@brhenry, Wouldn't bow to Pachamama? You always say "resistance to the pope is schism." But, oh, apparently there ARE limits! Resistance is 'damnable schism' and 'private judgment'... unless it's brhenry's private judgment, then it's okay! what a surprise!
Oops, forgot. Thinking is forbidden. Absolutely no way I can know whether honoring the Pachamama is evil or not! Not without 'private judgment'. Absolutely no way to tell whether people in mortal sin should be allowed to receive communion or not! not without 'private judgment'! If only there were 2000 years of Church Tradition I could rely on... LOL
He needs to not talk about Rome's misuse of authority at the very time of Rome's misuse of authority? Rome has had plenty of time to do something about Tradition if they cared to do so. I think the whole "let's keep our head down and hope we don't upset anyone in authority" is the FSSP position, not the SSPX's.
The SSPX does not refuse submission to the pope's jurisdiction, only to his misuse of it. I'm sure some would sin if the pope told them to do so 'out of obedience', but it would still be sin.
Liberalism leads to secularism. Nothing surprising in seeing that liberal bishops are now endorsing secular zionism. The new convert understands the Faith better than the majority of the bishops.
@brhenry. 'Private interpretation' again? Seriously? Last time you condemned simple observations of contradiction as 'private interpretation'. Now simply quoting a bible verse is 'private interpretation'. Please do tell: What exactly in my post above was a 'private interpretation' of the biblical text contrary to the meaning understood by the Church?
Is this wake up call for St Paul as well??? He tells us "But when Cephas (St Peter) was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed." (Gal 2:11). He also says: "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema." (Gal 1:8). Maybe St Paul didn't realize that the Roman Pontiff has primacy of jurisdiction over the entire Church? or maybe he didn't realize that faith without works is dead? ... or maybe he knew that one can acknowledge someone's authority, and yet refuse to obey their illegitimate commands!
??? That's random. The principle of private judgment/sola scriptura refers to the private interpretation of Scripture contrary to the meaning accepted and defended by the Church. It is not private judgment to say that two statements are contradictory. That would be like saying it's heresy for a Catholic to think. Here are two statements: Pius IX condemns:“Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true.” (Syllabus Error #15). Vatican II teaches"The human person has a right to religious freedom." (Dignitatis Humanae.)
Two extraordinary statements from Cardinal Sarah: 1) "It is not about obeying the Pope when he expresses his own ideas or personal opinions. It is about obeying the Pope when he says, like Jesus: “My teaching is not mine, but his who sent me” (Jn 7:16). " 2) It is a supernatural view of canonical obedience, which guarantees our bond with Christ Himself. So Ecumenism, Religious Liberty, and Collegiality, (not to mention Pachamama, Amoris Laetitia, etc) are not 'personal opinions' but teachings of Christ!?!?!?!?! And it's not the Faith, but CANONICAL obedience which guarantees our bond with Christ!?!?!?! In other words, the law is not at the service of the Faith, but Faith is at the service of the law. No wonder there is so little confidence in 'conservative' Novus Ordo bishops!
@brhenry So the pope can be wrong (and I think you would assert that he IS wrong in the Abu Dhabi declaration). Vatican II can be wrong. But is it truly honest to say that no one is being 'forced' to accept Vatican II? To say: "Vatican II did not infallibly define anything" is true; but that only makes more odious the fact that its teachings have been imposed upon the Church as some kind of Super-Council. Not enforced? Did you not read the letter of Card Muller (at the time prefect of the CDF) to the SSPX. Vatican II IS being forced upon the SSPX. Card. Muller EXPLICITLY stated that Vatican II AND the post-Conciliar magisterium (which would now include Amoris Laetitia) MUST be accepted. The whole contention between the SSPX and Rome is over Vatican II. I really don't understand how you can say it is 'not being enforced'.
The question regards not the pope, but what he teaches or commands. Pope Francis asserted in the Abu Dhabi declaration that the plurality of religions as such is willed by God. Am I "definitively heretical" if I say that is wrong?
@brhenry: the quotations above do not address the point at hand. The question is the following: can a subordinate ever disobey an illegitimate/immoral command of a legitimate superior? The SSPX does not deny that the pope has received authority from Christ, nor does it deny his jurisdiction. Again, the same question rephrased: can someone with true jurisdiction ever abuse that jurisdiction such that it would be immoral for his subordinates to follow him?
“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” (Summa, II-II, q. 104, art. 5).
@brhenry: Actually, it means that by Traditional Catholic principles - the SSPX should not be condemned; and by Modernist Rome's principles the SSPX should not be condemned. Therefore, the SSPX should not be condemned. By the way: 'Ecclesial communion' is through union in the Faith, it is not broken by refusing innovations that have nothing to do with the Faith, or worse, that are opposed to the Faith.
