Comments on: SSPX set to push the envelope against the Vatican again Religion, faith and ethics Sat, 23 Apr 2016 23:25:07 +0000 hourly 1 By: P.R.Margeot Fri, 19 Jun 2009 19:11:11 +0000 Thank you to the SSPX to have started the Restauration of the Holy Church,to have saved the Tridentine Mass of all time.Yes, the SSPX is a truly Catholic Society that is obedient to the Pope,that PRAYS for the Pope at every Tridentine mass,that has a picture of the Pope in all sacrities,that says the 3 Hail Marys at the end of all low masses,that prays for the Pope in all Benedictions.These ordinations(this month) have been planned months ago,they are an annual event world-wide.I have no doubt that the new priests are seen by the modernists as a threat…what else can it be ? The SSPX is helping the Holy Church to stay afloat,after having saved the Tridentine mass from extinction. My money is on the SSPX and its wise,patient, gentle, firm, and learned Superior-General,H.E.Bishop B.Fellay.

By: Louis Tofari Wed, 17 Jun 2009 21:38:46 +0000 Dear Tom Heneghan,

You are forgetting a basic Catholic principle: it is not a matter choosing God or the pope. When you choose the former (God), you are choosing the latter (the pope), because the OFFICE OF THE POPE (the Magisterium) cannot but be in sync with God, even if the PERSON OF THE POPE (the part that goes to confession just like everyone else) is not.

That’s the split we are enduring in the Church today, though the Church has had such situations before. We can only pray that His Holiness, Pope Benedict XVI will eventually return the Church to Catholic Tradition.

By: Kimiko Tue, 16 Jun 2009 22:25:07 +0000 Yes, the SSPX should proceed with the ordinations of 21 new priests. The SSPX represents Catholic tradition and the holy beliefs of our Faith which Vatican II discarded.
You don’t throw out 1500 years of tradition and replace it with garbage!! But that’s what Vatican II did.
Thank God for the SSPX. Regardless of what Bishop Muller, or Benedict XVI thinks….Go ahead with the ordinations of 21 new holy priests. These are very holy young priests, (not the usuall Vatican II paedophile priests!!)
God bless the SSPX. I hope they ordain 50 next year!!

By: Ted Fri, 12 Jun 2009 03:51:45 +0000 Archbishop Robert Zollitsch is a heretic.  /09042107.html

By: Tom Heneghan Thu, 11 Jun 2009 18:09:52 +0000 I am basing my view on the quote from Pope Benedict himself — “Until the doctrinal questions are clarified, the Society has no canonical status in the Church, and its ministers – even though they have been freed of the ecclesiastical penalty – do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church.” If they do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church, how can they be both obedient members of that Church and proceed with the ordinations?

As for commenting on “the real issue,” is the real issue is whether some Catholic can disregard the pope when they believe he is wrong, or whether they can describe themselves as obedient when doing so. On the first point, I agree with Saint Thomas that that right exists. But, on the second point, I do not think one who does that can then be called obedient to the pope.

You suggest all this is only my personal opinion. Since I wrote that blog post, Archbishop Robert Zollitsch, the chairman of the German Bishops’ Conference, has called the planned ordinations “a violation of canon law, a violation of the rights of the bishop of Regensburg and, in my eyes, an affront to the unity of the Church.” The bishop of Fulda has expressed similar ideas. I don’t think they came to that conclusion by reading my blog.

By: John Kokenge Thu, 11 Jun 2009 13:36:39 +0000 The point that you are utterly missing Mr. Heneghan is the foundation on which the notion of disobedience hangs. Does the SSPX (Child B) really have the precedent to disobey his parent who has a ‘right’ to obedience or not? In all of your banter, I find it disappointing that while constantly reminding Ted and myself that you are speaking about an apple, and we an orange, you never once comment on the real issue here. Nor do you comment on the words of St. Thomas.
The only authority the bishops of the SSPX have is titular. IT is completely within the scope of responsibility for those who possess the fullness of the priesthood to ordain priests, and this irregular situation, regardless of the negation of the previous thought to have existed excommunication, does not change them or their office. Not one priest that has left the SSPX despite its irregularity has been thought to be invalidly ordained, so I do not understand the illegitimacy of their acts which you say exists.
Could it be that your personal opinions are the impetus to your argument?

By: Tom Heneghan Thu, 11 Jun 2009 08:48:38 +0000 Ted, do you really have to compare Pope Benedict to a drunken parent who beats a child senselessly to get your point across? Do you really think this is a credible comparison? The problem is that you’re trying to square a circle, saying the SSPX is obedient to the pope while disobeying him on some issues. To do that, you deconstruct the word obedient to the point that it can mean its opposite.

There are ways to describe positively what Child B did, but calling it obedience is not one of them. Whether the SSPX should or should not obey the pope, or whether their view is right or wrong, is not the issue here. But one cannot call them obedient to him if the SSPX leaders go against his wishes and, acting illegitimately as bishops of the Roman Catholic Church, ordain new priests.

By: Ted Thu, 11 Jun 2009 05:06:10 +0000 An alcoholic drunken parent commands child A to give him the keys to the car to drive. This child “obeys” this command and the parent drives in a totally drunken state. When sober the next day the alcoholic parent thanks Child A for his “obedience”.

Same alcoholic parent a few days later commands A’s brother, Child B to give him the keys to the car to drive. Child B refuses to give the parent the keys to the car out of fear of driving drunk. Alcoholic parent yells at child B saying he is a disobedient wretch and should be more like child A and then goes on to beat child B senselessly.

Which child: Child A or Child B is truly obedient to their parent.

By: Tom Heneghan Wed, 10 Jun 2009 20:10:40 +0000 John Kokenge, you’re not addressing the same question I am. I’m not talking about whether the SSPX can or should disobey the pope or how it justifies not following him. That’s for them to decide. What I am saying is that they and their defenders, such as Ted above, cannot claim they are loyal to the pope when they act against his wishes. This is what I objected to in Ted’s comment that “The SSPX are the only Catholics who exercise true obedience to the Church AND THE POPE” (my emphasis). The arguments you provide could be used concerning obedience to the Church, but that is not necessarily the same as obedience to the pope. The issue here is obedience to the pope.

The following statements make it clear the SSPX has serious doctrinal differences with the Vatican which Pope Benedict says must be resolved before it can legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church. Despite that, they are going ahead and ordaining priests. It’s very hard to see how that can be called obedience to the pope.

SSPX Bishop Bernard Fellay, in his “Letter to the Faithful” on 24 January 2009:

“We are ready to write the Creed with our own blood, to sign the anti-modernist oath, the profession of faith of Pius IV, we accept and make our own all the councils up to the Second Vatican Council about which we express some reservations.”

Pope Benedict’s letter to bishops on 12 March 2009:

“Until the doctrinal questions are clarified, the Society has no canonical status in the Church, and its ministers – even though they have been freed of the ecclesiastical penalty – do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church.”

Vatican spokesman Fr. Federico Lombardi’s statement on 12 March 2009 accompanying the pope’s letter to bishops:

“The Pope makes a distinction as far as the problem of the juridical recognition of the Saint Pius X Fraternity is concerned, linking it clearly to doctrinal questions about the acceptance of Vatican II Council and the magisterium of the Popes since that Council. Until that happens, their representatives will not be able to fulfil any recognised ministry in a legitimate way in the Church.”

By: John Kokenge Wed, 10 Jun 2009 15:11:58 +0000 Mr. Heneghan, I am dull, but I am not certain how my previous quote supports your argument. Please read St. Thomas Aquinas on this subject.
The raison d’etre of Canon Law is support of the Faith and by extension, the Truth of which the Church is the protectress. This is its final cause. Blind obedience of the codes of Canon Law without the knowledge or support of its ‘Final’ cause is no obedience. The final cause is the first in intention, last in execution; but that is not the case if in the support of canon law, Faith is lost! If these codes do not serve the Faith, then they MUST NOT be obeyed, for it is better to obey God than man. The criticism of which the subordinate makes of his superior does not the superior un-make. (+Fellay and his criticism of Benedict XVI) Peter did not cease to the the Pope when Paul rebuked him to his face, nor did Paul disobey God or the entire end to which his office in the Church required.

IIa,IIae Q104, article 5

Article 5. Whether subjects are bound to obey their superiors in all things?
Objection 1. It seems that subjects are bound to obey their superiors in all things. For the Apostle says (Colossians 3:20): “Children, obey your parents in all things,” and farther on (Colossians 3:22): “Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh.” Therefore in like manner other subjects are bound to obey their superiors in all things.

Objection 2. Further, superiors stand between God and their subjects, according to Deuteronomy 5:5, “I was the mediator and stood between the Lord and you at that time, to show you His words.” Now there is no going from extreme to extreme, except through that which stands between. Therefore the commands of a superior must be esteemed the commands of God, wherefore the Apostle says (Galatians 4:14): “You . . . received me as an angel of God, even as Christ Jesus” and (1 Thessalonians 2:13): “When you had received of us the word of the hearing of God, you received it, not as the word of men, but, as it is indeed, the word of God.” Therefore as man is bound to obey God in all things, so is he bound to obey his superiors.

Objection 3. Further, just as religious in making their profession take vows of chastity and poverty, so do they also vow obedience. Now a religious is bound to observe chastity and poverty in all things. Therefore he is also bound to obey in all things.

On the contrary, It is written (Acts 5:29): “We ought to obey God rather than men.” Now sometimes the things commanded by a superior are against God. Therefore superiors are not to be obeyed in all things.

I answer that, As stated above (A1,4), he who obeys is moved at the bidding of the person who commands him, by a certain necessity of justice, even as a natural thing is moved through the power of its mover by a natural necessity. That a natural thing be not moved by its mover, may happen in two ways. First, on account of a hindrance arising from the stronger power of some other mover; thus wood is not burnt by fire if a stronger force of water intervene. Secondly, through lack of order in the movable with regard to its mover, since, though it is subject to the latter’s action in one respect, yet it is not subject thereto in every respect. Thus, a humor is sometimes subject to the action of heat, as regards being heated, but not as regards being dried up or consumed. On like manner there are two reasons, for which a subject may not be bound to obey his superior in all things. First on account of the command of a higher power. For as a gloss says on Romans 13:2, “They that resist [Vulgate: ‘He that resisteth’] the power, resist the ordinance of God” (cf. St. Augustine, De Verb. Dom. viii). “If a commissioner issue an order, are you to comply, if it is contrary to the bidding of the proconsul? Again if the proconsul command one thing, and the emperor another, will you hesitate, to disregard the former and serve the latter? Therefore if the emperor commands one thing and God another, you must disregard the former and obey God.” Secondly, a subject is not bound to obey his superior if the latter command him to do something wherein he is not subject to him. For Seneca says (De Beneficiis iii): “It is wrong to suppose that slavery falls upon the whole man: for the better part of him is excepted.” His body is subjected and assigned to his master but his soul is his own. Consequently in matters touching the internal movement of the will man is not bound to obey his fellow-man, but God alone.

Nevertheless man is bound to obey his fellow-man in things that have to be done externally by means of the body: and yet, since by nature all men are equal, he is not bound to obey another man in matters touching the nature of the body, for instance in those relating to the support of his body or the begetting of his children. Wherefore servants are not bound to obey their masters, nor children their parents, in the question of contracting marriage or of remaining in the state of virginity or the like. But in matters concerning the disposal of actions and human affairs, a subject is bound to obey his superior within the sphere of his authority; for instance a soldier must obey his general in matters relating to war, a servant his master in matters touching the execution of the duties of his service, a son his father in matters relating to the conduct of his life and the care of the household; and so forth.

Reply to Objection 1. When the Apostle says “in all things,” he refers to matters within the sphere of a father’s or master’s authority.

Reply to Objection 2. Man is subject to God simply as regards all things, both internal and external, wherefore he is bound to obey Him in all things. On the other hand, inferiors are not subject to their superiors in all things, but only in certain things and in a particular way, in respect of which the superior stands between God and his subjects, whereas in respect of other matters the subject is immediately under God, by Whom he is taught either by the natural or by the written law.

Reply to Objection 3. Religious profess obedience as to the regular mode of life, in respect of which they are subject to their superiors: wherefore they are bound to obey in those matters only which may belong to the regular mode of life, and this obedience suffices for salvation. If they be willing to obey even in other matters, this will belong to the superabundance of perfection; provided, however, such things be not contrary to God or to the rule they profess, for obedience in this case would be unlawful.

Accordingly we may distinguish a threefold obedience; one, sufficient for salvation, and consisting in obeying when one is bound to obey: secondly, perfect obedience, which obeys in all things lawful: thirdly, indiscreet obedience, which obeys even in matters unlawful.