A great sermon on the Papacy

[EphelDuath]

No. See, you are not listening to me and instead painting me up as either anti-authoritarian or Protestant.

You are forgetting that I am already basing my reasoning, in resisting in the examples I gave, on previous decisions and protocols by men of same authority. So it is not correct to just say I am Protestant.

I am also speaking of decisions rather than teachings on faith and morals. The decisions are based on objective data that is available to anyone.

It is a bit more sophisticated than Protestantism, it’s some strange form of ultramontanism where you think everything the Pope does is infallible.

Even if you don’t say that’s the case, that is what you’re saying in substance: the reigning Pope should not be obeyed if he says something contrary to what a previous Pope has decreed, even if it wasn’t a statement made ex cathedra. Your error is refusing to see that if something is practical and prudential, then it is in fact mutable, and two different Popes can decree opposite things without distorting the authority of the Chair of Peter.

For disobeying to bomb the village?

No, bombing the village, which has no combatants. That would be blatant sin. That’s grounds for lawful disobedience.

 

[BanjoPlayer]

It is a bit more sophisticated than Protestantism, it’s some strange form of ultramontanism where you think everything the Pope does is infallible.

Even if you don’t say that’s the case, that is what you’re saying in substance: the reigning Pope should not be obeyed if he says something contrary to what a previous Pope has decreed, even if it wasn’t a statement made ex cathedra. Your error is refusing to see that if something is practical and prudential, then it is in fact mutable, and two different Popes can decree opposite things without distorting the authority of the Chair of Peter.

No, I am saying that if there is a decision in the past, I can also see what the factors considered in arriving at the decision. That matter and method remains timeless, even if the facts change over time.

Given that, I can then evaluate the current decision of a Pope. So it may well be that at some ages the facts have changed. Like the example you gave on the change to vernacular, perhaps the dangers can be seen reasonably abated at this period. Anyone can arrive at the decision because we can also see the facts. In fact, it is in being able to do so that one can claim if a person is wise or unwise.

So all I am saying is that even with decisions of today, I can evaluate using the same points that the past pontiffs had raised and see if something makes sense. If the danger is ever present and I see that the decisions are reckless, then I do have an obligation, just like the bomber, to resist the command.

I cannot just blindly obey knowing that the command if carried out will result in destruction.

 

[EphelDuath]

No, I am saying that if there is a decision in the past, I can also see what the factors considered in arriving at the decision. That matter and method remains timeless, even if the facts change over time.

Given that, I can then evaluate the current decision of a Pope. So it may well be that at some ages the facts have changed. Like the example you gave on the change to vernacular, perhaps the dangers can be seen reasonably abated at this period. Anyone can arrive at the decision because we can also see the facts. In fact, it is in being able to do so that one can claim if a person is wise or unwise.

So all I am saying is that even with decisions of today, I can evaluate using the same points that the past pontiffs had raised and see if something makes sense. If the danger is ever present and I see that the decisions are reckless, then I do have an obligation, just like the bomber, to resist the command.

I cannot just blindly obey knowing that the command if carried out will result in destruction.

I’m sorry, I really don’t know what else to say at this point! Perhaps someone else here can chip in. I’ve said everything I have: one is not justified in disobeying one’s superior just because he thinks the decision is wrong. Do it in the military and you’ll be charged with mutiny. Do it in a religious order and you’ll be suspended or kicked out. And how much worse it is to disobey the Bishop who sits in the Chair of Peter for arbitrary reasons. You can’t disobey a law because you thought the old one was better, you can’t disobey your military orders because you think the general is wrong, you can’t disobey the Pope because you think his predecessors were right.

 

[BanjoPlayer]

I’m sorry, I really don’t know what else to say at this point! Perhaps someone else here can chip in. I’ve said everything I have: one is not justified in disobeying one’s superior just because he thinks the decision is wrong. Do it in the military and you’ll be charged with mutiny. Do it in a religious order and you’ll be suspended or kicked out. And how much worse it is to disobey the Bishop who sits in the Chair of Peter for arbitrary reasons. You can’t disobey a law because you thought the old one was better, you can’t disobey your military orders because you think the general is wrong, you can’t disobey the Pope because you think his predecessors were right.

Look, you make it sound like I had a bright idea this morning that conflicts with the Pope and now I want to disagree with him. That is not the case.

My point is that there are decisions made by men of equal authority (past Popes) on certain matters. These decision making involved

1. Consideration of Dangers
2. Consideration of facts
3. Consideration of faith and morals
4. Logical rules of inference

Now none of these are beyond the Pope of today or the faithful. The Pope, while infallible in his teaching office does not make decisions based on teachings he has not yet taught. So even element (3) above is not an obstacle to anyone.

Given that is the case, any person can take a look at his decisions and evaluate if they are wise or unwise. The standard used would be the previous Popes processes and the sense that has become built in to our own thinking as a result of thinking in sync with them.

Afterward, it would seem that one can arrive at the decision perhaps that it is a true danger to the faith. Now at that point, is there no moral obligation to resist the command? Or do you just assume yourself to be mistaken and follow the Pope?

Also, if for 2000 years the Church adopted a different set of protocols and now all of a sudden a Pope wants to change it, is there no real reason to be suspicious? At least out of loyalty to what was there before, would you not want to be sure that things are indeed different and the decision is wise? Is there no explanation owed to the faithful on why such a drastic decision is compatible with what has been there before?

 

[JReducation]

I’m not sure what has triggered all of this talk on obedience to the pope. But it would be good to look at the great masters on the subject of obedience.

**
That man leaves all he possesses and loses his body and his soul who abandons himself wholly to obedience in the hands of his superior, and whatever he does and says—provided he himself knows that what he does is good and not contrary to his [the superior’s] will—is true obedience. And if at times a subject sees things which would be better or more useful to his soul than those which the superior commands him, let him sacrifice his will to God, let him strive to fulfil the work enjoined by the superior. This is true and charitable obedience which is pleasing to God and to one’s neighbor.

Admonition of St. Francis of Assisi**

**
The first degree of humility is obedience without delay.
This is the virtue of those
who hold nothing dearer to them than Christ;
who, because of the holy service they have professed,
and the fear of hell,
and the glory of life everlasting,
as soon as anything has been ordered by the Superior,
receive it as a divine command
and cannot suffer any delay in executing it.

St. Benedict**

** The superior should be obeyed as a father with the respect due him so as not to offend God in his person.

St. Augustine**
**
”The obedience which we render to a superior is paid to God, Who says, ‘He that hears you hears Me;’ so that whatever he who holds the place of God commands, supposing it is not evidently contrary to God’s law, is to be received by us as if it came from God Himself; for it is the same thing to know His Will, either from His Own, from an Angel’s, or from a man’s mouth.”
-Saint Bernard of Clairvaux, Father and Doctor of the Church**

**”Obedience is a virtue of so excellent a nature, that Our Lord was pleased to mark its observance upon the whole course of His life; thus He often says, He did not come to do His Own will, but that of His Heavenly Father.”

”Naturally we all have an inclination to command, and a great aversion to obey; and yet it is certain that it is more for our good to obey than to command; hence perfect souls have always had a great affection for obedience, and have found all their joy and comfort in it.”
-Saint Francis of Sales, Doctor of the Church**

"Nothing gives greater security to our actions, or more effectually cuts the snares the devil lays for us, than to follow another person’s will, rather than our own, in doing good.”
-Saint Philip Neri

”Obedience is a penance of reason, and, on that account, a sacrifice more acceptable than all corporal penances and mortifications.”
-Saint John of the Cross, Doctor of the Church

catholicquotations.blogspot.com/2008/07/on-obedience.html

I realize that some will think that this is only for religious; but it’s not. When these men and women wrote this their understanding was the the religious life was the school of perfection to which the laity looked. Therefore, their teaching on authority and obedience remains valid to this day.

As we can see, the Church has a long spiritual and mystical tradition of obedience, even when we think that authority is mistaken.

I believe that we have been so contaminated by the “culture of democracy and common sense” that we have forgotten the “culture of humility and submission.”

 

[Megan7]

audiosancto.org/sermon/20131027-The-Vicar-of-Christ-the-King-True-Devotion-to-the-Pope.html

The summary:

Thanks for the link

 

[BanjoPlayer]

I’m not sure what has triggered all of this talk on obedience to the pope. But it would be good to look at the great masters on the subject of obedience.

But none of the quotes you posted say anything with much theological analysis. Bl. Newman who did undertake a theological and philosophical analysis on the subject did not arrive at the same conclusion with respect to obedience.

My argument, though different from Bl. Newman, is as follows.

1. To assume that everything the Pope says is in our best interest requires a grounding in faith and morals.
2. There exists no such grounds in the doctrine of the Church. In fact, a Pope can err on matters of decisions.
3. Therefore it is logically possible that a Pope will undertake a reckless action.
4. Therefore it must be equally possible to oppose the Pope for the love of the Church.

Of course then there is an issue on what basis to conclude that a Pope is reckless in a particular decision. It seems reasonable for me that a person can do so on the grounds of decisions that had been made before on matters of faith and morals (or if the subject be on a secular subject, based on secular expertise).

I am willing to admit that I might be wrong on this but I just want to be sure. So if someone can explain what is wrong in my thinking, it is appreciated.

 

[JReducation]

But none of the quotes you posted say anything with much theological analysis. Bl. Newman who did undertake a theological and philosophical analysis on the subject did not arrive at the same conclusion with respect to obedience.

My argument, though different from Bl. Newman, is as follows.

1. To assume that everything the Pope says is in our best interest requires a grounding in faith and morals.
2. There exists no such grounds in the doctrine of the Church. In fact, a Pope can err on matters of decisions.
3. Therefore it is logically possible that a Pope will undertake a reckless action.
4. Therefore it must be equally possible to oppose the Pope for the love of the Church.

Of course then there is an issue on what basis to conclude that a Pope is reckless in a particular decision. It seems reasonable for me that a person can do so on the grounds of decisions that had been made before on matters of faith and morals (or if the subject be on a secular subject, based on secular expertise).

I am willing to admit that I might be wrong on this but I just want to be sure. So if someone can explain what is wrong in my thinking, it is appreciated.

I may be able to help you here.

Let’s take Newman first. When Newman wrote this he was in transition. By the end of his life he subscribed to the spiritual masters on the subject of obedience. Those whom I cited above being some of the masters. We know this from the way that Newman lived by the end of his life.

In addition, the masters themselves are upholding a tradition. We can’t argue for tradition and throw this tradition out the window, because it does not allow us to dissent. We must embrace what has been handed down to us the way that the Magisterium wants us to understand it.

Popes can make mistakes on anything that is not about faith or morals. This is a well known fact. However, the Church’s law does not allow for anyone to challenge the pope even if he makes such mistakes. Canon Law is very clear on this. We owe obedience to Canon Law. This was something that Pope Paul VI threw in Archbishop Lefebvre’s face and one reason why the founders of the FSSP was founded. The men involved did not want to be in a situation where they were outside of the law.

The pope cannot err when he teaches faith or morals. It is humanly impossible. It has never happened. When you speak of error, I’m hoping that you’re not including faith or morals. That’s not possible.

“To oppose the pope for love of the Church” I will go back to Pope Paul VI who was in the process of rewriting canon law when he died. One of the things that he left in writing is that one cannot oppose the pope and love the Church. Where there is Peter, there is the Church.

If one is talking about an antipope, yes. One can and should oppose. That person is not really the pope. But when it comes to the real pope, Church law prohibits any opposition under any circumstance. It is very clear that the faithful (lay, clergy and religious) have no appeal beyond the pope. Any such opposition is an appeal to our own authority. But we have no authority.

When one opposes something, there has to be an arbiter to settle the dispute. If you’re opposing the arbiter himself, are you in opposition or in rebellion? Jesus Christ is not gong to come down, scold the pope and past us on the head. It does not work that way. If the pope digs in his heals, at some point, we have to cave in or create a schism. To avoid this, the law does not allow for such apposition. Such opposition can be terminated with excommunication. The pope can excommunicate any of us if he doesn’t like the color of our toothbrush. It’s happened before. Think of all the monarchs who were excommunicated, put under interdict or given other penalties because they did not go along with the pope. The popes who imposed these excommunications did not allow these folks to receive the sacraments, not even the sacrament of the sick when they were dying. They died without confession. The popes refused to lift the excommunication until the person recanted.

My point is that I would not push that line too much. It may not work out in our favor. The cards are all in his hands, not our own. I’m reminded of a parish in the Midwest that was put under interdict for opposing its parish priests. Pope Francis approved it under the following canon.
**
Canon 915 Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion**

 

[BanjoPlayer]

I may be able to help you here.

Let’s take Newman first. When Newman wrote this he was in transition. By the end of his life he subscribed to the spiritual masters on the subject of obedience. Those whom I cited above being some of the masters. We know this from the way that Newman lived by the end of his life.

In addition, the masters themselves are upholding a tradition. We can’t argue for tradition and throw this tradition out the window, because it does not allow us to dissent. We must embrace what has been handed down to us the way that the Magisterium wants us to understand it (cut out to meet the word length)

Thank you for the detailed response. I still have the following issue.

Given that a Pope is not protected by infallibility in his ordinary decisions and even during a his private opinions on faith and morals (John XXII, Honorius etc), it is indeed possible that a Pope can present ideas and decisions that do harm to the Church (or is there something I am missing here?).

As much as I appreciate Pope Paul VI, this is where I find his argument to be weak against opposition to any decision. The only way Pope Paul VI can speak of such assent would be on teaching on faith and morals. In this sense, yes, where Peter is, the Church will always be. So SSPX would be out of line in saying that the Pope has taught error or that the Pope has approved of errors in a council.

But Pope Paul VI cannot say the claim “where Peter is, the Church is” with respect to decisions or private opinions. I am not sure there is anything in the deposit of faith that grants such immunity from destructive or reckless decision making for a Pope.

That is why I keep coming back in my head to the idea that one can oppose decisions or private opinions of a Pope.

What if, God forbid, a Pope were to proclaim tomorrow that he wants to get rid of the entire liturgical celebration texts and just keep the consecration alone. Or advised that the best way to be Christian is to visit the night-club every evening. Or asked that men and women sleep together in the same bed before marriage to become familiar with each other (but mention not to have sex with each other). Or said that we should absolutely refrain from ever pointing out a sin or error in another because that is the best way to express charity. Or that the required dress for mass is the Bikini for women.

All of these claims are possible for a Pope to make and there is no Canon law that will forbid him from doing such a thing. The reason being that almost all the claims above are traditional and prudential. Since they do not directly contradict natural law, all of them are, by what you have said, open to change.

But to anyone attuned to Christian sensibilities from a young age, almost all of the listed acts sound unacceptable.

Does one therefore simply obey the Pope if he said commanded those things? To me, it does not seem reasonable to do so.

 

[agnes_therese]

Also, if for 2000 years the Church adopted a different set of protocols and now all of a sudden a Pope wants to change it, is there no real reason to be suspicious? At least out of loyalty to what was there before, would you not want to be sure that things are indeed different and the decision is wise?

Exactly what “set of protocols” is the Pope changing “all of a sudden”? You keep bringing up what to do “if,” but no specifics as to exactly what you’re so worked up about.

Is there no explanation owed to the faithful on why such a drastic decision is compatible with what has been there before?

Well, technically, the answer is probably “no.” I don’t think there’s anything in Canon Law requiring it. But I would be very surprised if this Pope – or any modern Pope – made major changes with no explanation.

 

[BanjoPlayer]

Exactly what “set of protocols” is the Pope changing “all of a sudden”? You keep bringing up what to do “if,” but no specifics as to exactly what you’re so worked up about.

Well, technically, the answer is probably “no.” I don’t think there’s anything in Canon Law requiring it. But I would be very surprised if this Pope – or any modern Pope – made major changes with no explanation.

As much as I am currently holding the view of disobeying in some cases, I also hold that it is not right to simply type out what I disagree with regarding a Pope on a public forum where he is not even in the same conversation.

So I refuse to say what it is that upsets me or whether there is even anything that upsets me at all, regarding the current Pope’s decisions. I would rather this be a discussion of the question in general and I think it is possible to have such a discussion without dragging the actual decisions of a Pope in to the discussion. I hope you can respect that choice.

 

[JReducation]

Archbishop Lefebvre’s and the SSPX’s relationship to the pope is a little different to that of a layman, but if we can understand that, it may help understand the rest.

Thank you for the detailed response. I still have the following issue.

As much as I appreciate Pope Paul VI, this is where I find his argument to be weak against opposition to any decision.

His argument is not weak at all. It goes back to the Council of Jerusalem. The pope has the right to command obedience. Infallibility has nothing to do with this. This is about justice. It’s about the rights of the law giver over those whom he governs.

We see in the Council of Jerusalem, Paul going back to make his case before Peter. Paul did not dismiss Peter’s position and continue on his missionary journeys. He shows deference to Peter by going back to Jerusalem and pleading his case before him. He is not, contrary to misinterpretations, shoving anything in Peter’s face. He’s been given the opportunity to make his case and he does so very well. But it is Peter who gives him the opportunity. Without Peter’s permission, Paul would have been unable to speak at the Council. We notice that he never refers to him by his name, Simon. He refers to him by his title.

Even when Peter is mistaken, men are allowed to make their case, but only if Peter allows it and they make their case with great reverence and respect. At the end of the day, they settle for Peter’s verdict.

The only way Pope Paul VI can speak of such assent would be on teaching on faith and morals. In this sense, yes, where Peter is, the Church will always be.

When Clement of Rome made this statement, he was not talking about faith or morals. He was talking about authority. This has been handed down from the Fathers to this day. That’s where Paul VI comes from. This is a Patristic tradition.

So SSPX would be out of line in saying that the Pope has taught error or that the Pope has approved of errors in a council.

That’s right, because neither councils nor popes can teach error.

But Pope Paul VI cannot say the claim “where Peter is, the Church is” with respect to decisions or private opinions. I am not sure there is anything in the deposit of faith that grants such immunity from destructive or reckless decision making for a Pope.

The Catholic Church is built on Peter, regardless of his human weaknesses. Christ said, “Upon this rock”. He did not place conditions on the Rock. This is where Clement comes in a tells the Ephesians that they need to settle down. When they react to his correction, because he was the Bishop of Rome, not Ephasus, Clement appeals to the fact that the Pope is the rock upon which the Church is built and the two are inseparable.

That is why I keep coming back in my head to the idea that one can oppose decisions or private opinions of a Pope.

We can oppose private opinions. We cannot oppose decisions that he makes. Canon Law binds us to obey all of his decisions, be they on matters of faith, morals, disciplines, law or material things. If tomorrow he says that he’s closing down the papal palace and turning it into a shelter for the homeless, we have to accept it. We cannot oppose it. As the Pontiff, he has the right to make such a decision. That’s just an example, not reality.

What if, God forbid, a Pope were to proclaim tomorrow that he wants to get rid of the entire liturgical celebration texts and just keep the consecration alone.

As supreme liturgist, he has the authority to do it and it’s valid and legal. He would not be taking anything from the sacrament. He would be changing the environment. He would be goofy to do it. But it is legal and binding.

Or advised that the best way to be Christian is to visit the night-club every evening.

This may be good advice for some people. Some people have turned Catholicism into sour balls.

Or asked that men and women sleep together in the same bed before marriage to become familiar with each other (but mention not to have sex with each other).

No one has the authority to command sin. We know this.

Or said that we should absolutely refrain from ever pointing out a sin or error in another because that is the best way to express charity.

This is already in Church law. Check it out in the CCC. We can identify a sinful action. We cannot point fingers to individuals. Only bishops, confessors, parents, spiritual directors and others with authority to do so may do this.

All of these claims are possible for a Pope to make and there is no Canon law that will forbid him from doing such a thing.

You do know that Canon Law does not apply to the pope right? He is the giver of the law. He is above the law. No law applies to him. Only divinely revealed moral law applies to him, not Church law.

But to anyone attuned to Christian sensibilities from a young age, almost all of the listed acts sound unacceptable.

Does one therefore simply obey the Pope if he said commanded those things? To me, it does not seem reasonable to do so.

We must obey any legitimate authority when it commands what it has the right to command, be it the pope or the governor. We don’t have to like it. We may think it’s foolish. We may even have a better idea. This is what the masters of Spiritual Theology have been teaching us since the birth of the Church.

If it’s not a sin, we obey. God is pleased by obedience, not by practicality, customs, traditions, or human logic. Obedience makes us like Christ. There is nothing more illogical and more ridiculous than the cross. That a sinless man should die for a sinful humanity is beyond rational. But it was demanded by the Father and the Son obeyed.

 

[agnes_therese]

As much as I am currently holding the view of disobeying in some cases, I also hold that it is not right to simply type out what I disagree with regarding a Pope on a public forum where he is not even in the same conversation.

So I refuse to say what it is that upsets me or whether there is even anything that upsets me at all, regarding the current Pope’s decisions. I would rather this be a discussion of the question in general and I think it is possible to have such a discussion without dragging the actual decisions of a Pope in to the discussion. I hope you can respect that choice.

OK. But it makes it impossible to agree with you. I hope you can respect that choice, too.

 

[EphelDuath]

If Catholics were permitted to freely dissent from the Supreme Pontiff when they think he’s in error (even if they are deferring to previous decrees of the Church), then there would be no unity in the Catholic Church. The Pope would decree X, some would follow, some will say that the older law/custom was better.

 

[TimothyH]

The fourth or fifth words in this thread were “Church Militant”. I cringe whenever I hear that phrase. Everyone wants to be a warrior but no one wants to be a soldier.

So… Heavy Metal or Lord of the Rings?

-Tim-

 

[Church_Militant]

Thank you for the detailed response. I still have the following issue.

Or advised that the best way to be Christian is to visit the night-club every evening.

You obviously have never read the great poem by Hillaire Belloc.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

And before anyone tries to say that Belloc wasn’t a good tradition Catholic, keep in mind the following speech he made when his election to political office was challenged because of his Catholic faith.
Hilaire Belloc
He was elected to Parliament as a Liberal from 1906 to 1910, but came to believe that the parliamentary system was largely a sham. His famous election campaign speech, made to a mainly Protestant audience, gives us an idea of his combative nature:
“I am a Catholic. As far as possible I go to Mass every day. This (taking a rosary out of his pocket) is a rosary. As far as possible, I kneel down and tell these beads every day. If you reject me on account of my religion, I shall thank God that He has spared me the indignity of being your representative!”

There was a moment of stunned silence followed by thunderous applause, and Belloc was duly elected.

 

[clem456]

I am not sure I understand. What is the basis for saying I cannot? For to say so suggests that I must act contrary to the truth. Because all such decisions are based on empirical facts and standards, I can arrive a the truth of the decision independently. If I can evaluate the facts and see the action to be reckless, are you saying I must still go along with it?

Your reason is a tool that needs to be properly integrated with your faith. Following the facts through your reason is only a part of the journey.

We live by faith and not by sight.

As a Christian, your faith is in a person, Jesus Christ, not a book of facts and rules, and definitely not your own personal judgment which can easily err. Jesus is the only full and real truth. He entrusted authority to the apostles, of which the Pope is the living successor. Reasoning through a set of facts is not faith in itself, without trust in Jesus and the Church.
Faith requires a lot of trust.

 

[JReducation]

Your reason is a tool that needs to be properly integrated with your faith. Following the facts through your reason is only a part of the journey.

As a Christian, your faith is in a person, Jesus Christ, not a book of facts and rules, and definitely not your own personal judgment which can easily err. Jesus is the only full and real truth. He entrusted authority to the apostles, of which the Pope is the living successor. Reasoning through a set of facts is not faith in itself, without trust in Jesus and the Church.
Faith requires a lot of trust.

The red is mine.

You have hit the proverbial nail on the head. If we go back into Spiritual theology, the whole argument for unquestioning obedience in all things but sin is an argument about trust. The Masters believed that God is always in charge and in control. They believed that God was pleased not by our logic, but by our faith, hope and charity.

I was just speaking to a friend and I commented how I wished that everyone enjoyed the peace and joy that we do. Francis of Assisi was a very wise man. The only choice that he left to us was to sin or not to sin. Everything else, he put into the hands of the superior and the hierarchy. We can move through life completely detached from all of these concerns. They’re not important to us, because God is only concerned about our love. The rest is for those whose office it is to make these decisions.

St. Bonaventure always believed that the God of history does not make himself absent at any time. Even when history takes a wrong turn, God is still there. Our vocation is to keep our eye on God at all times and trust that he will steer history on the right course again. He will raise up someone or some people to take on this responsibility. But we should never aggrandize ourselves by believing that it is I who have to fix the Church and the word. None of us that great. That is faith. God will show the way. We don’t have to take charge.

I think this is what has made Franciscanism such a popular school of spiritual theology.

 

[BanjoPlayer]

Archbishop Lefebvre’s and the SSPX’s relationship to the pope is a little different to that of a layman, but if we can understand that, it may help understand the rest.

I wanted to reply to each point but it seemed more like a debate then so I thought I will extract what I still find hard to understand.

Take the example of a hypothetical Pope commanding that all women must wear a bikini to Church.

1. Is there anything intrinsically evil in the act of wearing a Bikini? No.
2. Is there anything imprudent about it and is it a near occasion of sin? Anyone with some traditional Catholic sensibilities will agree (so will most moderns who ever considered lust and leading others to temptation to both be a serious sins).
3. There is also nothing in doctrine that says a Pope is prevented from making such a statement

But the problem however is that while this is traditional, it is not natural law. So if I were to follow what you say, the Pope must be obeyed. That seems wrong.

So to me it seems like there are cases where one can disagree with the Pope’s decisions. All these cases must necessarily be due to a contradiction with traditional practices and sensibilities. In doing so, one is not arbitrarily saying what one believes but voicing concerns or sensibilities in sync with previous authorities of the Church itself.

Can you elaborate what is wrong in this thinking?

 

[BanjoPlayer]

Your reason is a tool that needs to be properly integrated with your faith. Following the facts through your reason is only a part of the journey.

As a Christian, your faith is in a person, Jesus Christ, not a book of facts and rules, and definitely not your own personal judgment which can easily err. Jesus is the only full and real truth. He entrusted authority to the apostles, of which the Pope is the living successor. Reasoning through a set of facts is not faith in itself, without trust in Jesus and the Church.
Faith requires a lot of trust.

I do not share this view since I do not believe in knowing a person very well apart from reason and what is revealed through the Church.

Whatever is known, if and when its known, is only a vague understanding of the person rather than anything close to the real person. If one does not use reason or the teachings of the Church, I am not sure how one can even tell the difference between a good spirit or evil spirit.

I appreciate the advise but I cannot accept it because my foundational beliefs contradict the assumptions I must make to accept what you have said.