Yes, they have the authority, that is not in dispute, it is because they have corrupted themselves and abused and misused this authority for 60 years that we do not blindly adhere to their authority, just as if we Catholics were not given any use of reason. So do not confuse their corrupt authority as being "The Church". I remind you that today, you are speaking about the same authority that perpetrated the new mass and all the liberal doctrines for the last 60 years - they are most assuredly not "The Church".

The excommunication of the good archbishop Lefebrve has nothing whatsoever to do with what I said - he was excommunicated for consecrating bishops. Back then, the crooks in the Vatican, including popes PVI and JP2, made him the dirty step child and repeatedly reprimanded him for his refusal to accept the new sacrilegious service and stop celebrating the True Mass.    

I mentioned the excommunication of Msgr. Lefebvre because you mentioned him in your last post about his disobedience to the Church regarding the Latin Mass and the analogy to today's halting of the Mass. Obviously he was not excommunicated for his disobedience about the Mass, but for his consescrations, but that is besides the point. I just meant to elaborate that your analogy is faulty for Msgr. Lefebvre's situation with the Latin Mass is not the same as the halting of today's Masses for fear of disease spreading.


As to the first part of your post, where is "The Church" then?

Directive = command which must be followed.  Guidance = opinion or counsel which is optional.  2 totally different things, with no overlap.
.
Your original comment that any/all US dioceses are closed from...
"The Pope and all of the Bishops in full communion with the Pope and by extension all of the Priests under the authority of said Bishops"... this is absolutely FALSE.
Now you're just back-tracking.  No, you said it came from the pope.  One can also refer to the Bishops, or 1 specific Bishop, as "the Church".
.
CM, they don't teach "church authority" in RCIA class, so keep reading/studying.    You don't know what you don't know.

Your scholarship of English Philology is sadly similar to the knowledge displayed in your responses and posts; of no real substance.


My original comment is still available in the thread. I cannot modify a post made yesterday. You're more than welcome to keep reviewing it until you are able to comprehend it. Please let me know if you need an ESL teacher to assist.


Dicto simpliciter and Argumentum ad hominem. Wow please keep it up! Your logical fallacies are a great refresher.

Your repeated dodging of admitting a simple mistake speaks volumes.  You are also an admitted non-Catholic (i.e. no religious authority) attempting to convert to Catholicism (i.e. balanced religious authority).  Your exaggerated exaltation of the pope's/rome's "guidance" is a predictable error for someone in your shoes, who is new to the Faith, but it's still an error.  What's shocking is that most converts usually have much more humility and are willing to learn.  I'll pray for you.

Your repeated misunderstanding of a few simple sentences in English speaks volumes. You are a random member on a Catholic forum that requires no verification of identity (meaning you could be an infidel Hindu and I could be an infidel Sabian for all anyone knows). You seem to think that those outside of the Catholic Church are unable to speak about the Church on matters that the Church itself teaches clearly and for two millenia. Your disrespect for authority is an error that shows your infidelity to the Church and to Rome.


What's shocking is that you consider yourself able to provide advice when you, yourself, are in so much need of it.


I will certainly accept your prayers. Thank you.

Your repeated misunderstanding of a few simple sentences in English speaks volumes.

I'm not misunderstanding anything.  First you said the pope ordered all masses shut down.  Then you admitted this was wrong (partially) by saying that the pope only offered "guidance" to the bishops, which has yet to be proven.
.
So you've gone from claiming that mass shutdowns are a "directive" (i.e. command from Rome) to simply claiming the pope offered "guidance" to the Bishops (i.e. suggestion from Rome).  You've gone from proclaiming the situation as true, to now saying it's probable.  You've gone from fact to speculation.   

The point is that (your definition of) "The Church" banning the True Mass did not stop faithful Catholics, which faithful Catholics, btw, prompted +ABL to come out of retirement to defend, celebrate and promote the True Mass exclusively, - that was the point in me mentioning the good archbishop. IOW, if your reasoning were true, then +ABL (and all faithful Catholics) disobeyed the Church by insisting on condemning the new "mass" while continuing to go to the True Mass.

Is not asking the question "where is the Church?" at best a rhetorical question if you have the faith, true Mass and  sacraments?      


 

His Excellency Archbishop Lefebvre was undoubtedly in disobedience. The question was: is the disobedience justified?


Anyway, what is the "faith, true Mass, and sacraments" without the head of the Church?! Might as well become Orthodox, no?

Anyway, what is the "faith, true Mass, and sacraments" without the head of the Church?! Might as well become Orthodox, no?

The pope is the servant of the Faith, Mass and Sacraments.  He has authority only if it is subjected to Divine Law.  The Faith, Mass and Sacraments exist when there is no pope, or when the pope is bad, or if he is a saint.  This is because the Church is Christ's Bride, of Divine origin, while the occupant of the papacy is merely human. 
.
To answer your question, "What is the Faith, Mass and Sacraments, without the head of the Church?"  They are the essence of the Church, which still exist even if the head is temporarily gone or deficient.  The Church can easily survive without a pope (in the short term, as history has shown); whilst without the mass/sacraments, the Church ceases to exist.

The pope is the servant of the Faith, Mass and Sacraments.  He has authority only if it is subjected to Divine Law.  The Faith, Mass and Sacraments exist when there is no pope, or when the pope is bad, or if he is a saint.  This is because the Church is Christ's Bride, of Divine origin, while the occupant of the papacy is merely human.
.
To answer your question, "What is the Faith, Mass and Sacraments, without the head of the Church?"  They are the essence of the Church, which still exist even if the head is temporarily gone or deficient.  The Church can easily survive without a pope (in the short term, as history has shown); whilst without the mass/sacraments, the Church ceases to exist.

The Pope is the visible head of the Church on earth. Pretending he does not exist for 60+ years is not possible within the Catholic system. Without a Pope, there are no Bishops, with no Bishops, there are no Priests, with no Priests there are no sacraments.


Who exactly determines the meaning and reality of scripture, divine law, and faith? You? Me? Our milkman? Maybe pop out your Denzinger and I'll pop out my Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma and we'll battle it out Pokemon style?

The Church cannot survive without a head. At that point, it is not Catholic.

 I quoted this sentence multiple times already.  How could I refer to anything else?  You're short-bus special.

Apparently you have never heard of a rhetorical question. You are Cadillac lowrider special.