"Resistance" theology simply does not apply to the magisterium, and it's constantly misapplied by sedeplenists to show that it's OK to reject an Ecuмenical Council and to reject the New Mass as harmful to the Church.  Those issues are governed by considerations regarding infallibility and the Church's indefectibility ... NOT by simple obedience.  "Faith is greater than obedience", when applied to questions of the magisterium, implies that there ever can be a conflict between the Church's magisterium and obedience.  Even modernist Rome has (correctly) rebuked SSPX regarding this stance, pointing out what I just said about the magisterium.  So the argument must be on the level of whether V2 and the New Mass were product's of the Church's infallible magisterium.

I was once sitting at lunch with a number of SSPX priests listening to an audio tape in which the speaker called the SSPX disobedient.  So one priest (whom I won't name) chimes in with an indignant, "We're not disobedient."  So, I said, "Of course we are."  Then this priest looks over to the priest who was at that time US Distric Superior as if asking for his judgment about our disagreement.  After a lengthy dramatic pause, he says, "Yes, we are." and then starts laughing.  So it was getting to the point that some of these priests don't even acknowledge being disobedient.  I guess that his thinking is that we're "formally" obedient to eternal Rome while being only "materially" disobedient to modernist Rome.  Probably something along those lines, though I doubt whether he'd be able to articulate that when pressed.

Can someone tell me what R & R means.

It's sufficiently established in at least three independent, although cuмulative, ways why there is a need to recognize the Pope.

As to the question worthy of greater consideration, for the purposes of this thread, the extent to which a Pope may be resisted, this is worth reading. Everything at and since Vatican II has only been at the level of authentic magisterium, if that, and in an abnormal times, the possibility of an error in the case of a manifest discordance with traditional teaching cannot be a prior excluded.

He is not required to give the same assent to teaching imparted by the sovereign pontiff that is not imposed on the whole Christian body as a dogma of faith. In this case it suffices to give that inner and religious assent which we give to legitimate ecclesiastical authority. This is not an absolute assent, because such decrees are not infallible, but only a prudential and conditional assent, since in questions of faith and morals there is a presumption in favor of one's superior....Such prudential assent does not eliminate the possibility of submitting the doctrine to a further examination, if that seems required by the gravity of the question (Nicolas Jung, Le Magistère de L’Èglise, 1935, pp.153,154) ...

Normal Times and Abnormal Times

In normal times the faithful can rely on the "authentic" Pontifical Magisterium with the same confidence with which they rely on the Infallible Magisterium. In normal times, it would be a very grave error to fail to take due account of even the simply "authentic" Magisterium of the Roman pope. This is because if everyone were permitted, in the presence of an act of the teaching authority, to suspend his assent or even to doubt or positively reject it on the grounds that it did not imply an infallible definition, it would result in the ecclesiastical Magisterium becoming practically illusory in concrete terms, because the ecclesiastical Magisterium is only relatively rarely expressed in definitions of this kind (DTC, vol.III, col.1110).

It must not be forgotten (as it has been forgotten nowadays) that the security of the Authentic Magisterium is not linked to infallibility, but to the "high degree of prudence" with which the successors of Peter "habitually" proceed, and to the "habitual" care they take never to swerve from the explicit and tacit teaching of their predecessors. Once this prudence and care are missing, we are no longer in normal times. In such a situation it would be a fatal error to equate the Authentic Magisterium of the Roman pontiff with his Infallible Magisterium (Ordinary or Extraordinary). These abnormal times are rare, thanks be to God, but they are not impossible. If we are not to be drawn into error, we urgently need to remember that the assent due to the non-infallible Magisterium is

...that of inward assent, not as of faith, but as of prudence, the refusal of which could not escape the mark of temerity, unless the doctrine rejected was an actual novelty or involved a manifest discordance between the pontifical affirmation and the doctrine which had hitherto been taught (Dom P.Nau, Pope or Church? op.cit. p.29).

Dom Nau makes it clear that this prudential assent does not apply in the case of a teaching that is "already traditional," which would belong to the sphere of the Ordinary Infallible Magisterium. However, in the case of a teaching which is not "already traditional," the reservation which interests us does apply: "unless the doctrine rejected...involved a manifest discordance between the pontifical affirmation and the doctrine which had hitherto been taught." Such a situation would legitimize the doctrine's rejection and would imply no "mark of temerity." Is this kind of "discordance" an impossible hypothesis? Dom Nau, whose attachment to the papacy was without doubt, wrote:

This is not a case which can be excluded a priori since it does not concern a formal definition. But, as Bossuet himself says, "It is so extraordinary that it does not happen more than twice or thrice in a thousand years" (Pope or Church? p.29).

http://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/SiSiNoNo/2002_January/Popes_Infallible_Magisterium.htm

This is the principle which guides the Society in its doctrinal discussions with the Roman authorities.

The question of discipline and liturgy likewise should be carefully considered and there are cogent answers to the same. We know what the traditional teaching of the Church is, but there is an extraordinary case where the Pope, consumed by self-will though remaining Pope, tries to overturn the rites of the Church based on Apostolic Tradition that is relevant here. It was considered by Suarez, Cajetan and Torquemada here.

Edit

It's sufficiently established in at least three independent, although cuмulative, ways why there is a need to recognize the Pope.

For display purposes only right? The card board pope? What good is that?

And, which ways are these anyways?

As to the question worthy of greater consideration, for the purposes of this thread, the extent to which a Pope may be resisted, this is worth reading. Everything at and since Vatican II has only been at the level of authentic magisterium, if that, and in an abnormal times, the possibility of an error in the case of a manifest discordance with traditional teaching cannot be a prior excluded.

Right off the bat this is wrong, and Paul 6 himself rebukes you.

Paul 6 fulfilled all 3 conditions for the pope to speak ex cathedra with vatican 2.

But here's what your own "pope" said anyways:

Paul VI, “Papal” Brief declaring Council Closed, Dec. 8, 1965:
“At last all which regards the holy Ecuмenical Council has, with the help of God, been accomplished and ALL THE CONSTITUTIONS, DECREES, DECLARATIONS, AND VOTES HAVE BEEN APPROVED BY THE DELIBERATION OF THE SYNOD AND PROMULGATED BY US. Therefore, we decided to close for all intents and purposes, WITH OUR APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY, this same Ecuмenical Council called by our predecessor, Pope John XXIII, which opened October 11, 1962, and which was continued by us after his death. WE DECIDE MOREOVER THAT ALL THAT HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED SYNODALLY IS TO BE RELIGIOUSLY OBSERVED BY ALL THE FAITHFUL, for the glory of God and the dignity of the Church...WE HAVE APPROVED AND ESTABLISHED THESE THINGS, DECREEING THAT THE PRESENT LETTERS ARE AND REMAIN STABLE AND VALID, AND ARE TO HAVE LEGAL EFFECTIVENESS, so that they be disseminated and obtain full and complete effect, and so that they may be fully convalidated by those whom they concern or may concern now and in the future; and so that, as it be judged and described, ALL EFFORTS CONTRARY TO THESE THINGS BY WHOEVER OR WHATEVER AUTHORITY, KNOWINGLY OR IN IGNORANCE, BE INVALID AND WORTHLESS FROM NOW ON. Given at Rome, at St. Peter’s, under the [seal of the] ring of the fisherman, December 8... the year 1965, the third year of our Pontificate.”

Paul VI, General Audience, Jan. 12, 1966: “The Council is a great act of the magisterium of the Church, and anyone who adheres to the Council is, by that very fact, recognizing and honoring the magisterium of the Church...”

Paul VI, Ecclesiam Suam (# 30), Aug. 6, 1964: “It is precisely because the Second Vatican Council has the task of dealing once more with the doctrine de Ecclesia (of the Church) and of defining it, that it has been called the continuation and complement of the First Vatican Council.”

"but it [Vatican II] nevertheless endowed its teachings with the authority of the supreme ordinary magisterium, which ordinary (and therefore obviously authentic) magisterium must be docilely and sincerely received by all the faithful, according to the mind of the Council regarding the nature and scope of the respective docuмents."

There we go. Paul 6 said THAT ALL THAT HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED SYNODALLY IS TO BE RELIGIOUSLY OBSERVED BY ALL THE FAITHFUL and that vatican 2 must be docilely and sincerely received by all the faithful.


Need i say more? Need i prove to you how Paul 6 even fulfilled the 3 conditions of ex cathedra?

And are you going to tell me you are ignorant of all these things, or the sspx?

And people get surprised why i say people are bad willed dishonest liars to the core.

He is not required to give the same assent to teaching imparted by the sovereign pontiff that is not imposed on the whole Christian body as a dogma of faith. In this case it suffices to give that inner and religious assent which we give to legitimate ecclesiastical authority. This is not an absolute assent, because such decrees are not infallible, but only a prudential and conditional assent, since in questions of faith and morals there is a presumption in favor of one's superior....Such prudential assent does not eliminate the possibility of submitting the doctrine to a further examination, if that seems required by the gravity of the question (Nicolas Jung, Le Magistère de L’Èglise, 1935, pp.153,154) ...

Normal Times and Abnormal Times

In normal times the faithful can rely on the "authentic" Pontifical Magisterium with the same confidence with which they rely on the Infallible Magisterium. In normal times, it would be a very grave error to fail to take due account of even the simply "authentic" Magisterium of the Roman pope. This is because if everyone were permitted, in the presence of an act of the teaching authority, to suspend his assent or even to doubt or positively reject it on the grounds that it did not imply an infallible definition, it would result in the ecclesiastical Magisterium becoming practically illusory in concrete terms, because the ecclesiastical Magisterium is only relatively rarely expressed in definitions of this kind (DTC, vol.III, col.1110).

It must not be forgotten (as it has been forgotten nowadays) that the security of the Authentic Magisterium is not linked to infallibility, but to the "high degree of prudence" with which the successors of Peter "habitually" proceed, and to the "habitual" care they take never to swerve from the explicit and tacit teaching of their predecessors. Once this prudence and care are missing, we are no longer in normal times. In such a situation it would be a fatal error to equate the Authentic Magisterium of the Roman pontiff with his Infallible Magisterium (Ordinary or Extraordinary). These abnormal times are rare, thanks be to God, but they are not impossible. If we are not to be drawn into error, we urgently need to remember that the assent due to the non-infallible Magisterium is

...that of inward assent, not as of faith, but as of prudence, the refusal of which could not escape the mark of temerity, unless the doctrine rejected was an actual novelty or involved a manifest discordance between the pontifical affirmation and the doctrine which had hitherto been taught (Dom P.Nau, Pope or Church? op.cit. p.29).

Is this supposed to be some kind of death-blow to sedevacantism and a supreme vindication of r&r?

Ha! Good Heavens! Absurd!

I won't even ask you to scan these pages or quote it all in full to see the context because i assume this has carefully been selected for r&r purposes to the max but even as it stands here it doesn't do any help.

What desperation!

FIRST OFF, notice that he is talking about the "non-infallible Magisterium" of the Pope alone.

THIS SAYS NOTHING OF AN EcuмENICAL COUNCIL PROMULGATING HERESIES, ERROR, BLASPHEMY AND APOSTASY, OR ABOUT THE ORDINARY AND UNIVERSAL MAGISTERIUM DOING THE SAME.

Not to mention it says nothing about a Pope being able to promulgate invalid, protestant and heretical Sacraments and Mass.

And it doesn't even specify if the "novelty or a manifest discordance between the pontifical affirmation and the doctrine which had hitherto been taught" can be outright heresy, apostasy or blasphemy.

This also says NOTHING about rejecting and resisting a valid Pope's laws, doctrine, discipline and worship for decades on end, or of entertaining the belief that sacraments promulgated by a Pope are illegitimate or maybe even invalid and doubtful.

And what about ENCYCLICALS AND CANONIZATIONS? Does it say all those are up for grabs and that they can be rejected and sifted at will and that they can be outright heretical, false, erroneous or lead the faithful astray? Hmm?

And lest we forget, you have not shown anything saying that the Church can promulgate evil, error and heresy to all the Faithful, because that is IMPOSSIBLE, and if that were to happen, then the church that did that was most certainly not the Catholic Church or else the Gates of Hell prevailed.

Dom Nau makes it clear that this prudential assent does not apply in the case of a teaching that is "already traditional," which would belong to the sphere of the Ordinary Infallible Magisterium. However, in the case of a teaching which is not "already traditional," the reservation which interests us does apply: "unless the doctrine rejected...involved a manifest discordance between the pontifical affirmation and the doctrine which had hitherto been taught." Such a situation would legitimize the doctrine's rejection and would imply no "mark of temerity." Is this kind of "discordance" an impossible hypothesis? Dom Nau, whose attachment to the papacy was without doubt, wrote:

This is not a case which can be excluded a priori since it does not concern a formal definition. But, as Bossuet himself says, "It is so extraordinary that it does not happen more than twice or thrice in a thousand years" (Pope or Church? p.29).

What's clear to me is that you take what he says about the NON-INFALLIBLE MAGISTERIUM and apply it to Vatican 2 and all the rest.

But i already proved to you that vatican 2 was infallible if Paul 6 was a true pope. There is no way around that FACT.

This is the principle which guides the Society in its doctrinal discussions with the Roman authorities.

No kidding.

The question of discipline and liturgy likewise should be carefully considered and there are cogent answers to the same. We know what the traditional teaching of the Church is, but there is an extraordinary case where the Pope, consumed by self-will though remaining Pope, tries to overturn the rites of the Church based on Apostolic Tradition that is relevant here. It was considered by Suarez, Cajetan and Torquemada here.

Yes and as usual for all r&r false traditionalists, you ignore what all the SAINTS AND DOCTORS AND EVEN POPES said about the matter but remain with Suarez, Cajetan and Torquemada.

Outrageous.

Wow, now I know you don't even read before you reply, not even your own quotes, which only prove what I said. Everything at and since Vatican II of interest has been only at the level of non-infallible authentic magisterium, which in an extraordinary case can contain error.

And, which ways are these anyways?

The postulate that the entire hierarchy fell into formal heresy is itself heretical, the apostolic college will always consist of a body of men duly appointed and consecrated until the end of the world. The more measured form of sedevacantism still holds that there has been no Pope for 55 years pretty much leads to the same conclusion, since the very last bishops appointed under Pius XII have died or resigned their offices. Finally, it is a dogmatic fact that the man whom the whole ecclesia docens acknowledge is Pope is truly Pope and such a recognition proves all conditions for validity are fulfilled even in the internal forum. This establishes the need to say there is a Pope, the first R.

Paul 6 fulfilled all 3 conditions for the pope to speak ex cathedra with vatican 2.

Rubbish. Paul VI said, "In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided any extraordinary statements of dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility"

You obviously didn't read this very quote of yours: "but it [Vatican II] nevertheless endowed its teachings with the authority of the supreme ordinary magisterium, which ordinary (and therefore obviously authentic) magisterium must be docilely and sincerely received by all the faithful, according to the mind of the Council regarding the nature and scope of the respective docuмents."

Ordinary magisterium that is merely authentic and therefore non-infallible is precisely what I'm talking about.

And again, "THAT ALL THAT HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED SYNODALLY IS TO BE RELIGIOUSLY OBSERVED BY ALL THE FAITHFUL and that vatican 2 must be docilely and sincerely received by all the faithful.

Likewise, this one above says the same thing, which you would know if you read the article. The obsequium religiosum is by its nature a prudential and conditional assent altogether different from the assent of faith given to an infallible teaching.

And people get surprised why i say people are bad willed dishonest liars to the core.

Catholics who know Church teaching know enough to reject dogmatic sedevacantism, not simple sedevacantism but dogmatic sedevacantism, as a schismatic view. The simple faithful guided by their sensus catholicus even without any formal theological training still retain enough of a sense of their faith to be repulsed by the totally unCatholic notion of a Church without a hierarchy.

Is this supposed to be some kind of death-blow to sedevacantism and a supreme vindication of r&r?

The second R is established here, and it shows you are wrong.

I won't even ask you to scan these pages

You ought to go read the article yourself before jumping to conclusions.

Not to mention it says nothing about a Pope being able to promulgate invalid, protestant and heretical Sacraments and Mass.

More circular reasoning. Didn't I show you the Society article saying the new rites are not per se invalid, but only under specific circuмstances? Didn't you tell me you read and understood that article? Doesn't seem like it.

sacraments promulgated by a Pope are illegitimate or maybe even invalid and doubtful.

Explain to me in your own words the difference between positive and negative doubt. Fr. Scott is aware of this difference, you perhaps are not. Feel free to prove your case against his words if you wish.

And what about ENCYCLICALS AND CANONIZATIONS? Does it say all those are up for grabs and that they can be rejected and sifted at will and that they can be outright heretical, false, erroneous or lead the faithful astray? Hmm?

Each of these are separate questions worthy of careful consideration and good and plausible explanations have been suggested.

And lest we forget, you have not shown anything saying that the Church can promulgate evil

Never said she could. You obviously have not read what say Fr. Laisney or even Fr. Kramer has written about this, it is precisely here that indefectibility is seen that the Holy Ghost did not allow the proper form of promulgation to be followed, did not allow it to be made binding on the Church, even though it was unjustly implemented as such. This was only the appearance of legality by tyranny.

What's clear to me is that you take what he says about the NON-INFALLIBLE MAGISTERIUM and apply it to Vatican 2 and all the rest.

Which is perfectly appropriate since Vatican II according to both John XXIII and Paul VI never rose above that level, if at all it was even that.

Yes and as usual for all r&r false traditionalists, you ignore what all the SAINTS AND DOCTORS AND EVEN POPES said about the matter but remain with Suarez, Cajetan and Torquemada.

They are talking about an extraordinary situation where a real Pope deviates from Tradition, which is possible and by its nature a speculative explanation. If you have a contrasting explanation from Doctors or Popes about the same situation of a Pope wishing to overturn the rites of the Church received by Apostolic Tradition, which as I've mentioned theologians say is possible, by all means provide it.

Quote from: Nishant

Wow, now I know you don't even read before you reply, not even your own quotes, which only prove what I said. Everything at and since Vatican II of interest has been only at the level of non-infallible authentic magisterium, which in an extraordinary case can contain error.

You're out of your mind.

I won't waste my time answering to a bad-willed obstinate heretic as yourself anymore.

What i already said is enough but you have no problem lying through your teeth.

Everything that you said is the same old gobbledygook which has already been debunked to death, and which doesn't address so many other things.

These replies take considerable time because i like to be thorough and detailed but i wont waste my time with you anymore, i wont continue to throw pearls to dogs and swine such as you.

Did you just get back from a trip to New Mexico?