Satis Cognitum and the SSPX

Satis Cognitum and the SSPX - Part 2

JMJ

As noted earlier a branch of the 'resistance' referenced one of my articles (natually without directly responding to its contents) making the assertion that:

No Canonical Agreement Prior to a Doctrinal Resolution” Is a Catholic Principle...“a canonical recognition cannot be had if it is not based on the Catholic Faith”

In support of this assertion the author made a number of claims, one of which came from Satis Cognitum, a quotation from Archbishop Lefebvre and then his own reasoning.

In the final analysis the author concludes that because the principle 'No Canonical agreement ... etc' is the same as being Unity of Faith, and therefore without a Unity of Faith there cannot be a true order issued by the Pope as long as:

Any position of the Pope showing indifference or opposition towards this internal principle [Unity of Faith] makes his command, under the pretext that it is a matter of the unity of the Church, null and void because his command would not serve the purpose of achieving a true and authentic Catholic unity.

There are three problems with this reasoning.

Firstly, St.Thomas Aquinas' principle of obedience:

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.

St. Thomas further notes that the scope of a superior's authority is not without limit. So, as long as the order of the superior does not go against God, and is within the superior's scope of authority, they are to be obeyed. In order to adhere to his own theory, the Ecclesia Militans (EM) author must abandon the principle of St. Thomas because the principle relies upon objective facts (the superior having authority, and the command not being against God.). Whereas EM's theory rests upon the subjective assessment of whether or not the Pope shows indifference or even opposition towards the Unity of Faith.

The second point is the internal "Unity of Faith" issue, which presupposes that Unity of Faith has been broken by the Pope. Perhaps the author meant that accepting a canonical solution that meets the criteria of St. Thomas somehow interferes with the Unity of Faith.

Either way the author is again in the weeds.

Let's establish a clear understanding of what constitutes Unity of Faith:

This consists in the fact that all members of the Church inwardly believe the truths of faith proposed by the teaching office of the Church, at least implicitly, and outwardly confess them. ... Unity of Faith leaves room for various opinions in those controversial questions which the Church has not finally decided. (Source-Ott)

The truths of faith proposed by the magisterium of the Church are those that the Church has finally decided, ie the de fide teachings of the Church.

Keeping in mind that none of the post conciliar Pontiffs have attempted to change a de fide teaching of the Church, the de fide teachings that require an internal assent of the Faith remains intact. It is this Unity of Faith that Traditional Catholics have with "Modern" Catholics who implicitly accept all that the Church Teaches.

Even those Catholics who have (based on external measures) probably lost the Faith, remain in a state of material heresy if they don't separate themselves from the Church and have not demonstrated pertinacity in the face of an authoritative remonstration. As Catholic material heretics, the Church regards them as still members of the Church as their material heresy is deemed temporary as their good-will is presumed.

The third problem is that the EM author asserts that Pope Benedict sought to order the SSPX to accept a Canonical Regularization "...under the pretext that it is a matter of the unity of the Church...".

The problem is that Church teaching is that the Unity of the Church is based upon both the Unity of Faith and the Unity of Government, and the Sin of Heresy breaks Unity of Faith and the Sin of Schism breaks the Unity of Government.

It is not merely a pretext, the argument put forward would serve just as easily for the Orthodox as it would for the 'resistance'. The authority of the Pope who states what must be believed (de fide) is what the Orthodox rejected when they reaffirmed their schism. In a same manner, the 'resistance' would deny the authority of the Pope and reject a 'canonical regularization' that met the conditions for obedience.

Beyond these initial thoughts, there are a number of other structural issues with the EM author's article, but this is sufficient for now.

Ultimately, the example of St. Athanasius repeatedly comes to my mind.

Following the author's reasoning St. Athanasius was wrong to return to his See when allowed to, and Archbishop Lefebvre was wrong to seek a no-compromise regularization for the SSPX.

There are number of other problems with the article, but there is no point in further untangling this gordian knot of assertions and twisted reasoning.

The Faith isn't that convoluted.

The first Mark of the Church is comprised of Unity of Faith and Unity of Government.

To keep the Faith and separate from the Communion of the Church by breaking from Unity of Government is Schism.

Christe Eleison

P^3

Prayer
Penance
Patience

Is it sinful to attend the Novus Ordo (New Mass) - Is it Sinful to Not Attend the Novus Ordo on Sunday?

+ JMJ A non-SSPX Catholic is upset over the SSPX statements on not attending the Novus Ordo Missae. Ladies and gentlemen, what the SSPX, or at least its website editor, is advocating is a mortal sin against the Third Commandment. Unless the priest deviates from the language of the Sacramentary, the consecration, and thus the rest of Mass is to be considered valid. No one may elect not to attend Mass simply because abuses are occurring therein. Might I suggest that such absenteeism is its own abuse? The Third Commandment binds under mortal sin. Father So-And-So from the SSPX has no authority whatsoever to excuse attendance at Mass, be that Mass ever so unpalatable. Source:Restore DC Catholicism Well, this is interesting. First why does the SSPX issue this statement? Because it is sinful to put your faith in danger by attending a protestant service. It is likewise dangerous to put your faith in danger by attending a protestantized mass (ie the Novus Ordo Missae

Fr. Burfitt on Fr. Pfeiffer's Attempted Consecration

+ JMJ Amidst the shadows cast by the publication of Traditionis Custodes, I am working on a map of the 'resistance' splinters to put their reaction in contrast with that of the SSPX. In the midst of this, I just came across Fr. Burfitt letter on the attempted consecration. Breaking it down (see below) items 2 and 3 are key. Just as the consecrating bishop is 'doubtful', even if he hadn't muffed the first attempt, Fr. Pfeiffer remain doubtful and therefore this impacts those men is attempts to 'ordain'. There were rumours that Fr. Pfeiffer was seeking episcopal consecration for years as he cast about for various bishops (also doubtful) to help him achieve this goal. I wonder how he convinced the 'doubtful' bishop to provide (twice) the doubtful consecration. What a mess! This creates a danger to the souls of his followers and wonder where it will end. Will he go full sede and have himself 'elected' pontiff as others have done before him

War: Civil Society

+ JMJ Society seems to be ripping itself apart, both morally and socially. Morally, the world continues its steady decline. Israel vs Hamas The confusion over the morality of the Israel vs Hamas War is one example. It is a war and, this time, in response to the October 7th attack. I've noticed two perspectives emerge from the two combatants. For the Israeli, it is that they are the only Nation that is not allowed to win a war. Public opinion is always at play in wars, but in the case of Israel against anyone in the area, public opinion quickly becomes a factor. For Hamas and its supporters it is embodied in the phrase: From the River to the Sea, Palestine will be Free. This is the goal of Hamas, the elimination of the Jewish state of Israel according to its 2017 Charter (link) . I understand that their original charter was more explicit. Tied to this is that Hamas obviously, prioritizes its goal over the Gazans that they govern. For this I recommend a read of Son of H

What the heck is a congregation of "Pontifical Right"

+ JMJ In a discussion with a friend the question occurred to me that I didn't actually know was is involved in being a religious order of 'pontifical right'. I had a vague notion that this meant they reported to Rome as opposed to the local diocese. I'm also aware that, according to the accounts I have heard, the Archbishop received 'praise' and the written direction to incardinate priests directly into the SSPX. This is interesting because it implies that the SSPX priests were no longer required to incardinate in the local diocese but in the SSPX. This is something that belongs to an order of 'pontifical right'. Anyway here's some definitions: Di diritto pontificio is the Italian term for “of pontifical right” . It is given to the ecclesiastical institutions (the religious and secular institutes, societies of apostolic life) either created by the Holy See or approved by it with the formal decree, known by its Latin name, Decretu

CMTV's Latest Attempt to Slag the SSPX

+ JMJ It has been a couple of months since the last significant attempt to slag the SSPX and I was beginning to wonder if the clicks were subsiding. ... then another article popped up this week. I was wondering if it would contain a new case or simply repeat old allegations and FUD and Ms. Niles did not disappoint. A technique that I learned in dealing with negotiations and conflicts is to review the correspondence with a critical eye and black out all irrelevant contents. This helps to remove all the distracting attacks, innuendos, assumptions, and FUD from view so a person can focus on the important aspects ... like the facts. How much of Ms.Niles text survived my review? About 17.5% or 347 words out of ~1983. The rest was either repeated information or opinion as opposed to fact. Just in case you are curious as to what that looks like, I have attached the blacked out document at the end of this post. Now on to a review of the words that actually bore on the case at hand ...

Tradicat

Search This Blog