Disobedience

[marcsababa]

I wouldn’t disobey the Pope in matters of faith and morals. I would probably also have to have a grave reason to disobey any direct command. However, I do think I can disagree with the Pope. I do disagree with even the present Pope about vaccinations.

 

[Rykell]

That is why we must abstain from meat on Ash Wednesday and on Fridays during Lent, for example. This is neither a dogmatic nor infallible issue, in that it is a discipline that has been changed.

Yes it is a discipline, but these are left up to the bishops to regulate, not the pope. That is why in some dioceses, there may be an exception granted, yet it may not be given in others. For instance, in some cases the bishops dispensed with abstinence on March 17th (the feast of St. Patrick) which fell on a Friday during lent. Not every diocese enjoyed the same dispensation, but the bishops required that their people abstain.

 

[TradyDaddy]

I first voted that you could not disobey the Pope, but then I realized that the US Bishops and Cardinals have already shown that you can disobey the Pope by their actions over the last few decades. Therefore I retract my vote.

 

[marcsababa]

I first voted that you could not disobey the Pope, but then I realized that the US Bishops and Cardinals have already shown that you can disobey the Pope by their actions over the last few decades. Therefore I retract my vote.

“Can” and “rightfully allowed to” are two different things. I guess the question posed by this poll has been officially ripped to shreds.

Wow.

After a while of participating in these discussions I am so grateful for the Church. (I do enjoy the arguing, don’t get me wrong) When the jews did all their arguing, parsing and interpreting they ended up with an extra couple of books to study!!!

AFter 2000 years we still only have one bible, one church, one shepherd but lots of refinements of the interpretation of the deposit of faith in the writings of our Fathers and of course the various versions of the catechism that are all correct, but SOME like to dislike the newer versions.

 

[Kristopher]

Corki said, “…I can’t come up with a real world example that doesn’t devolve into silliness (like eating KFC). …”.

Dear Corki, et. al.

Initially, I agreed with your example that eating KFC is a silly point to argue that we should by-and-large be able to eat KFC, without much obstruction, even against doctor’s orders; nonetheless, I did some reading last night.

When we consider our first parents, and God said, do no eat of the tree in the garden, in the middle, the apple tree; He in very modern terms, can be said to have said, do not eat KFC; though, this would appear silly at the outset; it does bare a test of loyalty.

Disobedience as others have noted is a difficult concept it seems. Someone beleived that the question asked has been torn to shreds. Arguably, the question has been answered perhaps only by one at this point: it may be the second or the third post. The person posting stated: all are obligated to be disobedient against whomever might instruct self, or others to be sinful.

The question never was and it may be you do not need to hear this, but for the sake of clarification to others–the question is not would you disobey the pope, but when will you–it is a question of time, and the premise to support the claim that it is a matter of time would not only be our first parents, but the frequency of grace received through the sacrament of reconciliation.

When I first arrived at Ft. Dix, NJ in 1989 for Basic Training in the Army, many of us new recruits were given introductory “seminars” for lack of a better word. One of them of course, was given by the Chaplain. He had a bet, and he always bet on a sure thing that by the end of our stay in Basic Training, each and everyone of us would cry.

Many of us of course, thought we already had lost the bet, when we considered the soldier who recently either successfully, or unsuccessfully committed suicide, or we considered the one next to us who had cried, because they were away from home for the first time.

It turned out that he would have won the bet, hands down, because each and everyone of us would break the seal of our gas mask, in full protective gear, to be exposed to a canister of triggered gas filling the room, which would undoubtedly cause all to cry–except those of us, willing to obey a direct order.

Most sincerely,

Kristopher

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

The other matter I thought sounded in the light, of Vatican I, to be brushed with too broad of a brush-stroke is the Pope calling upon a ruler to stop war, with another country, when declared by a given Pope to be unjust. If the “world leader”, so-to-speak, were Catholic, the leader would be obliged to heed the Pope’s declaration, against the war.

Similarly, the Pope is the head of Christianity, period. There is no way to refute this and therefore, schismatics: Lutherans, varieties of Orthodox churches, and all other Protestant sects are in fact, taught by Jesus to be submissive to the Roman Pontiff. Undoubtedly the command of the Pope against a war to be waged by his own Catholic faithful would no doubt be a declaration that must comply with whatever dignity is to be afforded to a king, a head of state, a president, etc.

You simply misunderstand the authority of the papacy. You cited Vatican I, which lists the authority of the pope in matters of faith and morals and matters of discipline or governance of the Church. That’s great. But then you go on to ignore the very teachings of the popes whose authority you think your are defending when they explain, as John Paul’s catechism did, that the legitimate (secular) authority is the only one who makes binding decisions for himself about the justice of a war. An elementary acquaintance with just war theory reveals that the Catholic Church clearly teaches this.

 

[Kristopher]

Andreas Hofer: “You simply misunderstand the authority of the papacy. …the authority of the pope in matters of faith and morals and matters of discipline or governance of the Church. That’s great. …you go on to ignore…the legitimate (secular) authority is the only one who makes binding decisions for himself about the justice of a war. …”.

You may be right: The Spanish Inquisition was never headed, authoritatively by any particular Pope, and I understand that whomever reigned as Pope across the period of the The Spanish Inquisition opposed some particular aspect of it, without success. The Spanish Inquisition from what I understand has been recognized as the flawed gem of those Kings and Queens who reigned during The Spanish Inquisition; nonetheless, to whom were these secular rulers to be obedient toward in terms of faith, and of morals, and of discipline, and as you add–government?

Nonetheless, even in my secular life, I am to live as a Catholic. If I were for some God-forsaken reason elected President of the US, then I would have to advise others in accord with my faith, as I must do today, with whatever advise that I have to offer others and therefore, the Pope always is the authority to whom I must submit; just as it is God to whom I must always submit in public, and in private–even moreso of course, than to the Pope.

I think that it is like the angels in heaven, with their intelligence and their freewill–some broke their loyalty with God, and chose Hell, over-and-above Heaven. God of course was/is the authority, even over their state in Hell; nonetheless, he wanted to be chosen.

My point is The Pope is THE authority, as the visible head of The Church, on earth; no matter what our secular position might be in the face of his authority, and of course he must submit to canon law, to traditions of the church, and whatever else that I do not know, but obedience to the Pope should be a very prominent aspect of every Catholic’s life.

Most sincerely,

Kristopher

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

Obedience is a key Christian exercise, yet our faith teaches that certain authorities only command obedience within certain “jurisdictions,” and even the scope of required obedience to the pope has its limitations. Politics is the perfect example of this.

Every Catholic politician is obligated to govern in accordance with the Catholic faith. But the Catholic faith does not teach that proper government must involve holding all citizens to Catholic standards of faith and morals. So a Catholic is not required to ban certain things if that ban would cause more public disorder than otherwise. Also, even though Catholics are bound to seek to help the poor, they are free to do that according to the strategy they think will be most effective. That’s because despite having a Catholic teaching that we must help the poor there is no Catholic teaching that we must do this by setting up a government program that provides for a fixed entitlement, or that we must do this by promoting private contributions. Catholic teaching is open on the matter, and it also teaches that the pope cannot coerce politicians by invoking obedience in these matters because the temporal governance of states not his own is not under his jurisdiction.

 

[Kristopher]

Dear Andreas Hofer, et. al.:

I think that we agree, now, and I understand some of the details more clearly–your post, number nine, after thinking about your reply, and a few other replies; really answered the question: when would you disobey the Pope?–very well, I think.

A few others dealt with this question, it seemed to me–someone mentioned a Pope, or anyone else, commanding someone toward sin as a situation requisite of disobedience.

Someone else answered that in some respects, we all have been disbobedient to the Pope. Those answers dealt with the “when” aspect of the question very well.

Of course this most recent answer, or clarification that you gave, has dealt much more with the “legitimate” aspect of being disobedient to the Pope: jurisdiction dealing with legitimacy to make decisions, which for whatever reason either are, or appear to be contrary to the Pope in addition to the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) in the paragraphs, which concern the Just War Theory–leaving authority in the hands of the secular rulers.

So, the two points, which I see that allow for disobedience to the Pope, however much of a stretch it might be to say it, are in the instances when it is afforded by the CCC, by jurisdiction, and I would have to add in the case of Marcel Lefebvre, (So far as his arguement is concerned.), the Code of Canon Law, which I think involves all of these mentioned.

Marcel Lefebvre was the head of the Fraternal Society of Saint Pius X; he was within in his jurisdiction to do as he had done; he had cited what he found to be relevant to exonerate him of disobedience within the Code of Canon Law; additionally, had he done otherwise the disorder, no pun intended, which would have resulted against those members of FSSPX might have been more severe, than anything that could be alleviated by another Fraternal organization, such as what Ecclesia Dei attempted, unsuccessfully, to accomplish via the Fraternal Society of Saint Peter.

I should–to all others and inclusive of yourself, Andreas, thank everyone to this point that has contributed both to the poll, to the thread, and those who have viewed both the posts and the poll.

My apologies to anyone whom might have felt offended that I stated in an earlier post, a more recent post that few had answered the question–I was thinking poorly; forgetting the question to the poll, oddly enough.

Okay, I have no idea that this topic has been exhausted, or that it can be exhausted, when I consider that FSSPX has been structured to be dealt with by everything in Ecclesia Dei, almost twenty yrs. ago, but what must be some of the very broad generalities that allow others to assess both obedient and disobedient behaviors have been–I think–established in reasonable terms: the Code of Canon Law, The Ten Commandments, The CCC, and jurisdiction if it is not already included in the aforementioned items.

Most sincerely,

Kristopher

P.S. For clarification–the abbreviation et. al. means the following: and others.

 

[bear06]

Marcel Lefebvre was the head of the Fraternal Society of Saint Pius X; he was within in his jurisdiction to do as he had done; he had cited what he found to be relevant to exonerate him of disobedience within the Code of Canon Law; additionally, had he done otherwise the disorder, no pun intended, which would have resulted against those members of FSSPX might have been more severe, than anything that could be alleviated by another Fraternal organization, such as what Ecclesia Dei attempted, unsuccessfully, to accomplish via the Fraternal Society of Saint Peter.

No, Lebevre was not within his jurisdiction and you seem to fail to understand that the POPE is the final arbiter of how canon law is to be applied. He is also the final arbiter of necessity. It would also appear that you might want to read the history of the SSPX:

sspx.agenda.tripod.com/id8.html

Vere quite thorougly lays out canon law (he is a canon lawyer) and jurisdiction in his thesis.

 

[Kristopher]

Dear Bear:

Yes, you expressed your view(s) at another thread, and were read.

This is an inappropriate thread for the topic you are raising, and perhaps it is an inappropriate site as well; the site is for discussion. Should you rather persuade people to your view at another site–you might like to find it, and go there.

I have no idea what you think that I meant, with respect to Marcel Lefebvre, and the obvious position he held within FSSPX, but clearly he held a position of such authority, within a particular jurisdiction peculiar to FSSPX–you have no room to argue the point, and certainly, the point is not open to discussion here, but open only for reflection among those who like to do so, as it pertains to the two questions asked here.

This is my first address to your ill behavior. Either I will give you two other warnings on the matter of being unduly confrontational, or I will report you; as it suits me.

Most sincerely,

Kristopher

 

[bear06]

This is an inappropriate thread for the topic you are raising, and perhaps it is an inappropriate site as well; the site is for discussion. Should you rather persuade people to your view at another site–you might like to find it, and go there.

How so? It’s about obedience in the Lefebvre context. I did not bring up the topic. I only continued talking about it which I think constitutes a discussion.

I have no idea what you think that I meant, with respect to Marcel Lefebvre, and the obvious position he held within FSSPX, but clearly he held a position of such authority, within a particular jurisdiction peculiar to FSSPX–you have no room to argue the point, and certainly, the point is not open to discussion here, but open only for reflection among those who like to do so, as it pertains to the two questions asked here.

I don’t think that you are allowed to quell discussions on these forums. It would sound as if you are saying “I am going to put forth a statement. You can read it but you can’t reply.” I might have it wrong but this is how it appears to me.

Here’s the parameters listed for the establishment of the SSPX:

1. The “International Priestly Society of St. Pius X” is erected in our diocese as a “Pia Unio” (Pious Union).

1. The seat of the Society is fixed as the Maison Saint Pie X (St. Pius X House), 50, rue de la Vignettaz, in our episcopal city of Fribourg.

1. We approve and confirm the Statutes, here joined, of the Society for a period of six years ad experimentum, which will be able to be renewed for a similar period by tacit approval; after which, the Society can be erected definitely in our diocese by the competent Roman Congregation.(19)

And here is where any juridical basis ends:

Now

such a Declaration appears unacceptable to us on all points. It is impossible to reconcile most of the affirmations contained in the document with authentic fidelity to the Church, to the one who is responsible for Her, and to the Council in which the mind and will of the Church were expressed. It is inadmissible that every individual should be invited to submit papal directives to his own private judgment and decide for himself whether to accept or reject them…

It is with the entire approval of His Holiness [Paul VI] that we communicate the following decisions to you:

1. “A letter will be dispatched to Mgr. Mamie according him the right to withdraw the approval which his predecessor gave to the Fraternity and to its statutes.” This has been done in a letter from His Excellency Cardinal Tabera, Prefect of the Congregation for Religious.

1. Once it is suppressed, the Society “no longer having a juridical basis, its foundations, and notably the Seminary at Ecône, lose by the same act the right to existence.”

1. It is obvious – we are invited to notify it clearly – “that no support whatsoever can be given to Mgr. Lefebvre as long as the ideas contained in the Manifesto of 21 November continue to be the basis for his work.”(42)

This is my first address to your ill behavior. Either I will give you two other warnings on the matter of being unduly confrontational, or I will report you; as it suits me.

sspx.agenda.tripod.com/id8.html

I really don’t know what to tell you, Kristopher. I have no ill will here but you posted this:

Marcel Lefebvre was the head of the Fraternal Society of Saint Pius X; he was within in his jurisdiction to do as he had done; he had cited what he found to be relevant to exonerate him of disobedience within the Code of Canon Law; additionally, had he done otherwise the disorder, no pun intended, which would have resulted against those members of FSSPX might have been more severe, than anything that could be alleviated by another Fraternal organization, such as what Ecclesia Dei attempted, unsuccessfully, to accomplish via the Fraternal Society of Saint Peter

And I simply posted a reply to this. If you feel you need to report me, then I suppose you must do what you need to do but I’m still perplexed at why you would since you brought up the topic.

 

[Marian_Carroll]

And now back to the thread topic…

 

[Kristopher]

Dear Reader:

Part of the reason I asked the two questions that I asked, and ran a poll was to help myself make a more informed decision about where to attend mass: the disobedience of Marcel Lefebvre, as admitted by him in a protocol between himself and, then, Cardinal Ratzinger–seemed pivotal to my decision to attend mass, as I have done the past three wks., at an SSPX chapel.

This morning, Mon., I went to mass in the parish that I have attended across the past four to five yrs. Last night, my mom and I discussed: where to attend mass. I went to the chapel, SSPX, yesterday. My experiences were bad.

The threads and posts given by others have been a big help to me that I have read. One of them has been standing out in my mind, about how to deal with the attitude Traditionalists have amongst themselves.

I ended up looking at the situation as a bit analogous to my military experience between 1989-1992: I was Aiborne; I jumped out of planes for a living, in addition to a variety of other tasks that were most essentially classifed as military intelligence missions. The SSPX chapel I attended really is like Special Forces: elitists, basically, not everyone is particularly welcome there, but has to conform to some outward standard of literacy, of dress, and of attitude; additionally, you really have to learn Latin to follow the mass, and what a commitment!

I am not a Traditionalist, but more liberal than I have cared to admit. I have had terrifying, horrific experiences in life–they are experiences not able to be categorized as caused by any particular ideological “movement” for lack of a better word, but exist across a variety of demographic spectrums and hence, ideological spectrums.

No matter to what extent the veracity of Ecclesia Dei either has been, or is verified–I have come around to the following recognition of Ecclesia Dei’s purpose: it is a purpose very similar to Pope Pius XII’s reasoning for a new Bible, and Pope Paul VI’s reasoning for a new Catechism to bring people the faith, in a contemporary vein that the beauty of the faith, might be more clearly conveyed to whomever should become exposed to our faith–there is so much about SSPX that obfuscates the reality of today’s world, without addressing the real life issues Catholics, and would-be Catholics have to accept as problematic to their faith; yet, invigorating life as well for opposing sides ecumenically and evangelically is what I found.

This might further our discussion about disobedience to the extent that the dispute of SSPX being either schismatic, or excommunicated should be less of a focus and therefore, make the existence of SSPX a focus–it should be easily reasoned that with the assumption, however much more than an assumption it might actually be should be a point avoided for the sake of this discussion, with the assumption that Pope John Paul II did want to have not four, but one bishop ordained with the intent that the order should continue, only for the sake it might die a slow, and perhaps less painful death that Vatican II would be the guiding light of any, and of every Traditionalist and therefore, the gravity of disobedience to Pope John Paul II bears down on matters, which concern sinners in all their diversity and the means employed either by Traditionalists, or by the other folks to methodically, or programtically acknowledge such sinners: their faith or lack of it, with an approach that will bring people deeper into faith, even if it be only to the superficiality of it, which might be too deep, for too many.

In a nutshell, Vatican II in my experiences is better equipped to handle norms, which vary from one culture to the next culture, globally, which in my opinion is much more consistent with the mission of the Church: to preach Christ crucified, proclaim the Gospels, and baptize all nations as a universal church both in place, and across time–it is made suitable as a method of salvation for all peoples, all over the world, and at all times, which I think that should make becoming a saint all the more accessible to all and therefore, easier.

Most sincerely,

Kristopher