Skip to main content

The 'Resistance' and Catholic Obedience (Updated)

Image
By
+
JMJ


It would appear that my articles on obedience have been noticed by some members of the 'resistance' and prompted a reply  by Fr. Edward MacDonald, or one of his followers. It was posted on a resistance blog ... here's some key excerpts:

  1. "The Catholic principle is laid out as follows:
  2. The person issuing the command is in a position of authority over the inferior
  3. The command is within the scope of the superior's authority
  4. The command does not require the inferior to sin, either in the immediate or proximate case.
  5. If the above conditions are met then the person has an obligation to obey. Disobedience in this case is sinful.
  6. Whereas if #3 is lacking (sinful command) then the person has an obligation to disobey
  7. Whereas if #1 or #2 is lacking the person practice greater virtue in obeying a command that is not obligatory.
This is from a different article rather than the full series on St. Thomas.  I've added a link at the end of this post.
The problem with Tradicat's understanding with Aquinas' view of 'perfect' obedience is he did not clarify nor expound by what he meant 'the superior requiring the inferior to sin' viz. No. 3 of the above quote. My question then would be, if a boss in a company, for example, asked his female staff after work to have some drinks with him in his place, would it fall under his notion of "perfect obedience" for the female staff to comply since the command is not evil and sinful per se? Another question, if an evil yet lawful superior ordered his inferior not to consecrate some individuals as bishops, would it be "obligatory obedience" for the bishop to obey since the command is not evil and sinful per se?
First thought: I shouldn't have to explain what it would mean to sin ... I assumed that Catholics would understand the concept.  Anyway I did answer that question on this article: here.

As my American friends would say: "Duh!"
I believe herein lies the fissure of his critique of the 'Resistance'. In my example above, while it is true that the female staff may disobey his boss' advances without committing sin on the grounds that his authority ends after work and those things unrelated to the job. It may not be classified as "perfect obedience" but she has obeyed her boss in everything within his authority ("obligatory obedience"). But the same cannot be said with the bishop who was directed by his superior viz. the Pope (i.e. "St." John Paul II) who lawfully ordered Archbishop Lefebvre not to consecrate certain individuals as bishops - since the Supreme Pontiff has the full authority to command an Archbishop not to consecrate anyone. Such a command is not intrinsically evil? Not consecrating bishops by itself is not bad! Hence, using Tradicat's logic here will force us to concede that Archbishop Lefebvre "committed" mortal sin when he disobeyed the Pope! I am not sure if the said blogger would want to go down that path (since he keeps claiming that he is 'in line' with the saintly Archbishop).
Wow, haven't seen this argument for a while.  Actually, they need to read the full article series because I did respond to this objection:

That the Archbishop believed it would have been a dereliction of duty to not provide for the continuance of the Society is clear. So subjectively, he would have been obligated to disobey. Now is there an objective basis for this conclusion? Episcopal Duty: Archbishop Lefebvre had a duty, as a bishop, "preserving the true faith and a high moral tone among the people" (Source: Catholic Encyclopedia). In 1988, what were the objective conditions in the Church?

  • A Pope promoting syncretism (ie: Assisi),
  • A curial response to the Archbishop's Dubia, which (if memory serves) didn't respond to the questions but offered answers to what the curia thought he was asking.
  • A general orientation against what the Church has always taught in both doctrine / dogma and liturgy.
  • Reliance upon a non-SSPX bishop for ordinations, confirmations etc, who was hostile to everything the SSPX represented.
  • The faithful who relied upon the congregation (SSPX) to provide a refuge from the heresy running amok and unchecked within the Catholic Church.
  • Ordaining one bishop would leave a single point of failure for the SSPX.
  • His failing health.
[Update: On reading this I realised that I forgot to include the two compromises that had been asked after signing the protocol of 1988.  Specifically, welcoming the Novus Ordo Missae in St. Nicholas de Chardonnet which represented a compromise.  I will be posting some additional records from the SSPX shortly.] 
Objectively, if the Archbishop died without leaving bishops to provide the sacraments reliant upon the episcopal character, then he would have neglected his duty as a Catholic Bishop. Why? Among other things, those people who rely upon the SSPX for the sacraments etc would have been forced to rely upon the local ordinaries - who were one of the factors creating the crisis to begin with!  

This would be a sin.

I don't think anyone would believe things have gotten better since 1988.

Based on this analysis (cursory as it may be), the Archbishop did the right thing by disobeying Pope St. John Paul II. The Pope was negligent in his duty and that meant that the Archbishop had to choose between a Pope and God.

He chose well.


 So, instead of proving me incorrect or mistaken, the 'resistance' just keeps on proving my point, they really are grasping at straws in order to justify their position.  So ... just who is following the Catholic Truth?  Who is following the path of Archbishop Lefebvre?

P^3
References Cited by 'Resistance'


Too bad they didn't reference the whole series where I did a deep dive into St. Thomas' teaching on obedience:

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

"Father, Should I Attend That Mass?" Advice on Attending Non-SSPX Latin Masses

By
 + JMJ I see that the 'resistors' are in a tizzy because Fr. Robinson used them as an example instead of the sedevacantists. What is interesting is that you can apply the exact same reasons against going to a sede mass as that of the 'resistors'. Namely: On the other extreme are those situations where an SSPX priest knows that a certain non-SSPX traditionalist venue is a grave danger to the faith . Frankly, most, if not all, of the Resistance Masses would fall into this category. In many cases, the behavior of these priests has been and continues to be scandalous, by their (A) spirit, their (B) preaching, and their indiscriminate conferral of the (C) priesthood and (D) episcopacy. To attend a Mass with such ongoing scandals poses a serious danger to the souls of the faithful. Yep, looking at A,B,C and D the shoe fits. On this basis the "resistors" = "sedevacantists". P^3 Courtesy of SSPX.org   A companion article to a recent "Questions with ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Morning and Evening and other sundry Prayers

By
+ JMJ Along the theme of P^3 (Prayer, Penance, Patience), and for my own reference ... here is a collection of Morning and Evening prayers from the Ideal Daily Missal along with some additional prayers. In this crisis of the Church, I do not think it is possible to do too much prayer, penance and have patience. P^3
Post a Comment
Read more

Stories: Early Days of Tradition Part 9 - The Novus-Ordo, Requiems and Holy Thursday

By
 + JMJ I am not a 'cradle' Traditional Catholic. In fact, one of my earliest 'church memories' is of the pews in my family's first parish.  Specifically, how they tasted. I remember a lot of people standing up around me as I got as much of the pew in my mouth as possible.   At that moment as I reached the sweet spot, an older lady caught my eye and I got the impression she was less that impressed that I had achieved the maximally effective amount of pew in my 4 year-old mouth. Looking back, I realised that the parish of my youth was a haven for Conservative Catholics. The Pastor had succeeded in isolating the parish from much of the madness of the 1970's. The result of a conservative parish with doctrinally sound teaching, catechesis and confessions was a parish packed to capacity. The downside, as I heard decades later, was that when a young member of that parish moved into another parish, he found a completely different Church from the one in which he had grow...
Post a Comment
Read more

The Catholic Church and the Rule of Law- Part II: Dr. John Lamont

By
+ JMJ This is the second article from Dr. Lamont from his lecture given in May 2014. P^3 Source Part A: Society of St. Hugh of Cluny Source Part B: Society of St. Hugh of Cluny 8 May2014 The Catholic Church and the Rule of Law- Part II By John Lamont To understand how the Jesuit conception of obedience departed from earlier conceptions, it is helpful to compare it with the teaching of St. Thomas on obedience. The fundamental difference between the two is that St. Thomas considers the proper object of obedience to be the precept of the superior (2a2ae q. 104 a. 2 co., ad 3). Obedience that seeks to forestall the expressed will of the superior does not bear on what the superior wants or thinks in general, but only on what the superior intends to command. St. Ignatius’s lowest degree of obedience, which he does not consider to be virtuous, is thus what St. Thomas considers to be the only form of obedience. St. Thomas holds that St. Ignatius’s alleged higher forms of o...
Post a Comment
Read more

Catholic World Report: Does Traditionis Custodes pass Liturgical History 101 ?

By
+ JMJ Legislation cannot change historical facts. Nor can an act of legal positivism determine what is or is not part of the lex orandi of the Church. The Catholic World Report has published an interesting article on TC and I've highlighted a couple of passages that caught my eye. I think the key thing is that the "Blind Suicidal Obedience is a thing of the past". Let us truly hope so!  This is something that has been a key question for decades amongst Traditional Catholics. As the author mentioned, I am Catholic, sub-species Traditional Catholic  😎 .  For further reading here's a link to my series on True Obedience (link) . P^3   Source: CatholicWorldReport    Corruption of the liturgy?: This theory, sometimes called “ antiquarianism [Tradical: Condemned by Pius XIII] ”, denigrates all liturgical forms growing up in the life of the Church from the fall of the Roman Empire through to the Renaissance – approximately 1,000 years – denying th...
Post a Comment
Read more