True and false obedience

[revert_jen]

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

Don’t have to, as AFAIK I prefer 'em too. No great virtue in obedience if people are telling you to do stuff you want to do anyway.

–Jen

 

[pnewton]

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.

I am reminded of the hymn that says, “The arm of flesh will fail you. You dare not trust your own.” You bring a valid point, and one that prevents us from judging other who truly think these people divinely speak for God. But invincible ignorance is another topic. Rather I am taking as postulated that one has already explored the existence of God, the claims of the Gospel and has been called into the Light of Christ. I am also taken that one has accepted the claims of the Catholic Church and are faithful Catholics. For that one, the highest authority is God and God has established his visible authority on Earth For that one, Vatican I’s pronouncement in Pastor Aeternus apply.

Note still, if one is faithful to the Catechism, there can still be the clause of conscience, althought exercising that perogative comes with an obligation to strive and learn the mind of the Church. Yet even then, it would be a rare circumstance where one can disagree** and** be in a position to disobey something the Church has said.

 

[Monica4316]

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

I don’t understand… .does this mean the dogma of Infallibility is false? But shouldn’t we believe the Church’s dogmas, if we’re Catholic?

However I do agree with this:

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.

by the way, here’s a good article about Pope Honorius: catholic.com/thisrock/1994/9409fea2.asp

 

[excubitor]

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.

There is no blurring. Obedience is due only to the legitimate authority. Those cult leaders that you mentioned do not have apostolic succession and have not been appointed by the ordinary magisterium. Therefore they are obeyed to the peril of our souls. Therefore it is very important that before we submit to a religious leader we MUST ensure that they have valid faculties to teach the gospel and to administer the goods of the church.

Ignorance is certainly not a virtue. It cannot be condoned if a man does not make even the most rudimentary enquiries as to the qualifications of the teacher that he follows. However one of the effects of the protestant reformation and the hundreds of schisms is that everybody had to become knowledgeable of the scriptures and have the ability to read and study them in order to avoid falling into the clutches of false teachers.

God never required this of simple folk. All God required of them was to go to church, obey Father and learn from him. That was enough to know what was required for salvation. In the church today that is still the case. The faithful do not need to be Bible experts they 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 so that they can properly decipher which branch of traditionalism they should belong to.

God does not require this level of knowledge from the layman even though it can be asset for him if he has been taught by a faithful teacher in communion with the church. But this level of knowledge formed in schism and separation from the church is very dangerous with people using their knowledge of tradition and the scriptures AGAINST the magisterium in order to condemn them. This is an abuse of knowledge and in fact makes the knowledge a curse to the individual who possesses it.

 

[Onegin]

I don’t understand… .does this mean the dogma of Infallibility is false? But shouldn’t we believe the Church’s dogmas, if we’re Catholic

It’s not that the doctrine of papal infallibility is false but rather that most Catholics don’t understand when it applies and when it does not. Many Catholics (wrongly) assume that the Pope speaks infallibly whenever he opens his mouth.

In fact, Popes can (and have, in the past) proclaimed heresy which does not mean that they are not valid popes (the error of sedevacantism) but it does mean that they can and do err.

I’m sure more members here can provide a more detailed explanation but this is my quick and dirty response.

 

[Rosa_Centifolia]

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.

Using cult leaders to try and sow doubt about papal authority is a little weird.

 

[Layman]

Isn’t the nub of this argument that ‘obedience’ in this case means going along with the changes to our religion post-1924 and ‘disobedience’ means not doing so?

I say that if you can get to a TLM and buy a copy of the Baltimore Cathecism and follow what it says you can be a Catholic in good standing. You can safely ignore the hubbub in our religion post-1955 and wait for the bad fruit to rot away, as it inevitably will.

**‘Obedience’ suits liberals when things like CITH are questioned. It doesn’t when it comes to retaining Latin and Chant. **

 

[ProVobis]

Using cult leaders to try and sow doubt about papal authority is a little weird.

And this is a weird accusation levelled against me, if not a bit overstretched. I thought pn’s response was spot on.

 

[ProVobis]

**‘Obedience’ suits liberals when things like CITH are questioned. It doesn’t when it comes to retaining Latin and Chant. **

Not to mention Humanae Vitae, Friday penance, and Sunday obligation.

 

[ProVobis]

There is no blurring. Obedience is due only to the legitimate authority. Those cult leaders that you mentioned do not have apostolic succession and have not been appointed by the ordinary magisterium.

Do you have a point to make? The many kids who died obeyed their parents; is that not legitimate enough?

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

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.

I want to pause here for a moment and begin with something I recently read in two encyclicals. The encyclicals are Quas Primus, by Pius XI, and Diuturnum, by Leo XIII. What I read really stuck with me as I had never heard it explained that way. In both encyclicals, the Popes taught that it is not right for a man, who has been redeemed by the blood of Christ, to serve, or obey, another man. Sounds strange at first, doesn’t it? They then go on to say that obedience to our lawful superiors should not be obedience to them, but to God, such that when we obey them oure motive is obedience to God. So, if an authority gives a command, I am to obey God by obeying that command.

All authority comes from God. Those in authority are there by the will of God - at least by the permission, or consequent, will of God. Their authority to rule comes from God, and as such, their commands carry with an authority derived from God. But this authority to command is limited. Since the authority comes from God, any command that is at variance with the Eternal Law of God is null and void - it possesses no authority, since authority comes from God, and God would never command a person to do what His law forbids. Such disordered commands come not from God, but from man. In such a case, in order to remain obedient to God, we must disobey man. The act of apparent disobedience is, in reality, obedience to God.

When people speak of false obedience, they refer to the false notion that we are bound to obey man in all things. The act of obedience as such, does not fall into the real of true or false, but rather of good or bad. Truth is the object of the intellect; good is the object of the will. Since obedience is an act of the will, it is not correct to refer to it as true or false, but instead as good or bad.

(As an aside: The term “false obedience” refers to an erroneous understanding of obedience. One who believes that man must obey all commands of his superior, without considering if they are contrary to the Law of God, has a false understanding of obedience. It is in this respect that the term “false obedience” is used.)

Now, you said obedience is not always a moral act. If by “moral act” you mean a morally good act, then I agree. But if by “moral act” you mean an act with a moral component, then I disagree. All acts of obedience have a moral component - they are either good or bad. Since man is a moral agent, how can an action he performs not be a moral act? The only way I can think of for a human to perform an act that is not a moral act, is if they do not possess the use of their reason.

Obedience is morally good if 1.) a person obeys a command of a lawful superior; 2.) the command is not contrary to a law of God, either made know to us through the natural law or the Divine positive law (revelation), and 3.) if the person obeying the command intends to obey God through obedience to the particular command.

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.

But you only addressed the subjective aspect of the one obeying with respect to the person obeyed and the motive for his obedience. You left out the key point - namely, the particular command, and whether or not it is in accord with God’s law. That is the issue we are dealing with. We are not so much speaking of the person we obey (the Pope, for example), or even the reason we obey him, but rather of obedience to a particular command. The point is that not all commands are to be obeyed. Any command contrary to the law of God should not be obeyed, regardless of who is doing the commanding. If someone in authority commands us to do something that we think is a bad idea, we are bound to obey that command even if it is truly ridiculous (such as the example of the Monk who was told to plant a dead stick and water it every day). However, if something is commanded that is at variance with the law of God, obedience is not permissible, lest in obeying man we become guilty of disobeying God.

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

"Ultima:

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

I don’t understand… .does this mean the dogma of Infallibility is false? But shouldn’t we believe the Church’s dogmas, if we’re Catholic?

The Dogma is true and we must accpet it. But keep in mind that Papal Infallibility is only engaged when a Pope is defining a dogma, which is rare. It is not a charism that prevents him from error in faith or morals in all circumstances. No Pope has ever taught contrary to the truth when he defined a dogma.

 

[excubitor]

All authority comes from God. Those in authority are there by the will of God - at least by the permission, or consequent, will of God. Their authority to rule comes from God, and as such, their commands carry with an authority derived from God. But this authority to command is limited. Since the authority comes from God, any command that is at variance with the Eternal Law of God is null and void - it possesses no authority, since authority comes from God, and God would never command a person to do what His law forbids. Such disordered commands come not from God, but from man. In such a case, in order to remain obedient to God, we must disobey man. The act of apparent disobedience is, in reality, obedience to God.

When people speak of false obedience, they refer to the false notion that we are bound to obey man in all things. The act of obedience as such, does not fall into the real of true or false, but rather of good or bad. Truth is the object of the intellect; good is the object of the will. Since obedience is an act of the will, it is not correct to refer to it as true or false, but instead as good or bad.

(As an aside: The term “false obedience” refers to an erroneous understanding of obedience. One who believes that man must obey all commands of his superior, without considering if they are contrary to the Law of God, has a false understanding of obedience. It is in this respect that the term “false obedience” is used.)

As far as I am concerned this is false teaching and is not what the Popes were arguing at all. 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 contrary to the laws of God and then may disobey it. This means that every man places himself in authority above his superior.

Let’s read the result of this in the case of the nation of Israel
Judges 17:6 In those days there was no king in Israel, but every man did that which was right in his own eyes.

You see they were all obeying their conscience. They all believed that what they were doing was right. Yet what was the result? Lawlessness and disobedience. They all ignored the commands of the Judges and Priests of Israel. Therefore in the end they had to be brought into subjection by the physical power of Kings.

And this has been a problem with the old church prior to Vatican 2. The Popes when faced with lawlessness tried to rule with the power of a King. I’m not saying this was wrong in any way but it is not supposed to be the way the church should function. The true Israel of the Church should obey not because the austere Pope rules them from his throne wearing his crown and pointing his crozier. Nor should the obey the Pope out of fear of excommunication or the severe disciplines of the church.

Vatican 2 believed almost wishfully and even naively that the people could obey simply out of their Catholic desire to obey. In the old church the bishops were almost unable to exercise authority. They used to refer every decision to the Pope. Yet how could the Pope rule this vast church of a billion people on his own. It might have been possible when the church was mainly in Europe, but the church had become vast and diverse beyond comprehension. It was necessary for the bishops in these far flung places to learn to rule in their own stead again, to exercise their ecclesiastical authority, sadly many of the bishops have been unwilling or unable to do so. So the faithful clamour for the Pope to intervene. But if the Pope keeps intervening and ruling like a King, how will the local bishops ever learn to take responsibility and authority in their diocese.

So therefore we have disobedience with each man doing what is right in his eyes. Following his own private conscience instead of the rule of the church. Therefore the modernists disobey the rubrics of the mass. The traditionalists reject the mass altogether and have their own mass. Yet they all think they are doing what is right before God.

Does this mean that we have no need of conscience (by which you refer as obedience to the Eternal Law of God)? Of course not. But the conscience is largely for those who are outside the law and the true authority of the church or Israel.
They have no authority from God to guide them. The conscience is all they have. Romans 2 explains this
“14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: 15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience [3] also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another 16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.”

But can the natural law be opposed to the law of the church? Of course not. The mere thought of it is preposterous and strikes at the heart of the indefectability of the church. The conscience makes us feel guilty when we disobey the Pope (or it should). Can anybody feel guilty in their heart because they obeyed the Pope? Again of course not. That is preposterous. Therefore the conscience is to be commended, but if it is conflict with the established rule of the church then we are better to assume that our consciences have been seared with a hot iron and corrupted 1 Timothy 4:2 than to assume that the church has fallen into sin or heresy.

 

[excubitor]

It is essential to ensure that we are subjecting ourselves to a lawful authority. That is a minister of the Catholic faith who is properly ordained with Holy Orders. Such a man is many times more qualified to judge matters of faith and morals than we (the laity) are. Therefore he is to be obeyed. I’m not talking about ridiculous commands like “Go and murder your mother” or some other thing that is blatantly wrong.
If priests were commanding such things.

However if such a ridiculous command was given or even some matter which was a breach of conscience then you have the right to appeal to a bishop who is higher in authority to that priest. Therefore you may resist or delay obedience on a serious matter of conscience until you have heard back the decision in the matter from the bishop. In a very serious matter you could appeal to the Pope. Resisting the ordinary magisterium is allowed provided we are respectful, prayerful and honouring of his lofty office. Direct disobedience however is not allowed and is a grave sin.

I cannot stress enough the importance of us being subject to the ordained authority and not some authority who has no faculty to practice as a priest or teacher in the church. Particularly in these latter days when there is so much information around on the Internet, it is very careful that we only absorb material which receives the full endorsement of the Holy See. There is enough such material to inform us and edify us until the end of our days without the need to read the material of schismatics and heretics of whom there are an increasing number. Even individuals who are almost schismatic who and who are not in full communion with the church should be avoided, even if they have an appearance of being Catholic.

If we did this very small thing and followed, learned from and obeyed only the lawful ecclesiastical authority then we simply would not need this debate of false/true obedience. Indeed this heretical notion of false and true obedience only came into vogue when organisations outside the proper hierarchy of the church started to disobey that hierarchy. These groups invented this false teaching to justify their disobedience.

Nothing in the scriptures or tradition teaches false obedience, or true disobedience. Its an absurd oxymoron. It’s like saying true murder, or false faith (which was one of the protestants inventions to justify their disobedience).

As soon as we see novel innovations being implemented by people outside the proper hierarchy of the church alarm bells should be going off in our Catholic heads. These red flags highlight like neon signs who the illicit invalid authority is and so we should be well able to avoid them and put ourselves into the obedience of the proper ecclesiastical authority.

 

[LilyM]

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

Cardinal Arinze on his own doesn’t constitute a Magisterium, he merely forms part of it, which is not the same thing.

The Pope, being that the whole congregation of the world’s bishops cannot teach ANYTHING infallibly without his tacit or overt approval of their teaching, is in a uniquely elevated position of authority.

If he ever, God willing, Arinze became Pope, then we would owe him the same assent as we do Paul VI, JPII and Benedict XVI. But even then this duty would only apply to statements made AFTER his election, not before.

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

As far as I am concerned this is false teaching and is not what the Popes were arguing at all. 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 contrary to the laws of God and then may disobey it. … Nothing in the scriptures or tradition teaches false obedience, or true disobedience. Its an absurd oxymoron. It’s like saying true murder, or false faith (which was one of the protestants inventions to justify their disobedience)…

Excubitor,

Unfortunately, I am too busy to reply right now. For now, I’ll just give you the section from the Summa of St. Thomas that discusses false obedience. St. Thomas doesn’t use the term “false obedience”, but “indiscreet obedience”.

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?

Objection 1. It seems that subjects are bound to obey their superiors in all things. For the Apostle says (Colossians 3:20): “Children, obey your parents in all things,” and farther on (Colossians 3:22): “Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh.” Therefore in like manner other subjects are bound to obey their superiors in all things.

**Objection 2. **Further, superiors stand between God and their subjects, according to Deuteronomy 5:5, “I was the mediator and stood between the Lord and you at that time, to show you His words.” Now there is no going from extreme to extreme, except through that which stands between. Therefore the commands of a superior must be esteemed the commands of God, wherefore the Apostle says (Galatians 4:14): “You . . . received me as an angel of God, even as Christ Jesus” and (1 Thessalonians 2:13): “When you had received of us the word of the hearing of God, you received it, not as the word of men, but, as it is indeed, the word of God.” Therefore as man is bound to obey God in all things, so is he bound to obey his superiors.

Objection 3. Further, just as religious in making their profession take vows of chastity and poverty, so do they also vow obedience. Now a religious is bound to observe chastity and poverty in all things. Therefore he is also bound to obey in all things.

On the contrary, It is written (Acts 5:29): **“We ought to obey God rather than men.” Now sometimes the things commanded by a superior are against God. Therefore superiors are not to be obeyed in all things. **

I answer that, As stated above (A1,4), he who obeys is moved at the bidding of the person who commands him, by a certain necessity of justice, even as a natural thing is moved through the power of its mover by a natural necessity. That a natural thing be not moved by its mover, may happen in two ways. First, on account of a hindrance arising from the stronger power of some other mover; thus wood is not burnt by fire if a stronger force of water intervene. Secondly, through lack of order in the movable with regard to its mover, since, though it is subject to the latter’s action in one respect, yet it is not subject thereto in every respect. Thus, a humor is sometimes subject to the action of heat, as regards being heated, but not as regards being dried up or consumed. On like manner there are two reasons, for which a subject may not be bound to obey his superior in all things. **First on account of the command of a higher power. For as a gloss says on Romans 13:2, “They that resist [Vulgate: ‘He that resisteth’] the power, resist the ordinance of God” (cf. St. Augustine, De Verb. Dom. viii). “If a commissioner issue an order, are you to comply, if it is contrary to the bidding of the proconsul? Again if the proconsul command one thing, and the emperor another, will you hesitate, to disregard the former and serve the latter? Therefore if the emperor commands one thing and God another, you must disregard the former and obey God.” Secondly, a subject is not bound to obey his superior if the latter command him to do something wherein he is not subject to him. For Seneca says (De Beneficiis iii): “It is wrong to suppose that slavery falls upon the whole man: for the better part of him is excepted.” His body is subjected and assigned to his master but his soul is his own. Consequently in matters touching the internal movement of the will man is not bound to obey his fellow-man, but God alone.

continue…**

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

continuation

Nevertheless man is bound to obey his fellow-man in things that have to be done externally by means of the body: and yet, since by nature all men are equal, he is not bound to obey another man in matters touching the nature of the body, for instance in those relating to the support of his body or the begetting of his children. Wherefore servants are not bound to obey their masters, nor children their parents, in the question of contracting marriage or of remaining in the state of virginity or the like. But in matters concerning the disposal of actions and human affairs, a subject is bound to obey his superior within the sphere of his authority; for instance a soldier must obey his general in matters relating to war, a servant his master in matters touching the execution of the duties of his service, a son his father in matters relating to the conduct of his life and the care of the household; and so forth.

Reply to Objection 1. When the Apostle says “in all things,” he refers to matters within the sphere of a father’s or master’s authority.

Reply to Objection 2. Man is subject to God simply as regards all things, both internal and external, wherefore he is bound to obey Him in all things. On the other hand, inferiors are not subject to their superiors in all things, but only in certain things and in a particular way, in respect of which the superior stands between God and his subjects, whereas in respect of other matters the subject is immediately under God, by Whom he is taught either by the natural or by the written law.

Reply to Objection 3. Religious profess obedience as to the regular mode of life, in respect of which they are subject to their superiors: wherefore they are bound to obey in those matters only which may belong to the regular mode of life, and this obedience suffices for salvation. If they be willing to obey even in other matters, this will belong to the superabundance of perfection; provided, however, such things be not contrary to God or to the rule they profess, for obedience in this case would be unlawful.

Accordingly we may distinguish a threefold obedience; one, sufficient for salvation, and consisting in obeying when one is bound to obey: secondly, perfect obedience, which obeys in all things lawful: thirdly, indiscreet obedience, which obeys even in matters unlawful.

If I get some free time I’ll reply to the points you raised.

 

[excubitor]

Accordingly we may distinguish a threefold obedience; one, sufficient for salvation, and consisting in obeying when one is bound to obey: secondly, perfect obedience, which obeys in all things lawful: thirdly, indiscreet obedience, which obeys even in matters unlawful. [/INDENT]

If I get some free time I’ll reply to the points you raised.

Nothing St. Thomas has said contradicts anything that I have said. It is perfectly pertinent in matters of this world. For example, if the civil authority were to command us not to go to church then we would be bound by a higher authority to obey the church and by direct extension, God himself.

Your mistaken premise is that you have assumed that the Pope and the ordinary magisterium is capable of commanding the faithful to break the commands of God himself. You have no evidence to support this premise. As I stated in my post, this strikes directly at the Catholic dogma of the Infallibility of the Church.

Even if we are talking about CITH or priest facing the people etc, and all the usual accusations directed at the church by traditionalists. None of these are intrinsically sinful. Now if your conscience forbids you to receive in the hand, standing, from a Eucharistic Minister then the ordinary magisterium insists that the priest must respect your conscience and allow you to receive on the tongue, kneeling and directly from the Priest. In that case the internal conscience is respected within the bounds of the rule of the church. However if the Christian feels in his conscience that the NO mass is a modernist infiltration of heresy and that it is a mortal sin to attend that mass, then the rule of the church corrects him and does not allow him to hold this position. The rule of the church in so doing has set boundaries and has ruled that the conscience of this person has become disordered and untrustworthy.

I suppose that St. Thomas’ use of the term “indiscreet obedience” is similar to the term “false obedience”. What I am addressing is not the term itself so much as the purpose to which it is put, namely to undermine the proper and lawful obedience to the Sovereign Pontiff.

Its a trick, a sleight of hand often used in debate. By convincingly establishing one point (namely that it possible to obey indiscreetly or falsely) the debater then pushes home upon his compliant student to then make the next point (that the Pope is commanding against the commands of God and therefore must be truly disobeyed instead of falsely obeyed).

Its a nonsense as any clear thinking Catholic with half a functioning Catholic sensibility should be able to detect. Obedience to the Sovereign Pontiff should be our natural instinct and if its not, it points out that we are harbouring schismatic ideologies. It is simply not possibly for the successor of Peter to command sin. This has been proven in history where some really shocking (validly appointed) Popes in history have nevertheless been protected by a Divine Grace from introducing heresy into the church. This is a miracle. Why would God protect the church in this way throughout all the ages only to let the church down so badly in this last age of the church? It is a nonsense. Even if we were to believe that the antichrist of the last day might be a Pope. He could not possibly be the true Pope but would supplant the true Pope by deception. Nor would the faithful elect be invisible or ignorant of the clear invalidity of the False Pope.

The Popes have all been validly elected. We saw the white smoke. Even if there were appalling skullduggeries going on and political football going on. God is in charge of all things, he makes his will known amidst all of these plots and intrigues (none of which are proven or can be known by us). 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.

 

[ProVobis]

I suppose that St. Thomas’ use of the term “indiscreet obedience” is similar to the term “false obedience”. What I am addressing is not the term itself so much as the purpose to which it is put, namely to undermine the proper and lawful obedience to the Sovereign Pontiff.

But that’s the whole point. There seems very little the Church now actually commands laity to do aside from obeying Divine Law. Terms like decree, suggest, recommend, not recommend, tolerate, approve conditionally, prefer, not allow communion to, etc. are thrown around here but they really don’t seem to have teeth when “proper and lawful obedience” are concerned.

The real obedience is to God and His commandments. That includes honoring your mother and father and whoever else is in authority, like the Magisterium. However, I wouldn’t even be able to tell you what language would be absolutely binding to the point where I would be disobedient except for maybe “you will be excommunicated if” or “you are in anathema if.” But I’ll be more than happy to hear what you consider disobedience to the Soverign Pontiff.

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

It is simply not possibly for the successor of Peter to command sin. This has been proven in history where some really shocking (validly appointed) Popes in history have nevertheless been protected by a Divine Grace from introducing heresy into the church.

A particuar command of a Pope, and a Pope teaching heresy definitively, are two completely different things. Please provide one magisterial document teaching that a Pope is impecable in what he commands. Papal Infallibility only applies when a Pope is defining a doctrine. It does not apply when he is teaching on matters of faith and morals without defining a doctrine, and it certainly does not apply when he issues a command.

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.

**Cardinal Torquemeda: **“Although it clearly follows from the circumstances that the Pope can err at times, and command things which must not be done, that we are not to be simply obedient to him in all things, that does not show that he must not be obeyed by all when his commands are good. **To know in what cases he is to be obeyed and in what not,… it is said in the Acts of the Apostles: ‘One ought to obey God rather than man’; therefore, were the Pope to command anything against Holy Scripture, or the articles of faith, or the truth of the Sacraments, or the commands of the natural or divine law, he ought not to be obeyed, but in such commands, to be passed over (despiciendus)…” **

"By disobedience, the Pope can separate himself from Christ despite the fact that he is head of the Church, for above all, the unity of the Church is dependent upon its relationship with Christ. **The Pope can separate himself from Christ **either by disobeying the law of Christ, or by commanding something that is against the divine or natural law. by doing so, the Pope separates himself from the body of the Church because this body is itself linked to Christ by obedience. In this way, the Pope would, without doubt, fall into schism…

"He would do that if he did not observe that which the Universal Church observes in basing herself on the Tradition of the Apostles, or if he did not observe that which has been ordained for the whole world by the universal councils or by the authority of the Apostolic See. Especially is this true with regard to the divine liturgy, as, for example, if he did not wish personally to follow the universal customs and rites of the Church. This same holds true for other aspects of the liturgy in a very general fashion, as would be the case of one unwilling to celebrate with priestly vestments, or in consecrated places, or with candles, or if he refused to make the sign of the cross as other priests do, or other similar things which, in a general way, relate to perpetual usage in conformity with the Canons.

**“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])

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)