Tradicat

+ JMJ I have synthesized St. Thomas' principle of obedience as follows: 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. Now the question is how have the leaders of the SSPX applied this principle in key conditions? Archbishop Lefebvre withdrawing his signature from the protocol of 1988 Archbishop Lefebvre disobeying the order from the Pope to not consecrate bishops Bishop Fellay refusing to sign the pre-amble provided in 2012.

+ JMJ The principle of obedience as laid down by St. Thomas says 'nothing' about trusting one's superiour.  Probably because to make a principle subject to how one feels about the person issuing the command is the essence of liberalism. 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. Now if conditions 1,2, and 3 are met - then the inferior whether th...

With the Blue-On-Blue engagement of Church Militant.TV against the SSPX, I think this article is timely. Courtesy of the SSPX What comes first: obedience or fidelity? February 27, 2014  District of the US This article shows how the proper practice of obedience to authorities predicated on fidelity to the Catholic Faith has caused a difference of principle between the SSPX and Ecclesia Dei Communities, despite that both adhere to the traditional Roman Mass. We are pleased to offer this article by Brian McCall which ably demonstrates the distinctive difference in how the SSPX has responded to the post-conciliar crisis versus the Ecclesia Dei Communities.

If anyone wants to know what is at the root of the disagreement between Rome and the Society of St. Pius the Tenth, here is it in the words of its founder: The orders being given us clearly express that they are being given us in order to oblige us to submit without reserve to the Second Vatican Council, to the post-conciliar reforms, and to the prescriptions of the Holy See, that is to say, to the orientations and acts which are undermining our Faith and destroying the Church. It is impossible for us to do this. To collaborate in the destruction of the Church is to betray the Church and to betray Our Lord Jesus Christ. As I wrote in another post, the similarity between what the FFI is being required to accept and what the SSPX was asked to accept are more than just similar.  They are practically identical. They represent the two cultural lines that cannot be crossed if a person or group wants to have the 'Vetus Ordo'.  The 'accept the council' mantra is in full f...

When I posted the article on the  Members of the Church Militant II  quoting Dr. Ott, I was struck by the phrase: By the fulfillment of these three conditions one subjects oneself to the threefold office of the Church. the sacerdotal office (Baptism), the teaching office (Confession of Faith), and the pastoral office (obedience to the Church authority). Some Catholics, have issues with the faithful who rely upon the SSPX for the sacraments because of the phrase " obedience to the Church authority".  For example, why do I insist upon going to the SSPX Mass Centre when there is an diocesan Parish that also offers the Tridentine Mass?