Rorate article on competence

[Miriam_M]

I find this article helpful for understanding why some of us, despite the strength of our convictions about unchanging Catholic truth, do not consider ourselves competent to "make decisions" before the Church does. 

On the first sections -- all the arguments about BXVI -- those have never been particularly an issue with me.  Beginning with letter D and following, the author discusses PF more specifically.

For me, the bottom lines, plural, are two:

1. Incompetence to judge.  (Note the points made about even the hierarchy lacking that authority during a pope's reign.)  Intellectual knowledge and reasoning are not the same things as authority.
2. Something the article doesn't really address directly, but what I would call a spirit of disobedience in general, and here I acknowledge that there's so much of that to go around in the Church that a Second Flood could be generated by it alone. 

SV'ists could rightly label so-called R&R, especially the confrontational variety of resistance, as definitely within that category, but so (this article would conclude) is SV'ism, and more importantly to me, so is so much of post-V2 "independence" of N.O. clergy in their disregard for sacred tradition, for form, and their preference for Human Respect over divine respect.

I think that one fact or phenomenon that we trads have yet to come to terms with -- maybe because we are also affected by it -- is the worldwide disintegration of authority:  a refusal by those in authority to exercise it justly and competently, and a refusal by most of the world to obey any authority in any realm.  I have seen this trend to  affect Traddom very much, outside of any relationship to the papacy.

https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2024/06/don-pietro-leone-is-pope-francis-pope.html#more

[Miriam_M]

I should add that my intention in posting the article is not to provoke, but to provide perspective by those of us not inclined to join a SV movement, so to speak.

[Bonaventure]

As @Kaesekopf has argued, following the "official structures," unless one is being commanded to do evil, is a safer path than trekking it out in the "wilderness" of Tradistan.

[Maximilian]

Oh, that kind of "competence." I thought the article would be about why more Traditional Catholics are not like Greg -- fixing their own cars and making lots of money.

[Michael Wilson]

This is the most logical conclusion for those who have become "Francis-vacantists":

Those who deem themselves competent to brand him a heretic and therefore not an authentic Pope,
typically deem all previous Popes to be authentic and therefore not heretical in the sense in which they consider Pope Francis to be. This, however, is incoherent, given that his predecessors were also prone to heresy in words or deeds: Pope John Paul II kissing the Koran and presiding over gatherings of the "other religions" in Assisi, Pope Benedict following suit in the latter practice; Pope John XXIII and Paul VI convoking and promoting the Second Vatican Council, which was to signify the formal entry of heterodoxy within the Church. Pope Francis' words and deeds do not essentially differ from these other Popes in any way. His judges should draw the conclusion that either all of these 5 Popes are heretics or none at all. Tradition teaches that none of them are.

Therefore for those who want to hold Francis as a  non-Pope because of heresy, logically must also hold the other Conciliar Popes as non-Popes.
Then this most perspicacious observation:

The problem is the heresy propagated and celebrated in our churches, furthered by our Popes, enshrined in the Law, overflowing from the Church, as the Higher Reality into the lower reality which is the World, fed and injected into our infants and fragile youth, into adults and the elderly; smothering us with its narcissistic embraces; choking and asphyxiating us with its mortiferous fumes: "...and the smoke of the abyss arose, as the smoke of a great furnace. And the sun and the air were darkened with the smoke of the abyss." [8]

That is a major problem: if the Popes could in their official capacity propagate heretical doctrines or immoral disciplinary laws; then the Church would not be what she claims to be, which is the divinely established universal means of salvation. She would be just another man made organization.

If Pope Francis, using the formula required for the infallible definition of dogma had defined a heresy as a dogma, then he would obviously ipso facto have ceased to be Pope, but this has not been the cas

This is the totally illogical conclusion of the R&R Ecclesiological premises! The Pope is divinely protected from infallibly proclaiming any heresy as a dogma of the faith! -
For the R&R's, the Pope is infallible "only" when he teaches what has already been defined as dogma or Catholic doctrine by the the Church i.e. 'Always, everywhere by everyone'. The Pope then is no different from any Catholic layman or yokel (including yours truly) who when they repeat Catholic doctrine speak infallibly; this is what is called "accidental" infallibility. But the Pope enjoys "juridical infallibility" i.e. The special help and protection from the Holy Ghost, that guides him to teach only the truth and to 'confirm his brethren and the faithful in their faith'.
Finally: "Universal Recognition"
Does not apply to "public heretics" such as Paul VI; J.P.I; J.P.II and Pope Francis; public heresy excludes one automatically from the Church and therefore makes such a person radically ineligible for the Papacy; in the same manner as a woman or a mental defective who theoretically would be elected Pope.
Cardinal Billot in his same "De Ecclesia", treats of the automatic fall from office of any theoretical Pope that would become a public heretic. So those who insist on Billot claiming that a public heretic can become Pope if everyone accepted his election; would be forced to conclude that this same "Pope" would fall automatically from office the next time he uttered a heresy, (incoherently) by Billot.
Pope Paul IV's bull "Cum ex Apostolatus Officio", gives the contrary sentence:
http://dailycatholic.org/cumexapo.htm

or even the Roman Pontiff, prior to his promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy:

    (i) the promotion or elevation, even if it shall have been uncontested and by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless;

    (ii) it shall not be possible for it to acquire validity (nor for it to be said that it has thus acquired validity) through the acceptance of the office, of consecration, of subsequent authority, nor through possession of administration, nor through the putative enthronement of a Roman Pontiff, or Veneration, or obedience accorded to such by all, nor through the lapse of any period of time in the foregoing situation;

  (iii) it shall not be held as partially legitimate in any way;

Void, Worthless, not valid nor ever could acquire validity or partial validity (sede privationism) in any way.
End of Story.

[Michael Wilson]

As @Kaesekopf has argued, following the "official structures," unless one is being commanded to do evil, is a safer path than trekking it out in the "wilderness" of Tradistan.

This is contrary to Catholic teaching; following "official structures" i.e. "picking and choosing" what one obeys or believes from the teaching authority of the Church is verily the act of schism.
Basically all of us trads who have kept our faith, have become our own "Popes", whether we follow Kaess's course; R&R-ism or sedism. We "pick and choose" what Chapels to attend; priests to follow etc. etc.
We are all in the "wilderness of tradistan" whether we like it or not.

[KreKre]

following "official structures" i.e. "picking and choosing" what one obeys or believes from the teaching authority of the Church is verily the act of schism.
Basically all of us trads who have kept our faith, have become our own "Popes", whether we follow Kaess's course; R&R-ism or sedism. We "pick and choose" what Chapels to attend; priests to follow etc. etc.
We are all in the "wilderness of tradistan" whether we like it or not.

The way I try to square that circle in my conscience is hold on to the notion that tradition has greater authority than anyone currently alive, including the current pope and bishops. I think this is a theologically sound position, because we know that the nature of God is unchanging (as proven by St. Thomas). It is impossible for the Holy Ghost to change His mind, therefore the Church which conforms to God is a Church that does not change (except to conform more closely to God, assuming She, by error of men, strayed away from God). Tradition is means by which people resist the changes of this world.

So I try to be obedient to the Church hierarchy as long as what they command is not in direct conflict with what tradition commands. That way, it is not me who is contradicting the hierarchy, but tradition, i.e. all the great saints and popes of the past, whom we all claim to venerate, even the worst of NOers. It is much easier to be disobedient when in such an esteemed company. It is not me who is picking and choosing anything, I am obedient to a higher authority than that of this day and age, even if that means disobeying the current hierarchy (at least in principle; in practice, I am a flawed human being). And if this disobedience happens to be an act of schism (and it is not up to me to judge that), then it is clearly not me who is in schism, but those who disobey the older authority.

And not even the current pope dares to outright say that Leo XIII was wrong, or that St. Pius X is not a saint who should be obeyed - he merely implies that with his actions, hoping that everyone will ignore the contradiction and just enjoy the feelgood talk about human dignity and rights.

I understand that this is not a completely watertight argument, but I have to somehow justify to myself that I am disobeying the pope and most of the bishops, and I do not dare to say that he is not the pope.

[Miriam_M]

I will post support for KreKre's position (from Fr. Ripperger) probably Monday evening.

[clau clau]

When those in authority criticise one for "breeding like rabbits" it tends to undermine ones respect for them!

 

https://www.ncronline.org/news/vatican/dont-breed-rabbits-was-pope-francis-breaking-new-ground-birth-control#:~:text=A%20case%20in%20point%20were,and%20produce%20litters%20of%20children.

[Michael Wilson]

KreKre et al. This is what all trads have done at one point or another; we have seen a conflict between what our faith and the latest directives from the Vatican, our bishop etc. etc. And not being able to resolve this conflict, we chose to cling to what has always been true and what we were taught and believed, and rejected that which was in contradiction to this.
Very good.

[Miriam_M]

I apologize for the fuzziness/scratchiness of the first of these sermons on Tradition, but it is the first one that explains that no pope is the owner of the deposit of faith (which is what Tradition is).  The only owner of that deposit is Jesus Christ.  The pope is the custodian and lacks the power to change it, even if he makes pretenses in that direction -- and even if the laity mistakenly believes that Tradition "naturally" changes incrementally and/or is subject to deliberate manipulation by men.

Part I is the first in a series which also auto-plays.  Parts II and following are normal quality audio.  Each one is fairly short.

https://sensustraditionis.org/release/tradition/

He has also written an entire book on the limits of magisterial authority.

[Habitual_Ritual]

I should add that my intention in posting the article is not to provoke, but to provide perspective by those of us not inclined to join a SV movement, so to speak.

It's kinda fun to be on the front line, within a diocese, battling the various dark forces at work there to keep our little patch of Faithful going. Our parish has made extraordinary gains, despite years of official indifference and outright hostility. The latest Bishop appointed however has begun to see things our way it seems. His administrators/flunkies did their best to keep him from visiting, but after he did (he snuck over by himself), and saw all the families and babies, attitudes appear to have shifted.

Prayer, God and good example are powerful weapons in this war

[LausTibiChriste]

I should add that my intention in posting the article is not to provoke, but to provide perspective by those of us not inclined to join a SV movement, so to speak.

It's kinda fun to be on the front line, within a diocese, battling the various dark forces at work there to keep our little patch of Faithful going. Our parish has made extraordinary gains, despite years of official indifference and outright hostility. The latest Bishop appointed however has begun to see things our way it seems. His administrators/flunkies did their best to keep him from visiting, but after he did (he snuck over by himself), and saw all the families and babies, attitudes appear to have shifted.

Prayer, God and good example are powerful weapons in this war

That's awesome, bravo.

[Bonaventure]

As @Kaesekopf has argued, following the "official structures," unless one is being commanded to do evil, is a safer path than trekking it out in the "wilderness" of Tradistan.

This is contrary to Catholic teaching; following "official structures" i.e. "picking and choosing" what one obeys or believes from the teaching authority of the Church is verily the act of schism.
Basically all of us trads who have kept our faith, have become our own "Popes", whether we follow Kaess's course; R&R-ism or sedism. We "pick and choose" what Chapels to attend; priests to follow etc. etc.
We are all in the "wilderness of tradistan" whether we like it or not.

What would you opine about ICRSS and/or FSSP? Or Bishop Rifan's group?

[Michael Wilson]

What would you opine about ICRSS and/or FSSP? Or Bishop Rifan's group?

The Indult groups are essentially compromised by the fact that they accept the Second Vatican Council and the legitimacy and orthodoxy of the post Conciliar magisterium, including the new Catechism at least exteriorly. People on this forum who assist at their Mass centers have told me that in private they have grave misgivings about the aforementioned.
A second problem (at least for me) is the new rite of Episcopal Consecration, which doesn't clearly express the conferring of Sacred Orders.
If the theoretic possibility that Pope Francis would suppress the TLM, these groups would logically be obliged to accept offering the N.O.M. Whether they would do so, is another matter altogether.