tradical,
I suspected someone would miss construe the word 'command'. For example, a Pope cannot issue a command to his successor to do such-and-such an action. Where did I say anything about binding belief etc?
When a Pope issues a command that certain things are to be believed or to be done, his successors are bound to submit to the command just as are all.
We suspected that you would begin your semantics antics soon, and we are not disappointed.
Well where to go with this?
First, to be specific, the Church proposes for belief.
Second, note carefully what I wrote: "Pope cannot issue a command to his successor to do such-and-such an action"
So to make it clear: If the Pope Benedict XVI were to have said: "I command my successor to regularize the SSPX without compromise" his successor in the Papacy is in no way obligated to do so because it is not an infallible statement on faith and morals.
I am concerned that, if the adherents on Cathinfo and Ignis Ardens are a representative sample, the resistance is simply scandalized to such a degree by the actions of the hierarchy that they no longer believe in the indefectibility of the Church.
As a consequence they don't believe that the Pope can issue a legititmate command for the SSPX to accept a no-compromise regularization. The foundation for this belief appears to be (based on +W and Fr. Rua et al) a mistaken belief that the Church under the leadership of Pope Francis, (labelled the conciliar Church) cannot be the Church of Christ.
Furthermore they are at a loss to explain how the Church of Christ can be visible without a visible hierarchy founded upon the successor of St. Peter as taught by the First Vatican Council.
Up until now, I've often assumed that the 'resistance' were just misguided, over reacting, ready to abandon Catholic principles and believe in any conspiracy theory uttered by their oracles.
Now I am faced with the another less complicated possibility: that they are simply schismatics.
God Bless and Enlighten the SSPX and the Resistance!
The SSPX, because the line between schism and true obedience is a razor's edge.
The Resistance, because they can't tell the difference between the authority vested in a position, and the person occupying the position.
The Church militant is composed of two classes of persons, the good and the bad, both professing the same faith and partaking of the same Sacraments, yet differing in their manner of life and morality.
The good are those who are linked together not only by the profession of the same faith, and the participation of the same Sacraments, but also by the spirit of grace and the bond of charity. Of these St. Paul says: The Lord knoweth who are his. Who they are that compose this class we also may remotely conjecture, but we can by no means pronounce with certainty. Hence Christ the Saviour does not speak of this portion of His Church when He refers us to the Church and commands us to hear and to obey her. As this part of the Church is unknown, how could we ascertain with certainty whose decision to recur to, whose authority to obey?
The Church, therefore, as the Scriptures and the writings of the Saints testify, includes within her fold the good and the bad; and it was in this sense that St. Paul spoke of one body and one spirit. Thus understood, the Church is known and is compared to a city built on a mountain, and visible from every side. As all must yield obedience to her authority, it is necessary that she may-be known by all.
That the Church is composed of the good and the bad we learn from many parables contained in the Gospel. Thus, the kingdom of heaven, that is, the Church militant, is compared to a net cast into the sea, to a field in which tares were sown with the good grain, to a threshing floor on which the grain is mixed up with the chaff, and also to ten virgins, some of whom were wise, and some foolish. And long before, we trace a figure and resemblance of this Church in the ark of Noah, which contained not only clean, but also unclean animals.
Topic: Sharon Jane Ballatine (Read 53648 times)