Tradicat

+ 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: "The Catholic principle is laid out as follows: The person issuing the command is in a position of authority over the inferior The command is within the scope of the superior's authority The command does not require the inferior to sin, either in the immediate or proximate case. If the above conditions are met then the person has an obligation to obey. Disobedience in this case is sinful. Whereas if #3 is lacking (sinful command) then the person has an obligation to disobey 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. ...

+ JMJ I will be bringing this latest series to a close after this post.   I think it has been a good deep dive into the thought of St. Thomas on obedience. I've also had the opportunity to respond to some of Gerard's objections. So what is next for us in this crisis of the Church? Knowing when obedience is obligatory, optional and sinful. Practicing virtue. Above all, keep your cup full! P^3 Source: Blog St. Thomas Aquinas Links to other posts in this latest series on obedience Introduction: http://tradicat.blogspot.ca/2017/07/breaking-down-st-thomas-summa-article.html Obedience as per St. Thomas: http://tradicat.blogspot.ca/2017/07/breaking-down-st-thomas-summa-article_23.html DisObedience as per St. Thomas Aquinas: http://tradicat.blogspot.ca/2017/07/breaking-down-st-thomas-summa-article_24.html Key Distinctions: http://tradicat.blogspot.ca/2017/07/breaking-down-st-thomas-summa-article_25.html Application to the 1988 Consecra...

+ JMJ The following are some objections raised by 'Gerard' in our discussion on the Suscipe Domine forum. P^3 Links to other posts in this latest series on obedience Introduction: http://tradicat.blogspot.ca/2017/07/breaking-down-st-thomas-summa-article.html Obedience as per St. Thomas: http://tradicat.blogspot.ca/2017/07/breaking-down-st-thomas-summa-article_23.html DisObedience as per St. Thomas Aquinas: http://tradicat.blogspot.ca/2017/07/breaking-down-st-thomas-summa-article_24.html Key Distinctions: http://tradicat.blogspot.ca/2017/07/breaking-down-st-thomas-summa-article_25.html Application to the 1988 Consecrations: http://tradicat.blogspot.ca/2017/07/breaking-down-st-thomas-summa-article_26.html Conclusions: http://tradicat.blogspot.ca/2017/07/breaking-down-st-thomas-summa-article_27.html Objections: http://tradicat.blogspot.ca/2017/07/breaking-down-st-thomas-summa-article_28.html St. Thomas on Legitimate authority and obedience: http://tradicat...

+ JMJ What can we conclude from this latest study of obedience as per St. Thomas Aquinas? That the combination of the sphere of authority and whether or not the order provided contains sin in the immediate or proximate case is supported. That authority has boundaries that are defined by some sort of law (Divine or otherwise). An order involving sin is to be disregarded. Obedience is optional for a non-sinful order outside the sphere of authority. Further, in looking at the example of the 1988 consecrations, there is an objective basis to assert that a state of necessity was in place at that time and required the Archbishop to perform the consecrations or face a dereliction of this duty. Finally, the application of good principles are key to acting with virtue in this crisis. Abandoning Catholic principles because one does not understand how to apply them is a wretched beginning that will lead to a person's undoing. P^3 Links to other posts in this latest se...

+ JMJ In the last year I have heard twice that the 1988 consecrations were wrong - one from an FSSP seminarian and once from a "resistor" with pseudonym 'Gerard'. In his defence, Gerard qualified his  assertion with the statement that if my understanding of St. Thomas' doctrine on obedience was correct, then Archbishop Lefebvre was wrong. Subjectively, it is clear that the Archbishop believed he was working in a state of necessity. The FSSP seminarian agreed to this immediately, but our discussion was truncated before we could delve into the issues surrounding whether or not the consecration would be defended objectively. I would like to dig in a little deeper into this charge that the Archbishop objectively had no basis to disobey the order of Pope St. John Paul II to not perform the consecrations. A key distinction is that there were two 'authorities' that the Archbishop was disobeying by performing the consecration: The Vicar of Christ and C...

+ JMJ St. Thomas' understanding of obedience and its application in real life is founded on the sphere of authority of the superior and the nature of the order issued. In order to understand St. Thomas, we need to dig a little deeper by asking some questions: What defined the superiors sphere of authority? What does 'against God' mean? What does liberalism mean at a personal level?

+ JMJ Obviously, we need a counter-point to obedience and that is disobedience. In the summa St. Thomas considers disobedience under two key points: Is it a mortal sin? Yes as it is contrary to the love of God Is it the most grievous of sins? No, there are degrees in sinfulness of disobedience tied to the nature of the superior and the command disobeyed. Again, I have reordered the article to collect the objections / replies after the explanation given in the On the Contrary and I answer that sections. P^3 Links to other posts in this latest series on obedience Introduction: http://tradicat.blogspot.ca/2017/07/breaking-down-st-thomas-summa-article.html Obedience as per St. Thomas: http://tradicat.blogspot.ca/2017/07/breaking-down-st-thomas-summa-article_23.html DisObedience as per St. Thomas Aquinas: http://tradicat.blogspot.ca/2017/07/breaking-down-st-thomas-summa-article_24.html Key Distinctions: http://tradicat.blogspot.ca/2017/07/breaking-down-st-...

+ JMJ Obedience as per St. Thomas St. Thomas' description of obedience in the Summa is broken down into six articles examining whether: One man is bound to obey another? Yes, inferiors a bound to obey their superiors. Obedience is a special virtue? Yes, it is a special virtue. Obedience is the greatest of all virtues? No, Charity is the greatest virtue. God ought to be obeyed in all things? Yes, all are bound to obey the Divine Command. Subjects are bound to obey their superiors in all things? No, if the Superior commands something against God or outside of their sphere of authority obedience is not required in the latter and sinful in the former. Against God: We are bound to obey the divine command as known through the Divine, Written and Natural Law. To disobey the these is to commit sin. Sphere of Authority: This defines the limits of authority. St. Thomas speaks of the limits of authority for rulers, parents, as well as religi...

+ JMJ Obedience – The Sequel Intro In St. Thomas' concept, obedience is a double edged sword that cuts the vice of pride one way via submission to another, and in another way cuts the virtue of virtues of Charity and Justice via submission to a superior rather than to God. Why is this important? Because many within the Catholic Church tout that the SSPX is disobedient and that this disobedience is 'schismatic' etc. Why argue about this topic? Because in arguing we have an opportunity to discover new perspectives on the topic that, because of our natural biases and insights, we would never has considered.