I think we are all Sr Wilhelmina'd out by now, Andy.
May she rest in peace!
Check the search engine.

I think we are all Sr Wilhelmina'd out by now, Andy.
May she rest in peace!
Check the search engine.

Yeah, this is only about the 3rd or 4th thread on the subject.

Yeah, this is only about the 3rd or 4th thread on the subject.

I honestly checked prior posting it. I guess my internet stills lack.

The answer is that trads no longer understand obedience to the Magisterium.

This is the obedience Catholics owe to the hierarchy


 of the true Catholic Church:



Are these defiant tradcasters and visitors giving "submission of mind, intellect, and will" to their Bishop?  Why not??

Are they Protestants?

Do they not understand that disobeying your Bishop is schism?




Sadly it's because VII created a false church, a straw man church, which now can be mocked, villified, defied, disobeyed, resisted, and ultimately destroyed,

traditional minded Catholics are duped into destroying the strawman church with their own disobedience.


(strawman church of Vatican II)


The disobedience of the Bishop's directives in the Sr Wilhemina case is no different than the disobedience of the Bishop's directives in the Medjugorje case.

Sadly, concilliar trads now see themselves as the arbiters of truth who do not need to obey the authority of the hierarchy

since they can (rightly) see it is not proclaiming truth

but fail to recognize that it is

a false hierarchy

 of a false church

and remnant of the apostates who left the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church

during the Great Apostasy of Vatican II.

Hello Miser,

I don't think your conclusion is sound. Catholics throughout the ages have always canonized their Saints, by unilaterally establishing their cults, long before the Church pronounced their sanctity with binding authority. For centuries, if I'm not mistaken, Saints, especially martyrs, were canonized without the juridical formalities we are familiar with. 

Look at the crowds at Lourdes and Fatima. The defied all attempts by the ecclesiastical and civil authorities to derail their attendance at the apparition sites, and to tamp down their excitement and conviction.

The faithful running towards something perceived as miraculous, even in the face of admonishments by the hierarchy aimed at quenching such fires, is de rigeur in our long Catholic history.  

I would even go so far as to say that both the novus ordo bishops who are applying the brakes, and the faithful who are full steam ahead no matter what anyone says, are playing their customary parts in the Divine Drama. 

This behavior of the faithful has nothing to do with Vatican II. In fact, I'd almost say it was "traditional."



 

 

The answer is that trads no longer understand obedience to the Magisterium.

This is the obedience Catholics owe to the hierarchy

We don't agree with YOUR interpretation of obedience. We don't have to agree with it, no matter how much you (and the other sedevacantists) try to browbeat us into accepting it. 

We don't agree with YOUR interpretation of obedience. We don't have to agree with it, no matter how much you (and the other sedevacantists) try to browbeat us into accepting it.

Sometimes I wonder what you actually believe.  Even according to classic R&R principles, Catholics are bound to obey their superiors, their bishops, priests, etc. ... UNLESS something they command is contrary to faith.  What part of what this bishop ordered was contrary to the faith?  It's perfectly within a bishop's authority and rights to command the faithful to stay away from purported miraculous phenomena until such a time as the Church has been able to investigate it.  Please explain what principle would justify disobedience in this case, where his command was contrary to faith, or is it that you reject the any concept of "obedience" at all.  Or does "YOUR interpretation of obedience" define it as "I'll obey if I feel like it."?

I basically believe what +ABL believed. But then, since when have Catholics obeyed when it comes to devotions to those whom they believe are holy, but not yet considered so by the Church. I recall the situations of St. Bernadette, Fatima, etc., where the bishop told the Faithful to stay away, but did they listen? No!

At the same time, I'm fine with the bishop in this situation saying what he did. He has to be careful, of course.

I think that for sedevacantists, this is more about the idea that nothing good can ever come from the conciliar church. So of course you must take a stand against it. I personally am glad that Sr. Wilhelmina may be saint. I get that this is cringeworthy for sedevacantists though.

No, you really don't believe what Archbishop Lefebvre did.  His position was that you had to obey the Catholic authorities unless the faith necessitated refusing a command, you know, "Faith is greater than obedience."  As to your "since when have Catholics obeyed ...?", so what?  That doesn't mean they shouldn't have.  In fact, if a visionary disobeys the orders of a Church authority, that entails automatic disqualification of legitimacy.  Question posed earlier had nothing to do with the sedevacantists, but was calling out the non-sedevacantist talking heads over refusing the legitimate orders of someone they consider to be a Catholic prelate.  Your response is an epic fail.