This is an excellent article.

I'm confused only by this line towards the end:

"The answer to the question, then, is yes — a Catholic may disobey the Pope, but only when certain conditions are met. For the everyday Catholic, the conditions outlined by the theologians above do not apply. But for those to whom the theologians addressed their concerns, when they do, disobedience may, in fact, be required."

It seems to be saying that everyday Catholics will never be in a position where they are qualified to withold their assent from papal decrees or commands. But this is manifestly wrong, since something like Amoris Laetitia's chapter 3 in its face-value meaning was obviously contrary to the perennial understanding of Scripture, the truth of the Sacraments, and the commands of divine law and natural law -- something anyone who knew the Baltimore Catechism could know -- and therefore HAD TO BE REJECTED. It doesn't matter who taught it, and it doesn't matter how lowly the Catholic is.

I heartily agree with your post, ProfKwasniewski. The particular sentence which you initially quote caught my eye and gave me pause to an otherwise excellent article worth reading and memorizing for future discussions.
Though I possess not one single document which entitles my opinion to be considered in matters of Faith and Morals and though I have NOTHING with which to prove my fidelity to the Holy Catholic Church, the Pope, the Bishops and all authority above me, I pray daily for each and every member of the hierarchy to include the Pope whom I must obey in all things but sin or the plethora of near occasions of sin which presently reign in practically every venue calling itself Catholic today, more particularly the vast numbers of "faith communities" which long ago ceased to believe all that the Catholic Faith has perennially taught and will teach until the end of time.
I will not engage in disrespectful banter regarding the present Pontiff. I do not know him. I have never met him. I have read plenty regarding him but even with all I have found to be the case, the only criteria by which this lowly Catholic can judge is by the fruits of his reign. To that end, it is incumbent upon true sons and daughters of the Holy Catholic Church, no matter the rank, to resist to the face anyone, be they parent, spouse, priest, Bishop, Cardinal, or Pope who preaches a gospel or any portion thereof, contrary in the least way to that which we have been given, kept pure and undefiled by the perennial Magisterium of the Catholic Church now under siege.
There is a certain quality present among so many that we portray ourselves to be "in the know" with respect to the current pontiff and whether he is Pope, or another is or whether he lost the office or any number of theories. It is the element of insidious pride by which we seek to proclaim " I knew it from the beginning" when the day comes that all things will be sorted out. In the meantime, it would be wise for us all to consider the fact that Adam and Eve "knew it from the beginning" and the darkness of our intellect we have inherited from them.

Exactly. A falsehood is a falsehood, even if it comes from the highest temporal authority in the Church. And we don't need a theology degree to recognize that it's false.

At the same time, many a time ordinary Catholics think that what a Pope said is problematic because they are not sufficiently educated in Theology to understand the point being made. In other words, it is easy enough for a Catholic today, even one formed in the Baltimore Catechism (a rare species), to err in his understanding of what a Pope says in an Encyclical, for instance, directed mostly towards Bishops and theologians. It is a blurry line when to consider one competent enough to disagree with a Pope, but I think that question itself ought to be scrutinized by the Catholic before rushing to judgment about what the Pope is actually saying or purporting to pontificate about what the Pope seems to teach. No doubt, though, most who have graduate degrees, at least, in Theology from orthodox institutions or whom are judged competent by his theological peers is most likely competent enough to disagree with this Pope, who is not particularly well-formed intellectually.

Horse of a different color? The examples were direct commands that were resisted, rather than non-dogmatic teachings that may or may not (it’s arguable) entail submission by the faithful.

Plainly a Catholic is under no obligation to believe a Pope when he says something contrary to basic sanity - e.g. Para 253 of Evangelii Gaudium which tells us that Islam is a religion of peace. Or para 32 of EG, which seriously floats the insane idea that bishops' conferences be sources of doctrinal authority. As this would result in the instant disintegration of the Church into national sects, no Catholic could cooperate in any way with such a process. No Catholic could in good conscience recommend EG as study material or cooperate in any evangelisation effort based on such falsehood.

And there is no obligation to follow his direct instructions in the autumn of 2015 that Catholic parishes sponsor refugee families. And I see no obligation on any Catholic, inside or outside a place of study, to follow his direct instruction to study (and apparently take seriously) the Feb 2019 Document on Human Fraternity. Or to take any notice of his practical suggestions in Laudato Sii.

The examples could be multiplied indefinitely. Take all the Papal exhortations to Interreligious Dialogue since VAT2 and all the time, money and spiritual confusion we would have saved on initiatives that any informed Catholic knew were futile before they started.

This article was published a year ago. Now we are in a real-life situation regarding Papal obedience. However unjust, since no definite sin is commanded, we have to knuckle under and obey, just as Padre Pio did when he was unjustly prevented by the Pope from saying Mass in public. Eventually the good Saint triumphed.

Good article to read and meditate, pity most Catholics don’t care about the state of the Catholic Church today.

No Pope can tell us to commit a mortal sin or disobey God's Commandments.

the POPE does NOT speak for GOD....this pope like many before him, has become political and actually choose sides with evil doers...I will never follow that path...free will and obedience to only GOD...imo

Just an aside, but in the photo isnt' that Don "The Weasel" Wuerl sitting beside Francis in the back seat of the proletarian papal jalopy?

by golly, looks like it.

OK with that, we Orthodox say.

As in everything else, we should strive to be rational. The Catholic Church -- unlike, say, a TV-megachurch founded on a charismatic preacher -- has a long-established, fully complete body of teaching. The pope's job, as Vicar of Christ on Earth, is to defend that teaching and promote it, especially in his bishops. He's actually supposed to shepherd them, as they're supposed to shepherd the Faithful. (It's why we have a hierarchy.) He's not supposed to tell them to eat potatoes or granite, or herd them over a cliff. It's simple.

Since any of us who have reached the age of reason can read up on Sacred Tradition in regard to various teachings, we can all know what the teaching is. If "Bergi" or his successor or whichever bishop somewhere goes against Sacred Tradition (and hence the Holy Bible, btw), we don't have to accept that teaching. Indeed, Christian charity and Canon 212 requires we point it out to him. If he refuses to listen, well, we should make our concerns known to our local ordinary, and if he balks on that (most of them are -- apparently -- C.S. Lewis' 'men without chests'), well, we cannot submit to heresy. Our salvation depends on that.

RC

From a Catholic's theoretical viewpoint, the Pope is only infallible on matters of faith and morals. Of course, any diktat can be construed to fall within one or the other of those two contexts. Then again, Christ supposedly said, "And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it." Christ never said, " ... you are Linus, or "... you are Clement ...", or " ... you are Francis ..." So, perhaps we can assume that no Pope after Peter was ever "officially" designated by Christ to be the infallible leader of the church. Thus, no succeeding Pope after Peter must, ipso facto, be obeyed.

Interesting point in that these theologians never say, "You can disobey the Pope who is no longer the Pope because he is trying to destroy the Church." To them the Pope stays the Pope even if he shows himself to be an enemy of the Church, which is contrary to some arguments that have been discussed lately. It's good to see these statements which indicate that the Pope is still the Pope, even if he is a particularly bad one.

This question of obedience is important lately because I know people who reject the SSPX over disobedience but are now saying that we can't obey what is wrong, for instance obeying a command that we receive Communion only in the hand when that command is contrary to canon law. I know people who will make great effort to attend the Mass of a priest who will disobey such a command. Looking for a priest willing to disobey his bishop in order to obey canon law is something many people thought would never happen.

In re Archbishop LeFebre's self-avowed disobedience: The Papal command was to NOT consecrate the 4 bishops. He was not ordered to DO something in violation of any precept of God or man. His presumption that the denial required him to "...submit without reserve to the Second Vatican
Council" was just that - a presumption. Hardly a valid condition for schismatic-level disobedience. He could have continued to resist/reject those precepts of the council that he regarded as sinful to the great benefit of the Church as a whole in the ensuing years. The ongoing refusal of the SSPX bishops to submit to the administrative authority of the Pope and the hierarchy continues to steep them in his/their 'original' sin.

Everyone's favorite idol John Paul II was a universalist modenistic heretic who preached and practiced indifferentism, therefore he lost all his "authority"..the same person who promoted and covered up for the perverts in the hierarchy...he was the biggest con artist since PT Barnum promoting personality cults like Legionnaires of Christ and Opus Dei whose money and power have further corrupted anything holy they have touched left remaining in the institutional Catholic Church...and he manufactured a fast track "Saint" making factory that is a tragic joke allowing cult control freaks like Escriva who told his gullible followers that his own teaching was comparable to Christ's, to be "canonized"...John Paul was just another example of a modern Pope turning the papal throne into his little plaything, so he could cement into place the Modernist Vatican II doppelgänger church cult...And, if he was such a supposed warrior against communism, why is the present church totally overrun with communist fellow travellers??
Idol worship in the Vatican didn't start with Francis and his Pachamama, it started with John Paull II and his bhudda statues at Assisi and his sloppy wet kiss of Satan's Koran...
A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can an evil tree bring forth good fruit...It is nothing less than clericalist elitism that says a lay person cannot discern a false shepherd, simply because he is a lay person...or that a religious person must blindly "obey authority" despite having to deny the truth in front of their own eyes...It is , in fact, a sin for anyone to obey the Vatican II church when and if they know it is the "bad tree."...

Mr. Poulin - I assume, by your passion on the subject, that you are a member of a church of some kind. Does it have a Pope? Or a similar person of God-given authority by some other name? I would be interested in knowing more about it.

Church of Buying Ink by the Barrel?

Stop lying...you have no interest at all...."God-given" authority has limits...Your parents have God -given authority, but it can over-ruled and even removed if they teach you to sin, or command you to sin, or they themselves are incompetent or abusive...then this "authority" evaporates like a morning fog....The child does not need anyone's permission to protect himself...
People such as yourself seem content to worship the throne of authority, as if by magic a man is suddenly God's oracle on earth...just because a bunch of little effeminate perverts and fairies and other soft and wicked men "elected" him...It is typical of people like yourself with weak minds who want to be led around by the nose by authority figures...because you cannot take responsibility for your own actions and need a man in a robe claiming "apostolic succession" (but unable to actually prove it) to tell you what to think...
People like you make me sick because you and your kind provide cover fire for perverts and other criminals...but you feel good about yourself because you obey an "authority."
Blind guides!...
If you bothered to crack open the Scriptures, you would read the words of Saint Paul:
"......6 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you to live in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— 7 which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse! 9 As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God’s curse!...."

Apparently the Galatians did not have to write to Saint Peter first for permission to act......they had to use their rational minds to discern a false gospel....
...Under your system, the Chinese Communist Party now has more a a say in choosing Catholic bishops in China than do actual Catholics...congratulations!!! <not>
...For persons such as yourself, "authority" is akin to the bronze serpent of Moses, when properly used, you look to it for protection, and it protects you, but when it becomes an idol to be worshipped, it must be destroyed, as King Hezekiah destroyed the bronze serpent because Judah had begun to worship it...

Mr. Poulin - I am sorry that I have made you sick - whether in body or in soul I do not know. In any case, I will pray for your full recovery.

Yes and No to your last paragraph's conclusions. But, dear Monsieur, do not be so rush about the poor Pope JPII. Appreciate his times and challenges he had to respond to. Do yourself a favour, e.g. by reading about his times as a Pope in "Jesuits..." by Malachi Martin.

Oh come on! Now not only we passed through 13 days testing time since your post, but we passed about 50 years since Archbishop's Lefebvre considered response and reaction to the VII, and we can see the fruits. Are these fruits refreshing and pleasant to our Souls and pleasing to our God?

You need to read this: https://wdtprs.com/2020/04/...

I greatly appreciate your rec. to read Fr. Z's very extensive treatment of the SSPX along with the 'comments' to his article. I have strongly admired Fr. Z and have benefited much from his writings - BUT in the comment section he was asked by a person titled ARS to respond to a quoted statement of a SSPX priest: "When a traditional Mass is not available... one is dispensed from attending Mass on a Sunday or Holy Day." When she received no reply she repeated the question again and shortly after he shut down any further comments. (I should note that some time ago I found a similar but more emphatic statement on the SSPX website.) This recalls to me a report in Rorate Coeli in Oct. 2013:

"...[Bp. Bernard Fellay] said this in an address at the Angelus Press Conference, the weekend of Oct 11-13 in Kansas City.(:)
"As for the discussions with Rome: Any kind of direction for
recognition ended when they gave me the document to sign on June 13, 2012. That very day I told them, ‘this document I cannot accept.’ ...The same for the Mass. They want us to recognize not only that the [New] Mass is valid provided it is celebrated correctly, etc., but that it is licit. I told them: we don’t use that word. It’s a bit messy, our faithful have enough [confusion] regarding the validity, so we tell them, ‘The New Mass is bad, it is evil’ and they understand that. Period! Of course the Roman authorities were not very happy with that".

Now if the (then) presiding Bishop of SSPX teaches his flock that the ordinary celebration of the Eucharist is "bad ...evil" and if communion with the Church of Rome is fundamentally through the Eucharist how, in light of Bishop Fellay's teaching, can the SSPX be considered to be in communion with Rome? (As an aside, his words in the quote: "...our faithful have enough confusion ...and so we tell them..." seems to have a bit of a cultish ring.)

https://rorate-caeli.blogsp...

Thanks for this response, Peter Judge. And thanks for the rorate-caeli link.

So Fr. Z ignored a valid question? Even to the extent of shutting down more questions? Honestly, I'm shocked. I used to read his site regularly, but something about him, and the emphasis on food -- picture after picture of it (and I'm such that upon occasion I take a photo of food I've made, myself, mind you -- maybe I picked that up from him? -- but it never occurs to me to post it; just share it with the kids, learning to cook) -- well, was just a strong turn-off.

Pretty amazing. Of course it is a danger for individual priests, especially "survivors" like Fr. Z, and on a larger scale, of Church groups, and not just the SSPX (as I'm sure you know), of becoming cults, or becoming cult-like. As individuals, I think of Fr. Z on the right and Bishop Barron on the left, etc. "Back in the day", there was Fr Coughlin, the Radio Priest, and after WWII, Fr. Feeney. In terms of societies and orders, I'm thinking an egregious example is the notorious Legionnaires fo Christ, of which JP2 made such a big deal out of, but I would also add Opus Dei to that list. (Maybe, being Irish, I don't trust Latin country-based orders?) Then there's the Jesuits, who back in their heyday in the Counter-Reformation, were loathed by the other religious orders, as well. To the Jesuits (of those times) we owe so incredibly much, such as the extent of Catholicism in Central Europe, and its expansion in Asia, the Americas, and so on. But they engaged in some shady theology upon occasion, and were often quite secretive.

We owe a lot to the SSPX, as well. But all such organizations walk a very fine line. I thank God I'm a humble (I hope) lay Catholic who just tries to "keep the Faith" and not go too far in making judgements only the hierarchs in the Church can make. But also, of course, I have to draw the line at enabling heresy, for myself and clann, regardless of how high up the heretic is. I have very little use for "Bergi", for example, but as the bishops of the world say he's pope, it's not my business to deny he is, though I ignore his heresies (such as they are or seem to be) and I accept his (somewhat, more or less) embrace of the SSPX. Bergi has said, in regard to the SSPX, that he likes them for their charity work in Argentina. Charity covers a multitude of sins, as the old saying has it.

So, where to go and what to do? I attend a TLM offered by the Norbertines, and they use their old rite, so it is a bit different from the 1962 Missal. I find that a good thing, actually, as it shows how the Church before Vat2 had room for variation.

Thanks again for the important info you've shared. Much appreciated.

RC

I honestly can’t figure out why Grosseteste was correct in his judgment either. Short of heresy, doesn’t the pontiff have the right to appoint a canon of his choosing?

Very useful article.

The best discussion I have seen on the question of obedience is John Lamont's A Jesuit Tragedy, posted to Rorate about two years ago. Search for it. It argues that the post-Tridentine conception of authority is deeply flawed, based on false metaphysics, and goes much further than that proposed by ancient and medieval theologians. And yes, it argues that the Jesuits are to take a lot of blame.