That is exactly what the Protestant mindset is, which is, obey your private judgment first but rationalize it by attributing it to God’s will. This is exactly what makes me wary of so-called traditionalists. Even disobedience is bandied about as a virtue.Obedience to God. Sometimes it conflicts with obedience to the Pope.
Obey God before man.
Obedience is at the service of faith!
Triumpha.
But selective obedience is exactly the problem. So called-abuse can mean many things, even those with which we disagree with the Pope can be casually and carelessly termed as an “abuse” by extremists, and thus can be used as an all-around excuse for schism. That would make you nothing more than a proto-sedevacantist in my opinion, and would make such a position no different from the Protestant rejection of papal authority.
Sigh. That is exactly the view that more closely resembles the Protestant misunderstanding of what Catholics believe about the authority of the papacy! No wonder Protestants stay away if they think that the Church teaches “My Pope, Right or Wrong!”
If a Pope abrogates (or appears to abrogate) a previous Pope or council, who exactly is the disobedient one? Doesn’t it make sense to following "God’s will’ (such as the Council of Trent) when in doubt?
It is not merely a simple matter of obedience to the Pope but also of prudence and reason. Between a layman (or even a priest) who believes he knows far more than the Pope, and the Pope himself, I would without any doubt, go with the latter. When you disagree with the decrees of a valid and legitimate Ecumenical Council, ratified by a reigning pope, on certain matters such as ecumenism, then I cast my lot with the Council.
Only in dogma, not in discipline. No pope can bind future popes in disciplinary matters.
“Quod a nobis”
And there were those but usually there were restricted to few religious scholars who made guarded comments and the restrictions against modernism hindered any critical examination until a decade to or two later.Is sedevacancy that big of a problem? Seems the real problem is having too many Popes today.
So we’re saying the Mass is just a discipline here when it was clearly defined by the Council of Trent upon which Quo Primum was based. Would you happen to have a copy of the Council’s decrees by any chance?
Why? So that those that oppose it can just say it doesn’t really matter because it is not an ecclesial council? Again?
Well, that is certainly not a problem with the Catholic Church. If I come here and solemnly proclaim myself as “Pope Leo XIV” or “Pope Benedict XVII” and publish my own encyclicals across the Internet, I might only find myself an object of base humor and derision by other Catholics, hardly a problem for the Vatican in any case. Three or four antipopes with at most a few hundred adherents each would hardly constitute a problem for a Church made up of 1.1 billion adherents worldwide.
Are you implying that the Mass per se has in effect been abolished by VII and the introduction of the new missal? Quo Primum as such is an Apostolic Constitution, meaning, as per the Code of Canon Law, canon 20 if I’m not mistaken, it can be superseded by another Apostolic Constitution issued by a succeeding Pope, provided that the new constitution or law states so explicitly, which Pope Paul VI actually did in his Missale Romanum.
Seems then that we have a big problem here.
Not necessary for a bishop to call himself Leo XIV or Benedict XVII. In fact, very dangerous as you state.
I just read my copy of the Missale Romanum.
I’m morally impeded from participating in Novus Ordo Masses. The priest facing the people, communion in the hand, lay eucharistic ministers, and music with heretical lyrics (among other things) is offensive to Our Lord, and I cannot attend a Mass where this occurs.
What exactly is this “schism” of Marcel Lefebvre? Attending the Mass the Church has celebrated for 1700 years? This is considered schism? It seems more schismatic to me to break with tradition and allow every novelty under the sun at Mass. Traditionalists-- even those who support the SSPX-- are in no way schismatic (with the exception of those who reject the post-conciliar popes). They are simply withholding their assent to the revolution that is overtaking the Church at this time in history. When the dust settles, they will prove to be the ones who have kept the faith.
These are all allowed by the Church (with the exception of heretical hymns, you should contact your bishop). You’ve absolutely no objective way to demonstrate that these are offensive to Our Lord. You’ve set your judgement over the Churche’s. This is essentially what Protestants did and do. I would urge you to abandon this mindset (though certainly not your own traditional practices).
