What the Serpent Could Not Tolerate
Sorry @brhenry, but on this issue you are simply wrong. We are in a crisis in the Church, one that has never happened before, and we are told by Christ to look for the signs of these times. You ignore them at your own spiritual peril.
The Church condemns absolute obedience. Since you propose absolute obedience, in words at least, you reject the teachings of the Church.
At some point the pope will ask you to accept something that even you cannot. At that point I hope you'll think seriously on this issue and come to a more reasonable conclusion. Or I hope God spares you from that decision and keeps you close to Him, as I believe you are making this error with the intention of being closer to Him. Intentions are not all that matters, but they do matter. Only He knows your soul and your heart.
May God show us both our own errors, and so come to love Him more.
What the Serpent Could Not Tolerate
I don't know why it does this kind of highlighting. I don't know how to fix it. The highlighted section has both my words and quotes. I put the quotes in blue to help distinguish. A link to the Summa is in red.
What the Serpent Could Not Tolerate
Absolute obedience is rejected by the Church. There are occasions that do call for absolute obedience, even to our superiors, however we live in an age and time when it is not possible.
St. Paul was the first to reject the position of the pope, and this is recorded in Scripture, and is infallible.
St. Thomas Aquinas rejects the position of absolute obedience.
From the Council of Trent: "Should, however, the injunctions of parents be at any time opposed to the commandments of God, children, are, of course, to prefer the will of God to the desires of their parents, always keeping in view the divine maxim: ' We ought to obey God rather than men.'" And specifically with regard to obedience to bishops and priests: "Nay, more, Christ himself commands obedience even to wicked pastors: 'Upon the chair of Moses have sitten the Scribes and Pharisees: all things, therefore, whatsoever they shall say to you, observe ye and do ye; but according to their works do ye not, for they say and do not.'" Further, on obedience to secular authority: "But should they issue a wicked or unjust mandate, they are on no account to be obeyed: such a mandate is not the legitimate exercise of power, but an act of perverse injustice."
From St. Ignatius, who promoted "blind obedience" (which is clearly not absolute obedience): "What I mean is that this manner of subjecting one’s own judgment, without further inquiry, supposing that the command is holy and in conformity with God’s will, is in use among the saints and ought to be imitated by any one who wishes to obey perfectly in all things, where manifestly there appears no sin."
Clearly, and infallibly, we are to reject absolute obedience. Furthermore, we are obligated, by Christ Himself, to judge the deeds of our priests and bishops - that obligation is Scriptural. (See the quote above)
We live in a wicked age that makes absolute obedience impossible. Even our bishops and priests seem to almost universally be afflicted with the same errors. Similarly, St. Athanasius lived in the age of Arianism, when almost universally the bishops erred. God chose him to stand apart, to stand for God, even against his superiors. We ought to be more like him.
St. Joan of Arc obeyed her bishop to a point. Once he gave a command that would require her to sin, she willfully, and correctly, disobeyed. For that she was "excommunicated" - an unjust sentence that the Church eventually said was never valid, because she put obedience to Tradition and to God above obedience to her bishop. We ought to be more like her.
Adherence to Apostolic Tradition is What Makes One Catholic
"...only because..." It is not "only because". There are many, many reasons for this. The reason listed is perhaps one of the chief ones, but it is not the core of the issue. We are given the bishops we deserve.
Pope Innocent III ~~~ Truly (the pope) should not flatter himself about his power, nor should he rashly …
"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."
Pope Innocent III ~~~ Truly (the pope) should not flatter himself about his power, nor should he rashly …
So long as that hierarchy is clearly adhering to the Traditions of the Church, then yes, absolutely.
Pope Innocent III ~~~ Truly (the pope) should not flatter himself about his power, nor should he rashly …
I understand where you are coming from, but it flies in the face of history and the teachings of the Church. Nowhere does the Church claim the authority of the pope to be absolute - supreme, yes, but not absolute. That is the position you are taking. If you think this is the case, the burden of proof lies on your shoulders, and thus far you have failed to provide adequate evidence. You have cited a few saints, and a few encyclicals which point to the virtue of obedience, but none of your citations or examples extend to the false virtue of obedience in sin.
Rest assured, by remaining silent in the face of heresy, even heresy by members of the highest orders, you are complicit in it.
The Church will always be, and will always be visible (excepting short interregnum periods). But that doesn't mean it will always be found in the people who claim to be the Church. Rather, the Church is the congregation of all baptized persons united in the same true faith, the same sacrifice, and the same sacraments. If the pope himself does not hold the same true faith, let him be anathema.
I don't know whether he does or does not. I do know he has fallen into error, as did his predecessor. As I have also done, frankly. Therefore, let God be the judge, and may He have mercy on us all.
Pope Innocent III ~~~ Truly (the pope) should not flatter himself about his power, nor should he rashly …
I was actually referring to moral rights, though the 1983 code does list "rights". I'll avoid the term going forward, at least for this discussion, since I agree with you.
However, I'll state again that there is nothing morally wrong with a Catholic believing that it's possible the chair of St. Peter could be vacant currently. That is certainly a different thing than saying that "Every Catholic has the right to personally judge the Papal chair vacant". There are 2 major differences; "is" vs "could be", and "judge" vs "believe".
Catholics have ZERO authority to make legalistic determinations regarding the status of anything in the Church. However, the Church has never denied that Catholics can, in good conscience, personally hold an opinion when there is sufficient evidence - even in matters of papal validity.
Pope Innocent III ~~~ Truly (the pope) should not flatter himself about his power, nor should he rashly …
I do think you are correct that labeling these things as "rights" is marxist garbage. I'm going to keep that in the back of my head going forward, as I agree we should avoid that nomenclature.
That being said, that's the language used by Pope John Paul II in the 1983 Code. Still, I think you're right on that point.
Pope Innocent III ~~~ Truly (the pope) should not flatter himself about his power, nor should he rashly …
Nobody on this thread said that Catholics have the right to personally judge the papal chair vacant. You're inferring too much.
Pope Innocent III ~~~ Truly (the pope) should not flatter himself about his power, nor should he rashly …
The magisterium, via Tradition and also via Canon Law, declares that Catholics have a number of rights. Are you arguing against Tradition and Canon Law and the magisterium? How very "resistant" of you!
Pope Innocent III ~~~ Truly (the pope) should not flatter himself about his power, nor should he rashly …
The magisterial judgement does not apply retroactively. That judgement would not remove a pope, but simply determine his status as pope.
Catholics are well within their rights to believe the seat could be vacant right now, due to the material heresy being espoused and the attacks on the liturgy by their bishops.
Pope Innocent III ~~~ Truly (the pope) should not flatter himself about his power, nor should he rashly …
Certainly it's possible the seat is vacant.
Pope Innocent III ~~~ Truly (the pope) should not flatter himself about his power, nor should he rashly …
Individuals cannot definitively judge the pope to be a heretic (formal heresy), but we can and should (indeed must) judge his words and actions that are heretical (material heresy).
.
I love this one. A man is not a man until he has done battle with the monster within, and tamed it. A man that is not a restrained monster is no man at all.
Leo XIV Praises 'Amoris Laetitia' - Wants To Preserve on This Path
Christians are almost entirely NOT experts on the New Testament, and Jews almost entirely do NOT understand the Old Testament. Those that do have converted to Catholicism.
You did not live the old testament, or the new testament. None of us did. And our culture no longer teaches us those things. Christians today have almost nothing in common with Christians even 200 years ago, let alone 2000. And Jews today have very little in common with their ancestors, either.
Doctrine, Liturgy, and Self-Esteem (Part 2 of 3): The Wedding Dress - Adoremus
I disagree with this 100%. It is modernist satanic psychobabble.
We are to have esteem in God, not ourselves, even when that's for the sake of God or because of God (which is, in my opinion, a self-delusion). The more we love God, the less we care whether or not we love ourselves or are loved by others, and the less we love ourselves.
The presence of the Idaho legislators was not publicized and they did not respond to requests by BSPR …
They literally called it, "50 States, One Israel"?
TPUSA Insider: Erika Kirk Drank Charlie's Blood in Satanic Ritual The Peoples' Voice Erika Kirk consumed …
@Mazza La Ragazza Whether or not it's true, it's sinful to say it, to write it, or to post it.