True and false obedience

[Ultima_Ratio]

Therefore the valid Pope is sovereign and protected by Divine Grace from teaching heresy or commanding sin.

The Pope is not prevented from teaching heresy. He is only prevented from teaching heresy when he is defining a dogma. Pope John XXII taught a false doctrine publicly on numerous occaisions, and finally renounced the error on his death bed. You have a wrong understanding of Papal Infallibility.

And please provide your rational for saying that a Pope is prevented from commanding something sinful. When has the Church ever taught such a thing? In my previous post, I provided authoritative quotes saying that it *is *possible for a Pope to command things *“which must not be done”, *and that if he did he should not be obeyed. If you think a Pope is prevented by God from commanding something sinful, please provide a source for that satement, as I did for mine.

 

[excubitor]

**“By thus separating himself apart, and with obstinacy, from the observance of the universal customs and rites of the Church, the Pope could fall into schism. ** The conclusion is sound and the premises are not in doubt, since just as the Pope can fall into heresy, so also he can disobey and transgress with obstinacy that which has been established for the common order of the Church. **Thus it is that [Pope] Innocent [III] states (De Consuetudine) that it is necessary to obey a Pope in all things as long as he does not himself go against the universal customs of the Church, but should he go against the universal customs of the church, he ought not to be obeyed…” **
(Summa de Ecclesia [1489])[/INDENT]

The following was written by Suarez, who is considered the greatest theologian of the Society of Jesus:

Francisco Suarez: “If [the pope] gives an order contrary to right customs, he should not be obeyed; if he attempts to do something manifestly opposed to justice and the common good, it will be lawful to resist him; if he attacks by force, by force he can be repelled, with a moderation appropriate to a just defense.” (De Fide, Disp. X, Sec. VI, N. 16)

Yeah I have read this kind of thing before. St. Robert Bellarmine also said things like this. However these are all theoretical arguments which cover extreme things like “Go out and murder your grandmother” or other things which are clearly evil and wrong. However nobody can show an instance or an actual example of this every happening, so whereas I do not deny that the principle is sound, I simply deny that it is relevant or useful, because the Pope never has commanded heresy or any clearly sinful action. Many deeds of men fall into grey areas. For example were the Inquisitions or the Crusades intrinsically sinful. No but men may have overstepped the intent of the Pope and committed sinful deeds in the name of those initiatives of the Popes.

Before you can pursue this line of reasoning you must prove that the Pope is commanding an intrinsically sinful act or to believe heresy. I deny that it is possible and so we can go on and on talking about the principle and the theory of it, but that is all it will ever be.

If you are talking about altar rails, CITH, removal of altars, wreckovation of churches, Eucharistic Ministers, liturgical dance, improvisation of liturgy, removal of Gregorian chant and Latin etc. etc. then these are not initiatives of the Pope but are the actions of disobedient modernist priests and bishops who should be disobeyed. In that case we are obeying the higher power of the Pope and the Council, and if everybody did that then we would not have seen the abuses that we have seen in the last 50 years and nobody would have bothered to set up organisations which teach “false obedience” in opposition to the modern church. So now we have modernists disobeying the Pope, and traditionalist disobeying the Pope. The modernists says he is obeying the “spirit of the council” and the traditionalist believes he is “obeying the tradition of the church”, but both groups are disobeying the Pope. So the modernist and the traditionalist are brothers in disobedience. How ironic.

I know where you are going with all this. First you are trying to establish your “false obedience” teaching, then you want to go from that to establish that the Pope or a valid council of the church is commanding falsehood.

He/The Council has not, you know it, so give up.

Nor has any gathering of bishops appealled to the Pope that he is disobeying the universal customs of the church, therefore how can it be said that he is obstinately doing so. If you want to make such a claim then you need to understand the issues to the depth of understanding of the Cardinals and bishops. I used to be of the sedevacantist opinion because I read MHFM until I thoroughly studied Vatican 2 for myself (not through the sedevacantist lens but directly studied the entire documents. I am convinced that they uphold the universal custom of the church. Utterly convinced. They do not form a new tradition or a new religion. They just don’t.

Please give the Popes and the Councils the benefit of the doubt (which is in your mind) and read them for yourself, reading them without the biases of the hyper-traditionalists but in the true light of tradition as they were intended to be read.

You want to bog us down in some theoretical debate but we know what your true agenda is. Therefore let’s cut to the chase. What is your real problem with the current Pope and the Council and why do you want to disobey them?

 

[excubitor]

The Pope is not prevented from teaching heresy. He is only prevented from teaching heresy when he is defining a dogma. Pope John XXII taught a false doctrine publicly on numerous occaisions, and finally renounced the error on his death bed. You have a wrong understanding of Papal Infallibility.

And please provide your rational for saying that a Pope is prevented from commanding something sinful. When has the Church ever taught such a thing? In my previous post, I provided authoritative quotes saying that it *is *possible for a Pope to command things *“which must not be done”, *and that if he did he should not be obeyed. If you think a Pope is prevented by God from commanding something sinful, please provide a source for that satement, as I did for mine.

You have answered this yourself. The Pope John XXII never pronounced dogma. When a Pope pronounces dogma he commands the faithful to believe that pronounced dogma. Having a false opinion of doctrine is something altogether different. Pope John XXII never commanded the faithful to believe that false teaching. Therefore how could it have been disobedient to not believe it?

So what if your priest commands you to smash up the altar and use it to pave the road? Should you obey? No of course not. That is a holy thing. You appeal to the bishop. And if your bishop commands you to smash up the altar and use it for land fill should you obey? No of course not because that is a holy thing. You cannot destroy it. So you appeal to the Pope, and if the Pope commands you to smash up the altar then the church has failed, the gates of hell have prevailed upon the church and the promises of Christ have all failed and we are all doomed. But of course nobody commands anyone to smash up an altar. Wicked men in league together go into the church in the dark of night and do it without telling anybody. They are deaf to the cry’s of horror and despair of those who loved the Holy Altar. Wicked deeds are always done in darkness by subterfuge. Then the Pope is left to clear up the mess. How do we get the horse back into its stable after it has bolted so that we can shut the gate again?

And because the Pope is unable to get the gate shut again, therefore the Pope is to blame, or so the reasoning of those who seek to disobey the Pope goes.

 

[Onegin]

You have answered this yourself. The Pope John XXII never pronounced dogma. When a Pope pronounces dogma he commands the faithful to believe that pronounced dogma. Having a false opinion of doctrine is something altogether different. Pope John XXII never commanded the faithful to believe that false teaching. Therefore how could it have been disobedient to not believe it?

So what if your priest commands you to smash up the altar and use it to pave the road? Should you obey? No of course not. That is a holy thing. You appeal to the bishop. And if your bishop commands you to smash up the altar and use it for land fill should you obey? No of course not because that is a holy thing. You cannot destroy it. So you appeal to the Pope, and if the Pope commands you to smash up the altar then the church has failed, the gates of hell have prevailed upon the church and the promises of Christ have all failed and we are all doomed. But of course nobody commands anyone to smash up an altar. Wicked men in league together go into the church in the dark of night and do it without telling anybody. They are deaf to the cry’s of horror and despair of those who loved the Holy Altar. Wicked deeds are always done in darkness by subterfuge. Then the Pope is left to clear up the mess. How do we get the horse back into its stable after it has bolted so that we can shut the gate again?

And because the Pope is unable to get the gate shut again, therefore the Pope is to blame, or so the reasoning of those who seek to disobey the Pope goes.

I think the terms here are getting muddled. The Pope cannot err when he is speaking ex cathedra, this is Catholic dogma and we must believe this. So, for example, we cannot say that the Pope is speaking error or is incorrect on the subject of the immaculate conception or the assumption, for example. These were both infallible declarations made by popes speaking ex cathedra.

However, this does not mean that a perfectly valid Pope cannot subscribe to heresy on a matter that does not fall under papal infallibility (i.e. a statement NOT made ex cathedra). So, for example, Popes have erred on the issue of Arianism and other matters throughout history. To say that the true Pope cannot err and yet to see a Pope err, one is forced to accept the sedevacantist position and conclude that the man who erred, therefore, must not have been a valid Pope. This, as Ultima Ratio has already pointed out, is a misunderstanding of the doctrine of papal infallibility and the notion that a perfectly valid Pope can err and/or preach heresy, as has been done throughout history. The sedes will tell you that these men, therefore, could not be valid Popes, because their initial proposition (that a valid pope cannot teach heresy) demands this conclusion.

 

[excubitor]

I think the terms here are getting muddled. The Pope cannot err when he is speaking ex cathedra, this is Catholic dogma and we must believe this. So, for example, we cannot say that the Pope is speaking error or is incorrect on the subject of the immaculate conception or the assumption, for example. These were both infallible declarations made by popes speaking ex cathedra.

However, this does not mean that a perfectly valid Pope cannot subscribe to heresy on a matter that does not fall under papal infallibility (i.e. a statement NOT made ex cathedra). So, for example, Popes have erred on the issue of Arianism and other matters throughout history. To say that the true Pope cannot err and yet to see a Pope err, one is forced to accept the sedevacantist position and conclude that the man who erred, therefore, must not have been a valid Pope. This, as Ultima Ratio has already pointed out, is a misunderstanding of the doctrine of papal infallibility and the notion that a perfectly valid Pope can err and/or preach heresy, as has been done throughout history. The sedes will tell you that these men, therefore, could not be valid Popes, because their initial proposition (that a valid pope cannot teach heresy) demands this conclusion.

If you are siding with Ultima Ratio then you are wrong.
What you are effectively doing is reducing your obligation to obey the Pope UNLESS he is speaking ex cathedra. Wrong. This is not the intent of the Vatican 1 council at all. The intent of the council was that the Pope is Sovereign over the Church and is to be obeyed in all things. I recently produced a post to this effect in another thread.

I never said that the Pope could not err. What I said was that he could not command us to sin or to believe heresy, therefore we are never put into the impossible situation of disobeying a direct command of the Pope.

Not agreeing with the Pope because he has erred is one thing, direct disobedience of his commands is an entirely different thing. I disagree with the Pope kissing the Koran. I believe he erred, but he is not commanding me to kiss the Koran. For the Pope, kissing the Koran might mean a different thing to what it would mean for me to kiss the Koran, therefore I do not judge the Pope, but nevertheless in my opinion he erred in doing so.

The Pope is our shepherd. We are commanded to follow him. Has God given us a shepherd which we should not follow because he might be leading us astray. Has he given us a shepherd that needs to be examined by us and adjudicated upon before we decide whether or not to follow him? Of course not. The notion is preposterous. Therefore the Pope is to be obeyed in ALL things, not just his decrees, but his opinions, his wishes, his desires and inclinations, not slavishly like an automaton, but as a willing fellow worker in the field of the Lord. How can we do this? We can do it because we know trust and believe that God could not possibly have given us a shepherd that would lead us to drink of the poisoned chalice and not the living water. Or to eat rancid bread instead of the bread of life.

So I will ask you just like I have asked Unita Ratio. What is your agenda here? Your argument about the sedes exposes you. You say according to the sedes

1. A pope cannot err
2. You have seen the Pope err
3. Therefore he is not the Pope.

You find fault with point 1 and argue that the Pope can err and therefore may still be the Pope. Therefore you are advancing point 2 and claiming that the Pope has erred.

By extension therefore you believe as follows.

1. The Pope has erred and taught falsely
2. To obey the Pope would be an affront to the truth of God and would be false disobedience
3. Therefore I will truly disobey.

This is not just disobedience, it is the heart of sedition and schism. For speaking against Moses the ground opened up and swallowed the gainsayers. How much more shall those who speak against the Seat of Peter be punished? You have not established that the Pope has erred. Nor have you proven that the supposed error is graver than the error of disobeying the Pope.

So come clean. What do you believe that the Pope is telling you to do that is wrong. Stop all this skulking around. What is your problem with the Pope and let’s talk about it.

I admit that the Pope is not infallible except on the rarest of occasions when he is speaking ex cathedra. But that is not proof that he has erred on any matter. In fact the assumption is that he is correct and true. In the rare occasion that he is wrong or has erred we can be confident that he is guarded by the indefectability of the church that he cannot command the church to follow his error or heresy.

Just because he can err does not mean he has. This is where the whole argument of true/false obedience falls in a big heap. It is entirely theoretical. It provides no proof that the Pope has erred. No proof that he has commanded heresy. No proof that he has commanded sin. It is all merely rhetoric to justify disobedience and make men feel OK about their disobedience.

 

[Layman]

I think these arguments are skirting around the real agenda.

I’ve understood that the Pope is only infallible when defining doctrine ex-cathedra. Popes can make errors on all other matters.

The nub of the matter is:** Are we obliged to tolerate post-1940’s changes to the Church or can we be good Catholics by attending the TLM, requesting the older sacraments and following the Baltimore Catechism?**

Others on this forum have extended infallibility to include the Vat. II Council and the Bishops Conferences when acting in concert with the Pope.

Excubitor seems to be saying we should obey the Pope in all things, like the way religious are bound to obey a superior (except when ordered to sin). If we had a modern Borgia, that wouldn’t be too smart.

 

[excubitor]

Excubitor seems to be saying we should obey the Pope in all things, like the way religious are bound to obey a superior (except when ordered to sin).

Can you show me where I said that? I said nothing of the kind.
Please do not discredit my arguments by extending them to an absurd conclusion.

 

[Layman]

Therefore the valid Pope is sovereign and protected by Divine Grace from teaching heresy or commanding sin. Therefore we are bound to obey the Pope. Some of his commands may not be wise or beneficial to the faith and so we may resist them and push for what we perceive to be better directions or approaches from the Pope. However if we directly disobey them then we are making a private judgement that the Pope has taught heresy or commanded sin, which is not possible and by so doing we exalt ourselves above the Pope which of course is pride and a false humility.

The nub of the matter, for me, is: Are we obliged to tolerate post-1940’s changes to the Church or can we be good Catholics by attending the TLM, requesting the older sacraments and following the Baltimore Catechism?

e.g. Obedience is used to justify things like CITH: “Pope Paul VI approved the indult, my Bishop allows it, therefore it should be done”.

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

"Layman:

Excubitor seems to be saying we should obey the Pope in all things, like the way religious are bound to obey a superior (except when ordered to sin).

Can you show me where I said that? I said nothing of the kind.
Please do not discredit my arguments by extending them to an absurd conclusion.

Now I’m confused. Excubitor, has not your entire argument been based on the notion that we are bound to obey the Pope* in all things*? Didn’t you say that the mental process of determining if a particular command of a superior is contrary to God’s law, is thereby placing such a person above their superior? This is what you wrote:

Excubitor:

"There is no such thing as false obedience. Your line of reasoning means that any person may judge the command of his superior and determine that it [is] contrary to the laws of God and then may disobey it. This means that every man places himself in authority above his superior.

So which is it? Are we bound to obey our superiors even when they command what is contrary to God’s law, lest we be guilty of placing ourselves above his authority, or do we have the duty, and therefore the corresponding right, to disobey any command contrary to God’s law?

You seem to be changing your position.

My point in starting this thread was not necessarily to argue that John Paul II or Benedict XVI have commanded anything contrary to God’s law; rather, it was to show that the virtue of obedience is not an absolute. Like all moral virtues, true obedience is a balance between excess and defect - that is, between obeying when we should not, and not obeying when we should. Or, as you yourself put it: [my] “line of reasoning means that any person may judge the command of his superior and determine that it [is] contrary to the laws of God and then may disobey it.” That is indeed exactly what I claim. So, for example, if a superior commanded a monk to commit fornication, believe it or not, the monk would have every right to judge that such a command was contrary to God’s law, and not obey. I realize that this is hard for you to undersand, and that such a basic judgment on the part of the monk would be “placing himself above his superior”, but that is what I am arguing. And if I have mischaracterized your position, please explain what I quote above from one of your earlier posts. Here it is again…

**Excubitor: **"There is no such thing as false obedience. Your line of reasoning means that any person may judge the command of his superior and determine that it [is] contrary to the laws of God and then may disobey it. This means that every man places himself in authority above his superior

 

[pnewton]

Keep in mind that St. Thomas begins by asking a question. Next he offers objections, then he provides an “on the contrary” to the objections in general, next he gives his answer to the question, and lastly he answers the objections he originally raised. Here we go…

St. Thomas Summa
Article 5. Whether subjects are bound to obey their superiors in all things?

The following was written by Cardinal De Torquemeda, who was given the title Defender of the Faith, by Pope Eugenius IV. This quote addresss much of what you wrote in your earlier posts that I haven’t have time to reply to.(Summa de Ecclesia [1489])
The following was written by Suarez, who is considered the greatest theologian of the Society of Jesus:

All of these were written prior to, and without the knowledge of the revealed truth that was pronounced in Pastor Aeternus. It is *this *document, not selected quotes from Church Fathers that we take as infallible teaching. Rather than worrying about this issue from Church history, why not simply take what the Catholic Church has already done, and follow that. We may be in error. The Church is not.

 

[excubitor]

Now I’m confused. Excubitor, has not your entire argument been based on the notion that we are bound to obey the Pope* in all things*? Didn’t you say that the mental process of determining if a particular command of a superior is contrary to God’s law, is thereby placing such a person above their superior? This is what you wrote:

So which is it? Are we bound to obey our superiors even when they command what is contrary to God’s law, lest we be guilty of placing ourselves above his authority, or do we have the duty, and therefore the corresponding right, to disobey any command contrary to God’s law?

You seem to be changing your position.

My point in starting this thread was not necessarily to argue that John Paul II or Benedict XVI have commanded anything contrary to God’s law; rather, it was to show that the virtue of obedience is not an absolute. Like all moral virtues, true obedience is a balance between excess and defect - that is, between obeying when we should not, and not obeying when we should. Or, as you yourself put it: [my] “line of reasoning means that any person may judge the command of his superior and determine that it [is] contrary to the laws of God and then may disobey it.” That is indeed exactly what I claim. So, for example, if a superior commanded a monk to commit fornication, believe it or not, the monk would have every right to judge that such a command was contrary to God’s law, and not obey. I realize that this is hard for you to undersand, and that such a basic judgment on the part of the monk would be “placing himself above his superior”, but that is what I am arguing. And if I have mischaracterized your position, please explain what I quote above from one of your earlier posts. Here it is again…

**Excubitor: **"There is no such thing as false obedience. Your line of reasoning means that any person may judge the command of his superior and determine that it [is] contrary to the laws of God and then may disobey it. This means that every man places himself in authority above his superior

Don’t try to bamboozle me with twisted versions of what I said.
I plainly stated that where the command of a superior conflicts with our conscience that we may appeal to his superior for clarification. This is not disobedience. It might be called delayed obedience or even resistance, but not disobedience. Disobedience is direct defiance.
Now as we delay our obedience in serious matters which conflict with our conscience we eventually work our way up the hierarchy eventually to the Pope himself. If the Pope also agrees with all the bishops and priests under him and reiterates the command then we must obey, because clearly what the Pope is commanding is not sin or heresy.

Of course this too is theoretical for there is scarcely any grave matter which the Pope has not already made his opinion known. So if you are working your way this far up the hierarchy then it probably because you are being mulishly obstinate or fractious in refusing to admit that you are wrong when instructed by your fathers in the faith.

Your ridiculous example of the superior commanding his monk to commit fornication was covered by my far less ridiculous (sadly) example of a priest colluding with members of his parish to remove the altar stone and trash it. In both of these extreme cases, the correct course of action is to appeal to the higher authority. The religious superior has a bishop and ultimately his superior is the bishop of Rome.

You and I know that the Pope does not command his monks to commit fornication, and in fact forbids it. When we have a conflict between our superiors then we must defer to the higher authority and appeal to them before we commit any deed.

But if our complaint is with the Pope then we have no further recourse. We cannot appeal to God and hear his decision. Which is why I insist that the Pope cannot command sin or command belief in heresy. If this were possible then how could we say that we have an indefectable, infallible church. In the extremely unlikely or should I say impossible situation that a Pope is commanding heresy or sin then it would take a convocation of the bishops to try the Pope in an ecclesiastical court to find him obstinately guilty of heresy or moral disorder. Even this seems doubtful to me, even the traditionalists rail against collegiality. So if it is even doubtful that the college of the bishops may have the authority to accuse and depose a Pope, then how much more impossible is it for individuals or semi-schismatic priests and bishops to do so.

 

[excubitor]

This is the ironical dichotomy of the SSPX position. On the one hand they rail against the false Vatican 2 teaching of collegiality.
Have a look at this incredible SSPX statement about collegiality taken from sspx.org/miscellaneous/how_catholics_respond_present_crisis.htm

Two Supreme Authorities
However, the greatest and most perverse evil of collegiality is the paralysis in the pope’s exercise of his own supreme authority that is contained in the Vatican II document Lumen Gentium. It teaches, in fact, the silly contradiction that there are two supreme authorities in the Church, one being the pope himself, and the other being the college of bishops. It is true that it is mentioned that the college of bishops contains the pope as its head. However, the very fact that it is a different subject of authority gives it autonomy.

*The order of bishops is the successor to the college of the apostles in their role as teachers and pastors, and in it the apostolic college is perpetuated…they have supreme and full authority over the universal Church….This college … is the expression of the multifariousness and universality of the People of God (LG §22)
*
This is in direct contradiction to the constant teaching of the Church on papal primacy, according to which the pope alone has supreme authority over the entire Church, and is directly condemned by the following text from Leo XIII’s encyclical Satis Cognitum:

*It is opposed to the truth, and in evident contradiction with the divine constitution of the Church, to hold that while each bishop is individually bound to obey the authority of the Roman Pontiffs, taken collectively the bishops are not so bound.
*

The great tragedy of the present crisis is that the present pope holds to this theory more than anyone else, inseparable as it is from his evolutionary concept of the Church as the People of God.

So in this article the SSPX uphold the requirement for bishops to obey the authority of the Roman Pontiffs and then you go over to the article on false obedience where it teaches the SSPX faithful that they should not obey the Roman Pontiff. And they call Vatican 2 silly and contradicted.

If the college of bishops are required to obey the Roman Pontiff then how much more should we all. The whole typical farce of it all as usual is that the Vatican 2 document has been misrepresented. It does not say that there are two separate authorities. What it says is that the college of bishops as the successors of the apostles are the supreme authority of the church. Notice people that Lumen Gentium is a DOGMATIC document. Have a read of the first line. vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html
DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION ON THE CHURCH
LUMEN GENTIUM
SOLEMNLY PROMULGATED BY HIS HOLINESS
POPE PAUL VI

So these people who say that the Vatican 2 council does not need to be obeyed because it is not ex cathedra are IGNORING a DOGMATIC statement of the college of bishops solemnly endorsed and promulgated by the Pope.
Look what it says
“his Church constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him”
This much vaunted and hated statement of Vatican 2, universally loathed by hyper traditionalists ACTUALLY contradicts their interpretation of what they say Lumen Gentium is teaching about the authority of the college of bishops. This passage clearly shows that only those bishops who are in communion with the Pope are even considered to be members of the college of bishops. Therefore all authority that the college of bishops holds is not separate from the Pope such that it can be used against him, but rather if flows as a consequence from the Pope.

This is made perfectly clear by this statement from LG.
*“and He willed that their successors, namely the bishops, should be shepherds in His Church even to the consummation of the world. And in order that the episcopate itself might be one and undivided, He placed Blessed Peter over the other apostles, and instituted in him a permanent and visible source and foundation of unity of faith and communion”
He placed Blessed Peter over the other apostles, and instituted in him a permanent and visible source and foundation of unity of faith and communion … the sacred primacy of the Roman Pontiff and of his infallible magisterium,
*

 

[excubitor]

Now let’s backtrack and look at what the SSPX article says that LG says about collegiality. It cobbles together various statements in LG into one disjointed sentence separated with . . . 's to indicate that slabs of text have been omitted.
So it reads “The order of bishops is the successor to the college of the apostles in their role as teachers and pastors, and in it the apostolic college is perpetuated…they have supreme and full authority over the universal Church….This college … is the expression of the multifariousness and universality of the People of God”

Now with a bit of hunting I found this passage in LG. This is what it actually says.

But the college or body of bishops has no authority unless it is understood together with the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter as its head. The pope’s power of primacy over all, both pastors and faithful, remains whole and intact. In virtue of his office, that is as Vicar of Christ and pastor of the whole Church, the Roman Pontiff has full, supreme and universal power over the Church. And he is always free to exercise this power. The order of bishops, which succeeds to the college of apostles and gives this apostolic body continued existence, is also the subject of supreme and full power over the universal Church, provided we understand this body together with its head the Roman Pontiff and never without this head.(27*) This power can be exercised only with the consent of the Roman Pontiff. For our Lord placed Simon alone as the rock and the bearer of the keys of the Church,(156) and made him shepherd of the whole flock;(157) it is evident, however, that the power of binding and loosing, which was given to Peter,(158) was granted also to the college of apostles, joined with their head.(159)(28*) This college, insofar as it is composed of many, expresses the variety and universality of the People of God, but insofar as it is assembled under one head, it** expresses the unity of the flock of Christ**. In it, the bishops, faithfully recognizing the primacy and pre-eminence of their head, exercise their own authority for the good of their own faithful, and indeed of the whole Church, the Holy Spirit supporting its organic structure and harmony with moderation. The supreme power in the universal Church, which this college enjoys, is exercised in a solemn way in an ecumenical council. A council is never ecumenical unless it is confirmed or at least accepted as such by the successor of Peter;

I have highlighted with bold text the snippets which the SSPX have manipulated to falsify the meaning of the text. So this is basically a lie. The SSPX are COMPLETELY TWISTING the teachings of Lumen Gentium. Some parts of their version I cannot even find in the document.

But the whole irony of it all is that the SSPX catch themselves in their own lie. On the one hand they argue that the whole college of bishops must obey the Pope (which I agree with) but then they argue that we as private individuals do not have to obey him because he is teaching heresies, and one of the heresies they say he is teaching is collegiality which in fact the Pope does not teach in the sense that they are using the word, but whatever he did say he said dogmatically through his college of bishops in communion with him in the Dogmatic Constitution of Lumen Gentium which they also disobey because they say it was not declared dogmatically by the Pope, which in fact it was.

So they have been coiled and twisted up in their own trap which they laid for the unwitting Catholic who got offended by modernist practices in the church and is looking for someone to blame.

 

[Onegin]

If you are siding with Ultima Ratio then you are wrong.
What you are effectively doing is reducing your obligation to obey the Pope UNLESS he is speaking ex cathedra. Wrong. This is not the intent of the Vatican 1 council at all. The intent of the council was that the Pope is Sovereign over the Church and is to be obeyed in all things. I recently produced a post to this effect in another thread.

That is not what I said. I was asserting that the doctrine of Papal infallibility ONLY applies to ex cathedra statements. I said nothing about whether we are obliged to obey the Pope regarding statements NOT made ex cathedra. The way I see it is like this:

1. Ex Cathedra statement: Dogmatic. Not subject to modification, denial or disagreement. E.g. the doctrine of the Trinity.
2. All other statements: Should be obeyed, even if ridiculous or seemingly senseless. Only open to dispute if (a) heretical or (b) conflicting with established Catholic Tradition.

I never said that the Pope could not err. What I said was that he could not command us to sin or to believe heresy, therefore we are never put into the impossible situation of disobeying a direct command of the Pope.

Why not? Honorius I adopted the heresy of monotheliteism (the teaching that Jesus Christ had two natures but only one will). I’m not saying it happens all the time or that many or even most of Papal statements are riddled with heresy or anything, only that it could happen. It is possible because it has happened in the past.

The reason that Honorius was later anathematised by subsequent popes was because his statements he made were not made ex cathedra. Important distinction, you see, because some wanted to use this as an argument AGAINST papal infallibility at Vatican I, but the ex cathedra/not ex cathedra distinction proved vital.

As Pope Leo II later said: “Honorius, who did not attempt to sanctify this Apostolic Church with the teaching of Apostolic tradition, but by profane treachery permitted its purity to be polluted.”

Now, if what I understand of your argument is correct, Catholics would have been morally obliged to follow Honorius’s monothelite position even though it was (a) not made ex cathedra and, more importantly, was (b) heretical.

Not agreeing with the Pope because he has erred is one thing, direct disobedience of his commands is an entirely different thing. I disagree with the Pope kissing the Koran. I believe he erred, but he is not commanding me to kiss the Koran. For the Pope, kissing the Koran might mean a different thing to what it would mean for me to kiss the Koran, therefore I do not judge the Pope, but nevertheless in my opinion he erred in doing so.

I agree, we are not asked to judge the Pope himself (or anyone else for that matter) but we can judge individual actions as either right or wrong themselves. So, yes, I agree, kissing the Koran was an error, objectively.

Do you think pope Leo II would state that these actions, “permitted [The Church’s] purity to be polluted.”? Or is that only reserved for statements of outright heresy?

You find fault with point 1 and argue that the Pope can err and therefore may still be the Pope. Therefore you are advancing point 2 and claiming that the Pope has erred.

By extension therefore you believe as follows.

1. The Pope has erred and taught falsely
2. To obey the Pope would be an affront to the truth of God and would be false disobedience
3. Therefore I will truly disobey.

Again, if the Pope preaches heresy (which has been done, I think we can agree, at some point in history), what is a faithful Catholic in good conscience to do? Follow the perennial teaching of the Church or adopt the heresy?

So come clean. What do you believe that the Pope is telling you to do that is wrong. Stop all this skulking around. What is your problem with the Pope and let’s talk about it.

Which pope in particular? You mentioned JPII in context with the Koran issue, but are you referring to Pope Benedict now?

I admit that the Pope is not infallible except on the rarest of occasions when he is speaking ex cathedra. But that is not proof that he has erred on any matter. In fact the assumption is that he is correct and true.

I agree, overall Popes do not teach heresy. And, overall, Catholics are obliged to obey the Pope in all matters unless they are heretical or openly contradict the perennial teachings of the Church.

In the rare occasion that he is wrong or has erred we can be confident that he is guarded by the indefectability of the church that he cannot command the church to follow his error or heresy.

Hmm. So the popes who have sanctioned various heresies in the past were not actually commanding the faithful to also accept these? Were they just personal choices?

 

[excubitor]

Now, if what I understand of your argument is correct, Catholics would have been morally obliged to follow Honorius’s monothelite position even though it was (a) not made ex cathedra and, more importantly, was (b) heretical.

You continuously miss an important distinction and I think you are being obstinate about it because I have repeated it several times, and that is that there is a huge difference between a Pope suggesting, advancing, or even teaching heresy as opposed to actually commanding the flock to believe the heresy as an article of faith. Huge difference.

In your Honorious example, which is of course rare and unusual and just about the only example which can be found of a valid Pope believing heresy; he NEVER commanded the faithful to believe his teaching. It was never given as dogma as you have even admitted. So as faithful and obedient Catholics it is our desire and aim to believe in all things as the Pope does, but if that becomes impossible because it is heresy then you must not follow his teaching in that matter. And seeing that the Pope has not commanded that heresy to be believed by all the faithful, therefore there IS NO DISOBEDIENCE if we choose according to conscience not to believe that teaching.

Now if he COMMANDED the teaching by way of dogmatic pronouncement then it WOULD be DISOBEDIENCE to not believe him. In that case there would be an impossible contradiction which I have argued the church is protected from because of Infallibility and indefectability of the Church.

 

[excubitor]

I agree, we are not asked to judge the Pope himself (or anyone else for that matter) but we can judge individual actions as either right or wrong themselves. So, yes, I agree, kissing the Koran was an error, objectively.

Do you think pope Leo II would state that these actions, “permitted [The Church’s] purity to be polluted.”? Or is that only reserved for statements of outright heresy?

All sin pollutes the bride of Christ, that is a separate issue. If indeed the Pope kissing the Koran was a sin then that would have polluted the bride of Christ. But sin of individuals, even the Pope, does not have any bearing upon the Infallibility of the Church or the Pope as we all well know.

Hmm. So the popes who have sanctioned various heresies in the past were not actually commanding the faithful to also accept these? Were they just personal choices?

The word heresy gets bandied about as a catch all slur against your enemies. The current Pope and the recent Popes have not sanctioned or taught any heresy. Therefore your argument is strictly theoretical and fractious. In fact we should tremble to go against the teachings of the Pope. They would have to be absolutely and equivocally, without any doubt heretical before we refused to follow them. Even then it would not be DISOBEDIENT to follow them UNLESS he has dogmatically declared them be believed by all the faithful.

However, the technique of some of the traditionalist groups is to trump up unproven charges of heresy against the Popes and then use the false/true obedience logic which you are advancing here to disobey the Pope. This is utterly wrong. Even in things which are not dogmatically stated, the Pope must be proven to be teaching heresy before we can ignore his lead.

The SSPX teach sspxasia.com/Documents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/OpenLetterToConfusedCatholics/Chapter-18.htm see Chapter 18 on this subject that the church must remain obedient to faith and tradition.

But hang on that’s the role of the magisterium to defend faith and tradition, not the laity, not to those who are in defiance of the Pope. The church must remain obedient to the Sovereign Pontiff because in faith we trust that he is given Infallible Grace to properly defend faith and tradition whereas we have not.

Its like the protestant reformation all over again.
In that event the protestants argued that Christians everywhere must be obedient to the Scripture and that the Magisterium and the Pope had corrupted the scripture and therefore we must all separate from the Magisterium and the Pope. This was called Sol Scriptura.

Now we have it all over again.
In this day and age the hyper-traditionalists argue that Christians everywhere must be obedient to the Faith and Traditions of the Church and that the Magisterium and the Pope had corrupted the Faith and Traditions of the Church and therefore we must all separate from the Magisterium and the Pope. This I believe in the years to come be known as the heresy of Sola Traditio.

In both cases it is false because the Pope and the Magisterium are protected by the Grace of God from corrupting scripture, the faith, or the traditions of the church. In fact, they (by whom I mean the college of bishops who are obedient and united to the Pope) are supernaturally strengthened to guard and preserve the scriptures and traditions of the Church.

The fact is that the Popes have NOT corrupted tradition. If the Pope cannot judge how the traditions of the church must be interpreted in this age of the Church and implemented appropriately in response to a changing world then who is? Do you want a stultifying (petrified as Card. Casper calls it) tradition of do you want a living growing tradition which grows out of the bedrock of the apostles? And who is going to decide how the church show grow and adapt? You? Renegade Bishops? Ultima Ratio? NO. Of course not. Only the POPE has been authorised to do it. If he cannot do it then nobody can and the church has failed and the gates of hell have prevailed against it.

So what are these heresies that the Pope and the Council have supposedly advanced?
I notice that you avoided my points about Collegiality. You have no answer to defend the SSPX do you?

Collegiality is A CLEAR EXAMPLE THAT THE SSPX ARE misrepesenting the teachings of the Council. How do you answer that? Is there any way that this can be justified?
The behaviour of the SSPX on this issue and many more I might add is DISHONEST and unconscionable. They are basically deceiving their people to believe that the Council is teaching erroneously when it is not.

This should cause alarm bells to go off in the minds of every SSPX-er. There is NO EXCUSE to misrepresent the truth. Absolutely NONE.

I urge everyone to peruse this recent post of mine about Collegiality and review it for yourself in all honesty.

 

[ProVobis]

Collegiality is A CLEAR EXAMPLE THAT THE SSPX ARE misrepesenting the teachings of the Council. How do you answer that? Is there any way that this can be justified?
The behaviour of the SSPX on this issue and many more I might add is DISHONEST and unconscionable. They are basically deceiving their people to believe that the Council is teaching erroneously when it is not.

So collegiality is one of the Church doctrine SSPX are alleged to be in defiance of?

 

[Layman]

Your ridiculous example of the superior commanding his monk to commit fornication was covered by my far less ridiculous (sadly) example of a priest colluding with members of his parish to remove the altar stone and trash it. In both of these extreme cases, the correct course of action is to appeal to the higher authority.

Well, I’m not going to collude with a priest to trash an altar stone. Nor would I wait for confirmation from Rome about it. I don’t care who orders it.

I’m a layman, not a religious. I don’t have to obey sinful or stupid orders.

e.g. A Canon in my home parish changed as Mass time which had stood for 70 years. He then complained at the next Mass “Oh, fewer people have turned up today”. A layman spoke up "That’s because you changed the Mass time!".

The Mass time was changed back.

I think the smart move at the moment is to go the the TLM, get an old catechism and read it, get plenary indulgences, do the old devotions and if your priest asks you to be an EMHC, politely decline, explaining why. If enough of us do it, they (our liberal brethern) might get the message.

I can’t think of a single innovation that I could point to and say “Ah yes, this beautiful novelty has really helped me in my quest for sanctification”.

We live in a small span of time. The Church deals in hundreds of years. You can wait for change or you can help it along and help yourself at the same time. Make it easier for Christ to save you!

 

[ProVobis]

e.g. A Canon in my home parish changed as Mass time which had stood for 70 years. He then complained at the next Mass “Oh, fewer people have turned up today”. A layman spoke up "That’s because you changed the Mass time!".

It seems like a small thing but changing Mass times does affect attendance big time. Even turning clocks one hour ahead or one hour behind brings about noticeable drops on Sunday morning.

 

[SBroxson]

God never required this of simple folk. All God required of them was to go to church, obey Father and learn from him… In the church today that is still the case. The faithful…simply need to be obedient and attentive to their ordained teachers in the church.

In these last days however there is a new kind of neo-protestantism at work. Instead of being sola scriptura driven it is sola traditio driven. So now the simple Christian is required by the hyper-traditionalists to be experts in tradition…

This is a gross mischaracterization of the basic problem: but I’m sympathetic–it is the only possible way to make Traditionalists into Protestants, and it’s important to do so if the goal is to support obedience absolutism.

I don’t know why, but God insists that we struggle. Where is the bright line between righteous indignation and sinful anger? Between appreciating the God-given beauty of a woman–as we see in paintings in the Vatican–and sinning in your heart? I could cite countless examples where God ordains a Catholic middle ground involving both reason and struggle.

Regarding this issue, God insists that we struggle: he provides no bright line. We can be neither Protestant; nor mindlessly obedient to Father–if only because priests often disagree on even the most basic teachings of the Church.

Generally, the problem is MUCH simpler than you portray. Examples:

1. Some of our adolescent sons were homosexually molested/seduced by priests (and even a few bishops). Why did this take so long to come out? (With such devastating results due to the delay!) Because the faithful obeyed Father and were obedient and attentive to their ordained teachers in the church–just as you recommend!

So, what did these ordained teachers teach that allowed this to go on? The answer is as varied as evil rationalization can conceive. Some were taught by Father that this behavior was ok: that the old teachings were antiquated. Or, that there was an exception regarding a priest. Or even if it was wrong, there was virtue in submitting. Others were taught (sometimes by a bishop) that–although this was bad–they MUST–under obedience–remain silent…while the priests went to a 2 week “recovery” and then was turned loose to victimize more boys.

The sexual molestation/seduction of our sons is an unspeakable evil–as is covering it up, and allowing it to continue! It was exactly the mindless obedience that you seem to advocate that allowed this evil to continue for so long: and it ended only when people refused to be obedient to evil.

To come to this conclusion required no advanced degrees in theology!

1. Regarding most of the post Vatican II issues under dispute: there is no disagreement about the facts! Both advocates and opponents agree that there has been a change, and that this change would have been utterly unacceptable during virtually the whole history of the Church. See, you don’t have to be an expert at all!

The only issue is whether the Church was wrong during nearly its entire history–and whether that we moderns are right? The way to determine that is the way that Jesus gave us: by the fruits. And yes, we have to use our God-given minds for that–without becoming Protestant.

Isn’t it interesting that Father Marciel (Legionnaires of Christ) stressed obedience so obsessively? We now know why.

Why isn’t the life of faith simple, mindless, totally clear, and easy? I don’t know: ask God.