Really? When has BXVI publicly called for women's ordination or even admitted it is a posibility?

To the contrary he just denied the possibility of womenpriests again in his latest book.

The legal maxim is that silence gives consent.  Americans tend to forget this because of our constitution, but the fifth amendment is a novelty in law.

I don't say that Benedict 16 has ever directly called for or even suggested women's ordination.  In fact, he has repeatedly (through the years, at least when a cardinal) spoken and acted against women's ordination.  

But he is supposed to be the supreme teacher now.  Being silent in the face for such a call by a bishop is no longer an option.  Even if he has never said anything positive about the subject in the past, his silence fosters an attitude among the other bishops, the theologians, and the laity (who have heard this bishop and others who have essentially said the same thing) that, well, the time might not be right but it will happen.

The longer he is silent, the louder his silence will be.

Tele,

1.) All the bishops are not fiving sinful commands in matters of faith and morals. In fact they are commanding nothing these days.

2.) Where the bishop is there the Church is? What do you mean by this?

3.) Military analogy is simple. You have no authority to personally decide an officer who gave an unlawful order is not an officer because of it. You have the right to disobey the unlawful order. That is it. The officer is judged by the military courts or his commanding officer. Not you.

4.) Manifest heretic is a member of the Church until the Church (not you) says he is not a member. In the meantime, if he holds an office over you, you refuse to obey sinful commands and petition the Church to remove him.

5.) Refusing to obey sinful commands is judging the sinfulness of an act which is entirely different from judging whether the giver of the command loses his office. The former we do all the time and is a judgment we all must make (morality). It does not cause anarchy because it is not a judgment of persons or their office which is the job of the Church, not you or I.

I accept the bishop as bishop all the time. Disobeying a bishop is not the same as not "accepting" him as bishop. I have authority to make moral decisions for the sake of my soul because I am directly responsible for my soul, not my bishop. Thus I have authority to make moral decisions regarding any orders my bishop gives me.

6.) A bishop does not command or require you to give money, so you still would not be disobeying if you did not do so.

7.) Bishop has never said I'm forbidden to go to SSPX. If he did, he would be in direct contradiction to the PCED. The PCED has jurisdiction over matters regarding the juridical status of the Society, not the local ordinaries. It would be like my bishop forbidding me to go to any other Mass Rome has said it would not be sinful to go to.

8.) Even if the PCED said not to go, again it is a moral judgment regarding my soul. By choosing to disobey the PCED in a specific instance I'm not denying the PCED is a Pontifical Commission, nor do I deny their authority in principle. I would be choosing to disobey a specific command. That act of disobedience would be judged by moral principles. In certain cases disobedience can be justified, and so on.

You (and sedes) confuse legitimate moral judgments with judging the offices and office holders in the Church which we have no authority to do. I'm not sure how else to state this. It is really self-evident.

Stevus, you don't accept the authority of the Bishop.  All your protests to the contrary don't change the reality.  Sophistical evasions that you don't have to obey morally bad commands are just that - it's not up to you to decide whether or not the masses the bishop approves are good or bad.

You and the SSPXers systematically refuse to accept the Bishop's authority, but then you have the temerity to accuse sedes of going too far.

Having a Bishop you don't obey is trying to have it both ways.

And you know it.

A good way to cut through the sophistic nonsense is to ask how you could explain the "recognize but disobey" position to Protestants.

You start telling them about the ecclesiastical authorities and how they preserve the unity of the Church but then the Protestants will want to know why there is no genuine submission to those authorities.

The non-Catholic isn't going to buy into the idea that Stevus and the SSPX follow the Popes and the Bishops.

ignorence is not bliss. There is the ordinary and the extraordinary.

Obey they Father and Mother. But if thy father and mother tell you to kill yourself and you do you goto hell for ѕυιcιdє. You are required to not obey on pain of sin. It is not a sin to disobey them. There is no damned if you do and damned if you don't in catholicism.

Under Ordinary conditions you must obey your Bishop, under extraordinary conditions you must disobey them.

When Athanatius finally succedded against the Arians, those who followed the MANY Arian Bishops, who were the diocesans and had authority over them by the Holy See and the Pope Liberius, were excommunicated. Just as the Bishops were.

A Bishop is doubly at fault but you who follows that Bishop are also at fault of obeying an illicit command.

Athanatius was excommunicated, exciled numerous times and was vindicated and he was proclaimed a Saint. His followers were declared the true followers of the catholic church.

But according to you since they no longer were inside the heirarchy they were wrong? A Saint and Doctor of the church? I think not!

The Unity of the Church is preserved Universally. If it is not Universal it is not the Church. Universally includes TIME. What was taught in the past must be taught in the future nothing can be infallible if it did not come from God to his Apostles either through scripture or tradition. It must have always been believed. When someone teaches something that contridicts this they are NOT to be obeyed on pain of sin.

While we cannot condemn them as we do not possess the authority to do so, we are obliged to not obey them and await their condmenation later.

Now I'd like to ask you something. Is what Stevus says true? Are you diocesan? How do you reconcile your views being inside the concillar church? Are you obeying the concillar commands? Are you praying with heretics and heathens?

If the Pope hadn't of declared that Tridentine masses could be said by any Priest(Which was declared as part of a demand by the SSPX before any talks could be held) would you still be going?

ignorence is not bliss. There is the ordinary and the extraordinary.

Obey they Father and Mother. But if thy father and mother tell you to kill yourself and you do you goto hell for ѕυιcιdє. You are required to not obey on pain of sin. It is not a sin to disobey them. There is no damned if you do and damned if you don't in catholicism.

Here's the problem - the Church can't lead souls to destruction.

Like I said, try to explain this resist and recognize position to non-Catholics.  We follow the Pope and bishops, but we don't follow the Pope and bishops.  The Church is indefectible, but the Pope and bishops are leading people to hell.  If your hierarchy is leading people to hell then it has defected.

Quote from: stevusmagnus

He may apparently hold to a heresy, but whether or not this means he is no longer a Catholic is a different matter. That would be up for the competent ecclesiastical authority to decide. Very few of these NO Catholics even know enough about the true faith to knowingly hold to heresy. Many of them don't even know what the true Faith is and think that the Church is fine with you believing almost whatever you'd like. It is mass confusion spawned by a complete abdication of authority's obligation to condemn error and discipline those who spread it. That is their role and duty. If they don't do it, all we can do is point it out to them and try to correct the errant and error ourselves the best we can. But we can't go judging on our own authority whether certain clerics have lost their office.

Only problem is that the Church will not judge these people as heretics. I don't know if you remember, but recently some bishops in Germany said that Jesus Christ is not the Redeemer. To say such a thing is a blasphemy. What did Benedict do about them? Nothing.

My point is that if the Church won't act then we do have a right to label people as heretics. Not necessarily Popes (unless, as I pointed out, they commit an undeniable heresy or are not Catholic), but outside of that we may judge people by their actions.

I agree

Quote from: Telesphorus

Quote from: LordPhan

ignorence is not bliss. There is the ordinary and the extraordinary.

Obey they Father and Mother. But if thy father and mother tell you to kill yourself and you do you goto hell for ѕυιcιdє. You are required to not obey on pain of sin. It is not a sin to disobey them. There is no damned if you do and damned if you don't in catholicism.

Here's the problem - the Church can't lead souls to destruction.

Like I said, try to explain this resist and recognize position to non-Catholics.  We follow the Pope and bishops, but we don't follow the Pope and bishops.  The Church is indefectible, but the Pope and bishops are leading people to hell.  If your hierarchy is leading people to hell then it has defected.

once again, the CHURCH is the magisterium, not the individual priests or bishops. Following the magiseterium cannot lead you to hell. But a Bishop can.

My Priest told me that there was a quote from someone and I wish I was paying more attention now. But it went something like "In many lines in hell there is a priest at the back, because everyone in front is saying 'But Father Said....' "

But the SSPX is ignoring and attacking the post-1962 magisterium.  Not just individual priests and bishops.

Tele, the post-1962 magisterium isn't even Catholic. The CMRI and SSPV don't follow it, either. So why is the Society suddenly trying to have it both ways when they're doing what a majority of Traditionalists do?

You are inadvertently proving my point SS.