Author Topic: A reply to Sean as challenged on #1 of the CCCC. (Read 1645 times)

Nishant Xavier · « **on:** November 07, 2019, 05:22:35 PM »

Sean Johnson asked me a while ago to try to write a rebuttal or refutation of his “As we are” book. While I accepted the challenge, before we go into it, I want to make a few preliminary observations.

First, the strength: congratulations to the author, because the book is a commendable effort to outline in a detailed way the principal objections of the Resistance to the Society’s leadership.

Second, the weakness: hardly anywhere in the CCCC will you see a clear statement of what the author’s own positions are on the crisis, much less any theological proof of them whatsoever.

Brief Rejoinder to #1: Change (New Mass Participation Sinful or Not?)

First, Sean again does not say what he believes or does not believe regarding this. Second, Sean implies a blatant non sequitur in claiming “Clearly the SSPX no longer wishes to suggest attending the Novus Ordo is sinful”. Let Sean himself answer: Does he believe attending the NO is sinful?

Here's why it is a non sequitur: At most, what follows is that the SSPX does not necessarily believe each person in each NO is subjectively guilty of mortal sin. That is all that can be reasonably and logically inferred from the two questions presented in the new edition, "Have you received Holy Communion in the hand knowing that it leads to Sacrilege and loss of faith in the Real Presence?Have you attended and actively participated in non-Catholic religious services?" Nothing more.

Third, here is the explanation of Fr. Scott, from the Society website: “Likewise with the New Mass. It can be an objectively mortal sin of sacrilege if Holy Communion is distributed in the hand or by lay ministers, if there is no respect, if there is talking or dancing in church, or if it includes some kind of ecuмenical celebration, etc. It can also be an objectively venial sin of sacrilege if it is celebrated with unusual respect and devotion, so that it appears becoming and reverential to Almighty God. This in virtue of the omissions in the rites and ceremonies, which constitute a true disrespect to Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament and to the Blessed Trinity, and of the failure to express the true nature of what the Mass really is. In each case, the subjective culpability is an altogether other question that God only can judge.”

Refutation #1 from Archbishop Lefebvre, quoted by Sean himself many times against whom he calls “Pfeifferites”:

Archbishop Lefebvre: Those who feel themselves obliged in conscience to assist at the New Mass on Sunday can fulfil their Sunday obligation. But one cannot accuse a person of a grave fault because he prefers not to assist at Mass on Sunday rather than assist at the New Mass. (Letter of May 9 1980) [II]

Major Premise: Archbishop Lefebvre could not have said those who feel obliged can fulfil one’s Sunday obligation at an NOM if it was always a mortal sin.
Minor Premise: Archbishop Lefebvre did say exactly that.
Conclusion: Ergo, it is not always a mortal sin.

Refutation #2 from Bishop Williamson, quoted in the resistance Recusant publication:

Bishop Williamson:“I’m sure you ask yourselves ‘What kind of word are my children going to have to grow up in? How are they going to keep the Faith?’ Very good questions. By prayer and Charity and by frequenting the sacraments, so long as they are still available, so long as it’s at all still possible to reach the sacraments. And some Novus - I’ve got into quite a lot of controversy for saying this, but it’s true - there is no question that some Novus Ordo Masses are valid. And if they’re valid, then it’s defined by the Council of Trent that grace passes, “ex opere operato” is the strict phrase. And you and I have no right before God to look down our noses and to write off these Catholics as though they’re just trash.”[III]

Major Premise: Bishop Williamson clearly teaches sanctifying grace passes ex opera operato to some Catholics at some NOMs
Minor Premise: But it is de fide that sanctifying grace cannot pass ex opere operato to those dead in mortal sin. (instead, that would constitute an additional mortal sin)
Conclusion:  Therefore, it is heretical for Sean to claim (if he believes what Bp. W says, as he says he does) that everyone at every NOM is sinning mortally (if he wants to claim that –as his “change” implies).

Refutation #3 from the Council of Trent, and from Sean’s own usage of the canon:

Sean’s opinion: “A. As acknowledged by Archbishop Lefebvre. Calling a sacrament a bastard (which pertains to its legitimacy, not its validity) doesn’t mean it doesn’t confer grace to well disposed recipients. If you deny Trent, you are a heretic.”[IV]

The same conclusion can easily be seen to follow. If grace passes to well disposed recipients, it is not ipso facto always and in every situation a mortal sin, by Sean’s own admission. Then, Fr. Scott is right and the supposed reason for rebellion does not stand.

A Fourth Refutation from theological reason alone without any authority presents itself:

Major: What is in itself a cause of grace being conferred cannot at the same time also be a mortal sin. Minor: But, as admitted by Sean, a valid sacrament administered to Catholics, like Holy Communion at an NOM, is a cause of grace being conferred. Conclusion: Therefore, it is not at the same time always a mortal sin.

I note in passing that every statement of every authority is explained if going to an NOM is a venial sin in some cases, as Rev. Fr. Peter Scott, with sublime theological reasons, explains in precise detail.

I challenge Sean to do two things instead, (1) first, catalog a list of statements which can be unambiguously and clearly marked, “proximate to heresy”, “erroneous in faith” etc. I doubt you will find even one. (2) Second, try to prove in some way these positions (if you could prove them to be at least erroneous in faith) have been imposed upon the lay faithful in any way.  This certainly has not been done. At most what has been shown is that the SSPX leaders made some prudential mistakes.

If Sean wishes to respond to this rejoinder here, he can do so. Matthew can decide if he wants this to go ahead. I may respond further if necessary. At the least, this has started a conversation which imho is important and necessary. But it would ideally be carried on in a different way, and without leading to unnecessary breaks among our Priests. Already, the Resistance has seen further breaks among itself, that can’t be denied. From the fact that Sean himself and many others see no problem in continuing to attend SSPX chapels (and it is good that they do so, but it would be more consistent if they limited themselves to respectfully asking some questions to SSPX authorities) it clearly is not the case that the SSPX is in any way a danger to the Faith of most people. Rather, it continues to build up and edify most of the million odd Catholics who continue to assist at its Holy Masses.

It’s probably best, if Sean wants to go ahead with his challenge here, that it be just him and me on this thread.

Sources, References and Links for Further Reading:

[I ]http://archives.sspx.org/Catholic_FAQs/catholic_faqs__traditional.htm
[II] https://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Apologia/Vol_two/Chapter_40.htm
[III] https://www.therecusant.com/bishop-williamsons-teaching
[IV] https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/'no-honest-catholic-should-attend-an-sspx-mass'/15/

Ladislaus · « **Reply #1 on:** November 07, 2019, 07:26:51 PM »

Quote from: XavierSem on November 07, 2019, 05:22:35 PM

Refutation #2 from Bishop Williamson, quoted in the resistance Recusant publication:

Bishop Williamson:“I’m sure you ask yourselves ‘What kind of word are my children going to have to grow up in? How are they going to keep the Faith?’ Very good questions. By prayer and Charity and by frequenting the sacraments, so long as they are still available, so long as it’s at all still possible to reach the sacraments. And some Novus - I’ve got into quite a lot of controversy for saying this, but it’s true - there is no question that some Novus Ordo Masses are valid. And if they’re valid, then it’s defined by the Council of Trent that grace passes, “ex opere operato” is the strict phrase. And you and I have no right before God to look down our noses and to write off these Catholics as though they’re just trash.”[III]

Major Premise: Bishop Williamson clearly teaches sanctifying grace passes ex opera operato to some Catholics at some NOMs
Minor Premise: But it is de fide that sanctifying grace cannot pass ex opere operato to those dead in mortal sin. (instead, that would constitute an additional mortal sin)
Conclusion: Therefore, it is heretical for Sean to claim (if he believes what Bp. W says, as he says he does) that everyone at every NOM is sinning mortally (if he wants to claim that –as his “change” implies).

You're missing a crucial distinction. Something could be objectively sinful without necessarily being imputed as sin to the one doing it. Thus, the phrase of +Lefebvre in #1 above: "who feel themselves obliged in conscience".

If someone does not consider it a sin, or, rather, even considers it good and obligatory, they would not be in a state of mortal sin and would in fact receive grace ex opere operato from the (presumed) valid Sacrament.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #2 on:** November 07, 2019, 07:32:27 PM »

Quote from: XavierSem on November 07, 2019, 05:22:35 PM

Refutation #1 from Archbishop Lefebvre, quoted by Sean himself many times against whom he calls “Pfeifferites”:

Archbishop Lefebvre: Those who feel themselves obliged in conscience to assist at the New Mass on Sunday can fulfil their Sunday obligation. But one cannot accuse a person of a grave fault because he prefers not to assist at Mass on Sunday rather than assist at the New Mass. (Letter of May 9 1980) [II]

Major Premise: Archbishop Lefebvre could not have said those who feel obliged can fulfil one’s Sunday obligation at an NOM if it was always a mortal sin.
Minor Premise: Archbishop Lefebvre did say exactly that.
Conclusion: Ergo, it is not always a mortal sin.

Similar answer to #2. I started at #2 because the principle comes out more clearly. Notice +Lefebvre's choice of phrase. He's referring to those "who feel themselves obliged in conscience to assist at the New Mass."

He's saying that it is OBJECTIVELY not true that it's necessary to attend it to fulfill one's obligation; otherwise he couldn't possibly excuse someone from grave sin for NOT attending it. He's referring to those who "IN CONSCIENCE FEEL THEMSELVES OBLIGED". In other words, he's disagreeing with their conscience, saying that, despite how some of these people may feel, their conscience is mistaken and Catholics are not in fact objectively obliged to do so.

So, once again, for those to whom he refers, it would NOT be sinful based on the state of their conscience, but that does not speak to the objective sinfulness (or lack thereof) of the NOM.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #3 on:** November 07, 2019, 07:34:57 PM »

Exact same distinction applies to #3 and #4 above.

Sorry, but your failure to distinguish between objective/material sin and subjective/formal sin invalidates your entire post.

MiserereMei · « **Reply #4 on:** November 07, 2019, 09:31:38 PM »

Quote from: XavierSem on November 07, 2019, 05:22:35 PM

Sean Johnson asked me a while ago to try to write a rebuttal or refutation of his “As we are” book. While I accepted the challenge, before we go into it, I want to make a few preliminary observations.

First, the strength: congratulations to the author, because the book is a commendable effort to outline in a detailed way the principal objections of the Resistance to the Society’s leadership.

Second, the weakness: hardly anywhere in the CCCC will you see a clear statement of what the author’s own positions are on the crisis, much less any theological proof of them whatsoever.

Brief Rejoinder to #1: Change (New Mass Participation Sinful or Not?)

First, Sean again does not say what he believes or does not believe regarding this. Second, Sean implies a blatant non sequitur in claiming “Clearly the SSPX no longer wishes to suggest attending the Novus Ordo is sinful”. Let Sean himself answer: Does he believe attending the NO is sinful?

Here's why it is a non sequitur: At most, what follows is that the SSPX does not necessarily believe each person in each NO is subjectively guilty of mortal sin. That is all that can be reasonably and logically inferred from the two questions presented in the new edition, "Have you received Holy Communion in the hand knowing that it leads to Sacrilege and loss of faith in the Real Presence?Have you attended and actively participated in non-Catholic religious services?" Nothing more.

Third, here is the explanation of Fr. Scott, from the Society website: “Likewise with the New Mass. It can be an objectively mortal sin of sacrilege if Holy Communion is distributed in the hand or by lay ministers, if there is no respect, if there is talking or dancing in church, or if it includes some kind of ecuмenical celebration, etc. It can also be an objectively venial sin of sacrilege if it is celebrated with unusual respect and devotion, so that it appears becoming and reverential to Almighty God. This in virtue of the omissions in the rites and ceremonies, which constitute a true disrespect to Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament and to the Blessed Trinity, and of the failure to express the true nature of what the Mass really is. In each case, the subjective culpability is an altogether other question that God only can judge.”

Refutation #1 from Archbishop Lefebvre, quoted by Sean himself many times against whom he calls “Pfeifferites”:

Archbishop Lefebvre: Those who feel themselves obliged in conscience to assist at the New Mass on Sunday can fulfil their Sunday obligation. But one cannot accuse a person of a grave fault because he prefers not to assist at Mass on Sunday rather than assist at the New Mass. (Letter of May 9 1980) [II]

Major Premise: Archbishop Lefebvre could not have said those who feel obliged can fulfil one’s Sunday obligation at an NOM if it was always a mortal sin.
Minor Premise: Archbishop Lefebvre did say exactly that.
Conclusion: Ergo, it is not always a mortal sin.

Refutation #2 from Bishop Williamson, quoted in the resistance Recusant publication:

Bishop Williamson:“I’m sure you ask yourselves ‘What kind of word are my children going to have to grow up in? How are they going to keep the Faith?’ Very good questions. By prayer and Charity and by frequenting the sacraments, so long as they are still available, so long as it’s at all still possible to reach the sacraments. And some Novus - I’ve got into quite a lot of controversy for saying this, but it’s true - there is no question that some Novus Ordo Masses are valid. And if they’re valid, then it’s defined by the Council of Trent that grace passes, “ex opere operato” is the strict phrase. And you and I have no right before God to look down our noses and to write off these Catholics as though they’re just trash.”[III]

Major Premise: Bishop Williamson clearly teaches sanctifying grace passes ex opera operato to some Catholics at some NOMs
Minor Premise: But it is de fide that sanctifying grace cannot pass ex opere operato to those dead in mortal sin. (instead, that would constitute an additional mortal sin)
Conclusion: Therefore, it is heretical for Sean to claim (if he believes what Bp. W says, as he says he does) that everyone at every NOM is sinning mortally (if he wants to claim that –as his “change” implies).

Refutation #3 from the Council of Trent, and from Sean’s own usage of the canon:

Sean’s opinion: “A. As acknowledged by Archbishop Lefebvre. Calling a sacrament a bastard (which pertains to its legitimacy, not its validity) doesn’t mean it doesn’t confer grace to well disposed recipients. If you deny Trent, you are a heretic.”[IV]

The same conclusion can easily be seen to follow. If grace passes to well disposed recipients, it is not ipso facto always and in every situation a mortal sin, by Sean’s own admission. Then, Fr. Scott is right and the supposed reason for rebellion does not stand.

A Fourth Refutation from theological reason alone without any authority presents itself:

Major: What is in itself a cause of grace being conferred cannot at the same time also be a mortal sin. Minor: But, as admitted by Sean, a valid sacrament administered to Catholics, like Holy Communion at an NOM, is a cause of grace being conferred. Conclusion: Therefore, it is not at the same time always a mortal sin.

I note in passing that every statement of every authority is explained if going to an NOM is a venial sin in some cases, as Rev. Fr. Peter Scott, with sublime theological reasons, explains in precise detail.

I challenge Sean to do two things instead, (1) first, catalog a list of statements which can be unambiguously and clearly marked, “proximate to heresy”, “erroneous in faith” etc. I doubt you will find even one. (2) Second, try to prove in some way these positions (if you could prove them to be at least erroneous in faith) have been imposed upon the lay faithful in any way. This certainly has not been done. At most what has been shown is that the SSPX leaders made some prudential mistakes.

If Sean wishes to respond to this rejoinder here, he can do so. Matthew can decide if he wants this to go ahead. I may respond further if necessary. At the least, this has started a conversation which imho is important and necessary. But it would ideally be carried on in a different way, and without leading to unnecessary breaks among our Priests. Already, the Resistance has seen further breaks among itself, that can’t be denied. From the fact that Sean himself and many others see no problem in continuing to attend SSPX chapels (and it is good that they do so, but it would be more consistent if they limited themselves to respectfully asking some questions to SSPX authorities) it clearly is not the case that the SSPX is in any way a danger to the Faith of most people. Rather, it continues to build up and edify most of the million odd Catholics who continue to assist at its Holy Masses.

It’s probably best, if Sean wants to go ahead with his challenge here, that it be just him and me on this thread.

Sources, References and Links for Further Reading:

[I ]http://archives.sspx.org/Catholic_FAQs/catholic_faqs__traditional.htm
[II] https://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Apologia/Vol_two/Chapter_40.htm
[III] https://www.therecusant.com/bishop-williamsons-teaching
[IV] https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/'no-honest-catholic-should-attend-an-sspx-mass'/15/

Your approach is missing the main point which is the before and after, i.e. evidence of a change. For #1, in the old edition of the blue book it was clear that there is something wrong with the NOM. It is a given that anyone attending a SSPX mass knows that. The new edition doesn't even mention the NOM. The question is, why the change?

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #5 on:** November 07, 2019, 10:17:04 PM »

Greetings XM-

Firstly, I wish to thank you for being so candid regarding your bad disposition, lest someone should take this meandering attempt at refutation seriously (i.e, It was in the other thread you refer to, that you announced your intention to refute the whole book, despite never having read it). Consequently, your position (i.e., that the book is 101 mistakes) is not oriented toward truth, but toward the defense of an organization which you have concluded, a priori, must in all things be correct.

This is undeniable (though I fully expect you to deny it nonetheless).

I do admit to being perplexed by your start:

You hold it against me that I do not discuss my own opinion on whether new Mass attendance is sinful, but I am not sure why: The book has nothing to do with my own opinions (though you should be able to deduce them easily enough, as in all cases they are those of Archbishop Lefebvre and the old SSPX).

My job as author was simple and straightforward: To compare and contrast the official positions and writings of Archbishop Lefebvre and the old SSPX with the current positions of the SSPX, to docuмent and compile a list of changes, contradictions, or compromises to demonstrate the Society has, in large measure, left Archbishop Lefebvre behind, in pursuit of a canonical accord with unconverted Rome.

Interjecting my own positions into such a work would be impertinent and distracting.

Nevertheless, if you wanted to have an answer, I am happy to discuss elsewhere, if you find it interesting (or to save time, you could simply obtain a copy of the Catechetical Refutation, which you can find for free at various websites).

As for the specifics regarding entry #1 on the changes to Christian Warfare regarding active participation in the new Mass having been excised from the examination of conscience in the 2009 edition, the fact is objective:

Active participation in the NOM appeared in the examination of conscience in the 2006 edition, but not in the 2009 edition. This is proof that, at least until 2006, the SSPX considered such participation sinful.

Contrary to what you say, therefore, the conclusion that the removal of active NOM participation from the 2009 edition implies that the SSPX no longer wishes to suggest such participation is sinful is far from being a non-sequitur (i.e., a conclusion which does not logically follow from a previous statement or argument), as any reasonable person aware of the change would and should logically conclude precisely that.

You then enter into a lengthy discussion in your various points about the degree of sin NOM participation represents (i.e., mortal vs venial). I'm not sure why, as that is not an issue I enter into. I only discuss the fact that the SSPX used to consider NOM attendance sinful, and that the excision of active NOM participation from the new examination of conscience implies that they no longer do.

I am also confused as to why you are throwing +Lefebvre's quote from Apologia at me regarding the possibility of satisfying the Sunday obligation at the NOM. As you say, I am well familiar with it, but have no idea why you think it relevant here (i.e., In a discussion about whether of not the SSPX no longer considers active participation in the NOM sinful or not). I think perhaps you have not realized that you have slipped off track, and entered into another subject?

So far as I can tell, it seems you are mistakenly reading me as saying in example #1 that attending a NOM is always a mortal sin. In doing so, you have either misunderstood one of the shortest entries in the book (which does not fill me with hope that you will understand the lengthier entries), or, what is more likely, you have deliberately attempted to argue a different subject, while pretending it is relevant to the entry you are objecting to (i.e., because of your a priori bad disposition mentioned at the beginning of this post), in order to have something to say.

In other words, your entire response is a straw man.

You might have done better not to have responded at all.

RobertP · « **Reply #6 on:** November 22, 2019, 01:01:59 PM »

#1. New Mass Participation Sinful or Not? Although there has been a change in the text the question is why and whether that has resulted in a change in position towards the New Mass. The text is now broader in that it reads as Communicatio in sacris, which is now more prevalent within the Novus Ordo, but this does not exclude the New Mass, particularly the way-out 'biker' and 'rainbow' Mass abuses which can clearly be considered non-Catholic. It also imputes a knowledge of sacrilege and loss of faith in the Real Presence to the penitent. But surely such a knowledge must also exist for active participation at the New Mass as well as communion in the hand; the two go hand-in-hand. It seems the only circuмstance the new text doesn't uniquely capture is one where the penitent actively participates in the New Mass with full knowledge that it's a danger to the faith but simultaneously refuses to go to communion because he knows it leads to a loss of faith. Such a circuмstance would scarcely arise.

However, the purpose of the booklet is not to list every sin but to list the most grievous and most common. The space available is finite without having to reformat and expand the booklet, and the fact that some sin is omitted doesn't mean that it is no longer considered a sin otherwise was Communicatio in sacris previously not sinful because it did make an appearance?

Christian Warfare isn't the Society's only publication and if the accusation that the Society's position on the New Mass has changed is true then her other publications should have been subject to the same treatment. It doesn't take long, however, to find three that articulate the Society's unchanging position:

as it involves danger for our own faith and for that of our dependents, for whom we are responsible before God, we must say that whoever is conscious of this danger, insofar as he is conscious of it, far from satisfying the Church’s precept, rather commits a sin against faith [by attending the N.O.M.].

attendance at such a Mass could become a sinful act for the Catholics warned of the danger.

Consequently, this raises another question, "If there has been a change in position why haven't these articles been expunged?" No doubt someone will expound some bit-by-bit conspiracy theory, but the reality is this: while the text has changed the Society's position towards the New Mass has not.

One more point about Communicatio in sacris, there is another objection that accuses the SSPX of precisely this:

#66: SSPX and the Year of Mercy Jubilee [in 2015]. The Dominicans of Avrille gave an argument by argument rebuttal of the Society's reasons for participation and it is, by one account at least, 'decisive'. Sometimes, rather than diving into the theology, it’s better to take a step back, praying with heretics is nothing new and there must already be in extant examples and actual instances of how far a Catholic can go. Fortunately we have one that occurred just a couple of weeks ago.

In the U.K. soon after the outbreak of World War II Armistice Day was suspended (because of war work and air raid precautions). King George VI agreed with the government and church leaders that for the duration of the war Remembrance Sunday (the second Sunday in November) should take its place. This was formalized in 1946 and Remembrance Sunday became the 'national day of remembrance' of the war dead, continuing to the present day. It is also worth noting that there were several other days during the war when the King requested a National Day of Prayer, not least on Sunday 26^th May 1940 for what appeared to be an impending tragedy at Dunkirk.

So, the monarch - the head of state and the Supreme Governor of the Church of England - requests prayers from his subjects for the war dead. Now, it is good to pray for the dead (2 Maccabees), but Catholics are forbidden to pray with Anglicans (Communicatio in sacris), what is a Catholic to do? Well, the Bishops Conference of England & Wales allows for a Requiem Mass to be celebrated on Remembrance Sunday (the origins of a Requiem Mass for the Fallen in Catholic churches in the U.K. date back to Pope Benedict XV), and by assisting at that Mass is how a Catholic subject fulfils their monarch's request.

But the Dominicans would have the Society refuse any participation in the pope's request. They claim any participation to be Communicatio in sacris, and if they truly believe that how much more so if the Society were to participate in an Anglican monarch's request? Yet the SSPX British District's clerics have always celebrated Requiem Masses on Remembrance Sunday.

The similarities are striking: the monarch has an authority over his subjects just like the pope over the baptized. The monarch asks something good of his subjects just like the pope asks of members of the Catholic Church. The monarch has a false notion of prayer just like the Pope and Divine Mercy. The Anglican Communion, of which monarch is head, espouse heresies (e.g. the low church denies purgatory) just like the Conciliar Church. The Bishops Conference allow Catholics to participate within the limits of how Catholics pray for the dead just like Bishop Fellay allowed the Society to participate within the limits of how the Catholic Church traditionally understood Divine Mercy.

The only real 'limping' to this is that Year of Mercy Jubilee was also the 50^th anniversary of the closing of the Second Vatican Council. But this isn't really that big an issue since, if this is the only argument for non-participation then the Dominicans would have no problem adding a post scriptum to their article, "p.s. If the Year of Mercy was to occurred a year later all the above would be null and void."

StTherese · « **Reply #7 on:** November 25, 2019, 08:33:48 AM »

One of the main problems I found with the book is that the author tries to pit one quote against another rather than first trying to understand and reconcile them. For example, #59 & #60 attempt to pit Bp. Tissier de Mallerais against Frs. Pfluger and Schmidberger as to whether the Society is in a normal or an abnormal situation. That the Society was in an abnormal situation is easily demonstrable: its reliance on the operation of the supplementary principle for valid sacraments - simple as that. In addition, since when was it permissible for a Pius Union to own churches, schools, seminaries and send its members into diocese without any permission from the local ordinary or the Church hierarchy?

However, both a normal and an abnormal situation can exist in different respects. The Church is One and by this is meant Unity - Unity of Faith and Unity of Communion. Unity of Communion includes Unity of Rule (government) and this is where the Society's situation is abnormal. Indeed, if you read the quotes, Fr. Pfluger specifically says "abnormal canonical status" and Fr. Schmidberger's quote is in reference to a "canonical solution".

Conversely, in Unity of Faith it is the Conciliar Church that is abnormal, not the Society, and this is what Bp. Tissier de Mallerais was referring to, he said "We are the visible Church who practice visibly the true Faith. We have the Unity of Faith. ... We are not in an abnormal situation. The abnormal situation is in Rome! We possess the Faith, the true Sacraments..."

But because the author has not understood this he proceeds to misquote Bp. Tissier de Mallerais in #61 where he asks "Are the Faith and Sacraments sufficient?" and uses the bishop's quote against one from Fr. Schmidburger, "We must never argue ... we don't need anything." First, he misrepresents the bishop since the bishop continued, "... and the disposition to submit to the pope." Second, if Faith and Sacraments are sufficient, then what of the Orthodox (namely, those groups in schism)? Third, the knock-on effect of this is that it undermines his #86 objection.

Mr G · « **Reply #8 on:** November 25, 2019, 12:40:57 PM »

Quote from: StTherese on November 25, 2019, 08:33:48 AM

However, both a normal and an abnormal situation can exist in different respects. The Church is One and by this is meant Unity - Unity of Faith and Unity of Communion. Unity of Communion includes Unity of Rule (government) and this is where the Society's situation is abnormal. Indeed, if you read the quotes, Fr. Pfluger specifically says "abnormal canonical status" and Fr. Schmidberger's quote is in reference to a "canonical solution".

The fact that Fr. Pfluger and Schidberger admit that the SSPX is in an "abnormal canonical status" shows that they accept the legitimacy of the suppression of the SSPX back in the 1970's. The reality is that the SSPX has a normal canonical status, but the Pope and the rest of the world's bishop have unjustly and illegally failed to recognize what is already existing. What they (Father Pfluger and Schidberger ) should say is "the Conciliar Church hierarchy has created a false reality giving the impression to the public that we (the SSPX) are in an abnormal situation but in reality and in truth we have full canonical approval, whereas they are the ones that have an abnormal canonical status as some of these bishop are in reality schismatics and/or heretics and have a canonical status of former members of the Catholic Church."

StTherese · « **Reply #9 on:** November 27, 2019, 09:40:02 AM »

Quote from: Mr G on November 25, 2019, 12:40:57 PM

The fact that Fr. Pfluger and Schidberger admit that the SSPX is in an "abnormal canonical status" shows that they accept the legitimacy of the suppression of the SSPX back in the 1970's. The reality is that the SSPX has a normal canonical status, but the Pope and the rest of the world's bishop have unjustly and illegally failed to recognize what is already existing. What they (Father Pfluger and Schidberger ) should say is "the Conciliar Church hierarchy has created a false reality giving the impression to the public that we (the SSPX) are in an abnormal situation but in reality and in truth we have full canonical approval, whereas they are the ones that have an abnormal canonical status as some of these bishop are in reality schismatics and/or heretics and have a canonical status of former members of the Catholic Church."

No it doesn’t. It’s abnormal solely for the reasons I adduced in my first paragraph; it would may no difference either way (whether they accepted the suppression or not).

StTherese · « **Reply #10 on:** November 27, 2019, 09:41:01 AM »

In #9 and #10 the author confuses tradition with Tradition; the two are not the same.

Tradition: that part of the Church that cannot change, e.g. all Catholic doctrine is Tradition;
tradition: customs and practices under the authority of the Church, e.g. Friday abstinence.

Vatican II is part of tradition is a matter of fact in that it is (for good or ill) part of the Church’s history.

There is only one way in which Vatican II is neither part of Tradition or tradition and that’s if it was never a valid Church Council, and that could only be the case if the Pope at the time was never a Pope; viz. Sedevacantism.

XavierSem wrote “ hardly anywhere in the CCCC will you see a clear statement of what the author’s own positions are on the crisis, much less any theological proof of them whatsoever. “ and this is the problem. The author presents these quotes. But he either doesn’t comprehend them or is trying to construct a synthesis to imply some conclusion that simply doesn’t hold.

Mr G · « **Reply #11 on:** November 27, 2019, 12:24:15 PM »

Quote from: StTherese on November 27, 2019, 09:40:02 AM

No it doesn’t. It’s abnormal solely for the reasons I adduced in my first paragraph; it would may no difference either way (whether they accepted the suppression or not).

The reason you give are virtual or subjective, but the objective fact is that:
the Conciliar Church hierarchy has created a false reality giving the impression to the public that the SSPX are in an abnormal situation but in reality and in truth they have full canonical approval,

Much the same way that the 1988 excommunications were in fact non-existence, except in the minds of the Conciliar Hierarchy and most people due to the deception and lies they have been told.

Mr G · « **Reply #12 on:** November 27, 2019, 12:45:24 PM »

Quote from: StTherese on November 27, 2019, 09:41:01 AM

In #9 and #10 the author confuses tradition with Tradition; the two are not the same.

Tradition: that part of the Church that cannot change, e.g. all Catholic doctrine is Tradition;
tradition: customs and practices under the authority of the Church, e.g. Friday abstinence.

Vatican II is part of tradition is a matter of fact in that it is (for good or ill) part of the Church’s history.

There is only one way in which Vatican II is neither part of Tradition or tradition and that’s if it was never a valid Church Council, and that could only be the case if the Pope at the time was never a Pope; viz. Sedevacantism.

XavierSem wrote “ hardly anywhere in the CCCC will you see a clear statement of what the author’s own positions are on the crisis, much less any theological proof of them whatsoever. “ and this is the problem. The author presents these quotes. But he either doesn’t comprehend them or is trying to construct a synthesis to imply some conclusion that simply doesn’t hold.

For reference, here is what she is referring to, as you can see the word "tradition" in all these quotes are NOT referring to mere history, custom or practices. Try inserting "customs and practices" every time you read the word "tradition" in all the below quotes and you can see the context in which they reefing it to" :

#10: Contradiction (More on Vatican II and Tradition):

In March/2013, Fr. de Cacqueray (then District Superior of France) wrote the following in his Letter to Friends and Benefactors:

"Be that as it may, the Society strongly refuses to admit that Vatican Council II belongs to the Tradition of the Church. We claim on the contrary, that in many points this Council is diametrically opposed to it."
http://sspx.org/en/sspxs-treatment-profound-injustice

Yes, that was surely the SSPX's traditional position.

However, was Fr. de Cacqueray unaware that only 9 months prior, Bishop Fellay had made the following statement:

"Although he stopped short of endorsing Pope Benedict's interpretation of Vatican II as essentially in continuity with the church's tradition -- a position which many in the society have vocally disputed -- Bishop Fellay spoke about the idea in strikingly sympathetic terms.

"I would hope so," he said, when asked if Vatican II itself belongs to Catholic tradition.

"The pope says that ... the council must be put within the great tradition of the church, must be understood in accordance with it. These are statements we fully agree with, totally, absolutely," the bishop said."
https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2012/05/fellay-speaks-to-usbishopss-catholic.html

Do you find Bishop Fellay's response to be a strong "refusal to admit that Vatican II belongs to the Tradition of the Church?"

StTherese · « **Reply #13 on:** November 27, 2019, 04:51:41 PM »

#68 and #106. The author conflates the crisis in the Church and the state of necessity, and while they are related - one is the cause of the other - they are also distinct as Fr. Knittel explained. By way of an example:

Consider a soul aboard the ill-fated Titanic. He learns of a priest aboard (Fr. Thomas Byles) who's hearing confessions, so he decides to go. However, this penitent confesses a reserved sin such that the confessor cannot absolve him, he must wait until they arrive in New York and have recourse to the bishop. That evening the iceberg hits the ship. Suddenly there is a crisis - the ship is sinking - and for this individual there is a state of necessity - he needs to be absolved. In such circuмstances (danger of death) any priest can absolve a reserved sin, so the penitent returns to confession. But while waiting his turn he spots an empty seat on one of the lifeboats and decides to make a dash for it. Sometime later a rescue ship, the Carpathia, arrives and picks up the lifeboat occupants. On board this ship there is also a priest (Fr. Henry Burke) hearing confessions, so the penitent again presents himself for confession. But he can no longer be absolved because there is no longer a state of necessity - the individual has been rescued and is safe - even though the crisis - the sinking Titanic - is still on going.

It should be obvious that a state of necessity exists only in a specific circuмstance and only for as long as that circuмstance persists. Within the Society the state of necessity certainly existed, like the need to consecrate bishops, the need to absolve and marry, the needs of the faithful to have access to the traditional Mass and sacraments But with the freeing of the Mass, lifting of the excommunications, and granting the faculties of confession and marriage the state of necessity has diminished. That doesn’t mean it will not re-emerge in the future, e.g. the need to consecrate bishops without a mandate or an uncooperative diocesan bishop insisting on a N.O. Priest celebrates the Nuptial Mass, but until that time there is no longer a state of necessity, but the crisis continues.

StTherese · « **Reply #14 on:** November 27, 2019, 04:58:19 PM »

Quote from: Mr G on November 27, 2019, 12:24:15 PM

The reason you give are virtual or subjective, but the objective fact is that:
the Conciliar Church hierarchy has created a false reality giving the impression to the public that the SSPX are in an abnormal situation but in reality and in truth they have full canonical approval,

Much the same way that the 1988 excommunications were in fact non-existence, except in the minds of the Conciliar Hierarchy and most people due to the deception and lies they have been told.

"I have mercy on this crowd," Our Lord said, "for they are as sheep without a shepherd." This would indeed be your case if there was no traditional clergy. The Church takes account of this abnormal situation and therefore links you up with traditional priests by that link of authority which makes a pastor and a flock.
This is supplied jurisdiction. The Church supplies for the absence of the ordinary link between you and your priests. It creates a link on account of your spiritual needs.
I wonder why the author didn’t quote this?

Author Topic: A reply to Sean as challenged on #1 of the CCCC. (Read 1645 times)

Nishant Xavier

A reply to Sean as challenged on #1 of the CCCC.

Ladislaus

Re: A reply to Sean as challenged on #1 of the CCCC.

Ladislaus

Re: A reply to Sean as challenged on #1 of the CCCC.

Ladislaus

Re: A reply to Sean as challenged on #1 of the CCCC.

MiserereMei

Re: A reply to Sean as challenged on #1 of the CCCC.

SeanJohnson

Re: A reply to Sean as challenged on #1 of the CCCC.

RobertP

Re: A reply to Sean as challenged on #1 of the CCCC.

StTherese

Re: A reply to Sean as challenged on #1 of the CCCC.

Mr G

Re: A reply to Sean as challenged on #1 of the CCCC.

StTherese

Re: A reply to Sean as challenged on #1 of the CCCC.

StTherese

Re: A reply to Sean as challenged on #1 of the CCCC.

Mr G

Re: A reply to Sean as challenged on #1 of the CCCC.

Mr G

Re: A reply to Sean as challenged on #1 of the CCCC.

StTherese

Re: A reply to Sean as challenged on #1 of the CCCC.

StTherese

Re: A reply to Sean as challenged on #1 of the CCCC.