True and false obedience

[Ultima_Ratio]

Obedience is a moral virtue. Unlike theological virtues (faith, hope and charity), moral virtues are not absolutes. They are a balance between excess and defect, and can be violated in either direction - that is, by not obeying when we should, or by obeying when we should not. For example, the soldiers in Hitler’s army were not practicing true obedience when they obeyed the orders to kill millions of innocent people. Neither were the martyrs failing in true obedience when they refused to offer incense to the idols. It is never permitted to obey a command contrary to a theological virtue, since unlike the moral virtues, theological virtues are an absolute.

The following is taken from the encyclical Cum Ex Apostolatus Officia, written by Pope Paul IV during the Council of Trent. During this time of confusion resulting from the Protestant revolt, it was suspected that Cardinal Morone secretly embraced some of the Protestant errors. It was this suspicion that moved Pope Paul IV to write the following encyclical:

Pope Paul IV: "By virtue of the Apostolic office which, despite our unworthiness, has been entrusted to Us by God, We are responsible for the general care of the flock of the Lord. Because of this, in order that the flock may be faithfully guarded and beneficially directed, We are bound to be diligently watchful after the manner of a vigilant Shepherd and to ensure most carefully that certain people who consider the study of the truth beneath them should be driven out of the sheepfold of Christ and no longer continue to disseminate error from positions of authority. We refer in particular to those who in this age, impelled by their sinfulness and supported by their cunning, are attacking with unusual learning and malice the discipline of the orthodox Faith, and who, moreover, by perverting the import of Holy Scripture, are striving to rend the unity of the Catholic Church and the seamless tunic of the Lord.

“In assessing Our duty and the situation now prevailing, We have been weighed upon by the thought that a matter of this kind * is so grave and so dangerous that the Roman Pontiff,who is the representative upon earth of God and our God and Lord Jesus Christ, who holds the fulness of power over peoples and kingdoms, who may judge all and be judged by none in this world, may nonetheless be contradicted if he be found to have deviated from the Faith. Remembering also that, where danger is greater, it must more fully and more diligently be counteracted, We have been concerned lest false prophets or others, even if they have only secular jurisdiction, should wretchedly ensnare the souls of the simple, and drag with them into perdition, destruction and damnation countless peoples committed to their care and rule, either in spiritual or in temporal matters; and We have been concerned also lest it may befall Us to see the abomination of desolation, which was spoken of by the prophet Daniel, in the holy place. In view of this, Our desire has been to fulfil our Pastoral duty, insofar as, with the help of God, We are able, so as to arrest the foxes who are occupying themselves in the destruction of the vineyard of the Lord and to keep the wolves from the sheepfolds, lest We seem to be dumb watchdogs that cannot bark and lest We perish with the wicked husbandman and be compared with the hireling" (Cum Apostolatus Officio).

If a Pope were to deviates from the faith he should not tbe followed into error. Papal Infallibility does not prevent a Pope from deviating from the faith. The charism of infallibility is engaged only when the Pope defines a dogma of faith or morals to be held by the universal Church. If the Pope is not defining a dogma, it is possible for him to fall into error. One example of a Pope falling into error is John XXII who taught publicly, on numerous occasions, that the souls of the blessed would not possess the beatific vision until after the resurrection and final judgment, an error he later renounced.

Catholic Encyclopedia: “In the last years of John’s pontificate there arose a dogmatic conflict about the Beatific Vision, which was brought on by himself, and which his enemies made use of to discredit him. Before his elevation to the Holy See, he had written a work on this question, in which he stated that the souls of the blessed departed do not see God until after the Last Judgment. After becoming pope, he advanced the same teaching in his sermons. In this he met with strong opposition, many theologians, who adhered to the usual opinion that the blessed departed did see God before the Resurrection of the Body and the Last Judgment, even calling his view heretical. … John appointed a commission at Avignon to study the writings of the Fathers, and to discuss further the disputed question. In a consistory held on 3 January, 1334, the pope explicitly declared that he had never meant to teach aught contrary to Holy Scripture or the rule of faith and in fact had not intended to give any decision whatever. Before his death he withdrew his former opinion, and declared his belief that souls separated from their bodies enjoyed in heaven the Beatific Vision. The Spirituals, always in close alliance with Louis of Bavaria, profited by these events to accuse the pope of heresy, being supported by Cardinal Napoleon Orsini. In union with the latter, King Louis wrote to the cardinals, urging them to call a general council and condemn the pope” (End).

Continue*

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

Continuation

Pope Adrian IV went so far as to call Pope John XXII a heretic:

Pope Adrian: “If by the Roman Church you mean its head or pontiff, it is beyond question that he can error even in matters touching the faith. He does this when he teaches heresy by his own judgment or decretal. In truth, many Roman pontiffs were heretics. The last of them was Pope John XXII (1316-1334).” (Quaest. in IV Sententiam).

In the next quote, the same Holy Father explains that heresy legitimizes the resistance of inferiors to superiors – even when the superior is the Pope.

Pope Adrian: "After his death [Pope] Honorius was anathematized by the Eastern Church. We must remember that he was accused of heresy, a crime which legitimizes the resistance of inferiors to superiors, together with the rejection of their pernicious doctrines. (Allocution III, Lect. In Conc. VIII, act. VII).

When defining the dogma of Papal Infallibility, the fathers of the First Vatican Council found 40 instances when a Pope deviated from the faith.

Popes are not infallible in all they do and say. The SSPX and other like-minded Catholics are simply holding to what the Church has always taught in the face of doctrinal confusion and ambiguous (at best) documents. The Church is in an unusual situation similar to what occurred during the Arian crisis, when (according to Cardinal Newman) approximately 80% of the Bishops fell into the Arian heresy. The hero of the day, St. Athanasius, was condemned by a council of 300 Bishops, banned from his diocese 5 times, spent 17 years in exile, and suffered an unjust excommunication by Pope Liberius (the first Pope not to be canonized). The saying at the time was Athanasius Contra Mundum (Athanasius Against the World). He, along with St. Basil, St. Hilary, St. Gregory, and a few others, stood virtually alone against the mass of Bishops. In the end, however, they were proven right. They knew that the teaching of the Church does not change, and that by holding fast to Tradition they would be vindicated - and they were.

Cardinal Newman: “[At the time of the Arian heresy] There was the temporary suspense of the function of Ecclesia Docens [teaching Church - the hierarchy] as about 80 percent of the bishops fell into heresy. The body of bishops failed in their confession of the faith… The episcopate, whose action was so prompt and concordant at Nicaea on the rise of Arianism, did not, as a class or order of men, play a good part in the troubles consequent upon the Council; and the laity did. The Catholic people, in the length and breadth of Christendom, were the obstinate champions of Catholic truth, and the bishops were not. Of course, there were great and illustrious exceptions; first, Athanasius, Hilary, the Latin Eusebius, and Phoebadius; and after them, Basil, the two Gregories, and Ambrose;… And again, in speaking of the laity, I speak inclusively of their parish-priests (so to call them), at least in many places; but on the whole, taking a wide view of the history, we are obliged to say that the governing body of the Church came short, and the governed were pre-eminent in faith, zeal, courage, and constancy. This is a very remarkable fact; but there is a moral in it. Perhaps it was permitted in order to impress upon the Church at that very time passing out of her state of persecution to her long temporal ascendancy, the greatest evangelical lesson, that, not the wise and powerful, but the obscure, the unlearned, and the weak constitute her real strength. It was mainly by the faithful people that Paganism was overthrown; it was by the faithful people, under the lead of Athanasius and the Egyptian bishops, and in some places supported by their Bishops or priests, that the worst of heresies was withstood and stamped out of the sacred territory."

According to Cardinal Newman, St. Athanasius (not Pope Liberius), was the* “principal instrument, after the Apostles, by which the sacred truths of Christianity have been conveyed and secured to the world.” *

The following was written by Bishop Graber of Regensburg.

Bishop Graber: “What happened over 1600 years ago [during the Arian crisis] is repeating itself today, but with two or three differences: Alexandria today is the whole Universal Church, the stability of which is being shaken, and what was undertaken at that time by means of physical force and cruelty is now being transformed to a different level. Exile is replaced by banishment into the silence of being ignored; killing by assassination of character” (Athanasius and the Church of Our Time, p. 23).

Does the precedent of the Arian crisis provide us with any lessons for our time? It certainly does. Let’s consider some quotes written during that time. The first is from the hero of the day - who at the time appeared to be an excommunicated schismatic - St. Athanasius, Defender of the Faith:

continue…

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

Continuation

The following is a letter St. Athanasius wrote to his followers:

St. Athanasius: May God console you!.. What saddens you … is the fact that others [the Arian heretics] have occupied the churches by violence, while during this time you are on the outside. It is a fact that they have the premises – but you have the apostolic Faith. They can occupy our churches, but they are outside the true Faith. You remain outside the places of worship, but the faith dwells within you. Let us consider: what is more important, the place or the Faith? The true Faith, obviously. Who has lost and who has won in the struggle – the one who keeps the buildings or the one who keeps the Faith? The true Faith, obviously. That therefore the ordinances which have been preserved in the churches from old time until now may not be lost in our days,… rouse yourselves, brethren,… seeing them now seized upon by aliens. True, the premises are good when the Apostolic Faith is preached there; they are holy if everything takes place there in a holy way. You are the ones who are happy; you who remain within the Church by your Faith, who hold firmly to the foundations of the Faith which has come down to you from Apostolic Tradition. And if an execrable jealousy has tried to shake it on a number of occasions, it has not succeeded. They are the ones who have broken away from it in the present crisis. No one, ever, will prevail against your Faith, Beloved Brothers. And we believe that God will give us our churches back some day. Thus, the more violently they try to occupy the places of worship, the more they separate themselves from the Church. They claim that they represent the Church; but in reality, they are the ones who are expelling themselves from it and going astray. Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ. --Apud Caillau and Guillou, Coll. Selecta Ss. Eccl. Patrum, vol. 32, pp. 411-412

Notice, he doesn’t say you are required to attend Mass where abuses are taking place and where the Priest is a heretic. No. He says the Churches are good when “everything takes place there in a holy way”. He asks the question "who wins, those who have the Churches (where everything is not taking place in a holy way) or those who are outside the local Churches (SSPX for example) but who keep the faith? He then gives the obvious answer. Fortunately, the SSPX has provided Churches for those who think like St. Athanasius and want nothing to do with abuses and heresy.

Here’s a few other quotes from the Bishops who kept the faith during the Arian crisis:

St. Basil: "Our afflictions are well known without my telling; the sound of them has gone forth over all Christendom. The dogmas of the Fathers are despised; apostolic traditions are set at nought; the discoveries of innovators hold sway in churches. Men have learned to be speculatists instead of theologians. The wisdom of the world has the place of honor, having dispossessed the glorying of the cross. The pastors are driven away. grievous wolves are brought in instead, and plunder the flock of Christ. (cf. Appendix V of John Henry Cardinal Newman’s Arians of the Fourth Century)

Continue

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

Continuation

St. Gregory Nazianzus: “Surely the pastors have done foolishly; for excepting a very few, who either on account of their insignificance were passed over, or who by reason of their virtue resisted, and who were to be left as a seed and root for the springing up again and revival of Israel [the Church] by the influence of the Spirit, all temporized, differing from each other only in this, that some succumbed earlier, and others later; some were foremost champions and leaders in the impiety, and others joined the second rank of the battle being overcome by fear, or by interests or by flattery, or, what was the most excusable, by their own ignorance”. (Orationes 21:24 -360)

St. Basil: The danger is not confined to one Church… This evil of heresy spreads itself. The doctrines of Godliness are overturned; the rules of the Church are in confusion; the ambition of the unprincipled seizes upon places of authority; and the chief seat is now openly proposed as a reward for impiety; so that he whose blasphemies are the more shocking, is more eligible for the oversight of the people. Priestly gravity has perished; there are none left to feed the Lord’s flock with knowledge; ambitious men are ever spending, in purposes of self-indulgence and bribery, possessions which they hold in trust for the poor. The accurate observation of the canons are no more; there is no restraint upon sin. Unbelievers laugh at what they see, and the weak are unsettled; faith is doubtful, ignorance is poured over their souls, because the adulterators of the word in wickedness imitate the truth. Religious people keep silence, but every blaspheming tongue is let loose. Sacred things are profaned; those of the laity who are sound in faith avoid the places of worship, as schools of impiety, and raise their hands in solitude with groans and tears to the Lord in heaven."

St. Basil: "Matters have come to this pass: the people have left their houses of prayer and assembled in the deserts, – a pitiable sight; women and children, old men, and men otherwise infirm, wretchedly faring in the open air, amid most profuse rains and snow-storms and winds and frosts of winter; and again in summer under a scorching sun. To this they submit because they will have no part of the wicked Arian leaven. --Epistulae 242 (376)

St. Basil: “Only one offense is now vigorously punished, an accurate observance of our fathers’ traditions. For this cause the pious are driven from their countries and transported into the deserts. The people are in lamentation… Joy and spiritual cheerfulness are no more; our feasts are turned into mourning; our houses of prayer are shut up; our altars are deprived of spiritual worship. No longer are there Christians assembling, teachers presiding, saving instructions, celebrations, hymns by night, or that blessed exultation of souls, which arises from communion and fellowship of spiritual gifts… The ears of the simple are led astray, and have become accustomed to heretical profaneness. The infants of the Church are fed on the words of impiety”. --Epistulae 243, to the Bishops of Italy and Gaul (376)

Commenting on the passage, *“beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves. By their fruits you will know them” (Matt. 7:15-16)", *Abbot Gueranger wrote the following:

Gueranger: “When the shepherd becomes a wolf, the first duty of the flock is to defend itself. It is usual and regular, no doubt, for doctrine to descend from the Bishops to the faithful, and those who are subject in the Faith are not to judge their superiors. But in the treasure of Revelation there are essential doctrines which all Christians, by the very fact of their title as such, are bound to know and defend. The principle is the same whether it be a question of belief or conduct, dogma or morals. Treachery like that of Nestorius is rare in the Church, but it may happen that some pastors keep silence for one reason or another in circumstances when religion itself is at stake. The true children of Holy Church at such times are those who walk by the light of their Baptism, not the cowardly souls who, under the specious pretext of submission to the powers that be, delay their opposition to the enemy in the hope of receiving instructions which are neither necessary nor desirable” (The Liturgical Year).

Obedience is a great virtue, but not when it is being used in the destruction of the faith which is exactly what is taking place today. Under the specious pretext of “obedience”, the faith is allowed to be corrupted, with the resulting loss of innumerable souls. Archbishop Lefebvre the Great, who was raised up by God during the currect crisis, had the courage and fortitude to do what was necessary to preserve the Mass, and the faith that goes along with it. If a Pope fails in his duty to protect the faith, and allows the wolves to devour the flock, God will not abandon his Church. He will always raise up a Saint to do what needs to be done. Let us that the Good God for giving us Archbishop Lefebvre the Great, the savior of the Mass, and the savior of the faith. Like Athanasius during his time, he was hated by the world, but there can be no doubt that the future will judge him differently. Archbishop Lefebvre the Great, ora pro nobis.

 

[pnewton]

Roman Pontiff,who is the representative upon earth of God and our God and Lord Jesus Christ, who holds the fulness of power over peoples and kingdoms, who may judge all and be judged by none in this world, may nonetheless be contradicted if he be found to have deviated from the Faith.

“If he is found…” If the Church makes such a finding, I understand. However, if that is a matter of individual understanding, then Martin Luther was justified in his actions, as he found the Catholic pontiffs over the last centuries had deviated from the faith.

For me, when I here the phrase “false obedience” I think it is an oxymoron that can not exist. Obedience is an act. One obeys, or one does not obey. I will stand by this statement from Vatican I.
ewtn.com/library/councils/v1.htm

1. Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman Church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other Church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman Pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world.

I would rather obey the authority God has established and be found in error, than to disobey, trusting my own judgment and think my way into Hell.

I also disagree with your conclusion that the Catholic Faith is being destroyed, or even that this will ever happen.

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

For me, when I here the phrase “false obedience” I think it is an oxymoron that can not exist. Obedience is an act. One obeys, or one does not obey.

When Hitler’s soldiers obeyed the orders from their superiors, and put innocent people to death, what this an act of true obedience? If not, why?

Keep in mind the following points: Obedience is a moral virtue. Moral virtues are a balance point between excess and defect. In order for the virtue of obedience to be exercised truly, the virtue must exist between these two extremes. One extreme is not obeying when we should, while the other extreme is obeying when we should not. When a contradiction exists between obeying man and obeying God, one who obeys man is not being truly obedient.

 

[excubitor]

Obedience is a moral virtue. Unlike theological virtues (faith, hope and charity), moral virtues are not absolutes. They are a balance between excess and defect, and can be violated in either direction - that is, by not obeying when we should, or by obeying when we should not. For example, the soldiers in Hitler’s army were not practicing true obedience when they obeyed the orders to kill millions of innocent people. Neither were the martyrs failing in true obedience when they refused to offer incense to the idols. It is never permitted to obey a command contrary to a theological virtue, since unlike the moral virtues, theological virtues are an absolute.

First of all I commend UltimaRatio for his work however his arguments are severely fallacious as I will demonstrate. To begin with we must contrast the concepts of obedience and authority. As we know there are varying degrees of authority. Hitler is one authority and the Pope is another authority. Invariably there are inconsistencies between these varying authorities. So obviously when faced with a conflict we must obey the greater authority. And who is the greatest authority? Obviously it is the Pope on earth and the Son of God in Heaven. From the perspective of scripture and the promises of Christ, there can be know conflict between the authority of Christ in heaven and the Pope on earth because they are one and the same authority. Linked by the keys of the Kingdom entrusted to Peter and his successors.

Therefore the argument of “false obedience” to Hitler is fallacious. There is no “false obedience”. There is only “true obedience” to a higher authority. In short “false obedience” is an oxymoron.

The following is taken from the encyclical Cum Ex Apostolatus Officia, written by Pope Paul IV during the Council of Trent. During this time of confusion resulting from the Protestant revolt, it was suspected that Cardinal Morone secretly embraced some of the Protestant errors. It was this suspicion that moved Pope Paul IV to write the following encyclical:

Pope Paul IV: "By virtue of the Apostolic office which, despite our unworthiness, has been entrusted to Us by God, We are responsible for the general care of the flock of the Lord. Because of this, in order that the flock may be faithfully guarded and beneficially directed, We are bound to be diligently watchful after the manner of a vigilant Shepherd and to ensure most carefully that certain people who consider the study of the truth beneath them should be driven out of the sheepfold of Christ and no longer continue to disseminate error from positions of authority. We refer in particular to those who in this age, impelled by their sinfulness and supported by their cunning, are attacking with unusual learning and malice the discipline of the orthodox Faith, and who, moreover, by perverting the import of Holy Scripture, are striving to rend the unity of the Catholic Church and the seamless tunic of the Lord.
​

I suspect that most of my responses to these various points will be along a similar vein as my previous post. As in a defence of the greater authority. In this case the authority of the Pope is preferred above the authority of “certain people”. This truly is an argument out of thin air.​

 

[pnewton]

When Hitler’s soldiers obeyed the orders from their superiors, and put innocent people to death, what this an act of true obedience? If not, why?

Pastor Aeternus does not address civil obedience and I was not referring to that.

 

[Onegin]

Thanks, Ultima Ratio - I’ll have to spend some more time reading this when I have the opportunity.

I seem to remember that Honorius I was an antipope, is this right or do I have him confused with someone else?

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

First of all I commend UltimaRatio for his work however his arguments are severely fallacious as I will demonstrate. To begin with we must contrast the concepts of obedience and authority. As we know there are varying degrees of authority. Hitler is one authority and the Pope is another authority. Invariably there are inconsistencies between these varying authorities. So obviously when faced with a conflict we must obey the greater authority. And who is the greatest authority? Obviously it is the Pope on earth and the Son of God in Heaven. From the perspective of scripture and the promises of Christ, there can be know conflict between the authority of Christ in heaven and the Pope on earth because they are one and the same authority.

All authority utlimately comes from God. Even Hitler’s authority, when it was in accord with truth and justice, was from God. When something was commanded by Hitler that was contrary to the natural law, or the divine positive law, the Divine authority ceased with repsect to that command.

Now regarding the Pope: In order to maintain, as you did, that, since the Pope’s authority is from God, it follows that the Pope can never command something at variance with the Divine will, *is to maintatin that the Pope does not possess a free will when he commands. * This would mean that all commands of the Pope came, not from the Pope’s free will, but rather from God who forced the Pope’s will into action. The Pope would, in a sense, be the puppet of the Holy Ghost. Or, you may assert that the Pope is not forced to act (as a puppet) in accord with the Divine will, but instead is prevented from acting contrary to the Divine Will. Either way, this is not the teaching of the Church. Papal Infallibility only applies to doctrinal definitions, not various commands of the Pope. To assert that it is impossible for a Pope to command something at variance with the Divine Will is to maintain that the Pope is impecable - at least with respect to things commanded. This is not the teaching of the Church.

Take the example of Pope Formosus and Pope Steven VI. Pope Steven VI succedded Pope Formosus. Pope Steven had Formosus’ body dug up, clothed in his Papal attire, and put on trial. Formosus was found guilty and Pope Steven had his body cast into the Tiber River. He then nullified all the act of his pontificate. The next Pope undid what Pope Steven did, and nullified his acts. This actually continued, back and forth, for several Popes.

Now, if the Pope’s will was not free to act in his official capacity as Pope, it would follow that God forced Pope Formosus to do what He forced Pope Steven to condemn him for doing, and so on, back and forth, for several more Popes.

Now, if the Pope does possess a free will (which he does), it follows that it is at least possible for him to command something at variance with the Divine will. In such a case, the individual would be obliged to obey God, rather than man. Therefore, you argument is without merit.

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

Thanks, Ultima Ratio - I’ll have to spend some more time reading this when I have the opportunity.

I seem to remember that Honorius I was an antipope, is this right or do I have him confused with someone else?

Honorious I wasn’t an antipope, but he was condemned as a heretic by the Church. Under the authority of a general Council, Pope Leo II condemned him along with other heretics of the day who asserted that our Lord only had one will.

 

[revert_jen]

When Hitler’s soldiers obeyed the orders from their superiors, and put innocent people to death, what this an act of true obedience? If not, why?

First, might I mention this comment by the moderators, “In the spirit of the rule: Messages should be short. Do not post lengthy replies (including replies that consist largely of quotes from an earlier message) I’d like to suggest that no one be allowed to post multiple consecutive postings in order to get around the posting limit.” It is in the “Rules of the Road” forum.

And in response to your comment, it was true obedience to a false object. Obedience, as others have pointed out, is obedience. Obedience is not (and I believe I am agreeing with you here) inherently a moral act. Obedience only becomes a virtue as a result of the object of the obedience and the reason for it.

For example, if I obey the Pope, believing him to be an anti-pope, that obedience is not virtuous. If I obey the Pope, knowing him to be the successor of Peter, but I do it for personal advancement in this world (e.g. in a faithful Catholic university), then it is still not a virtuous act. If I obey the Pope (as I try to), knowing him to be the successor of Peter, because I believe that is what God wants me to do–only then is obedience a virtue.

And the equating of Athanasius with Lefebvre is a false equation. Pope Liberius did not, in his office as Pope, teach heresy. If Lefebvre were right in the same way that Athanasius was right, popes have been teaching heresy–not privately, but in their office as Pope–for decades. Nothing you can possibly say will cause me to believe that Christ has abandoned His Church that way.

–Jen

 

[revert_jen]

Now, if the Pope’s will was not free to act in his official capacity as Pope, it would follow that God forced Pope Formosus to do what He forced Pope Steven to condemn him for doing, and so on, back and forth, for several more Popes.

Now, if the Pope does possess a free will (which he does), it follows that it is at least possible for him to command something at variance with the Divine will. In such a case, the individual would be obliged to obey God, rather than man. Therefore, you argument is without merit.

That is a bit of a straw man. Nobody believes that all of the Pope’s official actions are incapable of error. But if the Pope teaches, as a matter of faith, that the new Mass is valid, then it is valid. That doesn’t mean that it is necessarily the ideal expression of the faith of the Church, but it does mean it is holy as transsubstantiation occurs there.

The Pope possesses the only God-restricted free will on Earth. He is prevented from teaching errors in matters of faith and morals. If you believe that the Pope can err on those matters, then basically you are Protestant. Because you are saying that you personally get to judge (who else would have the authority?) when the Pope’s teaching on faith and morals is in accord with God’s will and when it isn’t. Anyway, we are required to give the assent of faith to all teachings of the Magisterium, not only the infallible ones.

–Jen

 

[catharina]

First, might I mention this comment by the modertors, “In the spirit of the rule: Messages should be short. Do not post lengthy replies (including replies that consist largely of quotes from an earlier message) I’d like to suggest that no one be allowed to post multiple consecutive postings in order to get around the posting limit.” It is in the “Rules of the Road” forum.

And in response to your comment, it was true obedience to a false object. Obedience, as others have pointed out, is obedience. Obedience is not (and I believe I am agreeing with you here) inherently a moral act. Obedience only becomes a virtue as a result of the object of the obedience and the reason for it.

For example, if I obey the Pope, believing him to be an anti-pope, that obedience is not virtuous. If I obey the Pope, knowing him to be the successor of Peter, but I do it for personal advancement in this world (e.g. in a faithful Catholic university), then it is still not a virtuous act. **If I obey the Pope (as I try to), knowing him to be the successor of Peter, because I believe that is what God wants me to do–only then is obedience a virtue.

And the equating of Athanasius with Lefebvre is a false equation. Pope Liberius did not, in his office as Pope, teach heresy. If Lefebvre were right in the same way that Athanasius was right, popes have been teaching heresy–not privately, but in their office as Pope–for decades. Nothing you can possibly say will cause me to believe that Christ has abandoned His Church that way**.
–Jen

Especially so since Our Lord has promised He will NEVER abandon His Church.

 

[catharina]

That is a bit of a straw man. Nobody believes that all of the Pope’s official actions are incapable of error. But if the Pope teaches, as a matter of faith, that the new Mass is valid, then it is valid. That doesn’t mean that it is necessarily the ideal expression of the faith of the Church, but it does mean it is holy as transsubstantiation occurs there.

The Pope possesses the only God-restricted free will on Earth. He is prevented from teaching errors in matters of faith and morals. If you believe that the Pope can err on those matters, then basically you are Protestant. Because you are saying that you personally get to judge (who else would have the authority?) when the Pope’s teaching on faith and morals is in accord with God’s will and when it isn’t. Anyway, we are required to give the assent of faith to all teachings of the Magisterium, not only the infallible ones.

–Jen

:clapping:

 

[damooster]

I would rather obey the authority God has established and be found in error, than to disobey, trusting my own judgment and think my way into Hell.

I agree 100% with pnewton. I think it’s better to be led astray rather than willfully disobey and possibly be correct. If we are being led astray, those doing the leading will have to answer for their actions. The whole shepherding thing…

It’s something I battle with everyday too. I am drawn to tradition. I question a certain Council and the OF Mass, but I submit. In regards to your analogy on Hitler; we’re not being asked to slaughter people for no reason. We’re simply asked to be obedient and trust in the Church.

 

[giuseppeTO]

And the equating of Athanasius with Lefebvre is a false equation. Pope Liberius did not, in his office as Pope, teach heresy. If Lefebvre were right in the same way that Athanasius was right, popes have been teaching heresy–not privately, but in their office as Pope–for decades. Nothing you can possibly say will cause me to believe that Christ has abandoned His Church that way.

Jen,

The equation of Athanasius to Lefebvre is not based on whether Pope Liberius taught, held, or subscribed to the Arian heresy. It is simply used as an answer to the oversimplified argument that if one is excommunicated, one cannot possibly be saintly.

 

[ProVobis]

I agree 100% with pnewton. I think it’s better to be led astray rather than willfully disobey and possibly be correct. If we are being led astray, those doing the leading will have to answer for their actions. The whole shepherding thing…

Here things can get very blurred. Don’t forget, those who followed and obeyed their leaders such as Jimmy Jones or David Koresch ultimately lost their lives. While I’m not saying the Magisterium of the Church in any way resembles these strange cults, nevertheless we all will be judged according to what we’ve been taught and what we should know. I’ve never read anywhere where ignorance is a virtue.

 

[ProVobis]

Anyway, we are required to give the assent of faith to all teachings of the Magisterium, not only the infallible ones.

–Jen

Let’s keep this in mind as Cardinal Arinze states what are the “preferred” practices.

 

[revert_jen]

The equation of Athanasius to Lefebvre is not based on whether Pope Liberius taught, held, or subscribed to the Arian heresy. It is simply used as an answer to the oversimplified argument that if one is excommunicated, one cannot possibly be saintly.

Oh, OK. It’s hard to understand when people are arguing against an unstated objection. Or maybe it was stated, but I missed it because I’m not willing to read four posts of quotes diligently.

As long as we don’t go ahead and extrapolate that any person who has been excommunicated is therefore holy and a saviour of the true Church, just because a Pope, under duress and in exile, excommunicated a saint, I’m OK with it.

–Jen