal heresy,” then you have to deal with the reports that Lefebvre did sign DH.
If you loosen the standard to allow for later repudiation/qualification, then your “Easterners are heretics because they didn’t denounce loudly enough” turns into a subjective purity test, not a theological principle.

Either way, the swagger doesn’t substitute for docuмentation.

Simple request: show the promulgation pages / signature registers / Acta evidence that he didn’t sign. Until then, your claim is disputed at best — and very likely wrong.

Centroamerica · « **Reply #24 on:** **Yesterday** at 12:49:00 PM »

Quote from: TomGubbinsKimmage on Yesterday at 12:31:54 PM

The faith is superior to all law and liturgy.
Our position of emergency jurisdiction is based on that.

Lefebvre did sign DH.

Faith being superior to law and liturgy, then inventing perpetual emergency law to save one rite is already proof the faith wasn’t lost elsewhere.

Michaelknoxville · « **Reply #25 on:** **Yesterday** at 01:01:31 PM »

The eastern rite was given special protection. The cool kids got the right to skip detention while the rest of us act like an experimental rat stuck in it.

I think I’d stay quiet too honestly and hope the rest of you caught on as to how to become a cool kid. Hahaha I got a Byzantine mission 4 minutes from my house. I think I’m going to go hang with the cool kids! Maybe it is a last refuge. If we flood it in big numbers will it remain that way?

Centroamerica · « **Reply #26 on:** **Yesterday** at 01:12:00 PM »

Quote from: SkidRowCatholic on Yesterday at 12:20:45 PM

My position is (and has been for a long time) that +Archbishop Lefebvre definitely had material heresies, and while I consider his signing of the docuмents to be a formal act of heresy in itself, I also see in his subsequent actions a desire to atone for that moment of weakness by speaking out and denouncing said error and heresy - something the Easterners never did...

The Easterners are all guilty of this - remaining silent - amidst the heresy and error.

They don't get to have their pretty liturgy and pretend the abomination of desolation isn't standing in the holy place. I mean, they can pretend if they choose to, but it changes nothing of the fact that they are aligned with the Vatican II Church agenda and explicitly accept all that is contained ….

If the Eastern Catholic churches rejected Vatican II - were was all the commotion this dissent caused? They accepted it. They get to partake of it's sins all the same.

Where the Latin-trad arrogance lies (and why it’s structural)

The arrogance is not mainly in calling others heretics.
It’s deeper than that.

The arrogance is the assumption that Latin categories are universal Catholic categories.

Specifically, the SSPX argument assumes:

That doctrine is primarily transmitted by docuмents
That ecclesial assent is primarily juridical and textual
That silence = consent
That signing = profession of faith
That error lives first in propositions, not worship
That Rome’s paper is where “the Church speaks”

Those assumptions are not Catholic simpliciter.
They are Latin post-medieval assumptions.

And they do not apply to the East.

How the Eastern Churches actually understand “receiving the faith”

Here is the crucial point you keep avoiding—and it’s important:

In Eastern Christianity,
the Church receives doctrine liturgically, not textually

This is not an excuse or a loophole.
It is how the Church functioned for the first millennium.

In the East:

Councils are received over time
Reception is measured by:
- changes to the liturgy
- changes to the Creed
- changes to sacramental language
- changes to ascetical and catechetical formation
A council that is not prayed is not believed
A text that does not alter worship does not alter faith

This is why lex orandi, lex credendi is not a slogan in the East—it is an operating principle.

Why Vatican II “means nothing” in the way SSPX critics think

When Eastern Catholics say Vatican II “did not change anything for us,” they are not saying:

“We agree with every line of Vatican 2”

They are saying:
“Nothing contrary to the apostolic faith entered our worship, so nothing entered our faith”.

That is the key distinction.

From an Eastern perspective:

Vatican II did not alter the Divine Liturgy
It did not alter the Creed
It did not alter sacramental theology
It did not alter the theology of salvation, Christ, or the Church as prayed

Therefore, it was not received as faith.

And in Eastern ecclesiology, what is not received as faith is not binding as belief—regardless of signatures.

Why “they must denounce Vatican II” is a category error

This is where the SSPX mindset becomes imperial.

To demand that Eastern Catholics “denounce Vatican II” assumes:

That Vatican II entered their faith
That they are obligated to respond to a Latin crisis
That silence equals consent
That denunciation is the normal mode of doctrinal clarity

But in the East:

Error is rejected by non-reception, not polemic
Orthodoxy is preserved by continuity of worship, not public statements
The Church does not “clean itself” by press releases

From their perspective, demanding denunciation is like demanding a physician treat a disease the patient never had.

Why the Lefebvre comparison actually exposes the arrogance

The SSPX argument implicitly says:

“Archbishop Lefebvre understood the crisis and spoke out; therefore, he was faithful. The Easterners did not speak out; therefore, they are compromised.”
”
But this assumes the East was facing the same crisis.

They weren’t.

The crisis was:

Latin
self-inflicted
rooted in liturgical reconstruction
driven by Western theological trends

The East didn’t need to “atone” because it didn’t collapse.

So the arrogance is this:

Because we lost our liturgy and doctrine, you must protest our council—or else you’re guilty too.”

That is not Catholic universality.
That is projecting Latin failure onto the whole Church.

Centroamerica · « **Reply #27 on:** **Yesterday** at 01:20:12 PM »

I’ve visited the Knoxville mission.

Geremia · « **Reply #28 on:** **Yesterday** at 01:37:21 PM »

Quote from: Centroamerica on Yesterday at 07:43:25 AM

The Eastern Catholic Churches—Ukrainian, Melkite, Maronite, Ruthenian, among others—never abandoned:

Apostolic liturgy
Patristic theology
Sacrificial worship
Objective sacramental discipline
A non-anthropocentric orientation to God

Liturgical Modernism (vernacularization, etc.) infected the Eastern rites as well, though there are some trad Easterners.

SkidRowCatholic · « **Reply #29 on:** **Yesterday** at 01:42:47 PM »

Quote from: Centroamerica on Yesterday at 01:12:00 PM

But in the East:

Error is rejected by non-reception, not polemic
Orthodoxy is preserved by continuity of worship, not public statements

It is a shame that the clergy of Constantinople didn't have you around to tell them no "public statements" were necessary concerning Nestorius because he had "preserved orthodoxy by continuity of worship."

If the Easterners had "non-received" the Council, then they would have said something.

The principle (you are arguing) that it is perfectly orthodox to remain silent amidst error when one has an obligation to speak is absurd.

We hear nothing from the Easterners about the, "heresies of Vatican II" simply because they have made their peace with those same heresies, and their 60 years of cricktish silence is damning proof that will echo for all eternity.

Author Topic: End to the State of Necessity (Read 2151 times)

Centroamerica

Re: End to the State of Necessity

TomGubbinsKimmage

Re: End to the State of Necessity

Centroamerica

Re: End to the State of Necessity

Centroamerica

Re: End to the State of Necessity

SkidRowCatholic

Re: End to the State of Necessity

Centroamerica

Re: End to the State of Necessity

SkidRowCatholic

Re: End to the State of Necessity

TomGubbinsKimmage

Re: End to the State of Necessity

Centroamerica

Re: End to the State of Necessity

Centroamerica

Re: End to the State of Necessity

Michaelknoxville

Re: End to the State of Necessity

Centroamerica

Re: End to the State of Necessity

Centroamerica

Re: End to the State of Necessity

Geremia

Re: End to the State of Necessity

SkidRowCatholic

Re: End to the State of Necessity