Faith is greater than obedience; and if we are ever in a position where the two seem to be undermining one another (or in contradiction to one another), we should always hold fast to the faith, and never deny it through “obedience”.
I’ve been waiting for this argument to get made, because it is the prime example of where most of those out of communion with the post-conciliar Church try to have it both ways.
Who determines what is the faith that must be held? The Church has always and everywhere taught that it is the Church, including all of those Popes so often quoted by the SSPX.
How is one to know when “their” faith is the correct one and the Church is “wrong”? That becomes a matter of conscience, the inner voice of God speaking to us. The SSPX feels that they have the ability to discern that through an exercise of conscience, yet decry anyone else who exercises their conscience–and finds a duty of obedience to the Magesterium–as in opposition to Church teaching.
This becomes the very “cafeteria Catholicism” of which they accuse everyone else. They get to choose which teachings and Popes of the Church to obey, based on their own faith and conscience, but nobody else is afforded this right. It almost becomes gnostic in a belief that they have “secret knowledge” of which teachings are actually valid. How is that any different from someone who believes in faith and conscience that woman should be ordainable?
And of course there is the irony of using the idea of having “religious liberty” to do so, and the idea that one can never be forced to act against one’s conscience–both of which are statements that they rail against from Vatican II. Under the Church noted in the post, in which all other religions are squashed under the feet of the Catholic Church, the SSPX would have been a footnote in history long ago since their dissenting view to the Magesterium would likely have had them in the Inquisition and on the rack rather than freely continuing to state their views.
And Athanasius is hardly a parallel. For whatever is said, he still fought the heresy of the day within the Church and did not go start a new separated church. Ultimately we either believe the promise of Christ that the gates of hell will not prevail or we don’t. If we do we have to accept that even if major parts of the hierarchy were to fall into error that the Holy Spirit will keep the Barque from sinking.
As I’ve said before, my only beef with the SSPX, which Sure also noted, is their tendency to pretend to be in communion when addressing other Catholics, and then to use that as a way to undermine the faith that those Catholics accept in their obedience to the Church.
It truly isn’t a matter of bigotry at all, as has been suggested. It is a matter of a group separating themselves while maintaining that they are actually the “remnant Church” and trying to tell the rest of the Church that they are essentially in apostasy. Disagreeing with that notion is not bigotry, it is just disagreement. And if one is going to cast stones about someeone being in apostasy, they don’t get to call foul if someone comes back to disprove their statement. It can and should be done charitably, but people will become inflamed if taunted enough, which is why I really hate to even see these types of threads started.
Peace,
