What, precisely, has been immorally commanded?

[Sure]

The answer is plainly: Doing what was done licitly for centuries as a means of sanctifying and saving souls. Living the Catholic life in its fullness.

The reality is, that there was an effort to bury every external sign and many doctrinal teachings that were uniquely Catholic.

To promote the Rosary and Devotions.

Eucharistic Processions

The use of Latin.

The use of a rite of Mass that was licit to use.

Promotion of disciplines that had been used before Vatican II and later loosened.

Teaching on the four last things.

There are many more… as you know.

Where is the immoral command?

 

[GerardP]

Where is the immoral command?

I don’t know. I also don’t know where the disobedience is in that case.

Where did all of those losses of tradition and Catholic identity come from? And who was responsible for them?

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

The answer is plainly: Doing what was done licitly for centuries as a means of sanctifying and saving souls. Living the Catholic life in its fullness.

The reality is, that there was an effort to bury every external sign and many doctrinal teachings that were uniquely Catholic.

To promote the Rosary and Devotions.

Eucharistic Processions

The use of Latin.

The use of a rite of Mass that was licit to use.

Promotion of disciplines that had been used before Vatican II and later loosened.

Teaching on the four last things.

There are many more… as you know.

That’s all very nice and vague, but it’s not getting to the heart of the question. Let’s say an ignoramus bishop ordered a priest to stop using Latin in the Mass. That priest could then ignore the order that was obviously given ultra vires, and if the bishop tried to punish him for saying Mass in Latin he could appeal to the Holy See and would be vindicated: he has a clear right to celebrate Mass in Latin.

Let’s say a bishop was trying to discipline a priest for presiding over Eucharistic Adoration or processions, for teaching orthodox doctrine on the four last things, etc. Once again, he could appeal that discipline to Rome, and presumably he would get a favorable hearing. Or is there evidence of a case being pursued in which a priest was disciplined for simply teaching the orthodox faith and that censure was upheld by the supreme authority?

We all know that “doing what was done for centuries” can be made illicit - for instance, the number of prefaces contained in the Roman sacramentaries was trimmed down over the centuries from 150+ to roughly a dozen. Are you saying that a priest would have been justified in removing himself from the jurisdiction of the Catholic Church because he wanted to employ one of those prefaces?

If the issue is the new Mass, well, then one would either have to argue that 1) the NO is inherently immoral or 2) rites can never have their liceity impeded or abrogated (in this case, impeded). I don’t see either one of those getting you anywhere (if Paul VI was a valid pope).

Now, you have yet to give any example of the highest ecclesial authority actually forbidding something it cannot possibly morally forbid or else imposing something it cannot possibly morally impose. That, however, is what I’m trying to find out. What do those who have broken communion with Rome see as the issue(s) that necessitates withdrawing from communion? Or do they, on the other hand, not have a specific complaint, and feel justified in breaking communion because they think they can do better, i.e. they can’t p(name removed by moderator)oint anything intrinsically immoral about obedience to Rome but think they can leave because Roman practice is not optimal?

I would rather not devolve into arguments about specific points, because I would much rather get to see what the arguments are than come to focus on argument X.2, but I do at least want to see arguments or propositions that actually answer the question.

 

[ProVobis]

“Doing something to get yourself suspended does, after all, usually entail some sort of disobedience.”

Wasn’t part, if not all, of the “disobedience” a claim of most of the SSPX priests that the Latin Mass was never abrogated and that all priests have a right to say the Latin Mass? It seems as if the SP agrees with that claim and should have made null and void that so-called “disobedience.”

 

[Eilish_Maura]

If the TLM was never abrogated does that mean that there were two ordinary forms of the mass until the recent MP?

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

“Doing something to get yourself suspended does, after all, usually entail some sort of disobedience.”

Wasn’t part, if not all, of the “disobedience” a claim of most of the SSPX priests that the Latin Mass was never abrogated and that all priests have a right to say the Latin Mass? It seems as if the SP agrees with that claim and should have made null and void that so-called “disobedience.”

Well, that was part of why they belonged to the society, but I suspect the suspensions had just as much to do with belonging to an organization that had no canonical status - when the experimental life of the society ran out, any clerics would have been required to incardinate in a Catholic hierarchy - you can’t have a cleric without a head.

I also don’t think, however, that answering the question of the rite’s/form’s abrogation (which Benedict has said never occurred) necessarily precludes conditions being placed upon its celebration (which John Paul II established, if not already with Paul VI and the “Agatha Christie indult”).

If someone would like to make an argument, though, that priests of various stripes had no choice but to leave the Catholic communion because the pope forbid them to say the 1962 Mass, then I would like to hear how they construct their argument.

 

[ProVobis]

On another thread we got someone claiming the OF was promoted among the faithful in such a way that it was accepted under ‘false pretenses’ and refuses to cough up meaningful information to back up such a claim.

This is what I was looking for (from marymonde, thank you):

"the New Mass was made in accordance with the Protestant definition of the Mass: “The Lord’s Supper or Mass is a sacred synaxis or assembly of the people of God which gathers together under the presidence of the priest to celebrate the memorial of the Lord.” (Par. 7 Intro. to the New Missal, defining the New Mass, 4/6/69)

Do you agree with this definition that was actually signed by Paul VI? I don’t know what else other than “false pretenses” it was promulgated since later on it was revised to include the Mass as a Sacrifice.

 

[bear06]

Okay… how is a decree a teaching in this case?

You said:

For one: Ecumenism is a policy, not a teaching.

I was simply pointing out that Unitatis Redintegratio is not a policy. It’s a law or in other words, a decree. So wouldn’t it be asking what UR decreed be better?

You were the first person in this thread to mention teaching.

 

[bear06]

This is what I was looking for (from marymonde, thank you):

"the New Mass was made in accordance with the Protestant definition of the Mass: “The Lord’s Supper or Mass is a sacred synaxis or assembly of the people of God which gathers together under the presidence of the priest to celebrate the memorial of the Lord.” (Par. 7 Intro. to the New Missal, defining the New Mass, 4/6/69)

Do you agree with this definition that was actually signed by Paul VI? I don’t know what else other than “false pretenses” it was promulgated since later on it was revised to include the Mass as a Sacrifice.

Just a little clarification - I don’t actually have a link to a document with the quote “The Lord’s Supper or Mass is a sacred synaxis…”
in it but the way you’ve typed it in makes it look like the part in red was part of some statement that Paul signed. That part is definitely editorializing not part of the satement supposedly signed by Paul (and I’m not saying he didn’t I just don’t have a link to give you.

The quote should have looked like this:

1. Because the New Mass was made in accordance with the Protestant definition of the Mass: “The Lord’s Supper or Mass is a sacred synaxis or assembly of the people of God which gathers together under the presidence of the priest to celebrate the memorial of the Lord.” (Par. 7 Intro. to the New Missal, defining the New Mass, 4/6/69)

geocities.com/Athens/Rhodes/3543/latinmass.htm

 

[Eilish_Maura]

This is what I was looking for (from marymonde, thank you):

"the New Mass was made in accordance with the Protestant definition of the Mass: “The Lord’s Supper or Mass is a sacred synaxis or assembly of the people of God which gathers together under the presidence of the priest to celebrate the memorial of the Lord.” (Par. 7 Intro. to the New Missal, defining the New Mass, 4/6/69)

Do you agree with this definition that was actually signed by Paul VI? I don’t know what else other than “false pretenses” it was promulgated since later on it was revised to include the Mass as a Sacrifice.

I would want to see a more authoritative source confirming this quote - I did some searching before answering and though I have seen others use it I have not been able to confirm its authenticity.

 

[stmaria]

This is what I was looking for (from marymonde, thank you):

"the New Mass was made in accordance with the Protestant definition of the Mass: “The Lord’s Supper or Mass is a sacred synaxis or assembly of the people of God which gathers together under the presidence of the priest to celebrate the memorial of the Lord.” (Par. 7 Intro. to the New Missal, defining the New Mass, 4/6/69)

Do you agree with this definition that was actually signed by Paul VI? I don’t know what else other than “false pretenses” it was promulgated since later on it was revised to include the Mass as a Sacrifice.

Because of the *Short Critical Study of the New Order of Mass *by twelve theologians the General Instuctions were changed which forced a delay of about six months in the promulgation of the Novus Ordo.
This is the orginal text of Article #7
" The Lord’s Supper or Mass is the sacred assembly or congregation of the people of God gathering together, with a priest presiding, to celebrate the memorial of the Lord. For this reason Christ’s promise applies supremely to such a local gathering together of the Church: “Where two or three come together in my name, there am I in their midst.” (Mt. 18:20).

Because of the Short Critical Study, the Consilium that was writing the New Mass added, at the request of Pope Paul, certain phrases to answer the criticism of the study. Everything in** bold **was added to the General Instruction

I. General Structure of the Mass
7. At Mass or the Lord’s Supper, the people of God are called together, with a priest presiding and **acting in the person of Christ, **to celebrate the memorial of the Lord or eucharistic sacrifice. For this reason Christ’s promise applies supremely to such a local gathering together of the Church: “Where two or three come together in my name, there am I in their midst” (Mt. 18:20). For at the celebration of Mass, which perpetuates the sacrifice of the cross, Christ is really present to the assembly gathered in his name; he is present in the person of the minister, in his own word, and indeed substantially and permanently under the eucharistic elements."

 

[ProVobis]

From Monsignor Klaus Gamber’s The Reform of the Roman Liturgy, 1993, p. 67,

Apparently the designation of the Mass in the first edition of the Novus Ordo as “the Lord’s Supper or the holy gathering or assembly of the people of God, as they come together, into one [body], with the priest as presider and taking on the persona of Christ, to celebrate the memorial of the Lord,” has its source in the Protestant theology of the Abendmahl rite, the commemorative meal. The fact that this particular definition of the Mass appears in a document bearing the signature of Pope Paul VI, and that it became necessary later to correct it, is a painfully obvious indication of how confused things are in our Church today.

There is also this footnote:

The revised text is: … (“In the Mass, or the Supper of the Lord, the people of God, are called into one body, with the priest as presider and taking on the persona of Christ in order to celebrate the Memorial of the Lord, or the Eucharistic Sacrifice.”) - Article 7 of the Missale Romanum, Vatican, 1970

I’m open to hearing other sources on this matter.

 

[GerardP]

That’s all very nice and vague, but it’s not getting to the heart of the question.

What do you mean “nice and vague,” is it not stipulated at this point that there was a break in traditional practice of Catholicism between 1965 and 1975? I’m giving general descriptions of what happened throughout the Church. I’m sure if you want specifics and I give them, you’ll either deny them or explain that those individual circumstances don’t represent the majority of the Church. Unless we can reach some sort of consensus on the reality of the crisis, we will not have any common ground to discuss things.

And it is getting to the heart of the matter. If you deny that crisis, one warned about by Pope after Pope until John XXIII, then you are not being honest in the discussion.

Let’s say an ignoramus bishop ordered a priest to stop using Latin in the Mass. That priest could then ignore the order that was obviously given ultra vires, and if the bishop tried to punish him for saying Mass in Latin he could appeal to the Holy See and would be vindicated: he has a clear right to celebrate Mass in Latin.

That’s very naive. Don’t you think an ignoramus bishop would learn how to work the system in his favor? The idea that someone would automatically be vindicated is the stuff of fantasy.

Let’s say a bishop was trying to discipline a priest for presiding over Eucharistic Adoration or processions, for teaching orthodox doctrine on the four last things, etc. Once again, he could appeal that discipline to Rome, and presumably he would get a favorable hearing.

Presumably? Why? St. Pius X warned us that the threat of modernism was in the ranks of the priesthood itself. Do you think that a bishop that is opposed to Eucharistic Adoration is going to be shy about trumping up charges against an inferior? I know a bishop that was promised his consecration when he was a priest as payment for taking a job as secretary to a Cardinal. There was nothing involving his orthodoxy involved. He was an intelligent man and would be a helpful clerk to an older Cardinal. He told my father that he just wanted to be a parish priest but the Cardinal offered him the job and sweetened the pot with the promise of becoming a bishop.

Or is there evidence of a case being pursued in which a priest was disciplined for simply teaching the orthodox faith and that censure was upheld by the supreme authority?

Archbishop LeFebvre for one. Why was he denied his appeal to Paul VI?

Fr. John Trigilio was punished for telling the truth about the seminaries in Michael Rose’s book, “Goodbye Good Men.”

Fr. Vincent Miceli was hounded by his Superiors in the Jesuits until he managed to get a position in Rome teaching and the protection of a Cardinal.

Fr. Anthony Cipolla was accused of sexual misconduct. The Vatican ruled in his favor against the bishop. The bishop managed to twist arms and got the Vatican to reverse itself. Good priests are often wrongly accused while the real bad apples are protected by bad apple bishops.

bishop-accountability.org/news/2002_05_17_Fox_WhatThey.htm

This ambivalence among the church leadership toward St. Luke and Peterson’s work surfaced publicly in 1993 after Pittsburgh Bishop Donald Wuerl tried to oust from his diocese Fr. Anthony Cipolla, who had been accused by a teenage boy of molestation. Cipolla had ties to Mother Angelica’s television ministry.

Following the accusation charges, Wuerl had Cipolla evaluated at St. Luke, where staff found no evidence Cipolla was a pedophile but nevertheless recommended he be kept away from children.

Cipolla appealed to the Vatican Signatura, the church’s highest court. Blasting the St. Luke evaluation, it ruled against Wuerl, telling him to reinstate Cipolla.

The Signatura’s brief, later published in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, stated: “St. Luke Institute, a clinic founded by a priest who is openly homosexual and based on a mixed doctrine of Freudian pan-sexualism and behaviorism, is surely not a suitable institution apt to judge rightly about the beliefs and the lifestyle of a Catholic priest.”

Fr. Canice Connors, then president of St. Luke, responded: “Since its foundation in 1981, St. Luke Institute has been grounded in the Christian principles enunciated by Jesus Christ. … To say that St. Luke Institute is not Christian is like saying a flower can exist without sunlight. At no point in the process of reaching its verdict about Cipolla was the Signatura in touch with any of the members of the staff of St. Luke Institute. Because of that lack of contact, I am deeply disappointed in the process leading to the Signatura’s decision.”

Wuerl persisted, and two years later the Vatican court reversed itself and supported the decision to remove the priest.

 

[bear06]

BTW, this little adventure is a little off topic, is it not? That, of course, might be the point.

Anyone want to answer the original query?

 

[bear06]

What do you mean “nice and vague,” is it not stipulated at this point that there was a break in traditional practice of Catholicism between 1965 and 1975? I’m giving general descriptions of what happened throughout the Church. I’m sure if you want specifics and I give them, you’ll either deny them or explain that those individual circumstances don’t represent the majority of the Church. Unless we can reach some sort of consensus on the reality of the crisis, we will not have any common ground to discuss things.

And it is getting to the heart of the matter. If you deny that crisis, one warned about by Pope after Pope until John XXIII, then you are not being honest in the discussion.

That’s very naive. Don’t you think an ignoramus bishop would learn how to work the system in his favor? The idea that someone would automatically be vindicated is the stuff of fantasy.

Presumably? Why? St. Pius X warned us that the threat of modernism was in the ranks of the priesthood itself. Do you think that a bishop that is opposed to Eucharistic Adoration is going to be shy about trumping up charges against an inferior? I know a bishop that was promised his consecration when he was a priest as payment for taking a job as secretary to a Cardinal. There was nothing involving his orthodoxy involved. He was an intelligent man and would be a helpful clerk to an older Cardinal. He told my father that he just wanted to be a parish priest but the Cardinal offered him the job and sweetened the pot with the promise of becoming a bishop.

Or is there evidence of a case being pursued in which a priest was disciplined for simply teaching the orthodox faith and that censure was upheld by the supreme authority?

Archbishop LeFebvre for one. Why was he denied his appeal to Paul VI?

Fr. John Trigilio was punished for telling the truth about the seminaries in Michael Rose’s book, “Goodbye Good Men.”

Fr. Vincent Miceli was hounded by his Superiors in the Jesuits until he managed to get a position in Rome teaching and the protection of a Cardinal.

Fr. Anthony Cipolla was accused of sexual misconduct. The Vatican ruled in his favor against the bishop. The bishop managed to twist arms and got the Vatican to reverse itself. Good priests are often wrongly accused while the real bad apples are protected by bad apple bishops.

bishop-accountability.org/news/2002_05_17_Fox_WhatThey.htm

I think Andreas is politely trying to say that you yet to answer his original query. Maybe another reminder of what it was would help.

My question is, though, what has this pope, Benedict, or previous popes commanded that

1. is immoral and thus must be disobeyed and
2. has been placed as a condition of communion such that maintaining full communion with the Holy See is impossible while disobeying this order?

 

[GerardP]

Now, you have yet to give any example of the highest ecclesial authority actually forbidding something it cannot possibly morally forbid or else imposing something it cannot possibly morally impose. That, however, is what I’m trying to find out. What do those who have broken communion with Rome see as the issue(s) that necessitates withdrawing from communion? Or do they, on the other hand, not have a specific complaint, and feel justified in breaking communion because they think they can do better, i.e. they can’t p(name removed by moderator)oint anything intrinsically immoral about obedience to Rome but think they can leave because Roman practice is not optimal?

You are basing your argument on a false premise. This allows you to frame the argument to your own advantage. To find the issue, you have to objectively take a step or two back further.

The “issue” is the truth or falsity of exactly who broke communion if anyone.

If the reality is that those you accuse of having broken communion with the Church did not actually break communion, then your whole quest is built on a false premise.

My “issue” particularly with LeFebvre is the practical reality that he was falsely accused of breaking communion and the very fact of that false accusation is evidence of the problem within the Church itself.

 

[ProVobis]

Anyone want to answer the original query?

Roe vs Wade?

 

[GerardP]

I think Andreas is politely trying to say that you yet to answer his original query. Maybe another reminder of what it was would help.

1)My question is, though, what has this pope, Benedict, or previous popes commanded that
is immoral and thus must be disobeyed and

Actually Archbishop LeFebvre explained it very well and it does have to do with an immoral order. In relation to his meeting with Paul VI in 1976.

"The Holy Father had said in the course of the conversation: "Well, at least we have a point in common: we both want to stop all these abuses that exist at present in the Church, so as to give back to the Church Her true countenance, etc…

I answered: “Yes, absolutely.”

So I put in my letter that I was ready to collaborate with him, he having said in the course of the audience that at least we had a point in common, to give the Church back Her true countenance and to suppress all the abuses in the Church. In that, I was quite ready to collaborate, and indeed under his authority. I said nothing, I think, which would promise too much, as giving back Her true countenance to the Church is what we are doing.

When I also said to him that I was, in fact, basing myself on “pluralism,” I said:

“But, after all, with the present pluralism how would it be to let those also who want to keep Tradition be on the same footing as the others? It is the least that could be granted us." I said: "1 do not know, Holy Father, if you know that there are twenty-three official eucharistic prayers in France.”

He raised his arms to heaven and said: “Many more, Monseigneur, many more!”

So then I said to him:

“But, if there are many more, if, even so, you add another, I do not see how that can harm the Church. Is it a mortal sin to keep up Tradition and do what the Church has always done?”

You see, the Pope seems well-informed.

So now I think we must pray and hold firm. There may be some among you who were shocked at the suspension a divinis and, I should say, by my rejection of the suspension a divinis. Of course. I understand. But that rejection is part, and I say it should be seen as part, of our refusal to accept the judgment that came to us from Rome. All that is the same thing. It is part of the same context; it is all linked together. It that not so? So I do not see why I should accept this suspension since I did not accept the prohibition of ordaining, nor accept the closing of the seminary and the closing and destruction of the Fraternity. That would mean that I should have accepted from the moment of the first sentence, of the first condemnation: I should have said Yes, we are condemned, we close the seminary and end the Fraternity .Why did I not accept that? Because it was done illegally, because it is based on no proof and no judgment. I do not know if you have had occasion to read what Cardinal Garrone himself said in an interview : our meeting with Mgr. Lefebvre in Rome with the three Cardinals was not a tribunal. He said that openly. It is what I have always said myself. It was a conversation. I have never found myself before a tribunal. The Visitation was not a tribunal; it was an enquiry, not a judgment. So there was no tribunal, no judgment, nothing: I have been condemned like that without being able to defend myself, with no monition, nothing in writing, nothing. No! It is not possible. All the same, justice exists. So I rejected that condemnation, because it was illegal and because I was not able to make my appeal. The way that happened is absolutely inadmissible. We have been given no valid reasons for our condemnation. Once that sentence has been rejected, there is no valid reason for not rejecting the others, for the others always rest on that one. Why have I been forbidden to ordain? Because the Fraternity was “suppressed” and the seminary should have been closed. So I have no right to ordain.** I reject that because it is based on a judgment that is false. Why am I suspended a divinis? Because I ordained when I had been forbidden to do so. But I do not accept that sentence about ordinations precisely because I do not accept the judgment that was pronounced. ** It is a chain. I do not accept the chain because I do not accept the first link on which the entire condemnation was built. I cannot accept it.

1. has been placed as a condition of communion such that maintaining full communion with the Holy See is impossible while disobeying this order?

I reject the premise that this question is built on, namely that “communion” (I reject also the terms “full” and “partial communion” as intellectual concepts) is impossible because of a refusal to engage in false obedience.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

You are basing your argument on a false premise. This allows you to frame the argument to your own advantage. To find the issue, you have to objectively take a step or two back further.

The “issue” is the truth or falsity of exactly who broke communion if anyone.

If the reality is that those you accuse of having broken communion with the Church did not actually break communion, then your whole quest is built on a false premise.

My “issue” particularly with LeFebvre is the practical reality that he was falsely accused of breaking communion and the very fact of that false accusation is evidence of the problem within the Church itself.

…I reject the premise that this question is built on, namely that “communion” (I reject also the terms “full” and “partial communion” as intellectual concepts) is impossible because of a refusal to engage in false obedience.

Well, I actually thought of “partial communion” as an olive branch because I also happen to think very little of the term but thought I’d be nice and give as much as Cdl. Castrillon Hoyos is willing to grant.

It seems now that you want to point to Abp. Lefebvre’s personal case as a justification for existing outside of communion with the Holy See, and for this point we’ll prescind from the question of who did the breaking. Do you wish to claim that the Abp.‘s situation justified his own lack of communion only, or does it also justify others’ lack of communion?

How then, precisely, does this serve to justify living outside of communion with Rome? It just seems odd, that is, that the pope’s refusal to let a retired archbishop run a seminary should have something to do with my communion with the pope. In other words, is there some sort of moral necessity that I belong to this particular archbishop’s society? Or are you really trying to point to something deeper, something along the lines of “doing things Rome’s way was a non-starter - either they would let us do it our way our we would have to accept not being in communion with the pope”?

 

[GerardP]

It seems now that you want to point to Abp. Lefebvre’s personal case as a justification for existing outside of communion with the Holy See,

Whoa! Read it again. I’m stating that the personal case of the archbishop is not one of existing outside of communion with the Holy See. The accusation that he is outside or anyone who supported him is false.

and for this point we’ll prescind from the question of who did the breaking.

First you’d have to prove that there de facto was a breaking with communion.

Do you wish to claim that the Abp.‘s situation justified his own lack of communion only, or does it also justify others’ lack of communion?

Again. What lack of communion?

How then, precisely, does this serve to justify living outside of communion with Rome?

What justifies the accusation that one is living outside of communion with Rome?

It just seems odd, that is, that the pope’s refusal to let a retired archbishop run a seminary should have something to do with my communion with the pope.

It doesn’t. If the Pope’s refusal to take action against the liberal reformers/deformers after Vatican II caused another bishop to supply what he could during that time, it has nothing to do with communion. The whole “communion with the Pontiff” is a red-herring argument.

In other words, is there some sort of moral necessity that I belong to this particular archbishop’s society?

No. There is however a moral necessity that you deal with the subject matter honestly. Any attempts to reframe the argument to exclude any links in the “chain” that LeFebvre mentioned and history verifies would be immoral though.

Or are you really trying to point to something deeper, something along the lines of “doing things Rome’s way was a non-starter - either they would let us do it our way our we would have to accept not being in communion with the pope”?

Again, you engage in false premises and a false dichotomy.

“Rome’s way” was never clearly defined. It was simply a loosening of all the Church’s defenses from error and heresy. There was no protection by Rome from liberalism run amok. Rome’s way was inaction against the “auto-demolition” as Paul VI put it, of the Church. (Except when someone noticed and did something about it. Then, no censure was too great, no criticism too unreasonable, no injustice corrected.)

Is there some moral necessity that obliges someone to abandon what has never been outlawed in order to go along with and participate in what the Pope himself describes as the “auto-demolition” of the Church? If a Pope falters in his defense of the Deposit of Faith on a number of fronts, is it incumbant on all bishops to follow suit and falter on those same fronts?

As far as the “our way” argument goes. That was simply “the Church’s way” for century after century. Why was suddenly doing what was valuable in 1962,1862,1762,1662 and back further suddenly become an unlisted crime worth punishment and suppression while false ecumenism, experimentation with sacred things, heresy, heterodoxy were approved?

As far as your moral culpability goes, should you decide to imbibe in any of those errors on your own or with the implicit permission of the Pope or local ordinary, you will have lost your own communion in the Church and with the Pope whether you are formally told about it or not.