I know the idea of humble obedience is contrary to the way modern man thinks, but it is the only thing that will assure unity within the Church.
Oh, there are those old protestants and Orthodox again. What is a Catholic debate without being compared to these groups?
I do not remember anyone mentioning Archbishop Lefebvre being in the place of St. Peter, or holding his keys.
I will post an old post of mine here on obedience, just for discussion purposes:
- Regarding Obedience
From the Catholic Encyclopedia, 1911:
With regards to its nature:
“Religious obedience, therefore, does not involve that extinction of all individuality, so often alleged against convents and the Church; nor is it unlimited, for it is not possible either physically or morally that a man should give himself up absolutely to the guidance of another. The choice of a superior, the object of obedience, the authority of the hierarchical Church, all exclude the idea of arbitrary rule.”
With regards to its limits:
“The commands of superiors do not extend to what concerns the inward motion of the will. Such at least is the teaching of St. Thomas (II-II, Q. cvi, a. 5, and Q. clxxxvi, a. 2). Obedience is not vowed absolutely, and without limit, but according to the rule of each order, for a superior cannot command anything foreign to, or outside, the rule (except in so far as he may grant dispensations from the rule).”
This paragraph is in regards to professed religious, however since laity are not bound by vows to their superiors, this goes double for them!
Further it states:
“On the other hand the obligation to obedience to superiors under God admits of limitations. We are not bound to obey a superior in a matter which does not fall within the limits of his preceptive power.”
This is sticky, because one has to be able to interpret whether a given matter is in the power of the person in question.
And finally:
"All authority to which we bow has its source in Him and cannot be validly used against Him. It is the recognition of the authority of God vicariously exercised through a human agent that confers upon the act of obedience its special merit. No hard and fast rule can be set down for determining the degree of guilt of the sin of disobedience. Regarded formally as a deliberate scorning of the authority itself, it would involve a divorce between the soul and the supernatural principle of charity which is tantamount to a grievous sin. As a matter of fact many other things have to be taken account of, as the greater or lesser advertence in the act, the relatively important or trifling character of the thing imposed, the manner of enjoining, the right of the person who commands. For such reasons the sin will frequently be esteemed venial. "
In Summa Theologica, Q.33 Art 4, St. Thomas Aquinas tells us that "if the faith is endangered, a subject ought to rebuke his prelate even publicly. Hence Paul, who was Peter’s subject, rebuked him in public, on account of the imminent danger of scandal concerning the faith, and, as the gloss of Augustine says on Gal. 2:11: “Peter gave an example to superiors that if at any time they should happen to stray from the straight path, they should not disdain to be reproved by their subjects”.
In a real life example, we see St. Godefrey of Amiens, St. Hughes of Grenoble and Guy of Vienne (who later became Pope Calixtus II ) writing to Pope Pascal II, who was wavering concerning “the investitures”: “If, what we absolutely do not believe, you would choose another way and would - God forbid - refuse to confirm the decisions of our paternity , you would force us away from obeying you.” (Bouix, Tract, de Papa, T. II, p. 650).
In short summary, therefore, I relay a Spanish proverb: “Obedience is the servant of Faith, not Obedience.”
- With regard to receiving the sacraments from a suspended priest, if one accepts the above, than it may follow in the minds of some faithful that the issue is of sufficient gravity to receive the Sacraments from a suspended priest, if they feel their Faith is otherwise endangered.
We see this in Canon 144 of the 1983 Code:
§1. In factual or legal common error and in positive and probable doubt of law or of fact, the
Church supplies executive power of governance for both the external and internal forum.
In the eyes of SSPX supporters, where these is probable doubt with regard to their ordinary avenues of sacramental life, in theory the SSPX could be their valid alternative.
Whether or not they were correct is irrelevant to the fact that they had reasons, however subtle they may be, to believe they were justified and behaving in a Catholic manner.
SSPX supporters could also theoretically appeal to Canon 1335:
“…If a latae sententiae censure has not been declared, the prohibition is also suspended whenever a member of the faithful requests a sacrament or sacramental or an act of governance; a person is permitted to request this for any just cause.”
If SSPX supporters feel they have just cause, they would be justified.
I will also add here what Pope Leo XIII wrote:
Encyclical Libertas Praestantissimum, June 20,1888:
“If, then, by any one in authority, something be sanctioned out of conformity with the principles of right reason, and consequently hurtful to the commonwealth, such an enactment can have no binding force of law.” And a little further on, he says: “But where the power to command is wanting, or where a law is enacted contrary to reason, or to the eternal law, or to some ordinance of God, obedience is unlawful, lest while obeying man, we become disobedient to God.”
Again, if the SSPX felt this was true in the current situation, they would be justified. No necessarily right, but justified. They are not out of line for doing so.
