How do "traddies" justify obedience to anti-catholic seculars but not church officials?

[eve]

St. Catherine is NOT wrong.  and the Church is NOT preaching a Gospel different than that of whta Jesus taught, which is why i quoted Jesus FIRST saying that the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church.and you WILL obey anything the Church puts forth if you ARE Catholic.  submission to the pope is necessary and the Church repeats this over and over again.  name one law the Church has given that is unjust.  if you can then the gates of hell have prevailed.  and let me tell you St. Catherine of Seina DID tell the pope when he was erring, as a man, but as the leader of the Church he can not err. 
even Padre Pio said that if his superior told him to jump out of a windo he would do it.  Jesus obeyed his evil captures.  are we better than Jesus?  are we too good to obey the Holy Authority He established?

Show me, eve, where I stated anywhere that the Church is preaching a different Gospel. My point is that not every single thing that Rome says (excluding faith and morals) is infallible. With all due respect, you sound like one of the "I'd rather be wrong with the Pope than right without him" crowd. You want one disciplinary law that the Church has promulgated that is unjust? How about Communion in the hand, for starters? What about people receiving from the "cup" at Communion, which opens the door to the possibility of the faithbul spilling the Precious Blood? Yeah, the Church allows these things now, but do you honestly think they're good decisions? Now, do I think the "gates of Hell" have prevailed because of these things? Absolutely not. In faith and morals, the Church will never fall. But She can promulgate bad laws, and if we know they're bad laws, we are not to follow them. Do you care to address what St. Thomas Aquinas said about unjust laws, even those from Mother Church Herself?

"This is wrong on many points. St. Thomas Aquinas said that an unjust law is no law at all, and he didn't discriminate between Church law and civil law. St. Paul also tells us that even if an angel from Heaven preaches another Gospel, a different Truth, have nothing to do with him. To say that even if Satan himself were to somehow become Pope that we are to lie placidly and obey is totally ridiculous. To correct an erring Pope is true Catholic charity; to leave him wallowing in his errors is truly uncharitable. I'm not here to argue the validity or nonvalidity of the novus ordo, but I will NOT obey unjust law under any circumstance. To do so is un-Catholic. Sensus Catholicus has to come into play at some point."

it sure seems here that you are implying that the Church is teaching(or can teach) something contrary to what Jesus taught.  the Church can not make an unjust law.  and if you are Catholic you WILL obey what She says.  surely She can be wrong on discipline but we are still obligated to obey.  there is no room for negotiation here.  you are no different from a prot when you think you can pick and choose what is good and bad, right and wrong.  heretic is a greek word for chooser.  if you pick and choose then you ARE a heretic.  i am not directing this at anyone so do not get defensive.  i am just making a broad statement.  disobedience is terrible.  and how would one who disobeys be any different than a prot?  afterall they are also picking what they think is right and rejecting what they think is wrong.

[PauperSum]

 

Catherine: SCS p.201-202, cf. also p.222

Could you write out the title of the book and give the author and publisher?  Thanks.

[tleatherland]

 
But She can promulgate bad laws, and if we know they're bad laws, we are not to follow them. Do you care to address what St. Thomas Aquinas said about unjust laws, even those from Mother Church Herself?

I suggest that if you want to make such statements that you support them with citations from Catholic theologians.  If you actually read theologians, you will see that they teach that the Church cannot promulgate bad laws.  But since the post-Vatican II "popes" have promulgated these things, then it follows that they are not true popes. Beyond this I am not allowed to go.  But please do not accuse the True Church of promulgating bad laws.  She cannot and has not and will not. 

Please answer the question:  Are the allowance of Communion in the hand and the reception of the Precious Blood bad laws?

And I should clarify that I'm saying the HUMAN element of the Church can err, but never in faith or morals. I know that the Church is indefectible. But can't the Church's human leaders promulgate unwise disciplinary laws?

 

it is not the law that a Catholic HAS to receive in the hand.  so you are being ridiculous in bringing this up.  the CHurch encourages receiving on the tongue but "allows" in the hand.  so you are free to do either.  and like i said before, if receiving in the hand is wrong(and i do beleive that it is) then the people who said it is acceptable will be judged by GOD!  and the Church can be wrong on discipline but the Church will never DEMAND a bad discipline of us.  for instance the Church will never say that we MUST receive in the hand. 

look, councils have stated explicitly that submission is necessary.  not just when you agree but ALWAYS.  receiving in the mouth is not contrary to the Church.  this subject is a fallacy.  you can still do so without disobeying the pope. 

Submission to WHAT? You keep accusing me of disobeying some unspecified law. What law am I disobeying? Benedict XVI himself has said the True Mass was never abrogated (nor could be), so I always had every right to refuse to attend the novus ordo mess. As for Communion: What about the LAW that says you must stand in the U.S. to receive? Oh, yeah - you might say, "Well, you can't be REFUSED Communion while kneeling." I had a friend who tried to kneel and WAS refused. Unjust law? You bet. He was also told that to kneel was being disobedient. If you don't believe me, ask anyone in the Orange Diocese in California what Tod Brown says about kneeling and disobedience. So, yes, the Church in that case IS demanding a bad discipline. And has Tod Brown been corrected by Vatican officials? Not a chance. Call the Diocese of Las Cruces, New Mexico, where I live, and ask them about receiving while kneeling. You're the one who's being ridiculous if you think bad laws aren't enforced.

[eve]

 
But She can promulgate bad laws, and if we know they're bad laws, we are not to follow them. Do you care to address what St. Thomas Aquinas said about unjust laws, even those from Mother Church Herself?

I suggest that if you want to make such statements that you support them with citations from Catholic theologians.  If you actually read theologians, you will see that they teach that the Church cannot promulgate bad laws.  But since the post-Vatican II "popes" have promulgated these things, then it follows that they are not true popes. Beyond this I am not allowed to go.  But please do not accuse the True Church of promulgating bad laws.  She cannot and has not and will not. 

Please answer the question:  Are the allowance of Communion in the hand and the reception of the Precious Blood bad laws?

And I should clarify that I'm saying the HUMAN element of the Church can err, but never in faith or morals. I know that the Church is indefectible. But can't the Church's human leaders promulgate unwise disciplinary laws?

 

it is not the law that a Catholic HAS to receive in the hand.  so you are being ridiculous in bringing this up.  the CHurch encourages receiving on the tongue but "allows" in the hand.  so you are free to do either.  and like i said before, if receiving in the hand is wrong(and i do beleive that it is) then the people who said it is acceptable will be judged by GOD!  and the Church can be wrong on discipline but the Church will never DEMAND a bad discipline of us.  for instance the Church will never say that we MUST receive in the hand. 

look, councils have stated explicitly that submission is necessary.  not just when you agree but ALWAYS.  receiving in the mouth is not contrary to the Church.  this subject is a fallacy.  you can still do so without disobeying the pope. 

Submission to WHAT? You keep accusing me of disobeying some unspecified law. What law am I disobeying? Benedict XVI himself has said the True Mass was never abrogated (nor could be), so I always had every right to refuse to attend the novus ordo mess. As for Communion: What about the LAW that says you must stand in the U.S. to receive? Oh, yeah - you might say, "Well, you can't be REFUSED Communion while kneeling." I had a friend who tried to kneel and WAS refused. Unjust law? You bet. He was also told that to kneel was being disobedient. If you don't believe me, ask anyone in the Orange Diocese in California what Tod Brown says about kneeling and disobedience. So, yes, the Church in that case IS demanding a bad discipline. And has Tod Brown been corrected by Vatican officials? Not a chance. Call the Diocese of Las Cruces, New Mexico, where I live, and ask them about receiving while kneeling. You're the one who's being ridiculous if you think bad laws aren't enforced.

did i not say that i was NOT accussing YOU of anything?  i am simply stating a fact...that we must follow the Church no matter what She says. 

and your friend being denied Communion is not an unjust law b/c the Church never declared that Communion should or can be refused to kneeling persons.  what you have is a poor priest.  and kneeling to receive is not being disobedient.  you are grasping at straws here.  a preist most certainly CAN be wrong.  i deal with this ALL THE TIME.  but an erring priest is not "a law" of the Church.  and i am not going to argue about bad preists.  this is just a red herring to get off the real subject which is that the Church will never make us do something that is contrary to God's Will.  the people in the Church may open the doors to let people do incorrect things but God will punish those people for this.  the Church will never demand a discipline that is wrong or unjust.  and you can not name one instance in which She has.
and if you will go back to my original post i said my problem is with those who constantly besmeerch the Holy Mass.  if the CHurch says it is valid than it is.  and for us to say otherwise is greatly offensive to God.  i am not accussing anybody of anything.  i am just telling you all that yu should really reconsider you "superiority complex."  you don't think God can protect HIs Own Church. if we can't ALWAYS ALWAYS trust the Church then we truely have no security.  if you have a problem with the Church then pray for Her and those who lead Her.  don't sit around and get yourself into trouble by acting as if the Church is wrong and encouraging people ti question Her.  again this is not directed at any person but those who repeatly attack the Mass and encourage disobedience to the pope.

[eve]

 

Catherine: SCS p.201-202, cf. also p.222

Could you write out the title of the book and give the author and publisher?  Thanks.

i do not know the name of the book.  this is the footnote that was provided in the book of quotes i have.  but i can assure you she said it.

[mistman]

Some people have pointed out the "divinely elected kings" problem, and I was only pointing out that Christian Europe had monarchs crowned officially by the Pope and if the Pope is the vicar of Christ... However, I understand that in the USA, authority to rule comes from "the people," the government is not given authority by the Pope. Given this, don't "the people" have the right AND DUTY to enforce moral law? This seems to be what the Constitution implies. Can anyone direct me to the Catholic Party of America so I can either vote for, or lead a political party that doesn't slit the throat of my faith? What? There isn't one? Hmmm. "The people" are at it again. I would have thought Traditional Catholics would at least start a small political party whose platform is NO CIVIL MARRIAGE OR DIVORCE by now. Why haven't we? I'll vote for it, or represent it.

On the other hand, the Vatican is a monarchy, and as long as it stays faithful to Catholic teaching, the Church will become strong. If it doesn't, the Church will become weak. But did the Israelites have the right to depose their king or defy him for violating moral law? It seems to me that Catholics should respect the decisions of Monarchs excepting flagrant violations of moral law, and be pro-active in restoring morality in republics, when they as "the people" are allegedly in charge. I don't see any flagrant moral violation of the new mass, other than a suspicious attempt by many in the hierarchy to suppress the old one. I like the old mass better, and show my dislike of the new one by  refraining from any financial contribution to it.   

[newtolatin]

I just wanted to clarify one point:

Benedict XVI himself has said the True Mass was never abrogated (nor could be), so I always had every right to refuse to attend the novus ordo mess.

No, the fact that the TLM was not abrogated does not absolve you of the obligation to attend Mass every Sunday, whether it is a TLM or not.

[tleatherland]

I just wanted to clarify one point:

Benedict XVI himself has said the True Mass was never abrogated (nor could be), so I always had every right to refuse to attend the novus ordo mess.

No, the fact that the TLM was not abrogated does not absolve you of the obligation to attend Mass every Sunday, whether it is a TLM or not.

Did I say that it did? I can refuse to attend the novus ordo if I'm attending a TLM. Read more carefully.

[Archbishop_10K]

Some people have pointed out the "divinely elected kings" problem, and I was only pointing out that Christian Europe had monarchs crowned officially by the Pope and if the Pope is the vicar of Christ... However, I understand that in the USA, authority to rule comes from "the people," the government is not given authority by the Pope. Given this, don't "the people" have the right AND DUTY to enforce moral law? This seems to be what the Constitution implies. Can anyone direct me to the Catholic Party of America so I can either vote for, or lead a political party that doesn't slit the throat of my faith? What? There isn't one? Hmmm. "The people" are at it again. I would have thought Traditional Catholics would at least start a small political party whose platform is NO CIVIL MARRIAGE OR DIVORCE by now. Why haven't we? I'll vote for it, or represent it.

As I'm sure Warning will tell you, the only monarchs who were crowned by the Pope himself were the Holy Roman Emperors until, I believe, around the 15th century when they ceased to go to Rome to have it done; and even before then, the actual decision of who the Holy Roman Emperor would be was made by an election among seven designated electors. Monarchs in other countries were chosen either by primogeniture or oligarchic election (like the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth) and usually crowned by the primates of their countries. The Spanish tradition seems to be to take an inaugural oath in the presence of the crown, without actually being crowned.

A Catholic party would be interested, and I'd vote for it. Just to clarify, though, what do you mean by no civil marriage or divorce? Do you mean that marriages and divorces should be performed only by religious or private institutions?

[Catholicmilkman]

I would have thought Traditional Catholics would at least start a small political party whose platform is NO CIVIL MARRIAGE OR DIVORCE by now. Why haven't we? I'll vote for it, or represent it.

Just to clarify, though, what do you mean by no civil marriage or divorce? Do you mean that marriages and divorces should be performed only by religious or private institutions?

Yeah I didn't understand that either. There's always been civil marriage contracts which civil servants authorize after the sacrament. I'm all for criminalizing divorce though as before Vatican II a civil divorce between two Catholics was an automatic excommunication.