One more try for a civil discussion?

[CradleCath]

I thought we might make one more try here to have civil (let us place enormous stress on that word) discussion/debate about the issues that some non-traditionalists seem to have with trads, as has been brought up many times in this forum in the recent past.

I will try to make my comments as “civil” as possible. However, I’m so tired of being guarded in my posts & it’s never really helped things, anyway.

(snipped for brevity)

Let’s define ‘traditionalist’ here for the purposes of the discussion. To me, a trad is someone who almost certain prefer the Tridentine rite Mass to the Novus Ordo and who believes that, at least to some extent, the Church took a “wrong turn” after Vatican II in terms of liturgy and teaching. ** A trad is not, however, a schismatic;**

 

[reggieM]

“I don’t know what you’d call this, but I’d call it a proof that high liturgy alone does not create orthodox Catholics.” Agreed. There are several reasons for not accepting the truth, all of them emanating from our common fallen nature.

I’m quite aware of the trads in Anglicanism and even Lutheranism who are looking to Rome, but the greater part of them are going the way of the world. After the decision of the Anglicans in the last Lambeth conference even Card. Kasper has almost given up on them.

In the country where I come from conversions were more numerous before V II and the reforms, part of because I know the bishops made it clear to protestants that it was better to stay with their denom than convert ( they hoped to reconcile the lot of them) I don’t want to be in those bishop’s shoes come judgement day.
The Orthodox are rather pleased with Summorum Pontificum, the Patriarch of Moscow said that what kept the Orthodox from falling during the Communist persecutions was their keeping to their traditions.

BTW: The writing on those murals are in Latin not in English.

All of that seems fine to me (not that bishops are telling Protestants not to convert, but that it happened), but the point that I was raising initially was that Vatican II called for a reform of the liturgy (of the 1962 Missal).

 

[reggieM]

**I cannot tell you how many years it’s been since I’ve heard Gregorian Chant sung during the Liturgy. Yet Vatican II stated that this music should have “pride of place” within the Mass. Isn’t this an abuse? .

 

[Joe_5859]

Actually, we are not in disagreement with the Magisterium & that is what truly matters. The individual members of the Magisterium, our Bishops, Archbishops & Cardinals present infallible teaching ONLY when in Communion with the Bishop of Rome. IMO., the Rembert Weaklands, the McCaricks, the Roger Mahony (with his Rog. Mahal), etc., etc. are not part of the the Magesterium, as they aren’t in Communion with Rome…therefore I am not bound to obey them.

Just a question of clarification here as I’m not sure exactly what you are or are not implying. Are you saying that once a bishop does anything that we deem to be a break with Rome, we are therefore under no obligation to obey them in anything?

If this is what you are proposing, I would respectfully disagree. Your examples consist primarily of actions on behalf of individual bishops, not teaching. Regardless of the prudence of some of their actions, unless they have been excommunicated, I would think we are still to obey our bishop unless they specifically ask us to do something contrary to the faith. One wrong action or teaching does not negate their legitimate authority over us.

We have a duty, as Catholics, given the present situation, to be very careful about who we follow. This means objectively looking at the life of the men in positions of authority within the Church, seeing the rights & the wrongs of members of the hierarchy, by delving into the the words & beliefs of the Catholic Church throughout the complete 2,000 years of Catholicism.

I’m responding to the above statement not to critique it or accuse you of anything, but to use it as an example of how things can easily become misconstrued here on this forum.

I don’t disagree with the general sentiment (that we need to study, know our faith, and be cautious), but I think it is statements like these that can easily lend themselves to misinterpretation. I can see someone reading this passage and accusing you of “Protestant” thinking for encouraging people to always be on guard against what the bishops are saying.

Now, I realize that you are not advocating people become their own Magisterium. It seems you are simply recommending that they check their bishop against the documents of the Magisterium. In and of itself, that’s not necessarily a bad thing, although I think it can be taken too far. I’m not sure what a better way would be to make your point. I can see how misunderstandings happen so easily, though.

I think we can drive ourselves crazy if we get too supicious of our bishops, though. I try to pray for them as often as I can remember to. They have a tough job. They have to deal with all of us!

 

[CradleCath]

If I may disagree on one observation. I don’t think that pre-Vatican II that reverent behavior was automatic. It was taken for granted this was the behavior expected and taught in our Catholic Schools and by our parents.

Agreed & I’m a pre-Vatican II Catholic. We were taught to be reverent, even moreso…we were following the example set by our teaching nuns & our parents.

I also think that being in the presence of the statues, the solemn high altars, the scent of candle wax & incense, the slow movements of the priests, the ancient prayers said in a hushed Latin (no mics) & the very piety of the prayers we said, helped to invoke a reverent spirit that the Churches of more modern architecture &Novus Ordo theology don’t.

Somehow we have fallen victim to secular society’s attitude that “anything goes”. The disrespect we show to one another in society has carried over to our attitudes when attending religious services, or Mass.

 

[CradleCath]

I was a young thing in the 50s, 60s and 70s. I won’t comment on now, but picking words apart and thinking about their meaning is sometimes an exercise for my brain. “Reverence” more reverent back in that time, or more disciplined? Am trying to think back to my experiences during Mass then. Yes, there was an atmosphere of reverence which from my perspective has been minimized in appearance now. ie. people talking and having gab fests in church after Mass. People coming in willy nilly and leaving will nilly whether Mass is over or not. But is it reverence, discipline, or awareness these folks are not practicing?

Society’s whole outlook on what is to be respected and reverenced has been turned upside down. I don’t think the introduction of the NO is the source of disrupture. One can be as reverant at the NO as at a TLM if one understands WHY one is at Mass, and WHO they are visiting. **I think I would blame lack of reverence at Mass on the wishy washy Religious and Societal education people experience these days. If they experience any at all. After all, what can you hold as an absolute if no one is taught absolutes exist? **

 

[CradleCath]

As much as I prefer the simplicity of the Mass of Paul VI, I will admit that it is easier to discuss the Mass with non-Catholics when the prayers are more directly taken from scripture.

For example, “Lord I am not worthy that you should come under my roof” is pulled directly from scripture…while “Lord I am not worthy to recieve you”…to me, actually makes more sense, as I am about to receive the Eucharist in a Church, as opposed to in my home…

But, when you can flip open a protestant Bible, and SHOW them the exact words, it’s harder for them to debunk.

Excellent point. The new translation will take care of that. The response of the people at the Ecce Agnus Dei will be “Lord, I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed.” At least, that’s what the USCCB IS saying now:

et cum spiritu tuo is rendered as “And with your spirit”
2. In the Confiteor, the text “through my fault, through my fault, through my most grievous fault” has been added
3. The Gloria has been translated differently and the structure is different from the present text
4. In the Preface dialogue the translation of “Dignum et justum est” is “It is right and just”
5. The first line of the Sanctus now reads “Holy, Holy, Holy Lord God of hosts”
6. The response of the people at the Ecce Agnus Dei is “Lord, I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed.”

**At this time, no date is available as to when the entire translation of the Roman Missal will be released. **

 

[Paul_Folbrecht]

I wouldn’t call that a “document” in the sense that it’s an essay by an untrained layman. But yes, it’s completely mistaken as I showed from direct quotes from the Vatican II document on the Liturgy. A “vernacular Mass” was more than “hinted” at. It was fully permitted and expected. My point here is that your statement that the “old Mass” was to be preserved by Vatican II is not quite right. The 1962 Missal does not permit vernacular. Vatican II authorized vernacular.

I found your post to be intriguing, because you are measured and sound like you know what you’re talking about. It’s possible I have put too much stock in Davies - and now I have to find out.

I hope these V2 documents are available online in their original form.

OTOH, this thread has actually gotten to be far too civil and is now boring. Therefore I will be giving wedgies to anyone who pisses me off from here on.

 

[Paul_Folbrecht]

My tongue was obviously in my cheek with that last post.

Reading the thread on Bugnini’s book as got me leaning back the other way, I’ll have to admit.

Maybe I don’t have the full picture yet but there’s no way the council’s aftermath and Bugnini’s intentions were 100% “legit” (in the eyes of Tradition and in terms of orthodoxy).

One quick comment regarding Protestants having good and good things to add - yes, it’s true. But one of the very core differences between them and the true Church has been the view of the Mass as a sacrifice. And the larger sense of P basically rejecting the entire notion of sacrifice and suffering being good and necessary. In fact, I think this is what the whole Reformation comes to, really - making Christianity palatable by making it easy. Protestants hate to think that they have to suffer - that suffering is necessary - and that’s why they cannot accept the notion of the liturgy being more or less based on an episode of suffering.

This, of course, was & is a massive win for the Devil: people who don’t know that suffering is necessary don’t do penance and don’t worry about sin nearly as much as they should.

So, I really doubt I’m ever going to move into the territory where making the sacrificial aspects of the Mass (the suffering) less obvious can be seen as a positive and holy thing.

I’m really just rambling now; this is not structured or well-thought-out, so excuse me. I’m short on time again tonight.

 

[Paul_Folbrecht]

Also, I hope somebody ends up liking my wedgie joke, anyway.

 

[mullenpm]

Thank you Paul Folbrecht for mentioning the Daily Mass on EWTN; I cannot get through my day without watching that Mass at one of the times it is broadcast; 8:00 (live), Noon, 7:00 p.m. and Midnight.

Because of the camera angles it is possible to see everything that the priest and servers do and it is beautiful; and, generally, the priest does much of the Mass in Latin. Most of the MFVA priests and visiting priests have beautiful Latin.

I grew up with the traditional Mass reading my Missal with one side of the page in Latin and the other in English and I do love the Latin. I didn’t think about the Priest facing away from the congregation until they turned him around. I will say I prefer the priest facing me (I understand the argument for the other position).

The poster who mentioned the church in downtown Baltimore; that church has the T Mass only on Sunday at 11:30 a.m. (except for very special feast days - such as St. Alphonsus) and they were the only church in the City to have received permission to celebrate this Mass. At other times they celebrate the NO Mass.

If the NO Mass is done properly it is beautiful, but I will admit that it can be awful. And when that happens we must call the Rectory and complain (as happened a few weeks ago to me). I was not feeling well on Sunday morning and went to an early evening Mass.

It was rushed and had an empty feeling; it seemed the visiting priest was in a hurry to be somewhere else. Actually, it was embarrassing because my church has a large number of tourists at all the Masses.

I called the Rectory and made a complaint, don’t know if it helped and I will stick to morning Mass on a Sunday no matter how sick I feel.:harp: :knight2:

 

[CradleCath]

Just a question of clarification here as I’m not sure exactly what you are or are not implying. Are you saying that once a bishop does any

thing that we deem to be a break with Rome, we are therefore under no obligation to obey them in anything?

Anything?..no. We all sin & we all make mistakes, but I’m not speaking here of a “mistake” or a venial sin of the type that we all commit. I’m speaking here of living a sinful lifestyle for years, in front of the priests in your diocese. I’m speaking of a Bishop, Archbishop or prelate of any kind, who involves his own clergy in said lifestyle, a Bishop who prefers that the priests with whom he shares his bed, call him “Uncle Ted”. Add this to the fact that the same man deliberately obscured & misrepresented the words sent from Pope Benedict re the stance to be taken by the US hierarchy on voting for pro-abortion candidates for president
blog.beliefnet.com/crunchycon/2008/04/the-cardinal-mccarrick-syndrom.html

I’m speaking of a leader of the Church paying a blackmailer!! Think about that…almost a half of a MILLION dollars…from the hard-working members of the Milwaukee Archdiocese because Rembert Weakland “fell in love” with a man named Marcourt.

nationalreview.com/dreher/dreher052402.asp

 

[Joe_5859]

Excellent point. The new translation will take care of that. The response of the people at the Ecce Agnus Dei will be “Lord, I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed.” At least, that’s what the USCCB IS saying now:

et cum spiritu tuo is rendered as “And with your spirit”
2. In the Confiteor, the text “through my fault, through my fault, through my most grievous fault” has been added
3. The Gloria has been translated differently and the structure is different from the present text
4. In the Preface dialogue the translation of “Dignum et justum est” is “It is right and just”
5. The first line of the Sanctus now reads “Holy, Holy, Holy Lord God of hosts”
6. The response of the people at the Ecce Agnus Dei is “Lord, I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed.”

**At this time, no date is available as to when the entire translation of the Roman Missal will be released. **

The changes that you have listed above have already been approved by the USCCB, so, once the whole process is complete, those should definitely be the words used.

It’s interesting because the USCCB is just one of eleven English speaking bishop’s conferences that are looking at the new translation. Four or five of them have already approved the translation in its entirety. The CDWDS would probably prefer a uniform English translation for all English speaking countries. It will be interesting to see how it all pans out.

I predict that Advent 2011 is the optimistic start date for the changes to take effect, with Advent 2012 being the more likely candidate.

Anything?..no. We all sin & we all make mistakes, but I’m not speaking here of a “mistake” or a venial sin of the type that we all commit. I’m speaking here of living a sinful lifestyle for years, in front of the priests in your diocese. I’m speaking of a Bishop, Archbishop or prelate of any kind, who involves his own clergy in said lifestyle, a Bishop who prefers that the priests with whom he shares his bed, call him “Uncle Ted”. Add this to the fact that the same man deliberately obscured & misrepresented the words sent from Pope Benedict re the stance to be taken by the US hierarchy on voting for pro-abortion candidates for president
blog.beliefnet.com/crunchycon/2008/04/the-cardinal-mccarrick-syndrom.html

I’m speaking of a leader of the Church paying a blackmailer!! Think about that…almost a half of a MILLION dollars…from the hard-working members of the Milwaukee Archdiocese because Rembert Weakland “fell in love” with a man named Marcourt.

nationalreview.com/dreher/dreher052402.asp

Thank you for the clarification. I suppose no one has to worry as neither of those bishops are currently serving as bishop of any diocese.

My point is that, even if a bishop is in habitual and public sin, he is still a bishop and still has the same authority over his priests and the flock he shepherds that any other bishop has. In other words, if the bishop told his priest he had to move to a different parish, the priest still has to obey him. If the bishop announces that Ascension Thursday will be transferred to Sunday or that we can eat corn beef on St. Patrick’s Day even though it’s a Friday in Lent, that is still within his authority to do so. A bishop’s lack of holiness does not diminish his authority as bishop. It will certainly diminish his credibility and cause scandal, but he still has the same authority by virtue of his office.

At least, this is the way that I understand episcopal authority. If I’m missing something, feel free to let me know.

 

[Paul_Folbrecht]

It’s interesting because the USCCB is just one of eleven English speaking bishop’s conferences that are looking at the new translation. Four or five of them have already approved the translation in its entirety. The CDWDS would probably prefer a uniform English translation for all English speaking countries. It will be interesting to see how it all pans out.

I predict that Advent 2011 is the optimistic start date for the changes to take effect, with Advent 2012 being the more likely candidate.

Is it me jumping to conclusions, or is that ridiculous? How many feet are dragging?

Thank you for the clarification. I suppose no one has to worry as neither of those bishops are currently serving as bishop of any diocese.

PM me if you’d like to know what W might be up to. All I will say here is it isn’t “nothing”.

My point is that, even if a bishop is in habitual and public sin, he is still a bishop and still has the same authority over his priests and the flock he shepherds that any other bishop has. In other words, if the bishop told his priest he had to move to a different parish, the priest still has to obey him. If the bishop announces that Ascension Thursday will be transferred to Sunday or that we can eat corn beef on St. Patrick’s Day even though it’s a Friday in Lent, that is still within his authority to do so. A bishop’s lack of holiness does not diminish his authority as bishop. It will certainly diminish his credibility and cause scandal, but he still has the same authority by virtue of his office.

I agree with all of the above.

Since all are sinners, if we decide we can disobey bishops over matters of sin, it becomes a matter of degree, and that is anarchy.

However, to me, outright apostasy muddies the waters and I think that word was or is applicable in cases. However however, as long as the bishop still has his faculties he’s still the bishop and must be obeyed except in matters of sin.

[If this basic standard of the Church regarding respect for authority was followed in the case of certain ‘apparitions’, such apparitions would have petered out long ago.]

 

[Lee_M]

I predict that Advent 2011 is the optimistic start date for the changes to take effect, with Advent 2012 being the more likely candidate.

I thought the changes were to take effect before Advent 2010. I will be happy when the changes are made and 2011 to 2012 seems such a long way off.

 

[CradleCath]

Is i
I agree with all of the above.

Since all are sinners, if we decide we can disobey bishops over matters of sin, it becomes a matter of degree, and that is anarchy.

However, to me, outright apostasy muddies the waters and I think that word was or is applicable in cases. However however, as long as the bishop still has his faculties he’s still the bishop and must be obeyed except in matters of sin.

[If this basic standard of the Church regarding respect for authority was followed in the case of certain ‘apparitions’, such apparitions would have petered out long ago.]

I see what you are saying, but let me explain further. A good friend of mine was an EEM within the diocese of one of the Bishops I mentioned. That Bishop’s instructions to the EEMs was to give Communion to anyone who approached the Sanctuary or to anyone who expressed a desire for it.

Once, several years ago, she was taking the Eucharist to a parishioner who was in the hospital. The ladies roomate asked if “she could have one of those things”. After talking to the lady (a total stranger), my friend learned that this woman was not a Catholic, not in danger of death & did not believe that Jesus was present in the Host… So…my friend denied her in a very nice way…told her that she did not have the authority to do this, but that she would alert the pastor of her parish that this woman was interested & that he would call & set up an appointment to see the woman. This is exactly what I would have done, but when my friend told her pastor…he reprimanded her & told her that the next time such a thing happened, she was to give the person the Eucharist because that was the Archbishop’s policy. She said that she could not, in good conscience, do so & gave up her ministry.

My point is, these Bishops who show total disregard for their vows of chastity & celibacy, giving scandal to the people of their congregations & to the priests that are supposed to be under their care, are almost always in rebellion about other matters…as I’ve mentioned here, one seems to be reception of the Eucharist by non-believers, another abuse that occurs often is shortening or completely doing away with the sessions for Marriage Preparation. If I had a daughter, preparing for the Sacrament of Matrimony, whose priest told her that “Marriage Prep is just common sense & there is really no need of wasting everyone’s time with these classes”, I’d recommend that she go to a parish that does respect the laws & recommendations of the Church.

In my son’s parish, a couple was wanting to get married immediately & the woman’s annulment process,was not yet complete
but “she was sure there would be no problem”. The priest checked with the Bishop & he said that they should find a Lutheran minister to marry them & have the marriage blessed later by a priest.

This is why I said & still believe that the phrase that I’ve seen so often on these forums, “I’ll just do what my Bishop says”, isn’t good enough. One must be careful who they follow.

 

[Joe_5859]

I thought the changes were to take effect before Advent 2010. I will be happy when the changes are made and 2011 to 2012 seems such a long way off.

You may be right. I was simply hypothesizing. In these things, I usually tack on a year or two to the anticipated date as there always seems to be something to come up that delays the process (the USCCB failing to approve the latest portion of the translation in June, for example).

Is it me jumping to conclusions, or is that ridiculous? How many feet are dragging?

Some of the English speaking conferences were content to trust that the ICEL’s scholars did their job and did it well in light of Liturgiam Authenticam. Thus, they more quickly approved the entierty of the translation. The USCCB decided to look at the translation in parts and vote on the different parts at each of their biannual meetings. Of course, this takes much longer (and, to be fair, it is a lot of material to cover). The Church isn’t going anywhere, so I guess they see no reason to rush. The parts I’ve seen of the new translation are beautifully done, but I suppose a few extra years in the grand scheme of things isn’t going to matter too much. If nothing else, it gets the laypeople used to the idea that they’re going to have to change their responses.

PM me if you’d like to know what W might be up to. All I will say here is it isn’t “nothing”.

Thanks for the offer, but I know enough bad things about priests and bishops. If it isn’t necessary for my salvation, I’d rather not know!

I agree with all of the above.

Since all are sinners, if we decide we can disobey bishops over matters of sin, it becomes a matter of degree, and that is anarchy.

However, to me, outright apostasy muddies the waters and I think that word was or is applicable in cases. However however, as long as the bishop still has his faculties he’s still the bishop and must be obeyed except in matters of sin.

[If this basic standard of the Church regarding respect for authority was followed in the case of certain ‘apparitions’, such apparitions would have petered out long ago.]

Exactly.

I didn’t quote CradleCath’s post, but I thank you for sharing some of your thought process. I think I better understand what you’re saying. It is frightening that such things would take place, and it makes me sad to think that there are many other such examples along the same lines.

There’s no easy answer when such events cause one to lose trust in one’s bishop. You don’t want to scandalize others or disrespect the episcopal/priestly office by speaking ill of bishops and priests. But at the same time, you don’t want to say nothing and risk people believing such behavior is perfectly acceptable and/or inline with Church teaching. Such is the fine line we try to walk.

 

[Paul_Folbrecht]

Once, several years ago, she was taking the Eucharist to a parishioner who was in the hospital. The ladies roomate asked if “she could have one of those things”. After talking to the lady (a total stranger), my friend learned that this woman was not a Catholic, not in danger of death & did not believe that Jesus was present in the Host… So…my friend denied her in a very nice way…told her that she did not have the authority to do this, but that she would alert the pastor of her parish that this woman was interested & that he would call & set up an appointment to see the woman. This is exactly what I would have done, but when my friend told her pastor…he reprimanded her & told her that the next time such a thing happened, she was to give the person the Eucharist because that was the Archbishop’s policy. She said that she could not, in good conscience, do so & gave up her ministry.

My point is, these Bishops who show total disregard for their vows of chastity & celibacy, giving scandal to the people of their congregations & to the priests that are supposed to be under their care, are almost always in rebellion about other matters…as I’ve mentioned here, one seems to be reception of the Eucharist by non-believers, another abuse that occurs often is shortening or completely doing away with the sessions for Marriage Preparation. If I had a daughter, preparing for the Sacrament of Matrimony, whose priest told her that “Marriage Prep is just common sense & there is really no need of wasting everyone’s time with these classes”, I’d recommend that she go to a parish that does respect the laws & recommendations of the Church.

In my son’s parish, a couple was wanting to get married immediately & the woman’s annulment process,was not yet complete
but “she was sure there would be no problem”. The priest checked with the Bishop & he said that they should find a Lutheran minister to marry them & have the marriage blessed later by a priest.

This is why I said & still believe that the phrase that I’ve seen so often on these forums, “I’ll just do what my Bishop says”, isn’t good enough. One must be careful who they follow.

Thank you for elucidating further your PoV - this Eucharist matter is indeed something to consider carefully. In fact, I would think that this - being ordered to give the Eucharist knowingly to those the Church commands it be withheld from - is indeed an order to sin. And, thus, to disobey it is not only licit, but required.

[At least the priests and bishops who behave like this seem to be getting older all the time whilst those coming up to replace them seem to be orthodox. This is what I’ve experienced. Perhaps in another generation this sickness will be behind us. Ah, that Vatican II spirit!]

I also experienced some unpleasantness in marriage prep (mine). The priest told the group that the Church’s teachings on artificial contraception were basically a reaction to the times and subject to change at any time - and it was clear that’s what he was wishing for. He was clearly embarrassed to teach any aspect of Catholic sexuality. Theology of the Body? Right. This was not in my diocese. I thought of writing the bishop of this diocese - who is superb - but never did.

 

[Paul_Folbrecht]

Thanks for the offer, but I know enough bad things about priests and bishops. If it isn’t necessary for my salvation, I’d rather not know!

You have exactly the right attitude.

The only reason to be concerned about this matter would be if you live in the diocese. Because there are practical effects to the people there.

I didn’t quote CradleCath’s post, but I thank you for sharing some of your thought process. I think I better understand what you’re saying. It is frightening that such things would take place, and it makes me sad to think that there are many other such examples along the same lines.

There’s no easy answer when such events cause one to lose trust in one’s bishop. You don’t want to scandalize others or disrespect the episcopal/priestly office by speaking ill of bishops and priests. But at the same time, you don’t want to say nothing and risk people believing such behavior is perfectly acceptable and/or inline with Church teaching. Such is the fine line we try to walk.

Obedience is the very foundation of the Church. The Church that Christ founded is, of course, visible and united, and must remain so. This is why obedience has always been stressed so strongly - that and because obedience, which comes with humility, an essential virtue, has much value in itself.

So, obedience in all respects - even if they be patently ‘unfair’, unpleasant, etc. - is a requirement. And so Christ told St. Faustina that she was to obey her superior ahead of Him! And St. Pio suffered the indignities thrust upon him by his enemies in Rome with perfect submission at all times. These were practical matters.

However, had St. Faustina or St. Pio encountered clerics knowingly preaching heresy, there is absolutely no doubt they would have opposed it. Had they been ordered to give the Eucharist to “anyone” - non-baptized, non-believer - I think they would have refused. Obedience to Christ does supersede that to ecclesiastical authorities.

So, perhaps we can say the rule of total obedience applies to the ‘normal’ case - bishops who, though fallible and sinners like all of us, are orthodox and strive to serve Christ.