CathInfo.com

Quote from: Caminus

And here is a further elucidation on the subject.

Of course we would expect an SSPX publication to support the SSPX position.  But the SSPX position is a novelty on this point.  Is it credible that Jesus Christ intended the Church's teaching authority to be one that the people, at any given time, must research her current teachings to see if they conform to all previous teachings of the Church?

This is like telling children in the first grade not to listen to the teacher unless they can confirm that her lessons in phonics agree with all previous teachings on the matter of pronunciation.  I readily admit that this is not a perfect analogy since pronunciation changes over time, but the point is that the faithful cannot receive teaching by the magisterium if the faithful are obliged to research all current teaching prior to accepting it and such ability is, quite frankly, beyond the ability of the vast majority of the faithful.

It is an implicit denial of the proximate rule of faith.

The rule of faith. It seems timely to add here a few remarks on the rule of faith. This term signifies the standard or norm according to which each individual Christian must determine what is the material object of his faith.

Protestants claim that the written Word of God, Holy Scripture, and that alone, is the one rule of faith. Catholics, on the other hand, even though they, too, admit that our faith must be regulated in the final analysis by the Word of God — including tradition as well as Scripture — hold that the proximate and immediate rule of faith — that rule to which each of the faithful and each generation of the faithful must look directly — is the preaching of the Church. And so, according to Catholics, there exists a twofold rule of faith: one remote and one proximate. The remote rule of faith is the Word of God (handed down in writing or orally), which was directly entrusted to the Church's rulers that from it they might teach and guide the faithful. The proximate rule of faith, from which the faithful, one and all, are bound to accept their faith and in accordance with which they are to regulate it, is the preaching of the ecclesiastical magisterium.(27) The following assertions concern the proximate rule of faith.

1. The Church's preaching was established by Christ Himself as the rule of faith. This can be proved from Matthew 28:19—20 and Mark 16:15—16; the command to teach all nations certainly implies a corresponding duty on the part of the nations to believe whatever the apostles and their successors teach, On the other hand, there is no notice anywhere of Christ's having commanded the apostles to give the people the doctrine of salvation in writing, and never did He command the faithful as a whole to seek their faith in the Bible.(28)

2. The Church's preaching is a rule of faith which is nicely accommodated to people's needs. For (a) it is an easy rule, one that can be observed by all alike, even the uneducated and unlettered. What could be easier than to give ear to a magisterium that is always at hand and always preaching? (b) It is a safe rule, for the Church's teaching office is infallible in safeguarding and presenting Christ's doctrine. (c) It is a living rule, in accordance with which it is possible in any age to explain the meaning of doctrines and to put an end to controversies.

Quote from: Caminus

And here is a further elucidation on the subject.

Of course we would expect an SSPX publication to support the SSPX position.  But the SSPX position is a novelty on this point.  Is it credible that Jesus Christ intended the Church's teaching authority to be one that the people, at any given time, must research her current teachings to see if they conform to all previous teachings of the Church?

This is like telling children in the first grade not to listen to the teacher unless they can confirm that her lessons in phonics agree with all previous teachings on the matter of pronunciation.  I readily admit that this is not a perfect analogy since pronunciation changes over time, but the point is that the faithful cannot receive teaching by the magisterium if the faithful are obliged to research all current teaching prior to accepting it and such ability is, quite frankly, beyond the ability of the vast majority of the faithful.

A momentary historical circuмstance doesn't amount to a principle.  We live is a very special time as I'm sure you realize.  Those disobedient men who were once condemned now occupy the highest offices of the Church.  Now it is precisely because our Catholic faith and doctrine is coherent that we can know when something is amiss.  We all agree with the Novus Ordo on the articles of faith.  The things that are destroying the faith are questions of doctrine and practice that support its integrity.  The disintegration of the Church is clearly a purification, but this fact doesn't mitigate against the essential notes of the Church as I'm sure you'll concede.      

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.

I love how you can read souls. You should become a priest!

Unfortunately, you feign the inability to grasp a simple point which I'm certain you really do understand (I can read souls too!).  :wink:

Disobeying a particular command of someone in authority is not denying their legitimately holding their office.  It is our responsibility to use our free will and intellect to make choices regarding the morality of our actions based on Catholic principles. The bishop is not infallible, last I checked, and can give bad commands. However, as I said, this principle is really moot because the bishops don't give any commands these days.

The bishop sits in his office, makes sure the money comes in, doesn't make waves, visits with politiciands, and attends fundraisers and dinner parties until he retires. When is the last time your bishop asked squat of you or commanded you to do anything? Most bishops with Society chapels in their dioceses simply act as if they did not exist and go on about their business. They don't even provide alternate TLM's under the MP. They could care less.

Meanwhile ROME has said it is not sinful to assist at their Masses. So HOW in the world are Catholics who assist at Society Masses deying their bishops are bishops and have ANY authority as Catholic bishops? That position is absurd.

Are you honestly telling me, if your bishop ordered you to stop saying your rosary your only choices would be:

1.) Decide that he is not really a Catholic bishop, though the Church says he is, and disregard any and all commands he gives from that moment onward (even if he later says we should say the stations of the cross or some such Traditional act).

or

2.) Forgo saying one's rosary like a mind-numbed automaton (Neo-Cath) and submit out of blind obedience.

This is the ridiculous false dichotomy the sedes set up which drives them to an extreme position that turns them into de facto Protestants living in their own false reality. I know you are too bright to fall for this, though your current anger at the Society may have you flirting with it. Stay away.