Christus Vincit! Christus Regnat! Christus Imperat! Index du Forum

Christus Vincit! Christus Regnat! Christus Imperat!
Forum Catholique de la Résistance à la néo-FSSPX et à la Rome moderniste

 FAQFAQ   RechercherRechercher   MembresMembres   GroupesGroupes   S’enregistrerS’enregistrer 
 ProfilProfil   Se connecter pour vérifier ses messages privésSe connecter pour vérifier ses messages privés   ConnexionConnexion 

Légalement Résistant le Pape

 
Poster un nouveau sujet   Répondre au sujet    Christus Vincit! Christus Regnat! Christus Imperat! Index du Forum -> La Résistance -> Tout ce qui concerne la crise dans l'Église et dans la FSSPX
Sujet précédent :: Sujet suivant  
Auteur Message
Sean Johnson


Hors ligne

Inscrit le: 18 Mar 2015
Messages: 92
Localisation: USA

MessagePosté le: Mer 10 Aoû - 15:50 (2016)    Sujet du message: Légalement Résistant le Pape Répondre en citant

Légalement Résistant le Pape: Concernant "Epikeia"


http://www.sendspace.com/file/j5vdum 




_________________
"I have passed on that which I have received." -Archbishop Lefebvre


Revenir en haut
Publicité






MessagePosté le: Mer 10 Aoû - 15:50 (2016)    Sujet du message: Publicité

PublicitéSupprimer les publicités ?
Revenir en haut
Dies Iræ


Hors ligne

Inscrit le: 14 Déc 2013
Messages: 109

MessagePosté le: Sam 13 Aoû - 18:18 (2016)    Sujet du message: Ma traduction, Dies Iræ Répondre en citant

Aussi rigoureuse que possible en fichier "sendspace"


http://www.sendspace.com/file/47j813
_________________
justitia Dei est ab æterno, Sum. Theol. 2a-2ae, qu. 58, art.2


Revenir en haut
Moreno


Hors ligne

Inscrit le: 15 Jan 2015
Messages: 152

MessagePosté le: Sam 13 Aoû - 19:31 (2016)    Sujet du message: Légalement Résistant le Pape Répondre en citant

désolé, je n'accède pas au fichier

Revenir en haut
Dies Iræ


Hors ligne

Inscrit le: 14 Déc 2013
Messages: 109

MessagePosté le: Sam 13 Aoû - 20:11 (2016)    Sujet du message: Légalement Résistant le Pape Répondre en citant

Excusez mon ignorance, je n'arrive pas à mettre un lien, aussi il faut copier l'adresse dans le message et la coller dans la barre d'adresse de votre navigateur et vous pourrez télécharger
_________________
justitia Dei est ab æterno, Sum. Theol. 2a-2ae, qu. 58, art.2


Revenir en haut
Sean Johnson


Hors ligne

Inscrit le: 18 Mar 2015
Messages: 92
Localisation: USA

MessagePosté le: Dim 14 Aoû - 00:44 (2016)    Sujet du message: Légalement Résistant le Pape Répondre en citant

Lawfully Resisting the Pope:  
 
 
(On A Proper Understanding of Epikeia as a Cause Excusing from Obedience to Superiors)  
 
 
By Sean Johnson  
 
 
8-9-16  
 
 

Introduction: 


This article was originally drafted for submission to The Remnant in 2007, as a rebuttal to arguments previously made in that newspaper by Fr. Brian Harrison, against the moral uprightness of Archbishop Lefebvre’s 1988 episcopal consecrations, performed against the explicit will of the Pope. Most of the arguments, citations, and authorities quoted in this article were taken from the 2-part 1999 SiSiNoNo article “The 1988 Episcopal Consecrations: A Theological Study,” which in turn were published in the May and July editions of The Angelus of that year. Part I of that excellent study can be viewed here (which also contains a link at the bottom of the page to Part II): http://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/SiSiNoNo/1999 July/The 1988 Consecrations.htm 


All these years later, voices are again being heard –some of them this time even from within the confines of the SSPX itself- that to resist accepting a practical accord with unconverted Rome is somehow schismatic, gravely sinful, or that such a posture evinces or risks a practical sedevacantism.1 This article is published, therefore, to provide Resistance faithful with knowledge of the principle of epikeia (i.e., A principle of equity representing a cause excusing from obedience to superiors found in most pre-conciliar treatises of moral theology). 




The Argument of Fr. Harrison: 


In the April 15, 2005 edition of The Remnant, Fr. Brian Harrison had the following to say on the subject of “epikeia” with regard to Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre’s 1988 episcopal consecrations: 


“According to sound canonical principles, appealing to a ‘state of necessity’ (c. 1324, #4) in order to justify infringement of a law or precept is justifiable only as an instance of genuine epikeia: that is, in an extraordinary situation where it can be presumed that the legislator himself, were he aware of those concrete circumstances, would allow the infringement. But if we take the case of Archbishop Lefebvre’s 1988 consecrations, such a situation obviously did not exist. For the legislator, Pope John Paul II, had not only made it abundantly clear that in his judgment there was no ‘necessity’ for those illicit consecrations; he had strictly, specifically, and personally forbidden the Archbishop to carry them out.” 


From this, Fr. Harrison rapidly progresses to draw the following conclusion: 


“Canonically, therefore, the latter [Archbishop Lefebvre] really did not have a leg to stand on. I believe Fr. Bisig and others did well to depart from the SSPX in that dramatic moment, in order to obey Peter.” 


It is not my present purpose to address, in this article, Fr. Harrison’s faulty conceptions of “obedience” and “necessity” implicit in such statements. These issues were discussed last year at great length in this very paper within the context of my revision/re-edit of “Hirpinus’” watershed study “The 1988 Consecrations: A Theological Study,”2 which ran in four installments under the title “On The Doctrine Of Necessity” (beginning with the May 31, 2004 edition of The Remnant). Either Fr. Harrison missed the entire series, or he has chosen to ignore the unassailable arguments contained therein. 




The Traditional Position of the SSPX: 


The purpose of the present letter is to address the deficiency in understanding made manifest in Fr. Harrison’s most recent comments on epikeia. I say deficiency, because his erroneous conclusion (with regard to Archbishop Lefebvre) is derived from want of necessary theological distinctions on the subject. Consider that Fr. Harrison’s description and application of the principle of epikeia most closely approximates what is called epikeia in the strict (or improper) sense. “Epikeia thus defined is really nothing more than clemency or moderation in the application of laws and in the exercise of authority.”3 Epikeia in this sense can be thought of as “that which presumes the authority – out of its kindness- does not wish to oblige, although it has the power to do so and hence, if the lawmaker is accessible, there is a duty to ask him, given that it is a question of his will, which is free.”4 Hence, the will of the superior is the controlling element in the application of strict epikeia. 


“Epikeia in the strict sense is applicable in either of the following two circumstances: 


1. When, for reasons of exceptional circumstance, submission to the positive law would be too burdensome, without there resulting a good proportionate to the sacrifice being demanded; 
2. When, without becoming evil...and without imposing an unjustified heroism..., the observance of the positive law runs into special and unforeseen difficulties which render it, as it turns out, harder than it should have been according to the intention of the legislator.”5 


Obviously, “epikeia in this sense has nothing to do with the case of Archbishop Lefebvre.” 6 He never claimed to have recourse to it. That Fr. Harrison imagines he did only goes to demonstrate his ignorance of epikeia in the broad/proper sense, upon which SSPX apologists have always relied (in conjunction with a proper understanding of the doctrine of necessity). 


Epikeia in the broad and proper sense (also known as “necessary epikeia” or “epikeia without recourse to the superior”7 ) is left out of consideration by Fr. Harrison. Fr. Tito Centi, O.P. explains that epikeia in this sense is applicable: “When in a particular situation, the prescriptions of the positive law are in opposition to a superior law which binds one to regard higher interests.”8 


"It is precisely such a situation which exists in a state of grave general spiritual necessity; a case where the positive law (in this case the command of the pope to refrain from performing the Episcopal consecrations) has become evil, insofar as it opposes itself to higher and more binding laws (i.e., the duty imposed, ex officio, upon those consecrated to the Episcopal state to come to the spiritual aid of those who have no hope of help from their legitimate pastors)."9 


Naz, commenting on the doctrine of St, Thomas Aquinas, explains that, in such a case, the superior loses not the will (as in strict epikeia) but the power to bind: 


“In certain cases the law loses its power to bind – as where its application would be contrary to the common good or to natural law- and in such a case it is not in the power of the legislator to bind or to oblige.”10 


Archbishop Lefebvre, then, under the duty of obedience first to higher precepts of divine natural and positive law, was bound “not to observe the law, whether he asks or does not ask permission from the superior.”11 


As regards obtaining permission from the pope in such circumstances, Suarez explains that: 


“In such a case the authority of the superior cannot have any effect; indeed, even if he were to will that the subject, after having had recourse to him, should observe the law, the latter would not be able to obey him because he must obey God rather than man, and hence in such a situation it is out of place (“impertinens”) to ask permission.”12 


Continuing the same subject, Suarez teaches that: 


“One does not presume in the lawmaker that he has a will to bind in such a case, and even if he had, it would be without effect. On this point all doctors are agreed who treat of obedience and of laws.”13 


And finally: 


“For that reason, when it is established for certain that the law in a particular circumstance has become unjust or contrary to another command or virtue which is more binding [as the moral virtue of obedience is inferior to the cardinal virtue of justice], then the law ceases to oblige and on his own initiative he can disregard the law without having recourse to the superior,14 given that the law in that case could not be observed without sin, nor could the superior bind his subject to respect it without sin”15 


It is in this broad and proper sense of epikeia, then, that Archbishop Lefebvre was fully justified (in fact, morally compelled, given the state of grave general spiritual necessity) in performing the 1988 episcopal consecrations, notwithstanding the “no” of the pope. Insofar as Fr. Harrison appears to have limited his knowledge on the matter to epikeia in the strict and improper sense, it was likewise impossible that he could have arrived at any other conclusion than that “Canonically speaking, Archbishop Lefebvre really did not have a leg to stand on.” 


Faulty principles yield faulty conclusions. 




Conclusion: 


It should be obvious to the reader that the arguments contained herein, in defense of the actions of Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX, against the unreasonably opposed will of the Pope, are every bit as applicable to those bishops, priests, and faithful now collectively known as “the Resistance,” organizing in opposition to the unreasonably opposed will of Bishop Fellay. 


As the SSPX continues upon its relentless course of rapprochement with unconverted Rome, and is contaminated in the process by self-censorship and doctrinal compromise in pursuit of this objective, the faithful and clergy have the same rights (and possibly duty, particularly for clergy) to seek and form new “lifeboats” of Catholic orthodoxy, protected from the conciliar infection which is now showing so many symptoms within the SSPX.16 


Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX District Superiors variously once told us that one of those rights we faithful possessed was: 


“indeed a strict right to know that the priests who serve [us] are not in communion with a counterfeit church.”17 


But as both Rome and Menzingen have announced their intentions to form such a communion (and in fact, have already partially accomplished such a union),18 it is no longer so clear that our priests are not in such communion with a counterfeit church. In fact, the evidence cited in #18 (as well as the list of compromises contained in the attached supplementary article) tends rather to suggest otherwise. 


In that case, how else can we abide by Archbishop Lefebvre’s command that: 


“It is, therefore, a strict duty for every priest [and laymen] wanting to remain Catholic to separate himself from this Conciliar Church for as long as it does not rediscover the Tradition of the Church and of the Catholic Faith,”19 


...except by organizing new venues which are not in communion with a counterfeit Church?
 _____________________________________________________ 


1 I am thinking here of Fr. Simoulin’s article, “Avoiding a False Spirit of Resistance,” or Fr. Marc Vernoy’s “It is a mortal sin to reject a deal from the Pope;” etc. 


2 SiSiNoNo (July and Sept.., 1999). Angelus Press (Kansas City, MO). 


3 V. Roberti-Palazzini, Dizionariao di Teologia morale, ad. Studium, under "equita." See also: "aequitas canonica" cit., and Naz, Dictionnaire Droit canonique under "equite." http://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/SiSiNoNo/1999 September/The 1988 Consecrations.htm#18B 


4 Suarez, cit. See 1st paragraph of section titled “C. REFUTATION OF MORE FALSE OBJECTIONS” here: http://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/SiSiNoNo/1999 September/The 1988 Consecrations.htm 


5 Fr. Tito Centi, O.P. La Somma Teologica, ed. Salani, vol. XIX, nota 1, p.247. http://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/SiSiNoNo/1999 September/The 1988 Consecrations.htm#35B 


6 V. Roberti-Palazzini, Dizionariao di Teologia morale, ad. Studium, under "equita." See also: "aequitas canonica" cit., and Naz, Dictionnaire Droit canonique under "equite." http://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/SiSiNoNo/1999 September/The 1988 Consecrations.htm#18B 


7 F. Suarez, De Legibus, 1, VI, c.VIII, n.1 http://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/SiSiNoNo/1999 September/The 1988 Consecrations.htm#17B 


8 Fr. Tito Centi O.P. La Somma Teologica, ed. Salani, vol. XIX, nota 1, p.247. http://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/SiSiNoNo/1999 September/The 1988 Consecrations.htm#35B 


9 Suarez, De Legibus, L.VI, c.VII, n.11. [Paraphrased from this citation, with additional commentary] http://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/SiSiNoNo/1999 September/The 1988 Consecrations.htm#21B 


10 Naz, Dict. cit. "epikie," col.366. http://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/SiSiNoNo/1999 September/The 1988 Consecrations.htm#19B 11 Suarez, De Legibus, L.VI, c.VII, n.


11. http://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/SiSiNoNo/1999 September/The 1988 Consecrations.htm#21B 


12 Suarez, De statu perfectionis/De voto oboedientia, L.X, c.IV, n.15. http://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/SiSiNoNo/1999 September/The 1988 Consecrations.htm#29B 


13 Suarez, De statu perftctionis/De voto oboedientia, L.X,c.IV,n.15. http://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/SiSiNoNo/1999 September/The 1988 Consecrations.htm#30B 


14 Suarez, De Legibus, L.VI, c.VIlI, n.1. http://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/SiSiNoNo/1999 September/The 1988 Consecrations.htm#31 


15 Suarez, op. cit. n.2. http://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/SiSiNoNo/1999 September/The 1988 Consecrations.htm#32B 


16 Such as those 20 examples contained and documented in pp. 6-9 of the article “Response to an SSPX Priest: Part I” which accompanies this article as a supplemental attachment. 


17http://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/ArchbishopLefebvre/Archbishop Lefebvre and the Vatican/Part I/1988-07-06.htm 


18 The reference is to various grants of jurisdiction to Bishop Fellay: To try his own priests (using the 1983 CIC, of course); the grant of confessional jurisdiction for the Holy Year (which Rome announces will extend beyond the Year); tacit consent by Rome and the local bishop to perform priestly ordinations; the Argentinian recognition of the SSPX as belonging to the Catholic Church; etc.; etc. All these references can easily be found with simple Google searches. 


19 Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, “Spiritual Journey,” p. 13. http://www.ecclesiamilitans.com/2014/11/13/spiritualjourney-by-archbishop-l…
_________________
"I have passed on that which I have received." -Archbishop Lefebvre


Revenir en haut
Contenu Sponsorisé






MessagePosté le: Aujourd’hui à 13:43 (2016)    Sujet du message: Légalement Résistant le Pape

Revenir en haut
Montrer les messages depuis:   
Poster un nouveau sujet   Répondre au sujet    Christus Vincit! Christus Regnat! Christus Imperat! Index du Forum -> La Résistance -> Tout ce qui concerne la crise dans l'Église et dans la FSSPX Toutes les heures sont au format GMT + 1 Heure
Page 1 sur 1

 
Sauter vers:  

Index | Panneau d’administration | Creer un forum | Forum gratuit d’entraide | Annuaire des forums gratuits | Signaler une violation | Conditions générales d'utilisation
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
Traduction par : phpBB-fr.com