TNT,
Swearing allegiance while disregarding orders is not reasonable.
My submission to the pope includes obedience to canon law, and religious assent of mind and intellect to
any doctrine promulgated either by his solemn or ordinary teaching authority. To this and only this do I owe my allegiance.
I may not act as the Lefebvrist do, by disregarding either his laws, his liturgy, his judgements, or his doctrines that have been formally and universally promulgated and pretend to remain consistent with my Catholic oath. Integrity demands that I either renounce my Catholic citizenship, or submit to the Roman Pontiff in all things within his scope of authority.
I’m glad you did not argue against the other many points I included besides St Bellarmine. For now, I’ll assume they remain a problem.
The other points were without a source, if I recall. Thus, I don’t believe you made any point other than provide opinion, or the opinion of others. If you’d like to try again with verifiable sources, please be my guest.
Catholics may certainly assert, if they so conclude, that the decrees of Vatican II and/or the 1983 Code of Canon Law are
imprudent. However, Lefebvrists assert far more than that, stating they contain doctrinal error (although this is not within their competence to judge), and the canon laws can be disregarded in so far as they disagree with their theological perspective (also, this is not within their competence to judge).
Instead, St. Thomas teaches that there are three kinds of obedience:
- Sufficient obedience - obey in all things lawful, within the scope of the superiors authority. This is sufficient for salvation.
- Perfect obedience - obey in all things lawful, even if outside the scope of the superiors authority. This is the obedience of saints, such as that obedience St. Catherine of Sienna teaches.
- Indiscreet obedience - obedience even in things unlawful.
The example of indiscreet obedience St. Thomas provides never includes a case where one can give indiscreet obedience to the Roman Pontiff. In matters that are solely within the Roman Pontiffs competence and authority, we must always defer to him, as it can never be contrary to higher authority.
It is traditional Catholic teaching that Divine obedience can never by contrary to obedience to the Holy Father, the more perfect the one the more perfect the other. (cf. St. Catherine of Sienna, Ven. John Henry Newman, St. Robert Cardinal Bellarmine).
Thus, there can be no indiscreet obedience when it comes to that obedience to the Holy Father within the scope of the Holy Father’s authority, that is, for matters doctrinal, liturgical, canonical, or judicial within the Church.
Nevertheless, even a good can come from such. After all, the minute the SSPX Bp’s. were declared lepers, the TLM apeared out of nowhere…the 1962 version, not the '65…blessed relief for Catholics and this tiger released may be the VATII church’s biggest mistake in the plan for total eucumenism.
The HS is potent and omniscient
Careful here, as it is also Catholic doctrine that it is never lawful to do evil such that good may come of it. (cf. St. Paul, Rom 3:8, Pope Paul VI, *Humanae Vitae, *14). Of course, I have often known Lefebvrist to assert the contrary, which is astonishing coming from so-called “traditionalists.” This seems more like another modernists tendency of the Lefebvrist schism, along side probabilism.
Yet, the Lord certainly can draw good from evil, as he does with the Protestant and Lefebvrist movements.
